In her letter to Pula over a week ago, Charlene Dwin Vaughn, assistant director of ACHP’s federal agency programs, said although it appears there was no intent to skip Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act by either the CNMI or OIA, “the disclosure of decisions and findings, and the basis of these conclusions, were not clear to the public, particularly for those modifications that were made to the project after the initial permit was issued.”
Replying to Vaughn’s inquiry last month about how the federal rules were met in Marpi, Pula said it was stated in a CNMI report that the National Park Service agreed that the installation of poles in Marpi would have “no adverse effect” on a National Historic Landmark.
But Vaughn pointed out that OIA’s authorization to proceed was based on its environmental review in June 2010. At the time OIA reviewed the project the CNMI had submitted complete scope work which included the use of two on-site power generators to meet the cemetery’s energy requirement.
However, Vaughn said “there are preservation concerns that evolved with the passage of time that unfortunately were not addressed in the implementation of the final design plans.”
She said “it appears that there may not have been a thorough evaluation of direct and indirect impacts to Marpi Point which is a National Historic Landmark and requires a higher level of consideration in the Section 106 review.”
In the case of the cemetery project, Vaughn said the potential for indirect effects, including changes to the viewshed from the National Historic Landmark, “is much greater and to the maximum extent possible every effort should have been made to avoid or minimize them.”
“Based on the administrative record, while such consultation with [the National Park Service] did occur, it was focused on direct effects and was based on the understanding that two power generators would be used, not a connection to the existing electrical grid,” Vaughn told Pula.
She acknowledged there is room for improvement when coordinating future projects, adding that timely public input is required to ensure that the full range of historic preservation issues are addressed.
Disclosure to the public of actions taken by the government is helpful to ensure that adequate information about all cultural resources as well as planning and design information is made available to the community, she added.
“Transparency is essential in the Section 106 process,” Vaughn said.
She noted that during the Section 106 process for the Marpi cemetery project, conclusions were drawn by the CNMI Historic Preservation Office that further archeology was needed and that a monitoring plan should be developed.
“Since the administrative record does not document that these actions actually occurred, there were questions raised about proper oversight,” Vaugh said.
“If OIA can document that the HPO’s recommendations were implemented, we encourage you to share this information with all of the consulting parties,” she added.
The Fitial administration said it went through the proper process in implementing the project which advocates say will mar the natural beauty of one of the island’s major tourist attractions.
