The NHPA-Naional Historic Preservation Act: Section 106 requires the review & consultation of the Joint Guam and CNMI Military Relocation and Buildup by consulting parties and the public. A Programmatic Agreement between DoD and the Guam Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources Division was released on August 20, 2010 for review with comments due five (5) days later, on August 25, 2010.
Comments Submitted Regarding the Draft Programmatic Agreement for the Joint Guam and CNMI Military Relocation and Buildup
Senator vicente c. pangelinan - The Programmatic Agreement Will Become Problematic for the People of Guam
The signatories to the PA agree that DoD will satisy its Section 106 responsibilities for the Undertaking (ROD) according to the PA, and thus have effectuated a shortcut to Section 106 review, which allows the agency's decision to move forward without any more review or consultation for all the buildup projects, except Apra dredging and possibly Pagat, depending on the final version.
Denny Taimanglo - A Decision for Your People and the Future of Our Children
I understand that the Programmatic Agreement has placed an immense weight on your shoulders. You should not bear that weight alone. Listen to your people and let us help you make this invaluable decision.
Dipattamenton I Kaohao Guinahan Chamorro / Department of Chamorro Affairs
As noted in DCA's DEIS comments, the cultural name of the project areas would be beneficial in determining their cultural significance. Project numbers make it difficult to ascertain the exact location. A detailed map would be helpful of all project areas, noting village names, sub-villages (e.g., Ipan, Sasayan, Oka, etc). At least 6 months of review time is needed to provide a thorough report.
DCA recommends that "Access Plans" be completed before signing of PA.
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Western Office
The purpose of this letter is to summarize the general concerns of the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Guam Preservation Trust regarding the current status of the Section 106 consultation by the Department of Defense ("DoD") for the proposed military relocation and buildup on Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (the "Buildup"). In addition, we offer several specific comments on the draft Programmatic Agreement ("PA") dated 20 August 2010 in an accompanying attachment to this letter.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
We appreciate Navy's commitment to further consultation regarding the proposal to site multiple firing ranges in the area of the ancient village of Pagat. This proposal has met with significant opposition from consulting parties, and we are pleased that the language in the PA with regard to the firing ranges provides an opportunity for the parties to continue consultation on both the appropriate location of such ranges and the potential for effects to historic properties.
Dipattamenton Plaset Yan Dibuetsion / Department of Parks and Recreation
Mr. Schregardus, throughout our conversations, we felt you to be sincere in your efforts to amicably bring this Agreement to conclusion, recognizing the fact that this Buildup, a first of its kind in the nation, brings with it valid concerns raised by not just our office, but by the community, who in fact are the very ones that we are obligated to serve. We are confident that we can work with you to find ways to address each and every concern so that DoD's mission can proceed with the knowledge that we all played a part, in good faith, to protect and preserve Guam's heritage.
We Are Guahan
In the Programmatic Agreement, however, Pagat is identified in Appendix A as part of the Undertaking. Furthermore, Appendix D identifies land acquisition for firing ranges as a site that has "Further Evaluation Required." Stipulation V.C.3 governs all projects in the Undertaking requiring additional evaluation to determine effects. Assuming that DoD agreed there would be adverse effects to Pagat, the remedy would be to comply with Stipulation V.C.2. This does not appear to reflect the intent of the revision.
Additional Public Comments
1 Chamorro Tribe
3 Therese Terlaje
5 Therese Terlaje
9 Vivian Dames
11 Joe Duenas
12 Charissa Aguon
13 Alison Rae Causay
14 Resolution Objecting to Draft PA
19 West Coast Famoksaiyan
21 Dave Lotz
22 Guam Boonie Stompers
5 Therese Terlaje
We agree with the 'Whereas" clauses in the draft PA which state that there are historic properties that will be adversely affected by the planned projects for the military buildup on Guam; that the cumulative effects of the projects will be island wide on Guam and Tinian. We object to the adoption of Appendix D by the PA, and specifically to all properties listed by approximately 216 separate military project names, where conclusion is that there is no adverse effect or no historic property affected. We request additional time to review the studies underlying these determinations and consultation with our community as to these findings. Notwithstanding the many studies that DoD insisted at the meeting were done to arrive at the conclusions on this Appendix, and DoD's insistence at the meeting that we should TRUST them to make accurate determinations, it is not consistent with the spirit of NHPA that these be determined without consultation with the Chamorro people. This is especially true in light of the large population of Chamorros before the arrival of the Spanish and their documented habitation or use of different areas of Guam, which is 30 miles long and 4 to 12 miles wide. In other words, it is hard to trust immediately and conclude in five days that Chamorros placed no value on the listed properties in their 4000 year long history of veneration and celebration, or in their quest for food, clothing, and shelter, or by their fishing, hunting, and gathering in this limited land mass, which is smaller than many national parks and national monuments, given the proximity of these properties already recognized historical and traditional cultural properties on Guam. Also, we are unable to concur at this time with the specific adverse effects cited for some projects as we are not privy to Appendix C, and thus unable to concur immediately with the specific mitigation proposed for destruction of said sites at this time.