Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Expansion

[ComputerJoe]

I thought this may be a interest to the group.

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is exploring the possibility of an expanded sanctuary to protect the GreatLakes and their rich history.

Very soon, they will begin distributing the attached document to notify the public about their scoping process. They will be accepting public comment until May25, and . will be holding three scoping meetings. They are scheduled for:

-April17, Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center, 500 West Fletcher St., Alpena,Mich., 5:30 p.m.
-April18, Presque Isle District Library, 181 East Erie Street, Rogers City, Mich.,5:30 p.m.
-April19, Alcona County EMS Building, 2600 E. M-72, Harrisville, Mich., 5:30 p.m.

Below is an outline of the process with a tentative timeline.
·April 2012 – NOAA will publish a “Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impactstatement (EIS)” in the Federal Register. This formally starts theprocess. Once published, we will send the SAC a copy of the document.
·April 17, 18, 19 –TBNMS will hold three public scoping meetings in Alpena, RogersCity and Harrisville.
·Spring/Summer 2012 – TBNMS will analyze public comments and write a draft environmentalimpact statement (DEIS) for the boundary expansion. This document willanalyze various alternative actions, and NOAA will identify a “preferred”alternative.
·EarlyFall 2012 – Draft EIS released for 60-day public comment. We will holdanother round of public meetings.
·Winter 2012 – TBNMS will review public comments and finalize EIS.
·2013–NOAA will make a decision about the boundary expansion, issue a Final EIS. Implementation of management of the expanded areas, if expansion is theresult of the process.

Their website has been updated with information on Thunder Bay expansion, including background information, the SAC resolution and study documents, andletters/resolutions of support.

www.thunderbay.noaa.gov

 

[Jared0425]

It has been shot down 3 times in the past. Trotter won't be pleased...

 

[BoneCrusher]

Why do you say Trotter won't be pleased? Sounds like there is more to the story.

 

[ComputerJoe]

It has been shot down 3 times in the past. Trotter won't be pleased...

There are two ways to expand a marine sanctuary. Way one is through legislative action. Sen Levin has introduced bills in congress and none of them have passed. The second way, internal to NOAA, is what's happening now. It will take a bit longer, but not that long, and requires an enviromental impact statement which makes it more expensive to do. What's happening right now is
the public input portion and if you want your voice heard it is your opportuniity to speak up.

 

[Jared0425]

I don't see how this will preserve the wrecks. There is no way to protect these wrecks from "robbers". I have dove most of the Thunder Bay wrecks worth diving and most of them have been stripped. I can only imagine what would happen if the Egan or Bridge fell into their hands. This is a waste of money when they can spend it better places. Wrecks were fine before the expansion, why now? I could only imagine if the artifacts of the Goodyear, Egan, Demmer, and Bridge would dissappear and NOAA wanting to know what has been surveyed after spending time and money doing it. I will taken your advice though. I think I will write a letter.
Jared

 

[BoneCrusher]

That does bring up an interesting debate. Is it better to have these historical resources left unavailable to the public to protect them in the name of "stopping robbers". My personal opinion is that the wrecks should be available for the diving community to see, experience, and enjoy. I know Trotter uses his own funds to search for wrecks and I am not saying he should release numbers for wrecks, but I am against those who try to actively limit wreck access under the guise of protecting the wrecks from others while they continue dive on them and profit off of them. One non-Great Lakes example of this is Robert Ballard and the Titanic. He has profited and salvaged from the wreck and now is actively trying to limit access to the wreck from others under the name of protecting the wreck. I think the diving community has been evolving over the years (at least in the Great Lakes). Yes there are still some divers who think its ok to grab souvenirs, but the community as a whole is raising awareness and self policing. I hope that at some point, the wrecks that have been found are released so the diving public can all enjoy the great Maritime history that is preserved in the Great Lakes.

 

[Jared0425]

I agree with you on that. No one should limit access to a so called public resource. Time and mother nature will determine what will happen to the wrecks, not the government. Divers have gotten better with the artifacts, BUT mother nature will destroy these things eventually at some point in time ex: Regina, Price, Argus, and Arabia etc. One day I think Dave might give numbers away to the wrecks we found to share with those responsible enough.
Did you dive the Pringle yet? And congrats on your cave diving. Your ahead of me now!
Jared

 

[BoneCrusher]

Pringle will hopefully be this summer. Cave diving is amazing! I would highly recommend you going for the training. The skills you learn in cave class are some of the best.

It would be awesome to dive some of the wrecks that Trotter has found. I do hope someday the numbers are released.

 

[CMAN]

I know Trotter uses his own funds to search for wrecks and I am not saying he should release numbers for wrecks, but I am against those who try to actively limit wreck access under the guise of protecting the wrecks from others while they continue dive on them and profit off of them. (QUOTE]

Mike, I think what Jared is trying to say is Trotter is against NOAA expanding the preserve because they will then be able to close off diving by the public in the name of "stopping robbers" while they themselfs remove "artifacts". I know that Trotter is not actively seeking to limit access to the wrecks, he and his group are against NOAA having ALL the control in that area. And CONGRATULATIONS on getting your cave certification!!!!

 

[BoneCrusher]

I definitely missed that. I agree that artifacts should stay on the wrecks. That includes NOAA or any other agency scavenging wrecks for artifacts even if it is meant to go in a museum. I am not aware of all the actions that NOAA does. Is there previous evidence of them gaining control over a wreck site and limiting diver access to it? I had thought (maybe incorrectly) that expanding the preserve would allow for increased diver access with more information about the wrecks being published for the public.

CMAN... Thanks!