INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISPUTE CONCERNING
CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD INCOSTARICA ALONG THSAN JUAN
RIVER
(NICARAGUA V.COSTARICA)
WHICH HAS BEEN JOINED WITH THE CASE CONCERNING
CERTAINA CTIVITICSARRIEDOUT BYNICARAGUA IN THBORDER
AREA
(COSTAR ICA .NICARAGUA)
REPLY
OF THR EPUBLIC ONICARAGUA
VOLUME II
(ANNEXES1 TO30)
04 AUGUST2014 Annex 1
LIST OF ANNEXES
VOLUME II
Annex Document Page
No.
EXPERT REPORTS
1 Dr. G. Mathias Kondolf, “Erosion and Sediment Delivery to 1
the Rio San Juan from Route 1856,” July 2014.
2 Mr. Danny Hagans & Dr. Bill Weaver, “Evaluation of Erosion,147
Environmental Impacts and Road Repair Efforts at Selected
Sites along Juan Rafael Mora Route 1856 in Costa Rica,
Adjacent the Río San Juan, Nicaragua,” July 2014.
3 Dr. Edmund D. Andrews, “An Evaluation of the Methods, 199
Calculations, and Conclusions Provided By Costa Rica
Regarding the Yield and Transport of Sediment in the Rio San
Juan Basin,” July 2014.
4 Dr. Blanca Ríos Touma, “Ecological Impacts of the Route 247
1856 on the San Juan River, Nicaragua”, July 2014
5 Dr. William R. Sheate, “Comments on the Lack of EIAfor the281
San Juan Border Road in Costa Rica,” July 2014.
6 Golder Associates, Inc., “The Requirements of Impact 339
Assessment for Large-Scale Road Construction Project in
Costa RicaAlong the San Juan River, Nicaragua,” July 2014.
DIPLOMATIC NOTES
7 Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua, 415
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa Rica,
Ref: MRE/DM/645//12/13, 17 December 2013.
iAnnex 1
8 Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Costa 419
Rica, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Nicaragua,
Ref.: DM-AM-704-13, 19 December 2013.
CENTRALAMERICAN DOCUMENTS
9 RESOLUTION 03-99 (XXI COMITRAN), Guatemala, 423
18 November 1999.
10 Central American Manual of Environmental Norms for the 427
Design, Construction and Maintenance of Roads (2002)
(excerpts).
11 Central American Manual of Specifications for the 431
Construction of Regional Roads and Bridges (2nd. Edition
2004) (excerpts).
12 CentralAmerican Manual on the Maintenance of Roads (2010 437
Edition) (excerpts).
13 CentralAmerican Manual of Norms for the Geometric Design 443
of Roads (3rd. Edition 2011) (excerpts).
NICARAGUAN DOCUMENTS
14 Affidavit ofAna Isabel IzaguirreAmador, 18 July 2014. 447
15 Nicaraguan Law 274 regarding the regulation and control 457
of pesticides and toxic and dangerous substances, 1998,
Art. 23(2).
MEDIAREPORTS
16 “President Confirms Errors in Construction of Trail 1856”, 461
El Pais, 24 May 2014 (http://www.elpais.cr/frontend/noticia_
detalle/1/92093)
ii Annex 1
17 “Trail Construction Will Restart at the End of the Chinchilla 465
Administration”, crhoy.com, 13 December 2013 (http://www.
crhoy.com/precio-total-de-la-trocha-fronteriza-se-estima-en-
mas-de-50-mil-millones/) (excerpts)
18 “Solis Commits to Finishing the Trail”, Diario Extra, 6 May 469
2014 (http://www.diarioextra.com/Dnew/noticiaDetalle/
231053) (excerpts)
19 “Trail Will Be a Project for the Next Government”,La Prensa 473
Libre, 21 February 2014 (http://www.prensaescrita.com/
adiario.php?codigo=AME&pagina=http://www.prensalibre.
cr)
20 “Visit by the President Two Days Before Delivering 477
the Command”, La Nación, 6 May 2014 (http://www.
nacion.com/nacional/Chinchilla-disculpa-vecinos-trocha-
fronteriza_0_1412858873.html) (excerpts)
21 “Works on the Trail Paralyzed while Waiting for Designs 481
and Modular Bridges”, crhoy.com, 10 July 2014 (http://www.
crhoy.com/trabajos-en-la-trocha-se-paralizan-a-la-espera-de-
disenos-y-puentes-modulares/)
22 Alberto Cabezas, Border Trail Case, published 4 June 2014 485
(http://revista-amauta.org/2014/06/caso-trocha-fronteriza/)
23 “Accident in Chaclacayo: Rímac River Fuel Spill Causes 491
Concern among Local Residents”,El Comercio, 31 December
2013), http://elcomercio.pe/lima/sucesos/accidente-
chaclacayo-derrame-combustible-al-rio-rimac-preocupa-
vecinos-noticia-1680548
24 “OEFAAssesses Impact of Oil Spill in the Rímac River”, 495
Mining Press Edición Perú, 1 February 2014, http://www.
miningpress.com.pe/nota/250217/oefa-evalua-impacto-de-
derrame-de-petroleo-en-el-rio-rimac-
iiiAnnex 1
25 “Oil Spilled into the Villalobos River”, La Nación 19 June 499
2012, http://www.lanacion.com.co/index.php/noticias-
judicial/item/156017-petroleo-cayo-al-rio-villalobos
26 “Ombudsman Investigates Mining Company Spillage into 503
River”, Los Andes, 26 August 2009 http://archivo.losandes.
com.ar/notas/2009/8/26/un-442539.asp
27 “Oil Spill Contaminates Lake”, Perú21, 9 May 2012, 507
http://peru21.pe/2012/05/09/impresa/derrame-crudo-
contamina-laguna-2023480
28 “Oil Truck Overturned near the Cruces River”, El Mercurio 511
Online, 3 January 2009, http://www.emol.com/noticias/
nacional/2009/01/03/338122/camion-con-petroleo-se-volco-
en-las-cercanias-del-rio-cruces.html
29 “Truck Spilled 9,000 Gallons of Fuel into Rivers”, 515
Enlace Nacional, 4 February 2008, http://enlacenacional.
com/2008/02/04/camion-derramo-9-mil-galones-de-petroleo-
en-rios/
30 “Truck Overturns - Severe Environmental Damage”, La 519
Angostura Digital, 23 July 2009), http://www.laangosturadigital.
com.ar/v3/home/interna.php?id_not=10282&ori=web
iv ANNEX 1
Dr. G. Mathias Kondolf, “Erosion and Sediment Delivery to the Rio San J▯uan
from Route 1856,” July 2014
12 Annex 1
Erosion and Sediment Delivery to the Río San Juan from Route 1856
G. Mathias Kondolf, PhD 1
July 2014
1. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to review the impacts of Rte 1856 in light of studies reported in
the scientific literature and observations of eroding sites along Rte 1856, to identify gaps in
Rte 1856 and safety dangers posed by these and within completed sections of the road, and to
critique the arguments put forth by Cost Rica’s consultants and its agency staff to defend the
road.
Rte 1856 is failed or incomplete in multiple places (Sections 2). Erosion and stream crossing
failure are worsening, not improving (Section 3). These problems are not “typical,” as Costa
Rica’s experts claim, but rather reflect widespread violations of well-established standards for
the construction of roads of this type (Section 4). In its current state, Rte 1856 is unsafe to
use, and would pose a significant threat to the Río San Juan if any hazardous materials were
transported on it (Section 5). These failing portions of the road are large point sources of
sediment to the Río San Juan. Attempts at erosion control have been limited to the upper 15
km of Rte 1856 along the Río San Juan, and where not actually counterproductive, are
insufficient to meaningfully control erosion and failure on severely eroding slopes and stream
crossings (Section 6).
The report then identifies key flaws in the argument advanced by Costa Rican consultants and
agency staff regarding the impacts of Rte 1856 on the Río San Juan. It first explains that
Costa Rica’s experts underestimate the amount of sediment the Road is contributing to the
Río San Juan, and provides an updated estimate of that contribution (Section 7). It then
explains that this contribution is not natural or beneficial, and that road-impacted areas in the
river are already exhibiting impacts to water quality and aquatic life (Section 8). Next, the
report highlights problems in Costa Rica’s comparison of sediment contributions from Rte
1856 to claimed total load figures (Section 9), which Costa Rica wrongly characterizes as
being “naturally” high (Section 10). The report explains that the sediment contributions from
the Road are causing morphological changes in the river, both in the form of deltas along the
Costa Rican bank, and because the Lower San Juan is already overloaded with sediment from
Costa Rica’s other high contributions, such that additional inputs are likely to aggrade and
accrete (Section 11). The report reiterates the previously expressed concern that Rte 1856 is
not fit to face a serious storm, hurricane, or earthquake, any of which could be expected to
dramatically increase the amount of sediment being delivered from the road to the river
(Section 12). Finally, the report offers some conclusions (Section 13).
1In preparing this report, I have received support from Pacific Watershed Associates, including Danny Hagans
and Bill Weaver, who were co-authors on my 2012 Report, and who have now authored their own report,
Evaluation of Erosion, Environmental Impacts and Road Repair Efforts at Selected Sites along Juan Rafael
Mora Route 1856 in Costa Rica, Adjacent the Río San Juan, Nicaragua(July 2014).
1
3Annex 1
2. Rte 1856 is Not Complete.
The documents submitted by Costa Rica could give the impression that the road is completed
and there are some minor erosion problems, which are being fixed. This is not true. In
reality, Rte 1856 is not complete, and it cannot be driven continuously from Mojon II to Boca
San Carlos. There have been significant failures on some of the steep slopes across which the
road was attempted. At least 3 km of the uppermost 30 km of the road has failed or the
attempts to build it appear to have been abandoned due to failures.
The fact that much of the road has not been built or has failed is visible in aerial imagery, and
is acknowledged in passing by Professor Colin Thorne in his report, who stated that he
“…inspected the entire length of the Road along the Río San Juan (except for those stretches
that either do not exist or are inaccessible by four wheel drive vehicle)” (p.19). However,
elsewhere Thorne refers to the “the first 41.6 km of the Road alongside the River” (Thorne
2013b, p.73, Vol. II:p.219). While many reports refer to the road length as 108 km total
along the river and 41.6 km upstream of Boca San Carlos, in reality the road itself is not 41.6
km long in the upper stretch because it has not been completed in sections (totaling over 3 km
of the uppermost 30 km) due to failures in attempts to build the road across steep terrain and
to cross streams. This reach of river is 41.6 km long, but the road is incomplete, and thus its
constructed length is less, and its usable length is less still.
There are at least five significant gaps in Rte 1856 between Mojon II and Boca San Carlos
(Figure 1), where the road is impassable because of failures, or construction attempts were
abandoned due to failures on adjacent sections. In addition, a section around Rkm 34-35 is
likely impassable, but would need closer inspection to determine with confidence.
2Rkm refers to river km downstream of Mojon II, the point downstream from which the south bank of the Rio
San Juan is also the border with Costa Rica.
2
4 Annex 1
Figure 1. Map of passable and impassable portions of Rte 1856
along the Río San Juan from Mojon 2 to Boca San Carlos.
3
5Annex 1
The Gap Below Rio Infiernito
Attempts to build the road were completely abandoned from Rkm 15.3-16.1 (i.e., 15.3-16.1
km downstream of Mojon II), as visible on the high-resolution 2013 imagery in Figure 2. It
appears that trees were cut, but the land was not altered with bulldozers before the attempt to
build the road was abandoned. Vegetation has resprouted from the area cut. The maps of
Mende and Astorga’s (2013) “slope inventory” do not show a gap in the red footprint of the
road “affected” area here (between “slopes” T-61 and T-64b), but show the red footprint of
disturbance continuing through the gap. Their mapping of this as disturbed may reflect the
initial clearing before the construction attempt was abandoned, but clearly this is a gap in the
attempted road construction (Figure 2).
Figure 2, The gap in Rte 1856 from Rkm 15.3 – 16.1. A) Detail from Dec 2013 high-
resolution satellite image showing the gap. B) Detail from the “slope inventory” map of
Mende and Astorga (2013), Annex 6, covering the same area.
4
6 Annex 1
Las Crucitas
The section from Rkm 17.8 to 18.3 is a spectacularly eroding section of Rte 1856, with
multiple failed cutslopes, fillslopes, and stream crossings. There are three massive stream
crossings flanked by four large cuts in steep hillslopes and attendant fillslopes, all undergoing
active erosion. This 1.5-km section is a gap in Rte 1856, as stream crossings have failed, been
poorly repaired (as shown in Section 3), and will inevitably fail again. The road here may be
navigable by dirt bike, donkey, or on foot, but not by normal road vehicles. The failed stream
crossings in this section are designated as Sites 9.4, 9.5, and 9.6 in the Inventory of Severely
Eroding Sites (Appendix A), described in more detail below in Section 3, and they constitute
an impassable section of road, as is clear from December 2013 satellite imagery (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Satellite image from December 2013 at Las Crucitas.
5
7Annex 1
La Chorrera
In the section from Rkm 23.6 to 24.4 (known locally as “La Chorrera”), contractors made
multiple failed attempts to cross Caño La Chorrera: four different attempted routes appear as
eroding scars on the hillslope (Figure 4). The most recently used crossing was constructed by
filling across what used to be an embayment off the main river, a pool under a canopy of
trees, which formerly provided off-channel habitat for fish but is now filled by an earthen
stream crossing (Figure 5).
Figure 4. Oblique aerial view of Caño La Chorrera, showing multiple attempts to cross the
stream, 23.9 km downstream of Mojon II border marker. White box shows location of the
embayment off the main Río San Juan that was formerly a pool under a canopy of trees (as
shown in Figure 5a but which is now filled for most recent attempted stream crossing for Rte
1856 (Figure 5b). Photo date: May 2, 2014.
6
8 Annex 1
Figure 5. Views from Río San Juan of Caño La Chorrera, 23.9 km downstream of Mojon II.
Photo dates (a) October 20, 2012 and (b) March 31, 2014.
7
9Annex 1
Downstream of Las Cruces
Another gap appears from Rkm 28.4 to 28.9 (Figure 6) (approximately 3 km downstream of
Las Cruces), visible in the aerial imagery of 2013. It appears that some initial clearing was
done, but the construction attempt was abandoned before major earthwork was attempted.
The section from Rkm 28.5 – 28.65 appears as a gap on the Mende and Astorga (2013) maps
on p.386. It is not identified as a gap in the road, but can be seen as such in the red footprint
of the road disturbance appearing within the straight lines for “slopes” T-85a and T-85b
(Figure 6). The lines were drawn continuously through this gap (with red color within the
lines), as if to suggest the road was continuous through here, but in fact there is a gap, as
clearly visible on aerial imagery.
Figure 6. The gap in Rte 1856 from Rkm 28.4-28.9. A) Detail from Feb 2014 high-resolution
satellite image showing the gap. B) Detail from the “slope inventory” map of Mende and
Astorga (2013), Annex 6, covering the same area.
8
10 Annex 1
El Jardin
Another gap in the road exists approximately 1 km downstream of El Jardin, at Rkm 36.2 –
37.1, where construction attempts were abandoned prior to initiating major earthwork (Figure
7). From Rkm 36.2 – 36.4, some clearing of vegetation was evidently done, but no major
earthwork was attempted. The road construction attempt was presumably abandoned because
of the disastrous results of attempts to build the road from Rkm 37.1 to 36.4, which resulted
in multiple landslides and instability across the entire attempted road segment (Figure 8). The
map of Mende and Astorga in Annex 6 (p.387 of Vol. II of the Counter-Memorial) shows
multiple parallel red lines and wide red areas in this section of multiple landslides (Figure 7).
The parallel red lines presumably indicate multiple failed attempts to construct the road up
this slope. Curiously, they also show a thin line of red ‘affected’ area from Rkm 36.2 – 36.4,
implying that the road is continuous through this section but with more restricted impacts.
However, it is clear from inspection of the aerial imagery that no earthwork was attempted in
this section, and thus it should be recognized as a gap.
Figure 7. The gap in Rte 1856 from Rkm 36.2-37.1. A) Detail from Feb 2014 high-resolution
satellite image showing the gap. B) Detail from the “slope inventory” map of Mende and
Astorga (2013), Annex 6, showing the same area.
9
11Annex 1
Figure 8. May 2014 oblique aerial view of the failing slope
1 km downstream of El Jardin (Rkm 36.4)
10
12 Annex 1
3. The Situation is Worsening, Not Improving.
The reports submitted by Costa Rica imply that conditions have improved along Rte 1856.
For instance, the November 2013 Environmental Diagnostic Assessment (“EDA”) states that
the risk of slope erosion and slope instability “has been controlled,” and that to avoid the
collapse of stream crossings, “a periodic monitoring effort has been conducted … promoting
adequate preventive control of the structures along the way.” (Annex 10, p.30). The EDA
also states that “runoff control systems have been put into place, as well as sediment traps
along the Route” in order to prevent the “risk of eroded sediments depositing on bodies of
water.” (Annex 10, p.30). Similar statements implying improved conditions appear
elsewhere in Costa Rica’s submission as well (e.g., Annex 1, p.2; Annex 6, pp.28-29; Thorne,
Section 11).
However, erosion has visibly worsened since I first observed Rte 1856 in October 2012. The
progression of erosion and delivery of large quantities of sediment to the Río San Juan is
obvious in sequences of aerial (helicopter) photographs and cloud-free satellite imagery that
has become available.
The Inventory of Severely Eroding Sites included as Appendix A to this report, and the
analysis on continuing erosion presented below, show massive, continuing erosion, lack of
any serious efforts to stabilize slopes and control erosion, and continued delivery of sediment
to the Río San Juan. These problems are sufficiently significant to be visible from space. For
instance, sequential satellite images show the progression of erosion of exposed road from
approximately 17.9 to 18.3 km downstream of Mojon II (in the area known as Las Crucitas)
from November 2012 to December 2013 (Figure 9).
11
13Annex 1
Figure 9. Progression of erosion at Las Crucitas, 17.9 to 18.3 km downstream of Mojon II.
(a) Satellite image of November 2012 shows erosion has already begun on fillslopes and
stream crossing fill prisms since construction. (b) Satellite image of December 2013 shows
significant progression of erosion, with expansion of a gully complex at the stream crossing
fill prism “A”, and washouts of stream crossings “B” and “C”.
12
14 Annex 1
Since my report of 2012, the availability of high-resolution, cloud-free imagery has greatly
improved, 3such as Pleiades imagery, which we obtained from Spatial Solutions, in Bend,
Oregon USA. The imagery was orthorectified to a 1:25,000 NMAS standard (US National
Map Accuracy Standards) using the best publicly available digital elevation model
(DEM). Orthorectification is the process of geometrically correcting aerial or satellite
imagery to remove distortion due to topographic relief, lens distortion, and/or camera tilt. An
orthorectified image ensures uniform scale and allows for the measurement of true distances
and areas in a Geographic Information System (GIS). With these high-resolution, ortho-
rectified images, we can now identify and measure many large erosional features visible from
space.
In addition, since my first site visit in October 2012 and the report of 2012, I have returned to
Río San Juan on three more occasions, in May 2013, October 2013, and May 2014. These
return visits have allowed me to observe the continued erosion of the road from a helicopter
above the north bank of the Río San Juan and re-photograph eroding sites to document
changes over the period Oct 2012 – May 2014. Photographs taken from the helicopter
looking across the river (referred to as ‘oblique’ aerial images because they are not oriented
vertically downward, as with satellite imagery) clearly show the progressive erosion of large
areas of the road.
In some cases, where erosion features are visible (e.g., not obscured by trees), by combining
information from the satellite and repeated, oblique helicopter photos, we have been able to
make precise measurements of the horizontal dimensions of features at the eroding sites,
allowing us to quantify with confidence the size of many features and to document the
occurrence and magnitude of gullies and failures over this period. For horizontal dimensions,
we used orthorectified satellite imagery from December 2013 (0.5-m resolution) and
February 2014 (1.5-m resolution), in conjunction with the previously used but partially cloud-
obscured imagery from September/October 2012 (0.5-m resolution). For vertical scale we
identified features on repeat oblique aerial imagery from Oct 2012 and May 2014, using
existing features nearby such as buildings and trees, or drawing upon photographs with
figures standing near features presented by Mende and Astorga (2013) in Annex 5, and
referencing heights reported from field estimates by Mende and Astorga (in the ACCESS
database supporting Annex 6, provided by Costa Rica on 21 May 2014, in response to
Nicaragua’s data requests of 21 January and 25 March 2014). On the basis of these
measurements, we have estimated unstable fill volumes and erosion rates since late 2012, a
period of only modest rains, for sites readily visible from satellite imagery and oblique aerial
photographs.
There are too many severely eroding sites to describe them all in detail in this report, so the
reader is referred to Appendix A, the Inventory of Severely Eroding Sites (SES), for a list of
more such sites. The SES Inventory is not a comprehensive inventory of all eroding sites
along Rte 1856, but a compilation of those that are most visible from space and from a
helicopter across the river. When vast areas of tropical soils are de-vegetated and disturbed
by bulldozers, as has occurred in the disorganized attempt to construct Rte 1856, erosion by
impact of tropical rainfall is inevitable over the entire disturbed surface. This surface or sheet
erosion from the impact of individual rain drops is too small to be seen from space (unless the
3Professor Thorne implies at pp.52-55 of his December 2013 report that I have manipulated satellite imagery.
This is false. A letter on point from the provider of the satellite imagery is attached to this report as Appendix
B.
13
15Annex 1
erosion coalesces into large, visible gullies), but cumulatively it is very significant. Here, I
document ongoing erosion (and the measurements and calculations used to derive erosion
volume) at five severely eroding sites: three examples of stream crossings, and two sites with
both cut and fill slopes. For each, I present repeat oblique aerial views from 2012 and 2014,
along with high-resolution vertical aerial imagery from 2013. The images are annotated to
indicate features such as the ‘prisms’ of earth that constitute the stream crossings. (The
features such as stream-crossing fills, cut- and fillslopes created in this kind of road
construction I described in detail in my 2012 Report, pp.10-14).
The erosion documented at these sites has occurred since the attempted construction of Rte
1856 in 2011, with continued erosion since October 2012, during a period of relatively
modest rainfall. Professor Thorne agrees, saying “the post-Road period has been drier than
usual” (Thorne, ¶ 8.12); “considering that the last two years have been drier than average,
[the UCR erosion rates] could be exceeded in the future” (Thorne, ¶ 8.32).
Thus, the Río San Juan has not experienced the kind of rainfall intensities that will occur
during major storms (such as tropical storms and hurricanes – discussed in more detail in
Section 12, below), which are the conditions that trigger the most failures from disturbed
areas (Larsen and Parks 1997, Larsen and Roman 2001, Maharaj 1993, Douglas 1967, Tan
1984, Hicks 1991, Kansai et al. 2005).
14
16 Annex 1
Stream Crossing at Eroding Site 9.4 (18.0 km downstream of Mojon II)
The fill prism for this stream crossing, as I first viewed it from a helicopter in October 2012,
was at le3st 15 m high and 70 m of road length across at the top, totaling approximately
21,900 m in volume (Figure 10a). The fill face was visibly eroding (by rills, gullies, and
sheet erosion), but the fill prism was intact. The culvert for this fill is not visible in the 2012
photograph, probably obscured by trees. However, it was apparently undersized and/or
poorly located, because it ultimately failed.
Figure 10. Eroding Site 9.4, 18 km downstream of Mojon II.
Oblique aerial views from October 2012 (a) and May 2014 (b).
15
17Annex 1
By December 2013, the crossing had failed, leaving a void space approximately 1,722 m 3 in
volume, representing a volume of sediment eroded from the crossing and carried down the
slope towards the river. This is a significant volume of sediment, the equivalent of roughly
3
215 standard dump truck loads (of 8 m ). The path of the sediment traveling from the failed
crossing to the river is visible on the high-resolution satellite image (Figure 11), as is the
delta built of this sediment that has entered the Río San Juan.
Figure 11. Eroding Site 9.4, 18 km downstream of Mojon II.
High-resolution satellite image of December 2013.
The road culvert was transported with the sediment into the river. Pieces of this culvert were
removed by Nicaraguan crews (Figure 12).
16
18 Annex 1
Figure 12. Nicaraguan staff working in delta prograding into Río San Juan
to remove plastic pipe washed out of stream crossing fill at Eroding Site 9.4. Photograph
date: October 27, 2013. Provided by the Government of Nicaragua.
3
The pieces of culvert were the most visible indication of the failure, but most of the 1,722 m
of sediment was carried into the river, some remaining behind as part of the newly expanded
delta deposit. This failure was only one component of erosion from the crossing; the total
erosion, which included the sheet, rill, gully, and landslide erosion, is considerably more. 3
Hagans and Weaver (2014) estimate that the site is experiencing an additional 1,145 m /yr of
additional rill, gully and landslide erosion, and an additional 517 m 3/yr in surface erosion, for
3
a total of 3,384 m /yr from the entirety of Severely Eroding Site 9.4.
A subsequent photograph taken in May 2014 shows that the failed part of the road crossing
has been refilled (Figure 10b). However, the crossing is not properly drained, as water has
ponded behind the crossing and is flowing down across the face of the fill, which will erode
and destabilize the fill. Also visible in this view are continued landsliding on the slope below
the road and trees freshly fallen as a consequence. Clearly, this is not a section of road
suitable for traffic, especially heavy trucks carrying potentially hazardous materials, as
discussed in Section 5, below. The delta built of sediments eroded from this failed crossing is
also visible. The delta is larger in this 3iew than in the October 2012 view, both because it
has received material from the 1,722 m sediment pulse caused by the failure of the road
crossing fill prism, and because the photo was taken at lower water, so more of the delta is
exposed than at high river levels.
17
19Annex 1
Stream Crossing at Eroding Site 9.5 (18.1 km downstream of Mojon II)
The fill prism for this stream crossing, as I first viewed it from a helicopter in October 2012,3
was at least 18 m high and 45 m of road length across at the top, totaling at least 12,000 m in
volume (Figure 13a). As in the prior example, no culvert for this fill is visible in the 2012
photograph. However, if it existed, it was apparently undersized and/or poorly located. The
fill material appears to have been simply dumped and pushed in place by trucks and
bulldozers, and not compacted or otherwise engineered and its slopes stabilized, as would be
required by international standards (FAO 1998).
Figure 13. Eroding Site 9.5, 18.1 km downstream of Mojon II.
Oblique aerial views from October 2012 (a) and May 2014 (b).
18
20 Annex 1
In the December 2013 vertical aerial imagery, large-scale failure of the fill is evident (Figure
14).
Figure 14. Eroding Site 9.5, 18.1 km downstream of Mojon II.
High-resolution satellite image of December 2013.
Most of the 2,860 m of sediment from this failure (the equivalent of approximately 357
dump trucks) was carried into the river, with some contribution to the newly expanded delta
deposit. Once again, this failure is only one component of erosion from this crossing; the
total erosion, which includes all sheet, rill, gully, and landslide erosion, is considerably more.
Hagans and Weaver (2014) estimate that the site is experiencing an additional 775 m /yr of3
3
additional rill, gu3ly and landslide erosion, and an additional 350 m /yr in surface erosion, for
a total of 3,985 m /yr from the entirety of Severely Eroding Site 9.5.
By May 2014, when I took the photograph in Figure 13b, the fill failure had been filled in and
a new culvert placed in the fill. The refilled crossing as reconstructed is not as wide as the
original crossing, or it may have been rebuilt to the same width and partially failed by May
2014. A small culvert is visible within the prism of the rebuilt crossing. This culvert appears
to be grossly undersized and is improperly located such that it is perched far up in the fill
prism, likely because landslides on the slopes upstream of the crossing have filled the former
stream valley with sediment and blocked the original culvert (if one existed), which was
presumably at a lower elevation. The crossing perched high in the fill is an inherently
unstable location because of the likelihood that water will seep around the pipe and cause it to
fail again. This poses a severe risk for any vehicles attempting to drive over the fill, let alone
transport hazardous materials here, as discussed in Section 5, below.
19
21Annex 1
Also visible in the May 2014 photo is the sediment delta deposited along the south bank of
the Río San Juan (Figure 13b). This delta consists primarily or entirely of sediment eroded
from the road, as is evident from the fact that the sediments on this delta consist dominantly
of angular, friable fragments of deeply weathered rock. These weak fragments are clearly
from the nearby road construction because they would break down into sand, silt, and clay if
they were transported any significant distance.
The fill for this crossing was evidently not engineered, its slopes were not stabilized, and if a
culvert was used, it was evidently too small for the flows and not protected from debris jams,
as demonstrated by its failure. The reconstructed road crossing appears to be comparably
deficient and thus vulnerable to similar failure in the near future.
20
22 Annex 1
Stream Crossing at Eroding Site 9.6 (18.2 km downstream of Mojon II)
This stream crossing is 100 m downstream of Site 9.5, described above. The fill prism for
this stream crossing when I first viewed it from a helicopter in October 2012 was
approximately 20 m high and 65 m of road length across at the top of the prism, for a total
volume of approximately 44,000 m (Figure 15a). Visible in the October 2012 photograph is
an undersized culvert, perched approximately one-third of the way up within the fill prism.
Normally a culvert would be larger for such a crossing and located at the base of the fill,
along the grade of the original streambed. Already in the October 2012 photograph active
erosion and slumping of the fill face are visible, but the crossing itself is mostly intact.
Figure 15. Eroding Site 9.6, 18.2 km downstream of Mojon II.
Oblique aerial views from October 2012 (a) and May 2014 (b).
21
23Annex 1
The vertical aerial (high-resolution satellite) image of December 2013 shows the
development of three adjacent gullies (Figure 16). Taken together, the gullies measure 80 m
across (in the direction parallel to the river bank), and 50 m horizontally from the headcuts
down to the foot of the fill slope. The volume represented by these three gullies – the vol3me
of sediment already eroded from the stream crossing fill prism – totals about 6,600 m , or
about 15% of the original total fill volume. This is a truly massive quantity of sediment, the
equivalent of about 825 dump truck loads. Once again, the total volume of erosion from the
site would include additional erosion outside the gullies themselves. Hagans and Weaver
(2014) estimate that the site is experiencing an additional 1,081 m /yr of additional rill, gully
and landslide erosion, and an additional 488 m 3/yr in surface erosion, for a total of 8,169 m –
or a total of over 1,000 dump truck loads – per year from the entirety of Severely Eroding
Site 9.6.
Figure 16. Eroding Site 9.6, 18.2 km downstream of Mojon II.
High-resolution satellite image of December 2013.
The photograph I took in May 2014 (Figure 15b) shows a fresh landslide on the cutslope
hillside in the upper right of the view (with no apparent efforts to stabilize it), continued
construction of an access road descending from the road in the middle right of the view, and
two deltas built up from sediment eroded from the road. The delta on the right is the same
delta as appeared in Figure 13b, and consists of sediments eroded from the stream crossing at
Eroding Site 9.5, 100 m upstream. The delta on the left consists of sediments eroded from
the crossing at Eroding Site 9.6, mostly from the three large gullies. Continued gully erosion
is evident on the surface of the road and the side slopes. This stream crossing is clearly not
fit for use by vehicles.
22
24 Annex 1
Cut and Fill Slopes at Eroding Site 8.1 (16.1 km downstream of Mojon II)
When I first viewed the cut and fill slopes at this site, in October 2012, the cuts appeared
relatively fresh, and the cut slope had experienced a shallow failure, evidenced by an arcuate
headscarp (i.e., a gently arc-shaped scarp marking the point of detachment of a landslide)
over 70 m across, i.e., parallel to the river (Figure 17a). Hagans and Weaver (2014) report
2
the landslide area as measured in GIS to be 1,300 m . Conservatively estimating the
landslide to be at least 2 m in depth and using the average slope height of 25 m reported by
Mende and Astorga (2013, Annex 6), the volume of the landslide (which occurred between
3
the time of construction and October 2012) would be approximately 2,600 m .
Figure 17. Eroding Site 8.1, 16.1 km downstream of Mojon II.
Oblique aerial views from October 2012 (a) and May 2014 (b).
23
25Annex 1
The fill material had been sidecast, i.e, pushed over the side by the bulldozer blade, rather
than being engineered. This is evident from the loose texture of the fill material exposed, and
the arcuate pattern of failure. To the right and left of this fresh failure, closely-spaced rills
and gullies are visible in the fill slope. At this time (October 2012) the cutslope above the fill
appeared to be intact. Already, the site appears to be impassable by vehicles. It is not clear
where vehicles are intended to go: presumably the top of the fill, but with the failure, that
surface is too narrow to support traffic, and even if it were wider, it would be too unstable to
support heavy loads. The fact that failure was already in evidence in October 2012
demonstrates the fill’s loose, uncompacted nature: much like a sand pile, unsuited to support
vehicular traffic.
The high-resolution aerial image of December 2013 shows development of multiple gullies,
including a large one under the letter A, with a surface area of approximately 110 m and 2
depth of about 3 m. This indicates the volume that eroded over the preceding year from this
3
feature alone was approximately 330 m (Figure 18).
Figure 18. Eroding Site 8.1, 16.1 km downstream of Mojon II.
High-resolution satellite image of December 2013.
By May 2014, when I took the photograph in Figure 17b, the entire fill slope had developed a
complex of gullies, rills, and shallow landslides. The gully under point A on Figure 17b is
visible, as well as deep (though less wide) gullies to the left edge of the view. Also visible
are gullies forming in the cutslope above the fill. Hagans and Weaver (2014) estimate that
outside of the landslide, the site is experiencing 1,072 m /yr of additional rill, gully and
3
landslide3erosion, and an additional 484 m /yr in surface erosion, for a total of approximately
1,556 m /yr from the bare portions of Site 8.1 that are not covered by the most severe
erosional features. I note that their figures do not include surface erosion from the surface of
24
26 Annex 1
the landslide, even though by May 2014 this surface was covered in gullies, rills, and shallow
landslides. Thus, the Hagans and Weaver figures are conservative and understate the erosion
from the site.
It is clear that no erosion control or slope stabilization measures have been undertaken at this
site, which continues to worsen and to deliver sediment to the Río San Juan. Any attempt to
pass vehicles over this site would be extremely unsafe.
25
27Annex 1
Cut and Fill Slopes at Eroding Site 8.2 (16.2 km downstream of Mojon II)
In October 2012, when I first viewed this cut and fill slope complex, the fill slope evidenced
multiple shallow failures, rills, and gullies (Figure 19a). Two massive arcuate head cuts are
visible in the left side and center of the view. Hagans and Weaver (2014) report that GIS
measurements indicate lengths parallel to the river of approximately 50 m for both failures,
and surface areas of 1,079 and 1,049 m , respectively. Assuming a 1.75 m average depth,
3
these two prism-shaped failures together involved the loss of approximately 3,724 m of
sediment, which would fill about 465 dump trucks. Also visible in the 2012 image are
sediment deposits at the toe of the failure, sediment left behind in the transfer of this sediment
to the San Juan River. As of 2012, some shallow failures had already developed in the
cutslope above, but their development was limited.
Figure 19. Eroding Site 8.2, 16.2 km downstream of Mojon II.
Oblique aerial views from October 2012 (a) and May 2014 (b).
26
28 Annex 1
The high-resolution satellite image of December 2013 shows possible continued propagation
of the headcuts and unambiguous development of gullies across the entire fillslope (Figure
20).
Figure 20. Eroding Site 8.2, 16.2 km downstream of Mojon II.
High-resolution satellite image of December 2013.
The oblique helicopter photograph from May 2014 shows the same gullies visible on the
December 2013 imagery, but with greater detail (Figure 19b). Also visible is the
development of landslides on the cutslope, which have undermined and caused trees to fall.
Hagans and Weaver estimate that outside of the two large landslides, the site is experiencing
an additional 1,332 m /yr of rill, gully and landslide erosion, and an additional 601 m /yr in
surface erosion, for a total of approximately 1,933 m 3/yr from the bare portions of Site 8.1
that are not covered by the two landslides. However, it is clear from the 2013 and 2014
images that the landslide surfaces are covered with rills, gullies, and possibly shallow
landslides. Thus, the site experienced two large landslide failures in the fillslope between
3
construction and October 2012 (which eroded over 3,700 m ), and in each subsequent year
surface erosion, rilling, and gullying exceeding another 1,900 m 3, for an average of
3
approximately 3,200 m /yr from Site 8.2.
27
29Annex 1
Summary Comments
One of the most striking features of all the features documented here is the lack of effort to
stabilize the fill piles or undertake repairs based on sound engineering practice. Despite the
evident failures, the repairs to date are limited to partially refilling the culvert washouts and
installing small culverts high in the fill, where they are certain to wash out again.
These are only a few examples of the widespread erosion and failure of the unprotected cut
and fill slopes, and the deterioration of fill-based stream crossings, that are visible along Rte
1856, even from helicopter and satellite imagery. Additional examples, covering a total area
of approximately 788,038 m , are included in the Inventory of Severely Eroding Sites,
appended to this report as Appendix A. Figure 21, below, plots those sites in red on a map of
the portion of Rte 1856 that is adjacent to the San Juan River.
The fact that so much erosion and landsliding has occurred, and that multiple culverts have
washed out, in response to the modest rainfall since the land disturbance caused by
construction activities for Rte 1856 only demonstrates the vulnerability of the areas disturbed
by such construction.
As I have explained previously, the practices employed to build Rte 1856 have set the stage
for extensive mass wasting during the next period of intense rains. Specifically, the massive,
unengineered cuts in hillslopes, un-engineered fill prisms (created through side-casting), and
massive, un-engineered earthen fills for stream crossings, are prone to failure under saturated
conditions. The sites described above, and others illustrated in Appendix A, are not ready to
face intense rain events (tropical storms or hurricanes), nor are they stable enough to hold up
reasonably during an earthquake. This issue is discussed in more detail in Section 12, below.
28
30 Annex 1
Figure 21. Map of Severely Eroding Sites along Rte 1856 from 2014 Inventory
(Appendix A), and locations of the UCR (2013) erosion sites.
29
31Annex 1
4. The Magnitude of Failure Along Rte 1856 is Not “Typical” and Reflects Widespread
Violations of Established Standards.
Mende and Astorga (Annex 6, p.29) state that “the present condition of the slopes along the
border road between Mojón II and Delta Costa Rica can be considered to be typical of a road
under construction.” At p.28, they also characterize the current condition of stream crossings
along Rte 1856 as “typical during a construction period.”
I disagree with these characterizations. As detailed above, cutslopes and fillslopes have
experienced extensive landslides and rill/gully erosion, and the road is unusable because of
such failures in multiple locations. In addition, many of the stream crossings of Rte 1856 are
poorly constructed of substandard materials, and many have already failed (sometimes more
than once). This is not “typical” for construction projects.
It is not “typical” to have multiple stream crossings fail within the first few years after
construction. It is not “typical” to have multiple fill slopes fail within a year or two of
construction, nor to have massive gullies develop on fill slopes and stream-crossing fills. In
the US, such violations result in severe penalties for the perpetrators, and we would hardly
consider these destructive actions “typical.” They represent a level of incompetence and
blatant disregard for environment and safety that has already impacted the Río San Juan, and
poses even more significant threats from future contamination by chemical spills (Section 5,
below) and massive failures triggered by future intense rains or earthquakes (Section 12,
below).
The construction of Rte 1856 was a large project carried out immediately adjacent to the Río
San Juan. None of the normal, expected safeguards against environmental damage were
taken. The road was not planned, and no environmental impact analysis was carried out prior
to the project (CFIA 2012). Not only were there no plans developed for the entire route,
there were none for individual sections, most of which were built by different contractors. It
is apparent that bulldozer operators would simply “wing it”, in many places attempting to put
the road up steep slopes that in a normal road building project, with standard engineering and
environmental safeguards, would never have been selected for a road in the first place. For
instance, from Rkm 36.4-37.1 (approximately 1.5 km downstream of El Jardin) bulldozers
attempted to build a road up a steep slope adjacent to the Río San Juan, repeatedly
destabilizing the slope and shifting their attempts to the right or left, until the result was a
disorganized complex of multiple scars and active landslides (Figure 8). I should emphasize
that there is no road here, only the eroding aftermath of an attempt to build one, which served
no beneficial purpose and was entirely unnecessary. A road should never have been
attempted up such an inherently unstable slope, certainly not so close to a river. The
multiple, adjacent attempts to construct the road, depicted by parallel lines within a wide area
of disturbance on the map of Mende and Astorga (2013, Annex 6, p.387 of Vol.II) reflect a
fundamental lack of understanding of site conditions and disregard for the damage caused by
the repeated attempts to build the road here. This site continues to fail and erode, with no
apparent efforts to stabilize it.
As documented in my 2012 report, based on GIS analysis of aerial imagery, nearly half of
Rte 1856 is within 100 m of the river bank, virtually guaranteeing that much of the sediment
eroded from the road would be readily transported to the river. 30% of the road is within 50
m of the river bank, which creates greater impacts, and which is in violation of Costa Rican
regulations as well as international norms.
30
32 Annex 1
Construction of Rte 1856 involved multiple cut and fill roads across steep hillslopes, many
underlain by weak rock types or with unfavorable orientation of geologic structure, resulting
in inherently weak cutslopes. The material removed from the cut was simply ‘sidecast’, i.e.,
pushed down the slope by the blade, without first removing vegetation from the slope and
with neither engineering the fill by compaction nor use of geotextiles. As a result, the
fillslopes are inherently unstable, no more than loose piles of earth, easily eroded into rills
and gullies by surface runoff, and prone to landsliding. For instance, from Rkm 8.2-8.7
(Severely Eroding Site 4), the bulldozers cut into hills well within 100 m of the river bank.
As visible in Figure 22a, the bulldozers simply took the material cut from the hillslope and
dumped it down the slope below, creating an unstable slope of loose fill, with multiple
shallow landslides (which can be seen to be eroding the edge of the road) and gullying/rilling
over the entire fillslope. Likewise, from Rkm 16.1-16.4 (Severely Eroding Site 8), it is clear
that the fill material was simply sidecast off the road in loose piles, which by October 2012
had developed three large landslides in the fill (described in detail in Section 3 above) (Figure
22b).
Figure 22. Examples of sidecasting fill materia) Severely Eroding Site 4 (Rkm 8.2-8.7)
(photo from helicopter over north bank of Río San Juan, October 2012). b) Severely Eroding
Site 8 (Rkm 16.1-16.4) (photo from helicopter over north bank of Río San Juan, October
2012). It is clear from the loose, failing nature of the fill slopes that the bulldozers simply
dumped the material down the slope below, creating an unstable slope of loose fill vulnerable
to landsliding, gullying, and rilling.
31
33Annex 1
Similarly, the stream crossings consist of loose, unengineered fill dumped over what most
commonly appear to be undersized culvert pipes, which are often not set at the base of the fill
(along the original grade of the stream) but higher in the fill, where they are more prone to
failure (as has occurred at many crossings).
In addition to the specific problems of steep slopes and stream crossings, the road was poorly
constructed overall, especially in that drainage is badly designed where it exists at all (CFIA
2012, LANAMME 2012). Good drainage is important for any road but especially for dirt or
gravel roads, which are prone to erosion and washout from concentrated runoff. Moreover,
ponding of water in ditches or upstream of stream crossings can cause saturation and elevated
pore pressures in fills, leading to fill failures. This was likely a factor contributing to the
failure of stream crossings at Severely Eroding Sites 9.4 and 9.5 (described in Section 3 and
illustrated in Figures 10-14). The fact that water is visibly ponded behind the stream crossing
at Site 9.4 in the May 2014 photo (Figure 10b) suggests that this site is highly vulnerable to
further failure.
As explained in my 2012 report, construction of a cut-and-fill road such as Rte 1856 disturbs
the natural infiltration of rain that occurred in the natural, vegetated hillslope and disrupts the
natural drainage patterns, leading to more rainwater running off the surface and concentration
of this runoff. The concentrated runoff, in turn, is very effective in eroding the exposed soils.
Even with good drainage, a road such as Rte 1856 will result in increased erosion rates.
When good drainage is lacking, as is the case along the vast majority of Rte 1856, the
problems are compounded as runoff accumulates and often creates new channels draining
towards the river, which carry substantial loads of sediment. For example, the quarry located
at Rkm 25.3 km has had no erosion control or slope stabilization measures, nor any drainage
features constructed. Sediment-laden runoff from the exposed quarry surfaces drained
towards the Río San Juan, and by May 2014 had eroded a small channel to carry this runoff
(Figure 23).
32
34 Annex 1
Figure 23. Surface erosion of a quarry for road construction materials located at Rkm 25.3
km (downstream of Mojon II). No erosion cont rol, slope stabilization, or drainage measures
were visible as of May 2014. Sediment-l aden runoff from the ex posed quarry surfaces
drained towards the Río San Juan, and by May 2014 had eroded a small channel to carry this
runoff and sediment into the Río San Juan. (Photographs taken from helicopter over the north
bank of the Río San Juan.)
33
35Annex 1
5. Much of Rte 1856 is Not Safe for Use.
In its current condition, Rte 1856 upstream of Boca San Carlos cannot be driven at all except
for short sections, and even those portions that are drivable pose safety problems. This is not
surprising in light of the fact that the road was not planned, so there was no way that safety
standards for factors such as maximum acceptable slopes, sharpness of turns, security of
stream crossings, road drainage, and sloping of the road could be incorporated. The
implications for the Río San Juan are potentially profound. One of the cargos to be carried by
trucks on a functioning Rte 1856 would likely be petroleum. It is not difficult to imagine the
weight and vibration of a gasoline tanker causing failure of a fillslope or stream crossing, or
the overly steep grades and too-sharp turns in this unplanned road causing a truck to overturn.
The resulting spill and contamination of the Río San Juan could be devastating. Besides
petroleum, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides (heavily used in the Rio San Carlos
and Sarapiqui basins) are likely to be transported by trucks on Rte 1856, and all could have
devastating effects, above and beyond the impacts of sediment eroded from the road. Spills of
petroleum and agricultural chemicals (heavily used in Costa Rica) would poison aquatic life,
killing many organisms outright, affecting growth and reproduction of others, and
contaminating fish upon which local residents depend.
Unsafe Stream Crossings
Unsafe portions of Rte 1856 include stream crossings, many of which are substandard. As
noted by LANAMME (2012) and CFIA (2012) and confirmed by our aerial reconnaissance
and inspection from the river, many stream crossings could most charitably be termed
“informal.” This is confirmed by the inventory of stream crossings presented by Mende and
Astorga (2013, Table 4, p.28 of Annex 6), which reports that of the 103 stream crossings
whose construction has been attempted, only 10 are considered to be in “appropriate”
condition. All but one involved placement of earthen fill in the channel, material that is then
at risk of washing out. When these crossings fail, which has already occurred in some places
and would be likely under the load of heavy trucks, they are likely to result in spills of
hazardous material directly into the streams tributary to the Río San Juan (i.e., the streams
that are being traversed by these crossings), providing a direct and rapid delivery of
contaminants into the river.
Many of these stream crossings have already washed out (as documented above in Section 3),
and for others, the construction technique and material used are visible. None appears to be a
properly engineered bridge crossing. Each crossing should be analyzed for weaknesses, and
in most cases completely rebuilt as properly engineered bridges, providing adequate span to
allow at least the 100-year flood discharge to pass without problem, and designed to safely
4 LANAMME pointed to various problematic examples (pp. 33, 40, 44, 45, 46), citing the “poor management of
waterbodies crossed by the route” as “one of the issues of greatest concern” (p.34). LANAMME noted that
improperly constructed stream crossings could erode the roadbed and fills and cause breaks in the road (pp.34,
49), but also that the improper construction of stream crossings “causes a negative impact on these bodies of
water, limiting oxygenation capacity and degrading water quality as a result of stagnation” (p.34). LANAMME
recommended: “This type of provisional measures should be replaced as soon as possible with culverts properly
designed according to ... each stream flow rate to prevent eventual road embankment damage during the rainy
season” (p.40).
5 For example, CFIA noted “a bridge comprised of two trailer containers and wooden logs. The walls of the
trailer containers are already bulging and in imminent danger of collapsing” (p.9). CFIA (2012) also noted
“bridges built with logs of wood” (p.16), “bridges built out of wooden logs and trailer containers” (p.21), “round
plastic pipes” (p.21), and “road wide enough for only one vehicle” (p.21). CFIA noted that “trailer containers
already reflect deterioration and are risk of collapsing” (p.26).
34
36 Annex 1
support the weight of vehicles likely to use the road. Designing and properly constructing
adequate bridges will require engineering designs, in all likelihood utilization of materials
such as metal, concrete, and possibly chemically-preserved railroad ties, rather than the local
logs, trailer containers, and plastic pipes that have been utilized to date on Rte 1856, and
which “…do not comply with minimal structural design and engineering mechanics
requirements.” (CFIA 2012:27) Further, it will require competent contractors to build them,
under the supervision of the design engineers with relevant experience and expertise.
Substituting proper bridges for existing, failing earth-fill stream crossings will require that the
fill be removed to a stable disposal site.
While many failed stream crossings were constructed in steep terrain, the poorly built
crossings of Rte 1856 are vulnerable to failure even on flat ground. The tributary crossing at
Rkm 20.3 (i.e,. 20.3 km downstream of Mojon II) is illustrative. Located on flat floodplain,
this was a minor bridge spanning a small stream (Figure 24a). Its construction presumably
involved earthen fill to narrow the stream width to be spanned by the bridge (as was the case
for all crossings but one, according to Table 3 in Mende and Astorga in Annex 6, p.27). As
visible in Figure 24, the oblique helicopter image of October 2012 and the satellite image of
November 2012 show the crossing intact but being eroded from the north (downstream) side.
By December 2013, the crossing had completely failed, the crossing had been partially re-
filled with unengineered fill, and a small footbridge had been installed to allow crossing by
pedestrians, dirt bikes, or donkeys, but not vehicles. The fill material washed out from the
crossing was transported down to the Río San Juan, where it created a new delta, as visible in
Figure 25. This delta incorporated white plastic pieces of the failed culvert, as visible in
Figure 25. Based on measurements in GIS of the area of the crossing washout and a height
estimated from the field observations (from the river), the failure produced a sediment pulse
of approximately 480 m of fill material, which was enough to build a new delta in the Río
San Juan. This crossing failure illustrates that the stream crossings for Rte 1856 are
vulnerable to failure not only because of steeply sloping lands, but even in flat lands because
of the substandard construction practices (see CFIA 2012 and LANNAME 2012 for further
description of unacceptable and dangerous construction methods). The poor construction
practices implemented on Rte 1856 all but guarantee further failures and further delivery of
sediment to the Río San Juan. It is worth bearing in mind that these failures and sediment
delivery to the river have occurred during years with relatively modest rainfall, and that much
greater erosion is inevitable during the intense rains that will accompany a hurricane or
tropical storm in the region.
35
37Annex 1
Figure 24. Helicopter and satellite imagery of failed fill crossing 20.3 km downstream of
Mojon 2 border marker. a) The oblique helicopter photo of October 2012 shows evidence of
headcutting. b) The November satellite 2012 imagery shows the same situation: headcutting
but the fill still mostly intact. c) By December 2013, satellite imagery shows the crossing had
failed completely. A temporary single-track crossing had been placed over the channel, and
fill material had been placed in the channel to re-narrow the crossing, but the culvert had not
been replaced and water was flowing freely over the loosely compacted material. The plastic
pipe culvert washed out and was transported down to the Río San Juan along with the eroded
sediment, as illustrated in Figure 25.
36
38 Annex 1
Figure 25. Photographs from a field visit in March 2014 show a delta of sediment with
pieces of the failed culvert extending into Río San Juan. New fill material was placed in the
channel to partially fill the void created by the failure, but no new culvert was installed.
Appendix C presents an inventory of potentially unsafe stream crossings that should require
assessment by qualified experts to determine level of hazard and to recommend repair or
complete replacement with properly engineered bridges before being considered safe for
passage by vehicles. We identified the crossings as being potentially unsafe using
information available from aerial imagery and observations from the river, based on
placement of unengineered fill within the channel, use of unacceptable materials, likely
inadequate flood capacity, and/or prior history of failure. However, our list (based on our
limited information) is clearly incomplete, because Mende and Astorga (2013, Annex 6, p.28)
report 16 crossings as “closed,” 9 as “broken,” and 42 as “provisional” for which “technical
improvements are recommended within the near future,” for a total of 67 crossings that are
either failed or unsafe, compared to only 10 in “appropriate” condition.
37
39Annex 1
Unsafe Steep Slopes
Other portions of the road are unsafe because of steep slopes: both the steep slopes of
hillsides across which road construction has been attempted, and the steep slopes of some
sections of the road itself (where completed in hilly terrain), which creates difficulties for
safe passage of vehicles. The road segments crossing steep slopes have an elevated failure
potential of sidecast, unengineered fills, which are widely failing already, prior to the
application of loads, and will be more likely to fail when subjected to the loads of heavy
trucks. CFIA (2012:26) recommended, “Stabilization of the slopes with high margins and
significant dimensions in order to avoid landslide during the rains that are about to begin.” 6
Even if the road does not fail outright, the excessive slopes in many parts of the road, owing
to the lack of planning or adherence to environmental or safety standards, pose a serious
hazard of overturning trucks and collisions due to the difficulty in controlling heavy vehicles
on overly steep grades. The FAO recommends “keeping the road grade as low as
possible…Maximum grades of 10 to 20 percent (6 to 11 ) are recommended in some
countries…” (Dystra and Heinrich 1996). Yet CFIA (2012:26) noted that along some
sections of Rte 1856, “transit is almost impossible due the very elevated longitudinal slopes.”
As noted by the FAO, such steep roadbed slopes not only create hazardous conditions for
driving, but also higher maintenance costs and more erosion problems (Dykstra and Heinrich
1996).
Appendix D to this report presents an inventory of potentially unsafe slopes.
Proximity to Río San Juan
The problems with unsafe and unstable slopes and poor stream crossings are compounded by
the extreme proximity to the Río San Juan of most of the route. Most of the steep slopes
traversed by the road are within 100 m of the river, many much closer, so that failure of these
slopes and overturning of trucks carrying hazardous material are very likely to result in
immediate contamination of the Río San Juan, with essentially no opportunity for first
responders to control the contamination or block its pathways, because the area is remote and
difficult to access, and because once onsite, responders would have difficulties accessing the
riverbank itself, or setting right a heavy, overturned truck down a steep slope.
As recommended by the FAO, a basic principle of road construction is to keep “roads and
disturbance areas away from streams” (Dykstra and Heinrich 1996). As noted above, our
GIS analysis (reported in our 2012 report) showed 50% of the road is located within 100 m of
the river, and 30% within 50 m. The maps presented by Mende and Astorga in Annexes 3
and 6 of the Costa Rica Counter Memorial likewise show the extreme proximity of Rte 1856
to the Río San Juan. CFIA (2012) reported the road was only 10 m from the river in places
and that this should be corrected (p.9), and “There are stretches of the road where its path is
very close to the bank of the Río San Juan, these stretches of the road should be re-evaluated”
(p.13). It recommended “evaluation of the recesses of Río San Juan by way of a technical
study under present applicable law.”
6
CFIA (2012) also highlighted the problem of “steep slopes [i.e., cutslopes] up to approximately six meters high
with very elevated margins” (p.9), “huge slopes with high peaks and no protection whatsoever,” and observed
“areas with cracks and holes, besides very elevated longitudinal slopes” and “slope approximately six meters in
height with almost vertical slope” (p.15).
38
40 Annex 1
Reducing the Hazard
To reduce the hazard posed by this unsafe road, the entire existing road would need to be
inspected and objectively analyzed by qualified road engineers. In some sections of the road,
such as those on steep slopes adjacent to the river bank, the road should simply be moved
inland to less inherently risky routes, and the damaged portions of the landscape repaired by
stabilizing the cutslopes and hauling away fill material to minimize future sediment delivery
to the Río San Juan. Other parts of the road can probably be stabilized in the current
alignment or with minor realignments, but most of the actions described in my earlier report
on urgent measures, and described in detail in the 2014 report of Danny Hagans and Bill
Weaver of Pacific Watershed Associates, will need to be implemented to stabilize these road
sections.
Appendix E presents sites where Rte 1856 is too close to the river bank and in steep terrain, a
combination of conditions that strongly indicates the road should be moved, based on our
GIS analysis conducted in 2012. (Inspection of the maps presented by Mende et al. in Annex
5 and Mende and Astorga in Annex 6 also shows the road is very close to river in general
agreement with our mapping.) From Mojon II to Boca San Carlos, 5.1 km of the road is in
steep terrain within 50 m of the river bank, with an additional 12.7 km within 100 m. From
Boca San Carlos to Boca Sarapiqui, 1.9 km is in steep terrain within 50 m of the river, with
an additional 2.1 km within 100 m.
One section of road that should be relocated is the section of rapidly eroding road in steep
topography downstream of Rio Infiernito, as recommended by the Environmental Diagnostic
Assessment (EDA) submitted by Costa Rica (Annex 10 to Costa Rica’s Counter-Memorial).
The EDA noted the “occurrence of landslides and slope erosion affecting the forest borders of
the road.” The EDA recommended measures include, “To evaluate the technical possibility
of modifying the route designated for Route 1856 at the point called Infiernillo [sic] to
include the use of local roads built on less sloping terrain, tracing the road some km. to the
south, where there are open areas and settlements with more favorable topographic
conditions” (EDA, p.147). Although the precise section of road to be relocated was not
specified, the implication is that the entire section from approximately river km 14 to 20 (i.e.,
from approximately 14 km to 20 km downstream of Mojon II) would be involved.
6. Meaningful Remediation Has Not Been Attempted.
Professor Thorne states (without providing a citation) that in my second report, “Dr Kondolf
notes that most of the road bed has now been covered in gravel, which will further reduce
erosion of the road itself, especially in relation to that from cut and fill slopes.” (Thorne,
p.71) I have never, and cannot, state that “most of the road bed has not been covered in
gravel,” because this is not true. It is also not true, as Costa Rica’s reports imply (e.g.,
Thorne, Section 11; Annex 1, p.2; Annex 6, pp.28-29; Annex 10, p.30), that real mitigation
has been undertaken along Rte 1856.
Most of Rte 1856 has not been subject to erosion control efforts. Of the 41.6 km from Mojon
II to Boca San Carlos, only the upper 15 km of the road have had erosion control attempts.
The road is graveled down to approximately Rkm 14.5 and for another 0.5 km (until the first
gap in the road appears), informal track (i.e., pre-existing pathways for foot and animal
traffic, mostly on flat land over which a 4x4 vehicle can be driven, but not a road vehicle)
(see description of gaps in Section 2). Downstream of this point, the road is not passable in
39
41Annex 1
many places, and disturbed areas have been left exposed to the elements, with no apparent
erosion control efforts.
Thus, much of Rte 1856 continues to erode, with large landslides, gullies, and surface erosion
(as documented in Section 3 and Appendix A). On the sites with the greatest ongoing erosion
rates and greatest potential for future erosion, no erosion control has been attempted.
Genuine steps to stabilize unstable cutslopes and to remove unstable fillslopes and road
crossings would involve significant earth moving and geotechnical stabilization, as detailed
by Hagans and Weaver. This would be an effort of an entirely different magnitude than the
surficial erosion control attempted to date.
Even on the upper 15 km where erosion control has been attempted, these attempts have been
superficial, attempting to treat only symptoms, with no attempt to control ongoing or
potential landslides. Many of these measures have failed. As noted in my report of 30
October 2013, Continued Impacts of Erosion from Rte 1856, Costa Rica to the Río San Juan,
Nicaragua, the erosion control measures include covering bare-earth roads with rock (done
down to Rkm 14.5), lining ditches adjacent to the road surface, installing concrete lined
drains along the inside and outside portion of some road segments, covering some steep fill
slopes and cut slopes with erosion control fabrics, and seeding and planting some areas,
including attempts to establish vegetation in small circular holes in cutslopes. These are the
measures discussed in the Counter-Memorial, presented in Annexes 2, 7 and 8, and described
by Thorne (2013, pp.109-116). While these measures may reduce surface and gully erosion
from the few treated areas during small and moderate rains, they will do nothing to prevent
massive failures of cut slopes with unfavorable rock type and geologic structural orientation,
nor will they prevent mass failure of un-engineered fillslopes and stream crossing fill prisms,
which are most likely to occur during intense rains.
Annex 2 includes photographs of a tree-planting program, but does not provide essential
information such as whether the plantings will actually address slope stability issues (the
answer in most cases will be no, because the failure planes of landslides would be deeper
than the rooting depth of plants), and whether the plants have survived since planting (in our
observations from the river, it appeared that most have died).
The erosion control measures we observed in most cases were deployed only to control
surface erosion from roads themselves, have failed in many places, and in others are actually
counter-productive. For example, putting gravel or crushed rock on top of the road surface
and installing drainage ditches can help to protect the road surface itself from erosion, but the
concentrated runoff that results must be managed safely, and this has not been done along Rte
1856. As I noted in my October 2013 report, in May 2013, I observed a new concrete drain
approximately 11.8 km downstream of Mojon II immediately after an intense rain. The
concrete ditch was directing runoff from the graveled road directly onto the fill slope, eroding
the fill slope itself, which is the foundation for the road (Figure 26a). In May 2014, the fill
slope on which the runoff had discharged had eroded severely, and displayed a large washout
(Figure 26b).
40
42 Annex 1
Figure 26. Photo of road runoff directed from drainage structure into fill
in May 2013 (a), and resulting erosion in May 2014 (b).
(a)
(b)
Properly designed and constructed road drainage structures should always convey the runoff
at least to the base of the fill slope or farther. They should not discharge flow onto the fill.
This error illustrates the evident lack of knowledge behind the erosion control efforts.
Many eroding slopes have been covered with black plastic sheeting. This approach is
unsuitable for steep slopes and cannot address fundamental problems of slope stability.
Moreover, this plastic sheeting deteriorates rapidly from ultra violet rays, and at most of the
sites where it was installed, the sheeting is at least partially failed (Figure 27).
41
43Annex 1
Figure 27. Failing black plastic erosion control fabric approximately
(a) 6.8 km and (b)10.0 km downstream from Mojon II, respectively.
(a)
(b)
The inept and failing erosion control efforts, undertaken on only the first 15 km of Rte 1856
below Mojon II, contrasts with the impression Costa Rica conveys with its list of mitigation
measures on pp.42-46 of the Counter-Memorial, many photographs of small erosion control
projects (Annexes 7 and 8), and descriptions of volunteer planting efforts (Annexes 2 and 7).
With regard to the CONAVI Report, the compilation of erosion-control photographs that has
been submitted with the Counter-Memorial as Annex 8, many of the photographs have no
locational information associated with them and lack coherent explanatory text. The photos
appear to show projects to protect the road surface, but do little or nothing to protect
fillslopes and the river downstream. Moreover, not stated in the report is the fact that these
erosion control projects were undertaken on parts of the road that, while eroding, were not the
most serious problems. These erosion control projects are attempts to treat surface erosion
only, and do not address the vulnerability to stream-crossing fill washout and landsliding that
will occur during intense rains. Costa Rica’s reports (Annexes 2 & 7) contain no images of
the many failed plantings visible from the river, no data for percentage survival of these
plantings, and more importantly, no acknowledgement that even if they survive, such
plantings can never stabilize slopes against most landslides, because the landslide failure
planes are much deeper than the root depth of even successfully established trees.
42
44 Annex 1
In summary, while the techniques employed to control erosion by Costa Rica may help
control surface erosion, they have been poorly applied (e.g., Figures 26 and 27) and to only a
limited section of Rte 1856. They are inadequate in that most of these methods protect only
the road surface and do not control runoff onto the fill, and more fundamentally, they do
nothing to reduce the likelihood and severity of landsliding. Moreover, they have been
installed only on portions of the road that have suffered less erosion and are still drivable. No
erosion control efforts have been constructed on severely eroding sites downstream.
Professor Thorne makes no attempt to defend the way Rte 1856 was constructed, and his
apparent endorsement of Costa Rica’s ongoing erosion control efforts is highly nuanced.
Although Professor Thorne implies that he has faith that Costa Rica’s efforts would be
sufficient for real erosion control, all he actually seems to say is that Costa Rica’s efforts
have made things a bit better than they were when the road was a freshly-cut, bare scar on the
landscape.
I previously noted the following statement by Professor Thorne on this topic: “It is my
understanding that the measures I observed in May 2013 are part of ongoing efforts intended
to reduce erosion risks stemming from the way the Road was constructed in 2011 and that
they are not intended to provide a permanent solution to erosion issues. Given that, my
experience suggests that with appropriate inspection and, where necessary, maintenance and
repair, the mitigation works will significantly reduce local erosion rates for the next year or
two, allowing time for the work necessary to design, contract and build permanent works to
progress.” As I explained in my November 2013 report, Comments on Costa Rican
Submissions (p.13), this is confirmation of my fundamental point that Costa Rica’s erosion
control measures will not actually solve Rte 1856’s erosion problems. Professor Thorne
repeated this statement in his most recent report (¶11.18) and added the following at ¶11.19:
“However, these are temporary works that mitigate but do not permanently solve erosion
problems, and a permanent solution will not be achieved until design, planning and
construction of the Road are completed. In my opinion, the necessary work should proceed
as soon as possible, with the work expedited to the greatest degree, and consistently with
Costa Rican legal and contracting practices.” Professor Thorne and I agree: work needs to be
done as soon as possible to solve existing erosion problems.
Another portion of Professor Thorne’s discussion of Costa Rica’s erosion control efforts
bears emphasis. He says that those efforts will reduce erosion rates for the next year or two
assuming there is “appropriate inspection and, where necessary, maintenance and repair.” As
the examples of Severely Eroding Sites 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 8.1, and 8.2 demonstrate (see Section 3
of this report), that “maintenance and repair” have not been undertaken.
Professor Thorne also argues that “the rate of erosion will decrease further in future
compared to that reported in the UCR Report and that the Road will become increasingly
insensitive to heavier rainfall as time passes.” (Thorne, 2013, p.115) He cites a study on St
John, US Virgin Islands by Ramos-Scharron and Mac Donald (2005), which showed that the
rate of erosion from unpaved roads decreased with time since the last grading. This effect
applies only to surface erosion from unpaved road surfaces, not to developing gullies or to
landslides that may be triggered by future intense rains. Moreover, the main point of Ramos-
Scharron and MacDonald (2005) is the tremendous effect of roads in increasing erosion:
“The measured erosion rates indicate that unpaved roads on St John can
increase hillslope-scale sediment production rates by more than four orders of
43
45Annex 1
magnitude relative to undisturbed conditions. The road erosion rates measured
on St John are at the high end of reported road erosion rates, and this is
consistent with the high rainfall erosivities, steep slopes, poor design, and
inadequate maintenance of many of the unpaved roads on St John.”
(Ramos-Scharrón and MacDonald 2005: 1301). The conditions described for the roads in St
John apply to Rte 1856: “high rainfall erosivity, steep slopes, poor design and inadequate
maintenance.” The more relevant lesson to draw from this research on St John is that a road
such as Rte 1856 can increase erosion rates over undisturbed conditions by a factor of 10,000.
(An order of magnitude is a power of ten, so four orders of magnitude = 10,000.)
Curiously, instead of substantive actions to control erosion and stabilize the most seriously
eroding sites, I was surprised to see instead continued construction along Rte 1856 of power
lines. In 2012, we observed a power line extending along Rte 1856 between 4 and 7 km
downstream of Mojon II. In May 2014, we observed it to extend down to Rio Infiernito, a
total distance of 14.1 km.
7. Costa Rica’s Experts Underestimate How Much Sediment this Project is
Contributing to the Río San Juan.
Although the approach presented in the Costa Rican reports (Annexes 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6) is
difficult to follow, my understanding is that the reports were intended to work together in the
following way:
The UCR Report (Annex 1) measured rates of erosion of various types of features
which were said to “represent ‘worst case’ examples of erosion by land sliding, sheet
erosion, rilling and gullying that exist along Route 1856” (Annex 1, p.2). These
measurements, which took place between June and August 2013, were used to
calculate a general erosion ratefor each feature type.
Then Mende and Astorga (Annex 6) inventoried and estimated the dimensions of all
cut and fill slopes (excluding the road surface) occurring along Rte 1856. From the
field, they estimated the percentage (by area) of each type of erosional feature
affecting each slope, and supposedly applied the UCR Report’s rates to them, thereby
calculating “worst-case” total erosion annual erosion rates for each slope disturbed by
construction of Rte 1856, and a total rate for all of the slopes along Rte 1846. The
erosion rates for “slopes” were presented by site and summed in Annex 6.
ICE (Annex 4) incorporated total erosion from slopes from Annex 6, along with an
estimate of surface erosion from the road itself (applying an erosion rate from the
UCR Report in Annex 1 to the area of the road) in their overall sediment budget “to
estimate overall erosion and sediment delivery from Route 1856 to the San Juan River
system” (ICE 2013).
44
46 Annex 1
The UCR Report’s Low Erosion Rates
Annex 1 to the Counter-Memorial is the “Report on Systematic Field Monitoring of Erosion
and Sediment Yield along Rte 1856” prepared by a civil engineering professor and an
undergraduate student from the University of Costa Rica. It presents data collected from
sediment traps and other erosion studies at selected sites along Rte 1856 upstream of Rio
Infiernito, from June-September 2013, ultimately providing erosion rates that are repeated in
Professor Thorne’s report (¶¶8.21-8.41) and the Counter-Memorial (¶¶3.20-3.24).
Annex 1 was first provided in connection with the hearings that took place in November
2013. I conducted a preliminary review then and provided an initial critique in my November
2013 Comments on Costa Rican Submissions (pp.3-6). The report has been resubmitted with
the Counter-Memorial, and it appears to be unchanged from the document I reviewed and
critiqued previously.
The assertions in Annex 1 that landslides and gullies do not occur together on fill slopes
(Annex 1, pp.15-16) is not true. To the contrary, gullies and landslides occur on the same fill
slopes in many locations along Rte 1856, as can be seen, for example, in the images of
Severely Eroding Sites 8.1 and 9.4 discussed in Section 3 above (Figures 17-18 and 10-11).
One need only examine Appendix A of Annex 6 to the Costa Rican Counter Memorial
(pp.405-408) to find multiple sites where Mende and Astorga (2013) recorded both landslides
and gullies on the same fill slopes. The assertion in the UCR Report that landslides and
gullies do not occur together on fill slopes makes no sense scientifically and seriously
undermines the scientific credibility of the report.
Annex 1 also states that the sites it studied “represent ‘worst case’ examples of erosion by
land sliding, sheet erosion, rilling and gullying that exist along Route 1856.” (p.2). In his
November 2013 report (Annex 9 to the Counter-Memorial), Professor Thorne likewise stated
that “it is reasonable to assume that the recorded rates of land surface lowering [reported in
Annex 1] represent ‘worse case’ scenarios for Road-related erosion to date,” apparently on
based on the idea that the rates were derived from the study of, among other things, “the two
largest rotational landslides observed along the Road” and “the slope which displayed most
intense rill (micro-channel) erosion” (¶33). Similar statements are repeated in Annex 6 (p.31)
and Annex 4 (e.g., p.28). All of these statements are incorrect.
The sites assessed in the preparation of Annex 1 were all within the first 15 km of the river-
adjacent Rte 1856 (i.e., between the international border and Rio Infiernito). Even within that
stretch, the sites studied are not the “worst” sites of erosion. Figure 28 shows the extent of
erosion in the cut-and-fill slope exposed from Rkm 10.4-11.3 (Severely Eroding Site 6a, in
Appendix A), which is within the 15 km stretch in which all the UCR Report’s study sites
exist.
7
In claiming that its erosion rates are “highly conservative,” Annex 1 also states that “most slopes and fills in
the study area have been protected with geotextiles and been subject to re-vegetation or (where possible)
reforestation, and are experiencing much less erosion than the sites selected for study” (pp.1-2). As explained in
Section 6, above, most of Rte 1856, including the worst eroding sites, have not been meaningfully protected.
45
47Annex 1
Figure 28. Context of UCR’s Site 4 within a larger complex of eroding features from Rkm 10.4 to
11.3. a) Oblique aerial photograph from helicopter, October 2012, showing multiple landslides to
the right (west) of the site selected for detailed study by UCR. b) Detail of the same photograph,
showing larger eroding features in cutslope, similar to the rills measured by UCR but larger, as well
as two nearby landslides. The UCR Report (Annex 1) presented only photos showing close-up
views of the section of the rilling cutslope where UCR made its measurements (inset). Note that
the UCR photo labeled “b” ended just to the right of much larger eroding features in the cutbank,
similar to but larger than those measured by UCR.
46
48 Annex 1
Along this cutslope, multiple landslides are visible in the photo shown in Figure 28, but the
UCR Report focused only on a small set of rills developed at one end of this larger site. The
UCR Report (Annex 1) included only close-up photographs included as insets in Figure 28a,
which show a person taking measurements on the rilling slope. However, the UCR Report
did not include an image such as our Figure 28a or b, which help to put the UCR Site into
proper perspective. The UCR Report did not include images of the larger gully/rill features
just to the right of the one they measured, nor explain why they chose the smaller feature to
measure. A broader look at this site shows the riverside edge of the road is uneven and
contains multiple irregularities, and broad arcuate features, which can be interpreted as scarps
of landslides in the loose, sidecast fill material. These failures are large enough that they
have visibly eroded into the original constructed width of the road. It is troubling that the
UCR Report measured only the minor rills at the far downstream end of this site and did not
address the larger eroding features.
The UCR Report also asserted that, “Fill slopes in the studied area do not feature landslide
erosion” (Annex 1, p.17). The report did not define the “studied area,” but presuming it to be
the first 14 km downstream of Mojon II, within which all the UCR sites were located, this
statement is clearly false. For example, the UCR study site 5 was located at the downstream
end of a large eroding area from 8.0 to 8.7 km downstream of Mojon II (our Severely
Eroding Area 4, see Figure 29 and Appendix A). Beginning less than 100 m upstream from
the UCR study site is a series of large landslide failures in the fillslope, clearly visible in the
satellite image of November 2012 (Figure 29). If the UCR Report makes the statement that
“Fill slopes in the studied area do not feature landslide erosion” because its authors failed to
recognize these massive landslides, adjacent to one of their study sites, that does not inspire
confidence in the report. If the UCR Report defines “the studied area” as only the specific
sites where its authors made observations, then the report is essentially meaningless, because
it reports only on carefully selected, mostly trivial erosion sites while ignoring much more
significant ones nearby within the same reach of river, and just downstream (as explained
below).
47
49Annex 1
Figure 29. Severely Eroding Site 4, 8-8.7 km downstream of Mojon II. UCR Site 5 was
located at the downstream end of this eroding area. a) helicopter photo of October 2012, with
UCR study site indicated. B) satellite image of November 2012. Note arcuate headscarps in
the road fill beginning within 100 m from the UCR study site.
(a)
(b)
The most fundamental weakness of the UCR study is its failure to measure erosion
downstream in the more severely eroding sites. The 15-km study area is limited in
comparison to the 106-km extent of Rte 1856 along the river and did not extend downstream
into the reach with the worst-eroding sites: the 26-km from Río Infiernito to the Río San
Carlos confluence. When we compare the locations of the Annex 1 study sites to the sites
documented to have the most severe erosion problems in our erosion inventory (Appendix
A), it is clear that the sites studied by UCR did not include most of the more severely eroding
sites.
As is evident from the inventory of erosion sites (Appendix A), there are numerous sites
whose erosion rates are far worse than those selected for study by the UCR personnel (Figure
30). One km downstream from the terminus of the UCR Report’s study area are the serious
erosion problems at Severely Eroding Sites 8.1 and 8.2 (at Rkm 16.1, described above and
depicted in Figures 17-20), and another 1 km downstream are located Severely Eroding Sites
9.1-9.8 (Rkm 17.2-19, described above and depicted in Figures 10-16). These and other
more severely eroding sites are illustrated in Figure 31.
48
50 Annex 1
Figure 30. UCR study sites related to landslide, gully, and rill erosion.
49
51Annex 1
Figure 31. Sites not studied by UCR.
I demonstrated the inaccuracies of the assertions that the UCR study sites represented “worst-
case” conditions in my November 2013 Comments on Costa Rican Submissions (pp.3-4). In
his most recent report, Professor Thorne amends his argument somewhat, shifting to a
discussion of representativeness (though he does not acknowledge his mistake). He responds
to my point that Annex 1 ignored the worst eroding sites as follows: “Having viewed the
entire length of the Road, I consider that the sites which were monitored by UCR were
representative of the characteristics of the geology and terrain in the first 41.6 km of the Road
50
52 Annex 1
downstream from Marker II, and on that basis the erosion they monitored provides a
representative indication of the erosion likely to have occurred along the entire length of that
stretch of the Road” (¶8.23). As noted above, a review of the Inventory of Severely Eroding
Sites and the evidence presented in Section 3 of this report shows that the sites measured by
UCR were not representative of the many severely eroding sites along Rte 1856.
Thorne also points to the fact that “the sites monitored by UCR were in a section of the Road
with the greatest number of landslides and gullies,” which he characterizes as another reason
that “the results of UCR’s monitoring can be taken to be representative of erosion along the
first 41.6 km of the Road alongside the River…” (¶8.23). The sites measured in the UCR
Report were not in the section with the greatest number of landslides and gullies. A section
with far more landslides and gullies begins at Rkm 16, approximately 2 km downstream of
the downstream-most UCR site, and 1 km downstream of the end of the functional road.
As shown in Figure 31, the Inventory of Severely Eroding Sites (Appendix A), and Section 3
of this report, there are far worse eroding sites within a few kilometers of the limit of the
UCR study sites. By limiting the study to sites upstream of Río Infiernito, Annex 1 excluded
the many more severely eroding sites downstream.
Professor Thorne further states that, because “[e]rosion and mass wasting rates along the
other 66.4 km of the Road [i.e., downstream of the 41.6 km that was the focus of my 2012
Report] are certainly much lower than they are in the area studied by UCR,” it is “reasonable
to assume first, that the recorded rates of land surface lowering approach ‘worst case’
scenarios for Road-related erosion to date…” (Thorne 2013b, p.73, Vol II:p.219) This
assertion makes no sense. I agree that there are far fewer sites of severe erosion downstream
of Boca San Carlos (although this lower part of the road is not without erosion problems, as
explained below). However, it does not follow that the rates of “land surface lowering”
reported by UCR “approach ‘worst case’ scenarios for Road-related erosion to date.” This is
a non-sequitur. The first clause in Thorne’s sentence does not logically lead to the second.
Moreover, the techniques employed in the preparation of Annex 1 are best suited to stable
sites with small erosion rates, not to sites experiencing extreme erosion and landsliding,
where the entire site is failing or at risk of failure. However, it is precisely the worst sites that
need to be addressed in such a study. These are the sites that will produce the greatest
erosion, not only on a chronic basis now, but especially during intense rains that will
inevitably accompany tropical storms and hurricanes in the region. Having ignored the more
severely eroding sites, Annex 1 presents erosion rates that are too low both for the type of
features reported generally and for eroding areas along Rte 1856.
The authors of the UCR Report also applied a flawed methodology. Rather than directly
measuring all significant erosion features within the areas experiencing significant erosion
and mapping the occurrence of smaller features such as areas of rilling (thereby collecting
real data for the sites of significant erosion), they used a complicated system to take their
measured erosion rate for a feature such as a gully, and then reduced the rate by dividing it
over the area of the entire exposed “slope” in which it occurred. This was effectively an
arbitrary reduction to the rate because the size of the exposed area in which the eroding
feature occurred was unrelated to the eroding feature itself. The authors of the UCR Report
also did not account for other erosional processes occurring over the rest of the slope, which
artificially reduced the resulting erosion rate. This is a principal reason that the erosion rates
reported in Table 6 of Annex 1 are unreasonably low.
51
53Annex 1
For example, UCR measured gullies at two sites, UCR Site 8 with a single gully, and UCR
Site 9 with 16 gullies. At UCR Site 8 (approximately 1 km downstream of Mojon II, and
wi2hin our Severely Eroding Site 1A), the gully was measured to have a surface area of 121
m with an average depth of 1.5 m, which was assumed to have been eroded over a 6-month
period. Consequently, the total annual lowering rate was 3 m. However, UCR then divided
the volume of sediment removed from this2gully by the entire area of bare, exposed slope at
this site, which was stated to be 3,080 m , and reported the resulting, very small number as
“average” gully erosion rate. However, this is not the gully erosion rate. The rest of the bare,
exposed slope was prone to surface erosion, and so either surface erosion over this large area
should be estimated from field evidence or a reasonable rate should be applied from the
literature. The total erosion from the site would be the erosion measured in the gully (without
dividing it over the entire site area) plus the surface erosion estimated/measured over the rest
of the exposed slope.
Nor is it proper to divide the volume of gully erosion by the entire area of a given site, since
the rest of this exposed area is subject to sheet erosion, which as acknowledged in Annex 1, is
a different process. The gully erosion rate should be left intact, and a sheet erosion rate
should be applied to the rest of the site, where sheet erosion would be the dominant process.
Finally, there is no scientific justification for applying the depths measured in small gullies to
large gullies. Erosion rates for each feature should be independently measured, rather than
extrapolated from what is an absurdly small sample of unrepresentative sites.
Mende & Astorga Low Erosion Estimates for Slopes
Unsupported Erosion Rates
In Annex 6 to the Counter-Memorial, Mende and Astorga claim to have applied the erosion
rates described in the UCR Report to the areas of exposed slope they measured in their field
work. Mende and Astorga state their method as follows:
“Applying the data on erosion depths and rates of land surface lowering due to
sheet, rill, landslide and gully erosion reported in UCR (2013), by Oreamuno
Vega, M. Eng. and Roberto Villalobos Herrara at the University of Costa
Rica, we estimated the sediment yields from all the cut and fill slopes that
exist along the border road between Mojon II and Delta Costa Rica.”
(Annex 6, p.1)
In Annex 6, Table 7, Mende and Astorga present their erosion rates. These differ
significantly from the rates “recommended” and presented in Table 6 in the UCR report
(Annex 1). Comparison of the UCR rates with those used by Mende and Astorga (Table A)
shows that Mende and Astorga used higher rates, from 2.6 times higher up to 42 times higher.
52
54 Annex 1
Table A. Comparison of erosion rates recommended by UCR Report (Annex 1, Table 6) with
rates used by Mende and Astorga (Annex 6, Table 7).
Cut or Eroding UCR Study Mende and Astorga+ Difference
Fill Slope Feature Rate* (m/y) Rate (m/y)
Cutslope Sheet erosion 0.095 0.095 The same
Cutslope Rills 0.06 0.17 2.8 times larger
Cutslope Gullies 0.005 0.21 42 times larger
Cutslope Landslides 0.19 0.5 2.63 times larger
Fillslope Sheet erosion NR 0.24 No UCR rate reported
Fillslope Rills NR 0.24 No UCR rate reported
Fillslope Gullies 0.20 0.75 3.75 times larger
Fillslope Landslides NR 1.48 No UCR rate reported
* Annex 1, Table 6 column titled, “Average2rate of land surface lowering (m/yr)”
+ Annex 6, Table 7 column titled, “Erosion of 1 mar (m)”
In an evident attempt to explain the differences, after stating “the main findings of the [UCR]
report are summarized in Table 7,” Mende and Astorga (p.6) state, “Nevertheless some
clarifications are necessary.” This statement is followed by an attempt to explain why they
substituted other rates for some of the processes, but does not explain other substitutions.
For example, for sheet and rill erosion on fill slopes, Mende and Astorga used the gully
erosion rates recommended by UCR, but then increased them by a 20% “margin of safety.”
They present no justification for taking the rates measured for gullying and using them for
sheet erosion. Nor do they justify adding a 20% “margin of safety.” How was this so-called
“margin of safety” determined? If a “margin of safety” is needed for the estimate of sheet
erosion, why is it not needed for other processes for which rates are estimated? This appears
simply to be a factor arbitrarily applied to a number that itself is arbitrary in its application to
sheet erosion.
Similarly, for gully erosion on fills, Mende and Astorga used a rate of 0.75 m. They did not
explain why this rate was chosen, which is much higher than the 0.20 m/yr rate
“recommended” in the UCR Report (Annex 1, p.18).
Mende and Astorga (Annex 6) used raw rates of landslide erosion reported in the UCR
Report on a cut slope as their rate of landslide erosion for fill slopes, “because these are more
unstable than cut slopes.” Again, Mende and Astorga’s choice of erosion rate is arbitrary. It
was not based in any systematic way on the rates recommended by the UCR study, nor on
rates reported in the scientific literature. In short, Mende and Astorga do not present a
coherent scientific justification for their seemingly random selection of rates to use in
different contexts.
While Mende and Astorga used rates that were greater than the rates recommended by the
UCR report, they then applied them to areas that were smaller than the true areas of exposed
slopes at the eroding sites, as documented below. Thus their approach was not truly
“conservative” in terms of developing an erosion estimate that would be at least as large as
the true erosion.
The units presented in Table 7 of Annex 6 are not sensible. The third column is titled,
2
“Erosion of 1 m per Year (m)” [sic], which makes no sense. The caption refers to these as
“average erosion rate per square meter.” However, these should be reported simply as depth
53
55Annex 1
of erosion (m). There is no “per square meter” involved. It is properly expressed simply as a
depth of erosion per year (m/yr), which can be multiplied directly by the area (m 2) occupied
3
by the features to yield a volume (m ) of erosion. For example, an erosion rate of 0.5 m/yr
for a feature would be multiplied directly by the area of that feature (say 100 m2) to yield, in
this illustration, 50 m total erosion.
Under-Reporting of Eroding Site Areas
In Appendix A to Annex 6, Mende and Astorga list (but do not provide coordinates for)
individual “slopes” that were exposed, with their areas, and identifies them as “cut” or “fill.”
The approximate locations are shown on small-scale maps presented on pp.381-397. The
presentation is confusing and difficult to follow.
To get areas of the bare slopes they visited in the field, Mende and Astorga stated, “Slope
heights were estimated visually in the field so that data collection could be completed within
a reasonable time span” (Annex 6, p.4, Vol.II:375, emphasis mine). Thus, rather than
measure the actual dimensions of the eroding features, as would be expected in a scientific
study, they “estimated visually,” justifying this short cut because they did not have enough
time. This was an opportunity lost, because basic surveying equipment such as a total station,
auto level, and/or laser rangefinder could have been used to provide a more accurate
measurement of slope heights. Measurements would have been much preferable to visual
estimates to avoid the unreliability of the latter.
Mende and Astorga did not adequately explain how they used these estimated slope heights
to calculate their “slope” areas, as would be expected in a proper scientific study. However,
from inspection of their database, it appears that they multiplied their estimated average slope
height by the length of the feature (e.g., cutslope, fillslope) as measured in GIS, presumably
from GPS readings in the field. If slopes were vertical, this method would theoretically be as
accurate as the visually-estimated heights used. However, although many cutslopes are
oversteepened (and thus inherently unstable), slopes are not vertical, and the less vertical they
are, the more this method underestimates actual slope areas. Fill slopes especially tend to
have a much lower angle, as loose fill cannot support steep slopes. Thus, to the extent they
assumed vertical slopes and failed to account for the horizontal components of the slope
when estimating areas (which is particularly important in measuring less steep and highly
erodible fill slopes), Mende and Astorga underestimated slope areas. To illustrate, if a fill
slope has a 3:1 slope (i.e., slope of 33%), the real area would be twice that calculated via the
method that I infer Mende and Astorga used. The result is a gross underestimate of true
areas, and because these underestimated areas are multiplied the erosion rates discussed
above, the inaccurately low areas results in inaccurately low total erosion calculations.
The magnitude of the potential error from these inappropriate field methods can be assessed
by comparing the areas presented in Appendix A with actual conditions on the ground, as
measured from satellite imagery in GIS. When the areas measured from the imagery in GIS
are compared to the areas of eroding sites provided in Appendix A to Annex 6, significant
discrepancies emerge. Table B presents four comparisons between the field estimates of slope
areas (used to calculate erosion rates) and areas actually mapped from aerial imagery. The
slope areas based on visual estimates in the field range from less than 10 percent to
approximately 60 percent of the areas measured in GIS from aerial imagery.
54
56 Annex 1
Table B. Example Comparisons Between Areas Reported by in Appendix A of Annex 6 and
actual areas measured from satellite imagery using GIS.
Area reported by Mende
& Astorga from field Area measured in
Slope ID GIS from satellite
estimates (Appendi2 A, imagery (m )
Annex 6) (m )
T-066b 1574 4373
T-064b 269 2831
T-057a 532 2495
T-043 4680 7723
The explanation for these significant discrepancies is at least partially attributable to the
method used in the field (multiplying the visual estimated slope heights by feature length),
but the discrepancies seem to be too large to have resulted from this problem alone. The
reader should bear in mind that under-reporting “slope” areas results in the under-calculation
of total erosion.
The degree to which Mende and Astorga under-reported the areas of individual eroding areas
in Annex 6 is also indicated by comparing the sum of their areas for individual sites with the
total area disturbed by the road as shown on their maps. The maps presented in Annex 5 and
6 show an area in red labeled as “areas affected by road construction.” The digital files
submitted in response to a request from Nicaragua included a GIS “shape file” showing the
outline of this area, as a single, large polygon. The area of this polygon is 3,502,180 m .
Divided by the 108-km road length, this yields an average width of road-impacted area of
approximately 30 m, which is plausible. If we subtract from this total the area of a 10 m wide
road (108 km x 10 m = 1,080,000 m ), that would leave 2,422,183 m affected by the road
outside the roadbed itself, which would include the cut and fill slopes, quarries, and other
areas disturbed by road construction.
Note that these are all numbers provided by the Costa Rican government employees and
2
consultants: 3,502,180 m is the area mapped by Mende and Astorga as having been
disturbed by the road construction (from the GIS map files provided), and the 10 m road
width is the “average road bed width” reported by ICE (2013, Annex 4, p.29), and the road
length of 108 km is reported at various points in Costa Rican documents.
How does the area affected by the road outside of the road itself compare to the total area of
exposed slopes obtained by summing the individual “slope” areas reported in Annex 6?
According to Appendix A of Annex 6, the total area of “slopes” affected by road construction
is only 124,381 m (see bottom of 5 column on the last page of Appendix A of Annex 6,
p.408 of Vol.II of the Costa Rica Counter Memorial). This is only 5% of the area obtained
by subtracting the area of the road from the total area disturbed mapped by Mende and
Astorga.
55
57Annex 1
Thus, examining individual sites (e.g., Severely Eroding Site 9) documents that the “slope”
areas visually estimated by Mende and Astorga were much smaller than would be indicated
by objectively measuring the areas from satellite imagery. At a larger scale, the sum of these
individually under-estimated areas is only 5 percent of the area mapped by Mende and
Astorga as affected by the road (outside the road footprint itself) and which would thus be
eroding. These are enormous discrepancies. Clearly, there are serious problems with the
numbers presented by Costa Rica in these documents.
Underestimated Erosion from Slopes
The result of these problems in Mende and Astorga’s approach is an underestimated total
yield for slopes. For example, for Severely Eroding Site 9.5, Annex 6 reports a “worst case”
erosion rate of 372 m /yr, which is said to include sheet erosion, rill erosion, gully, and
landslide erosion. However, erosion for the failed fill alone was at least 2,860 m between
October 2012 – December 2013, a number that does not include the additional erosion from
sheet, rill, gully, and landslides that is evident in the sequential imagery. Hagans and Weaver
(2014) conservatively estimate such additional erosion at an additional 1,125 m per year at
Severely Eroding Site 9.5.
For Severely Eroding Site 9.6, Mende and Astorga reported a “worst case” erosion rate of
3
662 m /yr, including sheet, rill, gully, and landslide erosion. However, as is clear from the
aerial imagery, the complex of three adjacent gullies has produced far more sediment than
this, despite the relatively modest rainfall in the preceding years. Based on analysis of our
repeat oblique aerial photographs (see Section 3 and Appendix A for details), our estima3e
from measurements of area and estimates of depths of these gullies alone is 6,600 m – nearly
10 times Mende and Astorga’s “worst case” number, much of this having been eroded
between October 2012 and December 2013. Thus, Mende and Astorga’s estimate is only
10% of the actual sediment yield from the gullies alone. According to Hagans and Weaver
(2014), when other surface, rill, gully, and landslide erosion are accounted for on the other
2 3
4,845 m of bare soil at the site, the total erosion rate is likely well over 8,000 m /yr for
Severely Eroding Site 9.6.
The degree to which Mende and Astorga systematically understated erosion rates in Annex 6
is also reflected in the numbers presented by Mende et al. in Annex 5, which often contradict
the “‘worst case’ scenario” rates presented in Annex 6. For example, our Severely Eroding
Site 9.4 (Rkm 18) is designated as slope T-68 in Annex 6, which lists a total of 456 m of 3
erosion per year, or approximately 762 tons per year (using a conversion factor of 1.67). This
is contradicted by the “Maximum Sediment Production” for this site of 2,250 tons (or
approximately 1,347 m ) per year stated in Annex 5 (p.43). Our Severely Eroding Site 9.6,
3
designated as slope T-72 in Annex and assigned a “worst-case” annual erosion rate of 662 m
or 1,106 tons in Annex 6, is stated to have a “maximum sediment production” of 4,500 tons,
or 2,695 m in Annex 5 (p.44). Thus, the “maximum sediment production” for these sites
reported by Mende et al. in Annex 5 are three to four times higher than the “worst-case” rates
reported by Mende and Astorga in Annex 6.
The actual worst-case scenario for Severely Eroding Site 9.6 is complete failure of the fill
prism crossing. In light of the fact that the stream crossings 100 and 200 m upstream
(Severely Eroding Sites 9.5 and 9.4, respectively) both failed between October 2012 and
December 2013, and in light of the fact that water is likely ponding behind the fill prism at
Site 9.6 (as we could see was the case at Site 9.4 in the May 2014 photograph), complete
failure of the fill prism at Site 9.6 is a real possibility. If this were to occur, the volume of
56
58 Annex 1
3
eroded material would be approximately 37,000 m , (i.e., the original fill prism volume of
44,000 m 3less the 6,600 m already eroded). This volume is more than Mende and Astorga’s
3
(2013) “worst-case” estimate for the entirety of Rte 1856 (36,715 m ).
These are not the only sites where Mende and Astorga’s (2013, Annex 6) under-reported
dimensions of features and resulting erosion rates. Their numbers for Eroding Sites 8.1, 8.2
and 9.4, other sites where satellite and aerial imagery are well suited to making independent
measurements, are also under-reported. They also did not include the stream crossing fill
washout at Rkm 20.3 in their yield calculation at all, as it was on flat land and not on a
“slope.”
In sum, there are significant inaccuracies in the numbers presented by Mende and Astorga in
Annex 6. These inaccuracies undermine their report and render invalid its conclusions.
Summary
In sum, in addition to ignoring the worst eroding sites, the UCR Report divided the volume of
eroding features by the entire area of the slopes on which they occurred (using exaggerated
area figures), producing artificially lowered numbers for “average” erosion rates. Mende and
Astorga under-reported the site areas and therefore erosion totals. Mende and Astorga
claimed to be using rates from the UCR Report, but in reality they arbitrarily substituted
different rates, without providing coherent explanations or citations to support them.
It is instructive to contrast these Costa Rican documents with a study of landslide and surface
erosion from a road in Yunnan, China, written by Roy Sidle, Takahisa Furuichi, and
Yasuyuki Kono. The paper, Unprecedented rates of landslide and surface erosion along a
newly constructed road in Yunnan, China (Sidle et al. 2011), which is provided as Appendix
G, reports on field measurements of surface and landslide erosion conducted along a 4-year
old road in the headwaters of the Mekong River. It is clearly organized, simply written,
direct in its presentation, and easy for the reader to follow their method and understand their
results.
Unlike Mende and Astorga (Annex 6), Sidle et al. made hundreds of measurements of soil
erosion from direct evidence, and directly measured the dimensions of landslides in road fills
and cutslopes, using surveying tools (e.g., tapes, range finders, and field mapping). They
measured features in the field; they did not “visually estimate” slope heights. Unlike the
UCR Report, Sidle et al. did not select two individual features of each type to measure. For
their 23.5-km section of road studied, for each of three categories of erosion intensity, they
measured all features within representative 0.75-0.90-km sections of road, which is a more
appropriate sample size than the very limited sampling of unrepresentative, small features
measured used in the UCR Report. Sidle et al. did not take measured rates from single
gullies and divide them over the area of a larger feature. Sidle et al. left their gully erosion
measurements intact, without distortion, and did not apply any arbitrary “factors of safety.”
The rates they reported based on this transparent assessment are much higher than the rates
presented by Costa Rica’s experts.
57
59Annex 1
Sources of Erosion Ignored in Costa Rica’s Estimate
Costa Rica’s estimate of erosion from Rte 1856 ignores important factors, such as sediment
from stream crossings that are not included in mapped “slopes.” (An example is the stream
crossing at Rkm 20.3, which blew out over the past year, building a new delta in the river.)
Another important oversight is erosional processes on the roadbed itself besides sheet
erosion. The assumption that the roadbed will remain stable is contradicted by multiple
locations along Rte 1856 where the roadbed is eroding in landslides or massive gullies. The
Costa Rican estimate also ignores the contribution from access roads built as part of the
border road project, estimated at 332 – 440 km (depending on the Costa Rican source).
These extensive access roads all drain to tributaries that, in turn, transport road-increased
sediment loads to the Río San Juan. As detailed earlier in this report, the road is not finished,
with some large gaps remaining. Resuming construction would lead to further erosion,
especially if the route is not reconsidered, and unless completely different construction
practices from those used to date along Rte 1856 are implemented.
Nicaragua’s Erosion Estimate
My 2012 Report presented an estimate for erosion from Rte 1856 based on one overflight,
inspections from the river, and analysis of satellite imagery from 2009 (pre-road
construction) and 2012 (post-road construction), the second of which was compromised by
cloud cover. As stated in our report, the estimate was based on total areas of various features,
multiplied by rates estimated from the literature and our observations of large gullies forming
on prominent features visible from the river, such as stream crossing fills (Kondolf et al.
2012: 3-4, 7).
In particular, the erosion estimated we provided related to “the area of steep road cuts and fill
for the 41-km section of road upstream of the Río San Carlos confluence. From this, we
subtracted (in GIS) the 7-m wide roadbed itself as less likely to fail, and then conservatively
estimated that landslide and gully erosion is occurring on 40-50% of the steep disturbed
land.” (Kondolf et al. 2012: 46) In this limited portion of the upriver stretch, we applied a
rate of 1 m, calculating “a total of 218,400 to 273,000 m y of sediment eroded by mass
wasting and gullying.” We then assumed a 40% transport rate to the Río San Juan,3resulting
in an input estimate from landsliding and gully erosion of 87,000-109,000 m /yr.We also
estimated “surface erosion rates for the upstream 41 km of Route 1856, upstream of Río San
Carlos,” concluding that surface erosion in that stretch is producing 17,800-21,300 m /yr,
3
with 40% of that (7,120-8,520 m /yr) reaching the Río San Juan (Kondolf et al. 2012: 45). 3
Thus, we estimated that the upper 41 km of Rte 1856 was contributing 94,120-117,520 m /yr.
My 2012 report concentrated on the river upstream of Boca San Carlos because it has the
steepest topography and most erosion. My 2012 report nowhere implied that the higher
erosion rates we estimated for the upper 41 km of the road would apply to the entire road
adjacent to the 108 km of river down to the Delta Colorado. The report was very clear that
the estimated rates applied only to the upper 41 km.
The fact that my 2012 Report focused on erosion from the steep upper stretch of Rte 1856 did
not suggest that there are no impacts from the road in the 65 km downstream of Boca San
Carlos. The widened road will lead to more runoff and surface erosion even in flat sections,
and there will likely be more crossing failures such as occurred at Rkm 20.3. There are steep
sections downstream of Boca San Carlos that have suffered more severe erosion, as
documented in the erosion inventory (Appendix A); there are vulnerable or already-failing
58
60 Annex 1
stream crossings; and the large extent of bare road surface is subject to sheet erosion. The
EDA also identifies “several sites with steep slopes and eroded retention walls” (EDA, p.69).
It is incorrect for Professor Thorne to state that there is “nothing to say” about erosion for
these downstream reaches (Thorne, ¶5.16), even if rates downstream are lower overall than
erosion rates from the steeper reaches upstream.
My 2012 Report mentioned that we had observed sediment delivery from Rte 1856 to the Río
San Juan at 54 sites during a helicopter overflight and reconnaissance by riverboat on our site
visit of October 2012. This point was made to demonstrate that sediment was entering the
Río San Juan from Rte 1856 at multiple points. It did not suggest this was a comprehensive
list of such points of sediment delivery to the Río San Juan, or that they are the most
important ones. For instance, our view from the river was obscured in many places making it
difficult to evaluate erosion from many sites. Costa Rica requested coordinates for these
sites, which were supplied. Mende et al. present a critique of these sites, suggesting that 7 of
the sites plot in Nicaragua rather than on the south bank of the river, implying that this
undermined our analysis. As would be obvious to a professional scientist, as some of the
points were identified from the helicopter over Nicaraguan territory, the GPS coordinates
recorded would reflect the observer’s location rather than the observed point of sediment
delivery.
Building upon new data available, our analysis of the 17 inventoried sites of Severe Erosion,
and incorporating erosion rates and areas disturbed by road construction presented in Costa
Rican reports, we develop a new estimate for the total sediment delivery to the Río San Juan,
accounting for additional information, as follows. In the absence of better field
measurements conducted systematically over a broader area, and encompassing all larger
eroding sites, any exercise in developing estimates of erosion and sediment delivery from Rte
1856 to the Río San Juan will be an estimate based largely on assumptions. One of the most
important aspects of any such estimate is that its components and assumptions be clearly
stated so that their validity and uncertainty can be evaluated.
Estimate of Sediment Eroded from Rte 1856 and Reaching the Río San Juan
We first measured the areas of the severely eroding sites (SESs), and then subtracted the area
occupied by a 10-m-wide roadbed in those stretches on the assumption that gully and
landslide erosion occurs mostly on the exposed areas adjacent to the road (i.e., the cut and fill
slopes). This is conservative, given that the roadbed itself is failing from landslide and gully
erosion in many places, such as Severely Eroding Sites 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14, as
documented in Appendix A.
We then assumed that 40% of the non-road area was experiencing active rill, gully, and/or
landslide erosion. This percentage of area with such active erosional processes is consistent
with assumptions we made in 2012, and is conservative based on the erosion documented
from repeated oblique helicopter photography and satellite imagery, which can detect only
the most visible erosion. For example, at Severely Eroding Site 8.1 (Figure 17), the oblique
aerial photo of October 2012 shows a single large landslide in the loose fill slope, and rills
and gullies developed on bare slopes over the entire site. By the December 2013 satellite
imagery, one very large gully and many smaller gullies are visible. In the oblique aerial view
of May 2014, rills and gullies are visible on the cut bank in the rear, while a set of deep
gullies is visible in the left edge of the photo. Under the letter “A” a large active gully has
downcut, undermining the banks of the gully, such that the loose sediment is of the banks is
falling into the gully proper. To the right of gully “A” there is a broad shallow landslide with
59
61Annex 1
arcuate scarp. Thus, the assumption that a mixture of rills, gullies, and landslides affect at
least 40% of this site is borne out by analysis of the imagery.
To this 40% area, we applied a generalized, average erosion rate of 0.558 m for rill, gully and
landslide erosion, based on a simple average of the average erosion rat8s for these processes
used by Mende and Astorga ((0.205 + 0.48 + 0.99)/3 = 0.558 m/y). This rate is lower than
the 1 m/yr rate we used in 2012, and is also conservative given the extent and dimensions of
the landslide features and gullies and landslides visible in the imagery. However, only some
of these eroding features are detectable from the remote imagery. For a more complete
inventory of ongoing erosion, detailed measurements should be made on the ground by
qualified, independent scientists. These should be true measurements, not visual estimates as
made by Mende and Astorga, who did not make actual measurements “so that data collection
could be completed within a reasonable time span,” as reported in Annex 6.
For the remaining 60% of SES areas (less the 10 m roadbed), for which we assumed no gully
and landslide erosion, we applied surface erosion rates for hillslopes adjacent to roads
ranging from 0.03-0.06 m/yr, drawn from scientific literature on tropical roads, reporting
rates ranging from 0.025 – 0.079 m/yr (DeNoni et al 1987, Hansen et al 19897, Harden 1993,
Thomas and Savage 1991).
For the roadbed itself, we applied surface erosion lowering rates from 0.01-0.02 m/yr, drawn
from relevant published studies ranging from 0.006-0.023 m/yr (Dunne 1979, Ziegler et al.
2000, MacDonald et al. 2001, Sidle et al. 2004, Ramos-Scharron and MacDonald 2005).
Landslide and gully erosion on the 40% of SES areas sums to 136,515 m 3. To this we added
surface erosion from the other 60% of the SES areas. Even though we know that the 40%
affected by landslide and gully erosion is still experiencing the impact of raindrops and
consequently surface erosion, to develop a conservative number we did not include surface
erosion for this area, only the 60% area not inclu2ed in the 40% area to which we applied the
landslide/gully rate. To this area of 367,000 m we applied 0.03 to 0.06 m/yr, which
produces 11,000-22,000 m 3of surface erosion. Adding these two elements yields a total of
3
147,500 to 158,500 m of total erosion from the SES sites only. Bear in mind that these are
only the sites with erosion features readily visible from space, not a comprehensive inventory
of erosion.
Turning to the entire length of the roadbed itself from Mojon II downstream, using the stated
length of 108 km (which assumes the entire road was built, actually not true), and assuming
2
the roadbed is 10-m wide, this yields an area of 1,080,000 m . Applying our range of surface
erosion rates drawn from the literature for tropical roads, 0.01-0.02 m/yr, we calculate 10,800
to 21,600 m 3 surface erosion from the length of the road. Note that the 0.01 m/yr rate is only
10 percent of the 0.095 m/yr rate adopted by ICE (Annex 4, p.29) from sediment trap
measurements by UCR, reported in Annex 1.
There will be additional erosion from disturbed areas adjacent to the road outside of the 10-
m-wide roadbed itself, and outside of the SES areas calculated above. This additional erosion
could be estimated using the hillslope surface erosion rates from the literature. The question
8 In applying the rates specified by Mende and Astorga (Annex 6) we do not imply that these are correct.
However, using these rates should allow us to develop estimates for which some of the assumptions are
consistent with those developed by Costa Rica’s experts, thereby facilitating comparison between the two
estimates, and helping us to identify the source of differences between the estimates.
60
62 Annex 1
of the area to use is complicated because the areas mapped as having been disturbed by the
road, and thus presumably areas vulnerable to surface erosion, are so large. As noted above,
the red-colored area ‘affected’ by road construction shown in the maps in Annex 6 and
appearing as a polygon in the GIS files provided by Costa Rica, is a total of 3,502,180 m .
Divided by 108 km, this is an average width of road-impacted area of approximately 30 m. If
we take only the area outside the 10-m wide road, that would average about 20-m width of
adjacent slopes affected. Excluding the 17.6 km already included in the SES area calculation,
we can roughly estimate the remaining area outside the road as being 108-17.6 = 90.4 km
2
(90,400 m) x 20 m = 1,808,000 m . Applying a value for surface lowering for hillslopes
adjacent to roads of 0.03-0.06 m/yr, this would yield 54,240-108,480 m /yr; applying values
for road surface lowering of 0.01-0.02 m/yr, this would yield 18,000-36,000 m 3/yr.
Adding the components of Rte 1856 erosion
3
SES area landslide/gully erosion (on 40% SES areas) = 136,515 m /yr
SES area surface erosion (on remaining 60% SES areas) = 11,000-22,000 m 3/yr
Roadbed itself, 10-m-wide = 10,800 - 21,600 m /yr
Area outside SES areas and outside roadbed
(using lower road surface erosion rates) = 18,000-36,000 m /yr3
3
Total erosion from Rte 1856 is thus calculated at from 176,000 to 216,000 m /yr.
Sediment Delivery to Río San Juan
How much of this sediment will be delivered to the Río San Juan? The concept of sediment
delivery is that of the sediment eroded from an upland site, not all will necessarily arrive at
the river, because some will deposit along the way. Frequently when erosion is measured at
upland sites, only a portion of this erosion actually is delivered to the river. From our
observations of sediment going directly into the Río San Juan from failures along Rte 1856,
and from the relative lack of sediment storage sites in between the washed-out road crossings,
failed fill slopes, and other erosional features and the river itself, it is clear that sediment
delivery ratios from Rte 1856 to the Río San Juan are high, much higher than the 40% we
conservatively estimated in our 2012 report.
ICE used a higher rate of 60%, which is probably still an underestimate for delivery of
sediment from eroding sites near the river, such as the sediment that built the deltas into the
river below SES sites 9.4, 9.5, and 9.6, or the sediment that washed out of the stream crossing
at Rkm 20.3, where sediment delivery is probably 80% or greater (given the lack of large
deposits of sediment visible between the road and the river).
Assuming a conservative sediment delivery ratio of 60%, the total sediment delivery to the
Río San Juan would range from 106,000 and 130,000 m /yr. 3
Additional Sediment from Access Roads
In additional to Rte 1856 itself, Costa Rica constructed extensive access roads connecting Rte
1856 with points south. The total length of these access roads newly constructed or
“improved” is reported as 332 km to 440 km (Annexes 31 and 34 of Nicaragua Memorial).
In our 2012 report, we did not include any estimate of sediment generated by the access
roads, but focused only on the border road Rte 1856 itself (and focused primarily on the
section along the 41.6-km of river upstream of Boca San Carlos). However, all these access
roads drain to streams and rivers that eventually drain northward into the Río San Juan. Thus
61
63Annex 1
erosional impacts of these access roads ultimately contributes sediment to the Río San Juan.
To develop a rough estimate of the amount of sediment likely generated by the access roads,
we can multiply the length by an average impact width. For the Río San Juan, the average
impact width was about 30 m (calculated by dividing the total area disturbed by road
construction reported by Mende and Astorga (2013) by the total road length of 108 km.
Assuming the disturbance from the access roads also averages 30 m wide (as per the area
disturbed for Rte 1856 itself according to the Mende and Astorga GIS file), and that there are
332 km of newly bui2t or repaired access roads, the total area disturbed would be 332,000 x
30 = 9,960,000 m . Applying road-bed surface erosion rates derived from the literature
(0.01-0.02 m/y), this would imply 99,600 – 199,200 m 3of new erosion from the access roads.
Because these roads extend away from the Río San Juan, their sediment delivery ratio will be
much lower than for Rte 1856, which is immediately adjacent to the river. The true sediment
delivery ratio is probably around 30% (based on published rates), but assuming a very
minimal sediment delivery ratio of 10%, this would imply delivery of 9,960 to 19,920 m /yr 3
from the access roads to the Río San Juan.
Total Load Calculation
Adding the sediment delivery from the access roads to the sediment generated directly from
the road yields total sediment to the river. To the sediment delivered from Rte 1856 to the
river, we 3dd additional sediment from the extensive (but m3re distant) access roads, 9,960 –
19,920 m /yr, resulting in a range of 116,000-150,000 m of total sediment reaching the Río
San Juan from Rte 1856 and its access roads.
Checking Results with A Rough Calculation Using Costa Rica’s Areas and Rate
It can be useful to step back and look at larger, more general numbers, which while
imprecise, can provide “order-of-magnitude” rates to help assess what are reasonable values.
A generalized estimate of erosion for the entire road and its disturbed area can be obtained by
taking the total area disturbed by road construction as mapped by Mende and Astorga (2013),
which is readily discerned from the GIS layer provided in digital form in response to
Nicaragua’s request for additional data. Mende and Astorga mapped (in red) the area they
identified on aerial imagery as having been affected by road construction, which would
include the road itself and the adjacent cut and fill slopes, stream crossing fills, quarries, and
pioneered but abandoned road segments. (This red area affected by the road is shown in
maps presented in Annex 5 and 6.) The total area of this polygon (read directly from the
large GIS layer) is 3,502,180 m . This includes the roadbed and adjacent slopes, and when
divided by the length of 108 km along the river, reflects an average width of disturbance for
the road of just over 30 m.
Keeping the calculation transparently simple, we can multiple the total area disturbed by road
2
construction, 3,502,180 m , by an erosion rate. Multiplying the total area by the UCR 3
measured rates of surface erosion of 0.095 m/yr, yields a total erosion rate 332,700 m /yr for
the entire length of Rte 1856. Using the sediment delivery ratio specified by ICE (2013) of
3
60%, total sediment reaching the Río San Juan would be 199,620 m /yr.
Thus, a broad, general calculation using Costa Rican values of mapped area, erosion rate, and
sediment delivery ratio, indicates that about 200,000 m 3/yr of sediment reaches the Río San
Juan, a figure much closer to my estimate than to the small number put forward by ICE and
Costa Rica’s consultants.
62
64 Annex 1
8. The Road’s Contribution of Sediment to the River is Neither Natural Nor Beneficial.
Costa Rica claims that the current sediment load of the Río San Juan is natural, but as
discussed by Dr. Edmund Andrews in his report An Evaluation of the Methods, Calculations,
and Conclusions Provided by Costa Rica Regarding the Yield and Transport of Sediment in
the Río San Juan Basin (July 2014), this is clearly not true because of the elevated erosion
and sediment load from the river’s tributaries in Costa Rica.
The Counter-Memorial states that “sediment is not a pollutant. Rather, the contribution of
sediment to a river such as the San Juan is a natural process, and one which is essential to the
life of the River. This process is commonly regarded as beneficial.” (Counter-Memorial of
Costa Rica, ¶3.4.) On the last point, the beneficial nature of sediment contributions, the
Counter-Memorial cites an article I authored in 1997, which is provided as Annex 81 to the
Counter-Memorial.
These statements are not correct. While rivers have a natural sediment load, and eliminating
this natural sediment load by trapping sediment in an upstream dam can have impacts on the
downstream channel (the subject of my 1997 article), it is a different matter when sediment
loads are increased as a result of anthropogenic activities. In such cases, sediment is treated
as pollution by environmental regulators and international organizations. This is because
unnatural sediment contributions to bodies of water can be harmful to water quality, aquatic
life, and other receptors.
The contribution of sediment from Rte 1856 to the Río San Juan is not a natural process,
because nature did not expose the soils to the elements or move them into loose fill piles and
stream crossings, where they are now susceptible to erosion and mass wasting.
It may be useful to distinguish between suspended sediments, which are sediment particles
held aloft in the water column by turbulence (sand and finer particles), and coarser bedload
sediment, which moves along the river bed by rolling, bouncing, and sliding (gravel and
sand). Suspended sediment concentration can be expressed as total suspended solids (TSS),
usually determined from the concentration of sediment in a small subsample from a river, or a
suspended sediment concentration (SSC), which is determined by measuring all the
suspended sediment collected from samples across a river, each sample drawing
proportionally from all depths of the water column for a true, representative sample (Gray et
al. 2000).
Increased delivery of coarse sediment (gravel, sand) to rivers can cause aggradation of the
river channel (a topic discussed in more detail in Section 11, below) and burial of important
aquatic habitats (USDA Forest Service 1999, Ziemer and Lisle 1992, Madej and Ozaki 2009).
Increased fine sediment (clay, silt, sand) can cause:
reduced exchange of stream and shallow groundwater by clogging gravel and sand
beds;
burial and loss of aquatic vegetation;
increased turbidity, reduced light penetration, and consequently, reduced primary
productivity, which can have effects up the food chain;
loss of periphyton (discussed below) and consequent impact on the food chain;
loss or reduction of macroinvertebrate populations (discussed below);
infiltration of fine sediments into formerly clean gravel substrate needed by aquatic
macroinvertebrates, juvenile fish, and other organisms as habitat;
63
65Annex 1
clogging and damage to gills of fish from high concentrations of suspended sediment;
reduced ability of fish to recover from wounds;
disrupted reproduction in some fish by damaging or smothering eggs and larvae
and/or affecting adult fishes’ reproductive behavior (e.g., visual mate recognition);
impaired ability of certain fish to locate food as a result of decreased visibility; and
alteration of the balance of fish species present in a given location.
(E.g., Wood and Armitage 1997, Yamada and Nakmura 2002, Cederholm et al. 1981, Petts
1984a, Brookes 1986, Van Nieuwenhuyse and Laperriere 1986, Henley et al. 2000, Kemp et
al. 2011).
As I discussed in my prior report, the delivery of large volumes of sediment to rivers has been
documented to cause significant ecological damage. The scientific literature reports effects
from all parts of the globe, including Asia, Europe, Australia, and Latin America, and in a
wide range of climates from northern-latitudes to the tropics.
Thorne suggests that since there are no salmon in the Río San Juan, the experience in the
Pacific Northwest of the US is not relevant. He states that, “Fish and other aquatic organisms
in the Río San Juan do not find high turbidity problematic because they are fully adapted to
it” (p.50), but presents no citations to scientific literature to support his assertion.
There are many species of fish besides salmon that are sensitive to unnaturally high sediment
inputs, as documented in comprehensive reviews by Kemp et al. (2011) and Henley et al.
(2000). What the literature actually demonstrates is that some of the most prevalent fish
known to exist in the Río San Juan (as reported in Procuenca 2004 and the EDA, Annex 10),
such as Cichlids, members of the family Mugiliidae, and Poecilids, are vulnerable to
increases in turbidity and suspended sediment.
Increased turbidity has had important consequences on cichlids, as many use vision to
maintain a feeding territory, obtain a mate, or defend offspring. Some cichlid species change
their behavior depending on turbidity levels (Gray et al. 2012). For example, it is well
documented in the Great Lakes of Africa that turbidity interferes with mate choice, relaxes
sexual selection, and blocks mechanisms of reproductive isolation (Seehausen et al. 1997).
Similar visually mediated speciation events have been documented in Central American
cichlid faunas (Barluenga & Meyer 2004; Geiger et al. 2013). In a non-native cichlid,
Oreochromis niloticus, elevated turbidity levels caused higher concentrations of lysozyme in
blood (a potential indication of stress) (Dominguez et al. 2005). Reduced growth and
survivorship have been documented at comparatively higher turbidity levels (Ardjosoediro &
Ramnarine 2002). Reduced primary productivity (a consequence of higher turbidity levels)
can lead to lower fish yields in ponds with relatively high turbidity (Teichert-Coddington et
al. 1992).
Fishes in the family Mugiliidae typically spawn at sea and carry out longitudinal migrations
into rivers. Different life stages are adapted to different environmental conditions and change
their habitat and dietary requirements as they develop. The proportional abundance adults
and juveniles of mountain mullid Agonostomus monticola in the Costa Rican Térraba River
Basin can be affected by differences in water volume and turbidity levels, with mullids
needing well-oxygenated, flowing waters with low turbidity (Cota Ribeiro & Umaña
Villalobos 2010).
64
66 Annex 1
Poecilids are usually small fishes that typically inhabit nearshore, calm-water habitats among
submerged vegetation. Similar to cichlids, many poecilids utilize visual cues for mating and
feeding, which can be affected by changes in water turbidity (Campos Valera 2013; Heubel
& Schlupp 2006; Hubbs 1999). Many poecilids are visual predators of insects, while others
consume plant material and organic matter. Both can be affected by increased water
turbidity. Increased turbidity can affect insect-eating species by preventing visual detection
of terrestrial or aquatic insects, and changing coloration patterns in some species. Increased
turbidity can affect algae-eating species by suppressing algal growth, which is driven by
penetration of solar energy (i.e., light) to the bottom of rivers, which in turn can be decreased
by increased turbidity in the water column.
Similarly, many species of periphyton and macroinvertebrates are sensitive to sediment (Rios
2014). Indeed, it is the sensitivity of some macroinvertebrates to fine sediment and other
forms of pollution that makes them suitable organisms for assessing water quality (as
described in the EDA) (Bonada et al. 2006, Resh 2008).
Periphyton is the algae and other micro-organisms attached to rocks and other hard substrates
in aquatic environments. Dominated by benthic algae, it is important as part of the base of
the food chain (Allan and Castillo 2007), and because many periphyton species are sensitive
to sediment and other pollutants, periphyton serves as a useful indicator of water quality.
Macroinvertebrates are organisms visible to the naked eye, without a microscope (“macro”)
and without backbones (“invertebrates”). Aquatic macroinvertebrates live on rocks on the
bottoms of rivers and lakes, and are usually dominated by insects (often juvenile stages) as
well as snails, aquatic worms, etc. Benthic macroinvertebrates play important roles in
riverine food webs, as well as in nutrient processing. As described in the EDA, “The
presence of a diverse and abundant fauna of aquatic macro-invertebrates is important for the
river, due to the fact that they provide basic functions to the ecosystem,” namely the
“recycling of organic materials and nutrient cycles” – important for water quality – and their
important place in the food chain, “both for aquatic species such as fish, and for terrestrial
species (birds, bats, amphibians, some reptiles, spiders and other insects.)” (EDA, p.109)
“Aquatic macroinvertebrates are considered to be appropriate bio-indicators of the quality of
water…due to the fact that they are sensitive to the contamination and respond fairly rapidly
to changes in the structure of the community…and can be used to estimate biotic indexes”
(EDA, pp.87-88).
The heavy loads of suspended sediment have a negative effect on algal and macroinvertebrate
communities in the Río San Juan, as evidenced by differences in ecological communities
established on deltas on the north bank, at the mouths of streams draining forest preserve in
Nicaragua, which are not affected by Rte 1856, contrasted with those established on the
south-bank deltas, which are affected by sediment eroded from the road.
As described in the report of Dr. Blanca Rios, Ecological Impacts of Rte 1856 on the San
Juan River (2014), periphyton biomass was roughly twice as high at the undisturbed north-
bank delta sites than at the south-bank sites affected by sediment eroded from the road, with
differences statistically significant. Dr. Rios also found that macroinvertebrates had much
higher species richness and abundance, and importantly, much higher EPT abundance and
richness, on deltas on the north side of the Río San Juan, than on the south-bank deltas
impacted by sediment from the road. EPT refers to the orders Ephemeroptera (mayflies),
65
67Annex 1
Plecoptera (stoneflies), and Trichoptera (caddisflies), which are known to be sensitive to
sediment and other pollutants, and thus are important indicators of water quality.
It is worth noting that Costa Rica included an attempt to study macroinvertebrates in its
“Environmental Diagnostic” report (Annex 10). As explained in the report by Dr. Rios, that
study fell short of international standards. The poorly designed, poorly executed study was
seriously flawed in many respects, and its conclusions are not supported by its own data.
However, the study correctly recognizes the importance of macroinvertebrates and their
utility as bio-indicators (EDA, pp.87-88).
In my report of October 2013, I presented results of an initial study of periphyton and
benthic macroinvertebrates sampled from deltas entering the Río San Juan from both north
and south banks. In commenting on these results, Professor Thorne said, “What we are not
told is whether those sites were on any of the multiple deltas observed at the Nicaraguan side
of the River earlier that month. If they were then it would be fair to compare them” (Annex
9, ¶82). Building upon the results of this initial sampling, Dr. Blanca Rios conducted an
expanded sampling program, with eight sites on each river bank in March-May 2014, whose
results she presents in her report.
Professor Thorne’s unsupported assertion that “Fish and other aquatic organisms in the Río
San Juan do not find high turbidity problematic because they are fully adapted to it” is not
only inconsistent with the literature on the species of fish and macroinvertebrates known to
exist in the San Juan River, but also inconsistent with recent aquatic ecology sampling in the
San Juan River itself.
9. Costa Rica’s Experts Compare the Road’s Contributions to Unreliable Total Load
Figures.
When Professor Thorne says that the contribution of sediment from the Road is insignificant,
he is not comparing that contribution to a figure that accurately represents the sediment load
of the Río San Juan. Various problems in his approach are laid out in the report by Dr.
Andrews.
Professor Thorne adopts the estimate made by ICE (Annex 4) that the total sediment load of
the Río San Juan in 2010-2013, after construction of Rte 1856, was 9,133,000 tons/yr. This
estimate is the sum of estimates of suspended sediment load and bedload. Thus, any error in
either component estimate leads to an erroneous total load estimate.
There are many problems with the total load values presented in the ICE Report, which the
report of Dr. Andrews discusses in detail, including that the estimate rests on data that is
unrepresentative and unreliable. Even if it were based on reliable data, however, the figure
Professor Thorne adopts overestimates the sediment load of the Río San Juan during the time
period in question, because of an error in the bedload calculation.
When estimating bedload, river slope is an important factor. Slope is defined as the drop in
elevation over the distance. The steeper the slope, the greater the energy available to erode
and transport sediment. Using an exaggerated slope when calculating bedload transport
produces a larger bedload transport value. The estimate on which Professor Thorne relies,
from the ICE Report (Annex 4), however, assumes a slope value that is too high. This leads
66
68 Annex 1
to an exaggerated bedload estimate of 2,559,000 tons/yr. As Dr. Andrews explains, when the
exaggerated slope value is corrected (and assuming the other ICE inputs are accurate), the
true bedload is less than 1/7 of Professor Thorne’s estimate. 9 Because bedload is a
component of total sediment load, the error in ICE’s bedload calculation – which Professor
Thorne repeats – leads to a total sediment estimate that is approximately 30% too high. Drs.
Mende and Astorga make the same mistake in Annex 5 to the Counter-Memorial, where they
compare estimates of sediment input from various road-related features to what they assume,
based on the ICE Report, is the River’s sediment load. (p.2) The ICE bedload calculations
form part of the total sediment load against which they compare the contributions of the input
locations I identified. The errors in the bedload calculation mean that they understate the
relative contribution of the Road to the sediment load in the Río San Juan.
One additional point about slope values is relevant here. River slope is defined as the drop in
elevation over the distance. The Río San Juan drops from an elevation of 32.7 m at Lake
Nicaragua to sea level over a distance of approximately 190 km. Thus, its average slope is
32.7 m divided by 190,000 m, or approximately 0.000172.
As discussed above, Professor Thorne relies on bedload calculations that incorporate ICE’s
erroneous slope values. In his Table 1, however, he lists reaches of the river with their drop
and distance, as well as his own calculation of their slopes. He greatly exaggerates the slopes,
asserting that the Río San Juan has a slope of 1 percent or just under in some reaches.
Experienced geomorphologists would recognize 1 percent as an extremely high slope for a
large river. Professor Thorne’s slope values are overstated by factors of about 55 to 58, as
illustrated in Table C. The implications of this error are significant, in that channel slope is a
fundamental variable of rivers, which affects many river process, including bedload transport,
whose calculation can be distorted by use of erroneously large slope values.
Table C. Slopes for Reaches of the Río San Juan, as claimed by Thorne, and corrected values.
Reach* Length* Fall in Thorne’s Correct slope Correct slope Thorne’s
(km) Elevation* Slope* calculation (m/m) error
(m) (m/m) (m/m)
Rio Frio – 52.86 6.5 0.007 6.5/52,860 = 0.000123 56.9 times
Rio Pocosol too high
Rio Pocosol – 52.67 7.7 0.008 7.7/52,670 = 0.000146 54.8 times
Rio San Carlos too high
Rio San Carlos – 39.86 6.9 0.010 6.9/39,860 = 0.000173 57.8 times
Rio Sarapiqui too high
Rio Sarapiqui – 22.04 3.8 0.010 3.8/22,040 = 0.000172 58.1 times
Delta too high
Delta – 32.35 5 0.009 5/32,350 = 0.000154 58.4 times
Caribbean Sea too high
* Reaches, length, fall, and Thorne’s slope taken from Thorne’s Table 1.
9
Dr. Andrews corrected ICE’s estimate of bedload at the Delta Colorado gage. Applying the incorrect slope
value, ICE estimates the bedload to be 2,488,000 tons/yr. Applying a correct slope, Dr. Andrews estimated the
bedload there to be 330,000 tons/yr. The ICE report’s erroneous calculation at the Delta Colorado gage makes
up the bulk of its bedload estimate for the mainstem Río San Juan.
67
69Annex 1
10. The Río San Juan’s High Sediment Load
Thorne asserts that the high levels of sediment in the Río San Juan are natural. This is not
true. The actual natural sediment load of the Río San Juan would have been significantly
smaller prior to extensive deforestation and land use in Costa Rica.
As shown in the report of Dr. Andrews, thethedian natural sediment yield of undisturbed
tropical rain forest is approximately1/50 the amount reported by Professor Thorne for the
Río San Juan. Natural sediment yields of more than 1/20 ththe amount reported by Professor
Thorne are rare. There is some variability in natural yields, but not to the extent that would
approach Professor Thorne’s estimate of the current sediment load of the Río San Juan,
which is much higher than would be expected from a forested landscape in this region. The
explanation is the uncontrolled deforestation and land conversion on highly erodible soils in
the Costa Rican basins of the Rio San Carlos and Rio Sarapiqui.
Dr. Andrews presents the evidence and literature regarding the land use that has resulted in
such an unnaturally elevated load in the Río San Juan. The EDA (Annex 10) also lays out
extensive evidence regarding this widespread deforestation in Costa Rica (e.g., pp.39, 45, 46,
58, 66).
Given that the pre-deforestation sediment yield of the Río San Juan was probably 1/20 to th
th
1/50 of the current yield, the sediment yield from Rte 1856 constitutes a much larger
percentage of the river’s natural sediment load.
11. Morphological Impacts of Rte 1856
Costa Rica argues that sediment eroded from Rte 1856 would amount to the equivalent of a
“single grain of sand” if deposited in the Delta of the Río San Juan. While perhaps a visually
compelling image, this argument is a significant distortion and is fallacious on two important
counts.
Costa Rica cites an amount of sediment eroded from Rte 1856 as though this was the amount
that differed from natural background rates, ignoring the much-larger volume of sediment
eroded from deforested Costa Rican tributaries of the Río San Juan. Deforestation and poor
land use have increased sediment yield from the Costa Rican tributaries 20 to 50 times over
natural background levels (Andrews 2014: Section IV(A)). The combination of both the
road-derived sediment and unnaturally increased sediment yield from these Costa Rican
tributaries is the true difference from natural conditions and is thus the relevant comparison to
make.
Second, the “single grain of sand” image implies that sediment would be spread evenly over
the bed, which would be geomorphically implausible and unrealistic. As sediment is
transported through a river system, some will continue downstream into the coastal zone. Of
the sediment that is deposited in the river channel, most of it will build up (or ‘aggrade’) on
discrete bars, which can occur in the middle of the channel or along the margins, depending
on local hydraulic conditions and other factors.
Another likely place for sediment deposition is in areas of low velocity, such as along the
river bank and where velocities are slowed by islands or other features. As sediments deposit
68
70 Annex 1
(or ‘accrete’) along the edges of islands and/or the river bank, they can fill in the river in
between the island and bank, causing the two features to join as a result of unnaturally-
increased sediment loads.
River deltas are sites of natural sediment deposition, where the slope of the river declines and
rivers splits into two or more ‘distributary’ channels. The delta landform owes itself to
deposition. An increase in the amount of sediment delivered to the head of a delta can cause
one or more distributary channels to clog with sediment, changing the flow split and altering
the morphology of the river.
Along the Río San Juan, another type of delta is visible: These are the deltas that develop
when steeper tributary streams enter the mainstem. Analogous to the slowing of the main
river flow when it enters the sea, the streams slow down as they enter the river, and deposit
their sediments. The coarse sediments (gravel and sand) deposit first, building up the
tributary delta landforms. These deltas occur at the confluences of the small and medium-
sized tributaries, whose flow is sufficient to carry the sediment down the steeply sloping
tributary stream channel, but which deposit their sediment as they enter the main Río San
Juan. (Large tributaries such as the Rio San Carlos and Rio Sarapiqui do not form deltas
because their flows are more comparable to those of the mainstem Río San Juan, and their
sediment loads are much greater. Downstream of Boca San Carlos, the Río San Juan has
more frequent sand bars, islands, and shallow areas.) Along the south bank of the Río San
Juan there are multiple deltas that have built up from the large quantities of sediment eroded
from Rte 1856. Some are pre-existing deltas of natural streams on which road-derived
sediment has deposited, while some are completely new features built of sediment eroded
from the road and now extending into the Río San Juan from the south bank. Deltas of
sediment eroded from the road can be clearly seen in oblique aerial images, such as Figure
10b, which shows the delta built from sediments eroded from a stream crossing fill 18 km
downstream of Mojon II (at SES 9.4).
Examples of deltas built of road-derived sediment are presented in Appendix F. First a
diagram showing in plan view (looking south) and section view (looking upstream) how
deltas form in the mainstem Río San Juan from sediment transported from a source such as
the eroding Rte 1856. Next the delta of SES 9.6 (18.2 km downstream of Mojon II) is
documented through photographs and field measurements of dimensions. When measured on
30 March 2014, this delta was approximately 21 m long (parallel to the river), 15 m wide
(normal to the river), and 2 m above the river water surface. Next is photodocumentation of
the delta for 9.5 (similar dimensions to 9.6). The delta of SES 9.4 is similar in form to the
other two, but more elongate in shape, being 25 m long, 10 m wide, and 1.8 m high above the
current water surface. SES 8.1 and 8.2 also produced deltas, but smaller. At SES 9.7,
another, less elongated delta formed, with dimensions of 25 m long, 21 m long, and 1.7 m
high. Also near SES 9.7 is an additional delta, with dimensions 30 m long, 13 m wide, and
1.6 m above the water surface. Finally, Caño Venado is a natural stream, but its delta has
received a large sediment load from Rte 1856, and the distinctive red-colored sediment from
the road can be seen making up most of the delta form.
The fact that sediment from Rte 1856 has been permitted to enter the Río San Juan in
sufficient quantities to create large, visible deltas reflects the lack of planning for the project,
the lack of even basic environmental safeguards and sound construction practices, and the
lack of effective erosion control and slope stabilization. This does not constitute acceptable
practice in any way.
69
71Annex 1
In his Report on the Risk of Irreversible Harm to the Río San Juan Relating to the
Construction of the Border Road in Costa Rica (November 2013), Annex 9 to the Counter-
Memorial, Professor Thorne pointed out that deltas exist along the north bank of the river as
well as the south bank, and argued that some of the north-bank deltas are larger than deltas on
the south bank, implying that this cast doubt on the road-derived sediment origin of much of
the sediment in the deltas along the south bank. In his December 2013 report, Thorne
repeated this claim, and presented oblique aerial images from my 2012 report and belittled
the size of the deltas appearing in the photographs, referring to the “small dimensions and
morphological insignificance” compared to the deltas he photographed at unspecified
locations and on an unspecified date in May 2013 (p.95, vol.I:241). Professor Thorne,
however, did not acknowledge that a delta will appear much larger at low river level than at
high river level, because when the river is high, more of the delta is under water and thus
invisible. It is misleading to compare deltas as they appeared in the photographs in my 2012
report, which were taken on 18 October 2012 at higher flows, with deltas appearing in his
photographs taken on an unspecified date in May 2013 at much lower flows. Although
continuous flow measurements for 2012 and 2013 are lacking, estimated average flows are
498 m s at El Castillo and 1434 m s below the confluence of Rio Sarapiqui for October,
3 -1 3 -1
compared to only 235 m s at El Castillo and 791 m s below Rio Sarapiqui in May (OAS
1997). Thus, the flows in October would have been roughly twice those in May, so deltas
shown in my photographs of October 2012 would have been largely under water, compared
to deltas photographed in May 2013.
Professor Thorne makes much of the existence of deltas on the Nicaraguan side of the river,
and presents 13 photographs of deltas, which he states were on the north bank of the Río San
Juan (but for which Costa Rica could not provide coordinates or even “approximate
locations”). There are a number of tributaries draining the Nicaraguan forest preserve on the
north side of the Río San Juan, and there are natural deltas at the mouths of some of these
streams. The existence of natural deltas on the north bank of the river does not change the
fact that many of the deltas on the south bank are either natural deltas that are now severely
impacted or dominated by unnaturally high sediment loads from the eroding Rte 1856, and in
some cases are new deltas built from very high sediment loads from the road, not associated
with large streams. In many oblique aerial photographs, it is possible to see clearly that
sediment in the deltas is derived from erosion of the road, such as Figures 10b and 15b.
These deltas are distinct from natural deltas in that they are made up of largely of reddish-
colored sediment eroded from deeply-weathered bedrock material moved for road
construction (or now eroding from exposed cutslopes). This sediment is reddish in color and
is easily-crumbled (what we have previously referred to as “angular, friable clasts”),
reflecting the deeply-weathered hillslope from which the sediment recently came. These
clasts are distinct from the more rounded, competent gravels that one typically encounters in
a natural stream, and which dominate the deltas on the northern bank of the River.
Professor Thorne suggests that the newly created deltas built of sediment eroded from the
road provide “fresh habitats and open niches for pioneer plant species” (Thorne, ¶9.9.).
However, these deltas are formed by a “lag deposit” of coarser sediments (gravels, sand), i.e.,
the heavier fraction of the sediment load deposited when the sediment-laden stream flows
into the river. Once the delta has built up, there will be a channel whose slope allows it to
carry coarse sediment from the river bank out into the main channel with its deeper waters
and higher currents. Typically this coarser sediment in the delta would be at most a few
70
72 Annex 1
percent of the total sediment load passing this point. The unnaturally elevated suspended
sediment load passing over the delta affects the benthic community, as reflected in the results
of the ecological study conducted by Dr Blanca Rios, discussed above. Thus, while the new
deltas provide substrate for periphyton (algae and other organisms growing on the surfaces of
gravel and rock) and macro-invertebrates, they are also subject to unnaturally high and
deleterious suspended sediment loads, which result in communities of algae and
macroinvertebrates that reflect deteriorated water quality conditions.
12. Risks of Larger Contributions from Rte 1856.
Professor Thorne asserts that I have “acknowledge[d] that relatively little erosion and
sediment delivery has occurred to date” but does not provide a specific paragraph or page
number to support his assertion (¶4.5; repeated from Annex 9, p.16). It is not, and has never
been, my position that there has been “little” erosion to date. The volume of sediment
delivered to date to the Río San Juan is substantial, and is small only relative to the much
larger input that can be expected during intense rains that accompany tropical storms,
hurricanes, and other such events, which could trigger landslides from destabilized cut slopes
and fill piles, as documented elsewhere in the scientific literature (e.g., Larsen and Parks
1997, Larsen and Roman 2001, Glide 2003).
Hurricanes and Tropical Storms
Professor Thorne disputes my prediction of greater erosion rates during intense rains from
future storms, by claiming that hurricanes do not strike the area and that a hurricane or
tropical storm striking the RSJ “would actually be unprecedented and it is therefore highly
unlikely” (Thorne, ¶6.20). However, 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. Tropical storms, which can produce intense rains sufficient to
trigger landslides, are well-documented in the region as well.
Professor Thorne states that the website of the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has “no record of Costa Rica ever having been struck by a hurricane
or tropical storm,” based on a map from the NOAA website reproduced at ¶6.20 of Professor
Thorne’s report. This claim that Costa Rica has never been struck by a hurricane is not the
same thing as the Río San Juan never having been hit by a hurricane or tropical storm. In any
event, Professor Thorne himself previously stated that the Costa Rican catchments that
supply water and sediment to the Río San Juan “are subject to extreme events
including…hurricanes” (2011 Thorne, p.vi).
An example of the heavy rains that can occur over the Río San Juan and its Costa Rican
tributary basins is the tropical storm that occurred 6-11 May 2004 that produced rains in
excess of 200 mm over an area of approximately 400 x 200 km, with intense rains mapped
throughout the basins of the Costa Rican tributaries to the Río San Juan (e.g., Rio San Carlos,
Rio Sarapiqui) (Figure 32). Over 2000 people were forced to evacuate and one person died
in the flooding (NASA 2014).
71
73Annex 1
Figure 32. Heavy rains associated with a tropical easterly wave, 6-11 May 2004. Source: US
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), available online at
http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/13000/13158/CostaRica…
_lrg.jpg, last accessed July 2014.
The tracks of hurricane eyes presented on the NOAA map reproduced by Professor Thorne
do not depict the extent of the areas affected by the hurricanes the paths of which are being
tracked. The area affected by a hurricane is, inevitably, much wider than the track of the eye,
and is typically at least 200 km wide. The eye of Hurricane Mitch in 1998 passed through
Honduras and Guatemala, some 300 km to the north of the Río San Juan, yet seven people
were killed by flooding in Costa Rica, mostly in the northeast, and thousands were forced
from their homes (NOAA 1999).
I made this point in my November 2013 Comments on Costa Rican Submissions (pp.5, 11), in
response to Professor Thorne’s argument in Annex 9. Although he has repeated his
erroneous and misleading statements on the issue of hurricanes in his newest report, he has
also added a response to my criticism. He now acknowledges that “Costa Rica has been
affected in the past by hurricanes passing to the north of the country,” identifying Hurricanes
Joan, Mitch, and Stan, but he argues that the rainfall from those hurricanes in the Río San
Juan basin “were in each event unexceptional and unlikely to cause widespread destruction
because the basin of the Río San Juan receives abundant rainfall in most years and the
hydrology, sediment dynamics, morphology and environment of the River are fully adjusted
to the effects of frequent and heavy rainstorms” (Thorne, ¶6.20).
Professor Thorne, however, is mistaken to suggest that the rainfall levels reported in Costa
Rica during Hurricanes Joan, Mitch, and Stan were “unexceptional.” He relies upon a letter
from the General Director of the Costa Rican National Meteorological Institute (Annex 68 to
Costa Rica’s Counter-Memorial) for details regarding the rainfalls recorded in Costa Rica
during each of these storms. According to this letter, the most recent of the three storms,
Hurricane Stan, affected Costa Rica from October 2 to October 5, 2005, delivering during
that 4-day period rainfall measuring anywhere from 15 mm (on the Caribbean coast) to 150
mm in the Sarapiqui area. 150 mm over 4 days – for an average of 37.5 mm/day – is a
72
74 Annex 1
substantial amount of rain. The levels reported in Annex 68 for Hurricane Joan are even
higher: 20-250 mm from October 20-23, 1998. The daily average for that 4-day period was
somewhere between 5 and 62.5 mm per day. These are, by any definition, substantial
amounts and were sufficient to cause flooding that killed seven people and caused thousands
to flee their homes in northeast Costa Rica (NOAA 1999).
Professor Thorne is also incorrect to claim that rainfall like that received during the
hurricanes reported to date is “unlikely to cause widespread destruction because the basin of
the Río San Juan receives abundant rainfall in most years and the hydrology, sediment
dynamics, morphology and environment of the River are fully adjusted to the effects of
frequent and heavy rainstorms” (Thorne, ¶6.20). Whether or not the River is “fully adjusted”
to the effects of frequent and heavy rainstorms, there can be no argument that the River and
its environment are fully adjusted to the impacts such levels of rain would have now that Rte
1856 exists. As of May 2014, no such rains had yet hit the road and its unstable, uncovered
cuts and fills, which had already experienced widespread erosion and stream crossing failure
even in the past few relatively dry years.
Professor Thorne also asserts that if a hurricane did “strike the basin directly, there would
likely be damage on a massive scale, including flooding and landslides affecting the entire
region. In such a case, damage would be severe and extensive whether or not the Road
existed” (Thorne, ¶6.21). In effect, he says everything will be so bad we won’t notice the
added landsliding caused by the road.
It may be the case that damage caused by a hurricane “would be severe and extensive
whether or not the Road existed,” but the areas disturbed by Rte 1856 are at serious risk of
experiencing far greater landslide impacts than undisturbed forest. The scientific literature is
clear on this point: areas disturbed by road construction and other such land disturbance have
more severe erosion and landsliding than undisturbed sites during intense rains, as reviewed
below.
While most natural slopes will hold together during the intense rains of a hurricane, hillsides
altered by cut and fill road construction are highly vulnerable to failure both of the
oversteepened cutslope with its emerging groundwater, and the precariously perched
fillslopes. Many studies have shown greater hurricane or monsoon damage on landscapes
disturbed by road construction and deforestation than on natural slopes. For instance, studies
in New Zealand (reviewed by Glade 2003) have demonstrated that human-disturbed slopes
(from forest clearance, road construction, etc.) are vastly more vulnerable to landsliding than
native bush or even reforested slopes (e.g., Parkner et al. 2006). One of the best documented
illustrations of the effect of land clearance on vulnerability to erosion was the effect of
tropical cyclone Bola on the East Cape of the North Island of New Zealand in 1988, where
landslides were many times more intense and widespread on human-disturbed areas than
native bush or afforested areas (Hicks 1991, Kansai et al. 2005). In Jamaica, Maharaj (1993)
documented a strong association between rainfall-driven landslides and disturbance by a
road, as did Douglas (1967) and Tan (1984) in Malaysia, and Larsen and Parks (1997) and
Larsen and Roman (2001) in Puerto Rico.
We can expect that intense rains will occur, and that when they do, the areas destabilized by
the road will experience far higher frequency and severity of landslides than areas not
affected by the road construction, other factors being the same. If the massive fill piles along
Rte 1856 (such as those documented at Severely Eroding Sites 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, and elsewhere)
73
75Annex 1
are not removed and the cutslope stabilized, there is a substantial risk of sudden, massive
transfers of sediment into the Río San Juan during intense rains.
Earthquakes
Clearing and earth moving for road construction causes previously stable slopes to be
destabilized, by removing vegetation cover, breaking up soil structure, and increasing slope
steepness. Moreover, once the vegetation dies, deep roots begin to decay (which typically
occurs over a couple of years), which further destabilizes the slope through the loss of root
strength. Weakened slopes are subject to much greater frequency of landsliding than native
slopes. One important ‘trigger’ for landslides is intense rain, which saturates the slopes and
reduces the frictional hold between grains in the slope, allowing landslides to move. Another
important ‘trigger’ is shaking during earthquakes, which can detach the landslide mass,
causing it to move.
Earthquakes constitute an important potential trigger for landslides along the Río San Juan.
The region is seismically active, as acknowledged by Professor Thorne at various points in
his 2011 report (e.g., pp.vi, II-9, Thorne 2011), who states that Costa Rican catchments which
supply water and sediment to the Río San Juan “are subject to extreme events
including…earthquakes” (Thorne 2011, p.vi).
The fact that earthquakes occur frequently in the region is reflected in Annex 2 of the Costa
Rican Counter Memorial, which noted (p.14): “Some sites and dates [for planting events]
were changed due to force majeure events. For example, the bridge over Río Sucio fell due to
the Sámara earthquake. Consequently, the events programmed for Costa Rican Delta and
Trinidad had to be changed; they were performed at the mouth of San Carlos River.”
The EDA (Annex 10, p.33) noted, “in 2012 and after the Sámara Earthquake of September 5,
2012, 9 earth tremors were recorded along the Colorado River, close to the Nicaraguan
border, with magnitudes (Mw) of 3.1 up to 3.9 (Barquero 2013) The alignment of the
epicenters of such seismic activity coincide with the Colorado River, with a northwestern to
southeastern orientation, which suggests the presence of an active fault. This recent sismic
[sic] activity could accelerate exogenous processes and increase the sedimentation rate
towards the San Juan River.”
74
76 Annex 1
13. Concluding Remarks
The attempts to construct Rte 1856 along the south bank of the Río San Juan have
destabilized hillslopes adjacent to the river, and delivered large quantities of sediment to the
Río San Juan, impacting the riverine environment. The construction project was
characterized by lack of planning, lack of environmental analysis, and poor construction
practices. By international environmental standards, the destabilization of the landscape by
construction of Rte 1856 and the resulting erosion and sediment delivery to the Río San Juan
would be considered an unacceptable impact.
Costa Rica argues that the sediment eroded from the road is only a small fraction of the total
load of the river. In addition to other problems documented above, this argument leaves out a
critically important point: that the sediment load of the Río San Juan is dominated by
sediments eroded from deforestation and continuing, uncontrolled disturbance of erodible
volcanic soils within Costa Rica, principally in the basins of the Rio San Carlos and Rio
Sarapiqui. Moreover, Costa Rica has overestimated the river’s bedload transport, through
fundamental errors and biases in calculations and estimates (Andrews 2014). More
significantly, it has underestimated erosion from the road by selecting monitoring sites that
avoided severely eroding and unstable sections of Rte 1856, and by under-reporting the
dimensions of severely eroding sites. In short, Costa Rica has submitted reports purporting to
show that the road has had no appreciable impact on the Río San Juan. Upon close
inspection, however, it becomes apparent that these reports contain fundamental errors and,
as a result, cannot be considered credible scientific evidence.
The reports submitted by Costa Rica also imply that conditions have improved along Rte
1856. However, erosion has visibly worsened since I first observed Rte 1856 in October
2012. The progression of erosion and the delivery of large quantities of sediment to the Río
San Juan are clear in sequences of aerial (helicopter) photographs and cloud-free satellite
imagery that has become available.
In its current condition, Rte 1856 is not complete and cannot be driven except for short
sections, and even those sections pose safety problems. There is a significant danger posed to
the Río San Juan from petroleum, chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides that could be
spilled from trucks due to the failure of fillslopes or stream crossings (which is already
occurring, and which would be only more likely after heavy rains and under the load of heavy
trucks), or as a result of the road’s overly steep grades and excessively sharp turns. The
problems with unsafe and unstable slopes and poor stream crossings are compounded by the
extreme proximity to the Río San Juan of most of Rte 1856.
To reduce the hazard posed by Rte 1856, the entire existing road would need to be inspected
and objectively analyzed by qualified road engineers. In some sections, such as those on
steep slopes adjacent to the river bank, the road should be moved inland to less inherently
risky routes, and the damaged portions of the landscape repaired by stabilizing the cutslopes
and hauling away fill material to minimize future sediment delivery to the Río San Juan.
Other parts of the road can probably be stabilized in the current alignment or with minor
realignments, but serious measures are necessary to stabilize and protect these sections as
well.
75
77Annex 1
Appendices
A. Inventory of Severely Eroding Sites
B. Letter from Jeff Campbell of Spatial Solutions, Inc. (28 May 2014)
C. Map of Potentially Unsafe Stream Crossings
D. Map of Potentially Unsafe Slopes
E. Map of Sections of Rte 1856 where Relocation Should be Considered
F. Road-Derived Deltas in the Río San Juan
G. Roy Sidle et al., Unprecedented rates of landslide and surface erosion along a newly
constructed road in Yunnan, China, 57 Nat. Hazards 313 (2011)
76
78 Annex 1
References Cited
Allan, D.J., and M.M. Castillo. 2007. Stream Ecology: Structure and function of running
waters. Springer-Verlag.
Andrews, E. 2014. An Evaluation of the Methods, Calculations, and Conclusions Provided by
Costa Rica Regarding the Yield and Transport of Sediment in the Río San Juan Basin.
Ardjosoediro, I. & I. W. Ramnarine. 2002. The influence of turbidity on growth, feed
conversion and survivorship of the Jamaica red tilapia strain. Aquaculture, 212: 159-165
doi:10.1016/s0044-8486(01)00881-x.
Astorga, A., and A. Mende. 2013. Route 1856: analysis of the change in land use. (no
publisher indicated)
Barluenga, M. & A. Meyer. 2004. The Midas cichlid species complex: incipient sympatric
speciation in Nicaraguan cichlid fishes? Molecular Ecology, 13: 2061-2076.
Bilotta, G.S., and R. E. Brazier. 2008. Understanding the influence of suspended solids on
water quality and aquatic biota. Water Research 42:2849-2861.
Bonada, N., Prat, N., Resh, V. H., & Statzner, B. (2006). Developments in aquatic insect
biomonitoring: a comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annual Review of Entomology.
doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151124
Brookes, A. 1986. Response of aquatic vegetation to sedimentation downstream from river
channelisation works in England and Wales. Biological Conservation 38:352–367.
Campos Valera, D. 2013. Mating preferences of female Poecilia reticulata Peters, 1858,
under turbid conditions. Anales Universitarios de Etologia, 7: 1-6.
Cederholm, C.J., Reid, L.M., Salo, E.O. 1981. Cumulative effects of logging road sediment
on salmonid populations in the Clearwater River, Jefferson County, Washington. In: Salmon
spawning gravel: A renewable resource in the Pacific Northwest. Report 39. Pullman: State
of Washington Water Resource Center, 38-74.
CFIA (Association of Federated Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica). 2012. Verification
of work done toward the construction of “Juan Rafael Mora Route 1856.” Report: DRD-
INSP-0299-2012, 8 June 2012. 28 pp.
CONAVI (Consejo Nacional de Vailidad). 2012. Press Release, 25 May 2012 (NM, Vol. II,
Annex 34)
CONAVI (Consejo Nacional de Vailidad). 2013. Program for the consolidaton and
continued improvement of Rte 856 [sic], Juan Rafael Mora Porras. (no publisher indicated)
Cota Ribeiro, T. & G. Umaña Villalobos. 2010. Distribution of Agonostomus monticola and
Brycon behreae in the Rio Grande de Terraba, Costa Rica and relations with water flow.
Neotrop Ichthyol, 8: 841-849 doi:10.1590/s1679-62252010000400014.
77
79Annex 1
De Noni, G., G. Trujillo, and M. Viennot. 1987. L'Erosion et la Conservation des Sols en
Equateur, Pedologie 22: 235-245
Dominguez, M., A. Takemura & M. Tsuchiya. 2005. Effects of changes in environmental
factors on the non-specific immune response of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus L.
Aquaculture Research, 36: 391-397 doi:10.1111/j.1365-2109.2005.01220.x.
Douglas, I. 2003. Predicting road erosion rates in selectively logged tropical rain forests. pp.
199-205, in Erosion Prediction in Ungauged Basins: Integrating Methods and Techniques
(Proceedings of symposium HS01 held during IUGG2003 at Sapporo, July 2003. IAHS
Publication No. 279.
Dunne, T., 1979, Sediment yield and land use in tropical catchments, Journal of Hydrology,
42:281-300.
Dykstra, D.P., and R. Heinrich. 1996. FAO model code of forest harvesting practice. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1998a. Drainage Design.
Chapter 4 in Watershed management field manual. FAO Conservation Guide 13/5. Rome.
Available online at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/T0099E/T0099e04.htm#4.3
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1998b. Road construction
techniques. Chapter 6 in Watershed management field manual. FAO Conservation Guide
13/5. Rome. Available online at http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/t0099e/t0099e06.htm
Geiger, M. F., J. K. McCrary & U. K. Schliewen. 2013. Crater Lake Apoyo Revisited -
Population Genetics of an Emerging Species Flock. PLoS One, 8:
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0074901.
Glade, T. 2003. Landslide occurrence as a response to land use change: a review of evidence
from New Zealand. Catena 51: 297-314.
Gomez, F., Leiton, J.J., and Aguilar, C. 2013. Report on hydrology and sediment for the
Costa Rican river basins draining to the San Juan River. Costa Rican Institute of Electricity,
San Jose, Costa Rica, August 2013.
Gray, J.R., Glysson, G.D., Turcios, L.M., Schwarz, G.E., 2000. Comparability of suspended-
sediment concentration and total suspended solids data. US Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report Report 00-4191, Reston, Virginia USA, 20 pp.
Gray, S. M., L. H. McDonnell, F. G. Cinquemani & L. J. Chapman. 2012. As clear as mud:
Turbidity induces behavioral changes in the African cichlid Pseudocrenilabrus multicolor.
Curr Zool, 58: 146-157.
Hansen, D.O., J.M. Erbaugh, and T.L. Napier. 1987. Factors related to adoption of soil
conservation practices in the Dominican Republic. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation
42: 367-369
78
80 Annex 1
Harden, C.P., 1993, Land use, soil erosion, and reservoir sedimentation in an Andean
Drainage basin in Ecuador, Mountain Research and Development 13: 177-184.
Henley, W.F., M.A. Patterson, R.J. Neves, and A.D. Lemly. 2000. Effects of Sedimentation
and Turbidity on Lotic Food Webs: A Concise Review
for Natural Resource Managers. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 8(2): 125–139
Hicks, M. 1991. Erosion under pasture, pine plantations, scrub and indigenous forest: a
comparison from Cyclone Bola. New Zealand Forestry
Hubbs, C. 1999. Effect of light intensity on brood production of livebearers Gambusia spp.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 128: 747-750 doi:10.1577/1548-
8659(1999)128<0747:eoliob>2.0.co;2.
Kasai, M., G.J. Brierley, M.J. Page, T. Marutani, N.A. Trustrum. 2005. Impacts of land use
change on patterns of sediment flux in Weraamaia catchment, New Zealand. Catena 64: 27–
60
Kemp, P., D. Sear, A. Collins, P. Naden, and I. Jones. 2011. The impacts of fine sediment on
riverine fish. Hydrol. Process. 25: 1800–1821
Kondolf, G.M., and W.V.G. Matthews. 1991. Unmeasured residuals in sediment budgets: A
cautionary note. Water Resources Research 27:2483-2486.
LANAMME (Laboratorio Nacional de Materiales y Modelos Estructurales). 2012
Report on reconnaissance trip to Route 1856 – Juan Rafael Mora Porras. Prepared by
Transport Infrastructure Program, PITRA-LanammeUCR. May 2012. 52 pp.
Larsen, M.C., and J.E. Parks. 1997. How wide is a road? The association of roads and mass-
wasting in a forested montane environment. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. 22:
835-848.
Larsen, M.C., and A. S. Roman. 2001. Mass wasting and sediment storage in a small
montane watershed: an extreme case of anthropogenic disturbance in the humid tropics,
pages 119-138 in Geomorphic Processes and Riverine Habitat, Water Science and
Application Volume 4, American Geophysical Union, Washington DC
MacDonald, L.H., R.W. Sampson, and D.M. Anderson. 2001. Runoff and road erosion at the
plot and road segment scales, St John, US Virgin Islands. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 26:251-272.
Madej, M.A., Ozaki, V. 2009. Persistence of effects of high sediment loading in a salmon-
bearing river, northern California, in James, L.A., Rathburn, S.L., and Whittecar, G.R., eds.,
Management and Restoration of Fluvial Systems with Broad Historical Changes and Human
Impacts: Geological Society of America Special Paper 451, p. 43–55.
NOAA (National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)
1999. Mitch: The Deadliest Atlantic Hurricane Since 1780. Report available online at
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/reports/mitch/mitch.html
79
81Annex 1
OAS (Organización de Estados Americanos). 1997. Estudio de Diagnostico de la Cuenca del
Río San Juan y Lineamientos del Plan de Accion, Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el
Medo Ambiente, República de Costa Rica Ministerio del Ambiente y Energia (MINAE),
República de Nicaragua Ministerio del Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (MARENA). Oficina
de Desarrollo Sostenible y Medio Ambiente
Secretaría General de la Organización de
Estados Americanos, Washington, D.C.
Oreamuno, R., and R. Villalobos. 2013. Report on systematic field monitoring of erosion and
sediment yield along Route 1856. Faculty of Engineering, University of Costa Rica. (no
publisher indicated)
Parkner, T., M.J. Page, T. Marutani and N.A. Trustrum. 2006. Development and controlling
factors of gullies and gully complexes, East Coast, New Zealand. Earth Surf. Process.
Landforms 31, 187–199
Petts, G. 1984. Impounded Rivers: Perspectives for Ecological Management. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester UK.
Ramos-Scharrón, C.E., and L. H. MacDonald. 2005. Measurement and prediction of
sediment production from unpaved roads, St John, US Virgin Islands. Earth Surf. Process.
Landforms 30, 1283–1304. DOI: 10.1002/esp.1201
Resh, V. H. (2008). Which group is best? Attributes of different biological assemblages used
in freshwater biomonitoring. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 138(1–3), 131–138
Seehausen, O., J. J. M. vanAlphen & F. Witte. 1997. Cichlid fish diversity threatened by
eutrophication that curbs sexual selection. Science, 277: 1808-1811
doi:10.1126/science.277.5333.1808.
Sidle, R.C., Sasaki, S., Otsuki, M., Noguchi, S., Rahim Nik, A., 2004, Sediment pathways in
a tropical forest: effects of logging roads and skid trails Hydrological Processes 18:703-720.
Teichert-Coddington, D. R., B. W. Green & R. P. Phelps. 1992. Influence of site and season
on water quality and tilapia production in Panama and Honduras. Aquaculture, 105: 297-314
doi:10.1016/0044-8486(92)90094-2.
Thomas J. Nimbos and R.F. Savage. 1991. Successful Soil Conservation in the Ecuadorian
Highlands, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46: 341-343.
Thorne, C. 2013. Report on the risk of irreversible harm to the Río San Juan relating to the
construction of the boarder road in Costa Rica. (no publisher indicated)
USDA Forest Service. 1999. Roads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing
the National Forest Transportation System. Misc. Rep. FS-643. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service. 222 p.
Van Nieuwenhuyse, E. E., and J. D. LaPerriere. 1986. Effects of placer gold mining on
primary production in subarctic streams of Alaska. Water Resources Bulletin 22:91–99
80
82 Annex 1
Wischmeier, W. H., and D. D. Smith, 1960. "A universal soil-loss equation to guide
conservation farm planning." Trans. Int. Congr. Soil Sci., 7th, p. 418-425.
Wood, P. J. and P. D. Armitage. 1997. Biological Effects of Fine Sediment in the Lotic
Environment. Environmental Management 21:203-217.
Yamada, H. and F. Nakamura. 2002. Effect of fine sediment deposition and channel works on
periphyton biomass in the Makomanai River, Northern Japan. River Research and
Applications 18:481-493. DOI: 10.1002/rra.688
Ziegler, A.D., T.W. Giambelluca, and R.A. Sutherland. 2000. Estimate of basin sediment flux
in Pang Khum Experimental Watershed in Northern Thailand: the contribution of roads and
agricultural lands. In Land-Water Linkages in Rural Watersheds Electronic Workshop, Case-
study 28, FAO, Rome, Italy, as cited in Douglas 2003.
Ziemer, R.R., Lisle, T.E. 1992. Evaluating sediment production by activities related to forest
uses - A Pacific Northwest perspective. In Proc. Tech. Workshop on Sediments, Corvallis,
OR. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency and Forest Serv., U.S. Dept. Agric., Washington, DC.
81
83Annex 1
Appendix A
Inventory of Severely Eroding Sites
84 0.4
Annex 1
0 0.5
NICARAGUA 0
Meters
COSTA RICA
0.6
RKM 0.0 to 1.1 0.1
0.1
UCR SITE #1 0.7
UCR SITE #1
0.2 0.2
0.8
0.3
0.3 ES-01.1
ES-01.1
0.9
Severe ErodingArea 01a
0.4 50
0.4
0 100 200 300 400
1 N
0.5
ES-01.2
0.5 Meters
1.1
0.6
Meters
0.6
0.7
ES-01.2 UCR SITE #8
0.7
0.8
ES-01.3
Photo 2,3 UCR SITE #8
100 200 300 400
Photo 1
0.9
0.8
50
0
ES-01.3
1
100 200 300 400 N
Crossing
0.9
50
ES-01.1 (see sheet 01b)
Photos taken from helicopter,October 2012. Contours:5m Imagery Date: February 2014
1 N
1.1
Phbootoat,1M. aRyo2a0d1fi2l)l.landslide eroding directly into the river (from
í
qp
a
R
sol a.
aCn
a
nJ
.
R
oti
ne
fnIoiR
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Photo 2,3. Failure and gullying of road fill prism with direct delivery to river (fromAnnex 5,Mende et al.2013).
85 1.3
Annex 1 0.9
1.4 0.9
Meters
1
1.5 1
RKM 1.1 to 2
1.6 1.1
1.1 ES-01.4 ES-01.4
1.7 1.2
1.2
1.8
1.3
Severe Erodin1.3ea 01b 50
1.9 1.4 0 100 200 300 400
PHOTO 1 N
1.4
Meters
2 1.5
ES-01.5
ES-01.5 Meters
1.5
1.6
1.6 1.7
1.8
100 200 300
1.7
50
1.9 0
N
1.8
100 200 300 400
2
50
PHOTO 2
ES-01.6 ES-01.6
1.9 0
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-F5emb;ruary 2014
N
2
Phsoioton 1co.nEtrngeassloupreeso(ffrsoidmecaracther2i0al1a4n).d failing ero-
í
p
ar
SR
s .R
orCnaS
Jun
S
R
o t
inr
fn
Ioi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Photo 2. Steep eroding cut and fill slope in ES-01.5. (from helicopter,October 2012).
86 2.4
Annex 1
2.5
2
2 2.6 Meters
2.1
RKM 2.0 to 2.6
2.1 2.7
2.2
2.2
2.3 ES-01.7 2.3
Severe ErodingArea 01c ES-01.7 2.4 50
2.4
PHOTO 2
0 100 200 300 400
2.5
2.5 N
PHOTO 2.6 Meters
2.6 Meters
ES-01.8
2.7
Blocked
Drainage
2.7
ES-01.8
100 200 300 400
Blocked
Drainage
50
0
ES-1.9
100 200 300 400
N
50
ES-1.9 0
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugemate: February 2014
N
PhAotnone1x.olelanpdseedetroala.d20fi1ll3s)i.nk hole at blocked drainage (from
ui
ar
aR
srCna.
Ja
S
R
oin
ef
nIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Eroding cut slope (view from helicopter,October 2013.)
87 2.9
Annex 1
5.7
3
5.7
5.8
3.1 Meters
5.9 3.2
5.9
RKM 6.0 to 6.9
3.3
6
6 ES-02.1
3.4
6.1
ES-02.1
6.1
3.5 50
0 100 200 300 400
6.2 PHOTO 1
3.6 N
6.2
Severe ErodingArea 02
3.7
6.3
Meters
ES-02.2
6.3
Meters
ES-02.2 6.4
ES-02.3
PHOTO 2
6.4
ES-02.3 6.5
6.5 6.6
100 200 300
6.7
ES-02.4
6.6 50
UCR SITE #2
0
6.8
N
100 200 300 400
6.7
50 UCR SITE #2
6.9
ES-02.4 0
6.8 Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-D5mec 2013
N
6.9
Phroivteoratullycintogbfiellrs2lo0p1e2.and failing erosion control fabric. View from
í
p
aa
.R
ol a.R
rCn
a
n
.
R
oit
ne
fnIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Photo 2. Gullying hillslope with direct inputs to Rio San Juan. View from riverboat October 2012.
88 7.4
7
Annex 1
7
7.5 Meters
7.1
ES-03.1
7.1
7.6
RKM 7.1 to 7.9 ES-03.1
300 400
7.2
7.2
7.7
PHOTO 3 200
ES-03.2
7.3 7.3
7.8
100
UCR SITE #3
Severe ErodingArea 03
7.4 ES-03.2 50
7.4
7.9
0
N
PHOTO 2 Meters
8
UCR SITE #3
7.5 Meters
8.1
7.6
300 400
ES-03.3
7.6
300 400
7.7
200
ES-03.3
7.7
200 7.8 PHOTO 1
100
50
7.8
7.9
0
100
N
50 8
7.9
0
Panoramic view from helicop8er,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:y5Dmate: December 2013
N
8
8.1
Pho(vt2.Gfrollyirnigvebr,Oacrteoab/ecru2t0sl1o3p)e. and denuded hillside Phofrtoom3.rEivreordbinogatc,uOtscltoopbeeard2ja0c1e3n).t to blocked drainage (view
u
qp
aS
R
s S.
oaCna
a
n
.
R
oin
f
nIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Phortivoer1b.oEraot,dOincgtoqbuearrr2y0s1it3e).adjacent to the road (view from
89 Meters
400
Annex 1
8 8.2
8
ES-04.1
ES-04.1
300
RKM 8.0 to 8.7
8.3
8.1
8.1
200 Meters
400
Meters
400
8.4
8.2
Severe ErodingArea 04
ES-01a
8.2
100
300
PHOTO 2+3
300 50
8.5
8.3
0
8.3 200
N
8.6
8.4
200
PHOTO 1 100
8.4
UCR SITE #5
50
8.5
100
0
N
50
8.5 UCR SITE #5
8.6
0
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-N5omvember 2012
N
8.6
Phoatloon1g.tSoteeeopfesrloopdein.g(vsielowOactteorbiaelr,a2n0d13d)e.pPhootvoefShtivpeeredbgnsaclreocsph,ea2no0dfngatteoreiaol,f slope.(viewm
u
ip
Sr
R
R
oaCna.
n
J
.
R
oir
fI
oi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Phoatloon2g.tSoteeeopfesrloopdein.g(vsielowOactteorbiaelr,a2n0d12d)e.posits
90 9.6
Annex 1
300
9.4 9.7
ES-05.1
ES-05.1 9.4
RKM 9.3 to 9.9
200
9.8
9.5
9.5
Meters
Meters 400
100
400
9.9
50
Severe ErodingArea 05 9.6 PHOTO 2
9.6
0
300
N
300
10
9.7
9.7
200
200 9.8
PHOTO 1
100
9.8 ES-05.2
ES-05.2
9.9
50
100
0
9.9 N
50
10
Panoramic 0iew from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-D5mecember 2013
N
10
Phortivoer1.(Evrieowdinfrgormoardivecurbtsoaatn,dMfialyl s2l0o1p3e).in close proximity to the
u
ip
Sr
R
srl nSR
aC
a
n
.
R
oit
re
fI oi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Photo 2.Eroding road cuts and fill slope in close proximity to the river (view from riverboat,March 2014).
91 10.6 10.3
Annex 1
10.3
10.4
ES-06.1 10.7
Meters
ES-06.1
10.4 10.5
RKM 10.4 to 11.3 10.8
10.6
10.5 10.9
10.7
11 PHOTO 3
Meters
10.6
Severe ErodingArea 06a
100 200 300 400
10.8 50
11.1
0
10.7
UCR SITE #4 Meters N
10.9
11.2
ES-06.2
10.8 PHOTO 2
UCR SITE #4 11
100 200 300 400
ES-06.2
50
10.9 11.1
0
N
11.2
11
PHOTO 1
100 200 300 400
Gulalycrorosasd
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-N5movember 2012
50
11.1
0
N
11.2
Photo 2. Steep cut and fill slopes (view from helicopter,October 2013)
u
ar
.
R
sol aSR
raCn
a
n
.
R
ont
f
nIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Photo 1. Gully across road (from Mende &Astorga 2013,p36) Photo 3. Rills on cut slope (from Mende &Astorga 2013,p36)
92 11.7 Annex 1
11.3
3 eters
11. M
ES-06.3 11.8 ES-06.3
PHOTO 1
11.4
11.4
RKM 11.3 to 12.2
11.9
11.5 11.5
ES-06.4 12 ES-06.4
11.6
11.6
100 200 300 400
12.1
Severe ErodingArea 06b 50
PHOTO 2 11.7
0
11.7 12.2
N
Meters
11.8
12.3
Meters
11.8
11.9
11.9
12 ES-06.5
ES-06.5
100 200 300 400
12 12.1
50
0
12.2
100 200 300 400 N
12.1
50
12.3
0
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-N5movember 2012
12.2 N
12.3
Phobtooat1,.MRayo2ad01c3u)t through steep terrain adjacent to the river (view from river-
srl aS
aCn
uJ
a
.R
oi
re
fIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Photo 2. Road cut through steep terrain adjacent to the river (View from helicopter,May 2014)
93Annex 1 14.6
14.2
14.7
Meters
14.3
ES-07.1
RKM 13.7 to 14.4
14.8
14.4 ES-07.1
13.7
PHOTO 3
14.9 13.8
14.5
13.9
15
Severe ErodingArea 07a
14.6
14 100 200 300 400
15.1
UCR SITE #9 50
14.1 Meters
UCR SITE #9 0
14.7 Río Infiernito
N
Meters 15.2
Río Infiernito
14.2
PHOTO 2 PHOTO 1
ES-07.2 15.3
14.3
PHOTO 2PHOTO 1
14.4
14.9
100 200 300 400
14.5
50
15
0
N
14.6
100 200 300 400
15.1
50
0 ES-07.2
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012.
CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-N5movember 2012
N
15.2
15.3
PhoAtsoto2r.gaR2o0a1d3c,upt37th)rough steep terrain adjacent to PhoAtsoto3r.gaR2o0a1d3c,upt37th)rough steep terrain adjacent to the river (from Mende &
ol aR
aCn
ua
a
R
oit
nf
nIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Pholotow1r.oaFdredaiym2e0n1t3d,efrpoomsitriavtetrobeoaotf).slope be-
94 14.3 Annex 1
14.4
14.4
14.4
ES-07.3
14.5
RKM 14.4 to 15.2 14.5
14.5
14.6
ES-07.3
Meters
Meters
14.7 400
400 Meters
Severe ErodingArea 07b
14.8
300
300
14.9
15
200
100 200 300 400
15.1
200
50
0
PHOTO 2
PHOTO 1 N 100
15.2
Watercourse
50
Failed crossing
ES-07.4 100
15.3
15
0
road cut
N
5Pioneered but uncomplete
15 15.1
0 ES-07.4
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2013.
CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-D5mecember 2013
N
15.1
Photetorr1(fruy hreonudgeh&roAasdtoarngdap2i0o1n3e,epr3e8d)b. ut incomplete road cut through steep
sraCnS
Jn
a
.R
PhoAtsoto2r.gaA2e0ri1a3l,vpie3w8)o. f gully through pioneered but incomplete road cut (from Mende &
oin
rf
Ioi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map
95Annex 1
16
Meters
400
RKM 15.6 to 16.5
Vegetation cleared 16.1
16 16
300 Meters
Meters
400
ES-08.1 400 Vegbeuttatnioonroclaedarceudt
16.2
16.1
Severe ErodingArea 08 ES-08.1
16.1
200
300
16.3
300
16.2
PHOTO 1+2
16.2
ES-08.2
100
PHOTO 1+2
200
16.4
16.3 50
ES-08.2
200
0
16.3
N 100
16.5
Blocked 16.4
Watercourse PHOTO 3 50
100
0
16.4
N
50 16.5
PHOTO 3
0
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-D5mecember 2013
N
16.5
Phoctuot 3th.roGuuglhlystthereoputgehrrraoinad(vainecoy p2l0e1t3e)r.oadrbbuotati,nM
Photetorr1(fruy threonudgeh&piAosnteoerrgead2b0u1t3i,npc4o0m).plete road cut through steep
R
orCnaS
n
Ja
S
R
oin
fn
Ioi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Photetorr2ai.n P(reedndbeut&inorpglaet2e0r1o3a,dp4c0u)t.through steep
96 17.3
Annex 1
17.4
Meters
Caño Crucitas 400
17.2
17.2
17.5
Caño Crucitas ES-09.1
RKM 17.2 to 17.9
300
ES-09.1
17.3
17.3
17.6
PHOTO 1
200
17.4
17.4
17.7
Meters
Severe ErodingArea 09a Meters 400
400
100
17.5
17.8
17.5 50
300
0
300
17.6 N
ES-09.2
17.9
17.6
200
ES-09.2
17.7
200
100
17.7
17.8
50
100
0
PHOTO 2+3
17.8 N
50
17.9
0
N
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-D5mecember 2013
17.9
PhojutostO1oCbnaes01r2u)fcr.iotams croonadflucernocsn RriivveerrboaPho(ftro1. MEernoddein&g fia 2p0la1c3e,dp4a3c)r.oss drainage path
s .
oaCna
n
Ja
.
R
oin
f
nIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Phortivoer2.(fErngenfidlrisAmstworitghad2r0a1in3a,gpe43p)a.th leading to
97 Meters
Annex 1 400
17.8
18.2 1.8
ES-09.3
ES-09.3
300
17.9
ES-09.4 18.3 17.9
RKM 17.8 to 18.8
ES-09.4
200
Failed Crossing 18
18 18.4
ES-09.5 100
ES-09.5 18.1
18.5
18.1 50
Severe ErodingArea 09b Meters
Failed Crossing
400
Meters 0
ES-09.6 400 PHOTO 2 N
18.2
18.6
ES-09.6
18.2 300
PHOTO 1 PHOTO 1
ES-09.7 Failed Crossing
18.3
300
ES-09.7
200
18.3
18.4
200
100
18.4
18.5
50
0
100
N
18.6
18.5
50
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-D5mecember 2013
N
18.6
Photo 3. Gullying road fill prism (from Mende &Astorga 2013,p44).
Photo 1. Severely edroding fill prism (view from riverboat,March 2014).
sraCaS
Jn
S
.R
oin
rfI
oi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Phopt4o4)2.. Gullying road fill prism (from Mende &Astorga 2013,
98 19.5
18.7 Annex 1
18.8 19.6
7
18.
19.7
18.9 18.8
ES-09.8
19.8
19 18.9
19.9
RKM 18.8 to 20.6
19
19.1 20
19.1
Meters
19.2 20.1
19.2
20.2
19.3
19.3
20.3 ES-09.8
19.4
19.4
Severe ErodingArea 09c 20.4
19.5 50
19.5
20.5 0 100 200 300 400
N
19.6
19.6 20.6
19.7
20.7
19.7
19.8
20.8
19.8 ES-09.9
19.9
PHOTO 1
19.9
20
Meters
20 20.1
Meters
20.2
20.1 Failed road fill
20.3
20.2
20.4 100 200 300 400
PHOTO 2+3 50
20.3
20.5 0
ES-09.10 N
20.4
100 200 3020.6 400
50
20.5 ES-09.9 0 20.7
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012.
CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-D5mecember 2013
N
20.8
20.6
20.7
20.8
Pho(ptohion3tdnoefpaparcihrhoetd2o0rg1oryeMd 2cu1l.v3ertseindgeasttrRoK
Pho2t0o121)..Road fill and crossing at RKM 20.8 (view from riverboat,October
R
sraCnS
n
Ju
.
R
o t
ir
fIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map Phopt.5o32).. RFaeipleodrtronaodtecsropslasninmeentedrec&ulAvesrtot.rga 2013,odmiaM
99Annex 1
21.5
21.4
21.4
21.6
ES-10.1 PHOTO 1
RKM 21.4 to 22.1
Meters
400
21.5 21.5
21.7
ES-10.1 PHOTO 1
300
21.8 21.6
21.6
Severe ErodingArea 10
Meters
400
200
Meters
400 21.9 21.7
21.7
300
100
ES-10.2 21.8
22
300 50
ES-10.2
21.8
0 200
N
22.1 21.9
200
100
21.9
22 PHOTO 2
50
100 0
PHOTO 2 N
22 22.1
50
0
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-O5mctober 2012
N
22.1
Phortivoer1bdincgtocbuetrsl2o0p1e3w).ithin close proximity to the river (view from
R
oaCnS
Ja
S Phobteor22.01E2ro).ding cutslope within close proximity to the river (view from riverboat,Octo-
R
onr
fnI
oi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map
100 22.4
22 22.2 Annex 1
3 22.5
22.
Meters
22.1
ES-11.1
22.6
22.4
RKM 22.4 to 22.6
22.2
22.7
22.5
Meters
22.3
22.8
22.6
Severe ErodingArea 11
22.4 22.9 50
.7 CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-O5mctober 2012
22
0 100 200 300 400
N
23
22.5 22.8
Meters
100 200 300 400
23.1
22.9 50
22.6
0
ES-11.1 N
23 PHOTO 1
22.7
23.1
22.8
100 200 300 400
50
22.9
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012.
0
N
23
23.1
Pho2t0o121)..Drainage outlet below quarry site (view from riverboat,October
R
orCna.
uJ
S
R
oi
e
nIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map
101Annex 1
23.8
23.4
23.9 23.4
ES-12.1 23.5 ES-12.1
23.5
23.6
RKM 23.6 to 24.4 24
23.6
Meters
PHOTO 2 24.1
23.7 23.7
PHOTO 2
24.2 23.8
23.8 PHOTO 1
La Chorrera PHOTO 1
Severe ErodingArea 12
23.9
24.3
23.9
24
24.4
50
Meters
24
0 100 200 300 400
Meters 24.1 N
24.5
24.1
24.2
24.6
24.2
24.3
100 200 300 400
PHOTO 3
24.4
24.3 50
PHOTO 3
0
N
100 200 24.5 400
24.4
50
0 24.6
Panoramic view from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:-N5movember 2012
N
24.5
24.6
Phobteor32.01S3t)e.ep eroding road cuts (view from riverboat Octo-
Pho(Lt1.hAocrrtievrea)ro(pahdcraorscshd2r0a1in4a)g.e outlet and below waterfall
.
sraCa
n
nJ
.
R
o
tir
fnIoi
R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map PhoOtoct2o.beSrte2e0p13e)r.oding road cuts (view from riverboat
102 28.5
Meters
400 Annex 1
28.5
Meters
28.6
400
28.4
300
RKM 28.5 to 28.9
28.6
28.7
ES-13.1 28.5
ES-13.1 300
200 Meters
400
Severe ErodingArea 13 28.7 28.8
28.6
100
200 300
50
28.9
28.7
28.8 0
200
N
100
29
28.8
50
28.9 100
0
50
N 28.9
0
29
N
29
PHOTO 1
Pioneered incomplete road cut,view of from helicopter,October 2012. CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:- N5movember 2012
R
la CS
n
J
S
R
i
ne
fI oi R
NICA. C.R.
Extent Map
PhoOtoct1o.beRro2a0d1c2u)t. pioneered through steep terrain but not completed (view from riverboat,
103 37.6
Annex 1 Meters
400
3.3
37.5
37.7
300
37.4
ES-14.1 ES-14.1
RKM 35.7 to 37.1
37.8
37.6
Meters 200
400
37.5
37.9
37.7 100
PHOTO 1
300
Severe ErodingArea 14 37.6
50
Meters
38 400
0
37.8 N
37.7
200
38.1 300
37.9
37.8
100 200
50
37.9
38
100
0
N
50
38
0
38.1
N
38.1
Pioneered incomplete road cut,view of from helicopter,October 2012.
CoInmtoaugersr:yInDdaetxe:- F5emb;rIunatreyrm20e1d4iate -1m
R
oa CS
n
nJ
.
R
t
ne
fI oi R
NICA. C.R.
Extent Map
Phohteolic1olieasyo2n01ro4a).dcut pioneered through steep terrain but not completed (view from
104 56
55.8
Annex 1
56.1
55.5
55.9
56.2
55.6
56
56.3
ES-15.1 55.7
Meters
RKM 55.8 to 56.6
56.1 56.4 55.8
ES-15.1
56.5 55.9
56.2
56.6
56
56.3
Severe Eroding Area 15
Meters
56.7 50
56.1
0 100 200 300 400
56.4 N
56.8
56.2
56.5
PHOTO 1
56.3
Meters
56.6
56.4
100 200 300 400
PHOTO 2
56.7 50 56.5
0
56.8 N 56.6
100 200 300 400
56.7 50
0
56.8 N
View of from helicopter,October 2012. Imagery Date: February 2014
R
sraCnS
Ja
a
R Pho(vto2.frFll chreolsicsickcitnogbwerat2e0r1b2o).dy. Evidence of failure.
o i
ne
fnIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map
Pho(ftr1. LannncaommctRed,Msiadye2c0as1t2fi).llslope along waterbody
105 57.9
Annex 1
58
58.1
57.6
58.2
ES-16.1
57.7
58.3
ES-16.1 57.8
RKM 57.3 to 59.2
58.4
57.9
58.5
Meters
58
PHOTO 2 57.6
58.6
57.7
58.1
58.7 57.8
58.2
57.9
Severe Eroding Area 16 58.8
58.3 58
58.9 50
0 100 200 300 400
58.1 N
58.4 59
58.2
58.5 59.1
Meters
58.3
59.2
58.6
58.4
58.5
58.7 Meters
58.6
58.8
100 200 300 400
58.7
58.9 50
0
N 58.8
100 200 300 400
59
50
58.9
0
N
59.1 59
PHOTO 1
59.2 59.1
59.2
View of eroding road section from helicopter,October 2012. Imagery Date: February 2014
u
a
a.R
Phohtoou2se.sLfaorrgendfrepohseedliccoupttearn,dOficltlosbloepre2s0. 1S2e)e.
oaCnSR
uJ
S
R
tn
f
nIoi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map
Pho2t0o121).. Gullying fill slopes (view from helicopter,October
106 72.7
72.8 Annex 1
72.4
72.2
72.9
72.5 ES-17.1 72.3
73
ES-17.1 Meters
RKM 72.3 to 73.6 72.4
72.6
73.1
72.5
72.7
73.2
72.8 72.6
73.3
72.7
Severe Eroding Area 17
73.4
50
72.8
0 100 200 300 400
73 73.5
72.9 N
Meters
73.6
73.1 73
Meters
73.1
73.2
73.2
73.3
73.3
100 200 300 400
73.4
50 100 200 300 400
73.4
50
0
0
73.5
N
73.5
N
73.6 73.6
View of eroding road section adjacent to river from helicopter,October 2012.
Imagery Date: February 2014
í
i
pa
.R
ol aSR
rCn
n
uJ
S
.R
o
tin
ef
I oi R
NICA.C.R.
Extent Map
View of eroding road section adjacent to river from helicopter,October 2012.
107Annex 1
Appendix B
Letter from Jeff Campbell of Spatial Solutions, Inc.
28 May 2014
108Annex 1
109Annex 1
Appendix C
Map of Potentially Unsafe Stream Crossings
110 Annex 1
0
E
1
h
h 2
hE
h 3
hE
4
E
h 5
E
h6 7
Eh E
h h 8
E
9
E
Access Road hh 10
hE
hh
11 13
h 12E 14
hhh E 15 E0.
h h 16
E E20.3
h
17
h
Río Infiernito hh 18 19
hh E 20 21
h h hhE h 22
E 23
E
24 25
h E
Access Road
Las Crucitas h 26
E
27
E
h
28
E
29
E
30
E
31
32 E
Legenh 3RWHQWLDOO\▯XQVDIH▯LGHQWL¿HG▯IURP▯KHOLFRSWHU▯DQG▯VDWHOOLWH33PEJHU\
E
h CCurrent Techni(Mende & Astorga, 2013) 34
rossings_exportte E
Broken 35
Current Technical State E
ApprClosede h 36 37
BrokImproved E E 38
Closed Provisional E
39 42
ImprWithout any Construction E E
Provisional h 40 41
Without any Constructionnstream of Mojon 2 E E
E RIVER_KM_PTS56 and access roads
R1856_LINE Access Road
<all other values>
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2
´
0 1.25 2.5 5 km Río San Carlos
Potentially unsafe road crossings that should require engineers assessment and / or be repaired before being declared
safe for passage. Mapped from December 2013 and February 2014 satellite imagery and helicopter flights in 2012,
2013, and 2014.
111Annex 1
h
E
41
E 42
E
43
E
44
E
Río San Carlos 45
E
46
E
47
E
h
48
E
h49
Access Road E
50
h
51
hE
52
E
53
E 54
E
55
E
56
h E
h 57
E
58
E 60 61
59E E
E
62
E
63
E 66
65 E
64 E 67
Access Road E E
68
E
69
E
70
E
71
E
72
E
h
73
E
74
E
75
E
76
hE
77
E h
Legend
h 3RWHQWLDOO\▯XQVDIH▯LGHQWL¿HG▯IURP▯KHOLFRSWHU▯DQG▯VDWHOOLWH▯LPDJHU\
Access Road 78
h CROSSINGS E
Current Technical Stat(Mende & Astorga, 2013)
Appropriate 79
rossings_export E
Broken
Current Technical State 80
Appropriate E
Closed
BrokenImproved Río Sarapiquí 81
E
Closed Provisional 82
E
ImprovedWithout any Construction
83
Provisional E
River Kilometers downstream of Mojon 2 84
Without any Construction E
E RIVER_KM_PTS1856 and access roads 85
E
R1856_LINE 86
E
<all other values> 87
E
´SJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2
88
0 1.25 2.5 5 km E
89
Potentially unsafe road crossings that should require engineers assessment and / or be repaired before being declared
safe for passage. Mapped from December 2013 and February 2014 satellite imagery and helicopter flights in 2012,
2013, and 2014.
112 Annex 1
Appendix D
Map of Potentially Unsafe Slopes
113Annex 1
0
E
1
E
2
E
3
E
4
E
5
E
6
E 7
E 8
E
9
E
Access Road
10
E
11 13
E E
12 14 15
E E E
16
E
17
E
Río Infiernito 18
19
E E 20 21
E E 22
E
23
E
24
25
E E
26
Access Road E
27
E
28
E
29
E
30
E
31
32 E
33 E
E
34
E 35
E
36 37
E E 38
E
39
42
E E
Legend 40 41
E E
NSAFE_SLO River kilometers from Mojon 2 E
0 Potentially Unsafe Slopes on Rte 1846
1
Gentle slopes or access roads Access Road
E RIVER_KM_PTS
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2
´ 0 1.25 2.5 5 km
Río San Carlos
Map of potentially unsafe slopes on Rte 1846 identified from helicopter and satellite imagery.
114 Annex 1
E
41
E
42
E
43
E
44
E
Río San Carlos 45
E
46
E
47
E
48
E
49
E
Access Road 50
E
51
E
52
E 53
E
54
E
55
E
56
E
57
E
58
E 60 61
59E E
E
62
E
63
E 66
65E
64E 67
Access Road E E
68
E
69
E
70
E
71
E
72
E
73
E
74
E
75
E
76
E
77
E
Access Road 78
E
79
E
80
E
Río Sarapiquí 81
E
82
E
83
Legend E
E 84
NSAFE_SLO E
River kilometers from Mojon 2
0 85
Potentially Unsafe Slopes on Rte 1846 E
1 Gentle slopes or access roads 86
E
E RIVER_KM_PTS 87
E
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2
´ 88
0 1.25 2.5 5 km E
89
Map of potentially unsafe slopes on Rte 1846 identified from helicopter and satellite imagery.
115Annex 1
E
E 64E E
E 68
69
E
70
E
71
E
72
E
73
E
74
E
75
E
76
E
77
Access Road E
78
E
79
E
80
E
E 81
Río Sarapiquí 82
E
83
E
Access Road 84
E
85
E
86
E
87
E
88
E
E 89
90
E
91 92
E E E 93 94
Access Road E
E 95
96
E
97
E
E 98 99
E 100 101
E E
102
E
103
E
104
E
105
E
106
E
107
E
Legend
E
NSAFE_SLO River kilometers from Mojon 2
0 Potentially Unsafe Slopes on Rte 1846
1 Gentle slopes or access roads
E RIVER_KM_PTS
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2
´
0 1.25 2.5 5 km
Map of road crossings derived from Mende & Astorga 2013, Annex 6 inventory of water crossings GIS database
requested by Nicaragua in 2014. The 0map of technical states was not provided in Annex 6.
116 Annex 1
Appendix E
Map of Sections of Route 1856 where
Relocation Should be Considered
117Annex 1
0
E
1
E
NICARAGUA 2
E
COSTA RICA
3
E
4
E
5 NICARAGUA
E
6
E 7
E 8
E
9
Access Road E
10
E
11 13
E E
12 14
E 15
E E
16
E
17
E
Río Infiernito
18
E 19 20 21
E E E 22
E 23
E
24 25
E
E
26
E
COSTA RICA Access Road
27
E
28
E
29
E
30
E
31
32 E
33
E
E
34
E
35
E
36 37
E E 38
E
Legend 39
42
istance E E E
River kilometers downstream of Mojon 2 41
50 40
100 Road through steep terrain with 100 meters of Rio San Juan E E
Road through steep terrain with 50 meters of Rio San Juan
E RIVER_KM_PTS
Road through gentle terrain
R1856_LINE Access Road
<all other values>
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2
´ 0 1.25 2.5 5 km
Río San Carlos
Map highlighting road through steep terrain and within close proximity to Río San Juan where relocation possibilities
should be considered.
118 Annex 1
E
41
E 42
E
43
E
44
E
Río San Carlos 45
E
46
E
47
E
48
E
49
E
Access Road 50 NICARAGUA
E
51
E
52
E 53
E
E 54
55
E
56
E
57
E
58
E 60 61
59E E
E
62
E
63
E 66
65E
64E 67
Access Road E E
68
E
69
E
70
E
71
E
COSTA RICA
72
E
73
E
74
E
75
E
76
E
E 77
Access Road 78
E
E 79
80
E
Río Sarapiquí 81
E
82
Legend E
istance E 83
River kilometers downstream of Mojon 2 E
50
Road through steep terrain with 100 meters of Rio San Juan 84
100 E
Road through steep terrain with 50 meters of Rio San Juan 85
E RIVER_KM_PTS E
Road through gentle terrain
R1856_LINE E 86
<all other values> 87
E
R´J_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 88
E
0 1.25 2.5 5 km
89
Map highlighting road through steep terrain and within close proximity to Río San Juan where relocation possibilities
should be considered.
119Annex 1
Appendix F
Road-Derived Deltas in the Río San Juan
120 Annex 1
H
AT
P
W
BANK OL BANK
F
W RIO SAN JUAN
DELTA
L
PLAN VIEW
W
BANK
H DELTA
RIO SAN JUAN
SUMBERGED
DELTA
PROFILE VIEW
Diagrams of field-measured delta dimensions
121Annex 1
9.6
9.6 Delta
Photo date: May 2, 2014
Delta deposit below Erosion Site 9.6. Ecological Sampling Site 3a.
Width (perpindicular to RSJ) = 15m Length (parallel to RSJ) = 21m Height (above RSJ water surface) = 2m
Photo and measurement date: March 30, 2014
122 Annex 1
9.5
9.5 Delta
Photo date: May 2, 2014
9.6 Delta 9.5 Delta
Delta deposit below Erosion Site 9.5.
Dimensions not directly measured, but similar in scale to 9.6.
Photo date: March 30, 2014
123Annex 1
9.4
9.4 Delta
Photo date: May 2, 2014
Delta deposit below Erosion Site 9.4. Ecological Sampling Site 2a.
Width (perpindicular to RSJ) = 10m Length (parallel to RSJ) = 25m Height (above RSJ water surface) = 1.8m
Photo and measurement date: March 30, 2014
124 Annex 1
8.1
8.2
Fill blocking
drainage path
8.1, 8.2 Delta
Photo date: May 2, 2014
8.1, 8.2 Delta
Delta deposit below Erosion Sites 8.1 and 8.2.
Dimensions not measured in the field.
Photo and measurement date: March 30, 2014
125Annex 1
9.7
9.7 Delta
Photo date: May 2, 2014
Delta deposit below Erosion Site 9.7. Ecological Sampling Site 6a.
Width (perpindicular to RSJ) = 21m Length (parallel to RSJ) = 25m Height (above RSJ water surface) = 1.7m
Photo and measurement date: March 30, 2014
126 Annex 1
9.7
9.8
9.7/9.8 Delta
Photo date: May 2, 2014
Delta deposit below Erosion Site 9.7. Ecological Sampling Site 7a.
Width (perpindicular to RSJ) = 13m Length (parallel to RSJ) = 30m Height (above RSJ water surface) = 1.6m
Photo and measurement date: March 30, 2014
127Annex 1
Fill crossing pre-failure
Photo date: October 17, 2012
Refilled crossing
Delta deposit at fill crossing failure 20.3 km downstream of Mojon 2. Ecological Sampling Site 8a.
Width (perpindicular to RSJ) = 13m Length (parallel to RSJ) = 15m Height (above RSJ water surface) = 1.5m
Photo and measurement date: March 31, 2014
128 Annex 1
Photo date: May 2, 2014
Sediment deposit at mouth of Caño Venado, an example of a more natural deposit with a lower and wider profile
indicating less rapid deposition. Ecological Sampling Site 4a.
Width (perpindicular to RSJ) = 50m Length (parallel to RSJ) = 50m Height (above RSJ water surface) = 0.75m
Photo and measurement date: March 30, 2014
129Annex 1
Appendix G
Roy C. Sidle et al., Unprecedented Rates of Landslide
and Surface Erosion along a Newly Constructed Road
in Yunnan, China, 57 Nat. Hazards 313 (2011)
130 Annex 1
Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326
DOI 10.1007/s11069-010-9614-6
ORIGINAL PAPER
Unprecedented rates of landslide and surface erosion
along a newly constructed road in Yunnan, China
Roy C. Sidle Takahisa Furuichi Yasuyuki Kono
Received: 6 December 2008/Accepted: 2 September 2010/Published online: 23 September 2010
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010
Abstract Field measurements conducted 4 years after the construction of a new portion
of the Weixi–Shangri-La road in Yunnan, China, reveal that unprecedented rates of mass
wasting occurred along the road with much of this sediment directly impacting the
headwaters -1 the -1kong River. Landslide erosion (including dry ravel) exceeded
33,000 t ha year along the most severely eroded sections of the road and averaged
more than 9,600 t ha-1 year-1 along the surveyed 23.5 km of road; these values are the
highest ever reported for road-related landslides. While surface erosion was only about 7%
of the total erosion from the road, it is still more than an order of magnitude higher than
typical surface erosion rates from disturbed lands in Southeast Asia. Combined landslide
and surface erosion from this road delivered an estimated 19 times more sediment to the
river than the remaining 99.6% of the contributing catchment. These sediment inputs are
aggrading local channels, promoting downstream sediment transport, degrading aquatic
habitat, and creating the possibility for a future debris flood or hyperconcentrated flow.
Keywords Road-related landslides Dry ravel Channel aggradation Gulley erosion
Mekong River Rural development
1 Introduction
Mountain roads are the most prodigious source of landslide sediment associated with all
widespread land uses, yet the consequences of road building on the environment are not
R. C. Sidle (&)
Environmental Science Program, Department of Geology, Appalachian State University,
P.O. Box 32067, Boone, NC 28608, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
T. Furuichi
Center of Education for Leaders in Environmental Sectors, Tokyo University of Agriculture
and Technology, 3-8-1 Harumi-cho, Fuchu-shi, Tokyo 183-8538, Japan
Y. Kono
Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan
123
131Annex 1
314 Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326
fully appreciated or embraced by many government agencies, conservation groups, and
international donors (Sidle and Ochiai 2006). Particularly in developing countries, poorly
planned and constructed mountain roads leave a legacy of sedimentation in streams and
rivers and frequently cause casualties and property damage (e.g., Bansal and Mathur 1976;
Haigh 1984; Jones and Lee 1989; Sidle et al. 2006; Dykes and Welford 2007). Even in
Japan, which arguably invests the greatest amount of resources in erosion control along
roads, landslide disasters occur associated with these corridors (Sidle and Ochiai 2006).
Roads excavated into steep mountain slopes create instability in the following ways:
(1) undercutting steep slopes, thus removing support; (2) overloading and oversteepening
fillslopes, including within the road prism; and (3) altering natural hydrologic pathways
and concentrating water onto unstable portions of the hillslope (Sidle and Ochiai 2006).
Additionally, roads intercept subsurface flow from cutslopes during storms and concentrate
overland flow on their compacted or paved surfaces. This water is then discharged
downslope at concentrated drainage points where it may cause extensive surface erosion
and even channel headcutting (Sidle et al. 2004; Ziegler et al. 2006). When road surfaces
are unpaved, much surface erosion may occur due to storm runoff (e.g., Baharuddin et al.
1995; Ziegler et al. 2004). Surface erosion also occurs on exposed cut- and fillslopes (e.g.,
Megahan and Ketcheson 1996; Sidle et al. 2004). Road design, construction practices, and
particularly location can ameliorate these impacts; however, any road cut into a steep
hillslope will exert some destabilizing affect. Engineering structural controls on road
stability (e.g., Holtz and Schuster 1996) have variable levels of success, but are prohibi-
tively expensive in remote regions of developing countries (Sidle and Ochiai 2006).
Significant landslide and erosion problems associated with mountain roads are evident
in developing countries of Asia where road systems are rapidly expanding due to presumed
needs for economic and social development, national defense, evacuation routes, and
increasing tourism (Haigh 1984; Sakakibara et al. 2004; Castella et al. 2005; Sidle and
Ochiai 2006). In particular, the total mileage of rural roads in China increased by 5.5-fold
during the 30-year period from 1978 through the end of 2007 (China Road Construction
Report 2008). Here, we present some of the first comprehensive road erosion and landslide
estimates for the rapidly developing region of northern Yunnan Province, China, along the
new Weixi–Shangri-La road.
The primary objective of this investigation is to quantify the amount of landslide and
surface erosion emanating from different parts of a newly developed mountain road in
Yunnan, China, as well as for different erosion susceptibility categories. Also, the con-
tributions of sediment from the road are compared to potential sediment sources from other
parts of the terrain. Finally, we assess the connectivity of road-related sediment sources to
the upper tributaries of the Mekong River as well as infer possible downstream and other
environmental consequences.
2 Study area
Northwestern Yunnan has been a poor, remote mountainous region of China (Fig. 1), but is
now experiencing rapid growth due to tourism and rural economic development (e.g.,
Krongkaew 2004; Nyaupane et al. 2006). This region includes the Three Parallel Rivers of
Yunnan Protected Areas, which was designated as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in
2003. The north–south trending Hengduan Mountains create the steep gorges of the
Salween, Mekong, and Jinsha Rivers, which, at their nearest proximity, are 18 and 66 km
apart. The former two rivers flow through other Southeast Asian nations, and the latter is
123
132 Annex 1
Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326 315
Fig. 1 Map of the study area showing the location of the recently constructed Weixi–Shangri-La road
the upstream reach of the Yangtze River (Fig. 1). A new 28-km segment of the Weixi–
Shangri-La road was constructed in 2002 through steep mountains near and along head-
waters of the Yong Chun River (tributary to the Mekong River) to expedite travel to Weixi;
the old road, which originated near the divide between the Jinsha and Mekong River basins
and traversed through higher elevations descending to the town of Weixi, was 44 km long
and was impassable during limited periods in winter (Fig. 1). Elevation in the study area
0 0 0 0
(latitude: 27°11 N–27°20 N; longitude: 99°16 E–99°20 E) ranged from approximately
3,000 to 3,750 m. The new road was blasted into weathered bedrock along the steep
mountainsides exposing cutslopes up to 80 m high and depositing the waste rock and soil
onto the oversteepened fillslopes. Due to the uniformly steep gradients below the road,
much of the sediment generated during construction and, most notably afterward via
landslides and surface erosion, was deposited directly into the tributaries of the Yong Chun
River or its riparian area (Fig. 2).
This area experiences a temperate climate with monsoon storms occurring from April to
October with a short period of dry weather in June. Average annual rainfall is 968 mm;
higher elevations generally experience larger amounts of precipitation (Weixi County
1999). Hillsides along the most unstable sections of the road are very steep (31° to[43°),
with especially steep and uniform slopes extending to the tributaries of the Yong Chun
River. Slopes along slightly more stable portions of the road ranged from 25 to 37° but
were locally steeper. The region is tectonically active, although large earthquakes did not
occur near this area in the interval between road construction and our field surveys.
Bedrock is highly sheared, folded, and fractured and is largely composed of ignimbrite and
rhyolite with some metamorphic inclusions. Some landslides can be seen on relatively
undisturbed hillslopes in this area; thus, the road corridor was naturally unstable;
123
133Annex 1
316 Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326
Fig. 2 a The large cutslope failure that killed six people traveling along the road in a minivan in summer
2006; and b sediment from displaced cutslope sediment and failures in the fillslope that directly entered the
stream channel
Fig. 3 Aerial view of landslides in this region by ASTER false images. Locations of both frames are shown
in Fig. 1. The left frame (a) shows cutslope and extensive fillslope failures related to the Weixi–Shangri-La
road, while the right frame (b) shows a lesser extent of landslides on steep slopes in a nearby catchment
unaffected by road construction
nevertheless, a cursory examination shows that the recently constructed Weixi–Shangri-La
road markedly increased landslide erosion (Fig. 3). During construction, it appears that
little or no action was taken to control blasting, and virtually, no attention was paid to road
location and erosion control. The location of the road simply corresponds to the most direct
transport route through this mountainous terrain. Additionally, no engineering structures
were installed to mitigate unstable sections of the road (e.g., high cuts into fractured and
weathered bedrock; large fill placements on steep slopes).
In addition to the sediment generated from this road and its effect on river systems,
road-related landslides present a hazard to traffic. During summer of 2006, six people
traveling down this portion of the Weixi–Shangri-La road in a minivan were killed by a
landslide originating from a steep cutslope that was blasted into the mountainside (Fig. 2a).
123
134 Annex 1
Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326 317
Such a disaster on a lightly traveled road is indicative of the high frequency of landsliding
that was observed in the field.
3 Methods
In October 2006, landslides and surface erosion were visually assessed along a 23.5-km
portion of the new Weixi–Shangri-La road; the remaining 4.5 km of the new road was in
the valley bottom near Weixi or outside the Mekong Basin near the divide. The combined
landslide/surface erosion along the entire 23.5 km of road was significant and was quali-
tatively categorized as moderately severe, severe, or very severe. The general criteria for
the three landslide/erosion categories were based on conditions noted for each kilometer of
road: (1) moderately severe—one to three moderate-sized landslides ([300 m 3) and minor
surface erosion or no moderate-sized large landslides and significant surface erosion;
(2) severe—greater than three, but less than six moderate-sized landslides or one to three
moderate-sized landslides and severe surface erosion (i.e., major gullies); and (3) very
severe—six or more moderate-sized landslides and significant surface erosion. For each
category, a representative 0.75- to 0.90-km section of road was then surveyed in detail for
both landslide and surface erosion.
Surface erosion was estimated on disturbed cut- and fillslopes based on the measure-
ments of several hundred soil erosion pedestals at the site. Such estimates appear to give
conservative yet reliable estimates of cumulative surface erosion in sites where such well-
formed soil pedestals develop (Sidle et al. 2004). Where slopes had only small gullies
(\0.5 m deep), this erosion was conservatively estimated based on pedestal data. Slope
dimensions were measured by a distance meter (range finder), and the area of active
surface erosion was multiplied by the average height of the soil pedestals and then divided
by the time since road construction (4 year) to calculate an average surface erosion rate.
Deeper gullies were mapped and volumes estimated from dimensional analysis based on
gulley shape, length, and measured or estimated depth (Fig. 4). Given the rather crude
metrics used to estimate surface erosion, errors associated with values derived would likely
be in the order of ±10–15% with a bias toward underestimation.
Lengths and widths of landslides were measured with metric tapes where possible or
with a distance meter (range finder). Depths around the flanks of landslides on cut- and
fillslopes were measured directly where possible and otherwise estimated to facilitate
calculation of landslide volumes by dimensional analysis. Based on the simple field
methods and approximations used to calculate landslide volumes, errors are likely in the
range of ±10%. Nevertheless, such measurements are undoubtedly more accurate than
values derived from remote sensing or GPS (e.g., Barbarella et al. 2000; Tsutsui et al.
2007). Volumes of landslides and surface erosion were converted to mass using mea-
surements of bulk density. For surficial material (surface erosion, including gullies), the
-3
measured mean bulk density of surface soil was used (1.34 g cm ). Mass wasting features
(landslides and dry ravel) had higher amounts of rock materials. Based on 30% rock
content by volume estimated co-3ervatively in the field, bulk density of landslide and dry
ravel materials was 1.73 g cm .
Dry ravel, the gravitational downslope movement of individual soil grains, aggregates,
and coarse fragments by rolling, sliding, or bounding (Sidle and Ochiai 2006), was a
significant process on some steep cutslopes and fillslopes. Because little quantitative data
are available on this poorly studied mass wasting process, we used a value of
3 -1 -1 3 -1 -1
20 m ha year on the steepest slopes ([40°), half of this value (10 m ha year )
123
135Annex 1
318 Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326
Fig. 4 Extensive gulley erosion
occurred on road fillslopes in the
severe erosion category. For
gullies deeper than 0.5 m,
dimensions were measured and
eroded volume was calculated
on slope gradients from 30 to 40°, and no ravel was assumed on slopes\30°. These ravel
estimates are based on field data from Kumanodaira, Gunma Prefecture, Japan (R.C. Sidle,
unpublished data).
Erosion and landslide estimates were calculated separately for cut- and fillslopes. These
values are expressed based on the ‘footprint’ of the road—i.e., sediment mass per unit area
of road per year. Road area is calculated based on the product of the length of a given
surveyed section and the average width of the road (20 m from the base of the cutslope to
the outer edge of the fillslope). Landside and surface erosion data were then extrapolated to
the entire 24.5-km road section based on the prior visual estimates of erosion/landslide
severity categories.
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Comparison of mass and surface erosion
The ratio of mass wasting (includes landslides plus dry ravel) to surface erosion ranged
from about 1.6 in the severe erosion road category to nearly 16 in both the moderately
severe and very severe categories (Fig. 5). The high mass wasting to surface erosion ratio
in the moderately severe category is due to the lack of gulley erosion; in contrast, the lower
mass wasting to surface erosion-1atio -1 the severe erosion category coincides with the
highest gulley erosion (145 t ha year ) of all erosion categories (Fig. 4). For the three
123
136 Annex 1
Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326 319
40000
Mass Wasting
30000 Surface Erosion
20000
10000
Erosion Rate (t/ha/yr)
0
Mod. Severe Severe Very Severe
Erosion Category
Fig. 5 Comparison of mass erosion with surface erosion in three different categories of erosion severity
along the Weixi–Shangri-La road
3
inventoried road sections (0.75–0.90 km), only one and two moderately large ([2,000 m )
landslides were associated with the moderately severe and severe erosion sections,
3
respectively; in contrast, six large ([7,500 m ) landslides were documented in the very
severe erosion section. Thus, it is the dominance of larger landslides in this very severe
-1 -1
category that sets it apart from the other classes; mass wasting was 33,450 t ha year in
the very severe category compared to 2,120 t ha -1 year-1 for surface erosion (Fig. 5).
Nevertheless, these surface erosion estimates are extremely high values compared to
surface erosion on disturbed lands in Southeast Asia (e.g., Sidle et al. 2006).
4.2 Mass wasting
Slightly more landslides were inventoried along cutslopes compared to fillslopes, but the
rate of landslide sediment production from fillslopes was about 17 and 100 times higher
than rates from fillslopes for the severe and very severe erosion sections, respectively
(Fig. 6). In the very severe erosion section of the road (0.85 km in length), six large
([7,500 m 3) landslides were inventoried on fillslopes, while the average volume of
3 3
cutslope failures was only 126 m (maximum volume = 730 m ). Many of the smaller
cutslope failures were trapped on the road prism (Fig. 7), while most of the landslides in
fillslopes continued down the steep hillside unimpeded to the Yong Chun River tribu-
taries (Fig. 2b). The higher volumes of fillslope failures include scouring of the lower
slopes as the mass movements proceeded to the stream. No fillslope landslides were
inventoried in the moderately severe erosion section (0.75 km in length). Total landslide
erosion rates along the moderately severe, severe, and very severe monitored sections of
the road were about 155, 24, and 210 times greater than the estimated rates of dry ravel
(Fig. 6), yet by erosion standards for degraded lands in Southeast Asia (Sidle et al. 2006),
the ravel rates in the severe and very severe road sections would be considered quite
high.
It is clear that translational fillslope landslides generate more sediment loss and deliver
more sediment to streams than all other mass wasting processes combined; however, these
failures are more spatially limited compared to other erosion and mass wasting processes.
One reason for the high amount of sediment delivery is that once these fillslope failures
123
137Annex 1
320 Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326
100000
Ravel
Fill Failures
10000 Cutslope Failures
1000
100
Erosi10 Rate (t/ha/yr)
1
Mod. Severe Severe Very Severe
Erosion Category
Fig. 6 Landslide erosion from cutslopes and fillslopes and ravel erosion in three different categories of
erosion severity along the Weixi–Shangri-La road
Fig. 7 Small cutslope failures trapped on the road prism
initiate on steep slopes, they move directly to the tributaries of the Yong Chun River and
often entrain additional sediment along the way. It was not possible to assess how many of
the fillslope failures were exacerbated by concentration of road drainage, although it
appears that most were merely attributable to the placement of loose and unstable fill on
steep sideslopes. While the cutslope failures can be more deadly (i.e., the one that killed six
people traveling by in a minivan in summer 2006), at least a portion of the sediment
generated by such landslides is trapped on the road surface (Fig. 7), unless, of course, the
entire road prism fails. Almost all of the cutslope failures were related to excavation and
oversteepening of the hillsides. No road-related slope failures appear to initiate directly
within the prism (traveling surface) along the Weixi–Shangri-La road.
Extrapolating these rates of mass wasting to the 24.5-km stretch of the Weixi–Shangri-
La road provides an estimate of landslide erosion losses and delivery rates to streams in
this headwater system. Based on the estimated contributions from different erosion cate-
gories of the road, mass wasting rate was 9,610 t ha -1 year -1 during the first 4 years after
123
138 Annex 1
Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326 321
road construction. This rate is more than an order of magnitude higher than the highest
landslide rate ever previously documented in careful investigations along roads (summa-
rized by Sidle and Ochiai 2006). To put this into perspective, the average mass wasting rate
along the Weixi–Shangri-La road during the first 4 years after construction was 185 times
higher than the average landslide erosion along forest roads constructed in highly unstable
terrain based on numerous studies in western USA in the 1960–1980 s (summarized by
Sidle and Ochiai (2006)). This average value of road-related erosion in western USA
-1 -1
(about 52 t ha year ) was sufficiently high to convince forest policy makers to
essentially terminate logging on Federal lands in this region in the 1980s.
4.3 Surface erosion
Sheet wash and rill erosion from cutslopes dominated surface erosion rates, especially in
severe and very severe erosion categories where cutslope erosion was 2.5 and 4.4 times
higher, respectively, than fillslope erosion (Fig. 8). Even the surface erosion rates esti-
-1 -1 -1 -1
mated from the cutslopes (33 t ha year ) and fillslopes (58 t ha year ) of the
moderately severe erosion road section are comparable to erosion rates from highly dis-
turbed lands in Southeast Asia (Sidle et al. 2006). The surface erosion rates in the severe
and very severe erosion categories (218–1,719 t ha -1 year-1 ) are higher than from most
any land uses and secondary roads in Southeast Asia (Sidle et al. 2006) (Fig. 8). Gulley
erosion was concentrated in the severe erosion section (Fig. 4) and was the distinguishing
feature separating the severe erosion category from the moderately severe category where
no gulley erosion was noted. The fact that very little gulley erosion was noted in the very
severe erosion category could have been masked due to the reworking of fillslopes by
landslides and ravel (Fig. 2b).
Considering the entire 24.5-km section of the Weixi–Shangri-La road, average surface
-1 -1
erosion from all sources was 765 t ha year . While this value is only about 7% of the
total erosion (including landslides and ravel) from the road, it exceeds all values of road
and trail erosion reported from even the most disturbed logging skid trails in the tropics
(Sidle et al. 2006). This is a bit unexpected because erosion only occurs on cut- and
fillslopes; no erosion would occur from the paved road surface. The high surface erosion
2000
Cutslope
Fillslope
1500 Gulley
1000
500
Erosion Rate (t/ha/yr)
0
Mod. Severe Severe Very Severe
Erosion Category
Fig. 8 Surface erosion estimates from cutslopes and fillslopes and gulley erosion in three different
categories of erosion severity along the Weixi–Shangri-La road
123
139Annex 1
322 Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326
levels are attributable to the long, unvegetated fillslopes and especially the long and
oversteepened cutslopes.
4.4 Aggradation of stream channels
Based on our qualitative field observations, large amounts of debris and sediment have
accumulated in the stream channels adjacent and downgradient from the newly constructed
road. This sediment appears to have originated from landslides, debris flows, dry ravel, and
surface wash from fillslopes along the road and to a lesser extent from cutslopes. Fresh
sediment was observed in channels in the catchment that were downslope of the new road
(Fig. 9a), whereas adjacent channels of similar catchment size, gradient, and baseflow
discharge (\1m 3s-1 ) that were not impacted by roads had significantly less sedimentation
(Fig. 9b). In some cases, channel aggradation damaged cultivated lands in the floodplain.
The deposited sediment in these headwaters is subsequently transported to the main
stem of the Mekong River (Fig. 10); however, stream morphology, including the lack of
scour evidence in floodplain deposits, suggests that episodic flooding events, which
transport the majority of the sediment and debris in the impacted tributaries, have not
occurred in this area since the road construction began in 2002. The absence of major
flooding in this headwater system during the 4 years following road construction was
corroborated by local residents. Based on these observations, future evolution of channel
morphology may occur in one of two ways with very different hazard implications. In the
first scenario, the level of peak flows will not be sufficient (i.e., energy limited) to transport
the bulk of the aggraded sediment and debris out of the impacted tributaries, and pro-
gressive partial transport of sediment will continue for the next few centuries. In a second
Fig. 9 a Aggradation of the stream in the vicinity and downstream of the road; b similar size stream with
similar gradient and baseflow discharge in an adjacent catchment with no significant road influences: little
sediment aggradation occurred in this channel. Both stream reaches are shown in Fig. 1
123
140 Annex 1
Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326 323
Fig. 10 The confluence of the Yong Chun River with the Mekong River (see Fig. 1 for location); debris
and sediment transported from the tributary form a small delta near the confluence
less likely scenario, a major flooding event will provide ample energy to transport the
majority of the accumulated sediment and debris resulting in a large debris flood or
hyperconcentrated flow (e.g., Slaymaker 1988; Yumuang 2006; Jakob and Weatherly
2008). Quantitative investigations into sediment and debris transport in this channel
together with probabilistic assessment of flood frequency are necessary to address this
environmentally important question.
4.5 Comparison of road-related erosion with other sources
Comparison of road-related sediment that is delivered to river channels with sediment from
the greater landscape, where scattered agriculture and other human activities persist, is
difficult because of problems with assessing sediment delivery related to widespread land
uses. Based on our observations in this catchment, as well as numerous surrounding areas,
sediment delivery to channels from widespread land use is relatively minor because many
of these activities occur on gentler slopes or in areas where slope breaks and/or heavily
vegetated buffers reside downslope. It is well known that erosion estimates from managed
plots are typically much higher than from similar land use distributed throughout catch-
ments because of opportunities for sediment deposition prior to reaching channels (e.g.,
Sidle et al. 2006). Mountain roads, on the other hand, are more direct vectors of sediment
to channels. Given a conservative estimate that 80% of the road-related landslide sediment
and surface erosion was delivered to the river system in our study area, this would still be
-1 -1
about 8,300 t ha year , orders of magnitude higher than reported erosion rates from
agricultural activities in Asia (Sidle et al. 2006).
For the reach of the Yong Chun River affected by the Weixi–Shangri-La road, a
2
contributing area of approximately 125.5 km exists on the northeast side of the river
(Fig. 1). Even though the road occupies less than 0.4% of this catchment area (about
0.5 km 2), it is responsible for the bulk of the sedimentation. Field observations revealed
that the much of the catchment was covered by brush with scattered trees and interspersed
with various small-scale agricultural activities. Based on data from Southeast Asia as well
as our field observations, erosion from such land cover and hillslopes would not be more
123
141Annex 1
324 Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326
-1 -1
than 3.5 t ha year . Assuming a rather generous delivery rate of 50% from these
remote sources, the average annual sediment contributed to the river system from the non-
roaded portions of our study area would be about 21,960 Mg. This compares to about
415,000 Mg delivered the river annually by combined surface and mass erosion—nearly
19 times the sediment delivery from the remaining 99.6% of the catchment area on the
northeast side of the river. This comparison does not include any erosion or landslides
emanating from the older road. Since the surveyed road is newly constructed and landslide
erosion is typically higher during the first few years following construction, these rates will
likely decrease with time. Nevertheless, the deep cuts into unstable bedrock and the loose
material on steep fillslopes will provide active sources of sediment for years to come.
4.6 Summary, conclusions, and recommendations
Both the surface erosion and especially the landslide erosion rates estimated along the
Weixi–Shangri-La road during the first 4 years after construction exceeded any values ever
reported for mountain roads. These unprecedented rates of landslide erosion
(1,410–33,450 t ha -1 year-1 depending on the erosion severity category of the road) are
particularly significant because this is a paved mountain road. Unfortunately, similar
erosion/sedimentation scenarios appear to be occurring throughout the northern Yunnan
region, especially related to the construction of unpaved mountain roads in the other
headwater reaches of the Mekong River as well as in headwaters of the Salween and Jinsha
Rivers. During our excursions through this area in October 2006 and December 2007 and
based on our detailed observations along the Weixi–Shangri-La road, we conclude that a
large proportion of the direct sediment contributions into these headwaters is attributable to
road-related erosion, predominantly landslides.
The most problematic source of sediment, especially related to delivery to channels, is
fillslope failures. It appears that waste rock and soil was simply pushed onto steep
sideslopes during road construction lending this material highly susceptible to sliding-type
failures, which are easily routed into the headwaters. By incorporating and compacting this
soil and rock material into the road prism or hauling it off to more stable sites (i.e., end
hauling), many of these fillslope failures could have been prevented. Moreover, the
location of the road was not optimally considered. Long stretches of road were excavated
through terrain where long, steep cutslopes were required. These cutslopes produce sub-
stantial landslide erosion, persistent ravel, and high levels of surface erosion in all erosion
categories. Much of this cutslope erosion was likely redistributed to the fillslope and
eventually to the channel because sediment from smaller (nuisance) landslides along
cutslopes was physically pushed downslope or transported by overland flow. The bulk of
the mass of larger cutslope landslides was redistributed downslope of the road during the
failures. Large cutslope landslides, while not as numerous as large fillslope landslides, have
already claimed the lives of six travelers along this road. This history does not bode well
for future risk along this highway as traffic increases. The incidence of large and damaging
cutslope landslides appears rather commonplace along recently excavated mountain roads
in this region of northwestern Yunnan where bedrock has been sheared, folded, and
fractured during tectonic uplift and past seismic activity.
Given the high levels of sediment being rapidly introduced to headwater reaches of
these northern Yunnan rivers, it begs the question as to what the off-site and downstream
impacts will be. Nearly all the steep land area between the road failures and river channel is
rendered useless—both from productivity and from safety perspectives. The larger-scale
impacts of road-related landslides and severe erosion include the interaction of sediment
123
142 Annex 1
Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326 325
with downstream water bodies and natural resources. One scenario is that the sediment will
accumulate in these headwaters and be progressively transported downstream through
other poorer nations of Southeast Asia. Such sedimentation is occurring, at least to some
extent, and includes issues such as the alteration of channel morphology, which affects the
conveyance capacity of rivers and the extent of the floodplain, and the possible transport of
pollutants adsorbed on fine sediments (e.g., Zong and Chen 2000; Owens et al. 2005).
Additionally, there is a risk of water quality and aquatic habitat deterioration (e.g., Sidle
and Ochiai 2006; Bu et al. 2010). Another possibility is that the accumulating sediment in
these headwaters will be suddenly mobilized in the future during an episodic flood. The
possibilities of such cumulative and long-term disasters need to be carefully investigated in
mountainous regions of Yunnan where streams are receiving such high levels of landslide
erosion. Such assessments need to guide the future need, development, and location of
mountain roads in this unstable terrain.
Acknowledgments This study was an outcome of a research project of the Institute of Sustainability
Science, Kyoto University, and was supported by the Integrated Research System for Sustainability Science
(IR3S), in particular the Kyoto Sustainability Initiative (KSI) financed by Japan Science and Technology
Agency (JST). Gratitude is expressed to T. Yamaguchi, X.X. Zhang, Y. Su, and C. Gu for assistance in field
investigations and interpretation of Chinese maps.
References
Baharuddin K, Mokhtaruddin AM, Nik Muhamad M (1995) Surface runoff and soil loss from a skid trail and
a logging road in a tropical forest. J Trop For Sci 7:558–569
Bansal RC, Mathur HN (1976) Landslides—the nightmare of hill roads. Soil Conserv Digest 4(1):36–37
Barbarella M, Fazio C, Fiani M (2000) Evaluation of landslide volume using photogrammetric techniques.
Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sens 33(part B4):278–282
Bu H, Tan X, Li S, Zhang Q (2010) Temporal and spatial variations of water quality in the Jinshui River of
the South Qinling Mts., China. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 73:907–913
Castella J-C, Manh PH, Kam SP, Villano L, Tronche NR (2005) Analysis of village accessibility and its
impact on land use dynamics in a mountainous province of northern Vietnam. Appl Geogr 25:308–326
China Road Construction Report (2008) China road construction report, 2007–2008. Research in China, p 62
Dykes AP, Welford MR (2007) Landslides in the Tandayapa Valley, northern Andes, Ecuador: implications
for landform development in humid and tectonically active mountain ranges. Landslides 4:177–187
Haigh MJ (1984) Landslide prediction and highway maintenance in the Lesser Himalayas, India. Z Geo-
morphol NF 51:17–37
Holtz RD, Schuster RL (1996) Stabilization of soil slopes. In: Turner AK, Schuster RL (eds) Landslides—
investigation and mitigation. Special report 247, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council (US). National Academic Press, Washington, DC, pp 439–473
Jakob M, Weatherly H (2008) Integrating uncertainty: Canyon Creek hyperconcentrated flows of November
1989 and 1990. Landslides 5:83–95
Jones DKC, Lee EM (1989) The Catak landslide disaster, Turkey. Q J Eng Geol 22:93–95
Krongkaew M (2004) The development of the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS): real promise or false
hope? J Asian Econ 15:977–998
Megahan WF, Ketcheson GL (1996) Predicting downslope travel of granitic sediments from forest roads in
Idaho. J Am Water Resour As 32:371–382
Nyaupane GP, Morais DB, Dowler L (2006) The role of community involvement and number/type of
visitors on tourism impacts: a controlled comparison of Annapurna, Nepal and Northwest Yunnan,
China. Tourism Manag 27:1373–1385
Owens PN, Batalla RJ, Collins AJ, Gomez B, Hicks DM, Horowitz AJ, Kondolf GM, Marden M, Page MJ,
Peacock DH, Petticrew EL, Salomons W, Trustrum NA (2005) Fine-grained sediment in river systems:
environmental significance and management issues. River Res Appl 21:693–717
Sakakibara H, Kajitani Y, Okada N (2004) Road network robustness for avoiding functional isolation in
disasters. J Transp Eng ASCE 130(5):560–567
123
143Annex 1
326 Nat Hazards (2011) 57:313–326
Sidle RC, Ochiai H (2006) Landslides: processes, prediction, and land use. Am Geophysical Union. Water
Resour Monogr No. 18. AGU, Washington, DC, p 312
Sidle RC, Sasaki S, Otsuki M, Noguchi S, Abdul Rahim N (2004) Sediment pathways in a tropical forest:
effects of logging roads and skid trails. Hydrol Process 18:703–720
Sidle RC, Ziegler AD, Negishi JN, Abdul Rahim N, Siew R, Turkelboom F (2006) Erosion processes in
steep terrain—truths, myths, and uncertainties related to forest management in Southeast Asia. Forest
Ecol Manag 224(1–2):199–225
Slaymaker O (1988) The distinctive attributes of debris torrents. Hydrol Sci J 33:567–573
Tsutsui K, Rokugawa S, Nakagawa H, Miyazaki S, Cheng C-T, Shiraishi T, Yang S-D (2007) Detection and
volume estimation of large-scale landslides based on elevation-change analysis using DEMs extracted
from high-resolution satellite stereo imagery. IEEE Trans Geosci Remote Sens 45(6):1681–1696
Weixi County (1999) Monograph of Weixi County. Yunnan Ethnic Publication, Kunming, p 987
(in Chinese)
Yumuang S (2006) 2001 Debris flow and debris flood in Nam Ko area, Phetchabun Province, Central
Thailand. Environ Geol 51:545–564
Ziegler AD, Giambelluca TW, Sutherland RA, Nullet MA, Yarnasarn S, Pinthong J, Preechapanya P, Jaiaree
S (2004) Toward understanding the cumulative impacts of roads in upland agricultural watersheds of
northern Thailand. Agric Ecosyst Environ 104:145–158
Ziegler AD, Negishi JN, Sidle RC, Preechapanya P, Sutherland RA, Giambelluca TW, Jaiaree S (2006)
Reduction of stream sediment concentration by a riparian buffer: filtering of road runoff in disturbed
headwater basins of montane mainland Southeast Asia. J Environ Qual 35:151–162
Zong YQ, Chen XQ (2000) The 1998 flood on the Yangtze, China. Nat Hazards 22:165–184
123
144 Annex 1
Copyright of Natural Hazards is the property of Kluwer Academic Publishing and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyrig▯ht holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use▯.
145146 ANNEX 2
Mr. Danny Hagans & Dr. Bill Weaver, “Evaluation of Erosion,
Environmental Impacts and Road Repair Efforts at Selected Sites
along Juan Rafael Mora Route 1856 in Costa Rica,Adjacent the
Río San Juan, Nicaragua,” July 2014
147148 Annex 2
Evaluation of Erosion, Environmental Impacts and Road Repair
Efforts at Selected Sites along Juan Rafael Mora Route 1856 in Costa
Rica, Adjacent the Río San Juan, Nicaragua
Danny Hagans and Dr. Bill Weaver, Consulting Geomorphologists
Pacific Watershed Associates, Inc., 1652 Holly Drive, McKinleyville CA 95519
July 2014
I. Introduction
Numerous locations along Route 1856 between Mojon II and the Rio San Carlos are
in a disastrous state of disrepair and exhibit severe instability since road construction
began in 2011. Most of the most seriously eroding and most neglected road locations
are along the 25 km of Route 1856 where efforts to construct the road have occurred
across steep hill slopes in close proximity to the Rio San Juan (Figure 1). A review of
paired oblique aerial photographs taken from helicopters in October 2012 and May
2014 illustrates the widespread, ongoing and persistent erosion occurring along
portions of the route from a combination of landslide, fluvial (gully) and surface
erosional processes (Appendix A: 23 sheet erosion inventory 11x17 along river).
These photographs, when viewed in conjunction with the December 2013 high-
resolution satellite imagery, clearly document continued large scale and active
erosional processes occurring on some road cuts, fill slopes and at several very large
stream crossings along the route where the road should be classified as unsafe for
public and commercial use.
Most all road reaches and stream crossings we observed are exhibiting varying
degrees of active, ongoing erosion as a result of inadequate planning (location),
design, construction, erosion control, and maintenance practices. The extent of
observed erosional impacts is extraordinary in scale, especially considering the very
average rainfall patterns that the road has experienced over the three year period since
construction began (see Kondolf, 2014). Immediate emergency actions are needed to
curtail ongoing and future erosion and sediment delivery to the Rio San Juan, and
these emergency actions should be of the highest priority to all parties involved.
Based on our extensive experience in controlling and normalizing forest, ranch and
rural road erosion processes to protect water quality on both public and private road
systems, we recommend the Costa Rican government immediately undertake the
following mitigations and emergency erosion and sediment control measures. The
measures include those designed to mitigate and prevent damage from 1) fill slope
instability and mass wasting, 2) stream crossing erosion and failure, 3) cut bank
instability and mass wasting, and 4) surface erosion from quarries, road surfaces, cut
banks, fill slopes and other bare soil areas. These measures are those that are required,
at a minimum, to control ongoing impacts and reduce the risk and magnitude of future
sediment delivery to the Rio San Juan from the existing road work, as well as to
provide for a safe road for future commercial and public use. Their implementation of
these measures should be overseen by qualified engineers and geologists specifically
trained and experienced in road restoration, road reconstruction, and erosion control.
1
149Annex 2
0
E
1
E
2
E
0
E 3
1 E
4
NICARAGUAE E
2
COSTA RICA E 5
3
E6
E 7
E E 8
5 E NICARAGUA
E 9
E
6
E 7 10
E 8 E
E 11 13
E E
9 12 14 15
Access Road E E E E
10 16
E E
11 13 17
E E E
12 14 15
E E E 18 19
16 E E 02 12
E E E 22
E 23
17
E E
18 24 25
E 19 02 12 E E
E E E 22 26
E E
23
E 27
24 25 E
E E
28
26 E
COSTA RICA Access Road E 29
27 E
E
30
28 E
E
31
32 E9
33 E E
E 30
34 E
Legend E 35
Current Technical State E31
1.25 0 ´ 32 E
Appropriate 33 E 36 37
Broken E E E 38
34 E
Closed E 39
Improved 35 E
Provisional E 41
1.25 0 ´ 36 37 40 E
RSJWithout any Constructionn2 E E 38 E
herEvlRIVER_KM_PTS E
Legend R1856_LINE 39
R185E_LINE E 42
distance<aRiver kilometers downstream of Mojon 2 E
50100RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 40 41
10RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2in with 100 meters of Rio San Juan E E
RIVER_KM_PTScerough steep terrain with 50 meters of Rio San Juan
EherlvlaoRoad through gentle terrain
R1856_LINE LegendNE Access Road
<aRIVER_KM_PTSues>
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2
´100
50 1.25 2.5 5 km
distance Río San Carlos
Figure 1Legendhighlighting road through steep terrain and within close proximity to Río San Juan where relocation
possibilities should be considered
´
150 Annex 2
E
E
40
E 44
41 E
E 42
E 45
E
43 46
E E
47
44 E
E
48
Río San Carlos 45 E
E
49
46 E
E 50
E47
E
51
E 48
E
52
E49
A E 53
cces 50 E 54 NICARAGUA
s R E E
o ad
51 55
E E
52
E E 56
53
E 54
E 57
E
55
E 58
E 60 61
56 5E E
E E
62
E
57
E 63
E 66
58 65 E 67
E 60 61 64E E
5E E E
E
62 68
od E E
69
s R 63 E
E 66
65 E 707
cces 64E EE
A E
71
E 68
E
69
E E 72
70
E E 73
71
E 74
COSTA RICA E
72
E 75
E
E 73 76
E
E 74
E
775
EE
Legend 7679
E E
77
52. 1 Curr0nt Technical State E 80
Appropriate E
s Road
Broken A cces 78 81
E E
Closed 82
79E
Improved E
83
Provisional 80
52. 1 0 ´ E
2no ylgoPoTer ut aeF_ENI LT UWithout any Construction 84
R 81 E
>seulva hteorllaRIVER_KM_PTS ío S E 85
E arap 82 E
LeE INR1856_LINE iq E 86
uí E
STPdistanceI R <all other values> 83 87
River kilometers downstream of Mojon 2 E E
001 RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2
105 Road through steep terrain with 100 meters of Rio San Juan 84 E 88
2no ylgoPoTer ut aeF_ENI LT UO JRoad through steep terrain with 50 meters of Rio San Juan E
>seulvE hteorlla<M_PTS 85
Road through gentle terrain E 89
R1856_LdnegeL R1 86 E
E
STP_ MK_REVI Rother values> 87 90
E E
0´1_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 88 91 92
E E E 93 94
05 0 1.25 2.5 5 km E E
ecnat si d
89 E
E
FigudnegeLMap highlighting road through steep terrain and within close proximity to Río San Juan where relocation
90
possibilities should be considered. E
´ 91 92
93
151Annex 2
II. Severe Erosion at Stream Crossings Documented by Time-Sequential
Aerial Imagery
The following examples at several actively failing and eroding hill slope, cut bank, fill
slope and stream crossing areas along the route upstream of the Boca San Carlos
illustrate the severe inadequacy and nearly total lack of erosion control efforts at
failing road locations over the last 2 years since we first visited Route 1856. It also
demonstrates significantly higher erosion rates and volumes of erosion than
previously claimed by Mendes and Astorga (2013). In addition, the lack of any
design and construction standards along the route has resulted in constructing
extremely unstable road reaches that will be subject to continuing and future slope
failures and erosional impacts to the Rio San Juan for decades to come. In their
present state of disrepair, these sections of road are extremely unsafe for commercial
and/or public transportation, and will require substantial financial resources to either
properly close (i.e. put-to-bed or decommission portions of the route) or redesign and
reconstruct these specific road sections, as well as many other similar locations we
have observed along Route 1856, in order to be suitable for public use, as well as
protect Nicaraguan resources.
A. Three Stream Crossings along Route 1856: Problems and Recommended
Solution
Figures 2, 3 and 4 illustrate three (3) examples of extremely poorly designed,
constructed and maintained stream crossings along Route 1856 in the area known as
Las Crucitas (from approximately 17.5-19 km downstream of Mojon II). Photographs
were taken comparing the sites over the 20 month timeframe between October 2012
and May 2014. Each of the three stream crossings exhibit a combination of active
gully erosion and landsliding, progressive embankment and cut bank failures,
widespread surface erosion from the easily visible bare soil areas, as well as very
sparse, poorly applied and ineffective erosion control measures applied to prevent or
control ongoing erosion. Given the visible high level of instability clearly documented
in the photographs, and the failure to follow even basic road engineering and
construction principles, it is clear to us that few, if any, of the fills were properly
compacted. With this lack of care and attention to basic design and construction
principles for stream crossing construction, and based on visual evidence, it does not
appear that stream crossing drainage structures (e.g., culverts) were properly designed
and sized for large, infrequent flood flows, or that they were installed and located
correctly within the fill. Even by our remote visual inspection, culverts clearly appear
unreasonably small for the drainage basins they are supposed to drain, and are often
placed high in the fill with extensive erosion having already occurred where they
release stream flow onto the new, unprotected, erodible fill materials. Workmanship
on critically important stream crossings right next to the Rio San Juan, like the ones in
these examples, is unreasonably poor and unprofessional. They were either poorly
designed or poorly constructed, or both. Regardless, the impacts to the Rio San Juan
have been significant and threaten to be even larger in time.
2
152 Annex 2
At each of the stream crossings in these three examples, we have graphically outlined
(diagrammed) the estimated dimensions of fill material placed (bulldozed) into and
over the tributary stream channels when the road was constructed to provide for each
road crossing. We have also estimated the dimensions of the fills and determined
these 3 stream crossings contain from a low of 12,000 m 3, to a high of over 44,000
3
m , of fill material. Estimates of erosion during the past 20 months at these three
stream crossing range from 7% to over 20% of the constructed fill volume, and the
images suggest minimal efforts and largely ineffective methods to prevent continued
and future erosion. The presence of very visible, massive deltas that have formed in
the Rio San Juan, and the severely aggraded downstream tributary channels below
these stream crossings, confirms the ongoing impact to Nicaraguan territory.
Because of the disastrous condition of these sites, the volume of the un-compacted fill
involved, the enormous challenges that would be faced in attempting to stabilize these
crossings, and the extreme proximity to the Rio San Juan (the fill edges are mostly
within 100m of the river bank), we recommend that this section of Route 1856 be re-
routed to an alternative, inland route to the south. The precise extent of the section
that should be re-routed and the new route should be determined by ground inspection
and surveys conducted by qualified experts. Based on information available to us, the
entire section of Route 1856 encompassing these three sites should be re-routed, and
as recommended by the Environmental ‘Diagnostic’ Assessment (EDA) submitted by
Costa Rica, Route 1856 should be re-routed downstream of Rio Infiernito, which
implies moving the entire section from approximately river km 14 to 20 (i.e., from
about 14 km to 20 km downstream of Mojon II).
Our recommendation that this part of the road be moved inland is consistent with that
of the EDA (Annex 10), which included recommendations for environmental
measures to be implemented in response to “occurrence of landslides and slope
erosion affecting the forest borders of the road.” The EDA recommended measures
include, “to evaluate the technical possibility of modifying the route designated for
Route 1856 at the point called Infiernillo [sic] to include the use of local roads built
on less sloping terrain, tracing the road some km. to the south, where there are open
areas and settlements with more favorable topographic conditions.” (p. 147 of the
EDA, Annex 10 to the Costa Rican Counter-Memorial.) The recommendation is
repeated in the Conclusions section of the EDA: “Evaluate the technical possibility of
modifying the Route design at the point of Infiernillo [sic] to follow local roads built
previously, deviating for some km. to the South, where there are settlements and open
areas with topographic conditions that are more favorable to this type of project.” (p.
162 of the EDA, Annex 10 to the Costa Rican Counter-Memorial.)
In addition to locating new and less environmentally destructive alternative routes, it
will be necessary to stabilize (i.e. properly decommission) the partially constructed
sites that will be abandoned. This is discussed for each of the three stream crossings
below, and for two sites of failing cut and fill slopes.
3
153Annex 2
8
1
s
os 0
0
2
m acr
rism
8 e f
1 F str
o oe
ri ir
0 o a
0 d pep
1 i ad r
F ro
5
1 0
5
0
N
8
1 r g
t
d wassin d
e d
r
ondeind cr
p b
I es rom e
g g t e
din tac las f
r ossin e nd tr e
t cr p es a n d
u o d r
b c li g t
Fll face e li ndslin eime p
L fa S c
m he li
o
r
o f m he
t r
ho
t f
ho
r 2012 p
b
o
c a 2014 p
O
M
ol a.
aCn
nn
R
tnr a g es
fIoi R t li
n M e ossinG 7 .
. . ao lv 2) E 1
NICA C.R u d cr E
Loc l c i
3. h ma F (574 m
n hic S e la
er , w e
rgeb osio /y o riv t D
a e er 3 n
eem g s. ah t
3. A l vra ar P eime
n D ep S
a a d r
t
tm p
er 2012 a tm
o n es t
c d a h a r g
n r 2014)t
en O es a o t a
t 9.4 w a r d wassin
i et n f es (M e
t b t im p E 8
g S u li osio so ondeind cr E s
d o a d er p b t r
din e ue I e e image t
r ios in 0 M t e
n 5 li 0 M
s wash out es t 5
ey E es d co ir a
r g wa h-r n
v sin es, a p fa
os s um 5
e cr ces S 2 r 2013 s5
h e 2
f t er 2013 higpro . b 5
n o b f 3m, n 1 m 2
to t o c 1
o eem osio 0 e
Figure 2. Se D dep er D 0
E E
154 Annex 2
.
1
n
0
2 es ns
i a
t b
. l fc g
1 ma r
S lv ossin
u g
e cr
0 nd i ossin
1 t fa
rial a e cr
t dta i
8 e d
1 50 ill ma t fa e
tac F in o
ully a r
g in G
rom e
ossin
N t cr las f
. b e
1 A n d
B
eime
lides S
nds
L
n
es ns
ir a r
e t b e
p l fc opt
c ma c
li S li
o he n m he
r l a r
t f t
n t f
ho rzo
o ho
e h
a la
e 2012 p 10m c
b oima s y 2014 p
c p tc a
O A vr M
10m
R
oaCa.
Ja
.
R
oin a
enIoi R
n M
. to
NICA C.R a
Loc
es, h
s hic .
ces , w 1
rges r /y E
a f 4m, l p 3 B
b hto13 an
3 A l 3. A
osio
br 2012, n dep B
c m Decem
r osio side er
ce O ts fe er n
g a
en era n l
em v , a ir
d out sint a l a
t 9.5 h e a ep
i s tm , gd r
p 2) e
g S e wa n es et, rill t
let g Gd am tm li
din p sinn t r
r m es a m shea g (715 m a t
a r e
s co os. U n fo t ossin 0 M
ey E h t im r cr 5
r g wa li osio f . r 2013 s
v sin a l er 1E e
os n osio b
e cr n s io d er m
h io t ue A c 5
f t out tn e 2
n o efeesay 2014np D image
to h-r ude addi .
o n b c n co 2
Figure 3. Se a hig in a 1
0
155Annex 2
.
1
0
2
.
1 o
d od ti d m
u u r
ce lide s R
0 e nstnrn las f
1 t p ads cces o e
e L A C C t d
lv n
. u
1 0 d c eime
5 e S
iz E
C es C
0 nd
U
lide 6 N
8 ly
ads 1 l
L n
e gi
u os B
B e
nin
o
C
s A .
os a e E
e p A
sr o e
m acr li
ris cpt
d li
ill p o he n
F r
o f nal a o he
t od r
ho rzo t f
n rsrface o
g o E t le ho
in a ac
e 2012 p 10mxims
b ully r ic
t G p t y 2014 p
c 10m A vr a
O M
sra CR 8 r
uJ E t
. e
R 0 M
5
i t p
enI a
oi R n M
io 2
. . a
NICA C.R .
Loc 8 1
1E
h 0
hic C
, w
/y
3 2
. e 3 main
3 3
799 m B
3 n. C
2
-07osio) = 662 m
e (T
lies = 6,600 m 695 m
l s sndslides er ra 2013, p44).
3 C = 2hi0a m t
o tn l s
t 9.6 o 3ld y a A
i r ie l 2
t fu y, gu de & A
g S en nn en .
3 B dim” aet, rill 1 r
din e a m M 704 m E t
r d st-cl she r e image e
de o li 5 M
o w ldes a e
ey E l er c n C (f a
r A =t2,100 m
v T
ra (2013) “ 5
s ullies B a r 2013 s 2
B G e
.
de & A cmb 1
Mn e
D 0
Figure 4. SeguliieaoSofesrhoeeieveteirfisa2t:s5apveeegelleleydehBhr,otfile.sttellalyalegreeodrrhomduw
156 Annex 2
17
E E
17.8
´
E7.9
2 1E rge gully
SES 9.4
A = 5706 m A = 5132 m
2 ´
18.1 1E SES 9.4 without la
E IMAGE DATE : DECEMBER 2013
574 m
Meters
2 200
rge gully
2 E8.1
1E.2
A = 3471 m
SES 9.5 2
A = 4186 m
SES 9.5 without la Meters
715 m 200
2 100
1E.2
E8.3 799 m
2 2 2 50
rge gullies
695 m out la
SES 9.6 2 0100
A = 7043 m A = 4845 m LOPE CONTRIBUTING AREAS
18.3
E E 704 m
SES 9.6 with 50 LARAGEEGSULLY FEATURES
Figu.4, 5.D,eninea.6i.on of bare slope contributing areas that are actively eroding at sites
0
157Annex 2
B. Stream Site 9.4 at RSJ River 18 km
Figure 2 documented the upstream-most of the three large stream crossings at Las
Crucitas, designated as Severe Erosion Site 9.4 in our inventory of severely-eroding
sites (Appendix A), and identified as crossing 68 by Mende and Astorga (2013,
Annex 6). This is located 18.0 km downstream of Mojon II. The volume of fill 3
dumped in the tributary channel during road construction is estimated at 21,900 m .
The oblique October 2012 aerial photograph illustrates the poorly constructed,
unstable fill, and the absence of any serious effort to apply appropriate, effective
erosion control measures at and near the crossing. The fill slope clearly displays rapid
deformation following initial construction work and the road and adjacent cut and fill
slopes lack any attempt at stabilization or erosion control. Both road approaches to the
crossing along Route 1856, and the associated high cut banks, can be assured to be
delivering eroded sediment from the visible and unprotected bare soil areas by surface
erosion, rill erosion, and gully erosion processes. Most all these sediments are
transported to the stream crossing since it is the topographically low point seen in the
images. Finally, the smaller road that has been constructed across the hill slopes
below Route 1856 also appears to be a source of uncontrolled surface erosion, rill and
gully erosion that is also being transported directly to the same natural stream
channel, and then into the Rio San Juan. As a result, this tributary deposited a large
delta of eroded sediment in Nicaragua’s Rio San Juan.
In the December 2013 satellite image, one can see the magnitude of the combination
of gully erosion and landsliding that is uncontrolled and ongoing through and near the
axis of the stream crossing fill (Figure 2). A large area of ponded water (a small lake)
has formed at the inside edge of the road (Route 1856), clearly suggesting the culvert
was either significantly undersized to convey even average rainfall events, or was
poorly installed high in the fill, or both. The downstream natural tributary channel is
visibly impacted by recent deposits of transported and stored sediment. In addition,
the delta of eroded sediment that formed in the Rio San Juan has rapidly grown in
size. In spite of the clearly visible ongoing erosion and downstream damage to the Rio
San Juan, no apparent efforts to prevent or control erosion, landsliding (fill slope and
cut slope failures), or potential future erosion at the crossing site had been undertaken
between October 2012 and December 2013. If any interim erosion control or slope
stabilization measures were attempted, they were obviously inappropriate and
inadequate for controlling the type and magnitude of erosion that has occurred and
continues to occur, and are totally ineffective at protecting the Rio San Juan
immediately downslope. There was no significant, visible attempt to limit impacts to
the Rio San Juan.
In the May 2014 oblique photograph of the same site (the third photo in the
sequence), the large gully through the stream crossing present in the December 2013
image has been partially filled to permit limited vehicle passage on the road. A large
body of ponded water is still visible upstream of the road, suggesting the culvert now
in place (whether the remnants of the original culvert or a replacement culvert) is
plugged and deeply buried by sediments from the collapsing, rapidly eroding, and
failing stream crossing fills. No Costa Rican efforts are visibly apparent that might
4
158 Annex 2
have effectively stabilized the failing, un-compacted stream crossing fills. Likewise,
no visible efforts have been implemented to properly install adequate stream crossing
drainage structures (culverts or bridges), or to address uncontrolled runoff and erosion
from all the visible bare soil areas. The site is a construction disaster that has not been
treated or stabilized, and it clearly threatens to fail catastrophically if a significant
storm causes the ponded tributary to overtop the fill again, thereby eroding a larger
3
portion of the entire stream crossing fill and delivering up to 21,900 m of sediment
(equivalent to 2,740 8-m dump truck loads) directly into the Rio San Juan (see Figure
2: outlined fill prism on 2012 helicopter photo). The delta in the Rio San Juan appears
significantly larger in the 2014 photo than in the 2012 photo. While this is partially
due to the May photo being taken at lower water (when more of the delta would be
exposed and visible), the change almost certainly reflects the growth of the delta as
well, growth that will continue over the next rainy season, since no concerted efforts
have been undertaken to properly redesign and reconstruct the crossing, and thereby
to eliminate the active erosional processes occurring at the site.
Using scaled measurements from the oblique photographs and GIS measurements
from the December 2013 vertical satellite image, we estimate that sediment
production from just the gullied and failed stream crossing fill is 1,722 m /yr. On
2
Figure 5 we have drawn the remaining approximate contributing area in m (minus
the primary gully/failed crossing area) that drains erosional products to the axis of
Site 9.4’s stream channel, and estimate the area to be 5,132 m . Using the average of
the average rates for cut slope and fill slope erosion reported by Mende and Astorga
(2013, Annex 6, Table 7) for landslide, gully and rill erosion (i.e. average rill = 0.205
m + average gully = 0.48m + average landslide = 0.99)/3 = 0.558 m/y), and assuming
a combination of rill, gully and landslide erosion is occurring on 40% of the defined
3
contributing area, approximately 1,145 m /yr of additional rill, gully and landslide
erosion is occurring at Site 9.4 (Figures 2 and 5). Applying the average of Mende and
Astorga (2013, Annex 6, Table 7) estimated surface erosion rate of 0.095 m for cut
slopes and 0.24 m for fill slopes = 0.168 m/y to the remaining 60% of the bare soil
contributing area visible at Site 9.4 (Figures 2 and 5), approximately 517 m 3/yr of
material is being produced by surface erosion processes annually at Site 9.4.
3
Combined, we estimate Site 9.4 has produced a minimum total of 3,384 m /yr of
eroded material from the main axial gully as well as via sheet, rill, other gully and
landslide erosion processes occurring on the adjacent bare soil area (from within the
contributing area shown on Figures 2 and 5). A significant portion of this erosion
vo3ume has been delivered downslope to the Rio San Juan. Our estimate of 3,384
m /yr is significantly higher than Mende and Astorga’s (2013) reported estimate of
total sediment production from this site of 455 m 3/yr (Figure 2), which we believe to
be a significant under-representation of the actual erosion documented in the imagery.
The fact that water is ponded upstream of the crossing indicates that whatever culvert
was originally installed in the crossing fill, is now blocked by sediment or debris. The
stream crossing fill consists of loose earth, dumped in the stream valley. It is not
engineered to function as a dam. The presence of ponded water (especially after rains
when the water level rises) will again cause the stream to overtop the inside edge of
the road, resulting in flow through the axis of the large gully within the unprotected
5
159Annex 2
fill slope, triggering a renewed bout of uncontrolled erosion that could ultimately
result in the entire fill to wash out, and if this occurs, a significant percent of the entire
3
21,900 m stream crossing fill is likely to be transported downstream towards the Rio
San Juan, which is only 100 m away.
The absence of any meaningful efforts at controlling or minimizing ongoing and
future erosion at the site over the 20 month period demonstrates a complete disregard
for resource protection. The scale of Costa Rica’s underestimation of erosion at this
site is indicated by the fact that the site’s 21,900 m of future potential erosion is itself
equivalent to nearly 60% of the total annual sediment production Costa Rica estimates
is delivered from the entire 108-km stretch of road along the Rio San Juan (Mende
and Astorga, 2013, Annex 6, p. 402).
Recommended Solution
As noted above, this section of road should be moved to a less-steep, inland location.
While moving the road will provide a better situation for future road stability and
erosion management, there is the problem of how to manage the erosion from the
slopes above the river at Las Crucitas along the current road alignment. In order to
properly decommission this stream crossing, the following steps are required:
A. As soon as weather and soil conditions permit, mobilize heavy earthmoving
equipment to excavate the entire mass of fill dumped in the tributary stream
valley at this stream crossing, which we estimate from high3resolution satellite
imagery and oblique aerial photography to be 21,900 m (see Figure 2: the
outlined area on the 2012 helicopter photo). Removal of the road-stream
crossing should consist of:
i. excavating and removing all the stream crossing drainage structures
(i.e., the plastic-pipe culverts),
ii. excavating all the fill materials out of the stream crossing so as to
“exhume” the original, natural channel bed, re-establish the natural
thalweg channel gradient and 100-year return interval flood flow
width, and provide stable side slopes that either mimic the original
natural stream side slopes or have a maximum 2:1 stable side slope
angle,
iii. seed and mulch all bare exposed soils for temporary erosion control,
and
iv. permanently replant all the mulched areas wit2 a mix of native shrubs
and trees at a spacing of 1 plant every 3 m .
B. Identify a stable spoil disposal location(s) situated on flat ground that is at
least a 100 m distance from the Rio San Juan or its tributaries, and upon which
vegetation can be established to stabilize the spoil material, such that the
spoils will not be eroded and transported to the river. Once the disposal site(s)
is selected, the existing Route 1856 can be temporarily repaired for access by
heavy equipment and used to transport material excavated from the stream
crossings during the decommissioning process to the spoil site. If the spoil
material is of suitable quality, some of it could potentially be used as road sub-
base for the re-located Route 1856, but it is essential that its properties be
tested by qualified experts to avoid the pervasive problems of improper use of
6
160 Annex 2
substandard materials documented along Route 1856 by CFIA (2012) and
LANNAME (2012).
C. End haul with dump trucks the excavated spoil materials to the identified
stable disposal site(s).
D. Stabilize exposed cut slopes by reseeding and planting (where possible given
slope conditions), and where indicated by qualified experts, implement other
techniques to improve slope stability, such as installing horizontal drains,
and/or geotextile and geo-grid materials.
E. If cut slopes are determined to be significantly over-steepened, it may be
necessary to lay them back or terrace them to a more stable angle to reduce the
likelihood of cut slope failure. This would require further cutting of the slope
and would generate additional spoil material to be removed and safely
disposed of. Because of the further disturbance and additional spoil created by
laying back the cut slopes, this technique should be implemented only where
indicated by qualified experts who have the opportunity to visit the site and
conduct the necessary tests of material strength, slope stability calculations,
etc. and who determine that the benefits of the action would outweigh its
impacts.
F. In addition to the slope-stabilization measures (geo-grid, geotextiles,
horizontal drains, and laying-back the slopes), surface erosion control
measures should be implemented on each exposed cut slope, at post-
construction native hill slopes that have experienced landslides such as the two
debris slides located upstream of the stream crossing fill prism shown on the
Site 9.5 2014 oblique photography (Figure 3, discussed below), and on native
slopes that were buried by sidecast fill and which accordingly have lost
vegetative protection. These surface erosion control measures are described
below near the end of our report.
G. Removal of this fill material will need to be coordinated with removal of fill
from the other two stream crossings (i.e. Sites 9.5 and 9.6) at Las Crucitas, and
probably with removal of material from the cut-and-fill-slope erosion at
Severe Erosion Sites 8.1 and 8.2, discussed below. These of treatments should
be applied at any other stream crossings and fill slopes along Route 1856
recommended by qualified experts where the prudent approach is to
decommission the current road alignment and re-route the road farther inland
to less erosive terrain (Figure 1).
H. The danger of having heavy trucks using the unstable crossings at Sites 9.4,
9.5, and 9.6 must be taken into account, and the stability of these crossings
(after their temporary repairs) should be monitored closely when in use to
transport spoils. At the first indications of deformation and instability due to
the heavy loads of dump trucks, the crossings will be taken out of service until
further temporary repairs/stabilization measures can be performed to insure
the safe passage of heavy vehicles until the removal of all stream crossing fill
materials and other unstable fill- and cut-slope materials can be safely
excavated and exported from the location.
7
161Annex 2
C. Stream Site 9.5 at RSJ River 18.1 km
This series of photographs illustrate the ongoing and dynamic erosional processes
occurring at Severe Erosion Site 9.5 (18.1 km downstream of Mojon II), and in its
immediate vicinity, over the same 20 month period (Figure 3). On the oblique 2012
photograph (and in ground photo “B”), severe deformation and slumping is visible on
both the upstream and downstream fill slope faces almost immediately after
construction of the stream crossing. This stream crossing fill failed (eroded) between
October 2012 and December 2013, delivering over 2,860 m of eroded sediment to
the Rio San Juan (see 2013 satellite image). The cause of this failure was likely a
poorly designed (probably greatly under-designed and undersized) stream crossing
culvert, combined with native hill slope failures triggered by the initial road
construction work.
On the May 2014 oblique aerial photograph, two large landslides are visible on the
hill slopes just upstream of the road crossing. These landslides may have caused the
stream crossing failure by plugging the culvert, or they may have been triggered by
saturation of the toe of the slopes when the new stream crossing culvert plugged and a
small lake formed behind the fill. In any event, the plugged culvert caused stream
flow to pond, overtop the road fill, and consequently erode a large portion of the fill
crossing (clearly visible in the December 2013 satellite image). The road-related and
construction-caused landslides and stream crossing failure had a large impact on the
Rio San Juan, as all the landslide debris and eroded sediment was transported the
short distance to the river. The greatly enlarged delta in the river is clearly visible in
the May 2014 photograph (Figure 3).
Once the stream crossing had failed, the May 2014 helicopter photo clearly shows that
the stream crossing fill was then simply refilled with bulldozed soil material and a
second small replacement culvert pipe was placed at the top of the fill. Now, a lake
will again form on the inside of the new road fill and it will fill with water during the
next wet season rain until almost reaching the level of the new road surface before it
begins flowing into the culvert. Placement of the culvert at the top of the new fill is a
totally inadequate, inept and improper design and construction practice, and would
not meet any reasonable engineering standard. It is our observation and opinion that
few of the culverted stream crossings along Route 1856, especially in the highly
sensitive areas we have described, have been sized to accommodate large infrequent
storm and runoff events (e.g., the 100-year flood recurrence event is a common design
standard for sensitive forest roads and areas), have been constructed with the
appropriate materials, or are properly installed within the fill prism. In fact, Mende
and Astorga’s (2013, p. 399 of Annex 6) classification of the technical status of the
119 partially constructed stream crossings along Route 1856 indicate only 30% of the
crossings to be considered “improved or appropriate” (Figure 6, below).
The re-filling of the erosional gully void, and installation of the small culvert at the
top of the new fill, provides only temporary vehicular passage at the crossing. No
meaningful or permanent efforts have been undertaken to control the significant
deficiencies in the design and construction methods employed by Costa Rica at this
crossing, or at others along Route 1856. The repair of this crossing has, in fact, made
8
162 Annex 2
this site an even greater threat that it had been. With the culvert placed at the extreme
top of the fill (see Figure 3: May 2014 photo) a lake will develop behind the fill until
flow enters the culvert. No downspout or energy dissipation (armor) has been
provided at the new culvert outlet (see May 2014 photo) to convey stream flow to the
base of the estimated 20 m deep fill slope, so a renewed episode of large gully erosion
can be expected to occur at the outlet of the culvert, which will erode the new road fill
and again threaten road prism integrity. All the eroded sediment from this poorly
designed and constructed stream crossing culvert will be delivered directly to
Nicaragua’s Rio San Juan.
Additionally, and more seriously, the new road fill that was placed (bulldozed) into
the crossing was not designed, engineered or constructed to function as an earthen
dam. It will be extremely hazardous to travel across the road during storm events, or
anytime water has backed up behind the road fill. The stream crossing fill could easily
liquefy and fail catastrophically during or following a storm event. In addition, with a
lake or pond at the culvert inlet, floating woody debris brought down by the stream is
likely to plug the culvert inlet, thereby causing it to overtop the fill and again washout
a significant portion of the stream crossing fill (as shown in the 2013 satellite image).
All the eroded sediment from this poorly designed and constructed stream crossing
culvert will again be delivered to Nicaragua’s Rio San Juan.
Reconstruction of this stream crossing, in the manner that was undertaken, shows
complete disregard to the science of road engineering, has caused hazardous
conditions for users of the road, and ignores all environmental protection standards.
The newly “constructed” road fill at Site 9.5 still exhibits serious instability and the
crossing will experience renewed active erosion via a combination of gully and
landslide processes, and we predict near complete failure with the advent of future
storms that are equal to or larger than the storms the road has experienced over the 20
month period of October 2012 to May 2014. The erosion as observed at these stream
crossings results in continuous delivery of sediment to the Rio San Juan during
virtually every significant rainfall event, as manifest by the continued growth and
enlargement of the fresh sediment deltas visible on the 2014 oblique photo.
Other gullies associated with uncontrolled concentrated runoff from the tall cut banks
and road approaches on either side of the stream crossing are visible on the December
2013 and May 2014 images (Figure 3). These gullies serve as effective channels for
delivering erosional products derived from the large expanse of bare soil areas visible
in the images. The aerial images clearly demonstrate no meaningful efforts by Costa
Rica, over the 20 month period, to control ongoing surface, rill and gully erosion from
the adjacent exposed bare soil areas present on the road bed, from the tall cut banks
and fill slopes, and from the lower smaller spur road that parallels Route 1856, all of
which drain erosional products to the stream crossing and then into Nicaragua’s Rio
San Juan (Figure 3).
We estimate the volume of gully erosion at the stream crossing failure site between
October 2012 and December 2013 to have been 2,860 m 3. This does not include the
volume of sediment associated with the two large hill slope debris landslides, other
landslides and gullies present on the adjacent fill slopes and cut banks outside of the
9
163Annex 2
stream crossing fill area, as shown by the black trapezoid on the October 2012
photograph, and surface and rill erosion volumes being generated from the extensive
bare soil areas visible in the images. Excluding the area of the prominent gully in the
axis of the stream crossing, we estimate the remaining contributing drainage area (i.e.
2
where erosional products will move or be transported to the stream axis) is 3,471 m
(Figure 5).
Using the average of the average rates for cut slope and fill slope erosion reported by
Mende and Astorga (2013, Annex 6, Table 7) for landslide, gully and rill erosion (i.e.
average rill = 0.205 m + average gully = 0.48m + average landslide = 0.99)/3 = 0.558
m/y), and assuming a combination of rill, gully and landslide 3rosion is occurring on
40% of the defined contributing area, approximately 775 m /yr of additional rill, gully
and landslide erosion is occurring at Site 9.5 (Figures 3 and 5). Applying the average
of Mende and Astorga’s (2013, Annex 6, Table 7) estimated surface erosion rate of
0.095 m for cut slopes and 0.24 m for fill slopes = 0.168 m/y to the remaining 60% of
th3 bare soil contributing area visible at Site 9.5 (Figures 3 and 5), approximately 350
m /yr of material is being produced within the contributing drainage area by surface
erosion processes annually at Site 9.5.
3
Combined, we estimate that Site 9.5 has produced a minimum total of 3,985 m /yr of
eroded material from the main axial gully as well as via sheet, rill, other gully and
landslide erosion processes occurring on the adjacent bare soil area along Route 1856
(i.e. from within the contributing area shown on Figures 3 and 5). As at Site 9.4, a
very significant portion of this erosion volume has been delivered downslope to the
Rio San Juan.
3
Our estimate of the total erosion of 3,985 m /yr and sediment delivery to the Rio San
Juan at Site 9.5 is significantly higher than the Mende and Astorga (2013) worst case
3
total site erosion volume of 372 m /yr (Figure 3). The paired aerial photos and
ground based photos in Figure 3 verify this significant under-estimation of annual
sediment production at these poorly constructed stream crossing and hill slope
contributing areas.
We have no doubt the very unsafe and poorly constructed crossing and contributing
drainage area will generate equally large volumes of erosion and sediment delivery to
the Rio San Juan as a result of future storms in the very near future and over the
coming years. This is especially true since no meaningful or effective efforts appear to
have been undertaken to control the accelerated surface, rill, gully and landslide
erosional processes that have been triggered by attempts to build Route 1856 in this
location. The road construction and reconstruction that has occurred at this site since
this section of Route 1856 was initially opened, is completely contrary to modern
engineering design and construction standards.
10
164 Annex 2
Recommended Solution
As described above, consistent with recommendations of the EDA (Annex 10 of the
Costa Rican Counter-Memorial), we recommend this and the other two stream
crossings at Las Crucitas be removed completely, as the road should be relocated
farther inland to more favorable terrain. The same requirements described above for
Severely Eroding Site 9.4 apply to this site: removal of all fill material (approximately
3
12,000 m , the equivalent of 1,525 dump truck loads; see Figure 3: as shown by the
fill prism drawn on the 2012 oblique aerial photo), transport of the excavated material
to a stable disposal site(s), restoration of the original natural bed of the stream,
stabilization of both sides of the stream channel by exhuming the natural angle of the
side slopes, and stabilization of the extensive cut slopes through vegetation and
geotechnical means, likely including horizontal drain pipes to reduce pore pressures
and geo-grids and geotextiles to stabilize the exposed slopes. In some cases, over-
steepened cut slopes may need to be laid-back further, a process that will generate
additional spoil material to be removed and safely disposed of.
D. Stream Site 9.6 at RSJ River 18.2 km
At Severe Erosion Site 9.6, the October 2012 oblique aerial photograph shows a very
large stream crossing fill prism, estimated at 44,000 m 3in volume, that is undergoing
serious deformation and erosion of the downstream fill slope very soon after
construction. Presumably the upstream fill slope is also unstable, based on the style
and lack of proper design and construction supervision utilized by Costa Rica along
the rest of the road (Figure 4). The 2013 satellite image shows three distinct zones of
instability that are rapidly developing/evolving on the outer fill slope (Figure 4: see
outlined fill prism area on 2012 photo), as well as a severely undersized culvert
installed to convey stream flow through the fill prism (October 2012 photo). The
culvert that is visible in the October 2012 photograph is poorly located, being far too
high in the crossing fill. It is small and placed near the middle of the fill prism (see
Figure 4); a practice that is inconsistent with modern engineering standards for proper
road construction. Also present on the 2012 photo is a large debris landslide located
upstream of the stream crossing that is likely compromising and/or plugging the
culvert inlet with deposited sediment. It was likely triggered by initial road
construction and/or ponding behind the culvert inlet caused by culvert plugging and
subsequent saturation of the basal fill and hill slope.
As with the other stream crossing examples, long lengths of both adjacent road
approaches and large cut bank bare soil areas drain runoff and sheet, rill and gully
erosional products to the low point in the photo, the axis of the stream crossing
(Figure 5 shows the approximate contributing drainage area). This runoff is also
contributing to the developing instabilities observed on the fill slopes.
By the date of the December 2013 vertical satellite image, shown as well in the inset
pair of photographs by Mende and Astorga (2013), uncontrolled runoff on the fill
slopes has resulted in significant enlargement of the immense gully network, where
virtually all the eroded sediment has been delivered down slope to the Rio San Juan.
11
165Annex 2
As shown in the May 2014 oblique photo, no efforts have been made to control or
prevent future erosion on the fill slopes, or to disconnect the adjacent road approaches
from draining runoff and associated eroded sediment originating from the large
expanses of bare soil visible in the photographs, directly to the stream crossing fill
and ultimately to the Rio San Juan (Figure 4).
By May 2014, approximately half the road prism width, and a large portion of the
outer fill slope, had already failed and delivered sediment downslope and downstream
to the Rio San Juan (Figure 4). Substantial fresh deltas associated with the ongoing
and uncontrolled erosion along Route 1856 are present in the Rio San Juan, and these
will continue to enlarge during future storm events in the absence of redesign,
reconstruction, and erosion control measures at the site, and/or road
decommissioning. Over the 20 month period, no visible efforts at performing
preventative surface, rill and gully erosion control measures, or slope stabilization
measures, are visible on any of the failing fill slopes, or on the adjacent bare soil areas
exposed along the road and cut bank approaches draining to the stream crossing. The
very large stream crossing fill is in a complete state of disrepair and threatens to
completely fail and deliver substantially greater volumes of eroded sediment directly
to the Rio San Juan.
Using scaled measurements of gully features A, B and C on the December 2013
vertical satellite image (Figure 4), and assuming a conservative average gully depth of
3 meters (see person for scale on inset photo by Mende and Astorga in 2013, and
bearing in mind that the photo was taken approximately one year prior to the visible
site conditions present in the May 2014 oblique photo on F3gure 4), we estimate the
three gullies alone have eroded a minimum of 6,600 m since road construction was
initiated, and virtually all the eroded sediment has been delivered to the Rio San Juan.
As shown on Figure 5, we estimate the contributing drainage area to calculate
additional surface, rill, gully and landslide erosion volumes at Site 9.6 as
approximately 4,845 m . Using the average of the average rates for cut slope and fill
slope erosion reported by Mende and Astorga (2013, Annex 6, Table 7) for landslide,
gully and rill erosion (i.e. average rill = 0.205 m + average gully = 0.48m + average
landslide = 0.99)/3 = 0.558 m/y), and assuming a combination of rill, gully and
landslide erosion is occurring on 40% of the defined contributing area, approximately
1,081 m /yr of additional rill, gully and landslide erosion is occurring at Site 9.6
(Figures 4 and 5). Applying the average of Mende and Astorga’s (2013, Annex 6,
Table 7) estimated surface erosion rate of 0.095 m for cut slopes and 0.24 m for fill
slopes = 0.168 m/y to the remaining 60% of the bare soil contribu3ing area visible at
Site 9.6 (Figures 4 and 5), an additional approximately 488 m /yr of material is being
produced within the contributing drainage area by surface erosion processes annually
at Site 9.6.
3
Our estimate of the total erosion of 8,169 m /yr and sediment delivery to the Rio San
Juan at Site 9.6 is again substantially higher than the Mende and Astorga (2013)
“worst-case” annual yield for this slope that was estimated at an unrealistically low
662 m /yr (Figure 4), including the combined volume of erosion from sheet, rill, gully
and landslide erosion. Much more erosion and downstream sediment delivery has
12
166 Annex 2
occurred since their field visit to the crossing, and yet nothing meaningful has been
done to repair or alleviate the damage caused by the collapsing stream crossing fill, or
the extensive surface, rill and gully erosion occurring 3n the bare soil areas. To put
the scale of this erosion into perspective, the 8,169 m /yr of erosion from this site
alone is equivalent to over 22% of the total annual sediment production Costa Rica
asserts has been delivered from the entire 108-km of road along the Rio San Juan
(Mende and Astorga, 2013, Annex 6, p. 402).
Recommended Solution
As described above, consistent with recommendations of the EDA (Annex 10 of the
Costa Rican Counter-Memorial), we recommend this and the other two stream
crossings at Las Crucitas be removed completely, as the road should be relocated
farther inland to more stable terrain. The same requirements described above for
Severely Eroding Sites 9.4 and 9.5 apply to this site: removal of all stream crossing
fill material shown by the black trapezoid on the October 2012 photo (Figure 4),
transport all the excavated material to a stable disposal site(s), restoration of the
original bed of the stream, stabilization of side slopes along the stream channel, and
stabilization of the extensive cut slopes through vegetation and geotechnical means,
likely including horizontal drain pipes to reduce pore pressures and geo-grids and
geotextiles to stabilize the exposed slopes. In some cases, over-steepened cut slopes
may need to be laid-back further or terraced differently, a process that will generate
additional spoil material to be removed and safely disposed of.
The volume of this crossing fill is the largest of all three crossings at Las Crucitas,
3
approximately 44,000 m , the equivalent of approximately 5,500 dump truck loads.
All of this fill material, as outlined on Figure 4 on the 2012 oblique photograph, must
be removed from the site and transported to stable disposal site(s).
In addition, any potentially unstable road fills in between the stream crossing fills
would also need to be removed and hauled to a stable disposal site. From our analysis
of the imagery, it appears that the stream crossing fills constitute the bulk of the fill
volume at Las Crucitas, but there will be some additional fill not accounted for in our
volumetric analysis, and which will need to be disposed of as well.
Figure 7 (below) serves as an example to illustrate the road decommissioning
procedure. On the 2014 satellite photograph we have plotted the location of the 5
Severely Eroding Sites and identified other road reaches that might display unstable
cut- and fill-slopes in need of stabilization in relation to a potential long term, spoil
disposal location. From the western edge of Severe Erosion Site 8.1 (at river mile 16.1
km), it is approximately 4.4 km for dump trucks to haul excavated material to the
potential spoil location at river mile 20.5 km (i.e. the gentle topography behind the
home site and east of the access road). If three teams of heavy equipment were
utilized to decommission this reach of Route 1856, one team could be working Sites
8.1 and 8.2, another could be stabilizing cut- and fill-slopes at the identified
intervening road segments while still providing a portion of the cut part of the road
prism for dump trucks hauling spoil from Sites 8.1 and 8.2, and the third team could
begin to vertically lower the upper one third of the large stream crossing fills at Sites
13
167Annex 2
9.4, 9.5 and 9.6 while still maintaining dump truck passage for the other teams (Figure
7). All spoil material in this particular example to hauled west to east to the
designated stable, spoil disposal location.
14
168 Annex 2
0
E
1
E
0 2
EE0
E 1E
0 E1 3
E E 2E
1 E24
E E 33
2 E 3
E 5 E
3 4
E6E 4
4 5 7
E E5
E E E 8
5 6 E
E E6 7
E E7 89
6 E E8
E 7 E 10
E 8 9E
E E9 11 13
E 10
9 E10 12E 14 15
ccesRad E E10 E E E
A 10 E 11 13 16
E E 11 12E 13 E
E 12E 14 15
11 132 E 14EE15 1617
E 12EE E E 1E
E 14 15 E 16 18
E E 16 E 1E 19 20 21
E17 E E E 22
E E E
17 18 19 23
E E 18 E19 220 21 E
E E E 20 E21 222 24 25
18 19 E E E 22 23E E
E E 20 21 E E 23
E E 22 E 24 26
E 23 E 24 25
E E24 EE25 27
24 E E 2E6
E 25 E 26
E E 28
26 E27
Acces Rad E E27
E 29
27 E8
E EE28
E3029
28 EE 29
E 31
29 30
33 3EE E30
E E
E 30 31
34 32 E31
Legend 33 EE32 E
Current Technical State E33 EE31
Appropriate E 34E 36
Legend 33 EE34 3E 37
Legendoken E E E 35 E 38
CurrClosedchnical State& Astorga, 2013) 34 E 35 E
LegendrrAppropriateate E 35 E 36 37 39
Broken = 9e E E36 EE37E 38
Current Brokenionaltate E E E340 41
ApprClosede= 16 36 37 EE E
BrokImpro= 26ny Construction E E 38E39
E Improved_PTS E E 41
R1856_LINEional 39 40 42
ImprWithout any Construction E E40 E4
ProvRIVER_KM_PTSConstruction E41EE
E River Kilometers downstream of Mojon 2 40 E
R1856_LINEy Construction E
E RIVER_KM_PTSer values>ess roads
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 s Rd o
R1856_LINE Acces r
<all other values>atureToPolygon2 a
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 a C
´
0 1.25 2.5 5 km í S
R
Figure 6. Map of road crossings derived from Mende & Astorga 2013, Annex 6 inventory of water crossings GIS
´ 0 1.25 2.5 55 km
dat´b0se r1.25st2.5by Nicarag5 kmn 2014. e map of technical states was not
provided in Annex 6.
´
169Annex 2
E E
40
E 44
41 E
E 42
E 45
0 E
0 43 46
E 0 E E
E 1 47
EE1 E 44 E
Río San Carlos2 45 48
E 2 E E
E 3 49
E 46 E
E 3 E 50
44 E 47
E 4 51
E 48
5 E
E 5 4952
E 53
6 Acces 50 E 54
E 7 s Ro E E
E 6 7 ad
E EE7 8 51 55
E E 8 E E
E 52
9 E E 56
E E 53 54
E 9 E 57
E 10 E
E 10 55
E 58
E 111 13 E 60 61
E 11 E 13 56 59E E
E 12E 14 E 15 E 62
E 12 E14 E15 E
E E 57 116
E E 16 63
58 E E 66
E E 17 64E 65 67
E 5E 60E 61 E E
EE 17
ad E 18 E 62 68
o E18 119 20 221 E
E 163E E 22
s R E EE E 20 E 266E 22
E 65E E707 23
Aces E 6E EEE 23
E23
71 68 E 224 25
E E E 24 E 25
69 E E
E E 72 E 26
EE26
7073
E E E 27
71 E27
E 74
E E 28
72
E 75 E 28
E E
E 73 76 29
E EE29
74 E
E 330
E 30
775 E
E 31
32 EE31
Legend E679 33 32
E EE32 E
Current Technical State E 77 80 E 33 E
Appropriate E E 34
Legend cces Rad 78 E 34 35
Legendoken A E 81 35
Current Technical Statede & Astorga, 2013) E E E 35
LegendurrAAppropriatetate 7E 82 E 36 37
Improved E 37
Current Technical State 83 E 36 E 37 338
PBrokenonal 80 E E E 38
AppropClosed= 16 E 84 E9
BrokenImproved26 Construction R 81E E 39
E RIVER_KM_PTS o S E 85
ClosedProvisional arap 82 E E 440 41
R1856Provisional iu E E 86 E E4
Impro<all other values>struction16 í 83 87 E 40 E
PrEvisRIVER_KM_PTSConstruction E E E
E River Kilometers downstream of Mojon 2
WR1856_LINE Construction E 84 E 88
R185Route 1856 and access roads 85
E RIVER_KM_PTSther values> E 89
R1856_LINERSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 86 E
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 E
<all other values> 87 90
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 E E
´ 88 E 91 92 93
0 1.25 2.5 5 km E E E E 94
E 89 E
Figure 6. Map of road crossings derived from Mende & Astorga 2013, Annex 6 inventory of water crossings GIS
´ 0 1.25 2.5 5 km 90
databas0 requ1.25d b2.5icaragua in 5 km. e mapof technical states was not p
rovided in Annex 6.
´ 91 92
93
170 Annex 2
E E E
6E 65 67
E E 44
E
E 68 45
E
0 E 69
E 0 46
E 70 E
E 1 E 47
E 1 E
E 2 E 71 48
EE2 E
72
E 3 E E 49
EE3 50
4E 73 E
E
E 4 E 51
5E E 74
52
E 5 75 E 53
6 E E 54
6 E
E 6 77 E 76
E E 7 8 55
E 77 E8 E
Access Road
78 E 9 E 56
E E
E9 57
79 E 10 E
E E 10
58
E 80 E 11 13 E 60 61
E 11 E 13 E 5E E
81 E 12E 14 15 62
o Srpiquí E E 12 E14 EE15 E
Rí E 82 E E 16
E E16 63 66
83 E E 65E
E 17 64E 67
A cces Rad 84 E 17 E E
E E 68
85 18 19 E
E E 18 19 20 21 69
E 86 E EE19 E 20 E 21 E 22
87 E E E E 22
E 70 23
88 EE E 23
E 71 E 24
E 24 25
89 E 24 EE25
E 72 E E 26
E 26
E 90 EE26
91 92 E 73 E 27
s Road E E 93 94
Acces E E 74 EE27
E 95 E E
96 28
E 75 E 28
E E
97 76 29
E E E 29
77 E
E 99 101 30
E E 10E E30
78 102 E
E E 31
1032 E 31
Legend E 79 33 32
E EE32 E
Current Technical State 80 E 33E E04
Appropriate E E 34
Legend E 34 3505
Legendoken 81 E E
CurrClosedchnical Statee & Astorga, 2013) 82 E 35
LegendurrAppropriateState E E E 136 37
Appropriate E 36 E 38
Current Technical State E 83 E37 38
ApproClosed = 16 E 1E7 E E38
Without any Construction 84 E9
BrokeImproved26 E EE39
E Improved_PTS E 85 E 41
CloseProvisional = 42 86 40 4
ImprovedWithout any Construction = 16 E E40 E 4
<all other values> 87 E E
PrEviRSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 E
R1856_LINEKM_PTSters downstream of Mojon 2 88
WR1856_LINE Construction E
E RIVER_KM_PTSher values>ess roads
RSJ_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 E 89
R1856_LINE
<all other values>eatureToPolygon2 90
E
R´J_OUTLINE_FeatureToPolygon2 91 92
0 1.25 2.5 5 km E E E 93 94
E
E
Fig´re06. M1.25f ro2.5crossings d5 kmed from Mende & Astorga 2013, Annex 6 inventory of water crossings GIS
databa0e req1.25ed 2.5Nicaragua in5 km4. e map of technical states was not
provided in Annex 6.
´
171Annex 2
1
s 0
t 2
e A
o M
i :
K T
1 A .
D 2
E
G
A
I
e
a 0
l a 0
b r . 2
s l 0 : 0
e u o 1 2
a y s
e l l
b t t
s e e .
n o o 0 dao
U P P r ssec
n cA
u t
a e
0 H d
6
5
1
t
o
R
.
1
8
1
:
e
s
g .6
. i ,
e 1 o .
r e ,
d l .4
e r 9
oc v
r n . e
p Jua 1 S
g o San
i Ri
on
s .
i 1
m s
m t
o H aulon c
e iecti r
d 6 d C
d 1 n
aC
ra s
t
of s
l g
p i .
r 8,
xam e 8
E l
r
7. v
r S
iu
F
172 Annex 2
E. Summary of Stream Crossing Observations
In summary, the Costa Rican repairs and erosion control efforts, as observed on the
May 2014 photographs over a 20 month period, on three sets of example stream
crossing sites are totally inadequate and ineffective at treating continuing road failures
and ongoing erosion, and in preventing future erosion, at each site. If fact, the
minimal nature of the spot technical improvements or road repairs that are visible
appear to have been implemented solely to provide a narrow and unsafe vehicle route
across each failing stream crossing; not to reduce erosion, protect the Rio San Juan or
stabilize the site against further damage. The existing design and construction
deficiencies described above, and the ongoing significant slope stability, gully and
surface erosion problems at and adjacent to each of these sample sites indicate that
portions of Route 1856, in its current condition, are extremely unsafe and will
continue to severely impact the Nicaragua’s Rio San Juan and its resources far into
the future.
Even with our restricted ability to make direct physical measurements of erosional
voids along the road, it is clear the Costa Rican reports have minimized and under
reported the extent of erosion and downstream sediment delivery associated with the
road, and consequently are under-estimating the ongoing cumulative sedimentological
and biological impacts to the Rio San Juan. We have estimated significantly larger
volumes of gully/landslide erosion at the three sample stream crossing sites than those
published by Mende and Astorga (2013). Some of their low erosion rate estimates
may be due to the fact that they measured a limited subset of erosion features along a
less than representative range of features during a short time period in 2013, and the
sites have continued to deteriorate and fail at an increasingly rapid rate. It is obvious
based on the visual condition of the road on Figures 2, 3 and 4, that through this 20
month period, Costa Rica has done nothing of significance to curtail erosion and
stream crossing failure at these three example stream crossing sites. When one Site
(9.5) largely failed and washed out, delivering all its eroded sediment to the Rio San
Juan, Costa Rica simply refilled the crossing with bulldozed fill and reset the potential
failure mechanism by again using poor design and construction techniques. Even
observed at a distance, their efforts and workmanship along these sample road
sections has been completely unprofessional and inadequate, and their efforts (or lack
of effort) have been done with complete disregard to the environmentally
consequences to the Rio San Juan.
In addition, there is no doubt that all bare soil areas visible in these examples are
eroding during every rainfall event by a combination of sheet wash (surface), rill and
small gully erosional processes. It is clear and ubiquitously visible, even on aerial
photographs. Where road bed segments and exposed cut bank areas along Route 1856
drain to the nearby 119 stream crossing documented by Mende and Astorga (2013) in
Figure 6, or to gullies exiting the road, these bare segments of road and cut bank are
likely to be hydrologically connected to the adjacent stream crossings and delivering
erosional products to the receiving streams, and to the Rio San Juan. This mechanism
of road bed sediment production and sediment delivery to Nicaraguan waters has not
been acknowledged or measured by Costa Rican researchers.
15
173Annex 2
Finally, Mende and Astorga’s statement (2013, page 28) that “technical improvements
have been made…and the crossings will continue to be in an acceptable condition in
the medium-term,” is contradicted by observable site conditions. The three photo
examples we have presented (above) illustrate that little to no effective technical
improvements or repairs have been made, and we do not consider these severely
eroding stream crossings to be “in an acceptable condition”. Nor do we agree with
Mende and Astorga’s statement that the road construction and repair efforts for Route
1856 “can be described as typical during a construction period” (Mende and Astorga,
2013, page 28). In our experience, Costa Rica’s poor (or absent) design and
construction standards, and the apparent lack of construction engineering oversight
during road building, are completely contrary to modern road construction standards
found in any design manual in the last 30 years. The result is far from typical.
The magnitude of ongoing and active erosion present along segments of Route 1856
confirms that the road was built with a total absence of plans, design and construction
standards, and adequate stream crossing and road drainage structures (CFIA, 2012,
pages 25 and 26, PITRA-LannameUCR, 2012, pages 48-51). Reconstruction and
stabilization measures need to be undertaken immediately. Well-designed repairs,
road decommissioning (removal) and/or complete reconstruction must be initiated and
completed on an urgent basis if continuing and future damage to the Rio San Juan and
Nicaragua’s resources are to be minimized or reduced. Costa Rica’s almost complete
lack of action on this matter for the last 20 months is unacceptable from an
engineering and environmental perspective, and their continued lack of action
threatens even greater damage to the road, to the Rio San Juan and to the environment
in the near future.
16
174 Annex 2
III. Severe Erosion at Fill Slopes and Cut Banks Documented by Time-
Sequential Aerial Imagery
There are many locations along Route 1856 where recently constructed cut slopes and
fill slopes are experiencing uncontrolled and inordinately high rates of erosion
following construction. These large bare soil areas are eroding and failing by all three
erosional processes: landsliding, gullying and surface erosion. While some efforts
have been undertaken to stabilize a few of the locations, at many it appears as if the
road has been abandoned and no efforts have been made to control or curtail the
ongoing erosion and slope failures, or to reduce potential impacts to the Rio San Juan,
over the 20-month period of our photographic record.
A. Severe Fill Slope and Cut Slope Examples at Two Sample Sites along Route
1856
Figures 8 and 9 illustrate two (2) examples of poorly designed, poorly constructed and
unmaintained cut and fill slopes along Route 1856. Both image comparisons depict
badly deteriorated and rapidly eroding and failing cut slopes and fill slopes located
directly adjacent to the Rio San Juan. Aerial oblique photographs were taken
comparing the sites over the 20 month time period between October 2012 and May
2014. Each of the two sites (Severely-Eroding Sites 8.1 and 8.2, in Appendix A of
Kondolf 2014), located between 16-16.5 km downstream of Mojon II, exhibit
extensive fill slope landslide instabilities that are enlarging through time; active and
large scale gullying associated with poor road drainage practices and highly erodible,
un-compacted materials; sporadic cut slope failures associated with undercutting and
constructing over-steepened slope cuts in fine grained soils during the attempts at road
construction; and widespread surface erosion from the extensive and easily visible
bare soil areas present in the photographs.
Contrary to claims in Costa Rican documents that road repairs and maintenance are
on-going, in both of the examples, thereappears to have been no efforts over the 20-
month time frame (Oct 2012 – May 2014) to implement any significant preventative
erosion control measures to prevent or control ongoing erosion and slope failure.
Given the observable high level of progressive instability seen in the photographs, and
the evident lack of following even the most basic road engineering and construction
principles, it is clear to us that few, if any, of the stream crossing fills and road fill
slopes were properly compacted. Workmanship on critically important road segments
on steep hill slopes right next to the Rio San Juan, like the ones in these examples, is
unreasonably poor and unprofessional. They were either poorly designed or poorly
constructed, or both. Regardless, the impacts to the Rio San Juan have been
significant and threaten to be even larger with the passage of time.
17
175Annex 2
16.1
E
200
16.3
100
16.4
50
16.2
ullies / landsides
Landslide scarp 0
Large g
N
16.5
A
A
cutbank 16.3
E
ully formation on
G
E
Deep gullying
October 2012 photo from helicopter May 2014 photo from helicopter.2 km downstream of Mojon 2 border marker.
16.4
E
.R
sraCa
un
aJ
.R Meters
ot 16.1
ie E
nIoi R
NICA.C.R. Location Map
12.5
A 0 25 50
2013, p40). View down the gully to Rio San Juan.
E
A
ore the 2012
2 measured in ully, and landslide
ullying and ill, g
16.2
E
3
3 of sediment eroded bef
rom Mojon 2.
3yr, which includes all sheet, r
2 and an average depth of 3m, indicating
. Severely Eroding Site 8.1pioneered and abandoned road
8 E
(T-064a,b) = 1006 m December 2013 satellite image
Figure16.1 km downstream fraevegetatiaolGISt. t eitqhuaaarea of 110 mstimate of 2m landslide depth,0rm
16.3
E
176 Annex 2
16.1
200 E
16.3
opter
Growing gully
C
100 LandsCide
16.4
50
16.2
E E
May 2014 photo from helic
B 0
October 2012 photo from helicopter
N
16.5
Scarps Scarps
16.1
A Stream blocked A E
D 16.3
Landslide E
elta
ully
D
Growing g
Sediment D
October 2012 photo from helicopter
16.2
E
16.4
E
oaCaR
a
auJ
R
Meters
C C
i t
ef
nIoi R
NICA.C.R. 25 50
Location Map
B 12.5
/yr, which 0
3 16.3
E
Astorga 2013, p40).
E
since road construction. Gullying
3
A
while scarp B is 50m in length with a
2 D
. With a conservative estimate of 1.75m landslide depth, 16.4
2 buried by fill E
Stream completely
E
rge adjacent pioneered and abandoned road cuts with no attempts
. Severely Eroding Site 8.2 D
9
December 2013 satellite image
FigureOne of twolsurthe failed volume of these 2 slides is 3,724 mrosion.ographs. Scarps
177Annex 2
16
E
16.1
E
2
I´AGE DATE : DECEMBER 2013
2 rge landslides
2
SES 8.1 A = 4803 m
A = 6103 m 16.2
1300 m
2 SES 8.1 without la Meters
200
1049 m
2
16.3
E
SES 8.2 2
A = 8094 m rge landslides
100
2 out la
A = 5966 m
16.4 50
E 1079 m
SES 8.2 with LOPE CONTRIBUTING AREAS
0
. Delineation of bare slope contributing areas that are actively eroding at sites LABRAGREELANDSLIDE FEATURES
16.5
Figure 10nd 8.2. E
178 Annex 2
B. Severe Cut Slope and Fill Slope Site 8.1 at RSJ River 16.1 km
Severely Eroding Site 8.1, shown in Figure 8, is located 16.1 km downstream from
Mojon II and shows a partially constructed (pioneered) reach of Route 1856 across a
steep ridge between two adjacent tributary stream channels (not shown in the figure).
This partially constructed road reach is located on steep hill slopes within 100 m of
the Rio San Juan. The sequence of three images captured in 2012, 2013 and 2014
indicate initial construction activities were completed along the road reach by October
2012, and no visible or substantive work on the failing road has been done since 2012.
This conclusion is based on the fact that the only visible changes during the 20 month
time period are actively developing, uncontrolled and enlarging gullies and landslides
present on the un-compacted, sidecast fill slopes, and evidence of widespread surface
erosion on the visible bare soil areas through time. Poor or non-existent fill
compaction during construction could have easily led an experienced geologist or
engineer in October 2012 to predict the resulting instabilities and extent of erosion
now present on the fill slopes at this site.
The images of Site 8.1 clearly indicate the reach of road was just abandoned (walked
away from) following the 2012 construction work, with no visible efforts to address
and control surface erosion from the large expanse of exposed bare soil through
seeding and/or mulching the surfaces to protect the soil from raindrop impact and
sheet wash erosional processes. In addition, the presence of the widespread and
obvious gullies of varying dimensions visible on the 2013 and 2014 images clearly
indicate that no subsequent efforts have been made to manage and/or disperse
concentrated runoff from the many hectares of exposed road, cut bank and fill slope
bare soil areas. The developing gullies are undermining and further contributing to
the formation/incidence of fill slope failures observed and present on the 2014
photograph.
Each of these deficiencies in road design, construction, erosion control and pre-wet
season stabilization procedures conflict sharply with well-established road design and
construction standards, and these deficiencies during major road construction and lack
of repair or maintenance efforts at the scales observed along portions of Route 1856
have not been observed in the U.S. for three or four decades. In the absence of
implementing immediate erosion control and slope stabilization measures at this and
other similar cut bank, road prism and fill slope areas along Route 1856, future storms
larger than those experienced to date will almost assuredly lead to additional and
more significant fill failures and sediment production (and delivery to the Rio San
Juan) than currently is visible on the imagery.
Evidence for extensive ground surface lowering due to surface erosional processes is
obvious on the cut bank areas (Figure 8). One can see where the difference from a
smooth textured excavation surface in the 2012 photo, has evolved into a very coarse,
rough textured erosion surface in the 2014 photo. The eroded surface appears to have
exposed the layered stratigraphy of the underlying bedrock (rock layering), as a result
of 20 months of rainfall and associated uncontrolled sheet wash and rill/gully erosion
of the bare soil areas.
18
179Annex 2
The prominent crown scarp outlined on the October 2012 oblique photograph
indicates that deformation of the recently sidecast and un-compacted fill was
occurring within 1 year of the start of construction along Route 1856. Utilizing GIS
measurements on the satellite imagery, the crown scarp is estimated to be
approximately 70 m long with an unstable fill slope surface area of 1,300 m 2 (Figure
8). Applying a conservative estimate3of 2 m average depth for the landslide, we
estimate that a volume of 2,600 m failed and moved downslope. In addition to the
large unstable fill slope area, uncontrolled and concentrated runoff from the large
expanse of bare soil area visible in the photos has resulted in the formation of several
gullies on the fill slope, with the largest being identified as location “A” (Figure 8).
2
The surface area of the gully at location A is estimated to be 110 m , and applying an
average estimated depth of 3 m yields an additional eroded volume of 330 m 3 from
this one feature.
2
Excluding the 1,300 m area of gully A and the large unstable fill slope area described
above (which is conservative, as additional erosion is clearly taking place on the
fillslope, where the landslide occurred prior to October 2012), we estimate that the
remaining contributing drainage area of exposed bare soil (i.e. where erosional
products will move or be transported downslope toward the Rio San Juan and into the
undisturbed forest) is 4,803 m 2 (Figure 10). Using the average of the average rates for
cut slope and fill slope erosion reported by Mende and Astorga (2013, Annex 6, Table
7) for landslide, gully and rill erosion (i.e. average rill = 0.205 m + average gully =
0.48m + average landslide = 0.99)/3 = 0.558 m/y), and assuming that a combination
of rill, gully and landslide erosion is occurring on 40% of the defined area on Figure
10, approximately 1,072 m /yr of additional rill, gully and landslide erosion is
occurring at Site 8.1 (Figures 8 and 10). Applying the average of Mende and
Astorga’s (2013, Annex 6, Table 7) estimated surface erosion rate of 0.095 m for cut
slopes and 0.24 m for fill slopes = 0.168 m/y to the remaining 60% of the bare so3l
contributing area visible at Site 8.1 (Figures 8 and 10), approximately 484 m /yr of
material is being produced within the defined bare soil drainage area by surface
erosion processes annually at Site 8.1.
Combined, we estimate the bare soil areas at Site 8.1 produced at a minimum
3
approximately 4,156 m of sediment in the first year after construction, via a
combination of sheet, rill, large and small gully and landslide erosion processes, (i.e.
from within the contributing area shown on Figures 8 and 10), and a minimum of
3
approximately 1,886 m in the 20 months between October 2012 and May 2014.
Recommended Solution
As noted above, this section of road should be decommissioned (i.e. removed and
stabilized) and a new route be properly designed in a less-steep, inland location.
While moving the road will provide a better situation for future road stability and
erosion management, there is the problem of how to manage erosion along the steep
slopes above the river at this site. For the loose, eroding fills, the following steps are
required:
19
180 Annex 2
A. As soon as weather and soil conditions permit, mobilize heavy earthmoving
equipment to excavate the entire mass of fill that originated from the cut slope
and was sidecast down the hillside.
B. Identify a stable spoil disposal location(s) on flat ground that is more than 100
m in distant from the Rio San Juan or its tributaries, and upon which
vegetation can be established to stabilize the spoil material, such that the
spoils will not be eroded and transported to the river.
C. As discussed earlier, it appears that the best access to the eroding cut and fill
slopes at Severe Erosion Site 8.1 and 8.2 for dump trucks would be from the
southeast, so that the clean-up of these sites would need to be coordinated with
the cleanup of the three stream crossings at Las Crucitas, so that trucks could
end haul excavated materials to the suggested potential spoil disposal site
shown on Figure 7 at approximately river mile 20.5 km.
D. The danger of having heavy trucks using the unstable crossings at Sites 9.4,
9.5 and 9.6 must be taken into account, and the stability of these crossings
(after their temporary repairs) should be monitored closely when in use to
transport spoils, such that their use is discontinued at the first indications of
deformation and instability due to the heavy loads of dump trucks end-hauling
spoils.
E. End haul with dump trucks the excavated spoil materials to the disposal site.
F. Stabilize exposed cut slopes by reseeding and planting (where possible given
slope conditions), and where indicated by qualified experts, implement other
techniques to improve slope stability, such as horizontal drains, geotextile and
geo-grids.
G. If cut slopes are determined to be significantly over-steepened, it may be
necessary to lay them back to a more stable angle to reduce the likelihood of
cut slope failure. Unfortunately, this would require further cutting of the slope
and would generate additional spoil material to be removed and safely
disposed of. Because of the further disturbance and additional spoil created by
laying back the cut slopes, this technique should be implemented only where
indicated by qualified experts who have the opportunity to visit the site and
conduct the necessary tests of material strength, perform long term slope
stability evaluations, and who determine that the benefits of the action would
outweigh its impacts.
20
181Annex 2
C. Severe Cut and Fill Slope Site 8.2 at RSJ River 16.3 km
Shown in Figure 9 is Severely Eroding Site 8.2, which is located 16.3 km downstream
from Mojon 2. This is another pioneered and incompletely constructed reach of
Route 1856 that crosses a steep ridge area between two adjacent tributary stream
channels, one of which has been completely buried by recently bulldozed road fill
with no obvious drainage structure (see lower left side of the 2013 satellite image).
Similar to Site 8.1, the road construction area has been abandoned since October
2012, and illustrates no efforts to perform post-construction site or slope stabilization
or to implement pre-wet season temporary, permanent, or emergency erosion control
measures.
The total absence of road design and construction plans or standards, and the lack of
competent construction inspection and management at this site and others along Route
1856, has resulted in the immediate and progressive development of cut slope and fill
slope instabilities over the 20 month period covered by these images of the site.. The
substantial erosion and slope instability has developed in less than two relatively dry
years. On the October 2012 oblique photo (Figure 9) can be seen the cut slope
landslide that developed almost immediately in the center of the photo. Also evident
is the developing arcuate crown scarp system along the outer edge of the road,
indicating pending fill slope failures within the un-compacted, loose sidecast fill
materials that had been bulldozed onto the steep hill slope during road building. In the
December 2013 vertical satellite image and the May 2014 oblique aerial photograph,
the scarp system continues to be more pronounced and integrated along the outside
edge of the road, as the unstable fill slopes continue to deform.
Additionally, two more recent and larger cut slope failures are visible at either end of
the cut bank in the May 2014 photo. These features clearly suggest there was little or
no pre-construction geotechnical analysis of the terrain and subsurface geology that
would have indicated the unstable nature of the earth materials. This common-place
and standard geotechnical and geologic analysis would have predicted the lack of soil
and bedrock competency and strength, and subsequently would have been used to
develop proper engineering designs for this and other sites along the road which are
now exhibiting massive surface erosion and road failure.
As is visible in the images at Site 8.2, and elsewhere along Route 1856 where the road
crosses steep hill slopes, the construction also lacks any visible efforts at designing
road surface and cut slope drainage design and structures that would have been
suitable to manage and control surface runoff. These design and construction
deficiencies, as well as poor practices and poor workmanship, are resulting in the
development and enlargement of an extensive network of various sized gullies that are
visibly expanding on the over-steepened and un-compacted fill slopes. As shown on
the 2013 and 2014 images, the two largest gullies at Site 8.2 are coincidently located
along the lateral scarp margins that define the most unstable and actively failing fill
slopes at the site.
The pair of prominent crown scarp outlined on the October 2012 oblique photograph
again indicate that deformation of the recently sidecast and un-compacted fill was
21
182 Annex 2
occurring within 1 year of the start of construction along Route 1856 (Figure 9,
Locations A and B). Utilizing GIS measurements on the satellite imagery, both
outlined crown scarps are estimated to be approximately 50 m long with an unstable
2
fill slope surface area of 1,079 and 1,049 m , respectively (Figure 9). Applying a
conservative estimate of 1.75 m average depth for the two largest failing fill slopes
and erosional features visible in the photos (Figure 9, see inset photo C by Mende and
3
Astorga, 2013), we estimate that a volume of at least 3,724 m has moved downslope
in these two locations since construction, equivalent to over 1,241 m /yr when
averaged over three years.
2
Excluding the 2,128 m area delineated on Figure 10 that was used to estimate the
volume of the fill slope landslide visible at Site 8.2, we estimate that the remaining
contributing area of exposed bare soil (i.e. where erosional products will move or be
transported downslope from Route 1856 into the undisturbed forest and toward the
Rio San Juan) is 5,966 m 2(Figure 10). This is conservative, as erosion is still taking
place on the old landslide scar as well. Using the average of the average rates for cut
slope and fill slope erosion reported by Mende and Astorga (2013, Annex 6, Table 7)
for landslide, gully and rill erosion (i.e. average rill = 0.205 m + average gully =
0.48m + average landslide = 0.99)/3 = 0.558 m/y), and assuming that a combination
of rill, gully and landslide erosion is occurring on 40% of the defined area on Figure
10, approximately 1,332 m 3/yr of additional rill, gully and landslide erosion is
occurring at Site 8.2 (Figures 9 and 10). Applying the average of Mende and
Astorga’s (2013, Annex 6, Table 7) estimated surface erosion rate of 0.095 m for cut
slopes and 0.24 m for fill slopes = 0.168 m/y to the remaining 60% of the bare soil
3
contributing area visible at Site 8.2 (Figures 9 and 10), approximately 601 m /yr of
material is being produced within the defined bare soil contributing area by surface
erosion processes annually at Site 8.2.
Combined, we estimate that the bare soil areas at Site 8.2 produced a minimum of
approximately 3,174 m 3/yr of sediment via a combination of sheet, rill, large and
small gully and landslide erosion processes (i.e. from within the contributing area
shown on Figures 9 and 10). This estimate of total erosion at Site 8.2 is significantly
higher than Mende and Astorga’s (2013) reported estimate of total sediment
3
production from this site of 1,238 m /yr (including sheet, rill, gully and landslide
erosion) (Figure 9), a significant under-representation of the actual erosion
documented in the imagery.
Recommended Solution
As per Site 8.1, with the re-routing of the road to a more stable location to the south,
the loose fill-slope material must be removed to a stable disposal site.
As per sites discussed above, after the fill material was removed, the exposed cut
slope would need to be stabilized through vegetation, use of geo-grids and geotextiles,
horizontal drains, and possible laying back of the slope to reduce the cut slope angle.
22
183Annex 2
D. Summary of Cut Slope and Fill Slope Observations
Over the 20 month period of our analysis of oblique aerial photographs and high-
resolution satellite images, there is a clear lack of any significant or visible efforts to
control, repair or prevent the very visible, ongoing and future landslide, gully and
surface erosion that is apparent in the two cut and fill slope examples. The
incompletely constructed road reach at Site 8.1 and 8.2 reveals a complete disregard
for following even the most basic, well accepted road engineering and road
maintenance principles normally applied during road construction. Even more
egregious is the total disregard for site specific and cumulative environmental impacts
that continue to be experienced by Nicaragua, as well as to Costa Rican natural
resources.
The above discussed fill and cut slope examples violate virtually every relevant road
design, road layout, road construction, road maintenance, and temporary and
emergency erosion control standard and measure.
IV. Recommended Erosion Control Solution along Route 1856 where the
Road will Remain in its Current Location
There are many locations along the 108 km long Route 1856 between Mojon II and
the confluence of the Rio Colorado where there is active, ongoing erosion or potential
erosion occurring where it is unlikely that the road will be decommissioned and re-
located farther inland in order to protect water quality. For example, Appendix A
identifies 18 additional locations along the road, excluding the 5 Severe Erosion Sites
discussed above, that exhibit some combination of uncontrolled surface, rill, gully and
landslide erosion or erosion potential associated with poor road design, location,
construction and post construction temporary and long term erosion control measures.
The following recommendations should be followed in order to stabilize and prevent
continued impacts to the Rio San Juan.
A. Recommended Stream Crossing Mitigation Approaches
According to Mende and Astorga, (2013, p. 399 of Annex 6) 83 of the 119 (70%) of
the stream crossings along Route 1856 have been classified as to their technical status
as being “broken, closed, provisional or without any connection” (Figure 6). Whether
these stream crossing sites ultimately will require bridges or properly sized culvert
drainage structures, each crossing must be constructed or re-constructed utilizing
sound geologic, engineering and compaction standards. The process for constructing
stable stream crossings that are resilient to future large storms and safe for
commercial use requires following design, construction and maintenance principles
that include, but not limited to:
A. As soon as weather and soil conditions permit, mobilize heavy earthmoving
equipment to stabilize failing stream crossings by excavating all unstable or
potentially unstable, poorly compacted and over-steepened fills at all road-
stream crossings.
23
184 Annex 2
B. As soon as weather and soil conditions permit, mobilize heavy earthmoving
equipment to stabilize failing or potentially unstable road fills on the
immediate road approaches to stream crossings by excavating all unstable or
potentially unstable, poorly compacted and over-steepened fills.
C. End haul with dump trucks the excavated spoil materials to stable spoil
disposal locations where the soils will not be eroded and delivered to the Rio
San Juan or its tributaries.
D. Poorly designed road-stream crossings fills should be immediately removed
until they can be properly designed and constructed. These sites include those
crossings where:
i. road-stream crossing culverts and bridges have been constructed with
unsuitable materials (e.g., logs, metal shipping containers, etc.), or
ii. stream crossing structures have not been designed (engineered) to
accommodate the 100-year return interval runoff event, or
iii. road-stream crossing bridges or culverts have been misaligned with the
natural channels or where drainage ditches have been excavated to re-
route the stream flow out of the natural channel, or
iv. the upstream and downstream fill slopes are over-steepened as
reflected by ongoing deformation, gullying and landsliding.
Removal of these poorly designed and/or constructed road-stream crossings
should consist of:
v. excavating and removing the drainage structure(s),
vi. excavating all the fill materials out of the stream crossing so as to
"exhume" the original channel bed, re-establish the natural thalweg
channel gradient and flood flow width, and provide stable side slopes
with either the natural side slope angle or a maximum 2:1 side slope,
and
vii. seed and mulch bare exposed soils for temporary erosion control.
E. The stream crossings can be properly reconstructed in the future once they
have been properly designed using a) the proper materials, locations,
orientations and sized drainage structures to accommodate the 100-year flow
along with woody debris that will be in transport, b) sufficient drainage
structure length to construct stable, compacted fill slopes and transport stream
flow beyond the base of the fill slopes and construction site right-of-way, and
c) construct stable, structurally reinforced and properly compacted engineered
fill slopes designed to be resilient to large, prolonged infrequent storms.
24
185Annex 2
B. Recommended Fill Slope Mitigation Approaches
It is necessary to reduce the rate and frequency of road fill failure slumps and
landslides where the road crosses the steeper hill slopes, especially in all locations
where failed or eroded soil materials could potentially be delivered to the Rio San
Juan. This entails:
A. As soon as weather and soil conditions permit, mobilize heavy earthmoving
equipment to excavate all unstable and potentially unstable sidecast fills.
Hydraulic excavators will be required, and in many locations temporary
benches and access spur roads will be required to reach all the unstable and
failing fill materials (i.e. from near the base of the fill slope up to and through
the outside edge of the road prism). Long boom excavators may be useful for
reaching and removing unstable spoil materials where a temporary access road
cannot be safely built.
B. Dump trucks may be required for end-hauling the excavated spoil materials,
i.e. where necessary and when spoil cannot be stored in a dispersed manner
along the cut slopes, for disposal at stable, low gradient locations where the
materials will have no potential for re-mobilization and delivery to streams or
wetlands.
C. It should be noted that seeding, mulching or planting unstable and failing fills,
or employing various geotextile fabrics designed for surface erosion control,
are not acceptable methods for controlling active or potential mass wasting
processes.
D. Once the identified unstable fills have been excavated and removed, the road
will largely consist of a full bench road bed with little or no part of the road
constructed on fill material. If road widths are insufficient to accommodate the
expected traffic in these treated reaches, either the cut portion of the road can
be moved farther into the hill slope (provided the earth materials are stable) or
a well designed and constructed engineered fill/retaining walls can be built
along the outside of the road to ensure the new fill slopes remain stable during
large infrequent return interval rainfall events. The structural fill should be
designed by a qualified geotechnical engineer who should also be present
during construction.
C. Recommended Surface Erosion Mitigation Approaches
It is necessary to immediately reduce road surface erosion and sediment delivery by
improving dispersion of concentrated road runoff and increasing the number and
frequency of road drainage structures. This measure will address gully erosion and
hydrologically connected road segments that are currently delivering sediment to the
Rio San Juan and its tributaries. This involves:
A. As weather and soil conditions permit, and after excavating all the fill slopes
exhibiting instabilities referenced in Recommendation #1 (above) along Route
1856, immediately construct temporary rolling dips, cross road drains and/or
25
186 Annex 2
waterbars at average 15 meter intervals (or more frequently) to drain road
surface runoff to the outside edge of the road.
B. Construct surface drainage structures at close enough intervals so they will not
result in new gully formation capable of transporting eroded sediment to the
Rio San Juan or its tributaries. Some erosion of the road fill slopes can be
expected, but sediment should be deposited on the native hill slope beyond the
base of the fill and not transported to the river or a stream. Culvert down
drains can be constructed to carry road surface runoff down the fill slope and
to the base of the fill wherever the road is too close to the river to prevent
sediment delivery.
C. Ensure that every drain or waterbar is constructed at a slightly steeper slope
angle/gradient than the existing road gradient where the drain is constructed,
so that they will be self-flushing and self-maintaining.
D. Ditches should be drained under the road using ditch relief culverts installed at
sufficient intervals to prevent gullying of the fill slope or the natural hillside
beyond the base of the fill where they discharge.
E. Ditch drains and road surface drains should be placed close on each approach
to tributary stream crossings so as to divert surface runoff onto natural,
undisturbed hill slopes, and thereby prevent or minimize road surface runoff
delivery to streams that flow into the Rio San Juan.
F. Maintain all surface drainage structures and ditch drains so they continue to
function as intended and so eroded sediment is not discharged to the Rio San
Juan or its tributaries. If drainage structures are damaged by traffic or
equipment, they should be rebuilt before the next rainfall and runoff event.
D. Recommended Surface Erosion Control Approaches for Bare Soil Areas
Finally, as noted above, in addition to methods to stabilize cut slopes (such as geo-
grids, geotextiles, horizontal drains, and where indicated, laying back slopes to more
stable angles), surface erosion should be controlled using the following methods:
A. Seed and mulch all bare soil areas with any potential for sediment delivery to
nearby streams/wetlands with straw mulch at a rate of 4,000 lbs/acre (4,485
kg/ha) and native seed at a rate of 50 lbs/acre (56 kg/ha). If mulches other than
wheat or rice straw are employed, ground coverage should be at least 95%.
B. Cut banks with slopes steeper than 50% will likely require the combined use
of seeding, mulching and installation of rolled erosion control fabrics, stapled
to the slope, to control surface erosion.
C. Inspect, re-treat and maintain all erosion control measures so they continue to
function as intended and they prevent sediment delivery to the Rio San Juan
and its tributaries.
26
187Annex 2
D ANNY K. H AGANS
PRINCIPAL EARTH SCIENTIST
SPECIALIZATION : Applied geology and geomorphology, surface water
hydrology, watershed assessment and restoration, erosion and sediment
control, forest and rural roads, Quaternary stratigraphy
QUALIFICATIONS :
Principal Earth Scientist, Pacific Watershed Associates Inc., 1990-present
Geologist, Redwood National Park, Arcata, CA, 1978-1990
Mining Geologist, Western Nuclear Corp., Jeffer City, WY, 1977-1978
Geologist, Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA, 1974-1975
B.S., Geological Sciences, Humboldt State University, 1978
Certified Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Specialist #494
Advisory Board, Arcata Community Forest, Arcata, CA, 1986-present
Member: Watershed Management Council
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
Salmonid Restoration Federation
S UMMARY OF EXPERIENCE :
Danny Hagans has extensive experience in conducting large scale, basin-wide erosion
inventories and assessments, as well as implementing watershed rehabilitation and
restoration projects in the western U.S.A. Mr. Hagans has 12 years professional
experience as a lead U.S. National Park Service (Department of the Interior) geologist at
Redwood National Park, California, developing and implementing the Park’s
internationally recognized, $50M watershed rehabilitation and restoration program. He
specifically investigated the role of forest land use and road construction on erosion
and sedimentation on the sediment budgets of coastal watersheds and is considered a
leading expert in these fields.
The watershed rehabilitation program at Redwood National Park was the first of its
kind, and of its scale, to be attempted in North America and perhaps worldwide. It was
a program designed to protect and restore internationally valuable ecological resources
within its boundaries (Redwood National Park is a U.N. World Heritage Site) from the
impact of past forest management and road building. Mr. Hagans played a key role in
organizing and implementing that program from its inception through its first decade.
The groundbreaking watershed restoration program focused on the assessment of
erosion problems and water pollution threats largely derived from 250 miles of major
and secondary forest and ranch roads that had been constructed on what had recently
become federally owned National Park lands. These eroding and failing roads had been
constructed on industrial forest lands in the lower portion of the 280 mid
Creek Watershed, which was acquired by the U.S. federal government in 1978. At risk
PACIFIW ATERSHEDA SSOCIATEINC. D ANNY HAGANS
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 Principal Earth Scientist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 1
188 Annex 2
was Redwood Creek, a large coastal river with threatened and endangered fish species,
the valuable ecosystem that supported those and other aquatic species, and world’s
tallest trees growing along its banks and on its floodplains.
Much of the extensive road network in Redwood Creek had been poorly planned and
constructed on steep forest lands in a Mediterranean climate dominated by heavy
winter precipitation, steep mountainous hillslopes and highly erodible, unstable
terrain. Mr. Hagans was a key member of the team that identified problems and then
designed, tested and implemented a wide variety of innovative road-related erosion
control and erosion prevention techniques across the landscape. Redwood National
Park’s watershed restoration and sediment control program has served as the model
for watershed erosion control and erosion prevention, and as a methodology for
landscape-level water quality and river protection throughout North America.
While at Redwood National Park, Mr. Hagans was also responsible for conducting
geomorphic research projects on erosionand sedimentation processes, especially
focusing on the impacts of land management and road building. During his tenure
with the federal government, Mr. Hagans conducted extensive and repeated technical
reviews of proposed land use, and provided mitigations to private land owners and
industrial forest managers on how they could conduct their timber harvesting, road
building and land development projects upstream from Park lands without adversely
impacting downstream areas.
Mr. Hagans joined Pacific Watershed Associates (PWA) in 1990, as principal and a co-
owner of the company. Today, PWA is a full service geological and hydrological
consulting firm, consisting of a staff of 30 full time geologists, geomorphologists,
watershed scientists and physical science technicians, specializing in the development
of science-based, technically sound management, restoration and geologic solutions for
watershed, forest, estuarine, and riverine habitats. PWA is nationally recognized for
groundbreaking work in watershed restoration, erosion control and aquatic habitat
protection projects, and Mr. Hagans has developed state-of-the art protocols and state-
adopted standards for watershed erosion assessments, watershed erosion prevention
plans, road construction and road management practices and road decommissioning
protocols.
Under Hr. Hagans guidance, the company specializes in developing and implementing
plans for minimizing or mitigating the impacts of land management activities on
geomorphic systems, including upland watershed areas, rivers, streams, and coastal
areas. For example, over the 5 years from 2003 through 2008, PWA professionals
completed 68 projects to document erosion problems along more than 3,800 miles of
forest, ranch and rural road systems in watersheds where water quality and salmonid
habitat are threatened by continued sedimentation. In this same time period, and with
the assistance of both public and private partners, PWA conducted or supervised 82
projects to remediate erosion problems, including upgrading or decommissioning
approximately 650 miles of roads in managed wildland watersheds, resulting in over
$26,000,000 in direct funding for local contractors and workers.
PACIFICW ATERSHED ASSOCIATESINC. D ANNY HAGANS
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 Principal Earth Scientist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 2
189Annex 2
Mr. Hagans has managed and conducted a wide array of projects related to wildland
geomorphology, hydrology and erosion processes. Over his career with PWA he has
personally conducted sediment source assessments of over 2000 mi 2 of managed forest
and ranch lands in the Western U.S.A., and the preparation of sediment reduction plans
for literally thousands of miles of wildland forest, ranch, and rural roads; vineyard
roads; parkland roads; and county maintained public roads. He has conducted a
number of sediment source investigations for federal and state agencies, industrial
forest landowners and individual private landowners. Mr. Hagans has also completed
dozens of studies and erosion prevention plans for northern California Indian Tribes,
State Agencies, rural subdivisions, and industrial and non-industrial forest and ranch
landowners. Mr. Hagans is a recognized and leading national expert in the
identification and treatment of watershed erosion and sedimentation problems,
especially those related to land management and road construction. The focus of these
prioritized action plans, and their subsequent treatment, revolves around the protection
and restoration of water quality, fisheries and aquatic habitat.
Mr. Hagans has conducted research and published articles on the magnitude and
causes of forest land erosion, and especially on the effects of land use on erosion rates
and processes, and cumulative watershed effects. His most recent (2014) publication is
a comprehensive, 416 page manual on forest, ranch, and rural roads, published in both
English and Spanish (Handbook for Forest, Ranch and Rural Roads: A Guide for Planning,
Designing, Constructing, Reconstructing, Upgrading, Maintaining and Closing Wildland
Roads). He is also co-author of two U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, the
original 1994 "Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads” (commissioned by the California
Department of Forestry and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service), Chapter 10 of the
California’s State-adopted Fish Habitat Restoration Manual (“Upslope assessment and
restoration practices”) and numerous other reports and papers. The California State
Resources Agency calls PWA’s 1994 publication, Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads,
the “definitive book on managing forest roads” that “belongs on every forest
landowner’s bookshelf.” Mr. Hagans has also prepared and presented over 85 technical
trainings for landowners, government agencies, and environmental organizations on
erosion and sediment control for forest and rural roads through the Western U.S.A. In
2001, he was awarded the Nat Bingham Memorial Restorationist of the Year award by
the Salmonid Restoration Federation. Mr. Hagans is currently serving as an appointed
member of the Arcata Community Forest Advisory Committee for the city of Arcata,
California.
In 2008, Pacific Watershed Associates received special recognition from the U.S. House
of Representatives, the California State Senate, and the California Assembly for their
work in watershed restoration and fisheries protection. PWA, and its founders Danny
Hagans and Dr. William Weaver, was also recognized by The Alliance for Sustainable Jobs
and the Environment as the 2008 Restoration Organization of the Year, representing the
single organization to have “achieved highest level of excellence and has had the most
beneficial impacts on fisheries and watersheds in pursuit of the health and abundance.” The
award cited their pioneering efforts to rehabilitate and restore the landscape of heavily
damaged lands added to Redwood National Park, and to be “at the forefront of a
revolutionary approach to watershed restoration focusing on slope stabilization and recovery of
PACIFICW ATERSHED A SSOCIATESINC. D ANNY HAGANS
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 Principal Earth Scientist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 3
190 Annex 2
hydrological integrity -- leading to prevention of stream sedimentation -- through methodical
evaluation followed by careful and intensive corrective and/or constructive measures with heavy
equipment.” ASJE recognized PWA and its founders, Dr. William E. Weaver and Danny
K. Hagans, for “…truly pioneering efforts. Their work, as well as that of a multitude of others
who have adopted their techniques and systems, has kept millions of yards of soil material on
slopes throughout Northern California and out of our precious rivers and streams. They
continue to provide guideposts that are usable as well as an inspiration.”
S ELECTED PUBLICATIONS :
Weaver, W.E., Weppner, E.M. and Hagans, D.K., 2014, Handbook for Forest, Ranch and
Rural Roads: A Guide for Planning, Designing, Constructing, Reconstructing, Upgrading,
Maintaining and Closing Wildland Roads, Mendocino County Resource Conservation
District, Ukiah, California, 416 p.
Weaver, W.E., Weppner, E.M. y Hagans, D.K., 2014, Manual de caminos forestales y
rurales: Una guía para planificar, diseñar, construir, reconstruir, mejorar, mantener y
cerrar caminos forestales, Distrito de Conservación de Recursos del Condado de
Mendocino, Ukiah, California, 416 p.
Hagans, D.K., Weaver, W.E., Leroy, T.H., and Letton, B., 2006, “Stealth sediment” -
Reducing hydrologic connectivity and fine sediment delivery from roads; an essential
component to improving habitat for Central Coast steelhead [abs.], 24nual Salmonid
Restoration Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, February 2006: Redway, CA, Salmonid
Restoration Federation.
Weaver, W.E., Hagans, D.K., Weppner, E., 2006, Part X: Upslope erosion inventory
and sediment control guidance, in Flosi, G., Downie, S., et al., eds., California
salmonid stream habitat restoration manual, 3d. ed.: Sacramento, CA,
California Department of Fish and Game, 207 p.
Weaver, W.E. and Hagans, D.K., 2004, Road upgrading, decommissioning and
Maintenance: estimating costs on small and large scales, in Allen, S.T., Thomson,
C., and Carlson, R., eds., Salmon Habitat Restoration Cost Workshop,
Gladstone, OR, November 14-16, 2000, Proceedings: Portland, OR, Pacific
States Marine Fisheries Commission, p. 80-103.
Weaver, W.E. and Hagans, D.K., 1996, Sediment treatments and road restoration:
protecting and restoring watersheds from sediment-related impacts, In: Healing the
watershed: a guide to the restoration of watersheds and native fish in the
west, 2d. ed.: Eugene, OR, Pacific Rivers Council, chap. 4, p. 109-140.
Weaver, W.E., Hagans, D.K., and Popenoe, J.H., 1996, Magnitude and cause of
gully erosion in the lower Redwood Creek drainage basin, chap. I, in Nolan, K.M.,
Kelsey, H.M., and Marron, D.C., Geomorphic process and aquatic habitat in
the Redwood Creek basin, northern California: U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 1454, p. I1-I21.
Best, D.W., H.M. Kelsey, D.K. Hagans and M.J. Alpert, 1996, Role of fluvial hillslope erosion
and road construction in the sediment budget of Garrett Creek, Humboldt County,
California, In: Geomorphic process and aquatic habitat in the Redwood Creek basin,
PACIFICW ATERSHED ASSOCIATES NC . D ANNY H AGANS
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 Principal Earth Scientist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 4
191Annex 2
northern California, (ed. K.M. Nolan, H.M. Kelsey and D.C. Marron), USGS Prof. Paper
1454.
Weaver, W.E, and Hagans, D.K., 1994, Handbook for forest and ranch roads: a
guide for planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and
closing wildland roads: Ukiah, CA, Mendocino County Resource Conservation
District, 197 p.
Hagans, D.K. and Weaver, W.E., 1987, Magnitude, cause and basin response to fluvial
erosion, Redwood Creek basin, northern California: International Association of
Hydrological Sciences Publication No. 165, p. 419-428.
Hagans, D.K., Weaver, W.E., and Madej, M.A., 1986, Long-term on-site and off-site effects
of logging and erosion in the Redwood Creek Basin, Northern California: New York, NY,
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Technical Bulletin, no. 490, p. 38-
66.
PACIFICW ATERSHED ASSOCIATESINC. D ANNY H AGANS
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 Principal Earth Scientist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 5
192 Annex 2
W ILLIAM E. W EAVER
CEO, PRINCIPAL GEOMORPHOLOGIST
SPECIALIZATION : Fluvial and hillslope geomorphology; erosion and
sedimentation processes, hydrology; watershed assessment; erosion and
sediment control BMPs; forest, ranch and rural roads; road construction,
upgrading and closure
QUALIFICATIONS :
CEO, Principal Geomorphologist, Pacific Watershed Associates Inc., 1989-present
Engineering Geologist, Redwood National Park, Arcata, CA, 1976-1989
Ph.D., Earth Resources (Geomorphology), Colorado State University, 1986
B.S., Geological Sciences, University of Washington, 1973
Washington Registered Geologist #2014
Washington Registered Engineering Geologist #2014
Adjunct Professor, Humboldt State University, 1988-present
Board of Directors, Humboldt County Resource Conservation District, Eureka, CA, 1994-2000
Scientific Advisory Panel, California Coastal Salmon Initiative, CA Resources Agency, 1996-97
California State Board of Forestry Task Force on forest road construction on landsliding, 1988-
89
Coast Forest District Technical Advisory Committee to the California State Board of Forestry,
1976-1985
S UMMARY OF EXPERIENCE :
Dr. William Weaver has more than 35 years of professional experience in the fields of process
geomorphology, surface water hydrology, watershed management and engineering geology.
Since forming Pacific Watershed Associates, Inc. in 1989, his work has focused on forest
geomorphology and the hydrologic and cumulative effects of land management and roads on
forested watersheds, geomorphic processes and coastal ecosystems. Recently his work has
concentrated on water quality protection, erosion control, and fisheries restoration achieved
through sediment source investigations, as well as the evaluation, planning and designing of
watershed rehabilitation and sediment control activities in steepland drainage basins. As the
principal Engineering Geologist at Redwood National Park for 13 years, Dr. Weaver was
instrumental in designing, initiating, and monitoring the internationally recognized watershed
2
rehabilitation and erosion control program covering the park and the 280 mi Redwood Creek
watershed.
PACIFIW ATERSHEDA SSOCIATEINC. W ILLIAME. EAVER, H.D.
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 CEO, Principal Geomorphologist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 1
193Annex 2
The watershed rehabilitation program at Redwood National Park was the first of its kind, and
of its scale, to be attempted in North America and perhaps worldwide. It was a program
designed to protect and restore the invaluable resources of Redwood National Park, a U.N.
World Heritage Site, from the impacts of past and continuing timber harvesting and road
building in steep forested lands along Redwood Creek. Dr. Weaver served as the principal
Engineering Geologist for the National Park Service and acted as the lead scientist in planning,
designing, organizing and implementing the restoration program from its inception in 1978
until 1989. Dr. Weaver was in charge of prioritizing, designing and implementing road
restoration and erosion control projects within the 48,000 acre (19,500 ha) land acquisition from
private industrial timberlands that the U.S. Congress added to the National Park in 1978. The
allocated budget for the watershed restoration program was initially set at $33M dollars, but
subsequently expanded to over $50M. The groundbreaking program focused on the
assessment of erosion problems and water pollution threats largely derived from 250 miles of
major and secondary forest roads that had been constructed on the newly acquired lands.
These eroding and failing roads had been constructed on industrial forest lands in the lower
2
portion of the 280 mi Redwood Creek Watershed. At risk was Redwood Creek, a large coastal
river with threatened and endangered fish species, the valuable ecosystem that supported
those and other aquatic species, and world’s tallest trees growing along its banks and on its
floodplains.
Once the program was underway, Dr. Weaver assumed responsibility for developing and
implementing a science-based monitoring program to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-
effectiveness of each technique in the Park’s watershed restoration and road rehabilitation
program. Dr. Weaver brings from that extended multi-decade long experiment an
unparalleled wealth of experience in everything from restoration planning; sediment source
assessment; cost-effectiveness evaluation; the development, testing and routine
implementation of specific techniques for controlling wildland erosion; effectiveness
monitoring; as well as the oversight, contracting and administration of restoration projects.
Initially springing out of this effort, Dr. Weaver has a long list of technical publications to his
credit involving sediment source investigations, land management impacts, geomorphology,
hydrology, watershed restoration, monitoring, and erosion control practices.
In 1989, Dr. Weaver left the National Park Service to form Pacific Watershed Associates
(PWA). PWA was formed to bring the accumulated restoration experience developed on
logged lands in Redwood National Park to managed forest and ranch lands in the private and
public sector of the Western U.S.A., including small private landowners, industrial forest
lands, tribal lands and federally owned watersheds where resource management strategies
include continued utilization rather than simple preservation. Since then, PWA, under Dr.
Weaver’s leadership, has incorporated existing, tested restoration practices and strategies
developed in northern California and elsewhere into an overall strategy for managing forest
and coastal ecosystems that emphasizes protection of biological resources, attainment of water
PACIFICW ATERSHED ASSOCIATES NC . W ILLIAME. WEAVER, H.D.
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 CEO, Principal Geomorphologist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 2
194 Annex 2
quality objectives, ecosystem restoration, and improved land stewardship practices. Because
of the progressive and long term experience of the firm’s principals (Dr. Weaver and Mr.
Danny Hagans), PWA has been identified and recognized as an unmatched leader in
evaluating, planning and designing watershed rehabilitation activities in steepland drainage
basins for the purpose of watershed and water quality restoration, and fisheries protection and
recovery. Their research and restoration experience encompasses upland drainage basins,
riparian zones, fluvial and riverine systems, estuary and marsh habitat and coastal dune
systems.
PWA has conducted watershed sediment source investigations on over 2000 mi of tribal,
federal, industrial and small private forest, ranch and rural subdivision lands in the Pacific
Northwest. Under Dr. Weaver’s leadership, his staff of 30 professionals and technicians have
surveyed approximately 7,500 miles of forest roads in these watersheds and developed
prioritized sediment reduction plans which include both road decommissioning as well as
road storm-proofing (upgrading). Their work has been commissioned by state and federal
agencies, local (county) governments, tribes, private companies, small landowners, and
environmental organizations. Each year Dr. Weaver and his staff conduct numerous
workshops and technical training sessions to educate landowners, land managers, agency staff
and regulatory personnel on improved methods of land management and sediment control,
especially related to roads, and to provide guidance on the protection of water quality and
aquatic resources from various non-point sediment sources.
In 2008, Dr. Weaver’s firm (Pacific Watershed Associates) received special recognition from the
U.S. House of Representatives, the California State Senate, and the California Assembly for
their work in watershed restoration and fisheries protection. PWA, and its founders Dr.
William Weaver and Danny Hagans, was also recognized by The Alliance for Sustainable Jobs
and the Environment as the 2008 Restoration Organization of the Year, representing the single
organization to have “achieved highest level of excellence and has had the most beneficial impacts on
fisheries and watersheds in pursuit of the health and abundance.” The award cited their pioneering
efforts to rehabilitate and restore the landscape of heavily damaged lands added to Redwood
National Park, and to be “at the forefront of a revolutionary approach to watershed restoration
focusing on slope stabilization and recovery of hydrological integrity -- leading to prevention of stream
sedimentation -- through methodical evaluation followed by careful and intensive corrective and/or
constructive measures with heavy equipment.” ASJE recognized PWA and its founders, Dr.
William E. Weaver and Danny K. Hagans, for “…truly pioneering efforts. Their work, as well as
that of a multitude of others who have adopted their techniques and systems, has kept millions of yards
of soil material on slopes throughout Northern California and out of our precious rivers and streams.
They continue to provide guideposts that are usable as well as an inspiration.”
Dr. Weaver is co-author of the book Experimental Fluvial Geomorphology (1987) and has since
authored a number of publications on geomorphology, watershed assessment techniques, and
PACIFICW ATERSHED A SSOCIATESINC . W ILLIAM E. WEAVER, H.D.
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 CEO, Principal Geomorphologist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 3
195Annex 2
steepland erosion prevention practices. His most recent (2014) publication is a comprehensive,
416 page manual on forest, ranch, and rural roads, published in both English and Spanish
(Handbook for Forest, Ranch and Rural Roads: A Guide for Planning, Designing,
Constructing, Reconstructing, Upgrading, Maintaining and Closing Wildland Roads). This
book focuses on ways to construct and manage roads in wildland areas so they have a minimal
impact on the environment and on downstream water quality. He is also principal author on
many other publications including a chapter on forestland gully erosion included in U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454; the Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads, a technical
field guide commissioned by the California Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection and the U.S.
Natural Resources Conservation Service; and Part X: Upslope erosion inventory and sediment
control guidance from the California Department of Fish and Game California Salmonid Stream
Habitat Restoration Manual (3 edition). The California State Resources Agency calls PWA’s
1994 publication, Handbook for Forest and Ranch Roads, the “definitive book on managing forest
roads” that “belongs on every forest landowner’s bookshelf.” Three additional publications,
Storm- proofing Forest Roads, Sediment Treatments and Road Restoration, and Road Upgrading,
Decommissioning and Maintenance - Estimating Costs on Small and Large Scales provide a broad
range of technical procedures for water quality and fisheries protection which have been
applied to road upgrading, decommissioning, and erosion control in steep mountainous
watersheds of the Pacific Northwest.
Dr. Weaver is a government-approved, leading expert and technical trainer in the fields of
erosion and sedimentation, erosion control, water quality protection and the management of
sediment sources in wildland watersheds and along public and private roads. He conducts
numerous technical training sessions and workshops on erosion processes and non-point
sediment control across the state each year. Dr. Weaver is recognized for his ability to prepare
and present technical, science-based workshops on topics in a manner that is easily
understood by both technical and non-technical audiences, including landowners, equipment
operators, land managers, regulatory personnel, environmentalists, and other scientists and
consultants.
Finally, Dr. Weaver has served on a number of task forces and technical committees appointed
by the California State Board of Forestry to evaluate and recommend changes to the California
Forest Practice Regulations covering timber harvest and road building on private forest lands
throughout California. Dr. Weaver is considered a leading national expert in the field of
steepland erosion processes, the impacts of road construction on watershed erosion and
sedimentation processes, the effects of land management on watershed sediment yield, and
the design and control of road-related erosion processes in steep, forested environments and
wildland watersheds.
S ELECTED P UBLICATIONS :
Weaver, W.E., Weppner, E.M. and Hagans, D.K., 2014, Handbook for Forest, Ranch and
P ACIFIW ATERSHED A SSOCIATESNC . W ILLIAME. EAVER , H.D.
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 CEO, Principal Geomorphologist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 4
196 Annex 2
Rural Roads: A Guide for Planning, Designing, Constructing, Reconstructing, Upgrading,
Maintaining and Closing Wildland Roads, Mendocino County Resource Conservation
District, Ukiah, California, 416 p.
Weaver, W.E., Weppner, E.M. y Hagans, D.K., 2014, Manual de caminos forestales y
rurales: Una guía para planificar, diseñar, construir, reconstruir, mejorar, mantener y cerrar
caminos forestales, Distrito de Conservación de Recursos del Condado de Mendocino,
Ukiah, California, 416 p.Weaver, W.E., Hagans, D.K., Weppner, E., 2006, Part X:
Upslope erosion inventory and sediment control guidance, in Flosi, G., Downie, S., et al.,
eds., California salmonid stream habitat restoration manual, 3d. ed.: Sacramento,
CA, California Department of Fish and Game, 207 p.
Weaver, W.W., Gerstein, J.M., and Harris, R.R., 2005, Monitoring the effectiveness of
upland restoration: Berkeley, CA, University of California, Center for Forestry, 100 p.
Weaver, W.E. and Hagans, D.K., 2004, Road upgrading, decommissioning and maintenance:
estimating costs on small and large scales, in Allen, S.T., Thomson, C., and Carlson, R.,
eds., Salmon Habitat Restoration Cost Workshop, Gladstone, OR, November 14-16,
2000, Proceedings: Portland, OR, Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, p. 80-
103.
Weaver, W.E, and Hagans, D.K., 1999, Storm-proofing forest roads, in Sessions, J., and
Chung, W., eds., International Mountain Logging and 10 Pacific Northwest Skyline
Symposium, Corvallis, Oregon, April 1999, Proceedings: Oregon State University,
Forest Engineering Department, p 230-245.
Weaver, W.E. and Hagans, D.K., 1996, Sediment treatments and road restoration: protecting
and restoring watersheds from sediment-related impacts, In: Healing the watershed: a
guide to the restoration of watersheds and native fish in the west, 2d. ed: Eugene,
OR, Pacific Rivers Council, chap. 4, p. 109-140.
Weaver, W.E. and D.K. Hagans, 1996, Aerial reconnaissance evaluation of 1996 storm effects
onupland mountainous watersheds of Oregon and southern Washington, prepared for The
Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, Oregon, 22 pages + appendices.
Weaver, W.E., Hagans, D.K., and Popenoe, J.H., 1996, Magnitude and cause of gully
erosion in the lower Redwood Creek drainage basin, chap. I, In: Nolan, K.M., Kelsey,
H.M., and Marron, D.C., Geomorphic process and aquatic habitat in the Redwood
Creek basin, northern California: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1454, p.
I1-I21.
Weaver, W.E. and D.K. Hagans, 1996, Sediment treatments and road restoration: protecting
and restoring watersheds from sediment-related impacts, chapter 4 In: Healing the
Watershed – A Guide to the Restoration of Watersheds and Native Fish in the West.
The Pacific Rivers Council, Eugene, Oregon, pages 109-140.
Pacific Watershed Associates (PWA), 1994, Handbook for forest and ranch roads: a guide for
planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and closing wildland roads:
PACIFICW ATERSHED A SSOCIATESINC . W ILLIAM E. WEAVER, H.D.
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 CEO, Principal Geomorphologist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 5
197Annex 2
Ukiah, CA, Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, 197 p.
Weaver, W.E., M.M. Hektner, D.K. Hagans, L.J. Reed, R.A. Sonnevil, G.J. Bundros. 1987.
An Evaluation of Experimental Rehabilitation Work, Redwood National Park. Redwood
National Park Technical Report 19. Nat'l Park Service, Arcata, California. 163 pp.
Weaver, W.E., Sonnevil, R.A., and Klein, R.D., 1987, Field methods used for monitoring
erosion and sedimentation processes in steeplands of northwestern California, in Beschta,
R.L, Blinn, T., Grant, G.E., Swanson, F.J., and Ice, G.G., eds., Erosion and
sedimentation in the Pacific Rim: Washington, D.C., International Association of
Hydrological Sciences Publication No. 165, p. 509-510.
Weaver, W.E., D.K. Hagans and M.A. Madej. 1987. Managing forest roads to control cumulative
erosion and sedimentation effects. In: Proceedings of the California watershed management
conference, Report 11 (18-20 Nov. 1986, West Sacramento, Calif.), Wildland Resources Center,
Univ. of California, Berkeley, California, 6 p.
Weaver, W.E., A.V. Choquette, D.K. Hagans and J. Schlosser. 1981. The Effects of Intensive Forest
Land Use and Subsequent Landscape Rehabilitation on Erosion Rates and Sediment Yield in
the Copper Creek Drainage Basin, Redwood National Park. In: Proceedings, Symposium on
Watershed Rehabilitation in Redwood National Park and Other Coastal Areas. August 24-28,
1981. Arcata, California. Center for Natural Resource Studies of the John Muir Institute.
Berkeley, California. pp. 298-312.
Hagans, D.K., Weaver, W.E., Leroy, T.H., and Letton, B., 2006, “Stealth sediment” - Reducing
hydrologic connectivity and fine sediment delivery from roads; an essential component to improving
habitat for Central Coast steelhead [abs.], 24 Annual Salmonid Restoration Conference, Santa
Barbara, CA, February 2006: Redway, CA, Salmonid Restoration Federation.
Hagans, D.K. and Weaver, W.E., 1987, Magnitude, cause and basin response to fluvial erosion,
Redwood Creek basin, northern California: International Association of Hydrological
Sciences Publication No. 165, p. 419-428.
Hagans, D.K., W.E. Weaver and M.A. Madej. 1986. Long-Term On-Site and Off-Site Effects of
Logging and Erosion in the Redwood Creek Basin, Northern California. In: Papers presented at
Amer. Geophys. Union meeting on cumulative effects (9-13 Dec. 1985, San Francisco, Calif.),
Tech. Bull. 490, pp. 38-66, National Council of the Paper Industry (NCASI), New York, NY.
PACIFICW ATERSHED A SSOCIATES NC . W ILLIAM E. WEAVER, H .D.
PO Box 4433 • Arcata, CA 95518-4433 CEO, Principal Geomorphologist
(707) 839-5130 • www.pacificwatershed.com page 6
198 ANNEX 3
Dr. Edmund D.Andrews, “An Evaluation of the Methods,
Calculations, and Conclusions Provided By Costa Rica Regarding
the Yield and Transport of Sediment in the Rio San Juan Basin,”
July 2014
199200 Annex 3
DISPUTE CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD
IN COSTA RICA ALONG THE SAN JUAN RIVER
NICARAGUA v. COSTA RICA
An Evaluation of the Methods, Calculations, and Conclusions Provided By
Costa Rica Regarding the Yield and Transport of Sediment in the Río San
Juan Basin
Prepared for the Government of Nicaragua by:
Edmund D. Andrews, Ph.D.
Tenaya Water Resources, LLC
Boulder, Colorado
July 25, 2014
201Annex 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................▯........................ 1
II. ABOUT THE AUTHOR .......................................................................▯............................. 4
III. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................▯....................................... 5
IV. SEDIMENT YIELDS FROM UNDISTURBED AND DISTURBED TROPICAL
RIVER BASINS .......................................................................▯..........................................6
A. Sediment Yields from Undisturbed Forested Tropical Watersheds ........................7
B. Impact of Land Use on Sediment Yield...................................................................9
C. Sediment Yields from Tropical River Basins Affected by Forest Clearing and
Road Construction .......................................................................▯..........................10
D. Sediment Impact of Route 1856 ........................................................................▯....10
V. EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT ISSUES IN REPORTS SUBMITTED BY COSTA
RICA .......................................................................▯.......................................................... 11
A. Overview of River Gages........................................................................▯...............11
B. Sampling of Suspended Sediment Concentration..................................................13
C. Representative Records of River Discharge and Sediment Transport...................13
D. Annual River Discharge and Sediment Loads at the Jabillos Gage.......................17
E. Normalized Annual River Discharges and Sediment Loads for the La
Trinidad and Delta Colorado Gages ......................................................................20▯
F. Portion of the Río San Juan Flowing into the Delta Colorado Channel................22
G. Calculation of Bedload Transport........................................................................▯..23
H. River Slope.............................................................▯................................................24
I. Aggradation of Delta Channels........................................................................▯......26
J. Assessing the Sediment Impacts of Route 1856....................................................29
K. Improper Sampling of Suspended Sediment..........................................................35
VI. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF EXCESSIVE SEDIMENT SUPPLY TO THE
COASTAL ZONE ........................................................................▯.................................... 36
i
202 Annex 3
FIGURES
Figure 1. Observed annual river discharges (A) and suspended sediment loads (B) at the
Jabillos gage (14-02) from 1967 to 2013.......................................................................1▯8
Figure 2. Copy of Figure 3 and caption from Thorne Report.......................................................30
Figure 3. Variation of suspended sediment concentrations as a function of river
discharge for the Río San Juan La Trinidad gage (01-03) and Río Colorado
Delta Colorado gage (11-04) ........................................................................▯.....................31
Figure 4. Variation of suspended sediment concentration as a function of river discharge
for the La Trinidad (01-03) and Delta Colorado (11-04), assuming a power relation.......34
TABLES
Table 1. Published sediment yields from tropical river basins with an undisturbed forest ............8
Table 2. Copy of Table 2 and caption from Thorne Report..........................................................15
Table 3. Copy of Table 4 and caption from Thorne Report..........................................................16
Table 4. River discharges and sediment loads in the Río San Juan Basin during the years 1974-
1975 (A) and 2011-2011 (B) compared to the long-term mean ........................................21
Table 5. Comparison of river slopes reported by Thorne for selected reaches of the Río San Juan
and the correct values.........................................................................▯................................24
ii
203Annex 3
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Costa Rica’s analysis and conclusions regarding the construction of Route 1856 and its
impact on the Río San Juan are underlain by a critical assumption. Prof. Thorne states at
numerous points throughout his report that his assumed basin-wide sediment yield represents the
natural condition of the Río San Ju an. For example, at paragraph 6.45, Thorne characterizes the
Río San Juan as having “naturally high concentrations of suspended sediment.” Thorne’s
assertions, however, are not supported by citati ons from the scientific literature that would
objectively establish the Río San Juan Basin’s natural sediment yield. In fact, Thorne does not
provide a single citation to support his conclusion that 1080 tons/km -yr is a “natural” sediment
yield, or otherwise typical for a tropical draina ge basin of similar precipitation, geology, forest
cover, and relief. Published sediment yields from tropical river basins with undisturbed primary
forests vary from 1 to 120 tons/km 2–year. The median reported sediment yield is about 20
tons/km -yr, and only a few studies have found se diment yields greater than 50 tons/km -year. 2
Therefore, the sediment yields in the Río San Ju an Basin prior to appreciable forest clearing and
2 th
landscape disturbance were likely between 20 to 50 tons/km per year, which would be 1/20 to
th 2
1/50 of Thorne’s estimated basin-wide value of 1080 tons/km per year. Current sediment
yields across the Río San Juan Basin from Lake Nicaragua to the Caribbean Sea are not natural.
They are, in fact, much greater than would be expected.
Costa Rica experienced one of the highest wo rldwide rates of forest clearing during the
three decades after 1950. Deforestation maps prepared by MINAE, FONAFIFO (no year) and
reproduced by Kleinn (2002) show that between 1950 and 1987 a substantial majority of the
forested lands in the Río San Juan Basin were cleared. Numerous studies representing a wide
range of climatic and geologic condi tions have found that sediment yields typically increase 10-
to 100-fold when an intact tropical forest is cleared, crops are planted and subsequently
converted to pasture. Sediment yield s in the range of 1000 or more tons/km 2-year are typical of
deforested tropical drainage basins. Thorne’s statement that the current basin-wide sediment
yield to the Río San Juan is, on average about 1080 tons/km -yr is consistent with the scientific
literature describing the expected sediment yields from disturbed tropical river basins. It must be
concluded that the present sediment load of th e Río San Juan is unnaturally elevated due
primarily to deforestation and asso ciated land disturbance in the Costa Rican parts of the basin.
1
204 Annex 3
Thus, current sediment yields from the Río San Juan Basin are most likely 20 to 50 times the rate
that occurred prior to the substantial deforestation that began in about 1950.
Compared to the expected natural basin-wi de contribution of sediment to the Río San
Juan, the quantity of sediment associated with the construction of Route 1856 is quite substantial.
Given the results cited in Table 1, one would exp ect that the Río San Juan would have carried
between 170,000 to 420,000 tons per year before a ppreciable deforestation and other changes in
land-use. Estimates determined by Costa Rica and Nicaragua of the additional sediment supplied
to the Río San Juan by land degradation associated with Route 1856 range from 61,000 (Thorne)
to 240,000 (Kondolf 2014) tons per year. Based upon this range of estimated sediment
contributions, the quantity of sediment eroded from the Road corridor would have increased the
total sediment load of the Río San Juan to the head of the delta by 15 to 140 percent over the
expected natural condition.
Poor land-use practices in Costa Rica over recent decades have greatly increased the
supply of sediment to the Río San Juan Delta area. Using the estimated mean annual supply of
sediment to the head of the delta of about 13.7 million tons of suspended and bedload sediment,
the average annual quantity of relatively coarse sedi ment that will tend to accumulate in the
upstream portion of the delta in excess of what would have been deposited when sediment yields
were truly natural is approximately 1.0 to 1.5 million m . The capacity of the Lower Río San
Juan to carry flow and transport sediment has been greatly reduced over the past several decades.
If only 10 percent of the relatively coarse sediment supplied to the delta is carried into the Lower
San Juan channel, the expected aggrad ation rate due to the excess sediment – approximately
3
25,000 to 75,000 m per year – within the first three kilometers of the Lower Río San Juan is in
the order of 10 to 30 centimeters per year.
Costa Rica’s analysis and conclusions focus primarily on two Río San Juan gages: the La
Trinidad station and the Delta Colorado station. These gages were only operated for two full
years and relatively few samples of suspended sedime nt were collected. It is apparent from the
information presented in the Thorne Report and Annex 4 that Costa Rican hydrologists and water
managers have determined that a couple of years of river flows and a few tens of suspended
sediment samples are insufficie nt and cannot be relied upon to make informed decisions.
Indeed, the common practices and standards appl ied by Costa Rican hydrologists and water
2
205Annex 3
managers to operate river gages elsewhere in the Río San Juan Basin are those that have been
adopted worldwide. Two years of flow records and a few tens of suspended sediment samples
are not sufficient to represent the magnitude and frequency of river discharges or calculate mean
annual river sediment loads.
Prof. Thorne compares suspended sediment concentrations sampled at the La Trinidad
and Delta Colorado gages and concludes that “[n]ot only is there no statistically significant
difference between the pre- and post-Road suspended sediment rating curves, but Figure 26
reveals them to be practically identical.” (Thorne, para. 8.5.) The figure mentioned by Thorne
was prepared using an improper statistical assump tion, as well as by applying an approach
inconsistent with Costa Rican practices else where in the Río San Juan basin. A standard
statistical test reveals there is only one chancein 100 that the observed suspended sediment
concentrations at La Trinidad in 1974 to 1975 are the same as the concentrations that were
observed at the Delta Colorado in 20 11 to 2012. Prof. Thorne’s conclusion that the suspended
sediment concentrations in the Río San Juan Basi n have not changed over the past forty years is
demonstrably false.
Coastal ecosystems are typically highly productive and diverse. As such, they are a
valuable ecological resource and provide consid erable economic value. Coastal ecosystems
along the Caribbean coast of Central America are especially significant. Excessive rates of
sediment deposition will impair and can substantially alter the structure and function of a coastal
ecosystem. Today, coastal ecosystems worldwid e are frequently impaired by excessive
sedimentation. (Thrush and others, 2004). As little as 3mm of freshly deposited sediment is
sufficient to impair the struct ure and function of estuarine and coastal ecosystems. Coral reefs
throughout the Caribbean, including along the co ast of Costa Rica, have been negatively
impacted by large increases in the quantity of sediment eroded fr om the land surface and
transported to the ocean. Elevated rates of sedi ment deposition directly onto the coral formation
as well as increased turbidity have been associa ted with slower growth rates, changes in coral
species, and reduced overall ecosystem productivity.
3
206 Annex 3
II. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Edmund D. Andrews received a B.S. and M. S. degree in Geophysics from Stanford
University and a Ph.D. degree in Geology from the University of California, Berkeley. He
joined the U.S. Geological Survey in 1975 and served in various positions within the U.S.G.S’s
National Research Program until his retirement as Chief of the River Mechanics Project in July
of 2009. Dr. Andrews had overall responsibility for the geomorphology, sediment transport, and
surface water research programs within the U.S. Geological Survey from 1986 – 1990 and again
from 1997 – 2002. Beginning in the 1980s, in addition to his work with the U.S.G.S., Dr.
Andrews has held various faculty positions w ith the University of Colorado at Boulder,
culminating in his appointment as a Research Professor and Fellow at the University’s Institute
for Arctic and Alpine Research in 2009.
The goal of Dr. Andrews’ research has been to develop the analytical methods and
approaches needed to maintain and restore th e important geomorphic and ecological features of
river channels. His research has focused prima rily on the adjustment of river channels to
alterations in streamflows and sediment supply. This research has concerned a wide variety of
rivers affected by various natural and anthropo genic impacts. Notably, he was a principal
investigator of the 1996 experimental flood released into the Colorado River through Grand
Canyon National Park, consulted on the Yangtze River Basin in China, created the streamflow
gaging network for the Long-Term Ecological Research facility in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of
Antarctica, was appointed an advisor in ri ver mechanics to the Canada-US International
Boundary Commission and is a current member of the Platte River Independent Science
Advisory Committee. Since 1988, Dr. Andrews ha s served as an expert witness in court
proceedings to support the U.S. Government’s work to establish instream flow water rights for
National Forests and National Parks in several of the Western United States, as well as river
sedimentation issues under the Federal Clean Water Act.
Dr. Andrews is currently a Research Profe ssor Emeritus at the University of Colorado
and is the Principal for Tenaya Water Resources, LLC.
4
207Annex 3
III. INTRODUCTION
This report considers erosion and sedimentati on in the Río San Juan Basin that straddles
the border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. The Río San Juan begins at Lake Nicaragua and
flows southeast for approximately 200 kilometer s to the Caribbean Sea. Along its course,
tributaries from both Nicaragua and Costa Rica, draining approximately 11,000 km 2, enter the
Río San Juan. Beginning just downstream of the Nicaraguan town of El Castillo and extending
approximately 110 kilometers to the river mouth, the right bank of the Río San Juan forms the
border between Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
This report will focus on three questions:
1) What was the likely natural range of se diment yields in the Río San Juan Basin
before appreciable forest clearing, road building and other settlement activities?
2) What is the likely range of current se diment yields in the Río San Juan Basin
given the existing land uses?
3) What is the relative significance of the sediment supplied to the Río San Juan
from the Route 1856 corridor, compared to the natural, forested condition of the
Río San Juan Basin?
To present the answers to these questions, this report will also evaluate the conclusions
presented in a report prepared by Professor C. Thorne (2013). Dr. Thorne’s report is Appendix
A attached to the Counter-Memorial submit ted December 19, 2013 by Costa Rica, and is
henceforth referred to as “Thorne.” This report will also assess the supporting document entitled
“Report on Hydrology and Sediments for the Costa Rican River Basins Draining to the San Juan
River” prepared by the Costa Rican Institute of Electricity (ICE), and attached as Annex 4 to the
Counter-Memorial submitted December 19, 2013 by Cos ta Rica. It is henceforth referred to as
“Annex 4.”
5
208 Annex 3
IV. SEDIMENT YIELDS FROM UNDISTURBED AND DISTURBED TROPICAL
RIVER BASINS
Any proper analysis of the impacts that the construction of Route 1856 has had and will
have in the coming decades on the supply, transport and deposition of se diment to the Río San
Juan must involve a comparison. The parties’ estimates of the sediment contributed by Route
1
1856 to the Río San Juan range from 61,000 (Thorne) to 240,000 (Kondolf) tons of sediment per
year. The question is whether 61,000 to 240,000 tons per year is a relatively small or large
amount of sediment in comparison to the natura l sediment yield. The answer to this question
depends largely upon the basin-wide sediment yield that is determined to be “natural.”
Thorne refers to the analysis presented in Annex 4 to conclude that the Río San Juan
2
currently transports about 9.13 million tons of sediment at the point about 20 kilometers
upstream of the delta where the Río San Juan bifur cates. (See Thorne, Table 6.) He also states
that the drainage area contributing sediment to the Río San Juan between Lake Nicaragua and the
2 3
La Trinidad gage located near the head of the delta is about 8,420 km . (See Thorne, Table 2.)
Hence, Thorne’s report would indicate that the sediment yield is approximately 1080 tons per
2
square kilometer per year (hereinafter “tons/km -yr”) from that portion of the basin between
Lake Nicaragua and the head of the delta. T horne then states at numerous points throughout his
report that his assumed basin-wide sediment yield represents the natural condition of the Río San
Juan. For instance, at paragraph 6.45, Thorne characterizes the Río San Juan as having “naturally
high concentrations of sus pended sediment.” At paragraph 12.2, Thorne clarifies that he is
comparing the inputs of Route 1856 to what he calls the River’s “natural loads.” Prof. Thorne
then concludes that the sediment inputs from Route 1856 represent 2% or less of the Río San
Juan’s total load. (Thorne, p. 84.) Thorne’s assertions, however, are not supported by references
from the scientific literature that would objectively establish the Río San Juan Basin’s natural
sediment yield. In fact, Thorne does not provide a single citation to support his conclusion that
1
G. Mathias Kondolf, “Erosion and Sediment Delivery to the Rio San Juan from Route 1856,” July 2014
(hereinafter “Kondolf 2014”).
2 Thorne’s Table 6 reports an annual average sediment yield of 9.133 million tons. The accuracy of sediment
information is such that, at most, three significant figures ar e justified. Throughout this report, values of sediment
yield and sediment load will be rounded to two or three significant figures depending on the expected uncertainty.
3
The difference in drainage area between the La Trinidad and San Carlos gages.
6
209Annex 3
1080 tons/km -yr is a “natural” sediment yield, or otherwise typical or reasonable for a tropical
drainage basin of similar precipitation, geology, forest cover, and relief. I have also searched for
such a study and have been unable to find one.
A. Sediment Yields from Undisturbed Forested Tropical Watersheds
To determine the Río San Juan Basin’s natural sediment yield, the proper procedure
would be to evaluate and sum the observed sediment loads as measured on the tributaries to the
Basin and the Río San Juan mainstem. Thorne seems to recognize that this would be the proper
approach, but his analysis ignores and sidesteps significant problems with the available
information. Thus, Thorne’s analysis focuses primarily on two river gages: 1) the La Trinidad
station operated from 1973 to 1976, and 2) the Delta Colorado station operated from 2010 to
2013. (See Thorne, Table 2.) Neither the La Trinidad nor the Delta Colorado gage records cover
the period prior to substantial landscape disturban ce. The first hydrologic observations at these
gages were initiated in 1974, well after substa ntial deforestation, construction of roads and other
landscape destabilization on the Costa Rican tributaries to the Río San Juan. Furthermore, both
river gage records are short – only about two years. Given that the river gaging stations were
only operated briefly and decades after appreciable changes in land-use throughout the Costa
Rican tributaries to the Río San Juan, these re cords cannot be relied upon to represent, even
approximately, the natural condition. Likewise, the summary of sediment loads presented in
Annex 4 for 12 river gages located on tributaries to the Río San Juan cannot be used to infer
natural sediment yields because all of thes e gages were establishe d after 1967, well after
substantial changes in land-use.
Without the benefit of useful gage records from the Río San Juan Basin to analyze the
Basin’s natural sediment yields, the best recourse is to search for data from comparable forested
tropical river basins. I undertook a search of the scientific literature to compile information from
published estimates of sediment yields from undisturbed tropical river basins. These studies and
reported sediment yields are listed in Table 1.
The number of available hydrologic records describing sediment transport in undisturbed
tropical river basins is not large. In selecting the studies to include, I have relied on the authors’
characterization that the basins were essentially undisturbed. Nevertheless, some of the authors
noted that even these river basins were not entire ly pristine, and one might therefore suspect that
the reported sediment yields are increased to some extent over the natural conditions. (See
7
210 Annex 3
Douglas, 1967.) The available studies report sedime nt yields from forested tropical river basins
with a wide range of precipitation, geology and t opographical relief, including basins that, like
the Río San Juan basin, contain areas of volcan ic soil, steep slopes, and receive significant
rainfall.
Table 1. Published sediment yields from tropical river basins with undisturbed forest vegetation.
Study Location Sediment Yield
2
(Number of River Basins) (tons/km -year)
Douglas (1967) Australia (26) 2 to 25
Dunne (1979) Kenya (4) 15 to 25
Brown and others (1998) Puerto Rico (1) 114
Hewawasam and others Sri Lanka (11) 13 to 30
(2003)
Sidle and others (2006) Southeast Asia (numerous 1 to 120
sites)
As shown in Table 1, the reported sediment yields from tropical river basins with
2 4
undisturbed primary forests vary from 1 to 120 tons/km –year. The median sediment yield
2
shown in Table 1 is about 20 tons/km -yr, and only a few studies have found sediment yields
2
greater than 50 tons/km -year. Thus, while it is arguably po ssible that the basin-wide sediment
2
yield in the Río San Juan may have been somewhat more than 50 tons/km -year, and perhaps as
high as 120 tons/km 2-year before widespread deforestation, such a rate would be unusual based
upon the studies published in the scientific literat ure. Therefore, the sediment yields in the Río
San Juan Basin prior to appreciable forest clearing and landscape disturbance were likely to fall
between 20 to 50 tons/km per year, which would be 1/20 to 1/50 of Thorne’s estimated basin-
wide value of 1080 tons/km per year. 5
4Sediment yields tend to increase with precipitation and ease with drainage area. It is likely that some, and
perhaps most of the drainage basins represented in Tab le 1 receive less precipitation and/or have smaller drainage
areas than the Rio San Juan tributaries flowing out osta Rica. Both trends are relatively weak, however, and
would offset each other.
5 2
See related discussion in section V(D), where it is also shown that the estimate of 1080 tons/km -year of sediment
yield was based on observations gathered during two ars of relatively low river flows and well below average
sediment transport, and that this deficiency has a significant impact on the comparison of sediment yields from the
years after land-use disturbance to the estimated long-term average sediment yields,
8
211Annex 3
B. Impact of Land Use on Sediment Yield
Scientific studies over the past five decades have repeatedly demonstrated across a wide
range of landscapes that land use is the single most important factor affecting sediment yields.
Each of the five publications cite d in Table 1 is focused primarily on the increase in sediment
yield following changes in land use. While other factors, such as precipitation, bedrock geology,
soils, and topographic relief are commonly found to also be important and well correlated with
sediment yield, these factors remain relatively s table over time, while changes in land use can
have a dramatic and immediate influence on the rate of sediment erosion and the resulting yield
of sediment from a drainage basin. (Milliman and Syvitski, 1992).
Among the most common and widely studied changes in land use is the conversion of
tropical forests to agriculture and pasture. (See Bruijnzeel, 1990; Sidle and others, 2006). The
sediment yields from a drainage basin typically increase 10- to 100-fold when an intact tropical
forest is cleared, crops are planted and subsequently converted to pasture when the soil fertility is
exhausted. (See, e.g. Hewawasam (2003); Sidle and others, 2006.) The clearing of tropical
forests for trails and roads, although the to tal affected acreage may be less than pasture
conversion, has been found to create even larger sediment yields which are sustained over time if
the road is not properly constructed and maintained. (Id.)
Costa Rica experienced one of the highest wo rldwide rates of forest clearing during the
three decades after 1950. Le onard (1986) estimated that the annual rate of deforestation was
nearly 4 percent of the total Costa Rican land area between 1950 and 1984. Forest clearing was
promoted by a government policy that made forest c learing a prerequisite to obtaining land title.
(Kleinn, 2002.) The results of one study published by the World Bank found that the percentage
of forest cover in Costa Rica declined from over 65 percent in 1950 to slightly less than 30
percent in 1988. (Lutz and others, 1993.) In another study, Sader and Joyce (1988) concluded
that the remaining undisturbed forest in 1988 was less than 20 percent. Deforestation maps
prepared by MINAE, FONAFIFO (no year) and reproduced by Kleinn (2002) show that between
1950 and 1987 a substantial majority of the forested lands in the Río San Juan Basin were
cleared. Rosero-Bixby and Pa lloni (1998) found that the rate of for est clearing was especially
high in areas drained by the Río San Juan over the period 1973 to 1983. The estimates by these
several studies may include both primary, undisturbe d forests as well as some second-growth
9
212 Annex 3
forests that may not be recognizable in a satellite image as having been disturbed. Thus, while
the studies differ somewhat in details, they agree on the overall change, and demonstrate a very
6
rapid rate of deforestation after 1950 in Costa Rica, including in the Río San Juan Basin. These
analyses show that by 1990, only a small portion of the original primary forest remained.
C. Sediment Yields from Tropical River Basins Affected by Forest Clearing and
Road Construction
The evidence demonstrates that substantial deforestation has occurred in the Río San Juan
Basin in the past six decades. This deforestati on should be expected to have produced greatly
increased sediment yields. The studies cited in Table 1 also provide estimates of sediment yield
from disturbed tropical river basins. Although these studies cover a wide range of deforestation
as well as hydrologic, geologic, and topographic conditions, they have all found that forest
clearing and road building in tropical river basins w ill increase sediment yields 10- to 100-fold.
In fact, the studies show that accelerated erosion and sediment yields of several hundred to more
than ten thousand tons per square kilometer per year are typical. (See Douglas (1967), Dunne
(1979), Hewawasam (2003), and Sidle and others (2006).) Thus, Thorne’s statement that the
2
current basin-wide sediment yield to the Río San Juan is, on average about 1080 tons/km -yr is
consistent with the scientific literature describing the expected sediment yields from disturbed
tropical river basins. It must be concluded that the present sedime nt load of the Río San Juan is
unnaturally elevated due primarily to defores tation and associated land disturbance in the Costa
Rican parts of the basin.
D. Sediment Impact of Route 1856
Compared to the expected natural basin-wi de contribution of sediment to the Río San
Juan, the quantity of sediment associated with the construction of Route 1856 is quite substantial.
Given the results cited in Table 1, one would ex pect that the Río San Juan would have carried
between 170,000 to 420,000 tons per year before a ppreciable deforestation and other changes in
land-use. Estimates determined by Costa Rica and Nicaragua of the additional sediment supplied
to the Río San Juan by land degradation associated with Route 1856 range from 61,000 (Thorne)
6
Deforestation has also occurred ine Nicarguan tributary basins. However, because the Costa Rican basins
represent about 83 percent of the drainage area contributing sediment to the Rio San Juan (see Thorne, Table 3) and
the extent of deforestation is greater, I have focused on the Costa Rican basins in this analysis.
10
213Annex 3
to 240,000 (Kondolf 2014) tons per year. Based upon this range of estimated sediment
contributions, the quantity of sediment eroded from the Road corridor would have increased the
total sediment load of the Río San Juan to th e head of the delta by 15 to 140 percent over the
expected natural condition. The estimated range of sediment eroded from the Route 1856
corridor is significant given the inherent uncer tainties. In any case, the construction of Route
1856 has contributed a very substantial amount of se diment to the Río San Juan compared to the
circumstances prior to deforestation.
The additional sediment is not contributed uniformly along the river corridor. A majority
of the sediment eroded from the Route 1856 corri dor enters the Río San Juan in the reach that
begins just below El Castillo and ends 41 kilometers downstream at the confluence of the Río
San Carlos. Given the smaller contributing drainage area in this upstream section of the river, the
natural sediment load would have been considerably less than the 170,000 to 420,000 tons per
year estimated for the entire river basin. Thus, the relative increase in the river’s sediment load
due to sediment eroded from the Route 1856 corridor through this reach of the river would have
been greater than for the entire basin.
V. EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT ISSUES IN REPORTS SUBMITTED BY COSTA
RICA
Thorne offers several opinions concerning sediment erosion and transport in the Río San
Juan Basin. In forming his opinions, he relies extensively on Annex 4. The following portion of
this report will evaluate the information Professor Thorne relies upon and the validity of his
opinions. Several of Thorne’s opinions are based upon insufficient or doubtful hydrologic
information or are unsupported by the available i nformation as collected at Costa Rican river
gages. In addition, significant conclusions reach ed by Prof. Thorne rely upon inconsistent and
faulty analyses. This section will evaluate and discuss several conclusions presented in the
Thorne report.
A. Overview of River Gages
A brief description of the information collected at a river gage and the analysis of this
information to determine the magnit ude of river flows and sedime nt transport over a period of
years will provide some helpful background for th e following evaluation. The basic operations
11
214 Annex 3
of a river gage and the procedures for the sampling of sediment transport are well-established
and broadly applied worldwide.
1) River Stage Recorder . The primary function of a river gage is to measure and
record the water surface elevation, commonly referr ed to as the river “stage.” Various types of
instruments such as floats and pressure sensors ar e deployed to measure the stage. River stage,
time and date are recorded at desired intervals of time, e.g. every one, five, fifteen or thirty
minutes, as a time-series of river stage.
2) Measurement of River Discharge. River discharge is the volume of water flowing
past the gage location per second, i.e. cubic meters per second or m 3/sec. It is measured
periodically, over as wide a range of river stages as possible. River stage and discharge are then
correlated, graphically, mathematically or both, to define the stage-discharge relation for the
gage. The stage-discharge relation may change over time as the characteristics of the river reach
are altered. Typically, the river discharge will be measured a few to dozens of times during a
year to ensure that the stage-discharge relation is current and accurate.
3) Calculation of River Discharge. The time-series of river discharges is determined
by combining the recorded time-series of river stage with the stage-discharge relation. The time-
series of river discharge is then integrated ove r an increment of time (day, month, year) to give
the volume of water runoff. Mean discharge is the volume of runoff divided by an increment of
3
time, i.e. cubic meters per second or m /sec.
4) Fluvial Sediment Transport. Sediment particles are tr ansported either suspended
within the water column – called the suspended sediment load – or in more or less continuous
contact with the river bed – which is called bedload. The mode of sediment transport within the
river cross-section depends upon the intensity of turbulence and the settling velocity of the
sediment particles, as influenced by particle size, shape and density. At a given river discharge,
sediment particles with settling velocities that are relatively small compared to the turbulent
intensities will be suspended in the flow of the river, while the sediment particles with settling
velocities that are relatively large compared to the turbulent intensities will be rolling or
bouncing over the river bed.
The total sediment load of a river will be mainly suspended sediment – 85 percent or
more – except in rare circumstances (Judson a nd Ritter, 1964; Vanoni, 1976.) The bedload
12
215Annex 3
transport rate at a given river discharge may be calculated using an equation that relates the fluid
forces acting on the river bed and the gravitati onal forces resisting motion or by collecting a
sample of sediment particles in motion.
B. Sampling of Suspended Sediment Concentration
The concentration of suspended sediment in a river cross-section at a given moment
varies appreciably from bank to bank and from ri ver bed to surface. The concentration will
typically be highest close to the river bed ne ar the center of the channel, and will decrease
upward to the river surface a nd outward towards the river ba nk. The methods and equipment
needed to collect a representative sample, i.e. on e for which the concentration of the sample is
the same as in the river cross-section, were de veloped several decades ago. (See Edwards and
Glysson, 2005.) They are well established and have been adopted worldwide. This method
involves collecting discharge-weighted samples of the flow at many verticals across the river
channel. For a relatively wide channel, such as exists in the Río San Juan, 20 to 30 sample
verticals are necessary to obtain a representative sample of the river’s sediment load.
This overview of sediment load calculations is presented to describe the importance of
the record of river discharges and well-defined relations between the suspended and bedload
sediment transport and river discharges. Th e calculation of sediment load depends upon having
sufficient and representative information to defi ne both the magnitude and frequency of river
flows as well as associated flux of sediment. The remaining portion of this report will describe
numerous examples of insufficient and poor quality hydrologic information, incorrect and
improper analysis, and unsupported or wrong conclusi ons contained in Thorne and Annex 4.
The discussion will necessarily be detailed and specific, as Costa Rica has attempted to
characterize hydrology and sediment transport in the Río San Juan Basin with considerable
specificity. Repeatedly, Thorne states that some given result is reliable and forms his opinion
accordingly, when the opinion is demonstrably faulty or unsupported by the available hydrologic
information.
C. Representative Records of River Discharge and Sediment Transport
It is worthwhile to begin simply by consid ering certain tables from the Thorne report,
which I have reproduced in this report as Tab le 2 and Table 3 below. Table 2 provides summary
information on four Río San Juan river gages and 12 tributary gages located in the Costa Rican
13
216 Annex 3
parts of the basin. Thorne’s analysis and conclusions focus primarily on two gages shown in this
Table, the La Trinidad (01-03) and Delta Col orado (11-04). The period of record for each gage
is shown in Table 2. The difference in record le ngth for the La Trinidad and Delta Colorado
gages compared to the 12 other Costa Rican operated tributary gages is striking. The 12 tributary
gages have been operated for an average of 29 years; all but one have been operated for 10 or
more years. The La Trinidad and Delta Col orado gages, however, were only operated for 2
complete years of record each. 7 Operating a river gage and compiling the record of flows
requires substantial resources, and is expensive. A water management authority would not pay
to operate a river gage for ten or more years, if just a couple of years would provide adequate
information to understand the flow regime at a gi ven location. The length of flow records shown
for these 12 tributary gages demonstrates that Costa Rican hydrologists have found that ten or
more years of record are necessary for statistical value and therefore are worth the substantial
cost of operation. Thus, as demonstrated by Costa R ica’s own practices, the two years of flow
records available at the La Trinidad and Delta Colorado gage are insufficient to provide reliable
information upon which to base Thorne’s conclusions.
Similarly, summary information describing suspended sediment transport at the La
Trinidad and Delta Colorado gages as well as the 12 Costa Rican tributary gages is shown in
Table 3. A range of 25 to 338 suspended sediment samples have been collected at each of the
several gages. More than 100 suspended sediment samples have been collected at 9 of the 12
river gages. It is evident that Costa Rican hydrologists have determined that 100 or more
sediment samples is worth the ef fort and expense of collection to produce a reliable result. Yet
Thorne concludes that 12 samples at the La Tr inidad and 31 samples at Delta Colorado provide
sufficient data to support his opinions. (See Thorne, page 67).
7Only complete years of gage record will be used for mparison, in order to avoid bias. A list of daily mean
discharges recorded at the Delta Colorado gage (11-0provided on an Excel spreadsheet attached to Annex 4
indicates that the gage was operated from December 17, 2010 to July 31, 2013. Accordingly, the gage record covers
two complete calendar years of observation – 2011 and 2012. Likewise, Prof. Thorne reports that the records from
La Trinidad were collected between January 1974 and March 1976– two complete calendar years of observation.
(Thorne, para. 6.28.)
14
217Annex 3
Table 2. Copy of Thorne Table 2
15
218 Annex 3
Table 3. Copy of Thorne Table 4
It is apparent from the information in Tables 2 and 3 that Costa Rican hydrologists and
water managers have determined, as demonstrated by their choices, that a couple of years of
river flow and a few tens of susp ended sediment samples are ins ufficient and cannot be relied
upon to make informed decisions. Indeed, the common practices and standards applied by Costa
Rican hydrologists and water managers are those that have been adopted worldwide. Two years
of flow records and a few tens of suspended sedimen t samples are not sufficient to represent the
magnitude and frequency of river discharges or calculate mean annual river sediment loads.
16
219Annex 3
Despite these problems with the La Trinidad and Delta Colorado stations, Thorne focuses
the Costa Rican analysis primarily on these gages. The La Trinidad gage is located
approximately 20 kilometers upstream of the delta area, whereas the Delta Colorado gage is
located on a distributary channel in the delta wh ich now carries most of the basin runoff. Based
upon calculations of annual suspended sediment load conducted at these gages by ICE and
reported at Annex 4, Thorne concludes that sediment loads in the Río San Juan have not changed
appreciably between the two periods of re cord, 1973-1976 and 2010-2013. (See Table 3.)
Indeed, Thorne’s result appears to suggest that the annual suspended sediment loads may have
decreased over time. The following evaluation, using information from Annex 4, will
demonstrate that this conclusion is wrong an d presents a misleading view of the actual
circumstances.
D. Annual River Discharge and Sediment Loads at the Jabillos Gage
In order to understand the deficiencies of th e La Trinidad and Delta Colorado river gage
records that arise from the very short period of observations, it is helpful is examine a much
longer gage record, including extensive sampling of suspended sediment transport. The time-
series of annual river discharges and annual suspended sediment loads recorded at the Jabillos
gage, collected by Costa Rica in the San Carlos basin, are shown in Figure 1. The plotted values
are listed on page 195 of the Costa Rican Annex 4. The Jabillos gage was selected as an
example because it has the longest record, th e largest drainage area , and most samples of
suspended sediment concentrations (338) amon g the currently active gages located on Costa
Rican tributaries to the Río San Juan. The annual mean discharge recorded at the Jabillos gage is
3
50 m /sec. (See Part A of Figure 1.) Over the period of record that exceeds forty years, annual
3 3 8
river discharges have varied from 84 m /sec in 1971 to 32 m /sec in 1995. All of the observed
annual discharges are within the range of 0.6 to 1.7 times the long-term mean.
Annual suspended sediment loads reported for the Jabillos gage are shown in Part B of
Figure 1. Again, over the 40 year period of re cord, the annual suspended sediment load has
varied widely, from 5.28 million tons in 1970 to just 51,000 tons in 1995, with a long-term
8
The year-to-year variations in the mean annual river discharge are primarily due to variation in annual precipitation
across the drainage basin contributing runoff.
17
220 Annex 3
Figure 1. Observed annual river discharges (A) and sediment loads (B) at the Jabillos gage (14-
02) from 1967 to 2013.
18
221Annex 3
average of approximately 600,000 tons. Annual susp ended sediment loads vary over 100-fold,
ranging from 0.08 to 8 times the long-term mean. It is evident that annual suspended sediment
loads are much more variable than the annual mean river discharges. Put another way, a
relatively small percentage change in annual river discharge results in a much larger percentage
change in annual suspended sediment load. For example, an annual river discharge that is ten
percent greater than the long-term mean, i.e. 1.1 times the mean, would be expected to transport
a sediment load 53 percent greater than the mean, i.e. 1.53 times the long-term mean value.
There is another remarkable characteristic of annual river flows evident in Figure 1A.
Above average annual river flows tend to follow a prior year of above average river flows.
Similarly, below average annual river flows tend to follow a prior year of below average river
flows. This phenomena is called persistence. Persistence is a common feature of hydro-
meteorological time-series, and reflects both that weather patterns tend to be stable for a period
of time and also that water is stored within a rive r basin from one year to the next. Without
persistence, annual runoff from one year to the next would be totally independent. Persistence is
also apparent in the time-serie s of annual sediment loads. Because of persistence, hydrologic
records covering just a few years are much more likely to deviate from the long-term mean than
one would otherwise expect – in other words, if a record only refl ects two years, it is likely that
the recorded flows will be similar to each other, while a longer period of record is more likely to
demonstrate the full range of conditions that exist within a watershed.
The Jabillos gage illustrates the variability of annual flows and sediment loads and shows
how misleading just two years of gage record ca n be. The Jabillos gage record covers the years
when both the La Trinidad and Delta Colora do gages were operated and therefore provides a
basis on which to compare the annual river discha rges and sediment loads reported for the years
1974 and 1975 (La Trinidad) and the years 2011 a nd 2012 (Delta Colorado) to the long-term
mean value observed at the Jabillos gage. Annual river flows recorded at the Jabillos gage were
3 3 3 3
54m /sec in 1974 and 49 m /sec in 1975, versus 39 m /sec in 2011 and 42 m /sec in 2012. (See
3
Part A of Figure 1.) The long-term mean annu al flow recorded at the Jabillos gage is 50m /sec.
Thus, annual river discharges recorded at the Ja billos gage were slightly above average (103
percent of the long-term mean) during 1974 and 1975 when the La Trinidad gage was operated,
and significantly below average (81 percent of the long-term mean) during 2011 and 2012 when
the Delta Colorado gage was operated.
19
222 Annex 3
A comparison of the annual suspended sediment loads recorded at the Jabillos gage
shows an even greater difference between the tw o 2-year periods, as one would expect. Annual
suspended sediment loads determined at the Jabillos gage were 1,870,000 tons in 1974 and
386,000 tons in 1975 versus 231,000 tons in 20 11 and 203,000 tons in 2012. (See Part B of
Figure 1.) The long-term mean annual suspended sedi ment load observed at the Jabillos gage is
600,000 tons/yr, whereas the average annual sediment load was 1,130,00 tons during 1974 and
1975 and only 217,000 tons/yr during 2011 and 2012. It is apparent that hydrologic conditions in
the Río San Juan Basin were quite different during the two periods that the La Trinidad and the
Delta Colorado gages were operated, nearly 40 years apart. They should not be compared
directly or serve as the basis for conclusions.
Thorne acknowledges that the calculated sedime nt loads for the La Trinidad and Delta
Colorado gages are “based on a small number of samples over short (two to three year) periods.”
(Thorne, para. 8.11.) Furthermore, he recognizes that “the post-Road period has been drier than
usual.” (Thorne, para. 8.12.) In neither instance, however, does he attempt to account for the
deficiency or qualify his opinion.
E. Normalized Annual River Discharges and Sediment Loads for the La
Trinidad and Delta Colorado Gages
To enable useful comparisons of record, th e annual river discharges and suspended
sediment loads reported for the La Trinidad and Delta Colorado gages must be corrected
(normalized) to reflect the long-term hydrologic conditions in the Río San Juan Basin. Rather
than relying on just one long river gage record, e. g. the Jabillos gage, it is preferable to expand
the comparison to include all of the river gages in the Río San Juan Basin with more than a
decade of observed flows and sediment loads that we re operated simultaneously with either the
La Trinidad or Delta Colorado gages. This will maximize the amount of record for analysis.
Table 2 lists 5 river gages, including the Jabi llos gage, which were operated in 1974 and 1975.
Similarly, there are 9 river gages, including the Jabillos gage, with observations for over a
decade or more that were operated in 2011 and 2012. Annual mean river discharges and
suspended sediment loads for all of the long-ter m gages are listed in Annex 4 at pages 182 to
205. For the 5 gages operated during the year s 1974 and 1975, I have calculated the average
annual river flows and sediment loads for the years 1974 -1975 as well as for the entire period of
record when these gages were operated. Similarly, for the 9 gages operated during the years 2011
20
223Annex 3
and 2012, I have calculated the average annual river flows and sediment loads for the years 2011
and 2012 as well as for the entire period of reco rd when these gages were operated. The results
are summarized in Table 4A for 1974-1975 and Table 4B for 2011-2012.
Table 4A. River discharges and sediment loads in the Río San Juan Basin during the years
1974-1975 compared to the long-term mean
Mean Annual Mean Annual
River Discharge Suspended Sediment Loads
River Gage (m /sec) Ratio (Tons/yr) Ratio
Period of
1974 & 1975 Records 1974 & 1975 Period of Records
Puerto Viejo
Veracruz
Jabillos 262 254 1.03 1,760,000 1,080,000 1.63
Penas Blancas
Guatuso
Table 4B. River discharges and sediment loads in the Río San Juan Basin during the years
2011-2011 compared to the long-term mean
Mean Annual Mean Annual
River Discharge Suspended Sediment Loads
River Gage 3 Ratio Ratio
(m /sec) (Tons/yr)
2011 & 2012 Period of 2011 & 2012 Period of Records
Records
Veracruz
Toro
San Miguel
Río Segando
Jabillos 152 179 0.85 606,000 1,330,000 0.46
Penas Blancas
Pocosol
Guatuso
Santa Lucia
The basin-wide comparison shows that duri ng the years 1974 and 1975 river flows were
103 percent of the expected mean and suspen ded sediment loads were 163 percent of the
expected mean. During the years 2011 and 2012, annual river flows were only 85 percent of the
expected basin-wide mean and su spended sediment loads were just 46 percent of the expected
basin-wide mean. Consequently, one would expect that the long-term mean annual sediment load
at the La Trinidad gage would have been substantially less than the reported 1974-1975 value of
7,995,000 tons, whereas the long-term mean annual se diment load at the Delta Colorado gage
21
224 Annex 3
would be substantially more than the 2011 -2012 reported value of 5,981,000 tons/year. (See
Table 3.) Given the hydrologic condition that ex isted across the Río San Juan Basin, one would
expect that the long-term mean annual suspended sediment load would be about 2.2 times the
reported value for the period 2011-2012. Correcting the reported values to reflect the hydrologic
conditions across the Río San Juan Basin when the two gages were operated, one would expect
that the long-term mean annual su spended sediment loads at the La Trinidad gage would be
approximately 4.90 million tons per year, and 13 million tons per year at the Delta Colorado
gage. 9
F. Portion of the Río San Juan Flowing into the Delta Colorado Channel
Thorne concludes that “roughly 90% of the Río San Juan discharge flows into the Río
Colorado, while roughly 10% flows into the Lowe r Río San Juan. (Thorne, para. 8.9.) To reach
this conclusion, he makes another significant error by comparing average annual discharges
recorded at the La Trinidad and Delta Colora do gages without taking into account basin-wide
differences in runoff during the respective periods when these gages were operated. Thorne
compares the reported mean annual flows at the La Trinidad gage, 1123 m3/sec, for the years
1974-75 with the mean annual flows at the Delta Colorado gage, 1026 m3/sec, for the years 2011
and 2012. He then concludes that the difference of 97m 3/sec represents the quantity of flow in
the Río San Juan channel through the delta. (S ee Thorne, page 67.) This is a significant
oversight. Considering all of the gages operated in 1974 and 1975, basin-wide river flows in the
Río San Juan were about 3 percent greater than average. (See Table 4A.) Considering all of the
tributary gages operated in 2011 and 2012, basin-wi de river flows in the Río San Juan Basin
were 15 percent less than average. (See Table 4B.) Accordingly, when normalized to the long-
3
term basin-wide hydrology, one would expect that the mean annual discharge was 1090 m /sec at
3
the La Trinidad gage for the years 1974 and 1975, and 1210 m /sec at the Delta Colorado gage
for the years 2011 and 2012.
Quite simply, the relative portions of annual flow in the delta distributary channels
cannot be determined with any confidence using the La Trinidad and Delta Colorado gage
9
The apparent similarity in suspended sediment loads at the La Trinidad and Delta Colorado is solely an artifact of
the hydrologic conditions during the brief periods, nearly 40 years apart, when these gages were operated.
22
225Annex 3
records. The available flow records provide no information or insight regarding the division of
flow between the two major delta channels, th e Río San Juan and the Delta Colorado. These
may, in fact, be the only available information. But this circumstance does not justify overstating
or reaching for conclusions that are not supported.
G. Calculation of Bedload Transport
Bedload is the portion of a river’s total sediment load that hops, bounces, and rolls along
the river bed. Although bedload typically repres ents only a few to several percent of the total
sediment load, and rarely more than 15 percent, bedload is the first material to accumulate on the
river bed when the flow slackens . It is bedload and, to a lesse r extent, the coarsest suspended
sediment that is deposited in the distributary cha nnels of the Río San Juan Delta. As will be
discussed in more detail below, the relatively coarse sediment transported as bedload in the Río
San Juan is primarily responsible for the growth of sandbars and the restriction of navigation in
the delta channels.
The bedload transport rate at a given river di scharge may be calculated by collecting a
sample of sediment particles in motion. The ICE report indicates that samples of bedload
transport have been collected at three locations: the mouth of the Río Sarapiqui, the mouth of the
Río San Carlos, and at the Delta Colorado ga ge. No information about the sampled bedload
transport rates is presented, except for graphs showing bedload particle size in Annex 4, pages
210 to 271. The particle size information, however, is nearly worthless without the associated
hydraulic conditions and sampled transport rate.
In the absence of proper sampling, bedloa d can be calculated using an equation. The
transport of bedload sediment is directly related to the fluid forces acting on the river bed. This
relation is formally expressed as a bedload functi on or equation. Many bedload equations have
been derived over the past 130 years based upon fluid mechan ical principles and laboratory
flume experiments. (See Vanoni, 1976.) Calculated bedload transport rates are particularly
sensitive to errors or uncertainty in the fluid force s acting on the river bed at a given discharge.
Fluid forces depend on hydraulic characteristics, such as flow depth, velocity, the presence of
bedforms, and river slope. Relatively small errors in the estimation of fluid forces, e.g. +/- ten
percent, will result in much larger errors in the calculated bedload transport rate, which varies
rapidly as a function of the fluid forces. The effective exponent of the bedload transport rate
23
226 Annex 3
versus fluid forces decreases from about 14 as river bed sediment begins to move and approaches
a value of 1.5 at very high transport rates. Thus, a +/- 10 percent error in the calculation of fluid
forces will result in errors of a few tens up to a few hundreds of percent in the calculated bedload
transport rate.
H. River Slope
Thorne divided the Río San Juan into ge omorphically similar reaches and reported reach
length, change in elevation, and average river slop e for the selected reaches. In Table 5, shown
below, the first 4 columns reproduce information presented in Thorne’s Table 1. River slope is
defined as the change in water surface elevation divided by the measured length of channel. The
values of river slope as reported by Thorne, shown in red, column 4, are computed incorrectly.
The correct values of river slope, given the reported change in elevation and length of channels
are shown in column 5.
REACH REACH CHANGE IN SLOPE AS SLOPE
LENGTH ELEVATION REPORTED (m/m)
(km) (m) BY Thorne
(m/m)
Río Frio –
Río Pocosol 52.86 6.5 0.007 0.00012
Río Pocosol-
Río San Carlos 52.67 7.7 0.008 0.00015
Río San Carlos-
Río Sarapiqui 39.86 6.9 0.010 0.00017
Río Sarapiqui-
Delta 22.04 3.8 0.010 0.00017
Delta –
Caribbean Sea 32.35 5 0.009 0.00015
Table 5. Comparison of river slopes reported by Thorne for selected reaches of the Río San Juan
and the correct values.
24
227Annex 3
Thorne does not appear to have utilized his incorrect slope values to calculate the rate of
bedload transport. Instead, he relies on values calculated by ICE. An Excel spreadsheet attached
to Annex 4 describes the calculation of bedload tr ansport rates at the Delta Colorado gage using
the Einstein bedload equation. (See Einstein, 1950.) In their calculation, ICE uses a value of river
slope for the Delta Colorado gage of 0.000258. (See sheet 2, entitled “All Grains,” at line 67 of
the Excel file.) The ICE calculations use a rive r slope approximately 60 percent greater than the
actual average reach slope as shown on Table 5 for the Río Sarapiqui to the Caribbean Sea. The
correct elevation change for this reach is 8.8 m (3.8 meters plus 5 meters) over a channel length
of 52,390 m, or 0.00016. (Even so, the river slope values used by ICE are considerably less than
the incorrect value reported by Thorne.) By applying an excessively steep slope, the ICE analysis
substantially over-estimates the rate of bedload transport at the Delta Colorado gage. Both ICE
and Thorne report that mean annual bedload transport is 2,488,000 tons/year for the years 2011
and 2012 at the Delta Colorado gage. (See T horne, Table 6.) This is an unusually large
proportion of bedload: 29% of the to tal sediment load at the Delt a Colorado gage as calculated
by ICE. Typically, bedload makes up less than 10% of total sediment load.
Moreover, the Einstein bedload equation is a poor choice for analysis in this instance; it
was formulated based on a model of interactio n of flow and particle motion that has been
examined in detail and found to be incorrect. (See, e.g. Wiberg and Smith (1989).) I recalculated
the bedload transport rates for the Delta Colorado gage using the Fernandez-Luque and van Beek
(1976) bedload equation, a river slope of 0.00016, and used all other input hydraulic values as
shown in the ICE spreadsheet calculations. Daily values of bedload transport at the Delta
Colorado gage from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012 were then calculated using the river
flows as shown in the ICE spreadsheet. The es timated average annual bedload is approximately
330,000 tons per year, considerably less than the 2,488,000 tons per year calculated using an
excessively steep river slope.
As described in detail above at Table 4, river flows – and consequently bedload transport
rates – during the years 2011 and 2012 were well below normal. Comparison with gaging
station records of 10 years or longer collected by Costa Rica at other sites in the Río San Juan
basin indicate that an average magnitude and fr equency of river flows would have transported
2.2 times the quantity of suspended sediment carried by actual river flows during 2011 and 2012.
Accordingly, the expected bedload transport at th e Delta Colorado gage, given the correct river
25
228 Annex 3
slope, the hydraulic conditions that existed in 2011 and 2012, and normalized for an average
magnitude and frequency of river discharges would have been approximately 730,000 tons.
I. Aggradation of Delta Channels
River deltas are an area of sediment accu mulation. As the river velocity slackens, the
coarser particle sizes will be deposited and accumulate on the river bed. At flood stages,
overbank flows will carry finer se diment particles over the adja cent floodplain and wetlands,
where they are likely to be deposited. A portion of the river’s sediment load will be transported
over an extended period of time to the sea. A substantial portion of the sediment will be
deposited, eroded, transported, and then re-deposited. Increased river sediment loads, especially
the coarser particles, that are transported into the delta area will accelerate the succession of
channel filling, migration, and shifting. While th ese are natural delta processes, an acceleration
of these processes can damage the delta ecosystem and create substantial difficulties for human
activities and infrastructure. Increased flooding due to the loss of channel capacity, together with
the need for more frequent dredging to maintain navigation, are commonly associated with an
increased supply of sediment to a delta area.
Thorne relies upon an overly simplified a pproach when he estimates the effect that
sediment eroded from the Route 1856 corridor will have on the rate of river bed aggradation in
10
the Lower Río San Juan. Thorne calculates that the entire increment of sediment eroded from
-1
Route 1856 would increase the rate of aggradation by “less than 0.2 mm yr .” (Thorne, para
8.59.) This value was determined by assuming that the annual increment of additional sediment,
3,650 m , would be spread uniformly over a river bed 30 km long and 90 m wide, or 2.7 million
m . It should be noted that 3650 m 3of sediment spread over 2.7 million m would be 1.35 mm
thick, not less than 0.2 mm as stated (3650/2,700,000 = 0.00135). Thorne recognizes, however,
that there was more sediment supplied to the cha nnel than could be transported even before the
construction of Route 1856. That is, the Route 1856 sediment will cause an “increase in the rate
of aggradation”. (Thorne Report, para 8.59.) The additional sediment eroded from the Route
1856 corridor will not be transported downstream and distributed evenly along the channel. This
is because the hydraulic characteristics of the channel are insufficient to distribute the excess
10
The reach of the Rio San Juan from the bifurcation of the Delta Colorado downstream through the delta to the sea
will be referred to as the Lower Rio San Juan.
26
229Annex 3
sediment over a length of 30 kilometers. The excess sediment will inst ead be deposited and
aggrade the river bed within a relatively short di stance, typically 20 to 30 times the channel
width. In the Lower San Juan, this will be the upper 3 km.
The proper approach when determining the rate of river bed aggradation is to consider
both the supply of sediment and the rate of sedi ment transport through the reach. Thorne
considers only the supply of sediment, which, as described above, he has underestimated
substantially. It is feasible to estimate th e quantities of sediment supply and downstream
transport at the beginning of the Lower Rí o San Juan using information provided by Thorne,
Costa Rican Annex 4, and the correct river slope . I used a method developed by Engelund and
Hansen (1967) to calculate the transport rate of be d-material, i.e. bedload plus suspended sand,
assuming river discharges flowing through a channel 90 m wide, with a slope of 0.00016 and a
median bed-material size of 0.6 mm. (See Excel spreadsheet attached to Annex 4). My
calculation is based on 10 percent of the daily mean discharge reported for the Delta Colorado
gage for the years 2011 and 2012, as assumed by Thorne. The result was then normalized to
reflect the long-term basin wide runoff. The esti mated mean annual transport of bed-material at
3
the beginning of the Lower Río San Juan is approximately 120,000 tons/year or 75,000 m /year
of relatively coarse sediment.
Poor land-use practices in Costa Rica over recent decades have greatly increased the
supply of sediment to the Río San Juan Delta area. As described above, sediment supplied by
tributaries to the Río San Juan has increased 20 to 50 times the expected natural rate. Using the
estimated mean annual supply of sediment to the h ead of the delta of about 13.7 million tons of
suspended and bedload sediment, as calculated above, the average annual quantity of relatively
coarse sediment that will tend to accumulate in the upstream portion of the delta in excess of
what would have been deposited when sediment yields were truly natural is approximately 1.0 to
3 11
1.5 million m . This is a substantial quantity of sediment.
Thorne assumes that 10 percent of the river discharge and suspended sediment load of the
Río San Juan flow into the Lower Río San Ju an, while the remaining portions flow into the
11
The quantity of relatively coarse sediment was calated as bedload plus 7 t13 percent of the suspended
sediment load. The percent of relatively coarse sedin the suspended sediment load was determined from an
analysis of the hydraulic conditions and the bed-material pa rticle size distribution. (See ICE spreadsheet attached to
Annex 4). Relatively coarse sediment represents 12 to 18 percent of the total sediment load in the Rio San Juan.
27
230 Annex 3
channel of the Delta Colorado. He assumes, however, that only 2.8 percent of the bedload is
carried into the Lower Río San Juan. (Thorne, Tab le 6.) No explanation for the inconsistency is
given. As described in detail above, the foundation for these conclusions are highly doubtful. For
the purpose of evaluating his conclusion concerning the rate of river bed aggradation in the
Lower Río San Juan, however, it will be assumed that 10 percent of the sediment supplied to the
head of the delta, approximately 100,000 to 150,000 m 3/year of relatively coarse sediment, is
carried into the Lower Río San Juan. The estimate d supply of relatively coarse sediment to the
Lower Río San Juan is 30 to 100 percent greater than the quantity of sediment that is transported
downstream. As described above, this material will accumulate within the first few kilometers of
3
channel. The expected aggradation rate due to an excess of 25,000 to 75,000 m of sediment per
year within the first three kilometers of the Lower Río San Juan is in the order of 10 to 30
centimeters per year.
Thorne concluded that the construc tion of Route 1856 has added about 3,650 m 3
sediment per year to the Lower Río San Juan. It is estimated that between 12 to 18 percent of the
total river sediment load is composed of relatively coarse sediment, bedload and suspended sand.
Because the upstream portion of Lower Río San Juan is already overloaded and aggrading, 440
3
to 660 m /year of the additional sediment due to the construction of Route 1856, as estimated by
Costa Rica, will also be deposited within the first three or so kilometers.
Kondolf has reanalyzed and updated his evaluation of erosion from the Route 1856
corridor. (See Kondolf 2014.) At many sites, the ra te of erosion has accelerated and the area
affected has expanded. With his updated eval uation, Kondolf estimates that the quantity of
3
sediment delivered to the River annually is between 106,000 and 130,000 m of sediment per
3
year from Route 1856 alone, and between 116,000 and 150,000 m when access roads are
considered. Applying the same assumptions, as described above, namely, that 10 percent of the
sediment is carried into the Lower Río San Ju an and that 12 to 18 percent of the total river
sediment load is relatively coarse, 1270 to 2340 m 3 of sediment from Route 1856 alone, and
1390 to 2700 m of sediment from Route 1856 plus access roads will be deposited within the
first 3 kilometers of the Lower San Juan.
The average thickness of deposition understates the magnitude of the potential problems,
because the accumulating sediment won’t be distributed evenly along and across the delta
28
231Annex 3
channels. Depending upon such variables as the ri ver discharge, particle size distribution of the
sediment loads, ocean tides a nd channel geometry, the location and rate of sedime nt deposition
will shift up and down stream. (See Carter, 2002.) The accumulating sediment will tend to form
bars, which are evident along the delta channe ls, creating reach-wise instabilities and
obstructions to navigation. River bars will grow over time and merge with the river banks in a
process known as “accretion.” Vegetation will gradually become established on the river bars,
which will induce more sediment deposition and the channel will narrow. As the channel fills
with sediment, the capacity of the channel will be reduced over time and eventually the flow will
find a new course to the ocean. Thus, an increas ed supply of sediment to the head of the delta
will tend to accelerate the rate of filling and abandonment of one channel and the diversion of
flow to a new channel.
The finer sediment particles – fine silt and clay, which comprise a majority of the river’s
sediment – will be transported downstream along the delta channels until the fresh river water
begins to mix with tidal surges of ocean water. The resulting mixture is brackish. The presence
of salt in the brackish delta waters causes the fine silt and clay particles to flocculate or form
larger clumps. The flocculated par ticles settle more quickly through the water column and are
deposited in the channels and adjacent overbank area. The vast majority of the relatively fine
sediment will be deposited within the delta and not carried into the ocean as Thorne states.
J. Assessing the Sediment Impacts of Route 1856
Figure 2 is an essential part of Prof. Thorne’s analysis concerning the geomorphic effects
of Route 1856 on the Río San Juan. It is a copy of Annex 4’s Figure 3. It is also shown as Figure
26 in Thorne. The values of suspended sediment concentration and river discharge plotted in this
figure are listed in Appendix D of Annex 4. Referr ing to this figure, Prof. Thorne concludes that
“not only is there no statistically significant difference between the pre- and post-Road
suspended sedi ment rating curves, but Figure 26 reveals them to be practically identical.”
(Thorne Report, para. 8.5.) He later reiterates that “this result demonstrates that the construction
of the Road has not led to a significant increase in the SSL [suspended sediment load] carried by
the Río San Juan”. (Thorne, para. 8.13.)
29
232 Annex 3
Figure 2. Copy of Figure 3 and caption from Thorne Report.
The reproduced figure does not support or ju stify the stated conclusions. Assuming for
the time being that the values of suspended sedi ment concentration listed in Appendix D can be
accepted as representative of the actual conditions in the Río San Juan when the samples were
collected, the analysis shown in the reproduced figure is invalid. The two lines shown in Figure
2 were determined – i.e. fitted to the reported values – by the method of least-squares regression
with an additional condition that the fitted lines must pass through the graph origin point located
at (0, 0). This additional condition violates the assumptions relied upon to derive the method of
least squares regression. By imposing the conditi on that the two lines intersect at the origin, the
analysis makes the two trend lines appear to be nearly identical, when, in fact, they are different.
The result is invalid and creates a misleading impression.
In Figure 3, I have recalculated the trend lines, using the same values of suspended
sediment concentration and river discharge sh own in the reproduced Thorne Figure 2. Trend
lines have been fit to the values for the tw o river gages using the same method of least-squares
30
233Annex 3
regression, but without requiring that the tre nd lines pass through the 0-0 origin point. This
statistically proper analysis reveals that suspende d sediment concentrations sampled at the La
Trinidad gage from 1974 to 1976 and the Delta Colorado gage from 2010 to 2013 are not the
same.
Figure 3. Comparison of reported suspended sediment concentrations as a function of river
discharge for the Río San Juan La Trinidad gage (01-03) and the Río Colorado Delta Colorado
gage (11-04).
RIO SAN JUAN
Comparison of Reported Suspended Sediment Concentrations at Two River Gages
800
700 La Trinidad (01-03)
Jan.1974 to Mar. 1976
Delta Colorado (11-04)
600
Dec. 2010 to June 2013
500
cs= 0.212Q - 98.37
R = 0.906
400
300
cs= 0.134Q + 19.96
2
R = 0.457
200
100
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION, in mg/l
0
0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200
3
WATER DISCHARGE, in M /SEC
A standard statistical method known as the t-test can be applied to determine whether the
12
slopes and intercepts of the two fitted trend lines are sta tistically different. The slopes and
intercepts of the trend lines shown in Figure 3 are statistically different at the 95% level of
12The test for “statistically different” calculates the probability or level of confidence that the two sets of data come
from different populations. A t-test significant at the 95% confidence level means that 95 out of 100 times the two
sets of data come from different populations. A t-test signific ant at the 99% level of confidence means that 99 out of
100 times the two sets of values come from different populations.
31
234 Annex 3
confidence. This result shows that one can c onfidently conclude that suspended sediment
concentrations at the La Trinidad gage from 1974 to 1976 were not the same as suspended
sediment concentrations at the Delta Colorado gage from 2010 to 2013. Thus, Thorne’s
conclusion that the construction of Route 1856 has not led to a significant increase in the
suspended sediment load is not supported by the data.
There is another significant problem with the analysis and presentation shown in Figure 3
of the Thorne report – Thorne has assumed a linear equati on for the relation between suspended
sediment concentrations and water discharge. The assumption of a linear equation is inconsistent
with the approach applied by ICE in its analys is of sediment records as reported in Annex 4,
Figure 4. It is also inconsistent with common practices for suspended sediment analysis
worldwide.
More specifically, the method of least-squares regression applied to derive the results
shown in Thorne Figure 3 requires an assu mption concerning the variation of suspended
sediment concentrations, Cs, with river discharge, Q. The investigator must select the appropriate
fundamental governing equation. The results shown in Thorne Figure 3 were determined by
imposing a linear equation:
C s= aQ + b
where “a” and “b” are constants determined by the least-square regression. (As described above,
Thorne set the constant “b” to be equal to zero for the analysis shown in his Figure 3.) The
equation states that the suspended sediment conc entration of a given river discharge can be
determined by multiplying the river discharge, Q, by a constant, a, and then adding a second
constant, b. The choice or assumption of a li near relation between suspended sediment
concentration and river discharge is highly unus ual. Except in extraordinary circumstances,
where there is compelling evidence to do otherw ise, hydrologists have found that a power
function (or power equation) is the most appropriate governing equation to describe the variation
of suspended sediment concentrations with ri ver discharge. The general form of the power
function is:
C s aQ b
where “a” and “b” are constants determined by the least-squares regression.
32
235Annex 3
In fact, Thorne’s failure to use a power function is inconsistent with the characterization
of suspended sediment transport presented by ICE in Annex 4. ICE uses a power function to fit
the observations of suspended sediment concentration and river discharge at the 12 Río San Juan
tributary gages summarized in Annex 4, Appendix A, pages 181-205. Among all the gage
records where the relation between suspended sediment concentration and water discharge were
determined, only two – La Trinidad and Delta Colorado – assumed a linear function. For the
other 12 gage records, ICE applied a power function.
The relations shown in Figure 3 only appear to be similar because the values are fit to a
linear equation that was forced to pass through the origin. Because only a small number of
sediment samples were collected over a limited range of river discha rges at the La Trinidad and
Delta Colorado gaging stations, the figure gives the impression that the linear equation might be
an appropriate model. With a larger number of sa mples, the inappropriate choice of the linear
equation would be more apparent.
In Figure 4, I have recalculated the trend lines assuming a power function for the same
reported values of suspended sediment concentrat ions and river discharges for the La Trinidad
and Delta Colorado gages shown at Annex 4 Appendix C. The new trend lines are calculated by
the least-squares regression method. The figure axes have a logarithmic scale, rather than the
linear scale shown in Thorne’s Figures 2 and 3. The fitted relations shown in Figure 4 were
determined using the same or essentially the same method as applied by Costa Rica to the 12
tributary gages listed in Table 3.
As explained above, I employed a t-test to de termine the statistical significance of the
two equations shown in Figure 4. The t-test determines the likelihood that the two equations are,
in fact, different. The t-test demonstrates that the suspended sediment concentrations sampled at
the La Trinidad gage from 1974 to 1976 are differ ent from those sampled at the Delta Colorado
gage from 2010 to 2013. The t- test revealed that the slope and intercept, i.e. the constants “a”
and “b” as determined for the two sets of values, are statistically different at the 99 percentile
level of confidence. That is, there is only one chance in 100 that the observed suspended
sediment concentrations at La Trinidad in 1974 to 1975 are the same as the concentrations that
were observed at the Delta Colorado in 2011 to 2012. Prof. Thorne’s conclusion that the
33
236 Annex 3
suspended sediment concentrations in the Río San Juan Basin have not changed over the past
forty years is demonstrably false.
Figure 4. Variation of suspended sediment concentration as a function of river discharge for the
La Trinidad (01-03) and Delta Colorado (11-04), assuming a power relation.
RIO SAN JUAN
Comparison of Reported Suspended Sediment Concentrations at Two River Gages
1000
La Trinidad (01-03)
Jan.1974 to Mar. 1976
Delta Colorado (11-04)
Dec. 2010 to June 2013
100
0.775
c s 0.698Q
R = 0.477
1.52
cs= 0.00276Q
R = 0.853
SUSPENDED SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION, in mg/l
10
100 1000 10000
WATER DISCHARGE, in M /SEC 3
Moreover, the change in line slopes over the nearly forty year period shown in Figure 4 is
consistent with the expected increase in se diment loads associated with the extensive
deforestation that has occurred. The rate of change in suspended sediment concentration for a
given change in river discharge appears to ha ve decreased between the 1974 to 1976 period at
the La Trinidad gage and the 2010 to 2013 period at the Delta Colorado gage. That is, the
relation for the Delta Colorado gage is flatter. Such a change over time is commonly observed
where the particle size of suspended sediment decreases, i.e. the suspended sediment consists of
relatively more clay, silt and fine sand and les ser amounts of medium to coarse sand. (See
34
237Annex 3
Andrews, 1987.) The particle size distributions of suspended sediment samples collected at the
La Trinidad and Delta Colorado gages were not reported in any of the Costa Rican documents,
so this explanation cannot be verified. Nevert heless, the reported values could indicate both a
change in suspended sediment concentrations and a decrease in particle size, both of would be
consistent with accelerated landscape erosion.
K. Improper Sampling of Suspended Sediment
There is compelling evidence to question th e validity of some and perhaps all of the
suspended sediment samples collected at th e Delta Colorado gage. The concentration of
suspended sediment must be deter mined by collecting a discharge-weighted sample of the river
discharge. For a river channel as wide as at the Delta Colorado gage, samples will typically be
collected at 20 to 30 verticals spaced out across th e channel. Typically, one and one-half to two
hours will be required to collect a representative sample of suspended sediment at a channel as
wide as exists near the Delta Colorado gage.
The values of suspended sediment concentr ation and river discharge reported for the
Delta Colorado gage are listed in Annex 4, Appendix C, together with the date and time of day
on which the sample was taken. There are three dates – March 2, 2011, March 3, 2011, and
January 30, 2013 – when two samples of suspended sediment were collected on a given day. On
March 2, 2011, the samples were collected nine minutes apart. On March 3, 2011, the samples
were collected four minutes apart. On January 30, 2013, the samples were collected five minutes
apart. It is physically impossible to collect a representative sample of suspended sediment from
a river cross-section that is several hundred meters wide in ju st a few minutes. The samples
collected on these dates therefore cannot be relied upon. Costa Rica does not provide any
information in its documents concerning the methods and equipment used to collect the reported
suspended sediment samples. Nevertheless, both the ICE and Thorne reports treat the reported
values as though they are representative sample s of conditions extant on the river when the
samples were collected. For the three dates desc ribed above, this cannot be true. One suspects
that the reported concentrations were determined from either a bucket full of surface water or,
perhaps, a depth-integrated collected at a single vertical. Neither of these methods will provide a
representative sample with which one can determi ne the amount of suspended sediment in the
35
238 Annex 3
river. In the absence of evidence to the cont rary, all of the reported values of suspended
sediment collected at the Delta Colorado gage are suspect.
VI. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF EXCESSIVE SEDIMENT SUPPLY TO THE
COASTAL ZONE
For purposes of this report, the consideration of sediment impacts within the coastal zone
of Nicaragua due to accelerated erosion in the Rí o San Juan Basin must be relatively general.
Locally focused studies are almost entirely lackin g. The general principles, however, have been
well-studied and are widely recognized. Excessive rates of sediment deposition will impair and
can substantially alter the structure and function of a coastal ecosystem. Coastal ecosystems are
typically highly productive and diverse. This is especially true of the Caribbean coast of Central
America. Today, coastal ecosystems worldwid e are frequently impaired by excessive
sedimentation. (See Thrush and others, 2004.) The following discussion will provide three
examples of important coastal ecosy stems, each of which is commonly affected by accelerated
sedimentation: estuarine benthic populations, mangrove forests, and coral reefs.
Thrush and others (2004) reviewed the avai lable scientific literature on the effects of
sedimentation in estuarine and coastal benthic ecosystems. As little as 3mm of freshly deposited
sediment is sufficient to impair ecosystem structure and function. Thrush and his colleagues
found that as little as 2 centimeters of sediment was enough to smother and kill a wide variety of
organisms, such as bivalves, snails, worms, and c rustaceans. This finding, if applied to the Río
San Juan basin, suggests that significant biologic al impact can be expected from the addition of
sediment load. The Río San Juan carries the se diments eroded from its watershed to the coastal
zone, and as described above, a majority, perhaps 50-70%, of the mean annual suspended
sediment of about 13 million tons per year – or 6.6 to 9.2 million tons per year – consists of clay
and fine silt. In the upstream portions of th e river, these very small particles tend to remain
suspended in the flow. When the river water be gins to mix with the brackish estuarine water,
however, the particles of clay and fine silt w ill flocculate. The aggregated clumps of clay and
silt are no longer easily suspended and will tend to settle to the bottom. The coastal zone is an
environment formed by the transport, deposition, a nd re-entrainment of sedi ment. (See Carter,
2002). Depending on the strength of the waning river current, tides, waves, and near-shore
ocean current, flocculated particles of the fine sediments will be distributed to a complex of
geomorphic features, i.e. into the distributary channels through the delta, or into adjacent
36
239Annex 3
wetlands, estuaries, lagoons, beaches in the near -shore zone, and coral reefs. The plants,
animals, and micro-organisms living in the coastal zone have adapted to an environment where
fine sediment particles are deposited, re-suspended, and then deposited again. As Thrush and his
colleagues demonstrated however, depending on th e particular organism, there are limits to the
sediment thickness that can accumulate in the environment without causing the organism
substantial harm and death.
Similarly, estuaries along the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua and Costa Rica contain
stands of mangrove as well as other plants adapted to living in water. (See Spalding and others,
1997.) Because these plants are typically rooted in an anaerobic substrate, they have commonly
evolved aerial roots. The deposition of an exces sive thickness of sediment can smother these
roots and suppress or prevent necessary respirati on. Increased rates of se dimentation have been
identified as one of the primary threats to mangro ve ecosystems worldwide. (See Alongi, 2002;
McLaughlin and others, 2003.) Ellison (1998) compiled reported rates of sediment deposition in
mangrove forests. Ellison considered 26 differ ent studies of mangrove and related vegetation
impacted by increased sedimentation, and found that some species are more successful in
adapting to sedimentation than others. Short-term rates of sediment accretion in the range of 0.5
to 5 mm per year were observed in mangrove forests without noticeable negative impacts. Other
species have survived sediment accumulations of nearly 100 centimeters. On the other hand,
sediment accumulations of as little as 10 centi meters have been observed to create unhealthy
conditions and, for some species, cause death.
Coral reefs throughout the Caribbean have been negatively impacted by large increases in
the quantity of sediment eroded from the land s urface and transported to the ocean. Elevated
rates of sediment deposition directly onto the c oral formation as well as increased turbidity have
been associated with slower growth rates, ch anges in coral species, and reduced overall
ecosystem productivity. (See, e.g. Rogers, 1990.) Cortes and Risk (1985) described an
investigation of the Cahuita reef off the Caribbean coast of Costa Rica which found the reef had
been impaired by excessive rates of sedimen tation. They concluded that forest clearing and
conversion of land to agricultural uses was the most likely cause of in creased reef sediment.
Although the Cahuita reef is south of the Río San Juan delta, rivers draining the adjacent coastal
plain from the Río San Juan south through Costa Rica have been similarly affected by extensive
37
240 Annex 3
deforestation and, one would expect, now supply mu ch greater quantities of sediment to the
coastal zone.
38
241Annex 3
REFERENCES
Alongi, D.M. 2002. Present state and future of the world’s mangrove forests. Environmental
Conservation, 29(3):331-349.
Andrews, Edmund D., 1986, Downstream effects of Flaming Gorge Reservoir on the Green
River, Colorado and Utah: Bulletin, Geological Society of America, v. 97, p. 1012-1023.
Brown, E.T., Stallard, R.F., Larsen, M.C., Bourlès, D.L., Raisbeck, G.M., and Yiou, F., 1998,
Determination of predevelopment denudation rates of an agricultural watershed (Cayaguás
River, Puerto Rico) using in-situ-produced ri ver-borne quartz: Earth and Planetary Science
Letters, v. 160, p. 723–728.
Bruijnzeel, L.A., 1990. Hydrology of Moist Tropical Forests and Effects of Conversion: A State
of Knowledge Review. UNESCO IHP, Humid Tropics Programme, Paris.
Carter, R.W.G. 2002. Coastal Environments: An introduction to physical ecological and cultural
systems of coastlines. 8thedition. Academic Press, London, U.K. 611p.
Cortez-N. J. and Risk, M.J. 1985. A reef under siltation stress: Cahuita, Costa Rica. Bulletin of
Marine Science, 36(2):339-356.
Douglas, I., 1967. Man, vegetation, and the sedi ment yields of rivers. Nature (London), 215:
925--928.
Dunne, T. 1979. Sediment yield and land use in tropical catchments. Journal of Hydrology. 42:
281-300.
Edwards, Thomas K., and Glysson, D.G., 1999. Field methods for measurement of fluvial
sediment. Techniques of Water-Resources Invest igations of the US Geological Survey, Book 3,
Applications of Hydraulics, Chapter C2." US Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Einstein, H.A. 1950. The bed load function for sediment transportation in open channel flows.
Tech. Bulletin No. 1026, U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, 1-71.
Ellison, J.C. 1998. Impacts of sediment burial on mangroves. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 37(8-
12):420-426.
Engelund, F., and Hansen, E., 1967. A monograph on Sediment Transport in Alluvial Streams.
Telnisk Forlag, Copenhagen, Denmark, 62p.
Fernandez Luque, R., and van Beek, R. 1976. Erosion and transport of bed-load sediment. J.
Hydr. Res., 14(2): 127-144.
39
242 Annex 3
Hewawasam, T., von Blanckenburg, F., Schaller , M. and Kubik, P. 2003. Increase of human
over natural erosion rates in tropical highlands constrained by cosmogenic nuclides. Geology
31(7):597-600.
Judson, S. and Ritter, D.F., 1964. Rates of regional denudation in the United States. J. Geophys.
Res., 69: 3395--3401.
Kleinn, C., Corrales, L. and Morales, D. 2002. Forest area in Costa Rica: A comparative study
of tropical forest cover estimates over time. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 73:17-
40.
Leonard, H.J. 1986. Recursos Naturales y Desarrollo Economico en America Central. Un Perfil
Ambientul Regional. Seria tecnica informe tecnico/CATIE No. 127. 267p.
Lutz, E.M., Martinez, H., San Roman, L., Vasquez, R., Alvarado, A., Merion, L., Celis, R., and
Huising, J. 1993. Interdisciplinary fact-finding on current deforestation in Costa Rica.
(Environment Working Paper). The World Bank, Washington, DC.
McLaughlin, C. J., et al. "Rivers, runoff, and reefs." Global and Planetary Change 39.1 (2003):
191-199.
Milliman, J. D., and Syvitski, J.P.M. 1992. "Geo morphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge
to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers." The Journal of Geology (1992): 525-
544.
MINAE FONAFIFO (no year). Costa Rica: Toward the sustainability of its forest resources, San
Jose, Costa Riva 23p.
Rogers, C.S. 1990. Responses of coral reefs a nd reef organisms to sedimentation. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 62:185-202.
Rosero-Bixby, L. and Palloni, A., 1998. Populati on and deforestation in Costa Rica. Population
and Environment, 20(2), 149-185.
Sader, S.A., and Joyce, A.T. 1988. Deforestation ra tes and trends in Costa Rica, 1940 to 1983.
Biotropica 20(1), 11-19.
Sidle, R.C., Ziegler, A.D., Negishi, J. N., Nik, A.R., Siew, R., and Turkelboom, F., 2006.
Erosion processes in steep terrain- Truths, myths, and uncertainties related to forest management
in Southeast Asia. Forest Ecology and Management, 224: 199-225.
Spalding, M.D., Blasco, F. and Field, C.D., editors. 1997. World Mangrove Atlas. The
International Society of Mangrove Ecosystems, Okinawa, Japan. 178p.
40
243Annex 3
Thrush, S.F, Hewitt, J.E., Cummings, V.J., Ellis, J.I., Hatton, C., Lohrer A., and Norkko, A.
2004. Muddy Waters: Elevating sediment input to coastal and estuarine habitats. Frontiers in
Ecology and The Environment 2(6):299-306.
Vanoni, V.A. , editor. 1975. Sedimentation engi neering: Manuals and Reports on Engineering
Practice-No. 54. American Society of Civil Engineers. New York, NY, 745p.
Walling, D. E., and Fang, D. 2003. Recent trends in the suspended sediment loads of the world’s
rivers. Global Planet. Change 39:111–126.
Wiberg, P.L. and Smith, J.D. 1989. Model for calculating bed load transport of sediment.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 115:101-123.
41
244 Annex 3
EDMUND D. ANDREWS
766 Grant Place Ph (303)939-9398
Boulder, Colorado 80302 [email protected]
EDUCATION, UNIVERSITY, AND DEGREES:
University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D. 1977
Geology
Stanford University, M.S. 1972
Geophysics
Stanford University, B.S. 1970
Geophysics
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
October 2009-Current. Principal, Tenaya Water Resources, LLC. Conducting
investigations on hydrology, sediment transport, and river mechanics, especially
river channel changes in response to variations in flow and sediment supply due
to climate change, land use, and water resources development that have altered
aquatic and riparian ecosystems.
September 2013-Current. Research Professor Emeritus, Institute for Arctic and Alpine
Research, University of Colorado. Conducting research on the hydrology of polar
and alpine regions, especially the effects of climate variability on the water
budget of snowmelt dominanted drainage basins.
October 2009-2013. Research Professor and Fellow, Institute for Arctic and Alpine
Research, University of Colorado. Conducting research on the hydrology and
climate of polar and alpine regions.
November 1980-July 2009. Chief, River Mechanics Project, National Research Program,
USGS, WRD. Conducting research on rive r mechanics, especially river channel
change in response to variations in flow and sediment supply due to climate
change, land use, and water resources development.
January 1986-December 1990 and January 1997 –January 2002. Research Advisor,
Geomorphology and Sediment Group, Na tional Research Program, USGS.
Responsible for staffing, budget, and scientific excellence for a group of
approximately 35 research scientists.
July 1976-November 1980. Project Chief, Colorado District Office, USGS, WRD.
Conducted research on sedimentation a nd reclamation of stream channels in
surface mined areas.
March 1975-July 1976. Western Region Staff, USGS, WRD. Conducted research on
channel scour and fill, and hydraulic adjustment of a channel to an altered
sediment load.
SPECIAL ASSIGNMENTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES:
International Poplar River Water-Quality Board, International Joint Commission, 1978-
1980.
Fellow, Institute for Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, 2009-Current.
42
245Annex 3
Investigator, Joint Japan-United States Proj ect on River Meanders, National Science
Foundation, 1985-88.
U.S. Geological Survey Representative, National Academy of Sciences Review Panel for
Glen Canyon Environmental Studies, 1985-88.
Expert Witness for the U.S. Government in application for federal reserved water rights
for: the four National Forests of Col orado, 1989-91; Zion National Park, 1992-
1996, Idaho Wild and Scenic Rivers, 1998-2006.
Expert Witness for the U.S. Government concerning river channel management and
regulation under the Clean Water Act (1972), 2011-Current.
Expert Witness for The Republic of India befor e the Court of Arbitration concerning the
operation of a hydroelectric power project located on an Indus River tributrary in
the western Himalaya, 2013.
Principal Investigator, Experimental Col orado River Flood through Grand Canyon
National Park, 1994-1998.
Science Advisory Committee, U.S. Geological Survey, 1995-1998.
Scientific Advisor, Trinity River Restorati on Program, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
2003-2008.
Independent Scientific Advisory Committee , Platte River Recovery Implementation
Program, 2013- Current.
43
246 ANNEX 4
Dr. Blanca Ríos Touma, “Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on
the San Juan River, Nicaragua”, July 2014
247248 Annex 4
Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856
on the San Juan River, Nicaragua
Blanca Ríos Touma, PhD
Centro de Investigación de la Biodiversidad y el Cambio Climático (BioCamb),
Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica, Quito, Ecuador
5 July 2014
1. Introduction
A. Effects of Sediment on River Biota
Human caused sediment releases (e.g. from road construction, mining and agriculture)
can induce changes to the physical habitat and aquatic biota downstream from the
sediment source ( e.g. Fossati et al. 2001; Spelleberg 1998). These effects have been
well documented in temperate rivers and have been summarized in scientific
publications, such as Wood and Armitage (1997). Effects on habitat modification
include changes in substrate, from bigger and more stable substrates to smaller and
more unstable substrates. Increased suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity
impairs the respiration ability of some invertebrates and fish.
Increased sedimentation has impacts on primary producers (periphyton and
macrophytes) in streams and rivers, which constitute the base of the food chain, such
that deleterious impacts will also be manifested in the invertebrate and fish communities
(Wood and Armitage 1997). Increased fine sediments affect primary producers in four
ways: (1) reducing light penetration with a resulting reduction in photosynthesis and
primary productivity (Van Nieuwenhuyse and LaPerriere 1986); (2) reducing the
organic content of periphyton cells (Cline et al. 1982, Graham 1990); (3) damaging
macrophytes due to abrasion (Lewis 1973a,b); and (4) preventing attachment to
substrate and removing periphyton and aquatic macrophytes in extreme events (Brookes
1986).
While stream biota is generally adapted to changes in flow and sediments, when
sediment inputs are artificially elevated, the effects on aquatic biota can be severe.
Abnormal sediment loads can reduce benthic invertebrate communities, with 47%
reduction in benthic invertebrates documented on the West Coast of the South Island in
New Zealand due to elevated sediments from mining (Quinn et al. 1992). These
reductions can be attributed to drift due to unstable substrate (Culp et al. 1995),
reduction of suitable habitat for some spec ies (Richards and Bacon 1994), reduction of
respiration due to silt deposition on breathing structures or oxygen reduction (Lemly,
1
249Annex 4
1982), changes in food availability (Cline et al. 1982, Peckarsky 1984 Graham 1990)
and overall changes in the river foodweb (Henley et al., 2000).
These ecosystem changes due to sedime nts have profound effects on ecosystem
function by affecting specific macroinvertebr ate traits, thus affecting their functions on
the ecosystem. For example Richards et al. (1997) found that increased fine sediment
loads significantly affected macroinvertebrates of long-lived forms, scrapping feeding
habits and clingers, showing that specific macroinvertebrate traits were especially
affected by high sediment loads.
B. Rte 1856 Along the Rio San Juan
Rte 1856 extends in Costa Rica along most of the south bank of the Rio San Juan. The
road is close to the river bank, nearly half within 100 m of the river bank. Sediments
eroded from the road are carried into the Rio San Juan at discrete point sources, in
larger natural drainages to which the road drains, or by new, smaller gully systems that
drain eroding sections of the road. Road-derived sediments either deposit on natural
deltas, or in some cases have built up new deltas that are not naturally there.
We documented ecological communities on gravels in deltas of tributary streams,
comparing conditions on deltas of streams draining mostly undisturbed forest on the
north bank (Nicaragua) with deltas affected by road-derived sediment along the south
bank (Costa Rica). These deltas contain gravel substrate in shallow water, suitable for
colonization by macroinvertebrates and periphyton (the algae growing on pebbles and
cobbles). The deltas extend from the river bank out into the channel. Differences in the
benthic communities sampled on the two banks of the river should reflect effects of the
elevated sediment loads coming from erosion of Rte 1856.
Benthic organisms are indicators of ecosystem health. Since they live on the benthos of
the streams and rivers, their composition, richness and abundance reflect the recent
history of the river, providing information regarding its impairment. Sampling these
insects is affordable and produces reliable information about water quality (Resh, 2008).
For these reasons, macroinvertebrates are used worldwide in stream and river bio-
monitoring programs (Bonada et al, 2006; Res h, 2008). Benthic invertebrates and algae
are among the required indicators to establish the ecological quality according to the
European Water Framework Directive (D.O.C.E, 2000). Costa Rican law also requires
sampling and analysis of macroinvertebrates as a basis to evaluate and classify surface
water quality (MINAE-S, 2007).
2. Methods
We selected 16 sites suitable for sampling of benthic indicators: Deltas of eight creeks
located along the north bank of the Río San Juan (draining undisturbed forest in
Nicaragua, sites marked as B) and deltas of eight creeks along the south bank, draining
Rte 1856 in Costa Rica (sites marked as A) (Table 1, Figure 1). Most sites corresponded
to small drainage sizes (Table 1), with the exception of sites 1B, 4B, 4A, and 9A that
2
250 Annex 4
are larger. Sampling was conducted three times during spring 2014: at the end of
March, mid-April, and early May. At each sample site, we collected benthic periphyton
and macroinvertebrate samples. In addition to these 16 sample sites, we took one
sample for periphyton (with 3 replicates) and one for macroinvertebrates on a newly
disturbed delta draining the road at “la Chorrera” (point 9A) on the early May sampling
trip.
To characterize the sites, we measured temperature, pH and conductivity with field
probes. We also conducted pebble counts following Kondolf (1997) to characterize
grain size of the sites.
We sampled the periphyton biomass at each river delta on similar substrate (pebbles and
cobbles) according to Steinman et al. (2006), scraping a fixed 4x4 cm area of 3 different
pebbles or cobbles then filtered in a Whatman® glass microfiber circle filter, Grade
GF/F (47 mm). The filter was stored on a glass container covered by aluminum paper
and stored at 4 ºC when in transport (maximum 4 hours) and then stored at -20 ºC until
the analysis in the lab. The analysis included the extraction in 15 ml of 90% buffered
acetone for 24 hours in the dark, centrifugation and then measurements of Chlorophyll a
in a spectrophotometer. Living algae contain mainly undegraded Chlorophyll, but with
algal senescence or death, detritus degradation products also appear in the samples,
mainly pheophytin (Stienman et al. 2006). Because pheophytin absorbs light in the
same spectrum of Chlorophyll a, measurements have to be corrected by acidifying the
samples (with 0.1 mL of 0.1N HCL for 3 minutes), making measurements before and
after the acidification.
Turbidity and colored materials can interfere with Chlorophyll a measurements
(Stienman et al. 2006). In order to correct the Chlorphyll a values due to turbidity and
colored materials we subtracted the absorption readings at 750 nm of those at 664 nm.
For the pheophytin correction, after acidifying the sample, we measured at 665 nm and
at 750 nm (for turbidity correction purposes).
We used the formula:
2 2
Chlorophyll a (μg/cm ) = 26.7 (E 664b– E 665a x V ext area of substrate (cm ) x L
Where:
E664b= (Absorbance of sample at 664nm) − (Absorbance of sample at 750nm)
before acidification;
E665a = (Absorbance of sample at 665nm) − (Absorbance of sample at 750nm)
after acidification;
V extlume of 90% acetone used in the extraction (mL), in our case 15 ml;
L=length of path light through cuvette (cm), in our case 1 cm;
26.7= absorbance correction (derived from absorbance coefficient for
chlorophyll a at 664nm x correction for acidification).
3
251Annex 4
These analyses were performed at the laboratory of Empresa Nicaraguense de
Acueductos y Alcantarillados Sanitarios (ENACAL) in Managua, following the
Standard Methods 10200H(2) (APHA 1998, 20th).
Macroinvertebrates were sampled with a D-net of 500 microns mesh (Standard Methods
10500 (APHA 2006, Online Edition, Hauer & Resh 2006). We took one sample per
delta, collecting from as many shallow gravel-bedded areas as was possible during a 2-
minute sampling period. Samples were fixed in the field with alcohol 90º. These
samples were analyzed in laboratory by Dr. Raúl Acosta, an expert on Latin-American
macroinvertebrate taxonomy, to the lowest taxonomical level possible (at least family
level for insects). To assess functional differences of the macroinvertebrate community
among deltas, we classified the invertebrates found according to their feeding modes or
functional feeding groups, following Ramirez & Gutierrez (2014), Dominguez &
Fernandez (2009) and Merrit et al. (2008).
For each site, we calculated taxonomical richne ss and abundance. Also, as a metric of
biological quality, we calculated the richness and abundance of Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT). This is a highly used metric in biomonitoring of
streams and rivers (Chang et al. 2014; Carter and Resh, 2013).
Statistical Analysis
To characterize substrate we calculate the d16, d50 and d84 statistics, which are
respectively the sizes at which 16, 50 and 84% of the sampled sediments are smaller.
The d50 is the median size, i.e., half of the grains in the sample were larger, half
smaller; it is a commonly used indicator of central tendency of the size distribution.
Sorting refers to the extent to which the se diments are of similar size, and reflects the
processes of selective transport and deposition of sediments by river flows. Sediments
that have been subject to fluvial transport for a longer period tend to be better sorted
than sediment recently derived from erosion of bedrock, which tend to have a wider
range of grain sizes present. To assess how well sorted the gravels were, we calculated
the geometric sorting coefficient (Otto 1939, Inman 1952) as sg = (d84/d16) ½, where
the smaller the coefficient, the better sorted the sediment. To compare environmental
variables between deltas draining the road and deltas of creeks draining forest we used
the Median test (Chi square).
To analyze differences in periphyton biom ass and macroinvertebrate metrics between
deltas draining the road and deltas of cr eeks draining forest, we used Kruskal-Wallis
Analysis of Variance, suitable for non-p arametric data. We also performed a Non-
Metric Multidimentional Scaling fitting the environmental and substrate size statistics
as vectors to assess differences in composition of the macroinvertebrate community.
4
252 Annex 4
Table 1. Location of sampled deltas in the n 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.
APPROXIMATE
DRAINAGE AREA
2
Point LONG LAT (Km )*
1A -84.35933333300 10.99698500000 1.5
1B -84.29281034980 10.91394448280 >25
2A -84.28382000000 10.89443000000 0.25
2B -84.28700359230 10.90482145620 1.5
3A -84.28213166700 10.89327333300 0.1
3B -84.26302965570 10.89231645490 0.4
4A -84.26815310670 10.89182263050 6.8
4B -84.28559759790 10.90077234720 > 10
5A -84.35409933930 10.99030940540 1
5B -84.21508833300 10.84640666700 0.4
6A -84.27846253600 10.89264772500 0.4
6B -84.21835833300 10.86338000000 0.7
7A -84.27767348230 10.89269348540 0.2
7B -84.23483789070 10.87701472010 0.4
8A -84.26354020910 10.89096424330 0.5
8B -84.24867105280 10.88897071090 1.6
9A -84.23740666700 10.87652500000 4.8
*Calculated from available topographic maps.
5
253Annex 4
Figure 1. Sampling Points along the San Juan River between El Castillo and Boca del
Río San Carlos. Each point corresponds to one delta formed by a creek draining to Río
San Juan.
3. Results
A. Substrate and environmental variables
Temperature was significantly higher at deltas of the south bank (27.7 °C, Chi-
Square=9.0, df=1, p=0.0027) compared to the north bank (25.83 °C). This difference is
most likely attributable to effects of solar heating on deforested lands along the south
bank contrasted to the forested areas on the north bank. The substrate statistics d16 and
d84 were also different among deltas on the north bank compared to the south bank.
D16 (Chi-Square= 6.35, df=1, p=0.0117) was higher (bigger substrate) in the north bank
compared to the south bank (9.6 vs 7.5) and d84 (Chi-Square= 4, df=1, p=0.0455) was
smaller in the north bank compared to the south Bank (28.75 vs 37). Although mean
conductivity and sg (sediment sorting coeffi cient) were higher at the south bank, no
significant differences were found (Appendix 1).
B. Periphyton
The three sampling events at 16 sites yielded a total of 143 samples. We had to
eliminate 6 samples draining the road due to excess of turbidity (750 nm readings
higher than 664 and 665 nm readings). We eliminated 2 samples from the south bank
draining the road and one from the north bank for pheophytin measures exceeding the
Chlorophyll a measurements, meaning that the periphyton was not alive in those
samples. After this first round of eliminati on, we had 63 samples from deltas along the
south bank and 73 from deltas along the north bank.
6
254 Annex 4
Our results (Figure 2, Table 2) show highly significant differences between the north
and south-bank deltas. Deltas affected by road-derived sediment (south bank) showed
significantly lower periphyton biomass values (KW(1,135)13. 13, p = 0.0003).
Figure 2. Periphyton biomass on benthic substrate (pebbles and cobbles) in deltas along
the south bank of the Rio San Juan (receiving sediments eroded from Rte 1856), along
the north bank (formed by streams draining forest), and at Point 9A (La Chorrera).
Table 2. Mean, minimum and maximum values of Cholorphyll a (mg/cm2) at each site.
Site Mean Minimum Maximum
1A 1.75 0.10 3.40
2A 2.29 0.10 5.41
3A 1.81 0.20 5.11
3.18 0.10 5.51
4A
5A 8.92 4.61 20.73
6A 0.77 0.10 2.00
7A 1.72 0.20 4.61
8A 4.68 0.20 12.62
9A 1.84 1.20 2.40
1B 5.02 3.20 9.51
2B 7.62 0.40 18.32
3B 3.98 0.20 18.82
4B 3.14 0.50 10.21
5B 6.01 0.80 16.92
6B 8.17 2.80 14.12
7B 6.95 0.40 17.32
8B 6.59 0.70 20.03
7
255Annex 4
Samples from the site at La Chorrera (9A, Figure 2) had a lower mean than those
reported for the other road drainages (1.8 μg/cm , outside the lower limit of the standard
error range).
C. Macroinvertebrates
We found 54 groups of macroinvertebrates at the deltas of San Juan River (Appendix
2). Macroinvertebrate richness (Table 3, Figure 3) and abundance (Figure 4) was
significantly higher in the northern bank compared to the south bank. Groups more
sensitive to environmental changes, EPT (E phemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera),
had higher richness and abundance at the North Bank compared to the south bank,
although not in a significant fashion (Figure 5 and 6).
Site 9A, sampled twice, had very low richne ss (average of 2.5 taxa/sample) with less
taxa than the mean for the South Bank. Also, abundance was lower than the mean for
sites at the Southern bank (average of 8.5 individuals/sample). Non EPT taxa were
found on this site and Melanoides tuberculata , an invasive species of snail, was found
on both occasions on this site (Appendix 2).
Figure 3. Differences in benthic macroinvertebrate richness among deltas on the north
bank and the south bank of the San Juan River.
8
256 Annex 4
Table 3. Macroinvertebrate richness and abundance as well as richness and abundance of EPT
(Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) taxa on deltas sampled at the south (A) and north
(B) Banks of the San Juan River, Nicaragua. Av.= Average; S.E.= Standard Error of the Mean;
min-max= minimum and maximum values found.
RichnesS.E. Richnessness (min- EPT Richness EPT Richness
AbunAdabucned(min-max)ance RichnessEPTmax) AbundA abS.E. EPTin-max)nce
max) (Av.) (Av.) (Av.) EPT EPT
Site S.E.
11.70.31-2 2.7 0.7 2-4 0 0 0 0 0 0
1B 7.3 2.6 3-12 68.0 40.4 11-1 46 0.7 0.3 0-1 1.3 0.7 0-2
2A 2.3 0.3 2-3 5.7 3.2 2- 12 0.3 0.3 0-1 0.7 0.7 0-2
2B 9.0 3.6 4-16 24.3 5.8 15-35 3.3 1.9 1-7 9.7 6.7 2-23
3A 3.0 0.6 2-4 6.0 3.5 2- 13 0.7 0.7 0-2 1.0 1.0 0-3
3B 3.0 0.0 3-3 9.5 2.5 7-12 0 0 0 0 0 0
4A 5.3 2.3 3-10 15.3 10.9 3- 37 1.7 0.9 0-3 2.7 1.8 0-6
4B 6.0 0.6 5-7 99.3 52.0 10-1 90 1.3 0.9 0-3 1.7 0.9 0-3
5A 8.3 1.8 5-11 32.7 4.3 27-41 1.7 0.7 1-3 4.3 2.3 2-9
5B 5.3 1.2 3-7 78.3 51.5 20-1 81 0.3 0.3 0-1 0.7 0.7 0-2
62.00.02-2 5.0 0.6 4-6 0 0 0 0 0 0
6B 8.0 1.7 5-11 30.3 12.5 15-55 2.3 0.7 1-3 8.7 3.9 1-14
71.00.01-1 3.5 2.5 1-6 0 0 0 0 0 0
7B 5.3 1.2 3-7 16.7 6.2 5- 26 0.3 0.3 0-1 0.7 0.7 0-2
81.30.31-2 3.0 1.0 1-4 0 0 0 0 0 0
8B 4.0 0.6 3-5 6.7 1.2 5- 9 0.7 0.7 0-2 0.7 0.7 0-2
9
257Annex 4
Figure 4. Differences in benthic macroinvertebrate abundance among deltas on the
north bank and the south bank of the San Juan River.
Figure 5. Differences in EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) richness
among deltas on the north and south bank of the San Juan River.
10
258 Annex 4
Figure 6. Differences in EPT (Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera) Abundance
among deltas on the north and south bank of the San Juan River.
D. Composition Changes
The non-metric multidimentional scaling analysis (Figure 7) showed a segregation of
most sites of the north and south bank across axis 2. This axis had negative a
relationship (Table 4) with d16, d50 and pH. On the other hand this axis had positive
relations with Temperature, sediment so rting coefficient (sg) and d84, therefore
showing that most sites on the South bank macroinvertebrate composition were
influenced by smaller d16, d50, bigger d84 and higher sg and temperature. The only
exceptions were the sites 5A (South Bank) th at clustered in the opposite bank (Figure
7). On the other hand the macroinvertebrate communities were influenced by bigger
d16, d50, lower temperatures and better-sorted sediments (lower sg coefficient).
11
259Annex 4
Figure 7. No-Metric-Multidimentional Sca ling (NMDS) of macroinvertebrate
assemblages at deltas of the north (Circles) and south (Triangles) of the San Juan River,
Nicaragua. Vectors represent the substrate and environmental variables measured, fitted
in the space of variation of macroinvertebrate composition. NMDS stress 0.186.
Table 4. Relations of vectors of environmental and substrate size variables with the
NMDS
Environmental
Variables NMDS1 NMDS2 r2 Pr(>r)
d16 0.62368 -0.78168 0.2886 0.1019
d50 0.64899 -0.7608 0.2343 0.1698
d84 0.62352 0.78181 0.0698 0.6424
sg 0.06402 0.99795 0.171 0.3127
Temp_AV 0.24237 0.97018 0.2242 0.1978
pH_AV 0.10095 -0.99489 0.2843 0.1269
P values based on 1000 permutations.
Although no significant differences were f ound between the composition of functional
feeding groups of the north and south bank deltas, shredders (invertebrates that chew
pieces of living or dead plant material) a nd collector gatherers (invertebrates that use
modified mouth parts to collect small particles (<1mm) accumulated on the bottom)
were (Figures 8 and 9) considerably higher on the north bank.
12
260 Annex 4
Figure 8. Shredder mean abundance at the south and north deltas at the San Juan River,
Nicaragua.
Figure 9. Collector-gatherer abundance at the south and north deltas at the San Juan
River, Nicaragua.
13
261Annex 4
4. Discussion
A. Periphyton Biomass Trends
Our results strongly suggest that the sediments eroded from the road are having negative
effects on the aquatic communities of the deltas affected by the sediments. The effects
documented here are on the benthic primary producers (periphyton), but would extend
up the food chain (Wood and Armitage, 1997). We sampled during the dry season,
when the deltas were more exposed by low water. With the first rains of the wet season,
it is likely that runoff from the road would have an even stronger impact on the benthic
communities.
These results are consistent with results of an exploratory study conducted in May 2013,
involving collection of periphyton samples fro m 9 sites (as reported in Kondolf 2013).
That study also showed striking differences in periphyton biomass on deltas receiving
runoff and sediment from Rte 1856 contrasted with deltas of streams draining forested
basins (Figure 4).
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 south bank (i.e., road-
impacted) sites. This is a further indicator that sediments are disrupting the periphyton
habitat, consistent with the findings of other authors in similar situations (Lewis
1973a,b; Brookes 1986).
B. Macroinvertebrate Trends
As in previous studies assessing the consequences of abnormal inputs of sediments on
river systems (Quinn et al. 1992; Fossati et al., 2001), we found a significant reduction
of richness and abundance of macroinvertebrates. Richness and abundance of
macroinvertebrates as well as the composition of the assemblages was clearly different
from deltas draining the road at the south bank compared with the deltas draining the
forest. These changes can have significant effects on the ecosystem, because of the
reduction of prey availability for fish that feed on macroinvertebrates, and a reduction
of the functions that these macroinvertebr ates are performing on the ecosystem. EPT
taxa reductions due to abnormal sediment inputs have been documented in several
studies (e.g. Edwards, 2014). We also found this reduction trend on EPT taxa on the
sites affected by the road, although it was not significant.
The influence of substrate size on th e composition of the macroinvertebrate
assemblages in the NMDS analysis suggest that habitat availability for
macroinvertebrates is the main factor producing differences on the assemblages of
deltas draining the road versus deltas draining forest (Figure 7). This agrees with the
findings of Richards and Bacon (1994). But the observed reduction on periphyton
biomass could also have consequences due to changes in food availability for
macroinvertebrates as found in previous re search (Cline et al. 1982, Peckarsky 1984
Graham 1990).
14
262 Annex 4
C. Macroinvertebrate Study Reported in Costa Rican Environmental “Diagnostic”
Assessment
The macroinvertebrate study described in the “Environmental Diagnostic” report
included as Annex 10 of the Counter-Memorial is flawed. First, the report is unclear
regarding the sampling methods used. The report states that macroinvertebrate
“collection is done over a total effort of 1 hour” (p.88, Vol. II:588). However, this is a
much longer sampling period for use of a D-net than is normal. The document stated
that the authors followed the methods stated in “MINAE 2007,” but they failed to
provide a citation for this publication in the References Cited. They were likely
referring to a document entitled “Reglamento para la Evaluación y Clasificación de la
Calidad de Cuerpos de Agua Superficiale s,” Decreto 33903, La Gaceta No. 178, San
José, Costa Rica: MINAE, 7 pp. (MINAE 2007). This document recommends a 5-
minute sampling per site, not an hour, as stated by the Environmental Diagnostic.
The Environmental Diagnostic report included no reference conditions for these type of
rivers. This is a major failure since a re ference condition (sensu Reynoldson et al.,
1997) is required to have accurate results in biomonitoring programs (as stated, for
example, for Europe in the Water Framework Directive, D.O.C.E, 2000). Moreover, no
statistical tests were reported for impacted vs control sites, nor analyses to assess
changes at the functional level of the community, even though this would be an obvious
analysis to conduct on the data collected to assess the potential impacts of Rte 1856
(Henley et al., 2000; Rice et al. 2001).
Although substrate was cited as a main explanation for bio indicator variability, only
one substrate size was presented per site, w ithout explanation of how the values were
obtained. The authors reportedly sampled sites in streams above and below road
crossings of Rte 1856, but the Environmental Diagnostic presented no data to support
the assumption that the sites were comparable except for the influence of the road. The
maps did not have legends explaining the me aning of the various features appearing on
them, and 11 sites appear on the maps, while only 10 were reported in the text.
The data presented in the Enivronmental Diagnostic actually indicated degraded
conditions in sites downstream of the road (on sites 5-9), but the report still concluded
the community was ‘recovered’ in the 1.5 years since the road work. Contrary to the
assertion that the community had recovered from the impacts of the road, it is clear (not
only from the results of our study, but even from the poor-quality study in the
Environmental Diagnostic) that the road still has negative ecological effects on these
creeks. Benthic communities have not reached ‘stability’ and are still suffering from
the sediments coming from the road.
15
263Annex 4
D. Sediment and Turbidity Effects on Periphyton and Macroinvertebrates
Professor Colin Thorne (in a report submitted to the International Court of Justice in
December 2013 entitled Assessment of the Impact of the Construction of the Border
Road in Costa Rica on the San Juan River ) made the following statement: “Fish and
other aquatic organisms in the Rio San Juan do not find high turbidity problematic
because they are fully adapted to it.” (Thorne 2013, p.50) Professor Thorne did not
include any citations from the scientific litera ture to support his assertion. In response
to Professor Thorne’s assertion, we review ed the scientific literature regarding the
sensitivity to sediment and turbidity of macroinvertebrate species that occur in the Rio
San Juan, and summarized relevant information in Table 4. There are at least 16 taxa of
macroinvertebrates found in our study that are sensitive to suspended sediment increase
and fine sediment deposition (nine of them highly sensitive). Also, there are sixteen
EPT genera (Appendix 2, Fig XX), which are often considered as indicators of good
water quality, sensitive to environmental changes (Chang et al., 2014; Carter and Resh,
2013) including fine sediment deposition (Edwards, 2014). These taxa occur with
higher abundance on north-bank deltas than on south-bank deltas. The patterns we
documented on the Rio San Juan are thus consistent with those documented in the
scientific literature from studies in rivers elsewhere.
We also reviewed the scientific literature regarding sensitivity of primary producers,
including periphyton, to sediment and turbidity. Wood and Armitage (1997) found at
least 5 scientific studies demonstrating re duction of species diversity, productivity,
biomass, and organic content due to increas e of suspended sediments and deposition.
The quantity of periphyton that grows on stre am substrata is reduced through abrasion
from sediment transport (Steinman and McIntire, 1990). This is evident in our study,
where reductions of periphyton biomass draini ng the road are highly significant. Also
increases in river turbidity limit light penetration and reduce phytoplankton production
(Hoetzel and Croome, 1994). Reductions in both groups, primary producers
(periphyton) and macroinvertebrates, can have severe effects on the upper trophic levels
(e.g., fish) (Henley et al., 2010)
5. Conclusion
The available evidence demonstrates that the aquatic communities of the streams
draining the road are significantly degraded compared to those developed on the deltas
of tributaries entering the north bank of the river, which are not affected by the road-
derived sediment. As a result, the biom ass (periphyton) abundance and richness
(macroinvertebrates) in the impacted sites are significantly less than those in the deltas
unaffected by the road-derived sediment.
16
264 Annex 4
Table 4. Macroinvertebrate taxa found at the San Juan River deltas sensitive to
suspended sediments (SS) and deposited fine sediment, according to scientific literature
(ms = intermediate sensitivity; hs = high sensitivity).
Deposited Fine
Taxa SS Sediment
Coleoptera
Elmidae ms(*)
Diptera
Orthocladiinae hs(+)
Simuliidae
Simulium ms(*)
Tabanidae hs(*)
Ephemeroptera
Caenidae ms(*), hs(+)
Caenis ms(*)
Heptageniidae ms(*)
Leptohyphidae
Tricorythodes hs(+)
Leptophlebiidae hs(*)
Gastropoda
Ancylidae ms(*)
Heteroptera
Veliidae ms(*)
Odonata
Coenagrionidae
Argia hs(+)
Gomphidae hs(*) hs(*)
Plecoptera
17
265Annex 4
Perlidae
Anacroneuria hs(*) hs(*)
Trichoptera
Leptoceridae ms(*) ms(*)
Oecetis ms(*) hs(*)
(*) Carlise et al. 2007
(+) Zweig and Rabeni, 2001
18
266 Annex 4
Literature cited
APHA. 1998. Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater.:
American Public Health Association.
Brookes, A. 1986. Response of aquatic vegetation to sedimentation downstream from
river channelisation works in England and Wales. Biological Conservation
38:352–367.
Bonada, N., Prat, N., Resh, V. H., & Statzner, B. (2006). Developments in aquatic
insect biomonitoring: A comparative analysis of recent approaches. Annual
Review of Entomology. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.51.110104.151124
Carlisle, D. M., Meador, M. R., Moulton II, S. R., & Ruhl, P. M. 2007. Estimation and
application of indicator values for common macroinvertebrate genera and families
of the United States. Ecological Indicators, 7(1), 22-33.
Carter, J. L., & Resh, V. H. 2013. Analytical approaches used in stream benthic
macroinvertebrate biomonitoring programs of state agencies in the USA (pp.
2013–1129). Menlo Park: United States Geological Survey Open-file Report.
Chang, F. H., Lawrence, J. E., Rios-Touma, B., & Resh, V. H. 2014. Tolerance values
of benthic macroinvertebrates for stream biomonitoring: Assessment of
assumptions underlying scoring systems worldwide. Environmental monitoring
and assessment, 186(4), 2135-2149.
Cline, L. D., R. A. Short, and J. V.Ward. 1982. The influence of highway construction
on the macroinvertebrates and epilithic algae of a high mountain stream.
Hydrobiologia 96: 149–159.
D.O.C.E. 2000. Directiva 2000/60/CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 23 de
octubre de 2000 por la que se establece un marco comunitario de actuación en el
ámbito de la política de aguas. D.O.C.E. L 327 de 22.12.00. 69 pp.
Domínguez, E., & Fernández, H. R. 2009. Macroinvertebrados bentónicos
sudamericanos. Tucumán:. Fundación Miguel Lillo.
Edwards, P. M. 2014 Macroinvertebrates and excessive fine sediment conditions in
Oregon coastal streams. Dissertations and Theses. Paper 183. Portland State
University. Accessed online 1st July 2014.
http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2831&cont…
_access_etds
Erman, D. C., and F. K. Ligon. 1988. Effects of discharge fluctuation and the addition
of fine sediment on stream fish and macroinvertebrates below a water-filtration
facility. Environmental Management 12:85–97.
19
267Annex 4
Fossati, O., Wasson J., Héry C., Salinas G. & Marín R. (2001). Impact of sediment
releases on water chemistry and macroinvertebrate communities in clear water
Andean streams (Bolivia). Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 151(1), 33-50.
Graham, A. A. 1990. Siltation of stone-surface periphyton in rivers by clay-sized
particles from low concentrations in suspension. Hydrobiologia 199:107–115.
Henley, W. F., Patterson, M. A., Neves, R. J., & Lemly, A. D. 2000. Effects of
sedimentation and turbidity on lotic food webs: a concise review for natural
resource managers. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 8(2), 125-139.
Hötzel, G., & Croome, R. 1994. Long-term phytoplankton monitoring of the Darling
River at Burtundy, New South Wales: Incidence and significance of
cyanobacterial blooms. Marine and Freshwater Research, 45(5), 747-759.
Inman, D. L. 1952. Measures for describing the size distribution of sediments. Journal
of Sedimentary Petrology 22:125-145.
Kondolf, G.M. 1997. Application of the pebbl e count: Reflections on purpose, method,
and variants. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33(1):79-87.
Lewis, K. 1973a. The effect of suspended coal particles on the life forms of the aquatic
moss Eurhynchium riparioides (Hedw.). I. The gametophyte plant. Freshwater
Biology 3:251–257.
Lewis, K. 1973b. The effect of suspended coal particles on the life forms of the aquatic
moss Eurhynchium riparioides (Hedw.). II. The effect on spore germination and
regeneration of apical tips. Freshwater Biology 3:391–395.
Lemly, A. D. 1982. Modification of benthic insect communities in polluted streams:
Combined effects of sedimentation and nutrient enrichment. Hydrobiologia
87:229–245.
Merritt, R. W., Cummins, K. W., & Berg, M. (Eds.). (2008). An introduction to the
aquatic insects of North America. Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
MINAE. 2007. Reglamento para la Evaluación y Clasificación de la Calidad de Cuerpos
de Agua Superficiales. Decreto 33903. La Gaceta No. 178. San José, Costa Rica:
MINAE. 7 pp.
Otto, G. H. 1939. A modified logarithmic probability graph for interpretation of
mechanical analyses of sediments. Journal Sed. Petrology 9:62-76.
Peckarsky, B. L. 1984. Do predaceous stoneflies and siltation affect the structure of
stream insect communities colonizing enclosures? Canadian Journal of Zoology
63:1519–1530.
20
268 Annex 4
Quinn, J. M., R. J. Davies-Colley, C. W. Hickey, M. L. Vickers, and P. A. Ryan. 1992.
Effects of clay discharges on streams: Benthic invertebrates. Hydrobiologia
248:235–247.
Ramirez A. and Gutierrez-Fonseca P. 2014. F unctional feeding groups of aquatic insect
families in Latin America: A critical analysis and review of existing literature.
Revista de Biología Tropical Vol. 62 (Suppl. 2): 155-167.
Resh, V. H. (2008). Which group is best? Attr ibutes of different biological assemblages
used in freshwater biomonitoring. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
138(1–3), 131–138.
Reynoldson, T. B., Norris, R. H., Resh, V. H., Day, K. E., and Rosenberg, D. M.
(1997). The reference condition: A comparison of multimetric and multivariate
approaches to assess water-quality impa irment using benthic macroinvertebrate.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 16 (4), 833-852.
Rice, S. P., Greenwood, M. T., & Joyce, C. B. 2001. Tributaries, sediment sources, and
the longitudinal organisation of macroinvertebrate fauna along river systems.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 58(4), 824-840.
Richards, C., and K. L. Bacon. 1994. Influence of fine sediment on macroinvertebrate
colonization of surface and hyporheic stream substrates. Great Basin Naturalist
54:106–113.
Richards C., Haro R.J., Johnson L.B. & Host G.E. 199. Catchment and reach-scale
properties as indicators of macroinverte brate species traits. Freshwater Biology,
37, 219–230.
Spelllerberg, F. 1998. Ecological effects of roads and traffic: a literature review. Global
Ecol. Biogeogr. Letters 7: 317–333.
Steinman, A. D., & McIntire, C. D. 1990. Recovery of lotic periphyton communities
after disturbance. Environmental Management, 14(5), 589-604.
Steinman, A., Lamberti, G. & Leavitt, P. 2006. Biomass and Pigments of Benthic
Algae. In Methods in Stream Ecology (eds F. Hauer & G. Lamberti), pp. 257-379.
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Van Nieuwenhuyse, E. E., and J. D. LaPerriere. 1986. Effects of placer gold mining on
primary production in subarctic stream s of Alaska. Water Resources Bulletin
22:91–99.
Wood, P. J. and P. D. Armitage. 1997. Biolog ical Effects of Fine Sediment in the Lotic
Environment. Environmental Management 21:203-217.
21
269Annex 4
Zweig, L. D., & Rabeni, C. F. 2001. Biomonitoring for deposited sediment using
benthic invertebrates: A test on 4 Missouri streams. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, 20(4), 643-657.
22
270 Annex 4
Author Biography
Dr. Blanca Ríos Touma is an aquatic ecologist. She is an assistant professor at
Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica, where she teaches courses in Environmental
Management and Research Principles and directs a research program in Aquatic
Ecology and Human Impacts on Streams with field sites throughout Latin America.
She received her PhD in aquatic ecology at the University of Barcelona (2008, Cum
Laude), and conducted post-doctoral research on Biodiversity and Function of Andean
Streams, with emphasis on land use and introduced species, at the same University. She
also conducted post-doctoral research at Un iversity of California, Berkeley, where her
research topics included evaluation of ur ban stream restoration projects in Portland,
Oregon and riparian habitat restoration projects along the Lower Colorado River,
Arizona.
She has more than 10 scientific publications on ecology, diversity and monitoring of
rivers. She worked for more than eight years at the Freshwater Ecology and
Management Group at University of Barcelona in projects regarding to the
implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) in Mediterranean Rivers, the
application of the WFD principles to Ande an Streams, the defi nition of reference
streams for Andean Rivers and basic ecology, taxonomy and life history of tropical
aquatic insects. She has supervised several MSc theses in tropical biodiversity and
ecology, and advised graduate students doing research on river restoration.
23
271Annex 4
Appendix 1. Substrate and environmental characteristics of deltas sampled at the South
(A) and North (B) banks of the San Juan River, Nicaragua.
sg = Temperature Conductivity
Site d 16 d50 d84 (d84/d16)½ (°C) pH (μS/cm)
1A 7 7 7 1.00 26.9 7.84 185.17
2A 7 14.9 42 2.45 27.37 6.88 100.27
3A 7 17.3 48.7 2.64 27.9 6.83 133.33
4A 8.8 17.3 48.7 2.35 27.07 7.29 76
5A 7 11.5 19.5 1.67 28 7.73 226.7
6A 8 13.5 32 2.00 27.07 6.76 51.2
7A 8.8 15.4 38 2.08 26.27 6.89 59.43
8A 14 21.6 36 1.60 26.8 7.34 126.5
1B 10.8 17.5 31 1.69 26.27 7.13 74.73
2B 11 25.5 44.5 2.01 26.17 7.18 103.17
3B 9.6 13.8 21.7 1.50 26 7.25 93.97
4B 9.6 16.5 31 1.80 27.13 7.08 103.73
5B 9.6 14.5 26 1.65 25.33 7.89 74.2
6B 14.1 26.5 40 1.68 25.2 7.79 91.3
7B 7 10.2 24 1.85 25.37 7.59 56.03
8B 7 12 26.5 1.95 25.67 7.35 65.5
24
272 Annex 4
Appendix 2. Macroinvertebrates found at the North and South Bank deltas of the San
Juan River, Nicaragua. Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT), indicators of
good water quality are marked in bold.
Site Date Order Family Subfamily / Genera Abundance
1A 30/03/2014 Oligochaeta 3
1A 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 1
1B 31/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Americabaetis 2
1B 31/03/2014 Heteroptera Veliidae Rhagovelia 2
1B 31/03/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 7
2A 30/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Undet. 2
2A 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae (pupae) 10
2B 31/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Guajirolus 1
2B 31/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Leptohyphes 2
2B 31/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Thraulodes 8
2B 31/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium 4
2B 31/03/2014 Plecoptera Perlidae Anacroneuria 2
2B 31/03/2014 Heteroptera Naucoridae Limnocoris 1
2B 31/03/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Phyllogomphoides 1
2B 31/03/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Phyllocycla 1
2B 31/03/2014 Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia 4
2B 31/03/2014 Neuroptera Sysiridae Climacia 1
2B 31/03/2014 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Smicridea 3
2B 31/03/2014 Trichoptera Odontoceridae Marilia 3
2B 31/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1
2B 31/03/2014 Diptera Limoniidae Hexatoma 1
2B 31/03/2014 Oligochaeta 1
2B 31/03/2014 Decapoda Atyidae Undet. 1
3A 30/03/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Progomphus 1
3A 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae (pupae) 1
3B 30/03/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Phyllogomphoides 1
3B 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 4
3B 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 2
25
273Annex 4
4A 30/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 1
4A 30/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Undet. 1
4A 30/03/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Progomphus 2
4A 30/03/2014 Diptera Limoniidae Hexatoma 1
4A 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 19
4A 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 6
4A 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini 1
4A 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 4
4A 30/03/2014 Diptera Ephydridae 1
4A 30/03/2014 Oligochaeta 1
4B 30/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Undet. 1
4B 30/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 1
4B 30/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Baetidae Paracloeodes 1
4B 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 2
4B 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 3
4B 30/03/2014 Oligochaeta 1
4B 30/03/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 1
5A 31/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 6
5A 31/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Farrodes 2
5A 31/03/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Phyllogomphoides 1
5A 31/03/2014 Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia 1
5A 31/03/2014 Trichoptera Leptoceridae Oecetis 1
5A 31/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 5
5A 31/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 6
5A 31/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 2
5A 31/03/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 3
5A 31/03/2014 Gastropoda Ancylidae Gundlachia 1
5A 31/03/2014 Gastropoda Hydrobiidae Heleobia 2
5B 31/03/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 2
5B 31/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 6
5B 31/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 7
26
274 Annex 4
5B 31/03/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 1
5B 31/03/2014 Diptera Limoniidae Hexatoma 1
5B 31/03/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 2
5B 31/03/2014 Oligochaeta 1
6A 30/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 3
6A 30/03/2014 Oligochaeta 1
6B 1/4/14 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Farrodes 3
6B 1/4/14 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 7
6B 1/4/14 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Maccaffertium 1
6B 1/4/14 Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia 1
6B 1/4/14 Odonata Gomphidae Perigomphus 1
6B 1/4/14 Odonata Platystictidae Palaemnema 1
6B 1/4/14 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 8
6B 1/4/14 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 18
6B 1/4/14 Diptera Chironomidae Orthocladiinae 13
6B 1/4/14 Diptera Simuliidae Simulium 1
6B 1/4/14 Oligochaeta 1
7A 1/4/14 Oligochaeta 6
7B 31/03/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Phyllogomphoides 1
7B 31/03/2014 Odonata Coenagrionidae Argia 1
7B 31/03/2014 Heteroptera Veliidae Rhagovelia 1
7B 31/03/2014 Diptera Limoniidae Hexatoma 1
7B 31/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 4
7B 31/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 4
7B 31/03/2014 Oligochaeta 14
8A 31/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 1
8B 31/03/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Progomphus 1
8B 31/03/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1
8B 31/03/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 1
8B 31/03/2014 Oligochaeta 3
1A 27/04/2014 Oligochaeta 2
27
275Annex 4
1B 27/04/2014 Heteroptera Veliidae Rhagovelia 1
1B 27/04/2014 Diptera Limoniidae Hexatoma 1
1B 27/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 4
1B 27/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 8
1B 27/04/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 10
1B 27/04/2014 Oligochaeta 19
1B 27/04/2014 Hirudinea 4
2A 26/04/2014 Odonata Libellulidae Sympetrum 1
2A 26/04/2014 Diptera Limoniidae Undet. 1
2B 27/04/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 1
2B 27/04/2014 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Leptonema 1
2B 27/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 5
2B 27/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 8
3A 26/04/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Progomphus 1
3A 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 1
3A 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1
4A 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1
4A 26/04/2014 Decapoda Atyidae 1
4A 26/04/2014 Oligochaeta 1
4B 27/04/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Thraulodes 2
4B 27/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 91
4B 27/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini 65
4B 27/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 31
4B 27/04/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 1
5A 27/04/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Undet. 2
5A 27/04/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Phyllogomphoides 1
5A 27/04/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Phyllocycla 1
5A 27/04/2014 Heteroptera Naucoridae Limnocoris 1
5A 27/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 6
5A 27/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 6
5A 27/04/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 4
28
276 Annex 4
5A 27/04/2014 Ostracoda 3
5A 27/04/2014 Hirudinea 3
5B 26/04/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Forcypomyiinae 3
5B 26/04/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 3
5B 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 9
5B 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 160
5B 26/04/2014 Diptera Dolichopodidae Undet. 1
5B 26/04/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 5
6A 26/04/2014 Diptera Limoniidae Undet. 1
6A 26/04/2014 Oligochaeta 4
6B 26/04/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Undet. 1
6B 26/04/2014 Odonata Libellulidae Perithemis 1
6B 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 8
6B 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 3
6B 26/04/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 2
7A 26/04/2014 Empty Empty Empty Empty
7B 26/04/2014 Heteroptera Gelastocoridae Montandonius 1
7B 26/04/2014 Odonata Libellulidae Perithemis 1
Chironominae
7B 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae (Stenochironomus) 1
7B 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 11
7B 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1
7B 26/04/2014 Oligochaeta 4
8A 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 3
8A 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1
8B 26/04/2014 Diptera Limoniidae Hexatoma 2
8B 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 1
8B 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 2
9A 26/04/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 2
9A 26/04/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 3
9A 26/04/2014 Oligochaeta 9
1A 14/05/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 1
29
277Annex 4
1A 14/05/2014 Oligochaeta 1
1B 14/05/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Undet. 2
1B 14/05/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Phyllogomphoides 1
1B 14/05/2014 Coleoptera Elmidae Heterelmis 1
1B 14/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 5
1B 14/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 10
1B 14/05/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 3
1B 14/05/2014 Gastropoda Ancylidae Gundlachia 1
1B 14/05/2014 Gastropoda Physidae 1
1B 14/05/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 113
1B 14/05/2014 Gastropoda Pachychilidae Pachychilus 2
1B 14/05/2014 Hirudinea 4
1B 14/05/2014 Oligochaeta 3
2A 13/05/2014 Odonata Gomphidae Progomphus 1
2A 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 1
2A 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1
2B 14/05/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Undet. 4
2B 14/05/2014 Coleoptera Elmidae Heterelmis 1
2B 14/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 7
2B 14/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 5
2B 14/05/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 2
2B 14/05/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 1
2B 14/05/2014 Oligochaeta 3
3A 13/05/2014 Ephemeroptera Heptageniidae Maccaffertium 1
3A 13/05/2014 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Leptonema 2
3A 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 8
3A 13/05/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 2
3B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 8
3B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 3
3B 13/05/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 1
4A 13/05/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptophlebiidae Farrodes 3
30
278 Annex 4
4A 13/05/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 1
4A 13/05/2014 Trichoptera Hydropsychidae Leptonema 2
4B 13/05/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 5
4B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 32
4B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 53
4B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini 6
4B 13/05/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 1
4B 13/05/2014 Hirudinea 1
5A 13/05/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 2
5A 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 19
5A 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 13
5A 13/05/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 4
5A 13/05/2014 Hirudinea 3
5B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 1
5B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanytarsini 6
5B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 27
6A 13/05/2014 Empty Empty Empty Empty
6B 13/05/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Tricorythodes 12
6B 13/05/2014 Ephemeroptera Caenidae Caenis 1
6B 13/05/2014 Coleoptera Elmidae Heterelmis 1
6B 13/05/2014 Trichoptera Hydroptilidae Hydroptila 1
6B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 2
6B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1
6B 13/05/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 2
6B 13/05/2014 Hirudinea 1
7A 13/05/2014 Diptera Simuliidae Simulium 1
7B 13/05/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Undet. 2
7B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Tanypodinae 2
7B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 1
8B 13/05/2014 Ephemeroptera Leptohyphidae Undet. 1
8B 13/05/2014 Trichoptera Leptoceridae Nectopsyche 1
31
279Annex 4
8A 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 4
8B 13/05/2014 Diptera Chironomidae Chironominae 5
8B 13/05/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 1
8B 13/05/2014 Diptera Tabanidae 1
9A 13/05/2014 Diptera Ceratopogonidae Ceratopogoninae 1
9A 13/05/2014 Gastropoda Thiaridae Melanoides tuberculata 2
32
280 ANNEX 5
Dr. William R. Sheate, “Comments on the Lack of EIAfor the San Juan
Border Road in Costa Rica,” July 2014
281282 Annex 5
Comments on the lack of EIA for the San Juan Border Road in Costa Rica
Dr William R Sheate
Reader in Environmental Assessment, Imperial College London Centre for Environmental Policy, UK
Technical Director, Collingwood Environmental Planning Ltd, London, UK
July 2014
1. Introduction
I have spent some 30 years working in the field of environmental impact assessment policy,
regulation and implementation. I hold a Doctorate (PhD) on the basis of published work in
environmental assessment law, policy and practice. I am an academic and a consultant
practitioner. I am Reader in Environmental Assessment at Imperial College London (UK),
Technical Director at Collingwood Environmental Planning Ltd (UK), an Honorary Senior
Fellow at the University of Manchester (UK) and an academic panel member of Francis
Taylor Building legal chambers in London. I was the Founding Editor (1998-2009) of the
Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, published by
World/Scientific/Imperial College Press, recognised as one of the leading journals in the field
of environmental assessment. I have published over 100 academic and peer reviewed papers
and books in the field. My expertise lies particularly in the field of environmental assessment
policy, processes and implementation, including the application of assessment methodologies
and public participation. My complete CV is attached as Annex I to this report.
As set out in my report below, it is my opinion that the lack of an EIA having been
undertaken with regard to the construction of the Border Road by Costa Rica along the San
Juan River runs counter to the normal expectations of international EIA practice, as set out in
international legislation and best practice guidance.
I have reviewed the following materials in writing this report:
x Nicaragua Memorial Volume I and II, and in particular Annex 2, the 2012
Environmental Management Plan (EMP).
x Costa Rica Counter-Memorial Volume I and II, and in particular Annex 10, the
Environmental Diagnostic Assessment (EDA).
x Relevant Ramsar and UNESCO designations.
x Costa Rica’s Executive Decree Number 31849, “General Regulation regarding
procedures for Environmental Assessment (EIA)”, of 28 June 2004.
1
283Annex 5
2. Executive Summary
For a road scheme of this length and scale in such a highly sensitive environment, the normal
expectations, based on international best practice for the environmental screening of proposed
projects, would be for an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to have been undertaken in
advance of the decision of whether, where, and how to build the road – a project that clearly
had and still has the capacity to cause significa nt environmental impacts. The Ramsar and
UNESCO designations covering the San Juan River and adjacent areas should have been
sufficient triggers on their own for an EIA or some form of advance assessment to have been
undertaken. The scale of this international recognition, which is quite substantial, makes the
absence of an EIA for a 160km road through a sensitive landscape all the more surprising.
International screening guidelines for EIA strongly endorse the need for an EIA for a scheme
of this scale and nature, and in such a receiving environment.
Costa Rica’s EIA Regulation appears, for the most part, to be consistent with international
practice for screening, seeking to determine likelihood of significance and whether an EIA or
some other form of ex ante assessment is required. However, unlike much international
practice it does not make specific provision for emergency measures. Consequently, and
notwithstanding the exemption decree , there appears to have been no attempt to undertake a
lesser form of EIA in the event of an emergency situation being declared, as often provided
for internationally.
The remediation activities highlighted in Costa Rica’s Counter-Memorial, as well as related
discussions in the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and Environmental Diagnostic
Assessment (EDA) – both commissioned by Costa Rica after the event – reveal the problems
of Costa Rica not having undertaken a baseline study before the road was constructed, and
the failure to anticipate potentially significant adverse environmental effects and make efforts
to avoid, reduce or mitigate those effects prior to construction, especially in relation to the
San Juan River. These problems confirm that an EIA was necessary for the project.
While the EDA, like the EMP, confirms the need for an EIA in this case, it is not a substitute
for an EIA. In addition, its conclusion that the construction of the Border Road has had no
impact on the San Juan River is unreasonable. The EDA effectively casts what might be
1Decreto 31849.
2Decreto 36440-MP.
2
284 Annex 5
considered, on their own terms, to be moderately significant impacts on Costa Rican territory
as irrelevant impacts. Moreover, the idea that such impacts can be limited to Costa Rica’s
territory is not plausible, given the interconnectedness of the aquatic and other ecological
systems in the area (one of the reasons for the multiple Ramsar designations).
Notwithstanding the emergency decree exemption for EIA, a simpler or rapid form of ex ante
assessment, if not a full EIA, could still ha ve been undertaken and should have been
undertaken for construction of a road of this length in such a heavily designated sensitive
environment.
3. The Purpose and Elements of EIA
EIA is widely established internationally as standard practice in relation to major
developments likely to have a significant effect on the environment and as a preventive tool
to avoid significant effects occurring in relation to sensitive locations. Some basic objectives,
expectations and principles have been developed over time and are now reflected in most EIA
regimes around the world. These have been well established in legislation and international
agreements , as well as in the International Court of Justice judgment in 2010 in Pulp Mills . 4
EIA is also well established as part of the standard practices of international development
banks and lending institutions, such as the World Bank in relation to bank funded projects . 5
This report addresses the normal expectations for EIA, as developed over the past 45 years
through international agreements and typical EIA practice internationally and nationally. It
does not seek to address the detailed and specific environmental impacts associated with the
road construction, which are addressed by others, though observations are made where it is
appropriate to compare practice in this case with best international practice in EIA processes.
The report sets out at a theoretical level the nature, purpose and practice of EIA, as
3
E.g. UNEP Principles on EIA, 1987; Rio Declaration 1992; Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992;
European Union EIA Directive (originally 85/337/EEC, now consolidated as 2011/92/EU); UNECE Convention
on EIA in a Transboundary Context 1991 (the Espoo Convention)); Ramsar Convention Impact Assessment
Handbook 2010; UN General Assembly Resolution 2995 (XXVII), 1972; Agenda 21 (paras. 7.41 (b) and 8.4);
the 1974 Nordic Environmental Protection Convention (art.6).
4Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), 2010 I.C.J. (Apr. 20).
5
In the World Bank this is addressed through one of its ten Safeguard Policies and established as Environmental
Assessment in Operational Policy 4.01
(http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/ENVIRONMENT/EXTENVASS/0…
0482652~menuPK:1182600~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:407988,00.html). Environmental
Assessment has been a formal Bank policy since 1989, and mandated the screening of Bank-funded projects for
their environmental impacts, to include potential physical, biological, socio-economic and cultural resources
impacts.
3
285Annex 5
understood internationally as a benchmark against which to evaluate the lack of EIA in this
case.
The intention of EIA is to provide information to the decision-making process so that the
likely significant effects of a proposed developm ent on the environment can be taken into
account before the decision to proceed is taken and construction begins. EIA, therefore, is an
essential tool to try to avoid adverse environmental impacts, and for mitigating any residual
effects that cannot be avoided. To this end, EIA aims to implement the ‘mitigation hierarchy’
where a proponent should first seek to avoid adverse environmental impacts, then seek to
reduce (mitigate) adverse impacts, and only as a last resort seek to remedy (compensate) for
6
residual environmental impacts still remaining after avoidance and mitigation .
A key principle of EIA is that it needs to take place before decisions are taken to undertake or
authorize activities likely to significantly affect the environment – early in the planning and
project design process so that its findings can be taken into account in the design of the
7
project as well as in the final decision on whether to proceed or not . Central to EIA is the
need to consider alternatives to the proposal 8(e.g. alternative locations or routes, alternative
design), as well as the potential cumulative effects of a proposal with other activities already
taking place or likely to take place in the foreseeable future that may impact on important
environmental receptors, such as sensitive habitats or species . So for example, in the case of
the San Juan Border Road, it is not just an issue of the environmental impacts of the road
itself that is a concern, but also the potential cumulative impacts of the road with other
activities that may affect the environment, including the San Juan River, e.g. through
increasing levels of sedimentation that may enter the river from other rivers, including those
from Costa Rica.
6
E.g. EU EIA Directive 2011/92/EC Article 5 (3) (b); UNEP OnlineEIA Training Resource Manual, Topic 7,
pp. 303-310, at http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/EIA_2ed/EIA_E_top7_body.PDF.
7
Ibid.
8Ibid.
9European Commission (2013)Guidance on Integrating Climate Change and Biodiversity into Environmental
Impact Assessment, European Union Publications Office, 59pp, available at
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/EIA%20Guidance.pdf ; IAIA (2005) Biodiversity in Impact Assessment,
Special Publication Series No. 3, available athttp://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/SP3.pdf
4
286 Annex 5
EIA is recognised as a public process that facilitates public participation in environmental
10
decision-making ; typically the public are given the opportunity to comment on the
document that results from the EIA process – the environmental impact statement (EIS) or
report – before the consent decision is made, and in many cases at earlier stages when the
scope of the EIA process is being considered. Where there are transboundary effects,
reciprocal arrangements are encouraged 11. The aim of consultation and participation in the
EIA process by the public and other authorities is to ensure that all potential significant
effects are identified in advance of a consent decision and recognises that valuable and
relevant knowledge about the environment is not the sole preserve of experts, but may be
held by local communities, individuals, businesses, government agencies, non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) etc. 12 It also provides a mechanism by which proponents and decision-
makers can be held to account by the public . 13
It is essential that this assessment happens before a decision to go ahead is made, so that the
likely significant effects can be taken into account at a time when it can make a difference,
e.g. through re-design of the project, or locating the project elsewhere, or through integrating
mitigation measures at the time of construction to minimise the impact on the environment.
These objectives are reflected in the core elements of any EIA process, which are:
x Screening
o The process of deciding whether an EIA, or some other form of assessment, is
required (discussed further below). Typically a decision of whether an EIA is
required or not needs to be recorded, so that the reasons for requiring EIA, or a
simplified form, or no EIA, are made public, are transparent and able to be
scrutinised by those who have an interest.
x Scoping, consideration of alternatives
o The identification of the key environmental issues and main environmental
parameters for the assessment; the scope and scale at which those parameters
10 nd
Sheate, WR (1994), Making an Impact: A Guide to EIA Law and Policy, London, Cameron May (2 Edition
1996); Wood, C (2003).
11
Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context 1991; Rio Declaration 1992 Principle 19.
12
Sheate WR, and Partidário MR (2010, Strategic approaches and assessment techniques-Potential for
knowledge brokerage towards sustainability, Environ Impact Asses Rev), 30: 278-288.
13Sheate WR (2012), Purposes, paradigms and pressure groups: Accountability and sustainability in EU
environmental assessment, 1985-2010, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 33:91-102.
5
287Annex 5
should be considered, including the extent to which potential effects may
extend beyond the boundaries of the development; and alternative options and
processes, such as location and routes, materials and construction processes.
x Description of the environmental baseline
o Environmental baseline data, to be gathered from existing data sets and new
surveys where required, to provide the necessary description of the state of the
environment against which predicted changes to be brought about by the
proposed project can be assessed.
x Impact identification
o The prediction of the likely environmental effects caused by specific aspects
of the project on specific elements of the environment, and the potential for
cumulative effects, resulting from combined aspects of the proposed project
and possible interactions between the project and other projects in the vicinity.
x Impact assessment (significance) and mitigation
o The assessment of the relative significance of the identified impacts, taking
into account the size, nature and location of the proposed project, the
sensitivity of the receiving environment and receptors (e.g. species, habitats,
communities), the temporal nature of the predicted impacts (short, medium,
long term, irreversible/reversible), and the extent to which effects can be
mitigated.
x Report production
o The process of documenting the findings of the assessment in an
environmental impact statement (EIS , or similar), making it available
alongside the application process for consent to the authority responsible for
granting consent, and making it available for consultation with the public,
stakeholders and authorities. On the basis of this assessment, an
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) may be prepared (under some
regimes) to provide the mechanism for implementing the mitigation measures
14
identified .
14
The UN University EIA On-line Training Course (section 7.4) indicates that: “An environmental management
plan (EMP), also referred to as an impact management plan, is usually prepared as part of EIA reporting. It
translates recommended mitigation and monitoring measures into specific actions that will be carried out by the
proponent. Depending upon particular requirements, the plan may be included in, or appended to, the EIA
report or may be a separate document. The EMP will need to be adjustedto the terms and conditions specified
6
288 Annex 5
x Consultation
o Scrutiny of the EIS by the public, stakeholders, non-governmental
organisations and other authorities, including by nationals and other interested
parties of a neighbouring state where that is appropriate, given the potential
transboundary nature of predicted impacts.
x Decision-making (decision whether to proceed or not)
o Taking into account the findings of the EIS and the public consultation in
deciding on whether the project shoul d proceed or not, and if so what
conditions and mitigation measures should be implemented.
x Monitoring
o Monitoring and auditing of the predicted and other environmental effects of
the project during and after construction and during operation, including
putting in place measures needed to take remedial action in the event of
significant unforeseen adverse effects.
The exact details, requirements and emphasis varies from regime to regime; not all elements
are necessarily formalised requirements in all regimes, though the above would be
recognisable as part of best practice . Most importantly, however, the above highlights that
EIA is a process that sets out a detailed procedure to be followed in order to ensure an
adequate assessment is made of likely significant environmental impacts in advance of any
decision of whether and how to proceed.
4. When is EIA Necessary?
As noted above, the process by which it is determined whether an individual proposed project
requires an EIA is referred to as ‘screening’. It is one of the critical issues in this case.
The central issue for screening generally (not just in relation to transboundary situations) is
determining the likelihood of significance. The term is rarely defined under most regimes,
but guidance is generally provided on the factors that contribute to significance and need to
in any project approval. It will then form the basis for impact management during project construction and
operation.” http://eia.unu.edu/course/index.html%3Fpage_id=120.html.
15 nd
See for example, Wood, C. (2003), Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review,2 Edition,
Harlow, Pearson, pp6-9; Lawrence, D.P. (2003) Environmental Impact Assessment: Practical Solutions to
Recurrent Problems, New Jersey, Wiley, pp78-88; IAIA (2012),Impact Assessment, FasTips No. 1, available at
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/fast-tips/Fast….
7
289Annex 5
be taken into account in deciding whether significant effects on the environment are likely.
Typically, the factors requiring consideration include, among other things:
x the magnitude (size or scale) of impact along with the geographical scope of the
potential effects;
x the sensitivity of the receiving environment (e.g. whether the action will affect a
designated site or sites, or designated/endangered species or habitats or important
areas for biodiversity);
x whether there are likely to be cumulative effects that could be significant, even if
individually effects might be insignificant;
x the temporal nature of impacts (i.e. how irreversible/reversible are the likely impacts);
and
x the extent to which residual impacts can be mitigated 16.
One option for screening is that it can be undertaken on a case by case basis. This involves a
project-specific assessment – to a greater or lesser degree – of the likelihood of significant
effects stemming from the project. This assessment typically takes into account the
considerations laid out above resulting in a decision of whether a full EIA, no EIA, or some
simplified form of EIA is required. An example of this is the approach followed by the World
Bank. The Bank classifies each proposed project by the type, location, sensitivity, and scale
of the project and the nature and magnitude of its potential environmental impacts. Each
classification carries with it different levels of EIA obligations. For a Category A project –
one likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse, or
unprecedented, and which may affect an area broader than the sites or facilities subject to
physical works – the borrower is responsible for preparing a report, normally an EIA. For a
Category B project – one that has less adverse environmental impacts on human populations
or environmentally important areas, and impacts that are more site-specific, reversible, and
easily mitigated – the scope of EIA is narrower a nd unlikely to require a full separate EIA.
Finally, Category C projects are those likely to have minimal or no adverse environmental
impacts so that, beyond screening, no further assessment is required. 17
16
See Wood, C. (2003) and also Sadler (1996) Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating
Practice to Improve Performance. Final Report, International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental
Assessment. Hull, Quebec, CEAA.
17World Bank Operational Policy (OP) 4.01 Environmental Assessment, para 8, available at
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/PROJECTS/EXTPOLICIES/EXTOPMANU…
K:20064724~menuPK:64701637~pagePK:64709096~piPK:64709108~theSitePK:502184,00.html. As an
8
290 Annex 5
Screening can also be conducted through the use of lists of projects that are always subject to
EIA (mandatory, inclusion lists), or can be subject to EIA subject to certain criteria and/or
thresholds (discretionary lists), or are excluded in normal circumstances from EIA (exclusion
lists) . These lists reflect a determination, during their preparation, about what is likely to be
‘significant’, e.g. if over a threshold in terms of area, production capacity, or when particular
criteria are met. As an example, the Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context
provides for both mandatory, inclusion lists (Appendix I, which lists projects that always
require EIA) and discretionary lists focused on certain criteria (Appendix III, which provides
general screening criteria for determining the environmental significance of a project).
Appendix III criteria include, among other things, the scale of the project, the environmental
sensitivity of the geographical areas likely to be affected, and the proximity to an
19
international frontier.
Many guidelines exist under specific national, regional or international regimes to support
best practice EIA, including by identifying cons iderations relevant to determining the
likelihood of significance. 20 The guidelines regarding EIA and biodiversity are of particular
relevance in this case because of the relevant Ramsar designations with respect to the
conservation of wetland wildlife. There is widespread recognition that EIA is critical to
avoid adverse impacts on biodiversity and water resources, among other factors, and this is
illustration, if the Border Road were subject to the World Bank Environmental Assessment procedures (which it
is not), a Category A categorization might seem more likely given the length of the road, the sensitivity of the
receiving environment, and the potential for impacts across a broader area than just the impact site (factors
discussed below). However, the question as to whether the construction of the road would fall within Category
A or Category B is somewhat academic, since in either case an ex ante assessment of some sort would be
required, whether a full EIA or a simplified form of environmental assessment. It is clear that it would not fall
into Category C because evidence already exists that the road has had adverse impacts, even according to the
Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and Environmental Diagnostic Assessment (EDA) (discussed later).
18
ndee Chapter 9 on screening in Wood, C (2003), Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review,
2 Edition, Harlow, Pearson.
19
Espoo Appendix III(a)-(d). For purposes of illustration, it appears unlikely that San Juan Border Road would
meet the criteria for Espoo Appendix I projects (if Espoo were applicable in this case) simply because the road
could not be classed as a motorway or express route under Appendix I, as such roads are typically 2-4 lane
highways and paved. However I believe it to be indisputable that the characteristics of the project would satisfy
the Appendix III criteria for requiring EIA, due to the road’s scale, location in a sensitive environment, and
proximity to Nicaragua.
20See for example guidance provided by the International Association for Impact Assessment: IAIA (1999),
Principles of Environmental Impact Assessment Best Practice, available at
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/special-publications/Principles%20o… and IAIA (2012),
Impact Assessment, FasTips No.1 (April 2012).
9
291Annex 5
reflected in the Rio Declaration 21, Agenda 21 22, the Convention on Biological Diversity 23
(CBD) and Ramsar Convention guidance . 24
In 2002 the CBD’s Conference of the Contracting Parties at its 6th meeting (The Hague, The
Netherlands, April 2002) endorsed draft guidelines for incorporating biodiversity-related
issues into environmental impact assessment legislation and/or processes and into strategic
environmental assessment (Decision VI/7-A). These 2002 CBD guidelines were also adopted
by the Ramsar Conference of the Contracting Parties at its 8th meeting (Valencia, Spain,
November 2002) with annotations describing their specific relevance to the Ramsar
25
Convention (Resolution VIII.9) . Among other things, the adopted Ramsar guidelines
provide guidance on screening for EIA, i.e., guidance for determining the likelihood of
26
significant effects and therefore whether an EIA should be required. Table 1 of the adopted
guidelines is taken directly from the CBD Guidelines, and it relates specifically to screening
for EIA and poses the sorts of questions or criteria that need to be considered in relation to
biodiversity:
21
Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context 1991; Rio Declaration 1992 Principle 17.
22
E.g. paras 7.41, 15.51, 18.40 among others.
23Article 14 (1).
24Ramsar Resolution VIII.9; Ramsar Handbook 16: Impact Assessment (2010), at
http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/lib/hbk4-16.pdf..
25http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/res/key_res_x_17_e.pdf.
26Ramsar Handbook 16: Impact Assessment (2010), page 16, athttp://www.ramsar.org/pdf/lib/hbk4-16.pdf.
10
292 Annex 5
The boxes that follow 27provide Ramsar-specific annotations and include specific screening
criteria that emphasise the importance of taking an ecosystem approach when evaluating a
project proposed in or near a Ramsar site. Such an approach requires an understanding of
ecosystem components and how those might be affected.
27
Ibid, pp16-17.
11
293Annex 5
This annotation highlights the importance, when deciding whether an EIA is necessary in the
Ramsar context, of thinking about impacts to the broader ‘ecosystem’, e.g. the river basin as a
whole, in order to achieve Ramsar’s objective of the wise use of wetlands . 28
An additional source of relevant guidelines is those pertaining to long, linear developments,
which take on special significance in biodiversity hotspots. International Association for
29
Impact Assessment (IAIA) guidance highlights the necessity of extensive and highly
detailed impact assessments for such projects. This is because the linear nature of a road
causes effects to occur across the range of individual ecosystems and habitats the road passes
through, and because cumulative effects can occur along the length of the road as a result of
both construction and operation.
A review of Costa Rica’s EIA regulation, Executive Decree Number 31849, of 28 June 2004,
reveals the establishment of an EIA screening process that is consistent with the international
practice described above 30, although other EIA regimes internationally often make explicit
provision for emergency situations (see Section 7 below). Costa Rica has adopted a list-
based approach to screening. Some projects, such as infrastructure development within
31
wildlife refuges, are required by individual laws to include EIA . Whether a full EIA, limited
EIA, or no EIA is required for other projects is determined by whether the activity falls into
category A, B1, B2, C, or outside any category as part of a classification scheme that
considers the nature of the project and its potential environmental impact 3. According to the
text of Costa Rica’s EIA Decree, the creation of this classification scheme was intended to
embody the screening process as developed globally over the past decades, and illustrates
many of the considerations described above 3. For example, the scale of a project can
determine in part the level of EIA required: construction of national roads more than 5 km
long are deemed Category A projects, which require full EIA; those less than 5 km long are
deemed Category B1 projects, which require creation of a more limited environmental
28
Ramsar defines ‘wise use’ as follows: “Wise use of wetlands is the maintenance of their ecological character,
achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development.”
(Ramsar COP9 Resolution IX.1 Annex A, page 6, para 22).
29
IAIA (2012) Impact Assessment, FasTips No. 1.
30
Note that a position is not being taken here as to whether or not Costa Rican law required an EIA of its own
accord, only that Costa Rica has established a list-based approach to screening consistent with international
practice.
31
Decreto 31849, Annex I, p. 82.
32
Decreto 31849, Annex II, p. 88.
33Decreto 31849, Annex II, p. 92.
12
294 Annex 5
34
management forecast/plan . Classifications were also set based on a project’s potential
impacts - not only individual, but cumulative - on flora, fauna, and other biological resources,
including through tree-cutting and impacts on forests or protected areas . The particular care
due in areas of high biodiversity is reflected in Annex III, which requires an EIA to take into
special account impacts on environmentally fragile areas, such as a wildlife reserves and
36
wetlands .
5. Why this Project Needed EIA
The starting point for considering whether the San Juan Border Road required EIA, notwithstanding
the exemption decree (an issue discussed below), is thus to consider whether the Road would be likely
to have significant environmental effects. It seems inconceivable that an EIA would not normally be
required, taking into consideration the various factors that need to be considered in deciding whether
significant environmental effects are likely. As discussed above, such factors can be found in
international guidelines. Among the factors obviously relevant here are the nature and sensitivity of
37
the receiving environment (as indicated in its multiple international designations), as well as the
38
sheer scale and nature of the project , two factors that combine to heighten the potential for
irreversible and cumulative impacts .9
A Sensitive Receiving Environment
The sensitivity of the receiving environment in this case is quite exceptional, as recognised
by the swathe of not just national but international designations pertaining to the area. The
following designations are of relevance to the San Juan River:
x National
o Nicaraguan
Indio Maíz Reserve (1990)
o Costa Rican
Refugio de Vida Silvestre Corredor Fronterizo (1994)
34
Decreto 31849, Annex II, p. 105 (classifying road construction); Decreto 31849, art. 27 (requirements for
Category A projects); Decreto 31849, art. 24 (requirements for Category B1 projects).
35Decreto 31849, Annex II, pp. 88, 89.
36Decreto 31849, Annex III, pp. 107-08.
37E.g. Ramsar IA Handbook (2010) No. 16, p.18; European Commission (1999), Guidelines for the Assessment
of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts and Impact Interactions, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of
the European Communities, pp.79-85.
38Ramsar Handbook (2010) p.19-20; European Commission (1999), Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect
and Cumulative Impacts pp. 73-78.
39European Commission (1999), Guidelines for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts and Impact
Interactions, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, pp73-85.
13
295Annex 5
x International
o Ramsar Wetland Convention
Refugio de Vida Silvestre Rio San Juan (Nicaragua, 2001)
Humedal Caribe Noreste (Costa Rica, 1996)
Humedal Maquenque (Costa Rica, 2010)
Cano Negro (Costa Rica, 1991)
o UNESCO MAB Biosphere Reserve
San Juan River – Nicaragua Biosphere Reserve (2003, incorporating
Indio Maíz Reserve and Refugio de Vida Silvestre Rio San Juan).
Ramsar Convention designations are of particular relevance in the context of the Border Road
and the San Juan River – the whole of the San Juan River is a Ramsar designation, and
abutted by other Ramsar designations. The Rams ar citation for the San Juan River Refuge
emphasises the importance of this site:
‘Refugio de Vida Silvestre Río San Juan. 08/11/01; Río San Juan, Atlántico Sur;
43,000 ha; ca.10°56'N 083°40'W. Wildlife Refuge, Biosphere Reserve. A long,
slender, convoluted site that follows the course of the Río San Juan, which flows from
Lake Nicaragua at 32m altitude along the Costa Rican frontier 200km to the city of
San Juan del Norte on the Caribbean coast, and includes the coastline to the north as
well, part of the Biosphere Reserve Indio Maiz, forming one of the two most
extensive biological nuclei of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor . The site
comprises an array of wetland types, including estuary and shallow marine waters,
coastal freshwater lagoon, and intertidal marsh, as well as permanent lakes, rivers,
and pools, inter alia. Nearly all of the Ramsar Criteria are met, and four species of
turtles, as well as the manatee Trichechus manatus, are supported . Ramsar site no.
1138. Most recent RIS information: 2001.’ (emphasis added).
This and other Ramsar designations in the project’s area of influence are particularly
important and are worth understanding in more detail since alone, in my view, they should
have been sufficient reason to require an EIA, and would be under many other regimes . The
Ramsar Convention 41 embodies the commitments of its member countries to maintain the
ecological character of their Wetlands of International Importance and to plan for the “wise
40
See for example Byron, H. 2000. Biodiversity Impact - Biodiversity and Environmental Impact Assessment: A
Good Practice Guide for Road Schemes. Sandy, UK: The RSPB, WWF-UK, English Nature and the Wildlife
Trusts; European Commission (2001) Guidance on EIA Screening, Office of Official Publications of the
European Communities, Luxembourg; UNEP (2002) EIA Training Resource Manual, Topic 4 Screening, at
http://www.unep.ch/etu/publications/EIA_2ed/EIA_E_top4_body.PDF.
41Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-
home/main/ramsar/1_4000_0__.
14
296 Annex 5
use”, or sustainable use, of all of the wetlands in their territories. The Ramsar mission is “the
conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local and national actions and
international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development
42
throughout the world” .
The Ramsar International Cooperation Guidelines (1999) emphasise the importance of EIA in
relation to Ramsar sites where there are shared wetland systems or obligations to consult
43
other parties :
“Administratively, it is also essential that development proposals , whether totally
domestically funded, partly domestically funded, or totally foreign investment, are
subjected to impact assessment.” (emphasis added)
This is an emphatic recognition of the importance of EIA in preventing adverse
environmental impact on the ecological character of a designated Ramsar site.
The existence of a Ramsar wetland reserve – because of their recognised international
importance for wildlife conservation, and the expectation under the Ramsar Convention that
EIA should be undertaken for development propos als that may affect Ramsar sites – should
thus be sufficient to trigger an EIA where an activity might have potential for significant
effects on it. Ramsar sites are designated by signatories to the Convention to confer
recognition of their importance and a level of protection not afforded to non-designated sites.
The likelihood of significant effects is increased because of the sensitive nature of the
designated environment and the habitats and wildlife for which the area has been designated
– the threshold for triggering EIA is therefore rightly expected to be much lower than if the
receiving environment were not a Ramsar designated area (see Screening above).
44
Practically, therefore, a precautionary approach should be adopted , i.e. if it is unclear
whether there are likely to be significant effects on the environment, then some form of
environmental assessment should be undertaken to determine whether a full EIA is required,
42
Ibid.
43
S.2.7.2, para. 62 Guidelines for International Cooperation under the Ramsar Convention Implementing
Article 5 of the Conventionadopted by Resolution VII.19 (1999) of the Ramsar Convention, available at
http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/guide-cooperation.pdf.
44
S.2.7.2, para. 62 Guidelines for International Cooperation under the Ramsar Convention Implementing
Article 5 of the Conventionadopted by Resolution VII.19 (1999) of the Ramsar Convention, available at
http://www.ramsar.org/pdf/guide-cooperation.pdf.
15
297Annex 5
so that any adverse impacts on the integrity and ecological character of the site can be
avoided and/or minimised wherever possible.
In this situation the sensitivity of the environment is further enhanced by the fact that not only
is the San Juan River Wildlife Refuge itself a Ramsar site – including the length of the river
and the delta region – and abutted by a separate Ramsar site to the south, but that the whole
area, including the San Juan River Refuge and the Indio Maiz Reserve, has been designated
45
as a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve since 2003 . Biosphere reserve designation is
used only for the most important locations across 117 countries to create a coherent World
Network of 621 reserves, and seeks to integrate cultural and biological diversity while
supporting conservation, development and logistic support through zoning schemes,
demonstration of sound sustainable development practices and policies based on research and
monitoring, as well as acting as sites of excellence for education and training.
The UNESCO citation (designated in 2003) highlights why the Río San Juan Biosphere
Reserve is so important:
‘Covering 1,392,900 ha Río San Juan Biosphere Reserve is composed of seven
protected areas and other adjacent territories. The biosphere reserve covers an
important variety of ecosystems representative of tropical humid forests and
wetlands, tidal marsh, coastal lagoons and estuaries which are important shelters
for rare or threatened animals and plant genetic resources of the meso-American
tropics. Furthermore the biosphere reserve includes a part of Lake Cocibolca and the
municipalities of El Almendro, San Miguelito, Morrito and Nueva Guinea with a
large (256,000 habitants) and culturally rich human population including 20,000
habitants of Rama, Miskitu, Negra and Creole ethnic groups. Each one of these
groups has its own way of preserving and/or using the national resources of the
area.
The vast size of the biosphere reserve, in addition to its proximity to neighbouring
Costa Rica protected areas, and as part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor,
guarantee an adequate area for preserving genetic diversity, free mobility of
species, breeding and maintenance of major species such as the jaguar or american
45UNESCO http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sc…-
biosphere-programme/.
16
298 Annex 5
tiger (Felis onca), the tapir (Tapirus biardii) and the red and green parrot
(Psittacideae).’ (emphasis added)
Clearly this is a very special location, ho me to sensitive biological resources and
communities that would potentially suffer adverse impacts from any major activity
undertaken immediately adjacent to the San Juan River. UNESCO Biosphere Reserve status
recognises the important interaction between the maintenance of the natural environment and
ecosystem processes and local inhabitants:
“Biosphere reserves are thus globally considered as:
x sites of excellence where new and optimal practices to manage nature and human
activities are tested and demonstrated;
x tools to help countries implement the results of the World Summit on Sustainable
Development and, in particular, the Convention on Biological Diversityand its
Ecosystem Approach;
x learning sites for the UN Decade on Education for Sustainable Development.” 46
The use of “optimal practices to manage nature and human activities”, and the
implementation of the CBD and its ecosystem approach in accordance with UNESCO
principles, both required EIA for the development of the San Juan Border Road. Without
EIA, it cannot plausibly be claimed that the project has been or is being carried out in
conformity with the highest international standards in environmental protection.
Scale of the Project in this Context
The scale of the San Juan Border Road (160km) and its proximity to the San Juan River for
47
much of that distance are both factors relevant to the determination of significance . To
begin, a 160 km road construction project is a very large undertaking, with the potential to
affect an extensive geographical area. Beyond the simple amount of land disturbance
inherent in a project of that size, the long, linear nature of the road raises additional
46http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sc….
47
E.g. Ramsar Handbook No. 16 (2010) Impact Assessment, p.28ff; European Commission (1999), Guidelines
for the Assessment of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts and Impact Interactions, Luxembourg: Office for
Official Publications of the European Communities, pp.86-90.
17
299Annex 5
concerns . The length of the road means that it will pass through numerous individual
ecosystems – the sensitivity of which is highlighted above. Moreover, the extensive
construction activities required for a project of th is scale in a sensitive environment also
increase the possibility of cumulative effects along the length of the road, such as interactions
between land take, disturbance caused by excavation and construction machinery and
vehicles, atmospheric and water borne pollutants caused by construction and operation of
traffic and machinery affecting specific vegetation and/or animal species.
The potential for a project on the scale of the Border Road to have significant impacts is
heightened by its proximity to the Río San Juan River. At an initial level, proximity leads to
a greater potential for significant impacts to the river. Additionally, the river has the ability
to expand the area subject to the Border Road’s potential significant impacts by transporting
materials away from the direct area of influence. This includes areas downstream around the
Delta, away from the immediate construction/ operation activity of the road, which could be
impacted through, for example, sediments and pollutants finding their way into the San Juan
River and being deposited downstream where the flow of the river slows, potentially having
an impact on aquatic wildlife and fluvial geomorphology in such locations.
Both the scale of the road and its proximity to the San Juan River thus suggest that an
ecosystem scale consideration of the potential impacts to the Ramsar wetland system would
be required. Even small disturbances – that individually may not appear to be significant –
taken cumulatively along the length of the road, or of the River, can give rise to significant
environmental effects and disturbance to the ecological character of the system. This is
precisely the sort of project for which EIA was developed.
Demonstrated Impacts
The Counter-Memorial states that an EIA was not required because the road was not likely to
have significant adverse effects on the environment and therefore did not require an EIA 49.
On the basis of the sensitivity of the receiving environment and surrounding areas I find this
hard to accept. It is difficult to ascertain on what basis Costa Rica’s judgment was made,
when there appears to have been no screening process that could have informed that position.
In the US, for example, one might expect an environmental assessment leading to a Finding
48IAIA (2012) Impact Assessment, FasTips No. 1.
49CRCM, para. 5.41(a).
18
300 Annex 5
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) – a much simpler form of assessment than the requirement
to produce an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) through a full EIA process.
Regardless, the claim that the road was not likely to have significant environmental effects is
contradicted by the remediation activities undertaken by Costa Rica, as well as the findings of
the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and the Environmental Diagnostic Assessment
(EDA).
Paragraph 2.38 of the Counter-Memorial indicates that “since April 2012, in order to protect
the work that has been carried out so far and to mitigate the effects of the road (primarily in
respect of Costa Rican territory), Costa Rica has been carrying out additional maintenance
and remedial works on the Border Road.” Th e list of remedial activities (a) to (t) in
paragraph 2.38 highlights the significant adverse effects that have already required some
remedial measures. Paragraph 2.40 of the Counter-Memorial goes on to explain that yet
further remedial works are planned.
The fact that remedial works of this nature have been put in place and are planned for the
future, irrespective of whether they are sufficient in themselves, is indicative of residual
adverse environmental effects that have occurred as a result of the construction of the road
alone, which should and could have been anticipated, and many of them prevented, had an
EIA been undertaken in advance, and which Costa Rica regards as sufficiently significant to
require remediation. Since no EIA or any other form of ex ante assessment was undertaken
in advance of the decision of whether and how to proceed with the road, it is likely that
remedial works will need to be greater than would have been required had avoidance
measures and suitable mitigation measures been able to be designed into the construction
process in advance, through the EIA process.
An Environmental Management Plan was publis hed in April 2012 (2012 EMP) which was
the result of an observational survey of the immediate effects of the road following
construction. This document is not the same thing as the EMPs normally produced during an
EIA process, as it was produced after the event, in the absence of any preceding EIA, when it
could no longer guide the implementation of mitigation measures during the execution of the
project. Nevertheless, even as a limited, rapid, post hoc survey, the 2012 EMP recognises
that the construction of the San Juan Border Road has led to a range of adverse environmental
19
301Annex 5
50
impacts and a need for significant remedial measures . In particular, the 2012 EMP
identifies increased soil erosion, instability of slopes, and increased sedimentation as impacts
already felt, among others 51. It then proposes remedial measures to seek to contain these,
including: sediment traps; the ceasing of dumping of excavation or cut material into rivers
and brooks; measures to prevent fuel leaks; prohibition of machinery washing and
52
maintenance in streams; and designation of construction waste and debris disposal sites .
Again, an ex-ante assessment would have been able to prevent many of these impacts through
integrated good design, and avoidance and mitigation measures integrated into the project in
the first place.
Notwithstanding its limitations (discussed below), the EDA provides similar evidence of
existing impacts and the need for remediation 53 which could have been significantly avoided,
had an EIA been undertaken.
Thus, the idea that an EIA was not necessary because construction of the San Juan Border
Road was unlikely to have significant environmental effects is not only inconsistent with
international practice regarding the screening for significance (as reflected in Costa Rica’s
own EIA regulation), but also with the remediation Costa Rica claims to be carrying out and
the findings of the EMP and EDA. The project has already had significant adverse
environmental effects on the basis of Costa Rica’s own limited post hoc documentation, and
will continue to have without the use of EIA.
6. The Environmental Diagnostic Assessment
The Environmental Diagnostic Assessment (EDA) 54was commissioned by Costa Rica under
administrative regulations, after the road had been constructed 55. According to Costa Rica 56
“this type of study has two main objectives: first, to identify any negative impacts and risks
of the activity on the environment; and second, to recommend environmental control
50
EMP, pp19-27.
51Ibid.
52Ibid.
53Annex 10, CRCM Volume II, EDA pp. 144ff.
54
Annex 10, CRCM Volume II.
55
CRCM Volume I, Chapter 1.34.
56CRCM Volume I, Chapter 2.35.
20
302 Annex 5
measures necessary to prevent or to mitigate those negative impacts and risks.” However, the
EDA is a post hoc evaluation rather than an ex ante assessment.
Not a Substitute for EIA
The EDA is significantly flawed as an EIA substitute, not least because it cannot, by
definition, do anything about avoiding impacts and can only seek to mitigate and remediate
impacts after the event, but by then it is too late to prevent or even mitigate some
environmental effects. Carrying out remedial works after the event is no substitute for
avoiding impacts in the first place, which is the purpose of EIA – damage has already been
done. An EIA would also have led to carefully considered answers to questions such as:
What design standard is the road to be built to? Where is the spoil and debris as a result of
the construction to be disposed of and how can the environmental effects of all these
activities be avoided or minimised through the design or location of the road? These and
similar issues are not – and could not usefully be – addressed in the EDA, which is therefore
not a substitute for EIA, nor in any way equivalent.
The EDA is not even capable of being a meaningful auditing process, since there is an
absence of a baseline against which to audit impacts. It is therefore – at best – a limited
snapshot of the state of the environment of a limited area at the time of its undertaking, which
include observations on the state of the environment as influenced by the effects of
construction at the time of study.
The EDA is also deficient in its failure to consider issues such as possible impacts of run-off
and sedimentation on the San Juan River and protected areas. Even in the limited area
studied, the EDA focuses on ecological effects associated with the road, and does not address
the wider range of environmental parameters that an EIA would consider, for example impact
on local communities, air pollution, or cumulative effects of the road in association with other
developments, existing or planned.
Neither does the EDA consider impact over time, such as the effects of operation of the road,
or its long term effects, including consequential effects that may occur as a result of the
road’s existence (e.g. influx of people into the surrounding area facilitated by the new access,
development and expansion of settlements, or the development of industry, such as mining
projects or hotels, along the road), which in turn may have significant effects on the San Juan
River through impacts on water quality and sediment load as a result of run-off and/or
21
303Annex 5
dumping of material into the river. The EDA only considers construction-related impacts.
This is inconsistent with standard EIA practice, which normally considers the effect of
operation of the road, includi ng the nature and pattern of traffic/vehicle use, emissions of
pollutants and their impacts, and the wider implications of the use of the road, especially in
the proximity of a sensitive environment. For example:
x What might be the effect of run-off from the ro ad into watercourses in the event of
fuel oil or chemical spills? The road is a gravel road and therefore potentially
susceptible to erosion from rainfall and flash flooding, which could increase the risk
of vehicles coming off the road accidentally. What precautions have been taken to
prevent vehicles and their fuel and cargo ending up in the San Juan River in such
circumstances? And what type of vehicles will be using the road in the first place –
will it be dominated by the use of lorries or small vehicles, for example?
x Gravel roads also give off dust under traffic which may have an impact on vegetation
and biodiversity. Levels of dust can depend on the type of gravel used and the use or
not of stabilizing compounds (chemicals, minerals, and resins) which are incorporated
with the gravel 5. These in turn could have their own impacts on the natural
environment, e.g. as a result of run-off into watercourses and affecting aquatic plant
and animal species.
A standard pre-project EIA would normally seek to address these wider issues well in
advance. The EDA addresses none of them. For these reasons, too, it is no substitute for an
EIA.
Unreasonable Conclusions of Low to No Impact
The EDA concludes that there has been no significant environmental impact on the San Juan
River from the construction of the road. In my view, this conclusion is not reasonable for
two separate but related reasons: it is based on an unreasonable interpretation of findings that
were themselves produced through the use of a questionable assessment methodology.
57See, for example, US EPA guidance in relation to non-point source pollution in relation to roads at
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/roadshwys.cfm#guide and
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/upload/2003_07_24_NPS_gravelroads_sec….
22
304 Annex 5
The EDA uses a modified Leopold Matrix to assess the impacts of the Border Road . This is8
a pseudo-quantitative assessment methodology for interpreting the magnitude and
significance of impacts, based on the assignment of numerical scores to what are actually
qualitative determinations. There are two principal flaws in the application of this type of
assessment methodology in this case.
The first is that it is being used after the event, not as a preventive assessment method. The
problem stems from the lack of a baseline study against which to judge the assessment. The
values used therefore cannot be traced through an audit trail to understand the basis of the
scores allocated for each of the parameters – on what basis have these scores been allocated?
I have no problem with expert judgment being used on the basis of good baseline information
– there is then a basis on which to debate the details of the assessment. When qualitative
scores are allocated (whether as numbers or as qualitative values such as high, medium or
low) they should be justified by reference back to the anticipated/predicted change as a result
of the (usually proposed) project. How can the EDA estimate the scale of change without
knowing what may have changed and by how much? The answer is that it cannot.
The second problem with the way the matrix is used in the EDA is that it calculates a total
score for key impact parameters based on magnitude (or intensity) and an array of factors that
contribute to relative significance/importance – sensitivity, irreversibility, cumulative effects
etc. The factors considered are appropriate, but I would take issue with the scoring system,
particularly the lack of transparency as to how these scores were arrived at, and the way in
which they have been interpreted in the EDA.
The summing of scores, as occurs in the EDA with the application of the standard model used
in Costa Rica , generates a value which is assumed to be meaningful, because it appears to
be quantitative. However total scores mean little in absolute terms – the numbers have no
units – and only really have any value as relative numbers for comparing very similar
alternatives against a baseline, i.e. before and after scores (notwithstanding that such a
scoring system has its own inherent problems that need careful handling, as already noted).
58CRCM Volume II (Annex 10), EDA p.131.
59According to Decree No. 32967 - EDA, p.138.
23
305Annex 5
The EDA uses pre-determined criteria for judging whether the total scores 60for the assessed
parameters are ‘irrelevant’, or of, ‘moderate’, ‘severe’ or ‘critical’ importance. It is not clear
on what basis these pre-determined criteria have been devised. Nor is it clear the basis on
which the scores have been assigned for each environmental component and each parameter
of the scoring model – there appears to be no justification given for the scores assigned.
They are, by definition, expert judgments and therefore the scores hide a significant degree of
subjectivity, and lack transparency as to their basis.
The significance criteria are defined in the EDA as:
x ‘Importance of impacts inferior to 25 makes them irrelevant.
x Importance between 25 and 50 means moderate impacts.
x Importance between 50 and 75 means severe impacts.
x Importance greater to 75 is a critical level of impact.’ (page 139, EDA)
The EDA finds only a few impacts that are of moderate importance (the maximum
importance identified) with respect to Costa Rican territory:
x Deforestation along the right of way and contiguous areas
x Potential impact of micro-habitats and aquatic macro-invertebrate substrata due to
filling of interstices with sediment
x Possible impact on the quality of waters due to turbidity caused by sediment . 61
62
However, it is interesting to note that of the 11 parameters considered in Chart 23 , three had
scores that classed them as of moderate impact, and five scored -24 or -25 and were classed in
the EDA assessment as irrelevant, even though this clearly makes them borderline or (in the
case of the two at -25) even moderate impacts on their own criteria (above). So even on its
own terms the interpretation of this scoring is highly questionable. To dismiss these
borderline scores as irrelevant impacts highlights the risks of taking this kind of overly
60
According to the application of the model I = ± [IN + 2 EX + MO + PE + PV + SI + AC + EF + PR + MC].
61CRCM Volume II (Annex 10), Chart 23, p.140 of the EDA.
62
Ibid.
24
306 Annex 5
numerical approach, since there is a tendency to ‘believe’ the numbers and therefore not
investigate more deeply to provide appropriate justification for those numbers on the basis of
evidence of the degree of likely or actual significant change predicted or observed compared
to a baseline.
An alternative interpretation of the same matrix is that of 11 parameters five were scored as
having moderate impacts (from 25-50), with an additional three parameters borderline
moderate, and only three with ‘irrelevant’ impact scores. That is quite a different
interpretation even on its own terms – in fact it turns the assessment on its head – for most
parameters the EDA finds the road construction as having had at least moderately significant
impact. In its own terms, therefore, a justification for why an EIA should have been
undertaken – significant effects have been observed.
The EDA did not assess impacts on the San Juan River or elsewhere in Nicaragua, apparently
because access was not possible, although access to the River itself does not preclude the
ability to make some assessment of possible impacts on the River. However, the EDA
includes a matrix, on the same lines as for the Costa Rican territory, with respect to:
x Impact on aquatic habitat
x Potential impact of micro-habitats and aquatic macro-invertebrate substrata due to
filling of interstices with sediment
x Possible decrease in taxonomic abundance and richness
x Possible impact on the quality of waters due to turbidity caused by sediment
x Landscape impact due to the construction works
Because of no access to the River, the matrix (Chart 24, EDA, p. 142) is left blank, but with
0 scores for each factor . However, even though no assessment was undertaken, the EDA
proceeds to conclude that
‘….it is not considered there could be any significant impact on the San Juan river’
(page 141, EDA).
This is not a plausible conclusion, given the total lack of data available, according to the
EDA, for the San Juan River. Even if the assessment of the road construction as presented in
25
307Annex 5
the EDA for the Costa Rican territory were accepted as having moderate impacts only for the
three parameters identified (rather than the alternative interpretation above), in the absence of
any other data to the contrary one might expect the EDA to at least have assumed a similar
level of adverse impacts on the aquatic envi ronment in relation to the San Juan River,
especially given the Ramsar and UNESCO designations.
An absence of data does not mean an absence of evidence of impact. It is not uncommon for
EIAs or other forms of assessments to have to deal with a lack of data. In such circumstances
best practice would be to look for proxy indicators that could give an indication of possible
trends in direction for key environmental parameters related to those for which data is not
available. So in the absence of actual or recent data on sediment loads, for example, one
might look at the scale, extent and nature of the types of activities that are known to increase
sediment loads in watercourses, such as land clearance, use of heavy vehicles and excavation
machinery and activities that disturb the soil and vegetation cover in the vicinity of water
courses, e.g. deforestation. The impacts identified on Costa Rican territory due to the
construction of the road, because of the activities involved in the construction, could be seen
as just such proxy indicators that could be used to make an informed assessment. Even in the
absence of proxy indicators an EIA or other assessment would have to rely on expert
judgment, supported by a rationale for that judgment. However, the EDA makes no attempt
to consider proxy indicators in relation to the San Juan River, nor does it attempt to offer an
expert judgment with any justification. It simply draws the conclusion, on the basis of
nothing, that there is no significant impact on the San Juan River. In my view, this
undermines the credibility of the EDA.
Furthermore, the EDA does not conclude that there are no significant impacts at all from the
road since it recognises at least that there are some moderately significant impacts from the
road construction on Costa Rican territory, including on the aquatic environment and species
due to turbidity and changes in water quality. In fact the EDA also claims a lack of data on
the vulnerability of aquatic biota to sediment load increases in Costa Rica 63, but nevertheless
proceeds to make an assessment of the impact on Costa Rican territory in the absence of such
data. Given the interconnectedness of the aquatic systems in the area (one of the reasons for
the multiple Ramsar designations), and that many of the Costa Rican watercourses flow into
the San Juan River, impacts in Costa Rica clearly have the potential to also affect the San
63EDA, section 5.1.2.5.3, p111.
26
308 Annex 5
Juan River and Nicaragua. So on its own terms, how can it conclude no significant impacts
on the San Juan River? That is simply illogical; and it becomes even more illogical if one
interprets the matrix scores more appropriately according to their own criteria, since then the
road would have had at least a moderately significant impact for the majority of 11
parameters examined in Costa Rica.
7. EIA in Situations of Emergency
The Counter-Memorial states that an EIA was not required because the road was classified as
an ‘emergency’ measure and therefore exempt from EIA under Executive Decree 36440-
MP. 64The characterization of this issue, as well, is inconsistent with established international
practice in EIA.
65
A number of EIA regimes across the world – the European Union , the United States of
66
America , for example – have exemption clauses in relation to civil emergencies or projects
67
associated with national defence, so Costa Rica’s exercise of an emergency exemption per
se is not particularly unusual. The absence of any explicit provision for emergency exemption
in the EIA Regulation 68 itself on the other hand is rather more surprising, or else the
expectation is that there should be no emergency exemption from the EIA Regulation. In the
case of the EU it is notable that the exemption cannot be utilised if the project concerned
69
might affect another Member State, i.e. if there is likely to be a transboundary impact , since
the Espoo Convention on EIA in a Transboundary Context (1991) does not allow for any
exemption from EIA. In fact the use of exemption clauses tends to be very rare in practice,
and generally where invoked exemptions tend to be used in relation to natural disasters and
64CRCM Volume I, Para 2.27.
65EIA Directive 2001/92/EU, Article 2 (4) “Without prejudice to Article 7, Member States may, in exceptional
cases, exempt a specific project in whole or in part from the provisions laid down in this Directive. In that event,
the Member States shall: (a) consider whether another form of assessment would be appropriate;…”
66US NEPA 1969 CEQ Regulations Part 1506 , Sec. 1506.11 Emergencies.
Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with significant environmental impact
without observing the provisions of these regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with
the Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will limit such arrangements to actions
necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review.
http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/ceq/1506.htm#1506.11
67
Decreto 36440-MP.
68Decreto 31849.
69European Commissions (2006), Clarification of the Application of Article 2 (3) [as was] of the EIA Directive,
Luxembourg, European Communities, pp.10.
27
309Annex 5
emergencies, e.g. in relation to earthquakes or flooding. For example, the Mount St Helens
volcano eruption in the 1980s in Washington State, USA caused major flooding, river
sedimentation, and adverse effects on fish and wildlife as well as on human settlements. The
US Army Corps of Engineers - the lead federal agency to respond - invoked the ‘special
arrangements’ provision of the CEQ’s NEPA regulations, under which they were allowed to
proceed immediately with certain river dredging and other emergency work while also
conducting an accelerated EIA process. The Corps established an interagency working group,
released a draft EIS for review and public comment in less than three weeks, and completed a
final EIS in less than five weeks . This illustrates that a rapid environmental assessment can
be undertaken even in emergency situations.
Even assuming Costa Rica’s declaration of an emergency was appropriate, the question is
whether what was undertaken by Costa Rica was sufficient or appropriate given the nature of
the project to be undertaken and the nature of the environment into which it was to be
constructed. Even if a full EIA was not undertaken due to the declared emergency, e.g.
because of insufficient time, what could reasonably have been expected to have been
undertaken as an alternative to a full EIA? And was the post hoc Environmental Diagnostic
Assessment sufficient?
A partial EIA could have been undertaken, and should have been, according to international
practice; at the very least a rapid assessment of what the implications of the road might be for
the Ramsar and UNESCO designated sites that could be affected (not even the Costa Rican
sites were so considered). Specific international guidance, supported by UNEP and CARE
International, along with other training resources, is available for undertaking just such rapid
71
assessments in emergency and disaster situations . The main guidelines document
summarises the purpose of a rapid environmental assessment (REA):
“The REA is designed for natural, technological or political disasters, and as a best
practice tool for effective disaster assessment and management. The REA does not
replace an EIA, but fills a gap until an EIA is appropriate. A REA can be used from
70
Robert B Smythe, Potomac Resource Consultants, Chevy Chase, Maryland, USA September 10, 2012 Posting
to ResearchGate Question: How can the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) be used effectively when a
disaster occurs? Available at
http://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_the_Environmental_Impact_Asses…
_when_a_disaster_occurs.
71ProAct Network website, Environmental Assessment and Environmental Action Plans, at
http://www.proactnetwork.org/proactwebsite/environmental-assessments-an….
28
310 Annex 5
shortly before a disaster up to 120 days after a disaster begins, or for any major
stage-change in an extended crisis.” 72
The construction of the road to date has taken more than three years and is still not complete,
so lack of time to undertake even a preliminary assessment or rapid assessment that could
have taken weeks or a few months would not seem to have been sufficient reasons to do
nothing – something could have been undertaken in parallel with the early preparatory works
to seek to avoid the worst of the likely significant environmental effects. Other regimes make
provision for a modified form of assessment being possible under exceptional circumstances
where a project is exempted from EIA 73. There appears to have been no attempt to make
alternative provision for some simplified form of ex ante assessment, even the equivalent of a
screening decision that would have entailed some review of the likelihood of there being
significant environmental effects.
It would also appear that there has been, and still is time to undertake an ex ante assessment
of some form in relation to remaining works before completion of the road construction.
Notwithstanding the emergency decree, the need to expedite – the rationale for such an
emergency EIA exemption – would no longer seem to be relevant.
Given the international significance of the natural environment into which this road was
being constructed, even in an emergency – and especially where the project has still not been
fully constructed more than three years after it started – it is reasonable to expect some form
of assessment of the potential impact on the environment. Even once construction had started
some ex ante assessment could still be undertaken, particularly for those areas where the road
has not yet been built.
8. Conclusions
In the case of the San Juan Border Road, because of its length and the sensitivity of the
environment through which it is being constructed, its potential effects may operate at the
ecosystem scale along the entire San Juan River, affecting the Ramsar wetland and other
designations along its length. This could result in significant cumulative effects on the
72Kelly, C (2005) Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters, Benfield Hazard
Research Centre University College London and CARE International, at
http://www.proactnetwork.org/proactwebsite/media/download/resources/Res….
pdf.
73EIA Directive 2011/92/EU Article 2 (4)(a), for example.
29
311Annex 5
designated site; even where some individual impacts themselves may not be significant,
cumulatively and in conjunction with others they may become significant, which requires
some form of ex ante assessment to determine; that is the critical role for EIA in such a case.
In the absence of EIA, Costa Rica is failing to assess the impact of the road on its own
environment, not just that of Nicaragua. The Ramsar and UNESCO designations, and
potential environmental impact of the road construction on those sites, should have been
sufficient trigger to require EIA or some other form of ex ante assessment, due to its value to
Costa Rica as well as Nicaragua. The San Juan River corridor is subject to joint international
designations – they do not apply only to Nicaraguan territory – and as such should have had a
significant bearing on Costa Rica’s decision to build the road.
The EDA is not an acceptable alternative to the EIA – as a post hoc exercise it cannot
substitute for an ex ante assessment before construction. The EDA, even on its own terms,
provides an inadequate assessment of environmental impact of the road so far constructed. In
the absence of appropriate data on the San Juan River it is simply not possible to conclude, as
the EDA has, that the road has had no significant impact on the San Juan River and little
impact in Costa Rica. This entirely undermines its credibility. The extent of the remedial
works identified post construction, even in the limited 2012 EMP and EDA documents
indicate that the road has had significant adverse effects in Costa Rica itself and so it is
highly likely that it will have also had adverse effects on the San Juan River.
Since further construction work on the road is expected, if Costa Rica wishes to ensure the
work is done to the highest international standards then a form of environmental impact
assessment – whether full or simplified – is clearly essential before further work begins. In
addition, further development projects in the future such as mining projects or hotel
developments in the vicinity of the San Juan River, now possible given the access provided
by the road, will need to be subject to their own EIA.
30
312 Annex 5
Curriculum Vitae
June 2014
Dr William R. Sheate
Reader in Environmental Assessment Technical Director
(Deputy Director MSc Environmental Collingwood Environmental Planning
Technology) Unit 1E
Centre for Environmental Policy The Chandlery
South Kensington Campus 50 Westminster Bridge Road
Imperial College London SW7 2AZ, London
UK SE1 7QY
Tel: +44 (0)20 7594 9299 Tel. +44 (0)20 7407 8700
Fax: +44 (0)20 7594 9334 Fax. +44 (0)20 7928 6950
Email [email protected] Email. [email protected]
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/w.sheate Website. www.cep.co.uk
Personal Information
Born: 21 June 1961, Trowbridge, Wiltshire, UK
Nationality: British
Language Reading Speaking Writing
English 5 5 5
French 3 2 2
Professional Profile
Originally an ecologist, Bill has worked, lectured and published widely on environmental assessment and
policy for some 30 years. He has worked as a practicing ecologist, in consultancy, academia and in the
voluntary sector. Most of his professional career has been spent working in interdisciplinarity. His
experience lies in the development and applicationenvironmental policy and legislation (especially
EIA/SEA/SA) in the European Union, assessment procedures, methodologies, and public and NGO
participation. He has been an expert advisor to the EC, the European Environment Agency, the UK, Irish and
Uruguay governments, CPRE and the National Trust; was a board member of Transport 2000 and a long-
standing member of the Environment Agency (and fo rmerly National Rivers Au thority) Thames Regional
Committees; and has been involved in various commttees of the International Association for Impact
Assessment (IAIA). He has managed major studies for the European Commission DG Environment on SEA
and Integration of the Environment into Strategic Decision-Making (2000/01); on the relationship between
the EIA and SEA Directives (2004/5); and led an international team in the development and application of
sustainability assessment of biodiversity management scenarios for declining agricultural areas in upland
Europe (EU 5FP, 2002-5). Recent activities inclresearch and practical SEA in Scotland and Wales;
research inIrelandon theWater Framework Directive and its relationship with other environmental
Directives; research for the European Environment Ag ency on scenarios, indicators and futures studies;
SEA/sustainability appraisal for the Greater London Authority on the GLA's proposed Water Strategy and
Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; SEA of River Basin Management Plans for the Environment Agency of
England and Wales; and he was principal investigator for a for a ground-breaking Defra case study on
ecosystem services and green infrastructure in the Thames Gateway (2008). He was a member of the UK’s
first National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) Urban Working Group and a co-author on the Urban chapter of
the NEA. He is a co-investigator and senior advisor in two of the current NEA follow-on projects (2013). He
is also a co-author of recent guidance for the European Commission DG ENV on EIA/SEA and climate change
and biodiversity (2013) and currently leading the evalua tion for Defra of the biodiversity offsetting pilot
W R Sheate cv - 1
313Annex 5
scheme in England (2012-2014). He is recognised as an international expert in advising on environmental
assessment and compliance matters, e.g. for judicial review.
Bill has published extensively in the assessment and environmental policy field, and is the auf aking
an Impact: A Guide to EIA Law and Policy(1994, 2nd edition1996) published by Cameron May, London and
editor of Tools, Techniques and Approach es for Sustainability: Collected Writings in Environmental
Assessment Policy and Management (2009), published by World Scientific. He is also the founding Editth
(1999-2009) of theJournal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management(ICP/WSPC), now in its 15
year. He has many years experience of teaching and training at advanced levels, and splits his time evenly
between Imperial College London, where he is Reader in Environmental Assessment in the Centre for
Environmental Policy, andCollingwood Environmental Planning, a specialist consultancy in environmental and
sustainability assessment and policy.At Imperial Colelge, for the last 16 years, he has been the Director of
the highly interdisciplinary Core Course of the internationally renowned MSc in Environmental Technology,
covering subjects as diverse as pollution controlrisk assessment and ecology to environmental policy,
economics and law. He has supervised some 15 PhD/research students and is a regular external examiner
for MSc degrees and PhDs. He is also a member of the Academic Panel oFf rancis Taylor Building barristers’
chambers (Inner Temple, London) and an Honorary Senior Fellow in the School of Environment and
Development at the University of Manchester. He has, among others, ongoing research links with the, the
Institute of Technology (IST) Lisbon and the Universi ties of Arizona State (USA), Waterloo (Canada), La
Rochelle (France) and Göteborg (Sweden). In May 2008 he gave an invited speech to the ministerial high-
th
level segment of the 4 Meeting of the Parties of the UNECE Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact
Assessment in a Transboundary Context, in Bucharest,Romania. In March 2014 he was appointed Specialist
Adviser to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee inquiry into HS2 (High Speed 2)
and the Environment.
Qualifications/Awards
2011 PhD based upon Published Work, Staffordshire University : Accountability in
Environmental Assessment Law, Policy and Practice: Changing Paradigms, Changing
Purposes in the European Union, 1985-2010.
2002: Award for Excellence in Teaching, Imperial College, University of London.
1984: MSc, Environmental Technology; Diploma of Imperial College: Imperial College,
London, UK
1982: BSc (Hons) 2 (i), Biology (Ecology), University of Exeter, UK
Professional Associations
x International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA)
x Green Alliance
Appointments
Date from-to Country Company Position Responsibilities
From Oct London, Collingwood Technical Senior member of CEP undertaking
2005: UK Environmental Director (p/t) and managing consultancy in
Planning environmental and sustainability
assessment policy and decision-
making
From Oct London, Centre for Reader in Deputy Director, MSc Environmental
2005 UK Environmental Environmental Technology (2002-)
Policy, Imperial Assessment Director of Core Course, MSc
College London. (p/t) Environmental Technology 1998 to
date.
2003 to London, Department of Reader in Deputy Director, Environmental Policy
2005: UK Environmental Environmental and Management Group (EPMG)
Science and Assessment (2000-2005)
Technology, Deputy Director, MSc Environmental
Imperial College Technology (2002-)
London. Director of Core Course, MSc
Environmental Technology 1998 to
date.
W R Sheate cv - 2
314 Annex 5
1999 to London, Department of Senior Lecturer Deputy Director, Environmental Policy
2003: UK Environmental in and Management Group (EPMG)
Science and Environmental (2000-2005)
Technology, Impact Deputy Director, MSc Environmental
Imperial College Assessment Technology (2002-)
London (EIA) Director of Core Course, MSc
Environmental Technology 1998-)
Director of PhD Training Programme,
Huxley School/DEST (1998-2002).
1995 to London, Imperial College Lecturer in Member of the Environmental Policy
1999: UK Centre for Environmental and Management Research Group.
Environmental Impact Co-Director of Postgraduate Studies,
Technology Assessment ICCET (1997).
(ICCET), Imperial Director of Core Course, MSc
College of Science, Environmental Technology (1998-)
Technology and Director of PhD Training Programme,
Medicine, University
Huxley School/DEST (1998-2002).
of London, UK
1991-1994: London, Imperial College Visiting Lecturing on MSc Degree in
UK Centre for Lecturer in Environmental Technology
Environmental Environmental
Technology, UK Assessment
1989-1994: London, Council for the Senior In various capacities during this
UK Protection of Campaigner period: Senior Campaigner:
Rural England responsible for Environmental
(CPRE), UK. Assessment and Transport (1992-
1994); Senior Campaigner:
responsible for Environmental
Assessment and Countryside
Management (1991-92); National
Campaigns Officer (1989-91); Water
Campaigner - Parliamentary lobbying
on the Water Bill 1989 (1989)
1989-1992: Kingston, Kingston Associate Lecturing on part-time MSc Degree in
Surrey, Polytechnic, UK Lecturer in Earth Science and the Environment,
UK Environmental
Assessment
1987-1989: Kingston, School of Lecturer in Diverse teaching to undergraduates of
Surrey, Geography, Biogeography, all years in Geography and Earth
UK Kingston Applied Climatic Sciences, and to postgraduates in
Polytechnic, UK Studies and Earth Science and the Environment;
Environmental set up new part-time BSc degree in
Assessment Environmental Studies; research and
consultancy
1986-1987: London, Lansdowne Lecturer in Set up and taught two new elective
UK College, London Ecology and courses in Ecology, and in
(American Environmental Environmental Studies
University College Studies
in London).
1985-1986: Dartford, Blue Circle Consultant Ecological surveys and advice on
Kent, UK Industries PLC, Ecologist proposed quarry sites and for
UK existing landscaping schemes of
quarry and cement works sites
around the UK
1982-1983: Exeter, Department of Demonstrator Field work and practical teaching
UK Biological Sciences, (p/t) support in Freshwater, Marine and
University of Terrestrial Ecology, Animal Behaviour
Exeter, UK and Paleoentology,
External Appointments
2014 Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select
W R Sheate cv - 3
315Annex 5
Committee inquiry into HS2 (High Speed 2) and the Environment.
2013 - External Examiner, University of Strathclyde , MSc/PG Dip Sustainability &
Environmental Studies, MSc/PG Dip Environmental Entrepreneurship
2011– Chair, Environment Sub-committee, Editorial Advisory Board, Imperial College
Press
2011- External Examiner, University College Dublin , Republic of Ireland, MSc
Environmental Resource Management and Diploma in EIA and SEA.
2010 - 2013 External Examiner,University of Essex, MA/MSc Environmental Governance: Natural
World, Science and Society; MSc Natural Environment and Society; MSc
Environmental Resource Management.
2009 - Member of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) Urban Working Group and a
co-author on the Urban chapter of the NEA (Defra, UK).
2009- Member of Editorial Board, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management (formerly Editor and founder).
1998to2009: Editor (and founder), Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management (JEAPM), Imperial College Press/World Scientific Publishing,
UK/Singapore (international journal exploring the linkages between environmental
assessment and management approaches)
2007- Honorary Senior Fellow, School of Environment and Development, University of
Manchester (April 2007-)
2005 - Member, Academic Panel, Francis Taylor Building (formerly 2 Harcourt Buildings)
barristers’ chambers, Inner Temple, London.
2007 - 2010 External Examiner, MSc Environmental Strategy, MSc Sustainable Development and
MSc Corporate Environmental Management,University of Surrey, UK (2007-2010).
2006- 2009 External Examiner, MSc in Environmental Impact Assessment, Auditing and
Management Systems, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK (2006-2009).
2000to2003: External Examiner, MA Environmental Impact Assessment and Management,
University of Manchester, UK.
2000 to 2006: Examiner, University of London External Programme (distance learning), MSc
Environmental Management.
1995 to 2002: Member of the IAIA ‘96 Programme Committee (1995-96), International Co-operation
Committee (1997-8), Task Force on Revenue Diversification (FORD) (2002),
International Association for Impact Assessment (Executive Office in the USA)
1993 to 2002: Member of the National Trust's Transport Advisory Group and Transport
Advisory Forum, UK
1997 to 2000: External Examiner, MSc Environmental Assessment, University of Brighton, UK.
1997 to 2000: Member of the Environment Agency Thames North East Area Environment Group,
UK (Statutory Regional Committee representative on new Area Group)
1996to2000: Member of the Environment Agency Thames Regional Fisheries Ecology and
Recreation Advisory Committee, UK (Statutory Committee under the Environment Act
1995)
1995 to 2000: Member of the National Rivers Authority Thames Region Lower Lee Catchment
Management Plan Steering Group, UK (now Environment Agency North London
W R Sheate cv - 4
316 Annex 5
Local Environment Agency Plan)
1995 to 1996: Member of Natural Resources and Environment Panel, Technology Foresight
Programme, Office of Science and Technology/Department of Trade and Industry, UK
1994 Member of the Board of Transport 2000, UK
1991 to 1994: Member of the National Rivers Authority Thames Water Resources Strategy
Consultative Forum, UK.
1990 to 1996: Member of the National Rivers Authority Thames Regional Rivers Advisory
Committee, UK (Statutory Committee under the Water Act 1989, precursor to the
Environment Agency)
Research Activities, Contracts and Consultancies
2014 - Project Director, Support to State and Outlook on the Environment Report (SOER)
2015 and Forward Looking Information Systems (FLIS) (June – December 2014). For
European Environment Agency (EEA).
2014- Project Director, Mapping of available and scoping of new indicators to meet
monitoring needs of the 7th Environmental Action Programme (April- December
2014). For European Environment Agency (EEA).
2013- Senior advisor, Monitoring and Evaluation ofNature Improvement Areas: Phase
2(with theGeoData InsituteandCascade Consulting). For the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). 2013 - ongoing
2013 Senior advisor, National BLOSSOM case study (Bridging Long-term Scenario and
Strategy analysis - Organisation and Methods) for Switzerland: support to analysis for
long term governance and institutional arrangements (with Milieu). For the Federal
Office for the Environment (FOEN) Switzerland. 2013
2012-2013 Project Manager, Scottish Rural Develop Programme (RDP) Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) (as part of ex-ante evaluation led by Agra CEAS). FoScottish
Government.
2012-2013 Senior expert advisor, Support to develop guidance for streamlining environmental
assessment procedures of energy infrastructure ‘projects of common interest’ (PCI),
European Commission DG ENV/Energy.
2012-2015 Senior advisor, Modular Development Plan of the Pan-European Transmission System
2050 - e-Highway 2050 (led by RDE). For European Commission (FP7).
2012-2014 Principal Investigator/Project Manager, UKDepartment for Environment Food and
Rural Affairs (Defra) project on ‘Evaluation of Biodiversity Offsetting Pilot Scheme’
(July 2012-June 2014) (with IEEP).
2012 Training Course forHistoric Scotland “Ecosystem assessment and cultural heritage”
– course leader for one-day in-house training course on how to address historic and
cultural heritage issues within ecosyste m approaches to EIA and SEA (September
2012)
2012 – 2013 Co-investigator, Capacities and Constraints to Embedding Consideration of Ecosystem
Services in Policy Decision Making hrough Appraisal - Work Package 8 of the
National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) follow up project (led by University of
Exeter, with University of East Anglia). UNEP/WCMC/DEFRA.
2012 – 2013 Senior advisor, Tools: Applications, Benefits and Linkages for Ecosystems (TABLES) -
Work Packages 9 and 10 of theNational Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) follow up
project (led by Birmingham City University). UNEP/WCMC/DEFRA.
W R Sheate cv - 5
317Annex 5
2012 Training Module in Sustainability for Veolia Group Senior Managers (part of their
international Managers Leadership and Development Programme): Course co-leader
for 1.5 day intensive in-house training co urse run by Imperial College Centre for
Environmental Policy. Run four times to date with further repetitions programmed.
2012–ongoing Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Moldova, Azerbaijan and Armenia (with
Acclimatise). For the World Bank. Expert Advisor on scenarios.
2011-12 Expert advice and review of Appraisal of Sustainability of High Speed 2 (HS2) for
Chilterns Conservation Board and others.
2011-12 Project Director, Environmental Performance Review of Mexico – Climate Change, for
OECD/Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) (with Imperial College
Consultants).
2011 – 2013 Senior advisor, “Measuring the impacts on global biodiversity of goods and services
imported into the UK” research project forDepartment of the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra) (with SEI-York)
2011 – 2012 Support to developing Forward-Looking Information and Services (FLIS) – (Project
Director) focusing on drivers and trends (drawing on the meetings of the Article 5
countries to further develop the FLIS Dr ivers and Trends component, revising and
improving factsheets and incorporating additional information) and support to EEA in
relation to Article 5 countries’ work on scenarios and BLOSSOM - see below, (with
Milieu and SEI) for European Environment Agency (EEA).
2011 Senior expert, European Commission project to prepare “Practical guidance and
recommendations for integrating climate change and biodiversity into Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) / Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) procedures”
(with Milieu).
2011 Senior expert, European Commission study on “Assessing and Strengthening the
Science and EU Environment Policy Interface” which is undertaking a detailed
assessment of current methods and effectiveness of the science-policy interface in
order help strengthen this interface within DG Environment to ensure more effective /
appropriate use of scientific information in policy development (with Milieu).
2011-12 Project Director, Support to Forward Looking Information System (FLIS),European
Environment Agency (with SEI/Milieu Ltd).
2011 Senior expert/QA for “ Knowledge Base for European Ecosystem Assessments ”,
European Environment Agency (with SEI-Stockholm).
2010-11 The natural environment and the propoesd National Planning Framework for England -
research on national level planning frameworks, including international case studies
and expert interviews, to inform the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’
(RSPB) response to the UK Government's planning reform including Localism.
2010 Expert advisorto the Applicant in the judicial review: Marco McGinty v Scottish
Ministers, (with Clare Twigger-Ross, CEP): report to Patrick Campbell and Company
Solicitors ‘Early and effective’ participation in SEA, in the case of McGinty v Scottish
Ministers, November 2010.
2010 Project Director, BLOSSOM 3.0/SEIS 2.0Support to developing SEIS Forward system
and cooperation with EIONET, European Environment Agency (Collingwood
Environmental Planning with SEI /Milieu Ltd).
2010 Principal Investigator, Support for SOER 2010 Part A – Global long-term
environmental trends and ecosystem shifts and their (potential) impacts on human
society, European Environment Agency (CEP with SEI/Milieu Ltd).
W R Sheate cv - 6
318 Annex 5
2009-10 Expert international advisor to “A methodology and project implementation framework
for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Spatial Development Plans
(SDP) for eThekwini Municipality” (using ecosystem services) eThekwini
Municipality, Durban, South Africa/DANIDA.
2009-10 Author of modules on environmentlaassessment and environmental management and
auditing for MSc courses in Environmental Management/Sustainable Development by
Distance Learning forUniversity of London External Programme , School of
Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), Centrefor Development, Environment and Policy
(CeDEP).
2009 Principal Investigator, Development of an Ecosystem Services Prioritisation Tool,
research project forDefra, Natural Environment Policy programme, Collingwood
Environmental Planning/Geodata Institute (October 2009-).
2009 SEA and energy policy, expert review and advice for Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds (RSPB) and WWF (Oct-Dec 2009)
2009 Expert advisor on SEA to the applicant in the judicial rIfrwin Glenbank Ltd v
Department of Environment, Northern Ireland.
2009 Developing the SEIS Forward system in support of environmental assessments.
Project manager, European Environment Agency (with Milieu Ltd).
2009 Valuing Ecosystem Benefits: A Scoping Study, specialist advisor, European
Environment Agency, (with eftec, Milieu Ltd,).
2008-2009 Project Manager/Principal Investigator, EEA Research BLOSSOM 2.0: Support to
analysis for long-term governance and institutional arrangements, European
Environment Agency (with Milieu Ltd) (2008/9), good practice case studies of
futures thinking in selected EU Member States.
2009 Specialist advisor, London Sustainable De velopment Commission, developing
guidance for integrated impact assessment (incorporating SEA, HIA) (with CAG
Consultants).
2008 Review of SEA environmental reports and advice rohn Spain Associates, Dublin.
2008 Review of SA reports and compliance of the UK Government's draft Planning Policy
Statement on Ecotowns and Ecotowns Programme, for the BARD Campaign
2008 Expert advice reviewing SEA of Dublin Bay Masterplan, for Treasury Holdings,
Ireland (2008) and expert advice reviewing EIA scoping report for North Lotts, Dublin
Bay, also for Treasury Holdings, Ireland (2008)
2008- Specialist advisor, Guidance on Assessing Cumulative Eff, atural England(with
LUC)
2007-2008 SEA Specialist, SEA of River Basin Management Plans (Thames, Anglian RBDs),
Environment Agency (with Cascade)
2007 Expert evidence on EIA to Government of Uruguay in the case of Argentina v
Uruguay (pulp mill) before the International Court of Justice
2007 Principal Investigator, EEA Research Foresight for Environment and Sustainability ,
European Environment Agency (with Milieu Ltd)
2007-2008 Supporting the Development of a Social Science Strategy for Flood and Coastal
Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) R&D research, Defra/Environment Agency
research project.
W R Sheate cv - 7
319Annex 5
2006-2008 Principal Investigator and project manager,Thames Gateway Ecosystem Services
Assessment Using Green Grids and Decision Support Tools for Sustainability
(THESAURUS); case study in the Defra Natural Environment Policy research
programme (Phase II) (October 2006-June 2008).
2006- Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating SEA and Health Impact Assessment) of the
Greater London Authority’s Water Strategy - integrated appraisal for the GLA of
their Water Action Framework (with CHERE), 2006 – 2010.
2006- Sustainability Appraisal (incorporating SEA and Health Impact Assessment) of the
Greater London Authority’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy - managing an
integrated appraisal for the GLA of their Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (with
CHERE), 2006 – 2010.
2006: Member of Expert Review Panel evaluating research proposals under the Science for
Sustainable Development 2nd Call for Proposals (Terrestrial Ecosystems), Belgian
Government Science Policy (June 2006).
2006-2008 Specialist advisor, SEA of the Vision and Strategy for Wild Deer,Deer Commission
for Scotland (with EnviroCentre)
2006 Project Manager, The Water Framework Directive, Assessment, Participation, and
Protected Areas: What are the Relationships? (WAPPA), for the Irish EPA ERTDI
Research Programme
2005-6 Principal Investigator, Review of future-related studies and analyses of uncertainties in
the pan-European region, European Environment Agency (with Milieu Ltd)
2005-9 Specialist advisor, SEA Pathfinder Research Project, Scottish
Executive/Government (with EnviroCentre), recommendations for good practice.
2005-6 Project Manager, SEA of the Wales Rural Development Plan 2007-2013 , Welsh
Assembly Government (with Agra CEAS)
2005 – 2008 Expert review panel member for SEA of Low Flow River Studies and Water Resources
Management Plan, Wessex Water plc
2005–2006 Expert review panel member for EIA/SEA and water resources, Thames Water
plc/Cascade
2004 – 2005 Project Manager/Principal Investigator forThe Relationship between the EIA and SEA
Directives, European Commission, DG ENV.
2004 Drafting of Policy Position Statement for the Campaign to Protect Rural England
(CPRE) on Water (October 2004).
2003 – 2004 Member, SEA & Biodiversity Project Steering Grou,nglish Nature, commissioning
consultants to produce guidance on biodiversity and strategic environmental
assessment.
2002 – 2005 Principal Investigator and team leader for sustainability apprai: Scenarios for
Reconciling Biodiversity Conservatith with Declining Agricultural Use in the Mountains
of Europe (BIOSCENE) project; EU 5 Framework funded project.
2002–2003 Expert Evidence on behalf of the Irish Government (Department of Public
Enterprise) to the International Tribunal under the 1982 United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), in the dispute concerning the MOX plant,
international movements of radioactive mate rials, and the protection of the marine
environment of the Irish Sea (IELAND V UNITED KINGD)M
2001 – 2002 Community and Public Participation: Risk Perception in Strategic Decision-Making in
Flood and Coastal Defence, Department of the Environment, Food and Rural
W R Sheate cv - 8
320 Annex 5
Affairs (DEFRA), with Scott Wilson Consultants.
2001 – 2004 Principal Investigator, Renewable Energy for Sustainable Rural Livelihoods – RESURL
(in Cuba, Peru and Columbia), Department for International Development
Research Contract.
2001 to date: Member of Expert Panel foEuropean ECO Forum NGO Coalitiondeveloping an SEA
Protocol under the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a
Transboundary Context.
2000 – 2002 Member of research team commissioned by Environment Agency National Centre
for Risk Assessment and Options Appraisal for a R&D project on Strategic
Integrated Assessment Methods.
2001 Project Manager for University of London External Programme funded
development project on Developing an Online Database and Course in EIA Law.
2000 – 2001 Project Manager (for IC component), Use Classes Orders and the Integrated Transport
Strategy, DETR (with Baker Associates).
2000 – 2001 Project Manager , Strategic Environmental Assessment and Integration of the
Environment into Strategic Decision-Making, European Commission DGXI.
2000 Member of Expert Review Panel for European Commission research contract on EIA
and public participation for decommissioning of nuclear installations;Nirex UK/EC.
1999 Ongoing consultancy and advice to theEnvironment Agency on SEA and Appraisal.
1999 – 2000 Member of the Highways Agency NGO Committee for Multi-Modal Environmental
Assessment Guidance Study; Highways Agency/TRL.
1999 Member of Expert Review Panel for European Commission research contract on
EIA/SEA and public participation; ERM/EC.
1998 – 1999 Project Manager, Pan European Network of Environmental Legislation Observatories
for Planning ,Education and Research (PENELOPE): web-based EIA resources and on-
line course development, DGXIII Telematics Programme.
1998 – 1999 Member of Expert Review Panel for Public Information and Participation Chapter of the
EU State of the Environment Report.European Environment Agency, Copenhagen,
Denmark
Member of Expert Review Panel for Stra tegic Environmental Assessment of Water
Resources in the Thames Region. Thames Water/Land Use Consultants.
1997 Independent advice and review of draft environmental statement for the proposed
Medway quarry and cement works in Kent. Blue Circle Industries Plc.
Expert witness at the Public Inquiry into proposed military training intensification at
Otterbun Training Area, Northumberland. Council for the Protection of Rural
England.
1995 – 1998 Czech Academic Links Project providing support and advice to a new University in
North Bohemia (JE Purkyne University), British Council/Know How Fund Joint
Coordinator, Czech Republic.
1995 – 1996 Project Manager, Analysis and Report to Natural Resources and Environment Panel,
Technology Foresight ProgrammeOffice of Science and Technology/Department
of Trade and Industry, UK
1995 Community Investors/ODA/Know How Fund Facilitation of input by Romanian NGOs to
the National Environmental Action Programme, Romanian Government, Romania
W R Sheate cv - 9
321Annex 5
Expert witness at the Public Inquiry into the Proposal by UK Nirex Ltd for a Rock
Characterisation Facility, Longlands Farm, Gosforth, Cumbria (October). Friends of
the Lake District (FLD), UK
Convenor of workshop on public and NGO participation in the EIA process ,
International Association for Impact Assessment, Durban, South Africa
1995 – 2004 Co-ordinator, EIA Training and Research Network (ETAR) and web page, UK
1994 Expert Advisor to the European Communities' Economic and Social Committee's study
into the proposed amendments to the EIA Directive 85/337/EEC , European
Communities, Europe
Member of the European Commission's Hearing of Experts Panel (DG VII, Transport)
on the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Trans-European Network for
Transport, European Commission, Europe
Briefing document on the European Commission’s proposed changes to the EIA
Directive (85/337/EEC), European Environmental Bureau , Europe
1993 Chaired workshop on Legislating for EIA, International Association for Impact
Assessment, Shanghai, China, International
Oral and Written Evidence to the study by Sub-Committee B on the EC’s Common
Transport Policy, House of Lords European Communities Select Committee ,
Europe/UK
1992 Invited round-table member of What Environmental Institutions Does the UK Need?
Round-table Conference, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK
Expert witness to the Public Inquiry into the North Yorkshire Power Lines proposal by
National Grid Plc, Council for the Protection of Rural England, UK
Oral Evidence to the RCEP’s study: Transport and the Environment, Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP), UK
1991 – date Teaching link and annual supervision of US postgraduate placement students (5-
month placements) in comparative environmental law, EIA, SEA, landscape protection
and forestry, Boston College Law School, US (1991-2005, 2009-)
1990 Member of Expert Review Panel advising the Countryside Commission on draft
guidance note on the treatment of Landscape and Recreation in Environmental
Assessment, Countryside Commission, UK
1990 – 1996 Trainer for annual workshops/short courses on EIA for CPRE branch and NGO staff and
volunteers, Council for the Protection of Rural England, UK
1988 Report on the Ecological Status of Heath Warren/Warren Heath Proposed Nature
Reserve, Hampshire, Bioscan (UK) Ltd, UK
1986 Report onThe Status of Tree and Shrub Planting tivities at Selected UK Quarry and
Cement Works' Sites. Blue Circle Industries Plc. UK
1985 Report on the Ecological Status of Potential Chalk Quarry Sites in North West Kent .
Blue Circle Industries Plc. UK
1984 – 1985 Technical editing of report on East-West Environmental Law and Policy . Vienna
Centre, Austria
1982 – 1983 Indexing of book, Social Insects: Ecology and Behavioural Biologyby M.V. Brian, UK
W R Sheate cv - 10
322 Annex 5
External Training Courses
(run as member of Collingwood Environmental Planning)
Training Module in Sustainability for Veolia Group Senior Managers(part of their international
Managers Leadership and Development Programme):Course co-leader for 1.5 day intensive in-house
training course run by Imperial College Centre for Environmental Policy. Run four times to date with
further repetitions programmed in 2013.
Training Course for Historic Scotland “Ecosystem assessment and cultural heritage– ” course
leader for one-day in-house training course on how to address historic and cultural heritage issues
within ecosystem approaches to EIA and SEA (September 2012)
SEA training course –SEA course -Strategic Environmental Assessment: Implementation in
Practice - run in 2004 (five days), 2005 (four days), 2006 (3 days), 2007 (3 days), 2008 (3 days),
2009 (3 days) , 2010 (3 days) and attended by agencies and authorities, international organisations,
e.g. World Bank, UNEP and participants from other EU Member States. Imperial College
London/CEP (2004 to date).
Sustainable Strategies: Tools for Effective Practice – 1-day course on the use of strategic
assessment tools in the development of sustainable strategies and plans (stand alone or as add-on to
SEA course). Imperial College London/CEP (2008).
Climate Change Adaptation: Drivers, barriers and strategy – 2-day continuing professional
development course for local authorities and other agencies developing climate change adaptation
strategies (March 2009, 2010, 2011).
Sustainability Appraisal of Local Development Documents (LDDs) training course (2 days).
Provided in-depth and practical knowledge of th e process of Sustainability Appraisal and how to
implement the requirements with regard to LDDs. Run jointly with Imperial College London. October
2006.
Tailor-made training courses on SEA/SA, e.g. for Association for London Government; Hounslow
Borough Council; Government of Cyprus; Government of Greece.
Publications (full list)
Books
1. SHEATE, W R (2009),Tools, Techniques and Approaches for Sustainability: Collected Writings
in Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, World Scientific: Singapore, pp.408
(October 2009).
2. SHEATE, W R (1996)Environmental Impact Assessment: Lawand Policy - Making an Impact II
(2nd edition), Cameron May, London. 300pp
3. SHEATE, W R (1994) Making an Impact: A Guide to EIA Law and Policy . Cameron May,
London, UK. 260pp.
4. SHEATE, W R and Sullivan, M (1993) Campaigners' Guide to Road Proposals. Council for the
Protection of Rural England, London, UK. 148pp.
Software
5. SHEATE, W (2011) Environmental Assessment (C207) Module and Study Guide, Distance
Learning Programme, CeDEP/SOAS, University of London
6. SHEATE, W (2011)Environmental Auditing and Environmental Management Systems (C208)
Module and Study Guide, CeDEP/SOAS, University of London.
Articles, Chapters and Papers
W R Sheate cv - 11
323Annex 5
7. SHEATE, W.R and Eales, R. P (in press), Effectiveness of European national SEA systems: How
are they making a difference? Chapter in Sadler, B. and Dusik, J., (Eds.) European and
International Experience of Strategic Environmental Assessment: Recent Progress and Future
Prospects, Earthscan.
8. Turnpenny, J. Russel, D., Jordan, A., Bond, A. and SHEATE, W. (in press) “Environment”,
Chapter in Dunlop, C.A. and Radaelli, C.M. (Ed.s) Handbook of Regulatory Impact Assessmen,t
Oxford Handbooks.
9. SHEATE, W.R. (in press, 2015) Streamlining SEA Processes, Chapter in Jones, G and Scotford,
E. (Eds.), The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: A Plan for Success? Hart
Publishing.
10. SHEATE, W.R and Baker, J (in press, 2015) Ecosystem services assessment and sustainability,
Chapter in Morrison-Saunders, A., Pope, J. and Bond, A. (Eds.) Handbook of Sustainability
Assessment, Edward Elgar.
11. Partidário MR, SHEATE, W., (2013), "Soutenabilité et évaluation environnementale
stratégique: fusions théoriques et interdisciplinarité" ln:"l'évaluation de la soutenabilité", QUAE
éditions; Versailles, France.
12. Baker, J., SHEATE, W.R., Philips, P. and Eales, R. (2013) Ecosystem services in environmental
assessment – help or hindrance?Environmental Impact Assessment ReviewVol:40, Pages:3-
13.
13. Fazey I, Evely AC, Reed MS, Stringer, LC , Kruijsen J, White PCL, Newsham A, Jin L, Cortazzi
M, Phillipson J, Blackstock C, Entwhistle N, SHEATE W, Armstrong F, Blackmore C, Fazey J,
Ingram J, Gregson J, Lowe P, Morton S, Trevitt C (2012), Knowledge Exchange: A Review and
Research Agenda, Environmental Conservation, 40 (1): 19–36
14. Partidário M.R., and SHEATE, W.R. (2013), Knowledge brokerage - potential for increased
capacities and shared power in impact assessmentE ,nvironmental Impact Assessment Review ,
39: 26–36.
15. SHEATE, W.R., Eales, R.P., Daly, E, Baker, J, Ojike, U, Karpouzoglou, T., Murdoch, A. and Hill,
C (2012) Spatial Representation and Specification of Ecosystem Services: a Methodology Using
Land Use/Land Cover Data and Stakeholder Engagement, Journal of Environmental
Assessment Policy and Management, Vol:14, Pages:1-36.
16. Campbell, G., SHEATE, W.R., (2012), Embedding an ecosystems approach? Town and Country
Planning, Vol: 81, Pages: 139-144.
17. Allen, J., SHEATE, W.R., Diaz-Chavez R., (2012), Community-based Renewable Energy in the
Lake District National Park – Local Drivers, Enablers, Barriers and Solutions, Local
Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainabilit,yavailable online 16 March
2012, doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.665855.
18. SHEATE, W.R., (2012), Purposes, Paradigms and Pressure Groups: Accountability and
Sustainability in EU Environmental Assessment, 1985-2010, Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, Vol: 33, Pages: 91-102.
19. SHEATE, W.R., Daly, E., White, O., Zamparutt,i T. and Baker, J. (2011) BLOSSOM — Bridging
long-term scenario and strategy analysis: organisation and methods: A cross-country analysis,
EEA Technical report No 5/2011, main report (and 12 Country Annexes) available at
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/blossom/ [accessed 21 October 2011].
20. SHEATE, W.R. (2011), Accountability in Environmental Assessment Law, Policy and Practice:
Changing Paradigms, Changing Purposes in the European Union, 1985-201.0PhD based upon
Published Work, Staffordshire University.
W R Sheate cv - 12
324 Annex 5
21. Davies, L., Batty, M., Beck, H., Brett, H., Gaston, K.J., Harris, J.A., Kwiatkowski, L., Sadler, J.,
Scholes, L., SHEATE, W.R. and Wade, R. (2011), Chapter 10, Urban Broad Habitat, in UK
National Ecosystem Assessment , Defra, available at http://uknea.unep-
wcmc.org/Resources/tabid/82/Default.aspx [accessed 19 October 2011]
22. Eales R P and SHEATE W R, (2011), Effectiveness of Policy Level Environmental and
Sustainability Assessment: Challenges and Lessons from Recent Practice, Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 2011, Vol:13, Pages:39-65.
24. SHEATE WR, Eales R, Baker J, Stafford J, Barker A, van der Burgt N, Partidario MR (2011),A
Natural Planning Framework: Putting the natural environment at the heart of the National
Planning Framework for England, RSPB, February 2011.
25. Zhou, K. and SHEATE, W.R. (2011) EIA application in China's expressway infrastructure:
clarifying the decision-making hierarchy,Journal of Environmental Management,92 (6): 1471-
1483; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.12.011
26. Zhou K, And SHEATE WR (2011) Case studies: Application of SEA in provincial level
expressway infrastructure network planning in China — Current existing problems,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31(6): 521–537,doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2010.10.005
27. SHEATE, W.R. (2010), Linking SEA and Environmental Planning and Management Tools, In:
Barry Sadler, Ralf Aschemann, Jiri Dusik, Thomas Fischer, Maria Partidário and Rob Verheem,
editor, Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment, London, Earthscan Publication,
2007, Pages: 1 – 704 (December 2010) ISBN:9781844073658.
28. Eales R. and SHEATE, W.R., Opportunities missed, and challenges to comeT ?own and Country
Planning, 2010, 79 (3):138-143.
29. SHEATE WR, Eales R, Vaizgelaite I, Appraisals of Sustainability and the New National Policy
Statements: Opportunities Missed and Challenges to Come? RSPB/WWF, 2010.
30. Phillips, P and SHEATE, W. R. (2010), The Scottish SEA Pathfinder Project: Practical
Implementation and recommendations for good-practice, The Environmentalist, 104: 9-22
(September 2010).
31. SHEATE, W R, and Partidário, M R (2010), Srtategic approaches and assessment techniques:
potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability,Environmental Impact Assessment
Review Vol: 30:278-288.
32. Zhou, K. and SHEATE, W. R. (2009), Comparative analysis of SEA legal requirements and
institutional structure in China (Mainland), Canada and the UK (England), Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management11 (4): 387-426 (Special Issue on SEA in
China).
33. Madeira, N, Phillips, P and SHEATE, W. R (2009), Final Report to the Scottish Government,
SEA Pathfinder Project Stage 1: Research, (April 2009) (summary report)
34. Partidário MR, SHEATE, W R, Bina O, Byron H, Augusto B. (2009), Sustainability assessment
for agriculture scenarios in Europe's mountain areas: lessons from six study areas,
Environmental Management, 2009, 43: 144 - 165.
35. SHEATE, W R, Partidário, M R, Byron, H, Bina, O and Bennett, S, (2008) Sustainability
Assessment of Future Scenarios: Methodology and Application to Mountain Areas of Europe,
Environmental Management, 41 (2): 282-299 (DOI:- 10.1007/s00267-007-9051-9).
36. SHEATE, W R, Eales, R, Daly, E, Murdoch, A, and Hill, C (2008), Case study to develop tools
and methodologies to deliver an ecosystem-based approach: Thames Gateway Green Grids,
Final report NR0109, London, Publisher: Defra, 2008.
W R Sheate cv - 13
325Annex 5
37. Twigger-Ross, C, Tapsell, S, Fernández-Bilb ao, A, Warburton, D, SHEATE, W, Davoudi, S,
Fielding, J (2008) Supporting the development of a Social Sciences Strategy for FCERM R&D:
Social Science within FCERM Research: Practice and Future Prospects . Defra R&D Technical
Report FD2604/TR, available at
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=N…
=14735&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=FD2604&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrde
r=Asc&Paging=10#Description
38. SHEATE, W. R. (2008), Strategic Environmental Assessment, in New Oxford Companion to
Law, OUP (August 2008).
39. SHEATE, W.R and Kiely, A (2007), Causal chain analysis: making the link, The
Environmentalist, Issue 51, pp 21-23 (October 2007).
40. SHEATE, W.R. and Bennett, S. (2007), The Water Framework Directive, Assessment,
Participation and Protected Areas: What are the Relationships? Synthesis Report to the Irish
Environmental Protection Agency, ERTDI Research Programme, Report No. 67 (October 2007,
available at http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/water/name,23575,en.html).
41. Bennett, S. and SHEATE, W. R. (2007), The Water Framework Directive, Assessment,
Participation and Protected Areas: What are the Relationships? Final Report to the Irish
Environmental Protection Agency, ERTDI Research Programme (October 2007, available at
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/pubs/research/water/name,23576,en.html).
42. SHEATE, W, Zamparutti, T, Bennett, S and Rogeli, M (2007), Literature review and mega
trends of driving forces of future environmental change, Final Report by Collingwood
Environmental Planning and Milieu Ltd to th e European Environment Agency (November
2007), available here.
43. Maxwell, D. and SHEATE, W. (2006), EnablingSustainable Development through Sustainable
Consumption and Production, International Journal of Environment and Sustainable
Development, 5(3): 221 -239.
44. Maxwell, D., SHEATE, W. and van der Vorst, R.(2006) Functional and systems aspects of the
sustainable product and service development approach for industry, Journal of Cleaner
Production, 20:1 – 14.
45. SHEATE, W. R. (2006), Book Review: Environmental Assessment: The Regulation of Decision-
Making, by Jane Holder, 2004, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 398 pp, Journal of
Environmental Law, 18 (2): 326-328. (invited contribution).
46. SHEATE, W. R. and Leinster, T, (2005)SEA of Water Industry Plans and Programmes,Water
Law, 16 (4):115-121.
47. SHEATE, W., Byron, H, Dagg, S and Cooper, L (2005), The Relationship between the EIA
and SEA Directives, Final Report to the European Commission DG Environment, Contract
No. ENV.G.4./ETU/2004/0020r, August 2005 (available
at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/pdf/final_report_0508.pdf).
48. Gu, L. and SHEATE, W. R. (2005), Institutional Challenges for EIA Implementation in China: a
Case Study of Development vers us Environmental Protection, Environmental Management,
Vol. 36 (1), 125-142.
49. Gordon, D. J., Blaza, A and SHEATE, W. R. (2005), A Sustainability Risk Analysis of the Low
Cost Airline Sector, World Transport Policy and Practice, 11 (1): 13-33.
50. Scrase, J. I. and SHEATE, W. R. (2004), Re -framing Flood Defence in England and Wales,
Environmental Values, 14:113-137.
51. Eales, R., Smith, S. P., Twigger-Ross, C, SHEATE, W. R., Özdemiroglu, E., Fry, C., Tomlinson,
P. and Foan, C.(2005), Emerging Approach es to Integrated Appraisal in the UK, Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, 23: 113-123.
W R Sheate cv - 14
326 Annex 5
52. Kaszewski, A.L. and SHEATE, W. R. (2004) Enhancing the Sustainability of Airport
Developments, Sustainable Development, 12 (4), 183-199.
53. SHEATE, W. R. (2004), The SEA Directive 2001/42/EC: Reinvigorating Environmental
Integration, Environmental Law and Management 16 (3), 119-124.
54. Adomokai, R and SHEATE, W. R. (2004), Community Participation and Environmental
Decision-Making in the Niger Delta,Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24, 495-518.
55. SHEATE, W.R., Byron, H.J. andSmith, S. P, (2004) Implementing the SEA Directive: Sectoral
Challenges and Opportunities for the UK and EU, European Environment, Vol. 14 (2), 73-93.
56. Cooper, L. M. and SHEATE, W. R. (2004), Integrating Cumulative Effects Assessment into UK
Strategic Planning: Implications of the EU SEA Directive, Impact Assessment and Project
Appraisal, Vol. 22 (1), 5-16.
57. SHEATE, W.R. (2003), Changing Conceptions and Potential for Conflict in Environmental
Assessment - Environmental Integration and Sustainable Development in the EU,
Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 33 (5): 219-230
58. SHEATE, W.R. (2003), EIA: There’s Life in the Old Dog Yet (Invited commentary on "What’s
the Alternative? Impact Assessment Tools and Sustainable Planning" by John F Benson)
Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 21 (4), 273-275.
59. SHEATE, W. R. (2003), The EC Directive on Strategic Environmental Assessment: A Much-
Needed Boost for Environmental Integration, European Environmental Law Review, Vol. 12
(12):331-347.
60. Eales, R., Smith, S., Twigger-Ross, C., SHEATE, W., Özdemiroglu, E., Fry, C. and Tomlinson,
P. (2003), Integrated Appraisal Methods , R&D Technical Report E2-044/TR, Environment
Agency of England and Wales: Bristol, available at http://publications.environment-
agency.gov.uk/pdf/SE2-044-TR-e-e.pdf
61. Winterton, B. and SHEATE, W. (2003), Sustainability and Road User Charging (RUC) in UK
Cities, World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol. 9 (4), 5-20.
62. SHEATE, W.R., Dagg, S., Richardson, J., Aschemann, R., Palerm, J. and Steen, U. (2003),
Integrating the Environment into Strategic Decision- Making: Conceptualizing Policy SEA,
European Environment, Vol 13 (1) 1-18.
63. Scrase J. I and SHEATE, W. R. (2002), Integration and Integrated Approaches to Assessment:
What Do They Mean for the Environment?Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, Vol.
4(4) 275-294.
64. Cooper, L M and SHEATE, W R (2002), Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Review of UK
Environmental Impact Statements, Environmental Impact Assessment Review Vol. 22 (4),
403-425.
65. Byron, H and SHEATE, W R (2002), Treatment of Biodiversity Issues in Road Environmental
Impact Assessments (Chapter 6), in Sherwood, B, Cutler, D and Burton J A (eds.) (2002),
Wildlife and Roads: The Ecological Impact, 316 pp, London: IC Press.
66. SHEATE, W. R. (2002), Conference report: Workshop on “Linking Impact Assessment and
Management Tools” held at the International Association for Impact Assessment Annual
Conference (IAIA ’02) 17-21 June 2002, The Hague, The Netherlands, Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 4 (4): 465-474.
67. Smith, S P and SHEATE, W R (2001), Sustainability Appraisal of English Regional Plans:
Incorporating the Requirements of the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive,Impact
Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol.19 (4), 263-276.
W R Sheate cv - 15
327Annex 5
68. SHEATE, W R (2001), The Rise of Strategic Assessment Tools (Special Issue EditorialJ),urnal
of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, Vol 3 (3), pp iii-x.
69. SHEATE, W.R., Dagg, S., Richardson, J., Aschemann, R., Palerm, J. and Steen, U., (2001)
SEA and Integration of the Environment into Strategic Decision-Making (3 Volumes), Final
Report to the European Commission, DG XI, Contract No. B4-3040/99/136634/MAR/B4
available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eia/sea-support.htm Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, (2001), 438pp.
70. Smith, S P and SHEATE, W R (2001), Sustainability Appraisals of Regional Planning Guidance
and Regional Economic Strategies in England: an Assessment, Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management Vol 44 (5), 735-755.
71. Hornby, N and SHEATE, W R (2001), Sustainable Management of Recreational Off-Road
Vehicles in National Parks in the UK, Environmental and Waste Management, Vol. 4 (2), 95-
105.
72. Byron, H J, Treweek, J, SHEATE, W R and Thompson, S (2000), Road developments in the UK:
an analysis of ecological assessment in environmental impact statements produced between
1993 and 1997, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol 43 (1), 71-97.
73. SHEATE, W R (2000), Transport Policy and Decision-Making: The Long and Winding Road to
Strategic Environmental Assessment, Chapter 10: In Anker, H T and Basse, E M (eds), Land
Use and Nature Protection – Legal Aspects, DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen.
74. van der Vorst, R, Grafe-Buckens A, and SHEATE, W R (1999), A Systemic Framework for
Environmental Decision-Making,Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Manageme,nt
Vol 1 (1), pp 1-26.
75. Swiderska, C and SHEATE, W R (1998), Solvingthe Rural Transport Dilemma: A Case Study of
North Devon, World Transport Policy and Practice, Vol 4 (2), pp 4-11.
76. SHEATE, W R (1998), SEA: current status in the water and electricity sectors in England
and Wales, EIA Newsletter, (Summer)
77. Guilanpour, K and SHEATE, W R (1997), A Systematic Review of Tanzanian Environmental
Impact Statements, Project Appraisal, 12 (3).
78. SHEATE, WR (1997), The Environmental ImpactAssessment Amendment Directive 97/11/EC:
A Small Step Forward?, European Environmental Law Review, 6 (8/9), pp 235-243.
79. Ng, Yuen Ching and SHEATE, W R (1997), Environmental Impact Assessment of Airport
Development Proposals in the UK and Hong Kong: Who Should Participate?Project Appraisal,
12 (1).
80. Byron, H and SHEATE, W R (1997), Strategic Environmental Assessment: Current Status in
the Water and Electricity Sectors in England and Wales,Environmental Policy and Practice,6
(4), pp 155-165.
81. SHEATE, W R (1997), From Environmental Impact Assessment to Strategic Environmental
Assessment: Sustainability and Decision-Making, (Chapter 16) in Holder, J,The Impact of EC
Environmental Law in the UK, Wiley, Chichester. ISBN: 0 471 97535 4.
82. SHEATE, W R (ed) (1996),Difficult Choices in Environmental Decision-Making, Proceedings of
a Conference held at the British Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Festival at
the University of Birmingham, 12 September 1996, ICCET Occasional Paper No. 1, Imperial
College.
83. SHEATE, W R (1996) The Search for a UK Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility: A Case Study of
Disputed Project Definition Under the EC Directive 85/337/EEC on EIA.Environmental Policy
and Practice. 6(2): 75-86
W R Sheate cv - 16
328 Annex 5
84. SHEATE, W R (1996) NGO Participation in EIA. EIA Newsletter. 12: 7-8
85. Romanillos Palerm, J., and SHEATE, W.R. (1996) Environmental Impact Assessment in Central
and Eastern Europe: Lessons from the Czech Republic and RomaniaE .uropean Environmental
Law Review 5: 15-22.
86. SHEATE, W.R. (1996) Book review:Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review
(by Christopher Wood: Longmans, 1995). European Environmental Law Review 5: 156-157.
87. SHEATE, W.R. (1995) Amending the EC Directive 85/337/EEC on Environmental Impact
Assessment. European Environmental Law Review 4: 77-82.
88. SHEATE, W.R., and Atkinson, N.R.(1995) The New Environment Agency,Environmental Law
(London: Denton Hall) 16: 15-17.
89. SHEATE, W.R. (1995) Electricity Generation and Transmission: A Case Study of Problematic
EIA Implementation in the UK. Environmental Policy and Practice 5: 17-25.
90. SHEATE, W.R. (1995) Transport Policy: A Critical Role for Strategic Environmental
Assessment. World Transport Policy and Practice 1: 17-24.
91. SHEATE, W.R., and Atkinson, N.R. (1995) Public Participation in Environmental Decision-
making: the European Dimension. Environmental Policy and Practice 5: 119-129.
92. SHEATE, W.R. (1994) Amending the EC Directive 85/337/EEC on Environmental Impact
Assessment. Environmental Law Network International (ELNI) Newsletter 2: 17-22.
93. SHEATE, W.R. (1993), Motorway Mania? (Guest editorialE )nvironmental Assessment(London:
Institute of Environmental Assessment) 1(3): 59
94. SHEATE, W.R. (1993) Book review: Report of the Commission of the Implementation of
Directive 85/337/EEC on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Public and Private Projects
on the Environment (COM (93) 28 final, volumes 12-13). Project Appraisal 8: 260-261.
95. Cerny, R.J., and SHEATE, W.R. (1992) Strategic Environmental Assessment in the European
Community: Amending the EA Directive. Environmental Policy and Law 22(3): 154-159
96. SHEATE, W.R. (1992) Lobbying for Effective Environmental Assessment.Long Range Planning
25: 90-98.
97. SHEATE, W.R. (1992) Strategic Environmental Assessment in the Transport Sector. Project
Appraisal 7: 170-174
98. SHEATE, W.R. (1992) Broadening the BaseP . lanning (Environmental Assessment and Auditing
Supplement) October. pp8
99. Reynolds, F., and SHEATE, W.R. (1992) Re-Organisation of the Conservation Authorities.
Chapter 4 in: Howarth, W., and Rodgers, C. (eds.) Agriculture, Conservation and Land Use:
Law and Policy Issues for Rural Areas. University of Wales Press, Cardiff, UK. (Reprinted in
paperback, 1993). pp73-89
100.SHEATE, W.R. (1991) Regulating the Water Environment: The Next Steps. In: Vaughan, D.
(Ed.) EC Environment and Planning Law . Butterworths European Information Services,
London, UK. pp103-111
101.SHEATE, W.R. (1991) Water Resource Management - The Poor Relation. ECOS 12(3): 3-8
102.SHEATE, W.R. (1991) The Rivers Run Dry. The Art of Fishing 40: 65-66
103.SHEATE, W.R., and Taylor, R.M. (1991) (eds.)Environmental Impact: A South East Regional
Perspective. Proceedings of a Conference held at Kingston Polytechnic on 7 September 1989.
59pp
W R Sheate cv - 17
329Annex 5
104.SHEATE, W.R. (1991) Public Participation: the Key to Effective Environmental Assessment.
Environmental Policy and Law 21: 156-160.
105.SHEATE, W.R., and Taylor, R.M (1990) The Effect of Motorway Development on Adjacent
Woodland. Journal of Environmental Management 31: 261-267
106.SHEATE, W.R. (1989) Act of Folly. Country Times and Landscape 2(8): 5
107.SHEATE, W.R., and Macrory, R.B. (1989) Agriculture and the EC Environmental Assessment
Directive: Lessons for Community Policy Making.Journal of Common Market Studies28: 68-81
108.SHEATE, W.R. (1986) The effect of quarrying on adjacent vegetation. Journal of
Environmental Management 23: 89-95.
109.SHEATE, W.R. (1986), Book Review:Grazing in Temperate Ecosystems: Large Herbivores and
the Ecology of the New Forest (by R J Putman). Landscape History 9: 93
110.SHEATE, W R (1984), The EEC draft Directive on Environmental Assessment of Projects: its
history, development and implications. MSc thesis, University of London.
Selected Invited Conference Papers and Lectures
1. SHEATE, W.R. and Partidario, M.R, What’s the point of participation if not to enable
knowledge-sharing and learning processes? Paper given at the20th Annual International
Sustainable Development Research Society (ISDRS) conference , 18-20 June 2014,
Trondheim Norway.
2. SHEATE, W.R. EIA and the Water Framew ork Directive, invited speaker at Environment
Impact Assessment Procedures in the EU Seminar , Trier, Germany, 10-11 April 2014,
Academy of European Law (ERA).
nd
3. SHEATE, W.R. Streamlining SEA Processes, invited speaker at 2 Kingsland Conference:
The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: A Plan For Successh ?eld at King &
Wood Mallesons SJ Berwin, London, 14 February 2014 (Centre of European Law, Kings College
University of London/Francis Taylor Buildings).
4. Russel, D., Turnpenny, J. Bond, A., SHEATE, W., Jordan, A. and Adelle, C. - Embedding ex-
ante policy appraisal at different governance levels and across policy domains: institutional
barriers and enablers and lesson drawing, paper presented at tenternational Conference
on Public Policy, Grenoble, France, 26-28 June 2013.
5. SHEATE, W. R. SEA in Practice – Making Assessment Count, Guest speaker at Landmark
Chambers Seminar SEA: Recent Developments, 24 October 2012, London.
6. SHEATE, W.R., Exit and Voice: IA for Accountability & Sustainability, paper presented at
International Association for Impact Assessment IAIA12 Energy Future: The Role of
Impact Assessment, Porto, Portugal, 27 May - 1 June 2012.
7. Eales, R. and SHEATE, W.R, Challenges of Applying Policy Strategic Environmental Assessment
in Europe, International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA11) , SEA
Implementation and Practice: Making an Impact? Prague, Czech Republic, 21-23
September 2011.
8. Eales, R. Baker, J. and SHEATE W.R, Inte grating a Resilience Approach into Strategic
Environmental Assessment,International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA11 ,)
SEA Implementation and Practice: Making an Impact? Prague, Czech Republic, 21-23
September 2011.
9. SHEATE, W. R., Strategic Environmental Assessment: Lessons from Practice, invited paper
W R Sheate cv - 18
330 Annex 5
given toRoyal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) Conference: Planning and the Natural
Environment, 16 June 2010, London.
10. SHEATE, W. R. , Daly, E. and Zamparutti, T, Embedding futures thinking in
environmental policy making, poster presentation to International Association for
Impact Assessment annual conference (IAIA 10),Geneva, Switzerland, 8-11 April 2010.
11. Sheate, W.R., Twigger-Ross, C., Luscombe, P. and Cheater, S., The Mersey gateway: SIA in
Practice, paper given to International Association for Impact Assessment annual
conference (IAIA 10), Geneva, Switzerland, 8-11 April 2010.
12. SHEATE, W.R., Invited Panel Member – Deep Uncertainties Session, International
Association for Impact Assessment annual conference (IAIA 10)G , eneva, Switzerland,
8-11 April 2010.
13. SHEATE, W.R. and Partidario, M.R., Strategic approaches and assessment techniques –
potential for knowledge brokerage towards sustainability, Conference proceedings ofe5th
Annual International Sustainable Development Research (ISDR) conferenc,eUtrecht
Netherlands, 5-7 July 2009 (available at www.isdrs.org), 2009.
14. Partidario, M.R. and SHEATE, W.R. The Potential Role of SEA and SA as knowledge brokers for
sustainability, paper given toInternational Association for Impact Assessment annual
conference (IAIA 09), Accra, Ghana, 17-22 May 2009, 2009.
15. SHEATE, W.R (2008), Invited paper : Outils, Techniques et Approches pour L'évaluation de
Durabilité: Pratique contre la Théorie, École thématique"Évaluation de la Durabilité",
Cargèse, Corsica, 19-24 October, 2008 (in French).
16. SHEATE, W. R. (2008), EIA and SEA: their in ter-relationship and role as instruments for
sustainable development, invited speaker to the Ministerial/High Level Segment - “The
Convention 10 years after its entry into force: future directions” - of the4th Meeting of the
Parties of the UNECE Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a
Transboundary Context, 20 May 2008, Bucharest, Romania.
17. SHEATE, W. R. (2007), Climate Change Adaptation - Strategy and Integrated Appraisal in
London, Invited paper given toChanging Climates for Environmental Assessment,IAIA –
UK-Ireland Branch event (with IEMA), University of Manchester, 24 October 2007.
18. SHEATE, W.R. (2007), Invited paper: De l’évaluation environnementale á l’évaluation de la
durabilité, Atelier “évaluation de la durabilité”, Centre national de la recherche
scientifique (CNRS), Paris, 13 June 2007 (in French).
19. SHEATE, W.R. (2007), The Water Framework Driective and SEA: The WAPPA project (Ireland)
- The Water Framework Directive, Assessment, Participation and Protected Areas: What are
the Relationships?, paper given on behalf of the Irish Government to EU Member State
Workshop on WFD and SEA, SOAS, London, 19 April 2007
20. SHEATE, W R, and Madeira, N (2006), Su stainability through Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) – a key driver to stimulating institutional and cultural change? Paper given
to the Sustainable Development Research Centre (SDRC) Conference, Sustainability –
Creating the Culture, 15 November 2006, Perth, Scotland.
21. SHEATE, W R, Byron, H, Bennett, S and Cooper, L (2006), The Relationship Between the EIA
and SEA Directives, paper presented at the International Association for Impact
Assessment (IAIA06) annual conference, on Power, Poverty and Sustainability, Stavanger,
Norway, 23-26 May 2006
22. Bennet, S and SHEATE, W R (2006), The Water Framework Directive, assessment,
participation and protected areas: what are the relationships? Paper presented at the
International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA06) annual conference, on
Power, Poverty and Sustainability, Stavanger, Norway, 23-26 May 2006
W R Sheate cv - 19
331Annex 5
23. SHEATE, W R, Partidário, M R, Byron, H, and Bina, O (2006), Sustainability Assessment:
Lessons from the EU BioScene project, paper presented at the International Association
for Impact Assessment (IAIA06)annual conference, on Power, Poverty and Sustainability,
Stavanger, Norway, 23-26 May 2006
24. SHEATE, W R (2006), EIA, SEA and Sustainabili ty: From there to here to where? Seminar
given to the Research Forum, Department of Civic Design, University of Liverpool, 4 May
2006
25. SHEATE, W R (2006), Strategic Environmental Assessme nt and Environme ntal Impact
Assessment: The Interrelationship between the SEA and the EIA Directives,seminar given to
the Planning and Environment Bar Association , The Court Room, Lincoln’s Inn, 16
February 2006
26. SHEATE, W R (2005) Strategic Environmental Assessment of Water Industry Plans and
Programme, paper presented at Water, Water Everywhere…… conference organised by 2
Harcourt Buildings Chambers, English Heritage Lecture Theatre, Savile Row, London, 3
October 2005
27. SHEATE, W R, Partidário, M R, Byron, H, Bina, O and Dagg, S (2005), Sustainability
Assessment of Future Scenarios: Methodology and Application to Mountain Areas of Europe,
paper presented at IAIA-SEA Prague: International Experience and Perspectives in
SEA, Prague, Czech Republic, 26-30 September 2005
28. SHEATE, W R, Partidário, M R, Byron, H, Bina, O and Dagg, S (2005) BioScene: The
Development and Application of a Sustainability Assessment Methodology, paper given at
Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development in Mountain Areas of
Europe: The Challenge of Interdisciplinary Researchconference, Ioannina, Greece, 20-
24 September 2005
29. Partidário, M R, SHEATE, W R, Bina, O, and Byron, H (2005), Sustainability Assessment –
Cross-country analysis in Bioscene , paper given at Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Development in Mountain Areas of Europe: The Challenge of
Interdisciplinary Research conference, Ioannina, Greece, 20-24 September 2005
30. SHEATE, W R, Partidário, M R, Byron, H and Bina, O (2005) Sustainability Assessment of
Scenarios for Agriculture Development and Biodiversity Conservation in Mountain Areas, paper
th
given at 11 Annual International Sustainable Development Research Conference ,
Helsinki, Finland 6-8 June 2005 in the Transdisciplinary Case Study Research Symposium
31. Partidário, M R, SHEATE, W R, Bina, O, and Byron, H (2005), Sustainability Assessment of
Scenarios for Agriculture Development and Biodiversity Conservation in Mountain Areas,
paper presented at IAIA'05, Ethics and Quality in Impact Assessment, International
Association for Impact Assessment, 31 May - 3 June 2005,Hyatt Regency Cambridge
Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
32. SHEATE, W R (2005) SEA challenges, perspectives and potential , Keynote speech given to
Strategic Environmental Assessment, Wate r and Planning: Getting good value -
challenges for application and delivery, CIWEM conference held on 11 May 2005, at
SOAS, London.
33. SHEATE, W R (2003), The SEA Directive: A Much-Need Boost for Environmental Integration,
invited paper given to Conference “The State of Environmental Assessment: Law, Custom and
Practice” organised by the Centre for Law and the Environmen, niversity College London,
Senate House, 8 December 2004.
34. SHEATE, W R (2003), Invited panel member of “Meet the Editors” workshop of EIA journal
editors at the International Association for Impact Assessment Annual Conference,
Marrakech, Morocco, June 2003.
35. SHEATE, W R (2003), Chair and Convenor of three workshops onLinking Impact Assessment
and Management Tools, at theInternational Association for Impact Assessment Annual
W R Sheate cv - 20
332 Annex 5
Conference, Marrakech, Morocco, June 2003.
36. SHEATE, W R (2002), Invited panel member of “Meet the Editors” workshop of EIA journal
editors at the International Association for Impact Assessment Annual Conference ,
The Hague, Netherlands, June 2002
37. SHEATE, W R (2002), Chair and Convenor of two workshops on Linking Impact Assessment
and Management Tools, at theInternational Association for Impact Assessment Annual
Conference, The Hague, Netherlands, June 2002.
38. SHEATE, W R (2001), SEA and the Integration of the Environment into Strategic Decision-
Making, invited presentation of research findto EU EIA/SEA Experts semina,rVaxholm,
Sweden, 29 June 2001.
39. SHEATE, W R (2001), SEA and the Integration of the Environment into Strategic Decision-
Making, seminar presentation at University of Manchester School of Planning and
Landscape, 22 May 2001.
40. SHEATE, W R (2000), EIA, SEA and Environmental Planning, invited panel speaker at Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution Seminar on Environmental Planning, Institute
of Materials, London, 3 February 2000.
41. SHEATE, W R (1999), Chair and Convenor of two workshops onAssessment of Environmental
Effects: Making the Links Between Tools , at the International Association for Impact
Assessment Annual Conference, Glasgow, June 1999.
42. SHEATE, W R (1998), Strategic environmental assessment and transport , paper given to
CESAM/Nordic-European Research Course, Land Use and Nature Protection , Aarhus,
Denmark, 27 August 1998.
43. SHEATE, W R and Byron, H, (1998) Treatment of biodiversity issues in road environmental
impact assessments, Linnean Society Conference on Wildlife and Roads: the ecological
impact, Linnean Society, London 11-12 March 1998 (forthcoming proceedings).
44. SHEATE, W R (1997), Transport Policy: Integrating Science, Technology and Perceptions ,
paper given to SCOPE conference on the Effective Use of the Sciences in Sustainable
Development, Royal Society, London, 21 February 1997.
45. SHEATE, W R (1995)Evolution of EA in the U, paper given toCIRIA Construction Industry
Environmental Forum Workshop, Environmental Assessment - Policy and Practi,ce 12
January 1995, Canary Wharf, London
46. SHEATE, W R (1995) The Participation of the Public and Non-Governmental Organisations in
the EIA Process: Opportunities and Obstacles, paper given to the 15th Annual Meeting of
the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) Impact Assessments:
Involving People in the Management of Change towards a Sustainable Futur,e26-30
June, Elangeni Hotel, Durban, South Africa.
47. SHEATE, W R and Atkinson, N R (1995) Public Participation in Environmental Procedures ,
paper given to theAnnual FIELD/Cameron May Summer School on Environmental La,w
The Regus Conference Centre, London WC2, 3-7 July.
48. SHEATE, W R (1995) Concrete and Tyres: Transport Impacts on the Physical Environment,
paper given to the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
(CIWEM) Transport and the Environment - the End of the Road? Options for
sustainable policy and practice, Church House Conference Centre, Westminister, London.
49. SHEATE W R (1995) Pressures: Road Transport and the Environment , paper given to the
Institute of Road Transport Engineers26th Annual Conference and Display, 18 May,
Telford International Centre, Telford.
W R Sheate cv - 21
333Annex 5
50. SHEATE, W R (1995) The Purpose and Effect of Strategic Environmental Assessment: The
Future, paper given to Airfields Environment Federation conference Environmental
Assessment of Airports - Current Issues, 12 October 1995, Royal Society of Arts, London.
51. SHEATE, W R (1995) Amending the EC Directive (85/337/EEC) on Environmental Impact
Assessment, paper given toCameron May/Berrymans Conference Construction Law and
the Environment, 15 November 1995 at the Royal Society of Arts, London.
52. SHEATE, W R (1995) Why is SEA Desirable for Local Authorities? Paper given to the Green
Alliance Conference Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in Local Authoritie,s
23 November 1995, Baden-Powell House, London
53. SHEATE, W R (1994) Improving Public Participation in EIA, paper given to conference
organised by Manchester University EIA Centre on Improving the Role of
Environmental Impact Assessment in Achieving Sustainable Development, 14 April
1994.
54. SHEATE, W R (1994) Strategic Environmental Assessment and Public Participation in the
European Union , paper given to the 14th Annual Meeting of the International
Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) 25 years of Impact Assessment: Looking
Back and Projecting the Future, Quebec City, Canada, 14-18 June 1994
55. SHEATE, W R (1994)Managing Resources in a World of Sustainable Development: Breathing
New Life into EIA , paper to Institution of Water and Environmental Management
(IWEM) Training Conference, Sustainability in Engineering Practice , The Wiltshire
Hotel, Swindon, 12 October 1994.
56. SHEATE, W R (1994) Strategic Environmental Assessment, paper given to National Rivers
Authority Seminar for Environmental Assessment Specialists and Senior Managers,
Coventry Hilton, 13 October 1994.
57. SHEATE, W R and Cerny, R J (1993)Legislating for EIA: Learning the Lessons, paper given to
the 13th Annual Meeting of the Internat ional Association for Impact Assessment
(IAIA) Development and the Environment, Shanghai, China, 11-15 June 1993.
58. SHEATE, W R (1993) Assessing the benefits of road and rail: a critiq, paper given to
Hertfordshire Conservation Society's Regional Transport Strategy Conference ,
Blakemore Hotel, Little Wymondley, 16 July 1993.
59. SHEATE, W R (1992) How effective are environmental assessments in protecting the rural
environment, paper given to Aston University Conference on Environmental
Assessment, at Aston University, Birmingham, 12 March 1992, UK
60. SHEATE, W R (1992) Environmental Assessment: Scoping, Consultation and Co-ordination,
paper given toAgricultural Development and Advisory Service (ADAS) conference on
Environmental Assessment: Help or Hindrance , at Forte Posthouse Hotel, Crick,
Northamptonshire, 9 April 1992.
61. SHEATE, W R (1992) Environmental Assessment in the European Community, paper given to
British Public Works Association (BPWA)Conference on Europe - New Challenge,sat
National Agricultural Centre, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire, 8 October 1992.
62. SHEATE, W R (1992 ) Water and Wetlands - the need for environmental monitoring and
reporting in the UK, paper given to Broads Authority/Heritage Resources Centre/UEA
workshop Assessing and Monitoring Changein Wetland Parks and Protected Areas,
Norfolk Mead Hotel, Coltishall, Norfolk, 9 - 13 October 1992.
63. SHEATE, W R (1992) An NGO perspective on the benefitsand performance of Environmental
Assessment in Britain , paper given to the British Association of Nature
Conservationists/University College London Conference Environmental Assessment:
Green Progress or Greenwash?, University College, London, 11 December 1992.
W R Sheate cv - 22
334 Annex 5
64. SHEATE, W R (1991)Environmental Pressures on Water User,spaper given toConfederation
of British Industry (CBI) Conference on Water: Improving Efficiency and Managing
Costs, CBI, Centre Point, London, 3 July 1991.
65. SHEATE, W R (1991. Environmental Assessment Procedures: the Environmentalist's View ,
paper given to Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) conference on Explaining
Environmental Assessments, at RTPI, Portland Place, London, 1 November 1991.
66. SHEATE, W R (1990)Environmental Protection Bill: Pollution Contro,l paper given at Seminar:
'Green Legislation 1990', 4 April 1990, Mersey Basin Campaign, Manchester
67. SHEATE, W R (1990) A Perspective from England , paper given to conference on The
Countryside Council for Wales, Council for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW)
Annual Conference, 6/7 April 1990, Aberystwyth.
68. SHEATE, W R (1990) Regulating the Water Environment: The Next Steps , paper to
Conference on Environmental Law of the European Communities - A Practical
Approach, Durham, 20/21 July 1990
69. SHEATE, W R (1990) Public Participation: The Key to Effective Environmental Assessment ,
paper given to Conference on Environmental Assessment: Theory and Practice, Café
Royal, London, 8/9 November 1990, organised by IBC Legal and Technical Services Ltd.
W R Sheate cv - 23
335Annex 5
Research Students supervised – 1995-2013
Diploma of Imperial College (DIC, one year by research)
x Gu Lixin (1995-1996) British Council scholarship: The overlaps and interactions of
environmental impact assessment, risk assessment and environmental auditing : a case
analysis of the Channel Tunnel and Sizewell B Nuclear Power Station.
PhD students
x Juan Romanillos Palerm (1995-1998) Mexican Govt studentship: Public participation in
environmental impact assessment, an empirical-theoretical analysis framework
x Jeremy Richardson (1995-1999) ESRC/CPRE CASE Studentship: Strategic Environmental
Assessment of Trunk Road Plans and Programmes
x Helen Byron (1996-2000) ESRC/RSPB CASE studentship: Treatment of biodiversity issues in
environmental impact assessments of road schemes
x Steven Smith (1998-2002) ESRC Studentship: Sustainability Appraisal and the SEA Directive
in English Regional Planning
x Gu Lixin (1997-2001) Environmental Management in Multi-National Companies in China and
the UK
x Jillian Anable (1997-2002) ESRC/National Trust CASE Studentship: Mobility Management in
the Leisure Industry
x Konstantinos Evangelinos (1998-2003) Environmental Management Systems Standards in
Corporate Decisions and Policy Making
x Lourdes Cooper (1999-2004) Cumulative Effects Assessment, Strategic Planning and Urban
Regeneration: the Case of the Thames Gateway
x Juliette McDonald (1999-2003) ESRC/Camden Council CASE Studentship: Development and
Assessment of a Public Participatory Framework for Integration of Computer Modelling in LAQM
Decision-Making
x Dorothy Maxwell (2000-2004) Sustainable Product and Service Development in
Manufacturing Industry
x Ivan Scrase (2000-2006) ESRC/Environment Agency CASE Studentship: Development of
Conceptual Models and Tools for the Strategic Appraisal of Policies, Plans and Programmes
x Kaiyi Zhou (2005-9) SEA and Provincial Level Expressway Programme Planning: an
Application Framework and Indicator System for China
x Alison Wadmore (p/t) (2004-) Risk Assessment of Poaching Incentives and Deterrents in
Tigers
x Uzoma Ojike (2006-2012) Combining Tools and Techniques for embedding an ecosystems
approach in spatial planning
x Shahryar Mohammadrezaie Omran (2010-) Transition Management Approach to Low
Carbon Transportation in Iran.
x Megan Quinlan (p/t) (2011-) Mosquitoes and risk management
W R Sheate cv - 24
336 Annex 5
Research degrees examined
MRes examined:-
x University of East Anglia – Sheryl French (MRes), 1998 (The influence of environmental impact
assessment and strategic environmental assessment in decision making)
x University College Dublin - Damien Keneghan (MRes), 2013 (A review of worldwide best practice in
the assessment of biological control of invasive alien species: facilitating the development of an Irish
framework)
PhDs examined:-
x Oxford Brookes University – Caroline Bellanger, 1999 (Divergent practice in a converging system?
The example of environmental impact assessment in the European Union)
x Manchester University – Jeremy Carter, 2004 (The effect of strategic environmental assessment on
the preparation of structure plans)
x Imperial College London – Fernando Farias, October 2005 (Air pollution exposure and integrated
assessment modelling around London's Heathrow airport)
x Manchester University – Andries van der Walt, November 2005 (Consideration of cumulative effects
in environmental assessment : South African experience in an international context)
x University of Surrey – Kalliope Pediaditi, October 2006 (Evaluating the sustainability of Brownfield
redevelopment projects: the redevelopment assessment framework (RAF).
x University of Liverpool - Paola Gazzola, December 2006 (Adapting Strategic Environmental
Assessment for Integration in Different Planning Systems)
x University of Cardiff - Dilek Unalan, August 2007 (Environmental Policy Adoption in the EU Context:
Adoption of the EU SEA Directive in Turkey)
x Imperial College London - James Haselip, October 2007 (Electricity Market Reform in Argentina: Pre
And Post Crisis Policies, Institutions And Ideas)
x Oxford Brookes University – Cailing Hu, April 2008 (The Implementation of water pollution control at
local level: A comparative study in China and England)
x Imperial College London – Nia Davies, November 2008 (Advancing comparative policy evaluation
techniques: A case study of British climate change policies)
x University of Manchester – Cassandra Wesolowski, December 2008 (The optimum role of tiered
environmental assessments relating to long-term radioactive waste management in the UK)
x Imperial College London - Caroline Howe, September 2009 (The Role of Education as a Tool for
Environmental Conservation and Sustainable Development)
x Oxford Brookes University – Joe Weston (PhD by publication, December 2009) (Environmental
Impact Assessment: A Critical Theory Analysis)
x University of Liverpool – Paula Posas (December 2009) (SEA and climate change)
x University of Manchester – Anna Gilchrist (July 2010) (Climate Change, Species Range Expansion
and the Institutional Response).
x Imperial College London – Sukaina Al Wasity (March 2011) (Aviation Air Pollution Studies in the
Emirate of Abu Dhabi).
x Oxford Brookes University – Katherine Drayson (April 2013) (An Evaluation of Ecological Impact
Assessment in England).
W R Sheate cv - 25
337Annex 5
x University of Manchester – Samuel Hayes (December 2013) (Strategic Assessment in England and
Scotland: Analysing the contribution to sustainability).
x Imperial College London - Ricardo de Albuquerque Martins (May 2014) A Wood Fuel Energy Systems
Metamodel: A Novel Approach to Participatory Conceptual Design – the Case of Mozambique.
W R Sheate cv - 26
338 ANNEX 6
GolderAssociates, Inc., “The Requirements of ImpactAssessment for
Large-Scale Road Construction Project in Costa RicaAlong the
San Juan River, Nicaragua,” July 2014
339340 Annex 6
THE REQUIREMENTS OF
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR
LARGE-SCALE ROAD
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN
COSTA RICA ALONG THE SAN
JUAN RIVER, NICARAGUA
PreparedRepublic of Nicaragua
REPORT
Submitted By: Golder Associates Inc.
Gainesville, FL 32607 USA
July 2014 Project No. 1402647
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
341Annex 6
July 2014 Project No. 1402647
342 Annex 6
July 2014 i Project No.1402647
Table of Contents
1.0 ▯ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................
......................................... 1 ▯
2.0 ▯ AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS ..........................................................
................................................. 4 ▯
3.0 ▯ INTRODUCTION .........................................................................
................................................▯.... 6
4.0 ▯ PROPER SCREENING WOULD HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE ROUTE 1856 PROJECT
REQUIRED AN EIA. ........................................................................
................................................ 7
4.1 ▯ Costa Rica’s EIA Regulation.........................................................................
..............................▯ 7
4.2 ▯ Possibility of Significant Adverse Impacts.........................................................................
...........7 ▯
4.2.1 ▯ Magnitude of the Project .................................................................
.....................................▯... 8
4.2.2 ▯ Physical Realities ...............................................................
.............................................▯........ 8
4.2.3 ▯ Protected Areas ...................................................................
............................................▯..... 10
4.2.4 ▯ Existing Vulnerabilities .........................................................
.............................................▯.... 11
4.2.5 ▯ Post-Construction Impacts .................................................................
.................................. 1▯
4.3 ▯ Conclusion.........................................................................
...............................................▯......... 12
5.0 ▯ WHAT AN EIA FOR ROUTE 1856 SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED..................................................13 ▯
5.1 ▯ The Goal of an EIA.........................................................................
.......................................▯.... 13
5.2 ▯ The Steps in an EIA .........................................................................
.....................................▯.... 14
5.2.1 ▯ Clear Project Description .........................................................................
............................▯. 14
5.2.2 ▯ Scoping Study ...................................................................
..............................................▯...... 15
5.2.3 ▯ Alternatives Analysis .......................................................................
..................................▯.... 15
5.2.4 ▯ Establishment of Baseline Conditions .........................................................................
.......... 15 ▯
5.2.4.1 ▯ Hydrogeology, Hydrology, and Surface Water Quality ......................................................16 ▯
5.2.4.2 ▯ Geology, Geomorphology, and Soils.........................................................................
........16 ▯
5.2.4.3 ▯ Biological Component .........................................................................
...........................1.▯. 7
5.2.4.4 ▯ Visual Aesthetics .......................................................................
..................................▯...... 17
5.2.4.5 ▯ Natural Hazards .....................................................................
......................................▯..... 18
5.2.5 ▯ Impact Analysis/Assessment .........................................................................
........................ 18▯
5.2.6 ▯ Identification and Concerns of Stakeholders .........................................................................
1 9
5.2.7 ▯ Identification of Mitigation Measures and Preparation of an Environmental Management Plan
........................................................................
....................................................................... 19
6.0 ▯ PROBLEMS WITH THE ROUTE 1856 PROJECT DUE TO LACK OF EIA..................................21 ▯
6.1 ▯ No Consistent Definition of Purpose and Scope........................................................................
21 ▯
6.2 ▯ No Alternative Corridor Study .........................................................................
...........................▯24
6.3 ▯ Lack of an Effective Environmental Management Plan .............................................................30 ▯
6.4 ▯ Lack of Mitigation and Monitoring .........................................................................
..................... 3▯
7.0 ▯ INADEQUACY OF COSTA RICA’S “ENVIRONMENTAL DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT”...........32 ▯
7.1 ▯ Not an EIA Substitute.........................................................................
....................................▯... 32
7.2 ▯ Not a credible post-construction audit .........................................................................
..............3. 2▯
343Annex 6
July 2014 ii Project No.1402647
7.2.1 ▯ Scope of EDA.........................................................................
...........................................▯.... 33
7.2.2 ▯ Methods and Conclusions.........................................................................
............................. 34▯
7.2.2.1 ▯ Sedimentation of Bodies of Water .........................................................................
............35 ▯
7.2.2.2 ▯ Land Clearance ......................................................................
........................................▯... 36
7.2.2.3 ▯ Impacts to Biodiversity.........................................................................
.............................▯37
7.2.2.4 ▯ Landsliding and Slope Erosion .........................................................................
.................39 ▯
7.2.2.5 ▯ Aquatic Life ....................................................................
............................................▯....... 41
7.2.2.6 ▯ Visual Impacts and Tourism .........................................................................
...................... 4 ▯2
7.2.3 ▯ Impacts Ignored in the EDA’s Assessment .........................................................................
... 4 ▯3
7.2.3.1 ▯ Use of the Road and Related Development ...................................................................... 43 ▯
7.2.3.2 ▯ Hazards ....................................................................
.................................................▯........ 43
7.2.4 ▯ Conclusion .....................................................................
................................................▯....... 44
8.0 ▯ CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................................
.... 45 ▯
APPENDIX 1: TABLE FROM SETENA RESOLUTION 2572-2009............................................................46 ▯
APPENDIX 2: AUTHOR CVS .........................................................................
............................................ 47 ▯
344 Annex 6
July 2014 1 Project No. 1402647
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As engineers and scientists who conduct Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) for infrastructure
projects throughout the world, including in Latin America, we were asked by the Government of
Nicaragua to evaluate the EIA process, or the lack thereof, undertaken by Costa Rica for the
construction of Route 1856, a highway project located in northern Costa Rica in close proximity to
Nicaragua’s San Juan River. Based on our professional experience, we have no doubt that the Route
1856 project required an EIA and that the failure to carry out this assessment has resulted in
significant and predictable impacts, including to Nicaragua.
EIA is an evaluation process that seeks to identify, prior to the commencement of a project, what will
be the project’s environmental and social impacts, and to identify ways in which those impacts can be
avoided, minimized or mitigated. Whether a project requires an EIA is determined by a “screening”
process that determines if the project is likely to cause significant environmental or social impacts.
Costa Rica did not screen the Route 1856 project. Had a proper screening exercise been carried out,
it would have determined that the project required an EIA. Not only does Costa Rican law require EIA
for highway projects, including for roads that are much smaller than Route 1856, the project clearly
was likely to have significant impacts. This is because Route 1856 was sited in an area of very high
precipitation and erodible soils, making the large-scale erosion of sediment a significant risk. The
road’s close proximity to numerous bodies of water, including the San Juan River and tributaries to it,
make the risk of sediment contamination to the river from erosion a particular concern. Other
significant risks that would have been identified had Costa Rica screened Route 1856 include likely
impacts to the area’s protected areas, biodiversity and primary forests.
A proper EIA for Route 1856 should have characterized the project’s risks and likely impacts by
evaluating the biophysical and social components, including among other things hydrogeology,
hydrology, surface and ground water quality, geology and geomorphology, soil, natural and industrial
hazards, aquatic and terrestrial ecology, biodiversity, protected areas, human and ecological health,
and visual aesthetics. This should have included, at a minimum, a clear description of the project,
including the identification and evaluation of its biophysical and social issues and related risks, and
analysis of alternative sites for the project. It also should have included the collection of pre-project
baseline data so that possible project-related impacts could be compared to pre-existing conditions.
Once baseline data had been collected, Costa Rica should have superimposed Route 1856 onto the
baseline, in order to predict where, how and how much the project was likely to impact baseline
conditions. Through this process, Costa Rica should have identified required mitigation measures
and prepared an Environmental Management Plan to address, among other things, impacts from
eroding sediment into water bodies, including the San Juan River.
345Annex 6
July 2014 2 Project No. 1402647
Had Costa Rica undertaken even a limited EIA, it would have determined that Route 1856 posed
significant risks, including to Nicaragua’s San Juan River, due to the likelihood that large quantities of
sediment would erode from the area of the road and enter the river, either directly or through
tributaries. This was entirely predictable, given the failure to design the road or to comply with widely-
accepted roadway engineering standards, including with respect to the construction of stream
crossings, and the failure to compact side-cast fill material. Large-scale erosion of sediment into the
San Juan River was also foreseeable in light of the road’s very close proximity to the river, and the
fact that it was built on steep topography with erodible soils in areas characterized by high levels of
precipitation. These predictable outcomes have materialized, as we observed first-hand from boat
and helicopter in May 2014. In our view, the large size sediment deltas that have developed in the
San Juan River would not be acceptable in any environmental regulatory regime of which we are
aware.
The “Environmental Diagnostic Assessment” (EDA) produced for Costa Rica in November 2013, well
after much of Route 1856 had been constructed, does not redress the problems created by Costa
Rica’s failure to carry out an EIA. An EIA is intended to identify impacts prior to a project being carried
out, so that the predicted impacts can be prevented, minimized, compensated and/or mitigated. The
objective of an EDA, on the other hand, is to identify impacts after they have occurred. Accordingly,
many of the recommendations made in the EDA with respect to the design and construction of Route
1856 have come too late.
The EDA also contains fundamental flaws that rend er its conclusions with respect to anticipated
impacts from Route 1856, especially to Nicaragua, untenable. It arbitrarily defined the scope of the
road’s impact as a 1000 m strip extending to the south from the right bank of the San Juan River. As
a result, the EDA’s scope did not include road-related works carried out elsewhere, including the
project’s extensive network of access roads. Even more seriously, by defining its coverage as the belt
of land located 1000 m south of the San Juan’s right bank, it excluded from consideration Nicaraguan
territory, including the river itself. Other flaws include the EDA’s characterization of ecological impacts
in a manner that appears to be quantitative but which, in fact, is subjective and susceptible to
manipulation, and its artificial reduction of the significance of impacts, including sedimentation of
water bodies, by improperly considering them solely in light of the overall roadway project, rather than
in their local context, as is the proper approach.
In sum, we conclude that Costa Rica should have carried out an EIA for Route 1856, and that its
failure to do so has resulted in significant impacts to Nicaragua, including most prominently in the form
of sedimentation of the San Juan River, which would not have occurred, or would have been much
reduced, had an impact assessment been conducted. We therefore recommend that:
346 Annex 6
July 2014 3 Project No. 1402647
the Road not be allowed to persist in its current unprotected state;
the Road not be used for the transport of hazardous materials;
meaningful erosion control needs to be implemented;
mitigation works need to be undertaken in a way that does not cause additional harm; and
new development projects that can impact Nicaragua, now possible because of the Road,
also be preceded by proper planning and EIA with Nicaragua considered as an interested
stakeholder.
347Annex 6
July 2014 4 Project No. 1402647
2.0 AUTHOR QUALIFICATIONS
This report has been prepared by Mr. Benny Susi, P.E., Principal and Practice Leader with the
International Environmental and Social Due Diligence Services practice at Golder Associates Inc.
(Golder), a global engineering and environmental consulting firm, and by Mr. Rene Lozada, MS,
Environmental ESIA Specialist, at Golder.
Mr. Susi has managed, directed, or been principal lead on numerous Environmental and Social
Impact Assessments (ESIAs). He is a Principal and Senior Engineer and Project Manager with more
than 30 years of experience in domestic and international inter-disciplinary environmental projects,
including projects in the mining, oil and gas, infrastructure, power plant, and waste management
sectors. The work has involved environmental impact studies, compliance audits, protection of air
resources, environmental permitting, and transactional audits.
Mr. Susi has directed, managed, or been lead engineer on projects involving all aspects of industrial
development throughout the U.S. and in numerous countries. He has been the project manager or
project director on ESIAs for: power plants in Panama and the Dominican Republic; pipelines in
Bolivia and Nicaragua; LNG facilities in Mexico, the Dominican Republic, and Peru; mining projects in
the Dominican Republic and Mexico; and a large industrial petrochemical project in Peru. He has also
served as environmental engineer for a consortium of lenders for the Canatarell Oil Field re-
gasification project in Mexico.
Mr. Susi graduated from the University of Florida in 1979 with a M.E. in Civil Engineering, after having
acquired his B.S. in Civil Engineering from the same institution in 1977. Mr. Susi is a member of the
American Society of Civil Engineers and Tau Beta Pi Honorary Engineering Society.
Mr. Lozada is a Senior Environmental Specialist resident in Bogotá, Colombia. He has 25 years of
experience in conducting and managing Environmental and Social Impact Assessments,
Environmental Management Plans, Contingency Plans, and Phase I EHS Due Diligence and Audits
on a range of development projects throughout Central America, the Caribbean and South America.
His focus has been on work related to the transportation, oil & gas, mining, and industry sectors.
René blends a successful environmental consultancy with first-hand regulatory and institutional
experience, having worked with a Regional Environmental Authority and with the United Nations
Development Program in Colombia before developing experience in international consultancy.
Mr. Susi and Mr. Lozada have worked together for the last 15 years on international ESIAs in many
Latin American countries such as Mexico, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Peru, Colombia, Chile, the Dominican
Republic, and Panama. As managers and directors of ESIA projects, they have been responsible for
348 Annex 6
July 2014 5 Project No. 1402647
developing the overall scope and strategy of ESIAs, including the various phases such as: screening;
scoping (planning); environmental and social baseline strategy; baseline data collection and work
plans focusing on the issues identified during the planning/scoping phase; impact assessment; and
Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs) and monitoring plans. As the overall leaders
of such projects, they have directed technical staffs comprised of many specialists in order to meet
the objectives of developing ESIA processes.
Resumes detailing the experience of the authors of this report are presented in Appendix 2.
349Annex 6
July 2014 6 Project No. 1402647
3.0 INTRODUCTION
The documents reviewed by the authors of this report (hereafter referred to as “Golder”) include:
Application of the Republic of Nicaragua Instituting Proceedings Against the Republic of
Costa Rica (December 2011)
Republic of Nicaragua Memorial (December 2012), including:
o Annex 2: Costa Rican “Environmental Management Plan: Juan Rafael Mora Porras
Road” (April 2012)
o Annex 3: LANAMME Report (May 2012)
o Annex 4: CFIA Report (June 2012)
Counter-Memorial of Costa Rica including Annex 10, Environmental Diagnostic Assessment
of the Ecological Component (November 2012)
Costa Rica’s Decree 31849 of June 28, 2004
Blanca Rios Touma, “Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the San Juan River,
Nicaragua” (July 2014)
Danny Hagans and Bill Weaver, “Evaluation of Erosion, Environmental Impacts and Road
Repair Efforts at Selected Sites along Juan Rafael Mora Route 1856 in Costa Rica, Adjacent
the Río San Juan, Nicaragua” (July 2014)
In addition, to gain first-hand understanding of the scope and impacts of the roadway project, Golder
carried out a site visit to the affected area, including a helicopter flyover on May 2, 2014 (in
Nicaraguan airspace) of the section of Route 1856 that runs parallel to the San Juan River, followed
by site reconnaissance by boat along the San Juan River from May 2-4, 2014.
This remainder of this report consists of the following five sections:
A discussion explaining that proper screening would have determined that the Route 1856
project required an EIA (Section 4);
A discussion of what an EIA for Route 1856 should have included and why (Section 5);
A description of the problems that have arisen as a result of the lack of pre-project EIA for
Route 1856, based on the authors’ first-hand observation of the road works and review of
relevant documentation (Section 6);
An evaluation of Costa Rica’s December 2013 Environmental Diagnostic Assessment and an
explanation of the reasons it is neither an EIA substitute nor an adequate post-construction
audit (Section 7); and
Conclusions and Recommendations (Section 8).
350 Annex 6
July 2014 7 Project No. 1402647
4.0 PROPER SCREENING WOULD HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE ROUTE
1856 PROJECT REQUIRED AN EIA.
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA), sometimes referred to as Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA), is a well-recognized process aimed at developing a sustainable project and
managing environmental and social performance throughout the project’s life. Although ESIA is used
in many countries as a permitting tool and an administrative process, it is fundamentally a planning
process for project developers and a decision-making process for environmental authorities. It is also
an important risk-management tool, as it identifies – prior to a particular project’s development – the
key issues that represent the potential to cause adverse environmental and social risks and impacts,
and helps to ensure that those risks and impacts are properly accounted for.
A first and fundamental step that must take place before a project is developed is the determination of
whether an EIA is required. This is known as “screening,” and it entails determining whether and to
what extent the project under review has the potential to cause significant impacts to the environment.
If it does, then EIA is required. In our opinion, it is clear from an engineering and environmental
perspective that the construction of Route 1856 required a comprehensive EIA. This is because the
scope of the project and various site-specific factors combined to create a project with the capacity to
cause substantial environmental impacts, including to Nicaragua. A screening process for this
project, had it been undertaken by Costa Rica, would have determined that there was potential for
significant adverse impacts that could have been avoided or minimized had the project been properly
designed and well executed.
4.1 Costa Rica’s EIA Regulation
As an initial matter, Costa Rican law would ordinarily require an EIA for the Route 1856 project.
Decree 31849 of June 28, 2004 lists, in Annex 1, types of projects for which EIA is required. These
include the following that apply to Route 1856: (a) construction of roads (as required under the Law of
Administrating Contracts) (Annex 1, page 83); (b) state or private infrastructure projects of national
interest (as required under the Forestry Law) (Annex 1, page 85); and (c) projects developed in
wildlife refuge areas (as required under the Wildlife and Conservation Law) (Annex 1, page 82).
Further, Annex 2 lists, in Category A, additional projects that require full EIA as a condition for
obtaining a license for the project (Annex 2, p. 31). These include projects to construct national roads
that are longer than 5 km and provincial roads that are longer than 10 km (Annex 2, p. 105).
Regardless of whether Route 1856 is considered to be national or provincial, a full EIA is required by
the EIA regulation since the road is much longer that these distances.
4.2 Possibility of Significant Adverse Impacts
Proper screening of the project, had it been undertaken, would also have determined that EIA for
Route 1856 was required because the road has the potential to cause significant impacts, including to
351Annex 6
July 2014 8 Project No. 1402647
Nicaragua, given such factors as the magnitude of the works, the sensitive environmental setting into
which the project was to be introduced, and its proximity to the San Juan River.
4.2.1 Magnitude of the Project
The fact that the project extends for 160 km underscores the potential for significant impacts. In fact,
the size of the project alone, which entails significant disturbance, is sufficient to conclude there is a
likelihood of significant impacts.
4.2.2 Physical Realities
Screening of the Route 1856 project would have identified two important facts that indicate it is likely
to have significant impacts. Not only is the project located in an area with a very high amount of
1
rainfall (the third highest precipitation in Costa Rica ), it contains the Ultisol class of soil that
represents the oldest and most weathered soils (EDA pg. 35). The combination of high precipitation
and weathered (erodible) soils can be expected to lead to erosion. If not properly minimized and
controlled, this has a high likelihood of causing the instability of constructed works and sedimentation
in nearby bodies of water. In addition, the project area is subject to climatic conditions that include
natural hazards, such as tropical storms and hurricanes (EDA pg. 35), which are likely to cause a
greater degree of impacts associated with the erodible and exposed soils.
The risk posed by these factors is accentuated by the fact that Route 1856 is sited in very close
proximity to Nicaragua’s San Juan River, as well as to “numerous rivers of different dimensions …
channels and creeks” (EDA pg. 55, also pgs. 36-37, 45). The presence of these bodies of water
increases the likelihood of significant impacts to Nicaragua because many of them provide
mechanisms for impacts to the San Juan River, to which they ultimately make their way. As the EDA
acknowledges, seven of Costa Rica’s “important hydrographic watersheds” empty into the San Juan,
including the San Carlos and the Sarapiqui (EDA pg. 36), as well as smaller streams (EDA pg. 63). In
the upriver section of Route 1856 above the San Carlos River, the EDA states that “28 tributary
streams were identified that empty into the San Juan River” (EDA pg. 69).
Screening of Route 1856 would also have identified that the bodies of water in the project’s area of
influence are important to biodiversity and serve as habitat for species, some of which are endemic
(only existing in these locations). For example, “[a]long the path of Route 1856 can be found
complexly related wetlands associated with the lower watershed of the San Juan River,” whose
vegetation is “very valuable” due to its unique species composition, and which are “the habitat of fish
and mammals such as the ‘gaspar’ ( Atractosteus tropicus) and the Manatee or Sea Cow ( Trichechus
1The EDA provides varying and inconsistent precipitation data but they all qualify as high annual averages:
1500-3500 mm (EDA, pg. 20), over 3200 mm (EDA pg. 35), 2300-4400 mm (EDA pg. 36), 2300-2800 mm (EDA
pg. 42).
352 Annex 6
July 2014 9
Project No. 1402647
manatus), both of them endangered species” (EDA pg. 59). A section of the EDA is dedicated to
endemic species of aquatic fauna (fish, mammals, reptiles and crustaceans) known to exist in the
study area with reduced or threatened populations (EDA pgs. 106-108). The EDA warns of the
possibility of disturbance or pollution of these aquatic habitats, observing: “The presence of
endangered or highly threatened species in the study area is a condition that justifies protecting the
riparian ecosystems” (EDA pg. 106).
More broadly, the EDA provides substantial information on the many threatened terrestrial and
aquatic animal species present in the project’s area of influence (EDA pgs. 62-63, 106-108),
characterizing it as “a refuge for endangered species” (EDA pg. 64). It states:
“The importance of the northern territory of Costa Rica, in addition to the presence of
wetlands of high biological value, it contains the last remnant of very humid tropical
forest where the mountain almond tree (Dipteryx panamensis) is a dominant species.
It is also home to numerous threatened species, among them the emblem species:
jaguar (Panthera Onca), the sea cow ( Trichechus manatus) and the Great Green
2
Macaw, a species that is highly dependent on the almond tree as a source of
nourishment and substratum for nesting.” (EDA pg. 39)
A road project carried out in these areas inevitably risks causing significant impacts, including in
Nicaragua. Not only can construction and use of the road destroy or damage areas of sensitive
forest, the effects of such damage are likely to be felt within the broader ecosystem. In the case of
Route 1856, the forest in Northern Costa Rica “i s the life zone that provides the main connecting
habitat between the southern part of the Atlantic watershed of Nicaragua and the Central Volcanic
Range of Costa Rica” (EDA pg. 42). A connec ting habitat, or wildlife corridor, is a specially
designated habitat that connects wildlife populations by allowing for continuous free movement of
species and continuity of plant communities, separated from human activities or structures. This
connection allows an exchange of individuals between populations, which may help prevent the
negative effects of inbreeding and reduced genetic diversity (via genetic drift) that often occur with
isolated populations.
The connecting habitat found in the area of Route 1856 links ecological communities in Costa Rica to
those in southern Nicaragua. We agree with the EDA that “[s]ince the Route is critically located on
the Costa Rica-Nicaragua border, it [was] of the utmost importance to analyze its potential impacts on
the conservation of connectivity, based on the identification of priority sites and critical links for
connectivity” (EDA pgs. 18-19). Existing disturbances and fragmentation of the corridor increase the
2
Regarding the Great Green Macaw ( Ara ambiguus) the EDA states that the project area includes locations
within the “priority nesting area” and that are “key to the survival of the species” (EDA pg. 59). In other words, the
project goes through the biological corridor that “constitutes the last viable habitat of less developed lands that
can maintain the Great Green Macaw,” which is “recognized internationally as a threatened species” (EDA pg.
60).
353Annex 6
July 2014 10 Project No. 1402647
risk of significant impacts to Nicaragua. As the EDA notes, “the landscape has suffered a strong
process of fragmentation that threatens connectivity among natural protected areas in Costa Rica and
the southeast of Nicaragua” (EDA pg. 46). Construction of a road in such a location unquestionably
has the capacity to create significant impacts in Nicaragua.
Screening would have found that clearing of primary forest for Route 1856 would likely impact
3
Nicaragua in another way as well. Primary forests provide ground cover and structural support for
soils. Once trees and other vegetation are removed, soils are exposed to the elements and
susceptible to erosion, particularly in locations like this one where there is abundant rainfall. This is a
significant concern for this project location, where the “primary forest on sloping terrain” grows on soils
with “very high susceptibility to hydric erosion” (EDA pg. 57). The EDA recognizes that this
combination of rainfall and weak soils raises concerns about erosion and consequent impacts to
nearby bodies of water: “Due to the high rate of rainfall in the area of the Route, the high grade of
weathering of the geological materials, and the absence of forest cover in some specific sites, the
existence of the potential risk of eroded sediments depositing on the different bodies of water has
been identified” (EDA pg. 31). As a result, the project’s proximity to the San Juan River and the many
bodies of water that flow into the San Juan creates a risk of impact to Nicaragua.
4.2.3 Protected Areas
Screening would have found that EIA was necessary because the project location lies within
protected areas, including biosphere reserves and conservation areas whose importance has been
recognized on the national, regional, and international levels (EDA pgs. 20, 38-41). The location’s
biological diversity is “exceptionally diverse,” and it is part of “the biological corridor with the greatest
biological diversity in Central America” (EDA pg. 42), making it “one of the priority sites for biodiversity
conservation in Mesoamerica” (EDA pg. 46). We agree with the EDA that it is important to conserve
this “unique eco-system that protects a large number of species in danger or threatened by adverse
effects that in many cases are generated by human activities” (EDA pg. 47, quoting a 2008 source),
and that impacts to the eco-system assume heightened significance given the context. This makes
EIA for projects in this location especially necessary.
3 Some of the trees and other plants are themselves threatened and requiring conservation. The EDA
acknowledges this, explaining that the project area is an important area for tree biodiversity (EDA pg. 47), and
contains up to 28 threatened species of trees, 10 of which are endemic (only appearing in this particular location),
and nine of which are “under threat of extinction” (EDA pg. 63). The area also includes “several flora species
[that] are threatened, at least four endemic species” (EDA pg. 63). The details are provided in Charts 9 and 10 of
the EDA (pgs. 64-65). Thus, as the EDA acknowledges, the project posed a basic but significant “risk of cutting
down trees which are in danger of extinction” (EDA pg. 30) as well as other threatened plants that only exist in
this location. The fact that there was already “a high degree of threat that weighs over a large number of lumber
species in the Northern Territory” of Costa Rica (EDA pg. 65) made this potential impact all the more significant.
354 Annex 6
July 2014 11 Project No. 1402647
4.2.4 Existing Vulnerabilities
In determining whether the project had the potential to cause significant impacts, proper screening
would have taken into account the environment’s already stressed condition. This includes the
already high sediment load of the San Juan River from sediments contributed by sources in Costa
Rica.
Further, prior to the construction of Route 1856 there were “existing problems of fragmentation
resulting from the expansion of the agricultural frontier” in Costa Rica (EDA pg. 39). According to the
EDA, many species have already been affected “by the reduction of habitat as a consequence of
deforestation and the fragmentation of forests” (EDA pg. 106), the latter of which was already “a
serious threat to ecological connectivity as well as to the genetic quality of biodiversity” (EDA pg. 59).
“Many species of flora and fauna depend on the conditions of these forest remnants” (EDA pg. 59).
These facts indicate the ecological importance of the area and that care was necessary to prevent
environmental impacts. Activities that might have produced less significant impacts when carried out
on a less compromised environment may be more serious, causing more significant impacts, as the
result of existing damage and weakness.
The construction of Route 1856 has the capacity to cause increased sedimentation of waterbodies,
including the San Juan River, as well as increasing deforestation and fragmentation of forests. Based
on the existing conditions described above, proper screening for EIA would have identified such
potential impacts as significant and required EIA so that the project could be properly managed to
produce less significant impacts.
4.2.5 Post-Construction Impacts
Screening would have found that Route 1856 could cause impacts not only during the construction
phase, but also after the road became operational. Impacts could include noise, dust, and
hydrocarbon pollution from vehicles (all of which can also take place during construction), which can
impact species and water quality and otherwise impact the environment. Traffic on unpaved roads
like Route 1856 increases erosion and sediment transfer to bodies of water, particularly in the
absence of appropriate compaction, drainage management, and erosion and sediment control. EIA
was necessary to assess these impacts.
Roadways can cause significant visual impacts – i.e. a degradation of the aesthetic appeal of the
project area – that give rise to a need for EIA. This risk increases when construction requires a swath
of forest to be cleared along the right of way. It is also heightened when the project is located in areas
that are relatively pristine, as is the case with parts of Route 1856. Roadway construction under such
circumstances risks negatively impacting the value of scenic areas.
355Annex 6
July 2014 12 Project No. 1402647
The presence of a roadway also creates the potential for induced migration, the increased presence
of humans, and attendant impacts. As the EDA acknowledges, “The construction of Route 1856
could attract settlers to the region, generating pressure on the existing services and infrastructure, as
well as on the region’s natural protected areas,” including “greater vulnerability due to the impact on
natural connecting areas, and to contamination due to human activities” (EDA pg. 65). Increased
access into this biologically sensitive area also poses risks related to resource extraction, which has
already been a problem for the area even without this thoroughfare (EDA pg. 45). This is an
additional reason why EIA was required.
4.3 Conclusion
The potential impacts discussed above, all of which would have been identified had Costa Rica
engaged in a proper screening of the project, are more than sufficient to require EIA. That is why
some form of EIA is universally required for roadway projects such as Route 1856, as well as much
smaller ones that are not sited immediately next to rivers or through sensitive biological areas. We
are not aware of any EIA regime in which a project of this nature has not required an EIA. Most
regimes, including Costa Rica’s, require EIA for much shorter road projects even where the impacts to
water, primary forests, and biodiversity are not so obviously present.
We understand that Costa Rica has taken the position that the need to conduct an EIA was displaced
as the result of an emergency decree. We have been involved in the preparation of works
implemented in urgent and emergency circumstances, and Costa Rica’s decision to proceed without
an EIA is not consistent with normal practice. For example, in the aftermath of the well-known
earthquake in January 2010, Haiti faced serious health issues as a result of the lack of sanitation
systems to collect and dispose of sanitary waste. Although an emergency, a limited EIA was still
conducted, including the design of makeshift treatment disposal areas. In our view, there was no
reason for Costa Rica not to carry out at least some form of EIA for Route 1856.
356 Annex 6
July 2014 13 Project No. 1402647
5.0 WHAT AN EIA FOR ROUTE 1856 SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED
5.1 The Goal of an EIA
Proper EIAs involve meaningful pre-project analyses to establish the environmental and social
characterization of a project area in order to assess the magnitude of risk and the impacts likely to be
associated with the development of the project. These assessments allow for the avoidance of
unacceptable impacts and the preparation of management systems to continually improve
environmental and social performance, ultimately resulting in better environmental and social
outcomes.
A project’s potential effects are determined based on specific professional project experience,
consideration of issues identified during the early planning or scoping phase of the EIA, knowledge of
the project area, and through consultation with affected stakeholders. The technical disciplines that
should have formed part of the EIA for Route 1856 include: hydrogeology; hydrology; surface and
ground water quality; geology and geomorphology; soil; natural and industrial hazards; aquatic
ecology; terrestrial ecology; biodiversity assessment and protected areas; human and ecological
health; and visual aesthetics.
EIA of Route 1856 should have included, at a minimum:
Description of the baseline environmental and socio-economic conditions existing before
project development against which potential effects could be assessed, managed, and
monitored.
Description of the environmental and socio-economic effects that may be generated by the
project during its construction, operations, and closure/post-closure phases.
Description of project improvements that should have been incorporated to address potential
impacts.
Development and implementation of an Environmental Management Plan that includes
impact avoidance, minimization, reclamation, and/or compensation such that potential
negative effects are mitigated. This encompasses the ongoing aspect of EIA: keeping impacts
in check; monitoring; and fixing problems that arise through adaptive management.
Development of monitoring programs to evaluate the accuracy of the predicted effects and to
assess the mitigation measures implemented to determine if additional actions are necessary
to achieve identified targets for regulatory compliance and best management practices.
The level of study required for an EIA is a function of the project’s activities that have the potential for
significant adverse environmental or social risk and/or impacts. At a minimum, EIA for Route 1856
should have covered all aspects of the physical, biological and human environment, and addressed
risks and impacts to the affected environment, communities, and stakeholders. This should have
incorporated a mitigation hierarchy that: (a) anticipated and sought to avoid impacts; (b) minimized
357Annex 6
July 2014 14 Project No. 1402647
such impacts where avoidance was not possible; and (c) offset or compensated for residual impacts
that remained despite best efforts and avoidance and minimization. In assessing and addressing risks
and impacts, the EIA for Route 1856 should have considered all phases of project development,
including design, planning, construction, and operation.
5.2 The Steps in an EIA
5.2.1 Clear Project Description
The EIA for Route 1856 should have included a detailed description of the proposed project, including
its intended purpose and all the components and activities that would constitute it. This should have
included, at a minimum, description of the background of the project; the extent and condition of the
existing road network; proposed staging areas; areas to be cleared of vegetation; proposed location
and sources of borrow materials and disposal sites; proposed equipment; and construction
scheduling.
Such a description of all project components is necessary to define the scope of the EIA. A
description of project allows for an understanding of the project activities and components so the
proper project area of direct and indirect influence can be defined. The area of influence helps to
define the baseline studies required to assess the anticipated potential impacts from project activities.
A detailed description of the Route 1856 project, including the proposed activities, would also have
helped to serve as a basis for planning the biophysical and social baseline programs needed by
providing the information necessary to understand which of the project’s elements required
environmental evaluation so that design modifications could be made, as needed, to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate potential impacts.
A clear understanding of the project’s purpose and components was also necessary for establishing
which engineering criteria were relevant for the project, which is something that the EIA would have
considered for Route 1856. This should have included determination of, among other things:
Category (rated use: light versus heavy weight) and type road (soil or gravel)
Design geometry (maximum radius), slope, maximum vertical grade
Design speed
Roadway specifications
Intent and limitation of the roads
Service level of the road
Stormwater, erosion and sediment control
358 Annex 6
July 2014 15 Project No. 1402647
Right-of-way and buffer zones from water bodies
Without a clearly defined project, it is not possible to establish which design criteria and engineering
specifications are relevant. For instance, a small unpaved road that is not intended for use by heavy
trucks can be built differently and in a different location than a large highway intended for use by
commercial traffic. A roadway that has been built pu rsuant to one set of specifications may not be fit
for different types of uses. Moreover, without the prior identification of design criteria and engineering
specifications, there is a risk that the project will be developed inappropriately, e.g., without reference
to any design or engineering norms (which is what appears to have happened in this case).
5.2.2 Scoping Study
The early planning or “scoping” phase of an EIA is the planning tool used to identify and evaluate the
biophysical and social issues associated with the proposed project and to identify areas at risk of
impacts. The goal is to ascertain which potential impacts require further assessment.
The Route 1856 project should have included a scoping study that, at a minimum, included:
Constraint mapping of land use and sensitive areas (wetland, forest areas, protect areas),
communities, buffer zones, water bodies, geology, natural hazards, constructability, and
management of waste;
Development of alternative corridors with the objective of selecting a corridor alignment that
would require further investigation during the EIA; and
Ground truthing, or site reconnaissance, to verify the selected corridor’s existing biophysical
and social conditions requiring further studies.
5.2.3 Alternatives Analysis
In light of the fact that Route 1856 had the potential to cause significant environmental impacts,
alternative options should have been assessed for carrying out aspects of the project, so as to limit
and/or mitigate potential negative impacts. This should have included an alternatives analysis to
determine whether parts of Route 1856 should have been moved further away from the San Juan
River to ensure that adverse impacts to Nicaragua were avoided and/or minimized.
5.2.4 Establishment of Baseline Conditions
After the selection of the preferred corridor through the scoping study and alternatives analysis, the
EIA for Route 1856 should have determined the pre-project baseline conditions (prior to any project
activity) based on a combination of field programs and, where appropriate, the most recently available
literature with valid data on site pre-conditions. Discipline-specific studies should have been
359Annex 6
July 2014 16 Project No. 1402647
conducted in conjunction with the project design process to provide information to the project design
team about environmental issues and constraints so that those issues and constraints could be
incorporated into the design, construction, and operation of the project.
Baseline assessments are crucial in establishing the pre-project conditions so that predicted project-
related effects can be compared to pre-existing conditions. Baseline studies for Route 1856 should
have addressed, at a minimum: hydrogeology, hydrology and surface water quality; geology,
geomorphology and soils; the area’s biology and biodiversity; visual aesthetics; and natural hazards. 4
5.2.4.1 Hydrogeology, Hydrology, and Surface Water Quality
As noted above, one of the risks of Route 1856 is that it would cause sediments to erode into bodies
of water, including the San Juan River. Consequently, it was especially important for an adequate
baseline to have been established for the watercourses in the road’s potential area of influence. In
that regard, collection of water and sediment samples from the San Juan River should have been
conducted to enable comparison of pre- and post-Route 1856 environmental conditions. Water and
sediment samples should have been required to be collected for their analysis of physical-chemical,
organic and inorganic parameters and their relationship with ecological baseline conditions in order to
evaluate the potential impacts.
5.2.4.2 Geology, Geomorphology, and Soils
As also noted above, the geology, geomorphology and soils of the relevant area influence whether
sediments will erode into water bodies, including the San Juan River, as a result of the construction
and use of Route 1856. Accordingly, the EIA should have included characterization of the area’s
geology and geomorphology. 5 Characterization of the soils should have involved the review of
existing information, reports and literature including review of existing soil from geotechnical studies,
geomorphology and topography baseline maps and reports; and review of existing soil and
geomorphic information and literature. This is important for a road construction project of this type
because it is necessary to ascertain soil type in order to design a road that can be supported in the
location it is to be built. Certain soils cannot support steep slopes, for example, or are particularly
susceptible to erosion and failure.
4
A well-conceived EIA should also have collected baseline information on air quality and noise, which are areas
of potential impact from roadway projects, as well as social components.
5
This should have entailed collection of existing geologic maps, reports, and literature; review of existing
geologic reports and literature including geologic strata, fault maps, seismic activity and unique geologic features;
and review of maps and literature on erodible soils, landsliding and mass movement activity.
360 July 2014 16 Project No. 1402647
conducted in conjunction with the project design process to provide information to the project design
team about environmental issues and constraints so that those issues and constraints could be
incorporated into the design, construction, and operation of the project.
Baseline assessments are crucial in establishing the pre-project conditions so that predicted project-
related effects can be compared to pre-existing conditions. Baseline studies for Route 1856 should
have addressed, at a minimum: hydrogeology, hydrology and surface water quality; geology,
4
geomorphology and soils; the area’s biology and biodiversity; visual aesthetics; and natural hazards.
5.2.4.1 Hydrogeology, Hydrology, and Surface Water Quality
As noted above, one of the risks of Route 1856 is that it would cause sediments to erode into bodies
of water, including the San Juan River. Consequently, it was especially important for an adequate
baseline to have been established for the watercourses in the road’s potential area of influence. In
that regard, collection of water and sediment samples from the San Juan River should have been
conducted to enable comparison of pre- and post-Route 1856 environmental conditions. Water and
sediment samples should have been required to be collected for their analysis of physical-chemical,
organic and inorganic parameters and their relationship with ecological baseline conditions in order to
evaluate the potential impacts.
5.2.4.2 Geology, Geomorphology, and Soils
As also noted above, the geology, geomorphology and soils of the relevant area influence whether
sediments will erode into water bodies, including the San Juan River, as a result of the construction
and use of Route 1856. Accordingly, the EIA should have included characterization of the area’s
5
geology and geomorphology. Characterization of the soils should have involved the review of
existing information, reports and literature including review of existing soil from geotechnical studies,
geomorphology and topography baseline maps and reports; and review of existing soil and
geomorphic information and literature. This is important for a road construction project of this type
because it is necessary to ascertain soil type in order to design a road that can be supported in the
location it is to be built. Certain soils cannot support steep slopes, for example, or are particularly
susceptible to erosion and failure.
4
A well-conceived EIA should also have collected baseline information on air quality and noise, which are areas
of potential impact from roadway projects, as well as social components.
5
This should have entailed collection of existing geologic maps, reports, and literature; review of existing
geologic reports and literature including geologic strata, fault maps, seismic activity and unique geologic features;
and review of maps and literature on erodible soils, landsliding and mass movement activity.Annex 6
July 2014 18 Project No. 1402647
impacts exist, such as areas that are potentially of high scenic or cultural value along the San Juan
River.
Baseline reporting should have included a rating of the visual aesthetics of the landscape in the key
areas. The rating should have taken into account the baseline information gathered by other
specialists such as geology, biodiversity and social and cultural resources. Baseline visual conditions
should have focused on the rating of scenic quality (visual appeal of the land) and user sensitivity
(including the public’s attitude towards Route 1856).
5.2.4.5 Natural Hazards
EIA of Route 1856 should have identified natural hazards that could cause failures in the proposed
project, including those associated with seismic, geotechnical and extreme meteorological events.
Environmental and engineering information for Route 1856 should have been assessed to determine
requirements for mitigating the risks from natural hazards, including pre-planning slope stabilization,
erosion and sediment measures and engineering the Route to accommodate these risks.
5.2.5 Impact Analysis/Assessment
After establishing the baseline, the EIA for Route 1856 should have superimposed the proposed
project onto the baseline, in order to predict where, how, and how much the proposed project was
likely to affect bio-physical and social environments. Since the baseline includes all existing
disturbances, the project’s predicted effects should have been considered together with existing
effects. Thus, EIA should have accounted for “cumulative effects,” or the likely environmental effects
of the project in combination with those of other projects and activities that have been, or will be
carried out, and which may overlap with the direct effects of the project.
Particular attention should have been paid to evaluating the risk of sediment erosion given the factors
described above: abundant rainfall, weathered (erodible) soils, and many nearby bodies of water,
including the San Juan River, which support important and threatened biodiversity in protected
wetlands.
For the Route 1856 project, assessment of impacts should have superimposed not only the
construction of the road itself on the baseline, but also all other components of the project, including
borrow pits, access roads, disposal of waste materials, the clearing of vegetation, and so forth. It also
should have assessed potential effects on the environment from all phases of the project:
construction, operation, and deco mmissioning. This should have been accomplished by identifying
the different activities likely to be conducted during the stages of the project, and describing their
interactions with the different environmental components.
362 Annex 6
July 2014 19 Project No. 1402647
Evaluating potential effects of the project on the environment would have resulted in the identification
of opportunities for project re-design to eliminate or minimize potential effects, or to mitigate them.
Impact analyses should have been performed for each relationship between project activities and the
environment components. This consists of five (5) steps:
Step 1 - Identification of project activities that could contribute to environmental or social
change.
Step 2 - Evaluation of the potential effects.
Step 3 - Description of mitigations for potential effects.
Step 4 - Analysis and characterization of residual impact.
Step 5 - Identification of monitoring to evaluate and track performance.
Predicted impacts that remain following mitigation, or residual impacts, for the environmental
component, should have been described using the following criteria: direction (i.e., whether the impact
7
is negative, positive or neutral); magnitude; geographic extent; duration; reversibility; and frequency.
5.2.6 Identification and Concerns of Stakeholders
EIA generally requires that key stakeholders and their concerns be identified through the consultation
process. The EIA should have integrated the results of these consultations into not only identification
of issues to be addressed in the EIA, but also into assessment of potential impacts and development
of environmental and social management plans, as relevant. The development of appropriate
mitigation and enhancement measures could have been established during consultation with local
populations to capture their input.
5.2.7 Identification of Mitigation Measures and Preparation of an Environmental
Management Plan
Based on the comparison of the baseline with the assessment of impacts, the EIA for Route 1856
should have identified mitigation measures and prepared an Environmental Management Plan (EMP),
the framework to ensure that all issues identified during the EIA process are addressed through
appropriate mitigation and monitoring. In particular, the EMP should have addressed:
Terrestrial and aquatic water quality and erosion/sediment control
Stormwater management
7Impact assessment criteria are based on professional judgment and the considerations of the impacts that are
identified as particularly significant to stakeholders. The precise use of the above system varies as appropriate
for certain disciplines.
363Annex 6
July 2014 20 Project No. 1402647
Biodiversity
Waste management and hazardous materials management
Air quality and dust emissions
Noise
The EMP for Route 1856 should have considered the project design aspects that are necessary to
prevent or minimize the occurrence of adverse social and environmental impacts as well as specific
actions required to mitigate potential impacts that cannot be prevented or minimized. The plan should
have been developed before the start of any construction activities and implemented specific actions
to appropriately prevent, mitigate, manage and monitor the potential social and environmental impacts
of the project during the construction and operation phases.
364 Annex 6
July 2014 21 Project No. 1402647
6.0 PROBLEMS WITH THE ROUTE 1856 PROJECT DUE TO LACK OF EIA
Costa Rica’s failure to conduct an EIA for the Route 1856 project meant that the above assessments
did not take place, such that impacts which could have been avoided have come to pass, and impacts
that could have been minimized have occurred (and continue to occur) on a much larger scale than
they would have if properly accounted for before and during the construction of the project. This is
especially the case in regard to the uncontrolled erosion of large quantities of sediment into the San
Juan River.
6.1 No Consistent Definition of Purpose and Scope
As described above, it is a foundational element of an EIA that it define what the project is intended to
do and how that purpose is to be achieved. This, however, was never done by Costa Rica. As a
result, the basic planning elements that are normally incorporated into an EIA were absent, namely:
description of the project; identification of relevant engineering specifications; and assessment of
project alternatives. This has had significant consequences for the road’s impacts to Nicaragua.
The purpose of the project and the detailed description of what it is supposed to do should have
informed which engineering standards were appropriate. The standards applicable when building a
small access road that will not be used for large trucks are not the same as the standards applicable
when building a larger highway. Depending on its purpose, Route 1856 should have been designed
with roadway standards tailored to that purpose and sufficient to meet at a minimum one of the
following standards: Costa Rican Ministerio de Obras Publica y Transporte (MOPT2010), Central
American roadway design, construction and maintenance standards (SIECA, 2002, 2004 and 2011),
and/or international Best Management Practices. In general, it does not appear that the Route was
designed at all, let alone designed to meet any such design criteria.
The appropriate engineering design of Route 1856 would have required, at a minimum, permanent
features like bridges and culverts to have b een installed at water crossings in accordance with
acceptable roadway standards. Instead, the construction of Route 1856 involved the creation of
multiple crossings where excavated fill materials was introduced into streams, most or all of which
lead directly into the San Juan River. Other engineering standards, such as proper compaction and
the use of appropriate culvert materials, properly sized and located culverts, were ignored as well.
The result was predictable: stream crossings are failing and causing damage to the roadbed, which is
washing out, and to bodies of water, including the San Juan River, which can be seen in the massive
deltas of road-derived sediment now visible in the river. A road that causes sediment to enter a river
in quantities sufficient to result in massive deltas is totally unacceptable and, in our professional
experience, constitutes environmental negligence.
365Annex 6
July 2014 22 Project No. 1402647
These problems were obvious during our site visit, during which we observed numerous locations
where the failure of defective and improperly constructed stream crossings has resulted in the
formation of very large sediment deltas, as may be in seen in PHOTOS 1, 2, and 3 from our site visit
in May 2014.
PHOTO 1 - Location: RKM 18 (from boat, May 2014). Formation of sediment delta from erosion and lack of proper water
management.
PHOTO 2 - Location: RKM 18.2 to 18.3 (from boat, May 2014). Formation of sediment delta from failed earthen fill stream
crossing and other erosion.
366 Annex 6
July 2014 23 Project No. 1402647
PHOTO 3 - Location: RKM 20.3 (from boat, May 2014). Road section with improper stream crossing consisting of a log bridge
that has resulted in constricted of water flow and the creation of sediment delta in the River.
The lack of an articulated purpose and relevant design specifications means that the Route might be
used to transport hazardous material without having been designed to do so safely. This risks
significant impacts to the San Juan River from contamination caused by vehicle failures, turn-overs
and spills.
367Annex 6
July 2014 24 Project No. 1402647
6.2 No Alternative Corridor Study
EIA for Route 1856 should have considered alternative alignment options for the road so that parts of
it would have been located further away from the San Juan River, thereby reducing the likelihood of
significant amounts of sediment or other road-related pollutants reaching the river.
In particular, candidate routes should have been identified based on route selection criteria, taking
into account environmental, social, land use, engineering, safety, and cost considerations. Route
selection criteria should have included (among other things) protected areas, protected species,
habitat types, erodible soils, topography, soil stability, proximity to water bodies, access constraints,
engineering and land cost, safety, constructability, and cumulative effects.
Comparative evaluations of alternative routes should have been conducted to eliminate relatively
unfavorable route segments. A list of route segments or candidate routes should have been
developed, documented, and evaluated using project specific criteria. Attention to environmental,
social resources and land use considerations in route selection would have led to a preferred route
that was more acceptable from biophysical and soci al compatibility perspectives. This assessment,
had it been conducted, would have identified sections with inaccessible and steep slopes, erodible
soils and stability issues.
This process, however, was not undertaken. As a result, the corridor where Route 1856 was built is
not the preferred corridor that would have been selected through a meaningful EIA process. The
consequence has been significant erosion into th e San Juan River and the formation of massive
deltas of sediment there.
For instance, steep cuts were made into highly weathered soils that cannot support them, with
landslides occurring as a result. This was evident during our site visit, as may be seen in PHOTOS 4
and 5, below.
368 Annex 6
July 2014 25 Project No. 1402647
PHOTO 4 - Location: RKM 16.1 to 16.5 (from helicopter, May 2014). Steep cuts and slopes were constructed in these erodible
soils at slopes that are not generally considered stable or recommended for these types of soils. Lack of planning, design and
mitigation measures have all led to the conditions observed.
PHOTO 5 – Location: RKM 21.4 to 22.1 (from helicopter, May 2014). Section of the roadway that is too close to the river. The
steep cuts that have been made to construct the road and lack of erosion and sediment controls have resulted in sedimentation
of the river. The terraces constructed in the slope provide little control of erosive effects of water fdentstorm events as evi
from the erosion gulleys of the face of the cuts into the hills.
This has also happened in locations with complicated topography, including steep and uneven areas,
such as in PHOTOS 6 and 7, and where cuts at the bottoms of hills receive substantial sheet water
flow from above, a phenomenon that causes significant erosion, as may be seen inPHOTOS 8 and 9.
369Annex 6
July 2014 26 Project No. 1402647
PHOTO 6 - Location: RKM 7.4 to 7.9 (from helicopter, May 2014). An example of lack of proper design and planning process
that has located this section of the roadway through undesirable topography. This includes areas that are too steep, too
uneven, or too high in comparison to the surrounding environment. The topography in combination with the type of erodible
soils combined to create unstable slopes and erodible conditions that have resulted in the sediment loading to the river.
PHOTO 7 - Location: RKM 7.4 to 7.9 (from boat, May 2014). An example of lack of proper design and planning process that
has located this section of the roadway through undesirable topography. This includes areas that are too steep, too uneven, or
too high in comparison to the surrounding environment. The topography in combination with the type of erodible soils combined
to create unstable slopes and erodible conditions that have resulted in the sediment loading to the river.
370 Annex 6
July 2014 27 Project No. 1402647
PHOTO 8 - Location: RKM 18.3 to 18.6 (from helicopter, May 2014). The relationship between topography and the
management of storm water not properly managed has resulted in significant erosion. Earthwork activities employed to
construct the roadway have resulted in exaction into steep slopes (due to the lack of appropriate route selection and design) t o
accommodate the roadway in steep terrain. The construction of roadways in steep topography has resulted in the acceleration
of water moving over exposed soils, further resulting in erosion and sediment loading as a direct impact to San Juan River.
PHOTO 9 - Location: RKM 2.5 (from boat, May 2014). This section of the Route was constructed by cutting into the toe of
existing slope that is very close to the bank of the San Juan River. The cut that was constructed into the hill nd too steep a
unprotected. The steep cut slope and the nature of the unprotected slope located at the toe of a fairly high hill will promote
erosion as water will flow over the cut during periods of precipitation that will continue to cut the slope and tsoduce sedimen
that will wash into the San Juan River.
371Annex 6
July 2014 28 Project No. 1402647
Construction of Route 1856 involved the unnecessary clearing of vegetation, including primary forests
that are threatened and needed by endangered species. This also resulted in increased erosion of
sediment into the San Juan River, as illustrated inPHOTOS 10 and 11.
PHOTO 10 - Location: RKM 16.1 to 16.5 (from helicopter, May 2014). Excessive removal of trees to construct the roadway that
has resulted in exposed and unprotected slopes leading to slope instability.
PHOTO 11 - Location: RKM 23.6 to 24.5 (from helicopter, May 2014). Areas of excessive tree cutting used to construct two
routes in this area.
372 Annex 6
July 2014 29 Project No. 1402647
At least one large borrow pit has been created at the top of a hill, ensuring that sediment is
transported down to bodies of water, including to the San Juan River. This may be seen in PHOTO
12.
PHOTO 12 - Location: RKM 7.4 to 7.9 (from boat, May 2014). Borrow pit used for extracting soils for the construction of the
roadway. The pit constructed in high topography has been left open and subject to erosion from precipitation events without
appropriate BMP.
More generally, much of Route 1856 was constructed far too close to the San Juan River and/or its
tributaries, in violation of reasonable buffer requirements (e.g., the 50m buffer for river banks
established in Costa Rica Forestry Law 7575 of February 1996). This is visible in many locations,
including all of the photographs provided above.
In sum, in various sections of Route 1856, ill-conceived attempts have been made to place the road in
steep, uneven locations made of weathered, erodible soil that cannot support the steep cuts that have
been made and with no water management and erosion and sedimentation BMPs. Gravity and water
act on the disturbances, causing failure of the works themselves and damage to nearby aquatic
resources, including the San Juan River, because these works are so close to it and/or to streams
that lead into it. These problems are precisely the issues that EIA process would have identified and
taken into account, so that the most appropriate corridor was selected.
373Annex 6
July 2014 30 Project No. 1402647
6.3 Lack of an Effective Environmental Management Plan
Even a well-defined project with clear engineering specifications and a design based on a careful
route selection study requires an EMP, which serves as the primary tool for ensuring that
environmental considerations are implemented on the ground. The EMP should stem from the impact
assessment process and provide guidance for avoiding and minimizing environmental impacts.
At least during the project’s initial phases, no was in force to guide pre-construction activities,
such as land clearing, temporary access roads, disposal of land clearing and vegetation debris, the
types and controls needed, and mitigation measures required, as well the locations and methods of
implementation. It is apparent that no such control was exercised over the project, which involved,
among other things, excessive and apparently unplanned clearing, as well as the improper “disposal”
of land clearing and vegetation debris in side-cast fills, which was dumped into streams, as described
in the reports by LANAMME and CFIA.
The absence of an EMP has further resulted in, among other things:
Excessive embankments;
Lack of proper compaction of fills;
Improper construction of stream crossings using the wrong materials, which are undersized
and improperly installed, many of which are now failing, transporting fill and shards of culverts
to the river;
Failure to protect exposed slopes effectively, with geo-textile fabrics often improperly installed
and not using the correct geo-textile, allowing them to deteriorate from exposure to sunlight
8
without achieving their purpose;
Improper planting of vegetation on vertical slopes without creating benches to allow water to
cascade down the slope, such that the slopes are eroded on the vertical direction;
Failure to construct proper drainage, which has caused further erosion of unprotected areas
(including fills and borrow pits); and
Failure to install proper erosi9n and sedimentation control measures prior to earth moving
activities and during construction.
8Even when installed properly, geo-textiles cannot prevent the erosion of slopes that are excessively steep or
experiencing mass wasting, as through landslides.
9At a minimum, Route 1856 should comply with the Costa Rica MOPT 2010 Manual, which sets the requirement
of an Erosion Control Plan that should include all temporary and permanent measures to control erosion and
sedimentation (see pgs. 104-105). The Central America SIECA 2004 Manual specifies the same requirements
(see pgs. 150-26 and 150-27). Also, both road manuals specify that before removal of any vegetation or
construction activity, preliminary works to control erosion around the project area should be implemented.
374 Annex 6
July 2014 31 Project No. 1402647
6.4 Lack of Mitigation and Monitoring
Based on our review of the reports submitted by Costa Rica and our inspection during our site visit,
we conclude that Costa Rica has not undertaken either meaningful mitigation or monitoring efforts. In
particular:
The exposed slopes and poorly constructed segments of roadway and borrow pits adjacent to
the San Juan River are continuing to erode into the river, creating impacts to water quality,
aquatic habitats and species; this will continue until corrective action is taken to stabilize all
road segments and exposed soils.
Monitoring to ensure erosion and sediment control measures are working does not appear to
be taking place in a systematic manner, as evidenced by the numerous locations of
unprotected slopes and the lack of activities to correct erosion and sedimentation.
No monitoring program to verify compliance with erosion and sedimentation control appears
to be in place, even though it was recommended in the EMP (April 2012) and in the EDA
(November 2013).
375Annex 6
July 2014 32 Project No. 1402647
7.0 INADEQUACY OF COSTA RICA’S “ENVIRONMENTAL DIAGNOSTIC
ASSESSMENT”
In this section, we critique the “Environmental Diagnostic Assessment of the Ecological Component”
(EDA) dated November 2013, which was prepared by the Tropical Science Center and submitted as
Annex 10 to Costa Rica’s Counter-Memorial. The EDA is not a substitute for an EIA. Nor does it
accurately report the existing impacts of Route 1856.
7.1 Not an EIA Substitute
As an initial matter, while the authors of the EDA may be qualified in their specific areas of expertise
(geography, biology, forestry, tourism, and GIS), none of them appear to be civil engineers, or to have
experience conducting EIA or evaluating impacts beyond biological assessments. They thus appear
to lack the requisite qualifications to prepare an EIA for a major physical infrastructure project like
Route 1856.
Further, an EDA is a fundamentally different tool than an EIA. According to SETENA Resolution
2572-2009, the Costa Rican regulation that guides the development of EDAs, the objective of an EIA
is “[t]o verify the environmental viability of the project and propose environmental control measures
before the decision is made” (see Appendix 1). This contrasts with the objective of an EDA, which
according to SETENA, is to “[i]dentify negative impacts with an emphasis on pollution and risk, and
propose environmental control measures” (see Appendix 1). In other words, EIA is intended to
identify impacts in advance of a project being carried out so that they can be prevented, minimized,
compensated, and mitigated, while EDA is intended to identify impacts after they have occurred.
Thus, an EDA, even if properly carried out, cannot prevent or minimize impacts that have already
taken place. The many differences between EIA and EDA are set out in a table included in
Resolution 2572-2009, which is reproduced at Appendix 1.
It is for this reason that many of the recommendations made in the EDA have come too late. They
have been provided after the fact and should have been implemented during planning and design
(which, as discussed above, did not occur) or during construction. The EDA thus cannot achieve
what it states to be one of its “specific objectives,” which is “[t]o provide technical and scientific
foundations that guide the Government of Costa Rica towards decision making in the design and
construction of Route 1856” (EDA, pg. 16). By the time the EDA was prepared, most of the
construction had already occurred without any engineering design having been undertaken.
7.2 Not a credible post-construction audit
At best, the EDA could identify the existing impacts of Route 1856. However, its many flaws prevent it
from achieving this more limited objective.
376 Annex 6
July 2014 33 Project No. 1402647
7.2.1 Scope of EDA
The EDA focused exclusively on “the first 1000 meters from the right margin of the San Juan River
towards Costa Rican territory” (EDA pg. 22). This defined scope of the EDA (depicted in the maps on
pgs. 24-29 of the EDA), is arbitrary and unreasonably limited. It ignores any works conducted as part
of the road project outside of the 1000 m strip, including access roads, which extend far past the
1000m limit of the study area and are part of the project (see EDA pg. 21 for “Location Map and
Access Roads”), as well as the upriver 50+ km of the road along the land boundary with Nicaragua.
By focusing on only part of the project, the EDA artificially reduces its scope and environmental
impacts. This is a serious flaw because much of the project was carried out in areas containing
wetlands, forests, bodies of water, and biological corridors beyond the 1000 m strip. It is not possible
to “establish the environmental effect of the Route 1856 project” (EDA pg. 15) while ignoring so many
aspects of the project.
More importantly, the EDA’s arbitrarily defined study area stops at the southern bank of the San Juan
River. This lack of consideration of Nicaraguan territory is not an appropriate approach for identifying
and assessing impacts, as the impacts identified above (Section 4.0) do not abide by international
borders. This is particularly relevant in the case of the San Juan River, which is very close to the
Road in many locations, and which receives essentially all the drainage from the Costa Rican land on
which the project was carried out, a fact which the EDA itself acknowledges (e.g., EDA pg. 69).
In fact, the EDA accepts the need to “evaluate the conditions that were previously identified [i.e., the
conditions discussed in the EDA] from the perspective of potential impacts on Nicaraguan territory.” It
incorrectly claims, however, that it “was not possible to carry out the previous suggestion” because
the authors were not permitted to conduct sampling in the San Juan River (EDA pg. 141). Lack of
access for sampling does not mean “that it was not possible to analyze the results of the study in a
larger context” (EDA pg. 19). Notably, most of the assessment reported in the EDA within Costa Rica
did not involve sampling – a review of the literature was deemed to be sufficient. The same
assessment could and should have been done with regard to the San Juan River.
Another serious flaw in the EDA is that it does not address or incorporate the findings of other studies
and reports prepared within Costa Rica regarding the Route 1856 project. The Costa Rican
Environmental Management Plan (April, 2012), LANAMME (May, 2012), and CFIA (June, 2012)
provide important information about problems observed along the road, impacts to the environment,
and necessary mitigation and remediation measures. We would have expected a proper post-
construction audit to take such prior studies into account.
377Annex 6
July 2014 34 Project No. 1402647
7.2.2 Methods and Conclusions
The assessment in the EDA is almost entirely qualitative. 10 The Modified Leopold impact matrix
consists of a matrix with columns representing environmental factors (e.g. terrestrial flora and fauna,
aquatic flora and fauna; and landscape) to be considered and various rows representing the 11
designated project impacts (deforestation along right-of-way, partial sedimentation of edges of
wetlands neighboring the Route 1856, etc). For each of the impacts, characteristics were evaluated
(positive, negative, intensity, extension, etc.). Va lues were assigned for each characteristic and used
in an equation to evaluate the significance of the impact based on the numerical score calculated in
the formula. The significance of the impact is based on the score (e.g. <25 is considered irrelevant
and a score between 25 and 50 is considered moderate; and 50 to 75 severe impacts) (EDA Matrix of
Importance of Environmental Impact MIIA, chart 23, EDA pg. 140).
The EDA’s impact assessment is thus based on a subjective analysis that assigns numerical values to
produce “quantitative” values to measure impacts and thus results in an apparently quantitative
measure of what is really a subjective conclusion. As a result, the data set out in the matrix it
presents can be manipulated to reach the desired conclusions. Further, these impacts have been
evaluated in the absence of baseline data, which makes scientifically defendable comparisons difficult
if not impossible.
Section 5 of the EDA identifies various environmental aspects having significant impacts; however,
these impacts are discounted as irrelevant or only moderate when they are qualified in the EDA’s
Modified Leopold impact matrix in Section 6 of the EDA. The impacts are discounted due to the
flawed assessment as described below and the fact that the EDA assessed only the ecological
environment.
Chart 24 on pg. 142 of the EDA is described as a matrix of environmental impacts of the project in
Nicaraguan territory, which the EDA states was derived from “the results of the analysis” of potential
impacts on the San Juan River (EDA pg. 141). Chart 24, however, is blank, indicating that no
potential impacts were evaluated. We thus do not understand the claim in the EDA that “analysis was
done, of each of the potential activities that might generate an impact, in order to verify if the same
could have manifestations on the San Juan River” (EDA pg. 141). It is evident that no such
assessment was undertaken. Nor do we understand how the authors of the EDA could have
assigned a score of zero in the column regarding “importance” of those impacts. Given the lack of
evaluation, there was no apparent basis for scoring importance as zero, or for the EDA’s conclusion
that “it is not considered there could be any significant impact on the San Juan River” (EDA pg. 141).
10
The only new sampling that was conducted to provide quantitative data relates to macroinvertebrates, and that
sampling was not properly conducted. See Blanca Rios Touma, “Ecological Impacts of the Route 1856 on the
San Juan River, Nicaragua” (July 2014), Section 4.C.
378 Annex 6
July 2014 35 Project No. 1402647
More broadly, the EDA suffers from a basic methodological flaw. The Route 1856 project should have
been evaluated as a linear project with multiple impacted sites. Instead, the approach taken in the
EDA was to treat the entirety of the road located adjacent to the San Juan River as a single site with
various impacts, averaging each discrete, often significantly impacted, site over the entire length of
the Road. This had the effect of reducing the impact. In other words, the EDA evaluated the overall
project at a macro level, considering the project over its entire length adjacent to the River, so that its
multiple impacted areas were diluted to an “irrelevant” or “moderate” impact when compared to the
larger extent of the project. The EDA’s focus on the entire corridor instead of individual problem
locations, and the resulting discounting of impacts which have been spread out over a long distance,
is not a proper approach.
7.2.2.1 Sedimentation of Bodies of Water
The effect may be seen in the EDA’s classification as “moderate” the “[p]ossible impact on the quality
of waters [in Costa Rica] due to turbidity caused by sediment.” (EDA pg. 140, Chart 23). This is a
serious underestimate of impact of sedimentation, whic h as shown in Section 6, is taking place on a
very significant scale in numerous locations on and leading to the San Juan River. To identify
sedimentation’s impact as being only “moderate” within Costa Rica and of no significance to the San
Juan River (see EDA pg. 141), the EDA appears to have discounted the erosion and sedimentation
taking place at individual sites and considered those impacts only in the macro context of the entire
river-adjacent length of the road.
This is improper. Based on our experience evaluating impacts, the various impacted areas where
erosion and sedimentation are taking place should be considered in their local context and, without
question, constitute significant impacts that require immediate remedial action. The EDA’s treatment
of the issue is not consistent with standard environmental impact assessment practice, which is
guided by the principle that projects or activities should not result in erosion and sedimentation to a
body of water. It certainly should not occur on the scale currently found in the San Juan River (which
the EDA dismisses as being of no significance), or with the intensity found at numerous sites.
The EDA also exaggerates remediation efforts that have been undertaken to address the issue of
eroded sediments being deposited in bodies of water. It claims that, “[a]s a preventive measure runoff
control systems have been put into place, as well as sediment traps along the Route” (EDA pg. 31).
Based on our in-person observations in May 2014 and our review of the available materials, it is not
true that sediments have been prevented from reaching the San Juan River or its tributaries on Costa
Rican territory, and there is no evidence of a meaningful monitoring program to ensure such
protection.
379Annex 6
July 2014 36 Project No. 1402647
Another source of sedimentation in bodies of water is the erosion and failure of the many stream
crossings that have been constructed along Route 1856, nearly all of which have involved the
placement of excavated fill material directly into stream beds (see Annex 6 to Counter-Memorial, pg.
27). The EDA correctly notes that many of these structures are “in poor condition” and that there is
“[t]he possibility of collapse” (EDA pg. 30), but it does not expressly identify the connection between
such failure and sedimentation of bodies of water. In addition, the EDA states that, to avoid collapse,
“a periodic monitoring effort has been conducted of Rte 1856 by CONSEVI, promoting an adequate
preventive control of the structures along the way” (EDA pg. 30). This is not an accurate
characterization, because failures have not been avoided, as evidenced by the washed out stream
crossings and culverts that have made their way into the San Juan River at various locations.
7.2.2.2 Land Clearance
The other impact the EDA identifies as “moderate” within Costa Rica is “[d]eforestation along the right
of way and contiguous areas” (EDA pg. 140, Chart 23). We disagree that the impacts identified within
Costa Rica are of only moderate significance, and with the EDA’s conclusion that they are of no
significance to the San Juan River (see EDA pg. 141). In fact, the large-scale cutting of trees,
especially in primary forest, is a serious concern. Such clearing should have been avoided for the
reasons discussed above: the fragile nature of such forests, the threatened and endangered nature of
their flora and fauna, their already limited extent, the erodible soils upon which they sit, and their
proximity to bodies of water, including the San Juan River, that are at risk of sedimentation when
erodible soils have been exposed through clearing.
The EDA reports that 68.3 hectares of primary forest were cleared, in addition to 14.9 hectares of
secondary forests (EDA pg. 132). (These figures ignore any clearing that took place outside of the
1000 m stretch immediately along the River, which means that the actual total of cleared or impacted
hectares of forest could be substantially higher.) Given the foregoing factors (including the physical
impacts resulting from exposing erodible soils to direct weathering for extended periods of time
without its natural protected coverage, be it primary or secondary forest), this should have been
classified as a significant impact. This is particularly true given that “most of [the impacted primary
forest] (59.56 hectares, i.e. 87%) is located upstream of Boca San Carlos” (Annex 3, pg. 27), which
the EMP characterized as the stretch of road that “exhibits the most rugged terrain with a stronger
presence of water bodies … thus being the area most vulnerable to environmental damage” (EMP pg.
6).
According to the EDA itself, “the primary forest on sloping terrain is the most vulnerable” location
where impacts may be irreversible (EDA pgs. 65, 67), and it has dry textured soils with “very high
susceptibility to hydric erosion” (EDA pg. 57). This is also the stretch of Route 1856 that the EMP
380 Annex 6
July 2014 37 Project No. 1402647
recognizes as “run[ning] parallel to the San Juan River,” and where it recommends that the Road’s
“distance from the river should be assessed mostly on account of project integrity” (EMP, pg. 10).
The EDA itself identifies this upriver portion of Route 1856 as “the most impacted due to the presence
of several unstable slanting retention wall[s] that could create sedimentation, erosion and sediment
plumes in the San Juan and its tributaries” (EDA pg. 69).
The EDA provides some additional indication about why the significance of tree clearing has been
undervalued. It states: “Since this study does not have quantitative information and location for the
non-altered primary forest ecosystems, it is assumed that the forests characterized as primary are for
the most part altered forests” (EDA pg. 67). This statement is not sound. A lack of information about
the location of non-altered primary forest does not justify the assumption that primary forests have
been altered. It is also contradicted by the fact that the EDA notes it was possible to observe “non-
altered primary forest” in the direct area of influence of the project (EDA pg. 67).
The EDA further appears to have been mistaken when it states that “[t]he quantity of trees cut down
was determined by the needs of each section of the route and the existing plant cover” (EDA pg. 144),
and that the clearing of endangered trees “was minimized as a result of the tree inventory performed
by [CONAVI] during the construction of the project” (EDA pg. 30). This implies a level of pre-
construction planning that does not reflect what actually happened. 11 No evidence of this inventory
appears in any of the documents submitted by Costa Rica, and there is no indication that construction
was carried out in an organized way involving guidance from an inventory. To the contrary, the EDA
states elsewhere that “It has not been possible to determine the impacted flora species, nor to provide
a geo-reference for them, due to a lack of a prior inventory of the existing tree species” (EDA pg. 68).
7.2.2.3 Impacts to Biodiversity
As explained above, primary forests are crucial for the conservation of biodiversity, both of the flora
that makes up the forest and of the fauna that depends on the forest for habitat. Impacts in Costa
Rica are highly relevant to Nicaragua given the biological connectivity in the project’s area of
influence, as well as existing problems of fragmentation.
The EDA identifies potential impacts to biodiversity, but it dramatically underestimates the extent and
significance of those impacts. This is particularly clear regarding the likely impact of the project on the
Great Green Macaw (Ara ambiguus). As the EDA acknowledges, the project area includes locations
that are its “priority nesting area” and which are “key to the survival of the species” (EDA pg.
11
The same is true of the following claim in Annex 3: “The relatively small area of forest now used for Route 1856
reflects the fact that its route was planned to avoid primary forest as much as possible” (Annex 3, pg. 27). No
such planning appears to have taken place, with the result being an inappropriate corridor selection, as
discussed above.
381Annex 6
July 2014 38 Project No. 1402647
59). Indeed, the Road goes through the biological corridor that, according to the EDA, “constitutes
the last viable habitat of less developed lands that can maintain the Great Green Macaw,” which is
“recognized internationally as a threatened species” (EDA pg. 60). We agree with the EDA that
“[s]ince the Route is critically located on the Costa Rica-Nicaragua border, it is of the utmost
importance to analyze its potential impacts on the conservation of connectivity, based on the
identification of priority sites and critical links for connectivity” (EDA pgs. 18-19). However, the EDA’s
analysis of impacts to the Great Green Macaw is not defensible.
The entirety of the EDA’s assessment on this point is that “[o]f the more than 100 known Great Green
Macaw nests that are currently potentially active, only 3 of them (3%) are located in the influence area
of Route 1856, so that the impact of this project on the Great Green Macaw population is considered
irrelevant” (EDA, pg. 60). This is an untenable conclusion for an environmental impact assessment.
First, it is based on the incorrect assumption that it is possible to adequately assess impacts when
only focusing on a limited portion of the total area impacted by a project. As can be seen in the map
on pg. 61 of the EDA (reproduced below), the conclusion focuses exclusively on the narrow strip of
land immediately adjacent to the River, when the remaining nests of this threatened species are
located a short distance away in areas that have been impacted by the project’s construction of and
“improvement” of access roads (see EDA pg. 21 for “Location Map and Access Roads”). If the EDA
had accounted for the full extent of the project, it is likely that it would have identified much broader
impact on the nests of the Great Green Macaw.
382 Annex 6
July 2014 39 Project No. 1402647
Second, an exclusive focus on nests ignores the fact that in assessing impacts to birds, one must
consider not only where their nests are located, but also their foraging range. Road-related impacts
could affect foraging areas, so that even if nesting was not directly affected other crucial activities
could be.
Regardless, an impact to 3% of the population of an endangered species would be considered
significant by international EIA standards, and it is improper for the EDA to dismiss as “irrelevant”
such impacts (which, in any event, would likely be larger when the full project scope and the various
activities of the species at issue are taken into account, and when future development as a result of
the Road is considered).
7.2.2.4 Landsliding and Slope Erosion
As explained in Section 6.0, serious landsliding and erosion problems are apparent in various
sections of Route 1856. The EDA identifies this impact, particularly in “the sector close to the
Infiernillo [sic] River and the sector known as Chorreras,” where it “has been occurring after the
383Annex 6
July 2014 40 Project No. 1402647
aperture of the Route and will probably continue to happen, as generally happens in these types of
12
topographic settings and with soils that are susceptible to erosion” (EDA pg. 133).
However, the EDA characterizes this impact as irrelevant within Costa Rica (EDA pgs. 140, 143) and
of no significance to the San Juan River (EDA pg. 141). We disagree with this characterization. It
appears to be based, at least in part, on the claim that “[i]n recent months the roadside slopes along
the route have been protected along with the drainage systems at the same sites, to avoid landslides”
(EDA pg. 146). A similar statement is made on pg. 30 of the EDA, which states that the risk of slope
erosion and slope instability “has also been controlled with the placement of geo-textiles and, even
better, with the planting of grasses on the slopes with the idea of diminishing the direct impact of
rainfall on the exposed surface.” Based on our observations in May 2014, these statements are
serious exaggerations of the actual extent of such remediation works. There are many sites where
landsliding and slope erosion appear to be ongoing, and where no protection or adequate drainage is
evident. These include the sites exhibiting the worst landsliding and erosion problems, including
those identified in Sites 8.1-8.2 and Sites 9.4-9.6 in the Inventory of Seriously Eroding Sites appended
to the 2014 report of Dr. Kondolf, where it appears that no meaningful remediation has been
undertaken.
It is notable that one of the environmental measures the EDA recommends for addressing the issue of
landsliding and slope erosion is the use of geo-textiles (EDA pg. 147). Such erosion control fabrics
can be useful in certain locations to prevent surface erosion, but they cannot prevent landsliding or
erosion of slopes that are unstable as a result of having been cut too steep into soils incapable of
supporting them. Moreover, our observations in May 2014 indicate that in many of the locations along
Route 1856 where such erosion control fabrics have been installed, they are already failing, indicating
that they may not have been properly installed nor the correct type of geo-textile applied.
The EDA itself states elsewhere that slopes “should be improved and mitigated for each specific case,
taking into account first the degree of slope and, second, the composition of the geological materials
in situ” (EDA pg. 144). This is correct – such remediation is now necessary because the project was
not properly planned or carried out. But the reason such remediation is important is that the serious
slope instability and exposure to the elements that are leading to landsliding and slope erosion have
significant implications for the integrity and safety of the Road itself and for nearby bodies of water,
including the San Juan River, which are being impacted by resulting sedimentation.
We also agree with the EDA that there are some sections of Route 1856 that are so unstable,
because they were improperly located, that it is necessary “to evaluate the technical possibility of
12
As discussed in Sections 5 and 6 above, these are reasons that the Road should not have been built in such
locations in the first place, which a proper EIA would have helped prevent.
384 Annex 6
July 2014 41 Project No. 1402647
modifying the route … to include the use of local roads built on less sloping terrain, tracing the road
some km to the south, where there are open areas and settlements with more favorable topographic
conditions” (EDA pg. 147). This includes the stretch identified in the EDA near the Infiernito River, as
well as others, which are identified in the report by Hagans and Weaver (2014). Fundamentally, this
recognition by the EDA of the need to move the road is inconsistent with the unreasonable conclusion
that landsliding and serious slope erosion are irrelevant impacts.
7.2.2.5 Aquatic Life
In describing the findings of the macroinvertebrate sampling, the EDA states that in impacted sites
upstream of the San Carlos River, impacts were “observed in the community of aquatic
macroinvertebrates, where the richness and abundance decreased at the points located downstream
from the Route” (EDA pg. 98). The EDA goes on to explain that this result “could be attributed to two
factors: 1) the degradation in the quality of the habitat, as a consequence of some activities that were
part of the construction of the Route, such as the movement of earth and cutting down of river margin
vegetation, 2) the process of sedimentation that occurs in the rivers, due to unstable slopes and
landfills that are eroded by rainfall” (EDA pg. 98).
The EDA also reports that in various sites that “are found within the impacted segment of the Route,”
“the water quality went down in the downstream sites (with influence of the Route) with a moderate to
bad classification and from bad to very bad in comparison to control sites found upstream” (EDA, pg.
99). The EDA goes on to state: “At sites located in the section classified as impacted (Infiernito River
– mouth of the San Carlos River), the quality of the water was influenced by the works conducted in
the Route, as were the richness and abundance of the communities” (EDA pg. 100).
These are descriptions of potent ially significant impacts (although the lack of baseline information
makes such quantification difficult). Nevertheless, these impacts are characterized by the EDA as
“irrelevant” (regarding macroinvertebrate abundance/richness) or “moderate” (regarding water quality)
when they are addressed in the EDA’s impact matrix (Chart 23, EDA pg. 140). The reason for these
valuations is not entirely clear (which is one of the problems with a subjective matrix-type approach),
but it appears that a broad-based comparison of the highly impacted sites to the length of the project
is again the explanation. The proper approach would have been to address each impacted site
separately, with mitigation planned for it specifically, rather than broadly comparing each site to the
overall extent of the roadway project.
The EDA’s characterization of Route 1856’s impact on aquatic flora and fauna as “irrelevant” within
both Costa Rica and Nicaragua is also inconsistent with the statements in Section 5 of the EDA
regarding the lack of information needed to make such a determination. The EDA states: “In order to
evaluate with greater certainty if the works on Route 1856 created a level of sedimentation that could
385Annex 6
July 2014 42 Project No. 1402647
have an effect on the aquatic fauna of the San Juan River and its tributaries in the area of study, it is
first necessary to determine and validate the thresholds of sedimentation that could affect the species
found in these rivers, since there is no information for aquatic organisms in the area of study” (EDA
pg. 111). It also notes the “need to determine and validate thresholds for morbidity and mortality of
the species that are found in these rivers, as well as the level of tolerance to sedimentation since
there is no information for aquatic organisms in the area of study” (EDA pg. 112). The EDA then goes
on to explain that substantial work would be required to collect such information (EDA pg. 112).
The lack of background or baseline information does not mean the lack of meaningful impact, and
these acknowledgements in the EDA regarding a lack of baseline information undercut the matrix’s
claim that impacts to aquatic life as a result of the road are “irrelevant.” A proper EIA process would
have dealt with gaps in background knowledge and should have accounted for the time it takes to
acquire the necessary baseline information to assess the actual bio-physical conditions. This would
then have been used to develop an assessment of potential impacts before construction commenced
so that the risk of impacts could be eliminated or reduced prior to construction through alternative
corridors, design, construction methods, and ultimately an EMP and monitoring.
EIA of aquatic life should have addressed and assessed related social impacts (e.g., how impacts to
water quality and aquatic life might affect human communities dependent on those resources), and it
should have engaged stakeholders through consultation to understand their socio-economic status,
including how they utilize the river as an economic resource. The EDA does not engage on the issue
of subsistence fishing. Although it acknowledges there is “sporadic, subsistence fishing” (EDA pg.
159), it did not analyze whether it has suffered any impact.
7.2.2.6 Visual Impacts and Tourism
The EDA identifies “landscape alteration” as an impact of Route 1856, saying that “[t]he exposed
surfaces of slopes and road cuts at some specific sites along the tracing of the Route, contrasts with
the forest, pastures and dominant farming field landscapes” (EDA pg. 134; see also pg. 150). In order
to address this impact (which we consider to be an understatement, given the large expanses of
exposed, unprotected dirt), the EDA recommends reforestation “in front of all road cuts that are visible
from the right margin of the San Juan River” and indicates that corrections to landscape alterations
are relevant for tourism (EDA pg. 150).
Despite these acknowledgements, the EDA categorizes the impact of landscape alteration as
irrelevant in both Costa Rica and Nicaragua (EDA pp. 140-141). We disagree with this
characterization, particularly as it relates to Nicaragua. As the EDA notes: “The tourism potential of
the region is sufficient to justify attracting international visitors” (pg. 159). This potential is mostly
associated with the natural beauty of this remote and non-highly commercialized region. The visual
386 Annex 6
July 2014 43 Project No. 1402647
13
impacts associated with the road construction have created a scar on the natural landscape that will
have impact on national and foreign visitors along the river when viewing the riverine landscape,
affecting the area’s tourism potential.
7.2.3 Impacts Ignored in the EDA’s Assessment
There are various issues that are identified in the EDA but not included in the impact assessment.
Two of them bear mention here.
7.2.3.1 Use of the Road and Related Development
The impacts associated with the actual use of the road are not adequately addressed in the EDA. As
explained above, these impacts should have been addressed in a proper pre-project EIA.
The impacts from the use of the road will vary depending on the actual driving conditions. As many of
the sections of the road observed have only an existing soil profile instead of a gravel surface, these
sections will have dust associated from vehicle traffic that are not only a concern to human health
from the airborne fractions such as particulate concentrations of less than 10 microns, but to
ecological and aquatic environments. Driving on unpaved road surfaces also contributes to erosion.
The introduction of traffic necessarily means the introduction of fuel as well, which can drip onto road
surfaces and be washed into nearby bodies of water. Spills from vehicles are also a concern,
particularly in certain sections of the road characterized by inadequate compaction, uneven surfaces,
unprotected banks and cut slopes, and unstable water crossings.
In addition to the impacts that can arise from the use of Route 1856, the road’s presence involves the
risk of additional impacts related to development, such as increased agricultural and/or commercial
activities, or other human activities, as a result of the road’s existence. Such increased human
presence carries with it the possibility for increased adverse environmental impacts, including land
disturbance, production of waste, and applications of pesticides and fertilizers, all of which are likely
sources of pollution of the San Juan River and the sensitive surrounding areas. The EDA mentions
these potential impacts related to increased human presence (EDA, pg. 65), but it does not include
them in its assessment of impacts.
7.2.3.2 Hazards
Similarly, the EDA identifies hurricanes, tropical st orms, and earthquakes as relevant in the project
area (EDA pgs. 33, 35), but the implications of these hazards are not discussed in the EDA’s
13These visual impacts are much more extensive than they needed to be because the road was not constructed
pursuant to the standard of care for contractors working in the roadway construction industry nor according to any
EMP, as discussed in Sections 5 and 6 above.
387Annex 6
July 2014 44 Project No. 1402647
characterization of impacts. Many of the areas of exposed erodible soils and steep slopes along
Route 1856 are in jeopardy from normal storm events. Due to slope failures, erosion, sediment
washing into the river from poorly constructed sections of the road and slopes, the project area
already exhibits significant localized sediment impacts. Larger events (earthquakes, hurricanes,
storms) would result in larger sediment loading as well as compromising the integrity of the actual
road. In addition to an increase in sediment loading from such events, the consequences of the
repairs that would be required to reconstruct the road are likely to result in additional impacts from,
among other things, construction activities, including earthwork movement, clearing of trees, and the
creation of additional access to work areas. Contamination from fueling activities or other chemicals
associated with repairs are further risks.
7.2.4 Conclusion
For all the foregoing reasons, the EDA’s statement that “it is not considered there could be any
significant impact on the San Juan River” as a result of the Route 1856 project is not supported or
credible.
The EDA understates the impacts of the project in Costa Rica, listing as “irrelevant” or “moderate”
impacts that are actually significant. Even the impacts that have been characterized as “moderate”
within Costa Rica are treated as “irrelevant” to Nicaragua. There is no basis for this discrepancy,
particularly when the EDA’s study area and background information relates exclusively to Costa Rica.
Further, the claim that there is no impact to the San Juan River is inconsistent with the fact that many
of the measures recommended in the EDA indicate that there are substantial impacts requiring
attention (EDA pp. 144-155, 161-163), some of them directly relevant to the San Juan River. The
same is true of the 2012 EMP, which makes explicit that remediation efforts of top priority (indicated in
red in Annex 2 to the EMP) are those that are aimed at preventing impacts to the River.
In sum, Costa Rica’s failure to conduct an EIA prior to constructing Route 1856 created a substantial
risk of adverse environmental impacts to Nicaragua, including the San Juan River, a risk that, the
evidence shows, has materialized.
388 Annex 6
July 2014 45 Project No. 1402647
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The potential impacts to both Costa Rica and Nicaragua discussed above should have been more
than sufficient to require EIA. That is why EIA is commonly required for roadway projects such as
Route 1856, and smaller ones that are not immediately next to a river or through sensitive biological
areas. In fact, we are not aware of any EIA regime in which a project of this nature would not require
an EIA. Most regimes, including Costa Rica, require EIA for much shorter road projects even where
the significant impacts to water, primary forests, and biodiversity are not so obviously present.
Therefore, the claim that this particular project did not require an EIA is contrary to both our
professional experience and our professional opinion. Costa Rica's own EIA regulation would have
normally required an EIA for this project (and even much smaller, less complicated road building
projects). The claim that an EIA is not required is not valid.
Costa Rica has bypassed its national regulations that require an EIA for the Route 1856, it has
ignored the executive decree protecting fragile protected area as previously referenced, has
discounted the potential for significant impacts from the lack of pre-construction screening and design,
has ignored the proximity of Route 1856 to the San Juan River and associated trans-boundary
impacts, and still claims that the Route 1856 has not resulted in significant impacts. Route 1856 had
the potential to cause a range of significant impacts, many of which are acknowledged in Costa Rica’s
EDA and EMP, as well as by studies conducted by Lanamme and CFIA, both well respected
organizations, that contradict the statements made in the Costa Rican Counter-Memorial.
We recommend that:
the Road not be allowed to persist in its current unprotected state;
the Road not be used for the transport of hazardous materials;
meaningful erosion control needs to be implemented;
mitigation works need to be undertaken in a way that does not cause additional harm; and
new development projects that can impact Nicaragua, now possible because of the Road,
also be preceded by proper planning and EIA with Nicaragua considered as an interested
stakeholder.
389Annex 6
July 2014 46 Project No. 1402647
APPENDIX 1: TABLE FROM SETENA RESOLUTION 2572-2009
Variable EIA EDA
Objective of the Study To verify the environmental viability To identify negative impacts, with an
of the project and propose emphasis on pollution and risk, and
environmental control measures propose environmental control
before the decision is made. measures.
Sign of the Impacts Must identify and evaluate all the Identifies only negative impacts, with
possible impacts: positive, emphasis in pollution and environmental
negative, physical-chemical, socio- risk. In exceptional cases, EDA must
economic, biological, ecological, include other impacts.
aesthetical, etc.
Type of Impacts Must identify and assess direct and Identifies only direct impacts.
indirect impacts.
Area included in the study AP (Project Area), AID (Area of Except in exceptional cases, only AP
Direct Impact), AII (Area of Indirect and AID, trying to confine the
Impact), that is to say, all the environmental solution within the limits
environmental factors that interact of the property or project, if possible.
with the project, inside and outside
the property.
Environmental Control Prevention, mitigation, and As far as possible, it must prioritize the
Measures compensation environmental control directly in the
“source” that causes the impact (the
“environmental aspect” according to
ISO 14001, recommended: Cleaner
Production Measures (P+L), eco-
efficient focus. This focus includes the
management of impacts and risks.
Equipment Necessarily interdisciplinary, to Not necessarily interdisciplinary; it
cover all impact and influence depends on the type of project. The
areas of the project. They must be team can be smaller, and they must be
registered as consultants in registered as consultants in SETENA.
SETENA.
Flexibility Inflexible, non-negotiable. The Flexible, gradual, auto-evaluation,
project must be 100% approval based in sworn affidavit,
“environmentalized” from the very subject to verification through inspection
beginning. and environmental audit.
Main output PGA, dynamic, includes a program PAA (similar to EIA’s PGA) and PCPA.
of environmental measures, a risk The PAA must be dynamic, based on
and monitoring program. the indicators of environmental
performance or monitoring. Gradual
accomplishment goals in accordance
with the demonstrated possibilities for
each activity, and subject to SETENA’s
follow up through Inspection and
Environmental Audit.
▯
390 Annex 6
July 2014 47 Project No. 1402647
APPENDIX 2: AUTHOR CVS
391Annex 6
Resumé BENNY SUSI
Golder Associates Inc. – Gainesville
Education
M.E. Civil Engineering, Employment History
University of Florida, 1979
Golder Associates Inc. – Gainesville, FL
B.S. Civil Engineering, Principal/Senior Project Manager (2000 to Present; Office Manager 2001-2009)
University of Florida, 1977
Senior project manager for international inter-disciplinary environmental projects,
Certifications mining, oil and gas, transportation, power plants and LNG terminal environmental
Professional Engineer impact studies, compliance audits, air resources, environmental permitting,
(P.E.), State of Florida waste management services, and transactional audits in the U.S.
(#35042),
1984
Golder Associates Inc. – Boca Raton, FL
Languages Associate/Office Manager (1996 to 2000)
English – Fluent Responsible for technical, financial, and business development of the office on
environmental impacts studies, compliance audits, air resources, permitting,
Spanish – Fluent waste management services, and transactional audits.
KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc.– Boca Raton, FL
Principal Engineer/Office Manager (1990 to 1996)
Responsible for technical, financial and business development of the office on
environmental assessments, compliance audits, air resources, permitting, waste
management services, and transactional audits.
Westinghouse Environmental and Geotechnical Services, Inc. –
Deerfield Beach, FL
Senior Engineer/Office Manager (1984 to 1990)
Responsible for technical performance, financial and business development of a
20-man office providing geotechnical, construction materials inspection,
environmental assessments, and asbestos management. Engineer-of-record on
various high rise buildings, areas, convention centers, highway bridges,
roadways, and environmental assessments.
McClelland Engineers, Inc – Houston, TX
Supervising Engineer (1982 to 1984)
Responsible for supervising staff engineers in geotechnical evaluations of high-
rise buildings, highway projects, and offshore oil drilling platform projects.
McClelland Engineers, Inc – Houston, TX
Staff Engineer (1978 to 1982)
Project engineer on numerous geotechnical investigations and engineering
evaluations of commercial, industrial and offshore projects. Lead Staff Engineer
in Houston Transit Regional Rail System for the north and south corridors and
250-acre Flour-Daniel office complex in Sugarland. Performed geotechnical and
geophysical investigations for major oil companies’ offshore platforms and
pipelines throughout the Gulf of Mexico. Co-engineer in developing a
comprehensive map of subsurface sediment data of the Gulf of Mexico for Jack-
up rig siting evaluations.
1
392 Annex 6
Resumé BENNY SUSI
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Torex Gold Resources Senior Project Advisor and Qualified Profession in the development of a
Ltd. Feasibility Study (FS) and ESIA for the Morelos Gold Mine in Mexico (Minera
Guerrero State, Mexico Media Luna S.A. (MML), respectively. As senior advisor, Mr. Susi has provide
guidance to a multidisciplinary team consisting of engineers and scientist and
interacts with the Torex project manager on all aspects of the FS and
environmental and social studies to support the ESIA. Mr Susi has provided
guidance, direction and assisting the MML and Golder project managers in the
successful planning, execution of the ESIA. The Morelos Gold Project is located
in Guerrero State, Mexico, approximately 200 km south–southwest of Mexico
City, 60 km southwest of Iguala and 18 km northwest of Mezcala. The Project
consists of three gold-enriched skarn deposits, El Limon, Guajes East, and
Guajes West a dry tailings area, mill and surface water capture and treatment
systems and supporting ancillary facilities.
Constructora Noberto Project Director for 600 MW gas-fired power plant and LNG marine terminal in
Odebrecht, S.A. Pepillo Salcedo. A fatal flaw analysis was conducted for this project along the
Dominican Republic oceanographic studies to monitor currents and waves and physical and chemical
parameters of the water column and bathymetry surveys of the bay for the
offshore LNG terminal.
CF Industries Project Manager for an SEIA for CF Industries Nitrogen Complex consisting of a
San Juan de Marcona 2600 ton per day (TPD) ammonia plant and a 3,852 per day urea plant. Project
Involves a multi-disciplinary team from Peru, US, and Canada that includes
environmental and baselines studies, public consultation and workshops with
affected stakeholders, impact evaluations and geophysical and geotechnical
studies to support the preliminary engineering design. The SEIA is being
conducted in accordance with IFC and Peruvian standards through the Ministry
of Energy and Mines.
MKJ/Noble Energy Inc Project Manager for the Social and Environmental Impact Assessment for the
Nicaragua seismic exploration and exploratory wells for two concession areas cover 4,000
square kilometers (km) (approximately 988,396 acres) each located
approximately 80 km from the coast in the Caribbean Sea offshore Nicaragua.
The study involved the acquisition of 2-D and 3-D high resolution seismic studies
to supplement existing seismic and geophysical. This phase of the project is the
first of a three phase exploration and production of hydrocarbon resources on the
Caribbean coast of Nicaragua.
Xstrata Project Manager of Environmental and Social Baseline for Impact Assessment of
Dominican Republic the Loma Miranda ferrous-nickel laterite mine, rehabilitation of the smelters at the
processing plant by conversion of existing vertical furnaces to coal-fired kilns and
the conversion of an existing 200 MW fuel oil fired power plant into a coal fired
power plant in the Dominican Republic. Project involved an inter-disciplinary
team from the U.S., Canada, Columbia, and Dominican Republic.
Xstrata Project Manager of Environmental and Social Baseline for Impact Assessment of
Dominican Republic the Loma Miranda ferrous-nickel laterite mine, conversion of smelters to coal and
coal-fired power plant.
2
393Annex 6
Resumé BENNY SUSI
Panama Canal Environmental Project Manager for the Feasibility Study of Palo Seco/Farfan
Authority Land Reclamation to develop a Port Facility. The project is part of the expansion
Panama City, Panama of the Panama Canal and the possible construction of new sets of Locks. The
study involved the beneficial use of excavation of dredged materials form the
proposed new locks for the development of a major container transhipment
center at the Pacific entrance to the Panama Canal.
The Phenix Group Project manager for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the
Monkey Point-Corinto, Interoceanic Corridor Project, which involves a 470-kilometer pipeline that
Nicaragua
crosses Nicaragua. The pipeline will carry crude oil and bitumen-based fuel from
the Caribbean to the Pacific side of Nicaragua. The project involves transporting
oil through an underwater pipeline to a terminal at Monkey Point for storage.
From Monkey Point, oil would be pumped daily across Nicaragua to the Pacific
port of Corinto through two underground pipelines. Tankers will load the oil
again using offshore mono-buoys.
Panama Canal Project Manager for the Environmental Feasibility Study of the Flood Mitigation
Authority Project for Gatun Lake, Panama. The project is part of the overall Master Plan
Panama City, Panama for the expansion of the Panama Canal infrastructure, which included the
evaluation of a new spillway and the increase the draft in the existing lock and
Lake Gatun above the Maximum Operating Level.
Dead Sea Works Senior Engineer for evaluating the risk of air-borne contamination of fertilizers
Ashdod, Israel from existing and proposed grain unloading operations at the Port of Ashdod. An
evaluation of the existing grain unloading operations was conducted, a review of
environmental studies performed at the site, review of meteorological data, and
air dispersion analysis, and risk assessment.
Smith-Enron Project Manager and Oil Spill Response trainer for the Puerto Plata Power Plant.
Puerto Plata, Dominican Training included one-week of desktop and simulated oil spill exercises in the
Republic bay of Puerto Plata.
NRG Energy Inc. Project Manager for environmental due diligence of 10 hydroelectric power plants
Multiple Sites, South (4 in Bolivia, 5 in Peru, and one in Brazil). The environmental site assessment
America (ESA) purpose of this limited investigation was to identify potential recognized
environmental conditions associated with the site and surrounding offsite
properties and activities. The study involved reviewing of available regulatory
permits, environmental studies, site maps, and photographs of the subject site
and surrounding properties, interviews with plant personnel and review and
evaluation of available geological, topographical, and hydrological information.
Hunt Oil Project Director for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for 4.0 million
Pampa Melchorita, Peru metric tons per year Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Export Terminal and Marine
Loading located in a greenfield site in Pampa Melchorita, on the west coast of
Peru. The EIA is being conducted in accordance with World Bank and Peruvian
standards. Project involved developing collection of terrestrial and marine
baseline data, air dispersion modeling, cultural resources evaluation, public
consultation, geoetechnical investigations, and the collection of baseline noise
and air quality.
3
394 Annex 6
Resumé BENNY SUSI
El Paso Corporation Project Director and lead engineer for the EIA for a two-phase LNG Terminal in
Baja, Mexico Baja, Mexico. The EIA was conducted in accordance to Mexican regulations and
International standards. The first phase of the project consists of 610 MMSCFD
capacity and the second phase has a maximum capacity of 1.2 BSCFD. Project
involved developing collection of terrestrial and marine baseline data, air
dispersion modeling, thermal discharge modeling, presentations to federal and
state environmental agencies, and environmental mitigation and monitoring
plans.
AES Corporation
Project Manger and lead engineer for the EIA for a 300-MW gas-fired combined-
Andres, Dominican cycle power plant and LNG import facility. The EIA was conducted in
Republic accordance to World Bank Guidelines. Project involved developing collection of
terrestrial and marine baseline data, air dispersion modeling, thermal discharge
modeling, social assessment report, public consultation, assistance with local
approvals, and environmental mitigation and monitoring plans.
Transredes S.A. Project Director for an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) for the 440-km gas
Santa Cruz - Yacuiba, pipeline for the Yabog South Gas Expansion Project in accordance with World
Bolivia Bank Guidelines. Project involved developing a scoping study, baseline studies,
public consultation, and providing assistance with multilateral financing.
Coastal Power Project Manager responsible for conducting an EIS for a 49-MW thermal electric
Company power plant in accordance with Panamanian and World Bank Guidelines.
Pacora, Panama Project involved air dispersion modeling to evaluate ambient air impacts and
compliance with applicable standards for air, noise, and water quality.
Illinova Generating Project Manager responsible for conducting an EIS for a 96-MW thermal electric
Company/Noresco power plant in accordance with Panamanian and World Bank Guidelines.
Chorrera, Panama Project involved air dispersion modeling to evaluate ambient air impacts and
compliance with applicable standards for air, noise, and water quality. The
project involved negotiating with newly-created regulatory agency Autoridad
Nacional del Ambiente, the Inter-American Development Bank, and conducting
public hearing and community relations’ plans.
Cantarell Nitrogen Environmental Consultant to project sponsors consisting of Citicorp Securities
Plant Inc. and The Export-Import Bank of Japan, as well as other financial institutions,
Cantarell, Mexico
to provide independent technical evaluation of environmental aspects of facilities
to supply nitrogen gas to Pemex Exploration and Production for reservoir
pressure maintenance. The Nitrogen Plant located on the Gulf of Campeche,
near Pemex Atasta compressor station will supply 1,200 MMSCFD of nitrogen
for injection into the Cantarell area oil fields. The project consists of four large air
separation units using conventional cryogenic air separation technology, 4 GE
gas turbines and seawater cooling, pipeline and associated infrastructure.
4
395Annex 6
Resumé BENNY SUSI
Instituto de Recursos Project manager and lead engineer of a multi-technical staff of professionals
Hidraulicos y responsible for conducting environmental site assessments (ESA) and
Electrificacion compliance audits of the Panamanian electrical sector as part of the privatization
Various Cities, Panama and restructuring efforts funded through the International Finance Corporation
(IFC). Site Assessments included 3 distribution regions with over 40 substations
and supporting facilities, 4 power generation facilities that included 4 hydro-
electric power plants and 3 thermal electric plants, and a 230kV transmission
line. Each power plant site included an air audit consisting of regulatory and
engineering analysis of combustion units, operating data, meteorological data
and air dispersion modeling, and control technology. Other components of the
study included noise measurements, health and safety evaluations,
contamination assessments, soil and water analysis, and recommendations for
compliance with applicable standards.
Unipharma, S.A. Project Manager and Environmental Assessor responsible for conducting an
Bogota, Colombia environmental assessment of an existing pharmaceutical plant. The
environmental assessment included addressing past and current activities, solid
and hazardous waste handling operations, wastewater discharge, and air
emissions.
Land Sciences Project engineer responsible for geotechnical feasibility study in the development
Corporation
of a golf course community.
Kbasituri, Aruba
Gonzales Karg and Project engineer on a conceptual review of site-specific subsurface conditions;
Associates foundation design; construction techniques; the effects of development to
Mexico City, Mexico adjacent and nearby structures and structural criteria; design concepts; and
foundation loading including static; dynamic and seismic for Hilton Hotel
International.
Various Oil Companies Project engineer for siting offshore petroleum platforms.
.Multiple Sites, Gulf of
Mexico
Miami Arena Senior engineer/project manager responsible for performing structural
Miami, FL inspections and coordinating fabrication yard inspections from sister offices in
Albany and Tampa.
Florida Department of Senior engineer/project manager responsible for geotechnical engineering
Transportation including soil surveys, laboratory testing, chemical analysis, and foundation
Multiple Sites, FL design recommendations for the following bridges and roadway projects: 3-Mile
S.W. 87th Avenue widening and reconstruction in Miami; N.W. 41st Street
interchange in Miami; and Gratigny Parkway Expressway Bridge over N.W. 67th
Avenue.
5
396 Annex 6
Resumé BENNY SUSI
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING
NexLube
Project Manager for an 80,000 ton per year used oil re-refinery and blending
Tampa, Florida facility in the Port of Tampa, Florida. The facility collects used oil as the primary
feedstock and processes the used oil in a three-stage unit compromised of a pre-
flash, thermal de-asphalting plant and hydrofinishing. Project involved siting
study, air, stormwater, wetlands, local county approvals, civil engineering and bid
specifications.
NexLube Project Manager for due diligence study for a confidential petroleum refinery,
Western USA terminal, crude oil and product pump stations, pipelines in western USA. The
due diligence project consisted of reviewing known-compliance issues,
remediation projects, facility environmental and safety performance as well as
pending or future environmental regulations that presented a material impact or
influence the crude oil refinery to co-operate with a used oil re-refinery.
Moffat & Nichol Project manager for the environmental advisory services Transaction Advisory
El Salvador Services for the Concessioning of the Port of La Union in El Salvador for a
review of the status and completeness of existing environmental licenses
available for the project; review and summary of the environmental management
plans, licenses, permitting, contingent liabilities, and associated cost estimates
for environmental related activities to be carried out by the relevant government
agencies and to provide commentary on the opinion of the accuracy of the
estimated costs associated with carrying out the prescribed environmental
management plan, to identify gaps, and propose appropriate mitigation for
addressing environmental issues.
Parker Drilling Project Manager for evaluating environmental permitting checklist for assisting
Colombia and Mexico drilling managers to use during planning and start-up operations for new oil and
gas rig drilling locations on country–specific regulatory permitting requirements or
in the absence of such regulations as International Finance Corporation
guidelines and Best Management Practices and company-specific standards and
requirements.
Dixie Waste Services Project Manager and air permitting engineer for a waste gasification/thermal
LLC oxidizer (WG/TO) plant adjacent to an existing solid waste transfer facility in
Dixie County, Florida Dixie County, Florida. The facility is designed to burn 150 tons per day (TPD) of
municipal solid waste (MSW), tire-derived fuel (TDF), and medical waste. The
WG/TO process consists of a batch operation where incoming wastes delivered
to the site by trucks are deposited in one of three (3) insulated primary
gasification chambers (combustors) each having a capacity of combusting 50
TPD of waste. The project involved three public hearings to discuss the proposed
facility, waste segregation plan and siting analysis.
Pratt & Whitney Project Manager and air permitting engineer for various Title V renewal, RD-180
West Palm Beach, Program (rocket booster) and the relocation of two existing GG4-A9 JP8 fired
Florida engines from the Pratt & Whitney facilities in Hartford, Connecticut to the Palm
Beach facility. The studies involved the preparation of an air construction/
operating permit applications to the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (FDEP).
6
397Annex 6
Resumé BENNY SUSI
Levee-Midway 500-kV Engineer-of-record for all dredge and fill, management, and storage of surface
Transmission Line waters and other environmental permits necessary to construct 152 miles of 500-
Multiple Sites, FL kV line in five counties: Broward, Dade, Martin, Palm Beach, and St. Lucie. The
following permits were included in this project: joint dredge and fill permit from
FDEP and USACE; surface water management permit from SFWMD; and other
permits as needed. Conducted hydrodynamic modeling of flow patterns
(velocity, water levels, and flow rates) in the existing condition and the proposed
transmission line access road with culverts condition, evaluated the impacts, and
designed culverts to minimize impacts.
Florida Power & Light Crane-Bridge-Plumosus 230-kV Transmission Line – Engineer-of-record for all
Company dredge and fill management and storage of surface waters, and other
Martin and Palm Beach environmental permits necessary to construct 42 miles of 230-kV line in two
Counties, FL
counties. Conducted hydrodynamic modeling of flow patterns (velocity, water
levels, and flow rates) in the existing condition and the proposed transmission
line access road with culverts condition, evaluated the impacts, and designed
culverts to minimize impacts. Also responsible for as-built certification.
Florida Power & Light Norris-Scottsmoor, Hobe-Indiantown, Hobe-Plumosus, and Hobe-Sandpiper
Company Transmission Lines. Engineer-of-record for all dredge and fill, management, and
Multiple Sites, FL storage of surface waters and other environmental permits necessary to
construct approximately 75 miles of transmission line in Broward, Martin, and
Volusia Counties.
Mulberry Ethanol Engineering task manager for the design, alignment, permitting of a 2,000-foot
Facility rail spur constructed to serve the project. This project was constructed on a
Bartow, FL
reclaimed phosphate mine area.
Florida Power & Light Project manager and engineer-of-record for the restoration of 1.04 acres of tidal
Company swamp wetland located on the Nature Conservancy Blowing Rocks Preserve on
Hobe Sound, FL Jupiter Island. The restoration included the removal of exotic species, removal of
spoil material, site grading to establish hydroperiod and the design of
meandering tidal creeks with connection to the Intracoastal Waterway to provide
flushing and habitat for wading birds.
McDonnell-Douglas Engineer-of-record responsible for the preparation of annual air operating
Aerospace reports, preparation of air construction permits, air consulting services, and
Titusville, FL interfacing with Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to
modify existing permits and exemptions.
United Technologies Project manager and engineer-of-record responsible for providing Title V air
Corporation, Pratt & permitting services, including emission source evaluation, preparation of air
Whitney permit application and negotiation, regulatory consultation, industrial wastewater
West Palm Beach, FL permitting, and various permitting support activities.
Sensormatic Electronic Project manager and engineer-of-record for air construction and air operating
Corporation permits, RACT evaluations, pollution control device evaluations, and Spill
Boca Raton, FL Prevention and Control and Countermeasure Plans for the Corporate Innovations
Center.
7
398 Annex 6
Resumé BENNY SUSI
Nailite International, Engineer-of-record responsible for providing Title V air permitting services
Inc.
including emission source evaluation, preparation of air permit application and
Miami, FL negotiation, regulatory consultation, and various permitting support activities.
Prepared Tier II inventory reports (Section 312) and Form R (Section 313) for
submittal to state and federal regulatory agencies.
United Technologies Project manager and engineer-of-record responsible for providing Title V air
Corporation, Sikorsky permitting services, including emission source evaluation, preparation of air
West Palm Beach, FL permit application and negotiation, regulatory consultation, industrial wastewater
permitting, and various permitting support activities.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENTS AND
DUE DILIGENCE
NextEra Energy Project Manager for a confidential project involving due diligence and support of
Resources, LLC a senior colleague seconded to NexEra to assist in the divestiture of five gas-
Five States
fired generation facilities in five locations representing 2,700 MW of generating
capacity.
Perez Compac and Project engineer responsible for conducting a pre-feasibility study and providing
Consortium of Oil conceptual design systems to protect the sources of water supply at intake
Producers
locations for potable and agricultural use along a 100-km stretch of the Rio
Rio Colorado, Argentina Colorado. The study involved identification of critical contaminants, review of
natural attenuation, and proposed alternatives for protection of water supply
systems.
Puerto Nuevo Power
Project Manger and lead engineer responsible for conducting the facility audit of
Plant Facility Audit site operations addressing solid and hazardous waste handling operations
Buenos Aires, Argentina (including asbestos and PCBs) at the Nuevo Puerto Power Plant for RECA and
ENRE. The audit included a review of waste handling, storage, disposal, and
discharges into waters of the state. Health and safety issues were also
addressed.
Puerto Nuevo Power Project Manger and lead engineer responsible for conducting a second facility
Plant Facility Audit audit of site operations addressing solid and hazardous waste handling
Buenos Aires, Argentina
operations (including asbestos and PCBs) at the Puerto Nuevo Power Plant for
RECA and ENRE. The audit included a review of waste handling, storage,
disposal, and discharges into waters of the state. Health and safety issues were
also addressed.
Phase II Environmental
Project Manager responsible for assessment of soil contamination utilizing Risk
Site Assessment for Based Corrective Action (RBCA) applied to petroleum releases at a crude and
Transredes, S.A diesel fuel terminal in Arica and a 150-km pipeline from Bolivia to Chile.
Arica, Chile
Pharmacia & Upjohn Manager and Environmental Assessor responsible for conducting environmental
Multiple Sites, South
assessments of various pharmaceutical facilities and sites in Brazil, Guatemala,
America and Colombia.
8
399Annex 6
Resumé BENNY SUSI
A.D. Weiss Lithograph Project Manager responsible for assessment of soil and groundwater
Company contamination, development of interim remedial activities, preparation of
Hollywood, FL contamination assessment reports, remedial activities, and liaison with regulatory
agencies.
Broward County Responsible for overall technical direction and coordination management of
Convention Site project that included soil gas surveys, geophysical surveys, soil sampling,
Broward County, FL contamination assessment, and long-term monitoring of shallow aquifer.
Responsible for geotechnical engineering evaluation and recommendations,
foundation installation monitoring, surcharge supervision, preconstruction survey,
and construction materials testing.
Phase I Environmental Project Manager and environmental assessor of over 50 Phase I environmental
Site Evaluation site assessments for commercial and industrial facilities throughout Florida and
Multiple Sites
southeast United States.
Phase II Environmental Project Manager responsible for evaluating the presence and extent of soil and
Evaluation, FHP groundwater contamination, and preparation of an assessment report for this air
Manufacturing, Inc. conditioning manufacturing facility.
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Captain's Creek
Project Director of contamination assessment activities associated with
Stuart, FL underground storage tank.
National Crescent Task engineer responsible for providing preliminary design criteria for land
Petroleum, Ltd disposal of petroleum refinery hazardous wastes.
Karachi, Pakistan
Sensormatic Electronic
Project manager and engineer-of-record for an ESA (Phase I and Phase II),
Corporation endangered and threatened species evaluation, and wetlands delineation.
Boca Raton, FL
Consultant for Port Responsible for environmental assessments and audits, consultation, soil and
Everglades Authority groundwater investigations, and quality control oversight during a major port
Broward County, FL expansion during a 2-year service contract.
Isla del Sol Project manager responsible for the assessment, removal, and disposal of
Maintenance and Golf contaminated soils associated with leaking underground tanks.
Course Facility
St. Petersburg, FL
Stiles Corporation Senior engineer/project manager responsible for environmental audits prior to
Ft. Lauderdale, FL site acquisition, geotechnical engineering evaluation and recommendations,
foundation installation monitoring, load test, construction materials testing, and
structural inspections.
Various Oil Handlers Project director for the development of oil spill response plans for compliance
Multiple Sites with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA, 1990).
City of Tallahassee Engineer-of-Record for oil spill response plans for three power plants.
Electric Department
Tallahassee, FL
9
400 Annex 6
Resumé BENNY SUSI
Enron Gas and Project manager and Engineer-of-Record for the development of oil spill
Liquids, Brooker response plans.
Terminal
Brooker, FL
Clairison International Project manager and Engineer-of-Record for the development of oil spill
Ocala, FL
response plans.
Orange Cogeneration Engineer-of-Record and task manger for preliminary subsurface investigation,
Facility, Orange geotechnical engineering evaluation, and environmental site audits.
Cogeneration, L.P.
Bartow, FL
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
American Society of Civil Engineers
Tau Beta Pi, Honorary Engineering Society
10
401Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
Golder Associates Inc. – Gainesville
Education
M.Sc. Wildlife Sciences, Employment History
University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, TN, U.S., 1991 Golder Associates Inc – Gainesville, FL
Senior Environmental Specialist, located in Bogota, Colombia (associated with
B.Sc. Biology major in the Gainesville office since September 2006) (2006 to Present)
Ecology, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, Project manager and environmental specialists in projects related with the oil &
U.S., 1989 gas, mining, industry, power and transportation sectors in Central, Caribbean
B.Ed. Biology and and South America.
Chemistry, Universidad del
Tolima, Colombia, 1987 Golder Associates Peru S.A. – Peru
Senior Environmental Specialist (2002 to 2006)
Languages
Project manager and environmental specialists in projects related with the oil &
Spanish (mother tongue); gas, mining, industry and transportation sectors in Peru and Latin America.
English (proficient);
Portuguese (intermediate).
Golder Associates Bolivia S.A. – Bolivia
Senior Environmental Specialist and Office Manager (2000 to 2001)
Project manager and environmental specialists in projects of the oil and gas
sector in Bolivia. General Manager of the Santa Cruz office, Bolivia.
WCI International Inc. – Colombia
Environmental Specialist and Office Manager (1998 to 2000)
Project manager and environmental specialists for oil and gas, power and
transportation sectors in Latin-America including Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador,
Guatemala, Perú and Mexico. General manager of the Bogota office, Colombia.
ACI Ambiental Ltda. – Colombia
General Manager and Partner (1997 to 1998)
Partner and general manager of the ACI Ambiental Ltda. dedicated to
environmental inspections and audits to the oil and gas sector in Colombia.
Geoingeniería Ltda. – Colombia
Environmental Specialist and Project Manager (1994 to 1997)
Environmental specialists and project manager of several projects on the oil and
gas sector in Colombia.
Corporación Autónoma Regional del Quindio – Colombia
Advisor & Program Director (1992 to 1993)
Environmental advisor at the Planning Department of this Regional
Environmental Authority and the Director for the Research and Environmental
Education Center – CIFAC.
United Nations Development Program – Colombia
Consultant (1991 to 1992)
Environmental specialists on the inventory of Government and NGO
environmental initiatives in two country regions (Departamentos of Antioquia &
1
402 Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
Choco) and evaluation for potential international funding under the context of the
Colombian Program for Environmental International Cooperation.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – OIL, GAS AND ENVIRONMENT
ACON LATAM Environmental specialist and technical reviewer during the Environmental Review
MANAGEMENT LLC. of Vetra´s company Oil and Gas Facilities in Colombia in accordance with the
Colombia Equator Principles and IFC Performance Standards.
Transportadora de Gas Environmental specialist during the Independent Assessment of the Basic Design
del Perú TGP– Gulf for the Camisea Jungle Loops Project. A review of environmental and natural
Interstate Engineering resources issues derived from the basic engineering of the project and
Peru environmental studies under development. The project consists of two new NG
and NGL pipelines of 144 kilometres to be constructed on the actual Camisea
pipelines system between Malvinas and Kiteni, Perú.
CF Industries Peru Environmental specialist and technical reviewer during the Environmental and
S.A.C Social Impact Assessment for a Nitrogen Complex Project.
Peru
Noble Energy & MKJ Project manager and environmental specialist for preparation of Terms of
International Reference and preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the Oil
Exploration
and Gas Offshore Seismic Exploration Phase at Isabel and Tyra blocks in the
Nicaragua Atlantic coast of Nicaragua.
Oiltanking & Consorcio Project manager for Environmental Impact Assessment for the Construction and
Terminales (LQS)
Operation of a Chemicals Terminal at the Port of Matarani, Arequipa. Terms of
Peru Reference definition, base line studies, environmental assessment, risk analysis
and environmental management plan for a chemicals terminal to initially handle
16,000 annual tons of Sodium Hydrosulfide (NaHS), a product used as flotation
agent in mineral concentrates production.
Hunt Oil Company Project manager for support in financial closure - environmental component with
Peru the International Development Bank - IDB. Interaction with the environmental
consultant retained by IDB to carry out the financial closure for the LNG export
project in the area of Pampa Melchorita, Cañete.
Hunt Oil Company Project manager for environmental assessment of an alternative marine
Peru construction method for the LNG Export Project, Pampa Melchorita.
Comparative assessment of two construction methods and their feasibility during
the marine construction works (breakwater and marine trestle) for the LNG export
Project in Pampa Melchorita.
2
403Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
Perú LNG (PLNG) Project manager for Environmental Base Line Updating and Amendment to the
Peru Environmental Impact Assessment for the LNG Export Project, Pampa
Melchorita. LNG export project in the area of Pampa Melchorita, Cañete. EIA
amendment report preparation and submittal to the Ministry of Energy and Mines.
Responses to observations and re-observations during the “EIA Amendment”
review and approval as submitted to the environmental authority.
Oleoductos Premier de
Project Manager and Environmental Specialist for an Environmental and Social
Nicaragua (Phenix Preliminary Scoping Study of a 470 km oil pipeline using an Inter Oceanic
Group) Corridor across Nicaragua, from the locality of Monkey Point on the Atlantic
Nicaragua Coast to the locality of Corinto on the Pacific Coast.
Mobil Oil del Perú S.R.L Senior reviewer for Health, Safety and Environmental Regulations Manual.
Peru Evaluation of Peruvian legal framework and its applicability to business units
such as: Fuel Distribution to Aviation, Fuel Distribution Stations, Lube Oil Plant,
Fuel Terminal and Fuel Distribution to Mining Companies. This evaluation will
help to up to date and structure a manual on health, safety and environmental
regulatory framework applicable to the above mentioned business units.
HUNT OIL COMPANY Project manager for Environmental and Social Impact Assessment for
Peru construction of an LNG Plant and marine facilities. Environmental and Social
impact assessment for the construction of an LNG plant with a production
capacity of 4.4 million metric tons per annum (MTMA) and marine facilities for
export. This project is a key component of the Camisea natural gas exploration
and production project.
PETROBRAS Senior review for Environmental Impact Assessment for the Development and
Ecuador Production of Block 31. Environmental assessment for the installation of a
Central Processing Facility, water well pad, two production well pads with cluster
wells (Apaika & Nenke), a road access, flow lines and export oil pipeline. The
production platforms and part of the access road and flow lines will be installed
inside of the Yasuni National Park.
ENCANA Auditor for Environmental Due Diligence to the Auca oil field. Evaluation of
Ecuador current facility conditions operated by PetroEcuador – PetroProducción on the
production fields Auca Central, Auca Sur, Auca Este & Conga on the Eastern
Ecuadorian, and identification of environmental liabilities under the current
hydrocarbons regulations in Ecuador. These four fields are operating since 1970
and include 60 drilling wells, 41 production wells, two processing facilities
(Estación Central y Estación Sur) and flowlines.
Lima Airport Partners Environmental specialist for Phase II audit to the EXXONMOBIL Fuel Terminal at
Peru
the Jorge Chavez International Airport. This phase II work included an evaluation
of the hydrocarbons contamination on the ground and related environmental
liabilities with previous operations conducted at this fuel terminal.
3
404 Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
TRANSREDES S. A Project manager for Environmental Impact Assessment of the Yacuiba-Río
Bolivia Grande Gas Pipeline Project. Environmental Impact Assessment and public
consultation for the construction of a gas pipeline (36” diameter and 430
kilometers longitude) between Yacuiba, Department of Tarija (on the Bolivian-
Argentinian border) and Rio Grande, Department of Santa Cruz, Bolivia. This
gas pipeline will be constructed paralleled to the existing gas pipeline YABOG
(24” diameter and 30-year operation) and will be joined to the Transbolivian Gas
Pipeline (GTB), which transports the Bolivian gas to the border with Brazil.
TRANSREDES S. A Project manager Environmental Impact Assessment for a Compression Station
Bolivia and a 30-Kilometer Gas Pipeline. Environmental Assessment of the area for the
construction of a compression station in Taquiperenda and a pipeline section of
30-kilometer and 36” diameter. This system will be integrated to the Gas Pipeline
YABOG System (Yacuiba-Rio Grande pipeline).
CLHB S.A. Project manager for Phase II Environmental Audit in Refined Hydrocarbons
Bolivia Storage and Transportation Facilities. Environmental Inspection of 30
hydrocarbon storage terminals and the OCOLP products pipeline (Pipeline to
Cochabamba – La Paz) to establish the investigation plan and evaluation of the
environmental liabilities related to the former operator YPFB (Yacimientos
Petroliferos Fiscales Bolivianos). These facilities were part of a transfer contract
between the Bolivian Government and the Company CLHB S.A.
CLHB S.A. Project manager for Environmental Advisory on Refined Hydrocarbons Spills.
Bolivia Environmental Assessment and determination of the remediation measures
required to areas affected by refined hydrocarbon spills originated at pipelines
operated by CLHB.
TRANSREDES S. A Project manager for Environmental Impact Assessment of the Compression
Bolivia Station and 30-Km Gas Pipeline. Environmental Assessment in the construction
area of a compression station in the town of Taquiperenda and a gas pipeline
section (36” dm and 30 kms) to integrate the Yabog Gas Pipeline system
(Yacuiba-Río Grande).
TRANSCANADA HSE auditor for El Bajio Gas Pipeline Construction. Audit of the HSE system and
PIPELINES practices developed during the construction of the El Bajio gas pipeline project in
INTERNATIONAL the Mexican state of Aguas Calientes. This audit was part of a standardization of
Mexico
HSE practices between the Company and Techint, its main construction
subcontractor.
CENTRORIENTE Gas HSE auditor for CENTRORIENTE Gas Pipeline. Audit to the HSE program
Pipeline implemented by the operator of the CENTRORIENTE S.A pipeline (Neiva to
Colombia
Barrancabermeja). This audit was part of the standardization program and
internal policies of the Company.
CRESTAR ENERGY Environmental auditor for Phase I to Block 16, a hydrocarbon production f
acility
INC. operated by REPSOL YPF in the Ecuadorian Amazon. The audit was carried out
Ecuador
as part of the share purchase process by Crestar Energy Inc.
4
405Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
ECOPETROL Auditor for Environmental Audit to the Solid Waste Management in the
Colombia Barrancabermeja Refinery. Auditor of the system and practices of solid waste
management generated in the hydrocarbons refinery at Barrancabermeja.
During the audit, the hazardous solid waste management, treatment and
remediation strategies were reviewed.
ECOPETROL Project manager responsible for permitting and approvals and definition of
Colombia
environmental commitments with environmental authorities, prior to the start up of
the construction of the products pipeline Poliducto de Oriente. This team was
created by the Vice-presidency of Transportation at ECOPETROL, with exclusive
dedication to the project.
ARPEL Instructor and auditor for Environmental Audit Course. Instructor and auditor on
Peru the Environmental Audit exercise prepared to Petroperú S.A. and its facilities at
an oil Refinery in Talara.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – MINING AND ENVIRONMENT
Minera Isla Invierno Environmental specialist and Technical reviewer for developing an
Chile Environmental and Social Management System along with Environmental and
Social Management Plans in accordance with the Equator Principles and IFC
Performance Standards for a Coal mine project in La Patagonia.
Torex Gold Environmental specialist conducted a gap analysis in accordance with the
Resources Inc.
Equator Principles and IFC performance standards & EHS sector guidelines of
Mexico the Morelos Gold Mine Project in Nuevo Balsas State of Guerrero. Also, task
leader for the flora and fauna baseline studies during the ESIA prepared for
International Financial Institutions.
Goldcorp Environmental specialist during a Golden Eye Review of the Safety Management
Mexico System of Goldcorp at Los Filos Mine, in Mazala State of Guerrero.
Minera Panama S. A. Project Manager to coordinate a technical defense team and iterations with
Panama environmental authorities during review and approval process of the
Environmental Impact Assessment conducted for the Copper Mine Project.
Pueblo Viejo Project manager and environmental specialist for preparing: Contingency and
Dominicana
Emergency Response Plans for Hazardous Materials Management and Fuel
Corporation Management for the Construction Phase at the Pueblo Viejo Gold Mine Project in
Dominican Republic accordance with IFC performance standards/EHS Guidelines and Dominican
Republic environmental requirements. Also, preparation of the Waste and
Hazardous Materials Environmental Management Plans for the Operations
Phase of the Pueblo Viejo mine.
Pueblo Viejo Project manager and environmental specialist for the Amphibians Survey at
Dominicana control areas of the Llagal River Valley Project at Pueblo Viejo gold mine.
Corporation
Dominican Republic
5
406 Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
Xstrata Nickel Environmental specialist and task leader for environmental baseline studies for
Falcondo the Loma Miranda Exploration Project and Coal Power Conversion Project.
Dominican Republic Coordination of terrestrial /aquatic ecology and social economical studies at
project areas.
AURELIAN Project manager and environmental specialist for environmental scoping
RESOURCES assesment of Fruta del Norte Mining Project. Coordination of biological baseline
Ecuador studies conducted in conjunction with Ecuadorian consultants at project area.
VOTORANTIM METAIS Environmental specialist and lead auditor for the project Fenix Environmental
Guatemala Due Diligence. Analysis and risk assessment for a potential property transaction
at an operating mine in the Department of Izabal, Guatemala.
VOTORANTIM METAIS Environmental specialist and lead auditor for Acerias Paz del Rio Environmental
Colombia Due Diligence. Analysis and risk assessment for a potential property transaction
at an operating steel factory and several coal, iron and limestone mines, located
in the Department of Boyacá, Colombia.
MINERA MAJAZ S. A / H, S & E project manager for Rio Blanco Feasibility Study – EIA Project
MTB Development. Analysis and risk assessment for a potential property transaction
Peru
at an operating steel factory and several coal, iron and limestone mines, located
in the Department of Boyacá, Colombia.
BHP BILLITON Project Manager for Flora and Fauna Baseline Study base for La Granja Mining
Peru Project. Evaluation of flora and fauna, rare and endangered species potentially
distributed in the La Granja mining project area.
GENCOR-BILLITON Environmental consultancy to the Cerro Matoso Expansion Project
Colombia A review of standards and procedures accepted within the national legal
framework and applicable to the iron-nickel mine expansion project activities of
the Cerro Matoso S.A, Colombia.
GENCOR-BILLITON Project manager for Flora and Fauna Assessment of the mine expansion project
Colombia Cerro Matoso. Flora and fauna, rare and endangered species evaluation for the
mine expansion project Cerro Matoso. The evaluation included the verification
and identification of defined transects in the areas of influence and investigation
of the following groups: birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles and major plants.
CEMENTOS Project manager and environmental specialist for Noise Level Studies at the
DIAMANTE S. A Payande limestone mining site. Evaluation of noise levels at internal and
Colombia external areas of the mine site in order to determine exposure levels and impacts
on workers and neighbouring communities.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – TRANSPORTATION, INDUSTRY, AND
ENVIRONMENT
Johnson and Johnson Project manager and environmental specialist for a Phase I Environmental Site
Colombia Asessment at Yumbo and Cali facilities in Valle del Cauca, Colombia and a
Phase II ESA at McNeil plant in Cali.
6
407Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
National Oilwell Environmental specialist for Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of industrial
VARCO. facilities in Barinas - Venezuela and in Acacias and Bogotá in Colombia.
Venezuela and
Colombia
YKK Corporation of Environmental auditor for Phase I Environmental and Regulatory Compliance
America. Audits of two facilities in Irapuato, Mexico; one facility in Medellin, Colombia and
Mexico, El Salvador one facility in San Juan Opico, El Salvador.
and Colombia
Corporación Andina Environmental auditor during construction of a dam and water transfer tunnel in
de Fomento CAF. the Departments of Cajamarca and Lambayeque, Peru (Proyecto Trasvase
Peru Olmos).
AMCOR PET Environmental specialist to conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of
PACKAGING. Plastiglas PET bottling facilities and operations in El Salvador.
El Salvador
Construtora Norberto Environmental consultancy for the Ruta del Sol Highway Project, Colombia.
ODEBRECHT S. A.
Colombia
INTER-AMERICAN Project manager and environmental specialist for the EHS monitoring of a
DEVELOPMENT multilateral loan granted for the Expansion and Modernization of El Dorado
BANK, CAF, China International Airport located in Bogotá, Colombia
Development Bank,
BNP Paribas and
OPAIN
Colombia
DP WORLD
Project manager and environmental specialist to review social and environmental
Peru issues of a proposed expansion for the Callao Port North Container Terminal
project.
INTER-AMERICAN Project manager and environmental specialist for the Environmental and Social
DEVELOPMENT BANK Due Diligence of El Dorado International Airport Expansion and Modernization
Colombia
Project, Bogotá - Colombia.
Construtora Norberto Project manager and environmental specialist for the Environmental Impact
ODEBRECHT Assessment of El Coral Highway, a 70 kilometres road that will connect the
Dominican Republic airports at La Romana and Punta Cana in the Provinces of La Romana and La
Altagracia in Dominican Republic.
7
408 Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
AMCOR PET Environmental specialist for Environmental Base Audit of the Latin American
PACKAGING operations in Venezuela, El Salvador, Honduras and Peru. Environmental review
Peru, Venezuela, El
of AMCOR operations developed in five plants in Venezuela, one plant in El
Salvador y Honduras Salvador, one plant in Honduras and one plant in Peru. Operations in these
countries are mainly oriented to transformation of PET resin into preforms and
bottles for packaging of food products (water, sodas, oils and others).
ODEBRECHT –
Project manager for Environmental Review of the Road Interconnection Project
CONIRSA S.A Iñapari – Puerto Marítimo del Sur (Stage I). A due diligence review of
Peru environmental baseline data and EIA report sections for the road sectors II
(Urcos – Puente Inambari) and III (Inambari – Iñapari).
TERMINAL Project manager & environmental specialist for Environmental Impact
INTERNACIONAL DEL Assessment for the renovation and expansion of existing concentrate copper
SUR S. A - TISUR storage and ship loading facilities at the Port of Matarani, Arequipa.
Peru
INTER-AMERICAN Project manager and environmental specialist for Environmental and Social
DEVELOPMENT Review of the proposed New Quito International Airport Project. Review and
BANK assessment of the completeness and adequacy of Project environmental studies
Ecuador conducted to the new Quito International Airport in areas such as institutional and
regulatory framework, natural hazards and vehicular traffic.
EXPORT Project manager and environmental specialist for Environmental and Social Due
DEVELOPMENT Diligence for the New Quito International Airport Project. Review and
CANADA, US EXIM assessment of the adequacy of Project environmental studies conducted at the
BANK & OPIC
new Quito International Airport and the existing Mariscal Sucre Airport.
Ecuador Identification and summary of deficiencies in areas such as terrestrial and aquatic
environments, environmental quality (noise), legal & institutional framework,
natural hazards and vehicular traffic and transportation.
LIMA AIRPORT Project manager & environmental specialist for Health, Safety and Environmental
PARTNERS Action Plan and Organizational Structure for the Jorge Chavez International
Peru Airport at Lima (November. Environmental advisory to LAP top management on
structuring a Health, Safety and Environment system to include current airport
operations and ongoing reconstruction activities at airport facilities.
CIDA Environmental specialist for Rehabilitation Project of the Limon-Sixaola Road
Costa Rica (NovAtel-CONAVI). A preliminary environmental assessment to the rehabilitation
project of the Limon - Sixaola road (NovAtel-CONAVI) in Costa Rica, for the
Canadian International Development Agency and BDLS.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – POWER AND ENVIRONMENT
Colbun Project manager and environmental specialist during a review of the
Chile environmental regulatory framework of a coal fired thermoelectric power plant in
Colombia
8
409Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
Constructora Project manager and environmental specialist for a Fatal Flaw Analysis and
Norberto Environmental Baseline Studies for a 600 MW Gas Fired Power Plant Project at
ODEBRECHT Municipality of Pepillo Salcedo, Province of Montecristi, Dominican Republic
Dominican Republic
CIDA Environmental specialist for Pre-feasibility Studies of the Hydro-Electrical
Guatemala Project El Almendro. A preliminary environmental evaluation conducted for the
pre-feasibility studies of the Hydro- Electrical Project El Almendro, Guatemala.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – CONSERVATION, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
PROTECTED AREAS MANAGEMENT
Corporacion Scientific Advisor for the Rehabilitation and Reintroduction program of the
Autonoma Regional Spectacled Bear directed by the environmental regional authority CAR,
CAR Colombia.
Colombia
Corporacion Environmental specialist for biological issues related to the Environmental
Autonoma Regional Management Plan designed for the Upper Basin of the Sumapaz River.
CAR
Colombia
The University of Research assistant in the Wildlife Science postgraduate program “Ecological
Tennessee, Knoxville Studies of the Black Bear in the Eastern United States” directed by Dr. Michael
United States R. Pelton.
Wildlife Conservation Principal researcher in the Project “Evaluation of the Spectacled Bear Habitat in
International Colombia in the National Parks of Paramillo, Orquideas and Tatama and the
United States Indian and Forestall Reserve Awa Kwaiker”.
University of Field researcher for thesis project: Feasibility Evaluation of the Habitat of the
Tennessee and Black Bear in the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area.
Kentucky
United States
Peregrine Fund and Field biologist in project: Study of Raptors Habitats in Tikal, Guatemala.
The Raptors Program
at the University of
Idaho
United States
Industria Colombiana Researcher for study of the electrical activity of the heart in mammals and
de Productos reptiles directed by Dr. Jorge Reynolds in Colombia and the United States.
Electrofisiológicos
Colombia
Banco de la Organizer and coordinator for environmental education program for children
República, Biblioteca and teachers at elementary level.
Darío Echeandía
Colombia
Department of Natural Field biologist for black bear population study directed by Dr. David Garshellis.
Resources
United States
9
410 Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
New York Zoological Field biologist for spectacled bear habitat evaluation projects in National Parks
Society and World
of Ecuador and Colombia, directed by Dr. Bernard Peyton and Dr. Jeffrey
Wildlife Fund Jorgenson respectively.
United States
Centro Nacional de Field ecology instructor and researcher for spectacled bear habitat evaluation
Investigaciones project in the Colombian National Parks of Los Nevados and El Cocuy.
Ecológicas
Colombia
PROJECT EXPERIENCE – INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AND
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
Instructor of the Environmental Assessment Workshop, organized to Corporación
Autónoma Regional del Centro de Antioquia CORANTIOQUIA (a regional
environmental authority),
Organizer of the Workshop - Seminar “Canadian Environmental Regulation of
Hydrocarbon and Mining Projects” and binational coordination between the
Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Mines and Energy of Colombia
(Subcontract with Iris Environmental Systems, Institutional Strengthening
Program of the Canadian International Development Agency, CIDA-CERI).
Colombia,
Environmental specialist for the evaluation of the program “Escuela Amiga” in the
context of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; this program is
developed by Plan International Ecuador and sponsored by the Canadian
International Development Agency (CIDA). Ecuador,
Environmental Consultant for the Canadian International Development Agency
project CERI-COLOMBIA-CIDA, Guidelines and Procedures for the Optimization
of the Environmental Permitting and Follow-up Procedures Project,
tional
Strengthening Program for the Ministry of Environment of Colombia and
Regional Environmental Authorities. Colombia,
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment
ICONTEC/ANDI Advisor, Standardization Committee ISO 14000 Colombia
Colombian Mountaineering & Climbing Federation
TRAINING & TEACHING
Golder SIRTN Sao Paulo June 2010
Golder Project Management Jacksonville February 2009
10
411Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
5th Latin American Leadership Forum, Santo Domingo – República Dominicana,
March 13 -15, 2007.
Evaluación Ambiental de Propiedades – ASTM Fase I, Organizado por
EnginZone y ASTM International, Lima - Perú, November 12, 2004.
III Conferencia Internacional la Hora del Gas, Organizado por Energía y
Negocios, Lima - Perú, June 9-11, 2004.
Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Facilities, Petroleum Industry
Training Service, Nisku, Alberta-Canada, October 5-8, 1999
Workplace Hazardous Material Information System, Canadian International
Safety Inc., Calgary, Alberta-Canada, September 27-28, 1999.
Transportation of Dangerous Goods Training Program, Canadian International
Safety Inc., Calgary, Alberta-Canada, September 28-29, 1999.
Environmental Management Systems Course for Auditors ISO 14.000 Bureau
Veritas of Colombia Ltda, Bogota, September 24-26, 1997.
First International Pipeline Conference, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Calgary-Canada, June 9-14, 1996.
Introduction to the Ecological Inspection System of the European Union and
Environmental Auditor Course ACODAL-GTZ, Bogota, April 25-28, 1995.
First National Workshop on Collective Management for the Environmental
Protection and Improvement, Ministry of Government, General Bureau of
Integration and Community Development, Self-management Community
Program, Bogota, December 9-11, 1993.
Seminar on the Theory and Regional Applications of the Geographical
Information Systems. Regional Center of Coffee and Entrepreneurial Studies -
CRECE, Manizales, July 29-August 3, 1992.
Natural Resources Management and Environmental Assessment in Developing
Countries. University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Third Trimester, 1990.
17th General Meeting of UICN. International Union for Nature Conservation, San
José-Costa Rica, February 1-10, 1988.
Zoological Nomenclature. Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota, Semester
A, 1985.
Mining and Power Project Environmental Assessment, Corporación Autónoma
Regional de Antioquía, Medellín, Colombia, July 22-23, 1999.
Environmental Audit Procedures for Oil Facilities ARPEL-Petroperú S.A., Talara,
Perú, June 8-12, 1998.
Paper “The Consultant’s Approach in Environmental Assessments”. Seminar
Memoirs “Environmental Management Plans and Assessments”, Experiences
and Expectations in the Oil Industry, ACIPET, April 1996.
Paper “Concepts and Methodologies of Project Environmental Assessments”.
Seminar Memories Project Environmental Assessment, Universidad Javeriana,
March 1997.
11
412 Annex 6
Curriculum Vitae RENÉ LOZADA
Seminar “General Models for Environmental Impact Assessments”, Pontificia
Universidad Javeriana, Bogotá, March 5-11, 1997.
Seminar “Environmental Management Plans and Studies”, Asociación
Colombiana de Ingenieros de Petróleos, Bogotá, April 25, 1996.
The Bear of the Clouds. Presentation during the National Convention of the
Audubon Society, East Park, Colorado, July 21-27, 1991.
First International Symposium on the Spectacled Bear, Lincoln Park Zoological
Gardens, Chicago-Illinois, October 14-16, 1988.
Seventh International Conference on Bear Research and Management.
International Bear Biology Association, Williamsburg-Virginia, February 21-26,
1986.
Course of Ecuadorian High Land Savanna (Paramo) Ecology. Pontificia
Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito, January 13-22, 1986.
PUBLICATIONS
Colombia Environmental International Cooperation: Context and Priorities,
Programs and Projects. Paper and volumes I and II, Government of Colombia,
March, 1992.
Distribution Status of the Andean Bear in the Cordillera Occidental of Colombia.
Report in Spanish presented by Wildlife Conservation International. 54 pp.,
1990.
A Survey of the Status and Distribution of the Spectacled Bear in the Western
Range of the Colombian Andes, Proceedings; 10th Eastern Black Bear
Workshop, 1990.
Rodríguez, D. and R. Lozada. Distribution and Current Status of the Andean
Bear Populations in Colombia, National Report. Abstracts of XI Latin-American
Congress of Zoology, Colombia, 1990.
Reynolds, Constain, J., F., and R. Lozada. E.C.G. External Mapping to a Pilot
Whale. Abstracts of the 2nd Latin-American Congress of Cardiac Stimulation
and 6th Brazilian Congress of Arrhythmia, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 1989.
Status of Knowledge on the Spectacled Bear in Colombia: A preliminary Report.
In: Proc. First Intern. Symp. Spectacled Bear (Rosenthal, M. Ed) 28-37, 1988.
Rodríguez, R., E. D., F. E. Poveda G., D. Rivera O., J. Sánchez M., V. I. Jaimes
S., and R. Lozada. Preliminary Study of the Andean Bear (Tremarctos ornatus)
and its interaction with men in the northeastern part of the National Natural Park
El Cocuy. Bulletin MANABA (Unidad Investigativa del Oso Andino, Universidad
Nacional de Colombia), 1986.
12
413Annex 6
Golder Associates Inc.
6026 NW 1st Place
Gainesville, FL 32607 USA
Tel: (352) 336-5600
Fax: (352) 336-6603
Golder, Golder Associates and the GA globe design are trademarks of Golder Associates Corporation
414 ANNEX 7
Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua to the Minister
of ForeignAffairs of Costa Rica, Ref: MRE/DM/645//12/13,
17 December 2013.
415416 Annex 7
The Minister of Foreign Affairs
Managua, December 17, 2013
MRE/DM/645//12/13
Dear Minister:
I address in reference to the declarations given by the President of Costa
Rica, Laura Chinchilla, who stated that they will continue with the construction
works for the road parallel to the San Juan de Nicaragua River during this
summer. President Chinchilla said at a press conference on December 13 that:
“…basically, several bridges will be duly installed for next summer… and
some actual construction works will also be started…” for the roadway.
In the same sense, the Minister of Public Works and Transportation, Mr.
Pedro Castro, stated in a press conference quoted, among others, by the press
media EFE Costa Rica on December 13, 2013 , entitled, “The Hague Court
rejected Nicaragua`s lawsuit against Costa Rica” that “the contract is already
awarded to the company… for the design of the first 45 kilometer span”.
Nicaragua recalls that the Court pointed out in its Recitals to the Order
dated December 13, 2013, that Costa Rica “recognized during the course of the
oral hearings that it has the duty of not causing any significant trans -border
damage as a result of the construction works in its territory”.
Likewise, the Government of Nicarag ua wishes to recall that barely a
month ago, the Representatives of Costa Rica before the International Court of
Justice, after acknowledging “the need for mitigation works in the interest of
mitigating the damages caused by the effects of bad planning and execution of
the road works…”, declared to the Court that constructions works for the road
would not be resumed until “the end of 2014 or the beginning of the year 2015”.
This declaration by the representatives of Costa Rica was taken very much into
account by the Court in its decision as manifestly stated in its Order wherein it
“regretted that Costa Rica did make this information available beforehand”.
In this sense, Nicaragua not only regrets the declaration by President
Chinchilla and by high -ranking officials while the same [officials] deny their
affirmations made by their country before the High Tribunal and impinge against
the good faith of the parties, but Nicaragua also requires Costa Rica to not
continue with the construction of a material work that [Costa Rica] itself
acknowledged that it has been poorly planned and executed, until it complies with
417Annex 7
its international commitments to guarantee that such work will not cause further
damages to Nicaragua.
The Government of National Reconciliation an d Unity calls upon the
Sister Republic of Costa Rica to abstain from further acts that may aggravate or
extend the controversy before the Court or to make it harder to resolve, in the
same manner that it calls for due compliance with all of the commitments made
before the International Court of Justice.
With no further matters, I avail myself with the opportunity to express the
assurances of my consideration.
I avail myself with the opportunity to express the assurances of my consideration.
Samuel Santos López
Excellency, Mr.
Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister of Foreign
Affairs
Republic of Costa Rica
418 ANNEX 8
Note from the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Costa Rica
to the Minister of ForeignAffairs of Nicaragua,
Ref.: DM-AM-704-13, 19 December 2013.
419420 Annex 8
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cult
San Jose, December 19, 2013
DM-AM-704-13
Dear Sir:
I refer to your note MRE -DM-645-12-13, dated December 17,
2013, and dated December 17, 2013 in referenda to the Providence
of the International Court of Justice, dated December 13, 2013.
The selective quotations that Nicaragua makes of the referred to
Order, seriously distort the analysis of the Court and its unanimous
decision. I remind Your Excellency that the Court rejected
Nicaragua’s position as to any evidence that construction of the
Costa Rican trail caused any important damage to the San Juan
River; hence, it rejected Nicaragua’s request for indications of
interim measures, including the request to suspend the construction
works. Paragraph 39 of the Order clearly reflects this.
In reference to the Court’s actual observance in regard to Costa
Rica’s commitments, I cite the following from the Order:
"37, Having concluded that no provisional measures should be
indicated, the Court observes nevertheless that Costa Rica
acknowledged during the course of the oral proceedings that it has a
duty not to cause any significant trans boundary harm as a result of the
construction works on its territory, and that it would take the measures
that it deemed appropriate to prevent such harm. The Court further
observes that Costa Rica has in any event recognized the necessity of
remediation works, in order to mitigate damage caused by the effects
421Annex 8
of poor planning and execution of the road works in 2011, and has
indicated that a number of remediation measures to that end have
already been undertaken”
Therefore, as the Court observed, Costa Rica may continue
improving the road located in its territory. Costa Rica never said
that it would suspend the works, neither did the Court order Costa
Rica to do so, as your note incorrectly states. Costa Rica has the
right to cont inue performing the remediation , design and
construction works with the purpose of completing this important
infrastructure . Nicaragua’s request for interim measures was
rejected preciselu because Nicaragua did not proof the existence of
current or imminen t trans -border damage derived from the road
works.
My government regrets Nicaragua’s practice of distorting the scope
of the decisions by the Court.
I take this opportunity to convey the assurances of my
consideration.
Enrique Castillo Barrantes
Minister
Excellency
Mr. Samuel Santos
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Republic of Nicaragua
422 ANNEX 9
RESOLUTION 03-99 (XXI COMITRAN), Guatemala,
18 Nov. 1999
423424 Annex 9
RESOLUTION 03-99 (XXI COMITRAN)
Standardization and Modernization of Technical Rules Applicable to
Roads and Transportation by Road
THE MINISTERS OF TRANSPORTATION OF CENTRAL AMERICA
WHEREAS:
a. The Ministry has informed the Council that on September 30 an agreement
with USAID [United States Agency for International Development] was
signed for the execution of a project destined to improve the region’s
capacity to mitigate the effects of transnational disasters through the
development of regional guidelines and standards focused on reducing the
road system’s vulnerability to natural disasters, that is, the execution of a
work program focused on standardizing and modernizing the technical
rules applicable to the roads in the region and to the transportation by road
in Central America.
b. The Guatemala II Declaration in the Summit of Central American
Presidents held on October 18 and October 19 this year called for
concentrating efforts on reducing vulnerability and the impact of disasters,
this being the objective of this project, which was recognized as an urgent
priority in several prior meetings of the Council.
c. That for the execution of the agreement the Ministry has proposed the
establishment of several regional work teams comprised of representatives
from the Ministries of Transportation from each of the five Central
American countries, in order to discuss and approve the proposals of
specific consultants, who will be contracted b y the SIECA [Central
American Ministry of Economic Integration] for the development of each
of the subjects selected.
d. That it is necessary to respond to the needs for construction and
preservation of rural or neighboring roads in the region, given that they are
linked to the main regional transportation arteries and are important for the
economic development of the Central American region.
425Annex 9
RESOLVE:
1. To convey through its Ministry, the SIECA, our most sincere thanks to the
USAID for their support in the development of a project focused on
improving the capacity in the region to mitigate the transnational effects of
disasters through the development of regional standards and guidelines
focused on reducing the road system’s vulnerability to natural disasters.
2. To appoint, within the prudential term of fifteen days, a team of national
experts who will be a part of regional work teams engaged in studying and
approving proposals submitted to them for consideration by the SIECA, in
each of the areas indicated below.
- Updating the Central American Agreement on Roads Circulation
of June 10, 1968, with special emphasis on motor vehicles’ weight
and dimensions;
- Updating the Central American Manual for Roads Maintenance;
- Preparation of a Central American Specifications Manual for the
Construction of Regional Roads and Bridges;
- Updating the Central American Agreement on Uniform Road Signs
of June 10, 1958;
- Preparation of a Central American Specifications Manual for the
Geometrical Design of Regional Roads.
3. To provide SIECA with all the support needed to successfully develop a
work plan related to this project.
4. To order that the Central American Ministry of Economic Integration
(SIECA) take the action necessary to obtain financial support from the
international community, prepare rules for the construction and
preservation of rural or neighboring roads, and report back on the results
of that effort.
Guatemala, November 18, 1999
426 ANNEX 10
CentralAmerican Manual of Environmental Norms for the Design,
Construction and Maintenance of Roads (2002) (excerpts)
427428 Annex 10
C.10.1 The cuts in most soils up to 10-15 meters tall (earth
excavation), must be stabilized with slopes ¾: 1 to 1:1. In
loose, gravelly and sandy soils, slope cuts of 1:1 to 1 1/2:1 is
required.
429430 ANNEX 11
CentralAmerican Manual of Specifications for the Construction of
Regional Roads and Bridges (2nd. Edition Mar. 2004) (excerpts)
431432 Annex 11
Central American Manual of Specifications for the
Construction of Regional Roads and Bridges
In its XXI meeting done at Guatemala City on November 2009, the
Sectorial Council of Ministers of Transportation of Central America
(COMITRAN) approved Resolution 03 -99 supporting the Program for the
Modernization of Technical Norms applicable to roads and the
transportation by roads.
Through a donation from the United States Agency for International
Development, in accordance with Agreement USAID/SIECA No. 596 -
0181.20, titled “Better Capacity for the Region to mitigate the Transnational
Effects of Disasters”, SIECA developed the component “Central American
Manual of Specifications for the Construction of Roads and Regional
Bridges.”
Consultancy’s Responsible Party: National Laboratory of Materials and
Structural Models, Civil Engineering School, Universi ty of Costa Rica
(LANAMME) SIECA/USAID CONTRACT No. 36-00
Technical Support Group: Engineer Mario Arce J; Engineer Federico
Baltodano A.; Engineer Pedro L. Castro F.; Engineer Jorge A. Castro H.;
Engineer Edgar G. Herrera J.; Engineer Gaston Laporte M; En gineer L
Guillermo Loria S.; Engineer Marco A. Rodriguez M.
SIECA’s Coordination: Lic. Ernesto Torres Chico; Engineer Rafael Perez
Riera; Lic. Raul Trejos Esquivel.
Regional Technical Group: Engineer Jose M. Gonzalez, Guatemala;
Engineer Alejandro Salazar, El Salvador; Engineer Lorena Reina, Honduras;
Engineer Amadeo Santana R, Nicaragua; Engineer Ernesto Rodriguez P.,
Costa Rica.
Guatemala, March 2001
433Annex 11
2nd. Edition
Per the instructions of the Sectorial Council of Ministers of
Transportation of Central America, COMITRAN, in its Resolution
No. 04 -2001 (COMITRAN XXIII), for the assessment on the
operation and efficiency of the Central American Manual of
Specifications for the Construction of Roads and Regional Bridges,
with the purpose of maintaining it updated, this Manual was revised in
September 2003 by the regional technical group:
Regional Technical Group: Engineer Jose Gonzalez, Guatemala;
Engineer Edwin ALvarenga, El Salvador; Engineer Ivete Rodriguez,
Honduras, Engineer Am adeo Santana, Nicaragua; Engineer Ernesto
Rodriguez, Costa Rica.
SIECA Coordination: Lic. Ernesto Torres Chico; Engineer Rafael
Perez Riera; Engineer Cesar A. Castillo M.
…
Guatemala, March 2004
434 2nd. Edition
Per the instructions of the Sectorial Council of Ministers of
Transportation of Central America, COMITRAN, in its Resolution
No. 04 -2001 (COMITRAN XXIII), for the assessment on the
operation and efficiency of the Central American Manual of
Specifications for the Construction of Roads and Regional Bridges,
with the purpose of maintaining it updated, this Manual was revised in
September 2003 by the regional technical group:
Regional Technical Group: Engineer Jose Gonzalez, Guatemala;
Engineer Edwin ALvarenga, El Salvador; Engineer Ivete Rodriguez,
Honduras, Engineer Am adeo Santana, Nicaragua; Engineer Ernesto
Rodriguez, Costa Rica.
SIECA Coordination: Lic. Ernesto Torres Chico; Engineer Rafael
Perez Riera; Engineer Cesar A. Castillo M.
…
Guatemala, March 2004Annex 11
204.09 Preparation of the foundation for the construction of the
fillslope.
(a) Fillslopes less than 1 meter above natural ground. The clear
soil surface shall be crumbled to a minimum depth of 150 mm,
plowing or scarifying it. The ground surface shall be compacted
according to Article 204.11.
204.10 Construction of fillslope. Add in the fillslope only adequate
material excavated from the track. . . .
204.11 Compaction. Compact as follows:
. . .
(b) Fillslopes . . .
. . .
The material placed in all layers of the fillslope and scarified
material in cut sections should be compacted to at least 95% of the
maximum density.
Section 602. Culverts and drainage
. . .
Requirements for Construction
602.03 General. Use the same materials and coatings on all the sections of
continuous pipe extensions and special sections.
602.04 Placement of concrete pipe and precast reinforced concrete
boxes for culverts. Start by placing on the site of the lower outlet and place
the bell or groove upstream. Fill all joints of sections completely. Place the
circular elliptical reinforcing steel tubing, with the minor axis of the
reinforcement, vertical. Build boards according to one of the following
methods.
704.03 Fill Material. Use granular material and fine soil free of excess
moisture, mud, roots, seeds, and other deleterious materials. All particles of
rock and hard soil lumps larger than 75mm must be removed.
436 ANNEX 12
CentralAmerican Manual on the Maintenance of Roads (2010 Edition)
(excerpts)
437438 Annex 12
PRESENTATION
In 2000, after Central America had advanced in the process of assimilating
the damages caused by Hurricane Mitch in 1998 and realized that natural
disasters do not distinguish political boundaries, countries of the region
agreed that in order to address th ese threats, they should take actions and
adopt technical rules applicable to roads, in order to reduce the vulnerability
of their road network.
Therefore the Secretariat for Central American Economic Integration
(SIECA) began to work on the development o f a series of technical
documents, aimed at harmonizing existing regulations in the region, related
to traffic issues. This effort resulted in the publication, among others, of the
Central American Manual on Maintenance of Roads. Once this process was
completed, there was continued progress in the development of other issues
relating to roads and road transport services, a situation that continues to
date.
Comprehensive disaster risk management should be considered an intrinsic
part of the planning process es and public investment, based on the social,
economic, environmental and political -institutional dimensions of
development, seeking to create comprehensive security conditions, as
established by the Central American Policy for the Comprehensive
Management of Risk Disaster.
In accordance with the above, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed
on August 24, 2009 to implement the project “ Standards for Roads”
between the Executive Secretariat of the Coordination Center for the
Prevention of Natural Disas ters in Central America (SE -CEPREDENAC)
and the Secretariat of Economic Integration (SIECA), which was developed
with the help of external funding from the Spanish Agency for International
Cooperation for Development (AECID)…
This Memorandum, whose objecti ve is to improve the traffic situation and
the vulnerability of land transport in the region comprised of Guatemala, El
Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, contemplates
updating this manual through technical training groups made up of
representatives of the Ministries of Transportation and Civil Protection
authorities.
439Annex 12
The general conditions and specifications are intended to be applied mostly
by the execution units of Road Funds established in each Central American
country for road maint enance, based on the agreed unit prices. However,
these specifications may also be used as a guide to regulate the quality of
maintenance activities performed by direct administration, standards or
concession projects.
This document presents the agreed rules for road maintenance using
contracting based on unit prices, updating concepts in the edition of 2004,
and incorporating valuable contributions of the countries contemplate in
their hiring processes this methodology for road maintenance. In addition,
this new edition incorporates tools for risk assessment and to reduce the
vulnerability factors…
Ivan Morales Yolanda Mayora de
Executive Secretary Gavidia
CEPREDENAC Secretary General
SIECA
440 Annex 12
802. Cleaning of culverts and other drainage structures.
802.01 Description. This activity consists of the collection, extraction and
removal of all materials which have been deposited in the section of the
sewers, boxes and input and output channels, r egardless of their respective
dimension, including the cleaning and removal of all material found in other
elements that make up the soil. It is necessary to keep in mind that these
tasks are designed to achieve the fast channeling of the water through the se
systems.
441442 ANNEX 13
CentralAmerican Manual of Norms for the Geometric Design of Roads (3rd.
Edition 2011) (excerpts)
443444 Annex 13
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
After the project has been planned and programmed for implementation, the
next phase is the development of the project (preliminary design). This
phase consists of the following basic steps:
• Refinement of the purposes and needs;
• Development of a range of alternatives;
• Evaluation of alternatives and their environmental impact;
• Development of appropriate mitigation
. . .
FINAL DESIGN OF THE PROJECT
Once the best alternative has been selected and the description of the project
is expanded by the EIA, the project goes to the final design phase. The final
product in this phase is represented in several plans, specifications and
quantities of materials and work to be used and carried out. . . .
4.2.2 Cutslopes
…The stability of the cutslope depends on the nature of the material
encountered and the construction method to be employed. . . .
8.1.4 Risks in the Design of Superficial Drainage
Water is one of the elements that causes major problems on roads and paths
because it decreases the resistance of soils, creating failures in fillslopes,
cuts and bearing surfaces. This is why it is necessary to build efficient
drainage to drain the water away from the project in the shortest am ount of
time. . . .
445446 ANNEX 14
Affidavit ofAna Isabel IzaguirreAmador, 18 July 2014
447448 Annex 14
TESTIMONY
DEED NUMBER TWELVE (12). -
NOTARIZED
DECLARATION. - In the City of Managua, at seven o’clock in the
morning on July Eighteenth of the year Two Thousand Fourteen –LESLIE
MARIA CHAMORRO HIDALGO, of legal age, married, Attorney and Public
Notary of the Republic of Nicaragua, duly authorized by the Supreme Court of
Justice during the five -year term that ends on March Twenty -ninth of the year
Two Thousand Nineteen. – Appears ANA ISABEL IZAGUIRRE AMADOR, of
legal age, single, architect and with domicile in Managua with citizen
identification card number zero, zero, one, dash, eight, one, two, five, one, dash,
zero, zero, two, six, Letter L (001-181251-0026L), who I attest to knowing her in
this act, in which she acts on her own behalf and representation, and declares:
FIRST: I am currently a technical advisor, specialist in risk assessment and
disaster reduction within the National System for Prevention, Mitigaon and
Attention to Disasters (SINAPRED for its Spanish acronym) of the Government
of the Republic of Nicaragua. I have held this position for eight years, my
functions and responsibilities in SINAPRED being: technical advisor for
programs, plans and proje cts related to comprehensive risk management; draft
reports and studies on vulnerable locations; analysis related to zoning
incorporating risk management variables, promoting inclusion of comprehensive
449Annex 14
risk management in territorial and local development p rocesses. SECOND: In
addition to being a SINAPRED Official, as previously stated, I have been part of
the regional technical team to the Natural Disaster Prevention Coordination
Center in Central America (CEPREDENAC for its Spanish acronym), as a
comprehensive risk management expert in the processes leading to the regional
harmonization and modernization of the technical standards applicable to road
design, construction and maintenance, led by the Central American Economic
Integration Secretariat (SIECA for its Spanish acronym) with Resolution 03 -1999
(COMITRAN XXI), adopted by the Central American Transportation Ministries
on November 18, 1999. Additionally, I know that the Republic of Costa Rica has
actively participated in the elaboration of the regional technical manuals and
standards referred to below. THIRD: The objective of Resolution 03 -1999
(COMITRAN XXI) is to improve the capacity of the Central American countries
to mitigate the effects of transnational disasters through the development of
regional guidelines and standards and the incorporation of risk reduction elements
for the road sector in SICA’s member countries. FOURTH: In the performance of
my functions, I have knowledge of: Central American Manual of Specifications
for the Geometric Design o f Regional Roads (3 rd Edition, 2011). The first edition
of the Central American Manual of Specifications for the Geometric Design of
Regional Roads was approved by the Central American Ministries of
Transportation on March 30, 2001 in accordance with RESOLUTION Nº 04-2001
450 Annex 14
(XXIII COMITRAN). Its second edition was published in 2004 by instruction of
the Central American Ministries of Transportation in order to update its content.
The third and last edition of the Central American Manual of Specifications for
the Geometric Design of Regional Roads appeared in the year 2011. This Manual
gathers the necessary standards and specifications to project the lay out of a
roadway, as well as the design controls and criteria based on traffic characteristics
and the functional classification of the road or highway. Likewise, this Manual
offers criteria and recommendations on matters relating to risk management and
road safety so that the geometry designer can select the most adequate route to
guarantee the physical integrity of the users and of the road infrastructure.
FIFTH: Central American Manual of Specifications for Construction of Regional
Roads and Bridges (2 nd Edition, March 2004). The first edition of the Central
American Manual of Specifications for Construction of Regional Roads and
Bridge, which was elaborated under the responsibility of the National Laboratory
of Structural Materials and Models, School of Civil Engineering, University of
Costa Rica (LANAMME for its Spanish acronym), was approved in March 2001
by virtue of RESOLUTION Nº 04 -2001 (XXIII COMITRAN). This Manual was
updated in March 2004 for the last time. This Manual offers quality requirements
and sets forth the most accepted standards during the different execution phases
for road construction works, including land movement and excavation works;
construction criteria and compaction of cut slopes and fill slopes; installation of
451Annex 14
drainage structures and erosion control systems, as well as the materials to use;
proper management and exploitation of borrow pits; protection of material in
waste deposit sites; and prevention measures to adopt during temporary
suspension of works to avoid erosive proc esses; among other measures to ensure
project feasibility. SIXTH: Central American Road Maintenance Manual with a
Risk Management and Road Safety Approach (2010 Edition). The first edition of
the Central American Road Maintenance Manual was published in the year 2001
as a result of Resolution Nº 03 -2001 (COMITRAN XXIII). The Manual was
updated a second time on October 2004. The last update of the Central American
Road Maintenance Manual was in the year 2010. This Manual describes the
different types of works – and the regularity with which these must be performed
– for maintenance of all types of roads and to guarantee their useful life. These
maintenance works include, among others: a) cleansing and repair of drains,
sewages and erosion control works; and b ) stabilization of cut and fill slopes by
means of reforestation or the installation of mesh against landslides in order to
reduce erosion. Furthermore, this Manual contains mitigation guidelines for
damages caused by landslides or flooding. SEVENTH: Central American Manual
of Environmental Standards for Road Design, Construction and Maintenance
(November 2002). The main purpose of this Manual, approved pursuant to
Resolution Nº 02 -2002 (COMITRAN XXIV) in San Jose, Costa Rica on
December 6, 2002, is to set forth the applicable environmental standards within
452 Annex 14
the different construction phases for building a road – including the planning,
design, construction and maintenance phases – to prevent, mitigate, correct and/or
compensate environmental impacts associat ed with road construction, as well as
those caused by natural disasters. For example, for the planning phase of road
construction, this Manual provides that the layout of a road should minimize land
movements, or that it should pass through the least amoun t possible of water
sources. This Manual also provides that the recommended standards for cut
slopes, depending on the type of soil, and the management of borrow pits with a
focus on mitigating damages by erosion and natural disasters; it also recognizes
the importance of building adequate drainage works when the road crosses water
bodies, to avoid water impoundment, which causes transportation of mud and
sediments, roadway deterioration, and affectations to aquatic flora and fauna.
EIGHTH: These manuals serve as basis for the elaboration of domestic technical
standards in each country of the region. In fact, the Republic of Costa Rica
adopted its own Manual of Specifications for Road Construction in the year 2010,
the content of which is almost identical to the Central American of Specifications
for Construction of Regional Roads and Bridges . NINTH: The Central
American Manuals for Road Design, Construction and Maintenance and
Route 1856. As a SINAPRED official, I was designated by the Government of
the Republic of Nicaragua to assess the impact of Route 1856, having made five
land tours in the border area with Costa Rica, by air survey from Nicaraguan air
453Annex 14
space, navigation along the San Juan River and interpretation of satellite images.
In my opinion, based on these field visits and cabinet analysis, as well as my
professional knowledge, Route 1856 does not comply with technical guidelines
and standards contained in the Central American Manuals for Road Design,
Construction and Maintenance: unprotected and ex cessively steep slopes,
uncompact fill slopes and without any protection, failed stream crossings, - all of
these very close to the San Juan River -, including inadequate drainage systems
for surface waters, are the most apparent evidence of non-compliance. Route 1856
does not contemplate any design elements leading one to conclude that it is within
the technical standards established at the Central American level. Therefore, the
construction works - as well as the characteristics presented in light of my
knowledge, from the technical point of view - lack any prior planning pursuant to
regional legislation. In some cases, both the horizontal and vertical alignments are
next to the San Juan de Nicaragua River bank, this being the most critical
technical compone nt for current and future risk assessments. At these points,
corrective and remedial measures are not sufficient and the risk persists. The
points assessed present severe risks of flooding and erosion, causing
sedimentation in the San Juan Riverbed. The na tural physical conditions of the
area, such as geological formations, poor quality soils, heavy rainfall and the
proximity of the river are crucial for projection of a corridor requiring the study of
new alternatives, moving away from the San Juan de Nicar agua River bank and
454 Annex 14
outside of Route 1856. To date, it is evident that what has been done on said
Route, in relation to the regulations, purpose and reasons for its opening, do not
obey any technical proposal, nor any planning process duly applied. The loc ation
factor of the current Route is the result of a chain of non -compliance and
disrespect to the commitments of the Central American Governments in the
SIECA Manuals, mainly the above -mentioned Manuals. Since Route 1856 lacks
the elements and regulations according to such Manuals, one can conclude that
the roadway built by the Government of Costa Rica is out of any engineering
standard according to the Central American Economic Integration Secretariat. I
declare that the foregoing is, to my knowledge, tru e and accurate in its entirety.
Thus, the Grantor expressed herself in this manner and I attest to having instructed
her on the object, legal value and transcendence of this act; on the general clauses
that ensure the validity of this deed, on the legal va lue and transcendence of the
special clause it contains and that involves implicit and explicit waivers and
stipulations. -
.- I, the Notary read this deed entirely to the person appearing, who is in
agreement, approves, ratifies it without mak ing any modifications, signs it
together with me, the Notary, who attests to the entire narration. – (S) Ana Isabel
Izaguirre Amador - (S) Leslie Chamorro H.-
455Annex 14
PASSED BEFORE ME: FROM THE FRONT OF FOLIO NUMBER FIFTEEN
TO THE REVERSE OF FOLIO NUMBER SEVENTEEN OF MY PROTOCOL
NUMBER SIXTEEN, WHICH I KEEP FOR THE CURRENT YEAR AND UPON
REQUEST OF ANA ISABEL IZAGUIRRE AMADOR, I ISSUE THIS FIRST
TESTIMONY ON THREE USEFUL SHEETS OF LEGAL SEALED PAPER
SERIES “N”, NUMBERS 9367063,9367064,9559583, WHICH I SIGN, INITIAL
AND SEAL IN THE CITY OF MANAGUA, AT SEVEN HOURS AND
THIRTY MINUTES IN THE MORNING ON JULY EIGHTEENTH OF THE
YEAR TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN.
LESLIE CHAMORRO HIDALGO
ATTORNEY AND NOTARY PUBLIC
456 ANNEX 15
Nicaraguan Law 274 regarding the regulation and control of pesticides
and toxic and dangerous substances, 1998,Art. 23(2)
457458 Annex 15
Article 23. The following functions for the Ministry of Construction and
Transportation are established:
1) To establish, regulate, control and supervise the air, water and land
transport of Pesticides, Toxic and Hazardous Substances, and the like, and
to prevent and address the risks arising from the transportation of these
substances during their transport.
Transport units used for the mobilization and transport of products and
substances subject to this law are prohibited from moving and transporting
livestock or food products.
The by-laws of this Act shall establish the rules for the mobilization of
products and substances regulated and subject to this Act;
2) In coordination with the Ministries of Health and Agriculture: to monitor,
regulate and control the means of transport for applications, sprays or crop
treatments using Pesticides, Toxic, Hazardous and Similar Substances
through air in a perimeter of no more than four kilometers, and by land, fifty
meters from towns, villages and water sources;
3) After verifying compliance with the basic requirements to preserve the
environment, human, animal and vegetal health; and the standards of
occupational health and safety, it may grant the corresponding operation
License to service companies and operators who engage in aerial and
ground spraying, and the transport of pesticides, toxic, hazardous and other
similar substances.
459460 ANNEX 16
“President Confirms Errors in Construction of Trail 1856”,
El Pais, 24 May 2014
(http://www.elpais.cr/frontend/noticia_detalle/1/92093)
461462 Annex 16
PRESIDENT CONFIRMS ERRORS IN CONSTRUCTION OF TRAIL 1856
2014-05-24
The first tour by Luis Guillermo Solis Rivera to the Huetar Northern Region to
review the conditions of Route 1856 or “Border Trail”, verified technical and
planning errors decried during the previous government.
The initial ruling performed by the President of the Republic, the Director of the
National Laboratory of Materials and Structural Models of the University of Costa
Rica (LANAMME), Luis Guillermo Loria and the Minister of Publ ic Works and
Transportation (MOPT for its Spanish acronym), Carlos Segnini, agreed when
they stated that what happened with the Border Trail was lack of planning of the
works, which caused deterioration of the project.
The Minister of Transportation, Car los Segnini, assured, “We see road sections
that respond to little or no planning and redesigns that imply expansion of at least
one or two vehicles and placement of missing bridges, which are ready, but there
is still much work to be done”.
On his part , Loria assured that everything that was visible responds to what
Lanamme had already reiterated many times during the previous government.
“We ascertained what we have always said and if we provide it with proper
geometry with a good design, this road m ay last for many years; what is
happening at this time would not happen, where one does not know the technical
criteria to which this construction responded”.
In the meantime, President Luis Guillermo Solis revealed his concern over
deterioration at specific points of the route, but stated that the will of this
government is that The Trail stops being a trail and turns into a road.
The President stated, “There is an important section that is indeed much
deteriorated at a point where it comes too close to the San Juan River, and it
might be important to redesign it because part of what had already been opened is
already covered by vegetation”.
“I was surprised to see the number of places that require work in order to turn
The Trail into a road”.
463Annex 16
Solis also stated the need to control what is happening in the terrain, given the
current degree of abandonment of the border project, which would jeopardize part
of the works to avoid illicit activities in the area; therefore, this part is also critical
to his government.
“One can clearly perceive from the air how The Trail provides access to farms and
people who live south of the border, but we must also close the spaces to ensure
that no illegal activities are taking place; therefore, we need more control”, he
warned.
During the tour, Rogelio Jimenez, official of the Conservation Area in the sector,
showed the President illegally felled lumber during construction of The Trail, and
the (President) decided that this material should be used by the Ministry of Public
Education (MEP for its acronym in Spanish) to build school desks and
infrastructure for education centers.
The presidential tour will continue this Saturday with visits to different regions in
the Northern Area and to coastal posts in this part of the national territory.
464 ANNEX 17
“Trail Construction Will Restart at the End of the ChinchillaAdministration”,
crhoy.com, 13 December 2013
(http://www.crhoy.com/precio-total-de-la-trocha-fronteriza-se-
estima-en-mas-de-50-mil-millones/) (excerpts)
465466 Annex 17
TRAIL CONSTRUCTION WILL RESTART AT THE END OF THE
CHINCHILLA ADMINISTRATION
Total Price of the border trail estimates more than 50 billion Colones
In view of delays in procurement, strategy focusses on bridges
Payment requests by companies during the first phase of construction are still
unsolved
DECEMBER 13, 2013
The Government took advantage of the ruling by the International Court of Justice
to give details on how it expects to restart construction of the border trail. In view
of difficulties to tender the works, the Ministry of Public Works and
Transportation (MOPT for its Spanish acronym), focusses its work on bridges and
to advance with the posting signs.
The National Emergency Commission granted a budget of 19 billion Colones, of
which 3 billion are already invested and 16 billion remain for the remaining
contracts in March. But Castro said that a budget increase of about 16 billio n
Colones will be required when the designs are defined.
In addition to the road, the company must design gutters, slopes and a bridge. This
construction work begins in Los Chiles sector and the design must be ready by
April. Afterwards, construction could be awarded and could begin in May.
Another for sections would still be needed. Design of two of these sections should
be ready in May, as well as works in progress. In addition, the National
Emergency Commission approved implementation of 4 tender cartels, all for large
bridges for which MOPT does not have the capacity to build.
In view of the delays, MOPT works on bridges
The hierarch assured that the strategy involves progress with works on bridges,
both bailey and permanent bridges. Castro said that Route 1856 requires 13
bridges of which MOPT placed pil es on 4 of them. The National Roadway
Council (CONAVI) is also participating in repair of more than 10 bridges on
access roads for which piles and other baileys are already placed and should be
installed by March.
467468 ANNEX 18
“Solis Commits to Finishing the Trail”, Diario Extra, 6 May 2014
(http://www.diarioextra.com/Dnew/noticiaDetalle/231053) (excerpts)
469470 Annex 18
SOLIS COMMITS TO FINISHING THE TRAIL
In a meeting with Chinchilla
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
After holding a meeting with President Laura Chinchilla, the President-elect, Luis
Guillermo Solis committed himself to finishing the border trail interrupted by
accusations of acts of corruption. Solis upheld that it is a priority and that control
problems faced by the project must improve.
The President-elect also committed to maintaining distance with Nicaragua and to
monitor the disputes under study in the International Court of Justice in The
Hague.
471472 ANNEX 19
“Trail Will Be a Project for the Next Government”, La Prensa Libre,
21 February 2014
(http://test.prensalibre.cr/nacional/99093-trocha-sera-proyecto-de-
proximo-gobierno.html)
473474 Annex 19
“TRAIL” WILL BE A PROJECT FOR THE NEXT GOVERNMENT
Friday, February 21, 2014 00:00
Despite the importance that government authorities said Route 1856 has, better
known as NAC2 -2-TROCHA “border trail”, the Chinchilla Miranda
Administration will not be able to finish any of the five sections finished and the
upcoming government will be responsible for finishing this roadway.
“At this time, we are generating the first phase of the designs; as of a few weeks
ago, there is a contractor working and this is important because we overcame the
barrier that prevented us from hiring”, said Pedro Castro, Minister of Public
Works and Transportation (MOPT for its Spanish acronym).
The Executive Management of the National Roadway Council (CONAVI for its
Spanish acronym) informed that they finished receiving offers for the entire
design of the route and this will be the only process to advance before President
Laura Chinchilla delivers the presidential sash to the next President.
The Government had stated that it would leave at least two of the five sections
that make up the road, but this was dismissed by CONAVI.
“The route is divided into five sections, namely: Los Chiles -Pocosol, Pocosol-
Infiernillo, Infiernillo -Boca San Carlos, Boca San Carlos -Boca Sarapiquí and
Boca Sarapiquí- Delta. Sections 1 and 2 were expected to progress; nonetheless,
procurement processes did not obtain the expected response and the lack of offers
delayed the procedures to a great extent”, indicated CONAVI.
This means that the design for Section 1 will be ready by May and the total design
for September 2014, i.e., when the new government is in place.
The road is not currently passable; there are sections that are being used, mostly in
the areas with more economic activity, but the works underway are minor and
complementary to conservation.
“There is a central portion, particularly section 35, which did not advance; it was
never passable and is disabled, but the first 40 or 50 km at each end is rather
passable and this is what is receiving maintenance”, said Castro.
He also stressed that th ey expect to leave the modular bridges under placement
and to deliver construction of those designed by the Ministry with beams and
piles.
475476 ANNEX 20
“Visit by the President Two Days Before Delivering the Command”,
La Nación, 6 May 2014
(http://www.nacion.com/nacional/Chinchilla-disculpa-vecinos-trocha-
fronteriza_0_1412858873.html) (excerpts)
477478 Annex 20
VISIT BY THE PRESIDENT TWO DAYS BEFORE DELIVERING THE
COMMAND
Laura Chinchilla apologizes to neighbors along the border trail
May 6, 2014
The President of the Republic, Laura Chinchilla, apologized this Tuesday to the
inhabitants of the villages surrounding Route 1856, known as the Border Trail,
which was presented as one of the fundamental projects of this government and
remained unconcluded due to accusations of corruption and construction failures.
“I could not end my governance without visiting one of the many towns along the
road parallel to the San Juan River, first, to apologize for the events relating to
that project”, she said when referring to the problems in finishing the 186
kilometer roadway, which would run parallel to the San Juan River on the border
with Nicaragua.
During the brief meeting, Chinchilla also announced that redesign of the road
and installation of ten bridges is already awarded with a budget from the
National Emergency Commission (CNE for its Spanish acronym). “Works are
underway”.
The budget involves ¢15. 299 million, of which ¢2.479 million are allocated for
construction of six buildable bridges over Isla C hicha River at Los Chiles,
Cureña, Cureñita, Tambor Rivers and over Trinidad and Barbudo Creek Spouts,
all at Sarapiquí, Heredia Canton.
479480 ANNEX 21
“Works on the Trail Paralyzed while Waiting for Designs and Modular
Bridges”, crhoy.com, 10 July 2014
(http://www.crhoy.com/trabajos-en-la-trocha-se-paralizan-a-la-espera-
de-disenos-y-puentes-modulares/)
481482 Annex 21
WORKS ON THE TRAIL PARALYZED WHILE WAITING FOR
DESIGNS AND MODULAR BRIDGES
July 10, 2014 at: 12:00 AM
REBECA MADRIGAL
The border trail receives few visits nowadays… works required to turn the trail
into a roadway have not yet begun despite the fact that the National Roadway
Council (CONAVI) has 16 million Colones to invest this year.
The President of the Republic, Luis Guillermo Solis, recently toured this route and
discovered that much still remains to be solved : passageways almost taken by the
vegetation, impassable and narrow road spans, as well as evidence of the lack of
planning of the initial tasks.
According to Giselle Alfaro, Supervisory Engineer at CONAVI, for now, road
works do not advance because they are waiting for the design of five stretches of
the route that are in the hands of CACISA and IMNSA companies. The design for
the first span will be ready until this coming December, which covers the stretch
from Los Chiles up to Pocosol. The total cost for these designs is Ȼ1.250 million.
The roadway construction cartels will then be designed. For now, it is not clear
whether it is necessary to expand the route or how the drainage system will be.
This will be defined once the designs are ready.
The previous administration awarded the purchase and installation of modular
bridges that would set up in their sites in the next few weeks. This is an
investment of approximately Ȼ2.479 million.
The National Laboratory for Materials and Structural Models (LANAMME) also
visited the area a few months ago and made in situ recommendations to expand
the lanes and further define the path; yet, the Engineer was not aware of those
recommendations and assures that they never reached her door. The Minister of
Public Works and Transportation, Carlos Segnini, endorsed them at that time but
apparently, nothing was agreed.
The Engineer said that the trail project is “ambitious” and requires more planning
and investment, but especially time, although she did not discard that itmay be
completed during the Solis-Rivera administration.
483484 ANNEX 22
Alberto Cabezas, Border Trail Case, published 4 June 2014
(http://revista-amauta.org/2014/06/caso-trocha-fronteriza/)
485486 Annex 22
BORDER TRAIL CASE
Published on: Wednesday, June 4, 2014
By: Alberto Cabezas
Founder: “Fundación Mundial Déjame Vivir en Paz”
On May 16th we sent a letter to Luis Guillermo Solis, requesting that if the
government wished to continue building the border trail road, it would need to do
so within the legal framework and with due supervisory oversight.
In the year 2003, I participated in the Lapa Verde Festival held at El Castillo de
Nicaragua. At that time, the event was organized by Carlos Manuel Rodríguez
(then head of Costa Rica’s Environment and En ergy Ministry) in collaboration
with the Minister of MARENA (Spanish acronym for Nicaragua’s Ministry of the
Environment and Natural Resources). During this festival the importance of the
biological corridor was explained to journalists, and today said cor ridor stands
partially damaged.
We were pleasantly surprised to be in such place on May 22 nd.
We do not regret and reiterate our complaint, filed through a remedy for
protection (amparo) of the border trail, which is now more evident; however, the
previous government managed to confuse the media through manipulation.
The remedy for protection was introduced on December 13 thof 2011, initially
intended to consult with various Costa Rican organizations and verify compliance
with the legal parameters set for th in Law 7600 (which includes regulatory
procedures for bidding and contracting processes not complied at the time
construction began); these consultations also aimed to ensure the environment
would not be harmed, given there was no environmental impact s tudy for the
project.
Later on December 22, 2011, our institution petitioned the Fourth Courtroom to
annex a document to the remedy for amparo inviting court judges to perform
visual inspections and a hearing between the parties involved. We informed in th e
annexed document the completion of technical studies in the area affected by the
road. Said studies advised of the need for a bidding process for the road’s
construction and advised of the crucial need to involve the communities,
municipalities and interested organizations in order for them to be acquainted with
the project.
”That to deny communities their participatory rights, creates vacuums in their
ability to control and supervise their resources”; “the foundation I represent finds
487Annex 22
it imperative that judges witness a series of violations to the principles and
constitutionally granted rights, which took place at the onset of construction of the
road in question”.
On January 26th of 2012, we called to the attention of the Fourth Courtroom the
fact that when a rural road is built according to plans, the design considers factors
such as circulation speed, in turn defining traffic flow, types of trails, radius
measures for horizontal transition curves as well as vertical transition curves, the
edges of the embankments, resting angles for the soil (to prevent landslides), drain
systems, diametrical congruence between the size of drains and their flow
capacity. All of this presumes calculated design, description of the different bids
with their respective techn ical and environmental specifications, aside from
specifically describing the quality of the work to be performed. This would also
include defined means for constant topographic supervision, ensuring the road is
built to meet the engineering standards for which it was designed.
Of the disseminated images we have seen of this rural road, none show
topographic teams supervising the construction sites. What is worse, the images
indicate the lack of planning and the speed with which the construction is getting
done, risking the quality and durability of the road. For example we have
observed: unmeasured cuts and almost vertical soil embankments in areas of rain
deposits, which during heavy rainfall can result in landslides; drain pipes
displaying significantly smaller diameter in relation to their respective water
ways’ flow and characteristics; many drain pipes are lacking support foundations
made from select material to prevent them from shifting; among other
observations.
On December 22, 2011, our institution warned the Constitutional Court of the
potential effect on the road’s useful lifespan, which is detrimental to our public
resources, belonging to the people of Costa Rica. “(…) Due to high environmental
sensitivity of this niche, a rural trail produces gr eater long term impacts, provided
the road’s surface is made of select material (ballast) and dust emissions will
increase, accelerating sedimentation”. Also, terrain instability will increase due to
both cut and fill of embankments. This is a serious prob lem because these are
built on the edge of the river bank. There was no precaution to separate the
roadway’s course from the river’s edge and create a buffer zone between the road
and the river in the event of a landslide (which, if it does occur, would be ar
irreparable damage).
Another important aspect to consider is that many sectors of the road present
flood risks resulting from conditions created by using transverse embankments on
trough shafts. This generates the effect of a damn, when the dimensions o f
transverse embankments retain surface flow, as previously explained. This is a
488 Annex 22
severe problem to be kept in mind because more than 80% of surface flow feeding
the river after El Castillo flows from the Costa Rican basin.
Another already visible impact is the alteration of the surface drainage. This
alteration may arise due to the layout of the surface drains of embankments and
platforms that can artificially carry surface flow to the naturally occurring
positions. The mouths where surface drains flow can create areas of erosion by
means of preliminary flow contribution. Altering surface drainage affects
vegetation, the river, aquatic fauna, navigation, etc.
No less important are those called cumulative impacts, growing over time and
manifesting effects over the long term. Some of these impacts are changes in soil
use within the biosphere reserve, because increasing access from our territory
expedites the process of changing the uses of soil.
From any point of view (engineering, environmental and social), t his rustic road
(unplanned rural pathway), required detailed study in order to mitigate and correct
many impacts that are now occurring and threatening with significant future
damage. It is our opinion that no emergency, except cases where humans life is i n
danger (which is not the case) justifies now days, an environmental risk such as
the one posed by this project as a consequence of not having conducted necessary
studies to prevent processes that at this point, are very difficult and costly to
correct.
On February 3, 2012, we introduced another note in the remedy for amparo,
where we argued: “It is necessary to mitigate and adapt any aspects of the
construction to guarantee that the infrastructure of the road meets all conditions”.
“Concerning this matter , we do believe the embankments do not display the
required support angle for the material they are made of. Some embankments
show inclinations close to 90 degrees, so they will not have any vegetation or geo-
net to prevent landslides.” “It is a fact that Costa Rica’s Government didn’t even
carry out a traffic flow study for the road, a crucial element to justify executing
this type of project and the degree of service to be provided in order to make
efficient use of government resources”.
489490 ANNEX 23
“Accident in Chaclacayo: Rimac river fuel spill causes concern among ▯local
residents”, El Comercio, 31 December 2013
(http://elcomercio.pe/lima/sucesos/accidente-chaclacayo-derrame-
combustible-al-rio-rimac-preocupa-vecinos-noticia-1680548)
491492 Annex 23
Accident in Chaclacayo:
Rímac River fuel spill causes
concern among local residents
(VIDEO)
A truck that fell from the Los Ángeles Bridge at km 27 on the Central Highway
was carrying 3,000 gallons of fuel.
The oil spill from the truck that fell into the Rímac River in Chaclacayo in the
early hours of this morning has puts residents near km. 27 of the Central Road in a
state of alert.
The trailer fell into the Hablador River from the Los Ángeles Bridge […] last
night and caused the death of the driver, Joel Widin Mejía Cáceres.. The body was
recovered by police from inside the overturned vehicle.
A brother of the victim came to the site of the accident and informed that all of
Mejía Cáceres' family lives in Huancayo, but that they will be travelin g to Lima
for the funeral.
He said that the deceased was an experienced driver and that, before the accident,
the tanker had been loaded with about 3,000 gallons of fuel in La Pampilla. This
is precisely what is worrying the inhabitants in the spill zone, situated between
Chaclacayo and Chosica, since the tanker was split open during the impact,
allowing the fuel to flow into the river.
493494 ANNEX 24
“OEFAassesses impact of oil spill in the Rimac River”, Mining Press,
Edición Perú, 1 February 2014
(http://www.miningpress.com.pe/nota/250217/oefa-evalua-impacto-de-
derrame-de-petroleo-en-el-rio-rimac-)
495496 Annex 24
OEFA ASSESSES IMPACT OF OIL SPILL IN THE RÍMAC RIVER
Fuel spill in the Rímac River is now being evaluated by the OEFA
WEB OEFA
Technical staff from the Environmental Evaluation and Control Agency – OEFA
– are carrying out an environmental evaluation following the fuel spillage in the
Rímac River at km. 27 of the central highway in Chaclacayo, caused when a fuel
tanker owned by Consorcio GyG E.I.R.L. fell into the river.
A specialized OEFA team is taking samples. The tanker was carrying an
estimated 3,000 gallons of fuel, which was transported from the La Pampilla
Refinery to a service station in Huancayo . So far the company has not taken an y
action to mitigate the impact of the spill, so the iridescent fuel slick is still visible
in the river.
From a technical and safety point of view, fuel transportation by road is controlled
by the State Energy and Mining Investment Regulator OSINERGMIN, which
checks contingency plans. The OEFA’s function is to control the environmental
impact caused by incidents like this.
The results of the samples taken by the OEFA’s technical staff will be ready
within seven days.
Tanker carrying 4,000 gallons of fuel falls off bridge and contaminates the Rímac
River
La República
Residents of three Chaclacayo townships were affected by the contamination of a
section of the Rímac River, following a 4,000 -gallon fuel spill caused when a
tanker truck fell to the riverbed from the Los Angeles Bridge.
The Police warned the Lima Water and Sewerage Service Company so that it
could close the sluices of La Atarjea water treatment plant to counteract the
effects of the dangerous chemical spill.
The accident occurred shortly before midnight on Monday, but it was not until
1:30 a.m. yesterday that Emergency Squad personnel and firefighters managed to
plug the holes in the tank to prevent further fuel leakage. The rescuers took
another two hours to reach the dr iver of the vehicle, Joel Widin Mejía Cáceres
(41), who had died trapped in the cab.
497Annex 24
The truck (number plates W2T -917) had left Callao and was taking fuel to
Huancayo. For reasons that are now being investigated, the driver got confused
when crossing the Los Angeles bridge, located at km. 27 on the Central Highway.
After knocking down a long stretch of the bridge railings, the out -of-control
vehicle plunged from about 20 meters high and landed upside down in the river.
Residents of the townships of La Perla, Grau and Los Angeles are the hardest hit.
Residents of the first two, which are on the banks of the Rímac, often take water
from the river for preparing food, washing clothes, or bathing. As of last night the
authorities had still not been able to remove the truck from the riverbed.
498 ANNEX 25
“Oil spilled into the Villalobos River”, La Nación, 19 June 2012
(http://www.lanacion.com.co/index.php/noticias-judicial/item/156017-
petroleo-cayo-al-rio-villalobos)
499500 Annex 25
.
OIL SPILLED INTO THE VILLALOBOS RIVER
Written by editor
A tanker truck carrying 240 barrels of crude oil to Neiva, overturned, and
the fuel reached the Villalobos River. A burst tire caused the vehicle to
overturn.
A tanker truck carrying 240 barrels of crude oil to Neiva, overturned, causing the
fuel to reach the Villalobos River. A burst tire caused the vehicle to overturn.
RODRIGO ROJAS GARZÓN LA NACIÓN, PITALITO . An environmental
emergency was caused by a crude oil spill that reached the Villalobos River in the
Putumayo, after a tanker truck carrying 240 barrels of fuel to the city of Neiva
overturned. The accident happened yesterday morning at km 35 in the La
Petrolera sector on the road leading from the town of Mocoa to Pitalito. The
driver of the Kenworth truck (number plates OFV -966) owned by the company
Transdepet y Carga Ltda. lost control after one of the front tires burst. The vehicle
then overturned on a slope and into a gutter, along which the crude oil began to
flow until it reached La Cristalina Creek, a tributary of the Villalobos River. “The
oil slick reached the course of the Villalobos River, and began to contaminate the
river basin downstream,” said Carlos Facundo, who lives by the side of the
Villalobos tributary. According to first reports, the tanker truck was carrying 240
barrels of oil, of which Transdepet managed to retrieve 40, while the remaining
200 fell into the river. “The environmental damage that has been caused is very
serious and irreparable, because an entire river ecosystem has been affected...,”
said the local resident. He claimed that officials from the Regional Autonomous
Corporation of the Department of Cauca went to the site and left minutes later. “In
the same way as they came they left without following up on the contingency
plans to address the environmental emergency...,” said Carlos Cabrera, who has
also been adversely affected by the accident. According to r esidents in the sector,
in the last month three vehicles of this type have overturned, causing similar
environmental emergencies, and the authorities have failed to implement the
501Annex 25
controls on the transportation of this type of fuel, which generates high lev els of
contamination. “To keep control of the situation and of the numerous residents of
the places where the emergencies occur, these companies pay 40,000 pesos to the
people who have suffered adverse impacts and give them lunch for every day that
they spend cleaning up the ecological damage caused to the river. The fact is,
though, that no price can be put on making up for this kind of damage to the
environment and the communities,” said Cabrera. Representatives of Transdepet y
Carga Ltda. declined to comment on this matter to LA NACIÓN. Photos: Rodrigo
Rojas
(Image) The tanker truck that overturned
while carrying 240 barrels of crude oil caused
an environmental emergency.
(Image)The fuel reached the Villalobos River.
502 ANNEX 26
“Ombudsman investigates mining company spillage into River”,
Los Andes, 26August 2009
(http://archivo.losandes.com.ar/notas/2009/8/26/un-442539.asp)
503504 Annex 26
OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATES MINING COMPANY SPILLAGE INTO
RIVER
A truck owned by Minera La Alumbrera spilled diesel fuel into a river in
Catamarca. Local residents have set up a picket and are demanding
assurances that their drinking water is clean.
An official from the National Ombudsman’s Office toured the Belén River
yesterday, where diesel fuel from a truck owned by Minera La Alumbrera, spilled
last Wednesday the 19th.
The official, Roberto Saravia, toured the river yesterday in the city of Belén,
Catamarca, wher e, on the 19th of this month, a truck carrying diesel fuel to
Minera La Alumbrera overturned and spilled fuel into the river, prompting
protests from local residents and subsequent explanations from the company.
When Saravia arrived he found that local residents had set up a blockade on Route
40 at the entry to Belén to prevent trucks from reaching the mine.
According to local media reports, after arriving at the scene he carried out a
photographic survey of the oil slicks on the river bed and kept in contact with
residents in order to make a report that will be delivered to the Córdoba
Ombudsman, Anselmo Sella, who will decide whether to send in environmental
experts to ensure that the water consumed by the area’s inhabitants is free from
contaminants.
505506 ANNEX 27
“Oil spill contaminates lake”, Peru21, 9 May 2012
(http://peru21.pe/2012/05/09/impresa/derrame-crudo-contamina-
laguna-2023480)
507508 Annex 27
OIL SPILL CONTAMINATES LAKE
Wednesday, May 9, 2012 | 1:52 a.m.
Much of Lake Huachucocha was left stained and smelling strongly of oil as a
result of the spill of crude oil that occurred when a trailer loaded with fuel
overturned on to its waters. The accident took place at km. 91 of the Antamina -
Conococha Road, in Huari.
The Mayor of San Marcos, Óscar Ugarte, said that the accident had caused the
death of hundreds of trout fingerlings and wild ducks, and because of this,
representatives from the Public Prosecutor’s Office and municipal environmental
experts took water samples to determine the degree of contamination.
509510 ANNEX 28
“Oil truck overturned near the Cruces River”, El Mercurio Online,
3 January 2009
(http://www.emol.com/noticias/nacional/2009/01/03/338122/camion-
con-petroleo-se-volco-en-las-cercanias-del-rio-cruces.html)
511512 Annex 28
OIL TRUCK OVERTURNED NEAR THE CRUCES RIVER
The truck spilled about 200 liters of crude oil in the Iñake River, 32 km north
of Valdivia.
[...]
SANTIAGO. A truck loaded with oil overturned this afternoon on the Iñake
bridge in the Mafil area, 32 kilometers north of Valdivia, resulting in a serious
spill that has authorities and the community in a state of alert.
The accident, which occurred on an unrailed wooden viaduct located on a country
road, caused about half of the 200 liters of oil to be spilled from the vehicle’s
cargo compartment—suitable for the transport of animals—straight into the river.
Chilean Navy personnel, police, personnel from the National Emergencies Office
(Onemi), and the Valdivia Fire Service Hazardous Materials Squad are working at
the site to prevent the crude oil from contaminating the waters of the Cruces
River.
They are doing this because, after the truck overturned, the maximum risk was
that crude oil might reach one of the region’s main rivers, adjacent to the
contaminated branch. Using absorbent pads, they have already managed to
contain 90 liters.
The causes of the accident and the magnitude of the consequences of the oil’s
moving along the channels of the river are still unknown.
What was confirmed was that the spill affected some 20 tourists who were
camping at the “La Islita” campsite, adjacent to where the accident occurred.
However, one of the main threats is that crude oil could reach the Cruces River,
where the Carlos Anwandter Nature Sanctuary wetlands are located.
The Onemi has told the owner of the location that the waters in the area will not
be suitable for bathing for at least a week, and it will test the water quality from a
well, which is used for drinking and cooking.
513514 ANNEX 29
“Truck spilled 9,000 gallons of fuel into Rivers”, Enlace Nacional,
4 February 2008,
(http://enlacenacional.com/2008/02/04/camion-derramo-9-mil-
galones-de-petroleo-en-rios/)
515516 Annex 29
TRUCK SPILLED 9,000 GALLONS OF FUEL INTO RIVERS
Monday February 4, 2008
(VIDEO)
A Bolivian fuel tanker overturned on the Bi -National Highway in the Moquegua
region’s Torata district, spilling more than 9,000 gallons of fuel, which
contaminated the rivers Chiguilla and Huaracané, the major sources of the water
supply for Ilo.
The municipal authorities of Mariscal Nieto Province, as well as Civil Defense
personnel, moved into the area to take preventive measures . According to Civil
Defense spokesman Francisco Chávez, sponges mixed with clay will be used in
the cleanup operation. Furtherm ore, containment dikes have been installed at the
inlets of the Huaracané to monitor the concentration of fuel in the river.
517518 ANNEX 30
“Truck overturns – Sever Environmental Damage”, La Angostura Digital,
23 July 2009
(http://www.laangosturadigital.com.ar/v3/home/interna.php
?id_not=10282&ori=web)
519520 Annex 30
TRUCK OVERTURNS – SEVERE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE
A tanker heading to Villa la Angostura overturned in icy conditions and fell more
than 50 meters into Lake Nahuel Huapi, wher e it spilled 10,000 liters of diesel
fuel. The driver jumped out and suffered only a broken finger.
The fuel slick spread over some 700 meters of shoreline, but luckily there was no
wind and it could be controlled.
The accident involved a tanker truck loaded with diesel fuel bound for the EPEN
power plant in Villa la Angostura and led to severe environmental damage when
some 10,000 liters of fuel spilled into Lake Nahuel Huapi.
At about 10:20 a.m. the tanker, belongi ng to Petrolera Plaza Huincul Argentina
S.A., was being driven toward La Angostura on Route 231, when, at the 25.500
km. mark, its driver lost control after coming out of a curve and running into ice
on the road.
The truck skidded for about forty yards bef ore hitting the guard rail on the
opposite verge and plunging more than 50 meters into the lake, in a fall that
completely wrecked the cab.
The Renault 350 truck (number plates TSJ 299) was being driven by Juan Martin
Liutti, who jumped out as at it began to fall, an action that, in view of what
happened to the cab, must have saved his life. As it was, he escaped with a broken
index finger on his right hand, a few grazes, and a cut on his right temple.
A motorist took the driver to the police checkpoint at Muelle de Piedra, and from
there he was taken to the local hospital where he was given first aid. Later he was
transferred to Bariloche because of his broken finger.
The part of the tanker that fell into the lake was carrying about 10,000 liters of
fuel, while another 22,000 liters in the overturned second trailer was spilled on
Route 231. Although there were no accurate figures, it was estimated last night,
on the basis of information supplied by the Fire Service, that some 10,000 of the
32,000 liters were spilled over the road, the hillside and the lake.
Emergency Plan for the spill
A large slick of diesel fuel some 700 meters in length spread over Lake Nahuel
Huapi. However, the calm conditions worked in favor of the contingency plan
because there was no wind to drive the fuel towards the center of the lake.
The Coast Guard arrived a few minutes after noon with a small boat and divers,
who put the first absorbent containment barriers in place to prevent more fuel
leaking from the tanker.
521Annex 30
Because the lake i s under federal jurisdiction, National Parks, Gendarmerie and
the Coast Guard took control of the situation. Later, they were joined by Neuquen
province Civil Defense personnel and special teams from the oil company, who
today will attempt to recover the fuel spilled in Lake Nahuel Huapi.
Emergency for EPEN
The accident involving the truck that was supposed to supply EPEN’s local plant
with fuel triggered an emergency situation and the probability of power cuts in the
town due to lack of fuel.
This was the warning given by the provincial power company early in the
afternoon and in a recent statement from the Municipality. However, after a tanker
carrying 8,000 liters of diesel fuel to a service station was diverted to the power
plant, by 7:00 p.m. the risk of a power outage had been avoided.
522
Volume II - Annexes 1-30