Project evaluation for the development of coastal resources in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marina Islands An in-country training course

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coas@al Zone

1w.
0 0

A I

HT
395
N6
C-53
1985

cr
" L". MD

PROJECT EVALUATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

COASTAL, RESOURCES

IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

AN IN-COUNTRY TRAINING COURSE

PRESENTED BY

THE CNMI COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

THE SOUTH PACIFIC COMMISSION'S

SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL, ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

AND THE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION

OF NATURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES

13 TO 30 MAY 1985

FINAL REPORT BY

Richard H. Chesher, Ph.D.

SAIPAN
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

CONTENTS

PAGE

ABSTRACT
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS v
1. OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT 1

1.1 A Guide for Future Courses and Workshops 1
1.2 A Review of Coastal Resource Management Procedures 1

1.3 Case Studies of Environmental Evaluation Of Projects 1
1.4 Guidelines for Practical Evaluation, Administration, 1
and Enforcement of Coastal Development in CNMI.

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1

2.1 Dual Objectives, Training and Evaluation 1
2.2 The Basic Analysis and Training Pattern 3
2.3 The Core Group 7
2.4 Participants and Contributors 9

3. SEMINAR PHASE 10

3.1 Objectives 10
3.2 Schedule and Speakers 10
3.3 Governor's Policy Statement 11
3.4 Attorney General's Legal Summary 11
3.5 CRM Acting Administrator's Summary of Procedure 16
for Project Evaluation and Permitting.
3.6 Summary of Procedures by Agencies 19
3.7 Summary of Needs and Concerns by Agencies 24
3.8 Public Involvement 26
3.9 The Industrial View 27
3.10 Environmental Consultants 28
3.11 Federal Involvement 29
3.12 Agricultural Considerations 29
3.13 Educational Needs 30
3.14 Monitoring and Enforcement Process and Needs 31
3.15 Workgroup Summary of Problem Areas, their
Relative Importance and Alternative Strategies
for Meeting these Needs. 34

4. TRAINING COURSE PHASE 41

Objectives 42
Schedule, Speakers, and Participants 42
Tools & Techniques for Long Term Development Planning
Zoning
Map Integration
14PLC Computer Project
Resource Imput
Remote Sensing for, Project Evaluation
Island Satellite Information System
What is Environmental Impact Assessment? 45
A working definition
Screening
Scoping
Tools and Techniques for Project Evaluation 48
Matrices, Networks, Simulation Models
Procedural Guideline Charts
Priority Checklists

4.1 CASE STUDY: NIKKO HOTEL PERMIT APPLICATION ANALYSIS 48

Background 48
Evaluation of Reports and Working with
Consultants 48
Evaluation of Procedures 51
Network Analysis and Site Visit 54
Work Groups Consider Resource Requirements 56
Summary of Resource Concerns for Project 56
Summary of Socio-Economic Concerns 59
Federal Involvement and Concerns 62
Water, a Special Concern 62
The Public Hearing 62
The Application Form & Getting Information 62
Setting Conditions for Project Permits 63

4.2 SITE LOCATION OF SANITARY LANDFILL, 66

Background 66
Identification of Concerns 66
Map Overlay 68
Matrix Analysis of Impacts 68
Site Visits 68
Identification of Sites and Alternatives 68
Closure of Existing Dump 70

4.3 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS 73

Outline for Environmental Analysis Statement 73
Dump Site Example
Outline for, EIS 74
Reality Testing 74

11.4 THE IMPLEMENTATION GAP 76

Research Library: An Example and a Test. 76

5. SUMMARY OF RESULTS '78

5.1 THE WORKSHOP METHOD OF PROJECT EVALUATION 78

Advantages and Disadvantages 78
How Can it be Applied to the Permitting Procedure? 79
How Can it be Applied to Regional
In--country Training Courses? 82

5.2 EVALUATION OF COURSE BY' CORE GROUP 82

Summary of Comments 84
Summary of Recommendations for Future Courses 87

5.3 PRESENTATION OF' RESULTS BY CORE GROUP 87

6. APPENDIX

6.1 ANNOTATED REFERENCES 89

6.2 DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP 92

6.3 TEXT OF COMMENTS BY SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS 99

Governor Pedro P. Tenorio
Tami Grove, Acting Administrator CRM0
Rex Kosack, Attorney General
Norman Tenorio, President Saipan Chamber of Commerce

6.4 EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION FORM AS GUIDELINES FOR 108
DEVELOPERS.

ABSTRACT

A three week seminar and training course on project evaluation for the
development of coastal resources in the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands was held in Saipan during May of 1985. The project was
done under the auspices of the Commonwealth's Coastal Resources
Management Office and was presented by the South Pacific Commission's
South Pacific Regional Environment Programme and the International
Union For the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.

The course was designed to impreve understanding of how the
environmental impacts of projects are evaluated and to assist the
government in developing strategies for enhancing project benefits and
minimizing environmental damage.

More than fifty six people participated in the activity, including
Governor Pedro P. Tenorio, Attorney General Rex Kosack, directors and
professional staff from all the government agencies involved with the
permit process of the Coastal Resource Management Program,
representatives from the Public, Business, Industrial and Educational
sectors of the community as well as representatives from Federal
Agencies.

The first week of the project was a seminar at which participants
discussed how the CRMP processes permits and evaluates projects. Areas
were identified where the program could be improved and suggestions for
implementing these improvements made.

A two week intensive training course then used the material from the
seminar to construct procedural flow charts and to design and fine-tune
methods of project evaluation and permitting for the Coastal Resources
Management Program.

Two projects of current interest to the CNMI were selected as subjects
for evaluation by the training course participants. These were a
proposal for a major hotel, representing a development project from
off-island, and selection of a suitable site for a Saipan Sanitary
Landfill and Closure of the Existing Dump, representing a governmental
development project.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

PACE

1. Course Design, a Systems Analysis 4
2, Establishin8 Needs: The first step. 5
3. Course Flow Chart 6
4. Workshop Method of Environmental Impact Assessment 8
5. Attorney General Rex Kosack at the Seminar 11
6. Site inspection during the Seminar 11
7. Participants in the CRMP 15
8. CRMO Permit Process (According to Regulations). 18
9. Permit Analysis Procedure for DPW 20
10. Permit Analysis Procedure for DNR 21
11. Permit Analysis Procedure for HPO 23
12. MPLC Land Lease Procedures 25
13. Monitoring and Enforcement Procedures of the CRMO 32
14. CRMO Sample Monitoring Sheet 33
15. CRMP Tinian Procedures 35
16. Working Group Process for Environmental Assessment 36
17. Site Location of Proposed JAL NIKKO Hotel 41
18. Puerto Rico Dump Site 41
19. Remote Sensing and Environmental Assessment 44
20. Newspaper Announcement 53
21. Network Analysis of Tourism Developments 55
22. Map Over-lay for Landfill Sites 67
23. Matrix Analysis of Sanitary Land-fill Sites 69
24. Plan for Closure of Existing Dump. 72
25. Gantt Chart for Implementation of Landfill Project. 75
26. Workshop Method of Permitting and Project Evaluation. 80
27. Workshop Method for In-Country Training for Resource 83
Management.
28. Closing Ceremony 88

1. OBJECTIVES OF THIS REPORT

1.1 GUIDE FOR FUTURE COURSES AND WORKSHOPS

This report is written to assist in the preparation and conduct of
in-country training courses for, resource management in the Pacific
Islands. Section 2, BACKGROUND INFORMATION, explains the techniques
used for the first SPREP/IUCN in-country resource management training
course which was held in Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
Islands (CNMI), during the month of May, 1985. Section 5 evaluates
these procedures.

The Course structure is summarized in Figures 1 to 3 and presented in
detail in the BASIC ANALYSIS AND TRAINING PATTERN portion of Section 2.

1.2 REVIEW OF COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 10 THE CNIII

The Commonwealth has had an active Coastal Resource Management Program
since 1980 and is thus well ahead of many other Pacific Island
Countries in its resource management experience. Section 3, SEMINAR
PHASE, thus presents a valuable case study on how resource management
works in practice and what kinds of problems can be expected.

This section also reviews the workshop evaluation process which forms
the backbone of the training course. The review is done by the
individuals of the CMNI who are actually involved in the Coastal
Resource Management Program.

1.3 CASE STUDIES OF PROJECT EVALUATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND
ENFORCEMENT.

The TRAINING COURSE PHASE provides practical. examples of how projects
are evaluated for their environmental, social and economic impact. The
two studies chosen are typical of two kinds of problems most islands
face: Incoming Development Projects (The JAL NIKKO HOTEL) and
Infrastructure Development Projects (Site Selection for Sanitary
Landfills).

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2.1 DUAL OBJECTIVES: TRAINING AND REVIEW

The Coastal Resource Planning Office (CRMO) of the Commonwealth of the
Northern Marianas Islands (CMNI) has a mandate (Public Law 3-47 Section
3) to:

"Promote more efficient resources management through:

(A) Coordination and development of resources management laws
and regulations into a readily identifiable program,

(B) Revision of existing unclear laws and regulations,

(D) Improvement of coordination between Commonwealth and
federal agencies,

(E) Establishment of educational. and training programs for
Commonwealth government personnel and refinement of supporting
technical data;"

The CRMO, in December of 1984, revised its Rules and Regulations and
these were published in early 1985. It was, therefore, a good time to
have a training course which would serve to review the program , improve
coordination between the government agencies involved, and examine new
concepts of project evaluation.

The South Pacific Commission's South Pacific Regional Environment
Programme (SPREP) was asked to provide such a training (7,,ourse.

The South Pacific Commission contracted with Dr, Richard Chesher of
the Marine Research Foundation to design and conduct the course in
collaboration with SPREP, the International Union for the Conservation
of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and the University of Guam.

SPREP had conducted a Regional. Training Course, on Environmental
Management for Resource Development at the University of the South
Pacific in Suva, Fiji, in 1982 (Thaman & Rizer 1983). Some of the
recommendations from that training course were used as a starting place
for development of the course program:

1. Broadbased environmental management courses would have more
impact if conducted in-country to cater for a wide range of
environmental management personnel.

2. Include material on Environmental impact assersment
procedures, legislation, data aquisition, report writing and
evaluation.

3. Concentrate on practical, hands-on activities to ensure a firm
grasp of course concepts and skills.

4. Limit lecture time and have more group participation and
creative open discussion to allow participants to share relevant
practical experiences and anecdotal evidence.

5. Problem-oriented case study work focusing on real-life
management problems is of considerable value.

6. Field trips provide an excellent opportunity to contact and
analyze real-life environmental management situations.

7. Followup exercises are needed to find out what parts of the
course turn out to have practical value and if' the concepts,
techniques, and projects have been applied.

These recommendations proved to be extremely useful (See Section 5.2).

Several other documents contributed to the course quidelines. In
particular: the IUCN publications on Status and Application of
Environmental Impact Assessment for Development (Hornberry 1984a & b);
the East-West Center's Evaluation of Environmental Assessment Methods
(Nichols and Hyman 1982) and their Holistic Nature and Fragmented
Bureaucracies: A Study of Government Organization for Natural Systems
Management (Lowry and Carpenter 1984); and Environmental Assessment and
Management (Holling 1978).

From these, the Workshop Method of Project Evaluation (2.2) was adapted
for the course structure.

2.2 THE BASIC ANALYSIS AND TRAINING PATTERN

Resource Management is a team effort. The way the t-he people on the
team work together determines how good the management will be.

The first thing to study, therefore, is how the people of the CNMI
actually interact to achieve the goal of SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Or,
how to improve the standard of living for the people of the islands
without destroying the delicate natural systems which everyone depends
on.

The way the Resource Management Team works is called the Procedures.
Are there meetings? Who goes to them and what kinds of things are
talked about? Who looks at project proposals and what do they look
for?

Are the procedures working? Where are there problems? What could be
done to make the s ystem work better?

Are the basic prio'.1ties clear? Are the team members motivated? Are
they trained and skilled? Do they have enough funds? Is the political
support strong? Are policies consistent? Are there conflicts between
what the different team members want to do?

The Procedures are written up in the new Rules and Regulations. Do
things really happen the way they are written up?

The procedures describe the Permitting Process. Permits are a legal
means to make sure that new development projects are well planned so
they really do benefit the people of the CNMI without damaging the
natural systems.

The permit process involves the cycle of PLANNING (Project Evaluation),
IMPLEMENTATION (Permitting with Conditions), REVIEW (Monitoring) and
REVISION (Enforcement).

L- orA N N I N C;

FR F-= V I -1@3 I ON IMF@pl

FRE:V I FEW

THE EVALUATION PROCESS: A MANAGEMENT CYCLE

The Coastal Resource Management Program was planned, implemented, and
then reviewed and revised. The course was part of a review phase. All
good management activities, including the development and evaluation of
projects, go through the same cycle; often many times.

In the planning phase, problems and alter-native ways to solve them, are
identified. The selection of a strategy and putting this into action
is the implementation phase. Determining the outcome and revising the
planning and implementation take place in the review and revision
phase. This process is usually represented by a MANAGEMENT PLAN
(Kaufman 1972) like this:

REVISE AS RE ED
-I- _qLLI -IT-

IDENTIFY IDENTIFY IMPLEMENT DETERMINE
PROBLEMS IVEHSELECT
ALTERNAT SOLUTION TRATEGIES OUTCOME
SOLUTIONS STRATEGIES -HS

Figure 1. Course design, a systems analysis Management Plan

Look this over carefully as it is the basic pattern used in this
course. It is how the entire course is structured from beginning to
end (Figure 3). It is how the projects will be evaluated for their
environmental impacts (Figure 4). And it is the format for the
recommended permitting procedures (Figure 25) as well as the format for
ed future tra
recommend ining courses (Figure 26).

FDFZ C:),J E: -T IE V oc@ L- U sc@ -F 10 r%J F--" FR 0E: S S

REVISE AS REQUIRED

1.0 IDENTIFY 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
PROBLEMS
BASED ON
NEEDS

1.1 AGENCY 1.6 LIST NEEDS 1.7 ESTABLISH
NEEDS PRIORITIES

1.2 PUBLIC
NEEDS

1.3 BUSINESS 1.8 SELECT
NEEDS PROBLEMS

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL
NEEDS
AGENCY
BUSINESS
PUBLIC
ENVIRONME
1.5 OTHER'S WORLD
NEEDS

ie FEDERAL NEEDS
rwuri nps=D kiwim(z
TOURIST NEEDS

Figure 2. Establishing needs* The first step.

We can expand on each part of the Management Plan like this to form a
MISSION PROFILE. Good management means good planning. And that means
taking the time and effort needed to discover- each participant's needs
and get everyone working in the same direction.

C0ASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
COURSE OUTLINE

Seminar to determine procedures
and establish NEEDS of the CRMP

POLITICAL NEEDS
(Governor)

LEGAL NEEDS
(Attorney General)

CRMP Procedures and NEEDS
(Acting Administrator)

AGENCY Procedures and NEEDS

DPW DNR HPO CD&L DEQ MPLC ENFORCEMENT

NEEDS OF

PUBLIC BUSINESS INDUSTRY EDUCATION

CONSULTANTS FEDERAL AGENCIES

SUMMARIZE NEEDS

ESTABLISH PRIORITIES

SELECT PROBLEMS

DETERMINE ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

TRAINING COURSE TO
IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVES

NIKKO HOTEL LANDFILL SITES

REVIEW

REPORT

THE WORKSHOP PROCESS

Hol 1 ing (1978) tested many different ways to do environmental
assessment studies. He was part of a team of specialists who wanted to
sort through the many different systems to find the ones which worked
best. Their most important discovery was that the best impact studies
came from a series of workshops separated by intervals in which the
individual people worked alone or in small teams. Three or four
workshops were needed to do a proper job.

Workshop 1 is a meeting of the people who will become the CORE GROUP.
GenerallY 3 to 5 people follow the project from beginning to end;
coordinating the meetings, keeping everyone informed, and editing the
results and seeing to the publication of the report. At the first
meeting the Core Group considers the project in a general way and
discuss"z,what will be needed for the more intensive workshop. Who will
be invited, what will each need to prepare, what will the agenda be,
and so on. This is called SCREENING, because it sifts out the major
aspects of the project.

Workshop 2 is the SCOPING meeting at which all concerned par-ties
present their views as to what the problems are and how to solve them *
This intensive workshop may last a week and is intended to get as much
information on the subject as possible out into view quickly and
without duplication.

Then the core group works up the information, implements suggestions
and keeps people active on various parts of the project. This period
may last several months depending on how hard the problems are.

Workshop 3 is the REVIEW meeting where the results of the various test
projects are looked at by the whole group and comments made for
revisions. The methods for final implementation or publication are
developed and set into motion.

This workshop process (Fig. 4) forms the structure for this course
(Figure 3) and for implementation of the management plan format
(Figures 1 and 2) which appears so often in this training course. We
did not, in fact, conform exactly to this formula (See Section 5) and
it would have been better if we could have.

2.3. THE CORE GROUP.

The Core Group was made up of the following people who took part in the
entire training course:

INSTRUCTORS

Richard Chesher of the Marine Research Foundation designed the
course in coordination with SPREP and IUCN and was the course
director.

Richard Randall of the University of Guam instructed in natural
history of the Marianas Islands and consultancies.

WC)QKSHOR ME-I-HOO r-=-Or--,!

W0F':ZKSl-l0r-'
STOP IF
PROJECT HAS CORE GROUP
DqVIOUS FLAWS

L-

F=-

STOP IF WORKSUAOF@ CONTACT ADDITIONAL
PROJECT VALUE
DOES NOT NEEDED EXPERTISE
SUPPORT STUDY ALL,CONCERNED
COST PART ES IDENTIFY ---------
NEEDS

0fl.
t 8 1-1 C. d
o. j -M C@ L n

Rc- v I F- w
W0RKSkA0f'

ALL CONCERNED
PARTIES
EXAMINE FINDIN @-SAI

FE cl t t.
F:Zm @3 U I t@

t-=NV I RC)"MUHN I-Al-
I mrlnc:-r
R FF F-1 0 IZZ I-

Figure Workshop Method of Environmental Impact Assessment

TRAINING COURSE PARTICIPANTS

Vicente Cruz Aldan. Chief Enforcement Officer CRMO

Pedro M. Cruz. Assistant CRM Coordinator, for DPW.

Calistro M. Falig. Fishery Specialist II. DNR.

Michael Fleming. Program Archaeologist. HPO.

Bruce LLoyd. Information Officer. CRMO.

Brian P. Reyes. Researcher. CRMO.

Marja (Lee) C. Taitano. Coastal Coordinator Rota CRM.

Ricardo P. Villagomez. Coastal Coordinator Tinian CRM.

2.4. PARTICIPANTS AND CONTRIBUTORS.

Numerous people contributed to or participated in the seminar and the
training course.

Jeremy Carew-Reid, Coordinator of SPREP, initiated the project concept
with Mark Halle of IUCN and Tami Grove of the CRMO. The SPREP
Coordinator also supervised the preparation of the project materials
and subsequently reviewed and edited the report in Noumea. SPREP and
the IUCN jointly contributed about one third of the project cost.

Governor Pedro P. Tenorio supported the seminar and training course
and contributed comments on executive policy in the CNMI.

Tami Grove, the Acting Administrator of the Coastal Resources
Management Office and Debby Knutson, the Coastal Advisor, along with
the entire staff of the CRMO provided logistic support, expert guidance
and active participation. The CRMO provided two thirds of the project
cost.

George Greene, representing the IUCN, assisted with the setting up of
the project and provided excellent IUCN reference materials for the
course. His expertise in environmental impact assessment and
management of workshops and meetings is reflected throughout the
program. His expenses were contributed by IUCN.

Agnes McPhetres, President of the Northern Marianas College and Charlie
Frear of the College's extension service both contributed ti m e and
expertise to the course as well as the facilities of the college
campus.

A list of other people who attended or made presentations to the
seminar or 4ining course is given below in alph Ibetical order. Those
who made presentations are discussed in the text and listed in the
detailed schedule of events in appendix A.

Juan Babauta. Dept. Education
Gregory Baker, Env, Protection. Trust Territory.
Don Barcinas. Assoc. Insurance of the Pacific.
Cindy Bower TTPI Energy Programs
Gabriel Boyer, Chamber of Commerce
Patrick Bryan, DEQ
Martin Cabrera, CRMO
David Camacho, DC&L
Efrain Camacho, M&E Engineering
Frank Camacho, DC&L
Bill Concepcion, MPLC
Bob Coldern, NMC.
Jim Culbert, DNR Forester
Louis Duenas, CRMO
Stan Good, DPW
Ivan Groom, Consultant, Northern Islands Company
Frank Guerrero, MPLC
Nick Guerrero, Director DNR
Ramon Guerrero, Special Assistant Governor,
Don Herron, Deputy Attorney General
Al Hockett, DPW
Rexford Kosack, Attorney General
Hans Krock, Univ. of Hawaii
William Lopp, Chief DEQ
Paul Manglona, Civil Engineer.
Ricardo Naeskebei, CRMO
Jesus Pangelinan, HPO
John C. Pangelinan, Director, DPW
Francisco Rosario, Governor's Information Officer
Ben M. Sablan, Congressman CNMI
Jesus Sablan, Director, DP&L
Sybil Spencer, News Director, KCNM Radio
Hiroshi Takagi., Asst. Manager Bus. Dev. Japan Air Lines
Anthony Tanner, Bur. Planning
Elizabeth Udui, Education Officer, Energy Office.

Figure 5. Attorney General Rex Kosack at the Seminar

'IRIAN

- M.'T'

Figure 6. Site inspection during the Seminar

3. SEMINAR PHASE

3.1 OBJECTIVE

A four day seminar was the first step in the training course. Its
major objective was to improve communication and coordination between
the various participants in the Coastal Resource Management Program
(CRMP). The Seminar covered the first three sections of the management
plan shown in Figure 1:

1. IDENTIFY PROBLEMS BASED ON NEEDS

2. IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS

3. SELECT SOLUTION STRATEGIES

In addition, it was structured to deter-mine:

1. POLICY

2. LEGAL STRUCTURE

3. ACTUAL PROCEDURES

The seminar thus was a vehicle through which participants could perform
their own analysis of the CRMP and what should be done to improve the
system. At the same time, this self-training activity provided an
example of how the workshop method is used for project evaluation.

3.2. SCHEDULE AND SPEAKERS

The detailed schedule and speaker list is given in Appendix A. Figure
I shows how the seminar was @structured. It was important to have the
D
following sequence:

1. Policy Statement by the Governor. This established the
overall desired outcome of the CRMP. This was needed because
"Management" means knowing:

A. WHERE WE ARE NOW.

B. WHERE WE WANT TO GO.

The steps required to close the gap between these two positions
are the project NEEDS.

A PROBLEM is a need which has been selected to be achieved.

2. The Attorney General presented the Legal Mandate. Th is
provided a firm under-standing of what legal MEANS were available
to solve the problems of CRM.

First we determined where we wanted to go.

Next we looked at the Rules we had to work with.

3. Then the various active participants (ACTORS) in the program
presented their versions of

where they were,

where they wanted to be (their NEEDS) and

Alternative solutions to the needs.

(See Figure 2, 1.0 to 1.5)

4. The needs were then listed (as in 1.6 of Figure 2), priorities
established, and the major problems selected.

5. Alternatives were also listed. Had there been time, they
would have been given priorities, evaluated and implemented.

3.3. GOVERNOR'S POLICY STATEMENT

e.
Govo'rnor Pedro P. Tenorio's policy statement provided an excellent
overview of the long term objectives of the CNMI. The full text is
given in Appendix A. In summary, the main points were:

1. It is in the best interest of our commonwealth citizens that
the volume of business and the number of development projects
continues to expand.

2. Island Resources must be taken into account "SO THAT FUTURE
GENERATIONS WILL CONTINUE TO ADVANCE AND BENEFIT FROM THEM AS WE
ARE DOING PRESENTLY."

3. The Coastal Resources Management office and the other
overnment departments and agencies represented here share this
important responsibility.

4. With proper management, we can have continued growth, now and
in the future, while maintaining the resources that are so
important to us all.

3.4. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S LEGAL SUMMARY.

Attorney General Rex Kosack presented a summary of the legal background
of the CRMP, its federal funding schedule, and legal relationship to
federal permitting requirements.

His full text is presented in Appendix A. In summary, the main points
were:

1. As development continues, conflicts arise because of the
limited amount of land.

2. What someone does on their own land has a direct impact on
their neighbors and, to some degree, on everyone on the island.

3. There are different priorities for land use and development
activities. He gave examples of conflicts between recreation and
industry, marine parks versus dynamite fishing, maintaining
natural barriers against disasters versus coral harvestingi,
disasters. He then identified the different interests as Federal,
CMNI, Island, Government, People, Industry.

4. The CRMP grew out of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972. It is 100 percent federally funded.

5. Public Law 3-47 gives the legal authority for CRMP and the
recently published Rules and Regulations establish how the CRMP
complies with its legal mandate.

6. The relationship of praticipants in the CRMP are shown in
Figure 7. Please note the diagram shows coordination linkag@es
and not lines of command.

7. There are severe penalties for violators of the CRMP permit
system.

The Attorney General listed several problem areas during the discussion
period. These were:

1. The Coastal Advisory Council has not been active. It forms an
important link with the community and should be incorporated into
the system.

2. There is an area of uncertainty with the legal appeal process
in cases where the Governor must make a final decision on a
permit.

3. The federal government, especially the military, is more or
less exempt from this process and this may cause future problems.

4. There has not been much thought given to methods of dealing
with accidental problems such as wrecks or oil spills or, what
happens if a major development is destroyed by fire, storm or
earthquake. Who is going to clean up?

5. There is a need for better public participation in the
process, especially in public hearings on the out islands. This
is an educational need.

6. Eventually there might be a problem with transient vendors -
signs, soliciting - especially in heavily touristed beach areas.
How can we'regulate beach use to prevent tourist abuse?

7. The whole subject of fines is not well covered by law or
precedent. How do we set the level of a fine? What do we base
the value of a violation on? and there is no provision for what

C 0 oCk!S -r ig:% L- fR f=:S 0 U FZZ C: E: S M A C E- M E= N -r R, F:Z 0 iZ;;:z tn4 M

X a C U'r Z l-.e E:
FZ -W -JUO r a I O=OL-
G o, ft @r c, r, , m C3,r 'r I c@ s- r FZ 1 A@ L- C 0 U S? -r

r Cc. m m r- C:z E3,* zL V- cl

m @a C. U --x r- rv 2% as -r- c, r- 'n
C aL ta -M -A r- m 4m CP 10
Z3 'o C, ki ZA @L <2
-0 M.0 r-I ri
;ak -r- -L

2% za's m -ft
PI -c, av m

$;o -r"Ir- yn
.& lo' M r'
F> aL Vr- m
1@j m zst
--A v Pk4 L's I j, <,A %:-
C3, Is -------
oCb m A. r-!3 D IL <.,y '.3 1
E:-- M@ftm r
=2 T- r- Q@ aL @L
tz ........... .......
jL c.
<1 o, 2& T,
X@ z2 ZI cp
gh

qs, r- :m
a. ir ZA

E3 k.A r- ZI %A "j,
za m ;m -- L .0

Figure 7. Participant2 in the CRHP

to do with any money collected for violations.

8. Enforcement Officers need to be trained in exactly what kinds
of information to gather and how to gather it. Often what the
enforcement officer does will determine the success of the CRMO in
courl-. We need a training course or guidelines and good
cooperation between the various enforcement agencies of the
government.

9. The Attorney General's Office is short on manpower and long on
work. We need to be notified immediately of any violations. It
is difficult to respond to a violation if we don't know about it
until weeks after it has happened. This is a special problem in
the out islands and where the violator is transient.

3.5. ACTING ADMINISTRATOR CRM0

Tami Grove presented an overview of thc:: CRMP entitled "Coastal
Resources Management: Environment and Economics". The full text is
presented in Appendix A. The major points were:

1. The Coastal Resources Management Program PROMOTES AND
REGULATES development in a wise and orderly manner to protect the
interests of development, the general population, and their shared
environmental resources.

2. Environmental resources are economic resources. Scenic and
historic resources, clean water,.living coral reef's, sand beaches,
are the economic resource base for our tourist industry.

3. CRM assures that development projects are planned for the
benefit of all parties.

A developer has the right to know about potential problems
with the island infrastructure or with the chosen location.
If it is in a flood plane or in an area where water is
severely limited, the developer needs to know about it in
advance.

Properly designing the development to prevent potential
future problems is less expensive than redesigning a system,
cleaning up a problem, or creating ill will with clients.

4. Projects done by the government or by individuals also need to
be considered from different viewpoints. For example, bulldozing
vegetation on steep slopes during the rainy season can cause:

soil loss to the property owner through erosion

sediment clogging of watersbead areas

destruction of valuable coral reef' communities and important
fisheries.

5. By acting as a coordinating mechanism for all the various

goverment agencies, CRM saves everyone time and money during the
planning operation. The coordination activities provides a
continually improving level of expertise in development planning.

6. CRM protects people's investments by assuring land use is
compatible with adjacent activities as well as being compatible
with natural resources.

7. Everyone on the island is involved in the CRMP and can
participate in the planning process; especially for large
development projects.

8. This Training Course is designed to increase peoples
understanding of and participation in the development process,
thereby making coastal resources management more efficient,
cost-effective, predictable and streamlined.

The permit process as set out in the new regulations was then
explained. It is presented in Figure 8.

During the discussion period, the following problems were considered:

1. The public had very little iMpUt into the rules and
regulations. The legal mandate represented the public's needs but
the public and business community did Dot have much to say about
the regulations. Perhaps the Coastal Advisory Council should be
more active in its advisory role.

2. The major difficulty with the program has been getting the
developers to come in for a meeting before they spend too much
time and money on their project. If they come in prior to getting
locked in to a design, costly mistakes can be avoided. How can
this be accomplished?

3. CRMP agencies are already overloaded with work. How can they
handle the complex planning process needed for major projects?
Getting the information and evaluating it costs time and money
which is often not available. Even reviewing studies and
evaluations is difficult without expertise.

4. The number of incoming permits and the time constraints on
replying to them makes it difficult to do an adequate job given
the present staff levels.

5. We don't know what problems might be coming up with the
military.

6. Monitoring and enforcement becomes more difficult as the
number of permits increases.

7. Long term planning is essential but at present we are unable
to devote much time to it because of the number of project permits
we have to deal with.

F@EjZZMI-r RSZOCE:F.--@ OF@ -rHiff
p C COA:S-rAL- FZZEEf--0UFRC=E:.S M4N"0:1b(--EEME:r4-r
RFZ0CFR0=kM

M0N1-r0F;Z1r1J0 onkMO E:NF@OF;Z(=E:ME:P%J-r

Z& -t:. 2. <3,
M.a, @ -r- 1 " Z I I I
ccj"-@ rF;zuc:-riom onkmc@ oF:@E:F;z,:%-rjopj
(section 8) y
S F:Z E: E: N I N G

PUANS
FNERAL
PERM I TS -L a, -1 aL r- L CD,
F@ U E31 L- I r_-
E:AFZZ I r,4(-- J
pi 8D CRMP
EIS
3-47
(3) PERMIT

APPLICATION CONOITIONS -ft
MINOR FORM PUBLIC
ERM171 8Gv1
EARING NOTICE 8C,11
70
00

Lj 1:) 1 j.
@0 T. C E: r"I
FRE:V I aW
80
9C
ON:
CFZ M F-
DP
_P,
0 1 FR a C -r 0 F:Z:s

MEET AND DEC:[:E

S 0 44 0

Cc,

r1i 0

6 0

Figure 8. CRMO Permit Process (According to Regulations).

3.6. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURES B1 AGEMCIES

Representatives from each of the government agencies involved with the
permit process presented an account of what happened to permits when
they came to them from the CR14O. Normal ly, the agency directors
recieve the permit application with attendant data well after they have
actually heard about the project. Applications are often discussed in
advance at regular director's meetings.

The applicant and various technical or professional people within some
of the agencies are sometimes in contact well before the application is
formally submitted. Consultants hired to prepare an environmental
evaluation for the applicant may interview all the agencies to put
together the evaluation.

Within each agency the director decides which people will look at any
particular permit application. Although earlier memoranda of
understanding established a coastal coordinator in each agency, this
was discontinued along with the memoranda. At present, only the
directors formally meet to consider permit requests. Informally,
however, technical and professional people meet if the need arrises.

Merefore, the following schematic representations of what each agency
does have, in practice, considerable flexibility and may riot truly
reflect what actually happens in a project review.

Figures 9, 10 and 11 show the permit handling process for the major
agencies. The Division of Environmental Quality is not represented as
the director alone reviews permit applications.

In general, once the permit is submitted through the CHMO, the director
passes it on to the people shown in the figures. These people then
contribute what they have to say about the permit and return it to the
director. All the directors then meet to discuss the comments of their
staff members and decide on whether more information is needed, if the
project application is complete or not, and what (if' anything) needs to
be added or considered before a permit and its conditions is (or is
not) issued. Technical staff sometimes assist the directors at
meetings if needed.

The general considerations each agency gives to permit applications are
as follows:

1. Department of Public Works. Basic physical infrastructure:
Figure 9.

Roads

Power

Sewage

Storm Drainage

L_ VS I S F" FZZ 0 C E: 0 U FZ E:
DIEF@g@kF:R-rmej-j-r Of= F-UE3L-IC WOFRK@.

0 1 F;zk=_C_rOFR OF= U-S. oc6s?mv
P, U E3; L_ I C W 0 F:2 K E:rJ0 I NaaFzs

-r i N 3: 44 M
FZZ 0 -rc%
0 F@z E> I N.,C@ -r 0 F;z

-rac:"" I CAL-
F@z V I C E::&

E:I-EC SAM I _rjnIFRV SOL- 1 0
-r WdCk_rE:FR SVS-ram
F- I E F__ .
aNc I Nar
E: N C_- I N E: E: F;Z aNC I NaaFZ A 0 %.. I @3 0 1:74
WFiO/ E30FR),

-raffic Lev Is po@:r @,N:eus
-r3ff.,c Flo' Sur e e's Water
.0 kuD to system
i Demands on System Usa8e Levels _@n:s.oftWastesstes
r,a e en of ia
Road Cc struction Eq p t Matenins an System
m n 0 System Septic TanKs
Deu n Demanc, Litter C:ontrol
Storn@ater Run-off a cis Ne@ Sources

Figure 9. Permit Analysis Procedure for DPW

F, IE: 17R r1i I -r A rIJ A L-',/ S I !-, F@ " C:) C FE 0 U R
NA-TUF-@At-

rIj FZ

0 1 R E: C T C) F-Z

-E-
Of=w F, ZI k = L- -,%
r, @ S

e
Cori Ne:s Park De@elopment
r
Market Dev. Far. .;@r Ition
market De@clopment
Grazing Land Farm

Y H i Wj I d I I fo

Trees Fishing Sites We t I a n d
Land Nursery Areas Threatened Species
CrItIcal Habitat Coral Reefs Critical Habitats
Er os on S:ltatlo ,
Endangered Plant D sch. rges
Trampling

Figure 10. Permit Analysis Procedure for DNR

21
IL
tT

Fresh Water

Solid Wastes

2. Department of Natural Resources: Impact on natural systems.
Figure 10

Fish and Wildlife

Water Quality

Conflicting use of Marine or Marsh habitats

Park Development

Forestry

Agricultural Impact

3. Historic Preservation Office. Figure 11

Preservation of historic artifacts

Development of tourist or educational facilities

4. Department of Commerce and Labor: Economic Impact

Potential Revenue for residents, government.

Business Licenses

Need for alien labor

New business possibilities

Local purchases

Export promotion

Job potential

Educational guidance

5. Division of Environmental Quality: Water arad Air Quality

Requlates and Monitors discharges into the Environment

Drinking water quality

Marine water quality

Earthmoving

Solid wastes and Hazardous wastes.

R M I T A N " L- V -S I f'- F'VZ 0 C F- D U P'F-
0 Q I C-- F@ FZ F7 I- ja r-Z V 42% -T I r) N (_3 f= F@ I IU- E@7

H I @-T OR I AN nNI-7)
A FR C; " A FE 0 L- 0 C-. 1 -1; T*
-I I-N -TA,- -Mi -i@@ -0-,- -F:R 0 -TA-
t I I S J-Of;@ I c
1- R> rE S FEE R V A T 10 N
COMM I [email protected]
--,TOF:Z I G MAI-
I NEF@E:C--T I ON

0 T 0 r1i i--:@ T -C) -F-z --s'- I T F-7
M CA V@ r' FZ UH -- IE N T

L- I T E FZ no;@L@Jw C -K -rI
ON 51 1 I-IE

ON F. 11 T, U- @>F- I-L-RM T "U-
T T(H

f-- C7- 0 vFz FE
I I v IT

A I
N 0 1 t
I ON I I= I (3"S
F= 0 UZ FE:

HE C.) v n

r
COND I T I ONS F-OR I OUR I F-1-
UNKNOWN F- I NOS- T- T Fz 4A c I- I n fIj

c)
C--RMF> PEJ:ZM I -r

Figure 11. Permit Analysis Procedure for HPO
>,c

Pesticides

Air Pollution

Underground Injection

Sewage effluents and Septic Tanks

6. Marianas Public Land Corporation: Land leases. Figure 12.

The MPLC is not formally within the CRMP but frequently interacts
with the program. The MPLC leases public land and, as it owns
some 80 percent of the land, many or most large development
projects require a lease. The lease is granted according to
procedures illustrated in Figure 12.

3.7 SUMMARY OF NEEDS AND CONCERNS BY AGENCIES.

Each agency identified needs within the permit system. These were
elaborated during the general discussion which followed the
presentations. A summary of the problems follows:

1. Applicants leave out information from the application form or
fill in "imaginary" or "dream" figures.

2. Power and Water usage is given as a single figure but actual
use includes peaks and lows which are often more important.

3. The government has to "do the engineering work" for some
applicants.

4. The actual availability of water is still not settled.

5. Infrastructure needs to be strengthened; most water is not
metered, pipes are old and leaky, power bills are not paid.

6. Government personnel are fully occupied trying to keep up with
island's demands. Difficult to deal with new projects.
Impossible to work on advanced planning.

7. The developer's needs are immediate and may provide help in
upgrading the community infrastructure but the government can not
respond to this opportunity because it has budget and political
limitations. Thus, JAL might build a sewer line but DPW can't
hook up local residents to it during construction. We need to be
able to respond to such opportunities.

8. Developer's studies may be important for accumulating
scientific information about the island. How can this be
incorporated into the system and used? We need to be able to have
a say on the study design so its information is usable by our
departments.

9. Studies and reports are spread all over the place and nobody

211

Fl
p p
FR !@3 c> u r- r3 -m F@Fzz T VAI FE
N C, Ci n L-ANYT
C: c, p Li t@ *-- v S C E, C- r1i I " C.-
nvn I t-A"L-E:

I Ai-

S, U-AE K P% L I F- FR FIA n -V I V E
C- F-I m F, -- !-- I I E= I
I- FE Vz M T -T-

flN v 1--% 1 t- A V3 I- C) f nvrNfl-A"l-UE

I 1z: U, FR 0, L-
VZ M I -F

I U U= Q tj j U7 C I-
L- EF FE F@ F:z 0;- C) S 4% t-

Figure 12. MPLC Land Lease Procedures
[C--- _OM @R A I I E03 L-_I=-

is sure what information is already available.

10. Evaluation of some aspects oil economic development is
difficult as we must rely on the developer's information.

11. Project reviews are sometimes left un);j.l the last minute and
there is no time to do an adequate job,

12. Miscellaneous comments about the need to have project
evaluation proceedO on a technical-professional basis with less
political conflict. This was obviously thought to be a problem
but was difficult to talk about. Me need was to have both
developers and politically powerful individuals really understand
what CRM was all about and not look at it as "interference" with
development.

3.8. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Congressman Ben Sablan, vice chairman of the Research and Development
Committee and a member of the Coastal Advisory Council discussed the
public's role in CRM, His main points were:

1. Is the public really involved with the CRMP? There are three
measures of success. ATTENDANCE, PARTICIPATION, INFLUENCE.

2. Attendance at public hearings is a prime measure of whether
the public is getting the message. Too often public hearings are
held for the administration, not for the public. 70 to 80 percent
of the people who come to the meetings are frow the government
itself.

3. Participation is measured by the public contributing
meaningful comments to the hearing. Do they really understand
what it's about?

4. Influence is measured by what the government does about the
comments people make. Do their contributions have any results?

Discussion brought forth the following concerns and recommendations.

1. People don't understand what is really happening and don't
find out about the meeting ir) time to prepare for it. Often they
don't understand what it is all about until after the meeting.
There needs to be a better distribution of the information well
before the meeting. People don't read notices in newspapers.
Maybe there should be a preliminary meeting.

2. Public hearings need to be held in the village where the
project will happen and at a place the village people are not
afraid to come to. Translators should be available. Lots of &ood
visuals and graphics and good examples are needed to get the
message over.

3. There should be more public participation projects to elevate
environmental awareness. Projects that people can do like tree

planting or beautification or, poster contests.

4. Hearings need to be careful about cross-cultural. conflict.
The public here can be dominated by authority and may not speak at
a formal hearing. Maybe there should be an informal and then a
formal hearing. "There's a glass there. You can feel it but not
penetrate it."

5. CRMO needs to activate the Coastal Advisory Council. They
could play an important part in getting public involvement, and
distributing information.

6. Topics need to be reduced to an understandable level. And we
can't have people talking for two hours about some technical
thing; people get burned out just listening.

7. The local people can have important things to say and the
government has to be ready to listen and willing to make the
effort of understanding what the people mean and not just how they
say it,

3.9. THE INDUSTRIAL VIEW

Paul Manglona, a civil engineer in the construction industry in Rota
discussed how industry views the CRMP, He summarized development
activities now underway as Tourism, Fisheries, Military Development,
Health Services, Schools, Housing, and all Public Utilities.
Contractors do all this work. Problems arise when CRMP conditions
impose (unnecessary) restrictions on the contactors.

1. No heavy equipment allowed within 150 feet of the High Tide
Line means manual labor. This condition was imposed because some
bulldozer operators pushed materials onto a beach or over a cliff.
Maybe the answer is to train the bulldozer, operators rather than
to make us spend money on manual labor. Perhaps a training course
on construction techniques for heavy equipment operators would
help.

2. There is a break between the contractor, the developer and the
CRMP. There has to be better communication between CRMP and
contractors. The developer may not tell the contractor everything
and last minute changes can be very expensive. If there are
conditions which we don-It know about and you catch us doing
something wrong we might have to spend twice as much money and
there goes our profits.

3. Septic tanks are actively discouraged but they are by far the
best and cheapest way to handle *ewage in rural areas. There
needs to be some cost-effective thinking in CRM.

4. There should be some clear guidelines for contractors so we
don't have problems with CRMO.

5. Outside contractors, especially, need to have a briefing on
what the laws and conditions are.

6. Delays in the permit system can cost the contractor lots of
money. When we see a big job coming we can't go do other things.
There is a need for CRM but you've got to think about our budgets.

Norman Tenorio, President of the Saipan Chamber of Commerce,
contributed a paper (not read at the seminar). The full text is
included in Appendix A.

The main points were:

1. "Although the CNMI Coastal Resources Management Program has
made life difficult for LIS from time to time, we firmly believe it
to have merit. As the only land management law here, it is needed
to control and balance development of our beautiful coastal area."

2. The Chamber of Commerce has a seat on the Coastal Advisory
Council.

3. The Saipan Lagoon Use Management Plan of the CRMP was
developed with the help of the Chamber of Commerce and the CRMP
funded shoreline landscaping activitie5 which are of great value.

4. The CRMP has participated in the Economic Development
Conference and helped identify many specific development needs
(see full text for list).

Specific needs of the CRMP were given as:

1. The Chamber of Commerce would like, to participate in the
review of large development projects to help direct the islands
economic development pattern in desiraLle and acceptable
directions.

2. There should be requirements for major developments from
outside the CNMI to divulge the types of economic benefits the
local business cummunity and the average person can expect to
realize from their presence.

3. Permit conditions might include the requirement that a
percentage of the goods needed be purchased from the local economy
or require advertised requests for bids as on government projects.

4. CRMP should become more active in planning for, fisheries
development.

3.10. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

Ivan Groom of The Northern Islands Company presented the Scientific
Consultant's view of the CRMP. His presentation concentrated on the
role of the consultant in the process as a valuable link between the
developer, the CNMI government and the federal government.

The consultant is an independent voice who must sustain a professional
standing with the government and yet be responsive to the developer's

needs, The steps in project assessment were outlined from project
inception to report.

Problem areas were identified as:

1. Difficulty in establishing good terms of reference for
studies.

2. Need to begin consultancy before the design for the project is
finished.

3. The government needs a list of available (and credible)
consultants for various studies. Developers should be provided
with a list of acceptable consultants so they can interface with
CRMP more efficiently.

4. There is an inadequate amount of literature, or access to
literature and data. A resei@rch library needs to be established
and existing data and studies cross-indexed in it.

3.11. FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT

Tami Grove and Bill Lopp both spoke to the subject of Federal
Involvement in the CRMP. Essentially, the federal position is a to
back up the local permit program. Federal permits will not be issued
without first having the CRMP permit. Duplication of permits is
avioided through joint permiting actions within DEQ.

Concerns and Needs were summed up a-5:

1. The uncertainty over the excluoion of federal lands,
especially military lands, from the CRMP,

2. In theory CRMP extends to the limit of the 200 mile economic
zone. The program actually has no idea what to do about this.

3. Federal studies on CNMI resources need to be taken advantage
of. They need to be assembled and made available to developers,
consultants, and between government agencies. An inventory needs
to be made. Data collected for special purposes may be needed in
another context and should be cross referenced.

4. Data gathering, by federal agencies, local agencies,
universities, consultants, and developers needs to be done on a
uniform system so it can all be interlocked and used together.
All studies done by anyone in the islands should be deposited in a
central location.

5. Guidelines for researchers need to be developed to assure
these needs are met.

3.12. AGRICULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS.

Charlie Frear of the, Northern Mariana,-, College diocussed the need for
agricultural considerations within the CRMP. His observations included

the following concerns:

1. Government bulldozer operators need to be informed about the
dangers of clearing land on steep slopes and during the rainy
season. At present, "As long as the bulldozet, doesn't tip over
it's ok."

2. Guidelines concerning good farming practices for soil
conservation need to be worked out and farmers and dozer operators
trained in their use.

3. Primary agricultural land needs to be used for agriculture and
not for hotels, roads or parking lots.

4. Steeply sloped areas can be used for some kinds of' crops, like
forestry or fruit trees. Some thought needs to be given to
agricultural zoning. This would include compatable land use such
as construction of temporary sites on fallow land, integrated farm
plots (such as swine, biogas, mulch industry), possible use of
organic solid wastes for mulching.

5. There may be a danger from pesticide intrusion into the water
table, especially in areas like Kagman.

6. Poor soil conservation practices lead to coral reef
destruction and muddy beaches and muddy water. This is not too
good for a tourist oriented island.

3.13. EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Agnes McPhe 'tres, President of the Northern Marianas College, talked
about the need for career development in the CNMT and ways the college
works with CIMP in developing educational programs and training
courses. The college monitors the quality of the courses and assures
that CRMP gets quality education and the students get valid college
credits. They also do special projects for CRMP such as curriculum
development for elementary education, research into special areas, and
they provide college degree programs in education, business
administration, agriculture, travel management, construction,
computing, accounting, police science.

When specific training is needed to meet development demands, the
college is responsive, The college is a member of the Chamber of
Commerce and its goal is to contribute the staff required for the
Economic Development Plan. As an example, the College now has a Hotel
Management Certificate for middle management supervisory positions. It
includes language training in Japanese.

The college has the responsibility for maintaining the Commonwealth
archives and government document collection for use in support of
research.

The major problem areas, from an educational perspective, center on the
problems newly qualified people have when they return to the island.

When an islander returns to Saipan with his or her degree, they have an
attitude which is "Here I am to save the islandl" They want the kind of
ges that other people with their qualifications get. They expect to
be listened to and respected. They want to use their talents and
wa

skills.

The people who should or could employ these returnees feel threatened.
This is partly the universal fear of youth replacIng the older
establishment; a personal thing, It is also that the young returnees
seem to be a threat to the stability of' the community. The new
techniques are untried. The difference in language skills and ideas
cause personal frictions. The energy of youth and education are seen
as being pushy.

As a result many of the returnees can not find or hold jobs which truly
use their talents. In addition, the system has long depended on
off-island expertise and these people are usually paid higher salaries
and have free housing and lavish travel rights. A Saipan person, who
might have the same expertise and qualifications, is expected to accept
a lower salary, provide their own housing, and have no travel rights.

Nor do they command the same respect as the visiting expert.

We expect some 200 returnees from college off island this year. What
will we do with them? Many of the college graduates will leave again.
What is the attrition rate?

Another problem area has to do with the students who leave the island
to go to college. Many of these do not know what they are getting
into. Many do not know what professions to study so they will be
useful here in their own society.

The college has begun a program to help solve both these problems.
First, students can begin their education here and take courses
specifically aimed at preparing them for college off island. Secondly,
they can be counseled as to which careers are needed and which careers
they have an aptitude for.

The College is considering a program for returning students. The
program would include courses in Government Management, and would
essentially reorient the student to the CNMI society. The project
would work closely with government (or business) and the student's
first job would be considered on-the-job-training. An internship. As
such it would provide a means for overcoming conflicts and the student
would learn to make the maximum contribution of his or her talents
within the existing system.

3.14. MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT PROCESS AND NEEDS

Ben Aldan, Chief Enforcement Officer for the CRMO discussed the
enforcement process and designed the procedural flow chart in Figure
13. For monitoring activities, a worksheet is designed for the
enforcement officers. This details what a particular project will do
and what the CRM conditions are that need to be monitored (Figure 14).

C) " I 'T 0 Q I N C; el r1i C) FE N f@ ED UZ C: Ei m c N -r
F- FzZ a (-- F-- 0 U VZ FE S@ 0 V -T- I I U. C-- C) dl-@% @-- - r O-N [.,-
Rt@-SOLJFRCES MANAGE-:"U@-Nj "F-F@I(:F=

I I OtZ I "G F-)V--
S U R V FEE I L- N C; FE F7- V-Z f-I T

N 0 F- F-E UZ " T -r
Ot-n-l- 1 0" v L C) t- -T 1 0 rj C-) F-
C;Orlj" I T I C)rlj!:;

S -T 0 P W 0 17,1 K c::Fzmo
rlio-r I CE-7

CRMa --p A-TTOVZrJC-:V COMF@L-TANCE- 4- w R r1i 1. r1i C;
GF-'NERAL- L- FT T T F- FRI

n
0 v-rljf- OVZC@F- "ULN T
0 R COD FIE:RM I T C) T 1 C- t-=

C-1 Q
E N F 0 R C E m 1= rj -V F:Z F@ Q U EE -- V F- Ot FR V.'@ V 0 K F=- F@ F- R M I T
NOT I GE HE@nR I NC; nrli" F 1 NrE

F= I NE: L-EV I F_7D C N F- 0 VZ C: E- M E- N -F F- r N F--
HE--r'hfR I NC;

F@ rN F@ I N E:

MOfIJWI-=AL-TI-I I-FzZlni- Cc.)
EF F-Z

Figure 13. Monitoring and Enforcement Proceduves of the CRMO

No.

SS-84-X-26/Ship-A-Shore Restaurant/Bufton

Applicantion Indicates:

A. Dig a ditch from the fishery building to the top of the bank underground
utilities to the boat.

B. Build a catwalk from shore to boat.

CRM CONDITION:

A. the applicant is required to connect to the existing sewer line.

B. The applicant shall have a designated parking lot for its patrons in
order to preclude indiscriminate driving of vehicles in the area.

C. Areas is to be landscaped, and grass be planted following construction.

D. Applicant is fully accountable for maintenance of the entire area there
after.

Da te of monitor Personnel Comments

Figure 14. CRMO Sample Monitoring Sheet

Figure 15 shows the CRMP out-islard monitoring procedures.

Discussion of problem areas disclosed the following needs and concerns.

1. Violations from government are difficult to deal with. The
sewer outfall is in violation of the marine water quality
standards. What can you do?

2. Its easy to stop a minor violation from an individual but
difficult to stop agencies or the whole government. Political
pressures exist here.

3. A determined and wealthy violator can cause real problems
because of the legal grey areas.

4. Better education is needed so people don't break the law by
not getting permits.

5. Conservation enforcement officers do not do their job because
they are afraid of poachers who may be armed. The officers are
not allowed to carry arms. The enforcement officers need uniforms
and badges.

6. A rapid notification and data-gathering and Pesponse system is
needed. Especially for out islands.

7. Training is needed for enforcement officers in what to look
for when monitoring and what to do in case of violations.

8. Better cooperation is needed between all enforcement agencies.
For example Boating Safety, CIRM and DNR all have boats but except
for, Boating Safety (which does not cooperate now) there are no
regular patrols. The Department of' Public Safety should work more
closely with CRM. The Police are not informed about CRM rules and
regulations.

3.15. WORKGOUP SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS.

The Core Group assembled all the needs identified during the seminar
and discussed these. Then the group undertook the process shown in
Figure 16 to complete the project evaluation process shown in Figure 2
(steps 1.6, 1.7, 1-8).

The problem areas, their relative priorities, and suggestions for
solving these are summarized below. The many needs identified
specifically in the seminar were placed into categories which
correspond with the legal mandate of public law 3-47. Significantly,
the most important needs identified during the seminar were also areas
of highest priority in the public law; Development of an Environmental
Ethic in the community (Section 3 2-0-Lim, (2)) and Long term planning
(Section 3 (1)).

1. Develop an environmental ethic so everyone understands what Coastal
resource management is for and how the process works. Highest
Priority. 26% score.

P FE R " T - f- f- R C) 17E CJ F- T- I I F:@
-T 1 N 1 0, t1i D I v T --- I C ) r1i
C; C) A 'r rN L_ 17;Z F !@@ (-3 t j f-@Z C@; fE -S m A " A C; 1E m IE N -1
F' R C) C; FZ A M

F@VZUnPF@L@ T (--A-r I ON

CA I -(-Jr@F @n;-
C-Q"C) SAI

T I SSUIE0

ON T -vor_l I NG
LIQVF7 T t-ANCE:

NC) rE:F-7Z" T I- V 10 L- tN'T- I C I FJ C) f@
I T _C-C_)Nr> I T I C)rJS

v C) t- w C, Fz

M T T
r1i Fz C- S I C) 1-= r- Cl,@IMC)N OR
OIREC-rORS SC%IF-n 0 M r' L- V
IA:r@T. @E- IT-JI2, I
I I C) rlj!:;

S FE eN " Op
D U--- ! -@ I F. I
0 D FE Fz

E@ rlJ F@ C) R C E:
NO-r I LFF

t-o t72 n R -t: rj
F-- -Y N F-@ RF-QLJF--S-T-

E N f@ C) IE Vl E -V
f- I FE 1 N C;

I-FRInL- C:OL,11-;Zl

Figure 115. CRNIP Tinian Procedures
E- -F@@ t:v_

W 0 FZ K I N C-a 0 FR 0 U F::> F:" I:R 0 C FE E!@ S F- 0 FZ
F-=VAI UA-T 1 0"

I Cl ta ri e- x- za I W c> r- k!@-- h c> p FZ *-- -v I -e w ;a n cl
01 1

2 Q t-j oa -z:3 t- 1 IE. WHAT ADVERSE IMPACTS CAN BE EXPECTED
F-- c> r- in 4-- d ON PHYSICAL RESOURCES?

L- t@- M zi v 1 M p za c-, t, f::; ZL n v C> U c- -a

DPW DNR DEQ CRMO HPO ETC.

1 0 M jL " U 7L k--

11 Cc> I I A-- C -L Cl r- c> u p WATER
L- -i t- POWER
DRAINAGE
SEWAGE
SILTATION
4 ENFORCEMENT

5 FR zi k 4% " Z3 w q-- x- !c; C> v I M p C-9 r@ -u ;ZA rl C-

EACH PARTICIPANT LISTS: MOST IMPORTANT #1
NEXT #2
AND SO ON #'S 3,4,5,6,etc.

6 Co .1 IL e-- c t- A d Ci WATER 1+2+1+1+1= 6
c> r- 1 t. -i POWER 2+3+242+3=12
DRAINAGE 4+4+3+5+4=20
SEWAGE 3+1+4+3+2=13
SILTATION 5+6+5+4+5=25
ENFORCEMENT 6+5+6+6+6=29

7 L- I c> f F::> x- I a- r- 1 -L i ke - W A -F F:7* F-Z
(LOWER SCORE IS HIGHER PRIORITY) 2 - F- 0 W E:- F;Z
3 E-: W oc@ (-- F=

E> E-- f:- C3 FZ C F-7 M EE P4 -r

Figure 16. Working Group Process for Environmental Assessment

Who is everyone?

The general public

The executive (goverment) public

developers (foreign and local)

construction workers

The business community

What are the measures of success?

participation, involvement, effectiveness by all concerned
parties.

early project planning

increased training in methods

local financial and political support

flow can this be done?

informal, preliminary village meetings near project sites

expand activities of Earth Day to Earth Week

publish guidelines (fact sheets) for:

developers

construction contractors and workers

general public

tourists (guide books and displays)

agency personnel

improve application forms

continue development of school activities

interagency training activities (ie. DNR & DEQ & CRMO & DPS
to have enforcement workshop).

career development through management training for college
returnees.

2, Long-term planning: to gel ahead of the development curve and
economize time and effort _Ln project review, a locally developed,
appropriate, long-term development plan is required. Env ir onm e n t al
assessments can then be done on a sectional basis and not project by
project. This was the second highest prioity item with a score of 18%.

Who should do the long-term planning?

MPLC has begun development of a computerized land-use system.

CRMO should coordinate iMpUt of resourse information into
system.

What are the measures of success?

production and approval of a set of land and resource
management maps.

ease of determining tile environmental impacts of new
development projects in the planned areas.

legislative approval for plans.

reduction of outsider bias in plans

How can this be done?

develop a memorandum of understanding between the MPLC and
the CRMO

CRMP to gather and program data on carrying capacity of zoned
land in terms of alternative styles of conducting the
activity. For example, what is the maximum beneficial style
of tourism development in the areas of the island suitable
for this?

CRMP to imput data relative to resource availability and
resource needs for zoned areas. For example, bow much water
is present in the zoned area and what is the maximum number
of people this can support? What would be the impact of
using desalination?

Public involvement needs to be an integral part of long-term
planning and may be the best place for, involvement of the
Coastal Advisory Council.

Commonwealth goals and objectives need to be defined in a
legislative plan, and high-level government support must
continue throughout the process.

Long-term environmental problems such as municipal discharge
of sewage into the lagoon and the impact of salty water on
agricultural soils should be considered in this planning
activity.

3. A series of needs were identified as "Administrative". This tied
in priority with number 4 at 15%.

Memoranda of Understanding need to be renewed between the various
agencies, including MPLC, to increase interagency cooperation on a
technical and professional level.

Projects need more efficient screening and the smaller ones
handled more quickly to leave time for more complex issues.

More responsibility needs to be delegated, especially to the outer
islands.

The Coastal Advisory Council needs to be revitalized.

Delegated work (to agencies, consultants, etc.) need to have
better terms of reference.

4. Information Base needs improvement. Tied for 3rd place at 15%.

A centralized, well indexed and cross-referenced library needs to
be established at the Northern Marianas College so the information
needed for coastal resource management is accessible.

The library should index existing studies in the various agencies
and recieve copies of all research studies which take place in the
CNMI, including environmental assessments, resource studies, and
data. Support should be available so the library can order
literature on agency request.

5. Enforcement Needs ranked 13%.

Enforcement Officers need identification badges (and uniforms).

Officers need training in what to look for, how to react, and
better coordination between agencies. A training course
incorporating or designing specific guidelines for enforcement
actions would be one way to achieve this need.

6. Regulations. Problems with Regulations ranked 12%.

Regulations need to be applied consistently. Many examples of the
process not following regulations were given. This may reflect a
need to make the regul2tions more graphic or rewriting the
regulations to conform to the practicalitie:3 of permitting.

Regulations need to be more explicit on the project evaluation
process. Who is supposed to examine what and who is to provide
what kinds of information.

Regulations do not mention responsibilities for clean-up of
projects after they terminate or, in the event of disaster.

-A

There have been no rules, regulations, or policy formulated on
such items of concern as radioactive dumping, oil spills, the
military exclusion.

All"

Figure 17. Site Location of Proposed JAL NIKKO Hotel

Figure 18. Puerto Rico Dump Site

4.0 TRAINING COURSE PHASE

Following the general seminar, the core group began an intensive two
week training course.

OBJECTIVES

1. To examine how the procedures work in practice and learn
techniques for project evaluation.

2. Evaluate an off island development project application (The
JAL NIKKO Hotel), which was currently being processed by CRMP.

3. Evaluate an internal governmental development project (Site
selection for a sanitary landfill).

4. Organize the information developed by the seminar and produce
wall charts showing the project evaluation procedures for each
agency.

5. The training course participants to present their findings to
the executive level agency personnel at the end of' the course.

SCHEDULE, SPEAKERS AND PARTICIPANTS.

A detailed schedule is presented in Appendix A along with the
participating speakers. The participants were the Core Group listed in
3.2 above. Personnel from agencies and representatives of' the public
attended parts of the Course which interested them. These people are
included in the list of participants presented in 3.2 above.

TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Bill Concepcion of the Marianas Public Land Corporation discussed the
MPLC computerized land-use system development and the use of maps and
map overlays for long term planning.

His main points were:

1. There is a vast amount of data available but no real
coordinating effort to bring these together.

2. Maps are graphic displays of our plans. They are easy to
understand and relate directly, visually, to the real conditions
of the island.

3. It is easy to show how things are now and how things should be
on maps.

4. MPLC has a comprehensive 2 year program on public land use
which includes aerial photography, soil survey, wetland survey,
and lagoon study.

5. The data will be put into a computerized land inventory
system. The island is divided into cells and the land-use

information put into each cell. It will be quick and easy to
update and will have a graphic display.

6. Map displays are quantitative, three-dimentional, can show
time changes, can overlay features such as slopes, flood areas,
critical habitats, dump sites, water recharge areas, earthquake
zones even airport noise zones and so on. They are also
educational and can show tourist sites or areas for historic
preservation. Maps with special themes such as these are called
THEMATIC maps.

7. CNMI needs a uniform mapping system with standarized scales
(1:10,000 and 1:20,000).

8. Maps can be the basis for our long term planning effort and
can sum up resources and carrying capacity of the land.

Richard Randall discussed remote sensing and mapping as a tool for
environmental impact assessment. He summarized how he had used aerial
photographs for the Saipan Lanoon Study. He said the MPLC maps are
invaluable aids to project analysis. In studies of the marine
environment, maps made from aerial photographs can show important
biological considerations such as

sediments

current patterns

biological communities and their di-stribution

discharges

relationship to population centern

The process of making aerial photographic maps for environmental impact
assessments is summarized in Figure 19.

Richard Chesher talked about developments in satellite sensing and
computer modeling for environmental assessment. His major points were:

1. Innovations in the microcomputer field and in satellite
sensing now make it possible to do resource analysis and mapping
direct'ly from space at a fraction of the time and cost of using
conventional aerial photography and land generated maps.

2. The satellite-computer technology is getting so cost effective
and detailed it will be affordable by even small island countries
in the coming two years.

3. Maps that now take 2 years to prepare will then take 2 days
and the models will be able to predict changes in island
productivity within minutes.

4. A satellite-computer technology system, called Isis

F,' C= M Cl I E-7 -, F--- VJ f, T N t7- F 0 FR
cFNVlR0"Mf-=rl-rAI.- Ir-IFIAC---T s!@%rJAL-V-,T-S

oF-=rj 7- 1 E@%e
F, A R A r-l E-7 - r E-7 Vz

WHAT IS THE STUnY BEING DOME FOR7
WHERE ARE IHE SFUD V OCIUNORIES?
WHAT ARE THE MAIN FEATURES OF INTEREST?

L- C A J- EH: A fF Q I n L
F@ 1-10 T 0 S 0 F;Z T Oc% K I---
I H 1 0 1@?. M 0% -1- 1 C3
COLOR'@ BLACK AND WMIC? QUALITY7 AGE' f-; v I- F@- M

"AKE-= F I EL-" MAV`F,

YLARS - COLOR PHOTOS - NOTES

i I,) FE rj i I F-- Y [- F-: Cb -V (j VZ F--
1 rj F 0 FZ r-l A -T- 1 0 N rJ F-- Ea D FE-

c@ Li r, r- ta n p C> 1 u t. cl. V's

V@ F-- C- 0 IR00 rlJ F I E: 1- 0 M A t-

rIDE FxroSUPE ... CURRENT FLOW... SEDIMENTS AND SUnSIRAIES ...
POLLUTION IMPACT ... SPECIFIC COMMUNIIIES (LIVE OR DEAD)

Figure 19. Remote Sensing and Environmental Azsessment

2. If the EIA never actually ALTERS PROJECT DESIGN, or, the
conduct of the work, it is ineffective.

3. The most important parts of project assessment are:

SCREENING. Which projects need an EIA?

SCOPING: Which problems need to be studied?

Reviewing the results.

Monitoring and Enforcing the project.

Key factors to remember about the EIA method:

1. Cookbook EIA methods are no substitute for practical
experience and sound judgement. Use consultants when expert
knowledge is needed but not available locally.

2. Flowcharts, checklists, guidelines and matrix systems are
helpful ways to keep groups working in concert. They are tools
for concentration.

3. Scoping, or the identification of problems from many
viewpoints, is the key element. This is followed by summation of
the problems and priority listing (Figure 2).

4. The most difficult problems are usually those with the least
amount. of information about them.

5. Putting problems (impacts) into numerical terms yields the
best results.

6. Don't try to develope alternative strategies to solve the
problems until after the problems have been identified.

7. Each problem identified must be clearly supported by some case
examples or direct evidence. This is called reality testing.

SCREENING

Screening is the process by which projects are sifted into easy and
difficult ones. The easy ones can be handled quickly. Even some large
projects can be easy if the team has knowledge and experience with the
particular kind of project and the particular developer involved.

Screening usually takes place between the Project PrOPODent and the
CRMO. Some of the questions that the CRMO evaluators need to consider
in the screening process are:

1. Do we have experience with this Developer/Project?

(Note: This means the project proponent doing this same kind of
project either in the CNMI or Guam or elsewhere and knowing the

outcome of the project).

2. Does this Developer/Project have experience with Saipan?

3. Does the community understand and accept the project?

4. Does the developer have sound financial backing?

5. Is the project financially feasible?

6. Is the required infrastructure available?

Water?

Power?

Sewer?

Land?

7. Do we know who the main actors Eire?

8. Do we know what physical actions are involved?

9. Is the flow of money clear?

10. Will the project fit in with surrounding land use?

11. Do we know what the cultural effects will be?

12. Do we know what kinds of growth and. expansion the project
will generate?

13. Is the information on the above questions:

Recent?

Accurate?

Collected systematically?

If the answer to all the above questions is YES, you know enough about
the project to make an intellegent deciziion.

SCOPING

SCOPING is the process of defining what the proble=, are. SCOPING is
the process illustrated in Figure 2 and was what was done during the
Seminar.

SCOPING is best done in a workshop with the project proponent, and the
CR11P technical and professional people. Ideally the public should be
involved at some point in the scoping workshop.

Between the Screening and Scoping meetings as much information and
background data is put together as possible. This is the first topic
of discussion at the workshop. This DEFINES the PROJECT in terms of
the goals and proposed steps to achieve these goals. This normally
involves listing carefully each acation which will go on during
construction and operation of the project.

The team then:

1. Identifies the actors.

2. Lists the needs of each actor.

3. Determines consistencies & inconsistencies

4. Reconciles conflicting needs.

5. Lists agreed-upon needs.

6. Places needs in order of' priot-ity.

7. Selects problems.

8. Determines alternative ways to solve problems,

9. Selects strategies for problem, solution.

10. Implements strategies.

TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES FOR PROjECT EVALUATION

The course examined the use of various EIA tools such as Map Overlays,
Matrix analysis, Network analysis, and Simulation models. Examples of
these appear, in the context of the individual project evaluations
below.

The participants constructed procedural chart.- based on the seminar
discussions for the various agencies they were involved with. (see
Figures 9 through 16).

A checklist of priority concerns was also designed based on the new
rules and regulations.

4.1 CASE STUDY: JAL NIKKO HOTEL PERMIT APPL,TCATION ANALYSIS

BACKGROUND

In February of 1984, the Japan Air Lines (JAL) submitted a proposal to
build a 350 room hotel on the 'Lagoon shoreline near, San Roque Village,
Saipan. This proposal was in the process of evaluation by the CRHP at
the time of the workshop and was selected by CRMO as the first case
study for the training course.

EVALUATION OF REPORTS AND' WORKING WITH CONSULTANTS.

Richard Randall of the UniversiLy of Guam discuz3sed the study lie had
coordinated for CRMO on the impact of the hotel on Saipan's lagoon.
The focus of the presentation was on how consultants should be utilized
by the government to gather information for project evaluation.

Using the lagoon study as a case history, a series of important
considerations were elicited on how to work with consultants. These
are summarized as follows:

Preliminary Considerations

1. Consultants need to schedule their activities so contact them
at the earliest possible time.

2. Results will be directly proportional to the terms of
reference. Be as exact as possible in what the consultant is
expected to deliver.

3. Have needed information gathered into one place prior to the
consultant's arrival. The consultant can waste days of project
time trying to contact people and get information together.

4. International organizations often require official requests
from Foreign Affairs before they can begin any work on projects.

Getting Started

1. Preliminary Meeting. If possible, have a meeting with the
consultant and the project proponent and the CRM project officer.
If a direct meeting is not possible, contact by phone or mail.
Information useful for this meeting will be:

Time limits

Funds available

A detailed statement of the problem

A list of questions you need answers to (in numerical terms
if possible).

As much information as available on the details of the
project.

A list of related studies which have already been done.

2. If you do not know exactly what needs to be done or the true
nature of the problems, the consultant may need to prepare an
assessment plan which will meet the needs of the circumstances.

3. Find out from the consultant what will be needed in the way of
logistic support. It is generally cheaper, for the government to
arrange and pay for local logistic support directly.

The Proposal

1. If the consultant responds to a detailed work statement with a
short proposal giving the plan of attack, costs, time-frame, and
details of logistic support, the consultant normally absorbs the
cost of preparation of the proposal.

If, however, the consultant is to develop an assessment plan the
cost will often be met by the contracting agency and a preliminary
letter'contract may be written to cover these costs.

2. Be sure the proposed work will give you the answers you need.
This is best accomplished by supplying the consultant with good
objectives (terms of reference) and then looking for these in the
proposal. Are the objectives you provided clearly presented in
the proposal? If the proposal is not clear the report will also
be unclear and perhaps irrelevant.

3. What specific products will be produced? How many copies will
be provided? What form will the data be presented in? References
'Co previous studies which the consultant has conducted should be
included in the proposal and, if possible, a sample provided for
your review. Is this what you need?

4. It will be helpful to ask the consultant to provide a list of
the kinds of information needed on arrival and people who need to
be contacted during the investigation.

5. A schedule of dates for project steps should be given in the
proposal so you can plan for the final review of the research and
its use. If you want to review a preliminary draft report, say so
at the start.

6. If the project requires specific information from the
applicant, be sure the research proposal lists the questions
clearly so the applicant can provide answers.

Field Research Stage

1. Provide a project officer to assist the research people and
make reservations for hotels, vehicles, boats, needed equipment.

2. Assemble maps, project details, related information and an
office or work area (if needed).

3. Field research may provide an opportunity for staff training
and the project officer should be detailed to work with the
research staff if possible.

4. The project officer should keep accurate notes and write an
independent report on the project for future reference.

5. If specimens are to be collected, be sure to arrange for a
duplicate set of labled specimens to remain on island. Literature
which the research team may bring along should be examined and
catalogued and obtained if possible for the research library. The
scientific staff should be asked, in advance, to bring any
reprints of related publications which they might contribute to
the research library.

Analysis of Reports

1. Reports rich in figures, graphs and diagrams are easier to
evaluate. Ask for them in advance.

2. Reports should concentrate on problem areas, not on well known
and irrelevant items.

3. Regard with suspicion unexplained or complex data
manipulations. For, example, the economic section of the M&E Hotel
Nikko Environmental Assessment report (M & E Pacific, 1985) uses a
"Leakage factor of 0.8" and a "visitor expenditure multiplier of
about 1.211 without explaining how these were derived or even which
of several kinds of multipliers is being used. As this directly
controls the level of economic benefits which may be expected from
the project it should be explained or referenced.

4. Mentioning something about the environment is not providing an
analysis of the linkage between a project and the factor being
considered. For example, the M & E report discusses natural
hazards such as tropical storms and typhoon but fails to discuss
the fact that part of the project site is in a flood plain area or
how that fact will be dealt with in the design of storm drain
systems. Nor is the vital question of the point discharge of
storm water run-off considered.

5. Two helpful questions to ask for each part of the report are

How does this fact relate to the project? (Or, So What?)

How was this determined? (or, Says who?)

6. Reports with numerous pages of information which leave the
above two questions unanswered must be regarded as superficial.
In this case, the report should be examined for places where there
is very little information as it is here that major problems are
likely to be hidden.

EVALUATION OF PROCEDURES. NIKKO HOTEL

The files concerning the application process of the NIKKO Hotel reveal
that the first announcement of the project was a published article in
the newspaper appearing on 29 September 1984. In fact, it seems that
the hotel project was generally known to be there were rumours about
the hotel prollect some time before that.

The first formal contact between CRMO and the project proponent was on

the 15th of October and this was followed by a series of meetings
between the project proponent and various members of the CRMP during
January and February of 1985,

Project documents were prepared and funds spent by the developer for
design work well in advance of the first meeting with CRMO. Some of
this initial work had to be scrapped following the first meeting and
was a waste of' time and money for the project proponent.

During the training course, an international magazine was circulating
with an article which stated the NIKKO Hotel project had been approved
and was to begin construction shortly. This was well in advance of
approval and although the project was probably going to be approved,
its premature public announcement was improper.

An interesting (perhaps parallel) case developed during the training
course. On the 24th of May, a local newspaper carried an article on a
$115 million dollar hotel development to be built on Saipan (Figure
20). The article quotes the developer as saying, "Necessary government
approvals have been obtained." Yet the U.S. Army Engineers had not
been informed of the project nor had CRMO. Parts of their proposal
will require serious consideration; particularly the construction of a
100 boat marina on the windward side of the island. CRMO was concerned
that the developer will. waste a great deal of money trying to design
the resort and marina without proper imput as to the difficulties
involved.

CRMO attempted several times to contact the developer when the party
was on Saipan but they refused to come and meet with CRMO. Why?

The developer knew perfectly well no government approvals had been
given. It is also likely the developer's engineers realize the marina
is unlikely to be built, Financing of the III million dollar project
no doubt requires government approvals and the marina, although
technically impractical, is an excellent selling point to gain
investment interest.

The strategy, therefore, is to let the press and international
magazines tell the story confidently and thus help achieve an early
imput of funds to the project.

The marina would continue on the artist's rendition of the project as
long as possible and the developer will argue strongly in its favor,
The marina, however, is probably a throw-a-way negotiating point. When
the CRMP or the Army Engineers refuse to allow it the developer can
reluctantly give it up and tell the investors the government
(unreasonably) refuses to allow it.
This ach@*'ves three objectives for the developer. The investor's funds
are by then completely committed and the project on its way. Secondly,
the government has been so occupied with this aspect of the study the
rest of the project will seem "easy". Third, after being turned down
on this "essential" point the developoer can apply political pressure
to push the permit through without further delays or, difficulties.

May 24,1985 - MARIANAS VARIETY NEWS & VIEWS - Page 7

V,4

it,
W,

-42
ij&
HONOLULU (AP) - A been selected.
Hawaii architectural firm, Necessary government
a 1-lonol'ulu developer and approvals have been ob-
a Saipan businessman are tained, and,the U.S, De-
joi@iing forces to develop a partment of Interior has
$115 million resort at been supportive, said
Saipan's Laulau Beach. Cutshaw.
The 304-acre resort "They want to see these
would include a 600 room Pacific islands get off the
luxury hotel, 18-hole golf dole, and they've targeted
course, tennis courts and a Saipan as on(,. of the first
100-boat marina. It would to become self-sustaining,"
also have convention and Cutshaw said.
banquet facilities, atrium,
restaurants, shops and Saipan is less tharf 1,000
sealife-stocked water- miles south of Japan,
ways. which provides about
The resort is expected 80-90 percent of its tour-
to employ people when ists, Cutshaw said. The
completed. island is about 14 miles
The resort was designed long, and four miles wide
by Architects Hawaii, Ltd. on average. It is an United
The developer is Robert P. States commonwealth
Cutshaw of Honolulu, under U.S. trusteeship
along with Antonio S. mandated by the United
Guerrero of Saipan. The Nations following World
contractor has not yet War 11.
4x4 MOVIN

Figure 20. Newspaper Announcement
ERN
N

Negotiating strategies such as this are common practice. The CRMP hope
of having an early and useful preapplication meeting is thus not
realized because of developer needs which are never openly stated and
only indirectly related to events on Saipan.

The JAL Nikko Hotel proposal was submitted in two parts; the
construction phase submitted on the 28th of February and the Hotel
phase on the 11th of March.

A public hearing was set for and conducted on the 11th of April at the
San Roque Elementary School. This was well attended and the comments
from the public hearing and from the CRMP officials were included in a
letter requestini.@, more information on the 30th of April.

JAL replied on the 17th of May and the directors of CRMF met on the
24th of May at which meeting they decided more information would be
needed on several items including the sewerage and storm-drainage.

The workshop tried to fit these events into the procedures as given in
the rules and regulations and summarized in Figure 8. There was little
correlation. The public hearing, for example, is to be called after
the project application has been declared complete and yet it was held
as part of the analysis procedure to determine if the application was
complete or not (a step which seems wise).

Secondly, it seems the maJority of the project evaluation took place
within and between the agencies during the preliminary phase, even
before the submission of the application. The Randall study, for
example, was begun in September of 198-4. Numerous meetings took place
between the developer's consultant (M&E Pacific) and the members of the
CRMP during the preparation of an expensive Environmental Assessment
Study which was completed before the application was submitted.

The procedural regulations, on the other hand, show the project
evaluation process going on after the application has been declared
complete.

The net result is that the process which is being followed is not the
one which was envisioned by those who wrote up the procedures.

The actual process is probably more practical and it is often practice
which should determine the procedure. Naturally any system needs
flexibility, but the existing one includes quite a lot of wheel
spinning and wasted effort.

A more streamlined and perhaps more workable system is presented in
Section 5.1 below.

NETWORK ANALYSIS AND SITE VlSIT TO SAN ROQUE VILLAGE

The group designed a network analysis of' tourism impacts (Figure2l ) as
a general. guide for the site visit. Al Rocket of the Department of
Public Works accompanied the team and discussed various aspects of the
project.

(D NE:-FWOFZZK AMAL-v'@; IS; Of=
N)
T0UFR_-!S>m cDE:%.eE:L-0F>MaNT!&

(D
Clt- FRaSOUFRr--a
X I M Fl U T f3
0
11

a FR F=000 E=-Comc3m I C
FRESH WATER AN: MAL MONEY Government Time
co CN SiTE USE "UmAr"
p- A@allaollltv Poilution PLANT FaC:l - !@IES EoucatLon
to Stao: 1 it, Consu.otion F-SH '@7 ElL worK Force
C@@ Si7E NEEDS SEA ATER :MPORTS -4UIPMENT
0 @4STES Pollution 1.4PORTS
ACRTCUL-URE
PARKIqG

F;Z E: S CD U F;Z
2 1 r-i F- fn. C -r F,

(D Soa 1 0 - F=CONOM I C
I., N A T U FR 4'@. L-
0
'R F@ ZzL -r- 1 F@ ir -L rj
(D
=5 CF :;EE= INCREASE:) MONEY =LCW -AND @RICES ESCALATE
-:ON COVERNM@FNT INCOME CRIME
C111 -_"'E ::@-EN7 -AGCGN @Ci ---; -
DARK-DEYELCP-E.NT Slltat@on _axes SOC:-'@L ZCNFL:C7
se@ase Fees :NCREASED !MPORTS
Run-of, ;CBS MORE AL'EN LABCR
Sh le a T-
'401 7et NEW SK:L-'; 7 NFL -ON
@RESH ATER SHORTAGE MARKETS @OR AGRlZ'-'L7URE LCSS OF :NTEPES7 :N FARMING
MARKET =OR =IS-HERIES :,NFTQLAL:-IES :.N ;CBS AND GOV. SERV:CEES
SPORT @TSHING DEVEL@3PMENT LESS =QEa - !ME
R -
MARKE7 FOR "ANOIC@:@AF-s MORE :MPC T@D @'@EAP "ANDICRAFTS

The site visit was a vital part of the evaluation procedure as all the
paper findings take on a new significance (or irrelevancy) when faced
with the reality of the island, the village, the soil and beach
configuration.

Such things as the volcanic nature of the watershed area behind the
project site and the natural run-off berms which are located between
the project site and the lagoon are immediately evident. The relative
wind conditions and the lagoon characteristics were also noted.

Problems with the proposed storm drainage plan became evident when
looking at the land gradients.

WORK GROUPS CONSIDER RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS.

Based on discussions before and during the site visit, the core group
followed the process outlined in Figure 16 to establish some of the
resource needs and project concerns.

SUMMARY OF RESOURCE CONCERNS FOR THE JAL PROJECT.

1. WATER.

The amount and the quality of water, available to the hotel is a
matter of primary concern. Discussion with Pedro Sasamoto
indicated the problem will mostly impact the hotel itself but
there is a danger that the hotel may deplete the Achugau Spring
which supplies San Roque Village.

Brackish well water, i_@@ available via the hotells proposed well and
the concept of using a reverse osmosis process to make this water
potable is probably the betelts best route. The Hilton has tried
this, however, and had major problems keeping the system operable.
The underground rain catchment tanks may also be valuable to the
hotel's water supply.

2. POWER

The question of the conformity of transformers and other hook-up
problems result in additional government costs. Conce@-13 Over' the
ability of the power plant to provide the additional load were
discussed.

3. SEWAGE

If the Hotel hooks up to the main sewage plant (as is presently
proposed), will the facility be able to bandle the additional
load? At present the answer is no.

A new facility is scheduled for completion by July of 1986. Will
this really be completed by then?

The expanded sewage system will discharge a much higher load of
sewage water which has recieved only primary treatment into the
lagoon not far from Microbeach. What will this do to the water

quality in the lagoon? There are already water quality violations
in the area of the present discharge.

Hotels discharge wastes from people who have recently been in many
different areas of the world. The kinds of disease organisms
including viruses which survive in sea water and in fish are
numerous and virulent.

What will be the impact of the additional nutrients into the
lagoon system?

4. DRAINAGE

The hotel is to be sited on a known flood plain. The storm
drainage plans seem to be unrealistic considering the local
topography. Assuming the land grading can be accomplished
according to the proposed plan, details on recharge rates at the
bottom of the rain-catchment basins must be provided.

Excessive point discharge of storm water run-off into the lagoon
must be avoided. The project will eliminate a large, diffuse,
natural seepage area which presently reduces the run-off into the
lagoon. Storm water must be routed into other seepage areas or
into seepage pits of sufficient size to prevent excessive lagoon
degredation. The proposed "government drainage ditch" should not
be trenched through the beach.

Concern over difficulties with right-of-ways and construction time
for the proposed government ditch need to be satisfied.

5. SILTATION

Placement of the siltation berms and pits are stated to be "as
needed" on the plan. This could be carefully worked out in
advance. Clearing and grubbing activities should not begin during
the rainy season. May to June is a sensitive time for the fish
populations of the lagoon. Juvenile rabbitfish (SiunRp spinus)
and juvenile goatfish (Ru 11 9L(1:L h ttiy s
flavolineatu ) are common
during these months and are sensitive to siltation.

Much of the area has a clay soil which couid, if eroded during the
rainy season, clog seepage areas and thus be more likely to cause
sheet run-off into the lagoon. Clay soils have been shown to have
serious impact on the lagoon (Randall, personal communication).

The thickness of the clay-soiis make it possible that, heavy
equipment might become inoperative if the cleared areas were
subjected to prolonged and heavy rainfall. This would create a
long-term siltation problem for the lagoon as well as economic
hardships on the contractor.

Proposed alterations of the shoreline associated with the entrance
and exit of the proposed artificial lagoon will create problems in
beach erosion and oand supply down-stream (southwest) of the
project site. The continual maintenance required to keep the

Proposed channels open and the beach in place will create
long-term siltation problems for the lagoon.

6. ENFORCEMENT

Consideration needs to be given to the financial responsibility in
case of accident or storm damage. Who, for example, will pay
clean-up costs if' the hotel burns or is left incompleted.

7. LAND USE

The hotel will. inerease the demand for farm-land in two ways;
first because part of the project is on prime farm land and this
will be lost. Second, additional farm 11and will be needed to
supply food materials to the hotel. The latter impact may be
favorable if the farms take advantage of the opportunity.

If farmers are appraised of the types and quantities of food
needed, they can begin preparation to provide these.

Fishermen should be thinking about the developement of a "Saipan
Specialty" item for the resorts such as flying fish.

Saipan should give priority to developing the sport-fishing
industry as a tourist activity. Deep water bottom fishing and
trolling could both be exciting money makers. The hotel could
discuss the kinds of vessels and activities which would be most
successful and advertise sport fishing as a major attraction of
Saipan. Sport fishing has a minimal impact on local. fisheries and
a high dollar value.

8. GOVERNMENT TIPIE

Government personnel are already overworked and unable to give
proper attention to the many tasks facing CNMI. The hotel will
strain the system still more, especially in providing services and
machinery. This is an unavoidable impact which will hopefully be
compensated for with taxes.

9. SOLID WASTES

Solid wastes are presently a serious problem for Saipan. The
Hotel should be advised that new regulations on solid waste are
being prepared and it would be helpful if the hotel could practice
good solid waste disposal practices from the start. This would
include separating solid wastes into the following categories:

Organics and leafy wastes to be placed in a mulch pile for
making soil, (perhaps on a part of the hotel's farming area).

Burnable materials.

Aluminum cans should be bagged for recycling.

Construction materials & clean fill to be used in special

parts of the Puerto ri.(,,o Dump as directed.

Brush burned during the construction activities must be contained
in the designated areas and precautions against the fire spreading
taken.

Refuse from field toilets must be disposed of according to
conditions set forth by DEQ.

SUMMARY OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONCERNS

1. CRIME

Workshop participants listed the increase of crime as the most
disturbing impact from the rapid increase of tourist development
on Saipan. Theft, assault, and prostitution were examples given.
The group felt the increase in crime was due, in part, to
cross-cultural misunderstandings and poor, public instruction on
the need for visitor hospitality.

PROPOSED MITIGATING ACTION: Marianas Visitor Bureau and Hotels to
develop more cross-cultural interchanges. Thi.9 might take the
form of tax-free contributions to island charities, donations of
books on Japan and its culture to schools, friendly sport
activities on the Hotel site between residents and staff,
participation in local festivals, art shows, etc.

2. JOB INEQUALITY

Ranking the same as crime, job inequality is the fear that the
hotel will discriminate against local employees, either by not
making jobs available or by paying local workers less than
off-island recruits.

PROPOSED MITIGATING ACTION: JAL to provide a list of employment
needs including:

Job descriptions

Qualifications needed

Pay scales for each position

If this can be done at the start of construction and the
information given to DC&L, the Dept. of Education and the
Northern Marianas College, residents will have the opportunity to
plan ahead and aquire needed skills before the hotel begins
operations.
3. LAND 'VALUES eady gone up in the vicinity of the. pvoposed
Land prices have alr
hotel. As new hotels are built, land values will increase to the
point where most young residents wil.1 be unable to obtain land for
their homes or farms.

There is no obvious way to alter this impact.

4. LOCAL BUSINESSES MAY NOT BENEFIT

This complex economic impact centers on the hotel bringing
tourists on a "tour" basis within which the tourist dollars are
committed in Japan and very little is spent outside the hotel or
its direct associates. Some tours even include all meals and
coupons for purchasing items in approved stores.

Data on leakage and multipliers in the EIS is not documented or
explained. The cash flow needs to be much more clearly outlined.
Even room rates are not clearly set out, and concern for price
juggling to reduce room-taxes was expressed by members of the
course.

MITIGATING ACTION: A more detailed economic explanation of the JAL
proposal should be discussed between the developer, the Saipan
Chamber of Commerce, and the Department of Commerce and Labor.

The hotel could provide information to local businessmen or even
short training courses on what Japanese tourists do and do not
like. Even an understanding of the Japanese need for clean and
neat business premises could turn a business liability into an
asset for both the hotel and the craftsman or business people.

Japan has many superior artists and craftsmen. Perhaps the hotel
could hold craft-training workshops for Saipanese.

The Marianas Visitors Bureau should design a tourist questionnaire
to be given to arriving guests and collected upon departure. This
would provide valuable feedback from the tourists about what kinds
of craft items they bought or would have liked to buy and could
guide craftsmen in their efforts. Also, valuable feedback would
be obtained on other areas of tourist needs.

5. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INEQUALITY

This is the difference between the luxury hotel with good water,
sewage, drainage and the next-door community without these
services. The concern is that the community will continue with
its present infrastructure problems and the hotel will simply mean
an influx of additional residents into the village (in the hope of
living close to the hotel). This will add furtber loads on the
infrastructure of the area.

An expected outcome would be stress (and crime) between the hotel
and village people.

MITIGATING ACTION: The government must adjust its priorities to
take full. advantage of the construction activities and improve
community services along with providing services to the hotel.
The hotel. has indicated it will (might) iriatall a sewer line and
DPW should find the time and funds needed to hook up local

residents to this line during construction.

6. TRAFFIC

Another conflict will come from increased traffic through the
village. San Roque is divided in half by the main road and
children cross frequently. The hotel can help by providing driver
safety instructions to guests and employees who drive cars or
busses. Pedestrian crosswalks should be installed and rigidly
enforced.

7. CROSS-CULTURAL EXCLUSION

Residents will tend to stay away from areas inhabited by groups of
tourists (unless they are trying to sell the tourists something).
Social exclusion violates the right of free access to the beaches.
Fishermen will be hesitant to use their nets in developed areas.

MITIGATING ACTION: Cross-cultural exchange and a little
friendlyness can help to resolve this problem.

8. MARKET VARIABILITY

This is divided into two categories: seasonal variation of tourist
arrivals and variations caused by changes in favored tourist
destinations, sales campaigns, or economic trends.

MITIGATING ACTION: The hotel. could provide the M.V.B. with
"Visitor Forecasts" so the island could be prepared for highs and
lows of income.

9. DISEASES

This is an unavoidable hazard of vacation spots.

The constant influx of new viruses and di6ease organisms can be
expected to cause continual loss of' productive time and an
escalating cost of treatment. As there are no realistic
mitigating actions, this must be considered a liability for the
project.

10. TOURIST EXPECTATIONS

Tourists arrive in Saipan with a set of expectations. These are
obtained by advertising styles used to attract them to the island.
Advertisements may give unrealistic expectations and disillusioned
visitors are unlikely to return.

MITIGATING ACTION: Some visitor expectations can be accomodated
with a little effort and advanced warning. The M.V.B. should
receive copies of all advertising materials used to sell Saipan
and the other CMNI.

The M.V.B. should then provide advice to the business community
about how Saipan is thought to be so efforts can be made to

6 '1

maintain this image (as long as it is reasonable and in line with
local desires).

FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT AND CONCERNS

Frank Dayton or the U,S, Army En8ineers (Guam) discussed the
involvement of the Engineers in permiting coastal projects. He pointed
out that the Engineers have done numerous studies in the CNMI and would
be glad to assist CR14P in the event special expertise was needed for a
specific project evaluation.

An Army Engineers permit is required for any dredgeing or filling
activities (as proposed by JAL) and they will not grant permits for
such projects until after the CRMP permit has been granted.

We discussed the proposed artificial lagoon concept of' JAL and he
expressed concern over many aspects of it, especially the problems with
sand movement at the entrances.

WATER, A SPECIAL CONCERN.

On May 30, the course participants were given another, example of
cooperation by the U.S. Army Engineers at a workshop on the water
problems of the island.

In addition, Pedro Sasamoto, the federal coordinator for water projects
in the governor's office, discussed water with the participants.

Water is one of the major limiting resources of Saipan and needs to be
given priority consideration in all development projects.

THE PUBLIC HEARING

Course participants discussed the transcript of the public hearing and
discovered that several major points were raised which were, in fact,
included in the April 30th letter from CRMO to the project proponent.

It seems the public hearing did have good attendence, participation,
and that the public was influential in the process.

THE APPLICATION FORM.

The workshop examined the permit application for-ins which the applicant
had filled out and found that many questions were improperly answered.
The group decided that this was often a problem in the way the
questions were worded. Some of the questions were, in fact, not very
good ones and the answers reflected this.

The group worked on the rewording of the application form and directed
its efforts towards designing an application form as guidelines for
supplying information to the CRMP.

An example of the group's efforts is given in Appendix A.

The participants concluded that the application form should ask

questions which included a brief statement as to why the information
was required. This allows the applicant to answer more exactly and
even to reconsider the planned action during the writing of the
appl ica tion.

Secondly, questions which ask for numbers or explicit data and for
drawings, graphs and maps were found to yield the best answers while
generalized questions such as "describe environmental impacts including
any air, noise or water pollution" tended to have generalized and
uninformative answers.

SETTING CONDITIONS FOR PROJECT PERMITS

Each permit has conditions written into it. The group worked on
conditions for the JAL permit using those from the Department of
Natural Resources as an example.

The DNR conditions were:

1. During construction and maintainence, sedimentation from
run-off not to exceed ambient turbidity levels by more than
20%.

2. During May to June, Sediment levels not to exceed ambient
levels due to sensitive juvenile fish in the area.

3. Storm drainage system to be kept free of trash.

4. No discharges of wastes or waste water into the lagoon or
the storm drain system which then flows into the lagoon.

5. A tourist educational program (perhaps displays,
pamphlets, posters) to be included in the hotel operation to
assure tourists do not damage the lagoon and reef through
collecting of speciraens of coral or trampling.

6. The hotel to supply DNR with approximate quantities of
sea foods (available locally) expected to be consumed during
operation.

The group then decided to examine the permit conditions which had
already been written for the Diamond Hotel permit as an example of the
way they are written now and how the condition terms might be improved.

This suggestion proved beneficial. as the group was able to play an
editorial role and compare before and after wording to see which style
would be the most useful to all parties.

EXAMPLE:

Existing Format of Conditions

"Condition A: The applicant will work closely with the
Department of Public Works to design and construct the sewer
lift station and the emergency power hook-up for the lift

station.

Condition B: The applicant will. work closely with the
Department of Public works and the Saipan Utility Agency to
assure that the proper power requirements are satisfied.

Justification 1-1 and B: Due to the current capacity problems
with the sewer lines and power generation, it is imperative
that the Department of Public Works be informed of the
hotel's utility needs and design considerations.

The terms "work closelyn and lack of quantitative information can lead
to difficulties for both the applicant and the government. It was @lso
felt that "Justification" was not really needed but could be
incorporated into each condition a,:, clarification if useful.

Revised Version:

A. The existing lift pump for waste water removal needs to
be enlarged to accomodate the projected hotel sewage
discharge.

1) The new lift pump, with installation, will cost
$125,000. The Department of Public Works will purchase and
install the unit within three months after construction
start-up. Funds for the lift pump must be paid to the
government 60 days prior to construction start-up.

2) The applicant may install a lift pump of 80,000 GPD
capacity according to specifications and direct supervision
of DPW if the conditions indicated in 1, above are not
satisfactory. The lift pump must be operational prior to
operation of the hotel.

3) In either case, the applicant will be responsible for
hooking up their emergency power generator to the lift pump
for operation during any power outage.

4) The applicant will, within 30 days, provide a complete
breakdown of power needs, anticipated electrical utilities
to be included, surge levels on start-up, and
specifications of transformers which DPW will. require to
hook up power supplies.

Water will probably always be a problem on Saipan and CRMO will be
writing conditions about water into many permits. It would be helpful
if a set of water guidelines were drawn up to be used for permit
conditions. Thus, the water condition part of' the permit should give
more explicit information to assist the applicant.

B) Fresh water supply is a continuing problem for Saipan. The
hotel anticipates using some 70,000 gallons of water per day. It
is essential that this figure not be exceeded in good conditions
and it will probably have to be severely cut in times of low water
supply@

For Example, in 1982, a prolonged drought resulted in water
rationing on the island. I'llis can be expected, to a greater, or
lesser degree, during most dry seasons (from December to May). In
addition, if the power fails, as it did XXXXX times in the past
year, there is no power to the water pumps and reserve water must
be kept on hand if the hotel is to have water for, its customers
and for fire fighting needs.

1) Water conservation. The hotel will appoint a permanent
water conservation officer from its staff. This officer will
see to it that water is conserved at all times and will head
a program that will include:

Signs encouraging water conservation in the rooms

Weekly leak inspections

Staff instruction on identification of leaks, turning off
any taps in the hotel rooms, water conservation during work
activities, especially in the kitchens.

2) Water Reserves. The hotel will build and maintain a 200,000 gallon
water tank for emergency use. This tank will never be allowed to be
less than half-full as a reserve for fire-fighting.

The tank will be fitted with suitable outlets, pumps, plumbing, hoses,
etc. for fire fighting in the hotel.

In addition, fire extinguishers will be located in appropriate
locations where the water hoses do not reach. Specifications for fire
extinguishers and their location will be submitted to CRMO 30 days
prior to the hotel's operation.

4.2 SITE LOCATION OF SANITARY LANDFILLS

The second project chosen by CRMP for evaluation during the workshop
was a governmental one; where to put the new sanitary landfill and what
to do with the existing dump.

BACKGROUND

Two studies had already been done on this problem, both by the Guam
consultants Duenas and Swavely (May 1984 and August 1984). They
proposed ten sites for the new Saipan Sanitary Landfull on the basis of
three criteria:

1. Suitability of the site for landfilling operations in terms of
topography, general geology, environmental compatibility and
Saipan land-use planning considerations.

2. Marianas Public Land Corporation lands that are not
irreversibly programmed for a conflicting use. (This criterion
was expanced to include private lands where owners may be
agreeable to a land exchange negotiated by MPLC).

3. Reasonably good access by existing roads and nearby
infrastructure.

IDENTIFICATION OF CONCERNS

The course participants began by listing the major impacts which could
be expected from the landfill activity. These, in order of priority,
turned out to be:

1. Contamination of the ground water lens. Leachates from the
materials put into a limestone landfill can be expected to migrate
downward into the groundwater. An example was given of the
contamination of a well area on Guam following burial of war
materials after the war. The water from that area still has a bad
taste and odor today. Since water is a critical and limited
resource on Saipan, this impact was the primary concern.

2. Air Pollution was the second concern. The landfill area,
ideally, will be sanitary and relatively frce of objectionable
smells. Realistically, however, most landfill areas do smell bad
and often have fires. The prevailing wind directions and location
of residential and commercial areas thus was considered in the
evaluation.

3. The third highest priority requirement was distance of the
site from population centers. If the distance is too great the
public will probably practice illegal dumping even more than they
do now. In the event the site must be placed at a great distance,
the government will have to provide a collection service.

4. Since tourism is the major industry of Saipan, the fourth
priority was Scenic considerations. The site would have to be
relatively inconspicuous.

5000 0

SCALE IN FEET

2 P A C I F I c 0

SAN ROGUE
w
@,@@\,CH,UGAU SPRINGS a
DONNIE SPRINGS KAGLAAN
ACHUGAU
TANAPA-11\ TANAPAG
SPRINGS LAULAU BA
ABLAN QUARRY a
a 4,- Z@a 'a ACAG
PUERTO 1IC @- a 4nx, a
AU IV
SAN VIC NTE @DANDAN

CALM
TANA OUN GUALO RAI 8
HARBOR 7

GARAPA
OLEAI SUSUFE

CH.'--N KANOA
P

NIA ?4 A GA H A SAN
ISLAND
o@ e cLei@t@ I @,: at @o
an
984. Barret at.all

Site
SeLectic@. saipan.

19@4. Duenas S@a@elY
L- ici N 0 F:r I L- L- -s i -r E: -s rj Li m t=, s3
N 0 St 0 U f-J C- WC% -r E: FZ S 0 U FR C-- a --@ < -r

Figure 22. Map Overlay for Landfill Sites

5. Compatibility of the site with surrounding land use was fifth
priority. Agricultural use was considered compatible, residential
use not compatibie.

6. Size of the site was the next consideration.

7. Ownership was the last consideration, with MPLC land having a
higher priority than private land.

MAP OVERLAY

Priority concerns over Water and Air pollution were quickly made
graphic using a map overlay technique (Figure 22 . Four of the sites
were immediately disqualified as being located within important ground
water resource areas and likely to contaminate well water,

These were sites 5 (The Puerto Rico Depression), 7 (Hospital Quarry), 8
(Hoyon As Lito Depressions), and 9 (As Lito Quarry).

Some of these sites had other problems as well. Site 8, for example,
is now a residential, farming area on private land.

Site 7 has a scenic impact and is upwind of wany homes and businesses.

But the water contamination impact alone was congidered too great to
allow these sites to be used.

MATRIX ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS

A Matrix was constructed showing the impact of each of' the sites on
each of the concerns (Figure 23 . Water contamination potential, air,
pollution, and scenic impacts were given priority ratings of High,
Medium, Low Impact. X was used to mean unacceptable risk.

The distance was measured in miles from the existing dump but this
measurement probably should be redone from the mean population center
(s) of the island.

SITE VISITS

After the Matrix was drawn up, the team visited the sites to fill in
the data on the matrix. During the site visits various aspects of the
site were discussed and general impressions of the participant s added
to the evaluation process.

IDENTIFICATION OF SITES AND ALTERNATIVES

The results of the site visits were discussed and then the workshop
method in Figure 16 used to "vote" on the best sites and alternatives.

The result was a recommendation to develop three differeDt sites for
different purposes.

1. Site 1, the Marpi Depression, was selected as the best overall

ENIV I F-ZC)rJME:r-JTAL- MATFR I X A"AL-VS I S

S A p S

0
AV

01 Ay
0 21
0 Ay
4 1>
Ay A 4,
0 ly
SITES 0 0

a M ASr7 1400 Mt@L-C-:

u za r- r- Y M M 5 L- Q 4 0 0 -M F- 1-- C:

S@ri F;@@cjLt@
"A I I --I d'e 5 t-1 n- - MRI-C:

K za I m b @ - -
D 4-- p L- 1 0 L- 2 It 0 F, L- C

R u @- r- -t c- FR I Q c),
E:) -e p X r- j t-- c: t- eq@

K zig m z@
LA r- _r- 7150

Ffc@ p A t@ Z% I
u Z5 r- r- X

At--. L.At.@
r- j C-- cl

Qu 211r r- Y X j A-- 1@ o- cl

S " V.( r-1 c@ c- ri to 0
p 720 FRIV

JMPACT

L-- I---
M- "@<ilc'jn'
F-1- tit st@
X=

Figure 23. Matrix Analysis of Sanitary Land-fill Sites

site and should be used for commercial wastes and wastes picked up
by commercial services. It is large, out of the way, and overlays
ground water which is highly saline, is surrounded by agricultural
areas now poorly developed and is owned by the MPLC.

2. Site 6, the Kagman Quarry, was selected as the best site for
the general public, It is the closest acceptable site and is
outside the ground water lens for the Kagman area, it is large and
remote from developments, surrounded by agricultural areas now
poorly developed and is owned by the MPLC.

3. Site 4, the Kalabera Depression, was selected as being the
best site for hazardous waste disposal. It is remote (too far for
reasonable normal. disposal activities), on the rocky outer edge of
the island and riot over a valuable water lens, surrounded by
poorly developed agricultural areas, and owned by the MPLC.

Site 2, the Marpi Quarry, is upwind of the Golf Course and would
require a long climb for the trucks or cars along an unsurfaced
road. In addition it is close to the inner island crest and
therefore a potential danger to the ground-water supply in the
area. The limestone quarry is highly porous.

site 3, the San Roque Hillside is upwind of San Roque and the
proposed JAL Hotel site and would also contaminate the ground
water of the area. More importantly, the hillside site is highly
visible and the landfill would create Lin eye-sore. Furthermore,
the land commands a splendid view and its value is thus very great
for future home sites. The proximity to the Golf Course increases
this value.

Site 10, the San Vicente Depression, is privately owned and its
impact on the groundwater is uncertain. It is close to the
village and close to residences.

CLOSURE OF EXISTING DUMP

When placed on the matrix, the existing dump site scored very well. It
does not contaminate ground water, has a low impact on air pollution,
is very close to people and well used, it is hidden (now) with trees
and is located in the industrial/port zone. It is an active dump and
there is still room for expansion.

The primary objection to the present location is the impact of the
litter (mostly plastic and paper) which blows off the open dump into
the lagoon. After a major storm, the beaches were said to be covered
with debries, some of it originating from the dump.

Inspection of the area showed the dumping to be almost entirely
uncontrolled. The public does use the site but simply throws the trash
onto the ground. Sometimes it is burned. Paper goods do blow off the
dump into the lagoon. The dump is clearly a "Lagoon Fill" operation
and has covered marsh and shallow flats, extending out towards the old
ruins of a World War II wharf. The steel pileings of this wharf form
an unsightly and useless projection into the lagoon (Figure 18).

The location is a 4PI of the Saipan Port and there is deep water for
ships on the exterior of the steel piles. As such it is a highly
valuable asset to the island if cleaned up and rebuilt as a wharf,
industrial area.

A permit is now being considered for a basalt crushing plant on part of
the dump site and wharf reconstruction will have to accompany that
development. In addition, a liquid gas storage facility is planned for
the area.

If the steel piles were filled with clean rip-rap, cement, rocks, pipes
and capped with cement. The remaining area behind this could then be
filled in with non-organic solid wastes. There is considerable volume
left here, enough to last many years if only clean fill, steel and
similar materials are put there.

In any event, an improved management plan is required to do anything at
all with the dump. Several recommendations were made by the
participants:

1. Place a chain-link 81 fence around the dump to contain
wind-blown debries.

2. Enclose the area delineated by the steel piles with a berm and
place a fence atop this. Then fill. in the area behind the berm.

3. Use the piles and fill as a foundation for a medium-sized
wharf.

4. Move existing clean fill from other areas of the dump to
assist in recommendations 2 and 3, thus allowing the existing land
to be cleared and reworked.

5. Divide the dump into sections as shown in Figure 24.

6. Have a dumpsite manager and at least one helper, direct
placement of wastes to the proper parts of the dump.

7. Realizing burring as a fact of life, construct an area with a
wall and fence within which paper goods may be burned. The ashes
can be added to the mulch area.

8. A temporary site should be set aside for materials which can
be recycled. including glass, aluminum, brass, bronze, lead, and
so on. There should also be a place for scrap cars. This
material should be close to the port so it may be shipped out when
enough has accumulated to make it profitable.

9. In general, a solid waste disposal plan should be introduced
on the island to separate the wastes into categories as discussed
in 4.1 Summary of Resource Concerns. Commercial establishments
and those who use a collection service, should be made to adhere
to these rules. Residents without a collection service should be
encouraged to use the landfill sites and helped to sort the wastes

F-i A FR E;3 0 FR

USE CLEAN FILL. CEMENT,
ROCK, IN OLD @ILES
BERM T. MOUS@-rR I AL-
TO FORM RETAINING AFRF-@A kBASALT CRUSHING)

WHOLE
ENCLOSE AREA WITH
CHAIN LINK FENCE TO FILL THIS AREA LATER WITH
R =TG. 8' FENCE
7RAP LOOSE PAPE STEEL, @IPE, CLEAN SOL:D =:LL

lz BURNING
ING SHCREL:NE 4REA
EXIST.

z COVER WITH CRUSHED ROCK AND SOIL
CONTROL
0 U S

SHALLOW FLATS

MULCH
AREA RECYCLE MATERIALS
ORGANICS IN c. c'r CLASS i@. ALUMINUM L.
Zo
CELLS

ENCLOSE SITE 141TH BRUSH

@UCC:;r=-S-rE:01 P"L-AM f=Of:Z lC:L-C)5.UME=- 01=
F= X I :F- -r T P4 C F> U f-= FZ -r 0 F;Z I C 0 0 U M Fz@ NOT TO SCALE
i@ PnIc.
iAA J)

into appropriate categories.

10. Collection sites for aluminum cans (the most common litter
problem) should be placed around the island and the government
should consider the future necessity of a pick-up service.

4.3 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

Using the Sanitary Landfill as an example, the group considered
presentation of the results. An outline for the report was developed:

OUTLINE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE SAIPAN LANDFILL QUESTION

1. BACKGROUND. What is the problem? What previous work has been
done?

1. Solid Waste Ammounts (use graph)

2. Kinds of Wastes (pie chart)

3. Problems:

a) Contamination of Ground Water

b) Air Pollution

c) Impact on Lagoon

d) Scenic

e) Land-use

f) Distance

g) Ownership

4. Priorities

2. Alternatives

1) Use of Present Site (Time)

2) Development of New Sites

3) Management of Wastes

a) Recycling wastes

b) Sorting Wastes

c) Reducing import of wastes

d) Compacting wastes

3. Closure of Existing Dump

It. New Site Selection

5. Implementation

1) Who's going to do it?

2) When will it be done? Use a Gantt Chart to show this
(Figure 25).

3) Evaluation, Monitoring and Enforcement

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

OUTLINE FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT STATEMENT

The group discussed the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
requirements for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The NEPA EIS
specifications include a topic outline. We used the formal EIS on the
CNMI Coastal Resources Management Program as an example of this:

Part 1. Purpose and Need

Part II. Description of the Proposed Action

Part III. Alternatives to the Proposed Action

Part IV. Description of the Environment Affected

Part V. Erivirormental Consequences

A. Impacts from Approval

B. Impacts from Implementation

C. Probable Adverse Environmental Effects which Cannot be
Avoided

D. Relationship between Short-term Uses of the Environment
and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term
Productivity.

E. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources
that would be Involved in the Proposed Action should it be
Implemented

F. The Relationship of the Proposed Action to Land Use
Plans, Policies and Controls for the Area

G. Consultation and Coordination

REALITY TESTING

After the various problems have been elicited, but before the report is

a C)

IL
0
z
0
H u
w
m
D
0 CL
z ot 0
w 0.
@z zz
Ul
w i
-j
D
vi ul v) tA LU
H zZ ZZ
0o oau
L) C)UU<E

H
z aLf C, C3
ww LLI
0 1 4.3 0 cli
tL TT X -3
> mcy
0
cl IL
Lu 10 liz
0 OD 0
H .1 ..j
4-)
u z x
ry. a- z
ux

I- Ln0InWU) In0In It)W
CD (+4
LU
I.- !@I I 1@ t@ @11I- 4-3
000(l) MOW
cy a Cl 11 (3n
(133 3 -1 -j ulA3-1 as
w w CLI0C,TU.1 LLI00
07 z z LLLLU 77 zw
0 LL hi>>0 01 11 -w(I vi
V, 0 0 til It) -1u1- C) 4-)
y 0 crwm Dq 1 4-)
re (Y
tj (f) (A :3SnI-WI-
1--00.0z0 uj ca
ILI 7. -j -i C)2
L'i0 Ul0 UUlkI ki
It (X I- (I u
UlW >->0 a
3 ILI L-1 C)oX z
0 a p @) Ln C
7 1- 1-- Y. C\j
a to fx
z :F- L) It
ld tu a)
7
Ul7
bi)

1 FX4

written, it is best to go through a process of REALITY TESTING. Are
the problems really problems@

The best test is to look at each assumption and decide how one could
measure this impact. If, for example, crime increase is a suspected
problem, the records of the Department of Public Safety should
demonstrate this. If disease does increase because of tourism, health
records will show how much.

Showing the incidence of crime (or disease) with the increase of
tourism on Saipan is one step in demonstrating the reality of the
problem. Second, one must show the crimes (or diseases) to be linked
to the tourist industry and not due to other causes. This is done by
examining the KINDS of crimes which have gone on.

The group then examined various probiems and related actual examples
where each had already occured.

If at all possible, make a graph. The more graphic the presentation,
the more likely people will understand the need to change directions.
The greater the number of case histories and examples, the better
everyone can undestand exactly what 1-the problems are.

The use of a library and of statistical records was discussed as a
means of quickly getting examples together. When DNR insists that
siltation will damage stocks of valuable fish on the reef, a specific
example of proof of this would be helpful. References on this are
available through the University of Guam.

4.4 THE IMPLEMENTATION GAP

The most critical step of all is the transition from report to
actuality. Planning for a landfill site is one problem; implementing
the project and its recommendations is another.

The present dump site has been a known problem for many years and the
recommendations reached during this course were not new. Th e two
studies done a year ago were inconclusive and lacked specific
recommendations for implementation.

The group discussed responsibilities for getting projects going and
designed a sample Gantt Chart (Figure 25 ) which shows who does what,
when. A planning chart such as this placed on appropriate office walls
is often instrumental in getting the project launched and finished.

A RESEARCH LIBRARY: An Example and A Test.

Frequent references were made to the need for a research library for
the CNMI, to be located at the Northern Marianas College. How can this
be implemented?

Following the management pattern of Figures 1 and 2, the group began by
deciding on what the college would NEED to have such a facility.

1. Money

2. Librarians

3. Space

4. Equipment

5. Cooperation from the various agencies

6. Motivation

The first two needs seemed the most immediate and were clearly linked.
The suggestion was made that the two could be achieved together if
someone paid to train the librarians and they under-took
cross-referencing the existing literature of the agencies as their
training activity.

There are federal funds available for such an activity if there is a
guaranteed job for the people once the training is complete.

This linked needs 1, 2, and 6.

Cooperation from the agencies was the key to the other, needs. If the
agencies asked for such a service, in concert, the college would be
able to demonstrate that the library and librarians were needed and
worthwhile. The college could then seek funds from the Job Training
Program and seek funds from the Legislature or from the agencies to
support the library and librarians in the future.

The College President, Agnes McPhetres was asked to join the group at
this point to ureality test" the ideas. We asked her if she could
follow such a plan if the concerned agencies requested the College to
assist with the indexing of their literature, She discussed the plan
and agreed that it would have a high probability of success and that
she was most willing to cooperate with such a suggestion.

She explained that she had written to all. the directors on the 29th of
April asking that all agencies send copies of annual reports, special
publications and studies or other reports to the library. Although two
agencies had sent some copies of reports, she had recieved no direct
answer to her letter. No mention of existing reports had been made.

The course participants, therefore, were to draft, letters for their
respective directors which answered the 29 April letter, and agreeing
to participate by sending reports. A further suggestion was to be
included to the effect that the Library could perform a great service
by sending a librarian to cross-index the great bulk of existing
reports so th ey could be better used by agency personnel and by
visiting research people. The cross-indexed books could either be kept
at the agencies (but numbered and ordered) or kept at the library if
not in habitual use.

Mrs. McPhetres would take the letters and seek the required funding
and personnel, The CR14C immediately advised that it would contribute
funds to the project.

The participants did not complete the letter drafts during the
workshop. It was left as a test of their personal responsibility to
see if they got the message about problems of implementation.

5.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS

5.1 THE WORKSHOP METHOD OF PROJECT EVALUATION

The workshop method of project evaluation worked well. The
participant's comments (5.2) clearly showed that the members of the
workshop felt as though they were personally involved and able to
contribute to the three projects which we investigated.

Advantages and Disadvantages of working as a group were listed as:

ADVANTAGES D 125 U
@L -AN.LA.GES

1) Rapid Answers 1) Scheduling problems
2) Clarity of communication 2) Polarized Arguments
3) More Specific 3) Irrelevancies can monopolize time
4) Assure time is given 4) Personality displays can divert
5) Many viewpoint at once 5) Need for good leadership
6) Increased Cooperation
7) Feeling of Involvement

The disadvantages 2 to 4 can be avoided if the group leader is
experienced, The group techniques tried during this course , f or
example, avoided most of tti(:.;se problems. These can be summarized as:

The modified nominal group technique shown in Figure 16,

Constant referral to a management plan (Figures 1 and 2) or agenda

Use of Flip Charts to draw flow-sheets and to list and outline
major points. Thia slowed down the presentation and enabled
participants to think about the items and make their own notes.

Constant reference to case studies and examples to put the group
back on the track if it became diverted

Site visits as a group to allow informal discussions out of a
"conference" atmosphere.

Use, whenever possible of different, local interests to present
information. This increased the group's knowledge about what is
happening on the island and at the same time allowed the expert
speaker to gain friends and influence the group. The more people
involved in the group activity, the better. The speakers also
benefited in the exercise by reviewing, themselves, what they were
doing and why.

The problem of scheduling is not as great as it first appears if there

is advance notice and if each workshop is limited to a reasonable
length of time. And, if the number of projects to be evaluated is not
too great,

The advantages listed here and in 4.0 (Page 4S') outweigh the scheduling
problems. In fact, comments in the Seminar Phase showed that projects
which were simply passed along to individuals were often not evaluated
at all. The individuals have to make time to do the evaluation at some
point, anyway. If each is left to themselves, other priorities might
prevent getting to the evaluation until the last possible moment.

The prospect of sharing the experience also means that the participants
are more likely to spend time on the evaluation even before the
meeting.

The cross-fertilization of ideas which happen at a workshop is highly
valuable when considering environmental impacts.

Since the objective is to include the project proponent as well as the
agencies and the public in the project evaluations, scheduling a set
number of workshops becomes a valuable technique. As the situation now
stands, the project proponent, who may or may not be resident on the
island, has to appear at odd intervals and talk with different groups
1 4 C
and individuals. The pub hearing may require that the project
proponent set up a separate trip just for this, and way involve
bringing several support people to the island.

HOW CAN THE WORKSHOP PROCESS BE APPLIED TO THE PERMITTlNG PROCEDURE?

Figure 26 shows a system for incorporating the methodology of this
training course into the permitting process of' the CRMP.

The system would allow considerable time savings and a simplification
of procedures. In addition, the workshop system can offer, incentives
for the developer to come well prepared and hopefully without
"negotiation strategies".

A revised application form (Appendix A) will point out the way the
system works and how applicants can save themselves time and money by
following the process.

The screening meeting can be used to airectly process minor permits.
Thought should be given to adding more projects to the minor permit
program in view of the screening comments made in section 4.0.

At this meeting, the participants will set up a time for the SCOPING
workshop. The developer should be told that if preparation for the
workshop is good and the engineers collaborate with the agencies, there
will be few problems and the permit may be issued rapidly.

To save time for the agencies and the developer, a public hearing is
scheduled for the same workshop period.

The scoping workshop would have three phases and may require three
days. On the first day the project proponent meets with the

W 0 R, K S t-1 0 F> R E-7 FR M I -1F F> FZ 0 (-- E. S '-:3
C0A!3-F#!2%[- RaSOURCE: MANr%17.E:MF-:-N-T

M IF=- E-: y I N 0

I DEA- MINOR F U) F:@ f-I
CRMO & Vz M I I-
APPLICANT

"J,

GOOO

ASSEMBLE PROJECT DETAILS

PUBLISH NOTICE

n V, r, t I t-N I T 0 r-I F- 0 F-Z r"!
F-1 R 0 F3 t- U- r-1 f- -4--- ALL AGENCIES FEW PROBLEMS
TOO CREAT APPLICANT
PUBLIC

IDENTIFY PROBLEMS

BIC, PROBLE MS

7/ FEDERAL Ar;rNCIFS NOTIFIED fFLERAL
PERMITS

EAS REQUIRED
ON PROFBLEMS
IDENTI IED
IN WORKSHOP (--F-,' mr,
V- r- " I"i I I
MOPE OAIA 1 1LJ C- 0

I-- E-: V I rl W
w01--ZKSV40F' F:z r IF,
@\ 1 11 1 -1 0 Vz 7-
0 -T, r% ALL AGENCIES COND I T I ON';
G00D APPLICANT
Da A PUBLIC___.

nrJF3 FE"V70RCFH"F-@"T
f-- 0 1-1 R T I I
iL,"F4!&-TRL)CT 10" n"ID

M rZ N -T- V I C)L-A T T n"
"r=-nr:z I INIG <@L

Figure 26. Workshop Method of Permitting and Project Evaluation.

technical/professional staff of the agencies and they work with the
developer in scoping the problems. Naturally, the agency personnel
will have had advance notice and advance details about the project from
the project coordinator or CORE GROUP identified during the screening
meeting.

The second day (or that afternoon) the public is included in the
proceedings. First a panel discusses the project and what problems
have already been identified and solved. Then the public is encouraged
to contribute its views. The public also has had advance details on
the project published at the time of the notice of public hearing.

The business community should be advised through the Chamber of
Commerce and encouraged to contribute at this public workshop.

The project proponent and the government will then have everyone's
views at the same time and can, if needed, meet again the next day to
summarize the project needs.

If the developer has done a good planning job, and the project has few
problems, it can be processed quickly with the information and
agreements reached during this workshop.

If, however, there are serious problems and additional studies need to
be made, the developer will be advised of' exactly what problems need to
be worked on. Assistance can be given (at a charge) with engineering
or consultants can be recommended to work on the specified problems.

The developer can then have an Environmental Assessment Study (EAS)
conducted, but only on the specified problems. At present, EIS studies
consider many aspects of the environment which are not problematic.
Studies which are irrelevant to the issue are expensive and waste time
in the preparation and review process. This system thus represents
considerable savings to the developer and will encourage participation
at an early date in the design of the project to save time and money.

If additional studies are required, a third workshop, the review
workshop, is set up at a time agreed upon in the scoping workshop.
This provides a time-frame for the required study and enables
participants to plan ahead.

The review workshop is conducted in same pattern as the scoping
workshop but is oriented to evaluating the new information. The
agencies meet, then the public and business community is included, and
if the problems have been resolved in a satisfactory way agreements can
be made and the project permitted or denied. Under some circumstances,
perhaps with a fine for additional meeting costs, the project can be
allowed to supply still more information if they failed to address the
issues satisfactorily. This shculd be discouraged, however, as
repeatedly asking the same, questions is not likely to 8e t better and
better answers. More often, an inability to reach a satisfactory
solution indicates an unwillingness on someone's part to cooperate and
if this cannot be resolved in the three workshop schedule the project
should be dropped.

HOW CAN THE WORKSHOP PROCESS BE APPLIED TO REGIONAL TRAINING COURSES?

Figure 27 shows how the workshop process can be applied to regional
in-country training courses for resource management.

The Saipan experience did not follow this suggested pattern and it
should have. As the comments from the core group will show, the three
week continuous workshop was too long and it would have been
advantageous to split up the program into the three sessions shown in
Figure 27,

The introductory meeting would include a two day briefing with key
people in the government followed by a three day seminar to introduce
the government and public to the resource management program, its goals
and how it works to everyone's benefit. Discussion periods would
enable people to contribute suggestions and comments.

The results of the seminar would then be used to formulate the training
course curriculum. The seminar would also line up prospective training
course participants and these could assist in preparation for the thier
own training course.

During the months following the seminar, the course director could
assemble references and a work program tailored to the situation.
Books and reports which would be useful to the project could be aquired
and given to the participants and the island library at the time of' the
course.

The training course would work on needs identified at the seminar and
would, therefore, answer exactly the problems which had been identified
using examples identified during the seminar as working material,

The training course would instigate specific! projects which the core
group would work on for 6 months to a year. These projects would be
the development of skills or materials or programs to answer government
needs.

A third workshop would review the participant's projects and establish
what needs to be done to support, revise, or otherwise change the
projects. The review workshop would be an essential part of the
program as it provides the needed follow-through that is often lacking
in training programs in the islands today.

The review workshop should include the key government policy makers,
the public, and the business community to assure they are kept informed
and involved in the resource management program.

5.2 EVALUATION OF THE COURSE BY THE CORE GROUP

The core group evaluated the course according to a list of I questions
The full written reply is on file at the SPREP Secretariat. A summary
of these reply's is given here using the participant's own words with
slight editorial corrections.

Each lettered comment represents one individual's comments.

lr,J--C-.,0L)r,J-TV-Z'vl TRel%lflJTMC
F@OFZ Cot_%12l_TAL_ Fzl_=Sc)LjRcc M^N#nN(:ZE:ME__N_T_

INTROOUCTORY
M c- @ _r I rlj (.:;
2 DAYS IN-COUNTRY SPREP & IUCN
PREPARATION REPRESENTATIVES OF
ALL CONCERNED GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS
SENIOR OFFICIAk-S
BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES
3 DAY SEMINAR PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES

T U.0 F__ Pi r T F= le
(7-c)urlj TRY NF-E:L')--,

2 TO 4 MONTHS ASSEM9LE PROJECT DETAILS
A
NO MAT
ERIAILS

-TRd!N I N I NC
c: C) U FZZ __1 E=_

2 WEEKS SPREP @. IUCN INSTRUCTORS
CONCERNED GOVERNMENT OFFICERS

OTIJ lIDF_N-TlF'1[=-D
rl-: C3 U r1i _T Fz y r1i E7: E: 0 f,

N
6 TO 12 MONTHS WORKSHOP PROJECTS
IMPLE MENIED

R EE v I E___ w
WOF-;ZKSHOF@

MEMBERS OF INTRODUCTORY
MEETING REVIEW
3 DAYS RESULTS OF PROJECT
REVISIONS MADE

T M F, t- c M 1-= N'T FE D

Figure 27. Workshop Method for In-Country Training for Resource
Management.

QUESTION 1. What are your general comments on the course organization,
content, and length?

ORGANIZATION

A) The course was well organized and when related topics evolved,
the instructor always managed to bring back the main topic of the
day.

B) The instructor's expertise and experience in Island Ecosystems
has generated additional ideas to participants of this course.
Specifically.... the need for environmental awareness, long term
planning for a long term public benefit to island environments.

C) The course was very well organized. The instructors were well
prepared for the course, always ready and willing to answer any
question pertaining to the course. Inputs and outputs were highly
respected, handouts were very useful. information for the course
now and in the future as references.

D) The course was very well prepared and presented, the
organization excellent.

E) I was pleasantly surprised to find the course in general was
more useful to me than I might have expected. The organization
was effective.

F) From my own point of view, this course is really beneficial to
us' in terms of flow charts and the aspect of evaluation of
different projects and how to start making an EIS. The
organization was correct for this type of course.

G) Both instructors were very detailed in all the course material,
the explanations were clear and understandable. I learned what
the CRM program is and what it does for the environment. The
course was well organized, for example, before going on a site
visit we first discussed why we were visiting the site and
afterward we evaluated what we saw.

H) As CRM Representative for Tinian, I am pleased to have
participated in the workshop. I am newly hired for the job and I
believe that the workshop provided me with some tools and
techniques in assessing environmental impact to our island. We
are fortunate to have supurb instructors for the course. The
course was well organized.

CONTENT

A) The field trips were good in that they familiarized we with the
island and with field data collection methods. I was hoping for
more concentration on CRM rules and regulations and enforcement
methods and procedures. Great bio background presented wtih good
insights and methods on organizing EIS/EIA; good information on
steps/processes involved in setting up projects/assessments.

B) No objections to what was presented.

C) The content was exceptional. All pertinent information was
given, procedural mechanisms were discussed, directions were given
on how to screen, scope, make recommendations, and implement
various problems, etc. Field work was made available in order to
really see the physical problem areas, and recommend steps on how
to approach a good and acceptable Solution.

D) The content touched the major problems in the CNMI. The fact
that what we did or reviewed was real and happenin& now in the
CNMI made the course interesting.

E) The content was certainly pertinent.

F) We covered what should be discussed, such as the permit
process, the flow chart, CRM program, responsibil i ties, etc.

LENGTH

A) Too short (3 weeks) additional workshops are needed.

B) I believe the length of' a future course could be shortened to
two weeks,

C) The length and hours spent per, day is probably a little long.
I think the course will be improved if it was divided into 2 or 3
seperate workshops.

D) I enjoyed the whole three weeks and I am certain that there are
tons of information that could have been included to lenghten the
seminar.

E) Kind of long. It's hard to sit and listen and react and get it
all down on paper for three weeks.

F) No comment because the length depends on the materials and the
course description.

G) The length is about right.

QUESTION 2. What aspects o-IL' the course did you like best?

A) The review of the permit process and the analysis of
environmental impact assessment.

B) Conditional permits, monitoring and enforeemeft.

C) Two particularly relevant problems were chosen; the JAL Hotel
site and the decision about F-4 dump site. I found the site visit
to JAL, particularly useful. generally don't get a chance to
look at sites from a critical perspective. Some of the problems
were eye-opening.

D) The informal but to the point discussions between professor and
participants is best. I felt I was a part of' the course and not
just sitting in because I had to.

E) The flow charts enable CRMO to follow every procedure and rules
and regulations. This is the way to legally follow organizational
charts and to clearly understand each individual's role and
subjects needed to be examined. Secondly the matrix system works
very well. Thirdly, the open discussions on how to put out in
writing what CRM is really trying to say. Finally, I enjoyed all
the different speakers that participated during the course.

F) Good check lists, flow charts, that coincide with cour5e
materials. Great for future reference.

G) Using real situations as examples (ie. the JAL proposal).

H) Realistic studies and actually accomplishing case studies
pertinent to the immediate need of the CNMI.

QUESTION 3. What were the major problems with the course?

A) How to be really sure that a particular project will not impact
the resources.

B) Poor presentations by some of the agencies during the seminar.

C) The need to divide the course into a series of shorter
workshops.

D) We should have visited more areas, including permitted projects
and evaluate what needs to be done to take corrective measures.

E) The length was the major problem. The course could have been
divided into "workshops" and presented one week at a time over a
period of six months.

F) We need more workshops for our program.

G) Films and slides Would have been useful..

H) Inconsistent turn out by concerned agencies, More discussion
could have been generated if other programs and agencies were
present during the course.

QUESTION 4. Recommendations for future improvement of similar
workshops?

A) Mandatory attendance of all programs or agency managers.

B) Recommend that participants present individual case study as a
final contribution to the course.

C) The course should be upgraded to a graduate course for MA
program.

D) Exchange of staff from SPREP with the CNMI to teach a course on
an annual basis.

E) That a representative from the Governor's office be present to
assess information and recommendations made by the participants to
implement what was discussed during the session. I've been to
many workshops but there is no change in the department. (Note:
The Governor did attend the closing session and the individual who
made this recommendation was given the responsibility for his
agency of future coordination with the CRMO).

F) We should have used our group techniques for these
recommendations for the workshop.

G) It would be nice to see some films and have checklists and
flowcharts prepared in advance.

H) More guest speakers, more handouts, more class participation.
Divide the course into separate workshops of special topics. More
attendance by higher level people in the government.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE COURSES

The participan's comments lend weight to the original recommendations
which were used to formulate this course (Section 2). Many of the
problem areas and recommendations would be solved by using the workshop
method as illustrated in Figure 2'1 and discussed in 5.1.

Following the triple workshop method would encourage more participation
by all the agencies, better preparation, and follow-up.

The recommendation that each participant present an individual case
study, which is a good suggestion, is also included in the workshop
process outlined above.

5.3 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS BY CORE GROUP

The final exercise of the workshop was to have the participants present
their work to the seminar group. The governor and several of the
agency directors attended this closing exercise and the impact of this
was very great on both the participants and the policy makers.

C W
?E? MIT
,Opt

i-2

AIM UZI-

-7
Rk, L@ k-

IT-
."4 Ix,

Colo.
WIN

I.-Av Lw@
kno &Nftwm

- .@jj,
P444IT

.10
to,

Figure 28. Closing ceremony. Course Participants Ricardo Villagomez,
Calistro Falig, and Vic ente Aldan present their procedural. flow charts.
F-1 I @o(;@ 71

6.0 APPENDIX

6.1 REFERENCES

References of use during the. coupoo are given helow according to
subject areas.

CNMI RULES AND REGULATIONS AND LAWS PERTAINING TO COASTAL RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT.

Coastal Resources Management Rules and Regulations. February 15, 1985.
49 pp. Available from GRMO, Cffice of the Governor, 6th Floor, Nauru
Building, Saipan, CM 96950.

Leaflets from the CRMO:

The Permit Process. An excellent summary of the permit process.

Understanding your Coastal Resources. Why CRMP is needed.

You may need permits, licences or clearances to do business or
conduct projects in the Commonwealth. Lists all permit
requirements and who to contact.

Final Environmental Impact Statement of the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands Coastal Resources Management Program. More
than 200 pages of detailed information about the program, its history,
and who's who in the CNMI.

Public Law 3-47 of the Third Northern Marianas Commonwealth
Legislature, First Special Session, 1982. Establishes the CRMP and
describes its legal mandate.

OTHER REFERENCES ON COASTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Carpenter, R.A. (Editor). 1980. Natural Systems for, Development:
What Planners Need to Know. East-West Envir@onment and Policy
Institute. 485pp. MacMillan Publishing Company, N.Y. An excellent
guide to ecosystems management in island environments, should be
available to anyone involved with the CRMP evaluation process.

Clark, John. 1974. COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS: Ecological Considerations for
Management of the Coastal Zone. The Conservation Foundation/ 1717
Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036.

Eachern and Towle. 1974. Ecological Guidelines for Island
Development. IUCN Publications New Series No. 30.66pp. An excellent
summary of development problems on islands. IUCN address below.

Kenchington & Hudson. 1984 UNESCO Coral Reef Management Handbook.
281pp. An excellent reference book on coral reef management. UNESCO.
Regional Office for Science and Technology for Soulh-Eas, Asia. JL
Thamrin 14. Tromolpos 273/JKT. Jakarta, Indone5ia.

Lowry and Carpenter. 1984. Holistic Na tUr e and Fragmented

Bureaucracies: A Study of Government Organization for Natural S,slems
Management. East-West Environment and Policy Institute. East-West
Center. 1777 East-West Road. Honolulu, Hawaii 96848.

Marine and Coastal Processes in the Pacific: Ecological Aspects of
Coastal Zone Management. UNESCO seminar in PNG: 1980. 251PP.

Thaman and Rizer. 1983. Environmental Management for Resource
Development. 88pp. A report on a SPC Training Course at the
University of the Scuth Pacific. South Pacific Regional Environment
Programme (SPREP). South Pacific Commission. Noumea BP D5. New
Caledonia.

Valencia and Neuman, 1981. Proceedings of the Workshop on Coastal Area
Development and Management in Asia and the Pacific. 1979. East-West
Center, Hawaii.

World Conservation Strategy. Living Resource Conservation for
Sustainable Development. Distributed during the course. International
Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1196 Gland,
Switzerland

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Polling, C.S. (Editor). 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and
Management. John Wiley & Sons. New York.

Horberry, J. 1984a. Status and Application of Environmental Impact
Assessment for Development. USE/UNEP International Seminar on
Environmental Impact Assessment for Development. Conservation for
Development Centre. IUCN. Avenue de Mont-Blanc, CH1196. Gland.
Switzerland. Parts distributed during the course as hand-outs.

Horberry, J. 1984b. Summary Paper on Environmental Impact Assessment
with Special Emphasis on Rural Development: Its Current Status and
Application to Developing Countries, IUCN Conservation for Development
Centre, address above. Distributed during the course.

Kaufman, R.A. 1972. Educational System Planning. Prentice-Hall.
This is a book on systems planning which was used to develop the course
strategy.

Nichols, R. and E. Hyman. 1982. Evaluation of Environmental
Assessment Methods. Ea5t-West Environment and Policy Institute.
Reprint No. 34. East-West Center, Hawaii.

IMPACT OF TOURISM ON ISLANDS

Pearce, D.G. (Editor). 1980. Tourism in the South Pacific. The
Contribution of Research to Development and Planning. UNESCO Tourism
Workshop, Rarotonga, 1980. UNESCO New Zealand Man and Biosphere Report
No.6. Department of Geography, University of Canterbury, Christchurch,
1980. An excellent summary of the impact of' tourism on islands. The
chapter on Economic Impact Analysis in Tourism Planning and Development
was distributed at the course.

Rajotte, F. and R. Crocombe (Editors). 1980. Pacific Tourism as
islanders see it. Institute of Pacific Studies, University of the
South Pacific. Suva, Fiji. Written by Pacific Islanders, the story of
what they have experienced with tourism development.

United Nations Environment Programme. 1984. Tourism and the
Environment. Industry and Environment March, 1984. Vol-70).
Excellent case studies and ideas concerning tourism development.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HOTEL NIKKO

M&E Pacific. 1985. Environmental. Assessment for Hotel Nikko Saipan.
Hotel Nikko Saipan, Inc. Saipan, CNMI 96950.

WATER REFERENCES FOR SAIPAN

Barrett & Harris. 1984. Baseline Information and Problem
Identification. Water and Related Land Resources, CMNI. Army Corps of
Engineers, Ft. Shafter, Hawaii.

Condra, J.S. !985. Water Supply Analysis Study for the Island of
Saipan. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. P.O. Box
631, Viksburg, Miss. 39180.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1959. Military Geology of Saipan,
Mariana Island. Volume II. Water Resources.

GK2, Inc./CE Maquire, Inc. 1982. "Saipan Water Supply System Study,"
Saipan, CNMI.

LANDFILL REFERENCES

Duenas and Swavely, Inc. 19811. Investigations for Preliminary Site
Selection. Saipan Sanitary Landfill. Prepared for Division of
Environmental Quality CNMI.

Duenas and Swavely, 1984. Interim Operations Plan. Puerto Rico Dump.
Saipan CNMI.

6.2 DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE

SEMINAR ON

PROJECT EVALUATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

COASTAL RESOURCES

IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDS

13 TO 16 MAY 1985

SAIPAN

PRESENTED BY

THE COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

THE SOUTH PACIFIC COMMISSION'S

SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE

AND NATURAL RESOURCES

FOR

TRAINING COURSE PARTICIPANTS, POLICY MAKERS, AND

ALI, INTERESTED PARTIES

MONDAY 13 MAY: EVALUATION OF EXISTING PERMITTING AND ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES. (CHAIRPERSON, TAMI GROVE).

08:00 Opening ceremony. Governor's Representative Francisco
Rosario opens seminar and course with the governor's statement on
the importance of planning for sustainable development and the
proper management of natural resources. CRMO Acting Administrator
Tami Grove presents an introduction to the CRMO.

09:00 SPREP Course Director, The South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme and what the course hopes to accomplish.

09:30 Coffee Break

10:00 Attorney General, Rex Kosack: The Legal Mandate.

10:30 CRMO Director: The Present Evaluation and Permitting
procedure.

6.2 DETAILED SCHEDULE OF SEMINAR AND WORKSHOP

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE

SEMINAR ON

PROJECT EVALUATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF'

COASTAL RESOURCES

IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANAS ISLANDS

13 TO 16 MAY 1985

SAIPAN

PRESENTED BY

THE COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT OFFICE

THE SOUTH PACIFIC COMMISSION'S

SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF NATURE

AND NATURAL, RESOURCES

FOR

TRAINING COURSE PARTICIPANTS, POLICY MAKERS, AND

ALI, INTERESTED PARTIES

MONDAY 13 MAY:, EVALUATION' OF EXISTING PERMITTING AND ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES. (CHAIRPERSON, TAMI GROVE).

08:00 Opening ceremony. Governor's Representative Francisco
Rosario opens seminar and course with comment on the importance of
planning for sustainable development and the proper management of
natural resources. CRMO Acting Administrator Tami Grove presents
an introduction to the CRMO.

09:00 SPREP Course Director, The South Pacific Regional
Environment Programme and what the course hopes to accomplish.

09:30 Coffee Break

10:00 Attorney General, Rex Kosack: The Legal Mandate.

10:30 CRMO Director- The Present Evaluation and Permitting
Procedure.

11.*00 Discussion, questions and answers.

12:00 Lunch Break

1:00 Representatives of Lead Agencies present how they now process
permit requests and project evaluation. DEQ, DNR, DCL, DPW, HPO.

3:00 Coffee Break

3:15 Discussion of procedures and problem areas.

TUESDAY 14 MAY: ROLE OF THE PUBLIC, INDUSTRY, SCIENTIFIC CONSULTANTS,
AGRICULTURE AND EDUCATION IN PROJECT EVALUATION. FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT.
IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM AREAS AND CASE STUDIES.

08:00 SPREP Course Director. Overview of previous session and
plan for the day.

08:30 Representative of the Public, Congressman Benigno Sablan.
The role of the Public in planning, permitting and evaluation.

09:00 Representative of Industry, Paul Manglona. The industrial
view. Norman Tenorio, Saipan Chamber of Commerce (Ms.
Submitted).

09:30 Coffee Break.

10:00 Marianas Public Land Corporation, Fr,-.nk Guerrero.

10:30 Environmental Consultants and the Role of Scientific
Expertise, Ivan Groom, Richard Randall.

11:00 Federal Involvement, Tarni Grove, Bill. Lopp.

12:00 Lunch Break

1:30 The need for Agricultural Considerations. Charlie Frear

2:00 Educational Needs and Possibilities for Coastal Resource
Management. Agnes McPhetres.

3:00 to 3:15 Coffee Break

3:00 General Discussion

WEDNESDAY 15 MAY: ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORING. SITE VISITS TO OBSERVE
PROBLEM AREAS OF CASE STUDIES.

08:00 SPREP Course Director. Review and Plans for the day.

08:15 Analysis of problems in monitoring, enforcement, and
alteration of projects after permitting. The conditional permit.

CRMO Ben Aldan, DEQ, DPW, DNR.

09:30 Coffee Break

10:00 Form work groups to examine problems and develop alternative
guidelines for monitoring and enforcement.

11:00 Work Groups report and discuss results.

11:30 Lunch Break

1:00 Site Visits to observe problem areas in the field.

THURSDAY 16 MAY: ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR EVALUATION OF' PROJECTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLVING PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS.

08:00 Course Director. Adaptive Resource Management.

08:30 Formation of Work Groups to summarize and determine the
relative importance of problems identified in the seminar.

09:30 Coffee Break

10:00 Resume work group activity.

11:30 Lunch Break

1:00 Work Groups report and discuss findings.

1:30 Work groups develop alternatives and recommendations.

3:15 Coffee Break

3:30 Work groups report and discuss results.

SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES FOR THE

TRAINING COURSE ON

PROJECT EVALUATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF

COASTAL RESOURCES

IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

17 TO 30 MAY 1985

FOR

APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES WITH

PARTICIPATION BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.

FRIDAY 17 MAY: RESOURCE ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF PROJECTS.

08:00 Objectives of the Course and Introduction to Environmental
Planning. Course Director.

08:30 Long Term Resource Planning. Tools and Techniques. Bill
Concepcion, MPLC.

10:00 Coffee Break

10:30 Ecological Field Studies. Richard Randall.

11:30 Lunch Break

1:00 Environmental Impact Assessment for Projects - Screening,
Scoping, and Workshop Strategies. Richard Chesher.

3:00 Coffee Break

3:30 General discussion.

MONDAY 20 MAY: APPLICATION OF SEMINAR FINDINGS TO PROJECT EVALUATION.
PROJECT 1. THE PROPOSED JAL NIKKO HOTEL. SCREENING AND STUDY REVIEW.
CONSTRUCTION OF GUIDELINE CHARTS AND CHECKLISTS.

08:00 Overview of project evaluation technique and screening
techniques. Richard Chesher.

09:00 Impact of proposed hotel on Lagoon, the U of Guam Study
Richard Randall

10:00 Discussion on evaluation of consultant's reports and working

with consultants.

12:00 Lunch Break

01:30 Work groups develop wall charts to summarize seminar
findings and CRM guidelines and checklists such as:

Evaluation Process check lists and flow-sheets.

Agency Responsibilities

Monitoring and Enforcement checklists and flow-sheets

TUESDAY 21 MAY: APPLICATION OF GUIDELINES TO PROJECT EVALUATION. NIKKO
HOTEL SITE VISIT. ANALYSIS OF RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS, BIOLOGICAL,
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS.

08:00 Site visit to proposed development area, examination of
basic field considerations and outline of information needs.

12:00 Lunch Break

1:00 Evaluation and Administration review of development proposal.
Use of flow sheets and check lists.

1:30 Work Groups consider Resource Requirements (Space, Fresh
Water, Food, Materials, Labor, Transportaion, Government Support).

2:30 Discussion

3:00 Work Groups consider Economic, Cultural, Aesthetic resources.

4:00 Discussion

WEDNESDAY 22 MAY: PROJECT 1 ANALYSIS (CONTINUED). EVALUATION OF
REPORTS, FEDERAL PARTICIPATION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION,

08:00 Review of impact analysis. Richard Chesher

08:30 Federal Permits. Frank Dayton, U.S. Army Engineers.

09:30 Coffee Break

10:00 Public Awareness and Participation

10:30 Discussion

12:00 Lunch

1:00 Water, a critical resource. Pedro Sasamoto, Governor's
Office.

2:00 Work Groups discuss R-commendations to NIKKO Hotel Permit,

Monitoring and Enforcement.

THURSDAY 23 MAY: PROJECT 1 ANALYSIS CONTINUFD. GETTING AND MAYNTAINING
INFORMATION, PREPARATION AND COMMUNICATION OF RESULTS. CONDITIONAL
PERMITS.

08:00 Getting Information. The application form & guidelines for
developers.

09:00 Responsibilities and methods for obtaining and maintaining
additional needed information. Literature Searches, Libraries,
Information Sources.

09:30 Coffee Break

10:00 Preparation and Communication of Results

10:30 Formation of Work Groups to Examine Permit Conditions and
the correct Writing of these.

12:00 Lunch Break

1:30 Work Groups Prepare Presentation of Results for NIKKO Hotel
study.

FRIDAY 24 MAY: CONCLUSION OF NIKKO HOTEL PROJECT AND START OF ANALYSIS
FOR SANITARY LANDFILL SITE SELECTION.

08:00 Consultation with JAL Airline Representatives.

08:30 The Artificial Lagoon Concept: Hans Krock, JAL Consultant.

09:30 Storm Drains. Hiroshi Takagi, JAL.

10:00 Coffee Break

10:15 Project 2: Site Selection for a new Sanitary Landfill Site.
Review of Literature, Identification of Impact Concerns, Matrix
Analysis. Work Groups.

12:00 Lunch Break

1:00 Site Visits to Landfill Sites. All Afternoon.

TUESDAY 28 MAY: PROJECT 2 COMPLETION. REPORT WRITING. IMPLEMENTATION
GAP.

08:00 Review of Landfill findings.

08:30 Work Groups Finish Landfill Matrix and Plans for present
Dump Closure.

10:00 Report Writing.

12:00 Lunch Break

1:30 Reality Testing: Are the problems really problems?

2:00 The Implementation Cap. How to Get a Project Started.

2:30 A Research Library Project. Work Groups & Agnes McPhetres.

WEDNESDAY 29 MAY: SUMMARY OF RESULTS. EVALUATION. REVIEW OF
PRESENTATION.

08:00 Overview of Workshop Method of Project Evaluation.

09:00 Work Groups Evaluate Course

10:00 Review of Projects, flow charts, and presentation on
Thursday.

THURSDAY 30 MAY: U.S. ARMY ENGINEER WATER WORKSHOP. CLOSING CEREMONY.
PRESENTATION OF COURSE RESULTS.

08:00 U.S. Army Water Workshop.

1:00 Rehersal for presentation.

4:30 Summary of Workshop Activities. Tami Grove. Richard
Chesher.

5:00 Closing Comments. Governor Pedro P. Tenorio.

5;15 The role of the College in Workshops. Agnes McPhetres.

5:30 Presentation of SPREP/IUCN Certificates and CNM Certificates.
Tami Grove and Governor Tenorio

5:45 Presentation of Workshop Activities. Workshop Participants.

6.3 TEXT OF COMMENTS BY SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS

REMARKS OF FRANCISCO ROSARIO
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
AT THE TRAINING COURSE ON PROJECT EVALUATION
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL RESOURCES IN THE CNMI
MAY 13, 1985

On behalf of the Governor, I am pleased to welcome you to the opening
session of this important training course, particularly those of you
who have come from off-island to share your knowledge of the process of
project evaluation. The governor is unable to attend and extends his
sincere regrets and apologies. He asked me to convey to you the
following observations.

As those of you who live here are well aware, progress and development
have been major goals of this administration. And, as we watch the
growing volume of business and the increasing number of development
projects in our islands, we are pleased by the faith shown in the
Commonwealth as a place to grow and prosper. It is in the best
interest of our Commonwealth citizens that these activities cont. i nue
and expand.

At the same time, the government and a growing number of our people are
also well aware of the need for growth which takes into account our
island resources so that future generations will continue to advance
and benefit from them as we are doing presently. The Coastal Resources
Management Office and the other, government departments and agencies
represented here today share this important responsibility.

It is the modern way to plan and consider the effects of development in
advance. It would not serve our increasingly important tourist
industry, for example, to allow activities which would pollute or
otherwise damage our environment. The techniques you will be learning,
or in some cases teaching, in the next three weeks, will serve to help
us plan for the continuing development we are experiencing, and to
better assess projects proposed for our islands. It is very simple....
properly applied, this approach to development can allow us to have our
cake and eat it too. With proper management, we can have continued
growth, now and in the future, while maintaining the resources that are
so important to all of us,

We would like to say how pleased we are by this fine example of
regional cooperation through the South Pacific Regional Environment
,Program of the South Pacific Commission. The Commonwealth is a long
way from New Caledonia, but we are an active part of this ocean-wide
program. We may be small islands but we do not stand alone in our need
to protect our ocean environment. The South Pacific Commission links
us together and helps us join our skills and efforts with all other
island countries and with the rest of the world. As an example, tile
South Pacific Commission helped bring expertise from the International
Conservation Organization to support this training course.

I encourage each of you to study hard and learn well from this course.

6.3 TEXT OF COMMENTS BY SEMINAR PARTICIPANTS

GOVERNORS POLICY STATEMENT PRESENTED BY FRANCISCO ROSARIC
COMMONWEALTH OF THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS
AT THE TRAINING COURSE ON PROJECT EVALUATION
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COASTAL RESOURCES IN THE CNMI
MAY 13, 1985

On behalf of the Governor, I am pleased to welcome you to the opening
session of this important training course, particularly those of you
who have come from off-island to shape your knowledge of the process of
project evaluation. The governor is unable to attend and extends his
sincere regrets and apologies. He asked me to convey to you the
following observations.

At the same time, the government and a growing number of our people are
also well aware of the need for growth which takes into account our
island resources so that future generations will continue to advance
and benefit from them as we are doing presently. The Coastal Resources
Management Office and the other government departments and agencies
represented here today share this important responsibility.

We would like to say how pleased we are by this fine example of
regional cooperation through the South Pacific Regional Environment
Program of the South Pacific Commission. The Commonwealth is a long
'way from New Caledonia, but we are an active part of this ocean-wide
program. We may be small islands but we do not stand alone in our need
to protect our ocean environment, The South Pacific Commission links
us together and helps us join our skills and efforts with all other
island countries and with the rest of the world. As an example, the
South Pacific Commission helped bring expertise from the International
Conservation Organization to support this training course.

I encourage each of you to study hard and learn well from this course.

"COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: ENVIRONMENTS AND ECONOMICS"

Comments By

TAMI GROVE
Acting Administrator
Coastal Resources Management Office

to the

COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT/SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL
FNVIRONMENT PROGRAM

Seminar on

Proiect Evaluation for the Development

of Coastal Resources

May 13, 1985
Hyatt Regoncy Hotel , Saipan

The need for management of coastal resources is based in the fact that
coastal areas, particularly islands, are made up of -finite resources thaL
are both valuable and vulnerable to the activities of inan. Here in the
CNMI, the underlying intent of coastil resources management is to place
the Commonwealth in a better Position to accomodate 'the de!-nands of a
growing population and @he needs of an expanding economy without having
to unnecessarily comproinise its rich natural, cultural and historic

resources.

The primary goal of the Coastal Resources Management Program, in the
Commonwealth thus is to provide a mechanism for the Commonwealth to proillote
and reaulate development in a wise and orderly manner. The program is
concerned with protecting the develor)inent community and general local
population alike, by striving to maintain and protect the resources upon
which the economic viability of both is dependent.

Coastal resources management calls for a comprehensive and coordinated
approach to managing sensitive land and water resources, conflicts,
problems and issues. To name just a few, these include:

1) maintaining air and @qater ouality by carefully controlling the
release of pollutants
2 safeguarding life and property from stonn and typhoon damage by
directing development away from floodplains and. storm surge

areas
3) promoting marine resources SLIch as -fisheries by protecting
fragile habitat areas
4) encouraoing public heach access by striking a balance between
the rights of private property owners and the rights of the
public for access to areas of public domain.

One often finds that-land-and water-use management agencies are characterized
as being concerned only with environmental impacts, not economic

considerations. However, environmental resources are in fact economic
resources. And, in many cases, the healthier the environmental resources,
the higher their long-ten-n value.

Looking at our islands' tourism economy is a good example of this. The
attraction of the CNMI as a tourist destination is largely due to such
factors as its clear blue waters, its varied marine resources, its scenic
views and its historic properties. The overuse or abuse of these
re.sources could well spell doom -for the future of the tourist industry.
Thus, protecting the islands' environment and the quality of the life of
the people who live here actually makes good business sense.

Many of you will recall the conference that we hosted here last November
under the theme "Coastal Resources Management - A Tool for Sound Development."
During the course of the conference, we looked at the many opportunities
that coastal resources management offers to the government, business
community and private sector in quiding and promoting sound economic
development. Conference participants began to dispell the notion that the
government's goals and objectives for environmental management are
diametrically opposed to the investment community's goals and objectives
for economic development. It became clear that quite often the government
and private sector will find themselves on the same side of the fence
looking for the most economical long-term success of a project or planning

area.

An example of this type of situation is designing sewage disposal systems.
While environmental quality agencies look to solutions which prevent the
contamination of land and water resources, developers can be safeguarded
against design problems which may have been overlooked. In some cases,
the developer may find himself saved by the government's guidelines which
avoid problems created by rising water tables during the rainy season.
Such could bring raw sewage to the surface of the developers property,
representing both a health problem and potential devaluation of the land.
k

Or, other designs can keep developers from having to pay the potential cost
of sewage clean-up along his property's coastline. in such instances, the
economic costs associated with properly desicining a sewage disposal, system
in the beginning are genera",ly far less than the economic losses suffered
in redesigning a system, clean-up or less of clientale.

Another example of this sort is ill-planned land clearing in erosion
prone areas. Bulldozing vegetation WithOLlt consideration of the Impact of
heavy rains during the rainy season or void of any erosion control measures
can result in massive runoff and sedimentation into the islands' waterways
and lagoons, despite how far inland -the earth i,,,,oving activity might or-cur.
Not only is valuable top soil lost, but water quality is effected and 111arine
organisms, particularly coral, can be smothered. More economic losses may
be suffered due to the loss of habitat for fish (which means fewer fish for
fisherman) and the loss of a healthy reef which series as a wave barrier to
the storms that regularly strike our shores.

It is precisely these types of coastal resources management "tools" for
sound development and avoidance of unnecessary economic losses that thIs
seminar and training course will seek -to identify, examine, expand and
improve.

Perhaps the greatest "tool" coastal resources management offers is the
cutting of government "red-tape" by coordinatin g inter-agency
responsibilities and requirements. The Commonwealth's Coastal Resources
Management Program is not one agency, but actually a network of several,
including DNR, DCL, DPW, DEQ and HPO. These agencies provide analysis
of social, economic and environmental considerations in resource management
planning and in the assessment of specific projects. Many benefits are
gained by such a network. Permit processing -is simplified and streamlined
by having the CRM Office act as a noint of contact 'for permit applicants;
the CRM Office in -turn works to contact and coordinate- with all pertinent-
federal and local agencies. The process often provides man advantages to
y

project proponents by providing information which may range from, applying
flor Army Corps of Engineer permits to calculating power supplies and
Often during the process unforeseen problems can flushed out, the most

S4
appropriate available :+I-es -',Or a proposed project can be evaluated., and
engineering designs might 'De enhanced.

Through such intergovernmental coordination , CRM agencies can get an
idea of what development is happening, of what types, in what locations
and of planning efforts needing to be undertaken in order to prepare for
that development. These efforts can also reduce investors risks by
offering an assurance that compatible adjacent activities will received
highest priorities in future management decisions. This adds to the
stability of land values by discouraging such situations as auto repair
shops opening next to restaurants or heavy industrial uses being allowed
to operate next to hotel developments.

Whether a private businessman, government official or member of the public,
coastal resources management does indeed provide many tools to guide the
wise development of the islands. The primary aim of this sewinar is thus
to increase peoples understanding of, and participation in, the development
process, thereby making coastal resources management more efficient,
cost-effective, predictable and streamlined. 14ith your participation, we
hope to identify the strengths and weaknesses of CRM's current operations,
with a eye to expanding and improving the Program. I strongly encourage
your participation and constructive criticism in the next few days. Thank
you again for attending.

THE LEGAL MANDATE
FOR COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Comments By

REX KOSACK
Attorney General
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

to the

COASTAL MANAGEMENT/SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL
ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM

Seminar on

Project Evaluation for the Development
of Coatjtal Resources

May 13, 1985
Hyatt ReSency Hotel, Saipan

THE LEGAL MANDATE

I have been asked to talk to you about the legal mandate - the
oblgations of the public industry and departments. Yet
notice that other speakers will be discussing in detail the heart
of the CRM program, the permitting process, so I will address the
law itself. It is important to start the week off by
understanding the foundation of the program.

1. Problem

In 1969 the U.S. Commission on Marine Science recommended
the establishment of, coastal zone authoritis in each state. The
U.S. Coastline was recognized as a limited and vital resource
that was being lost and damaged due to a lack of effective
management.

A. The pressures placed on the coastline today are
considerable.

1. Over half of the population of the U.S. lives near
the ocean or the Great Lakes. By the year 2000, 80% of the U.S.
population will live within 50 miles of U.S. shoreline.

2. In addition to residential development, the coast
is being, used more for resort development. Hotels, marinas and
large resorts being more people to the coast.

3. In recent years, recreational uses of the coast
have increased. People come to the ocean to swim, lie on the
beach, hang glide, dune buggies, dirt bikes, camp, fish,
jog, sail, water ski, and scuba dive.

4. While each recreational use of the coast competes

with another for space, there are competing industrial uses. The
nation relies on its coastline for much of its commercial
shipping. The ports of the United States are still among the
busiest in the world.

5. Fisheries are based on the coastline. Fleets of
boats daily harvest fish and she11fish from within the coastal
zone.

6. At the same time, the nation is depending more on
this area and adjacent areas for its energy needs. Offshore
platforms are tapping the oil found off the coast. Ocean mining,
as well, is being seriously developed as yet another competing
need.

II. Result

A. The increasing demands placed on the coastline have

generated new problems.

1. The coastal zone is an area which is extremely
vulnerable to destruction. At risk are its living marine
resources which may be irretrievably lost or damaged.

2. The scarcity of land has resulted in conflicts
over how the shoreline be used. Among the competing
interest groups are the state and the federal government which
have developed different priorities.

3. At the, same time, private ownership of land
adjacent to the shore has caused the public to lose access to the
coast. The rights of private owner versus the public have to
be weighed.

4. As the coast is developed, development itself
creates issues. What is to be done about waste disposal? In
dredging harbors, disposal sites need to be identified.

5. Development without coastal planning can result in
the destruction of property and the loss of lives. If natural
protective features (such as barrier islands and sand dunes) are
removed, storm protection is lost. Erosion, landslides and wave
damage may result.

6. In an attempt to respond to these problems, a few
states had attempted to regulate their coastlines. Developers
were faced with a maze of hearing procedures at the state and
federal levels with no coordination between the two.

111. Coastal Zone Management Act

A. On October 27, 1972, Congress reported out the Coastal
Zone Management Act. It was signed into law same day.

1. The Act begins with congressional findings that
increasing and competing demands upon the coastal zone have
resulted in the loss of living marine resources, adverse changes
to ecological systems, decreasing open space for public use and
shoreline erosion. That present state planning and regulation of
uses are inadequate. States would be encouraged to exercise
their full authority over the coastal zone.

2. In order to induce coastal states to develop land
and water use programs in the coastal zone, federal money
(grants) were made available to states for this purpose.

a. Coastal states includes the CNMI and the
TTPI. And, coastal zone was defined as the outer limit of the
U.S. territorial sea and inland to the extent necessary to
control shorelands.

b. The program of approving grants and

-2-

monitoring programs was finally placed under the Secretary of
Commerce. (The Senate had provided for this; the House put it
under interior.)

C. Grants: There are three basic grants
available to coastal states where U.S. will pay 80% of program
costs. For territories, the U.S. picks up the entire cost.

(1) Management Program Development
Grant - this grant supports the cost of developing a CRM program
and its initial implementation.

(2) Administrative Grant - this grant
supports the cost of maintaining a CRM program.

(3) Resource Management Improvement
Grant - this provides money for the purchase of land or
low-cost construction for three purposes:

(a) to preserve or restore an area,

(b) to redevelop deteriorating
waterfronts and ports, or

(This grant is project-oriented.)

d. Federal Consistency. The CZMA does more than
provide grants to encourage states, to engage in comprehensive
planning and regulation. It provides federal authority to state
programs through the federal consistency provisions.

(1) Federal agencies must conduct their
activities, to the maximum extent practicable, in a manner
consistent with state management programs.

(2) Applicants for federal permits must
certify that their program complies with the state program. The
state is notified and if its CRM program objects, no federal
license is granted.

B. After 13 years, the CZMA has spent $187 million on
developing CRM programs in 28 coastal states. The primary
coastal States without programs are Ohio (Great Lakes), Georgia
and Texas. Funding ends in September of this year. Senate Bill
959, if approved, would continue funding. The program has
previously been reauthorized, in 1980.

-3-

IV. The CNMI Response

A. In early 1980, a CRM program was estblished in the
CNMI by Governor Camacho under Executive Order No. 15. The
Office was placed in the Governor's Office and was justified
under an executive order as a reorganization of government
without a change in law. Regulations were promulgated under the
combined authorities of:

Attorney General
Commerce & Labor
Public Health
Natural Resources
Public Works

B. On February 11, 1983, the Coastal Resources Management
Act of 1983 was signed into law.

1. The CRMO was retained in the Governor's Office
with a Program Administrator appointed by the Governor.

2. A Coastal Advisory Council was established to
advise the CRMO on any proposed change in the program or its
regulations, and to interpret the CRM policies and regulations.

a. Mayors
b. Spec. Ass't. Carolinian Affairs
C. MPLC Chairman
d. Executive Director
e. Ports Authority Executive Director
f. Chamber of Commerce President
Senate g. Historic Preservation Officer
h. Legislative staff member from House and Senate
i. Three public members appointed by Governor:

(1) fisheries
(2) construction
(3) subsistence lifestyle

3. An Appeals Board set up

a. Three persons, advice and consent appoints
which rules on appeals from coastal permit decisions.

V. Program Agencies

Regulatory agencies designated are DNR, C & L, DPW, DEQ,
Historic Preservation. They may jointly establish a permit
system by regulation.

A. At that time the 1980 regulations were still in effect.
Public Law 3-47 kept them in effect until changed.

-4-

B. Any change in regulations was to follow the Admin.
Procedures Act 30-day's notice and 10 days adoption) and then
receive legislative approval. That procedure was determined to
be unconstitutional by AG Opinion as violating the separation of
powers.

C. So, in 1984 the CRM regulatory agencies adopted new
regulations by only following the Admin. Procedures Act.

Public Law 3-47 is essentially an enabling act. It sets down
very few procecures; instead, it leaves that for the regulations.

1. It gives the CRM Office several powers and duties:

a. coordinate planning CRM policies by gov't
b. monitor CNMI activities for consistency with
CRM policies;

c. provide coordination and decisions on whether
federal activities affecting coastal resources are consistent;

d. to receive federal CRM funding;
e. to subgrant federal funds;
f. to regularly publish status of permit
activities and means by which any person may request a public
hearing;

g. operate a broad and effective public
education program;

h. to provide staff for Advisory Council and the
Appeals Board;
i. to ensure consistency of permit decisions
with regulations and with policy of this Act;

j. to coordinate permit process;
promote economic development of coastal
areas,

1. to ensure that modifications of regulations
are consistent with policies of Act;

m. to initiate conflict resolution procedures
when CRMO interprets CNMI obligations different than other
agencies.

VI. Permit Process

As you are probably aware, the CRMO does not make permit
decisions. It is a caretaker agency to ensure program
compliance, provide staff assistance, education and enforcement.

The permit decisions are made by the regulatory agencies,

-5-

who must prepare a joint written decision within 60 days of
receiving request for review.

That decision must comply with any land and water use plans
adopted by the Legislature.

If the agencies are unable to agree, their recommendations
shall be summarized in writing and submitted to the Governor who
will decide the disagreement.

The Appeals Board is available to aggrieved persons from the
decision of the agencies. Application must be made within 30
days of the decision and the Board shall decide within 30 days of
application. If a party is dissatisfied with that decision, may
appeal to Commonwealth Trial Court. Commonwealth Trial Court
does not make its own decision, but only decides whether the
Board had substantial evidence for its decision.

VII. Penalties.

A. Violation of Act (hard to do) or
regulations -----------------------------civil fine $10,000 day

B. Felony - Knowiningly and willfully commits act
prohibited by the Act ------------------- 5 years/$2,000 (C/T)

C. AG may sue for exemplanary damages in court if person
intentionally and knowingly violates regulations.

D. False statement or certification in application or
document

or
Falsifies, makes unaccurate, any monitoring device or
method

----- permit revocation/suspension
$10,000 civil fine each violation

VII. Summary

A. You now have legal background in Act unlikely to take
time to acquire. Now, all needs be studied are, the regulations
where substance is found. From your agenda will be going over
them all week in greater detail than I could give you in a half
hour.

B. CNMI has fragile coastal resources. Perhaps all of its
resources - land, water and reef - are all very scarce and easily
exhausted. The people of the NMI depend more and live in a
closer relationship to their resources than people do in the
States. So, maybe we can conclude that the need for a management
program in the CNMI is greater than elsewhere.

-6-

C. Certainly, commercial development proceeds here at a
frantic pace. New hotels are being planned, existing ones are
expanding. New housing subdivisions are being added, new
aparement buildings, new workers barracks. There is a need to
harmonize all of these activities with future. To balance
the benefit of economic growth with any negative impart they pose
to our natural resources.

D. Fortunately, this program exists while we are in the
early years of government and development. We enjoy an advantage
for future planning few states have. Many states are faced with
the task of restoration only; our challenge is preservation of
what we presently enjoy.

I see CRM as the CNMI's only zoning agency. As such, it is
likely to encounter all sorts of difficulties. But, none of us
should forget its value to the future of the Commonwealth.

-7-

COMMENTS BY NORMAN TENORIO, PRESIDENT OF THE
SAIPAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

Thank you for inviting me to speak to you on behalf of the Saipan
Chamber of Commerce, a non profit organization.

With a membership of 134 companies, the Chamber represents the majority
of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands private sector.

Although the CNMI Coastal Resources Management Program has made life
difficult for us from time to time, we firmly believe it to have merit.
As the only land use management law where, it is needed to control and
balance development of our beautiful coastal areas.

Without a planning and management program such as CRM we would be left
to face haphazard and unsightly development, to the detriment of our
growing tourism economy and reef fisheries.

The Coastal Resources Managememt Program has helped the private sector
in other ways also. For example, its enabling legislation guarantees
the Chamber of Commerce a seat in the Coastal Advisory Council, perhaps
the only legislation which does this.

The program also funded the Saipan Lagoon Use Management Plan, the
policies of which were developed with strong private sector
representation, including the Saipan Chamber of Commerce.

The program funded landscaping of beach areas to prevent shoreline
erosion which also happened to beautify the area for our residents and
visitors.

At a recent economic development conference, which we note included
several representatives of the CRM program, a number of issues were
endorsed of interest to this group. These include recommendations to:

Develop a storm drainage master plan and AE plans and on-site
drainage to avoid degradation of coastal waters.

Establish an island wide solid waste collection system

Develop middle road-texas road as the main north south route and
make beach road a scenic highway.

Prepare an area management plan to guide private development in
the Chalan Kiya-golfcourse, Koblerville, San Antonio, Chalan Piao
areas.

Place a 10 year moratorium on the allocation of the former coast
guard station.

Develop a lower base industrial park for non polluting industries
which are not water and power intensive.

Improve the Saipan Fishing Complex in Garapan with boat launch

105

ramps, mooring, gasoline sale and minor dredging.

Maximize the use of historic structures.

Develop and "old town" plan for Chalan Kanoa.

Close Puerto Rico dump and use the space for parks.

Implement zoning and building codes.

Obtain full benefit from its memberships in regional organizations
such as the South Pacific Regional Environmental Program, which is
conducting this workshop along with CRM.

Determine the best uses for the remaining undeveloped coastal
spaces, and consider redevelopment of certain areas along the
lagoon.

Attract and develop industries capable of developing resources
within the 200 mile zone.

Support the Saipan Lagoon Use Management Plan.

Use wetlands first for natural functions, second for sustainable
extractable uses; exploit compatible uses for development.

Develop a strict groundwater protection program which includes the
regulation of surface uses located overaquifers.

Fully develop and utilize forestry resources for local use and
export and for recreation.

Create wilderness reserves.

Develop an aquaculture industry.

The Saipan Chamber of Commerce has not in the past taken an active role
in the review of development projects. However, we would like to
participate in the review process for major projects from time to time
in order to try to direct our developmenet pattern into desirable and
acceptable directions, such as those identified in our economic
development plan,

Also, we would like to see some requirements for major developers from
outside CNMI to divulge the types of economic benefits the local
business community and the average person can expect to realize from
their presence.

For example, permit conditions which require a percentage of goods to
be purchased from the local economy, or which require advertised
requests for bids, etc.

Finally, the Coastal Resources Management Program should become more
active in fishing development, not only in reef fisheries, but in small
local commercial fisheries. Perhaps there may be some ways to explore

106

the vesouvces of ouv 100 mile zone.

In closing, let me again thank you for, your intevest in the Saipan
Chamber of Commerce and for asking me to speak.

107

COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

COMMONWEALTH OF' THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS

COASTAL PERMIT APPLICATION

FOR MAJOR PROJECTS

The Coastal Resources Management Office has established that your
project is not eligible for a minor permit it is classified as:

MAJOR SITING APC PROJECT

Section 8 (Page 11) of the Coastal Resources Management Rules and
Regulations gives details about the permit process, The CIM
preapplication meeting will answer any questions you may have about the
process or intent of the law or what you will need to do to fill out
this application.

The CRMP permit process is designed to help plan development projects
so they can operate in the Commonwealth without difficulties. Building
and operating a commercial concern in the CNMI requires the interaction
of many different government agencies, including the Department of
Public Works, the Division of Environmental Quality, The Department of
Commerce and Labor, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department
of Community and Cultural Affairs and the CRMO itself. In addition,
there are federal agencies which require permits for construction in
the Commonwealth. Prior to the CRMP you would have had to deal with
each agency separately, now you can plan your project in an orderly way
through the CRMP.

The objective of this application is to find out exactly what your
project's needs are so the government can plan to meet those needs. We
also must be sure, for our sake as well as yours, that what you plan to
do is both reasonable and non-destructive to the island's fragile
environment.

The extent of information needed depends on the size and complexity of
your project. The larger and more difficult your project is, the more
information we will need to assure the project will progress smoothly.

Please note that if you work with the program and answer the questions
of this application fully and clearly we will be able to process your
permit quickly, perhaps at the time you submit it during the required
SCOPING workshop.

'If serious problems arise or if we need to have more information, it
may be necessary for you to have a report prepared on the problem
areas. For example, any major dredging or filling activity will
require a substantial environmental evaluation of the effects of the
proposed work. A second, Review Workshop, will examine the
environmental evaluation statement and a decision will be reached based
on that review. In exceptional cases, additional meetings may be held
at additional cost to the developer.

108

W 0 FR K S H 0 F> F> E: FZ M I -1F R FR 0 C EE:'-'z>
c:c)As-rAt- F:zE:souRc;E: mAr-jAc;i-=mF=r-j-r

RRO,JEcr

SCREENINU
MEEY I NC
IDEA QLJ I C--K C:Fzrlr@
V OVzm M I N(3t@?
CRMO F>ER" I T
APPLICANT

"O-r A
c;OOo
I OE= A
ASSEMBLE PROJECT DETAILS

PUBLISH NOTICE

R I N C3
WOQKS"OR

RROBI-Ems 4 ALL AGENCIES FEW PROBLEMS AND F'L-nN--, ENOUC;1-1
TOO CREA-17 nrpLicnNT
PUBLIC

IDENTIFY PROBLEMS
I
1 1
BIG PROBLEMS

FEDERAL AGENCIES NOTIFIED FEDEPnL
I-- PERMITS

EAS REQUIRED
ON PROBLEMS
IDENTIFIED
IN WORKSHOP CL IR m u@
F@ E F:;z I'l 1 -7
MORE DATA I u E 0

REV I E7W
WOVZKF."OF@
REC I OVzs
NO-r A ALL AGENCIES 0 t-7 (-- I D F-@ CONDITIONS
c; 0 0 r-') APPLICANT
I OE A PU13L C

E30ARD
COUR-T-S MON I TOR I NC AN170 UNF-0r:ZCEI`-lEN-T
I I I
cC)NSTRU(::T I ON AND OF@ERA T- I ON

E NV-- OR c E ME N T V I ot-n r I C)"
F:z
ulljOR

The following diagram indicates how the process works. It is to your
advantage to prepare the application form properly for the scoping
workshop.

The application will need to be accompined by seven (7) copies of
Architectural and Engineering drawings, location and land maps. The
site plan shows property lines, property owners, activities which take
place on neighboring land, major utilities, names of roads, any
important geographic or historic features, places to be excavated or
filled, natural drainage areas, sewage treatment facilities or existing
sewer lines, storm drains, and any discharges or effluents which the
activity may generate.

A view of the side or cross-section of each structure in the project is
also required in sufficient detail to show the slope of the ground and
mean high water line (if applicable) as well as elevations of structure
foundations.

Other drawings or plans necessary to support the project application
should also be included. Some of these are mentioned below under
specific topics.

TITLES or other legal documents which demonstrate the ownership and
legal interest in the property involved must be copied and submitted
with the application.

If a question does not apply to your project mark it N/A.

Public Law 3-47 states that any person who knowingly and willfully
makes a false statement, representation, or certification in any
application for a coastal permit shall be subject to permit revocation
or suspension and subject to a civil fine of not more than 10,000
dollars for each violation.

109

APPLICATION FORM

PROJECT NAME:(Brief description of the kind of project proposed)

SECTION 1. APPLICANT DATA

1. Name and address of applicant and applicant's representative (if any).

2. Telephone or telex contact numbers.

3. Evidence of Financial Support for the Project including name and
address, and level of financial commitment of major mortgage holders or
investors,

4. What is the total budget for the project?

5. Has the applicant done a similar project elsewhere? If so, give
location and if the project is still in operation.

6. Has the applicant conducted business in CNMI before? If so, give
location and if the business is still in operation.

Give address of applicant for the past three years.

8. Have required business licenses, leases or other sanctions needed been
aquired? If so, attach copies. If not, give details.

110

SECTION 2: LOCATION OF PROJECT

1. Provide map showing location of the property, property boundries, and
names and activities of neighbors, road names (if present) and other
details as listed above.

2. What island is it on?

3. What village (s), if any; Districts (s) if any; Features of the
property which make it easily identifiable:

4. Who owns the property?

5. What is the applicant's legal right to use the property? Attach
copies of title, lease agreement, or other documents.

6. What alternative sites have you considered?

7. Why did you select this site?

SECTION 3: INFRASTRUCTURE

Water is a difficult problem for the islands and is a limited resource.
If your project is a large one needing considerable amounts of fresh water
the question of water supply will need to be carefully worked out. If
your project fits into this category, a special.water report will be
required that will show the quantities of water needed each day and
seasonal variations in water requirements.

If you plan to drill wells or operate a desalination plant or construct a
catchment system detailed plans will have to be submitted along with
supportive data and tests.

1. Describe how much drinking water and, if applicable, process water
(used for commercial/industrial needs) will be used on the project site
(gallons per day). Don't guess, be sure. Include needs for the maximum
level of development expected as well as average needs.

2. Describe the size and extent of any water reservoir for the site. A
three-day supply is normally adequate.

3. Describe fire-fighting plan. If water is to be used, include details
of reservoir (line water is not acceptable for fire-fighting needs) and
distribution system.

4. Indicate on the site map exactly where the nearest water main is and
exactly where you intend to have the feeder line enter your property,
where the water meter will be installed, and the size and type of pipe
required to connect to your system (discuss this with DPW if needed).

5. How will you dispose of sewage? Give details of quantity of sewage
(gallons per day) expected at maximum development levels.

6. Where is the nearest sewer line to your property? If you intend to
hook up to it, indicate exactly on the map where you want to have the
feeder line connect, and the size and type of pipe required (discuss this
with DPW if needed).

7. Septic tanks must meet certain specifications. Discuss any septic
tank plans with DEQ and include location and specifications of your tank
and seepage field. What is the nature of the soil where your seepage
field will be?

112

8. How much electricity will you use a day? (KWH/day)

9. Indicate on the site map the location of the nearest power line and
where, exactly, you would like the feeder line to connect to your
property. Include details on the voltages needed, location of the meter,
and any unusual demands (such as high surge levels on start-up or
irregular variations in use).

10. Will you have emergency or auxiliary power? Give details.

113

SECTION-4: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. Describe existing vegetation at the site:

Tangan-Tangan Grasses %
Coconut Trees Shrubs & Vines
Mixed Woods Other:

2. How much of the area will be cleared?

3. How many trees of what types will be removed?

4. Describe the proposed landscaping and planting design. Provide
drawings and maps is necessary to explain. We are concerned with the need
to rapidly recover the ground to prevent erosion and improve the
appearance of the area.

5 . Will the project extend to within 150 feet of the mean high water
mark? If so, remember that the project must riot prevent public access to
and along the shoreline.

6. List activities which will take place on the 3ite or on the island
because of the project. Be specific and detailed, we need to know what
people will be doing, what machinery or vehicles will be operating, and
where these activities will go on because of the project.

7. What costruction activities will take? Give a detailed list of each
step of the construction process and what kinds of equipment will be used.
Include any temporary structures such as field toilets or materials
storage which will be on the construction site.

If there will be any excavation or earth moving, list the equipment to
be used, the kind of soil or substrate being moved, and exactly where this
will be placed or otherwise disposed of.

114

9. Any excavation requires',@n erosion control plan. In many parts of the
islands it is undesirable to begin land clearing and excavations during
the rainy season. Provide a detailed copy of the erosion control plan and
a time schedule for land-clearing and excavation. We are concerned with
muddy water washing off into the lagoon during storms.

10. Dredging and Filling is generally discouraged (see priorities and
standards Section 9, B of the Rules and Regulations). A U.S. Army Corp
of Engineers permit -iz required for any activities below the mean high
water line. Except for minor maintenance activities, a detailed
Environmental Impact Statement will be required for dredging or filling
projects.

Does your project include dredging or filling in wetlands or below the
mean high water mark? If so, consult with CRMO on the EIS needed.

11. Will there be any discharges or effluents produced from the project?
Show the exact location of any discharge pipe and the nature and amount of
the effluent which will be discharged, Include any cleaning agents or
other substances which might be discharged and the estimated temperature
of the discharge.

12. Will the project generate any discharges into the air such as smoke
or fumes or odors? If so, show location and the kind of discharge
anticipated.

13. Will there be ary loud or objectionable noises associated with the
project? Divide this answer into the construction phase (Pile Driving,
Blasting, etc.) and the operational phase (heavy machinery, loud music,
etc.).

14. Are there any obvious historic sites on the property?

SECTION 5: ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL IMPACTS

115

I * L131 the types of employt6enl and the qualifications needed for these
positions you expect the project to generate. Be specific and include the
number of employees needed for each position and proposed salaries.

2. What materials will you need to purchase dur'ing construction and will
you provide bids, import the materials, or buy them locally?

3. What materials will you need to supply the project with during
operation? Will you let bids, import the materials, or buy them locally?

4. What services will you require for the project? Will you hire local
firms, import labor, or employ people locally?

5. Will your project increase business opportunities on the island? If
so, list what businesses you anticipate seeing develop. Would you be able
or interested in assisting with such development?

6. Will your funding and loans come from local banks or from off-island?

7. Will your, earnings come from off-island or on island sources?

116

8. Will the project result in a product which is exported? Give details
on this product and levels of export expected and the national markets
involved.

9. Will the project otherwise bring funds ont*o the island or increase
local generation of funds?

10. Please provide a detailed breakdown of expected imports and exports
during operation and an estimate of monitary flow.

11. Will you conduct job training activities? If so, please provide
details.

117

US Department of Commerce
NCMA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413