And about the 30,000 acres for wildlife...?

By Barbara Ray

ALTHOUGH the January passage of House Resolution 2144 in the US Congress brings Guam’s excess land issue one step closer to resolution, left undecided in that Bill is the status of nearly 30,000 acres of land the Depart ment of Interior wants to see designated as critical habitat or wildlife refuge. A habitat or refuge may be sought under the Endangered Species Act if the land is conducive to the survival of a threatened species. Guam is home to several endangered species, although most are now housed on the mainland.

The move to establish a wildlife refuge or critical habitat was initiated by a June 1993 lawsuit brought by both the National and the Marianas Audubon Societies, private conser vation groups in the United States and Guam, against the Department of Interior. The society alleged that in terior acted illegally when it did not establish a critical habitat on Guam, as required by the Endangered Species Act.

Ironically, the Audubon lawsuit was spurred by actions taken by Governor Ada, who in 1987 sought to declare the area a critical habitat to prevent the Air Force from building a radar. By 1988, Ada, realising the effects of the Act, withdrew his request but he had unwittingly set government wheels in motion, and once in motion, they could not be stopped. In fact, their pace was to be increased by the Audubon suit, which claimed that the US government

was not acting quickly enough.

In November 1993, District Judge Joyce Hens Green dismissed the lawsuit.

However, accompanying her dismissal was the provision that interior must make a decision either way by March 31, 1994, about critical habitat on Guam.

Others see more behind the desig nation than protection of species. Some call it a land grab, others are simply suspicious of the turn of events.

Peter Sgro Jr, an attorney represent ing land claimants and title owners of 100 plus acres of prime real estate abutting the proposed refuge, land which would be highly restricted under the refuge, is set to initiate litigation against the federal government. He claims that the transfer from the Department of Defence for Fish and Wildlife was illegal, and that, in fact, there was never any intent to give the land to the government of Guam.

“Since 1991” he claims, “it’s been a done deal that the land go to Wildlife.”

Sgro has minutes from a 1991 meet ing between Washington lobbyists and Urunao Resort Corporation, a subsidi ary ofDaichi Development Corporation of Tokyo, during which participants discussed plans to build a multi-million dollar resort on private land abutting the proposed refuge. Also prevent were low-level Fish and Wildlife staff. Al though the resort deal eventually fell through, the fact that Fish and Wildlife was at the meetings suggests to Sgro that they were ready in 1991 to take the land, long before any lawsuits were

filled by the Audubon Society.

“Low level representatives don’t negotiate deals like that. If if were a legitimate issue, they’d have someone higher up present. They already antici pated getting the land. Their very presence shows there was never any intent to give the land back to the original owners or to Gov Guam.”

When a landowner resisted the plans, it was suggested that private land be exchanged for a lot of federal land. “By what authority did Fish and Wildlife representatives have to be negotiating land transactions, including a land swap of private for federal property?” asks Sgro.

Although unwilling to speculate as to what motivates Fish and Wildlife, Sgro remains highly suspect, especially when, as he puts it, “the use of land as a refuge is hardly compatible with a million dollar resort. It is insulting that the resort plan receiving the blessing of Fish and Wildlife, yet now they declare that if my clients want to build a dirt access road across the property, they have to apply for a permit.

Nancy Kaufman, deputy director with Fish and Wildlife assured island residents during the January land conference on Guam that the refuge proposal was “not a government plot to hold land on island”. Rather, she explained, Fish and Wildlife wanted to “ensure your children will be able to glimpse the Guam that has existed before modern wars and can exist with its plants, birds, and fruit bats into the future.” □