DOCSLIB.ORG

Guam Draft SEIS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guam Draft SEIS Guam and CNMI Military Relocation (2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Draft April 2014 5.2 NAVAL MAGAZINE (EAST/WEST) LIVE-FIRE TRAINING RANGE COMPLEX – ALTERNATIVE 2 Under Alternative 2, the proposed development of a live-fire training range complex would occur at NAVMAG East/West. Details about this alternative are provided in Section 2.5.4.2 and the proposed site is illustrated in Figure 2.5-3. 5.2.1 Geological and Soil Resources 5.2.1.1 Affected Environment The affected environment for the HG Range at Andersen South would be the same as described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.1 of this SEIS. The affected environment for geological and soil resources associated with Alternative 2 is consistent with the affected environment description in the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Chapter 3: Geological and Soil Resources, Section 3.1.5 South, pages 3-26 to 3-28), which is summarized below for reference. The proposed reduction in the number of relocating Marines and dependents under the 2012 Roadmap Adjustments does not alter the description of the affected environment for geological and soil resources, but it would reduce some potential impacts to geological and soil resources that were determined to be less than significant or mitigated to less than significant in the 2010 Final EIS, as described in the analysis of environmental consequences for Alternative 2 below. Alternative 2 would be located in a topographically rugged, hilly-to-mountainous area in the south-central part of Guam. Within the proposed project footprint, elevations range from approximately 200 feet (61 m) above MSL along the northeastern extent to approximately 520 feet (158 m) MSL along the southern extent of the footprint. To the northwest of the proposed Alternative 2 footprint is Fena Valley Reservoir, and to the west is Mount Almagosa. The proposed Alternative 2 footprint is underlain by volcanic bedrock. One known minor bedrock fault crosses the footprint and there are multiple others (including one major) in the surrounding area (Figure 5.2.1-1). The soils of Guam are described in the 2010 Final EIS (Volume 2, Chapter 3: Geological and Soil Resources, Section 3.1.1.3 Geologic Units, Figure 3.1-4 and Table 3.1-1, pages 3-8 to 3-9). Three soil groups cover the majority of the footprint: Ylig clay, Togcha-Akina silty clay, and Akina Badland Association (Figure 5.2.1-2). Depth and drainage capacity of these soil groups vary from very shallow to very deep, and well drained to poorly drained (Young 1988). The Agfayan Clay, Akina-Atate-Silty Clay, and Akina Silty Clay cover the remainder of the footprint. For the latter three groups as a whole, runoff is medium to rapid, and the water erosion hazard is moderate to severe (Young 1988). The three dominant soil types in the proposed Alternative 2 footprint are considered limited agriculturally-productive soils because of the elevated acidity of these soils. However, these soils support production of watermelons and pineapples (Young 1988). Prime farmland soils, as defined by the USDA, are soils best suited to producing food, seed, forage, fiber and oilseed crops, favorable for economic production and sustained high yield, with minimal inputs of energy and resulting in least damage to the environment (Young 1988). The Togcha component of the Togcha-Akina silty clay group meets the requirements for prime farmland when irrigated (Young 1988). 5-95 Legend Area of Detail DoD Property on Guam LFTRC Alternative 2 Impacted Area Philippine Sea Geologic Features: Observed and Inferred Major Faults & Fault Zones Observed and Inferred Minor Faults & Fault Zones Depression/Sinkhole Landslide Potential: Moderate Pacific Ocean Moderate to High High Fena Valley Liquefaction 1 " = 18 Miles Geologic Classes: Reservoir Alluvium, Beach/Reef Deposits, and Artificial Fill Old Limestone MRFR Volcanic Units NAVMAG KD Rifle 5-96 KD Pistol MPMG NSSA Access Road 0 0.4 0.8 Figure 5.2.1-1 Miles Geologic Features in the Vicinity of ¤ Kilometers Sources: COMNAV Marianas 2008; GovGuam 2008; 0 0.4 0.8 NAVMAG (East/West) LFTRC Alternative 2 NAVFAC Pacific 2013; WERI 2001 100 200 Legend Area of Detail 100 on Guam 400 LFTRC Alternative 2 Impacted Area 300 100 500 200 DoD Property Philippine Sea 200 Contour (100-ft Interval) 700 700 Soil Classes: 100 100 100 Agfayan Clay Agfayan-Akina Association 300 Agfayan-Akina-Rock Outcrop 200 200 200 100 Pacific Ocean Akina Silty Clay 200 Akina-Atate Association 900 Fena Valley 300 300 100 700 0 0 Akina-Atate Silty Clay 1 1 " = 18 Miles Akina-Badland Association Reservoir 400 Urban Land Complex 400 Chacha Clay 400 400 MRFR 200 Inarajan Clay 900 200 Pulantat Clay 200 Ritidian-Rock Outcrop Complex 400 400 Togcha-Akina Silty Clay 900 400 Ylig Clay NAVMAG 400 800 300 KD Rifle 5-97 300 500 300 KD Pistol 500 900 400 200 MPMG 900 NSSA 900 300300 300 300 700 800 400 300 200 300 700 400 400 300 700 500 500 500 400 500 500 Access Road 300 300 400 400 500 700 400 0 0.4 0.8 Figure 5.2.1-2 Miles Kilometers Soils in the Vicinity of ¤ 0 0.4 0.8 NAVMAG (East/West) LFTRC Alternative 2 Sources: NAVFAC Pacific 2013; NRCS 2006 Guam and CNMI Military Relocation (2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Draft April 2014 With respect to geologic hazards (see Section 3.1.1.1) there is one major bedrock fault mapped within the Alternative 2 footprint. The overall likelihood for landslides to occur is considered high due to many areas combining steep slopes with soils vulnerable to slipping in seismic events (see Figure 5.2.1-1). The maximum reported tsunami waves height reached on Guam was approximately 11.5 feet (3.5 m) in an 1849 tsunami event. The area proposed for development of Alternative 2 is located away from the coastline and above the elevation susceptible to tsunamis. The Alternative 2 footprint is not subject to liquefaction because it is underlain by consolidated volcanic bedrock (see Figure 5.2.1-1). There are no preliminary identified topographic features that may contain sinkholes in the volcanic bedrock underlying the Alternative 2 footprint. 5.2.1.2 Environmental Consequences Construction Construction impacts associated with the HG Range at Andersen South would be similar to those described under Alternative 1 in Section 5.1.1.2 of this SEIS. Construction of the new ranges, range support building, roads, bridges, and related infrastructure associated with Alternative 2 would include clearing, grubbing and grading, and excavation (cut) and filling, and stream rerouting. Earthwork would include 1,246,720 yd3 (953,186 m3) of cut (excavation) and 1,254,698 yd3 (959,286 m3) of fill, with a net of 7,981 yd3 (6,102 m3) of fill. Alternative 2 would involve the least volume of excavation of any of the action alternatives. Within the Alternative 2 footprint, there are 30-feet (10-m) differences in elevation in the areas planned for construction of the MPMG and MRF ranges. There would be substantial changes to surface elevation for construction of the MPMG and MRF ranges. However, at the other four LFTRC alternatives, the locations proposed for the MPMG Range have greater elevation differences than at Alternative 2. For example, at Alternative 2, 30-feet (10-m) high slopes would be leveled with about 942,500 yd3 and (725,000 m3) of cut and 910,000 yd3 (700,000 m3) of fill. To build the MPMG Range at Alternative 1, 60-foot and 30-foot high (20- and 30- m) slopes would be leveled over the 1,000 m (0.5 mile) length of the range. Nearly the same amount of fill and 2.5 times as much cut would be needed. Because the elevation changes at Alternative 2 are smaller than those of the other alternatives, less excavation, filling and contouring would occur at Alternative 2 so there would be less alteration of the surrounding landscape than at the other four alternatives. Therefore, Alternative 2 is expected to have a less than significant direct, long-term impact on topography. There is a potential for increased erosion, compaction, and soil loss from physical disturbance caused by construction activity and changes to existing topography. However, project design and construction would incorporate engineering controls as BMPs to minimize erosion, as required by 22 GAR Chapter 10 Guam Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Regulations. Examples of such engineering controls include: Use of drainage diversion and control to direct runoff away from the disturbed area. Use of benches or terraces and drainage control on cut or fill slopes higher than 15 feet (5 m) to minimize erosion on slope faces. For each project, limit the size of the unstabilized disturbed areas to less than 20 acres (8 ha) during construction. Planning earth-moving operations for periods of low rainfall to minimize exposure of disturbed soil to potential runoff. Re-vegetating and permanently stabilizing disturbed areas as soon as possible. 5-98 Guam and CNMI Military Relocation (2012 Roadmap Adjustments) SEIS Draft April 2014 Engineering project slopes in consideration of soil and geological conditions to avoid and minimize erosion. Compliance with the DoD Program-level SWPPP for construction, in addition to individual project SWPPPs during construction to reduce the potential for erosion, runoff, sedimentation, and stormwater pollutant loading. In addition, construction activities associated with Alternative 2 would comply with the Construction General Permit. Potential construction-specific stormwater BMPs would be implemented in compliance with the Construction General Permit as listed in Section 4.1.2-2. Construction-specific stormwater BMPs would provide erosion and sediment control during the construction period, generally by employing on- site measures that reduce the flow of stormwater and minimize the transport of soils and sediment off-site.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Micronesica 38(1):93–120, 2005
    Micronesica 38(1):93–120, 2005 Archaeological Evidence of a Prehistoric Farming Technique on Guam DARLENE R. MOORE Micronesian Archaeological Research Services P.O. Box 22303, GMF, Guam, 96921 Abstract—On Guam, few archaeological sites with possible agricultural features have been described and little is known about prehistoric culti- vation practices. New information about possible upland planting techniques during the Latte Phase (c. A.D. 1000–1521) of Guam’s Prehistoric Period, which began c. 3,500 years ago, is presented here. Site M201, located in the Manenggon Hills area of Guam’s interior, con- tained three pit features, two that yielded large pieces of coconut shell, bits of introduced calcareous rock, and several large thorns from the roots of yam (Dioscorea) plants. A sample of the coconut shell recovered from one of the pits yielded a calibrated (2 sigma) radiocarbon date with a range of A.D. 986–1210, indicating that the pits were dug during the early Latte Phase. Archaeological evidence and historic literature relat- ing to planting, harvesting, and cooking of roots and tubers on Guam suggest that some of the planting methods used in historic to recent times had been used at Site M201 near the beginning of the Latte Phase, about 1000 years ago. I argue that Site M201 was situated within an inland root/tuber agricultural zone. Introduction The completion of numerous archaeological projects on Guam in recent years has greatly increased our knowledge of the number and types of prehis- toric sites, yet few of these can be considered agricultural. Descriptions of agricultural terraces, planting pits, irrigation canals, or other agricultural earth works are generally absent from archaeological site reports, although it has been proposed that some of the piled rock alignments in northern Guam could be field boundaries (Liston 1996).
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Recovery Plan for the Sihek Or Guam Micronesian Kingfisher (Halcyon Cinnamomina Cinnamomina)
    DISCLAIMER Recovery plans delineate actions which the best available science indicates are required to recover and protect listed species. Plans are published by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and sometimes prepared with the assistance of recovery teams, contractors, State agencies, and others. Recovery teams serve as independent advisors to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans are reviewed by the public and submitted to additional peer review before they are approved and adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Objectives will be attained and any necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. Nothing in this plan should be construed as a commitment or requirement that any Federal agency obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 USC 1341, or any other law or regulation. Recovery plans do not necessarily represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Recovery plans represent the official position of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only after they have been signed as approved by the Regional Director or Director. Approved recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in species status, and the completion of recovery actions. Please check for updates or revisions at the website addresses provided below before using this plan. Literature citation of this document should read as follows: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Guam 179: Facing Te New,Pacific Era
    , DOCONBOT Busehis BD 103 349 RC 011 911 TITLE Guam 179: Facing te New,Pacific Era. AnnualEconom c. Review. INSTITUTION .Guam Dept. of Commerce, Agana. SPONS AGENCY Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE Aug 79 . NOTE 167p.: Docugent prepared by the Economic,Research Center. EDRS ?RICE . 1F01/PC07Plus 'Postage. DESCRIPTORS Annual Reports: Business: *Demography: *Economic Dpveloptlent4 Employment Patternp:Expenditures: Federal GoVernment: Financial, Support: *Government Role:_Local Government: *Productivity;_ Vahles (Data); Tourism - IDENTIFIER, *Guam Micronesia A ABSTRACT Socioeconomic conditions and developmentSare analysed.in thiseport, designed to ge. useful\ tb plannersin government and t_vr,. rivate sector. The introduction sunrmarizes Guam's economic olthook emphasizing the eftect of federalfunds for reconstruction folloVing SupertirphAon.Pamela in 1976,moderate growth ,in tour.ism,,and Guam's pqtential to partici:pateas a staging point in trade between the United States and mainlandQhina The body of the report contains populaktion, employment, and incomestatistics; an -account of th(ik economic role of local and federalgovernments and the military:adescription of economic activity in the privatesector (i.e., tour.isid, construction, manufacturingand trarde, agziculture and .fisheries and finan,cial inStitutionsi:and a discussion of onomic development in. Micronesia 'titsa whole.. Appendices contain them' 1979 uGuam Statistical Abstract which "Constitutesthe bulk Of tpe report and provides a wide lia.riety of data relevantto econ9mic development and planning.. Specific topics includedemography, vital statistics, school enrollment, local and federalgovernment finance, public utilities, transportation, tourism, andinternational trade. The most current"data are for fiscalyear 1977 or 197B with many tables showing figures for the previous 10years.(J11) A , . ***************t*********************************************t********* * .
    [Show full text]
  • The National Fleet Plan
    THE NATIONAL FLEET PLAN DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS UNITED STATES COAST GUARD OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT August 2015 This Page Left Intentionally Blank This Page Left Intentionally Blank This Page Left Intentionally Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. 1. Preamble…..……………………………………………………………………………… 9 2. Purpose……………………………………………………………………………………. 9 3. National Fleet Plan Overview…………...……………………………………………….. 9 4. Plan Progression and Oversight………………………………………………………… 10 5. National Fleet Plan……………………………………………………………………… 10 5.1. Current and Evolving Operations ……………………………………...….................. 10 5.2. Integrated Logistics………………………………………….……………………….. 12 5.3. Training……………………………………………………………..………………… 15 5.4. Maritime Security Cooperation…………………….…………………….…………… 21 5.5. Command, Control, Communications (C3) Systems…………………….…………… 22 5.6. Sensors………………………………………………………………………………... 25 5.7. Weapon Systems…………………………………………………….………………... 26 5.8. Engineering Systems…………………………………………………...……………... 28 5.9. Platforms………………………………………………………………….…………… 29 5.10. Intelligence and Information Integration………………………………….................. 34 6. Programmatic Collaboration…………………………………………………………… 36 7. Integrated Plan of Action and Milestones…………………………………..………….. 36 8. Navy-Coast Guard Memoranda of Understanding/Memoranda of Agreement………... 44 9. Legal Authorities…………………………………………………………….................. 48 Chartered Commonality Working Groups: Mission/Plan of Action and Milestones Appendix A. Permanent Joint Working Group…………………………………… 50
    [Show full text]
  • Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands Joint Military Training Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impac
    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY JOINT REGION MARIANAS PSC 455 BOX 211 FPO AP 96540·1000 COMNAVMARIANASINST 3500.4A J3 8 Oct 13 COMNAVMAR INSTRUCTION 3500.4A Subj: MARIANAS TRAINING MANUAL Ref: (a) Marianas Islands Range Complex Final Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement, USDEFREP GU/CNMI/FSM/ROP Record of Decision, 20 July 2010 (b) Marianas Islands Range Complex Endangered Species Act Terrestrial Biological Opinion (c) Marianas Islands Range Complex Marine Mammal Protection Act Rule Encl: (1) Marianas Training Manual (MTM) 1. Purpose. To promulgate information concerning military operational training services, areas, and facilities available in the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC) and procedures governing the use of training areas, ranges, and airspace. 2. Background. Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet (COMPACFLT) is the Executive Agent for management of the Mariana Islands Range Complex (MIRC). The senior Navy commander in the Marianas Islands has three overlapping roles within the MIRC: Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Marianas (COMNAVMAR); Commander, Joint Region Marianas (JRM); and Department of Defense Representative (USDEFREP) Guam, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and Republic of Palau (ROP). COMNAVMAR representing U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) is responsible for supporting military training and is the controlling and scheduling authority for Navy-owned and controlled training areas and services available in the Mariana Islands. JRM, representing Commander, Navy Installations Command (CNIC), functions include legal, environmental, facilities, public affairs and comptroller support. USDEFREP also coordinates joint service planning and use of training areas and facilities in CNMI and Micronesia. 3. Cancellation. COMNAVMARIANASINST 3500.4 ) COMNAVMARIANASINST 3500.4A 8 Oct 13 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Networks Enhance Inarajan Village's Sense of Place
    Networks Enhance Inarajan Village’s Sense of Place By Yuki Cruz, Master of Urban Planning 2013 ) ) Overview” provides a general The first chapter identifies synopsis of the island’s attributes that exist within the geographic, economic, and village. These attributes come demographic characteristics. from multiple sources including The second section “Tourism TripAdvisor, Guampedia, and on Guam” discusses the role of local opinion. tourism, the habits of tourists, Executive Summary and current efforts to strengthen The second chapter analyzes the tourism industry. The third the social network of the people section discusses the architec- involved in the Inarajan Historic tural and cultural significance Architectural District Revitaliza- of Inarajan Village. Finally, the tion Plan. The analysis uncovers fourth section provides a synop- trends and shortcoming within sis the Inarajan Historic Archi- the network. tectural Distric Revitalization This document studies how networks can be used to strengthen the Plan. Part 3: long-term social, cultural, and economic vitality of Guam’s Inarajan Conclusion and Village. The document is broken down into three main parts: Over- Part 2: Assessment Recommendations view, Assessment, and Conclusion. The Assessment addresses two This part addresses the Part 1: Overview topics: main findings of this project, suggested future steps, and The Overview is meant to familiarize the reader with the larger recommendations for Inarajan 1. Placemaking for Commu- systems in which Inarajan Village is located. These systems form to make it there. It expands on nity Identity and the environment in which decisions must be made. The influences the social network analysis of of the environment are often viewed relative to time, geography, Inarajan and examples how the 2.
    [Show full text]
  • NAVFAC Marianas
    NAVFAC Marianas Presented by CAPT John V. Heckmann Regional Engineer & Commanding Officer Naval Facilities Engineering Command Marianas Agenda • NAVFAC Business Overview • Safety • Construction • FY12 NDAA Summary • Acquisition and Contracts Naval Hospital Rendering • Selection Criteria 2 NAVFAC - Military Facility Management • Infrastructure and services in support of operational units, service members, and families assigned to military installations, e.g: – Public works (utilities, services, maintenance, repairs) – Construction/Engineering – Environmental – Transportation • Not the ships, subs, and aircraft • Big business: – Average $500M/year, with ~ $470M/year in contracts – 580 personnel (+/-) – Hundreds of contractors 3 NAVFAC Marianas Execution Laydown • PWD Guam/ROICC Finegayan PWO: CDR Thornton, ROICC: CDR Cyr 36th CES 36th LRS Apra Harbor Complex 36th CONS Ordnance Annex NAVHOSP Finegayan Navy Barrigada ROICC Finegayan NBGTS/NCTS/CIS Guam ANG MILCON, Barrigada Barrigada Transmitter Site • 36th CES/LRS/CONS Commander: Lt Col Staples/ Maj Campbell/Maj Kennebrae PWD Guam Andersen Main AFB Northwest Field Andersen South 4 Construction DART Rates GOAL = 0 DART Cases 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 NAVFAC Marianas 0.07 0.07 0 0.09 0 Guam (BLS) 0.9 1.2 N/A N/A N/A National (BLS) 2.5 2.3 2.1 N/A N/A Hawaii (BLS) 3.9 2.7 2.7 N/A N/A NOTE: N/A indicates data not available in BLS 5 Operations & Main, Navy (O&M,N) • $142M in Sustainment, Restoration & Modernization (SRM) FY12 – $61M targeted for Naval
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES Permit Fact Sheet: Department of the Navy, Naval
    April 6, 2020 FACT SHEET FINAL MODIFICATION OF NPDES PERMIT NO. GUS040000 MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Permittee and Mailing Address: Department of the Navy Naval Base Guam (NBG) PSC 455, Box 152 FPO AP, Guam 96540-1000 Permitted Facility and Location: Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Operated by the Department of the Navy on Guam Contact Person: Edward Moon Naval Base Guam Public Works Division, Environmental Installation Environmental Program Director (671) 339-4100 SUMMARY: EPA, Region 9 is issuing a final modified National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharges from the municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) serving certain Department of the Navy (DON) facilities1 on Guam. The discharges regulated by the permit consist primarily of stormwater runoff but could also include certain specified non-stormwater discharges as well. The existing MS4 permit for DON was issued on December 20, 2018 and became effective on February 1, 2019. The permit requires development and implementation of a stormwater management program (SWMP) including various best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with a schedule that is set forth in the permit. In response to a request from DON, EPA prepared a draft permit modification that would extend most deadlines for the SWMP and BMPs by one year. EPA provided public notice of the draft permit modification on November 5, 2019. The public comment period was from November 5, 2019 to December 6, 2019. No comments were received during the public comment period. 1 These facilities are Naval Base Guam, Apra Heights, Nimitz Hill, Naval Magazine and Naval Hospital and adjacent high school.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Critical Habitat for Three Endangered Species on Guam and Rota
    DRAFT ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREE ENDANGERED SPECIES ON GUAM AND ROTA REVISED DETERMINATION NOVEMBER 2002 DRAFT ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THREE ENDANGERED SPECIES ON GUAM AND ROTA REVISED DETERMINATION Prepared for: Division of Economics U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 4401 N. Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 Prepared by: Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. 2153 North King Street, Suite 200 Honolulu, HI 96819 Under subcontract to: Industrial Economics, Incorporated 2067 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02140 Send comments on the economic analysis to: Field Supervisor Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3-122 P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850-0001 NOVEMBER 2002 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT FOR TABLE OF CONTENTS THREE ENDANGERED SPECIES ON GUAM AND ROTA Table of Contents FOREWORD PREFACE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 LISTED SPECIES AND PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT 1.1 THE LISTED SPECIES ................................................ 1-1 1.2 PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT AREAS................................ 1-3 1.2.1 Primary Constituent Elements ...................................... 1-3 1.2.2 Excluded Areas, Features, and Structures ............................. 1-7 1.2.3 Acreage ....................................................... 1-8 1.2.4 Location and Terrain ............................................. 1-8 1.2.5 Occupied and Unoccupied Areas .................................... 1-9 1.2.6 Land Ownership
    [Show full text]
  • 4.3 Naval Munitions Site
    Final INRMP Joint Region Marianas 1 4.3 Naval Munitions Site 2 4.3.1 General Physical Environment 3 4.3.1.1 Climate 4 The climate at the NMS is the same as the climate for Guam as a whole. See Section 4.1.1.1 for a 5 description of the climate on Guam. 6 4.3.1.2 Geology and Topography 7 The NMS is in the southern structural province of Guam (see Figure 4-1). The western boundary of this 8 site coincides with a range of low mountains orientated on a north-to-south axis. This range includes 9 Mount Alifan; Mount Almagosa; Mount Lamlam, which attains a height of 1,334 feet (407 meters) above 10 msl; and Mount Humuyong (see Figure 4-2). This range lies on the Bolanos structural block, which 11 consists of rock from the Miocene-aged Umatac Formation. The Umatac Formation is composed of 12 east-dipping (5–10 degrees) volcanic rocks, including flow basalts (Dandan Member) and tuff breccia or 13 tuff-derived conglomerate, sandstone, and shale (Bolanos Member). The tuff is consolidated volcanic ash 14 that was marine-deposited and uplifted. Breccia refers to the angular fragments of the conglomerate. 15 Portions of the range have alternated between periods of submergence and emergence as evidenced by the 16 presence of the Alifan Limestone (U.S. Navy 2009). 17 4.3.1.3 Seismology 18 The Talofofo Fault Zone crosses the NMS in a northwest-southeast direction (GHS 2008). Several 19 smaller faults cross the site in a north-south direction (GHS 2008).
    [Show full text]
  • GAO-11-459R Military Buildup on Guam Grow from About 15,000 in 2007 to About 39,000 by 2020
    United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 June 27, 2011 The Honorable Tim Johnson Chairman The Honorable Mark Kirk Ranking Member Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States Senate Subject: Military Buildup on Guam: Costs and Challenges in Meeting Construction Timelines In 2004, the bilateral U.S. and Japanese Security Consultative Committee began a series of sustained security consultations to strengthen the U.S.-Japan security alliance by establishing a framework for the future of the U.S. force structure in Japan. The United States and Japan agreed to reduce the U.S. force structure in Japan while maintaining the U.S. force presence in the Pacific theater by relocating units to other areas, including Guam. As part of this effort, called the Defense Policy Review Initiative, about 8,600 Marines and 9,000 dependents were to move from Okinawa, Japan, to Guam by a projected date of 2014, as described in the bilateral agreement.1 On June 21, 2011, however, United States and Government of Japan officials noted that completion of the Marine relocation will not meet the previously targeted date of 2014, but confirmed their commitment to complete the relocation at the earliest possible date after 2014. 2 The Department of Defense (DOD) also plans to move other military forces and equipment to Guam on different schedules in implementing a new strategic approach in the Pacific as part of its worldwide Integrated Global Presence and Basing Strategy. These latter initiatives involve each of the military services and the Army National Guard working concurrently to complete infrastructure projects to support Guam-based U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Displacement, Dispossession, and Survival in Guam A
    UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I LIBRARY FANHASSO I TAOTAO SUMAY: DISPLACEMENT, DISPOSSESSION, AND SURVIVAL IN GUAM A THESIS SUBMmED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAW AI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN PACIFIC ISLANDS STUDIES AUGUST 2008 By James Perez Viernes Thesis Committee: David Hanlon, Chairperson Karen Peacock Terence Wesley-Smith Anne Perez Hattori We certifY that we have read this thesis and that, in our opinion, it is satisfactory in scope and quality as a thesis for the degree of Master of Arts in Pacific Islands Studies. THESIS COMMITTEE aiairperson ii © 2008, James Perez Viernes iii For Nana Bear, Andy Boy, Saia, and Folole. May you and those of your generation grow to cherish the legacy of maiiaina-ta. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A great number of people and organizations are deserving of my deepest un dangkolo na Si Yu'us Ma'iise for inspiring this work and for their support, encouragement, and faith that saw me through to its completion. To those who call themselves taotao Sumay, whose stories I have been so blessed with receiving, no words can express my gratitude for instilling in me a deep love and connection to the place of my roots and the importance of passing on your legacy. I am forever grateful for your willingness to share with me the epic journey that has been your lives. Many thanks to Grandma Ginza (Maria Sablan Pangelinan Perez), Granny (Guadalupe Sablan Santos Viernes), Tan Chong Ano, Auntie Dolly Williams, Tan Julia Borja, Tun Juan Guzman, Tan Upi' Wesley, Auntie Ta Pangelinan, Mr.
    [Show full text]