CRM director insists no violation in Marpi

Coastal Resources Management director Dr. John B. Joyner yesterday insisted that the Department of Public Lands or its contractor Ampro did not violate CRM regulations when they started clearing portions of 62 hectares of lands in Marpi without any CRM major siting permit.

Concerned citizens who attended yesterday’s meeting of the CRM Agency officials—commonly referred to as the CRM board—do not agree.

They also questioned Joyner’s authority to waive an application for a major siting permit through a May 15, 2009, letter to DPL, especially after CRM itself required DPL on Feb. 1, 2008, to file an application for a major siting permit.

“He [Joyner] could not tell me what part of the regulations or the statute gave him the explicit authority to waive the requirement for an application for a project that he himself describes as being one of ‘tremendous proportions’ and significance, and one that he acknowledges meets the definition of a major siting,” Rep. Tina Sablan, who attended the CRM board meeting as a concerned citizen, told Saipan Tribune.

The clearing of 62 hectares of public lands in Marpi of unexploded World War II ordnance started in April 2009 with only a Division of Environmental Quality earthmoving and erosion control permit.

Members of the public who attended yesterday’s meeting of the CRM board were Sablan, Ruth Tighe, Marlyn Swift, Taotao Tano president Gregorio Cruz and his wife and daughter.

DEQ director Frank Rabauliman, during the meeting, said the issue of whether or not a major siting permit is required for the ongoing land clearing “is still on the table.”

CRM board members, when asked by Saipan Tribune yesterday, said they did not know about Joyner’s decision on May 15 not to require a permit for DPL, prior to him sending DPL a letter stating so.

But Joyner said he has delegated authority to decide when a project needs a major siting permit or not, among other things.

Among the CRM board members present yesterday were Joyner, Rabauliman, Public Works Secretary Diego Songsong, Commonwealth Utilities Corp.’s Mac Chargualaf, Department of Lands and Natural Resources’ Henry S. Hofschneider, Historic Preservation Office’s Roy Sablan, and Division of Fish and Wildlife’s Sylvan Igisomar.

Sablan later said she and Joyner went over the CRM regulations, specifically on the definition of a “major siting.” She said Joyner agreed that the project met the definition.

“But he maintained that no major siting determination had been made and there was no violation because no permit application was required and CRM was satisfied that proper erosion control measures were in place. But the CRM major siting permit is about so much more than just erosion control,” Sablan said.

Sablan said what was also upsetting, among many things, was when she asked whether CRM would schedule a public hearing to solicit public input on 1) whether or not the remaining forest in the project site should be removed, and 2) what the re-vegetation plan should be for the area that has been cleared.

Joyner, during the meeting, said a public hearing would be required if a major siting determination is made, if CRM agency officials request a public hearing, or if a petition signed by at least five persons requesting a public hearing is submitted. The petition would have to be submitted within 14 days of the permit application being published

Sablan said the CRM director told her that he could not set a public hearing under CRM regulations because no permit application was required, and therefore no application could be published.

“But he had made the decision not to require a permit application…and he also said that no major siting determination had been made, because no permit application had been submitted and now, none was required. We went around and around in circles like this right up until around 5pm,” said Sablan.

She added that from her perspective, all anyone has ever asked is that CRM honor its mandate, which is to protect the environment, to ensure the public is aware and informed about projects that could have a significant impact on the environment, and to promote prudent land use management policies.

“CRM did not uphold that mandate when it allowed the project to begin without the required permit, without even submitting an application, when it did not issue so much as a notice of violation, and when it then waived the application requirement altogether and then told the public on the record that they could not even, under the regulations, request a public hearing because CRM had suddenly decided to waive the requirement for an application,” she said.

The House Committee on Natural Resources, in a May 18 hearing on the Marpi clearing project, said CRM and DEQ may have violated their own regulations by allowing the clearing without a major siting permit.

Despite concerns by the House committee and some members of the community, the Marpi land clearing continues.

Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which provided $550,000 in Brownfields grants to DPL for the unexploded ordnance cleanup in Marpi, allowed DPL and its contractor Ampro to continue land clearing.

EPA cited Joyner’s May 15, 2009 letter stating that CRM does not require DPL to obtain a permit for the project, as reason for allowing DPL to continue with the project.