How to use this Page

Friends of the Mariana Trench Monument Seek Testimony for Congressional Hearing

FEBRUARY 21, 2010

(Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) - A Congressional hearing is scheduled this Thursday in Washington, DC for the Mariana Trench Marine National Monument and the Friends of the Mariana Trench Monument, the key proponents of the monument leading up to its designation, are asking local residents to provide testimony in support of building a Mariana Trench Visitors Center in the CNMI, rather than Guam.

The hearing will take testimony concerning two bills, H.R. 3511, Representative Gregorio “Kilili” Sablan’s “Marianas Trench Marine National Monument Visitor Facility Authorization Act of 2009,” and H.R. 4493, Representative Madeleine Bordallo’s “Marianas Trench Marine National Monument Management Enhancement Act of 2010.”

Sablan’s H.R. 3511 seeks to “authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish and operate a visitor facility to fulfill the purposes of the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument” while Bordallo’s H.R. 4493 seeks to “provide for the enhancement of visitor services, fish and wildlife research, and marine and coastal resource management on Guam related to the Marianas Trench Marine National Monument.”

The Friends are opposed to H.R. 4493 because they want to see a Mariana Trench Visitors Center built on Saipan. They argue that the area of the monument close to Guam does not restrict any fishing or protect any coral reefs or preserve any coastal resources and that only the “Islands Unit” of the monument, an area surrounding the Commonwealth islands of Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion, protects marine resources.

Friends’ Vice Chair Agnes McPhetres said of Bordallo’s bill, “H.R. 4493 seeks to provide research and enforcement dollars to the Government of Guam even though the monument does not protect any fish, wildlife, or any other living creature within 500 miles of Guam.”

“If you read the monument proclamation, the area of the monument that extends close to Guam only restricts future seabed mining of the substrate at the bottom of the Mariana Trench,” explained McPhetres. “It makes no sense to house the management of the biological resources of the monument on Guam when they are here (Northern Mariana Islands). It would appear that Guam is asking for federal dollars to manage resources under the jurisdiction and within the borders of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.”

The Friends are asking the community to provide testimony for Thursday’s hearing through letters and emails. They are asking for letters to be addressed to the Subcommittee’s Chairwoman, Representative Bordallo and request that copies of all letters be emailed to Representative Gregorio “Kilili” Sablan so that he can enter them into the official record.

According to the Friends, each letter should give a short introduction of the author, explain their interest in the monument, and specifically request that the Subcommittee support H.R. 3511. Letters should also ask for a Mariana Trench Visitors Center to be built in the CNMI.

According to Friends’ Director Angelo Villagomez, “Many people in the Northern Marianas fought for this and now we are in danger of losing the monument headquarters and facilities to Guam. The community needs to come together to show their support if we are ever to see the benefits promised to the CNMI by the Bush Administration.”

Letters for Representative Sablan’s office can be emailed to Paula Bermudes-Castro at [email protected] and must be received by Wednesday, February 24, 2010.

For more information or if you need help drafting a letter, please email Angelo Villagomez at angelovillagomez at gmail.com.

The Friends of the Mariana Trench Monument formed in 2008 to express the voice of the local community and consist

Display Comments Add a Comment

Dr. James R. Hein will give a talk at PIC this Sunday, according to the Saipan Tribune.


Photo from USGS.


He's coming at the invitation of our Governor and will talk about ocean mining, so I was skeptical. However, he has an impressive resume.

He's also given similar talks in other venues, to positive reviews.

(I also like that his bio photo has him wearing a plain white tee shirt.)

This seems like a good chance to hear some real science and learn about more about our ocean.

Add a Comment

I read Lino's letter in the Saipan Tribune with some reluctance and hesitation. I like and respect Lino, but I often find myself at odds with some of his philosophies. I don't think this is because I'm "American" and he's "Indigenous Carolinian." I think we just think differently.

So I read it and found it interesting. Here is the letter with my responses and comments.

Friday, January 23, 2009
A done deal I took this to mean recognition that the Monument is now a reality. I think, after reading the letter, it was meant to suggest that it was always going to happen and we just didn't know that. I don't believe it. As a supporter, I know that we were on tenterhooks about what would happen. I sat in on phone calls from Pew representatives Jay Nelson and Matt Rand where we were scrambling for more strategies and ideas on what else we could do to campaign for the monument designation. I never had the sense that anyone at Pew Ocean Legacy or in Friends of the Monument felt the decision was "in the bag." In fact, towards the end, I was completely convinced that Bush would designate only Rose Atoll and Palmyra Islands and delete the Marianas from the proposal.

I am not surprised to learn that President Bush approved the marine monument. I've always suspected from the beginning that the monument is not for conservation, but for homeland security, military use and the enhancement of President Bush's image. None of us know why President Bush decided to sign the designation. I do not discount these possible motivations. The last, I think, might have improved his approval rating among the public from 12% to 13% where it ended when he left office.

I especially do not believe the statements of Council of Environmental Quality chair James Connaughton and President Bush that the native islanders' (Chamorro and Refalawash) concerns will be protected. I think this might depend on what those concerns are. CEQ chair is a politician-we must be skeptical about what all politicians say. OTOH, the Hawaiian monument Papahanaumokuakea has many features in its regulations that address indigenous rights and concerns. I think we'll see some of this, too.

The marine monument was a done deal from the beginning. Pew was only used, for over two years, to pave a pathway for President Bush to approve the marine monument. Chairman Connaughton and his group knew of Pew's propaganda, but were never present to lend a helping hand, not until just a few months ago. It's a very well executed plan! See my comment above. I disagree. I don't think there was some grand conspiracy. I think Pew's Ocean Legacy thought it would be a good plan, wanted it, and promoted it. But Bush is the "decider"-haha!- and also unpredictable, in my opinion. I don't think we would have seen the division between Cheney and Laura Bush is this was some well-orchestrated predetermined plan.

I also do not believe Pew and their proponents when they profess that designation of the monument is in the best interest of the native islanders, and that we shouldn't let it pass us by. “A win-win situation, job opportunities, we will be known all over the world, become rich and famous,” etc, etc... I've heard these types of remarks from “salesmen” too many times before! I also know that it has misled lots of people, including our leaders, both local and federal. I'm not a "Pew proponent" but a Friend of the Monument. I do think this opportunity is good for the CNMI, including native islanders. The CNMI has already given constitutional protection to the three northernmost islands. Unfortunately, because of the court rulings on the EEZ, the CNMI could not give the same kind of protection to the waters surrounding the islands. This designation does that. There will be some benefits. We've already had an enormous amount of free publicity around the world. We will see scientists coming here. We will get a Visitors' Center paid for by the US Government. We will get a boat that the CNMI will use for northern island trips. There will be some jobs created by this. We will NOT all become rich and famous-and I don't think any Monument supporter said that. And it won't happen overnight, because it will take a couple of years before we even have the Monument plan completed and put into effect.

I am equally disappointed by our elected leader's lack of a strong united stand in protecting what is rightfully ours. Here, I think Lino means Fitial, Arnold Palacios, Pete Reyes all in the end "agreed" to the Monument. For me, this is a sign of intelligence, to be able to change your mind. But I can see this from Lino's POV also. Like I said above, when dealing with politicians, remain skeptical.

A third of our ancestral land and ocean represents a big chunk that has been taken away from our already small islands. This seems to be saying that the Monument took 1/3 of the CNMI's ocean and land. If so, this is a misstatement of fact. As noted above, the waters and submerged land were held by Court decision to have passed to the US by virtue of the Covenant. The Court held that the transfer happened decades ago, although the decision was only recently issued. You may disagree with the court decision. There are a lot of court decisions I disagree with. But we live with them. They become the law and the reality. Even if there were no Monument, this water and submerged land would be "owned" or "controlled" by the U.S. Also, no "ancestral land" is involved in the Monument. No island land is part of the Monument. It's only the water and submerged land.

Perhaps we have forgotten the teachings of our ancestors that the land, ocean, and our people will always be our most precious natural resources. Our islands are but a grain of sand in the middle of the ocean, and our resources are different from those of the continental United States and other big countries. The exploitation of natural gas, oil, minerals, diamonds, gold, etc., are contrary to the teachings of our ancestors and these activities contribute a lot to global warming. They even kill and destroy each other for such things! This is the statement I find most puzzling. I completely agree with it. Nothing in this statement supports opposing the Monument. In fact, it is the very unique nature of the Marianas Trench and eco-systems that abound here that make this place worth preserving and protecting with the maximum amount of law and help possible. The Monument designation will help prevent the damage that greed and exploitation would cause.

Is it true that the federal government will return our submerged lands should we agree to the marine monument? Actually, the US Department of Interior has been offering to support legislation that would give 3 miles EEZ to the CNMI since before the Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's holding that said the CNMI owns nothing. Support of the Marine Monument was not a condition for this proposal, although, as I understand it, the offer was renewed in the context of the Marine Monument discussions.

Returning something that is ours in exchange for something that is also ours? I once represented a family that had used land according to a "partida" for 40 years before the Court held there was no effective partida. I completely thought the decision was wrong, but it was upheld on appeal. It took another decade for the family to finally come to grips with the fact that they would have to accept the court ruling as the way it is going to be. But here, it doesn't seem that Lino will ever accept the court ruling on the submerged lands. I understand that sentiment. But it undermines the argument somewhat when the premise-that the CNMI owns the submerged lands and waters-has already been ruled in Court to be false.

Did our elected leaders fall for this, or is it the same old federal government's pathetic attitude where they made themselves believe that one size shoe fits the whole world? It seems to me like, “in search of weapons of mass destruction.” Same comment as above.

The 1906 Antiquities Act that President Bush utilized should be stricken from the book. It's an outdated and very inhumane Act. I still can't bring myself to believe that, with a stroke of the President's pen, an area will become a monument without consultation or due regard to the people there, especially to those that will be affected the most. Needless to say, human rights, be it native islanders, American Indians, or others, must be respected. This is a very legitimate concern. The Antiquities Act is a very strange law that puts a lot of power in the hands of the President, with very little checks and balances. I say very little, because of course Congress does have the power to repeal or modify the law. I think that Kilili would find some support in the Legislature for a bill that said the President could make no further declarations of Monuments in the Pacific without Congressional approval. That's been done regarding other states that already have a lot of Monument acreage. All that said, though, the "worst" that is done by an Antiquities Act declaration is PRESERVATION, protection of the status quo. And that's not a bad thing.

The manner in which the marine monument proposal was presented to us has been especially insulting for me, to our traditional leaders, and was very disrespectful to the Association of Pacific Island Legislature, Micronesian Chief Executive Summit, Guam Fisherman's Co-op, 29th Guam Legislature, Rep. Madeline Bordallo, and others that stood firm with us in our belief in protecting what is rightfully ours. I do not believe that the Native Islanders are so arrogant not to share whatever small resources they may have. I believe that all we wanted to say was which resource should be shared and how much. I'm very sorry that anyone was offended. I'm not quite sure how things could have been done differently, in the framework of the Antiquities Act. An idea was presented, and Pew Ocean Legacy people sought local support immediately by first contacting Diego Benavente and Jacinta Kaipat. Diego-with his ties to Wespac-had no interest in supporting the measure. Cinta-coming from her experience in the Northern Islands and with Beautify CNMI-did. Lots of public information was handed out. Meetings were held. VERY high ranking US officials came to the CNMI to hear what we had to say. Some people will be offended whenever their opinion doesn't win the day.

BTW, It's not too late for indigenous input. Regulations will be drafted-stay tuned and comment. Indigenous matters will be decided-stay tuned and monitor what is going on, speak up. BUT ALSO, recognize that 6,000 real people signed petitions in support of the Monument. People here in the CNMI. People of all ethnicities, including LOTS of indigenous. Do not offend them by acting to speak against the Monument as if there is only one indigenous opinion.

Our relation with the United States under the Covenant is that we're neither a state, union, territory, but we are in a “political union” with the United States. Um, actually, we are a territory. We have a different legal underpinning than other territories, but we're still a territory. Yes, we're in political union with the U.S, but funny, how people touting the Covenant forget to mention that the Covenant itself says we are "under" the sovereignty of the U.S. as well as being in political union with it.

Does the 1906 Antiquities Act apply to us under this relationship since we are not a territory of the United States? It does. The Covenant itself provides a formula for determining what federal laws apply here. Generally, if it applies in Guam, it applies here. And as noted above, the Antiquities Act applies to land within the U.S's ownership and control. The EEZ here falls within that definition.

I guess whatever questions we may ask, our plans for our islands will no longer be valid since they're in the hands of the federal government. Wrong. The plans will be forged by various agencies working together, including the CNMI Government.

Perhaps the new administration will listen to our concerns. We all have hopes for the new administration. It is going to be better than the one we just had. We just don't know how, yet.

Lino M. Olopai
Chalan Kanoa, Saipan

Display Comments Add a Comment

The Marianas Variety recently announced that Governor Fitial has named his three candidates for the Mariana Monument Advisory Council. Nominated: Benigno M. Sablan, a member of the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council; Joaquin P. Villagomez, a former member of Wespac’s advisory panel; and Sylvan O. Igisomar, the director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife.

I can only say how very disappointed I am in our Governor for nominating three people who opposed the creation of the national marine monument here.

Note, the Variety would have the three men already in these positions, reporting incorrectly in its headline that Governor Fitial appointed them to the posts: Governor Fitial does not appoint the members of the Mariana Monument Advisory Council. He nominates them for appointment, which will be done by the U.S. Secretary of Interior and the U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

Both Angelo and Lil Hammerhead have good posts on the subject. I agree with Lil's sentiments, but I like Angelo's less-emotional, more dealing-with-reality-as-it-is thinking.

Angelo's take (paraphrased by me):

The nominations should be based on principals, not personalities.

Principals could include designating people in key positions related to the monument. Yes, even Sylvan Igisomar, who, as head of DFW, holds a relevant governmental office.

Principals could also include nominating people who are excited and energetic about the national marine monument and who would work tirelessly to make it the best it can be. That's not likely to be any of the three named.

Principals could even include nominating the Attorney General, since the first order of business will involve legal work and drafting regulations, etc.

But picking political supporters who backed you to the hilt in your uninformed (some would say wilfully ignorant) opposition to the creation of a monument--that's not principaled, that's just cronyism and personal politics.

And there is that small bit that two of the three are not "officials of the government" so do not technically qualify for nomination, per the original designation of the Monument. See page 6 of this official Federal Register publication of the designation. (Sorry, the page loads slowly.)

So, the actual appointment will by the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce-new Obama officials. As to the two people who will make the final decision about the Mariana Monument Advisory Council, we have some information to process. President Obama has already announced his choice of Ken Salazar for the post of Secretary of Interior. We don't yet know who will be chosen for the Commerce position in the Obama Administration.

I have no opinion about Ken Salazar, although the reports are decidedly mixed when asking conservationists about him. It may be likely that Governor Fitial's nominations will be approved, but until that happens, we need to stay tuned.


More monument news:
The other news in today's paper about the monument was that out-going Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorne designated the Division of Fish & Wildlife as the lead agency in managing the monument. This is different than the management procedures for Papahanaumokuakea Marine Monument, where NOAA Sanctuaries has the lead.

I'm still trying to get a line of what this will mean.

At least it means Wespac will not be the lead agency. :-)

Display Comments Add a Comment

The environment is not a partisan issue whose politics should divide us, but a shared legacy whose preservation must unite us.

from this Jane Lubchenco profile

I imagine there will be more interest in the CNMI and our newly created national marine monument now that President Bush has made the official designation. Here are some links culled from past discussions on various topics.

There are some gaps. These are just some of the links available with relevant information. Enjoy.

Designation of the Monument
Text of Monument Proclamation

The President's Speech

Governor Fitial's Statement. This includes his completely unfair stab at Pew Charitable Trust, which did not wage a divisive campaign but was attacked by John Gourley in HIS divisive campaign.

Who's Going to Be in Charge?
The Designation says Commerce through NOAA and Interior, with co-management by the CNMI. The big question is whether it will be NOAA Sanctuaries, or NOAA Wespac. Some information to help sort through the matter.

Obama's new NOAA pick . A scientist. Perhaps we'll see what difference it can make to have a scientist at the helm, one who is very aware of the problems caused by over-fishing (and possibly the problems with Wespac power).

Jane Lubchenco. A brief review. Last bit on a national ocean service (like national park service) is especially interesting.

Wespac problem--illegal & costly meeting.

Wespac under investigation. Worth reading because Wespac has a lot of power over what happens here.

More on Wespac.

Illegal fishing in proposed monument area. This talks about problems with illegal fishing in the area originally proposed for the monument. It's unclear whether these fishing boats were in the area now actually designated, but they were still within the US EEZ.

What is it like in the Monument?
Beautiful. Unique. Amazing...

About Maug. One of the three northernmost islands where the monument includes the surrounding nearshore (50 miles)waters.

Uracas. The nothernmost CNMI island whose waters are included within the boundaries of the monument.

Asuncion. Another of the three northernmost islands, whose waters are included within the monument boundaries.

Amazing creatures of the Trench from Lil Hammerhead.

Mammals of the Monument from Lil Hammerhead.

Woods Hole to explore Marianas Trench. Something to look forward to.

Undersea eruption. This is a sea vent near Rota, not in the boundaries of the monument as originally proposed, but protected by the actual monument, which included these types of small miracles.

NOAA video from the Ring of Fire. Smokers, liquid carbon and other wonders here.

Ocean Legacy. Tons of information about various aspects of the Marianas Trench and the national marine monument.

Visitor Attractions
The Monument will draw attention to the CNMI. We will have more to offer to our tourist visitors.

Coral Spawning. A natural attraction for tourists and residents alike.

Mike Tripp on coral spawning. More great information.

Sant Ocean Hall. Gives an idea of what we can do in the CNMI with our visitor's center.

Hawaii's Visitor Center. Here's another version of possible visitor's center.

Safety first-Emergency First Response. Some reassurance for those diving in the CNMI.


The Economy
We hope for improvement, and the attention a national marine monument will bring us could help.

What jobs were created by Papahanaumokuakea Marine Monument . Relevant to give us an idea what new jobs we might see here.

Iverson Report. On the possible economic impact of the Marine Monument.


The Scientific Support for Conservation
Overwhelming.

Olson's Emptied Oceans--video Why we need marine monuments.

Scientists' Consensus Statement in Support of Marine Reserves. Brilliant.

The Concept Behind the Proposal.

Links to many articles and reprint of David Suzuki's interview.

On fishing.

Grave peril.

On the Current State of Our Oceans.

COMPASS on the state of our oceans. COMPASS has Jane Lubchenco as one of its founders, so this is especially interesting since she will be our new NOAA head (if confirmed by the Senate).

On Jane Lubchenco. This has great links to the decline in our oceans and collapse of fisheries caused by fishing pressure, and expresses hope in our soon-to-bo NOAA chief executive.

Graphic evidence of harm from fishing.

Some History of the CNMI's marine monument
There's more than shown here. But this gives the gist of the situation.

Mike Tripp's summary-10/20/2008. There is a lot of good information on Mike's blog in general, as well as at this particular link.

The Community Meeting in Saipan.

Please Make It Stop. My lament about some of the stupid comments from our elected leaders during the course of the campaign to have the monument designated.

Low down shenanigans.

A list of links to letters-pro & con --9/8/2008.

About the Law
Looking at Marine Monument Law.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Thanks to Angelo, Pew Charitable Trust, and Friends of the Monument for the campaign to have a national marine monument designated in the CNMI. It's now official.






Of course, nothing in life is perfect.

1. The declaration doesn't specify that NOAA Sanctuaries will be in charge. While both Interior and Commerce/NOAA have responsibility, the repeated reference to "fisheries" looks like the declaration leaves the door open for Wespac to run the show. As if that could possibly be a good thing for environmental protection.

2. The Advisory Committee will be 3 CNMI government officials recommended by the Governor, along with two selections by Defense and the Coast Guard respectively.

There is NO room for indigenous or environmental advocates on the Advisory Council! Who will the Governor nominate? Fitial only agreed in the end and his "support" is untested. Besides, it seems as if his choices for appointments are limited to those working for the government, so people most qualified, like Angelo Villagomez and Ken Kramer and Ike Cabrera are not "eligible" for advisory council positions. People who ardently opposed the monument, like John Joyner and Sylvan (Igisomar?), however, are.

3. I've got no problem with allowing sustenance and traditional indigenous fishing, but... Recreational fishing? Allowed per the declaration, despite the overwhelming evidence from other marine reserves that show that recreational fishing is also destructive of habitat and, of course, marine life.

Well, that's all I can say for now

I'm sort of happy--we got a national marine monument. I'm sort of happy--it's fairly large. I'm sort of happy--we did it!!!But I'm sort of worried, too. It's not quite right.



But for now, we can bask in the tons of positive press--perhaps a first for the CNMI! (Many of these are the same AP wire news release we read in our own local newspaper.)

White House Press Release

USA Today

CNN

National Geographic

BBC

New Zealand stuff.co

Los Angeles Times

Santa Fe, New Mexico

Mother Jones

Taiwan news

China Daily

Honolulu Advertiser

Montreal

Science Magazine

Sydney Morning Herald

Reuters South Africa--I'm not sure about this link--sorry.

London Times

World Fishing Today

Guam PDN

The Times of India

France International

Qatar Tribune

There are loads more of local newspapers in the US carrying the story--from Cleveland to Miami, from Bellingham to Raleigh, etc. On the world front, Angelo reports stories also in Pakistan and Zimbabwe newspapers, but I didn't find those.

Display Comments Add a Comment

Lil has a cute caption contest at Must Be The Humidity. Ken has a funny spam posted at SOSaipan. Ed still has Harry's fairy tale as his top billed story (too funny). It seems to be time to enjoy a moment of light-hearted silliness.

So, I'll just say that this comment in today's paper made me laugh.

"We're a Christian community and we don't need this kind of negative thing." Ray Tebuteb on the ground-breaking suggestion first made by Pew Charitable Trust for a marine monument here.

God forbid that some outsider (like Jesus himself) should come here and propose anything! How un-Christian!

Display Comments Add a Comment

Jim Davies, in today's Tribune, writes that he has yet to see "Pew supporters offer any substantial proof to the concept behind the project."

1. We're not "Pew supporters." We're Friends of the Monument, supporters of marine conservation, people who want to preserve and protect our natural world.

2. The concept behind the project has been written about extensively--it's marine conservation. Some people have obviously missed all of the information that has been circulated about the benefits of marine conservation throughout the CNMI--not just recently, but for years. We have a lot of information, both from scientific studies and from our own experiences with the ocean.

3. The Marianas Trench Marine Monument project is essentially a project to have the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters around Uracas, Maug, and Asuncion declared a Monument, making them a federally protected marine sanctuary. The CNMI Constitution has already made the islands themselves a CNMI land sanctuary. The proposal, if adopted, would extend the same type of protection the CNMI has given to the islands into the waters, and provide for both CNMI enforcement and federal enforcement and funding.

The vast majority of scientific consensus is that the main agent of change in the oceans as far as fish populations is concerned is fishing.

Dr. Carl Safina, National Audobon Society's Living Oceans Program

There is an end to a resource. There's no unlimited supply of fish. You keep nibbling away at it, eventually you're going to get 'em all, or almost all of them. So you've got to be very careful.

Edwin Fuglvog, commercial fisherman, Alaska

Display Comments Add a Comment

Add a Comment