Why I oppose the PEW National Monument: Reason 2

This letter discusses two concerns I have with submerged lands issues related to designation of the PEW Monument by President Bush. I won’t even pretend to know everything about this topic, but have expressed my opinion to generate public discussion. As everyone is aware, submerged lands issues are an important and culturally sensitive topic. The CNMI has been trying to gain ownership and management control of their submerged lands for years and has even taken the issue to Federal Court, but to no avail.

Our PEW paid lobbyist would have us believe there are no submerged lands issues associated with the PEW Monument. He states “This designation would not play a role in the submerged lands issue.” See blogspot http://jetapplicant.blogspot.com/ “Do you support the park?” dated March 28, 2008.

After reviewing the regulations and management system that would likely be implemented once the PEW Monument is designated (modeled after what was done for the NWHI Monument in Hawaii), I must disagree with PEW’s position. As such, submerged lands are the focus of the second reason why I oppose the PEW Monument.

Creation of the PEW Monument will permanently prohibit any future oil, gas, or mineral exploratory activities on, or in submerged lands within of PEW Monument boundaries; an area encompassing 1/3 of the entire CNMI Exclusive Economic Zone.

Additionally, I believe it will jeopardize any future claim the CNMI may have to those submerged lands surrounding Uracus, Maug and Asuncion Islands when the CNMI begins negotiating with the federal government for designation of “state waters”.

Unlike other states and territories, federal courts have recently decided that the federal government owns all submerged lands from the shoreline seaward to 200 miles. Of course, the CNMI government disagrees with the decision and is presently attempting to negotiate a zone of near shore marine waters/submerged lands (e.g., 0-3 miles, 0-12 miles, etc.) where the U.S. government could grant them sole management authority (i.e., state waters). As everyone knows, this issue has not been resolved to date.

PEW has stated that President Bush would exercise his authority under the Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 U.S.C. 431-433) to designate the EEZ surrounding Uracus, Maug and Asuncion as the NMI Monument. Under authority of the Antiquities Act, the President can unilaterally designate lands/waters that are presently under federal ownership as a National Monument simply by signing a Presidential Proclamation. The President does not require governmental or stakeholder permission to designate the PEW Monument within the CNMI Northern Islands. Unfortunately for the people of the CNMI, the Antiquities Act has no provisions to allow for stakeholder participation (or review) in the decision making process.

Herein lies the problem: If the PEW Monument is designated by President Bush prior to the CNMI resolving the submerged lands issue related to state waters, all submerged lands around Uracus, Maug and Asuncion would automatically become part of the NMI Monument and be placed under primary management authority of NOS/National Marine Sanctuary Program, as was done in Hawaii.

We can look to the NWHI Monument regulations (FR Vol. 71, No. 167; pages 51134-51142) for guidance on what the CNMI could expect should the PEW Monument be designated. Please note on page 51134: “The proclamation reserves all lands and interests in lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI), including emergent and submerged lands and waters…”

The regulations further state: “The proclamation appropriated and withdrew the area from all forms of entry, location, selection, sale, or leasing or other disposition under the public land laws, including, but not limited to, withdrawal from location, entry, and patent under mining laws, and from disposition under all laws relating to mineral and geothermal leasing.”

As if the extraction issue actually needs further clarification, Section 404.6 (a) of the NWHI Monument regulations (pages 51137-51138) reads: “The following activities are prohibited and thus unlawful for any person to conduct or cause to be conducted: (a) Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas, or minerals within the Monument. …”

To summarize the obvious, any and all extractive activities (e.g., oil, gas and mineral exploration and development, etc.), no matter how environmentally sensitive, would never be allowed as per the stipulations included in the Presidential Proclamation and the NOS/National Marine Sanctuary Program management system. End of story.

My second concern is based on the previous discussion should the PEW Monument be created. At least to me, it is a logical assumption that any future negotiations between the CNMI and federal governments on designating/converting submerged lands to state lands would likely preclude any discussion on those submerged lands surrounding Uracus, Maug and Asuncion Islands. Why you may ask? Because those submerged lands is now part of the PEW Monument and are “protected.”

Based on what I have heard from PEW and other sources to date, locking up115,000 square miles of the CNMI’s submerged lands and fishing resources and throwing the key away is neither a justifiable or sensible move. An analogy to the PEW Monument would be to have a large savings account in the bank that you can proclaim to the world how glorious and wonderful you are for having such a treasure. However, the reality of the situation is that in a time of need, you can never actually use it.

I believe we should work hand in hand with those existing federal agencies who presently, or in the future, manage the resources found in the CNMI’s submerged lands (i.e., Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service, and potentially in the future, the Minerals Management Services) and who believe in the sustainable use of resources.

There are many island residents that are quietly starting to question whether the PEW Monument is such a good idea. I was surprised with the number of positive comments from my first letter. People I didn’t even know have thanked me for expressing “their thoughts.” I also understand that others who have been conducting research on the PEW Foundation and fishing issues are beginning to see them in a slightly different light.