+------------+-----------------------------------------------+---------+
| **IN REPLY | # United States Department of the Interior    |         |
| REFER      |                                               |         |
| TO:**      | ## NATIONAL PARK SERVICE                      |         |
|            |                                               |         |
|            | #                                             |         |
|            | # WAR IN THE PACIFIC NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK |         |
|            |                                               |         |
|            | **460 NORTH MARINE CORPS DRIVE**              |         |
|            |                                               |         |
|            | **PITI, GUAM 96915**                          |         |
+------------+-----------------------------------------------+---------+

November 22, 2004

Message from the Superintendent

Dear Friend of the Park,

On behalf of the National Park Service, and in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and NPS Director's
Order 12, we are pleased to release an Environmental Assessment (EA) for
fire management alternatives at War in the Pacific National Historical
Park on Guam. The EA includes photographs, location maps, references,
project description, analysis of alternatives, and the park's
environmentally preferred alternative.

The EA is an important public document that lists not only the park's
analysis and preferred alternative, but documents our process of public
notification and what interested parties were contacted. As a result of
public scoping in early 2004, the park is now distributing this EA for a
30 day public comment period from November 22, 2004, through December
22, 2004. All [written]{.underline} comments received during this time
will be duly considered in the environmental decision making process.

For ease of distribution to the widest possible audience, the park has
posted the complete EA in three electronic files at its Website. You can
reach them by going to [www.nps.gov/wapa](http://www.nps.gov/wapa) and
then opening "Management Docs" which includes: "WAPA Fire Plan -- Text",
"WAPA Fire Plan -- Figures", and "WAPA Fire Plan -- Pictures". You can
also go directly to:
[http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parks/wapa/ppdocuments/Final%20edit.doc](http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parks/wapa/ppdocuments/Final edit.doc)
for the text version; or

<http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parks/wapa/ppdocuments/NPS-Figures.pdf> for
figures; and finally for pictures to

<http://data2.itc.nps.gov/parks/wapa/ppdocuments/NPS-Pictures.pdf> .

Thank you for helping us to preserve your natural and cultural heritage.
If you have additional questions or concerns, please contact Dr. Dwayne
Minton at (671) 472-7240, ext. 235, or myself at ext. 222.

Sincerely,

/s/ original signature on file

Eric J. Brunnemann

War in the Pacific National Historical Park

American Memorial Park, Saipan

**Environmental ASSESSMENT**

####### Fire Management Plan

####### War in the Pacific

####### National Historical Park

####### 

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="6.495833333333334in"
height="4.871527777777778in"}

**November 12, 2023**

**Environmental ASSESSMENT**

####### 

####### Fire Management Plan

####### War in the Pacific

####### National Historical Park

####### 

**Prepared for:**

![](media/image4.png){width="1.0590277777777777in"
height="1.3833333333333333in"}

**National Park Service**

**Pacific Islands Support Office**

**Haleakala National Park**

**Makawao, Hawaii, 96768**

**Prepared by:**

+--------+---------+--------------------------------------------------+
| ![]    | *       | **[Hawai\'i International Environmental          |
| (media | *HIES** | Services, Inc.]{.smallcaps}**                    |
| /image |         |                                                  |
| 5.png) |         | Earth Scientists and Environmental Engineers     |
|        |         |                                                  |
|        |         | 70 Kihapai Street, Kailua, Hawai'i 96734 Phone   |
|        |         | (808) 263-4787 Fax (808) 263-0860                |
+--------+---------+--------------------------------------------------+

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| **[Se      | **[Title]{.underline}**                         | **   |
| ction]{.un |                                                 | [Pag |
| derline}** |                                                 | e]{. |
|            |                                                 | unde |
|            |                                                 | rlin |
|            |                                                 | e}** |
+============+=================================================+======+
| **1.0**    | **INTRODUCTION**                                | **1  |
|            |                                                 | -1** |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
|            |                                                 |      |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| **2.0**    | **Purpose and Need For Action**                 | **2  |
|            |                                                 | -1** |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 2.1        | Background                                      | 2-1  |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 2.2        | Purpose and Need                                | 2-3  |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
|            |                                                 |      |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
|            |                                                 |      |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| **3.0**    | **Alternative Analysis**                        | **3  |
|            |                                                 | -1** |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 3.1        | Alternative 1 - No Action                       | 3-2  |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 3.2        | Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach  | 3-2  |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 3.3        | Alternatives Considered but Rejected            | 3-3  |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 3.4        | Environmentally Preferred Alternative           | 3-3  |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
|            |                                                 |      |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| **4.0**    | **Affected Environments, IMpacts and            | **4  |
|            | Mitigation**                                    | .1** |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.1        | Impact Assessment Methodology/Impairment        | 4.1  |
|            | Analysis                                        |      |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.2        | ###### Geology and Soils                        | 4-2  |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.2.1      | Alternative 1 -- No Action                      | 4-6  |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.2.2      | Alternative 2 - Fire Management Unit Approach   | 4-6  |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.3        | **Biological Resources**                        | 4-6  |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.3.1      | Alternative 1 -- No Action                      | 4-10 |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.3.2      | Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach  | 4-11 |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.4        | **Water Resources**                             | 4-12 |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.4.1      | Alternative 1 -- No Action                      | 4-12 |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.4.2      | Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach  | 4-12 |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.5        | **Air Quality**                                 | 4-13 |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.5.1      | Alternative 1 -- No Action                      | 4-13 |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
| 4.5.2      | Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach  | 4-13 |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+
|            |                                                 |      |
+------------+-------------------------------------------------+------+

**TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)**

  ------------- ------------------------------------------------- ---------
  4.6           **Socioeconomic And Public Safety**               4-14

  4.6.1         Alternative 1 -- No Action                        4-14

  4.6.2         Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach    4-14

  4.7           **Cultural Resources**                            4-16

  4.7.1         Alternative 1 -- No Action                        4-16

  4.7.2         Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach    4-17

  4.8           **Land Use**                                      4-17

  4.8.1         Alternative 1 -- No Action                        4-17

  4.8.2         Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach    4-18

  4.9           **Cumulative Impacts**                            4-18

  4.9.1         Alternative 1 -- No Action                        4-18

  4.9.2         Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach    4-19

                                                                  

  **5.0**       **Public Participation and Agency Coordination**  **5-1**

                                                                  

  **6.0**       **REFERENCES**                                    **6-1**

                                                                  

  **7.0**       **List of Preparers**                             **7-1**
  ------------- ------------------------------------------------- ---------

**TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)**

**LIST OF Tables**

  ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
  **[[Number]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**                                                           **[[Page]{.underline}]{.smallcaps}**

  3.1                                      Summary of Alternatives                                 3-5

  4.1                                      Soil Types by Unit                                      4-5
  ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------

**FIGURES**

  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Figure]{.underline}**   **[Title]{.underline}**

  1                          Regional Area Map

  2                          Site Area Topographic Map (Asan Beach Unit, Asan Inland Unit,
                             Piti Guns Unit, Fonte Plateau Unit, Mt. Chachao/Mt. Tenjo
                             Unit)

  3                          Site Area Topographic Map (Agat Unit and Mt. Alifan Unit)

  4                          Site Area Map (All Units)

                             
  -------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------

**Appendices**

  ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------
  **[Appendix]{.underline}**   **[Title]{.underline}**

  A                            Photographic Documentation

  B                            Example Notification Letter and List of Recipients

                               
  ---------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------

LIST OF ACRONYMS

+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| amsl              | above mean sea level                             |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| bgs               | below ground surface                             |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| BMPs              | Best Management Practices                        |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| CEQ               | Council on Environmental Quality                 |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| CFR               | Code of Federal Regulations                      |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| CIA               | Central Intelligence Agency                      |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| CO                | Carbon Monoxide                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| CSIRO             | Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research  |
|                   | Organization                                     |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| CZMA              | Coastal Zone Management Act                      |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| DO                | Director's Order                                 |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| EA                | Environmental Assessment                         |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| EIS               | Environmental Impact Statement                   |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| EO                | Executive Order                                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| EPA               | Environmental Protection Agency                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| FEMA              | Federal Emergency Management Agency              |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| FMP               | Fire Management Plan                             |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| FMU               | Fire Management Unit                             |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| FONSI             | Finding of No Significant Impact                 |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| GMP               | General Management Plan                          |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| GSA               | General Services Administration                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| HIES              | Hawaii International Environmental Services,     |
|                   | Inc.                                             |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| NEPA              | National Environmental Policy Act                |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| NHPA              | National Historic Preservation Act               |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| NPS               | National Park Service                            |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| mgd               | million gallons per day                          |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| MOU               | ######### Memorandum of Understanding            |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| NO~2~             | Nitrogen Dioxide                                 |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| O~2~              | Ozone                                            |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| Pb                | Lead                                             |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| RMP               | Resource Management Plan                         |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| SO~2~             | Sulfur Dioxide                                   |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| USFWS             | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service                   |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| USGS              | United States Geological Survey                  |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| WAPA              | War in the Pacific National Historical Park      |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+
| WWII              | World War II                                     |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------+

#### SECTION 1 -- INTRODUCTION

This report describes the Environmental Assessment \[EA\] completed by
Hawai'i International Environmental Services, Inc. \[HIES\], of fire
management alternatives at War in the Pacific National Historical Park.
It has been prepared for the National Park Service \[NPS\] according to
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
\[NEPA\], the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations
implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations \[CFR\] Parts
1500-1508) and NPS Director's Order 12, Conservation Planning,
Environmental Impact Analysis and Decision Making. The project was
carried out under General Services Administration Contract GS 10F-0132L.

**SECTION 2 -- Purpose and Need For Action**

**2.1 [Background]{.smallcaps}**

War in the Pacific National Historical Park \[WAPA\] is located in Guam,
a U.S. flag Territory located 3,800 miles west of Hawaii (Figures 1
through 3). The park was established in 1978 "*to commemorate the
bravery and sacrifice of those participating in the Pacific Theater of
World War II and to conserve and interpret outstanding natural, scenic,
and historic values and objects on the island of Guam for the benefit
and enjoyment of present and future generations"* (§6 of Public Law
95-348, August 1978). The park includes 934 acres of land and 1002 acres
of water in seven separate units, all located in the west central
portion of Guam.

One of the most strategically important U.S. possessions in the Pacific,
Guam played a dramatic role in World War II. In 1941, Japanese planes
attacked the island within hours of the raid on Pearl Harbor. Guam
surrendered two days later, becoming the first U.S. territory to be
occupied by Japan. The Japanese occupied the island until July 1944,
when American forces invaded and recaptured the island. Each unit of the
park contains specific resources related to World War II in the Pacific.
The significance of these resources lays both in their roles in the
battle for the recapture of Guam, and in the physical remains of
structures and equipment they contain. The units are:

-   The **[Asan Beach Unit,]{.underline}** which is comprised of 109
    land acres and 445 acres of water; it is the site of the northern
    landing beaches, where the American forces came ashore in 1944.
    Historic features include gun emplacements, caves, pillboxes and
    other features associated with Japanese defensive positions. In
    addition, the remains of some pieces of American equipment (landing
    craft, ordnance, etc.) lie underwater in the offshore area. A number
    of monuments and historical plaques are also located in this unit.
    (Appendix A, Plates 1 through 4)

-   The **[Asan Inland Unit,]{.underline}** this entire inland unit was
    a major battlefield during the 1944 combat to recapture Guam.
    Although physical remains such as gun emplacements, pillboxes and
    foxholes are also present in this unit, its most important feature
    is its primitive state; historic features lie under thick jungle
    growth or savanna grasses on terrain that has changed little since
    WWII. A large memorial is located at the top of the unit, on Nimitz
    Hill. Taking this high ground, which was held by the Japanese
    defenders, was the objective of those troops that landed at Asan
    Beach. It offers a panoramic view of the Asan landing beach and the
    Asan battlefield directly below. (Appendix A, Plates 4 through 6).

-   The **[Fonte Plateau Unit]{.underline}** is also located on Nimitz
    Hill, near the U.S. Navy's Operations Headquarters. In addition to
    being the site of the Japanese naval communications center and field
    hospital, this unit includes the command post of General Takashina,
    commander of the Japanese forces. Mangan Quarry, a prewar stone
    quarry used by the Japanese as a defensive position, is located
    adjacent to this unit. An excellent example of the native limestone
    forest borders the quarry (Appendix A, Plates 7 through 10).

-   The **[Piti Guns Unit]{.underline}** includes three, 5.2-inch
    Vickers-type, Japanese coastal defense guns that are in good
    condition. The guns sit in a wooded area overlooking the coast. The
    area includes a picturesque mahogany grove, which also has
    historical significance (Appendix A, Plates 11 and 12).

-   The **[Mount Tenjo-Mount Chachao Unit]{.underline}** is located in a
    remote area. Although few historic remains are left in the area it
    provides significant overlooks towards Agat and Apra Harbor that
    underlie its defensive significance during the battle for Guam
    (Appendix A, Plates 13 through 15).

-   The **[Agat Unit]{.underline}** is a narrow coastal strip below
    Mount Alifan that contains caves, bunkers and defensive gun
    emplacements, all in excellent condition. The Agat Beachhead at Gaan
    Point is the site of the southern American landing beach. The beach
    and the offshore areas are relatively unspoiled and provide a good
    representation of how they appeared in 1944. Like Asan Beach, Agat
    includes an offshore area. Along this reef pieces of equipment
    associated with the American landing lie underwater (Appendix A,
    Plates 16 through 19).

-   **[The Mount Alifan Unit]{.underline}** contains the largest number
    of features in the park. The rolling hills of this unit, which sits
    above the Agat landing beaches, saw some of the most intense battles
    of the Guam campaign between the Japanese defenders and U.S. Marine
    and Army units. Caves, tunnels, foxholes, gun emplacements, trenches
    and bomb craters dot the terrain. However, this area is undeveloped
    and access is difficult (Appendix A, Plate 20).

A primary objective of those tasked with management of the park is to
preserve the important natural and historical features present in the
park units detailed above. One of the challenges to this objective is
wildland fire. Wildland fires are an unnatural, yet common, event within
the park and may be adversely affecting the terrestrial natural
resources, many of which occur nowhere else in the National Park System.

NPS Director's Order \# 18 (Wildfire Management) requires that "All
National Park Service units with vegetation that can sustain fire must
have a Fire Management Plan." The Order further states that, "The
overall resource management objectives will determine how fire will be
managed." WAPA has never had an approved site-specific Fire Management
Plan that meets NPS guidance and fire-related activities that currently
take place at the park are not defined within any specific park plan.
The NPS proposes to develop a new Fire Management Plan for WAPA. The
plan will provide management direction related to wildfires within park
boundaries that will support the accomplishment of resource management
and protection objectives.

To ensure that procedures described in the Fire Management Plan \[FMP\]
will not have adverse effects on natural and cultural resources, NPS
Director's Order \[DO\] #18 requires that the FMP be compliant with
NEPA. This Environmental Assessment, which has been prepared in
accordance with NEPA requirements, presents the fire management
alternatives considered for WAPA and an evaluation of the potential
impacts of those alternatives. It is also intended to facilitate sound
decision making by WAPA management based on the current and best
understanding of direct and indirect consequences of fire on the park's
resources; and also, through public participation and inter-agency
coordination to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement \[EIS\]
is required.

**2.2 [Purpose and Need]{.smallcaps}**

WAPA is in need of a new Fire Management Plan. Wildland fires are a
frequent event in WAPA, particularly during the dry season, and burn as
much as 20% of the park's land each year. Most fires are attributed to
arson; natural fires are extremely rare on Guam as few natural ignition
sources are present and the climatic conditions are not conducive to
spontaneous ignition. The need for a new FMP is based not only on policy
(e.g. NPS DO #18) but also on scientific studies and on-going monitoring
that are contributing to a growing understanding of adverse ecological
trends within the park units that are caused by wildfires. WAPA managers
are becoming increasingly concerned about the health of both the
terrestrial and marine natural resources of the park. Vegetation
communities within certain areas of the park are poorly adapted to
repeated burning, and may be experiencing adverse impacts from the
recurring fires. Fires also contribute to upland erosion and coastal
runoff. High sediment loads on near-shore coral reefs have also been
attributed to upland burning.

**SECTION 3 -- Alternative Analysis**

Data from the Guam Department of Forestry illustrates the magnitude of
the fire problem on Guam. In the years between 1983 and 1990 more than
80,000 acres were burned in wildfires. In 1998, after a number of wet
years with accelerated growth of vegetation, and an especially dry
season related to an El Niño (a change in the ocean-atmosphere system
that brings drought in the western Pacific), more than 1,200 fires
burned 13,000 acres on Guam (Pacific Daily News, May 1998; Guam
Department of Agriculture, 2000).

Although scientific evidence indicates that fires have been a part of
Guam's environment for many hundreds of years they were not initially a
part of the natural ecosystem. Guam's ecosystem has however, become a
fire-prone ecosystem and is now subject to more frequent fires because
of changed natural conditions. Man introduced fire to Guam's environment
and man is the primary cause of the wildfires that currently plague the
island. None of the natural ignition sources usually attributed to
wildland fires are present. There are no large rockfalls that might
produce sparks, no snag piles of fallen timber; and, lightning is
extremely rare in tropical Guam. Even in the rare cases when lightning
occurs, it is not likely to start a fire because of the high moisture
content of the local foliage and the high relative humidity. Even the
accidental fire caused by a carelessly discarded cigarette is not a
likely occurrence. The top humidity range that will support a cigarette
fire is estimated to be no more than 30%; (CSIRO, 2003) in Guam the
relative humidity rarely drops below 40%.

Historically, fire was used during the Spanish period (1521-1898) for
the creation and maintenance of pastureland for livestock use. Today,
poachers, hunting wild deer and feral pigs, and betel-nut gatherers who
want easy access to harvest sites, along with arsonists who set fires
for no apparent reason are responsible for practically all wildfires on
Guam (Guam Department of Forestry, 2000). The majority of these fires
occur in the savanna grasslands and mountainous areas in the southern
portion of the island where the various WAPA units are located. These
areas in the south are dominated by bunch-type grasses that are prone to
burning in the dry season. Strong trade winds along with steep slopes
cause the fires to spread quickly. This repeated burning has had a
profound effect on the ecosystem. Fires have contributed to changes in
vegetative types, soil organic matter, and wildlife habitat. Decades of
burning on the savanna has resulted in severe erosion and leaching of
essential nutrients; adjacent ravine forests are disappearing and runoff
from denuded hillsides is threatening the nearshore reefs.

The NPS must develop a FMP for WAPA that takes into consideration the
history and causes of wildfire on Guam and its potential impact on
affected environments and resources. To this end, two alternatives are
being considered.

**[3.1 Alternative 1 -- No Action]{.smallcaps}**

Although "No Action" implies that no action would be taken in the case
of a wildfire, this is not the case. Federal policy (NPS DO #18)
requires that until a fire management plan is approved park service
personnel must aggressively suppress all fires that occur within the
park boundaries. Therefore, the No Action alternative would require that
all fires be suppressed within park boundaries regardless of ecological
concerns, resource management objectives and cost to the NPS. The
"aggressive suppression" would be accomplished by means of a dedicated
NPS fire suppression organization made up of WAPA staff (WAPA Draft FMP,
1989) and through memorandums of understanding with the Guam Department
of Forestry, Guam Fire Department and the U.S. Navy. Currently the WAPA
staff does not have fire suppression expertise and in all likelihood
will not in the future; therefore, this action is not preferred. Under
this alternative no action(s) will be taken to change the current
circumstances.

**[3.2 Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach]{.smallcaps}**

A *Fire Management Unit* \[FMU\] is any area defined by common
management objectives, land features, values to be protected, political
boundaries, fuel types, or of special management areas designated by
agency authority or congressional action (such as a protected
wilderness) and safety concerns (both public and firefighter safety).
For the purpose of this EA, each of the seven WAPA units is considered
to be a FMU.

This alternative will address fire management in the two types of units
that exist in WAPA: 1) urban interface areas; and, 2) wild areas. *An
urban interface area* is the line, area, or zone where structures and
other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or
vegetative fuels (Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology, Department of
Interior, 1996). The Asan Inland Unit would be an example of an urban
interface area. The Mount Tenjo Unit, which has little to no urban
interface, would be a representative example of a *wild area*.

Under this alternative, fire management strategies of appropriate
suppression response along with mechanical fuel treatments will be
detailed in the Fire Management Plan. Resource benefits would be
considered for each park unit and the particular mix of strategies
implemented based on specific ecological or park needs. Strategies would
include: suppression as required, along with the development of natural
fire breaks with appropriate plant species, mechanical and hand clearing
to reduce fuel build-up; and, prescribed *pile burning* of removed
materials. Pile burning refers to any burning where the debris is piled
up and burned on the ground

This is the preferred approach to fire management in WAPA. This approach
meets the requirements of DO#18, which also states that, "The overall
resource management objectives for an NPS unit must guide Fire
Management Plans". This alternative is also preferred because it can be
implemented with available assets. For example, this alternative does
not require a dedicated NPS fire suppression team. When suppression is
required, appropriate professional firefighters (Guam Department of
Forestry, Guam Fire Department, etc.) would respond. These professional
firefighters would also oversee any necessary pile burning. Under this
proposed alternative NPS personnel would take on a liaison role, to
assure that the vegetative scene is not compromised, and that park
artifacts and cultural resources are protected; however, they would not
be actively engaged in firefighting or pile burning activities. Although
manpower does not differ greatly under the two alternatives, the roles
are more clearly defined and the firefighting is left to those
specifically trained to suppress fires. The NPS staff, acting in a
liaison role, can direct responders when, for example, vital cultural
artifacts or landscapes are threatened.

**[3.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected]{.smallcaps}**

*Wildland fire use* (formerly referred to as *prescribed natural fire*)
refers to the management of naturally ignited wildland fire to
accomplish specific pre-stated objectives. For example, in the past if a
fire started naturally within the boundaries of a park managed by the
NPS it might be allowed to burn, albeit with control, to reduce fuel
buildup. The term "control" in this sense is defined as a suppression
strategy that allows a fire to burn as long as it remains, or is
predicted to remain, within predetermined natural boundaries until it is
out. This alternative was rejected because of the small size of the
park, the many urban interface areas, and the potential impact on lands
outside of the park if control was lost.

Another alternative considered but rejected was the use of *prescribed
fires* other than prescribed pile burning. Prescribed burning is defined
as fire applied in a knowledgeable manner to forest fuels on a specific
land area under selected weather conditions to accomplish predetermined,
well-defined management objectives (USDA, 1995). This alternative was
rejected for three reasons. First, because fire is not a part of the
natural ecosystem NPS staff did not want to introduce it into the park.
It was also rejected because of the risks associated with controlling
fires around the many urban interface areas and the potential damage to
park artifacts. Finally, it was rejected because the repetitive fires
that are already occurring may be responsible for the development of
badlands and the disappearance of certain naturally occurring species;
adding additional fires to the system was considered to be
counterproductive.

**3.4** **Environmentally Preferred Alternative**

An alternative that is environmentally preferable is defined as "the
alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as
expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act's §101. Ordinarily,
this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the
biological and physical environment; it also means the alternative that
best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural and natural
resources" (CEQ 1978).

Based on the limited environmental data available at the time this
report was prepared, the environmentally preferred alternative is
alternative #2; the fire management approach. It is proposed that this
alternative will have no major impact on geology and soils, biological
resources, air quality and socioeconomic issues. There would be
negligible to moderate, long-term beneficial effects on vegetation and
wildlife; the proposed action is not believed to affect listed
threatened and endangered species. It is believed that this approach
will have a positive impact on the cultural resources of WAPA by
preserving in an interpretative form the landscape as it was in 1944. It
allows flexibility in approach to fires within the park, and it is also
believed it will promote cooperative relationships with other agencies
involved with wildland fire issues and response.

In addition, alternative #2 is also a "reasonable alternative" NEPA
defines reasonable alternatives as those that are economically and
technically feasible and that show evidence of common sense. In addition
to the resource issues noted in 3.1, the No Action alternative does not
meet another important objective; interagency coordination with the Guam
Department of Forestry, the Guam Fire Department and the U.S. Navy which
are tasked with the stewardship of lands adjacent to the park.

This EA provides a programmatic (general) analysis of resources within
the park and the potential impact(s) to those resources under the
alternatives being considered. It does not provide an exhaustive
environmental impact analysis of each resource, this more in-depth
analysis will be developed over time as detailed resource surveys for
WAPA are completed and other management documents are prepared.

**Table 3.1**

**Summary of Alternatives**

**Environmental Assessment**

**War in the Pacific National Historical Park**

+---------------+-------------------------+---------------------------+
| **[           | **[No                   | **[Proposed               |
| Description]{ | Action]{.smallcaps}**   | Action]{.smallcaps}**     |
| .smallcaps}** |                         |                           |
+---------------+-------------------------+---------------------------+
| ####          | All wildfires will be   | Development of a Fire     |
|               | aggressively suppressed | Management Plan that      |
| ####          | (control response only) | recognizes each park unit |
| Description o | regardless of location  | as a unique Fire          |
| f Alternative | within park, using a    | Management Unit.          |
|               | combination of a        | Strategies of appropriate |
|               | dedicated NPS           | suppression and response  |
|               | suppression team along  | along with mechanical     |
|               | with responders from    | fuel treatments would be  |
|               | other agencies under    | developed. Resource       |
|               | Memorandums of          | benefits would be         |
|               | Understanding \[MOU\].  | considered for each park  |
|               |                         | unit and the particular   |
|               |                         | mix of strategies         |
|               |                         | implemented based on      |
|               |                         | specific ecological or    |
|               |                         | park needs.               |
+---------------+-------------------------+---------------------------+
| **[Potential  |                         |                           |
| Impacts]{     |                         |                           |
| .smallcaps}** |                         |                           |
+---------------+-------------------------+---------------------------+
| ####          | Short to long term,     | Short-term effects        |
|               | moderate to severe,     | negligible, long- term    |
| #### Geol     | impact to soils from    | effects moderate, direct  |
| ogy and Soils | both fire and impacts   | and localized.            |
|               | from machinery removing |                           |
|               | vegetative cover for    |                           |
|               | firebreaks. Possible    |                           |
|               | direct and indirect     |                           |
|               | impacts and both long   |                           |
|               | and short-term impact   |                           |
|               | to vegetative cover.    |                           |
+---------------+-------------------------+---------------------------+
| ####          | Some threat to fire     | The effect on wildlife    |
|               | resistant/fire          | would be the same as the  |
| #### Biologi  | dependent plant         | No Action alternative.    |
| cal Resources | species. Possible       | Negligible short-term     |
|               | change in vegetative    | effects on plants with    |
|               | patterns. This          | direct, positive, effects |
|               | alternative would have  | in the long-term.         |
|               | negligible to moderate  |                           |
|               | short and long-term     |                           |
|               | effects on vegetative   |                           |
|               | cover depending on park |                           |
|               | unit. Short and         |                           |
|               | long-term effects to    |                           |
|               | animals would be direct |                           |
|               | and moderate            |                           |
+---------------+-------------------------+---------------------------+

**Table 3.1 (Continued)**

**Summary of Alternatives**

**Environmental Assessment**

**War in the Pacific National Historical Park**

+-----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| **[Description  | **[No                   | **[Proposed              |
| ]{.smallcaps}** | Action]{.smallcaps}**   | Action]{.smallcaps}**    |
+-----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| ####            | Negligible short-term   | Negligible short-term    |
|                 | impacts to water and    | impacts to water and     |
| ####            | aquatic resources.      | aquatic resources.       |
| Water Resources | Long-term effects would | Long-term effects would  |
|                 | be localized, the       | be localized, the impact |
|                 | impact minor to         | minor to moderate.       |
|                 | moderate.               |                          |
+-----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| ####            | Short-term effects on   | Same as No Action        |
|                 | air quality would be    | Alternative. Prescribed  |
| #               | adverse, moderate and   | pile burns would be      |
| ### Air Quality | direct. Long-term       | scheduled using best     |
|                 | effects would be        | management practices to  |
|                 | negligible.             | assure air quality was   |
|                 |                         | not effected locally.    |
+-----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| #### Socioecon  | Short-term effects      | This alternative is      |
| omic and Safety | would be direct,        | anticipated to have      |
|                 | beneficial and minor.   | beneficial, direct,      |
|                 | Long-term effects would | indirect and long-term   |
|                 | be minor and            | effects on the human     |
|                 | beneficial.             | environment.             |
+-----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| ####            | Short-term effects      | Short-term effects would |
|                 | would be direct and     | be minor, direct and     |
| #### Cul        | localized, although in  | localized. Decisions as  |
| tural Resources | most cases minor. Fire  | to whether to suppress   |
|                 | suppression may         | or not suppress a fire   |
|                 | threaten certain        | would be made with the   |
|                 | artifacts and the       | specific unit and its    |
|                 | interpretative setting  | unique resources in      |
|                 | because of machinery in | mind.                    |
|                 | response and to clear   |                          |
|                 | firebreaks              |                          |
+-----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+
| #### Land Use   | Short and long-term     | Overall short and        |
|                 | impacts would be direct | long-term impacts to     |
|                 | and minor.              | land use would be        |
|                 |                         | negligible.              |
+-----------------+-------------------------+--------------------------+

**SECTION 4 -- AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTS, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION**

This section will present a brief background of the environment,
resources that are present, and an analysis of potential impacts to each
resource. The resources considered include geology and soils, biological
resources; water resources; air quality; socioeconomic and public
safety; cultural resources and land use. No other resource areas have
been identified that would require further evaluation pursuant to NEPA.

**4.1 [Impact Assessment]{.smallcaps} [Methodology / Impairment
Analysis]{.smallcaps}**

The general methodology used to determine environmental consequences or
potential impacts to cultural, natural and human environments included
consultation with other agencies and interested stakeholders and
literature review. Stakeholders, for the purpose of this document, are
those persons that are responsible for adjacent lands, agencies that are
responsible for the stewardship of lands or cultural and biological
resources and park staff. Also considered was "common knowledge" often
anecdotal but valuable. This includes the knowledge of those people
working at local agencies tasked with firefighting (such as the Guam
Department of Forestry). As to literature review, documents such as the
Territory's Fire Management Plan and Fire Department policies were
considered along with the, in some cases, limited data regarding
environmental, biological and cultural resources.

NPS management policies require an analysis of potential effects to
determine whether or not actions would impair park resources or values
(impairment analysis).

The fundamental purpose of the NPS, established by the Organic Act and
reaffirmed by the General Authorities Act, as amended, begins with a
mandate to conserve park resources and values. NPS managers must always
seek ways to avoid, or minimize to the greatest degree practicable,
actions that would adversely affect park resources and values.

These laws give the NPS the management discretion to allow certain
impacts to park resources and values when necessary and appropriate to
fulfill the purposes of a park, as long as the impact does not
constitute "impairment" of the affected resources and values. Although
Congress has given the NPS management discretion, allowing certain
impacts, that discretion is limited by the statutory requirement that
the NPS must leave park resources and values unimpaired, unless a
particular law directly and specifically provides otherwise.

The prohibited impairment is an impact that, in the professional
judgment of NPS personnel would harm the integrity of park resources or
values, including the opportunities that otherwise would be present for
the enjoyment of those resources or values. An impact to any park
resource or value may constitute an impairment. Impairment may result
from NPS activities in managing the park, activities by concessionaires,
contractors or other agencies operating in the park. An impact would be
more likely to constitute an impairment to the extent it has a major or
severe adverse effect upon a resource or value whose conservation is:

-   Necessary to fulfill specific purposes identified in the
    establishing legislation or proclamation of the park.

-   Key to the natural or cultural integrity of the park or to
    opportunities for the enjoyment of the park.

-   Identified as a goal in the park's General Management Plan or other
    relevant NPS planning documents.

Impacts to specific resources in the following sections are described in
general terms and are qualified as short-term and long-term, adverse or
beneficial as appropriate. A determination on impairment is also
included in each of the following topics.

**4.2 [Geology and Soils]{.smallcaps}**

The Mariana Islands are a classic example of an island arc, a curved
line of stratovolcanoes that rise up from the ocean floor. These
stratovolcanoes, and the islands they form, owe their origin to
subduction, the tectonic process that thrusts one plate beneath another.
It is just to the east of the Mariana Islands, along the Marianas
Trench, where the Philippine Plate subducts the Pacific Plate. The
Marianas Trench, which is the result of the convergence of these two
plates, is the deepest point on the earth's surface (37,898 ft.); it
lies 210 miles east of the largest of the 15 Mariana Islands, Guam.

Guam, located at 13° 30\' north latitude and 144° 40\' east longitude,
is the southernmost island of the Mariana Islands Archipelago and has an
area of 212 square miles. The island was formed by severe land movement
and volcanic action during the Tertiary and Quaternary periods, and
contains two distinct geologic formations. The northern half of Guam is
an upthrusted Neogene limestone plateau that, for the most part, ranges
from 100 to 600 feet above mean sea level \[amsl\] in elevation.
Although some springs are found within the plateau there are no streams.
Geologic characteristics within this half of the island include steep
cliffs along the shoreline; inland, the plateau contains very permeable
substrata with ill-defined watershed boundaries and drainage ways, and
is marked with depressions and sinkholes (Samowitz, and Forsyth, 1981).

The southern half of the island, formed by volcanic eruptions, consists
of low mountain ridges and valleys that are typically small in size with
steep stream slopes. The slopes are deeply dissected by numerous rivers.
These rivers coalesce to form relatively wide valley bottoms near the
coast and several narrow coastal plains. A relatively impermeable rock
formation, comprised of basalt, underlies most of the southern half
although limestone is present along the southeastern coast and in large
areas around Mount Lamlam and Mount Alifan (Young, 1988). Elevations on
the southern half of the island range from sea level to 1,332 feet at
Mount Lamlam, the highest point on Guam.

As Guam has undergone several periods of subsidence and uplift, its
basal volcanic materials have become interbedded with, and often covered
by, limestones of reef origin. Major geologic rock units within the park
include:

-   The *Alutom formation* which consists of well-bedded fine to
    coarse-grained gray, green and brown tuffaceous shale and sandstone;
    lenses of fine to coarse-grained, tuffaceous foraminiferal
    limestone; pyroclastic conglomerate containing limestone fragments;
    and interbedded lava flows. Maximum thickness exceeds 2000 feet.
    Alutom is considered to be bedrock. This formation underlies most of
    the inland units.

-   *Mariana Limestone*, a massive, porous, fossilferous, rock. This
    limestone lies in either faulted or unconformable sedimentary
    contact with weathered volcanics and older limestones.

-   *Alifan Limestone*, a dense hard limestone, which unlike the
    *Mariana Limestone* is highly permeable. (WAPA RMP, 1988; Gov
    Guam/GIS, 2003; Tracey J.I. et.al. 1964).

Because the park units are spread over a wide area, there are a number
of soil types from several different associations. Generally speaking,
soils in the various park units include:

[Soils on bottom lands,]{.underline} such as the *Inarajan-Inarajan
Variant*. These are deep and very deep, somewhat poorly drained and
poorly drained, level and nearly level soils formed on valley bottoms
and coastal plains.

[Soils on volcanic uplands]{.underline}, including *Akina-Agfayan* and
*Akina-Togcha-Ylig* soils. *Akina-Agfayan* soils are very shallow, to
very deep, well drained, and moderately steep, to very steep soils;
these soils are located on strongly dissected mountains and plateaus.
*Akina Togcha-Ylig* soils are very deep, somewhat poorly drained and
well drained, gently sloping to strongly sloping soils; these soils are
found on plateaus and in basins.

[Soils on limestone uplands]{.underline}, include *Guam*, which are very
shallow, well drained, and nearly level, to moderately sloping soils
that are found on plateaus. *Guam-Urban Land Pulantat*, which are very
shallow, well drained, level to gently sloping soils, and urban land;
found on plateaus. *Ritidian-Rock Outcrop-Guam*, which is very shallow,
well drained, gently sloping to extremely steep soil, and rock outcrop;
these soils are found on plateaus, mountains and escarpments.
*Pulantat*, shallow and well drained, gently sloping to steep soils;
found on dissected plateaus and hills. *Pulantat-Kagman-Chacha,* are
shallow, deep, and very deep, somewhat poorly drained and well-drained,
nearly level to strongly sloping soils that are found on plateaus and
hills (Young, 1988).

Specific soil types found within the various WAPA units include:

-   *Agfayan-Akina, extremely steep*.

-   *Agfayan-Akina Rock Outcrop, extremely steep*.

-   *Akina Badland Complex,*

-   *Inrajan Clay 0-4% slopes*.

-   *Inrajan sandy clay loam 0-3% slopes*.

-   *Pulantat Clay 7-15% slopes and 30-60% slopes.*

-   *Pulantat Urban Land Complex, 7-15% slopes*.

-   *Ritidian Rock Outcrop Complex, 15 to 60% slopes*.

-   *Urban land-Ustorthents Complex, nearly level.*

-   *Shioya Loamy Sand, 0 to 5% slopes* (Young, 1988)

Table 4-1 presents which of the specific soil types listed above are
found within each park unit.

**Table 4.1**

**Soil Types by Unit**

**Environmental Assessment**

**War in the Pacific National Historical Park**

+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| **Soil Type**  | **As | **   | **P | **F  | **   | *       | *    |
|                | an** | Asan | iti | onte | Agat | *Tenjo/ | *Mt. |
|                |      | In   | G   | Pla  | /Apa | Chachao | Alif |
|                | **B  | land | uns | teau | ca** | Unit**  | an** |
|                | each | Un   | Uni | Un   |      |         |      |
|                | Un   | it** | t** | it** | **Un |         | **Un |
|                | it** |      |     |      | it** |         | it** |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Agpayan-Akina  |      | *    |     |      |      |         |      |
|                |      | *X** |     |      |      |         |      |
| Extremely      |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| Steep          |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Aagfa          |      | *    |     |      |      | **X**   |      |
| yan-Akina-Rock |      | *X** |     |      |      |         |      |
| Outcrop        |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
|                |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| Extremely      |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| Steep          |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Akina Badland  |      | *    |     |      |      | **X**   |      |
| Complex        |      | *X** |     |      |      |         |      |
|                |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| 7-15% Slope    |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Akina Badland  |      | *    |     | *    |      | **X**   |      |
| Complex        |      | *X** |     | *X** |      |         |      |
|                |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| Extremely      |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| Steep          |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Inarajan Clay  | *    | *    | **  |      |      |         |      |
|                | *X** | *X** | X** |      |      |         |      |
| 0-4% Slopes    |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Inrajan Sandy  |      |      |     |      | *    |         |      |
| Clay Loam      |      |      |     |      | *X** |         |      |
|                |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| 7-15% Slopes   |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Pulantat Clay  |      | *    | **  |      | *    |         |      |
|                |      | *X** | X** |      | *X** |         |      |
| 3-7% Slopes    |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Pulantat Clay  |      | *    |     | *    |      |         |      |
|                |      | *X** |     | *X** |      |         |      |
| 30-60% Slopes  |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Pulantat Urban |      | *    |     | *    |      |         |      |
| land Complex   |      | *X** |     | *X** |      |         |      |
|                |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| 7-15% Slopes   |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Ritidian Rock  | *    |      |     |      |      |         | *    |
| Outcrop        | *X** |      |     |      |      |         | *X** |
| Complex        |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
|                |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| 15-60% Slope   |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Shioya Loamy   |      |      |     |      | *    |         |      |
| Sand (flat)    |      |      |     |      | *X** |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+
| Urban Land,    | *    |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| Ustorthents    | *X** |      |     |      |      |         |      |
| Complex        |      |      |     |      |      |         |      |
+----------------+------+------+-----+------+------+---------+------+

1.  **Alternative 1 -- No Action**

The No Action Alternative, which calls for full suppression, would have
little impact on geological resources within the park. However, soils
could be impacted by heavy machinery used to cut firebreaks or to build
access roads to remote fire areas. Soils in those areas where vegetative
cover is removed for firebreaks or access would be exposed to erosion
forces, water used in suppression might also increase soil loss.
Short-term (recovers in less than 3-years from fire) effects to soils
under this alternative would be adverse but moderate (moderate meaning
the effects on soil productivity, fertility, stability or infiltration
capacity would be readily apparent and result in a change to the soil
character over a relatively wide area). Long-term (takes more than
3-years to recover) effects to soils would also be adverse and possibly
severe (severe meaning the effect on soil productivity, fertility,
stability, or infiltration capacity would have a substantial and
possibly permanent consequence) as long-term aggressive suppression
might change the overall ecological balance in areas now dominated by
fire dependent plant species. As vegetative cover changes, soils may be
affected by leaching of essential nutrients or displaced by erosion.

**4.2.2 Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach**

The FMU approach will allow decisions to be made with consideration of
the resource strategy for each specific unit. In areas where soil
erosion is an issue and mechanized response might have a detrimental
impact, the development of natural fire breaks and hand clearing might
be the preferred response. In other areas where repeated burning has
lead to erosion or changes in soil chemistry a more aggressive response
might be considered. The FMU approach has the advantage as an
alternative in that at least a response decision can be made that takes
into account ecological needs such as soil issues in a specific unit.
Because the FMU approach allows flexibility, short-term effects would be
negligleble, long--term effects would likely be moderate, direct and
localized. Otherwise, no detrimental impacts or impairment to geology or
soils using this alternative have been identified.

2.  **[Biological Resources]{.smallcaps}**

The climate of Guam is *Tropical Marine*, which is generally warm and
humid year-round. The mean annual temperature is 81° Fahrenheit and the
relative humidity ranges between 77-81%; this moist climate is moderated
somewhat by northeast trade winds (CIA, 2003). Although there is little
seasonal temperature variation, there are two primary seasons and two
secondary seasons on Guam. The primary seasons are the dry season, which
extends from January through April; and the wet season, which extends
from mid-July through December. The secondary seasons extend from May to
mid-July and from mid-November through December. These are transitional
seasons that can be rainy or dry depending on weather conditions of that
particular year (Young, 1988). Annual rainfall on Guam ranges from
80-110 inches.

**[Vegetation]{.underline}**

Most of Guam is covered by secondary growth forest and grasslands;
however, scattered patches of possibly original forest still exist on
the northern plateau and in less accessible areas in the southern
mountains. The southern section of the island is dominated by a
patchwork of savannahs, grasslands and ravine forests (Fosberg, 1960).
The original forests and plant species have given way to successive
waves of migration, cultivation, burning, typhoons, and the destructive
effects of World War II.

Limestone forests are found on the northern plateau. Areas of
undisturbed irregular canopy reach as high as 25 meters with a sparse
understory; however, this understory tends to be dense in disturbed
areas. The forest transitions into dense scrub along its margins, along
cliff faces and near the ocean. Trees include the *dugdug* (*Autocarpus
mariannensis*) a wild breadfruit and *nunu* (*Ficus prolixis*) a large
banyan. *Chopak* (Mammea odorata), a large tree with a spreading crown
and very hard wood is also found in the northern half of the island; it
was however decimated by logging, mature stands are rare except along
the somewhat inaccessible eastern escarpment.

Ravine forest communities are found along lowlands, valleys, and ravines
in the southern half of Guam, primarily on leeward mountainsides. These
ravine forests are dominated by palma brava (*Heterospathe elata*);
other common trees include coconut palm (*Cocos nucifera*) banana palm
(*Musa sp*), pandanus (*Pandanus tectorius*), and hibiscus (*Hibiscus
tiliaceaus).* These forests also contain lianas (woody vines), and the
ubiquitous climbing vine popularly known as the "chain of hearts"
(*Antigon leptopus*). Various ferns and orchids are also present in this
plant community.

Marshes of fresh to brackish water also exist in the lowland areas of
the southern section of the island. Clusters of reeds and rushes such as
the bullrush (*Typha latifolia*), and mangrove (*Avicennia marina*),
which is designated on Guam as endangered, grow in these low marshy
areas; sedges, along with ginger and wild taro are also found in these
marshes.

Savanna covers almost all of the southern half of the island. The
prominent vegetation is swordgrass (*Miscanthus floridulus*), a tall,
coarse, cane-like grass with sharp edges that grows to heights of 6-10
feet. Foxtail (*Pennesetum polystachyon*), and low-tufted grasses such
as *Dirneria chiordiformis* are also common. There are also stands of
ironwood (*Casvarina equisetifolia*) scattered throughout the
grasslands; ground orchids, such as the worm orchid (*Taeniophyllum
mariannese),* various types of ferns, and other small trees and shrubs
are also dispersed across the savanna.

One plant that is found in across Guam, appearing in all of the types of
areas discussed above, is the tangantangan (*Leucaena leucocephala).*
Although tangantagan, a type of legume, existed prior to World War II,
it has spread dramatically to become one of the most common plants on
the island. At the end of the war the landscape was not recovering, the
heavy fighting, drought, and brush fires, left the mountainsides black
and led to heavy erosion. To counter this, mass reseeding of
tangantangan by hand, mechanical means and aircraft were carried out.
Tangantangan was selected for revegetation because it thrives in
limestone areas where soils are alkaline, is resistant to most pests and
durable under duress from grazing, cutting, fire and drought.
Tangantangan grows easily from seeds dispersed by birds and rodents; it
regrows from cut stumps, and regenerates rapidly from basal shoots after
fire. (PIER, 2003).

All seven WAPA units are located in the southern half of Guam. The
savanna ecosystem of grasses, low trees, and shrubs is the predominant
feature in the Mount Alifan and Mount Tenjo/ Chachao Units; it also
occurs on the western slope of the Asan Inland Unit. The Fonte Plateau
unit includes both savanna features and limestone forest. A stand of
mahogany forest that pre-dates World War II is a significant feature in
the Piti Guns Unit. Although the savanna ecosystem appears to resist the
growth of tangantangan, this ubiquitous plant is present in virtually
all of the park units. A small area near Apaca Point, which is within
the Namo River Floodplain, has been classified under the Guam Coastal
Management Program as a wetland.

Island systems like Guam, which evolve with a specific habitat, are
often completely overwhelmed by imported species. Over the 3,500 years
that the island has been inhabited the successive waves of settlers
brought their domestic food species and weed species as well. It is
difficult to speak in terms of a "native" plant species on Guam, as most
plants are introduced. Even the territory's designated flower, the
bougainvillea (*Bougainvillea sp*.), is an introduced species.

Just as introduced species of plants have out-competed local species,
introduced animal species have also had a dramatic impact on Guam.

**[Wildlife]{.underline}**

The dominant terrestrial animals on Guam consist of insects and small
lizards such as the gecko (*Gekkonidae sp*.), blue-tailed skinks
(*Eumecs sp*.), and chameleons (*Chamaleo sp*.). Larger vertebrates
include cattle, dogs, cats, pigs, and chickens. Deer (an introduced
species) and feral pigs roam widely on the island especially on the
plateaus and savannas in the south.

The introduced animal that has had the most impact on Guam is the brown
tree snake (*Boiga irregularis*). Before the arrival of this species the
only snake present on the island was the burrowing blind snake
(*Rhamphotyphlops braminus*). The brown tree snake is responsible for
much of the loss of biodiversity through predation. The snake was first
reported in the savannas in the south in the 1950's; by the 1970's it
had moved northward into the limestone forests. Today the snake is
ubiquitous, present in virtually every area of the island. In a report
published in 1988 (Fritts, 1988), the tree snake population across the
island was estimated to be approximately 13,000 per square mile. During
the following decade, the government of Guam and various federal
agencies began an aggressive snake control regimen. Although the
per-square mile number of the snake has decreased, it is still present
in remarkably high numbers across the island. In 2003, an inventory of
reptiles within WAPA was performed (Rodda, 2003). According to data
published in this study, by 2003, the average snake population on Guam
was 7,500 snakes per square mile. Within the areas of the park that were
sampled, the snakes were found, in what the report describes as, "low to
moderate densities" (2000-5000 per square mile). These astonishing
numbers are due to the snake's ability to live in various habitats and
its lack of natural predators (U.S. Dept of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1988).

The most significant impact that the brown tree snake has had on Guam's
biodiversity is most evident in the decrease in avifauna. This decline
was seen initially in the 1950's, in the savannas where the snake was
first reported. By the 1970's extinction of forest birds reached the
northern portion of the island, not long after the tree snake had taken
up residence. By the 1980's bird populations were completely decimated.
Two bird species extinctions had already occurred and the endemic Guam
rail (*Gallirallus owstoni*) became extinct in the wild (Rodda, et.al.
1997).

The birds of Guam are not the only fauna affected by the brown tree
snake, skinks, geckos and chameleons are becoming scarce because of the
predation of the snake. Guam was also once home to three native bat
species but since the introduction of the brown tree snake two of the
three species have become extinct; only the Marianas fruit bat
(*Pteropus marianus*) remains and it is on the endangered species list.

Fringing reefs surround most of the island and are easily accessible
from shore; these reefs abound with a diversity of sea life. Two WAPA
units, Asan Beach and Agat, have extensive water acreage. This offshore
acreage includes coral reefs and associated marine biological resources.

At present, 794 species of inshore marine fishes are known from Guam and
nearby waters (Amesbury S.S., et.al. 2001). Two species of sea turtle
are found in offshore areas; the Green turtle *(Chelonia mydas*) and the
hawksbill turtle (*Eretmochelys imbricata*), both are protected under
local and federal endangered species acts.

Development and wildfires have had a noticeable impact on Guam's reefs.
Destruction of the reef framework is occurring in many places, with
declines in the numbers of plants and animals present on the reefs
compared to only a few years ago. Many of these changes are directly
related to development. The destruction of habitats that serve to filter
sediments from runoff such as mangroves and wetlands and non-point
source runoff from urban areas are apparent actors in reef destruction.
However, in addition to the obvious impacts caused by human populations
and the attendant development, wildfires are also having an impact. As
hillsides become denuded, heavy loads of soil are carried into the ocean
as runoff. The organisms that build coral reefs generally need clear
water and constant salinities; siltation and turbidity from runoff
associated with wildfires are having an effect on the nearshore reefs of
Guam, including those at Asan and Agat.

1.  **Alternative 1 -- No Action**

Aggressive response under the No Action alternative may actually have a
detrimental effect on those areas where fire-resistant/fire dependent
species have become established. In the absence of fire, the dominance
of swordgrass savanna is threatened. Although swordgrass is considered
an exotic, invasive species (Fosberg, 1960, Guam Division of Forestry,
2000) and prone to wildfire, in some areas of the park it is an
important part of the historical landscape; a healthy savanna, which
includes swordgrass may also prevent the encroachment of post-war,
exotic vegetation into the park. The NPS has a long-standing policy
within national military parks and national battlefields of restoring or
keeping vegetative patterns to the patterns at the time of the battles.
This alternative would have negligible to moderate short-term and
long-term effects on vegetation depending on the park unit in question.
In the case of vegetation, "negligible" changes are those that would not
be easily measurable, with no effect on native species populations. In
other words, any effects would be small scale and no species of concern
would be affected. "moderate" changes in vegetative communities would be
readily apparent, with effects to a sizeable segment of the species'
population over a relatively large area.

Short-term effects (recovers in 1-3 years after fire depending on
species) to wildlife would be minor and direct. Fire may be either
detrimental or beneficial; fire does not affect all species equally. In
general, most studies that have been conducted show that wildlife
mortality in wildfires on Guam is low. (Whelan, R.J. 1995) In the
savannas especially, the population of feral pigs and deer are
accustomed to fire and move accordingly; however some mortality
associated with fire is possible. Short and long-term effects of fire
within the various WAPA units on skinks, geckos, birds and other species
would be direct and moderate. A moderate impact would be one that would
be detectable; however, species viability and genetic variability would
remain stable. Mortality or interference with activities necessary for
survival could be expected occasionally without threatening the
continued existence of the species in the park. This is assumed because
of the short life and reproductive cycles of skinks and other small
reptiles; they make those populations somewhat resilient, birds like
larger animals, will usually move out of the path of the fire. Although
there would be some impact to wildlife under this alternative, it would
not constitute an impairment.

2.  **Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach**

The FMU approach will allow decisions to be made with consideration of
the resource strategy for each specific unit. Confinement or control of
fire in some swordgrass communities would be considered under the FMU
approach. The nature of swordgrass and the fuel load it carries almost
assures that fires will occur. Allowing some fire in selected areas
would perpetuate the appearance of swordgrass in many areas where it
existed in 1944, enhancing the interpretative landscape. The FMU
approach will also allow consideration of other strategies in respect to
swordgrass in areas of the park where it is unwanted for interpretive
reasons or because of the danger it presents in urban interface areas.
In these areas swordgrass might be removed by mechanical clearing and
prescribed pile burning followed by planting of natural firebreaks with
fire-resistant species.

The effect on wildlife would be the same as the No Action alternative in
that there would not be impairment to the park's wildlife resources. The
FMU alternative at least allows consideration as to whether a fire
should be suppressed or allowed, with control, to burn. The decision
would take into account the effect on local wildlife in a specific unit
under the full range of options that includes mechanical clearance and
pile burning, full suppression or some combination of actions.

**[4.4 Water Resources]{.smallcaps}**

Guam's hydrology and water resources are influenced primarily by area
rainfall and geology. There are no streams on the northern limestone
plateau although there are a few springs. Southern Guam has many streams
flowing from the complex, highly dissected, interior. Rainfall in Guam
averages between 80 and 110-inches a year, most of this falls in the wet
season between July and December. Much of the rain infiltrates the
permeable limestone substrate in the northern portion of the island
where Guam's primary source of drinking water, the Northern Guam Lens
Aquifer, is located. The Northern Guam Lens Aquifer is designated a Sole
Source Aquifer under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This designation is
based upon two criteria: (1) the aquifer supplies drinking water to 50
percent or more of the area\'s population and; (2) if contaminated, the
aquifer would present a significant risk to public health.

According to Guam EPA statistics (Guam EPA, 2003), unprecedented demands
are being made on the Island's limited water resources as population
grows and tourist attendance rises. Currently, over 45 million gallons
per day \[mgd\] of the current estimated sustainable yield of 57 mgd is
extracted from the Northern Guam Lens Aquifer. This over-pumping has led
to concerns about saltwater intrusion to this important aquifer. In
addition to over-pumping, this drinking water source is threatened by
household hazardous waste, stormwater runoff, agricultural activities,
and nitrates from septic tanks in new residential growth areas. Outside
of the Northern Guam Lens Aquifer, some drinking water is obtained from
surface water sources; these include the Fena Reservoir, an impoundment
on the Ugum River, and various springs in the southern section of the
Island.

**4.4.1** **Alternative 1 -- No Action**

Full suppression would have negligible short-term impacts to water and
aquatic resources. Long-term effects would be localized, and depending
on the location of the stream or water body, the impact would be minor
to moderate. For this resource, negligible means changes to water
quality would be either non-detectable or, if detected, would have
effects that would be considered slight and localized. "Short-term"
means that the water resource would recover in less than one month after
a fire. A "moderate" impact is one in which changes to water quality
would be measurable and apparent, with sufficient consequences to cause
concern, although effects would be relatively local and/or easily
mitigated.

**4.4.2 Alternative 2-- Fire Management Unit Approach**

Potential impacts under the proposed alternative would be similar to
those under the no action alternative. Localized, minor to moderate
effects could be expected in both the short and long-term. However,
overall no prohibited impairment to water or aquatic resources is
anticipated. The flexibility to choose under the FMU approach would
allow wider consideration of alternative response and control
strategies.

**[4.5 Air Quality]{.smallcaps}**

In 1990, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency \[EPA\] established
national ambient air quality standards for six criteria pollutants;
nitrogen dioxide \[NO~2~\], ozone \[O~3~\], sulfur dioxide \[SO~2~\],
Carbon Monoxide \[CO\], lead \[Pb\], and particulate matter less than 10
micrometers in diameter. Areas where the concentration of a specific
monitored pollutant exceeds the EPA standards are classified as
"nonattainment" for that pollutant. If the monitored concentration is
below the standard the area is classified as in "attainment". Favorable
meteorological conditions, in particular the nearly constant northeast
trade winds, help keep levels of air pollution on Guam to a minimum.
Guam, except for a small area around the island's major power plant, is
classified as being in attainment with air quality standards for the
criteria pollutants (EPA, 2003).

1.  **Alternative 1 -- No Action**

Short-term effects on air quality would be adverse, moderate and direct.
Moderate impacts are those changes in air quality and air
quality-related values that are readily apparent. The effects of smoke
to health and visibility would be sufficient to cause concern, although
effects would be relatively local and short-term. Short-term means that
air quality will recover within seven days or less after a fire.
Long-term effects would be negligible. Negligible, as defined for this
resource, means that air quality and air quality-related values would be
below or at the level of detection. If detected, effects would be
considered slight with no perceptible consequences to health or
visibility.

**4.5.2 Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach**

Effects under the proposed FMU alternative would be the same as the No
Action alternative. If prescribed pile burning of removed overgrowth
occurred, NPS personnel would plan these burns to coincide with
favorable meteorological conditions and employ "Best Management
Practices" \[BMPs\] to assure that the fires were controlled and did not
adversely effect the immediate environment. No impairment to air quality
is anticipated under either approach.

**[4.6 Socioeconomic and Public Safety]{.smallcaps}**

Guam's estimated population in 2003 is 163,941 with a population growth
rate of 1.89% (CIA 2003). The reported ethnic composition of the island
in 2003 included 37% Chamorro, 22.6% Filipino, 12% Caucasian, and 4.7%
Micronesian; the remaining percentage of the population is made up of
ethnic Japanese, Korean and Chinese. The median age is 25.2 years and
the mean household income is approximately \$44,000. The major sources
of income on Guam are industrial 10%, trade 24%, other services (mainly
tourism) 40% and territorial and federal government at 26%. The
unemployment rate (based on year 2000 estimates) is 15%. It was
estimated in 2001 that 23% of the population had an income that placed
them below the poverty line. Guam receives large transfer payments from
the U.S. Federal Treasury (\$143 million in 1997) into which Guamanians
pay no income or excise taxes; under the provisions of a special law
enacted by congress, the Guam Treasury, rather than the U.S. Treasury,
receives federal income taxes paid by military and civilian federal
employees stationed in Guam.

Two Executive Orders \[EO\] related to social economic impacts and
public safety must be considered under the EA process. EO 12898
(Environmental Justice) requires that federal agencies make achieving
environmental justice part of their missions by identifying and
addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects caused by its programs, policies and activities on
minority and low-income populations. EO 12898 also tasks federal
agencies with ensuring that public notifications regarding environmental
issues are concise, understandable, and readily accessible. EO 12699
(Seismic Safety) requires federal agencies to review projects for
impacts to human safety related to building design and construction.

1.  **Alternative 1 -- No Action**

Under this alternative property losses and threats to public safety
would be reduced because all fires would be aggressively suppressed.
Short-term impacts (effects only during the period of fire) would be
direct, beneficial and minor. Long-term impacts (those impacts that
continue after the period of the fire) would be minor and beneficial.

2.  **Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach**

#### 

As in the No Action alternative, threats to property and public safety
would also be reduced, under the FMU alternative. Under this
alternative, all fires in the urban interface and those that threaten
human safety will be suppressed using a control suppression strategy.
Control is defined as a suppression strategy where the most aggressive
response tactics are used. This includes the establishment of fire lines
around a fire to halt its spread and extinguish all hotspots until it is
out. In wild areas a confine or contain strategy might be the most
appropriate response. As noted earlier, a "confine" strategy is one that
allows a fire to burn as long as it remains, or is predicted to remain
within predetermined natural boundaries until it is out. This
alternative requires minimal suppression action. It can be used in those
FMU units that have extensive natural barriers and low resource values
at risk, and under weather conditions that do not offer the potential to
cause the fire to move into areas where it is unwanted. A "contain"
strategy is a suppression tactic where a fire is restricted to a certain
area by using natural barriers or constructed barriers that stop the
fire's spread under prevailing and forecasted weather conditions. This
alternative may also be used in selected FMUs. The contain strategy may
be used when resource values at risk are not as great as in those areas
where a confine strategy might be used; where the fire poses no threat
to human life or property; where there is no chance the fire will burn
outside the park boundaries because of natural barriers, and, where
suppression actions might place firefighters in undue danger. Again,
because of flexibility in the FMU approach, fires can function as a part
of the eco-system or be suppressed using appropriate confine, contain
and control strategies when they threaten public safety, property or
important cultural resources.

This preferred alternative is anticipated to have beneficial, direct,
indirect, short and long-term effects on the human (socioeconomic)
environment and public health and safety. Under this alternative there
would be less chance of an extreme wildfire. Economic impacts from
extreme wildfires would be mitigated; this would include the direct
costs associated with firefighting and indirect cost to the local
economy from potential reduction in tourism or recreation revenues.
Neither alternative is anticipated to cause an impairment to park
resources or values.

In compliance with EO 12898, socioeconomic and demographic data related
to residents of Guam were reviewed to determine if a disproportionate
number of minority or low-income persons might be affected by the
proposed action. Based on the data compiled and summarized in Section
4.5, this alternative will not disproportionately affect minority or
low-income persons. Because the proposed action does not involve
construction of occupied buildings, it is in compliance with EO 12699.

**[4.7 Cultural Resources]{.smallcaps}**

In addition to review under NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act
\[NHPA\], as amended in 1992 (16 USC et seq.) requires that
consideration of impacts on historic structures listed in, or eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places be made.
Altogether there are 155 sites on Guam that are either on the National
Register or the Guam Register of Historic sites. WAPA is listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, as are specific areas within the
park. These areas include the Agat Invasion Beach, the Asan Invasion
Beach, the Asan Inland Unit (sometimes referred to as the Asan Ridge
Battlefield), Memorial Beach Park (part of the Asan Beach Unit) and the
Piti Guns Unit. In addition, many areas outside of the park have
historic sites related to WWII that are also on the National Register of
Places. Although a large number of these sites are in urban Agana, or on
the northern end of the island, some sites are near WAPA; these nearby
sites include a number of historical sites in the Fonte Plateau area,
and Hill 40 (near the Agat unit) the site of a particularly bloody
encounter between U.S. and Japanese troops. Each unit of the park
contains specific resources related to WWII. Their significance lies
both in the roles in the battle for Guam and in their contents, physical
remains of structures or equipment.

NEPA and NHPA also apply to archeological resources, cultural landscapes
and enthographic resources. As of 2000, 55 terrestrial/archeological
sites have been recorded at WAPA (Minton 2004). It has been estimated
that that there are as many as 42 additional undocumented historical
sites within the various units of the park (Siefkin, 2004). In addition,
five distinct cultural landscapes have been identified within the park.
Although it is not clear whether important enthnographic resources are
located within park boundaries, it is possible that certain units
include sites that are significant to Chamorro history and culture. The
preservation and management of these high-integrity cultural and
historic sites is one of primary objectives of NPS management.

The impacts to cultural resources from fire management activities come
in three forms: *direct* -- alterations to the cultural resource
resulting from heat and smoke, *operational* -- such as impact from
heavy equipment used to fight the fire or the construction of firelines,
and *indirect* -- changes in local context caused by erosion, vandalism
and looting.

1.  **Alternative 1 -- No Action**

Because the No Action alternative calls for full suppression the
short-term effects would be both direct and indirect with negligible
adverse effects. Negligible is defined as barely measurable with little
perceptible consequences, either adverse or beneficial to archaeological
resources. Long-term effects would be minor and beneficial. Although
fires do threaten certain cultural sites (foxholes, pillboxes etc.) some
opinion has been voiced that as long as the sites are in a "wild" state
and inaccessible the cultural scene is actually less compromised, human
interaction is discouraged and the sites are less likely to be
irreparably damaged by indirect impacts related to vandalism and
looting.

2.  **Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach**

Under this approach it is believed that short-term effects would be
minor, direct and localized. Minor is defined as little, if any, loss of
cultural or archaeological significance or integrity and no impact on
the eligibility of the site for inclusion on the National Register.
Long-term beneficial effects to cultural resources would occur as
protection objectives are accomplished. Decisions as to whether a fire
would have to be suppressed would be made with the specific unit in
mind. NPS personnel would weigh the potential effect of the fire and any
operational impacts (heavy equipment, fire line construction etc.) on
cultural resources within that unit against other considerations
including, biological resource needs, safety considerations and
resources available. Overall, no prohibited impairment that would harm
the integrity of the park's resources or values is anticipated.

7.  **[Land Use]{.smallcaps}**

All lands described in this report are either National Park lands or are
within park boundaries and therefore administered by the NPS. The
individual units are described in Section 2.1. Although most of the area
managed by the NPS is owned by the Federal government or the Territory
of Guam there are parcels of private lands within park boundaries. At
present none of the private parcels are actively managed. Most of these
private holdings are characterized as wildlands without development or
access. Since it would be impossible to select fire management
techniques for parcels with different ownerships private holdings will
not be a major consideration when the FMP is developed.

1.  **Alternative 1 -- No Action**

The No Action Alternative will have little impact on land use. All fires
would be aggressively suppressed regardless of the character of a
specific unit a control strategy would be the default response for all
fires rather than using tactics of confine or contain. Short-term and
long-term impacts would be direct and minor concerning overall land use
strategies.

**4.8.2 Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach**

As with other resources considered, the FMU approach offers more
flexibility to NPS management strategies for each unit. Although overall
land use would remain essentially the same as with the No Action
Alternative, preservation and/or restoration of the historic scene,
especially in wild areas could be enhanced through this alternative
because of the flexibility in response strategies. Overall, short and
long-term impacts to land use would be negligible (at or below
detection). Overall, no impairment is anticipated under either
alternative considered.

8.  **[Cumulative Impacts]{.smallcaps}**

CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA require assessment of cumulative
effects in the decision-making process for federal projects. Cumulative
effects are defines as " the impact on the environment which results
from the incremental impact of the action when added to past, present
and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency
(federal or non-federal) or persons undertakes such other actions" 40
CFR 1508.7). Cumulative effects were considered for both the no action
and proposed fire management alternatives. At the time that this
document was prepared, no other past, present or reasonably foreseeable
future actions that might cause incremental impacts were anticipated.

1.  **Alternative 1 -- No Action**

Cumulative impacts under this alternative would be direct and beneficial
in the short-term but potentially adverse in the long-term. In the
short-term, full suppression would have the direct benefit of
controlling the fire as a hazard to life and property. However,
suppressing all fires regardless of conditions, management goals and
ecological considerations may be counterproductive. This alternative,
for example, could have a detrimental impact in areas where
fire-dependent species are located and further upset vegetative
patterns. This alternative does not meet the overall goals stated in the
WAPA General Management Plan; it has the potential for detrimental
impact in areas containing fire resistant species, it also presents the
potential long-term impacts on soils as described in Section 4.2.1.

**4.9.2 Alternative 2 -- Fire Management Unit Approach**

As stated earlier, wildland fire can be a desirable method to maintain
fire-dependent systems. In areas where fire is an essential component
but cannot be allowed to burn as a natural process because of management
constraints, clearing and pile burning would be an alternative to full
suppression. As with specific resources (biological, water, etc.) this
preferred alternative would provide the NPS with the flexibility to
respond using "appropriate" suppression responses (confine, contain,
control) to fire events or take management actions to prevent the
likelihood of fire is specific areas. Certain areas, such as
wildland/urban interface areas, might call for both a fuels management
and control suppression policy.

Under this alternative the WAPA FMP will be developed in such a way as
to identify fire prone-areas, areas where recurring fires have had a
serious effect on local vegetation and soils and special management
zones and interface areas. It will detail the attendant response or
management strategy for each FMU. The FMP will also detail consultation
and protection measures to be taken before any pile burning or
appropriate management response (response choices being confine contain
or control). Cooperative relationships with the Guam Fire Department,
the Guam Department of Agriculture Forestry Division, the Navy and other
agencies will be reinforced. This is an important component as that many
fires start on lands outside of the park on lands managed by these other
agencies. In addition to response strategies the FMP will also address
fire prevention; it will detail how the NPS will prevent unplanned,
unauthorized, human-caused ignition through fire prevention and
education programs for staff, the local communities and park visitors.
The FMP will be a "living' document in that it will be reviewed yearly
and modified as needed to respond to changing resources and ecological
requirements.

Cumulative impacts under this alternative would be direct and beneficial
in both the short and long-term. Based on the nature of cumulative
effects that are foreseen, no impairment to park resources or values is
anticipated.

Two other Executive Orders were considered when preparing this EA. They
are:

-   Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands.

-   Executive Order 11998 - Floodplain Management.

EO 11990 requires all Federal agencies to \"take action to minimize the
destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands and enhance the natural and
beneficial values of wetlands\" while carrying out their
responsibilities. EO 11998, Floodplain Management, requires similar
protection for floodplains, including avoiding activity in the
floodplain when possible.

None of the units contain wetlands. However, a small area near Apaca
point in the Agat unit, which is within the Namo River floodplain, has
been classified as a wetland under the Guam Coastal Management Program.
Neither of the proposed alternatives would have any direct impact on
this wetland.

Flood Maps issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, under the
National Flood Insurance Program, show that both The Asan Beach Unit and
the Agat Unit (including Apaca Point) lay within a 100-year flood zone.
The type of zone for both units is identified as a 100-year coastal
flood zone with velocity (wave action). Base flood elevations and flood
hazard factors have not been determined. Neither of the proposed
alternatives, nor the flood hazard determination, have any direct
bearing on the development of the proposed FMP.

**SECTION 5 -- PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND AGENCY COORDINATION**

The National Park Service is the lead agency conducting the NEPA
compliance process for this proposed Fire Management Plan for the War in
the Pacific National Historical Park. It is the goal of the NPS to
expedite the preparation and review of NEPA documents and to be
responsive to the needs of Guam's residents while meeting both the
spirit and intent of NEPA and complying with all NEPA provisions.

As part of the NEPA compliance requirements a scoping letter was
distributed to both federal and government of Guam agencies that either
had 1) expertise on resources potentially affected by the Proposed
Alternative 2) regulatory authority over resources potentially affected
by the Proposed Alternative. The letter was also distributed to the
mayors of the Village of Agat and Asan, the communities adjacent to the
park and a public notice of availability of the EA was posted in the
Pacific Daily News, the major newspaper of Guam. The letter and a list
of recipients are provided in Appendix (B). In addition to the letter,
direct scoping meetings were held with interested parties, when this was
not possible, the potentially interested parties were contacted by
telephone or e-mail to make them aware of the EA/FMP preparation and
solicit their input

A thirty-day public comment period will follow the distribution of this
EA. All comments received will be duly considered in the environmental
decision making process and accounted for in the FONSI that is
anticipated; however, if potential significant issues are raised or
impacts beyond those detailed in the EA are established than an EIS may
be prepared.

**SECTION 6 - REFERENCES**

2001, Amesbury, S.S., and R.F. Myers, *Guide to the Coastal Resources of
Guam*, Vol 1. *The Fishes*.
**www.uog.edu/marinelab/fish/thefishes.html**.

1978, Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of the
President, *Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of
the National Environmental Policy Act*: 40 CFR 500-1508, Washington D.C.
1978.

1998, *Checklist of Terrestrial Invertebrates of Guam,* Division of
Aquatic & Wildlife Resources, Guam Department of Agriculture.

2003, Central Intelligence Agency \[CIA\], 2003 *World Fact Book* CIA
Office of Public Affairs, Washington D.C. June 2003.
**http:/www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/gq.html**.

Code of Federal Regulations: 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508

2003, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
(CSIRO) *Fire Facts*, Australian Brushfire Behavior Management Team, May
2003. **http://www.ffp.cisro.au/nfm/fbm/ffotm/ffotm.html**

2001, [Director's Order Number 12]{.underline}: Conservation Planning,
Environmental Impact Analysis, and Decision Making, January 8, 2001.

2002, [Director's Order Number 18]{.underline}: *Wildland Fire
Management* U.S. National Park Service, Washington D.C., November 2002.

2004, Dwayne Minton, Ecologist, War in the Pacific National Historical
Park -- Personal communication regarding classified structures at WAPA,
April 14, 2004.

2003, EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Air Quality
Homepage

<http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/maps>.

1985, FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate
Map, Territory of Guam. Panel Numbers: 660001-037 660001-041,
660001-050, 660001-077 660001-078, 660001-079, November 15, 1985.

2000, FEMA Region IX *Final Environmental Assessment*, Guam Department
of Agriculture, Forestry and Soils Resources Division *Vegetation
Management Plan.* Prepared by URS Greiner Woodward Clyde, May 4, 2000.

1960, Fosberg, F.R., *The Vegetation of Micronesia*: Part 1, General
Descriptions: The Vegetation of the Marianas Islands, with a detailed
consideration of the Vegetation of Guam, Bulletin of the American Museum
of Natural History 119: 1-76.

2003, Government of Guam, GIS Website,
[www.guamgis.net](http://www.guamgis.net/)

2003, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Programs

<http://www.guamepa.govguam.net/programs/water/>

2000, Guam Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Soils Resources
Division, *Sixteen Year Fire Occurrence Record* (1983 through 1999).

1997, NPS, *Resource Management Plan* *War in the Pacific National
Historical Park*, U.S. National Park Service, Office of Policy and
Regulations, Washington D.C., February 14, 1997.

1983, NPS *Ge*n*eral Management Plan War in the Pacific National
Historical Park,* U.S. National Park Service, Washington D.C. May 12,
1983

1998, Pacific Daily News, Agana Guam, *13,000 Acres Scorched*, Thursday
May 28, 1998.

2003, PIER *Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk* U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Institute of Pacific Island Forestry.
http//:
[www.hear.org/Pier/index.html](http://www.hear.org/Pier/index.html),
updated December 2003.

1978, Public Law 95-348, *War in the Pacific National Park* August 18,
1978

1997, Rodda, G., Fritts, T., and Chiszar, D. *The Disappearance of
Guam's Wildlife*. Bioscience 47: 565-575.

2004, Reeberg, Paul, National Park Service - General review comments on
Environmental Assessment of WAPA Fire Management Plan.

1981, Samowitz, I.R., and Forsyth, D.W., *Double Seismic Zone Beneath
the Mariana Island Arc*: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 86.

1957, Schmidt, R.G., *Petrology of the Volcanic Rocks*: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 280-B. P 127-177.

Siefkin, Nelson, Archeologist, National Park Service - General Review
Comments on Environmental Assessment of WAPA Fire Management Plan.

1964, Tracey J.I, Schlanger, S.O., Stark, J.T., Doan, D.B., and May,
H.G. *General Geology of Guam.*

1977, University of Guam, *Inventory and Mapping of Wetland Vegetation
in Guam, Tinian and Saipan, Mariana Islands*, 253p, June 1977.

1988, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, *The
Brown Tree Snake, [Boiga]{.underline} [Irregularis]{.underline}, A
Threat to the Pacific Islands*: Biological Report 88(31), September
1988.

1995, U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Department of Interior,
*Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program Review*, 52pp.
**http://www.fs.fed.us/land/wdfire.htm**

1990, U.S Department of Agriculture, *Common and Scientific Names of
Trees and Shrubs of the Mariana, Caroline and Marshall Islands.* U.S.
Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Resources Bulletin
PSW-26.

2001, U.S Department of Agriculture and Department of Interior "*Action
and Financial Plans for the Departments of Agriculture and Interior" --
National Fire Plan Implementation Strategy*, 2001.
(<http://www.gov/references>)

1988, War in the Pacific National Historical Park, *Statement for
Management,* August 9, 1988.

1989, War in the Pacific National Historical Park, *Draft Fire
Management Plan,* November 14, 1989.

1995, Whelan, R.J., *The Ecology of Fire*, Cambridge University Press,
346pp

1988, Young, Fred J., *Soil Survey of Territory of Guam* U.S. Department
of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service in Cooperation with Guam
department of Commerce and University of Guam.

###### SECTION 7 -- LIST OF PREPARERS

Rick Smith, of Hawai'i International Environmental Services, Inc,
prepared this EA in consultation with the following War in the Pacific
National Historical Park personnel:

Eric Brunnemann, Superintendent

Dwayne Minton, Ecologist/Project Manager

David Limtiaco, Head Forrester with the Guam Division of Forestry and
Soil Resources, also provided valuable background information.

**FIGURES**

**Appendix A**

**Photographic Documentation**

**Appendix B**

**Notification Letter and List of Recipients**

+-------+----------+---------------------------------------------------+
| ![](m | **HIES** | **[Hawai\'i International Environmental Services, |
| edia/ |          | Inc.]{.smallcaps}**                               |
| image |          |                                                   |
| 6.png |          | Earth Scientists and Environmental Engineers      |
| ){wid |          |                                                   |
| th="0 |          | Contractors License No. AC-21139                  |
| .7138 |          |                                                   |
| 88888 |          | 70 Kihapai St. Kailua, Hawai'i 96734 Phone (808)  |
| 88888 |          | 263-4787 Fax (808) 263-0860                       |
| 89in" |          |                                                   |
| heigh |          |                                                   |
| t="0. |          |                                                   |
| 88055 |          |                                                   |
| 55555 |          |                                                   |
| 55555 |          |                                                   |
| 5in"} |          |                                                   |
+-------+----------+---------------------------------------------------+

03065

April 30, 2004

1^st^ Address Line

2^nd^ Address Line

City, State, Zip Code

+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **           | Name of Recipient                                     |
| Attention:** |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
|              |                                                       |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+
| **Subject:** | Environmental Assessment, Fire Management             |
|              | Alternatives,                                         |
|              |                                                       |
|              | War in the Pacific National Historical Park           |
+--------------+-------------------------------------------------------+

(Title, or Last name):

## 

Hawaii International Environmental Services \[HIES\] is in the process
of preparing an Environmental Assessment \[EA\] for the National Park
Service \[NPS\] under the National Environmental Policy Act. The purpose
of the EA is to analyze alternative strategies for a Fire Management
Plan that is to be developed for the War in the Pacific National
Historical Monument \[WAPA\].

WAPA was established in 1978 to "commemorate the bravery and sacrifice
of those participating in the campaigns of the Pacific Theater of World
War II and to conserve and interpret outstanding natural, scenic, and
historic values and objects of the island of Guam". The park manages
approximately 1000 acres of land, which are located in seven individual
park units.

Wildland fires are a frequent event within the boundaries of the various
park units, particularly during the dry season and burn as much as 20%
of the park's land each year. Most fires are attributed to arson;
natural fires are rare because of Guam's tropical setting. Few natural
ignition sources are present in this environment and climatic conditions
are not conducive to spontaneous ignition. As such, vegetation
communities are poorly adapted to repeated burning, and are experiencing
adverse impacts from repeated burning. Fires also contribute to upland
erosion and coastal runoff. High sediment loads on near shore coral
reefs are attributed to upland burning. The NPS is concerned about the
health of both its terrestrial and marine natural resources, and
currently lacks an approved fire management plan.

Two fire management alternatives are being considered, they are:

-   **No Action** Although "No Action" implies that no action would be
    taken in the case of a wildfire, this is not the case. Federal
    policy requires that until a fire management plan is approved park
    service personnel must aggressively suppress all fires that occur
    within the park boundaries. Therefore, the No Action alternative
    would require that all fires be suppressed within park boundaries
    regardless of ecological concerns, resource management objectives
    and cost to the NPS. Suppression would be accomplished through the
    use of a dedicated NPS fire suppression team and through memorandums
    of understanding with the Guam Department of Forestry, the Guam Fire
    Department and other applicable fire response agencies.

-   **Fire Management Unit Based Program** This alternative will address
    fire management by individual park unit. Fire management strategies
    of appropriate suppression and/or response will be based on
    ecological or park needs for that specific unit, taking into
    consideration such factors as to whether it is in an urban interface
    area, or a wild area, what ecological and cultural features are
    contained within that unit and what resources are available.

The NPS is accepting comments on the potential environmental impacts of
this project. If you have any comments regarding wildfire management
within WAPA please send them to my attention at the address in the
letterhead.

Only written comments will be incorporated into the EA as appropriate.
If you wish to remain on the mailing list and receive a copy of the EA,
please note this in your communication; otherwise, you will not receive
a copy of the EA. If your comments are to be included in the NEPA
documentation I will need to receive your written response within 30
days of your receipt of the EA. I appreciate your time and look forward
to receiving your comments. If you have any questions please feel free
to call me at (808) 263-4787. Your comments may also be faxed to (808)
263 0860.

Respectfully,

Rick Smith

Project Manager

Hawaii International Environmental Services, Inc.

+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| # *       |               |                    |                    |
| *Distribu |               |                    |                    |
| tion List |               |                    |                    |
|  for Proj |               |                    |                    |
| ect Notif |               |                    |                    |
| ication** |               |                    |                    |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **Name**  | **Title**     | **Agency**         | **Address**        |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Mr. David | Chief of      | #### Guam Departm  | 192 Dairy Road,    |
| Limtiaco  | Forestry      | ent of Agriculture |                    |
|           |               |                    | Mangilao, Guam     |
|           |               | Division of        | 96923              |
|           |               | Forestry and Soil  |                    |
|           |               | Resources          |                    |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Mr. Gerry | Refuge        | United States      | P.O.Box 8134,      |
| Deutscher | Manager       | Department of the  | Mou-3,             |
|           |               | Interior           |                    |
|           |               |                    | Dededo, Guam 96929 |
|           |               | Fish and Wildlife  |                    |
|           |               | Service            |                    |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Mr.       | Fire Chief    | Guam Fire          | P.O.Box 2950,      |
| Michael   |               | Department         |                    |
| Uncango   |               |                    | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |               |                    | 96910              |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Mr. Gerry | Supervisory   | Guam Department of | 192 Dairy Road,    |
| Davis     | Biologist     | Agriculture        |                    |
|           |               |                    | Mangilao, Guam     |
|           |               | Division of        | 96913              |
|           |               | Aquatic and        |                    |
|           |               | Wildlife Resources |                    |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Mr. Fred  | Administrator | Guam Environmental | P.O.Box 22439 GMF, |
| Castro    |               | Protection Agency  |                    |
|           |               |                    | Barrigada, Guam    |
|           |               |                    | 96921              |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Mr.       | Director      | Department of Land | P.O.Box 2950,      |
| Joseph    |               | Management         |                    |
| Borja     |               |                    | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |               | Attention: Chief   | 96932              |
|           |               | Planner            |                    |
|           |               |                    |                    |
|           |               | Planning Division  |                    |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Mr. Felix | Director      | Chamorro Land      | P.O.Box 2950,      |
| Ber       |               | Trust Commision    |                    |
| to-Dungca |               |                    | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |               |                    | 96932              |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Mr.       | Acting        | Department of      | 542 North Marine   |
| Joseph W. | Director      | Public Works       | Drive,             |
| Duenas    |               |                    |                    |
|           |               |                    | Tamuning, Guam     |
|           |               |                    | 96913              |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Mr. Felix | Governor      | Government of Guam | P.O. Box 2950,     |
| Camacho   |               |                    |                    |
|           |               |                    | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |               |                    | 96932              |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Sen. Tina | Senator       | Guam Legislature   | 155 Hesler Street, |
| Mu        |               |                    |                    |
| na-Barnes |               |                    | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |               |                    | 96932              |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| Sen. Rory | Senator       | Guam Legislature   | 155 Hesler Street, |
| Respicio  |               |                    |                    |
|           |               |                    | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |               |                    | 96910              |
+-----------+---------------+--------------------+--------------------+

+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| **Dis     |                |                   |                    |
| tribution |                |                   |                    |
| List for  |                |                   |                    |
| Project   |                |                   |                    |
| Notif     |                |                   |                    |
| ication** |                |                   |                    |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| **Name**  | **Title**      | **Agency**        | **Address**        |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Mr. John  | Executive      | Mayors Council of | P.O. Box 786,      |
| Finona    | Director       | Guam              |                    |
| Blas      |                |                   | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |                |                   | 96932              |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Mayor     | Mayor          | Village of Santa  | P.O. Box 786,      |
| Joseph C. |                | Rita              |                    |
| Wesley    |                |                   | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |                |                   | 96932              |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Mayor     | Mayor          | Village of Agana  | P.O. Box 786,      |
| Paul      |                | Heights           |                    |
| McDonald  |                |                   | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |                |                   | 96932              |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Mayor     | Mayor          | Village of Asan   | P.O. Box 786,      |
| Benny San |                |                   |                    |
| Nicolas   |                |                   | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |                |                   | 96932              |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Mayor     | Mayor          | Village of Agat   | P.O. Box 786,      |
| Johnny    |                |                   |                    |
| Reyes     |                |                   | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |                |                   | 96932              |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Mayor     | Mayor          | Village of Piti   | P.O. Box 786,      |
| Isabel    |                |                   |                    |
| Haggard   |                |                   | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |                |                   | 96932              |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Mr. Ron   | Director       | Guam Housing and  | 117 Bien Venida    |
| De Guzman |                | Urban Renewal     | Avenue,            |
|           |                | Authority         |                    |
|           |                | \[GHURA\]         | Sinajana, Guam     |
|           |                |                   | 96910              |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Ms. Lynda | Historic       | Guam Historic     | P.O. Box 2950,     |
| B. Aguon  | Preservation   | Preservation      |                    |
|           | Officer        | Office            | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |                |                   | 96932              |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Mr.       | Natural        | United States     | P.O. Box 2819,     |
| Robert    | Resources      | Department of     |                    |
| Wescom    | Manager        | Agriculture       | Hagatna, Guam      |
|           |                |                   | 96932              |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+
| Ms. Joan  | State          | United States     | USDA 1^st^ H.      |
| Perry     | C              | Department of     | Building           |
|           | onservationist | Agriculture       |                    |
|           |                |                   | Suite 301          |
|           |                |                   |                    |
|           |                |                   | 400 Route 8        |
|           |                |                   |                    |
|           |                |                   | Mongmong, Guam     |
|           |                |                   | 96910              |
+-----------+----------------+-------------------+--------------------+