Upon review of the records, Govendo said “there is no question that [the] plaintiffs have put forward a case which shows a probability of success on the merits.”
Govendo said the government through its different agencies has “not done an environmental impact or assessment on the installation of the power poles in the [Marpi Historical Landmark] area.”
Moreover, the judge said “the general public was not given a chance to voice out their opinions and concerns as no public hearing was held.”
During the evidentiary hearings, Govendo said numerous references were made about a public hearing that was held by CRM regarding the public cemetery in Marpi.
“No evidence was introduced about the date of the public hearing and whether the issue of the power poles was addressed,” Govendo noted.
During the evidentiary hearing, Assistant Attorneys General Gilbert Birnbrich, Brian Gallagher and Jim Stump of the Capital Improvement Projects Office maintained that the government conducted public hearing on the power poles project.
Based on the submitted “Coastal Resources Management Application Package: Marpi Poles Project,” Govendo said the document indicated that “power supply would be supplied by an on-site generator, not power installed supplied via lines carried by 44 power poles.”
The underground lawn irrigation system that would be supported by an on-site water pump and associated power generator was part of the proposal.
The proposal also noted that power requirements to the Marpi public cemetery “are minimal and include operating two water pumps for two separate irrigation systems and associated building lighting. As such, the cemetery must be able to meet its power demand from self-contained on-site generating systems.”
Govendo said the only reference to power poles in the package are from the consultant who noted that “although there are no immediate plans for [the Commonwealth Utilities Corp.] to extend power grid to the Banzai Cliff area in Marpi, design plans were developed should the opportunity present itself and are included in Appendix 6 (E1, E2).”
Govendo said appendices E1 and E2 are schematic drawings showing where CUC power would be distributed from a 3-phase pole mounted transformer.
One schematic (E13) has a note 1 that states: “CUC to extend 3 Phase, 13.8 kv overhead primary line toward the project site which is approximately 2 miles away. New CUC poles distance is 150 feet apart.”
“This is the only mention in the entire package about power poles,” Govendo noted.
He said the Friends of Marpi through attorneys David Banes and Wes Bogdan “have demonstrated that they will suffer significantly greater hardship than [the commonwealth] if the injunction were not granted.”
“The scenic value and cultural and historical significance of [Marpi Historical Landmark] will be diminished. The only harm [the commonwealth] asserts is the halt in the completion of the cemetery [covering 9,218 grave sites] and costs associated with the halt.”
“The Section 106 review done in 2004 was in regards to the cemetery project not the installation of power poles,” Govendo added.
He has requested that the Department of the Interior conduct a Section 106 review of the installation of the power poles.
