chapter 9 resource development planning for u.s

Chapter 9Resource Development

Planning for U.S.-AffiliatedIslands

CONTENTS

PageIntroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................319

Resource Planning Goals for U.S . -Aff i l ia ted Is lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .320Planning Needs and Constraints. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. ...321

Resource Data Collection and Information Management . .. . . ............324Ecological Baseline Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..324Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................325Data Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........................325

Analytic Techniques for Resource Development Planning .. . . . . . . . . . .. ...326Environmental Impact Assessment . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .................326Resource Suitability Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................327Carrying Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..329Benefit-Cost Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ..............329Multi-Objective Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..329During and Post-Project Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...330

Implementation of Resource Planning Programs . . . . .. . .................330Participatory Approaches to Planning and Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .331Specia l Appl icat ion: Parks and Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332Specia l Appl icat ion: Coasta l Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .337

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................340Guidelines for Information Management . . . . . . .. . . ...................340

Chapter 9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................342

FigureFigure No. Page9-1. Typical Siting of Land Uses on U.S.-Affiliated High Islands . .........342

TablesTable No. Page9-1. Selected Socioeconomic and Resource Conservation Issues Suitable

for Inclusion in Future CRM Initiatives in the FAS .. .. .. ... ... . ..3399-2. Potential Implementation of Planning and Management Technologies

To Address Selected CRM Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...339

Chapter 9

Resource Development Planning forU.S.-AffiIiated Islands

INTRODUCTION

The small size of islands, and consequentscarcity of land and resources makes it un-desirable and probably infeasible to concentratehuman populations and activities on eversmaller areas of land, Similarly, although someresource recovery efforts are needed, small pop-ulations and economies disallow expense oflarge amounts of scarce capital and labor onartificial provision of environmental servicesor continuous reclamation of degraded areas.Clearly, the preferred alternative is to preventdegradation of the island ecosystem, Throughapplication of rational management activities,ecosystem benefits may be sustained over thelong term.

Resource management refers to decisions ofpolicy or practices regarding how resources areallocated and under what conditions (or ar-rangements) resources may be developed (30).Resource management includes both planningactivities in which resource management ob-jectives and techniques for achieving those ob-jectives are systematically identified and im-plementation activities in which specificmanagement techniques are used to allocate re-sources among uses (and users) (25)

Planning processes typically involve severalsteps:

1.

2.

3.4.5.

identification of some goal to be achieved(or problem to be mitigated),identification of alternative ways in whichthe goal can be achieved,evaluation of these alternatives,choice of a strategy, andspecification of how that strategy is to beimplemented (25).

In the development of resource managementprograms, there are three levels of planning:policy, program, and project. Policy planning

refers to the broad choices that must be madeamong multiple and frequently competing re-source management objectives. At this level thequestions to be answered are explicitly valuechoices. In practice, such policy choices com-monly are expressed in terms of 5-year devel-opment plans, State policy plans, or similar doc-uments. Such policy statements provide someindication of a general awareness of resourcemanagement problems as well as the empha-sis that such problems should receive. Thereare, however, no guarantees that resource man-agement problems will receive systematic man-agement attention (25)

Program planning refers to the identificationand evaluation of alternative ways to achievesome resource management objective. A par-tial list of such techniques includes zoning, taxincentives, or direct subsidies to resourceowners to maintain certain resource uses (e. g.,agriculture, protected habitat), outright pur-chase of development rights to lands, and per-formance standards for certain uses. All ofthese management techniques have been or arecurrently being employed in a number of U.S.continental States (25).

Project planning is sometimes used to de-scribe the detailed administrative guidelinesand procedures for implementing a particularmanagement strategy, or the detailed specifica-tion of a particular resource use consistent withresource management program objectives (25).

Policy, program, and project planning requiredifferent kinds of information and analysis. Pol-icy planning must address a mix of value andempirical questions. As planning becomesmore specific there are fewer explicitly valueissues and more empirical questions (25).

319

320 ● Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas

La

Photo credit: J. Bauer

ndslides, a common hazard on tropical high islands, may be promoted by inappropriate land use such as hillsideconstruction or agricultural cultivation in erosion-prone areas.

Basic information and the appropriate tech-nologies for analyzing that information arewidely agreed to be a fundamental requirementfor successful resource management (3). How-ever, the types of information collected andstored, the types of analysis performed and howthese activities should be integrated into re-source management programs depend on thenature of the resource management problemsconfronted by an island, the degree of geo-graphic specificity in planning and manage-ment efforts to deal with these issues, and theparticular management techniques that are be-ing employed for problem mitigation.

Resource Planning GoaIs forU.S.-AffiIiated Islands

Island resource systems exist in close prox-imity and are strongly interrelated. Decisionsthat affect one resource are likely to affect other“downstream” resources. For example, conver-sion of island forests to agriculture, or removalof mangrove habitat for the purposes of coastaldevelopment can lead to degradation of reefareas through increased siltation. Conversely,mining of reefs, which act as natural waveenergy and storm surge buffers, may lead toincreased erosion or other damage to coastal

—

Ch. 9—Resource Development Planning for U.S.-Affiliated Islands ● 321

areas, Integrated management of natural sys-tems requires thorough knowledge of the in-terrelationships between resource systems.These interrelationships are often critical to thefunctioning of the whole island system (11).

Natural systems management problems areusually perceived in two ways: 1) as the conse-quences of particular resource uses, or 2) asconflicts over alternative resource uses. Ac-cordingly, two general approaches exist to re-source planning:

1. A use in mind; where to do it or put it?2. A particular resource or an area of land;

what to do with it?

The first approach is a frequently used, single-purpose planning methodology, After havingestablished need and other socioeconomic con-siderations, the process involves translating userequirements into biological and physical (bi-ophysical) site-selection criteria. As perceivedresource values change, this has increasinglybecome a question of “where not to put it?”Overlay maps showing areas of high economic,social, or cultural value plus physical impedi-ments commonly are used in a technique ad-vocated by McHarg (29) to show where devel-opment would adversely affect the least numberof community-determined values (18).

The second approach is relevant where alandowner, administrator, or manager wantsto assess the resources under his jurisdictionand determine if an area is allocated to the mostproductive sustainable uses. To a limited ex-tent, this planning approach may be taken bya private landowner who has flexibility in hisoperation, surplus resources, and usually sub-stantial areas of land. It is not characteristicof tradition-bound agriculturists or pastoralistsliving at or near subsistence levels, nor of cor-porate landowners with a narrow mandate andlarge plant investment to protect through usingproducts from the land (e.g., pulp and papercompany). It does, however, often character-ize the planning and management of publiclands (excluding military lands or nature re-serves). Countries undergoing rapid increasesin population are adopting the approach of look-ing at the limited land estate and asking what

to do with it to promote national economic andhuman well-being (18).

Both approaches are predicated on concernsabout the long-term ability of the resources toprovide goods and services efficiently andsafely. Efficient resource uses are keyed to thenatural constraints of a site. Such uses gener-ally are efficient in maintaining a flow of goods(e.g., crops) and services (e.g., watershed pro-tection), although there are exceptions wherea higher flow may be provided efficiently byovercoming minor physical limitations (e.g., byimproving drainage in soils). Safe uses buildin an avoidance of ecological backlash (e.g.,avoid unstable slopes, flood-prone areas—unless one wants to take a risk or alter the siteby making corrective investments) (18).

Planning Needs and Constraints1

Each U.S.-affiliated island government hasdesignated a planning office. In general, theseoffices are responsible for compiling informa-tion on factors affecting the economic devel-opment of these islands, presenting a frame-work for decisionmaking by island leaders,planners, and the public and advising their gov-ernments on rational development planning.

Some of these planning offices also are re-sponsible for maintaining libraries and bibliog-raphies of information for use by governmentpersonnel and the public. For example, theGuam Bureau of Planning has established a cat-aloged Planning Library to assist people con-ducting research on Guam. A Coastal PlanningBibliography was produced in 1978 in associa-tion with the development of the Guam CoastalZone Management Plan, and a “Guam Inven-tory of Planning Information” was preparedin 1976 and updated in 1981 (17).

1The Office of Technology Assessment conducted a survey ofresource development planning and management offices in U. S.-affiliated islands in April 1986. Respondents were asked to com-ment on how important they perceive the planning constraintsidentified by Lowry (25), whether their office uses any of theanalytic techniques described, and the actions they think woulddo the most to improve resource development planning on theirisland. Of the 80 surveys sent out, only 8 were returned.

—

322 c Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas

A number of plans analyzing resource man-agement and impacts of development activitieshave been prepared in each island area eitherby internal planning offices, in cooperationwith the Department of Commerce through de-velopment of Coastal Zone Management plans,or by the United Nations. Unfortunately, differ-ent plans are rarely centralized or aggregated.The Freely Associated States (FAS) were re-quired to prepare 5-year comprehensive devel-opment plans under the terms of the Compactof Free Association. These plans commonly de-scribe goals and problems, but tend to remainso general that they provide little guidance forisland decisionmakers to evaluate potentialprojects.

Although ample evidence exists that improvedresource management is unlikely in the absenceof planning, it cannot ensure sustainable re-source management. Planning processes maygo awry for a number of reasons, including:

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

lack of resources for planning,inadequate planning expertise “in-house”and heavy demand on existing islandplanners,lack of data for planning,lack of understanding of natural processes,lack of understanding of the social and po-litical contexts in which plans are to be im-plemented.inadequate problem specification,inadequate specification of managementalternatives, anduse of planning as a substitute for man-agement.

Lack of Resources for Planning

Lack of resources for planning is a commonconstraint on U.S.-affiliated islands. Planningrequires a substantial amount of skilled person-nel, information, and time. Those resources fre-quently are not available for resource systemplanning or, when they are available, they maybe diverted to other planning enterprises thatshow more promise of immediate payoffs.

Inadequate Planning Expertise

The number of people involved in planningon the islands and their total years of experi-ence are limited. Resource planning and man-agement offices in the FAS, for example, areunderstaffed; they lack resource data and ex-ercise little regulatory authority (app. F). Envi-ronmental protection boards in the FAS havenot effectively compelled developers to evalu-ate alternate sites and procedures. Outside ex-pertise is needed, at least initially, to help trainplanners and to plan and evaluate specific de-velopment proposals.

Lack of Data for Planning

A further constraint is posed by the lack ofreliable data on almost all aspects of the eco-nomic and population structures of the islands.Census data commonly are suspect and manyother data have not been collected. The unavail-ability of such data presents considerable prob-lems for development planning (8).

While some insular polities have gathered ex-tensive data and developed data managementsystems, others are still in need of basic infor-mation. Regardless of the island’s level of datamanagement development, an overall need stillexists for further information gathering and re-search on basic biological systems, as well asimproved data management and communica-tion systems (app. F).

Detailed economic development planning, in-cluding identification of manpower and man-power training needs, is required to instigateany significant movement towards self-reliance(8). However, collection and analysis of manydata are largely beyond the current capabilitiesof many insular government planning offices,especially since each government agency com-monly collects information specific to its ownfunctions. These data may not be collected foreach island or island region within a territory,may not be standardized to allow aggregation,and may not be integrated into one system (5,6,7,8,9,10).

Ch. 9—Resource Development Planning for U.S.-Affiliated Islands “ 323

Lack of Understanding ofNatural Processes

Designing a resource management programrequires a basic understanding of cause and ef-fect relationships of biological and physicalprocesses. Ignorance of such relationships cangive rise to unexpected and sometimes severeunintended impacts. In addition to inadequatebaseline biological data for organisms or re-sources to be managed, this appears to be animportant constraint confronting island plan-ners and resource managers.

Lack of Understanding of the Socialand Political Contexts in Which PlansAre To Be Impemented

A central problem in the evaluation of man-agement alternatives is the question of whichvalues (or whose values) will be used to assessthe worth of proposed management strategies.If the management alternatives do not reflectthe values of those who are most affected bythe plan, the effectiveness of management ef-forts are likely to be undermined. The evalua-tion of alternatives is particularly critical in is-land environments in which the values of theplanners may be different from those of would-be “clients.”

One way of ensuring that the choice of man-agement strategies reflects the values of clien-tele is to involve them more intimately in plan-ning processes. However, such involvementneed not take the form of public hearings atwhich clientele may respond to a completedplan—a conventional strategy of “citizen par-ticipation” used in U.S. community planningprocesses of the 1960s and 1970s. To the ex-tent that resource management programs donot reflect island values regarding man/envi-ronment relationships or cannot, through aprocess of community education, be shown to

be consistent with those values, they are notlikely to be successful (25).

Inadequate Problem Specification

In developing a resource systems manage-ment program, the possibility of inadequateproblem specification always exists—of focus-ing on the wrong problem. For example, ratherthan identifying a problem as its underlyingcause (e.g., overpopulation), it maybe more use-ful to define the problem by its adverse effectsrelated to the underlying cause (e. g., resourceoverexploitation). In specifying resource man-agement issues to be addressed, the centralquestion should be: what adverse conditionsneed to be avoided or reversed?

inadequate Specification ofManagement Alternatives

Many contemporary resource managementprograms are “technique-driven” rather than“issue-driven.” Often some particular manage-ment technique is touted as the managementtechnique to be employed with particular re-source management problems. Too little atten-tion is paid to other alternatives or to the par-ticular political and social context within whicha resource management technique will be em-ployed.

Use of Planning as a Substitutefor Management

Planning sometimes becomes a substitute formanagement because it was hoped that theactivity would be a catalyst for generating pub-lic support for resource management activitiesthat would be socially or politically divisive.When that support fails to materialize, the“plans” are left unimplemented. Planning activ-ities also may be encouraged as symbolic activ-ities to reassure people that “something is be-ing done” about some problem or condition,

324 . Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas

RESOURCE DATA COLLECTION AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

Most resource planning techniques requirea number of “sub-assessments” each requiringdifferent types of information necessary to theformation of effective management plans, in-cluding:

1. Biophysical assessment—requiring infor-mation on factors affecting the physical andbiological suitability of a site for various uses,including climate, geomorphology and geology,soils, flora, and fauna. This information canbe used directly for site selection; after iden-tification of the desired resource activity, theplanner identifies constraints that could inhibitthat resource use and looks for sites where theconstraints do not exist or are manageable (36).

2. Land classification-the objectives of landclassification are to identify the resources ofa given area, determine appropriate manage-ment practices for existing resource uses, andpredict the consequences of proposed changesin land use and policies (36). Overlay mappingtechniques commonly are used to select sitesfor particular land uses. One such techniqueis to produce maps using white, black, or shadesof gray to show the suitability of locations forspecific types of development. The suitabilityratings are combined by superimposing themaps, either manually or by computer, andexamining the distributions of shading inten-sities.

Land classification techniques assume natu-ral system relationships are determined by landphysiography. Such techniques can be helpfulin resource development planning, but theyhave limitations. Some systems are orientedtoward a particular land use such as agricul-ture and, therefore, tend to assess suitabilityfor that use rather than overall resource suita-bility. No single land classification systemmeasures resource productivity directly; thiswould be too costly and time-consuming. Sometechniques are more appropriate for use in eco-logical studies than for helping decisionmakerswith land management questions. None of thetechniques identifies the direct or indirect bi-ophysical impacts of land use conversions.

Moreover, the techniques neglect gradualchanges in biophysical factors that can even-tually limit various resource uses. Unless com-bined with simulation modeling, these tech-niques do not reflect changes in the magnitudeof types of impacts over time (36).

Data on tropical ecosystems, both terrestrialand marine, are insufficient for many planningneeds. Resource management and developmentfor sustained yields requires up-to-date base-line data on current resource use patterns andthe distribution and status of natural ecosys-tems. without such information, it is impossi-ble to determine the capabilities of each re-source for supporting various types of uses, orto predict the consequences of various resourceuse decisions on island ecosystems and popu-lations.

Ecological Baseline Surveys

Many jurisdictions rely heavily on environ-mental impact statements to provide basicinformation about the condition of naturalsystems at a given time. However, when sub-sequent developments are planned in the samearea, a new environmental impact assessmentis made and much of the same information isgathered again, with resultant duplication ofeffort (and waste of scarce resources) (2). Onealternative would be to design and manage envi-ronmental assessments so as to contribute toa central database which could then be usedto prepare future EISs, thus minimizing dupli-cation. However, care must be taken to ensurethat the information in the central database isupdated to reflect changes in land use or re-source systems.

A second alternative would be to put in-creased emphasis on development of ecologi-cal baseline surveys which incorporate a “com-prehensive appraisal of important naturalsystems parameters at a given time” (2). Re-source inventories which identify natural re-sources in specific geographic areas and indi-cate their quality and variety commonly are part


of an ecological baseline study. The principaluses of such information are in the prepara-tion of land and water use plans and otherprogram plans, project assessments, environ-mental impact assessments, area plans, and per-mit decisions.

The primary obstacle to development of eco-logical baseline surveys is cost of data collec-tion, storage, and retrieval. The greater thenumber of variables and the greater the geo-graphic scope, the more expensive it is to meas-ure comprehensive resource data. One way toanalyze cost-effectiveness of collection proce-dures and data parameters is to proceed witha “test case” by: 1) seeking interagency agree-ment about what parameters to collect, and 2)collecting information for a well-defined geo-graphic area where resource use is high. Thismakes it possible to examine the utility of theinformation collected as well as the costs andskill requirements for collection.

Data storage and retrieval systems also maybe costly. To avoid costly duplication, a scalemust be chosen for mapped data that is appro-priate for different users. Detailed mapping ofthe sort that is useful for permit decisions mayresult in maps that are too cumbersome forother uses. Some information may be storedand exchanged electronically, but a great dealof advance preparation may be needed to de-velop formats for storage (25).

Monitoring

Environmental monitoring refers to periodicmeasurements of natural resources and envi-ronmental quality parameters to allow analy-sis of trends or departures from a standard (usu-ally predevelopment) which result from eithernatural causes or human activities (2). For manyprojects, the preproject planning phase is theonly time when a substantial effort is made todetermine how the project’s products and serv-ices will contribute to larger development goals(36) and when data are collected on the re-sources and resource uses that are likely to beaffected by the project. Monitoring, on the otherhand, takes place during implementation andis intended to meet the needs of day-to-day

project management. It can indicate a need tochange the timetable, scale, geographic loca-tion, resource allocation, or staffing of activi-ties (36). The difficulties in developing andmaintaining a monitoring system are compar-able to those of developing and maintainingecological baseline studies.

Data Management

Within many governments, data are collectedby more than one agency, sometimes leadingto unnecessary duplication. Further, such in-formation commonly is not centralized andmay not be exchanged between agencies in thegovernment. Data may be collected in differ-ent formats and at different scales, making useof the information difficult without expensivereformatting, In some cases, mapping and datacollection are not comprehensive (app. F); andscales are not consistent within a territory, oreven within individual agencies in the same ter-ritory (31).

An institutional Structure forData Management

Some opportunities exist for alleviating theproblem by reorganizing responsibilities forenvironmental data collection. A separate de-partment or ministry might be responsible forthe environment including setting standards foruniform methods of data collection, scales, andformats, which all other departments would beobligated to follow. The environmental minis-try would also be responsible for obtaining andmaintaining a national or territorial database,as well as conducting the needed monitoringof key data elements. A second possibility isto organize all environmental data collectionunder one agency responsible for national map-ping. Ministries concerned with specific proj-ects requiring baseline data would then requestthe national mapping organization to carry outthe needed surveys. A third alternative is toleave organizations as they are now but ensurecoordination among them and uniformity ofenvironmental information by forming a co-ordinating committee. It would probably bewise for the coordinating committee to have

326 “ Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas

its own separate staff of a small number of qual-ified environmental scientists who would ad-vise on methods, techniques, scales, precisionstandards, and time intervals for collectingdata.

An organizational structure that assures thatneeded data are collected and made availableto all agencies, without duplication or nonuni-form methods and standards is needed for sus-tainable resource management. Environmentaldata are too important and expensive to collect,to let duplication, incompatible formats andscales, and other obstacles hinder the most ef-ficient use of information (31).

Resource Data Management Systems

Almost every Federal policy statement,whether legislation, executive orders, or agencyguidelines, contains some requirements for datacollection and monitoring (l). Most regulatorypermit programs also contain data collectionrequirements. However, few provisions existfor updating or aggregating data. Comprehen-sive resource planning systems, such as geo-graphic information systems, can centralize thestorage and processing of spatial data reduc-ing duplication, and thus, costs (20).

Many States have adopted the map overlaysystem developed by McHarg in 1969, in whichresources important to the decision to be madeare identified, located, and mapped. By super-imposing maps, areas containing many valued

resources show up as dark-colored areas andareas whose resources are less affected by theproposed development show up as light coloredareas. This system, however, depends on theplanner’s judgment as to which resources arevalued and assumes that all are equally impor-tant. Much labor, time, and money also are re-quired for map preparation and minor changesin methods or values may often necessitatecomplete redrafting (24).

In recent years, many local governments havegraduated to computerized systems in whichthe maps are transformed to databases linkedto a spatially divided base map. Thus, data canbe updated easily, and a great number of vari-ables can be considered in analysis. From thesecomputerized geographic information systems,maps can be “overlain” by the computer withrelatively little difficulty to produce compos-ite maps (cf: METLAND system). A computermodel can also be used to weigh the variousland factors according to some measure of theirimportance to development to produce a ca-pability map (20)

Feeding inventory and monitoring data intothe physical and economic planning processcan be relatively simple; in fact, there is a dan-ger of imposing procedures that are unneces-sarily cumbersome for island communities.Ideally, a microcomputer could be programmedto process data and present it in simple formto island planners (11).

ANALYTIC TECHNIQUES FOR RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Analytical techniques for resource develop- on land tenure, needs, skills, available resourcesment planning are methods of manipulating to invest, cultural constraints, political goals,data to generate and analyze information for and other factors besides biophysical suitability.resource management. Given the currentdearth of data and skilled personnel on some Environmental Impact AssessmentU.S.-affiliated islands, analytical resource plan-ning techniques should be inexpensive, should The National Environmental Policy Act re-not require a great deal of baseline data, and quires the preparation of environmental impactshould not be too complicated or sophisticated statements (EISs) for “significant” Federal ac-(18). In addition, the technique should make it tions such as the construction of ports and air-clear that resource use decisions will depend fields. Some States have additional EIS require-


ments covering certain land and water usesand/or all uses in select geographic areas.

EISs are preproject reports on possible posi-tive/negative short- and long-term impacts re-sulting from some public or private policy, pro-gram, or project. The central assumption of EISrequirements is that cause and effect relation-ships between project activities and resourceconditions can be identified with sufficient cer-tainty to make them a valuable tool for analy-sis and decisionmaking. Continuous monitor-ing and evaluation provide mechanisms forEIS-based planning to deal with uncertainty(14), but these are only rarely practiced in theislands,

Environmental impact statements usuallyemphasize potential impacts on natural sys-tems, but some jurisdictions require more ex-tensive analysis including potential impacts onpublicly funded infrastructure, historic and ar-cheological resources, and demographic andother social and economic conditions. Mostenvironmental assessments contain at least thefollowing elements:

1. a description of the proposed project oractivity;

2. identification of selected alternatives to theproposed project or activity;

3. description of the existing conditions (nat-ural, social) at the proposed project site;and

4. identification of the nature and magnitudeof possible project impacts at the proposedsite.

Some jurisdictions also require identificationof trade-offs or possible mitigative actions.

Environmental impact analysis is a short-term investigation of the likely impacts of pre-viously identified policy or project options and,thus, does not permit evaluation of the full rangeof development alternatives (14). If resourceplanning began by incorporating the appropri-ate environmental and resource capability in-formation, EISs might be rendered redundant(18),

Resource Suitability Analysis

Resource suitability or capability analysesprovide information about the supply of re-sources at various levels of suitability for vari-ous uses. Such analyses generally involvedelineating landscape (or seascape) units on amap, or an air photo and assessing the capabil-ity of these areas to sustain an array of poten-tial uses without unacceptable degradation andgiven certain levels of management and tech-nology (18) (see fig. 9-1 on p. 342). Land suita-bility analyses, the most common form, includeagricultural classification systems and hazardmaps charting flood zones or landslide areas.More complex suitability maps have been de-veloped using multiple land characteristics, butthe costs of developing such information arehigh and the results frequently are mixed.

Resource suitability analysis usually involvesseveral steps:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

identification of the uses for which suita-bility is being determined (e.g., agriculture,low-density housing);identification of the biophysical attributesof the area in question that significantlyaffect suitability (e.g., soil type, slope, depthto bedrock);identification of the significant categoriesof each attribute (e. g., slopes less than 10degrees, between 10 and 30 degrees, over30 degrees);determination of the degree of importanceof each biophysical attribute and each sub-category of that attribute to suitability ofthe resource uses in question;development of a rating system that makesit possible to combine biophysical attri-butes into an index of suitability for poten-tial land uses on different land or sea arealunits; andexpression of these indices on maps,

The areal units identified should be part ofa hierarchical system of land classification, sothat they can be aggregated for general plan-ning purposes, or subdivided for detailed on-

328 ● Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. lnsular Areas

site work. In predicting response, and thensuitability, levels of most likely managementinputs are assumed, and these can be variedfor any socioeconomic situation with a culturalcontext (18).

A central problem in constructing resourcesuitability maps is in developing methods forcombining resource attributes in ways that arepractical, technically correct, and easy to un-derstand and communicate. Three basic ap-proaches are used: mathematical combination,regional identification, and logical combination(21). Mathematical combination involves as-signing weights to each biophysical attributeand then calculating weighted averages. Be-cause underlying relationships among attrib-utes commonly are poorly understood and donot, in practice, lend themselves to easy appli-cation in standard resource management, themathematical approach generally is not appli-cable to island resource management. The re-gional identification approach involves iden-tifying subregions within a larger geographicalarea that are homogeneous with regard to im-portant attributes, and then identifying thesuitability of each type of subregion for vari-ous resource uses.

The logical combination approach assignssuitabilities to sets of attributes (rather than sin-gle attributes) which are expressed in terms ofverbal logic rather than in quantitative indices.For example, a set of simple rules can be de-rived that take into consideration the inter-dependence of slope, soil permeability, and sub-surface material in determining suitability forhillside residential development. The logicalcombination approach to suitability analysiswould seem to offer the most promise in islandcontexts; the rules are explicit, can be devel-oped on the basis of known interdependent at-tributes and are easy to communicate (25).

The task of predicting suitability for an ar-ray of uses is the most difficult part of the proc-ess. At this stage, it is necessary to incorporateinformation on prevailing or likely resourcemanagement practices of the future users, andthe resulting likely output for each array of po-

tentially feasible uses. Assumptions must bemade as to the likelihood of remedial measuresbeing instituted to modify land attributes (e.g.,terraces to “correct” steep slopes). Such thingsas custom, economics, skills, innovativeness,likely technology, and institutions come intoplay in making the rating. Although based inscience, these interpretations are certainlypartly intuitive (18).

No judgments are made as to which use isthe “best” or most appropriate for a given plan-ning unit. No master plan results. Rather, theremay be several uses that can be easily sustainedon a given unit of the landscape. The decisionas to which use will depend on many factorssuch as resource tenure, needs, skills, availableresources, or political plans for development.A change in technology (e.g., a new method ofmaking terraces) may alter the suitability rat-ing as would development of a new market.Thus, resource suitability rating is specific tothe general area under planning scrutiny, andmay be quite different for similar biophysicalunits in different watersheds or for ones closeto urban centers as opposed to ones in remoteareas (18).

Ecologically based planning, if properly done,indicates an array of uses which are suitableand an array of uses which are not sustainableand, hence, not suitable. The specific sustaina-ble use for a unit of land, and the mosaic ofuses on several units or an entire watershedwill be determined by those close to the landwho have more detailed knowledge of their owngoals and lifestyles, whether the land is man-aged by a government office, a cooperative, ora group of individual landholders (18).

Although developing land suitability maps forisland resource management may be appropri-ate and useful, a more immediate applicationmay be ocean and nearshore suitability analy-ses. The same principles of logical combina-tion of interdependent attributes might also beused for mapping nearshore areas suitable (andunsuitable) for various types of ocean-depen-dent uses.


Carrying Capacity

Carrying capacity analysis, when extendedfrom its original use in determining the num-ber of range animals capable of surviving ona piece of land to the optimal human popula-tion that can be supported at given levels oftechnology and amenity, has been infrequentlyapplied. Islands would seem to be ideal con-texts for application of the carrying capacityconcept because the analyst is dealing with rela-tively closed natural systems.

The basic steps of carrying capacity analy-ses include:

1. identification of major systems necessaryfor regional development;

2. identification of geographic areas for ap-plication of carrying capacity analyses;

3. definition of limits of “critical systems”(i.e., those systems with capacities thathave been exceeded or are close to over-load conditions);

40 measurement of current use of critical sys-tems; and

5. determination of the margins for growth.

Carrying capacity studies were performed inHawaii in the 1970s in response to a legislativeresolution requesting that the governor and theDepartment of Planning and Economic Devel-opment establish criteria which could then beused to limit, restrain, or redirect the State’sgrowth (25). In general, these studies were com-plex and expensive without revealing the “crit-ical thresholds” for resource use. Carrying ca-pacity was not particularly useful in providinga scientifically determined population limit forparticular geographic areas although it wassomewhat useful in substantiating critical re-source use decisions (19,26).

Benefit-Cost Analysis

Benefit-cost analysis originated in connectionwith the assessment of U.S. Federal flood con-trol projects in the mid-1930s. The technologyhas since developed to handle more than merelythe direct costs and direct benefits of water re-sources projects. Under the name of extendedbenefit-cost analysis, the methodology now at-

tempts to encompass the array of secondaryand intangible benefits and costs (22). Propo-nents of extended benefit-cost analysis claimthat it can (13):

1

23

4

5

6

provide an orderly, systematic way to ana-lyze a problem;provide a “neutral” approach;illustrate the benefits and costs of alterna-tive land uses;clarify the question of determining projectboundary;attempt to include the benefits and costsof unintended beneficial or adverse effectsof the proposed action (externalities);attempt to include intangibles; and

7. raise questions of provision of goods, serv-ices, and development options betweencurrent and future generations (intergener-ational equity) (13).

This method incorporates value judgmentsregarding unquantifiable variables (e.g., es-thetics) and social preferences, thus requiringparticipation by potentially affected groups aswell as experts and decisionmakers. Few guide-lines exist for implementing this kind of par-ticipatory planning because of the great varia-tion in forms of economies and government,cultural backgrounds, and traditions.

Multi-Objective Analysis

Once information is available on the likelybiophysical, economic, and sociocultural as-pects of a development project, decisionmakersneed some way to judge the relative importanceof the findings. Too frequently, decisionmakersavoid confronting trade-offs among conflictingobjectives and only consider the most obviousor serious effects. Considerable progress hasbeen made in the last two decades in develop-ing multi-objective techniques that addressthese trade-offs (4,32).

Multi-objective planning is broader thanmore traditional single-objective approaches,such as benefit-cost analysis, which require thatall the effects of alternative projects be meas-ured in terms of a single unit, usually money.Multi-objective planning attempts to compare

330 . Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas

effects within categories, but does not force ef-fects into the same measurement units. Thetechniques also provide formal means for deci-sionmakers to assign relative values to each cat-egory (e.g., number of people employed, reduc-tion in reservoir capacity).

Using multiple objectives in the planningprocess can improve resource development inat least three ways. First, value judgments aredetermined by decisionmakers rather than bythe analysts. Second, a wider range of alterna-tives usually is identified, and the relationshipbetween alternatives can be described clearly.Third, the analyst’s perceptions of a problemprobably will be more realistic if the full rangeof objectives is considered (4).

During and Post-Project Evaluations

Despite EISs and other preproject assess-ments, projects sometimes generate unantici-pated negative impacts. Ongoing evaluationsmeasure a project’s outputs and impacts on in-tended beneficiaries and assess the project’sunintended impacts. Evaluations begin withpreproject documentation of potential impact,such as EISs, to assess the predictions of im-pacts. However, they should be sufficientlybroad in scope to examine adverse impacts not

revealed in preproject assessments and to tracecausal sequences linking project activities withsuch adverse impacts.

Evaluations performed before project com-pletion can be used to formulate recommenda-tions for changes in objectives, strategies, tech-niques, institutional arrangements, priorities,and government policies. Their effective usedepends on the project’s flexibility-i. e., whetherit can respond to recommended changes. Suchevaluations have a secondary purpose of fa-cilitating communication among persons con-cerned with the project. Evaluations conductedafter a project is complete can:

●

●

●

●

identify a need to compensate people ad-versely affected by environmental impacts,suggest followup or complementary proj-ects that build on the original project,assist in reformulating broader policies andstrategies, andprovide lessons for planning other projectselsewhere (36).

Post-project assessments frequently are re-garded as a luxury that most jurisdictions can-not afford. However, they should be regardedas a necessary supplement to preproject anal-yses, particularly to environmental impact as-sessments, to provide information needed torevise and reformulate EIS requirements (25).

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESOURCE PLANNING PROGRAMS

A complex array of resource managementprograms already exist in the U.S.-affiliated is-lands. Existing management programs are char-acterized by four basic approaches: activitymanagement, area management, sectoral man-agement, and integrated management.

Activity management refers to those pro-grams that seek to ensure specific resource useactivities are conducted in ways that minimize

dredging permit from the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers before dredging can be undertaken.Similarly, the Environmental Protection Agen-cy regulates the discharge of wastewater efflu-ents under Section 402 of the same act. Oneform of activity management important to is-land resources is management of activities re-lated to tourism, e.g., siting of hotels and resorts,and tourist transportation facilities.

adverse impacts on resources. ‘Dredging, for ex- Activity management is a reactive type ofample, is regulated in the U.S. States, common- management. Developers propose specific re-wealths, and territories under Section 404 of source uses or activities at a specific site andthe Clean Water Act. A private developer or regulatory agencies must decide whether thegovernment agency is required to apply for a proposed uses are appropriate at that site or,


if not, whether they can be modified to makethem acceptable, In this approach to implemen-tation, the types of resource impacts likely tobe associated with the proposed use commonlyare well known. The degree and type of analy-ses associated with activity management varygreatly. However, regulation of activities usu-ally requires some sort of environmental assess-ment, including formal environmental impactstatements.

Area management refers to natural systemsmanagement programs that focus on specificgeographic areas deemed worthy of special pro-tection. The most common area managementprograms are parks and protected areas (see“Special Application: Parks and ProtectedAreas”). Many special area management pro-grams are intended to achieve a single resourcemanagement objective, although “multiple-use”and “dominant-use” (in which an area is“zoned” for primary uses) plans are being de-veloped for some protected areas in the main-land United States. Special area managementusually requires detailed analysis and planning.Once the purposes of special area managementare agreed on (e. g., watershed and habitat pro-tection), the major analytic tasks involve re-source surveys, mapping, boundary setting, andthe development of standards governing usesof be regulated. Such tasks may require re-source specialists.

Sectoral management refers to the manage-ment of a single resource such as forests or fish-eries. The U.S. Forest Service and the NationalMarine Fisheries Service are examples of Fed-eral sectoral resource management agencies.At local government levels, sectoral manage-ment is exemplified by water managementagencies. Sectoral management usually in-volves substantial analysis of the supply anddemand for specific resources. Hence, analytictechniques that provide information on sus-tainable yields and resource carrying capacityare likely to be most useful.

Integrated resource management refers tomultisectoral, multidisciplinary resource man-agement efforts, Integrated resource manage-ment plans are anticipatory in the sense of seek-ing to identify optimal uses of specific resources

at specific sites in advance of actual develop-ment proposals. They are most frequently ex-pressed in terms of resource maps and detaileduse guidelines. Thus, they frequently requirea full range of resource analysis techniques.

At the national level, perhaps the best exam-ple of an attempt to create an integrated natu-ral systems management program is the CoastalZone Management Program. The program fo-cuses on a specific geographic area—the coastalzone—and seeks to harmonize multiple man-agement objectives within that zone by provid-ing incentives to States to develop programsthat incorporate both resource developmentand resource protection strategies (see “Spe-cial Application: Coastal Resource Manage-ment”). Comprehensive community planningefforts at the municipal level have the same mul-tiple objectives and methods.

Participatory Approaches toPlanning and Management

The need for public participation is based onseveral factors. First is the understanding thatthe local knowledge of an area’s natural sys-tems often exceeds or complements scientificknowledge and is needed for decisionmaking.Another is the desire to design actions that re-spect people’s priorities, which requires under-standing of those priorities. And finally, the suc-cess of any action depends on public support,which is best marshaled by local involvementthroughout the course of a project (15), Inten-sive regulation and enforcement are undesira-ble because of the adversary relationship theycreate and also are financially impossible onmany islands (16).

Sound resource management requires goodunderstanding of ecological and human use sys-tems. The depth and quality of local knowledgeof these can be considerable. Gathering thisknowledge can be a cost-effective means forproviding the information base needed for re-source management projects. In addition, lackof necessary biological and social informationis an opportunity to begin to achieve partici-pation objectives by involving local people inthe identification, design, and implementation


of research activities. Data gathering also is away to improve the resource users’ understand-ing of the natural systems and processes onwhich they depend, which can give themgreater control over their livelihoods and helpthem be better able to make informed decisions.

For example, a project supported by the East-ern Caribbean Natural Areas Management Pro-gram in St. Lucia had secondary school stu-dents carry out, as part of their regularcurriculum, a study of charcoal production inthe project site (a mangrove area), in which theyinterviewed the charcoal producers. This sim-ple project provided:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

information on which to base preliminarydecisions about the management of themangrove and determine additional dataneeds;an educational lesson for the students inwhich they learned more about social, nat-ural, and economic systems;a way to inform the resource users aboutthe project, gauge their needs, and solicittheir involvement;an experiment in alternative educationaltechniques for project personnel and thestudents’ teachers; andinformation which influenced decisions onactivities in the mangrove area (15).

Generating public participation in resourcemanagement projects can be extremely time-consuming. Because of the common lack oforganization of island resource users commu-nities, simply calling public meetings, puttingup posters and preparing radio programs is gen-erally insufficient (15; app. F). Considerableeffort must be expended in meeting resourceusers, showing interest in their problems, gain-ing their trust individually, and bringing theminto project activities. Generally resource usersare interested in finding viable solutions to lo-cal social and resource problems, but are “tiredof enthusiastic plans that promise much anddo little.” Further, projects involving many di-verse actors can create dissention and chaosrather than lasting linkages between resourceusers; the importance of diplomacy to the suc-cess of the project cannot be underestimated(15).

In order to tap local sources of information,it usually is necessary to give equally in return.projects that are based on people’s prioritiesand fulfill their needs create trust and cooper-ation. Commonly those whose needs, as wellas dependence on natural resources, are great-est are usually the most “marginalized” fromthe local society and so the hardest to reach.For these people especially, the need to buildconfidence and to demonstrate a project’s tan-gible benefits is important. The following con-ditions have been suggested as guidelines forpublic participation in resource management:

1.

2.

3.

4.

A long-term presence to understand acommunity’s structure, build rapport, andfoster mutual respect.Local involvement in all aspects of aproject from design to implementation, aswell as a respect for local input. Seekingideas and advice and then ignoring themcreates animosity rather than cooperation.In order to get active local involvement,project objectives must coincide with orat least include objectives of local users andgroups.Local participation in concrete activitiesfrom which people can gain tangiblebenefits.Education and research activities inwhich local people are equal partnerswith government, project staff, and profes-sionals. When knowledge and informationare freely shared, everyone learns and dis-parate groups gain respect for one another.

The final responsibility for the environmentfalls on the shoulders of governments and ofresource users and the general public. There-fore, to be effective, resource managers mustunderstand local human needs and cooperatewith government and community groups to en-sure that valuable natural resources are usedwisely (16).

Special Application:Parks and Protected Areas

Introduction

Protected areas like national parks and re-serves are one approach to the conservation of


species and ecosystems. The establishment andmaintenance of parks and protected areas may,in fact, be necessary if life-support systems andessential ecological processes are to be main-tained, genetic diversity is to be preserved, anduse of species and ecosystems is to be sus-tainable.

Different kinds of protected areas are adaptedto different requirements for the use and con-servation of resources. In traditional Pacific is-land cultures, access to scarce resources wasrestricted through taboo areas (reserves) andtemporary closed areas, among other means.Today there is a range of options for designat-ing and managing protected areas. Which op-tion is taken depends on the nature, status, ex-tent, and potential uses of the resource orecosystem in question.

In a broad sense, setting aside natural areasneed not imply setting aside development: itmay be a part of the development process, espe-cially when development’s objective is to sus-tain society. Where a species or ecosystem issensitive to any human interference, however,a strict nature reserve may be appropriate.

Large and small areas where conservation iscompatible with recreation and education canbe made into national parks and natural mon-uments, respectively. Where some managementis necessary to protect a species or maintainits habitat, managed nature reserves or wild-life sanctuaries can be created. The scenicbeauty and traditional resources or lifestylesof inhabited areas can be maintained throughdesignation as protected landscapes, anthropo-logical reserves, or customary protected areas.Temporary resource reserves can be estab-lished in areas where decisions on developmentmust await further study.

Marine reserves permit protection and man-agement of important coastal resources. Strictcontrols over activities in the coastal zone andin adjacent watersheds, together with carefulfisheries management and a network of pro-tected areas should permit sustained use ofsome protected areas such as reefs. The Aus-tralian Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Author-ity has been successfully pioneering the bal-

Phofo credit Office of Technology Assessment

Multiple use protected areas integrate traditionalresource uses, such as traditional subsistence

gathering, with conservation.

anced use and protection of coral reef areas.Other areas requiring the careful balancing ofdifferent resource requirements such as water-shed protection, hunting, and gathering of tradi-tional forest products can be made intomultiple-use management areas. The kind anddegree of protection can vary to fit almost everylocal circumstance (11)

Protected areas with suitable resources togenerate tourism can stimulate the economyand provide employment. In many cases, pro-tected areas result in increased government em-ployment and private sector investment,

Need for Protected Areas andSelection Criteria

On some of the U.S.-affiliated islands onlyfragments of undisturbed natural areas remain,and many species are endangered. Naturalareas serve a variety of economically and eco-logically important functions. Forests, for ex-ample, provide watershed protection and watercatchment, control soil erosion, and containuseful predators that control mosquitoes andother insect pests. While lowland rain forestsonce covered one-quarter of Puerto Rico, little


of this forest remains today. Two-thirds ofAmerican Samoa’s lowland rain forests havebeen destroyed, Pohnpei’s and Yap’s are mostlydisturbed, and in Truk no undisturbed areasexist, Only scattered and inaccessible remnantsremain on Guam and there are none remain-ing on the Marshall Islands or the U.S. VirginIslands. Where such forests remain, some por-tions could be preserved. Forests might be man-aged to include protected natural areas, areasused for local wood production and/or agro-forestry, and fallow areas where appropriate.

Despite unclear legislation and policies re-lated to protected areas in the former Trust Ter-ritory of the Pacific Islands (TTPI), some pro-tected areas have been established in the region(Bikar and Pokak in the Marshall Islands,Ngerukewid in Palau, and Maug and Sariguanin the Commonwealth of the Northern Mari-ana Islands) (23). Protected areas have been cre-ated in Guam and American Samoa throughvarious Federal agencies. A number of Nationalwildlife Refuges have been established in thePacific, including Howland, Baker, and JarvisAtolls, Midway Island, and Rose Atoll in Amer-ican Samoa. protected areas in the Caribbeanare well developed. For example, Puerto Ricoalone contains 14 State forests and the Carib-bean National Forest (Luquillo Biosphere Re-serve), and nearly two-thirds of St, John (oneof the three major U.S. Virgin Islands) is desig-nated as both a national park and a biospherereserve.

The concept of the biosphere reserve was in-troduced in 1971 by the United Nations Edu-cation, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s(UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere program.Biosphere reserves are part of a worldwide net-work of protected environments with a primaryintent of promoting international scientific co-operation and the study of human interactionwith the environment. Ideally, the biospherereserve integrates conservation with research,environmental monitoring, education, training,traditional landuse, and surrounding socioeco-nomic needs. Local participation and accept-ance is particularly important to the conceptof the biosphere reserve (39).

The typical biosphere reserve contains spe-cific areas to accomplish a variety of research,monitoring, and conservation tasks. Theseareas generally are:

●

●

●

●

●

core area—strictly protected from humandisturbance, ideally containing much of thebiological diversity of the area;experiment] research area—manipulativeresearch is performed on managed eco-systems;rehabilitation area—demonstration of re-covery of degraded lands;traditional use area—conservation andstudy of sustainable resource developmentpractices; andarea of cooperation—managed to foster un-derstanding of the biosphere reserve, suchareas may include human settlements, for-ests, and rangelands.

Ideally, research performed within an individ-ual biosphere reserve can provide importantinformation on natural and managed ecosys-tems for local use in resource development.

There are three designated biosphere reserveswithin the U.S.-affiliated Caribbean islands: Lu-quillo Experimental Forest (Caribbean NationalForest) (28,112 acres); Guanica CommonwealthForest Reserve on Puerto Rico (9,930 acres); andVirgin Islands Biosphere Reserve (15,188 acres)on St. John Island in the U.S. Virgin Islands.The only designated biosphere reserve in theU.S. Pacific islands is located on Hawaii (35,38).

The U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands wouldlikely benefit from creation of biosphere re-serves in the region. Sustainable resource de-velopment research performed on biosphere re-serves could provide useful information forlocal resource development planning. Poten-tial sites suitable for biosphere reserves wouldneed to be identified and technical assistanceprobably would be required initially. Althoughstrong local land- and sea-tenure customs insome Pacific islands may pose a major con-straint to reserve development, extant parksmay prove to be appropriate sites. A regionalcooperative effort in developing biosphere re-serves may mitigate some of the economic,


Photo credit: Office of Technology Assessment

Ngerukewid Wildlife Refuge (Seventy Islands Park) in Palau, containing considerable open marine areas and unique marinelakes, may offer a potential biosphere reserve site.

staffing, and technical constraints that exist inthe islands. The Hawaiian Islands BiosphereReserve might serve as a model and a sourceof technical assistance in the development ofMicronesia biosphere reserves.

The Virgin Islands National Park was for-mally designated the Virgin Islands BiosphereReserve (VIBR) in 1983. The reserve coversnearly two-thirds of the island of St. John andrepresents many of the areas ecosystems. TheU.S. National Park Service (USNPS) managesVIBR and has a declared commitment to insti-tute research, management, and education pro-grams and further to coordinate these programswith other Lesser Antillean institutions. On-going VIBR educational outreach activities in-

clude environmental programs extended to pri-mary and secondary schools, field trips, andworkshops for educators (33).

The Virgin Islands Resource Management Co-operative (VIRMC), established in 1982 throughan initiative of USNPS, has a primary goal ofbringing local and regional expertise togetherto solve resource management problems. VIRMCis active in carrying out the objectives of thebiosphere reserve on St. John and has per-formed relevant resource inventories, monitor-ing, and characterization studies towards thatgoal. Long-term projects of VIRMC includemonitoring of St. John’s coral reefs, fisheriesresources, and vegetation (33).

336 “ Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas

Constraints to Designation ofProtected Areas

On small islands it is often impossible tomaintain an adequate physical separation be-tween damaging human activities and naturalsystems. Certain activities (i.e., use of pesticidesand other toxic chemicals, and certain typesof industrial development) may simply have tobe strictly regulated, avoided, or prohibited.The establishment and effective managementof protected areas certainly can contributesignificantly to sustainable use of renewableresources, but may be constrained by such fac-tors as: extreme vulnerability of island eco-systems, lack of trained manpower and money,weak local institutions, increasing demand forlimited resources by growing populations, lackof information on the dynamics of island eco-systems, and the deep spiritual and cultural tiesof island peoples to ancestral lands (makingpublic acquisition difficult).

Relatively few protected areas exist in manyof the U.S.-affiliated islands, suggesting thatFederal agencies responsible for establishingprotected areas have not been very active oreffective in the islands. Part of the problem maybe the difficulty of adapting U.S. law concern-ing different types of protected areas to situa-tions prevailing in smaller islands (11). U.S. pro-visions for protected areas lack a strong rolefor local people in planning and managementsuch as would be necessary in many island situ-ations. Primary responsibility for creation ofprotected areas may have been left to local gov-ernments with neither expertise or means topursue such goals. Flexible programs, such asthe National Marine Sanctuary Program, mayprove more adaptable to island needs (11).

Local Participation in Protected AreaDesignation and Management

Modern attempts to protect or preserve is-land resources, whether through establishmentof protected areas or through other means, mustconsider traditional factors as much as possi-ble. Resource management technologies thatreinforce traditional ways or ideas will havea better chance of success than those imposedfrom outside. For example, resistance exists in

the Pacific islands to anything that interfereswith traditional cultural practices, such as hunt-ing native birds. On islands where land islimited and has been held in customary owner-ship for generations, protected areas that ex-clude people and their activities probably willbe difficult to implement. This is even more dif-ficult if populations are approaching or exceedisland carrying capacity.

Resource protection will succeed only if ithas the support of local populations, particu-larly resource users, traditional leaders, and theheads of land-owning families. This support canbe generated if local people participate fromthe beginning in their planning and definition.Benefit-sharing arrangements with landownersmay also help ensure public support. If enforce-ment can be left to landowners, protectionmight be achieved without actual governmentacquisition.

Protected areas may gain local acceptancemore readily if they are carefully chosen anddeveloped to demonstrate the value of parksand preserves to the public and decisionmakers.Interpretive materials can be developed to ex-plain what is protected and why. Parks couldbecome environmental education laboratoriesfor school groups, and increase in number aspublic understanding and support increase.Traditional knowledge of resource use, man-agement, and conservation remains in manyisland areas and could form a base for publicsupport of park and protected area develop-ment. Parks and protected areas could be dem-onstrated as a method to preserve island her-itage, culture, and traditional practices whileprotecting island ecosystems. Direction of thistype may foster local support for and partici-pation in protected area establishment andmanagement.

The need for protection in some cases canbe identified by local people rather than gov-ernments. Techniques that allow untrained lo-cal people to monitor coral reefs have been de-veloped (12), and similar approaches could bedeveloped for other resources. When local peo-ple see for themselves what happens to a re-source, they may be motivated to modify theirown behaviors if they have options to do so.


Experience in both the Pacific and Caribbeandemonstrates that no substitute exists for pub-lic support and involvement (15,34).

Conclusion

Without effective protection, further speciesextinctions and the disappearance of some eco-systems where damage has already been severeare likely on the U.S.-affiliated islands. Thebroader use of protected areas for resourcemanagement will depend on comprehensiveisland planning and management and on prac-tical experience with different managementtechnologies. There will inevitably be conflictsbetween measures for the sustainable use of re-sources and desires for more rapid or immedi-ate development. The resolution of such con-flicts will, in part, determine whether theislands maintain a sustainable base for theirpopulations, or slowly decline in productivityand become increasingly dependent on outsidesources of support.

Special Application:Coastal Resource Management

Coastal resource management (CRM) is aholistic form of planning and decisionmakingthat aims to maximize sustainable multiple usesof coastal resources (28). Little land in the U. S.-affiliated islands can be termed noncoastal, sothat coastal resources management is, in effect,island resource management.

Although there is no set procedure for CRM,planning in this context consists of several com-ponents:

● a government commitment to CRM;● a geographical inventory of important re-

sources and resources uses, demands,values and functions; and

● development of policies and guidelines forresource allocation.

Management involves:

● assigning responsibilities for CRM to leadand participating agencies,

● evaluating proposed development and useoptions for coastal resources against theplan,

●

●

assessing the environmental consequencesof a range of options for each developmentproposal, andselecting the alternative that best max-imizes economic development and conser-vation of coastal resources (28).

The planning process should be iterative andopen to ensure that communication, under-standing, and eventually agreement is estab-lished among all individuals with information,claims or interest in the resources.

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act of1972 (CZMA), the United States provides a max-imum of four annual “incentive” grants (Sec.305) to eligible coastal States and territories topromote timely development of plans. Aftertechnical, policy, and legal review and approvalby the national office (now the Office of Oceanand Coastal Resource Management of the Na-tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-tion [NOAA]), areas with approved plans be-come eligible for additional funds (Sec. 306) toimplement and operate the plan, subject to an-nual reviews. Grants may also be made to areasto carry out research studies and training re-quired to support CRM programs (Sec. 310).

Regional (State or territorial) governments arecharged with the responsibility to develop andadminister the CRM plan. This usually involvesa geographic inventory of resources; one ormore analyses; and preparation of implemen-tation plans, guidelines, or policies applicableto the region designating preferred uses of re-sources. The CZMA required that an inventoryof natural and manmade resources be under-taken and requires that resource use determi-nation be based, in part, on “the capabilitiesof each resource for supporting various typesof uses and the impact of various resource usesupon the natural environment” (37). Other anal-yses, such as legal-institutional analysis, pub-lic attitude-value surveys, and economic andsocial needs-demands studies also may be per-formed to fulfill information requirements fordeveloping a coastal resources managementplan.

Regional programs may sponsor participa-tion of other State or local government agenciesin research and development projects, and


plans for areas of particular concern. Also, re-gional governments review proposed Federalor other development projects to determineconsistency with the approved State CRM plan.

Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and thePacific flag territories of Guam and AmericanSamoa became eligible for Section 305 fundsunder CZMA. (The Commonwealth of the North-ern Mariana Islands became eligible in 1978.)By 1980, each of these areas had approved CRMplans and became eligible for Section 306 funds.All continue to receive Section 306 funds to helpoperate and manage their programs. Annualevaluations by NOAA and continued Federalsupport indicate that all five existing manage-ment programs are operating satisfactorily andin compliance with CZMA policies and regu-lations.

The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands wasnot eligible for funds under the original author-ization for CZMA. When the act was reauthor-ized in 1980, the TTPI was made eligible forSection 306 funds but not for Section 305 funds(28). The TTPI could not take advantage of itseligibility for Section 306 funds because theyhad neither the technical nor financial re-sources to develop the plans in the first placewithout Federal assistance. Because of the sizeof land and ocean areas comprising the TTPI,an acceptable CRM plan would have cost anamount comparable to what was spent on theSection 305 studies for the three Pacific flagterritories and Hawaii. Even if initial effortswere limited to district centers, funding wouldhave exceeded the TTPI budget (28). The Com-pact of Free Association does not include ormention funds specifically directed to devel-opment of coastal resource management plansalthough it allows for provision of technicalassistance by U.S. Federal agencies (Article II;Sec. 226).

Under the TTPI, key coastal permitting re-sponsibility was with the U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers in accordance with Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act. The Corps historically re-lied on other Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, National Marine FisheriesService, EPA) and territorial offices for infor-

mation and advice. Some large constructionand piecemeal landfill projects approved in theU.S. Pacific islands have caused significant ad-verse impacts which could have been avoidedwith better planning (28).

Freely Associated States’ environmental pro-tection boards have had principal environ-mental responsibility, but their authority ap-pears limited to water quality, sanitation, andthe effects of earthmoving. They have been in-effective in compelling applicants to evaluatealternative sites and procedures, and lack au-thority over aspects of development not strictlydealing with earthmoving. Similarly, planningand marine resource management offices havehad little impact on CRM: staffs are small, dataare limited, and permitting and project approvalauthority is essentially nonexistent. Althoughdevelopment plans are prepared and updatedperiodically for major islands, comprehensiveland-use planning and controls (e.g., zoning)are lacking (28).

Provide Financial and TechnicalPlanning Assistance to the FAS

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has spon-sored a number of coral reef and coastal re-source inventories in the tropical pacific since1978. These projects, with one exception, weresupported by Section 22 (Planning Assistanceto States) of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct. A Corps-managed American Samoan coralreef inventory was sponsored by CZMA fundstransferred to the Corps by the American Sa-moan Government, at the latter’s request. TheCorps has received further requests to initiateresource inventories in the U.S. Pacific, but con-tinued use of Section 22 funds for original datacollection is in doubt.

Coastal resources planning and managementmight offer a sound means of addressing a num-ber of important socioeconomic and resourceconservation issues facing the FAS (table 9-1).These might include identification of impor-tant subsistence fishing grounds; planning forsmall dock, airfield, and water catchmentprojects in the outer islands; and means toevaluate potential agriculture or aquiculture


Table 9-1. —Selected Socioeconomic and ResourceConservation Issues Suitable for Inclusion in

Future CRM Initiatives in the FAS

1. Socioeconomic issuesA. Outer islands

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Population density and out-migrationConservation of subsistence lifestylesSmall dock and airfield developmentWater supply and catchment facilitiesCopra industry development or rejuvenationOther cash crops and handicraftsCommercial fishingTourism managementAquiculture development

B. Urban centers● Population growth, immigration, and redistri-

bution● Land ownership disputes● Landuse planning and management● Water supply and quality● Self-reliance in energy generation● College and university facilities or assistance● Agricultural and aquiculture development● Tourism management● Controls over Iandfilling for houselots and other

residential and urban uses● Commercial fishing, facilities and permits

Il. Conservation of natural resources●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Conservation of subsistence resourcesHistoric preservationProtection of endangered and threatened speciesFishing with explosives and poisonsLandfilling of important coastal habitatsWater pollution and degradation of importanthabitatsControls over dredging, filling, and constructionin coastal waters

Ill. Waste management● Wastewater and sanitation facilities● Solid waste control and management faciIities● Cleanup of hazardous materials and war explo-

sives and debris● Contamination from nuclear testing and oil

pollutionSOURCE: J. Maragos, “Coastal Resource Development and Management in the

U.S. Pacific Islands,” OTA commissioned paper, 1986

ventures. In urban centers, CRM planning ini-tiatives could help to identify priorities and sitesfor future public works projects, especiallywater supply, wastewater management, energy,and solid waste management facilities. Land-use planning supported by a CRM programcould mitigate ecological and public health im-pacts of urban development. Table 9-2 presentstechnologies for fulfilling the planning andCRM needs of each area.

In light of the Compact of Free Association,technical assistance for development of coastalresource management plans could be requestedby the governments of the Federated States of

Table 9-2.—Potential Implementation of Planningand Management Technologies To Address Selected

CRM Issues (identified in table 9-1)

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

●

Public meetings, hearings, and workshops to evaluateneeds for CRM in the FAS

Legislative endorsement and commitment to CRM bylegislatures of new countries

Administrative reorganization to establish a CRM leadoffice or agency in each new country

Coastal resource inventories of valuable resources andtheir uses—Urban centers—first priority—Outer islands—second priority

Draft CRM plan development

Public review and final CRM plan approval

Implementation of approved plans to meet followinggoals:—promote economic development—promote conservation of important resources—waste management—research and management of areas of particular

concern—others (e.g., development of institution or facilities

for higher education and research)

Education and training programs on CRM within eachnew country

Publication and telecommunication of CRM activitiesin native languages

SOURCE: J. Maragos, “Coastal Resource Development and Management in theU.S. Pacific Islands,” OTA commissioned paper, 1986.

Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and theRepublic of the Marshall Islands. Each programcould be subdivided to address separately theneeds of the urban centers and outer islands.Each nation would require a centralized coordi-nating and planning agency to develop, man-age, and enforce CRM programs. Existing plan-ning offices, marine resources offices, andenvironmental protection boards need substan-tial upgrading, reorganization, training, andstaffing to assume that role, An alternativewould be to establish new coastal offices, draw-ing on the resources of the other offices for sup-port and coordinating with them to developplans.

Outside expertise probably will be required,at least initially, for resource inventories, re-search and development projects, manpowertraining, planning, and evaluation of specificdevelopment proposals. Considerable assis-tance could come from outside universities withtropical coastal experience, such as the Univer-sity of Guam, the University of Hawaii andUniversity of the South Pacific (Suva, Fiji).

340 ● Integrated Renewable Resource Management for U.S. lnsular Areas

Resource planning is a means of strengthen-ing the ecological foundation for future re-source management and of putting this infor-mation into the decisionmaking process alongwith economic, social, cultural, and adminis-trative information (18). Planning for sustaina-ble use of resources is not only a scientific tech-nology but has to do with the basic topics ofeconomic development strategy, land distribu-tion and tenure, interagency rivalry in controlof resources, peoples’ wants and needs, and soforth. It is a “people-problem,” extremely po-litical in nature, and must be dealt with fromthe outset in a manner in which education andtraining are important, although slow-acting in-gredients (18).

Planning and implementation require infor-mation and analysis in order to make optimalresource use decisions. Specific analytic tech-niques have been developed to assist those whomake resource use decisions.

In the short run, EISs are likely to remain theprimary technique used by island resourcemanagers for natural systems assessment be-cause activity management is currently thedominant approach to resource managementand of several “off-the-shelf” approaches to im-pact assessment make it relatively cheap andeasy to implement. A review of current proce-dures for conducting EISs could help plannersidentify and develop more “island relevant” EISprocedures. Post-project evaluation would beone way to reveal the strengths and weaknessesof current EIS procedures.

Resource capability assessments have somepromise but, because they usually require highlevels of expertise and because their value isquestionable in the context of small islands,they are less likely to be adopted by island plan-ning offices in the near term. However, the pos-sibility of constructing capability analyses fornearshore waters has considerable potentialand should be explored further.

Carrying capacity analysis also has limitedimmediate potential because of high costs andskill requirements. However on some islands

carrying capacity analysis of certain systems,such as water supply, may be useful. -

GuideIines for InformationManagement

The selection of specific techniquesgathering and analyzing information for

forre-

source management could be based on severalguidelines.

1. Identification of specific informationneeds and analytic techniques for resourceassessment should be based on analysesof current and projected planning and reg-ulatory information needs.

A detailed survey should be performed foreach island covering what types of resource usedecisions are currently being made, the typeand quality of information and analysis onwhich these decisions are based, availabilityof advisory services, and access to databasesin other agencies. Detailed information also isneeded about the present scope of data col-lected, methods of data acquisition, frequency,geographic scale, format of presentation, ac-cessibility, and costs of collection (2).

Current resource management programssometimes reflect Federal requirements or theavailability of funds for management ratherthan locally perceived management needs.Hence, the survey of planners and resourcemanagers also should address the issues of cur-rent resource use problems that are under-managed and anticipated resource use prob-lems for which information will have to begathered for management efforts.

2. Opportunities for sharing existing Federaland local data should be considered priorto gathering more data.

Agency personnel frequently are unfamiliarwith data collected by personnel in other agen-cies or, if they are aware of data acquisitionefforts, commonly there are questions about thequality of the data and difficulties in receivingdata on a timely basis, An island-by-island


assessment of data collection could be a firststep toward identifying opportunities for shar-ing data and collaborating on the acquisitionof additional data. A preliminary study alsoshould identify current incentives and con-straints for sharing data. A long-term goal couldbe interagency protocols for acquisition andsharing of data useful to several agencies intheir resource management efforts.

3. Priorities should be established for the ac-quisition of new data or the development ofan interagency information clearinghouse.

Few islands can afford a major data acquisi-tion effort. An initial priority for data collec-tion would be to ensure that essential data—those which, if lacking, prevent programimplementation—are being collected. After en-suring this, an incremental approach to collect-ing desirable data can be established. Rural is-land residents commonly are the best sourceof information based on intimate, long-termfamiliarity with an area’s resources and trends.Information from these sources can be com-piled through interviews, surveys, workshops,and other techniques.

By gathering data on a case-by-case or area-by-area basis, managers can determine whatthe costs of data acquisition are, what ecologi-cal and social parameters are most useful, andwhat the requirements are for a larger scale datacollection effort, Initial data collection effortscould be concentrated in areas where devel-opment pressures are the greatest in order toidentify baseline conditions from which trendsin resource conditions can be determined, andon undisturbed or nearly undisturbed areaswhich may have species or ecosystems of par-ticular value.

4. Data acquisition, storage, and retrievalshould be based on appropriate tech-nologies.

The availability and continuing improvementin remote sensing and electronic data process-ing pose a dilemma for island natural systemsmanagers. These technologies commonly requirehigh levels of skill, and are being modified sorapidly that determining which technologies

are most appropriate for island managementshould be addressed on a case-by-case basis (25).However, satellite information and computer-ized geographic information systems soon maybe cost-effective methods of data collection,analysis, and display (31). The Natural SystemsAssessment for Development ecological sur-veys and monitoring program can be effectivein assisting countries to make optimum use ofavailable modern technology (31). Local resi-dents can be used to provide observationswhich can be used as ground truth data for re-motely sensed data, and can provide detailedknowledge about specific areas (27). Again, anincremental strategy of focusing on trainingand demonstration projects probably is war-ranted.

5. Emphasis should be placed on dissemina-tion as well as acquisition of data.

Distribution of data to users may be en-couraged through preparation of data lists andinventories, reproducing reports, air photos,topographic maps, sponsoring workshops andseminars, and adopting an “open files” policyfor other agencies (25). If participatory ap-proaches to planning are adopted, dissemina-tion of information can be more direct.

6. Training of local data collectors/mappersshould be part of basic resource informa-tion acquisition.

Short-course training in resource informationcollection and mapping techniques is neededto ensure usefulness of resource planning ef-forts on many U.S.-affiliated islands. Suchcourses are provided by many U.S. universi-ties. An example of this kind of program is theInternational Land Use Planning Training Pro-gram; its first phase was held by Cornell Univer-sity in 1983. Perhaps more appropriate for de-velopment of land assessment and mappingskills would be on-island training sessions—atraveling workshop. A collaboration of Depart-ment of the Interior-U. S. Man and the Bio-sphere program in training for land assessment,classification, mapping, and suitability ratingcould be initiated using the East-West Centerassessment manual (3).


Figure 9-1.— Typical Siting of Land Uses on U.S.-Affiliated High Islands

1.

2.

Interior CoastalFlatlands

SOURCE: N. H. Cheatham,

Man-groves

Reefs Ocean

quarter, 1975, pp 7-11

CHAPTER 9 REFERENCES

Aspen Systems Corp., “Land and Natural Re- 3. Carpenter, R., et al., Preliminary Report of the

sources Management: An Analysis of Selected Workshop on Ecological Baseline Surveys and

Federal Policies, Programs, and Planning Mech- Monitoring, East-West Center unpublished re-

anisms. ” Report to the President’s Interagency port, February 1985. In: Lowry, 1986.

Task Force on Environmental Data and Moni- 4. Cohon, J. L., Multiobjective Programming and

toring Programs, prepared for the Council on Planning (New York Academic Press, 1978).Environmental Quality and the Resource and 5. Connell, J., “Country Report No. 3: Federated

Land Investigations Program of the U.S. Geo-States of Micronesia,” South Pacific Commis-

logical Survey, Department of the Interior, 1979. sion, Noumea, New Caledonia, 1983.Carpenter, R. (cd.), Natural Systems for Deve]- 6. Connell, J., “Country Report No. 12: Northern

opment: What Planners Need To Know (NewMariana Islands,” South Pacific Commission,

York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1983). Noumea, New Caledonia, 1983.

Ch. 9–Resource Development Planning for U.S.-Affiliated Islands ● 343

7. Connell, J., “Country Report No. 6: Guam, ”South Pacific Commission, Noumea, NewCaledonia, 1983.

8. Connell, J., “Country Report No, 13: Palau, ”South Pacific Commission, Noumea, NewCaledonia, 1983.

9. Connell, J., “Country Report No, 8: Marshall Is-lands, ” South Pacific Commission, Noumea,New Caledonia, 1983.

10. Connell, J., “Country Report: American Samoa,”South Pacific Commission, Noumea, New Cale-donia, draft report, 1983.

11. Dahl, A,, “Tropical Island Ecosystems and Pro-tection Technologies To Sustain Renewable Re-sources in U.S.-Affiliated Islands, ” OTA com-missioned paper, 1986.

12. Dahl, A., CoraZ Reef Monitoring Handbook(Noumea, New Caledonia: South Pacific Com-mission, 1981). (Reprinted as Reference Meth-ods for Marine Pollution Studies No. 25, UNEP,1984). In: Dahl, 1986.

13, Dixon, J., Pricing the Unpriced, Using 13ene-fit/Cost Analysis to Value the Environment,East-West Center Seminar (unpublished), Hon-olulu, HI, 1982. In: Hamilton, 1982.

14. Dutton, I., Research and Monitoring Section,Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,Townsville, Australia, personal communication,September 1986.

15. Geoghegan, T., “An Experiment in Participa-tory Resource Management: A Case Study FromSt. Lucia, ” West Indies Lab, Christiansted, St.Croix, USVI (unpublished draft) 1986.

16. Geogehan, T,, “Public Participation and Man-aged Areas in the Caribbean, ” Parks 10(1):12-14, January-March 1985,

17, Government of Guam, Bureau of Planning, Plan-

18<

19.

20.

ning Information Program, “Guam Inv-entoryof Planning Information, ” 1981.Hamilton, L. S., “Land Use Planning Technol-ogies To Sustain Tropical Forest and Wood-lands,” 1982, paper commissioned by the Officeof Technology Assessment for Technologies ToSustain Tropical Forest Resources, 1984,Hawaii Environmental Simulation Laboratory,Carrying Capacity AnaZysis in Context (Hono-lulu, HI: University of Hawaii, 197.5). In: Lowry,1986.Hess, A., “Land Capability Analysis Technol-ogies,” OTA working paper (unpublished draft,1984),

21. Hopkins, L, D., “Methods for Generating LandSuitability Maps: A Comparative Evaluation, ”Journal of the American Institute of Planners43(4):386-399, 1977, In: Lowry, 1986.

22<

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Hufschmidt, M., et al., Environment, NaturalSystems and Development: An Economic Valu-ation Guide (Baltimore, MD: The Johns HopkinsUniversity Press, 1982). In: Hamilton, 1982,International Union for the Conservation of Na-ture and Natural Resources, IUCN Directory ofProtected Areas in Oceania, IUCN Conserva-tion Monitoring Centre, IUCN Commission onNational Parks and Protected Areas, ThirdSouth Pacific National Parks and Reserves Con-ference, Apia, Western Samoa, June 1985.Laird, R. T,, et al., “Quantitative Land-CapabilityAnalysis: Selected Examples From the San Fran-cisco Bay Region, California, ” U.S. GeologicalSurvey professional paper No. 945 (Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979).Lowry, K., “An Overview of Selected NaturalSystems Planning and Management Techniquesfor U. S,-Affiliated Islands, ” OTA commissionedpaper, 1986.Lowry, K., “Reflections on the Concept of Car-rying Capacity, ” WP74-002 (Honolulu, HI: Uni-versity of Hawaii Environmental SimulationLaboratory, December 1974), In: Lowry, 1986.Makap, N. N., “Papua New Guinea: Natural Sys-tems Baseline Surveys and Monitoring, ” Eco-logical Surveys and Monitoring Data Needs inAsia and the Pacific, Morgan, J.R, (cd,) (Hono-lulu, HI: East-West Center, 1986).Maragos, J, E., “Coastal Resource Developmentand Management in the U.S. Pacific Islands, ”OTA commissioned paper, 1986.McHarg, I. L., Design With Nature (Garden City,NY: Doubleday/Natural History Press, 1968).Mitchell, B., Geography and Resource Analy-sis (New York: Longman Publishing, 1979). In:Lowry, 1986,Morgan, J. R. (cd,), “Introduction,” EcologicalSurveys and Monitoring Data Needs in Asia andthe Pacific, East-West Center Working Paper,Honolulu HI, 1986,Nichols, R., and Hyman, E., “An Evaluation ofEnvironmental Assessment Methods, ” Journalof the Water Resources Planning and Manage-ment Division, American Society of Civil Engi-neers 108, No. WR1, March 1982.

33. Rogers, C., “Toward a Lesser Antillean Bio-sphere Reserve, ” Parks 10(3):22-24, July-September 1985.

34. South Pacific Regional Environmental Program,Proceedings Third South Pacific National Parksand Reserves Conference held in Apia, West-ern Samoa, June 24-29, 1985 (Noumea, NewCaledonia: 1985). In: Dahl, 1986.

35. United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cul-

344 ● Integrated RenewabLe Resource Management for U.S. Insular Areas

36.

37.

tural Organization (UNESCO), “Action Plan for 38.Biosphere Reserves,” Nature and Resources20(4):1-12, October-December 1984.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assess-ment, Technologies To Sustain Tropical Forest 39.Resources, OTA-F-214 (Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, March 1984).U.S. Department of Commerce, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration, TheVirgin Islands Coastal Resource ManagementPlan and Final Environmental Impact State-ment, Washington, DC, 1978.

von Drost zu Hulshoff, B., and Gregg, W. P., Jr.,“Biosphere Reserves: Demonstrating the Valueof Conservation in Sustaining Society,” Parks10(3):1-18, July-September 1985.Wood, J. (cd.), Proceedings of the Workshop onBiosphere Reserves and Other Protected Areasfor Sustainable Development of Small CaribbeanIslands, May 10-12, 1983, Virgin Islands Na-tional Park, Cancel Bay, St. John, USVI, U.S. De-partment of the Interior, National Park Service,1984.

chapter 9 resource development planning for u.s

Documents