The website We Are Guahan has been posting selected testimonies from the ongoing hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the military buildup. There have been powerful statements that the world and U.S. leaders need to hear. DMZ-Hawai’i / Aloha ‘Aina will be reposting some of these testimonies. Here is a testimony submitted by a retired Army Colonel from Guam. His family’s land is threatened with condemnation by the military. One statement he made is almost exactly what people in Hawai’i have said about the military: “Once you take our lands away, we lose it forever.”
My name is Raymond L.G. Taimanglo. I am a retired Colonel in the U.S. Army, a resident of Guam, 53 years old and reside in the village of Yigo.
My mother Vicenta L.G. Taimanglo owned 18 hectors of land in the vicinity of AAFB(S) which was taken by the U.S. Navy after WWII. These lands are now recorded in the Wills of my siblings and me, since my mother passed away several years ago. We hope that one day our children will receive this property back. Our children will always know that the land is their own and that our nation needs it for now and that “Now” is a relative word and that “Now” could mean forever.
Once again our family is faced with another possible land taking. My wife Gwendolyn Nelson Taimanglo is a land owner in the Sasayan Valley. I am disheartened with the thought that we will lose our land once again.
In the interest of time I will begin my presentation.
The DEIS did not fully explore viable military sites for training and weapons ranges (firing ranges) because it dismissed them for various reason which raises some concerns. The military sites reviewed to construct firing ranges on the West Coast were easily dismissed. As a result, these sites or a combination thereof did not go through the rigorous step 2 alternative analysis, which may deny the decision makers the option to select a site or a combination thereof. The reasons given to dismiss the West Coast sites didn’t seem justified enough to drop them as an alternative. Concerns such as denying the use of recreational areas, restrictions on favorite dive spots, restricted ocean travel for boaters, restricted hiking trails, and possible impact on tourism, all hold true when applied to the East Coast alternative, which is the only alternative given in the DEIS. The advice given by the Office of the Governor to explore the eastern side of the island for possible alternatives made it easier to dismiss a host of sites located in the west coast of Guam. In addition, all military sites had a common caveat in dismissing potential sites that were considered, “…incompatibility with future missions.”
To simply dismiss the alternative to put a range at Tarague Valley because it was incompatible with future military missions is questionable especially when this line is used to dismiss all military sites that were considered. Once again the decision makers could be denied the benefit of selecting this alternative because of one catch all statement, “..incompatibility with future military missions’.
The Tarague Valley alternative is a good alternative since it is a convenient location for training and ranges. The Tarague Valley compliments the activities as described in the requirements list of the DEIS. This alternative must be explored and if possible selected for training and range operations in lieu of the East or West Coast alternatives. The military must strive hard to resource the buildup from within their land inventory. In addition, this alternative is consistent with the initial statement made by JPO that only existing Federal land will be used for the military buildup.
The reason to dismiss the Tarague site without undergoing the step 2 alternative analysis is suspect. Because it is not being explored as an alternative and a vague reason given for dismissal, it leads us to belief that the military is only trying to protect something. I venture to say that it could be the panoramic view and pristine beaches, parks and recreational facilities that military, dependents and their guest enjoy. If this is so, to take away more land from the people of Guam is unconscionable.
You should not take lightly the fact that a viable alternative within the military reservation has been dismissed. You have a duty to inform the approvers of the EIS prior to the Record of Decision that there are other viable alternatives besides the East Coast alternative even if the Tarague alternative possesses some constraints. I call upon the decision makers and responsible Federal officials and military leadership to challenge their planners and staff to make this alternative work for the military.
The only two alternatives offered for training ranges are in the East Coast of Guam and is really just one alternative. In reality it is an alternative within an alternative. The only real difference is the rerouting of Rt. 15 and number of acres. This is the only alternative that received a step 2 alternative analysis because all other military sites were dismissed.
The two alternatives presented in the DEIS appears to take the easy way out. As a matter of fact, the impact tables shown in the DEIS seem to communicate that in all assessment categories there were no real impact. Very one sided, if you ask me. All in favor of the preferred alternative which is the East Coast alternative.
Contrary to the impact analysis of the DEIS of the East Coast alternative, many families and users of the land within the area will be impacted. Although the land tracks are few, many people are affected. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of families that will be denied use of their family and ancestral lands. Thousands of race car enthusiast and fans will not be able to enjoy the entertainment and recreation that it already provides. Hundreds and hundreds of local, military and tourist will be restricted or not be allowed to hike to natural caves and coast lines. The potential of these lands are starting to manifest themselves. Mining of gravel to make concrete for homes and roads in support of the growth of Guam, installed infrastructure for a private golf course already exist, paved roads, power poles, and water wells that are in place but capped, all are value added to the area. All these and more are signs that the land within the East Coast alternative are viable and have potential to provide good things for Guam. It would be a travesty to use it for military training and ranges.
The Military buildup is so large of a project that it warrants close scrutiny and review. The consolidation of all the military buildup projects into one DEIS document serves no justice for the environment, military and the people of Guam.
As I go over the DEIS I noticed a pattern of cut and paste. Many of the writings are used typically in every volume. This indicates to me that the level of effort and scrutiny needed to produce a good EIS might have been jeopardized. Each major project should be a stand alone project with its own EIS so it receives a good review and all viable and feasible alternatives explored and weight so the best decision is made. It is evident by some of the tables that the buildup will have little to no impact on our environment or people. The impact tables are too supportive of the buildup that almost nothing is affected. The DEIS is so voluminous that short cuts could have been taken just to end the misery of preparing such a large document. I urge you to relook the DEIS as it is prepared. The DEIS should be redone with the approach of one project – one EIS. Although there is a sense of urgency to get the DEIS approved, you must also recognize that we can only do this once. Once you take our lands away, we lose it forever.
I want to thank the panel for the opportunity to submit my input to the DEIS. I hope that you will appreciate the points made in this presentation and take appropriate action to examine the process and out come of the DEIS as it is presented. Moreover, that this presentation and others like it will influence the decision makers and our people’s resolve that no more private land be taken and that the military buildup be kept within property boundaries of the military.
RAYMOND L.G. TAIMANGLO
Colonel, U.S. Army (Retired)
Leave a Reply