The National Park Service report this month accusing the Department of the Navy of ignoring stipulated agreements between the CNMI and the military and its earlier commitments to historic preservation plans in its live-fire training plans on Tinian has drawn the concerns of the respective chairs of the House and Senate committees on federal agencies or relations.<\/p>\n
Rep. Angel Demapan (R-Saipan), chair of the House committee federal Relations & Independent Agencies, and Sen. Arnold Palacios (R-Saipan), chair of the Senate committee on Federal & Foreign Affairs, said the report leaves some questions that need to be answered by the Department of Defense and casts doubt on future assurances the military might give to \u201cmitigate\u201d the impacts of the planned live-fire project.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe NPS report reveals very troubling revelations pointing to the Navy\u2019s blatant disregard for what was contained in earlier EIS agreements,\u201d Demapan told Saipan Tribune. \u201cThe action of the Navy certainly does not set good precedent for future promises or mitigations. In fact, their latest action is an indication that the concerns of our community do not really matter to them.\u201d <\/p>\n
According to the Park Service\u2019s report, the Navy appears to have ignored its earlier assurances to enhance the Tinian historical district based on its historical findings and recommendations. This assurance was stipulated in a 2011 programmatic agreement between Guam, the CNMI, and the Department of Defense for earlier environmental impact studies for the \u201cGuam Buildup\u201d project and states that: \u201cDOD will coordinate with the NPS to update the Tinian NHL historic district, based on the results of\u201d the Navy-sponsored historical studies.<\/p>\n
However, the Park Service, in its report, said this has not been addressed.<\/p>\n
In May 2010, the Navy completed a study that identified zones for \u201cresource protection\u201d and military \u201cactivity mitigation,\u201d among others, to \u201cstrike a balance between\u201d stewardship and military training.<\/p>\n
The Park Service argues that\u2014given the geographic overlap between areas of potential effect in the earlier project and the live-fire training ranges in question\u2014the military\u2019s live-fire alternatives \u201cshould have been informed by the findings and recommendations\u201d that the Navy adopted in its earlier project.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis clearly did not occur in a meaningful way,\u201d the Park Service said. \u201c\u2026Not only are the training constraint area[s]\u201d and report recommendations \u201cseemingly ignored by the CJMT proposed undertaking, some of the most significant impacts to historic and cultural resources would occur in training constraint areas, the Interpretation Zone, and\/or would result from actions that go against\u201d the Navy\u2019s own findings.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t see how the Navy could simply backtrack on its own studies and previously approved historical protection and mitigation zones,\u201d Demapan said, when drawn to this concern. \u201cThe Navy\u2019s action is yet another cause for the erosion of public confidence in the military proposals being forced upon our islands.\u201d<\/p>\n
For his part, Palacios said that if the military ignored plans on historic preservation, \u201cwhat else are they ignoring?\u201d \u201cIs this the only issue they ignored in the EIS? We should be a little bit more vigilant in what comes out to make sure\u201d that this does not happen.<\/p>\n
Palacios commended and thanked NPS and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for completing the study. \u201c\u2026There is a still a lot of work to do to address the historic preservation and site issues. I hope the Department of Defense goes back and address some of those major issues. For sustained live-fire [training], it\u2019s obvious it is going to have an impact on those sites.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The National Park Service report this month accusing the Department of the Navy of ignoring…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":47,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[900],"tags":[9958,65,200,9981],"class_list":["post-221893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-featured","tag-guam-buildup","tag-house","tag-military","tag-park-service"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221893","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/47"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=221893"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/221893\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=221893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=221893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.saipantribune.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=221893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}