[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
C0@3staj Inf0rMat;, V.01 Of C-0 . '00 ime 1 of 2 COASTAL ZONE 41# 111+ Ceot., INFORMATION CENT!"R uuam Coastal Manaw-ement y N its of Program and Final Environmental Impact Statement BUREAU OF PLANNING GOVIERNMENT OF'GUAM U-S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management 41, 393 G8 F56 1979 V. 1 vi INFORMATION FOR READERS PURPOSE This document is both a final environmental impact state- ment (FEIS) and a program document on the Guam Coastal Management Program. It is being circulated by the U. S. Department of Commerce for public and government agency review. Part Two is the Program document, and was written by the Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of Planning. The Summary, Part One, and Parts Three through Ten were prepared by the U. S. Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management. An attachment has been added to the FEIS in which specific responses have been developed by OCZ,%1 to comments by various reviewers of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) circulated in March 1978. These responses, in addition to citing where changes have been made in the program document, provide further clarification on specific ques- tions and concerns raised by reviewers of the DEIS. For this reason, the Attachment forms an irrj@ortant part of the FEIS. HCYR TO USE Readers who are not familiar with the EIS standard format THIS DOCLMENT for coastal management programs will want to examine the following pages as aids to the reader: PAGE Table of Contents .................................. i Table cross-referencing requirements of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act with sections of this document ........................................... 6 Summary of Guam's Coastal Management Program ....... 17 As mentioned in the introductory pages of the DEIS, the appendices to the Program (Volume 2) are not included with this FEIS. Please use your copy of Volume 2 of the Program/tEIS if you need to refer to the Appendices. Additional copies of the Appendices are available from the Office of Coastal Zone Management and the Guam Bureau of Planning. WHERE TO ASK Questions on this FEIS can be answered in Washinaton QUESTIONS by Peter Coffey, Pacific Region Assistant Manager ABOUT 1!HIS of the Office of Coastal Zone Management (202/254-7100) DOCLMENT and in Guam by Robin Grove, Program Manager, Guam Coastal Management Program (671/477-9502). COASTAL ZONE @Ni FORMATION CENTER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE QD -S FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR THE LZI TERRITORY OF GUAM Prepared by: Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admi ni st rat i on Department of Commerce 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20235 and Guam Coastal Management Bureau of Planning Office of the Governor P. 0. Box 2950 Agana, Guam 96910 July 1979 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INFORMATION FOR READERS Back Cover SUMMARY iii PART ONE: INTRODUCTION A. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act I B. Summary of Guam's Coastal Management Program 4 C. How the Guam Coastal Management Program Meets the 6 Requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act PART TWO: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION - THE GUAM COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Chapter I: Summary 17 Chapter II: Institutional and Resource Setting 25 Chapter III: Program Policies 51 Chapter IV: Boundaries 81 Chapter V: Uses Subject to Management 89 Chapter VI: Authorities and Organization 95 Chapter VII: Areas of Particular Concern 119 Chapter VIII: Additional Planning Requirements 151 Chapter IX: Federal Consistency 167 Chapter X: Consultation and Participation 181 Chapter XI: Future Issues 205 PART THREE: DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED 209 PART FOUR: PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 211 i US Department of Commerce NOAA Coaste Services Center LibrarY 2234 South Robson Avenue Charlestons SC 29405-2413 Page PART FIVE: THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND-USE PLANS, POLICIES AND CONTROLS OF THE AREA 237 PART SIX: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 239 PART SEVEN: PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 243 PART EIGHT: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 245 PART NINE: IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 247 PART TEN: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 249 ATTACHMENT 1: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE GCMP DEIS ADDENDUM: COMPENDIUM OF COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE DEIS APPENDICES: VOLUME 2 Appendix 1 - Legal Authorities Appendix 2 - Summary Tables, CZM Land-Use Opinion Survey Appendix 3 - National and Guam Registers of Historic Places Appendix 4 - Lists of Endangered and Threatened Plant and Animal Species on Guam Appendix 5 - Relationship of Agencies Under Current Programs Appendix 6 - Guam Environmental Protection Agency Programs and Responsibilities Appendix 7 - Background Materials (As noted in the introductory pages of the Draft EIS on the GCMP, the appendices circulated with the DEIS will not be reproduced with the FEIS but are available from, the GCMP or OCZM.) ii Summary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (x) Final Environmental Impact Statement 1. Type of Action The Federal action for which this EIS has been prepared is the proposed approval of the Territory of Guam Coastal Management Program. (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Brief Description of the Proposed Action It is proposed that the Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management approve the Coastal Management Program submitted by the Territory of Guam under Public Law 92-583, the Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended (CZMA). Approval of the Program would initiate implementation of the Program using Federal grant funds available to Guam under Section 306 of the CZMA. Approval of the Program would further require that future proposed Federal actions be consistent with the approved Program to the extent practicable. 3. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental Effects Approval and implementation of the Program will make Guam eligible to receive grant funds to implement laws and regulations which will limit certain land and water uses in parts of Guam, while promoting and encouraging development in other parts of the island. Program implementation may enhance some property values while reducing others, may limit or prohibit the siting of housing and commercial developments near environmentally sensitive island resources and may affect the methods of resources extraction as well as the amounts which can be taken. The purpose of the Coastal Management Program is to provide an improved decision-making process for determining land and water uses which will lead to increased long-term productivity of the Territory's resources for the benefit of both residents and visitors. 4. Alternatives Considered Alternatives to the proposed action fall into two categories: those available to the Territory of Guam once the Coastal Management Program has been submitted for approval, and those available to the Assistant Administrator which would involve Program approval, or a delay or denial of approval. iii The Territory of Guam has two alternatives: 1. To withdraw its application for approval of the Coastal Management Program and continue program development or attempt to use other sources of funding to meet the objectives of the Territorial Coastal Management Program; 2. To amend the Coastal Management Program to resolve any issues or fulfill any identified deficiencies. Of the three alternatives available to the Assistant Administrator delay or denial would be taken only if the Program did not meet the legislative requirements of the CZMA or if "preliminary approval" of the Coastal Management Program were considered a more acceptable course of action. The alternatives considered by the Bureau of Planning while developing the Coastal Management Program are presented in Part II, Section C of the Program document. 5. DISTRIBUTION Comments have been requested from the following Federal, State and local agencies and other parties: Federal Agencies Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of Health, Education & Welfare Department of Housing & Urban Development Department of the Interior Department of Justice Department of Labor Department of Transportation U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Federal Energy Regulatory Commission General Services Administration Marine Mammal Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission National Interest Groups A.M.E.R.I.C.A.N. AFL-CIO American Association of Port Authorities American Bar Association American Bureau of Shipping American Farm Bureau Federation 1v American Fisheries Society American Forest Institute American Gas Association American Hotel and Motel Association American Industrial Development Council American Institute of Architects American Institute of Merchant Shipping American Institute of Planners American Littoral Society American Mining Congress American Oceanic Organization American Petroleum Institute American Shore and Beach Preservation Association American Society of Civil Engineers American Society of Landscape Architects, Inc. American Society of Planning Officials American Water Resources Association American Waterways Operators Amoco Production Company Ashland Oil, Inc. Associated General Contractors of America Association of Oil Pipe Lines Atlantic Richfield Company Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Atomic Industrial Forum Barrier Islands Coalition Boating Industry Association Center for Law and Social Policy Center for Natural Areas Center for Urban Affairs Center for Urban A Regional Resources Chamber of Commerce of the United States Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Cities Service Company City Service Oil Company Coastal States Organization Conservation Foundation Continental Oil Company Council of State Governments Council of State Planning Agencies The Cousteau Society Earth Metabolic Design Laboratories, Inc. Edison Electric Institute El Paso Natural Gas Co. Environmental Policy Center Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Environmental Law Institute EXXON Company, U.S.A. Friends of the Earth Getty Oil Company v Great Lakes Basin Commission Gulf Energy and Minerals, U.S. Gulf Oil Company Gulf Refining Company Gulf South Atlantic Fisheries Development Foundation Independent Petroleum Association of America Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America Institute for the Human Environment Institute for Marine Studies Interstate Natural Gas Association of America Izaak Walton League Lake Michigan Federation League of Conservation Voters League of Women Voters Education Fund Marathon Oil Company Marine Technology Society Mobil Oil Corporation Mobil Exploration & Producing, Inc. Murphy Oil Company National AcadeoV of Engineering National Association of Conservation Districts National Association of Counties National Association of Dredging Contractors National Association of Electric Companies National Association of Engine & Boat Manufacturers National Association of Home Builders National Association of Realtors National Association of Regional Councils National Association of State Boating Law Administrators National Association of State Park Directors National Audubon Society National Boating Federation National Canners Association National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc. National Commission on Marine Policy National Conference of State Legislatures National Environmental Development Association National Farmers Union National Federation of Fisherman National Fisheries Institute National Forest Products Association National Governors Association National League of Cities National Ocean Industries Association National Parks and Conservation Association National- Petroleum Council National Petroleum Refiners Association vi National Realty Committee National Recreation and Park Association National Research Council National Science Foundation National Science Teachers Association National Shrimp Congress National Society of Professional Engineers National Wildlife Federation National Waterways Conference Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America Natural Resources Defense Council The Nature Conservancy Nautilus Press New England River Basin Commission North Atlantic Ports Association Outboard Marine Corporation Resources for the Future Rice University Center for Community Design and Development Shell Oil Company Shellfish Institute of North America Shipbuilders Council of America Sierra Club Skelly Oil Company Society of Industrial Realtors Society of Real Estate Appraisers Soil Conservation Society of America Southern California Gas Company Sport Fishing Institute Standard Oil Company of Ohio Sun Company, Inc. Tenneco Oi I Company Texaco, Inc. Texas A & M University United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America Union Oil Company of California Urban Research and Development Association, Inc. U.S. Conference of Mayors U.S. Power Squadrons Virginia Marine Resources Commission Water Pollution Control Federation Water Transport Association Western Oil and Gas Association Wildlife Management Institute The Wildlife Society World Dredging Association vii Territory Governor Attorney General Department of Administration Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Land Management Department of Libraries and Museums Department of Parks and Recreation Department of Public Works Guam Airport Authority Guam Economic Development Authority Guam Energy Office Guam Environmental Protection Agency Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority Guam Power Authority Guam Visitors Bureau Office of the Suruhanu Port Authority of Guam Public Utility Agency of Guam Water Resources Research Center Bureau of Budget and Management Research Committee on Manpower Resources and Economic Development Territorial Planning Commission Marine Laboratory, University of Guam Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam Fifteenth Guam Legislature Guam Chamber of Commerce Guam Science Teachers Association Guam Surfing Association Guam Shell Club Marianas Yacht Club Guam Society of Professional Engineers Pacific Architects and Engineers, Inc. Marianas Divers Club Guam Fisherman's Cooperation Ventura and Associates Trans-Asia Engineering Associates Guam Hotel Owners Association Pacific Daily News Other Parties Mailed upon request Viii Questions concerning this document may be addressed to: Pacific Regional Manager Office of Coastal Zone Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminsitration 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 Phone: 202/254-7100 ix PART ONE: INTRODUCTION I PART ONE: INTRODUCTION A. The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act In response to intense pressure and because of the importance of coastal areas of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583)(CZMA) which was signed into law on October 27, 1972. The Act authorized a Federal grant-in-aid program to be administered by the Secretary of Commerce, who in turn, delegated this responsibility to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management, who heads the Office of Coastal Zone Management (OCZM). The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was developed from a series of studies on the coastal zone and its resources. National interest can be traced from the Committee on Oceanography of the National Academy of Sciences (NASCO) 12-volume report, "Oceanography 1960-1970" (1959), to the report of the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources (1969), which proposed a Coastal Management Act which would 11provide policy objectives for the coastal zone and authorize Federal grants-in-aid to facilitate the establishment of State Coastal Zone Authorities empowered to manage the coastal waters and adjacent land." The National Estuarine Pollution Study (1969), authorized by the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 and the National Estuary Study authorized by the Estuarine Areas Study Act of 1968 further documented the importance of and the conflicting demands upon our Nation's coasts. These reports stressed the need to protect and wisely use the important national re- sources contained in the coastal zone and concurred that a program designed to promote the rational protection and management for our coastal zone was necessary. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 was substantially amended on July 26, 1976, (P.L. 94-370). The Act and its 1976 amendments affirm a national interest in the effective protection and careful development of the coastal zone, by providing assistance and encouragement to coastal States (and Territories of the U.S.) to develop and implement national programs for managing their coastal areas. The CZMA opens by stating "(t)here is a national interest in the effective management, beneficial use, protection, and development of the coastal zone" (Section 302(a)). The statement of Congressional findings goes on to describe how competition for the utilization of coastal resources, brought on by the increased demands of population growth and economic expansion, has led to the degradation of the coastal environment, including the "loss of living marine resources, wildlife, nutrient-rich areas, permanent and adverse changes to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use, and shoreline erosion." The CZMA then states "(t)he key to more effective protection and use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone is to encourage states [and U.S. territories] to exercise their full authority 2 over the land and waters in the coastal zone by assisting [them]. . . in developing land and water use programs. . Jor dealing with [coastal] land and water use decisions of more than local significance" (Section 302(h)). While local governments and Federal agencies are required to cooperate and participate in the development of management programs, the State level of government is given the central role and responsibility for this process. Financial assistance grants are authorized by the CZMA to provide States with the means of achieving these objectives and policies. Under Section 305, 30 coastal States which border on the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes, and five U.S. territories are eligible to receive grants from NOAA for 80 percent of the costs of developing coastal management programs. Broad guidlines and the basic requirements of the CZMA provide the necessary direction to States for developing coastal management programs. These guidelines and requirements for program development and approval are contained in 15 CFR Part 923, as raised and published March 1, 1978, in in the Federal ReWster. In summary, the requirements for program approval are that a tate develop a management program which: (1) Identifes and evaluates those coastal resources recognized in the Act that require management or protection by the State; (2) Reexamines existing policies or develops new policies to manage these resources. These policies must be specific, comprehensive and enforceable, and must provide an adequate degree of pre- dictability as to how coastal resources will be managed, (3) Determines specific uses and special geographic areas that are to be subject to the management program, based on the nature of identified coastal concerns. Uses and areas to be subject to management should be based on resource capability and suit- ability,analyses, socio-economic considerations and public preferences; (4) Identifies the inland and seaward areas subject to the manage- ment program; (5) Provides for the consideration of the national interest in the planning for and siting of facilities that meet more than local requirements; and (6) Includes sufficient legal authorities and organizational arrangements to implement the program and to insure conformance to it. 3 In arriving at these substantive aspects of the management program, States are obliged to follow an open process which incolves providing information to and considering the interests of the general public, special interest groups, local governments, and regional, State, inter- state and Federal agencies. Section 305 of the CZMA authorizes a maximum of four annual grants to develop a coastal management program. To date, Guam has received nearly $702,000 in program development funds. After developing a manage- ment program, the State (territory) may submit it to the Secretary of Commerce (or her representative in this case, the Assistant Administrator of NOAA for Coastal Zone Management) for approval pursuant to Section 306 of the CZMA. If approved, the State is then eligible for annual grants under Section 306 to implement its management program. If a program has deficiencies which need to be remedied or has not received approval by the time Section 305 program development grants have expired, a State may be eligible for preliminary approval and additional funding under. Section 305(d). Section 307 of the Act stipulates that Federal agency actions shall be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with approved management programs. Section 307 further provides for mediation by the Secretary of Commerce when a serious disagreement arises between a Federal agency and a coastal State with respect to a Federal consistency issue. Section 308 of the CZMA contains provisions for grants and loans to coastal States to enable them to plan for and respond to onshore impacts resulting from coastal energy activities. To be eligible for assistance under Section 308, coastal States must be receiving Section 305 or 306 grants, or, in the Secretary's view, be developing a management program consistent with the policies and objectives contained in Section 303 of the CZMA. Guam has utilized $33,000 of 308 funds to plan for energy development impacts, analyses of any super port facilities, and investi- gation into the economic, social, or environmental consequences of the siting, construction and operation of an Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) facility. Section 309 allows the Secretary to make grants to States to coordinate, study, plan, and implement interstate coastal management programs. Section 310 allows the Secretary to conduct a program of research, study, and training to support State management programs. The Secretary may also make grants to States to carry out research studies and training required to support their programs. Section 315 authorizes grants to States to acquire lands for access to beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological, or cultural value, and for the preser- 4 vation of islands, in additiion to the estuarine sanctuary program to preserve a representative series of undisturbed estuarine areas for long-term scientific and educational purposes. B. Summary of Guam's Coastal Management Program This section summarizes the coastal problems, issues and conflicts confronting the Territory of Guam, and differences the coastal management program will make. These topics are fully discussed in subsequent parts of this document. Being an island with a delicate ecosystem -- the land is directly linked to the sea and affects the ocean or is affected by it -- all of Guam is considered to be the coastal zone (with the exception of excluded Federal lands). While the Territory of Guam has existing laws and regulations designed to protect the island's natural resources, both renewable and non- renewable, the Guam Bureau of Planning recognized that administration of existing zoning laws did not adequately provide for protection of a wide range of sensitive lands and that interpretation and enforcement of these codes has not always been carried out in a comprehensive or consistent manner. Similarly, the reduction of the-Seashore Reserve Area from 100 meters to 10 meters from high water illustrated the need for a compre- hensive and enforceable approach to managing coastal resources. A system was needed to administer and enforce Guam's laws related to land use and resources management that would sustain needed economic development without depleting natural resources essential to this growth. There is also a need to quantify the resource base to measure changes and determine when man's activities may produce unacceptable long-term impacts. In such a way, appropriate mitigation measures can be developed and implemented before resources are irretrievably lost. In 1975, the Governor of Guam approved a request for matching funds to begin the planning phase and Federal funds were allocated for Guam's Coastal Management Program. The program establishes new coastal policies, rules, responsibilities, obligations and relationships, but relies principally on existing statutory authorities and controls for implementation. The basis of the program is P.L. 12-200 enacted by the Guam Legislature in January 1975. The Act created a Central Planning Council (CPC), the Bureau of Planning as staff to the Council, and required the development of a Comprehensive Develop- ment Plan. The Bureau of Planning was designated by the Governor to administer the Guam Coastal Management Program and directed through Executive Orders to propose coastal regulations and policies to the CPC. Having adopted these policies the CPC has had them included in the 5 Comprehensive Development Plan and also in Guam's La'nd-Use Plan and both have been endor ed by the Governor. Since there is no local government in the Territory, Guam's management program is characterized by direct administration by the Territory (Technique B, 15 CFR 923.41). The policies utilized are identified in the Program Section in Chapter I, with the full complement of major authorities for the program cited in Table 1, and explained in detail in Chapter VI of the Program Section (Part II). New programs and mechanisms developed by the Bureau of Planning as part of its Coastal Management Program include: 1. A land-use districting system, guiding development and future zoning through designation of urban, rural, agriculture, and conservation districts by the Territorial Planning Commission (Executive Order 78-23) 2. Rules and regulations for protection of wetlands and management of flood hazard areas as areas requiring special management attention (areas of particular concern)(Executive Orders 78-20 and 78-21) 3. Guam's Land Use Policies, effected through Executive Order 78-37, which provide overall guidance to the government and people of Guam concerning land and water use. Federal approval of the program is essential for Guam in order to fulfill Territorial objectives for effective management of the island's resources. If these objectives are met, the effects on Guam's lifestyle and appearance will be varied and significant. The size of the island magnifies the effects of unsystematic utilization and depletion of its natural resources, for the total supply is strictly limited. Given the competition for land and water use for agriculture, freshwater supply, urban development, conservation areas and historic preservation, and the potential consequences on coastal water resources from each of these activities, a great incentive exists for effective management. In essence, there is less room for error on an island. 6 How the Guam Coastal Mana0ement Program Meets the Requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act Requirements Sections of Aeproval Location in Regulations Pro. Document (Ch a pt-e-rT- Sec. 306(a) which includes the requirements of Sec. 305: 305(b)(1): Boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 . 923.31, 923.32 IV 923.33, 923.34 305(b)(2): Uses subject to management . . . * 0 0 . 923.11 V 305(b)@3@: Areas of particular concern . . . . . . 923.21, 923.23 VII 305(b) 4 : Means of control. . . 0 0 0 923.41 VI 305(b)(5): Guidelines on prioriti;sooi @S;soe a 9 a 923.21 VII 305(b)(6): Organizational structure . . . . . . . . 923.46 Vi 305(b)@7): Shorefront planning process . . . . . . 923.24 VIII 305(b) 8): Energy facility planning process . . . . 923.13 VIII 309(b)(9): Erosion planning process . . . . . . . . 923.25 VIII Sec. 306(c) which includes: 306(c)(1): Notice: full participation; consistent with Sec. 303 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.58, 923.51 X, III 923.56, 923.3 VI 306(c)(2)(A): Plan coordination . . . . . . 923.56 N.A.* 306(c)(2)(B): Continuing consultation mecha;i;m;6, 923.57 X, xi 306 (3): Public hearings . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.58 x 306@c),4,: Gubernatorial review and approval . . . 923.48 Gov. Letter c 5 : Designation of recipient agency . . . . 923.47 VI 306(c@ 306(c) 6 : Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.46 VI 306(c)(7): Authorities 923.41 VI 306(c)(8): Adequate con;i@e;aii@n*oi ;aii;na*l* * * interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.52 V 306(c)(9): Areas for preservation/restoration . . . 923.22 VII Sec. 306(d) which includes: 306(d)(1): Administer regulations, control development; resolve conflicts . . . . . 923.41 V, VI 305(d)(2): Powers of acquisition, if 'necessary 923.41 Sec. 306(e) which includes: 306(e)(1): Technique of control . . . . . . . . . 923.41-44 VI 306(e)(2): Uses of regional benefit . . . . . . . . 923.12 N.A.* Sec.,307 which includes: 307(b): Adequate consideration of Federal agency views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.51 x 307(f): Incorporation of air and water quality requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923.45 111, VI Not app-TT-ca'Sle in absence of local governments 7 PART TWO: DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION THE GUAM COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM VOL The preparation of the Guam Coastal Management Program was financed in part by a coastal program development grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions of the Coastal Zone ManagementAct of 1972, as amended (P.L. 92-583). TABLE OF.CONTENTS 9 GUAM COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Page I S UMMAR Y . . . . . .o o o o * * o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o * o o o o o o o * o o o o o o o o o o o * o o o o a o o17 A . Ba ck g ro u n d o o . . o . o o . o . o o . . . o . . o . o o o o o . o . . o o o . o o o o o . o . o . o . o o o . . o .17 B. Coastal Management and Land-Use Planning.o...o.o.- ...... oo 18 1. Governmental Processes Policy. ....... o-o-oo.o.oo.o. 21 2o Development Policiesoo-oooo.-ooooo.oo.o...oo.-o-oooo.o..o.o 22 3o Resource Policies...... ..... o ... .........oo ... 23 IIo INSTITUTIONAL AND RESOURCE SETTINGoo.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 25 A. Major Natural Resources and Human Activities.ooo.o.oooo .... 25 lo Physical Settingoooo.-oo o o o o o o o o - o o . . o o . o o o. . . . .o oo. o o . o o o o 25 2. Major Natural Resources and Settlement Patterns by Sectoroo 26 Bo Institutional Frameworkoo.o..... ... .... ... oo 30 1 o Pop u 1 at i o n . o o o o o o o o o o o . o o . o o o o . o o o o . o o o o . o o o o o o o o o o o : oo oo 30 2o Governmental Backgroundo.o.ooooooooo.oooooo..o.o..ooooooooo 30 3o History of Land Use and Planning on Guam.o.oooooooooooooo 33 4o Economic Overviewooo.ooo.ooooo.o..oooooo.ooooooo.oooooooooo 33 5o Industries for Growth-oo-oo...o.oo.-oooo.ooo-oooooooooooooo 34 6. Public Attitudes Concerning Land Use. .... oo.o.- ..... oo 37 7o Agency Responsibilities Affecting Coastal Resources. ... o. 39 C. Major Considerations and Alternatives ... 43 111 o PR OGRAM P OL I C I E S o o o o o . o . . o o o o o o o o o . o o o o o . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o a o o o o o o 5 1 A. Government Processes..o.-oooooo..o.oo.oooooooo.o.ooo.o.oooooo.o 52 B. Development Policies.oo.ooooo.oooo..oo.o..o..ooo.oooooo.oo.oooo 54 Co Resource Policiesoooooooo.ooo.ooooo..oo.oooo..o.o.ooo.oooo.o..o 63 I V . BOU NDAR I E S o o o . o . o . o o o o . o o o . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o * o o o o o o o o o o 0 a o o c o81 A o I n I a n d Bo un da ry o . . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . o o o o o . . o o o o . . . . o o o o o o o . . . o o . o o 8 1 B. Seaward Boundary..ooo..o.ooooo..ooooo.o.oo.ooooo.oo..oooo.ooo.. 82 Co Excluded Lands ..... ......oo 83 D. Interstate Boundaries.oooo.o.o.... ..... 84 V. USES SUBJECT TO MANAGEMENT UNDER THE GCMPoooo.oooooooooooooo.oooo 89 A o Ge ne ra I o o . o . o o o . o . . . o . . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . o . . o o . . o o o o o o89 lo Uses in Urban, Rural and Agriculture Districts Requiring Building Permits or Licenses from Territorial Agenciesoo. 89 2. Development in Conservation Districts...... ... o. 90 3o Uses Requiring Subdivisions.o. ....... oo.o.o.ooo. 91 4. Development in the Seashore Reserve.oooooooo.oo ... 91 5. Uses Subject to Air and Water Quality Statutes and Re g ul at i o n s o o . . o o o . o o o o o . o o . o . o . . . o . . . o o . o . . o o o o . o . . o o . o o9 1 10 Page 6. Uses in Areas of Particular Concern ......................... 91 7. Uses Involving the Taking of Fish and Game .................. 91 8. Uses on Public Lands and Waters ............................. 92 B. Uses of Regional Benefit ........................................ 92 C. Adequate Consideration of the National Interest in Siting Facilities that are Necessary to Meet Other than Local Requirements .................................................... 92 VI. AUTHORITIES AND ORGANIZATION ..................................... 95 A. Territorial Land and Water Use Regulation and Control of Development Under the GCMP ...................................... 96 1. Executive Order 78-37; Compliance with GCMP Policies ........ 97 2. General Territorial Land-Use Regulatory Authority ........... 99 3. The Territorial Seashore Protection Act ..................... 101 4. Authority Over Land and Water Uses in Areas of Particular Concern ..................................................... 102 5. Proprietary Authority of the Territorial Government ......... 103 6. Authority for Maintenance of Air and Water Quality .......... 105 7. Authority for the Conservation of Wildlife .................. 105 8. Other Authorities ........................................... 106 B. Procedures for Resolution of Conflicts Among Competing Land and Water Uses .................................................. 106 1. Conflicts Involving Proposed Uses in Urban, Rural and Agricultural Districts that Require Building or Grading Permits or Licenses from Territorial Agencies ............... 106 2. Conflicts Involving Proposed Development in Conservation D i s t r i ct s. . . . . . .o * G o o o o o Q * o * * o a o a G a 6 o o Q o * o o o e o 8 a 8 6 * e o e * e e a * 610 7 3. Conflicts Involving Proposed Subdivisions ................. 107 4. Conflicts Involving Proposed Development in the Seashore Reserve... o ................................................. 108 5. Conflicts Involving Proposed Uses that are Subject to Territorial Air and Water Quality Statutes and Requlation ... 109 6. Conflicts Involving the Taking of Game and Fish ............. 110 7. Conflicts Involving Proposed Uses in Areas of Particular Concern ...................................... o .............. 8. Conflicts Involving Proposed Uses of Publicly-Owned Lands and Waters ................................................... ill 9. The Subdivision and Development Review Committee--A Supplemental Conflict Resolution Mechanism.. ................ ill C. Authority to Acquire Interests in Lands, Waters and Other Property When Necessary to Achieve Conformance with the GCMP .... 113 VII. AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN ......................................... 119 A. Designated Areas of Particular Concern .......................... 120 1. Flood Hazard Areas .......................................... 120 2. Wetlands ...... o.............................. o .............. 121 Page B. Potential Areas of Particular Concern Identified in the Land-Use Element of the Comprehensive Development Plan ... o.. 127 1. Unique Terrestrial Ecosystems ........................... 127 2. Unique Marine Ecological Communities .................... 130 3. Freshwater Resources .................................... 130 4. Industrial and Commercial Support .... o .................. 133 5. Mineral Depositsoooooooooooooooo.o.oo.oooooo.oooo..ooooo 137 6. Shoreline Development Areas.oo.o ......... oo.ooooo.o.o.o. 139 7o Airport Accident Potential and Sound Zoneso.oooooo.oooo. 141 8o Slide and Erosion Zonesooooo.o.ooo..o ..... oo..oooo.ooooo 141 9o Seismic Fault Zoneso..o.ooo.ooooooooooooooo.oooooooo.ooo 147 VIIIo ADDITIONAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS.oooooooooooo.oo ..... ooo...o.oo. 151 Ao Energy Facility Planning Process..oo.oo .... ooooooooooo.ooooo 151 Bo Shoreline Access and Protection Planningo..o.ooooo.ooo.ooooo - 155 Co Shoreline Erosion and Mitigation Planning.ooooo ... o..o.o.o.. 161 IXo FEDERAL CONSISTENCYoooo..ooo..o..ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 167 Xo CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION.o.oooooooooooooooocoooooooooooooo 181 Ao A Summary of Consultation Effortso.ooooo..oooo...ooooooooooo 181 Bo The GCMP Advisory Committeeo.ooo..oooooo.o...oo..o.o.ooooo.. 183 Co A Summary of Public Participation and Informationoooooooo ... 184 Do GCMP Public Meetingsoooo.oooo.ooo ... ooo.oo ... oooooooo.ooo.oo 186 Eo 306 Program Public Hearingso ...... o.oo.ooooo.ooo.ooooo ... oo. 188 F. Wetlands and Flood Haxard Areas Rules and Regulations P u b I i c He a ri n g o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . o o o o . o o o o o o o o o o o . o o o o o . . o o o .19 1 Go Mechanisms for Continued Consultation. ... o.ooo..oooooooo.. 191 H. Federal Coordinationooo.o.ooooooooo ..... oo ....... ooo.o.ooo.o 191 lo Summary of Federal Agency Comments on January 1,, 1978, Re v i ew Dra ft . o o o o o o o . o o o o o o o o o o . o o o o o . o o o o o o o o o o o o o . o . . o o . . o 19 3 Jo Summary of Comments and Responses on March, 1979 P/DEIS..oo. 195 X I o FU TUR E I S SUE S . . o . o . o . o . o o o o o o . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 2 0 5 Ao Agana Bay Urban Waterfront Redevelopment... oo.oo.ooo ... oo.oo 205 Bo Marine Fisheries Development and Management.oo.o.oooooo.o.o. 205 Co Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) Electric Power Genooo 206 Do Sole Source Aquifier Capacity..oo.o..o..o.o.o.oo.o.ooooooooo 206 Eo Federal Lands Acquisitionoooo.oooo.oo.o..o.o.ooo.ooooooo.o.o 207 F. Municipal Level Governrnentooo.ooo.ooooo..o..o ... o..o.o.o.ooo 207 Go Coordinated Natural Resources Managementooo.oooo.oooooooo.oo 207 12 LIST OF FIGURES Number Page 1. Selection of Population Projections ........................... 31 2. Ethnic Composition of the Population .......................... 31 3. Government of Guam Organizational Chart ....................... 117 4. Priorities of Use Within Areas of Particular Concern .......... 126 5. Land-Use Compatibility Matrix for Airport Sound and Hazard Zones ........................................ ...... 144 LIST OF.TABLES 1. Guam Coastal Management Program Policies and Authorities ...... 72 2. Patterns of Federal Land Ownership ............................ 85 3. Territorial Coastal Management Program Authorities ............ 114 4. Authorities for Principal Agency Coastal Management Activities ................................................. .. 115 5. Beach Strand Inventory ................................. ... :.. 157 6. Public Meeting and Map Review Schedule ................. :...... 187 7. List of GCMP/Federal Agency Coordination Efforts .............. 196 LIST OF MAPS 1. Federal Lands..... .... 000000 .... *00 .............. ...... 86 2. Submerged Lands Jurisdiction .................................. 87 3. Flood Hazard Areas ............................................ 124 4. Wetlands ...................................................... 125 5. Unique Terrestrial Communities .................... 6600.0-4-0 128 6. Unique Marine Ecosystems ...................................... 131 7. Freshwater Resource Areas ..................................... 132 8. Industrial and Commercial Support Areas ....................... 134 9. Relationship of Heavy Industrial Land Use in the Apra Harbor Area .............................................. 136 10. Distribution of Natural Materials for Aggregate ............... 138 11. Urban Waterfront Areas ........................................ 140 12. War in the Pacific National Historical Park ................... 142 13. AICUZ--NAS Agana .............................................. 143 14. AICUZ--AAFB ................................................... 145 15. Slide and Erosion Zones ....................................... 146 16. Seismic Fault Map ............................................. 149 13 GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS FOUND IN TEXT AAFB Andersen Air Force Base AICUZ Air Installations Compatible Use Zone APC Area(s) of Particular Concern BP, BOP Bureau of Planning CPC Central Planning Council CZM Coastal Zone Management CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended CDP Comprehensive Development Plan CEIP Coastal Energy Impact Program CHP Comprehensive Highway Plan COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DAg Department of Agriculture DLM Department of Land Management DPR Department of Parks and Recreation DPW Department-of Public Works EDA UoS. Economic Development Administration EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement GCMP Guam Coastal Management Program GEO Guam Energy Office GEPA Guam Environmental Protection Agency GORCO Guam Oil and Refining Corporation 14 GHURA Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority GOVGUAM Government of Guam GVB Guam Visitors Bureau HCRS Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development MARINE LAB University of Guam Marine Laboratory NAS Naval Air Station NCS Naval Communications Station NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration OCZM Office of Coastal Zone Management PUD Planned Unit Development PUAG Public Utilities Agency of Guam SDRC Subdivision and Development Review Committee TPC Territorial Planning Commission TSPC Territorial Seashore Protection Commission UOG University of Guam WRRC Water Resources Research Center 3059 306 Refers to Sections 305 and 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce. 305 - Planning and Development Phase 306 - Implmentation Phase Guam is presently under a 305 grant and is attempting through submittal of this document to quality for 306 funding.- 15 201, 208 Refers to Sections 201 and 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. 201 - Construction of Municipal Sewage Treatment Plants 208 - Water Quality Management Plan 17 CHAPTER I. SUMMARY A. Background In passing the Coastal Zone Management Act (16 U.S.Co 1451-1464) of 1972, the UoS. Congress declared in Section 303 of the Act that it is our Nation's policy: "(a) to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone for this and succeeding generations, "(b) to encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone giving full consideration to ecological, cul- tural, historic, and esthetic values as well as to needs for economic development. "(c) for all Federal agencies engaged in programs affecting the coastal zone to cooperate and participate with state and local government and regional agencies in effectuating the purposes of this title, and "(d) to encourage the participation of the public, of Federal, state, and local governments and or regional agencies in the development of coastal zone management programs. With respect to implementation of such management programs, it is the national policy to encourage cooperation among the various state and regional agencies including establishment of interstate and regional agreements, cooperative procedures, and joint action particularly regarding environmental problems." A major conclusion of the Federal Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources, whose report Our Nation and the Sea prompted passage of the CZM Act, was that: "the primary problem in the coastal zone was a management problem with all the attendant problems that proper management implies. It is true that the Federal, State, and local governments share the responsibility to develop and manage the coastal zone. In reviewing the situation, we concluded that effective management to date has been thwarted by the variety of Government jurisdictions involved at all levels of Government, the low priority afforded 18 to marine matters by State governments, the diffusion of responsi- bility among State agencies and the failure of State agencies to develop and implement long-range plans." Recognizing the critical nature of these coastal management problems and the urgency of implementing the above policies, Congress made available, through the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), Federal funds for preparation and implementation of individual State coastal zone management programs. Rules and regulations promulgated by the CZM Act's administering agency, the Federal Office of Coastal Zone management within the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, outline specific requirements for development and approval of such management programs. Under Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act, States are.allowed up to four years for development of their respective management programs. Upon completing development and achieving Federal approval of the coastal programs, States become eligible for further funding under Section 306 of the Act for actual program implementation. This document, outlining Guam's Coastal Management Program (GCMP) in accordance with Federal CZM Program Approval Regulations (15 CFR Part 923), is submitted with the intent of achieving Section 306 funding approval by August 1, 1979. B. Coastal Management and Land-Use Plannning One of the most significant aspects of the GCMP, distinguishing it from most of the thirty-four (34) other such State or territorial programs, is its broad scope. The CZMA and accompanying regulations provide for the designation by the State or Territory of the inland boundaries of the coastal lands to be managed under the auspices of the coastal program. Rather than designating a distinct "Coastal Zone," through delineation of an inland boundary by distance (e.g., 1,000 yards in California) or by geographical features (to the crest of the coastal mountain range in Oregon), the entire island, including the surrounding sea out to 3 miles, was included under jurisdiction of the Guam Coastal Management Program. The rationale behind this program planning decision is detailed in Chapter IV of this document. The word "zone" is deleted in referring to Guam's Coastal Management Program, avoiding suggestion of its applic- ability to a narrower shoreline strip or fringe area. Because the entire island has been designated a "coastal zone"-in the context of the CZM Act, the GCMP applies islandwide. Therefore, all the Territory's land and sea areas and all its land-use related planning and regulatory agencies, programs and laws fall within the concern of this 19 program. The effect of this program on Federally owned lands, which constitute almost one-third of the island's land area, and on activities occurring on Federal lands is discussed later within the Federal consistency chapter. Subsequent to institution of the GCMP, the Twelfth Guam Legislature had enacted comprehensive planning legislation (P.L. 12-200), the ob- jectives of which were similar to those of the GCMP. Since both the comprehensive planning efforts and the GCMP shared similar goals and objectives, the Territory's land-use planning and Coastal Management Programs were merged. The GCMP has thus attempted to address the require- ments and objectives established both under the local planning legislation and the CZMA. Objectives achieved by the GCMP as outlined under the local planning legislation are: (a) To determine the extent that our natural resources limit urban and rural development. (b) To plan for the preservation of the natural charm and character of Guam within the framework of a growing population and modern technology. (c) To establish generalized areas of use within an urban, rural, agriculture, conservation, and resort context. (d) To provide a development pattern that enhances the comfort, convenience and economic welfare of the individual. (e) To prepare land capability criteria as a basis for real property evaluation that tends to equalize the divergent qualities of location. (f) To reappraise the total land te nure of the territory and provide guidelines for relocation of inefficient or inappropriate major uses. (g) To plan for the development and extension of the infrastructure and transportation facilities. (h) To plan for a high quality environment essentially free from pollution and with adequate and well-kept open space throughout our varying activity centers. (i) To prepare criteria of substandard neighborhoods and identify areas that meet criteria levels. 20 (j) To recommend creative legislation regulating our use of land for the protection of future generations. In addition, recognizing the CZMA's emphasis on improved management of coastal resources, the GCMP has sought, and will continue to pursue, the following objectives: (a) more effective administration of natural resource related laws, programs, and policies through: o revision of unclear and outdated laws and regulations, o improved coordination among local agencies, o improved coordination between territorial and Federal agencies, o educational and training programs for local government personnel, and refinement of supporting technical data. (b) more effective enforcement of natural resource related laws, programs and policies through: o increasing the capability of the Attorney General to respond to and prosecute reported violations o improving 1) the inspection staff level within agencies with enforcement responsiblilities and 2) such staff's coordination with the Attorney General's Office. (c) increased public awareness of the values and responsibilities assoc- iated with coastal resource development and protection (d) implementation of a management program that o encourages the prudent development of the Terri tory's economy o recognizes the competing pressures placed on its limited resources o is sensitive to the unique cultural, historical, and social aspects of the Territory, and o is responsive to the national interest in coastal resource management while recognizing Guam's unique political and geographical situation. Because approval of the GCMP, and in turn, continuation and implementa- tion of the island's land-use planning program, are contingent upon satisfying requirements under the CZMA, effort has been directed at meeting both the local and Federal program needs. Both P.L. 12-200 and the CZMA set out specific items to be addressed in development of the respective programs. 21 While the CZM Approval Regulations outline these items in more detail and are addressed in this document, P.L. 12-200's requirements relative to land-use management are enumerated in that section of the act mandating development of a land use plan (Section 6202(a), GCG). The land-use element of the Comprehensive Development Plan, prepared by the Coastal Management Program wir7tin the Bureau of Plain-n-17-ng and now awaiting legislative approval accomplishes the following as required under P.L. 12-200: "designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, agriculture, recreation, education, public buildings and grounds, conservation, and other categories of public and private uses of land, which include islands, reef and lagoon areas and the sea within the territorial waters and also includes a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity for the various districts and other areas covered by the plan, and regulatory devices governing the use, development and subdivision of land." The Land-Use Plan Guam: 1977-2000 and the Community Design Plans, developed pursuant to Public Law 12-200, address the above areas as well as provide the basis for the GCMP-. The Land-Use District Guidelines, Wetlands and Flood Hazard Area Regulations and additional authorities outlined in Table 1, fulfill the GCMP objectives and CZMA requirements. It was considered important that certain basic policies embodied in the Land-Use Plan and the Comprehensive Development Plan be given immediate binding effec herefore, on November 15, 1978, Executive Order 78-37 was issued by the Governor directing that the following GCMP policies be implemented by all local government agencies and instrumentalities of the Territorial government: 1. Governmental Processes Policy More effective administration of natural resource related laws, programs, and policies shall be achieved through: 0 revision of unclear and outdated laws and regulations, 0 improved coordination among local agencies, 0 improved coordination between territorial and Federal agencies, 0 educational and training programs for local government personnel, and refinement of supporting technical data. 22 2. Development Policies (a) Shore Area Development Only those uses shall be located within the Seashore Reserve which: (1) enhance, are compatible with or do not generally detract from the surrounding coastal area's aesthetic and environmental quality and beach accessibility; or (2) can demonstrate dependence on such a location and the lack of feasible alternative sites. (b) Urban Development Uses permitted only within commercial, multi-family, industrial, and resort-hotel zones; and uses requiring high levels of support facilities shall be concentrated within urban districts as outlined on the Land-Use Districting Map. (c) Rural Development Rural districts shall be designated in which only low-density residential and agricultural uses will be acceptable. Minimum lot size for these uses should be one-half acre until adequate infrastructure, including functional sewering, is provided. (d) Major Facility Siting In evaluating the consistency of proposed major facilities with the goals, policies, and standards of the Comprehensive Development and Coastal Management Plans, the Territory shall recognize the national interest in the siting of such facilities including those associated with electric power production and transmission, petroleum refining and transmission, port and air installations, solid waste disposal, sewage treatment, and major reservoir sites. (e) Hazardous Areas Identified hazardous lands including floodplains, erosion-prone areas, air installation crash and sound zones and major fault lines shall be developed only to the extent that such development does not pose unreasonable risks to the health, safety, or welfare of the people of Guam, and complies with land-use regulations. 23 (f) Housing The Government shall encourage efficient design of residential areas, restrict such development in areas highly susceptible to natural and manmade hazards, and recognize the limitations of the island's resources to support historical patterns of residential development. (9) Transportation The Territory shall develop an efficient and safe transportation system while limiting adverse environmental impacts on primary aquifers, beaches, estuaries, and other coastal resources. (h) Erosion and Siltation Development shall be limited in areas of 15% or greater slope by requiring strict compliance with erosion, sedimentation, and land- use district guidelines, as well as other related land-use standards for such areas. 3. Resource Policies (a) Conservation of Natural Resources - Overall Policy The value of Guam's natural resources as recreational areas, critical marine and wildlife habitats, the major source of drinking water, and the foundation of the island's econowy, shall be protected through policies and programs affecting such resources. (b) Air Quality All activities and uses shall comply with all local air pollution regulations and all appropriate Federal air quality standards in order to ensure the maintenance of Guam's relatively high air quality. (c) Water Quality Safe drinking water shall be assured and aquatic recreation sites shall be protected through the regulation of uses and discharges that pose a pollution threat to Guam's waters, particularly in estuarine, reef and aquifer areas. (d) Fragile Areas Development in the following types of fragile areas shall be regu- lated to protect their unique character: historic and archaeologic 24 sites, wildlife habitats, pristine marine and terrestrial communities, limestone forests, and mangrove stands and wetlands. (e) Living Marine Resources All living resources within the territorial waters of Guam, particularly corals and fish, shall be protected from overharvesting and, in the case of marine mammals, from any taking whatsoever. (f) Visual Quality Preservation and enhancement of, and respect for the island's scenic resources shall be encouraged through increased enforcement of and compliance with sign, litter, zoning, subdivision, building and related land-use laws; visually objectionable uses shall be located to the maximum extent practicable, so as not to degrade signficantly views from scenic overlooks, highways, and trails. (g) Recreational Areas The Government of Guam shall encourage development of varied types of recreation facilities located and maintained so as to be compatible with the surrounding environment and land uses; adequately serve community centers and urban areas, and protect beaches and such passive recreational areas as wildlife and marine conservation areas, scenic overlooks, parks, and historic sites. (h) Public Access The public's right of unrestricted access shall be ensured to all non-Federally owned beach areas and all Territorial recreation areas, parks, scenic overlooks, designated conservation areas and other public lands; and agreements shall be encouraged with the owners of private and Federal property for the provision of reasonable access to, and use of, resources of public nature located on such land. (i) Agricultural Lands Critical agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for agricultural use. Full implementation of these policies, through compliance with and utilization of the above plans and regulations and additional authorities outlined in Table 1 will result in a comprehensive management program for Guam's Coastal and other natural resources. Because of Guam's limited natural resources, and its dependence on them for both subsistence and major portions of its economy (tourism), wise resource management is essential. On a relatively small island, there is little room for error. The island's size demands a comprehensive and thorough management program. 25 CHAPTER II. INSTITUTIONAL AND RESOURCE SETTING A. MAJOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN ACTIVITIES The purpose of this section is to briefly describe the unique physical setting and major natural resources of Guam including general human settlement patterns. 1. PHYSICAL SETTING General Guam is the southernmost and largest island in the Marianas Chain, an archipelago in the Southwest Pacific. It lies 13 degrees 28'29"N and 144 degrees 44'55"E at Agana, the capital city on the central, western coast. The island is approximately 30 miles in length with a northern width of 8 112 miles and a maximum southern width of 11 1/2 miles. Northern and southern land areas taper at the central waist to a width of 4 miles. Excluding reef areas, the land area is 212 square miles or 550 square kilometers. The axis of the island is in a northeast- southeast direction. Guam is generally classified as a high island with 12 small islands along the reef. The largest offshore island is Cocos Island., a raised portion of.the barrier reef encircling an atoll-like lagoon. Climate Generally, the climate on Guam is warm and humid regardless of the time of year. The relative humidity commonly exceeds 84% at night, all year long, and the average humidity is at least 66% every month. The daytime temperatures are commonly between 83 and 88 degrees with night temperatures falling to the midseventies during the coolest part of the evening. The two distinct climatic seasons on Guam are the wet and dry season. The dry season is generally from January to May and the wet season from July to November. December and June are considered transitional months. The mean annual rainfall ranges from approximately 8011 along the coast to 95" for the higher mountainous areas; 20-24% falls in the dry season and 63-66% in the wet season. Guam periodically experiences major storms or typhoons, with winds greater than 65 knots. The likelihood of typhoons is greatest during July through September; however, they may occur during any month. On May 12, 1976, for example, Typhoon Pamela devestated the island with recorded sustained winds of 115 mph and recorded gusts to 159 mph. 26 Seismic Conditions Located 80 miles northwest of the Marianas Trench, Guam is subject to earthquakes and seismic sea waves at presently unpredictable frequency and intensity. Devastating sea waves have been absent during recorded history. Numerous earthquakes and tremors have occurred with the most damaging quake being recorded in 1902. Guam is structurally divided into six blocks by seismic fault zones that are defined by distinct divisions in the land surface. 2. MAJOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS BY SECTION Northern Guam The northern section of Guam is geologically characterized by. a raised limestone plateau with a maximum elevation of 500 feet which gently slopes downward in a southwestern trend to less than 100 feet in the central mid-section of the island. The northern limestone is composed of the consolidated remains of reef coral and sediments. The northern limestone terraces and cliffs represent an ancient barrier reef, with the inland limestone terrain comprised of the sedimentary remains of the lagoon sediments. The coastal limestone is extremely permeable; thus rainfall quickly soaks into the ground and recharges three main aquifer areas. A lens of fresh water floats upon salt water and provides the bulk of the island's freshwater supply. A very thin soil layer covers most of the northern limestone and hosts forest vegetation known as the limestone forest. The limestone forest is comprised of medium-size trees that form a canopy for understory shrubs, herbs, epiphytes, and lianas. Many of the plants grow from bare limestone. Many of the areas of limestone forest have been cleared by wartime efforts and postwar urban and military developments. The remaining areas are concentrated along coastal slopes and represent the critical habitat for many of Guam's endangered plants and animals. The northern limestone plateau is interrupted by volcanic up- thrusts at Barrigada Hill and Mt. Santa Rosa. The volcanic basalt is exposed at Mt. Santa Rosa and has resulted in the buildup of lateritic clay soil along an adjacent inland area. This region represents the only major sector of agriculturally developable land in the northern half of the island. Because of the relative flatness of the terrain, readily available water, extensive limestone deposits, superb beaches, and existence of major infrastructure developed during the war, northern Guam is the focal point for the location of population, manufacturing and light industry, 27 mineral extraction, and tourist industry. Over 45% of the island's population, as well as the vast majority of public institutions, manu- facturing enterprises and resort-hotel facilities are concentrated in this sector. Major Federal facilities include the Naval Air Station (Guam International Air Terminal), Andersen Air Force Base, Naval Communication Station, Federal Aviation Administration, and Naval Magazine. Central Guam Geologically, the central waist of Guam, from Agana Bay to Pago Bay, represents a transitional zone between the northern limestone and southern volcanic formations. The limestone in this area is argilla- ceous or yellowish in color from the volcanic sediments that mixed with the white reef coral during the later development of the northern reef adjacent to the older southern volcanics. The relief features are characterized by sloping hills that are intersected by low-lying basins that are periodically flooded during the wet season. They appear as grassy flats and are important for recharge of the central aquifer. The central aquifer is the smallest lens, yet least affected by saltwater intrusion. It reaches the surface at Agana Springs and disperses water over a floodplain or wetland wildlife habitat, known as Agana Swamp, which eventually flows into Agana Bay via Agana River--the northernmost river on Guam. Despite the small land area, geologic characteristics and unique ecology of Central Guam, the area is the location of the major concen- tration of urban development on the island. Approximately 30% of the island's population resides in this small land area. Commercial, industrial and residential development has expanded from Agana, the major trade center and seat of both governmental and religious power structures. Southern Guam The southern portion of the island is geologically characterized by two distinct volcanic formations that developed in different geologic eras. The Alutom formation or mountainous ridge adjacent to Central Guam is the oldest formation. The highest peak is Mr. Alutom at 1,076 feet. The southern range, known as the Umatac formation, is characterized by high peaks or a coastal ridge that is steep on the seaward side and gently slopes inland toward the interior basin where the two formations merge. The highest peak is Mt. Lamlam at 1,334 feet. The rugged upland surfaces of volcanic areas are weathered. Exposed volcanic rock and con- spicuous erosion scars are present. Major land areas, however, are covered with savannah grasslands that have adapted to the dry and nutrient deficient clay soils of the upper slopes. Water quickly drains 28 from sloped surfaces and forms a surface drainage pattern that comprises the freshwater resources of Southern Guam. A relatively small amount of rainfall soaks into the underlying rock strata. More than 40 rivers and streams form a surface drainage pattern that dissects the volcanic regions. These rivers flow into the sea at coastal embayments where floodplains and wetlands typify the estuarine areas. A heavy growth of tropical vegetation borders the inland areas of rivers and represents a plant com- munity known as the ravine forest. Sharp divisions between the savannah grasslands and ravine forest provide particularly aesthetic contrasts in Southern Guam. The southern uplands are some of the only expanses of unspoiled terrain on Guam. Only 24% of the island's population resides in southern communities because of terrain restrictions. Village centers are most often along coastal lowlands, with a traditional lifestyle and architecture producing a sharp contrast with northern and central urban development patterns. The reliance on farming and fishing for subsistence is more persistent in the south. Topographic, geologic, and ecological conditions have caused the deposition of fertile soil into southern interior basins. Large tracts of prime agricultural lands lie between the southern communities of Inarajan and Talofofo. Other portions of the interior basins, where the two major volcanic formations meet, however, are characterized by eroded reef coral that forms a jagged Karst topography. These areas are concentrated on Federally restricted property near the Fena Reservoir, a man-made reservoir that supplies 10% of the island's water consumption. Shoreline Features Being a small island with human settlement concentrated along coastal areas, the dynamic features and processes that occur at the shoreline or ocean-land interface are among the most important natural resources on Guam. Much of Guam is surrounded by coral reef, a diversified ecological community that is represented by different types in different locations. The northern coastline is generally characterized by an immediate reef front at the base of steep cliffs. However, as sandy beaches occur, the presence of a reef flat becomes more prevalent along central and southern shores. The reef flat is a level base of limestone that consists of the remains of ancient reef coral that has built seaward to the present offshore reef front of living coral. The reef front suppresses the force of all except the largest storm waves and contributes to the buildup of sand along the beaches. As a transition between the reef and beach, the reef flat area is sometimes exposed during low tides; however, it represents an important shelter for many small fish, shellfish, crustaceans, algae, and other forms of sea life. Two barrier reefs, which encircle lagoon areas, are represented on Guam. Cocos Island, at the southern extreme is a relatively pristine area that is important for both schools of juvenile deepwater fish and the species associated with the coral community. The existing and potential use of the area is recreational. 29 Apra Harbor, another barrier reef located along the central-west coast, still represents important underwater resources. The outward appearance, however, is vastly different from that at Cocos Island. The offshore Cabras Island and Luminao Reef have been linked and covered with surface development to form the Glass Breakwater. Apra harbor is the only deepwater port on the island. As the major port area, it serves both the military and civilian communities. Being a strategic location and situated on major trade routes, the harbor is the focal point of most sea traffic and transshipment in the Western Pacific. Industrial develop- ment in this area increases yearly to meet island-wide demands for imported supplies and energy development. Natural shoreline configuration is variously represented by rocky coastline, sandy beaches, mangrove mudflats and river estuarines. The rocky coastline comprises 62% of Guam's shoreline. It is characterized by steep, uplifted limestone terraces and cliffs with a lower bench terrace covered with a growth of marine organisms. Many cliffline areas are characterized by a waterline niche that is cut by algae, limpets, and chitons. The sandy beaches of Guam comprise a significant portion of the shoreline, 31%. They are sloping landforms@composed of unconsolidated sand, gravel, broken shell, coral, and foraminifera. They extend landward from the water's edge to a distinct break in the landform or to a point where terrestrial vegetaton covers the substrate. They extend seaward as far as the sandy bottom is appreciably affected by tide, currents, and wave movements. Mangrove mudflats are represented in only two locations on Guam. An extensive stand of mangrove species has been increasing in size along the inner shore of Apra Harbor. The other area of mangrove shoreline is along the extreme southern coastline between Merizo and Inarajan, along the inner shoreline of Cocos Lagoon. They assist in natural shoreline stabilization and represent an important ecological community. Guam's shoreline is interrupted by numerous bays, most of which are associated with estuaries or river mouths. The surrounding river valleys and immediate edge of the river are wetland communities. A diversity of aquatic plant and animal species rely on the specific environment of estuarine areas. These areas are potentially valuable for aquaculture development. Beach areas at river mouths are usually formed by a com- bination of reef material and riverine substances that originate from inland areas. Thus beaches at embayments have a higher content of soil and organic material than the white sandy beaches. 30 B. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 1. Population The changing population pattern of Guam is closely related to Guam's economic situation. These factors of population and economic conditions largely shape both the character of and resource demands placed on particular areas on Guam. Existing population data are im- precise, but are the only base upon which to make projections. These figures will continue to be revised until a sufficiently complete data base is established with which to make more definite projections. These figures will have to be revised further at the time of a census. Present data provide ranges of projections which vary significantly. Figure I summarizes several of the population projections that are available. The range of population projections is comprised of series developed by: Quinton-Budlong, a firm contracted by the Government of Guam in 1972; Professor Roy Chung, a research demographer at the University of Guam in 1970 and the Bureau@of Planning. The projections developed by the Bureau of-Planning in 1977 for land-use planning are being extensively used in related agency planning and generally considered to be the most functional, as limited information is available regarding the methodology used to develop the other series. 2. GOVERNMENTAL BACKGROUND As a major facet of the cultural change that has.occurred throughout 'Guam's varied heritage, the political setting has always been a major factor influencing the patterns of resource use. The multiple chiefdoms of the precontact Chamorro exhibited an upper class of magas ruling the lower classes of a flourishing population. After the peri-o-d of Spanish conquest, a colonial era of government found the remaining popultion and subsequent generations within the realm of a nation-state form of centralized political control. A long succession of Spanish governors dominated island residents who were treated as a peasant class of a colonial possession of the mother country. This form of government was known as the colonial encomiendero system. The major beneficiaries of resources were the holders of coloni-aT concessions (government officials) and the mother country. The major period of cultural change occurred simultaneously with the Spanish colonial domination. The United States jurisdiction over Guam formally began in 1899 as a result of the Spanish-American War. This jurisdiction was manifested in a form of government exercised by the Department of the Navy. By the Treaty of Paris, Guam became a possession and Capt. Richard Leary became the first naval governor. A succession of naval governors mandated reforms with relative autonomy, and had a firm control over the island populace. 31 260 Chung (C) 225 10 200 0 Chung (D) J 175 J. of .0 7OZ B P Land - Uce R ISO 125 R oo R, 75 so IWO 1965 1960 IWO 1970 1975 IWO 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR Figure No. 1 Selection of Population Projections JAPANESE HINESE KOREAN 0\0 CHAMORRO- "rob 010 CAUCASIAN CHAMORRO- FILIPINO CHAMORR (Guarmnion? 55.5%A CAUCASIAN 9.0% FILIPINO 19.5% Figure No. 2 Ethnic Composition of the Population 32 It was not until 1917, under Governor Smith, that democratic principles began to appear and the island's residents provided with a mechanism for a voice in governmental policy. The First Guam Congress convened on February 3, 1917, and served as an advisory body to the governor. Without the authority to enact laws, however, their influence was minimal and they disbanded in 1930. Governor Willis Bradley issued a proclamation defining who were citizens of Guam and in 1930 established the Second Guam Congress. The bicameral body of elected members passed resolutions and submitted them to the governor for adoption or rejection. The Second Guam Congress and the Naval Government remained intact until the Japanese Invasion of World War 11. From December 10, 1941, to July 21, 1944, Guam was oppressively governed first by the Japanese Arry and then by the Japanese Navy. The island was incorporated into the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere until liberated by American Forces, During the remainder of the war, Guam was governed by combined military services. On May 30, 1946, the government was returned to the control of the U. S. Navy. Following resumed governmental control by the United States, an increased desire for more political autonomy within the American system was recognized. During July, 1950, U.S. Congress passed the Organic Act of Guam. The Act, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, became the governing document for the island's citizens. The island was placed under a civilian administration comprised of a 21-member unicameral legislature and a governor appointed by the President with confirmation by the U.S. Senate. The judiciary branch was divided between the Federal District Court handling all cases under the laws of the United States and the Superior Court having jurisdiction over all cases arising under the laws of Guam. With the passage of the Organic Act, a new period of self-determination brought Guam into the economic sphere of Asia and the United States. A security ban was lifted in 1962 and foreign investment, tourism and immi- gration of a professional labor force stimulated an economic boom. Carlos G. Camacho was inaugurated as the first elected governor in January of 1971. Guam also has an elected, non-voting delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives. Guam's representative is primarily in a lobbyist position; however, he is allowed to participate in House subcommittes. Presently, the island is still seeking greater political clarity in regards to its relationship with the U.S. Government. The island remains an Unincorporated Territory under the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. The local Consitutional Convention has completed the final draft of The Constitution of Guam which is designed to supercede the out- dated Organic Act. The new document was approved by the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States and now must be approved by the people of Guam in a general referendum. 33 3. History of Land Use and Planning 66 Guam Unlike many mainland communities, where land uses have evolved at a relatively constant growth rate or have been regulated by long-standing zoning controls, the island of Guam has been beset by radical political changes and wars that have caused drastic fluctuations in land-use patterns. The Spanish administration eradicated the original village territories and WWII devastated the land-use patterns within communities established under Spanish rule. New communities formed or were restructured after WWII with design more in response to military defense needs than regard to the physical characteristics of the island. Lifting a security ban in 1962 caused rapid economic growth that overwhelmed the limited land- use controls then in effect. It has only been in little more than the last decade that concerted land-use planning and regulatory mechanisms such as those for zoning, seashore protection, and air and water quality have appeared on Guam.* The 1966 Master Plan was the pioneer effort towards much-needed compre- hensive planning, but was soon outdated. A 1972 Master Plan, which was only partially completed, identified problems, alternatives and opportunities, but was not fully implemented. Presently, the Comprehensive Development Plan is the first long-range plan with enforceable provisions and which has the benefit of a wide range of new technical reports as base data for the balanced growth of the Territory. 4. Economic Overview The Federal Government and the visitor industry play the pre- dominant roles in Guam's econoMy. Other primary activities include the construction industry; retail and wholesale trades; finance, insurance and real estate; and the service industry. Recovering from its deepest recession in 1975, construction has been stimulated by reconstruction work resulting from Typhoon Pamela of May 1976. Construction costs will increase due to scheduled construction wage increases. A high concentration of alien workers is found in this industry. Retail and wholesale trade activity is the largest industry in the private sector, both in terms of employment and gross receipts. The size of this sector is determined basically by the amount of income generated on island. A smaller portion of the economy is represented by the finance, insurance and real estate sector. Financial institutions on Guam serve both the American and alien business firms which operate in the Western Pacific Region. 34 Of growing economic importance is the service industry. The wide range of services provided include personal services, auto repair, amuse- ment and recreation, health, legal, educational, hotels and social services. The hotel and auto services constitute the two most important components of the service industry. Guam's major sources of revenue derive from income taxes and Federal grants. Revenues declined drastically during the 1975 economic recession. Austerity measures were initiated to reduce government employment and expenditures. The government is now comprised of 23 autonomous and semi-autonomous agencies. Many of these agencies have received large subsidies, draining the General Fund. The Territory's cost of living, wages and income are all rising. The increased participation of women and entrance of young adults into employment is changing the manpower resources on Guam. Major construction and expansion efforts are being undertaken by the local government to upgrade Guam's infrastructure. 5. Industries for Growth There are five sectors classified as industries for growth. The two largest sectors in terms of income generated are the Federal Government and the visitor industry. Manufacturing, agriculture and fisheries exhibit a high potential for growth. Federal Government In recent years, the Federal Government has been identified as the island's single largest source of revenue. Its presence is felt in the construction industry, residential and office space rental, retail and wholesale trades and in employment and development of manpower. A substantial portion of capital improvement projects is funded through Federal grants. These large Federal outlays are primarily attributed to the military presence on the island. An average of 82 percent of the total Federal outlay is for the Department of Defense on Guam. The Federal Government also constrains Guam's development with Federal laws that do not consider Guam's unique location. Some expansion programs for Guam's infrastructure require lands currently under control of the Federal Government, such as those found in the Apra Harbor area. The military outlets offer a wide array of goods and services and, in most cases, compete with the civilian outlets. 35 Visitor Indust The visitor industry is the largest income producer in the private sector. Guam's tourists are mostly young Japanese. Arrivals are highly seasonal, with the peak months of March and August coinciding with the traditional vacation months of Japan. The growth potential of this industry lies in Guam's proximity to Japan and strategic location in the Pacific. The island is an ideal tourist destination and business center. Guam's political stability, favorable treatment of foreign investment and oppor- tunities for expanding air routes add to the island's potential for .increasing tourism. The natural beauty of Guam's environment in addition to its unique heritage and culture create a favorable destination for visitors. The economic impact of this industry can be measured in the 3DOOO to 4,000 jobs created directly by visitor expenditures and an additional 500 to 1,000 jobs generated indirectly through these expenditures. As estimated $8-10 million in tourism related tax revenues is collected annually by the local government. Manufacturing In the 1960's, Guam's manufacturing industry produced goods mainly for local consumption. Later, this industry expanded production to include foreign markets, a watch assembly corporation, garment and textile firms, a brewery, feed mill, and an oil refinery. Guam has a number of features that are attractive for manu- facturing activities. Such desirable attributes include generous tax and financial incentives, a free port status, and no balance-of-payments constraints because of its association with the U.S. Guam products, which do not contain dutiable foreign materials exceeding 50 percent of the total value, can enter the U.S. mainland free of duty. There are also a large number of commercial banks with access to world money markets. Guam's balance of trade is on a 10-90 percent basis in favor of imports. This type of trade balance presents the best potential for manufacturing on Guam. While imports cannot be totally replaced, products that use local resources can be encouraged. One of the most dramatic changes that has occurred in this sector is the growth of transshipment and warehousing. This activity also takes advantage of Guam's strategic location. Lands within-Cabras Island, Harmon and Mongmong-Toto-Maite have been identified for concentrated industrial activity. These areas will receive the most attention for development of infrastructural support. 36 Agriculture The agriculture industry has a potential far in excess of the current level of activity. Guam's climate, though characterized by periodic typhoons, is suitable for planting year-round. In addition to field farming, hydroponic farming has proven to be successful on Guam. Large-scale field farming can be encouraged primarily in the communities of Talofofo, Inarajan-Malojloj, Marizo and Yona. Altogether, there are an estimated 10,600 acres of arable land. In recent years, there has been a revived interest in agriculture. To aid farmers, a number of programs have been instituted such as soil testing, land-use reform and equipment servicing. Agricultural credit and Federal financing are also available. Proposals for the construction of fumigation and vegetable-cannery plants have been submitted to the Economic Development Administration (EDA). A fumigation plant would insure plant protection on the island and allow for exports of local produce to Japan and other overseas markets. A vegetable-cannery Would serve as an outlet for excess agricultural production. A new public market serves as a main distribution center of all agricultural products. Livestock production includes chickens,. pigs, ducks, cattle and goats. Guam has achieved self-sufficiency in production of eggs. The construction of a slaughterhouse is being considered by the Guam Hog Producer's Association to encourage an expansion of the hog industry. Fisheries The potential for the development of a viable fisheries program on Guam lies in aquaculture production and harvesting of wildstock. Guam has an ideal climate for aquaculture with year-round warm temperatures that allow for maximum growth. Portions of Apra Harbor are protected from surf and storm damage and therefore are ideal for mariculture. Guam is now producing freshwater eels, prawns and soft-shell turtles. The local government is investigating the feasiblity of constructing a prawn hatchery to encourage expansion of the prawn industry through a consistent supply of larval stock. The waters surrounding Guam possess a variety of fish such as tuna, wahoo, mackeral, dolphin (mahimahi), grouper, snapper and marlin. Skipjack is the most abundant species of tuna but has been under-exploited in the western Pacific due to lack of advanced fishing technology. Greater harvesting of skipjack tuna will occur with the development of more effective purse-seine technology. Guam is in an excellent position to attract a fish processing industry and tuna transshipment operations. 37 The local fishing industry consists primarily of part-time com- mercial fisherman and recreational fishermen. The development of the Agana Marina and planned development of improved boating facilities in Apra Harbor, Merizo and Agat will stimulate greater activity. The Guam Fishing Cooperative is seeking provision of better cold storage facilities and more efficient marketing activity. Additionally, sport fishing is highly complimentary to the visitor industry. 6. Public Attitudes Concerning Land Use In January 1977, the Bureau of Planning's CZM Section in coordination with the HUD 701 Program and the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducted an opinion survey of local attitudes toward land-use management. Following is an extremely brief synopsis of this study, initiated to meet partially the requirements of 306(c)(1) requiring opportunity for full participation in program development. (See Appendix 2 for details.) Shoreline Development Local opinion showed: A. The majority of respondents feel residential development should be strictly limited along the shoreline. B. Tourism development should be restricted; however, northern residents accept coastal resort development more so than residents of the central and south. C. Generally, residents feel that business and industrial development should be strictly limited. D. Overall, any development not contributing to the environmental qualities of coastal areas should be strictly limited. Seashore Protection Act A. Only 7% of the respondents felt that the present 30-foot zone is adequate to protect the coast. B. Sixty-six percent felt that a much expanded Seashore Reserve was necessary. Recreation A. Present recreational facilities are inadequate. B. Public access should be guaranteed along the coastline, although this was a less positive feeling in the south than north (63% vs. 76%). 38 C. Owners of coastal property should not have the right to refuse public access. D. Public funds should be used to upgrade recreational facilities. For facilities catering to specific user groups such as boat owners, the use of public funds was not so widely supported. E. Public funds should definitely be used for cleaning up public beaches. F. Military beaches definitely should be open to the public. Regulated Fishing A. Thirty-two percent of the sample respondents had a person or persons in the immediate family who fished "regularly." B. Overall opinion was nearly evenly divided on whether or not fishing and coral collecting should be regulated; however, 58% of the respondents in the south felt that it should not be regulated versus 32% giving an affirmative response. Compensation for Losses Incurred Through Development Controls Note: This question was an oblique reference to the taking issue and land-use control, a question which has never been addressed in case law on Guam. The overwhelming response to this perhaps oversimplified question was that property owners should be compensated for loss of use of one's land. Citizen Participation A. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents had not attended a public hearing in the last year. B. Attendance is higher in the south, possibly because of the closeknit community structure and geographic size of the communities. C. Respondents generally are split evenly on the effectiveness of public hearings. D. Commissioner contact was not generally seen by respondents as reliable method of gauging a community's opinion. E. Other methods of future participation should be developed. 39 General Conclusions In summary, the survey brought out the following important points: 1. In general, coastal development should be strictly limited. 2. Along the coastline, public access should be guaranteed, although access through private property is less desired. 3. The boundary established by the Shoreline Protection Act in many cases is inadequate to protect Guam's coastline and needs to be redefined. 4. Recreational areas and facilities are (tremendously) inadequate. 5. Public taxes should be utilized to maintain and construct only those recreational facilities that cater to a large number of users and not specific user groups. 6. Subsistence fishing is not widely practiced and consequently should not be strictly regulated. 7. Property owners should be compensated for the impacts of implementing controls that affect the ability of owners to develop their property. 8. Citizen opinions should be obtained through a number of participatory mechanisms. 7. Agency Responsibilities Affecting Coastal Resources In addition to the principal agencies described in Chapter V, (Authorities and Organization), numberous Territorial agencies, boards, commissions, and committees have programs and responsibilities that affect the coastal zone. Brief descriptions of these agencies are included here. The inter-relationships among the programs administered by these agencies are summarized in Appendix 5, Relationship of Agencies Under Current Programs. A,gencies Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA) Department of Public Works (DPW) Department of Land Management (DLM) Department of Agriculture (DAg) Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Department of Public Health & Social Services (DPHSS) 40 Public Utility Agency of Guam (PUAG) Office of the Attorney General (AG) Bureau of Planning (BP) Boards, Commissions, Committees Territorial Planning Commission (TPC) Territorial Seashore Protection Commission (TSPC) Central Planning Council (CPC) Subdivision Development Review Committee (SDRC) Agencies whose activities affect land and water use, but not as a primary function are: Guam Port Authority Guam Power Authority (GPA) Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority (GHURA) Department of Commerce (OC) Guam Economic Development Authority (GEDA) Additional, more detailed information on Territorial agency authorities and enabling legislation is provided in the Appendices. GEPA The Guam Environmental Protection Agency administers management activities and studies and enforces all laws and regulations pertaining to the Safe Drinking Water Program, Community Wastewater Program, Individual Wastewater Program, Air Quality Program, Solid Waste Program, Pesticides Program, Areawide Wastewater Management Planning (208), Environmental Impact Program and Water Quality Monitoring Program. A GEPA member sits on the Subdivision Development Review Committee (SDRC). GEPA coordinates comments on Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) concerning proposed Federal projects. DPW The Department of Public Works administers and enforces the Building Law, including requirements for building permits, clearing and grading permits, issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, sign permits, construction-in-street permits, foundation permits, and permits for change of occupancy requiring greater sanitary provisions. DPW also is charged with the planning construction and maintenance of Guam's roads and highways, and comments on EIA's and EIS's. DPW is a member of SDRC. DLM The Department of Land Management administers and manages activities on submerged lands, controls all public (GovGuam) lands, records, and maintains all land records, plans and develops GovGuam subdivisions, 41 administers the official zoning maps, comments on EIS's, and serves as staff to the Territorial Planning Commission in its reviews of applicable zoning code provisions as discussed in functions of the TPC. The Territorial Planner at DLM serves as the Chairman of the SDRC. DAg The Department of Agriculture administers Agricultural Land Leases and returns such Government of Guam land to DLM if it is not being used productively. The Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources within the DAg administers, manages, and enforces the Fish and Game Law; engages in fisheries research and development, as well as providing technical assistance in this field; and regulates trochus shell harvesting and coral harvesting through regulations and permits. The Division of Forestry and Soil Resources regulates the cutting of trees on public lands and provides these lands with as much protection as possible. DPR The Department of Parks and Recreation administers the management and protection of historic objects and sites and maintains the Guam Register of Historic Places. The department also administers the National Register of Historic Places Program for Guam. DPR administers and maintains public parks and beaches and plans for future expansion and for acquisition of parks for both local and Federal programs. DPR is a member of SDRC and reviews EIS's. DPHSS The Department of Public Health and Social Services enforces environ- mental health standards, issues health permits and health certificates, signs off on building permit applications involving food handling and certifies families for "underprivileged" status for wastewater hookup grants. PUAG The Public Utility Agency administers the provision and maintenance of water and sewer facilities. PUAG also authorizes water and hydrant facilities for qualifying subdivisions and authorizes grants and loans for connection to existing sewers or construction of septic tank facilities. PUAG occasionally comments on EIS's relevant to water supply or sewer infrastructure. AG The Office of the Attorney General is ultimately responsible for legal action taken against alleged offenders of land; water; or air- related laws, as well as other civil and criminal violations. The Attorney General provides opinions on code interpretation and legal advice on the commission and agency activities. 42 BP The Bureau of Planning is vested with responsibility for Guam's comprehensive planning process for both physical and socioeconomic planning. The Bureau is the designated recipient agency for Federal funds disbursed under the CZM program. The Director of Planning serves as the chairman of the Central Planning Council, and serves on other executive level policy committees. The Bureau of Planning comments on all environnmental impact assessments and EIS's for Federal projects, legislation having to do with the land, air or water use, and is a member of the SDRC. Boards, Commisions, Committees SDRC The Subdivision and Development Review Committee chaired by DLM's Chief Planner, and including representatives from DLM, DPW, GEPA, DPR, and BP is responsible for review of all subdivision development projects, zone changes, variances, agricultural subdivisions, and PUD's prior to review by the Territorial Planning Commission. TSPC The Territorial Seashore Protection Commission is responsible for the review, approval, and permit issuance of all development within the Seashore Reserve. Its membership is identical to that of the TPC. TPC Territorial Planning Commission is the primary land use management agency. It administers the land use districting system, the zoning and subdivision laws, the sign law, the building law and related activities, statutes, and regulations. The TPC is composed of seven members, appointed by the Governor from the private sector, with the advice and consent of the Legi s 1 at ure. CPC The Central Planning Council acts as an advisory reviewing, and coordinating body to ensure that current planning programs are consistent with the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP). CPC must review and approve all CDP elements prior to transmittal to the Legislature and Governor for approval. Agencies Secondarily Involved with Land, Air, and,Water Use Port Authority_of Guam The Port Authority of Guam oversees the operations of the commercial port and is involved in planning for economic development and optimal land use within the Apra Harbor area. 43 Guam Power Autho'ritv The Guam Power Authority oversees the production and distribution elements of the island's power system including preparation of studies and plans for improvement of existing facilities and construction of new facilities. GHURA The Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority administers programs relative to housing and urban renewal. Urban Renewal Programs (Sinajana and Yona, completed; Asan, underway) have had a major impact upon residential and related commercial land use. DOC The Department of Commerce is responsible for the Government's activities supporting agricultural, commercial, and industrial develop- ment, preparation of economic analyses, and generally coordinating economic development activities on the island. Priorities for future economic development (tourism, light industry, port development, fishing, and agriculture) affect certain land-use priorities. GEDA Guam Economic Development Authority works in the context of economic priorities developed by DOC to attempt to attract financing and capital, make loans, coordinate growth and act as a catalyst between investors and entrepreneurs. C. Major Considerations and Alternatives Federal Regulations (15 CFR Section 923.71) suggest discussion of "some of the major alternatives that led to particular management approaches" while Section 923.62 states that the discussion of alternatives "should be limited to the major or controversial alternatives that have been seriously considered and reviewed at some length by the [Territory]." 44 Considerations Prior to formulation of alternatives, a number of "considerations" arose at the outset of the 305 program in October of 1976: 1. Adequacy of the original grant application program design to address the unique administrative and resource management problems on Guam. 2. Data availability and accuracy upon which an effective management program could be based. 3. Design of a program to operate effectively within a framework of numerous other local (GovGuam) resource planning and regulation activities without significant overlap. 4. Public Law 12-200, which established a process for development of a Comprehensive Development Plan including land use, community design, recreation, conservation, and historic preservation elements. 5. Adequacy of existing zoning, seashore protection and other resource management mechanisms. 6. The need for more than 'site specific' designation for identified areas of particular concern. 7. The size of the island and lands under direct Federal agency control relative to uses subject to the management program. 8. High frequency of natural disasters. 9. Persistent and pervasive economic difficulties faced by the island. 10. Island-wide emphasis of governmental goals for development planning. Program Direction The two obvious CZM program directions.possible after analysis of major considerations were emphasis upon: 1. A management program restricted to a limited coastal zone; or 2. An integrated and comprehensive program encompassing all aspects of land and water-use management island-wide. 45 Development of a redesigned work program and coordination with OCZM through consultant Ralph Field, including a directive from OCZM to I among other things, "relate all of the work tasks to the particular needs and constraints of the island of Guam" (OCZM memo February 24, 1976), indicated that a comprehensive, island-wide approach would best serve Guam by strengthening the management of all resources. Alternatives Under Island-Wide CZM Boundaries Considerations Zoning The existing Zoning Law (Sections 17103-17109, GCG) under the jurisdiction of the Territorial Planning Commission (TPC), the Department of Land Management (DLM) and the Department of Public Works (DPW) provides for the following types of zones: R-1 - Single family residential and related uses; R-2 - Multi-family residential and related uses: C -Commercial wholesale, retail, professional and personal services, restaurants, service stations and related uses. A -Rural zone - one family dwellings, extractive and general (agricultural subdivisions, however, permit unimproved lots of 5000 sq. ft. to be created) and a wide range of recrea- tional use. M-1 - Light industrial zone - manufacturing, fabrication and uses not objectionable, obnoxious or offensive in nature, and related uses. M-2 - Heavy industrial - all uses except residential (a conditional use), including junk yards and any uses not specifically prohibited by law. H -Resort-hotel zone and related uses. Administration of the zoning law alone does not adequately provide for protection for a wide range of sensitive lands, nor is interpretation or enforcement carried out in a comprehensive or consistent manner. The mechanism itself, however, is adequate, and closely resembles zoning procedures elsewhere. It is the administration of the mechanism, clarity of code provisions, and agency coordinative difficulties which have resulted in many cases of seemingly inappropriate development to date. 46 The Seashore Protection Act and Territorial Beach Areas Act Prior to May 1976, the Seashore Protection Act (P.L. 12-108, GCG Chapter V-A, Sections 13410-13420) and the Territorial Beach Act (P.L. 12-19, GCG Chapter V, Sections 13453-60) provided falrly adequate protection for the seashore insofar as encroaching development was concerned. P.L. 12-19 provided for Territorial Recreation Areas, vesting public rights to the ocean shore 25' inland from the 2' contour, while the Seashore Pro- tection Act required a special permit for all development taking place within 100 meters of the shoreline. Reconstruction legislation following typhoon Pamela, however, reduced the areas under the SPA from 100 to 10 meters. This action illustrated the need for incorporation of the CZM program into the overall fabric of land and water use management. Options_Under the Island-Wide Approach The principal assumption behind an island-wide approach is a simple one: incorporation of shoreline protection and coastal resources manage- ment into the overall land use planning mechanism is preferable, for comprehensiveness and ease of management, to the development of two distinct management programs. Five island-wide management approaches were identified: 1. Update the 1966 master plan with inclusion of a CZM element T havino a I I ic addressing WcH_Tv@ities rect and @ant impact upon coastal waters, and other requirements of the CZMA. Discussion Although a coastal management element probably could have been designed that would have addressed the requirements of the CZMA, the overriding concern was that such a management program could significantly conflict with an updated 1966 master plan. Updating the plan was considered infeasible for the following reasons: o The abnormally high growth rate in the five-year period (1968-1973) following the plan's completion resulted in pressures for development and immigration, etc., in excess of the plan's scope, creating immediate and significant changes in basic assumptions. 0 Inadequate funding in the area of land.management for such things as updated and comprehensive legal recording of land parcel boundaries, updated ownership maps, and acquisition of current zoning information (delineation of zone changes, conditional uses, planned unit developments) has prevented, in many cases, accurate assessment of facts having a bearing upon procedures for updating the plan. 47 0 Additional modifications of the plan through approval of marginally acceptable development have established a pattern growth inconsistent with the intent of the master plan. Updating a plan already weakened by severe modifications was not considered a viable approach. 2. Institute.an island-wide zoning system similar to the 1966 master plan, but emphasize more sReci ic zoning regulation for the "Fa-tch-all" A griculture) zone and develoe more specific management programs for areas of particular concern,_priorities of uses and other aspects of the CZM 2rogram. Discussion The concept of land-use districting, as mandated by P.L. 12-200, the proposed constitution and conservation-oriented elements of the coastal management program, would not be compatible with more specific Agriculture zone regulations since agriculture subdivision practices, as well as loosely controlled zone changes and variances, could still alter with relative ease the uses allowed within a given zone. This approach, therefore, would not provide the desired degree of protection for special management areas. 3. Institute an island-wide zoning system together with an urban, rural, agriculture, conservation land-use districting system and elements with the coastal management program. Discussion This approach could be a viable one except that zoning changes could too easily compromise the protection afforded by a conservation district, regardless of the specificity of the conservation district regulations. These considerations and those in Option 2, above, suggest the need for establishment of an unzoned conservation district with special additional attention being given to sensitive or areas expected to bear the brunt of intensive development. Such an approach would insulate these sensitive areas from zoning, and more importantly, from zoning variances. 4. Institute a "no zone" approach within the context of a land-use districting system w-iFF-Me-c-oastal management pr gram emphasizing s ecial attention for sensitive areas as well as managin uses having impacts upon coastal waters. Discussion Suggested during hearings on proposed land-use legislation, this approach did not appear workable. Even if it is assumed that the coastal management program, together with existing regulatory mechanisms, would require an extremely detailed set of performance standards concerning all 48 possible types of development, imposition of such stringent standards could produce a sizeable disincentive for needed commercial and industrial activity. Development of such performance standards, let alone enforce- ment, was judged to exceed the capabilities of the government of Guam at the present time. 5. Institute a 21annin2 process addressing more specifically those articular island-wide problems and issues not addressed by tFe- provisions of P.L. IZ-ZUU and utIlizin , for the 'most part, existing control mechanisms. Discussion This management approach, the approach selected for the GCMP, is based on existing control mechanisms, and certain additional functions to be carried out under Executive Orders and TPC Rules and Regulations for land-use districts, protection of wetlands and flood hazard area, management. Such an approach could simultaneously address comprehensive land-use planning requirements under P.L. 12-200 and the proposed Guam Constitution; and coastal management program planning elements required under the CZM Act. This is demonstrated by the inclusion of the Coastal Management Program's land-use policies, outlined in Executive Order 76-37, within the Land-Use Plan and Comprehensive Development Plan. The,CZM program could best serve the interests of Guam by integrating its objectives with those of P.L. 12-200 and ongoing management efforts within other agencies. Planning staff determined that the coastal management program should provide for: o General data development for all resource planni-ng areas; o Public participation and involvement; o Resolution of regulatory procedural problems; o Federal agency coordination and consistency; o Designation of areas of particular concern and priority of uses within those areas; and, o Specific technical investigation of resources and management programs for those resources. The local land-use planning effort, mandated by P.L. 12-200 would focus upon: o Land-use districting; o Coordination among local agencies; 49 0 Population and economic growth data; o Mapping development; o Community design master planning. While performing functions under several programs and authorities, the Bureau of Planning, as the designated State agency for CZM, can achieve by this coordinated approach: 1. a complete Comprehensive Development Plan., including land-use and community design elemants; 2. a sufficient strengthening of local agency procedures, laws, coordination and data base to adequately deal with the increasing complexity of planning and management programs; 3. more effective participation of public interest groups; 4. adequate consideration of Federal agency interests; and, 5. a completed coastal management program totally integrated with, and complimentary to, Territorial planning efforts. Alternative to Island-Wide Boundary Designation It has been observed that designation of a narrower "Coastal Management Program" boundary may satisfy the minimum standards of the CZMA for an approvable coastal program. Generally, this would involve: .1. Legislative approval of an expanded seashore reserve boundary; 2o Re-definition of those areas of particular concern within the boundary for which Federal funding under 306 could be used; 3. Reassessment of uses subject to the management program under a limited boundary; and, 4. Continuation of governmental processes, policies, coordination, participation, training, Federal consistency and those other activities as defined in the present program, that are not specifically tied to locational resource and development issues and problems. It was the opinion of the Guam CZM program staff and OCZM personnel, however, that this approach should only be used as a last resort because of the clear advantages of an island-wide planning approach. 50 It should be noted again that a limited coastal boundary approach was considered during the first year of program development and rejected for reasons discussed in the preceding sections. 51 CHAPTER 111. PROGRAM POLICIES After identifying and evaluating those coastal resources recognized in the CZMA as requiring management or protection, CZM programs must re- examine existing policies or develop new policies to manage these resources. In the words of the program approval regulations, "these policies must be specific, comprehensive and enforceable". (CFR 923.1(c)(2)). At a minimum, CZM programs are to include three broad classes of policies: resource protection policies,, coastal development policies, and government process simplification policies (CFR 923.3(b)(2)). This chapter outlines the CGMP's eighteen major policies covering these three broad areas, the bases for their development, how they are enforced, and their impact on future management and development of Guam's resources. The GCMP policies, listed with their respective enforcing authorities in Table I at the end of this Chapter, were developed through analysis of existing legislative policy as embodied in these various authorities and through results of management and resource studies conducted under the GCMP and related programs. While many of the policies are reflected in various legislative enactments and departmental or agency regulations, their embodiment in working planning documents was necessary to aid in their actual implementationo Therefore, the GCMP policies have been included in similar, though not identical, form in the Liand-Use Plan: Guam 1977-2000 and in Guam's Comgrehensive Development Plan, @Fepared by the Burea-5776f- Planning. BotTof these documentsawait-Ye-gislative adoption, however, after having been approved by the Central Planning Council and Governor. Though the GCMP policies would become law upon legislative adoption of these plans, thereby becoming enforceable through the authorities listed in Table 1, their more timely implementation was deemed desirable for purposes of program approvalo Therefore, through the Governor's issuance of Executive Order 78-37, on November 15,, 1978, the eighteen GCMP policies took legal effect with the appropriate agencies and in- strumentalities directed to so implement them. Now, as was not the case in the past, various government agencies and instrumentalities must take whatever affirmative action is necessary to implement these po icies and therefore legally comply with this executive directive. The legal authority and effect of Executive Orders is discussed in Chapter VI, Authoritieso Following are the eighteen GCMP policies, divided into the three previously mentioned general categories: government processes, develop- ment, and resources. Discussion preceding each policy briefly outlines the issues and problems leading to the policy's enactment. Primary 52 authorities used to implement the particular policy, the full complement of which are outlined in Table 1, are then referenced. Closing each policy discussion is a listing of programs and activities that may be conducted under an approved Guam Coastal Management Program. A. Government Processes 0 Current administration of existing laws and regulations at times does not result in the most effective management of the island's resources. Coordination difficulties create significant confusion among enforcement agencies as to the extent of their jurisdiction. When particular agencies with responsibility for enforcement of regulatory controls do not clearly understand the extent of their juris- diction, alleged violators are allowed, through neglect, to continue and even expand activities which are obviously in direct conflict with the law. Understaffing of regulatory agencies is often cited as a reason for failure to address the violations and enforce or improve the laws, rules and regulations. Ministerial activities consume time which should be devoted to improving enforcement procedures and planning programs required by law. 0 The lack of a sufficient data base, both for projecting population and describing specific characteristics of various land and water areas, hinders effective planning, management and development of the island's resources. Demographic information, especially concerning population projections, is fragmented and incomplete. Serious land and water data deficiencies exist regarding existing zoning and land use, property line maps (at least 1:4800 scale), government land maps, and legal recordation of parcel boundaries. Systematic approaches to correction of errors in parcel recordation and change in land use designations through zone changes or variances are not developed. Resource data is limited in such areas as fisheries potential, seismic fault zones, agricultural use impacts (pesticides, leachates, etc.) and sail drainage patterns. o -Inadequate analysis or consideration of current laws results in a large number of proposed bills which conflict with the policies or provisions in existing legislation. Passage of special interest legislation tends to favor development- oriented activities which do not meet standards imposed on activities reviewed through proper procedures. Such activities may not have undergone consideration for alternate locations, long-range impacts, adjacent uses, or comprehensive planning in general. Bills are proposed and enacted which are in conflict with the intent of existing law, and inconsistent with established policies and procedures for the regulation of land and water use. 53 Pol i cy More effective administration of natural resource related laws, programs, and poTicies _s a" Be achieved throU_h o Revision of unclear and outdated laws and regulations; 0 Improved coordination,among local agencies; 0 ITproved coordination between territorial and Federalagencies; 0 Educational and training_erograms for local government personnel, ana refinement of supporting technical data. The Bureau of Planning, under which the GCMP operates, is vested with the authority to coordinate and.improve governmental planning and information gathering programs through Public Law 12-200 (see Table 1). The Coastal Management Program Advisory Committee will continue to further cooperative efforts and exchange of information among local government agencies and between local and Federal programs. Projected activities under an approved GCMP relating to improving government processes will include, in part, the following: a. Provide for revision or introduction of legislation clarifying relevant aspects of law including zoning, seashore protection, and use of hazardous lands. b. Improve coordination among local agencies by funding needed personnel in appropriate agencies including the Attorney General, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Land Management, and the Departments of Agriculture, Parks and Recreation and Public Works. c. Provide for increased coordination between the Territorial government and Federal agencies with identified interests in specific activities relative to the scope of the CZM land-use program. d. Help agencies achieve consistent and effective enforcement programs by devel*oping specific guidelines on agency responsi- bilities and limits of jurisdiction under land and water use laws. e. Provide for the planning and establishment of training programs seminars, workshops and similar activities to develop the skill levels of key personnel within enforcement agencies. 54 f. Continue and expand efforts for the expansion and dissemination of technical base data for population, mapping, resource description and use, fisheries, agriculture and other areas. B. Development Policies 1. Shore Area-Development 0 Land resources adjacent to coastal waters have been used with little consideration of the suitability of such land for development or the water-dependency of the uses. Historical development of major transportation routes immediately adjacent to the shoreline, particularly the 6-mile segment of Marine Drive (Route 2) from Apra Harbor to Tamuning, combined with inappropriate shoreline zoning, has promoted commercial and industrial activity along Guames coastline. Such uses include large auto dealerships, night clubs, retail and wholesale enterprises, massage parlors, service stations, junk yards and other similar activities. Many are poorly maintained or abandoned and bear no relationship to the adjacent shallow reef flats and sandy beaches. Development of this nature continues despite the fact that these areas are eyesores, extremely detrimental to the image of Guam as a scenic island and of greater benefit to the public as park and recreational areas. 0 Several coastal communities lack full sewering and typhoon- proof housing, suffer from substandard lot sizes, increasing population, poor road conditions, and are in constant danger from severe storm and flood damage. Geographic access and public utility constraints to inland development have posed serious impediments to expansion of the villages of Asan, Piti, Umatac, Marizo, arid, to a degree, Inarajan. These villages, constantly beset by water supply, sewering, road maintenance, and other infrastructural problems are also blessed with superb natural coastal scenic resources. The historic development of these relatively small communities has fostered a closely-knit social structure and the maintenance of a traditional land tenure systems. Natural disasters often reduce the attractiveness of these communities. Policy Only those uses shall be located within the Seashore Reserve which: 0 Enhance, are comQatible with or do not generally detract from the surrounding coastal areaus ai"s-thetic and environmental quality and beach accessibi-lity; or 55 0 can demonstrate dependence on such a location and the lack o? feasibTealternative sites. The primary means of enforcing this policy include the Territorial Seashore Protection Act permit process, Territorial Beach Areas Act public beach provisions and the Conservation District designation under the Land-Use District Guidelines (see Table 1). The TSPA also mandates development of a Seashore Reserve Plan, with which all development within the Seashore Reserve is to be compatible. Application of the limitations implicit in the following definitiions through such a plan will reduce the possibility of conflicting shoreline uses, improve program predictability, and minimize the amount of shore- line lost to the use of the general public: Water-dependent use: Waterfront location is necessary for its physical function -- such as handling goods and services for transportation on water (i.e., port facilities). Water-oriented use: Facing the shoreline or water, but not requiring a location on the waterfront or shoreline (i.e., restaurants, hotels, condominiums, apartments). There must be adequate setbacks. Water-related use: Requiring access to water or water utself as a resource, but does not require a waterfront location. Includes most industries requiring cooling water, or industries that receive raw material via navigable waters for manufacture or processing. Projected activities related to shore area development under an approved GCMP will include, in part, the following: a. Improve the coordination and enforcement of the wide range of existing authorities to protect the shore areas of Guam for the b,enefit of the entire public. b. Encourage the development and implementation of lind-use mechanisms designed to relocate uses currently adjacent to the shore which bear no relationship to the shoreline or seao c. Provide technical assistance to the Department ofland Management to aid in the development of a more effective program for the mapping of GovGuam lands so that land trading can,become a more workable mechanism for correcting undesirable shore land-use patterns. d. Provide technical and financial assistance, through the future designation of specific urban shorelands as Areas of Particular 56 Concern, for preparation of plans for the restoration of blighted urban shore areas. Coordinate activities with local and Federal agencies having an identified interest in such programs. e. Influence future zoning patterns, through the application of the Comprehensive Development Plan, which in addition to incorporating the substance of the CZM policies, emphasizes the physical and socio-economic value of the coastal strand. f. Continue to actively participate in review of projects proposed to be located on or adjacent to the shoreline. g. Continue and expand activities seeking participation and involve- ment of the public, including special interest groups, civic organizations, and individuals, in the decision-making process for activities affecting the public shore of Guam. 2. Urban Development 0 Location of high-intensity development areas has been determined in many cases by historical patterns of major facility and infrastructure placement. During World War II, roads, airfields and utility systems were developed and located according to strategic guidelines rather than consideration of future land-use needs. Resultant attraction of commercial activities locating on or near these facilities promoted a development pattern inconsistent with the suitability of certain areas to support such uses. o High impact development, especially intensive residential, commercial and industrial uses, continue to locate in a random pattern interspersed with residential, recreational, and fragile ecological areas. In the past, the lack of clear policies in guiding location of high-impact uses has led to random patterns of urban sprawl, resulting in no general sense of design, compactness or efficiency. Many urban areas suffer from lack of adequate circulation, infrastructure and defined focus for community design. Fragile resources, including wetlands, limestone forests, beaches, and watersheds have been unnecessarily threatened by such activities and lack of adherence to general plans. Policy Uses permi tted only within commercia , multi-family, industrial and resort-hotel zones; and uses requiring U-T-evels of support faci"@ities s a be concentrated within urban districts as outlined on the Land- Use Districting R-ap. 57 The primary means of enforcing the above policy will be through the Land-Use District Guidelines, which limit development of such activities to those areas with an urban designation on the Land-Use District Map. (See Table 1.) Relating to urban development, the approved GCMP will: a. Provide financial and technical assistance to agencies involved in urban development and urban renewal planning; and b. Review all urban district boundary changes to resolve associated zoning, coordination and enforcement problems and encourage compatible uses within areas of present or projected urban development, 3. Rural Development 0 Uncoordinated and random development of high-intensity urban areas severely limits alternatives for future development, places unnecessary pressure on the natural and financial resources of Guam, and discourages retention of certain traditional rural lifestyles. Certain rural areas have been identified as suitable for future urban use. These areas have suitable physical characteristics, topography and proximity to major roads or infrastructure to support future urban development. Random development of these areas, without provision of adequate infrastructure or consideration of future development patterns, can commit the limited land resources of the island to inappropriate useso In addition, traditional village and small scale farming activities should be permitted to continue in certain areas. Pol i cy Rural districts shall be designated in which only low densitZ residential and agricultural us-es-OW )1e. Minimum lot size for these uses should be one-fialf acre until adequate inWastructure, includiEi functional sewering, is provided. Designation and retention of rural lands is accomplished primarily through the Land-Use District Guidelines Rural classification system (See Table 1.) Under an approved GCMP, review and analysis of existing and future rural districts will be continued in addition to provision of technical assistance to those agencies responsible for regulation and monitoring of these areas. 4. Major Facility Siting 0 The unavoidable siting of electric power plants and associated energy facilities in shoreline locations will continue to have negative environmental impacts upon coastal waters. 58 Electric power generation facilities, given severe geographic constraints, must be located adjacent to the ocean on the leeward side of the island. Prevailing winds, availability of cooling water, needed discharge points for heated effluents, and proximity to petroleum supplies require placement of energy facilities on or near the shoreline. De- pendence on fossil fuels for present electrical generation, as well as the need for ocean water for feasible alternate sources (ocean thermal energy conversion) will continue to place pressures on certain shoreline areas for energy-related development. o Projected expansion of the Guam Commercial Port, Navy Ammunition Wharf, Naval shipyard facilities, and related support.uses, although essential for port operations, may reduce potential recreation areas, destroy marine habitats, threaten the declining bird population, and reduce access to shore areas. Present port development plans are somewhat uncoordinated resulting in random expansion. Guam has only one deepwater harbor which must serve all of the island's future needs. Compromises must be made in the near future in balancing development needs and conservation of fragile resources. A multiple-use port facility which emphasizes natural and recreational values, together with needed commercial and industrial facilities, is most desirable. Planning for such integrated use has, in the past, been carried out individually by the Commercial Port Authority, Guam Economic Development Authority, and the Navy. During its first year of program implementation, the GCMP will assist in coordinating preparation of a port master plan which addresses the above agency and resource needs. Policy In evaluating the consistencz Of proposed maj .or facilities with the goals, A@cies, and standards of the Comprehensive Uevelopmen-Fa--R coastal Management Plans, the Terr .itou shall r.pcngn.ize the national interest in the sitlng or such facilities including tfinrp associated with electric power Rroduction'and transffiission, 2etroleum refining and-t7r-ansmission port and air lnstaTlations solid waste d1s2osal, sewage treatmenf major reservoir'sites. The above policy is effectuated through the Land-Use Districting System, which identifies urban areas suitable for major facility develop- ment. The prioritization of uses within Areas of Particular Concern recognizes the national interest in development of certain major facilities in areas otherwise unsuitable for such development. (See Figure 4.) Under an approved GCMP, the following activities and efforts are anticipated: a. Ascertain the national interest in planning, siting, and construction of major facilities through the coordination with relevant Federal agencies. 59 b. Support Federal and GovGuam efforts to identify, designate and plan for areas especially suited for water-related economic development, including but not limited to, electric power generation, port facilities, petroleum storage and refining, and commercial fisheries. c. Require Government of Guam and private interests to locate major commercial and industrial activities in urban districts, which have adequate public services and where such activity should have the least impact on identified fragile resources. d. Provide technical and financial assistance for protection and preservation, as far as practicable, of unique floral and faunal communities within the impacted areas of major facility developmento 5. Hazardous Areas 0 Guam's geographical location and geological structure is such that major natural hazards are a way of life rather than occasional occurrenceso Despite this fact, many,hazard areas are not yet well regulated or protected from over- developmento Guam lies within both a major typhoon belt and one of the most active areas of the Pacific Ocean Basin's "Ring of Fire," or zone of intensive seismic activity. Despite the fact that, from 1948-1977 over 80 tropical storms and typhoons passing within 180 nautical miles have causing over $1 billion in damage, development has continued in flood hazard areas and coastal areas, as well as in or adjacent to groundwater sinks. Though recently promulgated flood hazard area regu- lations should adequately address development in these areas,, very little information is available relative to performance standards for areas adjacent to the six major and over two dozen minor fault lines on the island. Research has indicated, though, that Guam is extremely vulnerable and is subject to as much earthquake ri.sk as Southern California. Policy Identified hazardous lands including floodplains, erosion-erone areas, air inst-allation crash an-d--sound zones and ma or fault lines shall be developed only to the extent ffiat such dev es not pose unreasonable risks to the health safety thT -people R . or welfare of of Guam, and compilii-with land-use regulations. Regulation of development within hazard areas is accomplished through application of the Flood Hazard Area Regulations, Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations and through review and revision of the zone changes in light of the Navy's AICUZ study. (See Table 1.) Continual monitoring of such development occurs through review of conditional use, variance and zone change requests by government agency participation in the SDRC. 60 Under an approved GCMP, the following hazard area-related activities are anticipated: a. Assist in the land-use aspects of periodic updating of the Territorial Emrgency Plan and provide technical and financial assistance to related efforts for the identification of natural hazard areas. b. Provide assistance in study of seismic fault zones which could pose a threat to intensive urban development and prepare rules and regulations in coordination with appropriate government agencies. c. Coordinate closely with the Department of Land Management in the rezoning of identified hazard areas (seismic fault zones, flood hazard areas, AICUZ) in which certain uses should be limited. d. Assure compliance with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program, continue to update the official flood hazard areas map and promote active implementation of the Flood Hazard Areas Rules and Regulations by the Department of Public Works. This policy of the GCMP is the foundation for the Program's attention to the principal requirements of Presidential Executive Order 11988 con- cerning floodplain management. By citing floodplains as hazard areas, desig- nating and mapping such flood-prone areas as generic APC's, and including in the GCMP regulations regarding use limitations for flood-prone areas, the Program addresses the Executive Order requirements to identify and limit use of floodplains. The flood area maps are available from the Bureau of Planning. The Bureau of Planning has executed revised maps from those previously recognized by the Federal Insurance Administration in order to map coastal flooding areas and sites subject to localized flooding due to poor drainage. The Territory is seeking approval of these maps for Federal insurance purposes. The GCMP's policy and the Flood Hazard Area APC regulations will limit use of the floodprone areas to those uses for which no alternative site exists and for which adequate design and construction measures are available to minimize risk to life, welfare or property. Shoreline and river floodplain values are protected by other policies and authorities of the Program applicable to fragile natural, historic and cultural resources and water quality. 6. Housing High density residential development has taken place within major accident potential zones such as the approach corridor to the Naval Air Station in Central Guam. Residential development has also occurred in floodplains and along Guam's shoreline, areas highly vulnerable to 61 damage from natural disasters. Development in such areas continues, in part, due to traditional practices of subdividing large tracts of land into parcels distributed to family members and relatives. As suitable areas for such development become more limited, alternative types of housing, such as cluster designs and innovative apartment or multi-story structures, must be explored. Policy The overnmeht shall encourage efficient design of residential areas, restri-c-t suc devehp_ment i-n areas susceptible to'nafuFal ana manmade hazards,, and recognii-e-tFe--limitatiohs of the island's-resources to s pport historical patterns o7-r-e-s-fde--ntYa-F-Ze--v-el2ELent. Residential development in hazardous or unsuitable areas is discouraged primarily through application of the Flood Hazard Area and Wetlands Regulations, Land Use District Guidelines and Seashore Protection Act permit provisions. More efficient subdivision design can be assured through required review of such development by the SDRC and TPC. (See Table 1.) Projected GCMP activities relating to housing under an approved program are closely linked with those anticipated related to Hazardous Areas. Therefore, the efforts in both areas are almost identical. 7. Transportation o Expansion of major roads poses a threat to certain beach areas and the primary aquifer. Alternative means of transportation to the automobile, such as public bus lines, do not exist on Guam. Use of bicycles is difficult and dangerous due to lack of bicycle lanes on major roads, erratic driving patterns of the car-oriented population,, and generally poor conditions of road shoulders. These conditions have made the use of private motor vehicles virtually the sole mean of transport. With well over 60,000 vehicles for a population of about 100,000, major road expansion is always in progress. Location of the Naval Air Station, including the Guam Inter- national Air Terminal, on the north central plateau inhibits development of possible alternative major transportation routes or use of existing routes through the area. The lack of alternate routes forces major expansion of Marine Drive adjacent to shoreline areas of Tamuning, Agana, and Anigua. Certain connector roads have been proposed through the center of a major aquifero Policy The Territory shall develop an efficient and safe transportation system while limiting adverse enviro5@intil J@@ @rimarj aquifers, beaches, estuaries, and other coasfa-f -resources. 62 Required compliance of Territorial Highway Plans with the Compre- n addition to application of S d hensive Development Plan, i ubdivision an Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations can assure development of the most suitable transportation network. (See Table 1.) Efforts under an approved GCMP related to transportation will include: a. Review all proposed highway expansion plans for consistency with the Coastal Management Program's policies. b. Provide technical support for updating the Guam Comprehensive Highway Plan by the Department of Public Works and incorporate transportation planning elements into revision of the Land- Use Plan. c. Support research and development of mass transit systems and alternative modes of transportation. 8. Erosion and Siltation o Onshore construction practices in areas of overburden, steep slopes and sinkholes have created serious erosion problems. Development in areas having a substrate of unconsolidated weathered volcanics has caused extensive erosion and subsequent siltation of certain reef flats, particularly in the Piti Bay area. Project designers often do not consider erosion as a constraint to development and thus propose grading and clearing for construction on clay-covered slopes, sometimes with grades in excess of fifty percent. The practice of burning grasslands, primarily in Southern Guam, accelerates the erosion problem by removing the ground cover on these clay slopes. Other development occurs in areas adjacent to sinkholes. The resultant change in drainage patterns eventually silts-in the sinks and creates a potential flood hazard for surrounding development. Policy Development shall be limited in areas of 15% or greater slope by V_ r ME and land- requiring st ict Z@: iance with e@osion, sedimentation ' use districting guidelines, as well as 5ther relatid land-urze standards for s E- uc areas. Designation of areas with slopes over 15% in grade as Conservation Districts and effecting improvements in the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations are the primary means of controlling damaging erosion and siltation. (See Table 1.) Efforts in this'area under an approved GCMP will be directed at further research into more effective erosion control regulations and means to reduce the adverse effects of undesirable construction and field burning practices. 63 C. Resource Policies 1. Conservation of Natural Resources (Overall Policyl The value of Guam's natural resources as recreational areas, criticaT marine and wildlife habitats, the major source of L@ @ni @ water, and the foundation of the island's economy shall be protected through policies and programs affecting such resources. This overall policy for conservation of Guam's natural resources, recognizing the specific problems and issues addressed in this section, outlines the primary justification for protecting the Territory's resources. It summarizes the overall policy of the Government of Guam and the Coastal Management Program regarding such resources. Authorities in support of this policy are referenced in the following individual resource policy discussion and listed in their entirety in Table 1. 2. Air Quality 0 The large number of motor vehicles, the main solid waste disposal site at Ordot, electrical generating plants, a petroleum refinery, and high number of air installation takeoffs and landings contribute to Guam's air pollution. Despite the above problems, the air quality on Guam is generally high due to farily constant trade winds and location of energy-related facilities on the leeward side of the island. Guam's relatively high ambient air quality can be maintained in accordance with Federal standards if the effect of the tradewinds is considered. Burning of high-sulphur fuel in the electical generating plants, while inappropriate in the mainland, may be less undesirable on Guam due to this wind factor. Airborne particulate levels, especially dust from construction activities and sea- sonally from wildland fires, do, at times, exceed recommended levels. Policy All activities and uses shall comp y with all local air pollution regulations and all appropriate rederal air qu andards in order to ensure the maintenance of Guam's relatively high aiLAILality. Guam's Air Pollution Control Act is the primary means of ensuring compliance with the above policy. (See Table 1.) Under an approved program, the GCMP will engage in the following activities related to air quality: a. Assist in determination of the applicability of certain Federal air quality standards to Guam. 64 b. Assist in development of standards to better control particulate emissions during construction activities, particularly major highway reconstruction. c. Assist in developing alternatives to major air pollution sources including automobile transportation and burning of solid waste. 3. Water Quality 0 The high overall quality of Guam's coastal waters is being threatened by polluting discharges from various sources. The island's major aquifer in Northern Guam could be polluted from uncontrolled development, lack of functioning sewers or extensive use of pesticides and herbicides. Saltwater intrusion is evident in some drinking water wells. Point source pollution from sewer outfalls, storm drains, and septic tanks has created serious pollution problems in Pago Bay, Sleepy Lagoon, Agana River, East Agana Bay, Tumon Bay, Ylig River, Geus River and others. Stormwater runoff from heavily developed urban areas adjacent to the shoreline contributes greatly to general water quality deterioration. Although presently in excellent condition, the northern aquifer is increasingly under-development pressure as a result of its proximity to major island population centers and its suitability for development. If proper controls are not implemented, the aquifer could become polluted. Saltwater intrusion is evident in some drinking water wells and may be a result of excessive pumping. Policy Safe drinking water shall be assured and aquatic recreation sites shal protected through the regulation of uses and discharges th pose a Rollution threat to Guam's waters, particularly in estuarine, reef and aquifer areas. Several authorities under jurisdiction of the GEPA, careful review of development by the SDRC and TSPC, and application of the Land-Use District Guidelines provide the primary means for Territorial authorities to assure compliance with the above policy. (See Table 1.) The inclusion and recognition of the Land-Use Districting System, particularly the Conservation designation for Guam's major aquifer, in GEPA's 208 Plan will further aid in enforcement of this policy. The Federal designation of the northern aquifier as a "principal source" under �1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act strictly limits the use of Federal funds for any activity or program that may adversely affect the resource. In addition, it should be noted that the Federal CZMA requires incorporation of the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. These standards are the law in Guam and must be met in any case in which they may be more stringent than the Territorial standards. The Federal standards, nevertheless, are incorporated into the GCMP and should be considered part of the GCMP water policy. 65 Under an approved GCMP, the following activities related to water quality are anticipated: a. Review and comment upon all proposed development impacting upon water quality subject to SDRC, TPC and TSPC review. b. Support and provide financial assistance for research, public awareness programs and enforcement of water quality standards. c. Support the reclassification of certain water areas from A - (polluting discharges allowed) to an AA - (no polluting discharges allowed) classificaiton. 4o Fragile Areas 0 Development within unique terrestrial ecologic communities has seriously threatened certain unique animal and plant life. Residential, commercial, and industrial activities often fail to develop in a manner complimentary to the characteristics of the terrain. Wetlands, clifflines, ravine forests and historic and archaeologic sites are increasingly being threatened by development. Prime examples of such development pressure include: Barrigada Heights housing subdivision, the Agana Shopping Center, the proposed Orote Point (Navy) ammunition wharf, the proposed Micronesian Cultural Center and the proposed Uruno Point hotel complex. Programs for the protection of unique marine habitats are undevelopedo Guam's coral reef-associated marine resources are outstanding. Effects from thermal effluents, sewage and runoff pollutants, sedimentation and development activities mandate development of programs through which the most spectacular or threatened reef areas can be protected. Appropriate areas would include Cocos Lagoon and barrier reefs, Anae Island Patch Reef, Luminao Barrier Reef, Double Reef, Haputo Reef, Uruno Point, Tarague/ Scout Beach (Military), and others. Policy Development in the following types of fragile areas shall be regulated to protect their unique Character: historic and archaeological sites wildlife habitats, 2ristine marine and terrestrial communities, 1@one forests, and mangrove stanas and other wetlands. Adherence to the Historic Preservation Laws and Wetlands Rules and Regulations, delineation of additional Conservation Areas and future designation through Executive Order of those Areas of Particular Concern warranting such classification are the primary means of protecting Guam's fragile areas. (See Table 1.) In addition, the designation of substantial portions of the southern interior and southeastern coastal areas as park- lands will greatly aid in preserving these areas for public use and benefits. 66 Efforts under an approved GCMP relating to these fragile areas will include the following: a. Encourage and support activities and programs designed to protect or restore fragile areas including historic sites, pristine ecological communities, wildlife refuges, critical habitats and historic parks through provision of financial and technical assistance. b. Provide financial and technical support for study of the ecology and extent of limestone forests on Guam, leading to development of performance standards supporting their designation as an area of particular concern. c. Aid the Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources' development of a public awareness program concerning Guam's wildlife resources. d. Promote the designation of terrestrial pristine ecological communities on government lands, including government-owned portions of Agana Swamp, as Government of Guam Conservation Areas. e. Support efforts to identify Guam's threatened and endangered plant and animal species and the nomination of such species to local and Federal listings. 5. living Marine Resources o Guam's commercial fishing industry has not been developed to its full potential. Illegal methods of reef fishing continue. To date, no comprehensive program has been developed for exploitation of Guam's fisheries resources. Attempts at coordinated harvesting and marketing of local fish catches have occurred only recently through efforts of the Guam Fisherman's Cooperative. The Guam Marine Fisheries Advisory Council, established under Executive Order.79-6, has begun formulating a Fisheries Management and Development Plan, however, and interest in GovGuam and the private sector is strong. Certain illegal poisons and techniques are utilized in catching reef fish despite laws prohibiting their use. Lack of sufficient enforcement personnel allows such practices to continue. Without effective management programs, overharvesting of certain species and underlutilization of others result. Policy All living resources within the territorial waters of Guam, particularly coraTs-and fish, shall 6-e protected from overharvesting and, in the case of marine mammals, from any taking whatsoever. 67 Enforcement of the Game ' Fish and Coral Harvesting Laws, in addition to promulgation of additional regulations addressing those yet unprotected but endangered species, by the Department of Agriculture, provide the primary means of protecting Guam's valuable marine resources. (See Table 1.) Guam's participation in the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Council and the Department of Agriculture's mandate to develop a fisheries management plan will result in eventual full and proper utilization of Guam's fishery resources. Related activities under an approved GCMP will include: a. Provision of technical and financial support to the Marine Fisheries Advisory Council for the preparation and implementa- tion of a Fisheries Development and Management Plan. b. Development of legislation or rules and regulations in coordi- naton with the Guam Department of Agriculture, for the protection of marine mammals. c. Support for the designation of Cocos Lagoon as a marine sanctuary under a multiple-use concept and the designation of pristine marine ecological communities as Government of Guam Conservation Areas or officially designated Areas of Particular Concern. 6. Vi-sual Quality 0 The scenic quality of the shoreline, particularly the ocean view from coastal roads, is rapidly deteriorating in urban areas. Deteriorating economic conditions over the last five years and frequent natural disasters are responsible, to a great degree, for . increasing numbers of dilapidated or abandoned structures. Inadequate enforcement of zoning, sign and subdivision laws also result in general degradation of the Territory's scenic qualities. General public apathy toward refuse disposal and associated practices, despite intensive public education"efforts by certain government agencies and private groups, has led to proliferation of park and beach littering, abandonment of junk vehicles and illegal dumping. Inadequate funding in the area of park maintenance further compounds the problem. Policy Preservation and enhancement of, and .respect for the island's scenic resources shall be encourased through increased enforcement of and -c-5-mPTiance with sign, litte , zoning, subdivigion, building and related land-use laws; visually objectionable uses sFall be located to the maximum extent practicable so as not to degrade significantly views from scenic ove-rT-oo-ks, hi-ghways, and tral'Is. 68 Primary authorities for enforcement of the GCMP's visual quality are included in the policy itself and detailed fully in Table 1. Voluntary ,programs instituted by GEPA, the Guam Visitor's Bureau and individual village commissioners can be quite effective if properly publicized and are generally more widely accepted than regulatory measures. In light of current efforts to improve Guam's visual quality, the GCMP, when approved, can assist in part, as follows: a. Provide technical and financial support to those agencies involved in the planning, management and restoration of scenic areas, including such island beautification activities as litter clean-up, removal of abandoned vehicles and structures, enforcement of sign laws and development of parks, scenic highways, overlooks and trails. b. Revise and update the Territorial Planning Commission land- scaping guidelines. 7. Recreation Areas 0 Parks, conservation areas, wildlife refuges and open-space public lands often lack basic amenities. Some communities and residential areas lack adequate sports facilities. Park and beach support facilities are poorly maintained or lacking altogether. Sufficient land area is available for coastal and inland parks, wildlife refuges, scenic overlooks and hiking areas. Use of these resources is hampered, however, by limited access in terms of developed and maintained roads, paths or trails, inadequate support facilities, and 1*ack of detailed locational information. A majority of citizens have indicated that insufficient facilities are available within village community centers for basketball, tennis, volleyball, and softball. Although government funds are continually being appropriated for recre- ational facilities, actual acquisition, planning, construction, and/or improvement is often a lengthy process. Funding for continuous maintenance is a persistant problem for both passive and active recreational facilities. A more extensive and better maintained park system is needed which includes marine areas as well. Policy The Government of Guam shall encourage development of varied types of recreation facilities loca-t-e-9 -and maintained so as to be compatible with the surrounding environment and 7and uses; adequately serve community centers and urban areas and protect beaches and such eassive recreatinnal areas as wildlife and marine conservation areas, scenic overlooks, parks, and historic sites. 69 The Department of Parks and Recreation's authority to designate Territorial Parks, to implement the Territorial Beach Areas Act and pro- vide general recreational programs and facilities provides the primary means of implementing this policy. (See Table 1.) An approved GCMP can aid in the following ways: a. Provide technical and financial assistance for the planning and management of existing and proposed territorial parks. b. Provide technical assistance and support for the development of additional cooperative use agreements with the military for joint use of Federal recreational areas. 8. Public Access 0 Increasing development along Guam's shoreline restricts access of the beaches and reefso Access to certain beach and reef areas, particularly along the urban waterfront areas, is becoming increasingly restricted or impeded by strip commercial development. In other areas, private residents restrict access to beaches from the main highway through posting of signs alleging "ownership" of the beach. However, access is usually attainable from adjacent beach areas, approaching along the shoreline itself. Improve- ment of trails to certain bays and beaches and government land has enhanced accessability in these areas. 0 Access to many recreational and scenic resources is restricted due to their location on military bases. Prime recreational areas such as Tarague Beach, Fena Reservoir, Haputo Beach and Ritidian Beach are not freely accessable to the general public due to their location on military land. Agreements should be sought with the respective military commands to ensure more open access to these areas, while maintaining requisite levels of base security and clean l iness. Policy The public's right of unrestricted access shall be ensured to all non- Federally owned beach areas and all Territorial recreation areas, parks, scenic overlooks, designated conservation areas and their public lands; and agreements shall be encourag-eTwith the owners of 2rivate and F-eTe-ral ,ro erty for the provision of reasonable access to, and use of, resources of puhlir nature located on such land. Legislatively enacted Public Rights Provisions, the Territorial Beach Areas and Seashore Protection Acts and the Subdivision Law all deal directly with issues of public access. (See Table 1.) Public Access to shoreline areas is discussed fully in Chapter VIII. 70 The GCMP, when approved, can assist in the following efforts related to public access: a. Encourage the application of existing law relative to public rights of access to coastal and inland recreational areas and promote increased provision of public access through private properties by landowners. b. Promote the establishment of organized sports facilities with locational siting that is responsive to community design, public access and environmental protection. c. Encourage the use of Apra Harbor as a.multiple-use area by maintaining public access to shoreline areas, minimizing high-intensity impacts and providing public recreation areas, including Luminao Reef, Piti Channel, a harbor of refuge and alternate yacht club location. 2. Agricultural Lands 0 Development of prime agricultural lands for other than agri- cultural use reduces the possibility of agricultural self- sufficiency on Guam. While not a major problem given the number of other impediments to rapid agricultural growth, imprudent development can jeopardize Guam's potentially valuable agricultural resources. Existing practices, such as agricultural and parental subdivisions, allow division of agricultural lands into unimproved lots as small as 2,500 square feet. These practices can pose a serious threat to these resources in the future. Those agricultural lands identified on the Land-Use Districting Map should be preserved solely for agricultural activities. Policy Critical agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained for agri@_ultural use. Guam's Agricultural Lands policy is primarily effected through ad- herence to the Land-Use District Guidelines and implementation of the Land Conservation Act's Agricultural Preserve System. (See Table 1.) Approval of the GCMP will allow it to assist in the following ways related to agricultural development: a. Review district boundary changes or proposed development impacting upon agricultural lands for compliance with the Agricultural Lands Policy, through the SDRC process. b. Encourage the designation of Agricultural Preserves or Agricultural Improvement Districts to preserve or utilize prime agricultural land. 71 c. Continue to support the government's Green Revolution Program directed toward improving the island's level of agricultural production and increased self-sufficiency. d. Encourage increased aquacultu're production in compliance with GCMP land-use policies and environmental protection standards. TABLE NO. 1. GUAM COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES Coastal Management Program Policies Authorities GCG Section (Unless I Otherwise Noted 076vernmen ta I ocesses Pozicy More effective administration of natural Comprehensive Planning Enabling Sections 62020(a)(i)(5), resource related laws, programs, and Legislation (P.L. 12-200), as (j)(3),(j)(4),(o) poRFi-e`s-sFa-TT-Fe achleved through: amended. revision of unclear and outdated laws and regulations, improved coordination among local @@c i e s, improved coordination between territorial and federal ai-e-ncies, educational and training programs T@ @vernment Pers nnel, and refinement of supporting technical data. DeVeZopment Pdlicies 1. SHORE AREA DEVELCPMEMT OnIx those uses shall be located Public Law 12-200, as amended. 62020(a),(j)(5),(j)(3), within the Seashore Reserve wF-ch: (j)(4),(o) ( I are compa-t-iffe- with or do not unerally detract from the Territorial Seashore Projection Act 13416,13417 surrounding coastal area's aesthetic and environmenta quality and beach Territorial Beach Areas Act 13454,13456 accessibility; or (z) can demonstrate dependence on such a location and the Zoning Law 17203(b) lack of feasible alternatTve 'sites. Coastal Management Program Policies Authorities GCG Section (Unless OWerwise Noted) Land Conservation Act 12603(c) Territorial Parks 12609 Underwater Historic Sites 13985.31,.34 Submerged Land Permit U.S. P.L. 93-435 Public Rights Provision 13980-2 Conservation Areas 12350 Guam Constitution, Article IX Sections 3 & 4 Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 Wetlands Rules and Regulations Executive Order 78-21 Flood Hazard Area Rules and Regulations Executive order 78-20 Water Pollution Control Act 57044-57047 Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations Prom. 12/5/75 2. URBAN DEVELOPMENT Uses permitted only within Commercial, Public Law 12-200 62011(c),62020(a),(b),(o) Multi-Family, Industrial and Resort- -7 Zoning Law 17100 Hotel zones; and uses rej2 r-in-71-F leveTs ol sup?rtirlaucrililties shall be concentrated wjtF 1 6 n d1stricts Guam Constitution Article IX, Section 2 T--Ton the Land-ft_e_D@istricting as out ine map- Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 Toilet Facilities & Sewage 57061 Disposal Coastal Management Program Policies Authorities GCG Section (Unless Otherw ise Noted) 3. RURAL DEVELOPMENT Rural districts shall be designated in which Public Law 12-200 62011(c), 6202(a),(o) on] itial and agricultural uses will be acceptable. Minimum lot size Zoning Law 17100 ToW these uses should be one-half acre @in_til astructure, including functional Guam Constitution Article IX, Section 2 sewering, is provided. Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 Land Conservation Act, 12601(d) Toilet Facilities & Sewage Disposals 57061-3 4. MAJOR FACILITY SITING In evaluating the consistency of proposed Public Law 12-200 62011(fY-' 62020(a),(b), major facilities with the goals, policies (e),(o) and standards of the Comprehensive Develop- ment and Coastal Management Pl Zoning Law 17100 tory shall recognize the national interest in the siting of such facilities, including those Land-Use Districts Executive order 78-23 associated with e d transmission, petroleum refining and trans- mission, port and air installations, solid wa,, !nt and major reservoir sites. 5. HAZARDOUS AREAS Identified hazardous lands including flood- Public Law 12-200 62020(a),(k)"(o) plains, erosion-prone areas, air installation crash and sound s Zoning Law 17100 shaT1__be__d-ev_eI_o`peT_o_nI_v to the extent that- such developmeni does ;ot pose unreasonable Seashore Protection Act 13417(a)(3)(e) risks to the health., safety, or welfare of -th-e-pe-op-Te of-Guam, and complies with land- Subdivision Law 18005(f) use regulations. Coastal Management Program Policies Authorities GCG Section (Unless OfFe-r-wi-s e_Wo_t_e_d)_ Flood Hazard Area Rules & Regs. Executive Order 78-20 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regs. Promulgated 1215/75 6. HOUSING The qovernment shall encourage efficient Public Law 12-200 62011(d),(i) Uesi-2n of residential areas, restrict such 62020(a),(b),(g),(h),(o) a ighly s scepti-bTe-to natural and manmade hazaras, and recognize Zoning Law 17100, 17605 fhe -limitations of the island's resources to support historical patterns of residen- Seashore Protection Act 13416(c)(4),(c)(5) tial development. subdivision Law 18001 Territorial Beach Areas Act 13450(e) Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 Flood Hazard Area Rules & Regs. Executive Order 78-20 Toilet Facilities & Sewage Disposal 57063, 57064 7. TRANSPORTATION The Territory shall develop an efficient public Law 12-200 62011(g); 62020(a),(d),(o) and safe transportation system while limit- -i6g adverse.environmental impacts on primary Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 aquifers, beaches, estuari@s, and other_ coastal resources. Subdivision Law 18005(e); 18400(a),(b) Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regs. Promulgated 12/5/75 8. EROSION AND SILTATION Development shall be limited in areas of Public Law 12-200 62020(a),(i),'(5).(o) 15% or greater slopes by requiring strict Authorities GCG Section (Unless Otherwise Noted) compliance with erosion, sedimentation, Seashore Protection Act 13417(a)(3)(e) and land-use district guidelines *as well i-s other related land-use sta-ndards-for Subdivision Law 18400(c) @_uch areas. Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regs. Promulgated 12/5/75 -Resource Policies 1. CONSERYATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES OVERALL POLICI The value of Guam's natural resources as (See Text) (See Text) recreational ar I marine and wild- Mife habitats, the major source of drinkin-g water, and the foundation of the island's economy, shall jr_ote@cte. through policies and programs affecting such resources. 2. AIR QUALITY All activities and uses shall comply with all Public Law 12-200 62020(i),(o) air poT16tion rj @ulati all appropriate federal quality standard in order to ensure Guam Constitution Article IX, Section I the maintenance of Guam's relatively high air quality. Air Pollution Control Act 57100-571015 Subdivision Law 18005(e) 3. WATER WALITY. Sa 'e rinin ter shall be assured and Public Law 12-200 62020(a),(e),O),(o) aquadc recfeawt4ion sites shal ted through the r uses and discharges Seashore Protection Act 13416(c)(2)(b)-(d).(c)(4) that pose a pollution threat to Guam's waters, (c)Q@,(e)(4)(d)-,13417(a) Larticularly in estuarine, reef and aquifer (3)(i)ja)(3)(d) areas. Subdivision Law 18400(d) Coastal Management Program Policies Authorities GCG Section (Unless Otherwise Noted) Conservation Areas 12350 Guam Constitution Article IX, Section 1 & 3 Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 Water Resources Conservation Act 57020-57033 Water Pollution Control Act 57040-57051 Toilet Facilities and Sewage Disposal 57060-57094 4. FRAGILE AREAS Development in the followin5 tyRes of Public Law 12-200 62020(a),O),O).(o) fragile areas shall be regulated to protect their que-character: historic- Seashore Protection Act 13416(c)(2),(c)(4)(c).(d) and archaeologic sites, wildlife habitats, 13417(a)(3)(c) pristine marine and terrestrial commun!tT-es, limestone forests, and mangrove stands a--n-T- Territorial Beach Areas Act 13451(b),(c) other wetlands. Land Conservation Act 12603(b),(c) Territorial Parks 26009-26009.1 Historic Preservation Laws 13985-13985.35 Coral Harvesting Law 12380-4 Submerged Lands Permits U.S. Public Law 93-435 Conservation Areas 12350 Endangered Species Act 12325 Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 Wetlands Rules and Regulations Executive Order 78-21 Water Pollution Control Act 57045-8 Coastal Management Program Policies Authorities GCG Section (Unless Otherwise Noted) 5. LIVING MARINE RESOURCES All living resources within the terri- Public Law 12-200 62020(i),(o) torial waters on Guam, particularly corals a_nT -fish, shall be protected from overhar- Seashore Protection Act 13416(c)(2)(b)-(c)(4)(c)( vesting and, in the case of marine mainmalTs, 13417(a)(2)(a) from any taking whatsoever, Land Conservation Act 12603(b)-(c) Coral Harvesting Law 12380-4 Game and Fish Laws 12303-12311-12385 Conservation Areas 12350 Endangered Species Act 12325 Guam Constitution Article IX, Section 3 6. VISUAL QUALITY Preservation and enhancement of, and res pect Public Law 12-200 62020(a),(o) for the island's scenic resources shal be encouraged through increased enforcement of Zoning Law 17100, 17400, 17426(d) and compliance Vith s qn, 1 tter, zoning, subdivision, building and related land-use Seashore Protection Act 13416(c)(2)(a)(e); laws; visually objectionable uses shall be 13416(c)(4)(c)(2),(3) located to the maximum extent practicabl 13417(a)(3)(b) so as not to degrade significantly views from scenic overlooks, highways, and trails. Subdivision Law 18005(e) Land Conservation Act 12629 Territorial Parks 26009, 26009.1 Guam Constitution Article IX, Section I Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 Litter Control 57170 Coastal Management Program Policies Authorities GCG Section (Unless Otherwise Noted) 7. RECREATIONAL AREAS The Government of Guam shall encourage develop- Public Law 12-200 62020(a).(b),(j),(o) ment of varied types of recreation facilities located and maintained as to be compatiFl-e-wTth Zoning Law 17100 the surrounding environment and land uses; adequateTy-serve community centers and urban Seashore Protection Act 13416(c)(2) e) areas, and protect beaches and suc passive 13416(c)(4) c)(4) recreational areas as wildlife and marine 13417(a)(Ta) conservation areas, scenic overlooks, parks and histor-i-c-s-T-tes Territorial Beach Areas*Act 13450(d), 134151-5 Land Conservation Act 12603 Territorial Parks 26009, 26009.1, 26017 Historic Preservation Laws 13985.2 Conservation Areas 12350 Guam Constitution Article IX, Section 1 Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 8. PUBLIC ACCESS The public's right of unrestricted access shall Public Law 12-200 62020(a),(o) be ensured to all non-federally-owned beach areas and all Territorial recreation areas, parks, Seashore Protection Act 13416(c)(2)(e), scenic overlooks, desginated conservation areas (c)(4)(c)(3) -Ye- 13417(a)(3)(a) and other pu lic lands; and agreements shaTT encouraqed with the owners of private and federal for the provision of reasonable access Territory Beach Areas Act 13450,13451,13454-6 T__ to, and use of, resources of public nature ocated 2n the Such land. Subdivision Law 18005(h) Public Rights Provisions 13980-2 Coastal Management Program Policies Authorities GCG Section (Unless Otherwise Noted) 9. AGRICULTURAL LANDS Critical agricultural lands shall be Public Law 12-200 62011(c), 52020(a),(o) preserved and maintained for agricuTtural use. Zoning Law 17100, 17607 Land Conservation Act 12601-3 Guam Constitution Article IX, Section 1 & 2 Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 NOTE: Guam Constitution scheduled for final voter ratification in August, 1979. 81 CHAPTER IV: BOUNDARIES Subsection 305 (b)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act requires that: "The Management Program for each coastal State shall include. (1) An identification of the boundaries of the coastal zone subject to the management program." The 306 Regulations divide the boundary requirement into four areas, pursuant to Section 304(l) of the CZM Act: A. Inland boundaries (16 CFR 923.31) B. Seaward boundaries (15 CFR 923.32) C. Excluded lands (15 CFR 923.33) D. Interstate boundaries (15 CFR 923.34) A. Inland Boundary Section 304(l) of the CZM Act states that: "The term Coastal Zone" means the coastal waters . . . and the adjacent shorelands. . . strongly influenced by each other and in proximity to the shorelines. The Zone extends inland from the shorelines only to the extent necessary to control shorelands, the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters. The 306 Regulations require that, in defining this coastal zone, States must include: 1. Those areas the management of which is necessary to control uses which have direct and significant impacts on coastal waters pursuant to Section 923.11 of these regulations. 2. Those sipecial management areas identified pursuant to Section 923.21 (i.e., APC's); 3. Transitional and intertidal areas; 4. Salt marshes and wetlands; 5. Islands; 6. Beaches; 7. Waters under saline influence; and may include: 8. Entite watersheds; 9. Waters under tidal influence; 82 10. Indian lands not held in trust by the Federal Government. In determining Guam's inland boundary, it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify any potential major land uses which do not have sore direct, significant impact on its coastal resources. Past experience has shown that development located miles from the land-water interface can have destructive impacts on coastal resources and that a limited boundary is ineffective in assuring protection of those resources. Despite the fact that the 'island's resource use and development is heavily coastal oriented, proposed major "inland" developments such as the Ugum Dam in Southern Guam or the oil transshipment facility could have extremely serious coastal impacts. These considerations, among others, support the early decision that an islandwide designation would be most beneficial in terms of those Hparticular needs and constraints of the island of Guam," mentioned in a 2/24/76 OCZM memo, insofar as the definition preferred in Section 304(l) of -the CZM Act is concerned. Designation of the entire island as the coastal zone, brings all special management areas (APC's), transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands and beaches, as required by 306 Regulations, under the management program. All offshore islands in their entirety, including Cocos Island, are included in the coastal management program under Section 923.31(a)(7) of the 306 Regulations which requires that: "Islands must be included in their entirety, except when uses of interior portions of islands do not cause direct and significant impacts." .Two of the areas identified in the Regulations for optional in- clusion within the coastal zone, watersheds and waters under tidal influence, are also covered by the island-wide designation. B. Seaward Boundary Section 304(l) of the CZM Act establishes the seaward boundary as extending: "Seaward,to the outer limit of the United States terriorial sea.11 .This-places the seaward limit at three nautical miles for purposes of this program, under the terms of the Organic Act of Guam. 83 C. Excluded Lands Section 304(l) of the CZM Act excludes from the coastal zone: "lands the use of which is by law subject solely to the discretion of or which is held in trust by the Federal Government, its officers or agenct." On Guam, over 44,507 acres or 32.75% of its total land area is under Federal ownership. Jurisdiction of this Federal land is divided almost evenly betwee the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy, with the remaining 2.5% divided among the Federal Aviation Administration, Department of the Interior and the U.S. Coast Guard. (See Table No. 2 and Map No. 1; alto, Guam Coastal Management Program Technical Reports, Volume 1.) While these Federal lands are geographically excluded from juris- diction of the Coastal Management Program, this exclusion "does not remove Federal agencies from the obligation of complying with the consistency provisions for Section 307 of the Act when Federal actions on these excluded lands have spillover impacts that significantly affect coastal zone areas, uses, or resources within the preview of a State's management program." (Section 923.33(c). Further, "In excluding Federal Lands . . . a State does not impair in any way any of its rights or authorities over Federal lands that exist separate from this program." (Section 923.33(c)(2).) Section 307(c)(1) of the CZM Act requires that: "Each Federal Agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the Coastal Zone shall conduct'or support those act- ivities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved State management programs." The mechanisms for determining whether su ch activities are con- sistent with the management program are outlined in the Federal Consistency portion of this document. The submerged lands surrounding Guam out to the territorial sea limit of three miles, formerly under jurisdiction of the Federal government, were conveyed to Guam in 1974 under Public Law 93-435. One of several area categories excluded in this transfer was "all submerged lands adjacent to property owned by the United States above the line of mean high tide." Requests via the Coastal Zone Advisory Committee on April 28, 1976, to Air Force and Navy representatives were made to provide materials delineating those submerged lands over which Federal Agencies retained control. A copy of NAVFAC Drawing 7009 862 "Submerged Lands Jurisdiction" was provided for the Bureau in February 1978. Map 2: 84 Submerged Lands Jurisdiction indicates approximate boundaries from the afficial map. These submerged lands and the water column thereover must be considered as excluded from the "Coastal Zone" definition and subject only to those provisions of the CZM Act which apply to excluded 'lands and waters. The effect on the program is that activities within large portions of Guam's coastal waters do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Guam's Coastal Management Program. While this fact has been recognized by both Federal and local agencies, on-island Federal agency personnel do not foresee any particular problems relative to accommodation of management programs for marine resources developed by GovGuam's Department of Agri- culture, the Guam Marine Fisheries Advisory Council, the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council or other programs. D. Interstate Boundaries While Guam's Coastal Management Program boundary is not immediately adjacent to that of any other State or territory, it should be noted that the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas has begun development of a coastal zone management program for their islands. Though the nearest island under jurisdiction of that program, Rota, is about 32 miles north of Guam, some consultation between the two programs has occurred, with miore anticipated as the new program develops. 85 TABLE NO. 2 PATTERNS OF FEDERAL LAND OWNERSHIP % of Federal Est. % of 2 Agency Acres Sq. Meters Land Held Total Land Area A. Military Air Force 209544.54 83,1429605 46.1% 15.1% Navy 229069.24 8993139021 49.5% 16.3% Coast Guard 71.99 291,340 .2% .05% Subtotal: 42,685.77 172,746,966 95.8% 31.45'110 B. Non-Military (Federal) FAA 833.18 3p371,812 1.9% .6% Dept. of Interior 988.66 4,,001,,066 2.3% .7% Subtotal: 19821.84 7,372,878 4.2% 1.3% 3 Grand Total (A&B) 44,507.61 1,,801,,198.44 1003 32.75% *1 Total areas do not include submerged lands adjacent to property owned by the U.S. *2 Assuming total acreage approximately 212 square miles x 640 acres/square miles, (calculated with acreage totals). *3 Differences in conversion factors used account for approximately 5% error in acre/square meter comparison. r I R 3L 311 411 5L 511 7P =7Fv- -V 69 + + Se j GUAM UNIFORM MAPPING SYSTEM 61 NOTEs SHADED AREAS ARE FEDgRAL LANDS. G 0 57 D1 0 1 0 0 - - - - --- - - - - - - - nz A III @'P AG 01 A - - A 0 a 0 T Map No. I F@ DE RAL 4ANDS SWARE "ILES JUIRICIPA TV MAL I MUNICIPALITY FCDEiAL % A4EA % Y 0 N A AOA93A 84 4- 0. Ills AGANA MMIGHTS .9T .40 IP .09 1;10 Be AGAT ?.02 3.111 4.1s 1.90 14,10 5.20 41 ASA@ 4.28 LO !41 so 6:10 1.810 OAARIO@Cdi 3100 1.19 5.30 2.53 glis 4.3a n@@T GJG ..Do -a- -0- S.W 1.90 DEDEI)b 14,44 0.01 15.72 7.41 30'@Ic 14.22 57 INARAJAC3 10,10 0.04 -.01 --a- leflo 9.04 37 LIANC11-140 7,03 3.69 2.33 IAO jOje 4. ?9 WEAIZO 0.13 J!.eg Q3 6,10 1.00 .01 113 .02 .43 .201 2AS 1.02 tAAITIZ PITI 2@00 1.30 4.28 2.02 7.14 &34 SANTA RITA 1.06 QT W31 4T5 IGAG 7.69 SINAJAnA 1.12 .03 .02 6.16 56 m .04 IA TALOFOF0 10.47 I.To @69 .33 17.16 609 TAH=30 5.40 2.67 .71 @33 GAG 2.90 UMATAC Cle 2. :@- -0- -0- 6.16 2.90 A A@ I A VIGO 14.62 CLO, 20.54 9.7 WAS is 60 YONA 20.10 9,40 .06 .03 20.10 0.51 29 ".62 33.34 100.00 29 141.20 70.75 212.04 Cm=. "=AML JURIMCTION 0"T. -CjwjBP m- 6T9@ I A I 1 0 25 + + 25 2R L- 6R TIL TR 61 87 T --T-7- I I I I I I I I 1 .1 1 1 1 FAA NN. Map No. 2 SUBMERGED LANDS - JURISDICTION F-1 GOVERNMENT OF GUAM rr--sl NAVY E3 AIR FORCE =70 REA FED. AVIATION ADMIN. 89 CHAPTER V: USES SUBJECT TO MANAGEMENT UNDER THE GCMP A. General Section 305(b)(2) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act provides: "The management program for each coastal State shall include each of the following requirements:" . o . "(2) A definition of what shall constitute permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone which have a direct and significant impact on the coastal waters." According to 15 CFR 923.,3(b)(1), the Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management must determine that all uses with direct and significant impacts on coastal waters are addressed by the Program. In the broadest sense, the uses subject to management under the GCMP include all activities that are under the authority of any Territorial agency. The reason for this is that Executive Order 78-37 requires that all executive agencies of the Government of Guam implement the GCMP Policies set forth in Chapter III within the scope of their authorities. Not all Territorial agencies, however, have authority to regulate land and water uses effectively, The following discussion will focus upon those uses that are subject to significant regulation by Territorial agencies. These uses fall into eight major categories, each of which will be disucssed in turn. On the basis of this discussion, it should become apparent that the GCMP provides for effective regulation of all land and water uses significantly affecting the coastal waters of Guam. 1. Uses in Urban, Rural, and_Agriculture Districts Requiring Building Permits or Licenses from Territorial Agencies The regulation of land and water uses in the Urban, Rural, and Agriculture Land Use Districts established under Executive Order 78-23 relies upon implementation of the Zoning Law, GCG Title XVIII. The Zoning Law is enforced by designated building officials of the De- partment of Public Works in the first instance, and by the Territorial Planning Commission (TPC) on appeal from decisions of the building officials. A proposed-land or water use comes within the jurisdiction of a building official and the TPC under the Zoning Law only to the extent that it (a) requires a building permit, or (b) requires a license from a Territorial agency or officer. GCG �17450-17453. A building permit is required for "the construction of a new building or structure, or the 90 alteration, enlargement or moving of an existing building or structure." The term, "structure" is defined very broadly: "Anything constructed or erected which requires location on the ground or attached to something having a location on the ground." Even if a proposed use of land would riot involve the construction or alteration of a building or structure, GCG �17453 provides that no license that may be required for that use may be issued by any Territorial agency unless the application has been approved by the building official as consistent with the Zoning Law. The building official's approval or disapproval of-the application is subject to review by the TPC under GCG �17500. Teritorial licenses are required for a wide variety of activities and occupations, and these are all brought within the scope of the GCMP, to the extent that they require the use of land, by GCG �17453. 2. Development in Conservation Districts In the Conservation Land Use Districts established under Executive Order 78-23, no zones will be formed under the Zoning Law. Instead, land and water use regulation will be carried out by the TPC under the standards and guidelines set forth in the Executive Order, and under other land use policies or standards and regulations adopted by the governor, the Legislature, or the TPC. Section VI(d) of the Order requires the TPC to "adopt such rules and regulations as necessary to ensure proper development within Conservation Di,stricts consistent with these guidelines and approved government land-use plans and policies." The term, "development" is defined to mean: l'on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or any gasseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of the use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision of land and any other division of land in- cluding lot splits; change in the intensity of use of water, ecology related thereto, or of access thereto; construction or reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility, and the removal of major vegetati on. " If the TPC considers it necessary, it may, under �VI(d) of the Order, adopt rules and regulations under which its approval would be required for any development, defined in the way just quoted, in Conservation Districts. Until the TPC adopts such rules and regulations, it will review those developments in Conservation Districts that require building permits and Territorial licenses to the same extent as for proposed uses in Urban, Rural,.and Agricultural Districts. Under �VII of Executive Order 78-23, it may approve such development only if it 91 finds it to be compatible with the standards and guidelines of the Order itself, and with land use policies and standards approved by the Governor, the Legislature, or the TPC itself. These would include the GCMP Policies described in Chapter 3, and any applicable APC or Seashore Reserve standards. 3. Uses Requiring Subdivisions Under the Guam Subdivision Law, GCG Title XIX, the TPC must approve all subdivisions, defined as "the division of any parcel of land into the six (6) or more lots." Any land and water uses requiring subdivisions are thus subject to management under the GCMP. 4. Development in the Seashore Reserve Under GCG �13417, any person desiring to perform development within the Seashore Reserve must obtain a permit from the TPC, referred to for this purpose as the Seashore Protection Commission. The definition of "development" applicable to this requirement is the same as that appearing in Executive Order 78-23, quoted above. 5. Uses Subject to Air and Water Quality Statutes and Regulations As noted in Chapter 111, the GCMP is required by �307(f) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act to incorporate all requirements established pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. In Guam, these requirements are implemented under GCG Title LXI, Chapters I, III$, IV and V. Any land and water uses that are subject to these provisions are thus subject to management under the GCMP. 6. Uses in Areas of Particular Concern In the Flood Hazard and Wetlands Areas of Particular Concern (APtl s) provided for by Executive Orders 78-20 and 78-21, and discussed below in Chapter VII, all proposed development must be approved by the Department of Public Works (for flood hazard zones) or the TPC (for wetlands). The definition of "development" that is applicable for these purposes is the same as that appearing in Executive Order 78-23, quoted above. 7. Uses I nvolving the Taking of Fish and Game Under GCG.��12301-12321, the Department of Agriculture is vested with the control and regulation of fish and game in and about Guam, with broad rulemaking authority to effectuate this control and regulation. In exercising this authority, the Department is bound to the GCMP Policies under Executive Order 78-37. All activities involving the taking of fish and game are thus subject to management under the GCMP. 92 8. Uses of Public Lands and Waters No use of land and water owned by the Territory, including submerged land, may take place without the approval of the responsible agency, usually the Department of Land Management. The Territory's pro- prietory authority over its land and water must be exercised consistently with the GCMP Policies, under Executive Order 78-37. Land and water uses on the public property are thus,subject to management under the 6CMP. Given the breadth of the range of land and water uses just discussed, it is extremely unlikely that any use directly and significantly affecting the coastal waters of Guam would not be subject to management under the GC14P. B. Uses of Regional Benefit Section 306(e)(2) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires: "Prior to granting approval, the Secretary shall also find that the Program provides (2) for a method for assuri,ng that local land and water use regulations within the coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit." Because of Guam's size and geographic isolation, most of the land and water uses that are subject to the GCMP are of regional, that is, islian'd-wide, benefit or significance. Because Guam currently has no local governments, there is no danger that local land and water use regulations will unreasonably exclude uses of regional benefit. C. 'Adequate Consideration of the National Interest in Siting Facilities that are Necessary to Meet Other Than E`oc-aTlFe-quirements Section 306(c)(8 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act provides: "Prior to granting approval of a management program by a coastal State, the Secretary,shall find that: (8) The management'program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in planning for,-and in the siting of, facilities (including energy faci'lities in, or which significantly affect, such State's coastal zone) which are necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in nature. In the case 91 finds it to be compatible with the standards and guidelines of the Order itself, and with land use policies and standards approved by the Governor, the Legislature, or the TPC itself. These would include the GCMP Policies described in Chapter 3, and any applicable APC or Seashore Reserve standards. 3. Uses Requiring_ Subdivisions Under the Guam Subdivision Law, GCG Title XIX, the TPC must approve all subdivisions, defined as "the division of any parcel of land into the six (6) or more lots." Any land and water uses requiring subdivisions are thus subject to management under the GCMP. 4. Development in the Seashore Reserve Under GCG �13417, any person desiring to perform development within the Seashore Reserve must obtain a permit from the TPC, referred to for this purpose as the Seashore Protection Commission. The definition of "development" applicable to this requirement is the same as that appearing in Executive Order 78-23, quoted above. 5. Uses Subject to Air and Water Quality Statutes and Regulations As noted in Chapter III, the GCMP is required by �307(f) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act to incorporate all requirements established pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. In Guam, these requirements are implemented under GCG Title LXI, Chapters 1, IIIS, IV and V. Any land and water uses that are subject to these provisions are thus subject to management under the GCMP. 6. Uses in Areas of Particular Concern In the Flood Hazard and Wetlands Areas of Particular Concern (APC's) provided for by Executive Orders 78-20 and 7841, and discussed below in Chapter VII, all proposed development must -be approved by the Department of Public Works (for flood hazard zones) or the TPC (for - wetlands). The definition of "development" that is applicable for these purposes is the same as that appearing in Executive Order 78-23, quoted above. 7. Uses Involving the Taking of Fish and Game Under GCG ��12301-12321,, the Department of Agriculture is vested with the control and regulation of fish and game in and about Guam, with broad rulemaking authority to effectuate this control and regulation. In exercising this authority, the Department is bound to the GCMP Policies'under Executive Order 78-37. All activities involving the taking of fish and game are thus subject to management under the GCMP. 92 8. Uses of Public Lands and Waters No use of land and water owned by the Territory, including submerged land, may take place without the approval of the responsible agency, usually the Department of Land Management. The Territory's pro- prietory authority over its land and water must be exercised consistently with the GCMP Policies, under Executive Order 78-37. Land and water uses on the public property are thus subject to management under the GCMP. Given the breadth of the range of land and water uses just discussed, it is extremely unlikely that any use directly and significantly affecting the coastal waters of Guam would not be subject to management under the GCMP. B. Uses of Regional Benefit Section 306(e)(2) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires: "Prior to granting approval, the Secretary shall also find that the Program provides (2) for a method for assuring that local land and water use regulations within the coastal zone do not unreasonably restrict or exclude land and water uses of regional benefit." Because of Guam's size and geographic isolation, most of the land and water uses that are subject to the GCMP are of regional, that is, island-wide@, benefit or significance. Because Guam currently has no local governments, there is no danger that local land and water use reciulations will unreasonably exclude uses of regional benefit. C. Adequate Consideration of the National Interest in Siting Facilities that are Necessary to Meet Other Than Local ReEfuirements Section 306(c)(8) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act provides: Prior to granting appr 'oval of a management program by a coastal State, the Secretary shall find that: (8) The management program provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in planning for, and in the siting of, facilities (including energy facilities, in, or which significantly affect, such State's coastal zone) which are necessary to meet requirements which-are other than local in nature. In the case 93 of such energy facilities, the Secretary shall find that the State has given such consideration to any applicable interstate energy plan or program." The major facilities serving greater than local needs in which there may be a national interest that was considered during development of the GCMP include: (1) Regional water treatment plants; (2) Transportation systems, including (a) Highways; (b) Seaports and airports; (c) Aids to navigation; (3) Energy production and transmission facilities; (4) Major recreation areas and national defense and aerospace installations; (5) Solid waste'disposal facilities; (6) Major reservoirs. The selection of these facilities for consideration was guided by 15 CFR �923.52. With the exception of those located on excluded Federal lands, the facilities just listed are subject to the land and water use policies, authorities, and conflict resolution mechanisms discussed in Chapters III and VI. Almost all of them are conditional uses in all zones under the Zoning Law, GCG Chapter XVIII. The agencies primarily responsible for determining their permissibility will be the Territorial Planning Commission and the Department of Public Works, which will follow the procedures described in Chapter VI, Part B, below. These provide opportunities for all interested persons to present what they believe to be the national interests involved in any proposed facility. In making their decisions, these Territorial agencies and any others which may be responsible will be bound by the GCMP Policies under Executive Order 78-37, by the land- use regulations established under Executive Order 78-23; and by any . applicable Seashore Reserve and APC standards. The consideration of major facilities by Territorial agencies will be governed by GCMP Policy No. B(4), which provides: 94 "In evaluating the consistency of proposed major facilities with the goals, policies, and standards of the Comprehensive Development and Coastal Management Plans, the Territory shall recognize the national interest in the siting of such facilities, including those associated with electric power production and transmission, petroleum refining and transmission, port and air installations, solid waste disposal, sewage treatment and major reservoir sites." This provision not only recognizes and reflects the consideration of the facilities listed above that took place during development of the GCMP, but provides a judicially and administratively enforceable require- ment that any identified national interest in such facilities not be disregarded by Territorial agencies. 95 CHAPTER VI: AUTHORITIES AND ORGANIZATION Section 305(b) of the Federal Coastal"Zone Management Act provides in part: The management program for each coastal State shall include. . . (4) An identification of the means by which the State proposes to exert control over the land uses and water uses (subject to the Program), including a listing of rel,evant constitutional provision, laws, regulations, and judicial decisions;. . . (6) A description of the organizational structure proposed to implement such management program including the responsibilities and inter-relationships of local, areawide, State, regional, and interstate agencies in the management process . . . Section 306(d) of the Federal Act imposes the following requirement: Prior to granting approval of the management program the Secretary shall find that the State, acting through its chosen agency or agencies, including local governments. . has authority for the management of the coastal zone in accordance with the management program. Such authority shall include power: (1) To administer land and water use regulations, control development in order to ensure compliance with the management program, and to resolve conflicts among competing uses; and (2) To acquire fee simple and less than fee simple interests in lands, waters, and other property through condemnation or other means when necessary to achieve conformance with the management program. Section 306(c)(6) and (7) provides: Prior to granting approval of a management program submitted by a coastal State, the Secretary shall find that. . . (6) The State is organized to implement the management program. . . (7) The State has the authorities necessary to implement the program, including the authority required under subsection (d) of this section. The regulatory requirement, based on these statutory provisions are contained in 15 CFR �923.41 and �923.46. 96 Section 306(e)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act provides that each program must provide for any one or a combination of the following general techniques for control of land and water uses within the coastal zone: (A) State establishment of criteria and standards for local implementation, subject to administrative review (B) Direct State land and water use planning and regulation, or (C) State administrative review for consistency with the management program of all development plans, projects, or land and water use regulations, including exceptions and variances thereto, proposed by any State or local authority or private developer, with power to approve or disapprove after public notice and an opportunity for hearings. The specific requirements associated with each of these techniques are set forth in 15 CFR �923.42-.44. The purpose of this Chapter is to outline the legal authorities, agencies, and procedures through which the Government of Guam will implement the GCMP. In doing this, it will demonstrate how the GCMP fulfills the Federal requirements just cited. This Chapter is divided into three parts. Part A will describe how Territorial agenc-ies will directly administer land and water use regulations in conformance with the polcies of the GCMP, controlling development to ensure compliance with the GCMP. Part B.will describe how conflicts among competing land and water uses are to be resolved under the GCMP. Part C will focus upon the authority of Territorial agencies to.acquire interests in land, water, or other property in order to achieve the objec'tives of the GCMP. A. Territorial Land and Water Use Regulation and Control of Development Under the GCMP The GCMP will rely for control of land and water uses solely upon the control technique provided for in �306(e)(1)(B) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management-Act, quoted above: Direct Territorial land and water use planning and regulation. In contrast with most of the other States, Territories, and Commonwealths that are developing CZM programs under the Federal Act, Guam has no local governments. Land and water use regulation in Guam must therefore be carried out, if at all, at the Territorial level of government. 97 Detailed requirements that apply to programs utilizing the technique of direct State or Territorial land and water use regulation appear in 15 CFR �923.43. Perhaps the most important of these require- ments, as expressed in �923-43(c)(2), is that each state must: "Bind each party which exercises statutory authority that is part of the management program to conformance with relevant enforceable policies and management techniques." The Territorial statutes, regulations, and executive orders under which the various agencies of the Government of Guam are authorized and bound to regulate land and water uses in accordance with the policies of the GCMP can be divided into seven major categories. Each of these categories will now be discussed. In addition to the provisions of the various legal authorities themselves, the discussion will focus on the agencies responsible for implementation of each statute, regulation, and order and the procedures by which those agencies carry out their mandates. All of the authorities discussed in this Chapter are set forth in full in Appendix 1. 1. Executive Order 78-37: Compliance with the Guam Coastal Management Program Policies Chapter III set forth a series of eighteen major land use policies, referred to as the Guam Coastal Management Program Policies [hereinafter "GCMP Policies"]. These policies were developed in the course of the comprehensive Territorial planning effort that was initiated by the passage of Guam Public Law 12-200, effective January 10, 1975. This statute established a Central Planning Council (CPC), now consisting of members of the Territorial Planning Commission (TPC). (The membership of the CPC has been determined on an informal basis due to questions about the validity of the CPC membership provisions of Public Law 12-200, as amended in November 1975). It also created within the Office of the Governor a Bureau of Planning (BP or "Bureau"), which technically serves as staff to the CPC and administers central planning functions. Among its othe duties, the CPC, through the Bureau, must prepare a Comprehensive Development Plan ("Plan"). The Plan is intended to provide long range guidance for the social, economic, and physical development of Guam, and must set forth development objectives, standards, and principles covering the desirability of various uses of land. It is required to include'elements focusing on such subjects as transportation, community design, public services and facilities, urban redevelopment'and, most significantly for purposes of the GCMP, land use. 98 After its development by the Bureau, the Plan was submitted to the CPC, which held public hearings on the Plan on October 12 and November 30, 1978. The CPC recommended to the Governor that he approve it. The Governor then forwarded the Plan to the Legislature for adoption by resolution. The 15th Guam Legislature has scheduled hearings on the Plan. The GCMP Policies set forth in Chapter III were derived from similar policies that were included in the land-use element of the Compre- hensive Development Plan, entitled The Land Use Plan: 1977-2000, which was published in August 1977. The GCMP Policies, in turn, formed the basis for the land use policies appearing in the summary of the entire Comerehensive Development Plan that was published by the Bureau of Planning in September 1978, and was the subject to the CPC public hearings. Public Law 12-200 does not specify the legal effect that the policies of the Plan will have upon the adoption of the Plan by the Legislature. Because of this, and also because the GCMP Policies vary slightly in their wording from the policies of the Plan, the CZM Staff of the Bureau of Planning concluded that a new source of legal authority was necessary if the GCMP Policies were to be binding on Territorial agencies regulating land and water uses in Guam. Upon the recommendation of the Bureau, the Governor signed Executive Order 78-37, which requires all Territorial agencies to perform their functions consistent with the GCMP policies. It is from this Executive Order that the GCMP Policies derive their legally binding force. Because of the importance of Executive Order 78-37, as well as the other executive orders that will be discussed below,, for implementation of the GCMP, it is necessary that the legal basis for the Governor's authority to issue orders having such significant effects be described here. This authority is derived primarily from 48 U.S.C. �1422c(b), a provision of the Organic Act of Guam, which states: "All officers shall have such powers and duties as may be conferred or imposed on them by law or by executive regu- lation of the Governor not inconsistent with any law." LEmphasis supplied] This authority is also based on the provisions of 48 U.S.C. �1422 that "The executive power of Guam shall be vested in an executive officer whose official title shall be the 'Governor of Guam. 99 and that "The Governor shall have general supervision, and control of all the departments, bureaus, agencies, and other instru- mentalities of the executive branch of the government of Guam." Pursuant to these provisions of the Organic Act, the Governor has frequently imposed'substantive standards on agency action like those contained in the executive orders discussed in this Chapter and in Chapter VII. This consistent, unchallenged practice provides a firm basis for the governor's issuance of these executive orders in support of the GCMP. Executive Order 78-37 binds all executive agencies of the Government of Guam. The agency authorities under which each of the GCMP Policies can be implemented were listed in the discussion of each policy appearing in Chapter III. The binding applicability of the GCMP Policies also forms the background for the following, more detailed ' discussions of the various authorities and of the agencies that administer them. 2. General Territorial Land-Use Regulatory Authority Perhaps the heart of the GCMP is the system of land-use districts that was established pursuant to Executive Order 78-23, signed on September 8, 1978. The Order requires the Territorial Planning Commission to implement a set of land-use district guidelines attached to the Order. These Guidelines require that all land in Guam be placed by the TPC into one of four land-use districts: urban, rural, agricultural, and conservation. They set forth the types of land and water uses to be permitted in each of the districts, and specify that the initial district boundaries shall be those delineated on the Land- Use Districting Map included in the land-use element of the Comprehensive Development'Plan. The Guidelines prescribe criteria and procedures for revision of these boundaries. In issuing Executive Order 78-23, the Governor based his con- clusion that the TPC has authority to implement the Land-Use Guidelines and to adopt the district boundaries on an opinion of June 20, 1978, rendered by the Office of the Attorney General to the Director of the Bureau of Planning. The opinion concludes that such authority is granted the TPC by two provisions of the Guam Subdivision Law ' GCG Title XIX. The first of these, appearing in GCG �18001, provides: "The purpose of this Title and of any rules, regulations, specifications and standards adopted, pursuant thereto, is to control and regulate the development and/or subdivision of any land for any purpose whatsoever." 100 GCG �18003 provides, in part: "The [TPC1 shall prescribe and adopt such rules and regulations . . . as are, in its judgement, necessary to effectuate the purposes and intent of this Title. Such rules and regulations shall become effective upon ;pp*ro*val by the Governor." The opinion noted that the TPC had already promulgated broad land-use regulations to confirm the view that these statutory provisions provide authority for the land-use district system that was ultimately required by Executive Order 78-23. It also concluded that the district boundaries appearing on the map incorporated into the land-use element of the Comprehensive Development Plan could be adopted by the TPC even though the map had not yet been approved by the Legislature. It is the TPC that administers the Guam Zoning Law, GCG Title XVIII. The Zoning Law authorizes establishment of the following zones: RI - single-family dwelling; R2 - multiple dwelling; C - commercial; 1i - resort hotel; Ml - light industrial; M2 - heavy industrial; A - agriculture. Executive Order 78-23 limits the kinds of zones that may be established in each district as follows: Urban - Rl, R2, C, H, Ml, M2. Rural - A, Rl Agricultural - A. Conservation - no zoning. The combination of the criteria for establishment of and zoning within land-use districts prescribed in the Executive Order with the district boundaries set forth on the land-use element map, together with the enumeration in the Zoning Law of the uses permitted in the various zones, constitutes a set of detailed, area-specific land and water use 101 standards allowing a high degree of predicability in public and private planning. These standards are independent of and in addition to the GCMP Policies, but have the same purpose of requiring that land and water uses be selected and carried out in ways that reconcile the completion of necessary development with avoidance of damage to the environment. In lieu of zoning, development within conservation districts, (including all submerged lands) will be governed by TPC regulations that are consistent with the Order and with other approved land-use plans and policies, including the GCMP Policies. As will be discussed in Part B, the TPC must approve any development within a conservation district for which a building or grading permit is required. The TPC may, according to the Order, approve development in conservation districts, and zone changes, variances, and other uses in agriculture, urban, and rural districts, only if these are found by the TPC to be compatible with "such standards and guidelines, land-use policies or other applicable standards as approved by the Commission, Governor or Legislature. . .." This provision reinforces the TPC!s obligation to comply in its actions with the GCMP Policies and the Land-Use District Guidelines. 3. The Territorial Seashore Protection Act The Guam Territorial Seashore Protection Act, GCG ��13410- 13420, was originally passed in 1974, and amended in 1975, 1976, and 1978. The Seashore Protection Act establishes a "Seashore Reserve" consisting of "that land and water area of Guam extending seaward to the ten fathom contour,, including all islands within the Government's jurisdiction except Cabras Island and those Villages wherein residences have been constructed along the shoreline prior to March 11, 1974, and extending inland to the nearer of the following points: (1) From the mean high water line for a distance on a horizontal plan of ten (10) meters. (2) From the mean high water line, to the inland edge of the nearest public right-of-way." GCG �13412(c) A bill, No. 68, that would enlarge the landward portion of the Seashore Reserve has been submitted to the 15th Legislature. It would provide that the Seashore Reserve include: 102 "that land and water area of Guam extending seaward to the ten fathom contour, including all offshore islands within the Government's jurisdiction in their entirety and extending inland to such boundaries as are delineated on the official Seashore Reserve Map.: GCG �13412(c) The Seashore Reserve Map, prepared by the Bureau of Planning, delineates an inland boundary located at the coastal cliff line in some areas, and at the public highway nearest the shoreline in others. Under GCG �13417, any person wishing to perform any development within the Seashore Reserve must obtain a permit for such development from the Guam Territorial Seashore Protection Commission composed of the TPC members. No permit may be issued unless the TPC first finds that the proposed develpment will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect, and that it is consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Seashore Protection Act. In addition, of course, the development must be consistent with the GCMP Policies under Executive Order 78-37, and with the land-use standards established under Executive Order 78-23 and the Zoning Law. The applicant for a permit has the burden of proof on all issues. The procedures for consideration of Seashore Reserve permit applications by the Commission and for review of the Commis'sion's decisions by the courts will be described in part B of this Chapter. Under GCG �13416(c), the Commission is required to prepare, adopt, and submit to the Legislature for implementation the Guam Seashore Reserve Plan, described in Chapter III. This will be prepared on behalf of the Commission by the Bureau of Planning. When adopted by the Legislature, the policies of the Plan will be the primary basis for Seashore Reserve permit decisions, except in those cases where the development is proposed to be located in an Area of Particular Concern, discussed below in this Chapter and in Chapter VII. Like the Commission's authority over-conservation districts under Executive Order 78-23, its authority over the Seashore Reserve extends seaward of the shoreline. Under the Seashore Protection Act, the Commission has permit authority over all development seaward to a depth of ten fathoms. Together with the proprietary authority of the Department of Land Management over submerged lands, discussed be 'low, the Commission's permit authority under the Seashore Protection Act can be expected to be the foundation for implementation of the GCMP seaward of the shoreline. 4. Authority Over Land and Water Uses in Areas of Particular Concern The policies and authorities governing land and water use in Areas of Particular Concern (APC's) are discussed in detail in Chapter VII. 103 It is sufficient to note here that, pursuant to the requirement of �305(b)(3) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, the GCMP provides for two currently designated APC's in addition to describing other areas that may be so designated in the future. The currently designated APC's are wetlands and flood hazard areas. Land and water uses in these APC,s are subject to two Executive Orders signed during the summer of 1978. Executive Order 78-20, signed on August 28, 1978, designated flood hazard areas as an APC in the planning and management of Guam's land and water resources, and directed the-TPC to promulgate rules and regulations necessary to meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and the GCMP in insuring that development in floodplains does not endanger the public's health, safety, and welfare; and to delineate as floodplains areas so delineated under the National Flood Insurance Program and other areas recommended by the Subdivision and Development Review Committee (SDRC). In response to the Order, the TPC adopted the rules and regulations that it required and delineated the floodplains (effective October 1, 1978). In Executive Order 78-21, signed on September 7, 1978, , wetlands were declared to be an APC in the planning and management of Guam's land and water resources. The TPC was directed to adopt rules and regulations necessary to insure balanced development, protection, and conservation of wetlands. In accordance with the Order, the TPC has identified the wetlands of Guam and promulgated the required rules and regulations (effective October 1, 1978). Because certain proposed land and water uses may be subject to the land-use regulations adopted pursuant 'to Executive Order 78-23, to any Seashore Reserve Plan that may be adopted, and to APC rules and regulations, it was found necessary to establish a priority among these three regulatory systems in order to resolve possible conflicts among them in particular instances. Section VI(g) provides that the APC rules and regulations are first in priority, followed by Seashore Reserve and General Land Use Standards, in that order. If the TPC is unable to deter- mine the applicable standard through use of this order of priority alone, it must determine the applicable standard by rule. 5. Proprietary Authority of the Territorial Government The Government of Guam has ownership rights over a substantial portion of the land of the island. Under Executive Order 78-37, the Territorial agencies having responsibility for this land must use and dispose of it only in ways that are consistent with the GCMP Policies. For purposes of the GCMP, some of the most importa nt lands owned by the Territory are the submerged lands that were transferred to it by the United States under U.S. Public Law 93-435, 88 Stat. 1210 (October 5, 1974). These include all submerged lands within the three-mile territorial..Iimit, with certain exceptions, the most important of which are (1) submerged lands adjacent to property owned by the United States 104 above the line of mean high tide; (2) lands under the control of a Federal agE!ncy other than the Department of the Interior; and (3) oil, gas, and other mineral deposits"except coal, sand and gravel. Submerged coal, sand and, gravel deposits are thus subject to GovGuam jurisdiction. The disposition of public lands was formerly governed by Chapters VI, VII, VIII, and XI of GCG Title XIV. These provisions prescribed criteria and procedures for the sale of public land, and for the issuance of permits and leases for its use, by the Department of Land Management. In February 1975, however, Public Law 12-226 repealed these provisions and established in their place a Chamorro Land Trust Commission. This Commission was to have exc-lusive juridiction over "available" public lands, consisting of all Government lands except those held under existing leases and permits, those dedicated by law to specific public uses, and those reserved for government use by the Department of Land Management with the concurrence of the Legislature. These "available" lands were to be designated "Chamorro homelands," and were to be leased for long terms at nominal rent for agricultural and residential use to persons whose ancestors inhabited Guam before 1898. The Chamorro homelands program has not, in fact, been implemented. Because the previous statutory provisions governing sale, lease, and other disposition of public land have not been reenacted, however, a legal vacuum has resulted. The Department of Land Management continues to lease, and issue use permit for public land in much the same way as it did before 1975. As noted above, the Department's activites in this area are subject to Executive Order 78-37, and must, thus, conform to the GCMP policies. In addition, any uses carried out on these lands must conform to the general land use standards established under Executive Order 78-23, and to any Seashore Reserve and APC standards that may also be applicable. The same would be true of land and water uses carried out under Chamorro homeland leases, if any should be issued. Under GCG �13251, the TPC is designated as the Guam Natural Resources Board, having the function of studying and evaluating any proposals to utilize Government land for natural resource development or exploitation. This function of the TPC will be described in more detail in Part B of this Chapter. The Territory Beach Areas Act, Chapter V-B of GCG Title XIV, effective April 24, 1973, represents an attempt by the Territory.to take advantage of any exisitng rights that it or the public might have to beach areas and access routes thereto. It asserts public ownership of all areas between the mean high tide and extreme low tide marks that had not been disposed of to others before January 1, 1972, and confirms all public rights or easements previously acquired in an "ocean shore" area extending 25 feet inland from the two-foot contour line. All of these public ownership rights are vested in a "territorial beach area" administered by the Department of Parks and Recreation to be used by the public for 105 recreational and fishing purposes. Alienation of the publicly-owned portions of the ocean shore is forbidden and, as discussed below in part C, the Governor is authorized to acquire additional interests in the ocean shore by condemnation, exchange, or negotiated purchase. 6. Authority for Maintenance of Air and Water Quality As was noted in Chapter III, �307(f) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act requires that the policies of the GCMP include all requirements established pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. In Guam, these requirements are prescribed and implemented through GCG Title LXI and the regulations promulgated thereunder by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA). GEPA administers a variety of permit and enforcement programs under the Guam Air Pollution Control Act and a number of water pollution control statutes. These are listed in Appendix 6. 7. Authority for the Conservation of Wildlife GCG �12301 vests the control and regulation of fish and game in and about Guam in the Department of Agriculture. Section 12321 requires the promulgation of regulations to implement the fish and game statutes contained in Article I, Chapter IV of GCG, Title XIII, includ,ing rules to carry out the purposes of those provisions. The Department of Agriculture thus possesses broad authority to implement the GCMP Policies on Conser- vation of Natural Resources and on Living Marine Resources, as it is obliged to do under Executive Order 78-37. The statutory provisions themselves prescribe specific protective policies, including prohibitions on the taking of fish by explosives or poisonous or intoxicating substances and on the use of artificial light in hunting. Additional statutory provisions on the taking of live coral and on net fishing are contained in GCG ��12380-12385. Subject to these various statutory provisions, the general rule is that fish may be taken at any time except as prohibited by Departmental regulation (GCG ��12314-12315). GCG �12325 was adopted on October 27, 1975. It.declared the policy of Guam to be the conservation of endangered and threatened species by all Territorial agencies, and directs them to utilize their authority in furtherance of that purpose. It vested regulatory power for this purpose in the Department of Agriculture, requiring the Department to promulgate rules to determine which species were endangered or threatened and to "improve and enhance" the status of such species, protecting them, if possible, "from all probable deleterious causes." These provisions were subsequently amended by the 15th Guam Legislature to require a proposed list of endangered or threatened species to be submitted to the Legisla- ture before final approval. An additional means by which the Department of Agriculture might implement the GCMP Policies applicable to wildlife would be through the management and regulation of any land and water areas that may be designated as conservation areas by the Government of Guam, as pro- vided in GCG �12350. 106 8. Other Authorities In addition to the authorities that have just been discussed in detail, there are others that will play an important, if more limited, role in implementation of the policies set forth in Chapter III. GCG Title XXVII, Chapter 1, and Title XIV, Chapter XIII, vest responsibility for Territorial parks, recreation, and conservation of historic and archaeological resources in the Department of Parks and Recreation. Section 26003(a) grants the Director of this Department broad authority tc "establish rules and regulations to accomplish the purpose of the Department." The Department is responsible for the establishment and operation of a Territorial Park System. It also administers a program for the conservation of historic and archeological resources, focusing especially on those which are located on public land or are threatened by public projects. Chapter VII of GCG Title XIII authorizes the Department of Agriculture to establish "agricultural preserves" after holding public hearings on 30 days notice. Once such a preserve is established, the Department may contract with the owners of land located therein to limit its use to agricultural or conservation purposes. The Subdivision Law, GCG Title XIX,, requiring TPC approval of the division of any parcel of land into six or more lots, provides the Commission with another mechanism for controlling land and water uses. B. Procedures for Resolution of Conflicts Among Competing Land and Water Uses A number of procedures are available to fulfill the requirement of �306(d)(1) of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act and its implementing regulations that the GCMP include authority to "resolve conflicts among competing uses." The discussion of these procedures will be organized according to the eight major categories of uses subject to management under the GCMP, discussed in Chapter V. 1. Conflicts Involving Proposed Uses in Urban, Rural, and Agri- cultural Districts that Fe-quire Building or Grading Permits or Licenses from Territorial Agencies i The regulation of land and water uses in the Urban, Rural, and Agricultural Land Use Districts established under Executive Order 78-23 continues to rely heavily upon implementation of the Zoning Law, GCG Title XVIII. As was noted in Chapter V, the TPC and Territorial building officials have authority, under GCG ��17451-17453 and 17500, to approve or disapprove all proposed land and water uses that require either building permits or licenses from Territorial agencies. In making these decisions, the building officials and the TPC are bound not only by the Zoning Law and Executive Order 78-23, but also by the GCMP Policies (under Executive Order 78-37) and by any applicable Seashore Reserve and APC standards. 107 The procedures followed by building officials and the TPC in arriving at these decisions provide an important means for resolution of conflicts concerning a wide range of proposed uses. The initial appli- cation for a building permit is filed with the build'ing official, who makes the initial decision whether or not to issue the permit in an informal manner. An equally informal procedure is followed by the building official in deciding whether or not to certify that a use proposed in a license application filed with another Territorial agency conforms to applicable land-use standards. When the building official has rendered this initial decision, any adversely affected person may appeal it to the TPC under GCG ��31062 and 17500. The TPC must hold a hearing after adequate notice to all parties in interest, each of whom may appear in person or by a designated repre- sehtative. The TPC must make its decision in writing and within a reasonable time. This decision is subject to review by the Superior Court under GCG ��17507 and 31071. The standard of review utilized by the Court would be similar to the "substantial evidence" or "arbitrary and capricious" standards provided for by the Federal Administrative Procedure Act. 2. Conflicts Involving proposed Development in Conservation Districts In contrast with the situation in the Urban, Rural, and Agri- culture Districts, the regulation of land and water uses in the Conservation Land Use Districts established under Executive Order 78-23 will not be carried out unde'r the Zoning Law. Instead, Executive Order 78-23 requires that the TPC refuse a building permit or other authorization that might be required for any development (as defined in Chapter V) within a Conservation district that would not be compatible with the land use policies, standards, and guidelines prescribed in the Executive Order itself, or with any others approved by the Governor, the Legislature, or the TPC. These policies, standards, and guidelines would include the GCMP Policies and any applicable Seashore Reserve and APC standards. They would also' include the rules and regulations that the Order requires the TPC to adopt as necessary to "ensure proper development within Conservation Districts consistent with these guidelines and approved government land-use plans and policies." The procedures for TPC consideration of permit applications for development in Conservation Districts, and for judicial review of the TPC's decision, are practically the same as those applicable to proposed uses in zoned areas, and offer the same opportunities for participation by interested persons. .3. Conflicts Involving Proposed Subdivisions Under GCG Title XIX, the TPC must approve all subdivisions (as defined in Chapter V) of land. The procedure by which this function is performed by the TPC provides a focus for the resolution of any disputes that might arise concerning proposed subdivisions. 108 A person wishing to subdivide land must file an application, accompanied by tentative plans, to the Territorial Planner. Within three days of receiving the application, the Planner must transmit copies of the tentative plans to the Territorial agencies responsible for technical review. The applicant also meets with the SDRC. These agencies must transmit their written findings and recommendations to the Planner within 15 days after receiving the plans. The Territorial Planner must then submit the tentative plans to the TPC at its next regularly scheduled meeting. Interested persons have the opportunity to present their views on proposed subdivisions to the TPC during its meetings. The TPC must thereafter approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the tentative plans consistent with the Subdivision Rules and Regulations and the GCMP policies. If the tentative plans are disapproved, they may not be reconsidered until they are modified and a new application is filed. If the TPC approves the tentative plans, final plans must be submitted by the applicant to the Territorial Planner within one year. These must be presented to the TPC at its next meeting, and must be approved if they comply strictly with the tentative plans. If they are not in strict compliance, the TPC must, within 15 days, either approve the final plans or issue a written determination specifying the work that will be necessary before the TPC will grant approval. Once again, interested persons will have the opportunity to present their views to the TPC. Under GCG �18003, the TPC has prescribed by regulation those specifications and standards for subdivision development as are, in its judgment, necessary to carry out the purposes of the Subdivision Law. Under this broad rulemaking authority, which was discussed in Part A as one of the bases for the TPC's adoption of the Land Use District reciulations under Executive Order 78-23, interested persons are afforded another opportunity to affect tile incidence of subdivisions through the rulemaking procedure that the TPC must follow under the Administrative Adjudication Law. 4. Conflicts Involving Proposed Development in the Seashore Reserve Under GCG 13417, no development (as defined in Chapter V) may take place within the Seashore Reserve without a permit from the Territorial Seashore Protection Commission (TSPC). (Exceptions are provided for certain repairs and improvements to existing single-family residences and for certain maintenance dredging of existing navigation channels authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.) The TSPC may not issue such a permit unless it first finds that the proposed development will have no substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect; that it is consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Seashore Protection Act; that it is consistent with the GCMP Policies (as required under Executive Order 78-37); and that it is consistent with any Seashore Reserve Plan or APC standards that may be applicable. 109 The procedures under which permit applications for development in the Seashore Reserve are considered by the TSPC are prescribed in GCG �13417(b) and in special procedural rules adopted by the TSPC itself. The TSPC must conduct at least one public hearing on each permit appli- cation in the municipal district within which the proposed development would be located. The notice of the time and place of this hearing must be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days before the hearing, and mailed to the Commissioner of the municipal district. The hearing may occur neither less than 21 nor more than 90 days after the application is filed. All interested persons may present their views on the proposed development at the public hearing. The application must have been submitted to the Subdivision and Development Review Committee (SDRC) before the public hearing, and the SDRC's comments on and evaluations of the proposal should be presented during the hearing. Within 60 days after the hearing concludes, the TSPC must approve or disapprove the application. Any person aggrieved by the TSPC's decision has a right to obtain judicial review thereof by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus within 60 days after the TSPC's decision. In addition to the permit procedure, there are other ways in which interested persons may present conflicts over land and water uses in the Seashore Reserve for resolution. GCG �13417(b)(5) allows any person, including any Federal or Territorial agency, to maintain an action for declaratory and equitable relief to restrain violations of the Seashore Protection Act. GCG �13417(b)(6) authorizes any person to maintain an action for certain civil penalties of violation of the Seashore Protection Act that are provided for in GCG �13418. Persons prevailing in such actions may recover their costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Under GCG �13416, the TSPC must adopt a comprehensive Seashore Reserve Plan for submission to the Legislature. Public hearings during which all interested persons may present their views will be held by the TSPC in the development of this Plan, providing another focus for resolution of conflicts among competing uses in the Seashore Reserve. 5. Conflicts Involving Proposed Uses That Are Subject to Territorial Air and Water Quality Statutes and.Regulations Land and water uses that are subject to regulation under the air and water quality provisions of GCG Chapter LXI and its implementing regulations are the responsibility of the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA), headed by a Board of nine directors appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Legislature, and an Adminsitrator appointed by and subject to the supervision of the Board. In carrying out its statutory functions, GEPA provides opportunities for the resolution of land and water use conflicts based on environmental considerations. Perhaps the most important of these opportunities is provided for by GCG �57005, authorizing the Board to adopt rules and regulations implementing the environmental statutes for which GEPA has responsibility. The Board's consideration of these rules and regulations is governed by the rulemaking 110 provisions of the Administrative Adjudication Act GCG Title XXV, Chapter III, which provide for participation by interested persons. In addition, GEPA rules and regulations must be presented for approval to the Legislature. GCG �57047 authorizes the Board to classify the waters of Guam and establish standards of quality for each class of waters. It requires that the Board conduct public hearings on two weeks notice before adopting such classifications and standards. The most important permit programs administered by GEPA are those provided for in the water pollution control provisions of GCG Title LXI, Chapter III, and the provisions on air pollution control contained in GCG Title LXI, Chapter V. GCG �57045 requires that a permit be obtained from the Administrator before construction of any new outlet for the discharge of sewage, industrial waste, or other wastes into any sewage system or into the waters of Guam. No hearing on permit appli- cat"lons is required by the statute, but interested persons have the oppor- tunity to participate in the Administrator's consideration of permit applications. No permit may be issued that would violate GEPA water quality standards. Persons adversely affected by a decision of'the Administrator on a water quality permit application could bring the matter to the attention of the Board and, in.addition, seek judicial review through such generally available proceedings as a petition for a writ of mandamus. Under GCG �57105, GEPA must issue a permit before any stationary source of air pollution may be constructed or modified and before any equipment or device which may contribute to air pollution or is intended to present or control the emission of air pollutants may be installed.. GEPA must issue such a permit within 90 days of receiving a permit appli- cation unless the proposed construction or modification would not be in accordance with GCG Title LXI, Chapter V, or with rules and regulations promulgated therunder. Persons adversely affected by the denial of a- permit are entitled to a hearing in accordance with GEPA rules. Under GCG �57110, GEPA,may grant variances from the air quality rules and regulations after a public hearing on due notice. All GEPA air pollution control orders are reviewable, by the Superior Court under an "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. GEPA must hold hearings on proposed air and water quality enforcement actions, upon the request of the alleged violator. Interested persons who qualify as witnesses would be eligible to participate in these hearings. 6. Conflicts Involving the Taking of Game and Fish The game and fish permit procedures of the Department of Agriculture generally concern large numbers of small-scale uses, and these procedures do not, as. a rule, involve public hearings. The most appropriate forum for the resolution of conflicts concerning hunting and fishing thus appears to be provided under the broad rulemaking authority granted to the Director of the Department under GCG �12321. The hunting and fishing regulations authorized by this provision must be adopted under the rule- making provisions of the Administrative Adjudication Act, which require an opportunity for participation by interested persons. Those concerned with the taking of game and fish and its relationship to other land and water uses can thus express their views to the Director. It should be noted here that, in addition to the various land-use standards that were noted above as binding on agency decisionmaking, the decisions reached under the various procedures discussed must also conform to any endangered species regulations promulgated by the Director under GCG �12325, as amendedo 7. Conflicts Involving Proposed Uses in Areas of Particular Concern Procedures for resolving conflicts involving uses in areas of particular concern are provided in Executive Orders 78-20 (Flood Hazard Areas) and 78-21 (Wetlands). These procedures are described in Chapter VII. 8. Conflicts Involving Proposed Uses of Publicly-Owned Lands and Waters The Department of Land Management is responsible for the disposition and use of land owned by the Territory. The Department's procedures are not adapted to broad participation by interested persons in its individual lease, sale, and permit decisions. Because uses proposed for public lands and waters will be subject to the procedures already described in this Part to the same extent as if they were proposed for privately held land, there should be ample opportunity for the orderly resolution of conflicts concerning these proposed uses. Under GCG �� 13251-13253 9 all proposals for the use, lease, or purchase of Territorial land for commercial mining or the removal of minerals, rocks, or sand for processing must be presented to the Guam Natural Resources Board, composed of the members of the TPC. The Board. must determine whether each proposal is consonant with the public interest and in keeping with proper conservation practices, formulating a recommenda- ti6n to the Governor concerning disposition of the proposal. The Board's proposal must include a public hearing, with notice of the hearing and a description of the proposal published at least ten days in advance. In for- mulating its recommendation,, the Board must take into account the GCMP policies and any applicable Seashore Reserve, APC,, and Land Use District standards. 9. The Subdivision and Development Review Committee - A Sueple- mental Conflict Resolution Mechan'ism On February 2, 1978, the Governor signed Executive Order 78-2, replealing previous related orders and establishing the Government of Guam Subdivision and Development Review Committee (SDRC). The SDRC is composed of representatives of the following Territorial agencies: 112 (1) Planning Division, Department of Land Management (Chair- person); (2) Building Permit Section, Department of Public Works; (3) Department of Public Works Other than the Building Permit Section (4) Guam Environmental Protection Agency; (5) Department of Parks and Recreation; (6) Public Utility Agency of Guam; (7) Bureau of Planning-, (8) Department of Agriculture through a subsequent Gubernatorial directive). These members may designate the heads of other agencies whom they determine should be involved in the SDRCs activities. Among the duties of the SDRC is that of reviewing and coor- dinating official position statements of Territorial agencies on applications for all subdivisions requiring improvements, all zone changes, all zone variances allowing more than ten percent variance from the applicable zoning provision, such agricultural subdivisions as the TPC or SDRC deems appropriate for review, such conditional use applications as the TPC or director of Land Management deems appropriate for SDRC review, and development within the resort-hotel zone. In addition, the SDRC is responsible for "[a]ssisting government agencies in the establishment and adoption of policies, standards, rules and regulations relating to land use. and for 11[p1romoting and assuring the compliance of land development with all.appropriate governmental land-use policies and plans." The Executive Order authorizes SDRC to establish rules and regulations necessary to carry out these duties effectively. Because of its authority to review a wide range of land-Use decisions and its duty to assure compliance with all Territorial land- use policies, including the GCMP Policies and the area-specific policies embodied in the land-use districting system, SDRC is a convenient forum for productive consultation among agencies on implementation of the GCMP. While SDRC itself lacks final decisionmaking authority, it brings together representatives of the agencies primarily concerned with land and water use, allowing resolution of difficulties and differences of opinion 113 before final agency action is taken. It is thus an important supplement to the conflict resolution procedures previously described in this part. C. Authdrit to Acquire Interests in Lands, Waters, and Other Property" "Hecessary to Achieve C-o-nTo-rmance with the MTF It is not anticipated that the actual acquisition of lands and waters by the Government of Guam will be necessary for enforcement of the great majority of the policies of the GCMP. There are, however, two sets of statutory provisions granting the Territory acquisition authority that may prove useful for the full attainment of the GCMP's purposes. GCG ��13985.4-13985.14 outline the authority of the Department of Parks and Recreation to acquire ownerships interests necessary for the protection and preservation of historical resources, consisting of either real or personal property. Because the Territory exercises strong authority only over historical resources located on public lands or in public waters, it is likely that this acquisition authority may at some point have to be relied upon for the protection of an' important historical resource. The Department is authorized to acquire only the ownership interest that it considers reasonably necessary for the protection and preservation of historic real property. Thus, if a leasehold would be sufficient for this purpose, the fee simple should not be acquired. GCG �13456, part of the Territorial Beach Areas Act, authorizes the Governor to acquire, by condemnation, exchange, or negotiated purchase, ownership of or interests in any part of the ocean shore that has passed into private ownership. This authorization does not extend to unregistered areas where frequent and uninterrupted use by the public has resulted in public rights and easements (primarily for access) confirmed under GCG �13455. If the interest acquired is less than full ownership, it must be sufficient to allow the Department of Parks and Recreation to administer the land as a Territorial Beach Area. 114 Table No. 3. TERRITORIAL COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AUTHORITIES Commission/Agency and Authority Citation: GCG (Unless Otherwise Noted) Central Planning Council - Bureau of Planning Comprehensive Planning Enabling Legislation Title LXV, Chapter III Territorial Planning Commission - Department of Land Management Zoning Law Title XVIII Subdivision Law Title XIX Territorial Seashore Protection Act Title XIV, Chapter V-A Subdivision and Development Review Committee Executive Order 78-2 Natural Resources Board Sections 13251-3 Government Land Sale and Lease Title XIII, Chapter VI, VII, XI Public Rights Provisions Title XIV, Chapter XII-B Submerged Land Permits U.S. Public Law 93-435 Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 Wetlands Rules and Regulations Executive Order 78-21 Department of Public Works. Flood Hazard Area Rules and Regulations Executive Order 78-20 Department of Parks and Recreation Parks and Recreation Title XXVII, Chapter I Historic Objects and Sites Title.XIV, Chapter XIII Territorial Beach Areas Act Title XIV, Chapter V-B Guam Environmental Protection Agency Water Resources Conservation Act Title LXI, Chapter II Water Pollution Control Act Title LXI, Chapter III Toilet Facilities and Sewage Disposal Title LXI, Chapter IV Air Pollution Control Act Title LXI, Chapter V Guam Pesticides Act Title LXI, Chapter VI Solid Waste Management and Litter Control Title LXI, Chapter VIII Guam Safe Drinking Water Act Title LXI, Chapter XII Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Regs. Promulgated 12/5/75 Department of Agriculture Game and Fish Laws Title XIII, Chapter IV, Art. I Wildlife Conservation Title XII, Chapter IV, Art. III Live Coral and Fishing Nets Title XIII, Chapter IV, Art. V Endangered Species Act Title XIII, Section 1235, as amended Guam Land Conservation Act Title XIV, Chapter VII Government of Guam Guam Constitution Awaiting Voter Approval Guam Land-Use Policies Executive Order 73-37 115 Table No. 4 Authorities for Principal Agency Coastal Management Activities CITATION (Government Code of 'Guam unless AUTHORITY otherwise noted) ACTIVITIES central Planning Council-Bureau of Planning Public Law 12-200 Title LXV, Chapter 11 Review and approval of all elements of the Comprehensive Development Plan and deter- mination of consistency of certain land and water uses with Comprehensive and CoastaT Management Plans. Territorial Planning Commission-Seashore Protection Commission Department of Land Management Zoning Law Title XVIII Review and approval of zone maps, changes, variances, conditional uses, signs, planned unit developments, appeals relating to building permits. Subdivision Law Title XIX Review and approval of sub- divisions, variances, lot parelling, improvements required thereon. territorial Seashore Title XIV, Chapter Review and approval of all Protection Act V-A development within the Seashore Reserve Area. Subdivision and Executive Order 75-2 Review of all zone changes, Development Review subdivisions and major Committee variances. Natural Resources Sections 13251-3 Review of proposals for use, Board lease, or purchase of government land for commercial mining or mineral, rock or sand removal. Government Land Sale Title XIII, Chapters Sale or lease of government and Leases VI-VIII and XI land. Public Rights Title XIV, Chapter Study of public use of provisions XII-B land to determine ownership. Submerged Land Permits U.S. P.L. 93-435 Approval of development on submerged lands. Land-Use Districts Executive Order 78-23 Review and approval of all development in Conservation Wetlands Executive Order 78-21 Districts and Areas of Particular Concern; establish- ment and enforcement of zoning law in urban, rural and agriculture districts. 116 AUTHORITY CITATION ACTIVITIES DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Parks and Recreation Title XXVIII, Chapter I Designationand management of Territorial Parks and Community Recreation Facilities. Historic Objects and Title XIV, Chapter Identification and management Sites XIII of historic sites, land and underwater archaelogic sites. Territorial Beach Areas Title XIV, Chapter Acquisition and management Act V-B of territorial beach areas. GUAM VIR NMEN I P OTECTION AGEM21@-=Iix A) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Game and Fish Laws Title XIII, Chapter Rules and regulations for IV, Article I hunting of game and fish. Wildlife Conservation Title XIII, Chapter IV, Identification and management Article III of wildlife conservation areas. Live Coral and Fishing Title XIII, Chapter IV, Rules and regulations for Nets Article V coral harvesting and net fishing. Endangered Species Section 12325 Identification and management of endangered plant and animal species. .Guam Land Conservation Title XIV, Chapter VII Identification and management Act of agricultural preserves. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORK,; Building Codes Title XXXII Enforcement of standards for structural developments. Flood Hazard Areas Executive Order 78-20 Enforcement of rules and regu- lations for flood hazard areas and issuance of building permits. APPLICABLE TO ALL ACTIVITIES Guam Constitution Awaiting Voter Approval All activities GOVERNMENT OF GUAM FigUre No. 3 (ORGANIZATIONAL CHART F@SCAL YEAR 1979 LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EXECUTIVE BRANCH JUD ICI AL B R ANCH .0 FICE OF SURU ANU [OF7FICE OF THE GOVERNO (OMBUDSMAN) rs )R FF UTON OFFICE 5TAFF DEPAR kRTMENTS D FDEPAR VETERAN'S D"TNENT DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT PUBIL C tMLl - OF OF AFFAIRS Of SAiETY OF' TIESIAGENCY ID E CORRECTION5 ADMINISTRATION PUDLIC 'ENT RESEARCO r; OFFICE CORRECTION5 40F GUAM CHIEF DEPARYMENT DEPARTMENT DERVaMENT ENVI GUA' OASSPORT OF OF OF LAND PR RO-MENTAL OFFICE COVAMISSIO ERS LAW COMMERCIFF DTECTIO. OFFICE ING S DEPlIRTMENT VOCATIONAL GUAM TERRITORIAL AGENCY FOR Ov REVEOUE EHABILITAnON, CRIME @-q MENTAL HEALTH 8 TAXATION PUB S AGENCY f AAPUOTWHOEIRRIT@Yj COMMISSION a rRUG ABUSE DEPARTMENT GUAM CIVIL OF ME ORML. LIDEFE@SE GUZZ4 _NG_ DEPA@THENT AND URBAN RE- AGENCY OF NEWAL AUTHO- OF YOUTH AGRICULTURE AFFAIRS RITY nFP6R7%lr-T GUAM ECONOMIC OF PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT BUREAU HEALTH AND AUTHORITY OF ENEW33Y SOCIAL SER 4 PLANNING OFFICE VICES @ A M VOCAT ONAL EHABILITAnON DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION w GUAM HOUSING CORPORATION GUAM HiAL-rH t PLANNING a @DEVELOPMENT AGENCY 119 CHAPTER VII - AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN Sections 305(b)(3) and 305(b)(5) of the CZM Act require an identi- fication of areas of particular concern (APCs) together with "broad guidelines" on priorities of use within those areas including specifi- cally those uses of lowest priority. In the generic or site-specific designation, "states must indicate the nature of concern (which shall) (i) indicate why areas or types of areas have been selected for special management attention and (ii) provide a basis for appropriate management policies and use guidelines." 15 CFR 923.21(b)(3). In order to provide a basis for management of APC's, a reference point for conflict resolution, as well as to articulate further the nature of interest in designated APC's states or Territories must provide guide- lines regarding priorities of uses in these areas, including guidelines on uses of lowest priority. (15 CFR 932.21(b)(5)) Purpose and Intent The purpose of designation of APC's through a land-use or coastal management plan is to call attention to the importance of the area designated, as well as to provide an additional management capability to ensure responsible development in areas either that have a high degree of environmental sensitivity or that are, or will be, subject to intense development pressure in the near future. Such a special designation can reserve appropriate sites for future economic development as well as pro- tect fragile natural areas. Effective administration of APC's involves management of Uses or activities in the designated areas to assure protec- tion of the values recognized in assigning the APC status. In certain very fragile or hazardous areas, adequate protection of the resource values and the public interest therein may require strict limitations on use or development. Chapter V-S of Land-Use Plan, Guam 1977-2000 identifies a series of potential Areas of Particular Concern, including for each a descriptive synopsis, statements of envisioned expansion, and suggested performance guidelines. Two of these potential APC's, flood hazard areas and wetlands, have actually been designated as APC's by the Governor in Executive Orders 78-20 and 78-21, signed on August 28 and September 7, 1978, respectively. Because they have already been designated formally by the Governor, and because the TPC has, in accordance with the Executive Orders, adopted rules and regulations governing development in these areas, flood hazard areas and wetlands are considerd to be the APC's of the GCMP for purposes of Federal consideration and approval of the 120 Program. These two APC's will be discussed in Part A of this Chapter. Part B will briefly describe the other potential APC's identified in the Land-Use Plan. A. Designated Areas of Particular Concern: Flood Hazard Areas and Wetlands 1. Flood Hazard Areas. (Map No. 3) As surface drainage patterns on steep slopes merge into rivers, the amount of water flow and concentration of sediments increases. The course of rivers inevitably leads to the ocean along coastal lowlands. Dispersal of water over a floodplain area retains freshwater resources and some sediments are distributed over land rather than into the sea. During periods of adverse weather conditions that bring persistent rainfall, the natural and developed drainage systems can overflow even further into adjacent flat terrain at the base of a drainage slope. The dispersal of flood water is often confined to natural wetland habitats, but in some cases, can overflow into developed areas of human settle- ment. If improperly used, floodplains can become problem areas as a result of deterioration of flood-damaged structures and the recurrence of public expense for relief and repair of flood-damaged facilities. When floodplains are left open, practically no flood losses occur. However, because floodplains are level and level land is in high demand on a small island, much development has already occurred in flood hazard areas or further encroaches upon flood-prone areas. Rules and regulations for development in historically proven flood hazard areas seek to prevent damage to property and the quality of human life. Floodplain management is not only vital for the protection of both the environment and popu- lation, but also the economy as the Federally-subsidized National Flood Insurance Program requires local delineation and management flood hazard areas in order to be qualified for reasonable flood insurance rates. Performance Guidelines See Appendix 1. Page 1-110. In Executive Order 78-20 (contained in Appendix 1), the Governor declared flood hazard areas to be an area of particular concern in the planning and management of Guam's land and water resources. He directed the TPC to promulgate such rules and regulations as might be necessary to meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program and the GCMP in insuring that development in floodplains does not endanger the public's health, safety, and welfare. He also required the TPC to identify as,floodplain APC's those areas delineated as floodplains tinder the National Flood Insurance Program and such other areas as might be recommended by the Subdivision and Development Review Committee. The flood hazard areas that have been so identified are indicated on the 121 accompanying rules and regulations adopted by the TPC in response to the Executive Order require the approval of the Department of Public Works before any development that is proposed for flood hazard areas may proceed. The term "development" is defined very broadly to mean: "The placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or ther- mal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including but not limited to, subdivision of land and any other divi- sion of land including lot parcelling; change in the intensity of use of water, ecology related thereto, or of access thereto; construction or reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any struc- ture, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility, and the removal of significant vegetation." The rules and regulations also prescribe the procedures that must be followed to secure this approval. While these primarily involve technical analysis and evaluation of the proposed development plan by the Department of Public Works and other concerned Territorial agencies, all interested persons will have the opportunity to comment on each proposal, and the site of the proposed development must remain open for inspection by all interested parties and agencies during all phases of the application procedure and development. Substantive standards for flood hazard management are prescribed in the rules and regulations. The TPC may grant variances from these standards only to the extent that zoning variances would be legally permissable under the same circum- stances. The variance procedure would involve public hearings before the TPC in which all interested persons could make their views known. 2. Wetlands. (Map No. 4) Wetlands are unique components of the island ecosystems. They are the swamps, marshes, mangroves, and river valleys. These are areas that are constantly inundated with water and provide a wildlife habitat for aquatic species of plants and animals. Many wetlands also act as a source of freshwater supply or assist in recharging the aquifer. They primarily provide a nursery ground for many juvenile species of animals until the organism reaches a stage of growth when it can venture into another ecological niche. Wetlands are one of the most biologically productive areas on the island. They provide aesthetic scenery and are valuable locations for scientific research or sensitive aquaculture development. In areas at the coast, there is a transition from fresh- water to saltwater wetlands with zonations of vegetation delineating the changes in salinity. A diversity of plant life is found in these 122 areas, many of which assist in maintaining the balance of the habitat, supply nutrients to the water, and have ethnobotanical value as food, medicine, or material culture. Wetland areas are often in floodplain areas and absorb excess overflow from rivers during periods of excessive rainfall. The mangrove fringe, represented in only two major locations on Guam ' is riot only an ecological habitat, but also functional as a shoreline stabilization mechanism which prevents erosion dijring periods of stormwave inundation. Mangroves are particularly resistent to typhoon force winds. Wetlands studies include the appen- dix of the Atlas of Reefs and Beaches of Guam and Survey and Inventory of Wetland Vegetation- in Guam, Tinian and-'5-aipan, Mariana islands. Performance Guidelines See Appendix 1, Page 1-100. Executive Order 78-21, which appears in Appendix 1, declares wetlands to be an area of particular concern in the management of Guam's land and water resources. The Governor directed the TPC to promulgate the rules and regulations necessary for balanced development, protection, and conservation of wetlands, and also required the TPC to officially designate those wetlands, consistent with the Land-Use Plan and the GCMP. The designated wetland APC's are indicated on the accompanying map. The TPC rules and regulations that were adopted in response to tile Executive Order require that no development take place in any wetland without a wetland permit from the TPC. For this purpose, the term "development" is defined in the same way as in the Flood Hazard rules and regulations. The rules prescribe the procedures to be followed in obtaining wetland permits from the TPC, including the filing of a detailed compre- hensive plan for each proposed development, and review of the plan by the SDRC, as well as by the TPC. The rules and regultions also set forth substantive standards for development and conservaton of wetland APC's. The TPC may grant variances from the standards and procedures for wet- land development under the same conditions for which it may grant variances under the Zoning Law. The priorities of use for flood hazard areas and wetlands are established by the standards and procedures contained in the TPC rules and regulations. The normal priorities that would be accorded various uses in these two APC's are reflected in Figure 4. . 123 Table keyed to Map No 3 : Areas which are susceptible to flooding as designated by the COE, USGS, DPW, DLM and BOP. A. Dededo - Sinkholes B. Asan-Piti - Atantano River Valley Aguada River Masso River Taguag River Matgue River Asan Village Piti Village C. Agat-Santa Rita Taelayag River Taleyfac River Chaligan Creek Auau Creek Gaan River Finile Creek Salinas River Togcha River Namo River D. Umatac Madog River Lae Lae River La Sa Fua River Cetti River Sella River Asmafines River Agaga River E. Merizo Toguan River Bile River Pigua River Geus River Achang Bay Area F. Inarajan - Inarajan River Basin Agfayan River G. Talofofo - Ugum River Talofofo River Mahlac River Maagas River Sagge River Asalonso River H. Yona - Togcha River Ylig River -T. Chalan Pago - Pago River J. Yigo - Sinkholes 124 GUAM A y 1 6 0 D E D C D 0 AGANA T U NG ---T--- SINAJANA AGANA HEIGHTS BAR GADA I j GMO AIT Af@ -@ N CH PAGO) R T MA GILA P I T I _A, Y 0 N A H S A N T A RITA A G! A, T T A L 0 F 0 F 0 Map No. 3 FLOOD HAZARD AREAS D UMArAC INARAJAN @&GE:Ng,-PN k@XT PACE MER 1 70 125 IR 2L X 3R GR L 7 --F- 69 GUAM -T UNIFOIRM MAMW. Sn-KM fa Wetlands 61 61 Yll G 0 57 S3 J I "A" 111-PI It. I r A 0 A A N 5-1 CHA -11) PAGOI 0 A D 0 T 45 ATANTANO (R@ER VALLEY BAKOROVES 4@ PAOO RIVER IISTUARY 1 0 M A 41 14110 RIVER ILOOTLAlk 41 rSTTA I TA r@CICATJ@NS OF Nt),MERPUS 37 A GI A 1, \'- 9, S04ALL /;P SAVANNAH ?AARSHeg_ I A L 0 11 0 F --0 LOVOFJ RIVER VA@y Map No. 4 33 \\k WETLANDS 33 ... TA. MAN A f I A A Al 29 INARAJAN R VEJ ..T.-I lUl I 1 .111 RIVER -l' AR M E A I J! . A@AIAII ..T@ARY + GAY MANG OVES A- -A- -A- -K- 5L GR 7R 4R -IL RL IR 11 2L 2R 11 3L IX 3R il 4L JA Fiqure 4 Priorities of Use Within Existina and Proposed Areas of Particular C x /I b c@ A APC lAlntroll E-@@rc, ion Sit.. W ?. ?. 3 3 Z 2 2 'S 3 2 1 1 3 -5 z z I -a 1 3INAI I NA I 1 2 Industrial and A 2 ? Support r"a@ommorclallaj 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 _I I I 16.) NA 1 2 1 l(c) I(c) 1 2 ? I Urban Waterfronts (a) 1 1 2 2 P_ 1 1 2 NA 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 3 2 NA 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 NA I Air Installation Compatible --Us@ Zones (AICUZ) 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 -3 3 2 2 ?_ NA NA I 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 e Flood Hazard Areas 1 1 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 2 a 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 Slide and Erosion Prone I 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 NA ?. 2 3 2 3 3 2 NA 2 NA 2 NA ?. 2 3 3 P. I -ArGas Seismic Faults 1 1 3 1 ? I I 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 NA 2 NA 2 2 3 2 1 1 Prisline Ecological Communities (Terrestrial) 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 -3 3 3 1 Critical Habitats 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 a 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 Llmoston6 Forest* 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 3 3 NA 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1NAINA NA 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 f Wetlands 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 3 t 3 3 3 3 3 P 3 3 3 .3 3 3 2 NA I Karst Topography 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 NA 3 NA a NA 2 3 3 2 NA I Pristine Ecoloqlcal 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 -3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 NA I Communities ( Marine) LEGEND: NOTES: HIGH PRIORITY to.) Certain uses suchas open space, parks, conservation, cultivation. reforestation, ate.. while not a*hlqh priority' use within Development oriented APC'S of@ certainly acceptable and encouraged within multiple uss devs[opment plant and upon termination of the specified activity. Such post -development use Is Included In the "Restoration' F21 LOW PRIORITY activity category. (b.) Dredging and filling means water related dredging and filling on the some sIfe.*FIIIIng* alone Is covered under, 31 UNACCEPTABLE (d) *cIsarIng,gradInq,fiIIIng.* F nNA NOT APPLICABLE (c.) Uses are necessary but not encouraged as" high priority.' (d.) Exception permitted only for facility In which an overriding nalional interest can be demonstrated. 15 CFR 923.52 1 3 [I I 3 1 NA 1 31 1 .5 INA 3 NA I e. Officially designated by Executive Order No. 78-20 f. Officially designated by Executive Order No. 78-21 127 B. Potential Areas of Particular Concern Identified in the Land-Use Element of the Comprehensive Development Plan. The Land-Use Plan and the Comprehensive Develoement Plan, of which the former T-s Fte required land use element, Tdentify a number of other potential APC's as provided under 15 CFR 923.23o For the purpose of initial delineation, four basic criteria were applied to the land areas of Guam in order to formulate a list of potential APC's: - Transitional areas where further development or restoration is called for, or intensely developed areas requiring parti- cular scrutiny for further development; - Areas having significant natural values; - Areas which have definite and identifiable hazardous characteristics, if developed without proper consi- deration; or Areas having significant value for public use or well-being. Each of the nine major categories of potential APC's will now be identi- fied, briefly described, and located on maps of the island. As potential APC's, and not currently subject to any extraordinary Territorial regula- tion or management, these maps denote areas on both non-federal and federal properties. Any eventual specific regulation, of course, will be applicable only to non-federal lands and waters. 1. Unique Terrestrial Ecosystems. (Map No. 5) There are four major categories of these: (a) Terrestrial Pristine EcoToOical Communities These are the most untouched representatives of the speci fic habi- tats known as the limestone forest, ravine forest, savannah,, coastal strand, and wetlands. Though each of these areas has its own performance standards, the most scientifically valuable representative requires a more strict control of permissable uses in order that it be preserved for the study of its unique ecology. Ecology is the relationship between the pla'nts, animals, and natural features of an area. Being the least developed, they are usually the most aesthetically pleasing or beautiful examples of the different natural communities. Pristine ecological areas often contain the highest incidence of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals. These are species that are in immediate danger of extinction or would reduce to a critically low number if adverse land uses were permitted to operate. The specific sites together with flora and fauna identification appear in a CZM study, An Ecological Survey of Pristine Terrestrial Communities on Guam. IR 2L _+31- 3R 4L 4R 5L 6R 7L 7R -V -V- '128 + -1 .... @IJNOF.B.EACH EST GUAM UNIFORM MAPPING SYSTEM 61 A Wilt a N r-S, FRESHWVER 10 P6141) AMA 57 57 AREA NMI T A N N a A 9 CHA NJ F A a o 0 A D T r 45 4a I Map No. 5 1 UNIQUEJ TERRESTRIAL COMMONITIES I 1 0 A I I . I ! 41 TA . @..A. -1 A . FMST Will E REFUSE 104irsomed I K X ES,000 a I TA R I TA PROPOSEI) -=A-IN --- --- L-@- FOREV 7 A GI A T < T A L 0 11 1 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A- SELLA A CE 'I- LEGEND IGAY C AS 33 ISTRAND PROPOSED CRITICAL @IAINTAT 33 sERv&,noN LIMESTONE FOREST A-.No i@-i I-wo4NDAN "MA H" - k VAII.. 1 11 A A I A N WILDLIFE REFUM 0.1 _@C TERRESTRIAL PRISTINE 29 ECOLOGICAl. COMMUNITY z 0 + 25 3R /F 129 (b) Wildlife Refuges Pristine ecological communities, delineated through ongoing research, often overlap with other larger, unique wildlife habitats. As pristine areas are more specific in location, the larger Government of Guam Conser- vation Areas are maintained for the preservation of large tracts of wild- nerness land. They are precisely delineated in the Community Design Plans. (c) Proposed Critical Habitats Even more expansive are critical habitats for more resident birds. The majority of bird species on Guam are threatened or endangered and the Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources has delineated critical habitats for possible consideration by Federal Fish and Wildlife regula- tions. Critical habitats are the natural areas where particular species find the requirements for survival and protection from predators. The largest areas include much of the limestone forest around the northern coastal clifflines. The Fena Reservoir area, Orote Peninsula, and Cocos Island are additional critical habitats. For example, Orote Island is the only nesting site on Guam for the brown booby and the ironwood trees on Cocos Island provide the nesting site for white fairy terns. Many of these habitat areas are currently owned by the Federal government. (d) Limestone Forest The limestone forests of Guam are so named because they grow in minimal soil upon the northern limestone plateau, Orote Peninsula, and areas of the southeast coastline. They are a finite resource as land development has cleared many forested areas. Unlike mainland forests, reforestration is not possible because introduced "invader" species of vegetation prohibit the re-establishment of native flora. Limestone forests are characterized by medium-size trees that provide a canopy over understory shrubs, herbs, and lianas. Numerous epiphytic ferns, mosses and orchids cover the rocks and larger trees. Due to periodic typhoons, the limestone forest never reaches a climax stage of maximum growth potential. The importance of forested areas is multiple when weighing the public benefits of preservation and developmental needs. They provide a wildlife habitat for many unique and endangered species of plants and animals. They also provide an area for collection of medicinal plants and edible animal life such as the popular coconut crab. As an aesthe- tic resource, they are of value for hiking, nature observation and scientific investigation. Of less visibility, but not of less importance, much of the limestone forest lies over areas of the lens system. In areas with significant vegetation, surface runoff is negli- gible and natural areas inhibit the infiltration of pollutants that are associated with urban development. 1630 2. Unique Marine Ecological Communities: Marine Pristine Ecological Communities. (Map No. 6) Marine Pristine Ecological Communities include a typical represen- tative of each of the major marine ecological communities on Guam, including: estuaries, fringing reefs, barrier reefs, patch reefs, barrier reef channels, fringing reefs, channels, mangrove swamps, seagrass beds, cut benches and submarine cliffs. Each of the selected representa- tive areas has retained its natural character or successfully re-established it after disturbance. This natural character includes biotic, and to a lesser extent abiotic, components of scientific, educational and aesthetic value. Of specific interest are the preservation of the natural ecological stability through diversity and the protection of critical habitats for rare, uncommon, threatened or endangered species. Although many of these areas are included in the coral reef category of APC's, these most valuable areas require stricter control of permissible uses. Performance standards can be developed using the baseline data presented in a CZM study entitled, Survey and Species Inventory of Representative Pristine Marine'Communi- Fie's on Guam. 3. Fre'ghwater'Resources (Map No. 7) The underground aquifer system of Northern Guam provides the bulk of the island's freshwater supply. A layer of freshwater floats upon salt- water and forms a basal lens. The lens is replenished by rainfall percolation through the limestone of the northern plateau. There are three main aquifer areas - Dededo-Yigo, Barrigada, and Chalan Pago-Ordot in Central Guam. In the area over the two northernmost aquifers, numerous sinkholes cause rapid injection of water into the lens system. These areas are particularly critical in terms of pollution of underground supplies as even partial filtration is not in effect. Where urban devel- opment surfaces the land over aquifer recharge areas, ponding basins are sometimes needed to assist in rainwater recharge of the underground lens. In the Central Guam aquifer area, where southern volcanic uplands meet the northern limestone plateau, the topography is intersected by low-lying basins that appear as grassy fields that are flooded during periods of rainfall in the wet season. These natural low-lying basins, like the northern sinkholes, assist in aquifer recharge and are depicted on more detailed maps in the Community Design Plans. Performance guidelines for land use over aquifer systems may ease as ongoing research of the nature of groundwater resources further defines the extent of supplies and the capacity to absorb pollutants. Currently, the most comprehensive study Groundwater Resources of Guam: Occurrence and Development., by John F. Aink, has been published by the University of Guam Water P sources Research Center as their Technical Report No. 1. IR I 7L 'm It OL I 8L GUAM E REEF 0 UNIFORM WAR= MMM ------------------------ Unique Marine Ecosyster@s 10 or IACH und MFR,,INUGtNG RZEF I -4- 11 1 if G 37 11 T A U 1 0 6" 53 I'll my 7, A 1. 93 COA A 9 P A Oi 0000T FADIIN POINT ARIA ..ORO E BLU HOLE TANTA IMANGROVESI I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V 0 0 A 41 IA 'A -L-j 7 A G1 A T I I I I I I ap No. 16 37 >1 T A L 0 IF F I LEGEND 33 C@TTI SAY U-MA A = CORAL REEFS 33 I A A Al I A m PRISM MARINE COM"MES ?S 29 IMERIZ01 COCOS LAG.Om 25+ RIER 25 ly REEF AJAYAN IAY IR 2L SL -4p A- TR 132 IR V 2R 3L 3R 4R SL 2L =6L -V - - - - - -v- -TV-- + Ise - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - 65 GUAM 6e UNI"M MAFPING SYSIEM - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - 61 E: 61 Map No. 7 "i N. lx, 41- IQ0 FRE@HWATER' RESOU@CE ARE@S 57 57 53 A m I 19 48 45 11-10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Y 0N A 41 BA TA R I TA AJUIFER RE" AREA 37 1! A IT .37 I TERSHED WELLS 33 SPRING 33 UA T A NAVY AIR FORICE PRIVATE 29 29 GOVERNMENT Of GUAM I R I z 0 25 IR -@41 8L 2L 2R, 3L @R @,R IL 133 In the southern half of the island, rainfall does not penetrate the volcanic rock as rapidly as limestone and surface water gathers in the form of rivers, streams and wetlands. Surface drainage from water- shed areas can be directed into reservoirs such as the existing Fena Reservoir. 4. Industrial and Commercial Support (Map No. 8) (a) Power Production and Transmission Facilities A recently completed study, Future Power Production and Trans- mission Alternative Plans U.S.A., indicates that Cabras Island in all probability, be the site for future power production facilities. The existing Government of Guam site has sufficient land area for two additional steam plants. Thereafter, the adjacent site of the existing .Piti plants can be utilized as the present production facilities will probably be going offline in 1994. Considerations of alternative pro- duction methods such as thermal gradient,. solar, and wind generation are being considered, but are still too experimental to be subejct to a great degree of planning consideration. It is indicated in the above mentioned study that GPA's present land holdings are adequate for expansion of bulk fuel oil storage tanks adjacent to the existing pair of 268,000 gallon tanks. Additional tanks will be required at the time Tank No. 4 is programmed for installation at the Cabras site. According to the study, no major changes or addi- tions are required for fuel oil delivery, or transfer of pipeline systems for power plant fueling needs up to the year 2000. The existing 115KV transmission line and planned expansion will provide adequate voltage for Guam's power needs to the year 2000. Right-of-way widths depend on a conductor configuration which will probably remain in a two-circuit, vertical configuration (100 feet or greater) depending upon the span and height of the towers. (b) Commercial Port The Commercial Port of Guam is located on Cabras Island and occupies 33 acres deeded to the Government of Guam by the Navy. Only nine acres are presently used as a container and marshalling yard, while 90 percent of the cargo off-loaded is in containers. The present area, the two gantry cranes, and 27,000 linear feet of pier are inadequate for present activity which, over the last three years, has averaged around 700,000 tons of cargo off-loaded per annum. Plans for expansion include: - Immediate development of 11 acres opposite the present port facility for additional container handling space; 134 2R TL 4L 4R 5L ;-L 6R 7R a ., 'N V_ -v- -if- 7v- -F -v- -V 6c N - - - - - - - - - - - 65 GUAM UNIFORM MAPPING SYMM 61 ,71 61 I Yll G 0 57 57 E 0 0 53 TA N 53 - - - - - - - - - - I A 0 A 49 c A X01 P A 0 01 0 A D 0 7 4- - - - - - - - - - - --- - 4' IV 45 C> ml L Y 0 ft A 41 41 T AIt T A 37 A GIA IT 37 < T A 1 0IF 0 F 0 t1ap Nol,, 8____ INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUPPORT AREAS 33 LEGEND 33 j COMMERCIAL PORT I N A 1 41 A 29 INDUSTRIAL (HEX") 29 Pomp Poomx1r" 0 NWRAL EXTRACTIOIN I z 0 I A 51T 25 + 25 IL -A R -.L 6R 7R 8L L 2L 3FIR 3L 3R /F 4L IF 4RAF-:5:L::---l k i 135 - Redesign and relocation of the access road to the northern edge of Cabras Island; - Leveling of terrain in and around the area of proposed expansion; - Development of an additional 800 feet of docking space to the east of the present docking facilities and relocation of the feed mill; - Long-range development of approximately 4,000 feet of addi- tional dock space to the west of the existing Commercial Port (opposite the Marianas Yacht Club anchorage and oil storage tanks). - Relocation and expansion of the Yacht Club facilities to the area east of the proposed 800 foot pier/dock extension; - Shifting of some of the existing industry for more efficient use of the area; - Erection of additional warehousing facilities; - In addition, several new industrial-use locations are being considered for location in the Commercial Port area; - Tuna transshipment facility - Cannery - Storage and warehousing Map No. 9 delineates some of the existing and proposed heavy industry in the port area. (c) Superport Synopsis and Possible Development Guam has been considered as a possible site for the location of a transshipment and storage facility for a 90-day supply of oil for Japan. A thorough examination of any proposal must weigh the economic benefits to Guam against the sizeable irreversible commitments that such a massive development project would demand. Consideration must address: The location and impacts of off-loading and support faci- lities, such as a fixed mooring island and tug/supply boat staging areas; 136 Map No. 9 Relationship of Heavy Industrial Land Use in the Apra Harbor Area. EXISTI 0 COMMERCIAL POR FUEL =BE EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USE- EXISTING AMMID WHARF POWER PRODUCTION APRA PROPOSED HAMOR lop AMMID WHARF ORYDOCIKS SHIP REPAIR FACILITY GUAM OIL REFINERY POSSIBLE SUPERPORT LOCATION 137 - The impacts of.a major oil spill, the ability of local agencies to manage the effects, and spill prevention measures at all stages of the operation; - A detailed analysis of the real impact on employment, e.g., will outside labor or local hire be used in the construc- tion and maintenance of facilities; - The increased demand and impacts of secondary industrial development, especially oil refining, accompanying such development; - The impacts of increased activity and tremendous land area, both on the Agat shoreline and the land surrounding present GORCO facilities, required for off-loading and storage; - The increased demand for island infrastructure and public facilities (roads, power, water and communications); - The life span or active life of the storage facilities due to a declining world oil supply, in comparison with the perma- nent and irreversible commitment of both shoreside and inland land and water resources, e.g., will the commitment of land for such facilities be worth the 20-40 years it will be in operation; - The strategic impact for location of such a facility on defense capabilities of the island. 5. Mineral Deposits (Map No. 10) Comprised primarily of limestone, sand and a potential for limited hard volcanic aggregate deposits, the island's mineral deposits have already been significantly developed. Major extraction activities are presently located on the northeast coastline of the island. Illegal extraction of beach sand from several areas, however, still occurs. According to studies currently underway and discussions with pro- ducers, supplies of limestone and sand are adequate to meet the island's needs for the next 20 years without significantly expanding extraction operations to other areas of the island. Short-term operations such as repair of the Glass Breakwater, using the Cabras Island quarry, can be expected. The Department of Public Work's Skid Reduction Program is presently engaged in an analysis of potential extraction sites for hard aggregate (basalt) in the southern part of the island. Initial geologic investigations of volcanic aggre- gate resources are encouraging in relation to the occurrence of a superior 138 -F - - - F V- V- --I- =-F -w- -Y- GUAM @w 61 17 tm: ft. a 4-1 Z. IA- IWAII P A 0 01 c 0116or V L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 0 0 A 41 TA 0 YA -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A 01 A 1, IDISTRIBUTION OF NATURAL MATERLALS FOR AGGREGATE 33 KEY 33 T A W" LWO, stom &ARM rm 0 Lmom W"m 21 ..go Rol 25 + + 25 2L 2R ,L X 3R 'L 7R 139 grade of unweathered basalt in the Northern Marianas (Pagan Island). A report was released in October, 1977, addressing the specifics of these issues: "Resources and Projections: Availability of Sand as Fine Aggregate for Engineering Construction in Guam and Memo on Basalt Quality on Guam." 6. Shoreline Development Areas (Map No. 11) In relation to Development Policy 1, relative to the location of facilities adjacent to the shoreline, certain areas of the shoreline were considered potential APC's for the purpose of ensuring compatible growth without destroying the character or accessibility of the shore. While it is recognized that there will always be pressure for the location of private dwellings adjacent to the shore, it is the high-intensity uses of a nature not complimentary to the immediate use of the shore which are of the greatest concern. The following categories were considered as having a priority for location, adjacent to the shore, not including power production or port facilities: - Resort Areas - Boating, fishing, aquaculture and associated activity areas - Marine Educational Institution locations - Park and beach areas - Surfing areas - Wastewater Disposal sites - Urban Waterfront Areas. Development in these areas is regulated adequately by the regulatory mechanisms discussed in Chapter VI and in Part A of this Chapter. Special attention should be given, however, to the urban waterfront areas. The villages of Umatac, Merizo, Inarajan, and the urban strip from Cabras Island to Saupon Point face serious problems discussed in detail in the Land-Use Plan and Community Design Plans, as elements of the Com- prehensive Development Plan. For the purposes of designation of APC's, these areas, which are indicated on Map No. 11, are considered as areas of future APC designation and restoration for which additional manage- ment techniques have yet to be developed. The National Park Service@has established a park which provides the opportunity to depict the epic story of WWII in the Pacific. Once 1-40 4 7L V- -V- - -V- --f -------------------- -- ------- GUAM UmFORM MAPMW@ SYSTEM . 1.1. 1 1 1 1 - - -- ------------------------ 61 6f 57 aupon 5a 1point TA ml N 53 I ADA Islind I 49 A zy LA--- A 01 V Ad 0 R D 0 T - --- - - - - - - - - - - Y 0 N A 41 41 t NTA 7 A 37 A 61 A T 7 T A L 0 1 F o Map No.1 11 1 1 33 33 A URBAN WATERFRONT AREASI- I A A A, I A N 29 29 25 + 4L 4L. -oll "I 141 completed, the War in the Pacific National Historical Park will empha- size the Battle for Guam as a classic example of the island to island fighting in the Pacific theater. The 883-acre park is being developed at sites in Asan and Piti (see Map No. 12) where, on July 21, 1944, American Marine and ArrV forces led an attack on Japanese shore installation. Present exploration of these areas of the island reveals that much of the historic sites are undisturbed and undeveloped. To preserve a representative portion of many of these sites and to provide a manageable park area, five separate units were established. These include Agat, Asan, Mount Tenjo/Mount Chachao and Mount Alifan units. Recreational activites being developed for these areas includes trail hiking, shoreline recreation and inter- pretive displays. An initial plan for redevelopment of the Agana Urban waterfront is currently being prepared. This area, from Adelup Point to just south of Sleepy Lagoon, will be declared an APC and subject to extensive scrutiny in the near future. 7. Airport Accident Potential and Sound Zones (Maps No. 13 and 14) Accident potential and airport and sound zones, unlike most areas of particular concern, are not areas to be preserved for their ecological or historical significance. The nature of airport technology has''produced noise levels and accident potential zones that require specific performance standards. Noise levels can be incompatible with human activity and wild- life preservation, and hazard zones can necessitate low-population density oriented land-use activities in certain areas adjacent to airfields. The Guam International Airport and its adjacent areas of specific noise levels and accident potential zones comprise this area of particular concern. Because a military airfield adjoins the Guam International Airport, Federal Consistency is of major importance in this area. Coordination of local and Federal planning involves both the Bureau of Planning and the* U.S. Navy Program of Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ). 8. Slide and Erosion Zones (Map No. 15) With a few exceptions, large-scale development has not yet occurred on steep lands. In the future, however, population increase and demands for more housing (urban expansion) may seek hillsides as development occupies available level terrain (ex. Barrigada Heights). Often home- builders and resort developers wish to take advantage of the vistas Map No. 12WAR IN THE PACIFIC NATIONA HISTORICAL PARK PHUPPMa SEA .................. APRA HARBOR PITI UNIT ASAN UNIT OROTE PENDMULA MT TENJO mT CHACHAO UNIT PHILIPPINE SEA :. .. ...... A UN IT SANTA RITA MT ALFAN UNIT LEGEND NIVORICAL PARK UNIT APRA @H 143 y 11 a 0 a D al@ D 0 13 0 Nla4 No. 13 (k@yed to Fig@re No. 5') A H AICUZ- NAS a C3 i@, AGANA C C4 AA-d P A a 01 0 0 0 0 v LEGEND CLEAR ZONE R MODERATE NOISE ZONE V 0 0 A 5 008H NOISE ZONE =IDEPIT POTEWUU. ZONE X XCIDEW POTUMAL ZONE X T A L 0 F 0 P 0 1010 Fiyure No. 6 LAND USE COMPATIBILITY MATRIX FOR AIRPORT SOUND AND HAZ LA- ND USE CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE w z NORMALLY w > z z 2 V) 0 UNACCEPTABLE < 0 < < (n w 0 w v) w > Vi U) -j cr, -J x Cc ui cr 0- (n Cr < - LL V) ui 000 w w ui 0 z 02 > NORMALLY z 0 F- 0 0 , 0 Lu w z T- -j M > X ir U) ACCEPTABLE %@ z Q- a z z 5 w Z) Ui CC (D ui .(n ul 0 U U), 0 U w Lu - U) < F- 0 Z -i x U) LU Cl a. z ui Z Z < < U -i z Q z CLEARLY 0 > W U) z T < z U) 0 j U CL zn- U) 0 < Lu @E; Z ACCEPTABLE (n z z _2 Lu m z z U) V) w < OM z uJ :D cr Cr Z z F- 2: < 2 0 D 0 < Z) z -1 0 Lu (n Lu V) z x w V3 En -i V) z M cc -i M U 0 2 LL Lu ui Ir 0 U w 2 En Lu < Lu >- LU Z @- -1 Lu 0 U LL -i z U) < ir x > < 2 -1 W z D 0 0 0 Lu z T U V) 0 -j 0 0 a- UJ z 0 Lu X V) w C) CL U 0 (n ui @- - _j (D 0 0 1 - cli < Source: US Navy AICUZ Program 2 z 7- V) Cc CL Z V) 0 -120 -10- 2 I , @2 Cr 0 (n < < < < < < 2 z Lu Z ui z z z z z z < -i -i -i z 0 0 0 0 0 U < < < (L <W < < < 0- P:2 - - ci E . Cn - F- 0 -0j z U U x 0 0 - W5 @z @- v) F- U) z zul CC (r ir w U w Dw < @z < V < < ul w 0 x n w w > < Lu w L) F- F- Lu (r Lu Cc w UJ 0 0 0 w Q 0- 2 2 @z 5 LL > U p: D M < x < T, V3 V3 0 U) < 2 2 2 < ir 0 cr (n z U a- L) 0- T- w w Lu U) U, Q 0 0 0 Lu w z z Lu w UJI w z AICUZ ZONES U U U U) (n Cr ir: cc CZ CLEAR ZONE ...... .... .. .... ... ..... .... .... .. .......... I ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE I NO NOISE ZONE ............... .... .... ............. NO NOISE ZONE 11 ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE 11 1111.1, ......... . .. .... .... .... 1-3 ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE ..... ..... ..... .. .... .... HIGH NOISE ZONE 3 .... .... .... .......... .... .............. .... .... . ........ .... 1-2 ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE I MODERATE NOISE ZONE 3 ..... .... .... . .... ... ............... ....... .... ........... .... .......... 11-3 ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE I I HIGH NOISE ZONE 3 11-2 ACCIDEN T POTENTIAL ZONE I I ..... MODERATE NOISE ZONE 2 3 NO ACCIDENT POTENTIAL .... ..... ........ HIGH NOISE ZONE 2 NO ACCIDENT POTENTIAL MODERATE NOISE ZONE 4R 5L 7N F -5R EIL ? 17 7L 7R 8L __V___V_ _Vi4b_ _V_ __V_ __Y_ + 69 65 -it 10 so 61 7 V1, G 0 57 E D 0 Map. No.1 14 A ml N G" -L@- 53 ANDERSEN AFB I A 0 I.-LEGEND MAI TO CLEAR l'-- ZONE CUD T 49 IAN., CUD I CUD12 It PAG01 0 A D 0 T CUD 3 CUD13 CUDS CUD - COMPATIBLE USE CUD9 DISTRICT 45 CUDIO T41 146 IR 2L 2F 6L 71. IL -y- -Y- T +ffi GUAM UNIFORM MAPPING SYMM Sl ide and Eir osion Zon es 57 57 A 45 4! 41 41 37 37 Map No. 15 33 SLOPE - 15 %and over + 25 A- -A-- 2P 3R IL -SL 5L 5R 6L 4L 4R 6R 147 obtained from higher terrain. An historical preference for flatland as being more feasible for development could change as a result of economic pressures for use of land once considered marginal as far as development potential. Therefore, performance guidelines must facilitate protection of slopes as an extremely important area of particular concern. Approximately half of Guam's total acreage (43 percent) has a slope in excess of 15 percent. Steep terrain generally occurs on the savannah grasslands of the southern half of the island and on coastal cliffs and terraces. Because of a multiplicity of problems that can occur with land-use activity on hillsides and clifflines, open space is encouraged as the predominant land useo The majority of sloping terrain has been designated as conservation districts because the terrain and vegetation constitutes a natural watershed, an aesthetic resource, and an important area for recreational activities such as hiking and observation of ecological habitats. The vegetation, wildlife, drainage patterns, soil conditions, and underlying geology all suggest an emphasis on open space rather than urban or agricultural development in steep areas. Construction on hillsides can promote erosion which destroys pro- tective vegetative cover, limits land use, and degrades water quality and visual appearance. Unplanned development can also lead to landslides and increases flood hazard areas. The weight of structures on steep hillsides can cause unstable soils to "slump" and weaken foundations. In extreme cases, mud slides may cause building damage and/or threat to human life. When ground cover is disturbed or removed during development, exposing the soil, potential for erosion has been introduced. As the surface area available for absorption of rainwater is reduced by impervious surfaces (roofs, roadways, parking lots, etc.), runoff is increased and the poten- tial for erosion increased along with it. As a rule, slopes are more easily eroded than level lands; the extent of erosion during construction and prior to soil stabilization is substantially increased on steep slopes which are more subject to failure than similar installations*in more level landscapes. Where provision is made for public power, water, tele- phone, or sewage systems, the difficulties and costs are significantly greater on steep slopes. In addition, the acreage requirements for roads and even for structures increases in slope. In short, land area cannot be used as efficiently on steep slopes as.on level land. Efficiency is related to cost and some costs of developing land on steep slopes have to be borne by the public, as local government must maintain roadways or other utilities or when erosion, water sedimentation, or slide damage occurs. 9. Seismic Fault Zones (Map No. 16) During eras of the island's geologic development, different blocks of land have uplifted and subsided. The six blocks are divided by fault Tines or geologic structural subdivision zones. In case of seismic or earthquake activity, the most potentially hazardous areas are along these 148 zones. Major geologic activity occurs over such a long expanse of time, though, that the potential hazard along fault lines is slight. The land is stable enough for most land uses. The six major blocks have been mapped and described in the Military Geology of Guam, published in 1959 as a joint effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geo- logical Survey. Further geologic and seismological studies are needed before a more precise determination of the extent of the hazards asso- ciated with fault lines is known and more precise guidelines can be established. Until further study suggests otherwise, the development of major energy facilities, high-rise structures, hospitals, schools, fire and police stations or emergency services should be discouraged on defined fault zones. Some of these potential APC's, particularly the Unique Territorial Ecosystem, Marine Pristine Ecological Communities, and Urban Waterfronts, can also be considered "areas for preservation and restoration" (APR's) of the kind provided for in 15 CFR 923.22. All potential APC's are dis- cussed in the Land Use Plan, and this will provide the definitive criteria for selection of the APC-r-s-and APR's that are ultimately designated. The procedure for designating APC's and APR's will be that followed by the Governor in designating Wetlands and Flood Hazard Areas as APC's, the issuance of executive orders making the designation, and requiring the TPC or another competent Territorial agency to delineate the areas concerned and promulgate rules and regulations for their management. IR 2@ 2R 3 4L 4 6L R rL BL 6 V 69 GUAM 65 UNIFORM MAPPING SYSTEM 61F 57 57 0 1. E 0 0 53 T A N I NG 53 A 0 A 413 @49 A S C.A P A 6011 0 4 0 7 45 j 5 N A 41 41 \\SIN T AA e2:) 37, GI A 1 137 < ...... -it T L F 0 F MO No. 16 SEISMIC FAULT MAP 33 FAULT SHOWING DIP @33 A T FAULT A A A J A*@ 29 29 M E I Z 0 -7@ r4l 25 + @25 5R 61 A A A-- ft IL -2 LA 20--V =L A-@@ 4L rR 7L 7R 151 CHAPTER VIII - ADDITIONAL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS A. ENERGY FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS Section 305(b)(8) of the CZM Act requires that the management program for each State or Territory include: "A planning process for energy facilities likely to be located in or which may significantly affect, the coastal zone, including but not limited to a process for antici- pating and managing the impact from such facilities." NOAA regulations (15 CFR 923.13) require such a process to include: (1) An identification of energy facilities which are likely to locate in, or whith"may significantly affect, the coastal zone; (2) A procedure for assessing the suitability of sites for such facilities; (3) Articulation of State policies for managing energy facilities and their impacts, including a clear articu- lation of policies that may be imposed on site location and facility development; (4) An identification of how interested and affected public and private parties may be involved in the planning process, and a means of continued consideration of the national interest in the planning for and siting of energy facilities after program approval; and (5) An identification of legal authorities and other manage- ment techniques that will be used to accomplish state policies and procedures. The following areas of discussion correspond to the requirements listed above. (1) On the basis of findings included within. two reports pre- pared for the Guam Bureau of Planning entitled Future Power Production and Transmission Alternative Plans (1978) and Planning for the Impacts of Guam Energy Facilities Expansion (19/9), it can be concluded that future location of nearly all energy facilities..will occur on, or adjacent to, the current Cabras Island sites. The construction of two addi- tional steam plants at this location, coupled with the projected on-line termination of the Piti plant in 1994, should sufficiently accommodate Guam's anticipated 3-5 percent yearly increase in power demand. Another foreseeable facility other 152 than these plants would be construction of a proposed ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) plant, again or or adjacent to Cabras Island. Other development under dis- cussion for Guam includes expansion of the Guam Oil Refining Corporation (GORCO) facilities at Agat. GORCO has indicated that expansion is necessary to accommodate increased produc- tion or storage demands, or to redevelop certain aspects of its operations that are nearing the end of their economic life. GORCO is a principal supplier to the military installa- tions on Guam and its production forecast and siting needs are closely associated with the level of military activity on the island. The possible repowering of the Tanguisson Power Plant at NCS Beach has also been mentioned. (2) Suitability of sites for such facilities is determined in advance by using the general zoning and land-use districting system in conjunction with the Community Design Plans. Nearly all of Apra Harbor is (excluded) military land. However, Commercial Port facilities are on industrially-zoned lands owned by the Government of Guam. Existing power facilities and pro- posed expansion of these facilities are on lands leased from the U.S. Government of their present uses. Future expansion of the GORCO facilities may involve infringement upon the Atantano wetland, a designated Wetland Area of Particul-ar Concern. An attempt would have to be made to balance alternative site avail- ability and economic feasibility, national interest and impact on the ecosystem before expansion could be permitted. Land-Use district designations, data collection and updating of Community Design Plans is a continuing process and the future location of suitable sites for energy facilities will be part of the compre- hensive approach to land-use management that is being undertaken by the Goverment of Guam. Map No. 9 indicates the probable location of such facilities. If current mechanisms such as zoning and land-use district guide- lines prove inadequate to address proposed major energy facility development, a "development APC" can be designated through Executive Order by the Governor. Such a situ 'ation might arise in a case, for example, in which an essential facility would be excluded by the strict standards applicable to construction in the Seashore Reserve. In such a case, the TPC could be directed to promulgate such rules and regulations@as necessary to implement the APC designation and address the impact of the facility. Examples of such performance standards are found in the Land-Use Plan. The study entitled, Planning for the Impacts of Guam Energy Facility Expansion develo-pe-3-5e following methodology for evaluating the impacts of proposed development. The following factors could be utilized by the TPC or Governor in determining if a site or facility should receive special management attention under an APC designation. 153 A. Economic 1. Government fiscal condition: Net external change. 2. Employment: Long term, short term, percent change. 3. Land values: Changes in a) Surrounding use b) Right-of-ways c) Aesthetics, pollution B. Environmental 4. Air quality: Change in ambient conditions. 5. Water quality: Change in ambient conditions. 6. Audio-electromagnetic: Change in ambient noise and electro- magnetic radiation levels. 7. Open space/green areas: Change in existing vegetation. 8. Rare and endangered species: Changes in number of types. 9. Wildlife, vegetation: Major changes in existing abundance or diversity. 10. Disaster: Susceptibility of expanded facility to natural disaster. C. Social 11. Landmarks: Cultural, historic or scientific landmarks destroyed, significantly altered, or made inaccessible. 12. Recreation: Destruction, or change in "usability" or pleasant- ness or recreational facilities. 13. Transportation: Change in duration of severity of congestion. 14. Housing: Change in locational demand for nearby housing units. 15. Education: Change in demand for schools, specific courses, student density. 16. Community self perception: Number of people whose community living conditions will be significantly altered. 17. Shortages: Improvement of living conditions caused by previous shortage of energy such as brownouts or forced outages. (3) Siting of energy facilities is governed by the same land-use district zoning and building requirements to which all other development is subject. Energy facilitly development also is subject to those GCMP policies outlined in Chapter III and those relevant authorities discussed in Chapter VI. The TPCJ, in entertaining requests for variance or conditional use permits for energy facilities, may impose on such development such conditions as required to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts. An effort to reduce demand for energy and energy facilities was intiated with the passage by the Guam Legislature of Public Law 12-100, which created the Guam Energy Office (GEO) in the Office of the Governor and vested GEO with energy planning functions: 154 "It is hereby declared to be the public policy of the territory that there exists a Guam Energy Office to mobolize local resources to work with the Federal Government and the private sector in order to best allocate fuels available to the Territory of Guam; and to determine which energy conservation measures and practices best slow the rate of growth of energy consumption, assure adequate supplies of energy and fuels for necessary uses, reduce energy waste, pre- serve natural resources and protect the environment." The major functions of the Guam Energy Office focus on energy conservation practices, fuel price stabilization and emergency fuel allocation procedures in the event of potential fuel shortages. However, GEO is also responsible for the assurance of "adequate supplies of energy and fuels for necessary uses ... (and to) preserve natural resources and protect the environment." This portion of the law provides the authority for GEO to parti- cipate in the determination of needs for specific facilities. To date, GEO has been involved in studying the feasibility of an Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion plant (OTEC) to be located on the northside of Cabras Island near the existing Piti and Cabras steam units. Since siting requirements for this type of plant are quite specific in terms of required depth and temperatures of ocean waters (thermal gradients), GEO will be working closely with the Guam Power Authority, Bureau of Planning, and other relevant parties in the designation of a site for such a facility. (4) In addition to the above-discussed functions, the Guam Energy Office has addressed energy issues within a chapter of the Comprehensive Development Plan for Guam. Further, the Governor is establishing a citizen advisory committee to the Guam Energy Office. One of the listed duties of this committee is the development of a 20-year energy plan for the Territory and an annual update of the plan. Included in this plan will be a discussion of energy facility development and siting issues. The Guam Coastal Management Program will be involved in review of the plan prior to submittal for approval, as will the general public during hearings on the plan. Public participation in the energy facility siting process is pro- vided for in several respects. All requests for zone changes, variances from the zoning law and conditional use permits are dealt with by the Territorial Planning Commission in open public meetings and hearings. The Subdivision and Development Review Committee in its advisory capacity to the TPC, also conducts its meetings with applicants open to the general public. 155 Revisions to the Land-Use Community Design and Comprehensive Development Plans are made subsequent to public hearings. Any person may request changes in the Land-Use District boundaries and, again, such revisions are made following required public hearings. Unless granted waivers or variances as provided for in law, such facilities must comply with those requirements which are outlined in the Zoning Law and other statutes dis- cussed under Authorities in Chapter VI. (5) The combined effect of zoning and districting is to concen- trate new facilities that may be needed for energy conversion, storage, transfer, or transportation in industrialized areas whenever possible. M-1 or M-2 (industrial) zoning standards address specific landscaping, yard area, height and parking requirements. Location of such facilities outside urban areas can be achieved through special exceptions to Conservation District Development Standards or through the designation of "development" APC's. In such cases, the TPC would be required to balance the need for establishment of new energy facilities at a particular proposed site against the potential adverse environmental impacts resulting from its location in an area of questionable suitability. In addition, a district boundary modification may occur to accommo- date an energy facility in which there is a demonstrated national interest. In the event of such a redistricting proposal, an accompany- ing public hearing would provide ample opportunity for input into the specific siting decision. Program authorities are discussed in full in Chapter VI. B. SHORELINE ACCESS AND PROTECTION PLANNING Section 305(b)(7) of the CZMA requires a definition of the term "beach" and a planning process for the protection of, and access to, public beaches and other coastal areas of recreational, historical, aesthetic, ecological or cultural value. The Coastal Program Approval Regulations (15 CFR 923.24) require specifically: (1) A procedure for assessing public beaches and other public areas requiring access or protection and a description of appropriate types of access and protection. (2) A definition of the term "beach" and an identification of public areas meeting that definition. (3) An identification and descirption of enforceable policies, legal authorities, funding programs and other techniques that will be used to provide such shorefront access and protection that the State's planning process indicates is necessary. 156 (1) The approach developed for assessing those shoreline areas requiring management attention for public access or protection included: (a) Analysis of available data relative to shoreline and reef physiography, shoreline use, proposed development, recreation, military lands and public opinion, (b) Data-base development including on-site physiographic study of all shore and reef areas within the definition of "beach", (c) Coordination with the Department of Parks and Recreation for identification of public, private, and military beaches, projected demands for beach recreation areas, plans for expansion of public facilities and criteria for evaluation of publicly-owned beaches with development potential, and (d) Analysis of existing legal authorities for provision of public access and shoreline protection. This planning approach resulted in the preparation of a study by the GCMP entitled, Beach'Access on Guam. The study identified all of the island's beaches and classifieF-tFe-m in respect to public access: open access, access with ownerls, permission and restricted access. Beach availability statistics derived from the study are summarized below and the Beach Strand Inventory is found in Table 5. Access Category Number of Beaches Length Beaches Adjacent to GovGuam 14 8.5 Kilometers Lands with Open Access 5.1 Miles Beaches Adjacent to Private 49 39.5 Kilometers Lands with Access by Owner's 23.7 Miles Permission Beaches Adjacent to Federal 6 5.5 Kilometers Lands with Open Access 3.3 Miles Beaches Adjacent to Federal 13 13.0 Kilometers Lands with Restricted Access 7.8 Miles Total Beach Strand 82 66.6 Kilometers 39.9 Miles 157 TABLE 5 BEACH STRAND INVENTORY Place Name Len th Width Ownership Inland Access ( t'-' ) - Oe ers (Feters) 1. Amantes Pt.-Biji Pt. 594 1-15 Private None 2. Fafai Beach 366 8-32 Private Secondary Road 3. Gogua Beach 220 3-10 Private Through Okura 4. Naton Beach 1775 8-27 Private Secondary Road 5. Ypao Beach 671 5-8 GovGuam Secondary Road 6. Ypao Pt. 40 Private None 7. Alupang 27 Private None 8. Dungcas 846 3-8 Private Secondary Road 9. Dungcas-Trinchera Gap 1844 3-16 Private Through Private Property 10. Trinchera Beach 693 3-16 GovGuam Marine Drive 11. Naval Cemetary 175 16 GovGuam Marine Drive 12. Agana 1619 3-16 GovGuam Marine Drive 13. Anigua-Pigo 213 3-12 Private Through Private Property 14. Adelup 667 3-19 GovGuam 15. Asan 594 319 Private Marine Drive 16. Asan Pt. 853 6-19 Private Marine Drive 17. Piti 1585 10-20 Federal Marine Drive 18. Tapungan Channel 149 3-10 Federal Marine Drive 19. Hotel Beach 244 Federal Paved Road 20. Atantano River 1020 Federal Restricted 21. Orote Peninsula #1 80 3-10 Federal Restricted 22. Orote Peninsula #2 202 3-16 Federal Restricted 23. Orote Peninsula #3 65 3-16 Federal Restricted 24. Gabgab Beach 524 Federal Base Pass 25. Tipalo Beach 236 Federal Base Pass 26. Dadi Beach 1330 2 Federal Base Pass 27. Rizal Beach 1330 2 Federal Primary Road 28. Togcha Beach 1505 15 Private Primary Road 20. Salinas Beach 1505 15 Private Primary Road 30. Gaan Pt. 1909 19 Private Primarv Rnad 31. Bangi Pt. 1909 19 Private Dirt Road 32. Chaligan 1798 23 Private Primary Road 33. Nimitz Beach 1798 23 Federal Primary Road 158 34. Taleyfac River 1798 23 Private Dirt Road 35. Taelayag Beach 1402 15 GovGuam Dirt Road 36. Sagua Beach 1006 27 Private Foot Trails 37. Facpi 1062 12 Private Foot Trails 38. Acgugao Pt. 472 12 GovGuam Foot Trails 39. Sella Bay & Abong 1457 34 GovGuam Foot Trails 40. Cetti Say 610 3-16 Private Foot Trails 41. Fouha Bay 100 Private Foot Trails 42. Umatac Bay 229 23 GovGuam Primary Road 43. Machadgun Pt. 457 Private None 44. Mamatgun Pt. 457 Private Dirt Road 45. Toguan Bay 966 9 Private Primary Road 46. Ajmo Beach 381 9 Private Primary Road 47. Bile River South 53 5-14 Private Primary Road 48. Pigua River 136 5-20 Private Primary Road 49. Cocos Island 524 5-25 Federal None 50. Cocos Island 1247 5-25 Private None 51. Cocos Sand-Islet 118 34 GovGuam None 52. Pigua Beach-Ada 975 1-5 Private Primary Road 53. Aang Beach 1303 3-10 Private Primary Road 54. Liyog River Mouth 137 Private 55. Ajayan B&Y 213 124 Private Primary Road 56. Aga Bay 122 3-5 Private Primary Road 57. Guijen Pt. 701 5-15 Private Primary Road 58. Atao Beach-Acho Pt. 610 is Private Dirt Road 59. Acho Pt. 427 20 Private 60. Agfayan Bay 118 20 Private Primary Road 61. Inarajan Bay & Guae 678 2-60 Private 62. Paul i I uc Bay 457 1-20 Private Foot Trails 63. Perez Beach 412 to-50 Private Primary Road 64. Asiga Beach 107 Private 65. Asalanso River Mouth 141 15 Private 66. Talofofo Bay 335 46 GovGuam Primary Road 68. Cruz Beach 123 42 Private Dirt Road 69. Jones Beach 823 42 Private Dirt Road 70. Ipan Beach 480 23 GovGuam Park 71. Togcha 427 15 Private Dirt Road 159 72. Ylig Say 290 27 Private Dirt Road 73. North Ylig 109 15 Private Dirt Road 74. Tagachan 118 30 GovGuam Park 75. Pago Bay 1543 15 Private Dirt Road 76. Tagua Pt. Mouth 4938 69 Federal Restricted 77. Tarague 572 61 Federal Restricted 78. Jinapsan 2065 38 Private Through AAFB 79. Ritidian 1562 46 Federal Restricted .1734 46 Federal Restricted 255 23 Federal Restricted 80. Uruno Beach 2084 34 Private Through Base 81. Falcona Beach 594 27 Private Through Base 82. Haputo Beach 310 19 Federal Restricted 83. Tilaan-Tanggissan 412 38 Federal Secondary Road 160 (2) The preceding table identifies those areas.that are defined as "beach" in the definition developed in another GCMP study entitled Atlas of Reefs and Beaches on Guam. The definition utilized in the context of shor@l-ine access and protec7lon is: An accumulation of unconsolidated deposits along the shore with their seaward boundary being at the low-tide or reef flat plat- form level and extending in a landward direction to the strand vegetation or first change in physiographic relief to topographic shoreline. (3) Enforceable policies and legal authorities for shoreline access and protection are detailed in Chapter III, "Coastal Management Program Policies", and Chapter VI, "Authorities". The overall GCMP policy regarding public access states: The public's right of access shall he ensured to all non-Federally-owned beach areas and all territorial recreation areas, parks, scenic overlooks, designated conservation areas and other public lands; agreements shall be encouraged with the owners of private and Federal property for the provision of reasonable access to, and use of, resources of a public nature located on such land. Policies for Shore Area Development, Urban Development, Hazard Areas, Housing, Fragile Areas, Visual Quality and Recre ational Areas also collec- tively support requirements for shorefront access and,protection. Chapter VI, "Authorities", specifically outlines the regulatory mechanisms and agencies concerned with shoreline access and protection. Appendix 1 con- tains the complete text of referenced authorities. Public Law 14-41, established a resort-hotel zone with height, setback and design regulations and provides support for shorefront access consi- deration within resort areas. Flood Hazard Areas and Regulations preclude the development of flood control measures which would impair public access within shoreline areas. The regulations generally inhibit creation of hazardous conditions which would restrict shorefront acc6ss. Wetland Rules and Regulations also encourage open space within coastal wetlands and mangrove areas, thus promoting open access to such lands. The Territorial Beach Areas.Act (GCG, Section 13451), declares as t he public policy of the Territory, that: "It is the publit right to have unrestricted access to the ocean shores of Guam for common us.e by all the people of Guam, and therefore that strip of public.land above the high mean watermark must be preserved and protected for generations to assure free access to the 1'61 beaches of the Territory to the maximum.extent, to preserv e the natural beauty of Guam"s beaches, and to alleviate the health problems caused by construction near tidal areas. It is' therefore, the purpose of this Chapter to forever @reserve and maintain the sovereignty of the Territory heretofore legally existingover the ocean @hores of,the'Territory so that the public may have the free.and'uninterrupted u56 thereof; to protect@ settle and .confirm the public rights the use ofthe ocean shore heretofore acquired by public dedicat'i-on, prescription@, or otherwise and- to authorize the reacquisition of the ocean s-hore where a portion thereof'has, been lost to-private ownership and no public rights exist therein as a result of dedication, prescri,ption' or',, otherwtse. (4) The Conservation,District designation of.shoreline areas on.the Land- Use Di,st@icting Map,fqrther ensures,their protection,and encourage their accessibility to the"public. Either site spec,ific locations or the beach areas as a.general class can be designated as APC's t,hrdugh@ the Governor's authority to'issue Executi*ve Orders,-by the TPC through'their rule-making 9 authlbrity [email protected]'so designated within the Seashore Reserve Plan, .(5) 'The Territorial Seashore Protection Act Q.L. 12-108) provides the primary legal mechanism for shoreline management. This legislation .,requires issuance 6@,permits for development within the' Seashore Reserve and preparation of a'Seashol@e Reserve Plan. Applications for development within the Seashore Reserve Plan are reviewed by the Territorial Seashore Protection Commission. Currently, the Seashore Reserve extends only 10 meters inland from the mean Kigh watermark hav,ing been reduced from the original 100 meter boundary in the wake of Supertyphoon Pamela to facili- tate shoreline retoPstruction., Consistent with the original intent of the,Act, and to facilitate development of the required Seashore,Reserve Plan, the GCMP has proposed amendment of this 10 meter boundary. Utilizing roadways and natural clifflines and assessing potential -impacts of-future development along GuaWstoastline, the,U^CMP has prepared a series of maps outlining a broader and more useful inland boundaryo Legislation submitted to the Guam Legislature, if adopted would recognizelthese maps asthe amended Seashore Reserve boundary an@ provide an excellent tool for shoreline management. Shoreline areas outside the Seashore Reserve'are subject. to the other authorities identified in Chapter VI. C. SHORELINE EROSION AND'MITIGATION'PLANNING Secti,on 305(b)(9) of the CZMA requires a planning process for assessing the effects of shoreline erosion, and studying and evaluating ways to control 162 or lessen the impact of such erosion, and to r .estore areas adversely affected by such erosion. The following discussion explains why shoreline erosion is not a significant problem on-Guam. Briefly, the geological structure of Guam is such that the entire island is surrounded by coral reef and is not generally subject to damaging wave assault and subsequent. shoreline erosion. Even during major typhoons, shore erosion is slight. SHORELINE CLASSIFICATION Comprised of 212 square miles of-land area, the entire island of Guam is considered a 11coastal zone". 116.5 miles of shoreline circumscribe the island. To address existing or potential shoreline erosi *on problems, the immediate coastline or ocean-land interface1s classified into rocky coastline, sandy beaches, mangrove mudflats and river estuaries. ROCKY COASTLINE The rocky coastline constitutes 59 percent of.Gua m's shoreline, approximately,68.5 miles. It is characterized by steep slopes, cliffs, headlands, uplifted:limestone terraces, benches..cut into limestone or into volcanic rock slightly.above sea level and low.exposed beach rock. The cut benches are the-most extensive type'of rocky coastline on Guam and have been formed by erosion of the adjacent elevated rocky.shores, often with secondary construction by marine worms and algae of rims, forming.pools on top of the benches. Indentations, called "nips",-formed by.exteemely slow erosion of limestone rock by algae, limpets and-chitons, are typically present at existing and former sea levels. In some @arts of the.southwe'st coast, volcanic lava f'ormations occur at the'shoreline adjacent to eroded flat lava benches at sea level, similar in shape to the coral reef flats. Small areas of low rocky shoreline, consisting of reef limestone and beach rock raised slightly above high-tide level, are scattered through certain beach areas in all parts of Guam. Noticeable shoreline change is'almost non-existent along the rocky shore, with the exception of slumping or fracturing of parts of steep slopes aind cliffs due to solution, earth- quakes, or storm waves. This.occurrence is unpredictable and limited to areas that are not developed on the northeast and northwest coast and minor localities in the southeast of Guam. No serious, immediate or imminent problems exist'in the rocky-coastlin6 areas. SANDY BEACHES The sandy beaches of Guam comprise approximately 34 percent of the shoreline or 39.9 miles. They are sloping landforms composed of unconso- lidated sand, gravel, broken shells, coral and forminifera. They are characterized by high permeability and volcanic detritus or reef bioclastic composition,. or a mixture of the two. They extend landward from .the water's edge to a distinct break in the landforin or to a point where terrestrial vegetation covers the substrate and extend seaward as far as the sandy 163 bottom is appreciably affected by tide, currents and wave movements. Most of the sandy beaches of Guam are protected from the erosive effects of average weather conditions by an expanse of shallow reef flat that extends seaward to a reef front or fringing reef that suppresses the force of all but the largest of storm waves. During typhoons, an excess buildup of sand is lifted from the floor of the reef flat and a sandy beach may be expanded further inland. Erosion of beach areas during storms is minimal and limited to small areas where a channel or reef cut allows storm waves to penetrate the reef flat buffer zone. Post-typhoon redistribution of sands can naturally correct limited adverse effects. The major potential for erosion of sandy beaches exists with the influence of man. The practice of sandmining for construction,-landfill and golf course purposes has degraded several beach areas' ecological complexity, aesthetic appearance and recreational potential. Increased enforcement and identification of alternative sources of sand resources must be utilized to deter these activities. Since the inception of Guam's Coastal Management Program, and coordination of enforcement and public information programs, the incidence of sandmining has diminished. In the past, Guam has been free of the erosive effects of beach groins constructed perpendicular to longshore currents. Recently, how- ever, Guam has seen the construction of a concrete groin on a sandy beach on Cocos Island -- a southern offshore portion of a barrier reef lagoon with longshore currents affecting sand formation. The effects have been a noticeable sand buildup on one side of the groin with a sub- sequent sand loss on the opposite side. This groin, the base of a small boat pier, was constructed without the required Federal and local permits. In coordination with the Guam Coastal Management Program, Guam Environ- mental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture, the U.S. ArnV Corps of Engineers has required the developers to remove the concrete groin, construct a more environmentally suitable pier, and pay a fine imposed for the violation. Proper adherence to, and enforcement of, the Seashore Protection Act permit process will preclude development adversely. effecting natural-shoreline processes. MANGROVE MUDFLATS The appe'ndix to the Atlas of the Reef and Beaches of Guam contains maps and descriptions of TuTa-mTs Fmangrove areas. The U.7.-Tr-rv Corps of Engineers has also conducted studies to define the nature of the mangrove communities. Presently, mangrove mudflats are represented in only two locations on Guam. An extensive stand of several mangrove species has been increasing in size along 4.5 miles of the inner shore of Apra Harbor along,the central western coast. Apra Harbor is the island's major deep-water port and is characterized by a breakwater that was built upon the barrier reef of a natural lagoon. The expanse of mangroves has noticeably increased in the past ten years because increased sedimenta- tion from inland erosion, carried by the Laguas, Agueda and Atantano 164 Rivers, has increased the mudflat area. The mangroves themselves further assist in the buildup of shoreline areas. The Apra mangroves are rarely frequented by man, usually to catch mangrove crabs. They are encompassed by Federally-owned property and restricted areas. Shoreline erosion is non-existent in this area. Rather, shoreline buildup is in effect. The other area of mangrove shoreline is along the extreme southern coastline between Merizo and Inarajan along the inner area of Cocos Lagoon. The strand of mangroves fringe 3.5 miles of shoreline and assists in shore- line stabilization. These mangroves have proved extremely resistant to typhoon winds and waves and represent a unique ecological community. The only potential for shoreline degradation would occur if the mangroves were removed to enhance visual and public access. Due to their limited occurrence on Guam and ecological importance, they have been designated official wet- lands subject to the Wetlands Rules and Regulations enforced by the Territorial Planning Commission. The U.S. Arffy Corps of Engineers also protects these mangrove communities with their permit system controlling development within vietlands. RIVER ESTUARIES Approximately forty rivers constitute the surface drainage pattern covering the southern half of the island. Thirty-three of these have mouths at the seashore, nine having extensive estuarine areas. Major rivers flowing into shoreline embayments are most often the site of urban village centers because of the relatively flat terrain that borders the coastline river mouths. Inland erosion is a persistent problem and clouds many estuaries [email protected] areas w*ith silt-laden deposits. Shoreline erosion, however, is noticeable only at Talofofo Bay along the southeast coast of Guam. In a detailed project report entitled, Talofofo Beach,, Territory of Guam, published in June, 1974, the COE defined tFe-nature of shoreline erosion in this area and outlined a plan for shore protection. The plan has never been implemented. The following description is adapted from their report. Talofofo Bay The shoreline at Talofofo Beach changes with the wet and dry season. During the dry season, the river flow is relatively low and a sandbar. develops at the northern side of the river mouth. The sandbar diverts a great deal of riverine materials to the beach area. In addition, sand from offshore deposits is carried by waves, through the reef opening in the bay, onto the shore. During the wet season, the river flow increases and increased deposit of riverine material occurs, however, since the tradewinds are low, a smaller amount of sand is transported by wave action. During the wet season, the incidence of typhoons or tropical storms is the erosive factor at Talofofo Bay. Shoreline above 165 five feet which is eroded by stormwave action does not build back. Si nce the early 1940's, 1.6 acres of land have been claimed by shoreline erosion. A revetment, at an initial (1974) cost of $525,000 with an annual charge of $29,900 for interest, amortization and maintenance would be required to implement the selected plan. Based on the extent of the problem, the economic feasibility and existence of higher priority needs, the plan seems likely to never be implemented. ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS In addition to Federal Coastal Zone Management Program interests in shoreline erosion, the U.S. Congress enacted the Shore Erosion and Control Demonstration Act (P.L. 93-251, Section 54) in 1974. This act gave the COE authorization to initiate a shore erosion contr'ol demonstration pro- gram, and created the Shore Erosion Advisory Panel. The Advisory Panel, through the COE Dfttrict Engineer, Hawaii Office, invited Guam to submit site location proposals. The Bureau of Planning, in consultation with the University of Guam Marine Laboratory and the Guam Environmental Protec- tion Agency, concluded that no existing sites on Guam warrant study for demonstration projects. CONCLUSION Numerous shoreline studies by the GCMP, COE, University of Guam Marine Laboratory and Guam Environmental Protection Agency have defined the nature of shoreline resources and extent of shoreline erosion. Only one problem area has warranted study for consideration of shore stabilization. Primarily as a result of the unique characteristics of Guam's shoreline, further emphasis, funding, and study is of low priority. On an island the size of Guam, future problems concerning shoreline erosion can easily be recognized and considered for study. Currently, shoreline erosion areas are not pro- posed areas of particular concern on Guam. Other than the COE Talofofo study, there are no recent or projected studJes addressing shoreline erosion on Guam. However, if an identified problem area were to become evident through study or otherwise, and existing authorities were insufficient to address the problem, such an area could be designated an APC through executive order. A non-interfer- ence approach is currently favored by the GCMP because of the limited extent of natural and manmade erosion problems. As previously discussed, the natural erosion at Talofofo Bay is too small *to justify the expense for control and the man-induced problems on Cocos Island have been addressed through regulatory procedures. The Land-Use Policies, Land-Use Districting System, and Seashore Reserve regime, as well as the Wetlands and Flood Hazard Areas Rules and Regulations all discourage manmade erosion to a significant extent. Particularly, Wetlands Rules and Regulations prohibit removal of protective 166 mangrove strands and Flood Hazard Areas Rules and Regulations prohibit shoreline development which would adversely affect natural sand processes or cause shoreline erosion to occur. The legal authorities discussed in Chapter VI are adequate to enforce these provisions. Overall potential significant shoreline erosion problems are thwarted in their early stages through review of the proposed use or cause by the TPC, TSPC or SDRC. 167 CHAPTER IX - FEDERAL CONSISTENCY A. Introduction Guam's procedures for federal consistency respond to the require- ments of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, as specified in 15 CFR Part 930 (43 FR 10510, March 13, 1973). The basic consistency requirement of the Act is that federally conducted or supported activities which directly affect the coastal zone be con- sistent to the maximum extent practicable with an approved state management program. Also, applicants for federal licenses and permits and state or Territorial recipients of federal funding will be required to determine whether their projects which affect the coastal zone are consistent with the Program. The Territory generally will be able to prevent actions (with exceptions as explained in this section and regulations) which are not consistent with the Program. The Bureau of Planning, in the Office of the Governor, will be the lead agency designated pursuant to 15 CFR 923.53(a)(1) and 15 CFR 930.18. As noted in Chapter IV, "Boundaries", Guam's "coastal zone" includes all non-federal property on the island, including such areas on all offshore islands and the submerged lands and waters extending seaward from such property to a distance of three miles. While federal lands are excluded from the coastal zone, activities on federal lands that directly affect GovGuam or private properties must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the GCMP. While the area seaward of the territorial sea is legally excluded from Guam's coastal zone, there is a potential for impacts to occur within the zone which would result from activities occuring on the sea- ward, or excluded, side of the three mile limit. Federal activities sea- ward of the three mile limit which have impacts inside the three mile limit must be consistent with GCMP, at least as far as the impacts are concerned. Though the entire federal consistency procedures'are not required.to be approved or established prior to implementation of the GCMP, conststent with 15 CFR 923.53, the following guidance is provided to'apprise affected parties, including federal agencies and programs, of the GCMP's consistency mechanisms which will take effect upon such approval. These procedures can be altered or amended by agreement of the affected agencies and GovGuam, independent of the program approval procedures, though@ the basic substantive requirements as outlined in the CZMA and accompanying regulations cannot. 168 A Federal agency, in attempting to assert its consistency with the GCMP prior to conducting one of the four types of activities subject to these procedures, must understand the essential elements of the GCMP that are the basis of a consistency review. Though not inclusive of all program authorities (see Chapter VI), the following list of authorities and policies includes those components of the GCMP that should be the principal focus of a consistency review: (1) The eighteen GCMP policies prescribed under Executive Order 78-37; (2) Executive Order 78-23 regarding Land Use Districts; (3) Executive Order 78-20 and accompanying TPC regulations regarding Flood Hazard Areas; (4) Executive Order 78-21 and accompanying TPC regulations regarding wetlands; (5) The objectives, policies, and standards of the following laws: a) Territorial Seashore Protection Act, as amended; b) Territorial Beach Areas Act; c) Zoning Law; d) Subdivision Law; e) Historical Objects and Sites; f) Game and Fish Laws; g) Endangered and Threatened Species; h) Public Rights Division; i) Those administered by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (Title LXI, GCG). (6) Requirements established pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, as amended, and Clean Water Act, as amended. As the Federal consistency procedures are intended to provide a means to resolve possible conflicts between a proposed activity and the manage- ment program, the GCMP will assist agencies in identifying problem areas and alternatives in projects or activities, and aspects of the program with which consistency is in question. Another important assessment required of the Fed 'era] agency is that of determining whether the proposed activity "directly affects" Guam's coastal zone. 15 CFR 930.33 considers "all development projects within the coastal zone to be activities directly affecting the coastal zone,. All other types of activities within the coastal zone are 169 subject to Federal agency review to determine whether they directly affect the coastal zone." In conducting the "other" types of activities mentioned above, Federal agencies should determine whether a Federal activity outside of the coastal zone -- that is, an activity on Federal lands or waters -- directly affects coastal zone resources by considering the location, magnitude and type of activity contemplated. An effect usually will be found when the proposed activity is large in magnitude and is adjacent or in close proximity to the coastal zone. The smaller the magnitude of the activity and the further it is from the coastal zone, the less likely is the potential for effects on coastal zone resources. However, even in cases where a proposed activity is a great distance from the coastal zone, an unlikely event in Guam, the Federal agency must still make a consistency determination and notify BP of such determination if the proposed activity will significantly affect the coastal zone (e.g., upland stream modification significantly affecting the quality of coastal waters). The following text provides an outline of the proposed procedures for determining Federal activities' consistency with the GCMP. Bureau of Planning staff will discuss with each agency its respective activities in an attempt to clarify classes of activities that would be expected, routinely, to "directly affect" the "coastal zone." B. Federal Activities Sections 307(c)(1) and (c)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act state, respectively, that: Each federal agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support those acti- vities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state management programs. Any federal agency which shall undertake any development project in the coastal zone of a state shall ensure that the project is, to the maximum extent practicable,, consistent with approved state management programs. 170 Two terms are critical here: "federal activity" and "to the maximum extent practicable". 15 CFR 930.31(a) defines a federal activity as "any functions performed by or on behalf of a Federal agency in the exercise of its statutory responsibilities." This would include, for example, private construction of a Federal military installation. A Federal development project is a Federal activity involving the planning, construction, modification, or removal of public works, facilities, or other structures, and the acquisition, utilization, or disposal of land or water resources. (15 CFR 930.31(b)) Complete consistency is required of these activities unless compli- ance is prohibited based upon the requirements of existing law applicable to the Federal agency's operations. If a Federal agency asserts that compliance with the management program is prohibited, it must clearly describe to the GCMP the statutory provisions, legislative history, or other legal authority which limits the Federal agency's discretion to comply with the provisions of the management program. (15 CFR 930.32(a)) The word "practicable" as used in CZMA �307(c) (1) and (2) means capable of being done. When modified by the phrase "to the maximum extent," the complete term means to the fullest degree permitted by existing law. (15 CFR 930.32(a)) The term "Federal activity" here does not include the issuance of a Federal license or permit to an applicant or person or the granting of Federal assistance to an appl- icant agency. Federal agencies must notify the Territory at the earliest prac- ticable time of existing or planned federally conducted or supported activities directly affecting the coastal zone. The Federal agency shall notify the Bureau of Planning directly of all activities subject to consistency. If the Federal agency would normally send copies of plans or designs to other particular local agencies for review, they must at least send a copy of the transfer letter and the consistency determination to BP. Federal agencies should notify the Territory of pending actions at least 90 days before the federal activity reaches a decision stage likely to restrict the use of alternative measures. The notification will include a determination that: - the action is and will be undertaken in a manner consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Program; or - the action is not or will not be undertaken in a manner con- sistent to the maximum extent practicable with the Program but, in the view of the Federal agency, is necessary and justified because of some circumstances unforeseen at the time of program approval; or 171 - the action is not consistent, but is necessary in the interest of national security. Relevant local agencies will be requested by BP to assist in review of Federal determination of consistency, and BP will agree or disagree with the determination within 45 days. If BP is unable to evaluate adequately the activity within 45 days, BP will, within the 45 days, request a 15-day extensiono Federal agencies are required to grant one such extension if requested. Whenever BP receives notification directly from the Federal agency, it will forward either a status report or a response on the consistency review within 45 days of receipt of notifica- tion. The status report will inform the Federal agency of the: - status of the matter; - basis for further delay; - approximate date expected for development of a responseo If the activity is determined by BP to warrant project evaluation, the Federal agency will be informed and invited to participate and both parties may agree to extending the review period because of the magnitude or com- plexity of the project. In no case, however, may final Federal action be taken sooner than 90 days from the issuance of the consistency determination to the Territory, unless BP and the Federal agency agree to an alternative notification schedule. C. Federal Licenses and Permits Federal agencies issuing licenses or permits to non-federal appli- cants for proposed activities in the coastal zone may do so only for activities that will be conducted in a manner consistent with the approved Guam coastal management program. A summary of the procedures that BP will use for review of Federal license or permit activities is: (1) Applicant submits the license or permit application and consistency certification to the Federal agency and to BP. The "consistency certifi- cation" certifies that proposed activity complies with the GCMP and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. (2) BP insures timely public notice of the project or activity pursuant to 15 CFR 930.61. (BP will attempt to establish agreements with relevant Federal agencies for the publication of joint public notices.) BP, at its discretion, may hold one or more public hearings on the proposed license or permit activity in accordance with 15 CFR 930.62 and the Guam Administrative Adjudication Act. 172 (3) BP circulates the application and certification to affected local agencies and collects comments. In the meantimel the permitting agency may continue processing, but not issuing, the pending license or permit, in order to avoid delay upon issuance of a consistency concurrence by BP. (4) The GCMP staff reviews the comments, and recommends concurrence with or objection to the applicant's consistency certification to the director of BP. Any recommendation to object will include reasons and suggested-changes which would allow the proposed project or activity to be conducted in a manner consistent with the GCMP. (5) BP responds in writing to the Federal agency and the applicant informing them of its findings. In accordance with 15 CFR 930.63(b) and (c), BP responds at the earliest practicable time. If no decision has been reached within three months, BP reports on progress and the reason for delay. BP will make a finding within six months of initial receipt of the Federal license or permit application and consistency certifica- tion, or the Territory may be presumed to have concurred with the certi- fication. (6) If the Territory objects to a consistency certification, the Federal agency may not issue the subject license or permit until the reason for the objection has been corrected, and a concurrence obtained. If the Territory concurs with the certification, the Federal agency may issue the license or permit, but is not bound to do so if the subject activity fails to meet the agency's review standards under Federal law. (7) In the event of a dispute, BP initiates negotiations between disagreeing Territorial and Federal agencies and, if necessary, the applicant. Mediation procedures will follow the process detailed in 15 CFR Part 930, Subpart G. 173 The Federal licenses and permits that BP will revi-sw for consistency with the GCMP are as follows: Federal A2ency Permit Descrigtion Citation DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Marine Fisheries taking of marine mamnals Marine Mammal Protection Act; Service 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407 DEPT. OF DEFENSE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction of darn or ditches River and Harbor Act of 1899: across navigable waters Section 9, 33 U.S.C. 401 obstruction or alteration of Id. Section 10, 33 U.S.C. 403 navigable waters establishment of harbor lines Id. Section 11, 33 U.S.C. @M4, 405 temporary occupation of sea wall, Id. Section 14, 33 U.S.C. 408 bulkhead, jetty, dike, level, wharf, pier or other work built by the U.S. discharge of dredged spoil into Federal Water Pollution waters of the U.S. Control Act of 1972: Section 404, 33 U.S.C. 1344 approval of plans for improve- River and Harbor Act of mants made under Corps supervi- 1902: 33 U.S.C. 565 sion at private expense transportation of dredged spoil Marine Protection, Research, for the purpose of dumping it in and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 ocean waters Section 103, 33 U.S.C. 1413 DEPT. OF ENERGY prohibition and construction Energy Supply and Environ- orders mental Coordination Act DEPT. OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species permits Endangered Species Act 16 U.S.C. 153a National Park Service construction of visitor centers 16 U.S.C. 3 on National Park Service land construction of electric and 16 U.S.C. 5 communication lines across National Park Service 174 Federal Agency Permit Description Citation U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION U.S. Coast Guard permits for private aids 14 U.S.C. 83 to navigation permits for construction or 33 U.S.C. 401, 491, 525 modification of bridges or causeways in navigable waters authorization for handling of 46 U.S.C. 170 dangerous cargo by vessels in U.S. ports authorization for handling of 46 U.S.C. 391(a) flammable or combustable liquids by bulk in U.S. ports deepwater port permits Deepwater Ports Act of 1974 33 U.S.C. 1501 Federal Aviation approval of airport development 49 U.S.C. 1716 Administration project applications ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION permits for underground injection Safe Drinking Water Act AGENCY Section 1421(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. 300h permit to operate underground Resources Recovery and Con- injection wells in designated servation Act of 1976 areas 42 U.S.C. 300h-3 permits for ha ndling and disposal Resources Recovery and Con- Of hazardous substances servation Act of 1976 42 U.S.C. 3257 approvals under prevention of Clean Air Act of 1976 significant deterioration (PSD) Section 110, 42 U.S.C. regulations 1857c-5 new source construction/operations Id. Section 111, 42 U.S.C. permits T957-6 approvals under National Emission Id. Section 112, 42 U.S.C. Standards for Hazardous Air 757c-7 Pollutants (NESHAPS) Regulations NPDES permits for federal Federal Water Pollution installations Control Act of 1972, Sections 401, 402, 33 U.S.C. 1341, 1342 NPDES permits for discharges into Id. Section 402, 403 the contigous zone and ocean waters M U.S.C. 1342, 1343 sludge runoff permits Id. Section 405, 33 U.S.C. T742, 1343 175 if, through its monitoring of unlisted licenses and permits through National Environmental Policy Act Statements, State Clearing- house, or other forums, BP determines such a licensed or permitted activity to have an effect upon the coastal zone, it will notify the applicant and the Federal agency. Notification will be made within 45 days of the public notice or sooner. Once notified, the applicant and Federal agency must comply with the procedures outlined above. The Territory's six month review period for the license or permit will begin as of the date of the original public notice for the license or permit. D. Federal Assistance and Programs Section 307(d) of the Coastal Zone Management Act states that state and local governments applying for Federal program assistance affecting the coastal zone shall indicate the views of appropriate state or local agencies on the relationship of such activities to the approved coastal management program. Federal agencies may not approve proposed assistance programs which are inconsistent with the approved coastal management program. Federal assistance is defined as grant or contractual arrangements, loans, subsidies, guarantees, insurance, or other forms of financial aid. Guam's A-95 Clearinghouse, within the Lt. Governor's Office, insures that appropriate local (Territorial Government) agencies or entities are notified of applications for Federal assistance. BP will use this process for review of Federally assisted projects on Guam. The proposed procedures for review of Federally assisted projects are: (1) The applicant sends to the clearinghouse the application for Federal assistance and a certification that the project being under- taken is consistent with the GCMP. (2) The application and certification are transmitted to the BP. (3) Using established clearinghouse procedures, local agencies are notified and asked to submit comments within thirty days to the Terri- torial clearinghouse. (4) GCMP and BP staff analyzes comments received and recommends concurrence with, or objection to, the applicant's consistency certification to the Director of BP. Any recommendations to object will include the reason, and suggested changes which would allow the proposed project to be conducted in a manner consistent with the GCMP. 176 (5) The BP Director transmits the Bureau's consistency determination to the clearinghouse chairman. (6) The Clearinghouse notifies the applicant and funding agency of the consistency determination and proceeds with discussions with the appli- cant and funding agencies. 177 Federal grant programs subject to review include: Department of Agriculture Federal Catalog No. 10.405 Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants 10.409 Irrigation, Drainage, and Other Soil and Water Conservation Loans (exception: loans to grazing associations to develop additional pasturage and loans for purchase of equipment) 10.410 Low to Moderate Income Housing Loans 10.411 Rural Housing Site Loans 10.414 Resource Conservation and Development Loans 10.415 Rural Rental Housing Loans 10.418 Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities 10.419 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Loans 10.422 Business and Industrial Development Loans (Exception: loans to rural small businesses having no significant impact outside community in which located.) 10.423 Community Facilities Loans 10.424 Industrial Development Grants 10.658 Cooperative Forest Insect and Disease Control 10.901 Resources Conservation and Development (Exception: small projects costing under $7500 for erosion and sediment control and land stabilization and for rehabilitation and consolidation of existing irrigation systems.) 10.904 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Department of Commerce 11.300 Economic Development-Grants and Loans for Public Works and Development Facilities 11.303 Economic Development-Technical Assistance 11.304 Economic Development-Public Works Impact Projects (Procedural variation) 11.305 Economic Development-State and Local Economic Development Planning 11.306 Economic Development-District Operation Assistance 11.307 Economic Development-Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance Program 11.308 Grants to States for Supplemental and Basic Funding of Title 1, II, and IV Activities (Basic grants only) 11.407 Commercial Fisheries Research and Developnent 11.417 Sea Grant Support 11.419 Coastal Zone Management Program Administration 11.420 Coastal Management - Estuarine Sanctuaries 11.421- Coastal Energy Impact Program 424 178 Department of Health, Education and Welfare Federal Catalog No. 13.237 Mental Health-Hospital Improvement Grants 13.240 Mental Health-Community Mental Health Centers 13.261 Family Health Centers 13.286 Limitation on Federal Participation for Capital Expenditures 13.340 Health Professions Teaching Facilities-Construction Grants 13.369 Nursing School Construction - Loan Guarantees and Interest Subsidies 13.378 Health Professions Teaching Facilities - Loan Guarantees and Interest Subsidies 13.392 Cancer-Construction 13.408 School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas-Construction P.L. 93- (Section 161) Construction of Academic Facilities 318 P.L. 93- (Section 1516, Planning Grants to Health Agencies; (Section 1601 641 et seq, Title XVI Public Health Service Act) Assistance for moderation, construction or conversion of medical facilities. These programs will replace Catalog 13.206, 13.220, 13.249, and 13.253. Department of Housing and Urban Development 14.001 Flood Insurance (applications for community eligibility) 14.146 Public Housing-Programs (New construction and acquisition) 14.203 Comprehensive Planning Assistance 14.207 New Communities-Loan Guarantees 14.218 Community Development Block Grants-Entitlement Grants 14.219 Community Development Block Grants-Discretionary Grants 14.702 State Disaster Preparedness Grants Department of the Interior 15.400 Outdoor Recreation-Acquisition, Development and Planning 15.501 Irrigation Distribution System Loans 15.503 Small Reclamation Projects 15.605 Fish Restoration 15.611 Wildlife Restoration 15.904 Historic Preservation Department of Transportation 20.102 Airport Development Aid Program 20.103 Airport Planning Grant Program 20.205 Highway Beautification-Control of Outdoor Advertising, Control of Junkyards, Landscaping and Scenic Enhancement 20.500 Urban Mass Transportation Capital Improvement Loans (planning and construction only) 20.505 Uroan Mass Transportation Capital Improvement Loans (planning and construction only) 179 20.505 Urban Mass Transportation Technical Studies Grants (planning and construction only) 20.506 Urban Mass Transportation Demonstration Grants 20.507 Urban Mass Transportation Capital and Operating Assistance Formula Grants Water Resources Council Federal Catalog No. 65.001 Water Resources Planning Environmental Protection Agency 66.001 Air Pollution Control Program Grants 66.005 Air Pollution Survey and Demonstration Grants 66.027 Solid Waste Planning Grants 66.418 Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works 66.419 Water Pollution Control-State and Interstate Program Grants 66.426 Water Pollution Control-Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Grants 66.432 Grants for State Public Water System Subdivision Programs 66.433 Grants for Underground Injection Control Programs 66.505 Water Pollution Control Demonstration Grants 66.506 Safe Drinking Water Research and Demonstration Grants (demonstration only) 66.600 Environmental Protection-Consolidated Program Grants 66.602 Environmental Protection-Consolidated Special Purpose Grants. 181 CHAPTER X - CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION A. A Summary of Consultation Efforts As base documents for the development of the Guam Coastal Management Plan, the draft Land-Use Plan, Community Design Plans and numerous tech- nical documents were distr7luted among relevant Federal agencies, local agencies, local military commands, as well as to members of the 14th Guam Legislature, interest groups and staff aides for the Constitutional Con- vention. Extensive consultation, coordination and input provided exceptionally valuable refinement and support of these documents. A Summary of Major Federal Land Holdings in the Territor f Guam received I o the w9est circulation of all-tFe tec5nical supportive documents as it provides the first comprehensive identification of Federally-owned or controlled lands on Guam. The main intent of the document is to assist in the determination of the boundaries of Guam's coastal zone, however, it has been of value to other agencies' needs for a data base on Federal lands. Technical documents of a specific nature, used for APC delineation, received relevant agency input and distribution. Technical documents are also made available to private developers who require base data for specific operations. All documents have been placed in the island's libraries. The preparation of the above listed plans and numerous technical documents (listed in Appendix No. 7) involved input from the following interests. Distribution List Federal Government Office of Coastal Zone Management National Park Service U.S. Department of Commerce Western Region Washington, D. C. San Francisco, California Coordinator for Coastal Zone Mgmt. Affairs Federal Aviation Admin. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Pacific-Asia Region Washington, D. C. Honolulu, Hawaii Office of Policy Analysis -- Study Staff Operational Planning Staff Department of Interior General Services Admin. Washington, D. C. Region 9, San. Fran., Calif. National Marine Fisheries Service Planning Staff, Pacific Div. Southwest Region Naval Facilities Engineering Terminal Island, California Command Hawaii 182 Divis.ion of Ecological Services U.S. Geological Survey Fish and Wildlife Services Guam Office Honolulu, Hawaii Office of Community Planning and U.S. ArnV Corps of Engineers Development Guam Operations Office Housing and Urban Development Region IX San Francisco, California Department of Energy U.S. Coast Guard Region IX 14th District San Francisco, California Commanding Officer Marianas Section Hdq. Guam Base Environmental Coordinator Staff Office Andersen Air Force Base Commander Guam U.S. Naval Forces Marianas, Guam Local Government Office of the Governor Attorney General's Office University of Guam Guam Legislature Water Resources Research Ctr. Committee on Manpower, Resources and Economic Public Utilities Agency of Guam Development Department of Commerce Staff Aides Constitutional Convention Dept. of Revenue and Taxation Territorial Planning Commission Dept. of Parks and Recreation Department of Land Management Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority Department of Public Works Guam Power Authority Department of Agriculture (Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Guam Airport Authority Resources) Guam Port Authority Guam Environmental Protection Agency Guam Visitor's Bureau Guam Economic Development Authority Guam Energy Office 183 University of Guam Marine Laboratory Special Interest Groups Chamber of Commerce Hotel Owner's Association Guam Realtor's Association Guam Surfing Association American Institute of Architects Guam Science Teacher's Assoc. Guam Chapter Editor, Pacific Daily News B. The GCMP Advisory Committee At the inception of Guam's Coastal Management Program, it was recog- nized that various individuals within the Government of Guam, Federal agencies, interest groups and educational institutions possess specific area expertise relating to land and water use on Guam. An advisory committee of key individuals was formed in order to receive input pertaining to the progress of the program. Meetings, conducted on a bimonthly basis, were comprised of representatives of the below listed agencies and groups. Being a loosely-knit organization, agency parti- cipants other than regular members often attended and provided additional input or developed an awareness of program developments. Occasionally, subcommittees met to discuss specific projects. At other meetings, presentations by agencies other than the Bureau of Planning provided an overview of specific programs relating to land and water use. Agendas, minutes and attendance lists are available in the files of the Bureau of Planning. Representatives of the following groups have participated at advisory committee meetings: U.S. Navy U.S. Air Force U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Geological Survey U.O.G. Marine Laboratory U.O.G. Water Resources Research Center Department of Land Management Department of Parks and Recreation Guam Environmental Protection Agency Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources Division of Forestry and Soil Resources Guam Airport Authority Department of Public Works Department of Education, Environmental Education Guam Science Teacher's Association Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority 184 The GCMP Advisory Committee, cont'd. Guam Landowner's Association American Institute of Architects Guam Society of Professional Engineers C. A Summary of Public Participation and Information Inherent in the planning process of any program is the need for public participation. The Guam Coastal Management Program recognizes that the public has a right to provide input into essential plans and be made fully aware of decisions, policies, plans, etc. as they are achieved. A general lack of public awareness of the importance of responsible land and water use was addressed through presentations, lectures, television programs., newspaper articles, brochures, newsletters, public hearings and a land-use opinion survey. These public participation and information activities are outlined below: Presentation of the Coastal Management Program was given to the following groups: Guam and the Ocean, a joint civilian and military forum on Guam's future use of the ocean. Society of American Military Engineers Guam Chamber of Commerce Guam Board of Realtors University Classes and Seminars Guam Science Teacher's Association All Related Government of Guam Agencies The Press Club Village Commissioners The Governor of Guam Guam Surfer's Association Three Diver's Clubs Guam Society of Professional Engineers Hotel Owner's Association Overall Economic Development Plan Committee American Institute of Architects Youth Conservation Corps Guam EDA Program The CZM newsletter, I Tano Yan I Tasi, (The Land and the Sea) has received the widest attention of any public participation mechanism. It is distributed to a mailing list of 250 subscribers with a remaining 750 copies being distributed through commissioner's offices and the Office of the Bureau of Planning. It is often in demand as a source material by secondary schools and the University of Guam. During the first year of the CZM Program, the newsletter was formulated and discussed general topics pertaining to land and water use and related programs. During 185 the second year, more in-depth discussion of various areas of particular concern preceded planning notes which addressed the specifics of pro- gram developments. Major issues of the newsletter were: Volume 2P Nos. 1. Wetlands 2. The Seashore Reserve 3. The Coral Reef 4. Historical Preservation 5. The Planning Process 6. Water Resources 7. Agricultural Land Use 8. Land-Use Plan and CEIP 9. Man and the Island Ecosystem 10. Planning Notes 11. Agricultural Leases and Water Conservation 12. Territorial Fishery Resources Volume 3, Nos. 1. The Guam Coastal Management Program 2-3. The Proposed Territorial Seashore Park 4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permits 5. Floodplains In addition to newsletter distribution, three separate printings of an information brochure were made, with distribution through commissioner's offices, at public hearings and during presentations. The brochures out- lined the objectives of the Guam Coastal Management Program; defined areas of particular concern, the districting process and community design, and discussed the need for public participation in the planning process. Media programs included slide presentations and several showings of a CZM film which preceded a series of 30-minute television programs on land and water use planning and related planning issues. The series was entitled Island Interface and was produced in coordination with KGTF, the local edd-cat-iona-T--t-eTe-v-i"@s-ion network. Programs included: - Introduction to Coastal Management - Land-Use Districting - Areas of Particular Concern - Panel Discussion on the Seashore Reserve - The Reefs on Guam - Disaster Preparedness Planning - GEPA 208 and CZM Water Resource Planning - The Bureau of Planning's Overall Planning Effort - Land-Use Legislation and Highlights of Previous Programs 186 Major newspaper articles were published in the Pacific Daily News. These were titled: - Our Link With the Sea - Umatac's Choice - Seashore Spectrum: The Pros - Is Downtown Shoreline Dying? and Cons of Land-Use Planning During January 1977, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics administered a Land-Use Opinion Survey to identify certain local attitudes toward land and water use. The questionaire was prepared by the Coastal Management Program and the results analyzed by the staff of the Bureau of Planning. A total of 931 residents were surveyed. The details of the survey can be seen in Guam Coastal Management Prolram Techni'cal Reports, Volume 1. published October, 1977. D. GCMP Public Meetings At a series of village meetings, the Land-Use Districting Map and Community Design Plans were presented to area residents for essential pu5Tic input. The GZM Program's objectives, land-use districting system and areas of particular concern were presented as elements of comprehen- sive land-use planning. The APC's were depicted on the community design plan maps. Concepts and boundaries were explained to area residents so that the maps would be fully understood and residents could perceive how planning specifically related to their property ownership and community objectives. The most valuable input was in identification of more exact boundaries of land uses on the topographic base maps. For example, area farmers provided expertise in delineation of prime agricultural lands. Prior to each meeting, commissioners were notified of the meeting's, intent, importance, time and location. Copies of meeting notices were provided for distribution by commissioners or hand-delivered to residences in outlying areas by members of the C.ZM staff. Depending upon the of commissioners, most meetings were also announced in schools, by loud- speaker or on church programs. Notices of all meetings were published in the Pacific Daily News. After receiving public input, maps were revised and returned to commissioner's offices for display and further comment. Map return dates were also published in the Pacific Daily News and publicized by commissioners. Minutes of all meetings were recorded and can be viewed in the files of the Bureau of Planning. Attendance at the meetings was best in southern village communities, as compared to within the highly developed northern areas where residential subdivision, commercial development or urban renewal has already dictated long-range land use. A cross-section of local homeowners, businessmen and special interest group representatives interacted at meetings. At times, differences in opinion were voiced; however, the need for respon- sible planning and management of resources was generally recognized by 187 all concerns. Major discussion expectedly centered around the APCs or unique features within individual community areas. For example, in Umatac the congested housing along the Seashore Reserve and relocation into a government subdivision dominated discussion. In Merizo, residents wished to change a rural area to urban because of increasing residential density and infrastructure needs. In Asan-Piti, an impending urban renewal project was discussed and Mongmong-Toto-Maite residents were understandably concerned with airport sound and hazard zones. Residents of Central Guam generally expressed a desire to preserve agricultural lands in the South and farmers in Yigo were concerned with the relationship of agricultural land use to aquifer protection. Residents of Mangilao and Barrigada primarily provided input into delineation of commercial land use within urban districts in relationship to a need to stimulate a depressed local business economy in their communities. Table No.6 Public Meeting and Map Review Schedule Communin! Attendance Public Meeting Dates Map Review Dates- Asan-Piti 19 March 29, 1977 August 17 - 31, 1977 Agat-Santa Rita 30 March 22, 1977 August 17 - September 8, 1977 Umatac 90 February 2, 1977 June 6 - 20, 1977 Merizo 60 February 22, 1977 May 27 - June 10, 1977 inarajan-Malojloj 30 March 1, 1977 July 12 - 26, 1977 Talofofo 18 March 8, 1977 August 17 - 31, 1977 Yona 15 March 15, 1977 August 17 - 31, 1977 *&ntral Guam 13 April 12, 1977 August 24 - September 20, 1977 30 April 19, 1977 7 April 26, 1977 June 2, 1977 Tamuning 8 February 15, 19.77 March 23 - Dededo 4 May 3, 1977 August 19 - September 2, 1977 Yigo 50 May 31, 1977 June 3 - 17, 1977 Pagat 10 May 10, 1977 August 24 - 31, 1977 Note: Minutes of the -public meetings con ba vietvQd in the Off im of Bureau of Planning, Coastal Management Section. *Barrigada, Mangilao, Chalan Pago-Ordot, Agana, Agana Heights, Sinajana, Mongmong-Toto-Maite, and Maina. 188 E. 306 Program Public Hearings On March 2, 1978, the first of three public hearings on the Draft 306 Program Document was held, pursuant to the requirements of the CZMA, subsections 306(c)(1) and (c)(3), section 311 of the Act and the associated requirements of �923.58. A minimum of 30 days public notice was provided by the announcement (see below) which appeared in the January 30, 1978 edition of the Pacific DailX News. At the hearing, the total scope of the program was presented to att ing residents. All agency materials pertinent to the hearing were made available for public inspection and comment. These primarily included the Draft 306 Document, the Land-Use Plan, Community Design Plans, APC maps and Technical Reports. Attendance was primarily comprised of related Government of Guam agency staff, a representative of the Guam Science Teacher's Association and a' land realtor. A representative of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaii Office was sent to Guam for the purpose of attending the hearing and providing input. Minutes of the hearing and comments can be viewed in the files of the Guam Coastal Management Program, Bureau of Planning. No major substantive input was received at the hearing. Most oral comments were very general questions or statements. Written comments received from the below-listed agencies provided the most valuable and specific input: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service U.S. Dept. of Interior, Geological Survey U.S. Dept. of Transportation Department of Energy (Region IX) General Services Administration (Region IX) Department of Housing and Urban Development (Region IX) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Department of Parks and Recreation, Government of Guam Guam Environmental Protection Agency Department of Agriculture, Government of Guam Guam Environmental Protection Agency Department of Agriculture, Government of Guam University of Guam Marine Laboratory Office of the Attorney General, Government of Guam 189 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING GUAM COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM The public is invited to attend the public A public hearing on proposed rules and requia- hearing for presentation of the Guam Coastal Management Draft 306 Program tions for development . within wetlands and, Document. The Program 'outlines fl@odplains 'will be hold by the Territorial Plonn-.. management adivities for land and water !no Commission following its. regular meeting on resources on Guam, under the provisions August N, 1978 at 9:30 @;M. in the confqrence@ of the Coastal Zone Management Act of room 2nd floor of the AdrniPWTation Bldg. Copies. 1972. The hearing will be held W the Of- of the proposed rules and r6gu@ations may be ob- fice of the Bureau of Planning, Con. @ained e the Bureau of Planning, 4th floor,@ PDIN. ference Room, Mh Floor, PDR Wdg. on BLdg. or by calling 477-9502. Thursday, March 2, 1978, 7:30 P.M. Fou, further information, call the l Coosta@ Ho kumbibida hamyo i Torritorial Planning Com- Management soction, Bureau of Plann. mission para madiskuti i maprupopona no ing: 472-8711, 47Y-9502 or 477-9639. areklamento pot it ma'uzon i sesonVan siho giyo 0 Guam gi alas nuebi i media gi ogga'an, huebes, BUREAU 0V PIANNONG I wll@ dia dies 9i Agusto, 1978. Para makondukta este I gi conference room, 2nd floor, Administration Building. Sina mprimanulo'homyo kopian este nd arapkiamento 91 Bureau of Planning, 4th floor, PDH Building o sino agang ham gi 477-9502. On April 19, 1979, two public hearings were held at 2:00 and 7:30PM at the Sagan Dinana, Agana, Guam on the GCMP and DEISo Public notices of the hearings were published twice weekly in the Pacific Daily News beginning approximately 30 days before the heariFg' dateo -Two large notices were published several days before the hearing (reproduced below), and public service announcements concerning the hearing aired as well. Approximately 30 people attended the two hearings, with the Guam Department of Commerce and Guam Surfing Association presenting written testimony. These comments and responses to them are summarized in Section J of this Chapter. Questions posed at the hearing concerned the involve- ment of the GCMP in establishing parks in Southern Guam and the relation- ship between the GCMP and the Federal governaent. Represented at the hearings were: Federal Highway Administration G Commander, Naval Forces Marianas (Depto of Navy) 190 Office of the Governor Bureau of Planning Micronesian Area Research Center Dept. of Land Management Public Utility Agency of Guam Dept. of Parks and Recreation Dept. of Public Works Dept. of Agriculture, Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources University of Guam Marine Laboratory Guam Environmental Protection Agency Department of Commerce Guam Housing and Urban Renewal Authority Also in attendance were representatives from the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Coastal Zone Management Program, Venture Development and Management Resources, Inc. and the above-mentioned Guam Surfing Association. PUBLICMARING The federal Office of Coastal ZonwManagement will hold two public hearings on the Guam Coastal Monagernent,11rogiam mW Dtaft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Date: Thursday, April 19, 1979 Time: 2:01) p.m. and 710 p.m. Place: Sagan Dina", now tke Public Market in Agana The public is encouragetil to provide written or oral cominents on the program which involves development and inVismantaition of local policies and management programs in 16 major resource-rolated areas including-. � Shoreline development 0 Public access � Major facility siting Q Recreational areas � Air and Wow quality a Agricultural landit � Marine resources &Development in hazardous and fragile areas Copies of the DEIS, which includes a comprehensive description of the program, mov be ob- tained at the Bureau of Planning, 41h floor, Pacific Daily News Bldg. For iuither information. contact the Burea of 477-95M, 4"-9639 or 472-7811. BETTY S. GUERRERO Director Bureau of Planning I f0delial ofisinan Coastal Zom Management Pam huno gucho dos no hurtio prim i publiku gi huebm. did desi nuobi di Abrit, gi alas dos gi talo'ani yon cis siete i media gi pupuengi, quato 9J Sagan DWArric of flon I ma*c'on publiku. Hagatna. Man me a eppok 1 publiku Fiord ufan man of"wo opinion ni -umallefekto siha I adelonton yon I arcklamento In moyot lithe no sit,*, i kanton foal siha, litualidat i airs yon i hanom, i gunchon I ", entraclon publiku, lugat dibes- lion yon I tone agrikutura. Guaho siba kapian I dolturnento gi ofirth-mn i Bureau of Planning, 4#h flaw, Pacific Daily News BuildMg giya Hagalm. Paro mas infairlwasion, agiong I Bureau gi nurnwu 4"-9502, 477-%W put 472-8711. 191 F. Wetlands and Flood Hazard Areas Rules and Regulations Public Hearing Subsequent to an analysis of the capability of existing regulatory controls to manage the APCs, identified by the CZM Program, wetlands and flood hazard areas were determined to be in the most need of immediate and additional management attention. Sufficient baseline data were available for official mapping, and rules and regulations were drafted by the CZM Program for promulgation by the Territorial Planning Commission, associated with Executive Orders which were drafted and submitted to the Office of the Governor. Pursuant to requirements of the Administrative Adjudication Act, GCG, a public hearing was held on August 10, 19780' The below-shown public notice appeared in the Pacific Daily News on July 30, 1978. Written comments were also received from refevant local government agencies, the CZM Advisory Committee, USGS and COEo Go Mechanisms for Continued Consultation and Public Participation Public participation and relevant agency and group input must obviously continue during implementation of a Coastal Management Program on Guam, as implementation will be more visible and have greater impacts than the program's planning phaseo The changing nature of resource use, unanticipated impacts or radical variation in status quo assumptions such as population growth require a continued reliance upon both governmental and public coordination and input., In fact, the widest opportunity for public participation and consultation efforts should be in effect as an essential element of program implementation. There will be a continuation of newsletters, brochures, lectures and presentations with the development of citizens', students' and developers' handbooks on land and water use. This will be the responsibility of the Coastal Management Program. The Coastal Management Program will also continue to receive input from the CZM Advisory Committeeo It is anticipated that the CZM Advisory Committee will take a greater role in land-use issues by reviewing development projects for Federal consistency and comment in addition to the regular discussion and update on program developments. The Committee provides an ideal setting as a cross-section of Federal, local and special interest group representatives are present. A more formal and structured membership will be formed with a consistent delegate from each relevant interest. A voting procedure may be needed for decision-making and comment on some issues. H. Federal Coordination Throughout the development of the Guam Coastal Management Program, a high degree of interaction was maintained with various Federal agencies 192 concerned with land and water use on Guam. Some local agencies, such as GEPA's administration of USEPA-funded programs, represent Federal interests. The prevalent military presence on Guam necessitated a close liaison with the U.S. Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard. Federal coordination ranged from participation in public hearings and advisory committee meetings to discussion in numerous informal meetings and correspondence. Though some interaction, such as comments on COE permit applications, were very specific in nature, all actions were reviewed in relation to CZM policies, Federal agency responsibilities and national interest. The continuous and timely involvement of Federal agencies in program formulation assisted in Federal agencies' familiarization with program developments and Federal consistency requirements. Coordination efforts have resolved many minor conflicting issues and prevented the emergence of/or demonstrated the absence of major conflicts to date. This is best exemplified in HUD's adoption of the Land-Use Plan, prepared by the CZM Program, as a required companion element of the HUD-funded Residential Development Policy Report (Housing Element of the CDP). Also, the land-use discussion in EPA/GEPA's 208 Water Quality Management Plan utilizes the Guam Coastal Management Program's policies, land-use districting system and APC breakdown verbatim. The January, 1978 Review Draft 306 Program Document was formally submitted to the following Federal agencies for review and comment pur- suant to the requirements of the CZMA: Department of Agriculture Department of Commerce Department of Defense Department of Energy Department of Health, Education and Welfare Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of Interior Department of Transportation Environmental Protection Agency Nuclear Regulatory Commission General Services Administration The Department of Defense was consulted through all local military commands and GEPA represents the Federal EPA on Guam through memoranda of understanding. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare pro- vided no comment and there are no present or projected nuclear developments on Guam, thus the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provided no input. All other above-listed Federal agencies provided written and/or verbal comments which were incorporated into revision of the 306 Document Review Draft or constituted support of the data, programs activities or policies within. 193 I. Summary of Federal Ageng Comments on January 1, 1978, Review Draft U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Transportation, 14th District The agency is pleased that the program does not create new levels of government, but utilizes existing controls. The program recognizes the value of Federal coordination, but should provide procedures for such coordination. The program should better define permissible and non-permissible uses of resources. Acreage of Federal lands should be included in the document and information on Coast Guard land holdings is provided. National Marine Fisheries Service, Department of Commerce There is a lack of specific guidance to ensure adherance to land-use policies. Guam needs a comprehensive coastal act rather than basin authority on various existing lawso Establishment of guidelines to regulate shoreline development should be a program activity. The agency agrees with multiple-use concepts within areas chosen for major economic development. More information is needed on how the program will encourage fisheries development. The energy facility planning process should be developed and integrated into the program. Soil Conservation Services, Department of Agriculture Designation of the entire island as a coastal zone is appropriate. Specific information regarding the importance of length of slope in erosion-prone areas is provided. There is a need for ongoing soil studies and further identification of agricultural lands as program activities. Background information on erosion control standards is provided. Deeartment of Energy, Region IX The program provides an adequate approach to energy facility planning. General Services Administrations, Region IX The Federal consistency procedures within the document are reasonable. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Region IX Comments are the same as for the Land-Use Plan. The Land-Use Plan was approved by HUD, in conjunction with Residential Development Policy Report (housing element) for Guam, for purposes of their programs. U.S. Geological Survey, Department of Interior The agency provided background information on the functions and organization of the USGS for use in program development. 194 U.S* DeVartment of Interior, Pacific Southwest Region Planning Office, ional Park Service, Fu-reau of Land Management and Heritage Conser- vation and Recreation Service An additional goal is suggested for the preservation of signifi- cant natural and cultural resources for future generations. The War in the Pacific National Historic Park and Proposed National Seashore be reflected in the document. Properties on the National Register of Historic Places should be listed in the appendix. Revisions to Federal consistency procedures are suggested. Major issues related to parks and recreation have been addressed and the document is consistent with the Guam Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. High priority should be given to protection of water resources. U.S. Department of Transportation If the entire island is considered to be a coastal zone, all construc- tion will have to adhere to local and Federal laws, and projects will be hindered by too much paperwork. The rationale for an island-wide designa- tion is questioned. The placing of roadways along shoreline areas is balanced by the erosion problems created by inland roads through sloping terrain. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior The agency supports the island-wide designation of the coastal zone. It is generally felt that most policies are vague and should be strengthened. Information concerning wetlands classification, endangered species, stream alteration guidelines and the functions of the Fish and Wildlife Service are provided. Department of the Air Force, AAFB More information on land-use compatibility in AICUZ should be incor- porated into the document. A Federal consistency procedure separate from the A-95 process should not be established. U.S. Naval Forces,-Marianas, Department of Defense Extensive comments on site specific aspects of the program are pro- vided. The overall concern is that the program references Federal lands and activities in many parts of the document which should be deleted as infringements on Federal planning and management authority. It is felt the program may create new layer of authority and reduce the authority of existing regulatory agencies. 195 J. March, 1979 P/DEIS Comments and Reseonses Comments on the GCMP Program and DEIS are summarized in Attachment 1. Responses are provided to each comment. 196 TABLE NO. 7 List of GCMP/Federal Agen@y Coordination Efforts Date Form of Interaction Agency Subject Mar. 17,1975 Comments Submitted COE Mobil Petroleum Fuel Handling Operations Oct. 8, 1975 Comments Submitted COE Shoreline Erosion Control Demonstra- tion Site Proposals Nov. 5, 1975 Official Comments COE Apra Harbor Study Presented at Public Hearing Nov. 21, 1975 Federal Regional USEPA Misc. Environmental Council Workshop Topics Jan. 20, 1976 Correspondence GSA CZM/GSA/PBS Coordination Feb. 20, 1976 Comments Submitted GEPA/USEPA CZM/208 Coordination Draft 208 Plan Mar. 22, 1976 Comments Submitted GEPA/USEPA Classification of Cocos Lagoon Waters. Mar. 23, 1976 Comments Submitted USEPA Water Quality Standards Apr. 28, 1976 Public Hearing GEPA/USEPA 201 Wastewater Facilities-Umatac Apr. 29, 1976 Public Hearing GEPA/USEPA 201 Facilities Plan May 2, 1976 Meeting GEPA/USEPA 208 Program Review May 10, 1976 Site Visit COE Project Area July 8, 1976 Comments Submitted GEPA/re. AF EIS, Access Ease- ment Across USAF Lands, Seibu Liesure Uruno Point July 13, 1976 Meeting GSA Agana Boat Basin Aug. 5, 1976 Public Hearing GEPA/USEPA 201 Facilities Plan- ,Talofofo Sept. 8, 1976 Meeting GEPA/USEPA CZM/208 Ccordination Sept. 23, 1976 Meeting GEPA/USEPA CZM/208 Coordination Sept. 28, 1976 Meeting GEPA/USEPA CZM/208 Coordination Oct. 1, 1976 Correspondence USGS Directory of USGS Program Activities in Coastal Areas Oct. 1, 1976 Comments Submitted COE Pier Construction, Mamoan Channel, Mr. J.Q. Acfalle Oct. 3, 1976 Meeting U.S. Coast Coast Guard Involve- Guard ment in Mapping and Permitting Oct. 5, 1976 Meeting National War in the Pacific Park Service National Historic Park Oct. 7, 1976 Meeting National War in the Pacific Park Service National Historic Park 197 Date Form of Interaction Agency Subject Nov. 3, 1976 Meeting GSA Functions of New GSA Office Nov. 9, 1976 Meeting COE Urban Studies Nov. 10, 1976 Meeting GEPANSEPA CZM/208 Coordinaiion Nov. 23, 1976 Meeting US Navy CZMAC and Aquifer Designation Nov. 27, 1976 Information Request National Marine Offshore Fishery Fisheries Serv- Resources ices Dec. 2, 1976 Comments Submitted GEPANSEPA 201 Program Rural Designation, Merizo Dec. 7, 1976 Meeting NOAA Data Center Deepwater Tempera- ture Profiles for Alternative Energy Project Jan. 4, 1977 Comments Submitted GEPANSEPA Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Con- trol Handbook Jan. 11, 1977 Meeting GEPANSEPA CZM/208 Coordination Jan. 17, 1977 Correspondence US Navy AICUZ Program Jan. 28, 1977 Comments Submitted COE Interim Report of Harbors and Rivers Feb. 1, 1977 Correspondence US Coast Guard Federal Lands Survev Feb. 15, 1977 Info Request GSA Federal Lands Survey Feb. 15, 1977 Info Request US Dept. of Int. Federal Lands Survey Fish and Wildlife Feb. 15, 1977 Info Request US Navy Federal Lands Survey Feb. 15, 1977 Info Request National Park Federal Lands Survey Service Feb. 15, 1977 Info Request Federal Aviation Federal Lands Survey Administration Feb. 23, 1977 Correspondence COE Listing of Illegal Activities Feb. 28, 1977 Public Hearing GEPA/USEPA Revision of Cocos Lagoon Water Classi- fication Feb. 28, 1977 Board Meeting GEPA/USEPA Board of Directors Regular Meeting Feb. 28, 1977 Comments Submitted GEPA/USEPA Water Quality Stan- dards Mar. 10, 1977 Correspondence US Navy Destruction of OICC NAVENGCOM Atantano Wetland, Construction of U.S. Army Reserve Center Mar. 23, 1977 Public Meeting Dept. of Parks Inarajan Village His- and Recreation/ toric Architectural National Park District Grant-in- Service Aid Program .198 Date Form of Interaction Agency Subject April 7, 1977 Comments Submitted COE Unauthorized Pier Con- struction, Merizo Shores Developers April 7, 1977 Meeting USEPA CZM/208 Coordination April 11, 1977 Correspondence COE Increasing Violations and Lack of Enforcement April 12, 1977 Comments Submitted GEPA/USEPA Guam Safewater Drinking Act April 13, 1977 Meeting COE Ugum Dam Proposal April 15, 1977 Meeting COE Ugum Dam Proposal April 22, 1977 Conference AirForce/ Guam Parks and Recrea- GovGuam tion April 26, 1977 Comments Submitted COE Agana Sewage Treatment Plant April 29, 1977 Meeting US Navy Orote Point Ammo Wharf May 9, 1977 Meeting US Navy Orote Point Ammo Wharf May 10, 1977 Meeting US Navy AICUZ Program May 11, 1977 Meeting US Navy AICUZ Program May 19, 1977 Meeting US Navy AICUZ Program May 195 1977 Comments Submitted US Navy DEIS Orote Point Ammo Wharf May 19, 1977 Comments Submitted US Dept. of Orote Point Ammo.Wharf Interior, Fish and Wildlife May 23, 1977 Board Meeting GEPA/USEPA Board of Directors Regular Meeting May 27, 1977 Meeting COE Ugum Dam Proposal June 1, 1977 Comments Submitted COE Agat Fish Habitat June 8, 1977 Meeting Air Force USAF Study of Agri- cultural Lands June 9, 1977 Comments Submitted US Navy AICUZ Program June 9, 1977 Public Hearing GEPA/USEPA Sewer Construction Grant Priority List June 9, 1977 Comments Submitted Dept. of Draft Guam ComprehensivE Parks and Rec./ Outdoor Recreation BOR Plan June 24, 1977 Meeting Air Force Federal Consistency and Land-Use Planning June 26, 1977 Comments Submitted COE Ugum Dam Study June 27, 1977 Comments Submitted COE Agat Small Boat Harbor June 27, 1977 Project Advisory COE Ugum Dam Project Committee Meeting July 1, 1977 Meeting COE Ugum. Dam Project July 1, 1977 Meeting National War in the Pacific Park Park Service and National Landmarks 199 Date Form of Interaction Agency Subject July 9, 1977 Meeting U.S.Navy 208.Team CZM/208 Coordina- tion July 10, 1977 Meeting U.S. Navy 208 Team CZM/208 Coordina- tion July 11, 1977 Comments Submitted TPC/GHURA/HUD Asan Community Redevelopment July 13, 1977 Correspondence USGS Mapping Coordina- tion July 14, 1977 Meeting GEPA/USEPA Environmental Management Study July 14, 1977 Public Workshop COE Agat Small Boat Harbor Study July 15, 1977 Planning Meeting GEPA/USEPA CZM/208 Coordina- tion July 30, 1977 Meeting US Coast Guard CZM Coordination and Harbor Range Light Placement July 30, 1977 Meeting COE Ugum Dam Project Aug. 4, 1977 Meeting US Coast Guard CZM Coordination Aug. 8, 1977 Comments Submitted US Navy Draft Report on Installation Data Aug. 9, 1977 Comments Submitted COE Ugum. Dam Project Hydrological Study Aug. 11, 1977 Comments Submitted US Navy DEIS Orote Point Ammo Wharf, Addendum No. 1 Aug. 17, 1977 Meeting COE COE/CZM Coordina- tion Aug. 19, 1977 Correspondence US Navy, OICC Project Review NAVFACENG Process for Repair of Glass Break- water Aug. 22, 1977 Request for Comment National Marine Draft Land-Use Pla. Fisheries Service Aug. 22, 1977 Request for Comment PACDIVNAVFACENGCOM Draft Land-Use Federal Planners Plan Hawaii office Aug. 23, 1977 Request for Comment GSA, Operational Draft Land-Use Planning Staff Plan Aug. 23, 1977 Request for Comment US Dept. of Int. Draft Land-Use Fish and Wildlife Plan Service Aug. 23, 1977 Request for Comment HUD Draft Land-Use Plai Aug. 23, 1977 Request for Comment COE Draft Land-Use Plai Aug. 23, 1977 Request for Comment Studies Staff of Draft Land-Use Plaz Analysis, Washington Aug. 23, 1977 Request for Comment USAF, AAFB Draft Land-Use Plar 200 Date Form of Interaction Agency Subject Aug. 23, 1977 Request for Comment US Navy Draft Land-Use Plan Aug. 31, 1977 Comments Submitted Dept. of Agricultural Leases in Land Mgt. re. Sasa-Laguas-Aguada Navy Lands Acres Sept. 1, 1977 Meeting HCRS CZM Program Discussion Sept. 6, 1977 Meeting COE COE/CZM Coordination Sept. 8, 1977 Meeting GEPA/USEPA Environmental Mgt. Study Sept. 9, 1977 Conference US Navy AICUZ Program Sept. 9, 1977 Comments Submitted Staff Civil AICUZ Program Engineer/NAS Sept. 13, 1977 Comments Submitted COE Boat Basin Permit, Tachog Creek, Merizo Sept. 192 1977 Comments Submitted Staff Civil AICUZ Program Engineer/NAS Sept. 222 1977 Comments Received COE Draft Land-Use Plan Sept. 23, 1977 Comments Received U.S. Dept. of Draft Land-Use Plan Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Sept. 27, 1977 Meeting COE Cases of Illegal Filling of Wetlands Oct. 5, 1977 Comments Submitted DPW/USEPA Wastewater Facilities Plan Oct. 5, 1977 Public Meeting COE Navigation Study, Apra Harbor Oct. 11, 1977 Comments Received U.S. Dept. of Draft Land-Use Plan Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Oct. 28, 1977 Comments Received HUD Draft Land-Use Plan Oct. 31, 1977 Comments Submitted COE Boat Ramp Construction Permit, Merizo Oct. 31, 1977 Comments Submitted COE Pier Construction Application, Cocos Is. Nov. 10, 1977 Comments Submitted DPR/HCRS Guam Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan Nov. 28, 1977 Correspondence Sent HUD Draft Land-Use Plan Dec. 14, 1977 Workshop GEPA/USEPA Environmental Mgt. Study Jan. 9, 1978 Conference (Hawaii) HUD Residential Development Policy Report and Land- Use Plan Jan. 9, 1978 Comments Submitted DPW/USEPA Wastewater Facilities Plan Jan. 10, 1978 Corresondence Sent NOAA Financial Report Jan. 17, 1978 Corresondence Sent National Clean Water Report Wildlife Federation 201 Date Form.of Interaction Agency Subject Jan. 18, 1978 Advisory Committee U.S. Air Draft 306 Document Force Jan. 18, 1978 Advisory Committee U.S. Navy Draft 306 Document Jan. 27, 1978 Correspondence Received Defense Street Atlas and Mapping Atlas of Reefs and Agency Beaches of Guam Jan 31, 1978 Corresondence Received Defense Civil Map Request Preparedness Agency Feb. 1, 1978 Comments Requested U.S. Navy Prefinal AICUZ Report Feb. 7, 1978 Corresondence Sent NOAA Certification Statemeni of CZM Program Acti- vities Feb. 8, 1978 Correspondence Received USGS General Statement for CZM Programs Feb. 13, 1978 Comments Submitted US Navy AICUZ Study Feb. 15, 1978 Correspondence Received U.S. Army Exclusion of Army Installations in State CZM Programs Feb. 15, 1977 Information Received U.S. Dept. of Interim Hierarcical Interior, Fish Regional Classifica- and Wildlife tion Scheme for Service Coastal Ecosystems Feb. 21, 1977 Comments Received NOAA Draft 306 Document Feb. 21, 1978 Correspondence Received COE Peformance of Silt Curtains Feb. 22, 1978 Comments Received U.S. Air Program Coordination Force Memorandum of Under- standing Feb. 27, 1978 Comments Received HUD Draft 306 Document Feb. 28, 1978 Comments Requested NOAA Obnibus Territory Act Feb. 28, 1978 Information Received Defense Landsat Photography Mapping Agency March 2, 1978 Public Hearing Fish and Draft 306 Document Wildlife Service March 3, 1978 Meeting U.S. Fish Draft 306 Document and Wildlife Service March 16, 1978 Comments Received U.S. Fish and Draft 306 Document Wildlife Service March 17, 1978 Comments Sent U.S.A.F. Program Coordination Memorandum of Under- standing March 17, 1978 Comments Received U.S. Dept. of Draft 306 Document Transportation March 20, 1978 Comments Sent U.S. Fish and Ecological Character- Wildlife Ser- ization Study vice 202 Date Form of Interaction Agency Subject March 22, 1978 Meeting GEPA/USEPA Proposed Operators Certification March 29, 1978 Comments Received U.S. Dept. of Land-Use Plan Commerce, NMFS March 29, 1978 Comments Received U.S. Dept. of Draft 306 Document Interior, Office of the Secretary March 30, 1978 Correspondense Sent U.S. Dept. of Draft 306 Document Transporation April, 1978 Newsletter Distributed COE Army Corps Permits April 3, 1978 Comments Received U.S. Dept. of Draft 306 Document Agriculture April 5, 1978 Meeting U.S. Navy Guam Land-Use Plan April 6, 1978 Correpondence Sent U.S. Dept. Draft 306 Document of Agriculture April 6, 1978 Correpondence Sent U.S. Dept. Draft 306 Document of Interior April 12, 1978 Comments Sent U.S. Navy Guam Land-Use Plan April 17, 1978 Correspondence Received U.S. Navy AICUZ Study April 18, 1�78 Correspondence Received Civil Defense 1:75,000 Scale Maps Preparedness Agency April 20, 1978 Public Hearing GEPA/USEPA Bottle Bill April 20, 1978 Advisory Committee COE Army Corps Permits April 20, 1978 Advisory Committee U.S.A.F. CZM/USAF Coordination May 2, 1978 Comments Submitted COE Storm Drain Outlets, Tumon Bay May 12,-.1978 Comments Submitted U.S. Fish and Interim Hierarchical Wildlife Regional Classifica- Service tion Scheme May 16, 1978 Correspondence Received COE Land and Water Regulations Enforce- ment May 18, 1978 Comments Sent COE Tanguisson I,II Power Plant Intake and Dis- charge Channels May 18, 1978 Comments Sent U.S.A.F. Program Coordination May 25, 1978 Comments Sent COE Dept. of Agriculture Reef Fish Study Jun. 13, 1978 Meeting GEPA/USEPA/ 208 Plan U.S.N./U,,S.A.F. Jun. 29, 1978 Correspondence Received U.S.A.F. A-95 Clearinghouse Process July, 1978 Newsletter Distributed COE Floodplains Aug. 2, 1@78 Advisory Committee U.S.N./ Wetlands and Flood i U.S.A.F. Hazard Areas July, 17, 1978 Comments Received HUD Flood Hazard Maps Aug. 1, 1978 Comments Requested U.S.G.S./ Wetlands and Flood COE Hazard Area Rules and Regulations 203 Date Form of Interaction Agency Subject Aug. 2, 1978 Comments Sent COE Small Boat Ramp Application, Merizo Aug. 3, 1978 Comments Requested HUD Flood Hazard Areas Rules and Regulations Aug. 7, 1978 Comments Received USGS/COE Flood Hazard Areas Rules and Regulations Aug. 8, 1978 Meeting USGS/COE Flood Hazard Maps Aug. 10, 1978 Correspondence Received COE Pier Construction, Merizo Aug. il, 1978 Comments Received COE Flood Hazard Areas Rules and Regulations Aug. 15, 1978 Public Hearing DPW/USEPA 201 Wastewater Facilities Plan, Talofofo Aug. 16, 1978 Public Hearing DPW/USEPA 201 Plan, Inarajan Aug. 18, 1978 Comments Sent GEPANSEPA State Clearinghouse Application for Surface Impoundment Study Aug. 18, 1978 Correspondence Sent COE Flood Hazard Areas Rules and Regulations Aug. 23, 1978 Seminar GEPA/USEPA EIA/EIS Seminar Aug. 30, 1978 Public Hearing COE Ugum Dam Project Aug. 31, 1978 Public Hearing COE Apra Harbor of Refuge 205 CHAPTER XI - FUTURE ISSUES Section 923.71(c)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Program approval regulations suggests "a brief discussion of those issues and problems ... which will be taken into consideration during program implementation and/or future program refinements." A number of future issues and problems to be dealt with by the GCMP developed during the CZM, Land-Use, and Community Design planning process. Some of these topics will undoubtedly become major issues in respect to implementation of the GCMP. A. AGANA BAY URBAN WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT Urban use of the shoreline has created land-use problems in various central and southern communities. The most intensely blighted urban shoreline stretches from Alupang Cove (Sleepy Lagoon) to Adelup Pt., including portions of Tamuning, East Agana and Anigua between Marine Drive and the coral reef. A complex of problems emerges from improper zoning, fractionalized lot ownership by the private sector and unsurveyed govern- ment land. The entire waterfront is a flood hazard area and randomly-built structures are found in strip development which blocks both visual and physical public access to the beach, and fairly obliterates any natural terrestrial landscape. Point source discharges of stormwater, numerous public health hazards, sign violations and transportation problems add to the degree of urban blight. In short, uses are generally incompatible with one another and the nature of shoreline ecology. The GCMP has identified the many problems along this portion of shore- line in its Draft Agana Urban Waterfront Redevelopment Plan. The Plan, slated for initial implementation during the Program's MFphase, outlines action-oriented strategies for needed federal funding,, further planning and better enforcement, amendment to or development of regulatory mechanisms. The GCMP will hold workshops for public input into the plan and seek an executive designation of the Agana Bay Urban Waterfront as an official area of particular concern to mandate implementation of the Plan's strate- gies by a multiple-agency Urban Waterfront Task Force. B. MARINE FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT Exploitation of sustainable yields of fishery resources in Guam's territorial waters represents an economic sector with high growth poten- tial. Presently, only a small amount of commercial and recreational fishery is practiced, primarily due to constraints to industry development. There are inadequate facilities for the local fishing cooperative; and larger-scale industry, such as tuna transshipment or a cannery, are pre- cluded through federal land ownership of properties in Guam's only deep- water port. The establishment of the 200-mile Fishery Conservation Zone 206 and regional planning also requires Guam to become more involved in planning for responsible management and development of fishery resources. The GCMP has prepared a report entitled, Marine Fisheries Development and Management on Guam: Its Current Status. The report defines the itory's need for more precise poTiMcies in respect to fishery resources and has led to the Governor's issuance of Executive Order No. 79-6 creating the Guam Marine Fisheries Advisory Council. The Council, comprised of 11 representatives of relevant agencies, a regional commission, special interest groups and the public-at-large, is now addressing major Territorial fishery issues, formulating policies, and preparing a Fisheries Management and Development Plan for Guam. Preparation of this Plan foreshadows the increasing utilization and management of fishery resources. Federal cooperation will be sought in evaluating the magnitude of the fishery's commercial potential. C. OCEAN THERMAL ENERGY CONVERSION (OTEC) ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION Studies prepared under the Coastal Energy Impact Program (CEIP) have shown that existing power plants at Cabras Island will have to be supple- mented to meet the island's power demand in another decade. This will necessitate the construction of another unit, adjacent to the current plant and/or construction of an OTEC plant. An OTEC plant would involve significant environmental impacts either as a small land-based demonstra- tion plant at Cabras Island or a large sea-based plant. Guam has been shown to be an ideal location for such a development, as OTEC requires thermal gradients at sufficient depths in offshore seawater. The outfall of cold water would be the greatest impact of an OTEC power plant. The desirability of OTEC power generation is increasing as Guam feels the economic hardship of its total dependency on petroleum fuel for power generation and seeks economically attractive alternate energy sources. A forthcoming CEIP study addressing the environmental impacts and socio- economic considerations of OTEC development on Guam is being prepared. D. SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER CAPACITY An ample supply of freshwater will be the key to the growth of agri- culture and some specialized industries,, such as fish cannery. Freshwater is also of critical importance for drinking water, domestic, commercial and industrial use. Although Guam is blessed with a large underground aquifer, little is known of the lens' capacity to absorb pollutants from urban land use or its optimum sustainable yield for pumping without saltwater intru- sion. Until such time as more information is obtained from a thorough study of the aquifer system, Guam is forced to take stringent measures to ensure protection of its sole source of freshwater. The rocks of southern Guam only offer a limited amount of potential for expensive reservoir con- struction. Therefore, development of an accurate computer model of the 207 aquifer system will become increasingly needed and will represent a key factor in land-use planning in the future. The official Federal desig- nation of the northern water lens as a principal-source aquifer, together with the regulations effected by such a designation, will assist in protection of the resource. Designation of the aquifer area as a 'Iconservation district" under the Territorial land-use system, and proposed designation of the lands as an APC, provide further protection to this critical resource. E. FEDERAL LANDS ACQUISITION Presently, a third of the island is under federal ownership and manage- ment, thus falling outside the jurisdiction of the GCMP, except in respect to 11spillover" impacts on non-federal propertieso Efforts are underway for the Government of Guam to obtain unutilized federal lands, not critical to military missions, for various purposes. Should such lands be acquired, the resource base under management by GovGuam could significantly increase, thus necessitating further land-use districting, community design planning and assessment of resource characteristics and development potentials within a relatively short time frame. Some federal lands are unique and require strict conservation, while others are highly suitable for intensive development. Considering the large area of land under federal ownership, the military's.current use of such lands, and GovGuam's potential use of acquired lands, the need for additional planning and management will unquestionably be an issue of increasing attention under the GCMP. F. MUNICIPAL LEVEL GOVERNMENT The proposed Guam Constitution states in Articl@: VI that "procedures for the creation of counties, cities and other political @.-@-6divisions shall be provided by law." Despite the fact that local ordirii-.!-@es developed shall not be inconsistent with law, zoning, and maintenance of lo,_-il improvement projects," it is not difficult to foresee certain prob'k.,,ms with land and water use as a result of local efforts to achieve objectives that do not coincide with those of the island as a unit. G. COORDINATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Recommendations developed by the inter-government departmental Resources Management Task Force regarding GovGuam management of natural resources will certainly be of future consequence. Coordinated by the GCMP, the Task Force's Study is expected to identify a number of areas, including enforcement, government land leasing and planning, surveying, coordination and possible agency consolidation, in which new approaches could streamline GovGuam natural resources management. Any initiatives pursuant to Task Force recommendation would be likely to have a direct effect on the GCMP. PART THREE: DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED 209 PART THREE: DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT AFFECTED The Guam Coastal Management Program text (Part Two of this document) notes that the GCMP is applicable to the entire island of Guam, excluding Federal lands and waters pursuant to the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act. The Federal CZMA does impose certain responsibilities on Federal agencies to conform their activities, financial assistance and regulatory processes "to the maximum extent practicable" to the substance of an approved coastal program. Upon Federal approval of the GCMP, the "environment affected," therefore, will be the entire island of Guam, including its Terri- torial waters to three miles offshore. The physical and institutional environments of Guam are discussed in considerable detail in Part Two of this document. The relationship with Federal agencies, particularly regarding excluded lands and waters and con- sideration of the national interest is also addressed in Part Two. The reader is referred to that section ;f this document for the information normally contained in this section of an environmental impact statement. PART FOUR: PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT 211 PART FOUR: PROBABLE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON THE ENVIRONMENT The Federal action is the proposed approval of the GCMP as having met the requirements of the CZMA and, after approval, the awarding of Federal grants-in-aid to assist Guam in implementing and administering its program. Approval places an obligation on the Territory to manage its resources in accordance with the policies, priorities and processes described in the Program. Approval, in turn, obliges Federal agencies to carry out their functions in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the approval program, significantly influencing the Federal decision-making process as it relates to land and water use activities and funding in Guam. This part of the GCMP/DEIS combined document focuses on the environ- mental consequences of approving and implementing Guam's Coastal Management Program. Discussion includes both the benefits and costs of implementing the Program, as they relate to the natural and socio-economic environment of Guam. The fundamental criterion for assessing these impacts should be the CZMA's declaration of policy that coastal programs should strive "to achieve wise use of land and water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic and esthetic values, as well as to needs for economic development (CZMA �303). While intelli- gent management of coastal resources may be viewed as beneficial to the human environmen t and public welfare for many reasons, the following dis- cussions show that some essential activities that benefit the Island economically may come at some environmental cost. Conversely, limitations on certain resource uses in the interest of natural resource conservation and long-term productivity or utility*,'M@y have adverse economic effects to certain individuals or interests. Impacts associated with the Program fall into two principal categories: (1) the impacts of Federal approval, and (2). the impacts of application of the Program policies, priorities and processes to resources management needs in Guam. These consequences will be addressed in turn. A. Impacts Resulting Directly From Federal Agproval Federal approval of the GCMP will affect Guam, its resources and its residents in four ways. These are: (1) program funding; (2) Federal con- sistency; (3) national interest consideration; and (4) eligibility for other coastal management assistance. 1. Program Funding - Federal approval will permit the Office of Coastal Zone Management to award program administration grants, as provided for under Section 306 of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, to the Territory of Guam. This funding will allow increased employment and training of specialists such as planners, scientists, and permit review and enforcement officials in the Government of Guam. The effect will be to raise the professional level of resource management decision-making for coastal resources. The presence of additional staff for coastal resources management should improve coordination 212 and enforcement by GovGuam agencies in planning and siting decisions. The Guam coastal program identifies a number of specific Program activities to which Federal funding could be applied to assist in implementation of the Program. Included are: - support to the Guam Department of Agriculture for development and implementation of a fisheries development and management plan; - identification of appropriate sites for water-dependent economic development; - continuing assessment of marine resources and development of manage- ment programs, with potential for designation as areas of particular concern; - development of restoration plans for blighted urban shorelands; - support for the negotiation of additional cooperative use agreements with Federal agencies for use of Federal lands, especially for agri- culture and recreation; - support of beach beautification activities; - research on more effective erosion control standards or regulations for sediment control; - technical support for updating of the Guam Comprehensive Highway Plan; - full implementation of the National Flood Insurance Program. This list of proposed activities represents efforts that 'Could be under- taken only selectively, at a much more limited scale or comprehensiveness, or not at all, without Federal support through the Office of Coastal Zone Manage- ment. 2. Federal Consistency - The approval of the Guam Program will mean that all Federal agencies must follow the provisions of Sections 307(c) and (d) of the CZMA. These provisions will require close cooperation between Territorial and Federal government agencies involved in coastally-related activities and management. This impact of approval is one of the principal objectives of the Federal CZMA. The Program has evolved with the considerable assistance of numerous Federal agencies with responsibility for activities affecting coastal resources. No activities of relevant Federal agencies are specifically excluded from Guam as a result of policies in the GCMP. These activities are subject to the same environmentally protective policies as non-Federally-sponsored activities, however, particularly when such activities involve shoreline locations. 213 When Federal agencies are undertaking any development projects on non-Federal lands in Guam, or are involved in other activities that significantly affect the coastal zone (that is, non-Federal lands and waters of Guam), they must notify GovGuam of the proposed action. The parties will then have an opportunity to consult with one another in order to ensure that the proposed action not only meets Federal require- ments, but also is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with Guam's management program. In the event of a serious disagreement between the Territory and a Federal agency, either party may seek Secretarial mediation to assist in resolving the disagreement. These procedures will provide all parties with an opportunity to balance environmental concerns along with other national and Territorial interests. In cases where Guam determines that applications for Federal licenses, permits, grants or loans are inconsistent with the GCMP, Federal agencies are required to deny the approval of the applications. GovGuam objections must be based upon the substantive requirements of the Program such as the protection of air and water quality, land use districts, and the protection of valuable wetlands. Territorial ob- jections may cause Federally-regulated and assisted projects to locate in alternative sites where development is encouraged because of favorable physical features, adequate local public works and services, and sufficient transportation, communication and financial networks. The consistency requirements do place new legal requirements upon Federal agencies. To the extent that new procedural requirements to comply with the Federal consistency provisions cost time and money, applicants and Federal agencies will be impacted negatively. The long- term effect of the consistency procedures will be positive on two counts, however. Federal-Territorial coordination procedures must be adhered to, thereby keeping lines of communication open and available. In Guam, where the relative Federal presence is so significant, such contact can only be a positive factor. Secondly, because the Federal agencies are bound to the Program, activities which they carry out or regulate will be authorized only in cases in which those activities are consistent with the Territory's priorities. Again, this consequence is especially important in Guam, where Federal development or Federally-authorized development can have Island-wide repercussions on associated patterns of land use. 3. National Interest - Federal approval of the Program is dependent, in part, on a flMd'in-g-t-hat the Territory provides for adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the planning for and in the siting of facilities necessary to meet requirements that are other than local in nature. The national interest in such facilities as highways and energy production facilities is much harder to discern in Guam than in a continental state. To the extent that such facilities supply the needs of military installations in Guam, such facilities may have a national security interest. Otherwise, the lack of any interstate ties seems to limit the national interest in these facilities. Notwithstanding these 214 considerations, the GCMP lists as national interest facilities regional water treatment plants, transportation systems, energy production and transmission facilities, major recreation areas, national defense and aerospace installations, solid waste disposal facilities, and major reservoirs. This policy requirement of the CZMA is intended to assure that national concerns related to facility siting are expressed and dealt with in the development and implementation of a coastal management program. The requirement should not be construed as compelling states and territories to propose a program that accommodates certain types of facilities. It works to assure that such national concerns are not arbitrarily excluded or unreasonably restricted in the management program. This provision might have two impacts. First, it insures that the Territory has a process and program that does not prohibit or exclude any use or activity dependent on the coastal zone. In the absence of a comprehensive program such considerations might simply be ignored by oversight or default. This requirement will insure they are specifically considered. On the other hand, the existence of a consultative procedure should lead to more deliberate and cooperative decision-making concerning the siting of facilities in the coastal zone. 4. Other Management Assistance - Federal approval will also assure Guam coCtinued eligibility for fund available under other coastal management assistance programs, including the Coastal Energy Impact Program (Section 308), research and training (Section 310), beach access and the preservation of islands, and establishment of estuarine sanctuaries (Section 315). Eligibility for each of these programs will augment the management capability of GovGuam in the subject areas. Improved ability to plan for and manage the impacts of major energy facilities, to assure access to beaches and to preserve fragile island or estuarine ecosystems are clearly positive impacts of continued eligibility for funding of these activities that is associated with Program approval. B. Impacts Resulting from Guam's Implementation of the Program The proposed management program is founded on statutory and regu- latory authorities, some of which have been in place for some time, and some of which are new for the GCMP. Legislation (P.L. 12-200, 1975) called for, among other things, the creation of a land use planning-by- district system. The draft Constitution of Guam, already approved by the Constitutional Convention and scheduled for a popular vote in mid-1979, also calls for creation of land-use districts. Such a districting system is being implemented by the Territorial Planning Commission in response to Executive Order 78-23. The people of Guam have indicated repeatedly, both directly and through their legislature, that an improved resource management capability is clearly in the Island's interest. The question that must be addressed by this DEIS, then, is whether the proposed coastal 215 management program, in conjunction with other resource management plans and authorities in the Territory, speaks adequately to the specific problems and their resolution, and does it in a manner that is effective, efficient and sensitive to the social and economic, as well as the environ- mental needs of the Territory of Guam. This program was designed to benefit the people of Guam by proposing policies that address recognized resource issues, and give the several resource agencies of the territory a clearer basis upon which to make the decisions assigned to them by law. The single policy base is intended to provide a more consistent and predictable approach to resource manage- ment than in the past, which benefits the private citizen and general public, and development and conservation interests alike. Management of Guam's resources may be viewed as beneficial to the natural environment and, therefore, to the public welfare for many reasons. Such management also may have positive or negative socio-economic effects on property owners whose plans may be affected by the implementation of the program's policies and the more effective enforcement of existing authorities. As noted earlier, Guam historically has recognized in law both the value of its resources and the need for planning to accommodate competing demands for limited land and water resources. This coastal management program seeks to coordinate existing authorities for their more effective implementation. The policies herein are enforceable only to the limits of the legal authorities on which those policies are based. Private property rights are unaffected by this program, although the limits to absolute discretion are recognized. This distinction is an important one. A legal system such as Guam's, that has authorities such as zoning and subdivision laws, acknowledges that the exercise of dis- cretion in the use of any parcel of land is limited by the extent to which such use causes adverse effects on the general public or adjacent property owners. In recent years, the courts have supported the concept that a private property owner does not have absolute discretion over the use of property. On the other hand, legal limits to the public right to restrict use of private property do exist, and are clearly stated in Section VIII of the Land Use District Guidelines appended to Executive Order 78-23: This Executive Order is not intended, and shall not be construed as authorizing the (Territorial Planning) Commission to exercise their power or grant or deny a permit in a manner which will take or damage private property for public uses, without the payment of just compensation therefore. This Executive Order is not intended to increase or decrease the rights of any owner of property under the Constitution of the Territory of Guam or the United States. 216 This coastal management program does not intend, nor is it empowered to extend government jurisdiction beyond the limits recognized in the cited provision. Each of the policies for the coastal program are listed in this chapter and the probable beneficial and adverse impacts of the administra- tion of each policy are discussed. Impacts associated with implementation of Guam's program in general and with any specific policy, can be viewed as physical impacts, socio-economic impacts, and institutional impacts. Physical impacts are those related to a resource itself, such as improved erosion control and reduced sedimentation of reef flats. Socio-economic impacts are often the reason for and consequence of a management effort. For example, apart from their biological value, reefs around Guam serve an important economic function by protecting the Island from the costs of wave assault and erosion. On the other hand, land use controls that attempt to reduce erosion to protect those reefs may limit owner discre- tion over the uses of erodible land in order to serve the large public welfare. Finally, institutional impacts will occur which will affect the long-term success or failure of the Program. These impacts include anticipated management efficiencies and Federal funding for Territorial programs. Each of these classes of impacts is examined, where meaningful, tinder each of the proposed policies. Clearly, each of the policies affects many of the others. The effort has been made, however, to isolate impacts. Certain overall impacts can be expected; other possible impacts will be more subtle. The theory behind improved management and coordination is that decisions can be made more effectively and efficiently, by pri- vate parties and public agencies, if policies are clearly defined, and interested parties provided the opportunity to participate in decision making early in the process. Improved coordination itself takes time and money, however, so the focus of this program has been to provide a setting in which the total incremental cost of coordinating the ad- ministration of existing authorities and regulations will be repaid in savings to the component administrative costs, with a net environmental benefit. For the convenience of the reader, the issues and problems, as well as the policy, as discussed in detail in Chapter III are restated before the discussion of impacts of each policy. GOVERNMENTAL PROCESSES A. Issues and Problems - Current administration of existing laws and regulations at times does not adequately result in the most effective management of the Island's resources. Coordination diffi- culties create significant confusion among enforcement agencies as to the limits of their jurisdiction. 217 - The lack of a sufficient data base, both for projecting population and describing specific characteristics of various land and water areas., hinders effective planning, management and development of the Island's resources. - Inadequate analysis or consideration of current laws results in a large number of proposed bills which conflict with the policies or provisions in existing legislation. Polic ,Y More effective administration of natural resource related laws, programs, andpolicies shall be-achieved through: - revision of unclear and outdated laws and regulations, - improved coordination among__Iocal_ agencies, - improved coordination between territorial and Federal agencies, - educational and training programs for local government personnel, and - refinement of supporting technical data. Impacts More effective administration of natural resource-protection measures will undoubtedly yield benefits to the environment, as that is the focus of these measures. The crux of the matter is that certain valuable cultural', historical and environmental resources are being lost. Current zoning practice has been admittedly weak due to its sometimes inconsistent admin- istration and coordinative difficulties. This tool will be strengthened once coordination is assured and Guam agencies get Federal funding to imple- ment the intent of these policies, improving their ability-to administer resource-specific laws and policies. The 'administration of zoning in the context of the land use districting system will strictly limit the avail- ability of variances for non-conforming uses. The predictability of the process, and its ability to manage resource use will be greatly improved. The ins-titutional impacts are intended to be'significant. With the onset of comprehensive planning, and following the resource inventory and mapping efforts of the Section 305 phase of the CZM program, certain laws have been found to be outdated or unclear. Improved specificity, updating to reflect comprehensive versus single-purpose planning objec- tives or improved scientific understanding and revision for consistency 218 with the coastal program and Comprehensive Development Plan should lead to more predictability through a uniform body of law that reflects con- temporary resource interests and economic needs. Such a code of law should allow for more effective administration towards the achievement of resource and development policy goals. At the same time, such pre- dictability, clarity, and consistency should contribute to public understanding and compliance. Increased coordination, both among Territorial agencies and between the Territorial and Federal governments is expected to improve efficiency of administration by eliminating inconsistent planning or management approaches, thereby reduci,ng the likelihood for conflicts in siting decisions or resource use. It is expected that the costs to government for time spent coordinating activities and plans with other units and levels of government will be at least partly repaid by the subsequent conflict-resolution-time saved by such coordination. The increment of preparation time for permit applications or project proposals that will result from the required attention of applicants to the policies of the proposed program will have their costs. Some or all of the work-hours so expended should be recaptured by the.time saved, in public and private planning or development proposals, when clear definition of policies and regulations lends certainty to.standards and data requirements. In addition, time and money that might otherwise be spent on proposals that are inconsistent with Territorial planning o6jectives and, there- fore, unacceptable, can be saved or redirected to a proposal with greater certainty of approval when carefully prepared in recognition of clearly stated policies and regulations. Social and economic impacts are inseparable. Because of the compen- sating costs and gains of improved coordination, any net cost to govern- ment, and in turn cost to taxpayers, should be minimized once the processes are well-established and routine. Federal funding assistance -(Section 306) will be used initially for the costs of identifying ways to make the desired coordination -a part of normal permit review pro- cedures. The social impacts of improved administration of existing legislation and statutory authorty are more difficult to define. Society should benefit from enforcement of management policies which provide a balanced management perspective that aims to preserve valuable natural resources and accommodate the n'eeds of an expanding population and economy. Achieving this balance involves trade offs which include some of the short-term positive and negative effects discussed above. Long-term benefits from enhanced productivity of renewable resources would also be realized. B. Development Policies The impacts associate d with Development Policies and Resource Poli- .cies, for the most part, are those generated by the Land Use Districting 219 System and Policies to the administration of existing Territorial authorities and by the adoption and implementation of the Comprehensive Development Plan and'Community Design Plans The specifics of the dis- tricting, and provisions for special management of areas of particular concern, are included in the Governor's Executive Order 78-23 and TPC regulations. More specific policies for the implementation of these plans and procedures are provided by the coastal management program. Further, approval of the program will release Federal funds which will improve Guam's capability to enforce the applicable laws and administer the program. Program approval also assures that Federal activities will be carried out, to the maximum extent possible, in a manner consistent with the Program. Conversely, approval will commit the Territory to consider the national interests that may be affected by the administration and enforcement of its rather stringent and specific resource management policies. The following discussion highlights the expected impacts of each of the eight development policies of the Program. 1. Shore Area Development Issues and Problems - Land resources adjacent to coastal waters have been used with little consideration of the suitability of such land for development or the water-dependency of the uses. - Several coastal communities lack full sewering and typhoon- proof housing, and suffer from substandard lot sizes, increasing population, poor road conditions, and are in constant danger from severe storm and flood damage. Policy Only those uses shall be located within the Seashore Reserve which: (1) enhance, are compatible with or do not generalIX detract from tT-esurroundng coastal area's aesthetic and environmental q r' ua ity and haach accessibility; or (2) can demonstrate dependence on such a location and the lack feasible 61ternR-ive sites. Impacts The Shore Area Development policy essentially is a restatement of the findings and intent of the Guam Legislature in passing the Guam Territorial Seashore Protection Act of 1974 (regarding shoreline development) and the 220 Territorial Beach Areas Act of 1973 (regarding public access). The Com- prehensive Planning Enabling Legislation (P.L. 12-200), in addition, identified that an objective of the comprehensive planning effort is to "reappraise the total land in terms of the Territory and provide guide- lines for relocation of inefficient or inappropriate major uses" (�62011(f)). The accomplishment of these objectives would provide sig- nificant environmental, and likely social and economic benefits to the people of Guam. The urban waterfront from Apra Harbor to Tamuning has experienced a proliferation of inappropriate uses. Planning and management capabilities available with Section 306 funds will be directed towards reversal of this trend. Possible approaches include rezoning and broadening the Seashore Reserve or development of an urban waterfront restoration program. The negative physical impacts of the inappropriate shoreline uses are being documented in an urban waterfront planning effort that is now underway, since the visual impact of the present conditions are glaring and unacceptable to most residents of the territory. Redevelopment of the Apra Harbor-Tamuning strip will beautify the area, allow urban access to the waterfront and benefit residents and tourists alike. Economic benefits to tourism, while possibly not major in themselves, cannot be discounted. The assurances for public access and natural resource protection in the narrow shoreline strip restrict incompatible development and thus may adversely affect private economic interests in certain locations while protecting the value of the shoreline as a resource for public welfare. Restrictions on waterfront development redirect growth and increase the pressure on and value of developable land elsewhere. In the context of comprehensive planning, that growth can be guided to areas that can accommodate the development because of resource capability and availability of services and infrastructure without causing si.g- nificant alternative adverse impacts. Public access is assured by law and is not a currently significant problem in Guam.. Administration of this policy will maintain the present condition of free access to the beaches, a declared public resource. 2. Urban_Development Issues and Problems Location of high-intensity development areas has been determined in many cases, by historical patterns of major facility and infrastructure placement. 221 - High impact development, especially intensive residential, commercial and industrial uses, continue to locate in a random pattern interspersed with residential, recreational, and fragile ecol.ogical areas. Policy Uses permitted only within Commercial, Multi-Family, Industrial, and Resort-Hotel zones, anT-uses requiring high levels of support facilities shall be concentrated within urban districts as out- lined on the Land-Use District7i _n -99-a- p Impacts Implementation of the districting system mandated by P.L. 12-200 and provided by Executive Order 78-23 will concentrate urban development uses in urban districts and restrict random proliferation of incompatible urban uses elsewhere. CZ11 funding has been used to classify lands in the Territory according to their current use a6d according to the most suit- able use, considering the resource constraints and potential. Section 306 funding would contribute to the implementation of the districting mainly by funding development of district guidelines and resol.ution of zoning, coordination and enforcement problems.. Environmental impacts should be significant and beneficial, but will accrue gradually over the long term. Each urban use that is sited in an urban district which would otherwise have been located in a rural, agri- cultural or open space setting will represent a net gain for the environ- mental quality of Guam. Each residential or commercial development which is guided to suitable lands and away from aquifers and excessive slopes benefits water quality and water supply. In,particular recognition of the limited land resources available on Guam, concentration of urban uses preserves inter-urban open space in the face of island-wide growth pressures and can protect residential areas from the intrusion of commercial and industrial development. Concentration of urban development, however, also concentrates air and water quality impacts. Despite the greater concentration of potential impacts, the government's ability to control those effects at an acceptable cost is greater when the control system need not be broadly dispersed. The result can be a reduced c'ost to the government for public services and infrastructure, with more effective delivery of those services. Concen- tration of development offers opportunities for improved efficiency in transportation, including the possibilities for mass transit, with the accompanying energy savings.. (See the discussion accompanying the policy on Transportation). 222 One social impact of this policy that must be addressed is the effect of concentration of urban development on traditional lifestyles. The program is sensitive to the type of random development and village cluster patterns in traditional housing. Dispersed housing would be a permissable use in urban, rural and agricultural districts, and villages such as Umatac and Inarajan, are appropriately districted urban. The policy to concentrate development in urban districts focuses on commer- cial and industrial development, and is sensitive to the distinction between "sprawl" and transitional scattered housing. The intent is to protect both fragile resources and the government budget against the demands for public services and utilities created by housing and commer- cial "developments" in areas adjacent to urbanized areas but with no available infrastructure. By limiting such sprawl and guiding needed urban expansion to areas that can be provided public services in a cost effective manner, the policy provides for growth while shielding tax- payers from the excessive costs of sprawl, or the resource costs of inappropriate expansion in the absence of public services. The impacts of this policy on land values are difficult to project, but certain to occur. By clearly designating areas for future urban expansion, land values could be expected to increase but speculation should be limited. On the other hand, land ownership in newly designated urban areas would seem to assure a significant real estate profit. 'In addition, land values in non-designated areas would be expected to remain relatively low and protected from induced development pressures brought about by leap-frogging development. The exact net effect on land values is uncertain, and may be controllable wit .h thoughtful administration of the planning and regulatory,aspects oi the Program. 3. Rural Development Issues and Problems Uncoordinated and random expansion of high intensity urban development areas having the physical characteristics for future urban use severely limits alternatives for future development and places unnecessary pressures on the ecological as well as financial resources of Guam. Policy Rural districts shall be designated in which only ow density residential and agricultural uses will be acceptable. Minimum lot size for these uses would be one-half acre until adequate infrastructure, including functional sewering, is provided. 223 Impacts The consequences and reasoning associated with rural districts parallels those of the urban districts. Reference should be made to the foregoing discussion. By promoting efficiency, and therefore economy of services, of future urban expansion, the policy discourages random sprawl in rural areas, increases the likelihood of urban expan- sion into certain rural areas, and protects the rural character of other undesignated "rural" areas, including agricultural and conservation districts. By permitting only low-density residential and agricultural uses in designated rural districts, traditional lifestyles can be pro- tected against unplanned urbanization. 4. Major Facility Siting Issues - The unavoidable siting of electric power plants and associated energy facilities in shoreline locations will continue to cause negative environmental impacts upon coastal waters. - Projected expansion of Guam Commercial Port, the Navy Ammo Wharf, the Naval shipyard facilities, and related support uses, although essential for port operations, may reduce potential recreation areas, destroy marine habitats, threaten the declining bird popu- lation, and reduce access to shore areas. Present port devel- opment plans are somewhat uncoordinated, resulting in random expansion. Pol i.cy In evaluating the consisteng of p roposed major facilities with the licies, and standards of the Uom@rehensive . eve opment and Coastal Management Plans, the Territou shall recogn the natio interests in the siting of Stich facilities includ ng those associated with electric power production and transmission, eptrnleum refining and -transmission, p - a --- - - r i nstal 15-ti ons, izil 1 sposal , sewage treatment, and major reservoir sites. Impacts Consistency with the policies and standards of the Comprehensive Development Plan and land use plan of Guam restrict random siting of major facilities, while protecting non-urban areas and recreation areas from the impacts of such facilities. The above coastal management policy emphasizes Guam's recognition of the need to consider the Nation's interest 224 in certain major facilities when evaluating the compliance of such facil- ities in the resource conservation policies. The restrictions on the siting of major facilities offer-consider- able protection to the physical and biological resources of Guam. This national interest provision does allow for a situation, however, in which facilities with substantial environmental impacts could be located in a sensitive area if a clear 'demonstration can be provided of a lack of alternative sites and a national need that exceeds the local interests (cultural, environmental) in restricting siting. The occasions for such exceptions are anticipated to be very few for two reasons. First, most major projected facilities will be sited in the Apra Harbor area, a location already highly developed. The need for sites elsewhere is expected to be small. Secondly, clear demonstration of the national interest is a difficult test to meet in Guam for other than air and water port shipping, and military activity. Guam's isolated location seems to remove even electric power stations and principal highways from the class of national interest facilities, since there are no interstate effects. A policy that leaves open the possibility of non-conforming siting of major facilities does pose a risk to local resource or local interests in the face of countervailing national interest. Conversely, the restric- tions inherent in the major facility siting authorities of Guam may result in increased costs of facility construction or siting to a de- veloper. 5. Hazardous Area Development, Housing Issues and Problems - Guam's geographical location and geological structure is such. that major naturail hazards are a way of life rather than occassional occurrences. Despite this fact hazard areas are not well regulated.or protected. Policy One of the principal issues with respect to housing in Guam is its location in hazardous areas. These policies, therefore, are addressed in combination. (Hazard Areas) Identified hazardous lands - including floodplains, erosion-prone areas, air installation crasF and sound zones and major fault lines shall be developed only to the extent that such development d'oes not pose unreasonable risks _to__tFe_F_ealth,_safe y, or welfare 225 of the people of Guam, and complies with relevant land-use regulations. (Housing) The government shall encourage efficient design of residential areas, restrict such develo'pment in areas highly susceptibTe to-natural and manmaTe-hazards, and recognize the limitations of the island's resources to support historical patterns of residential development Impacts Guam plans to use its Section 306 funds to improve coordination between the Bureau of Planning, the Disaster Preparedness Planning Program and the Department of Land Management to assure consistency of approach, respectively, in land use policy development, disaster prevention and relief, and land use regulation through zoning. In addition, designation of hazard areas as APC's will limit development, and associated risk, in flood hazard areas, seismic and fault zones, Karst areas and Air Instal- lation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ). Further work at hazard area identi- fication and creation of development standards which designate appropriate uses will be continued. Full implementation of the hazards policy should bring about signifi- cant reductions in injury and loss of property which would normally be associated with imprudent use of hazardous areas. Furthermore, the intent of the housing policy is not only location in areas relatively free from hazards, but also efforts at community design that emphasize efficiency of transportation, delivery of services and use of resources. Both poli- cies potentially conflict with traditional housing patterns and must be implemented if hazard impacts are to be minimized. Housing on Guam traditionally has been mostly scattered around the island, but concentrated at bays and river mouths in seaside villages. These areas are among the most flood and storm susceptible locations on the island. Suggestions of relocation behind a shoreline setback is resisted, even after the destruction of a major storm. In addition, some of the villages have existed for hundreds of years. Streets are narrow and housing is of variable quality. However rational recommendations of redesign for the sake of transportation efficiency or storm protection, for example, do little to counter emotional attachments. The territorial government cannot afford repeated disaster assistance, and so some cultural and budgetary compromise must be struck. Federal Flood Insurance Adminis- tration funds for flood plain mapping can complement CZM and Guam funds for the solution to this issue. 226 6. Transportation Network Issues and Problems Expansion of major roads poses a threat to certain beach areas and the primary aquifer. Policy The Territory shall develop an efficient and safe transportation system while limiting adverse environmenta@a@cts on primary aquifers, beaches, estuaries, and other coastal resources. Impacts Guam's highway transportation problems are mainly twofold: (1) lack of alternate forms of transportation has led to a major depen, dence on automobiles that exceed highway capacity; and (2) the principal highway is circumferential and adjacent to beaches and shores, inducing inappropriate shoreline development, producing non-point runoff, and threatening further the shoreline areas with each highway expansion to accommodate the large number of autos. Guam's construction options are terrain-limited by the aquifer in the north and the rugged volcanic hills in the south. The Program plans to cooperate with Territorial and Federal transportation agencies in plan review and policy-option develop- ment to assure consideration of coastal resources. Mass transit (bus) systems have been proposed and examination of the economic feasibility and environmental and transportation benefits of such potential solutions is warranted. Concentration of urban development emphasized in other policies will increase the feasibility of mass transit. Efficiency of transportation may itself cause additional environ- mental impacts. Expanded roadways or alternative highway construction that add to transportation efficiency likely will induce greater use of autos. Efficiency of transportation as a goal may demand new cross island links which may dissect open-space and induce strip development and jeopardize fragile resources that are presently protected by their inaccessibility. Appropriate roadway siting and construction guidelines, and other application of the comprehensive land management policies can reduce impacts on open space and fragile resources. Increasing transpor- tation options and limiting location options for transportation facility construction will have economic and social impacts. The transportation policies will encourage changes in personal transit habits, and increases in direct costs may be incurred by the careful siting of facilities. In evaluation of planning and specific construction projects, the relative economic and environmental merits will have to be carefully weighed. 227 7. Erosion and Siltation Issues and Problems - Onshore construction practices in areas of overburden, steep slopes, and sinkholes have created serious (and well-documented) erosion problems. Policy Development shall be limited in areas of 15 percent or greate slope by requiring sf-rict compliance with erosion, sedimenta- tion, and land-use district guid-eTi-nes, as well as ot-Fe-r--r-e7ated lanil-use standards tor such areas. Impacts This policy could be expected to have significant impact on future construction and land-use practices on Guam, since a large part of the island (as much as one-third) has steep slopes. The impacts would be only gradually felt, however, since there is currently limited develop- ment pressure in most of the steep inland terrain. Erosion from these areas threatens streams and reef flats with sedimentation, however, and this policy limits the potential damage from imprudent development in erosion-prone areas. Increased costs of development likely will be caused by conditions placed on construction on steep slopes in order to prevent erosion and sedimentation from building sites. As a result, the value of such land may be adversely affected. The inherent limitations on such land for development may reduce the significance of this impact. Any policy that concentrates development in non-sloping lands, however, can be expected to increase the value of such lands. In return for the anticipated costs, water quality will be protected from runoff burden and damage to fragile areas, including reef flats, can be minimized. Public and private costs brought about by disaster or property damage associated with slope failure or excessive erosion can be reduced, and financial and environmental costs of dredging to keep channels and harbors passable can be kept to a minimum. C. RESOURCES POLICIES Conservation of Natural Resources -- Overall Policy 228 The value of Guam's natural resources as recreational areas, critical marine and wildlife habitats, ffie major source of drinking water, and the island's economy, shall be protected through policies and programs affecting such resources. Impacts of specific resource policies are discussed below. 1. Air and Water Quality Issues and Problems The large number of motor vehicles, the main solid waste disposal site at Ordot, electrical generating plants, petroleum refinery, and high numbers of air installation takeoffs and landings contribute to Guam's air pollution. The high overall quality of Guam's coastal water is being threatened by polluting discharges from various sources. Some water areas are in transition to a less acceptable state due to pollution from sewer out- falls, storm drains, septic tanks and storm-water runoff. The island's aquifer in Northern Guam could be polluted from uncontrolled residential development, a lack of functioning sewers or extensive use of pesticides and herbicides. Saltwater intrusion and high coliform counts are evident in some drinking water wells. Policy (Air Quality) All activities and uses shall comply with all local air pollution regulations and all appropriate Federal air @uality standards in order to ensure the maintenance of Guam's relatively higF-a-ir aLili -ty - (Water Quality) .Safe drinking water shall be assured and aquatic recreation sites shall be protected Mr-ou-gMtTe regulation of uses and discharges that pose a pollution threat to Guam's waters, particularly in estuarine, reef and aquifer areas. Impacts Guam is currently pursuing programs in response to Federal and terri- torial legislation related to air pollution control, water pollution 229 control, water resources conservation, and safe drinking water, among others. Institutionalization of these programs has required fundamental changes in approach by all involved institutions. Coastal program ac- tivities will support and enhance implementation of established programs, including the Federal air and water quality requirements as specified by the Federal coastal management regulations (15 CFR 923). The coastal program will support public awareness and research of air and water quality problems. The public's understanding of environmental protection programs will improve. Heightened public awareness would lead to more prompt attention and response to problems. Funding research of selected issues and problems, inadequately addressed at present will en- courage solutions and alternatives developed within the framework of existing programs. Financial assistance will be provided to improve implementation and enforcement of existing.air and water quality programs. Regulatory capabilities will be strengthened where gaps or weaknesses are identified. The coastal program can encourage rigorous enforcement of standards relating to waste disposal siting for example. The program will also support reclassification of certain water areas from "polluting discharges allowed" to "no polluting discharges allowed". The impact of both of these program activities likely will be improved water quality in problem bays, lagoons and rivers and improved air quality. Costs of such improve ments born by the public and private sectors likely would be outweighted by benefits of protecting existing economic and recreational uses of water and air. Coastal program activities related to air and water quality pro- tection will be closely coordinated with other relevant local and Federal agencies. For example, planning land use over the freshwater aquifer can be coordinated with air and water quality agencies to assure conform- ance with regulatory standards and prevent contamination and overdraft of the aquifer while providing for development. The coastal program will assume an advocacy role in monitoring, reviewing, and recommending changes and additions to air and water quality progams and regulations which impact the environment. Currently there are issues for which a single voice at the local and Federal levels will encourage faster resolution or prevention of the problem. For example, in coordination with other relevant agencies, the coastal program will advocate the close monitoring of drinking water wells susceptible to saline water intrusion. In addition the coastal program will support development of a process by which complaints by individuals concerning development activities of a questionable nature can be dealt with in an efficient manner. And the program can identify at an early date why a potential source of air pollution should meet certain emission standards. The impact of the advocacy role may be difficult to separate from other 230 programs but will depend on the timing and merit of the coastal program's expression of concern. The net impact will likely be awareness of problems and opportunities which deserve more prompt and thorough action. This assessment concludes that program activities related to air and water quality will not affect fundamental institutional changes, rather incremental improvement existing mechanisms. In response to problems, better coordination, enforcement and planning are likely. Costs are already born by public and private sectors. Additional costs due to adjustments are likely to be minimal relative to benefits of preservation of safe, clean water and air which protects public health and recreation opportunities, scenic qualities which in turn contribute generally to quality of life and specifically to tourism and its associated economic benefits. 2. Fragile Areas Issues and Problems - Development into unique terrestrial habitat areas has seriously depleted unique floral and faunal communities. - There is presently no coordinated program for the protection of unique marine habitats, while pressures for development increase daily. Policy Deve opment in-the following types of fragile areas shall be regulated to protecT their unique character: historic and archaeologic sites, wildlife habitats, pristine marT-neand terrestrial communities, limesfone forests, mangroves and other wetlaFd-s. Impacts Two different levels of management of fragile areas will be applied to the Island following the approval of the GCMP. The first is the land use district system, which will provide a "conservation district" classi- fication that will not be zoned, and will require Territorial Planning (Land Use) Commission approval for any development activity which requires a building or grading permit. The district classification is not prohi- bitive, but does recognize the reasonable limits imposed on deveTopment by the resource conditions themselves. Each development has impacts on resources that are particular to the facility and its proposed location. The concept of the conservation district classification is that, given the fragile resource conditions of most of Guam, the development that must be 231 associated with a growing population and economy must carefully be de- signed and constructed in a manner sensitive to the resource limitations. In this way, necessary development can be accommodated at the least environmental cost. Although the designation of conservation districts as such is a new approach, the principal impact will be the coordination of existing statutory protection of public and fragile lands. Much of the land is government land. In addition, the five presently designated and con- trolled "conservation areas" are included, as are the aquifer recharge areas which were protected by legislation as recently as December, 1977. The site of the recently established Territorial Seashore Park, flood prone areas, and areas of severe slope are also included. Legislation addressing concerns over the use of these areas largely exists, and designation as Conservation District will provide a means to coordinate planning and development among the responsible agencies. Inclusion of a land parcel in the conservation districts is intended to protect the resource and the people of the Guam from ill-planned use; inclusion does not necessarily imply preservation, although certain park lands and endangered habitat lands, for example, may be "preserved" in a conser- vation district. The district standards are expected to be divided into nine categories: open space, low-density, historical sites, parks, recreation, wetlands, lowland basins and sinkholes, watersheds, and wildlife reserves. Development standards will be appropriate to the designation. These standards are being developed by the Bureau of Planning, for approval by the Territorial Planning Commission and Governor. Standards will be in force prior to program approval. The second management approach for fragile areas is the designation of Areas of Particular Concern (APC's). As described in Part Two, Chapter VII of the program document, the purpose of APC designation is to "call attention to the importance of the designated area, as well as to provide an additional management capability to ensure responsible development in areas either that have a high degree of environmental sensitivity or that are, or will be, subject to intense development pressure in the near future. Such a special designation can reserve appropriate sites for economic development as well as to protect fragile natural areas." APC identification is a site-specific and generic approach to resource management, designating a site and applying performance guidelines approved by the Commission and Governor at the time of designation. Seven categories of resource uses or values, listed in Executive Order 78-23, identify types of resources that are eligible for an APC classification. A matrix of priorities of uses in APC's is provided in Figure 4. 2 32 Both the conservation district and APC designations depend largely on existing authorities, although the permit review provisions of the new TPC regulations for the conservation districts, and the management activities for APC's are new resource management techniques. Federal funds will be used for the development of management systems for the APC's. To the extent that the two types of land and water use areas re- flect existing authorities and public lands, social impacts of program approval should be limited. The environmental benefits of careful manage- ment and protection of fragile resources, or reservation for development of lands with development potential, will accrue to all residents of Guam. The specific benefits are described in greater detail in the "Impact" discussions associated with the other resource policies. Details of resource development or protection areas eligible for APC designation are described in Chapter VII of the program document (Part Two). 3. Living Marine Resources Issues and Problems - The potential for exploitation of Guam's fisheries has not, to date, been developed. - No local policy or regulations have existed for the taking of marine mammals given the limited level of fishing activities in territorial waters. Policy All living resources within the territorial waters of Guam, particularly corals and fish, shall be protected from over- harvesting and, in the case of marine mammals, from any Fa-king whatsoever. Impacts The policy is permissive insofar as marine fishes and animals are concerned, while restrictive insofar as marine mammals are concerned. It will allow and encourage development of a fishery and generate positive economic impacts in the recreation and commercial sectors. Investigation, development and exploitation of potential commercial and recreational fisheries necessitates building an institutional capability for management of fishery resources. The coastal program will provide financial assistance for the planning and implementation of a fisheries management program and support coordination and implementation. Costs 233 of overharvesting will be prevented by restrictions which maintain eco- nomic yields. Coordination of users and regulators will reduce the costs of conflict resolution and assist other agencies to efficiently carry out their missions. The coastal program will encourage development of fishery activities. An advocacy role will assist entrepreneurs in developing practices consistent with objectives of fishery resource management policy. Advocacy in the review of proposed actions expected to have impacts upon fishery resources will protect investments as well as opportunities. Providing the territorial government with a marine resource orientation in general will effect a positive institutional addition. The coastal program will cooperatively develop legislation and regu- lations designed to preserve marine mammals. Restrictions designed to protect mammals will result in increased costs for users in terms of har- vest methods and techniques; benefits of preserving mammals are not quantifiable yet significant. Protection of corals serves to protect the island shoreline from severe erosion and flood hazards while reducing a source of raw material for tourist souvenirs and jewelry companies. The latter costs are in- significant relative to the benefits of the former. Finally, the coastal program will conduct public awareness programs with appropriate agencies relative to the need for conservation of living marine resources. This will heighten public awareness and strengthen and support management of economically important resources. 4. Visual Quality Issues and Problems - The scenic quality of the shoreline, particularly the ocean view from coastal roads, is rapidly deteriorating in urban areas. Policy Preservation and enhancement of, and respect for the island's scenic resources shall be encouraged through increased enforce- ment of and compliance with si5n, litter, zoning, subdivision, building and related land-use laws; visually objectir'5'nab e@ uses shall be located, to the maximum extent practicalTe-so as not to de@rade significantly views Trom scenic overlooks, higNw-ays, and trails. Impacts Much of Guam is naturally scenic, and the high rock cliffs that border the ocean in the north, as well as the interior hills and 234 shoreline drive in the south provide numerous scenic vistas. Condi- tions described in the program document detract from the attractiveness of urbanized areas and public open space when viewed close-at-hand. Efforts stressed in other policies to redirect development from hazard areas should reduce the problem of abandoned dilapidated structures, thereby improving the appearance of these areas. Efforts at public education about solid waste control and littering will continue, using Section 306 funds, and maintenance of public areas may be an eligible cost under the program implementation grants. Adverse impacts of a policy on visual quality are few and are prin- cipally related to costs of enforcement and public education efforts. Public purchase of land for park development in scenic areas could affect private land holders. Public acquisition would necessitate local public support, however, in order to make funding available. Acquisition of land is not an eligible cost to a Section 306 grant under Federal regula- tions. 5. Recreational Areas, Public Access Issues and Problems - Parks, conservation areas, wildlife refuges and open-space public lands often lack basic amenities. Communities strongly feel the lack of active sports facilities, while certain parks and beaches have support facilities which are often poorly maintained. - Increasing development along Guam's shoreline restricts access to the beaches and reefs. Policy 1 - Recreation Areas The Government of Guam shall encourage development of varied types of-recreation facilities located a_n_cT -maintained so as to be com- patible with the surrounding environment and land uses, adequately serve community centers and urban areas, and protect beaches and such passive recreational areas as-77-27-fe and marine conserva@ tion areas, scenic overlooks, parks, and historic sites. Policy 2 - Public Access The public's right of unrestricted access shall be ensured to all T_ non-Federally owned beach areas and all Territoria recreation areas, parks, scenic overlooks, designated conservation areas and o F agreements with the t er public lands; shall be encour_Fj__e7EF owners of private and Federal property for the provision of reasonable access to, and use of, resources of a public nature located on such land. 235 Impacts Shoreline recreation sites are not in short supply in Guam. About one-third of the island is bordered by reef-protected beaches. Existing law (the Guam Territorial Seashore Protection Act of 1974, the Territorial Beach Areas Act, the Public Rights Provisions of the GCG, and Subdivision Laws) provides for the public's declared right of access to public lands including beaches. Implementation of the policy on public lands merely assures that this right will be upheld, and will have no other identifi- able impact. Gov. Guam's efforts to achieve public access to Federal and private lands bearing resources of public interest will have no impact that private and Federal landholders are unwilling to accept, but may provide additional access to lands presently inaccessible. A major consideration in acquiring access to private lands of public interest is the concern that the values of the resource, such as solitude and cleanli- ness, may be endangered by general use. Agreement conditions make this as a significant obstacle. The magnitude of shoreline and beach area that is accessible to the public, and the absence of coastal water quality problems, eliminate any immediate concern over such typical recreation planning concerns as "carrying capacity". Maintenance of public lands and provision of visitor facilities is an expressed interest of Guam's citizens (see CZM Program Document, Chapter II). Public funds may not be available immediately for purchase or construction of such amenities, although Guam acknowledges the need. The coastal program "encourages" development and maintenance of additional facilities and recreation areas, but acknowledges that the positive impacts of this policy may well be limited by budgetary considerations. Should available monies be identified for these purposes, however, Guam's citizens and visitors would benefit from the improved utility and variety of recreation lands. The use of Section 306 funds for acquisition of trash receptacles and a collection vehicle will be examined against other priorities for the use of those funds. 6. Agricultural Lands Issues and Problems - Development of prime agricultural lands for other than agri- cultural use could reduce the possibility of agricultural self-sufficiency on Guam. Policy Critical agricultural lands shall be preserved and maintained Tor 'agricultural use. 236 Impacts Terrain and geological conditions limit the amount and quality of agricultural land. While loss of prime agricultural land to other uses is not a widespread problem, it is a significant one because of the scarcity of the resource. Revisions, under the auspices of this program, of "agricultural subdivision" laws that allow division of agricultural lands into unimproved lots as small as 5,000 square feet could remove a major threat to the resources. While agricultural self-sufficiency is unlikely on Guam, reduction of imports and the quality advantages of fresher local foods, are attractive benefits of increased local productivity. Any locally grown food that is sold for use by the tourist trade or military installation double the economic benefits to the local population. In addition, the preservation of farming as a viable lifestyle is to the Territory's cultural benefit. Agricultural production would further provide a means to curb urban sprawl. Gov. Guam is examining means to relieve pressures on the owners of agricultural lands for subdivision of their properties. Limitations on non-agricultural uses because of the district standards will contribute to this end. Other direct approaches, such as favorable taxing provisions, could be examined using Section 306 funds. As has been addressed elsewhere, any strengthening of law or regula- tion or administration of laws and regulations in such a way as to limit the discretion of an individual owner over the use of his land that goes beyond the limits of existing zoning may be considered an adverse impact. Policies that protect farmland from development pressures, to the advan- tages of the individual farmer and the general public, may also limit the investment or speculative value of a parcel of land. The development of agriculture should be done in recognition of the effects these activities can have on coastal waters or aquifer recharge areas. Overgrazing, improper forestry and farming practices can result in high levels of non-point pollution, erosion, and downstream siltation. In addition, habitat alteration for agricultural activities can result in deleterious impacts on endangered species of plants and animals. PART FIVE: THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE P,OOPCSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLAHS, POLICIES AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA IN .14- 1,4 237 PART FIVE: THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE PROPOSED ACTION TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES AND CONTROLS FOR THE AREA As noted elsewhere in this document, the Guam Coastal Management Program is closely related to the Comprehensive Development Plan for the Territory that was published in September, 1978. Both the GCMP and the CDP were developed pursuant to Guam's comprehensive planning legisla- tion, Public Law 12-200. Because the GCMP has defined an island-wide boundary, and the land use districting system and guidelines developed pursuant to P.L. 12-200 are the principal basis of each effort, the GCMP and CDP are complementary. In addition, the Community Design Plans, one for each of the 13 defined "communities" (geographically defined) and part of the Comprehensive Development Plan, provide specific guidance to the application of the land use districting system in the identified local areas. One essential difference between the two derives from the fact that the comprehensive planning enabling legislation does not specify the legal effect of the policies of the Comprehensive Plan on planning and resource management in Guam, even once the Plan is adopted by the legislature. The coastal program, on the other hand, must have clearly-defined authorities as a basis for implementation before Federal approval may be granted. To this end, Executive Order 78-37 was issued by the Governor of Guam in November, 1978, directing all Territorial agencies to implement the appended policies (the GCMP policies) within the scope of their author- ities. This Executive Order supplements Executive Order 78-23 that directs the Territorial Planning Commission (TPC) to implement the land use districting system that is the core of both the GCMP and CDP struc- ture. These authorities are discussed fully in Part II, Chapter VI of this document. One further distinction between the GCMP and the CDP is in the breadth of the applicable authorities and standards. While the land use policies generated by the Bureau of Planning for both the PlAn-and the coastal program provide a basis for decision-making in Guam, the actual coastal program authorities are broader in scope, including as they do the zoning and subdivision laws, the wetland and floodplain executive orders, the Seashore Protection Act and Territorial Beach Areas Act, and other authorities cited in the Program and included in the authorities appendix to the GCMP. Certain Federally-required or supported resource planning and manage- ment programs have also been closely coordinated with the GCMP during its development. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that the land use plan, prepared as one element of the Comprehensive Development Plan in association with the development of the GCMP, was adopted by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development as meeting the requirements 238 of the Section 701 program, and Guam was the first state or territory to attain such approval. Similarly, the land use discussion in EPA/GEPA's Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan uses the GCMP policies and organization verbatim. In addition, -the Governor's Executive Order on Flood Hazard Areas (E.O. 78-20) directs the TPC to "promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary to meet the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program" and to designate floodplains as areas of particular concern under the GCMP. PART SIX: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 239 PART SIX: ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION The alternatives to approving the Guam Coastal Management Program are to delay or deny approval. These alternatives would be appropriate if the program is deficient in meeting one or more of the requirements of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Section 305(d) of the Act permits preliminary approval of the program if the program meets the requirements of Section 305 of the Act, but is deficient in meeting one or more of the requirements of Section 306. Preliminary approval allows additional funding for implementation of the approvable parts of the program but not Federal consistency, while unapprovable parts are remedied. It should be noted that Congressional authorization of funding under Section 305(d) expires on September 30, 1979, so that preliminary approval under Section 305(d) would, as a practical matter, support further program development only for a very limited time. The Assistant Administrator has made a preliminary determination that the GCMP is not deficient in any of the requirements necessary for program approval. In response to the circulation of the review draft, a few concerns were raised concerning certain aspects of the Program, although the majority of the comments commended the thoroughness of the Program. If any of the questions raised reflected significant deficiencies of the GCMP pursuant to the requirements of the CZMA, and if these potential problems were not remedied, the Assistant Adminis- trator would be required to delay or deny approval. The Assistant Administrator is satisfied that significant deficiencies under the CZMA do not exist in the Guam Coastal Management Program, but wishes to elicit public review and comment to assure that his preliminary determination is correct. The following discussion presents certain questions raised about the Program that, if substantial and unresolved, could be the basis for delaying or denying approval of the program. The impacts of not approving the program are: the loss of Federal funds necessary to implement the program, the inability to assure continued consideration of the national interests in siting facilities necessary to meet more than local needs, the inability to apply Federal consistency, and the lack of eligibility for certain other Federal funds. These points are fully discussed in Part Four. The Assistant Administrator could delay or deny approval of the Guam Coastal Management Program: 1. If the Program Boundarl is Inadequate While most reviewers supported an island-wide boundary for the GCMP, certain respondents questioned the reasonableness of such a 240 comprehensive designation. As Part Two, Chapter IV of this document explains in considerable detail, activities occurring "inland" on Guam (never more than five miles from the sea) can significantly affect coastal waters in most parts of the island because of a range of topographic, geologic and other physical factors. While there are a few locations that might reasonably be excluded by a "likely-significant-effect" test, these areas would appear as isolated spots in an otherwise comprehensive management approach. Such an approach would complicate management greatly, both in its administration and in the public's understanding of the Program. The island-wide boundary, therefore, has been found to be adequate and reasonable. 2. If Federal Lands Are Not Specifically Excluded from the Coastal Zone Federal reviewers of the preview draft, in certain cases, asked for greater documentation of Federal land holdings in Guam and clearer explanation of their excluded status. The presentation in the document has been expanded, and excluded Federal lands have been described in a map and a table. Excluded submerged lands off Guam are mapped as well. References are made in the document to the interests of GovGuam in access to and use of certain Federal lands (for example, for agriculture or recreation). Such references, however, make no pretensions of regulatory authority over the excluded lands, but only encourage discussion, negotiation and cooperative agreements concerning such access. This approach is an entirely appropriate expression of management concerns in a coastal program document. 3. If the Program Authorities Are Not Sufficiently Comprehensive, Specific or Enforceable One reviewer of the preview draft of the GCMP suggested that Guam needs a comprehensive coastal act for Program adequacy. -Such a single-authority approach is not required by the Federal CZMA or regulations (15 CFR 923). The Territory has established policies for the GCMP that are applicable to all uses that might affect coastal resources. The several existing statutory authorities related to coastal resources that are a part of the GCMP authority- base must be implemented in conformance with these Program policies. This network of authorities is described in detail in Part II, Chapter VI of this document. Two reviewers of the preview draft questioned the specificity of the Program policies. In responding to this concern, it is important to recognize that, while the Program policies guide activities of coastal significance, they are able to do so through the application 241 of the Program authorities to those uses. Guam has the ability, through its zoning and subdivision laws, beach access statutes and seashore protection law, to carry out the policies of the Program and apply those policies to specific activities. These authorities provide further direction and specificity to the Program policies in two ways. First, the land use districting system and maps make this aspect of Program authorities geographically specific. The other authorities of the GCMP include further substantive standards that, when applied in the context of the Program policies, the combination of the GCMP policies and authorities provide the Program its considerable specificity. Finally, the Program acknowledges that the consistent enforcement of existing laws has been a major management problem historically in Guam. The Program policies address this need, however, the document describes how this weakness in resource management will be remedied through improved coordination, funding of staff positions in GovGuam regulatory agencies as well as increased awareness of coastal re- sources values. There is no question that the Program as described is enforceable. Federal support to the GCMP will greatly augment GovGuam's ability to implement the authorities that are the basis of the Program. PART SEVEN: PROBABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED 243 PART SEVEN: PROBABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED The focus of the Guam Coastal Managerment Program has been the accom- modation of essential economic growth and development while maintaining and enhancing the quality of the living environment. The Program has been designed to be environmentally beneficial; environmental impacts that are at once adverse and unavoidable are few. The GCMP recognizes the need for the siting of facilities for de- fense, energy, commerce and other activities that may have significant adverse environmental impacts. The Program policies and authorities are intended to strictly limit the impacts of such facilities, both through the enforcement of environmentally sensitive standards of development as well as by isolating such facilities, whenever possible, from resi- dential areas and fragile or hazardous natural areas. Efforts to aggregate such heavy commercial or industrial activities, on the other hand, may aggravate environmental deficiencies in such areas. It is important to note, however, that under the applicable Territorial and Federal laws, the impacts of such major facilities would be carefully reviewed prior to siting, and appropriate mitigative measures required. In certain cases, Program policies and authorities will be unable to eliminate one adverse impact without generating another. An example of such a situation would occur in the siting of a highway. For purposes of shoreline access, aesthetic consierations, non-point source pollution and other reasons, it would be desirable to locate highways in away from the shoreline. Inland location, particularly in the steep hills of southern Guam, however, may cause serious and possibly unavoidable erosion that will not only muddy streams, affecting fisheries, but also may flood reef flats with sediments that endanger the life of the reef. Inland habitat dissection is also a cost of constructing roads in inalnd locations. In such circumstances, careful siting in some inland, some shoreline locations may be the best answer. While the Program is unable, in such a case, to eliminate adverse impacts, it provides guidance and a forum by which to minimize the unavoidable impacts. PART EIGHT: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF TEE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCE- MENT OF L0NG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 245 PART EIGHT: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The Program is not designed to induce short-term uses of the environ- ment at the expense of long-term productivity. Its purpose is to enhance and maintain the long-term productivity of the coastal environment while meeting the current and future needs of the residents of Guam and the Nation. In certain instances the approval of the proposed Program will re- strict local short-term uses of the environment. It will also provide a long-term assurance that the natural resources and benefits of Guam will be available for future use and enjoyment. Without the implementation of the Program, intense short-term uses and gains, such as provided by piecemeal residential, industrial and commercial development might be realized. These gains would accrue to a certain segment of the private sector. For the most part, this would result in long-term restrictions on coastal resource use and benefit because of degradation to the environment and loss of basic coastal resources. Without coastal resource management, and a rational land and water use plan, the traditional conflict between coastal resources users will continue. The Program provides a sound basis for decision-making, protects the important natural systems and directs uses to areas with natural cap- abilities and infrastructure capabilties to absorb growth. As such, the Program will contribute to the long-term maintenance of the environment. PART NINE: IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 247 PART NINE: IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLE- MENTED The proposed action is the approval by the Assistant Administrator of the Guam Coastal Management Program. Unlike the authorization for a physical change in a natural resource, such as the filling of a wetland or mining of a mineral, the approval does not generate any resource use or development activity that irreversibly affects man's environment. The Program is a collection of policies, priorities and processes for the prudent management of resources and carries with it Federal financial support of the GCMP and the Territory's commitment to implement the Program as approved. Federal financial support of the Program could be viewed as an irretrievable commitment of resources under any reasonably likely circumstances. Under extreme circumstances, such as illegal use of the Program funds, expenditures for disallowed costs could conceivably be retrieved. The Federal expenditure is most resonably treated as i rretri evabl e. The action, and the associated commitments are not irreversible, however. Participation in the Federal coastal zone management program is voluntary for states and territories. Guam could decide at some future date to terminate its participation in the Federal Program, thereby forfeiting the benefits of Federal support and Federal con- sistency. Conversely, should some action be taken that significantly weakens the authority base of the Program, the Federal approval could be withdrawn. Once again, however, the Territory's long efforts to develop a coastal program that meets Federal standards indicates a concern for the resources and an intention to carry out the Program as described. Federal approval, while not absolutely irreversible, reflects two firm commitments to the implementation of the Guam Coastal Management Program. PART TEN: COSULTATION AND COORDINATION I 249 PART TEN: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The coordination and consultation involved in developing the Guam Coastal Management Program has been extensive. As noted in Part Two, Chapter X, consultation with Territorial and Federal agencies has been an active and ongoing aspect of Program development. A preview draft of the GCMP was circulated to the general public and government agencies for comment in January, 1978, and the concerns raised are addressed in the present draft. Certain Program components, particularly the policies developed for the Land Use and Community Design elements of the Comprehen- sive Development Plan, were subject to extensive consultation, as documented elsewhere in this volume. Furthermore, management problems and implementation strategies for the GCMP were developed in close coordination with other GovGuam entities, especially the Department of Land Management. This close coordination with other GovGuam agencies and with the Federal establishment is a keystone to the effective implementation of the Program, and will continue after Program approval. ATTACHMENT I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE GUAM COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT A-1 Response to Comments Reiceived on Guam Coastal Management Program Draft Envirronmental Impact Statement The following section summarizes the written comments received an the draft combined document and provides OCZM's response to them comments. Generally, the response to the comments is provided in one or a combination of forms: 1) expansion, clarification, or revision of the Territory of Gum Coastal Management Program by the Bureau of Planning Coastal management staff; 2) expansion, clarification, or revision of the EIS by OCZM, or 3) brief responses by OCZM to detail comments received from each reviewer. The Territorial and Federal responses to them comments have been coordinated between the BP and OCZM. Abbreviations used include: P/EIS - the combined Guam Coastal program document and Federal environmental impact statement; P/DEIS - the draft version of the P/EIS; P/PEIS - the final version of the P/EIS; GovGuam - the Government of the Territory of Guam; and, BP - the GovGuam Bureau of Planning. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Carl N. Shuster, Jr. , 5/14/79) Comment: The key offshore islands should be identified an the coastal boundary naps and their role relating to GCMP should be discussed in the document. Response: The only islands offshore from Guam are mapped in each of the maps in the document based an the "uniform mapping system". With the exception of Cocos Island, off the south coast of Guam, which is just over one mile long, the offshore islands of Guam are generally only a few acres or less in size. These islands are identified as conservation districts on the land-use maps and are designated conservation areas in the proposed constitution of Guam. Comment. Complete source information should be included in the document an references addressing energy facility demands and probable Impacts. Copies are requested. Response: The text has been revised as suggested. GovGuam has been notified of FERC's interest in dew reports. Comment: Existing and future power plants discussed in the GCMP/DEIS should be mapped an Map Nos. 8 and 9. Response: Them facilities are an the cited mops in the P/DEIS, but were not suitably labelled for FERC's purposes. On Map No. 8, the electric generating stations were mapped as heavy industrial uses. The legend has been revised in the F/FEIS to differentiate generating stations from other heavy industrial uses. Map No. 9 labels the power production site as such. Ins Cobras island and Piti facilities are at the site. Map No. 9, therefore, has not been revised. Environmental Protection Agency, Region Ix (EPA) (Deanna M. Moment 4/27/79) Comment: EPA's comments an the Guam Coastal Management Program have been classified LO-1 (lack of objections to the proposed action; adequate evaluation of the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives thereto). Response: Comment accepted. Comment: The FEIS should discuss in more detail the principal source designation S1424(e), Safe Drinking Water Act) of the Northern Groundwater System (43 FR 81, 4/68/78). Response: The text has bow revised to reflect the cited principal source designation as well as local (Territorial government) authorities available to protect the northern aquifer system. These authorities include water quality standards, designation of the area as a conservation district in which development is restricted and provisions in the commiunity Design Plans of Guam's COmprehensive Plan limiting inappropriate development. A-2 Department of the Interior/General Comments (DOI) (Larry E. Me-rierotto, 5/10/79) Comment: We are impressed with the improvements that have been made in the GCMP since publi- ured. We are particularly cation of the January 1978 draft. The program appears to be well struct pleased that the coastal management program is to be implemented as an integral element of Guam's comprehensive land use program and that the entire island has been designated as ooastal zone. Pesponse: Comment accepted. Comment: Tn view of the unique natural environment of Guam and the development pressures which necessarily occur in such a small space, we believe that it is especially important to recognize the "national interest" in Guam's environment and natural resources, and to articulate strong policies for their protection. Fesponse: We agree that the size and isolation of Guam from the reminder of the country and alternative sources of goods, resources and open space make especially important a program of thoughtful resources management. We disagree, however, that these pressures supply some particular national interest to such management. On the contrary, wbile the importance to the Territory's interests of reasoned, efficient resource management is demonstrable, the benefits of such management to the several States or the Nation as a whole are less easily demonstrated for Guam than for one of the contiguous States with its interstate relationships, or even for Hawaii, which is more closely tied in travel and trade to the mainland than Guam. Comment: We believe that the Program could be improved by increased specificity in the areas of flood hazards, APC designation and location, and uses subject to management. Response: OCZM finds these topics to, be treated adequately. A more detailed response is provided to DOI's specific comments. Convent: The program's standing would clearly be enhanced by legislative action to adopt the Oomprehensive Development Plan and/or its component parts. Fesponse: This comment suggests a misunderstanding of the relationship between the coastal program and the Comprehensive Develooment Plan. Wee do not believe the Program's standing "would clearly be enhanced" by the legislative action suggested. OCZM's position in this regard is discussed in detail in responses to EOVs specific comments. Comment: Another concern involves Federal consistency procedures. Although efforts have been made to consult with Federal agencies during program development and the program policies provide guidelines for Federal action, no procedures have been established for Federal consistency review. We do not believe that the GCIMP should be approved until these deficiencies have been remedied. Fesponse: Procedures for consistency review are provided in Part Two, Chapter IX of the P/FEIS. Department of the Interior/Specific Comments (DOI) Comment: of particular importance in Guam's regulatory scheme are Executive Orders. Since this control mechanism has not yet been judicially tested, any future litigation involving the authority of Guam's Governor to regulate through Executive Order should be followed closely. Fiesponse: As discussed in Part Two, Chapter VI of the P/DEIS, the authority of the Governor of Guam to issue executive orders has been reviewed carefully and determined to have a strong legal basis. Possibly as a hold-over from the near-absolute authority of the earlier Naval governors of the island, the Governor's authority under the Organic Act appears to be stronger than that of most states. 1n light of this fact, and the consistent, unchallenged use of the authority for similar executive regulation, OCZM is confident that the authority is defensible in the face of legal challenge and there- fore an adequate basis for the program matter to which it is azpli:.J. A-3 DOI/Specific Comments (cont'd.) Comment: The Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) appears to be a pivotal document both in term of Guam's growth in general and in the administration of the GCMP in particular. What measures will be employed to fill any "gaps" that may exist in the GCMP, lacking Legislative approval of the CDP? Response: We agree that the CDP is an important planning docment for Guam's future growth. The magnitude of the effort and level of detail of supporting data and mapping of information is a significant accomplishment. We disagree, however, that the Plan is "pivotal ... in the administration of the GCMP." As the P/DEIS explains (Part Two, Chapter VI, Section A.1), the GCMP direction and authority base reflect a recognition by the Guam Bureau of Planning and OCZM that the legal effect of the CDP policies is unclear even if the Plin is adopted by the Legislature. rIhis determination provided the impetus for the Bureau of Planning to seek an executive order that would assure that the GCMP policies were enforceable on all GovGuam agency activities, including permitting and spending. Legisla- tive approval of the CDP is therefore irrelevant to the enforceability or Federal approvability of the GCMP as submitted to OCZM. Comment: In a similar vein, the possible consequences of a failure to enact Bill 923 [Bill 68 in the current legislative session], which would enlarge the landward portion of the Seashore Reserve, should be delineated. Response: As noted in the discussion of alternatives in Part Two, Chapter II of the P/DEIS, a "shoreline-strip" boundary was rejected early in the development in the Guam program because (1) the advantages to an island-wide approach were evident in integrating previously-mandated Guam land-use "planning require ments under P.L. 12-200 with the coastal management objectives and (2) the reduction of the Seashore Feserve to ten meters inland amid reconstruction efforts following Typhoon Pamela left the Reserve too small to meet the requirements of Federal regulations concerning the ability to control uses affecting coastal waters. With the development of island-wide resource management authority under the coastal program, the significance of the Seashore Reserve to the GCMP was reduced to that of an APC of added protection along the shoreline. Expansion of the Seashore Reserve as proposed in Bill 68 may enhance the management control over that area, but the Program as submitted by the Guam Bureau of Planning is in no usy dependent on such legislative action for Program adequacy. Comment: The document indicates that Guam agencies have experienced past difficulties with administration of natural resource management programs. Though the document speaks of coordination and training of natural resource staff, no policy of this program speaks specifically to enforcement. Such a policy should be promulgated. Response: The GCMP recognizes that consistent enforcement has'been a problem in resource management in the past. For that reason, the program establishes a set of uniform enforceable policies, and plans to train or employ staff to carry out the requirements of the program. In addition, the program implementation grant under CZMA Section 306 after approval of the GDT will fund additional enforcement and resource management positions. Furthermore, one of the major efforts of the GCMP during program development was the development of a detailed and reliable data base, much of which was transferred to detailed maps available to the public and to public officials for permit decisions. Each of these accomplishments or objectives will improve the capability of the Territorial government to enforce the GCMP. OCZM's periodic review of the Program will help to assure that the CMP is being enforced as proposed in the program docLmnt and in the work program for its implementation grant. Comment: Historic and archeological resources should be addressed separately from natural' resources, and should be considered a separate heading under "F--source Policies." Provisions should be made for (1) inventory of historic and archeological resources in areas to be affected by permitted actions, (2) evaluation of the significance of these resources, (3) assessment of adverse effects on significant resources, and (4) protection of the resources by mitigation of adverse effects on them. Pesponse: The authorities of the Territory to protect historical objects and sites, archeolc- gical resources, and underwater historic property and sites (GCG �13985) are included in the A-4 DOI/Specific Comments (cont'd.) "Authorities" appendix in Volume 2 of the P//DEIS. Beyond expressing the concern of the Territorial qovernment over such resources, Chapter XIII of t-he Guam Code prohibits Government actions that would adversely affect such sites or resources; provides for condemnation or acquisition to protect the resources; requires a permit for any activity that might affect such a designated site; and requires any private landowner or lessee who "discovers remains or objects which may be of historic signifi- cance" to report the location of such remains or objects to the Department of Parks and Fecreation without disturbing the find. These requirements provide considerable protection to historic pro- perties and objects. Through an ongoing program, the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) has been surveying and designating for protection resources of Guam that are of historic or archeological importance. Appendix 3 (P/DEIS, Volume 2) lists sites that are included or nominated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and the Guam Register of Historic Places. The "Guam Historic Preservation Plan", published by the Guam DPR in January 1976, provides an historical backmround of Guam, an inventory of historical and archeological resources, and a preservation plan. Inventor), of these resources continues, and their protection is assured under the laws cited above. CaTuent: We suggest, as a problem and issue statement for the policy reccmmended above, "he following language: "To date, Guam's comprehensive program of historic preservation has made little progress in inventorying and evaluating her historic and archeological resources. As such, many unknown resources are being altered or destroyed in Guam's rapid social and econcinic development." P-asponse: In light of our response to the preceding comment, this issue statement is an incorrect characterization of Guam's historic preservation efforts. on an island of 212 square miles, some fifty sites are presently on the National Register, and twice that number are on the Guan Register. Comment: We suggest the following policy on historic resources: "Development in areas in which sites of historic and archeological significance are found shall be regulated to protect these resources." Response: As noted above, these resources are protected under existing law. That law is part of the GCKP authorities and, as such, will extend the requirements to Federal activities and permit and assistance programs through consistency requirements. A separate policy is not necessary. Owmnt: Program activities under the GC?4P should include: (1) support of efforts to iden- tify Guam's historic and archeological resources and nomination of such resources to the Federal and local lists, (2) review and comment to appropriate authorities of all proposed development affecting such resources, and (3) encouragement and support, through financial and technical assistance, of activities and programs designed to restore or protect historic sites. Response: The suggested types of activities will be included in the GCMP. The Program intends to support a park manager position for the new Territorial Seashore Park that includes much of southern Guam. The park area includes many pre-contact Chamorro archeological sites, as well as post-contact settlements and historic sites from @brld War II. Among the manager's principal responsi- bilities will be the protection of these sites. Existing Guam law, furthermore, requires develoDers to allocate a certain percentage of their development costs to the identification and protection of historic objects or sites. With such resources protected under the GCMP, the Bureau of Planning could act, in its lead agency role to assure conformance with the program, to recommend such a cost assess- ment to the Territorial Planning Commission when it is reviewing permit applications. We believe historic and archeological resources are well protected under the GCMP. Comment: Some of the policies and activities in Part Two, Chapter III of the GCMP are vague or permissive. Guam's limited size and resources require stringent control measures in keeping with the narrower "margin of error." We suggest the following changes to Executive Order 78-37 to assure tighter control. P-esponse: OCZM will respond to the specific suggestions that follow. A-5 DOI/Specific Umnents (cont'd.) Comment: Rather than "encouraging" GovGuam and private interests to locate major camroer- cial and industrial activities in areas with adequate public services and minimal impact on resources, such locations should be "required" (Activity Ic' under major facilities policy). response: Through the land-use district regulations, zoning, APC regulations and other laws and regulations of the program, such consolidation is, in fact, required under Guam law unless no practicable alternative exists. Text has been revised. Comment: reword the "Hazardous Areas" policy to prohibit, rather than limit, development in hazardous areas unless proof can be provideO that the proposed action does not pose "any substantial risk," rather than 'unreasonable risk, as the policy presently reads. We find the policy adequate as written. Response: The "Hazardous Areas" policy of the GCMP takes into account 1) that hazardous areas exist; 2) that development in such areas should be limited to the extent that such development poses unreasonable risks; 3) that, while exclusion of development from such sites would preclude risks, construction and design measures way sufficiently reduce those risks if there are no alterna- tive locations, and 4) that on an island the size of Guam, avoidance of all sites with any hazards for any reason is impracticable. The policy has not been revised. Comment: The GCMP should coordinate with the Department of Land Management to rezone hazardous areas to prohibit certain uses, rather than "limit" uses, as the activity now reads. response: Limitation of uses may include prohibition if the risks are great enough. By developing criteria specific to particular hazards, such as the flood hazard regulations, appropriate safeguards can be applied to the use of areas in which hazards may occur without unreasonably restricting, through policies based on blanket prohibition, the use of the limited land area available. Comment: In the discussion of the "Housing" policy, reference is made to "review" of sub- division design by the TPC and SDRC to assure efficient design. Review of plans is insufficient if project redesign or relocation are not required if necessary. response: The text has been revised to reflect the commeent. Comment: The policy on water quality should require Oprohibition" rather than "regulation" of uses that pose a pollution threat to Guam's waters. Response: "Regulation" is a broad term that includes prohibition of a use, if necessary, but also allows for design, construction or process changes that sufficiently reduce or eliminate any potential for ham. The "regulation' referred to in this standard involves the land use districting system, APC regulations, the Seashore Protection Act, the "principal source" designation of the Northern Acquifer under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as Territorial and Federal water quality standards. W believe that these authorities can cope with a threat to water quality. Comment: The "Fragile Areas" discussion should include criteria whereby a particular location would be designated a "fragile area". if "fragile areas" was defined generically for terres- trial and aquatic habitats, in addition to providing a comprehensive list of areas, the degree of program predictability would be improved. Response: Fragile areas are not defined generically because the categories of fragile areas under consideration are listed in the policy itself, and each fragile area type is described in some detail in the "proposed APC" discussion. Each of the fragile area types is mapped on 1:400 scale maps (72 maps of each set are required to cover the entire island). A comprehensive list of the areas, many of which are unnamed, or maps that show these areas, are of no practical value in reviewing the GCMP. As areas that are only proposed for protection, comment would be sought on the areas under consideration before designation and promulgation of regulations. Circulation of the P/DEIS, for example, prompted questions about the technical basis for the seismic and slope APC's. The various interior bureaus will have an opportunity to comment on the designation of additional APC's, including fragile areas, as the program is implemented. A-6 DOI/Specific Comments (cont'd.) Comment: The policy on living marine resources speaks of protecting such resources by pro- equal import tecting them frcm overharvesting. Protection of fish and wildlife habitat is of tance. Response: The GCMP recognizes this fact, and provides such protection through the various other policies and authorities of the-program. Comment. In light of the language of Congressional findin4s in the CZMA concerning the need for fish and wildlife conservation, we recommend listing mainteriance and restoration of balanced popu- lations of fish, shellfish and wildlife among the Program's objectives. The objectives of the GCMP are broadly defined goals regarding iTrproved resource management, administration and enforcement on Guam. The Program's policies speak more directly to oarticular resource areas and needs. Living resources and their habitats are addressed adequately in those policies to be responsive to the spirit. of Sections 302 and 303 of the CZMA. Comment: The section dealing with Flood Hazard Areas (p. 117, P/DEIS) is adequate as it relates to floods caused by river/stream overflow during storms. However, we believe that the discussion should be expanded to flood hazards due to storm waves and tsunamis. In Gjam, storms can have devastating effects on beaches through pileup of water on the reefflats, permitting direct wave attack on the shore and resulting in flooding of adjacent areas. During later stages of the storm, a great amount of sand is transported inland from the beaches which are often severely eroded by the storm. Another kind of storm effect not discussed involves very heavy rainfall that can occur during cloudbursts as well as wet typhoons and may cause local flooding almost anywhere, including uplands. A detailed map (or maps) should be included which clearly delineates floodprone areas, areas subDect to oceanic storm waves, and areas which may suffer tsunami inundation. Response: We take issue with several technical aspects of the suggested storm effects on Guam, including severe beach erosion and devasting effects of wave attack. Severe typhoon conditions may bring on certain of these effects but to characterize these as sinply "storm" conditions is to ekaggerate the problem. Local flooding in areas of poor drainages is a problem, however, and typhoons do occur that cause shoreline damage. The Bureau of Planning has mapped these areas (1:400 scale) including shoreline areas to six feet above mean high water; sinkholes and low-lying basins; and recent flood-control projects, and is presently attempting to have these maps accepted by the Federal anergency Management Agency for purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program. As for tsunamis, the risk on Guam of tsunami is considered small by experts in Guam because of ocean-bottam characteristics around the Island. CCZM will pursue this issue with technical components of NOAA, however, in support of the Territory's efforts to revise its flood hazard maps. Comment: Detailed wetland maps are also needed, as well as more definitive maps of all AlY, categories. Response: Each designated and proposed APC category has been mapped at 1:400 scale. These maps are far too large in size and volume to accorrpany the P/EIS, and are on file in the Bureau of Planning offices. Camnent: Some APC categories are not shown on Figure 4, which indicates priorities of use. Specifically, wildlife refuges, freshwater resources and shoreline development areas are omitted. Response: The cited categories of proposed APC's are indeed omitted from Figure 4. These are areas for whidn authorities exist in law to protect these areas without APC regulations. Wildlife refuges can be protected by a conservation district designation and hunting regulations; freshwater resources by water quality standards and the EPA principal source acquifer designation; an(@ shoreline development areas by the Seashore Protection Act. Future drafts of the figure, possibly followino designation of additional APC's, will be revised to include these catecories. A-7 DOI/Specific Comments (cont'd.) Comment: The ccmmercial port discussion should also be accompanied by detailed maps. Steps should be taken to insure protection of adequate lands for port use in light of the particular impor- tance of the port to an island Territory. Response: The port has been mapped at 1:400 scale; maps are on file at the Btireau of Planning. A part plan is under developmnt. First year Section 306 monies under the coastal program have been targetted for the completion of the plan. Port officials are working closely with the coastal program staff on their respective and mutual concerns. Comment: Shoreline development areas may serve a variety of purposes which uvuld be governed by the water-dependency policy. We of fer d@f initions of water-dependent, water-related and water- oriented uses in order to more clearly delineate the need for waterfront siting of a particular facility. Respowe: The text has been adopted in full. Comment: 7he discussion of "seismic fault zones" in the proposed APC discussion does not reflect a thorough understanding of earthquake hazards. Damage is unlikely to be associated with the geologically old, well-healed faults as mapped, but rather from landslides associated with seismic shock waves. The mapped faults nay be geologically important for construction purposes, however, as planes of weakness within soils and rocks and as materials with different foundation characteristics are juxtaposed. Response: The source for the challenged material was Mili@M Geology.of G considered the definitive text on the local geology. In light of differences of opinion on this issue, however, we suggest more detailed examination of the significance of the seismic fault zones among concerned and informed sources before any action is taken on designation of an APC for these sites. Gmnwnt: We believe that the Seashore Reserve should be included as a specific APC. Response, CCZM sees no specific value in the designation as an APC of an area that is already addressed by a Territorial statute with standards that strictly protect the reserve, particularly since that law is among the program authorities. Omment: We support the expansion of Cabras Island generating plants to meet Guam's future electrical needs in order to have minimal environmental effect. Response: Comment accepted. Comment- In order to male lorg-r aige energy planning feasible, the status of existing GovGuan leases of military lands in Apra Harbor must be specified. Included should be 1) time remaining on existing leases; 2) possibility of renewal; 3) amount of land in existing leases and adequacy for future plant expansion and 4) the possible need for leasing additional lands and whether such addi- tional leases could be effected. Response: A port master plan is under development for Apra Harbor, including Cabras Island. The Guam Port Authority, the Bureau of Planning and Department of Cbmmerce, as well as private interests represented by the Guam Growth (buncil, are assessing port capacity and expansion needs, including that for energy facilities. The conclusions of the study will be discussed with the appropriate Federal representatives in order to negotiate renewal of the present long-term leases and GovGuam acquisition of any surplus Federal land that may be essential to port expansion. Oomment: The current and future status of the Tanguisson power plant should be clarified. P,-sponse: The Tanguisson Power Plant is currently in operation, with a projected economic life of about ten more years, according to Bureau of Planning staff. Discussion has occurred concerning the repowering of the facility to expand its capacity and extend its econcrnic life. No definite plans to do so have been adopted to date. A-8 DOI/Specific Comments (cont'd.) Comment: The proposed Guam Oil Refining Corporation (GORCO) expansion should be discussed since it could affect an established APC. Response: ne possible expansion of the GORCO facility is mentioned briefly. Since the expansion is not certain, and any additional land requirements are uncertain as well, detailed dis- cussion would be mere conjecture. What is recognized, however, is that the decision regarding expan- sion that could affect a protected wetland is a classic example of the need for trade-offs in resources management and discretion in planning. Expansion of the GORCO facility that would affect adjacent wet- lands would be subject to program policies, particularly those on urban development, major facilitv siting, and fragile areas. Yet in a case such as the one proposed, the objectives of the cited pcdicies way compute. Expansion of the facility could involve serious questions about Guam's economy and national defense, since refined products car, serve military needs. Expansion at the site would consolidate the impacts and therefore may be desirable. Oontinued protection of the wetland by requiring additional facilities to locate elsewhere may mean significantly greater environmental,impacts, as well as the costs of providing duplicative services or facilities. Yet the wetland was protected in the first place because of its environmental significance and cannot be abandoned lightly. Comment: The discussion of Federal consistency is misleading in suggesting that the process is a simple one. The text suffers from lack of detail. Response: The text has been revised to include an expanded consistency discussion. CbmTent: we consider it unacceptable that consistency guidelines have not been provided. 3onsistency procedures, including lists of activities subject to consistency review, must be made available prior to approval of the GCMP. Response: Mie list of licenses and permits subject to review was included in the P/DEIS as an errata sheet to follow page 162. The revised discussion in Chapter IX of the P/FEIS meets the other requirements of Federal regulations (15 CFR 923.53). Comment: 9be discussion of future issues should include a discussion of the conversion of Dro-- posed APC's to designated APC's in the coming years. A discussion of a possible expansion of the lis@ 0 APC categories should be included. Response: Proposed )CP's will be studied forliheir desirability and value in protecting or using the designated resource. The process will be an open one, and the coarents of the Department of the Interior are welccme. If designation is deemed appropriate, a reccomendation will be made to the Governor to do so through Executive Order. `1he TPC would then consider regulations to accomplish the intent of the designation, and the proposed regulations would be available for review. Interior's suggestions for expansion of the list of categories will be accepted by the Bureau of Planning. Comment: It is essential that Guam's groundwater be protected from pollution. Destruction of the resource from pollution would not be mitigated through desalinization plant construction, since such plants are expensive, high-energy consumptive and often environmentally unsound. Response: Comment accepted. Text has been revised in Chapter XI to discuss groundwater resource protection. Comment: The GCMP should consider a water quality monitoring effort for both ground and sur- face water. Response: Such a monitoring effort is carried on in Guam by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency. Comment: Although the boundaries of the Seashore Reserve are included on page 200 of the P/DEIS, it would reduce confusion if they were also mentioned in the policy sections of the docuTteent. Res;Donse: The text has been revised. A-9 DC)I/Specific Coumpts (cont'd.) Comment: The text detailing the submerged lands that were transferred to the Territory is very confusing, especially concerning mineral rights. Response: The text has been revised. Comment: Part Four does not contain a reference list or bibliography to substantiate any source of information from which analyses of probable impacts were made. There is no indication as to whether the background materials listed in Appendix 7 were used as the basis for preparing the DEIS. Response: Environmental analyses,of the impacts of federal approval of coastal management programs in other states and territories were used as a basis of generic coastal program approval and funding impacts on government processes, costs and resources. Specific impacts of the Guam Coastal Management Program were based on the background materials prepared during the program development phase and, in certain instances, the considered judgement of staff specialists. U.S. Commander Naval Forces Marianas (M.L. Duke, 5/7/79) Oonmnt: National defense or military facilities are not included in the list of major faci- lities. GCMP should recognize that siting of facilities for defense and national security purposes is of paramount importance and among highest priorities in management of Guam's coastal zone. Such recognition is required under 15 CFR 5923.52(b) definition of "adequate consideration" and the national interest. Response: Listing of major facilities in the P/DEIS, Part Two, Chapter V is not intended to exclude national defense or military facilities. The subject list includes national defense installa- tions as one category of facilities in which a national interest was considered under terms of 15 CFR S923.52. Mile recognizing the importance of such facilities, priorities of uses are established under the local laws, rules and regulations which constitute the GCMP. To the extent that military or national defense facilities proposed for location on non-federal property are constructed and sited in accordance with these locally-established priorities, no conflict with GCMP arises. Mere such faci- lities are proposed in locations where the proposed use is not otherwise permitted or of a low priority, the local (Territorial) authority reviewing such development shall recognize the national interest in siting of such facilities. However, the fact that the facility is defense-related does not, in itself, require its siting in a location even if in conflict with Territorial land use laws or regulations. If after adequately considering the national interest in the siting of such a facility in that particular loca- tion, the proposed project is disapproved or conditioned to assure Program compliance, the applicant is entitled to pursue those conflict resolution mechanisms available to all developers as outlined in the GC?4P. Under the federal consistency regulations pursuant to the CZMA (15 CFR 930.33), all federal development projects within the coastal zone are considered to directly affect the coastal zone and must, therefore, be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the approved management program. Non-coffpliance with these conditions can be permitted only 1) wtien the federal agency clearly demon- strates that compliance is prohibited based upon the requirements of existing law applicable to the federal agency's operations (15 CFR �930.32) or 2) upon a finding by the Secretary-of 03nmerce that such inconsistency is permissible because a national defense or other national security interest would be significantly impaired if the activity were not permitted to go forward as proposed. If, in the opinion of the Secretary, based on information submitted by the Department of Defense, the impairment is not significant, the local program's finding that the project, as proposed, is not consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the GCMP, will be upheld and the project disapproved or conditioned, as appropriate, to assure ccmpliance. A-10 U.S. Commander Naval Forces Marianas (cont'd.) Comment: GCMP does not indicate the sources relied upon for a description of the national interest in the p-lanning for and siting of facilities. Response: Sources from which the national interest in planning and siting of facilities was derived are referenced in the respective authorities or programs constituting the GCMP. The national interest in wetland and flood hazard area development, as expressed by the President through Executive Orders 11990 and 11988, is indicated in the Governor of Guam's Executive Orders 78-21 and 78-20 directing promulgation of local regulations consistent with the federal initiative. The national interest in ensuring high air and water quality, as reflected in federal legislation, is cited in the enabling legislation establishing the several regulatory programs administered by the Guam EPA. In certain cases, however, the basis for a national interest designation for facilities that is appropriate in the contiguous states is not applicable 'in the Territory. As an example, Guam's roads, port. facili- ties, and electrical transmission systems serve no interstate functions and, therefore, are less arguably "national interest facilities." To the extent that these facilities are essential to support national defense facilities or activities on Guam, the Territory recognizes their national signifl-cance. Comment: The chapter on federal consistency does not adequately explain federal consistency and should be rewritten. Response: Text has been revised as suggested. Comment: Any federal activities on Federal property need be consistent with the GCMP only if they have a "spillover" effect onto private property and such effect is significant. Response: Because Guam's "coastal zone" includes all non-federal private and Government of Guam-owned property, any such federal activities directly affecting adjacent private -or local government properties must be conducted in a manner consistent to the maximum extent Tracticable with the GCMP. The term "spillover" is only illustrative and not technically a standard for triggering the a federal consistency mechanism as implied in the comment. Section 930.32 defines and explains the "maximum extent practicable" test. Comment: Federal activities and development projects need only be "consistent to the maximum extent practicable" with the GCMP. Response: The comment is correct. The "maximum extent practicable" test is a stringent one, however. As stated in 15 CFR 930.32(a): "When read together, [CZMAJ section 307(c)(1) and (2) and 307(e) require Federal agencies, whenever legally permissible, to consider State management programs as supplemental reauirements to be adhered to in addition to existing agency mandates." Comment: A list of those Federal licerse and permit activities which will be subject to review for Federal consistency under GCMP is required before the program may be approved (15 CFR �923.53). Response: Such a list was included as an addendum to the P/DEIS and is in the text of the P/FE11S. Comment: Federal land exclusion is adequately explained in the text and ex.-luded Federal land areas are shown on Map No. 1 and Map No. 2. Response: Comment accepted. Comment: Chapter VII should be revised to remove all references to federal pro ,Derty areas, implying through the map presentations that APC's on federal property are subject to the.GCMP. Response: Only wetlands and flood-hazard aras are currently designated a 's AP,"S. Ail other APC's referenced in Chapter VII are, as indicated on page 124 of the P/DE@S, poten@ial APC's.. Ma@l No. 4 has been revised to indicate only those wetlands on non-federal property. The eleven other proposed A-11 U.S. Commander Naval Forces Marianas (cont'd.) APC's outlined in Figure 4 and presented on maps 5-16 are, as potential APC's, so designated under the terms of 15 CFR 923.23(a). These areas are "known to require additional or special management" but escape designation as current APC's because no such extraordinary management mechanisms or authorities have been formally established. Because it is possible that at the time of establishment of such authorities, scme or all of these future APC's presently on excluded lands may be included within Guam's "coastal zone", the distinction at this time between those potential APVs currently on federal property and those that are not on federal property is not necessary. In mapping these potential APC's, it is the intent to accurately portray the resources felt by the GCKP to require additional management atten- tion irrespective of their current ownership. The mapping of the proposed APC's does not indicate any change in the status of these areas regarding Federal or Territorial land and water use controls at the time at which such resources may be generically designated through executive order as APC's, they will be mapped, as have the wetlands and flood hazard areas, to indicate only those sites subject to direct GCMP control. The GCMP will continually recognize the status of Federal property in all guidance to other agencies and to the public. Coffiment: Future use of federal property by the territory is contingent upon such property being declared surplus by the federal government, made available through joint land use agreements, or otherwise made available by the federal government. Response: Oomment accepted. Discussion under "Future Issues", Chapter XI, supplemented accordingly. Department of Transportation, Region Ix (@Jorman H. Bmerson, 5/10/79) Comment: More visual aids would greatly assist the reader. A flow chart of the process for determining consistency with the GCMP is an exanple. This would be helpful in clairifying coordination. channels for territorial and Federal agencies. Response: The discussion of the Federal consistency process has been expanded in this docu- ment from that in the P/DEIS. This new text should clarify coordination channels as requested. Without more specific identification of places in the document that would benefit from "more visual aids", we are unable to respond directly to Mr's general request. The document as presented contains a consi- derable nuaibear of maps, tables and figures to enhance reader understanding. Cbmment: The transportation portion should be presented in a more cont:)rehensive manner, showing present and future use of highway, seaport and airport facilities. Population, visitor, industrial, fishing, and allied growth parameters could be similarly displayed. Response: Information of the requested detail may be found in the Guam Comprehensive Devel- opment Plan and the specific subject plans - including those on highways, airports and ports - that have been developed or are under development (ports) by GovGuam. 'All facilities developed in the future to meet transportation needs on Wan must be in conformance with the policies and authorities of the GCMP. Comment: Increased tourism should be discussed. lk-sponse: Increased tourism is discussed explicitly in the GCMP in Part II, Chapter Il. Concern about shorefront access, policies on shore area development, visual quality, recreation areas and public access, and identification of urban waterfront restoration as a major future issue interest in the growth of tourism. Comment: information is needed on Gum's financial resources and ability to implement and manage the program. Response- Under the Omnibus Territories Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-134), the 20 percent local match of Federal funds required of other participating States has been waived for Guam. The Program, therefore, is 100 percent Federally funded. The application and work program submitted in request for funding under Section 306 of the Ooastal Zone Management Act following approval must detail the need for and proposed use of the requested funds. Through its review, and any subsequent revisions to the application before awarding the grant, OCZM must determine that the use of Program funds carries out the Program described in the program document. A-12 Department of Transportation (cont'd.) Comment: The EIS should contain information why all lands in Guam are included rather than a limited designation such as the Hawaii plan. Response: Alternative boundary designations are discussed in Part Two, Chapter II.C of the P/EIS. Commentz In the listing of Federal licenses and permits subject to notification and review for consistency there appears to be an error in the identification of 33 USC 419 as applicable to hazardous substances and materials. Response: Me listing has been revised to reflect the proper citation (46 U.S.C. 170). Comment: Me anticipated costs and likely benefits of the proposal should be addressed. Response: A qualitative discussion of the anticipated costs and benefits of approval and implementation of the GCMP is provided in the P/EIS, Part Four. Department of the Army - Corps_of Engineers (Mlaximiiiar Imhoff, _5/4/M Comment: Cverall, we find that the Program and DEIS are clearly and informatively written. I*-- anticipate that the merging of Guam's land use planning and coastal management program into an integrated, ccimprehensive island-wide program will aid in reducing policy, implementation, and enforce- ment conflicts within the local goverment organization. response: Comment accepted. Comment: We request that the Corps of Engineers be involved in the development of local federal consistency guidefines and procedures. Response: The GCMP wil; provide opportunity for all interested federal agencies to review and ccmTvent on any subject guidelines where flexibility exists under Federal regulations to be responsive to Federal agencies' procedural needs. Comment: We hope that through effective implementation of GCMP authorities and more clearly defined enforcement procedures or centralization of enforcement responsibilities, CZM objectives will be successfully accomplished. Response: A study is being prepared currently by the GCMP, as chairman of a local agency R-source Management Task Force, outlining GCMP enforcement reponsibilities and investigating the feasi- bility of consolidating certain enforcement activities. Steps taken in response to the conclusions of this study are expected to enhance the probability of accomplishment of the objectives of the GCMP. Comment: It is recommended that the Program address the relationship between Government of Guam authorities and policies and the counterpart Federal regulations and authorities in order to increase awareness of related, applicable Federal requirements and provide for closer coordination between Guam and the Federal aqencies. response: 7he GCMP is believed to be consistent with all relevant federal regulations and a,.,thor-ities as required. Increased coordination and mutual awareness is expected through ongoing GCMP efforts and Federal participation in the federal consistency procedures. QCZM encourages Guam, as it has other States, to strive for consolidated permit procedures that include ccmbined applications, J @oint notice and hearings, and other techniques that coordinate and simplify permit procedures. Section 307 of the CZMA clearly indicates that a major thrust of coastal management should be coordi- nation and cooperation between Federal and state-level authorities in planning and regulation. We encouraqe the Corps of Engineers, in initiating its consistency procedures with GovGaam, to brinc tc attention of C*-T.T personnel specific areas that would benefit from the closer coordination called for in the Corps' comment. A- 13 U.S. Dept. of Ccmmerce - National Marine Fisheries Service (Gerald V. Howard, memo, 5/87T9-)- Convent: We have reviewed the subject document and find it to be a great improvement over the related materials on coastal planning in Guam which we commiented on March 29, 1978. The Execu- tive Orders and implementing guidelines relating particularly to land use and wetlands policy are quite good. The rules and regulations presented as guidance for the Regulatory Ccmaissions appear to provide the needed mechanism for resource protection. Response: Convent accepted. Convent: The GCMP should include formal recognition that when environmental damages to wetlands result from permitted actions, even when in conformance with Commission guidelines, conpen- satory measures should be provided. Response: Through permit and review procedures currently part of the GCMP, including those for wetlands, the Seashore Reserve and Land-use Districts, a significant level of habitat protection is available. While the compensatory measures contained in the NMFS Southwest Regions Habitat Protection Policy are not mandatory under local permitting system, the Territorial Planning Commission is eqx)wered to require such combinations of habitat restoration, enhancement or off-site acquisition as it deems appropriate in reviewing developnent on a case-by-case basis. In addition, any development seriously endangering or threatening the existence of a particular living or marine resource could not be approved by the Territorial Seashore Protection Commission under terns of the Seashore Protection Act (see Vol. 2, pp. 1-38). The wetland APC regulations, furthermore, prohibit any development in or alteration of wetlands, unless no alternative site exists. Finally, while we believe that the GCMP provides significant new protection to resources of concern to the NMFS, we recognize that additional steps may be desirable to require the compensation measures suggested. We reccmmnd that GCMP and NMFS staff consult closely on possible revisions to Wetland APC regulations and any regulations for marine resource APC's that may be designated in the future. Comment: We are also pleased to see the interest shown in the management and development of Guam's fishery resources as evidenced by the February 1979 program document entitled "Marine Fisheries Development and Management on Guam: Its Current Status." The policy, additions and refinements recommended in that paper are quite thorough and certainly in line with the spirit of the Coastal Fisheries Assistance Program. Response: Comment accepted. Recommendations outlined in the subject document were adopted through issuance of Executive Order 79-6 creating the Guam Marine Fisheries Advisory Council. Department of @qriculture - SCS (R.M. Davis, 5/l/79) Comment: By limiting development under the Erosion and Siltation policy, in areas of 15 per- cent slope or greater, which constitute 43 percent of the island's land area, great developTent pressure is placed on more level, prime agricultural areas. Utilization of erosion-control measures and special construction techniques would permit steeper lands to be developed, freeing the prime agricultural land for that purpose. Response: The GCMP, in limiting development in areas of 15 percent slope or greater, does not prohibit development on steeply sloped land. Designation of such areas as "Conservation" under the Territory's Land-Use Districting System removes them from jurisdiction of the traditional zoning mechanism and subjects them to rules and regulations promulgated by the Territorial Planning Commission for such Cbnservation Districts. These rules and regulations, while not intended to exclude all development from these areas, will require application of such construction or erosion control measures as necessary to prevent damaging erosion or siltation. Because Section VI (d) of the Land Use District Guidelines provide that any development for which a building or grading permit is required be approved by the Commission before issuance of such permits, such measures may be applied on a site-specific basis. Given variations in soil type and vegetative cover in such slopes, the Commission can decide to merely condition, rather than prohibit, development as wav3ajtg@f The Urban Districts, as designated on the approved Land-Use Districting Map, outline suffi- cient area to accommodate projected urban-type development to the year 2000. Future urbans expansion. will occur in the Rural Districts as appropriate infrastructure is provided. Through guiding devel- opment into these areas, pressure for development on the prime agricultural areas is relieved. The prime agricultural areas are designated as Agriculture Districts and zoned only for agricultural and related uses. Therefore, while tending to discourage extensive development on the more steeply-sloped lands, the districting system encourages utilization of more suitable level areas without jeopardizing the limited prime agricultural land. A- 14 Department cf Agriculture - SCS (cont'd.) Comment: The discussion of erosion and siltation should include the role of wild- land fire on this process. Response: The reference to field burning as one of those areas to be addressed by the G_-@M, when approved, recognizes, and is intended to include, wildland fires within that tem. Comment: The discussion in Chapter III of air quality problems should mention smoke from. wild- land fires. Response: While it may be true that wildland fires produce high particulate levels, their rather infrequent, short-lived nature poses threats not so much to the It-rritory's ambient air criality as they do to vegetative cover and soil, through increased erosion risk. Ccmment: We suggest adding to the list, in Part Four of specific projected program activities, support to the Department of Agriculture for wildland fire protection, forest resources planning and initiation of an ongoing soil survey program. Response: While not included in the subject exemplary list, the first two above-mentione-1 activities will be supported indirectly under the GCMP if approved as proposed. Comment: Proposed legislation would place forestry and soil resource programs in the Depart- ment of Agriculture, therby improving resource management and protection for wildlands in Gjam. Response: The subject legislation has been reviewed by the GCMP. New initiatives in resource agency reorganization are being postponed pending issuance of recommendations by the recently formed Resources Management Task Force, chaired by the GCMP, regarding overall Government of Guam aaenm organization for resource management. The report is anticipated at approximately the same time as the issue date of this document. Comment: Department of Agriculture review of Federal impact analysis and impact statements (Appendix 5) should be shown as a "major responsibility" rather than as "occassionally involved". Response: While the DA actively involved in commenting on such documents, such duties are not one of the agency's major responsibilities as outlined in its enabling legislation. The Guam Ehviron- mental Protection Agency is responsible for coordinating Government of Guam comments on ma.@or projects requiring EIA's or EIS's under the locally established procedures. Department of Housing and Urban Development Robert C. Finbrv, Jr., 4/30/79) Comment: Vie have no serious concerns at this tim and have no objections to approval ny the Secretary of Commerce of the Guam Program. Response: Coment accepted. Comment: Presidential Executive Order 12127, March 31, 1979, established the Federal Smerqency management Aqency, which inclu,3es the Federal Insurance Administration, previously of this Department. Their ocmTents are not included and will be provided separately. Response: Comment accepted. Ccmment: It appears, under the Wetlands APC's rules and regulations, that are part of the GC14P, that an environmental review should be done whenever development is proposed within a wetiand, APC. Response: The statement is correct. Comment: It might be useful to mention the time frames established for review cl tne permit requests under the flood hazard area management procedures. Response: It is expected that the time required to review a proposal for sitingi in a flor-_ hazard area will vary according to several factors. Among these factors would be the magnitude cf tne facility, its need for a floodplain location and availability fo alternative locations, economic and practical feasibility of protective design and construction measures, as well as the effect of the pro- posed use or structure on other floodplain values. A- 15 Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (contd.) Comnent: As indicated in the GCMP, Guam's land use element, developed as part of the CZM program, has been found to meet HLYD's "701" requirements. The date of approval was may 30, 1978. Response: Comment accepted. Carment: Guam entered the emergency phase of the National Flood Insurance Progran (NFIP) on January 19, 1977, and flood insurance has been available since that time. Response: We understand that Guam is in the emergency phase of the NFIP, but entered that phase in January 1979. Gov. Guam Department of Commerce (Joseph D. McDonald, 4/17/79) Cchnient: Since tourism is a major economic sector on Guam, zoning procedures should be patterned after resort ccmmunities. The major problem of the current system on Guam lies in the inade- quate professional inpu on the architectural quality of the proposed projects. This inadequacy allows for approval of clearly second-rate developmnt that adversely affects the tourism industry. I am proposing an architectural review board, ccmposed of professional architects and engineers from the private sector, to supplement the existing mechanism and advise the Territorial Planning Commission. The initial area of jurisdiction would be 'Anon Bay and the Seashore Reserve. Fesponse: Through the work of the Subdivision Review Committee and the Ttrritorial Planning Commission, some review is done of architectural and landscape design features of project proposals, particularly of proposals for the resort-hotel zone. The capability of the TPC has probably been enhanced in this regard by the appointment, in recent months, of architects to the Oommission. We believe that Gov. Wam, like most other State and Federal government entities is striving towards efficiency of operation, including accomplishing its objectives without the creation-of new agencies or other bodies. We would suggest that the cited need and your proposal be brought to the TPC or discussed in detail with the appropriate Gov. Guam agencies to resolve the most effective way to meet the need. Comment: All future regulatory changes should be evaluated in terms of costs imposed upon the community. The benefits of estimating costs of proposed regulations will be in elimination or revision of regulations where costs are too high relative to benefits and in requiring agencies to find the least-cost method of implementing regulations. I would like to see the Wam Coastal Management Progrmn evaluated in these terns. Response: This environmental impact statement does include a qualitative evaluation of the anticipated costs and benefits of the GCWIP overall. Exact costs and benefits are difficult to compare. Costs involved in policy development as a basis for regulation are at least partially offset b@y savings to Gov. Wan and affected citizens by coordination among goverment agencies and use by all agencies of the single set of resource management objectives and policies as a context for permit decisions or goverment activities or funding. Tim and money lost in conflict resolution and delay of decisions would be reduced. 'Ihe benefits of the program, and of the laws and regulations on which it is founded, are often difficult to quantify. What is the dollar benefit of protecting access to Guam's coasts for its citizens against the cost of processing a permit for a prospective developer? What annual loss in revenues from tourism might be expected for each inappropriate use of coastal resources that damages the beauty of Guam's shoreline? These are examples of the kind of costs and benefits that must be balanced in enacting regulations such is those in the GCMP. We agree that these cost/benefit relation- ships warrant careful consideration. We also assune that the Legislature and Governor of Guam, as representatives of the people of the 'Itrritory, have concluded that the benefits to be derived from laws passed or regulatory authority granted to planning and resource management entities of Gov. Guam outweighs the costs that must be borne to attain those benefits. Guam Environmental Protection Agency (O.V. Natarajan, Ph.D, 5/11/79) Comment: We finding that the GCMP and DEIS to be complete and comprehensive; support island- wide coastal zone designation and use of primarily existing authorities for implementation; environment impact assessment in thorough; the GCMP, Comprehensive Development Plan and Guam Water Quality Manage- ment Plan provide a framework for balancing development with environmental protection. Response: Comment accepted. A- 16 Guam Surfing Association (Nolan Hendricks, Robert swigart. - Public Hearing, 4/19/79) Comment: (Hendricks) - Public access to reefs and beaches is of concern (e.g., Agana Boat Basin and Ricks Feef); wave and reef edges should be conserved and developed properly; desire to be made aware of changes, plans or modifications and development of any beach or reef. Response: Development of surfing areas is subject to jurisdiction of the Territorial Seashore Protection Ccmmissior.. Any development within the Seashore Reserve (10 meters inland and cut to 10 fathoms seward) must be reviewed by the Ommission following public hearings and notice. The GCMP policy regarding public access is stated in Chapter III. Means of participating in the GCMP planning process are outlined in Chapter X. Conmnt: (Swigart) - New surfing spots, created in conjunction with dredging or fillinq for the development of channels or marinas, would relieve current overcrowding, could attract additional tourists, and provide alternative to heroin addiction. Fesponse: GCMP acknowledges that provisions should be made for multiple use of coastal resources as long as the function of the principal use is not compromised, the safety of the various users is assured, and the environmental costs; of such provisions do not outweigh the benefits of multiple use. OCZM recommends that the Surfing Association consult with the appropriate Territorial and Federal authorities when activities are proposed that could potentially be accomplished in such a way as to accommodate surfers' interests. COASTAL ZONE I WORMATION CENTER I I I f I I -- - - -- , - i @ , 1 3 6668 14109 3882 @