Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-1
CHAPTER 7
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
7.1 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS FOR 2010 FINAL EIS COMPARED TO SEIS
There are many frameworks for
conducting cumulative effects analysis.
USEPA and GEPA have endorsed the use
of the approach described in Defining
Cumulative Impact, Approach and
Guidance (California Department of
Transportation, USEPA, and FHWA
2005) that identifies eight steps for a
cumulative effects analysis. This
methodology and general CEQ guidance
for assessing cumulative effects is as
described in the 2010 Final EIS
(Volume 7, Chapter 4: Cumulative
Effects, Sections 4.1: Consistency with
Cumulative Effects Analysis Guidance
and Section 4.2: Cumulative Effects Methodology, pages 4-1 to 4-4).
There are inherent differences between the cumulative effects analysis prepared for the 2010 Final EIS
and this SEIS:
The cumulative effects study area for this SEIS is limited to Guam and specifically excludes the
CNMI because there is no proposed action for the CNMI in this SEIS. Further, the four training
ranges proposed on Tinian that were included in the 2010 ROD are on hold pending completion
of a separate environmental study, the CNMI Joint Military Training EIS/OEIS.
In accordance with the 2012 Roadmap Adjustments, the magnitude of the Marine Corps proposed
action, as described in Section 1.2 of this SEIS, is reduced from that proposed in the 2010 Final
EIS. This SEIS is focused on Marine Corps cantonment/family housing and LFTRC alternatives
and supporting infrastructure. The relocating population resulting from implementation of the
proposed action is substantially less than that proposed in the 2010 Final EIS, and the population
growth and construction schedule are much more gradual than originally projected. The adaptive
program management that was proposed to monitor the impact of rapid construction and peak
population growth of the 2010 Final EIS proposed action is not warranted for this SEIS proposed
action.
The 2010 Final EIS considered the cumulative effect of the preferred alternative only. This SEIS
assesses multiple alternatives.
The alternatives assessed in this cumulative effects chapter are the proposed action alternatives
plus the 2010 ROD-Related Actions. These alternatives are referred to as the “collective action
alternatives” and were introduced in Section 6.2, Collective Impacts Including 2010 ROD-
Related Actions.
The list of recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects was updated
subsequent to the completion of the 2010 Final EIS.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-2
Both the 2010 Final EIS and this SEIS address cumulative effects under a separate chapter. For this SEIS,
Chapters 4 and 5 present impact analyses for components of the collective action alternatives, with the
collective action alternatives addressed in Chapter 6. Although cumulative effects could have been
addressed in Chapter 6, it was determined that a separate chapter focused specifically on cumulative
effects would improve readability of this SEIS.
7.2 METHODOLOGY - EIGHT STEP APPROACH OVERVIEW
The following is a list of the Defining Cumulative Impact, Approach and Guidance (California
Department of Transportation, USEPA, and FHWA 2005) “eight steps” applied to perform the
cumulative effects analysis for this SEIS:
1. Identify resources to consider in the cumulative effect analysis.
2. Define the study area for each resource.
3. Describe the current health and historical context for each resource.
4. Describe direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project that might contribute to a cumulative
effect.
5. Identify other reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect each resource.
6. Assess potential cumulative effects.
7. Report the results.
8. Assess the need for mitigation.
Each of these steps is addressed in subsequent sections to guide the reader through the analysis.
7.3 STEPS 1 TO 3: IDENTIFY RESOURCES TO INCLUDE, DEFINE THE STUDY AREA, DESCRIBE
CURRENT HEALTH AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR EACH RESOURCE
Steps 1 through 3 of the cumulative effect analysis are as follows:
1. Identify resources to consider in the cumulative effect analysis. Chapters 4, 5 and 6 of this
SEIS address the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action components and the collective
action alternatives on various resources: geological and soil resources, water resources, air
quality, noise, airspace, land and submerged land use, recreation, terrestrial biological resources,
marine biological resources, cultural resources, visual resources, ground transportation, marine
transportation, utilities, socioeconomics and general services, hazardous materials and waste,
public health and safety, and environmental justice and the protection of children. Although the
magnitude of the proposed action is reduced in this SEIS relative to the 2010 Final EIS, the
proposed action represents the largest action being proposed for Guam in the recent past and
foreseeable future; therefore, all of the environmental resources listed are considered in this
cumulative effect analysis.
2. Define the study area. The study area is Guam-wide for each resource. The cumulative effects
study area also includes submerged lands encompassed by the LFTRC SDZ. As mentioned in
Section 7.1 of this SEIS, Tinian and other CNMI locations are not included in this SEIS
cumulative effects study area.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-3
3. Describe the current health and historical context for each resource. The 2010 Final EIS
(Volume 7, Chapter 1: Introduction, Section 1.3: Historical Perspective-Guam, pages 1-6 to 1-13)
provides an overview of key events in the history of Guam that have influenced the island’s
environmental resources. These are not repeated in this SEIS. The trends in, and factors affecting,
resource health island-wide (i.e., human behavior and natural events) have played a role in the
existing conditions (or affected environment) of each resource as described in Chapters 3 through
6 of this SEIS. Existing conditions were updated to incorporate new information identified
subsequent to the 2010 Final EIS. A summary of findings is reported under each resource in
Section 7.6 under the subsections entitled, Current Health and Historical Context. In addition to
the long-term historical perspective, recent trends in resource health and resiliency are
considered. These recent trends are based on a review of recently completed projects, as listed in
Section 7.5. Recently completed projects may include changes in zoning policy or increased
regulatory control over construction that would impact the future health trend of a resource and
the potential for cumulative effects.
7.4 STEP 4: DESCRIBE DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT
MIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Typically, cumulative effects analysis is conducted on the action alternatives; however, in this SEIS the
direct and indirect impact analysis and the cumulative effects analysis is based on the “collective action
alternatives” impacts, as described in Chapter 6.2 of this SEIS.
Due to the complexity of the proposed action and the large number of alternatives, this SEIS presents the
direct and indirect impacts of the two key components of the proposed action in separate chapters:
Chapter 4 (cantonment/family housing alternatives) and Chapter 5 (LFTRC alternatives). The impacts of
the pairing of each cantonment/family housing alternative with each of the LFTRC alternatives plus the
impacts of IT/COMM infrastructure connecting the two components are presented in Section 6.1 as
“additive” impacts. Additive impacts were identified (see Table 6.1.3-1) for the following resources under
each pairing of cantonment/family housing and LFTRC alternative: geological and soil resources (LSI),
water resources (LSI), noise (LSI), air quality (LSI), terrestrial biology (LSI), cultural resources (SI-M),
ground transportation (SI/SI-M), socioeconomics and general services (land acquisition) (LSI), hazardous
materials and waste (LSI), and public health and safety (LSI). No “additive” impact was identified for the
remaining resource areas.
Section 6.2 of this SEIS acknowledges that there may be additional impacts that result from the proposed
action in conjunction with the 2010 ROD-Related Actions (summarized in Table 6.2.1-1). The combined
alternatives, as described in Section 6.1 plus the 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2), are referred to
in this chapter (Chapter 7) as “collective action alternatives.” More detail on the collective action
alternative impacts is provided in Section 6.2. In summary, no impacts were identified for the collective
action alternatives for airspace, land and submerged land use, visual resources, or socioeconomics and
general services. Significant impacts were identified for terrestrial biology and cultural resources for
specific collective action alternatives. Less than significant impacts were identified for the remaining
resources.
To facilitate the cumulative effects analysis, the highest level of significance identified under each
resource for each collective action alternative is the significance impact level used in the cumulative
effects analysis, as shown on Table 7.4-1. This simplification provides a “worst-case” assessment of the
potential adverse impacts of each collective action alternative. Construction and operational impacts as
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-4
well as direct and indirect impacts were considered in assigning the highest level of significance. If the
construction or indirect impact would have a higher level of significant impact on the long-term health or
resilience of a resource than the operational or direct impacts, then it is this significance level that is
included in the table. It is important to note that there may be short-term high levels of significance
reported for the construction phase, but cumulative effects focuses on long-term trends in resource health.
For example, short-term impacts to traffic during construction may be significant but would not impact
the long-term operation-phase traffic conditions. Similarly, if the 2010 ROD-Related Actions impact was
reported at a higher level of significance than the SEIS cantonment/family housing or LFTRC impacts,
then the 2010 ROD-Related Action impact is shown in the table. The discussion of these results by
resource is presented in Section 7.7, under the heading “Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective
Action Alternatives That Might Contribute to a Cumulative Effect.” The less than significant impacts
identified have potential to contribute to a significant cumulative effect.
Some of the resources have multiple criteria with varying levels of significance and the criteria are listed
in Table 7.4-1. Table 7.4-1 is further simplified in Table 7.6-2. The highest level of significance identified
in the multiple criteria under each resource becomes the significance level for that resource and is used in
this cumulative effects analysis. The result is that each collective action alternative has one reported level
of significance for each resource in Table 7.6-2.
As shown in Table 7.4-1, when the impact analysis data is simplified to the highest level of significance
for each resource, all of the collective action alternatives would have a significant level of impact (SI or
SI-M) on multiple resources. No single collective action alternative stands out as having the least
environmental impact. The 2010 ROD-Related Action impacts are the same for all collective action
alternatives.
The naming convention for the collective action alternatives is: cantonment/family housing alternative
letter - LFTRC alternative number. For example, collective action alternative “A-1” represents the
Finegayan/South Finegayan (Alternative A) paired with the Route 15 LFTRC (Alternative 1).
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: LSI = less than significant impact; SI = significant impact; SI-M = significant and mitigable to less than significant.
Impacts that are considered SI or SI-M are shown in Red font. Blue shading = the Preferred Alternative - Finegayan for Cantonment/AAFB for Family Housing (Alternative E) and NWF
(Alternative 5) for LFTRC. Cantonment/family housing Alternatives: A= Finegayan, B= Finegayan and South Finegayan, C = AAFB, D = Barrigada. LFTRC Alternatives: 1 = Route 15; 2,
3, and 4 = NAVMAG Alternatives; 5 = NWF. *Significance level related to additive impacts described in Section 6.1.
7-5
Table 7.4-1. Summary of Collective Action Alternative Impacts
Resource Collective Action Alternatives: Cantonment/Family Housing + LFTRC + Additive + 2010 ROD-Related Actions Impacts
A-1 A-2,3,4 A-5 B-1 B-2,3,4 B-5 C-1 C-2,3,4 C-5 D-1 D-2,3,4 D-5 E-1 E-2,3,4 E-5
GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES
Soils, Sinkholes, Geologic Hazards LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Topography SI
A-3 or
4=SI
A-2=LSI
SI SI
B-3 or
4=SI
B-2=LSI
SI SI
C-3 or
4=SI
C-2=LSI
SI SI
D-3 or
4=SI
D-2=LSI
SI SI
E-3 or
4=SI
E-2=LSI
SI
WATER RESOURCES
Surface NI LSI NI NI LSI NI NI LSI NI LSI LSI LSI NI LSI LSI
Groundwater SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M
Nearshore SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M
Wetlands NI SI-M NI NI SI-M NI NI SI-M NI SI-M SI-M SI-M NI SI-M NI
AIR QUALITY LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
NOISE SI-M LSI LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M LSI LSI
AIRSPACE NI LSI LSI
Civilian Air Traffic SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI-M
Military Air Traffic NI NI SI-M NI NI SI-M NI NI SI-M NI NI SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M
LAND / SUBMERGED LAND USE
Loss of Valued Use SI
A-2 or
4=SI-M
A-3=LSI
NI SI
B-2 or
4=SI-M
(B-3=LSI)
NI SI
C-2 or
4=SI-M
(C-3=LSI)
NI SI
D-2 or
4=SI-M
(D-3=LSI)
NI SI
E-2 or
4=SI-M
(E-3=LSI)
NI
Public Access SI
A-2 or
4=SI-M
A-3=LSI
SI SI
B-2 or
4=SI
(B-3 =NI)
SI SI
C-2 or
4=SI
(C-3=NI)
SI SI
D-2 or
4=SI
(D-3=NI)
SI SI
E-2 or
4=SI
(E-3=NI)
SI
Compatibility with Planned/Future
Use SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI
RECREATIONAL RESOURCES SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI SI LSI LSI SI SI SI SI LSI LSI
TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Vegetation SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M
Terrestrial Conservation Areas SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M LSI
D-3 or
4=SI-M
D-2=LSI
SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M
Native Wildlife LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Special-Status Species: Federal
ESA-Listed and Proposed Species SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M
Special-Status Species: Guam-listed SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M LSI LSI LSI
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: LSI = less than significant impact; SI = significant impact; SI-M = significant and mitigable to less than significant.
Impacts that are considered SI or SI-M are shown in Red font. Blue shading = the Preferred Alternative - Finegayan for Cantonment/AAFB for Family Housing (Alternative E) and NWF
(Alternative 5) for LFTRC. Cantonment/family housing Alternatives: A= Finegayan, B= Finegayan and South Finegayan, C = AAFB, D = Barrigada. LFTRC Alternatives: 1 = Route 15; 2,
3, and 4 = NAVMAG Alternatives; 5 = NWF. *Significance level related to additive impacts described in Section 6.1.
7-6
Table 7.4-1. Summary of Collective Action Alternative Impacts
Resource Collective Action Alternatives: Cantonment/Family Housing + LFTRC + Additive + 2010 ROD-Related Actions Impacts
A-1 A-2,3,4 A-5 B-1 B-2,3,4 B-5 C-1 C-2,3,4 C-5 D-1 D-2,3,4 D-5 E-1 E-2,3,4 E-5
MARINE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Marine Flora, Invertebrates, Fish
and EFH LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Marine Conservation Areas LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI NI NI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
CULTURAL RESOURCES SI-M SI-M SI SI-M SI-M SI SI-M SI-M SI SI-M SI-M SI SI-M SI-M SI
VISUAL RESOURCES SI-M
A-3 or
4=SI
A-2=LSI
LSI SI-M
B-3 or
4=SI
B-2=LSI
LSI SI-M
C-3 or
4=SI
C-2=LSI
LSI SI-M
D-3 or
4=SI
D-2=LSI
LSI SI-M
E-3 or
4=SI
E-2=LSI
LSI
GROUND TRANSPORTATION (off-
base traffic, Section 6.1) *SI-M *SI-M *SI-M *SI-M *SI-M *SI-M *SI *SI *SI *SI *SI *SI *SI *SI *SI
MARINE TRANSPORTATION LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
UTILITIES
Electrical, Solid Waste, IT/COMM LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Potable Water, Wastewater SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M
SOCIOECONOMICS AND GENERAL SERVICES
Population Change SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI SI
Public Services SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M
Economic Activity LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Sociocultural Issues SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M
Land Acquisition-Sociocultural,
Economic (LFTRC only) LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND
WASTE (Management, Contaminated
Sites, Toxic Substances)
LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY
Notifiable Diseases/Mental Illness,
UXO, Hazardous Substances,
Traffic Incidents
LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Operational Safety LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI SI SI SI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AND THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
Noise, Recreation LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI LSI
Socioeconomics, Public Health and
Safety SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M SI-M
Land Acquisition (LFTRC only) LSI LSI NI LSI LSI NI LSI LSI NI LSI LSI NI LSI LSI NI
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-7
7.5 STEP 5: RECENTLY COMPLETED, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE
PROJECTS
Table 7.5-1 is a list of recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that would
be completed within a designated timeframe (2009-2028). As mentioned in Section 7.3, part of the
assessment of past trends in resource health includes an assessment of recent trends in resource health and
identification of recently completed projects assists with that assessment. The timeframe for the
cumulative effect assessment is project-specific. This SEIS cumulative effects timeframe begins 6 years
prior to possible implementation (2015) of the proposed action and ends with the anticipated completion
of construction (2028). The recently completed project timeline is 2009 to 2013 (the year the affected
environment analyses for this SEIS were initiated). The present projects would occur while this SEIS is
being prepared (2013-2015) and the reasonably foreseeable projects are anticipated to be operational
while the proposed action is being constructed and becomes fully operational (2015-2028). Reasonably
foreseeable actions are “sufficiently likely to occur, that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into
account in making a decision” (Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992). The approach in
this SEIS has been more inclusive of projects than exclusive.
The recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects list was developed by
updating the 2010 Final EIS list of projects with data from Internet searches and interviews with
government agencies. The list includes DoD and non-DoD projects. 2010 ROD-Related Actions are not
listed as projects for the cumulative impact analysis because they are included as components of the
collective action alternatives in Step 4 of the cumulative effects analysis.
The projects in Table 7.5-1 are organized by geographic area. The projects are assigned an identification
code, where the letter represents a geographic area and the number is sequential, for example: North
(N-1), Central (C-1), Apra (A-1), and South (S-1). Those projects that are Guam-wide or could not be
mapped, based on information available, are listed first in Table 7.5-1 with a G-x identifier, for example
G-1. Figures 7.5-1, 7.5-2, 7.5-3, and 7.5-4 show the approximate project locations in the North, Central,
Apra, and South regions of Guam, respectively.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-8
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
Guam - General Actions (G) (not mapped)
G-1 GovGuam Department of
Public Works
Road Safety
Improvements Island-wide 2010
Complete
Phase 1 and 2 pavement markings
improvement, guardrail replacement,
and school zone sign replacement.
RC
G-2 COMNAV Pacific NAVFAC
Pacific MIRC EIS/OEIS Guam/CNMI 2011 Complete
Covers proposed action and
alternatives for continued use of the
MIRC.
RC
G-3 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas MIRC Airspace Guam/CNMI
No
Construction FONSI
Modify warning area and restricted
area airspace within the MIRC. RF
G-4 GovGuam GDPW
Traffic Signal
System Upgrade,
Island-wide
Island-wide 2015 Design Traffic Signals Installation RF
G-5 GovGuam GPA
Upgrade Of
Existing 14
Megavolt Ampere
Power
Transformer To
30 Megavolt
Ampere and
Underground Line
Marbo to Pågat 2012 Complete
34.5 kV underground line from
Marbo Substation to the Pågat
Substation. The underground line
will extend for 1.6 miles.
RC
G-6 GovGuam GPA 60 MW Power
Plant Guam TBD Unknown
Construct a new 60 MW power plant
on Guam. RF
G-7 Rubio & David Rubio & David Health Clinic Guam - Not
Specified TBD Permitted Construction of a health clinic. P
G-8 Carlos &
Rosemarie Takano
Carlos &
Rosemarie
Takano
Multi-family
dwelling
Guam - Not
Specified TBD Permitted
Construction of two 26-story
residential towers. P
G-9 GovGuam GPA Pole Hardening Island-wide 2013 Programmed Island-wide power line hardening. P
G-10 GovGuam
Guam
Department of
Corrections
Territorial Prison Guam TBD Unfunded New territorial prison to house 1,000
inmates - site TBD. RF
G-11 GovGuam GPA
Lateral
Conversion of
Power Lines to
Underground
Lines
Island-wide 2013 Programmed Lateral conversion of power lines to
underground lines. P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-9
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
G-12 GovGuam GWA Wastewater
System Planning Island-wide 2013 Programmed Infrastructure improvements P
G-13 GovGuam GWA
Facilities Plan /
Design for
WWTP
Guam - Not
Specified 2013 Programmed Infrastructure improvements P
G-14 GovGuam GWA Groundwater
Disinfection Island-wide 2013 Complete
Design of this project is complete.
The remaining scope includes the
upgrade and construction of new
chlorination systems for 99 deep
wells and one spring source.
RC
G-15 GovGuam GWA Water Booster
Pump Station Island-wide 2013-2016 Construction
The 2005 hydraulic model for
GWA’s three water systems
identified deficiencies in water
booster pump capacity. The project
will include all improvements
necessary to address capacity
limitations.
P
G-16 GovGuam GWA Implement
Groundwater Rule Island-wide 2013 Complete
This project will provide upgrades to
the deep wells for the
implementation of the Groundwater
Rule. This project will install
chlorine residual monitors on all
GWA wells. The wells will include
supervisory control and data
acquisition equipment to
communicate the well chlorine
levels to central location.
RC
G-17 GovGuam GWA Deep Well
Rehabilitation Island-wide 2012 Complete
This project will design and
construct up to three new wells to
increase supply and include the
design and rehabilitation of seven
“down-hard” wells.
RC
G-18 GovGuam GWA Water Wells Island-wide 2014 Construction
GWA plans to construct new
production wells to produce an
estimated 5-7 MGd for natural
growth of the island and pending
military development.
P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-10
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
G-19 GovGuam GWA
Wastewater
Collection System
Replacement/Reh
abilitation
Program
Island-wide 2012-2016 Construction
Annual recurring design and
construction project to
replace/rehabilitate ¾ of the total
collection system pipes, (8,600
feet/year).
P
G-20 GovGuam GWA LS Priority 1
Upgrades Island-wide 2012-2016 Construction
Specific rehabilitation and repair
capital projects are needed for the
sewage pump stations (e.g.,
overhead crane repair and fall
protection barriers, high level alarm
systems, upgrading electrical
controls and motors.
P
G-21 GovGuam GWA WWTP Priority 1
Upgrades Island-wide 2013 Construction
Specific rehabilitation and repair
capital projects are needed for the
sewage pump stations.
P
G-22 GovGuam GWA
Water
Distribution Pipe
Replacement
Island-wide 2012-2016 Construction Ongoing projects to address water
pipe leaks, failure, and age issues P
G-23 U.S. Pacific Fleet NAVFAC
Pacific MITT
Mariana
Islands &
Vicinity
2015
DEIS
Published
2013
See Section 7.5.2 P
Guam - North (N)
N-1 GovGuam GDPW Route 29
Reconstruction Yigo TBD Design Roadway Reconstruction RF
N-2 Base Corp. Base Corp. Paradise Estates Yigo 2011 Complete
Residential homes Phases II and IV
completed with 383 single-family
homes near AAFB.
RC
N-3 GovGuam GDPW
Route 15
Embankment
Restoration
Yigo 2012 Complete Embankment Restoration RC
N-4 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
NWF Perimeter
Fence/Road AAFB 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-5 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC Combat
Support Vehicle
Facility
AAFB 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-11
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
N-6 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC Commando
Warrior
Operations
Facility
AAFB 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-7 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
Strike FOL
Electrical
Infrastructure
AAFB 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-8 GovGuam GDPW
Skatepark
Barrier/Iglesia
Circle Traffic
Signal
Dededo 2010 Complete Traffic Safety Improvements RC
N-9 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
Postal Service
Center AAFB 2010 Complete Infrastructure improvements RC
N-10
Pacific
International
Guam Inc.
Pacific
International
Guam Inc.
Workforce
Housing Dededo 2010-2011 Complete
Proposed as workforce housing but
used as apartments. RC
N-11 Air Force AAFB South Ramp
Utilities Phase 2 AAFB 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-12 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC Commando
Warrior Barracks AAFB 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-13 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC Commando
Communication
Operations
Facility
AAFB 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-14 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
Strike Operations
Group Facility AAFB 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-15 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
Release a Guam
Land Use Plan 77
parcel near South
Finegayan
Dededo 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-16 Air Force
36 WG of the
Pacific Air
Force
Milky Way Site
for Multiple
Threat Emitter
System
AAFB 2012 Complete Communications facility near NWF RC
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-12
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
N-17 GovGuam GDPW North Guam
Signalization Yigo 2012 Complete North Guam Signalization RC
N-18 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
Conventional
Munitions
Maintenance
Facility
AAFB 2012 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-19 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
Clear Water Rinse
Facility AAFB 2012 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-20 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC Combat
Communication
Support Facility
AAFB 2012 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-21 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC Combat
Communication
Transmission Sys
Facility
AAFB 2012 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-22 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC RH
Cantonment
Operations
Facility
AAFB 2012 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-23 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
Air Freight
Terminal
Complex
AAFB 2012 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-24 DON NAVFAC Ungulate Fencing AAFB 2013 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-25 Air Force
36 WG of the
Pacific Air
Force
Beddown of
Training and
Support Initiatives
at NWF
AAFB 2006-2014 Programmed
Relocate a Rapid Engineer
Deployable Heavy Operations
Repair Squadron Engineer (RED
HORSE) of mobile engineering
forces, the Pacific Air Force
Commando Warrior training
program, the Pacific Air Force
SILVER FLAG training program,
and a Combat Communication
Squadron and its training program at
the same location.
P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-13
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
N-26 Air Force
36 WG of the
Pacific Air
Force
Pacific Airpower
Resiliency, AAFB AAFB 2009-2016 ROD
Base 4 unmanned aerial
reconnaissance aircraft, 6 rotational
bombers, and up to 12 refueling
aircraft at AAFB; and accommodate
48 fighter and 6 bomber aircraft on a
rotational basis. An additional 2,400
personnel would be based at AAFB.
P
N-27 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
AT/FP Perimeter
Fence and Road
Construction and
Main Gate at
AAFB
AAFB 2010-2013 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
N-28 Younex
Enterprises LLC
Younex
Enterprises LLC
Ukudu Workforce
Village Dededo 2010-2011 Complete
New workforce housing to support
military build-up on Guam. 18,000
person capacity reduced to 1,800
approved and 500 were constructed
under Phase I.
RC
N-29 Sung Kim Sung Kim
Small
Commercial
Development
Dededo 2011 Permitted Small “mom and pop” retail store
near the Ironwood Estates. P
N-30 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
South Ramp
U&SI II AAFB 2015 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
N-31 GovGuam Guam Housing
Authority
Lada Estates -
Low Income
Affordable
Housing
Dededo 2012 Complete Lada Estates - Low income
affordable housing RC
N-32 GovGuam GWA
Northern District
WWTP Phases 1-
3: Primary
Capacity 12 MGD
Dededo 2014-16
Prioritized for
Funding &
Construction
Improvements increase primary
capacity to 12 MGD in the first
phases and 16 MGD in final phase
to meet USEPA discharge
requirements. The project will
utilize existing structures but add
major upgrades and modifications.
P
N-33 Air Force AAFB PRTC Combat
Command Facility AAFB 2015
Programmed
Unfunded No Update P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-14
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
N-34 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
Dispersed
Maintenance
Spares & SE
Storage Facility
AAFB 2016 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements RF
N-35 Golden Gate
Services LLC
Golden Gate
Services LLC
Single Family
Homes Yigo 2014
Permit
extended 2013 72 single-family subdivision P
N-36 TRI Inc. TRI Inc. Paradise
Meadows Yigo 2013 Construction 101 housing units P
N-37 GovGuam GDPW Jinapsan Road Jinapsan 2013-2014 Construction
1,630-foot (497-m) road would be
constructed within an undeveloped
GovGuam parcel. The existing
paved Tarague Beach Road would
be extended to Jinapsan Beach.
P
N-38 Guam Healthcare
Development dck Pacific
Guam Regional
Medical City Dededo 2014 Construction
6-story 267,000-square foot (24,805-
square m) 130 bed hospital. P
N-39 Army Army
Terminal High
Altitude Area
Defense
(THAAD)
AAFB 2013 Complete
Temporary deployment of 100
unaccompanied military personnel
to Guam to operate and support
THAAD system; no permanent
facility construction.
P
N-40 Air Force
36 WG of the
Pacific Air
Force
Munitions Storage
Igloos AAFB
Guam
AAFB TBD FONSI
New munitions igloos are required
to enable the 36 WG’s existing
mission and ongoing military
operations. Phase 2 would construct
48 munitions igloos to meet the
same purpose and need.
P
N-41 Vantage Group Vantage Group Villa Pacita
Estates Yigo TBD Construction
Private housing division along Route
15 on west side of Mt. Santa Rosa. P
N-42 GovGuam
Guam
Economic
Development
Authority
Relocation of
Dededo Flea
Market and
Construction of
Farmer’s Co-op
Dededo 2014 Funded, Bids
Sought
New Farmer’s Co-op facility to
include a retail farmers market, dry
and cold storage, feed and material
supply, offices for GovGuam
agencies, slaughterhouse, value-
added kitchen, dining area, flea
market stalls, livestock pens, plant
nursery, public toilets, and parking.
P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-15
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
N-43 Hawaiian Rock
Products
Hawaiian Rock
Products
Infrastructure
Construction AAFB 2012-2015 Undetermined
Construction, alteration, repair and
maintenance of asphalt concrete
roads, streets, highways, alleys,
parking areas, and their associated
facility on the airfield.
P
N-44 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
North Ramp
Parking Apron AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
N-45 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
Personnel
Protection -
Hardened
Command Post
AAFB 2015 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
N-46 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
Create Broad Area
Maritime
Surveillance
Capability
AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
N-47 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
POL System
Hardened
Structures
AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
N-48 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
Tactical Missile
Maintenance
Facility
AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
N-49 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC RH
Airfield
Operations
AAFB 2014 Programmed Administrative/Storage Facility P
N-50 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC SF Fire
Rescue
Emergency
Management
AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
N-51 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
Fuel System
Maintenance.
Hangar, Inc.2
AAFB 2015 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
N-52 Air Force AAFB General Purpose
Hangar AAFB 2015 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements RF
N-53 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
AGE Covered
Facility AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-16
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
N-54 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC RH
Logistics Facility AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
N-55 Air Force NAVFAC
Marianas
PRTC Combat
Communication
Infrastructure
Facility
AAFB 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
Guam - Central (C)
C-1 GovGuam GDPW Route 15
Resurfacing Barrigada 2009 Complete Pavement Resurfacing RC
C-2
Access
Development
Company
Access
Development
Company
Talo Verde
Estates Tumon 2009 Complete
Luxury housing community; Single
family dwellings (62) and
Townhouses (82).
RC
C-3 Office of Veterans
Affairs
Office of
Veterans Affairs Veterans Clinic Agana 2009 Complete
The Veterans Clinic would be
located just outside of the Naval
Hospital along Route 7.
RC
C-4 Tanota Partners
(Ysrael family)
Tanota Partners
(Ysrael family)
Hotel
Construction
Bayview 5 Luxury
Project, Tumon
Bay
Tumon 2010 Complete Construction of 400-room, 28-story
hotel in Tumon Bay. RC
C-5 GovGuam GDPW Route 1 U-Turn
Reconstruction Tumon 2009 Complete Roadway Improvement RC
C-6 GovGuam GDPW Route 25 (Alageta
Road) Barrigada 2012 Complete Route 25 (Alageta Road) RC
C-7 DLA NAVFAC
Marianas
Replace Gas
Cylinder Storage
Facility
Andersen
South 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
C-8 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
Naval Hospital
Replacement Asan 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
C-9 GUANG NAVFAC
Marianas
NG Readiness
Center Barrigada 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
C-10 GUANG NAVFAC
Marianas
DRBS Storage
Facility Barrigada 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-17
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
C-11 GUANG NAVFAC
Marianas
Combined
Support
Maintenance
Facility
Barrigada 2011 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
C-12 Tagada Guam
LLC
Tagada Guam
LLC
Amusement Park-
Tumon Tumon - 2011 Complete
Amusement park with rides, food,
and beverage booths. RC
C-13 GovGuam GCC Student Center Mangilao 2011 Complete Student Center at GCC RC
C-14 GovGuam GDPW Route 6
(Murray Rd) Asan 2012 Complete
Route 6A Murray Rd, 9 Maina-
Nimitz Hill, embankment restoration RC
C-15 GovGuam GDPW
Route 16 Guam
Main Facility Post
Office / Army
National Guard
Intersection
Barrigada 2012 Complete
Route 16 Guam Main Facility Post
Office / Army National Guard
Intersection
RC
C-16 GovGuam GDPW Route 8/10/16 Tri-
Intersection Barrigada 2012 Complete Route 8/10/16 Tri-Intersection RC
C-17 GovGuam GCC DNA Forensic
Lab Mangilao 2012 Complete DNA Forensic Lab RC
C-18 GovGuam GCC Foundation
Building Mangilao 2012 Complete Foundation Building at GCC RC
C-19 GovGuam
PAG
Gregorio D. Perez
Dock A & B Steel
Pile Extension &
H20 Blasting
Agana 2012 Complete Gregorio D. Perez Dock A & B
Steel Pile Extension & H20 Blasting RC
C-20 GovGuam GPA Fiber Optic
Installation Tumon 2012 Complete
Installation of a 96-count strand of
cable via an underground conduit
along San Vitores Road stretching
the length of Hotel Row.
RC
C-21 Private
Development
Younex
International
Corp.
Emerald Ocean
View Park Tumon TBD
Stalled
Construction
260 luxury condo unit, 20 villas, two
18-story towers and two 15-story
towers. Stalled due to financial
difficulties.
P
C-22 GovGuam
Guam Memorial
Hospital
Authority
Guam Memorial
Hospital
Emergency Room
Expansion
Tamuning 2014 Construction Triples emergency room capacity. P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-18
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
C-23 Ordot Dump
Closure GSWA
Ordot Dump
Closure
Construction and
Dero Road Sewer
Improvements
Ordot 2014-2015 Contract
Awarded
The project includes construction of
all temporary and permanent
facilities, erosion controls,
excavation, grading, drainage, fill,
cap system including geosynthetics,
leachate and sewage
collection/conveyance systems,
backup emergency power generator,
electrical, and fencing.
P
C-24 GovGuam GEDA Guam Museum Hagåtña 2014 Construction
Facility will include exhibition
space, garden, outdoor stage,
café/retail space, and administrative
offices.
P
C-25 Laguna at Pago
Bay Resort Fong S. Wu
Upscale
Residential
Development
Pago Bay 2011 21 of 98 lots
sold
48-acre (parcel containing 98 lots.
Roads, three lakes, landscaping and
utility connections including
underground natural gas lines have
been constructed.
RC
C-26
Micronesian Self
Help Housing
Corp
GHURA Sagan Bonita Mangilao 2013 Complete 56 single affordable family homes RC
C-27 Orion
Construction Mark Borja
Island Surgical
Center Dededo 2013 Complete - 3,500-square foot surgical center. P
C-28 GovGuam GHURA
Summer Green
Residences
(formerly Tower
70) Multi-Family
Units
Tamuning 2014 Complete in
2014
72 multi-family affordable housing
units P
C-29 GovGuam GDPW
Route 1-8
Intersection
Improvements &
Agana Bridges
Replacement
Agana 2014 Construction Intersection Improvements &
Bridges Replacement P
C-30 GovGuam GWA Rehabilitation of
Asan Springs Asan 2012
Prioritized for
Funding &
Construction
Rehabilitate/upgrade reservoir,
treatment/chlorination facility,
pump/motors and electrical controls.
RC
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-19
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
C-31 GovGuam GDPW
Route 26/25
Intersection
Improvements
Guam -
Central 2014
Final Design
IFB Sept 2013
Intersection Improvements & Traffic
Signal Activation RF
C-32 UoG UoG Wind Turbine University
Drive 2013 Complete A 70-foot (21.3 m) wind turbine RC
C-33 UoG UoG Field House
Renovation
University
Drive 2012 Construction Field House Renovation RC
C-34
Access
Development
Company
Access
Development
Company
Hemlani
Apartments Tumon 2013 Complete
300-unit apartment complex (behind
Acanta Mall, Tumon Bay). P
C-35 GovGuam
Guam
International
Airport
Authority
Guam Airport
Project
Guam
International
Airport
2009-2029 Ongoing
Various upgrades to airport
property, main terminal, industrial
park, airfield, and south ramp.
RF
C-36 GovGuam GDPW
Route 26
Reconstruction &
Widening, Route
1 to Route 25
Dededo TBD Design
Complete Reconstruction & Widening RF
C-37 GovGuam GDPW
Route 10A,
Rehabilitation &
Widening, Sunset
Blvd. to Route 16
Harmon TBD Design
Complete
Pavement Rehabilitation &
Widening RF
C-38 GovGuam
Guam
International
Airport
Authority
Runway
Rehabilitation and
Expansion
Tamuning 2014 Ongoing
Runway rehabilitation and
expansion from grant via U.S.
Federal Government. Multiple
phases.
P
C-39 GovGuam PAG
Gregorio D. Perez
Marina
Renovation & Site
Improvement
Project
Hagåtña 2012-2014
Prioritized for
Funding &
Construction
Gregorio D. Perez Marina
Renovation & Site Improvement
Project
P
C-40 GovGuam PAG
Gregorio D. Perez
Marina Dock C
Repairs
Hagåtña 2013 Complete Gregorio D. Perez Marina Dock C
Repairs P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-20
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
C-41 GovGuam GWA
Facilities Plan for
Hagåtña STP
Improvements &
Effluent WWPS
Hagåtña 2012-2014 Complete
At least one additional primary
clarifier of similar size is required to
meet current and future wastewater
capacity and redundancy
requirements. A new effluent pump
station is required for the disposal of
future flows at high tide conditions.
P
C-42 GovGuam GWA
Hagåtña STP
Improvements and
Effluent
Wastewater Pump
Station
Hagåtña 2012-2014 Complete
Provide a new primary clarifier to
meet current and future wastewater
capacity and redundancy
requirements. The new equipment
includes screenings, grit removal
and effluent WWPS sized for
current and future (Year 2015
projected flow).
P
C-43 GovGuam GWA Agana STP
Interim Measures Agana 2013-2014 Construction
Process upgrades to include grit
removal; fat, oil and grease removal;
septic handling facility; prevent back
flow from the new outfall; bio-solids
treatment; and any additional
improvements, rehabilitation or
improvements, such as the use of
chemically enhanced treatment.
P
C-44 Defense Logistics
Agency-Energy
NAVFAC
Marianas
Upgrade Fuel
Pipeline Central Guam 2013-2015
Planning and
Programming
Phase
Infrastructure improvements to fuel
pumps and pipelines that extend
from the Sasa Valley Fuel Farm to
AAFB. Project includes a new 15.7-
mile (25.3 km) pipeline that is
parallel and adjacent to existing
pipeline and located within an
existing 10-foot (3-m) wide
easement.
P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-21
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
C-45 GUANG NAVFAC
Marianas Assembly Hall Barrigada 2013 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
C-46 GovGuam GDPW
Route 8/Canada
Toto Loop Road
Intersection
Improvements
Tamuning 2015 Design Traffic Signal Installation P
C-47 Guam Highlands
Investment Group
Guam
Highlands
Investment
Group
Sigua Highlands /
near Leopalace Yona 2014-2034
Zoning Permit
Pending 5,000 home subdivision RF
C-48 GovGuam GDPW Tiyan Parkway,
Phase 1 Tiyan 2015 Design New Arterial Highway P
C-49 GovGuam GDPW
Route 14B (Ypao
Road)
Reconstruction &
Widening, Route
1 to Route 14
Tamuning 2015 Design Reconstruction & Widening P
C-50 GovGuam GDPW
Route 10A, Route
1 GIA/Tiyan
Intersection
Tiyan 2016 Design Reconstruction & Widening RF
C-51 GovGuam GDPW Route 7A
Rehabilitation Tamuning 2012 Complete
Reconstruction & Drainage
Improvements RC
C-52 GovGuam GDPW
Route 4,
McDonalds to
Route 10
Chalan Pago 2013 Complete Pavement Resurfacing RC
C-53 GovGuam GDPW
Finegayan Road
Reconstruction-
Harmon Cutoff
Dededo TBD Design Finegayan Road Reconstruction RF
Guam - Central Apra Harbor (AH)
AH-1 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
Orote Magazines
(P-425) Navy Base 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
AH-2 GovGuam GovGuam and
the DON
Reforestation of
Masso Reservoir
Masso
Reservoir TBD Ongoing
The reforestation plan was
developed as a mitigation project for
coral reef loss in Apra Harbor
P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-22
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
AH-3 GovGuam GDPW
Masso River
Bridge
Embankment
Masso River 2011 Complete Masso River Bridge Embankment
Stabilization RC
AH-4 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
Kilo Wharf
Extension (P-502) Navy Base 2009-2013 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
AH-5 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
CSS-15 HQ
Facility Navy Base 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
AH-6 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
Replace Family
Housing Units Navy Base 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
AH-7 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
NEX Minimart
and Gas Station Navy Base 2010 Complete Infrastructure Improvements RC
AH-8 GovGuam GDPW
Route 11
Improvements and
Shore protection
Commercial
Port 2013 Complete Roadway Improvements P
AH-9 GovGuam GDPW
Asan and Aguada
Bridges
Rehabilitation
Asan TBD Design Two bridges’ Rehabilitation RF
AH-
10 CNM DON
X-Ray Wharf
Improvements (P-
518)
Navy Base 2015 Unfunded
Waterfront improvements to
accommodate the new T-AKE
supply ship and utility upgrades to
meet wharf requirements. Includes
construction and dredging at the
southern portion of Inner Apra
Harbor to -35 feet.
RF
AH-
11 GovGuam PAG
Modernization
Program: Port
Reconfiguration,
Maintenance and
Repair
Commercial
Port 2010-2016
Construction
Ongoing
Three phases. Productivity and
efficiency improvements such as
new equipment, systems, and
buildings, and terminal
modernization and new yard
capacity. Includes demolition of
buildings, new utilities, paving,
lighting, cargo handling equipment,
stormwater outfalls into Apra
Harbor, and security systems.
P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-23
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
AH-
12 GovGuam PAG
Comprehensive
Port-wide Closed
Circuit Television
System
Commercial
Port 2013-2014 Ongoing
Comprehensive Port-wide Closed
Caption Television Systems P
AH-
13 GovGuam PAG
Marine & Port
Security
Operations Center
Commercial
Port 2013-2014 Ongoing
Construction of Marine & Port
Security Operations Center P
AH-
14 GovGuam PAG
Emergency
Backup
Generators
Commercial
Port 2014-2015 Ongoing
Installation of Emergency Backup
Generators P
AH-
15 GovGuam PAG
Load Center 4
Building Roof
Repair
Commercial
Port 2012
Prioritized for
Funding &
Construction
Load Center 4 Building Roof Repair RC
AH-
16 GovGuam PAG
Construction of
Golf Pier Pipeline
Replacement
Commercial
Port 2012
Prioritized for
Funding &
Construction
Construction of Golf Pier Pipeline
Replacement RC
AH-
17 GovGuam GPA
Redesign of
Existing Outdoor
Substation
Commercial
Port 2012
Prioritized for
Funding &
Construction
Redesign of existing outdoor
substation to indoor type. Includes
transformer connections to existing
diesel plant.
RC
AH-
18 GovGuam GPA
Substation
Transformer
Upgrade with
Concrete Fence
Commercial
Port 2012
Prioritized for
Funding &
Construction
Substation transformer upgrade w/
concrete fence RC
AH-
19 DON
NAVFAC
Marianas
Whole House
Revitalization I Navy Base 2015
Contract
awarded Infrastructure Improvements P
AH-
20 DON
NAVFAC
Marianas
Whole House
Revitalization II Navy Base 2015
Contractors
Bidding Infrastructure Improvements P
AH-
21 DON
NAVFAC
Marianas
Romeo Wharf
Improvements Navy Base 2014 Programmed Infrastructure Improvements P
AH-
22 DON
NAVFAC
Marianas
Emergent Repair
Facility
Expansion (P-
566)
Navy Base 2014 Programmed
Unfunded Infrastructure Improvements P
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-24
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
AH-
23 DON
NAVFAC
Marianas
Dehumidified
Supply Storage
Facility
Navy Base 2014 Programmed
Unfunded Infrastructure Improvements P
Guam - South (S)
S-1 GovGuam GDPW Route 2 - Culverts
and Slide Repair Umatac 2012 Complete Route 2 - Culverts and Slide Repair RC
S-2 GovGuam GDPW
Talofofo / Togcha
Bridge
Rehabilitation
Talofofo 2012 Complete Talofofo / Togcha Bridge
Rehabilitation RC
S-3 GovGuam GDPW Layon Landfill,
Dandan Dandan 2011 Complete
Development of a municipal
integrated solid waste landfill
facility and transfer stations that
involves construction and operation
for diversion, recycling, composting,
and processing.
P
S-4 GovGuam GPA 15 MW Solar /
Wind turbine Talofofo 2013
Contract
approved
15 MW solar / wind turbine farm to
help power 2,200 homes P
S-5 GovGuam GWA
Santa Rita Springs
Booster Pump
Rehabilitation,
Phase II
Santa Rita 2014 Construction
Construction is nearing completion.
The project now requires completion
of incidental work related to the
spring impound and facility function
controls. It is the intent of this
Capital Improvement Plan project to
be “transitioned” into a project
where work is required to address
the GEPA-pending action related to
“GWUDI.”
P
S-6 GovGuam GWA
Ugum Water
Treatment Plant
Refurbishment
Ugum 2012 Construction
Refurbish Ugum Treatment Plant to
convert the existing conventional
surface water plant to a micro-
filtration system; replace electrical
control systems and finished water
pumps; install supervisory control
and data acquisition equipment; and
refurbish the backwash waste
handling system.
RC
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-25
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
S-7 GovGuam GWA Brigade II (Ugum)
BPS Upgrade Ugum 2013 Construction
A new Brigade II booster pump
station is required to fully utilize the
surface supply from the south or the
Ugum Treatment Plant. It will serve
both the Windward Hills and the
Pulantat Reservoirs. About 1,100
feet (335 m) of pipe is required.
P
S-8 GovGuam GWA
Ugum Water
Treatment Plant
Intake
Modifications
Ugum 2013 Construction
This project will improve the intake
structure of the Ugum Water
Treatment Plant to minimize
siltation and provide more reliable
raw water supply during low river
flow conditions.
P
S-9 GovGuam GWA
Ugum Water
Treatment Plant
Reservoir
Replacement
Ugum 2013 Construction
This project will provide a new 2-
MG finished water reservoir at the
Ugum Water Treatment Plant. The
reservoirs will be the sole source of
finished water for most of the
Southern Water System.
P
S-10 GovGuam GWA
Old Agat
Wastewater
Collection (Phase
II)
Agat 2012-2016 Construction
This project will replace a portion of
6.2 miles (10 km) of existing
wastewater collection line including
manholes and sewer service laterals
in the Agat collection system. The
replacement sewer lines will be
connected to the mainline along
Route 2A at Tomas Mesa Street.
P
S-11 GovGuam GWA
Umatac-Merizo
STP
Improvements
Merizo 2012 Complete
Installation of high efficiency
motors, efficiency aerator, new
valves, and dredging of the lagoon.
RC
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-26
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
S-12 GovGuam GWA
Old Agat
Collection
Continuation
(Phase III)
Agat 2012-2016 Construction
This project will replace a portion of
6.2 miles (10 km) of existing
wastewater collection line including
manholes and sewer service laterals
in the Agat collection system. The
replacement sewer lines will be
connected to the mainline along
Route 2A at Tomas Mesa Street.
P
S-13 GovGuam GWA
Facilities Plan /
Design / Interim
for Baza Gardens
STP
Improvements
Talofofo 2013 Complete
This project includes interim
improvements at the wastewater
treatment facility to meet permit
conditions.
RC
S-14 GovGuam GWA Baza Gardens
STP Replacement Talofofo 2012-2015 Construction
Construction of new wastewater
treatment facilities that will meet
NPDES permit treatment limits.
P
S-15 GovGuam GWA Agat / Santa Rita
STP Replacement Agat 2012-2016 Construction
Construction of new wastewater
treatment facilities that will meet
NPDES permit treatment limits. The
new facilities will incorporate
provisions for redundancy to
improve reliability and facilitate
operations and maintenance
activities at the existing facility.
P
S-16 GovGuam PAG
Agat Marina Dock
A Repair &
Renovation
Agat 2013-2014
Prioritized for
Funding &
Construction
Agat Marina Dock A Repair &
Renovation P
S-17 GovGuam GWA
Facilities Plan /
Design / Interim
for the Umatac-
Merizo STP
Umatac 2012-2013
Prioritized for
Funding &
Construction
Phase 1 of this project is a facility
planning to meet permit conditions;
phase 2 is the design of the interim
improvements. Planning and design
for interim improvements such as
new mechanically cleaned bar
screen facilities to improve
reliability and facilitate operations
and maintenance requirements.
RC
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-27
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
S-18 GovGuam GWA Umatac-Merizo
STP Replacement Umatac 2016 Design
Construction of new wastewater
treatment facilities that will meet
NPDES permit treatment
requirements. The new facilities will
incorporate provisions for
redundancy to improve reliability
and facilitate operations and
maintenance activities at the existing
facility.
RF
S-19 GovGuam GDPW Agfayan Bridge
Replacement
Agfayan
Bridge 2015 Construction Bridge Replacement P
S-20 GovGuam GDPW
Route 4, Togcha
River to Ipan
Beach Park
Yona-Talofofo 2014 Contract
Pending Pavement Resurfacing P
S-21 GovGuam GDPW
Route 17, Route 5
to Chalan Tun
Ramon Baza,
Phase 2A
Santa Rita 2015 Contract
Pending
Replace Drainage Culverts &
Pavement Spot Repairs P
S-22 GovGuam GDPW
Inarajan North
Leg (As-Misa)
Bridge
Rehabilitation
Inarajan 2014 Construction Bridge Scour Repair P
S-23 GovGuam GDPW
Bile & Pigua
Bridges
Replacement
Merizo 2014 Construction Bridges Replacement P
S-24 GovGuam GDPW Ajayan Bridge
Replacement Merizo 2015 Design Bridge Replacement P
S-25 GovGuam GDPW
Route 4, Merizo
Bridge Approach
Restoration
Merizo 2014 Construction Repair Bridge Approach &
Roadway Embankment P
S-26 GovGuam GDPW Aplacho Bridge
Replacement Santa Rita 2014-2016 Design Bridge Replacement P
S-27 GovGuam GDPW
Route 17
Rehabilitation &
Widening, Route
5 to Route 4A,
Phase 2B
Yona TBD Design Pavement Rehabilitation &
Widening RF
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; PRTC= Pacific Range Training Complex; TBD = to be determined.
7-28
Table 7.5-1. Description of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Guam (2009-2028)
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent
Contracting
Authority
Project Name /
Location
Area of
Interest
Construction
Year(s) Status Description
Time
frame
S-28 GovGuam GDPW
Route 4 Curve
Widening, Ylig
Bridge to Dandan
Road
Talofofo TBD Pending
Approval Pavement Widening RF
S-29 GovGuam GDPW
Route 5
Rehabilitation &
Widening, Route
2A to Route 12
Santa Rita TBD Design Pavement Rehabilitation &
Widening RF
S-30 GovGuam GDPW
Route 17
Rehabilitation and
Widening, Route
4 to Chalan Tun
Ramon Baza
Yona 2013 Complete Route 17 Rehabilitation and
Widening RC
S-31 GovGuam GDPW
Route 4, Ylig
Bridge to Pago
Bay and Ylig
Bridge
Replacement
Yona 2013 Construction Pavement Resurfacing P
S-32 GovGuam GDPW
Route 17
Drainage Culverts
and Rehabilitation
Santa Rita TBD Design Culvert repair and roadway
resurfacing (2 projects) RF
S-33 GovGuam GDPW Taleyfak Bridge
Restoration Agat 2013 Complete Restore Bridge RC
S-34 GovGuam GDPW
Tanaga Bridge
Permanent
Restoration
Inarajan 2009 Complete Restore Bridge RC
S-35 DON NAVFAC
Marianas
Cetti Bay
Reforestation Agat TBD Ongoing
Reforestation project as mitigation
for Kilo Wharf extension project. P
Figure 7.5-1Recently Completed, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects on Guam (North)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!"1
!"15
!"16
!"9
!"3
!"3A
P h i l i p p i n e S e a
P a c i f i c O c e a n
NWF
AAFB
Finegayan
Andersen South
N-24
N-41
N-11
SouthFinegayan
N-35N-36
N-42
N-8
N-29
N-16
N-2
N-40N-27
N-28
N-25
N-26
N-10
N-1
N-30
N-39
N-17
N-31
N-38
N-51, N-52
N-32
N-37
N-43
N-33, N-49, N-50,N-54, N-55
N-15
N-4
N-12N-13
N-18
N-19
N-23
N-3
N-7
N-14
N-53
N-5 N-22
N-21
N-6
N-20 N-44
N-45
N-34N-9
¤
LegendDoD Property
!Approximate Project Location(SeeTable 7.5-1 for project details)2010 ROD Related Action (see Figure 1.3-1 for detail)
SEIS Actions:Water Well Development Area and School Expansion
LFTRC Alternatives:Route 15 (Alt 1)NWF (Alt 5)Stand-alone HG Range (All LFTRC Alts)
Cantonment/Family Housing Alternatives:Finegayan (Alt A)South Finegayan (Alt B)AAFB (Alt C)Barrigada (Alt D)
Source: NAVFAC Pacific 2013c
0 1 2Miles
0 1 2Kilometers
P h i l i p p i n e S e a
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Area of Detailon Guam
1 " = 18 Miles
Notes: N-46, N-47, N-48 are not shown.IT/COMM lines not shown
(see Figures 2.6-1 through 2.6-5 for detail).
7-29
Figure 7.5-2Recently Completed, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects on Guam (Central)
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!!!!!
!
!
!
!! !
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
Andersen South
P h i l i p p i n e S e a
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Barrigada
!"15
!"10
!"4
!"8!"1
!"1
!"16
C-43
C-24
C-14
C-28
C-27
C-22C-2
C-35
C-26
C-53
C-4
C-21
C-23
C-6
C-34
C-12
C-25
C-13
C-16
C-18
C-17
C-33C-32C-47
C-20
C-39
C-19
C-40
C-41C-42
C-38
C-31
C-15
C-8 C-9C-10, C-11, C-45
C-7
C-29C-36
C-1
C-30
C-52
C-51 C-48
C-46
C-5
C-49
C-50C-37
C-3
C-44
¤
P h i l i p p i n e S e a
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Area of Detailon Guam
1 " = 18 Miles
LegendDoD Property
!Approximate Project Location(SeeTable 7.5-1 for project details)
SEIS Actions: LFTRC Alternatives:
Route 15 (Alt 1)Stand-alone HG Range (All LFTRC Alts)
Cantonment/Family Housing Alternatives:Barrigada (Alt D)
Source: NAVFAC Pacific 2013c
0 1 2Miles
0 1 2Kilometers
Note: IT/COMM lines not shown (see Figures 2.6-1 through 2.6-5 for detail).
7-30
Figure 7.5-3Recently Completed, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects on Guam (Apra)
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
P h i l i p p i n e S e a
!"5!"2
!"17
!"1
!"1
!"2A
!"6
!"5
O u t e r A p r a H a r b o r
P h i l i p p i n e S e a
S a s a B a y
I n n e rA p r a
H a r b o r
AH-9
AH-8
AH-17
AH-1
AH-16
AH-4
AH-2
AH-18
AH-3
AH-13
AH-10
AH-11
AH-19
AH-5
AH-6
AH-7
AH-22
AH-23
AH-21AH-20
AH-14, AH-15
AH-12
¤
P h i l i p p i n e S e a
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Area of Detailon Guam
1 " = 18 Miles
LegendDoD Property
!Approximate Project Location(SeeTable 7.5-1 for project details)2010 ROD Related Action (see Figure 1.3-1 for detail)
Source: NAVFAC Pacific 2013c
0 0.5 1Miles
0 0.5 1Kilometers
Note: IT/COMM lines not shown (see Figures 2.6-1 through 2.6-5 for detail).
7-31
Figure 7.5-4Recently Completed, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects on Guam (South)
!
!
!!
!!!
!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!! !
!
!!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
P a c i f i c O c e a n
NAVMAG
!"17
!"1
!"2A
!"6
!"4A
P h i l i p p i n e S e a!"2
!"4 !"4
!"4
S-34
S-32
S-3
S-2, S-28
S-5
S-10
S-13
S-14
S-16
S-18S-17S-11
S-6
S-1
S-27S-31S-30
S-20S-33
S-22S-19
S-24S-25
S-23
S-29
S-26
S-21
S-4
S-7
S-8
S-9
S-35
S-12
S-15
¤
P h i l i p p i n e S e a
P a c i f i c O c e a n
Area of Detailon Guam
1 " = 18 Miles
LegendDoD Property
!Approximate Project Location(SeeTable 7.5-1 for project details)
SEIS Actions:LFTRC Alternatives:
NAVMAG (East/West) (Alt 2)NAVMAG (North/South) (Alt 3)NAVMAG (L-Shaped) (Alt 4)2010 ROD Related Action (see Figure 1.3-1 for detail)
Source: NAVFAC Pacific 2013c
0 1 2Miles
0 1 2Kilometers
Note: IT/COMM lines not shown (see Figures 2.6-1 through 2.6-5 for detail).
7-32
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-33
As shown on Figure 7.5-1, the majority of the projects in the northern area of Guam are on AAFB and
very few in the civilian community. The proposed action includes cantonment/family housing alternatives
on Finegayan and AAFB, LFTRC alternatives at NWF and east of Andersen South, and school and water
well field expansions on AAFB. IT/COMM alternatives associated with the proposed cantonment/family
housing and LFTRC alternatives are aligned along existing roadways. The 2010 ROD-Related Actions
are the non-live fire training at Andersen South and the Air Combat Element of the Marine Corps at
AAFB. No reasonably foreseeable civilian projects would be precluded by any of the collective action
alternatives in the northern part of Guam.
The collective action alternatives in central Guam include the following (see Figure 7.5-2): a
cantonment/family housing alternative at Barrigada, an LFTRC alternative east of Andersen South and
non-live fire training at Andersen South as a 2010 ROD-Related Action. A HG Range is also proposed at
Andersen South. There are IT/COMM alternatives associated with the LFTRC and cantonment/family
housing alternatives in the area. Non-DoD projects unrelated to the collective action alternatives include
roadway improvement projects that are distributed throughout the area, and projects near the airport and
in Tumon. No reasonably foreseeable civilian projects would be precluded by any of the collective action
alternatives in the central part of Guam; however, there a few current land uses that would be
discontinued.
The Apra Harbor area (see Figure 7.5-3) includes the waterfront improvement projects of the 2010 ROD-
Related Actions. There are no cantonment/family housing or LFTRC alternatives in the Apra Harbor area;
however, there are IT/COMM alignment alternatives that would be aligned along existing roadways (not
shown on Figure 7.5-3) in the vicinity of Apra Harbor. No reasonably foreseeable civilian projects would
be precluded by any of the collective action alternatives in the Apra Harbor area of Guam.
As shown on Figure 7.5-4, the majority of projects proposed in the southern region of Guam are
GovGuam roadway and bridge improvements. The collective action alternatives include various LFTRC
configurations associated with NAVMAG. In addition, there would be IT/COMM alignments proposed in
the area to support these collective action alternatives. The non-DoD projects are primarily infrastructure
improvement projects. No reasonably foreseeable civilian projects would be precluded by any of the
collective action alternatives in the southern part of Guam.
The projects that are Guam-wide or not mapped are proposed by GovGuam and consist primarily of
infrastructure projects. In some cases, the project site has not been determined. The remaining Guam-
wide projects would not be precluded by the collective action alternatives.
The 2010 Final EIS (Volume 7, Chapter 4.3: Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable
Future Actions, pages 4-24 to 4-25) provides additional detail for some of the larger projects, including
the Commercial Port Modernization; Pacific Airpower Resiliency, AAFB (formerly known as
Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and Strike capability); and Mariana Islands Range Complex
MIRC. These descriptions are unchanged.
There were a number of workforce housing projects proposed in anticipation of the H-2B workers that
would be brought on-island to support the military relocation as proposed in the 2010 Final EIS, but most
of these projects were not constructed or were developed for alternative uses when the construction
projects did not materialize. The following sections provide more detail on workforce housing, the DoD
Mariana Islands Training and Testing (MITT), and DoD Actions that are not relevant to this SEIS.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-34
7.5.1 Workforce Housing Update
Section 4.1.15 of this SEIS provides a summary of the workforce housing projects. In summary, there
was workforce housing to accommodate an estimated 3,700 workers in 2009. Most were located at
Harmon Industrial Park. Subsequent to 2009, workforce housing projects were approved or pending
approval for an additional capacity of 26,500 workers. Most of these projects were never completed or
were converted to rental units. The largest proposal, Ukudu Work Force Village, was initially proposed
for 18,000 workers by Younex. A capacity of 1,800 workers was approved and under Phase I of
construction, 500 units have been constructed. Phase II would require Younex to fund off-site utility
improvements to support the worker population per a Guam Waterworks Association permit condition.
There have been some short-term uses of the units for student housing; however, the units are generally
vacant.
7.5.2 Mariana Islands Testing and Training
The MITT (project G-23 on Table 7.5-1) is proposed by the U.S Pacific Fleet. An EIS/OEIS is being
prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with maintaining military readiness
training and research, development, testing, and evaluation activities conducted in the MITT study area.
The MITT EIS/OEIS is a follow-on study to the MIRC EIS/OEIS, the ROD of which was published in
July 2010. The MIRC EIS/OEIS preferred alternative is part of the existing training capability in the
MITT EIS/OEIS. The Draft EIS/OEIS was published in September 2013 (NAVFAC Pacific 2013a).
The MITT study area includes the existing MIRC, additional areas on the high seas, and a general transit
corridor between Hawaii and MITT where training and testing activities may occur. The MIRC is the
only major DON range complex in the MITT study area. The EIS/OEIS supports the renewal of current
regulatory permits and authorizations, addresses current training and testing not covered under existing
permits and authorizations, and identifies those permits and authorizations necessary to support force
structure changes and emerging and future training and testing requirements including those associated
with new platforms and weapons systems within the MITT study area, starting in 2015, thereby ensuring
critical DoD requirements are met. The MITT study area is predominantly ocean and Guam represents a
small part of the total area. Increased training tempo is proposed for the submerged lands that underlie
warning area W-517 located south of Guam and small arms firing areas are proposed west of Agat Bay
and the Haputo Point area. These proposed actions would restrict public access for recreation during
training events. The resource areas addressed in the impact analysis are as follows:
Sediments and Water Quality
Air Quality
Marine Habitats
Marine Mammals*
Sea Turtles*
Marine Birds
Marine Vegetation
Marine Invertebrates
Fish
Terrestrial Species and Habitats*
Cultural Resources
Socioeconomic Resources
Public Health and Safety
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-35
The resources listed above with an asterisk (*) were the primary resources of concern for the cumulative
impact analysis. Implementation of the identified past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions
would result in significant impacts to these resources; however, the contribution of the specific MITT
EIS/OEIS no-action and preferred alternatives to the cumulative effects would be low. For example, the
impacts of the MITT proposed action on marine mammal and sea turtles were deemed to be minor
relative to the mortality or injury due to by catch, commercial ship strikes, entanglement, and ocean
pollution. The MITT EIS/OEIS conclusions were not limited to Guam, but encompassed the entire MITT
study area. Some characteristics relevant to Guam are summarized below for the two resource areas
addressed in detail in the cumulative impact analysis that are relevant to this SEIS.
Sea Turtles: Five species of sea turtles are identified in the MITT study area and the proposed action
“may effect, is likely to adversely affect” all five species. No nesting of sea turtles was identified in the
study area. Hawksbill turtles are observed around Guam but there are no areas of concentrated
occurrence. Green turtles are known to forage around Guam. The MITT proposed action was described as
not decreasing the overall fitness of any given population.
Terrestrial Species and Habitats: Conclusions relevant to terrestrial biology include: a) AAFB proposed
training is likely to impact Mariana fruit bat, Mariana crow (extirpated), non-ESA listed forest birds, (e.g.,
Micronesian starling); b) Fena Reservoir training is likely to impact Mariana fruit bat, Mariana common
moorhen, Mariana swiftlet, and non-ESA listed forest birds; and c) proposed NMS (referred to as
NAVMAG in this SEIS) training is likely to impact Mariana swiftlet, Mariana common moorhen,
Mariana fruit bat, vegetation communities, and non-ESA listed forest birds (e.g., yellow bittern). There
would be no impact to critical habitat within the Ritidian Unit of the Guam NWR. The EIS/OEIS
concludes “although potential impacts on certain bird species from the proposed action could include
injury or mortality, impacts are not expected to decrease the overall fitness or result in long-term
population-level impacts of any given population”(NAVFAC Pacific 2013a).
7.5.3 Mariana Islands Range Complex Airspace
The MIRC Airspace Final Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment (“MIRC
EA/Overseas EA”) was published in June 2013 (NAVFAC Pacific 2013b). The document was prepared
to specifically address proposed modifications to airspace and sea space within the MIRC. The action
alternatives propose expansion of the danger zone and restricted area around Farallon de Medinilla, and
creating new airspace warning areas south of Guam and northeast of Saipan. The level of training and
testing activities that would occur within the airspace and sea space would remain the same as those
assessed in the MIRC EA/Overseas EA’s Finding of No Significant Impact, which was published June
15, 2013. The preferred alternative included: extend Restricted Area R-7201 and danger zone at Farallon
de Medinilla to 12 nautical miles (22 km) and designate it as R-7201A; and create new warning areas W-
11, W-12, and W-13 to replace ATCAAs 1, 2, and 3. Warning areas W-11 and W-12 are south of Guam
and ATCAA 6 that overlies Guam would not be affected by the proposed action.
The four resource areas assessed for direct and indirect impacts were: public health and safety;
transportation resources; regional economy; and recreation, and no significant impacts were identified.
Based on the MIRC EIS/OEIS cumulative impact analysis and direct impact analysis in the EA/Overseas
EA, no cumulative impacts were identified.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-36
7.5.4 Other DoD Actions Outside of the Study Area
There are DoD actions that are not included in the cumulative effect assessment because they are located
outside of the cumulative effect study area(s). NEPA documents were or are being prepared for the
following actions:
Divert Activities and Exercises EIS (Air Force)
CNMI Joint Military Training EIS/OEIS (U.S. Pacific Command)
7.6 STEP 6: ASSESS CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
The assessment of cumulative effects was conducted in two steps as follows:
Step 6A: Assess the potential long-term impacts among the recently completed, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects.
Step 6B: Conduct a cumulative impact analysis of recently completed, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects in conjunction with collective action alternatives.
7.6.1 Step 6A: Assess the Potential Long-term Impact of Recently Completed, Present, and
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects
Step 6A assesses the potential for each of the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable
future projects listed in Table 7.5-1 to have a long-term adverse or beneficial impact on each resource.
The resource impacts for each individual project were presumably considered at the time of their
approval. BMPs and permit conditions were presumably implemented to negate adverse impacts to
resources. The assessment was necessarily qualitative because of the limited amount of information
available for most of the projects. The potential impact of each project on each resource was estimated to
be either: adverse, beneficial, or negligible for each resource category. Where projects had both beneficial
and adverse aspects regarding impacts within a particular resource category, the predominant long-term
impacts were considered. When reviewing project-specific data, the following assumptions were made to
guide the assignment of adverse and beneficial impacts:
Geological and Soil Resources:
o Implementation of BMPs would minimize construction impacts and there would not be long-
term impacts to geological and soil resources due to construction projects.
o For DoD projects, BMPs and DoD regulations would be fully implemented.
o On DoD lands, sinkholes would be avoided and appropriate vegetative and/or physical
buffers placed to minimize the potential to adversely impact these resources.
o For non-DoD projects, erosion control plans would be developed and fully implemented, as
required by GovGuam.
o Bank stabilization, erosion mitigation projects, bridge and roadway repairs would have long
term beneficial impacts on soils.
o Some changes in land use may result in permanent long-term reductions in soil loss and
sedimentation of nearby surface waters and wetlands, yielding a beneficial impact; however,
project specific information often was not available to make this determination.
o Large-scale development projects would have an adverse impact on topography.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-37
Water Resources:
o Implementation of site-specific SWPPPs and associated stormwater BMPs would minimize
construction impacts and there would be no long-term impacts to water resources due to
construction projects.
o The USGS numerical groundwater model used to manage the NGLA and the GWRDG
(comprised of agencies and other stakeholders) serve to protect water resources.
o New building construction projects would result in an increase in impervious surfaces that
would increase stormwater runoff volume and pollutant loading potential.
o Implementation of LID measures and BMPs for compliance with local and federal
requirements would minimize potential impacts to downstream development, sensitive water
resources, and ecology.
o Unless project information indicated the presence of wetlands, it was assumed none were or
would be affected, directly or indirectly.
o Any improvements to wastewater or potable water infrastructure would have a beneficial
impact on water resources.
o Municipal landfills are heavily regulated and managed to protect water. The assumption is
new landfills would not impact water resources.
Air Quality:
o Induced traffic or use of fuel-powered stationary equipment associated with operation of a
project would have an adverse impact, especially if the project is located within the non-
attainment areas.
o Impacts due to construction would not be long-term impacts on the resource.
o Power generation based on fossil fuels would adversely impact air quality.
o Roadway improvement projects would not increase the long-term adverse impacts on air
quality, but new roadways, intersections and associated new traffic would impact air quality.
Noise:
o Projects such as airfield operations, aviation training, ground-based training, and/or traffic
have the potential to generate operational noise levels that may be incompatible with human
activity in the vicinity. The impact would be localized.
Airspace:
o Airport or airfield improvements reflect a planned increase in air traffic with potential
adverse impact on airspace.
o Tall facilities that are subject to FAA approval regarding air navigation safety would have an
adverse impact.
Land and Submerged Land Use:
o Projects on DoD land are consistent with base planning.
o All off-base projects were approved by GovGuam elected officials, commissions or agencies;
therefore, they are consistent with land use policies and objectives.
o Some land uses may be consistent with planning principles but may have siting challenges,
such as landfills, power stations, hospitals, and wind turbines. These projects would have an
adverse impact.
o Projects that may restrict public access to a community-valued resource would have an
adverse impact.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-38
Recreational Resources:
o Projects that create new recreational facilities, such as a new hotel with a golf course, would
have a beneficial impact because they expand leisure opportunities and would reduce
crowding at other facilities.
o Projects that are population inducing would increase the number of potential users of
recreational sites. This is not an adverse impact unless it would lead to overcrowding that
exceeds the site’s carrying capacity and enjoyment; however, that level of detail for the
projects listed is not available. All population inducing projects would adversely impact
recreation assets. Projects that would adversely impact recreational resources include, new
subdivisions or workforce housing, new hotels, and new or expanded military missions.
Terrestrial Biological Resources:
o Loss or conversion of native habitat would reduce the potential recovery and survival of
ESA-listed species creating an adverse impact.
o Restoration or enhancement of degraded habitat would increase the potential for native
species recovery and survival, particularly ESA- and Guam-listed species, and would have a
beneficial impact.
o Reductions and management activities (i.e., fencing, removal) of invasive species and/or feral
ungulates or their access to habitat would have a beneficial impact.
o Projects involving ground disturbance, such as construction of housing or new and widened
roadways, would contribute to an adverse cumulative effect. Projects that are renovations or
improvements to existing facilities within the existing facility footprint would have no impact
on terrestrial biological resources, such as resurfacing a roadway.
Marine Biological Resources:
o Stormwater and erosion control BMPs would be implemented for all inland projects. There
would be minimal direct impact of a cumulative project to the marine environment.
o LID measures, described in Section 4.1.2.2 of this SEIS, would be implemented in
accordance with the DoD UFC LID (UFC 3-210-10) and Section 438 of the EISA, and would
minimize potential impacts to downstream development, sensitive water resources, and
ecology.
o Coastal or nearshore development would have an adverse direct or indirect impact.
o Development on streams or rivers that flow to the ocean would have an adverse impact;
however, projects that appear to be corrective actions would have a beneficial impact on the
resource.
o Wastewater improvement projects would have a beneficial impact on the resource.
o Population growth-inducing projects would have an adverse impact through recreational
pressure and increase demand on wastewater infrastructure. Residential development projects
and resort projects would imply an increase in on-island permanent or transient population.
o Changes to submerged land use that would adversely impact species recovery would be an
adverse impact.
Cultural Resources:
o Projects that result in adverse effects to historic properties can lead to a cumulative loss of the
archaeological and built-historical record that could contribute to an adverse cumulative
impact
o Projects that damage culturally important natural resources can lead to an adverse cumulative
impact
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-39
o Projects that lead to reduced access to cultural sites can lead to an adverse cumulative impact.
Visual Resources:
o Large new construction that potentially impacts scenic views or vistas would have an adverse
impact.
o Loss of open space is not assumed to be an adverse impact, but large-scale projects would
alter the familiar landscape and are potentially adverse.
o Development on campuses or military bases would not have a visual impact because base
planners have reviewed the plans. The exception is projects that are identified as being on the
perimeter of a multi-building development.
o Landfills, wind turbines and other large infrastructure projects would have adverse visual
impacts.
o Restoration of open space or reforestation would have beneficial impacts.
Ground Transportation:
o A project that causes LOS to change from acceptable operating conditions to unacceptable
conditions (i.e., from LOS A, B, C, D, or E, to LOS F) would contribute to the adverse
impact.
o The following types of projects contribute to deteriorating LOS: new housing projects; public
and institutional facilities such power plants, health clinics, and schools; hotel and tourism-
related structures; and projects in existing congested areas.
o Road improvement projects would provide a beneficial cumulative effect on traffic LOS.
Marine Transportation:
o Projects that repair existing port facilities would have a beneficial impact because it is
assumed it would allow the facility to operate more effectively or efficiently thereby
increasing capacity.
o Projects that expand port capacity, directly or indirectly, would have a beneficial impact.
o More vessels do not equate to an adverse impact. If demand exceeds capacity to
accommodate vessels, market forces or government action would respond accordingly.
o Projects that facilitate an increase in on-island population would have an adverse impact on
marine transportation.
Utilities:
o New development is subject to GovGuam agency building permit review. Projects would not
be approved unless their utility requirements can be met.
o Recently completed and present projects would have already been approved or conditionally
approved. The utility capacity to support the projects was presumably deemed adequate.
o Recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable utility improvement projects would
be beneficial impacts.
o Reasonably foreseeable population inducing plans or programs would have an indirect
adverse impact on utility capacity The Utilities direct and indirect impact analysis on
infrastructure capacity addresses population growth and planned DoD projects through 2028;
therefore, there may be an overestimate of the potential for cumulative impact on utilities in
this chapter.
Socioeconomics and General Services:
o A project is considered to have an adverse cumulative effect if: it has the potential to add 2%
or more at any point in time to expected population or economic levels; it would cause
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-40
substantial increases in staffing, new or physically altered facilities, and/or
equipment/vehicles; or it affects public safety or order.
o Projects that preserve or enhance the social fabric would have a beneficial cumulative effect.
o The following types of projects would provide a beneficial cumulative effect: housing
projects; public and institutional facilities such power plants, health clinics, and schools; and
hotel and tourism-related structures.
Hazardous Materials and Waste:
o Hazardous material, hazardous waste and POL storage, use and transport are heavily
regulated; therefore, most recent, present of future development projects would not have a
significant adverse impact on hazardous material management.
o Projects that would introduce a new type of material requiring special handling or on Guam
would result in a potential adverse impact.
o New industrial uses or relocation of industrial uses would have an adverse impact.
o Remedial actions or repair of storage facilities would have a beneficial impact.
o Demolition projects may generate lead, asbestos or PCB waste resulting in an increase in the
quantity of these materials to be managed on island. This would be a potential adverse impact
for non-DoD projects. DoD has sufficient demolition waste capacity and regulated; therefore,
no impact would result from DoD demolition projects.
o Projects that characterize potentially contaminated sites would have a beneficial impact
because the site would be better managed with this information.
o Projects that would increase the volume of hazardous material or POL transported to/on
Guam or the amount of waste to be managed would have an adverse impact.
Public Health and Safety:
o Projects that would adversely affect regional traffic, noise, and water quality.
o Projects that would result in a perception that increasing the military presence on Guam
causes the island to be a more likely target for terrorist threat.
o Projects that would subject the public to increased or decreased risk of contracting a disease
or experiencing personal injury.
o Projects with the potential to increase or decrease the occurrence of notifiable diseases would
result resulting in an adverse impact to Guam health care services.
o The following types of projects provide a beneficial cumulative effect: road, power, sewer,
water infrastructure improvements, and hospitals and clinics.
Environmental Justice and the Protection of Children:
o Non-luxury housing projects and resorts would provide a beneficial cumulative effect for the
low-income population by increasing the total supply of housing and creating additional, non-
specialized jobs.
o Projects that improve public services and infrastructure would have a beneficial impact.
o Renovation/remodeling projects on military bases would not impact environmental justice
populations, but growth-inducing mission changes would.
The results of the assessment are presented in Table 7.6-1, which contains the same list of projects that
were presented in Table 7.5-1, but the resource column headings have replaced the project description
information headings. The total number of projects (i.e., recently completed, present, and reasonably
foreseeable) that could contribute to the cumulative effect is tallied and reported in the last rows of Table
7.6-1.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-41
The resources most likely to be adversely affected by projects are terrestrial biology and cultural. This is
largely due to that fact that most projects would result in ground disturbance and potential for removal or
disturbance of habitat and cultural resources.
The resource areas that benefit most from the projects listed are ground transportation, utilities,
socioeconomics and general services, public health and safety and environmental justice. This is because
many of the GovGuam projects are capital improvement projects designed to support the health and
safety of the community.
A nearly equal number of projects have adverse (marked as X in the Table) and beneficial impacts
(shown as B) were identified for geological and soil resources, and water resources. Air quality, noise,
airspace land use, recreational resources and marine transportation resource areas are impacted by fewer
projects than other resource areas, either beneficially or adversely.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-42
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
Guam - General Actions (G) (not mapped)
G-1 GovGuam Road Safety
Improvements RC B B X X B B B
G-2 COMNAV
Pacific MIRC EIS/OEIS RC X X X X X X X X
G-3 Air Force MIRC Airspace P X
G-4 GovGuam Traffic Signal System
Upgrade, Island-wide RF B B
G-5 GovGuam
Upgrade 14 Megavolt
Ampere Power
Transformer To 30
Megavolt Ampere And
Underground Line
RC B X X B B B B
G-6 GovGuam 60 MW Power Plant RF X X X X X X B B X B B
G-7 Rubio & David Health Clinic P X X X X X B B B
G-8
Carlos &
Rosemarie
Takano
Multi-Family Dwelling P X X X X X B B
G-9 GovGuam Pole Hardening P B B
G-10 GovGuam Territorial Prison RF X X X X X B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-43
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
G-11 GovGuam
Lateral Conversion Of
Power Lines To
Underground Lines
P B X X B B B B
G-12 GovGuam Wastewater System
Planning P B B B B
G-13 GovGuam Facilities Plan / Design
for WWTP P B B B B B
G-14 GovGuam Groundwater
Disinfection RC B B B B
G-15 GovGuam Water Booster Pump
Station P B X X B B B
G-16 GovGuam Implement Groundwater
Rule RC B B B B
G-17 GovGuam Deep Well Rehabilitation RC B X X B B B
G-18 GovGuam Water Wells P B X X B B B
G-19 GovGuam
Wastewater Collection
System
Replacement/Rehabilitati
on Program
P B X B X B B B
G-20 GovGuam LS Priority 1 Upgrades P B B B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-44
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
G-21 GovGuam WWTP Priority 1
Upgrades P B B B B B
G-22 GovGuam Water Distribution Pipe
Replacement P B B B B B
G-23 NAVFAC
Pacific MITT P X X X X X X
Guam - North (N)
N-1 GovGuam Route 29 Reconstruction RF X X X X B B B
N-2 Base Corp. Paradise Estates, Yigo RC X X X X X X B B
N-3 GovGuam Route 15 Embankment
Restoration RC X X X X B B B
N-4 Air Force NWF Perimeter
Fence/Road RC X X B
N-5 Air Force PRTC Combat Support
Vehicle Facility RC X X X X
N-6 Air Force PRTC Commando
Warrior Ops Facility RC X X X
N-7 Air Force Strike FOL Electrical
Infrastructure RC X X B
N-8 GovGuam Skatepark Barrier/Iglesia
Circle Traffic Signal RC B B
N-9 DON Postal Service Center RC X X X B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-45
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
N-10
Pacific
International
Guam Inc.
Workforce Housing RC X X X X X X X X X X B X
N-11 Air Force South Ramp Utilities
Phase 2 RC B X X B
N-12 Air Force PRTC Commando
Warrior Barracks RC X X X X X
N-13 Air Force
PRTC Commando
Communication Ops
Facility
RC X X X
N-14 Air Force Strike Operations Group
Facility RC X X X
N-15 DON
Release a Guam Land
Use Plan 77 parcel near
South Finegayan
RC B B B
N-16 Air Force
Milky Way Site for
Multiple Threat Emitter
System
RC X X X
N-17 GovGuam North Guam
Signalization RC B B B
N-18 Air Force Conventional Munitions
Maintenance Facility RC X X X X
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-46
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
N-19 Air Force Clear Water Rinse
Facility RC B X X B
N-20 Air Force
PRTC Combat
Communication Support
Facility
RC X X X
N-21 Air Force
PRTC Combat
Communication
Transmission System
Facility
RC X X X B
N-22 Air Force PRTC RH Cantonment
Operations Facility RC X X X
N-23 Air Force Air Freight Terminal
Complex RC X X X X B
N-24 Air Force Ungulate Fencing RC B B B X B
N-25 Air Force
Beddown of Training and
Support Initiatives at
NWF
P X X X X X X X B X X X
N-26 Air Force Pacific Airpower
Resiliency, AAFB P X X X X X X X X X X X X
N-27 Air Force
AT/FP Perimeter Fence
and Road Construction
and Main Gate
Relocation at AAFB
RC X X X B X
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-47
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
N-28 Younex
Enterprises LLC
Ukudu Workforce
Village RC X X X X X X X X X B X B X
N-29 Sung Kim Small Commercial
Development P X X X X X B
N-30 Air Force South Ramp U&SI II P B X X B
N-31 GovGuam
Lada Estates - Low
Income Affordable
Housing
RC X X X X X X X X B B
N-32 GovGuam Northern District WWTP
Phases 1-3 P B X B X B B B
N-33 Air Force PRTC Combat Command
Facility P X X X
N-34 Air Force /
DON
Dispersed Maintenance
Spares & SE Storage
Facility
RF X X
N-35 Golden Gate
Services LLC Single Family Homes P X X X X X X B B
N-36 TRI Inc. Paradise Meadows P X X X X X X X B B
N-37 GDPW Jinapsan Road P X X B B X X B B
N-38
Guam
Healthcare
Development
Guam Regional Medical
City P X X X X X X X B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-48
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
N-39 Army Terminal High Altitude
Area Defense P X X X X X B X X
N-40 Air Force Munitions Storage Igloos
AAFB Guam P X X X B X
N-41 Vantage Group Villa Pacita Estates P X X X X X X X B B
N-42 GovGuam
Relocation of Dededo
Flea Market and
Construction of Farmer’s
Co-op
P X X X X X B
N-43 Hawaiian Rock
Products
Infrastructure
Construction P X X B B B
N-44 DON North Ramp Parking
Apron P X X X X B
N-45 Air Force Personnel Protection -
Hardened Command Post P X
N-46 Air Force
Create Broad Area
Maritime Surveillance
Capability
P B
N-47 Air Force POL System Hardened
Structures P X X B B
N-48 Air Force Tactical Missile
Maintenance Facility P X X X X
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-49
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
N-49 Air Force PRTC RH Airfield
Operations P X X X X
N-50 Air Force PRTC SF Fire Rescue
Emergency Management P B B
N-51 Air Force
Fuel System
Maintenance. Hangar,
Inc.2
P X X X
N-52 Air Force General Purpose Hangar P X X
N-53 Air Force AGE Covered Facility P X X X
N-54 Air Force PRTC RH Logistics
Facility P X X X
N-55 Air Force
PRTC Combat
Communication
Infrastructure Facility
P X X X
Guam - Central (C)
C-1 GDPW Route 15 Resurfacing RC X X B B B
C-2
Access
Development
Company
Talo Verde Estates RC X X X X X X X B B
C-3 Office of
Veterans Affairs Veterans Clinic RC X X X X X B X B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-50
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
C-4 Tanota Partners
(Ysrael family)
Hotel Construction
Bayview 5 Luxury
Project, Tumon Bay
RC X X X X X X X X X X B
C-5 GovGuam Route 1 U-Turn
Reconstruction RC B B B
C-6 GovGuam Route 25 (Alageta Road) RC B B X X B B B
C-7 DLA Replace Gas Cylinder
Storage Facility RC X X B
C-8 DON Naval Hospital
Replacement RC X X X X X X X B B B
C-9 GUANG NG Readiness Center RC X X X B B
C-10 GUANG DRBS Storage Facility RC X X X
C-11 GUANG Combined Support
Maintenance Facility RC X X X X
C-12 Tagada Guam
LLC Amusement Park-Tumon RC X X X B X X X B B
C-13 GovGuam Student Center RC X B X X B B
C-14 GovGuam Route 6A Murray Road RC X X X X B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-51
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
C-15 GovGuam
Route 16 Guam Main
Facility Post Office /
Army National Guard
Intersection
RC X X X B B B
C-16 GovGuam Route 8/10/16 Tri-
Intersection RC X X X B B B
C-17 GovGuam DNA Forensic Lab RC X X X B B
C-18 GovGuam Foundation Building RC X X X B
C-19 GovGuam
Gregorio D. Perez Dock
A & B Steel Pile
Extension & Water
Blasting
RC X X B B
C-20 GovGuam Fiber Optic Installation RC X X B B
C-21
Access
Development
Company
Emerald Ocean View
Park P X X X X X X X X X X B B
C-22 GovGuam
Guam Memorial Hospital
Emergency Room
Expansion
P X X B B B
C-23 GovGuam
Ordot Dump Closure
Construction and Dero
Road Sewer
Improvements
P B B B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-52
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
C-24 GovGuam Guam Museum P B B X B X B
C-25 Laguna at Pago
Bay Resort
Upscale Residential
Development P X X X X X X X B B
C-26 GHURA Sagan Bonita RC X X X X X X X B B
C-27 Orion
Construction Island Surgical Center P X X X X X X B B B
C-28 GHURA Summer Green
Residences P X X X X X X X B B
C-29 GovGuam
Route 1-8 Intersection
Improvements & Agana
Bridges Replacement
P B B X X B B B
C-30 GovGuam Rehabilitation of Asan
Springs P B X X B B B
C-31 GovGuam Route 26/25 Intersection
Improvements RF B B X X B B B
C-32 UoG Wind Turbine P B X X X X X B B B
C-33 UoG Field House Renovation RC X X B B
C-34
Access
Development
Company
Hemlani Apartments P X X X X X X X B B
C-35 GovGuam Guam Airport Project RF X X X X X B X B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-53
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
C-36 GovGuam
Route 26 Reconstruction
& Widening, Route 1 to
Route 25
RF B B X X B B B
C-37 GovGuam
Route 10A,
Rehabilitation &
Widening, Sunset Blvd.
to Route 16
RF B B X X B B B
C-38 GovGuam Runway Rehabilitation
and Expansion P X X X X B B
C-39 GovGuam
Gregorio D. Perez
Marina Renovation &
Site Improvement Project
P B X X X B B
C-40 GovGuam Gregorio D. Perez
Marina Dock C Repairs P B X X B B
C-41 GovGuam
Facilities Plan for
Hagåtña STP
Improvements & Effluent
Wastewater Pump
Station
P B B B B B
C-42 GovGuam
Hagåtña STP
Improvements and
Effluent Wastewater
Pump Station
P B X B X B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-54
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
C-43 GovGuam Agana STP Interim
Measures P B X B X B B B
C-44 DLA Upgrade Fuel Pipeline P X X B B B
C-45 GUANG Assembly Hall P X X B
C-46 GovGuam
Route 8/Canada Toto
Loop Road Intersection
Improvements
P B B X X B B B
C-47
Guam
Highlands
Investment
Group
Sigua Highlands / near
Leopalace RF X X X X X X X X B B
C-48 GovGuam Tiyan Parkway, Phase 1 P B B X X B B B
C-49 GovGuam
Route 14B (Ypao Road)
Reconstruction &
Widening, Route 1 to
Route 14
P B B X X B B B
C-50 GovGuam Route 10A, Route 1
GIA/Tiyan Intersection RF B B X X B B B
C-51 GovGuam Route 7A Rehabilitation RC B B X X B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-55
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
C-52 GovGuam Route 4, McDonalds to
Route 10 RC B B X X B B B
C-53 GovGuam Repair Finegayan Road-
Harmon Cutoff RF B B X X B B B
Guam - Central Apra Harbor (AH)
AH-1 CNM Orote Magazines (P-425) P X X X X B X
AH-2 GovGuam Reforestation of Masso
Reservoir P B B B B B X B B
AH-3 GovGuam Masso River Bridge
Embankment RC B B X B X B B B
AH-4 CNM Kilo Wharf Extension
(P-502) RC X B X X
AH-5 DON CSS-15 HQ Facility RC X X X
AH-6 DON Replace Family Housing
Units RC X X
AH-7 DON NEX Minimart and Gas
Station RC X X X
AH-8 GovGuam Route 11 Improvements
and Shore Protection P B B X B X B B B
AH-9 GovGuam Asan and Aguada Bridge
Rehabilitation RF B B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-56
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
AH-10 CNM X-Ray Wharf
Improvements (P-518) RF X X B X X
AH-11 GovGuam
Modernization Program:
Port Reconfiguration,
Maintenance and Repair
P X X X X X B B B B B
AH-12 GovGuam
Comprehensive Port-
wide Closed Caption
Television System
P X X B
AH-13 GovGuam Marine & Port Security
Operations Center P X X X X B B B
AH-14 GovGuam Emergency Backup
Generators P X B B B
AH-15 GovGuam Load Center 4 Building
Roof Repair RC X B
AH-16 GovGuam Construction of Golf Pier
Pipeline Replacement RC X B B X B
AH-17 GovGuam
Redesign of existing
outdoor substation to
indoor type.
RC X X B B B
AH-18 GovGuam
Substation Transformer
Upgrade with concrete
fence
RC X X B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-57
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
AH-19 DON Wholehouse
Revitalization I P
AH-20 DON Wholehouse
Revitalization II P
AH-21 DON Romeo Wharf
Improvements P X B
AH-22 DON Emergent Repair Facility
Expansion (P-566) P X X X B
AH-23 DON Dehumidify Supply
Storage Facility P X X X
Guam - South (S)
S-1 GovGuam Route 2 - Culverts and
Slide Repair RC B B X B X B B B
S-2 GovGuam Talofofo / Togcha Bridge
Rehabilitation RC B B X B X B B B
S-3 GovGuam Layon Landfill, Dandan RC B B X X X X X X B B X B B
S-4 GovGuam 15 MW Solar / Wind
Turbine P B X X X X X B B B
S-5 GovGuam
Santa Rita Springs
Booster Pump
Rehabilitation, Phase II
P B B B B B
S-6 GovGuam Ugum Water Treatment
Plant Refurbishment RC B B B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-58
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
S-7 GovGuam
Brigade II (Ugum Lift)
Booster Pump Station
Upgrade
P B B B B B
S-8 GovGuam
Ugum Water Treatment
Plant Intake
Modifications
P B B B B B
S-9 GovGuam
Ugum Water Treatment
Plant Reservoir
Replacement
P B X B X B B B
S-10 GovGuam Old Agat Wastewater
Collection (Phase II) P B B B B B
S-11 GovGuam Umatac-Merizo STP
Improvements RC B B B B B
S-12 GovGuam Old Agat Collection
Continuation (Phase III) P B B B B B
S-13 GovGuam
Facilities Plan / Design /
Interim for Baza Gardens
STP Improvements
RC B B B B B
S-14 GovGuam Baza Gardens STP
Replacement P B B B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-59
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
S-15 GovGuam Agat / Santa Rita STP
Replacement P B B B B B
S-16 GovGuam Agat Marina Dock A
Repair & Renovation P B B X B X B
S-17 GovGuam
Facilities Plan / Design /
Interim for the Umatac-
Merizo STP
RC B B B B B
S-18 GovGuam Umatac-Merizo STP
Replacement RF B B B B B
S-19 GovGuam Agfayan Bridge
Replacement P B B X X B B B
S-20 GovGuam Route 4, Togcha River to
Ipan Beach Park P B B X X B B B
S-21 GovGuam
Route 17, Route 5 to
Chalan Tun Ramon Baza,
Phase 2A
P B B X X B B B
S-22 GovGuam
Inarajan North Leg (As-
Misa) Bridge
Rehabilitation
P B B X X B B B
S-23 GovGuam Bile & Pigua Bridges
Replacement P B B X X B B B
S-24 GovGuam Ajayan Bridge
Replacement P B B X X B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-60
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
S-25 GovGuam Route 4, Merizo Bridge
Approach Restoration P B B X X B B B
S-26 GovGuam Aplacho Bridge
Replacement P B B X X B B B
S-27 GovGuam
Route 17 Rehabilitation
& Widening, Route 5 to
Route 4A, Phase 2B
RF B B X X B B B
S-28 GovGuam
Route 4 Curve Widening,
Ylig Bridge to Dandan
Road
RF B B X X B B B
S-29 GovGuam
Route 5 Rehabilitation &
Widening, Route 2A to
Route 12
RF B B X X B B B
S-30 GovGuam
Route 17 Rehabilitation
and Widening, Route 4 to
Chalan Tun Ramon Baza
RC B B X X B B B
S-31 GovGuam Route 4, Ylig Bridge to
Pago Bay P B B X X B B B
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
Legend: RC = recently completed; P = present; RF = reasonably foreseeable; STP = Sewage Treatment Plant; X = adverse; B = beneficial.
7-61
Table 7.6-1. Summary of Potential Long-Term Impacts of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects on Resource Areas
ID # Lead Agency or
Proponent Project Name
Rec
entl
y C
om
ple
ted
(R
C),
Pre
sen
t (P
),
or
Rea
son
ab
ly F
ore
seea
ble
(R
F)
Potential Long-Term Impacts to Resources
Geo
log
ica
l a
nd
So
il R
eso
urc
es
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd
an
d S
ub
mer
ged
La
nd
Use
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
eso
urc
es
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Ma
rin
e T
ran
sport
ati
on
Uti
liti
es
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l
Ser
vice
s
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls a
nd W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice a
nd
th
e
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ildre
n
S-32 GovGuam
Route 17 Drainage
Culverts and
Rehabilitation
RC B B X X B B B
S-33 GovGuam Taleyfak Bridge
Restoration RC B B
S-34 GovGuam Tanaga Bridge
Permanent Restoration RC B B
S-35 DON Cetti Bay Reforestation P B B B
Number of recently completed projects potentially
contributing to cumulative effects (X/B) 76
11/
10
33/
19 3/1 3/0 2/0 4/2 7/2 58/1 7/9 61/0 10/1 9/20 2/3 0/15
0/
17 9/3
3/
36 3/43
Number of present projects potentially contributing
to cumulative effects (X/B) 95 9/16
56/
40 5/3 4/0 8/0 5/4 11/5 67/1 7/23 67/1 17/2
15/
17 5/6 0/29 0/19 5/6
5/
52 3/63
Number of reasonably foreseeable projects
potentially contributing to cumulative effects (X/B) 18 2/8 5/10 1/0 1/0 1/0 2/0 1/0 15/0 1/1 14/0 3/0 1/11 0/1 1/2 0/4 2/0 2/14 0/15
Total number of projects contributing to cumulative
effects (X/B) 188
22/
34
94/
69 9/4 8/0 11/0 11/6 19/7 140/2
15/
33
142/
1 30/3
25/
48 7/10 1/46
0/
40 16/9 10/102
6/
121
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-62
7.6.2 Step 6B: Cumulative Impact Analysis of Recently Completed, Present, and Reasonably
Foreseeable Future Projects in Conjunction with Collective Action Alternatives
Based on Table 7.6-1, every resource area was or would potentially be impacted by the recently
completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Table 7.6-2 summarizes the SEIS
collective action alternatives (Cantonment/Family Housing + LFTRC + Additive Actions + 2010 ROD-
Related Action) impacts from Table 7.4-1. The impacts are simplified to the highest level of significance
identified for any criteria under each resource. For example, significant impacts (SI) were identified for
geological and soil resources due to the permanent alteration of topography for all alternatives.
The second to the last row of Table 7.6-2 indicates whether the collective action alternatives in
combination with the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects could affect
the health of the resource or trend associated with the resource. In other words, is there a potential for a
cumulative effect? For all resources, if the finding is “yes” there is potential for cumulative effect.
The final row of Table 7.6-2 indicates the magnitude of the cumulative effect (e.g., strong, moderate or
low). The magnitude is a function of the current health of the resource, the potential for the resource to
sustain its current health if stressed, the geographic extent of the impact, the duration of the impact and a
demonstration of cause and effect. The magnitude of the cumulative effect on a specific resource is not
necessarily the sum of the effects of all actions, because there may be no cause and effect relationship.
For example, a noise level that exceeds the established thresholds for significance in one geographic area
would not cause an additive noise impact to a similar noise impact in another geographic area. In contrast,
the recovery of a threatened and endangered species could be affected by incremental permanent losses in
total available suitable habitat.
The assessment is based on long-term impacts of the proposed action (or collective action) on a resource.
The assessment of magnitude is complicated by the consideration of both adverse and beneficial impacts.
This is especially true for complex resources with multiple criteria like socioeconomics and
environmental justice. The following are general descriptions of strong, moderate and low magnitudes,
but the rationale varies with each resource:
A “Strong” magnitude is applicable to resources where the present and reasonably foreseeable
actions plus the collective action alternatives are likely to have an additive significant adverse
impact on a resource. These are resources that warrant the establishment of thresholds for their
protection or have an island-wide geographic extent. “Strong” is applicable when additive
impacts would be impossible to reverse over time, such as the loss of a cultural site.
A “Moderate” magnitude is assigned when the significant adverse impacts due to the present and
reasonably foreseeable actions plus the collective action alternatives are not Guam-wide but could
adversely impact a region or community. There may be regulatory thresholds that are exceeded,
but they are specific to a location. The long-term impacts could be reversed or mitigated with
appropriate resources (i.e., finances, time, expertise). An example is utilities infrastructure where
the additive electrical demand could exceed the supply, but infrastructure upgrades would reverse
the impact and specific projects have been programmed to eliminate the adverse impact.
A “Low” magnitude of additive impact is assigned when there is no threshold established for the
health of the resource, the threshold is very high or the resource is healthy and resilient to
stressors. There is no nexus between the impacts of the proposed action and the impacts of the
present and reasonably foreseeable actions. For example, the proposed action may limit public
access to GovGuam land and result in a significant direct impact, but present and reasonably
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-63
foreseeable projects may not restrict access, so the additive impact among the actions would be
low. Generally, the impacts are localized and readily reversible when the project is no longer
operational. Impacts on ambient air quality would be considered low, except within a non-
attainment area or if the project results in a new non-attainment area.
Table 7.6-2 summarizes the magnitude for each resource and the rationale is presented in the subsequent
resource sections under Potential Cumulative Effects.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-64
Table 7.6-2. Potential for Cumulative Effects
SEIS
Collective
Action
Alternative
Highest Level of Significance Identified for Each Resource (Summarized from Table 7.4-1)
Geo
log
y a
nd S
oil
Res
ou
rces
Wa
ter
Res
ou
rces
Air
Qu
ali
ty
No
ise
Air
spa
ce
La
nd a
nd
Su
bm
erg
ed
La
nd U
se
Rec
rea
tio
na
l R
esou
rces
Ter
rest
ria
l B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Ma
rin
e B
iolo
gic
al
Res
ou
rces
Cu
ltu
ral
Res
ou
rces
Vis
ua
l R
eso
urc
es
Gro
un
d T
ran
spo
rta
tion
Ma
rin
e T
ran
spo
rta
tio
n
Uti
liti
es (
Po
table
Wate
r,
Wa
stew
ate
r)
So
cio
eco
no
mic
s a
nd
Gen
era
l S
ervi
ces
(Po
pu
lati
on
Ch
an
ge)
Ha
zard
ou
s M
ate
ria
ls
an
d W
ast
e
Pu
bli
c H
ealt
h &
Sa
fety
(Op
era
tio
na
l S
afe
ty)
En
viro
nm
enta
l J
ust
ice
an
d t
he
Pro
tect
ion
of
Ch
ild
ren
A-1 SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
A-2, 3, 4 SI
2=LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M
SI 3=LSI
LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI
2=LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
A-5 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI-M LSI SI LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
B-1 SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
B-2, 3, 4 SI
2=LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M
SI 3=LSI
LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI
2=LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
B-5 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI-M LSI SI LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
C-1 SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI SI-M
C-2, 3, 4 SI
2=LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M
SI 3=LSI
LSI SI-M LSI SI-M SI
2=LSI SI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI SI-M
C-5 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI-M LSI SI LSI SI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI SI-M
D-1 SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
D-2, 3, 4 SI
2=LSI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M
SI 3=LSI
SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI
2=LSI SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
D-5 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI- LSI SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
E-1 SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI SI SI-M LSI SI-M SI-M SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
E-2, 3, 4 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI
3=LSI LSI SI-M LSI SI-M
SI 2=LSI
SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
E-5 SI SI-M LSI LSI SI-M SI LSI SI-M LSI SI- LSI SI LSI SI-M SI LSI LSI SI-M
Does the collective action alternative (SEIS + Additive Actions + 2010 ROD-Related Action) in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects impact the
health of the resource? i.e., is there a potential cumulative effect? Yes [Y] / No [N]
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
What is the magnitude of the additive impact of the collective action in conjunction with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects? S - strong; M - moderate; L - low
L S L L L L M S L S L S L M M L M S
Legend: NI = No impact; LSI = Less than significant impact; SI = Significant impact; SI-M = Significant and mitigable to less than significant. Cantonment/family housing alternatives: A= Finegayan, B= Finegayan
and South Finegayan, C = AAFB, D = Barrigada. LFTRC alternatives: 1 = Route 15; 2, 3, and 4 = NAVMAG alternatives; 5 = NWF; Blue shading = Preferred Alternative; red font = SI or SI-M.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-65
7.7 STEPS 7 AND 8: REPORT RESULTS AND IDENTIFY MITIGATION
The primary purpose of this section is to report the results of the various steps of the cumulative effect
analysis. The 2010 Final EIS (Volume 7, Chapter 4: Cumulative Effects, Section 4.3.5: Cumulative Effect
Assessment, pages 4-33 to 4-87) summarizes the results by resource with the following subsections:
Current Health and Historical Context (Step 3 results)
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Preferred Alternative that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect (Step 4 results)
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect the Resource (Step 5 results)
Potential Cumulative Effects (Step 6)
Assess the Need for Mitigation (Step 8)
A similar format is used in this SEIS. However, the current health and historical context (Step 3) is
updated with new information and instead of the preferred alternative all collective action alternatives are
assessed.
Mitigation for DoD Projects
The DoD strives to avoid and minimize impacts during the initial alternatives evaluation and design phase
of project development. BMPs, SOPs, and typical permit conditions are also implemented to mitigate
impacts. BMPs are a type of mitigation measure but because they are SOPs for the DoD and not project-
specific they are considered to be part of the proposed action. Potential project-specific mitigation
measures are proposed in this SEIS (Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1) and include those resulting from ESA section
7 consultation and cultural resources review. Further, the 2011 PA provides a process for the mitigation of
adverse effects to historic properties and impacts to other cultural resources.
The SEIS ROD would identify the mitigation measures that DoD commits to implementing. Mitigation
measures can be classified as one of the following two types:
1. Within DoD control - DoD has statutory authority to implement actions taking place on lands
under its control. DoD has limited statutory authority to implement natural and cultural resources
mitigation measures on non-federal land.
2. Outside of DoD control - Except for the limited authority applicable to natural and cultural
resources identified above, DoD does not have statutory authority to undertake mitigation
measures on non-federal land.
Both types of mitigation serve to avoid, minimize, replace, or compensate for impacts if implemented by
DoD or non-DoD agencies.
7.7.1 Geological and Soil Resources
Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.1, 4.1.1.1, 4.2.1, 5.5.1 of this SEIS
and in detail in the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Chapter 3: Geological and Soil Resources, Section 3.1:
Affected Environment, pages 3‐1 to 3‐30), Guam’s geological and soil resources have been most affected
by human populations in the past century. Of particular note, are impacts associated with WWII, during
which time much of Guam’s foliage was lost to bombings as the U.S. regained control of the island from
Japan in 1944.
Subsequent to WWII, soil loss due to erosion is largely attributed to human-induced wildfires;
construction and development with inadequate erosion control systems; recreation with off-road vehicles;
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-66
and introduced mammals. The occurrence of wildfires has increased over time. Between 1979 and 2001,
over 99,000 acres (40,000 ha) of vegetation burned and Guam lost nearly a quarter of its total tree cover.
The burn areas are often invaded by non-native grasses or become barren. The replacement of forest with
savanna vegetation contributes to elevated soil loss, as erosion in savanna areas may be 100 times higher
than in scrub forest. Popular use of off-road vehicles for recreation is also believed to be a major
contributor to the development and persistence of erosion-prone cover types.
Construction often requires grading and filling, which may reduce soil quality that, in turn, may affect
plant growth and runoff. Topography can be permanently altered in areas of steep slope. Vegetation
removal can lead to loss of soils as windborne dust if not properly managed and/or controlled.
Compaction also typically occurs at construction sites and can also increase erosion potential. Impervious
surfaces (i.e., rooftops, sidewalks, roads, and parking lots) can accelerate water flows and lead to further
soil loss and erosion if appropriate stormwater controls are not implemented. These are addressed in the
water resource sections. Sinkholes are sensitive to both sediment input from grading activities and
changes in hydrology.
Most recently, as in the case of the recently completed and present projects, the more stringent
construction permit conditions and BMPs minimize the impact on the geological and soil resources. There
is greater awareness of erosion control principles. Although there has been substantial degradation of the
resource over time that may not be recoverable; the trend in the decline resource health has slowed. There
may be occasional permit violations, but there are also revegetation and ungulate control programs that
improve resource resiliency.
There are 21 recently completed projects identified with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect
to geological and soil resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1), 10 beneficially and 11 adversely. Projects
that could contribute to a beneficial impact include GovGuam Route 2 Culverts and Slide Repair (S-1)
and Talofofo/Togcha Bridge Rehabilitation (S-2) because the projects may stabilize soils. In contrast,
Amusement Park-Tumon (C-12) is a large project that will have a long term adverse impact on
topography.
There are 25 present projects identified with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to
geological and soil resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1), 16 of which have a beneficial impact on this
resource. Two beneficial projects are Agfayan Bridge Replacement (S-19) and Reforestation of Masso
Reservoir (AH-2). Emerald Ocean View Park (C-21) would have long-term impact adverse impact on
topography.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2 a significant impact on this resource would result under
each of the collective action alternatives, except A-2, B-2, C-2, D-2, and E-2 that would have a less than
significant impact. This significant impact is due to the long-term adverse topographic impacts associated
with the grading required to develop the LFTRCs and the 2010 ROD-Related Actions. Less than
significant impacts were identified for impacts on soils, sinkholes and geologic hazards for each of the
collective action alternatives with the implementation of BMPs.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Geological and Soil Resources. There are two reasonably
foreseeable projects identified with the potential to adversely impact topography including Sigua
Highlands (C-47). Eight potentially beneficial projects include roadway improvement projects because
they could reduce erosion associated with degraded pavement, such as Asan and Aguada Bridge
Rehabilitation (AH-9).
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-67
Potential Cumulative Effects. Anticipated long-term impacts associated with collective action operations
would not have an adverse cumulative effect when combined with the recently completed, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions on Guam identified above. Moreover, several activities and projects would
have a beneficial impact on geology and soil resources both now and in the future. Uncontrolled human
uses and natural events (e.g., typhoons, tropical storms, earthquakes, tsunamis) would continue to have an
adverse impact on geological and soil resources. The significant impact identified for the collective action
alternatives was related to topography. There are no thresholds established for the acceptable level for
changes in topography. The magnitude of additive impact resulting from the collective action alternatives
and recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions is considered to be low and would
not appreciably impact the resiliency of geological resources on Guam over time (see Table 7.6-2).
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects
are proposed.
7.7.2 Water Resources
Current Health and Historical Context. The historical context of surface water, groundwater, nearshore
water, and wetlands on Guam is summarized in Sections 3.2, 4.2.2, 5.5.2, and in the 2010 Final EIS
(Volume 7, Chapter 4: Cumulative Effects, Section 4.3.5.1: Guam Cumulative Effects Assessment, page
4-33). Soil erosion and stormwater runoff are largely responsible for degradation of surface and nearshore
waters. As described above under Geological and Soil Resources, the introductions and increases of
domesticated animals (water buffalo, pigs, goats, and deer) and farm crops likely denuded soils and
contributed to erosion from vegetation loss and trampling. During WWII, much of Guam’s foliage was
lost to bombings. When the U.S. retook control of the island from Japan in 1944, tangantangan (native to
the Americas) was planted to control erosion.
As described under Section 7.7.1, Geological and Soil Resources, wildfires and off-road vehicles
contribute to soil erosion. The result is increased sedimentation/siltation of surface water. Eroded silt from
these burn areas also destroys marine life in reefs around the island. In addition the loading of sediments
in freshwater streams increases the turbidity in sources of drinking water, which can reduce the
performance of treatment processes such as chlorine disinfection.
Once construction is complete, the addition of impervious surfaces (i.e., rooftops, sidewalks, roads, and
parking lots) can accelerate water flows and lead to further soil loss and erosion if appropriate stormwater
controls are not implemented. Past construction and development on Guam has resulted in the addition of
approximately 12,280 acres (4,970 ha) of developed impervious surface area, representing approximately
1% of the island’s total land area; there remains sufficient pervious surfaces for groundwater recharge.
Threats to surface water would continue to be monitored by federal and Guam agencies, and appropriate
regulatory action would continue to occur to maximize surface water quality and availability. In time,
with the implementation of stormwater BMPs during construction and operation, surface water resource
impacts due to new projects would slow the decline of water quality. Monitoring and enforcement of
permit conditions may be limited due to lack of funding but there is an increase in public awareness of the
effects of erosion on water quality that could lead to greater reporting of permit violations. This would not
correct the historical adverse impacts but could result in less of an impact due to future projects.
The nearshore water quality concerns for the marine waters of Guam include copper, aluminum, nickel,
enterococci bacteria, total residual chlorine, biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids. The
non-point sources of these water quality concerns are difficult to address, but the planned improvements
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-68
to wastewater infrastructure, required upgrades of WWTPs treatment systems (as required by current
NPDES permits), and the implementation of BMPs to address stormwater are expected to slow down the
degradation of nearshore water quality due to man-made activities.
Threats to groundwater availability and quality (e.g., saltwater intrusion, leaky septic systems, and sewage
spills) would continue to exist. A recently developed numerical groundwater model and an updated and
expanded network of wells to monitor groundwater level and water quality would be used by the
GWRDG to manage the NGLA. The improved management and monitoring of the NGLA and fewer
septic systems in use (as anticipated in the future) are expected to ensure that a dependable and safe
supply of groundwater would be maintained for Guam. In time, groundwater quality would be expected to
slowly improve on Guam as point and non-point sources of pollution are identified, and pollution loading
to surface waters is reduced, all within the framework of improved management and monitoring of the
NGLA. In addition, the mission of the GWRDG (including DoD, GWA, GEPA, Consolidated
Commission on Utilities, GDPW, and WERI) is to protect Guam’s water supply for quantity, quality,
reliability, sustainability, and availability for all of Guam - present and future.
Wetlands are impacted by soil erosion and physical removal and wetlands have been reduced or
compromised overtime. These threats to wetland areas are monitored by federal and Guam agencies.
Appropriate regulatory action would continue to occur to protect wetland areas. While the federal
regulation focuses on a principle of no overall net loss to wetlands, there has been a historical loss of
wetlands prior to regulatory control that would not be remedied. The non-point sources of pollution on
Guam are not fully characterized and would continue to adversely impact wetlands. The implementation
of BMPs described above for erosion control would reduce the rate at which wetlands degrade. In the
future, it is anticipated that surface water, groundwater, nearshore and wetland quality would continue to
decline, but the regulatory controls are expected to slow the rate of decline.
Fifty-two recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to water
resources on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Nineteen of the projects would have a beneficial
impact on water resources such as: Masso River Bridge Embankment (AH-3) and Togcha Bridge
Rehabilitation (S-2), because they would potentially reduce erosion in surface waters. The new Dandan
Landfill project (S-3) is heavily regulated and routinely monitored and stabilizes the badlands at the site.
The adverse impacts associated with the projects are due to the increase in impervious surface and
potential to impact stormwater. These varied projects include the Amusement Park (C-12) and residential
development such as Hemlani Apartments (C-34). There is insufficient information on the projects to
describe potential impacts to wetlands.
Ninety-six present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect on water resources on
Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Forty projects are potentially beneficial to water resources,
because they are utility improvements or roadway improvements or rehabilitation projects that would
likely minimize long-term sedimentation of surface water. These projects include: Deep Well
Rehabilitation (G-17), Rehabilitation of Asan Springs (C-30), Reforestation of Masso Reservoir (AH-2),
Hagåtña Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) Improvements (C-42), Northern District WWTP Phases 1-3 (N-
32) and WWTP Priority 1 Upgrades (G-21). The new construction projects that would increase the
amount of impervious surface could have an adverse impact, the largest of which include: Emerald Ocean
View Park (C-21), and Sigua Highlands / near Leopalace (C-47). There is insufficient information on the
projects to describe potential impacts to wetlands.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-69
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2 less than significant impacts to surface waters are
anticipated for the NAVMAG LFTRC alternatives and no impact was identified for the others.
Short-term, localized significant-mitigable impacts to the affected basin within the NGLA but less than
significant impacts to the overall NGLA were identified for all collective action alternatives due to long-
term increase in annual groundwater production of 1.7 MGd (6.4 MLd) from the NGLA. This impact is
the same for all collective action alternatives. This assessment assumes BMPs are effective at controlling
soil erosion, pollutants of concern, and stormwater flow. The collective action alternatives would increase
the impervious surface on Guam by approximately 176 acres (71 ha) for the cantonment/housing and
LFTRC alone, representing an increase of approximately 1.4% of total development-related impervious
surface area on the island. The 2010 ROD-Related Actions would result in additional impervious surface.
Increases in impervious area would be managed through the implementation of an appropriate and
comprehensive stormwater management plan utilizing a LID approach as described in Section 4.1.2.2 of
this SEIS.
Groundwater production rates would slightly increase, and the implementation of sustainability practices
would reduce the amount of groundwater needed per capita, which would help minimize impacts to
groundwater availability. The resulting total annual groundwater production would be substantially less
than the sustainable yield. Improved management and monitoring of the NGLA aquifer by the GWA and
DoD would ensure increased pumping does not adversely affect sources of drinking water on Guam.
Significant and mitigable impacts were identified for all cantonment alternatives due to potential
increases in the rate of sewage spills associated with the induced civilian growth and construction/DoD
workforce would result in significant indirect impacts to groundwater quality. A potential mitigation
measures includes DoD assisting GovGuam in identifying funding to upgrade the sewer lines.
Significant and mitigable impacts were identified for all cantonment alternatives due to an increase in
wastewater discharge from the Northern District WWTP and for Alternative D also having an increase in
wastewater discharge from the Agana WWTP, which are both currently non-compliant with their current
NPDES permits. Potential mitigation measures includes DoD assisting GovGuam in upgrading the
Northern District WWTP treatment systems (as required by current NPDES permits) and in identifying
additional sources of funding to construct treatment facility improvements at the Agana WWTP. Once the
WWTPs are in compliance, the long-term nearshore water quality is expected to improve.
Significant mitigable impact on wetlands would result with the three collective action alternatives that
propose LFTRCs at NAVMAG. Specifically, the alternatives are: A-2, A-3, A-4; B-2, B-3, B-4; C-2, C-3,
C-4; D-2, D-3, D-4; and E-2, E-3, E-4. In addition, the cantonment alternative at Barrigada could have a
long-term indirect impact to approximately 0.1 acre (0.04 ha) of wetlands. The wetland impacts at
NAVMAG range from 17.7 acres (7 ha) for the East/West LFTRC to 36.9 acres (15 ha) for the
North/South LFTRC. No wetlands were identified for the 2010 ROD-Related Actions and the additive
impacts of Section 6.1. The collective action alternatives that include Barrigada for cantonment and
NAVMAG for LFTRC (i.e., D-2, D-3, D-4) would have a slightly greater impact on wetlands than the
other collective action alternatives. Potential mitigation measures would be developed during the Section
404 permit application review.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Water Resources. Fifteen reasonably foreseeable projects are
anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect on water resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). Ten of the
projects are presumably beneficial because they are roadway rehabilitation projects that improve
pavement integrity resulting in less erosion potential, such as: Route 10A, Rehabilitation & Widening,
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-70
Sunset Blvd. to Route 16 (C-37), Asan and Aguada Bridge Rehabilitation (AH-9). The remaining projects
include development of various sizes throughout the island that would contribute to an increase in
impervious surface, such as Guam Regional Medical City (N-38). Additionally, development projects are
likely to increase the demand on Guam’s groundwater resources, particularly the NGLA.
Potential Cumulative Effects. Recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects
would involve construction activities that would result in the potential for a temporary increase in
stormwater runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. For projects disturbing more than 1 acre (0.4 ha) during
construction (including the collective action alternatives), a Construction General Permit would be
obtained and followed, and a SWPPP would be prepared and implemented to minimize temporary
increases in runoff and pollutant loading related to construction activities. There is an existing DPRI
Construction Program final Comprehensive SWPPP for the 2010 ROD-Related Actions that are included
in the collective action impacts.
In addition, recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would result in an
increase in impervious surface area in urban and industrial settings, resulting in a corresponding increase
in stormwater runoff that has the potential to have elevated levels of contaminants, such as sediments,
nutrients, heavy metals, organic and inorganic compounds, and detrimental microorganisms in water
resources. Many of these projects especially, if they are new construction, are likely to increase the
impervious surfaces that would result in an associated increase in stormwater discharge intensities and
volume. New projects are subject to GovGuam review which includes a review of drainage and
stormwater control.
In addition, cumulative actions would be expected to increase the amount of POLs, hazardous waste,
pesticides, and fertilizers being stored, transported, and utilized. Increasing the storage, transportation,
and use of these substances would increase the potential for releases to water resources. Implementation
of BMPs associated with addressing site- and activity-specific water resource protection needs, provisions
of facility-specific SWPPPs, and SPCC Plans would minimize potential impacts from facility operations,
to include the transportation, storage, and use of fuel, on all water resources. In addition, adherence to
surface water quality and volume control measures would also reduce pollutant loading to groundwater
basins, nearshore waters, and wetlands. Many of the projects could potentially impact water resources.
The cantonment/family housing and LFTRC would increase the total existing development-related
impervious surface area on Guam by approximately 1.4%; however, the implementation of BMPs and
LID measures would ensure no off-site transport of excess stormwater runoff. The additive effect of the
collective action in conjunction with the cumulative actions is expected to be low.
Recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects include connections to
wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal systems. Short-term, direct impacts from increased
wastewater discharge from the Northern District WWTP would be non-compliant with the 2013 NPDES
permit that requires treatment system upgrades. There are a large number of projects, including other
DoD projects, in the northern part of Guam. Four of the five cantonment alternatives also are proposed in
the northern part of Guam. There is potential for a strong cumulative impact on nearshore water quality
associated with increased service loads at the Northern District WWTP, which is not in compliance with
NPDES permit requirements. Once upgrades to address the permit conditions have been completed there
would be an improvement to nearshore water quality. This cumulative effect to nearshore water is not
expected for other geographic areas of Guam.
Projects that would reduce and/or ensure less reliance on septic systems for wastewater disposal; thereby
resulting in a benefit to groundwater resources. Furthermore, identified sustainability measures associated
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-71
with the collective action alternatives (e.g., conserving water), when combined with similar measures for
applicable cumulative actions, would benefit groundwater resources. These measures would also benefit
nearshore waters by reducing the nutrient and bacteria load. The collective action would not have a
cumulative effect on these beneficial impacts, except as described for the Northern District WWTP
improvements as described in the previous paragraph.
Average daily groundwater production rates are estimated to increase due to the collective action by 1.7
MGd (6.4 MLd). In addition to potable water demand generated under Alternative A, organic civilian
population growth independent of the proposed action is estimated to result in an average daily long-term
increase in water demand of 3.5 MGd (13.2 MLd). The demand from organic civilian growth would be
satisfied by the GWA system, primarily from the NGLA, but also from surface water in southern Guam.
The forecast water demand increases steadily through year 2028 due to the impact of induced and organic
civilian growth. Total average daily water extraction from the NGLA from all sources (DoD water
system, GWA water system, and a few private wells) is estimated to be 47.0 MGd (177.9 MLd) in year
2028 but would be less than the sustainable yield of 80.5 MGd (304.7 MLd). Management of the NGLA
would be improved through the use of the numerical groundwater model and an updated and expanded
network of monitoring wells. The magnitude of the additive cumulative effect of the collective action on
ground water in conjunction with the cumulative actions is strong.
2010 ROD-Related Actions and non-DoD projects involving construction in Apra Harbor would have the
potential for cumulative effects to nearshore waters. However, these projects would require
Section 404(b) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits from the USACE, and Water
Quality Certification from the GEPA. Permit conditions mitigate the impacts on surface water. The
additive effect would be low in magnitude.
There is the potential for the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects to
have direct and indirect impacts to wetland areas possibly resulting in the loss of wetland area and/or
function. The collective action alternatives that include NAVMAG LFTRCs would impact wetlands. Per
USACE regulations, activities that are proposed in wetlands or that could potentially reduce wetland area
or function must be permitted and potentially mitigated to compensate for impacts to wetland areas.
Therefore, any loss of wetland area or functionality would be potentially mitigated at a project and site-
specific ratio, which would likely include creating or enhancing existing wetland habitat elsewhere on
Guam. Indirect impacts to wetland areas (e.g., runoff, sediment loading) would be addressed on a project-
specific level, and would likely be lessened with BMPs and associated short- and long-term stormwater
runoff management measures. There is insufficient information on the recently completed, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects to assess the potential for cumulative effect on wetlands; however,
the assumption is GovGuam agencies would not approve projects that have a direct impact on wetlands.
While the collective action may have a significant mitigable impact on wetlands, the additive effect is
considered low in magnitude.
In summary, implementation of the collective action alternatives, when considered in conjunction with
specific projects on Guam, would have a cumulative effect on water resources. The additive effect of each
collective action alternative would be strong (see Table 7.6-2) specifically as it relates to the nearshore
waters of northern Guam and the Northern District WWTP and groundwater.
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. GovGuam reviews private and commercial development
proposals for potential impacts to water resources. There are ongoing local and federal conservation and
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-72
restoration efforts to improve water quality. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects are
proposed.
7.7.3 Air Quality
Current Health and Historical Context. Guam’s air quality is described in detail in the 2010 Final EIS
(Volume 2, Chapter 5: Air Quality, Section 5.1: Affected Environment, pages 5‐1 to 5-14). There are no
comprehensive ambient background air quality levels from recent monitoring available for Guam.
Guam’s existing background air quality conditions can be defined based on the current ambient air quality
attainment status applicable to Guam, which is:
Attainment for all criteria pollutants except SO2.
Two SO2 nonattainment areas within a 2.1-mile (3.5-km) radius around Piti and Tanguisson
power plants.
Except for power generating facilities, there are no significant stationary sources of air emissions on
Guam. It can be assumed that prior to the non-attainment designation in the 1970s; historical ambient air
quality was good before and after WWII.
Four recently completed projects were identified with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to
air quality (see Table 7.6-1). Three projects with potential adverse impacts, including Route 8/10/16 Tri-
intersection (C-16), could contribute to the exhaust from idling vehicles. The Ungulate Fencing project
(N-24) is likely to have a beneficial impact by promoting the growth of more vegetation to absorb air
quality particles.
Eight present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to air quality on Guam were
identified (see Table 7.6-1). The wind turbines (C-32) are expected to have a beneficial impact by
offsetting the increased use of fossil fuels for power generation, while the Pacific Airpower Resiliency
(N-26) is likely to have an adverse impact due to an increase in air traffic and use of fossil fuels.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. The collective action alternatives would result in less than significant and mitigable impacts to
Guam’s air quality, as summarized in Table 7.4-1 and 7.6-2. Operational air emissions originate from
stationary and mobile sources. The basis of the air impact analysis was a significance criterion of 250 tons
per year for air pollutants. Air emissions associated with both construction and operation of the collective
action alternatives would be well below the significance criteria of 250 tons per year for all air pollutants.
It is the on and off-base vehicle traffic that could exceed the 250 tons per year threshold of significance
for CO. These impacts, however, would be temporary and localized at intersections. Construction and
operational phase off-base roadway hot spot particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and mobile source air
toxics impact conclusion will be provided after the analysis is completed. The cantonment/family housing
and LFTRC pairings, the additive impacts of Section 6.1 and 2010 ROD-Related Actions would all
contribute to the less than significant impacts of the collective action alternatives.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Air Quality. One reasonably foreseeable project is anticipated
to contribute to a cumulative effect to air quality on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). The 60 MW Power Plant (G-
6) is the project likely to have an adverse impact because of increased fossil fuel use and expanded flight
capacity.
The future traffic growth would likely result in an increase in mobile source emissions on Guam.
However, the reduction of mobile source engine emissions in the future, per CAA requirements, would
contribute to a reduction of the overall mobile source and greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the air
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-73
quality conditions affected by mobile source operations would likely remain the same or improve slightly,
as compared to the existing conditions.
Potential Cumulative Effects. Current projects on Guam consist primarily of building developments,
infrastructure upgrades and improvements, and military projects that would contribute to man-made air
emissions. Activities that increase emissions in the non-attainment areas are likely to have a greater
cumulative effect. However, there are projects that are expected to reduce air emissions, such as the port
improvements. The GEPA has adopted the USEPA-established stationary source regulations discussed
previously, and acts as the administrator to enforce stationary source air pollution control regulations on
Guam. Current air quality regulations are applied to air emissions from new sources for the protection of
human health. The recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would not
necessarily result in increases in island-wide traffic and air emissions, but new destinations would shift
the emissions from mobile sources.
There will be cumulative effects associated with the collective action alternatives and the actions of other
federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on air quality on Guam. The degree of additive
impact resulting from the collective action alternatives is considered to be low, in part because the
collective action alternatives are not located in the non-attainment area and would not exceed air quality
thresholds. The cumulative effect would not appreciably impact the quality of the ambient air over time
(see Table 7.6-2).
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects
are proposed.
7.7.4 Noise
Current Health and Historical Context. Guam’s noise environment is discussed in detail in the 2010 Final
EIS (Volume 2, Chapter 6: Noise, Section 6.1: Affected Environment, pages 6‐1 to 6-20). WWII
bombings and air operations may represent the loudest period on Guam’s history; however, those noise
impacts were not long-term. Existing sources that contribute to ambient noise include the commercial
airport, AAFB airfield, industrial facilities, military training range activities, and traffic. Most of these
noise impacts are intermittent. Industrial noise, such as power generation, would emit noise for longer
periods, but is subject to OSHA regulations to protect the hearing of sensitive receptors, specifically
workers. There is no island-wide noise level monitoring, and trends in noise are not documented island-
wide. The cumulative effects would be geographically limited.
Two recently completed actions with the potential to contribute to cumulative effects on noise on Guam
were identified (see Table 7.6-1): MIRC (G-2) and Naval Hospital Replacement (C-8), both of which
would involve air traffic that generates noise. They are not in the same geographic location.
Four present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to ambient noise on Guam are
located at AAFB, including the PRTC RH Airfield Operations (N-49).
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, there would be a significant mitigable impact on
ambient noise due to the LFTRC at Route 15 that is a component of the following collective action
alternatives: A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, and E-1. Civilian residences were identified within the Zone 2 noise
contour. Potential mitigation measures are summarized in Table 5.7-1. All other collective action
alternatives would have a less than significant impact on noise due to cantonment traffic, 2010 ROD-
Related Actions (i.e., airfield operations).
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-74
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Noise. One reasonably foreseeable future project involving
air operations that is anticipated to contribute an adverse noise impact on Guam (see Table 7.6-1) is Guam
Airport Projects (C-35). The adverse impact is based on presumption that the improvements could
facilitate more air traffic-related noise.
Potential Cumulative Effects. Operations of all the recently completed, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects would generate some level of noise, but none are likely to exceed federal or
local noise level thresholds for compatible land uses beyond the property boundary. Military mission
changes, changes to commercial air traffic and increases in roadway traffic would likely have the most
impact on ambient noise levels. Cumulative effects would result when these localized impacts overlap
and impact the same sensitive receptors.
The significant mitigable noise impacts associated with the LFTRC at Route 15 would be in the vicinity
of Guam International Raceway, which also generates noise. There would be no cumulative effect
because the collective action alternative precludes the operation of the raceway. Besides traffic and quarry
operations (N-17), no other significant noise generators were identified in the vicinity that could
contribute to a cumulative effect. Cumulative noise effects were not identified in the geographic area of
the NAVMAG LFTRCs.
The air combat element of the 2010 ROD-Related Action would contribute to the noise generated from
other recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at the AAFB airfield. However, no
additive impact was identified on the civilian community outside of the installation. The existing noise
contour that encumbers the community would not expand.
There would be noise impacts associated with the NWF LFTRC collective action alternatives and there
are ongoing training activities at NWF that contribute to the noise levels in the vicinity. However, no
additive impact was identified on the private residences outside of AAFB. An additive noise impact on
terrestrial biological resources was identified, as described in Section 7.7.8.
There would be impacts associated with the collective action alternatives and the actions of other federal
agencies, local governments, and the private sector on ambient noise on Guam; however, the effects
would not be concentrated in one geographic area. The collective action alternatives would have a low
additive cumulative effect, because the affected areas are geographically limited and the impacts are
reversible when operations cease (see Table 7.6-2).
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects
are proposed.
7.7.5 Airspace
Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.5, 4.2.5, 5.5.5, and in the 2010 Final
EIS (Volume 7, Chapter 4: Cumulative Effects, Section 4.3.5.1: Guam Cumulative Effects Assessment,
page 4-40), SUA is designed to alert users about areas of military activity, unusual flight hazards, or
national security needs, and to segregate that activity from other airspace users to enhance safety. The
commercial air traffic fluctuates based on tourism levels, and military use at AAFB is mission-dependent.
Training activities are addressed in the MIRC Airspace Environmental Assessment/Overseas
Environmental Assessment and MITT EIS/OEIS (discussed in Section 7.5). Construction activities rarely
impact airspace, but airspace may be impacted by operations on the ground. Because there are multiple,
and sometimes competing, demands, the FAA considers all aviation airspace requirements in relation to
airport operations, federal airways, jet routes, military flight training activities, and other special needs to
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-75
determine how the National Airspace System can best be structured to satisfy all user requirements.
Significant impacts are avoided prior to FAA approval. While there is a trend toward an increase in air
traffic or ground-based activity that may potentially impact air navigation, significant impacts are avoided
through regulatory oversight. Since the 2010 Final EIS, there have been no substantive changes to the
quantity and quality of airspace Guam-wide and there have been no substantive changes to laws,
regulations or policies relative to airspace.
There are two recently completed projects that have the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to
airspace on Guam: Naval Hospital Replacement (C-8), because there is a helicopter landing site and Air
Freight Terminal Complex (N-23), because it could represent an increase in air traffic (see Table 7.6-1).
However, the existing SUAs described in the affected environment sections of this SEIS represent the
cumulative effects on airspace to date.
Eight present projects have potential to contribute to a cumulative effect. Two of these are wind turbine
projects (S-4 and C-32) that would likely be subject to FAA approval prior to construction, if they were to
occur near a runway, to ensure there was no air navigation hazard. No cumulative effect would be
associated with these projects. Pacific Air Power Resiliency (N-26), MIRC Airspace (G-3), MITT (G-23)
and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (N-39) would impact military air traffic. As these projects are
reviewed by FAA, they are incorporated into the airspace existing condition.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. All of the collective action alternatives have potential to result in a significant mitigable direct
impact on airspace. The impact on commercial air traffic is distinct from military air traffic. Significant
mitigable impacts on civilian air traffic were identified for collective action alternatives, except those that
included NWF LFTRC (see Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2). The NWF LFTRC collective action alternatives (i.e.,
A-5, B-5, C-5, D-5, and E-5) would have a less than significant impact on civilian air traffic because they
would be located a greater distance from the Guam International Airport airspace. These collective action
alternatives affecting NWF would have a significant mitigable impact on military air traffic, while the
other alternatives would have no impact on military air traffic.
The cantonment/family housing component of the collective action alternative would have would have no
impact on airspace. There would be an increase in the total aircraft under the 2010 ROD-Related Actions,
but the existing SUA would be used.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Airspace. There is one reasonably foreseeable project that
could potentially contribute to a cumulative airspace impact on Guam, Guam Airport Project (C-35),
because airport improvements could increase the air traffic capability or require changes to airspace (see
Table 7.6-1).
Potential Cumulative Effects. FAA manages the cumulative effect of air traffic and SUA to ensure there
are no significant impacts to airspace. There is a potential additive impact between the collective action
alternatives and the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, resulting in
modifications to and additional SUAs over time. The degree of additive adverse impact on air traffic
resulting from the collective action alternatives is considered to be low, primarily due to FAA regulatory
control (see Table 7.6-2). The effects would be reversible if air traffic is reduced and live-fire training
stopped.
Need for Mitigation. As summarized in Table 7.6-2, the military and civilian air traffic significant impacts
would be further studied through the DON/FAA consultation process and measures would be identified
through this consultation process to minimize the potential impacts associated with the proposed action.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-76
The FAA consultation process is applicable to recently completed, present and future projects. No
additional mitigation is warranted.
7.7.6 Land and Submerged Land Use
Current Health and Historical Context. In the 1950s, Guam land use zoning was adopted to manage non-
federally controlled land development. Submerged lands ownership has not changed substantially since
1975. As lands were released through BRAC, adjacent submerged lands were not released. There have
and will continue to be zoning variances, conditional use permits, and changes to the zoning map.
Historically, these were granted excessively, without consistent long range planning. The recent past,
current and future trend is for increased management of land use to be consistent with community and
master plans; however, it is difficult to correct historical zoning decisions. The development that is
inconsistent with zoning is occurring at a less rapid rate. Public access restrictions to federal land and
submerged lands have historically been and continue to be a land use issue. The amount of federal land
has decreased substantially since WWII.
Access to fishing areas and other recreational areas has declined over time due to designated military
training areas and the GovGuam designation of Marine Protected Areas, as shown on Figure 3.6.1-1. The
restricted areas are spread out along Guam’s coast and offshore waters. The training events and tempo are
not continuous and notice to mariners is provided in advance of the training event. The prime fishing
areas are not contiguous. Favorable ocean conditions suitable for fishing or other recreation activities are
not constant or predictable and also contribute to submerged lands inaccessibility. There are some areas
such as the northern and eastern submerged lands that tend to be rough water most of the year, which
increases the demand for submerged land access to western and southern submerged lands. Homeland
Security guidelines include maintaining a minimum of 100-yards (91 m) distance from and maintaining
minimal speed within 500 yards (457 m) of a U.S. naval vessel. The recreational vessels must detour
around naval traffic. All of these factors contribute to the cumulative limitations of public access to prime
fishing/recreational submerged land areas.
There are fish aggregating devices and shallow water moorings that facilitate access to submerged lands
for recreational use; however, they require maintenance pending available funding and some are no
longer useable. Access to the offshore fishing areas on the eastern and northern Guam coast is limited by
minimal wharf/pier infrastructure and generally unfavorable ocean conditions. Although there are no
regulatory thresholds for measuring these types of land use impacts, the public access to submerged lands
is likely to continue to be constrained by natural and anthropogenic factors
Six recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to land and
submerged land use on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1) and two of these could be beneficial,
including Upgrade of Existing 14 Megavolt Ampere Power Transformer to 30 Megavolt Ampere and
Underground Line (G-5) and Release a Guam Land Use Plan 77 Parcel Near South Finegayan (N-15).
The former minimizes land use restrictions by undergrounding a utility line and the latter reduces federal
land. Large development projects have potential to adversely impact adjacent land uses, including
Amusement Park-Tumon (C-12). The MIRC EIS (G-2) proposed increases in training tempos on various
ranges on and around Guam that potentially adversely impact public access to submerged lands.
Nine present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to land and submerged land
use on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-2) and five are potentially adverse, including UOG Wind
Turbine (C-32); 15 MW GovGuam Solar/Wind Turbine (S-4); Guam Regional Medical City (N-38) and
MITT (G-23). Wind turbines and large medical facilities may have land use siting/compatibility issues.
Lateral Conversion of Power Lines to Underground Lines (G-11) could have a beneficial impact on land
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-77
use. MITT would have an adverse impact on submerged land public access to recreational activities,
including fishing.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. All collective action alternatives would result in significant impacts to land or submerged land use,
except collective action alternatives involving the NAVMAG North/South LFTRC (i.e., A-3, B-3, C-3
and D-3), which were described as having less than significant impacts on land use. The significant
impacts are due to new or an increased level of restrictions on public access to areas that are important to
the community. Primarily, the impact is related to LFTRC land acquisition and the encumbrance of
submerged lands by the SDZs, both of which restrict public access.
The collective action alternatives that include the Route 15 LFTRC (i.e., A-1, B-1, C-1, D-1, and E-1)
have additional impacts associated with incompatibility with existing and future residential land uses that
contribute to the significant impact, such as the closure of Guam International Raceway and residential
uses within the noise Zone 2 and 3 contours.
The NAVMAG East/West and NAVMAG L-Shaped LFTRC (Alternative 2 and 4, respectively) would
potentially impact the use of the Bolanos Conservation Area.
The 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2) and the additive impacts (Section 6.1) do not contribute to
the level of land/submerged land impacts.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Land and Submerged Land Use. Two reasonably foreseeable
future projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect to land and submerged land use on
Guam (see Table 7.6-1). For example, GovGuam proposes a prison (G-10) and a new 60 MW power plant
(G-6) that may have siting/land use compatibility issues.
Potential Cumulative Effects. The military training projects would continue to the current level of or
increase the public access restriction to submerged lands during training events. The proposed collective
action alternatives with LFTRC SDZs that extend into submerged lands, including the preferred
alternative, would have a significant impact on submerged land use. GovGuam review of projects would
ensure that the non-DoD projects are compatible with existing and future land uses.
Public access to submerged lands for fishing and other recreational activities has declined over time due
to a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors. The additive impact of the proposed collective action
alternatives (those with LFTRC SDZs in submerged lands) in conjunction with the declining “health” of
submerged land public access would result in a cumulative moderate magnitude of adverse impact. The
impact is reversible with changes in military training tempo and decreased submerged land regulation;
however, there are no plans to reduce these restrictions. There will always be uncontrollable natural
conditions such as stormwater runoff and unfavorable weather that would also contribute to reduced
public access to submerged lands.
Need for Mitigation. DoD would work with GDAWR and the GFCA in their ongoing efforts to install and
maintain fish aggregating devices and shallow water moorings to improve submerged land access for
private and military use. Other potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts
to resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1.
7.7.7 Recreational Resources
Current Health and Historical Context. Sections 3.7, 4.2.7, 5.5.7, and in detail in the 2010 Final EIS
(Volumes 2, 4, and 5, Section 9.2; Volume 6, Section 11.2), summarize the historical context of
recreational resource uses. The boom in the tourist industry in the early 1990s likely resulted in an
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-78
increase in conflicts among recreational users and physical deterioration of resources. Other human and
natural factors, such as typhoons, coral bleaching, illegal harvesting of coral and fish, non-point source
pollution, and insufficient funding for resource management, would continue to adversely impact
recreational resources.
Nine recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to recreational
resources on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Seven projects could add to the potential number of
recreational users and thus have the potential to adversely impact, including Workforce Housing (N-10)
and a new hotel (C-4), Talo Verde Estates (C-2), and Hemlani Apartments (C-34). Two projects could
have a beneficial impact because they add diversity and/or create recreational opportunities. This includes
the recent completion of the Amusement Park in Tumon by Tagada Guam (C-12) and the new GovGuam
Student Center (C-13).
Sixteen present projects have the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to recreational resources on
Guam (see Table 7.6-1). Five projects could have a beneficial impact to recreational resources by adding
to the diversity and quantity of options for recreation, such as swimming pools, tennis, and/or golf.
Gregorio D. Perez Marina Renovation & Site Improvement Project (C-39) and Gregorio D. Perez Marina
Dock C Repairs (C-40) would improve the marinas used by recreational boaters. However, the majority
of projects could adversely impact recreational resources because they could increase the resident
population. Projects that increase housing and accommodations (C-21), and new residential style housing
(N-36) could create more individuals seeking leisure and recreational activities.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, the impact on recreational resources would be
significant for all of the collective action alternatives. Within the vicinity of the proposed NWF LFTRC
(Alternative 5), there are a number of recreational opportunities, including beaches, picnic sites, camping
areas, water sport sites, fishing and game sports, nature activities, scenic drives and overlooks,
interpretive centers and parks, particularly the Guam NWR. The SDZs for the LFTRC extend over many
of the aforementioned ocean and shoreline recreational resources. Operations would impact 147 acres (57
ha) of the Ritidian Point Unit of the Guam NWR and 240 acres (97 ha) of beachfront may be restricted
during training exercises as described in Section 5.5.7.2. Access to much of this area is already restricted
for natural resources conservation purposes.
The Guam International Raceway would be precluded by the collective action alternatives involving the
LFTRC at Route 15 resulting in the loss of a valued recreational resource. The NAVMAG LFTRCs
would have significant impacts on the ambient noise levels at recreational resources in the vicinity.
The cantonment components, 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2) and the additive actions (Section
6.2) would have less than significant impacts on recreational resources due to an anticipated increase in
use of recreational facilities throughout Guam than impacts to specific recreational resources.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Recreational Resources. One reasonably foreseeable project
has the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to recreational resources on Guam, Sigua Highlands
(C-47) because the project is growth inducing for that area (see Table 7.6-1).
Potential Cumulative Effects. Several of the listed projects appear to have a recreational component that
would create new recreational opportunities or increase capacity. The collective action alternative would
have an additive cumulative impact on recreational resources in conjunction with increased tourism and
other DOD mission changes because they would increase the on-island population. Increases in
recreational resources use would likely occur at beaches and parks, scenic points, historic and cultural
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-79
sites, dive spots, trails, day use resorts, golf courses, sailing venues, on installations, and the rest of the
island alike. Guam’s tropical weather encourages year-round use of recreational resources by residents
and visitors. Foreseeable impacts include inadequate or overly crowded facilities such as parking, picnic
shelters, restrooms, showers, and boat mooring facilities. Moreover, an eroded sense of enjoyment, due to
increased competition for opportunities among users, would result at most recreational facilities (e.g., golf
courses on installations, and popular dive spots). Lastly, an increase in the number of users could
accelerate deterioration of existing facilities.
There will be cumulative effects associated with the collective action alternatives and the actions of other
federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on recreational resources on Guam. The
magnitude of the effect is moderate (see Table 7.6-2) because there may be thresholds of recreational
resource health but they are for specific recreational sites or activities. The pressure on recreational
resources could be adaptively managed. Long-term impacts could be reversed if there are appropriate
resources.
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects
are proposed.
7.7.8 Terrestrial Biological Resources
Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this SEIS, and in detail
in the 2010 Final EIS, the terrestrial biological health on Guam is declining. The effect of pre-colonial
activities on the current health of Guam’s terrestrial biological resources is unknown. During the Spanish
Period (1668-1899) there were introductions and an increase of domesticated animals (i.e., water buffalo,
pigs, goats, and deer). Introduced ungulates have significantly impacted native forests by consuming
seeds, fruits and foliage and trampling plants. Feral pigs also cause additional damage by wallowing and
rooting.
WWII physically destroyed extensive areas of habitat (due to war actions and construction) along with
continued clearings associated with agriculture (i.e., crops and grazing). Shortly after WWII, the brown
treesnake was inadvertently introduced to the island and by the late 1960s had spread throughout Guam
(Section 1.3.3).
Existing stressors (e.g., tropical storms, typhoons, invasive species, diseases, wildfires, development, and
poaching) continue to degrade habitat quality, population resiliency, and contribute to the trend of
declining health of terrestrial biological resources. Ongoing efforts to manage terrestrial resources on
military lands and non-federally controlled lands would continue to reduce the rate of decline.
Fewer than 1,000 threatened Mariana fruit bats were believed to occur on Guam in 1972 and less than
100 bats from 1974 to 1977. The most recent surveys suggest that fewer than 50 bats remain on Guam.
Hunting pressure is largely responsible for the decline. Although hunting is illegal, it remains a threat.
The endangered Guam rail and Guam Micronesian kingfisher are believed to have been extirpated in the
wild by 1985 and 1988, respectively. Both species were close to becoming extinct along with the majority
of Guam’s other avifauna as a direct result of predation by the introduced brown treesnake. The Guam rail
exists primarily in captivity on Guam and in mainland zoos. Guam rails were introduced onto Rota,
CNMI in 1989 and onto Cocos Island, off the southern coast of Guam, in 2011. The Guam Micronesian
kingfisher is now found only in captivity on Guam and at mainland zoos. Research and management
efforts continue so that wild populations of Guam rails and Guam Micronesian kingfishers may
eventually be reestablished on Guam.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-80
Historically on Guam, the endangered Mariana crow was found throughout forested areas, and was
considered common into the early 1960s. As of 2012, the Mariana crow is considered extirpated in the
wild on Guam. The closest population of crows is on the island of Rota, north of Guam. Predation by
brown treesnakes, rats, and monitor lizards prevents recovery.
Fifty-eight recently completed projects have the potential to contribute to adverse cumulative effect to
terrestrial biological resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). The primary impact from these projects would
be the potential loss of native habitat and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. One
project may have a beneficial impact, Ungulate Fencing (N-24).
Sixty-seven present projects have the potential to contribute to an adverse cumulative effect to terrestrial
biological resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). This would be primarily due to the potential loss of
native habitat and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. Reforestation of Masso
Reservoir (AH-2) could have a beneficial impact on terrestrial biology.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, the impact on terrestrial biological resources would be
significant and mitigable for all of the collective action alternatives. All five resource areas assessed (e.g.,
vegetation, terrestrial conservation areas, native wildlife, federal special-status species, Guam special-
status species) would be significantly impacted by the direct and indirect impacts of the LFTRC and
cantonment pairings, except there would be a less than significant impact on native vegetation for all
pairings. The adverse impacts would occur during construction and operations phases. Significant
potentially mitigable impacts were also identified for the 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2). The
additive impact associated with the proposed IT/COMM infrastructure was determined to be less than
significant (Section 6.1).
All collective action alternatives convert limestone forest to developed area and the greatest acreage
affected is associated with the cantonment components and 2010 ROD-Related Actions. Overlay refuge
areas would be adversely affected under all collective action alternatives. Federal special-status species
that would be impacted include the Mariana fruit bat, Mariana crow, Guam Micronesian kingfisher, the
Guam rail and the Serianthes tree. The impact on individual species varies among the collective action
alternatives.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Terrestrial Biological Resources. Fifteen reasonably
foreseeable projects have the potential to contribute to an adverse cumulative effect to terrestrial
biological resources on Guam (Table 7.6-1). This would be primarily due to the potential loss of native
habitat and the increased potential for the spread of invasive species. Examples of projects with potential
adverse impacts include Sigua Highlands (C-47), Route 4 Curve Widening (S-28), and 60 MW power
Plant (G-6).
Potential Cumulative Effects. All new development requiring vegetation clearing has potential to impact
terrestrial biological resources. There are federally and locally established habitat conservation areas and
increases in human population or other noise generating activities near these areas can disturb the
populations of species that are to be protected in the conservation areas.
There would be cumulative effects associated with the collective action alternatives in conjunction with
recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The additive impact of would be strong
(see Table 7.6-2) because the impacts could be long-term and difficult to reverse. Many of these projects,
developments, and actions, and their impacts on terrestrial biological resources cannot be determined with
specificity at this time. Most of the projects require ground disturbance, and the assumption is that
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-81
terrestrial biological resources would be affected. The terrestrial biological resource health on Guam
would continue to decline, and threatened and endangered species would continue to be vulnerable to
natural and anthropogenic stressors. Because the development area of the collective action alternatives is
presumably larger than that of the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions, the
additive cumulative impacts are primarily due to the direct impacts of the collective action alternatives.
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures for the impacts due to the collective action alternatives
are proposed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. GovGuam reviews public, private, and commercial development
proposals for potential impacts to terrestrial biological resources. The USFWS monitors GovGuam,
private, and commercial development proposals and periodically adjusts the acreage of available recovery
habitat island-wide. This adjustment is used to determine the impact of federal development proposals
that must comply with section 7 of the ESA and may result in mitigation for federal development
proposals. The USFWS and GovGuam review DoD and other federal development proposals and
mitigation is developed through the consultation process. There are local and federal initiatives and
protocols to prevent the introduction of non-native species. There are local and federal conservation and
restoration efforts. No additional mitigation is proposed for cumulative effects to terrestrial biological
resources.
As part of the ESA section 7 consultation process, the DON and the USFWS entered into an MOA, which
would, if the preferred alternative is chosen, facilitate kingfisher conservation goals. In the MOA, the
DON agreed to designate approximately 5,234 acres (2,118 ha) under the custody and control of the DoD
in northern Guam to a status that will provide durable habitat protection needed to support native habitat
restoration and land management for the survival and recovery of the kingfisher. Consistent with the JRM
INRMP developed in accordance with Section 101 of the Sikes Act, the DON agreed to actively restore
native habitat and manage, in collaboration with the USFWS, the 5,234 acres (2,118 ha) consistent with
DoD’s obligations under ESA section 7(a) and the Sikes Act to benefit the survival and recovery of the
kingfisher. The DON would work cooperatively with the USFWS to identify, develop and implement
specific management activities and projects on these 5,234 acres (2,118 ha) to support the reintroduction
and recovery of the kingfisher.
These 5,234 acres (2,118 ha) have been identified by the USFWS as habitat for the kingfisher and needed
to offset impacts of the proposed action. The DON and USFWS recognize that the designation of the
5,234 acres (2,118 ha) may also provide a conservation benefit to other ESA-listed species with similar
habitat requirements (e.g., Mariana crow, Mariana fruit bat).
7.7.9 Marine Biological Resources
Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.9, 4.2.9, 5.5.9, and in this section,
the overall health of Guam’s reefs has declined over time, with impacts from global and local stressors
contributing to a significant decline over recent decades. The average live coral cover was approximately
50% in the 1960s, but dwindled to less than 25% by the 1990s, with only a few areas having over 50%
live cover. In the past, however, Guam’s reefs have recovered after drastic declines. For example, an
outbreak of the crown-of-thorns starfish in the early 1970s reduced coral cover in some areas from 50-
60% to less than 1%, but 12 years later, live coral cover was restored to pre-1970s conditions. The more
common trend, however, is the decline of Guam’s reefs over the past 40 years, consistent with a general
global decline of this resource.
Prior to Spanish conquest, the Chamorro and other Pacific societies retained property rights within the
family that extended out to sea. While fishing occurred, it was likely done at sustainable levels.
Harvesting of sea turtles and their eggs also occurred. The effect of pre-WWII events on the current
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-82
health of Guam’s marine biological resources is unknown. There was likely coral damage due to storm
and wave events, but low levels of human-induced stress because population and industry levels were
much lower than today.
The creation of Inner and Outer Apra Harbor during WWII required extensive dredge and fill. The
navigational approach to Inner Apra Harbor was dredged. In addition to the direct physical impact on
marine resources due to the war, indirect impacts resulted from an increase in soil erosion as described
under the terrestrial biological resources section. The sediment load in the coastal waters likely had an
impact on the health of the reefs. Post-WWII dredging in Apra Harbor resulted in a decline of coral
communities and compensatory mitigation proposals are being implemented to restore the ecosystem
function in other watersheds.
Since WWII, the health of marine biological resources has been affected by an increasing population, and
associated recreational, industrial and commercial operations that impact the natural environment. More
recently, the most serious threats to Guam’s reef health have been identified as sedimentation (from
illegal wildfires, improper development, and upland erosion), stormwater runoff and associated pollutants
such as fertilizers and oil (from inadequate protections during coastal development and insufficient
stormwater management practices and infrastructure), and overfishing.
A variety of land-based activities have contributed to nutrient input to nearshore waters. A 2010
assessment by GEPA determined that while most of the 24 assessed bays met water quality guidelines for
recreational activities and harvesting, 11 of the bays were impaired. Over 700 swimming advisories due
to bacterial counts in marine waters were issued in 2009, likely stemming from faulty septic tanks and
non-compliance by treatment facilities with NPDES regulations for various parameters. In 2009, two
treatment plants that had previously been the source of untreated sewage into nearshore waters were
renovated to repair the leaks and extend the outfall pipes further offshore.
Adding to these stressors are the more recent emergences of crown of thorns outbreaks, coral disease, and
coral bleaching. There are six coral diseases that affect Guam’s reefs, with over 10% of corals observed in
one study, affected by at least one disease.
A total of nine special-status species potentially occur within the nearshore waters of Guam: three fish,
three sea turtles, and three coral species (Tables 3.9.1-1 and 3.9.1-2). In April 2013, NMFS found that the
Indo-West Pacific Distinct Population Segment of the scalloped hammerhead shark be listed as threatened
(NMFS 2014a) under the ESA. Information on the distribution of scalloped hammerhead sharks around
Guam is limited, but Guam’s Outer Apra Harbor has been noted for neonate and juvenile aggregations.
The humphead wrasse and bumphead parrotfish are NMFS Species of Concern. NMFS announced in
November 2012 that the bumphead parrotfish did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under
the ESA following a status review (NMFS 2012a). NMFS also found in September 2014 that the
humphead wrasse did not warrant listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA following a status
review, but it is virtually extinct from the waters around Guam (NMFS 2014b). The ESA-listed green and
hawksbill sea turtles are threatened by direct harvesting of eggs or adults, beach cleaning and
replenishment, recreational activities, debris, incidental take from fishing, and seagrass degradation.
In August 2014, NMFS found three species of coral occurring in the waters surrounding Guam (Acropora
globiceps, Acropora retusa, and Seriatopora aculeata) merited listing as threatened under the ESA
(NMFS 2014c). The conclusion of a recent State of the Coral Reef Ecosystem on Guam assessment was
that the health of Guam’s coral reefs varies significantly. Reefs unaffected by sediment and nutrient
loading, such as those in the northern part of the island and some coastal areas in the south, have healthy
coral communities. Guam’s reefs have been spared from large-scale bleaching events and coral diseases
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-83
which are prevalent in so many parts of the world. A number of Guam’s reefs are impacted by land-based
sources of pollution and over-fishing. Guam identified land-based sources of pollution as its number one
priority focus area in 2002. Sedimentation, algal overgrowth due to decreased fish stocks, and low
recruitment rates of both corals and fish are important issues that must also be addressed. Big Blue Reef
in Apra Harbor is considered one of the healthiest reefs in the harbor due to the reef’s protection from
water quality factors associated with Inner Apra Harbor and ship-induced sediment resuspension that
impact other reef systems in the harbor. Reefs off Dry Dock Island, which was artificially created during
WWII, are considered to also be among the healthiest reefs in the harbor, primarily due to protection from
stressors. In contrast, the coral reef along Polaris Point, which was also constructed during WWII, is of
marginal quality and has the greatest signs of stress, including high levels of total suspended solids likely
derived from watershed discharge. Recreational activities result in physical damage to coral reefs, and
fish feeding by snorkelers and divers can alter fish behavior. Recent studies conducted in support of this
SEIS identify evidence of anchor and/or anchor chain damage to coral in Apra Harbor, including the
formation of a rubble field on the southern side of the floating dry dock. Movement of mooring chains on
the southern side of the floating dry dock has produced a significant rubble field, although mooring chains
on the northern (outer) side of the floating dry dock do not appear to have caused similar damage.
On a more global scale, the nine most important threats to reef-building corals include: ocean warming
(high), disease (high), ocean acidification (medium-high), trophic impacts of fishing (medium),
sedimentation (low-medium), nutrients (low-medium), sea-level rise (low-medium), predation (low), and
collection and trade (low), as stated by the Coral Biological Review Team assembled to complete
comprehensive status reviews of the 82 species of reef-building coral initial proposed for ESA-listing.
Potential impacts from these threats to coral are related to the intensity and duration of the threat over
time and space, and nearly all are expected to increase over the long term. Ocean warming, disease, and
ocean acidification are discussed more under the “Potential Cumulative Effects” section below.
Sixteen recently completed projects have the potential to contribute to cumulative effects to marine
biological resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). Nine of these projects could have a beneficial impact
because they reduce erosion or improve infrastructure, such as, Northern District WWTP (N-32) and
Construction of Golf Pier Pipeline Replacement (AH-16). Projects with potential adverse impacts are
coastal projects: Gregorio D. Perez Dock A&B Steel Pile Extension and Water Blasting (C-19), and Kilo
Wharf (AH-4).
Thirty present projects were identified and 23 of these could have a beneficial impact because they are
infrastructure improvements, such as: Wastewater System Planning (G-12), Facilities Plan/Design for
WWTP (G-13), Marine and Port Security Operations Center (AH-13), Old Agat Wastewater Collection
(Phase II) (S-10), Hagåtña Sewage Treatment Plant Improvements and Effluent WWPS (C-42), Facilities
Plan For Hagåtña STP Improvements and Effluent WWPS (C-41), and Modernization Program for Port
Reconfiguration, Maintenance, and Repair (AH-11), and Northern District WWTP (N-32), Agana Water
Treatment Plant Interim Measures (C-43), and Wastewater Collection System Replacement/Rehabilitation
Program (G-19). Projects with a potential adverse impact include new or improved wharves and piers,
such as Gregorio D. Perez Marina Dock C repairs (C-40), military training ranges (MITT [G-23]) and
port modernization program (AH-11).
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Impact. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, all of the collective action alternatives would result in
less than significant long-term impacts to marine biological resources. These impacts are indirect and tend
to be associated with the proposed population increase, which would increase pressure on marine
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-84
recreational resources around the island and increase the volume of wastewater effluent. With planned
GovGuam improvements to wastewater treatment plants, there would be no impact on marine resources
due to wastewater effluent in the long-term. There may be impacts to marine conservation areas that are
adjacent to the cantonment alternatives but this would not apply to the Barrigada cantonment (Alternative
D). Similarly, there would be no impact associated with the operations of the LFTRC alternatives at
NAVMAG (Alternatives 2, 3, 4) because they are not affecting submerged lands. The less than significant
impacts identified for these coastal LFTRCs are related to the remote chance that there would be rounds
of ammunition that end up in the ocean. No training exercises in the water are planned; therefore, no
direct impact to marine resources is anticipated.
The restricted public access to the NWF LFTRC SDZ could be viewed as a beneficial impact to marine
resources because there would be reduced impacts on marine resources associated with recreational use.
The 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2) and the additive actions (Section 6.1) would have less than
significant or no impact on marine biological resources. There would be direct short-term localized
construction-related impacts associated with the Apra Harbor wharf improvements, but the impacts would
not have a long-term impact on the health of the resource.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Marine Biological Resources. Two reasonably foreseeable
future projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect to marine biological resources on Guam
(see Table 7.6-1). X-Ray Wharf Improvements (AH-10) may have short-term adverse impacts to marine
biological resources because there is in-water work. The Umatac-Merizo STP Replacement (S-18) would
have a beneficial impact because it is in infrastructure improvement.
Potential Cumulative Effects. The collective action alternative impacts on marine biological resources are
indirect and less than significant, and primarily associated with the proposed increase in island
population. Two collective action alternatives have SDZs over water and there is slight potential for direct
impact to individuals of a species but there would be no impact to the overall health of the population.
Most of the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would have a beneficial
impact on marine biology because they are sewer infrastructure improvement projects. MITT is an
exception.
There would be a low additive cumulative effect (see Table 7.6-2) because the waterfront projects
identified are few, the direct impacts would be localized, and there are regulatory controls to mitigate the
impacts. The collective action alternatives would not impact the resiliency of marine biological resource
health in responding to future stressors.
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. Additional mitigation measures may be considered based
on consultations with regulatory agencies and will be discussed in the ROD, as appropriate.
7.7.10 Cultural Resources
Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.10, 4.2.10, 5.5.10, and in detail in
the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Section 12.1: Affected Environment, pages 12-1 to 12-38), cultural
resources include Pre-Contact and Post-Contact archaeological resources, architectural resources and
traditional cultural properties. The main Mariana Islands were settled before 1500 B.C. The Pre-Latte
period was from 1500 B.C. to 1000 A.D.; evidence of residency and community composition is difficult
to identify. The Latte Period (1000 A.D. to 1300 A.D.) is distinguished by the presence of latte stone
structures. The Post-Contact period begins in 1521 A.D. with Magellan’s landing. Subsequently, disease
and war decimated the local population, reducing it from 40,000 in 1668 to 1,800 in 1690. In the 19th
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-85
century, Guam was ceded to the U.S. by Spain. Between 1898 and 1941, Guam served as a coaling and
fueling station for Naval ships and as a landing place for the Pan-American transpacific air clippers. In
1941, Japan attacked Guam and in 1944, the U.S. commenced an intensive bombardment. After the U.S.
captured the island there was a massive build-up of military forces, including construction of five new
airfields. Since the 1960s, tourism has been an important industry.
Since 1966, most potential impacts to cultural resources as defined under NEPA have been evaluated
consistent with NHPA and the Criteria of Adverse Effect set forth at 36 CFR 800.5. Overall the health of
cultural resources can be impacted as a result of inadvertent disturbance, construction activities, and
natural degradation and damage due to erosion. On Guam, for example, prior to the enactment of NHPA
and NEPA, activities related to WWII resulted in a general degradation of the health of cultural resources.
Today, while some areas have been heavily impacted, there are other areas that remain where cultural
resources are significantly intact. In consideration of this, the overall health of cultural resources is
moderate.
Sixty-one recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to cultural
resources on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Any project that results in ground disturbance could
contribute to a cumulative effect on cultural resources, such as Ukudu Workforce Village (e.g., N-28),
roadway construction or improvements (e.g., Route 25 [C-6]), or structures like the Veterans Clinic (C-3)
and the Bayview 5 Luxury Hotel (C-4). No projects were identified that would have a beneficial effect on
cultural resources.
Sixty-eight present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect on cultural resources on
Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Many of these projects are residential construction (e.g., Emerald
Ocean View Park [C-21]) or roadway construction or improvements (e.g., Route 4, Togcha River to Ipan
beach park [S-20]), but there are a variety of other activities that could have an adverse cumulative effect
on the resources, such as Lateral Conversion of Powerlines to Underground Lines (G-11). One project,
the new Guam Museum (C-24) would have a beneficial impact on cultural education.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. All collective action alternatives would result in significant mitigable impacts to Guam’s cultural
resources as a result of the cantonment/family housing and LFTRC component, as summarized in Tables
7.4-1 and 7.6-2. The exception is the significant impact identified for the collective action alternatives that
involve the NWF LFTRC (A-5, B-5, C-5, D-5, and E-5), due to the restriction of public access to a
NRHP-eligible site at Ritidian Unit of the Guam NWR. Table 6.2.4-2 summarizes the collective action
impacts, including the numbers of historic properties affected. Direct construction impacts alone would
result in adverse effects to a minimum of 20 known historic properties under collective action alternative
D-1 and a maximum of 49 historic properties for collective action alternative A-5. In addition, there are
undetermined effects to historic properties and archaeological sites that have not been evaluated and
impacts to culturally important natural resources. The ROD-Related Actions contribute to the impact on
cultural resources, but the majority of the impact would be related to the cantonment/housing and LFTRC
development.
Each of the collective action alternatives would contribute to the decline in preservation of cultural
resources. Other factors unrelated to the project, such as vandalism and weathering, would continue to
adversely impact cultural resources.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Cultural Resources. Fourteen reasonably foreseeable projects
are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect to cultural resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1)
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-86
because they are likely to involve ground disturbance. These projects include road construction (e.g.,
Route 17 Rehabilitation & Widening [S-27]), and Sigua Highlands (C-47).
Potential Cumulative Effects. There would be cumulative effects associated with the collective action
alternatives and the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of other federal
agencies, local governments, and the private sector on cultural resources on Guam. These impacts may be
linked to projects, developments, and actions that do not meet the criteria for a federal undertaking as
defined in the NHPA. The impacts of these actions cannot be determined with specificity at this time.
Implementation of the collective action alternatives in conjunction with recently completed, present, and
reasonably foreseeable actions would have a cumulative effect on cultural resources. The magnitude of
the impact would be strong because the impacts are long-term and generally irreversible. Disturbance or
destruction of these cultural resources would further diminish the regional historic record, thus decreasing
the potential of its overall research contribution. Reduced access to cultural sites, whether for cultural
practices or academic study, would also diminish the cultural resources of Guam.
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation for the impacts of the collective action alternatives is described
in Section 6.2 of this SEIS. To the degree possible, impacts to historic properties and other significant
cultural resources would be avoided or minimized during the planning process. If avoidance is not
possible, potential mitigation measures to resolve adverse impacts to historic properties and reduce
adverse impacts to cultural resources resulting from the implementation of collective actions would
include the following:
support Guam SHPO’s update of the Guam Historic Preservation Plan (GHPP);
beginning in 2017, update the Guam Synthesis with information from DoD studies in concert
with the GHPP;
nominate two or more historic properties on DoD land per year for listing in the NRHP;
In accordance with the 2011 PA, support construction of a Guam Cultural Repository and seek
congressional authorization to transfer DoD funding for the construction. The $12,000,000
appropriated under the FY 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 112-74) for a
Guam Cultural Repository facility remains in place. The appropriation provides funding for a
repository for curation of archaeological collections on Guam and to serve as a source of
information on Guam history and culture; and
advocate to other federal agencies to provide funding for the Guam Museum Complex.
With the implementation of these measures and processes as outlined in the 2011 PA, it is expected that
significant cumulative impacts would be partially mitigated but not to a less than significant level.
No additional mitigation measures are proposed for cumulative effects on cultural resources.
7.7.11 Visual Resources
Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.11, 4.2.11, 5.5.11, and in this
section, the visual quality of Guam prior to WWII was presumably high due to the prevalence of open
space. Urban development and introduction of invasive species are likely the most notable cause for
change in visual environments; the physical characteristics of a development as well as location, influence
the resulting visual impact. Natural disasters, such as typhoons and earthquakes, contribute to the
degradation of the appearance of existing developments. Some developments are abandoned and fall into
disrepair with an adverse impact on visual resources. When the economy is good, there is a tendency for
increased development or property improvement. Conversely, during hard economic times, buildings are
not maintained or are abandoned. The visual resources trend over time is not linear, but is influenced by
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-87
critical events. In general, there is a trend toward increased development. GovGuam reviews development
proposals to verify they are consistent with zoning objectives with respect to density and do not interfere
with valued scenic views. There is no regulatory threshold regarding visual health of Guam.
Eleven recently completed projects that affect visual resources on Guam are identified in Table 7.6-1.
Those with potential adverse impacts include: Workforce Housing (N-10), Talo Verde Estates (C-2),
Bayview 5 Hotel (C-4), and Amusement Park (C-12). These are all projects that alter the visual
experience from adjacent roadways relative to what was previously on the various sites. Layon Landfill
(S-3) affects an area that was formerly open space; however, there is little traffic in the area. One project
could have a beneficial visual impact: Upgrade of Existing 14 Megavolt Ampere Power Transformer to
30 Megavolt Ampere and Underground Line (G-5).
Nineteen present projects that affect visual resources on Guam are identified in Table 7.6-1. Two of these
projects could have a beneficial impact because it involves the lateral conversion of power lines to
underground lines (G-11) and Reforestation of Masso Reservoir (AH-2). GovGuam and UoG Wind
Turbines (S-4 and C-32) are tall features that are visible from a distance and may impact views. Anti-
terrorism/Force Protection Perimeter Fencing is an example of a military base project that would be
visible to the community.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, collective action alternatives would have impacts on
visual resources that range from less than significant to significant. The adverse impacts are related to the
LFTRC component of the collective action alternatives. The collective action alternatives A-5, B-5, C-5,
D-5, E-5, A-2, B-2, C-2, D-2, and E-2 would have less than significant impacts on visual resources due to
large-scale development with limited public views. The significant impacts associated with the remaining
alternatives include two of the NAVMAG LFTRC alternatives that would be visible from Jumullong
Manglo Overlook and Mount Lamlam and their associated hiking trails to two of NAVMAG LFTRC
(LFTRC Alternatives 3 and 4). Significant mitigable direct impacts would be due to alteration of the
views from Route 15 to the proposed LFTRC (Alternative 1) Potential mitigation measures are proposed
to restore/maintain natural vegetation to the extent practical. Less than significant impacts would be
associated with all collective action alternatives due to increased building density for cantonment/family
housing. The development would be designed to be consistent with the 2011 Installation Insurance Plan.
While the base would not be accessible to the public, some features would be publicly-visible including
the entrance gates, perimeter fencing and peripheral landscaping and vertical infrastructure such as light
posts and water tanks. These, and the remaining features of the new base, would present a united design
template as outlined in the Installation Insurance Plan. No significant impacts to visual resources were
identified for the 2010 ROD-Related Actions (Section 6.2) and the additive impacts (Section 6.1). The
collective action alternatives would not contribute appreciably to the declining trend in visual resources.
Other factors unrelated to the project, such as natural disasters and economic downturns, would continue
to adversely impact visual resources.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Visual Resources. Three reasonably foreseeable future
projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect to visual resources on Guam (see Table 7.6-1).
The one public utility project that might adversely impact open space is the GovGuam 60 MW Power
Plant (G-6). The remaining projects include large development proposals that could impact open space,
such as: Sigua Highlands (C-47), and the Territorial Prison (G-10).
Potential Cumulative Effects. There would be cumulative effects associated with the collective action
alternatives in conjunction with recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions of other
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-88
federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on visual resources on Guam. The
implementation of any development project would likely remove open space and potentially result in an
adverse impact. Some projects may replace abandoned or deteriorated buildings that would result in an
improvement to visual resources. The GovGuam reviews development proposals and impacts to valued
scenic viewpoints would be identified and considered in the permit application process.
Visual impacts are geographically limited. The recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions in the southern part of Guam (Figure 7.5-4) are unlikely to contribute to a cumulative impact in
conjunction with the NAVMAG collective action alternatives in the south. There would be no cumulative
impact associated with the 2010 ROD-Related Actions in Inner Apra Harbor. The Barrigada cantonment
(Alternative D) is located in central Guam (Figure 7.5-2) and open space would be reduced, but most of
the actions identified in the area are low profile road improvement projects; therefore, no cumulative
impact is anticipated on the visual resources in Central Guam. Northern Guam has the greatest potential
for cumulative impacts due to the number of recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable
actions and the potential for both the cantonment, LFTRC and the Air Combat Element of the 2010 ROD-
Related Actions to be located in the north. However, most of the visual impact of the collective action
alternatives in the north would occur within the installation boundary and would not be visible to the
public.
For these reasons, there would be a low additive cumulative effect between the collective action
alternatives that would be located within DoD installations and the recently completed, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects with respect to impacts on visual resources (see Table 7.6-2). The
low additive impact would be limited to the northern part of Guam. No additive impact is anticipated to
other areas of Guam.
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects
are proposed.
7.7.12 Ground Transportation
Current Health and Historical Context. Sections 3.12, 4.2.12, 5.5.12 provide information on current
health of the resource. Periodic master plans and roadway studies have been prepared by GovGuam to
assess roadway and traffic conditions to identify and prioritize roadway and traffic improvement projects.
The most recent comprehensive planning effort is the 2030 Guam Transportation Plan, published in
December 2008. Forecasts for population and employment through the year 2030 were used to develop an
integrated strategy for a multimodal (e.g., vehicle, pedestrian, mass transit) transportation system. The
roadway conditions vary from acceptable (no major safety issues), to poor (minor safety issues) to
unacceptable. There is a bus system that includes a fixed route, and service for the handicapped; however,
there are concerns with scheduling that result in poor ridership. Outside of military installations,
designated bicycle lanes are not available and sidewalks are limited to main routes in urbanized areas.
The traffic on roadways is driven by island population and employment related to land use development.
Roadway condition is a function of construction material, age, vehicle type, traffic volume, and natural
influences such as climate, typhoons, and earthquakes. Since 1950, the population has continued to
increase on Guam. The future trends in population growth are expected to increase and continue through
2030; however, the Guam Transportation Plan considered increases related to the military relocation. The
roads serving Dededo and Tamuning are currently the most congested because they serve major
residential and employment centers. Roadway improvements were identified to address projected 2030
traffic issues, and projects would be implemented as funds become available. Sections 4.2.12 and 5.5.12
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-89
describe the baseline conditions for the specific roadways that would be affected by the collective action
alternatives, assuming the improvements identified in the Plan are implemented. Island-wide there are an
estimated 12 intersections in 2014 and 24 in 2030 that would have the poorest LOS. Although some
projects are programmed for funding, traffic conditions are projected to deteriorate on Guam. The natural
influences on roadway conditions would continue into the future.
There are private shopping and tour buses that operate among Micronesian Mall, KMART, Guam Premier
Outlets and other destinations. The recently established GRTA is responsible for public transit functions.
It approved the Guam Transit Business Plan in January 2010, which includes purchasing new buses,
constructing a bus maintenance facility, and modifying the bus schedule. Pending funding, a future trend
is for improvements to bus service. Guam Public Law requires the consideration and construction of
bicycle and pedestrian paths with all new road construction projects. The 2030 Guam Transportation Plan
also identifies a plan for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. New developments and roadway projects would
include pedestrian and bicycle facilities and improve pedestrian and bicycle options; however, without
adequate funding, the existing deficiencies in facilities are likely to continue. The FHWA and other
federal transit funding can be used for bicycle lanes.
Twenty-nine recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to
roadways on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Most (20) of these projects would have a beneficial
impact because they are roadway improvement projects that would improve traffic LOS, including Route
25 (C-6) and Route 8/10/16 Tri-intersection (C-16). Residential construction (e.g., N-10) and hotel
development (e.g., C-4) would have an adverse impact to roadways because they induce traffic.
Thirty-two present projects with the potential to contribute to a cumulative effect to roadways on Guam
were identified (see Table 7.6-1) and 17 are likely to have a beneficial impact. These beneficial projects
include, Route 1-8 Intersection Improvements & Agana Bridges Replacement (C-29). Residential
construction (e.g., Sagan Bonita [C-26]) and Guam Regional Medical Centers (e.g., N-38) may have an
adverse impact to roadways because they induce traffic.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Section 6.2 of this SEIS, the collective action alternatives would have less than
significant impacts on off-base traffic LOS. Less than significant impacts were identified for increased
potential for collisions with bicyclists and pedestrians under all collective action alternatives. No long-
term impacts were identified to on-base traffic. The 2010 ROD-Related Actions would have less than
significant impacts on traffic.
The significant direct impact on LOS is due to the pairing of each LFTRC and cantonment/family
housing alternative and most of the impacts are mitigable to less than significant (see Additive Impacts,
Section 6.1). Specific roadway improvement projects were identified as potential mitigation for
significant impacts identified for Finegayan and Finegayan/South Finegayan cantonment/family housing
alternatives (i.e., A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5; B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5; E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4, E-5). With
implementation of the potential mitigation measures described in Section 6.1, traffic would improve to an
acceptable LOS for affected roadways and intersections. The cantonment alternatives include bike lanes
that are segregated from vehicle lanes resulting in a beneficial impact on multimodal traffic and safety.
Potential mitigation measures were not identified for the significant impacts at the remaining alternatives,
involving cantonment at AAFB or Barrigada.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Ground Transportation. Eleven out of 12 reasonably
foreseeable projects are anticipated to have a beneficial impact on ground transportation, because they are
roadway improvement projects (see Table 7.6-1). Examples of beneficial projects include: Route 26/25
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-90
Intersection Improvements (C-31), Route 10A, Route 1/Tiyan Intersection and Route 5 Rehabilitation &
Widening (S-29). The Sigua Highlands project (C-47) would have an adverse impact on traffic because it
would induce more traffic into the area.
Potential Cumulative Effects. There would be cumulative ground transportation effects associated with
the collective action alternatives in conjunction with recently completed, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects that induce traffic. Very few growth-inducing projects were identified among the
recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. The adverse effects are adaptively
managed through roadway improvement projects. A large number of roadway improvement projects
throughout the island are already planned by GovGuam DPW to address LOS deficiencies, but these are
subject to funding availability. The magnitude of additive impact resulting from every collective action
alternatives would be strong (see Table 7.6-2) because the infrastructure improvement projects are subject
to funding availability and there may be a lag time before the improvement projects are constructed.
Need for Mitigation. Specific roadway improvement projects are proposed in Chapter 6.1 of this SEIS as
potential mitigation measures for the significant impacts due to the collective action alternatives.
GovGuam continues to update their transportation program to address existing LOS deficiencies. No
additional mitigation measures are proposed for cumulative effects.
7.7.13 Marine Transportation
Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Chapters 3, 4 and 5, and in the 2010 Final EIS,
during WWII, port capacity was greatly expanded. As new military ships are brought to Guam and
military missions change, there is always the potential for an increase in military marine traffic. The
commercial traffic is a function of population and general economic health of the island. The number of
non-military vessels visiting the Port of Guam would continue to reflect the need to service the population
and economic growth.
Three out of five recently completed projects have the potential to contribute to a beneficial cumulative
effect to marine transportation on Guam (see Table 7.6-1) because they are port improvement projects,
including Kilo Wharf Extension (AH-4). Population inducing projects may increase the shipping of
goods, including PRTC Warrior Barracks (N-12).
Six out of 11 present projects have the potential to contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect to marine
transportation on Guam (see Table 7.6-1), including Romeo Wharf Improvements (AH-21), Guam Port
Modernization Projects (AH-11), and GovGuam Agat Marina Dock A Repair & Renovation (S-16).
Projects with potential to increase shipping of goods include, Pacific Air Power Resiliency (N-26).
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, each of the collective action alternatives would result in
less than significant impacts to Guam’s marine transportation. There would be an increase in vessel traffic
to the Port of Guam that would be the same for each of the collective action alternatives. This increase
would not exceed the port’s capacity. There has been a steady and substantial decline in the number of
commercial vessels visiting the Port of Guam from 1995 through 2008 (2,924 to 1,022 vessels), the
additional traffic that would be associated with the collective action alternatives would be well below the
1995 peak number of vessels visiting the Port of Guam.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Marine Transportation. One reasonably foreseeable future
project is anticipated to beneficially contribute to a cumulative effect to marine transportation at Guam,
X-Ray Wharf (AH-10) (see Table 7.6-1).
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-91
Potential Cumulative Effects. There would be an additive impact between the collective action
alternatives and the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, but the
magnitude of additive impact resulting from the collective action alternatives would be low (see Table
7.6-2). Although the volume of goods may increase to support the increases in population, the increase in
ship traffic is considerably lower than vessel traffic experienced in the late 1990s. The commercial port is
not at risk of being unable to meet the anticipated increases in demand.
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects
are proposed.
7.7.14 Utilities
Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Chapters 3, 4, and 5, and in this section the
trends in utility demand are tied to population growth and constructed facility growth that has generally
increased over time. Electrical power demand is typically estimated based on the square footage of
constructed facilities. Water and wastewater quantities are forecast using population and industrial uses.
Solid waste quantities are estimated using population, commercial/industrial operations, and construction
activity for C&D debris and green waste.
In the utility studies prepared for this SEIS, the forecast electrical power demand was based on planned
DoD projects and their square footage/type of facility. In addition, the analysis forecast the electrical
power demand increases for civilian projects based on population growth forecast, both induced growth
including construction workforce and organic civilian growth forecast (independent of the proposed
Marine Corps Relocation). Based on these estimates, there is sufficient power generation capacity to meet
current and forecast demands through the year 2028. GPA may have a different approach to civilian
power demand forecasting that could affect their future plans.
The GWA potable water distribution system is identified as poor; it does not meet basic flow and pressure
requirements for all customers. GWA is currently operating under a stipulated order last amended in
October 2011. A program management consultant has been contracted to manage the required
improvement projects, and some projects have been completed while others are in progress. In addition,
the leak detection and repair program has yielded results based on GWA observed positive operational
characteristics. However, it is too soon to confirm these observations. The recently completed USEPA
NEIC Water Inspection Report revealed continued deficiencies in the GWA potable water system.
The GWA wastewater infrastructure has had a legacy of deferred maintenance and minimal capital
improvements causing the systems to deteriorate over the years and resulting in violations of NPDES
permit limits at WWTPs. The wastewater systems would continue to degrade until capital improvements
are made. The current major wastewater compliance requirements for GWA are covered under the 2011
Court Order, significant findings for wastewater from a USEPA NEIC inspection conducted in 2012, and
2013 NPDES permits requiring treatment system upgrades for the Northern District WWTP and Agana
WWTP.
In the years since the 2010 Final EIS, the GWA has made progress in complying with the 2011 Court
Order, including addressing significant findings from the 2012 USEPA NEIC inspection. However,
implementation of capital improvement projects and improvements to the operation and maintenance of
the existing GWA wastewater infrastructure are in the initial stages and will require several years and
significant funding to achieve full compliance. A program management consultant has been contracted by
the GWA to assist in the management of the required court ordered projects. Some projects have been
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-92
completed while others are in progress. The Northern District WWTP and the Agana WWTP primary
treatment capabilities have been improved subsequent to the 2010 Final EIS through chemically enhanced
treatment. The effluent today is of better quality than in 2010. However, USEPA issued the 2013 permits
requiring effluent quality be consistent with secondary treatment and Guam Water Quality Standards,
including those for nutrients. The 2013 NPDES permits for the Northern District WWTP and Agana
WWTP require upgrading these plants to achieve compliance. These upgrades are required whether or not
the proposed action proceeds and will result in improved effluent and receiving water quality.
The DON proposes to explore ways to resolve key solid waste issues, specifically the status of the Naval
Base Guam Landfill permit and handling of special wastes not accepted at Layon Landfill, through the
Solid Waste Working Group that was established with USEPA and GEPA on July 24, 2014. During the
September 19, 2014 meeting of the Solid Waste Working Group, GEPA indicated that they will formally
respond to DON correspondence with regards to issues relative to the Naval Base Guam Landfill. The
Layon Landfill and the permitted private hardfill facilities are operating within their regulatory
requirements. The proposed action would be in compliance with all applicable GEPA solid waste permit
terms and conditions that routinely include specific measures to protect human health and the
environment. All other projects on Guam would utilize permitted solid waste management and disposal
facilities.
Of 19 recently completed projects (see Table 7.6-1), 15 would have a beneficial impact on utilities
because they are infrastructure improvement projects, such as: Fiber Optic Installation (C-20), Deep Well
Rehabilitation (G-17), Implement Groundwater Rule (G-16), Ugum Water Treatment Plant
Refurbishment (S-6), and South Ramp Utilities Phase 2 (N-11). Population inducing projects may
increase the demand on utilities, including PRTC Warrior Barracks (N-12).
Of the 31 identified present projects involving utility improvements (see Table 7.6-1), 29 could have a
beneficial impact on utilities, including: Baza Gardens STP replacement (S-14), Wind Turbines (C-32, S-
4), Wastewater Collection System Replacement/Rehabilitation Program (G-19), Hagåtña STP
Improvements (C-41), Northern District WWTP (N-32), and Water Booster Pump Station (G-15).
Projects with potential to increase demand on utilities include Pacific Air Power Resiliency (N-26).
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, less than significant direct impacts were identified for
power, solid waste and IT/COMM under all collective action alternatives. The Utilities direct and indirect
impact analysis on infrastructure capacity addresses population growth and planned DoD projects through
2028; therefore, there may be an overestimate of the potential for cumulative impact on utilities in this
section. The collective action alternatives would place a greater demand on these utilities but there is
sufficient capacity or the required facilities to meet the demand are included in the proposed action, such
as IT/COMM. The new GovGuam Layon Landfill was designed to accommodate the 2010 Final EIS
proposed action, which would have a much higher solid waste generation rate. The demands on utilities
are directly related to the proposed population growth and induced growth, which would be the same for
all collective action alternatives. 2010 ROD-Related Actions contribute a less than significant impact to
the collective action impact. The LFTRC would have very little direct or indirect impact on utilities.
Significant mitigable impacts were identified for potable water and wastewater.
Potable water: Short-term significant localized impacts to potable water were identified in the NGLA
based on a USGS groundwater model (USGS 2013). The impacts are potentially mitigable by DoD
through enhanced water conservation measures, adjustment of pumping rates at DoD wells, and reduction
in withdraws from the NGLA. In addition, DoD would continue to support the GWRDG. The long-term
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-93
impacts to potable water would be less than significant. Eleven additional DoD wells are included in the
proposed action.
Wastewater: Significant mitigable impacts on wastewater were identified due to sewage treatment plants
requirements to meet 2013 NPDES permits. Direct and indirect wastewater impacts from DoD and
organic civilian population growth would be estimated to increase the wastewater flow to approximately
7.8 MGd (29.5 MLd). Performance, permit issues, and the timeframe to implement treatment system
upgrades to meet 2013 NPDES permit requirements remains to be resolved for the Northern District
WWTP, which is an issue independent of the proposed action. The Agana WWTP would not receive
direct DoD wastewater flows from the proposed action, but would be indirectly affected by the military
relocation from wastewater flows from the indirect impacts from the imported construction workforce
(during the construction phase only) and induced civilian growth. The estimated increased wastewater
flow to the Agana WWTP due to the proposed action only is 0.04 MGd (0.15 MLd). Similarly, the GWA
southern WWTPs (Agat-Santa Rita WWTP, Baza Gardens WWTP, Umatac-Merizo WWTP, and Inarajan
WWTP) would not receive direct DoD wastewater flows from the proposed action except for potential
and minimal flow to Inarajan WWTP from LFTRC Alternatives 3 and 4 (as an optional but not
recommended solution), but would be indirectly affected by the military relocation from indirect
wastewater flows from the induced civilian growth as well as organic civilian growth in the region. The
increased wastewater flow from indirect impacts from the proposed action to the four southern WWTPs is
estimated to total 0.02 MGd (0.075 MLd). The Guam Legislature has recently authorized GWA to finance
improvements to its wastewater systems in southern Guam.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Utilities. Three reasonably foreseeable future projects are
anticipated to contribute to a cumulative effect to utilities on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). Two of these
projects are utility improvement projects with potential beneficial impacts: the 60 MW Power Plant (G-6)
and Umatac-Merizo STP Replacement (S-18). The future project that might induce growth or have other
indirect impact on utilities include: Sigua Highlands (C-47).
Potential Cumulative Effects. There will be cumulative effects associated with the collective action
alternatives and the actions of other federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on utilities
on Guam. Population increases are the cause of direct and indirect impact associated with the collective
action alternatives. A few growth-inducing projects were identified from the recently completed, present,
and reasonably foreseeable projects; however, there are pre-existing deficiencies that are being corrected,
specifically for wastewater. The magnitude of the cumulative effect is moderate because the impacts are
regional, the GovGuam building permit review process manages the number of new developments to
prevent system failures, and deficiencies in utility service can be addressed by infrastructure
improvements, subject to available funding (see Table 7.6-2).
Need for Mitigation. GovGuam has a number of infrastructure improvement projects to address existing
deficiencies. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to resources are
listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. GovGuam reviews development proposals for utility capacity. No
additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects are proposed.
7.7.15 Socioeconomics and General Services
Current Health and Historical Context. Guam’s socioeconomic attributes and general services are defined
and discussed in detail in the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Chapter 16: Socioeconomics and General
Services, Section 16.1: Affected Environment, pages 16‐1 to 16-67).
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-94
Guam’s population, as of the most recent full U.S. Census of 2010, was 159,358. The island’s population
has grown significantly since becoming a U.S. Territory in 1950 - from a pre-war 1940 level of 22,900
(with a military and dependent population of 1,427) to 59,498 (with a military and dependent population
of 26,617) in 1950. As of 2010, 42.5% of Guam’s population lived in households on the island’s northern
region.
Between 1990 and 2000, the percentage representation of Chamorro and Caucasian ethnicities on Guam’s
population declined, while Filipino and “Other” ethnicities (most often composed of other Asian or
Pacific Islander ethnicities) increased. Guam’s ethnic makeup changed little from 2000 to 2010. In 2010,
42% of Guam residents were Chamorro or part Chamorro, 25% were Filipino, 8% were other Pacific
Islanders, 7% were Caucasian, and 17% were of other races or ethnicities.
Guam’s economy has been volatile. The economy stagnated in the 1970s to early 1980s, partly due to the
1973 oil embargo. Tourism peaked between 1995 and 1997 but ended with the Japanese financial crisis in
1997. Super typhoon Pongsona as well as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. also
affected the tourism market. From 2001 to 2003, Guam’s economy contracted. In 2005, tourism was the
island’s second largest private industry and both the primary Japanese and secondary Korean markets
were growing at that time. Many real estate developments were financed and constructed in anticipation
of the military buildup as proposed in 2010. Guam’s real estate and tourism market slowed at the end of
the decade, however, primarily due to the global economic decline and associated economic conditions.
In addition, the reduced scope and longer timeframe associated with the 2012 Roadmap Adjustments (see
Chapters 1 and 2 of this SEIS) led to a surplus of some housing types and a lower interest in future
development.
Seventeen recently completed projects with the potential to contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect to
socioeconomics and general services on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Many of these involved
residential construction (e.g., Hemlani Apartments [C-34]) and other projects that provide a public good,
such as the Veterans Clinic (C-3).
Nineteen present projects with the potential to contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect to
socioeconomic conditions and general services on Guam were identified (see Table 7.6-1). Many of these
involve residential construction ranging from worker and low-income housing (e.g., Sagan Bonita [C-26])
to luxury (e.g., C-21) and multi-unit buildings (e.g., Paradise Meadows [N-36]). Others involve
commercial development (N-29), and medical facilities (e.g., G-7).
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, there would be significant impacts related to an
anticipated greater than 2% population growth and the anticipated strain on public service staffing under
all collective action alternatives. The significant impacts to public services would be mitigable. Less than
significant impacts on economic activity and sociocultural issues were identified for all alternatives.
Beneficial impacts could include increased employment and standards of living, and some increase in
construction-related business travel. The type and magnitude of the impacts are population dependent and
similar for all collective action alternatives. No additive (Section 6.1) or 2010 ROD-Related Action
(Section 6.2) impact on socioeconomics and general services was identified.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Socioeconomics and General Services. Four reasonably
foreseeable future projects are anticipated to contribute to a beneficial cumulative effect to socioeconomic
conditions and general services on Guam (see Table 7.6-1), including the Territorial Prison (G-10) and a
60-MW Power Plant (G-6).
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-95
Potential Cumulative Effects. Assessing the potential cumulative effects related to socioeconomics and
general services is complicated by the inherent balance of adverse and beneficial impacts for each of the
criteria: population change, economic activity, public service, sociocultural, and land acquisition
(sociocultural and economic). The socioeconomic impacts are potentially Guam-wide. There are no
regulatory thresholds that dictate the economic or sociocultural health; however, there are recognized
stressors or threats, such as influx of immigrant populations, ex-migration of a significant employer, land
acquisition by the federal government, and decreases in tourism. In general, these adverse impacts are
reversible over time. The sociocultural adverse impacts of projects are more difficult to address, but very
few of the recently completed, present or reasonably foreseeable projects would have a sociocultural
impact. The sociocultural impact of the collective action alternatives is limited to land acquisition (less
than significant) and the influx of population (significant). For these reasons, the cumulative effects of the
collective action alternatives in conjunction with the recently completed, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects is moderate (see Table 7.6-2).
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects
are proposed.
7.7.16 Hazardous Materials and Waste
Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this SEIS, and in the
2010 Final EIS, hazardous material, toxic substance, and hazardous waste handling are collectively
referred to as hazardous substances. WWII established a high baseline of environmental releases; but
overall, the trend in hazardous substance use is associated with increases in population and industrial
activity. During the 1970s, there were numerous local and federal environmental regulations enacted to
protect human health and the environment and to closely control and regulate the transport, storage, use,
and disposal of hazardous substances. While the trend in use of hazardous substances is expected to
increase over time, regulations currently in place minimize the risk of release to the environment as well
as the risk to human health. This trend would continue at a more gradual rate of increase. Since the 2010
Final EIS there have been no substantive changes to the quantity of hazardous materials and waste Guam-
wide as there has been no increase in the number of regulated facilities (USEPA 2013). Additionally,
there have been no substantive changes to law, regulations or policies pertaining to the management of
hazardous materials and waste (Section 3.16.2). The impacts are largely related to human activities, but
natural events such as typhoons and earthquakes can result in inadvertent releases of regulated hazardous
substances.
Twelve recently completed projects have the potential to contribute to hazardous materials and waste
cumulative effects on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). Nine of these could contribute adversely, whereas three
could be beneficial such as replacement of the Gas Cylinder Storage Facility (C-7) and the Naval Hospital
(C-8). The beneficial impacts are based on the presumption that newer, more efficient facilities could
potentially use less hazardous materials and produce less hazardous waste. A new industry or industrial
facility has potential to adversely impact hazardous materials because they could increase the on-island
management of hazardous materials and waste, such as MIRC EIS/OEIS (G-2) and Kilo Wharf Extension
(AH-4).
Eleven present projects have potential to contribute to cumulative hazardous material impact (see Table
7.6-1). Five of these could contribute adversely by increasing the amount of materials and waste on
island, such as Fuel System Maintenance Hangar (N-51). However, six projects could have a beneficial
impact on potential cumulative effects, including POL System Hardened Structures (N-47), General
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-96
Purpose Hangar (N-52), PRTC SF Fire Rescue Emergency Management (N-50), and Upgrade JP-8
Receipt Pipeline (C-44) by increasing capacity or repairing existing infrastructure that is associated with
the management of hazardous materials and waste.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, the collective action alternatives would result in less
than significant impacts to hazardous materials management, hazardous waste management, existing
contaminated sites and toxic substances. The impacts would be the same for all of the alternatives. The
impacts would be associated with an increase in the management of hazardous materials and waste
managed. The impacts would be less than significant because the transportation, storage, handling, use,
and disposal of these substances is heavily documented, controlled, and regulated at the federal and local
level in a “cradle to grave” comprehensive manner. The potential for radon intrusion in new construction
would be addressed in facility design. Existing contaminated sites were identified at the NWF LFTRC
and these would be avoided to the extent practicable for a less than significant impact.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Hazardous Materials and Wastes. Two reasonably
foreseeable projects could contribute to hazardous substances and waste cumulative effects. These
projects include the 60 MW Power Plant (G-6).
Potential Cumulative Effects. There will be cumulative effects associated with the collective action
alternatives and the actions of other federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on
hazardous materials on Guam. The degree of cumulative effect resulting from the collective action
alternatives is considered to be low (see Table 7.6-2) because the existing environmental laws and
regulations and associated BMPs and SOPs require that hazardous substances are handled, used, and
disposed of in a comprehensive “cradle to grave” manner that inherently reduces the overall risk to human
health and the environment.
This projection is based on the assumption that existing hazardous materials, toxic substances, and
hazardous waste transportation, handling, storage, use, and disposal procedures and protocols are properly
implemented and modified as appropriate to address the increased hazardous substances demand. Most of
the recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects would increase the
management and capacity to handle regulated hazardous substances on Guam. However, these impacts
would not contribute appreciably to the increasing trend in the volume of regulated hazardous substances
already being handled and managed on Guam.
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. GovGuam reviews development proposals for proper use
and management of hazardous materials. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects are
proposed.
7.7.17 Public Health and Safety
Current Health and Historical Context. As summarized in Sections 3.17, 4.2.17, 5.5.17, and in detail in
the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Section 18.1: Affected Environment, pages 18-1 to 18-12), the historical
trends in public health and safety are difficult to determine. WWII is the most damaging recent event on
Guam’s history impacting human health and safety. The trends in public health and safety are a function
of changes in population and operations, or industries that involve dangerous materials (e.g., hazardous
substances, live ammunition, electromagnetic energy, radiological substances). The socioeconomics
section describes changes in population over time. From 1970 to 2000, the population on Guam
increased, but declined in subsequent years. The number of occupational and traffic accidents has
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-97
increased gradually over the years. The trend in notifiable diseases is increasing gradually, but is related
to population. The increase in construction and ground-disturbing activities would increase the risk of
uncovering UXO; live ammunition is largely a military activity and changes with the military mission.
Guam health and public services (i.e., lack of skilled professionals and lack of up-to-date equipment) are
sub-standard due to lack of funding; this trend is likely to continue in the absence of economic
development.
Thirty-nine recently completed projects were identified that could result in cumulative public health and
safety impacts. Thirty-six would likely have a beneficial impact because they would improve traffic
safety (e.g., S-1) or health services (e.g., C-3).
Fifty-seven present projects were identified that could result in cumulative public health and safety
impacts. Fifty-two projects may be beneficial because they involve road improvements (e.g., Route 1-8
Intersection Improvements & Agana Bridges Replacement[C-29]), utility improvements (e.g., S-8), or
health care improvements (e.g., N-38). Some military development projects (e.g., N-48, N-39) would
have an adverse impact because they could contribute to the perception of Guam becoming a terrorist
target.
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effects. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, the collective action alternatives would result in less
than significant impacts to public health and safety on Guam for the following categories:
Healthcare services (notifiable diseases/mental illness)
Operational safety
Environmental health (water quality, hazardous substances)
Traffic incidents
Significant impacts were identified for the collective action alternatives that include cantonment at AAFB
(Alternatives C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and C-5). During operations, in the event of a munitions transport
incident or explosives incident at the North Gate, a significant direct impact related to explosive safety
could occur. A less than significant impact was identified for all other collective action alternatives.
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Public Health and Safety. Sixteen reasonably foreseeable
projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative public health and safety impact, 14 of which may
have beneficial impacts, such as the Territorial Prison (G-10).
Potential Cumulative Effects. Anticipated impacts to public health and safety would have a cumulative
effect when combined with recently completed, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions on Guam
identified above. The impact is not quantifiable. There are no regulatory thresholds for public health and
safety. The degree of additive impact resulting from the collective action alternatives would be considered
to be moderate (see Table 7.6-2) because the cumulative effect is based largely on population increases
and available resources, and is island-wide.
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. GovGuam reviews development proposals and advocates
for public health and safety. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects are proposed.
7.7.18 Environmental Justice and the Protection of Children
Current Status and Historical Context. As summarized in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of this SEIS, and in the
2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Section 19.1: Affected Environment, pages 19-1 to 19-8), Environmental
Justice is an important concept that was introduced in 1994 by EO 12898. It applies to federal actions.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-98
Guam has a higher percentage of racial minorities, low-income populations, and children, when compared
with the continental U.S. Much of the island’s population would likely continue to struggle with poverty
and access to basic community services, especially when the social and health services are inadequate for
the existing population. The existing inadequate roads and utilities would likely continue to deteriorate,
having an adverse and disproportionate impact on disadvantaged residents of Guam. It is noted that the
collective action alternatives would improve various roads and highways affected by the collective action
alternatives.
Forty-three of 46 recently completed projects could contribute to a beneficial environmental justice and
protection of children impact on Guam, including Road Safety Improvements (G-1), housing projects
such as Paradise Estates (N-2) and Lada Estates (N-31), and public infrastructure projects, such as Layon
Landfill (S-3) (see Table 7.6-1).
Sixty-three of 66 present projects could beneficially contribute to environmental justice and protection of
children on Guam (see Table 7.6-1). The beneficial projects include residential construction, particularly
for low-income housing (e.g., Sagan Bonita [C-26]), a Health Clinic (G-7), and Guam Regional Medical
City (N-38). Potential adverse impacts are associated with increases in island population, such as the
Pacific Airpower Resiliency (N-26).
Direct and Indirect Impacts of the Collective Action Alternatives that might Contribute to a Cumulative
Effect. As summarized in Tables 7.4-1 and 7.6-2, significant impacts were identified for all collective
action alternatives. The significant impact is associated with (1) the greater than 2% increase of on-island
population that would have an impact on existing public safety staffing levels, and (2) disproportionate
socioeconomic impacts on low-income populations. The type and magnitude of the impacts would be
similar under each of the collective action alternatives. Less than significant impacts to environmental
justice populations were identified operational safety and noise levels, and recreation for all collective
action alternatives. Land acquisition would have a less than significant impact on environmental justice
populations, except for alternatives that include a LFTRC at AAFB NWF (i.e., A-5, B-5, C-5, D-5, E-5),
in which case there is no land acquisition proposed. No additive impacts (Section 6.1) were identified.
Less than significant impacts construction phase impacts related to health care service were identified for
the 2010 ROD-Related Action (Section 6.2).
Reasonably Foreseeable Actions that Affect Environmental Justice and the Protection of Children.
Fifteen reasonably foreseeable projects are anticipated to contribute to a cumulative impact, none of
which would like have an adverse impact. Infrastructure improvement projects (e.g., Route 26/25
Intersection Improvements) and public service infrastructure (e.g., Territorial Prison G-10) would likely
have a beneficial cumulative effect.
Potential Cumulative Effects. There will be cumulative effects associated with the collective action
alternatives and the actions of other federal agencies, local governments, and the private sector on
environmental justice and the protection of children on Guam. There are no specific thresholds to measure
the cumulative effects of all the projects being considered. The degree of additive impact resulting from
the collective action alternatives would be considered to be strong (see Table 7.6-2) because the current
status of the population is not resilient to additional stress and the impacts are island-wide.
Need for Mitigation. Potential mitigation measures proposed for avoiding or reducing impacts to
resources are listed in Tables 4.7-1 and 5.7-1. No additional mitigation measures for cumulative effects
are proposed.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-99
7.8 CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING
This section is largely as presented in the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 7, Chapter 4: Cumulative Effects,
Section 4.4: Climate Change and Global Warming, pages 4-87 to 4-94) but was updated with new
information. The effect of greenhouse gases on climate change and global warming from the collective
action alternatives and the associated regulatory framework remain the same as detailed in the 2010
Final EIS.
The 2010 Final EIS-predicted construction and operational greenhouse gas described in terms of total
annual emissions from island-wide activities. As indicated by the air quality modeling results presented in
Sections 4.1.3, 5.1.3, and 6.1 of this SEIS, and because of the overall reduced scale of construction and
population change for the Marine Corps relocation under the 2012 Roadmap Adjustments, the operational
greenhouse gas emissions for the SEIS proposed action would be lower than those analyzed in the 2010
Final EIS. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts in terms of proposed construction and facility
operations associated with this SEIS would be less than those described in the 2010 Final EIS.
The collective action alternatives discussed in this SEIS are unlikely to vary substantially in the quantity
of CO2e emissions. For example, the same amount of construction activities would occur regardless of
the different locations (alternatives), resulting in essentially the same amount of greenhouse gas
emissions. Therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions for the different alternatives would be similar to
those of the collective action alternatives.
The change in climate conditions caused by greenhouse gas resulting from the burning of fossil fuels
f rom the proposed alternatives is a global effect, and requires that the emissions be assessed on a
global scale. The collective action alternatives mainly involve the relocation of the military operations
that are already occurring in the West Pacific region; therefore, fossil fuel burning activities in the West
Pacific region are unlikely to change significantly. Consequently, overall global greenhouse gas
emissions are unlikely to change on a regional or global scale as a result of the collective action
alternatives, resulting in an insignificant cumulative effect to global climate change. No potential specific
greenhouse gas emission mitigation measures are proposed.
7.8.1 Climate Change Adaptation
Climate change is a global issue for DoD. As is outlined in the Quadrennial Defense Review of
February 2010, DoD needs to adjust to the impacts of climate change in military facilities and military
capabilities. The DoD already provides environmental stewardship at hundreds of DoD installations
throughout the U.S. and around the world, working diligently to meet resource efficiency and
sustainability goals as set by relevant laws and executive orders. Although the U.S. has significant
capacity to adapt to climate change, it will pose challenges for civil society and DoD alike,
particularly in light of the nation’s extensive coastal infrastructure. In 2008, the National Intelligence
Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of
risk from rising sea levels. DoD’s operational readiness hinges on continued access to land, air, and sea
training and test space. Consequently, the DoD must complete a comprehensive assessment of all
installations to assess the potential impacts of climate change on its missions and adapt as required.
The Quadrennial Defense Review goes on to illustrate that DoD will work to foster efforts to assess,
adapt to, and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Domestically, the Department will leverage
the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, a joint effort among DoD, the
Department of Energy, and the USEPA, to develop climate change assessment tools. Abroad, the
Department will increase its investment in the Defense Environmental International Cooperation
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-100
Program not only to promote cooperation on environmental security issues, but also to augment
international adaptation efforts. The DON operational side published the Task Force Climate Change
Roadmap on May 21, 2010, which builds off the Quadrennial Defense Review and focuses on the naval
operational challenges of a changing climate. Although the document does not address compliance issues,
the roadmap also recognizes the need to address sea level rise impacts on infrastructure and real estate
through strategic investments and installation adaptation strategies to address water resource challenges.
Guam would have some unique adaptation issues to evaluate and consider. The U.S. Global Climate
Research Program report, “Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S.” reviewed the unique
impacts of Climate Change on Islands. According to the report, climate change presents U.S.-
affiliated islands with unique challenges. Small and low elevation islands are vulnerable to sea-level
rise, coastal erosion, extreme weather events, coral reef bleaching, ocean acidification, and
contamination of freshwater resources with saltwater. The islands have experienced rising
temperatures and sea level in recent decades. Projections for the rest of this century suggest
continued increases in air and ocean surface temperatures in both the Pacific and Caribbean, an overall
decrease in rainfall in the Caribbean, an increased frequency of heavy downpours nearly everywhere,
and increased rainfall during the summer months (rather than the normal rainy season in the winter
months) for the Pacific islands. Hurricane wind speeds and rainfall rates are likely to increase with
continued warming. Island coasts would be at increased risk of inundation due to sea-level rise and
storm surge with major implications for coastal communities, infrastructure, natural habitats, and
resources.
Climate Change and Impacts on Waterfront Facilities 7.8.1.1
Until 1900, there was little change in sea level, but during the last century, sea level rose gradually and is
currently rising at an increased rate. The average rate of sea level rise measured by tide gauges from
1961 to 2003 was 0.071 ± 0.02 inches (0.18 ± 0.05 c]) per year, with an annual increase of 0.12 ± 0.03
inch (0.31 ± 0.07 cm) seen between 1993 and 2003, and a total increase of 6.7 ± 2 inches (17 ± 5 cm)
during the 20th century. This increase is due to thermal expansion (indicating increased heat content)
and the exchange of water between oceans and other reservoirs (i.e., glaciers and ice). By the end of
this century, sea level is predicted to rise 7-23 inches (18-59 cm), with an additional 4-8 inches (10-20
cm) rise possible due to the melting of land ice sheets in Greenland (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change 2007).
Projections made for Guam indicate that sea level rises of up to 39 inches (100 cm) would result in a few
low lying areas of Apra Harbor being inundated. The DON acknowledges there is the potential for
existing and future coastal facilities to be adversely affected by sea level rise, inundations from more
extreme storm events, and other consequences of climate change. However, predictive models on future
sea level rise are subject to variability, due in part to unknown future greenhouse gas emissions.
The variability increases with the period of time being assessed. Risk assessment methodologies and
technologies are being developed to predict the potential impacts of climate change on existing
DON coastal facilities. As new design criteria relevant to climate change are adopted by the DON, they
will be incorporated into project designs. Harbor projects on Guam are designed to include tsunami,
typhoon, wind, and earthquake conditions.
The waterfront activities of the collective action alternatives are limited to the wharf improvements at
Inner Apra Harbor. These improvements include repair and maintenance of existing wharves and
construction of support facilities. The Inner Apra Harbor wharf improvements do not alter the original
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-101
wharf design; the elevations are not altered. As new design criteria are adopted by the DON, they will be
incorporated into programmed projects.
Climate Change and Impacts on Aquifers 7.8.1.2
The availability of freshwater is likely to be reduced, with significant implications for island
communities, economies, and resources. Most island communities in the Pacific and Caribbean have
limited sources of freshwater. Many islands depend on surface water and freshwater lenses below the
surface, which are recharged by precipitation. Changes in precipitation, like the anticipated increases in
summer precipitation and the frequency of heavy rains, would increase on Guam. This would increase the
potential to cause more frequent flooding, which could compromise the quality of water supplies. Sea-level
rise also affects island water supplies by causing salt water to contaminate the freshwater lens and by
causing an increased frequency of flooding due to storm high tides. Water pollution (such as from
agriculture or sewage), exacerbated by storms and floods, can contaminate freshwater supplies, affecting
public health.
The collective action alternatives, specifically the additional population, could have an additive
cumulative effect with climate change impacts on aquifer yield. However, the USGS and WERI have
recently developed a groundwater model for Guam that can be used to assist with the management of
groundwater production from the NGLA (USGS 2013). The development of this groundwater model
included consideration of different climate scenarios, including extended drought. The groundwater
model will be used by the GWA and DoD and serve as a tool to assist in estimating the impacts of
selected groundwater-pumping and climate scenarios on the water supply.
In addition, the USGS was recently awarded a study under a Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program grant from DoD. The 4-year study Water Resources on Guam: Potential impacts
and adaptive response to climate change for DoD Installations would evaluate potential adverse climate-
change impacts on DoD installations that rely on Guam’s surface water and groundwater resources and
identify the adaptive capacity to minimize the adverse impacts. Potable water demands are projected to
increase and the effects of climate change may limit the water resources available to meet these demands.
The study will address potential impacts of and adaptations to climate change with the following: (1)
evaluation of the accuracy of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 results and use of the
best Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models to generate downscaled climate projections
and to quantify changes in tropical cyclone activity; (2) update and expansion of an existing watershed
model for southern Guam to evaluate climate driven changes in streamflow captured by Fena Valley
Reservoir; (3) analysis of climate change induced modifications in sediment loads and turbidity of water
entering Fena Valley Reservoir; (4) refinement of the hydrologic budget of northern Guam to estimate
groundwater recharge for current and future conditions; (5) update of the existing numerical groundwater
model to incorporate these recharge changes; and (6) establishment of rigorous stakeholder participation.
The climate change driven impacts to existing infrastructure and the adaptive capacity to minimize the
impacts will be evaluated by (1) showing temporal changes in surface water reservoir storage for climate
change scenarios due to modified streamflow, estimating reduced (due to sedimentation) or increased
(due to dredging or raised spillway) reservoir storage capacity, and estimating the frequency and volume
of high-turbidity events; (2) quantifying changes in groundwater salinity from new recharge and sea-level
estimates, and testing adaptive pumping and well design strategies for a range of climate scenarios and
projected demand estimates; and (3) investigating the conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater
to maximize DoD’s potential for developing water resources.
Guam and CNMI Military Relocation
(2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Final July 2015
7-102
Climate Change and Impacts on Coral Reefs 7.8.1.3
Climate change and ocean acidification have been identified as the greatest global threats to coral reefs,
resulting in mass coral bleaching events, reduced coral growth rates, and potential increases in the
frequency and severity of coral disease outbreaks. Coral are particularly sensitive to the impacts of
climate change as even small increases in water temperature can cause coral bleaching. As
concentrations of atmospheric CO2 increase, more CO2 is absorbed at the surface of water bodies.
Elevated CO2 concentrations are resulting in ocean acidification, which changes the chemistry of
ocean water, including a decrease in the saturation state of calcium carbonate. Marine calcifiers,
such as corals, use calcium carbonate to form shells, skeletons, and other protective structures and
reduced availability of it can slow or even halt calcification rates in these organisms.
The collective action alternatives on Guam would increase the levels CO2 generated on Guam (see Table
7.6-1) and contribute to the climate change impacts on the future health of corals and other marine
resources on Guam. In addition to dredging (for the 2010 ROD-Related Actions), there are other
potential impacts to marine resources associated with the collective action alternatives (i.e., increased
marine recreational use) that would contribute to the cumulative effect; however, potential mitigation
measures such as awareness training could offset these impacts to some degree.
Conclusions 7.8.1.4
The collective action alternatives would contribute to climate change. As climate science advances, the
DON would regularly reevaluate climate change risks and develop policies and plans to manage any
climate change impacts to DON’s operating environment, missions, and facilities. As indicated in Section
7.8.1.2 in this SEIS, a 4-year study is being done that would evaluate potential adverse climate-change
impacts on DoD installations that rely on Guam’s surface water and groundwater resources and identify
the adaptive capacity to minimize the adverse impacts. Managing the impacts of climate change on
national security would require the DON to work collaboratively, through a whole-of-government
approach with GovGuam.