More misconceptions about the Pew monument

Please allow me the opportunity to clarify three misconceptions that Ms. Ruth Tighe wrote about in “On My Mind” dated May 2, 2008 (see also Letter to the Editor, dated May 5, 2008 in the Saipan Tribune). Though we rarely agree on certain issues, I have respect for Ms. Tighe’s opinions and read her column regularly. I also realize that she takes pride in forming her opinion based on facts. However, one can only arrive at well founded conclusions when you have the correct information at hand—hence the problem.

Of course, our Pew lobbyist has nothing but praise for Ms. Tighe’s understanding of the Pew monument idea. He states: “Ruth Tighe dedicated most of this week’s On My Mind to the Monument. I think she’s been in communication with Jay, because her editorial has a very good grasp of the situation.” (see http://jetapplicant.blogspot.com/; 4 May 2008; blog entry entitled “Weekend Wrapup”).

“Another misapprehension has to do with control of the waters surrounding the three northernmost islands. It should be remembered, first of all, that at the moment, the CNMI does not control any of the waters surrounding any of its islands.” (Tighe)

“The monument declaration would give the CNMI a voice in controlling the waters up to the 200 mile limit in that the CNMI would be, as I understand it, an equal partner in determining what would be allowed to take place within the 200 mile limit.” (Tighe)

You are correct that the federal government owns all the waters and submerged lands from the shoreline seaward to 200 miles. However, contrary to your statement, the CNMI currently has a very active role in managing (i.e., controlling) fisheries resources within the CNMI Exclusive Economic Zone. This is accomplished through the public process administered by the Western Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Council and the National Marine Fisheries Service. If the Pew Monument is designated, primary management responsibility for the EEZ will be transferred to the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NOAA/National Ocean Service) and the control currently being realized in managing our EEZ resources will be taken away—forever.

With respect to the second claim, I must inform you that the co-management system that would be established for the Pew Monument would not provide for “equal partners” in the management of federal waters. This issue was fully explained and appropriately documented in my Letter to the Editor (The NMI’s role as a co-manager of the proposed Pew Monument—how real is it?) dated April 24, 2008 in the Saipan Tribune and Marianas Variety. You may be interested in reading the letter as there is no reason to repeat the lengthy in-depth discussion here.

Before you automatically discount my letter, you should be aware that it was sent to Ms. Athline Clark, (State Co-Manager for the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument) to review for accuracy. (I did not send it.) After reviewing my letter’s contents, Ms. Clark responded: “I hate to say this but much of what is stated in the letter is accurate. The State of Hawaii did not ‘gain’ additional authority over the management of resources in the creation of the Monument. If this is being claimed, this is not the case. Most of what he has written regarding the process and the agreements is in fact how it happened and his analysis is not all wrong.” (Note: There was one issue that Ms. Clark and I disagreed on, but the issue has nothing to with the NMI Monument situation.)

Although Ms. Clark’s e-mail was posted on the Pew lobbyist’s blogsite (http://jetapplicant.blogspot.com/; April 28, 2008; blog entry titled “Information Direct from Hawaii”), you won’t find the above quotation included. Ms. Clarks original e-mail message (dated April 23, 2008) was altered and her statement confirming my analysis of the co-management issue was conveniently deleted. I find this interesting behavior for someone who claims to be interested in getting the truth out to the public about the Pew Monument.

“Moreover, with the federal government officially involved, it is a safe assumption that the U.S. Coast Guard would bring in at least one boat—at no cost to the CNMI—to help patrol those waters.” (Tighe)

Related to the above statement, our Pew lobbyist claimed “If it is going to be world-class and if there is going to be real enforcement, rather than token enforcement, it will require a National designation. It will probably cost about $10 million per year to patrol those waters.” (see http://jetapplicant.blogspot.com/; 28 March 2008; blog entry titled “Do you support the park?”

The letter to the editor by Mr. Ken Kramer carries this subject to a new level: “As I understand it, the CNMI will also be provided with the means to patrol its own waters for the very first time. Wow!” (Letter to the Editor; Saipan Tribune and Marianas Variety dated April 17, 2008).

I believe the above unsubstantiated claims are misleading as this type of irresponsible advocacy is often accepted as fact by the general public. Please allow me to bring some facts and dare I say—common sense—to the reality of this issue.

We all know that designation of the Pew Monument would be a federal action by the President via the Antiquities Act of 1906; however only recently was it brought to my attention that the Presidential Proclamation is also an unfunded mandate.

Even with an unfunded mandate, the federal government still has the primary responsibility to enforce federal regulations on federal lands and waters. Enforcement funds, if any, for the Pew Monument will go to existing budgets of federal enforcement agencies, such as the U.S. Coast Guard, and perhaps NOAA. The federal government is not going to give the CNMI millions of dollars to enforce federal regulations on a federally designated National Monument—that’s a no-brainer.

On another note, I sent an inquiry to the U.S. Coast Guard about increased funding levels associated with the additional enforcement responsibilities associated with the creation of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Monument—the largest and most prestigious National Marine Monument in the US. Since the NWHI Monument was created in June 2006, the U.S. Coast Guard has received no additional funding for enforcement issues (personal communication; CDR Young; e-mail dated April 26, 2008). As such, the U.S. Coast Guard has to balance their mandate for ensuring national security, saving lives and vessel inspection/safety programs against spending millions of dollars sending their vessel and crew to the remote NWHI Monument to catch trespassers and people fishing without a permit. What evidence makes Pew believe the federal government is going to dedicate millions of dollars for enforcement purposes in the proposed Pew Monument when they don’t even support the U.S. Coast Guard for the NWHI Monument?

With skyrocketing costs (fuel, personnel, etc.), ever shrinking budgets, and over extended mandates, it just isn’t practical for the U.S. Coast Guard to send vessels up to remote island areas to steam around in circles looking for trespassers and illegal fishers—there are more important issues on the table for this agency to address. Additionally, with the ongoing military buildup in the Marianas, we will have so much sophisticated electronic surveillance equipment the military will probably know when a vessel enters the EEZ before the vessel captain knows it—all from a comfortable land-based air-conditioned office. To suggest the U.S. Coast Guard will actually assign or give a vessel to the Pew Monument for enforcement purposes is just not realistic.

What makes this entire unknown future enforcement funding scenario even worse is that a new president will be in office who probably won’t give a tinker’s damn about supporting or promoting former President Bush’s last minute ”Ocean President” legacy. As I have mentioned before, I believe the Pew Monument is all about mainland politics, not conservation and that is why I believe Pew is rushing our decision.

As an aside, should the CNMI be able to develop sustainable fisheries within our Northern Islands EEZ, we will have our own fishermen on the lookout for illegal fishing vessels. This additional real time on-site surveillance will cost the CNMI nothing. Our fishermen will be policing our EEZ for us—and them.

“That a monument designation would deprive local fishermen of their livelihood is disinformation of the worst sort. So far as I know, no CNMI fisherman now fishes there. It’s too far away. Fuel is too costly. Few if any boats are seaworthy enough to make such a trip on a regular basis. Manganese nodules? No one I know of is mining them anywhere in the whole world!” (Tighe)

I believe you have completely missed the point of the arguments being presented against the Pew Monument. Even though there is little fishing currently going on in our extreme northern EEZ, the CNMI does have a new fishing business venture (Crystal Seas) that plan to fish these waters. Additionally, the CNMI government wishes to develop sustainable fisheries in our EEZ—the entire EEZ. Designation of the Pew Monument will completely and permanently prohibit all commercial, recreational and subsistence fishing activities within a third of the CNMI’s EEZ (based on NWHI Monument regulations). Therefore, the Pew Monument will stop—forever—any future use of that area for fishing purposes.

I agree with your comment about manganese nodules. In an attempt to defend the Pew Monument, Mr. Ken Kramer discussed his opinion on manganese nodules (see Letter to the Editor; Saipan Tribune and Marianas Variety dated April 28, 2008). I have no idea where the idea of manganese nodules originated, but it is irrelevant. Pew Monument proponents have again missed the point—it’s not about manganese nodules, it’s the choice of whether the CNMI wants to entertain mineral extraction in over 115,000 square miles of their EEZ. Designation of the Pew Monument will completely and permanently prohibit all oil, gas, and mineral extraction activities within one-third of the CNMI’s EEZ. Therefore, the Pew Monument will stop—forever—any future use of the submerged lands for any extractive purpose. It doesn’t matter that the CNMI government doesn’t own the submerged lands; should oil, gas, or mineral extraction opportunities arise, the Minerals Management Service will likely be designated the lead regulatory authority and perhaps the CNMI government could receive royalties. The CNMI could also benefit from spin off business opportunities associated with any type of these business activities.

I hope this letter further clarifies why the majority of the people in the CNMI are opposing the Pew Monument.