Appendix E: Field Scientist Report 



Bivalves could not be found at some of the pre-selected sites. This was, for example, the 

 case of Cancun in Mexico and in Lim6n/Cahuita, Costa Rica. Since there were no alternate 

 location which supported bivalve in the area, these sites had to be deleted. Because of the unsafe 

 conditions (for the sampler) in Guatemala at the time of sampling, no alternative site was attempted 

 to replace pre-selected Puerto Barrios. In Belize, the bivalve population was very small and 

 although a sample was collected in front of Belize city, a follow-up sampling in this area might not 

 be possible. 



In other sites, the bivalves were located only in areas of difficult access or the collection 

 required the use of equipment only available through local fishermen. Since the Field Scientific 

 Officer did not have the resources to hire a fishing boat for the sampling and/or to compensate for a 

 full day of work, the bivalves were obtained directly from local fishermen as they returned from 

 their daily activities. Complete sampling details, including location and description of the area was 

 recorded in the sampling log book by the Field Scientist. 



It is essential that the person charged with field sampling responsibilities have extensive 

 experience and be given latitude to make final site selection decisions in the field in consultation 

 with local scientists. 

 Site selection within a sampling area 



Although the general sampling area was pre-selected by the IMW Committee, most of the 

 actual sampling stations within these sites have been suggested by local scientists. In most cases, 

 the local scientists had previous working experience in the proposed sites and it was relatively easy 

 to find good sampling stations. In a few cases, even the local information, concerning the 

 presence of bivalves in a given location was poor. In these cases, the location of bivalves and/or a 

 representative sampling site for the general area was more difficult and more time consuming than 

 it should have been. In a few instances, it was not possible to find the bivalves and the sampling at 

 the site had to be canceled. 

 Lack of local contacts 



In many sampling sites in different countries (e.g. Rio Gallegos, Bocas del Toro, Cumana, 

 Lagoa Mundau/Maceio, Fortaleza, Sao Luis, Belem/Braganca, Vitoria, Puerto Montt, Punta 

 Arenas, Valparaiso, La Serena, Arica, Antofagasta, Puerto La Uni6n, Puerto La Libertad, Belize 

 City, La Ceiba, San Lorenzo, Puerto Barrios, Cancun, Laguna de Terminos, Laguna del Ostion, 

 Bahia La Ventosa, Puerto Escondido, Puerto Madero, Tampico, Laguna Madre, and San Carlos) it 

 was not possible to contact local scientists. These sampling locations represent approximately 40% 

 of the pre-selected sites for this program. Although samples were collected from all but two of 

 these sites without the assistance of local scientists (e.g. Puerto Barrios and Cancun), their 

 presence would have undoubtedly made the sampling easier and safer. Collected samples were 

 processed at the local hotel and kept in the freezer of the restaurant or at local stores with a freezer 



