I' Chamorro Na' Taotaogui P.O. Box GMF, Barrigada, Guam 96921

Transcription

1 CHAMORRO TRIBE I' Chamorro Na' Taotaogui P.O. Box GMF, Barrigada, Guam c Telephone : hamorrotribe67 g mail.com I Magalahen I' Chamorro.Na' Taotaogui FRANK J. SCHACHER TRIBAL CHAIRMAN f August 24, 2010 Magahti I' Chamorro 9vra' Taotaogui GREGORY P. SCHACHER TRIBAL VICE - CHAIRMAN Magalahi I' Distritu Stan ALBERT SAN AGUSTIN Eastern District Chief Maga1ahi I' cdistritu Luchan JUAN LIMTIACO Western District Chief Magalahi I' cdistritu Lagu TOMAS FEJERAN Northern District Chief Magalahi I' cdistritu 7faya ROMEO HERNANDEZ Southern District Chief Chamorro Triha[Secretary SKYLTA F. SCHACHER Valerie Curtis Naval Facilities Engineering command Pacific 258 Makalapa Drive, Stuie Pearl Harbor, Hawaii valerie.n.curtis@navy mil Re : Section 106 Consulting Party for Guam Build-up f1? Dear Ms. Curtis : The Chamorro Tribe is a state recognized tribal body whose goals are to promote and protect the culture, heritage, welfare and natural resources of the Chamorro People. We have been extensively involved with the proposed military buildup on Guam prior to and throughout the NEPA process. We have spent thousands of man-hours and considerable resources researching the ramifications this build-up would have upon our ecology, our culture, our heritage and our aboriginal rights. Therefore, pursuant to 36 CFR, SS 800.2(c)(5) and 800.3(f)(3), the Chamorro Tribe formally requests inclusion as a consulting party. We are deeply concerned over the potential impact on culturally historic properties, ancient sacred remains and artifacts as well as the profound impact on the quality of life, the culture and the ecology for our future generations. We feel we can provide relevant social, cultural and historical information as well as local prospective as a consulting party under section 106. Please include the Chamorro Tribe in your distribution list for public notices of any meetings and for the circulation of any documents for comment. [please send copies of future notices to us via to : gmail.co m or by U.S. Postal to : P.O. Box GMF, Barrigada, Guam

2 Thank you for your attention and consideration of our request. We look forward to participating in the review and consultation process. Sincerely, Frank J. Schacher, Chairman CHAMORRO TRIBE Cc : (by ) White House: Barack H. Obama, President of the United States Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Congressional Delegate to Washington Tony Babauta, Assistant Secretary of Interior Insular Affairs Judith Guthertz, Senator & Chairperson, Committee on the Guam Military Buildup and Homeland Security Louise Brodnitz, Advisory Council on Historical Preservation Brian Turner, National Trust for Historic Preservation Lynda Bordallo Aguon, Guam State Historic Preservation Officer Joe Quinata, Guam Preservation Trust Native American Rights Fund

3 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - (no subject) Page 1 of 2 Lynda B. Aguon < Iynda.aguon@dpr.guam.go v> (no subject) Therese Terlaje <tterlaje@guam.net> To : l ynda.aguon@dpr.guam.go v, j oe.duenas@dpr.guam.gov Cc : tterlaje@guam.net Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12 :16 PM Dear Lynda and Joe, With all due respect, I would recommend that on behalf of the people of Guam and in your official capacities that your response to the PA be not to sign it, with the following statements specifically included in your response. I make these recommendations in my persona I capacity only and not in my capacity with the Legislature. Please do not hesitate to call me if any questions. Therese Terlaje Do not agree that properties listed have no historic significance without further consultation. Do not agree that there will be no adverse effects to properties listed without further consultation. Acknowledge the extensive efforts made to suryey the property, but Do not agree that adequate consultation has occurred with those Chamorros who might hold these properties culturally or historically significant and more time is required. Affirm that additional time is required to give notice to the public and solicit additional comments on the mitigation proposed in the PA for all specific and cumulative effects of this massive undertaking. Less than 7 days notice has been given, and there have been requests for additional time due to the length of the list of properties affected. Additional time may be needed to ensure that no part of this document conflicts with Guam law or notice requirements. https ://mail.google.com/a/dpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik=9flf58de2d&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=l2aac2eff.. 8/30/2010

4 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - (no subject) Page 2 of 2 Assure ACHP that productive results can be had if this is not rushed, if the public is allowed with continued good faith efforts of all parties. ample time to participate, and https ://mail.google.com/a/dpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik= 9flf58de2d&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=l2aac2eff.. 8/30/2010

5 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - Historic Properties on Guam Page 1 of 5 Lynda B. Aguon < l ynda.aguon@dpr.guam.gov > Historic Properties on Guam Therese Terlaje <tterlaje@guam.net> Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2 :42 PM To : william.manley@navy.mi l, Randy Sablan <Randel.Sablan@ fe.navy. mi l>, "Curtis, Val N CIV NAVFAC PAC, EV2" <valerie.n.curtis@navy.mi l> Cc : lynda.aguon@dpr.guam.go v, Barbara Alberti@nps.go v, Tony_Babauta@ios.doi.gov, chall@achp.go v, joe.duenas@dpr.guam.gov, sylvia.flores@dca.guam.gov, Horst Greczmiel@ceq.eop.go v, Hassell@ceq.eop.gov, Sherry_Hutt@nps.go v, jgpreservation@guam.net, leona@guammuseum.co m, linda.lawson@ost.dot.gov, MaryAnn.naber@dot.gov, Chris_Lehnertz@nps.go v, David Louter@nps.go v, Reid Nelson < rnelson@achp.gov>, Kristen_ H_Oleyte@ios.doi.gov, pdiego@mail.gov.gu, tfking106@aol.co m, hpoarch@opticom.co m, Richelle.TAKARA@dot.gov, rhr@cnmihpo.net, wro@nthp.org, vitulano.karen@epamail.epa.gov, anthony.ramirez@dca.guam.gov, farrells@pticom.co m, Deborah.Bardwick@sol.doi.gov, tterlaje@guam.net Thank you for the invitation on Monday (from Valerie) to be at Wednesday's meeting to receive an update on the Programmatic Agreement and share our "concerns" relative to the historic preservation issues regarding the Military Relocation to Guam, notwithstanding the lack of official response to Fuetsan Famalao'an's previous request to be a Consulting Party in the 106 review of the military buildup. At the Wednesday meeting, the draft PA was distributed to those present, together with some Appendices, and it was announced that you would allow five days (until Monday) for comment. It is my understanding from the draft PA and the DOD schedule for the PA (attached) that the DOD is proposing that its mandated NHPA Sect. 106 review of the effects of the buildup activities on historic properties and Traditional Cultural Properties be satisfied by the execution of a Programmatic Agreement by Guam SHPO before September 8, to coincide with the Record of Decision on the planned buildup, and that DOD intended this Wednesday's meeting to gather what looks to be final input on the PA before the ROD. This PA is a complex document intended to bind the parties (27 pages with multiple, significant appendices) and we request that the people of Guam be given more time to review it and to consult, consistent with the intent of the NHPA. Five days to review and comment on the draft is particularly unreasonable given the magnitude of this planned action and the great implications to historic properties on Guam (DOD stipulates in the PA that historic properties will be adversely affected, and that there will be cumulative adverse effects for the entire islands of Guam and Tinian). I urge you to announce this PA and make it available to the general public on Guam so that you may gather input from all those who will be affected before it is executed. Chamorros have inhabited Guam for thousands of years. Although Congress has not yet given Chamorros similar status to the Native American tribes or the Native Hawaiians under NHPA, it is consistent with NHPA to afford Chamorros ample opportunity to have more than cursory say in this process, as we have a culture that dates back at least 4000 years, that is tied to the land, and that has been passed down by oral tradition. Similar to the Native Americans and the Native Hawaiians, we have lost much of our oral history and use of our land due to occupation and colonialism, and it is imperative to our efforts to reconnect all the pieces of our history and culture that we be given the opportunity to consult prior to further destruction or denial to future generations of historic properties and property which may hold traditional cultural significance. https ://mail.google.com/a/dpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik= 9flf58de2d&view=pt&cat=JGPO&search=cat&msg=... 8/30/2010

6 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - Historic Properties on Guam Page 2 of 5 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 inhabitation 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 much smaller than many national parks and national monuments, and given the proximity of these properties to 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. DOD assured us at the meeting that they had consulted with very many people/parties in finalizing this agreement, but they found it unreasonable when I suggested that the public should have more than five days opportunity to comment on the proposed findings of no adverse effect or no historic properties affected for the multitude of projects listed in Appendix D, and should be privy to the studies that were done to reach those conclusions. For example, for ALL projects within Apra Harbor, there is a finding of No Adverse Effect. For ALL but five of the 68 projects proposed for Finegayan, there is a finding of No Adverse Effect, notwithstanding the noted direct effect of grading on Lusong and other sites from three projects, and the indirect effect to those sites by all other projects, and notwithstanding the fact that Lusong indicates the inhabitance of this area by Chamorros and ties present day Chamorros to their past and their ancestors. Maps of the APE were provided in Appendix A, but it would be much easier for Chamorros to comment on particular projects (App.D) if those were overlayed on the same maps, and villages and other common markers familiar to Chamorros also indicated. For example, where the text indicates a specific mitigation for blocking access to Mt Lamlam and Mt. Jumulong Manglo while conducting "training activities", the APE map does not indicate the Mountains nor the roads and villages of Umatac and Merizo. I can only guess that the area might be depicted in the area labeled Naval Munitions Site. The explanation given at the meeting as to the benefits of the summary disposition of the properties listed in the PA versus further consultation on those properties was that the cumulative effects could be dealt with this way and possibly not dealt with absent the PA, and that review of the project properties without the PA would be "not as thorough, not as complete". It is difficult for us to assume good faith under these conditions. https ://mail.google.com/a/dpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik=9flf58de2d&view=pt&cat=jgpo&search=cat&msg=... 8/30/2010

7 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - Historic Properties on Guam Page 3 of 5 In fact, the benefits to DOD are clear. They would be allowed to proceed on the multitude of projects where they have concluded there are no adverse impacts or no historic properties affected, based on the stipulation of the SHPO and possibly the ACHP without further input from the Chamorro people, and this would be executed in time to be incorporated in the NEPA process, and in the ROD. We were told at the meeting that the deadline was due to the huge amounts of money that Congress had appropriated and that DOD would lose if not contracted out in conjunction with the ROD and by the end of the fiscal year. The benefits of the PA to the people of Guam, who by the EIS process have repeatedly expressed their concern for the loss of cultural and historical properties, are negligible. By not signing this PA, the people of Guam stand to "lose" I. Summary determination of huge tracts of land as not historic property or not adversely affected, effective for 20 years or for the duration of the buildup. 2. Destruction of and access to known and unknown culturally significant or historical property for present and future generations based on the summary determination in the PA. 3. A promise to give Guam SHPO 30 days to review findings after 30% of the design is completed on new projects not disclosed by this PA. 30 days review is reasonable under existing NHPA guidelines and the PA does not enhance this timeline despite the unprecedented amount of projects being rushed to completion. In fact, this PA memorializes that without a response in 30 days DOD will move forward on all projects. 4. A promise to give unnamed Consulting parties 15 days to review determinations for projects not specifically listed in this PA or not yet designed, of whether a property is historic or whether there are no adverse effects. This is unreasonable amount of time given the scope and number of the projects planned, and does not enhance the current review time under NHPA guidelines. 5. A promise by DOD to request $5M from Congress towards a Guam Museum. No promise from DOD to contribute a dime, no guarantee if Congress does not respond. Our Governor, senators, and Congresswoman have pledged to pursue these contributions from Congress towards preservation of our culture, and have estimated the cost of a Guam Museum to be at least $25 Million. There is nothing to prevent DOD from pursuing this request as mitigation of the buildup notwithstanding this PA. To date, there is no indication that the military has pursued this or been successful in these efforts. 6. A promise by DOD to request that Congress increase funding to Guam SHPO. DOD claims it is illegal https ://mail.google.com/a/dpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik=9fl f58de2d&view=pt&cat=jgpo&search=cat&msg=... 8/30/2010

8 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - Historic Properties on Guam Page 4 of 5 for them to assist financially with SHPO duties under NHPA, and has not agreed to assist by granting more time for critical review either. There is nothing to prevent DOD from making this request to Congress for the past two years which they claim they have dedicated to the 106 process, and it should not be contingent on this PA but as part of their efforts to alleviate the burden on Guam from this massive and expedited buildup. 7. A commitment that access routes will be open to pedestrians to the top of Mt. Lamlam and Mt. Jumullong Manglo on Good Friday and when not in use by DOD for training activities. 8. A commitment that where highly forested areas are to be destroyed, DOD will provide traditional artisans an opportunity to safely collect resources consisted with current DoD and installation security instructions and other safety related guidelines. 9. A promise by DOD to consult with federal agencies, SHPO and unnamed parties towards an "Access Plan" for historic properties on military land, subject to military operational requirements, current DOD and installation security instructions and other guidelines, and anti-terrorist /force protection security conditions. DOD has had the ability but not seen fit to do this for all many years, notwithstanding the multitude of historic properties on the bases. There is nothing to prevent DOD from doing this even without a PA for the properties covered and not covered by this PA. 10. A promise by DOD to conduct annual informational briefings for all DOD personnel, their families, and contractors to mitigate the adverse effects of increase in population or visitation in areas where historic properties are located. DOD is obligated to protect known historic properties on its premises and if annual briefings may lessen any physical impact to the sites it should be done notwithstanding a PA. These briefings will not facilitate the Chamorro people's use of the cultural sites on military bases. 11. A promise by DOD to assist Guam in updating its Historic Preservation Plan. Unless the military intends to withhold studies and all data from Guam's preservation office, Museum, and other agencies, Guam SHPO and agencies are able to compile this information towards updating a Historic Preservation Plan without agreeing to the summary determinations and potential loss of historical or culturally significant properties or the summary completion of the 106 process for those properties as contemplated by the PA. I am not sure if the discussion yesterday was recorded and will be made part of the record. I hope the record will show clearly that there was objection by those present, who were not federally employed or contracted, to finalization of this PA as drafted. We do not object to further consultation and are hopeful that productive results can be had if this is not unreasonably rushed, and if the threats of withholding mitigation if this document is not https ://mail.google.com/aldpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik=9flf58de2d&view=pt&cat=jgpo&searcli=cat&msg=... 8/30/2010

9 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - Historic Properties on Guam Page 5 of 5 signed before September 8 are curbed. Si Yu'us Ma'ase', Therese Terlaje, individually and for Fuetsan Famalaoa'an Guam and CNMI PA - schedule for completion 20AUG10 (2).doc 31K https ://mail.google.com/a/dpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik=9flf58de2d&view=pt&cat=jgpo&search=cat&msg=... 8/30/2010

10 Programmatic Agreement - Public Hearing Needed! - Yahoo! Mail Page 1 of 1 MAIL c lassos Programmatic Agreement - Public Hearing Needed! From : "Vivian Dames" <vdames u og@yahoo.co m > To : "Lynda B. Aguon" < I baguon@yahoo.co m > Cc : "Senator Adolpho B. Palacios Sr." < S enabpalacios@gmail.co m >, "Senator Anthony V. Ada" < s enatortonyada@guamlegislature.or g >, "Senator Edward J.B. Calvo" < s encalvo@gmail.co m >, "Senator Frank B. Aguon" < a guon4guam@gmail.co m >, "Senator Frank F. Bias Jr." <f rank.blasjr@gmail.co m >, "Senator James V. Espaldon" < s enator@espaldon.co m >, "Senator Judith P. Guthertz" < j udiguthertz@pticom.co m >, "Senator Ray Tenorio" < r ay@raytenorio.com >, "Senator Rory J. Respicio" < r oryforguam@gmail.co m >, "Senator Telo Taitague" < s enatortelo@gmail.co m >, "Senator Thomas C. Ada" < tom@senatorada.org >, "Senator Tina Muna Barnes" < t inamunabarnes@gmail.co m >, "Senator Vicente Ben. Pangelinan" <senbenp@guam.net>, "Speaker Judi Won Pat" < s peaker@judiwonpat.co m >, "Vice Speaker B.J. F. Cruz" < s enadotbjcruz@aol.co m > Saturday, August 28, :40 AM Dear Ms. Aguon : Dangkulo na si Yu'os ma'ase once again for being my guest on Beyond the Fence on Friday, August 13, I have received feedback from KPRG-FM listeners who appreciate learning more about your role as the Guam (State) Historic Preservation Officer and the Division of Historic Resources at this critical time. I am writing to express my deep concern that you are being asked to sign the Programmatic Agreement that will allow the Department of Defense and the Government of Guam to proceed with its plans for the Guam Military Buildup. I feel strongly that a decision of this magnitude should be made by the people of Guam and our elected leaders. I urge you to refrain from signing this agreement and to work with the members of the Guam Legislature to immediately call for a public hearing on the particulars of this agreement. Sincerely, Vivian Dames Ph.D. Anchor Host and Coordinator Beyond the Fence, KPRG FM 89.3 Associate Professor, CNAS/DSW University of Guam Mangilao, GU Tel: E -mail : vdame s uognyahoo.com http ://us.mc369.mail.yahoo.com/mc/showmessage?smid=7&filterby=&.rand= &midlndex=7... 8/30/2010

11 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - PA Page 1 of 1 Lynda B. Aguon < Iynda.aguon@dpr.guam.go v > PA Joe Duenas <j oe.duenas@dpr.guam.gov > Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 8 :01 AM To : tterlaje@guam.net Cc : "Lynda B. Aguon" < lynda.aguon@dpr.guam.gov >, John Mark Joseph < j ohnmark.joseph@dpr.guam.go v >, "Jose M. Quinata" <j osequinata@yahoo.co m > Hi Therese, I want to thank you for taking time to provide all the input that you have on the PA. You have provided excellent points. The Guam HPO continues to process all the information received, and welcomes additional input.. Should you have any questions or concerns at any point, please feel free to contact Lynda Aguon or myself. Thanks again! Joseph W. Duenas Director Department of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation Office 490 Chalan Palasyo Agana Heights, Guam Bus : (671) /7 Fax : (671) E mail : joe.duenas(@,,dpr.quam.go v "Do not go where the path may lead ; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail." - Ralph Waldo Emerson https ://mail.google.comlaldpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik=9fl f58de2d&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=12abfde2... 8/30/2010

12 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - No to Programmatic Agreement! Page 1 of 1 Lynda B. Aguon < I ynda.aguon@dpr.guam.go v> No to Programmatic Agreement! charissa aguon < c harissa.aguon@gmail.co m> Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 12 :44 PM To : l ynda.aguon@dpr.guam.go v Cc : s peaker@judiwonpat.co m, "B.J.F. Cruz" <senadotbjcruz@gmail.cam>, Tom@senatorada.org, s enatortonyada@guamlegislature.org, a guon4guam@gmail.co m, frank.blasjr@gmail.co m, sencalvo@gmail.co m, senjim@ite.net, s enatorjudiguthertz@gmail.co m, tinamunabarnes@gmail.com, s enabpalacios@gmail.co m, senbenp@guam.net, roryforguam@gmail.co m, ray@raytenorio.co m, s enatortelo@gmail.co m Hafa Aday Ms. Aguon & Honorable Senators, I am writing to express my concern regarding the Programmatic Agreement you are being asked to sign in order to proceed with plans for the Guam Military Build Up. I urge you and our local senators to call for a public hearing and refrain from signing the Programmatic Agreement. The Agreement should and must include that all the definitions of terms in the 36 CFR 800 be integral to the Programmatic Agreement, as well as a provision that the SHPO has the option, at first discretion, to invoke the regular Section 106 process in all military proposed undertakings in order to proceed, indicating that the military plans conform to Section 106 of the Nat] Historic Preservation Act. Signing the PA indicates that the island concurs with mitigation of our cultural and linguistic heritage. I do not believe these are issues that can be mitigated. Such an action is an assault to the cultural integrity or our people and the duty of the Guam State Historic Preservation office to work in the best interest of our people to preserve, protect and perpetuate the Chamorro culture and our colorful history. Coverage within our local media suggests that your signature as the SHPO is the deciding factor in proceeding with plans ; however, this is truly a function of the people of Guam and the Legislature. Sincerely, Charissa L. Aguon & Family Live. Love. Dream.. https ://mail.google.com/a/dpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik=9flf58de2d&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=12aac /30/2010

13 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - Consideration for your influence on the FEIS Page 1 of 1 Lynda B. Aguon < Iynda.aguon@dpr.guam.gov> Consideration for your influence on the FEIS Alison Rae Cuasay < m issalisonrae@yahoo.co m > To : l ynda.aguon@dpr.guam.gov Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 3 :31 AM Hafa Adai Ms. Aguon, I mane is Alison Taiamanglo Cuasay-and am both a Daughter of Guam and an eight year Army Veteran. I am writing to you to express my concern regarding the Programmatic Agreement you are being asked to sign in order to proceed with plans for the Guam Military Build Up. I respectfully I urge you and our local senators to call for a public hearing and refrain from signing the Programmatic Agreement without first listening to the wishes of the People of Guam. As a daughter of Guam and former military officer and leader, the current build-up plan is unacceptable. Your endorsement of the Programmatic Agreement would validate the incomplete and profoundly damaging proposal for the build-up. The DEIS and the current FEIS continues to ignore the significant implications that the proposed build-up will have on Guam's precious resources and our rich cultural heritage. 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. Si Yu'us Ma'ase for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Alison Taimanglo Cuasay MissAlisonRae(a)yahoo.cor https ://mail.google.com/a/dpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik=9f l f58de2d&view=pt&search=drafts&msg=i 2aaf /30/2010

14 I MINA'TRENTA NA LIHESLATURAN GUAHAN 2010 (SECOND) Regular Session Resolution No. -30 (COR) Introduced by : B. T.F. Cruz RELATIVE TO EXPRESSING THE GUAM LEGISLATURE'S OBJECTION TO THE SATISFACTION OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NHPA SECTION 106 RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE MILITARY RELOCATION AND OTHER MILITARY BUILDUP PROJECTS ACCORDING TO THE TERMS OF A DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT WITH GUAM SHPO AND WITHOUT FURTHER CONSULTATION WITH THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, AND TO FURTHER OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED MITIGATION AS INADEQUATE 1 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON RULES OF I 2 MINA'TRENTA NA LIHESLATURAN GUAHAN : 3 WHEREAS, the Department of Defense (DoD) has determined that the 4 proposed Guam and Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands 5 Military Relocation and associated buildup activities, as described in the Final 1

15 1 Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), are subject to review under Section of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and its implementing 3 regulations ; 4 WHEREAS, the DoD has proposed that the Guam SHPO and others 5 enter into a Programmatic Agreement (PA), the execution and 6 implementation of which will evidence that the DoD has satisfied its Section responsibilities, and has afforded the Signatories (including the Guam 8 SHPO) and Consulting Parties the opportunity to comment on the Military 9 Relocation and associated buildup activities, and their effects on historic 10 properties in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), and has taken into account the 11 direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the buildup to historic properties in 12 Guam and the CNMI ; and 13 WHEREAS, according to the draft PA, the DoD has determined that the 14 proposed Military Relocation and associated buildup activities will affect 15 historic properties, as defined by 36 CFR Sect (1); but that the effects on 16 historic properties cannot be fully determined prior to approval of the Military 17 Relocation and associated projects ; and 18 WHEREAS, the approval of the Relocation and associated buildup 19 activities is expected to occur on or about September 8, 2010 ; and 20 WHEREAS, according to the Draft PA, the DoD, as part of its Section review, has determined the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the direct 22 and indirect effects of over two hundred (200) projects based on the FEIS, and 2

16 1 that the APE for the cumulative effects on historic properties includes the 2 entire island of Guam and Tinian ; and 3 WHEREAS, the DoD has proposed by the Draft PA that the Guam 4 SHPO concur with the determination of the Adverse Effects to Historic 5 Properties ; concur with the determination of No Historic Properties Affected ; 6 and concur with the determination of No Adverse Effects, for approximately 7 two hundred sixteen (216) separate buildup projects ; now, therefore, be it 8 RESOLVED, that I Mina'Trenta Na Liheslaturan Guahan (the 30th Guam 9 Legislature), on behalf of the people of Guam, and specifically the Chamorro 10 people whose use of historic or traditional cultural properties will be affected, 11 concurs that there are historic properties that will be affected by the military 12 buildup projects and that the cumulative affects to cultural resources will 13 encompass the entire island of Guam; and be it further 14 RESOLVED, that I Liheslaturan Guahan (the Guam Legislature) objects to 15 the execution of the Programmatic Agreement as proposed, and objects to the 16 adoption of the DoD determinations of No Historic Properties Affected and 17 No Adverse Effects without further consultation with the people of Guam ; and 18 be it further 19 RESOLVED, that I Liheslaturan Guahan (the Guam Legislature) does 20 request DoD and the ACHP require additional consultation with the Chamorro 21 people as to the determinations of adverse effects, the determination of 22 whether historic properties are affected, and the determination of the Area of 3

17 1 Potential Effect for each property listed in Appendix D to the Draft PA ; and be 2 it further 3 RESOLVED, that the Military Relocation and associated buildup 4 projects not be approved until these determinations and suitable mitigation 5 are agreed to by the people of Guam ; and be it further 6 RESOLVED, that I Liheslaturan Guahan (the Guam Legislature) 7 anticipates productive results and increased protection of historical and 8 cultural properties, consistent with the intent of NHPA, by increased 9 consultation prior to execution of this PA and prior to approval of the buildup 10 projects ; and be it further 11 RESOLVED, that the Speaker and the Chairperson of the Committee on 12 Rules certify, and the Legislative Secretary attest to, the adoption hereof, and 13 that copies of the same be thereafter transmitted to all members of the 14 Advisory Council Historic Preservation, the DoD, JGPO, the Guam SHPO ; 15 and to the Honorable Felix P. Camacho, I Maga'lahen Guahan. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED BY THE COMMITTEE ON RULES OF I MINA'TRENTA NA LIHESLATURAN GUAHAN ON THIS DAY OF AUGUST, BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ Acting Speaker JUDITH T. GUTHERTZ, DPA Acting Chairperson, Committee on Rules

18 TINA ROSE MUNA BARNES Legislative Secretary 5

19 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - Letter of Support to GSHPO Page 1 of 1 Lynda B. Aguon < Iynda.aguon@dpr.guam.gov > Letter of Support to GSHPO Hope Cristobal < h ope.cristobal@gmail.co m > Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 4 :17 AM To : lynda.aguon@dpr.guam.go v Cc : Martha Duenas < m artduenas@yahoo.co m >, Erica Benton < n otnebe@gmail.co m >, Kerri Ann Borja g mail.co m >, Rima Miles < r pm670@gmail.co m >, Cecilia Mafnas < c mafnas@berkeley.ed u >, Angela Tennison < t ennisonangela@gmail.co m >, Alexandria Tom <alexandria.v.tom@ g mail. co m > Hafa Adai, Ms. Aguon, In solidarity to you and the Guam State Historic Preservation Office, kindly accept our attached letter of support. Si Yo'us Ma'ase, Hope Cristobal, Psy.D. Martha Baum-Duenas Erica Benton Kerri-Ann Borja Cecilia Mafnas Rima Ilarishigh Peter Miles Angela Tennison Alexandria Tom We are Famoksaiyan - Bay Area http ://famoksaiyanwc.worclpress.com / Lynda Aguon Letter of Support.doc 130K https ://mail.google.com/a/dpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik=9fl f58de2d&view=pt&search=inbox&msg=12abfl /30/2010

20 '~C'3+-~3~1-6SY' drn9-sj.~iil-1u~5+-!r~~ry August Lynda B. Aguon. Division Supervisor Guam State Historic Preservation Office (GSHPO) 490 Chalan Palasyo Agana Heights, Dear Ms. Aguon. 13 ilenas 1W? hafa alai from across the Pacific! By way of introduction, we are a group of Chamorus and Refaluwasch who live in the San Francisco Area. We continue to regard the Marianas as our home and remain abreast of the happenings there, most importantly, the Dept of Defense's EIS and its impact on Guarn. Our organization is called "Famoksaiyan." Our name is an antigu word that translates to either "the place or time of nurturing" or "the time to paddle forward and move ahead." Our group was founded in 2006, and we are a grassroots network of activists, scholars, students, community leaders and artists who seek to push a progressive political, economic and social agenda for Chamorus and their communities at the local, national and international levels, through the promotion of the work of decolonization and cultural/historical revitalization in politics, creative endeavors and our everyday interactions. Our efforts have resulted in numerous trips to the United Nations, academic conferences in our area, public education about Guam in the university and college campuses and within the Chamoru diaspora. Ms. Aguon, we are writing this letter in support of the ultimate decision to keep all traditional and sacred lands in the hands of our Chamoru people, for the preservation of our culture and heritage. Mainly, we are writing this letter to support your right as Guam's SIIPO to defer to a democratic process of holding a public hearing regarding the Programmatic Agreement (PA) ; to invoke any provision under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NI-IPA) that your Office deems necessary to maintain your purview tender this Act ; and to ultimately prevent the use of traditional and sacred lands by the Dept of Defense. At this point, we support your decision to refrain from signing the Programmatic Agreement until a public hearing is held. We recognize the untoward pressure that you and your Office are currently experiencing from the DOD and the military's JGPO. We want to let you know that there are people, even across the Pacific Ocean, that believe in the mission of the State Historic Preservation Officer and actions guaranteeing the maintenance and vitality of our people and our culture as your Oft -ice navigates through this crucial time in our people's history. Sincerely, I sl Hope Cristobal, Psy.D. Martha Baum-Duetas Erica Benton Kerri-Ann Boija Cecilia Mafnas Rima Ilarishigh Peter Miles Angela Tennison Alexandria Tone Famoksaiyan - Bay Area 1812 Trinity Ave Ste. 114 Walnut Creek, CA Phone : «AddressBlock» Web : h ttp ://famoksaiyanwc.wordpress.com /

21 The Guam Department of Parks & Recreation Mail - Comments on Pending PA on the Military Buildup Page 1 of I Lynda B. Aguon < l ynda.aguon@dpr.guam.gov> Comments on Pending PA on the Military Buildup davelotz@ite.net <davelotz@ite.net> Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 8 :58 AM To : Becky & Hiro <beckyandhiro@guam.net>, Clare Leon Guerrero <clare@guamlaw.net>, Darlene Moore <mars@teleguam.net>, Joe Quinata <jgpreservation@guam.net>, Lani Bordallo < l anibordallo@yahoo.co m >, Larry Borja <Ibpreservation@guam.net>, Liza Provido <ptarchitects@teleguam.net>, Michael Makio < M Makio@traguam.co m >, Rebecca Duenas < m rs.rduenas@hotmail.co m >, Richard Olmo <g eogarch@uguam.uog.ed u >, Rosanna Barcinas <rbpreservation@guam.net>, Ruby Santos <rspreservation@guam.net>, Terry Brooks <tmb@guamlaw.net>, Tony Palomo < a m_palomo@yahoo.co m >, Lynda Aguon < l ynda.aguon@dpr.guam.go v> Cc : Ed Feeley <ed.feely@gmail.co m > Just a few specific comments as follows : 1. Appendix D appears to only be direct impacts during construction. Has consideration been made for impacts on adjacent or nearby cultural resources? 2. In Volume 2 of the FEIS, page 2-60 at the bottom is a statement regarding aviation training along random flight paths over Guam. This should be considered as adverse audio and visual impacts to all the cultural resources of Guam. 3. Since a live fire training range is critical to the relocation of the Marines to Guam and Pagat is the prefered alternative, Pagat should not be a separate PA. It is essential to the entire buildup. Separating it out to be dealt with later works to the advantage of the military in dealing with the issue now. 4. Relocation of Route 15, funded by the Federal Highway Administration, in order to accomodate the firing range, which impacts Pagat, is a Section 4(f) issue that needs to be addressed. 5. Does the PA address the land training components contained within the PA? 6. The issue of public access to recreational and cultural resources on DOD lands needs to be addressed. Pagat has been omitted. The only item that I can find is a mention to the Southern Mountains, Mount Jumullong Manglo, and Mount Lamlam. What about Ague? Also how about providing access as mitigation to all sites as stated in the Guam Boonie Stompers DEIS testimony (attached). 7. All cultural resource studies of area to be effected by the buildup have not been commpleted or made available to interested parties. Pagat being the most notable. Therefore, how can impacts be evaluated? This is a sound justification to not sign. 8. Recommend that the Navy hold separate Section 106 hearings. 9. Do not be rushed or intimidated to sign. Dave Lotz Public access statement.doc 29K https ://mail.google.comlaldpr.guam.gov/?ui=2&ik=9f l f58de2d&view=pt&search=inbox&mse=l2abaed2... 8/30/2010

22 JGPO c/o NAVFAC Pacific, Attention : GPMO 258 Makalapa Drive, Suite 100 Pearl Harbor, HI Dear Sir/Madam : Guam Boonie Stompers 29 Dasco Court Yigo, Guam January 11, 2010 Guam Boonie Stompers has reviewed the plans for the military buildup on the island of Guam and therefore states, that as a mitigation measure for the use of large tracts of public land on the small island of Guam, continued use of long existing traditional hiking trails and access routes and the granting of renewed public access to locations of cultural, historical, natural, and recreational value on the island shall be assured. This is necessary to provide an opportunity for the people of Guam and our guests to learn about the island's heritage and to engage in worthwhile outdoor recreation activities. Specific locations that we maintain shall remain open to public access include all of Pagat (including the Cave, Point, and Village site), Lajuna, Ague Cove, Hilaan, Mount Lamlam, and the Southern Mountains. The locations for renewed public access, as mitigation for limiting access of those destinations stated above, shall include Haputo, Double Reef Beach, Orote Point, Alamagosa, Fena Caves, and Tarague. We further specify that this access be guaranteed in the Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. Guam Boonie Stompers is a Guam non-profit corporation, composed of volunteers, that leads public hikes every Saturday to unique destinations on Guam. We are dedicated to the long term protection and access of these areas on our island. Therefore, we are willing to work with the military to insure compatibility of mission requirements, protection of natural and cultural resources, and public access. Public access shall be assured to the maximum extent feasible consistent with mission and resource protection requirements. For areas to be acquired, such as Pagat, Lajuna, and Ague Cove, this mitigation should be a factor in the layout of the facilities. This is to prevent conflicts in future use. For example, a separate public access road and parking area should be created, apart from the service roads for the firing ranges. We also wish to state that others utilize these destinations including fishermen, hunters, crabbers, school classes, tour operators, and other groups and independent hikers. While we cannot represent their specific interests, we will state that they will have similar concerns and should be contacted and included as part of any outreach and input measures. Public access shall be clearly defined as a mitigation measure in the Environmental Impact Statements Record of Decision. This document shall specify the dates and times for public access to each site. This information shall be permanently available to the public in resource plans, on web pages, and signage posted where viewed by the general public. Access requirements should be at a minimum six weekend days a month, all holidays, and six weekdays per month for all locations from 0600 to We are furthermore submitting petitions supporting our position that indicate broad public support. DAVID T. LOTZ, President