WORKSHOPS ON THE IDENTIFICATION, USE AND EVALUATION OF MITIGATIVE MEASURES IN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

FINAL REPORT

Environmental Protection Agency Project Number 8548

University of Hawaii Environmental Center

Peter, J. Rappa, Project Manager Jacquelin N. Miller, Principal Investigator Arlene A. Pangelinan, Resource Assistant

November 1992

Introduction

Economic, residential, and infrastructure development has occurred at a rapid rate in Micronesia and American Samoa during the past two decades. As a consequence, the once pristine natural environment has become somewhat degraded in some areas, especially near urban centers, and the cultural environment is becoming heavily impacted as well. Island managers have begun to appreciate environmental conservation and preservation as a way of saving their patrimony for future generations. One planning tool that island environmental managers have begun to embrace is the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). EIA is a process whereby information is gathered on the potential environmental impacts of a development project so that decision makers can choose alternatives that are less consumptive of the environment. The Environmental Center at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, has been involved in the review of EIAs and improvements to Hawaii's EIA system since 1970. It was a logical extension of the service that the Environmental Center provides to the Hawaii state government that they assist in implementing EIA systems in U.S. affiliated Pacific Islands.

In 1989, the Environmental Center designed and presented a series of workshops on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) review process and techniques for insular environmental management. These workshops were funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and were held on seven, U.S .• affiliated, Pacific Islands. The workshops focussed on the importance of assessing the environmental impacts of proposed projects; the content requirements of EIAs; and, ways to improve the review of EIAs through the development of "networks" with local and regional"experts". The workshop evaluations submitted by the participants at the close of each session were extremely positive in their critiques.

During the 1989 workshops, it became apparent that there was a need to present more detailed information on several of the areas covered. The evaluations reinforced this observation and many participants recommended that future workshops be scheduled to focus on mitigative measures, techniques for EIA evaluation, field site review, and guidance on the development of networks. Mitigative measures, were of particular interest to many of the participants and the one topic cited most frequently as needing further attention. With so many projects being proposed, islanders stressed that they needed more information about mitigative measures so as to prevent or ameliorate environmental impacts.

The Environmental Center designed a workshop to address the identification and use of mitigative measures within the context of the environmental impact assessment process. The course was developed between January and June 1992. Workshop presentations took place at eight island locations: Saipan, CNMI; Maite,

1

Guam; Koror, Palau; Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae, Federated Sates of Micronesia; Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands; and Utelei, American Samoa from July to Sept. 1992.

Purpose of the Workshop

The Workshop on the Identification, Use, and Evaluation of Mitigative Measures in the Environmental Impact Assessment was designed to be responsive to perceived needs of regional environmental managers as expressed by participants of the 1989 Workshop and by the managers themselves. These needs are reflected in the project goals and objectives:

Goals:

1. To improve land and coastal water use management in the Pacific Islands

2. To improve the capabilities of island environmental resource managers to recognize short and long term impacts of development projects.

3. To encourage environmental resource managers to identify mitigative measures in the process of EIA that can be appropriately applied to development.

Objectives:

L Review the types of projects and impacts associated with the region

2. Review the content and process of Environmental Impact Assessment

3. Introduce methods to mitigate the effects of short and long term impacts

4. Identify appropriate methods to mitigate particular impacts

5. Discuss the use of monitoring to assist in the implementation and enforcement of mitigative measures.

Procedures and Methods

The workshop program was designed in two activity phases, a compilation of material preparation phase and a presentation phase. The workshop was designed

2

primarily by Peter Rappa, Sea Grant Extension Agent and Project Manager, Jacquelin Miller, Environmental Specialist, University of Hawaii Environmental Center. James Maragos, Research Associate East West Center and Arlene Pangelinan, graduate student assistant with Sea Grant and the Environmental Center provided valuable assistance in the development of the project. The design phase included a literature review; a review of environmental legislation from each of the U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands, the preparation of a workshop workbook for each island program and the preparation of a slide/tape presentation focusing on insular development projects and their impacts.

The second phase was the presentation of the material in a series of on-island workshops. The workshops took place between July and September 1992 and involved the four workshop designers and John Harrison, Environmental Coordinator, Environmental Center. In addition, to the Hawaii contingent of presenters, each workshop included a presentation of local environmental laws by island personnel.

Phase I - Compilation and Material Preparation

A. Review of Literature

A literature review was conducted at the University of Hawaii's Hamilton Graduate Library, Richardson Law Library, and the Department of Urban and Regional Planning'S library to identify reference articles that workshop participants could use in conjunction with their lecture notes. Materials obtained during the literature review comprised much of the basis of the workshop lectures. Especially crucial were articles dealing with compensation as a mitigative method since the use of compensation is just becoming widespread and the concept not that well known.

B. Review of Environmental Laws, Regulations, and Practices

Copies of environmental legislation were obtained from the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, the Territories of Guam and American Samoa, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Trust Territory of Palau, in 1989, by Michael Reveal under our earlier EPA Grant. Reveal, a law student at the Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii, analyzed each of the sets of legislation to determine which agencies had responsibility for environmental planning. He summarized each law highlighting relevant aspects including whether the law required the preparation of an EIA for projects.

3

During this current ElA workshop series, these summaries were updated. The previous summaries were sent to a representative of each island's environmental agency with a request that they update their summary for their island. In addition, we asked for copies of new legislation. The updated summaries were prepared by Ms. Pangelinan.

Preparation of Materials for the Workshop

The workshop presentation was divided into 14 sections: one introductory, nine lecture, one slide/tape presentation, one site review, one group presentation and one presentation on local laws. Visual aids (overhead transparencies) were developed to illustrate lecture topics.

The purpose of the slide presentation was to show:

1. Major types of construction projects and activities in the U.S.-affiliated Pacific Islands;

2. the physical and ecological consequences of these activities; and

3. the use of mitigative measures that reduce or prevent adverse impacts

The slide show was divided into two parts. Part I dealt with major development projects in the Pacific by sector. Part 2 dealt with case studies of 11 construction projects developed or under development in the U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands. A copy of the slide presentation's script is included in Appendix B.

A draft outline of the information to be presented was prepared and sent for review to the island representatives in early April 1992. In addition, an informal review of the workshop contents was conducted at the Environmental Center on April 24, 1992 Representatives included Scott Torpie, CNMI; Joanne Brown, Guam; Sheila Wiegman, American Samoa; Kasua Helgenberger, RMI; Jim Maragos, and Dick Carpenter, East West Center Environment and Policy Institute. Revisions were made to the draft outline based on comments received at the April meeting, and a final draft was completed in June 1992. However, the contents of the workshop presentations were solely the responsibility of the Environmental Center.

Phase II: Workshop Presentation

Workshops were presented in each of the following islands: Saipan, Guam, Palau, Chuuk, Pohnpei, Kosrae, Majuro, and American Samoa in July-September 1992. The workshop in Saipan was presented by Peter Rappa and Arlene Pangelinan; in Guam by James Maragos, Pangelinan, and Rappa; in Palau by Maragos and Rappa; in Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae by Jacquelin Miller and Rappa.

4

and in American Samoa by John Harrison, Environmental Center and Rappa. The workshop in Majuro was conducted jointly with the South Pacific Regional Environmental Program (SPREP). Three SPREP presenters, Dave Sheppard, Komeri Onorio, and Warwick Giblin joined Miller and Rappa in Majuro for the workshop. The workshop in Kosrae was added to the itinerary at the request of the Pacific Island Program (PIN) and was underwritten by them. Maragos's participation in the Guam and Palau workshops was made possible by the participation of the East West Center Environment and Policy Institute and the McArthur Grant Program.

Each workshop included one day for set-up and three days of presentations for a total of four days. The set-up day was used to meet with the local environmental officials and to familiarize the presenters with the field trip site and the accommodations for the workshop meeting room. A list of workshop participants is attached as Appendix C. The following sections present a synopsis of each of the eight workshops.

Saipan. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (July 21-23, 1992)

The first of this series of workshops was held on Saipan, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas island (CNMI) on July 21 - 23, 1992 at Charlie's Lounge, at the Pacific Islands Club Hotel. The Saipan workshop was presented by Peter Rappa and Arlene Pangelinan. Norman Lovelace, USEPA Region 9 Pacific Island & Native American Programs Coordinator, participated briefly in the morning sessions of the first and final workshop day. Participant attendance varied between 20-25 per day and the total attendance included 31 participan ts.

Sites chosen for the field exercise included the completed N ansay Hotel, the ongoing construction of a shopping mall and the proposed Coral Bay Resort project. The field training exercise encouraged comparisons with the Nansay Hotel and the mall to the undeveloped Coral Bay Resort. Participant visualization of potential impacts and ideas for mitigation via alternative designs or sites were possible via the exercise. Paul Baron, Consultant Engineer for Efrain Camacho & Associates, presented background information regarding the resort prior to the field exercise. A tour bus transported most of the workshop participants to the field sites.

Although the room lacked air conditioning for 1/2 days and the slightly warped screen and 10 mm slide projector lens prevented large screening of the slide show, the sessions generally ran well. The participants expressed interest in evaluating social costs and a majority desired a workshop which focussed on quality of life and cultural issues. The evaluations received were generally favorable. The section on environmental laws were presented by Mr. Scott Torpie, Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and other workshop participants from their respective agencies.

5

The workshop was well organized by Mr. Scott Torpie and the DEQ office. Mr. Torpie was our island contact person and he made all accommodations regarding the conference site, hotel, and bus trip to the field site. On the final day of the workshop, Torpie and the DEQ office arranged a luncheon buffet for the workshop participants held at a restaurant adjacent to Charlie's Lounge.

We received 18 evaluation questionnaires from the participants. Comments included the need for control of development and the problems of political influence that leads to permit violations of environmental laws and regulations for economic benefits. Another comment stated "Political interference is strong and kills our effort in enforcing laws in the CNMI". Overall, the feedback was positive and requests were made for more local examples and issues regarding social costs.

Guam (July 28-30, 1992)

The workshop on Guam was held July 28-30, 1992 at the Department of Land Management Conference Room. The workshop was presented by Peter Rappa, James Maragos, and Arlene Pangelinan. Attendance at the workshop varied between 20-25 persons per day and total attendance was 30. Two sites were chosen for the field survey, Manenggon Hills resort/residential development and the proposed site for the Cascada Golf Course. The group exercise and presentation focused on the Cascada Golf Course because the site was undeveloped and would allow participants more leeway to propo.se alternative designs or sites and a wider range of mitigative measures. The completed golf course at Manenggon Hills allowed participants to visualize what Cascada would look like when completed.

The section on environmental laws was presented by Mr. Gary Stillberger, Guam for legislation and regulations covering human health hazards and by Mr. Joe P. Morcilla, Chief Planner for W.B. Flores & Associates, detailing the concepts to the new Territorial Land Use plan.

The workshop was well organized by Stillberger and Randel Sablan, Guam EP A. The room was excellent and A V equipment worked well. The participants arrived on time and ready to work. The evaluations were overwhelmingly favorable with most participants agreeing that each section of the workshop was well done. The lowest scoring section, the local laws, was still thought by most to be useful. Among the comments we received, the most frequent problem cited was the lack of local examples, a comment which we received throughout the workshop series. Participants felt that they could have benefited more if there was more opportunity for class participation and more time in the field. These are both considerations that we should address if the workshops are continued in the future. Some participants also requested more visual aids perhaps pictures of mitigative methods used in the field.

6

Overall, most participants rated the workshops effective and requested periodic follow up programs. The support of the local EPA was excellent and physical facilities were very good.

Palau (Au1i:ust 3-5, 1992)

The workshop was presented on August 3-5, 1992 by Peter Rappa and Jim Maragos. The workshop was held at Osiaol, a partially enclosed hall on the grounds of the Catholic church on Koror. There were a total of 36 participants throughout the three days including two state governors. Moses Uludong of Ngchesar State and Tobias Aguon of Ngerchelong State and representatives of 16 states. The n ongovernmen tal organization, Palau Resource Institu te, sen t several represen tatives. The field sites used for the workshop were the Palau Pacific Resort on Ngerabikensen and the proposed site of the new runway outside of Ngchesar. Chris Ragle, attorney for the Environmental Quality Protection Board (EQPB) presented the section on local laws. The EQPB provided excellent support. Mr. Lucio Abraham was our contact with EQPB. Mr. Abraham's attention to detail, especially his obtaining four wheel drive vehicles to transport the class to the site of the proposed runway, was particularly helpful.

Average participation in the Palau workshops was 25 per day. The participants seemed very interested in the material and were quite animated during some of the presentations. In particular, Mr. Demei Otobed, Chief of Conservation and Mr. Marhence Madrangchar, private consultant, led several lively discussions on the environmental damage caused by unfettered economic development. We received 22 evaluation forms back from the group. The evaluations were overwhelmingly positive with usually 90% or more of the participants agreeing positively that each section was well done. Many complained that the workshop was too short and they were too rushed. Others wished for more interaction with each other. Perhaps the workshop could be structured to last 4 days instead of 3 with more time set aside for group work and a more detailed critique of the group's work by the instructor. Future workshops if attempted should use a more interactive approach rather than straight lecture.

Many people complained about the quality of the audio-visual material. This was attributable in part to the room being only semi-enclosed, letting light in from the outside and cutting down on the impact of the slides and overheads.

Several people asked why EQPB members or their officials were not in attendance. That was out of our hands although we specified for our contact people that governmental officials should attend at least the first half of day one to understand more about EIAs.

7

Chuuk (August 12-14, 1992)

The workshop was presented at the Christopher Inn on Weno, Chuuk Atoll, August 12-14, 1992 by Peter Rappa and Jacquelin Miller. The workshop was attended by a total of 22 people over the three days. There were on average 15 participants per day. The site we used for the field site day was a proposed hotel and gambling casino on Polle Island in Chuuk Lagoon. The site was about 35 miles south west from Weno Island and took 3-3 1/2 hours to reach by boat. The length of time to reach the site and return precluded us from visiting a second site, the continental Hotel and a new road and sewer line being built outside their grounds. Local laws were presented by Mr. Sanphy William, Director of Public Health, Chuuk State. We were ably supported by Ms. Julita Albert, Secretary at the Chuuk state environmental office, who arranged for the boat to Polle Island and all of our AV needs as well as the rooms at the Truk Stop.

The trip to Polle Island was very interesting. We had time to speak to many of the participants informally during the long journey from Weno. Most expressed a need for Chuuk to get serious about doing EIA's for all projects. Many had questions about the proposed gambling casino which they felt could be answered by the EIA process. Several participants most notably Larry Gouland, Elvis Killion, and Ada Smith requested that another workshop be presented next year, focussing solely on the proposed Polle development.

We received 12 evaluation forms back from the participants. The results were overwhelmingly positive with 40 out of 47 questions receiving a 100% positive response. Participants agreed that the information presented was useful and several participants requested a follow up workshop next year. Other comments received included requests to make the workshop longer so that the class would have more time to digest materials and that more governmental officials should attend. One comment seemed to sum up what many saw as the number 1 problem. "Lack of environmental laws, lack of funding, lawmakers are just being ignorant".

Pohnpei (August 18-20, 1992)

The workshop was presented at the Pohnpei state training center in Kolonia, August 18-20, 1992 by Peter Rappa and Jacquelin Miller. Donna Scheuring, a consultant to the Pohnpei state Environmental Health Office and Elden Hellan, Chief of the Pohnpei state Environmental Health Office, were our contact persons and ably supported us. The workshop was attended by a total of 23 people with average attendance of 13 per day. The sites used for the field study, were the new capitol at Paliker, a developed site, and the proposed New Community College of Micronesia (CCM) campus near Paliker, an undeveloped site. Local laws were presented by Ms. Scheuring. At the CCM site, project manager, Mr. Oliver Joseph, explained the project and answered questions.

8

Judging by the favorable comments we received throughout the workshop, especially from Mr. John Weilbacher and Ms. Monique Wahba, the workshop was successful. We received 15 evaluation forms back from the participants. Their responses were overwhelmingly favorable. 18 of 47 questions received 100% positive responses and another 13 had but one neutral response. The comments provided were also very favorable. Comments referring to the presentation included lilt is clear and understandable", liThe descriptions are very clear and easy", and "the use of personal experience ... was outstanding". One complaint that we received in several sections was that not enough time was spent explaining the materials and answering questions. Many complained that local laws were not enforced, perhaps pointing to a need to bring more government officials into future workshops.

Kosrae (August 25·27, 1992)

This workshop was funded by a grant from the Pacific Island Network. The workshop was presented at the Kosrae high school's conference room in Tofol, Kosrae August 25-27, 1992 by Peter Rappa and Jacquelin Miller. There were a total of 21 people in attendance during the three days with an average of 15 people per day. The field sites chosen were the developed cold storage facility and the undeveloped proposed tuna cannery both in the same area on the commercial dock at Okat. Local environmental laws were presented by Mr. Likiak Wesley, Director of Planning and Statistics and Mr. Brady Philips, an intern from Oregon University assigned to Planning and Statistics. Both focused on the newly legislated Kosrae Island Resource Management Program (KIRMP) and draft regulations to implement the plan. Mr. Kun Mackwelung, Environmental Health and Mr. Wesley were our contacts for our workshop in Kosrae. Likiak gave us valuable insight into the new KIRMP and how it would operate. He requested that we include reference to the program in our presentation. We were ably supported by Mr. Salpasr Tilfas, Director of Training, Kosrae State, who arranged for the room and equipment and for the visit to the field sites.

The Kosrae workshop was very well received by an enthusiastic audience. Most of the participants were to have some involvement with the KIRMP and wanted to know more about EIA. We received 15 evaluation questionnaires back from the participants. Of the 47 questions asked, 16 came back with 100% positive responses and another 17 had but one neutral response. At least one respondent felt that we linked our presentation to the KIRMP very well. Most other comments were very positive. One critique included a request that we spend more time on each subject and do a better job explaining long and short term impacts. Another comment captured the flavor of this workshop "Finally, I think this is an excellent workshop since almost all representatives from every agency involved participated".

9

Majuro (August 30 - September 3, 1992)

The workshop held on Majuro atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands was sponsored jointly by the South Pacific Regional Environmental Program (SPREP) EIA Training Program and the U.H. Environmental Center, and the U.S. EPA. A special one day workshop was held by SPREP on August 31 for senior government officials. The purpose of this first day was to develop a list of tasks needed to establish an EIA process in RMI. Leading the SPREP contingent was Mr. David Sheppard, Director of the Regional Environmental Technical Assistance (RETA) program and assisted by Mr. Komeri Onorio, SPREP EIA Training Coordinator, and Mr. Warwick Gibblin, a consultant to SPREP from the Sydney (Australia) Water Board.

A second workshop held on September 1-3, 1992 for technical participants was jointly presented with Peter Rappa and Jacquelin Miller. The workshop was a hybrid of SPREP's and our topics but it basically covered the same materials addressed in the Environmental Center workshops. Although the workshop might be technically called an augmented SPREP workshop, it in fact contained all the sections covered in the EPA funded, Environmental Center workshop.

The workshop attracted 20 participants for the four days with an average of 13 per day. The workshop was held in the Land Grant classroom of the College of the Marshall Islands. The environmental laws section was presented by Ms. Elizabeth Harding, General Counsel for the Environmental Protection Authority. Mr. Joe Riklon, Acting General Manager of the RMI EPA was responsible for all logistical details. The site visit was to the P.LI. Inc. commercial dredging operation in Delap.

Attendance was very disappointing on the first day. During the next three days, attendance was much better and the participants became more active and animated as the workshop progressed. SPREP and the Environmental Center representatives had agreed on an order of presentation and who would do what prior to the start of the workshop. However, some changes were made on the spot. Overall, the workshop seemed to be well received by the participants. Evaluations by both SPREP and the Environmental Center indicated that participants gained by attending the workshop. Most requested that more government leaders attend these workshops. A copy of the draft SPREP Report is appended to this report.

American Samoa (September 22-24, 1992)

The final workshop was presented at the Rainmaker Hotel in Pago, American Samoa September 22-24 by Peter Rappa and John Harrison, Environmental Center. The workshop was attended by a total of 30 people throughout the 3 days and an average of 18 per day. Two sites were chosen for field training, a developed site

10

consisting of a bar and store on 1-2 acres at Le'ala on the western end of Tutuila island near Leone viBage, and an undeveloped site, a proposed bingo haIVrecreation center on 1-2 acres at Lion's Park near Nu'uuli village and Pala Lagoon. Local environmental laws were presented by Sheila Wiegman, Manager of the American Samoa EPA; Lelei Peau, Director of American Samoa Coastal Zone Management program; and Karla Kluge, biologist, Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources. Ms. Wiegman was our on-island contact, and she and her secretary Val provided us with excellent support throughout the workshop. Sheila and Ms. Shirley Tautolo, American Samoa EPA, helped arrange the site visits.

Organizational effort by the American Samoa EPA was apparent for this workshop. The participants were alert and ready to discuss the contents of the presentations and question the instructors. The field exercise and resulting group discussion went extremely well. One group presentation included a number of very interesting alternatives to the proposed recreation center. The group reports were first rate and included the preparation of original transparencies for presentation to the class. We were impressed by the level of competence shown by the various planners from the agencies represented. Included in the discussions were some ideas on how to meld western style management with traditional village management of local resources.

We received fifteen evaluation forms back from the participants. Of the 47 questions asked, 31 received 100% positive responses. Not one negative response was given to any of the questions. The general comments section of the questionnaire contained one major complaint and that was the lack of field time and experience. Most people enjoyed going out and viewing a project in progress and having the opportunity to give their views of that project. Another suggestion was for more local examples in the slide show and in the lecture. However, the comment that best summarizes what we believe to characterize the participant's feelings said "Very professionally planned. Thanks for the opportunity".

Summary and Conclusions

The University of Hawaii Environmental Center received funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Pacific Island and Native American Programs, Pacific Island Environmental Protection agencies and additional support from the University of Hawaii Sea Grant Extension, East West Center Environmental and Policy Institu te, and the Pacific Island Network (PIN) to conduct a series of 3 day workshops, on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Identification and Use of Mitigative Measures in the U.S. - affiliated Pacific islands. These workshops, were conducted in Saipan, CNMI; Guam; Koror, Palau; Chuuk, Pohnpei, Kosrae, FSM; Majuro, RMI; and, American Samoa between July 20 and September 24. The workshops focused on the importance of EIA, the steps

11

necessary for good EIA's, and how EIA can lead to less environmentally damaging projects through the use of mitigative measures. The three day workshops were well received by the more than 200 participants across the pacific who attended. The immediate response to the workshop both from comments made by the participants themselves during and after the workshop and those made on the formal evaluation questionnaires was that it enhanced the understanding of the participants about the EIA process. As presenters, we were gratified by the warmth of the responses to our efforts and the enthusiasm of the participants.

Beyond the initial good feeling of having accomplished a short term benefit is the realization of the task that still needs to be completed; the long term change in behavior so that EIA becomes an acceptable, useful practice. In 1989, during our initial workshop series, it was evident that in many jurisdictions, we were among the first to introduce the idea of EIA. During this past trip, there was general familiarity with the concept of EIA if not practical experience. Guam, Saipan, and American Samoa are all well along in being involved in EIA. Palau, FSM, and RMI have not produced any EIA's under their own statutory authority. Thus, they lack a model they can use to apply to new projects. Kosrae, FSM, is well along with the development of EIA regulations.

There seems to be a split along the lines of development in the U.S.-affiliated islands. Those further along in the development of a well trained management staff and better defined planning process are better able to utilize planning tools such as the EIA than those that do not have the management and planning experience. In these lesser developed areas, it seems that in addition to periodic workshops, which temporarily stimulate interest in the use of EIA, that something be done to foster the practice of environmental management. In the lesser developed states, it is the lack of a strong environmental agency, well grounded in the practice of managing the environment and familiar with the tools of management, which make it difficult to require EIAs.

The situation in the U.S. - affiliated Pacific islands is not any different from the Pacific as a whole. The greater the level of development, the greater the awareness of the necessity for carefully assessing the environmental impacts of development before they occur. In the Pacific arena, the South Pacific Regional Environmental Program (SPREP) has been active in educating and institution building in environmental management. Through their Regional Environmental Technical Assessment (RETA) Program and their Regional EIA training program, SPREP hopes to raise the level of environmental planning while supporting those already actively involved in environmental planning.

To a lesser extent, the East West Center Environment Program has been active in support of SPREP and the EPA effort at training. Future workshops in the region should be coordinated with SPREP and the East West Center so that our

12

efforts are complimentary not redundant. While it is important that the U.S. EPA maintains a role in education towards better environmental management and that the UR Environmental Center continue its partnership with the EPA, we believe a more coordinated program bringing together the resources of each organization would yield better results in the long run.

13

LAWS

COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANAS --- SAIPAN

Commonwealth Environmental Protection Act

Public Law 3-23

The Constitution of the commonwealth guarantees a clean and healthful public environment. The Environmental Protection Act accordingly states that it is the policy of the Commonwealth that "necessary and desirable economic and social development proceeds in an environmentally responsible manner in order to promote the highest attainable quality of life from present and future generations!!. The provisions of this Act and any regulations promulgated pursuant to it apply to the air, land, water, wetlands, and submerged lands, including the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and areas governed by the Marine Sovereignty Act of 1980.

The Act created a Division of Environmental Quality headed by a Chief who shall report to the Director of the Department of Public Health and Environmental Services. The Chief is responsible for the day to day administration, implementation, and enforcemen t of all powers and duties relating to environmental protection prescribed by law.

With the approval of the Director, the Chief has the power to issue administrative orders and to request the Attorney General to seek injunctive or other relief to enforce any cease and desist order, provision of a permit, or any statute or regulations. The Chief can also impose fines of $1,000 per day for violations of permit conditions or regulations.

The Division of Environmental Quality promulgates regulations governing permits for pollutant discharge; transportation use; storage and disposal of waste and hazardous substances; and major permits may be required to prepare an ETA. Whether or not an ETA is required for a specific project is governed by regulations. In practice, the determination that an ETA is or is not required is made by the Coastal Resources Management (CRM) Board, established pursuant to CNMI Public Law 3-47.

Regulations promulgated by DEQ and CRM provide for specific permitting requirements as outlined below. Generally, the ETA is not explicitly required under individual permitting processes. However, most permit actions occur within the framework of a larger application which may be required by the CRM Board to file an ETA. The application must submit evidence to show there is no significant adverse impact on the coastal environment or its resources (see Sec. 8 iv. a-f, P.L. 3-47). Public review of individual actions is required for major sitings, for which guidelines are established under the CRM regulations.

1

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION ACT OF 1988

The Act declares that the groundwater resources belong to the public and that the highest beneficial use of groundwater is for domestic purposes.

The Division of Environmental Quality controls permitting for the siting, design, construction, testing, and repairs or improvements of wells. The Division further ensures groundwater quality and quantity by controlling the withdrawal and use of groundwater.

Both civil and criminal penalties are available to the Chief of the Division of Environmental Quality to enforce provisions of the Act and any regulations issued pursuant to the Act. In addition, a private right of action exists to enforce the Act.

The Act requires no EIA to be drafted by the applicant for a well permit. However, the Division Chief is directed to establish a maximum allowable daily flow rate based on local hydrogeology "to ensure the protection of the public health and environment".

COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (CRM) 1984

This regulations governs the permitting process for activities within the coastal zone of the Commonwealth. This regulation facilitates administration of the Coastal Resources Management Program and is consistent with the U.S. Federal Coastal Zone Management Act.

No regulatory language requires a comprehensive EIA for evaluation of permit applications. Potential impact by the proposed project on air, water, and noise factors and alternative site construction are required to be addressed. The applicant is required to demonstrate to the Agency by a fair preponderance of evidence "that the project will not have significant adverse impact on the coastal environment or its resources".

The CRM Administrator and the CRM Agency Officials shall consider the following in evaluating permit applications (Coastal Resources Management Rules and Regulations of 1984: Section 9 bj-i.v.).

1. determine impact of existing uses on coastal resources and determine whether the additional use will significantly degrade the coastal resources.

2. determine whether requested use is compatible with existing uses

3. determine whether an alternative site exists; and

4. IIdetermine, to the extent practicable, the extent of the impact of the proposed project on the marine, freshwater, wetland and terrestrial habitat, and preserve, to the extent practicable, the physical and chemical characteristics of the site necessary

2

to support living resources.

REGULATIONS

Hazardous Waste Management

The proposed regulation establishes a program which identifies hazardous waste, regulates hazardous waste storage, treatment, handling, transport and disposal, and establishes capabilities of inspection and enforcement to ensure that hazardous waste management activities do not jeopardize human health and are carried out in an environmentally sound manner.

U.S. federal regulations are incorporated by reference and govern the management of hazardous waste.

Marine and Fresh Water Quality Standards

Standards are established for water quality int he CNMI waters. This regulation provides standards for non-groundwater water quality to protect the water for propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, public water supply uses, and navigational purposes. Existing standards are under review, and revisions are in preparation to expand the scope of the water quality standards.

Marine water uses are classified into categories of Class AA and A while fresh water uses are categorized as either Class 1 or 2. Specified permissible uses are allowable in each respective water use classification. Basic and specific water quality criteria are also established for all the waters of the CNMI.

Pesticide Control

This regulation governs the use, importation, distribution and sale of pesticides for the protection of the public health and the prevention of environmental contamination.

Persons desiring to become private or commercial applicators must be certified. Certification of competency standards for private or commercial applicators is assessed through a written exam. Passage of the exam results in certificate issuance. All certificates shall be valid for three years from the date of issuance unless earlier suspended or revoked by the Chief.

Persons engaged in the importation, sale or distribution of restricted use pesticides

3

must be licensed. Application for a license shall be made to the Chief on a form provided for that purpose and shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee of $5.00.

Experimental use permits to conduct small scale laboratory or field tests of an unregistered pesticide must be obtained prior to the performance of such tests. The application for the experimental use permit must contain adequate information regarding the proposed experiment, conditions, and data regarding environmental hazards associated with the proposed use of the pesticide.

Earthmoving and Erosion Control

These regulations establish certain minimum standards necessary for the control of nonpoint source runoff from man related activities for the protection of water quality, beneficial uses, and natural resources, in the marine and fresh water environment.

Construction and maintenance of any landfills, excavations, and cuts and clearing of vegetation and the revegetation of cleared areas, and all other earthmoving activities, must comply with the terms of these regulations. Permits are required for any earthmoving activities.

Applicants for a permit shall submit an application and Erosion and Sediment control Plan to DEQ. DEQ shall review the pertinent information and shall determine permit issuance.

Although the regulation does not require an environmental impact assessment for specific projects, the regulation does require an environmental effects study in certain circumstances. For example, no permit is required to clear vegetation for landscaping purposes on areas of less than two hectares, if erosion is prevented and there are no adverse environmental impacts on surface water as a result of the clearing operation.

As part of the permitting process, the applicant is required to provide a slope stabilization and revegetation plant that includes a detailed analysis of the environmental effects of this aspect of the project and the effects on slope stability, soil erosion, water quality, and fish and wildlife. Adequate evaluation of the plans submitted with the permit application is hampered if an environmental impact assessment discussing alternatives to project plans and objectives is lacking.

Air Pollution Control Regulations

The regulation reemphasizes the constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthful environment. The express policy maintains optimum levels of air quality in order to protect

4

and preserve public health, general welfare, and the aesthetic quality of the air. The regulation also ensures that necessary and desirable economic and social development proceeds in an environmentally responsible manner.

The regulation governs the permitting of all new sources and the modifications of major sources of airborne emissions. Permits must be obtained prior to the construction, operation, or modification of any new source the use of which may cause the issuance of air pollutants. Registration of existing sources is also required.

Record keeping and reporting of the nature and amounts of emissions from a stationary source in the CNMI and or any other information as may be deemed necessary by the Chief must be submitted to the Chief. Emission data will be correlated with applicable emission limitations and other requirements. This data will be made available to the public during normal business hours at the Division.

Applications for permits are processed by the Chief of the Division of Environmental Quality. Applications are to be accompanied by copies of all "complete data, siting information, and plan description".

Drinking Water Regulations

Established minimum standards and requirements necessary for the public health and safety. These standards ensure protection of public water systems against pollution and contamination as well as prevent potential health hazards.

A Notice of Intent must be filed with the Department prior to construction of a new public water system or an increase in the capacity of or a modification to an existing public water system. A description plan with information regarding the proposed location, water source capacity, budget estimates, and other necessary data must be provided. The Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) shall review the Notice of Intent within 30 calendar days of its receipt. Review and approval of final drawings and specifications is conducted by the Department.

Emergency permits are granted when the safety or adequacy of a public water supply are concerned.

Sections regarding the Public Notification and fluoride standards were amended on 11-15-91. New drinking water standards were also added for Trihalomethanes (THMs) and the Volatile Organic Chemicals (VOCs), which include a number of unregulated con taminants.

Underground Storage Tanks (USn Regulations

5

Requirements exist regarding the permitting, installation, monitoring, and removal of USTs. These requirements aim to prevent UST leaks and spills, to locate such leaks and spills and to correct the problems that they create. Furthermore, the regulations contain provisions for financial responsibility to ensure that owners and operators of USTs can pay for correcting the problems created should their USTs leak.

Permits must be obtained prior to installation of any UST from DEQ. The owner or operator shall pay an UST Permit to Install application fee of $500.00 per tank (new and replacement) payable to the DEQ at the time the UST Permit to Install application is submitted.

DEQ shall not issue an UST Permit to Install until the owner, operator, or designated contractor has obtained a DEQ Earthmoving and Erosion Control Permit. After an application has been filed at DEQ, the owner or operator and the certified tank installer must attend an UST Program Briefing conducted by DEQ. This briefing shall minimally include a review of federal and CNMI UST Regulations and the DEQ UST Program.

No UST Permit to Install shall be issued without prior proof of financial liability. There is a 30 day processing period for any UST Permit to Install applications, from the time all requirements have been complete and DEQ determines the application complete. DEQ must also approve permit applications for operation of the UST.

Underground Injection Control Regulations

Requirements are established for any underground injection of hazardous wastes of fluids used for extraction of minerals, oil, and energy, and of certain other fluids with potential to contaminate groundwater in order to protect underground sources of drinking water.

These regulations prohibit deep injection of wastes, injection of hazardous wastes, injection of fluids associated with oil and gas mining, solution mining, and other types of injection to exist, subject to applicable regulations. The regulations exclude drinking water supply wells, water production wells, monitoring well drilling, development, and rehabilitation processes.

Individual Wastewater Disposal Systems Rules and Regulations

These regulations protect the health of the septic tank user and his neighbors. Minimum standards ensure that discharged wastes will not contaminate any drinking water supply and will not cause the spread of disease.

All new buildings must have permits for all septic systems prior to construction from

6

the DEQ. Existing buildings and their systems must conform to the Individual Wastewater Disposal System regulations within five years. If the existing system poses a potential threat to public health and safety, the Chief of DEQ, may require modification of the system.

7

GUAM

The Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEP A) is charged with responsibilities to safeguard the natural and human environment. Authority for environmental protection stem from: laws promulgated to address potential pollution threats to the general public. These laws specify standards and regulations to ensure clean air, land, and water resources. Violators of such laws shall be penalized accordingly. Thus, the Agency is heavily involved with regulatory and enforcement activities.

Some of these activities include the review of construction projects and development plans. construction projects alone generate environmental concerns affecting air, land, and water resources. Various permits and certifications may be involved. The Guam EPA carefully reviews such activities through a permit system. For example, erosional impacts from clearing and grading activities are evaluated and appropriate erosion control measures are recommended. Such impacts may be minimized through proper, comprehensive planning efforts with other agencies and individuals. The following lists the Guam Laws found in Title 10 of the Guam Code Annotated:

Ch.45 Guam Environmental Protection Act

Administration

A Board of Directors, composed of nine individuals appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Legislature, manages the Agency and develops policy. The administrator and Deputy Administrator, appointed by the Board, manage the Administrative affairs of the Agency.

Regulations promulgated by the Agency are subject to confirmation by the Legislature. Any regulation, however, is considered approved and effective, if not expressly approved or rejected by the legislature within 45 days.

The Agency is responsible for the implementation of the Water Resources Conservation Act, the Water Pollution Control Act, the Guam Pesticides Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Solid Waste Management and Litter Control Act.

None of these Acts specifically require the development of an EIS in the preparation of applications for permits. For the most part, required documentation is left to the discretion of the Administrator.

Applicability of NEP A

Actions of Guam government agencies that involve even minimally U.S. Federal funds, U.S. federal lands, or U.S. federal permits come under the aegis of NEPA and

1

relevant U.S. agency regulations.

Procedures for drafting environmental impact assessments to conform with U.S. NEP A regulations are outlined in A Guide to Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements (1980) prepared by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency.

Ch. 46 Water Resources ConselVation Act

AI of the water resources of Guam are the property of the people of Guam. The waste or unreasonable use or diversion of water is prohibited. No person shall engage in well drilling without a permit. An application for a license shall be made on a form prescribed and furnished by the Guam EPA Administrator. The information required for the permit application is determined by the Administrator.

Ch. 47 Water Pollution Control Act

A permit is required to substantially increase the discharge of waste into the waters of Guam or alter the physical, chemical, or biological properties of the water. The documentation required for the permit is dependent upon requirements established by the Administrator.

Ch. 48 Toilet Facilities and Sewage Disposal

Any occupied building must have toilet and sewage facilities for the disposal of domestic wastes. The property owner is responsible to maintain such facilities in good repair and in a clean sanitary condition. Certain types of toilet facilities are permitted under certain conditions. If public sewer is available, all buildings used for human occupancy must be connected to the public sewer services. Buildings existing prior to the availability of public sewer may operate a septic tank and leaching field system. However, such systems must be approved by Guam EPA. Should public sewer become available, such systems shall discontinue operation and connect into the public sewer system.

Ch. 49 Air Pollution Control Act

Permits are required prior to the construction or modification of any stationary air pollution sources or the use of any equipment or device that may contribute to increased air pollution. The Guam EPA shall require information with regard to plans, specifications, and other documentation as necessary in order to process the permit application.

Ch. 50 Guam Pesticides Act

Determines pesticides and pesticide uses which are highly toxic to man. Pesticides are designated for restricted or general use. A system of control over the importation,

2

distribution, and use of certain pesticides purchased by the consuming public occur through pesticide registration. Permits may be issued for experimental use.

Ch. 51 Solid Waste Management and Litter Control Act

The Guam EPA Administrator issues permits for solid waste management facilities, including design, operation, maintenance, substantial alteration, modification, or enlargement. All permits are non-transferable.

Prior ~o issuing a hazardous waste management permit for any facility designed for the processing, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste, the Administrator shall provide public notice of intent to issue a permit. The public has 45 days in which to express opposition to the permit and request a hearing to be conducted according to the Administrative Adjudication Act.

Ch. 52 Water and Waste Water Operator's Mandatory Certification Act

This Act aims to conserve and protect water resources as well as prevent pollution of Guam's waters. All public and private potable water supply systems and waste water facilities are classified according to the standards and guidelines approved by the Board of Certification. The Agency requires an examination of operating personnel and certification of their competency to supervise the operation of such systems and facilities.

Ch.53 Safe Drinking Water Act

The purpose of the Act is to protect public water supplies from contamination. Primary and secondary drinking water regulations apply to each public water system in Guam including those operated by the Guam government and the federal government. Any underground injection program shall not endanger the drinking water sources of Guam. Treatment techniques for primary drinking water and maximum contaminant levels for secondary drinking water are no less stringent than the national drinking water regulations. The Agency must review and approve all plans and specifications for the construction or substantial alteration of a public water system.

Ch.54 Environmental Pollution Control

This Act prohibits flip-top beverage containers and non-aluminum containers. Anyone may apply to the Board for a license to operate metal salvage business to collect, store, process, and dispose of such containers. Dealers, distributors and metal salvage contractors shall post their current refund value price in full view of consumers.

Addendum of recent Environmental Laws and Regulations

Executive Order 90-09

3

E.O. 90-09 established a Development Review Committee (DRC) to review projects considered by the Territorial Land Use Commissionrrerritorial Seashore Protection Commission (TLUCrrSPC) for project approval. Representatives of government agencies involved in land and water-use related activities provide a coordinated review and analysis of various development activities brought before the TLUCrrSPC.

Project applications shall be forwarded to the TIUCrrSPC only after satisfactory project review by the DRC. The committee review process lasts 90 days. If the review process exceeds 90 days, the committee will justify its extended review in writing, explaining the reasons why the review will continue. All DRC member agencies shall provide a written position statement for each application recommending approval, approval with conditions or disapproval.

Should the TLUCrrSPC disagree with recommendations from the DRC and contemplate action contrary to the recommended action, the TLUCrrSPC shall not take action on the proposed project and must provide justification for its disagreement in writing to the DRC. The committee shall have two (2) weeks to respond, after which the TIUCrrSPC may take action on the proposal.

Executive Order 90-10

E.O. 90·10 established requirements for Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) for all Territorial Land Use Commission (TIUC) actions. The TLUC shall not act upon any application for zone change or variance without an EIA approved by the Guam Environmental Protection Agency (GEPA). The GEPA Administrator may require the submission of a complete Environmental Impact Statement (EIA) if determined to be necessary as a result of the EIA.

An EIA, at minimum, must contain full information pertaining to project description and setting, alternatives compared and rationale for their selection, estimation of the nature and magnitude of environmental changes caused by project activities, criteria used in measuring significance, evaluation of impacts relevant to site sensitivity, and mitigative measures to ameliorate the project impacts on the environment.

The GEPA Administrator shall advise the TLUC, through the GEP A representative on the DRC of the required time period for EIA review, upon initial presentation of the application for rezoning or zone variance to the TIUC.

Should the GEP A Administrator's review of the EIA determines that the proposed action of the applicant may result in a significant or adverse impact on the environment, the Administrator shall require an EIS from the applicant.

If an EIS is required, the TIUC shall not act upon any requested zone change or

4

variance until such EIS has been submitted to GEPA and approved by the Administrator of that Agency.

The GEPA Administrator shall specify the content, format, and method of submission of such EIS documents and shall not approve any EIS unless it contains satisfactory remediation provisions for any and all adverse environmental impacts, as determined in the EIA.

Any change in ownership, management or direction of any development project, before, during, or after construction of a project requiring an EIA or EIS in the same manner as the original owner, manager or director of such development project.

Development projects requiring an EIA or EIS but have not undergone construction within one year of approval results in a suspension of the zone change or variance granted by the lLUC. Suspension status depends upon the GEPA Administrator's review of the EIA or EIS required and the Administrator shall advise the lLUC of the results of such determination.

Any application for a zone change or variance may be revoked, suspended, or nullified if it contains false, misleading, or improper representation of information, fails to comply with all remediation provisions of an approved EIS in a timely manner, or initiates or conducts activities not specified in any EIA or EIS promulgated in accordance with the requirements of this Executive Order.

No act, permit, license, or requirement under any statute, regulations, or law (federal or territorial) shall be waived by reason of compliance with this Executive Order.

The GEPA Administrator may waive the EIA requirements for the construction of a single family residence or if the requested zone variance constitutes less than a 10% variance from zone requirements, except in cases where the proposal impacts an environmentally sensitive area.

Executive Order 90·13

E.O. 90·13 established the National Wetlands Inventory Map published by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service as the official wetlands map for Guam and repeals Executive Order 78-21. All government of Guam agencies shall use this map in the review of physical development projects. Furthermore, the Guam Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Agriculture, and the Bureau of Planning shall complete a study of wetlands, prepare public information material, and draft all necessary legislation, rules, and regulations, and/or executive orders for processing through the appropriate channels. This Executive Order shall remain in effect until the results of a recommended legal framework are approved as required by applicable law.

5

Executive Order 78·21

E.O. 78-21 declared wetlands of Guam as an area of particular concern in the planning and management of Guam's land and water resources. The Territorial Planning Commission shall officially designate wetlands, consistent with Guam's Land Use Plan and Coastal Management Program. Such rules and regulations are necessary for balanced development, protection, and conservation of such wetlands, consistent with procedures of the Administrative Adjudication Act.

Executive Order 91·27

E.O. 91-27 established interim guidelines for the protection of Guam's wetlands. Under the provision of Section 3 of Executive Order 90-13, appropriate land use agencies shall draft necessary rules and regulations to better manage and protect the wetlands of Guam. The Wetland Rules and Regulations promulgated under E.O. 78·21 serve as interim guidelines until permanent rules and regulations are adopted and promulgated. These interim guidelines carry out the mandates of E.O. 90-13.

Executive Order 92·06

E.O. 92-06 amended Executive Order 90-09 regarding the Development Review Committee (DRC). Section 2 of E.O. 90-09 is amended to include among the list of departments and agency directors or their representatives who comprise the DRC, the Department of Public Health & Social Services, the Guam Fire Department, the Department of Education, and Guam Power Au thority ( executive members). Furthermore, Section 5 of E.O. 90-09 has been deleted and replaced with a section that reads as follows:

No project application shall be forwarded to the Territorial Land Use Commissionfferritorial Seashore Protection Commission (TLUCffSPC) until the DRC has had full opportunity to review the project to the satisfaction of constituent members. Upon receipt of a project application, the constituent members of the DRC have 60 days in which to complete a preliminary assessment. If in the course of this 60 day period a constituent member of the DRC determines that additional time is required for adequate review and determination of an opinion on the project applications, the constituent member shall notify in writing the TLUC and the applicant. This notification shall consist, at a minimum, of an estimated length of time required for the review and such information as may be required from the applicant to continue the review process, as well as a description of what the review will consist of. If a constituent member does not notify the TLUC or the applicant of any requirement for additional review time, then the application shall be automatically

6

forwarded to the TLUC 90 days after receipt of the application by the DRe. Each constituent member of the DRC is expected to provide the TLUC with a written review of the project application no less than five calendar days prior to the date the application is scheduled for action by the TLUe.

If an applicant fails to comply with a request for information submitted to it in writing by a constituent of the DRC, any consequent delay shall not be considered applicable for the purposes of determining the passages of time between the receipt of the original application and the deadline for submission of an opinion or review to the TLUe. The TLUC shall not consider for action any project application that has not completed the review by the DRe.

Purpose

Title 13 Subchapter E Wetland Areas

To develop procedural guidelines and performance standards for development and conservation of wetland areas pursuant to Executive Order 78-21.

Intent

Those wetlands areas too small to be precisely delineated on the official wetlands map shall be listed and at the request of DRC, verified by on-site field inspection by the Department of Agriculture'S Division of Aquatic and Wildlife Resources or other government agencies, as determined appropriate by the DRe.

Definition

Wetland: Those areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, mangroves, natural ponds, surface springs, estuaries and similar such areas.

Draft Environmental Regulations and Bills

Guam EPA has drafted Environmental Impact Assessment/Statement (EWS) regulations. These regulations establish content guidelines and procedures for filing an EWS. Although these regulations have not been officially adopted by the Government of Guam, excerpts of the draft EIA regulations are provided below.

7

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIA) Regulations

Intent

Ensure appropriate consideration of environmental concerns in decision making along with economic and technical considerations. Orderly, equitable and efficient review and action upon submittal, by responsible applicants for approval of any proposed activity are covered herein.

Applicability

These regulations apply to persons and agencies proposing activities requiring a clearing and grading permit, building permit and seashore clearance. Generally, multiple or phased applicant or Agency actions shall be treated as a single action. Certain classes of action with minimal or no significant impact to the environment from the preparation of an environmental assessment but not exempted from complying with any other applicable statute or rule.

Requests for exemption are made through completion of a declaration process. Eligibility for such exemption shall be determined by the Administrator. The Administrator will review any exemption request and may either approve it or disapprove it in its entirety. A Record of Decision will be issued to the Applicant.

An approved exemption constitutes sufficient clearance for issuance of applicable permit, license, or TLVC action the submittal was in support of. A disapproved exemption request shall require the Applicant to file an EIA, as set forth in this regulation.

The assessment process must identify potential impacts, evaluate the potential significant of each impact, indicate areas which require further study, determine the need for a statement and prescribe the statement information necessary to assure adequate discussion and disclosure of environmental impacts. Furthermore, the applicant must provide whatever information the Guam EPA deems necessary to facilitate the assessment process.

The environmental assessment must be filed with the Guam EPA. GEPA shall review the document and issue a Notice of Determination. GEP A shall consider the sum of effects on the quality of the environment and shall evaluate the overall and cumulative effects of an action for determination of significance of potential environmental effects. If GEPA decides that an EIS is not required, the notice is considered a negative declaration and shall be mailed to the applicant as soon as possible after determination.

If an applicant is required to prepare an EIS, the GEPA Notice of Determination must be published in the local newspaper.

8

Draft Bill No. 689

Bill No. 689 proposes to establish a Wetlands Advisory committee as well as criteria and provisions for the management and protection of wetlands. This new Article shall be added to Chapter 45 of Title 10 of the Guam Code Annotated. Excerpts from Bill No. 689 are provided below:

The Wetlands Advisory Committee is composed of three voting members: the Administrator of Guam EPA and the Directors of the Department of Agriculture and the Bureau of Planning. The Chief Field Officer for the Guam office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shall serve in an advisory capacity as an ex-officio member. The committee can adopt all necessary rules and regulations in accordance with the Administrative Adjudication Law and may exercise all other powers necessary for the discharge of its responsibility. A report shall be submitted to the Governor and Legislature of its annual progress and fiscal year activities and keep the general public informed on all major wetland decisions.

The Act applies to all lands in or within 25 feet of a wetland located within the jurisdiction of the Government of Guam. The National Wetlands Inventory Map serves as the official wetlands map for Guam through E.O. 90·13. The official wetlands map shows only the general location of wetlands and should be consulted by persons contemplating activities in or near wetlands before engaging in a regulated activity. The official wetlands map shall be on file at the Bureau of Planning.

Boundaries of wetland areas shall be determined by the applicant through a field survey. The applicant must show a wetland boundary on a scaled drawing submitted as part of the permit application. Wetland delineations shall be performed in accordance with but not limited to the procedures specified in the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. The Wetlands Advisory Committee shall verify the accuracy of and may render adjustment to the boundary delineation. Contested boundaries may be settled through attempts to reach mutually agreeable boundaries. If such boundaries cannot be agreed upon, a final delineation must occur at the applicant's expense.

Permits from the Wetland Administrator are required for activities in or within 25 feet of a wetland. All unpermitted activities are prohibited. The Wetlands Advisory committee may issue a temporary wetlands permit (oral or written authorization). A written permit may be provided should an unacceptable threat to life or severe loss of property may occur in an emergency permit is not granted.

Any person who commits, takes in, or assists, in any violation of any provision of this Act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and may be fined no more than $20,000.00 for each offense. Furthermore, any person who performs development in violation of the Act shall be subject to a civil fine not to exceed $500.00 per day for each day in which such violation persists.

9

The committee may order wetland restoration and creation measures for the damaged or destroyed wetland area by the person or agent responsible for the violation. If the responsible person or agent does not complete such measures within a reasonable time following the order, the Government of Guam may restore the affected wetland and create or restore other wetlands to offset losses sustained as a result of the violation. The person or agent responsible for the original violation shall be liable for the cost of such actions.

Conditions for uses by right and special uses in a wetland area are considered and discussed in detail in Draft Bill No. 689.

-10

PALAU

Palau Envir2nIT!~nlal Quality Protection Act

Policy

The Environmental Quality Protection Act established the Environmental Quality Protection Board to restore and maintain the environmental quality of the Republic of Palau. The Act mandates that allpracticable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance. will be used in a "manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare. to create and maintain conditions under which humankind and nature can coexist in productive hannony, and fulfill the social. economic and other requirements of pre~ent and future generations of the Republic." (24 PNC 102 (a»

The government assumes the responsibility to improve and coordinate governmental plans, functions, programs, and resources such that the government may:

"1. Fulfill the responsibility of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;

2. Assure for all Palauans safe, healthful. productive. and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

3. Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation. risk of health or safety. or other undesirable and unintended consequences; and;

4. Preserve important historical, cultural and natural aspects of our Palalian-heritage, and maintain, wherever possible. an environment which supports diversity of individual choice."

"To the fullest extent possible. the Secretarial OrdeTR. policies. regulations and public laws applicable in the Republic shall be interpreted and administered in accordance" with the policy outlined above (24 PNC 141).

Permits

The Environmental Quality Protection Board administers a pennit system whereby any person is reqUired to obtain a permit to discharge "any pollutant in the air, land, or water. or for the conduct by any person of any activity, including. but hot limited to. the operation. construction. expansion or alteration of any installation which results in or may result in the discharge of any pollutant in the air. land or water." (24 PNC 129 (b))

A "person" under this statute is defined as "the Republic of Palau. a state, a political subdivision. a public or private institution, corporation, partnership, joint yenture, association, finn. or company organized or existing under the-laws of the Republic or of any state or country.

u lessee or other occupant of property, or an individual, acting singly or as a group." (24 PNC 103 (e)

Composition of Environmental Impact Statements

A detailed environmental impact statement shall be developed by the responsible official of all national government agencies and all state governments recommending or reporting on proposals for legislation or other "major government actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment." (24 PNC 142 (c)

The environmental impact statement shall include discussion on: 1) the environmental. including cultural. impact of the proposed action: 2) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; 3) alternatives to rhe proposed action; 4) the relationship between local shon-tenn uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and 5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involve in the proposed action should it be implemented. (24 PNC 142 (c) (1-5»

Consultation with Expert Agencies and Public

The official responsible for developing the environmental impact statement shan consult with and obtain the comments of the interested public and any national government agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to the environmental impact involved. The EIS shall accompany the proposal through the review process. (24 PNC 143 (a»)

At the stage of the proposed development, rhe Board should determine the feasibility of compliance with the various permitting regulations governing the proposal.

Statement of Basis and Purpose of Proposal

The resultant decision on the proposal shall be explained in a statement of basis and purpose and shall present findings which include, but are not limited to, rhe following:

1. the environmental impact of the proposed action has been studied and considered by the responsible government agency;

2. alternatives to the proposed action have been given reasonable consideration;

3. any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided by following reasonable alternatives are justified by other stated considerations of national policy;

4. any local short-term uses of the environment are consistent with maintaining and enhancing long-tenn productivity; and

2

5. any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are warranted. (24 PNC 143 (b) (1-5)

Board Enforcement

If the Board determines that a discharge of waste is taking place or is threatening to take place the Board shall issue a cease and desist order. (24 PNC 162 (c). A public hearing shall be convened to determine the facts of the suspected discharge. (24 PNC ]62 (d).D' the facts obrained at the public hearing support the alJegation of discharge, the cease and desist order shall be final and effective. (24 PNC 162 (e»)

If those responsible for the discharge fail to comply with the orders of the Board. the Board may request the Minister of Justice who shall petition the Trial Division of the Supreme court for the issuance of an injunction, writ of mandamus or other appropriate remedy to enforce compliance. (24 PNC 162 (f»)

Private Right of Action

The Minister of Justice. any pol itical subdivision of the republic. nny agency or person may seek. declaratory and equitable relief in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court against the Republic. any political subdivision of the Republic. any agency. or person for the protection of the air. water and other natural resources and the public trust therein from pollution, impainnent or destruction. (24 PNC 163)

Comment

The Envirorunental Quality Protection Act (EQPA) extends the requirements for ETA to projects proposed by both government and private parties. In addition. pennitting requirement embody much of the information content of an ElAt and the Board is empowered to require any infonnation felt necessary to the decision-making process.

The agency or government entity responsible for the proposed project must engage in consultation with other agencies and the interested public in developing a comprehensive ETS. The Board is responsible to detennine compliance with the various pennitting regulations and offer other commentary as necessary.

The project agency bears responsibility for the final decision and must measure the impact upon the environment against the benefit resulting from implementation of the project.

Assuming the project proceeds, the Board may, if a pollution discharge is suspected. order further work on the project to stop, pending a public hearing. The Board may petition the Court for equitable and injunctive relief against those responsible for the project. The public. moreover, is guaranteed a private right of action to contest the proposed project and the impact on the environment that may result.

3

Trust Territory Environmental Quality Protection Act

Policy

The purpose of this Act is to achieve, maintain and restore such levels of air, land and water quality . 1v protect human health, welfare and safety and to the greatest degree practicable wi1l foster the comfort and convenience of its people and their enjoyment of the environment, health, life, and property, and will promote economic and social development of the Trust Tenitory and faciHtate enjoyment of its attractions. (P.L. No. 4C-78, section 2: P.L. No. 7 -19, Section l: P .L. No. 7 -64; Section ]: P .L. No.7-90, Section 1.)

REGULATIONS

Public Water SUImly Systems Regulations

Established certain minimum standards and reqUirements necessary for public health and safety. These regulations ensure protection of public water supply systems against contamination and pollution,

Pennits are required prior to construction of a new public water system or increase in the capacity of, or modification of an existing public water system. An individual must notify the District Advisory Board and submit a notification and descriptive plan detailing the proposed location, water source capacity. budget estimates and other necessary data. The District AdviSOry Board shall review a notice of intent to construct or modify a public water supply system for completeness within thiny calendar days upon its receipt. Final drawings and speCifications shall be submitted to the District AdviSOry Board for review and approval.

Emergency permits are granted whenever emergencies affecting the safety or adequacy of a public water supply arise. The Board shall be notified of such conditions. Plans and specifications covering the work as constructed under the emergency pennie must be submitted to the Board as soon as possible for review. After the Board review, the Executive Officer shall confinn in writing within ten days of issuance, the District Advisory Board's granting of an emergency penn it. Duration of emergency permits will be at the discretion of the Board. and shown on the emergency penn it.

Operation and maintenance of public water supply facilities, and requirements concerning self-monitoring by the supplier of water are also regulated. Pennissible analytical techniques an: specified. Through written pennission from the Board. concurred in by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, alternative analytical techniques may be employed. Alternative techniques are acceptable only if it is substantially equivalent to the prescribed test in both precision and accuracy as it relates to the detennination of compliance with any maximum contaminant level. The use of the alternative analytical techniqueJshall not decrease

4

the frequency of monitoring required.

Any person who violates provisions of these regulations shall be fined in an amount not 10 e~ceed $10,000.00 per day in which such violation occurs, provided that the Attorney General or the appropriate District Attorney shall present the Board in the Trust Territory High Court for the purpose of enforcing and collecting penalties proposed under this section.

Earthmovin& and SedimentAtion Regulation§

All earthmoving activities within the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands shall be conducted in such a way as to prevent accelerated erosion and acceleration of sedimentation. Persons engaging in earthmoving activities shall design, implement and maintain erosion and sedimentation control measures which etJectively prevent accelerated erosion and sedimentation. Such measures must be described in an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. The Plan shoUld specify control measures and control facilities and must be available at all times at the site of the activity.

A pennit is required for earthmoving activities. Pennit exemptions apply in cases where the earthmoving activity involves plowing or tilling for agricultural purposes or for the erection of a one or two famiJy residence. A penn it application must be filed with the Board and shall be accompanied with an erosion and sedimentation control plan. A non-refundable processing fee of $100.00 is required by the Government of the Trust Territory.

Any person engaging in earthmoving activity without a permit or in violation of these regulations may receive a cease and desist order from the Board or an order for compliance. On receipt of such notice a public hearing shaH be held regarding the matter. The Board may at the conclusion of the hearing. issue an order. Persons adversely affected by an order of the Board made after hearing may request review by the High Court.

Trust Territoo: Pesticides Regulations

These regulations establish a system of control over the importation, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides by persons within the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

It is unlawful to import, sell or distribute, or receive and deliver or offer to deliver, to any pen;on any pesticide which is adulterated or misbranded or banned. Records must be kept by commercial applicator and licensed dealers.

Persons desiring to import a pesticide into the Trust Territory must submit a notice of intent to the Administrator on a form provided for that purpose prior to arrival of the pesticide shipment. Upon arrival of the shipment. the Administrator's representative shall inspect the pesticide and compare the results of the inspection and entry papers for the shipment with the infonnation provided by the importer on the notice of intent. Shipments arriving without notice may be detained, denied and impounded. All expenses arising from detainment of a pesticide

5

shipment shaJl be payable by the importer.

Person~ desiring [0 become a private or commercial applicator must be certified. Specific standards of competency for commercial applicators must be passed prior to certificate issuance. Certificates are valid for three years from the date of issuance. Application renewal occurs after certificate expiration. Temporary cenificates are issued to persons with a valid pesticide applicator's certificate issued in another state or territory of the U.S. having an approved state pian. Temporary certification is limited to the same type and category of pesticide use for which the applicant is certified in the other state or territory.

Restricted use pesticide dealers are licensed by the Administrator. Application for a 1icense shall be made on a fonn and is accompanied by a non-refundable $5.00. fee. Each license lShall expire one year from the date of issue. A dealers' license may be suspended or revoked by the Administrator for any violation of these regulations whether committed by the dealer of an employee thereof.

Toilet Facilities and S!(wage Disposal Regulations

All pubHc buildings. including commercial buildings. schools. hospitals, built for the purpose of conducting pubic activities or engaging in public functions, must have toilet and sewage facilities. When public sewer services are available, all buildings must be connected to the public sewerage system. In the absence of public sewer, a septic tank or cesspool system is allowable provided they meet the sanitation requirements and pose no immediate water pollution threat or public health hazard. However. should public sewer become available, the building must connect to the system within five years. In the absence of pubic water and sewerage system. all toilet and disposal facilities may be a pit privy.

A permit is required prior to building construction from the Board. The toilet disposal faciliLie~ intended to serve such building must be in compliance of these regulations.

Any violation of any provision of the construction pemlit of the!;e regulations will result in an order to cease and desist from the Board. Those persons not complying with these regulations are directed to comply. In the event of a threatened violation, the Board may take appropriate remedial or preventative action. A pubic hearing for consideration of issuance of a cease and desist order is conducted by the Board and adequate notice and opportunity to appear and be hard at is afforded to all interested persons. Cease and desist orders of the Board shall become effective and final as to the said Soard upon issuance thereof.

Any person who violates any provision of these regulations shaH be subjected to a civil penalty not to exceed $1,000.00 per day of such violation. Such sums shall. be paid to the Treasurer of the Trust Territory for credit to the General Fund of the Congress of Micronesia.

6

Trust TerritQ[Y ~2.ljd Waste Regula,tions

Minimum standards govern the design. construction, installation. operation, and maintenance of solid waste storage. collection and disposaJ systems. Such standards intend to prevent pollution of drinking water or waters of the Trust Tenitory, prevent air and land pollution and halt the spread of disease and the creation of nuisances.

Pennits are required for the establishment, modification, or operation of any solid waste disposal facility or a part thereof or any extension or addition. Application for penn its shall be completed on fonns furnished by the Board and must be accompanied with detailed plans and specifications for the facility and a certification of compliance with the Territorial and local ordinances and zoning requirements. An operations plan report and an Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed site are also necessary. All pennits have a non-refundable $10.00 filing fee.

Any person who violates these regulations shall be fined an amount not to exceed $10,000.00 per day in which such violation occurs, provided that the Attorney General or the appropriate District Attorney shall represent the Board in the Trust Tenitory High court for the purposes of enforcing and collecting penalties imposed under this section.

Marine and Fresh water Quality Standard Regylations

Identified uses for which various waters of the Trust Territory shall be maintained. Water quality standards are specified to maintain such designated. uses. Coastal water uses are classified into Class AA. A. and B categories. Each respective class has specified penn is sible activities that may occur in those waters. Fresh water bodies also are categorized into Class 1 and Class 2 waters. Specific activities are also stated for these fresh water uses.

All surface waters have basic water quality standards which must be maintained. Specific water quality criteria such as microbiological requirements, Ph units, nutrient material, dissolved oxygen level. temperature, etc .. are monitored parameters to ensure water quality. More detail discussion on the water uses classifications are provided in Title 63, Ch. 13 Subchapter VII Marine and Fresh Water Quality Standard Regulations.

Any person found guilty of violation of any of the provision of this regulation shall be subject to enforcement action under the TTC section 507, 508, and 509.

T01st Territory Air Pollution Coptrol Standards & Regu]~tio!1S

These regulations permit air quality control via the prevention or control of emission of air contaminants at their source. Desirable levels of clear air quality for the Trust Territory are based on present knowledge that these levels are not expected to produce health hazards or impairment. injury to agricultural crops and livestock, damage to or deterioration of property I and

7

hazards to air and ground transportation, or in any manner, interfere with the protection of the put:Xt, welfare.

Permits are required prior to construction or modification of any stationary sources. The pennit is filed with the Trust Tenitory Environmental Protection Board Chairman. This permit is effective until start up of operation of the source. A permit to operate is then filed 30 days prior to the anticipated date of operation. The pennit to operate is valid for 36!i days or for such shorter periods as specified by the Board.

8

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS OF THE

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

FSM Environmental Protection Act •. Public Law No. 3083 (25 F.S.M.C 501 et. seq.)

Policy

The policy of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), in cooperation with the state and municipal governments and other concerned private and public organizations, is to use all practicable means to foster and promote the general welfare and to create and maintain conditions such that man and nature may exist in productive harmony. (Sec. 2 (1».

Definitions

Within the context of the State"person" means not only government entities, but also public and private organizations and individuals. (Sec. 3 (3».

Environmental Protection Board

The Act created within the Office of the President and Environmental Protection Board composed of five individuals appointed by the FSM President, one each from the various states of the FSM and one at-large member. Each member serves for a two-year period with the possibility of reappointment for two more years (Sec. 4(1»).

The Board is required to meet at least twice a year. The functions of the board are administered by an executive officer appointed by the President of the FSM (Sec. 8).

The Board each year shall draft a report on the environment to be transmitted to the President and Congress. The report shall discuss 1) the status of the major natural, manmade, or altered environmental classes, 2) current and foreseeable trends in environmental management and quality of these classes and how these trends effect the socio-economic status of the FSM, 3) the adequacy of available resources to meet human and economic requirements, 4) a review of the environmental effects of the programs and activities of governmental and private entities, and 5) remedial programs designed to correct deficiencies of existing programs or activities, together with recommendations for legislation (Sec. 9).

The Environmental Protection Board shall have tithe power and duty to protect the environment, human health, welfare, and safety and to abate, control, and prohibit pollution or contamination of air, land and water". The Board is further mandated to balance "the needs of economic and social development against those of environmental qualityll and to adopt regulations consistent with these goals and established policy (Sec. 10).

1

The Act establishes a permitting system to be administered by the Board to control the discharge by any person of "any pollutant in the air, land, or water for the conduct by any person of any activity ... which may result in the discharge of any pollutant (Sec. 11 (6)).

The Board may further enter into written cooperative agreemen ts with various states or state agencies to identify local environmental concerns and to act as the Board's agent in implementing environmental programs at the state level (Sec. 12(1) (a.e)).

Environmental Impact Statements

The Act requires the national government of the FSM and its agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) prior "to taking any major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment". The requirement of submitting an environmental impact statement extends to any action funded in any part by the national government or its agencies. In such a case, the recipient of government funds is required to submit the EIS to the Board (Sec. 13(1)).

The EIS shall be a public document and shall include a detailed statement on: 1) the environmental impact of the proposed action; 2) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the

proposal be implemented; 3) the alternatives to the proposed action; 4) the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the

maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and 5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be

involved in the proposed action should it be implemented (Sec. 13(2)(a-e)).

Enforcement

Any person who violates any provision of the Act, or any permit or regulation promulgated by the Board shall be subjected to enforcement action. The Board is empowered to issue a cease and desist order, or an order to clean up or abate any pollution, to impose civil penalty up to $10,000.00 per day of the violation, to commence civil actions for damages and/or injunctive relief (Sec. 15).

Judicial Review

ftAny person who is or will be adversely affected by the enforcement of any standard, policy, regulation, permit, order, or penalty of the Board and who alleges its invalidity may file a petition for a declaratory judgement in the Trial Court of the FSM Supreme Court (Sec. 17).

2

REGULATORY PERMITTING

MARINE AND FRESH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AIR POLLUTION CONTROL STANDARDS PESTICIDES SEWAGE DISPOSAL

General Comment

Existing permitting regulations of FSM are based on regulations promulgated by the Trust Territory Government. Generally, the permitting process applies to private and government enterprises alike and is controlled by the Environmental Quality Protection Board. Private ventures, unlike major government projects, are exempt from developing comprehensive environmental impact assessments (EIA) for their projects. The requirements of the permitting processes, however, are inadequate to completely evaluate the potential environmental damage that may result from increased pollution discharge either into the water or the air, or from erosion. The fact that a discharge will be within existing standards may not sufficient given the public policy to maintain and restore the environment. Lack of a requirement to investigate and discuss reasonable and practicable alternatives hampers the overall goal of the Board to enhance the environment.

Further, there is no requirement of public comment on a proposed discharge permit. All information is to be provided by the individuals requesting the permit. A procedure for public comment should be incorporated into the regulations. This may already exist, however, in regulations governing administrative procedures. The environmental regulations, however, should indicate that certain administrative procedures do apply and cite the applicable act or regulation.

SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PERMIT SYSTEM REGULATIONS

This regulations requires an EIA of the proposed site for a solid waste disposal facility or any extension of an existing facility. No public comment is provided.

PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS REGULATIONS

Construction of public water systems are not subject to permitting, but must be approved by the Board. Extensive description of the project is required. No EIA, however, is required by the regulation. the Regulation states that disapproval must be accompanied by written appropriate environmental reasons of the deniaL Without an EIA prepared for the project, it may be difficult to fully address the environmental consequences of construction of the public water system. Moreover, it is quite possible that such construction is a "major" government project subject to EIA by statute. Because the regulation does not specify a requirement for an EIA, the classification of the project as "major" may be litigated thus delaying the completion of the project.

3

CONTROL OF EARTHMOVING AND SEDIMENTATION

This regulation is similar to an earlier Trust Territory regulation governing this area. Permitting is required of any person engaging in earthmoving activity. Person has the same meaning as in the Environmental Protection Act as outlined above.

An environmental impact assessment is not required. The Secretary of Human Resources may conduct a public meeting to determine the facts surrounding the proposed earthmoving. A unique feature of the regulation requires entities issuing loans or permits to build to notify the Secretary upon receipt of an application for a loan or building permit that involves earthmoving activity. No loan for or building permit involving earthmoving activity shall be issued until an earthmoving permit is granted by the Secretary of Human Resources.

Violations of this regulation are subject to enforcement including orders to cease and desist, civil penalties, and/or civil actions for damages and injunctive relief. The cease and desist order shall be effective upon issuance. A public hearing, however, shall be held to determine the facts of the case. The right of appeal from such orders is not provided in the regulations, but may be covered in separate regulations or statutes.

Comment

Earthmoving may result in considerable pollution. It would appear the Environmental Protection Board would be the most appropriate agency to issue permits for earthmoving. There is no provision for local administration of permitting functions. As the regulation stands, all earthmoving activity, even on the most remote island, must be coordinated through the FSM Secretary of Human Resources. The Environmental Protection Act enables the Board to delegate certain duties to state and municipal governments. Earthmoving activities would appear to be an activity that could be efficiently handled by local agents of the Board, subject to review by the Board depending upon the extent of the earthmoving operation.

Environmental Impact Assessment

This regulations is promulgated by the Secretary of Human Resources (hereinafter Secretary) pursuant to 25 F.S.M.C. 610 and 25 F.S.M.C. 702 to implement Section 13, Environmental Impact Statements, of the FSM Environmental Protection Act. The regulation establishes standard procedures for the preparation and review of an environmental impact assessment statement (EIA statement) prior to taking or funding any major action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment. (Part 1. 1.1., 1.2) The regulation contains two appendices, "Examples of Significant Impacts" and "Initial Assessment Environmental Checklist",

The term "EIA Statement" is used to distinguish between documents prepared under this regulation and "environmental impact statement" documents required under the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act, applicable for U.S. federal agencies' major actions in the FSM, pursuant to Article VI of the Compact of Free Association (Part I. 1.3(d)).

The project proponent conducts the EIA itself or may contract for EIA preparation In either event, the project proponent is entirely responsible for the adequacy and timely submission of the EIA Statement (Part II 2.11). The term "project proponent" refers to the FSM National Government or its agencies or the recipient of funding from the FSM National Government or its agencies, that proposes to undertake any major action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment (Part I 1.3(1)).

The project shall not commence nor shall funds be released for the project unless the Secretary has determined that the EIA Statement is sufficient. Moreover, no permits shall be issued until the EIA Statement is deemed sufficient by the secretary (part II. 2.2).

The EIA shall be conducted early in the decision making process for the project to ensure that environmental values are considered and that alternatives remain viable and not foreclosed (Part III. 3.1). An initial assessment, meaning a concise, preliminary assessment of the environmental impacts of a project (part I 1.3(i» is conducted shall be conducted for projects that do not appear to have significant environmental effects. The initial assessment is submitted to the Secretary for evaluation (Part IV. 4.4). If it becomes apparent via this study or otherwise that the proposed project may cause significant environmental impacts, a comprehensive EIA must be conducted and an EIA Statement prepared (Part III. 3.3).

The regulation provides specific guidance for the completion of a comprehensive EIA Statement (Part V 5.2 (a-D). The project proponent shall elicit comment from appropriate agencies and the public to prepare a draft EIA Statement which is in turn submitted to the Secretary, other agencies and the public for further comment. A final EIA Statement is prepared and submitted to the Secretary for approval.

A key link in the approval process is the evaluation by the agencies having authority for the project's funding or approval to determine the existence of "any practicable alternative or practicable mitigation measures, within its powers or the powers of the project proponent, that would substantially lessen (to an acceptable level) any significant impact the project would have on the environment. .. " (Part V. 5.3). Final approval, however, rests with the Secretary (Part V. 5.3(d)).

The contents of the EIA Statement covers the following areas: 1) summary; 2) description, purpose, and need for the project; 3) description of the environmental setting; 4) environmental consequences of alternatives including the proposed project; 5) organizations and persons consulted (Part VI).

5

Appeals from the decision of the Secretary shall be taken pursuant to the FSM Administrative Procedures Act, 17 F.S.M.C. 108 et seq. (Part VIII).

Title 25 Environmental Protection

Sec. 502 Public Policy

(1 ) ... it is the continuing policy of the Federated States of Micronesia, in cooperation with State and municipal governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions, under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of the FSM.

(2)... use al practical means, consistent with other essential with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate governmental plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the inhabitants of the FSM may:

a. fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;

b. assure all micronesians safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

c. attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradations, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable or unintended consequences; and

d. preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our micronesian heritage, and maintain wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice.

6

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Nat ion~) Environmental Protection A!,;;1; .. l..2.!li

This Act created the National Environmental Protection Authority consisting of a Chairperson and four other members selected by the President in consultation with the Minister of Health Services.

The Act mandates that all Ministries, Departments, Offices, and Agencies of the Government shall, in all matters in which there is or may be an environmental impact, include an environmental impact statement in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major governmental action significantly affecting the human er.vironment.

An environmental impact statement is described by the Act as a detailed statement on 1) the environmental and cultural impact of the proposed action; 2) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided if the proposal is carried out; 3) alternatives to the proposed action; 4) the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; 5) any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which the proposed action will necessitate if it is carried out.

The party responsible for developing the environmental impact statement is directed to consult with and obtain comments from the public and interested agencies or offices of the Government who might have expertise or specific information relevant to the project/activity and its impact upon the environment. Copies of the environmental impact statement and any other comments shall be made available to the Environmental Protection Authority and the public in advance of the completion of the Government decision-making process regarding the project.

The Act further provides that any agency of the national or local governments or any person may maintain an action in court for declaratory and equitable relief against any person or body for the protection of the air, land, water, or other aspect of the environment from pollution, impairment, or destruction.

Cosst Conservation Act 1988

This Act places the administration, control, and management of the Marshall Islands coastal zone under the National Environmental Protection Authority. The day to day responsibility revolves upon the Director of Coast~l Conservation (hereinafter Director). The Act further creates

a permitting system to ensure the long-term stability, productivity, and environmental quality of the coastal zone. (Part II, Section 9).

The Act states that no person shall engage in any development activity other than a prescribed development activity within the coastal zone without a permit issued by the Director of Coastal Conservation. This restriction is somewhat vague. No definition ot "person" is provided in the Act, nor is "prescribed development activity~ defined. "Development Activity" is however, defined as any activity likely to alter the physical nature of the coastal zone in any way,

Upon application for a permit, the Director may require the applicant to furnish an environmental impact assessment of the project/activity as a part of the application process. No guidance is provided in the Act as to when the Director should request an environmental impact assessment, nor how soon such a determination must be made after receipt of the application.

Upon submission of the EIA by the applicant, a copy is forwarded to the Environmental Advisory Council (hereinafter Council) for review and comment. The Council must submit its comments to the Environmental Protection Authority within sixty days. The Authority has thirty days in which to comment and advise the Director. Public comment is also invited by the Director. After all comments are received, the Director has thirty days to make a decision either to grant or deny the permit application.

Any person aggrieved by an order of the Director may appeal to the Authority within thirty days of notification of the order. The decision of the authority is final. No time limit is prescribed by the Act Within which the Authority must respond to the appeal. No judicial remedy is provided. It is unclear whether finality of the decision by the Authority is "final- for purposes of administrative review, or indicates that no judicial review is available. This confusion is further exacerbated by the fact that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against the Authority, Director, or any other officer for any act done in good faith. This provision would seem to indicate that no judicial review is possible.

Violations of the provision of Section 9, Permitting, are subject to fines and imprisonment, not to exceed $10,000.00 and/or two years in prison.

2

MARSHALL ISLANDS RNVIRONMKNTAL PRO~ECTION AUTHORITY

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) of the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) was created by the Marshall Islands Nitigjela in accordance with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1984. The RMI EPA is an independent Statutory Authority funded by the National Government. The Authority is composed of a Chairman, four members, a general manager and eleven staff members. The organization has existed since 1986.

Under NEPA, the Authority shall preserve and improve the quality of the environment. Thus, the Authority has devised a comprehensive national environmental regulatory scheme, enforcement procedures, and penalty assessment criteria. These recent program activities are listed below;

WATER anALITY MONITORING PROGRAM

The public Water Systems on Ebeye and Majuro are monitored by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The EPA laboratory tests individual water systems to assure that the minimum quality standards are met or exceeded. The EPA also monitors the coastal waters for contamination. Should the coastal water exceed the minimum standards for recreational use, the public is advised to avoid such waters until further notice.

EARTHMOVING PROGRAM

Earthmoving projects are evaluated to identify adverse environmental and cultural impacts. Once impacts are identified, mitigation strategies are developed to prevent accelerated erosion, sedimeneation, and disturbance of potential cultural resources. Earthmoving activities require an erosion and sedimentation control plan, control measures and control facilities. Furthermore, cultural preservation measures are required to prevent adverse impact on potential cultural resources. All earthmoving activities require a permit. Field site inspections aid verification of permit compliance.

Any person planning to undertake an earthmoving project must submit an earthmoving application to the EPA office for review. Pe~it applications can be obtained at the EPA Headquarters. Once an application is reviewed, an earthmoving

3

permit may be issued to the applicant. Exemptions from obtaining an earthmoving permit include earthmoving activities for private residences.

Any person who violates any provision of the earthmoving regulations or any permit requirement or order issued, shall be subject to enforcement action by the Authority. The enforcement action may be any or all of the following:

1. revocation of an earthmoving permit 2. the making of a cease and desist order in relation to the

subject matter of the violation 3. the imposition of a civil penalty, fixed by the Authority,

not exceeding $10,000.00 for each day on which the violation continues

4. the institution of civil proceedings to restrain the violation; and

5. any other action authorized by the NEPA 1984 or any other law.

SOLID WASTB PROGRAM I •

Minimum standards govern the design, construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of solid waste storage, cOllection, and disposal systems. Such standards prevent pollution to drinking and recreational waters, air and land resources and halt the spread of disease. Simultaneously, these standards aim to protect public health and safety, conserve natural resources, and preserve and enhance the beauty and quality of the environment. Permits are required if any person establishes, modifies, or operates any solid waste disposal facility or a part of such a facility within the RMI. The Authority may issue a permit provided that provisions of these regulations are met.

Any person engaged in an activity without such a permit shall be subject to a civil penalty of $100.00 per day for each day the activity is conducted without a permit.

This program reviews solid waste management plans and disposal facilities undertaken by the national government, local governments and non-government entities. Focus on urban centers like Majuro and Ebeye is explained by their highest rate of solid waste problems.

lZS~IeIDBS PROG~

Persons within the RM! oversees the importation, distribution, sale and use of pesticides. Commercial, private and government applicators must be certified.

4

~OILBT FACILITIES AND SEWAQK DISPOSAL PROGRAM

Minimum standards for toilet facilities and sewage disposal are established for reduction of environmental pollution, health hazards, and public nuisance from such facilities. All public buildings or any buildings used for dwelling purposes must have toilet and sewage facilities. Three types of toilet and sewage facilities are available. However, if public sewer services are available, the building must connect to the public sewer. If public sewer services are unavailable, the building may operate a septic tank and leaching field system upon approval by the Authority. Permits must be obtained for an approved toilet and sewage disposal facility prior to building construction.

Any person required to have a permit and engaged in an activity without such a permit shall be subject to a civil penalty of $100.00 per day for each day the activity is conducted without a permit.

VILLAGB INSPEQTION PROGRAM

This program inspects villages in the government centers and the outer islands to identify problems in waste disposal, condition of toilet facilities, water supplies and rural sanitation needs.

PUBLIC E1)!lCATION PROGRAM

This program familiarizes the public with EPA's programs as well as environmental problems in the Marshall Islands. Environmental videos and quarterly newsletters are produced. A weekly radio program is aired every Thursday evening at 8 P.M.

Regulation, of the Marshall II1'n4a

primary Dri~king Water Regulations

Apply to public water systems. Regulations specify contaminants which may have an adverse effect on human health. A maximum pe~issible contaminant level is determined for each contaminant provided that it is economically and technologically feasible to ascertain the level of that contaminant in the public water system. Criteria and procedures are further specified to ensure a supply of drinking water which complies with maximum permissible contaminant levels.

5

Marine Water Quality Regulations

Identifies uses for which the marine waters of RMI shall be protected and maintained. Water quality standards are specified to maintain designated water uses as well as water quality.

Marine waters of the RMI are categorized into Class AA, A, and B classifications. Only certain activities are permitted for each respective water class. Basic and specific water quality criteria for marine waters are also established. See the Marine water Quality Regulations of the Republic of the Marshall Islands for more detail.

Permits are required for a point source discharge. Applications for a Marshall Islands Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MIPDES) permit shall be made to the Authority.

General Rules a8 to Governmental Aotion

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

An EIS is a detailed statement by the responsible official on the environmental and cultural impact of the proposed action1 any adverse environmental effects which cannot e avoided if the proposal is carried out; alternatives to the proposed action; the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which the proposed action will necessitate if it is carried out.

Before making an ElS, the responsible official shall consult and obtain the comments of the interested public and any Ministry, Department, office or agency of the Government of the Marshall Islands which has jurisdiction by law, or expertise with respect to any environmental impact of the proposed action.

Copies of an EIS and of the comments and views of the appropriate Ministries, Departments, offices and agencies of the Government of the Marshall Islands shall be made available to the Authority, and to the public for inspection, and the public shall be notified of the existence and availability of the statement a reasonable time before the completion of the Government of the Marshall Islands decision-making process.

The ElS shall accompany the proposal through the review process, and the decision shall be explained in a statement of basis and purpose which shall include findings by the responsible official body that:

6

a. the environmental impact of the proposed action has been studied and considered by the responsible Ministry, Department, office or agency of the Government of the Marshall Islands

b. alternatives to the proposed action have been given consideration

c. any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided by adopting reasonable alternatives are justified by other stated considerations of national policy; and

d. any short-term uses of the environment are consistent with maintaining and enhancing long-term productivity or usefulness, or if not, why it is proposed that the action proceed regardless. (P,L. 1984, Section 34).

7

AMERICAN SAMOA

Environmental Law and Regulation Reviews

Executive Order 3-80 established the American Samoa Coastal Management Program to facilitate participation in the U.S. Coastal Management Program. The programs are designed to achieve land use consistent with efforts to promote and preserve the ecological resources of the coastal zone. The area governed by the program includes all of the territory's land mass as well as all of the coastal waters and submerged lands extending seaward three nautical miles.

All American Samoa government agencies and programs are responsible to operate following the guidelines expressed in the coastal Management Program. Overall program development, administration, and coordination, however, rests upon the Office of Development Planning (ODP).

Legislation will be introduced to establish the program under Territorial statute in order to receive continual encouragement and assistance from the U.S. Coastal Zone Management Program.

The new legislation mandates that the Director of the Office of Development Planning shall promulgate regulations to govern a Itsingle, clear and streamlined permit system, integrating the activities and regulatory authorities of each of the territorial agencies which may affect the natural resources of the coastal zone ... ". The permit process shall provide, moreover, for the Ittechnical analysis of the environmental, economic, energy, social, and cultural impacts or consequences of any proposed projectlt.

The Director shall, further, promulgate regulations establishing "procedures and criteria for the determination of whether any proposed project has the potential to have a major impact on the natural resources of the coastal zone, or, whether such a proposed project has the potential to have a minor impact on the natural resources of the coastal zone!!.

The above requirements for regulations appear to call for environmental impact assessments. No criteria are established governing what should be included to facilitate evaluation of proposed environmental impacts.

Under current law, the Project Notification and Review System is in effect. According to the ODP, if an applicant is applying for a land use permit from the coastal Management Plan (CMP), the applicant must include with the petition a Itplan for the proposed activity .. .' a detailed description of the site, the surrounding area, the proposed activity, all proposed actions to mitigate or restore adverse effects, and a statement that indicates why the proposed activity is necessary at the site in the manner proposed". It might well be recommended that each applicant provide this information to facilitate more

1

effective analysis of any project.

For projects considered to be "minor", the ODP distributes "technical finding forms" to appropriate review agencies of the government. These agencies draft the technical findings on the project and its potential impacts. Based on these recommendations, the agencies determine whether the project is consistent with CMP policies and objectives or not.

Through a process of consultation coordinated by the ODP, an agreement is reached among the various agencies involved whether or not to approve the project. The applicant may appeal the decision following the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act.

Comments

The burden of developing impact statements on "major" projects, under current law, is upon the various government agencies. ("Minor" projects do not require any impact assessment). The ODP, in coordination with appropriate American Samoa government agencies determine if a project permit shall be granted. The ultimate determination of whether a project is "consistent" with the coastal management program is, therefore, placed in the same agency that drafted the initial impact assessment. The agency hence reviews its won work.

Permit applications for land use permits from the CMP, however, require exhaustive documentation that is the responsibility of the petitioner to develop. The agencies, along with the ODP, determine, according to established criteria specified in the User's Guide, whether or not to grant a project permit. This process provides for more independent review following specific criteria.

Impact assessment that address the environmental, economic energy, social and cultural aspects of a proposed project do not need to be tedious, exhaustive studies. Such a document, even for minor projects, would assure that all potential impacts were systematically and carefully considered. Published guidelines specifying the areas to be addressed in an impact assessment should be available to assist project developers in the preparation of impact statement. If the project is considered to be a "major" project, further criteria can be addressed.

The end result is a document prepared independently of the reviewing agency, subject to the reviewing agency's recommendation for amendment, that is tailored to the requirements of the project and that adequately addresses the issues of concern of the Coastal Management Program.

2

American Samoa Environmental Protection Program

Introduction

The Environmental Quality Act (24 ASCA 24.0101 et seq.) created the Environmental Quality Commission (EQC). All environmental programs are clustered under the authority and supervision of the Executive Secretary of the EQC. In 1987, Executive Order No. 16-1987, established the American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (ASEPA) within the Office of the Governor. The five branches of ASEPA under the leadership of the Executive Secretary of the EQC are: Safe Drinking Water; Pesticide, Solid and Hazardous Waste; Air Pollution and Public Information; Enforcement; and Laboratory Services. The ASEPA moreover is responsible for the enforcement of the following U.S. federal environmental statutes: Clean Water Act; Safe Drinking Act; Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act; Clean Air Act; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act --Underground Storage Tank, and Solid and Hazardous Waste Management.

Environmental Quality Act

(P.L. 12-45; 24 ASCA 24.0101 et. seq.)

The policy of the American Samoa government as stated in the Act is "to achieve and maintain such levels of air and water quality as will protect human health and safety, and to the greatest degree practicable, prevent injury to plant and animal life and property, foster the comfort and convenience of the people, promote the economic and social development of this territory and facilitate the enjoyment of the natural attractions of the Territory.

Permitting (24 ASCA 24.0116 et. seq.)

This creates a permitting process for all sources of air or water pollution or equipment causing or intended to prevent pollution. The EQC administers the permitting program. The Act states that the EQC may require applications to be accompanied by plans, specifications, and other information deemed necessary. No environmental impact assessment statements are required by the Act.

Injunctive Relief (24 ASCA 24.0152)

The EQC may seek injunctive relief from the High Court to suspend the operation of anyone in violation of the Act until such time as the polluting operation is in compliance with the Act. Orders of the EQC are subject to High Court review to determine if the EQC acted arbitrarily or capriciously (24 ASCA 24.0160).

REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY EQC TO IMPLEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL

3

QUALITY ACT

24.0101 et. seq. Environmental Quality Commission

Permitting Process

The applicant who intends to construct or modify any potential source of pollution or install or use any equipment or device either causing or contributing to air or water pollution or designed to prevent such pollution must request a permit for such activity from the Executive Secretary of the EQC on forms provided, accompanied with supporting documents as requested by the EQC. No specific requirement for an environmental impact assessment statement appears in the regulations. The EQC has 90 days within which to grant or deny the application.

The ap plication is publicly posed and a public hearing may be held if requested by an "interested party". The term is not defined in the regulation or the Administrative Procedures Act.

copies of the application and supporting documents are forwarded to the American Samoa Government agencies and the Region IX EPA Administrator, the local Coast Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Public Health Division of the Department of Health.

Any person aggrieved by any order prohibiting construction, installation, or establishment of any potential source of pollution shall seek a hearing of the issue before the EQC before cOJ;nmencing other legal or equitable remedies available.

Following a hearing, any person aggrieved by any order of the EQC may petition for relief from the High Court within 20 days of receipt of the order. 1 The arbitrary and capricious standard of review shall be used by the High Court to review action of the EQC.

25.0801

Erosion Control Regulations

These regulations are promulgated by the Environmental quality Commission (EQC) pursuant to the Environmental Quality Act.

These regulations apply to activities which result in soil erosion 925.0803).

All earthmoving activities in American Samoa requires a permit which discusses erosion and sedimentation control measures as referred to in Section 25.0804 and must be filed with ASEPA and the DPO/ASCMP. The plan must be prepared by a person trained and experienced in erosion and sedimentation control methods and techniques (25.0804).

Special conditions may be imposed by the EQC as it sees fit and such conditions and

4

requirements must be listed or within the instrument attached to the land use permit (25.0810).

Storage Tanks

Storage tank requirements apply to all tanks above and below ground which receive, store, or distribute petroleum products or other chemicals (24.0701).

Installation standards for new underground storage tanks include equipment to detect and prevent tank overfilling before any discharge can occur. The tank design must also be equipped t prevent corrosion; for the operational life of the tank (24.0703).

Leak reporting and correction must occur within 24 hours and reported to the commission (24.0706). Any leak, spill discharge, or other release from any tank shall be stopped as soon as possible. Leaking tanks should be immediately repaired, replaced, and meet installation standards set for new underground storage tanks as in 24.0703.

Owners and operators of underground storage tanks shall submit a permit application to the commission within 30 days of the effective date. Permits must be obtained from the commission prior to construction, installation, modification, or repair of any underground or above storage tanks. The permit must also specify tank size, tank material, installation and operating procedures, detailed plans and specifications of the tanks, and secondary containment. Failure to comply with these conditions is a violation (24.0707).

The commission must be notified of any intent to permanently shut down a tank. Owners and operators of tanks to be removed from service for less than two years must comply with all monitoring and leak detection requirements. The vent lines must remain open and functioning and all safety equipment must be maintained.

All records for the tanks shall be maintained on site (24.0710). Enforcement shall be in accordance with the EQA (24.0711).

Policy

Office of Marine & Wildlife Resources (P.L. 20-12; 24 ASCA Ch. 3)

To preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage the marine and wildlife resources within the Territory.

Definition

Wildlife: includes all species of the animal kingdom whose members exist in a wild state and includes all stages of development and the bodily parts of wildlife species.

5

Office Established

The director for this office is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature. The duties of the office are to:

manage, protect, preserve, and perpetuate the marine and wildlife resources int he Territory; Prepare and develop a comprehensive plan or plans for the management, protection and preservation of marine and wildlife resources in the Territory; collect, analyze, and disseminate data and information relating to the marine and wildlife resources in the Territory; keep records necessary to monitor and regulate commercial and recreational fisheries; encourage and conduct studies investigations; and research relative to commercial and recreational fisheries and wildlife and natural resources ...

Dealer records are kept in triplicate form provided by the Office and unlicensed selling of fresh and frozen fish and shellfish within American Samoa. Fish activities must also keep receipts and be subjected to sales tax imposed by the government. Reports by licensed wholesalers occurs on the fifth day of the month totalling the amount of fresh fish and shellfish, in pounds, purchased, received, or taken by him (24.0308). All receipts, reports, and records and information filed with the office shall be confidential and compiled and will not be made public record.

Enforcement

Office employees have authority to issue citations, collect fines, impound vessels and equipment, and make arrests for violators of that chapter (24.0310). A person in violation shall be guilty of a class B misdemeanor while a business entity shall be fined no less than $1,000.00 per violation. Any seized property or possession in violation is subjected to forfeiture to the government (24.0311).

Definitions

Endangered Species Conservation Program (50 CFR Part 81)

Endangered species: Any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.

Fish and Wildlife: Any member of the animal kingdom, including without imitation any mammal, fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate, and offspring.

Plant: Any member of the plant kingdom, including seeds, roots, and other parts thereof.

Program: A state-developed set of goals, objectives, strategies, actin and funding necessary

6

to be taken to promote the conservation and management of resident endangered or threatened species.

Pesticides

All pesticides used and sold in American Samoa must be registered by the EPA a and licensed with the Department of Agriculture, American Samoa government. License application of a pesticide with ASG must be submitted by a pesticide vendor in writing on forms provided by the Department of Agriculture, to the director with copies of labels and labelling of such formulations that would be sold to the public (24.610).

All pesticides must bear a label conforming to the information required by 40 CFR section 162.10. Label information shall be in english and in some cases have a Samoan version of the labelling in addition to english. Unregistered pesticides with the EPA will not be considered for experimental use permits. Such permits are confined to pesticides registered by EPA for use not previously approved in the registration of the pesticide and are valid for one year. Permits and experimentation shall comply with provisions specified by 40 CFR 172 and its subparts (24.0611).

Restricted use pesticides cannot be sold unless a license from the Department of Agriculture has been obtained. The license expires by Dec. 31 of each year and must be renewed on or before Jan. 1 of each year. Qualified pesticide sales managers must be present at all sale outlets of restricted use pesticides. Persons seeking certification as a qualified pesticide manager may apply for an examination on forms provided by the director (24.0613).

Licensed dealers must record each sale of restricted use pesticides at each sale outlet in duplicate forms showing name, address, of purchases, date of sale, identify of the formulation or brand sold and its quantity, certification number of the purchases, intended use, and the selling clerk's signature.

No pesticide shall be exposed to conditions where food and food containers, feed or other products are likely to become contaminated and may create a hazard or cause injury to humans, vegetation, crops, livestock, wildlife, beneficial insects, and aquatic life. Pesticides labelled for pest control shall be safe only in garden supply centers or in other retail outlets. No restricted use pesticides shall be sold to uncertified applicators after Dec. 31, 1980 (24.0615).

Information or assistance on proper disposal of pesticide can be obtained from the director. Empty pesticide containers shall be disposed of in a manner consistent with its label or labelling (24.0616).

Restricted use pesticides are considered as such in this chapter. However, the director under the provision of 24.1207 of the Act, may declare additional pesticides for

7

restricted use within the territory. The director shall publish and make available a list of all pesticides or pesticide formulations classified for restricted use. The list shall be amended whenever necessary.

8

S LID E SHOW

E1A and Mitigative Measures

Slide Show

1. Pacific Island Projects, Their Impacts and Examples of Mitigative Actions. (title slide)

2. The U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands are in a dynamic process of change.

3. This change is in response to infusion of capital from both public and private sources for developmental activities for business and residential purposes.

4. At one time, islanders lived intimately with their land and the surrounding sea.

5. After the second world war, however, the Pacific islanders had to adjust from being remote outposts to becoming members of a world economy.

6. With the changing scene in the Pacific, economic independence is especially important to the U.S.-affiliated island states as the provision of U.S. federal funds is no longer adequate to meet the rising expectations of the islanders.

7. Islanders are adjusting to rapid changes as foreign aid and new investments inject money into the local economy and provide jobs.

8. As economies grow, populations grow, families migrate to urban areas, and lifestyles change.

9. These economic and social changes exert growing pressures on limited island resources. With limited land area available for development,

10. there's only so much room for new hotels, roads, and harbors.

11. In addition, there's only so much sewage and other wastes that can be dumped into the ocean without harming the environment.

12. The tradeoffs for using scarce land, water, and reef resources for development,

13. traditional uses, or preservation for future use, present islanders with important choices. All uses of environmental resources lead to both economic and social costs and benefits.

14. By asking the right kinds of questions, islanders can balance both costs and benefits while extending the usefulness of their environmental resources.

15. The purpose of this presentation is to show:

1) major types of construction proj~cts and activities in the U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands;

- Section V: Slide Show, Page 1

EIA and Mitigative Measures

2) the physical and ecological consequences of these activities; and

3) the use of mitigative measures that reduce or prevent adverse effects of development on environmental resources. (title slide)

16. The presentation is divided into two parts. Part I: Major Development Projects in the Pacific (title slide) will discuss development projects and the impacts they cause.

17. Part II: Case Studies of Development Projects in Micronesia, Hawaii, and American Samoa (title slide) will examine 10 projects which have been developed in the region. We will discuss the details of each case and how significant improvements were made or might have been made to mitigate major environmental impacts.

18. Part I: Major Development Projects in the Pacific. (title slide)

19. Virtually all significant development and associated impacts in the U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands have occurred during the past century with the advent of steam and diesel power and advances in the use of explosives for construction.

20. During the past two decades, modern transportation facilities have been built throughout the Hawaiian, Marianas, Caroline, Marshall and American Samoan islands which involved substantial dredging and filling.

21. In the past decade, resort development has become an important economic force, especially in Hawaii, Guam, and the Marianas and is being proposed in other Micronesian and Polynesian islands.

22. Substantial military development in Hawaii and Guam

23. and fisheries and aquaculture-related development in American Samoa, the FSM and the Marshalls have involved major coastal construction.

24. Recently, recreational development, golf courses and marinas, especially in Hawaii and Guam,

25. and residential development throughout the U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands have had major impacts on the areas' environmental resources.

26. The impacts created by these major development projects go beyond the physical effects caused by construction. All cause secondary or indirect impacts which are, in many cases, greater than the direct impacts.

Section V: Slide Show, Page 2

EtA and Mitigative Measures

27. Some of the indirect impacts are readily identifiable, such as the link between land clearing leading to increased erosion and eventually the decline of nearby reef fisheries.

28. Others are not so readily identifiable or easily understood, such as a greater influx of tourists leading to the feeling that the quality of life has been diminished.

29. Impacts also occur in the short-term, or during the construction phase of a project.

30. and in the long-term, during the operation and maintenance of the project, and in some cases irreversibly beyond the life of the project. Both short-term and long-term impacts are important to consider in project development.

31. Development Projects by Activity. (title slide)

32. Transportation Development. (title slide)

33. Transportation projects such as airports, harbors,

34. and roads have generated much of the construction in the U.S.-affiliated Pacific islands.

35. By necessity, navigation projects are located along the shoreline

36. but because of geographic, demographic and related factors such as proximity to construction materials, most roads and airfields are also located in coastal areas.

37. These areas tend to be the most productive in terms of food and the most sensitive in terms of ability to withstand impacts.

38. Airport and road construction need to be studied carefully to avoid destroying important wildlife habitats or natural areas such as mangrove forests, estuaries, and coastal wetlands.

39. Also the social impacts of opening up remote areas to more traffic through road construction need to be considered.

40. Harbor, road and airport construction often require the filling of shallow reef areas or the building of causeways across bays to link small islets together.

41. Filling destroys reef habitats while causeways often radically alter conditions in the enclosed reef areas.

42. Tourisrn/Resort Development. (ti tie slide)

Section V: Slide Show, Page 3

EtA and Mitigative Measures

43. With more leisure time and personal income, modern jets, and the development of new destinations, tourism is the fastest growing economic activity in the world. The number of travelers has increased considerably in the past 10-20 years.

44. Tourism has been growing significantly in the Pacific basin. Today, travelers from the U.S., Europe, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are filling up hotels throughout the Pacific, especially at major destinations,

45. such as Hawaii, Guam and Saipan. Projections for tourism growth vary but some Pacific islands expect significant growth in the future. For example, the CNMI could double the number of tourists to half a million by the year 2000 if present trends continue.

46. The basic ingredient for mass tourism which occurs in Hawaii, Guam and the CNMI is the large destination resort.

47. Large destination resorts have been built in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan in the CNMI. Other islands such as Polle island in Chuuk lagoon, Wotho Atoll in the Marshall Islands, Koror, Palau, and recently Pago Pago in American Samoa have been proposed as sites for major resort developments.

48. Making large scaled resorts profitable requires large numbers of tourists to occupy the rooms. This spurs the development of larger airport runways so that larger planes can bring in more tourists

49. and strains the existing infrastructure such as water supply, waste disposal, and electricity.

50. Large scaled resorts also require a large labor force which many islands lack, often spurring in-migration of guest workers.

51. Infrastructure Development. (ti tIe slide)

52. Infrastructure development includes water supply systems, sewage treatment plants,

53. solid waste landfills, and power production and distribution systems.

54. Infrastructure development is usually required before resort, residential and other types of development can take place.

55. However, these projects create many impacts of their own. All require some type of excavation and/or land clearing which lead to some short-term impacts.

56. Power plants have the additional long term impacts of air pollution and noise.

SectiQn V: Slide Show, Page 4

EIA and Mitigative Measures

57. Of greater significance may be the tendency for infrastructure to induce growth which in turn leads to more development.

58. Residential Development. (title slide)

59. An expanding population is creating a need for more residential development throughout the islands of the Pacific.

60. American Samoa, for example, reported a popUlation increase of 44% during the past decade and the CNMI population is expected to double by the year 2000.

61. The situation is worse in the urban centers to which people have migrated in search of employment. As the population grows, pressure will be exerted to develop housing in areas that are easily developed along the coast.

62. The shortage of available lands suitable for housing, especially in the urban areas, creates tremendous pressure to fill areas such as wetlands, and mangrove forests. Coastal filled lands destroy valuable estuaries, and important habitats for larval fish.

63. Many of these filled areas are inadequately designed and protected from wave and flood damage, generating the need for additional fill material for maintenance and restoration.

64. Residential development upland from the coast brings about another stream of environmental impacts. Development in a slope area requires grading and clearing during the construction phase.

65. While ground cover is gone, significant erosion can occur, clogging local streams, lagoons and receiving waters with sediment.

66. Ground clearing will also destroy habitat for species living in the area.

67. Once the construction is completed, the type of ground cover landscaped in the residential development may vary from the previous vegetation. This modified vegetation may not support the original displaced species.

68. Also, the modified vegetation may not have the same runoff prevention characteristics, thus allowing erosion and the transport of sediment.

69. Incorporation of sensible construction and design practices into residential development can control many of its harmful impacts. Seasonal grading, or grading and/or land clearing that takes place during the dryer months is one example of a construction practice which would lessen the impact of sedimentation.

Section V: Slide Show, Page 5

EIA and Mitigative Measures

70. Other mitigation techniques include the use of sediment basins and berming, partial grading, use of fast growing vegetation to stabilize temporary cleared spaces or stockpiled materials. Quickly replanting or landscaping areas will help mitigate or prevent longer term erosion.

71. Part 2: Case Studies of Development Projects in Micronesia, Hawaii, and American Samoa. (title slide)

72. In the first part of this slide show we examined various types of development occurring in the Pacific by activities. Each activity included a number of different types of projects, in size and location, each having an important bearing on the types of impacts likely to be generated.

73. In part 2 of the presentation, we will examine 11 case studies of actual development projects that took place in Micronesia, Hawaii, and American Samoa. Though they may not be happening on your island today, they may be considered for development tomorrow.

74. Dredging and Filling. Pala Lagoon, American Samoa. (title slide). The first case deals with dredging and filling for runway expansion at the international airport in American Samoa.

75. Pala Lagoon is located on Tutuila Island, American Samoa.

76. Airfield construction in 1972, including dredging and filling in the shallow reef area in the lagoon, had severe and adverse impacts.

77. Before airfield construction (about 1960), Pala Lagoon was home to American Samoa's most important shellfish grounds.

78. Dredging and filling along the coast disrupted longshore drift, prevented sand replenishment along the coast and probably caused shoreline erosion at Coconut Point, an area across the mouth of the lagoon from the airfield runway.

79. .The airfield partially blocked the entrance to the lagoon, restricting water exchange between the ocean and lagoon, degrading water quality in the process.

80. To avoid these impacts, the airfield should have been located inland from the coast as pictured here.

81. Sewage Outfall· Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. (title slide) The next case involves a sewage ou tfan in Hawaii.

82. Adverse effects of dredging and filling, and sewage discharge in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii, can be seen in a portrayal of the bay between 1938 and 1983.

Section V: Slide Show, Page 6

EIA and Mitigative Measures

83. Prior to 1938, Kaneohe Bay had a thriving, healthy coral reef system.

84. Military dredge and fill between 1938 and 1950 increased circulation in the north bay but reduced circulation in the south bay. By 1970, only northern bay reefs were recovering from the dredging operations, while central and south bay reefs continued their decline.

85. In addition to poor circulation in the south bay, increased sewage pollution from the growing Honolulu suburb of Kaneohe from 1950 to 1977 contributed to the decline in this area.

86. Sewage outfalls inside the bay were removed during the years 1977-78 and consolidated into a new outfall located outside the bay, depicted in the lower right side of this slide. The outfall at the new site has not resulted in adverse effects to the reef because of its location outside the bay, its 35 m depth, and the excellent flushing conditions at the outfall.

87. The removal of the outfalls allowed for a near complete coral recovery in the central bay and the beginning of an active long- term recovery of the coral in the south bay.

88. New threats, presumably from non-point sources of pollution due to increased residential development in the communities surrounding the bay, may be reversing these positive trends. Although it may be too early to tell, stricter land use controls may halt coral degradation from non-point sources and sediment runoff due to overdevelopment.

89. Causeway Construction - Pou Bay, Moen, Chuuk State. (title slide) The next case involves causeway construction on Moen Island in Chuuk Lagoon.

90. Adverse effects of road causeway construction can be seen from these slides on Pou Bay, Moen Island, Chuuk State, F.S.M. Pou Bay is the most important estuary and subsistence fishery habitat on the island.

91. Pou Bay, portrayed here prior to 1935, had a healthy mangrove with excellent tidal exchange with the surrounding lagoon and a good habitat for mangrove crab and other shellfish.

92. Causeway construction blocked tidal circulation into Pou Bay causing a decline in water quality. Raw sewage discharges and non- point runoff from villages located around the bay aggravated water pollution, potentially contaminating shellfish resources and generating a public health hazard.

93. Treatment of sewage and improvements to the causeway, including enlarging the culverts, significantly improved water exchange and bay water quality, as depicted in this slide of Pou Bay today. However, it took considerable effort

Section V: Slide ShoW, Page 7

EIA and Mitigative Measures

to convince reluctant engineers and government officials of the value of installing culverts at a very considerable expense after the project was completed.

94. Incorporating openings into the causeway during the construction would have saved a considerable sum of money.

95. Causeway Construction - Lelu Harbor, Kosrae.(title slide). Next is another causeway construction project, this time at Lelu Harbor in Kosrae State, FSM.

96. Adverse effects of causeway construction can be seen in this series of slides of Lelu harbor in Kosrae State, F.S.M.

97. The Lelu Harbor area was once Kosrae's most productive fishing grounds with seagrass beds, reef flats, and reef holes providing a number of different habitats for a diverse assemblage of fish. The causeway was constructed to connect the main island with Lelu, a populated offshore island shown in this slide.

98. The causeway blocked most circulation and fish runs into inner Lelu Harbor and led to a decline in seagrass beds. The main culvert in the causeway was later blocked during runway expansion, further reducing circulation, water quality, sea grasses, and coral reefs, leading to declines in fish catches.

99. Most of the damage might have been reduced or avoided by adding a continuous line of culverts through the causeway, replacing a section of the causeway with a bridge, and unblocking the main culvert as depicted in this slide. The choice is now between costly retrofitting or tolerating the decline in water quality and fish catches in the harbor.

100. Airfield and Harbor Construction - Okat, Kosrae, F.S.M. (title slide) The next project is also from Kosrae, the airfield and harbor at Okat.

101. Adverse effects of dredge and fill for a reef flat runway and dock construction can be seen from this series of slides on Okat Harbor.

102. Okat reef was another important fishing area on Kosrae. Construction of a reef runway and deep draft harbor required filling the productive coral reef flat depicted here. Construction buried most of the seagrass beds and much of the reef under fill land. Dredging further destroyed reef and seagrass beds and greatly altered circulation in the harbor.

103. The stronger water currents have caused shoreline erosion near the airfield and further down the coast (to the right of this slide) at Tafunsak village. Okat reef yields have declined to half their pre construction levels. These impacts

Section V: Slide Show, Page 8

, .. , 0

EIA and Mitigative Measures

might have been avoided or reduced if a suitable inland site could have been found for the airfield and the existing channel used for the harbor.

104. The impact of the existing project may have otherwise been reduced by the use of a physical barrier, such as silt screens or earthen berms. An earthen berm was used in the fill area for the runway and harbor.

105. However, the rate of discharge of dredged slurry exceeded the capacity of the retention basin and an overflow spread out over 25 acres (10 hectares) of seagrass and coral habitat.

106. The area was buried under .25 to .5 meters of fine slurry mud pictured here. This last impact could have been prevented by a reduced rate of slurry discharge.

107. Port Development - Barbers Point, Oahu, Hawaii. (title slide) The next project deals with a deep draft harbor at Barber's Point on the west end of the island of Oahu, Hawaii.

108. Deep draft port development such as the one constructed at Barbers Point, Hawaii invariably results in significant environmental and economic impacts.

109. An existing medium draft barge harbor, portrayed here off the southwest comer of the island, was too shallow and small for commercial ships.

110. A conventional offshore port plan, such as the one depicted here, would have caused greater marine impacts from dredging and filling and moderate loss of land to port development.

Ill. However, the use of an inland port concept, depicted here, resulted in substantially less marine impact but greater loss of land to basin development. No permanent loss of marine habitat for fill resulted.

112. Material dredged from the basin was stockpiled on adjacent land and sold for construction purposes, obviating the need for disposal, typically in a landfill. Sales of the fill material helped to offset the cost of the hatboro

113. Excavation of the inland basin was isolated from the sea by earthen barriers, further limiting adverse environmental impacts to the coral reef from turbidity and sedimentation. Overall the impact on the marine habitat in the vicinity of the deep draft harbor was greatly reduced by the use of an alternate inland location. Inland development reduced the need for dredging of the coral reef and the construction of sea walls that would have been required if an offshore alternative had been selected.

Section V: Slide Show, Page 9

EtA and Mitigative Measures

114. Quarrying' Construction Materials - Majuro and Kwajalein Atolls, Republic of the Marshall Islands. (title slide) The next project involves quarrying construction materials from around the atolls of Majuro and Kwajalein in the RMI.

115: ' Quarrying operations on outer shallow reefs, such as these in Majuro, RMI, for shore protection, harbor, and airfield projects are necessary for low lying atolls which lack other sources of construction material.

116. Quarrying, if done properly, may have an overall beneficial environmental impact by improving the value of the habitat for reef fishes and reef corals. Major impacts associated with quarry holes appear to stem from their location and shape.

117. Quarry holes located too close to the shoreline or to sandy environments tend to become filled with sediments or be less favorable to coral recovery. Square quarrying holes, as pictured here, tend to inhibit the recolonization of coral and fish.

118. Use of alternate shapes and depths, as pictured in these slides modeled from.,quarry holes in Kwajalein and Majuro atolls, can enhance recovery by

119. minimizing sediment infilling and promoting flushing from tide or wave action.

120. Landfills - Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. (title slide). The next project deals with the proper construction and siting of a landfill operation in Saipan, CNMI.

121. The adverse effects of improper landfill practices can be seen in this series of slides of the landfill site at Puerto Rico on Saipan in the CNMI. The landfill located in Saipan's industrial and port area is an open dump landfill, typical of others seen in Micronesia.

122. Negative impacts from such a landfill include deteriorating water quality from leacheate into the adjoining lagoon, underground methane build up, smoke and particulants from open burning of material, health and safety considerations due to rodent and other vector control problems, and aesthetics.

123. All of these impacts can be greatly reduced or completely avoided through proper siting, design, construction and maintenance of sanitary landfills, as is being done in Saipan.

124. Proper siting will help prevent impacts on ground water supply, for example, by locating the landfill on less permeable soil. Soil permeability was one of the criteria used by DEQ in Saipan in choosing a landfill site.

Section V: Slide Show, Page 10

EtA and Mitigative Measures

125. Proper design and construction will further lessen the impact of the landfill to the community. For example, use of liners and clay soil will lessen the potential of leacheate into groundwater. Training landfill personnel in proper maintenance of the landfill and a strict monitoring program, as is being instituted in Saipan, will further reduce the potential for major health and related impacts from occurring. Together with the institution of a recycling program to aid source reduction and an education campaign to convince residents to abandon the use of illegal dump sites, the new sanitary landfill will have an overall positive impact on the island.

126. Fish Processing Plant - Kolonia, Pohnpei, F.S.M. (title slide) The next project is a commercial fishieries operation in Kolonia, Pohnpei, F.S.M.

127. Commercial fisheries development is frequently cited as a means of economic development in Micronesia. Projects focusing on the harvest sector of the industry have received much attention from funding agencies.

128. However, several fish processing ventures have been initiated recently in the F.S.M. A tuna cannery is being planned in Kosrae and a fish processing plant is being developed in Pohnpei.

129. The Pohnpei fish processing plant is being built on a site formerly occupied by the Pohnpei State Marine Resources office on Dekehtik island. It is located next to the Pohnpei harbor and airport.

130. The principal solid waste landfill is in close proximity. Two hotels are also located on the island. Dekehtik island is connected to the main island by a causeway.

131. Value added operations such as the Pohnpei fish processing plant can add significantly to the economic value of fish. However, there are a number of adverse impacts associated with fish processing. Among the most significant are water supply, waste water disposal, solid waste disposal, and fish supply.

132. Pohnpei has a high average annual rainfall, but seasonal fluctuation leads to periodic water shortages. An adequate supply of fresh water could be guaranteed by requiring the plant to develop its own dedicated wells. Waste water disposal could be problematic since effluent from the plant will be great. Hook up to the nearby municipal waste water system may be possible if sufficient capacity exists. Alternatively, the plant could treat effluent on-site.

133. Solid waste disposal from fish bone and parts will be handled by an on-site facility. However, the facility is designed to handle waste produced from processing 10 metric tons of fish per 8 hour shift. If the plant moves to 2 shifts, waste disposal will cause additional problems.

Section V: Slide Show, Page 11

EIA and Mitigative Measures

134. Fish supplies must be adequate to meet the needs of the plant. The maximum capacity of the plant is approximately 10 tons per day. Fish landings are less than one ton a day in Pohnpei. If the plant management begins to purchase reef fish from local subsistence fishermen, it could quickly lead to overharvesting and a collapse of commercial and subsistence fishing. Fish supplies should come from either commercial operations within the F.S.M EEZ or from aquaculture.

135. Resort Development, Koror, Palau (title slide) Yet another major type of development occurring in the Pacific is the construction of large resort hotel complexes such as the N gesaol Resort Development in Koror, Palau.

136. In the case of the Ngesaol resort at Koror, Palau, little attention was paid to siting of the hotel. Not only would the hotel destroy a significant mangrove habitat but the view from the hotel would be of the Koror-Babeldob bridge, not a particularly attractive feature from the tourism perspective.

137. Alternative sites should have been considered that would better fulfill the needs of the tourist industry and manimize destruction of sensitive habitats.

138. The Ngesaol resort is in dramatic contrast to the Palua Pacific Hotel which was designed to blend with its environment and provides numerous visitor amenities.

139. Residential Development - Yona, Guam. (title slide) The final project concerns a large scale residential/resort development in Guam.

140. Population increases throughout Micronesia increase the need for residential development. Small scale residential development utilizing local resources, as occurs in much of Micronesia, often have few major environmental impacts. Large scale residential/resort developments, like the one being developed at Y ona, Guam, may have many major adverse environmental impacts.

141. The Manenggon Hills project calls for the development of 3000 townhouse and condominium units. It will include 3 golf courses and a number of on-site amenities and a 200 room hotel and conference facility.

142. Major impacts from this type of project include loss of vegetation and habitat for indigenous species, especially loss of wetland acreage; erosion and sediment transport during land clearing; pesticide and herbicide runoff from golf courses and other landscaped areas; traffic congestion; increased demand on infrastructure, especially water, power and sewerage; and greater demand on services including schools, fire, police, and others.

Section V: Slide Show, Page 12'

EtA and Mitigative Measures

143. Careful planning as is now being carried out by governmental Guam agencies, especially in the phasing of construction, can greatly reduce the impacts during construction. Piecemeal land clearing timed to coincide with dryer times of the year would greatly reduce erosion and sedimentation. Wetland banking. creation of new wetlands prior to the destruction of existing wetlands or enhancing existing wetlands would reduce the impact from their loss.

144. Other long-term impacts, such as demands on infrastructure, could be offset by having the developer provide them through an impact fee or similar provision. Participation in community development by the project's proposers and setting aside land on-site or off-site for public services would reduce the increased demand put on existing services by the development.

145. The Manenggon Hills development is an extreme case of residential/resort development, but it is by no means unique. Problems associated with such large scale development point out the need for careful planning, early community involvement and strong mitigative measures to protect the environment.

146. Conclusion. (title slide)

147. Development is occurring at a rapid rate throughout Micronesia. From road and infrastructure projects to

148. large resort/residential development, they all can be seen in the U.S.-affiliated islands. The key to protecting the environment is to conduct thorough impact assessment to identify the major environmental impacts and finding appropriate ways to mitigate them.

Section V: Slide Show, Page 13

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

Workshop Participants Saipan

July 21-23, 1992

David Attao

Frederick M. Ayuyu

Paul K.. Baron

Ricardo M. Borja

Augustin M. Camacho

Martin B. Castro

David T. Chargualaf

Manuel Chargualaf

Deborah Deleon Guerrero

David Demers

Michael N. Evangelista

Terrence K. Fitial

Ellie Friedman

Tony I. Guerrero

Joseph P. Guerrero

Bonnie Matsumoto

Will Maui

Lars I. Palacios

Benny K.. Pangelinan

William T. Pendergrass

Joshua K.. Quichocho

Ponce C. Rasa

Liz Rechebei

Rudy C. Sablan

Jack D. Salas

Benusto K.. Somol

Michael Somorang

Pete A. Tenorio

Scott Torpie

Joseph Torres

Estanislao C. Villagomez

Workshop Participants Guam

July 28 - 30, 1992

Marvin Aguilar Patrick O'Mallan

Edwin Aranza Sebastian Ongesii

BIas Atalig Greg Pangelinan

Victor Camacho Tony Perez

Lester L. Carlson, Jr. Juanito Prieto

Paul Chirichetti Joe Quinata

Joe 1. Cruz Tony Respicio

James P. Cruz Tony Roberson

Raymundo A. Cruz Randel Sablan

Francis L. G. Damian Richard Sana

Aylene P. David Jesusito D. Sta. Cruz

Vance Eflin Gary Stillberger

Mike Gawel Victor H. Torres

Carol Ibanez Carlos R. Untalan

Jordan. Kaye Peter Wallis

Lucio Abraham

Florencio Adelbai

Tobias Aguon

Skaruno April

Vince Blaiyok

Kerry Ken Cairn

David De Fant

Donald Dengokl

Y onah, Emesiochel

Keizy Ermang

Herman Francisco

Maura Gordon

Markub Hutchins

David K. Idip

Anne Mary Joseph

Sesario Kerradel

Katharine Kesolei

Masuo C. Kyota

Workshop Participants Palau

August 3 - 5, 1992

Marhence Madrangchar

Molau Megreos

Walter R. Metes

Tadao Ngotel

Rita Olsudon

Demei O. Otobed

Juan Pollai

Horace Rafael

Chris Ragle

Moses Ramarui

Mary Rengulbai

Francesca Ruluked

Fred Skebong

Cordino Soalablai

Elia Tatingal

Ngirchochit Tolngu

Moses Uludong

Magario Wachi

Camy Akapito

Julita Albert

Skeichy Albert

Harry Ewen

Larry Gouland

Joe Konno

Mathews Lokopwe

Marki Mailo

Workshop Participants Chuuk

August 11 - 13, 1992

Chuneo Nimwes

Luis 0

Elvis Killion O'Sonis

Noha Phanchy

Kowas Santa

Leo Shirai

Joshua Simor

Ada Smith

Thomas R. Mazawa Curtis Sos

Alex N arruhn Santiago Sukuruta

Freddie Nifon Sanphy William

Y ouser Anson

Lance Bailey

Kit Dahl

Donald David

Aluis 1. Ehpe

Emensio Eperiam

Robert Hadley

Elden Hellan

Welsin Hemon

Penny Jimmy

Augustine Prio

Evans Raymond

Workshop Participants Pohnpei

August 18 - 20, 1992

Johnston Rott

Perden Samson

Ben H. Santiago

Edgar Santos

Donna Scheuring

Damian Sohl

Henry Susaia

Monique Wahba

John E. Weilbacher

Martin Weirlangt

Tadasy William

Simpson Abraham

Fanry Albert

Workshop Participants Kosrae

August 25 - 27, 1992

RoIton Phillips

Steven Sigrah

Singkitchy P. George Berlin Sigrah

Bruce Howell Norio Skilling

Gerson Jackson Robert Taulung

Hostino Livae Salpasr Tilfas

Kun Mackively Roltin Timothy

Maung Maung Erick E. Waguk

Nena Madison Likiak Wesley

Paul Meng Katchuo William

Brady Phillips

Workshop Participants Majuro

August 31 - September 3, 1992

James A. Alloway Joe Mook

Mabel Andrew Masha Note

Abel Anien Wallace Peter

Barbara Barber Fraser Rdialul

Hemley Benjamin Cathy O. Relang

Harrington Dribo Joe E. Riklon

Anwest Eleas J ohnsay A. Riklon

Abraham Hicking Juanita Rilometo

Nena Kilma Kato Rubon

Stephen Lepton Titus Langrine

Justine L. Aetonu

Vialalua Aiavao

Simoa Asiate

Ueaa Eleasano

Workshop Participants American Samoa

September 22 • 24, 1992

Mark Meredith

Etvale Pino

Faafana Qaoe

Sila Samuelu

Maanaima Fualaau Savini Siiuita

Mike Greene Ratisami Suapilimai

Marcus Jensen Ativalo Tago

Vai Jegaloa Shirley Tartolo

Karla Kluge Fia Tiapula

Pamela Knudsen A. Tinoisamoa

Pasesa Lafitaga Fale Tuilagi

S. Leiefo Tou Vaiga

Toetu Malepaia Gus Vieno

Judith McCoy-Brown Sheila Wiegman

EVALUATIONS

EVALUATIONS

SAl PAN

Appe:rrlix D-1

EVALUATION

Island: SAIP AN

Section I • Introduction

1.

2.

The Introduction was clear and easy to understand.

The workbook materials for the Introduction were appropriate.

3. Comments:

Section II • Purpose

1.

2.

3.

The purpose of this workshop was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

The purpose for mitigative measures in the EIA was made clear.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

~ Strongly Disagree Disagree

~ Neutral Agree

5 Strongly Agree

0001110

o 0 1 8 10

001118

o 0 1 9 10

o 0 0 6 13

4. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section III • Enyironmental Impact Assessment Process

1. The description of the ETA process was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 1 11 8

2. The presentation was organized and logical. o 0 0 11 9

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section IV· Environmental Impact Assessment Contents

1.

2.

The discussion of the content requirements for EIA was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logicaL - -

o 0 1 10 8

001117

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

EtA and Mitigative Measures

Section V - Slide Show

1. The purpose of the slide show was clear and easy to understand. o 0 2 6 10

2. Each topic introduced in the slide show was adequately discussed. 0 0 5 8 5

3. The slide show discussed topics applicable to my island. 0 0 2 4 12

4. The slide show was well organized. 0 0 4 6 8

5. Comments: How could the slide show be improved?

Section VI - Approaches to MinimizinJ: Impacts

1. The purpose and methods to minimize impacts were clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 8 11

2. The presentation was organized and logicaL 0 0 0 9 10

3. I am aware of and could identify the approaches to mitigative measures. 0 0 1 9 9

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VII - Techniques for Mitigation of Short-Term Impacts

1. The techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts were clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 10 10

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 10 10

3. I am aware of and could identify the techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts. 0 0 1 10 9

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VIII - Mitigating Long-Term Impacts Using Physical Measures

1. The use of physical measures for mitigating long-term impacts was clear and easy to.understand. 0 0 0 9 11

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 119

EIA and Mitigative Measures

3. I am aware of and could identify techniques for the mitigation of long-term impacts. o 0 0 11 9

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section IX - Compensation Techniques for Lon~-Term Environmental Impact Mitigation

1.

2.

3.

The use of compensation techniques for the mitigation of long-term environmental impacts was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify compensation techniques for long-term environmental impact mitigation.

o 0 0 9 10

o 0 0 7 12

o 0 1 8 10

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Sections X and XI - Site Review and Presentations

1. The objective of the site review was clearly explained. 0 0 0 7 11

2. The background materials were appropriate. 0 0 2 6 10

3. The presentation of the project was organized and logical. 0 0 2 5 10

4. This project was an appropriate choice for the site review. 0 0 1 5 12

5. Working in a group helped me to identify impacts and mitigative measures. 0 0 0 2 14

6. I enjoyed working in a group for this activity. 0 0 0 1 15

7. The group presentations were useful and informative. 0 0 0 2 14

8. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XII - Local Environmental Laws

1. The purpose and presentation of Local Environmental Laws were clear and easy to understand. o 0 4 10 5

EIA and Mitigative Measures

2.

3.

The presentation was organized and logicaL

I now have a good understanding of the environmental laws of my island.

o 0 5 8 5

o 0 5 8 6

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIII - Implementin1: Miti1:ative Measures

1.

2.

3.

4.

The factors affecting mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The ways to require mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am now aware of the process of implementing mitigative measures.

o 0 0 12 8

o 0 1 11 8

o 0 0 13 7

o 0 1 10 9

5. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIV - Monitorin2 and PQst EIA Review

1.

2.

3.

The presentation of the purpose and benefits of Monitoring and Post EIA Review was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of the purpose for monitoring and post EIA reviews.

o 0 0 8 11

o 0 0 7 12

o 0 1 7 11

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

General Evaluation

1.

2.

3.

This workshop was well planned and prepared.

The information presented in the workshop will help me in my job.

The ideas presented in the workshop will help improve island environmental management.

o 0 0 10 9

o 0 1 6 12

o 0 2 4 13

4.

5.

I learned many new techniques in environmental management that I will apply to my work.

Major projects on my island should be reviewed to determine their environmental impact.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

o 0 3 6 10

o 0 0 3 16

6. What specific areas of Environmental Management are the most difficult for your island managers to address?

Additional Comments;

Section 1 good introduction. need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on student's comprehension. ned more slides show. the workbook es excellent. It is self-explanatoru and can be a great asset to serve as

an office material or reference ..

Section 2 very clear adn to the point, mayb sum up what a

participant should know after the course. need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

studentts' comprehension. more time should be aBoted for EIA exercise - to view

project area more thoroughly, assess the impacts, and present mitigative measures with a lot of time. More time would allow the students to do the best assesment possible.

the presentation was great and interesting. maybe ore speakers about government laws and

regulations (regulators and private engineers). it would be better if each list has examples/plans/maps -

must be included in this package. yes. it is improved. for those big project started. more case studies.

Section 3 be a bit briefer. need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

students' comprehension. again more, time should be alloted for the EIA exercise. the presentation tells me many things.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Section 4 leave some discussion of contents of the course guide,

and discuss island-specific issues. splendid presentation. need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

students' comprehension.

Section 5 make it more island specific. better sound quality, larger pictures - mabye a movie

would be nice. need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

student's comprehension. more slides. the audio section was poor. It was hard to understand

what the seaker had to say; the voice was mor of grumbling. The explanations should have been done more thoroughly.

need to have more slides presentation in the marianas.

Section 6 need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

students' comprehension. more exercises should be provided. more practices and site evaluation. most of this section present knowledge about EIA

process.

Section 7 leave some discussion of contents of the course guide,

and discuss island-specific issues. need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

student's comprehension. we should be provided with materials that provice

specific mitigative measures on every impact that there is; federally approved and those that are used today.

need to see more actual happening,either on local or ptictures that are applicable to local setting.

Section 8 need more training on this. to improve this binder should include examples - as

actual discussion. more focus on social issues. need more exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

students' comprehension. we should be provided with materials that provie

specific mitigative measures on every impact that there is; federally approved and those that are used today.

Section 9 Need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

students' comprehension. more compensation techniques should have been

provided as examples and their actulal implementation. also, compensation on CNMI's applications hould have been discussed more throughly between students and instructor.

this again should include one example of an EIA prepared and approved based on your review.

Palau needs to get into this process.

Section 10 and 11 went well; funner than I thought it would be. need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

student's comprehension. give us more time to actually view the rpoject area more

thoroughly. Identify its fauna and flora and even the historical and archaelogical history and sites of the area.

for all major projects, all agencies involved should get together and discuss the project before permit is to be issued.

request more practices if time allows.

Section 12 need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

students' comprehension. should make an in-class discusson on the laws, instead

of just providing the material; discussions between instructor and students.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

EIA and Mitigative Measures

minimize project activities in the CNMI and have a better and stronger regulations.

should have spent more time on case examples. need time to improve.

Section 13 need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on

students' comprehension. show us examples and formats of ElA documents. How

to prepare one. it looks to me that we covered all.

Section 14 this may not be possible here for the foreseeable future,

given local viewpoint of ElA's.

need to have exam(s)/quizzes to make better impact on students' comprehension.

more discussion between the instructors and attendees on this topic.

to do monitoring and post ElA on a project in the CNMI.

Palau still has to improve on this.

General Evaluation mitigation measures: short and long term. social and cultural. environmental laws. accepting development will have the island greenless if

no moratirium. We have a lot of project approved either constructed, not started construction, and pending. The best of addressing environmental management is to stop allnew applicants. No more development. Although mitigation have implemented environmental impact still affect by the development (to answer this question is to stop development). No more.

leasing out public lands for outside developer to com in and develop for commercial buildings.

the uncontrolled developments that are going on. The reason why I have a low rating on item #3 of this General Evaluation is that:

1) our island is just so political and even with the environmental laws and regulations that exists, our leader still chooses to break these laws for economic reasons. Every new leader on island is much more concerned in profitting personally at all these developments with no regards at all about the environmental state of the island.

2) Our island leaders way of thinking is that: lias long as I get rich with all thse developments, I don't care what happens to the CNMI (environmentally & socially)" .

3) Our leaders don't care. Development in the CNMI should stop!

I empathize with the efforts you are giving to us with this workshop. We learned from this workshop. Yet to much political interference, kills our effort in enforcing laws in the CNML

social impact analysis is becoming increasingly important but also nearly impossible to get a handle on. Please follow up!

need more actual examples of impacts and mitigations. protection of trees vital in the hydrological role and soil

conservation against erosion. Draft EIA, alternative sites/designs. the political pressure to have unhindered development. compliance monitoring and enforcement, and

social/cultural impacts assessment.

EtA and Mitigative Measures

EVALUATIONS

GUAM

Appendix 0-2

EVALUATION

Island: GUAM

Section I - Introduction

1.

2.

The Introduction was clear and easy to understand.

The workbook materials for the Introduction were appropriate.

3. Comments:

Section II - Purpose

1.

2.

3.

The purpose of this workshop was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

The purpose for mitigative measures in the EIA was made clear.

EtA and Mitigative Measures

1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree

~ Neutral Agree

5 Strongly Agree

Scale

12345

o 0 1 11 6

o 0 0 9 9

o 009 9

o 0 0 6 12

o 0 0 5 13

4. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section III - Environmental Impact Assessment Process

1. The description of the EIA process was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 1 10 7

2. The presentation was organized and logical. o 0 0 8 10

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section IV - Environmental Impact Assessment Contents

1.

2.

The discussion of the content requirements for EIA was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

000 106

00079

3. Comments: How might -this presentation have been improved?

Evaluation, Page 1

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Section V - Slide Show

1. The purpose of the slide show was clear and easy to understand. o 0 1 8 8

2. Each topic introduced in the slide show was adequately discussed. 0 0 3 9 5

3. The slide show discussed topics applicable to my island. 0 0 2 6 9

4. The slide show was well organized. 0 0 2 8 6

5. Comments: How could the slide show be improved?

Section VI - Approaches to Minimizing Impacts

1. The purpose and methods to minimize impacts were clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 116

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 107

3. I am aware of and could identify the approaches to mitigative measures. 0 0 2 6 9

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VII· Techniques for Mitigation of Short-Term Impacts

1. The techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts were clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 12 6

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 13 5

3. I am aware of and could identify the techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts. 0 0 1 116

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VIII- Mitigating Long-Term Impacts Using Physical Measures

1. The use of physical measures for mitigating long-term impacts was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 14 4

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 15 3

Evaluation, Page 2

EIA and Mitigative Measures

3. I am aware of and could identify techniques for the mitigation of long-term impacts. o 0 0 11 7

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section IX - Compensation Techniques for Lom:-Term Environmental Impact Mitigation

1.

2.

3.

The use of compensation techniques for the mitigation of long-term environmental impacts was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify compensation techniques for long-term environmental impact mitigation.

o 0 0 10 5

o 0 0 10 5

o 0 186

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Sections X and XI - Site Review and Presentations

1. The objective of the site review was clearly explained. 0 0 3 7 5

2.

3.

The background materials were appropriate.

The presentation of the project was organized and logicaL

4. This project was an appropriate choice for the site review.

5. Working in a group helped me to identify impacts and mitigative measures.

6. I enjoyed working in a group for this activity.

7. The group presentations were useful and informative.

o 1 1 7 6

o 1 1 9 4

o 0 0 5 10

0 0 0 8 7

0 0 0 5 10

0 0 1 7 7

8. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XII • Local Environmental Laws

1. The purpose and presentation of Local Environmental Laws were clear and easy to understand. - 00594

Evaluation, Page 3

EIA and Mitigative Measures

2.

3.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I now have a good understanding of the environmental laws of my island.

o 0 1 13 4

00585

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIII - Implementina: Mitia:ative Measures

1. The factors affecting mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 12 6

2. The ways to require mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand. 0 0 1 9 8

3. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 108

4. I am now aware of the process of implementing mitigative measures. 0 0 1 10 7

5. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIV - Monitorina: and Post EIA Review

1.

2.

3.

The presentation of the purpose and benefits of Monitoring and Post EIA Review was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of the purpose for monitoring and post EIA reviews.

00099

o 0 0 10 8

00287

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

General Evaluation

1.

2.

3.

This workshop was well planned and prepared.

The information presented in the workshop will help me in my job.

The ideas presented in the workshop will help improve island environmental management.

Evaluation, Page 4

o 0 179

o 0 1 5 11

o 0 0 7 10

4.

5.

I learned many new techniques in environmental management that I will apply to my work.

Major projects on my island should be reviewed to determine their environmental impact.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

00269

o 0 1 4 12

6. What specific areas of Environmental Management are the most difficult for your island managers to address?

Additional Comments: Section I Good resource materials Good job.

Section II Already pretty good. Use more case studies; locally related. Additional time needed; more class activity/site visits. More time out in the field. Incorporate more audience participation. Contributors of actual experience.

Section III Additional time to explain and site examples. Incorporate more audience participation. Contributors of actual experience.

Section IV

Section V More local adaptation Better audioquality. Provide a variety of project sites and situations. More before and after slides. Also success/failure of mitigative measures. Room lighting needs coordination. Need opportunity to respond during slide show (more). Section VI Visual examples.

Section VII Format of page 3 is good. Visual examples/discussion.

Section VIII Visual examples/discussion. Section IX Cite more forms of compensation. More specific examples of extremely successful compensation techniques.

Evaluation, Page 5

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Sections X and XI Other forms of class activity should be incorporated. We should have had more time to prepare group presentation. More time and possibly another type of project (i.e., slaughter house) in addition. More time in groups.

Section XII More time set aside. Maybe addition of other (general) laws relating to hist. pres.

Wildlife should be summarized and distributed. More time. Additional time. Better correlation between Guam and Hawaii laws. What is applicable. More time needed. Earlier in the seminar.

Section XIII On hands activity.

Section XIV More staff for GEP A Class activity/additional time. Could use case example of good post EIA review. General Evaluation This seminar should be given to developers in a modified format. Agency-Agency collaboration. Political intervention. No real environmental

laws/statutes. Enforcement. Monitoring. As was numerously mentioned, the political climate and interference makes it

virtually impossible to deaVplan properly. A major/significant environmental impact may just be the only way for our politicl bodies to come to the realization of environmental awareness.

Monitoring of impacts during and after project completion; not enough consultation early in the planning stage; consultation/coordination among resource agencies inadequate.

The senators. Most beneficial use of land. Interference with zoning changes with island legislators. Cumulated effects. Hand out evaluation earlier. Base need for process. Improving THE PROCESS. People in Guam just don't get

it both public and private. Thanks we are learning every day and it is exciting.

Evaluation, Page 6

EVALUATIONS

PALAU

Appen::lix 0-3

EVALUATION

Island: PALAU

Section I • Introduction

1. The Introduction was clear and easy to understand.

2. The workbook materials for the Introduction were appropriate.

3. Comments:

Section II • Purpose

1.

2.

3.

The purpose of this workshop was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

The purpose for mitigative measures in the EIA was made clear.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

001119

o 0 1 7 14

o 0 0 12 10

o 0 1 9 12

o 0 0 10 12

4. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section III . Environmental Impact Assessment Process

1. The description of the EIA process was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 15 7

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 1 12 9

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section IV • Environmental Impact Assessment Contents

1.

2.

The discussion of the content requirements for EIA was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

o 0 1 14 7

o 0 1 16 5

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Evaluation, Page 1

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Section V - Slide Show

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The purpose of the slide show was clear and easy to understand.

Each topic introduced in the slide show was adequately discussed.

The slide show discussed topics applicable to my island.

The slide show was well organized.

Comments: How could the slide show be improved?

Section VI - Approaches to Minimizin~ Impacts

1. The purpose and methods to minimize impacts were clear and easy to understand.

2. The presentation was organized and logical.

3. I am aware of and could identify the approaches to mitigative measures.

o 0 3 9 10

0 0 3 109

0 0 1 119

0 0 2 10 10

0 0 2 109

0 0 1 12 9

0 0 1 12 7

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VII - Technigues for Mitil:ation of Short-Term Impacts

1.

2.

3.

The techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify the techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts.

o 0 2 12 8

000139

o 0 1 12 9

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VIII - Mjti~atin~ Lonl:-Term Impacts llsin~ Physical Measures

1. The use of physical measures for mitigating long-term impacts was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 3 9 10

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 2 10 10

Evaluation, Page 2

EIA and Mitigative Measures

3. I am aware of and could identify techniques for the mitigation of long-term impacts. o 0 2 12 9

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section IX - Compensation Techniques for Long-Term Environmental Impact Mitigation

1.

2.

3.

The use of compensation techniques for the mitigation of long-term environmental impacts was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify compensation techniques for long-term environmental impact mitigation.

o 0 0 11 10

001119

o 0 5 10 6

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Sections X and XI - Site Review and Presentations

1. The objective of the site review was clearly explained. 0 0 0 9 11

2. The background materials were appropriate. 0 0 2 10 7

3. The presentation of the project was organized and logical. 0 0 1 10 8

4. This project was an appropriate choice for the site review.

5. Working in a group helped me to identify impacts and mitigative measures.

6. I enjoyed working in a group for this activity.

7. The group presentations were useful and informative.

1 0 1 10 7

0 0 1 6 12

0 0 0 5 14

0 0 1 5 13

8. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XII - Local Environmental Laws

1. The purpose and presentation of Local Environmental Laws were clear and easy to understand. 015132

Evaluation, Page 3

EIA and Mitigative Measures

2.

3.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I now have a good understanding of the environmental laws of my island.

013134

00696

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIII - Implementin&: Miti&:ative Measures

1.

2.

3.

4.

The factors affecting mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The ways to require mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am now aware of the process of implementing mitigative measures.

o 0 1 11 9

o 0 1 12 8

o 0 0 13 8

o 0 0 11 10

5. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIV - MonitQrin&: and Post EIA Review

1.

2.

3.

The presentation of the purpose and benefits of Monitoring and Post EIA Review was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of the purpose for monitoring and post EIA reviews.

o 0 0 14 7

o 0 0 12 9

o 0 1 17 4

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

General Evaluation

1.

2.

3.

This workshop was well planned and prepared.

The information presented in the workshop will help me in myjoh.

The ideas presented in the workshop will help improve island environmental management.

Evaluation, Page 4

o 0 0 9 12

o 0 2 6 14

o 0 0 8 14

EIA and Mitigative Measures

4. I learned many new techniques in environmental management that I will apply to my work. o 0 2 9 11

5. Major projects on my island should be reviewed to determine their environmental impact. o 0 0 3 19

6. What specific areas of Environmental Management are the most difficult for your island managers to address?

Additional Comments;

Section I Some of the graphic materials used on the opaque projector were not consistent with

the examples used, e.g. fish, etc. I hope, if there's another workshop that it will be longer than this one. More up to date info. Section II Could not think of anything more than what was presented. More time spent with us and not rushing through. Continues in every year; Draw example in the workbook. It might have been improved by having more days. More group discussion and presentation may help to promote better understanding. Show more examples of how to mitigate impacts. Strong policy and laws. Section III To have group work instructions. To extend the time table. EQPB members and other key agency representatives should have attended the

workshop. More extensive public involvementin the process. Section IV Postive implementation To have more days on the workshop. Reviewing after presentation by giving enough time of the workshop. Need for emphasis on socio-cultural impact studies. Section V Additional visual aids. Show more slides about how to minimize the impact of the project. Make it color and better sound. Slide show should use more up to date projects. Pictures were not quite clear because of lights. To extend the time table of the workshop. Include more slides from that particular place where you are conducting the

workshop. The sound system was not loud and so I missed m()st of what was narrated. The

pictures' quality needs improvement.

Evaluation, Page 5

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Colored and put examples in slide show. Volume needs to be improved. Section VI Examples good. Put simple examples in the slides. Maybe each participant can write purpose and methods to minimize impacts and

then intstructors critique. Improve policies and laws. Section VII To extend the time table. Section VIII Exercise helpfuL These should be a separate and just as extensive as the EIA, a social impact

assessment on any projects contemplated. To extend the time table. Reasonable plan and benefits for success. Section IX Analysis of laws and policies. By extending the time table. Case is the most easy compensation form, but it does the most damage. Likewise, it

makes people suspicious and unnecessarily negative. Eliminate it from the list.

Add examples in the slideshow. Sections X and XI More group exercises dealing with different types of projects or activities. I think we should have gone to a much smaller project. Need more time to research information for our presentation. Consultants should have given their professional views. To have more days spent on workshop. I learn more by doing. Visit a different project. Section XII Rain problem. There are laws but lack of monitoring. The presenter was competing with the rain. However, the materials were useful. To extend the time table. Should have been more specific on what projects need permits and what kinds of

forms are required to fill out. Should have been louder. Distribute the copies of environmental laws to state government and seniors (?). More information on coral islands. Section XIII To extend the time table. More understanding of policies - democratic process. Section XIV More examples.

Evaluation, Page 6

EIA and Mitigative Measures

To extend the time table. Put 3rd party to monitor. An important part of the process. General Evaluation Water pollution; Air pollution; Land fill More workshops for community and government leaders. Land developing; Earth moving; Project development (e.g., road, airport, seaport,

etc.) Lack of specific requriements and standards to allow for better mitigation,

monitoring and control of project. Politics seem to take over all the aspects of Palau and EIA doesn't seem to matter to

them. The EQPB board should have been present to learn something out of it.

Many projects are money~motivated by a few people. Should have other people, i.e., ROP planners, all EQPB board members, etc., attend the workshop.

We need workshops every 3 months so we can learn more for EIA. The Environmental Impact Assessment. Solid waste disposal, sewage disposal, and big infrastructure developments such as

water treatment systems and roads. This is a U.S. concept. Palawans have their own environmental management

techniques. Perhaps a session with this session makes this more effective. Impact assessment and its process and monitoring project. I think the EQPB is taking only the protective measures side and not the mitigative

measure side, and that my be detrimental to the total development effort of the island.

Self interest conflcts with logic. Implementing the requirements expecially the impacts themselves mainly on the

long term.

Evaluation, Pa~e 7

EVALUATIONS

CHUUK

Appendix D-4

EVALUATION

Island: CHUUK

Section I - Introduction

1.

2.

The Introduction was clear and easy to understand.

The workbook materials for the Introduction were appropriate.

3. Comments;

Section II - Purpose

1.

2.

3.

The purpose of this workshop was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

The purpose for mitigative measures in the EIA was made clear.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree

o 005 7

o 002 9

o 004 8

o 0 1 3 8

o 0 0 1 10

4. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section III - Environmental Impact Assessment Process

1. The description of the EIA process was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 5 6

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 3 8

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section IV - Environmental Impact Assessment Contents

1.

2.

The discussion of the content requirements for EIA was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

o 002 9

o 004 7

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Evaluation, Page 1

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Section V - Slide Show

1.

2.

3.

4.

The purpose of the slide show was clear and easy to understand.

Each topic introduced in the slide show was adequately discussed.

The slide show discussed topics applicable to my island.

The slide show was well organized.

5. Comments: How could the slide show be improved?

Section VI - Approaches to Minimizina Impacts

1.

2.

3.

The purpose and methods to minimize impacts were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify the approaches to mitigative measures.

o 0 047

o 0 047

00254

00155

o 0 0 1 10

o 0 047

o 0 0 3 8

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VII - Techniques for Mitiaation of Short-Term Imnacts

1.

2.

3.

The techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify the techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts.

00129

o 0 0 2 9

o 0 0 2 8

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VIII· Mitiaatina Long-Term Imnacts Using Physical Measures

1. The use of physical measures for mitigating long-term impacts was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 5 6

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 5 6

Evaluation, Page 2

EIA and Mitigative Measures

3. I am aware of and could identify techniques for the mitigation of long-term impacts. o 004 7

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section IX - Compensation TechniQues for Lon 1:-Term Environmental Impact Mitigation

1.

2.

3.

The use of compensation techniques for the mitigation of long-term environmental impacts was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify compensation techniques for long-term environmental impact mitigation.

o 0 065

o 0 0 6 5

o 0 047

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Sections X and XI - Site Review and Presentations

1. The objective of the site review was clearly explained. 0 0 0 3 9

2. The background materials were appropriate. 0 0 1 2 8

3. The presentation of the project was organized and logical. 0 0 0 3 8

4. This project was an appropriate choice for the site review.

5. Working in a group helped me to identify impacts and mitigative measures.

6. I enjoyed working in a group for this activity.

7. The group presentations were useful and informative.

o 0 038

0 0 0 1 10

0 0 0 1 10

0 0 0 1 10

8. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XII - Local Environmental Laws

1. The purpose and presentation of Local Environmental Laws were clear and easy to understand. o 0 084

Evaluation, Page 3

EIA and Mitigative Measures

2.

3.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I now have a good understanding of the environmental laws of my island.

o 0 084

o 0 165

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XlII • Imp1ementing Miti~mtive Measures

1.

2.

3.

4.

The factors affecting mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The ways to require mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logicaL

I am now aware of the process of implementing mitigative measures.

o 0 075

o 005 6

o 0 165

o 0 057

5. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIV - Monitoring and Post EIA Review

1.

2.

3.

The presentation of the purpose and benefits of Monitoring and Post EIA Review was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logicaL

I am aware of the purpose for monitoring and post EIA reviews.

o 004 8

o 0 0 6 6

o 004 7

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

General Evaluation

1.

2.

3.

This workshop was well planned and prepared.

The information presented in the workshop will help me in my job.

The ideas presented in the workshop will help improve island environmental management.

Evaluation, Page 4

o 002 9

o 0 038

o 0 0 1 10

EIA and Mitigative Measures

4.

5.

I learned many new techniques in environmental management that I will apply to my work.

Major projects on my island should be reviewed to determine their environmental impact.

o 002 9

o 0 0 1 10

6. What specific areas of Environmental Management are the most difficult for your island managers to address?

Additional Comments:

Section I It was good to work on it. I would like to have another workshop during the construction of the project. The workbook materials for the introduction were useful to me in many different ... The introduction is very clear and easy to understand. Section II For more purpose to mitigative. Continue the class participation or case studies. Perhaps of the best lecturers that's why most of us understood very much and clear. Need to have a follow-up workshop. Because a 3 day workshop isn't long enough. Since it was my first time, I thought it was good. Maybe get more people involved. Please include people from the community or at least from the private sector. Section III More interaction and group participation. Sectio IV ??To use full the members from different agencies. Spend more days or time to go over the materials. We need to have some more EIA workshops so others could attend. Section V Show more slides about incidents that happened in own areas. The voice of the tape recorder was a little unclear. Section VI Need more follow ups. Invite more government officials and municipal mayors to attend the workshop. Section VII #3 to be needed more whorkshop here in Chuuk next time. Need more time to go over, and over the materials. Section VIII There was not enough time on this section. Need more time to discuss the materials. Section IX This is one of the interesting parts for me in this workshop, and it's very important. Need more presentation techniques. . Sections X and XI Involve more people from different specialty areas.

Evaluation, Page 5

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Visit more sites, or compare undeveloped to developed locations. Give ample time to work in the group in order to have the exercise completed. Section XII Improve by the people and the environmental There should have been handouts on laws or regulation. Update information - include latest development on laws and regulations. Section XIII We need to mitigative measures. Section XIV General Evaluation Getting the leaders to understand the importance of environmental protection.

Request another follow-up workshop during the actual construction of PoIle Resort and after its completion.

Funding, lack of public support. Controlling the destruction of the environment of the island. Lack of laws to govern the project and lack of funds to hire experts. That area is legal without any permit from the Chuuk government. We need one

more workshop with the leaders from different agencies. Erosion. Lack of environmental laws, lack of funding, lack of governmental support. Our

law-makers are just being ignorant.

Evaluation, Page 6

EVALUATIONS

POHNPEI

Appen:ti.x 0-5

EVALUATION

Island: POHNPEI

Section I • Introduction

1.

2.

The Introduction was clear and easy to understand.

The workbook materials for the Introduction were appropriate.

3. Comments:

Section II - Purpose

1.

2.

3.

The purpose of this workshop was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

The purpose for mitigative measures in the EIA was made clear.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Strongly Disagree Disagree Nuetral Agree Strongly Agree

a 0 193

o 0 0 8 4

o 0 1 7 5

00166

o 005 7

4. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section III - Environmental Impact Assessment Process

1. The description of the EIA process was clear and easy to understand. 0 a 0 9 4

2. The presentation was organized and logicaL 0 0 0 10 3

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section IV· Environmental Impact Assessment Contents

1.

2.

The discussion of the content requirements for EIA was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

o 0 1 7 6

o 0 176

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Evaluation, Page 1

EtA and Mitigative Measures

Section V - Slide Show

1. The purpose of the slide show was clear and easy to understand. o 1 058

2. Each topic introduced in the slide show was adequately discussed. 0 1 1 6 6

3. The slide show discussed topics applicable to my island. 0 0 1 6 7

4. The slide show was well organized. 0 1 0 8 5

5. Comments: How could the slide show be improved?

Section VI - Approaches to Minimizin~ Impacts

1. The purpose and methods to minimize impacts were clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 8 6

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 8 6

3. I am aware of and could identify the approaches to mitigative measures. 0 0 3 8 3

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

SectiQn VII - T~£hnig,ue~ fQr MitigatiQn of Short-Term Impacts

1. The techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts were clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 113

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 1 9 4

3. I am aware of and could identify the techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts. 0 0 1 112

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

SectiQn VIII - Mitigating Long-Term Impads Using Physical Measures

1. The use of physical measures for mitigating long-term impacts was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 1 9 4

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 - 0 0 9 5

Evaluation, Page 2

EIA and Mitigative Measures

3. I am aware of and could identify techniques for the mitigation of long-term impacts. 001103

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section IX - Compensation Techniques for LonJ:-Term Environmental Impact MUiJ:atioD

1.

2.

3.

The use of compensation techniques for the mitigation of long-term environmental impacts was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify compensation techniques for long-term environmental impact mitigation.

00185

o 007 7

00275

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Sections X and XI - Site Review and Presentations

1. The objective of the site review was clearly explained. 0 1 1 6 6

2. The background materials were appropriate. 0 1 3 4 6

3. The presentation of the project was organized and logical. 0 1 2 5 6

4. This project was an appropriate choice for the site review. 0 0 0 8 6

5. Working in a group helped me to identify impacts and mitigative measures. 0 0 0 6 8

6. I enjoyed working in a group for this activity. 0 0 0 5 9

7. The group presentations were useful and informative. 0 0 1 5 8

8. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XII - Local Environmental Laws

1. The purpose and presentation of Local Environmental Laws were clear and easy to understand. o 1 3 6 3

Evaluation, Page 3

EIA and Mitigative Measures

2.

3.

The presentation was organized and logicaL

I now have a good understanding of the environmental laws of my island.

01363

o 126 4

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIII - Tmplementinl: Mitil:ative Measures

1.

2.

3.

4.

The factors affecting mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The ways to require mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am now aware of the process of implementing mitigative measures.

o 0 086

o 027 5

o 0 0 7 5

00284

5. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIV - Monitorinl: and Post ETA Review

1. The presentation of the purpose and benefits of Monitoring and Post EIA Review was clear and easy to understand. 0 1 0 8 5

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 1 7 6

3. I am aware of the purpose for monitoring and post EIA reviews. 0 0 0 9 5

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

General Evaluation

1.

2.

3.

This workshop was well planned and prepared.

The information presented in the workshop will help me in my job.

The ideas presented in the workshop will help improve island environmental management.

Evaluation, Page 4

o 0 074

o 0 0 6 8

o 0 2 3 9

4.

5.

I learned many new techniques in environmental management that I will apply to my work.

Major projects on my island should be reviewed to determine their environmental impact.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

o 024 8

o 0 0 4 10

6. What specific areas of Environmental Management are the most difficult for your island managers to address?

Additional Comments:

Section 1 It is clear and understandable I like the introduction also the work books are

appropriate. Why no refreshment during workshop Section II By conducting more frequently Extend the days of presentation to one week. The time is limited, needs more time. The lecturing is a little too long. Maybe because a

limited time - 3 days, maybe 5 days is adequate. More policy makers should participate in this kind of

workshop. Section III It has been improved by the EPA in Pohnpei and it

need to be enforced and continued on. The descriptions are very clear and easy. Presentations

were organized and logical. The use of personal experiences and other examples of

close proximity was outstanding. Good. Section IV Very clear and understandable. Also the presentations

were organized and logical. Section V Learned a lot by actually seeing it. Needs more slides to show from other countries to

compare to ours. The slide show needs to be more detailed. Need our

medias(?) and information material to illustrate. Sound needs to improve, but the slide show itself okay. It is okay. Section VI It is okay This section is all right, clear explanation.

Evaluation, Page 5

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Section VII By introducing okay Identify which mitigative measures are effective against

types of projects. More on this topic. Section VIII This section is all right to me, nothing wrong it's okay. More on this topic. I liked your soliciting a Pohnpeian example from

participants. It again brought the materials being explained into a real life coritext. It also got participants actively thinking and led to an animated discussion.

Section IX Very good Section X and XI I especially liked the site review because it l)gave us a

real-life example, 2)broke up the lecture format, and 3)provided for independent thought as well as team work.

I would like to see more on this activity. Too much repetition. Insufficient materials relevant to project site - need

better information and presentation. Should follow same format used in other programs.

The site presentation could be more organized and detailed.

Much better than the past years. It is very important to remember that working together

is one of the best ways to learn many things by sharing the different ideas.

Section XII It is required to enforce or strengthen by talking and

meeting with people to enforce the law. All right. Environmental law in Pohnpei was not strong enough to

protect its own environment. Need to set up its own law and need more explanation.

Materials relevant to legal ramifications and litigation process should be elaborated.

Section XIII Good. Section XIV This is very good ..... . General Evaluation

Evaluation, Page 6

I would urge you to diversify the workshop more - less lecture format, more active participation by workshop attenders - e.g., the site visit, the team work. Also, shorten the introductory lectures. At times they seemed overly simplistic. However, overall, I'd say the workshop was well done. Thank you for allowing me to participate.

A complete disregard to mitigative measures is not uncommon by contracters and government.

Enforcement. Enforcement and top level managers should be

involved in the training such as this so that they can support and see the importance of EIA

The EIA process. Infrastructure development/coastal management areas,

surface and ground water/socia1/economic vs changes in lifestyle and expectation.

The enforcement of local law and policies. The way of achieving results.

They got no set law for its environment. Monitoring and enforcement of the EIA law and projects.

When it comes to decision making.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Evaluation, Page:7

EVALUATIONS

KOSRAE

Appen:lix 0-6

EIA and Mitigative Measures

EVALUATION

Island: Kosrae

Section I - Introduction

1.

2.

The Introduction was clear and easy to understand.

The workbook materials for the Introduction were appropriate.

3. Comments:

Section II • Purpose

1.

2.

3.

The purpose of this workshop was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

The purpose for mitigative measures in the EIA was made clear.

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Scale

12345

o 004 9

o 1 0 3 10

o 0 158

o 006 8

o 0 067

4. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section III . Enyjronmental Impact Assessment Process

1. The description of the EIA process was clear and easy to understand. 0 1 1 6 5

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 6 8

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section IV - Environmental Impact Assessment Contents

1. The discussion of the content requirements for EIA was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 1 7 5

2. The presentation was organized and-logical. 0 0- 0 7 6

Evaluation, Page 1

EIA and Mitigative Measures

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section V - Slide Show

1. The purpose of the slide show was clear and easy to understand. o 0 1 6 7

2. Each topic introduced in the slide show was adequately discussed. 0 1 1 5 7

3. The slide show discussed topics applicable to my island. 0 0 0 5 9

4. The slide show was well organized. 0 0 1 6 7

5. Comments: How could the slide show be improved?

Section VI • Approaches to Minimizint: Impacts

1. The purpose and methods to minimize impacts were clear and easy to understand. 0 0 1 4 10

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 7 7

3. I am aware of and could identify the approaches to mitigative measures. 0 0 1 7 6

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VII. Techniques for Mitit:atiQn ofShort·Term Impacts

1. The techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts were clear and easy to understand. 0 0 1 6 8

2." The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 4 11

3. I am aware of and could identify the techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts. 0 0 1 6 8

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section YIII • Mitigating Long-Term Impacts Using Physical Measures

1. The use of physical measures for mitigating long-term impacts was clear and easy to understand. "0 0 2 7 6

Evaluation, Page 2

2.

3.

The presentation was organized and logicaL

I am aware of and could identify techniques for the mitigation of long-term impacts.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

o 006 9

o 0 186

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section IX • Compensation TechniQues for Lon 2-Term Environmental Impact Miti2ation

1.

2.

3.

The use of compensation techniques for the mitigation of long-term environmental impacts was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify compensation techniques for long-term environmental impact mitigation.

o 1 1 8 5

o 0 177

o 0 2 10 3

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Sections X and XI - Site Review and Presentations

1. The objective of the site review was clearly explained. 0 0 1 6 8

2. The background materials were appropriate. 0 0 2 6 7

3. The presentation of the project was organized and logicaL 0 0 1 4 9

4. This project was an appropriate choice for the site reVIew. 0 0 1 5 9

5. Working in a group helped me to identify impacts and mitigative measures. 0 0 0 5 10

6. I enjoyed working in a group for this activity. 0 0 0 4 12

7. The group presentations were useful and informative. 0 0 0 6 8

8. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Evaluation. Page 3

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Section XII - Local Environmental Laws

1.

2.

3.

The purpose and presentation of Local Environmental Laws were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I now have a good understanding of the environmental laws of my island.

o 1 4 5 4

o 2 192

o 1 5 5 2

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIII - Implementin2 Miti2ative Measures

1.

2.

3.

4.

The factors affecting mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The ways to require mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am now aware of the process of implementing mitigative measures.

o 0 1 7 7

00375

00258

00276

5. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIV - Monitorin2 and Post EIA Review

1.

2.

3.

The presentation of the purpose and benefits of Monitoring and Post EIA Review was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of the purpose for monitoring and post EIA reviews.

00078

o 0 0 5 10

00095

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Genera) Evaluation

1. This workshop was well planned and prepared. 00159

Evaluation, Page 4

2.

3.

4.

5.

The information presented in the workshop will help me in my job.

The ideas presented in the workshop will help improve island environmental management.

I learned many new techniques in environmental management that I will apply to my work.

Major projects on my island should be reviewed to determine their environmental impact.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

o 0 1 2 12

o 0 1 4 10

o 0 0 3 12

o 0 0 2 12

6. What specific areas of Environmental Management are the most difficult for your island managers to address?

Additional Comments

Section I The binder and textbook were very helpful to

understanding the ETA process. I missed the first day. Presenters were well-prepared in their oral presentation

and materials presentation.

Section II Excellent - especially the way you linked it with the

KIRMP program. Very good. Good. More time is recommended, more examples of places

that were affected, and more group activities. More case study and by smaller groups.

Section III I think it's very interesting Good. The local ETA members should have been

well-prepared for their parts. More time spent within the group.

Section IV I misunderstood the term ElA, and their roles. Very good - linked with KIRMP.

Section V Better audio.

Evaluation, Page 5

EIA and Mitigative Measures

More slides are recommended. Presentation with video tapes is suggested. More pre-, during, and after project slides; also include

shore protection structures.

Section VI Use more examples for projects occurring or will occur

on island - helps convey importance and sense they can do something.

I'm still mixed up because this is the first time to attend. Couldn't be better.

Section VII Short vs long term mitigation should be better

distinguished or linked as the case may be. I recommend additional time to study them.

Section VIII Short vs long term mitigation should be better

distinguished or linked as the case may be. Again, I need to study them more. Section IX I need to know more on these areas. Good. More examples on how to legally require compensation,

especially transfer payments.

Sections X and XI More time and more local site reviews/assessments

(practices) Smaller groups to ensure participation. Excellent, please continue - groups not only stimulated

thinking about impacts of a real project, but showed value of a diverse group.

Section XII Could have been more organized. Their time to prepare was short although good. Careful study, to informing the public is a "must". More time to study the existing and proposed laws. I missed this portion of the workshop. Earlier review of draft laws should have been sought to

give more convenient time before the training.

Section XIII Very good.

Evaluation, Page 6

By providing new techniques newsletter occasionally. Good Additional group work shops.

Section XIV Everything was mentioned. I think it's good. Very good.

General Evaluation We'll probably need to have a follow-up workshop after

this. More public awareness related to this kind of projects.

Lack of follow-up or monitoring activities (after project completion).

The issue of compensating of private lands that are being constructed to be used by government by issuing or mandating the Eminent Domain laws. It will have a great impact between government and the private individuals.

Land use, whicha re mostly owned by private sectors. Control areas and seawater management. The EIA on EIS Policing or enforcing the laws that are purposely made

to protect marine, etc. Regulations and statute enactment. I really can not tell at this time. Finally I think this is an

excellent workshop since almost representatives from every agency involved participated. Goodby and hope to see you two come back to Kosrae.

Specific environmental impacts and how to best mitigate their negative effects.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Evaluation, Page 7

EVALUATIONS

MAJURO

Appentix 0-7

EVALUATION

Island: Majuro

Section I - Introduction

1.

2.

The Introduction was clear and easy to understand.

The workbook materials for the Introduction were appropriate.

3. Comments:

Section II - Purpose

1.

2.

3.

The purpose of this workshop was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

The purpose for mitigative measures in the ElA was made clear.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

o 0 0 0 0

o 0 0 0 0

o 0 0 0 0

o 0 0 0 0

00000

4. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section III - Environmental Impact Assessment Process

1. The description of the ElA process was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 0 0

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 0 0

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section IV - Environmental Impact Assessment Contents

1.

2.

The discussion of the content requirements for ElA was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

o 0 000

o 0 000

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Evaluation, Page 1

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Section V - Slide Show

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The purpose of the slide show was clear and easy to understand.

Each topic introduced in the slide show was adequately discussed.

The slide show discussed topics applicable to my island.

The slide show was well organized.

Comments: How could the slide show be improved?

Section VI • Approaches to Minimizin2 Impacts

1. The purpose and methods to minimize impacts were clear and easy to understand.

2. The presentation was organized and logical.

3. I am aware of and could identify the approaches to mitigative measures.

o 0 0 3 9

0 0 1 4 7

0 0 0 1 11

0 0 2 2 8

0 0 1 047

0 0 0 6 6

0 0 0 5 7

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VII - Techniques for Miti2ation of Short-Term Impacts

1.

2.

3.

The techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify the techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts.

00064

o 0 1 5 6

o 0 147

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VIII • Miti2atin2 Lon2-Term Impacts Usin2 Physical Measures

1. The use of physical measures for mitigating long-term impacts was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 2 4 6

2. The presentation was organi:?:ed and logical. 0 0 1 4 7

Evaluation, Page 2

3. I am aware of and could identify techniques for the mitigation of long-term impacts.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

o 024 6

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section IX - Compensation Technigues for Long;-Term Environmental Impact Mitig;ation

1.

2.

3.

The use of compensation techniques for the mitigation of long-term environmental impacts was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify compensation techniques for long-term environmental impact mitigation.

o 1 1 2 6

o 102 7

00217

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Sections X and XI - Site Review and Presentations

1. The objective of the site review was clearly explained. 0 0 0 0 0

2. The background materials were appropriate. 0 0 0 0 0

3. The presentation of the project was organized and logical. 0 0 0 0 0

4. This project was an appropriate choice for the site review.

5. Working in a group helped me to identify impacts and

o 000 0

mitigative measures. 0 0 0 0 0

6. I enjoyed working in a group for this activity. 0 0 0 0 0

7. The group presentations were useful and informative. 0 0 0 0 0

8. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XII - Local Environmental Laws

1. The purpose and presentation of Local Environmental Laws were clear and easy to understand. . o 000 0

Evaluation, Page 3

EIA and Mitigative Measures

2.

3.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I now have a good understanding of the environmental laws of my island.

00000

00000

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIII . Irnp1ernentin2 Miti2ative Measures

1. The factors affecting mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

2. ' The ways to require mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

3. The presentation was organized and logical.

4. I am now aware of the process of implementing mitigative measures.

o 0 155

00056

o 0 1 3 7

o 0 136

5. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIV • Monitorin2 and Post EIA Review

1.

2.

3.

The presentation of the purpose and benefits of Monitoring and Post EIA Review was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of the purpose for monitoring and post EIA reviews.

o 0 138

o 0 138

o 0 1 6 5

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

General Eyaluation

1.

2.

3.

This workshop was well planned and prepared.

The information presented in the workshop will help me in my job.

The ideas presented in the workshop will help improve island environmental management.

Evaluation, Page 4

o 0 246

o 0 039

o 0 0 1 11

4.

5.

I learned many new techniques in environmental management that I will apply to my work.

Major projects on my island should be reviewed to determine their environmental impact.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

o 0 0 2 10

o 0 0 0 12

6. What specific areas of Environmental Management are the most difficult for your island managers to address?

Additional Comments:

Section V Similar problems could hve been compared and dicussed from other areas. Use more case studies. Slide is good to me, because I see and I understand. The voices sometimes couldn't be understood. More different angles of the impact to be shown. And more pictures on different

days of the impacts. The tape recorder could have been improved. Narration should be improved when using a tape player. Only minor problem was the tape recorder was sound kind of fuzzy on the second

day, other than this it was well presented. No improvement needed. The slide show was good. More examples of large development projects. Section VI More time on discussions. More time. It was well done. Could be doing practical case studies on Majuro. Section VII More people should be involved. No improvement needed, although more time is needed on this topic. No comments. It was perfectly done. Invite the local developer so they could understand why an EIA is needed. Contains selection of the workshop project. Doing sites practical case studies on some selected spots on Majuro. To visit more sites and discuss what mitigative measures could be applied. Section VIII No improvement needed, although more time is needed on this topic. Invite the local developer so they could understand why an EIA is needed. Needs more time and more different project to detail or point out different

mitigatory long-term impact using physical measures. Do more practical case studies on the sites visited. Section IX Visit to different developmental sites and discussion of which compensation

techniques could be applicable.

Evaluation, Page 5

EIA and Mitigative Measures

No need improvement. I think we didn't go deep on the subject. Section XIII No improvement needed, but more time is needed on this topic. More discussion of what mitigative measures could be implemented into regulations. Section XIV Given more time - maybe a different workshop on this alone. To more familiar with types of projects and set out more regulations. Legal matters (processing) should be included in the section. Just a suggestion. More time given to us, to explain more on this section. General Evaluation Private developers and public. Mitigative measures - most major projects on the island are owned or partly owned

by the president and his friends and whatever they say or want goes. Areas where the land owner is the developer. Solid waste. Motivating the public to use required laws. Sanitation, population, sea pollution, human safety. Proper disposal of household refuse and stop using lagoon and ocean sides as dump

areas. ULand management" seems to be one of the major areas that island managers find

most difficult to address due to hierarchies that exist in land ownerships. There are three landowners on one land, i.e., - lroij, Alab, and Rijerbal. All these three idividuals must come to an agreement for accepting/rejecting any management/development to be done on their land.

Much of the coastal areas, especially our vast area of ocean. Solid waste -lettening (?); To educate the public (communities) on how important

it is to make our environment clean. From my own view, I'd say cultural and marine environmental were the most

difficult areas, but now that we have established laws for them it is much, much easier.

Marine resources; Coastal Areas.

Evaluation, Page 6

EVALUATIONS

AMERICAN SAMOA

Appentix 0-8

EVALUATION

Island: American Samoa

Section I - Introduction

1. The Introduction was clear and easy to understand.

2. The workbook materials for the Introduction were appropriate.

3. Comments:

Section II - Purpose

1.

2.

3.

The purpose of this workshop was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

The purpose for mitigative measures in the EIA was made clear.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

1 Strongly Disagree ~ Disagree t3 Neutral ~ Agree ~ Strongly Agree

Scale

1 2 3 4 5

o 0 059

o 0 0 5 10

o 024 8

o 0 0 4 10

o 006 8

4. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section III - Environmental Impact Assessment Process

1. The description of the EIA process was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 4 10

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 3 11

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Section IV - Environmental Impact Assessment Contents

1.

2.

The discussion of the content requirements for EIA was clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

o 0 0 3 11

o 0 1 1 12

3. Comments: How might this presentation have been improved?

Evaluation, Page 1

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Section V - Slide Show

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The purpose of the slide show was clear and easy to understand.

Each topic introduced in the slide show was adequately discussed.

The slide show discussed topics applicable to my island.

The slide show was well organized.

Comments: How could the slide show be improved?

Section VI - Approaches to Minimizinl: Impacts

1. The purpose and methods to minimize impacts were clear and easy to understand.

2. The presentation was organized and logical.

3. I am aware of and could identify the approaches to mitigative measures.

o 0 0 3 11

0 0 1 1 12

0 0 0 1 13

0 0 0 4 10

0 0 1 3 10

0 0 1 3 10

0 0 1 2 11

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VII - TechniQues for Mitigation of Short-Term Impacts

1.

2.

3.

The techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am aware of and could identify the techniques for mitigation of short-term impacts.

00068

o 0 0 3 11

o 0 0 3 11

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section VIII - Mitigatinl: Long-Term Impacts Usinl: Physical Measures

1. The use of physical measures for mitigating long-term impacts was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 6 8

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 3. 11

Evaluation, Page 2

EIA and Mitigative Measures

3. I am aware of and could identify techniques for the mitigation of long-term impacts. o 0 068

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section IX - Compensation TechniQues for Long-Term Environmental Impact Mitigation

1. The use of compensation techniques for the mitigation of long-term environmental impacts was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 1 5 8

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 1 3 10

3. I am aware of and could identify compensation techniques for long-term environmental impact mitigation. 0 0 1 3 10

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Sections X and XI - Site Review and Presentations

1. The objective of the site review was clearly explained. 0 0 1 4 9

2.

3.

The background materials were appropriate.

The presentation of the project was organized and logical.

4. This project was an appropriate choice for the site review.

5. Working in a group helped me to identify impacts and mitigative measures.

6. . I enjoyed working in a group for this activity.

7. The group presentations were useful and informative.

o 0 1 2 11

o 0 1 2 11

o 0 1 3 10

0 0 0 3 11

0 0 0 4 10

0 0 0 3 11

8. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XII - Local Environmental Laws

1. The purpose and presentation of Local Environmental Laws were clear and easy to understand. o 0 0 7 7

Evaluation, Page 3

EIA and Mitigative Measures

2.

3.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I now have a good understanding of the environmental laws of my island.

o 0 1 5 8

00248

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIII - Implementing Mitigative Measures

1.

2.

3.

4.

The factors affecting mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The ways to require mitigative measures were clear and easy to understand.

The presentation was organized and logical.

I am now aware of the process of implementing mitigative measures.

o 0 0 4 10

o 0 0 3 11

o 0 0 2 12

o 0 0 4 10

5. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

Section XIV· Monitoring and Post EIA Review

1. The presentation of the purpose and benefits of Monitoring and Post EIA Review was clear and easy to understand. 0 0 0 5 9

2. The presentation was organized and logical. 0 0 0 3 11

3. I am aware of the purpose for monitoring and post EIA reviews. 0 0 0 6 8

4. Comments: How could this section have been improved?

General Eyaluation

1. This workshop was well planned and prepared. o 0 0 2 12

2. The information presented in the workshop will help me in my job. 0 0 1 1 12

3. The ideas presented in the workshop will help improve island environmental management.

Evaluation, Page 4

o 0 0 2 12

4.

5.

I learned many new techniques in environmental management that I will apply to my work.

Major projects on my island should be reviewed to determine their environmental impact.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

o 0 0 4 10

o 0 0 0 14

6. What specific areas of Environmental Management are the most difficult for your island managers to address?

Additional Comments:

Section I

Need more type of this training. Should have pictures, maps, and more examples. I am glad that EPA had this workshop.

Section II Use more field work/practical visits. Should be more field trips so that we could have on

hands experience. So that' we can get involved with our problems here in

American Samoa. Presentation was slightly slow moving, although it was

very explanatory. Requires no improvement. Training is very informative. Have more local project use examples.

Section III Use more on-site visits. More group involvement and discussion. So we can get involved with our problems here in

American Samoa. Where are EIA's placed in the U.S. system? for

example, at where used, Honolulu, Hawaii?

Section IV More group discussion Should have more on how and where to look for

impacts.

Section V More existing developments and on-island

developments. Get a new tape player with stereo; other than that, it

was fine.

Evaluation, Page 5·

EIA and Mitigative Measures

So that we can see some of environmental problems similar to the slide show.

Tape/audio could have been better. Otherwise, it was very informative.

Section VI On-site identification. Perfect.

Section VII Should specify impacts more logically.

Section VIII More examples based on residential construction.

Section IX Its not your fault I fell asleep. But when I woke,

Peter was doing same thing, so it was ok.

Section X and XI Maps would have been useful. Could use 3 different sites. The whole class goes to

all 3 sites and each groups takes a different site and makes a report to the class.

Need more site reviews for more information about the EIA process.

Section XII Should have a good outline and principles to visualize the local laws.

Section XIII

Section XIV Major development projects.

Coastal zone management and marine environment.

Land use. Need to use fewer colloquialisms.

Education of the general public and ensuring that they realize the improtance of maintaining a balance between development and preservation of the environment.

Decision making control; difficulties in enforcement, regulating the environment.

Evaluation, Page 6

The most difficult environmental management to address is "political".

"Enforcement - in Samoa, we have this borrow system. Just ask, then take or use. But now, just take and then ask".

Watershed management due to the high islands. Very professionally planned. Thanks for the

opportunity.

EIA and Mitigative Measures

Evaluation, Page 7