"Innovative" strategies that put the lagoon and user safety at risk

Starting from the deficient construction of PROTUR or tendentious design lacking community validation, what part of the community made this point? Taking into consideration that these are areas with private property and possessions of national land with documents. As we already reviewed in depth, there was no such participatory construction, they only took the liberty of making this type of statements, a self-validating speech. There is no indication in the PROTUR document that a diagnosis based on zones has been worked on, reviewing the SWOT and taking into consideration that the Acceptable Change Limit that was built based on the experiences or preferences of tourists, the "participatory" way of defining this site as a zero opportunity class becomes inexplicable. Other conservation areas were the wetlands, the microbials of the northeast coast, the microbialites of the southeast coast, which were 11 km of microbialites, finally the island of the birds and the heart island that were a pair of lots located in front of the urban center.

"Innovative" strategies that put the lagoon and user safety at risk

The strategies that were established to supposedly protect the landscape experience of enjoyment of tourists in Bacalar, were of two types, the Particular, to apply in some areas and the General, applicable in all areas, similar to the general criteria and particular criteria of the Territorial Planning. Two of the three objectives of these strategies were for the benefit of the tourist, not even the body of water. The first objective was to guarantee the physical integrity of the visitor and the common elements of the natural and cultural heritage; the second was to guarantee the satisfaction of visitors in the development of recreational activities and the third was to disseminate and raise awareness of the importance of nature and natural spaces. Before arriving at the strategies, indicators were generated that do not seem to be articulated with other points of the document, or rather seemed to be generated upon request. In tables 10 to 14 of PROTUR, proposals for

indicators for the determination of problems were established, but, like the rest of the document, they are disjointed proposals, more related to the specialty of the proponent than to an articulated scheme for obtaining and monitoring indicators for acceptable change limit. PROTUR establishes the development of indicators of nautical operation and organic waste through the analysis of DNA from phytoplankton and zooplankton from oligotrophic systems (of waters without nutrients) to ensure that they do not change over time by microorganisms from eutrophic systems (with abundant nutrients). However, in all the elements analyzed, fuels had NOT been handled as a source of eutrophication of water, but agrochemicals and fecal matter from the drains of the houses and shops of Bacalar, but the guide of the indicator refers to fecalism in the open air. It is also proposed for organic waste, but the proposal is research and more research, identify DNA from phytoplankton microorganisms and zooplankton from the lagoon and justify it from outdoor fecalism? Where in the SWOT design and the remaining analyses did this issue arise? Why perform DNA analysis? Perhaps because it is the specialty of the proponent, Dr. Manuel Elías of ECOSUR and his research interest is precisely that. The same happens for the evaluation of the chivita (Pomacea flagellata) specialty of the proponent Dr. Alberto de Jesús Navarrete of ECOSUR. It is also proposed to evaluate the water level (Table 11 of PROTUR) in the lagoon, the behavior of compliance with conservation standards of fragile habitats (Table 13 of PROTUR) and the eutrophication indicator (Table 14 of PROTUR). They apparently responded to the particular interest of each researcher consulted, without being related to the object of PROTUR or SWOT.

And then we come to the proposals of Strategies.

Strategies

If it was tried to justify that the strategies and proposals had arisen from a participatory process, with a complete diagnosis that allowed the generation of results to establish through the methodology of Acceptable Change Limit, and Load Capacity, the strategies and their indicators, also fail ostensibly. Here are some examples of the unjustifiable, and in some cases dangerous, "innovative" proposals.

EP1. Installation of buoys

The designers of PROTUR propose buoyancy as a strategy. Specifically they say: The installation and maintenance of buoys in conservation areas will be carried out to achieve the control of activities, through the limits of navigation, mooring or predestined areas, which will reduce the physical impact of anchoring boats in mangroves, and other natural elements. They will also be able to install large mooring buoys to establish visiting shifts to each place, as a form of organization to apply the load capacity.. Nautical activity in general can cause a series of environmental impacts that derive from the actions of anchors and pollution caused by the discharge of waste into the water, garbage, anti-fouling paint, increased turbidity and erosion, noise, the spread of invasive species, and boats that hit animals (Forrester, 2020). The successful management of the increasing levels of activity of ships in the lagoon, therefore, required understanding where and when these types of impacts occurred, such an analysis does not appear in the diagnosis or in the proposals for suggested indicators. Additionally, while anchor buoys have proven effective in reducing boat mooring incidents in fragile structures such as reefs, buoy fields at various nautical and tourism sites have been the subject of discussion over the past two decades. The issue revolves around their implementation, the environmental impacts they generate and the sustainability of their management and maintenance as artificial elements in "fragile" natural areas.. For the installation of buoys good intentions are not enough, it is necessary to determine the shelter areas suitable for such installation, the analysis of existing elements on the site, properly determine the elements involved in the proper functioning of the activity related to buoying. That is, what is the purpose of the buoy? Buoying experts list a series of actions prior to the installation of buoys, such as the evaluation of anchoring trains, the parameters and dimensions suitable to ensure not only that they withstand the necessary tension, but that they generate the least amount of environmental impacts possible, a real mapping of depths, type of bottom substrate, direction of wind and currents, weight and dimensions of the vessels to be anchored, if that is to be the function of the buoy, to determine anchor trains, anchors and their reliability in order to

avoid future incidents and impacts. In Bacalar, aspects such as the effect of seasonal weathering, such as hurricanes, the elevation of the level of the lagoon during the rainy season, the currents and the change of direction of the same and the dragging of sediments in some places during these seasons must be evaluated.

It may seem simple to install buoys everywhere, but, as established by the PADI (2005) guide at an international level, the installation of mooring buoys requires professional experience in all phases of project planning and implementation. Several facts must be considered and, in many situations, the scope of the project will require a cooperative effort between relevant government agencies and stakeholders. The intended use of the area determines the number, location and type of moorings deployed. Financing of installation and ongoing maintenance, a crucial element of any mooring buoy system, must be arranged. Educational programs should be carried out to ensure that private users understand what buoys are for and that appropriate arrangements are made for the implementation of project or site regulations. In the proposed indicators, a quantitative study of the benthic habitat where anchors, substrates, bathymetry and the degree to which anchorage rates in sensitive habitats change when mooring buoys are installed would have been useful (Lloret et al., 2008; Sagerman, et al., 2020) and how often anchors are deployed, this is mandatory, and was not considered.

According to the PADI manual, it is necessary to consider the impacts of buoy fields (PADI, 2005). These impacts include visual impact. The area will face the visual impact of floating plastic buoys bordering the horizon. Many tourists will not like to see buoy fields in its pristine landscape, in addition to the visual impact of the buoys, the visual impact and the increase in the effect of "crowding" by boats moored very close to each other (the same buoy) Was not the objective of PROTUR "to guarantee a satisfactory experience close to the pristine landscape for the tourist"? Therefore, the concentration of buoys in coastal areas can become an aesthetic problem that will have to be considered. In addition, a permanent maintenance programme should be ensured in order to avoid deterioration of buoys and detriment to the aesthetic quality of the visitor experience. There are also the environmental impacts. In the case of anchor buoys, strategies must be evaluated and established to prevent the environmental

effects of the concentration of vessels in shallow areas that may not have good water circulation. The concentration of chemicals and contaminants in mooring areas can affect local water quality and, in turn, harm organisms in the environment. Mooring buoys can also increase the use of an area, with associated impacts. Optimal ACLs and acceptable change limits will need to be established, and if these limits are exceeded, use should be decreased. Demand for mooring buoys is likely to increase with supply, so the number of mooring buoys installed in areas with limited capacity to accommodate vessels will need to be limited.

It is also important to consider conflicts of use as once the mooring buoys are made available to the public, the potential for conflict develops. In small isolated areas with one or two commercial tour operators and only one occasional boater or fisherman, conflicts will be minimal. However, in areas of high use and high traffic conflicts may arise that must be anticipated.. Another aspect to consider is the lagoon's own system, especially the chemical composition of the water. As PADI's own manual states: Buoy downlines often develop the growth of aquatic life and build a small ecosystem. This is especially true for the case of Bacalar, where any object in the water tends to petrify over time, part of a natural process involving microorganisms and the high concentrations of solute in the water of the Bacalar Lagoon (Villarreal-Sonora, 2021), such as calcium, magnesium and sulfur.

The creation of long processions of materials that can be populated by bacterial colonies that generate deposit of solids around the delimitation buoys, which in turn can contribute to the turbidity of the water and the consequent affectation of the fragile areas, which it was trying to protect. The oligotrophic ecosystem of the "blue" portion of the lagoon, requires to keep clear the whitish substrate, calcium carbonate that allows the reflection of the shades of blue,;this substrate is susceptible to the establishment of patches of other types of materials where a successional process can be generated. Once plankton are established, hence the patches of aquatic grasses or any other type of vegetation, the area loses its "blue" quality. Also, why is the proposal of this type of strategy worrying? Because they give rise to INITIATIVES BY INSPIRATION such as the initiative of buoyancy of 4 kilometers of the body of water in the Bacalar Lagoon without considering

the aforementioned aspects, mobilized by well-meaning citizens, but without having the basic information that experts in boyage require and without knowing the geohydrological processes of the lagoon itself. There are sufficient regulations to guarantee the sustainability of activities in the Bacalar Lagoon (See The myth of the lack of regulation in the Bacalar Lagoon and its Basin, below), it is necessary to consolidate an education and surveillance effort among users and service providers, with the strengthening and articulation of existing regulation; a comprehensive and comprehensive analysis with the recommended factors to determine the system and strategy of installation and maintenance of the buoy, as well as the indicators.

EP3. Microbialites Protection Structures

The strategy is justified like this: it is one of the physical Visitor Control Strategies. EP3. Microbial protection structures. And refers:

Microbialites must be protected from physical impacts by water and land with infrastructure: temporary constructions (without cement, glass, or metals) with piles, must allow the flow of water and the passage of sunlight to

Microbialites, but the passage of light should not be increased by any material, such as glass (for example) because they are photosynthetic.

The design encourages tourism to learn from them without physical contact such as standing or sitting, it also prevents people from approaching them with enough distance to avoid their contact. The installation of this infrastructure must be susceptible to an environmental impact exception in federally owned areas or to make an environmental

impact statement for the installation of infrastructure. For the shores of private properties, the owner may include them in the environmental impact statements corresponding to the works and activities of his property (PROTUR, 2020). In the first versions of PROTUR they were called microbialith corralitos. The proposal was to build a fence around the existing Microbialite structures in the lagoon.. The proposal involved the placement of wooden barriers along stretches of up to 11 kilometers, continuously or with spaces, in nearby structures or within existing spas in the lagoon, houses and all coastal infrastructure. This strategy demonstrates a broad and atrocious ignorance of the geohydrological and edaphic processes of which microbiallites in Bacalar are protagonists. Additionally, it is proposed as a strategy to leave its construction and installation outside the Environmental Impact Assessment mechanism in federally owned areas, referring to the central part that the instrument determines as conservation zones and that for more than a decade have been one of the areas that the promoter group wishes to claim for itself.

There are no microbial protection structures anywhere else in the world, and it is not for a gratuitous reason. When we know the process of edaformation of which the microbialites are the basis and that is easily observable on the margins of the lagoon, along the successional scale, from the center of the body of water to the terrestrial ecosystems to the east and west you can notice a process that we simplify as follows: The microbial mats (mats of microorganisms that accumulate the predominant calcium and magnesium salts of the Bacalar Lagoon) are formed into mats that accumulate sediment, cementing it and forming the flat columns on the margins, practically columns of tartar. Once the column of petrified material (the stromatolite) protrudes from the body of water, or is left with a thin film of water, or the water mirror is reduced or diverted, as a side effect of the accumulation of these platforms and columns of tartar, it begins to colonize with other types of components. This film tends to accumulate around any structure that is a certain time in the water, it happens with docks, boats and buoys (already explained in the buoy proposal) and the succession begins to develop on these columns and platforms, soil, mud, wetlands and vegetation.

Placing artificial barriers, even if they allow water to pass, but that reduce the flow and increase the surface of accumulation of cementable particles around the columns that are already accumulating tartar, will generate impacts. But it is also proposed NOT to evaluate the environmental impact for the federal areas that are interested in the triad, this type of infrastructure establishment decisions require a detailed and knowledgeable evaluation to prevent cumulative impacts that sometimes a negative affectation product of the accelerated synergy of introducing artificial elements extensively. Adding also the potential impact of anchoring these structures around.

Additionally there is the security aspect. The strategy proposes to build wooden fences within the body of water, the depth in some areas around the microbialites is more than 3 m, so placing a network of wooden strips of 4 to 5 meters, where at least 30% would have to be buried in the substrate, in areas where there is current of 1 to 3 knots (some seasons) means subjecting areas to a permanent impact from the base of the structure and below; creating unnecessary barriers without an in-depth evaluation and basis of how the system works, more for an inspiration, is not only dangerous but offensive. Your solution to preventing the impact of people approaching the calcium carbonate (tartar) column is to place permanent fences around. A colonialist and childish vision, simplistic and dangerous. In addition, the photo that appears cut in the document is part of the whole of Hamelin Pool in Australia, an ecosystem of marine stromatolites very different from what is Bacalar and even in that site, the structure is not a fence, it is an observatory bridge of 220 meters, in very different conditions. A clear example of the way in which information is manipulated at the convenience of the promoter group.

EP4. Services

They propose basic bathroom, shower and evapotranspiration treatment plant services in public places and boarding sites. One should only cite the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which states that an ET (evapotranspiration) system is a feasible option in semi-arid climates where the annual evaporation rate exceeds the annual rate of precipitation. The

amount that evaporation exceeds precipitation is the ability to apply wastewater.

As a reference data, the semi-arid climates in Mexico are mainly located in the center and north of the country, have an average rainfall of between 400 mm to 1,000 mm, an average annual relative humidity of 59%, in contrast to areas such as Quintana Roo, which are classified as warm subhumids where the average annual rainfall ranges from 1,000 mm to 4,000 mm, with an annual average of 1,500 mm and with an average annual relative humidity of 66% to 88% almost all year round, with a rainfall of around 1,500 mm that can fall in a day, when a hurricane happens.

Requirements for the use of evapotranspiration (ET) type treatment systems include latent heat of approximately 590 cal/g of evaporated water at 15 °C, the existence of a vapor pressure gradient between the evaporative surface and the atmosphere to remove steam by diffusion, convection or a combination of the two, and a continuous supply of water to the evaporative surface.

The disadvantages of these systems are that they are governed by climatic conditions such as precipitation, wind speed, humidity, solar radiation and temperature. They are not suitable in areas where land is limited or where the surface is irregular or where up to 1,300mm of rain can be received annually, as is the case of Quintana Roo, not counting the precipitation that may fall during a hurricane or tropical storm. ET systems have limited storage capacity and therefore cannot store much volume of wastewater when there is an amount of moisture in the environment, for evaporation. There is the possibility of overload due to infiltration of rainfall, something that has already been demonstrated on countless occasions during the events of intense rains that occur in the area. They are generally limited to sites where evaporation exceeds annual precipitation by at least 24 inches (i.e., for arid and semi-arid areas, not tropical ones). Transpiration and evaporation can be reduced when vegetation is dormant (i.e. the winter months). The accumulation of salt and other elements can eventually remove vegetation and therefore transpiration. In an area where water is high in salts (calcium and magnesium) such as Bacalar, it is another unmeasured risk.