chapter 7 cumulative effects - amazon web servicesguammarines.s3.amazonaws.com/static/seis/chapter...

Guam and CNMI Military Relocation

(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015

7-1

CHAPTER 7

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

7.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR 2010 FINAL EIS COMPARED TO SEIS

There are many frameworks for

conducting cumulative effects analysis.

USEPA and GEPA have endorsed the use

of the approach described in Defining

Cumulative Impact, Approach and

Guidance (California Department of

Transportation, USEPA, and FHWA

2005) that identifies eight steps for a

cumulative effects analysis. This

methodology and general CEQ guidance

for assessing cumulative effects is as

described in the 2010 Final EIS

(Volume 7, Chapter 4: Cumulative

Effects, Sections 4.1: Consistency with

Cumulative Effects Analysis Guidance

and Section 4.2: Cumulative Effects Methodology, pages 4-1 to 4-4).

There are inherent differences between the cumulative effects analysis prepared for the 2010 Final EIS

and this SEIS:

The cumulative effects study area for this SEIS is limited to Guam and specifically excludes the

CNMI because there is no proposed action for the CNMI in this SEIS. Further, the four training

ranges proposed on Tinian that were included in the 2010 ROD are on hold pending completion

of a separate environmental study, the CNMI Joint Military Training EIS/OEIS.

In accordance with the 2012 Roadmap Adjustments, the magnitude of the Marine Corps proposed

action, as described in Section 1.2 of this SEIS, is reduced from that proposed in the 2010 Final

EIS. This SEIS is focused on Marine Corps cantonment/family housing and LFTRC alternatives

and supporting infrastructure. The relocating population resulting from implementation of the

proposed action is substantially less than that proposed in the 2010 Final EIS, and the population

growth and construction schedule are much more gradual than originally projected. The adaptive

program management that was proposed to monitor the impact of rapid construction and peak

population growth of the 2010 Final EIS proposed action is not warranted for this SEIS proposed

action.

The 2010 Final EIS considered the cumulative effect of the preferred alternative only. This SEIS

assesses multiple alternatives.

The alternatives assessed in this cumulative effects chapter are the proposed action alternatives

plus the 2010 ROD-Related Actions. These alternatives are referred to as the “collective action

alternatives” and were introduced in Section 6.2, Collective Impacts Including 2010 ROD-

Related Actions.

The list of recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects was updated

subsequent to the completion of the 2010 Final EIS.



7-2

Both the 2010 Final EIS and this SEIS address cumulative effects under a separate chapter. For this SEIS,

Chapters 4 and 5 present impact analyses for components of the collective action alternatives, with the

collective action alternatives addressed in Chapter 6. Although cumulative effects could have been

addressed in Chapter 6, it was determined that a separate chapter focused specifically on cumulative

effects would improve readability of this SEIS.

7.2 METHODOLOGY - EIGHT STEP APPROACH OVERVIEW

The following is a list of the Defining Cumulative Impact, Approach and Guidance (California

Department of Transportation, USEPA, and FHWA 2005) “eight steps” applied to perform the

cumulative effects analysis for this SEIS:

1. Identify resources to consider in the cumulative effect analysis.

2. Define the study area for each resource.

3. Describe the current health and historical context for each resource.

4. Describe direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project that might contribute to a cumulative

effect.

5. Identify other reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect each resource.

6. Assess potential cumulative effects.

7. Report the results.

8. Assess the need for mitigation.

Each of these steps is addressed in subsequent sections to guide the reader through the analysis.

7.3 STEPS 1 TO 3: IDENTIFY RESOURCES TO INCLUDE, DEFINE THE STUDY AREA, DESCRIBE

CURRENT HEALTH AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR EACH RESOURCE

Steps 1 through 3 of the cumulative effect analysis are as follows:

1. Identify resources to consider in the cumulative effect analysis. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of this

SEIS address the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action components and the collective

action alternatives on various resources: geological and soil resources, water resources, air

quality, noise, airspace, land and submerged land use, recreation, terrestrial biological resources,

marine biological resources, cultural resources, visual resources, ground transportation, marine

transportation, utilities, socioeconomics and general services, hazardous materials and waste,

public health and safety, and environmental justice and the protection of children. Although the

magnitude of the proposed action is reduced in this SEIS relative to the 2010 Final EIS, the

proposed action represents the largest action being proposed for Guam in the recent past and

foreseeable future; therefore, all of the environmental resources listed are considered in this

cumulative effect analysis.

2. Define the study area. The study area is Guam-wide for each resource. The cumulative effects

study area also includes submerged lands encompassed by the LFTRC SDZ. As mentioned in

Section 7.1 of this SEIS, Tinian and other CNMI locations are not included in this SEIS

cumulative effects study area.



7-3

3. Describe the current health and historical context for each resource. The 2010 Final EIS

(Volume 7, Chapter 1: Introduction, Section 1.3: Historical Perspective-Guam, pages 1-6 to 1-13)

provides an overview of key events in the history of Guam that have influenced the island’s

environmental resources. These are not repeated in this SEIS. The trends in, and factors affecting,

resource health island-wide (i.e., human behavior and natural events) have played a role in the

existing conditions (or affected environment) of each resource as described in Chapters 3 through

6 of this SEIS. Existing conditions were updated to incorporate new information identified

subsequent to the 2010 Final EIS. A summary of findings is reported under each resource in

Section 7.6 under the subsections entitled, Current Health and Historical Context. In addition to

the long-term historical perspective, recent trends in resource health and resiliency are

considered. These recent trends are based on a review of recently completed projects, as listed in

Section 7.5. Recently completed projects may include changes in zoning policy or increased

regulatory control over construction that would impact the future health trend of a resource and

the potential for cumulative effects.

7.4 STEP 4: DESCRIBE DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT

MIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Typically, cumulative effects analysis is conducted on the action alternatives; however, in this SEIS the

direct and indirect impact analysis and the cumulative effects analysis is based on the “collective action

alternatives” impacts, as described in Chapter 6.2 of this SEIS.

Due to the complexity of the proposed action and the large number of alternatives, this SEIS presents the

direct and indirect impacts of the two key components of the proposed action in separate chapters:

Chapter 4 (cantonment/family housing alternatives) and Chapter 5 (LFTRC alternatives). The impacts of

the pairing of each cantonment/family housing alternative with each of the LFTRC alternatives plus the

impacts of IT/COMM infrastructure connecting the two components are presented in Section 6.1 as

“additive” impacts. Additive impacts were identified (see Table 6.1.3-1) for the following resources under

each pairing of cantonment/family housing and LFTRC alternative: geological and soil resources (LSI),

water resources (LSI), noise (LSI), air quality (LSI), terrestrial biology (LSI), cultural resources (SI-M),

ground transportation (SI/SI-M), socioeconomics and general services (land acquisition) (LSI), hazardous

materials and waste (LSI), and public health and safety (LSI). No “additive” impact was identified for the

remaining resource areas.

Section 6.2 of this SEIS acknowledges that there may be additional impacts that result from the proposed

action in conjunction with the 2010 ROD-Related Actions (summarized in Table 6.2.1-1). The combined

alternatives, as described in Section 6.1 plus the 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2), are referred to

in this chapter (Chapter 7) as “collective action alternatives.” More detail on the collective action

alternative impacts is provided in Section 6.2. In summary, no impacts were identified for the collective

action alternatives for airspace, land and submerged land use, visual resources, or socioeconomics and

general services. Significant impacts were identified for terrestrial biology and cultural resources for

specific collective action alternatives. Less than significant impacts were identified for the remaining

resources.

To facilitate the cumulative effects analysis, the highest level of significance identified under each

resource for each collective action alternative is the significance impact level used in the cumulative

effects analysis, as shown on Table 7.4-1. This simplification provides a “worst-case” assessment of the

potential adverse impacts of each collective action alternative. Construction and operational impacts as



7-4

well as direct and indirect impacts were considered in assigning the highest level of significance. If the

construction or indirect impact would have a higher level of significant impact on the long-term health or

resilience of a resource than the operational or direct impacts, then it is this significance level that is

included in the table. It is important to note that there may be short-term high levels of significance

reported for the construction phase, but cumulative effects focuses on long-term trends in resource health.

For example, short-term impacts to traffic during construction may be significant but would not impact

the long-term operation-phase traffic conditions. Similarly, if the 2010 ROD-Related Actions impact was

reported at a higher level of significance than the SEIS cantonment/family housing or LFTRC impacts,

then the 2010 ROD-Related Action impact is shown in the table. The discussion of these results by

resource is presented in Section 7.7, under the heading “Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective

Action Alternatives That Might Contribute to a Cumulative Effect.” The less than significant impacts

identified have potential to contribute to a significant cumulative effect.

Some of the resources have multiple criteria with varying levels of significance and the criteria are listed

in Table 7.4-1. Table 7.4-1 is further simplified in Table 7.6-2. The highest level of significance identified

in the multiple criteria under each resource becomes the significance level for that resource and is used in

this cumulative effects analysis. The result is that each collective action alternative has one reported level

of significance for each resource in Table 7.6-2.

As shown in Table 7.4-1, when the impact analysis data is simplified to the highest level of significance

for each resource, all of the collective action alternatives would have a significant level of impact (SI or

SI-M) on multiple resources. No single collective action alternative stands out as having the least

environmental impact. The 2010 ROD-Related Action impacts are the same for all collective action

alternatives.

The naming convention for the collective action alternatives is: cantonment/family housing alternative

letter - LFTRC alternative number. For example, collective action alternative “A-1” represents the

Finegayan/South Finegayan (Alternative A) paired with the Route 15 LFTRC (Alternative 1).



Legend: LSI = less than significant impact; SI = significant impact; SI-M = significant and mitigable to less than significant.

Impacts that are considered SI or SI-M are shown in Red font. Blue shading = the Preferred Alternative - Finegayan for Cantonment/AAFB for Family Housing (Alternative E) and NWF

(Alternative 5) for LFTRC. Cantonment/family housing Alternatives: A= Finegayan, B= Finegayan and South Finegayan, C = AAFB, D = Barrigada. LFTRC Alternatives: 1 = Route 15; 2,

3, and 4 = NAVMAG Alternatives; 5 = NWF. *Significance level related to additive impacts described in Section 6.1.

7-5

Table 7.4-1. Summary of Collective Action Alternative Impacts

Resource Collective Action Alternatives: Cantonment/Family Housing + LFTRC + Additive + 2010 ROD-Related Actions Impacts

A-1 A-2,3,4 A-5 B-1 B-2,3,4 B-5 C-1 C-2,3,4 C-5 D-1 D-2,3,4 D-5 E-1 E-2,3,4 E-5

GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES

Soils, Sinkholes, Geologic Hazards LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

Topography SI

A-3 or

4=SI

A-2=LSI

SI SI

B-3 or

4=SI

B-2=LSI

SI SI

C-3 or

4=SI

C-2=LSI

SI SI

D-3 or

4=SI

D-2=LSI

SI SI

E-3 or

4=SI

E-2=LSI

SI

WATER RESOURCES

Surface NI LSI NI NI LSI NI NI LSI NI LSI LSI LSI NI LSI LSI

Groundwater SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M

Nearshore SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M

Wetlands NI SI-M NI NI SI-M NI NI SI-M NI SI-M SI-M SI-M NI SI-M NI

AIR QUALITY LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

NOISE SI-M LSI LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M LSI LSI

AIRSPACE NI LSI LSI

Civilian Air Traffic SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI-M

Military Air Traffic NI NI SI-M NI NI SI-M NI NI SI-M NI NI SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M

LAND / SUBMERGED LAND USE

Loss of Valued Use SI

A-2 or

4=SI-M

A-3=LSI

NI SI

B-2 or

4=SI-M

(B-3=LSI)

NI SI

C-2 or

4=SI-M

(C-3=LSI)

NI SI

D-2 or

4=SI-M

(D-3=LSI)

NI SI

E-2 or

4=SI-M

(E-3=LSI)

NI

Public Access SI

A-2 or

4=SI-M

A-3=LSI

SI SI

B-2 or

4=SI

(B-3 =NI)

SI SI

C-2 or

4=SI

(C-3=NI)

SI SI

D-2 or

4=SI

(D-3=NI)

SI SI

E-2 or

4=SI

(E-3=NI)

SI

Compatibility with Planned/Future

Use SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI

RECREATIONAL RESOURCES SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI SI SI SI SI LSI LSI

TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Vegetation SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M

Terrestrial Conservation Areas SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M LSI

D-3 or

4=SI-M

D-2=LSI

SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M

Native Wildlife LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

Special-Status Species: Federal

ESA-Listed and Proposed Species SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M

Special-Status Species: Guam-listed SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M LSI LSI LSI



Legend: LSI = less than significant impact; SI = significant impact; SI-M = significant and mitigable to less than significant.

Impacts that are considered SI or SI-M are shown in Red font. Blue shading = the Preferred Alternative - Finegayan for Cantonment/AAFB for Family Housing (Alternative E) and NWF

(Alternative 5) for LFTRC. Cantonment/family housing Alternatives: A= Finegayan, B= Finegayan and South Finegayan, C = AAFB, D = Barrigada. LFTRC Alternatives: 1 = Route 15; 2,

3, and 4 = NAVMAG Alternatives; 5 = NWF. *Significance level related to additive impacts described in Section 6.1.

7-6

Table 7.4-1. Summary of Collective Action Alternative Impacts

Resource Collective Action Alternatives: Cantonment/Family Housing + LFTRC + Additive + 2010 ROD-Related Actions Impacts

A-1 A-2,3,4 A-5 B-1 B-2,3,4 B-5 C-1 C-2,3,4 C-5 D-1 D-2,3,4 D-5 E-1 E-2,3,4 E-5

MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Marine Flora, Invertebrates, Fish

and EFH LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

Marine Conservation Areas LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI NI NI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

CULTURAL RESOURCES SI-M SI-M SI SI-M SI-M SI SI-M SI-M SI SI-M SI-M SI SI-M SI-M SI

VISUAL RESOURCES SI-M

A-3 or

4=SI

A-2=LSI

LSI SI-M

B-3 or

4=SI

B-2=LSI

LSI SI-M

C-3 or

4=SI

C-2=LSI

LSI SI-M

D-3 or

4=SI

D-2=LSI

LSI SI-M

E-3 or

4=SI

E-2=LSI

LSI

GROUND TRANSPORTATION (off-

base traffic, Section 6.1) *SI-M *SI-M *SI-M *SI-M *SI-M *SI-M *SI *SI *SI *SI *SI *SI *SI *SI *SI

MARINE TRANSPORTATION LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

UTILITIES

Electrical, Solid Waste, IT/COMM LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

Potable Water, Wastewater SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M

SOCIOECONOMICS AND GENERAL SERVICES

Population Change SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI

Public Services SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M

Economic Activity LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

Sociocultural Issues SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M

Land Acquisition-Sociocultural,

Economic (LFTRC only) LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND

WASTE (Management, Contaminated

Sites, Toxic Substances)

LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

Notifiable Diseases/Mental Illness,

UXO, Hazardous Substances,

Traffic Incidents

LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

Operational Safety LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI SI SI SI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

Noise, Recreation LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI

Socioeconomics, Public Health and

Safety SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M

Land Acquisition (LFTRC only) LSI LSI NI LSI LSI NI LSI LSI NI LSI LSI NI LSI LSI NI



7-7

7.5 STEP 5: RECENTLY COMPLETED, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE

PROJECTS

Table 7.5-1 is a list of recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that would

be completed within a designated timeframe (2009-2028). As mentioned in Section 7.3, part of the

assessment of past trends in resource health includes an assessment of recent trends in resource health and

identification of recently completed projects assists with that assessment. The timeframe for the

cumulative effect assessment is project-specific. This SEIS cumulative effects timeframe begins 6 years

prior to possible implementation (2015) of the proposed action and ends with the anticipated completion

of construction (2028). The recently completed project timeline is 2009 to 2013 (the year the affected

environment analyses for this SEIS were initiated). The present projects would occur while this SEIS is

being prepared (2013-2015) and the reasonably foreseeable projects are anticipated to be operational

while the proposed action is being constructed and becomes fully operational (2015-2028). Reasonably

foreseeable actions are “sufficiently likely to occur, that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into

account in making a decision” (Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992). The approach in

this SEIS has been more inclusive of projects than exclusive.

The recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects list was developed by

updating the 2010 Final EIS list of projects with data from Internet searches and interviews with

government agencies. The list includes DoD and non-DoD projects. 2010 ROD-Related Actions are not

listed as projects for the cumulative impact analysis because they are included as components of the

collective action alternatives in Step 4 of the cumulative effects analysis.

The projects in Table 7.5-1 are organized by geographic area. The projects are assigned an identification

code, where the letter represents a geographic area and the number is sequential, for example: North

(N-1), Central (C-1), Apra (A-1), and South (S-1). Those projects that are Guam-wide or could not be

mapped, based on information available, are listed first in Table 7.5-1 with a G-x identifier, for example

G-1. Figures 7.5-1, 7.5-2, 7.5-3, and 7.5-4 show the approximate project locations in the North, Central,

Apra, and South regions of Guam, respectively.



Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.

7-8

Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)

ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction

Year(s) Status Description

Time

frame

Guam - General Actions (G) (not mapped)

G-1 GovGuam Department of

Public Works

Road Safety

Improvements Island-wide 2010

Complete

Phase 1 and 2 pavement markings

improvement, guardrail replacement,

and school zone sign replacement.

RC

G-2 COMNAV Pacific NAVFAC

Pacific MIRC EIS/OEIS Guam/CNMI 2011 Complete

Covers proposed action and

alternatives for continued use of the

MIRC.

RC

G-3 Air Force NAVFAC

Marianas MIRC Airspace Guam/CNMI

No

Construction FONSI

Modify warning area and restricted

area airspace within the MIRC. RF

G-4 GovGuam GDPW

Traffic Signal

System Upgrade,

Island-wide

Island-wide 2015 Design Traffic Signals Installation RF

G-5 GovGuam GPA

Upgrade Of

Existing 14

Megavolt Ampere

Power

Transformer To

30 Megavolt

Ampere and

Underground Line

Marbo to Pågat 2012 Complete

34.5 kV underground line from

Marbo Substation to the Pågat

Substation. The underground line

will extend for 1.6 miles.

RC

G-6 GovGuam GPA 60 MW Power

Plant Guam TBD Unknown

Construct a new 60 MW power plant

on Guam. RF

G-7 Rubio & David Rubio & David Health Clinic Guam - Not

Specified TBD Permitted Construction of a health clinic. P

G-8 Carlos &

Rosemarie Takano

Carlos &

Rosemarie

Takano

Multi-family

dwelling

Guam - Not

Specified TBD Permitted

Construction of two 26-story

residential towers. P

G-9 GovGuam GPA Pole Hardening Island-wide 2013 Programmed Island-wide power line hardening. P

G-10 GovGuam

Guam

Department of

Corrections

Territorial Prison Guam TBD Unfunded New territorial prison to house 1,000

inmates - site TBD. RF

G-11 GovGuam GPA

Lateral

Conversion of

Power Lines to

Underground

Lines

Island-wide 2013 Programmed Lateral conversion of power lines to

underground lines. P




7-9


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

G-12 GovGuam GWA Wastewater

System Planning Island-wide 2013 Programmed Infrastructure improvements P

G-13 GovGuam GWA

Facilities Plan /

Design for

WWTP

Guam - Not

Specified 2013 Programmed Infrastructure improvements P

G-14 GovGuam GWA Groundwater

Disinfection Island-wide 2013 Complete

Design of this project is complete.

The remaining scope includes the

upgrade and construction of new

chlorination systems for 99 deep

wells and one spring source.

RC

G-15 GovGuam GWA Water Booster

Pump Station Island-wide 2013-2016 Construction

The 2005 hydraulic model for

GWA’s three water systems

identified deficiencies in water

booster pump capacity. The project

will include all improvements

necessary to address capacity

limitations.

P

G-16 GovGuam GWA Implement

Groundwater Rule Island-wide 2013 Complete

This project will provide upgrades to

the deep wells for the

implementation of the Groundwater

Rule. This project will install

chlorine residual monitors on all

GWA wells. The wells will include

supervisory control and data

acquisition equipment to

communicate the well chlorine

levels to central location.

RC

G-17 GovGuam GWA Deep Well

Rehabilitation Island-wide 2012 Complete

This project will design and

construct up to three new wells to

increase supply and include the

design and rehabilitation of seven

“down-hard” wells.

RC

G-18 GovGuam GWA Water Wells Island-wide 2014 Construction

GWA plans to construct new

production wells to produce an

estimated 5-7 MGd for natural

growth of the island and pending

military development.

P




7-10


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

G-19 GovGuam GWA

Wastewater

Collection System

Replacement/Reh

abilitation

Program

Island-wide 2012-2016 Construction

Annual recurring design and

construction project to

replace/rehabilitate ¾ of the total

collection system pipes, (8,600

feet/year).

P

G-20 GovGuam GWA LS Priority 1

Upgrades Island-wide 2012-2016 Construction

Specific rehabilitation and repair

capital projects are needed for the

sewage pump stations (e.g.,

overhead crane repair and fall

protection barriers, high level alarm

systems, upgrading electrical

controls and motors.

P

G-21 GovGuam GWA WWTP Priority 1

Upgrades Island-wide 2013 Construction

Specific rehabilitation and repair

capital projects are needed for the

sewage pump stations.

P

G-22 GovGuam GWA

Water

Distribution Pipe

Replacement

Island-wide 2012-2016 Construction Ongoing projects to address water

pipe leaks, failure, and age issues P

G-23 U.S. Pacific Fleet NAVFAC

Pacific MITT

Mariana

Islands &

Vicinity

2015

DEIS

Published

2013

See Section 7.5.2 P

Guam - North (N)

N-1 GovGuam GDPW Route 29

Reconstruction Yigo TBD Design Roadway Reconstruction RF

N-2 Base Corp. Base Corp. Paradise Estates Yigo 2011 Complete

Residential homes Phases II and IV

completed with 383 single-family

homes near AAFB.

RC

N-3 GovGuam GDPW

Route 15

Embankment

Restoration

Yigo 2012 Complete Embankment Restoration RC

N-4 Air Force NAVFAC

Marianas

NWF Perimeter

Fence/Road AAFB 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC


Marianas

PRTC Combat

Support Vehicle

Facility

AAFB 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC




7-11


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame


Marianas

PRTC Commando

Warrior

Operations

Facility



Marianas

Strike FOL

Electrical

Infrastructure


N-8 GovGuam GDPW

Skatepark

Barrier/Iglesia

Circle Traffic

Signal

Dededo 2010 Complete Traffic Safety Improvements RC

N-9 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

Postal Service

Center AAFB 2010 Complete Infrastructure improvements RC

N-10

Pacific

International

Guam Inc.

Pacific

International

Guam Inc.

Workforce

Housing Dededo 2010-2011 Complete

Proposed as workforce housing but

used as apartments. RC

N-11 Air Force AAFB South Ramp

Utilities Phase 2 AAFB 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC


Marianas

PRTC Commando

Warrior Barracks AAFB 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC


Marianas

PRTC Commando

Communication

Operations

Facility



Marianas

Strike Operations

Group Facility AAFB 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

N-15 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

Release a Guam

Land Use Plan 77

parcel near South

Finegayan

Dededo 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

N-16 Air Force

36 WG of the

Pacific Air

Force

Milky Way Site

for Multiple

Threat Emitter

System

AAFB 2012 Complete Communications facility near NWF RC




7-12


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

N-17 GovGuam GDPW North Guam

Signalization Yigo 2012 Complete North Guam Signalization RC


Marianas

Conventional

Munitions

Maintenance

Facility



Marianas

Clear Water Rinse

Facility AAFB 2012 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC


Marianas

PRTC Combat

Communication

Support Facility



Marianas

PRTC Combat

Communication

Transmission Sys

Facility



Marianas

PRTC RH

Cantonment

Operations

Facility



Marianas

Air Freight

Terminal

Complex


N-24 DON NAVFAC Ungulate Fencing AAFB 2013 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

N-25 Air Force

36 WG of the

Pacific Air

Force

Beddown of

Training and

Support Initiatives

at NWF

AAFB 2006-2014 Programmed

Relocate a Rapid Engineer

Deployable Heavy Operations

Repair Squadron Engineer (RED

HORSE) of mobile engineering

forces, the Pacific Air Force

Commando Warrior training

program, the Pacific Air Force

SILVER FLAG training program,

and a Combat Communication

Squadron and its training program at

the same location.

P




7-13


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

N-26 Air Force

36 WG of the

Pacific Air

Force

Pacific Airpower

Resiliency, AAFB AAFB 2009-2016 ROD

Base 4 unmanned aerial

reconnaissance aircraft, 6 rotational

bombers, and up to 12 refueling

aircraft at AAFB; and accommodate

48 fighter and 6 bomber aircraft on a

rotational basis. An additional 2,400

personnel would be based at AAFB.

P

N-27 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

AT/FP Perimeter

Fence and Road

Construction and

Main Gate at

AAFB

AAFB 2010-2013 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

N-28 Younex

Enterprises LLC

Younex

Enterprises LLC

Ukudu Workforce

Village Dededo 2010-2011 Complete

New workforce housing to support

military build-up on Guam. 18,000

person capacity reduced to 1,800

approved and 500 were constructed

under Phase I.

RC

N-29 Sung Kim Sung Kim

Small

Commercial

Development

Dededo 2011 Permitted Small “mom and pop” retail store

near the Ironwood Estates. P


Marianas

South Ramp

U&SI II AAFB 2015 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P

N-31 GovGuam Guam Housing

Authority

Lada Estates -

Low Income

Affordable

Housing

Dededo 2012 Complete Lada Estates - Low income

affordable housing RC

N-32 GovGuam GWA

Northern District

WWTP Phases 1-

3: Primary

Capacity 12 MGD

Dededo 2014-16

Prioritized for

Funding &

Construction

Improvements increase primary

capacity to 12 MGD in the first

phases and 16 MGD in final phase

to meet USEPA discharge

requirements. The project will

utilize existing structures but add

major upgrades and modifications.

P

N-33 Air Force AAFB PRTC Combat

Command Facility AAFB 2015

Programmed

Unfunded No Update P




7-14


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame


Marianas

Dispersed

Maintenance

Spares & SE

Storage Facility

AAFB 2016 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements RF

N-35 Golden Gate

Services LLC

Golden Gate

Services LLC

Single Family

Homes Yigo 2014

Permit

extended 2013 72 single-family subdivision P

N-36 TRI Inc. TRI Inc. Paradise

Meadows Yigo 2013 Construction 101 housing units P

N-37 GovGuam GDPW Jinapsan Road Jinapsan 2013-2014 Construction

1,630-foot (497-m) road would be

constructed within an undeveloped

GovGuam parcel. The existing

paved Tarague Beach Road would

be extended to Jinapsan Beach.

P

N-38 Guam Healthcare

Development dck Pacific

Guam Regional

Medical City Dededo 2014 Construction

6-story 267,000-square foot (24,805-

square m) 130 bed hospital. P

N-39 Army Army

Terminal High

Altitude Area

Defense

(THAAD)

AAFB 2013 Complete

Temporary deployment of 100

unaccompanied military personnel

to Guam to operate and support

THAAD system; no permanent

facility construction.

P

N-40 Air Force

36 WG of the

Pacific Air

Force

Munitions Storage

Igloos AAFB

Guam

AAFB TBD FONSI

New munitions igloos are required

to enable the 36 WG’s existing

mission and ongoing military

operations. Phase 2 would construct

48 munitions igloos to meet the

same purpose and need.

P

N-41 Vantage Group Vantage Group Villa Pacita

Estates Yigo TBD Construction

Private housing division along Route

15 on west side of Mt. Santa Rosa. P

N-42 GovGuam

Guam

Economic

Development

Authority

Relocation of

Dededo Flea

Market and

Construction of

Farmer’s Co-op

Dededo 2014 Funded, Bids

Sought

New Farmer’s Co-op facility to

include a retail farmers market, dry

and cold storage, feed and material

supply, offices for GovGuam

agencies, slaughterhouse, value-

added kitchen, dining area, flea

market stalls, livestock pens, plant

nursery, public toilets, and parking.

P




7-15


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

N-43 Hawaiian Rock

Products

Hawaiian Rock

Products

Infrastructure

Construction AAFB 2012-2015 Undetermined

Construction, alteration, repair and

maintenance of asphalt concrete

roads, streets, highways, alleys,

parking areas, and their associated

facility on the airfield.

P

N-44 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

North Ramp

Parking Apron AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P


Marianas

Personnel

Protection -

Hardened

Command Post

AAFB 2015 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P

N-46 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

Create Broad Area

Maritime

Surveillance

Capability


N-47 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

POL System

Hardened

Structures



Marianas

Tactical Missile

Maintenance

Facility



Marianas

PRTC RH

Airfield

Operations

AAFB 2014 Programmed Administrative/Storage Facility P


Marianas

PRTC SF Fire

Rescue

Emergency

Management



Marianas

Fuel System

Maintenance.

Hangar, Inc.2


N-52 Air Force AAFB General Purpose

Hangar AAFB 2015 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements RF


Marianas

AGE Covered

Facility AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P




7-16


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame


Marianas

PRTC RH

Logistics Facility AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P


Marianas

PRTC Combat

Communication

Infrastructure

Facility


Guam - Central (C)

C-1 GovGuam GDPW Route 15

Resurfacing Barrigada 2009 Complete Pavement Resurfacing RC

C-2

Access

Development

Company

Access

Development

Company

Talo Verde

Estates Tumon 2009 Complete

Luxury housing community; Single

family dwellings (62) and

Townhouses (82).

RC

C-3 Office of Veterans

Affairs

Office of

Veterans Affairs Veterans Clinic Agana 2009 Complete

The Veterans Clinic would be

located just outside of the Naval

Hospital along Route 7.

RC

C-4 Tanota Partners

(Ysrael family)

Tanota Partners

(Ysrael family)

Hotel

Construction

Bayview 5 Luxury

Project, Tumon

Bay

Tumon 2010 Complete Construction of 400-room, 28-story

hotel in Tumon Bay. RC

C-5 GovGuam GDPW Route 1 U-Turn

Reconstruction Tumon 2009 Complete Roadway Improvement RC

C-6 GovGuam GDPW Route 25 (Alageta

Road) Barrigada 2012 Complete Route 25 (Alageta Road) RC

C-7 DLA NAVFAC

Marianas

Replace Gas

Cylinder Storage

Facility

Andersen

South 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

C-8 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

Naval Hospital

Replacement Asan 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

C-9 GUANG NAVFAC

Marianas

NG Readiness

Center Barrigada 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

C-10 GUANG NAVFAC

Marianas

DRBS Storage

Facility Barrigada 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC




7-17


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

C-11 GUANG NAVFAC

Marianas

Combined

Support

Maintenance

Facility

Barrigada 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

C-12 Tagada Guam

LLC

Tagada Guam

LLC

Amusement Park-

Tumon Tumon - 2011 Complete

Amusement park with rides, food,

and beverage booths. RC

C-13 GovGuam GCC Student Center Mangilao 2011 Complete Student Center at GCC RC

C-14 GovGuam GDPW Route 6

(Murray Rd) Asan 2012 Complete

Route 6A Murray Rd, 9 Maina-

Nimitz Hill, embankment restoration RC

C-15 GovGuam GDPW

Route 16 Guam

Main Facility Post

Office / Army

National Guard

Intersection

Barrigada 2012 Complete

Route 16 Guam Main Facility Post

Office / Army National Guard

Intersection

RC

C-16 GovGuam GDPW Route 8/10/16 Tri-

Intersection Barrigada 2012 Complete Route 8/10/16 Tri-Intersection RC

C-17 GovGuam GCC DNA Forensic

Lab Mangilao 2012 Complete DNA Forensic Lab RC

C-18 GovGuam GCC Foundation

Building Mangilao 2012 Complete Foundation Building at GCC RC

C-19 GovGuam

PAG

Gregorio D. Perez

Dock A & B Steel

Pile Extension &

H20 Blasting

Agana 2012 Complete Gregorio D. Perez Dock A & B

Steel Pile Extension & H20 Blasting RC

C-20 GovGuam GPA Fiber Optic

Installation Tumon 2012 Complete

Installation of a 96-count strand of

cable via an underground conduit

along San Vitores Road stretching

the length of Hotel Row.

RC

C-21 Private

Development

Younex

International

Corp.

Emerald Ocean

View Park Tumon TBD

Stalled

Construction

260 luxury condo unit, 20 villas, two

18-story towers and two 15-story

towers. Stalled due to financial

difficulties.

P

C-22 GovGuam

Guam Memorial

Hospital

Authority

Guam Memorial

Hospital

Emergency Room

Expansion

Tamuning 2014 Construction Triples emergency room capacity. P




7-18


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

C-23 Ordot Dump

Closure GSWA

Ordot Dump

Closure

Construction and

Dero Road Sewer

Improvements

Ordot 2014-2015 Contract

Awarded

The project includes construction of

all temporary and permanent

facilities, erosion controls,

excavation, grading, drainage, fill,

cap system including geosynthetics,

leachate and sewage

collection/conveyance systems,

backup emergency power generator,

electrical, and fencing.

P

C-24 GovGuam GEDA Guam Museum Hagåtña 2014 Construction

Facility will include exhibition

space, garden, outdoor stage,

café/retail space, and administrative

offices.

P

C-25 Laguna at Pago

Bay Resort Fong S. Wu

Upscale

Residential

Development

Pago Bay 2011 21 of 98 lots

sold

48-acre (parcel containing 98 lots.

Roads, three lakes, landscaping and

utility connections including

underground natural gas lines have

been constructed.

RC

C-26

Micronesian Self

Help Housing

Corp

GHURA Sagan Bonita Mangilao 2013 Complete 56 single affordable family homes RC

C-27 Orion

Construction Mark Borja

Island Surgical

Center Dededo 2013 Complete - 3,500-square foot surgical center. P

C-28 GovGuam GHURA

Summer Green

Residences

(formerly Tower

70) Multi-Family

Units

Tamuning 2014 Complete in

2014

72 multi-family affordable housing

units P

C-29 GovGuam GDPW

Route 1-8

Intersection

Improvements &

Agana Bridges

Replacement

Agana 2014 Construction Intersection Improvements &

Bridges Replacement P

C-30 GovGuam GWA Rehabilitation of

Asan Springs Asan 2012

Prioritized for

Funding &

Construction

Rehabilitate/upgrade reservoir,

treatment/chlorination facility,

pump/motors and electrical controls.

RC




7-19


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

C-31 GovGuam GDPW

Route 26/25

Intersection

Improvements

Guam -

Central 2014

Final Design

IFB Sept 2013

Intersection Improvements & Traffic

Signal Activation RF

C-32 UoG UoG Wind Turbine University

Drive 2013 Complete A 70-foot (21.3 m) wind turbine RC

C-33 UoG UoG Field House

Renovation

University

Drive 2012 Construction Field House Renovation RC

C-34

Access

Development

Company

Access

Development

Company

Hemlani

Apartments Tumon 2013 Complete

300-unit apartment complex (behind

Acanta Mall, Tumon Bay). P

C-35 GovGuam

Guam

International

Airport

Authority

Guam Airport

Project

Guam

International

Airport

2009-2029 Ongoing

Various upgrades to airport

property, main terminal, industrial

park, airfield, and south ramp.

RF

C-36 GovGuam GDPW

Route 26

Reconstruction &

Widening, Route

1 to Route 25

Dededo TBD Design

Complete Reconstruction & Widening RF

C-37 GovGuam GDPW

Route 10A,

Rehabilitation &

Widening, Sunset

Blvd. to Route 16

Harmon TBD Design

Complete

Pavement Rehabilitation &

Widening RF

C-38 GovGuam

Guam

International

Airport

Authority

Runway

Rehabilitation and

Expansion

Tamuning 2014 Ongoing

Runway rehabilitation and

expansion from grant via U.S.

Federal Government. Multiple

phases.

P

C-39 GovGuam PAG

Gregorio D. Perez

Marina

Renovation & Site

Improvement

Project

Hagåtña 2012-2014

Prioritized for

Funding &

Construction

Gregorio D. Perez Marina

Renovation & Site Improvement

Project

P

C-40 GovGuam PAG

Gregorio D. Perez

Marina Dock C

Repairs

Hagåtña 2013 Complete Gregorio D. Perez Marina Dock C

Repairs P




7-20


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

C-41 GovGuam GWA

Facilities Plan for

Hagåtña STP

Improvements &

Effluent WWPS

Hagåtña 2012-2014 Complete

At least one additional primary

clarifier of similar size is required to

meet current and future wastewater

capacity and redundancy

requirements. A new effluent pump

station is required for the disposal of

future flows at high tide conditions.

P

C-42 GovGuam GWA

Hagåtña STP

Improvements and

Effluent

Wastewater Pump

Station

Hagåtña 2012-2014 Complete

Provide a new primary clarifier to

meet current and future wastewater

capacity and redundancy

requirements. The new equipment

includes screenings, grit removal

and effluent WWPS sized for

current and future (Year 2015

projected flow).

P

C-43 GovGuam GWA Agana STP

Interim Measures Agana 2013-2014 Construction

Process upgrades to include grit

removal; fat, oil and grease removal;

septic handling facility; prevent back

flow from the new outfall; bio-solids

treatment; and any additional

improvements, rehabilitation or

improvements, such as the use of

chemically enhanced treatment.

P

C-44 Defense Logistics

Agency-Energy

NAVFAC

Marianas

Upgrade Fuel

Pipeline Central Guam 2013-2015

Planning and

Programming

Phase

Infrastructure improvements to fuel

pumps and pipelines that extend

from the Sasa Valley Fuel Farm to

AAFB. Project includes a new 15.7-

mile (25.3 km) pipeline that is

parallel and adjacent to existing

pipeline and located within an

existing 10-foot (3-m) wide

easement.

P




7-21


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

C-45 GUANG NAVFAC

Marianas Assembly Hall Barrigada 2013 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P

C-46 GovGuam GDPW

Route 8/Canada

Toto Loop Road

Intersection

Improvements

Tamuning 2015 Design Traffic Signal Installation P

C-47 Guam Highlands

Investment Group

Guam

Highlands

Investment

Group

Sigua Highlands /

near Leopalace Yona 2014-2034

Zoning Permit

Pending 5,000 home subdivision RF

C-48 GovGuam GDPW Tiyan Parkway,

Phase 1 Tiyan 2015 Design New Arterial Highway P

C-49 GovGuam GDPW

Route 14B (Ypao

Road)

Reconstruction &

Widening, Route

1 to Route 14

Tamuning 2015 Design Reconstruction & Widening P

C-50 GovGuam GDPW

Route 10A, Route

1 GIA/Tiyan

Intersection

Tiyan 2016 Design Reconstruction & Widening RF

C-51 GovGuam GDPW Route 7A

Rehabilitation Tamuning 2012 Complete

Reconstruction & Drainage

Improvements RC

C-52 GovGuam GDPW

Route 4,

McDonalds to

Route 10

Chalan Pago 2013 Complete Pavement Resurfacing RC

C-53 GovGuam GDPW

Finegayan Road

Reconstruction-

Harmon Cutoff

Dededo TBD Design Finegayan Road Reconstruction RF

Guam - Central Apra Harbor (AH)

AH-1 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

Orote Magazines

(P-425) Navy Base 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P

AH-2 GovGuam GovGuam and

the DON

Reforestation of

Masso Reservoir

Masso

Reservoir TBD Ongoing

The reforestation plan was

developed as a mitigation project for

coral reef loss in Apra Harbor

P




7-22


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

AH-3 GovGuam GDPW

Masso River

Bridge

Embankment

Masso River 2011 Complete Masso River Bridge Embankment

Stabilization RC

AH-4 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

Kilo Wharf

Extension (P-502) Navy Base 2009-2013 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

AH-5 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

CSS-15 HQ

Facility Navy Base 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

AH-6 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

Replace Family

Housing Units Navy Base 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

AH-7 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

NEX Minimart

and Gas Station Navy Base 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC

AH-8 GovGuam GDPW

Route 11

Improvements and

Shore protection

Commercial

Port 2013 Complete Roadway Improvements P

AH-9 GovGuam GDPW

Asan and Aguada

Bridges

Rehabilitation

Asan TBD Design Two bridges’ Rehabilitation RF

AH-

10 CNM DON

X-Ray Wharf

Improvements (P-

518)

Navy Base 2015 Unfunded

Waterfront improvements to

accommodate the new T-AKE

supply ship and utility upgrades to

meet wharf requirements. Includes

construction and dredging at the

southern portion of Inner Apra

Harbor to -35 feet.

RF

AH-

11 GovGuam PAG

Modernization

Program: Port

Reconfiguration,

Maintenance and

Repair

Commercial

Port 2010-2016

Construction

Ongoing

Three phases. Productivity and

efficiency improvements such as

new equipment, systems, and

buildings, and terminal

modernization and new yard

capacity. Includes demolition of

buildings, new utilities, paving,

lighting, cargo handling equipment,

stormwater outfalls into Apra

Harbor, and security systems.

P




7-23


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

AH-

12 GovGuam PAG

Comprehensive

Port-wide Closed

Circuit Television

System

Commercial

Port 2013-2014 Ongoing

Comprehensive Port-wide Closed

Caption Television Systems P

AH-

13 GovGuam PAG

Marine & Port

Security

Operations Center

Commercial


Construction of Marine & Port

Security Operations Center P

AH-

14 GovGuam PAG

Emergency

Backup

Generators

Commercial


Installation of Emergency Backup

Generators P

AH-

15 GovGuam PAG

Load Center 4

Building Roof

Repair

Commercial

Port 2012

Prioritized for

Funding &

Construction

Load Center 4 Building Roof Repair RC

AH-

16 GovGuam PAG

Construction of

Golf Pier Pipeline

Replacement

Commercial

Port 2012

Prioritized for

Funding &

Construction

Construction of Golf Pier Pipeline

Replacement RC

AH-

17 GovGuam GPA

Redesign of

Existing Outdoor

Substation

Commercial

Port 2012

Prioritized for

Funding &

Construction

Redesign of existing outdoor

substation to indoor type. Includes

transformer connections to existing

diesel plant.

RC

AH-

18 GovGuam GPA

Substation

Transformer

Upgrade with

Concrete Fence

Commercial

Port 2012

Prioritized for

Funding &

Construction

Substation transformer upgrade w/

concrete fence RC

AH-

19 DON

NAVFAC

Marianas

Whole House

Revitalization I Navy Base 2015

Contract

awarded Infrastructure Improvements P

AH-

20 DON

NAVFAC

Marianas

Whole House

Revitalization II Navy Base 2015

Contractors

Bidding Infrastructure Improvements P

AH-

21 DON

NAVFAC

Marianas

Romeo Wharf

Improvements Navy Base 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P

AH-

22 DON

NAVFAC

Marianas

Emergent Repair

Facility

Expansion (P-

566)

Navy Base 2014 Programmed

Unfunded Infrastructure Improvements P




7-24


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

AH-

23 DON

NAVFAC

Marianas

Dehumidified

Supply Storage

Facility

Navy Base 2014 Programmed

Unfunded Infrastructure Improvements P

Guam - South (S)

S-1 GovGuam GDPW Route 2 - Culverts

and Slide Repair Umatac 2012 Complete Route 2 - Culverts and Slide Repair RC

S-2 GovGuam GDPW

Talofofo / Togcha

Bridge

Rehabilitation

Talofofo 2012 Complete Talofofo / Togcha Bridge

Rehabilitation RC

S-3 GovGuam GDPW Layon Landfill,

Dandan Dandan 2011 Complete

Development of a municipal

integrated solid waste landfill

facility and transfer stations that

involves construction and operation

for diversion, recycling, composting,

and processing.

P

S-4 GovGuam GPA 15 MW Solar /

Wind turbine Talofofo 2013

Contract

approved

15 MW solar / wind turbine farm to

help power 2,200 homes P

S-5 GovGuam GWA

Santa Rita Springs

Booster Pump

Rehabilitation,

Phase II

Santa Rita 2014 Construction

Construction is nearing completion.

The project now requires completion

of incidental work related to the

spring impound and facility function

controls. It is the intent of this

Capital Improvement Plan project to

be “transitioned” into a project

where work is required to address

the GEPA-pending action related to

“GWUDI.”

P

S-6 GovGuam GWA

Ugum Water

Treatment Plant

Refurbishment

Ugum 2012 Construction

Refurbish Ugum Treatment Plant to

convert the existing conventional

surface water plant to a micro-

filtration system; replace electrical

control systems and finished water

pumps; install supervisory control

and data acquisition equipment; and

refurbish the backwash waste

handling system.

RC




7-25


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

S-7 GovGuam GWA Brigade II (Ugum)

BPS Upgrade Ugum 2013 Construction

A new Brigade II booster pump

station is required to fully utilize the

surface supply from the south or the

Ugum Treatment Plant. It will serve

both the Windward Hills and the

Pulantat Reservoirs. About 1,100

feet (335 m) of pipe is required.

P

S-8 GovGuam GWA

Ugum Water

Treatment Plant

Intake

Modifications


This project will improve the intake

structure of the Ugum Water

Treatment Plant to minimize

siltation and provide more reliable

raw water supply during low river

flow conditions.

P

S-9 GovGuam GWA

Ugum Water

Treatment Plant

Reservoir

Replacement


This project will provide a new 2-

MG finished water reservoir at the

Ugum Water Treatment Plant. The

reservoirs will be the sole source of

finished water for most of the

Southern Water System.

P

S-10 GovGuam GWA

Old Agat

Wastewater

Collection (Phase

II)

Agat 2012-2016 Construction

This project will replace a portion of

6.2 miles (10 km) of existing

wastewater collection line including

manholes and sewer service laterals

in the Agat collection system. The

replacement sewer lines will be

connected to the mainline along

Route 2A at Tomas Mesa Street.

P

S-11 GovGuam GWA

Umatac-Merizo

STP

Improvements

Merizo 2012 Complete

Installation of high efficiency

motors, efficiency aerator, new

valves, and dredging of the lagoon.

RC




7-26


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

S-12 GovGuam GWA

Old Agat

Collection

Continuation

(Phase III)

Agat 2012-2016 Construction

This project will replace a portion of

6.2 miles (10 km) of existing

wastewater collection line including

manholes and sewer service laterals

in the Agat collection system. The

replacement sewer lines will be

connected to the mainline along

Route 2A at Tomas Mesa Street.

P

S-13 GovGuam GWA

Facilities Plan /

Design / Interim

for Baza Gardens

STP

Improvements

Talofofo 2013 Complete

This project includes interim

improvements at the wastewater

treatment facility to meet permit

conditions.

RC

S-14 GovGuam GWA Baza Gardens

STP Replacement Talofofo 2012-2015 Construction

Construction of new wastewater

treatment facilities that will meet

NPDES permit treatment limits.

P

S-15 GovGuam GWA Agat / Santa Rita

STP Replacement Agat 2012-2016 Construction



NPDES permit treatment limits. The

new facilities will incorporate

provisions for redundancy to

improve reliability and facilitate

operations and maintenance

activities at the existing facility.

P

S-16 GovGuam PAG

Agat Marina Dock

A Repair &

Renovation

Agat 2013-2014

Prioritized for

Funding &

Construction

Agat Marina Dock A Repair &

Renovation P

S-17 GovGuam GWA

Facilities Plan /

Design / Interim

for the Umatac-

Merizo STP

Umatac 2012-2013

Prioritized for

Funding &

Construction

Phase 1 of this project is a facility

planning to meet permit conditions;

phase 2 is the design of the interim

improvements. Planning and design

for interim improvements such as

new mechanically cleaned bar

screen facilities to improve

reliability and facilitate operations

and maintenance requirements.

RC




7-27


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

S-18 GovGuam GWA Umatac-Merizo

STP Replacement Umatac 2016 Design



NPDES permit treatment

requirements. The new facilities will

incorporate provisions for

redundancy to improve reliability

and facilitate operations and

maintenance activities at the existing

facility.

RF

S-19 GovGuam GDPW Agfayan Bridge

Replacement

Agfayan

Bridge 2015 Construction Bridge Replacement P

S-20 GovGuam GDPW

Route 4, Togcha

River to Ipan

Beach Park

Yona-Talofofo 2014 Contract

Pending Pavement Resurfacing P

S-21 GovGuam GDPW

Route 17, Route 5

to Chalan Tun

Ramon Baza,

Phase 2A

Santa Rita 2015 Contract

Pending

Replace Drainage Culverts &

Pavement Spot Repairs P

S-22 GovGuam GDPW

Inarajan North

Leg (As-Misa)

Bridge

Rehabilitation

Inarajan 2014 Construction Bridge Scour Repair P

S-23 GovGuam GDPW

Bile & Pigua

Bridges

Replacement

Merizo 2014 Construction Bridges Replacement P

S-24 GovGuam GDPW Ajayan Bridge

Replacement Merizo 2015 Design Bridge Replacement P

S-25 GovGuam GDPW

Route 4, Merizo

Bridge Approach

Restoration

Merizo 2014 Construction Repair Bridge Approach &

Roadway Embankment P

S-26 GovGuam GDPW Aplacho Bridge

Replacement Santa Rita 2014-2016 Design Bridge Replacement P

S-27 GovGuam GDPW

Route 17

Rehabilitation &

Widening, Route

5 to Route 4A,

Phase 2B

Yona TBD Design Pavement Rehabilitation &

Widening RF




7-28


ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent

Contracting

Authority

Project Name /

Location

Area of

Interest

Construction


Time

frame

S-28 GovGuam GDPW

Route 4 Curve

Widening, Ylig

Bridge to Dandan

Road

Talofofo TBD Pending

Approval Pavement Widening RF

S-29 GovGuam GDPW

Route 5

Rehabilitation &

Widening, Route

2A to Route 12

Santa Rita TBD Design Pavement Rehabilitation &

Widening RF

S-30 GovGuam GDPW

Route 17

Rehabilitation and

Widening, Route

4 to Chalan Tun

Ramon Baza

Yona 2013 Complete Route 17 Rehabilitation and

Widening RC

S-31 GovGuam GDPW

Route 4, Ylig

Bridge to Pago

Bay and Ylig

Bridge

Replacement

Yona 2013 Construction Pavement Resurfacing P

S-32 GovGuam GDPW

Route 17

Drainage Culverts

and Rehabilitation

Santa Rita TBD Design Culvert repair and roadway

resurfacing (2 projects) RF

S-33 GovGuam GDPW Taleyfak Bridge

Restoration Agat 2013 Complete Restore Bridge RC

S-34 GovGuam GDPW

Tanaga Bridge

Permanent

Restoration

Inarajan 2009 Complete Restore Bridge RC

S-35 DON NAVFAC

Marianas

Cetti Bay

Reforestation Agat TBD Ongoing

Reforestation project as mitigation

for Kilo Wharf extension project. P

Figure 7.5-1Recently Completed, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects on Guam (North)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!"1

!"15

!"16

!"9

!"3

!"3A

P h i l i p p i n e S e a

P a c i f i c O c e a n

NWF

AAFB

Finegayan

Andersen South

N-24

N-41

N-11

SouthFinegayan

N-35N-36

N-42

N-8

N-29

N-16

N-2

N-40N-27

N-28

N-25

N-26

N-10

N-1

N-30

N-39

N-17

N-31

N-38

N-51, N-52

N-32

N-37

N-43

N-33, N-49, N-50,N-54, N-55

N-15

N-4

N-12N-13

N-18

N-19

N-23

N-3

N-7

N-14

N-53

N-5 N-22

N-21

N-6

N-20 N-44

N-45

N-34N-9

¤

LegendDoD Property

!Approximate Project Location(SeeTable 7.5-1 for project details)2010 ROD Related Action (see Figure 1.3-1 for detail)

SEIS Actions:Water Well Development Area and School Expansion

LFTRC Alternatives:Route 15 (Alt 1)NWF (Alt 5)Stand-alone HG Range (All LFTRC Alts)

Cantonment/Family Housing Alternatives:Finegayan (Alt A)South Finegayan (Alt B)AAFB (Alt C)Barrigada (Alt D)

Source: NAVFAC Pacific 2013c

0 1 2Miles

0 1 2Kilometers



Area of Detailon Guam

1 " = 18 Miles

Notes: N-46, N-47, N-48 are not shown.IT/COMM lines not shown

(see Figures 2.6-1 through 2.6-5 for detail).

7-29

Figure 7.5-2Recently Completed, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects on Guam (Central)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!!!

!

!

!

!! !

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

Andersen South



Barrigada

!"15

!"10

!"4

!"8!"1

!"1

!"16

C-43

C-24

C-14

C-28

C-27

C-22C-2

C-35

C-26

C-53

C-4

C-21

C-23

C-6

C-34

C-12

C-25

C-13

C-16

C-18

C-17

C-33C-32C-47

C-20

C-39

C-19

C-40

C-41C-42

C-38

C-31

C-15

C-8 C-9C-10, C-11, C-45

C-7

C-29C-36

C-1

C-30

C-52

C-51 C-48

C-46

C-5

C-49

C-50C-37

C-3

C-44

¤




1 " = 18 Miles

LegendDoD Property

!Approximate Project Location(SeeTable 7.5-1 for project details)

SEIS Actions: LFTRC Alternatives:

Route 15 (Alt 1)Stand-alone HG Range (All LFTRC Alts)

Cantonment/Family Housing Alternatives:Barrigada (Alt D)


0 1 2Miles

0 1 2Kilometers

Note: IT/COMM lines not shown (see Figures 2.6-1 through 2.6-5 for detail).

7-30

Figure 7.5-3Recently Completed, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects on Guam (Apra)

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!


!"5!"2

!"17

!"1

!"1

!"2A

!"6

!"5

O u t e r A p r a H a r b o r


S a s a B a y

I n n e rA p r a

H a r b o r

AH-9

AH-8

AH-17

AH-1

AH-16

AH-4

AH-2

AH-18

AH-3

AH-13

AH-10

AH-11

AH-19

AH-5

AH-6

AH-7

AH-22

AH-23

AH-21AH-20

AH-14, AH-15

AH-12

¤




1 " = 18 Miles

LegendDoD Property

!Approximate Project Location(SeeTable 7.5-1 for project details)2010 ROD Related Action (see Figure 1.3-1 for detail)


0 0.5 1Miles

0 0.5 1Kilometers


7-31

Figure 7.5-4Recently Completed, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects on Guam (South)

!

!

!!

!!!

!!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!! !

!

!!!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!


NAVMAG

!"17

!"1

!"2A

!"6

!"4A

P h i l i p p i n e S e a!"2

!"4 !"4

!"4

S-34

S-32

S-3

S-2, S-28

S-5

S-10

S-13

S-14

S-16

S-18S-17S-11

S-6

S-1

S-27S-31S-30

S-20S-33

S-22S-19

S-24S-25

S-23

S-29

S-26

S-21

S-4

S-7

S-8

S-9

S-35

S-12

S-15

¤




1 " = 18 Miles

LegendDoD Property

!Approximate Project Location(SeeTable 7.5-1 for project details)

SEIS Actions:LFTRC Alternatives:

NAVMAG (East/West) (Alt 2)NAVMAG (North/South) (Alt 3)NAVMAG (L-Shaped) (Alt 4)2010 ROD Related Action (see Figure 1.3-1 for detail)


0 1 2Miles

0 1 2Kilometers


7-32



7-33

As shown on Figure 7.5-1, the majority of the projects in the northern area of Guam are on AAFB and

very few in the civilian community. The proposed action includes cantonment/family housing alternatives

on Finegayan and AAFB, LFTRC alternatives at NWF and east of Andersen South, and school and water

well field expansions on AAFB. IT/COMM alternatives associated with the proposed cantonment/family

housing and LFTRC alternatives are aligned along existing roadways. The 2010 ROD-Related Actions

are the non-live fire training at Andersen South and the Air Combat Element of the Marine Corps at

AAFB. No reasonably foreseeable civilian projects would be precluded by any of the collective action

alternatives in the northern part of Guam.

The collective action alternatives in central Guam include the following (see Figure 7.5-2): a

cantonment/family housing alternative at Barrigada, an LFTRC alternative east of Andersen South and

non-live fire training at Andersen South as a 2010 ROD-Related Action. A HG Range is also proposed at

Andersen South. There are IT/COMM alternatives associated with the LFTRC and cantonment/family

housing alternatives in the area. Non-DoD projects unrelated to the collective action alternatives include

roadway improvement projects that are distributed throughout the area, and projects near the airport and

in Tumon. No reasonably foreseeable civilian projects would be precluded by any of the collective action

alternatives in the central part of Guam; however, there a few current land uses that would be

discontinued.

The Apra Harbor area (see Figure 7.5-3) includes the waterfront improvement projects of the 2010 ROD-

Related Actions. There are no cantonment/family housing or LFTRC alternatives in the Apra Harbor area;

however, there are IT/COMM alignment alternatives that would be aligned along existing roadways (not

shown on Figure 7.5-3) in the vicinity of Apra Harbor. No reasonably foreseeable civilian projects would

be precluded by any of the collective action alternatives in the Apra Harbor area of Guam.

As shown on Figure 7.5-4, the majority of projects proposed in the southern region of Guam are

GovGuam roadway and bridge improvements. The collective action alternatives include various LFTRC

configurations associated with NAVMAG. In addition, there would be IT/COMM alignments proposed in

the area to support these collective action alternatives. The non-DoD projects are primarily infrastructure

improvement projects. No reasonably foreseeable civilian projects would be precluded by any of the

collective action alternatives in the southern part of Guam.

The projects that are Guam-wide or not mapped are proposed by GovGuam and consist primarily of

infrastructure projects. In some cases, the project site has not been determined. The remaining Guam-

wide projects would not be precluded by the collective action alternatives.

The 2010 Final EIS (Volume 7, Chapter 4.3: Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable

Future Actions, pages 4-24 to 4-25) provides additional detail for some of the larger projects, including

the Commercial Port Modernization; Pacific Airpower Resiliency, AAFB (formerly known as

Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike capability); and Mariana Islands Range Complex

MIRC. These descriptions are unchanged.

There were a number of workforce housing projects proposed in anticipation of the H-2B workers that

would be brought on-island to support the military relocation as proposed in the 2010 Final EIS, but most

of these projects were not constructed or were developed for alternative uses when the construction

projects did not materialize. The following sections provide more detail on workforce housing, the DoD

Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT), and DoD Actions that are not relevant to this SEIS.



7-34

7.5.1 Workforce Housing Update

Section 4.1.15 of this SEIS provides a summary of the workforce housing projects. In summary, there

was workforce housing to accommodate an estimated 3,700 workers in 2009. Most were located at

Harmon Industrial Park. Subsequent to 2009, workforce housing projects were approved or pending

approval for an additional capacity of 26,500 workers. Most of these projects were never completed or

were converted to rental units. The largest proposal, Ukudu Work Force Village, was initially proposed

for 18,000 workers by Younex. A capacity of 1,800 workers was approved and under Phase I of

construction, 500 units have been constructed. Phase II would require Younex to fund off-site utility

improvements to support the worker population per a Guam Waterworks Association permit condition.

There have been some short-term uses of the units for student housing; however, the units are generally

vacant.

7.5.2 Mariana Islands Testing and Training

The MITT (project G-23 on Table 7.5-1) is proposed by the U.S Pacific Fleet. An EIS/OEIS is being

prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with maintaining military readiness

training and research, development, testing, and evaluation activities conducted in the MITT study area.

The MITT EIS/OEIS is a follow-on study to the MIRC EIS/OEIS, the ROD of which was published in

July 2010. The MIRC EIS/OEIS preferred alternative is part of the existing training capability in the

MITT EIS/OEIS. The Draft EIS/OEIS was published in September 2013 (NAVFAC Pacific 2013a).

The MITT study area includes the existing MIRC, additional areas on the high seas, and a general transit

corridor between Hawaii and MITT where training and testing activities may occur. The MIRC is the

only major DON range complex in the MITT study area. The EIS/OEIS supports the renewal of current

regulatory permits and authorizations, addresses current training and testing not covered under existing

permits and authorizations, and identifies those permits and authorizations necessary to support force

structure changes and emerging and future training and testing requirements including those associated

with new platforms and weapons systems within the MITT study area, starting in 2015, thereby ensuring

critical DoD requirements are met. The MITT study area is predominantly ocean and Guam represents a

small part of the total area. Increased training tempo is proposed for the submerged lands that underlie

warning area W-517 located south of Guam and small arms firing areas are proposed west of Agat Bay

and the Haputo Point area. These proposed actions would restrict public access for recreation during

training events. The resource areas addressed in the impact analysis are as follows:

Sediments and Water Quality

Air Quality

Marine Habitats

Marine Mammals*

Sea Turtles*

Marine Birds

Marine Vegetation

Marine Invertebrates

Fish

Terrestrial Species and Habitats*

Cultural Resources

Socioeconomic Resources

Public Health and Safety



7-35

The resources listed above with an asterisk (*) were the primary resources of concern for the cumulative

impact analysis. Implementation of the identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions

would result in significant impacts to these resources; however, the contribution of the specific MITT

EIS/OEIS no-action and preferred alternatives to the cumulative effects would be low. For example, the

impacts of the MITT proposed action on marine mammal and sea turtles were deemed to be minor

relative to the mortality or injury due to by catch, commercial ship strikes, entanglement, and ocean

pollution. The MITT EIS/OEIS conclusions were not limited to Guam, but encompassed the entire MITT

study area. Some characteristics relevant to Guam are summarized below for the two resource areas

addressed in detail in the cumulative impact analysis that are relevant to this SEIS.

Sea Turtles: Five species of sea turtles are identified in the MITT study area and the proposed action

“may effect, is likely to adversely affect” all five species. No nesting of sea turtles was identified in the

study area. Hawksbill turtles are observed around Guam but there are no areas of concentrated

occurrence. Green turtles are known to forage around Guam. The MITT proposed action was described as

not decreasing the overall fitness of any given population.

Terrestrial Species and Habitats: Conclusions relevant to terrestrial biology include: a) AAFB proposed

training is likely to impact Mariana fruit bat, Mariana crow (extirpated), non-ESA listed forest birds, (e.g.,

Micronesian starling); b) Fena Reservoir training is likely to impact Mariana fruit bat, Mariana common

moorhen, Mariana swiftlet, and non-ESA listed forest birds; and c) proposed NMS (referred to as

NAVMAG in this SEIS) training is likely to impact Mariana swiftlet, Mariana common moorhen,

Mariana fruit bat, vegetation communities, and non-ESA listed forest birds (e.g., yellow bittern). There

would be no impact to critical habitat within the Ritidian Unit of the Guam NWR. The EIS/OEIS

concludes “although potential impacts on certain bird species from the proposed action could include

injury or mortality, impacts are not expected to decrease the overall fitness or result in long-term

population-level impacts of any given population”(NAVFAC Pacific 2013a).

7.5.3 Mariana Islands Range Complex Airspace

The MIRC Airspace Final Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment (“MIRC

EA/Overseas EA”) was published in June 2013 (NAVFAC Pacific 2013b). The document was prepared

to specifically address proposed modifications to airspace and sea space within the MIRC. The action

alternatives propose expansion of the danger zone and restricted area around Farallon de Medinilla, and

creating new airspace warning areas south of Guam and northeast of Saipan. The level of training and

testing activities that would occur within the airspace and sea space would remain the same as those

assessed in the MIRC EA/Overseas EA’s Finding of No Significant Impact, which was published June

15, 2013. The preferred alternative included: extend Restricted Area R-7201 and danger zone at Farallon

de Medinilla to 12 nautical miles (22 km) and designate it as R-7201A; and create new warning areas W-

11, W-12, and W-13 to replace ATCAAs 1, 2, and 3. Warning areas W-11 and W-12 are south of Guam

and ATCAA 6 that overlies Guam would not be affected by the proposed action.

The four resource areas assessed for direct and indirect impacts were: public health and safety;

transportation resources; regional economy; and recreation, and no significant impacts were identified.

Based on the MIRC EIS/OEIS cumulative impact analysis and direct impact analysis in the EA/Overseas

EA, no cumulative impacts were identified.



7-36

7.5.4 Other DoD Actions Outside of the Study Area

There are DoD actions that are not included in the cumulative effect assessment because they are located

outside of the cumulative effect study area(s). NEPA documents were or are being prepared for the

following actions:

Divert Activities and Exercises EIS (Air Force)

CNMI Joint Military Training EIS/OEIS (U.S. Pacific Command)

7.6 STEP 6: ASSESS CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

The assessment of cumulative effects was conducted in two steps as follows:

Step 6A: Assess the potential long-term impacts among the recently completed, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future projects.

Step 6B: Conduct a cumulative impact analysis of recently completed, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future projects in conjunction with collective action alternatives.

7.6.1 Step 6A: Assess the Potential Long-term Impact of Recently Completed, Present, and

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects

Step 6A assesses the potential for each of the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future projects listed in Table 7.5-1 to have a long-term adverse or beneficial impact on each resource.

The resource impacts for each individual project were presumably considered at the time of their

approval. BMPs and permit conditions were presumably implemented to negate adverse impacts to

resources. The assessment was necessarily qualitative because of the limited amount of information

available for most of the projects. The potential impact of each project on each resource was estimated to

be either: adverse, beneficial, or negligible for each resource category. Where projects had both beneficial

and adverse aspects regarding impacts within a particular resource category, the predominant long-term

impacts were considered. When reviewing project-specific data, the following assumptions were made to

guide the assignment of adverse and beneficial impacts:

Geological and Soil Resources:

o Implementation of BMPs would minimize construction impacts and there would not be long-

term impacts to geological and soil resources due to construction projects.

o For DoD projects, BMPs and DoD regulations would be fully implemented.

o On DoD lands, sinkholes would be avoided and appropriate vegetative and/or physical

buffers placed to minimize the potential to adversely impact these resources.

o For non-DoD projects, erosion control plans would be developed and fully implemented, as

required by GovGuam.

o Bank stabilization, erosion mitigation projects, bridge and roadway repairs would have long

term beneficial impacts on soils.

o Some changes in land use may result in permanent long-term reductions in soil loss and

sedimentation of nearby surface waters and wetlands, yielding a beneficial impact; however,

project specific information often was not available to make this determination.

o Large-scale development projects would have an adverse impact on topography.



7-37

Water Resources:

o Implementation of site-specific SWPPPs and associated stormwater BMPs would minimize

construction impacts and there would be no long-term impacts to water resources due to

construction projects.

o The USGS numerical groundwater model used to manage the NGLA and the GWRDG

(comprised of agencies and other stakeholders) serve to protect water resources.

o New building construction projects would result in an increase in impervious surfaces that

would increase stormwater runoff volume and pollutant loading potential.

o Implementation of LID measures and BMPs for compliance with local and federal

requirements would minimize potential impacts to downstream development, sensitive water

resources, and ecology.

o Unless project information indicated the presence of wetlands, it was assumed none were or

would be affected, directly or indirectly.

o Any improvements to wastewater or potable water infrastructure would have a beneficial

impact on water resources.

o Municipal landfills are heavily regulated and managed to protect water. The assumption is

new landfills would not impact water resources.

Air Quality:

o Induced traffic or use of fuel-powered stationary equipment associated with operation of a

project would have an adverse impact, especially if the project is located within the non-

attainment areas.

o Impacts due to construction would not be long-term impacts on the resource.

o Power generation based on fossil fuels would adversely impact air quality.

o Roadway improvement projects would not increase the long-term adverse impacts on air

quality, but new roadways, intersections and associated new traffic would impact air quality.

Noise:

o Projects such as airfield operations, aviation training, ground-based training, and/or traffic

have the potential to generate operational noise levels that may be incompatible with human

activity in the vicinity. The impact would be localized.

Airspace:

o Airport or airfield improvements reflect a planned increase in air traffic with potential

adverse impact on airspace.

o Tall facilities that are subject to FAA approval regarding air navigation safety would have an

adverse impact.

Land and Submerged Land Use:

o Projects on DoD land are consistent with base planning.

o All off-base projects were approved by GovGuam elected officials, commissions or agencies;

therefore, they are consistent with land use policies and objectives.

o Some land uses may be consistent with planning principles but may have siting challenges,

such as landfills, power stations, hospitals, and wind turbines. These projects would have an

adverse impact.

o Projects that may restrict public access to a community-valued resource would have an

adverse impact.



7-38

Recreational Resources:

o Projects that create new recreational facilities, such as a new hotel with a golf course, would

have a beneficial impact because they expand leisure opportunities and would reduce

crowding at other facilities.

o Projects that are population inducing would increase the number of potential users of

recreational sites. This is not an adverse impact unless it would lead to overcrowding that

exceeds the site’s carrying capacity and enjoyment; however, that level of detail for the

projects listed is not available. All population inducing projects would adversely impact

recreation assets. Projects that would adversely impact recreational resources include, new

subdivisions or workforce housing, new hotels, and new or expanded military missions.

Terrestrial Biological Resources:

o Loss or conversion of native habitat would reduce the potential recovery and survival of

ESA-listed species creating an adverse impact.

o Restoration or enhancement of degraded habitat would increase the potential for native

species recovery and survival, particularly ESA- and Guam-listed species, and would have a

beneficial impact.

o Reductions and management activities (i.e., fencing, removal) of invasive species and/or feral

ungulates or their access to habitat would have a beneficial impact.

o Projects involving ground disturbance, such as construction of housing or new and widened

roadways, would contribute to an adverse cumulative effect. Projects that are renovations or

improvements to existing facilities within the existing facility footprint would have no impact

on terrestrial biological resources, such as resurfacing a roadway.

Marine Biological Resources:

o Stormwater and erosion control BMPs would be implemented for all inland projects. There

would be minimal direct impact of a cumulative project to the marine environment.

o LID measures, described in Section 4.1.2.2 of this SEIS, would be implemented in

accordance with the DoD UFC LID (UFC 3-210-10) and Section 438 of the EISA, and would

minimize potential impacts to downstream development, sensitive water resources, and

ecology.

o Coastal or nearshore development would have an adverse direct or indirect impact.

o Development on streams or rivers that flow to the ocean would have an adverse impact;

however, projects that appear to be corrective actions would have a beneficial impact on the

resource.

o Wastewater improvement projects would have a beneficial impact on the resource.

o Population growth-inducing projects would have an adverse impact through recreational

pressure and increase demand on wastewater infrastructure. Residential development projects

and resort projects would imply an increase in on-island permanent or transient population.

o Changes to submerged land use that would adversely impact species recovery would be an

adverse impact.

Cultural Resources:

o Projects that result in adverse effects to historic properties can lead to a cumulative loss of the

archaeological and built-historical record that could contribute to an adverse cumulative

impact

o Projects that damage culturally important natural resources can lead to an adverse cumulative

impact



7-39

o Projects that lead to reduced access to cultural sites can lead to an adverse cumulative impact.

Visual Resources:

o Large new construction that potentially impacts scenic views or vistas would have an adverse

impact.

o Loss of open space is not assumed to be an adverse impact, but large-scale projects would

alter the familiar landscape and are potentially adverse.

o Development on campuses or military bases would not have a visual impact because base

planners have reviewed the plans. The exception is projects that are identified as being on the

perimeter of a multi-building development.

o Landfills, wind turbines and other large infrastructure projects would have adverse visual

impacts.

o Restoration of open space or reforestation would have beneficial impacts.

Ground Transportation:

o A project that causes LOS to change from acceptable operating conditions to unacceptable

conditions (i.e., from LOS A, B, C, D, or E, to LOS F) would contribute to the adverse

impact.

o The following types of projects contribute to deteriorating LOS: new housing projects; public

and institutional facilities such power plants, health clinics, and schools; hotel and tourism-

related structures; and projects in existing congested areas.

o Road improvement projects would provide a beneficial cumulative effect on traffic LOS.

Marine Transportation:

o Projects that repair existing port facilities would have a beneficial impact because it is

assumed it would allow the facility to operate more effectively or efficiently thereby

increasing capacity.

o Projects that expand port capacity, directly or indirectly, would have a beneficial impact.

o More vessels do not equate to an adverse impact. If demand exceeds capacity to

accommodate vessels, market forces or government action would respond accordingly.

o Projects that facilitate an increase in on-island population would have an adverse impact on

marine transportation.

Utilities:

o New development is subject to GovGuam agency building permit review. Projects would not

be approved unless their utility requirements can be met.

o Recently completed and present projects would have already been approved or conditionally

approved. The utility capacity to support the projects was presumably deemed adequate.

o Recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable utility improvement projects would

be beneficial impacts.

o Reasonably foreseeable population inducing plans or programs would have an indirect

adverse impact on utility capacity The Utilities direct and indirect impact analysis on

infrastructure capacity addresses population growth and planned DoD projects through 2028;

therefore, there may be an overestimate of the potential for cumulative impact on utilities in

this chapter.

Socioeconomics and General Services:

o A project is considered to have an adverse cumulative effect if: it has the potential to add 2%

or more at any point in time to expected population or economic levels; it would cause



7-40

substantial increases in staffing, new or physically altered facilities, and/or

equipment/vehicles; or it affects public safety or order.

o Projects that preserve or enhance the social fabric would have a beneficial cumulative effect.

o The following types of projects would provide a beneficial cumulative effect: housing

projects; public and institutional facilities such power plants, health clinics, and schools; and

hotel and tourism-related structures.

Hazardous Materials and Waste:

o Hazardous material, hazardous waste and POL storage, use and transport are heavily

regulated; therefore, most recent, present of future development projects would not have a

significant adverse impact on hazardous material management.

o Projects that would introduce a new type of material requiring special handling or on Guam

would result in a potential adverse impact.

o New industrial uses or relocation of industrial uses would have an adverse impact.

o Remedial actions or repair of storage facilities would have a beneficial impact.

o Demolition projects may generate lead, asbestos or PCB waste resulting in an increase in the

quantity of these materials to be managed on island. This would be a potential adverse impact

for non-DoD projects. DoD has sufficient demolition waste capacity and regulated; therefore,

no impact would result from DoD demolition projects.

o Projects that characterize potentially contaminated sites would have a beneficial impact

because the site would be better managed with this information.

o Projects that would increase the volume of hazardous material or POL transported to/on

Guam or the amount of waste to be managed would have an adverse impact.

Public Health and Safety:

o Projects that would adversely affect regional traffic, noise, and water quality.

o Projects that would result in a perception that increasing the military presence on Guam

causes the island to be a more likely target for terrorist threat.

o Projects that would subject the public to increased or decreased risk of contracting a disease

or experiencing personal injury.

o Projects with the potential to increase or decrease the occurrence of notifiable diseases would

result resulting in an adverse impact to Guam health care services.

o The following types of projects provide a beneficial cumulative effect: road, power, sewer,

water infrastructure improvements, and hospitals and clinics.

Environmental Justice and the Protection of Children:

o Non-luxury housing projects and resorts would provide a beneficial cumulative effect for the

low-income population by increasing the total supply of housing and creating additional, non-

specialized jobs.

o Projects that improve public services and infrastructure would have a beneficial impact.

o Renovation/remodeling projects on military bases would not impact environmental justice

populations, but growth-inducing mission changes would.

The results of the assessment are presented in Table 7.6-1, which contains the same list of projects that

were presented in Table 7.5-1, but the resource column headings have replaced the project description

information headings. The total number of projects (i.e., recently completed, present, and reasonably

foreseeable) that could contribute to the cumulative effect is tallied and reported in the last rows of Table

7.6-1.



7-41

The resources most likely to be adversely affected by projects are terrestrial biology and cultural. This is

largely due to that fact that most projects would result in ground disturbance and potential for removal or

disturbance of habitat and cultural resources.

The resource areas that benefit most from the projects listed are ground transportation, utilities,

socioeconomics and general services, public health and safety and environmental justice. This is because

many of the GovGuam projects are capital improvement projects designed to support the health and

safety of the community.

A nearly equal number of projects have adverse (marked as X in the Table) and beneficial impacts

(shown as B) were identified for geological and soil resources, and water resources. Air quality, noise,

airspace land use, recreational resources and marine transportation resource areas are impacted by fewer

projects than other resource areas, either beneficially or adversely.



Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.

7-42

Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas

ID # Lead Agency or

Proponent Project Name

Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)

Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources

Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

Guam - General Actions (G) (not mapped)

G-1 GovGuam Road Safety

Improvements RC B B X X B B B

G-2 COMNAV

Pacific MIRC EIS/OEIS RC X X X X X X X X

G-3 Air Force MIRC Airspace P X

G-4 GovGuam Traffic Signal System

Upgrade, Island-wide RF B B

G-5 GovGuam

Upgrade 14 Megavolt

Ampere Power

Transformer To 30

Megavolt Ampere And

Underground Line

RC B X X B B B B

G-6 GovGuam 60 MW Power Plant RF X X X X X X B B X B B

G-7 Rubio & David Health Clinic P X X X X X B B B

G-8

Carlos &

Rosemarie

Takano

Multi-Family Dwelling P X X X X X B B

G-9 GovGuam Pole Hardening P B B

G-10 GovGuam Territorial Prison RF X X X X X B B B




7-43


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

G-11 GovGuam

Lateral Conversion Of

Power Lines To

Underground Lines

P B X X B B B B

G-12 GovGuam Wastewater System

Planning P B B B B

G-13 GovGuam Facilities Plan / Design

for WWTP P B B B B B

G-14 GovGuam Groundwater

Disinfection RC B B B B

G-15 GovGuam Water Booster Pump

Station P B X X B B B

G-16 GovGuam Implement Groundwater

Rule RC B B B B

G-17 GovGuam Deep Well Rehabilitation RC B X X B B B

G-18 GovGuam Water Wells P B X X B B B

G-19 GovGuam

Wastewater Collection

System

Replacement/Rehabilitati

on Program

P B X B X B B B

G-20 GovGuam LS Priority 1 Upgrades P B B B B B




7-44


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

G-21 GovGuam WWTP Priority 1

Upgrades P B B B B B

G-22 GovGuam Water Distribution Pipe

Replacement P B B B B B

G-23 NAVFAC

Pacific MITT P X X X X X X

Guam - North (N)

N-1 GovGuam Route 29 Reconstruction RF X X X X B B B

N-2 Base Corp. Paradise Estates, Yigo RC X X X X X X B B

N-3 GovGuam Route 15 Embankment

Restoration RC X X X X B B B

N-4 Air Force NWF Perimeter

Fence/Road RC X X B

N-5 Air Force PRTC Combat Support

Vehicle Facility RC X X X X

N-6 Air Force PRTC Commando

Warrior Ops Facility RC X X X

N-7 Air Force Strike FOL Electrical

Infrastructure RC X X B

N-8 GovGuam Skatepark Barrier/Iglesia

Circle Traffic Signal RC B B

N-9 DON Postal Service Center RC X X X B




7-45


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

N-10

Pacific

International

Guam Inc.

Workforce Housing RC X X X X X X X X X X B X

N-11 Air Force South Ramp Utilities

Phase 2 RC B X X B

N-12 Air Force PRTC Commando

Warrior Barracks RC X X X X X

N-13 Air Force

PRTC Commando

Communication Ops

Facility

RC X X X

N-14 Air Force Strike Operations Group

Facility RC X X X

N-15 DON

Release a Guam Land

Use Plan 77 parcel near

South Finegayan

RC B B B

N-16 Air Force

Milky Way Site for

Multiple Threat Emitter

System

RC X X X

N-17 GovGuam North Guam

Signalization RC B B B

N-18 Air Force Conventional Munitions

Maintenance Facility RC X X X X




7-46


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

N-19 Air Force Clear Water Rinse

Facility RC B X X B

N-20 Air Force

PRTC Combat

Communication Support

Facility

RC X X X

N-21 Air Force

PRTC Combat

Communication

Transmission System

Facility

RC X X X B

N-22 Air Force PRTC RH Cantonment

Operations Facility RC X X X

N-23 Air Force Air Freight Terminal

Complex RC X X X X B

N-24 Air Force Ungulate Fencing RC B B B X B

N-25 Air Force

Beddown of Training and

Support Initiatives at

NWF

P X X X X X X X B X X X

N-26 Air Force Pacific Airpower

Resiliency, AAFB P X X X X X X X X X X X X

N-27 Air Force

AT/FP Perimeter Fence

and Road Construction

and Main Gate

Relocation at AAFB

RC X X X B X




7-47


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

N-28 Younex

Enterprises LLC

Ukudu Workforce

Village RC X X X X X X X X X B X B X

N-29 Sung Kim Small Commercial

Development P X X X X X B

N-30 Air Force South Ramp U&SI II P B X X B

N-31 GovGuam

Lada Estates - Low

Income Affordable

Housing

RC X X X X X X X X B B

N-32 GovGuam Northern District WWTP

Phases 1-3 P B X B X B B B

N-33 Air Force PRTC Combat Command

Facility P X X X

N-34 Air Force /

DON

Dispersed Maintenance

Spares & SE Storage

Facility

RF X X

N-35 Golden Gate

Services LLC Single Family Homes P X X X X X X B B

N-36 TRI Inc. Paradise Meadows P X X X X X X X B B

N-37 GDPW Jinapsan Road P X X B B X X B B

N-38

Guam

Healthcare

Development

Guam Regional Medical

City P X X X X X X X B B B




7-48


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

N-39 Army Terminal High Altitude

Area Defense P X X X X X B X X

N-40 Air Force Munitions Storage Igloos

AAFB Guam P X X X B X

N-41 Vantage Group Villa Pacita Estates P X X X X X X X B B

N-42 GovGuam

Relocation of Dededo

Flea Market and

Construction of Farmer’s

Co-op

P X X X X X B

N-43 Hawaiian Rock

Products

Infrastructure

Construction P X X B B B

N-44 DON North Ramp Parking

Apron P X X X X B

N-45 Air Force Personnel Protection -

Hardened Command Post P X

N-46 Air Force

Create Broad Area

Maritime Surveillance

Capability

P B

N-47 Air Force POL System Hardened

Structures P X X B B

N-48 Air Force Tactical Missile

Maintenance Facility P X X X X




7-49


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

N-49 Air Force PRTC RH Airfield

Operations P X X X X

N-50 Air Force PRTC SF Fire Rescue

Emergency Management P B B

N-51 Air Force

Fuel System

Maintenance. Hangar,

Inc.2

P X X X

N-52 Air Force General Purpose Hangar P X X

N-53 Air Force AGE Covered Facility P X X X

N-54 Air Force PRTC RH Logistics

Facility P X X X

N-55 Air Force

PRTC Combat

Communication

Infrastructure Facility

P X X X

Guam - Central (C)

C-1 GDPW Route 15 Resurfacing RC X X B B B

C-2

Access

Development

Company

Talo Verde Estates RC X X X X X X X B B

C-3 Office of

Veterans Affairs Veterans Clinic RC X X X X X B X B B




7-50


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

C-4 Tanota Partners

(Ysrael family)

Hotel Construction

Bayview 5 Luxury

Project, Tumon Bay

RC X X X X X X X X X X B

C-5 GovGuam Route 1 U-Turn

Reconstruction RC B B B

C-6 GovGuam Route 25 (Alageta Road) RC B B X X B B B

C-7 DLA Replace Gas Cylinder

Storage Facility RC X X B

C-8 DON Naval Hospital

Replacement RC X X X X X X X B B B

C-9 GUANG NG Readiness Center RC X X X B B

C-10 GUANG DRBS Storage Facility RC X X X

C-11 GUANG Combined Support

Maintenance Facility RC X X X X

C-12 Tagada Guam

LLC Amusement Park-Tumon RC X X X B X X X B B

C-13 GovGuam Student Center RC X B X X B B

C-14 GovGuam Route 6A Murray Road RC X X X X B B B




7-51


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

C-15 GovGuam

Route 16 Guam Main

Facility Post Office /

Army National Guard

Intersection

RC X X X B B B

C-16 GovGuam Route 8/10/16 Tri-

Intersection RC X X X B B B

C-17 GovGuam DNA Forensic Lab RC X X X B B

C-18 GovGuam Foundation Building RC X X X B

C-19 GovGuam

Gregorio D. Perez Dock

A & B Steel Pile

Extension & Water

Blasting

RC X X B B

C-20 GovGuam Fiber Optic Installation RC X X B B

C-21

Access

Development

Company

Emerald Ocean View

Park P X X X X X X X X X X B B

C-22 GovGuam

Guam Memorial Hospital

Emergency Room

Expansion

P X X B B B

C-23 GovGuam

Ordot Dump Closure

Construction and Dero

Road Sewer

Improvements

P B B B B B




7-52


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

C-24 GovGuam Guam Museum P B B X B X B

C-25 Laguna at Pago

Bay Resort

Upscale Residential

Development P X X X X X X X B B

C-26 GHURA Sagan Bonita RC X X X X X X X B B

C-27 Orion

Construction Island Surgical Center P X X X X X X B B B

C-28 GHURA Summer Green

Residences P X X X X X X X B B

C-29 GovGuam

Route 1-8 Intersection

Improvements & Agana

Bridges Replacement

P B B X X B B B

C-30 GovGuam Rehabilitation of Asan

Springs P B X X B B B

C-31 GovGuam Route 26/25 Intersection

Improvements RF B B X X B B B

C-32 UoG Wind Turbine P B X X X X X B B B

C-33 UoG Field House Renovation RC X X B B

C-34

Access

Development

Company

Hemlani Apartments P X X X X X X X B B

C-35 GovGuam Guam Airport Project RF X X X X X B X B




7-53


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

C-36 GovGuam

Route 26 Reconstruction

& Widening, Route 1 to

Route 25

RF B B X X B B B

C-37 GovGuam

Route 10A,

Rehabilitation &

Widening, Sunset Blvd.

to Route 16

RF B B X X B B B

C-38 GovGuam Runway Rehabilitation

and Expansion P X X X X B B

C-39 GovGuam

Gregorio D. Perez

Marina Renovation &

Site Improvement Project

P B X X X B B

C-40 GovGuam Gregorio D. Perez

Marina Dock C Repairs P B X X B B

C-41 GovGuam

Facilities Plan for

Hagåtña STP

Improvements & Effluent

Wastewater Pump

Station

P B B B B B

C-42 GovGuam

Hagåtña STP

Improvements and

Effluent Wastewater

Pump Station

P B X B X B B B




7-54


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

C-43 GovGuam Agana STP Interim

Measures P B X B X B B B

C-44 DLA Upgrade Fuel Pipeline P X X B B B

C-45 GUANG Assembly Hall P X X B

C-46 GovGuam

Route 8/Canada Toto

Loop Road Intersection

Improvements

P B B X X B B B

C-47

Guam

Highlands

Investment

Group

Sigua Highlands / near

Leopalace RF X X X X X X X X B B

C-48 GovGuam Tiyan Parkway, Phase 1 P B B X X B B B

C-49 GovGuam

Route 14B (Ypao Road)

Reconstruction &

Widening, Route 1 to

Route 14

P B B X X B B B

C-50 GovGuam Route 10A, Route 1

GIA/Tiyan Intersection RF B B X X B B B

C-51 GovGuam Route 7A Rehabilitation RC B B X X B B B




7-55


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

C-52 GovGuam Route 4, McDonalds to

Route 10 RC B B X X B B B

C-53 GovGuam Repair Finegayan Road-

Harmon Cutoff RF B B X X B B B

Guam - Central Apra Harbor (AH)

AH-1 CNM Orote Magazines (P-425) P X X X X B X

AH-2 GovGuam Reforestation of Masso

Reservoir P B B B B B X B B

AH-3 GovGuam Masso River Bridge

Embankment RC B B X B X B B B

AH-4 CNM Kilo Wharf Extension

(P-502) RC X B X X

AH-5 DON CSS-15 HQ Facility RC X X X

AH-6 DON Replace Family Housing

Units RC X X

AH-7 DON NEX Minimart and Gas

Station RC X X X

AH-8 GovGuam Route 11 Improvements

and Shore Protection P B B X B X B B B

AH-9 GovGuam Asan and Aguada Bridge

Rehabilitation RF B B B B




7-56


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

AH-10 CNM X-Ray Wharf

Improvements (P-518) RF X X B X X

AH-11 GovGuam

Modernization Program:

Port Reconfiguration,

Maintenance and Repair

P X X X X X B B B B B

AH-12 GovGuam

Comprehensive Port-

wide Closed Caption

Television System

P X X B

AH-13 GovGuam Marine & Port Security

Operations Center P X X X X B B B

AH-14 GovGuam Emergency Backup

Generators P X B B B

AH-15 GovGuam Load Center 4 Building

Roof Repair RC X B

AH-16 GovGuam Construction of Golf Pier

Pipeline Replacement RC X B B X B

AH-17 GovGuam

Redesign of existing

outdoor substation to

indoor type.

RC X X B B B

AH-18 GovGuam

Substation Transformer

Upgrade with concrete

fence

RC X X B B B




7-57


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

AH-19 DON Wholehouse

Revitalization I P

AH-20 DON Wholehouse

Revitalization II P

AH-21 DON Romeo Wharf

Improvements P X B

AH-22 DON Emergent Repair Facility

Expansion (P-566) P X X X B

AH-23 DON Dehumidify Supply

Storage Facility P X X X

Guam - South (S)

S-1 GovGuam Route 2 - Culverts and

Slide Repair RC B B X B X B B B

S-2 GovGuam Talofofo / Togcha Bridge

Rehabilitation RC B B X B X B B B

S-3 GovGuam Layon Landfill, Dandan RC B B X X X X X X B B X B B

S-4 GovGuam 15 MW Solar / Wind

Turbine P B X X X X X B B B

S-5 GovGuam

Santa Rita Springs

Booster Pump

Rehabilitation, Phase II

P B B B B B

S-6 GovGuam Ugum Water Treatment

Plant Refurbishment RC B B B B B




7-58


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

S-7 GovGuam

Brigade II (Ugum Lift)

Booster Pump Station

Upgrade

P B B B B B

S-8 GovGuam

Ugum Water Treatment

Plant Intake

Modifications

P B B B B B

S-9 GovGuam

Ugum Water Treatment

Plant Reservoir

Replacement

P B X B X B B B

S-10 GovGuam Old Agat Wastewater

Collection (Phase II) P B B B B B

S-11 GovGuam Umatac-Merizo STP

Improvements RC B B B B B

S-12 GovGuam Old Agat Collection

Continuation (Phase III) P B B B B B

S-13 GovGuam

Facilities Plan / Design /

Interim for Baza Gardens

STP Improvements

RC B B B B B

S-14 GovGuam Baza Gardens STP





7-59


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

S-15 GovGuam Agat / Santa Rita STP


S-16 GovGuam Agat Marina Dock A

Repair & Renovation P B B X B X B

S-17 GovGuam

Facilities Plan / Design /

Interim for the Umatac-

Merizo STP

RC B B B B B

S-18 GovGuam Umatac-Merizo STP

Replacement RF B B B B B

S-19 GovGuam Agfayan Bridge

Replacement P B B X X B B B

S-20 GovGuam Route 4, Togcha River to

Ipan Beach Park P B B X X B B B

S-21 GovGuam

Route 17, Route 5 to

Chalan Tun Ramon Baza,

Phase 2A

P B B X X B B B

S-22 GovGuam

Inarajan North Leg (As-

Misa) Bridge

Rehabilitation

P B B X X B B B

S-23 GovGuam Bile & Pigua Bridges


S-24 GovGuam Ajayan Bridge





7-60


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

S-25 GovGuam Route 4, Merizo Bridge

Approach Restoration P B B X X B B B

S-26 GovGuam Aplacho Bridge


S-27 GovGuam

Route 17 Rehabilitation

& Widening, Route 5 to

Route 4A, Phase 2B

RF B B X X B B B

S-28 GovGuam

Route 4 Curve Widening,

Ylig Bridge to Dandan

Road

RF B B X X B B B

S-29 GovGuam

Route 5 Rehabilitation &

Widening, Route 2A to

Route 12

RF B B X X B B B

S-30 GovGuam

Route 17 Rehabilitation

and Widening, Route 4 to

Chalan Tun Ramon Baza

RC B B X X B B B

S-31 GovGuam Route 4, Ylig Bridge to

Pago Bay P B B X X B B B




7-61


ID # Lead Agency or


Rec

entl

y C

om

ple

ted

(R

C),

Pre

sen

t (P

),

or

Rea

son

ab

ly F

ore

seea

ble

(R

F)


Geo

log

ica

l a

nd

So

il R

eso

urc

es

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd

an

d S

ub

mer

ged

La

nd

Use

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

eso

urc

es

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Ma

rin

e T

ran

sport

ati

on

Uti

liti

es

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l

Ser

vice

s

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls a

nd W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice a

nd

th

e

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ildre

n

S-32 GovGuam

Route 17 Drainage

Culverts and

Rehabilitation

RC B B X X B B B

S-33 GovGuam Taleyfak Bridge

Restoration RC B B

S-34 GovGuam Tanaga Bridge

Permanent Restoration RC B B

S-35 DON Cetti Bay Reforestation P B B B

Number of recently completed projects potentially

contributing to cumulative effects (X/B) 76

11/

10

33/

19 3/1 3/0 2/0 4/2 7/2 58/1 7/9 61/0 10/1 9/20 2/3 0/15

0/

17 9/3

3/

36 3/43

Number of present projects potentially contributing

to cumulative effects (X/B) 95 9/16

56/

40 5/3 4/0 8/0 5/4 11/5 67/1 7/23 67/1 17/2

15/

17 5/6 0/29 0/19 5/6

5/

52 3/63

Number of reasonably foreseeable projects

potentially contributing to cumulative effects (X/B) 18 2/8 5/10 1/0 1/0 1/0 2/0 1/0 15/0 1/1 14/0 3/0 1/11 0/1 1/2 0/4 2/0 2/14 0/15

Total number of projects contributing to cumulative

effects (X/B) 188

22/

34

94/

69 9/4 8/0 11/0 11/6 19/7 140/2

15/

33

142/

1 30/3

25/

48 7/10 1/46

0/

40 16/9 10/102

6/

121



7-62

7.6.2 Step 6B: Cumulative Impact Analysis of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably

Foreseeable Future Projects in Conjunction with Collective Action Alternatives

Based on Table 7.6-1, every resource area was or would potentially be impacted by the recently

completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Table 7.6-2 summarizes the SEIS

collective action alternatives (Cantonment/Family Housing + LFTRC + Additive Actions + 2010 ROD-

Related Action) impacts from Table 7.4-1. The impacts are simplified to the highest level of significance

identified for any criteria under each resource. For example, significant impacts (SI) were identified for

geological and soil resources due to the permanent alteration of topography for all alternatives.

The second to the last row of Table 7.6-2 indicates whether the collective action alternatives in

combination with the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects could affect

the health of the resource or trend associated with the resource. In other words, is there a potential for a

cumulative effect? For all resources, if the finding is “yes” there is potential for cumulative effect.

The final row of Table 7.6-2 indicates the magnitude of the cumulative effect (e.g., strong, moderate or

low). The magnitude is a function of the current health of the resource, the potential for the resource to

sustain its current health if stressed, the geographic extent of the impact, the duration of the impact and a

demonstration of cause and effect. The magnitude of the cumulative effect on a specific resource is not

necessarily the sum of the effects of all actions, because there may be no cause and effect relationship.

For example, a noise level that exceeds the established thresholds for significance in one geographic area

would not cause an additive noise impact to a similar noise impact in another geographic area. In contrast,

the recovery of a threatened and endangered species could be affected by incremental permanent losses in

total available suitable habitat.

The assessment is based on long-term impacts of the proposed action (or collective action) on a resource.

The assessment of magnitude is complicated by the consideration of both adverse and beneficial impacts.

This is especially true for complex resources with multiple criteria like socioeconomics and

environmental justice. The following are general descriptions of strong, moderate and low magnitudes,

but the rationale varies with each resource:

A “Strong” magnitude is applicable to resources where the present and reasonably foreseeable

actions plus the collective action alternatives are likely to have an additive significant adverse

impact on a resource. These are resources that warrant the establishment of thresholds for their

protection or have an island-wide geographic extent. “Strong” is applicable when additive

impacts would be impossible to reverse over time, such as the loss of a cultural site.

A “Moderate” magnitude is assigned when the significant adverse impacts due to the present and

reasonably foreseeable actions plus the collective action alternatives are not Guam-wide but could

adversely impact a region or community. There may be regulatory thresholds that are exceeded,

but they are specific to a location. The long-term impacts could be reversed or mitigated with

appropriate resources (i.e., finances, time, expertise). An example is utilities infrastructure where

the additive electrical demand could exceed the supply, but infrastructure upgrades would reverse

the impact and specific projects have been programmed to eliminate the adverse impact.

A “Low” magnitude of additive impact is assigned when there is no threshold established for the

health of the resource, the threshold is very high or the resource is healthy and resilient to

stressors. There is no nexus between the impacts of the proposed action and the impacts of the

present and reasonably foreseeable actions. For example, the proposed action may limit public

access to GovGuam land and result in a significant direct impact, but present and reasonably



7-63

foreseeable projects may not restrict access, so the additive impact among the actions would be

low. Generally, the impacts are localized and readily reversible when the project is no longer

operational. Impacts on ambient air quality would be considered low, except within a non-

attainment area or if the project results in a new non-attainment area.

Table 7.6-2 summarizes the magnitude for each resource and the rationale is presented in the subsequent

resource sections under Potential Cumulative Effects.



7-64

Table 7.6-2. Potential for Cumulative Effects

SEIS

Collective

Action

Alternative

Highest Level of Significance Identified for Each Resource (Summarized from Table 7.4-1)

Geo

log

y a

nd S

oil

Res

ou

rces

Wa

ter

Res

ou

rces

Air

Qu

ali

ty

No

ise

Air

spa

ce

La

nd a

nd

Su

bm

erg

ed

La

nd U

se

Rec

rea

tio

na

l R

esou

rces

Ter

rest

ria

l B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Ma

rin

e B

iolo

gic

al

Res

ou

rces

Cu

ltu

ral

Res

ou

rces

Vis

ua

l R

eso

urc

es

Gro

un

d T

ran

spo

rta

tion

Ma

rin

e T

ran

spo

rta

tio

n

Uti

liti

es (

Po

table

Wate

r,

Wa

stew

ate

r)

So

cio

eco

no

mic

s a

nd

Gen

era

l S

ervi

ces

(Po

pu

lati

on

Ch

an

ge)

Ha

zard

ou

s M

ate

ria

ls

an

d W

ast

e

Pu

bli

c H

ealt

h &

Sa

fety

(Op

era

tio

na

l S

afe

ty)

En

viro

nm

enta

l J

ust

ice

an

d t

he

Pro

tect

ion

of

Ch

ild

ren

A-1 SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

A-2, 3, 4 SI

2=LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M

SI 3=LSI

LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI

2=LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

A-5 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI-M LSI SI LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

B-1 SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

B-2, 3, 4 SI


SI 3=LSI


2=LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

B-5 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI-M LSI SI LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

C-1 SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI SI-M

C-2, 3, 4 SI


SI 3=LSI


2=LSI SI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI SI-M

C-5 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI-M LSI SI LSI SI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI SI-M

D-1 SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

D-2, 3, 4 SI


SI 3=LSI

SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI

2=LSI SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

D-5 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI- LSI SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

E-1 SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

E-2, 3, 4 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI

3=LSI LSI SI-M LSI SI-M

SI 2=LSI

SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

E-5 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI-M LSI SI- LSI SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M

Does the collective action alternative (SEIS + Additive Actions + 2010 ROD-Related Action) in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects impact the

health of the resource? i.e., is there a potential cumulative effect? Yes [Y] / No [N]

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

What is the magnitude of the additive impact of the collective action in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects? S - strong; M - moderate; L - low

L S L L L L M S L S L S L M M L M S

Legend: NI = No impact; LSI = Less than significant impact; SI = Significant impact; SI-M = Significant and mitigable to less than significant. Cantonment/family housing alternatives: A= Finegayan, B= Finegayan

and South Finegayan, C = AAFB, D = Barrigada. LFTRC alternatives: 1 = Route 15; 2, 3, and 4 = NAVMAG alternatives; 5 = NWF; Blue shading = Preferred Alternative; red font = SI or SI-M.



7-65

7.7 STEPS 7 AND 8: REPORT RESULTS AND IDENTIFY MITIGATION

The primary purpose of this section is to report the results of the various steps of the cumulative effect

analysis. The 2010 Final EIS (Volume 7, Chapter 4: Cumulative Effects, Section 4.3.5: Cumulative Effect

Assessment, pages 4-33 to 4-87) summarizes the results by resource with the following subsections:

Current Health and Historical Context (Step 3 results)

Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Preferred Alternative that might Contribute to a Cumulative

Effect (Step 4 results)

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect the Resource (Step 5 results)

Potential Cumulative Effects (Step 6)

Assess the Need for Mitigation (Step 8)

A similar format is used in this SEIS. However, the current health and historical context (Step 3) is

updated with new information and instead of the preferred alternative all collective action alternatives are

assessed.

Mitigation for DoD Projects

The DoD strives to avoid and minimize impacts during the initial alternatives evaluation and design phase

of project development. BMPs, SOPs, and typical permit conditions are also implemented to mitigate

impacts. BMPs are a type of mitigation measure but because they are SOPs for the DoD and not project-

specific they are considered to be part of the proposed action. Potential project-specific mitigation

measures are proposed in this SEIS (Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1) and include those resulting from ESA section

7 consultation and cultural resources review. Further, the 2011 PA provides a process for the mitigation of

adverse effects to historic properties and impacts to other cultural resources.

The SEIS ROD would identify the mitigation measures that DoD commits to implementing. Mitigation

measures can be classified as one of the following two types:

1. Within DoD control - DoD has statutory authority to implement actions taking place on lands

under its control. DoD has limited statutory authority to implement natural and cultural resources

mitigation measures on non-federal land.

2. Outside of DoD control - Except for the limited authority applicable to natural and cultural

resources identified above, DoD does not have statutory authority to undertake mitigation

measures on non-federal land.

Both types of mitigation serve to avoid, minimize, replace, or compensate for impacts if implemented by

DoD or non-DoD agencies.

7.7.1 Geological and Soil Resources

Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.1, 4.1.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.5.1 of this SEIS

and in detail in the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Chapter 3: Geological and Soil Resources, Section 3.1:

Affected Environment, pages 3‐1 to 3‐30), Guam’s geological and soil resources have been most affected

by human populations in the past century. Of particular note, are impacts associated with WWII, during

which time much of Guam’s foliage was lost to bombings as the U.S. regained control of the island from

Japan in 1944.

Subsequent to WWII, soil loss due to erosion is largely attributed to human-induced wildfires;

construction and development with inadequate erosion control systems; recreation with off-road vehicles;



7-66

and introduced mammals. The occurrence of wildfires has increased over time. Between 1979 and 2001,

over 99,000 acres (40,000 ha) of vegetation burned and Guam lost nearly a quarter of its total tree cover.

The burn areas are often invaded by non-native grasses or become barren. The replacement of forest with

savanna vegetation contributes to elevated soil loss, as erosion in savanna areas may be 100 times higher

than in scrub forest. Popular use of off-road vehicles for recreation is also believed to be a major

contributor to the development and persistence of erosion-prone cover types.

Construction often requires grading and filling, which may reduce soil quality that, in turn, may affect

plant growth and runoff. Topography can be permanently altered in areas of steep slope. Vegetation

removal can lead to loss of soils as windborne dust if not properly managed and/or controlled.

Compaction also typically occurs at construction sites and can also increase erosion potential. Impervious

surfaces (i.e., rooftops, sidewalks, roads, and parking lots) can accelerate water flows and lead to further

soil loss and erosion if appropriate stormwater controls are not implemented. These are addressed in the

water resource sections. Sinkholes are sensitive to both sediment input from grading activities and

changes in hydrology.

Most recently, as in the case of the recently completed and present projects, the more stringent

construction permit conditions and BMPs minimize the impact on the geological and soil resources. There

is greater awareness of erosion control principles. Although there has been substantial degradation of the

resource over time that may not be recoverable; the trend in the decline resource health has slowed. There

may be occasional permit violations, but there are also revegetation and ungulate control programs that

improve resource resiliency.

There are 21 recently completed projects identified with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect

to geological and soil resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1), 10 beneficially and 11 adversely. Projects

that could contribute to a beneficial impact include GovGuam Route 2 Culverts and Slide Repair (S-1)

and Talofofo/Togcha Bridge Rehabilitation (S-2) because the projects may stabilize soils. In contrast,

Amusement Park-Tumon (C-12) is a large project that will have a long term adverse impact on

topography.

There are 25 present projects identified with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to

geological and soil resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1), 16 of which have a beneficial impact on this

resource. Two beneficial projects are Agfayan Bridge Replacement (S-19) and Reforestation of Masso

Reservoir (AH-2). Emerald Ocean View Park (C-21) would have long-term impact adverse impact on

topography.

Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative

Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2 a significant impact on this resource would result under

each of the collective action alternatives, except A-2, B-2, C-2, D-2, and E-2 that would have a less than

significant impact. This significant impact is due to the long-term adverse topographic impacts associated

with the grading required to develop the LFTRCs and the 2010 ROD-Related Actions. Less than

significant impacts were identified for impacts on soils, sinkholes and geologic hazards for each of the

collective action alternatives with the implementation of BMPs.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Geological and Soil Resources. There are two reasonably

foreseeable projects identified with the potential to adversely impact topography including Sigua

Highlands (C-47). Eight potentially beneficial projects include roadway improvement projects because

they could reduce erosion associated with degraded pavement, such as Asan and Aguada Bridge

Rehabilitation (AH-9).



7-67

Potential Cumulative Effects. Anticipated long-term impacts associated with collective action operations

would not have an adverse cumulative effect when combined with the recently completed, present, and

reasonably foreseeable actions on Guam identified above. Moreover, several activities and projects would

have a beneficial impact on geology and soil resources both now and in the future. Uncontrolled human

uses and natural events (e.g., typhoons, tropical storms, earthquakes, tsunamis) would continue to have an

adverse impact on geological and soil resources. The significant impact identified for the collective action

alternatives was related to topography. There are no thresholds established for the acceptable level for

changes in topography. The magnitude of additive impact resulting from the collective action alternatives

and recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions is considered to be low and would

not appreciably impact the resiliency of geological resources on Guam over time (see Table 7.6-2).

Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to

resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects

are proposed.

7.7.2 Water Resources

Current Health and Historical Context. The historical context of surface water, groundwater, nearshore

water, and wetlands on Guam is summarized in Sections 3.2, 4.2.2, 5.5.2, and in the 2010 Final EIS

(Volume 7, Chapter 4: Cumulative Effects, Section 4.3.5.1: Guam Cumulative Effects Assessment, page

4-33). Soil erosion and stormwater runoff are largely responsible for degradation of surface and nearshore

waters. As described above under Geological and Soil Resources, the introductions and increases of

domesticated animals (water buffalo, pigs, goats, and deer) and farm crops likely denuded soils and

contributed to erosion from vegetation loss and trampling. During WWII, much of Guam’s foliage was

lost to bombings. When the U.S. retook control of the island from Japan in 1944, tangantangan (native to

the Americas) was planted to control erosion.

As described under Section 7.7.1, Geological and Soil Resources, wildfires and off-road vehicles

contribute to soil erosion. The result is increased sedimentation/siltation of surface water. Eroded silt from

these burn areas also destroys marine life in reefs around the island. In addition the loading of sediments

in freshwater streams increases the turbidity in sources of drinking water, which can reduce the

performance of treatment processes such as chlorine disinfection.

Once construction is complete, the addition of impervious surfaces (i.e., rooftops, sidewalks, roads, and

parking lots) can accelerate water flows and lead to further soil loss and erosion if appropriate stormwater

controls are not implemented. Past construction and development on Guam has resulted in the addition of

approximately 12,280 acres (4,970 ha) of developed impervious surface area, representing approximately

1% of the island’s total land area; there remains sufficient pervious surfaces for groundwater recharge.

Threats to surface water would continue to be monitored by federal and Guam agencies, and appropriate

regulatory action would continue to occur to maximize surface water quality and availability. In time,

with the implementation of stormwater BMPs during construction and operation, surface water resource

impacts due to new projects would slow the decline of water quality. Monitoring and enforcement of

permit conditions may be limited due to lack of funding but there is an increase in public awareness of the

effects of erosion on water quality that could lead to greater reporting of permit violations. This would not

correct the historical adverse impacts but could result in less of an impact due to future projects.

The nearshore water quality concerns for the marine waters of Guam include copper, aluminum, nickel,

enterococci bacteria, total residual chlorine, biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids. The

non-point sources of these water quality concerns are difficult to address, but the planned improvements



7-68

to wastewater infrastructure, required upgrades of WWTPs treatment systems (as required by current

NPDES permits), and the implementation of BMPs to address stormwater are expected to slow down the

degradation of nearshore water quality due to man-made activities.

Threats to groundwater availability and quality (e.g., saltwater intrusion, leaky septic systems, and sewage

spills) would continue to exist. A recently developed numerical groundwater model and an updated and

expanded network of wells to monitor groundwater level and water quality would be used by the

GWRDG to manage the NGLA. The improved management and monitoring of the NGLA and fewer

septic systems in use (as anticipated in the future) are expected to ensure that a dependable and safe

supply of groundwater would be maintained for Guam. In time, groundwater quality would be expected to

slowly improve on Guam as point and non-point sources of pollution are identified, and pollution loading

to surface waters is reduced, all within the framework of improved management and monitoring of the

NGLA. In addition, the mission of the GWRDG (including DoD, GWA, GEPA, Consolidated

Commission on Utilities, GDPW, and WERI) is to protect Guam’s water supply for quantity, quality,

reliability, sustainability, and availability for all of Guam - present and future.

Wetlands are impacted by soil erosion and physical removal and wetlands have been reduced or

compromised overtime. These threats to wetland areas are monitored by federal and Guam agencies.

Appropriate regulatory action would continue to occur to protect wetland areas. While the federal

regulation focuses on a principle of no overall net loss to wetlands, there has been a historical loss of

wetlands prior to regulatory control that would not be remedied. The non-point sources of pollution on

Guam are not fully characterized and would continue to adversely impact wetlands. The implementation

of BMPs described above for erosion control would reduce the rate at which wetlands degrade. In the

future, it is anticipated that surface water, groundwater, nearshore and wetland quality would continue to

decline, but the regulatory controls are expected to slow the rate of decline.

Fifty-two recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to water

resources on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Nineteen of the projects would have a beneficial

impact on water resources such as: Masso River Bridge Embankment (AH-3) and Togcha Bridge

Rehabilitation (S-2), because they would potentially reduce erosion in surface waters. The new Dandan

Landfill project (S-3) is heavily regulated and routinely monitored and stabilizes the badlands at the site.

The adverse impacts associated with the projects are due to the increase in impervious surface and

potential to impact stormwater. These varied projects include the Amusement Park (C-12) and residential

development such as Hemlani Apartments (C-34). There is insufficient information on the projects to

describe potential impacts to wetlands.

Ninety-six present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect on water resources on

Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Forty projects are potentially beneficial to water resources,

because they are utility improvements or roadway improvements or rehabilitation projects that would

likely minimize long-term sedimentation of surface water. These projects include: Deep Well

Rehabilitation (G-17), Rehabilitation of Asan Springs (C-30), Reforestation of Masso Reservoir (AH-2),

Hagåtña Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Improvements (C-42), Northern District WWTP Phases 1-3 (N-

32) and WWTP Priority 1 Upgrades (G-21). The new construction projects that would increase the

amount of impervious surface could have an adverse impact, the largest of which include: Emerald Ocean

View Park (C-21), and Sigua Highlands / near Leopalace (C-47). There is insufficient information on the

projects to describe potential impacts to wetlands.



7-69


Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2 less than significant impacts to surface waters are

anticipated for the NAVMAG LFTRC alternatives and no impact was identified for the others.

Short-term, localized significant-mitigable impacts to the affected basin within the NGLA but less than

significant impacts to the overall NGLA were identified for all collective action alternatives due to long-

term increase in annual groundwater production of 1.7 MGd (6.4 MLd) from the NGLA. This impact is

the same for all collective action alternatives. This assessment assumes BMPs are effective at controlling

soil erosion, pollutants of concern, and stormwater flow. The collective action alternatives would increase

the impervious surface on Guam by approximately 176 acres (71 ha) for the cantonment/housing and

LFTRC alone, representing an increase of approximately 1.4% of total development-related impervious

surface area on the island. The 2010 ROD-Related Actions would result in additional impervious surface.

Increases in impervious area would be managed through the implementation of an appropriate and

comprehensive stormwater management plan utilizing a LID approach as described in Section 4.1.2.2 of

this SEIS.

Groundwater production rates would slightly increase, and the implementation of sustainability practices

would reduce the amount of groundwater needed per capita, which would help minimize impacts to

groundwater availability. The resulting total annual groundwater production would be substantially less

than the sustainable yield. Improved management and monitoring of the NGLA aquifer by the GWA and

DoD would ensure increased pumping does not adversely affect sources of drinking water on Guam.

Significant and mitigable impacts were identified for all cantonment alternatives due to potential

increases in the rate of sewage spills associated with the induced civilian growth and construction/DoD

workforce would result in significant indirect impacts to groundwater quality. A potential mitigation

measures includes DoD assisting GovGuam in identifying funding to upgrade the sewer lines.

Significant and mitigable impacts were identified for all cantonment alternatives due to an increase in

wastewater discharge from the Northern District WWTP and for Alternative D also having an increase in

wastewater discharge from the Agana WWTP, which are both currently non-compliant with their current

NPDES permits. Potential mitigation measures includes DoD assisting GovGuam in upgrading the

Northern District WWTP treatment systems (as required by current NPDES permits) and in identifying

additional sources of funding to construct treatment facility improvements at the Agana WWTP. Once the

WWTPs are in compliance, the long-term nearshore water quality is expected to improve.

Significant mitigable impact on wetlands would result with the three collective action alternatives that

propose LFTRCs at NAVMAG. Specifically, the alternatives are: A-2, A-3, A-4; B-2, B-3, B-4; C-2, C-3,

C-4; D-2, D-3, D-4; and E-2, E-3, E-4. In addition, the cantonment alternative at Barrigada could have a

long-term indirect impact to approximately 0.1 acre (0.04 ha) of wetlands. The wetland impacts at

NAVMAG range from 17.7 acres (7 ha) for the East/West LFTRC to 36.9 acres (15 ha) for the

North/South LFTRC. No wetlands were identified for the 2010 ROD-Related Actions and the additive

impacts of Section 6.1. The collective action alternatives that include Barrigada for cantonment and

NAVMAG for LFTRC (i.e., D-2, D-3, D-4) would have a slightly greater impact on wetlands than the

other collective action alternatives. Potential mitigation measures would be developed during the Section

404 permit application review.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Water Resources. Fifteen reasonably foreseeable projects are

anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect on water resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). Ten of the

projects are presumably beneficial because they are roadway rehabilitation projects that improve

pavement integrity resulting in less erosion potential, such as: Route 10A, Rehabilitation & Widening,



7-70

Sunset Blvd. to Route 16 (C-37), Asan and Aguada Bridge Rehabilitation (AH-9). The remaining projects

include development of various sizes throughout the island that would contribute to an increase in

impervious surface, such as Guam Regional Medical City (N-38). Additionally, development projects are

likely to increase the demand on Guam’s groundwater resources, particularly the NGLA.

Potential Cumulative Effects. Recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects

would involve construction activities that would result in the potential for a temporary increase in

stormwater runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. For projects disturbing more than 1 acre (0.4 ha) during

construction (including the collective action alternatives), a Construction General Permit would be

obtained and followed, and a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented to minimize temporary

increases in runoff and pollutant loading related to construction activities. There is an existing DPRI

Construction Program final Comprehensive SWPPP for the 2010 ROD-Related Actions that are included

in the collective action impacts.

In addition, recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in an

increase in impervious surface area in urban and industrial settings, resulting in a corresponding increase

in stormwater runoff that has the potential to have elevated levels of contaminants, such as sediments,

nutrients, heavy metals, organic and inorganic compounds, and detrimental microorganisms in water

resources. Many of these projects especially, if they are new construction, are likely to increase the

impervious surfaces that would result in an associated increase in stormwater discharge intensities and

volume. New projects are subject to GovGuam review which includes a review of drainage and

stormwater control.

In addition, cumulative actions would be expected to increase the amount of POLs, hazardous waste,

pesticides, and fertilizers being stored, transported, and utilized. Increasing the storage, transportation,

and use of these substances would increase the potential for releases to water resources. Implementation

of BMPs associated with addressing site- and activity-specific water resource protection needs, provisions

of facility-specific SWPPPs, and SPCC Plans would minimize potential impacts from facility operations,

to include the transportation, storage, and use of fuel, on all water resources. In addition, adherence to

surface water quality and volume control measures would also reduce pollutant loading to groundwater

basins, nearshore waters, and wetlands. Many of the projects could potentially impact water resources.

The cantonment/family housing and LFTRC would increase the total existing development-related

impervious surface area on Guam by approximately 1.4%; however, the implementation of BMPs and

LID measures would ensure no off-site transport of excess stormwater runoff. The additive effect of the

collective action in conjunction with the cumulative actions is expected to be low.

Recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects include connections to

wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal systems. Short-term, direct impacts from increased

wastewater discharge from the Northern District WWTP would be non-compliant with the 2013 NPDES

permit that requires treatment system upgrades. There are a large number of projects, including other

DoD projects, in the northern part of Guam. Four of the five cantonment alternatives also are proposed in

the northern part of Guam. There is potential for a strong cumulative impact on nearshore water quality

associated with increased service loads at the Northern District WWTP, which is not in compliance with

NPDES permit requirements. Once upgrades to address the permit conditions have been completed there

would be an improvement to nearshore water quality. This cumulative effect to nearshore water is not

expected for other geographic areas of Guam.

Projects that would reduce and/or ensure less reliance on septic systems for wastewater disposal; thereby

resulting in a benefit to groundwater resources. Furthermore, identified sustainability measures associated



7-71

with the collective action alternatives (e.g., conserving water), when combined with similar measures for

applicable cumulative actions, would benefit groundwater resources. These measures would also benefit

nearshore waters by reducing the nutrient and bacteria load. The collective action would not have a

cumulative effect on these beneficial impacts, except as described for the Northern District WWTP

improvements as described in the previous paragraph.

Average daily groundwater production rates are estimated to increase due to the collective action by 1.7

MGd (6.4 MLd). In addition to potable water demand generated under Alternative A, organic civilian

population growth independent of the proposed action is estimated to result in an average daily long-term

increase in water demand of 3.5 MGd (13.2 MLd). The demand from organic civilian growth would be

satisfied by the GWA system, primarily from the NGLA, but also from surface water in southern Guam.

The forecast water demand increases steadily through year 2028 due to the impact of induced and organic

civilian growth. Total average daily water extraction from the NGLA from all sources (DoD water

system, GWA water system, and a few private wells) is estimated to be 47.0 MGd (177.9 MLd) in year

2028 but would be less than the sustainable yield of 80.5 MGd (304.7 MLd). Management of the NGLA

would be improved through the use of the numerical groundwater model and an updated and expanded

network of monitoring wells. The magnitude of the additive cumulative effect of the collective action on

ground water in conjunction with the cumulative actions is strong.

2010 ROD-Related Actions and non-DoD projects involving construction in Apra Harbor would have the

potential for cumulative effects to nearshore waters. However, these projects would require

Section 404(b) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits from the USACE, and Water

Quality Certification from the GEPA. Permit conditions mitigate the impacts on surface water. The

additive effect would be low in magnitude.

There is the potential for the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects to

have direct and indirect impacts to wetland areas possibly resulting in the loss of wetland area and/or

function. The collective action alternatives that include NAVMAG LFTRCs would impact wetlands. Per

USACE regulations, activities that are proposed in wetlands or that could potentially reduce wetland area

or function must be permitted and potentially mitigated to compensate for impacts to wetland areas.

Therefore, any loss of wetland area or functionality would be potentially mitigated at a project and site-

specific ratio, which would likely include creating or enhancing existing wetland habitat elsewhere on

Guam. Indirect impacts to wetland areas (e.g., runoff, sediment loading) would be addressed on a project-

specific level, and would likely be lessened with BMPs and associated short- and long-term stormwater

runoff management measures. There is insufficient information on the recently completed, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future projects to assess the potential for cumulative effect on wetlands; however,

the assumption is GovGuam agencies would not approve projects that have a direct impact on wetlands.

While the collective action may have a significant mitigable impact on wetlands, the additive effect is

considered low in magnitude.

In summary, implementation of the collective action alternatives, when considered in conjunction with

specific projects on Guam, would have a cumulative effect on water resources. The additive effect of each

collective action alternative would be strong (see Table 7.6-2) specifically as it relates to the nearshore

waters of northern Guam and the Northern District WWTP and groundwater.


resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. GovGuam reviews private and commercial development

proposals for potential impacts to water resources. There are ongoing local and federal conservation and



7-72

restoration efforts to improve water quality. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects are

proposed.

7.7.3 Air Quality

Current Health and Historical Context. Guam’s air quality is described in detail in the 2010 Final EIS

(Volume 2, Chapter 5: Air Quality, Section 5.1: Affected Environment, pages 5‐1 to 5-14). There are no

comprehensive ambient background air quality levels from recent monitoring available for Guam.

Guam’s existing background air quality conditions can be defined based on the current ambient air quality

attainment status applicable to Guam, which is:

Attainment for all criteria pollutants except SO2.

Two SO2 nonattainment areas within a 2.1-mile (3.5-km) radius around Piti and Tanguisson

power plants.

Except for power generating facilities, there are no significant stationary sources of air emissions on

Guam. It can be assumed that prior to the non-attainment designation in the 1970s; historical ambient air

quality was good before and after WWII.

Four recently completed projects were identified with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to

air quality (see Table 7.6-1). Three projects with potential adverse impacts, including Route 8/10/16 Tri-

intersection (C-16), could contribute to the exhaust from idling vehicles. The Ungulate Fencing project

(N-24) is likely to have a beneficial impact by promoting the growth of more vegetation to absorb air

quality particles.

Eight present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to air quality on Guam were

identified (see Table 7.6-1). The wind turbines (C-32) are expected to have a beneficial impact by

offsetting the increased use of fossil fuels for power generation, while the Pacific Airpower Resiliency

(N-26) is likely to have an adverse impact due to an increase in air traffic and use of fossil fuels.


Effect. The collective action alternatives would result in less than significant and mitigable impacts to

Guam’s air quality, as summarized in Table 7.4-1 and 7.6-2. Operational air emissions originate from

stationary and mobile sources. The basis of the air impact analysis was a significance criterion of 250 tons

per year for air pollutants. Air emissions associated with both construction and operation of the collective

action alternatives would be well below the significance criteria of 250 tons per year for all air pollutants.

It is the on and off-base vehicle traffic that could exceed the 250 tons per year threshold of significance

for CO. These impacts, however, would be temporary and localized at intersections. Construction and

operational phase off-base roadway hot spot particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and mobile source air

toxics impact conclusion will be provided after the analysis is completed. The cantonment/family housing

and LFTRC pairings, the additive impacts of Section 6.1 and 2010 ROD-Related Actions would all

contribute to the less than significant impacts of the collective action alternatives.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Air Quality. One reasonably foreseeable project is anticipated

to contribute to a cumulative effect to air quality on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). The 60 MW Power Plant (G-

6) is the project likely to have an adverse impact because of increased fossil fuel use and expanded flight

capacity.

The future traffic growth would likely result in an increase in mobile source emissions on Guam.

However, the reduction of mobile source engine emissions in the future, per CAA requirements, would

contribute to a reduction of the overall mobile source and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the air



7-73

quality conditions affected by mobile source operations would likely remain the same or improve slightly,

as compared to the existing conditions.

Potential Cumulative Effects. Current projects on Guam consist primarily of building developments,

infrastructure upgrades and improvements, and military projects that would contribute to man-made air

emissions. Activities that increase emissions in the non-attainment areas are likely to have a greater

cumulative effect. However, there are projects that are expected to reduce air emissions, such as the port

improvements. The GEPA has adopted the USEPA-established stationary source regulations discussed

previously, and acts as the administrator to enforce stationary source air pollution control regulations on

Guam. Current air quality regulations are applied to air emissions from new sources for the protection of

human health. The recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not

necessarily result in increases in island-wide traffic and air emissions, but new destinations would shift

the emissions from mobile sources.

There will be cumulative effects associated with the collective action alternatives and the actions of other

federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on air quality on Guam. The degree of additive

impact resulting from the collective action alternatives is considered to be low, in part because the

collective action alternatives are not located in the non-attainment area and would not exceed air quality

thresholds. The cumulative effect would not appreciably impact the quality of the ambient air over time

(see Table 7.6-2).



are proposed.

7.7.4 Noise

Current Health and Historical Context. Guam’s noise environment is discussed in detail in the 2010 Final

EIS (Volume 2, Chapter 6: Noise, Section 6.1: Affected Environment, pages 6‐1 to 6-20). WWII

bombings and air operations may represent the loudest period on Guam’s history; however, those noise

impacts were not long-term. Existing sources that contribute to ambient noise include the commercial

airport, AAFB airfield, industrial facilities, military training range activities, and traffic. Most of these

noise impacts are intermittent. Industrial noise, such as power generation, would emit noise for longer

periods, but is subject to OSHA regulations to protect the hearing of sensitive receptors, specifically

workers. There is no island-wide noise level monitoring, and trends in noise are not documented island-

wide. The cumulative effects would be geographically limited.

Two recently completed actions with the potential to contribute to cumulative effects on noise on Guam

were identified (see Table 7.6-1): MIRC (G-2) and Naval Hospital Replacement (C-8), both of which

would involve air traffic that generates noise. They are not in the same geographic location.

Four present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to ambient noise on Guam are

located at AAFB, including the PRTC RH Airfield Operations (N-49).


Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, there would be a significant mitigable impact on

ambient noise due to the LFTRC at Route 15 that is a component of the following collective action

alternatives: A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, and E-1. Civilian residences were identified within the Zone 2 noise

contour. Potential mitigation measures are summarized in Table 5.7-1. All other collective action

alternatives would have a less than significant impact on noise due to cantonment traffic, 2010 ROD-

Related Actions (i.e., airfield operations).



7-74

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Noise. One reasonably foreseeable future project involving

air operations that is anticipated to contribute an adverse noise impact on Guam (see Table 7.6-1) is Guam

Airport Projects (C-35). The adverse impact is based on presumption that the improvements could

facilitate more air traffic-related noise.

Potential Cumulative Effects. Operations of all the recently completed, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future projects would generate some level of noise, but none are likely to exceed federal or

local noise level thresholds for compatible land uses beyond the property boundary. Military mission

changes, changes to commercial air traffic and increases in roadway traffic would likely have the most

impact on ambient noise levels. Cumulative effects would result when these localized impacts overlap

and impact the same sensitive receptors.

The significant mitigable noise impacts associated with the LFTRC at Route 15 would be in the vicinity

of Guam International Raceway, which also generates noise. There would be no cumulative effect

because the collective action alternative precludes the operation of the raceway. Besides traffic and quarry

operations (N-17), no other significant noise generators were identified in the vicinity that could

contribute to a cumulative effect. Cumulative noise effects were not identified in the geographic area of

the NAVMAG LFTRCs.

The air combat element of the 2010 ROD-Related Action would contribute to the noise generated from

other recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at the AAFB airfield. However, no

additive impact was identified on the civilian community outside of the installation. The existing noise

contour that encumbers the community would not expand.

There would be noise impacts associated with the NWF LFTRC collective action alternatives and there

are ongoing training activities at NWF that contribute to the noise levels in the vicinity. However, no

additive impact was identified on the private residences outside of AAFB. An additive noise impact on

terrestrial biological resources was identified, as described in Section 7.7.8.

There would be impacts associated with the collective action alternatives and the actions of other federal

agencies, local governments, and the private sector on ambient noise on Guam; however, the effects

would not be concentrated in one geographic area. The collective action alternatives would have a low

additive cumulative effect, because the affected areas are geographically limited and the impacts are

reversible when operations cease (see Table 7.6-2).



are proposed.

7.7.5 Airspace

Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.5, 4.2.5, 5.5.5, and in the 2010 Final

EIS (Volume 7, Chapter 4: Cumulative Effects, Section 4.3.5.1: Guam Cumulative Effects Assessment,

page 4-40), SUA is designed to alert users about areas of military activity, unusual flight hazards, or

national security needs, and to segregate that activity from other airspace users to enhance safety. The

commercial air traffic fluctuates based on tourism levels, and military use at AAFB is mission-dependent.

Training activities are addressed in the MIRC Airspace Environmental Assessment/Overseas

Environmental Assessment and MITT EIS/OEIS (discussed in Section 7.5). Construction activities rarely

impact airspace, but airspace may be impacted by operations on the ground. Because there are multiple,

and sometimes competing, demands, the FAA considers all aviation airspace requirements in relation to

airport operations, federal airways, jet routes, military flight training activities, and other special needs to



7-75

determine how the National Airspace System can best be structured to satisfy all user requirements.

Significant impacts are avoided prior to FAA approval. While there is a trend toward an increase in air

traffic or ground-based activity that may potentially impact air navigation, significant impacts are avoided

through regulatory oversight. Since the 2010 Final EIS, there have been no substantive changes to the

quantity and quality of airspace Guam-wide and there have been no substantive changes to laws,

regulations or policies relative to airspace.

There are two recently completed projects that have the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to

airspace on Guam: Naval Hospital Replacement (C-8), because there is a helicopter landing site and Air

Freight Terminal Complex (N-23), because it could represent an increase in air traffic (see Table 7.6-1).

However, the existing SUAs described in the affected environment sections of this SEIS represent the

cumulative effects on airspace to date.

Eight present projects have potential to contribute to a cumulative effect. Two of these are wind turbine

projects (S-4 and C-32) that would likely be subject to FAA approval prior to construction, if they were to

occur near a runway, to ensure there was no air navigation hazard. No cumulative effect would be

associated with these projects. Pacific Air Power Resiliency (N-26), MIRC Airspace (G-3), MITT (G-23)

and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (N-39) would impact military air traffic. As these projects are

reviewed by FAA, they are incorporated into the airspace existing condition.


Effect. All of the collective action alternatives have potential to result in a significant mitigable direct

impact on airspace. The impact on commercial air traffic is distinct from military air traffic. Significant

mitigable impacts on civilian air traffic were identified for collective action alternatives, except those that

included NWF LFTRC (see Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2). The NWF LFTRC collective action alternatives (i.e.,

A-5, B-5, C-5, D-5, and E-5) would have a less than significant impact on civilian air traffic because they

would be located a greater distance from the Guam International Airport airspace. These collective action

alternatives affecting NWF would have a significant mitigable impact on military air traffic, while the

other alternatives would have no impact on military air traffic.

The cantonment/family housing component of the collective action alternative would have would have no

impact on airspace. There would be an increase in the total aircraft under the 2010 ROD-Related Actions,

but the existing SUA would be used.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Airspace. There is one reasonably foreseeable project that

could potentially contribute to a cumulative airspace impact on Guam, Guam Airport Project (C-35),

because airport improvements could increase the air traffic capability or require changes to airspace (see

Table 7.6-1).

Potential Cumulative Effects. FAA manages the cumulative effect of air traffic and SUA to ensure there

are no significant impacts to airspace. There is a potential additive impact between the collective action

alternatives and the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, resulting in

modifications to and additional SUAs over time. The degree of additive adverse impact on air traffic

resulting from the collective action alternatives is considered to be low, primarily due to FAA regulatory

control (see Table 7.6-2). The effects would be reversible if air traffic is reduced and live-fire training

stopped.

Need for Mitigation. As summarized in Table 7.6-2, the military and civilian air traffic significant impacts

would be further studied through the DON/FAA consultation process and measures would be identified

through this consultation process to minimize the potential impacts associated with the proposed action.



7-76

The FAA consultation process is applicable to recently completed, present and future projects. No

additional mitigation is warranted.

7.7.6 Land and Submerged Land Use

Current Health and Historical Context. In the 1950s, Guam land use zoning was adopted to manage non-

federally controlled land development. Submerged lands ownership has not changed substantially since

1975. As lands were released through BRAC, adjacent submerged lands were not released. There have

and will continue to be zoning variances, conditional use permits, and changes to the zoning map.

Historically, these were granted excessively, without consistent long range planning. The recent past,

current and future trend is for increased management of land use to be consistent with community and

master plans; however, it is difficult to correct historical zoning decisions. The development that is

inconsistent with zoning is occurring at a less rapid rate. Public access restrictions to federal land and

submerged lands have historically been and continue to be a land use issue. The amount of federal land

has decreased substantially since WWII.

Access to fishing areas and other recreational areas has declined over time due to designated military

training areas and the GovGuam designation of Marine Protected Areas, as shown on Figure 3.6.1-1. The

restricted areas are spread out along Guam’s coast and offshore waters. The training events and tempo are

not continuous and notice to mariners is provided in advance of the training event. The prime fishing

areas are not contiguous. Favorable ocean conditions suitable for fishing or other recreation activities are

not constant or predictable and also contribute to submerged lands inaccessibility. There are some areas

such as the northern and eastern submerged lands that tend to be rough water most of the year, which

increases the demand for submerged land access to western and southern submerged lands. Homeland

Security guidelines include maintaining a minimum of 100-yards (91 m) distance from and maintaining

minimal speed within 500 yards (457 m) of a U.S. naval vessel. The recreational vessels must detour

around naval traffic. All of these factors contribute to the cumulative limitations of public access to prime

fishing/recreational submerged land areas.

There are fish aggregating devices and shallow water moorings that facilitate access to submerged lands

for recreational use; however, they require maintenance pending available funding and some are no

longer useable. Access to the offshore fishing areas on the eastern and northern Guam coast is limited by

minimal wharf/pier infrastructure and generally unfavorable ocean conditions. Although there are no

regulatory thresholds for measuring these types of land use impacts, the public access to submerged lands

is likely to continue to be constrained by natural and anthropogenic factors

Six recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to land and

submerged land use on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1) and two of these could be beneficial,

including Upgrade of Existing 14 Megavolt Ampere Power Transformer to 30 Megavolt Ampere and

Underground Line (G-5) and Release a Guam Land Use Plan 77 Parcel Near South Finegayan (N-15).

The former minimizes land use restrictions by undergrounding a utility line and the latter reduces federal

land. Large development projects have potential to adversely impact adjacent land uses, including

Amusement Park-Tumon (C-12). The MIRC EIS (G-2) proposed increases in training tempos on various

ranges on and around Guam that potentially adversely impact public access to submerged lands.

Nine present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to land and submerged land

use on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-2) and five are potentially adverse, including UOG Wind

Turbine (C-32); 15 MW GovGuam Solar/Wind Turbine (S-4); Guam Regional Medical City (N-38) and

MITT (G-23). Wind turbines and large medical facilities may have land use siting/compatibility issues.

Lateral Conversion of Power Lines to Underground Lines (G-11) could have a beneficial impact on land



7-77

use. MITT would have an adverse impact on submerged land public access to recreational activities,

including fishing.


Effect. All collective action alternatives would result in significant impacts to land or submerged land use,

except collective action alternatives involving the NAVMAG North/South LFTRC (i.e., A-3, B-3, C-3

and D-3), which were described as having less than significant impacts on land use. The significant

impacts are due to new or an increased level of restrictions on public access to areas that are important to

the community. Primarily, the impact is related to LFTRC land acquisition and the encumbrance of

submerged lands by the SDZs, both of which restrict public access.

The collective action alternatives that include the Route 15 LFTRC (i.e., A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, and E-1)

have additional impacts associated with incompatibility with existing and future residential land uses that

contribute to the significant impact, such as the closure of Guam International Raceway and residential

uses within the noise Zone 2 and 3 contours.

The NAVMAG East/West and NAVMAG L-Shaped LFTRC (Alternative 2 and 4, respectively) would

potentially impact the use of the Bolanos Conservation Area.

The 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2) and the additive impacts (Section 6.1) do not contribute to

the level of land/submerged land impacts.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Land and Submerged Land Use. Two reasonably foreseeable

future projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect to land and submerged land use on

Guam (see Table 7.6-1). For example, GovGuam proposes a prison (G-10) and a new 60 MW power plant

(G-6) that may have siting/land use compatibility issues.

Potential Cumulative Effects. The military training projects would continue to the current level of or

increase the public access restriction to submerged lands during training events. The proposed collective

action alternatives with LFTRC SDZs that extend into submerged lands, including the preferred

alternative, would have a significant impact on submerged land use. GovGuam review of projects would

ensure that the non-DoD projects are compatible with existing and future land uses.

Public access to submerged lands for fishing and other recreational activities has declined over time due

to a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors. The additive impact of the proposed collective action

alternatives (those with LFTRC SDZs in submerged lands) in conjunction with the declining “health” of

submerged land public access would result in a cumulative moderate magnitude of adverse impact. The

impact is reversible with changes in military training tempo and decreased submerged land regulation;

however, there are no plans to reduce these restrictions. There will always be uncontrollable natural

conditions such as stormwater runoff and unfavorable weather that would also contribute to reduced

public access to submerged lands.

Need for Mitigation. DoD would work with GDAWR and the GFCA in their ongoing efforts to install and

maintain fish aggregating devices and shallow water moorings to improve submerged land access for

private and military use. Other potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts

to resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1.

7.7.7 Recreational Resources

Current Health and Historical Context. Sections 3.7, 4.2.7, 5.5.7, and in detail in the 2010 Final EIS

(Volumes 2, 4, and 5, Section 9.2; Volume 6, Section 11.2), summarize the historical context of

recreational resource uses. The boom in the tourist industry in the early 1990s likely resulted in an



7-78

increase in conflicts among recreational users and physical deterioration of resources. Other human and

natural factors, such as typhoons, coral bleaching, illegal harvesting of coral and fish, non-point source

pollution, and insufficient funding for resource management, would continue to adversely impact

recreational resources.

Nine recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to recreational

resources on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Seven projects could add to the potential number of

recreational users and thus have the potential to adversely impact, including Workforce Housing (N-10)

and a new hotel (C-4), Talo Verde Estates (C-2), and Hemlani Apartments (C-34). Two projects could

have a beneficial impact because they add diversity and/or create recreational opportunities. This includes

the recent completion of the Amusement Park in Tumon by Tagada Guam (C-12) and the new GovGuam

Student Center (C-13).

Sixteen present projects have the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to recreational resources on

Guam (see Table 7.6-1). Five projects could have a beneficial impact to recreational resources by adding

to the diversity and quantity of options for recreation, such as swimming pools, tennis, and/or golf.

Gregorio D. Perez Marina Renovation & Site Improvement Project (C-39) and Gregorio D. Perez Marina

Dock C Repairs (C-40) would improve the marinas used by recreational boaters. However, the majority

of projects could adversely impact recreational resources because they could increase the resident

population. Projects that increase housing and accommodations (C-21), and new residential style housing

(N-36) could create more individuals seeking leisure and recreational activities.


Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, the impact on recreational resources would be

significant for all of the collective action alternatives. Within the vicinity of the proposed NWF LFTRC

(Alternative 5), there are a number of recreational opportunities, including beaches, picnic sites, camping

areas, water sport sites, fishing and game sports, nature activities, scenic drives and overlooks,

interpretive centers and parks, particularly the Guam NWR. The SDZs for the LFTRC extend over many

of the aforementioned ocean and shoreline recreational resources. Operations would impact 147 acres (57

ha) of the Ritidian Point Unit of the Guam NWR and 240 acres (97 ha) of beachfront may be restricted

during training exercises as described in Section 5.5.7.2. Access to much of this area is already restricted

for natural resources conservation purposes.

The Guam International Raceway would be precluded by the collective action alternatives involving the

LFTRC at Route 15 resulting in the loss of a valued recreational resource. The NAVMAG LFTRCs

would have significant impacts on the ambient noise levels at recreational resources in the vicinity.

The cantonment components, 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2) and the additive actions (Section

6.2) would have less than significant impacts on recreational resources due to an anticipated increase in

use of recreational facilities throughout Guam than impacts to specific recreational resources.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Recreational Resources. One reasonably foreseeable project

has the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to recreational resources on Guam, Sigua Highlands

(C-47) because the project is growth inducing for that area (see Table 7.6-1).

Potential Cumulative Effects. Several of the listed projects appear to have a recreational component that

would create new recreational opportunities or increase capacity. The collective action alternative would

have an additive cumulative impact on recreational resources in conjunction with increased tourism and

other DOD mission changes because they would increase the on-island population. Increases in

recreational resources use would likely occur at beaches and parks, scenic points, historic and cultural



7-79

sites, dive spots, trails, day use resorts, golf courses, sailing venues, on installations, and the rest of the

island alike. Guam’s tropical weather encourages year-round use of recreational resources by residents

and visitors. Foreseeable impacts include inadequate or overly crowded facilities such as parking, picnic

shelters, restrooms, showers, and boat mooring facilities. Moreover, an eroded sense of enjoyment, due to

increased competition for opportunities among users, would result at most recreational facilities (e.g., golf

courses on installations, and popular dive spots). Lastly, an increase in the number of users could

accelerate deterioration of existing facilities.

There will be cumulative effects associated with the collective action alternatives and the actions of other

federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on recreational resources on Guam. The

magnitude of the effect is moderate (see Table 7.6-2) because there may be thresholds of recreational

resource health but they are for specific recreational sites or activities. The pressure on recreational

resources could be adaptively managed. Long-term impacts could be reversed if there are appropriate

resources.



are proposed.

7.7.8 Terrestrial Biological Resources

Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this SEIS, and in detail

in the 2010 Final EIS, the terrestrial biological health on Guam is declining. The effect of pre-colonial

activities on the current health of Guam’s terrestrial biological resources is unknown. During the Spanish

Period (1668-1899) there were introductions and an increase of domesticated animals (i.e., water buffalo,

pigs, goats, and deer). Introduced ungulates have significantly impacted native forests by consuming

seeds, fruits and foliage and trampling plants. Feral pigs also cause additional damage by wallowing and

rooting.

WWII physically destroyed extensive areas of habitat (due to war actions and construction) along with

continued clearings associated with agriculture (i.e., crops and grazing). Shortly after WWII, the brown

treesnake was inadvertently introduced to the island and by the late 1960s had spread throughout Guam

(Section 1.3.3).

Existing stressors (e.g., tropical storms, typhoons, invasive species, diseases, wildfires, development, and

poaching) continue to degrade habitat quality, population resiliency, and contribute to the trend of

declining health of terrestrial biological resources. Ongoing efforts to manage terrestrial resources on

military lands and non-federally controlled lands would continue to reduce the rate of decline.

Fewer than 1,000 threatened Mariana fruit bats were believed to occur on Guam in 1972 and less than

100 bats from 1974 to 1977. The most recent surveys suggest that fewer than 50 bats remain on Guam.

Hunting pressure is largely responsible for the decline. Although hunting is illegal, it remains a threat.

The endangered Guam rail and Guam Micronesian kingfisher are believed to have been extirpated in the

wild by 1985 and 1988, respectively. Both species were close to becoming extinct along with the majority

of Guam’s other avifauna as a direct result of predation by the introduced brown treesnake. The Guam rail

exists primarily in captivity on Guam and in mainland zoos. Guam rails were introduced onto Rota,

CNMI in 1989 and onto Cocos Island, off the southern coast of Guam, in 2011. The Guam Micronesian

kingfisher is now found only in captivity on Guam and at mainland zoos. Research and management

efforts continue so that wild populations of Guam rails and Guam Micronesian kingfishers may

eventually be reestablished on Guam.



7-80

Historically on Guam, the endangered Mariana crow was found throughout forested areas, and was

considered common into the early 1960s. As of 2012, the Mariana crow is considered extirpated in the

wild on Guam. The closest population of crows is on the island of Rota, north of Guam. Predation by

brown treesnakes, rats, and monitor lizards prevents recovery.

Fifty-eight recently completed projects have the potential to contribute to adverse cumulative effect to

terrestrial biological resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). The primary impact from these projects would

be the potential loss of native habitat and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. One

project may have a beneficial impact, Ungulate Fencing (N-24).

Sixty-seven present projects have the potential to contribute to an adverse cumulative effect to terrestrial

biological resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). This would be primarily due to the potential loss of

native habitat and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. Reforestation of Masso

Reservoir (AH-2) could have a beneficial impact on terrestrial biology.


Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, the impact on terrestrial biological resources would be

significant and mitigable for all of the collective action alternatives. All five resource areas assessed (e.g.,

vegetation, terrestrial conservation areas, native wildlife, federal special-status species, Guam special-

status species) would be significantly impacted by the direct and indirect impacts of the LFTRC and

cantonment pairings, except there would be a less than significant impact on native vegetation for all

pairings. The adverse impacts would occur during construction and operations phases. Significant

potentially mitigable impacts were also identified for the 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2). The

additive impact associated with the proposed IT/COMM infrastructure was determined to be less than

significant (Section 6.1).

All collective action alternatives convert limestone forest to developed area and the greatest acreage

affected is associated with the cantonment components and 2010 ROD-Related Actions. Overlay refuge

areas would be adversely affected under all collective action alternatives. Federal special-status species

that would be impacted include the Mariana fruit bat, Mariana crow, Guam Micronesian kingfisher, the

Guam rail and the Serianthes tree. The impact on individual species varies among the collective action

alternatives.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Terrestrial Biological Resources. Fifteen reasonably

foreseeable projects have the potential to contribute to an adverse cumulative effect to terrestrial

biological resources on Guam (Table 7.6-1). This would be primarily due to the potential loss of native

habitat and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. Examples of projects with potential

adverse impacts include Sigua Highlands (C-47), Route 4 Curve Widening (S-28), and 60 MW power

Plant (G-6).

Potential Cumulative Effects. All new development requiring vegetation clearing has potential to impact

terrestrial biological resources. There are federally and locally established habitat conservation areas and

increases in human population or other noise generating activities near these areas can disturb the

populations of species that are to be protected in the conservation areas.

There would be cumulative effects associated with the collective action alternatives in conjunction with

recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The additive impact of would be strong

(see Table 7.6-2) because the impacts could be long-term and difficult to reverse. Many of these projects,

developments, and actions, and their impacts on terrestrial biological resources cannot be determined with

specificity at this time. Most of the projects require ground disturbance, and the assumption is that



7-81

terrestrial biological resources would be affected. The terrestrial biological resource health on Guam

would continue to decline, and threatened and endangered species would continue to be vulnerable to

natural and anthropogenic stressors. Because the development area of the collective action alternatives is

presumably larger than that of the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, the

additive cumulative impacts are primarily due to the direct impacts of the collective action alternatives.

Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures for the impacts due to the collective action alternatives

are proposed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. GovGuam reviews public, private, and commercial development

proposals for potential impacts to terrestrial biological resources. The USFWS monitors GovGuam,

private, and commercial development proposals and periodically adjusts the acreage of available recovery

habitat island-wide. This adjustment is used to determine the impact of federal development proposals

that must comply with section 7 of the ESA and may result in mitigation for federal development

proposals. The USFWS and GovGuam review DoD and other federal development proposals and

mitigation is developed through the consultation process. There are local and federal initiatives and

protocols to prevent the introduction of non-native species. There are local and federal conservation and

restoration efforts. No additional mitigation is proposed for cumulative effects to terrestrial biological

resources.

As part of the ESA section 7 consultation process, the DON and the USFWS entered into an MOA, which

would, if the preferred alternative is chosen, facilitate kingfisher conservation goals. In the MOA, the

DON agreed to designate approximately 5,234 acres (2,118 ha) under the custody and control of the DoD

in northern Guam to a status that will provide durable habitat protection needed to support native habitat

restoration and land management for the survival and recovery of the kingfisher. Consistent with the JRM

INRMP developed in accordance with Section 101 of the Sikes Act, the DON agreed to actively restore

native habitat and manage, in collaboration with the USFWS, the 5,234 acres (2,118 ha) consistent with

DoD’s obligations under ESA section 7(a) and the Sikes Act to benefit the survival and recovery of the

kingfisher. The DON would work cooperatively with the USFWS to identify, develop and implement

specific management activities and projects on these 5,234 acres (2,118 ha) to support the reintroduction

and recovery of the kingfisher.

These 5,234 acres (2,118 ha) have been identified by the USFWS as habitat for the kingfisher and needed

to offset impacts of the proposed action. The DON and USFWS recognize that the designation of the

5,234 acres (2,118 ha) may also provide a conservation benefit to other ESA-listed species with similar

habitat requirements (e.g., Mariana crow, Mariana fruit bat).

7.7.9 Marine Biological Resources

Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.9, 4.2.9, 5.5.9, and in this section,

the overall health of Guam’s reefs has declined over time, with impacts from global and local stressors

contributing to a significant decline over recent decades. The average live coral cover was approximately

50% in the 1960s, but dwindled to less than 25% by the 1990s, with only a few areas having over 50%

live cover. In the past, however, Guam’s reefs have recovered after drastic declines. For example, an

outbreak of the crown-of-thorns starfish in the early 1970s reduced coral cover in some areas from 50-

60% to less than 1%, but 12 years later, live coral cover was restored to pre-1970s conditions. The more

common trend, however, is the decline of Guam’s reefs over the past 40 years, consistent with a general

global decline of this resource.

Prior to Spanish conquest, the Chamorro and other Pacific societies retained property rights within the

family that extended out to sea. While fishing occurred, it was likely done at sustainable levels.

Harvesting of sea turtles and their eggs also occurred. The effect of pre-WWII events on the current



7-82

health of Guam’s marine biological resources is unknown. There was likely coral damage due to storm

and wave events, but low levels of human-induced stress because population and industry levels were

much lower than today.

The creation of Inner and Outer Apra Harbor during WWII required extensive dredge and fill. The

navigational approach to Inner Apra Harbor was dredged. In addition to the direct physical impact on

marine resources due to the war, indirect impacts resulted from an increase in soil erosion as described

under the terrestrial biological resources section. The sediment load in the coastal waters likely had an

impact on the health of the reefs. Post-WWII dredging in Apra Harbor resulted in a decline of coral

communities and compensatory mitigation proposals are being implemented to restore the ecosystem

function in other watersheds.

Since WWII, the health of marine biological resources has been affected by an increasing population, and

associated recreational, industrial and commercial operations that impact the natural environment. More

recently, the most serious threats to Guam’s reef health have been identified as sedimentation (from

illegal wildfires, improper development, and upland erosion), stormwater runoff and associated pollutants

such as fertilizers and oil (from inadequate protections during coastal development and insufficient

stormwater management practices and infrastructure), and overfishing.

A variety of land-based activities have contributed to nutrient input to nearshore waters. A 2010

assessment by GEPA determined that while most of the 24 assessed bays met water quality guidelines for

recreational activities and harvesting, 11 of the bays were impaired. Over 700 swimming advisories due

to bacterial counts in marine waters were issued in 2009, likely stemming from faulty septic tanks and

non-compliance by treatment facilities with NPDES regulations for various parameters. In 2009, two

treatment plants that had previously been the source of untreated sewage into nearshore waters were

renovated to repair the leaks and extend the outfall pipes further offshore.

Adding to these stressors are the more recent emergences of crown of thorns outbreaks, coral disease, and

coral bleaching. There are six coral diseases that affect Guam’s reefs, with over 10% of corals observed in

one study, affected by at least one disease.

A total of nine special-status species potentially occur within the nearshore waters of Guam: three fish,

three sea turtles, and three coral species (Tables 3.9.1-1 and 3.9.1-2). In April 2013, NMFS found that the

Indo-West Pacific Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark be listed as threatened

(NMFS 2014a) under the ESA. Information on the distribution of scalloped hammerhead sharks around

Guam is limited, but Guam’s Outer Apra Harbor has been noted for neonate and juvenile aggregations.

The humphead wrasse and bumphead parrotfish are NMFS Species of Concern. NMFS announced in

November 2012 that the bumphead parrotfish did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under

the ESA following a status review (NMFS 2012a). NMFS also found in September 2014 that the

humphead wrasse did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA following a status

review, but it is virtually extinct from the waters around Guam (NMFS 2014b). The ESA-listed green and

hawksbill sea turtles are threatened by direct harvesting of eggs or adults, beach cleaning and

replenishment, recreational activities, debris, incidental take from fishing, and seagrass degradation.

In August 2014, NMFS found three species of coral occurring in the waters surrounding Guam (Acropora

globiceps, Acropora retusa, and Seriatopora aculeata) merited listing as threatened under the ESA

(NMFS 2014c). The conclusion of a recent State of the Coral Reef Ecosystem on Guam assessment was

that the health of Guam’s coral reefs varies significantly. Reefs unaffected by sediment and nutrient

loading, such as those in the northern part of the island and some coastal areas in the south, have healthy

coral communities. Guam’s reefs have been spared from large-scale bleaching events and coral diseases



7-83

which are prevalent in so many parts of the world. A number of Guam’s reefs are impacted by land-based

sources of pollution and over-fishing. Guam identified land-based sources of pollution as its number one

priority focus area in 2002. Sedimentation, algal overgrowth due to decreased fish stocks, and low

recruitment rates of both corals and fish are important issues that must also be addressed. Big Blue Reef

in Apra Harbor is considered one of the healthiest reefs in the harbor due to the reef’s protection from

water quality factors associated with Inner Apra Harbor and ship-induced sediment resuspension that

impact other reef systems in the harbor. Reefs off Dry Dock Island, which was artificially created during

WWII, are considered to also be among the healthiest reefs in the harbor, primarily due to protection from

stressors. In contrast, the coral reef along Polaris Point, which was also constructed during WWII, is of

marginal quality and has the greatest signs of stress, including high levels of total suspended solids likely

derived from watershed discharge. Recreational activities result in physical damage to coral reefs, and

fish feeding by snorkelers and divers can alter fish behavior. Recent studies conducted in support of this

SEIS identify evidence of anchor and/or anchor chain damage to coral in Apra Harbor, including the

formation of a rubble field on the southern side of the floating dry dock. Movement of mooring chains on

the southern side of the floating dry dock has produced a significant rubble field, although mooring chains

on the northern (outer) side of the floating dry dock do not appear to have caused similar damage.

On a more global scale, the nine most important threats to reef-building corals include: ocean warming

(high), disease (high), ocean acidification (medium-high), trophic impacts of fishing (medium),

sedimentation (low-medium), nutrients (low-medium), sea-level rise (low-medium), predation (low), and

collection and trade (low), as stated by the Coral Biological Review Team assembled to complete

comprehensive status reviews of the 82 species of reef-building coral initial proposed for ESA-listing.

Potential impacts from these threats to coral are related to the intensity and duration of the threat over

time and space, and nearly all are expected to increase over the long term. Ocean warming, disease, and

ocean acidification are discussed more under the “Potential Cumulative Effects” section below.

Sixteen recently completed projects have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects to marine

biological resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). Nine of these projects could have a beneficial impact

because they reduce erosion or improve infrastructure, such as, Northern District WWTP (N-32) and

Construction of Golf Pier Pipeline Replacement (AH-16). Projects with potential adverse impacts are

coastal projects: Gregorio D. Perez Dock A&B Steel Pile Extension and Water Blasting (C-19), and Kilo

Wharf (AH-4).

Thirty present projects were identified and 23 of these could have a beneficial impact because they are

infrastructure improvements, such as: Wastewater System Planning (G-12), Facilities Plan/Design for

WWTP (G-13), Marine and Port Security Operations Center (AH-13), Old Agat Wastewater Collection

(Phase II) (S-10), Hagåtña Sewage Treatment Plant Improvements and Effluent WWPS (C-42), Facilities

Plan For Hagåtña STP Improvements and Effluent WWPS (C-41), and Modernization Program for Port

Reconfiguration, Maintenance, and Repair (AH-11), and Northern District WWTP (N-32), Agana Water

Treatment Plant Interim Measures (C-43), and Wastewater Collection System Replacement/Rehabilitation

Program (G-19). Projects with a potential adverse impact include new or improved wharves and piers,

such as Gregorio D. Perez Marina Dock C repairs (C-40), military training ranges (MITT [G-23]) and

port modernization program (AH-11).


Impact. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, all of the collective action alternatives would result in

less than significant long-term impacts to marine biological resources. These impacts are indirect and tend

to be associated with the proposed population increase, which would increase pressure on marine



7-84

recreational resources around the island and increase the volume of wastewater effluent. With planned

GovGuam improvements to wastewater treatment plants, there would be no impact on marine resources

due to wastewater effluent in the long-term. There may be impacts to marine conservation areas that are

adjacent to the cantonment alternatives but this would not apply to the Barrigada cantonment (Alternative

D). Similarly, there would be no impact associated with the operations of the LFTRC alternatives at

NAVMAG (Alternatives 2, 3, 4) because they are not affecting submerged lands. The less than significant

impacts identified for these coastal LFTRCs are related to the remote chance that there would be rounds

of ammunition that end up in the ocean. No training exercises in the water are planned; therefore, no

direct impact to marine resources is anticipated.

The restricted public access to the NWF LFTRC SDZ could be viewed as a beneficial impact to marine

resources because there would be reduced impacts on marine resources associated with recreational use.

The 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2) and the additive actions (Section 6.1) would have less than

significant or no impact on marine biological resources. There would be direct short-term localized

construction-related impacts associated with the Apra Harbor wharf improvements, but the impacts would

not have a long-term impact on the health of the resource.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Marine Biological Resources. Two reasonably foreseeable

future projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect to marine biological resources on Guam

(see Table 7.6-1). X-Ray Wharf Improvements (AH-10) may have short-term adverse impacts to marine

biological resources because there is in-water work. The Umatac-Merizo STP Replacement (S-18) would

have a beneficial impact because it is in infrastructure improvement.

Potential Cumulative Effects. The collective action alternative impacts on marine biological resources are

indirect and less than significant, and primarily associated with the proposed increase in island

population. Two collective action alternatives have SDZs over water and there is slight potential for direct

impact to individuals of a species but there would be no impact to the overall health of the population.

Most of the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would have a beneficial

impact on marine biology because they are sewer infrastructure improvement projects. MITT is an

exception.

There would be a low additive cumulative effect (see Table 7.6-2) because the waterfront projects

identified are few, the direct impacts would be localized, and there are regulatory controls to mitigate the

impacts. The collective action alternatives would not impact the resiliency of marine biological resource

health in responding to future stressors.


resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. Additional mitigation measures may be considered based

on consultations with regulatory agencies and will be discussed in the ROD, as appropriate.

7.7.10 Cultural Resources

Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.10, 4.2.10, 5.5.10, and in detail in

the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Section 12.1: Affected Environment, pages 12-1 to 12-38), cultural

resources include Pre-Contact and Post-Contact archaeological resources, architectural resources and

traditional cultural properties. The main Mariana Islands were settled before 1500 B.C. The Pre-Latte

period was from 1500 B.C. to 1000 A.D.; evidence of residency and community composition is difficult

to identify. The Latte Period (1000 A.D. to 1300 A.D.) is distinguished by the presence of latte stone

structures. The Post-Contact period begins in 1521 A.D. with Magellan’s landing. Subsequently, disease

and war decimated the local population, reducing it from 40,000 in 1668 to 1,800 in 1690. In the 19th



7-85

century, Guam was ceded to the U.S. by Spain. Between 1898 and 1941, Guam served as a coaling and

fueling station for Naval ships and as a landing place for the Pan-American transpacific air clippers. In

1941, Japan attacked Guam and in 1944, the U.S. commenced an intensive bombardment. After the U.S.

captured the island there was a massive build-up of military forces, including construction of five new

airfields. Since the 1960s, tourism has been an important industry.

Since 1966, most potential impacts to cultural resources as defined under NEPA have been evaluated

consistent with NHPA and the Criteria of Adverse Effect set forth at 36 CFR 800.5. Overall the health of

cultural resources can be impacted as a result of inadvertent disturbance, construction activities, and

natural degradation and damage due to erosion. On Guam, for example, prior to the enactment of NHPA

and NEPA, activities related to WWII resulted in a general degradation of the health of cultural resources.

Today, while some areas have been heavily impacted, there are other areas that remain where cultural

resources are significantly intact. In consideration of this, the overall health of cultural resources is

moderate.

Sixty-one recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to cultural

resources on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Any project that results in ground disturbance could

contribute to a cumulative effect on cultural resources, such as Ukudu Workforce Village (e.g., N-28),

roadway construction or improvements (e.g., Route 25 [C-6]), or structures like the Veterans Clinic (C-3)

and the Bayview 5 Luxury Hotel (C-4). No projects were identified that would have a beneficial effect on

cultural resources.

Sixty-eight present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect on cultural resources on

Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Many of these projects are residential construction (e.g., Emerald

Ocean View Park [C-21]) or roadway construction or improvements (e.g., Route 4, Togcha River to Ipan

beach park [S-20]), but there are a variety of other activities that could have an adverse cumulative effect

on the resources, such as Lateral Conversion of Powerlines to Underground Lines (G-11). One project,

the new Guam Museum (C-24) would have a beneficial impact on cultural education.


Effect. All collective action alternatives would result in significant mitigable impacts to Guam’s cultural

resources as a result of the cantonment/family housing and LFTRC component, as summarized in Tables

7.4-1 and 7.6-2. The exception is the significant impact identified for the collective action alternatives that

involve the NWF LFTRC (A-5, B-5, C-5, D-5, and E-5), due to the restriction of public access to a

NRHP-eligible site at Ritidian Unit of the Guam NWR. Table 6.2.4-2 summarizes the collective action

impacts, including the numbers of historic properties affected. Direct construction impacts alone would

result in adverse effects to a minimum of 20 known historic properties under collective action alternative

D-1 and a maximum of 49 historic properties for collective action alternative A-5. In addition, there are

undetermined effects to historic properties and archaeological sites that have not been evaluated and

impacts to culturally important natural resources. The ROD-Related Actions contribute to the impact on

cultural resources, but the majority of the impact would be related to the cantonment/housing and LFTRC

development.

Each of the collective action alternatives would contribute to the decline in preservation of cultural

resources. Other factors unrelated to the project, such as vandalism and weathering, would continue to

adversely impact cultural resources.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Cultural Resources. Fourteen reasonably foreseeable projects

are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect to cultural resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1)



7-86

because they are likely to involve ground disturbance. These projects include road construction (e.g.,

Route 17 Rehabilitation & Widening [S-27]), and Sigua Highlands (C-47).

Potential Cumulative Effects. There would be cumulative effects associated with the collective action

alternatives and the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of other federal

agencies, local governments, and the private sector on cultural resources on Guam. These impacts may be

linked to projects, developments, and actions that do not meet the criteria for a federal undertaking as

defined in the NHPA. The impacts of these actions cannot be determined with specificity at this time.

Implementation of the collective action alternatives in conjunction with recently completed, present, and

reasonably foreseeable actions would have a cumulative effect on cultural resources. The magnitude of

the impact would be strong because the impacts are long-term and generally irreversible. Disturbance or

destruction of these cultural resources would further diminish the regional historic record, thus decreasing

the potential of its overall research contribution. Reduced access to cultural sites, whether for cultural

practices or academic study, would also diminish the cultural resources of Guam.

Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation for the impacts of the collective action alternatives is described

in Section 6.2 of this SEIS. To the degree possible, impacts to historic properties and other significant

cultural resources would be avoided or minimized during the planning process. If avoidance is not

possible, potential mitigation measures to resolve adverse impacts to historic properties and reduce

adverse impacts to cultural resources resulting from the implementation of collective actions would

include the following:

support Guam SHPO’s update of the Guam Historic Preservation Plan (GHPP);

beginning in 2017, update the Guam Synthesis with information from DoD studies in concert

with the GHPP;

nominate two or more historic properties on DoD land per year for listing in the NRHP;

In accordance with the 2011 PA, support construction of a Guam Cultural Repository and seek

congressional authorization to transfer DoD funding for the construction. The $12,000,000

appropriated under the FY 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 112-74) for a

Guam Cultural Repository facility remains in place. The appropriation provides funding for a

repository for curation of archaeological collections on Guam and to serve as a source of

information on Guam history and culture; and

advocate to other federal agencies to provide funding for the Guam Museum Complex.

With the implementation of these measures and processes as outlined in the 2011 PA, it is expected that

significant cumulative impacts would be partially mitigated but not to a less than significant level.

No additional mitigation measures are proposed for cumulative effects on cultural resources.

7.7.11 Visual Resources

Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.11, 4.2.11, 5.5.11, and in this

section, the visual quality of Guam prior to WWII was presumably high due to the prevalence of open

space. Urban development and introduction of invasive species are likely the most notable cause for

change in visual environments; the physical characteristics of a development as well as location, influence

the resulting visual impact. Natural disasters, such as typhoons and earthquakes, contribute to the

degradation of the appearance of existing developments. Some developments are abandoned and fall into

disrepair with an adverse impact on visual resources. When the economy is good, there is a tendency for

increased development or property improvement. Conversely, during hard economic times, buildings are

not maintained or are abandoned. The visual resources trend over time is not linear, but is influenced by



7-87

critical events. In general, there is a trend toward increased development. GovGuam reviews development

proposals to verify they are consistent with zoning objectives with respect to density and do not interfere

with valued scenic views. There is no regulatory threshold regarding visual health of Guam.

Eleven recently completed projects that affect visual resources on Guam are identified in Table 7.6-1.

Those with potential adverse impacts include: Workforce Housing (N-10), Talo Verde Estates (C-2),

Bayview 5 Hotel (C-4), and Amusement Park (C-12). These are all projects that alter the visual

experience from adjacent roadways relative to what was previously on the various sites. Layon Landfill

(S-3) affects an area that was formerly open space; however, there is little traffic in the area. One project

could have a beneficial visual impact: Upgrade of Existing 14 Megavolt Ampere Power Transformer to

30 Megavolt Ampere and Underground Line (G-5).

Nineteen present projects that affect visual resources on Guam are identified in Table 7.6-1. Two of these

projects could have a beneficial impact because it involves the lateral conversion of power lines to

underground lines (G-11) and Reforestation of Masso Reservoir (AH-2). GovGuam and UoG Wind

Turbines (S-4 and C-32) are tall features that are visible from a distance and may impact views. Anti-

terrorism/Force Protection Perimeter Fencing is an example of a military base project that would be

visible to the community.


Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, collective action alternatives would have impacts on

visual resources that range from less than significant to significant. The adverse impacts are related to the

LFTRC component of the collective action alternatives. The collective action alternatives A-5, B-5, C-5,

D-5, E-5, A-2, B-2, C-2, D-2, and E-2 would have less than significant impacts on visual resources due to

large-scale development with limited public views. The significant impacts associated with the remaining

alternatives include two of the NAVMAG LFTRC alternatives that would be visible from Jumullong

Manglo Overlook and Mount Lamlam and their associated hiking trails to two of NAVMAG LFTRC

(LFTRC Alternatives 3 and 4). Significant mitigable direct impacts would be due to alteration of the

views from Route 15 to the proposed LFTRC (Alternative 1) Potential mitigation measures are proposed

to restore/maintain natural vegetation to the extent practical. Less than significant impacts would be

associated with all collective action alternatives due to increased building density for cantonment/family

housing. The development would be designed to be consistent with the 2011 Installation Insurance Plan.

While the base would not be accessible to the public, some features would be publicly-visible including

the entrance gates, perimeter fencing and peripheral landscaping and vertical infrastructure such as light

posts and water tanks. These, and the remaining features of the new base, would present a united design

template as outlined in the Installation Insurance Plan. No significant impacts to visual resources were

identified for the 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2) and the additive impacts (Section 6.1). The

collective action alternatives would not contribute appreciably to the declining trend in visual resources.

Other factors unrelated to the project, such as natural disasters and economic downturns, would continue

to adversely impact visual resources.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Visual Resources. Three reasonably foreseeable future

projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect to visual resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1).

The one public utility project that might adversely impact open space is the GovGuam 60 MW Power

Plant (G-6). The remaining projects include large development proposals that could impact open space,

such as: Sigua Highlands (C-47), and the Territorial Prison (G-10).

Potential Cumulative Effects. There would be cumulative effects associated with the collective action

alternatives in conjunction with recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of other



7-88

federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on visual resources on Guam. The

implementation of any development project would likely remove open space and potentially result in an

adverse impact. Some projects may replace abandoned or deteriorated buildings that would result in an

improvement to visual resources. The GovGuam reviews development proposals and impacts to valued

scenic viewpoints would be identified and considered in the permit application process.

Visual impacts are geographically limited. The recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable

actions in the southern part of Guam (Figure 7.5-4) are unlikely to contribute to a cumulative impact in

conjunction with the NAVMAG collective action alternatives in the south. There would be no cumulative

impact associated with the 2010 ROD-Related Actions in Inner Apra Harbor. The Barrigada cantonment

(Alternative D) is located in central Guam (Figure 7.5-2) and open space would be reduced, but most of

the actions identified in the area are low profile road improvement projects; therefore, no cumulative

impact is anticipated on the visual resources in Central Guam. Northern Guam has the greatest potential

for cumulative impacts due to the number of recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable

actions and the potential for both the cantonment, LFTRC and the Air Combat Element of the 2010 ROD-

Related Actions to be located in the north. However, most of the visual impact of the collective action

alternatives in the north would occur within the installation boundary and would not be visible to the

public.

For these reasons, there would be a low additive cumulative effect between the collective action

alternatives that would be located within DoD installations and the recently completed, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future projects with respect to impacts on visual resources (see Table 7.6-2). The

low additive impact would be limited to the northern part of Guam. No additive impact is anticipated to

other areas of Guam.



are proposed.

7.7.12 Ground Transportation

Current Health and Historical Context. Sections 3.12, 4.2.12, 5.5.12 provide information on current

health of the resource. Periodic master plans and roadway studies have been prepared by GovGuam to

assess roadway and traffic conditions to identify and prioritize roadway and traffic improvement projects.

The most recent comprehensive planning effort is the 2030 Guam Transportation Plan, published in

December 2008. Forecasts for population and employment through the year 2030 were used to develop an

integrated strategy for a multimodal (e.g., vehicle, pedestrian, mass transit) transportation system. The

roadway conditions vary from acceptable (no major safety issues), to poor (minor safety issues) to

unacceptable. There is a bus system that includes a fixed route, and service for the handicapped; however,

there are concerns with scheduling that result in poor ridership. Outside of military installations,

designated bicycle lanes are not available and sidewalks are limited to main routes in urbanized areas.

The traffic on roadways is driven by island population and employment related to land use development.

Roadway condition is a function of construction material, age, vehicle type, traffic volume, and natural

influences such as climate, typhoons, and earthquakes. Since 1950, the population has continued to

increase on Guam. The future trends in population growth are expected to increase and continue through

2030; however, the Guam Transportation Plan considered increases related to the military relocation. The

roads serving Dededo and Tamuning are currently the most congested because they serve major

residential and employment centers. Roadway improvements were identified to address projected 2030

traffic issues, and projects would be implemented as funds become available. Sections 4.2.12 and 5.5.12



7-89

describe the baseline conditions for the specific roadways that would be affected by the collective action

alternatives, assuming the improvements identified in the Plan are implemented. Island-wide there are an

estimated 12 intersections in 2014 and 24 in 2030 that would have the poorest LOS. Although some

projects are programmed for funding, traffic conditions are projected to deteriorate on Guam. The natural

influences on roadway conditions would continue into the future.

There are private shopping and tour buses that operate among Micronesian Mall, KMART, Guam Premier

Outlets and other destinations. The recently established GRTA is responsible for public transit functions.

It approved the Guam Transit Business Plan in January 2010, which includes purchasing new buses,

constructing a bus maintenance facility, and modifying the bus schedule. Pending funding, a future trend

is for improvements to bus service. Guam Public Law requires the consideration and construction of

bicycle and pedestrian paths with all new road construction projects. The 2030 Guam Transportation Plan

also identifies a plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. New developments and roadway projects would

include pedestrian and bicycle facilities and improve pedestrian and bicycle options; however, without

adequate funding, the existing deficiencies in facilities are likely to continue. The FHWA and other

federal transit funding can be used for bicycle lanes.

Twenty-nine recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to

roadways on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Most (20) of these projects would have a beneficial

impact because they are roadway improvement projects that would improve traffic LOS, including Route

25 (C-6) and Route 8/10/16 Tri-intersection (C-16). Residential construction (e.g., N-10) and hotel

development (e.g., C-4) would have an adverse impact to roadways because they induce traffic.

Thirty-two present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to roadways on Guam

were identified (see Table 7.6-1) and 17 are likely to have a beneficial impact. These beneficial projects

include, Route 1-8 Intersection Improvements & Agana Bridges Replacement (C-29). Residential

construction (e.g., Sagan Bonita [C-26]) and Guam Regional Medical Centers (e.g., N-38) may have an

adverse impact to roadways because they induce traffic.


Effect. As summarized in Section 6.2 of this SEIS, the collective action alternatives would have less than

significant impacts on off-base traffic LOS. Less than significant impacts were identified for increased

potential for collisions with bicyclists and pedestrians under all collective action alternatives. No long-

term impacts were identified to on-base traffic. The 2010 ROD-Related Actions would have less than

significant impacts on traffic.

The significant direct impact on LOS is due to the pairing of each LFTRC and cantonment/family

housing alternative and most of the impacts are mitigable to less than significant (see Additive Impacts,

Section 6.1). Specific roadway improvement projects were identified as potential mitigation for

significant impacts identified for Finegayan and Finegayan/South Finegayan cantonment/family housing

alternatives (i.e., A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5; B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5; E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5). With

implementation of the potential mitigation measures described in Section 6.1, traffic would improve to an

acceptable LOS for affected roadways and intersections. The cantonment alternatives include bike lanes

that are segregated from vehicle lanes resulting in a beneficial impact on multimodal traffic and safety.

Potential mitigation measures were not identified for the significant impacts at the remaining alternatives,

involving cantonment at AAFB or Barrigada.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Ground Transportation. Eleven out of 12 reasonably

foreseeable projects are anticipated to have a beneficial impact on ground transportation, because they are

roadway improvement projects (see Table 7.6-1). Examples of beneficial projects include: Route 26/25



7-90

Intersection Improvements (C-31), Route 10A, Route 1/Tiyan Intersection and Route 5 Rehabilitation &

Widening (S-29). The Sigua Highlands project (C-47) would have an adverse impact on traffic because it

would induce more traffic into the area.

Potential Cumulative Effects. There would be cumulative ground transportation effects associated with

the collective action alternatives in conjunction with recently completed, present, and reasonably

foreseeable projects that induce traffic. Very few growth-inducing projects were identified among the

recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. The adverse effects are adaptively

managed through roadway improvement projects. A large number of roadway improvement projects

throughout the island are already planned by GovGuam DPW to address LOS deficiencies, but these are

subject to funding availability. The magnitude of additive impact resulting from every collective action

alternatives would be strong (see Table 7.6-2) because the infrastructure improvement projects are subject

to funding availability and there may be a lag time before the improvement projects are constructed.

Need for Mitigation. Specific roadway improvement projects are proposed in Chapter 6.1 of this SEIS as

potential mitigation measures for the significant impacts due to the collective action alternatives.

GovGuam continues to update their transportation program to address existing LOS deficiencies. No

additional mitigation measures are proposed for cumulative effects.

7.7.13 Marine Transportation

Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Chapters 3, 4 and 5, and in the 2010 Final EIS,

during WWII, port capacity was greatly expanded. As new military ships are brought to Guam and

military missions change, there is always the potential for an increase in military marine traffic. The

commercial traffic is a function of population and general economic health of the island. The number of

non-military vessels visiting the Port of Guam would continue to reflect the need to service the population

and economic growth.

Three out of five recently completed projects have the potential to contribute to a beneficial cumulative

effect to marine transportation on Guam (see Table 7.6-1) because they are port improvement projects,

including Kilo Wharf Extension (AH-4). Population inducing projects may increase the shipping of

goods, including PRTC Warrior Barracks (N-12).

Six out of 11 present projects have the potential to contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect to marine

transportation on Guam (see Table 7.6-1), including Romeo Wharf Improvements (AH-21), Guam Port

Modernization Projects (AH-11), and GovGuam Agat Marina Dock A Repair & Renovation (S-16).

Projects with potential to increase shipping of goods include, Pacific Air Power Resiliency (N-26).


Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, each of the collective action alternatives would result in

less than significant impacts to Guam’s marine transportation. There would be an increase in vessel traffic

to the Port of Guam that would be the same for each of the collective action alternatives. This increase

would not exceed the port’s capacity. There has been a steady and substantial decline in the number of

commercial vessels visiting the Port of Guam from 1995 through 2008 (2,924 to 1,022 vessels), the

additional traffic that would be associated with the collective action alternatives would be well below the

1995 peak number of vessels visiting the Port of Guam.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Marine Transportation. One reasonably foreseeable future

project is anticipated to beneficially contribute to a cumulative effect to marine transportation at Guam,

X-Ray Wharf (AH-10) (see Table 7.6-1).



7-91

Potential Cumulative Effects. There would be an additive impact between the collective action

alternatives and the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, but the

magnitude of additive impact resulting from the collective action alternatives would be low (see Table

7.6-2). Although the volume of goods may increase to support the increases in population, the increase in

ship traffic is considerably lower than vessel traffic experienced in the late 1990s. The commercial port is

not at risk of being unable to meet the anticipated increases in demand.



are proposed.

7.7.14 Utilities

Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, and in this section the

trends in utility demand are tied to population growth and constructed facility growth that has generally

increased over time. Electrical power demand is typically estimated based on the square footage of

constructed facilities. Water and wastewater quantities are forecast using population and industrial uses.

Solid waste quantities are estimated using population, commercial/industrial operations, and construction

activity for C&D debris and green waste.

In the utility studies prepared for this SEIS, the forecast electrical power demand was based on planned

DoD projects and their square footage/type of facility. In addition, the analysis forecast the electrical

power demand increases for civilian projects based on population growth forecast, both induced growth

including construction workforce and organic civilian growth forecast (independent of the proposed

Marine Corps Relocation). Based on these estimates, there is sufficient power generation capacity to meet

current and forecast demands through the year 2028. GPA may have a different approach to civilian

power demand forecasting that could affect their future plans.

The GWA potable water distribution system is identified as poor; it does not meet basic flow and pressure

requirements for all customers. GWA is currently operating under a stipulated order last amended in

October 2011. A program management consultant has been contracted to manage the required

improvement projects, and some projects have been completed while others are in progress. In addition,

the leak detection and repair program has yielded results based on GWA observed positive operational

characteristics. However, it is too soon to confirm these observations. The recently completed USEPA

NEIC Water Inspection Report revealed continued deficiencies in the GWA potable water system.

The GWA wastewater infrastructure has had a legacy of deferred maintenance and minimal capital

improvements causing the systems to deteriorate over the years and resulting in violations of NPDES

permit limits at WWTPs. The wastewater systems would continue to degrade until capital improvements

are made. The current major wastewater compliance requirements for GWA are covered under the 2011

Court Order, significant findings for wastewater from a USEPA NEIC inspection conducted in 2012, and

2013 NPDES permits requiring treatment system upgrades for the Northern District WWTP and Agana

WWTP.

In the years since the 2010 Final EIS, the GWA has made progress in complying with the 2011 Court

Order, including addressing significant findings from the 2012 USEPA NEIC inspection. However,

implementation of capital improvement projects and improvements to the operation and maintenance of

the existing GWA wastewater infrastructure are in the initial stages and will require several years and

significant funding to achieve full compliance. A program management consultant has been contracted by

the GWA to assist in the management of the required court ordered projects. Some projects have been



7-92

completed while others are in progress. The Northern District WWTP and the Agana WWTP primary

treatment capabilities have been improved subsequent to the 2010 Final EIS through chemically enhanced

treatment. The effluent today is of better quality than in 2010. However, USEPA issued the 2013 permits

requiring effluent quality be consistent with secondary treatment and Guam Water Quality Standards,

including those for nutrients. The 2013 NPDES permits for the Northern District WWTP and Agana

WWTP require upgrading these plants to achieve compliance. These upgrades are required whether or not

the proposed action proceeds and will result in improved effluent and receiving water quality.

The DON proposes to explore ways to resolve key solid waste issues, specifically the status of the Naval

Base Guam Landfill permit and handling of special wastes not accepted at Layon Landfill, through the

Solid Waste Working Group that was established with USEPA and GEPA on July 24, 2014. During the

September 19, 2014 meeting of the Solid Waste Working Group, GEPA indicated that they will formally

respond to DON correspondence with regards to issues relative to the Naval Base Guam Landfill. The

Layon Landfill and the permitted private hardfill facilities are operating within their regulatory

requirements. The proposed action would be in compliance with all applicable GEPA solid waste permit

terms and conditions that routinely include specific measures to protect human health and the

environment. All other projects on Guam would utilize permitted solid waste management and disposal

facilities.

Of 19 recently completed projects (see Table 7.6-1), 15 would have a beneficial impact on utilities

because they are infrastructure improvement projects, such as: Fiber Optic Installation (C-20), Deep Well

Rehabilitation (G-17), Implement Groundwater Rule (G-16), Ugum Water Treatment Plant

Refurbishment (S-6), and South Ramp Utilities Phase 2 (N-11). Population inducing projects may

increase the demand on utilities, including PRTC Warrior Barracks (N-12).

Of the 31 identified present projects involving utility improvements (see Table 7.6-1), 29 could have a

beneficial impact on utilities, including: Baza Gardens STP replacement (S-14), Wind Turbines (C-32, S-

4), Wastewater Collection System Replacement/Rehabilitation Program (G-19), Hagåtña STP

Improvements (C-41), Northern District WWTP (N-32), and Water Booster Pump Station (G-15).

Projects with potential to increase demand on utilities include Pacific Air Power Resiliency (N-26).


Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, less than significant direct impacts were identified for

power, solid waste and IT/COMM under all collective action alternatives. The Utilities direct and indirect

impact analysis on infrastructure capacity addresses population growth and planned DoD projects through

2028; therefore, there may be an overestimate of the potential for cumulative impact on utilities in this

section. The collective action alternatives would place a greater demand on these utilities but there is

sufficient capacity or the required facilities to meet the demand are included in the proposed action, such

as IT/COMM. The new GovGuam Layon Landfill was designed to accommodate the 2010 Final EIS

proposed action, which would have a much higher solid waste generation rate. The demands on utilities

are directly related to the proposed population growth and induced growth, which would be the same for

all collective action alternatives. 2010 ROD-Related Actions contribute a less than significant impact to

the collective action impact. The LFTRC would have very little direct or indirect impact on utilities.

Significant mitigable impacts were identified for potable water and wastewater.

Potable water: Short-term significant localized impacts to potable water were identified in the NGLA

based on a USGS groundwater model (USGS 2013). The impacts are potentially mitigable by DoD

through enhanced water conservation measures, adjustment of pumping rates at DoD wells, and reduction

in withdraws from the NGLA. In addition, DoD would continue to support the GWRDG. The long-term



7-93

impacts to potable water would be less than significant. Eleven additional DoD wells are included in the

proposed action.

Wastewater: Significant mitigable impacts on wastewater were identified due to sewage treatment plants

requirements to meet 2013 NPDES permits. Direct and indirect wastewater impacts from DoD and

organic civilian population growth would be estimated to increase the wastewater flow to approximately

7.8 MGd (29.5 MLd). Performance, permit issues, and the timeframe to implement treatment system

upgrades to meet 2013 NPDES permit requirements remains to be resolved for the Northern District

WWTP, which is an issue independent of the proposed action. The Agana WWTP would not receive

direct DoD wastewater flows from the proposed action, but would be indirectly affected by the military

relocation from wastewater flows from the indirect impacts from the imported construction workforce

(during the construction phase only) and induced civilian growth. The estimated increased wastewater

flow to the Agana WWTP due to the proposed action only is 0.04 MGd (0.15 MLd). Similarly, the GWA

southern WWTPs (Agat-Santa Rita WWTP, Baza Gardens WWTP, Umatac-Merizo WWTP, and Inarajan

WWTP) would not receive direct DoD wastewater flows from the proposed action except for potential

and minimal flow to Inarajan WWTP from LFTRC Alternatives 3 and 4 (as an optional but not

recommended solution), but would be indirectly affected by the military relocation from indirect

wastewater flows from the induced civilian growth as well as organic civilian growth in the region. The

increased wastewater flow from indirect impacts from the proposed action to the four southern WWTPs is

estimated to total 0.02 MGd (0.075 MLd). The Guam Legislature has recently authorized GWA to finance

improvements to its wastewater systems in southern Guam.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Utilities. Three reasonably foreseeable future projects are

anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect to utilities on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). Two of these

projects are utility improvement projects with potential beneficial impacts: the 60 MW Power Plant (G-6)

and Umatac-Merizo STP Replacement (S-18). The future project that might induce growth or have other

indirect impact on utilities include: Sigua Highlands (C-47).

Potential Cumulative Effects. There will be cumulative effects associated with the collective action

alternatives and the actions of other federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on utilities

on Guam. Population increases are the cause of direct and indirect impact associated with the collective

action alternatives. A few growth-inducing projects were identified from the recently completed, present,

and reasonably foreseeable projects; however, there are pre-existing deficiencies that are being corrected,

specifically for wastewater. The magnitude of the cumulative effect is moderate because the impacts are

regional, the GovGuam building permit review process manages the number of new developments to

prevent system failures, and deficiencies in utility service can be addressed by infrastructure

improvements, subject to available funding (see Table 7.6-2).

Need for Mitigation. GovGuam has a number of infrastructure improvement projects to address existing

deficiencies. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to resources are

listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. GovGuam reviews development proposals for utility capacity. No

additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects are proposed.

7.7.15 Socioeconomics and General Services

Current Health and Historical Context. Guam’s socioeconomic attributes and general services are defined

and discussed in detail in the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Chapter 16: Socioeconomics and General

Services, Section 16.1: Affected Environment, pages 16‐1 to 16-67).



7-94

Guam’s population, as of the most recent full U.S. Census of 2010, was 159,358. The island’s population

has grown significantly since becoming a U.S. Territory in 1950 - from a pre-war 1940 level of 22,900

(with a military and dependent population of 1,427) to 59,498 (with a military and dependent population

of 26,617) in 1950. As of 2010, 42.5% of Guam’s population lived in households on the island’s northern

region.

Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage representation of Chamorro and Caucasian ethnicities on Guam’s

population declined, while Filipino and “Other” ethnicities (most often composed of other Asian or

Pacific Islander ethnicities) increased. Guam’s ethnic makeup changed little from 2000 to 2010. In 2010,

42% of Guam residents were Chamorro or part Chamorro, 25% were Filipino, 8% were other Pacific

Islanders, 7% were Caucasian, and 17% were of other races or ethnicities.

Guam’s economy has been volatile. The economy stagnated in the 1970s to early 1980s, partly due to the

1973 oil embargo. Tourism peaked between 1995 and 1997 but ended with the Japanese financial crisis in

1997. Super typhoon Pongsona as well as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. also

affected the tourism market. From 2001 to 2003, Guam’s economy contracted. In 2005, tourism was the

island’s second largest private industry and both the primary Japanese and secondary Korean markets

were growing at that time. Many real estate developments were financed and constructed in anticipation

of the military buildup as proposed in 2010. Guam’s real estate and tourism market slowed at the end of

the decade, however, primarily due to the global economic decline and associated economic conditions.

In addition, the reduced scope and longer timeframe associated with the 2012 Roadmap Adjustments (see

Chapters 1 and 2 of this SEIS) led to a surplus of some housing types and a lower interest in future

development.

Seventeen recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect to

socioeconomics and general services on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Many of these involved

residential construction (e.g., Hemlani Apartments [C-34]) and other projects that provide a public good,

such as the Veterans Clinic (C-3).

Nineteen present projects with the potential to contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect to

socioeconomic conditions and general services on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Many of these

involve residential construction ranging from worker and low-income housing (e.g., Sagan Bonita [C-26])

to luxury (e.g., C-21) and multi-unit buildings (e.g., Paradise Meadows [N-36]). Others involve

commercial development (N-29), and medical facilities (e.g., G-7).


Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, there would be significant impacts related to an

anticipated greater than 2% population growth and the anticipated strain on public service staffing under

all collective action alternatives. The significant impacts to public services would be mitigable. Less than

significant impacts on economic activity and sociocultural issues were identified for all alternatives.

Beneficial impacts could include increased employment and standards of living, and some increase in

construction-related business travel. The type and magnitude of the impacts are population dependent and

similar for all collective action alternatives. No additive (Section 6.1) or 2010 ROD-Related Action

(Section 6.2) impact on socioeconomics and general services was identified.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Socioeconomics and General Services. Four reasonably

foreseeable future projects are anticipated to contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect to socioeconomic

conditions and general services on Guam (see Table 7.6-1), including the Territorial Prison (G-10) and a

60-MW Power Plant (G-6).



7-95

Potential Cumulative Effects. Assessing the potential cumulative effects related to socioeconomics and

general services is complicated by the inherent balance of adverse and beneficial impacts for each of the

criteria: population change, economic activity, public service, sociocultural, and land acquisition

(sociocultural and economic). The socioeconomic impacts are potentially Guam-wide. There are no

regulatory thresholds that dictate the economic or sociocultural health; however, there are recognized

stressors or threats, such as influx of immigrant populations, ex-migration of a significant employer, land

acquisition by the federal government, and decreases in tourism. In general, these adverse impacts are

reversible over time. The sociocultural adverse impacts of projects are more difficult to address, but very

few of the recently completed, present or reasonably foreseeable projects would have a sociocultural

impact. The sociocultural impact of the collective action alternatives is limited to land acquisition (less

than significant) and the influx of population (significant). For these reasons, the cumulative effects of the

collective action alternatives in conjunction with the recently completed, present, and reasonably

foreseeable projects is moderate (see Table 7.6-2).



are proposed.

7.7.16 Hazardous Materials and Waste

Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this SEIS, and in the

2010 Final EIS, hazardous material, toxic substance, and hazardous waste handling are collectively

referred to as hazardous substances. WWII established a high baseline of environmental releases; but

overall, the trend in hazardous substance use is associated with increases in population and industrial

activity. During the 1970s, there were numerous local and federal environmental regulations enacted to

protect human health and the environment and to closely control and regulate the transport, storage, use,

and disposal of hazardous substances. While the trend in use of hazardous substances is expected to

increase over time, regulations currently in place minimize the risk of release to the environment as well

as the risk to human health. This trend would continue at a more gradual rate of increase. Since the 2010

Final EIS there have been no substantive changes to the quantity of hazardous materials and waste Guam-

wide as there has been no increase in the number of regulated facilities (USEPA 2013). Additionally,

there have been no substantive changes to law, regulations or policies pertaining to the management of

hazardous materials and waste (Section 3.16.2). The impacts are largely related to human activities, but

natural events such as typhoons and earthquakes can result in inadvertent releases of regulated hazardous

substances.

Twelve recently completed projects have the potential to contribute to hazardous materials and waste

cumulative effects on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). Nine of these could contribute adversely, whereas three

could be beneficial such as replacement of the Gas Cylinder Storage Facility (C-7) and the Naval Hospital

(C-8). The beneficial impacts are based on the presumption that newer, more efficient facilities could

potentially use less hazardous materials and produce less hazardous waste. A new industry or industrial

facility has potential to adversely impact hazardous materials because they could increase the on-island

management of hazardous materials and waste, such as MIRC EIS/OEIS (G-2) and Kilo Wharf Extension

(AH-4).

Eleven present projects have potential to contribute to cumulative hazardous material impact (see Table

7.6-1). Five of these could contribute adversely by increasing the amount of materials and waste on

island, such as Fuel System Maintenance Hangar (N-51). However, six projects could have a beneficial

impact on potential cumulative effects, including POL System Hardened Structures (N-47), General



7-96

Purpose Hangar (N-52), PRTC SF Fire Rescue Emergency Management (N-50), and Upgrade JP-8

Receipt Pipeline (C-44) by increasing capacity or repairing existing infrastructure that is associated with

the management of hazardous materials and waste.


Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, the collective action alternatives would result in less

than significant impacts to hazardous materials management, hazardous waste management, existing

contaminated sites and toxic substances. The impacts would be the same for all of the alternatives. The

impacts would be associated with an increase in the management of hazardous materials and waste

managed. The impacts would be less than significant because the transportation, storage, handling, use,

and disposal of these substances is heavily documented, controlled, and regulated at the federal and local

level in a “cradle to grave” comprehensive manner. The potential for radon intrusion in new construction

would be addressed in facility design. Existing contaminated sites were identified at the NWF LFTRC

and these would be avoided to the extent practicable for a less than significant impact.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Hazardous Materials and Wastes. Two reasonably

foreseeable projects could contribute to hazardous substances and waste cumulative effects. These

projects include the 60 MW Power Plant (G-6).


alternatives and the actions of other federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on

hazardous materials on Guam. The degree of cumulative effect resulting from the collective action

alternatives is considered to be low (see Table 7.6-2) because the existing environmental laws and

regulations and associated BMPs and SOPs require that hazardous substances are handled, used, and

disposed of in a comprehensive “cradle to grave” manner that inherently reduces the overall risk to human

health and the environment.

This projection is based on the assumption that existing hazardous materials, toxic substances, and

hazardous waste transportation, handling, storage, use, and disposal procedures and protocols are properly

implemented and modified as appropriate to address the increased hazardous substances demand. Most of

the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would increase the

management and capacity to handle regulated hazardous substances on Guam. However, these impacts

would not contribute appreciably to the increasing trend in the volume of regulated hazardous substances

already being handled and managed on Guam.


resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. GovGuam reviews development proposals for proper use

and management of hazardous materials. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects are

proposed.

7.7.17 Public Health and Safety

Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.17, 4.2.17, 5.5.17, and in detail in

the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Section 18.1: Affected Environment, pages 18-1 to 18-12), the historical

trends in public health and safety are difficult to determine. WWII is the most damaging recent event on

Guam’s history impacting human health and safety. The trends in public health and safety are a function

of changes in population and operations, or industries that involve dangerous materials (e.g., hazardous

substances, live ammunition, electromagnetic energy, radiological substances). The socioeconomics

section describes changes in population over time. From 1970 to 2000, the population on Guam

increased, but declined in subsequent years. The number of occupational and traffic accidents has



7-97

increased gradually over the years. The trend in notifiable diseases is increasing gradually, but is related

to population. The increase in construction and ground-disturbing activities would increase the risk of

uncovering UXO; live ammunition is largely a military activity and changes with the military mission.

Guam health and public services (i.e., lack of skilled professionals and lack of up-to-date equipment) are

sub-standard due to lack of funding; this trend is likely to continue in the absence of economic

development.

Thirty-nine recently completed projects were identified that could result in cumulative public health and

safety impacts. Thirty-six would likely have a beneficial impact because they would improve traffic

safety (e.g., S-1) or health services (e.g., C-3).

Fifty-seven present projects were identified that could result in cumulative public health and safety

impacts. Fifty-two projects may be beneficial because they involve road improvements (e.g., Route 1-8

Intersection Improvements & Agana Bridges Replacement[C-29]), utility improvements (e.g., S-8), or

health care improvements (e.g., N-38). Some military development projects (e.g., N-48, N-39) would

have an adverse impact because they could contribute to the perception of Guam becoming a terrorist

target.


Effects. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, the collective action alternatives would result in less

than significant impacts to public health and safety on Guam for the following categories:

Healthcare services (notifiable diseases/mental illness)

Operational safety

Environmental health (water quality, hazardous substances)

Traffic incidents

Significant impacts were identified for the collective action alternatives that include cantonment at AAFB

(Alternatives C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and C-5). During operations, in the event of a munitions transport

incident or explosives incident at the North Gate, a significant direct impact related to explosive safety

could occur. A less than significant impact was identified for all other collective action alternatives.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Public Health and Safety. Sixteen reasonably foreseeable

projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative public health and safety impact, 14 of which may

have beneficial impacts, such as the Territorial Prison (G-10).

Potential Cumulative Effects. Anticipated impacts to public health and safety would have a cumulative

effect when combined with recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions on Guam

identified above. The impact is not quantifiable. There are no regulatory thresholds for public health and

safety. The degree of additive impact resulting from the collective action alternatives would be considered

to be moderate (see Table 7.6-2) because the cumulative effect is based largely on population increases

and available resources, and is island-wide.


resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. GovGuam reviews development proposals and advocates

for public health and safety. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects are proposed.

7.7.18 Environmental Justice and the Protection of Children

Current Status and Historical Context. As summarized in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this SEIS, and in the

2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Section 19.1: Affected Environment, pages 19-1 to 19-8), Environmental

Justice is an important concept that was introduced in 1994 by EO 12898. It applies to federal actions.



7-98

Guam has a higher percentage of racial minorities, low-income populations, and children, when compared

with the continental U.S. Much of the island’s population would likely continue to struggle with poverty

and access to basic community services, especially when the social and health services are inadequate for

the existing population. The existing inadequate roads and utilities would likely continue to deteriorate,

having an adverse and disproportionate impact on disadvantaged residents of Guam. It is noted that the

collective action alternatives would improve various roads and highways affected by the collective action

alternatives.

Forty-three of 46 recently completed projects could contribute to a beneficial environmental justice and

protection of children impact on Guam, including Road Safety Improvements (G-1), housing projects

such as Paradise Estates (N-2) and Lada Estates (N-31), and public infrastructure projects, such as Layon

Landfill (S-3) (see Table 7.6-1).

Sixty-three of 66 present projects could beneficially contribute to environmental justice and protection of

children on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). The beneficial projects include residential construction, particularly

for low-income housing (e.g., Sagan Bonita [C-26]), a Health Clinic (G-7), and Guam Regional Medical

City (N-38). Potential adverse impacts are associated with increases in island population, such as the

Pacific Airpower Resiliency (N-26).


Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, significant impacts were identified for all collective

action alternatives. The significant impact is associated with (1) the greater than 2% increase of on-island

population that would have an impact on existing public safety staffing levels, and (2) disproportionate

socioeconomic impacts on low-income populations. The type and magnitude of the impacts would be

similar under each of the collective action alternatives. Less than significant impacts to environmental

justice populations were identified operational safety and noise levels, and recreation for all collective

action alternatives. Land acquisition would have a less than significant impact on environmental justice

populations, except for alternatives that include a LFTRC at AAFB NWF (i.e., A-5, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5),

in which case there is no land acquisition proposed. No additive impacts (Section 6.1) were identified.

Less than significant impacts construction phase impacts related to health care service were identified for

the 2010 ROD-Related Action (Section 6.2).

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Environmental Justice and the Protection of Children.

Fifteen reasonably foreseeable projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative impact, none of

which would like have an adverse impact. Infrastructure improvement projects (e.g., Route 26/25

Intersection Improvements) and public service infrastructure (e.g., Territorial Prison G-10) would likely

have a beneficial cumulative effect.


alternatives and the actions of other federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on

environmental justice and the protection of children on Guam. There are no specific thresholds to measure

the cumulative effects of all the projects being considered. The degree of additive impact resulting from

the collective action alternatives would be considered to be strong (see Table 7.6-2) because the current

status of the population is not resilient to additional stress and the impacts are island-wide.



are proposed.



7-99

7.8 CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

This section is largely as presented in the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 7, Chapter 4: Cumulative Effects,

Section 4.4: Climate Change and Global Warming, pages 4-87 to 4-94) but was updated with new

information. The effect of greenhouse gases on climate change and global warming from the collective

action alternatives and the associated regulatory framework remain the same as detailed in the 2010

Final EIS.

The 2010 Final EIS-predicted construction and operational greenhouse gas described in terms of total

annual emissions from island-wide activities. As indicated by the air quality modeling results presented in

Sections 4.1.3, 5.1.3, and 6.1 of this SEIS, and because of the overall reduced scale of construction and

population change for the Marine Corps relocation under the 2012 Roadmap Adjustments, the operational

greenhouse gas emissions for the SEIS proposed action would be lower than those analyzed in the 2010

Final EIS. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts in terms of proposed construction and facility

operations associated with this SEIS would be less than those described in the 2010 Final EIS.

The collective action alternatives discussed in this SEIS are unlikely to vary substantially in the quantity

of CO2e emissions. For example, the same amount of construction activities would occur regardless of

the different locations (alternatives), resulting in essentially the same amount of greenhouse gas

emissions. Therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions for the different alternatives would be similar to

those of the collective action alternatives.

The change in climate conditions caused by greenhouse gas resulting from the burning of fossil fuels

f rom the proposed alternatives is a global effect, and requires that the emissions be assessed on a

global scale. The collective action alternatives mainly involve the relocation of the military operations

that are already occurring in the West Pacific region; therefore, fossil fuel burning activities in the West

Pacific region are unlikely to change significantly. Consequently, overall global greenhouse gas

emissions are unlikely to change on a regional or global scale as a result of the collective action

alternatives, resulting in an insignificant cumulative effect to global climate change. No potential specific

greenhouse gas emission mitigation measures are proposed.

7.8.1 Climate Change Adaptation

Climate change is a global issue for DoD. As is outlined in the Quadrennial Defense Review of

February 2010, DoD needs to adjust to the impacts of climate change in military facilities and military

capabilities. The DoD already provides environmental stewardship at hundreds of DoD installations

throughout the U.S. and around the world, working diligently to meet resource efficiency and

sustainability goals as set by relevant laws and executive orders. Although the U.S. has significant

capacity to adapt to climate change, it will pose challenges for civil society and DoD alike,

particularly in light of the nation’s extensive coastal infrastructure. In 2008, the National Intelligence

Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of

risk from rising sea levels. DoD’s operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea

training and test space. Consequently, the DoD must complete a comprehensive assessment of all

installations to assess the potential impacts of climate change on its missions and adapt as required.

The Quadrennial Defense Review goes on to illustrate that DoD will work to foster efforts to assess,

adapt to, and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Domestically, the Department will leverage

the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, a joint effort among DoD, the

Department of Energy, and the USEPA, to develop climate change assessment tools. Abroad, the

Department will increase its investment in the Defense Environmental International Cooperation



7-100

Program not only to promote cooperation on environmental security issues, but also to augment

international adaptation efforts. The DON operational side published the Task Force Climate Change

Roadmap on May 21, 2010, which builds off the Quadrennial Defense Review and focuses on the naval

operational challenges of a changing climate. Although the document does not address compliance issues,

the roadmap also recognizes the need to address sea level rise impacts on infrastructure and real estate

through strategic investments and installation adaptation strategies to address water resource challenges.

Guam would have some unique adaptation issues to evaluate and consider. The U.S. Global Climate

Research Program report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.” reviewed the unique

impacts of Climate Change on Islands. According to the report, climate change presents U.S.-

affiliated islands with unique challenges. Small and low elevation islands are vulnerable to sea-level

rise, coastal erosion, extreme weather events, coral reef bleaching, ocean acidification, and

contamination of freshwater resources with saltwater. The islands have experienced rising

temperatures and sea level in recent decades. Projections for the rest of this century suggest

continued increases in air and ocean surface temperatures in both the Pacific and Caribbean, an overall

decrease in rainfall in the Caribbean, an increased frequency of heavy downpours nearly everywhere,

and increased rainfall during the summer months (rather than the normal rainy season in the winter

months) for the Pacific islands. Hurricane wind speeds and rainfall rates are likely to increase with

continued warming. Island coasts would be at increased risk of inundation due to sea-level rise and

storm surge with major implications for coastal communities, infrastructure, natural habitats, and

resources.

Climate Change and Impacts on Waterfront Facilities 7.8.1.1

Until 1900, there was little change in sea level, but during the last century, sea level rose gradually and is

currently rising at an increased rate. The average rate of sea level rise measured by tide gauges from

1961 to 2003 was 0.071 ± 0.02 inches (0.18 ± 0.05 c]) per year, with an annual increase of 0.12 ± 0.03

inch (0.31 ± 0.07 cm) seen between 1993 and 2003, and a total increase of 6.7 ± 2 inches (17 ± 5 cm)

during the 20th century. This increase is due to thermal expansion (indicating increased heat content)

and the exchange of water between oceans and other reservoirs (i.e., glaciers and ice). By the end of

this century, sea level is predicted to rise 7-23 inches (18-59 cm), with an additional 4-8 inches (10-20

cm) rise possible due to the melting of land ice sheets in Greenland (Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change 2007).

Projections made for Guam indicate that sea level rises of up to 39 inches (100 cm) would result in a few

low lying areas of Apra Harbor being inundated. The DON acknowledges there is the potential for

existing and future coastal facilities to be adversely affected by sea level rise, inundations from more

extreme storm events, and other consequences of climate change. However, predictive models on future

sea level rise are subject to variability, due in part to unknown future greenhouse gas emissions.

The variability increases with the period of time being assessed. Risk assessment methodologies and

technologies are being developed to predict the potential impacts of climate change on existing

DON coastal facilities. As new design criteria relevant to climate change are adopted by the DON, they

will be incorporated into project designs. Harbor projects on Guam are designed to include tsunami,

typhoon, wind, and earthquake conditions.

The waterfront activities of the collective action alternatives are limited to the wharf improvements at

Inner Apra Harbor. These improvements include repair and maintenance of existing wharves and

construction of support facilities. The Inner Apra Harbor wharf improvements do not alter the original



7-101

wharf design; the elevations are not altered. As new design criteria are adopted by the DON, they will be

incorporated into programmed projects.

Climate Change and Impacts on Aquifers 7.8.1.2

The availability of freshwater is likely to be reduced, with significant implications for island

communities, economies, and resources. Most island communities in the Pacific and Caribbean have

limited sources of freshwater. Many islands depend on surface water and freshwater lenses below the

surface, which are recharged by precipitation. Changes in precipitation, like the anticipated increases in

summer precipitation and the frequency of heavy rains, would increase on Guam. This would increase the

potential to cause more frequent flooding, which could compromise the quality of water supplies. Sea-level

rise also affects island water supplies by causing salt water to contaminate the freshwater lens and by

causing an increased frequency of flooding due to storm high tides. Water pollution (such as from

agriculture or sewage), exacerbated by storms and floods, can contaminate freshwater supplies, affecting

public health.

The collective action alternatives, specifically the additional population, could have an additive

cumulative effect with climate change impacts on aquifer yield. However, the USGS and WERI have

recently developed a groundwater model for Guam that can be used to assist with the management of

groundwater production from the NGLA (USGS 2013). The development of this groundwater model

included consideration of different climate scenarios, including extended drought. The groundwater

model will be used by the GWA and DoD and serve as a tool to assist in estimating the impacts of

selected groundwater-pumping and climate scenarios on the water supply.

In addition, the USGS was recently awarded a study under a Strategic Environmental Research and

Development Program grant from DoD. The 4-year study Water Resources on Guam: Potential impacts

and adaptive response to climate change for DoD Installations would evaluate potential adverse climate-

change impacts on DoD installations that rely on Guam’s surface water and groundwater resources and

identify the adaptive capacity to minimize the adverse impacts. Potable water demands are projected to

increase and the effects of climate change may limit the water resources available to meet these demands.

The study will address potential impacts of and adaptations to climate change with the following: (1)

evaluation of the accuracy of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 results and use of the

best Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models to generate downscaled climate projections

and to quantify changes in tropical cyclone activity; (2) update and expansion of an existing watershed

model for southern Guam to evaluate climate driven changes in streamflow captured by Fena Valley

Reservoir; (3) analysis of climate change induced modifications in sediment loads and turbidity of water

entering Fena Valley Reservoir; (4) refinement of the hydrologic budget of northern Guam to estimate

groundwater recharge for current and future conditions; (5) update of the existing numerical groundwater

model to incorporate these recharge changes; and (6) establishment of rigorous stakeholder participation.

The climate change driven impacts to existing infrastructure and the adaptive capacity to minimize the

impacts will be evaluated by (1) showing temporal changes in surface water reservoir storage for climate

change scenarios due to modified streamflow, estimating reduced (due to sedimentation) or increased

(due to dredging or raised spillway) reservoir storage capacity, and estimating the frequency and volume

of high-turbidity events; (2) quantifying changes in groundwater salinity from new recharge and sea-level

estimates, and testing adaptive pumping and well design strategies for a range of climate scenarios and

projected demand estimates; and (3) investigating the conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater

to maximize DoD’s potential for developing water resources.



7-102

Climate Change and Impacts on Coral Reefs 7.8.1.3

Climate change and ocean acidification have been identified as the greatest global threats to coral reefs,

resulting in mass coral bleaching events, reduced coral growth rates, and potential increases in the

frequency and severity of coral disease outbreaks. Coral are particularly sensitive to the impacts of

climate change as even small increases in water temperature can cause coral bleaching. As

concentrations of atmospheric CO2 increase, more CO2 is absorbed at the surface of water bodies.

Elevated CO2 concentrations are resulting in ocean acidification, which changes the chemistry of

ocean water, including a decrease in the saturation state of calcium carbonate. Marine calcifiers,

such as corals, use calcium carbonate to form shells, skeletons, and other protective structures and

reduced availability of it can slow or even halt calcification rates in these organisms.

The collective action alternatives on Guam would increase the levels CO2 generated on Guam (see Table

7.6-1) and contribute to the climate change impacts on the future health of corals and other marine

resources on Guam. In addition to dredging (for the 2010 ROD-Related Actions), there are other

potential impacts to marine resources associated with the collective action alternatives (i.e., increased

marine recreational use) that would contribute to the cumulative effect; however, potential mitigation

measures such as awareness training could offset these impacts to some degree.

Conclusions 7.8.1.4

The collective action alternatives would contribute to climate change. As climate science advances, the

DON would regularly reevaluate climate change risks and develop policies and plans to manage any

climate change impacts to DON’s operating environment, missions, and facilities. As indicated in Section

7.8.1.2 in this SEIS, a 4-year study is being done that would evaluate potential adverse climate-change

impacts on DoD installations that rely on Guam’s surface water and groundwater resources and identify

the adaptive capacity to minimize the adverse impacts. Managing the impacts of climate change on

national security would require the DON to work collaboratively, through a whole-of-government

approach with GovGuam.

chapter 7 cumulative effects - amazon web servicesguammarines.s3.amazonaws.com/static/seis/chapter...

Documents