CNMI as co-manager of proposed monument: How real is it?

I wish to thank my good friend Mr. Ken Kramer for his letter to the editor that was published in both the Saipan Tribune and Marianas Variety on April 17, 2008. He discussed what he thought the CNMI would be gaining should the Pew Monument be designated and the CNMI become a co-manager:

(1) “The MOA gives the state of Hawaii co-management over the waters from 0-50 miles. Before the MOA, the state of Hawaii managed from 0-3 miles. The state gained an extra 47 miles with the co-management agreement.” and

(2) “Under Pew’s current proposal, the CNMI would gain co-management over the waters from 0-200 miles…. “We stand to gain 200 miles under a co-management agreement.”

His understanding of the extent of co-management responsibility that would be given to the CNMI is inaccurate. But, I don’t fault Ken as he is just repeating information being circulated by our Pew-paid lobbyist. In his blog site (http://jetapplicant.blogspot.com/) our Pew lobbyist responded to a comment concerning the loss of local control once the Pew Monument is designated by stating: “It would not be out of local hands were this to happen. Locals would gain more control.” (“Mariana Trench announced on KSPN”, dated 3 April 2008).

The above claims made by Pew and inadvertently by Mr. Kramer are not supported by fact and are misleading. Therefore, the focus of my third letter on why I oppose the Pew Monument will be to discuss the management regime that would likely be established for the Pew Monument and the CNMI’s role as co-manager. Though the subject matter is a bit tedious, it is important for the people of the CNMI to understand the repercussions of having a National Monument encompassing over a third of our exclusive economic zone.

The co-manager’s position that the CNMI would hold should the Pew Monument be designated is more of an empty title with no serious decision making powers except over lands the CNMI already have control over (i.e., the islands of Uracus, Maug, and Asuncion).

There will be a significant decrease in management responsibility and involvement for the CNMI in over 115,000 square miles of federal waters and submerged lands should the Pew Monument be designated. The decrease would be associated with the change in management authority from the sustainable approach presently practiced by the Western Pacific Fishery Management Council and the National Marine Fishery Service, to a strictly “no take” approach by NOS/ National Marine Sanctuary Program.

Despite Pew’s claim, there will be no increase in primary management responsibilities granted to the CNMI over federal waters and submerged lands should the Pew Monument be designated.

In order to understand what a co-manager’s position is, we first need to understand the management framework that would be adopted for the proposed Pew Monument. Should the Pew Monument be designated by Presidential Proclamation (via the Antiquities Act of 1906), it will only include those waters and/or submerged lands that are presently under federal ownership (i.e., 0 – 200 miles). The islands of Uracus, Maug and Asuncion will not be included in the official National Monument designation as they are under CNMI ownership/management. Therefore, the Pew Monument would initially consist of 115,000 square miles of water/submerged lands containing no islands.

Because the CNMI owns the three islands, the federal government would invite the CNMI to join in the creation of the Pew Monument. At this point, the CNMI would become a co-manager through the addition of Uracus, Maug and Asuncion islands to the National Monument. With two different governmental entities (the CNMI and Federal Government) creating/managing one conservation area, development of a Memorandum of Agreement between the co-managers will be very necessary to identify and delineate primary management responsibilities; otherwise chaos would result.

This is the point where I believe Pew has unintentionally exaggerated the co-manager’s role for the CNMI with respect to management responsibilities. To clarify this issue, all we have to do is examine the management framework and co-manager limitations established for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument (NWHI Monument).

The following discussion (simplified) explains how the management responsibilities for the NWHI Monument were delineated when the Monument was initially designated; prior to State involvement. Presidential Proclamation 8031 makes it crystal clear who has primary management responsibility for marine waters: “The Secretary of Commerce, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has primary responsibility regarding the management of the marine areas of the Monument, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior.” This statement is repeated on page 51134 in the NWHI Regulations (FR Vol. 71, No. 167) and again in Section 1C in the NWHI Monument MOA (correctly titled “Memorandum of Agreement Among the State of Hawaii – Department of Land and Natural Resources, and the U.S. Department of Interior – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, for Promoting Coordinated Management of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument”).

When the State of Hawaii joined the federal government and offered to include various state owned land and waters in the Monument, a MOA was developed that identified and delineated primary management responsibilities between the three co-managers of the NWHI Monument; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of the Interior and the State of Hawaii.

With respect to the extent of State jurisdictional authority over water resources, the Monument management MOA reads on page 2: “The State of Hawai’i has primary responsibility for managing the State waters of the Monument.” This same statement is repeated on page 51134 in the NWHI Monument regulations (FR Vol. 71, No. 167).

For State land resources, primary management responsibility is explained on page 2 in the NWHI Monument MOA: “The State of Hawaii through the Department of Land and Natural Resources has primary responsibility for the Kure Atoll portion of the Hawai’i State Seabird Sanctuary.” As a note, these were lands under state control prior to the NWHI Monument designation

The jurisdictional limitations of state responsibilities as a co-manager for the NWHI Monument is initially disclosed in the Presidential Proclamation: “Nothing in this proclamation shall be deemed to diminish or enlarge the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii”. This limitation of state authority is repeated in the NWHI Monument regulations (FR Vol. 71, No. 167; page 51134) and even in the NWHI Monument MOA (page 2).

In summary, there is no language in any of the legal documents used to establish the NWHI Monument that gives any additional jurisdictional powers to the State of Hawaii.

In contrast to various claims made by Pew Monument proponents, the State of Hawaii did not gain management responsibilities over EEZ waters over and above what they already controlled as State waters. In fact, the State actually lost control of state waters through the designation of the NWHI Monument (explained later).

With respect to the proposed Pew Monument, the same situation exists but in a much simpler form. Two governmental entities (federal and CNMI governments) would collectively create a large jointly managed conservation area that covers 1/3 of the CNMI – EEZ. An MOA would be developed and signed by both parties in order to identify and delineate primary management responsibilities.

The co-management system most likely to be adopted for the Pew Monument follows:

(1) Primary management responsibility for the islands of Uracus (1 square mile), Maug (0.8 square mile), and Asuncion (2.8 square miles) down to the shoreline will be retained by the CNMI government. These islands are already designated as conservation areas by the CNMI Constitution and have a total area of approximately 4.6 miles2.

(2) Primary management responsibility for the 0 to 200 mile EEZ will be retained by the federal government (NOAA). Federal ownership over submerged lands would be re-affirmed through the Presidential Proclamation (via the Antiquities Act of 1906) that would establish the National Monument.

As with the Hawaii example, there will be no additional management responsibility given to the CNMI over the federally owned waters and submerged lands. This issue was made quite clear in the NWHI Monument and it will be made very clear in the Pew Monument, should it be designated.

For those of us who believe in the sustainable use of natural resources, this Monument designation gets even worse. Even as a co-manager, the CNMI will not be able to modify management policies to include extractive uses as they would be bound to the strict objectives of the National Marine Sanctuary Program and the numerous prohibitions outlined in the Presidential Proclamation. Between the prohibition of all commercial, recreational and subsistence fishing activities, and all extractive uses on submerged lands, the CNMI will have little else to do but sit back and process paperwork, if any. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to “manage” a conservation area when you basically prohibit all activities. Even with an important sounding title of co-manager, the CNMI will still have to dance to the music of the primary management authority—the federal government—when it comes to managing what used to be our EEZ.

* * *

Presidential Proclamation 8031 can be downloaded form: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/print/20060615-18.html

The NWHI Monument regulations can be downloaded from: (http://hawaiireef.noaa.gov/pdfs/nwhinmn_finalregs.pdf).

I was provided a copy of the NWHI Monument management MOA by the PEW lobbyist.