Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary

A Federal/State Partnership for the Management

of Underwater Cultural Resources

Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Management Plan

May 1999

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
I

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Thunder Bay region contains a large concentration of shipwrecks that span more than a century

of Great Lakes maritime history. In 1981, the State of Michigan designated the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve to protect Thunder Bay’s shipwrecks. Some people believed, however, that the

collection of shipwrecks was deserving of national recognition and support by the National Marine

Sanctuary Program. This Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan represents years of

ideas, meetings, and recommendations on how Thunder Bay’s underwater cultural resources could

best be managed and protected for the appreciation of all interested individuals. Since 1991, many

individuals, groups, and government agencies have contributed to the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Management Plan (FEIS/MP).

The National Marine Sanctuary Program staff would like to thank all members of the Sanctuary Advisory Counsel and the Thunder Bay Core Group who dedicated many hours to evaluating what a

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary could accomplish.

Many Alpena community leaders and other individuals have been active in the process to determine

whether Thunder Bay should be designated as a National Marine Sanctuary. Their perspective and

participation has been invaluable.

The Program staff is also grateful for assistance provided by the Alcona Historical Society, Alpena Area

Chamber of Commerce, Alpena Community College, Great Lakes Visual/Research, Inc., Jesse Besser

Museum, Michigan Science Teachers Association, Michigan Underwater Preserve Council, Inc.,

Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Middle Island Lighthouse Keepers Association, Inc., Thunder

Bay Divers, Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve Committee, and other groups who contributed to

this process.

Numerous federal and tribal agencies have been involved, including the Air and Army National

Guards, Michigan Sea Grant College Program, National Park Service, NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Old Woman Creek National Estuarine Research Reserve, U. S. Bureau

of Indian Affairs, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, and the Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority.
II

Michigan State University’s Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Department of

Anthropology, and Department of Fisheries and Wildlife all contributed to the FEIS/MP. In particular,

the Center for Maritime and Underwater Resource Management provided invaluable assistance in

writing parts of the document and preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Management Plan document for publication.

The Program staff would like to thank the agencies of the State of Michigan, especially staff in the

Department of Environmental Quality, Department of State, and Department of Natural Resources.

NOAA staff could not have written this document without the expertise of these state agency staff.

The Governor’s office has been instrumental in bringing together the state agencies and offering

support to the process of determining the feasibility of a Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
III

ABSTRACT

This abstract describes the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan (FEIS/MP) for

the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) proposes to designate waters encompassing and surrounding Thunder Bay on Lake Huron

as a National Marine Sanctuary, in partnership with the State of Michigan. The Sanctuary boundary,

as proposed in the FEIS/MP, extends from Presque Isle Lighthouse, south to Sturgeon Point Lighthouse, and lakeward to longitude 83 degrees west. In total, the Sanctuary encompasses 808 square

miles. The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary will establish partnerships among governmental

and non-governmental entities for comprehensive management of Thunder Bay’s underwater cultural

resources.

The Thunder Bay region contains about 160 shipwrecks that span more than a century of Great Lakes

maritime history. Based on studies undertaken to date, there is strong evidence of Thunder Bay’s

national historic significance. National significance is attached to the entire collection of shipwrecks in

the Thunder Bay region, as well as to individual vessels.

In 1981, Thunder Bay was established as the first State of Michigan Great Lakes Bottomland Preserve

(commonly termed underwater preserve) to protect abandoned underwater cultural resources.

NOAA recognizes the state’s achievements and commitment to protection of Thunder Bay’s underwater cultural resources. NOAA also recognizes the need to complement and supplement these

achievements by working with the state to achieve comprehensive management of these underwater

cultural resources, including development of education and research programs. The limited financial

support available for management efforts at both state and local levels strengthens the need for

partnerships among the state, local communities, and the National Marine Sanctuary Program.

The purposes of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary are to work cooperatively with local,

state, federal, and tribal agencies, organizations, and businesses to:

• complement existing management and enforcement authorities protecting underwater

cultural resources;

• provide educational opportunities that promote understanding, appreciation, and involvement inthe protection and stewardship of underwater cultural resources;

• develop scientific knowledge and enhance management practices related to underwater

cultural resources by encouraging research and monitoring programs; and

• encourage the exchange of knowledge and expertise to enhance sustainable uses of the
IV

Great Lakes and other underwater cultural resources.

Section 1 of the FEIS/MP provides an overview of the document. Section 2 describes the background

of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

The Management Plan (MP), Section 3 of the FEIS, is a proposed five-year plan describing the management (administration and resource protection), education, and research programs for the Sanctuary. The MP also identifies a variety of possible activities within these programs. For example, part of

the education program could include establishing a remote video hook-up of researchers documenting the shipwrecks. Use of this technology would provide visual access to shipwrecks for non-divers.

Section 4 provides management background and historical context of the Thunder Bay region. It

includes information on the region’s underwater cultural resources, an analysis of the national historic

significance of the shipwrecks, and a description of the maritime cultural landscape (e.g., history, past

and present human activities, environmental conditions, and natural resources).

Section 5 provides an analysis of the alternatives put forth by NOAA for designating and managing the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The four sets of alternatives address designation, boundaries, regulations, and permit administration.

Section 6 provides an analysis of the environmental and social-economic impacts of Sanctuary designation. No adverse environmental or social-economic impacts are anticipated as a result of Sanctuary

designation at Thunder Bay. Potential positive economic impacts to the region are estimated in this

section. The presence of a National Marine Sanctuary at Thunder Bay is expected to enhance local

and regional economies by virtue of increased visitation and tourism in Alpena and surrounding

communities. The possible establishment of a Maritime Heritiage Center, in cooperation with the

state and local partners, is expected to increase understanding and appreciation for the Great Lakes

maritime heritage.

The appendices include NOAA’s responses to public comments, as well as federal and state laws

applicable to the designation and management of the Sanctuary.
V

Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Marine Sanctuaries Division

Contacts: Ellen Brody, Project Coordinator

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

NOAA

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105-2945

(734) 741-2270

-orSherrard Foster, Program Specialist

Marine Sanctuaries Division

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

National Ocean Service/NOAA

1305 East-West Highway - SSMC4

Silver Spring, MD 20910

(301) 713-3125, extension 151
VI

ANGB Air National Guard Base

AQCR Air Quality Control Region

ASA Abandoned Shipwreck Act

BGSU Bowling Green State University

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGLAS Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences

CILER Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems Research

CMURM Center for Maritime and Underwater Resource Management

COTFMA Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement

DEQ Department of Environmental Quality

DMP Draft Management Plan

DNR Department of Natural Resources

DOI Department of the Interior

DOS Department of State

EIA Economic Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ERIM Environmental Research Institute of Michigan

FCMP Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement

GLERL Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

GLFC Great Lakes Fishery Commission

GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office

GLV/R Great Lakes Visual/Research, Inc.

IJC International Joint Commission

LAMP Lakewide Management Plan

MCMP Michigan Coastal Management Program

MDPH Michigan Department of Public Health

MOA Military Operating Area

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MP Management Plan

MSGCP Michigan Sea Grant College Program

MSTA Michigan Science Teachers Association

ACRONYMS

(continued on next page)
VII

MSU Michigan State University

MTTRRC Michigan Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center

NEMCOG Northeast Michigan Council of Governments

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NMS National Marine Sanctuary

NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOS National Ocean Service

NRC Natural Resources Commission

PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls

SAC Sanctuary Advisory Council

SAR Search and Rescue

SEL Site Evaluation List

USCG United States Coast Guard

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VIII

NOTE TO READER

A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

This document is both a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and a Management Plan for the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Some of the section headings, and the order in which they

are presented, are different from those frequently found in other environmental impact statements.

To assist NEPA reviewers, the following table has been developed. Topics normally addressed in an

EIS document are listed under the heading “NEPA Requirement.” The corresponding section of this

document and the page numbers are provided in the other two columns.

NEPA Requirement Final EIS/Management Plan Page

Purpose and Need for Action Section 2 18

Alternatives Section 5 183

Affected Environment Section 4 93

Environmental and Social- Section 6 213

Economic Consequences

List of Preparers 244

List of Agencies Receiving Copies

of the FEIS 247
IX

B. Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior was consulted in the performance of the biological assessments of possible

impacts on threatened or endangered species that might result from the designation of a National

Marine Sanctuary at Thunder Bay. There are no endangered fish or bird species; there is one threatened bird (the Bald Eagle).

C. Resource Assessment

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended, requires a resource assessment report documenting present and potential uses of the proposed Sanctuary area, including uses subject to the primary

jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior. This requirement has been met in consultation

with the Department of the Interior, and the resource assessment report is contained in Section 4,

The Sanctuary Setting.

D. Federal Consistency Determination

Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, requires that each Federal

agency conducting or supporting activities directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or support

those activities in a manner which is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with the approved state coastal management program. This requirement will be met through a federal consistency determination made by NOAA to the Michigan Coastal Management Program, that the designation of Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable,

with the Michigan Coastal Management Program.
X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgments .................................................................................................... I

Abstract .................................................................................................................. III

Acronyms ............................................................................................................... VI

Note to Reader .................................................................................................... VIII

List of Figures.........................................................................................................XII

List of Tables ......................................................................................................... XV

Section 1 Overview ..................................................................................................... 2

Section 2 Background ...............................................................................................14

A. Introduction............................................................................................... 14

B. The Feasibility of a Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary ........................ 18

C. History of the Feasibility Process................................................................. 20

D. Positive Contributions of the Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary ......................................................................... 26

Section 3 Management Plan ..................................................................................... 29

A. Introduction............................................................................................... 29

B. Outline of the Management Plan ................................................................ 30

C. Management: Operating and Protecting the Sanctuary in Partnership.......... 31

D. Education: Learning to be Better Cooperative Stewards ............................ 38

E. Research: Working Together to Better Understand

Thunder Bay’s Underwater Cultural Resources

and Maritime Heritage ............................................................................... 42

Attachment 1 Draft Designation Document and Draft Final Regulations............ 54

Attachment 2 Draft Memorandum of Understanding ....................................... 75

Attachment 3 Draft Programmatic Agreement ................................................. 82

Section 4 The Sanctuary Setting .............................................................................. 93

A. Introduction............................................................................................... 93

B. Study Area................................................................................................. 94

C. Shipwreck Law and Management in the Great Lakes Region ....................... 95

D. Underwater Cultural Resources of the Thunder Bay Region ..................... 100

1. Historic Shipwrecks ...................................................................... 100

2. Land Associated Underwater Historical Sites ................................. 107

3. Native American and Coastal Archaeological Sites......................... 108

E. National Historic Significance.................................................................... 109

1. Introduction.................................................................................. 109

2. Vessels of Potential National Historic Significance ........................... 111

3. Thunder Bay Shipwrecks as Representative

 of the Larger Great Lakes ............................................................. 118
XI

F. Maritime Cultural Landscape .................................................................... 124

1. Alpena County Maritime History ................................................... 124

2. Alcona County Maritime History ................................................... 139

3. Past and Present Human Activities ................................................. 143

4. Environmental Conditions and Natural Resources ......................... 167

Section 5 Alternatives ............................................................................................. 183

A. Introduction............................................................................................. 183

1. Sanctuary Designation Alternatives ...................................................... 186

2. Boundary Alternatives ......................................................................... 188

3. Regulatory Alternatives........................................................................ 200

4. Administrative Alternatives .................................................................. 209

Section 6 Environmental and Social - Economic Consequences

 of the Alternatives ................................................................................... 213

A. Introduction............................................................................................. 213

B. Underwater Cultural Resources ............................................................... 214

C. Identification of Stakeholders (Including User Groups)............................... 214

D. Social-Economic Characteristics ............................................................... 215

E. Impacts of Sanctuary Designation Alternatives ........................................... 217

F. Impacts of Boundary Alternatives.............................................................. 227

G. Impacts of Regulatory Alternatives ............................................................ 228

H. Impacts of Administrative Alternatives ....................................................... 230

I. Moderation of Potential Negative Impacts................................................. 231

J. Enhancement of Potential Positive Impacts................................................ 232

K. Conclusion .............................................................................................. 233

References Cited...................................................................................................... 235

List of Preparers ..................................................................................................... 244

List of Agency Contacts ........................................................................................... 247

Appendices ....................................................................................................A – 251

A. Responses to Comments Received on the DEIS/DMP........................ A – 252

B. National Marine Sanctuaries Act ......................................................... A – 275

B-1National Marine Sanctuaries Act Regulations ....................................... A – 298

C. Abandoned Shipwreck Act ................................................................. A – 309

D. National Historic Preservation Act ...................................................... A – 313

E. Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities, of Public Act 451,

as amended ....................................................................................... A – 317

F. Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands, of Public Act 451,

as amended ....................................................................................... A – 328
XII

LIST OF FIGURES

Section 2 Background

Figure 2.1 Scuba diver explores the shipwreck Monohansett in Thunder Bay .............. 15

Figure 2.2 The National Marine Sanctuary System...................................................... 17

Figure 2.3 Machinery from steamer Monohansett near Thunder Bay Island ................. 20

Figure 2.4 Boundaries of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve ............................... 21

Figure 2.5 Discussions during a workshop at Old Woman Creek NERR ..................... 23

Figure 2.6 Tour of NOAA Research Vessel Shenehon .................................................. 23

Figure 2.7 Preparing for an overflight of the region ..................................................... 23

Figure 2.8 Launching an ROV (remotely operated vehicle) from the Shenehon ............ 23

Section 4 The Sanctuary Setting

Figure 4.1 Identification of general study area ............................................................. 94

Figure 4.2 Satellite photograph of Thunder Bay region ............................................... 94

Figure 4.3 General study area .................................................................................... 94

Figure 4.4 State of Michigan underwater preserves..................................................... 97

Figure 4.5 Locations of Great Lakes shipwreck management areas.............................. 99

Figure 4.6 Remains of a wooden sailing boat in Thunder Bay.................................... 100

Figure 4.7 Scuba diver visiting a shipwreck site near North Point............................... 100

Figure 4.8 Approximate locations of shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region .............. 106

Figure 4.9 Alpena waterfront in 1903....................................................................... 107

Figure 4.10 North Point in 1903 ................................................................................ 107

Figure 4.11 Ossineke/Devils River in 1880 ................................................................. 107

Figure 4.12 Naub-Cow-Zo-Win disk possibly representing

a “thunderbird” or “thunderer” ................................................................ 108

Figure 4.13 Lake vessels in winter storage at Alpena ................................................... 110

Figure 4.14 Upper lakes schooner James Mowatt at coal dock .................................... 114

Figure 4.15 Schooner James Mowatt with a load of lumber......................................... 114

Figure 4.16 Propeller Grecian underway .................................................................... 116

Figure 4.17 Bulk freighter Isaac M. Scott foundered

later in the Great Storm of 1913 ............................................................. 116

Figure 4.18 Sampling design for preliminary comparative analysis of

Thunder Bay region shipwrecks............................................................... 118

Figure 4.19 Alpena Harbor around the turn of the 20th century ................................. 124

Figure 4.20 Ottawa village at the Straits of Mackinac ................................................... 125

Figure 4.21 Naub-Cow-Zo-Win disk representing a “thunderbird”

and Thunder Bay’s Name ....................................................................... 126

Figure 4.22 Birds eye view of the City of Alpena in 1880............................................ 128

Figure 4.23 View of Alpena residences and businesses along

the Thunder Bay River in 1886................................................................ 128

Figure 4.24 Thunder Bay Island Lighthouse complex .................................................. 129

Figure 4.25 Thunder Bay Island Life-Saving Station ..................................................... 129

Figure 4.26 Lifeboat drills of the Thunder Bay Island lifesaving crew ............................ 129
XIII

Figure 4.27 Beach apparatus manned by the Thunder Bay Island lifesaving crew ......... 130

Figure 4.28 Great lakes commercial fishing operation using mackinac boats................. 131

Figure 4.29 Commercial fishing operations in Alpena during the 1940s ....................... 132

Figure 4.30 Ice-making operations on the Thunder Bay River in Alpena ...................... 134

Figure 4.31 Log sorting ponds at the mouth of the Thunder Bay River in 1894 ........... 135

Figure 4.32 Churchill lumber mill in Alpena at the turn of the 19th century ................. 135

Figure 4.33 Loading cedar in Alpena with a horsepower elevator in 1889................... 135

Figure 4.34 Michigan Alkaline Company quarry .......................................................... 136

Figure 4.35 Huron Portland Cement Company in 1917............................................. 136

Figure 4.36 Loading dock of the Michigan Alkaline Company in 1918 ......................... 137

Figure 4.37 Salvage tug James Reid assisting wrecked steamer

 I.W. Nicholas near the Thunder Bay River in 1913................................... 138

Figure 4.38 Commercial diving suit used in salvage of steamer Pewabic in 1917 .......... 138

Figure 4.39 Sidewheeler Marine City burned and sank at Sturgeon Point in 1880 ........ 139

Figure 4.40 Gillnet fisherman with a lake trout at Black River ...................................... 140

Figure 4.41 Commercial fishing through the ice near Black River ................................ 140

Figure 4.42 Small tug towing log boom near Black River............................................. 140

Figure 4.43 Sturgeon Point Light Station and Life-Saving Station .................................. 141

Figure 4.44 Sturgeon Point Lighthouse as it stands today ............................................ 141

Figure 4.45 State of Michigan commercial fishing zones and Lake Huron waters ceded

by the Treaty of Washington (1836) for tribal licensed fishing .................... 144

Figure 4.46 Loading cement into a bulk freighter at LaFarge Corporation

facilities in Alpena .................................................................................... 148

Figure 4.47 Military operating areas for the Phelps-Collins Air

National Guard Base in Alpena ................................................................ 151

Figure 4.48 Air National Guard helicopter operating over

the Thunder Bay region .......................................................................... 152

Figure 4.49 Air National Guard jets at the Phelps-Collins Base in Alpena..................... 152

Figure 4.50 Visiting the historical boathouse of the

Thunder Bay Island Light Station by kayak ................................................ 153

Figure 4.51 Recreational boats at the Alpena Municipal Marina ................................... 154

Figure 4.52, 4.53 A catch of trout and salmon from Lake Huron,

 at the Michigan Brown Trout Festival............................................... 154

Figure 4.54 Dive charter boat and scuba divers at the Nordmeer site........................... 156

Figure 4.55, 4.56 Recreational scuba divers visiting shipwrecks of

 the Thunder Bay region ................................................................ 156

Figure 4.57 Alpena Harbor ........................................................................................ 158

Figure 4.58 Presque Isle Harbor ................................................................................ 158

Figure 4.59 Harrisville Harbor ................................................................................... 158

Figure 4.60 The old Presque Isle Lighthouse, built in 1840 ......................................... 159

Figure 4.61 Selected water-based recreation facilities in the Thunder Bay region......... 160

Figure 4.62 Artwork from the “Kids Care About Our Great Lakes” poster contest ...... 163

Figure 4.63 The winner of the poster contest ............................................................ 164
XIV

Figure 4.64 The Thunder Bay River watershed .......................................................... 167

Figure 4.65 A sinkhole and shoal waters in Misery Bay................................................ 169

Figure 4.66 Topography of bottomlands in the Thunder Bay Region ........................... 171

Figure 4.67 Generalized food web for Lake Huron waters

of the Thunder Bay region....................................................................... 175

Figure 4.68 Coastal wetlands in the Thunder Bay region ............................................ 176

Figure 4.69 Crayfish in the shelter of a Thunder Bay shipwreck .................................. 177

Figure 4.70 Burbot and scuba diver on a Thunder Bay shipwreck ............................... 179

Figure 4.71, 4.72 Zebra mussels have colonized shipwrecks in

the Thunder Bay region .......................................................................... 180

Section 5 Alternatives

Figure 5.1 Alternatives related to the designation and management of the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary .................................................. 184

Figure 5.2 Boundary alternatives for the Thunder Bay NMS ..................................... 190

Figure 5.3 Explanation of the ordinary high water mark

as the landward boundary ....................................................................... 191

Figure 5.4 Locations of known shipwrecks, and estimated locations

of probable and suspected shipwrecks within boundary

alternatives of the Thunder Bay NMS ...................................................... 195

Figure 5.5 Presque Isle Lighthouse, constructed in 1870........................................... 196

Figure 5.6 Sturgeon Point Lighthouse, constructed in 1869....................................... 196

Figure 5.7 An ice boat on Thunder Bay around the turn of the 20th century............. 202

Figure 5.8 The National Historic Preservation Act, a look at

the Section 106 Review .......................................................................... 205

Figure 5.9 What the State of Michigan regulates now................................................ 207

Figure 5.10 What is different in the Sanctuary regulations ........................................... 208

Figure 5.11 What the Sanctuary regulations will not do............................................... 208

Section 6 Environmental and Social-Economic Consequences of the Alternatives

Figure 6.1 Method of estimating the economic impacts

of the Proposed Thunder Bay NMS......................................................... 221

Figure 6.2 Total sales and income impacts of the Sanctuary ....................................... 224

Figure 6.3 Total employment impacts of the Sanctuary ............................................. 225

Figure 6.4 Comparison of operating budgets, total sales impacts,

and total income impacts of the Sanctuary................................................ 225
XV

LIST OF TABLES

Section 2 Background

Table 2.1 Feasibility process for the Thunder Bay NMS .......................... 24 to 25

Section 3 Management Plan

Table 3.1 Resource protection in the Thunder Bay NMS........................ 46 to 47

Table 3.2 Education in the Thunder Bay NMS................................................. 48

Table 3.3 Research in the Thunder Bay NMS .................................................. 49

Table 3.4 Potential Sanctuary operating budgets

and cost-share partnerships ............................................................. 50

Table 3.5 Comparison of federal, state, and local plans to the

functions of the Thunder Bay NMS ......................................... 51 to 53

Section 4 The Sanctuary Setting

Table 4.1 Great Lakes shipwreck management areas

(established and proposed) .............................................................. 98

Table 4.2 Known shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region ............................... 101

Table 4.3 Probable shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region .................. 102 to 104

Table 4.4 Suspected shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region ................ 104 to 105

Table 4.5 Vessels of potential national historic significance .............................. 111

Table 4.6 Comparison of basic vessel types lost at Thunder Bay

and a sample of vessels lost on the Great Lakes.............................. 119

Table 4.7 Comparison of basic vessel construction material lost

at Thunder Bay and a sample of vessels

lost on the Great Lakes.................................................................. 120

Table 4.8 Comparison of primary vessel cargos lost at Thunder Bay

and a sample of vessels lost on the Great Lakes.............................. 121

Table 4.9 Total number of vessels lost at Thunder Bay compared

with sample Great Lakes loss statistics by decade, 1760 – 1979...... 122

Table 4.10 Lake Huron and Great Lakes commercial fisheries

production in tons (U.S. and Canadian) 1878 – 1969..................... 133

Table 4.11A Chronology: Native American Fishing and the

State of Michigan ........................................................................... 145

Table 4.12Islands in Lake Huron, east of Alpena and Alcona Counties............. 177

Table 4.13Listing of State of Michigan endangered, threatened,

and rare species ............................................................................ 181

Table 4.14Listing of federal endangered, threatened, and rare species ............ 181
XVI

Section 5 Alternatives

Table 5.1 Number of known, probable, and suspected shipwrecks

by boundary alternative ................................................................. 194

Table 5.2 Shipwrecks of potential national historic significance ........................ 194

Table 5.3 Maritime cultural landscape............................................................ 198

Table 5.4 Accessibility to the Sanctuary resources, and

associated facilities and services ...................................................... 199

Table 5.5 Infrastructure for tourism, recreation and

Sanctuary support services............................................................. 199

Table 5.6 Effectiveness and efficiency of Sanctuary management .................... 200

Section 6 Environmental and Social - Economic Consequences of the Alternatives

Table 6.1 Development – use scenarios for the Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary ............................................................. 222

Table 6.2 Economic impacts of spending by Sanctuary visitors by year ........... 223

Table 6.3 Economic impacts of Sanctuary operating budgets

and cost-share partnerships ........................................................... 223
Section 1

Overview
2

OVERVIEW

SECTION 1

Introduction

The Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Management Plan (FEIS/MP) details the proposal

to designate Thunder Bay and surrounding

waters on Lake Huron as a National Marine

Sanctuary (NMS). The FEIS/MP also responds to

public comments received on the proposal

during the feasibility process. Designation of the

Thunder Bay NMS will establish a partnership

between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) and the State of

Michigan for the cooperative management and

protection of the Thunder Bay area’s

underwater cultural resources.

The purpose of this section is to provide the

reader with a brief summary of the FEIS/MP. For

a complete understanding of the proposal to

designate the Thunder Bay NMS, refer to

Sections 2–6 of this document.

Vision Statement for the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

To establish a National Marine Sanctuary that

actively promotes education and research on the

underwater cultural resources of the Thunder Bay

region, and that creates a framework for

comprehensive protection and management that

relies on governmental cooperation and citizen

participation.

Key Points

❍ Designation of a Thunder Bay NMS will

establish a partnership between NOAA and the

State of Michigan for the cooperative management and protection of Thunder Bay’s underwater cultural resources.

❍ Underwater cultural resources include

shipwrecks, historical remnants of docks and

piers, and materials from historic and prehistoric

Native Americans.

❍ The underwater cultural resources and

maritime heritage of the Thunder Bay region are

nationally significant. Management of these

resources will ensure their recreational, education, and scientific value for present and future

generations.

❍ The Thunder Bay NMS will be managed in

cooperation with state and local agencies as well

as private and nonprofit organizations, including

the local Sanctuary Advisory Council.

❍ Sanctuary education programs will promote

understanding, appreciation and involvement in

the protection and stewardship of underwater

cultural resources.

❍ The knowledge gained through Sanctuary
3

SECTION 1 OVERVIEW

research and monitoring programs will be used

to evaluate existing management practices,

enhance future management decisions, and

educate the public.

❍ The Memorandum of Understanding and

Programmatic Agreement detail the roles of

NOAA, the State of Michigan, and the Federal

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation in the

management of the Sanctuary.

What is the National Marine

Sanctuary Program?

In response to growing public concern for the

environmental and cultural value of our coastal

waters, Congress passed the Marine Protection,

Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (now

known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act).

The Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce

to identify, designate, and manage marine and

Great Lakes areas of national significance as

National Marine Sanctuaries. The National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) administers the National Marine

Sanctuary Program, within the U.S. Department

of Commerce.

The mission of the National Marine Sanctuary

Program is to identify, designate and manage

areas of the marine environment of special

national significance due to their conservation,

recreational, ecological, historical, research,

educational or aesthetic qualities. Management

of these areas is guided by the overriding goal of

resource protection. Sanctuary stewardship,

education, and research programs help meet this

goal.

Since 1972, twelve National Marine Sanctuaries

have been designated. They include nearshore

coral reefs and open ocean, and range in size

from less than one to over 5,300 square miles.

National Marine Sanctuaries are designated

based on differing resources and management

needs at individual sites. Although many

National Marine Sanctuaries protect nationally

significant natural resources, the first National

Marine Sanctuary, designated in 1975, protects

the nationally significant cultural resources found

at the site of the Monitor, located offshore of

Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

Why Designate a Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary?

❍ NATIONAL HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE

The Thunder Bay region boasts an impressive

array of underwater cultural resources including

shipwrecks, historical remnants of docks and

piers, and materials from historic and prehistoric

Native Americans. In particular, the area

contains a nationally significant collection of

approximately 160 shipwrecks that spans over a

century of Great Lakes shipping history.

Although many of these wrecks have been

identified, many more are thought to be in the

area and have yet to be located. Collectively,

Thunder Bay’s shipwrecks represent a

“microcosm” of the Great Lakes commercial

shipping industry as it developed over the last
4

two hundred years. The sunken vessels reflect

transitions in ship architecture and construction

methods, from wooden sailboats to early steelhulled steamers.

National significance is attached to the entire

collection of shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay

region, as well as to individual vessels. A large

collection of shipwrecks exists in the Thunder

Bay region, including virtually all types of vessels

used on the open Great Lakes. Thunder Bay is

the final resting place for an unusually large

number of steel propellers, particularly from the

critical decades when changes in vessel design

were rapid and short-lived (i.e., 1880 – 1920).

Thunder Bay shipwrecks were engaged in all

major trades at the time of loss. Thunder Bay is

particularly strong in vessels engaged in the

trades that were the backbone of Great Lakes

commerce: wood products, grain, iron ore, coal,

and passenger/package freight.

In addition to being nationally significant, a recent

study indicates that the collection of wrecks in

and around Thunder Bay is qualified for National

Historic Landmark status and that the region

should qualify for the National Register of Historic Places (Martin 1996). The study also led to

six major conclusions regarding the shipwrecks

of Thunder Bay:

(1) they are representative of the composition of

the Great Lakes merchant marine for the

period 1840 – 1970;

(2) they may be used to study and interpret the

OVERVIEW SECTION 1

various phases of American westward expansion via the Great Lakes;

(3) they may be used to study and interpret the

growth of the American extraction and use of

natural resources;

(4) they may be used to discuss various phases of

American industrialization;

(5) one vessel (Isaac M. Scott) may be used to

study and interpret a specific event (the Great

Storm of 1913) that had strong repercussions

regionally, nationally, and internationally; and

(6) they provide important material for the

interpretation of American foreign intercontinental trade in the Great Lakes context.

All of these areas of study will help to create a

better understanding and interpretation of events

that shaped the broad patterns of American

history and culture.

❍ COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT OF

NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT UNDERWATER

CULTURAL RESOURCES

In 1981, Thunder Bay was established as the first

State of Michigan Great Lakes Bottomland

Preserve (commonly termed underwater

preserve). Underwater preserves are

established to protect “abandoned property of

historical value, or ecological, educational,

geological, or scenic features or formations
5

having recreational, educational, or scientific

value.” The Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve

totals 288 square miles, extending from Middle

Island (at the northern edge of Alpena County),

south to South Point (at the southern edge of

Alpena County), and extending from the

ordinary high water mark along the shores of

Thunder Bay east to the 150-foot contour line in

Lake Huron. Because of increasing public

interest in underwater cultural resources, the

discovery, exploration, documentation, and study

of shipwrecks will continue to be important

activities in the Thunder Bay region and the

Great Lakes. Comprehensive and long-term

management is important for Thunder Bay,

particularly as public interest in its nationally

significant collection of shipwrecks increases.

NOAA recognizes the state’s achievements and

commitment to the protection of Thunder Bay’s

underwater cultural resources, particularly the

establishment of Thunder Bay as a state

underwater preserve. NOAA also recognizes

the need to complement and supplement these

achievements by working with the state to

achieve comprehensive management of the

Thunder Bay region’s underwater cultural

resources, including education and research

programs.

NOAA and the State of Michigan have entered

into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

The MOU clarifies the relative jurisdiction,

authority, conflict resolution, and conditions of

the NOAA-State partnership for managing the

Thunder Bay NMS. It confirms the State’s

continuing sovereignty and jurisdiction over its

State waters, submerged lands, and other

resources within the Sanctuary.

The administrative roles and responsibilities of

the State of Michigan, NOAA, and the federal

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are

described in the Programmatic Agreement. In

particular, the Programmatic Agreement documents permit procedures and criteria, and each

agency’s responsibilities in terms of permits. The

Programmatic Agreement also describes the

underwater cultural resource protection, education and research goals, and high priority projects

for the first five years.

The MOU and Programmatic Agreement both

reflect public comments received during the

designation process, including substantial local

input by the Sanctuary Advisory Council. The

MOU and Programmatic Agreement are attached at the end of the MP on pages 75 – 91.

Additional MOUs may be developed for Sanctuary enforcement activities, or other Sanctuary

activities as deemed necessary by NOAA, the

State of Michigan, and local communities.

Limited financial support for management efforts

at both state and local levels strengthens the

need for partnerships among the state, local

communities, and the National Marine Sanctuary

Program. Designation of Thunder Bay as a

National Marine Sanctuary will establish

partnerships, in which resources can be shared

to achieve comprehensive management and

protection of Thunder Bay’s underwater cultural

SECTION 1 OVERVIEW
6

resources through research, monitoring and

education.

How Did We Get Here?

Since the early 1970s, members of the Alpena

community have been interested in the potential

for development of an underwater park featuring

the shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region.

Based on studies that documented the presence

in Thunder Bay of a large number of shipwrecks,

and with the support of a local diving club and

other civic organizations, Thunder Bay became

the first State of Michigan underwater preserve

in 1981. The Preserve, as other preserves to

follow, was established to protect and preserve

bottomland and surface water areas containing

abandoned property of cultural or recreational

value.

During the same period of time, NOAA was

developing a Site Evaluation List (SEL) of

potential candidates for designation as National

Marine Sanctuaries. In 1983, NOAA placed

Thunder Bay, as one of five Great Lakes areas,

on the final SEL.

In 1991, NOAA elevated the Thunder Bay site

from the SEL to become an active candidate for

National Marine Sanctuary designation. Over

the next three years there followed a series of

meetings to bring together governmental and

non-governmental entities to discuss the scope

of a National Marine Sanctuary at Thunder Bay.

In 1994, a Thunder Bay Core Group was

formed, whose members represented local,

state, federal and tribal agencies. The Core

Group assisted in the development and review

of management alternatives, in cooperation with

a variety of community interests. By mid-1995,

the Core Group had narrowed the management

focus of a potential Thunder Bay NMS to underwater cultural resources. This recommended

focus was presented and agreed upon at an

Alpena community meeting in June 1995. The

Core Group rejected management of natural

resources. Since that time, development of the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft

Management Plan (DEIS/DMP) and the FEIS/MP

has proceeded in accordance with the 1995

recommendations of the Core Group.

In August 1997, a Thunder Bay Sanctuary

Advisory Council (SAC) was selected and

appointed. The purpose of the SAC was to

provide recommendations to NOAA and the

Governor of Michigan on the DEIS/DMP for the

Sanctuary. The SAC also met during the Spring

and Summer of 1998 to provide input to NOAA

on the Memorandum of Understanding, the

Programmatic Agreement, and other issues

related to the Sanctuary. NOAA used these

recommendations and this input to resolve many

of the issues of concern to the public regarding

the Sanctuary.

NOAA received 62 comments on the DEIS/

DMP. Additionally, at three public hearings in

Alcona, Alpena, and Presque Isle Counties held

by NOAA, 27 persons testified on the proposed

Sancturary. In response to these comments,

OVERVIEW SECTION 1
7

Sanctuary staff and facilities, including staff roles,

establishment of an office in Alpena, possible

satellite offices (as future needs are identified),

and development of a Maritime Heritage Center

in partnership with others.

The establishment of a Sanctuary Advisory

Council (SAC) is an important mechanism to

provide advice and recommendations to the

Sanctuary Manager about issues related to

Sanctuary programs and implementation. The

SAC will encourage community participation in

the management of the Sanctuary.

A five-year projection of Sanctuary activities,

estimated financial obligations, and economic

impacts of the Sanctuary operating budgets and

cost-share partnerships is provided in Table 3.4

of the MP.

❍ RESOURCE PROTECTION PROGRAM

The Sanctuary’s Resource Protection Program’s

primary function is to ensure, through

cooperative stewardship, the protection of

Thunder Bay’s underwater cultural resources for

their long-term integrity and use. Cooperative

stewardship, as described by the Michigan

Underwater Preserve Council and other

organizations, involves the active participation in

resource protection activities by agencies,

organizations, and businesses. Stewardship is

important to achieving this primary goal, as is

Sanctuary coordination with existing state and

regional underwater cultural resource protection

plans.

SECTION 1 OVERVIEW

NOAA made appropriate changes in the FEIS/

MP. NOAA also added Appendix A to the FEIS/

MP, which responds to public comments.

NOAA’S Proposal for a

National Marine Sanctuary

❍ MANAGEMENT PLAN

Section 3 of this document presents the

Management Plan (MP) for the Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary. The MP is a fiveyear plan describing the management

(administration and resource protection),

education, and research programs for the

Sanctuary. The MP also identifies a variety of

possible activities within those programs.

Individual strategic plans will be developed for

each of these programs. The Sanctuary Advisory

Council will play a critical role in the

development of these plans.

MANAGEMENT PROGRAM:

Operating and Protecting

the Sanctuary in Partnership

❍ ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM

The Sanctuary’s Administration Program focuses

on the roles and responsibilities of the agencies,

organizations, and businesses that will be

involved in operation of the Sanctuary.

Successful operation of the Sanctuary is possible

only through cooperative efforts of appropriate

governmental and non-governmental entities.

The Management Plan discusses potential
8

Priorities for Sanctuary education activities will be

incorporated into an Education Plan. Possible

Sanctuary education activities include the

following:

• Develop the concept for and secure the

funding for the establishment of a Maritime

Heritage Center. Such a facility provides

education and research opportunities for

both residents and tourists.

• Acquire a Sanctuary education/research

vessel. This facilitates access to Sanctuary

underwater cultural resources by allowing

on-the-water education and research

activities.

• Establish remote video hook-ups of

researchers documenting the shipwrecks.

This technology provides visual access to

shipwrecks for non-divers.

• Select and interpret a series of shipwrecks as

a “shipwreck trail” to highlight Thunder Bay’s

maritime heritage. Interpretive materials will

be developed for both divers and nondivers.

• Designate an annual week-long celebration

that highlights special events for school

children to kindle an interest in Great Lakes

maritime heritage.

• Produce an historical guide to maritime

resources in the Thunder Bay NMS. The

guide will interpret the maritime history of

the Thunder Bay area, and involve local

communities in discovering and documenting

their maritime heritage.

• Identify and support a network of volunteers

to help enhance and maintain maritime

OVERVIEW SECTION 1

Priorities for Sanctuary resource protection

activities will be incorporated into an

Underwater Cultural Resource Protection Plan.

Possible activities for underwater cultural

resource protection include the following:

• Develop and maintain a mooring buoy

system.

• Facilitate coordination among management

agencies having responsibilities for the

Thunder Bay maritime heritage cultural

landscape.

• Support a scientific research and monitoring

program that focuses on underwater cultural

resources.

• Cross-deputize and support law

enforcement personnel to enforce Sanctuary

regulations.

EDUCATION PROGRAM:

Learning to be Better Cooperative Stewards

The Sanctuary Education Program’s primary

function is to promote understanding,

appreciation, and involvement in the protection

and stewardship of Thunder Bay’s underwater

cultural resources. Priority activities include a

wide range of programs, facilities, and services

offered through schools, and interpretation and

outreach activities. Program activities will

support the priorities of the Michigan

underwater preserves, particularly those of the

Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve. Sanctuary

education activities will complement existing

efforts relating to underwater cultural resources

and the Thunder Bay area’s maritime heritage.
9

SECTION 1 OVERVIEW

heritage education activities and projects.

• Encourage and develop the use of

educational technologies in supporting

maritime heritage education.

• Develop public outreach activities to

promote the Sanctuary locally, regionally, and

nationally.

• Support, complement, and enhance existing

maritime heritage education efforts, and

develop and maintain new education

initiatives as appropriate.

RESEARCH PROGRAM:

Working Together to Better Understand

Thunder Bay’s Underwater Cultural Resources

and Maritime Heritage

The Sanctuary Research Program focuses on

acquiring knowledge about Thunder Bay’s

underwater cultural resources through research

and monitoring programs. This knowledge is

used to evaluate existing management programs,

enhance future management decisions, and

educate the public. These goals are possible

only through active participation of governmental

and non-governmental entities interested in

comprehensive management of underwater

cultural resources. The Sanctuary Research

Program will complement the Michigan underwater preserve program by supporting the

inventory, assessment, and monitoring of Sanctuary underwater cultural resources. The Sanctuary Research Program also will complement the

Michigan Department of State’s goal of documenting more fully Michigan’s historic resources.

Priorities for Sanctuary research activities will be

incorporated into a Research Plan. Possible

Sanctuary research activities include the following:

• Locate, inventory, and document the

shipwrecks. This information will be used to

nominate the collection of shipwrecks as a

National Historic Landmark.

• Establish a monitoring program for the

shipwrecks. The first step is to document

baseline conditions.

• Obtain additional information from archives,

site maps, photographs and other historical

sources to supplement the shipwreck

inventory.

• Maintain in one place all information relating

to each vessel including field notes, historical

information, photographs, videotapes, site

maps, drawings, inventory forms, and

reports. All such documentation shall be

available to the public for interpretive and

educational purposes.

• Monitor the impact of zebra mussels on

shipwrecks.

NOAA’S Preferred Alternatives

Section 5 of this document provides an analysis

of the alternatives put forth by NOAA for

designation and management of the Thunder

Bay NMS. Section 6 of this document discusses

the environmental and social-economic

consequences of the alternatives. The four sets

of alternatives address designation, boundaries,

regulations, and permit administration. The
10

complete discussion and analysis is contained in

Section 5 and Section 6.

NOAA’s preferred alternatives are the following:

❍ SANCTUARY DESIGNATION

NOAA proposes to designate Thunder Bay and

surrounding waters on Lake Huron as a

National Marine Sanctuary. Designation of a

Thunder Bay NMS will establish a partnership

between NOAA and the State of Michigan for

the cooperative management and protection of

Thunder Bay’s underwater cultural resources.

NOAA will also work in conjunction with other

agencies as well as private and nonprofit

organizations to protect the area’s underwater

cultural resources, develop educational

activities, and conduct research and monitoring.

The vision for the Sanctuary includes a suite of

activities that could include live video hook-ups

from the shipwrecks to classrooms, a

“shipwreck trail,” educational programs related

to Great Lakes maritime heritage, and research

that better identifies and documents the

importance of the Thunder Bay shipwrecks.

❍ BOUNDARY

NOAA proposes a Sanctuary boundary that will

run along the ordinary high water mark of Lake

Huron from Presque Isle Lighthouse, south to

Sturgeon Point Lighthouse, and lakeward to

longitude 83 degrees west. The total Sanctuary

will encompass 808 square miles. This is

NOAA’s preferred boundary because it protects

a collection of nationally significant shipwrecks

that are representative of Great Lakes maritime

history. The boundary also complements and

enhances the cultural landscape and maritime

history of the Thunder Bay region. The

boundary is readily identifiable to Sanctuary

visitors, staff, enforcement personnel and by

other agencies with management responsibilities

in the area. It also provides high quality access

for visitors using Sanctuary resources and for

Sanctuary staff interacting with visitors.

❍ REGULATORY

NOAA proposes to adopt regulations that are

generally used in other National Marine

Sanctuaries to protect underwater cultural

resources. The regulations are consistent with

the purpose and intent of State of Michigan law.

The Sanctuary regulations prohibit recovering,

altering, destroying, possessing, or attempting to

recover, alter, destroy, or possess an underwater

cultural resource. The regulations prohibit the

alteration of the lakebottom if such an activity

causes an adverse impact on underwater cultural

resources. Sanctuary regulations also prohibit

the use of grappling hooks or other anchoring

devices on underwater cultural resource sites

that are marked with a mooring buoy.

Sanctuary regulations expand coverage to all

underwater cultural resources, not just

“abandoned” resources. The Sanctuary

regulations, therefore, serve as a federal safety

net for underwater cultural resources that the

OVERVIEW SECTION 1
11

State of Michigan may be unable to protect

under state law or the federal Abandoned

Shipwreck Act.

❍ ADMINISTRATIVE

NOAA proposes to rely on the well-established

existing state permitting program for many of the

permits that will be issued. If Sanctuary concerns

can be addressed through the issuance of a state

permit and through Section 106 of the National

Historic Preservation Act, NOAA does not

believe that a separate Sanctuary permit is

necessary. If the applicant is applying for a permit

to conduct an activity that is already regulated by

the State of Michigan, the applicant will not do

anything different if the Sanctuary is designated.

NOAA’s preferred administrative alternative also

allows Sanctuary concerns to be addressed

through the review and authorization by NOAA

of the issuance of federal permits. The permit

applicant applies for a federal permit (e.g., from

the Corps of Engineers). NOAA will work with

the federal agency to ensure that there will be

no adverse impact on underwater cultural

resources; this results in the authorization of the

federal permit.

NOAA believes that either an existing state or

federal permit will cover the great majority of

activities in the Sanctuary. NOAA expects,

therefore, that few applicants will be required to

obtain a Sanctuary permit that will be issued by

NOAA.

SECTION 1 OVERVIEW

Social-Economic Impacts

The social-economic impacts of Sanctuary

designation are anticipated to be positive both

for the public and the economy of the Thunder

Bay region. Sanctuary designation not only will

increase the number of visitors to the region, but

will provide recognition, accessibility and

opportunities that will improve the quality of the

experiences for tourists, as well as the quality of

life for residents. The Sanctuary will provide a

focus and mechanism for the partnerships

needed to develop facilities, services, and

programs meaningful to visitors and local

residents, while protecting the underwater

cultural resources upon which recreation and

tourism is based. For example, the possible

establishment of a Maritime Heritage Center is

expected to increase understanding and

appreciation for Great Lakes underwater cultural

resources.

Because the Sanctuary will not regulate natural

resources, designation of the Sanctuary will not

adversely impact the region’s natural resources.

Designation of Thunder Bay NMS will provide

positive environmental impacts and associated

positive economic impacts from scuba diving and

heritage tourism. Management strategies will

facilitate compatible multiple uses of the

underwater cultural resources in a manner that

avoids or minimizes negative impacts to these

resources.
12

Beginning with the publication date of that

notice, the Congressional Committees and the

Governor’s Office have 45 days of continuous

Congressional session to review the FEIS/MP

and take action. During this 45-day review

period, the Governor may certify to the

Secretary of Commerce (NOAA) that the

designation or any of its terms is unacceptable, in

which case, the designation will not occur in

regard to those terms. The Sanctuary and its

regulations will take effect at the end of the 45-

day review period; a final Federal Register notice

will announce the effective date of the

Sanctuary’s regulations.

OVERVIEW SECTION 1

What is Next in the Process?

Copies of this document were provided to the

Governor’s Office, the Michigan Congressional

Delegation, and the Senate and House

Committees with jurisdiction over the National

Marine Sanctuary Program. During this same

time period, a notice announcing the availability

of the FEIS/MP was published in the Federal

Register. If, based on public and state support,

NOAA decides to designate the Sanctuary,

NOAA will publish a Notice of Designation in

the Federal Register.
Section 2

Background
14

SECTION 2

BACKGROUND

A. INTRODUCTION

The Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Management Plan (FEIS/MP) is an important step

in the process to determine the feasibility of the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (NMS)

in Lake Huron. It is a reflection of the many

hours of work contributed by numerous volunteers, agency representatives, and political

officials. The FEIS/MP incorporates the best

available information on the resources and

activities of the Thunder Bay region. It is designed to encourage understanding, careful

thought, as well as respond to public comments

regarding the designation of the Thunder Bay

NMS.

❍ Comprehensive management involves the

protection of resources using sound management practices that incorporate scientific knowledge developed through research and monitoring programs. Comprehensive management is

dependent on community support, understanding, and participation in sustainable use and

stewardship of public resources.

❍ The mission of the National Marine

Sanctuary Program is to serve as the

trustee for the nation’s system of

marine protected areas, as well as to

conserve, protect, and enhance the

biodiversity, ecological integrity, and

cultural legacy of these ecosystems.

❍ The Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary is the collaborative effort of

governmental and non-governmental

entities to comprehensively manage the

underwater cultural resources of the

region in the context of its cultural

landscape.

❍ The Thunder Bay region will be:

• the first freshwater and Great

Lakes National Marine Sanctuary

• the only National Marine Sanctuary

located entirely within state waters;

• the first National Marine Sanctuary to

focus solely on a large collection of

underwater cultural resources.

❍ There are currently 12 National Marine Sanctuaries designated in the United

States and Pacific Territories.

1. WHAT IS THE THUNDER BAY

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY?

The Thunder Bay NMS is the collaborative effort

of governmental and non-governmental entities

to comprehensively manage the underwater

cultural resources of the Thunder Bay region in

the context of its cultural landscape.
15

❍ Underwater cultural resources are submerged

watercraft and their associated artifacts. The

definition also includes historical remnants of

docks and piers, as well as materials resulting

from activities of historic and prehistoric Native

Americans. A more detailed definition can be

found on page 59.

❍ A cultural landscape is a geographic area

including both cultural and natural resources,

coastal environments, human communities, and

related scenery, that is associated with historic

events, activities, or persons, or exhibits other

cultural or aesthetic values (NPS 1992).

PURPOSES

The purposes of the Thunder Bay NMS

are to work cooperatively with governmental and non-governmental entities to:

❍ complement and supplement existing

management and enforcement authorities

protecting underwater cultural resources;

❍ provide educational opportunities that

promote understanding, appreciation, and

involvement in the protection and stewardship of underwater cultural resources;

❍ develop scientific knowledge and

enhance management practices related to

underwater cultural resources by encouraging research and monitoring programs;

and

❍ encourage the exchange of knowledge

and expertise to enhance sustainable uses

of the Great Lakes and underwater cultural

resources.

Figure 2.1 Scuba diver explores the shipwreck Monohansett in

Thunder Bay.

Great Lakes Visual/ Research, Inc.

BACKGROUND SECTION 2
16

2. WHAT IS THE NATIONAL MARINE

SANCTUARY PROGRAM?

In response to a growing awareness of the

natural, cultural, and historical values of our

oceanic, Great Lakes, and coastal waters,

Congress passed Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act in 1972 (16

U.S.C. 1431 et seq.). In 1992, Title III was

amended and renamed the National Marine

Sanctuaries Act. The Act was most recently

amended in 1996 (P. L. 104 – 283). The Act

authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to

identify, designate, and comprehensively manage marine and Great Lakes areas of special

national significance as National Marine Sanctuaries. The NMS Program is administered by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the U.S. Department of

Commerce.

National Marine Sanctuaries promote comprehensive management of nationally significant

ecological, historical, recreational, and aesthetic

marine resources. National Marine Sanctuaries

may be designated in coastal and ocean waters,

in submerged lands, and in the Great Lakes and

their connecting waters. Currently, twelve

National Marine Sanctuaries have been designated and include near-shore and open ocean

waters ranging in size from less than one square

nautical mile to more than 5,000 square nautical

miles. National Marine Sanctuaries encompass

a fascinating array of plants and animals, from

humpback whales to sea anemones, and a

variety of historical resources, such as the U.S.

Civil War ironclad ship Monitor.

National Marine Sanctuaries are cherished

recreational destinations for scuba diving, sport

fishing, and wildlife viewing, and support valuable

commercial industries, such as fishing, boating,

diving, and tourism. Sanctuaries may provide a

secure habitat for endangered and rare species,

and protect historically significant shipwrecks and

cultural artifacts.

MISSION·

The mission of the National Marine

Sanctuary Program is to serve as the

trustee for the nation’s system of

marine protected areas, as well as to

conserve, protect, and enhance the

biodiversity, ecological integrity, and

cultural legacy of these ecosystems.

SECTION 2 BACKGROUND
17

The goals of the NMS Program (NOAA 1994)

are to:

• Ensure the health and integrity of Sanctuary resources by protecting biodiversity,

biological productivity, cultural resources, and

areas of pristine condition.

• Broaden the scope of the Sanctuary

system by including a diversity of nationally

significant marine and Great Lakes areas

especially valued for their ecological and

cultural qualities.

• Enhance Sanctuary management by

adopting policies, practices, and initiatives that

ensure the compatibility of human activities

with long-term protection of Sanctuary

resources.

Figure 2.2 The National Marine Sanctuary System (1999).

July, 1994

The National Marine Sanctuary Program

DESIGNATED SITES ACTIVE CANDIDATES

Gulf of the Farallones

Cordell Bank

Olympic Coast

Northwest Straits

Hawaiian Islands

Humpback Whale

Channel Islands

Fagatele Bay (American Samoa)

Flower Garden Banks Florida Keys

(Looe Key, Key Largo)

Gray’s Reef

Monitor

Norfolk Canyon

Stellwagen Bank

Thunder Bay

Monterey Bay

• Develop scientific understanding by encouraging research and monitoring programs yielding

information that can be used to evaluate existing

management practices and provide improved

understanding for future management decisions.

• Provide opportunities in education and

outreach that promote public understanding,

support, and participation in the protection and

conservation of marine and Great Lakes resources.

• Encourage the transfer and adoption of

resource management practices that can be used

globally, regionally, and locally to enhance marine

and Great Lakes conservation and ecologically

sustainable uses of marine and Great Lakes

resources outside Sanctuary boundaries.

GOALS

BACKGROUND SECTION 2

Monitor
18

B. THE FEASIBILITY OF A THUNDER

BAY NATIONAL MARINE

SANCTUARY

1. NEED FOR ACTION

The Thunder Bay region contains a large concentration of shipwrecks that span more than a

century of Great Lakes maritime history. Over

160 shipwrecks have been mentioned in historical records (Martin 1996, Vrana 1993). Twentysix shipwrecks in Thunder Bay were investigated

by divers in 1975 (Warner and Holecek 1975);

about 45 shipwrecks in the region are currently

explored by recreational divers (McConnell,

personal communication 1996).

In 1981, Thunder Bay was established as the first

State of Michigan underwater preserve under

Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities of

Public Act 451 (1994), as amended, to protect

“abandoned property of historical value, or

ecological, educational, geological, or scenic

features or formations having recreational,

educational, or scientific value.” The Preserve

area totals 288 square miles, extending from

Middle Island (northern edge of Alpena County)

south to South Point (southern edge of Alpena

County), and from the ordinary high water mark

along the shores of Thunder Bay, to the eastern

boundary along the 150-foot contour line in

Lake Huron.

Management of underwater preserves is the

joint responsibility of the Michigan Department

of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Land and Water

Management Division, and the Michigan Department of State (DOS) Michigan Historical Center.

State agencies with responsibility for law enforcement in the Preserve include the Alpena County

Sheriff’s Department, the Michigan State Police,

and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Law Enforcement Division.

The discovery, exploration, documentation, and

study of shipwrecks continue to be important

activities in the Thunder Bay region and the

Great Lakes. This importance is due, in part, to

the increasing public interest in underwater

cultural resources and the development of

underwater technologies that enhance access to

these resources.

NOAA recognizes the national historic significance of the underwater cultural resources of

the Thunder Bay region. NOAA agrees with the

State of Michigan, the Thunder Bay Core Group,

the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC), and other

stakeholders that a Thunder Bay NMS should

focus on underwater cultural resources, as well

as highlight the region’s maritime heritage.

If NOAA designates the Thunder Bay NMS, it

would reaffirm the achievements of the State of

Michigan and regional communities in protecting

Great Lakes underwater cultural resources and

in establishing the Thunder Bay Underwater

Preserve. NOAA also recognizes the need to

supplement these achievements by facilitating the

comprehensive management of Thunder Bay’s

underwater cultural resources, including education and research initiatives. Comprehensive

management is important because of increasing

SECTION 2 BACKGROUND
19

Requirements of the Designation Process

Sections 303 and 304 of the National Marine

Sanctuaries Act and its implementing regulations

(15 CFR Part 922) outline the steps necessary to

designate a NMS. These steps include the

preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed

designation.

Given the diversity of resources and communities in which Sanctuaries are located, the mechanisms for completing the EIS and the steps for

designation vary from site to site. The designation process is designed not only to satisfy the

requirements of NEPA and the National Marine

Sanctuaries Act, but to meet the needs of local

communities; state, federal, and tribal agencies;

businesses; nonprofit organizations; and political

officials.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

NOAA has strived to develop a National

Marine Sanctuary in partnership with governmental and non-governmental entities.

The Sanctuary will:

• encourage active involvement in the

protection and stewardship of Thunder Bay

underwater cultural resources;

• complement and supplement existing management, education, and research programs;

• respect and incorporate local values,

culture and expertise, and enhance the

quality of life of resource users; and

• strengthen local, regional, national, and

global awareness and understanding of Great

Lakes maritime heritage.

BACKGROUND SECTION 2

interest in underwater cultural resources, the

national significance of these resources in the

Thunder Bay region, and the limited financial

support available at state and local levels.

2. THE DESIGNATION PROCESS

Guiding Principles of the Designation Process

The process to determine the feasibility of a

Thunder Bay NMS has been guided by some

important principles. These principles have

evolved throughout the feasibility process and

have helped to ensure accuracy of information.
20

C. HISTORY OF THE FEASIBILITY

PROCESS

1. PRIOR TO ACTIVATION AS A SANCTUARY

CANDIDATE (1970 – 1991)

Since the early 1970s, the Alpena community

has been exploring the potential for development of an underwater park featuring shipwrecks

in the Thunder Bay region. Thunder Bay was

identified as an area of the Michigan Great Lakes

having a significant concentration of shipwrecks in

a 1975 study by Dr. Richard Wright, funded by

the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

In 1974, Michigan State University’s Department

of Park and Recreation Resources coordinated a

cooperative project to inventory Thunder Bay’s

underwater cultural resources. The resulting

“Thunder Bay Shipwreck Survey Study Report”

provided the locations of 17 vessels and the

approximate locations of 9 other vessels. The

report suggested that the number of located

wrecks was sufficient to warrant the establishment of an underwater “reserve” (Warner and

Holecek 1975).

Establishment of a reserve was supported by the

Thunder Bay Diving Club and civic organizations.

In 1981, Thunder Bay was authorized as the first

State of Michigan Great Lakes underwater preserve under Part 761, Aboriginal Records and

Antiquities of Public Act 451 (1994), as

amended. The Michigan underwater preserves

have been established to preserve and protect

bottomland and surface water areas around the

Michigan State University

Figure 2.3 Machinery from steamer Monohansett near Thunder Bay Island.

SECTION 2 BACKGROUND
21

Great Lakes that contain abandoned property of

historical, recreational, educational, or scientific

value.

During this same time period, the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) was developing a Site Evaluation List

(SEL) to identify potential candidates for designation as National Marine Sanctuaries. The final

SEL was published on August 4, 1983 (48

Federal Register 35568) and included five Great

Lakes areas: Thunder Bay, Lake Huron; Apostle

Islands/Isle Royale, Lake Superior; Green Bay,

Lake Michigan; Western Lake Erie Islands/

Sandusky Bay, Lake Erie; and Cape Vincent, Lake

Ontario.

The proposal to include Thunder Bay on the SEL

was written by John Porter, Chair for the Alpena

County Planning Commission, in cooperation

with John Schwartz, District Sea Grant Extension

Agent for northeast Michigan. The proposal to

Figure 2.4 Boundaries of the Thunder Bay Underwater

Source: Michigan DNR, edited by: Kathryn Rowan Preserve, established in 1981.

Middle Island

South Point

BACKGROUND SECTION 2
22

evaluate Thunder Bay was based on: (1) the

large number of intact shipwrecks; (2) the variety

of shipwreck environments, including shallow,

nearshore sites and deeper offshore sites; and

(3) the diversity of vessels representing historical

themes and types from the 1830s to 1950s

(Schwartz, personal communication 1995). The

area proposed as a Sanctuary encompassed

approximately 400 square miles of northeast

Michigan coastal waters (including Thunder Bay).

After inclusion of Thunder Bay on the SEL in

1983, members of the Alpena community

requested that the Michigan Department of

Natural Resources (DNR) pursue Sanctuary

designation for the site. The State of Michigan

was hesitant about designation, citing the inexperience of the NMS Program in state waters, and

existing state/federal resource management

conflicts as rationale for not pursuing new

partnerships with federal agencies (Porter,

personal communication 1983).

Michigan Sea Grant Extension created a university specialist position in 1988 to support development of the Michigan underwater preserves

and to enhance management of Great Lakes

underwater cultural resources. There was

renewed interest from members of the Alpena

community in exploring opportunities associated

with the NMS Program. In 1990, Michigan Sea

Grant Extension and a number of Michigan

underwater preserve committees invited NOAA,

the Director of the National Maritime Initiative,

the Michigan DNR, and the Michigan Bureau of

History to participate in a tour of the Michigan

underwater preserve areas. The purposes of

the tour were to acquaint these agencies with

preserve resources, to learn about community

development efforts and management issues,

and to discuss opportunities for sharing financial

and in-kind resources in management and

development of the preserves.

A follow-up meeting was held in Fall 1990 at the

Michigan Historical Center in Lansing and involved a number of stakeholders to discuss the

potential of a NMS in the Great Lakes. After the

meeting, representatives from the Alpena

community advocated the reconsideration of

Thunder Bay as a NMS. In July 1991, Thunder

Bay became an active candidate for Sanctuary

designation. NOAA then hired a Project Coordinator and housed that staff person at the

Michigan DNR’s Land and Water Management

Division. This marked the beginning of a formal

cooperative effort between NOAA and the State

of Michigan to determine the feasibility of a

Thunder Bay NMS. The office for the Project

Coordinator is currently located at NOAA’s

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory.

2. ACTIVE SANCTUARY CANDIDATE

(1991 – PRESENT)

NOAA hosted public scoping meetings in Lansing

and Alpena in October 1991. The purposes of

those meetings were to: (1) learn more about

resources, activities, and associated management

issues in Thunder Bay; and (2) share with

interested community members the purposes of

the NMS Program and the process necessary to

SECTION 2 BACKGROUND
23

determine the feasibility of a Sanctuary. The

public scoping meetings initiated a series of

events which ultimately led to publication of the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft

Management Plan (DEIS/DMP). Local input was

important throughout the feasibility process.

The Thunder Bay Core Group, established in

1994, represented governmental and nongovernmental entities and provided specific

recommendations to NOAA regarding the

feasibility of a Sanctuary. The Core Group also

met to clarify resource management issues,

discuss Sanctuary management and boundary

alternatives, and evaluate the potential impacts of

Sanctuary designation. The Sanctuary Advisory

Council (SAC), established in 1997, provided

local input on the DEIS/DMP, the Memorandum

of Understanding and Programmatic Agreement,

and other issues related to the Sanctuary.

A chronological outline of events that make up

the feasibility process for the Thunder Bay NMS

is provided in Table 2.1. Not all events have

been included (e.g., civic presentations, student

projects, conferences, meetings, and discussions).

Gene Wright

Figure 2.5 Discussions during a workshop at Old Woman Creek

National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Gene Wright

Figure 2.6 Tour of NOAA Research Vessel Shenehon during the

Thunder Bay Excursion.

Gene Wright

Figure 2.7 Preparing for an overflight of the region during the

Thunder Bay Excursion.

Gene Wright

Figure 2.8 Launching an ROV (remotely operated vehicle) from

the Shenehon.

BACKGROUND SECTION 2
24

Year

1991

June 1991

to present

1992

1992

1993

1993

1994

1994

1994

Event

Activation as Sanctuary Candidate

Ongoing Consultation

Thunder Bay Work Group Meetings

Thunder Bay Region Inventory of Resources

Kids Care About Our Great Lakes Poster

Workshop at Old Woman Creek

National Estuarine Research Reserve

(Huron, Ohio)

Thunder Bay Core Group

Thunder Bay Excursion

Development of Management

Alternatives

Description

In July 1991, Thunder Bay was activated from the SEL to

begin the formal process of determining the feasibility of

NMS designation.

NOAA consults with regional communities, Michigan

Coastal Management Program, State Historic Preservation

Office and Office of the State Archaeologist, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service and other federal agencies, and Native

American communities.

Governmental and non-governmental entities worked

together to discuss the scope of a NMS. The information

gathered was incorporated into the Thunder Bay Region

Inventory of Resources and the DEIS/DMP.

Michigan Sea Grant Extension prepared the inventory

based on a literature review and personal communications.

The document describes the environmental characteristics,

natural and cultural resources, and past and present human

activities of the region.

The poster was a cooperative project with the Michigan

Cooperative Extension Service, Alpena Community

College, and NOAA. The purpose was to increase

awareness of the resources and activities of Thunder Bay

and the NMS Program (Figure 2.5).

The purpose of the workshop was to provide an opportunity for stakeholders from state agencies and Thunder Bay

regional communities to interact with staff from designated

Sanctuaries and National Estuarine Research Reserves in an

operating facility.

The Core Group was established at the suggestion of

participants in attendance at the Old Woman Creek

Workshop. The Core Group provided specific recommendations to NOAA regarding the feasibility of a Sanctuary.

In June 1994, the Alpena community, the Thunder Bay

Core Group, and NMS staff welcomed resource professionals and political leaders to Thunder Bay. The purpose

was to encourage guests to interact with area resources

and community leaders (Figures 2.6 and 2.7).

The Thunder Bay Core Group met to: (1) clarify resource

management issues (e.g., fishing, diving, water quality,

discharge/disposal, wetlands, vessel traffic); (2) discuss

Sanctuary management and boundary alternatives; and (3)

evaluate the potential impacts of Sanctuary designation.

Table 2.1 Feasibility process for the Thunder Bay NMS.

SECTION 2 BACKGROUND

(Continued on next page.)
25

Description

Core Group members reviewed all management alternatives in cooperation with a variety of community interests

throughout Spring 1995. In June, the Core Group

determined that, if designated, a NMS in Thunder Bay

should focus on underwater cultural resources (e.g.,

shipwrecks).

NOAA drafted an outline of what a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) could contain. The purpose of an

MOU is to clearly define the mechanisms needed to

operate a state/ federal partnership in management of the

Sanctuary.

NOAA released the Draft Environmental Impact

Statement/Draft Management Plan for comment.

NOAA hosted informational meetings (open houses) to

summarize the document and answer questions in an

informal setting.

The Sanctuary Advisory Council was created to provide

local input on the DEIS/DMP, the Programmatic

Agreement and MOU, and other issues related to the

Sanctuary.

NOAA conducted public hearings in all three counties

surrounding Thunder Bay.

NOAA compiled all public comments and began review of

comments.

NOAA reviewed all public comments. Based on the

public comments and in partnership with the State of

Michigan and local community leaders, NOAA decides to

publish an FEIS/MP.

NOAA publishes the Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Management Plan.

NOAA issues a Federal Register Notice of Designation.

Sanctuary designation is not final until the end of a 45-day

review period of continuous Congressional session during

which time the Governor of Michigan and the U.S.

Congress can take action.

Year

1995

1996

June 1997

July 1997

August 1997

September 1997

November 1997

January 1998 –

January 1999

Summer 1999

Summer 1999

Late 1999

Event

Evaluation of Management

Alternatives

Draft Memorandum of Understanding among the State of Michigan,

NOAA, and the Federal Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation

Publication of DEIS/DMP

Informational Meetings (Open

Houses)

Establishment of Sanctuary Advisory

Council (SAC)

Public Hearings

Public Comment Period Closes

Review of Public Comments;

Preparation of Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) and Final

Environmental Impact Statement

and Management Plan (FEIS/MP)

Publication of FEIS/MP

Federal Register Notice of

Designation

Sanctuary Designation

Table 2.1 Feasibility process for the Thunder Bay NMS (continued).

BACKGROUND SECTION 2
26

D. POSITIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE

PROPOSED THUNDER BAY

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

The process to determine the feasibility of a

Thunder Bay NMS arose, in part, out of a need

to consider alternatives for funding and developing the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve. The

Sanctuary feasibility process, and the consideration of community, state, federal, and tribal

partnerships as a means to manage Thunder Bay

underwater cultural resources, has reinforced

the need to enhance protection, access, and

understanding of Thunder Bay’s important

maritime heritage resources.

Examples of how the Sanctuary feasibility process

has already contributed to resource protection

through research and education activities in the

Thunder Bay region are outlined in the following

paragraphs.

1. EDUCATION

❍ The Michigan Science Teachers Association (MSTA) kicked off the feasibility process with

a series of teacher training workshops during the

summers of 1991, 1992, and 1993. The

purpose of these workshops was to provide

materials and field experiences to enrich classroom teaching in Great Lakes education. MSTA

remains interested in developing future education initiatives with the Thunder Bay NMS.

❍ The NMS Program, Michigan Cooperative Extension Service, and Alpena Community

College held a poster contest during the 4-H

Great Lakes Leadership Camp in 1993. Over

9,000 Kids Care About Great Lakes posters have

been distributed at local, regional, and national

education events.

❍ The NMS Program continues producing

the Beneath the Waves newsletter. The newsletter, distributed semi-annually to over 1,400

individuals, organizations, and businesses, provides information on the Sanctuary, the NMS

Program, and related projects in the Great

Lakes.

❍ In 1994, the Alpena community, Thunder Bay Core Group, and NMS Program held

the Thunder Bay Excursion. The purpose of the

event was to encourage resource professionals

and political leaders to interact with Thunder Bay

resources and community leaders, in preparation

for release of the DEIS/DMP.

❍ Increased awareness of the Thunder Bay

region has resulted in the nomination of Thunder Bay as a candidate location for national

events. These events include the National Youth

Envirothon Olympics, and the North American

[Paddlesports] Water Trail Conference.

2. RESEARCH

❍ The NMS Program funded Michigan Sea

Grant Extension in 1991– 1992 to conduct an

inventory of resources for the Thunder Bay

region. The resulting document describes the

environmental characteristics, natural and cultural

SECTION 2 BACKGROUND
27

resources, and past and present human activities

of the region.

❍ The NOAA Great Lakes Environmental

Research Laboratory and Alpena Community

College conducted biological research in Thunder Bay in 1995. The researchers studied the

extent of zebra mussels on shipwrecks and their

movement in the Bay using satellite technology

and temperature profiling.

❍ The NMS Program funded Great Lakes

Visual/Research, Inc. in 1995 – 1996 to evaluate

the national significance of Thunder Bay underwater cultural resources. This project led to a

collaborative effort between NOAA and the

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism

Resources at Michigan State University to deBACKGROUND SECTION 2

velop concepts and preliminary proposals for a

Theme Study of the Thunder Bay cultural

landscape for consideration as a National Historical Landmark/Maritime Heritage Area. The

concepts and preliminary proposals were presented to community leaders in 1995. The final

report, “Preliminary Comparative and Theme

Study of National Historic Landmark Potential for

Thunder Bay, Michigan” was completed in 1996

(Martin 1996).

❍ The NMS Program provided funding for

the Michigan State University Department of

Anthropology in 1996 to conduct research in the

Thunder Bay region. The purpose of the project

was to learn more about the commercial fishing

heritage of Thunder Bay.
Section 3

Management Plan
29

SECTION 3

MANAGEMENT PLAN

Vision Statement for the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

To establish a National Marine Sanctuary that

actively promotes education and research on the

underwater cultural resources of the Thunder Bay

region, and that creates a framework for protection

and management that relies on governmental

cooperation and citizen participation.

A. INTRODUCTION

The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary will

be managed in partnership with governmental

and non-governmental entities, including the

local Sanctuary Advisory Council. The Sanctuary

will promote visitor/interpretive facilities and

educational programs that increase knowledge

and appreciation for Thunder Bay’s underwater

cultural resources and their connection with the

broader maritime heritage of the region and

nation. The vision for the Sanctuary includes a

suite of activities that could include live video

hook-ups from the shipwrecks to classrooms, a

“shipwreck trail,” adult and child educational

programs, and research that better identifies and

documents the importance of the underwater

cultural resources.

The Thunder Bay NMS will be the:

❍ first freshwater and Great Lakes National

Marine Sanctuary;

❍ The Management Plan is a five-year plan

that describes the management (operations

and underwater cultural resource protection),

education and research programs for the

Thunder Bay NMS.

❍ Protecting the 160 shipwrecks in the

Thunder Bay region is important to maintaining and enhancing the recreational, educational, and scientific values of these resources.

❍ Providing educational opportunities that

promote understanding, appreciation, and

involvement in the protection and stewardship of underwater cultural resources will be a

primary function of the Thunder Bay NMS.

❍ The knowledge acquired through the

research and monitoring programs of the

Thunder Bay NMS will be used to evaluate

existing management practices, enhance future

management decisions, and educate the

public.

❍ The Memorandum of Understanding

clarifies the jurisdiction, authority, conflict

resolution and conditions of the NOAA-State

partnership for managing the Thunder Bay

NMS.

❍ The Programmatic Agreement describes

permit procedures and criteria, program goals

and priority projects for the first five years.

❍ The Sanctuary Advisory Council is a

mechanism to encourage community participation in the management of a National

Marine Sanctuary.
30

The MP is divided into the following categories:

• Management: Operating and Protecting the

 Sanctuary in Partnership

• Education: Learning to be Better Cooperative

 Stewards

• Research: Working Together to Better Under-

 stand Thunder Bay’s Underwater

 Cultural Resources and Maritime

 Heritage

The MP first discusses Sanctuary Management,

specifically, Operations and Underwater Cultural

necessary to achieve the vision of a Thunder Bay

NMS. The Thunder Bay NMS will focus on

resource protection, education, and research

related to underwater cultural resources and the

region’s maritime heritage.

The MP is a five-year plan describing management (operations and underwater cultural

resource protection), education, and research

programs for the Thunder Bay NMS. Individual

strategic plans will be developed for each of

these programs. The MP is based on sound

practices for comprehensively managing and

protecting underwater cultural resources, and for

promoting awareness and understanding of

Great Lakes maritime heritage. Possible activities

in underwater cultural resource protection,

education, and research are described in the MP

to give the reader a more concrete view of

benefits that can accrue to communities, organizations, and individuals from Sanctuary designation.

SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT PLAN

❍ only National Marine Sanctuary located

entirely within state waters; and

❍ first National Marine Sanctuary to focus solely

on a large collection of underwater cultural

resources.

PURPOSES OF THE THUNDER BAY NMS

❍ To complement and supplement

existing management and enforcement

authorities protecting underwater

cultural resources;

❍ To provide educational opportunities

that promote understanding, appreciation, and involvement in the protection

and stewardship of underwater cultural

resources;

❍ To develop scientific knowledge and

enhance management practices related

to underwater cultural resources by

encouraging research and monitoring

programs; and

❍ To encourage the exchange of

knowledge and expertise to enhance

sustainable uses of the Great Lakes and

underwater cultural resources.

B. OUTLINE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Management Plan (MP) outlines the administrative framework, goals, and possible activities
31

Resource Protection. Sanctuary Operations

explains how governmental and non-governmental partners can work together to operate

the Sanctuary. Sanctuary staffing and facilities are

also discussed. The Underwater Cultural

Resource Protection program, and following

that the Education and Research programs, are

described in terms of: (1) how that program

relates to the existing NMS Program strategic

plan, and state and regional plans; (2) Sanctuary

management goals; and (3) management

activities identified for the Sanctuary.

C. MANAGEMENT:

OPERATING AND PROTECTING

THE SANCTUARY IN PARTNERSHIP

1. ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK

Administration refers to the roles and responsibilities of governmental and non-governmental

entities that will be involved in the operation of

the Sanctuary. The Thunder Bay NMS can be

successful only by working in partnership with

the agencies and organizations that have an

interest in underwater cultural resource management.

The NMS Program, the State of Michigan, and

local communities can work together to support

the functions of the Sanctuary. The roles and

responsibilities that agencies will have in Sanctuary underwater cultural resource protection,

research, and education are described in Tables

3.1 – 3.3, at the end of this section. More

detailed descriptions of these agencies are

provided in Section 4, The Sanctuary Setting.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is

made between the State of Michigan and

NOAA. The MOU clarifies the relative jurisdiction, authority, conflict resolution, and conditions

of the NOAA-State partnership for managing the

Thunder Bay NMS. It confirms the State’s

continuing sovereignty and jurisdiction over its

State waters, submerged lands, and other

resources within the Sanctuary.

The administrative roles and responsibilities of

the State of Michigan, NOAA, and the Federal

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are

described in the Programmatic Agreement. In

particular, the Agreement documents permit

procedures and criteria, and each agency’s

responsibilities in terms of permits. The Programmatic Agreement also describes the underwater cultural resource protection, education

and research goals, and priority projects for the

first five years.

The MOU and Programmatic Agreement both

reflect public comments received during the

designation process, including substantial local

input by the Sanctuary Advisory Council. The

MOU and Programmatic Agreement are

attached at the end of the MP on pages 75 – 91.

Additional MOUs may be developed for

Sanctuary enforcement activities, or other

Sanctuary activities as deemed necessary by

NOAA, the State of Michigan, and local

communities.

MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 3
32

Manager, rather than develop a cooperative

arrangement for this position. The Sanctuary

Manager will report directly to the NMS Program and be the primary spokesperson for the

Sanctuary. The Sanctuary Manager will be hired

and available upon designation to coordinate the

new responsibilities of the Sanctuary. The

Sanctuary Manager will be responsible for:

❍ working cooperatively with governmental and

non-governmental entities, including the Sanctuary Advisory Council, to establish and implement

priorities for Sanctuary underwater cultural

resource protection, research, and education;

❍ allocating Sanctuary funds for underwater

cultural resource protection, research, and

education activities;

❍ working with the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ), Michigan Department of State (DOS), and Michigan Department

of Natural Resources (DNR) to protect underwater cultural resources (e.g., coordinating the

permit application process, reaching agreement

on priorities for Sanctuary management).

❍ representing the Thunder Bay NMS at

functions relating to the Sanctuary and the NMS

Program;

❍ assessing the effectiveness of Sanctuary

management programs, especially of site-specific

management strategies; and

❍ supervising other Sanctuary staff.

2. SANCTUARY STAFF AND FACILITIES

Sanctuary Staff

The focus of the Thunder Bay NMS is underwater cultural resources and maritime heritage.

Sanctuary programs will emphasize underwater

cultural resource protection, research, and

education. Sanctuary staff, therefore, should

collectively have skills in resource management,

education, maritime history and archaeology,

recreation and tourism, and administration.

The staff of the Thunder Bay NMS should, at a

minimum, include a Manager, Education Coordinator, Research Coordinator, and Administrative

Assistant. The number and expertise of staff will

depend on budget allocations and the operating

priorities and strategies of the Thunder Bay

NMS. Funding and hiring of Sanctuary staff may

be accomplished in phases, using a variety of

mechanisms.

Sanctuary staff could be hired directly by the

NMS Program, or hired through cooperative

arrangements with other agencies, organizations,

and businesses. For example, a Sanctuary Research Coordinator may be hired jointly by the

NMS Program, the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality, the Department of State

Michigan Historical Center, and Michigan State

University; or an Education Coordinator may be

hired jointly by the NMS Program, Alpena

Community College, and the Alpena – Montmorency – Alcona Educational Service District.

The NMS Program will hire the Sanctuary

SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT PLAN
33

and south of Alpena if deemed necessary. For

example, seasonal offices could be established at

the Presque Isle Lighthouses or at Sturgeon Point

Lighthouse to accommodate the needs of

summer visitors.

The Thunder Bay community indicated that a

Maritime Heritage Center is important to enhance educational opportunities for both local

residents and visitors. Development of such an

education/research facility also supports the

mission of the NMS Program and the purposes

of the Thunder Bay NMS. The Thunder Bay

NMS will work actively with local interests and

the State of Michigan to develop the concept for,

and to secure the resources necessary for, the

construction and long-term maintenance of a

Maritime Heritage Center. Additional Sanctuary

facilities may be developed through various

partnerships as the Sanctuary becomes established over time. These facilities could include an

education/research vessel, seasonal office space,

and related equipment.

Potential Five-Year Budget

The potential of Sanctuary operating budgets and

cost-share partnerships are estimated in Table

3.4, at the end of this section (Mahoney et al.

1996).

The Education Coordinator will be responsible

for working with the Sanctuary Manager and

appropriate governmental and non-governmental entities, including the Sanctuary Advisory

Council, to establish education priorities and

strategies for the Sanctuary. These priorities and

strategies will be incorporated into a Sanctuary

Education Plan. The Education Coordinator will

be responsible for coordinating, implementing,

and evaluating the priorities and strategies

identified in the Education Plan.

The Research Coordinator will be responsible

for working with the Sanctuary Manager and

appropriate governmental and non-governmental entities, including the Sanctuary Advisory

Council, to establish research priorities and

strategies for the Sanctuary. These priorities and

strategies will be incorporated into a Sanctuary

Research Plan. The Research Coordinator will

be responsible for coordinating, implementing,

and evaluating the priorities and strategies

identified in the Research Plan.

The Administrative Assistant will be responsible

for assisting with the day-to-day operations of

the Sanctuary office, and providing administrative

support to Sanctuary staff.

Sanctuary Facilities

The Sanctuary office will be based in Alpena,

Michigan. Alpena is centrally located on Thunder

Bay and is a mid-point between the northern

and southern boundaries of the Sanctuary.

Other satellite offices could be established north

MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 3
34

membership on the Thunder Bay SAC.

Applications will be reviewed, and members

mutually agreed upon by NOAA and the State of

Michigan. SAC membership will be limited to

two-year terms.

3. PROTECTING THE SANCTUARY UNDERWATER

CULTURAL RESOURCES IN PARTNERSHIP

Introduction

Protecting underwater cultural resources to

ensure their long-term use and integrity is the

primary function of the Thunder Bay NMS.

Protecting the 160 shipwrecks and other underwater cultural resources in the Thunder Bay

region is important to maintaining and enhancing

the recreational, educational, and scientific values

of these resources.

Protection of Sanctuary underwater cultural

resources can be accomplished only through

active participation of the agencies and organizations that have an interest in managing these

resources. The NMS Program strategic plan and

state and regional plans (Table 3.5) support the

function of underwater cultural resource protection for the Thunder Bay NMS. The process of

protecting underwater cultural resources

through the involvement of many stakeholders

and interest groups has been termed “cooperative stewardship” by the Michigan Underwater

Preserve Council and other organizations. The

Thunder Bay NMS will protect Thunder Bay’s

underwater cultural resources through cooperative stewardship.

 Sanctuary Advisory Council

A Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC) is a mechanism to encourage community participation in

the management of a NMS. It is a means by

which the NMS Program and the State of

Michigan will work cooperatively with a variety

of local interests to comprehensively manage the

Thunder Bay NMS. Each Sanctuary is given the

authority to establish a SAC in accordance with

the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. The

Thunder Bay SAC was appointed in August 1997

during the feasibility process. The purpose of

the SAC was to provide local input on the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Management Plan, the Memorandum of Understanding,

the Programmatic Agreement, and other issues

related to the Sanctuary.

Once the Sanctuary is designated, a new SAC

will be appointed. The SAC will advise and

provide recommendations to the Sanctuary

Manager about issues relating to Sanctuary

underwater cultural resource protection,

research, and education, and in implementing

the overall Management Plan. Under an existing

National Marine Sanctuaries Act provision, the

SAC will be comprised of up to 15 local

members. Membership could include, but is not

limited to, local governments, user groups,

nonprofit organizations, education and research

institutions, and private businesses. Membership

will not include state or federal agency

representatives. NOAA and the State of

Michigan will determine the SAC membership.

NOAA will request expressions of interest in

SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT PLAN
35

MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 3

National Marine Sanctuary Program

Protecting underwater cultural resources is

consistent with the core purpose of the NMS

Program which is to “protect and rebuild marine

and coastal resources, both biological and

cultural, by creating a network of unique protected areas” (NOAA 1998:3). The NMS

Program believes it must “serve as a trustee for

the nation’s system of marine protected areas to

conserve, protect, and enhance the biodiversity,

ecological integrity and cultural legacy of these

ecosystems” (NOAA 1998:8). In addition, the

NMS Program is committed to adopting management policies, practices, and initiatives that

ensure the compatibility of human activities with

long-term protection of Sanctuary resources

(NOAA 1998:6).

State and Regional Plans

Similarly, protection of underwater cultural

resources is an important purpose of Michigan

underwater preserves. The Thunder Bay

Underwater Preserve, as with all state underwater preserves, was created to “protect abandoned property of historical value, or ecological,

educational, geological, or scenic features or

formations having recreational, educational, or

scientific value” (Part 761, Aboriginal Records and

Antiquities of P. A. 451 [1994], as amended).

The Sanctuary will support one of the goals for

historic preservation in Michigan which is “...to

increase protection of resources of historic

value” (Michigan DOS 1995: xi). The coastal

communities of the Thunder Bay region also

recognize the value of underwater cultural

resource protection. Recreation and county

coastal land management plans have been, or

are being, developed by the three counties

adjacent to the Sanctuary boundary (Presque

Isle, Alpena, and Alcona). All of these plans

recognize that coastal resources are important to

education, recreation, and economic development in their communities.

Sanctuary Goals for Underwater

Cultural Resource Protection

The following goals support the mission of the

NMS Program and reflect the purposes and

intentions of state and regional plans. The goals

will be used to develop a comprehensive resource protection program, including priorities

and strategies for protecting underwater cultural

resources in the Thunder Bay NMS. The

Thunder Bay NMS will work cooperatively with

appropriate governmental and non-governmental entities, including the SAC, to create innovative partnerships to develop and implement

these underwater cultural resource protection

priorities and strategies.

In order to effectively and efficiently protect

Sanctuary underwater cultural resources, the

goals of the Thunder Bay NMS will be to:

❍ establish innovative partnerships with agencies, organizations and institutions that

support the underwater cultural resource

protection mission of the Sanctuary;
36

NOAA, the State, the SAC, and appropriate local

and regional organizations and institutions.

Management activities for protecting underwater

cultural resources in the Thunder Bay NMS

could include:

Developing and Maintaining a Mooring Buoy

System

The Sanctuary could work with other resource

management agencies, and local organizations

and businesses to develop and maintain a mooring buoy system that provides safe access to

shipwrecks with minimum impact to the resources. Mooring buoys also make the location

of sites more visible to both divers and nondivers. The Sanctuary would facilitate efforts to

fund and maintain the mooring buoy program.

Coordinating Management Agencies

The Sanctuary could facilitate coordination

among management agencies having responsibilities for the Thunder Bay maritime cultural

landscape. These agencies include the NMS

Program, Michigan DEQ, Michigan DOS, Michigan DNR, and others as appropriate. These

management agencies could identify and address

research and education activities, and coordinate

enforcement of Sanctuary regulations.

Cross-deputizing and Supporting Enforcement

Enforcement personnel will be responsible for

enforcing Sanctuary regulations and providing

on-the-water information and assistance to

Sanctuary visitors. The Sanctuary can utilize

existing enforcement personnel by

SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT PLAN

❍ develop and maintain community involvement through diverse volunteer and private

sector initiatives;

❍ establish an effective enforcement program

for Sanctuary regulations that protects

underwater cultural resources;

❍ coordinate management activities with other

governmental and non-governmental programs

that protect underwater cultural resources;

❍ develop and implement effective emergency

response and underwater cultural resource

damage assessment programs; and

❍ ensure that management decisions are based

on the best available information, but where

such information is incomplete, follow those

options that best protect Sanctuary underwater cultural resources.

Management Activities for Underwater Cultural

Resource Protection

Discussions were held among the NMS Program, the Thunder Bay Core Group, the SAC,

and regional communities throughout the

feasibility process to identify possible management activities for protecting the underwater

cultural resources of the Sanctuary. These

activities are not inclusive. Priorities for resource

protection activities and strategies for implementing these priorities will be incorporated into the

Underwater Cultural Resource Protection Plan.

This Plan will be developed cooperatively by
37

cross-deputizing County Sheriff Marine Patrol

Officers, Michigan DNR Conservation Officers,

Michigan State Police, and U.S. Coast Guard

Officers to enforce Sanctuary regulations. Additional training, equipment, and support could be

provided to enforcement officers as indicated by

priorities and permitted by budgets.

Science-based Decision Making

The Sanctuary could support a scientific research

and monitoring program focusing on underwater

cultural resources. Initial research activities could

provide baseline inventory information on which

to base management decisions. Research and

monitoring efforts would provide additional

inventory and assessment information on which

to develop management programs that balance

underwater cultural resource protection and

sustainable uses of these resources.

Sanctuary Regulations for Underwater Cultural

Resource Protection

To ensure the protection of underwater cultural

resources, NOAA is proposing final regulations

for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

The regulations focus only on underwater

cultural resources; NOAA does not have the

authority under these regulations to manage

natural resources such as fish, wildlife and wetlands. The regulations identify terms (e.g.,

“underwater cultural resource”), set forth the

Sanctuary boundary, identify prohibited activities,

and describe permit procedures. For additional

discussion of the regulations, refer to Chapter 5,

Alternatives (pp. 200 – 208). For the text of the

regulations, refer to Attachment 2 of the Management Plan (pp. 58 – 74).

The regulations identify three prohibited activities

in the Sanctuary. The first prohibited activity is

recovering, altering, destroying, possessing or

attempting to recover, destroy, alter or possess

an underwater cultural resource. The intent of

this regulation is to protect the underwater

cultural resources of the Sanctuary for the benefit

of the public through education, observation in

situ, and research. NOAA does not envision

issuing permits for recovery of artifacts, except in

rare circumstances (e.g., an isolated object that

cannot be associated with a particular shipwreck).

The second prohibited activity is drilling into,

dredging or otherwise altering the lakebottom

associated with underwater cultural resources;

or constructing, placing or abandoning any

structure, material or other matter on the

lakebottom associated with underwater cultural

resources. This prohibited activity makes exceptions for the incidental result of the following

activities: anchoring vessels, traditional fishing

operations (as defined in the regulations), or

minor projects that do not adversely affect

underwater cultural resources. The intent of this

regulation is to protect the underwater cultural

resources of the Sanctuary from the harmful

effects of activities such as dredging, excavations,

drilling into the lakebottom, and dumping of

dredged materials.

The third prohibited activity, which was added to

MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 3
38

SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT PLAN

National Marine Sanctuary Program

Development and implementation of educational

programs is consistent with the NMS Program

mission to “enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation and wise use of the

marine [and Great Lakes] environment [both

natural and cultural]” (NOAA 1998:5). Educational activities, products, and facilities will constitute important attractions and services to the

residents and visitors of Thunder Bay. Educational programs will be developed to encourage

responsible behaviors on the part of

recreationists and tourists.

State Programs

Sanctuary educational programs also support the

educational interests of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve and the Michigan underwater

preserves. The State of Michigan places high

priority on environmental education. A goal of

environmental education programs is to assist

citizens in becoming more aware and better

informed of environmental issues, and, thereby,

placing a greater value on the State’s resources

(Michigan Senate 1993).

Regional Programs

The Thunder Bay NMS will work in partnership

to support and complement existing education

efforts relating to the maritime heritage of the

the final regulations, is the use of grappling hooks

or other anchoring devices on underwater

cultural resource sites that are marked with a

mooring buoy. The intent of this regulation is to

prohibit damage to underwater cultural resources caused by grappling hooks or other

anchoring devices.

D. EDUCATION: LEARNING TO BE

BETTER COOPERATIVE STEWARDS

1. INTRODUCTION

Focused and sustainable educational programs

are necessary to encourage and support cooperative stewardship of National Marine Sanctuaries. Providing educational opportunities that

promote understanding, appreciation, and

involvement in the protection and stewardship of

underwater cultural resources will be a primary

function of the Thunder Bay NMS. For the

purposes of this Management Plan, “education”

includes a wide range of programs, facilities, and

services associated with education through

schools, interpretation, and outreach. Meaningful Sanctuary educational programs can be

accomplished only through the active participation of the agencies and organizations that have

an interest in underwater cultural resource

management. Development and implementation of educational programs, facilities, and

services as part of the Thunder Bay NMS are

supported by the NMS Program strategic plan,

and state plans (Table 3.5).
39

Thunder Bay region, and to develop and maintain new education initiatives as appropriate. A

primary emphasis will be to promote the development of partnerships that create, integrate,

and package educational opportunities and make

these opportunities accessible to all Sanctuary

visitors (e.g., school children, adult residents, and

tourists). Throughout the feasibility process for

the Sanctuary, the Thunder Bay regional community indicated a strong interest in enhancing

the quality and availability of education relating to

Thunder Bay. An inventory and assessment of

current Great Lakes education programs and

activities in the Thunder Bay region was conducted by the Michigan State University Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

(Denton and Mahoney, in progress). The

purpose of the study was to identify ongoing

environmental education activities in the Thunder Bay region. The study included a series of

focus groups that involved schools, agencies, and

other organizations that provide and/or support

environmental, natural resource, and cultural

resource education.

The focus groups revealed that agencies and organizations in the region have made significant

investments in education-related projects, programs, and materials. However, focus group

participants indicated there is still a general lack of

awareness about the cultural, economic, and

ecological significance of Thunder Bay, despite

the contributions and efforts of these organizations. This may be in part due to the lack of: (1)

coordination of educational materials and investments; (2) promotion, access, and distribution of

MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 3

materials and programs; (3) an organization to

maintain and update educational materials and

programs; (4) teacher training and encouragement to incorporate Great Lakes education concepts into classroom activities; and (5) educational access to resources (e.g., on-the-water field

trips to Thunder Bay and its resources).

The focus group participants expressed interest

in having educational opportunities for people of

all ages, including local residents and visitors to

the area, particularly the growing population of

retired persons. They expressed a strong need

to develop, incorporate, and distribute Great

Lakes educational materials to enhance regional

tourism and recreation opportunities. Several

organizations are currently involved in efforts to

promote eco- and heritage tourism in the

Thunder Bay region.

2. SANCTUARY GOALS FOR EDUCATION

The following goals support the mission of the

NMS Program, reinforce the purposes and

intentions of state programs, and reflect the

findings of the Great Lakes education study

conducted in the Thunder Bay region. The goals

will be used to develop an Education Plan,

including priorities and strategies for education

programs in the Thunder Bay NMS. The

Thunder Bay NMS will work cooperatively with

appropriate governmental and non-governmental entities, including the SAC, to create innovative partnerships to develop and implement

these education priorities and strategies.
40

SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT PLAN

Goals

In order to conduct meaningful educational

programs that focus on underwater cultural

resources and the maritime heritage of the

region, the goals of the Thunder Bay NMS will

be to:

❍ develop and implement educational programs that promote awareness and understanding of Sanctuary underwater cultural

resources, Thunder Bay maritime heritage,

and the NMS Program;

❍ provide leadership to develop and implement collaborative educational programs that

meet the needs and interests of residents,

local and regional schools, and visitors to the

area;

❍ act as a clearinghouse of quality educational

materials (e.g., curricula, equipment, technology, and expertise), and assist in developing and maintaining an inventory of existing

educational programs so they are accessible

to educators;

❍ encourage the involvement of volunteers to

foster understanding of and participation in

the protection and stewardship of Sanctuary

resources;

❍ ensure that educational programs support

overall management goals for underwater

cultural resource protection, research, and

administration; and

❍ facilitate the transfer of Sanctuary information

and experiences for use locally, regionally,

nationally, and globally.

Management Activities for Sanctuary Education

There are many opportunities for the development of Sanctuary educational programs.

Denton and Mahoney (in progress) provide an

inventory of existing Great Lakes educational

programs. The Great Lakes education study for

the Thunder Bay region identifies opportunities

to develop educational activities that can be

supported and coordinated by the Thunder Bay

NMS. These activities are not inclusive. Priorities for Sanctuary education and strategies for

implementing these activities will be included in

the Education Plan. The Education Plan and

education themes will be developed cooperatively by the Sanctuary, the State, the SAC, and

appropriate local and regional organizations and

institutions.

Educational activities for the Thunder Bay NMS

could include:

Establishing Remote Video Hook-ups

The Sanctuary could establish remote video

hook-ups of researchers documenting the

shipwrecks. This technology would provide

visual access to shipwrecks for non-divers. The

Sanctuary could also use this video footage to

develop presentations for specific age groups.

Sanctuary education staff, volunteers, and government or private interests could produce the

educational presentations.
41

Designate a Thunder Bay Kids’ Week

The Sanctuary could designate an annual,

weeklong celebration of maritime heritage for

local school children. Special events kindle an

interest in the maritime history of Thunder Bay

and the Great Lakes, and inspire a sense of

stewardship. Sanctuary education staff, in

cooperation with volunteers and other cosponsors, could organize Kids’ Week events.

Activities could consist of lectures, classroom

visits, field experiences, and audio-visual presentations.

Producing an Historical Guide

The Sanctuary could produce an historical guide

to maritime resources in the Thunder Bay

region. The guide would be of value to a broad

spectrum of user groups and further publicize

the Sanctuary’s role in protecting underwater

cultural resources. The guide would help to

interpret the history of Thunder Bay within the

regional, national, and international context and

involve local communities in discovering and

documenting their maritime heritage.

Develop Public Outreach Activities

to Promote the Sanctuary

The Sanctuary could develop public outreach

activities and events to promote the Thunder

Bay NMS locally and regionally. The Sanctuary

could also utilize the expertise of the NMS Program public outreach staff to broaden outreach

efforts to a national and international scope.

Activities could include a Sanctuary presence at

festivals, conferences, and conventions, national

media attention, and celebrity spokespeople.

Developing a “Thunder Bay Shipwreck Trail”

The Sanctuary could select and interpret a series

of shipwrecks as a “shipwreck trail” to highlight

Thunder Bay’s maritime heritage. Themes

would be developed and matched with appropriate shipwreck sites to educate divers and

non-divers about such subjects as ship construction, Great Lakes shipping, the effect of environmental processes on shipwrecks, and the effects

of salvage on historic shipwrecks. Interpretive

materials would be developed to help divers

understand what they see underwater. Landside

interpretation would be developed to offer both

divers and non-diving visitors a glimpse into the

rich maritime history of Thunder Bay.

Create a Maritime Heritage Center

The Sanctuary could facilitate access to Sanctuary

resources and materials. For example, the

Sanctuary could work in partnership to develop

the concept and secure funding for the construction of a Maritime Heritage Center. Such a

facility would provide opportunities for both

residents and tourists, and would accommodate

a wide range of education and research activities

from auditorium lectures, to interactive exhibits

that provide visual access to shipwrecks for

non-divers. The facility could also provide space

for visiting scholars and volunteers.

Acquire a Vessel

The Sanctuary could work with appropriate

governmental and non-governmental entities to

acquire and maintain a vessel for conducting

on-the-water education and research activities.

MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 3
42

themes. The Sanctuary could work to complement and assist in maintaining and enhancing

these programs. In addition, the Sanctuary

would develop and maintain a database of

current and developmental educational programs, services, and products, and facilitate

access to these educational resources.

Developing and Maintaining

Supplemental Education Programs

The Sanctuary could utilize the Great Lakes

education inventory to evaluate the gaps in

existing educational programs relative to Sanctuary themes. This evaluation would consider

publics not served, themes not addressed, and

opportunities for using new technologies. For

example, there currently are no Great Lakes

educational opportunities for adults or substantive information for tourists visiting the region.

The Sanctuary, in cooperation with appropriate

partners, could better prioritize education needs,

and assist in securing funds to develop and maintain educational programs, products, and services.

E. RESEARCH: WORKING TOGETHER

TO BETTER UNDERSTAND

THUNDER BAY’S UNDERWATER

CULTURAL RESOURCES AND

MARITIME HERITAGE

1. INTRODUCTION

Developing knowledge about underwater

cultural resources by encouraging research and

monitoring programs will be a primary function

of the Thunder Bay NMS. The knowledge

Identifying and Supporting a Network of Volunteers

The Sanctuary could identify and support a

network of volunteers to assist with activities

consistent with Sanctuary education themes.

The Sanctuary would utilize community expertise and interests in matching volunteers with

needed activities. Training, support, and incentives could be provided to volunteers as needs

and opportunities arise.

Developing Sanctuary Education Themes

The Sanctuary could work cooperatively with

Great Lakes educators (e.g., schools, colleges,

universities, and museums) and other appropriate entities interested in Great Lakes education

to identify education themes based on the

maritime cultural landscape focus of the Sanctuary (e.g., industrial development, western

expansion, and relationships between cultural

resources and the natural environment). These

themes would focus the Education Plan, and

help to prioritize the needs of the community,

the State of Michigan, and the Sanctuary.

Providing Leadership in Technology

The Sanctuary could encourage and develop the

use of educational technologies in supporting

education themes. These include utilization of

the Internet, the World Wide Web, and multimedia programs.

Supporting and Enhancing

Existing Education Programs

The Sanctuary could use the Great Lakes education inventory to identify existing educational

programs that support Sanctuary education

SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT PLAN
43

MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 3

acquired through research and monitoring will

be used to evaluate existing management practices, enhance future management decisions, and

educate the public. Effective Sanctuary research

and monitoring programs can only be accomplished through the active participation of the

agencies and organizations that have an interest

in underwater cultural resource management.

The NMS Program strategic plan and state and

regional plans (Table 3.5) support the function of

conducting research and monitoring in the

Thunder Bay NMS.

National Marine Sanctuary Program

Development of a scientific research program is

consistent with the NMS Program mission to

“support, promote, and coordinate scientific

research on the resources [both natural and

cultural], especially long-term research” (NOAA

1998: 5). The NMS Program headquarters and

field offices use the best scientific information

available in decision-making and support relevant

scientific research in the sanctuaries to expand

that knowledge base (NOAA 1998:6).

State and Regional Plans

A Sanctuary research program contributes to the

Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve and the

Michigan underwater preserve program by supporting the inventory, assessment, scientific

study, and monitoring of underwater cultural resources. It also complements a second goal of

historic preservation in Michigan to “document

Michigan historic resources more fully” (Michigan

DOS 1995: xi). An effective research and monitoring program for Thunder Bay underwater cultural resources can help counties implement

coastal management plans. Identification, evaluation, and monitoring of Sanctuary resources supports county recreation and economic development plans by providing accurate resource information on which to base decisions for tourism,

recreation, and economic development.

2. SANCTUARY GOALS FOR RESEARCH

The following goals support the mission of the

NMS Program and reflect the purposes and

intentions of state and regional plans. The goals

will be used to develop the Research Plan,

including priorities and strategies for research and

monitoring programs in the Thunder Bay NMS.

The Thunder Bay NMS will work cooperatively

with appropriate governmental and nongovernmental entities, including the SAC, to

create innovative partnerships to develop and

implement these research and monitoring

priorities and strategies.

Goals

In order to conduct effective and efficient research and monitoring programs, the Thunder

Bay NMS will:

❍ inventory and assess Sanctuary underwater

cultural resources, and existing and potential

threats to those resources (both natural and

human-induced);
44

and regional organizations and institutions.

Research activities for the Thunder Bay NMS,

including those recommended by Martin (1996),

could include:

Archaeological Inventory and Assessment

The Sanctuary could facilitate an archaeological

inventory and assessment of known shipwrecks

in the Sanctuary. This is important for informed

decision-making and site planning.

Completing Preliminary Historic Research

The Sanctuary could complete preliminary

historical research on all vessels identified as

having been lost in the vicinity of Thunder Bay.

This research would include a search of enrollment and registration documents, court records,

insurance files, and regional newspapers for

information on individual vessels. All of these

data would be critical in further analysis of the

collection of wrecks and its eventual interpretation to both popular and scholarly audiences.

Inventorying and Locating Historical Materials

The Sanctuary could locate, inventory, and, as

possible, obtain copies of iconographic materials

and items of material culture related to Thunder

Bay shipwrecks from regional libraries, archives,

museums, and private collections. This step

would be important in the broader interpretation

of the maritime history of Thunder Bay and the

Great Lakes to the general public. This work

would involve research in local and regional

archives.

SECTION 3 MANAGEMENT PLAN

❍ monitor Sanctuary underwater cultural

resources to ensure their long-term protection

and to evaluate management practices;

❍ develop a research plan that places the

highest priority upon research that addresses

threats to Sanctuary underwater cultural resources;

❍ develop and encourage collaborative programs with other agencies, organizations, and

businesses;

❍ identify and evaluate the monetary and

intrinsic values associated with Sanctuary underwater cultural resources (e.g., historical, recreational, economic, aesthetic); and

❍ encourage research targeted at management

issues such as resolving multiple-use conflicts and

understanding user impacts.

Management Activities for Sanctuary Research

Discussions were held during community and

Core Group meetings throughout the feasibility

process to identify possible management activities for Sanctuary research and monitoring

programs. In addition, Martin (1996) identified

important next steps for Sanctuary research

efforts. These activities are not inclusive. Priorities for research activities and strategies for

implementing these priorities will be incorporated into the Research Plan. The Research Plan

will be developed cooperatively by the Sanctuary, the State, the SAC, and appropriate local
45

Recreational Diving Impacts

The Sanctuary could investigate the factors

associated with depreciative behavior (e.g., theft

and vandalism) and its negative effects on shipwrecks. The positive personal and social benefits

from recreational diving could also be identified

and evaluated. This scientific information would

enhance underwater cultural resource management and the development of monitoring

programs.

Zebra Mussels, Shipwrecks, and

Recreational Diving

The Sanctuary could investigate factors associated with the infestation of zebra mussels and

the impacts upon shipwrecks and recreational

diving. This information would help enhance

visitor experiences and historic preservation

efforts.

Monitoring of Tourism-Related Impacts

The Sanctuary could develop a tourism research

and monitoring program to identify and evaluate

the economic benefits and costs to the Sanctuary

and coastal communities. The results would

assist in regional decision-making.

Conducting a Theme Study

The Sanctuary could conduct a full-scale contextual theme study and develop a larger database

of Great Lakes shipwrecks to further evaluate the

shipwrecks of the Thunder Bay region. This

information would be used to formally nominate

the collection of shipwrecks for National Landmark Status. The contextual theme study and

enlarged database would require extensive

research in the regional, national, and international archives.

MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 3
46

Federal/Tribal

State

Table 3.1 Resource protection in the Thunder Bay NMS.
47

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (Michigan DNR):

• Maintains management responsibilities for natural resources under a public trust;

• Law Enforcement Division works cooperatively with the NMS Program, the USCG,

Michigan State Police, and County Sheriff’s Departments to conduct enforcement and

surveillance operations in the Sanctuary;

• Works cooperatively with the SAC to monitor and evaluate the progress toward Sanctuary

resource protection; and

• Supports and encourages the efforts of volunteers in the protection of underwater cultural

resources.

• County Sheriff’s Departments work cooperatively with the NMS Program, the USCG, the

Michigan DNR Law Enforcement Division, and the Michigan State Police to conduct

enforcement and surveillance operations in the Sanctuary;

• Participate on the SAC and work cooperatively with its membership to monitor and

evaluate the progress toward Sanctuary resource protection; and

• Support and participate as volunteers in the protection of underwater cultural resources.

• Advises the Sanctuary on the effectiveness of Sanctuary regulations in providing adequate

resource protection;

• Advises the Sanctuary on the effectiveness of cooperative agreements for surveillance and

enforcement;

• Recommends improved methods of resource protection;

• Establishes working groups and/or subcommittees on resource protection and enforcement

as needed to provide technical advice and recommendations; and

• Supports, encourages, and participates as volunteers in the protection of underwater

cultural resources.

Local Governments

Sanctuary Advisory Council

(SAC)

State (continued)

Table 3.1 Resource protection in the Thunder Bay NMS (continued).
48

NMS Program:

• Coordinates education efforts in the Sanctuary;

• Allocates Sanctuary funds for education based on the

recommendations of appropriate agencies, organizations, businesses,

and the SAC;

• Works cooperatively with agencies, organizations, businesses, and the

SAC to prioritize education programs;

• Encourages and facilitates collaborative education efforts in the

Sanctuary; and

• Supports and encourages volunteer education efforts in the Sanctuary.

Other Federal/Tribal Agencies:

• Work cooperatively with the Sanctuary to encourage and support

education efforts in the Sanctuary;

• Advise the Sanctuary on education priorities and opportunities; and

• Support and encourage volunteers in Sanctuary education efforts.

Michigan DEQ, Michigan DOS, and Michigan DNR:

• Work cooperatively with the Sanctuary to encourage and support

education efforts in the Sanctuary;

• Advise the Sanctuary on education priorities and opportunities; and

• Support and encourage volunteers in Sanctuary education efforts.

• Work cooperatively with the Sanctuary to encourage and support

education efforts in the Sanctuary;

• Participate on the SAC to advise the Sanctuary on education priorities

and opportunities; and

• Support, encourage, and participate as volunteers in Sanctuary

education efforts.

• Reviews education proposals and projects and advises the Sanctuary;

• Advises the Sanctuary on education needs and opportunities; and

• Supports, encourages, and participates as volunteers in education

efforts.

Federal/Tribal

State Agencies

Local Governments

Sanctuary Advisory Council

Table 3.2 Education in the Thunder Bay NMS.
49

NMS Program:

• Coordinates research and monitoring efforts in the Sanctuary;

• Allocates Sanctuary funds for research based on the recommendations of appropriate

agencies, organizations, and businesses and the SAC;

• Works cooperatively with agencies, organizations, businesses, and the SAC to prioritize

research projects based on criteria such as management issues;

• Encourages and facilitates collaborative research and monitoring efforts in the Sanctuary;

and

• Supports and encourages volunteers in Sanctuary research and monitoring efforts.

Other Federal/Tribal Agencies:

• Work cooperatively with the Sanctuary to encourage and support research efforts in the

Sanctuary;

• Advise the Sanctuary on research priorities and opportunities; and

• Support and encourage volunteers in Sanctuary research and monitoring efforts.

Michigan DEQ, Michigan DOS, and Michigan DNR:

• Work cooperatively with the Sanctuary to encourage and support research efforts in the

Sanctuary;

• Advise the Sanctuary on research priorities and opportunities; and

• Support and encourage volunteers in Sanctuary research and monitoring efforts.

• Work cooperatively with the Sanctuary to encourage and support research efforts in the

Sanctuary;

• Participate on the SAC to advise the Sanctuary on research priorities and opportunities;

and

• Support, encourage, and participate as volunteers in Sanctuary research and monitoring

efforts.

• Advises the Sanctuary on the review of Sanctuary research and monitoring projects and

proposals;

• Advises the Sanctuary on research needs and opportunities; and

• Supports, encourages, and participates as volunteers in research and monitoring efforts.

Federal/Tribal

State Agencies

Local Governments

Sanctuary Advisory

Council

Table 3.3 Research in the Thunder Bay NMS.
50

50
51

Table 3.5 Comparison of federal, state, and local plans to the functions of the Thunder Bay NMS.

 Strategic,

Recreation, and Economic Resource Protection Research Education

 Development Plans

Functions of the Thunder Bay NMS

Federal Plans

NOAA Strategic Plan “...to conserve and “...to describe and

manage wisely the predict changes in the

Nation’s coastal and Earth’s environment...”

marine resources...”

National Marine “...to manage marine and “...develop research “develop and implement

Sanctuary Program Great Lakes areas of programs that ... promote stewardship, education,

special national the ecologically ...programs that foster

significance to protect sustainable use of the public understanding,

their ecological and nation’s... cultural support and participation

cultural integrity...” resources.” of the nation’s natural

and cultural

marine resources.”

U.S. Coast Guard “...to provide for a well

Sault Ste. Marie Local coordinated, multi-organiContingency plan zational response at the

local level to protect human

and environmental resources

threatened by an actual or

anticipated pollution incident.”

State Plans

Comprehensive Historic “...increase protection of “...document Michigan’s “...increase public

Preservation Plan Michigan’s historic historic resources knowledge of Michigan’s

resources...” more fully...” historic resources and the

benefits of historic

preservation.”

Environmental The goal of environmental

Education Plan education programs is to

assist citizens in becoming

more aware and informed of

environmental issues, and

thereby, place a greater

value on the State’s

resources.

Local Plans

(City of Alpena)

Coastal Land Use & Focus efforts on the Analyze coastal area Focus efforts on the

Design Plan Thunder Bay Underwater features to determine Thunder Bay Underwater

 Preserve, and the the best uses of the Preserve, and the

 waterfront for tourism coastal area while waterfront for tourism and

 and associated maintaining ties with the associated development.

 development. City’s heritage.

City of Alpena Focus efforts on the Focus efforts on the Promote the Thunder Bay

Comprehensive waterfront and the area’s waterfront and the area’s Underwater Preserve, and

Development Plan other natural resources. other natural resources. facilities and services for

scuba divers. Provide a

permanent shipwreck

interpretive center.
52

Functions of the Thunder Bay NMS

 Strategic,

Recreation, and Economic Resource Protection Research Education

 Development Plans

Table 3.5 Comparison of federal, state, and local plans to the functions of the Thunder Bay NMS (continued).

Marine Sanctuary designation

should be sought in order to

promote the management of

these cultural resources.

 Local Plans

(City of Alpena)

City of Alpena Downtown- Recognize the importance

Waterfront Linkage Plan of waterfront visitors, and

provide high quality

community experiences.

Alpena, Michigan Retail “...acquire frontage

Market Assessment & along the Thunder Bay

Strategic Plan River or waterfront as a

site for an Underwater

Park and Museum based

on Alpena’s shipwreck

history”

Local Plans

(County of Alpena)

Alpena County Coastal Local governments Analyze coastal area Promote the Thunder

Land Management Plan should recognize the resources and issues, Bay Underwater

importance of coastal and propose alternative Preserve.

resources, including the management options and

numerous shipwrecks strategies focusing on

found in the coastal areas important coastal

and shallows. National resources.

County of Alpena Recognizes the Thunder Describes the need to

Recreation Master Plan Bay Underwater Preserve establish a Great Lakes

and the proposed visitor center.

Sanctuary as unique

county features.

Economic Adjustment Recognizes the importance

Strategy for of coastal and water

Alpena County resources, and for

having high quality

designated natural areas

(e.g., state parks) for

tourism and recreation.

Local Plans

(Presque Isle County)

Recreation Plan for Recognizes the Discusses renovations

Presque Isle County abundance and of the Presque Isle

importance of high Lighthouse Park, a

quality water resources. popular tourist

attraction.
53

Functions of the Thunder Bay NMS Strategic,

Recreation, and Economic Resource Protection Research Education

 Development Plans

Table 3.5 Comparison of federal, state, and local plans to the functions of the Thunder Bay NMS (continued).

Local Plans

(Alcona County)

Area-wide Recreation Places high priority on High priority placed on

Master Plan for Alcona protecting county the Black River/Lake

County, Alcona Township, shorelines, lakes, Huron Fishing Pier

and Curtis Township streams, wetlands, Project along 160 feet of

forestlands, and Lake Huron shoreline.

recreational properties.

Alcona County Recognizes the importance

Economic Development of economic development

Strategy and Action without a decline in

Summary environmental quality.

Regional Plans (Northeast Michigan)

Northeast Michigan Recommendations include Recommendations

Economic Strategy preserving the natural include nurturing of

Directions for Regional resources that attract education at all levels,

Strategic Planning tourists. and acting upon

opportunities that exist in

tourism and water-related

recreational development.

Northeast Michigan Utilize Northeast

Overall Economic Michigan’s natural

Development Program resources to enhance

Annual Report economic development;

employ sound management

practices that also

preserve these resources.

Northeastern Michigan Tourism in Michigan is

Growth Trends the third largest industry.

The major attraction is

the quality of the natural

resources.
54

Attachment 1:

Draft Designation Document and Draft Final Regulations

for the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

A. Draft Designation Document for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

Section 304(a)(4) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires that the terms of designation

include the geographic area included within the Sanctuary; the characteristics of the area that give it

conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or esthetic value; and the types

of activities that will be subject to regulation by the Secretary of Commerce to protect those

characteristics. The terms of designation may be modified only by the procedures provided in section

304(a) of the Act (the same procedures by which the original designation is made). Thus, the terms of

designation serve as a constitution for the Sanctuary.

Under the authority of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended (the “Act” or

“NMSA”), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq., Thunder Bay and its surrounding waters offshore of Michigan,

and the submerged lands under Thunder Bay and its surrounding waters, as described in Article II, are

hereby designated as the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary for the purposes of providing longterm protection and management to the conservation, recreational, research, educational, and

historical resources and qualities of the area.

Article I. Effect of Designation

The NMSA authorizes the issuance of such regulations as are necessary and reasonable to

implement the designation, including managing and protecting the conservation, recreational,

historical, research, and educational resources and qualities of the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary (the “Sanctuary”). Section 1 of Article IV of this Designation Document lists those activities

that may be regulated on the effective date of designation, or at some later date, in order to protect

Sanctuary resources and qualities. Listing does not necessarily mean that an activity will be regulated;

however, if an activity is not listed it may not be regulated, except on an emergency basis, unless

Section 1 of Article IV is amended to include the type of activity by the same procedures by which the

original Sanctuary designation was made, as outlined in section 304(a) of the NMSA.

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1
55

Article II. Description of the Area

The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary boundary encompasses a total of 808 square

miles of surface waters of Lake Huron and the submerged lands thereunder, over and around the

underwater cultural resources in Thunder Bay. The boundary forms an approximately rectangular

area by extending along the ordinary high water mark of the Michigan shoreline from Presque Isle

Lighthouse, at 45°21’24” N latitude, south to Sturgeon Point Lighthouse, at 44°42’46” N latitude, and

lakeward from those points along latitude lines to longitude 83 degrees west . The precise boundary

is set forth in Appendix A to the regulations.

Article III. Characteristics of the Area That Give It Particular Value

Thunder Bay and its surrounding waters contain approximately 160 shipwrecks spanning

more than a century of Great Lakes maritime history. Virtually every type of vessel used on open

Great Lakes waters has been documented in the Thunder Bay region, linking Thunder Bay

inextricably to Great Lakes commerce. Most of the Great Lakes trades had a national, and sometimes

an international, significance, and resulted in uniquely-designed vessels. Although not all of Thunder

Bay’s shipwrecks have been identified, studies undertaken to date indicate strong evidence of the

Bay’s national historic significance. The sunken vessels reflect transitions in ship architecture and

construction methods, from wooden sailboats to early iron-hulled steamers.

Several major conclusions regarding Thunder Bay’s shipwrecks may be drawn from research

and analysis undertaken to date: they are representative of the composition of the Great Lakes

merchant marine from 1840 to 1970; they provide information on the various phases of American

westward expansion; they provide information on the growth of American extraction and use of

natural resources; they illustrate various phases of American industrialization; one shipwreck (Isaac M.

Scott) may be used to study and interpret a specific event (the Great Storm of 1913) that had strong

repercussions regionally, nationally, and internationally; and they provide interpretive material for

understanding American foreign intercontinental trade within the Great Lakes.

Thunder Bay was established as the first State of Michigan Bottomland Preserve in 1981 to

protect underwater cultural resources. Increasing public interest in underwater cultural resources

underscores the importance of continued efforts to discover, explore, document, study and to provide

long-term, comprehensive protection for the Bay’s shipwrecks and other underwater cultural

resources.

ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 3
56

Article IV. Scope of Regulations

Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation. The following activities are subject to regulation

under the NMSA, including prohibition, to the extent necessary and reasonable to ensure the

protection and management of the conservation, recreational, historical, research and educational

resources and qualities of the area:

a. Recovering, altering, destroying, possessing, or attempting to recover, alter, destroy or

possess, an underwater cultural resource;

b. Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the lakebottom associated with underwater

cultural resources, including contextual information; or constructing, placing or abandoning any

structure, material or other matter on the lakebottom associated with underwater cultural resources,

except as an incidental result of:

(i) Anchoring vessels;

(ii) Traditional fishing operations (as defined in the regulations); or

(iii) Minor projects as defined upon adoption of this regulation in R.322.1013 of Part

325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands of Public Act 451 (1994), as amended, that do not adversely

affect underwater cultural resources (see Appendix B of Subpart R);

c. Using grappling hooks or other anchoring devices on underwater cultural resource sites

that are marked with a mooring buoy.

d. Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an investigation, search, seizure or

disposition of seized property in connection with enforcement of the NMSA or any regulations issued

under the NMSA.

Section 2. Consistency With International Law. The regulations governing the activities listed in

Section 1 of this Article shall apply to United States-flag vessels and to persons who are citizens,

nationals, or resident aliens of the United States to the extent consistent with generally recognized

principles of international law, and in accordance with treaties, conventions, and other agreements to

which the United States is a party.

Section 3. Emergencies. Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of,

or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality; or minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or

injury, any and all such activities, including those not listed in Section 1, are subject to immediate

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1
57

temporary regulation, including prohibition. NOAA will obtain concurrence from the Governor of

Michigan prior to imposing emergency regulations.

Article V. Effect on Other Regulations, Leases, Permits, Licenses, and Rights

Section 1. Fishing Regulations, Licenses, and Permits. Fishing in the Sanctuary shall not be

regulated as part of the Sanctuary management regime authorized by the Act. However, fishing in the

Sanctuary may be regulated other than under the Act by Federal, State, Tribal and local authorities of

competent jurisdiction, and designation of the Sanctuary shall have no effect on any regulation, permit,

or license issued thereunder.

Section 2. Other. If any valid regulation issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of

competent jurisdiction, regardless of when issued, conflicts with a Sanctuary regulation, the regulation

deemed by the Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration, or his or her designee, in consultation with the State of Michigan, to be

more protective of Sanctuary resources shall govern.

Pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1434(c)(1), no valid lease, permit,

license, approval, or other authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent

jurisdiction, or any right of subsistence use or access, may be terminated by the Secretary of

Commerce, or his or her designee, as a result of this designation, or as a result of any Sanctuary

regulation, if such lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization, or right of subsistence use

or access was issued or in existence as of the effective date of this designation. However, the

Secretary of Commerce, or his or her designee, in consultation with the State of Michigan, may

regulate the exercise of such authorization or right consistent with the purposes for which the

Sanctuary is designated.

Article VI. Alteration of This Designation

The terms of designation, as defined under Section 304 (e) of the Act, may be modified only

by the same procedures by which the original designation is made, including public hearings,

consultations with interested Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local authorities and agencies, review

by the appropriate Congressional committees, and review and non-objection by the Governor of the

State of Michigan, and approval by the Secretary of Commerce, or his or her designee.

ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 3
58

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1

 B. Draft Final Regulations for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

Subpart R — Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

922.190 Boundary.

922.191 Definitions.

922.192 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.

922.193 Certification of preexisting leases, licenses, permits, approvals, other authorizations, or rights to conduct a prohibited activity.

922.194 Permit procedures and criteria.

922.195 Emergency regulations.

922.196 Procedures for adding underwater cultural resources to the Sanctuary boundary.

Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 922 – Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Boundary

Coordinates

Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 922 – Minor Projects for Purposes of Section 922.192(a)(2)(iii)

Authority: Sections 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 310, and 312 of the National Marine Sanctuaries

Act (NMSA) (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.)

§ 922.190 Boundary.

(a) The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Sanctuary) consists of an area of approximately 808 square miles of waters of Lake Huron and the submerged lands thereunder, over, around,

and under the underwater cultural resources in Thunder Bay. The boundary forms an approximately

rectangular area by extending along the ordinary high water mark of the Michigan shoreline from

Presque Isle Lighthouse, at 45°21’.24” N latitude, south to Sturgeon Point Lighthouse, at 44°42’.46”

N latitude, cutting across the mouths of rivers and streams, and lakeward from those points along

latitude lines to longitude 83 degrees west. The coordinates of the boundary are set forth in Appendix A to this Subpart.

§ 922.191 Definitions.

(a) The following terms are defined for purposes of Subpart R:

Minor project means any project listed in Appendix B to this Subpart.
59

ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 3

Programmatic Agreement means the agreement among NOAA, the Federal Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation, and the State of Michigan, developed pursuant to the NMSA and Section

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which, in part, sets forth the procedures for review and

approval of State Permits that authorize activities prohibited by the Sanctuary regulations.

Sanctuary resource means any underwater cultural resource as defined in this section.

State Archaeologist means the State Archaeologist, Michigan Historical Center, Michigan

Department of State.

State Permit means any lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by the

State of Michigan for the conduct of activities or projects within the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary that are prohibited by the regulations at § 922.192.

Traditional fishing means those commercial or recreational fishing activities that were customarily conducted within the Sanctuary prior to its designation, as identified in the Final Environmental

Impact Statement and Management Plan for this Sanctuary. Traditional fishing covers tribal fishing rights

as provided for in the 1836 Treaty of Washington and subsequent court decisions related to the

Treaty.

Underwater cultural resource means any sunken watercraft, including a ship, boat, canoe, skiff,

raft, or barge; the rigging, gear, fittings, trappings, and equipment of any watercraft; the personal

property of the officers, crew, and passengers of any sunken watercraft; and the cargo of any sunken

watercraft, that existed prior to the effective date of Sanctuary designation. Underwater cultural

resource also means any historical remnant of docks or piers or associated material, or materials

resulting from activities of historic and prehistoric Native Americans. For any other underwater

cultural resource to be considered a Sanctuary resource, it must meet the criteria set forth in §

922.196.

(b) Other terms appearing in the regulations are defined at 15 CFR Part 922 Subpart A, and/or

in the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.
60

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1

§ 922.192 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.

(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (b) through (c) of this section, and consistent with all

treaty rights, the following activities are prohibited and thus are unlawful for any person to conduct or

to cause to be conducted:

(1) Recovering, altering, destroying, possessing, or attempting to recover, alter, destroy, or

possess an underwater cultural resource.

(2) Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the lakebottom associated with underwater

cultural resources, including contextual information; or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on the lakebottom associated with underwater cultural resources,

except as an incidental result of:

(i) anchoring vessels;

(ii) traditional fishing operations; or

(iii) minor projects (as defined in Appendix B of this subpart) that do not adversely affect

underwater cultural resources.

(3) Using grappling hooks or other anchoring devices on underwater cultural resource sites

that are marked with a mooring buoy.

(4) Interfering with, obstructing, delaying or preventing an investigation, search, seizure or

disposition of seized property in connection with enforcement of the Act or any regulations issued

under the Act.

(b) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section do not apply to valid law

enforcement activities, or any activity necessary to respond to an emergency threatening life or the

environment.

 (c) The prohibitions in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section do not apply to any

activity:

(1) Specifically authorized by, and conducted in accordance with the scope, purpose, terms

and conditions of, a permit issued pursuant to § 922.194 or a Special Use Permit issued pursuant to

section 310 of the NMSA.
61

ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 3

(2) Specifically authorized by any valid Federal, State, or local lease, permit, license, approval,

or other authorization in existence on the effective date of these regulations, or by any valid right of

subsistence use or access in existence on the effective date of these regulations, provided that the

holder of such authorization or right complies with § 922.193 and § 922.47 and with any terms and

conditions for the exercise of such authorization or right imposed by the Director as a condition of

certification as he or she deems reasonably necessary to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary

was designated.

(3) Specifically authorized by any valid Federal, State, or local lease, permit, license, approval,

or other authorization issued after the effective date of these regulations, provided that the applicant

complies with § 922.49, the Director notifies the applicant and authorizing agency that he or she does

not object to issuance of the authorization, and the applicant complies with any terms and conditions

the Director deems reasonably necessary protect Sanctuary resources. Amendments, renewals and

extensions of authorizations in existence on the effective date of these regulations constitute authorizations issued after the effective date of these regulations.

§ 922.193 Certification of preexisting leases, licenses, permits, approvals, other authorizations, or

rights to conduct a prohibited activity.

(a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by § 922.192 (a)(1) through (3) if such activity

is specifically authorized by a valid Federal, State, or local lease, permit, license, approval, or other

authorization in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation, or by any valid right of

subsistence use or access in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation, provided that:

(1) for any State or local lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization, or any right of

subsistence use, the State Archaeologist certifies to the Director, within 90 days of the effective date of

designation, that the activity authorized under the State or local lease, permit, license, approval, or

other authorization, or any right of subsistence use, is being conducted consistent with the Programmatic Agreement, in which case such activity shall be deemed to have met the requirements of this

section and § 922.47; or

(2) in the case where either (i) the State Archaeologist does not certify that the activity authorized under a State or local lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization, or right of subsistence use is being conducted consistent with the Programmatic Agreement; or (ii) the activity is

conducted pursuant only to a Federal permit, the holder of the authorization or right complies with

paragraphs (b) through (k) of this section.
62

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1

(b) For an activity described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the holder of the authorization

or right may conduct the activity prohibited by § 922.192(a)(1) through (3) provided that: (1) the

holder of such authorization or right notifies the Director, in writing, within 90 days of the effective

date of Sanctuary designation, of the existence of such authorization or right and requests certification

of such authorization or right; (2) the holder complies with the other provisions of § 922.193; and (3)

the holder complies with any terms and conditions on the exercise of such authorization or right

imposed as a condition of certification, by the Director, to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.

(c) The holder of an authorization or right described in paragraph (a)(2) above authorizing an

activity prohibited by § 922.192 may conduct the activity without being in violation of applicable

provisions of § 922.192, pending final agency action on his or her certification request, provided the

holder is in compliance with this § 922.193.

(d) Any holder of an authorization or right described in paragraph (a)(2) above may request

the Director to issue a finding as to whether the activity for which the authorization has been issued,

or the right given, is prohibited by § 922.192, thus requiring certification under this section.

(e) Requests for findings or certifications should be addressed to the Director, Office of Ocean

and Coastal Resource Management; ATTN: Sanctuary Manager, Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary, 1305 East-West Highway, N/ORM, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910. A copy of the lease,

permit, license, approval, or other authorization must accompany the request.

(f) The Director may request additional information from the certification requester as he or

she deems reasonably necessary to condition appropriately the exercise of the certified authorization

or right to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. The Director must receive

the information requested within 45 days of the postmark date of the request. The Director may

seek the views of any persons on the certification request.

(g) The Director may amend any certification made under this § 922.193 whenever additional

information becomes available justifying such an amendment.

(h) Upon completion of review of the authorization or right and information received with

respect thereto, the Director shall communicate, in writing, any decision on a certification request or

any action taken with respect to any certification made under this § 922.193, in writing, to both the
63

ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 3

holder of the certified lease, permit, license, approval, other authorization, or right, and the issuing

agency, and shall set forth the reason(s) for the decision or action taken.

(i) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this § 922.193 may be extended by the

Director for good cause.

(j) The holder may appeal any action conditioning, amending, suspending, or revoking any

certification in accordance with the procedures set forth in § 922.50.

(k) Any amendment, renewal, or extension made after the effective date of Sanctuary designation, to a lease, permit, license, approval, other authorization or right is subject to the provisions of §

922.194 and § 922.49.

§ 922.194 Permit procedures and criteria.

(a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by § 922.192 (a)(1) through (3), if conducted

in accordance with the scope, purpose, terms and conditions of a State Permit provided that:

(1) the State Archaeologist certifies to NOAA that the activity authorized under the State

Permit will be conducted consistent with the Programmatic Agreement, in which case such State

Permit shall be deemed to have met the requirements of § 922.49; or

(2) in the case where the State Archaeologist does not certify that the activity to be authorized

under a State Permit will be conducted consistent with the Programmatic Agreement, the person

complies with the requirements of § 922.49 of this part.

(b) If no State Permit is required to conduct an activity prohibited by § 922.192 (a)(1) through

(3) of this subpart, a person may conduct such activity if it is conducted in accordance with the scope,

purpose, terms and conditions of a Federal permit, provided that the person complies with the

provisions of § 922.49 of this part.

(c) In instances where the conduct of an activity is prohibited by § 922.192 (a)(1) through (3)

of this subpart is not addressed under a State or other Federal lease, license, permit or other authorization, a person must obtain a Sanctuary permit from NOAA pursuant to § 922.48 (c) through (f) of

this part and the Programmatic Agreement in order to conduct the activity.
64

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1

(d) A permit may be issued if (i) the proposed activity satisfies the requirements for permits

described under paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section; (ii) the recovery of the underwater cultural

resource is in the public interest; (iii) recovery of the underwater cultural resource is part of research

to preserve historic information for public use; and (iv) recovery of the underwater cultural resource is

necessary or appropriate to protect the resource, preserve historical information, or further the

policies of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

(e) A person shall file an application for a permit with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Land and Water Management Division, P.O. Box 30458, Lansing, MI, 48909-7958.

The application shall contain all of the following information:

i) the name and address of the applicant;

ii) research plan that describes in detail the specific research objectives and previous work done at

the site. An archaeological survey must be conducted on a site before an archaeological permit

allowing excavation can be issued;

iii) description of significant previous work in the area of interest, how the proposed effort would

enhance or contribute to improving the state of knowledge, why the proposed effort should be

performed in the Sanctuary, and its potential benefits to the Sanctuary;

iv) an operational plan that describes the tasks required to accomplish the project’s objectives and the

professional qualifications of those conducting and supervising those tasks (see § 922.194(e)(ix)

below). The plan should provide adequate description of methods to be used for excavation,

recovery and the storage of artifacts and related materials on site, and describe the rationale for

selecting the proposed methods over any alternative methods;

v) archaeological recording, including site maps, feature maps, scaled photographs, and field notes;

vi) an excavation plan describing the excavation, recovery and handling of artifacts;

vii) a conservation plan documenting: (l) the conservation facility’s equipment; (2) ventilation

temperature and humidity control; and (3) storage space. Documentation of intended conservation

methods and processes should also be included;

viii) a curation and display plan for the curation of the conserved artifacts to ensure the maintenance
65

ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 3

and safety of the artifacts in keeping with the Sanctuary’s federal stewardship responsibilities under

the Federal Archaeology Program (36 CFR Part 79, Curation of Federally-Owned and

Administered Archaeological Collections);

ix) documentation of the professional standards of an archaeologist supervising the archaeological

recovery of historical artifacts. The minimum professional qualifications in archaeology are a

graduate degree in archaeology, anthropology, or closely related field plus:

1. At least one year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized training in

archeological research, administration or management;

2. At least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American

archaeology;

3. Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion; and

4. At least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of

archeological resources in the underwater environment.

922.195 Emergency regulations

(a) Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to an underwater cultural resource, or to minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or injury, any and

all activities are subject to immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition. Such emergency

regulations shall not take effect without concurrence from the Governor of Michigan.

922.196 Procedures for adding underwater cultural resources to the Sanctuary boundary

(a) Only those underwater cultural resources that existed in the Sanctuary boundary prior to

the effective date of Sanctuary designation are considered Sanctuary resources. In order for any other

resource to be considered an underwater cultural resource as defined in these regulations, the Director, in consultation with the State and relevant federal agencies, must:

(1) determine that the resource is 50 years or older and of special national significance due to

architectural significance or association with individuals or events that are significant to local or national

history; and

(2) provide a 45-day public comment period.
66

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1

Appendix A to Subpart R of Part 922 – Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary Boundary

Coordinates

[Based on North American Datum of 1983]

Point Latitude Longitude

1.......... 45°21’24” 83°29’38”

2........... 45°21’24” 83°00’00”

3........... 44°42’46” 83°00’00”

4 .......... 44°42’46” 83°16’26”

Appendix B to Subpart R of Part 922 – Minor Projects for Purposes of Section 922.192(a)(2)(iii)

Pursuant to R 322.1013 of Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands of Public Act 451, the Michigan

Department of Environmental Quality (Department) issues permits for projects that are of a minor

nature which are not controversial, which have minimal adverse environmental impact, which will be

constructed of clean, non-polluting materials, which do not impair the use of the adjacent bottomlands

by the public, and which do not adversely affect riparian interests of adjacent owners. The following

projects are minor projects:

 (a) Noncommercial single piers, docks, and boat hoists which meet the following design criteria:

(i) are of a length or size not greater than the length or size of similar structures in the vicinity

and on the watercourse involved; and

(ii) provide for the free littoral flow of water and drift material.

 (b) Spring piles and pile clusters when their design and purpose is usual for such projects in the

vicinity and on the watercourse involved.

 (c) Seawalls, bulkheads, and other permanent revetment structures which meet all of the following

purpose and design criteria:

(i) the proposed structure fulfills an identifiable need for erosion protection, bank stabilization,

protection of uplands, or improvements on uplands;

(ii) the structure will be constructed of suitable materials free from pollutants, waste metal

products, debris, or organic materials;

(iii) the structure is not more than 300 feet in length and is located in an area on the body of

water where other similar structures already exist;
67

ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 3

(iv) the placement of backfill or other fill associated with the construction does not exceed an

average of 3 cubic yards per running foot along the shoreline and a maximum of 300 cubic yards; and

(v) the structure or any associated fill will not be placed in a wetland area or placed in any

manner that impairs surface water flow into or out of any wetland area.

 (d) Groins 50 feet or less in length, as measures from the toe to bluff, which meet all of the following criteria:

(i) the groin is low profile, with the lakeward end not more than 1 foot above the existing

water level; and

(ii) the groin is placed at least 1/2 of the groin length from the adjacent property line or closer

with written approval of the adjacent riparian.

 (e) Filling for restoration of existing permitted fill, fills placed incidental to construction of other

structures, and fills that do not exceed 300 cubic yards as a single and complete project, where the fill

is of suitable material free from pollutants, waste metal products, debris, or organic materials.

 (f) Dredging for the maintenance of previously dredged areas or dredging of not more than 300

cubic yards as a single and complete project when both of the following criteria are met:

(i) no reasonable expectation exists that the materials to be dredged are polluted; and

(ii) all dredging materials will be removed to an upland site exclusive of wetland areas.

 (g) Structural repair of man-made structures, except as exempted by R 322.1008(3), when their

design and purpose meet both of the following criteria:

(i) the repair does not alter the original use of a recently serviceable structure; and

(ii) the repair will not adversely affect public trust values or interests, including navigation and

water quality.

 (h) Fish or wildlife habitat structures which meet both of the following criteria:

(i) are placed so the structures do not impede or create a navigational hazard; and

(ii) are anchored to the bottomlands.

 (i) Scientific structures such as staff gauges, water monitoring devices, water quality testing devices,

survey devices, and core sampling devices, if the structures do not impede or create a navigational

hazard.

 (j) Navigational aids which meet both of the following criteria:
68

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1

(i) are approved by the United States Coast Guard; and

(ii) are approved under Act No. 303 of the Public Acts of 1967, as amended, being

§281.1001 et seq. of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and known as the Marine Safety Act.

 (k) Extension of a project where work is being performed under a current permit and which will

result in no damage to natural resources.

 (l) A sand trap wall which meets all of the following criteria:

(i) the wall is 300 feet or less in length along the shoreline;

(ii) the wall does not extend more than 30 feet lakeward of the toe of bluff;

(iii) the wall is low profile, that is, it is not more than 1 foot above the existing water level; and

(iv) the wall is constructed of wood or steel or other non-polluting material.

 (m) Physical removal of man-made structures or natural obstructions which meet all of the following criteria:

(i) the debris and spoils shall be removed to an upland site, not in a wetland, in a manner

which will not allow erosion into pubic waters;

(ii) the shoreline and bottom contours shall be restored to an acceptable condition; and

(iii) upon completion of structure removal, the site does not constitute a safety or navigational

hazard. Department staff shall consider fisheries and wildlife resource values when evaluating applications for natural obstruction removal.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO GENERIC SANCTUARY REGULATIONS

§ 922.1 Applicability of regulations.

Unless noted otherwise, the regulations in Subparts A, D and E apply to all thirteen National

Marine Sanctuaries for which site-specific regulations appear in Subparts F through R, respectively.

Subparts B and C apply to the site evaluation list and to the designation of future Sanctuaries.

§ 922.3 Definitions.

Sanctuary resource means any living or non-living resource of a National Marine Sanctuary that

contributes to the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic

value of the Sanctuary, including, but not limited to, the substratum of the area of the Sanctuary, other

submerged features and the surrounding seabed, carbonate rock, corals and other bottom forma-
69

ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 3

tions, coralline algae and other marine plants and algae, marine invertebrates, brine-seep biota,

phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, seabirds, sea turtles and other marine reptiles, marine mammals and

historical resources. For Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Sanctuary resource means an

underwater cultural resource defined at §922.191.

§ 922.40 Purpose.

The purpose of the regulations in this Subpart and in Subparts F through R is to implement the

designations of the thirteen National Marine Sanctuaries for which site specific regulations appear in

Subparts F through R, respectively, by regulating activities affecting them, consistent with their respective terms of designation in order to protect, preserve and manage and thereby ensure the health,

integrity and continued availability of the conservation, ecological, recreational, research, educational,

historical and aesthetic resources and qualities of these areas. Additional purposes of the regulations

implementing the designation of the Florida Keys and Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National

Marine Sanctuaries are found at §§ 922.160, and 922.180, respectively.

§ 922.41 Boundaries.

The boundary for each of the thirteen National Marine Sanctuaries covered by this part is

described in Subparts F through R, respectively.

§ 922.42 Allowed Activities.

All activities (e.g., fishing, boating, diving, research, education) may be conducted unless

prohibited or otherwise regulated in Subparts F through R, subject to any emergency regulations

promulgated pursuant to §§ 922.44, 922.111(c), 922.165, 922.186, or 922.195, subject to all

prohibitions, regulations, restrictions, and conditions validly imposed by any Federal, State, or local

authority of competent jurisdiction, including Federal and State fishery management authorities, and

subject to the provisions of § 312 of the Act. The Assistant Administrator may only directly regulate

fishing activities pursuant to the procedure set forth in § 304(a)(5) of the NMSA.

§ 922.43 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.

Subparts F through R set forth site-specific regulations applicable to the activities specified

therein.

§ 922.44 Emergency regulations.

Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary

resource or quality, or minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or injury, any and all such

activities are subject to immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition. The provisions of this
70

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1

section do not apply to the Cordell Bank, Florida Keys, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale, and

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuaries. See §§ 922.111(c), 922.165, and 922.186, 922.195,

respectively, for the authority to issue emergency regulations with respect to those sanctuaries.

§ 922.45 Penalties.

(a) Each violation of the NMSA or FKNMSPA, any regulation in this part, or any permit issued

pursuant thereto, is subject to a civil penalty of not more than $100,000. Each day of a continuing

violation constitutes a separate violation.

(b) Regulations setting forth the procedures governing administrative proceedings for assessment of civil penalties, permit sanctions, and denials for enforcement reasons, issuance and use of

written warnings, and release or forfeiture of seized property appear at 15 CFR Part 904.

§ 922.46 Response costs and damages.

Under § 312 of the Act, any person who destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any Sanctuary

resource is liable to the United States for response costs and damages resulting from such destruction,

loss or injury, and any vessel used to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any Sanctuary resource is

liable in rem to the United States for response costs and damages resulting from such destruction, loss

or injury.

§ 922.47 Pre-existing authorizations or rights and certifications of pre-existing authorizations or rights.

(a) Leases, permits, licenses, or rights of subsistence use or access in existence on the date of

designation of any National Marine Sanctuary shall not be terminated by the Director. The Director

may, however, regulate the exercise of such leases, permits, licenses, or rights consistent with the

purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.

(b) The prohibitions listed in Subparts F through P, and Subpart R do not apply to any activity

authorized by a valid lease, permit, license, approval or other authorization in existence on the effective date of Sanctuary designation, or in the case of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary the

effective date of the regulations in Subpart P, and issued by any Federal, State or local authority of

competent jurisdiction, or by any valid right of subsistence use or access in existence on the effective

date of Sanctuary designation, or in the case of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary the effective date of the regulations in Subpart P, provided that the holder of such authorization or right complies with certification procedures and criteria promulgated at the time of Sanctuary designation, or in

the case of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary the effective date of the regulations in Subpart

P, and with any terms and conditions on the exercise of such authorization or right imposed by the
71

ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 3

Director as a condition of certification as the Director deems necessary to achieve the purposes for

which the Sanctuary was designated.

§ 922.48 National marine sanctuary permits—application procedures and issuance criteria.

(a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by Subparts F through O, if conducted in

accordance with the scope, purpose, terms and conditions of a permit issued under this section and

Subparts F through O, as appropriate. For the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, a person may

conduct an activity prohibited by Subpart P if conducted in accordance with the scope, purpose, terms

and conditions of a permit issued under § 922.166. For the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary,

a person may conduct an activity prohibited by Subpart R in accordance with the scope, purpose,

terms and conditions of a permit issued under § 922.194.

(b) Applications for permits to conduct activities otherwise prohibited by Subparts F through O

should be addressed to the Director and sent to the address specified in Subparts F through O, or

Subpart R, as appropriate. An application must include: (1) a detailed description of the proposed

activity including a timetable for completion; (2) the equipment, personnel and methodology to be

employed; (3) the qualifications and experience of all personnel; (4) the potential effects of the activity,

if any, on Sanctuary resources and qualities; and (5) copies of all other required licenses, permits,

approvals or other authorizations.

(c) Upon receipt of an application, the Director may request such additional information from

the applicant as he or she deems necessary to act on the application and may seek the views of any

persons or entity, within or outside the Federal government, and may hold a public hearing, as

deemed appropriate.

(d) The Director, at his or her discretion, may issue a permit, subject to such terms and

conditions as he or she deems appropriate, to conduct a prohibited activity, in accordance with the

criteria found in Subparts F through O, or Subpart R, as appropriate. The Director shall further

impose, at a minimum, the conditions set forth in the relevant subpart.

(e) A permit granted pursuant to this section is nontransferable.

(f) The Director may amend, suspend, or revoke a permit issued pursuant to this section for

good cause. The Director may deny a permit application pursuant to this section, in whole or in part,

if it is determined that the permittee or applicant has acted in violation of the terms and conditions of a

permit or of the regulations set forth in this section or Subparts F through O, Subpart R or for other
72

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1

good cause. Any such action shall be communicated in writing to the permittee or applicant by

certified mail and shall set forth the reason(s) for the action taken. Procedures governing permit

sanctions and denials for enforcement reasons are set forth in Subpart D of 15 CFR Part 904.

§ 922.49 Notification and review of applications for leases, licenses, permits, approvals or other

authorizations to conduct a prohibited activity.

(a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by Subparts L through P, or Subpart R, if such

activity is specifically authorized by any valid Federal, State, or local lease, permit, license, approval, or

other authorization issued after the effective date of Sanctuary designation, or in the case of the Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary after the effective date of the regulations in Subpart P, provided that:

1) the applicant notifies the Director, in writing, of the application for such authorization (and of any

application for an amendment, renewal, or extension of such authorization) within fifteen (15) days of

the date of filing of the application or the effective date of Sanctuary designation, or in the case of the

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary the effective date of the regulations in Subpart P, whichever is

later; 2) the applicant complies with the other provisions of this § 922.49; 3) the Director notifies the

applicant and authorizing agency that he or she does not object to issuance of the authorization (or

amendment, renewal, or extension); and 4) the applicant complies with any terms and conditions the

Director deems reasonably necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities.

(b) Any potential applicant for an authorization described in paragraph (a) above may request

the Director to issue a finding as to whether the activity for which an application is intended to be

made is prohibited by Subparts L through P, or Subpart R, as appropriate.

(c) Notification of filings of applications should be sent to the Director, Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource Management at the address specified in Subparts L through P, or Subpart R, as

appropriate. A copy of the application must accompany the notification.

(d) The Director may request additional information from the applicant as he or she deems

reasonably necessary to determine whether to object to issuance of an authorization described in

paragraph (a) above, or what terms and conditions are reasonably necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. The information requested must be received by the Director within 45 days of

the postmark date of the request. The Director may seek the views of any persons on the application.

(e) The Director shall notify, in writing, the agency to which application has been made of his

or her pending review of the application and possible objection to issuance. Upon completion of

review of the application and information received with respect thereto, the Director shall notify both
73

ATTACHMENT 1 SECTION 3

the agency and applicant, in writing, whether he or she has an objection to issuance and what terms

and conditions he or she deems reasonably necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities,

and reasons therefor.

(f) The Director may amend the terms and conditions deemed reasonably necessary to

protect Sanctuary resources and qualities whenever additional information becomes available justifying

such an amendment.

(g) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this § 922.49 may be extended by the

Director for good cause.

(h) The applicant may appeal any objection by, or terms or conditions imposed by, the Director to the Assistant Administrator or designee in accordance with the provisions of § 922.50.

§ 922.50 Appeals of administrative action.

(a)(1) Except for permit actions taken for enforcement reasons (see Subpart D of 15 CFR Part

904 for applicable procedures), an applicant for, or a holder of, a National Marine Sanctuary permit;

an applicant for, or a holder of, a Special Use permit issued pursuant to § 310 of the Act; a person

requesting certification of an existing lease, permit, license or right of subsistence use or access under

§ 922.47; or, for those Sanctuaries described in Subparts L through P and Subpart R, an applicant for a

lease, permit, license or other authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction (hereinafter appellant) may appeal to the Assistant Administrator:

(A) the granting, denial, conditioning, amendment, suspension or revocation by the Director

of a National Marine Sanctuary or Special Use permit;

(B) the conditioning, amendment, suspension or revocation of a certification under

§ 922.47; or

(C) for those Sanctuaries described in Subparts L through P and Subpart R, the objection to

issuance of or the imposition of terms and conditions on a lease, permit, license or other authorization

issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction.

(2) For those National Marine Sanctuaries described in Subparts F through K, any interested

person may also appeal the same actions described in § 922.50(a)(1)(A)-(B). For appeals arising from

actions taken with respect to these National Marine Sanctuaries, the term “appellant” includes any
74

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 1

such interested persons.

(b) An appeal under paragraph (a) of this section must be in writing, state the action(s) by the

Director appealed and the reason(s) for the appeal, and be received within 30 days of receipt of

notice of the action by the Director. Appeals should be addressed to the Assistant Administrator for

Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, NOAA 1305 East-West Highway, 13th Floor, Silver

Spring, MD 20910.

(c) The Assistant Administrator may request the appellant to submit such information as the

Assistant Administrator deems necessary in order for him or her to decide the appeal. The information requested must be received by the Assistant Administrator within 45 days of the postmark date of

the request. The Assistant Administrator may seek the views of any other persons. For the Monitor

National Marine Sanctuary, if the appellant has requested a hearing, the Assistant Administrator shall

grant an informal hearing. For all other National Marine Sanctuaries, the Assistant Administrator may

determine whether to hold an informal hearing on the appeal. If the Assistant Administrator determines that an informal hearing should be held, the Assistant Administrator may designate an officer

before whom the hearing shall be held.

The hearing officer shall give notice in the Federal Register of the time, place and subject

matter of the hearing. The appellant and the Director may appear personally or by counsel at the

hearing and submit such material and present such arguments as deemed appropriate by the hearing

officer. Within 60 days after the record for the hearing closes, the hearing officer shall recommend a

decision in writing to the Assistant Administrator.

(d) The Assistant Administrator shall decide the appeal using the same regulatory criteria as for

the initial decision and shall base the appeal decision on the record before the Director and any

information submitted regarding the appeal, and, if a hearing has been held, on the record before the

hearing officer and the hearing officer’s recommended decision. The Assistant Administrator shall

notify the appellant of the final decision and the reason(s) therefore in writing. The Assistant

Administrator’s decision shall constitute final agency action for the purposes of the Administrative

Procedure Act.

(e) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this section other than the 30-day limit for

filing an appeal may be extended by the Assistant Administrator or hearing officer for good cause.
75

ATTACHMENT 2 SECTION 3

Attachment 2:

Draft Memorandum of Understanding

For the Coordinated Management of

The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

Note: This Memorandum of Understanding is a working draft and is subject to

further revision based on review by the State of Michigan and NOAA.

This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made between the State of Michigan and the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the United States Department of Commerce

(hereinafter referred to as “Parties”). The purpose of the MOU is to clarify the relative jurisdiction,

authority, and conditions of the NOAA-State partnership for managing the Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary. It confirms the State’s continuing sovereignty and jurisdiction over its State waters,

submerged lands, and other resources within the Sanctuary. The MOU further establishes provisions

with respect to NOAA’s collaboration with the State of Michigan on Sanctuary management issues.

I. DEFINITIONS

For purposes of this MOU, the following terms are defined as follows:

Governor — means the Governor of the State of Michigan, or his or her designee.

Management Plan — means the final management plan and regulations for the Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary.

NOAA — means the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

State permit — means any lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by

the State of Michigan for the conduct of activities or projects within the Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary.

Regulations — mean the final Sanctuary regulations implementing the Management Plan.

Sanctuary — means the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Sanctuary resource — means any underwater cultural resource, as defined in this section.
76

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 2

State — means the State of Michigan.

Underwater cultural resource — means any sunken watercraft, including a ship, boat, canoe, skiff,

raft, or barge; the rigging, gear, fittings, trappings, and equipment of any watercraft; the personal property of the officers, crew, and passengers of any sunken watercraft; and the cargo of any sunken watercraft, that existed prior to the effective date of Sanctuary designation. Underwater cultural resource

also means any historical remnant of docks or piers or associated material, or materials resulting from

activities of historic and prehistoric Native Americans. For any other underwater cultural resource to

be considered a Sanctuary resource, it must meet the criteria set forth in 15 CFR § 922.196.

II. AUTHORITIES

A. National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA). The National Marine Sanctuaries Act, as

amended (NMSA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq., authorizes the designation, protection and

management of discrete marine (or Great Lakes) areas of special national significance as

National Marine Sanctuaries, based upon their “conservation, recreational, ecological,

historical, research, educational, or aesthetic qualities.”

B. Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities, Public Act 451 of 1994, as amended.

Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities, (Section 76101(e)) of the Michigan Compiled

Laws (Section 1, Act No. 451 of the Public Acts of 1994), authorizes the establishment of

State Bottomland Preserves to preserve and protect Michigan’s Great Lakes bottomland areas

that contain property of historical or recreational value. Preserves are managed by the

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and Michigan Department of State (Michigan

Historical Center). The statute also authorizes the State to issue permits to recover

abandoned property from Great Lakes bottomlands.

C. Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands, Public Act 451 of 1994, MCL 324.3250

et seq., as amended. The Act authorizes the State to “grant, convey or lease certain

unpatented lake bottomlands...in the Great Lakes...; to permit the private and public use of

waters over submerged patented lands; to provide for disposition of revenue derived

therefrom; and to provide penalties for violations of this act.” The Act also authorizes the

State to regulate dredging, filling and placement of other materials on Great Lakes

bottomlands. Responsibility for implementation of this statute rests with the Michigan

Department of Environmental Quality.
77

ATTACHMENT 2 SECTION 3

III. RECITALS

Whereas, Michigan is bordered by four Great Lakes, including Lake Huron;

Whereas, the waters of Thunder Bay and surrounding area in Lake Huron contain one

of the most concentrated areas of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes;

Whereas, these shipwrecks possess extensive historical, cultural, recreational,

educational and research values of importance to the nation, the State of Michigan, and the

residents of Alcona, Alpena and Presque Isle Counties;

Whereas, the State has designated the 288 square-mile Thunder Bay Bottomland

Preserve to protect and manage the shipwrecks;

Whereas, the Sanctuary covers 808 square miles of State waters and wholly

incorporates the Thunder Bay Bottomland Preserve;

Whereas, the purposes of the Sanctuary’s Designation Document, implementing

regulations, and Management Plan are to: (1) protect the underwater cultural resources of

Thunder Bay and surrounding waters located within the boundaries of the Sanctuary; (2)

educate and interpret for the public the maritime heritage of the Great Lakes; (3) conduct

research on underwater cultural resources (e.g., inventory and document the shipwrecks);

and (4) ensure coordination and cooperation between the Sanctuary and other relevant

State, Federal and local authorities;

Whereas, the purpose of this MOU is to provide the mechanism for coordination of the

efforts of NOAA and the State of Michigan to meet their common commitment to protect and

manage the underwater cultural resources of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, as defined

in the Sanctuary’s Management Plan;

Whereas, the Management Plan and MOU were developed with substantial input from a

variety of federal, state and local agencies and institutions, the Sanctuary Advisory Council, and the

public;
78

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 2

IV. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT:

A. The Parties recognize the Federal-State cooperative arrangement for management of the

Sanctuary and its underwater cultural resources and that no Federal, State, or local title or

authority to manage and regulate submerged lands, resources, or activities has been limited,

conveyed or relinquished through this MOU.

B. The State of Michigan has not conveyed title to or relinquished its sovereign authority over any

State-owned submerged lands or other State-owned resources, by agreeing to include those

submerged lands and resources within the Sanctuary boundary.

C. NOAA and the State will co-manage the Sanctuary and its underwater cultural resources

consistent with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the Management Plan, and Memoranda of

Understanding developed thereunder.

D. No State or local funding is required to implement the Management Plan, its implementing

regulations, or any provisions of this MOU.

E. The Sanctuary’s Management Plan, Designation Document and its implementing regulations do not

regulate commercial fishing, recreational fishing, and hunting within the boundaries of the Sanctuary.

F. The Sanctuary will not interfere with or impair fishery management practices, such as stocking

programs and fisheries research.

G. NOAA does not have the authority to, and therefore cannot, acquire land to regulate activities

landward of the ordinary high water mark (e.g., limiting public access from the shore to Lake

Huron). NOAA does have the authority to co-manage activities lakeward of the ordinary high

water mark pursuant to the Sanctuary regulations.

H. NOAA and the State of Michigan agree that any person will be able to freely dive to or on,

photograph, or otherwise enjoy shipwrecks, provided that the use or activity does not involve a

prohibited activity under the Sanctuary regulations.

I. NOAA does not have the authority to, and therefore cannot, charge user fees in the Sanctuary.

Even if Congress passes legislation that provides NOAA with this authority, no user fee could be

assessed without concurrence from the Governor.
79

ATTACHMENT 2 SECTION 3

J. Any proposed change to the Management Plan or Sanctuary regulations shall be reviewed in

consultation with the State. Substantive amendments (as opposed to minor editorial and technical

changes or corrections) shall not take effect in State waters without first obtaining the approval of the

Governor.

K. The Governor reserves the right to propose changes to the Management Plan and, if appropriate,

NOAA shall initiate the Federal rule promulgation process required to make revisions requested

by the Governor to the regulations implementing the management plan. In accordance with the

Administrative Procedure Act, NOAA will base its decision on whether and how to revise any

regulation on the administrative record developed during the rulemaking process.

L. The imposition, extension, or renewal of Sanctuary emergency regulations in State waters shall

not be authorized without concurrence from the Governor.

M. Civil penalties recovered under section 307 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act shall be used

by NOAA consistent with the requirements and priorities of the Management Plan. Amounts

recovered under section 307 with respect to incidents within areas subject to State jurisdiction

shall be used in consultation and agreement with the State consistent with the Plan. Similarly, to

the maximum extent consistent with section 312(d) of the NMSA, any monetary recovery that

may result from any civil action shall be used for the exclusive benefit of the Sanctuary.

N. Section 304(e) of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to

review the Sanctuary’s Management Plan and implementing regulations every five years and revise

the management plan as necessary. In the first five-year review, the Secretary of Commerce will

re-propose the designation of the Sanctuary, management plan, and the regulations in their

entirety. The Governor will have the opportunity to review the designation, Management Plan,

and regulations and indicate if the designation or any terms of the Management Plan or regulations

are unacceptable, in which case unacceptable terms shall not take effect in State waters. If the

Governor takes no action to terminate the designation of the Sanctuary during the first five-year

review, the Sanctuary will remain designated. In subsequent reviews, NOAA will not re-propose

the designation of the Sanctuary, but the Governor reserves the right to propose changes to the

Management Plan and regulations per “IV.K” of this memorandum.

O. Local interests shall be represented by a Sanctuary Advisory Council comprised of 15 local

members whose names are mutually agreed upon by NOAA and the State of Michigan.
80

V. ENFORCEMENT

Enforcement of Sanctuary regulations within the Sanctuary boundary may be

implemented via deputization of other law enforcement personnel, e.g., State of Michigan

enforcement personnel, local county sheriffs, as the need is identified, and by separate

agreement. Existing State criminal and civil penalties will continue in force. Enforcement

personnel shall be authorized to carry out enforcement provisions of 15 CFR Part 922,

Subpart E (National Marine Sanctuary Program Regulations) and Subpart R (Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary Regulations). Violation of a Sanctuary regulation shall be subject to

civil penalties available in the NMSA (see Section 307(c)), and if applicable, under state law.

VI. CONSULTATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

In the event of disagreement between the Thunder Bay NMS and State of Michigan regarding

the conduct of proposed activities or projects which may affect the underwater cultural resources

within the Sanctuary, all reasonable attempts shall be made to resolve the disagreement and/or

provide conditions to the proposed permit to mitigate any potential adverse impact on underwater

cultural resources. The Thunder Bay NMS and the State may consult with the Sanctuary Advisory

Council to obtain local input. In the event of inability of the parties to reach resolution, the proposal

shall be elevated to the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of State (Michigan

Historical Center), the Department of Natural Resources, and to the National Ocean Service for final

resolution. In the event of disagreement among those parties, the proposal shall be elevated to the

Administrator of NOAA, and to the Governor of Michigan, whose collective decision shall be final.

VII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

The Parties each retain full authority and reserve all rights to take whatever actions deemed

necessary to pursue, preserve, and protect any legal right, interest, or remedy. Nothing in this MOU

is intended nor shall be construed to waive or foreclose any such authority, right, interest, or remedy.

VIII. MODIFICATION PROVISIONS

In addition to review of this agreement at the conclusion of five (5) years, this

agreement also may be amended at any time by the written mutual consent of the parties

hereto signed. It may be subject to reconsideration at such other times as may be required,

and as agreed to by the parties entering into this agreement.

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 2
81

ATTACHMENT 2 SECTION 3

IX. PERIOD

This MOU will become effective on the date of the last signature of the approving official of

either of the Parties and shall continue in force unless terminated in conjunction with the five-year

review of the Sanctuary Management Plan.

X. SAVINGS CLAUSE

A. Nothing herein is intended to conflict with current State or Federal laws, policies, regulations, or

directives. If any of the terms of this MOU are inconsistent with existing Federal or State laws,

policies, regulations, or directives, then those portions of this MOU which are determined to be

inconsistent shall be invalid. The remaining terms of this MOU not affected by the inconsistency

shall remain in full force and effect.

B. At the first opportunity for review of the MOU, all necessary changes will be accomplished by

either an amendment to this MOU or by entering into a new MOU or other agreement.

C. Should disagreement arise on the interpretation or implementation of the provisions of this MOU

or amendments and/or revisions thereto that cannot be resolved at the program operations level,

the matter shall be forwarded to higher authority for resolution.

D. All requirements of this MOU are subject to the availability of NOAA funds.

XI. SIGNATURES

Governor of Michigan

Administrator of NOAA
82

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 3

Attachment 3:

Draft Programmatic Agreement Among

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, The State of Michigan, and

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, for Management of the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

Note: This Programmatic Agreement is a working draft and is subject to further revision based on

review by the State of Michigan, NOAA, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

This Programmatic Agreement (PA) is made between the State of Michigan, the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

(hereinafter referred to as “Parties”). The purposes of the Programmatic Agreement are to (1)

describe the roles and responsibilities of the Parties in the permit review process, and (2) list priority

projects for the first five years of Sanctuary operation.

I. DEFINITIONS

Federal Archaeological Program – means the collection of federal laws, regulations and guidelines that

pertain to the management and protection of historic properties that are either on federal lands or are

affected by federally funded activities. Congress directed that the Federal Archaeological Program be

coordinated by the National Park Service.

Governor – means the Governor of Michigan, or designee.

Management Plan – means the final management plan and regulations for the Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary.

NOAA – means the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

State permit – means any lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by the State

of Michigan for the conduct of activities or projects within the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Regulations – mean the final Sanctuary regulations implementing the Management Plan.

Sanctuary – means the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Sanctuary resource – means any underwater cultural resource, as defined herein, which occurs within the Sanctuary.

State – means the State of Michigan.
83

ATTACHMENT 3 SECTION 3

State Historic Preservation Officer – means a position created by the National Historic Preservation

Act. The SHPO administers the state’s historic preservation program in accordance with the Act.

Underwater cultural resource – means any sunken watercraft, including a ship, boat, canoe, skiff, raft,

or barge; the rigging, gear, fittings, trappings, and equipment of any watercraft; the personal property

of the officers, crew, and passengers of any sunken watercraft; and the cargo of any sunken watercraft,

that existed prior to the effective date of Sanctuary designation. Underwater cultural resource also

means any historical remnant of docks or piers or associated material, or materials resulting from activities of historic and prehistoric Native Americans. For any other underwater cultural resource to be

considered a Sanctuary resource, it must meet the criteria set forth in 15 CFR § 922.196.

II. RECITALS

Whereas, the waters of Thunder Bay and surrounding area in Lake Huron contain one of the

most concentrated areas of shipwrecks in the Great Lakes;

Whereas, these shipwrecks possess extensive historical, cultural, recreational, educational and

research values of importance to the nation, State of Michigan and residents of Alcona, Alpena and

Presque Isle Counties;

Whereas, the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is designated to protect and manage

underwater cultural resources within Sanctuary boundaries;

Whereas, the purpose of this Programmatic Agreement is to provide the mechanism for

coordination of the efforts of NOAA, the State of Michigan, and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation to meet their common commitment to protect and manage the underwater cultural

resources of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, as defined in the Management Plan.

Whereas, the Management Plan and Programmatic Agreement were developed with substantial input from a variety of governmental agencies, the Sanctuary Advisory Council, and the public;

III. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE UNDERSIGNED THAT:

1. Consistent with the policies of the State of Michigan, the National Marine Sanctuary Program and

the Federal Archaeological Program, the parties to this Programmatic Agreement prefer that

underwater cultural resources are preserved in-situ. Because underwater cultural resources are

irreplaceable non-renewable resources, they should remain in the sanctuary for research,
84

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 3

education and the viewing enjoyment of the public for present and future generations, unless and

until there is a substantial public interest justification for their removal.

2. The Parties agree that in order to protect underwater cultural resources, the Sanctuary regulations

prohibit the unauthorized recovery, alteration, destruction, or possession of underwater cultural

resources; the unauthorized alteration of the lakebed; and the use of grappling hooks or other

anchoring devices on shipwrecks that have a mooring buoy (see 15 CFR § 922.192).

3. Permits that strictly adhere to Sanctuary regulations and this Programmatic Agreement are deemed

to be in compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and do

not require approval of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Permits that are outside of

the scope of this Programmatic Agreement, in whole or in part, are subject to Section 106 review.

4. NOAA and the State of Michigan agree that all plans to preserve underwater cultural resources

will be jointly developed and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for

review. Unless the SHPO objects within 30 days after receipt of the plan, the agencies will ensure

that the plan is implemented.

5. NOAA shall ensure that archaeological surveys done for compliance purposes under Sections 106

or 110 are conducted in a manner consistent with the Management Plan and the Secretary of

Interior’s Standards for Identification (48 FR 44720-23). The surveys shall be done in consultation

with the State of Michigan, and a report of the surveys, meeting professional and SHPO standards,

shall be submitted to the SHPO for review and approval.

6. NOAA shall ensure that all final reports resulting from activities pursuant to this Agreement will be

provided to the State of Michigan and the Council, and other interested parties. NOAA will

ensure that all such reports are responsive to contemporary professional standards.

7. NOAA shall ensure that all artifacts are conserved, curated and otherwise managed according to

the provisions of the Management Plan and federal archaeological program guidelines.

IV. PERMIT REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES

1. The Parties agree that the State of Michigan, Department of Environmental Quality, will be the

point of contact for all permit applications, regardless of whether the State of Michigan or NOAA

issues the permit.

2. The State of Michigan will continue to implement state law within the Thunder Bay Underwater

Preserve, even though the preserve is within the boundary of the Sanctuary. Persons who wish to
85

ATTACHMENT 3 SECTION 3

apply for a permit under Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities, of Public Act 451 (1994), as

amended, will follow the same procedures that existed prior to Sanctuary designation.

3. NOAA will not require separate Sanctuary permits for activities within the Sanctuary that are

covered and permitted by the State of Michigan if the proposed activity is consistent with the

Sanctuary regulations.

4. If a proposed activity does not fall under state jurisdiction, but requires a permit from a federal

agency other than NOAA, NOAA will address Sanctuary concerns through the “authorization” of

that federal permit. This will be met through consultation procedures at 15 CFR § 922.49.

5. For activities where no state or federal permit exists for Sanctuary concerns to be addressed (e.g.,

hand-taking activities proposed to occur outside the boundary of the Thunder Bay Underwater

Preserve, but inside the boundary of the Sanctuary), NOAA will review the application and decide

whether to issue a Sanctuary permit. Under this scenario, applications shall be submitted to the

State and considered by NOAA in accordance with 15 CFR § 922.48 (c) through (f). Copies of

applications received by the State shall be forwarded to NOAA for action. The State of Michigan

will have the opportunity to review the permit application and provide comments to NOAA.

V. GOALS AND PRIORITY PROJECTS FOR THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

This part of the Programmatic Agreement is comprised of three sections that are consistent with the

Management Plan for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary: (1) resource protection, (2)

education, and (3) research. The purpose is to describe priority projects for the first five years of

Sanctuary operation.

CULTURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT

NOAA, the State of Michigan, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation agree that in order

to comprehensively manage and protect the underwater cultural resources in the Thunder Bay NMS,

a Resource Protection Plan will be developed to manage and protect the Sanctuary’s underwater

cultural resources.

A Resource Protection Plan will be developed cooperatively by NOAA and the State, the Sanctuary

Advisory Council and appropriate local and regional institutions and organizations. Priorities for

resource protection and the strategies for implementing these activities will be included in the Plan.
86

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 3

A. Goals for Cultural Resource Protection and Management

1. Coordinate management activities with other governmental and non-governmental programs

that protect underwater cultural resources;

2. Establish innovative partnerships with local, state, federal and tribal agencies, organizations, and

businesses that support the resource protection mission of the Sanctuary;

3. Develop active and sustainable community involvement through diverse volunteer and private

sector initiatives;

4. Establish an effective enforcement program for Sanctuary regulations that protect underwater

cultural resources;

5. Develop and implement effective emergency response and resource damage assessment

programs; and

6. Ensure that management decisions are based on the best available information, but where such

information is incomplete, follow those options that best protect Sanctuary underwater cultural

resources.

B. Priority Cultural Resource Protection and Management Activities

1. Develop and maintain a mooring buoy system.

2. Facilitate coordination among management agencies having responsibilities for the Thunder Bay

maritime cultural landscape.

3. Support a scientific research and monitoring program focusing on underwater cultural resources.

Initial research activities would provide baseline inventory information on which to base

management decisions.

4. Cross-deputize and support law enforcement personnel (e.g., County Sheriff Marine Patrol

Officers, Michigan DNR Conservation Officers, Michigan State Police, and U.S. Coast Guard

Officers) to enforce Sanctuary regulations.

EDUCATION

NOAA and the State of Michigan agree that in order to comprehensively manage and protect the
87

underwater cultural resources in the Thunder Bay NMS, an Education Plan will be developed to

facilitate the understanding of these resources, their significance in Great Lakes maritime history, and

the importance of their protection.

An Education Plan and education themes will be developed cooperatively by NOAA, the State, the

Sanctuary Advisory Council, and appropriate local and regional institutions and organizations. Priorities

for Sanctuary education and the strategies for implementing these activities will be included in the Plan.

A. Goals for Education

1. Develop and implement education programs that promote awareness and understanding of the

Sanctuary underwater cultural resources, Thunder Bay maritime heritage, and the National

Marine Sanctuary Program;

2. Provide leadership to develop and implement collaborative education programs that meet the

needs and interests of residents, local and regional schools, and visitors to the area;

3. Act as a clearinghouse of quality education materials, and assist in developing and maintaining an

inventory of existing education programs so they are accessible to educators;

4. Encourage the involvement of volunteers to foster understanding of and participation in the

protection of Sanctuary resources;

5. Ensure that education programs support overall management goals for resource protection,

research, and administration; and

6. Facilitate the transfer of Sanctuary information and experiences for use locally, regionally, nationally

and globally.

B. Priority Education Activities

The priority education activities listed below are identified in the Management Plan for the Thunder

Bay NMS. As the Education Plan is developed and as the management and operation of the Thunder

Bay NMS evolves, other projects identified by NOAA, the State, the SAC, and the community may be

added to the list. The activities are not necessarily listed in order of priority.

1. Develop the concept for and secure funding for the establishment of a Maritime Heritage Center.

Such a facility will provide education and research opportunities for both residents and tourists.

ATTACHMENT 3 SECTION 3
88

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 3

2. Acquire a Sanctuary education/research vessel. This will facilitate access to Sanctuary resources by

allowing on-the-water education and research activities.

3. Establish remote video hook-ups of researchers documenting the shipwrecks. This technology

would provide visual access to shipwrecks for non-divers.

4. Select and interpret a series of shipwrecks as a “shipwreck trail” to highlight Thunder Bay’s

maritime heritage. Interpretive materials will be developed for both divers and non-divers.

5. Designate an annual week-long celebration that highlights special events for school children to

kindle an interest in Great Lakes maritime heritage.

6. Produce a historical guide to maritime resources in the Thunder Bay NMS. The guide will

interpret the maritime history of the Thunder Bay area, and involve local communities in

discovering and documenting their maritime heritage.

7. Identify and support a network of volunteers to help enhance and maintain maritime heritage

education activities and projects.

8. Encourage and develop the use of educational technologies in supporting maritime heritage

education.

9. Develop public outreach activities to promote the Sanctuary locally, regionally and nationally.

10. Support, complement and enhance existing maritime heritage education efforts, and develop and

maintain new education initiatives as appropriate.

RESEARCH

NOAA and the State of Michigan agree that in order to comprehensively manage and protect the

underwater cultural resources in the Thunder Bay NMS, a Research Plan will be developed to acquire

knowledge about these resources. The knowledge gained through research and monitoring will be

used to evaluate existing management practices, enhance future management decisions, and educate

the public.

The Research Plan will be developed cooperatively by NOAA, the State, the Sanctuary Advisory

Council, and appropriate local and regional institutions and organizations. Priorities for Sanctuary

research and monitoring and strategies for implementing these priorities will be included in the Plan.
89

ATTACHMENT 3 SECTION 3

A. Goals for Research

1. Inventory and assess Sanctuary resources, and existing and potential threats to those resources;

2. Monitor Sanctuary resources to ensure their long-term protection and to evaluate management

practices;

3. Develop a research plan that places the highest priority upon research that addresses threats to

Sanctuary resources;

4. Develop and encourage collaborative programs with other agencies, organizations, and

businesses;

5. Identify and evaluate the monetary and intrinsic values associated with Sanctuary resources; and

6. Encourage research targeted at management issues such as resolving multiple-use conflicts, and

understanding user impacts.

B. Priority Research Projects

The priority research projects listed below are identified in the Management Plan for the Thunder Bay

NMS. As the Research Plan is developed and as the management and operation of the Thunder Bay

NMS evolves, other projects will be identified by NOAA, the State, the SAC, and the community and

added to the list. The projects are not necessarily listed in order of priority.

1. Locate, inventory and document the shipwrecks. This information will be used to nominate the

collection of shipwrecks as a National Historic Landmark.

2. Establish a monitoring program for the shipwrecks. The first step is to document baseline

conditions.

3. Obtain additional information from archives, site maps, photographs, and other historical sources

to supplement the shipwreck inventory.

4. Maintain in one place all information relating to each vessel including field notes, historical

information, photographs, videotapes, site maps, drawings, inventory forms, and reports. All such

documentation shall be available to the public for interpretive and educational purposes.

5. Monitor the impact of zebra mussels on shipwrecks.
90

SECTION 3 ATTACHMENT 3

VI. OTHER PROVISIONS

1. Any party to this Agreement who determines that some portion of the Agreement cannot be met

must immediately request the other signatories to consider an amendment or addendum to this

Agreement that would ensure full compliance. Such an amendment or addendum shall be

executed in the same manner as the original Agreement. Should any party to this Agreement be

unable to maintain a level of effort sufficient to carry out the terms of this Agreement, that party

shall notify the others and seek an appropriate amendment.

2. Any party to this Programmatic Agreement may terminate it by providing thirty (30) days notice

to the other parties, provided that the parties will consult during the period prior to termination to

seek agreement on amendments or other actions that would avoid termination. In the event of

termination, NOAA will comply with 36 CFR Parts 800.4 through 800.6 with regard to all

individual undertakings for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

3. Execution and implementation of this Programmatic Agreement evidences that the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has satisfied its responsibilities under Sections 106 and

110 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the management of the Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary.

VII. CONSULTATION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION

In the event of disagreement between NOAA and State of Michigan regarding the conduct of

proposed activities or projects which may affect the underwater cultural resources within the

Sanctuary, all reasonable attempts shall be made to resolve the disagreement and/or provide

conditions to the proposed permit to mitigate any potential adverse impact on underwater cultural

resources. NOAA and the State may consult with the Sanctuary Advisory Council to obtain local

input. In the event of inability of the parties to reach resolution, the proposal shall be elevated to the

Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of State (Michigan Historical Center), and/or

the Department of Natural Resources, and to the National Ocean Service for final resolution. In the

event of disagreement among those parties, the proposal shall be elevated to the Administrator of

NOAA, and to the Governor of Michigan, whose collective decision shall be final.

VIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

The Parties each retain full authority and reserve all rights to take whatever actions deemed necessary

to pursue, preserve, and protect any legal right, interest, or remedy. Nothing in this Programmatic

Agreement is intended nor shall be construed to waive or foreclose any such authority, right, interest,

or remedy.
91

ATTACHMENT 3 SECTION 3

IX. MODIFICATION PROVISIONS

In addition to review of this agreement at the conclusion of five (5) years, this agreement also

may be amended at any time by the written mutual consent of the parties hereto signed. It

may be subject to reconsideration at such other times as may be required, and as agreed to by

the parties entering into this agreement.

X. PERIOD

This Programmatic Agreement will become effective on the date of the last signature of the approving

official of either of the Parties and shall continue in force unless and until terminated in conjunction with

the five-year review of the Sanctuary Management Plan.

XI. SAVINGS CLAUSE

A. Nothing herein is intended to conflict with current State or Federal laws, policies, regulations,

or directives. If any of the terms of this Programmatic Agreement are inconsistent with existing

Federal or State laws, policies, regulations, or directives, then those portions of this

Programmatic Agreement which are determined to be inconsistent shall be invalid. The

remaining terms of this Programmatic Agreement not affected by the inconsistency shall remain

in full force and effect.

B. At the first opportunity for review of the Programmatic Agreement, all necessary changes will

be accomplished by either an amendment to this Programmatic Agreement or by entering into

a new Programmatic Agreement or other agreement.

C. Should disagreement arise on the interpretation or implementation of the provisions of this

Programmatic Agreement or amendments and/or revisions thereto that cannot be resolved at

the program operations level, the matter shall be forwarded to higher authority for resolution.

D. All requirements of this Programmatic Agreement are subject to the availability of NOAA funds.

XII. SIGNATORIES

Secretary of State

Director, Department of Environmental Quality

Director, Department of Natural Resources

Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Assistant Administrator, National Ocean Service, NOAA
1-72

Section 4

The Sanctuary Setting
93

SECTION 4

THE SANCTUARY SETTING

A. INTRODUCTION

Much of the information described in this section

has been excerpted and summarized from the

Thunder Bay Region Inventory of Resources,

completed by Michigan Sea Grant Extension in

1993. The Inventory is based on a thorough

review of literature and comprises the best

available information on the underwater cultural

resources, past and present human activities, and

environmental characteristics of the Thunder

Bay region. The Inventory identifies many

limitations in information about these maritime

resources and activities.

Additional research was conducted by Great

Lakes Visual/Research, Inc. in 1996 to evaluate

the national historic significance of Thunder Bay

shipwrecks. This recent work has been summarized in Part E of this section.

The reader is encouraged to learn more about

the Sanctuary setting by reading the Thunder Bay

Region Inventory of Resources (Vrana 1993) and

the Preliminary Comparative and Theme Study of

National Historic Landmark Potential for Thunder

Bay, Michigan (Martin 1996).

❍ Approximately 160 shipwrecks and

hundreds of other underwater cultural

resources are known, probable, or

suspected to exist within the boundaries

of the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary.

❍ Many of these sites are located within

the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve,

established by the State of Michigan in

1981.

❍ The entire collection of Thunder Bay

region shipwrecks is highly representative

of Great Lakes shipping for the period of

1840 – 1970. This collection of shipwrecks, as well as at least eight individual vessels, is believed to have

national historic significance.

❍ The underwater cultural resources

are part of a maritime cultural landscape

that includes lighthouses, historic wharfs

and docks, submerged prehistoric sites,

present-day maritime activities and

folklife, coastal communities, aquatic

life, and natural scenery.

❍ There are many stakeholders of the

shipwrecks and maritime cultural

landscape of the Thunder Bay region,

including local residents and tourists.
94

B. STUDY AREA

The Thunder Bay region as discussed in the Final

Environmental Impact Statement/Management

Plan (FEIS/MP) extends from Presque Isle

Figure 4.1 Identification of general study area.

 ERIM

Figure 4.2 Satellite photograph of Thunder Bay region. Figure 4.3 General study area.

83o00’ General

Study

Area

Presque Isle Harbor

Alpena

Ossineke

Black River

Sturgeon Point

Harrisville

NOAA

NOAA

Lake Huron

Harbor to Sturgeon Point and eastward into

Lake Huron to longitude 83 degrees west. It

includes Lake Huron waters east of Alpena

County, and portions of Alcona County and

Presque Isle County (Figures 4.1 – 4.3).

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
95

C. SHIPWRECK LAW AND

MANAGEMENT IN THE

GREAT LAKES REGION

The Great Lakes comprise the largest system of

fresh surface water on earth (U.S. EPA and

Environment Canada 1988). Eight states and the

Province of Ontario own nearly all of the approximately 94,000 square miles of Great Lakes

surface waters and underlying submerged lands

or bottomlands. The State of Michigan and the

Province of Ontario own about 75% of the total

submerged lands area (U.S. Bureau of Census

1993).

The federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA) of

1987 (43 U.S.C. 2101 et seq.) affirms state

ownership and management authority for

abandoned shipwrecks that meet at least one of

the following criteria: (1) embedded in submerged lands of a state, (2) embedded in coralline formations protected by a state on submerged lands of a state, or (3) on submerged

lands of a state and included in, or determined

eligible for, inclusion in the National Register of

Historic Places (maintained by the National Park

Service). Guidelines for the ASA were published

in the Federal Register on December 4, 1990

(55 Federal Register 50116-50145). The

guidelines are voluntary and not binding on any

state.

The states of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and

Wisconsin have laws that are specific to shipwrecks and other underwater cultural resources

on state bottomlands. All Great Lakes states and

the Province of Ontario have general law relating

to historic preservation or archaeology that may

be applied to underwater cultural resources

(Vrana and Mahoney 1993).

Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities of

Public Act 451 (1994), as amended, was enacted

“to protect and preserve, and to regulate the

taking of, aboriginal records and antiquities within

the state; to preserve abandoned property of

historical or recreational value [on Great Lakes

bottomlands]; to designate and regulate Great

Lakes bottomland preserves; to prescribe the

powers and duties of certain state agencies; to

create a fund; and to prescribe penalties and

provide remedies.” Part 761 was formerly the

Aboriginal Records and Antiquities Act (Public Act

173 of 1929, as amended by Public Act 184 of

1980, and Public Act 452 of 1988).

Key components of Part 761 include the

following:

• permit required to remove or disturb

underwater cultural resources;

• permit required to explore or excavate

aboriginal remains;

• state retains exclusive right and privilege

of field archaeology;

• exemption from public disclosure of site

information;

• penalty for permit violations;

• state reserves title to all archaeological

objects and data;

• penalty for unauthorized removal or intentional

destruction of archaeological materials;

• requirement to report and penalty for disturbance

of human remains;

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
96

• state can seek civil action for damages (including

forfeiture of equipment used in the violation);

• removal of artifacts allowed without permit

under certain conditions;

• recognizes the right of people to own abandoned

property under certain conditions;

• provision for intentionally sinking vessels in

bottomland preserves;

• recognizes the right to engage in recreational

diving;

• public accepts dangers in scuba diving on

underwater cultural resources; and

• establishes the state underwater salvage and

preserve advisory committee.

State appropriations were not provided for

implementation of Part 761. Currently, there

are no administrative rules for state bottomland

preserves (underwater preserves). The state

Underwater Salvage and Preserve Committee is

composed of appointees from the Michigan

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ),

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

(DNR), Michigan Department of State (DOS),

and public members appointed by the Governor.

The DEQ, DOS, and DNR are involved in the

State’s management and protection of underwater cultural resources. The DEQ and DOS

jointly administer Part 761, Aboriginal Records

and Antiquities of Public Act 451 (1994), as

amended. The DEQ is authorized to issue

permits for certain construction and other

activities impacting Great Lakes bottomlands

(Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands of

Public Act 451 (1994), as amended).

Leadership in service and program development

for state underwater preserves has been taken

on primarily by local advocacy groups (commonly known as preserve committees), businesses, and the Michigan Underwater Preserve

Council. The Council is a private, nonprofit

organization that represents the interests of

preserve committees and stakeholders throughout Michigan. Nine state underwater preserves

are currently designated in the Michigan Great

Lakes (Figure 4.4). In addition to the state

underwater preserves, Isle Royale National Park

protects shipwrecks under federal law.

There are 16 management areas within the

Great Lakes that were created specifically for the

preservation and/or protection of shipwrecks

and other underwater cultural resources, or

explicitly include shipwrecks within their management plans (Vrana and Mahoney 1993). Seven

additional shipwreck management areas are

proposed in the Great Lakes (Table 4.1 and

Figure 4.5). Six shipwreck management areas

have been established in Lake Huron.

State programs involving shipwreck management

are generally administered by state historic

preservation offices, state archaeology offices,

and departments of natural resources or equivalents. Many state agencies and local organizations are assisted by university programs (including NOAA Sea Grant) with interests in underwater preserves and maritime archaeology.

The DNR Law Enforcement Division is charged

with protecting Michigan’s natural resources and

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
97

Figure 4.4 State of Michigan underwater preserves.

State underwater preserves

Federally administered

MTTRRC

the environment, and the health and safety of

the public through effective law enforcement and

education. With regard to protection of shipwrecks, the Law Enforcement Division patrols

and enforces areas of the Great Lakes where

protected shipwrecks and related artifacts are at

risk from illegal exploitation.

The State of Wisconsin and the Province of

Ontario are the only states to have established

formal programs in maritime archaeology.

These state/provincial programs are assisted by

the following avocational organizations in underwater archaeology: Wisconsin Underwater

Archaeology Association, Save Ontario Shipwrecks, and Preserve Our Wrecks (Ontario).

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
98

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4

Location Name of Area Administration Lake Size (square mi)

Michigan Alger County Underwater Preserve State/Local Superior 113

Detour Passage Underwater Preserve State/Local Huron proposed

Isle Royale National Park U.S. Superior 684

Keweenaw Underwater Preserve State/Local Superior 103

Manitou Passage Underwater Preserve State/Local Michigan 282

Marquette County Underwater Preserve State/Local Superior 144

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore* U.S. Superior 16

Sanilac Shores Underwater Preserve State/Local Huron 163

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore* U.S. Michigan 20

Southwest Michigan Underwater Preserve State/Local Michigan proposed

Straits of Mackinac Underwater Preserve State/Local Michigan/Huron 148

Thumb Area Underwater Preserve State/Local Huron 276

Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve State/Local Huron 288

Whitefish Point Underwater Preserve State/Local Superior 376

Ontario Fathom Five National Marine Park Canada Huron 52

National Marine Park Canada Superior N/A

Pukaskwa National Park Canada Superior 31

Leamington Marine Heritage Area Ontario/Local Erie proposed

Ohio Bass Islands Submerged Lands Preserve State/Local Erie proposed

Cleveland–Lorain Submerged Lands Preserve State/Local Erie proposed

Wisconsin Apostle Islands National Lakeshore* U.S. Superior 83

Minnesota Split Rock Underwater State Park State Superior proposed

Indiana Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore* U.S. Michigan 1.5

*Surface jurisdiction only

Table 4.1 Great Lakes shipwreck management areas (established and proposed) (adapted from Vrana and Manhoney 1993).
99

Figure 4.5 Locations of Great Lakes shipwreck management areas (adapted from Vrana and Mahoney 1993).

Fathom Five

Detour Passage

Thunder Bay

Lake George

Thumb Area

Sanilac

Shores

Cleveland-Lorain

Leamington/Western Basin

Bass Islands

Indiana Dunes

Southwest Michigan

Manitou Passage/

Sleeping Bear Dunes

Apostle Islands

Split Rock

Isle Royale Keweenaw

Marquette County

Pukaskwa

Alger County/Pictured Rocks

Whitefish Point

Straits of Mackinac

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
100

D. UNDERWATER CULTURAL

RESOURCES OF THE

THUNDER BAY REGION

1. HISTORIC SHIPWRECKS

The collection of historic shipwrecks in Thunder

Bay represents a diversity of vessels that navigated the Great Lakes in the 19th and 20th

centuries. These sunken vessels reflect transitions in ship architecture and construction

methods from the era of wooden sailing boats to

that of early steel-hulled steamers. There are

also examples of unusual vessel types, including a

wooden paddlewheel steamer built in 1844 and

a “turtleback” bulk freighter from the 1890s.

The underwater archaeological sites and their

associated artifacts can tell us about how the

crews of Great Lakes vessels lived and worked,

and what their larger society and culture were

like (Terrell 1995). In addition, the shipwrecks

provide insight into the regional commerce of

the Thunder Bay region in the 19th and 20th

centuries.

Known, probable, and suspected shipwrecks

within the Thunder Bay region are listed in

Tables 4.2 to 4.4. These lists indicate a potential

total of 160 shipwrecks in the region. The

locations of known shipwrecks in the Thunder

Bay region and the estimated locations of probable and suspected sites are shown in Figure 4.8.

Known total losses are defined as vessels for

which archaeological evidence and/or strong

historical documentation (three primary sources

or more) confirm the existence and location

where they were stranded, foundered, burned/

exploded, or abandoned. Probable total losses

include those vessels for which oral tradition,

one or more historical primary sources, or three

or more reliable secondary sources indicate their

location. Suspected total losses encompass

those shipwrecks listed in secondary sources, but

not confirmed by primary documents, oral

tradition, or archaeological fieldwork.

Figure 4.6 (above) Remains of a wooden sailing boat in Thunder Bay.

Figure 4.7 (left) Scuba diver visiting a shipwreck site

Thunder Bay Divers near North Point.

Thunder Bay Divers

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
101

Name of Vessel Rig Year Built Date of Loss

Table 4.2 Known shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region.

Albany steamer 1-1-1856

American Union schooner 6-6-1894

Allen, E.B. schooner 1864 11-20-1871

Barge No. 1 barge 1895 11-8-1918

Blanchard, B. W. propeller 1870 11-29-1904

Flint, Oscar T. propeller 1889 11-25-1909

Galena propeller 1857 9-25-1872

Gardner, Nellie schooner 1873 Oct-1883

Grecian propeller 1891 6-15-1906

Hanna, D.R. propeller 1906 5-16-1919

Ishpeming schooner 1872 11-25-1903

Magruder, J.H. scow 1869 9-17-1895

Miztec schooner 1890 Jul-1920

Monohansett steamer 1872 11-11-1907

Monrovia propeller 1943 6-25-1959

Montana propeller 1872 9-6-1914

New Orleans steamer 1844 6-11-1849

New Orleans propeller 1885 6-30-1906

Nordmeer propeller 1954 11-19-1966

Norman propeller 1890 5-30-1895

Northern Light barge 1858 Aug-1881

Oswegatchie propeller 1867 11-26-1891

Pewabic steamer 1863 8-9-1865

Portsmouth propeller 1853 11-15-1867

Rend, William P. propeller 1888 9-22-1917

Scanlon’s Barge deck barge

Scott, Isaac M. propeller 1909 11-9-1913

Shamrock schooner 1875 6-26-1905

St. Maries propeller 1885 8-30-1892

Thew, WM. Peter propeller 1884 6-22-1909

Van Valkenburg, Lucinda schooner 1862 5-3-1887

Viator propeller 1904 10-31-1935

Windiate, Cornelia B. schooner 1874 Dec-1875

Woolson, Mary schooner 1890 7-18-1920

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
102

Table 4.3 Probable shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region.

Continued on the following page

Name of Vessel Rig Year Built Date of Loss

Adriatic bark 1872

Aimee steam tug 1879 1883

Alvina schooner 1871 Oct-1901

Arnaline/FalsePetrel? prop/brig? 1842

Bay City schooner 1857 11-19-1902

Becker, B.H. propeller 1932 8-10-1937

Bertha M. schooner 1902 7-28-1930

Berriman, Francis schooner 1872 5-7-1877

Bridge, H.P. bark 1864 1865

Brooklyn schooner 1864 6-15-1892

Bruce, Kate L. schooner 1872 11-11-1877

Corsican schooner 1862 6-1-1893

Davidson, James propeller 1874 10-4-1883

Deemer, Edward H. propeller 1899 5-20-1923

Don Quixotte steamer 1836 1836

Effort barge 1941

Egan, Marion schooner 1861 9-22-1875

Egyptian propeller 1873 12-9-1897

Ellen schooner 1846 Nov-1856

Elvina schooner 1868 10-31-1901

Empire State schooner 1862 11-8-1877

Excelsior bark 1865 10-15-1871

Exile schooner 1867 11-26-1916

Fish, William brig Nov-1869

Florida propeller 1889 5-20-1897

Franklin, Benjamin steamer 1842 1850

Franz, W.C. propeller 1901 11-21-1934

Gilberts, W.H. propeller 1892 5-22-1914

Goodell schooner 1864 Nov-1891

Guenther barge 1890

Guillotine schooner 4-1-1881

Hall, James H. schooner 1885 11-7-1916

Harvest Queen schooner 1863 9-13-1888

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
103

Continued on the following page

Table 4.3 Probable shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region (continued).

Name of Vessel Rig Year Built Date of Loss

Hathaway, Colonel schooner 1870 9-16-1881

Havre schooner 1836 11-02-1845

Heart Failure dredge c.1910

Helen, C. propeller 1874 10-4-1922

Holmes schooner 10-14-1887

Hubbard, H. schooner 1842 Jun-1845

Hunter schooner 1854 Sep-1872

Ida & Mary scow 1858 1872

Jeka tug 4-22-1930

Johnson, John T. schooner 1873 11-28-1904

Jupiter schooner 1857 9-15-1901

Knight Templar barge 7-25-1903

Lafarge, Frank schooner 1901

Larson, Julia schooner 1874 8-26-1912

Mackinaw propeller 1866 10-28-1890

Marine City steamer 1866 8-28-1880

Maryett yacht 10-19-1901

Maxwell, William tug 1883 9-19-1908

Miami propeller 1888 8-6-1924

Mildred tug 1868 11-6-1872

Miller, Grace tug 10-13-1875

Mitchell steamer 11-14-1914

Morse, Fred A. schooner 1871 6-27-1892

Morton, J.D. steamer 1853

Mowatt, James schooner 1884 10-1-1919

New York propeller 1879 10-10-1910

Ney, Marshall schooner 1847

Nichols steamer 11-13-1913

Nonpareil schooner 1856 7-7-1866

Northhampton brig Nov-1854

Ochs, Jay tug 1888 10-20-1905

Ogarita schooner 1864 10-25-1905

Palmer, E.B. schooner 1874 11-1-1892

Parkes, O.E. propeller 1891 5-3-1929

 Paquette, Fishtug tug c.1910
104

Table 4.3 Probable shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region (continued).

Name of Vessel Rig Year Built Date of Loss

Acontias barge 10-29-1887

Bemis, A.S. tug 1859 9-5-1872

Bissel, Harvey schooner 1866 11-28-1905

Blake, J.W. schooner 1855

Braman, D.R. schooner 1-1-1870

Canada propeller 1-1-1883

Carkin tug 10-30-1887

Chase, Steven fish tug 4-18-1933

Choctaw whaleback 1892 7-11-1916

Cochrane, Tom tug Oct-1862

Congress propeller 1861 1867 or 1893

Corsair schooner 9-28-1872

Czar schooner 1-1-1875

Detroit steamer barge 4-29-1872

Fulton, Robert steamer 1835 1844

Goliath steamer 11-3-1851

Harwich schooner 1-1-1858

Ironton schooner 9-26-1894

Table 4.4 Suspected shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region.

Name of Vessel Rig Year Built Date of Loss

Raab, Lucy schooner 1858 Nov-1862

Raynor, Annie C. schooner 1858 11-17-1863

Red Bottom schooner 1876

Roanoke schooner 1843 10-27-1866

Shaw, John schooner 1885 11-13-1894

Simons, WM. H. barge 1919 9-16-1933

Spangler, Kyle schooner 1856 11-7-1860

Stephens, WM. H. schooner 1855 Oct-1863

Venus schooner 1872 10-3-1887

Vienna schooner 1849 10-27-1906

Warner, John F. schooner 1855 10-13-1890

Wilson, Belle propeller 1881 8-8-1888

Wilson, D.M. propeller 1873 10-27-1894

Woolson, Mary barge 7-19-1920

Young, William A. schooner 1883 11-17-1911

Continued on the following page
105

Table 4.4 Suspected shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region (continued).

Name of Vessel Rig Year Built Date of Loss

Kaliyuga steamer 1887 10-19-1905

Lady Washington schooner 10-19-1828

Lathrop, S.B. tow barge 5-14-1902

Mackinaw steamer 1866 1-1-1890

Marine City barge 11-18-1901

Marine City sidewheel 8-29-1880

Meeker, Lewis schooner 1-1-1872

Merrick, M.F. schooner 5/6-17-1889

Mollie scow 9-15/16-1881

Neshota schooner 1864 1872

New Hampshire schooner 1846 1885

Ninna schooner 1866 May-1875

Number 83 scow 1920 10-26-1941

Oswegatchie/3 Barges steamer /barges 11-21-1891

Portland schooner 1-1-1867

Prindiville tug 4-13-1881

Rounds, W.H. schooner 4-12-1905

Rumbell steamer 1-1-1910

Ryan steamer 6-12-1890

Scow #105 barge 8-3-1934

Stevens, JN orJH steamer barge 5-15-1927

Thousand Islander steamer 12-28-1928

Tu Jax yacht 1913 9-5-1913

Typo schooner 10-14-1899

Wesley schooner 9-19-1902

* Shipwreck tables 4.2 - 4.4 were assembled from two different databases. The tables provide the

best available information for the Thunder Bay region (including Presque Isle Harbor to Sturgeon

Point), and reflect different levels of accuracy in historical documentation (i.e., known, probable,

suspected). These tables will be amended based on continued historical research of Great Lakes

vessels and Thunder Bay shipwrecks.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
106

Figure 4.8 Approximate locations of shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
107

2. LAND ASSOCIATED UNDERWATER

HISTORICAL SITES

No surveys, inventories, or assessments of land

associated underwater historic sites are known

to have been completed for the Thunder Bay

region (Vrana 1993). Considering the settlement of the region, however, it is probable that

these types of sites exist. As an example, the

1903 plat book of Alpena County shows a

number of wharfs and docks in Alpena Harbor

(Figure 4.9), and a dock is shown just north of

land owned by the Alpena Fish Company on

North Point (Figure 4.10). A large wharf appears

to have existed at Ossineke in 1880 (Figure 4.11;

Sanborn-Perris Map Company 1880).

The remains of historical dock sites have been

observed underwater near the light station and

boathouse on Thunder Bay Island; in Alpena

Harbor and Whitefish Bay; and at Ossineke,

South Point, Black River, and Middle Island

(McConnell, personal communication 1992).

Other land associated underwater sites may

remain from Native American habitation in the

Thunder Bay region.

(upper left) Figure 4.9 Alpena waterfront in 1903.

(upper right) Figure 4.10 North Point in 1903.

(lower left) Figure 4.11 Ossineke/Devils River in 1880.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
108

3. NATIVE AMERICAN AND COASTAL

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Cultural materials associated with the coastal

villages and habitation sites of Native Americans

may exist in nearshore waters of Lake Huron

(Vrana 1993). Materials from Native American

fishing and trade activities, and sites from Archaic

peoples could be located on Lake Huron bottomlands in deeper water (Halsey 1990; Fitting

1975). Predictions of Archaic period sites in

deeper water are based on the existence of

lower water levels in glacial lakes that pre-date

the present Great Lakes (Halsey 1990; Fitting

1975).

More recent Native American habitation sites

are clustered at the mouth of the Thunder Bay

River and at the mouth of the Devils River near

Ossineke (Peebles and Black 1976).

The discovery of Naub-Cow-Zo-Win discs in

sites near the mouth of the Thunder Bay River is

of particular importance to archaeologists because they “represent the only proven prehistoric occurrence of these symbols and, therefore, their oldest documented appearance”

(Cleland 1985:131). These shale discs are

engraved with symbolic and stylistic representations of the underwater panther, the otter, the

beaver, a class of thunderbirds or thunderers

(Figure 4.12), the moose, star shapes, and

possibly the great medicine tree of the Ojibway

(Cleland 1985). The disks may have been

personal amulets and “because of their limited

archaeological distribution, they were somehow

associated specifically with Thunder Bay on Lake

Huron” (Cleland 1985:138).

Most of the Thunder Bay region has not been

surveyed to locate coastal archaeological sites

(Mead, personal communication 1992).

Twenty-four prehistoric and historic archaeological sites have been identified within the Alpena

County coastal area (i.e., landward 2 miles from

the Great Lakes shoreline). The Presque Isle

County coastal area contains 15 sites and the

Alcona County coastal area contains 4 sites

(Halsey, personal communication 1995; Mead

1992).

Peebles and Black (1976) reviewed the published and unpublished literature on archaeological sites within the coastal areas of Michigan. As

of 1997, no archaeological sites in the coastal

zone adjacent to the Sanctuary are on the

National Register of Historic Places.

Figure 4.12 Naub-Cow-Zo-Win disk possibly representing a

“thunderbird” or “thunderer.”

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
109

E. NATIONAL HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE

1. INTRODUCTION

Before NOAA can designate a National Marine

Sanctuary, the Sanctuary must be shown to

contain resources of “special national significance” because of their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic qualities. The Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary contains a collection

of shipwrecks that is believed to be of national

historic significance.

The shipwrecks of the Thunder Bay region

constitute a microcosm of the Great Lakes

commercial shipping industry as developed over

the last two hundred years. However, it has

never been clear how representative these

shipwrecks are in the broader context of Great

Lakes history. This section is intended to provide

some preliminary discussion of the historic

context of Thunder Bay and its national historic

significance.

The information in this section is excerpted and

summarized from the Preliminary Comparative

and Theme Study of National Historic Landmark

Potential for Thunder Bay, Michigan (Martin

1996).

The theme study consisted of historical research

on specific historic shipwreck sites and their

relationship to both the regional and national

contexts to the extent that initial evaluations of

historic significance could be made. Due to the

limited scope of the project, the study emphasized archival research; it included no archaeological field work and only minimal comparative

work. The results indicate which sites have the

greatest potential for national historic significance,

based on criteria of the National Historic Landmark Program.

Vessels that are known, probable, and suspected

shipwrecks within the Thunder Bay region were

interpreted according to important Great Lakes

historical themes. These historical themes

include prehistoric transportation; early trade and

exploration by Europeans; early settlement and

military affairs; westward expansion; business and

agricultural products; lumber; coal, stone, and

ore; foreign trade and the St. Lawrence Seaway;

transportation technology (commercial sail);

transportation technology (commercial steam);

and transportation technology (motor-powered

and unpowered vessels).

Eight vessels in the Thunder Bay region that

seemed to be the best candidates for national

historic significance were then evaluated.

Historical profiles of these eight vessels are

presented on pp. 111 – 117. Due to project

limitations, the national historic significance of

individual vessels adjacent to Alcona County was

not evaluated.

The results of the theme study also include a

statistical comparison of Thunder Bay shipwrecks

to those believed to exist throughout the Great

Lakes basin. Thunder Bay shipwrecks were

compared to an approximately 16% sample of

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
110

Great Lakes shipwrecks. This comparative work

is discussed on pp. 118 – 123.

Specific submerged sites of other types–small

craft, abandoned docks, fishing camps–were not

investigated. However, the potential value of

these sites has been noted within the broader

context of the history of the United States, the

Great Lakes, and Thunder Bay region.

The choice to pursue both research of specific

vessels and limited statistical sampling was made

as a means to get the most mileage out of

preliminary funding. The statistical analysis

provided a mechanism by which the collection of

Thunder Bay shipwrecks could receive rudimentary comparison to the regional context. Research of individual vessels provided a link

between the historical contexts of the Great

Lakes and the nation, and the special conditions

that brought vessels to their demise at Thunder

Bay. The decision to deal with a dual emphasis

dictated the early selection of specific vessels

that seemed to be the best candidates for

national historic significance. Ideally, all vessels

would have been thoroughly researched before

such a determination was made. The same

limitations that impacted research for specific

vessels made it necessary for statistical sampling

of Great Lakes shipwrecks based on secondary

sources with little additional research.

Jesse Besser Museum

Figure 4.13 Lake vessels in winter storage at Alpena.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
111

considered as preliminary.

Early Schooner Trade

❍ Havre

The two-masted schooner Havre was built in

Richmond, Ohio in 1836 by Jared Lockwood.

The vessel was named for the fledgling port of

Havre, Michigan (just north of present-day

Toledo, Ohio) — no longer in existance. Havre

was initially enrolled at Buffalo, New York on

August 31, 1836 with the following dimensions:

80' 2" x 23' 3" x 8' 4" and 134 89/95 gross tons.

The original owners were Lewis D. Allen,

Augustus H. Scoville, and Thadeus Brooks all of

Buffalo, and Jared Lockwood and W. Reed of

Richmond, Ohio. Brooks served as master, and

the home port was Buffalo.

2. VESSELS OF POTENTIAL NATIONAL

HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE

Vessels of potential national historic significance in

the Thunder Bay region are listed in Table 4.5.

Profiles of these vessels are presented by historical theme in the following pages. The profiles

are excerpted from Martin (1996). More

detailed historical sketches of the careers of

these vessels are found in Martin’s 1996 report,

“Preliminary Comparative and Theme Study of

National Historic Landmark Potential for Thunder Bay, Michigan.”

A similar study of potential national historic

significance for Alcona County shipwrecks was

not completed prior to publication of the FEIS/

MP. Therefore, the current list of vessels of

potential national historic significance should be

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING

Table 4.5 Vessels of potential national historic significance.

Name Type Built Lost Historical Theme

Havre schooner 1836 1845 early schooner trade

H. Hubbard schooner 1842 1845 early schooner trade

New Orleans sidewheeler 1844 1847 westward expansion /

passenger trade

John F. Warner schooner 1855 1890 early lakes to ocean trade

Kyle Spangler schooner 1856 1860 early lakes to ocean trade

James Mowatt schooner 1884 1919 height of schooner

development

Grecian propeller 1891 1906 steel shipbuilding/ bulk

cargo trade

Isaac M. Scott propeller 1909 1913 steel shipbuilding and bulk

cargo trade; Great Storm

of 1913
112

Havre was engaged in Great Lakes domestic

trade during its entire career, including freight

and passenger service. The original enrollment

describes the vessel as having a “scroll” head, a

decorative piece above the stem that was not in

universal usage, even during this early period of

lakes navigation. The vessel was described later

as having a “figurehead.”

Havre changed ownership several times before

its last enrollment on May 5, 1845 at Detroit,

Michigan. The last owner and master was Edgar

R. Hugunin of South Port in the Wisconsin

Territory. Havre went ashore on Middle Island,

Lake Huron on November 2, 1845 after nearly

ten years in the upper lakes trade. The vessel

valued at $5,000 was declared a total loss.

❍ H. Hubbard

The schooner H. Hubbard was a two-masted

vessel built at Port Huron, Michigan in 1842.

The first enrollment issued on July 12, 1842 at

Detroit, Michigan gave the dimensions as 52' x

16' 1" x 6' 2" and 53 46/95 gross tons. The

vessel was named for part owner Henry

Hubbard of Sullivants, New Hampshire. D.M.

Heyedin of Port Huron was the other owner

and A. Howe was the first master.

H. Hubbard was sailing between Detroit and

Sault Ste. Marie when it capsized in the vicinity of

Thunder Bay on or about June 8, 1845. The

crew, including young ordinary seaman Peter

White (later prominent Marquette businessman

and investor), was picked up by a passing vessel

and taken to Bay City. Later attempts to find and

retrieve the vessel were unsuccessful.

Early Lakes to Ocean Trade

❍ Kyle Spangler

The two-masted schooner Kyle Spangler was

built in 1856 at Black River (now Lorain), Ohio

by William Jones (1808 – 1888). William Jones

was a member of the famous Jones shipbuilding

family who was responsible for some of the

most successful Great Lakes vessels built during

the wooden shipbuilding era.

Kyle Spangler was first enrolled at Cleveland on

May 15, 1856 with the following dimensions:

130' 7" x 26' 1" x 11' 1" and 349.56 gross tons.

The owners decided to send the vessel to the

Atlantic coast with lumber in 1859. Little is

known about the trip, but it appears that ownership changed while the schooner was on saltwater.

While upbound on Lake Huron on November

7, 1860, Kyle Spangler collided with the downbound schooner Racine between Middle Island

and Thunder Bay, and sank. At the time, the

vessel was valued at $9,000 and had an insurance rating of A1, the highest a vessel could obtain.

❍ John F. Warner

The two-masted schooner John F. Warner was

built at Cleveland, Ohio in 1855 by Quayle and

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
113

Martin. It was one of the first of a series of

vessels built by Quayle and Martin for European

trade. The John F. Warner was enrolled at

Cleveland on August 27, 1855 with the following

dimensions: 126.75' x 26.5' x 11.19' and 341

55/95 gross tons.

In 1858, John F. Warner was issued a certificate of

registry to allow the vessel to participate in

foreign trade. Its first trip was to Greenwich,

England with a cargo of barrel staves. The staves

were sold and the vessel returned to Cleveland

via Glasgow, England where a cargo of pig iron

was loaded. The John F. Warner completed two

more trips to England before returning to Great

Lakes coastal trade in 1860.

John F. Warner was involved in several accidents

before its loss at the mouth of the Thunder Bay

River near Alpena, Michigan on October 13,

1890. The vessel was anchored off the river

mouth when the anchor chain parted and the

master was unable to sail into the Thunder Bay

River. The vessel grounded a few hundred feet

from the harbor lighthouse and swung broadside

onto the sea. The crew escaped unharmed, but

continuous buffeting by the waves broke the

vessel in half in clear view of residents of Alpena.

The lath and lumber cargo were later removed

and the wreck was moved south of Alpena and

abandoned a few days later.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING

Height of Schooner Development

❍ James Mowatt

The three-masted schooner James Mowatt was

built at Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1884 by Wolf

and Davidson. The vessel was first enrolled at

Milwaukee on August 1, 1884 with the following

dimensions: 166' 4" x 33' 1" x 13' and 523.17

gross tons. James Mowatt turned out to be the

last full-rigged, three-masted schooner built at

Milwaukee. It was built with fine lines and a

clean run that foretold of fair speed.

W.W. Wolf remained managing owner of the

vessel until 1887. James Mowatt was reenrolled

at Port Huron, Michigan in 1894 with J.W.

Squires as managing owner and master. J.W.

Squires remained managing owner until 1907

when he was replaced by Richard F. Squires.

James Mowatt became a total loss on October

10, 1919. On that day, the vessel foundered

thirteen miles northwest of Alpena, Michigan

with a cargo of lumber.

Westward Expansion/Passenger Trade

❍ New Orleans

The wooden sidewheel steamer New Orleans

was built at Detroit, Michigan in 1844 by B.F.

Goodsell, reportedly on the bottom of the
114

Figure 4.14 (left) Upper lakes

schooner James Mowatt at coal

dock.

burned steamer Vermilion. This reconstruction of

badly damaged lake vessels was not unusual

during this period when calamities were frequent

and iron fasteners and engineering equipment

were extremely expensive and difficult to obtain.

The vessel was first enrolled at Buffalo, New

York on September 13, 1844 with the following

dimensions: 185' 4" x 26' 8" x 12' 10" and 610

gross tons.

New Orleans was first owned by Samuel F.

Gelston of Buffalo, Jeremiah Northrop of Rochester, Erastus Prosser of Albany, and Stephen

Card of New York City. James C. Evans and

Samuel Gelston purchased the vessel in 1845.

Throughout its career, New Orleans was used to

run from Lake Erie to ports on the west shore of

Lake Michigan. This service was connected to

the immigrant and package freight trade. New

Orleans made bimonthly trips westward, taking

immigrants and travelers west with their belongings and such freight as was available. On the

return trip, the vessel carried travelers on their

way east, condensed products of agriculture

such as whiskey, and such manufactured goods

and other freight that the west offered. New

Orleans had a U.S. Postal Service contract for at

least part of its career.

While upbound in a heavy fog, the sidewheeler

New Orleans grounded on a reef west of Sugar

Island on June 13, 1847. The passengers and

crew were removed to Thunder Bay Island by

local fishermen and cared for by the lighthouse

keeper. Strong winds on June 14 broke the

vessel’s back and it sank, becoming a total loss.

Institute for Great Lakes Research, BGSU

Figure 4.15 (below) Schooner

James Mowatt with a load of

lumber at Michigan City, Indiana.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
115

The cross-head steam engine was removed and

transported to Detroit in the Albany.

Steel Shipbuilding and the Bulk Cargo Trade

❍ Grecian

The propeller Grecian was part of the critical design revolution that took early steel bulk carriers

from the initial blueprint developed around the

Spokane of 1886 and evolved the carriers into

the large pre-World War I “lakers.” Grecian was

a “turtleback” built at Cleveland, Ohio in1891 by

Globe Ship Building Company (Figure 4.16).

The vessel was enrolled at Cleveland on March

31, 1891 with the following dimensions: 296' 2"

x 40' 4" x 21' 1" and 2,348 gross tons. Grecian

was propelled by a triple expansion steam engine and two coal-fired scotch boilers built also

by Globe Ship Building Company.

Turtleback freighters “created a very pleasing

picture with their rounded forward decks,

gracefully-curved hulls, refined forward quarters,

and rakish stacks . . . but by 1892, the turtleback

was falling into disfavor with vessel owners and

masters. They were slightly more expensive to

build and captains voiced strong objections,

claiming that visibility ahead was reduced and

that sound was different, particularly during thick

weather” (Wright 1969:75).

The design of turtlebacks was influenced significantly by the “whaleback” design attributed to

Alexander McDougall of Duluth, Minnesota.

Grecian was employed in the iron ore and coal

trade throughout its career. It was lost through a

series of accidents in 1906. First, the vessel

struck a rock five miles below Detour, Michigan

but was able to make it to a dock at Detour

before sinking. Grecian was then raised and

towed down Lake Huron by the propeller Sir

Henry Bessemer for repair at the Detroit Ship

Building Company. While en route, the vessels

encountered a storm and Grecian sank off

Thunder Bay on June 15. No lives were lost,

but the vessel proved a total loss. Subsequent

salvage attempts were unsuccessful.

❍ Isaac M. Scott

The steel-hulled propeller Isaac M. Scott was

built at Lorain, Ohio in1909 by the American

Ship Building Company. The vessel was enrolled

at Cleveland on June 29 with the following

dimensions: 504' x 54' x 30' and 6,372 gross

tons. Isaac M. Scott was powered by one triple

expansion steam engine and two coal-fired

scotch boilers built also by the American Ship

Building Company (Figure 4.17).

Isaac M. Scott was built for the Virginia Steam

Ship Company of Cleveland, Ohio and was

managed throughout its career by the M.A.

Hanna Company, also of Cleveland. The

vessel’s home port was Fairport, Ohio. The

vessel’s name came from Isaac MacBurney Scott

(1866-1942), who was President of the La Belle

Iron Works, presumably a customer of the M.A.

Hanna Company.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
116

Institute for Great Lakes Research, BGSU

Figure 4.16 Propeller Grecian underway.

Institute for Great Lakes Research, BGSU

Figure 4.17 Bulk freighter Isaac M. Scott foundered later in the Great Storm of 1913.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
117

The vessel operated in the iron ore and coal

trade throughout its career, making weekly trips

from the lower to the upper lakes. This trade

consisted of the north and westward movement

of coal, and the south and eastward movement

of iron ore to the steel mills of the southern

lakes.

Isaac M. Scott was one of eleven vessels lost

during the Great Storm of 1913, a catastrophe

often described as “the most disastrous that has

ever swept our Great Lakes, both from loss of

life and property” (Bowen 1940:189-190). This

storm took the lives of an estimated 235 mariners, 178 of which were lost on Lake Huron.

The storm brought high winds, heavy snow, and

bitter cold that paralyzed road and rail traffic

ashore, downed power lines, and interrupted

communications.

Isaac M. Scott left Cleveland on or about

November 7, 1913 with coal upbound for

Milwaukee. The vessel was last sighted during

the morning of November 9, north of Tawas,

Michigan, just a few hours before the brunt of

the storm struck Lake Huron. Sometime within

the next twenty-four to forty-eight hours, Isaac

M. Scott foundered with all hands. Isaac M.

Scott and Charles S. Price were lost with twentyeight lives each, the greatest number of individuals lost in a single sinking during the Great Storm

of 1913.

The loss of so much vessel tonnage during the

storm caused immediate difficulties in moving

enough raw bulk products to meet the needs of

domestic commerce. Industry had difficulty

obtaining enough coal and iron ore. Food and

feed industries could not obtain enough grain to

fill their needs. Prices for consumer products

rose all over the country.

The long term consequences of the storm and

the sinking of lake vessels, including Isaac M.

Scott, were several. Complaints about the U.S.

Weather Bureau led to increased efforts toward

achieving better weather forecasting and more

rapid communication of storm warnings. Criticism of the shipping companies and shipbuilders

led to a series of conferences with insurers and

mariners that resulted in construction of vessels

with more longitudinal strength and greater

stability.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
118

3. THUNDER BAY SHIPWRECKS AS

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

LARGER GREAT LAKES

Martin (1996) is the first study to compare a

discrete number of shipwrecks to a sample of

the total Great Lakes shipwrecks in order to test

representativity (Figure 4.18). The statistical

study does not discuss the representativity of

Thunder Bay shipwrecks among the estimated

40,000 vessels to have sailed the Great Lakes.

Instead, the study considers the representativity

of known and probable Thunder Bay shipwrecks

to the known, probable, and suspected shipwrecks of the Great Lakes. This approach was

chosen because the number of vessels totally

lost is a subset of the total set of Great Lakes

vessels. Regional folklore holds that there are

10,000 Great Lakes shipwrecks. Though

historians feel that this number is inflated, for this

study it is assumed to be viable for statistical

purposes.

Martin (1996) combined several existing databases to compile a database of 1,694 Great

Lakes shipwrecks (roughly 17% of the total

figure prominent in regional folklore). The

database has several known biases: (1) it contains few vessels under 20 gross tons; (2) it

includes a high percentage of vessels lost on Lake

Erie; (3) it includes only vessels, no other submerged sites; and (4) it is strongest in the PostCivil War period. The limitations of this sample

are such that the results should be carefully

interpreted as indicators of trends only.

The sample of Great Lakes shipwrecks is based

largely upon secondary sources and, therefore, is

composed primarily of probable and suspected

total losses. The locations of some shipwrecks

are known, having been confirmed through

archaeological and historical investigation.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4

Vrana after Martin (1996)

Figure 4.18 Sampling design for preliminary comparative analysis of Thunder Bay region shipwrecks.

Sample of vessels lost in the

Great Lakes

Vessels totally lost in (1,694 from Martin, 1996)

Thunder Bay region

(126 from Martin, 1996)

Great Lakes shipwrecks

(10,000 from regional folklore)

Vessels that have sailed the

Great Lakes

(40,000 from regional folklore)
119

Although Thunder Bay has a large number of

wooden vessels, it has a higher percentage of

steel vessels than wood vessels when compared

to the number lost on the Great Lakes

(Table 4.7).

Table 4.6. Comparison of basic vessel types* lost at Thunder Bay and a sample of vessels lost on the Great Lakes.

 # Lost at # Lost on the %Thunder Bay of % of Great

Type of Vessel Thunder Bay Great Lakes Great Lakes Sample Lakes Sample

Sail

 Ships, Brigs, Barks 5 86 0.3 5.1

 Sloops 0 15 0.0 0.9

 Schooners 54 675 3.2 39.8

 Scows 1 80 0.0 4.7

Steam

 Sidewheelers 4 56 0.2 3.3

 Propellers 40 393 2.4 23.2

Motor 2 21 0.1 1.2

Unpowered 10 119 0.6 7.0

Unknown/Unclear 10 249 0.6 14.7

Totals 126 1694 7.4% 99.9%

*Note: Type of vessels at the time of loss only.

For Thunder Bay, the method was much the

same. Nevertheless, prior studies and more

focused research on the Thunder Bay region

shipwrecks has increased the number of known

and probable total losses relative to the number

of suspected shipwrecks.

As Tables 4.6 and 4.9 illustrate, the comparative

strengths of the identified shipwrecks at Thunder

Bay include a strong collection of wooden sailing

vessels from the heyday of sail (1850 – 1880),

and a good collection of wooden and steel

vessels powered by steam engines (1880-1920).

Thunder Bay is the final resting place for an

unusually large number of steel propellers,

particularly from the critical decades when

changes in vessel design were rapid and shortlived (i.e., 1880 – 1920).

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
120

Table 4.7 Comparison of basic vessel construction material lost at Thunder Bay and a sample of vessels lost on

the Great Lakes.

# Lost at # Lost on the %Thunder Bay of % of Great

Type of Material Thunder Bay Great Lakes Great Lakes Sample Lakes Sample

Wood 91 1187 5.4 70.0

Iron 0 15 0.0 0.9

Composite 0 5 0.0 0.3

Steel 10 118 0.6 7.0

Unknown/Unclear 25 369 1.5 21.8

Totals 126 1694 7.5% 100.0%

In terms of cargos carried, Table 4.8 shows that

Thunder Bay shipwrecks were engaged in all

major trades at the time of loss. Thunder Bay is

particularly strong in vessels engaged in the

trades that were the backbone of Great Lakes

commerce: wood products, grain, iron ore,

coal, and passenger/package freight. Two

statistical outliers are apparent in Table 4.8. The

percentage of Thunder Bay vessels engaged in

carrying copper and in commercial fishing is

excessively high, indicating that the sample is not

representative in these categories. Given the

frequency with which copper cargos were

transported past Thunder Bay and the amount of

commercial fishing activity that occurred in the

area, it seems likely that these statistics would be

high. However, common sense would indicate

that Thunder Bay shipwrecks probably would

comprise less than fifty percent of both commodities. Therefore, these outliers should be

ignored pending future expansion of the Great

Lakes database.

Interpretation of Table 4.8 is limited also from a

small sample size. Unlike the other tables which

were based on a sample size of 1,694 shipwrecks, less than 400 of the original sample had

information readily available on last cargo. Both

primary and secondary sources often provided

conflicting data for last cargo, forcing the elimination of doubtful information and shrinking the

sample size to less than 350. In addition, some

vessels in the sample were abandoned and,

therefore, probably had no cargo aboard, further

decreasing the numbers to a final sample size of

289.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
121

______________________________________________________________________________

# Lost at # Lost on the %Thunder Bay of % of Great

Type of Cargo Thunder Bay Great Lakes Great Lakes Sample Lakes Sample

Copper 1 2 0.3 0.7

Furs 0 2 0.0 0.7

Grain 7 48 2.4 16.6

Wood Products 9 50 3.1 17.3

Iron Ore/Pig Iron/Taconite 3 24 1.0 8.3

Coal 15 54 5.2 18.7

Petroleum 0 4 0.0 1.4

Stone/Sand/Gravel 2 36 0.7 12.5

Fish 5 6 1.7 2.1

Mixed Cargo/Military 0 29 0.0 10.0

Sulphur 0 2 0.0 0.7

Passenger/Package Freight 3 13 1.0 4.5

Lead/Zinc 0 1 0.0 0.3

Salt 1 9 0.3 3.1

Railroad Cars/Locomotives 0 8 0.0 2.8

Miscellaneous 0 1 0.0 0.3

Total 46 289 15.7% 100.0%

More work needs to be done with regard to

sample size to increase reliability and validity of

the data.

The number of vessels lost in the Thunder Bay

region are listed chronologically and compared

with sample Great Lakes losses in Table 4.9.

There were few recorded losses of vessels in

the vicinity of Thunder Bay during the late 18th

and early 19th centuries. Only in the 1830s and

1840s, when the tide of westward movement

was approaching full force, did the Thunder Bay

region begin to accumulate shipwrecks. As the

number of vessels in service above Port Huron

increased sharply, so did the number of shipwrecks. The Thunder Bay statistics appear to be

reflective of the larger trends in terms, specifically

in terms of number of vessels lost each year. As

the number of commercial vessels operating on

the Great Lakes decreased and safety requireSECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING

Table 4.8 Comparison of primary vessel cargos lost at Thunder Bay and a sample of vessels lost

on the Great Lakes.
122

Table 4.9 Total number of vessels lost at Thunder Bay compared with sample Great Lakes loss statistics by

decade, 1760-1979.

 # Lost at # Lost on the %Thunder Bay of % of Great

Decade Thunder Bay Great Lakes Great Lakes Sample Lakes Sample

1760-69 0 6 0.0 0.4

1770-79 0 4 0.0 0.2

1780-89 0 3 0.0 0.2

1790-99 0 4 0.0 0.2

1800-09 0 7 0.0 0.4

1810-19 0 17 0.0 1.0

1820-29 0 30 0.0 1.8

1830-39 1 55 0.0 3.2

1840-49 6 124 0.4 7.3

1850-59 5 207 0.3 12.2

1860-69 11 141 0.6 8.3

1870-79 16 179 0.9 10.6

1880-89 13 174 0.8 10.3

1890-99 17 178 1.0 10.5

1900-09 22 189 1.3 11.2

1910-19 16 103 0.9 6.1

1920-29 6 120 0.4 7.1

1930-39 8 63 0.5 3.7

1940-49 2 28 0.1 1.7

1950-59 2 19 0.1 1.1

1960-69 1 33 0.0 1.9

1970-79 0 10 0.0 0.6

Totals 126 1694 7.3% 100.0%

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
123

ments became more stringent, the number of

shipwrecks decreased. By the 1970s, there

were very few shipwrecks on the lakes.

The comparative weaknesses of the shipwreck

collection at Thunder Bay include few prototypical vessels (such as the first whaleback or the

earliest sidewheeler), few vessels with a long and

direct association with nationally important

Americans, and few known vessels from the

earliest days of lakes navigation. However,

Thunder Bay appears to be highly representative

of the larger Great Lakes context from the 1840s

through the 1970s, as the number and types of

vessels and cargos lost there reflect the major

trends in Great Lakes shipping.

CONCLUSION

In its role as an impediment, a shelter, and

a destination for navigators, the Thunder

Bay region has accumulated an impressive

array of shipwrecks. Virtually all types of

vessels employed on the open lakes

regularly passed along this important trade

route, and most vessel types are represented in its shipwreck collection. These

vessels were engaged at the time of their

loss, or sometime during their careers, in

nearly every kind of trade. The vessels,

therefore, tie Thunder Bay inextricably to

Great Lakes’ commerce to an extent that

may be difficult to equal elsewhere. Most

of these trades had a national—and some

had an international—significance and

spawned uniquely designed vessels.

Thunder Bay, therefore, impacted the

design and construction of traditional Great

Lakes craft.

The preliminary research and analysis

completed as part of Martin (1996) led to

six major conclusions regarding the shipwrecks of Thunder Bay: (1) they are

representative of the composition of the

Great Lakes merchant marine for the

period 1840 – 1970; (2) they may be used

to study and interpret the various phases of

American westward expansion via the

Great Lakes; (3) they may be used to study

and interpret the growth of the American

extraction and use of natural resources; (4)

they may be used to discuss various phases

of American industrialization; (5) one vessel

(Isaac M. Scott) provides the vehicle to

study and interpret a specific event (the

Great Storm of 1913) that had strong

repercussions regionally, nationally, and

internationally; and (6) they provide important material for the interpretation of

American foreign intercontinental trade in

the Great Lakes context. All of these areas

of study will help to create a better understanding and reinterpretation of events that

shaped the broad patterns of American

history and culture.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
124

F. MARITIME CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

1. ALPENA COUNTY MARITIME HISTORY

The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary will

focus on understanding the maritime cultural

landscape. A cultural landscape is a geographic

area including both cultural and natural resources, coastal environments, human communities, and related scenery that is associated with

historic events, activities or persons, or exhibits

other cultural or aesthetic values (NPS 1992). In

other words, while the shipwrecks of the Thunder Bay region are the most evident underwater

cultural resource, the Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary will put the shipwrecks in the

larger context of the region’s lighthouses, lifesaving stations, shipwreck salvage operations, and

other maritime economic activities.

The maritime history of the Thunder Bay region

is characterized by the use of, and dependence

upon, natural resources. These resources

include animal furs, fisheries, forests, farmland,

and limestone. The first recorded use of natural

resources for transportation, food supplies, and

recreation in Thunder Bay was by Native Americans during the Woodland period. European

activity probably originated with the efforts of

Native Americans and French traders to locate

and trap beaver during the 1600s (Tanner 1987).

Trading and supply boats routinely passed

Thunder Bay on their way to outposts at Mackinaw, Sault Ste. Marie, and Green Bay. The

Griffon in 1679 was the first major European

vessel to pass by Thunder Bay, but many more

vessels were to follow. The need to transport

supplies to northern frontier posts stimulated

construction of small brigs, sloops, and schooners. Thunder Bay accumulated a large collection of shipwrecks because of its strategic location along shipping lanes, and because the Bay

and nearby islands provided shelter for vessels

during inclement weather (Wade 1947; State

Historical Soc. of Wis. 1872; Carver 1778).

The following pages summarize maritime history

in Alpena County and the Thunder Bay region.

Jesse Besser Museum

Figure 4.19 Alpena Harbor around the turn of the 20th century.
125

Prehistory and Native American History

There is a lack of knowledge about the earliest

inhabitants of the Thunder Bay region. Archaeological evidence indicates that human occupation

of southern Michigan began as early as 12,000

years ago, but northern Michigan probably was

not occupied by these nomadic hunters until

several thousand years later. Stone and copper

tools, which may date to about 1,500 BC (Late

Archaic), are the oldest artifacts discovered in

Alpena County (Michigan History Division

1978:7).

Archaic peoples appeared to survive in a subsistence economy based primarily on hunting and

gathering, although they began to utilize fish

sometime around 3,000 BC (Cleland 1982).

Fishing-related artifacts of Archaic peoples found

in upper Great Lakes sites include bone or

copper fishhooks, gorges and spears, notched

pebble net-sinkers, and fishbones (especially

sturgeon) (Cleland 1982; Quimby 1960).

Great Lakes fish were of particular importance in

the diet of Ottawa and Ojibway peoples inhabiting the northeast lower peninsula of Michigan

during the Woodland and historic cultural stages

(Figure 4.20). Because of the importance of fish

and fishing in determining subsistence and

settlement patterns, Cleland (1992, 1982) refers

to this way of life as the inland shore fishery of the

northern Great Lakes.

US Library of Congress

Figure 4.20 Ottawa village at the Straits of Mackinac.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
126

The place name of Thunder Bay has its roots in a popular legend

about a Huron suitor of the daughter of an Ottawa Chief

(Haltiner 1984):

One night as their canoe rocked lightly on the waters, one of the

young Ottawa braves, who was a rejected suitor, was watching

them with fiercely jealous eyes. He set out in his canoe and

stealthly approached the unsuspecting lovers. As he drew near

them he quickly bent his bow and sent an arrow whistling through

the air at the heart of his hated rival. The slight noise he made, however

attracted the attention of We-no-ka who leaped to her feet in alarm and threw

herself in front of her Huron lover – just in time to receive in her own breast the

feathered shaft of death. This sudden movement overturned the frail birchen craft

and in an instant the Huron brave was trying desperately to save his lover from

drowning – not realizing the dreadful calamity that had already overtaken his beloved

We-no-ka. It was in vain. They both soon sank beneath the waves. And then a

rumble and roar of thunder announced the great displeasure of the Manitou (or

great spirit). The assassin, in a frightened frenzy leaped into the lake – his death

shriek floating over the waves like the cry of a lost spirit. Then followed peal after

peal of thunder – flash after flash of lightning! And the tribes knew the Great Spirit

was mightily offended. Nevermore would they trust themselves on the waters of

what, from then on, was known as the Bay of Thunder – or Thunder Bay.

The methods for catching fish included

netting, spearing, hook and line, and the

construction of a weir. Nets were

frequently constructed of nettle stalk fiber

or basswood twine and were used as

seines or gillnets. The seines were

either hand held or pulled by a boat...

The gillnet, on the other hand, had a

much larger mesh size and was usually

set in one place in a lake or river... Built

of logs, saplings, and lengths of cord, a

weir is an enclosure which prevents fish

from swimming upstream and funnels

them into a very narrow opening where

fishermen harvested the fish by net or

spear (Cornell 1986:81).

Gill nets were used also by the Ojibway to

capture whitefish and lake trout on offshore

shoals during fall and early winter spawning

(Tanner 1987). Densmore (1979) details

Ojibway fishing techniques and the processing of

fish during the early 1900s in a reprint of a 1929

publication by the Smithsonian Institution.

Figure 4.21 Naub-Cow-Zo-Win disk representing a “thunderbird” and Thunder Bay’s name.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
127

There is little physical evidence of the prehistoric

and historic Native American ways of life in the

Thunder Bay region. “The villages and camps of

the early inhabitants are marked only by a

scattering of ceramic fragments, chert flakes, and

broken or abandoned stone and copper tools.

Most of the burial mounds have been destroyed”

(Michigan History Division 1978:7). Nevertheless, the heritage of Alpena County’s Ojibway

and Ottawa residents provides an important

foundation for, and influence on, later historical

events of the Thunder Bay region.

European Settlement

and the Founding of Alpena

The Thunder Bay region was purchased from

Native Americans by the federal government in

the Treaty of Saginaw (1819). Although some

land was used as a reservation area, European

settlement soon pushed Native American villages

inland to Mikado and Hubbard Lake (Tanner

1987; May 1980). By the 1850s, the Alpena

area became a center for fur trading, fishing, and

lumbering.

The area of present-day Alpena County was first

surveyed in 1840 and became a county in 1857.

The survey of the town of Fremont began in

1856. In 1859, the state legislature changed the

name of Fremont to “Alpena,” a Native American

word meaning “good partridge country”

Ojibway villages in the Thunder Bay region

during the 1800s included Mujekewis,

Shoshekonawbegoking, and Sagonakato on the

north shore of the Bay, and Shingabawassin on

the south shore. Native Americans became an

integral part of the regional economy in northern

Michigan during the late 1800s (Tanner 1987;

Clifton et al. 1986). They worked at mining and

lumber camps, on survey crews, as stevedores

on vessels plying the Great Lakes, and as mail

carriers. Fishing remained an important occupation, and some hunting and trapping also continued in this region (Tanner 1987:180). Other

Native Americans produced traditional craft

items for sale, or found seasonal and factory

work in Michigan cities and towns (Cleland

1992; Cornell 1986).

Traditional ways of life and the annual cycle of

activities of the inland shore fishery have been

altered by modern culture, development, and

technology (Clifton et al. 1986). Nonetheless,

Ottawa and Ojibway treaty rights to fish for

subsistence and commercial purposes on the

Great Lakes were reaffirmed by Federal Court

decisions in 1979 and 1981 (Cleland 1992;

Cornell 1986). Much of northwestern Lake

Huron was declared a tribal fishing area based on

Federal Court interpretation of the Treaty at

Washington (1836). For additional information

on current Native American fishing activity and

treaty rights in the Thunder Bay area, see the

discussion of Past and Present Human Activities

on pp. 143 – 145.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
128

(Boulton 1884). The population of the City of

Alpena grew steadily from 290 in 1860 to 674 in

1864 and to 2,756 in 1870. In 1873, Alpena

County had 4,807 citizens; 3,964 of these

citizens lived in the City of Alpena. Most of the

early settlers in the Alpena area were from New

York and New England, but the lumber camps

later attracted Swedes, Norwegians, and

French-Canadians to the area (May 1980;

Holzhueler 1974; Boulton 1884).

Lighthouses and Life-Saving Stations

The original Presque Isle Lighthouse was built in

1840 and is located in Presque Isle Harbor.

Another Presque Isle Lighthouse was constructed in 1870 to replace the old station. This

more recent structure is a conical brick tower

standing 109 feet high. A lightkeeper’s house of

Dutch Colonial construction is attached to the

lighthouse.

Figure 4.23 (below) View of Alpena

residences and businesses along the

Thunder Bay River in 1886.

Jesse Besser Museum

Jesse Besser Museum

Figure 4.22 (left) “Birds-eye” view

of the City of Alpena in 1880,

including lumber docks to the left of

the Thunder Bay River mouth and

log booms to the right of the river

mouth.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
129

The 1870 lighthouse is situated in a public park

maintained by Presque Isle Township (Clifford

1994). The light at the newer Presque Isle

Lighthouse is still operational.

The Middle Island Lighthouse was built in 1905.

The 71 foot tower is made of brick and painted

white with an orange band in the middle

(Clifford 1994). The light continues to be

operational.

A lighthouse 40 feet in height was in use on

Thunder Bay Island by 1837. The tower was

heightened by ten feet in 1857 and is still in

operation (Hyde 1986; Boulton 1884).

In 1875, a temporary light was placed on pilings

at the mouth of the Thunder Bay River. In 1877,

a wooden lighthouse was erected on a crib at

the north-end pier. This light was reconstructed

in 1888 and replaced by a steel structure in 1914

(Hyde 1986; U.S. Lighthouse Board 1903,

Michigan Maritime Museum

Figure 4.24 Thunder Bay Island Lighthouse complex.

Michigan Maritime Museum

Figure 4.25 Thunder Bay Island Life-Saving Station.

Michigan Maritime Museum

Figure 4.26 Lifeboat drills of the Thunder Bay Island

 lifesaving crew.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
130

Michigan Maritime Museum

Figure 4.27 Beach apparatus manned by the Thunder Bay Island lifesaving crew.

1877, 1875). U.S. Weather Station #85 was

opened at Alpena in 1872 to record atmospheric

conditions, provide accurate weather reporting,

and convey cautionary signals for use by mariners (NOAA 1872).

Despite the development of these navigational

aids, the frequency of shipwrecks in the vicinity

of Thunder Bay led to the establishment of U.S.

Life-Saving Service Stations at Thunder Bay

Island in 1876 and Middle Island by the 1880s.

These facilities were manned by crews that

trained extensively in the use of rescue boats and

other lifesaving equipment. They were among

the busiest stations on Lake Huron, assisting

hundreds of vessels every year and saving

thousands of lives. Starting in 1915, the U.S.

Life-Saving, Lighthouse, and Revenue Cutter

Services were consolidated to form the U.S.

Coast Guard (O’Brien 1976). A small U.S.

Coast Guard station continues to operate in

Alpena .

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
131

Furs

By the early 19th century, the trapping of beaver

by Native Americans and Europeans had

reached virtually every corner of what is now the

State of Michigan. Furs usually were trapped by

Native Americans and exchanged for manufactured goods at a trading post such as Mackinaw.

American traders sent the furs down Lake Huron

in canoes and later in sailing vessels to warehouses in Detroit. The furs were then shipped

to Europe via Montreal or New York (May

1980). The American Fur Company and the

Northwest Fur Company had profitable businesses in furs during the early 19th century, but

by the 1830s the supply of animal pelts was

reduced drastically by over-trapping. The two

companies then diversified their trade by branchMichigan Historical Center

Figure 4.28 Great Lakes commercial fishing operation using mackinac boats, probably mid to late 1800s. This may resemble early

 operations on Thunder Bay Island and Sugar Island.

ing into commercial fishing (American Historical

Association 1945:375).

Fisheries

W.F. Cullings, who is believed to be the first white

resident of the Thunder Bay region, began a

fishing camp on Thunder Bay Island in 1835.

Some evidence suggests that Cullings was an

employee of the American Fur Company and had

established himself on the island on the

company’s account rather than his own, but this

is unclear (Holzhueter 1974; Boulton 1884).

Later, a few buildings were constructed on the

present site of the City of Alpena by hunters from

Mackinaw; Walter Scott erected a fishhouse and

trading post near these buildings.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
132

Michigan Maritime Museum

Figure 4.29 Commercial fishing operations in Alpena during the 1940s.

By the 1840s, both Thunder Bay Island and

Sugar Island were used extensively for fishing

operations (Boulton 1884). In 1846, Presque

Isle and Thunder Bay fishing operations exported a total of 12,000 barrels of fish, equaling

over 15% of the American and Canadian commercial fisheries of Lakes Huron, Michigan, and

Superior (Port Huron Observer, July 31, 1847).

Lumbering, settlement, and port development all

impacted the nearshore fisheries. River drives

during the lumbering era damaged the river

bottom; waste cuttings and sawdust covered the

bottom and caused deoxygenation through

decay processes. The draining of swamps, filling

of shoreline areas, and dredging of navigation

channels further diminished the nearshore

aquatic habitat (Michigan DNR 1987; Smith

1972). By 1886, fish stocks in the area may

have decreased by two-thirds, as witnessed by

Williams, Plough, and Campbell, all of whom

operated fisheries between Whitefish Point and

North Point (Goode 1887; Boulton 1884:193).

The depletion of fish stocks led to the creation of

a federal program for fish planting. In 1882, a

United States fish hatchery was established in a

building located on Water Street, east of First

Street in Alpena. The hatchery was moved in

1928 to Park Place near the City Hall, and was

closed in 1933 when its duties were transferred

to other facilities (Haltiner 1986).

The extent of the Canadian and American Lake

Huron commercial fisheries during 1879 – 1969

was estimated by Baldwin et al. (1979)

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
133

(Table 4.10). Although early documentation of

fish catches were poor, Lake Huron provided up

to 18.7% of Great Lakes production until the

1940s, when exotic species and overfishing

contributed to a decline in Lake Huron fisheries

production (Table 4.10).

1879 11,402 79,057 14.4%

1889 27,149 146,430 18.5%

1899 24,597 146,617 16.8%

1909 -- --

1919 21,861 117,116 18.7%

1929 16,319 98,712 16.5%

1939 19,777 111,188 17.8%

1949 8,953 111,912 8.0%

1959 7,641 104,528 7.3%

1969 5,226 123,468 4.2%

Table 4.10 Lake Huron and Great Lakes commercial fisheries production (in tons) (U.S. and Canadian) 1879-1969.

Year Lake Huron Great Lakes % of Great Lakes

Fisheries Production

Source: Baldwin et al. (1979:186-187)

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
134

Based on information collected between 1919

and 1926, Thunder Bay was second only to

Saginaw Bay in American fish production on

Lake Huron. Gillnets were first used on Lake

Huron at Alpena around 1835, and chubs were

first harvested there in 1902 (Koelz 1926).

Captain A.E. Persons asserted that he introduced the steam tug to the Great Lakes fisheries in 1875 at Alpena and revolutionized the

entire industry (McCullough 1989). Fish harvested by firms with camps on the north shore

of Thunder Bay, Crooked Island, Sugar Island,

and Ossineke were shipped to Detroit, Buffalo,

or New York City (Cross 1992; Haltiner 1986).

Commercial ice houses in Alpena shipped ice to

Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland (Alpena Argus,

January 11, 1893:3). This industry was closely

tied to commercial fishing because local firms

such as the Alpena Fish Company used ice from

the Thunder Bay River to preserve fish (Alpena

Argus, January 25, 1893:3).

Today, the primary groups using the Lake Huron

fisheries are recreational anglers, Native American commercial fishers, and state licensed

commercial fishers. The popularity of recreational fishing increased after the collapse of

commercial fish stocks by the late 1940s. Opportunities for recreational fishing expanded in

the late 1960s with the introduction of salmon in

the Great Lakes. The decline in the economic

impact of commercial fishing is illustrated by the

decline in numbers of people employed in

commercial fishing on the Great Lakes from a

total of 6,901 in 1930 to 1,180 in 1975. By

comparison, about 2.8 million recreational

anglers were active on the Great Lakes in 1975

(U.S. Comptroller General 1977).

Alcona Historical Society

Figure 4.30 Ice-making operations on the Thunder Bay River in Alpena.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
135

Lumbering

The first sawmill at present-day Alpena was

erected by Jonathan Birch in 1836 on the

Thunder Bay River, but hostilities with Native

Americans forced him to move to Sulphur Island

for a time, before transferring his operation to

Devils River. The first sustained lumbering

operation in the Thunder Bay River area began

in 1859, when Lockwood & Minor shipped a

load of lumber from Alpena. Soon, other

lumber mills entered operation, and production

increased rapidly as the U.S. Civil War and

growth in eastern and western cities created an

enormous demand for lumber. By the late 19th

century, there were at least a dozen large

establishments producing lumber for export

(Boulton 1884; Sandborn 1884).

Jesse Besser Museum

Figure 4.31 Log sorting ponds at the mouth of the Thunder

 Bay River in 1894.

Jesse Besser Museum

Figure 4.32 Churchill lumber mill in Alpena at the turn of

 the 19th century.

Jesse Besser Museum

Figure 4.33 Loading cedar in Alpena with a horsepower elevator in 1889.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
136

Timber for the mills was cut locally at first. As

nearby supplies were depleted, the harvesting

activities moved inland along the Thunder Bay

River and its tributaries, which served as the

primary means of transporting the cut timber. By

the 1890s, timber in the region was exhausted,

so additional timber was imported from Canada

in huge rafts.

Logs were collected, sorted, and fed to the

respective sawmills by the Thunder Bay River

Boom Company (Alpena Argus, January

11,1893:3). The need for sorting and holding

ponds and booms for logs led to the creation of

dock systems along the Thunder Bay River and

at the river mouth. Logs were cut into lumber,

shingles, or lath, and then stacked on the docks

for shipment by boat to many Great Lakes cities.

Alpena’s era of lumber mills came to an end in

1921, when the F.W. Gilchrist mill closed its

doors (Havinghurst 1949).

Quarries

Limestone lies close to the surface and has been

mined heavily in the area of Rogers City and the

City of Alpena. Rogers City is known as the site

of the world’s largest limestone quarry (May

1980). Although the quarrying and use of

limestone in Michigan is known to have occurred

early in the 19th century, it gained prominence in

the City of Alpena at the time when lumbering

was in decline.

Local limestone began to be used in building

trades and in the production of cement. In

1901, the Huron Portland Cement Company

began operation on the north shore of Thunder

Bay (Haltiner 1986; May 1980) (Figure 4.35).

Limestone was used at the Michigan Alkali

Company plant in the City of Alpena as early as

1903 to make soda ash for glass manufacturing.

Jesse Besser Museum

Figure 4.34 Michigan Alkaline Company quarry.

Jesse Besser Museum

Figure 4.35 Huron Portland Cement Company in 1917.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
137

However, soda ash production created so much

waste that the company ventured into cement

production.

The Huron Portland Cement Company began

cement production in 1907. The plant grew

steadily, producing over 900,000 barrels of

cement with six kilns in 1910, and became the

largest cement-producer in the world. LaFarge

Corporation purchased the Huron Portland

Cement Company in 1986 and continues

cement production within the City of Alpena

(Just, personal communication 1996; Haltiner

1986; May 1980).

The Great Lakes Stone and Lime Company of

Rockport in northern Alpena County began

operation in 1913 and provided rock for building

and paving materials. The company is no longer

in business.

Jesse Besser Museum

Figure 4.36 Loading dock of the Michigan Alkaline Company in 1918.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
138

Shipwreck Salvage Operations

The City of Alpena became a base of operations

for wrecking and salvage firms because of the

frequent shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region.

Wreckers quickly descended on grounded or

sunken vessels to recover the vessels or as much

removable property as possible before the

wrecks disintegrated.

Jim and Tom Reid, notable Michigan salvors of

the early 1900s, began their careers in the

wrecking business at Alpena. The Reids were

involved also in the log rafting business between

Georgian Bay and Michigan that provided logs

for the Alpena lumber mills (Haltiner 1986;

Doner 1958).

Jesse Besser Museum

(top) Figure 4.37 Salvage tug James Reid assisting wrecked steamer

 I.W. Nicholas near the Thunder Bay River in 1913.

(left) Figure 4.38 Commercial diving suit used in salvage of steamer

 Pewabic in 1917.

Jesse Besser Museum

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
139

2. ALCONA COUNTY MARITIME HISTORY

The maritime history of Alcona County followed

much the same pattern as Alpena County to the

north. Commercial fishing, lumbering, and other

maritime trades shaped these areas and the

communities founded within them. Alcona and

Alpena Counties are close geographically (Alcona

County was part of Alpena County until 1869),

but they do not share Thunder Bay. Alcona

County’s coastline begins about two miles south

of South Point, the southern boundary of Thunder Bay (NOAA 1976; Reynolds 1883).

Alcona County includes a number of coastal

communities. From north to south these communities include Black River (4.5 miles south of

South Point), Alcona (also known as the “Cove”

– now a ghost town – about four miles south of

Black River), Harrisville (twelve miles south of

Black River), Springport (formerly known as High

Banks and South Harrisville – a ghost town –

about one mile south of Harrisville), and

Greenbush (formerly known as “Sliding Banks,”

about six miles south of Harrisville) (NOAA

1976; Reynolds 1883). Communities established at Black River Island and Sturgeon Point

during the 1800s no longer exist. At first these

communities were dependent upon supplies

from outside, but over time they became

self-reliant (Reynolds 1883).

Besides the possible incursion of the fur trader,

the first permanent white settlers in what is now

Alcona County were commercial fishermen.

Black River, Black River Island, Sturgeon Point,

Harrisville (including Springport), and Greenbush

began as commercial fishing bases during the

1840s. By the mid-1880s, the commercial

fishery of Alcona County was centered in the

vicinity of Alcona (Reynolds 1883). Small sailand oar-powered fishing craft of this era (i.e.,

1840s – 1890s) reportedly were grounded in

Alcona County, but there is no indication of

whether any of these vessels became total

losses.

Alcona Historical Society

Figure 4.39 Sidewheeler Marine City burned and sank at Sturgeon Point in 1880.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
140

The shipment of salted fish in barrels soon gave

rise to the manufacture of barrel staves, a predecessor of the bulk timber trade that came to

dominate regional industry in the late 19th

century (Reynolds 1883). As the value of native

timber came to exceed the value of fishery

production, some commercial fishermen

switched to lumbering. In 1854, commercial

fishermen Holden and Davison purchased

forested land and started a mill at Harrisville, thus

initiating the lumbering period.

Later, lumbermen started large-scale operations

that shipped wood products from Black River,

Alcona, and Harrisville to ports throughout the

Great Lakes. Alcona County lumbering firms

included Holden and Davison; Harris and Sons;

Weston, Colwell and Company; Johnston,

Haynes and Company; James Beard and Company; and Alger, Smith and Company of Black

River, who were especially well known for their

boat masts and spars (Gauthier n.d., Prescott

1937, Reynolds 1883).

Figure 4.42 (below left) Small tug

towing log boom near Black River

(probably 1930s).

Figure 4.41 (below right)

Commercial fishing through the ice

near Black River (probably 1930s).

Figure 4.40 (left) Gillnet fishermen

with lake trout at Black River

(probably 1930s).

Alcona Historical Society Alcona Historical Society

Alcona Historical Society

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
141

Much of Alcona County’s virgin timber was cut

during the late 1800s and shipped to markets in

Chicago, where it was sent westward to build

the cities of the Great Plains. The tow barge and

log rafting systems (i.e., logs enclosed by a large

boom which was towed by a tug) were extensively employed to transport local timber to

market until railroads superseded them around

the turn of the century.

Most of the early docks and warehouses were

constructed to service the commercial fishing

and lumbering interests of Alcona County

(Reynolds 1883). Public facilities, including the

U. S. Light Station and the U.S. Life-Saving

Service Station at Sturgeon Point, were built to

protect or enhance Great Lakes commercial

shipping (NOAA 1976, Gauthier n.d.). The U.S.

Life-Saving Service Station at Sturgeon Point was

built in 1876 and later deactivated and dismantled.

The Sturgeon Point Light Station was constructed in 1869. The original light, visible for 16

Hawk Tolson

Alcona Historical Society

Figure 4.44 (right) Sturgeon Point

Lighthouse as it stands today

(1996).

Figure 4.43 (above) Sturgeon

Point Light Station and Life-Saving

Station (probably in 1900-1910).

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
142

miles, was replaced by an acetylene lamp in

1912. The conical brick light tower stands 68

feet high. The adjoining Cape Cod style brick

building served as the lightkeeper’s house

(Clifford 1994). Although the light is no longer

operational, the light tower and lightkeeper’s

house are presently adapted as a maritime

museum by the Alcona Historical Society. The

Sturgeon Point Light Station was listed on the

National Register of Historic Places in 1969.

Agriculture became an important economic

force by the late 1800s, and waterborne transportation was used to move produce to market,

as well as to import necessary industrial resources like coal and salt to Alcona County. A

number of commercial fishermen became

farmers (Reynolds 1883).

By the early 1900s, the waterborne commerce

of Alcona County was largely confined to the

passing of vessels engaged in bulk mineral

transportation (e.g., coal, salt, iron ore, copper).

The major shipping routes were located only a

few miles off the Michigan coast of Lake Huron,

such that virtually every type of commercial

vessel passed by Alcona County. This remains

the case to this day.

The management emphasis of the Michigan

Great Lakes changed from commercial fishing to

recreation during the 1950s – 1960s. A harborof-refuge was completed at Harrisville in 1959 to

promote recreational boating and fishing.

CONCLUSION

The maritime history of Alcona County

paralleled that of Alpena County through

the early 20th century. Thereafter, Alcona

County became separated from the

mainstream commercial shipping industry

as harbor improvements failed to keep up

with the growing size of Great Lakes bulk

carriers. In the commercial fishing and

lumbering eras, Alcona County has the

same claim to historical significance as does

its neighbor, Alpena County, to the north.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
143

3. PAST AND PRESENT HUMAN ACTIVITIES

Commercial/Industrial Enterprise

COMMERCIAL FISHING

❍ HISTORY

Great Lakes fish have been important in the diet

of Ottawa and Ojibway peoples inhabiting

northeast lower Michigan since the development

of the inland shore fishery (Cleland 1992). “The

use of gillnets set on off-shore shoals for the

capture of whitefish and lake trout constituted

the heart of this inland shore fishery” (Tanner

1987:19). The Thunder Bay region of Lake

Huron has a long history of Native American

subsistence and commercial fishing.

European settlers began to arrive in the early

1800s and soon engaged in commercial fishing

using a number of methods. “Gillnets appeared

in the vicinity of Alpena about 1835 and within

the next 15 years were commonly used in the

deeper open waters of the lake. Seines, fyke

nets, pound nets, and trap nets were all being

fished by 1900” (Berst and Spangler 1972:879).

The Lake Huron commercial fishery, through

about 1940, was composed primarily of whitefish, lake trout, cisco, walleye, yellow perch, and

suckers.

During 1940 – 1965, commercial catches

decreased dramatically, especially lake trout and

cisco (Berst and Spangler 1972). Lake Huron

whitefish landings “fluctuated between 900 and

1,400 metric tons from 1900 to 1930, increased

to 2,500 tons in 1932, then declined to 113 tons

by 1945” (Berst and Spangler 1972:882).

❍ PRESENT DAY

Today, the Thunder Bay region of Lake Huron is

considered one of the most lucrative whitefish

fishing grounds in the Great Lakes (Johnson,

personal communication 1992). Currently,

whitefish is the only commercially harvested

species within the Thunder Bay region.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources

(DNR) Fisheries Division authorizes two annual

research permits to commercial fishermen for

the harvest of whitefish within the Thunder Bay

region of Lake Huron. Results of the research

will be used to assist in evaluating the future role

of commercial fishing in this area (Michigan

DNR, personal communication 1996).

❍ NATIVE AMERICAN FISHING

The Sanctuary boundary includes waters covered by both the 1819 Treaty of Saginaw and the

1836 Treaty of Washington.

In the Treaty of Washington (Treaty of 1836), the

Chippewa and the Ottawa Native American

tribes ceded certain lands and waters to the U.S.

Government. They did, however, “expressly

reserve their fishing rights” in certain Great Lakes

waters, including part of northwestern Lake

Huron. These treaty waters are delineated with

the line established by the 1819 Treaty of

Saginaw to the mouth of the Thunder Bay River,

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
144

currently subject to the U.S. District Courtfacilitated “Agreement for Entry of Consent

Order of 1985” (1985 Consent Agreement).

Under the 1985 Consent Agreement, the Bay

Mills Indian Community, the Grand Traverse

Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and the

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians are

prohibited from commercial fishing in certain

areas of Lake Huron, including the area south of

Hammond Point near Rogers City. However,

starting in 1998 and extending no later than

The United States now recognizes two additional successors to the Treaty of 1836: the

Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians and

the Little River Band of Ottawa Indians.

1

 The line that marks the southern boundary of the treaty waters

may be questioned by the State in the renegotiation of the 1985

Consent Agreement.

Figure 4.45 State of Michigan commercial fishing zones and Lake Huron waters ceded by the Treaty of Washington (1836) for tribal

licensed fishing, as reflected in the 1985 Consent Agreement.

and then northeast to the boundary line in Lake

Huron between the United States and Canada,

set in the Treaty of 1936.1

A number of court cases have determined

Native American fishing rights under the Treaty

of 1836 (Table 4.11). These fishing rights are

December 1999, one Native American fisherman is licensed to conduct a “fishery assessment”

to help determine future catch limits. Native

Americans use gill nets, which are placed along

the lake bottom like a fence. The nets in the

fishery assessment are approximately 1000 feet

in length, and each end is identified with a

floating buoy.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
145

Table 4.11 A Chronology: Native American Fishing and the State of Michigan.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING

1836 In the Treaty of Washington (Treaty of 1836), the Chippewa and Ottawa Tribes ceded

certain lands and waters to the United States. In it, the tribes reserved fishing rights

in, among other waters, part of Lake Huron’s Thunder Bay.

1930 In People vs. Chosa (252 Mich. 154), the Michigan Supreme Court declared that

“Native Americans have no special hunting and fishing rights under state regulations.”

1971 In People v. Jondreau (384 Mich. 539), “the Michigan State Supreme Court reversed

itself from the 1930 rulings, stating that the Treaties signed in 1836 and 1855 did

retain some Indians’ fishing rights free from state regulation.”

1976 In People v. LeBlanc, (399 Mich. 31), the Supreme Court of Michigan “overturned the

conviction of A.B. LeBlanc, a full-blooded Chippewa Indian, ruling that the treaty

clearly established the right to tribal fishing on and off the reservation area and that

right had not been extinguished.”

1979 In United States v. Michigan, the United States District Court for the Western District

of Michigan ruled that the Chippewa and Ottawa tribes have “unique, exclusive, offreservation rights to engage in gill net fishing...despite Michigan laws to the contrary.”

(United States v. Michigan 623 F.2d 448 at 3).

1981 In United States v. Michigan, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded,

“the Treaty of 1836 provided for the off-reservation treaty rights.” It sent the case

back to the trial court to make the determination whether or not the state could regulate gill-net fishing “upon a finding of necessity, irreparable harm and the absence of

effective Indian tribal self-regulation” (United States v. Michigan, 653 F.2d 277 at 279).

1985 The parties of United States v. Michigan signed an Entry of Consent Order, which is in

effect until 2000. The Order “divided treaty waters into geographic zones, designating some areas as State zones, some as tribal zones and some areas as lake trout

reproduction.”
146

people of Michigan” (Fisheries Division 1991:5).

The State of Michigan is a member of the Great

Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) that both

develops coordinated programs of research and

recommends management actions on a regional

basis (GLFC 1992). A joint strategic plan for

management of Great Lakes fisheries was

developed by state and federal agencies in 1980

(GLFC 1980); the strategic plan and associated

publications provide guidelines for fish habitat

management and planning (Dochoda 1988;

GLFC 1987). Information relating to the condition of fisheries habitat, habitat management and

planning, and other dimensions of fisheries

management are developed by Lake Committees and are published as annual reports. The

state, federal, provincial, and tribal governments

of Michigan and Ontario have completed a set of

fish community goals that will serve as an umbrella for coordinated fishery planning.

Fisheries stocking programs for Lake Huron are

conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), the Michigan DNR, and by several

Native American tribes. The Michigan DNR

stocks a variety of species in the Thunder Bay

region. Brown trout stocked in Lake Huron

near Alpena are reared at the Thompson hatchery in the Upper Peninsula and the Oden

hatchery near Petoskey. Walleye, which are

stocked regularly in the Thunder Bay River and

Thunder Bay, are reared at the James Pond

Hatchery in Alpena. The James Pond is a walleye rearing pond managed jointly by the Michigan DNR and local angling groups.

SHIPPING AND NAVIGATION

❍ HISTORY

In the 19th century, communication with the

outside world was conducted primarily through

vessels that put in at either the City of Alpena or

Thunder Bay Island. In 1859, the steamer

Colombia made Alpena a semi-regular stop as the

lumber mills spurred more commercial activity

(Haltiner 1986). Even then, access to the City of

Alpena was limited by a sand bar at the mouth of

the Thunder Bay River that prohibited entry of

vessels drawing more than six and a half feet.

Larger vessels loaded and unloaded offshore

using tugs, scows, and rafts (Boulton 1884).

In 1865, Devils River (later, Ossineke) had only

three feet of water over the nearshore sand bar,

restricting access to the mill and dock. As a

result, cargo was shipped from Morris’ Dock

near Nine Mile Point. Paxton’s or McDonald

Bay, between Sugar and Thunder Bay Islands,

was used for the anchorage of vessels, as was

the area between the mainland and Sugar and

Middle Islands (Boulton 1884; Barnet 1874).

Waterborne trade from the City of Alpena in

❍ FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

The Michigan DNR Fisheries Division has the

responsibility to “protect and enhance the public

trust in populations and habitat of fishes and

other forms of aquatic life, and promote optimum use of these resources for benefit of the

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
147

1874 totaled 492 vessels of 159,072 gross tons,

and employed 6,492 individuals. These vessels

cleared the local customs house with cargos of

cedar posts, house blocks, lath, shingles, lumber,

fish, merchandise, ice, pickets, and bark. The

City of Alpena developed a navigation channel of

16 foot depth extending a mile above the harbor

mouth by 1889 (U.S. Department of War 1889).

In 1897, 1,245 vessels totaling 353,982 gross

tons cleared the port. The City of Alpena was

described as the most convenient shipping port

for agricultural products and manufactured goods

for locations up to 50 miles inland (Mansfield

1899; Boulton 1884).

The slow development of an adequately

dredged and maintained river channel, in combination with the increasing number of vessels

visiting the City of Alpena, led to the creation of

an intricate series of loading and unloading docks.

These docks altered the shoreline and by 1900,

had extended the waterfront by at least 50 feet

into Thunder Bay (Boulton 1884). Alterations to

the shoreline north of the City of Alpena began

around 1901 as the cement companies established loading docks.

Dependence on waterborne communications

left the community so isolated during the winter

that the state legislature passed a bill in 1865 to

build the Duncan, Alpena, and AuSable River

State Road (Boulton 1884:181). Railroads

reached the City of Alpena in 1886 beginning

with the Detroit, Bay City, and Alpena Railroad.

In 1918, the Boyne City, Gaylord, and Alpena

Railroad further strengthened Alpena’s connection with other Michigan cities (Haltiner 1986).

Despite the strong dependence of the Alpena

community upon waterborne commerce, there

was surprisingly little shipbuilding activity. Except

for some small boat construction and repair

work, Alpena does not seem to have maintained

a shipyard capable of building or drydocking large

vessels.

The post-lumbering era of the early 1900s

brought the decline of Alpena’s waterfront. The

docks deteriorated and became hazards to

navigation. In 1923 – 1924, a stone breakwater

was constructed, and in 1937, the growing

recreational use of Thunder Bay and the River

led to dredging of a yacht basin (Haltiner 1986).

Other Alpena County ports developed less

quickly. A small breakwater was built in

Ossineke, but the controlling depth remained at

four feet in 1981. Located on the northern

boundary of Alpena County, Rockport was used

by the Kelley Island Lime and Transport Company beginning in 1913. By 1985, Rockport was

used primarily by recreational anglers (NOAA

1985; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1940).

❍ PRESENT DAY

Upbound and downbound commercial shipping

lanes on Lake Huron are located within the

Thunder Bay region. The shipping lanes begin

approximately 5 miles due east of the Middle

Island Light, 5 1/2 miles due east of the Thunder

Bay mid-channel buoy, and 6 miles due east of

the South Point daymark (NOS 1990, 1988). A

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
148

Figure 4.46 Loading cement into a bulk freighter at LaFarge Corporation facilities in Alpena.

Lake Carriers Association

federal navigation channel corresponding to a

course of 304 degrees from the Thunder Bay

mid-channel buoy is maintained by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers for use by commercial

and recreational boat traffic entering and departing Alpena. Traditionally, the commercial shipping season has lasted from April until early

December (Barry 1972).

Commercial shipping to and from Alpena is

associated predominantly with the cement

producing operations of LaFarge Corporation.

Inland Lakes Management of Alpena, under

contract to LaFarge Corporation, normally

operates four bulk carriers that transport cement

from Alpena to distribution plants throughout the

Great Lakes region (Figure 4.46). Two of these

vessels each carry approximately 8,000 tons of

cargo per trip out of Alpena, and the other two

vessels each carry approximately 11,000 tons of

cargo per trip out of Alpena. These vessels then

return to Alpena empty (“light”). In total, the

cement bulk carriers complete approximately 60

round trips per year (120 transits). In addition,

approximately 20 loads of coal per year (40

transits) are delivered to LaFarge Corporation.

Other uses of Thunder Bay by commercial

vessels include occasional deliveries of coal to

Abititi-Price Corporation, fuel delivery by Alpena

Oil Company, salt delivery by Goodrich Everett,

and visitation on an irregular basis by boats

seeking a safe haven from storms on Lake Huron

(Ghiata, personal communication 1992).

❍ OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLANS

In the event of a pollution or marine disaster, the

U.S. Coast Guard Sault Ste. Marie, MI Area

Contingency Plan provides for a well-coordinated, multi-organizational response at the local

level to protect human and natural resources

threatened by an actual or anticipated pollution

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
149

are maintained by USCG Station St. Ignace.

USCG Station St. Ignace is under direction of

USCG Group Sault Ste. Marie.

❍ DREDGING

The federal navigation channel at Alpena begins

at the 24-foot depth contour in Thunder Bay

and extends to the turning basin about 0.75

miles upstream from the mouth of the Thunder

Bay River, for a total length of 2.5 miles (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers 1984). Maintenance

dredging is performed periodically to remove

sediments (silt, detritus, sand and clay) that

accumulate in the channel. Since at least 1963,

these sediments, known as clean dredged

material, have been deposited in the open

waters of Thunder Bay. The disposal site is

approximately 3.5 miles west of the Thunder

Bay junction buoy on a course of 282 degrees,

and measures 2,600 feet by 2,600 feet (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers 1984, 1985).

AVIATION

The Alpena County Regional Airport serves the

northeast Michigan counties of Alpena, Presque

Isle, Montmorency and Alcona. The airport is

 ...an all-weather facility capable

of handling virtually all commercial and general aviation aircraft

types. It has two runways, a

rotating beacon, a lighted wind

indicator, hanger space, two fixed

based operators [i.e., Aviation

incident. The Marine Safety Office in Sault Ste.

Marie, Michigan has planning and emergency

response jurisdiction for the area between the

Thunder Bay River to the turning basin adjacent

to Fletcher Paper Company (U.S. Coast Guard

1997).

In Thunder Bay, the prevalent environmental

threat to the area is oil spills. Based on historical

trends, the size of the spill would most likely be

less than 100 gallons, but may reach 1000

gallons in an extreme case. The potential source

of the oil pollution may be a harbor tug, dredge,

passenger vessel or recreational boat (U.S.

Coast Guard 1997).

❍ AIDS TO NAVIGATION

Aids to navigation within the Thunder Bay region

are owned and maintained by the U.S. Coast

Guard (USCG), private organizations, or individuals. Nautical charts numbered 14684 (NOS

1990) and 14689 (NOS 1988) are available to

commercial operators and recreational boaters

navigating the Thunder Bay region of Lake

Huron.

USCG floating aids to navigation are usually

placed on location by the 1st of April and are

removed by the 1st of December by USCG

Cutter Bramble, a 180-foot buoy tender stationed in Port Huron, Michigan (Betters, personal communication 1992). USCG Cutter

Bramble is under direction of the 9th Coast

Guard District in Cleveland, Ohio. All USCG

aids to navigation within the Thunder Bay region

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
150

North and Welch Aviation] who

provide aviation services, a

passenger terminal, and automobile rentals. The control

tower is operated by Air National Guard aircraft traffic

controllers and is supplemented

by full navigational aids including

a modern instrument landing

system. In addition, a fully

computerized National Weather

Service office is located in the

main terminal building (Alpena

County Regional Airport 1992).

Mesaba Airlines, in conjunction with Northwest/

KLM, provides scheduled passenger service to

and from Detroit and Sault Ste. Marie, with

connections in Detroit to other destinations.

Aviation North provides air charter services,

aircraft maintenance, fueling, flight instruction,

and ground handling services to all transient and

based general aviation aircraft.

OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Michigan Public Act 61 of 1939 created a permit

system for the drilling of oil and gas wells that is

administered by the Geological Survey Division

of the Michigan DNR. The Michigan DNR is

responsible for managing state land and mineral

resources “to ensure protection and enhancement of the public trust” (Michigan DNR 1982).

The DNR is prohibited by Part 325, Great Lakes

Submerged Lands of Public Act 451 (1994), as

amended, from entering into a lease or deed of

unpatented Great Lakes bottomlands that

permits drilling for oil and gas, unless “all drilling

operations originate from locations above and

inland of the ordinary high-water mark.” However, leases can be obtained for upland area

drilling sites that remove oil and gas from locations under the bottomlands. There are currently no active leases for the coastal zone of

Alpena County.

As a constraint to upland drilling,

 ...the State Oil & Gas Lease

specifically addresses the issue

that no wells shall be drilled in

wetlands, habitat identified as

crucial to the survival of an

endangered species, or areas of

historical or archaeological

significance. In areas having

special wildlife, environmental

and/or recreational significance

where drilling may occur, the

lease provides for negotiation of

a drilling plan to minimize impacts . . . the lease also provides

for a 1/4 mile setback of wells

from the Great Lakes, unless an

exception is approved by the

Michigan Natural Resources

Commission (NRC) (Michigan

NRC 1989).

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
151

REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Industrial development opportunities identified

for Alpena, Michigan include the manufacturing

of wood furniture and fixtures, manifold business

forms, architectural and ornamental metal work,

commercial lighting fixtures, and sporting and

athletic goods. Non-manufacturing opportunities

include services such as hotels, rooming houses,

camps and other lodging places, membership

sports and recreation clubs, nursing and personal

care facilities, and home health care services.

Other development opportunities that were

identified include: industries with high demand

for water availability; industries with a high

demand for water transportation; industries

associated with commercial fishing, recreational

boating, and aquaculture products; industries

associated with tourism and recreation; industries related to health care and health care

services; and retail industries (Midwest Research

Institute 1988).

Military Aviation

The Phelps-Collins Air National Guard Base

(ANGB) is an adjunct operation of the Alpena

County Regional Airport and has been used for

military training since 1953. The mission of the

Base is to improve the nation’s defense capability

and the readiness of specialized air units for a

variety of military and civilian purposes. PhelpsCollins ANGB coordinates its operations with

other military bases in Michigan and elsewhere

(Alpena County Regional Airport 1992).

Figure 4.47 Military operating areas for the Phelps-Collins Air

National Guard Base in Alpena.

 Edited by Kathryn Rowan

A large portion of the Thunder Bay region is

below two of the ANGB Military Operating

Areas (MOAs), adjacent to a restricted area, and

traversed by a bi-directional Visual Low Altitude

Training Route (VR) (Figure 4.47). In addition, a

proposal is being processed to make permanent

the Trout Temporary MOA, with a minimum

authorized altitude of 4,000 feet. The airspace

over the Thunder Bay region to 15 miles offshore is one of a few areas authorized for

supersonic flight in the central United States

(Kimble, personal communication1992).

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
152

Gary Nelkie

Figure 4.48 Air National Guard helicopter operating over

 the Thunder Bay region.

Gene Wright, Old Woman Creek NERR

Gene Wright, Old Woman Creek NERR

Figure 4.49 Air National Guard jets at the Phelps-Collins Base in Alpena.

Recreational Activities

HISTORY

Recreation in early Alpena was limited to a few

activities including, “dancing and sail-boat excursions to some of the islands” (Boulton

1884:180). Later, sport fishing, swimming,

boating, and touring excursions on the Bay and

inland lakes became popular (Boulton 1884). In

the 1890s, there was a movement to develop

the water resources of the region for recreation.

During the winter, ice boating, sleighing, hockey,

and skating took place on Thunder Bay (Alpena

Argus, 1 February 1893:3). Many elegant

waterfront entertainment pavilions were constructed to provide activities for the local citizens

and tourists. Alpena’s Huron Beach Pavilion

opened in 1896 (Haltiner 1986).

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
153

BOATING

The State of Michigan consistently leads the

United States in the number of registered

watercraft and boating activity. An estimated

35% of the total 137,000 recreational boat-days

in Alpena County during 1986 took place on

Lake Huron (Talhelm et al. 1988). A total of

4,497 boats were registered in 1989 in Alpena

County (4,302 pleasure craft and 61 commercial

craft). In 1991, the harbors of Alpena,

Harrisville, and Rogers City recorded a combined 8,437 transient boat days.

Based on a user survey, the Boating Programs

Branch of the Michigan DNR (1990) estimated

the average boat length launched from Michigan

Great Lakes launch sites in 1990 was 18 feet.

Eighty percent of respondents were repeat users

of a site. Seventy percent of respondents

Alpena Area Chamber of Commerce

Summer resorts began to develop by the 1890s.

El Cajon on Little Thunder Bay started operations around 1892 and boasted luxuries such as

a new beach, buggy riding, cold water springs,

peaceful cottages, and a scenic view of Lake

Huron and offshore islands (Alpena Argus, 30

August 1892). During the 1930s, highway U.S.

23 was graded and paved, making it easier for

motorists to visit Alpena County (Haltiner 1986).

The Lake Huron shore lured people to Alpena

County during the 1920s, and the serenity of the

small inland lakes continues to attract vacationers. Sport fishing became an important management emphasis for the Great Lakes during the

1960s with the decline of commercial fisheries

and introduction of salmon as a sport fish. More

recently, scuba (self-contained underwater

breathing apparatus) divers have journeyed to

Thunder Bay to explore and enjoy the many

shipwrecks, geological features, and aquatic

organisms.

Figure 4.50 Visiting the historical

boathouse of the Thunder Bay Island

Light Station by kayak.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
154

indicated that their primary activity was fishing,

followed by pleasure boating and water skiing. If

respondents indicated that their boating was

poor, then fishing or weather conditions were

listed as a main problem. The average distance

traveled to a launch site was 20 miles. Approximately 75% of respondents indicated that

additional public launch sites at other locations

are needed (Michigan DNR 1990).

FISHING

Although sport fishing is an important recreational activity in Michigan, the number of people

participating in sport fishing appears to be leveling. In 1989, a total of 8,643 resident annual,

965 non-resident annual, and 1,834 daily fishing

Figures 4.52 and 4.53 A catch

of trout and salmon from Lake

Huron, at the Michigan Brown

Trout Festival.

Alpena Area Chamber of Commerce

Alpena Area Chamber of Commerce

Figure 4.51 Recreational boats

at the Alpena Municipal Marina.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
155

licenses were sold in Alpena County. Approximately one-third of resident and non-resident

anglers fished the Great Lakes, predominantly

from private boats using baits, trolling, or casting

(Mahoney et al. 1986). The most important

attributes used by resident and non-resident

anglers in selecting a fishing site include angler

crowding, competition from other recreation

activities, places to fish from shore, boat launching and marina facilities, and parking (Mahoney et

al. 1986).

The Michigan Brown Trout Festival has been

held in Alpena during the third full week of July

since 1975, and is the oldest continuously held

fishing tournament on the Great Lakes. The

purpose of the Festival is “to promote Lake

Huron fishing and to invite out of town guests to

experience Alpena, ‘a warm and friendly port’

located in the heart of the sunrise side” (Alpena

Convention & Visitors Bureau, 1990). A nonprofit organization, with five officers and a Board

of Directors (selected from 13 local service

clubs), plans and manages the Festival.

There are nine days of tournament fishing for

four lake species: brown trout, lake trout,

salmon and steelhead. Prizes include cash and

merchandise donated by local and national

sponsors. A number of family-oriented recreational events are also organized during the

tournament. In 1990, participation in the Festival

included 850 registered anglers from 115 cities

(8 states) and an estimated 30,000 spectators,

over the nine day period (Alpena Convention

and Visitors Bureau 1990).

SCUBA DIVING

An estimated 2.3 – 3.0 million U.S. citizens are

active participants in recreational scuba diving.

Approximately 310,000 to 405,000 active

recreational scuba divers currently reside in the

Great Lakes region (MI, WI, IL, IN, OH); about

46,000 to 60,000 of these scuba divers are from

Michigan (PADI 1997).

Surveys by Skin Diver magazine and Scuba Diving

magazine indicate that coral reefs and shipwrecks

are the most popular recreational scuba diving

environments and dive tourism attractions.

Shipwrecks are found throughout the world, in

various physical conditions. Most are historic

shipwrecks caused by various types of maritime

casualty; others are vessels intentionally sunk as

artificial reefs and recreational diving attractions.

Freshwater lakes often contain shipwrecks in

excellent physical condition. In particular, the

Great Lakes contain hundreds of shipwrecks that

retain a large degree of historical integrity.

Sport diving with scuba in Thunder Bay appears

to total far less recreational activity than boating

or sport fishing, but has generated public interest

due in part to the abundance of shipwrecks and

the establishment of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve. There are no reliable estimates for

total recreational scuba diving activity in the

Great Lakes, the State of Michigan, the Michigan

underwater preserves, or the Thunder Bay

Underwater Preserve. The most accurate

figures for annual use of the Thunder Bay region,

however, is the number of recreational scuba

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
156

divers aboard charter boats operated by Thunder Bay Divers (the only charter service with

boats based in Alpena). Thunder Bay Divers

carried approximately 900 scuba divers in 1988;

903 scuba divers in 1990; and 880 scuba divers

in 1991 (Vrana 1993). An unknown amount of

diving-related visitation is also associated with

private boats, charter boats trailered into the

region, and scuba diving from shore.

The dive season in Thunder Bay is from Memorial Day to about the second weekend in September. The most visited sites are the Grecian,

Montana, and Nordmeer. The Grecian is 110’

deep. Other popular wrecks are around 80-90’

deep (Barnhill, personal communication 1998).

Thunder Bay Divers

Figure 4.54 Dive charter boat and scuba divers at the Nordmeer site.

Thunder Bay Divers

Figures 4.55 and 4.56 Recreational scuba divers visiting shipwrecks of the Thunder Bay region.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
157

HUNTING AND FURBEARER HARVEST

Although hunting is a popular recreational activity

in Michigan, the number of people participating

in recreational hunting appears to be declining

(Nelson 1991). In Alpena County, an estimated

annual average of 3,090 hunter days were expended for waterfowl from 1985 – 1990. An

estimated annual average of an additional 1,570

hunter days were expended for geese in Alpena

County from 1985 – 1990 (Reiss, personal communication 1992). The majority of waterfowl

hunting takes place during the fall duck and geese

seasons in areas with a large amount of emergent vegetative cover (e.g., Squaw Bay, Misery

Bay and coastal wetlands from Ossineke southeast to South Point).

The sale of fur harvester licenses in Michigan is

also decreasing (Nelson 1991). Trapping activity

along the Thunder Bay coastline is probably concentrated on furbearers in coastal marshes (e.g.,

muskrat, beaver, mink, and possibly raccoon)

(Carlson, personal communication 1992). There

is no known trapping taking place on offshore islands (Carlson, personal communication 1992).

RECREATION AND TOURISM FACILITIES AND SERVICES

❍ HARBORS AND MARINAS

Four recreational harbors have been developed

in the Thunder Bay region by the Michigan State

Waterways Commission in cooperation with

local units of government so that boaters will be

no more than 15 shoreline miles away from

safety. The harbors have marinas and other

facilities and services to serve recreational users.

Typically the marinas are managed by private

businesses under leases from local governments.

State or local governments manage some of the

marinas.

Harbor and marina facilities are located at Alpena

Harbor, Partridge Point Basin (private facility),

Harrisville Harbor, Presque Isle Harbor, and

Rogers City Boat Harbor (Figures 4.57 – 4.59).

All of these facilities have gasoline and diesel fuel,

water, electricity, restrooms, shower facilities,

VHF-FM radio, holding tank pump-out, and

launch ramps. Several of the harbors also have

haul-out facilities, marine/general stores, repair

services, fish cleaning stations, and a harbor

master. Site-specific features include condominium homes and a beach at Partridge Point

Basin, two historical lighthouses at Presque Isle

Harbor, and a picnic area, playground, and beach

at the Rogers City Boat Harbor.

❍ BOAT LAUNCHING FACILITIES

There are three public boat launching facilities

within 25 miles of the City of Alpena that have

District Extension Sea Grant Agents in 1986 and

1990 – 1991 found that sport divers visiting the

Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve were primarily between 26 and 45 years old. Most of these

divers were from Michigan, with the second

highest percentage from Ohio. Divers generally

visit the region during July and August and use

charter and private boats to access the Preserve

(Stewart 1992; Peterson et al. 1987).

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
158

direct access to Lake Huron. Alpena Municipal

Marina is located on Lake Huron at the City of

Alpena and has hard-surfaced ramps with sufficient water depth to accommodate most boats

with trailers, as well as courtesy piers, toilets, and

126 parking spaces. North Riverfront Park is

located on Thunder Bay River in the City of

Alpena. The park has hard-surfaced ramps and

courtesy pier, as well as boat dockage. Devils

River Mouth, located 9 miles south of the City of

Alpena, has a ramp and parking facilities. All of

these facilities can be used to launch small boats

(e.g., trailerable boats, car-top boats, canoes,

windsurfers, jet-skis) but the Devils River site will

not accommodate some boats because of

shallow water depth.

The only private boat launching facility in the

Alpena vicinity is Partridge Point Marina, located

on Lake Huron, one mile south of the City of

Alpena. The marina has two hard-surfaced

(concrete) ramps and one soft-surface ramp.

❍ PARK PROPERTIES AND ASSOCIATED

RECREATION FACILITIES AND SERVICES

The following public park properties and

associated recreation facilities and services are

Michigan DNR Parks and Recreation Division

(upper left) Figure 4.57 Alpena Harbor

(upper right) Figure 4.58 Presque Isle Harbor

(lower right) Figure 4.59 Harrisville Harbor

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
159

either located on Thunder Bay or provide direct

access to Thunder Bay and Lake Huron:

Bay View Park, located on Lake Huron, City of

Alpena (adjacent to the municipal small boat

harbor), totals 27 acres with 3,100 feet of Lake

Huron shoreline, and includes a swimming

beach, breakwater fishing area, picnic area,

bandshell and other intensive recreation facilities,

restrooms, and parking. The park is managed by

the City of Alpena (23.5 acres) and by the

Alpena School District (3.5 acres).

Thompson Park, located on Lake Huron, City of

Alpena (State Avenue, southwest of Bay View

Park), totals 1 acre with 160 feet of Lake Huron

shoreline, and includes a swimming beach with

lifeguards, picnic area, open space, and portable

restrooms. It is managed by the City of Alpena.

Blair Street Park, located on Lake Huron, City of

Alpena (State Avenue, southwest of Bay View

Park), totals 4 acres with 173 feet of Lake Huron

shoreline, and includes a swimming area, picnic

area, handicapped-accessible fishing pier, and

parking.

Mich-e-ke-wis Park, located on Lake Huron, City

of Alpena (State Avenue, southwest of Bay View

Park), totals 39 acres with 2,700 feet of Lake

Huron shoreline, and includes swimming

beaches with lifeguards (Starlite and Mich-e-kewis), picnic area, other intensive recreation

facilities, restrooms, and parking. It is managed

The Penrose Family

Figure 4.60 The old Presque Isle Lighthouse (above), built in 1840, and the New Presque Isle Lighthouse (Figure 5.4), built in 1870, are

featured at parks near Presque Isle Harbor. The parks are administered by Presque Isle Township; the 100-acre park at the1870

lighthouse is operated by the Presque Isle Lighthouse Historical Society. Facilities at these parks include historical museums, nature trails,

a covered pavilion, and picnic areas.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
160

Figure 4.61 Selected water-based recreation

 facilities in the Thunder Bay region.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
161

a swimming beach, picnic area, toilets, and

parking. It is managed by Sanborn Township.

Ossineke State Forest Campground, located on

Lake Huron, 11 miles south of the City of

Alpena, is part of Mackinaw State Forest and

includes a swimming beach, picnic area, hiking

trails, 42 campsites, water, toilets, and parking.

Boat launching is at the nearby DNR Devils River

access site. It is managed by the Michigan DNR

Forest Management Division.

Negwegon State Park, located on Lake Huron, 14

miles south of the City of Alpena, totals approximately 1,674 acres. It has minimal facility development, including a swimming beach, hiking

trails, vault toilets, and parking. There are plans

for 125 campsites and other outdoor recreation

facilities. The park is managed by the Michigan

DNR Parks and Recreation Division.

An unnamed “park,” located on Thunder Bay

Island, has informal campsites and cooking areas

that have been established by visitors near the

abandoned U.S. Coast Guard boathouse and

dock. The dock is located in the channel between Sugar Island and Thunder Bay Island. The

island is managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service (Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge).

❍ RESTAURANTS AND EATING ESTABLISHMENTS

The Alpena area has approximately 41 eating

establishments with a maximum capacity of over

3,650 patrons (Pardike 1992).

by the City of Alpena.

North Riverfront Park, located on Thunder Bay

River, City of Alpena (Fletcher Street, near the

Post Office), totals 2.3 acres with 570 feet of

Thunder Bay River shoreline, and includes open

space and parking. The park is managed by the

City of Alpena.

South Riverfront Park, located on the Thunder

Bay River, City of Alpena (near the Federal

Building), totals 1.9 acres with approximately

850 feet of Thunder Bay River shoreline, and

includes dock fishing, boat dockage, and opportunities for passive recreation. The park is

managed by the City of Alpena and the federal

government.

Island Park, formerly Sportsmen’s Island, is

located in the Thunder Bay River in the 500-acre

Wildlife Sanctuary. It is a city-owned natural park

connected by bridge to the roadside park at the

corner of U.S. 23 North and Long Rapids Road.

There are picnic facilities in the roadside park,

but picnicking is not allowed on the Island.

LaMarre Park, located on the Thunder Bay River,

City of Alpena (Eighth and River Street), totals

1.5 acres with 367 feet of Thunder Bay River

shoreline, and includes a wooden fishing pier,

picnic area, and parking. It is managed by Alpena

County.

Sanborn Township Park in Ossineke, located on

Lake Huron, is 10 miles south of the City of

Alpena. It totals 3 acres of property that includes

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
162

❍ LODGING AND CAMPING

Peak occupancy for motels in the Thunder Bay

region of Alpena County occurs during the

months of June, July, and August. The months of

May, September, and October also seem to

have above average occupancy for most motels

providing monthly statistics (Pardike 1992).

There are four establishments that provide

primitive camping and six establishments that

provide convenience camping near the Thunder

Bay region of Alpena County.

MARINE SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT

The Officer in Charge of USCG Station Alpena

(Auxiliary Operated or AUXOP) coordinates the

Thunder Bay area search and rescue (SAR)

operations of the Alpena USCG Auxiliary Unit.

The area of SAR responsibility for the Auxiliary

Unit is from Sturgeon Point (southern boundary)

to Rogers City (northern boundary). The Officer

in Charge and the Auxiliary Unit cooperate with

the Alpena County Sheriff Department, the

Presque Isle Sheriff Department, and the Alcona

County Sheriff Department in SAR operations.

USCG Station Alpena is comprised of one

regular USCG employee (Officer in Charge)

under the direction of USCG Group Sault Ste.

Marie. The Auxiliary Unit is comprised of 8

private boats and auxiliary operators. A total of

two boats and marine safety operators are

available from the Alpena County Sheriff Department and Presque Isle County Sheriff Department (Betters, personal communication 1992).

USCG Station Alpena can request additional SAR

assistance from USCG Station St. Ignace and

USCG Station Tawas City through the Rescue

Coordination Center of the USCG 9th District

Office in Cleveland, Ohio (Betters, personal

communication, 1992). Air rescue and emergency evacuation operations are provided by

USCG Air Station Traverse City, which can

transport sport divers to a recompression

chamber if commercial air service is not available

(USCG, personal communication 1995).

The Officer in Charge of the USCG Station

Alpena can enforce federal regulations on Lake

Huron (Betters, personal communication 1992).

State regulations on Lake Huron can be enforced

by conservation officers from the Michigan DNR,

state police officers, and county sheriffs

(Chapman, personal communication 1992).

Conservation officers, state police officers, and

sheriff deputies are stationed in Alpena.

Conservation officers patrol Thunder Bay approximately once or twice per week during the

summer (June-September). Law enforcement

responsibilities of these patrols include fishing

regulations, the Marine Safety Act, and underwater preserve related violations of Part 761,

Aboriginal Records and Antiquities of Public Act

451 (1994), as amended. A low level of law

violations recently have been recorded for

patrols of Thunder Bay (Chapman, personal

communication 1992).

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
163

THUNDER BAY EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

❍ EDUCATION

Environmental education activities and/or science

education in the Thunder Bay region have been

conducted by the Alpena Educational Service

District, Alpena Community College, Michigan

Sea Grant Extension, and the 4-H Program

(MSU Extension, personal communication

1992). However, there is an overall lack of

coordinated environmental education programming and curricula on Thunder Bay and Lake

Huron ecosystems, and the maritime history and

underwater cultural resources of the Thunder

Bay region.

The Michigan Science Teachers Association

(MSTA) held an in-service workshop in Alpena

during August 1993 for teachers interested in

Great Lakes education, research, and resource

management. During July 1992, the MSTA

conducted a work and study cruise for teachers

aboard the research vessel Laurentian (University

of Michigan) in Thunder Bay. Topics of the cruise

included Great Lakes sampling methods, physical

and biological processes, and underwater cultural

resources (MSTA 1992). A product of these

workshops and the MSTA Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary Project will be curricula on the

Great Lakes (and the Thunder Bay region) (Lau,

personal communication 1993).

NOAA

Figure 4.62 Artwork from the “Kids Care About Our Great Lakes” poster contest (1993) sponsored by the Michigan

 4-H Program and the National Marine Sanctuary Program.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
164

❍ RESEARCH

Organizations conducting research activities in

the Thunder Bay region include the following

(personal communication with program offices,

unless otherwise cited):

STATE ORGANIZATIONS

Michigan Department of State (DOS):

Michigan Historical Center – Administers programs in archaeology, historic preservation, and

museums. It includes the Office of the State

Archaeologist, and the State Historic Preservation Office.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

(Michigan DNR):

Fisheries Division – Maintains a Great Lakes

Research Station in the City of Alpena to conduct fisheries research.

Wildlife Division – Maintains a Field Office in

Atlanta and a Research Station in Houghton

Lake with responsibilities for wildlife research in

Alpena and nearby counties.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

(Michigan DEQ):

Surface Water Quality Division – Responsible

for surface water quality monitoring and research in the Thunder Bay River watershed and

other watersheds in the Thunder Bay region.

NOAA

Figure 4.63 The winner of the poster contest sponsored by the Michigan 4-H Program and

 the National Marine Sanctuary Program.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
165

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS):

Alpena Fishery Resources Office – Provides

technical assistance to state, tribal and provincial

fishery management agencies, and participates in

research studies on Lake Huron.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA):

Michigan Sea Grant College Program (MSGCP)

– Funds for research are provided by NOAA

and the State of Michigan. Research, education,

and outreach are principal functions of the

program. Also, the program conducts technology development and transfer. Research

activities include studies of Great Lakes processes, aquatic resources, and social dimensions

(MSGCP 1991).

Michigan Coastal Management Program

(MCMP) – Funds for the program are provided

by NOAA and the State of Michigan. (See

summary under State Organizations.)

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory (GLERL) – Comprised of two divisions

(Research Services Branch and Science Branch);

research programs focus on contaminated

sediments and the toxicology of organic contaminants, processes affecting the fate of organic

contaminants, lake levels and diversions, ecosystem structure and function, nutrient recycling,

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING

The Division office is in Lansing.

Michigan Coastal Management Program (MCMP)

– Funds research related to the Great Lakes

coastal zone, shorelands, and bottomlands. The

Program office is part of the Land and Water

Management Division, located in Lansing.

Michigan State University:

Center for Maritime and Underwater Resource

Management (CMURM) – Conducts social

research, scientific management studies, and

technology transfer involving maritime and

underwater cultural resources.

University of Michigan:

Center for Great Lakes and Aquatic Sciences

(CGLAS) – The center is comprised of various

faculty, research scientists, technicians, and

students interested in studying the Great Lakes.

FEDERAL AGENCIES AND FEDERAL FUNDING

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) –

Biological Resources Division:

Great Lakes Science Center – Research addresses lake trout rehabilitation, fish population

dynamics, habitat studies, chemical contaminants,

and non-indigenous (exotic) species. Headquarters is in Ann Arbor. Field work generally takes

place at biological stations. The research vessel

Grayling is based in Cheboygan (NFRC-GL

1992).
166

physical oceanography, climate change, and the

introduction of exotic species. GLERL also

participates in research projects with the Cooperative Institute for Limnology and Ecosystems

Research (CILER) at the University of Michigan.

GLERL is located in Ann Arbor, and maintains

the research vessel Shenehon for Great Lakes

studies (GLERL 1992).

National Status and Trends Program – NOAA’s

National Status and Trends Program, found

within the National Ocean Service, has established 24 monitoring sites within the Great

Lakes. The Program is involved in a project that

collects zebra mussels to document concentrations of a large list of trace elements and organic

contaminants. Thunder Bay was first sampled in

1996 and again in 1998.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA):

The Great Lakes National Program Office

(GLNPO) in Chicago conducts and funds

research on many aspects of the Great Lakes,

and maintains research vessels on the Great

Lakes (MSGCP 1992). The USEPA and Environment Canada are guiding the development of

Lakewide Management Plans (LAMPs) for each

of the Great Lakes, based on an ecosystem

approach. These plans will identify ways to

reduce and prevent pollution and restore lake

ecology (Vigmostad 1992).

U.S. Coast Guard (USCG):

Administers programs in marine safety (including

aids to navigation and vessel inspections), recreational boating safety, prevention of oil discharge

on the Great Lakes, and federal law enforcement.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
167

4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND

NATURAL RESOURCES

 Environmental Conditions

THUNDER BAY REGION WATERSHEDS

A watershed or drainage basin is the area of land

from which a lake or stream receives water

(Judson et al. 1987). The abiotic and biotic

characteristics of watersheds interact to affect the

characteristics of a lake, stream, or other body of

water. Three watersheds that influence the

Thunder Bay region include lands surrounding

Lake Huron, county coastal areas, and lands that

drain into the Thunder Bay River.

❍ LAKE HURON WATERSHED

Lake Huron is 206 miles in length and a maximum of 183 miles wide (USEPA and Environment Canada 1988). The total shoreline length

is estimated at 3,827 miles, including the shoreline of approximately 30,000 islands found within

the lake (USEPA and Environment Canada

1988). Over one-half of the land area comprising the Lake Huron watershed is located in the

Province of Ontario, Canada. The remainder of

the watershed includes a large portion of the

eastern half of Michigan’s lower peninsula and a

small section of Michigan’s upper peninsula. The

watershed totals 51,700 square miles (USEPA

and Environment Canada 1988).

❍ COASTAL WATERSHEDS

Alpena County, Presque Isle County, and Alcona

County contain large coastal watersheds that

border Thunder Bay and associated waters of

Lake Huron. United States Geological Service

(USGS) quadrangle names for Alpena County

coastal areas (south to north) include Black

River, Spruce, South Point, Ossineke, Alpena,

North Point, Thunder Bay Island, Long Lake

Figure 4.64 The Thunder Bay River watershed.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
168

East, and Middle Island (MUCC 1993; Michigan

Geological Survey Division 1991).

❍ THUNDER BAY RIVER WATERSHED

The watershed of a large river usually can be

subdivided into a number of secondary watersheds that are drained by tributaries of the river

(Judson et al. 1987). The watershed of the

Thunder Bay River and its tributaries total

approximately 1,200 square miles of land and

encompasses approximately two-thirds of

Alpena and Montmorency Counties, one-third of

Alcona County, and portions of Oscoda and

Presque Isle Counties (Figure 4.64) (MRIP

1992; Burton 1981).

GEOLOGY

Thunder Bay is located on the northeast perimeter of the ancient Michigan Basin, a depression

formed at the end of the volcanic Precambrian

Era (Dorr and Eschman 1970). Soils and other

geologic materials overlying the Precambrian Era

bedrock can be traced to the last glacial period of

the Cenozoic Era.

During the Pleistocene Epoch of the Cenozoic

Era, a series of glaciers advanced slowly in a

southerly direction and then receded to the

north over the landscape of present-day Michigan. These glacial events were named Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian, and Wisconsinian. The

advancing and receding ice lobes deepened and

widened the old river valleys that later would

become glacial lakes and eventually the presentday Great Lakes basins. As the most recent

(Wisconsinian) glaciers receded, they deposited

glacial till on the present-day Thunder Bay

region. Glacial till is a composite of unconsolidated rock materials of all sizes, including clay,

silt, sand, gravel, and boulders.

In addition to the glacial till, lake sediments from

glacial lakes that preceded Lake Huron overlay

the bedrock of the Thunder Bay region coastal

zone and Lake Huron bottomlands. Farrand

(1982) classifies the soils along the Alpena

County coastal zone as either lacustrine clay and

silt (i.e., clay-rich till on low-lying areas formerly

inundated by glacial lakes) or dune sand (i.e., fine

to medium sand associated with former lake and

outwash plains). Because of the thin layer of

glacial till over bedrock in many parts of the

Alpena County coastal zone, the groundwater

under these areas is vulnerable to contamination

from surface activities (Lusch 1992a; 1992b).

Thunder Bay has several notable geological

features. Carbonate rocks (i.e., limestone and

Karst), located in the north-northeast section of

Alpena County, extend out into Lake Huron and

form a 40 to 75 foot drop-off on the eastern

side of Thunder Bay Island. Nearby in Misery

Bay are limestone sinkholes (Figure 4.65). In

addition, numerous rock shoals and reefs within

Thunder Bay have caused many shipwrecks and

have provided the impetus for the construction

of lighthouses and lifesaving stations.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
169

METEOROLOGY/CLIMATE

The climate of Alpena is influenced by its location

with respect to major storm tracks and the

moderating effects of the Great Lakes. Prevailing

winds are from the northwest except during May

and June when southeast winds predominate

(NOAA 1991).

Summers in Alpena are warm and sunny. Mean

temperatures at Alpena for June, July, and August

(1873 - 1991) range from the low to mid 60s

with an average high of 77° F. Most storms pass

to the north of Alpena, often bringing brief

showers every few days. Summer showers

moving from the southwest weaken and sometimes dissipate as they approach Alpena, although heavy thunderstorms with damaging

winds occasionally occur. The mean rainfall is

29.11 inches (NOAA 1991).

The average wintertime storm track is south of

Alpena, and most passing storms bring snow.

Winter storms often bring winds with an easterly

component, and result in a mean snowfall of

85.7 inches. Precipitation from these storms is

increased by both the moisture and instability

picked up from Lake Huron, and the forced

upslope flow as the storms move westward over

land. Minimum air temperatures during early

Figure 4.65 A sinkhole and shoal waters in Misery Bay.

NOAA

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
170

winter are higher than would be expected at this

latitude because of the moderating influence of

Lake Huron. But as nearby waters freeze over,

particularly at the Straits of Mackinac, sub-zero

temperatures become fairly common by February, lowering the average winter temperature to

13° F. Freezing temperatures have occurred as

late as June and as early as late August (NOAA

1991).

BOTTOMLANDS/BATHYMETRY

The Thunder Bay region of Lake Huron can be

segmented into three areas: nearshore, Thunder Bay, and open lake based on the depth of

water and distance from shoreline (Figure 4.66)

(NOS 1990; NOS 1988). In general, surface

sediments within this region are classified as

undifferentiated till or bedrock (Dolan et al.

1986). The topography and sediments of

bottomlands within these areas can be described

as follows (miles are expressed as statute miles):

❍ NEARSHORE AREAS

The nearshore portion of the Thunder Bay

region is defined as the bottomlands extending

out to approximately the 25 foot depth contour

line. Overall, the area can be characterized as

being very shallow and having a gradually sloping

to flat gradient. Islands can be found off South,

Hardwood, Partridge, and North Points, as well

as Rockport and Black River. Bottomland topography includes reefs located off Sulfur Island

(Partridge Point) and extending from North Point

to Crooked Island. Misery Bay contains exposed

and submerged rocks, as well as a sinkhole.

❍ THUNDER BAY

Thunder Bay can be described as an area west

of a line from South Point to North Point, but

not including nearshore areas previously described. The Bay has a gradually sloping bottom

with flats that extend from the nearshore area

located off of the Thunder Bay River to the open

waters of Lake Huron. Depths range from

approximately 25 feet at the eastern boundaries

of the nearshore areas to approximately 60 feet

at the eastern boundary of Thunder Bay. Sediments of this area include the following: less

than 25% clay-size particles; mean grain size of

sediments range from 2 to 4 PHI1 in the northern half of the Bay to less than 2 PHI in the

southern half of the Bay; surface sediments have

a pH2 of 7.0 – 7.5; and surface sediments have

less than .05% nitrogen and less than 0.022%

phosphorus, less than .05% P205 (Thomas 1981).

❍ OPEN LAKE

The open waters of Lake Huron reach a depth

of approximately 60 feet at the eastern boundary

Annual Average Meteorological

Measures in Alpena, Michigan (NOAA 1991)

1. PHI is a scale for grain size of sediments. A PHI size of 2.0

corresponds to medium sand; a PHI size of 4.0 corresponds to

fine sand/coarse silt.

2. pH is a scale for acidity (1.0) or alkalinity (14.0). Neutral is 7.0

Mean Winds 6.7 – 9.2 mph

Mean Rainfall 29.11 inches

Mean Snowfall 85.7 inches

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
171

Figure 4.66 Topography of bottomlands in the Thunder Bay region.

of Thunder Bay (i.e., on a line from South Point

to North Point), 100 feet about 3 miles lakeward

of Thunder Bay, 150 feet about 7 miles lakeward

of Thunder Bay, and 200 feet about 14 to 15

miles lakeward of Thunder Bay (i.e., longitude

83 degrees west). The bottomlands are located

at increasing depths traveling east from Thunder

Bay to the midline of the Lake Huron basin. The

maximum depth of Lake Huron is 748 feet

(Michigan Sea Grant Extension 1990).

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
172

LIMNOLOGY

❍ WATER LEVELS

Lake water levels fluctuate monthly and yearly

(NOAA 1992). Factors influencing water level

changes include precipitation, runoff, temperature and evapotranspiration, meteorological

events (e.g., wind and storms), crustal movement (e.g., isostatic rebound or uplifting), flooding and erosion, dredging for navigation improvements, water diversion, regulation of water

levels, and water control structures (Great Lakes

Commission 1986). The annual average water

level for the period of 1982 – 1991 at the three

NOAA stations nearest Thunder Bay (Harbor

Beach, Harrisville, and Mackinaw City) is slightly

over 579 feet above sea level (NOS 1992).

The primary cause of long-term fluctuations in

Great Lakes water levels is the amount of

precipitation and evapotranspiration from the

lakes (USEPA and Environment Canada 1988;

Great Lakes Commission 1986). The average

annual precipitation on Lake Huron and the Lake

Huron watershed ranges between 27.6 and

39.4 inches; annual precipitation in the Thunder

Bay region averages 27.6 inches (USEPA and

Environment Canada 1988).

In addition to precipitation on the lake surface

and runoff from the watershed, Lake Huron

receives fresh water from Lake Superior through

the St. Marys River and from Lake Michigan

through the Straits of Mackinac. Water flow

through the St. Marys River into Lake Huron is

estimated at 78,000 cubic feet per second;

water flow through the Straits into Lake Huron is

estimated at 52,000 cubic feet per second (US

EPA and Environment Canada 1988). Lake

Michigan and Lake Huron function as one

hydraulic unit and have the same water levels

due to the direct and substantial connection of

these lakes through the Straits of Mackinac

(USFWS 1988).

❍ THERMAL REGIME AND WATER CIRCULATION

The annual thermal cycle of Lake Huron and

Thunder Bay is typical of that for northern lakes.

After ice-out, the shallow nearshore regions heat

up faster than offshore areas and large horizontal

gradients in temperature can occur during this

period. When surface heating has persisted long

enough to warm the surface waters of the entire

region, the surface waters become vertically

stratified. The time of onset of whole-lake

stratification can vary from year to year by up to

one month, with the latest time of occurrence

being late June. Once the lake stratifies, the

surface waters continue to warm until fall cooling

begins. Just as in the spring heating regime, the

nearshore waters respond more rapidly to

cooler air temperatures than the offshore regions due to their greater thermal mass (GLERL,

personal communication 1997).

Although coastline features may suggest that the

long term circulation of the Bay is counterclockwise, the dominate circulation pattern is governed by the variances of the wind. Satellitetracked drifting buoys were used in part of an

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
173

ongoing study of the circulation and mixing of

Thunder Bay (McCormick, personal communication 1997). The drifting buoy data showed

complex water movement within the Bay. Two

conclusions are suggested from this study. First,

in general, the currents in the Bay are weaker

than those experienced in other coastal regions

of Lake Huron. Second, there is little persistence of current flow. In the future, computer

models will be developed to take further advantage of data sets that enable better understanding

and management of Great Lakes and coastal resources (McCormick, personal communication

1997).

Of particular interest within the Thunder Bay region is the long homogeneous water mass observed in 1973 and 1980 that extends along the

western shore of Lake Huron from the Straits of

Mackinac to Thunder Bay (Moll et al. 1985).

This water mass was interpreted by Moll et al.

(1985:209) to represent Lake Michigan water

entering Lake Huron through the Straits of

Mackinac. Regions impacted by Lake Michigan

waters were found to have relatively high alkalinity and ion concentrations (Moll et al. 1985).

Saylor and Miller (1991:2) indicate that seiches

(i.e., oscillations of water levels caused by winds)

drive currents hydraulically eastward and westward through the Straits of Mackinac. The

current flow is affected by differences in thermocline levels between Lake Michigan and Lake

Huron during the summer. The result is a

westward flow of water below the thermocline

into Lake Michigan. This inflow of relatively

unmixed Lake Huron waters has important

implications for water chemistry and biology in

northern Lake Michigan. The eastward outflow

of surface waters into Lake Huron during the

summer is comprised of relatively unmixed Lake

Michigan waters (Saylor and Miller 1991).

Annual net flow of water from these processes is

eastward into Lake Huron.

❍ ICE CONDITIONS

In general, Thunder Bay receives milder ice

conditions than the average for nearshore areas

of Lake Huron. The average date of freeze-up is

the last week in December and the average date

for maximum ice thickness is the second week in

February (Bolsenga et al. 1988). Maximum ice

thickness averaged 37 cm (14.5 inches) for

1965 – 1979; ice growth averaged approximately 8 mm (.32 inches) per day; and ice

dissipation averaged approximately 28 mm (1.10

inches) per day (Bolsenga 1988). The average

date of ice breakup was the second week in

March (Bolsenga 1988).

AIR QUALITY

The Michigan Air Sampling Network is designed

to “measure air quality throughout the state, and

consists of over 200 monitoring sensors in 27

counties. The network is operated by the Air

Quality Division of the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ), city or county

agencies, and industries” (Michigan DEQ

1995:11). Alpena County has monitoring

sensors for total suspended particulate (TSP),

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
174

particulate matter, lead, toxic organics, trace

metals, and meteorological data. LaFarge

Corporation in the City of Alpena began an

industrial monitoring program in 1995 (Michigan

DEQ 1995). Results of air quality monitoring is

provided in annual and special reports available

through the Michigan DEQ.

WATER QUALITY

Much of the concern about changes in Great

Lakes water quality has focused on excessive

nutrient enrichment (i.e., eutrophication) and

toxic contamination (Rossman 1986). Excessive

nutrients and toxic contaminants are commonly

called pollutants.

Phosphorus enrichment was diagnosed as a

problem within Thunder Bay during the 1970s

and led to the designation of Thunder Bay as a

“problem area” by the International Joint Commission (IJC) in 1977 (Horvath et al. 1981;

Waybrant 1977). In response to the problem

area designation, the Michigan DNR conducted a

water quality study of Thunder Bay in 1980

(Horvath et al. 1981), and the Northeast Michigan Council of Governments (NEMCOG)

completed a water quality study of the Thunder

Bay watershed in 1980 (Burton 1981).

Horvath et al. (1981) classified the Thunder Bay

River mouth as eutrophic, the Alpena Harbor

area as mesotrophic (i.e., between eutrophic

and oligotrophic), and Thunder Bay waters as

oligotrophic. Oligotrophic waters are low in

nutrient inputs with low organic production

(Wetzel 1983). The Thunder Bay River mouth

and Alpena Harbor are relatively small areas in

comparison to waters of the Bay. The classification was based on water quality parameters

(chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, and secchi

depth transparency) and biological indicators

(benthic macroinvertebrates). Historical water

quality data indicate that the outer Bay has

remained stable over time (i.e., 1960s – 1980)

and that water quality in Alpena Harbor has

improved slightly (Horvath et al., 1981). Results

from the study of the Thunder Bay watershed in

1980 indicate that the Thunder Bay River was

generally of high water quality, although there

were localized areas of water quality degradation

(Burton 1981).

With the exception of some screening for heavy

metals by Horvath et al. (1981), there is minimal

site specific data on toxic contaminants in Thunder Bay. Horvath et al. (1981) indicated that

heavy metals were generally found at, or below,

detection levels in Thunder Bay during 1980,

except for elevated iron concentrations found in

the Thunder Bay River and elevated zinc concentrations at certain sampling stations in July.

The Fish Contaminant Monitoring Program

(FCMP) is administered by the Surface Water

Quality Division of the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (DEQ). “The goals of the

FCMP are to: (1) evaluate whether fish contamination problems exist in specific surface waters;

(2) identify spatial differences and temporal

trends in the quality of Michigan’s surface waters

with respect to persistent, bioaccumulative

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
175

and remedial measures are necessary to restore

all beneficial uses” (IJC 1987:37). The three

Areas of Concern nearest Thunder Bay are the

Saginaw River system and Saginaw Bay, the St.

Marys River, and the Spanish River in Ontario,

Canada (IJC 1987). Remedial Action Plans are

being prepared by the IJC under guidance from

the Great Lakes Water Quality Board in order to

restore beneficial uses in the Areas of Concern

(IJC 1987).

Natural Resources

The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary will

protect and manage the underwater cultural

resources (e.g., shipwrecks) of the Thunder Bay

region. The Sanctuary will not protect or

manage the region’s natural resources (e.g.,

wetlands, islands, wildlife, and aquatic organisms). The natural resources of the Thunder Bay

region are described in the FEIS because they

are an important part of the maritime cultural

landscape and scenery of the region.

chemicals; (3) evaluate whether existing pollution

prevention, regulatory, and remedial programs

are effectively eliminating or reducing chemical

contamination in the aquatic environment; and

(4) support the establishment or removal of

public health sport fish consumption advisories

by the Michigan Department of Public Health.”

(Michigan DEQ 1995b:1). Fish contaminant

monitoring methods used in the Thunder Bay

region include wild fish edible portion monitoring, wild fish (whole fish) trend monitoring, river

mouth caged fish trend monitoring, and special

caged fish studies (Michigan DEQ 1995b).

Results of these studies have been provided in

annual and special reports since 1983.

Since 1973, the Great Lakes Water Quality

Board of the IJC has identified Areas of Concern

(originally called “problem areas.”) These are

areas where “the 1972 (revised in 1978) Great

Lakes Water Quality Agreement objectives of

jurisdictional standards, criteria, or guidelines

established to protect uses have been exceeded

After Edsall and Gannon (1993)

Figure 4.67 Generalized food web for Lake Huron waters of the Thunder Bay region.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
176

swamps, bogs, and fens (Cowardin et al. 1979).

Several wetland areas have been designated by

the State of Michigan as Environmental Areas.

The purpose of these Environmental Areas is to

protect critical fish and wildlife habitat.

ISLANDS

Twenty-eight islands are found east of Alpena

County (Table 4.12) and within the South

Thunder Bay Wetland east of Alcona County.

Some very small islands or protruding rocks

located offshore of Partridge Point and Bare Point

in Squaw Bay or elsewhere are not included in

this total (Taylor, personal communication 1992).

WETLANDS

Herdendorf et al. (1980) indicated that approximately 7,417 acres of coastal wetlands exist in

the Thunder Bay region; about half of this total

acreage is located within the South Thunder Bay

Wetland (Figure 4.68). Over 99% of the coastal

wetlands located within the Thunder Bay region

are classified as palustrine systems by

Herdendorf et al. (1980). Palustrine systems

include a broad range of wetlands usually dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents,

emergent mosses, and lichens; these systems

include wetlands traditionally termed marshes,

Figure 4.68 Coastal wetlands in the Thunder Bay region.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
177

# of Total Range of

 28 964.56 .3 - 280.0 1 18 2 9

Thunder Bay Divers

Figure 4.69 Crayfish in the shelter of a Thunder Bay shipwreck.

❍ FISH

In general, the fish inhabiting the Thunder Bay

region can be characterized as forage and

predator species. The preferred habitat of these

fish varies with the species and the stages of their

life cycle (Scott and Crossman 1973; Hubbs and

Lagler 1964).

Important forage fish stocks in Lake Huron

include whitefish, alewives, rainbow smelt,

bloaters, deepwater sculpin, slimy sculpin,

ninespine stickleback, and trout-perch (Argyle

1991). Other forage species found in Lake

Huron include lake herring and suckers (USFWS

AQUATIC PLANTS

A comprehensive field survey of aquatic plants

within the Thunder Bay region has not been

completed. Herdendorf et al. (1980) identified

some plant species probably occurring in coastal

wetlands of the region, primarily through literature review. Wells et al. (1992) identified plant

species found on some islands and associated

wetlands in the region during a 1987 census.

Makarewicz et al. (1989) studied phytoplankton

in the offshore regions of Lake Huron in 1983 –

1985. Phytoplankton are small, plantlike organisms comprised of photosynthetic pigments that

constitute the base of primary productivity within

lake ecosystems (Wetzel 1983).

AQUATIC ANIMALS

Aquatic animals are an important part of the food

web for Lake Huron waters of the Thunder Bay

region. Aquatic animals that may be viewed near

shipwrecks include benthic invertebrates, such as

sponges, hydras, aquatic worms, crayfish, freshwater shrimp, univalve snails, bivalve clams and

mussels, and aquatic insects (Pennak 1989;

Wetzel 1983). Other aquatic animals that may

not be visible by eye include zooplankton

(primarily Rotifera, Cladocera, and Copepoda).

Islands Acreage Acreage

Ownership

Table 4.12 Islands in Lake Huron, east of Alpena and Alcona Counties (some islands have multiple owners).

 County State Federal Private

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
178

1988). Most forage species can usually be found

inshore near the lake bottom in search of food.

Some species, such as the bloater (Coregonus

hoyi), other ciscoes or “chubs,” and deepwater

sculpin, prefer deepwater habitats (Scott and

Crossman 1973; Hubbs and Lagler 1964).

Predatory fish species found in Lake Huron

include lake trout, brown trout, rainbow trout

(steelhead), coho salmon, chinook salmon, pink

salmon, walleye, yellow perch, and burbot

(USFWS 1988). These species can be found in a

wide range of depths within inshore and offshore

areas of the lake, feeding upon forage fishes

(Scott and Crossman 1973; Hubbs and Lagler

1964). To a large extent, the locations of predatory fishes are dependent upon the abundance

and distribution of forage fishes.

With the exception of burbot and sea lamprey,

the predatory fishes are important recreational

fishery species (Rakoczy and Rogers 1990). The

recreational fishery is maintained through international sea lamprey control programs, the

rearing and stocking of certain fish species by

state, provincial and federal governments, and

fishing regulations (USFWS 1988).

Fish species observed around shipwrecks and

other scuba diving sites in the Thunder Bay

region include alewife, brown trout, burbot,

carp, channel catfish, northern pike, salmon,

smallmouth bass, steelhead, yellow perch and

walleye (McConnell, personal communication

1992; Warner and Holecek 1975). A sizable

population of smallmouth bass was reported on

the Molly T. Horner site; large channel catfish

were reported on the steamer Johnson (Warner

and Holecek 1975). Warner and Holecek

(1975) also suggest that the Misery Bay sinkholes

and the limestone wall near Thunder Bay Island

are good locations for viewing fish species.

❍ REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

With the exception of some records presented

by Herdendorf et al. (1980), the literature

review did not reveal site specific information on

reptiles and amphibians of the Thunder Bay

region. A similar conclusion was made by the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1988) in relation

to the coastal wetlands of Lake Huron. Species

of reptiles and amphibians recorded for Alpena

County that may inhabit the Thunder Bay region

include the mudpuppy, Jefferson salamander,

American toad, wood frog, green frog, northern

leopard frog, eastern smooth green snake,

northern water snake, northern brown snake,

northern ribbon snake, eastern garter snake,

massasauga rattlesnake, snapping turtle, and

midland painted turtle (Harding and Holman

1990; Holman et al. 1989; Herdendorf et al.

1980:773-774).

❍ BIRDS

A total of approximately 160 breeding bird

species were recorded for all habitat types in

Alpena County from 1983 – 1988 (Brewer et al.

1991). Bird species with the greatest number of

observations in open water habitats of Michigan’s

northern lower peninsula include American coot,

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
179

barn swallow, belted kingfisher, Canada goose,

great blue heron, green-backed heron, mallard,

tree swallow, and wood duck (Brewer et al.

1991). Killdeer and spotted sandpiper were

frequently observed on shoreland habitats;

caspian tern, common tern, herring gull, and

ring-billed gull typically nest in shore and beach

habitats (Brewer et al. 1991). There has also

been a large increase in cormorants

(McCormick, personal communication 1997).

Winter bird use of Lake Huron is generally low.

Species commonly reported during the winter

include mallard, common goldeneye, common

merganser, and red-breasted merganser; these

species occur as scattered groups throughout

open water shoreline areas (USFWS 1988:32).

❍ MAMMALS

Very little site specific information is available on

mammals of the Thunder Bay region. However,

the northern half of the Lake Huron basin is

known to provide “excellent habitat for big

game, small game, and furbearers” (USFWS

1988:71). Big game mammals include whitetailed deer, black bear, and a small population of

elk in the northeast lower peninsula of Michigan

(USFWS 1988; Baker 1983). Small game

animals include snowshoe hare, eastern cottontail, grey fox, and red squirrel (USFWS 1988).

Mammals that may utilize the coastal wetlands of

the Thunder Bay region include eastern cottontail, snowshoe hare, beaver, meadow vole,

Thunder Bay Divers

Figure 4.70 Burbot and scuba diver on a Thunder Bay shipwreck.

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
180

❍ ENDANGERED, THREATENED, OR RARE

SPECIES

No comprehensive studies of endangered,

threatened, or rare species have been conducted within the Sanctuary boundary.

Fish and bird species known to occur within the

Sanctuary boundary that are currently on Michigan and federal lists of endangered, threatened,

and rare species are identified in Tables 4.13 and

4.14.

muskrat, red fox, raccoon, long-tailed weasel,

mink, river otter, and white-tailed deer

(Herdendorf et al. 1980:760). The wetlands of

Lake Huron are essential habitat for beaver,

muskrat, mink, and river otter (USFWS

1988:72). For detailed information on the

distribution, life histories, and habitat preferences

of Michigan mammals, consult Baker (1983).

❍ AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES

The six primary aquatic nuisance species in the

Thunder Bay region are the zebra mussel, the

spiny water flea, the sea lamprey, the round

goby, the white perch, and the Eurasian ruffe.

An aquatic nuisance species is defined as a

waterborne, non-indigenous organism that

threatens: (1) the diversity or abundance of

native species, (2) the ecological stability of

infested waters, or (3) a commercial, agricultural,

aquacultural, or recreational activity dependent

on infested waters (Michigan DNR 1995). As

shown in Figures 4.71 and 4.72, zebra mussels

have extensively colonized shipwrecks throughout Thunder Bay.

The populations of sea lamprey are controlled

through application of the chemical lampricide

TFM to Great Lakes streams. Presently, there

are only two streams within the Sanctuary

boundary that are on the treatment schedule

(McClain, personal communication 1995). Thunder Bay Divers

Figure 4.71 (above) and 4.72 (below) Zebra mussels have

colonized shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region.

THE SANCTUARY SETTING SECTION 4
181

Table 4.14 Listing of federal endangered, threatened, and rare species.

Fish

Birds Bald Eagle

Shortjaw Cisco

Lake Sturgeon

Deepwater Cisco

Kiyi

Fish Channel Darter

Lake Sturgeon

Shortjaw Cisco

Sauger

Kiyi

 Endangered Threatened Rare Special Concerns

Table 4.13 Listing of State of Michigan endangered, threatened, and rare species.

 Caspian Tern

 Common Tern

 Common Loon

 Osprey

 Red Shouldered Hawk

Birds Black-crowned Night

Heron

 Endangered Threatened Rare Special Concerns

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

None

SECTION 4 THE SANCTUARY SETTING
Section 5

Alternatives
183

SECTION 5

ALTERNATIVES

NOAA’s Preferred Alternatives

for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

A. INTRODUCTION

The Alternatives section provides a comparative

analysis of a range of possible federal actions, in

this case whether or not to designate a National

Marine Sanctuary, and if so, what boundary,

regulatory, and administrative alternatives to

accept. These alternatives are compared in

terms of the resources and human uses identified in Section 4, The Sanctuary Setting, and in

light of the relative environmental consequences

from the various agency actions (alternatives) that

may be taken.

The Alternatives section presents four sets of

alternatives related to the designation and

management of the Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary (Figure 5.1). The information

provided in this section should help answer the

following questions:

1. Should Thunder Bay be designated as a

National Marine Sanctuary?

If the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is

designated:

2. What should the boundaries be?

3. What should the NOAA Sanctuary regulations include?

4. How should the permit system be administered?

❍ NOAA would designate Thunder Bay as

a National Marine Sanctuary.

❍ NOAA would adopt a boundary of the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

marked at the north by the

northernmost Presque Isle Lighthouse

and at the south by the Sturgeon Point

Lighthouse. The boundary would

extend lakeward to longitude 83

degrees west and would establish a

Sanctuary of 808 square miles.

❍ NOAA would adopt regulations similar to

those used in other Sanctuaries to protect

underwater cultural resources and

consistent with State of Michigan law.

❍ The State of Michigan, another federal

agency, or NOAA would issue permits for

research or recovery of underwater

cultural resources.
184

All of the alternatives are based on the determination that the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary would focus solely on the underwater

cultural resources of the region and not be

involved in the protection or management of

natural resources.

Comprehensive ecosystem management of

natural resources was rejected during the

feasibility process as a management option by

the Thunder Bay Core Group. This was based

in part on a conclusion that the State of Michigan

has adequate authority to manage natural resources in Thunder Bay.

The alternatives, therefore, consider the natural

resources of Thunder Bay only in terms of their

scenic or aesthetic qualities, and only as they

relate to the cultural landscape of the region.

Figure 5.1 Alternatives related to designation and management of the Thunder Bay NMS.

Sanctuary Designation?

No

Status Quo

(Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve)

Yes

Boundary

Alternatives

Regulatory

Alternatives

Administrative

 Alternatives

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5
185

Summary of Preferred Alternatives

Sanctuary Designation Alternatives

 A. No Sanctuary designation: NOAA would not designate Thunder Bay as a National

Marine Sanctuary (the “status quo” or “no action” alternative). Thunder Bay would continue to

be administered as a State of Michigan underwater preserve.

 B. Sanctuary designation: NOAA would designate and establish the Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary. All levels of government, organizations, and businesses would work together

to comprehensively manage the underwater cultural resources of the Thunder Bay region in

the context of the maritime cultural landscape (NOAA’s preferred alternative).

If NOAA designates the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the following additional

alternatives and questions need to be discussed:

Boundary Alternatives

 A. Existing Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve: NOAA would adopt the existing statedesignated underwater preserve, which is 288 square miles, as the Sanctuary boundary.

 B. Alpena County latitudes: NOAA would use the northern and southern latitudes of

Alpena County and extend the lakeward boundary to longitude 83 degrees west. This boundary alternative is 448 square miles.

 C. Presque Isle Harbor to Sturgeon Point: NOAA would adopt a northern boundary

marked by the northernmost Presque Isle Lighthouse, and a southern boundary marked by the

Sturgeon Point Lighthouse. The boundary would extend lakeward to longitude 83 degrees

west and establish a Sanctuary of 808 square miles (NOAA’s preferred alternative).

Regulatory Alternatives

 A. State of Michigan: NOAA would adopt regulations that mirror State of Michigan law to

protect underwater cultural resources.

 B. Other Sanctuaries: NOAA would adopt regulations similar to those used in other

Sanctuaries to protect underwater cultural resources. The regulations would be consistent with

State of Michigan law (NOAA’s preferred alternative).

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES
186

Summary of Preferred Alternatives (continued)

Administrative Alternatives

 A. Permits issued by NOAA: All Sanctuary permits would be issued solely by NOAA.

These Sanctuary permits would be in addition to existing permits issued by state and/or other

federal agencies. The State of Michigan would be involved in the review of Sanctuary permits

through Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

 B. Permits issued either by the State of Michigan, a federal agency, or NOAA: (1) the State

of Michigan would continue to issue permits under state law related to underwater cultural

resources; (2) for activities involving permits from other federal agencies, NOAA would address

Sanctuary concerns through the review and authorization, and if necessary, the placing of

conditions on federal permits; or (3) for an activity adversely impacting underwater cultural

resources but that requires neither a state permit nor a permit from another federal agency, a

Sanctuary permit would need to be obtained directly from NOAA in order to conduct the

activity ( NOAA’s preferred alternative).

1. SANCTUARY DESIGNATION ALTERNATIVES

A. No Sanctuary designation: NOAA would not

designate Thunder Bay as a National Marine

Sanctuary (the “status quo” or “no action”

alternative). Thunder Bay would continue to be

administered as a State of Michigan underwater preserve.

Under Designation Alternative A, existing management authorities (federal, state, tribal, and

regional agencies) having responsibilities in the

Thunder Bay region would retain authority and

Thunder Bay would not be designated as a

National Marine Sanctuary. The long-term

protection and management of Thunder Bay’s

underwater cultural resources would remain

with existing local, state, federal, and tribal

authorities and programs.

Management of underwater cultural resources in

Michigan is defined by Part 761, Aboriginal

Records and Antiquities of Public Act (P.A.) 451

(1994), as amended, and Part 325, Great Lakes

Submerged Lands of P. A. 451 (1994), as

amended. In addition, the federal Abandoned

Shipwreck Act (ASA) of 1987 applies to abandoned shipwrecks in Michigan waters.

Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities of

P. A. 451, authorizes the establishment of Michigan underwater preserves to protect “abandoned property of historical value, or ecological,

educational, geological, or scenic features or

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5
187

formations having recreational, educational, or

scientific value.” Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands of P. A. 451, provides for oversight and control of activities on state-owned

bottomlands of the Great Lakes. See Appendices E and F for the full text of these state laws.

Under Designation Alternative A, the existing

legal protection now provided by Part 761 and

Part 325 in the underwater preserves would be

provided throughout the Sanctuary. These

existing laws have gaps, however, which leave

certain underwater cultural resources unprotected from salvage and personal collection.

With no additional Sanctuary regulations, there

would be no supplemental protection of underwater cultural resources that are not protected

under the existing legal regime. For additional

discussion on this topic, refer to the regulatory

alternatives in this section.

The Michigan Department of Environmental

Quality’s (DEQ) Land and Water Management

Division and the Department of State’s (DOS)

Michigan Historical Center are responsible for

the management of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve, as well as for underwater cultural

resources outside of the Preserve boundaries.

The Michigan Underwater Salvage and Preserve

Committee provides technical and other assistance to the Director of the DEQ and the

Secretary of DOS for actions relating to Michigan

underwater preserves and the management of

underwater cultural resources (e.g., creation of

preserves, permit applications, permit fees,

legislation, and rules).

Examples of past projects in the Alpena area and

the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve include

mooring buoys, interpretive signs, and displays.

These projects were funded through grants

issued by the Michigan Coastal Management

Program in cooperation with nonprofit organizations in Alpena. Development of informational

materials and maintenance of mooring buoy

systems are supported through the volunteer

efforts of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve

Committee and the Alpena Area Chamber of

Commerce. Outreach and technical assistance

are provided by Michigan Sea Grant Extension,

Michigan State University, and The University of

Michigan.

Dedicated state funding and staff support, however, are limited for administration of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve and the management of underwater cultural resources. Currently, the DEQ and DOS each have only one staff

person to oversee the underwater preserve program, which consists of nine underwater preserves. The primary responsibility of the existing

staff is to review permit applications and address

other regulatory issues raised by the public. The

one staff person in the DEQ works on two programs and is estimated to work only 10 – 15%

of his time on the underwater preserve program.

Given the number of underwater preserves and

the limited staff, adequate time and resources are

not available at present to develop coordinated

educational, research and enforcement efforts,

particularly efforts dedicated to underwater cultural resources and the associated maritime heritage of the Thunder Bay region.

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES
188

(Figure 5.2). These boundary alternatives

evolved as a result of information collected for

the Thunder Bay Region Inventory of Resources

(Vrana 1993) and through input received from

regional experts and community members

throughout the feasibility process.

During the feasibility process, NOAA considered

a boundary that ran north to Presque Isle Harbor, south to Sturgeon Point Lighthouse, and

eastward in an arc formation so the point of the

arc touched longitude 83 degrees west. Given

the similarity to another boundary alternative

(described below as Boundary Alternative C),

NOAA decided to include only one of these

boundary alternatives for the following reasons:

(1) the number of known, probable, and suspected shipwrecks is similar to the arc boundary,

and (2) it would be very difficult to identify,

administer, and enforce a boundary with an arc.

BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES

 A. Existing Thunder Bay Underwater

Preserve: NOAA would adopt the existing

state-designated underwater preserve, which is

288 square miles, as the Sanctuary boundary.

 B. Alpena County latitudes: NOAA would

use the northern and southern latitudes of

Alpena County and extend the boundary

lakeward to longitude 83 degrees west. This

boundary alternative is 448 square miles.

 C. Presque Isle Harbor to Sturgeon Point:

NOAA would adopt a northern boundary

B. Sanctuary designation: NOAA would

designate Thunder Bay as a National Marine

Sanctuary. All levels of government,

organizations, and businesses would work

together to comprehensively manage the

underwater cultural resources of the Thunder

Bay region in the context of the maritime

cultural landscape (NOAA’s preferred

alternative).

Under Designation Alternative B, NOAA would

designate Thunder Bay as a National Marine

Sanctuary. The Sanctuary would provide supplemental protection of underwater cultural resources, and supplemental resources for education, interpretation, personnel, research, and

administration. This would lead to more comprehensive management of underwater cultural

resources in the Thunder Bay region. NOAA

estimates that the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary would receive at least $200,000

annually in federal funds from NOAA.

Section 3 of this document, Management Plan,

describes many of the activities that NOAA, the

State of Michigan, local agencies, nonprofit

organizations, and other partners could undertake if the Sanctuary is designated.

The implications of designating a Sanctuary are

described below in the context of the boundary

alternatives, regulatory alternatives, and administrative alternatives.

2. BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES

This section discusses boundary alternatives for

the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5
189

marked by the northernmost Presque Isle

Lighthouse, and a southern boundary

marked by the Sturgeon Point Lighthouse.

The boundary would extend lakeward to

longitude 83 degrees west and establish a

Sanctuary of 808 square miles (NOAA’s

preferred alternative).

All boundary alternatives include Thunder Bay

proper and encompass almost all of the existing

Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve. Boundary

Alternatives B and C omit a small portion of the

eastern boundary of the Preserve which extends

lakeward just beyond longitude 83 degrees west.

The landward extent of all boundary alternatives

is Lake Huron’s ordinary high water mark and,

therefore, does not affect any activities on land.

For an explanation of the ordinary high water

mark, see Figure 5.3.

Criteria were selected to evaluate boundary

alternatives. Selection of criteria was based on

the goals of the NMS Program, the goals of the

Thunder Bay NMS, and the needs of the State of

Michigan and regional communities.

Boundary evaluation criteria are:

1. Known, probable, and suspected locations of

shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay region;

2. Known probable, and suspected locations of

nationally historic shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay

region;

3. Maritime cultural landscape of the Thunder

Bay region, including lighthouses/lifesaving

stations, known and suspected historic and

prehistoric sites, natural and aesthetic resources,

and coastal communities;

4. Accessibility to underwater cultural resources and associated Sanctuary facilities and

services;

5. Existing and potential infrastructure for

community recreation and tourism, and other

Sanctuary support services (e.g., education,

research); and

6. Effectiveness and efficiency of Sanctuary

management and administration.

Criterion 1: Known, probable, and suspected

shipwrecks

The location of shipwrecks is an important

criterion in determining the boundary of the

Sanctuary because these resources are the

focus for management. Known total losses are

defined as vessels for which archaeological

evidence and/or strong historical documentation

(three primary sources or more) confirm the

existence and location where they were

stranded, foundered, burned/exploded, or

abandoned. Probable total losses include those

vessels for which oral tradition, one or more

historical primary sources, or three or more

reliable secondary sources, confirm their

location. Suspected total losses encompass

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES
190

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5

Alternative A (288 sq. miles)

Alternative B (448 sq. miles)

Alternative C (808 sq. miles)

Figure 5.2 Boundary alternatives for the Thunder Bay NMS.
191

A. LOW WATER LEVEL SCENARIO B. HIGH WATER LEVEL SCENARIO

Water’s

Edge

Ordinary HighWater Mark

(Sanctuary

Boundary)

Riparian

Owner

Ordinary High-Water Mark

Water’s

Edge

Outside

sanctuary

boundary

Sanctuary

Boundary

Figure 5.3 Explanation of the ordinary high water mark as the landward boundary.

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES

The inland boundary of the Sanctuary is the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) on Lake

Huron. The OHWM is permanently set in statute in Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands,

of P. A. 451 (1994), as amended. On Lake Huron, the OHWM is fixed at 580.5 feet

International Great Lakes Datum (IGLD) above sea level. The OHWM is the legal boundary

separating state-controlled bottomlands from private property. This mark represents the line

between upland (private property) and bottomlands (state-owned property) regardless of the

actual level of the lake.

When the water’s edge is below the OHWM, a landowner with waterfront property has

exclusive use of the exposed bottomland and may post this area (e.g., place a “No Trespassing”

sign). The landowner retains all access rights to the lake. However, the bottomlands and any

cultural artifacts protected under state law remain under state control. Under the Sanctuary

regulations, all underwater cultural resources located below the OHWM would be managed

and protected under Sanctuary regulations.

When the water’s edge is above the OHWM, the public is free to navigate, fish, and hunt on the

entire water area. Michigan Common Law provides that if you have gained lawful access to the

water, you may walk along the shore, provided that you remain in the water. The submerged

area above the OHWM would not be considered part of the Sanctuary.

If a person found an underwater cultural resource (as defined in the Sanctuary regulations) on a

portion of a beach that was below the OHWM and therefore within the Sanctuary boundary, it

would be covered under Sanctuary regulations.

If a person found an artifact above the OHWM and thus outside the Sanctuary boundary, it

would not be considered a Sanctuary resource and that person would not be in violation of the

Sanctuary regulations.
192

those shipwrecks listed in secondary sources, but

not confirmed by primary documents, oral

tradition, or archaeological fieldwork.

Criterion 2: Nationally historic shipwrecks

The mission of the NMS Program is to manage

nationally significant ecological and cultural

resources within marine and Great Lakes environments for the benefit of current and future

generations. Therefore, the boundaries of the

Sanctuary must encompass those underwater

cultural resources having national historic significance, as well as those having regional or local

significance. For additional discussion on national

significance, refer to Section 4, The Sanctuary

Setting.

Criterion 3: Maritime cultural landscape

The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

should be considered in the context of the

maritime cultural landscape of the region. Cultural landscape is described by the National Park

Service as a geographic area including the following components: cultural and natural resources;

coastal environments; and human communities

and related scenery that are associated with

historic events, activities, or persons, or that

exhibit other cultural or aesthetic values (NPS

1992). Most of the cultural landscape would not

be regulated by NOAA because the landward

boundary of the Sanctuary would stop at the

ordinary high water mark. However, NOAA

would work in partnership with other governmental and non-governmental entities to develop research and education programs that

encourage residents and visitors to understand,

appreciate, and become stewards of the maritime cultural landscape.

In determining the boundaries of the Sanctuary,

the lighthouses/lifesaving stations, historic and

prehistoric coastal sites, and associated coastal

communities should be considered as part of the

cultural landscape. The quality of the cultural

landscape provides context and meaning to the

management, education, and research programs

of the Sanctuary. The quality of the cultural

landscape also enhances or detracts from the

experiences of Sanctuary visitors.

Criterion 4: Accessibility to the Sanctuary

resources and associated facilities and services

The primary mission of the NMS Program is to

protect resources while facilitating existing and

multiple uses within the Sanctuary to the extent

compatible with the primary mission. This

cannot be accomplished without the active

involvement and interaction of Sanctuary users

with Sanctuary resources, facilities, and programs. Visitors to the Sanctuary must have

access to the resources found within the boundaries of the Sanctuary, and to the facilities and

services associated with the Sanctuary. The

Thunder Bay NMS must provide programs that

are meaningful and accessible to visitors, divers

and non-divers alike. Criterion 4 focuses on the

facilities and services that are directly connected

or enhance accessibility to Lake Huron and the

resources of the Sanctuary.

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5
193

Criterion 5: Infrastructure for recreation,

tourism, and Sanctuary support services

Because it is important for visitors to have access

to the resources and programs of the Sanctuary,

an infrastructure must be available to accommodate and support visitors. The infrastructure has

the potential to enhance or detract from the

experiences of visitors. This infrastructure could

include public boat launching facilities, waterbased recreation services (e.g., charter services

and boat rentals), maritime attractions (e.g.,

museums, interpretive centers, and historic

structures), conference facilities, and research/

education facilities. Infrastructure is considered

for the following coastal communities that are

either within or near the boundaries of the

Sanctuary: Harrisville, Black River, Ossineke,

Alpena, Presque Isle, and Rogers City.

Criterion 6: Effectiveness and efficiency of

Sanctuary management

Consideration must be given to maximizing the

effectiveness and efficiency of Sanctuary management. Many aspects of Sanctuary management

are included in Criteria 1 – 5. However, other

aspects deserving consideration include the

ability by users to identify the Sanctuary boundary, and the availability or proximity of enforcement personnel and visitor safety services in

relation to the boundaries of the Sanctuary.

Enforcement personnel could include the U.S.

Coast Guard, Michigan DNR conservation

officers, Michigan State Police, and the Sheriff

Marine Patrols. Visitor safety providers include

the U.S. Coast Guard, hospitals, and hyperbaric

facilities (for scuba divers).

Analysis of Boundary Alternatives A, B, and C

A larger number of known, probable, and

suspected shipwrecks, as well as those shipwrecks of potential national historic significance

are included in Boundary Alternative C, as

compared to Boundary Alternatives A and B

(Tables 5.1 and 5.2; Figure 5.4). The shipwrecks

of potential national historic significance are the

Havre, H. Hubbard, Kyle Spangler, John F. Warner,

James Mowatt, New Orleans, Grecian, and the

Isaac M. Scott (Martin 1996). Potential national

historic significance was evaluated by Martin

(1996) using criteria of the National Historic

Landmark Program.

It is important to consider the coastal maritime

resources adjacent to Sanctuary boundaries as

part of the maritime cultural landscape, although

the boundaries of the Sanctuary would not

extend landward of the ordinary high water

mark. Coastal maritime resources include

lighthouses/lifesaving stations, and historic and

prehistoric sites. Boundary Alternatives A and B

are adjacent to the Lighthouses at Middle Island

and Thunder Bay Island, while Boundary Alternative C also includes the Presque Isle Lighthouses and Sturgeon Point Lighthouse (Figures

5.5 and 5.6). Boundary Alternative C is adjacent

to Negwegon State Park, known to have numerous coastal historic and prehistoric sites (Table

5.3).

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES
194

Boundary Alternatives A and B extend to about

the middle of Negwegon State Park. An equal

number of islands are adjacent to the Sanctuary

in all boundaries, with the exception of Black

River Island off Alcona County, included in

Boundary Alternative C.

Alpena is the central coastal community in all of

the boundary alternatives. Boundary Alternatives

A, B, and C are adjacent to or include the

community of Ossineke. Boundary Alternative

Table 5.1 Number of known, probable, and suspected shipwrecks by boundary alternative.

C is also adjacent to or nearby Harrisville, Black

River, Presque Isle, and Rogers City. All boundary alternatives have diverse natural scenery

along the shoreline.

Access to Sanctuary resources, associated

facilities and services, and interaction with

Sanctuary visitors are important to the comprehensive management of the Sanctuary. Access

points include coastal parks, public beaches,

harbors and marinas, and coastal visitors’ centers

Havre, H.

Isaac M. Scott James Mowatt

Hubbard

Hubbard

Hubbard

Havre, H.

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5

Boundary # of Known # of Probable # of Suspected Total

 Shipwrecks Shipwrecks Shipwrecks

A 26 71 15 112

B 28 73 15 116

C 34 83 43 160

Table 5.2 Shipwrecks of potential national historic significance.

Boundary Vessels with Known Vessels with Probable Vessels with Suspected

Locations Locations Locations

 A John F. Warner, New Kyle Spangler

 Orleans, Grecian

 B John F. Warner, New Kyle Spangler

 Orleans, Grecian

 C John F. Warner, New Kyle Spangler,

 Orleans, Grecian, Havre, H.,
195

Figure 5.4 Locations of known shipwrecks, and estimated locations of probable and suspected shipwrecks within boundary

 alternatives of the Thunder Bay NMS.

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES
196

Michigan Historical Center

Figure 5.6 Sturgeon Point Lighthouse, constructed in 1869.

The Penrose Family

Figure 5.5 Presque Isle Lighthouse, constructed in 1870.

existing coastal visitor center and/or museum.

Alpena’s facilities and services are available in all

boundary alternatives. The larger area of

Boundary Alternative C includes local charter

boat operators in Presque Isle and Alcona

counties; public boat launching facilities at

Presque Isle, Rockport, and Black River; and the

lighthouses at Sturgeon Point and Presque Isle.

Boundary Alternative C also has more diverse

facilities and services available due to the close

proximity to Rogers City and Harrisville (Tables

5.4 and 5.5).

In terms of effectiveness and efficiency of Sanctuary operation, Boundary Alternative A is already

recognized as the existing Thunder Bay Underand museums. Boundary Alternatives A, B, and

C have similar numbers of parks and beaches

with the exception of Negwegon State Park.

Boundary Alternative C is adjacent to

Negwegon State Park, an addition of approximately three miles of public beaches and coastal

resources. Boundary Alternative C provides

significant opportunities for visitor interaction and

access to Sanctuary resources by being adjacent

to the public boat launch site at Rockport and to

Presque Isle Harbor. Presque Isle Harbor

includes a public marina, two lighthouses, and a

visitor center. Boundary Alternative C is also

adjacent to the Sturgeon Point Lighthouse and its

associated visitors’ center and museum. Boundary Alternatives A and B are not adjacent to any

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5
197

water Preserve. Boundary Alternative B is

identified by the north and south boundaries of

Alpena County, which lack obvious landmarks.

Boundary Alternative C is the most recognizable

boundary, because the north and south boundaries are lighthouses. Potentially, more enforcement personnel would be available for Boundary

Alternative C because it includes Alcona and

Presque Isle Counties (Table 5.6).

Boundary Alternative C:

NOAA’s Preferred Alternative

Boundary Alternative C (north to Presque Isle

Harbor, south to Sturgeon Point Lighthouse, and

lakeward to longitude 83 degrees west) is

NOAA’s preferred boundary alternative. This

boundary is preferred because it includes the

greatest number of shipwrecks known to be in

the Thunder Bay region, and encompasses the

greatest area for protecting those shipwreck sites

having probable or suspected locations in the

region. The larger Sanctuary boundary would

allow for continued research efforts to locate,

identify, and assess these shipwrecks. Boundary

Alternative C protects the known locations of the

shipwrecks identified as having potential national

historic significance.

Boundary Alternative C is an excellent complement to the maritime cultural landscape and is

representative of the maritime history of the

Thunder Bay region. The boundary is readily

identifiable, marked by the Sturgeon Point

Lighthouse to the south, and the Presque Isle

Lighthouses to the north. Both Sturgeon Point

and Presque Isle Lighthouses have visitors’

centers and museums, which allow for easy

access by Sanctuary visitors. The lakeward

boundary of the Sanctuary (longitude 83 degrees

west) is also readily identifiable. Boundary

Alternative C includes or is adjacent to all of the

primary coastal wetlands and the islands of the

Thunder Bay region.

Boundary Alternative C is adjacent to

Negwegon State Park and its coastal historic and

prehistoric sites. The Park contains approximately seven miles of undeveloped sandy and

rocky beaches which provides access to the

Sanctuary. Close proximity of the Sanctuary to

Negwegon State Park helps foster the development of partnerships with the Park for education

and research activities. Boundary Alternative C

is also near many other state, county, and city

coastal parks along the shoreline. Alpena is the

central community to Boundary Alternative C.

Boundary Alternative C is also adjacent to or

nearby the communities of Harrisville, Black

River, Ossineke, Presque Isle and Rogers City.

This regional network of communities spanning

three counties provides a diverse infrastructure

for supporting Sanctuary programs, services, and

visitors. The multiple political districts further

strengthen the vision of cooperative and participatory management of the underwater cultural

resources of the Thunder Bay region. All levels

of government could share a collective responsibility to retain and protect those underwater

cultural resources.

In summary, Boundary Alternative C is the

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES
198

Table 5.3 Maritime cultural landscape.

Boundary Lighthouses/ Other Islands Coastal Diversity of

Lightsaving Historic and Communities Natural Landscape

Stations Prehistoric

Coastal Sites

 A Thunder Bay Devils River Bird, Alpena, Wetlands of Squaw Bay;

Island prehistoric Scarecrow, Ossineke. residential development of

Lighthouse, shrine, Devils Sulpher, Grass, Partridge Point; Alpena City

Middle Island River burial Crooked, harbor and waterfront

Lighthouse. ground, Misery, Round, development;

Norwegian Sugar, undeveloped rocky shoreline of

Creek Thunder Bay, North Point; residential

settlement, Gull, Middle, development of Thunder Bay:

Hooley Creek and 15 undeveloped Islands with the

settlement, unnamed Islands. exceptions of Middle Island and

Thunder Bay Thunder Bay Island

Island and Sugar Lighthouses; Middle Island

Island commercial Lighthouse as a

fishing camps. visible boundary endpoint.

 B Same as Same as Same as Same as Sandy beach frontage at

Boundary A. Boundary A. Boundary A. Boundary A. Negwegon Park; wetlands of

Squaw Bay; residential

development of Partridge Point;

Alpena City harbor and

waterfront development;

undeveloped rocky shoreline of

North Point; residential

development of Thunder Bay;

undeveloped Islands with the

exception of Middle Island and

Thunder Bay Island Lighthouses.

 C Same as Same as Same as Same as Sturgeon Point Lighthouse as a

Boundary A, Boundary A. Boundary A, Boundary A, visible boundary endpoint; miles

and and Harrisville, of sandy frontage at Negwegon

Sturgeon Black River, State Park; wetlands of Squaw

Point Presque Isle, Bay, residential development

Lighthouse, Rogers City. of Partridge Point;

Presque Isle Alpena City harbor and

Lighthouses. waterfront development;

undeveloped rocky

shoreline along North

Point; minimal residential

development of Misery Bay;

undeveloped islands with the

exception of Middle Island and

Thunder Bay Island Lighthouses;

minimal residential development

from Rockport to Presque Isle;

Presque Isle Lighthouse as a

boundary endpoint.

and Black River

Island.
199

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES

Table 5.5 Infrastructure for tourism, recreation, and Sanctuary support services.

Boundary Coastal Water-based Conference Education/ Public Boat Maritime

Communities Recreation Facilities Research Launching Attractions

Services Facilities Facilities

A Alpena, Thunder Bay Alpena Alpena Alpena Jesse Besser

Ossineke Divers, Trout Community Community Municipal Museum

Scout College, College Marina,

Chartering, Alpena North

Charlie’s Civic Riverfront

Charters, DES Center, Park, Devil’s

Charter Service, Alpena River Mouth,

Fishin’ Fun Holiday Inn Ossineke

Charter Service, State Forest

Lake & Stream Campground,

Charter Service, Snug Harbor

Bay Charters,

Bounty Hunter,

Three Harbors

B Same as Same as Same as Same as Same as Same as

Boundary A Boundary A Boundary A Boundary A Boundary A, Boundary A

and Rockport

C Same as Same as Same as Same as Same as Same as

Boundary A, Boundary A Boundary A Boundary A Boundary A, Boundary A, and

and Harrisville, and Sturgeon Point

Black River, Rockport, Lighthouse,

Presque Isle, Presque Isle Presque Isle

Rogers City Harbor. Lighthouses

Table 5.4 Accessibility to the Sanctuary resources, and associated facilities and services.

Boundary Coastal Parks & Miles of Public Public Harbors, Private Harbors & Coastal Visitor

Other Public Coastal Beaches Marinas Marinas Centers/

Lands (approximate) Museums

 A Bay View Park, 5.75 Alpena Partridge Point 0

Thompson Park, Municipal Marina

Blair Street Park, Marina

Mich-e-ke-wis Park,

Ossineke (Sanborn)

Park, Ossineke State

Forest, Negwegon

State Park

 B Same as 6.0 Same as Same as 0

Boundary A Boundary A Boundary A

 C Same as Boundary A, 8.75 Same as Same as Sturgeon Point

and Negwegon Boundary A, Boundary A Lighthouse, Presque

State Park, Huron and Presque Isle Lighthouses

National Forest Isle Harbor
200

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5

3. REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES (REGULATIONS TO

 PROTECT UNDERWATER CULTURAL RESOURCES)

Regulatory alternatives describe substantive

options for protecting underwater cultural

resources of the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary. The evaluation of regulatory alternatives was conducted as a series of meetings that

included written materials developed by NOAA

and the Thunder Bay Core Group (for a more

complete discussion of this process, refer to

Section 2, Background). As part of this process,

NOAA and the Thunder Bay Core Group

concluded that there was no evidence of adpreferred boundary alternative because it protects a collection of shipwrecks that is representative of Great Lakes maritime history and has

potential national historic significance. Boundary

Alternative C best complements and enhances

the cultural landscape and maritime history of the

Thunder Bay region. The boundary is readily

identifiable to Sanctuary visitors, staff, and enforcement personnel, and to other agencies with

management responsibilities in the region.

Adoption of this boundary provides high quality

access for visitors using Sanctuary resources and

for Sanctuary staff interacting with visitors.

Table 5.6 Effectiveness and efficiency of Sanctuary management.

Boundary Ease of Boundary # of Possible Agency Resources Visitor Safety Services

Recognition and Enforcement Personnel

Accessible to Boundary

A One visible endpoint Alpena County Sheriff’s Alpena

with Middle Island Marine Patrol (1 full time; Community

Lighthouse; 150 ft volunteers; 1 30ft boat) Hospital,

contour line 15 Coast Guard (1 full time; recompression

1 seasonal; Coast Guard chambers in

Auxiliary; 1 boat); Michigan Kalamazoo,

State Police for dive recovery; Grand Rapids,

Michigan DNR Conservation Marquette, and

Officers Milwaukee, WI

B No visible endpoints Same as Boundary A Same as

(county lines); 83 Boundary A

degrees longitude

west

C Two visible Same as A plus, Alcona Same as

endpoints- Sturgeon County Sheriff’s Marine Patrol Boundary A

Point Lighthouse and (2 part time; 1 boat) Presque

Presque Isle Isle County Sheriff’s Marine

Lighthouses; Patrol (1 full time; 1 boat);

longitude 83 Michigan DNR Conservation

degrees Officers (2 in Alcona County

west with 1 boat)
201

Aboriginal Records and Antiquities, of

P. A. 451 (1994), as amended, and Part 325,

protect underwater cultural resources. The

regulations would be consistent with the purpose and intent of state law under Part 761,

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES

law and apply to the entire Sanctuary, rather than

just the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve. In

addition, the Sanctuary regulations would provide for the control of “hand-taking” of artifacts

from all locations within Sanctuary boundaries.

Under Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities of P. A. 451, a person may recover abandoned property outside an underwater preserve

without a permit if the abandoned property is

not attached to or located near the immediate

vicinity of and associated with a sunken aircraft or

watercraft, and if the abandoned property is

recoverable by hand without mechanical or

other assistance. Under Regulatory Alternative

A, “hand-taking” activities would be prohibited

within the boundaries of the Sanctuary, including

locations outside of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve. This represents the most significant

change between state law and the Sanctuary

regulations under Regulatory Alternative A.

B. Other Sanctuaries: NOAA would adopt

regulations similar to those used in other

Sanctuaries to protect underwater cultural

resources. The regulations would be consistent

with State of Michigan law (NOAA’s preferred

alternative).

Under Regulatory Alternative B, NOAA would

adopt Sanctuary regulations that are generally

used in other National Marine Sanctuaries to

verse impacts upon natural resources. Because

the national significance of Thunder Bay natural

resources and ecosystems is not established, the

conclusion was made that a comprehensive

ecosystem management approach is not

needed. The regulatory alternatives, therefore,

focus only on underwater cultural resources.

The regulatory alternatives identified for the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary are:

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

A. State of Michigan: NOAA would adopt

regulations that mirror State of Michigan law

protecting underwater cultural resources.

B. Other Sanctuaries: NOAA would adopt

regulations similar to those used in other

Sanctuaries to protect underwater cultural

resources. The law would be consistent

with State of Michigan law (NOAA’s preferred

alternative).

A. State of Michigan: NOAA would adopt

Sanctuary regulations that mirror State of

Michigan law protecting underwater cultural

resources.

Under Regulatory Alternative A, NOAA would

adopt Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities, of P. A. 451 (1994), as amended, and Part

325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands, of P. A. 451

(1994), as amended.

The Sanctuary regulations would mirror state
202

Great Lakes Submerged Lands, of P. A. 451

(1994), as amended. These types of Sanctuary

regulations have proven to be an effective safety

net for protection of underwater cultural resources (Craft v. National Park Service 34 F. 3d

918 [9th Cir. 1994]).

In response to public comments on the DEIS/

DMP, NOAA made several changes to Regulatory Alternative B which makes this alternative

closer to Regulatory Alternative A.

The first change is the definition of “underwater

cultural resource.” Several comments noted

that the definition of “underwater cultural resource” in the draft Sanctuary regulations was

vague and too broad. NOAA is therefore revising the definition to make it more consistent with

the State definition of “abandoned property” and

provide more predictability to Sanctuary users

about what NOAA is managing and protecting.

The State definition of “abandoned property”

(which is the state term for underwater cultural

resources) is:

“an aircraft, a watercraft, including a ship,

boat, canoe, skiff, raft, or barge; the rigging,

gear, fittings, trappings, and equipment of an

aircraft or watercraft; the personal property of

the officers, crew, and passengers of an aircraft

or watercraft; and the cargo of an aircraft or

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5

Jesse Besser Museum

Figure 5.7 An ice boat on Thunder Bay around the turn of the 20th century.
203

watercraft which have been deserted, relinquished, cast away, or left behind for which attempts at reclamation have been abandoned

by owners and insurers. Abandoned property

also means materials resulting from activities of

historic and prehistoric Native Americans.”

NOAA is proposing in the final regulations to

adopt the state definition of “abandoned property” with the following modifications:

❍ The regulations would apply to all shipwrecks, not just those that are abandoned;

❍ References to “aircraft” are deleted;

❍ To be covered by the Sanctuary regulations,

the underwater cultural resource must exist

in the Sanctuary at the time of Sanctuary designation; and

❍ Historical remnants of docks and piers are

added.

The definition of “underwater cultural resource”

in the draft final Sanctuary regulations is:

any sunken watercraft, including a ship,

boat, canoe, skiff, raft, or barge; the rigging, gear, fittings, trappings, and equipment of any watercraft; the personal property of the officers, crew, and passengers of

any watercraft; and the cargo of any watercraft, that existed prior to the effective

date of Sanctuary designation. Underwater cultural resource also means historical

remnant of docks or piers or associated

material, or materials resulting from activities of historic and prehistoric Native

Americans. For any other underwater cultural resource to be considered a Sanctuary resource, it must meet the criteria set

forth in § 922.196.

The second change is the wording of one of the

prohibitions in the Sanctuary regulations. NOAA

included language in the draft final regulations

that is similar to language in Part 761, Aboriginal

Records and Antiquities. The prohibition now

reads, “recovering, altering, destroying, possessing, or attempting to recover, alter, destroy, or

possess an underwater cultural resource.”

The third change is to add a prohibition on the

use of grappling hooks and other anchoring devices on underwater cultural resource sites that

are marked with a mooring buoy.

The Sanctuary regulations, (15 CFR §

922.192(a)(1)-(3)) under Regulatory Alternative

B include three prohibitions:

1) Recovering, altering, destroying, possessing,

or attempting to recover, alter, destroy, or

possess an underwater cultural resource;

2) Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering

the lakebottom associated with underwater

cultural resources, including contextual information; or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material or other matter

on the lakebottom associated with underwaSECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES
204

ter cultural resources, except as an incidental

result of:

i) anchoring vessels;

ii) traditional fishing operations; or

iii) minor projects that do not adversely affect underwater cultural resources; and

3) Using grappling hooks or other anchoring

devices on underwater cultural resource

sites that are marked with a mooring buoy.

In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement

described in Section 3 and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act, applications

for permits would be reviewed by the State Archaeologist and NOAA. Permits that strictly adhere to the Sanctuary regulations and/or relevant

state law would be deemed to be in compliance

with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and would not require approval of the

federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Permits that do not strictly adhere to the

Sanctuary regulations and/or relevant state law

would be subject to Section 106 review. See

Figure 5.8 for an overview of the Section 106

process.

A permit may be issued if the proposed activity

satisfies the permit requirements, and if the recovery of the underwater cultural resource is in

the public interest, is part of research to present

historical information for public use, or is necessary to protect the resource, preserve historical

information, or further the policies of the Thunder Bay NMS.

The Sanctuary regulations as proposed under

Regulatory Alternative B, would expand coverage to all shipwrecks, and not just “abandoned”

shipwrecks, as defined under state law and the

federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act. The Sanctuary regulations would, therefore, serve as a federal safety net for state underwater cultural resources that the State of Michigan is unable to

protect under either state law or the Abandoned

Shipwreck Act.

For the full text of NOAA’s draft final regulations,

refer to Section 3, Management Plan

(Attachment 1, pages 54 – 74).

Regulatory Alternative B:

NOAA’s Preferred Alternative

NOAA’s preferred alternative is Regulatory

Alternative B, to adopt regulations similar to

those used in other National Marine Sanctuaries

to protect underwater cultural resources (Part

922, National Marine Sanctuary Program Regulations). The Sanctuary regulations would be

consistent with State of Michigan law protecting

underwater cultural resources. Protection

would be provided for underwater cultural

resources that are not covered by existing state

law (i.e., property that is not abandoned), and

would provide a better safety net of protection

for underwater cultural resources that are

covered by state law. It is important to note that

under Regulatory Alternative B, the state permit

programs under Part 761, Aboriginal Records

and Antiquities of P. A. 451 and Part 325, Great

Lakes Submerged Lands of P. A. 451 would remain

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5
205

The National Historic Preservation Act:

A Look at the Section 106 Review*

Step 1: Identify and evaluate historic properties.

The Federal agency responsible for an undertaking begins by identifying the historic properties the undertaking may affect. To do this, the agency first reviews background information and consults with the State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and others who may know about historic properties in the area.

Step 2: Assess effects.

If historic properties (properties included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register) are found, the

agency then assesses what effect its undertaking will have on them. Again, the agency works with the

SHPO, and considers the views of others. The agency can make one of three determinations:

• No effect: the undertaking will not affect historic properties;

• No adverse effect: the undertaking will affect one or more historic properties, but the effect will

not be harmful;

• Adverse effect: the undertaking will harm one ore more historic properties.

Step 3: Consultation.

If an adverse effect will occur, the agency consults with the SHPO and others in an effort to find ways to

make the undertaking less harmful. Others who are consulted, under various circumstances, may include

local governments, Indian tribes, property owners, other members of the public, and the Council.

Consultation is designed to result in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which outlines measures

agreed upon that the agency will take to reduce, avoid, or mitigate the adverse effect.

Step 4: Council comment.

The Council may comment during step 3 of the process, by participating in consultation and signing the

resulting MOA. Otherwise, the agency obtains Council comment by submitting the MOA to the Council

for review and acceptance.

Step 5: Proceed.

If an MOA is executed, the agency proceeds with its undertaking under the terms of the MOA. In the

absence of an MOA, the agency head must take into account the Council’s written comments in deciding

whether and how to proceed.

Alternative approaches.

The Section 106 regulations also spell out three alternative means of complying with Section 106. These

are:

• Programmatic Agreements among an agency, the Council, one or more

SHPOs, and others;

• Counterpart regulations developed by an agency and approved by the Council;

• An agreement between the Council and a State, which substitutes a State

review system for the standard Section 106 review process.

*Source: Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law

Participant’s Coursebook p. III-148.

Figure 5.8 The National Historic Preservation Act, a look at the Section 106 Review.

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES
206

in effect. The Sanctuary regulations would build

upon and strengthen these existing state programs.

While Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities of P. A. 451 and the federal Abandoned

Shipwreck Act cover only abandoned property,

the Sanctuary regulations would be broader and

could regulate underwater cultural resources that

are not abandoned. Implementation of the

Sanctuary regulations would be limited, however, to activities in which no “taking” of private

property would occur. While Sanctuary regulations could not prohibit a person who owns

artifacts on a non-abandoned shipwreck from

removing these artifacts, the Sanctuary program

could require that individual to provide a report

to NOAA and the State of Michigan on the

contents removed and to videotape the shipwreck for documentation purposes. This

broader coverage of underwater cultural resources is possible because NOAA would

become a trustee of underwater cultural resources if Thunder Bay is designated as a National Marine Sanctuary.

The provision for protecting non-abandoned

shipwrecks is more important due to decisions in

various courts regarding the issue of abandonment. Some court decisions make it more

difficult for states to assert that shipwrecks are

abandoned.

If states are increasingly limited in the number of

shipwrecks and other underwater cultural

resources that are under their jurisdiction, the

protection of these resources is reduced. By

adopting Sanctuary regulations that are similar to

those used in other Sanctuaries to protect

underwater cultural resources, NOAA would

have greater authority to protect more of these

resources.

Along with federal designation and regulations,

public concerns arise in regard to federal intrusion into state and local matters and the loss of

state management and control over state

resources. These concerns are addressed in

general terms as part of the administrative

alternatives. Particular attention is given to the

proposed provision that provides for administration of permits by the State of Michigan for

certain activities affecting underwater cultural

resources.

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5
207

What Does the State of Michigan Regulate Now?

Aboriginal Records and Antiquities (Part 761 of Public Act 451)

•Requires a joint permit from the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department

of State for recovering, altering, or destroying abandoned property.

•Allows for the “hand-taking” (the taking of artifacts without mechanical assistance) of certain

abandoned property outside underwater preserve boundaries.

•Applies only to “abandoned” property (e.g., shipwrecks and associated artifacts that have been

deserted, relinquished, cast away, or left behind, and for which attempts at reclamation have

been abandoned by owners and insurers).

•The DEQ may assess fines for violations.

Great Lakes Submerged Lands (Part 325 of Public Act 451)

•Requires a permit and/or lease, deed, or other agreement from DEQ for the following

activities on Great Lakes bottomlands:

• dredging and/or filling bottomlands below the ordinary high water mark;

• placement or alteration of a structure on bottomlands below the ordinary

high water mark; and

• development, construction, and operation of a marina or other commerical structures.

•The DEQ may issue minor permits, as defined under the Part 325 administrative rules, if the

proposed activity of a minor nature is not controversial, has minimal adverse environmental

impact, etc.

•The DEQ may assess fines for violations.

Figure 5.9 What the State of Michigan regulates now.

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5
208

What is Different in the Sanctuary Regulations?

If the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is designated, relevant State of Michigan law and

administrative rules (Part 761 and Part 325) will continue to be implemented in the Sanctuary

boundary.

The following aspects of the Sanctuary regulations are different than what is currently regulated

under State of Michigan law:

• “Hand-taking” of artifacts outside the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve, but still within the

Sanctuary boundary, is prohibited.

• Underwater cultural resources are protected regardless of whether they are “abandoned.”

 The use of grappling hooks and other anchoring devices is prohibited on underwater cultural

resource sites that are marked with a mooring buoy.

• Permit applications are more detailed to satisfy the Federal Archaeology Program guidelines.

• As an additional enforcement mechanism, NOAA may assess civil penalties under the

National Marine Sanctuaries Act for violation of Sanctuary regulations.

Figure 5.10 What is different in the Sanctuary regulations.

Figure 5.11 What the Sanctuary regulations will not do.

•

What Will the Sanctuary Regulations NOT DO?

The Sanctuary regulations:

• will not assess a user fee for individuals to be in the Sanctuary;

• will not regulate or manage natural resources such as wetlands, fish, wildlife, or water;

• will not regulate activities on land; the inland boundary of the Sanctuary will stop at the

ordinary high water mark;

• will not prohibit fishing activities;

• will not limit access to fishing areas;

• will not create “no fishing” zones; and

• will not interfere with fish stocking programs or fishery research projects.

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES
209

ADMINISTRATIVE ALTERNATIVES

A. Permits issued by NOAA: All Sanctuary

permits would be issued solely by NOAA.

These Sanctuary permits would be in

addition to permits issued by the State and/

or other federal agencies. The State of

Michigan would be involved in the review

of Sanctuary permits through the National

Historic Preservation Act Section 106

process.

B. Permits issued either by the State of

Michigan, a federal agency, or NOAA:

(1) the State of Michigan would continue to

issue permits under state law related to

underwater cultural resources; (2) for

activities involving permits from other

federal agencies, NOAA would address

Sanctuary concerns through the review and

authorization, and if necessary, the placing

of conditions on the federal permits; or (3)

for an activity adversely impacting underwater cultural resources but that requires

neither a state permit nor a permit from

another federal agency, a Sanctuary permit

would need to be obtained directly from

NOAA in order to conduct the activity

(NOAA’s preferred alternative).

Under Administrative Alternative A, the State of

Michigan would continue to administer its permit

programs under Part 761, Aboriginal Records

and Antiquities of P.A. 451 (1994) as amended,

and Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands of

P.A. 451 (1994) as amended. However, in

addition to applying for a state permit, the permit

applicant would also apply for a Sanctuary permit

if the activity was prohibited by Sanctuary regulations. For example, if an individual proposed to

recover artifacts from an abandoned shipwreck,

that individual would apply for both a state

permit under Part 761 and a Sanctuary permit.

The State of Michigan would have the option of

being involved in the review of all Sanctuary

permits through the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 process.

B. Permits issued either by the State of Michigan, a federal agency, or NOAA: (1) The State of

Michigan would continue to issue permits

under state law related to underwater cultural

resources; (2) for activities involving permits

from other federal agencies, NOAA would

address Sanctuary concerns through the review

A. Permits issued by NOAA: All Sanctuary

permits would be issued solely by NOAA.

These Sanctuary permits would be in

addition to permits issued by the State

and/or other federal agencies. The State

of Michigan would be involved in the

review of Sanctuary permits through the

National Historic Preservation Act Section

106 process.

4. ADMINISTRATIVE ALTERNATIVES

There are two administrative alternatives related

to how the Sanctuary regulations would be

administered if Thunder Bay is designated as a

National Marine Sanctuary.

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5
210

and authorization, and if necessary, the placing

of conditions on the federal permits; or (3) for

an activity adversely impacting underwater

cultural resources but that requires neither a

state permit nor a permit from another federal

agency, a Sanctuary permit would need to be

obtained directly from NOAA in order to conduct the activity.

The three scenarios described in Administrative

Alternative B are as follows:

1. The State of Michigan would issue a state

permit for an activity related to underwater

cultural resources if that activity could be conducted consistent with Michigan law. If the state

permit is certified by the State Archaeologist as

consistent with the Programmatic Agreement

among NOAA, the State, and the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the

activity will have met the criteria of Section 106

of the National Historic Preservation Act and of

the Sanctuary program. Thus, the activity would

be deemed authorized by NOAA and no separate Sanctuary permit would be required. For

example, if an individual proposed to recover

artifacts from an abandoned shipwreck within the

Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve, that individual would apply for a State of Michigan permit

under Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities, of P.A. 451. If the state certified the permit

as consistent with the Programmatic Agreement,

then the individual would not have to obtain a

Sanctuary permit, because the Part 761 permit

would address all Sanctuary concerns.

2. For activities for which a federal permit is

required (most likely a Corps of Engineers

permit), NOAA would review and “authorize”

the federal permit to address any concerns of

the Sanctuary program. NOAA would coordinate with other federal agencies to determine

which permits needed a NOAA authorization. If

necessary, NOAA would place conditions on the

federal permit to address Sanctuary concerns.

The permit applicant would follow the existing

notification and review procedures laid out in 15

C.F.R. § 922.194.

3. For an activity adversely impacting underwater cultural resources that requires neither a state

permit nor a permit from another federal agency,

the applicant would apply for a Sanctuary permit

directly from NOAA in order to conduct the

activity. This could occur for activities involving

“hand-taking” outside the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve but still within the Sanctuary

boundary, or recovery of artifacts from a shipwreck that is not abandoned and is located

anywhere within the Sanctuary boundary.

In summary, the permit application procedure

for any activity that is currently regulated under

State of Michigan law related to the protection of

underwater cultural resources would remain the

same. If a federal permit is required in addition

to a state permit, NOAA would review that

federal permit for NOAA authorization, but the

applicant would not apply directly to NOAA for a

Sanctuary permit. If an activity is proposed that is

prohibited by Sanctuary regulations, and no state

SECTION 5 ALTERNATIVES
211

or federal permit program exists to authorize the

activity, the applicant would apply directly to

NOAA for a Sanctuary permit. Sanctuary

permits would be issued from the Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary office in Alpena.

NOAA anticipates that this would be a rare

situation, given that most activities would require

an existing state or federal permit.

Administrative Alternative B:

NOAA’s Preferred Alternative

NOAA prefers Alternative B because it relies on

the existing state permitting program for many of

the permits that will be issued. If Sanctuary

concerns can be addressed through the issuance

of a state permit and through Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act, NOAA does

not believe that a separate Sanctuary permit is

necessary. This alternative takes into account the

well-established permit program at the state

level. If the applicant is applying for a permit to

conduct an activity that is already regulated by

the State of Michigan, the applicant would not do

anything different if the Sanctuary is designated.

Alternative B also allows Sanctuary concerns to

be addressed through the review and authorization by NOAA of the issuance of federal permits.

The permit applicant would apply for a federal

permit (e.g., from the Corps of Engineers).

NOAA would work with the federal agency to

ensure that there would be no adverse impact

on underwater cultural resources; this would

result in the authorization of the federal permit.

NOAA believes that the great majority of activities in the Sanctuary would be covered by either

an existing state or federal permit. NOAA

expects, therefore, that few applicants will be

required to apply directly to NOAA for a Sanctuary permit.

ALTERNATIVES SECTION 5
Section 6

Environmental

and

Social-Economic

Consequences of the Alternatives
213

SECTION 6

ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL-ECONOMIC

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

A. INTRODUCTION

An analysis and assessment of impacts associated

with proposed federal actions is a requirement of

the National Environmental Policy Act (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Impact assessments

provide information that is critical in making

effective, efficient, and equitable decisions

involving people and the physical resources of

concern. The physical resources of concern in

this FEIS/MP are underwater cultural resources.

This section assesses the environmental, social,

and economic impacts of alternatives for the

Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. In this

case, environmental impacts are defined as

impacts on underwater cultural resources and

associated bottomlands. Social-economic impact

assessments help predict “how implementing the

management strategies will directly and indirectly

affect user groups, communities, and/or industries, as well as the local economy and overall

quality of life” (Wellman and Cluett 1996). The

predictions are based on an understanding of

existing environmental, social, and economic

conditions, and estimates of changes to existing

conditions.

The assessment of social-economic impacts of

the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is

based on: (1) limited secondary sources of

information describing the existing social conditions and trends in the Thunder Bay region

(especially Alpena County), (2) the economic

impact assessment (EIA) developed by Mahoney

et al. (1996) specifically for the Sanctuary, and (3)

comments from the Thunder Bay Core Group

and other public comments received during the

Sanctuary feasibility process.

❍ Sanctuary designation will improve

the protection and management of

underwater cultural resources.

❍ The total economic impact of Sanctuary designation is estimated at $5.8

million in sales, $3.3 million in income,

and nearly 180 full and part-time jobs

within five years.

❍ The Sanctuary will provide national

recognition of the Thunder Bay region,

contribute to outdoor recreation experiences, and enhance educational opportunities for visitors and residents.

❍ Sanctuary designation is not expected

to have negative social-economic impacts because no additional regulations

are proposed that will eliminate or curtail

recreation or commercial activities.

❍ Negative impacts related to congestion or other user conflicts can be

moderated through comprehensive

management.
214

B. UNDERWATER CULTURAL

RESOURCES

Underwater cultural resources include shipwrecks, historical remnants of docks and piers

and materials from historic and prehistoric

Native Americans. Shipwrecks have been the

focus of most historical research, recreational

activity, and public interest involving underwater

cultural resources in the Great Lakes region.

About 160 shipwrecks are believed to be

present within the Sanctuary boundary. Hundreds of other underwater cultural resources

may exist within the boundary, but they have not

been surveyed systematically.

Underwater cultural resources exist in dynamic

physical environments. In particular, sites within

nearshore areas and shallows are often subject

to the actions of high-energy waves, longshore

currents, and ice movement. Certain sites are

also susceptible to vandalism, theft, and unintentional damage due to a variety of human factors.

There is general agreement that underwater

cultural resources are impacted by environmental processes and human activities that cause

deterioration of cultural materials over time.

However, the extent of these impacts on underwater cultural resources in the Sanctuary boundary has not been documented.

C. IDENTIFICATION OF

STAKEHOLDERS

(INCLUDING USER GROUPS)

Underwater cultural resources are used by

people who are stakeholders in these resources.

Stakeholders can be viewed as individuals,

groups, or organizations that influence or are

affected by the use and management of particular

resources. Defining people in terms of different

stakeholders helps organizations better understand and respond to a diversity of needs,

perceptions, expectations, concerns, and issues

relating to underwater cultural resources.

Different groups of stakeholders in the underwater cultural resources of the Thunder Bay region

include recreational divers, heritage tourists, dive

and tourism business people, museum professionals, historic preservationists, history enthusiasts, researchers, educators, and state and

federal resource managers (Vrana and Mahoney

1993). Other publics may not benefit directly

from these resources, but may enjoy the historical information provided by shipwrecks and the

maritime heritage of the region.

Many of these stakeholders supported designation of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve in

1981 and advocated the evaluation of the region

for inclusion in NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Program, beginning in 1982 (Vrana 1989).

Numerous actions have been taken by local

stakeholders to better coordinate activities,

services, and planning associated with the

Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6
215

The most active coordinating organization has

been the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve

Committee. The Committee is an unincorporated advocacy group organized in 1980 to

enhance promotion, management, and development of the Preserve. The Committee has been

associated with the Alpena Area Chamber of

Commerce since 1982. Other local organizational stakeholders in the Preserve have included

the Jesse Besser Museum, Northeast Michigan

Community Foundation, Alpena General Hospital, Alpena Community College, the City of

Alpena, historic preservation organizations, and

local dive and water sport related businesses.

The Thunder Bay Divers has been the largest

retail dive shop and dive charter business for the

region since designation of the Preserve in 1981.

The Jesse Besser Museum has developed a

number of exhibits about the Preserve, shipwrecks, and maritime heritage of the region.

Most of these exhibits have been displayed on a

temporary basis. Although recommended in

local planning and development documents,

there are no active plans to establish an information and interpretive center for the Preserve to

showcase the underwater cultural resources and

maritime heritage of the region.

D. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC

CHARACTERISTICS

The population of Alpena County has been

decreasing since the late 1970s, and according to

the 1990 population figures, totals 30,605 (U.S.

Department of Commerce 1992). The largest

and most central coastal community in the

Thunder Bay region is the City of Alpena (Alpena

County) with a population of 11,354 (1990).

Other incorporated coastal communities in the

Thunder Bay region include Ossineke Township

(Alpena County) with a population of 1,652;

Alcona Township, including Black River (Alcona

County) with a population of 906; Haynes

Township, including Sturgeon Point (Alcona

County) with a population of 549; and Presque

Isle Township (Presque Isle County) with a

population of 1,312 (U.S. Department of Commerce 1992).

Over 85% of coastal property adjacent to the

Sanctuary boundary is in private ownership

(Ayres et al. 1982). Negwegon State Park

comprises much of the total of public coastal

property. The Park is located in the southeast

corner of Alpena County.

The per capita income of Alpena County in

1993 was $16,559. Most employment in 1993

was in private, nonfarm businesses (78%), and

government (18%). About 23% of employment

and 17% of earnings were in service businesses;

about 15% of employment and 27% of earnings

were in manufacturing (Michigan Department of

Commerce 1996). Tourism and recreation are

important parts of the service sector.

Employment in manufacturing industry categories

in northeast lower Michigan has declined slowly

since the late 1970s (ZHA Inc. et al. 1990). A

goal of economic development for Alpena

County and the City of Alpena is to maintain the

SECTION 6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
216

higher paying jobs of manufacturing (Kolasa,

personal communication 1992; Midwest Research Institute 1988; Ayres et al. 1982).

The principal economic base employers in

Alpena County are the Alpena General Hospital,

Besser Corporation, ABT Company, Inc.,

LaFarge Corporation, Presque Isle Corporation,

Fletcher Paper Corporation, and NEMROC, Inc.

These employers are involved primarily in

regional medical care, and the manufacture of

wood and cement products. About 16% of the

employed County work force is on the payroll of

these seven employers. The 1994 average

unemployment rate for Alpena County was

11.3%; the 3-year average unemployment rate

(1990 – 1992) was 12.1% (Michigan Department of Commerce 1996, 1993).

The median age of Alpena County residents is

35.3 years. About 25% of the Alpena County

population is age 55 years and older; 15% of the

County population is age 65 years and older

(U.S. Department of Commerce 1992). Income from retirement provides approximately

44% of all economic support in the region. This

source of income is more important than manufacturing and tourism (ZHA Inc. et al. 1990).

The Midwest Research Institute (1988) conducted a situational analysis (or social assessment) of the social and economic conditions of

Alpena County to help develop an economic

adjustment strategy for the County. The situational analysis included focus groups, surveys,

and interviews with community leaders. Conclusions from the situational analysis are summarized as follows:

Strengths of Alpena’s social and economic

conditions include: a superior natural

setting near major state parks, lakes, and

stream fishing, with boating and water

sports activities, which promises further

development opportunities in tourism and

recreation; talented people in the community; residents of the community like the

quality of life available and want to remain in

Alpena; Alpena is a growing retail center

with a record of increasing retail sales;

employment in the service industries is

growing, and general employment opportunities in these industries are favorable;

Alpena County has a diversified manufacturing base that can provide substantial employment stability for a segment of the

existing work force; Alpena County has a

viable infrastructure including adequate to

good streets, sewers, and utilities; availability

of professional skills; superior medical

facilities to support the growing needs of an

aging population; a growing enrollment and

the recent addition of advance study

courses at Alpena Community College; job

training facilities; available industrial sites; a

growing awareness of the importance of

providing an attractive business climate to

prospective developers and business

persons; an awareness that planning is vital

to economic development; and recent goal

setting by the Alpena city government.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6
217

Community residents and leaders perceive that the current economic condition

in Alpena County is weak. Limitations in

the local business [and social] climate

include: a lack of consensus on how to

resolve major issues facing the community

and region; a declining total population

and an aging population, which reduces

the tax base in the region while requiring

an increase in the use and quality of social

services; the loss of some younger members of the work force, which reduces the

economic viability of the community in its

industrial promotion efforts and decreases

the tax base; a very slow growth for most

manufacturing activities; a somewhat

conservative atmosphere in investment

circles in terms of providing loans; distance

from emerging markets, which has fostered the perception that Alpena is too

isolated in relation to other Michigan

business hubs; limited and unreliable air

service and the need for better highway

access to facilitate commercial transport;

and no strategy for coordinating and

implementing local development plans.

(Alcona, Alpena, Cheboygan, Crawford, Montmorency, Oscoda, Otsego, and Presque Isle

Counties) during 1988 to 2000 indicate that

“service workers will continue to grow faster

than total employment. This occupational group

is expected to account for more job growth than

any other broad group, increasing its share of

total employment in the Northeast Lower

Michigan SDA from 19.2% in 1988 to 20.6% in

2000” (Michigan Department of Labor 1991:37).

Service workers, as an occupational group,

include tourism-related job categories and

exclude private household workers.

An important component of population change

in northeast lower Michigan has been an increase in the number of people age 65 and over,

which increased by over 50 percent in the

1970s. The trend in aging of the resident

population in northeast lower Michigan and

Alpena County is expected to continue (ZHA

Inc. et al. 1990).

E. IMPACTS OF SANCTUARY

DESIGNATION ALTERNATIVES

SANCTUARY DESIGNATION ALTERNATIVES

A. No Sanctuary designation: NOAA

would not designate Thunder Bay as a

National Marine Sanctuary (the “status

quo” or “no action” alternative). Thunder

Bay would continue to be administered as

a State of Michigan Underwater Preserve.

A breakdown of selected demographic and

housing characteristics for Alpena County is

available from the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census (1992).

Employment projections for the Northeast

Lower Michigan Service Delivery Area (SDA)

SECTION 6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
218

B. Sanctuary designation: NOAA would

designate and establish the Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary. All governmental and nongovernmental entities would

work together to comprehensively manage

the underwater cultural resources of the

Thunder Bay region in the context of the

maritime cultural landscape (NOAA’s

preferred alternative).

ample, dive charter activity in the Preserve

appears to have leveled off in the five-year

period of 1990 – 1995 (Thunder Bay Divers

1994; Barnhill, personal communication 1996).

It is anticipated that scuba diving activity would

remain constant or slightly decrease in the

Thunder Bay region without better coordination

of services and marketing by stakeholders. This

prediction is based on the recent trend in dive

charter activity, and the increasing competitiveness of the diving industry as a whole in the

Great Lakes region.

Simple extrapolation of past trends indicates an

annual growth rate of 5 to 10 percent in the

Michigan travel and tourism industry through the

year 2000 (Holecek 1995:19). Current efforts

to encourage eco-tourism and heritage tourism

are expected to continue in promoting northeast

Michigan and the Thunder Bay region as a travel

destination. The numbers of these types of

visitors (and associated social-economic impacts)

would probably increase, although not at the

rates expected with the development and

marketing of a major water-based attraction like

the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

(Mahoney, personal communication 1996).

Presently, there is no major cultural resourcebased attraction that would identify the Thunder

Bay region as a primary destination for

ecotourists or heritage tourists. A Sanctuary

would attract the attention of organizations, (e.g.,

travel writers, conservation and heritage organizations) that can help promote the area as a

destination.

1. IMPACTS OF SANCTUARY

DESIGNATION ALTERNATIVE A

Thunder Bay and adjoining waters would not be

designated as a National Marine Sanctuary under

Designation Alternative A. Instead, the current

focus of shipwreck management would remain

with local and state organizations that are involved with the Thunder Bay Underwater

Preserve. The current positive impacts associated with the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve in protection of shipwrecks would continue to be realized under Alternative A. The

State of Michigan has adequate laws to protect

“abandoned” shipwrecks and other underwater

cultural resources. However, there is a recognized lack of local and state personnel and

financial resources for conducting comprehensive management of underwater cultural resources in the Thunder Bay region.

Scuba diving tourism associated with the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve is not expected to

increase at the rates anticipated by designation of

a national travel destination area, such as the

Sanctuary (Mahoney, et al. 1996). As an exCONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6
219

The Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

would perform a variety of functions related to

resource protection, education, and research.

For example, it would:

❍ Coordinate agencies, organizations, and

businesses to identify and address management

issues that focus on underwater cultural resources and maritime heritage. Examples are

the infestation of zebra mussels on shipwrecks

and their impacts on recreational diving experiences, and potential user conflicts in the Bay.

❍ Provide educational leadership to develop and implement collaborative education

programs that meet the needs and interests of

local schools, residents, and visitors to the

Sanctuary.

❍ Support a scientific research and monitoring program focusing on underwater cultural

resources. Initial research activities would

provide baseline inventory information on which

to base management decisions.

❍ Develop and maintain a mooring buoy

system to provide safe access with minimum

impact to the underwater cultural resources and

help make the location of sites more visible to

both divers and non-divers.

❍ Inventory and assess Sanctuary underwater cultural resources, as well as document

existing and potential threats (both natural and

human induced) to these resources.

2. IMPACTS OF SANCTUARY DESIGNATION

ALTERNATIVE B

Under this alternative, NOAA would designate

Thunder Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary.

Designation of the Sanctuary would enhance the

use and protection of underwater cultural

resources (particularly shipwrecks) and the

lakebottom directly associated with those resources. Protecting underwater cultural resources to insure their long-term use and

integrity for present and future generations

would be a primary function of the Thunder Bay

NMS. Protecting the 160 shipwrecks mentioned

in historical records (including those having

national historic significance) and the other

underwater cultural materials and prehistoric

sites is important to maintaining and enhancing

the recreational, educational, and scientific values

of these resources. NOAA would provide

supplemental financial resources for protection,

education, and research of the underwater

cultural resources.

The Sanctuary would provide supplemental

protection for underwater cultural resources that

are not defined as “abandoned” under state law

or the federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act. The

Sanctuary regulations, as proposed under

Regulatory Alternative B, would expand coverage to all shipwrecks, and not just “abandoned”

shipwrecks. The Sanctuary regulations would,

therefore, serve as a federal safety net for

underwater cultural resources that the State of

Michigan may be unable to protect under state

law or the Abandoned Shipwreck Act.

SECTION 6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
220

All of these activities would contribute to the

comprehensive management of the Thunder

Bay region’s underwater cultural resources.

Without the ability to conduct these activities,

fewer shipwrecks and other underwater cultural

resources would be protected adequately; fewer

personnel would be available for education on

Thunder Bay’s maritime heritage; and fewer

research dollars would be available for documenting the nationally significant shipwrecks.

Although the Sanctuary designation process has

stimulated interest in Great Lakes education and

the need for a Maritime Heritage Center, it is

unlikely that such a facility will be constructed

without Sanctuary designation. This is due

primarily to the lack of local and state resources

(e.g., staff, money) dedicated and/or available to

develop and maintain such a facility.

Designation of the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary is expected to benefit underwater

cultural resources and the lakebottom directly

associated with those resources. Because the

Sanctuary will not regulate fish or other natural

resources, designation of the Sanctuary will have

no significant impact on natural resources in the

region.

Projections of Economic Impacts for

Sanctuary Designation Alternative B

If the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is

designated, NOAA will invest in the comprehensive management of underwater cultural resources within the Sanctuary boundary. This

investment will include the development of

programs, facilities, and services for underwater

cultural resource protection, education, and

research.

An Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) is commonly used to help determine whether a

proposed federal action (such as Sanctuary

designation) is a wise investment of public funds.

An EIA was completed in 1996 by Michigan

State University to provide estimates of the

potential economic impacts associated with

designation of the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary (Figure 6.1). The following information is excerpted primarily from the introduction

and results of Mahoney et al. (1996).

The EIA provides estimates of the potential

direct and total (direct plus indirect plus induced)

economic impacts associated with different

Sanctuary “development-use scenarios” over a

five-year period (Table 6.1). The economic

impacts are linked to the increasing use of the

Sanctuary by visitors to the Thunder Bay region,

the operating budget of the Sanctuary, and

support from Sanctuary partners.

An input-output model was used to generate

estimates of these impacts. An input-output

model traces the flows of economic activity

between different sectors within a regional

economy.

The EIA concentrates on the potential positive

economic impacts of the Sanctuary. Sanctuary

designation is not expected to have any signifiCONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6
221

cant negative economic impacts because no

additional Sanctuary regulations are being proposed that would eliminate or curtail existing

recreational or commercial activities (e.g., sport

fishing and hunting, commercial fishing, charter

operations, commercial shipping).

The EIA does not make any attempt to estimate

the potential non-monetary benefits of the

Sanctuary to tourists, resident recreationists, or

local publics, such as school children, environmental organizations, or community improvement associations. Likewise, the EIA does not

quantify the potential negative externalities (e.g.,

additional crowding at local attractions and

facilities), or fiscal impacts such as additional

public service costs that could be associated with

increased tourism generated by the Sanctuary.

Figure 6.1 Method of estimating the economic impacts of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Inventory of Sanctuary

Compatible Recreation and

Educational Activities

Recommendations of

Core Group

Sanctuary Mission;

Sanctuary Themes

Develop Sanctuary

Development- Use

Scenarios

Establish Economic

Impact Region

Projections of:

Recreational Use/ Visitation

Trip Spending

Operating Budgets

Capital Investments

Partnership Contributions

Estimate Economic Impacts:

Sales Impacts

Income Impacts

Employment

SECTION 6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

–
222

Table 6.1 Development-use scenarios for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Recreation and Education Trips

 Scuba diving trips 1,200 1,350 1,500 1,800 2,000

 Nature-based recreation (day trips) 800 1,400 1,900 2,400 3,000

 Nature-based recreation (overnight trips)1,100 1,800 2,500 3,300 4,000

 Kayaking/canoeing (day trips) 200 250 275 300 350

 Kayaking/canoeing 750 900 1,000 1,200 1,350

 (overnight trips)

 Sightseers (day trips) 900 1,500 3,000 6,000 9,000

 Sightseers (overnight trips) 1,200 2,000 4,000 8,000 12,000

 Gt. Lakes education – student contacts 8,000 10,000 12,000

Total Party Trips 6,150 9,200 14,175 23,000 31,700

NOAA Operating Budgets* $150,348 $173,890 $199,000 $205,000 $211,000

Partnership Contributions

 Services $10,000 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $41,000

 Shared Positions $19,000 $40,000 $41,200 $42,400

Construction - Education Center $1,300,000

Given the relatively low levels of projected

visitation in the first five years of Sanctuary

operation, the types of visitation, and available

capacity in the region, it is unlikely that the

Sanctuary would produce a noticeable increase

in crowding or public service costs. Current

infrastructure, facilities, and services should be

adequate to accommodate the rate of growth

and scale of development that comprise the

development-use scenarios.

Results of the Economic Impact Assessment

Even with conservative budget and visitation estimates, a Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary

would have significant positive economic impacts

on the region (Tables 6.2 – 6.3; Figures 6.2 –

6.4).

Direct spending associated with trips to the Sanctuary is estimated to increase from $554,000 in

Year 1 to almost $2.4 million in Year 5 (Table

6.2). However, not all of this direct spending

would be captured by the region. It is estimated

that $2.4 million in direct visitor spending in Year

5 would generate approximately $2.2 million in

direct sales, $1.3 million in direct income, and

100 direct jobs. Estimated total economic impacts (direct and indirect impacts) of recreational

visits directly related to the Sanctuary mission

and themes would increase from $892,000 in

sales, $514,000 in income, and 31 jobs in Year 1

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6

* Budget figures as reported in Mahoney, et al 1996.
223

Table 6.2 Economic impacts of spending by Sanctuary visitors by year.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Visitor Spending $554 $776 $1,131 $1,763 $2,368

($000’s)

Direct Effects

Sales ($000’s) 418 625 963 1,563 2,155

Income ($000’s) 254 380 586 948 1,311

Jobs 20 29 45 73 100

Total Effects

Sales ($000’s) 892 1,341 2,066 3,291 4,627

Income ($000’s) 514 774 1,192 1,898 2,670

Jobs 31 46 71 113 158

Table 6.3 Economic impacts of Sanctuary operating budgets and cost-share partnerships.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Operating Budget Impacts

Direct Effects

Sales ($000’s) 90.80 93.52 96.33 99.22 102.2

Income ($000’s) 69.40 71.48 73.63 75.84 78.11

Jobs 2.30 2.37 2.44 2.51 2.59

Total Effects

Sales ($000’s) 143.20 147.50 151.92 156.48 161.17

Income ($000’s) 97.80 100.73 103.76 106.87 110.07

Jobs 3.50 3.61 3.71 3.82 3.94

Total Impacts (Including Partnership Positions)

Direct Effects

Sales ($000’s) 90.80 131.52 175.25 180.57 185.69

Income ($000’s) 69.40 109.48 152.55 157.19 161.60

Jobs 2.30 4.37 4.44 4.51 4.59

Total Effects

Sales ($000’s) 143.20 216.50 295.25 304.21 312.79

Income ($000’s) 97.80 155.72 217.96 224.58 230.89

Jobs 3.50 6.33 7.23 7.39 7.54

SECTION 6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
224

to more than $4.6 million in sales, almost $2.7

million in income, and 158 jobs in Year 5.

NOAA operating budgets would produce a total

economic impact of $143,200 in sales, $97,800

in income, and 3 to 4 jobs in Year 1 (Table 6.3).

It is estimated that this would increase to

$161,200 in sales, $110,000 in income, and 4

jobs in Year 5. Two partnership cost-share

positions (e.g., education coordinator, maritime

archaeologist) could add additional economic

impacts. It is estimated that the NOAA operating budget and these cost-share positions would

generate $312,800 in total sales impact,

$230,900 in total income, and 7 to 8 jobs in

Year 5.

Other partnership contributions, including

services, surplus equipment, and volunteer/

donated labor, would not provide much additional economic impact because these contributions would not generate a great deal of additional spending in the region. Nevertheless,

these partnerships are still important because

they contribute to the mission and quality of

Sanctuary programs and services.

If visitation, operating budgets, and partnership

projections are realized, the Sanctuary has the

potential for producing nearly $2.4 million in

direct sales impacts, about $1.5 million in direct

income, and more than 100 jobs (Table 6.2 and

Table 6.3). The estimated growth in Sanctuary

produced sales, income, and employment

impacts are displayed in Figures 6.2 and 6.3. A

comparison of operating budgets, total sales

impacts, and total income impacts of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary are displayed

in Figure 6.4.

$$$ - Imapcts

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$$$ - Impacts

Total Sales Impact Total Income Impact

Sales and Income Impacts

Figure 6.2 Total sales and income impacts of the proposed Sanctuary.

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Sanctuary.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6
225

/

Figure 6.4 Comparison of operating budgets, total sales impacts, and

total income impacts of the proposed Sanctuary.

$0

$1,000,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$5,000,000

$6,000,000

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

Fiscal Year Scenarios

$$$ Impact/budgets

Operating Budgets

Total Sales Impact

Total Income Impact

Sanctuary.

Jobs ImpactOperationsJobs ImpactVisitsTotal Jobs

Impact

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Number of Full and Part Time Jobs

Jobs ImpactOperationsJobs ImpactVisitsTotal Jobs

Impact

Fiscal Year Scenarios

Figure 6.3 Total employment impacts of the proposed Sanctuary.

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Sanctuary.

SECTION 6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

Sanctuary.
226

maritime heritage through maritime heritage

education programs and historic preservation

projects;

❍ linkage of land-based maritime heritage

tourism (e.g., lighthouses) with water-based

recreation (e.g., scuba diving);

❍ operational cost-effectiveness through

coordination of management programs;

Potential negative impacts include the following:

❍ deteriorating physical condition of

underwater cultural resources from cumulative

effects of increased visitation;

❍ visitor dissatisfaction due to crowding on

some popular shipwreck sites;

❍ conflicts among divers and other recreational users (e.g., sport anglers, pleasure boaters, personal watercraft users);

❍ costs to community infrastructure (e.g.,

emergency medical services, other local government services);

❍ perceived bureaucracy (e.g., “red tape,”

inefficiency) associated with federal programs;

❍ regulations and regulatory approaches to

management; and

❍ growth in federal programs associated

with the Sanctuary.

Summary of Potential Positive and Negative

Impacts from Sanctuary Designation

Alternative B

The potential positive impacts from Sanctuary

designation include the following:

❍ tourism development by establishment

of a major (national/international) water-based

attraction;

❍ national recognition from being part of a

system of National Marine Sanctuaries;

❍ regional sales, income and employment,

including service sector jobs for younger wageearners;

❍ recreation and volunteer opportunities

for a large retired/aging resident population;

❍ opportunities for partnership development with different levels of government and the

private sector;

❍ opportunities to attract other sources of

funding for education, research, and development;

❍ preservation of underwater cultural

resources through comprehensive management;

❍ opportunities for direct and indirect

access to underwater cultural resources;

❍ enhanced knowledge of Great Lakes

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6
227

suspected shipwrecks. In addition, federal funds

for education and research would be available

only within the smaller boundary area.

Potential negative impacts on users and underwater cultural resources would probably be less

under Boundary Alternative A than Boundary

Alternatives B or C.

2. IMPACTS OF BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE B

Boundary Alternative B runs from the north and

south boundaries of Alpena County lakeward to

longitude 83 degrees west. This is a larger

boundary than Boundary Alternative A, but

smaller than Alternative C (NOAA’s preferred

alternative). Approximately the same number of

shipwrecks under Boundary Alternative B would

be protected as under Boundary Alternative A.

Additional financial resources for underwater

cultural resource protection, education, and

research would be applied to a larger area than

Boundary Alternative A, but to a smaller area

than Boundary Alternative C.

3. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY

ALTERNATIVE C

The major differences among the boundary

alternatives are (1) the area of bottomlands/

surface waters and (2) the number of shipwrecks

and other underwater cultural resources that

would be protected by the Thunder Bay NMS.

NOAA’s preferred boundary (Boundary Alternative C) would protect 34 known shipwrecks, 83

probable shipwrecks, and 43 suspected shipSECTION 6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

F. IMPACTS OF BOUNDARY

ALTERNATIVES

BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES

A. Existing Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve:

NOAA would adopt the existing state-designated

underwater preserve, which is about 290 square

miles, as the Sanctuary boundary.

B. Alpena County latitudes: NOAA would use

the northern and southern latitudes of Alpena

County and extend the lakeward boundary to

longitude 83 degrees west. This boundary alternative is 448 square miles.

C. Presque Isle Harbor to Sturgeon Point:

NOAA would adopt a northern boundary

marked by the northernmost Presque Isle Lighthouse, and a southern boundary marked by the

Sturgeon Point Lighthouse. The boundary

would extend lakeward to longitude 83 degrees

west and would establish a Sanctuary of 808

square miles (NOAA’s preferred alternative).

1. IMPACTS OF BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVE A

Boundary Alternative A mirrors the State of

Michigan’s existing Thunder Bay Underwater

Preserve. The positive environmental impacts of

Sanctuary designation discussed above would be

realized, but these positive impacts would not be

as large as in Boundary Alternative C. For

example, fewer shipwrecks would be afforded

regulatory protection. Under Boundary Alternative A, there are 8 fewer known shipwrecks, 12

fewer probable shipwrecks, and 28 fewer
228

wrecks for a total of 160 shipwrecks. The

Sanctuary would protect other underwater

cultural resources such as prehistoric archaeological sites and cultural materials, although the

extent of these resources is unknown. NOAA,

the State of Michigan, local organizations, and

other partners would provide resources to

protect and manage these underwater cultural

resources in a comprehensive manner. As

discussed in Section 3, the Management Plan,

this comprehensive management would be

accomplished through underwater cultural

resource protection, education, and research.

If NOAA’s preferred alternatives are selected, all

shipwrecks would be protected. In contrast, under the State of Michigan’s Part 761, Aboriginal

Records and Antiquities, only abandoned shipwrecks are protected. In addition, positive environmental impacts from protection of underwater cultural resources would be enhanced by

preventing illegal salvage, deterring souvenir collecting, and reducing accidental damage to these

resources. These benefits would be realized to

a greater extent in Boundary Alternative C due

to the greater number of shipwrecks and other

underwater cultural resources located on these

bottomlands.

Potential negative impacts on users include restrictions on commercial salvage and souvenir

collection. There could be cumulative adverse

impacts to a greater number of underwater cultural resources from an increased number of

divers expected to visit the Sanctuary. However,

the amount of negative impacts under any of the

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6

boundary alternatives is expected to be very

low.

G. IMPACTS OF REGULATORY

ALTERNATIVES

REGULATORY ALTERNATIVES

A. State of Michigan: NOAA would adopt

regulations that mirror the State of Michigan

regulations to protect underwater cultural

resources.

B. Other Sanctuaries: NOAA would adopt

regulations similar to those used in other

Sanctuaries to protect underwater cultural

resources. The regulations would be consistent with the State of Michigan regulations

(NOAA’s preferred alternative).

Overall, the potential positive impacts from

Sanctuary regulation in both Regulatory Alternatives A and B include additional resources and

flexibility in enforcement of regulations through

involvement of state/local and federal officers,

increased ability to prosecute violators, increased

ability to educate visitors, and increased capabilities for advocating adherence to regulations (i.e.,

self-policing, stewardship). Potential negative

impacts include visitor inconvenience from

increased activities in law enforcement and

adherence, as well as the perception of unnecessary regulations and regulatory approaches to

management.

The primary difference between Regulatory

Alternatives A and B relates to the overall
229

In addition to the projected positive impacts to

underwater cultural resources, the associated

social-economic impacts are also expected to be

positive. In particular, the recreational dive

community and related dive industry is expected

to benefit from Sanctuary designation.

Commercial salvage companies and businesses

selling shipwreck artifacts or other archaeological

materials, although limited in number, may be

adversely impacted. However, the Sanctuary is

entirely in state waters, and, therefore, commercial salvage and sale of artifacts are already

subject to state regulations similar to those that

would be applied pursuant to federal historic

preservation law.

There have been no significant commercial

shipwreck salvage or “treasure hunting” operations in the Thunder Bay region since designation

of the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve in

1981. There have been only seven salvage

permits issued for removal or alteration of

shipwrecks or associated artifacts in the region

since 1980 (Graf, personal communication

1996). One of those permits was issued to

protect the hull of a sunken vessel from dredging

of a new marina in Alpena harbor. The hull was

moved to a location outside the breakwater in

1988. Two permit applications were denied.

The economic impact of commercial shipwreck

salvage and treasure hunting to coastal communities in the Thunder Bay region and State of

Michigan has been negligible since passage of the

Michigan Underwater Salvage and Preserve Act

protection of underwater cultural resources.

Under Regulatory Alternative A, the Sanctuary

regulations would be narrower in scope because

they would mirror the State of Michigan regulations, which apply only to abandoned property.

In contrast, the Sanctuary regulations under

Regulatory Alternative B would be broad enough

to protect all underwater cultural resources in

the boundary of the Sanctuary.

A regulatory prohibition against recovering,

altering, destroying, or possessing underwater

cultural resources, and against drilling into,

dredging, or otherwise altering the lakebottom

would be constant in Boundary Alternatives A, B,

and C. In Boundary Alternatives A, B, and C,

Sanctuary regulations would also prohibit the use

of grappling hooks and other anchoring devices

on underwater cultural resource sites that are

marked with a mooring buoy. Permits from the

State of Michigan under Part 761 of P.A. 451

(1994), as amended, would be available for

scientific research and appropriate recovery of

cultural materials if these activities are consistent

with the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.). The differences in the alternatives are the number of

underwater cultural resources protected and the

potential for new finds in the corresponding

boundary areas. Under Designation Alternative

A (no designation), underwater cultural resources that are not protected by state law

would remain unprotected. In addition, the

Sanctuary program could not provide personnel

and financial resources for inventory, enforcement, education, and research.

SECTION 6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
230

in 1980. The last large-scale salvage operation in

Michigan Great Lakes waters was the 1988

salvage of steamer Regina in southern Lake

Huron (Halsey 1990).

The greatest overall negative impact on Great

Lakes shipwrecks in Michigan waters since 1980

is commonly believed to be from: (1) the

depreciative behavior of scuba divers (i.e., theft,

vandalism), and (2) inadvertent damage while

participating in recreational boating and scuba

diving activities. The impacts of recreational

diving have been reduced significantly by the

enactment and enforcement of state laws that

specifically prohibit the alteration of shipwrecks

and other underwater cultural resources, the

adherence of divers to those laws, and the

development of a “conservation ethic” among

recreational divers. This ethic is often portrayed

in the statement, “take only pictures and leave

only bubbles,” and has led to efforts in selfpolicing, and private-public initiatives to enhance

diving etiquette on shipwrecks (e.g., PADI

Project AWARE, Great Lakes Regional Conference on Underwater Cultural Resources). A

rationale of “finders, keepers” was common

among recreational divers from the 1950s – 70s.

In addition, there are unknown negative impacts

to shipwrecks and other underwater cultural

resources from harbor and shoreline improvements, dredging of navigation channels and

harbors, coastal construction projects (including

marina development), and natural coastal processes (e.g., nearshore wave action and currents, ice movement, sand deposition). Most

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6

projects related to harbor and channel improvement and maintenance are supported by federal

funds.

In summary, industries related to recreational use

of the Sanctuary should benefit economically

from protection of underwater cultural resources. If the Sanctuary is designated, negative

economic impacts to commercial salvors, businesses that sell archaeological artifacts, and

souvenir collectors might occur, but these

impacts should be minor. In addition, the

negative impacts to these users are outweighed

by the positive environmental and economic

impacts resulting from supplemental protection

and management. The degree of impacts, both

positive and negative, is directly associated with

the number and type of underwater cultural

resources within the three boundary alternatives.

H. IMPACTS OF ADMINISTRATIVE

ALTERNATIVES

ADMINISTRATIVE ALTERNATIVES

A. Permits issued by NOAA: All Sanctuary

permits would be issued solely by NOAA.

These Sanctuary permits would be in addition to

existing permits issued by state and/or other

federal agencies. The State of Michigan would

be involved in the review of Sanctuary permits

through the Section 106 process of the National

Historic Preservation Act.

B. Permits issued either by the State of Michigan, a federal agency, or NOAA:
231

visitation in the first five years of Sanctuary

operation, the types of visitation, and available

capacity in the region, it is unlikely that the

Sanctuary would produce a noticeable increase

in crowding or public service costs to coastal

communities. Current infrastructure, facilities,

and services should be adequate to accommodate the expected rate of growth and scale of

development through the fifth year (Mahoney et

al. 1996).

The Sanctuary would make possible the comprehensive management and protection of

underwater cultural resources. Comprehensive

management and protection should moderate

(1) the physical impacts to these resources from

increased visitation, (2) recreational dissatisfaction

due to crowding, (3) conflicts among users, and

(4) conflicts between recreational visitors and

coastal property owners. Only limited instances

of crowding and recreation related conflicts are

expected in the Sanctuary, based on the experiences of stakeholders in the state Thunder Bay

Underwater Preserve.

Physical impacts to shipwrecks and other underwater cultural resources (e.g., vandalism, theft,

other damage) need to be monitored and

evaluated before action is taken by law enforcement authorities. An estimation of the types and

rates of deterioration, the determination of

negative effects, and the identification of specific

causes are important factors that should be

considered for more effective management of

shipwrecks, and more efficient use of limited

organizational resources to moderate negative

SECTION 6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES

(1) the State of Michigan would continue to issue

permits under state law related to underwater

cultural resources; (2) for activities involving

permits from other federal agencies, NOAA

would address Sanctuary concerns through the

review and authorization, and if necessary, the

placing of conditions on the federal permits; or

(3) for an activity adversely impacting underwater

cultural resources but that requires neither a state

permit nor a permit from another federal agency,

a Sanctuary permit would need to be obtained

directly from NOAA in order to conduct the

activity (NOAA’s preferred alternative).

The administrative alternatives, when evaluated

by themselves, do not cause different impacts.

There are virtually no differences in environmental or social-economic impacts associated with

who issues the permits, as the issuance of permits is an administrative action. The differences

are associated with the protection of underwater

cultural resources; this discussion is found under

the regulatory alternatives.

1. MODERATION OF POTENTIAL NEGATIVE

IMPACTS

Sanctuary designation is not expected to have

any significant negative economic impacts because no additional Sanctuary regulations are

being proposed that would eliminate or curtail

existing recreational or commercial activities (e.g.,

sport fishing and hunting, commercial fishing,

charter operations, commercial shipping).

Given the relatively low levels of projected
232

additional resources (e.g., grants, donations)

from outside the region. Although the Sanctuary

is located primarily near Alpena County, there is

great potential for enlisting interest and support

of organizations and individuals thoughout the

state, region, and country.

In particular, there are opportunities for volunteer programming in partnership with local

foundations and the business community. These

programs can incorporate seniors that comprise

a relatively large percentage of the Alpena

County and regional population. Service sector

jobs associated with the Sanctuary can be marketed to young residents in conjunction with

hospitality and tourism training to encourage the

retention of youth in Alpena County and the

region.

The designation of a Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary may not directly assist in

increasing the manufacturing base of the region,

but it can enhance the quality of life, which may

attract new businesses and investment in general

(including manufacturing). This quality of life

approach to economic development appears to

have been successful in other Michigan communities using history and historic preservation as

development themes (e.g., Petoskey, Marshall).

Critical to the mission of the Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary is protection of a

nationally significant collection of shipwrecks and

preservation of an important Great Lakes and

regional maritime heritage. The Sanctuary

would build on the successes of the state Thuneffects. Some of these factors may need to be

evaluated on a site by site basis.

Negative impacts from perceived bureaucracy,

regulations and regulatory approaches to management, and growth in federal programs

associated with the Sanctuary would be moderated by the Memorandum of Understanding and

the Programmatic Agreement with the State of

Michigan, the actions of the Sanctuary Advisory

Committee, and public awareness and involvement in Sanctuary programs.

The success of the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary will be dependent on cooperation and

the development of partnerships with governmental and non-governmental entities. All of

these organizations and other stakeholders will

share responsibility for assuring effective, efficient, and equitable management and development of the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary.

J. ENHANCEMENT OF POTENTIAL POSITIVE

IMPACTS

The potential positive economic impacts associated with designation of a Thunder Bay National

Marine Sanctuary are dependent on cooperative

efforts to develop and market the Sanctuary.

The amount of economic impact can be increased through (1) cooperative efforts to attract

more recreational visits, (2) increasing the length

of stay and spending in the area, (3) public and

private investment in Sanctuary related facilities,

services, and businesses, and (4) attracting

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6
233

der Bay Underwater Preserve to better protect

and preserve these resources, and enhance

opportunities to access and enjoy this heritage.

The NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

would provide funding and investment for

underwater cultural resource protection, education, and research that is not available (or expected in the near future) from state and local

sources. These Sanctuary programs, in partnership with other governmental and non-governmental entities, could enhance the quality of life

in Alpena County and the Thunder Bay region

for present and future generations of residents

and visitors.

K. CONCLUSION

Significant underwater cultural resources, particularly historic shipwrecks, are located within

the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

These resources are of value to different users

within the Sanctuary, including: (1) recreational

divers who value the shipwrecks as part of their

diving experience, which is enriched by the

historical-cultural significance of the underwater

cultural resources, (2) commercial salvors and

souvenir collectors who may value the resources

for their monetary worth, (3) archaeologists,

historians, and educators who value the resources for research and teaching, and (4)

anglers and boaters who may value the resources because their historical or cultural

significance enhances the fishing/boating experience.

These resources are also of value to other users

who do not actually visit the Sanctuary, including:

(1) historical museum visitors and museum

professionals, (2) Great Lakes maritime heritage

“buffs” interested in the connections between

land and water-based maritime history, and (3)

non-users who value or appreciate the longterm preservation of underwater cultural resources for their mere existence or for potential

use by present and future generations.

The assessment indicates that a Thunder Bay

National Marine Sanctuary can have significant

positive impacts on the economy of Alpena

County and the Thunder Bay region without

significant negative social impacts. Over 75% of

the visitors’ spending and the Sanctuary operating budgets would be captured by the region’s

economy. This spending has the potential to

generate a significant amount of sales and income

for local businesses, especially those that provide

services and products to tourists. The additional

jobs, particularly those created in the hospitality

and service sectors, further diversify the

economy of Alpena County and provide important employment to young persons in the

region. The projected economic impacts

associated with the Sanctuary would be much

greater than the expected growth in its operating

budget (Mahoney et al. 1996).

Sanctuary designation not only increases the

numbers of visitors to the region, but also

provides recognition, accessibility, and opportunities that improve the quality of the experiences

for tourists, as well as the quality of life for

SECTION 6 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES
234

residents. The Sanctuary can provide a focus

and mechanism for the partnerships needed to

develop facilities, services, and programs that are

meaningful to visitors and local residents, while

protecting the underwater cultural resources

upon which recreation and tourism are based.

Because the Sanctuary will not regulate fish or

other natural resources, designation of the

Sanctuary will not adversely impact the region’s

natural resources. Designation of the Thunder

Bay National Marine Sanctuary provides positive

environmental impacts and associated positive

economic impacts from scuba diving and heritage

tourism. These positive impacts outweigh the

potential negative economic impacts to commercial salvors and related industries. The underwater cultural resource protection goals of the

National Marine Sanctuaries Act would be met

while guaranteeing access to recreational divers,

boaters, and anglers. Management strategies

facilitate these compatible multiple uses of the

underwater cultural resources in a manner that

avoids or minimizes negative impacts to these

resources.

CONSEQUENCES OF THE ALTERNATIVES SECTION 6
235

Alpena Argus (Microfilm). 1871-1897. Alpena, MI.

Alpena Convention and Visitors Bureau. 1990. Fact sheet: 1990 Michigan brown trout festival. Alpena Area Chamber

of Commerce, Alpena, Michigan.

Alpena County Regional Airport. 1992. Alpena county regional airport [service brochure]. Alpena County Regional

Airport, Alpena, MI.

American Historical Association. 1945. Calender of the American Fur Company papers, part I. In the annual report for

1944 (volume II), House document No. 207, 79th Congress, 1st Session. Washington, D.C.

Argyle, Ray L. 1991. Status of forage fish stocks in Lake Huron 1990. Report on file at the National Fisheries Research

Center - Great Lakes, Ann Arbor, MI.

Ayres, Lewis, Norris & May, Inc. 1982. Alpena County coastal land management plan. On file with the City of Alpena, MI.

Baker, Rollin H. 1983. Michigan Mammals. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.

Baldwin, Norman S., Robert W. Saalfeld, Margaret A. Ross, and Howard J. Buettner. 1979. Commercial fish production

in the Great Lakes, 1867-1977. Great Lakes Fishery Commission, Ann Arbor, MI.

Barnet, James. 1874. Barnet’s coast pilot. James Barnet. Chicago, IL.

Barnhill, Lee. 1998. Personal communication. Thunder Bay Divers, Alpena, MI.

Barnhill, Lee. 1996. Personal communication. Thunder Bay Divers, Alpena, MI.

Barry, James P. 1972. The Fate of the Lakes: A Portrait of the Great Lakes. Crown Publishers, NY.

Berst, A.H., and G.R. Spangler. 1972. Lake Huron: The ecology of the fish community and man’s effect on it. Technical

report. Great Lakes Fish. Comm., Ann Arbor, MI.

Betters, Steve. 1992. Personal communication. Officer in Charge, USCG Station Alpena, MI.

Bolsenga, S.J., G.M. Greene, and K.M. Hinkel. 1988. Nearshore Great Lakes ice statistics. GLERL, Ann Arbor, MI.

Boulton, William. 1884. History of Alpena County. In Michigan Pioneer and Historical Collections. W.S. George and

Company, Lansing, MI.

Bowen, Dana Thomas. 1940. Lore of the Lakes. D.T. Bowen, Daytona Beach, FL.

Brewer, Richard, Gail A. McPeek, and Raymond J. Adams, Jr. 1991. The Atlas of Breeding

Birds of Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.

Burton, Tony. 1981. Water quality of the Thunder Bay watershed: an assessment and management strategy. Northeast

Michigan Council of Governments, Gaylord, MI.

Carlson, Tom. 1992. Personal communication. Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR Field Office, Atlanta, MI.

Carver, Jonathan. 1778. Travels Through the Interior Parts of America in the Years 1766, 1767, 1768. J. Walter. London, England

REFERENCES CITED
236

Chapman, Sgt. 1992. Personal communication. Law Enforcement Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,

Alpena, MI.

Cleland, Charles E. 1992. Rites of Conquest: The History and Culture of Michigan’s Native Americans. The University

of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Cleland, Charles E. 1985. Naub-cow-zo-win discs and some observations on the origin and development of Ojibwa

iconography. Arctic Anthropology 22(2):131-140.

Cleland, Charles E. 1982. The inland shore fishery of the northern Great Lakes: its development and importance in

prehistory. American Antiquity 47(4):761-783.

Clifford, Candace. 1994. Inventory of historic light stations. National Park Service, National Maritime Initiative, Washington, DC.

Clifton, James A., George L. Cornell, and James M. McClurken. 1986. People of the Three Fires. Grand Rapids InterTribal Council, Grand Rapids, MI.

Cornell, George L. 1986. The Ojibway. In People of the Three Fires. Grand Rapids Inter-Tribal Council, Grand Rapids, MI

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. La Roe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the

United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Cross, Bill. 1992. Personal communication. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Alpena, MI.

Densmore, Frances. 1979. Chippewa Customs. Minnesota Historical Society Press, St.Paul, MN.

Denton, Shawn, and Edward M. Mahoney. (in progress). Inventory and assessment of needs and interest in Great Lakes

education opportunities in the Thunder Bay area. Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State

University, East Lansing.

Dochoda, M.R. (editor). 1988. Committee of the whole workshop on implementation of the joint strategic plan for

management of Great Lakes fisheries. Special Publication 88-1. Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC), Ann Arbor, MI.

Dolan, David M., N. David Warry, Ronald Rossman, and Trefor B Reynoldson. 1986. Lake Huron 1980 intensive survey

summary report. International Joint Commisssion, Windsor, Ontario.

Doner, Mary Frances. 1958. The Salvager: The Life of Captain Tom Reid on the Great Lakes. Ross and Haines Inc.

Minneapolis.

Dorr, John A. Jr., and Donald F. Eschman. 1970. The Geology of Michigan. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI.

Edsall, T.A., and J.E. Gannon. 1993. A profile of the St. Marys River. MICHU-SG-93-700. Michigan Sea Grant College

Program, Ann Arbor, MI.

Fisheries Division. 1991. Strategy for managing Michigan’s fisheries in the 1990s. Michigan Department of Natural

Resources, Lansing.

Fitting, James. 1975. Archaeology of Michigan. Bureau of Michigan History, Lansing.

Gauthier, Doris A. (no date). Alcona: the lake pioneers. Alcona Historical Society, Harrisville, MI.

Ghiata, Capt. 1992. Personal communication. Inland Lakes Management, Alpena, MI.
237

Goode, George Brown. 1887. The Fisheries and Fishing Industries of the United States. Government Printing Office,

Washington, D.C.

Graf, Thomas. 1996. Personal communication. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Land and Water

Management Division, Lansing.

Great Lakes Commission. 1986. Water level changes: factors influencing the Great Lakes. Harbor House Publishers,

Boyne City, MI.

Great Lakes Environmental Research Labatory (GLERL). 1992. Informational brochure. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, Ann Arbor.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 1992. Strategic vision of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission for the decade

of the 1990’s. GLFC, Ann Arbor, MI.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 1987. Guidelines for fish habitat management and planning in the Great Lakes.

Special Publication No. 87-1. GLFC, Ann Arbor, MI.

Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC). 1980. Lake Huron committee 1980 annual meeting. GLFC, Ann Arbor.

Halsey, John R. 1990. Beneath the Inland Seas: Michigan’s Underwater Archaeological Heritage. Michigan Bureau of

History, Lansing.

Halsey, John. 1995. Personal communication. Michigan Department of State, Bureau of History.

Haltiner, Robert E. 1986. The Town That Wouldn’t Die: A Photographic History of Alpena, Michigan, from its Beginnings

through 1940. Jesse Besser Museum, Alpena, MI.

Haltiner, Robert E. 1984. A long-ago legend of Lake Huron’s Thunder Bay. The Weathervane, Alpena, MI.

Harding, James H., and J. Alan Holman. 1990. Michigan Turtles. Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Havinghurst, Walter. 1949. Long Ships Passing: The Story of the Great Lakes. Macmillan Company, New York, NY.

Herdendorf, C.E., S.M. Hartley, and M.D. Barnes. 1980. Fish and wildlife resources of the Great Lakes coastal wetlands

within the United States. USFWS FWS/OBS-81/02-V4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Holecek, Donald F. 1995. Status and potential of Michigan natural resources: tourism. Special Report 76. Michigan

Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Holman, J. Alan, James H. Harding, Marvin M. Hensley, and Glenn R. Dudderar. 1989. Michigan Snakes. Cooperative

Extension Service, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Holzhueter, John P. 1974. Madeline Island & the Chequamegon Region. State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Horvath, Frank J., John H. Hartig, and Kenneth Stockwell. 1981. Water quality of Thunder Bay, Lake Huron, 1957-1980.

Michigan DNR Publication No.3730-0036. Great Lakes Nearshore Monitoring Comprehensive Studies Section, Environmental Protection Bureau, Michigan DNR, Lansing.

Hubbs, Carl L., and Karl F. Lagler. 1964. Fishes of the Great Lakes Region. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Hyde, Charles K. 1986. The Northern Lights: Lighthouses of the Upper Great Lakes. Two Peninsula Press. Lansing, MI.
238

International Joint Commission (IJC). 1987. 1987 report on Great Lakes water quality. Great Lakes Water Quality Board,

IJC, Windsor, Ontarion.

Johnson, James E. 1992. Personal communication. Fisheries Division, Michigan DNR, Alpena, MI.

Jude, David J., Frank J. Tesar, Scott F. Deboe, and Timothy J. Miller. 1987. Diet and selection of major prey species by

Lake Michigan salmonines, 1973-1982. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 116(5):677-690.

Judson, Sheldon, Marvin E. Kauffman, and L. Don Leet. 1987. Physical Geology. Prentice- Hall, Inc., Englewood

Cliffs, NJ.

Just, Carl. 1996. Personal communication. LaFarge Corporation, Alpena, MI.

Kimble, Frederick A. 1992. Memorandum, May 22. Phelps Collins ANGB, Alpena, MI.

Koelz, Walter. 1926. Fishing Industry of the Great Lakes. Bureau of Fisheries, Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.

Kolasa, Ken. 1992. Personal communication. Target Alpena 2000, Alpena, MI.

Lau, Ted. 1993. Personal communication. Michigan Science Teachers Association.

Leeworthy, Vernon R., and Peter C. Wiley. 1996. Visitor Profiles: Florida Keys/Key West. SEA Division, NOS, NOAA,

Silver Spring, MD.

Lusch, David P. 1992a. Michigan’s ground-water geography - a review. In Janowicz, Jon A., David P. Lusch, Ruth D.

Schaffer, and Baxter E. Vieux. Agriculture’s Role in Protecting Ground Water. USDA, Soil Conservation Service and

Michigan Association of Conservation Districts, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Lusch, David P. 1992b. Aquifer vulnerability to surface contamination in Michigan [map]. Center for Remote Sensing,

Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Mahoney, Edward M. , Michele Malarney, and Daniel J. Stynes. 1996. Estimation of the economic impacts of the

proposed Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan

State University, East Lansing.

Mahoney, Edward M. 1996. Personal communication. Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan

State University, East Lansing.

Mahoney, Edward M., Douglas B. Jester, and Gale C. Jameson. 1991. Recreational fishing in Michigan. In Spotts, Daniel

M. (editor). Travel and Tourism in Michigan: A Statistical Profile (2nd edition). Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource

Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Mahoney, Edward M., Douglas B. Jester, and Daniel Stynes. 1986. A study of Michigan’s sport fishing market. Report to the

Michigan DNR Fisheries Division. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Makarewicz, Joseph C., Theodore Lewis, and Paul Bertram. 1989. Phytoplankton and zooplankton composition,

abundance, and distribution and trophic interactions: offshore region of Lake Erie, Lake Huron, and Lake Michigan, 1985.

EPA-905/3-90-003, GLNPO Report No.10-91. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago.

Mansfield, J.B. 1899. History of the Great Lakes. J.H. Beers & Company, Chicago, IL.

Martin, Jay C. 1996. Preliminary comparative and theme study of national historic landmark potential for Thunder Bay,

Michigan. Great Lakes Visual/Research, Inc., Lansing, MI.
239

Martin, Jay C. 1996b. Alcona County maritime history. An addendum to the preliminary comparative and theme study of

national historic landmark potential for Thunder Bay, Michigan. Great Lakes Visual/Research, Inc., Lansing, MI.

May, George S. 1980. Michigan: A History of the Wolverine State. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand

Rapids, MI.

McClain, Jerry. 1995. Personal communication. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Fisheries Assessment Program, Alpena, MI.

McConnell, John. 1996,1992. Personal communication. Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve Committee, Alpena, MI.

McCormick, Michael. 1997. Personal communication. Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab., NOAA, Ann Arbor, MI.

McCullough, A.B. 1989. The Commercial Fishery of the Canadian Great Lakes. Minister of Supply and Services, Quebec.

Mead, Barbara. 1992. Archaeological site files. On file with the Michigan Historical Center, Department of State, Lansing.

Michigan Department of Commerce. 1996. Economic profile: Alcona County, Alpena County, and Presque Isle County.

Michigan Jobs Commission, Lansing.

Michigan Department of Commerce. 1993. Economic profile: Alpena County. Michigan Jobs Commission, Lansing.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 1995. Michigan 1995 annual air quality report. Air Quality

Division, Lansing, MI.

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 1995b. Michigan fish contaminant monitoring program: 1995

annual report. Surface Water Quality Division, Lansing, MI.

Michigan Department of Labor. 1991. Annual planning information report, program year 1992, northeast lower Michigan

SDA. Michigan Employment Security Commission, Bureau of Research and Statistics, Lansing.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1996. Personal communication. Fisheries Division, Lansing.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1995. Nonindigenous aquatic nuisance species state management

plan: a strategy to confront their spread in Michigan (draft). Office of the Great Lakes, Lansing.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1990. Michigan public access site user satisfaction survey. Boating

Programs Branch, Parks and Recreation Division, Lansing.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1987. Michigan Natural Resources Magazine, May-June 1987.

Lansing, MI.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 1982. Policy for oil and gas leases on state lands (Policy No. 2306).

Natural Resources Commission, Lansing.

Michigan Department of State (DOS). 1995. Preservation shore to shore: Michigan’s comprehensive historic preservation plan. State Historic Preservation Office, Lansing.

Michigan Geological Survey Division. 1991. Publications, microform documents, open files, and maps (PL - 1). Michigan

Department of Natural Resources, Lansing.

Michigan History Division. 1978. Alpena County. Michigan History 62(4):7-8.

Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC). 1989. Oil and gas leasing policy - Great Lakes Bottomlands (NRC

Policy 2306). Michigan DNR, Lansing.
240

Michigan Resource Inventory Program (MRIP). 1992. MIRIS: Thunder Bay River watershed boundaries on a base map.

Land and Water Management Division, Michigan DNR, Lansing.

Michigan Science Teachers Association (MSTA). 1992. Thunder Bay: an opportunity for Michigan science teachers.

MSTA Newsletter.

Michigan Sea Grant Extension (MSGE). 1990. Lake Huron brochure. Extension Bulletin E-1868. Michigan State

University, East Lansing.

Michigan Sea Grant College Program (MSGCP). 1992. A primer on Great Lakes research organizations. Michigan

State University, East Lansing, and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Michigan Sea Grant College Program (MSGCP). 1991. People & projects: 1991-1993. Michigan State University, East

Lansing, and University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Michigan Senate. 1993. Options for Michigan environmental education. Senate Majority Policy Office, Lansing. Environmental education plan for Michigan (legislative report). State of MI, Lansing.

Michigan State University Extension. 1992. Personal communication. Program offices, Alpena and East Lansing .

Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC). 1993. Map Source Index. MUCC, Lansing.

Midwest Research Institute. 1988. Economic adjustment strategy for Alpena County — report 1: situation analysis;

report II : target industry analysis; and report III: strategic plan. On file at the Greater Alpena Industrial Development

Corporation, Alpena.

Moll, Russell A., Ronald Rossman, David C. Rockwell, and William Y.B. Chang. 1985. Lake Huron intensive survey,

1980. Special Report No.110. Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

National Fisheries Research Center - Great Lakes. 1992. Informational brouchure. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Ann

Arbor.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1998. Strategic Plan. National Marine Sanctuaries, Office of

Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Marine Sanctuaries Division, Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1994. Strategic plan: National Marine Sanctuaries. Office

of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Silver Spring, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1992. Monthly and annual average elevations water levels

in feet, IGLD (Harbor Beach, Harrisville and Mackinaw City, Michigan). National Ocean Service, Rockville, MD.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1991. Local climatological data: annual summary with

comparative data, Alpena, Michigan. National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1985. United States Coast pilot. NOAA, Washington, DC.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1976. United States Great Lakes pilot: Lakes Ontario, Erie,

Huron, Michigan, and Superior, and the St. Lawrence River. NOAA, Washington, D.C.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1872. Alpena Weather Station #85 records (microfilm).

Center for Archival Collections, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.

National Ocean Service (NOS). 1990. Nautical chart 14864 (Harrisville to Forty Mile Point), 24th edition, September

29, 1990.
241

National Ocean Service (NOS). 1988. Nautical chart 14869 (Presque Isle and Stoneport Harbors), 24th edition, April

30, 1988.

National Park Service (NPS). 1992. Guidelines for the treatment of historic landscapes. Technical Preservation Services

Branch, Preservation Assistance Division, Washington, D.C.

Nelson, Charles M. 1991. Hunting in Michigan. In Spotts, Daniel M. (editor). Travel and Tourism in Michigan : A

Statistical Profile (2nd edition). Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State Univerisity, East Lansing.

O’Brien, T. Michael. 1976. Guardians of the Eighth Seas: A History of the U.S. Coast Guard on the Great Lakes. U.S.

Coast Guard, Cleveland, OH.

Pardike, Debra. 1992. Motel occupancy and restaurant statistics (unpublished). Alpena Convention and Visitors Bureau,

Alpena, MI.

Peebles, Christopher, and Deborah B. Black. 1976. The distribution and abundance of archaeological sites in the coastal

zone of Michigan. Report on file with the Great Lakes Shorelands Section, Land & Water Management Division, Michigan

DNR, Lansing.

Pennak, Robert W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States: Protozoa to Mollusca. John Wiley & Sons,

Inc., NY.

Peterson, Jon P., and Thord C. Sundstrom. 1987. A profile of 1986 diver activity in the Thunder Bay Bottomland

Preserve. MICHU - SG - 87 - 507. Michigan Sea Grant Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansin

Port Huron Observer. 1845-1847. Port Huron, MI.

Porter, John M. 1983. Personal communication. Alpena County Planning Commission, Alpena, MI.

Prescott, R.E. 1937. Historical tales of the Huron shore region and rhymes. Alcona County Herald, Harrisville, MI.

Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI). 1997. Personal communications to Ken Vrana. Industry Relations,

PADI Headquarters, Rancho Santa Margarita, California.

Quimby, George Irving. 1960. Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Rakoczy, Gerald P., and Richard D. Rogers. 1990. Sportfishing catch and effort from the Michigan waters of Lakes

Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Superior and their important tributary streams, April 1, 1988-March 31, 1989. Fisheries

Technical Report No. 90-2a. Fisheries Division, Michigan DNR, Lansing.

Reiss, Tim. 1992. Personal communication. Wildlife Division, Michigan DNR, Lansing.

Reynolds, C.P. 1883. History of Alcona County. In History of the Lake Huron Shore with Illustrations and Biographical

Sketches of some of its Prominent Men and Pioneers. H.R. Page and Company, Chicago, IL; Republished in 1976 by

Unigraphic, Evansville, IN.

Rossman, Ronald. 1986. Lake Huron 1980 intensive surveillance: management and summary. Special Report No.118.

Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Sanborn Insurance Maps (microfilm). 1884-1924. Alpena. State of Michigan Library, Lansing.

Sanborn-Perris Map Co. , Ltd. (microfilm) 1880. Ossineke townsite. State of Michigan Library, Lansing.

Saylor, James, and Gerald Miller. 1991. Current flow through the Straits of Mackinac. NOAA, Great Lakes Environmental

Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor.
242

Schwartz, John. 1995. Personal communication. Michigan Sea Grant Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman. 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bulletin 184. Fisheries Research Board of Canada,

Ottawa.

Smith, S.H. 1972. Factors of ecological succession in oligotrophic fish communities of the Laurentian Great Lakes. J. Fish.

Res. Board Can. 29:717-730.

State Historical Society of Wisconsin. 1872. Reports and collections. Atwood & Culver, Madison, WI.

Stewart, Steve. 1992. Preliminary results of 1990-91 survey of sport divers visiting Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve.

Data on file with Michigan Sea Grant Extension, Clinton Township, MI.

Talhelm, Daniel R., Scott W. Jordan, and Donald F. Holecek. 1988. 1986 Michigan recreational boating survey. Michigan

Travel, Tourism and Recreation Resource Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Tanner, Helen H. 1987. Atlas of Great Lakes Indian History. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Taylor, Gary. 1992. Personal communication. Land and Water Management Division, Michigan Department of Natural

Resources, Lansing.

Terrell, Bruce. 1995. Report on the significance of Thunder Bay shipwrecks. Unpublished report for the National

Marine Sanctuary Program, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD.

Thomas, R.L. 1981. Sediments of the North American Great Lakes. Internat. Verein. Limnology, Stuttgart, Germany.

Thunder Bay Divers. 1994. Personal communication. William and Ruthann Beck, Alpena, MI.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1985. Public notice: maintenance dredging of Alpena Harbor, Michigan, January 24.

Detroit District, Detroit, MI.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1984. Public notice: maintenance dredging of Alpena Harbor, Michigan, November 1.

Detroit District, Detroit, MI.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1940. Survey of northern and northwestern (NW) lakes. 1940. Detroit District, Detroit, MI.

U.S. Bureau of Census. 1993. Tiger digital map database. Geography Division, MD.

U.S. Bureau of Census. 1992. Summary tape file 1A for Alpena County. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1992. Results of the 1990 census of the United States. Bureau of Census, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Coast Guard. 1997. Letter to Ellen Brody, from Anthony J. Mangoni, Ninth Coast Guard District. October 28,

1997. Cleveland, OH.

U.S. Coast Guard. 1995. Personal communication. Air Station Traverse City, MI.

U.S. Department of War. 1881-1900. Annual report. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. District Court. 1985. Agreement for entry of consent order: U.S. and Bay Mills Indian Community, Sault Ste. Marie

Tribe of Chippewa Indians, and Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa/Chippewa Indians v. State of Michigan. Western District, MI.
243

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Environment Canada. 1988. The Great Lakes: An

Environmental Atlas and Resource Book. USEPA, Chicago, and Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1988. Final Fish and Wildwife Coordination Act report on biological resources

impacted by the proposed navigation season extension to January 31 on the upper Great Lakes. East Lansing Michigan

Enhancement Field Office.

United States Comptroller General . 1977. U. S. Great Lakes Commercial Fishing Industry — Past, Present, and

Potential. Washington, D.C.

United States Lighthouse Board. 1903, 1877, 1875. Annual report. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Vigmostad, Karen. 1992. Using LaMPs to clean up the Great Lakes. Upwellings 14(1): 4.

Vrana, Kenneth J. 1993. Recreational Use. In Thunder Bay Region Inventory of Resources, Volume Two: Past and

Present Human Activities. MICHU-SG-83-202. Michigan Sea Grant College Program, Michigan Sea Grant Extension,

Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Vrana, Kenneth J., and Edward M. Mahoney (editors). 1993. Great Lakes underwater cultural resources: important

information for shaping our future. Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources, Michigan State University,

East Lansing.

Vrana, Kenneth J. (editor). 1993. Thunder Bay region inventory of resources (final draft). Volume one: environmental

characteristics and volume two: past and present human activities. MICHU-SG-83-202 and 203. Michigan Sea Grant

Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Vrana, Kenneth J. 1989. Michigan bottomland (underwater) preserves inventory. MICHU-SG-89-500. Michigan Sea

Grant Extension and MSU Extension, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Wade, Mason (editor). 1947. The Journals of Francis Parkman. Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York, NY.

Warner, Thomas D., and Donald F. Holecek. 1975. The Thunder Bay shipwreck survey study report. Recreation

Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Waybrant, Ronald C. 1977. Limnological assessment of Thunder Bay, Lake Huron, 1974 and 1975. Michigan Water

Resources Commission. On file at Surface Water Quality Division, Michigan DNR, Lansing.

Wells, James. 1992. Unpublished data. Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan.

Wellman, Katharine F., and Chris Cluett. 1996. Proposed Northwest Straits National Marine Sanctuary designation:

assessment of economic and social activities. The Battelle Seattle Research Center, Seattle, WA.

Wetzel, Robert G. 1983. Limnology. Saunders College Publishing, New York.

Wright, Richard J. 1975. Inventory of shipwrecks within Michigan coastal waters. Northwest Ohio-Great Lakes Research

Center, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.

Wright, Richard J. 1969. Freshwater Whales: A History of the American Ship Building Company and its Predecessors.

Kent State University Press, Kent, Ohio.

ZHA, Inc., NCI Research, and Rossman Communications. 1990. Northeast Michigan economic strategy directions for

regional strategic planning. On file with the Center for Economic Expansion, Alpena Community College, Alpena, MI.
244

LIST OF PREPARERS

Coordinating Staff

Ellen Brody

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

Project Coordinator

August 1996 - Fall 1999

Michele Malarney

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

Project Coordinator

Project inception - July 1996

Kenneth J. Vrana

Center for Maritime & Underwater

 Resource Management

Michigan State University

Managing Editor for DEIS/DMP

Technical Staff

Bobbe Hubbard

Spirit Lake Graphics

Publication Design and Layout for FEIS/MP

John Fenton

Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory

Computer Support and Technical Assistance in

Desktop Publishing for FEIS/MP

Kathryn E. Rowan

Center for Maritime & Underwater

 Resource Management

Michigan State University

Publication Design and Layout; Computer Graphics

for DEIS/DMP

Renee Dopplick

CyberWonders

Copy Editing; Artwork

William R. Farrant

Michigan Travel, Tourism and Recreation

 Resource Center

Technical Assistance in Desktop and Electronic

Pre-Press Publishing; Copy-stand Photography;

Image Processing for DEIS/DMP

Gary W. Taylor

Michigan Resource Information System (MIRIS)

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Computer Graphics
245

Contributing Authors

(alphabetic order)

Ellen Brody

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

Karen Brubeck

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

Sherrard Foster

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

Edward Mahoney

Department of Park, Recreation and

 Tourism Resources

Michigan State University

Michele Malarney

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

Jay C. Martin

Great Lakes Visual/Research, Inc.

Patmarie Nedelka

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

Daniel J. Stynes

Department of Park, Recreation and

 Tourism Resources

Michigan State University

Kenneth J. Vrana

Center for Maritime & Underwater

 Resource Management

Michigan State University

Timothy J. Watkins

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

Michigan State University

Sources of Photos, Maps, and Graphics

Alcona Historical Society

Alpena Area Chamber of Commerce

Center for Maritime & Underwater

 Resource Management

Kevin Cronk, NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmen-

 tal Research Laboratory

Renee Dopplick of CyberWonders

Environmental Research Institute of Michigan

 (ERIM)

Laura Florence, National Oceanic and Atmo-

 spheric Administration (NOAA)

Peter K. Forsberg

Great Lakes Visual/Research, Inc.

Institute for Great Lakes Research,

 Bowling Green State University (BGSU)

Jesse Besser Museum

Lake Carriers Association

Edward M. Mahoney, MSU Department of

 Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

 (MDNR)

Michigan DNR Parks and Recreation Division

Michigan Historical Center

Michigan Maritime Museum

Michigan Resource Information System (MIRIS)

Michigan State University (MSU)

Michigan Travel, Tourism and Recreation

(continued)
246

 Resource Center (MTTRRC)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association

 (NOAA)

Gary Nelkie

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

Old Woman Creek National Estuarine

 Research Reserve (NERR)

The Penrose Family of West Branch, Michigan

Thunder Bay Divers

Hawk Tolson

U.S. Library of Congress

Gene Wright

Reviewers

(alphabetic order)

Martin Freeman

NOAA General Counsel for Ocean Services

Thomas P. Graf

Land & Water Management Division

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

John R. Halsey

Michigan Historical Center

Michigan Department of State

Donald Inman

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Pamela Lawrence

NOAA General Counsel for Ocean Services

Edward Lindelof

NOAA National Marine Sanctuary Program

John McConnell

Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve Committee

Don Sawyer

Alcona Historical Society

Dennis Schornack

Office of the Governor of Michigan

Chris A. Shafer

Land & Water Management Division

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Ole Varmer

NOAA General Counsel for Ocean Services

NOAA Project Administration

Ellen Brody

Karen Brubeck

Francesca Cava

Susan Durden

Sherrard Foster

Cheryl Graham

Doris Grimm

Annie Hillary

Edward Lindelof

Michele Malarney

Patmarie Nedelka

Randy Schneider

Leslie White
247

Federal Agencies

U.S. Coast Guard

1240 East 9th Street

Cleveland, Ohio 44199

U.S. Coast Guard

145 Water Street

Alpena, MI 49707

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

11177 W. 8th Avenue

Lakewood, CO 80225

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab

2205 Commonwealth Blvd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48105

U.S Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Sanctuaries (12)

U.S. Department of Defense

Air National Guard

Building 3500 Stop 18

Andrews Air Force, MD 20331

U.S. Department of Defense

Phelps Collins Air National Guard Base

Alpena, MI 49707

U.S Department of Defense

Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 1027

Detroit, MI 48231

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

P.O. Box 631

Milwaukee, WI 53201-0631

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge

6975 Mower Road, RR#1

Saginaw, MI 48601

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

2651 Coolidge Road

E. Lansing, MI 48823

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Building

145 Water Street

Alpena, MI 49707

U.S Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Anthropology Division

Washington, D.C. 20002

LIST OF AGENCY CONTACTS
248

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service Regional Office

1709 Jackson Street

Omaha, NE 68102

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Midwest Archaeological Center

Federal Building, Room 474

100 Centennial Mall

Lincoln, NE 68508

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

4402 N. Fairfax Drive

Arlington, VA 22203

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Archaeological Assistance Division

800 North Capital Street NW, Suite 210

Washington, D.C. 20002

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore

P.O. Box 277

Empire, MI 49630

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore

P.O. Box 40

Munising, MI 49862

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

RR#1, Box 4

Bayfield, WI 54814

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Isle Royale National Park

800 E. Lakeshore Drive

Houghton, MI 49931

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office

2525 Gambell St., Rm 107

Anchorage, AK 99503

U.S. Department of the Interior

331 S. Second Ave.

Minneapolis, MN 55401

U.S. Department of the Interior

Milwaukee District Office

P.O. Box 631

Milwaukee, WI 53201

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

77 W. Jackson Avenue, WQP16J

Chicago, IL 60604

U.S. Geological Survey

Biological Resources Division

1451 Green Road

Ann Arbor, MI 481905
249

U.S. Geological Survey

6520 Mercantile Way, Suite 5

Lansing, MI 48911-5991

State Agencies

Governor’s Office

Executive Office, Olds Plaza

Lansing, MI 48913

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Land and Water Management Division

P.O. Box 30458

Lansing, MI 48909

Michigan Department of Military Affairs

2500 S. Washington Ave.

Lansing, MI 48913

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Land and Water Management Division

P.O. Box 30028

Lansing, MI 48909

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Oscoda Field Office

6670 F-41

Oscoda, MI 48750

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Region II Headquarters

8717 N. Roscommon Road

Roscommon, MI 48653

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

1955 N I-75

Grayling, MI 49738

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Fisheries Division

160 E. Fletcher

Alpena, MI 49707

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Fisheries Division

P.O. Box 30028

Lansing, MI 48909

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Fisheries Division

488 Cherry Creek Road

Marquette, MI 49855

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Law Enforcement Division

P.O. Box 667

Gaylord, MI 49735

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Law Enforcement Division

Route #1, Box 7E

Cedarville, MI 49719

Michigan Department of State

Michigan Historical Center

717 W. Allegan

Lansing, MI 48918
250

Michigan Jobs Commission

201 N. Washington Square

Victor Office Center – 4th Floor

Lansing, MI 48913

Michigan Office of the Attorney General

530 W. Allegan, 8th Floor

Lansing, MI 48909

Native American Tribes

Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority

Albert LeBlanc Bldg.

186 E. Three Mile Road

Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783

Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa/Chippewa Indians

Route # 1, Box 135

Suttons Bay, MI 49682

Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians

P.O. Box 246

Petoskey, MI 49770

Little River Band of Ottawa Indians

409 Water Street

Manistee, MI 49660

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians

523 Ashmun Street

Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783
APPENDIX A

Responses to Comments Received

On The

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/

Draft Management Plan
A – 252

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

Responses To Comments Received

On The

Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Management Plan

On June 23, 1997 NOAA published in the Federal Register a proposal to establish, in partnership with the

State of Michigan, an approximately 808-square-mile area of Lake Huron, encompassing and surrounding

Thunder Bay, as a National Marine Sanctuary. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Management Plan (DEIS/DMP) discussing this proposal, and alternatives to it, was published on the same date.

As described in the DEIS/DMP, the proposed Sanctuary boundary extends along the ordinary high water

mark of Lake Huron’s shoreline, from Presque Isle Lighthouse (Presque Isle County) south to Sturgeon

Point Lighthouse (Alcona County), and lakeward to longitude 83 degrees west. The entire management

focus of the Sanctuary is on underwater cultural resources.

A 145-day public comment period on the DEIS/DMP extended from June 23 through November 14,

1997, and included two comment extension periods provided in response to requests from the Alpena,

Michigan community and the Sanctuary Advisory Council (SAC). During this public comment period,

NOAA received a total of 62 written comments (including electronically-transmitted messages). Additionally, at three public hearings conducted in Alcona, Alpena and Presque Isle counties by NOAA (September

8-10, 1997), 32 persons testified on the proposed Sanctuary. As one of its primary purposes, the SAC

provided a report to NOAA, which includes a series of recommendations regarding the proposed Sanctuary. These comments and recommendations received on the DEIS/DMP contributed to the refinement

of policies for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary (NMS).

This Appendix identifies and summarizes issues raised by commenters and presents NOAA’s responses.

Significant issues and substantive comments are addressed in the “Responses to Comments” section,

which follows, and by making changes in the FEIS/MP, as appropriate. NOAA has summarized similar

substantive comments by issue (e.g., regulations, user fees) and provided responses that are easily identified by the reader.

Following the “Responses to Comments” section, a series of matrices show all public comments submitted through letters, electronic mail, and public hearings. The same groupings used in the “Responses to

Comments” section are used in the matrices to indicate the issues on which an agency, organization, or

individual commented. For information on the types of comments organized under each heading, see the

“Responses to Comments” section.
A – 253

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

Three additional headings not found in the “Responses to Comments” section were added to the matrices: “Support for Sanctuary Designation,” “Opposition to Sanctuary Designation,” and “Specific Recommendations/Changes for FEIS/MP.” Comments that are indicated under the “Support for Sanctuary

Designation” heading expressed general support for the designation of Thunder Bay as a National Marine

Sanctuary. Comments that are found under the “Opposition to Sanctuary Designation” heading opposed

the designation of a National Marine Sanctuary in Thunder Bay. Comments located under the “Specific

Recommendations/Changes for FEIS/MP” heading all provided specific suggestions for changes to the

DEIS/DMP document. Where appropriate, these changes are reflected in the FEIS/MP.

Federal Presence in State Waters; State Sovereignty

1. Comment: The Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve provides adequate protection to the Bay’s

underwater cultural resources; there is no need to duplicate efforts.

Response: NOAA agrees that State of Michigan law protecting the State’s underwater preserves

(Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities of Public Act 451, as amended), provides a basic level of protection for “abandoned property” (the State’s term for underwater cultural resources). There are several

ways, however, in which Sanctuary designation goes beyond what the State of Michigan accomplishes

with the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve.

First, although the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve has been designated since 1981, the State has been

unable to provide the necessary financial resources or staff to comprehensively manage the underwater

preserves. Thus, while the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve provides for the protection of underwater

cultural resources, there are few programs in place to carry out the research, education or enforcement

activities necessary to more fully know, understand and protect these resources. NOAA proposes to enter into partnership with the State of Michigan to enhance management of the Sanctuary proposal area

(which fully encompasses the Preserve) by providing, with Sanctuary Program and collaborative partnership funding, support for these types of activities. NOAA is not proposing to solely manage the State’s resources; rather, NOAA is proposing to supplement and complement State and/or local efforts to provide

protection to, and education and research on, Thunder Bay’s underwater cultural resources.

Second, the Sanctuary regulations provide additional protection for the area’s underwater cultural resources.

The State only protects “abandoned property,” while the Sanctuary would protect all underwater cultural

resources. This additional protection applies to non-abandoned shipwrecks, as well as historical remnants of

docks and piers (see Section 5, Regulatory Alternatives for a more complete discussion of the differences

between State law and Sanctuary regulations). The Sanctuary also has additional enforcement capabilities.
A – 254

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

It is the intent of the Sanctuary to build on and strengthen the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve. Because the Thunder Bay NMS is a partnership with the State of Michigan, NOAA and the State will consult

regularly to ensure that the agencies are not duplicating efforts. Given the additional financial resources

and legal authorities the Sanctuary has to offer, a partnership between the State of Michigan and NOAA

will provide opportunities that neither agency could offer on its own. There are numerous benefits

associated with a National Marine Sanctuary, including enhanced opportunities for research and long-term

monitoring, additional development of educational materials, and increased support for enforcement. The

presence of a Sanctuary draws attention to the fact that an area is nationally significant and worth protecting on a national level.

2. Comment: Any Federal government program or involvement in Alpena or surrounding communities is an intrusion into “sovereign” State waters. Designation of the Sanctuary will result in the loss of

State control of Lake Huron, and a takeover of both management and regulation of the Thunder Bay area

by the Federal government.

Response: As has been discussed and demonstrated throughout the Sanctuary feasibility process,

the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary will not change the ownership or control of State lands or

waters; that is, no loss of State sovereignty will occur as a result of NOAA’s proposal. NOAA has worked

closely with the State of Michigan to ensure that the State’s jurisdiction and rights are maintained and not

relinquished. NOAA does not intend to intrude upon or change existing State or local authorities. All

existing State laws, regulations, and authorities will remain in effect. The Memorandum of Understanding

between the State of Michigan and NOAA contains several provisions to address this concern. A key

provision states, “The State of Michigan has not conveyed title to or relinquished its sovereign authority

over any State-owned submerged lands or other State-owned resources, by agreeing to include those

submerged lands and resources within the Sanctuary boundary.”

3. Comment: The Sanctuary should have a provision requiring a review after five years to determine

whether the State of Michigan still supports Sanctuary designation.

Response: The Memorandum of Understanding between NOAA and the State of Michigan contains a provision whereby NOAA will “re-propose” the Sanctuary five years after Sanctuary designation.

The Governor will have the ability at that time to veto parts or all of Sanctuary designation.
A – 255

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

Regulations

There were a number of comments related to the breadth and nature of the proposed Sanctuary regulations. In response to public comments, NOAA made several changes to the regulations. The first change

is the definition of “underwater cultural resources.” Several comments noted that the definition was vague

and too broad. NOAA, therefore, revised the definition to make it more consistent with the State definition of “abandoned property” and provide more predictability to Sanctuary users about what NOAA is

managing and protecting. The second change is the wording of one of the prohibitions in the Sanctuary

regulations. To clarify what types of activities are subject to the Sanctuary regulations, NOAA included

language in the final regulations that is similar to language in Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities of

Public Act 451, as amended. The prohibition now reads, “recovering, altering, destroying, or attempting

to recover, alter, destroy, or possess an underwater cultural resource.” The third change was to add a

prohibition on the use of grappling hooks and other anchoring devices on underwater cultural resources

with a mooring buoy.

The Sanctuary regulations are limited to prohibitions on: 1) recovering, altering, destroying, possessing, or

attempting to recover, alter, destroy or possess, an underwater cultural resource; 2) drilling into, dredging

or otherwise altering the lakebottom associated with underwater cultural resources, including contextual

information; or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on the

lakebottom associated with underwater cultural resources (except as an incidental result of anchoring

vessels; traditional fishing operations; or minor projects that do not adversely affect underwater cultural

resources); and 3) the use of grappling hooks or other anchoring devices on underwater cultural resource

sites that are marking with a mooring buoy.

The Sanctuary regulations are different from the State law governing the State’s underwater cultural

resources in the following ways:

ß The Sanctuary regulations apply to all shipwrecks, not just those that are abandoned;

ß The use of grappling hooks or other anchoring devices is prohibited on underwater cultural resources

that are marked with a mooring buoy;

ß “Hand-taking” of artifacts outside the Thunder Bay Underwater Preserve, but still within the Sanctuary

boundary, is prohibited; and

ß Permit applications are more detailed to satisfy the Federal Archaeology Program guidelines.

4. Comment: The Sanctuary will prohibit or restrict fishing activities in Thunder Bay.
A – 256

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

Response: The Sanctuary will not restrict fishing, as long as the fishing activities do not involve a

prohibited activity (see discussion above in the introduction to this section). NOAA is not placing any

restrictions on who can use the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA will not require a permit

or assess a user fee for people to use the Sanctuary. NOAA is not proposing any restrictions on fishing in

the Sanctuary in addition to those that currently exist under State or other federal regulation. There is no

regulation of, or restriction on, commercial or recreational fishing activities (including fishery-related

research and stocking programs) in the Sanctuary, as long as the conduct of those activities does not

involve a prohibited activity. Moreover, fishing activities are not included within the Sanctuary’s “Scope of

Regulation,” which means no Sanctuary regulation could be applied to those activities, unless the entire

Sanctuary designation process was repeated.

Although unlikely, if the impact of a fishing activity (e.g., from the use of fishing gear) caused disturbance or

injury to the Sanctuary’s underwater cultural resources, NOAA could find that user in violation of the

Sanctuary regulations. One exception is alteration of the lakebottom (15 CFR §922.194(a)(2)) as an

incidental result of traditional fishing operations (defined in 15 CFR §922.191).

5. Comment: Concern about restrictions on diving and access to shipwrecks.

Response: There is no regulation of, or restriction on, recreational or commercial diving activities

within the Sanctuary, or on access generally to shipwrecks within the Sanctuary boundary. There are no

“zones” prohibiting access and no permits required simply to dive in the Sanctuary.

It will be the policy of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary to provide free and open access to all

underwater cultural resources. This is the philosophy of the National Marine Sanctuary Program, and the

Program has a track record to demonstrate its commitment to multiple uses of the sanctuaries. Diving is

allowed and encouraged at all National Marine Sanctuaries. For example, the Florida Keys NMS is constructing a “shipwreck trail,” which encourages access to the shipwrecks. Even on the Monitor (the Civil

War ironclad off the coast of North Carolina), which is too deep for most recreational divers, a licensed

dive operator provides services to the shipwreck. There may be rare occasions, however, when the

Thunder Bay NMS proposes to place temporary limits on access to a shipwreck (i.e., if an historically

significant shipwreck is newly discovered and NOAA and the State need to document the artifacts in the

event they are illegally recovered). The only way in which NOAA could restrict access, however, is

through the imposition of an emergency regulation pursuant to 15 CFR §922.195. In accordance with

the regulations and the Memorandum of Understanding, NOAA cannot impose an emergency regulation

without concurrence from the Governor.
A – 257

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

In the event that NOAA imposes some type of restriction on access to allow documentation of a newlydiscovered shipwreck, NOAA envisions using volunteer divers who are trained to assist the agency in

collecting information.

6. Comment: Concern about not being allowed to anchor to shipwrecks.

Response: Due to possible damage caused by grappling hooks to underwater cultural resources,

and in response to a recommendation from the Sanctuary Advisory Council, NOAA added a prohibition

on the use of grappling hooks or other anchoring devices on underwater cultural resource sites that are

marked with a mooring buoy (15 CFR §922.192(a)(3)). If there is no alternative to the use of a grappling

hook on a non-buoyed shipwreck, NOAA recommends that the person using the anchoring device

consult with the Sanctuary manager to determine ways of avoiding damage to the shipwreck (e.g., obtaining information about the placement and orientation to avoid damaging vulnerable parts).

The State of Michigan also considers damage to abandoned property caused by grappling hooks a violation of Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities of Public Act 451 (1994), as amended. Therefore,

even though the State has not enforced this aspect of the State law, NOAA’s position on damage caused

by grappling hooks to shipwrecks without a mooring buoy is consistent with the State.

A high priority activity once the Sanctuary is designated is the placement of mooring buoys at all feasible

shipwreck sites. This will allow safe access for divers, allow boats to tie up to the mooring buoys, and

eliminate the need for anchoring on the lakebottom.

7. Comment: Concern about restrictions on performing private archaeological surveys.

Response: Any activity that might alter an underwater cultural resource is subject to the Sanctuary

regulations. Even if the conduct of private archaeological surveys is not expected to alter or otherwise

adversely impact an underwater cultural resource, NOAA encourages the surveyor to consult with the

Sanctuary manager. In general, NOAA encourages research and documentation on underwater cultural

resources, as long as the activity does not violate the Sanctuary regulations.

8. Comment: Concern about restrictions on commercial diving charter operations.

Response: The regulations do not place any restrictions on the number of commercial dive charter

operations in the Sanctuary, nor do they require dive charters to have a license or to register their boats

for use in the Sanctuary. NOAA will not charge a user fee for commercial diving charter operations.

NOAA will work in partnership with dive operators to educate divers about the Sanctuary.
A – 258

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

9. Comment: Concern about requirements for diver and boat registration.

Response: The regulations do not require divers or boat operators to register to be in Sanctuary

waters. NOAA will not charge a user fee for divers or boat operators.

10. Comment: The Sanctuary should not grant leases that remove oil and/or gas from locations under

the bottomlands within the Sanctuary boundaries.

Response: The Sanctuary regulations include a prohibition on “drilling into, dredging or otherwise

altering the lakebottom associated with underwater cultural resources, including contextual information; or

constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on the lakebottom associated

with underwater cultural resources, except as an incidental result of: (i) anchoring vessels; (ii) traditional

fishing operations; or (iii) minor projects that do not adversely affect underwater cultural resources.” Any

person conducting an activity that adversely impacts underwater cultural resources would be required to

obtain a permit pursuant to the Sanctuary regulations.

11. Comment: Concern about restrictions on property rights and land use.

Response: The Sanctuary will have no effect on existing property rights or on existing land uses.

The landward boundary of the Sanctuary extends along the ordinary high water mark between Sturgeon

Point Lighthouse (Alcona County) and Presque Isle Lighthouse (Presque Isle County). The Memorandum

of Understanding contains the following provision, “NOAA does not have the ability to, and therefore

cannot, acquire land to regulate activities landward of the ordinary high water mark (e.g., limiting public

access from the shore to Lake Huron). NOAA does have authority to co-manage activities lakeward of

the ordinary high water mark pursuant to the Sanctuary regulations.”

12. Comment: Concern about restrictions on hunting activities.

Response: There is no regulation of hunting activities. Hunting is not an activity that is listed in the

Sanctuary’s “Scope of Regulation.” Any hunting activity on land would be outside the Sanctuary boundary

and therefore not affected at all by the Sanctuary regulations. Waterfowl hunting on the water is also

outside the scope of the Sanctuary’s regulations.

13. Comment: Concern about new regulations or restrictions on human activities being imposed

following designation of the Sanctuary.
A – 259

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

Response: The Sanctuary has a very narrow management focus on underwater cultural resources, with

virtually no effect on individual activities in Thunder Bay unless these activities have a negative impact on

Sanctuary resources. In addition, NOAA must make a determination that a Sanctuary’s resources are

nationally significant. In order for any regulatory changes to be made to the Sanctuary following its designation, the entire designation process as described in Section 304 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act

would have to be repeated. This process includes extensive public involvement and review, as well as

input and opportunity to veto by the Governor.

14. Comment: The definition of traditional fishing does not specifically reference tribal fishing.

Response: NOAA included in the proposed Sanctuary regulations a definition of “traditional

fishing” because it is an activity that is exempt from 15 CFR §922.192(a)(2), alteration of the lakebottom.

NOAA agrees that even though tribal fishing is prohibited in this area under the 1985 Consent Agreement, it is an activity that was “customarily conducted within the Sanctuary prior to its designation.”

NOAA, therefore, has clarified in the final regulations that tribal fishing falls under the definition of traditional fishing.

15. Comment: Do not allow the use of emergency regulations in the Thunder Bay NMS.

Response: Pursuant to 15 CFR §922.195, temporary regulation, including prohibition, of permitted activities in emergency situations, is a programmatic regulation that may be used to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource. Eliminating this authority would jeopardize the Sanctuary’s ability to react and respond quickly to emergency situations threatening Sanctuary

resources. Although the provision for emergency temporary regulation is vitally important to ensure the

Program’s ability to respond to emergency situations, the mechanism is very rarely used. The Memorandum of Understanding between NOAA and the State of Michigan requires that NOAA obtain concurrence from the Governor prior to initiation of any emergency regulation.

16. Comment: Exempt from prosecution charter boat operators and personal sport divers who dive

a wreck without a mooring buoy, if the reason for the absence of a buoy is that it has not been set, or that

it has been accidentally destroyed.

Response: The regulations for the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary do not require that

divers use mooring buoys. The regulations at 15 CFR §922.192(a)(3), however, prohibit the use of

grappling hooks or other anchoring devices on underwater cultural resource sites that are marked with a

mooring buoy. As discussed in Comment 23, it will be a priority of the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary to install and maintain a mooring buoy system. Divers also must be in compliance with 15 CRF
A – 260

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

§922.192(a)(1), which prohibits “recovering, altering, destroying, possessing, or attempting to recover,

alter, destroy, or possess an underwater cultural resource.”

17. Comment: Adopt Sanctuary regulations that mirror the State of Michigan regulations protecting

underwater cultural resources, per Alternative A, Regulatory Alternatives.

Response: NOAA’s preferred regulatory alternative is Alternative B (see Section 5 of the FEIS/

MP), which is to adopt Sanctuary regulations consistent with the purpose and intent of State regulations

under Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities, of P.A. 451 (1994), as amended, and Part 325, Great

Lakes Submerged Lands, of P.A. 451 (1994), as amended. The primary advantage of Alternative B is that

protective coverage is extended to all shipwrecks within the Sanctuary boundary; not just to “abandoned”

shipwrecks, as defined under State law and the federal Abandoned Shipwreck Act. In effect, adoption of

Alternative B will serve as a safety net for State underwater cultural resources that might be unprotected

under either State law or the Abandoned Shipwreck Act

It is important to note that NOAA revised the Sanctuary regulations to reflect language in State law. For

example, NOAA changed the definition of “underwater cultural resources” to a definition that uses terms

similar to the State definition of “abandoned property” (which is the state term for underwater cultural

resources). NOAA also changed the wording of a prohibited activity (15 CFR §922.192(a)(1)) to more

closely reflect the State prohibition under Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities of P.A. 451 (1994),

as amended. Therefore, while NOAA is still adopting Regulatory Alternative B, this alternative is closer to

Regulatory Alternative A than it was in the DEIS/DMP.

18. Comment: What procedures are in place to ensure that NOAA cannot make unilateral changes

to the Sanctuary (e.g., changing the scope of regulations)?

Response: In accordance with federal law, NOAA is unable to make substantive changes to the

Sanctuary without following required administrative procedures. NOAA is required, at a minimum, to

follow the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act, requiring that adequate public notice and

opportunity for public comment be given for new regulations. Further, if NOAA proposed a regulation

outside the scope of regulations listed in the Sanctuary Designation Document, NOAA would be legally

required to go through the designation process, including public review and comment, at least one public

hearing, preparation of a Supplemental EIS, and gubernatorial review and approval. If the Governor

objects, the regulation would not take effect in State waters. Finally, if NOAA proposed to substantially

change an existing regulation, NOAA must provide for public review and comment and, although not

legally required to do so, gubernatorial review and approval. The MOU contains a provision addressing

changes by NOAA.
A – 261

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

Extent of Underwater Cultural Resources in Sanctuary Boundary

19. Comment: The collection of underwater cultural resources (primarily shipwrecks) in Thunder Bay

is not “nationally significant,” and thus does not qualify for National Marine Sanctuary status.

Response: The collection of over 160 shipwrecks both known and thought to be located within

the boundary of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary represents a large diversity of vessels that

navigated the Great Lakes in the 19th and 20th centuries. Collectively, these shipwrecks reflect transitions

in ship architecture and construction methods, from wooden sailing boats to early steel-hulled steamers.

In addition to representing important transitions in ship architecture and construction, the collection also

conveys many stories of Great Lakes transportation and commerce over the past two hundred years.

For NOAA to designate a National Marine Sanctuary, the agency must determine that the area contains

resources of special national significance (National Marine Sanctuaries Act, Section 301(a)(2)). NOAA

funded a study to determine whether the underwater cultural resources of the Thunder Bay region are

nationally significant. There is strong evidence, based on this study, of national historic significance attached

to this collection of underwater cultural resources located in the Thunder Bay area (See Preliminary

Comparative and Theme Study of National Historic Landmark Potential for Thunder Bay, Martin 1996).

Martin (1996) indicated that the collection of shipwrecks would likely qualify as a National Historic Landmark. In addition, several of the known shipwrecks individually have potential national historic significance,

e.g., Isaac M. Scott, which foundered in the Great Storm of 1913 (See Section 4, E. of the FEIS/MP for a

complete discussion of these shipwrecks).

20. Comment: The number of shipwrecks occurring outside Alpena County does not warrant extension of the Sanctuary boundary beyond Alpena County.

Response: Although the majority of known and suspected shipwrecks occur in waters off Alpena

County, there are also a significant number of known or suspected shipwrecks occurring in waters off both

Alcona and Presque Isle Counties, notably near the lighthouses at both locations. (See Figure 5.4 of the

FEIS/MP, “Approximate Locations of Shipwrecks in the Thunder Bay Region”). As described in Table 5.1 of

the FEIS/MP, “Number of known, probable, and suspected shipwrecks,” the greatest increase occurs from

Boundary B (Alpena County lines) and Boundary C (Presque Isle Lighthouse as the northern boundary

and Sturgeon Point Lighthouse as the southern boundary — NOAA’s preferred boundary). The number

of known, probable, and suspected shipwrecks increases from 116 in Boundary B to 160 in Boundary C.

NOAA also used a number of other criteria for selecting a boundary, including the maritime cultural landscape, accessibility to Sanctuary resources, and effectiveness of Sanctuary operation. NOAA determined
A – 262

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

that Boundary C was the most desirable, not only for the number of shipwrecks, but for two lighthouses

serving as the north and south boundaries and other factors related to features inside Boundary C.

21. Comment: The National Marine Sanctuary Program should not be supporting sanctuaries that

only protect cultural resources.

Response: The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (section 301(a)(2)) states “the Congress finds that

certain areas of the marine environment possess conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or esthetic qualities which give them special national, and in some cases, international

significance.” NOAA is not required to designate national marine sanctuaries based upon a finding that all

of these listed criteria are present. A sanctuary may be designated based on the national significance of

any one of the listed criteria, provided that the requirements of sections 303 and 304 of the NMSA are

met.

22. Comment: Arrange the boundaries of the Sanctuary to include only areas with a high concentration of known and probable wrecks.

Response: As noted in the discussion of boundary alternatives (See Section 5 of the FEIS/MP),

NOAA’s preferred boundary, Boundary Alternative C, contains the highest concentration of known,

probable and suspected shipwrecks (see Table 5.1 of the FEIS/MP). It would be very difficult administratively to manage a Sanctuary with many “zones” as envisioned in this comment. Since the scope of the

Sanctuary is limited to management and protection of underwater cultural resources, the Sanctuary will

have minimal impact on the majority of users in the Sanctuary boundary.

Management of Shipwrecks

23. Comment: Use State and federal funds to maintain mooring buoys, anchored within 50 feet of

each dive site, from May 1st to October 31st of each year, on all identified wrecks within the Sanctuary

that are within 130 feet of the surface. Fit the anchor line for each buoy with a permanent guideline that

maintains a depth of +/- 5 feet from the shallowest point of the dive site.

Response: The placement of mooring buoys is an important element of ensuring safe and open

public access to Thunder Bay’s underwater cultural resources, while also ensuring the protection of these

resources. NOAA will pursue placing mooring buoys at identified dive sites, and will also pursue collaboration with private and/or other governmental sources of support to implement full mooring buoy place-
A – 263

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

ment and maintenance, as appropriate. The specifics of mooring buoy placement will be addressed

following designation, in part through findings and assessments resulting from Sanctuary inventory surveys.

As with any activity, however, the placement and maintenance of mooring buoys will be subject to available funding.

24. Comment: Regularly publicize coordinates of existing and newly-found shipwrecks, dates of

upcoming studies of wrecks and other research projects, and results of completed and ongoing research

projects.

Response: Consistent with goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program Strategic Plan, NOAA

promotes “coordinated research and monitoring efforts throughout the Program.” As discussed in the

Management Plan (Section 3 of the FEIS/MP), goals of the research/monitoring program at Thunder Bay

include inventory and assessment of Sanctuary resources, and development of collaborative programs

with other agencies, businesses, and organizations.

NOAA does have the authority under Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section

9(a) of the Archaeological Resource and Protection Act to withhold the location of certain shipwrecks. It

will be the policy of the Thunder Bay NMS to make these coordinates available to the public. However,

for safety or enforcement purposes, exact locations of newly discovered shipwrecks may not be reported

immediately.

Dates of Sanctuary-funded or Sanctuary-permitted studies of shipwrecks and other research projects will

be available to the interested public, once those dates are established. Finally, results of completed

research also will be made available to the interested public; progress on ongoing research projects will

also be made available to the public, as appropriate.

25. Comment: Use State and federal funds, and/or assistance in fundraising, to purchase and install a

hyperbaric chamber near the sanctuary.

Response: Decisions related to the purchase and installation of a hyperbaric chamber near the

Sanctuary to support Sanctuary research/monitoring programs will be made as annual detailed research

plans for the Sanctuary are developed. Such plans also will include discussion of funding for various

equipment and supplies. NOAA acknowledges the importance of having a hyperbaric chamber in close

proximity to the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

26. Comment: Provide incentives and mechanisms to encourage private individuals and companies to

explore shipwrecks not yet discovered; and to share information and documentation they already have,
A – 264

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

or gather in the future, on shipwrecks in the area.

Response: Among the highest priorities to ensure effective Sanctuary management are research

and inventory activities to establish baseline information on the location and status of underwater cultural

resources. There will be no restrictions on divers or other public access to known or suspected shipwrecks within the Sanctuary, provided diving activity is conducted in a manner that complies with Sanctuary and other valid regulations. Individuals will be encouraged by NOAA to explore the Sanctuary for the

potential discovery of underwater cultural resources, and to share information and documentation on

Sanctuary resources with the user and other interested public. NOAA will facilitate these efforts by

developing and providing information forums and written and/or visual materials for the public.

27. Comment: Provide State and federal support for selecting, purchasing, cleaning up, and scuttling

additional vessels within the Sanctuary.

Response: The selection, purchase, clean-up and scuttling of “additional” vessels within the Sanctuary will not be a management activity for the Sanctuary. The purpose of the Sanctuary is to manage and

protect existing shipwrecks in the Sanctuary boundary.

Development of Educational Programs

28. Comment: Develop joint State and federal public education programs, including a web page on

the Internet, to promote understanding of the resources available in the Sanctuary to the public of the

State, nation, and world.

Response: Development of joint State and federal public education and interpretive programs on

the maritime heritage of the Thunder Bay area are contemplated in the Management Plan (see Section 3,

Management Plan, FEIS/MP). Part of such programs will include further and continuing development and

maintenance of a web page. A web page has already been developed containing preliminary information

about the site and its progress toward National Marine Sanctuary designation. The web page address is:

http://glerl.noaa.gov/glsr/thunderbay.

29. Comment: Provide joint federal and State support for local educational opportunities to all ages

and types of schools about aspects of marine and ecological sciences and history in the Thunder Bay area;

train educators in the use of that programming.
A – 265

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

Response: As generally described in Section 3, Management Plan, the Sanctuary’s goals for

education include development and implementation of science-based programs that promote awareness

and understanding of the Thunder Bay area’s underwater cultural resources and maritime heritage. The

primary purpose of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary is to provide comprehensive, long-term

protection — through education, research and management programs — for the nationally-significant

collection of underwater cultural resources found in the Thunder Bay area. Given this singular management focus, development and support for programming (and training in the use of that programming) to

educate children, college students, and the public about aspects of marine and ecological science and

history in the Thunder Bay area will not be a high management priority for the Sanctuary, unless such

inquiries relate to maritime heritage (e.g., the effects of zebra mussels on shipwrecks).

30. Comment: Provide that the Sanctuary Manager or designee shall make presentations as requested

to community organizations on the functions, budget, and staff of the Sanctuary.

Response: Success of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary will depend in large part upon

its integration into the local and surrounding communities. Outreach and communication efforts made by

the Sanctuary staff to those communities will support such integration. In coordination with its State

partners and others, the Sanctuary Manager will be available to make presentations to community organizations on Sanctuary activities, programs and administration.

31. Comment: Provide publicity and mechanisms to invite and incorporate the involvement of local

residents, who have appropriate credentials and experience, in Sanctuary research projects.

Response: A Sanctuary Research Plan will be developed, identifying research and monitoring

activity priorities. As Sanctuary funds are available, some may be competitively awarded to support these

research and/or monitoring projects. The funds will be awarded to individuals with appropriate credentials and experience from local residents and those from outside the area.

32. Comment: Provide specific mechanisms for involving the diving community in planning and

conducting research and educational projects related to the Sanctuary.

Response: As with area residents interested in potential Sanctuary research and educational

projects, the Sanctuary will make information and opportunities for planned research and education

projects known to the area diving community. One way for interested area residents and representatives

of the diving community to become involved in helping to plan for such projects is through the Sanctuary

Advisory Council and its subcommittees. The SAC will advise and provide recommendations to the

Sanctuary Manager regarding development of priorities for annual research and education plans. In other
A – 266

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

sanctuaries, NOAA depends on the experience and expertise of divers to provide input to the Sanctuary

Manager. NOAA will place a high priority on building a strong relationship with local and regional divers.

33. Comment: Use federal and State funds to document the cultural resources within the Sanctuary

and to provide at least one public resource center through each tourist season.

Response: The identification and documentation of underwater cultural resources within the

Sanctuary clearly are priority items for planning site management, which includes the provision of complete, current information to the user and other interested publics. NOAA will pursue development of a

Maritime Heritage Center with other agencies (including State agencies), businesses, and organizations.

This type of Center would provide the public with information on the Sanctuary, its resources, and the

maritime heritage of the Thunder Bay area.

User Fees

34. Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that user fees may be imposed on

various Sanctuary users, such as those engaged in fishing, diving or boating activities.

Response: NOAA is not proposing the imposition of user fees on any activity. The imposition of

user fees requires express statutory authority, and NOAA does not possess such authority. Therefore,

user fees are not charged (nor have they ever been charged) in any existing National Marine Sanctuary,

and there is no intent or desire by NOAA to do so in the case of the Thunder Bay National Marine

Sanctuary. The Memorandum of Understanding between NOAA and the State of Michigan states that

NOAA does not have the authority to impose user fees at the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

In the event that NOAA was granted this authority by Congress, the Governor would have to concur

with the imposition of user fees.

Conflict Resolution

35. Comment: Tribal participation must be included in the conflict resolution procedures.

Response: NOAA agrees that tribal interests should be considered in the conflict resolution

process. The MOU between the State of Michigan and NOAA describes a conflict resolution process.

NOAA suggests that the Chippewa-Ottawa Fishery Treaty Management Authority and other tribes enter

into a separate MOU(s) with NOAA to address such concerns.
A – 267

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

36. Comment: How will the Sanctuary deal with potential conflicts between fishermen and divers?

Response: NOAA is not aware of existing conflicts between divers and fishermen, although

NOAA recognizes that the possibility exists. Access to the Sanctuary will not be restricted to divers,

fishermen or any other users, which could be a source of conflict. In fact, the National Marine Sanctuary

Program recognizes multiple uses in the sanctuaries. In the Thunder Bay NMS, for example, there are no

“zones” around shipwrecks that fishermen will be prohibited from using as fishing areas. If conflicts do

arise from an increased number of users in the Sanctuary or from fishing gear that harm underwater

cultural resources, there is a framework for conflict resolution in the Memorandum of Understanding.

NOAA also expects that the Sanctuary Advisory Council or other local forum will be critical to the resolution of this type of conflict.

Economic Impact Assessment

37. Comment: There is an error in the Economic Impact Assessment regarding the transcription of

projected use data from one table to another.

Response: The DEIS/DMP contained a word processing error in Table 1 of Appendix F and Table

6.1 in Volume 1 of the Draft EIS/MP (i.e., the use projections for bird watching [overnight trips] were

inadvertently duplicated for kayaking/canoeing [day trips]). The word processing error resulted in trip

figures after bird watching (overnight trips) to be “thrown off” by one line. The Total party trips in Table 1

and Table 6.1 should be 6,150 for FY97; 9,200 for FY98; 14,175 for FY99; 23,000 for FY00; and 31,700

for FY01 (as shown on the last line of Table 2 in Appendix F). The use projections in Table 1 and Table 6.1

should have been consistent with Table 2 in Appendix F of the DEIS/DMP. This correction was made in

the FEIS/MP.

38. Comment: The use of kayaking, bird watching and sightseeing as categories for tourism is not

related to a sanctuary to protect underwater cultural resources.

Response: The Economic Impact Assessment in Section 6 can be improved by better explaining

the rationale for including bird watching, kayaking/canoeing, and sightseers in the impact calculations for an

“underwater” sanctuary. Several reasons exist for including these uses. First, the Sanctuary will interpret

and promote the entire “maritime cultural landscape” in partnership with the community and state, and

the landscape includes resources other than shipwrecks. Second, a certain segment of visitors will be

attracted to the region simply because there is a “National” Sanctuary. They may be primarily interested
A – 268

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

in cultural heritage, but can realistically be assumed to participate also in recreation associated with natural

heritage (in addition, some of this “natural” heritage is an important component of the maritime cultural

landscape). Finally, social research involving heritage tourism indicates that a primary motivation for

visitation is history and human heritage, but that these visitors also participate in other outdoor recreation

activities. These rationale can be supported by social research in heritage tourism; aggregate trends and

projections of use for bird watching, canoeing/kayaking, and sightseeing (i.e., nature-based tourism along

the shorelands and from boats); and some results from the Florida Keys recreation and tourism study

(Leeworthy et al. 1996).

39. Comment: The impact of increased visitors on the area’s local infrastructure and on the environment is not adequately addressed.

Response: The Economic Impact Assessment was limited in scope due to financial constraints and

availability of data. However, NOAA does not believe the projected increase in visitation would cause

stresses on the area’s infrastructure. The City of Alpena is growing, with new businesses and stores

locating there. This growth, which is not a result of the Sanctuary, will prepare the City for increased

visitation.

Other

40. Comment: Is State or local matching funding required for the Sanctuary?

Response: NOAA is not requiring any State and/or local support for Sanctuary programs and

activities. The Memorandum of Understanding contains the following statement to address this concern:

“No State or local funding is required to implement the Management Plan, its implementing regulations,

or any provisions of this MOU.” Initial NOAA funding levels for the Sanctuary will be at least $200,000

annually. This figure could be higher depending on appropriations. In addition to this level of support,

there are opportunities for revenue enhancement and cost-sharing with a variety of agencies, organizations, institutions, businesses and individuals, to assist in meeting Sanctuary Program objectives. NOAA

will continue to promote and encourage means such as partnerships and sponsorships, to raise additional

support for Sanctuary programs.

41. Comment: Involve the existing SAC in reviewing and revising the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to ensure that it accurately addresses local concerns.

Response: Prior to the release of this FEIS/MP, the SAC was requested to review and make
A – 269

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

recommendations to NOAA regarding the MOU. Before the FEIS/MP release, the SAC also reviewed

and endorsed the Programmatic Agreement among NOAA, the State of Michigan and the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation. The SAC’s involvement has been critical in shaping the terms and scope

of the Thunder Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

42. Comment: Who on the state or local level would be responsible for enforcement of the Sanctuary

regulations? The Final Management Plan should include a provision for funding enforcement activities.

Response: Enforcement of Sanctuary regulations is discussed in the MOU, which provides for

possible deputization of State of Michigan, Michigan State Police, and county marine sheriff enforcement

personnel, for the enforcement of Sanctuary regulations. NOAA envisions developing a separate agreement for enforcement. Under such an agreement, the appropriate State agency would be recognized as

the lead enforcement entity, and provisions for necessary cost-sharing for law enforcement activities

would be made.

43. Comment: NOAA needs to address the impacts of zebra mussels on shipwrecks.

Response: NOAA recognizes that zebra mussels will be a management concern for the Sanctuary. If this is determined to be a priority research activity, funds will be allocated to examine the impact of

zebra mussels on shipwrecks.

44. Comment: The availability of the open water placement site for future placement of clean dredged

materials is critical for continued maintenance of the Federal navigation channel at Alpena Harbor.

Response: NOAA recognizes the importance of maintaining the navigation channel at Alpena

Harbor. NOAA is not aware of adverse impacts to underwater cultural resources caused by the open

water placement site. Unless there are adverse impacts, the Sanctuary will not impose restrictions on the

continued availability of the open water placement site currently used by the Corps for placement of clean

dredged materials resulting from periodic maintenance dredging of navigation channels and harbors

located on Lake Huron.

45. Comment: Safety of Sanctuary users should be considered in light of commercial shipping traffic in

Thunder Bay. Mooring buoys should be kept out of commercial course lines.

Response: After Sanctuary designation, NOAA and the State will work with the U.S. Coast Guard

and the Lake Carriers’ Association to develop a safe and effective mooring buoy system, as well as to

ensure that mooring buoys are not placed in major shipping channels.
A – 270

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP

46. Comment: In the event of an oil spill, NOAA should comply with U.S. Coast Guard Area Contingency Plan.

Response: After designation, NOAA will work closely with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure that

NOAA is aware of, and part of, the Area Contingency Plan. NOAA added information in Section 4 of the

FEIS/MP on the Area Contingency Plan.

47. Comment: Why isn’t the Fame included in the list of shipwrecks?

Response: It is NOAA’s understanding that the sailing vessel Fame was stranded in the Thunder

Bay region but later recovered (i.e. probably re-floated).
A – 271

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP
A – 272

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP
A – 273

APPENDIX A RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS/DMP
APPENDIX B

The

National Marine Sanctuaries Act
A – 275

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

16 U.S.C. 1431 ET SEQ.

As amended by Pub. L. 104-283

[NOTE : The Oceans Act of 1992, Pub. L. 102-587, and the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation

Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-283, contain provisions pertaining to national marine sanctuaries.]

Sec. 301. FINDINGS, PURPOSES, AND POLICIES

(a) FINDINGS.—The Congress finds that—

(1) this Nation historically has recognized the importance of protecting special areas of its public

domain, but these efforts have been directed almost exclusively to land areas above the

high-water mark;

(2) certain areas of the marine environment possess conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or esthetic qualities which give them special national, and in some

instances, international, significance;

(3) while the need to control the effects of particular activities has led to enactment of

resource-specific legislation, these laws cannot in all cases provide a coordinated and comprehensive approach to the conservation and management of special areas of the marine environment;

(4) a Federal program which identifies special areas of the marine environment will contribute

positively to marine resources conservation, research, and management;

(5) such a Federal program will also serve to enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise use of the marine environment; and

(6) protection of these special areas can contribute to maintaining a natural assemblage of living

resources for future generations.

(b) PURPOSES AND POLICIES.—The purposes and policies of this title are—

(1) to identify and designate as national marine sanctuaries areas of the marine environment which

are of special national significance;

(2) to provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of

these marine areas, and activities affecting them, in a manner which complements existing regulatory authorities;

(3) to support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and monitoring of, the resources

of these marine areas, especially long-term monitoring and research of these areas;

(4) to enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise use of the marine environment;

(5) to facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all

public and private uses of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other

authorities;

(6) to develop and implement coordinated plans for the protection and management of these

areas with appropriate Federal agencies, State and local governments, Native American tribes and

organizations, international organizations, and other public and private interests concerned with

the continuing health and resilience of these marine areas;

(7) to create models of, and incentives for, ways to conserve and manage these areas;

(8) to cooperate with global programs encouraging conservation of marine resources; and

(9) to maintain, restore, and enhance living resources by providing places for species that depend

upon these marine areas to survive and propagate.
A – 276

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

Sec. 302. DEFINITIONS

As used in this title, the term—

(1) “Draft management plan” means the plan described in section 304(a)(1)(C)(v);

(2) “Magnuson Act” means the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.

1801 et seq.);

(3) “marine environment” means those areas of coastal and ocean waters, the Great Lakes and

their connecting waters, and submerged lands over which the United States exercises jurisdiction,

including the exclusive economic zone, consistent with international law;

(4) “Secretary” means the Secretary of Commerce;

(5) “State” means each of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Virgin

Islands, Guam, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States;

(6) “damages” includes—

(A) compensation for—

(i)(I) the cost of replacing, restoring, or acquiring the equivalent of a

sanctuary resource; and (II) the value of the lost use of a sanctuary resource pending its restoration or replacement or the acquisition of an

equivalent sanctuary resource; or

(ii) the value of a sanctuary resource if the sanctuary resource cannot be

restored or replaced or if the equivalent of such resource cannot be

acquired;

(B) the cost of damage assessments under section 312(b)(2); and

(C) the reasonable cost of monitoring appropriate to the injured, restored, or replaced

resources;

(7) “response costs” means the costs of actions taken or authorized by the Secretary to minimize

destruction or loss of, or injury to, sanctuary resources, or to minimize the imminent risks of such

destruction, loss, or injury;

(8) “sanctuary resource” means any living or nonliving resource of a national marine sanctuary that

contributes to the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or

aesthetic value of the sanctuary; and

(9) “exclusive economic zone” means the exclusive economic zone as defined in the Magnuson

Fishery and Conservation Act.

Sec. 303. SANCTUARY DESIGNATION STANDARDS

(a) STANDARDS.—The Secretary may designate any discrete area of the marine environment as a

national marine sanctuary and promulgate regulations implementing the designation if the Secretary—

(1) determines that the designation will fulfill the purposes and policies of this title; and

(2) finds that—

(A) the area is of special national significance due to its resource or human-use values;

(B) existing State and Federal authorities are inadequate or should be supplemented to

ensure coordinated and comprehensive conservation and management of the area,

including resource protection, scientific research, and public education;

(C) designation of the area as a national marine sanctuary will facilitate the objectives in

subparagraph (B); and

(D) the area is of a size and nature that will permit comprehensive and coordinated

conservation and management.
A – 277

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

(b) FACTORS AND CONSULTATIONS REQUIRED IN MAKING DETERMINATIONS AND FINDINGS.—

(1) Factors.—For purposes of determining if an area of the marine environment meets the standards set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider—

(A) the area’s natural resource and ecological qualities, including its contribution to biological productivity, maintenance of ecosystem structure, maintenance of ecologically or

commercially important or threatened species or species assemblages, maintenance of

critical habitat of endangered species, and the biogeographic representation of the site;

(B) the area’s historical, cultural, archaeological, or paleontological significance;

(C) the present and potential uses of the area that depend on maintenance of the area’s

resources, including commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence uses other commercial and recreational activities, and research and education;

(D) the present and potential activities that may adversely affect the factors identified in

subparagraphs (A), (B), (C);

(E) the existing State and Federal regulatory and management authorities applicable to the

area and the adequacy of those authorities to fulfill the purposes and policies of this title;

(F) the manageability of the area, including such factors as its size, its ability to be identified

as a discrete ecological unit with definable boundaries, its accessibility, and its suitability for

monitoring and enforcement activities;

(G) the public benefits to be derived from sanctuary status, with emphasis on the benefits

of long-term protection of nationally significant resources, vital habitats, and resources

which generate tourism;

(H) the negative impacts produced by management restrictions on income-generating

activities such as living and nonliving resources development; and

(I) the socioeconomic effects of sanctuary designation.

(2) Consultation.—In making determinations and findings, the Secretary shall consult

with—

(A) the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives

and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate;

(B) the Secretaries of State, Defense, Transportation, and the Interior, the Administrator,

and the heads of other interested Federal agencies;

(C) the responsible officials or relevant agency heads of the appropriate State and local

government entities, including coastal zone management agencies, that will or are likely to

be affected by the establishment of the area as a national marine sanctuary;

(D) the appropriate officials of any Regional Fishery Management Council established by

section 302 of the Magnuson Act (16 U.S.C. 1852) that may be affected by the proposed

designation; and

(E) other interested persons.

(3) Resource Assessment Report.—In making determinations and findings, the Secretary shall

draft, as part of the environmental impact statement referred to in section 304(a)(2), a resource

assessment report documenting present and potential uses of the area, including commercial and

recreational fishing, research and education, minerals and energy development, subsistence uses,

and other commercial governmental, or recreational uses. The Secretary, in consultation with the

Secretary of the Interior, shall draft a resource assessment section for the report regarding any
A – 278

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

commercial, governmental, or recreational resource uses in the area under consideration that are

subject to the primary jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior. The Secretary, in consultation

with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the Administrator, shall draft a resource assessment section for the report including information on any past, present or proposed

future disposal or discharge of materials in the vicinity of the proposed sanctuary. Public disclosure

by the Secretary of such information shall be consistent with national security regulations.

Sec. 304. PROCEDURES FOR DESIGNATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

(a) SANCTUARY PROPOSAL.—

(1) Notice.—In proposing to designate a national marine sanctuary, the Secretary shall—

(A) issue, in the Federal Register, a notice of the proposal, proposed regulations that may

be necessary and reasonable to implement the proposal, and a summary of the draft

management plan;

(B) provide notice of the proposal in newspapers of general circulation or electronic media

in the communities that may be affected by the proposal; and

(C) on the same day the notice required by subparagraph (A) is issued, the Secretary shall

submit to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science. and Transportation of the Senate

documents, including an executive summary, consisting of—

 (i) the terms of the proposed designation;

(ii) the basis of the findings made under section 303(a) with respect to the area;

(iii) an assessment of the considerations under section 303(b)(1);

(iv) proposed mechanisms to coordinate existing regulatory and management

authorities within the area;

(v) the draft management plan detailing the proposed goals and objectives, management responsibilities, resource studies, interpretive and educational programs,

and enforcement, including surveillance activities for the area;

(vi) an estimate of the annual cost of the proposed designation, including costs of

personnel. equipment and facilities, enforcement, research, and public education;

(vii) the draft environmental impact statement;

(viii) an evaluation of the advantages of cooperative State and Federal management

if all or part of a proposed marine sanctuary is within the territorial limits of any

State or is superjacent to the subsoil and seabed within the seaward boundary of a

State, as that boundary is established under the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C.

1301 et seq.); and

 (ix) the proposed regulations referred to in subparagraph (A).

(2) Environmental Impact Statement.—The Secretary shall—

(A) prepare a draft environmental impact statement, as provided by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), on the proposal that includes the

resource assessment report required under section 303(b)(3), maps depicting the boundaries of the proposed designated area, and the existing and potential uses and resources of

the area; and

(B) make copies of the draft environmental impact statement available to the public.

(3) Public Hearing.—No sooner than thirty days after issuing a notice under this subsection, the

Secretary shall hold at least one public hearing in the coastal area or areas that will be most affected by the proposed designation of the area as a national marine sanctuary for the purpose of
A – 279

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

receiving the views of interested parties.

(4) Terms of Designation.—The terms of designation of a sanctuary shall include the geographic

area proposed to be included within the sanctuary, the characteristics of the area that give it

conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or esthetic value, and the

types of activities that will be subject to regulation by the Secretary to protect those characteristics.

The terms of designation may be modified only by the same procedures by which the original

designation is made.

(5) Fishing Regulations.—The Secretary shall provide the appropriate Regional Fishery Management Council with the opportunity to prepare draft regulations for fishing within the Exclusive

Economic Zone as the Council may deem necessary to implement the proposed designation.

Draft regulations prepared by the Council, or a Council determination that regulations are not

necessary pursuant to this paragraph, shall be accepted and issued as proposed regulations by the

Secretary unless the Secretary finds that the Council’s action fails to fulfill the purposes and policies

of this title and the goals and objectives of the proposed designation. In preparing the draft regulations, a Regional Fishery Management Council shall use as guidance the national standards of

section 301(a) of the Magnuson Act (16 U.S.C. 1851) to the extent that the standards are consistent and compatible with the goals and objectives of the proposed designation. The Secretary shall

prepare the fishing regulations, if the Council declines to make a determination with respect to the

need for regulations, makes a determination which is rejected by the Secretary, or fails to prepare

the draft regulations in a timely manner. Any amendments to the fishing regulations shall be

drafted, approved, and issued in the same manner as the original regulations. The Secretary shall

also cooperate with other appropriate fishery management authorities with rights or responsibilities within a proposed sanctuary at the earliest practicable stage in drafting any sanctuary fishing

regulations.

(6) Committee Action.—After receiving the documents under subsection (a)(l)(C), the Committee

on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the Committee on

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate may each hold hearings on the proposed

designation and on the matters set forth in the documents. If within the forty-five day period of

continuous session of Congress beginning on the date of submission of the documents, either

Committee issues a report concerning matters addressed in the documents, the Secretary shall

consider this report before publishing a notice to designate the national marine sanctuary.

(b) TAKING EFFECT OF DESIGNATIONS.—

(1) Notice.—In designating a national marine sanctuary, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal

Register notice of the designation together with final regulations to implement the designation and

any other matters required by law, and submit such notice to the Congress. The Secretary shall

advise the public of the availability of the final management plan and the final environmental impact

statement with respect to such sanctuary. The Secretary shall issue a notice of designation with

respect to a proposed national marine sanctuary site not later than 30 months after the date a

notice declaring the site to be an active candidate for sanctuary designation is published in the

Federal Register under regulations issued under this Act, or shall publish not later than such date in

the Federal Register findings regarding why such notice has not been published. No notice of

designation may occur until the expiration of the period for Committee action under subsection

(a)(6). The designation (and any of its terms not disapproved under this subsection) and regulations shall take effect and become final after the close of a review period of forty-five days of

continuous session of Congress beginning on the day on which such notice is published unless in
A – 280

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

the case of a natural [sic] marine sanctuary that is located partially or entirely within the seaward

boundary of any State, the Governor affected certifies to the Secretary that the designation or any

of its terms is unacceptable, in which case the designation or the unacceptable term shall not take

effect in the area of the sanctuary lying within the seaward boundary of the State.

(2) Withdrawal of Designation.— If the Secretary considers that actions taken under paragraph (1)

will affect the designation of a national marine sanctuary in a manner that the goals and objectives

of the sanctuary cannot be fulfilled, the Secretary may withdraw the entire designation. If the

Secretary does not withdraw the designation, only those terms of the designation or not certified

under paragraph (1) shall take effect.

(3) Procedures.— In computing the forty-five-day periods of continuous session of Congress

pursuant to subsection (a)(6) and paragraph (1) of this subsection—

(A) continuity of session is broken only by an adjournment of Congress sine die; and

(B) the days on which either House of Congress is not in session because of an adjournment of more than three days to a day certain are excluded.

(c) ACCESS AND VALID RIGHTS.—

(1) Nothing in this title shall be construed as terminating or granting to the Secretary the right to

terminate any valid lease, permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access that is in existence on the date of designation of any national marine sanctuary.

(2) The exercise of a lease, permit, license, or right is subject to regulation by the Secretary

consistent with the purposes for which the sanctuary is designated.

(d) INTERAGENCY COOPERATION.—

(1) Review of Agency Actions.—

(A) In General.—Federal agency actions internal or external to a national marine sanctuary,

including private activities authorized by licenses, leases, or permits, that are likely to

destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource are subject to consultation with

the Secretary.

(B) Agency Statements Required.— Subject to any regulations the Secretary may establish

each Federal agency proposing an action described in subparagraph (A) shall provide the

Secretary with a written statement describing the action and its potential effects on sanctuary resources at the earliest practicable time, but in no case later than 45 days before the

final approval of the action unless such Federal agency and the Secretary agree to a different schedule.

(2) Secretary’s Recommended Alternatives.—If the Secretary finds that a Federal agency action is

likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource, the Secretary shall (within 45

days of receipt of complete information on the proposed agency action) recommend reasonable

and prudent alternatives, which may include conduct of the action elsewhere, which can be taken

by the Federal agency in implementing the agency action that will protect sanctuary resources.

(3) Response to Recommendations.—The agency head who receives the Secretary’s recommended alternatives under paragraph (2) shall promptly consult with the Secretary on the alternatives. If the agency head decides not to follow the alternatives, the agency head shall provide the

Secretary with a written statement explaining the reasons for that decision.

(e) REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PLANS.—Not more than 5 years after the date of designation of any

national marine sanctuary, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 5 years, the Secretary shall evaluate
A – 281

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

the substantive progress toward implementing the management plan and goals for the sanctuary, especially

the effectiveness of site-specific management techniques, and shall revise the management plan and

regulations as necessary to fulfill the purposes and policies of this title.

Sec. 305. APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS AND INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS

(a) REGULATIONS.—This title and the regulations issued under section 304 shall be applied in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law, and in accordance with the treaties,

conventions, and other agreements to which the United States is a party. No regulation shall apply to or

be enforced against a person who is not a citizen, national, or resident alien of the United States, unless in

accordance with—

(1) generally recognized principles of international law;

(2) an agreement between the United States and the foreign state of which the person is a citizen;

or

(3) an agreement between the United States and the flag state of a foreign vessel, if the person is a

crewmember of the vessel.

(b) NEGOTIATIONS.—The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary, shall take appropriate

action to enter into negotiations with other governments to make necessary arrangements for the protection of any national marine sanctuary and to promote the purposes for which the sanctuary is established.

(c) INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.—The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State and

other appropriate Federal agencies, shall cooperate with other governments and international organizations in the furtherance of the purposes and policies of this title and consistent with applicable regional and

multilateral arrangements for the protection and management of special marine areas.

Sec. 306. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES

It is unlawful to—

(1) destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource managed under law or regulations

for that sanctuary;

(2) possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship by any means any sanctuary resource taken in

violation of this section;

(3) interfere with the enforcement of this title; or

(4) violate any provision of this title or any regulation or permit issued pursuant to this title.

Sec. 307. ENFORCEMENT

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct such enforcement activities as are necessary and reasonable to carry out this title.

(b) POWERS OF AUTHORIZED OFFICERS.—Any person who is authorized to enforce this title may—

(1) board. search, inspect, and seize any vessel suspected of being used to violate this title or any

regulation or permit issued under this title and any equipment, stores, and cargo of such vessel;

(2) seize wherever found any sanctuary resource taken or retained in violation of this title or any

regulation or permit issued under this title;

(3) seize any evidence of a violation of this title or of any regulation or permit issued under this

title;

(4) execute any warrant or other process issued by any court of competent jurisdiction; and
A – 282

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

(5) exercise any other lawful authority.

(c) CIVIL PENALTIES.—

(1) Civil penalty.—Any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who violates this title

or any regulation or permit issued under this title shall be liable to the United States for a civil

penalty of not more than $100,000 for each such violation, to be assessed by the Secretary. Each

day of a continuing violation shall constitute a separate violation.

(2) Notice.—No penalty shall be assessed under this subsection until after the person charged has

been given notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

(3) In Rem Jurisdiction.—A vessel used in violating this title or any regulation or permit issued

under this title shall be liable in rem for any civil penalty assessed for such violation. Such penalty

shall constitute a maritime lien on the vessel and may be recovered in an action in rem in the

district court of the United States having jurisdiction over the vessel.

(4) Review of Civil Penalty.—Any person against whom a civil penalty is assessed under this

subsection may obtain review in the United States district court for the appropriate district by filing

a complaint in such court not later than 30 days after the date of such order.

(5) Collection of Penalties.—If any person fails to pay an assessment of a civil penalty under this

section after it has become a final and unappealable order, or after the appropriate court has

entered final judgment in favor of the Secretary, the Secretary shall refer the matter to the Attorney General, who shall recover the amount assessed in any appropriate district court of the

United States. In such action, the validity and appropriateness of the final order imposing the civil

penalty shall not be subject to review.

(6) Compromise or Other Action by Secretary.—The Secretary may compromise, modify, or

remit, with or without conditions, any civil penalty which is or may be imposed under this section.

(d) FORFEITURE.—

(1) In General.—Any vessel (including the vessel’s equipment, stores, and cargo) and other item

used, and any sanctuary resource taken or retained, in any manner, in connection with or as a

result of any violation of this title or of any regulation or permit issued under this title shall be

subject to forfeiture to the United States pursuant to a civil proceeding under this subsection. The

proceeds from forfeiture actions under this subsection shall constitute a separate recovery in

addition to any amounts recovered as civil penalties under this section or as civil damages under

section 312. None of those proceeds shall be subject to set-off.

(2) Application of the Customs Laws.—The Secretary may exercise the authority of any United

States official granted by any relevant customs law relating to the seizure, forfeiture, condemnation, disposition, remission, and mitigation of property in enforcing this title.

(3) Disposal of Sanctuary Resources.—Any sanctuary resource seized pursuant to this title may be

disposed of pursuant to an order of the appropriate court or, if perishable, in a manner prescribed

by regulations promulgated by the Secretary. Any proceeds from the sale of such sanctuary

resource shall for all purposes represent the sanctuary resource so disposed of in any subsequent

legal proceedings.

(4) Presumption.—For the purposes of this section there is a rebuttable presumption that all

sanctuary resources found on board a vessel that is used or seized in connection with a violation

of this title or of any regulation or permit issued under this title were taken or retained in violation

of this title or of a regulation or permit issued under this title.
A – 283

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

(e) PAYMENT OF STORAGE, CARE, AND OTHER COSTS.—

(1) Expenditures.—

(A) Notwithstanding any other law, amounts received by the United States as civil penalties, forfeitures of property, and costs imposed under paragraph (2) shall be retained by

the Secretary in the manner provided for in section 107(f)(1) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980.

(B) Amounts received under this section for forfeitures and costs imposed under paragraph (2) shall be used to pay the reasonable and necessary costs incurred by the Secretary to provide temporary storage, care, maintenance, and disposal of any sanctuary

resource or other property seized in connection with a violation of this title or any regulation or permit issued under this title.

(C) Amounts received under this section as civil penalties and any amounts remaining after

the operation of subparagraph (B) shall be used, in order of priority, to—

(i) manage and improve the national marine sanctuary with respect to which the

violation occurred that resulted in the penalty or forfeiture;

(ii) pay a reward to any person who furnishes information leading to an assessment of a civil penalty, or to a forfeiture of property, for a violation of this title or

any regulation or permit issued under this title; and

(iii) manage and improve any other national marine sanctuary.

(2) Liability for Costs.—Any person assessed a civil penalty for a violation of this title or of any

regulation or permit issued under this title, and any claimant in a forfeiture action brought for such

a violation, shall be liable for the reasonable costs incurred by the Secretary in storage, care, and

maintenance of any sanctuary resource or other property seized in connection with the violation.

(f) SUBPOENAS.—In the case of any hearing under this section which is determined on the record in

accordance with the procedures provided for under section 554 of title 5, United States Code, the

Secretary may issue subpoenas for the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of

relevant papers, books, and documents, and may administer oaths.

(g) USE OF RESOURCES OF STATE AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—The Secretary shall, whenever appropriate, use by agreement the personnel, services, and facilities of State and other Federal

departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis, to carry out

the Secretary’s responsibilities under this section.

(h) COAST GUARD AUTHORITY NOT LIMITED.—Nothing in this section shall be considered to limit

the authority of the Coast Guard to enforce this or any other Federal law under section 89 of title 14,

United States Code.

(i) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF.—If the Secretary determines that there is an imminent risk of destruction or loss

of or injury to a sanctuary resource, or that there has been actual destruction or loss of, or injury to, a

sanctuary resource which may give rise to liability under section 312, the Attorney General, upon request

of the Secretary, shall seek to obtain such relief as may be necessary to abate such risk or actual destruction, loss, or injury, or to restore or replace the sanctuary resource, or both. The district courts of the

United States shall have jurisdiction in such a case to order such relief as the public interest and the equities of the case may require.
A – 284

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

(j) AREA OF APPLICATION AND ENFORCEABILITY.—The area of application and enforceability of this

title includes the territorial sea of the United States, as described in Presidential Proclamation 5928 of

December 27, 1988, which is subject to the sovereignty of the United States, and the United States

exclusive economic zone, consistent with international law.

Sec. 308. SEVERABILITY

If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the

validity of the remainder of this Act and of the application of such provision to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

Sec. 309. RESEARCH, MONITORING, AND EDUCATION

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall conduct research, monitoring, evaluation, and education programs as are necessary and reasonable to carry out the purposes and policies of this title.

(b) PROMOTION AND COORDINATION OF SANCTUARY USE.—The Secretary shall take such

action as is necessary and reasonable to promote and coordinate the use of national marine sanctuaries

for research, monitoring, and education purposes. Such action may include consulting with Federal agencies, States, local governments, regional agencies, interstate agencies, or other persons to promote use of

one or more sanctuaries for research, monitoring, and education, including coordination with the National

Estuarine Research Reserve System.

Sec. 310. SPECIAL USE PERMITS

(a) ISSUANCE OF PERMITS.—The Secretary may issue special use permits which authorize the conduct

of specific activities in a national marine sanctuary if the Secretary determines such authorization is necessary—

(1) to establish conditions of access to and use of any sanctuary resource; or

(2) to promote public use and understanding of a sanctuary resource.

(b) PERMIT TERMS.—A permit issued under this section—

(1) shall authorize the conduct of an activity only if that activity is compatible with the purposes for

which the sanctuary is designated and with protection of sanctuary resources;

(2) shall not authorize the conduct of any activity for a period of more than 5 years unless renewed by the Secretary;

(3) shall require that activities carried out under the permit be conducted in a manner that does

not destroy, cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources; and

(4) shall require the permittee to purchase and maintain comprehensive general liability insurance

against claims arising out of activities conducted under the permit and to agree to hold the United

States harmless against such claims.

(c) FEES.—

(1) Assessment and Collection.—The Secretary may assess and collect fees for the conduct of any

activity under a permit issued under this section.

(2) Amount.—The amount of a fee under this subsection shall be equal to the sum of—

(A) costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Secretary in issuing the permit;

(B) costs incurred, or expected to be incurred, by the Secretary as a direct result of the

conduct of the activity for which the permit is issued, including costs of monitoring the
A – 285

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

conduct of the activity; and

(C) an amount which represents the fair market value of the use of the sanctuary resource

and a reasonable, return to the United States Government.

(3) Use of Fees.—Amounts collected by the Secretary in the form of fees under this section may

be used by the Secretary—

(A) for issuing and administering permits under this section; and

(B) for expenses of designating and managing national marine sanctuaries.

(d) VIOLATIONS.—Upon violation of a term or condition of a permit issued under this section, the

Secretary may—

(1) suspend or revoke the permit without compensation to the permittee and without liability to

the United States;

(2) assess a civil penalty in accordance with section 307; or

(3) both.

(e) REPORTS.—Each person issued a permit under this section shall submit an annual report to the

Secretary not later than December 31 of each year which describes activities conducted under that permit

and revenues derived from such activities during the year.

(f) FISHING.—Nothing in this section shall be considered to require a person to obtain a permit under

this section for the conduct of any fishing activities in a national marine sanctuary.

Sec. 311. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, DONATIONS, AND ACQUISITIONS

(a) COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, GRANTS AND OTHER AGREEMENTS.—The Secretary may enter

into cooperative agreements, financial agreements, grants, contracts, or other agreements with States,

local governments, regional agencies, interstate agencies, or other persons to carry out the purposes and

policies of this title.

(b) AUTHORIZATION TO SOLICIT DONATIONS.—The Secretary may enter into such agreements

with any nonprofit organization authorizing the organization to solicit private donations to carry out the

purposes and policies of this title.

(c) DONATIONS.—The Secretary may accept donations of funds, property, and services for use in

designating and administering national marine sanctuaries under this title. Donations accepted under this

section shall be considered as a gift or bequest to or for the use of the United States.

(d) ACQUISITIONS.—The Secretary may acquire by purchase, lease, or exchange, any land, facilities, or

other property necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes and policies of this title

Sec. 312. DESTRUCTION OR LOSS OF, OR INJURY TO, SANCTUARY RESOURCES

(a) LIABILITY FOR INTEREST.—

(1) Liability to United States.—Any person who destroys, causes the loss of, or injures any sanctuary resource is liable to the United States for an amount equal to the sum of—

(A) the amount of response costs and damages resulting from the destruction, loss, or

injury; and

(B) interests on that amount calculated in the manner described under section 1005 of the
A – 286

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

(2) Liability In Rem.—Any vessel used to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource shall be liable in rem to the United States for response costs and damages resulting from

such destruction, loss, or injury. The amount of that liability shall constitute a maritime lien on the

vessel and may be recovered in an action in rem in the district court of the United States having

jurisdiction over the vessel.

(3) Defenses.—A person is not liable under this subsection if that person establishes that—

(A) the destruction or loss of, or injury to, the sanctuary resource was caused solely by an

act of God, an act of war, or an act or omission of a third party, and the person acted with

due care;

(B) the destruction, loss, or injury was caused by an activity authorized by Federal or State

law; or

(C) the destruction, loss, or injury was negligible.

(4) Limits to Liability.— Nothing in sections 4281–4289 of the Revised Statutes of the United

States or section 3 of the Act of February 13, 1893, shall limit the liability of any person under this

title.

(b) RESPONSE ACTIONS AND DAMAGE ASSESSMENT.—

(1) Response Actions.—The Secretary may undertake or authorize all necessary actions to prevent or minimize the destruction or loss of, or injury to, sanctuary resources, or to minimize the

imminent risk of such destruction, loss, or injury.

(2) Damage Assessment.—The Secretary shall assess damages to sanctuary resources in accordance with section 302(6).

(c) CIVIL ACTIONS FOR RESPONSE COSTS AND DAMAGES.—The Attorney General, upon request

of the Secretary, may commence a civil action in the United States district court for the appropriate district

against any person or vessel who may be liable under subsection (a) for response costs and damages. The

Secretary, acting as trustee for sanctuary resources for the United States, shall submit a request for such an

action to the Attorney General whenever a person may be liable for such costs or damages.

(d) USE OF RECOVERED AMOUNTS.—Response costs and damages recovered by the Secretary under

this section shall be retained by the Secretary in the manner provided for in section 107(f)(1) of the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9607(f)(1)), and

used as follows:

(1) Response Costs And Damage Assessments.— Twenty percent of amounts recovered under

this section, up to a maximum balance of $750,000, shall be used to finance response actions and

damage assessments by the Secretary.

(2) Restoration, Replacement, Management, And Improvement.—Amounts remaining after the

operation of paragraph (1) shall be used, in order of priority—

(A) to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the sanctuary resources which were

the subject of the action;

(B) to manage and improve the national marine sanctuary within which are located the

sanctuary resources which were the subject of the action; and

(C) to manage and improve any other national marine sanctuary.

(3) Federal-State Coordination.—Amounts recovered under this section with respect to sanctuary

resources lying within the jurisdiction of a State shall be used under paragraphs (2)(A) and (B) in
A – 287

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

accordance with the court decree or settlement agreement and an agreement entered into by the

Secretary and the Governor of that State.

Sec. 313. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry out this title the following: (1)

$12,000,000 for fiscal year 1997; (2) $15,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and (3) $18,000,000 for fiscal

year 1999.

Sec. 314. U.S.S. MONITOR ARTIFACTS AND MATERIALS

(a) CONGRESSIONAL POLICY. — In recognition of the historical significance of the wreck of the United

States ship Monitor to coastal North Carolina and to the area off the coast of North Carolina known as

the Graveyard of the Atlantic, the Congress directs that a suitable display of artifacts and materials from the

United States ship Monitor be maintained permanently at an appropriate site in coastal North Carolina.

[P.L. 102–587 authorized a grant for the acquisition of space in Hatteras Village, NC, for display of artifacts

and administration and operations of the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary.]

(b) INTERPRETATION AND DISPLAY OF ARTIFACTS.—

(1) Submission Of Plan. — The Secretary shall, within six months after the date of the enactment

of this section, submit to the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of

Representatives a plan for a suitable display in coastal North Carolina of artifacts and materials of

the United States ship Monitor.

(2) Contents Of Plan.—The plan submitted under subsection (a) shall, at a minimum, contain—

(A) an identification of appropriate sites in coastal North Carolina, either existing or proposed, for display of artifacts and materials of the United States ship Monitor;

(B) an identification of suitable artifacts and materials, including artifacts recovered or

proposed for recovery, for display in coastal North Carolina;

(C) an interpretive plan for the artifacts and materials which focuses on the sinking, discovery, and subsequent management of the wreck of the United States ship Monitor; and

(D) a draft cooperative agreement with the State of North Carolina to implement the

plan.

(c) DISCLAIMER. —This section shall not affect the following:

(1) Responsibilities Of Secretary.—The responsibilities of the Secretary to provide for the protection, conservation, and display of artifacts and materials from the United States ship Monitor.

(2) Authority Of Secretary.—The authority of the Secretary to designate the Mariner’s Museum,

located at Newport News, Virginia, as the principal museum for coordination of activities referred

to in paragraph (1).

[NOTE: Section 4 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act, Pub. L. 104-283, requires the

Secretary to prepare a plan for the management, stabilization, preservation, and recovery of artifacts and

materials of the U.S.S. Monitor.]

Sec. 315. ADVISORY COUNCILS

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary may establish one or more advisory councils (in this section referred to as an ‘Advisory Council’) to provide assistance to the Secretary regarding the designation and
A – 288

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

management of national marine sanctuaries. The Advisory Councils shall be exempt from the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

(b) MEMBERSHIP.—Members of the Advisory Councils may be appointed from among—

(1) persons employed by Federal or State agencies with expertise in management of natural

resources;

(2) members of relevant Regional Fishery Management Councils established under section 302 of

the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act; and

(3) representatives of local user groups, conservation and other public interest organizations,

scientific organizations, educational organizations, or others interested in the protection and

multiple use management of sanctuary resources.

(c) LIMITS OF MEMBERSHIP.—For sanctuaries designated after the date of enactment of the National

Marine Sanctuaries Program Amendments Act of 1992, the membership of Advisory Councils shall be

limited to no more than 15 members.

(d) STAFFING AND ASSISTANCE.—The Secretary may make available to an Advisory Council any staff,

information, administrative services, or assistance the Secretary determines are reasonably required to

enable the Advisory Council to carry out its functions.

(e) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS.—The following guidelines apply with

respect to the conduct of business meetings of an Advisory Council:

(1) Each meeting shall be open to the public, and interested persons shall be permitted to present

oral or written statements on items on the agenda.

(2) Emergency meetings may be held at the call of the chairman or presiding officer.

(3) Timely notice of each meeting, including the time, place, and agenda of the meeting, shall be

published locally and in the Federal Register, except that in the case of a meeting of an Advisory

Council established to provide assistance regarding any individual national marine sanctuary the

notice is not required to be published in the Federal Register.

(4) Minutes of each meeting shall be kept and contain a summary of the attendees and matters

discussed.

Oceans Act of 1992

Sections 2202 - 2307 of the Oceans Act of 1992, as amended by Pub. L. 104-283, contain provisions

pertaining to National Marine Sanctuaries.

Sec. 2202. STELLWAGEN BANK NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

(a) DESIGNATION.—The area described in subsection (b) is designated as the Stellwagen Bank National

Marine Sanctuary (hereafter in this section referred to as the “Sanctuary”).

(b) AREA.—The Sanctuary shall consist of all submerged lands and waters, including living and nonliving

marine resources within those waters, bounded by the area described as Boundary Alternative 3 in the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the Proposed Stellwagen Bank National

Marine Sanctuary, published by the Department of Commerce in January 1991, except that the western
A – 289

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

boundary shall be modified as follows:

(1) The southwestern corner of the Sanctuary shall be located at a point off Provincetown, Massachusetts, at the following coordinates: 42 degrees, 7 minutes, 44.89 seconds (latitude), 70 degrees, 28 minutes, 15.44 seconds (longitude).

(2) The northwestern corner of the Sanctuary shall be located at a point off Cape Ann, Massachusetts, at the following coordinates: 42 degrees, 37 minutes, 53.52 seconds (latitude), 70 degrees,

35 minutes, 52.38 seconds (longitude).

(c) MANAGEMENT.—The Secretary of Commerce shall issue a management plan for the Sanctuary in

accordance with section 304 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C.

1434), as amended by this title.

(d) SAND AND GRAVEL MINING ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED.—Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, exploration for, and mining of, sand and gravel and other minerals in the Sanctuary is prohibited.

(e) CONSULTATION.—In accordance with the procedures established in section 304(d) of the Marine

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended by this title, the appropriate Federal

agencies shall consult with the Secretary on proposed agency actions in the vicinity of the Sanctuary that

may affect sanctuary resources.

(f) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce for

carrying out the purposes of this section $570,000 for fiscal year 1993 and $250,000 for fiscal year 1994.

(g) OFFICE.—The Secretary of Commerce shall consider establishing a satellite office for the Stellwagen

Bank National Marine Sanctuary in Provincetown, Gloucester, or Hull, Massachusetts.

[NOTE: Section 11 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act, Pub. L. 104-283, changed the

name of this sanctuary to the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.]

Sec. 2203. MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

(a) ISSUANCE OF DESIGNATION NOTICE.—Notwithstanding section 304(b) of the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1434(b)), the designation of the Monterey Bay National

Marine 20 Sanctuary (hereafter in this section the “Sanctuary”), as described in the notice of designation

submitted to the Congress on September 15, 1992, shall take effect on September 18, 1992.

(b) OIL AND GAS ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no leasing,

exploration, development, or production of oil or gas shall be permitted within the Sanctuary as provided

by section 944.5 of the National Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the

Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, published by the Department of Commerce in June 1992.

(c) CONSULTATION.—Section 304(e) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,

as amended by this title, shall apply to the Sanctuary as designated by the Secretary of Commerce.

(d) VESSEL TRAFFIC.—Within 18 months after the date of enactment of this title, the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the State of California and with adequate
A – 290

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

opportunity for public comment, shall report to Congress on measures for regulating vessel traffic in the

Sanctuary if it is determined that such measures are necessary to protect sanctuary resources.

Sec. 2204. ENHANCING SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES

(a) AUTHORITY.- The Secretary may establish a program consisting of—

(1) the creation, adoption, and publication in the Federal Register by the Secretary of a symbol for

the national marine sanctuary program, or for individual national marine sanctuaries;

(2) the solicitation of persons to be designated as official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary

program or of individual national marine sanctuaries;

(3) the designation of persons by the Secretary as official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary

program or of individual sanctuaries;

(4) the authorization by the Secretary of the use of any symbol published under paragraph (1) by

official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program or of individual national marine sanctuaries;

(5) the creation, marketing, and selling of products to promote the national marine sanctuary

program, and entering into exclusive or nonexclusive agreements authorizing entities to create,

market or sell on the Secretary’s behalf;

(6) the solicitation and collection by the Secretary of monetary or in-kind contributions from official

sponsors for the manufacture, reproduction or use of the symbols published under paragraph (1);

(7) the retention of any monetary or in-kind contributions collected under paragraphs (5) and (6)

by the Secretary; and

(8) the expenditure and use of any monetary and in-kind contributions, without appropriation, by

the Secretary to designate and manage national marine sanctuaries.

Monetary and in-kind contributions raised through the sale, marketing, or use of symbols and products

related to an individual national marine sanctuary shall be used to support that sanctuary.

(b) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.— The Secretary may contract with any person for the creation of symbols or the solicitation of official sponsors under subsection (a).

(c) RESTRICTIONS.— The Secretary may restrict the use of the symbols published under subsection (a),

and the designation of official sponsors of the national marine sanctuary program or of individual national

marine sanctuaries to ensure compatibility with the goals of the national marine sanctuary program.

(d) PROPERTY OF UNITED STATES.— Any symbol which is adopted by the Secretary and published in

the Federal Register under subsection (a) is deemed to be the property of the United States.

 (e) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES.— It is unlawful for any person—

(1) designated as an official sponsor to influence or seek to influence any decision by the Secretary

or any other Federal official related to the designation or management of a national marine sanctuary, except to the extent that a person who is not so designated may do so;

(2) to represent himself or herself to be an official sponsor absent a designation by the Secretary;

(3) to manufacture, reproduce, or use any symbol adopted by the Secretary absent designation as

an official sponsor and without payment of a monetary or in-kind contribution to the Secretary;
A – 291

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

and

(4) to violate any regulation promulgated by the Secretary under this section.

Sec. 2209. FLORIDA KEYS NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

(a) IMPLEMENTATION.—Section 8 of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (16

U.S.C. 1433 note) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

(d) IMPLEMENTATION.—

(1) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Governor of the State of

Florida shall implement the program required by this section, in cooperation with the Secretary of

Commerce.

(2)(A) The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall with the Governor of the State of Florida establish a Steering Committee to set guidance and policy for the

development and implementation of such program. Membership shall include representatives of

the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the United States Fish and

Wildlife Service, the Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, the Florida Department of Environmental

Regulation, the South Florida Water Management District, and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority; three individuals in local government in the Florida Keys; and three citizens knowledgeable

about such program.

(B) The Steering Committee shall, on a biennial basis, issue a report to Congress that—

(i) summarizes the progress of the program;

(ii) summarizes any modifications to the program and its recommended actions and plans;

and

(iii) incorporates specific recommendations concerning the implementation of the program.

(C) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Administrator of the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shall cooperate with the Florida Department of

Environmental Regulation to establish a Technical Advisory Committee to advise the Steering

Committee and to assist in the design and prioritization of programs for scientific research and

monitoring. The Technical Advisory Committee shall be composed of scientists from Federal

agencies, State agencies, academic institutions, private non-profit organizations, and knowledgeable citizens.

(3)(A) The Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall appoint a Florida

Keys Liaison Officer. The Liaison Officer, who shall be located within the State of Florida, shall have

the authority and staff to—

(i) assist and support the implementation of the program required by this section, including

administrative and technical support for the Steering Committee and Technical Advisory

Committee;

(ii) assist and support local, State, and Federal agencies in developing and implementing

specific action plans designed to carry out such program;

(iii) coordinate the actions of the Environmental Protection Agency with other Federal

agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National

Park Service, and State and local authorities, in developing strategies to maintain, protect,

and improve water quality in the Florida Keys;
A – 292

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

(iv) collect and make available to the public publications, and other forms of information

that the Steering Committee determines to be appropriate, related to the water quality in

the vicinity of the Florida Keys; and

(v) provide for public review and comment on the program and implementing actions.

(4)(A) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1993, $3,000,000 for fiscal year 1994, and $4,000,000 for

fiscal year 1995, for the purpose of carrying out this section.

(B) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Commerce $300,000 for fiscal

year 1993, $400,000 for fiscal year 1994, and $500,000 for fiscal year 1995, for the purpose of

enabling the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to carry out this section.

(C) Amounts appropriated under this paragraph shall remain available until expended.

(D) No more than 15 percent of the amount authorized to be appropriated under subparagraph

(A) for any fiscal year may be expended in that fiscal year on administrative expenses.

(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.— Section 8(c) of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1433 note) is amended by striking “paragraph (10” and inserting in lieu thereof

“subsection(a).”

Subtitle C Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale Sanctuary

Sec. 2301. Short Title.

This subtitle may be cited as the “Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary Act”.

Sec. 2302. Findings.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Many of the diverse marine resources and ecosystems within the Western Pacific region are of

national significance and importance.

(2) There are at present no ocean areas in the Hawaiian Islands designated as national marine

sanctuaries or identified on the Department of Commerce’s Site Evaluation List of sites to be

investigated as potential candidates for designation as a national marine sanctuary under title III of

the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).

(3) The Hawaiian Islands consist of 8 major islands and 124 minor islands, with a total land area of

6,423 square miles and a general coastline of 750 miles.

(4) The marine environment adjacent to and between the Hawaiian Islands is a diverse and

unique subtropical marine ecosystem.

(5) The Department of Commerce recently concluded in its Kahoolawe Island National Marine

Sanctuary Feasibility Study that there is preliminary evidence of biological, cultural, and historical

resources adjacent to Kahoolawe Island to merit further investigation for national marine sanctuary

status.

(6) The Department of Commerce also concluded in its Kahoolawe Island National Marine

Sanctuary Feasibility Study that there are additional marine areas within the Hawaiian archipelago

which merit further consideration for national marine sanctuary status and that the national marine

sanctuary program could enhance marine resource protection in Hawaii.

(7) The Hawaiian stock of the endangered humpback whale, the largest of the three North Pacific
A – 293

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

stocks, breed and calve within the waters of the main Hawaiian Islands.

(8) The marine areas surrounding the main Hawaiian Islands, which are essential breeding, calving,

and nursing areas for the endangered humpback whale, are subject to damage and loss of their

ecological integrity from a variety of disturbances.

(9) The Department of Commerce recently promulgated a humpback whale recovery plan which

sets out a series of recommended goals and actions in order to increase the abundance of the

endangered humpback whale.

(10) An announcement of certain Hawaiian waters frequented by humpback whales as an active

candidate for marine sanctuary designation was published in the Federal Register on March 17,

1982 (47 FR 11544).

(11) The existing State and Federal regulatory and management programs applicable to the waters

of the main Hawaiian Islands are inadequate to provide the kind of comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of humpback whales and their habitat that is available under

title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.).

(12) Authority is needed for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of

humpback whales and their habitat that will complement existing Federal and State regulatory

authorities.

(13) There is a need to support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and monitoring

of, that portion of the marine environment essential to the survival of the humpback whale.

(14) Public education, awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise use of the marine environment are fundamental to the protection and conservation of the humpback whale.

(15) The designation, as a national marine sanctuary, of the areas of the marine environment

adjacent to the main Hawaiian Islands which are essential to the continued recovery of the humpback whale is necessary for the preservation and protection of this important national marine

resource.

(16) The marine sanctuary designated for the conservation and management of humpback whales

could be expanded to include other marine resources of national significance which are determined to exist within the sanctuary.

Sec. 2303. Definitions.

In this subtitle, the following definitions apply:

(1) The term “adverse impact” means an impact that independently or cumulatively damages,

diminishes, degrades, impairs, destroys, or otherwise harms.

(2) The term “Sanctuary” means the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary designated under section 2305.

(3) The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of Commerce.

Sec. 2304. Policy And Purposes.

(a) POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States to protect and preserve humpback whales and their

habitat within the Hawaiian Islands marine environment.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this subtitle arc

(1) to protect humpback whales and their habitat in the area described in section 2305(b);

(2) to educate and interpret for the public the relationship of humpback whales to the Hawaiian

Islands marine environment;

(3) to manage such human uses of the Sanctuary consistent with this subtitle and title III of the

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended by this Act; and
A – 294

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

(4) to provide for the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national significance for

possible inclusion in the sanctuary designated in section 2305(a).

Sec. 2305. Designation Of Sanctuary.

(a) DESIGNATION.—Subject to subsection (c), the area described in subsection (b)(1) and any area

included under subsection (b)(2) are designated as the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National

Marine Sanctuary under title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16

U.S.C. 1451 et seq.), as amended by this title.

(b) AREA INCLUDED.—

(1) Subject to subsections (c) and (d), the area referred to in subsection (a) consists of the submerged lands and waters off the coast of the Hawaiian Islands seaward of the upper reaches of

the wash of the waves on shore—

(A) to the 100-fathom (183-meter) isobath adjoining the islands of Lanai, Maui, and

Molokai, including Penguin Bank but excluding the area within 3 nautical miles of the upper

reaches of the waves on the shore of Kahoolawe Island;

(B) to the deep water area of Pailolo Channel from Cape Halawa, Molokai, to Nakalele

Point, Maui, and southward; and

(C) to the 100-fathom (183-meter) isobath adjoining the Kilauea National Wildlife Refuge

on the island of Kauai.

(2) (A) Within 6 months after the date of receipt of a request in writing from the Kahoolawe Island

Reserve Commission for inclusion within the Sanctuary of the area of the marine environment

within 3 nautical miles of the mean high tide line of Kahoolawe Island (in this section referred to as

the ‘Kahoolawe Island waters’), the Secretary shall determine whether those waters may be

suitable for inclusion in the Sanctuary.

(B) If the Secretary determines under subparagraph (A) that the Kahoolawe Island waters

may be suitable for inclusion within the Sanctuary --

(i) the Secretary shall provide notice of that determination to the Governor of

Hawaii; and

(ii) the Secretary shall prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement,

management plan, and implementing regulations for that inclusion in accordance

with this Act, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, and the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969.

 (3) The Secretary shall generally identify and depict the Sanctuary on National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration charts. Those charts shall be maintained on file and kept available for public examination during regular business hours at the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management of

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Secretary shall update the charts to

reflect any boundary modification under subsection (d), and any additional designation under

paragraph (2) of this subsection.

(c) EFFECT OF OBJECTION BY GOVERNOR.—

(1)(A) If, within 45 days after the date of issuance of the comprehensive management plan and

implementing regulations under section 2306, the Governor of Hawaii certifies to the Secretary

that the management plan, the implementing regulations, or any term of the plan or regulations is

unacceptable, the management plan, regulation, or term, respectively, shall not take effect in the
A – 295

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

area of the Sanctuary lying within the seaward boundary of the State of Hawaii.

(B) If the Secretary considers that an action under subparagraph (A) will affect the Sanctuary in

such a manner that the policy or purposes of this title cannot be fulfilled, the Secretary may

terminate the designation under subsection (a). At least 30 days before that termination, the

Secretary shall submit written notice of the termination to the Committee on Resources of the

House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the

Senate.

(2)(A) If, within 45 days after the Secretary issues the documents required under subsection

(b)(2)(B)(ii), the Governor of Hawaii certifies to the Secretary that the inclusion of the Kahoolawe

Island waters in the Sanctuary or any term of that inclusion is unacceptable--

(i) the inclusion or the term shall not take effect; and

(ii) subsection (b)(2) shall not apply during the 3-year period beginning on the date of that

certification.

(B) If the Secretary considers that an action under subparagraph (A) regarding a term of the

inclusion of the Kahoolawe Island waters will affect the inclusion or the administration of the

Kahoolawe Island waters as part of the Sanctuary in such a manner that the policy or purposes of

this title cannot be fulfilled, the Secretary may terminate that inclusion.

(d) BOUNDARY MODIFICATIONS.—No later than the date of issuance of the draft environmental

impact statement for the Sanctuary under section 304(a)(1)(C)(vii) of the Marine Protection, Research,

and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(1)(C)(vii)), the Secretary, in consultation with the Governor of Hawaii, if appropriate, may make modifications to the boundaries of the Sanctuary as necessary to

fulfill the purposes of this subtitle. The Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of

Representatives a written notification of such modifications.

Sec. 2306. Comprehensive Management Plan.

(a) PREPARATION OF PLAN.—The Secretary, in consultation with interested persons and appropriate

federal, State, and local government authorities, shall develop and issue not later than 18 months after the

date of enactment of this title a comprehensive management plan and implementing regulations to achieve

the policy and purposes of this subtitle. In developing the plan and regulations, the Secretary shall follow

the procedures specified in sections 303 and 304 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1433 and 1434), as amended by this title. Such comprehensive management plan

shall—

(1) facilitate all public and private uses of the Sanctuary (including uses of Hawaiian natives customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural, and religious purposes) consistent with the

primary objective of the protection of humpback whales and their habitat;

(2) set forth the allocation of Federal and State enforcement responsibilities, as jointly agreed by

the Secretary and the State of Hawaii;

(3) identify research needs and establish a long-term ecological monitoring program with respect to

humpback whales and their habitat;

(4) identify alternative sources of funding needed to fully implement the plan’s provisions and

supplement appropriations under section 2307 of this subtitle and section 313 of the Marine

Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1444);

(5) ensure coordination and cooperation between Sanctuary managers and other Federal, State,

and local authorities with jurisdiction within or adjacent to the Sanctuary; and
A – 296

APPENDIX B THE NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ACT

(6) promote education among users of the Sanctuary and the general public about conservation of

humpback whales, their habitat, and other marine resources.

(b) PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.—The Secretary shall provide for participation by the general public in

development of the comprehensive management plan or any amendment thereto.

Sec. 2307. Limitation on User Fees.

(a) Limitation: The Secretary shall not institute any user fee under this Act or the National Marine Sanctuaries Act for any activity within the Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary or any use of the

Sanctuary or its resources.

(b) User Fee Defined: In this section, the term ‘user fee’ does not include--

(1) any fee authorized by section 310 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act;

(2) any gift or donation received under section 311 of that Act; and

(3) any monetary or in-kind contributions under section 316 of that Act.

Sec. 2308. Authorization of Appropriations.

For carrying out this subtitle, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary $500,000 for fiscal

year 1993 and $300,000 for fiscal year 1994. Of the amounts appropriated under this section for

fiscal year 1993—

(1) not less than $50,000 shall be used by the Western Pacific Regional Team to evaluate potential

national marine sanctuary sites for inclusion on the Department of Commerce’s Site Evaluation

List; and

(2) not less than $50,000 shall be used to continue the investigation of biological, cultural, and

historical resources adjacent to Kahoolawe Island.
APPENDIX B – 1

Regulations
A – 298

APPENDIX B – 1 REGULATIONS

[Title 15, Volume 3, Parts 800 to

end]

[Revised as of January 1, 1998]

From the U.S. Government Printing

Office via GPO Access

[CITE: 15 CFR 922]

TITLE 15—

COMMERCE AND FOREIGN TRADE

CHAPTER IX—

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND

ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PART 922—

NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

PROGRAM REGULATIONS*

Subpart A—General

Sec.

922.1 Applicability of regulations.

922.2 Mission, goals, and special

policies.

922.3 Definitions.

922.4 Effect of National Marine

Sanctuary designation.

Subpart B—Site Evaluation List

(SEL)

922.10 General.

Subpart C—Designation of National

Marine Sanctuaries

922.20 Standards and procedures

for designation.

922.21 Selection of active candidates.

922.22 Development of designation materials.

922.23 Coordination with States

and other Federal agencies.

922.24 Congressional documents.

922.25 Designation determination

and findings.

Subpart D—Management Plan

Development and Implementation

922.30 General.

922.31 Promotion and coordination of Sanctuary use.

Subpart E—Regulations of General

Applicability

922.40 Purpose.

922.41 Boundaries.

922.42 Allowed activities.

922.43 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.44 Emergency regulations.

922.45 Penalties.

922.46 Response costs and

damages.

922.47 Pre-existing authorizations

or rights and certifications of preexisting authorizations or rights.

922.48 National Marine Sanctuary

permits—application procedures

and issuance criteria.

922.49 Notification and review of

applications for leases, licenses,

permits, approvals, or other authorizations to conduct a prohibited

activity.

922.50 Appeals of administrative

action.

Subpart F—Monitor National

Marine Sanctuary

922.60 Boundary.

922.61 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.62 Permit procedures and

criteria.

Subpart G—Channel Islands

National Marine Sanctuary

922.70 Boundary.

922.71 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.72 Permit procedures and

criteria.

Appendix A to Subpart G of Part

922—Channel Islands National

Marine Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

Subpart H—Gulf of the Farallones

National Marine Sanctuary

922.80 Boundary.

922.81 Definitions.

922.82 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.83 Permit procedures and

criteria.

922.84 Certification of other

permits.

Appendix A to Subpart H of Part

922—Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Boundary

Coordinates

Subpart I—Gray’s Reef National

Marine Sanctuary

922.90 Boundary.

922.91 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.92 Permit procedures and

criteria.

Subpart J—Fagatele Bay National

Marine Sanctuary

922.100 Scope of regulations.

922.101 Boundary.

922.102 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.103 Management and enforcement.

922.104 Permit procedures and

criteria.

Subpart K—Cordell Bank National

Marine Sanctuary

922.110 Boundary.

922.111 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.112 Permit procedures and

criteria.

*Subparts F – Q are not included here.
A – 299

APPENDIX B – 1 REGULATIONS

Appendix A to Subpart K of Part

922—Cordell Bank National Marine

Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

Subpart L—Flower Garden Banks

National Marine Sanctuary

922.120 Boundary.

922.121 Definitions.

922.122 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.123 Permit procedures and

criteria.

Appendix A to Subpart L of Part

922—Flower Garden Banks

National Marine Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

Appendix B to Subpart L of Part

922—Coordinates for the Department of the Interior Topographic

Lease Stipulations for OCS Lease

Sale 112

Subpart M—Monterey Bay National

Marine Sanctuary

922.130 Boundary.

922.131 Definitions.

922.132 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.133 Permit procedures and

criteria.

922.134 Notification and review.

Appendix A to Subpart M of Part

922—Monterey Bay National

Marine Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

Appendix B to Subpart M of Part

922—Dredged Material Disposal

Sites Adjacent to the Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary

Appendix C to Subpart M of Part

922—Zones Within the Sanctuary

Where Overflights Below 1000 Feet

Are Prohibited

Appendix D to Subpart M of Part

922—Zones and Access Routes

Within the Sanctuary Where the

Operation of Motorized Personal

Watercraft Is Allowed

Subpart N—Stellwagen Bank

National Marine Sanctuary

922.140 Boundary.

922.141 Definitions.

922.142 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.143 Permit procedures and

criteria.

Appendix A to Subpart N of Part

922—Stellwagen Bank National

Marine Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

Subpart O—Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary

922.150 Boundary.

922.151 Definitions.

922.152 Prohibited or otherwise

regulated activities.

922.153 Permit procedures and

criteria.

922.154 Consultation with the

State of Washington, affected Indian

tribes, and adjacent county governments.

Appendix A to Subpart O of Part

922—Olympic Coast National

Marine Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

Subpart P—Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary

922.160 Purpose.

922.161 Boundary.

922.162 Definitions.

922.163 Prohibited activities—

Sanctuary-wide.

922.164 Additional activity regulations by Sanctuary area.

922.165 Emergency regulations.

922.166 Permits—application

procedures and issuance criteria.

922.167 Certification of preexisting

leases, licenses, permits, approvals,

other authorizations, or rights to

conduct a prohibited activity.

Appendix I to Subpart P of Part

922—Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

Appendix II to Subpart P of Part

922—Existing Management Areas

Boundary Coordinates

Appendix III to Subpart P of Part

922—Wildlife Management Areas

Access Restrictions

Appendix IV to Subpart P of Part

922—Ecological Reserves Boundary

Coordinates

Appendix V to Subpart P of Part

922—Sanctuary Preservation Areas

Boundary Coordinates

Appendix VI to Subpart P of Part

922—Special-use Areas Boundary

Coordinates and Use Designations

Appendix VII to Subpart P of Part

922—Areas To Be Avoided Boundary Coordinates

Appendix VIII to Subpart P of Part

922—Marine Life Rule As Excerpted

From Chapter 46-42 of the Florida

Administrative Code

Subpart Q—Hawaiian Islands

Humpback Whale National Marine

Sanctuary

922.180 Purpose.

922.181 Boundary.

922.181 Definitions.

922.183 Allowed activities.

922.184 Prohibited activities.

922.185 Emergency regulations.

922.186 Penalties; appeals.

922.187 Interagency cooperation.

Appendix A to Subpart Q—Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale

National Marine Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates

 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.
A – 300

APPENDIX B – 1 REGULATIONS

 Source: 60 FR 66877, Dec. 27,

1995, unless otherwise noted.

 Editorial Note: Nomenclature

changes to part 922 appear at 62 FR

3789, Jan. 27, 1997; 62 FR 67724,

Dec. 30, 1997.

Sec. 922.1 Applicability of regulations.

 Unless noted otherwise, the

regulations in subparts A, D and E

apply to all twelve National Marine

Sanctuaries for which site-specific

regulations appear in subparts F

through Q, respectively. Subparts B

and C apply to the site evaluation list

and to the designation of future

Sanctuaries.

Sec. 922.2 Mission, goals, and

special policies.

 (a) In accordance with the

standards set forth in title III of the

Marine Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as

amended, also known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (Act)

the mission of the National Marine

Sanctuary program (Program) is to

identify, designate and manage areas

of the marine environment of special national, and in some cases international, significance due to their

conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational,

or aesthetic qualities.

 (b) The goals of the Program are

to carry out the mission to:

 (1) Identify and designate as

National Marine Sanctuaries areas of

the marine environment which are

of special national significance;

 (2) Provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of these

marine areas, and activities affecting

them, in a manner which complements existing regulatory authorities;

 (3) Support, promote, and coordinate scientific research on, and

monitoring of, the resources of

these marine areas, especially longterm monitoring and research of

these areas;

 (4) Enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation, and wise

use of the marine environment;

 (5) Facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective

of resource protection, all public and

private uses of the resources of

these marine areas not prohibited

pursuant to other authorities;

 (6) Develop and implement

coordinated plans for the protection

and management of these areas

with appropriate Federal agencies,

State and local governments, Native

American tribes and organizations,

international organizations, and

other public and private interests

concerned with the continuing

health and resilience of these marine

areas;

 (7) Create models of, and incentives for, ways to conserve and

manage these areas;

 (8) Cooperate with global programs encouraging conservation of

marine resources; and

 (9) Maintain, restore, and enhance living resources by providing

places for species that depend upon

these marine areas to survive and

propagate.

 (c) To the extent consistent with

the policies set forth in the Act, in

carrying out the Program’s mission

and goals:

 (1) Particular attention will be

given to the establishment and management of marine areas as National

Marine Sanctuaries for the protection of the area’s natural resource

and ecosystem values; particularly

for ecologically or economically important or threatened species or

species assemblages, and for offshore areas where there are no existing special area protection mechanisms;

 (2) The size of a National Marine

Sanctuary, while highly dependent

on the nature of the site’s resources,

will be no larger than necessary to

ensure effective management;

 (d) Management efforts will be

coordinated to the extent practicable with other countries managing

marine protected areas;

 (e) Program regulations, policies,

standards, guidelines, and procedures under the Act concerning the

identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historical resources shall be consistent, to the

extent practicable, with the declared

national policy for the protection

and preservation of these resources

as stated in the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C.

470 et seq., the Archeological and

Historical Preservation Act of 1974,

16 U.S.C. 469 et seq., and the Archeological Resources Protection

Act of 1979 (ARPA), 16 U.S.C.

470aa et seq. The same degree of

regulatory protection and preservation planning policy extended to historical resources on land shall be extended, to the extent practicable, to

historical resources in the marine

environment within the boundaries

of designated National Marine Sanctuaries. The management of historical resources under the authority of

the Act shall be consistent, to the

extent practicable, with the Federal

archeological program by consulting

the Uniform Regulations, ARPA (43

CFR part 7) and other relevant Federal regulations. The Secretary of

the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology may also be

consulted for guidance. These

guidelines are available from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Management at (301) 713-3125.
A – 301

APPENDIX B – 1 REGULATIONS

Sec. 922.3 Definitions.

 Act means title III of the Marine

Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq., also

known as the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.

 Active Candidate means a site selected by the Secretary from the Site

Evaluation List for further consideration for possible designation as a

National Marine Sanctuary.

 Assistant Administrator means the

Assistant Administrator for Ocean

Services and Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), or

designee.

 Benthic community means the assemblage of organisms, substrate,

and structural formations found at or

near the bottom that is periodically

or permanently covered by water.

 Commercial fishing means any activity that results in the sale or trade

for intended profit of fish, shellfish,

algae, or corals.

 Conventional hook and line gear

means any fishing apparatus operated aboard a vessel and composed of

a single line terminated by a combination of sinkers and hooks or lures

and spooled upon a reel that may

be hind- or electrically operated,

hand-held or mounted. This term

does not include bottom longlines.

 Cultural resources means any historical or cultural feature, including

archaeological sites, historic structures, shipwrecks, and artifacts.

 Director means, except where

otherwise specified, the Director of

the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, NOAA, or

designee.

 Exclusive economic zone means

the exclusive economic zone as defined in the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16

U.S. 1801 et seq.

 Fish wastes means waste materials

resulting from commercial fish

processing operations.

 Historical resource means any resource possessing historical, cultural,

archaeological or paleontological significance, including sites, contextual

information, structures, districts, and

objects significantly associated with

or representative of earlier people,

cultures, maritime heritage, and human activities and events. Historical

resources include “submerged cultural resources”, and also include

“historical properties,” as defined in

the National Historic Preservation

Act, as amended, and its implementing regulations, as amended.

 Indian tribe means any American

Indian tribe, band, group, or

community recognized as such by

the Secretary of the Interior.

 Injure means to change adversely,

either in the short or long term,

a chemical, biological or physical attribute of, or the viability of. This includes, but is not limited to, to cause

the loss of or destroy.

 Lightering means at-sea transfer of

petroleum-based products, materials, or other matter from vessel to

vessel.

 Marine means those areas of

coastal and ocean waters, the Great

Lakes and their connecting waters,

and submerged lands over which

the United States exercises jurisdiction, including the exclusive economic zone, consistent with international law.

 Mineral means clay, stone, sand,

gravel, metalliferous ore, non-metalliferous ore, or any other solid material or other matter of commercial

value.

 National historic landmark means

a district, site, building, structure or

object designated as such by the

Secretary of the Interior under the

National Historic Landmarks Program (36 CFR part 65).

 National Marine Sanctuary means

an area of the marine environment

of special national significance due to

its resource or human-use values,

which is designated as such to ensure its conservation and management.

 Person means any private individual, partnership, corporation or other entity; or any officer, employee,

agent, department, agency or instrumentality of the Federal government, of any State or local unit of

government, or of any foreign government.

 Regional Fishery Management

Council means any fishery council

established under section 302 of the

Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801

et seq.

 Sanctuary quality means any of

those ambient conditions, physicalchemical characteristics and natural

processes, the maintenance of

which is essential to the ecological

health of the Sanctuary, including,

but not limited to, water quality,

sediment quality and air quality.

 Sanctuary resource means any living or non-living resource of a National Marine Sanctuary that contributes to the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research,

educational,or aesthetic value of the

Sanctuary, including, but not limited

to, the substratum of the area of the

Sanctuary, other submerged features

and the surrounding seabed, carbonate rock, corals and other bottom formations, coralline algae and

other marine plants and algae, marine invertebrates, brine-seep biota,

phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish,

seabirds, sea turtles and other marine reptiles, marine mammals and

historical resources.

 Secretary means the Secretary of

the United States Department of

Commerce, or designee.

 Shunt means to discharge ex-
A – 302

APPENDIX B – 1 REGULATIONS

pended drilling cuttings and fluids

near the ocean seafloor.

 Site Evaluation List (SEL) means a

list of selected natural and historical

resource sites selected by the Secretary as ualifying for further evaluation

for possible designation as National

Marine Sanctuaries.

 State means each of the several

States, the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the

Commonwealth of the Northern

Mariana Islands, American Samoa,

the United States Virgin Islands,

Guam, and any other commonwealth, territory, or possession of

the United States.

 Subsistence use means the customary and traditional use by rural

residents of areas near or in the marine environment for direct personal

or family consumption as food, shelter, fuel, clothing, tools, or transportation; for the making and selling of

handicraft articles; and for barter, if

for food or non-edible items other

than money, if the exchange is of a

limited and non-commercial nature.

 Take or taking means: (1) For any

marine mammal, sea turtle, or seabird listed as either endangered or

threatened pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, to harass, harm,

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,

trap, capture, collect or injure, or to

attempt to engage in any such conduct; (2) For any other marine

mammal, sea turtle, or seabird, to

harass, hunt, capture, kill, collect or

injure, or to attempt to engage in

any such conduct. For the purposes

of both (1) and (2) of this definition,

this includes, but is not limited to, to

collect any dead or injured marine

mammal, sea turtle or seabird, or

any part thereof; to restrain or detain any marine mammal, sea turtle

or seabird, or any part thereof, no

matter how temporarily; to tag any

sea turtle, marine mammal or seabird; to operate a vessel or aircraft

or to do any other act that results in

the disturbance or molestation of

any marine mammal, sea turtle or

seabird.

 Tropical fish means fish or minimal

sport and food value, usually brightly

colored, often used for aquaria purposes and which lives in a direct relationship with live bottom communities.

 Vessel means a watercraft of any

description capable of being used

as a means of transportation in/on

the waters of a Sanctuary.

[60 FR 66877, Dec. 27, 1995, as

amended at 62 FR 4607, Jan. 30,

1997]

Sec. 922.4 Effect of National Marine Sanctuary designation.

 The designation of a National Marine Sanctuary, and the regulations

implementing it, are binding on any

person subject to the jurisdiction of

the United States. Designation does

not constitute any claim to territorial

jurisdiction on the part of the United

States for designated sites beyond

the U.S. territorial sea, and the regulations implementing the designation shall be applied in accordance

with generally recognized principles

of international law, and in accordance with treaties, conventions,

and other agreements to which the

United States is a party. No regulation shall apply to a person who is

not a citizen, national, or resident

alien of the United States, unless in

accordance with:

 (a) Generally recognized principles of international law;

 (b) An agreement between the

United States and the foreign state

of which the person is a citizen; or

 (c) An agreement between the

United States and the flag state of

the foreign vessel, if the person is a

crew member of the vessel.

Subpart B—Site Evaluation List (SEL)

Sec. 922.10 General.

 (a) The Site Evaluation List (SEL)

was established as a comprehensive

list of marine sites with high natural

resource values and with historical

qualities of special national

significance that are highly qualified

for further evaluation for possible

designation as National Marine

Sanctuaries.

 (b) The SEL is currently inactive.

Criteria for inclusion of marine sites

on a revised SEL will be issued, with

public notice and opportunity to

comment, when the Director determines that the SEL should be reactivated.

 (c) Only sites on the SEL may be

considered for subsequent review as

active candidates for designation.

 (d) Placement of a site on the

SEL, or selection of a site from the

SEL as an active candidate for designation as provided for in Sec.

922.21, by itself shall not subject the

site to any regulatory control under

the Act. Such controls may only be

imposed after designation.

Subpart C—Designation of National

Marine Sanctuaries

Sec. 922.20 Standards and procedures for designation.

 In designating a National Marine

Sanctuary, the Secretary shall apply

the standards and procedures set

forth in section 303 and section 304

of the Act.

Sec. 922.21 Selection of active candidates.

 (a) The Secretary shall, from time

to time, select a limited number of

sites from the SEL for Active Candi-
A – 303

APPENDIX B – 1 REGULATIONS

date consideration based on a preliminary assessment of the designation standards set forth in section

303 of the Act.

 (b) Selection of a site as an Active

Candidate shall begin the formal

Sanctuary designation-evaluation

process. A notice of intent to prepare a draft environmental impact

statement shall be published in the

Federal Register and in newspapers

in the area(s) of local concern. A

brief written analysis describing the

site shall be provided. The Secretary, at any time, may drop a site

from consideration if the Secretary

determines that the site does not

meet the designation standards and

criteria set forth in the Act.

Sec. 922.22 Development of designation materials.

 (a) In designating a National Marine Sanctuary, the Secretary shall

prepare the designation materials

described in section 304 of the Act.

 (b) If a proposed Sanctuary includes waters within the exclusive

economic zone, the Secretary shall

notify the appropriate Regional Fishery Management Council(s) which

shall have one hundred and twenty

(120) days from the date of such

notification to make recommendations and, if appropriate, prepare

draft fishery regulations and to submit them to the Secretary. In preparing its recommendations and

draft regulations, the Council(s) shall

use as guidance the national standards of section 301(a) of the

Magnuson Act (16 U.S.C. 1851) to

the extent that they are consistent

and compatible with the goals and

objectives of the proposed Sanctuary designation. Fishery activities not

proposed for regulation under section 304(a)(5) of the Act may be

listed in the draft Sanctuary designation document as potentially subject

to regulation, without following the

procedures specified in section

304(a)(5) of the Act. If the Secretary

subsequently determines that regulation of any such fishery activity is

necessary, then the procedures

specified in section 304(a)(5) of the

Act shall be followed.

Sec. 922.23 Coordination with

States and other Federal agencies.

 (a) The Secretary shall consult

and cooperate with affected States

throughout the National Marine

Sanctuary designation process. In

particular the Secretary shall:

 (1) Consult with the relevant

State officials prior to selecting any

site on the SEL as an Active Candidate pursuant to Sec. 922.21, especially concerning the relationship of

any site to State waters and the consistency of the proposed designation

with a federally approved State

coastal zone management program.

For the purposes of a consistency

review by States with federally approved coastal zone management

programs, designation of a National

Marine Sanctuary is deemed to be a

Federal activity, which, if affecting the

State’s coastal zone, must be undertaken in a manner consistent to the

maximum extent practicable with

the approved State coastal zone

program as provided by section

307(c)(1) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,

and implementing regulations at 15

CFR part 930, subpart.

 (2) Ensure that relevant State

agencies are consulted prior to

holding any public hearings pursuant

to section 304(a)(3) of the Act.

 (3) Provide the Governor(s) of

any State(s) in which a proposed

Sanctuary would be located an opportunity to certify the designation

or any of its terms as unacceptable

as specified in section 304(b)(1) of

the Act.

 (b) The Secretary shall develop

proposed regulations relating to activities under the jurisdiction of one

or more other Federal agencies in

consultation with those agencies.

Sec. 922.24 Congressional documents.

 In designating a National Marine

Sanctuary, the Secretary shall prepare and submit to Congress those

documents described in section 304

of the Act.

Sec. 922.25 Designation

determination and findings.

 (a) In designating a National Marine Sanctuary, the Secretary shall

prepare a written Designation Determination and Findings which shall

include those findings and determinations described in section 303 of

the Act.

 (b) In addition to those factors set

forth in section 303 of the Act, the

Secretary, when making a designation determination, shall consider

the Program’s fiscal capability to

manage the area as a National Marine Sanctuary.

Subpart D—Management Plan Development and Implementation

Sec. 922.30 General.

 (a) The Secretary shall implement

each management plan, and applicable regulations, including carrying

out surveillance and enforcement

activities and conducting such research, monitoring, evaluation, and

education programs as are necessary and reasonable to carry out the

purposes and policies of the Act.
A – 304

APPENDIX B – 1 REGULATIONS

 (b) Consistent with Sanctuary

management plans, the Secretary

shall develop and implement sitespecific contingency and emergencyresponse plans designed to protect

Sanctuary resources. The plans shall

contain alert procedures and actions

to be taken in the event of an emergency such as a shipwreck or an oil

spill.

Sec. 922.31 Promotion and coordination of Sanctuary use.

 The Secretary shall take such action as is necessary and reasonable

to promote and coordinate the use

of National Marine Sanctuaries for

research, monitoring, and education

purposes. Such action may include

consulting with Federal agencies, or

other persons to promote use of

one or more Sanctuaries for research, monitoring and education,

including coordination with the National Estuarine Research Reserve

System.

Sec. 922.40 Purpose.

 The purpose of the regulations in

this subpart and in subparts F

through Q is to implement the designations of the 12 National Marine

Sanctuaries for which site specific

regulations appear in subparts F

through Q, respectively, by regulating activities affecting them, consistent with their respective terms of

designation in order to protect, preserve and manage and thereby ensure the health, integrity and continued availability of the conservation,

ecological, recreational, research,

educational, historical and aesthetic

resources and qualities of these areas. Additional purposes of the

regulations implementing the designation of the Florida Keys and Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale

National Marine Sanctuaries are

found at Secs. 922.160, and

922.180, respectively.

[62 FR 14815, Mar. 28, 1997]

Sec. 922.41 Boundaries.

 The boundary for each of the 12

National Marine Sanctuaries covered by this part is described in subparts F through Q, respectively.

Sec. 922.42 Allowed activities.

 All activities (e.g., fishing, boating,

diving, research, education) may be

conducted unless prohibited or

otherwise regulated in subparts F

through Q, subject to any emergency regulations promulgated

pursuant to Secs. 922.44,

922.111(c), 922.165, or 922.186,

subject to all prohibitions, regulations, restrictions, and conditions

validly imposed by any Federal,

State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, including Federal

and State fishery management

authorities, and subject to the

provisions of section 312 of the Act.

The Assistant Administrator may

only directly regulate fishing activities

pursuant to the procedure set forth

in section 304(a)(5) of the NMSA.

[62 FR 14815, Mar. 28, 1997]

Sec. 922.43 Prohibited or otherwise regulated activities.

 Subparts F through Q set forth

site-specific regulations applicable to

the activities specified therein.

[62 FR 14815, Mar. 28, 1997]

Sec. 922.44 Emergency Regulations.

 Where necessary to prevent or

minimize the destruction of, loss of,

or injury to a Sanctuary resource or

quality, or minimize the imminent

risk of such destruction, loss, or

injury, any and all such activities are

subject to immediate temporary

regulation, including prohibition.

The provisions of this section do not

apply to the Cordell Bank, Florida

Keys and Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine

Sanctuaries. See Secs. 922.111(c),

922.165, and 922.186, respectively,

for the authority to issue emergency

regulations with respect to those

sanctuaries.

[62 FR 14815, Mar. 28, 1997]

Sec. 922.45 Penalties.

 (a) Each violation of the NMSA or

FKNMSPA, any regulation in this

part, or any permit issued pursuant

thereto, is subject to a civil penalty

of not more than $ 100,000. Each

day of a continuing violation constitutes a separate violation.

 (b) Regulations setting forth the

procedures governing administrative

proceedings for assessment of civil

penalties, permit sanctions, and

denials for enforcement reasons,

issuance and use of written warnings, and release or forfeiture of

seized property appear at 15 CFR

part 904.

[60 FR 66877, Dec. 27, 1995, as

amended at 62 FR 4607, Jan. 30,

1997]

Sec. 922.46 Response costs and

damages.

 Under section 312 of the Act, any

person who destroys, causes the

loss of, or injures any Sanctuary

resource is liable to the United

States for response costs and

damages resulting from such

destruction, loss or injury, and any

vessel used to destroy, cause the

loss of, or injure any Sanctuary
A – 305

APPENDIX B – 1 REGULATIONS

resource is liable in rem to the

United States for response costs and

damages resulting from such

destruction, loss or injury.

Sec. 922.47 Pre-existing authorizations or rights and certifications of

pre-existing authorizations or

rights.

 (a) Leases, permits, licenses, or

rights of subsistence use or access in

existence on the date of designation

of any National Marine Sanctuary

shall not be terminated by the

Director. The Director may, however, regulate the exercise of such

leases, permits, licenses, or rights

consistent with the purposes for

which the Sanctuary was designated.

 (b) The prohibitions listed in

subparts F through P of this part do

not apply to any activity authorized

by a valid lease, permit, license,

approval or other authorization in

existence on the effective date of

Sanctuary designation, or in the case

of the Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary the effective date of the

regulations in this subpart P, and

issued by any Federal, State or local

authority of competent jurisdiction,

or by any valid right of subsistence

use or access in existence on the

effective date of Sanctuary designation, or in the case of the Florida

Keys National Marine Sanctuary the

effective date of the regulations in

subpart P, provided that the holder

of such authorization or right

complies with certification procedures and criteria promulgated at

the time of Sanctuary designation, or

in the case of the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary the

effective date of the regulations in

subpart P of this part, and with any

terms and conditions on the exercise of such authorization or right

imposed by the Director as a

condition of certification as the

Director deems necessary to

achieve the purposes for which the

Sanctuary was designated.

[60 FR 66877, Dec. 27, 1995, as

amended at 62 FR 4607, Jan. 30,

1997]

Sec. 922.48 National Marine

Sanctuary permits—application

procedures and issuance criteria.

 (a) A person may conduct an

activity prohibited by subparts F

through O of this part if conducted

in accordance with the scope,

purpose, terms and conditions of a

permit issued under this section and

subparts F through O of this part.

For the Florida Keys National Marine

Sanctuary, a person may conduct an

activity prohibited by subpart P if

conducted in accordance with the

scope, purpose, terms and conditions of a permit issued under

Sec. 922.166.

 (b) Applications for permits to

conduct activities otherwise prohibited by subparts F through O of this

part should be addressed to the

Director and sent to the address

specified in subparts F through O

of this part. An application must

include:

 (1) A detailed description of the

proposed activity including a timetable for completion;

 (2) The equipment, personnel

and methodology to be employed;

 (3) The qualifications and experience of all personnel;

 (4) The potential effects of the

activity, if any, on Sanctuary resources and qualities; and

 (5) Copies of all other required

licenses, permits, approvals or other

authorizations.

 (c) Upon receipt of an application,

the Director may request such

additional information from the

applicant as he or she deems

necessary to act on the application

and may seek the views of any

persons or entity, within or outside

the Federal government, and may

hold a public hearing, as deemed

appropriate.the relevant subpart.

(d) The Director, at his or her

discretion, may issue a permit

subject to such terms and conditions

as he or she deems appropriate, to

conduct a prohibited activity, in

accordance with the criteria found in

subparts F through O. The Director

shall further impose, at a minimum,

the conditions set forth in the

relevant subpart.

(e) A permit granted pursuant to

this section is nontransferable.

(f) The Director may amend,

suspend, or revoke a permit issued

cause. The Director may deny a

permit application pursuant to this

section, in whole or in part, if it is

determined that the permittee or

applicant has acted in violation of the

terms and conditions of a permit or

of the regulations set forth in this

section or subparts F through O or

for other good cause. Any such

action shall be communicated in

writing to the permittee or applicant

by certified mail and shall set forth

the reason(s) for the action taken.

Procedures governing permit sanctions and denials for enforcement

reasons are set forth in subpart D of

15 CFR part 904.

[60 FR 66877, Dec. 27, 1995, as

amended at 62 FR 4607, Jan. 30,

1997]

Sec. 922.49 Notification and review

of applications for leases,

licenses, permits, approvals, or

other authorizations to conduct a

prohibited activity.

 (a) A person may conduct an activity prohibited by subparts L

through P of this part if such activity
A – 306

APPENDIX B – 1 REGULATIONS

is specifically authorized by any valid

Federal, State, or local lease, permit,

license, approval, or other authorization issued after the effective date

of Sanctuary designation, or in the

case of the Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary after the effective

date of the regulations in subpart P

of this part, provided that:

 (1) The applicant notifies the Director, in writing, of the

application for such authorization

(and of any application for an

amendment, renewal, or extension

of such authorization) within fifteen

(15) days of the date of filing of the

application or the effective date

of Sanctuary designation, or in the

case of the Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary the effective date

of the regulations in subpart P of

this part, whichever is later;

 (2) The applicant complies with

the other provisions of this

Sec. 922.49;

 (3) The Director notifies the applicant and authorizing agency that

he or she does not object to issuance of the authorization (or

amendment, renewal, or extension); and

 (4) The applicant complies with

any terms and conditions the

Director deems reasonably necessary to protect Sanctuary resources

and qualities.

 (b) Any potential applicant for an

authorization described in paragraph

(a) of this section may request the

Director to issue a finding as to

whether the activity for which an application is intended to be made is

prohibited by subparts L through P

of this part.

 (c) Notification of filings of applications should be sent to the

Director, Office of Ocean and

Coastal Resource Management at

the address specified in subparts L

through P of this part. A copy of the

application must accompany the notification.

 (d) The Director may request additional information from the

applicant as he or she deems reasonably necessary to determine

whether to object to issuance of an

authorization described in paragraph

(a) of this section, or what terms and

conditions are reasonably necessary

to protect Sanctuary resources and

qualities. The information requested

must be received by the Director

within 45 days of the postmark date

of the request. The Director may

seek the views of any persons on

the application.

 (e) The Director shall notify, in

writing, the agency to which

application has been made of his or

her pending review of the application and possible objection to issuance. Upon completion of

review of the application and information received with respect thereto, the Director shall notify both the

agency and applicant, in writing,

whether he or she has an objection

to issuance and what terms and

conditions he or she deems reasonably necessary to protect Sanctuary

resources and qualities, and reasons

therefor. The Director shall state

the reason(s) for any objection or

the reason(s) that any terms and

conditions are deemed necessary to

protect Sanctuary resources and

qualities.

 (f) The Director may amend the

terms and conditions deemed

reasonably necessary to protect

Sanctuary resources and qualities

whenever additional information becomes available justifying such an

amendment.

 (g) Any time limit prescribed in or

established under this Sec. 922.49

may be extended by the Director

for good cause.

 (h) The applicant may appeal any

objection by, or terms or conditions

imposed by, the Director to the Assistant Administrator or designee in

accordance with the provisions of

Sec. 922.50.

[62 FR 4608, Jan. 30, 1997]

Sec. 922.50 Appeals of administrative action.

 (a)(1) Except for permit actions

taken for enforcement reasons (see

subpart D of 15 CFR part 904 for

applicable procedures), an applicant

for, or a holder of, a National Marine Sanctuary permit; an applicant

for, or a holder of, a Special Use

permit pursuant to section 310 of

the Act; a person requesting certification of an existing lease, permit,

license or right of subsistence use or

access under Sec. 922.47; or, for

those Sanctuaries described in subparts L through P, an applicant for a

lease, permit, license or other authorization issued by any Federal,

State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction (hereinafter appellant) may appeal to the Assistant Administrator:

 (i) The granting, denial, conditioning, amendment, suspension or

revocation by the Director of a National Marine Sanctuary or Special

Use permit;

 (ii) The conditioning, amendment,

suspension or revocation of a

certification under Sec. 922.47; or

 (iii) For those Sanctuaries described in subparts L through P, the

objection to issuance of or the imposition of terms and conditions on

a lease, permit, license or other authorization issued by any Federal,

State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction.

 (2) For those National Marine

Sanctuaries described in subparts F

through K, any interested person

may also appeal the same actions
A – 307

APPENDIX B – 1 REGULATIONS

described in paragraphs (a)(1) (i) and

(ii) of this section. For appeals arising

from actions taken with respect to

these National Marine Sanctuaries,

the term “appellant” includes any

such interested persons.

 (b) An appeal under paragraph (a)

of this section must be in writing,

state the action(s) by the Director

appealed and the reason(s)

for the appeal, and be received

within 30 days of receipt of notice of

the action by the Director. Appeals

should be addressed to the Assistant

Administrator for Ocean Services

and Coastal Zone Management,

NOAA 1305 East-West Highway,

13th Floor, Silver Spring, MD

20910.

 (c)(1) The Assistant Administrator

may request the appellant to

submit such information as the Assistant Administrator deems necessary

in order for him or her to decide

the appeal. The information requested must be received by the

Assistant Administrator within 45

days of the postmark date of the request. The Assistant Administrator

may seek the views of any other

persons. For the Monitor National

Marine Sanctuary, if the appellant

has requested a hearing, the Assistant Administrator shall grant an informal hearing. For all other National Marine Sanctuaries, the Assistant

Administrator may determine

whether to hold an informal hearing

on the appeal. If the Assistant Administrator determines that an informal hearing should be held, the Assistant Administrator may designate

an officer before whom the hearing

shall be

held.

 (2) The hearing officer shall give

notice in the Federal Register of the

time, place and subject matter of the

hearing. The appellant and the Director may appear personally or by

counsel at the hearing and submit

such material and present such arguments as deemed appropriate by

the hearing officer. Within 60 days

after the record for the hearing closes, the hearing officer shall recommend a decision in writing to the Assistant Administrator.

 (d) The Assistant Administrator

shall decide the appeal using the

same regulatory criteria as for the

initial decision and shall base the appeal decision on the record before

the Director and any information

submitted regarding the appeal, and,

if a hearing has been held, on the

record before the hearing officer

and the hearing officer’s recommended decision. The Assistant Administrator shall notify the appellant

of the final decision and he reason(s)

therefore in writing. The Assistant

Administrator’s decision shall constitute final agency action for the purpose of the Administrative Procedure Act.

 (e) Any time limit prescribed in or

established under this section other

than the 30-day limit for filing an appeal may be extended by the Assistant Administrator or hearing office

for good cause.

[60 FR 66877, Dec. 27, 1995, as

amended at 62 FR 4608, Jan. 30,

1997]

Note: Subparts F – Q are not reprinted in this Appendix.
APPENDIX C

Abandoned Shipwreck Act
APPENDIX C ABANDONED SHIPWRECK ACT OF 1987

A – 309

Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987

Public Law 100-298

An Act to establish the title of States in certain abandoned shipwrecks,

and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress

assembled,

SEC. 1 SHORT TITLE.

 This Act may be cited as the “Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987”.

SEC. 2 FINDINGS.

The Congress finds that-

 (a) States have the responsibility for management of a broad range of living and nonliving resources in

State waters and submerged lands; and

 (b) included in the range of resources are certain abandoned shipwrecks which have been deserted and

to which the owner has relinquished ownership rights with no retention.

SEC. 3 DEFINITIONS.

For purposes of this Act-

 (a) the term “embedded” means firmly affixed in the submerged lands or in coralline formations such

that the use of tools of excavation is required in order to move the bottom sediments to gain access to t

he shipwreck, its cargo and any part thereof;

 (b) the term “National Register” means the National Register of Historic Places maintained by the

Secretary of the Interior under section 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470a);

 (c) the terms “public lands”, “Indian lands”, and “Indian tribe” have the same meaning given the terms in

the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S.C. 470aa-470ll);

 (d) the term “shipwreck” means a vessel or wreck, its cargo, and other contents;

 (e) the term “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam,

the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands; and

 (f) the term “submerged lands” means the lands-

 (1) that are “lands beneath navigable waters,” as defined in section 2 of the Submerged Lands Act (43

U.S.C. 1301);

 (2) of Puerto Rico, as described in section 8 of the Act of March 2, 1917, as amended (48 U.S.C.

749);
APPENDIX C ABANDONED SHIPWRECK ACT OF 1987

A – 310

 (3) of Guam, the Virgin Islands and America Samoa, as described in section 1 of Public Law 93-435

(48 U.S.C. 1705); and

 (4) of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, as described in section 801 of Public

Law 94-241 (48 U.S.C. 1681).

SEC. 4 RIGHTS OF ACCESS.

 (a) ACCESS RIGHTS. -In order to-

 (1) clarify that State waters and shipwrecks offer recreational and educational opportunities to sport

divers and other interested groups, as well as irreplaceable State resources for tourism, biological sanctuaries, and historical research; and

 (2) provide that reasonable access by the public to such abandoned shipwrecks be permitted by the Sate

holding title to such shipwrecks pursuant to section 6 of this Act, it is the declared policy of the Congress

that States carry out their responsibilities under this Act to develop appropriate and consistent policies so

as to-

 (A) protect national resources and habitat areas;

 (B) guarantee recreational exploration of shipwreck sites; and

 (C) allow for appropriate public and private sector recovery of shipwrecks consistent with the protection of historical values and environmental integrity of the shipwrecks and the sites.

 (b) PARKS AND PROTECTED AREAS. -In managing the resources subject to the provisions of this Act, States

are encouraged to create underwater parks or areas to provide additional protection for such resources.

Funds available to States from grants from the Historic Preservation fund shall be available, in accordance

with the provisions of title I of the National Historic Preservation Act, for the study, interpretation, protection, and preservation of historic shipwrecks and properties.

SEC. 5 PREPARATION OF GUIDELINES.

 (a) In order to encourage the development of underwater parks and the administrative cooperation

necessary for the comprehensive management of underwater resources related to historic shipwrecks,

the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the National Park Service, shall within nine

months after the date of enactment of this Act prepare and publish guidelines in the Federal Register

which shall seek to:

 (1) maximize the enhancement of cultural resources;

 (2) foster a partnership among sport divers, fishermen, archeologists, salvors, and other interests to

manage shipwreck resources of the States and the United States;

 (3) facilitate access and utilization by recreational interests;

 (4) recognize the interests of individuals and groups engaged in shipwreck discovery and salvage.

 (b) Such guidelines shall be developed after consultation with appropriate public and private sector

interests (including the Secretary of Commerce, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, sport
APPENDIX C ABANDONED SHIPWRECK ACT OF 1987

A – 311

divers, State Historic Preservation Officers, professional dive operators, salvors, archeologists, historic

preservationists, and fishermen).

 (c) Such guidelines shall be available to assist States and the appropriate federal agencies in developing

legislation and regulations to carry out their responsibilities under this Act.

SEC. 6 RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP.

 (a) UNITED STATES TITLE. -The United States asserts title to any abandoned shipwreck that is-

 (1) embedded in submerged lands of a State;

 (2) embedded in coralline formations protected by a State on submerged lands or a State; or

 (3) on submerged lands of a State and is included in or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the

National Register.

 (b) The public shall be given adequate notice of the location of any shipwreck to which title is asserted

under this section. The Secretary of the Interior, after consultation with the appropriate State Historic

Preservation Officer, shall make a written determination that an abandoned shipwreck meets the criteria

for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under clause (a)(3).

 (c) TRANSFER OF TITLE TO STATES. -The title of the United States to any abandoned shipwreck asserted

under subsection (a) of this section is transferred to the State in or on whose submerged lands the shipwreck is located.

 (d) EXCEPTION. -Any abandoned shipwreck in or on public lands of the United States is the property of

the United States Government. Any abandoned shipwreck in or on any Indian lands is the property of the

Indian tribe owning such lands.

 (e) RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. -This section does not affect any right reserved by the United States or by

any State (including any right reserved with respect to Indian lands) under-

 (1) section 3, 5, or 6 of the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1311, 1313, and 1314); or

 (2) section 19 or 20 of the Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 414 and 415).

SEC. 7 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

 (a) LAW OF SALVAGE AND THE LAW OF FINDS. -The law of salvage and the law of finds shall not apply to

abandoned shipwrecks to which section 6 of this Act applies.

 (b) LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES. -This Act shall not change the laws of the United States relating to

shipwrecks, other than those to which this Act applies.

 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE. -This Act shall not affect any legal proceeding brought prior to the date of enactment

of this Act. _________________
APPENDIX D

National Historic Preservation Act

of 1966
APPENDIX D NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966, AMENDED

A – 313

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended

Public Law 102–575

Sections 106 and 110 excerpted

An Act to Establish a Program for the Preservation of Additional Historic Properties throughout the Nation,

and for Other Purposes.

Section 106 (16 U.S.C. 470f)

 The head of any Federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or federally

assisted undertaking in any State and the head of any Federal department or independent agency having

authority to license any undertaking shall, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds on

the undertaking or prior to the issuance of any license, as the case may be, take into account the effect of

the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion

in the National Register. The head of any such Federal agency shall afford the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to

such undertaking.

Section 110 (16 U.S.C. 470h–2)

 (a)(1) The heads of all Federal agencies shall assume responsibility for the preservation of historic properties which are owned or controlled by such agency. Prior to acquiring, constructing, or leasing buildings for

purposes of carrying out agency responsibilities, each Federal agency shall use, to the maximum extent

feasible, historic properties available to the agency. Each agency shall undertake, consistent with the

preservation of such properties and the mission of the agency and the professional standards established

pursuant to section 101(g), any preservation, as may be necessary to carry out this section.

 (2) Each Federal agency shall establish (unless exempted pursuant to section 214), in consultation with the

Secretary, a preservation program for the identification, evaluation, and nomination to the National

Register of Historic Places, and protection of historic properties. Such program shall ensure––

 (A) that historic properties under the jurisdiction or control of the agency, are identified, evaluated, and

nominated to the National Register;

 (B) that such properties under the jurisdiction or control of the agency as are listed in or may be eligible

for the National Register are managed and maintained in a way that considers the preservation of their

historic, archaeological, architectural, and cultural values in compliance with section 106 and gives special

consideration to the preservation of such values in the case of properties designated as having National

significance;

 (C) that the preservation of properties not under the jurisdiction or control of the agency, but subject to

be potentially affected by agency actions are given full consideration in planning;

 (D) that the agency’s preservation–related activities are carried out in consultation with other Federal,

State, and local agencies, Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations carrying out historic preservation
APPENDIX D NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966, AMENDED

A – 314

planning activities, and with the private sector; and

(E) that the agency’s procedures for compliance with section 106––

 (i) are consistent with regulations issued by the Council pursuant to section 211;

 (ii) provide a process for the identification and evaluation of historic properties for listing in the National

Register and the development and implementation of agreements, in consultation with State Historic

Preservation Officers, local governments, Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and the interested

public, as appropriate, regarding the means by which adverse effects on such properties will be considered; and

 (iii) provide for the disposition of Native American cultural items from Federal or tribal land in a manner

consistent with section 3(c) of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C.

3002(c)).

 (b) Each Federal agency shall initiate measures to assure that where, as a result of Federal action or

assistance carried out by such agency, a historic property is to be substantially altered or demolished,

timely steps are taken to make or have made appropriate records, and that such records then be deposited, in accordance with section 101(a), in the Library of Congress or with such other appropriate agency

as may be designated by the Secretary, for future use and reference.

 (c) The head of each Federal agency shall, unless exempted under section 214, designate a qualified

official to be known as the agency’s “preservation officer” who shall be responsible for coordinating that

agency’s activities under this Act. Each Preservation Officer may, in order to be considered qualified,

satisfactorily complete an appropriate training program established by the Secretary under section 101(h).

 (d) Consistent with the agency’s mission and mandates, all Federal agencies shall carry out agency programs and projects (including those under which any Federal assistance is provided or any Federal license,

permit, or other approval is required) in accordance with the purposes of this Act and, give consideration

to programs and projects which will further the purposes of this Act.

 (e) The Secretary shall review and approve the plans of transferees of surplus federally owned historic

properties not later than ninety days after his receipt of such plans to ensure that the prehistorical, historical, architectural, or culturally significant values will be preserved or enhanced.

 (f) Prior to the approval of any Federal undertaking which may directly and adversely affect any National

Historic Landmark, the head of the responsible Federal agency shall, to the maximum extent possible,

undertake such planning and actions as may be necessary to minimize harm to such landmark, and shall

afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking.

 (g) Each Federal agency may include the costs of preservation activities of such agency under this Act as

eligible project costs in all undertakings of such agency or assisted by such agency. The eligible project

costs may also include amounts paid by a Federal agency to any State to be used in carrying out such

preservation responsibilities of the Federal agency under this Act, and reasonable costs may be charged to
APPENDIX D NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966, AMENDED

A – 315

Federal licensees and permittees as a ANNO condition to the issuance of such license or permit.

 (h) The Secretary shall establish an annual preservation awards program under which he may make

monetary awards in amounts not to exceed $1,000 and provide citations for special achievement to

officers and employees of Federal, State, and certified local governments in recognition of their outstanding contributions to the preservation of historic resources. Such program may include the issuance of

annual awards by the president of the United States to any citizen of the United States recommended for

such award by the Secretary.

 (i) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to require the preparation of an environmental impact statement

where such a statement would not otherwise be required under the National Environmental Policy Act of

1969, and nothing in this Act shall be construed to provide any exemption from any requirement respecting the preparation of such a statement under such Act.

 (j) The Secretary shall promulgate regulations under which the requirements of this section may be

waived in whole or in part in the event of a major natural disaster or an imminent threat to the national

security.

 (k) Each Federal agency shall ensure that the agency will not grant a loan, loan guarantee, permit, license,

or other assistance to an applicant who, with intent to avoid the requirements of section 106, has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property to which the grant would relate, or having legal

power to prevent it, allowed such significant adverse effect to occur, unless the agency, after consultation

with the Council, determines that circumstances justify granting such assistance despite the adverse effect

created or permitted by the applicant.

 (l) With respect to any undertaking subject to section 106 which adversely affects any property included in

or eligible for inclusion in the National Register, and for which a Federal agency has not entered into an

agreement with the Council, the head of such agency shall document any decision made pursuant to

section 106. The head of such agency may not delegate his or her responsibilities pursuant to such

section. Where a section 106 memorandum of agreement has been executed with respect to an undertaking, such memorandum shall govern the undertaking and all of its parts.
APPENDIX E

Part 761,

Aboriginal Records and Antiquities Public Act 451

(1994), as amended
A – 317

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL RECORDS AND ANTIQUITIES, AMENDED

Part 761, Aboriginal Records and Antiquities

Public Act 451 (1994), as amended

324.76101 Definitions.

Sec. 76101. As used in this part:

(a) “Abandoned property” means an aircraft; a watercraft, including a ship, boat, canoe, skiff, raft, or barge;

the rigging, gear, fittings, trappings, and equipment of an aircraft or watercraft; the personal property of the

officers, crew, and passengers of an aircraft or watercraft; and the cargo of an aircraft or watercraft, which

have been deserted, relinquished, cast away, or left behind and for which attempts at reclamation have

been abandoned by owners and insurers. Abandoned property also means materials resulting from

activities of historic and prehistoric Native Americans.

(b) “Bottomlands” means the unpatented lake bottomlands of the Great Lakes.

(c) “Committee” means the underwater salvage and preserve committee created in section 76103.

(d) “Great Lakes” means lakes Erie, Huron, Michigan, St. Clair, and Superior.

(e) “Great Lakes bottomlands preserve” means an area located on the bottomlands of the Great Lakes

and extending upward to and including the surface of the water, which is delineated and set aside by rule

for special protection of abandoned property of historical value, or ecological, educational, geological, or

scenic features or formations having recreational, educational, or scientific value. A preserve may encompass a single object, feature, or formation, or a collection of several objects, features, or formations.

(f) ‘Historical value” means value relating to, or illustrative of, Michigan history, including the statehood,

territorial, colonial, and historic, and prehistoric native American periods.

(g) “Mechanical or other assistance” means all human made devices, including pry bars, wrenches and

other hand or power tools, cutting torches, explosives, winches, flotation bags, lines to surface, extra

divers buoyancy devices, and other buoyance devices, used to raise or remove artifacts.

(h) “Recreational value” means value relating to an activity that the public engages in, or may engage in, for

recreation or sport including scuba diving and fishing.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76102 Aboriginal records and antiquities; right to explore, survey, excavate, and regulate reserved

to state; possessory right or title to abandoned property.

Sec. 76102. (1) The state reserves to itself the exclusive right and privilege, except as provided in this part,

of exploring, surveying, excavating, and regulating through its authorized officers, agents, and employees,

all aboriginal records and other antiquities, including mounds, earthworms, forts, burial and village sites,

mines or other relics, and abandoned property of historical or recreational value found upon or within any

of the lands owned by or under the control of the state.

(2) The state reserves to itself a possessory right or title superior to that of a finder to abandoned property
A – 318

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL RECORDS AND ANTIQUITIES, AMENDED

of historical or recreational value found on the state owned bottomlands of the Great Lakes. This property

shall belong to this state with administration and protection jointly vested in the department and the

secretary of state,

History: Add. 1995, Act 58. lmd. Eff. May 24,1995.

324.76103 Underwater salvage and preserve committee; creation; purpose; appointment, qualifications,

and terms of members; vacancy; compensation; appointment, term, and duties of chairperson; committee as advisory body; functions of committee; limitation.

Sec. 76103. (1) The underwater salvage and preserve committee is created in the department of natural

resources to provide technical and other advice to the department and the secretary of state with respect

to their responsibilities under this part.

(2) The underwater salvage and preserve committee shall consist of 9 members appointed as follows:

(a) Two individuals appointed by the department who have primary responsibility in the department of

natural

resources for administering this part.

(b) Two individuals appointed by the secretary of state who have primary responsibility in the department

of state for administering this part.

(c) One individual appointed by the director of commerce.

(d) Four individuals appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the senate from the general

public. Two of these individuals shall have experience in recreational scuba diving.

(3) An individual appointed to the committee shall serve for a term of 3 years. A vacancy on the committee shall be filled in the same manner as an original appointment and the term of a member appointed to

fill a vacancy shall be for 3 years. Members of the committee shall serve without compensation, except for

their regular state salary where applicable.

(4) The chairperson of the committee shall alternate between the representatives from the department

and the department of state. The chairperson shall be designated by the department or the secretary of

state, whichever is applicable from among his or her representatives on the committee. The chairperson’s

term shall run for 12 months, from October 1 through September 30. The department shall appoint the

first chairperson of the committee for a term ending September 30, 1989. The chairperson shall call

meetings as necessary but not less than 4 times per year, set the agenda for meetings, ensure that adequate minutes are taken, and file an annual report of committee proceedings with the head of the

departments of state, natural resources, and commerce.

(5) The committee is an advisory body and may perform all of the following functions:

(a) Make recommendations with regard to the creation and boundaries of Great Lakes underwater

preserves.

(b) Review applications for underwater salvage permits and make recommendations regarding issuance.
A – 319

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL RECORDS AND ANTIQUITIES, AMENDED

(c) Consider and make recommendations regarding the charging of permit fees and the appropriate use of

revenue generated by those fees.

(d) Consider the need for and the content of rules intended to implement this part and make recommendations concerning the promulgation of rules.

(e) Consider and make recommendations concerning appropriate legislation.

(f) Consider and make recommendations concerning program operation.

(6) The committee shall not replace or supersede the responsibility or authority of the secretary of state

or the department to carry out their responsibilities under this part.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76104 Deed; clause reserving to state property and exploration rights in aboriginal antiquities;

exceptions; waiver.

Sec. 76104. A deed, as provided by this part, given by this state, except state tax deeds for the conveyance of any land owned by the state, shall contain a clause reserving to this state a property right in

aboriginal antiquities including mounds, earthworms, forts, burial and village sites, mines, or other relics

and also reserving the right to explore and excavate for the aboriginal antiquity by and through this state’s

authorized agent and employee. This section applies only to the sale of tax reverted land. The department, with the approval of the secretary of state, may waive this reservation when conveying platted

property and when making conveyances under subpart 3 of part 21.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76105 Permit for exploration or excavation of aboriginal remain; exception.

Sec. 76105. A person, either personally or through an agent or employee, shall not explore or excavate

an aboriginal remain covered by this part upon lands owned by the state, except under a permit issued by

the department with written approval of the secretary of state. A permit shall be issued without charge.

This section shall not apply to the Mackinac Island state park commission on lands owned or controlled by

the Mackinac Island state park commission.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76106 Removal of relics or records of antiquity; consent of landowner required.

Sec. 76106. Without the consent of the land owner, a person shall not remove any relics or records of

antiquity such as human or other bones; shells, stone, bone, or copper implements; pottery or shards of

pottery, or similar artifacts and objects from the premises where they have been discovered.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76107 Permit to recover, alter, or destroy abandoned property; recovered property as property of

secretary of state; prohibitions as to human body or remains; violation as felony; penalty.

Sec. 76107. (1) Except as provided in section 76108, a person shall not recover, alter, or destroy abandoned property which is in, on, under, or over the bottomlands of the Great Lakes, including those within

a Great Lakes bottomlands preserve, unless the person has a permit issued jointly by the secretary of state

and the department pursuant to section 76109.
A – 320

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL RECORDS AND ANTIQUITIES, AMENDED

(2) A person who recovers abandoned property without a permit when a permit is required by this part

shall transmit the property to the secretary of state and the recovered property shall be the property of

the secretary of state.

(3) A person shall not remove, convey, mutilate, or deface a human body or the remains of a human

body located on the bottomlands of the Great Lakes.

(4) A person who violates subsection (1) by recovering or destroying abandoned property with a fair

market value of $100.00 or more is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2

years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

History: Add 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76108 Recovery of abandoned property without permit; report; availability of recovered property

for inspection; release of property.

Sec. 76108. (1) A person may recover abandoned property outside a Great Lakes bottomlands preserve

without a permit if the abandoned property is not attached to, nor located on, in, or located in the immediate vicinity of and associated with a sunken aircraft or watercraft and if the abandoned property is recoverable by hand without mechanical or other assistance.

(2) A person who recovers abandoned property valued at more than $10.00 without a permit pursuant

to subsection (1) shall file a written report within 30 days after removal of the property with the department or the secretary of state if the property has been abandoned for more than 30 years. The written

report shall list all recovered property that has been abandoned for more than 30 years and the location

of the property at the time of recovery. For a period of 90 days after the report is filed, the person shall

make the recovered property available to the department and the secretary of state for inspection at a

location in this state. If the secretary of state determines that the recovered property does not have

historical value, the secretary of state shall release the property to the person by means of a written

instrument.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76109 Permit; scope; application; filing, form, and contents; additional information or documents;

notice of deficient application; failure to respond; approval or disapproval of application; display of

property; payment of salvage costs; recovery of cargo outside Great Lakes bottomlands preserves;

administrative review; conduct of hearing; combined appeals; joint decision and order; duration of

permit; issuance of new permit; transfer or assignment of permit.

Sec. 76109. (1) A permit issued under this section shall authorize a person to recover abandoned property located on, in, or located in the immediate vicinity of and associated with a sunken aircraft or watercraft.

(2) A person shall file an application for a permit with the department on a form prescribed by the department and approved by the secretary of state. The application shall contain all of the following information:

(a) The name and address of the applicant.

(b) The name, if known, of the watercraft or aircraft on or around which recovery operations are to occur

and a current photograph or drawing of the watercraft or aircraft, if available.
A – 321

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL RECORDS AND ANTIQUITIES, AMENDED

(c) The location of the abandoned property to be recovered and the depth of water in which it may be

found.

(d) A description of each item to be recovered.

(e) The method to be used in recovery operations.

(f) The proposed disposition of the abandoned property recovered, including the location at which it will

be available for inspection by the department and the secretary of state.

(g) Other information which the department or the secretary of state considers necessary in evaluating the

request for a permit.

(3) An application for a permit is not complete until all information requested on the application form and

any other infomiation requested by the department or the secretary of state has been received by the

department. After receipt of an otherwise complete application, the department may request additional

information or documents as are determined to be necessary to make a decision to grant or deny a

permit. The department, or the secretary of state, shall notify the applicant in writing when the application

is deficient.

(4) An applicant notified that an application for a permit may be deficient and returned due to insufficient

information under subsection (3) shall, within 20 days after the date the notice is mailed, provide the

information. If the applicant fails to respond within the 20-day period the application shall be denied unless

the applicant requests additional time and provides reasonable justification for an extension of time.

(5) The department and the secretary of state shall, with the advice of the committee, approve or disapprove an application for a permit within 30 days after the date a complete application is filed with the

department. The department and the secretary of state may approve an application conditionally or

unconditionally. A condition to the approval of an application shall be in writing on the face of the permit.

The department and the secretary of state may impose such conditions as are considered reasonable and

necessary to protect the public trust and general interests, including conditions that accomplish 1 or more

of the following:

(a) Protect and preserve the abandoned property to be recovered, and the recreational value of the area

in which recovery is being accomplished.

(b) Assure reasonable public access to the abandoned property after recovery.

(c) Are in conformity with rules applying to activities within a Great Lakes bottomlands preserve.

(d) Prohibit injury, harm, and damage to a bottomlands site or abandoned property not authorized for

removal during and after salvage operations by the permit holder.

(e) Prohibit or limit the amount of discharge of possible pollutants, such as floating timbers, planking, and

other debris, which may emanate from the shipwreck, plane wreck, or salvage equipment.
A – 322

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL RECORDS AND ANTIQUITIES, AMENDED

(f) Require the permit holder to submit a specific removal plan prior to commencing any salvaging activities. Among other matters considered appropriate by either the department or the secretary of state, or

both, the removal plan may be required to ensure the safety of those removing or assisting in the removal

of the abandoned property and to address how the permit holder proposes to prevent, minimize, or

mitigate potential adverse effects upon the abandoned property to be removed, that portion of the

abandoned property which is not to be removed, and the surrounding geographic features.

(6) The department shall approve an application for a permit unless the department determines that the

abandoned property to be recovered has substantial recreational value in itself or in conjunction with

other abandoned property in its vicinity underwater, or the recovery of abandoned property would not

comply with rules applying to a Great Lakes bottomlands preserve.

(7) The secretary of state shall approve the application for a permit unless the secretary of state determines that the abandoned property to be recovered has substantial historical value in itself or in conjunction with other abandoned property in its vicinity. If the property has substantial historical value, the

secretary of state, pursuant to subsection (5), may impose a condition to the approval of the application

requiring the applicant to turn over recovered property to the secretary of state for the purpose of

preserving the property or permitting public access to the property. The secretary of state may authorize

the display of the property in a public or private museum or by a local unit of government. In addition to

the conditions authorized by subsection (5), the secretary of state may provide for payment of salvage

costs in connection with the recovery of the abandoned property.

(8) A person who discovers an abandoned watercraft that is located outside of a Great Lakes bottomlands

preserve is entitled to recover cargo situated on, in, or associated with the watercraft, if the person applies

for a permit pursuant to this section within 90 days after discovering the watercraft. If an application for a

permit to recover cargo is not filed within 90 days after a watercraft discovery, subject to subsections (4)

and (5) an exclusive cargo recovery permit shall be issued to the first person applying for such a permit.

Only 1 permit to recover the same cargo shall be issued and operative at a time. When a watercraft

containing cargo is simultaneously discovered by more than 1 person, a permit shall be approved with

respect to the first person or persons jointly applying for a permit.

(9) A person aggrieved by a condition contained on a permit or by the denial of an application for a permit

may request an administrative review of the condition or the denial by the commission or the secretary of

state, whichever disapproves the application or imposes the condition. A person shall file the request for

review with the commission or the secretary of state, whichever is applicable, within 90 days after the

permit application is submitted to the department. An administrative hearing conducted pursuant to this

subsection shall be conducted under the procedures set forth in chapter 4 of the administrative procedures act of 1969, Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, being sections 24.271 to 24.287 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. If neither the department or the secretary of state approves the application and an

administrative review is requested from both the commission and the secretary of state, the appeals shall

be combined upon request of the appellant or either the commission or the secretary of state and a single

administrative hearing shall be conducted. The commission and the secretary of state shall issue jointly the

final decision and order in the case.

(10) A permit issued under this section shall be valid until December 31 of the year in which the application for the permit was filed and is not renewable. If an item designated in a permit for recovery is not
A – 323

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL RECORDS AND ANTIQUITIES, AMENDED

recovered, a permit holder may, upon request following the expiration of the permit, be issued a new

permit to remove the same abandoned property if the permit holder demonstrates that diligence in

attempting recovery was exercised under the previously issued permit.

(11) A permit issued under this section shall not be transferred or assigned unless the assignment is

approved in writing by both the department and the secretary of state.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, lmd. Eff. May 24,1995.

324.76110 Recovered abandoned property; report; examination; removal from state; action for recovery; release of property.

Sec. 76110. (1) Within 10 days after recovery of abandoned property, a person with a permit issued

pursuant to section 76109 shall report the recovery in writing to the department. The person recovering

the abandoned property shall give authorized representatives of the department and the secretary of state

an opportunity to examine the abandoned property for a period of 90 days after recovery. Recovered

abandoned property shall not be removed from this state without written approval of the department and

the secretary of state. If the recovered abandoned property is removed from the state without written

approval, the attorney general, upon request from the department or the secretary of state, shall bring an

action for the recovery of the property.

(2) If the secretary of state determines that the recovered abandoned property does not have historical

value, the secretary of state shall release the property to the person holding the permit by means of a

written instrument.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76111 Great Lakes bottomlands preserves; establishment; rules; determination; factors; granting

permit to recover abandoned artifacts; limitation; intentional sinking of vessel; prohibited use of state

money.

Sec. 76111. (1) The department shall establish Great Lakes bottomlands preserves by rule. A Great Lakes

bottomlands preserve shall be established by emergency rule if it is determined by the department that

this action is necessary to immediately protect an object or area of historical or recreational value.

(2) A Great Lakes bottomlands preserve may be established whenever a bottomlands area includes a

single watercraft of significant historical value, includes 2 or more abandoned watercraft, or contains other

features of archaeological, historical, recreational, geological, or environmental significance. Bottomlands

areas containing few or no watercraft or other features directly related to the character of a preserve may

be excluded from preserves.

(3) In establishing a Great Lakes bottomlands preserve, the department shall consider all of the following

factors:

(a) Whether creating the preserve is necessary to protect either abandoned property possessing historical

or recreational value, or significant underwater geological or environmental features.

(b) The extent of local public and private support for creation of the preserve.

(c) Whether a preserve development plan has been prepared by a state or local agency.
A – 324

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL RECORDS AND ANTIQUITIES, AMENDED

(d) The extent to which preserve support facilities such as roads, marinas, charter services, hotels, medical

hyperbaric facilities, and rescue agencies have been developed in or are planned for the area.

(4) The department and the secretary of state shall not grant a permit to recover abandoned artifacts

within a Great Lakes bottomlands preserve except for historical or scientific purposes or when the recovery will not adversely affect the historical, cultural, or recreational integrity of the preserve area as a whole.

(5) An individual Great Lakes bottomlands preserve shall not exceed 400 square miles in area. Great

Lakes bottomlands preserves shall be limited in total area to not more than 10% of the Great Lakes

bottomlands within this state.

(6) Upon the approval of the committee, not more than I vessel associated with Great Lakes maritime

history may be sunk intentionally within a Great Lakes bottomlands preserve. However, state money shall

not be expended to purchase, transport, or sink the vessel.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, lmd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76112 Rules generally.

Sec. 76112. (1) The department and the secretary of state, jointly or separately, may promulgate rules as

are necessary to implement this part.

(2) Within each Great Lakes bottomlands preserve, the department and the secretary of state may jointly

promulgate rules that govern access to and use of a Great Lakes bottomlands preserve. These rules may

regulate or prohibit the alteration, destruction, or removal of abandoned property, features, or formations

within a preserve.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24,1995.

324.76113 Limitations not imposed by §§324.76107 to 324.76110.

Sec. 76113. Sections 76107 to 761 10 shall not be considered to impose the following limitations:

(a) A limitation on the right of a person to engage in diving for recreational purposes in and upon the

Great Lakes or the bottomlands of the Great Lakes.

(b) A limitation on the right of the department or the secretary of state to recover, or to contract for the

recovery of, abandoned property in and upon the bottomlands of the Great Lakes.

(c) A limitation on the right of a person to own either abandoned property recovered before July 2, 1980

or abandoned property released to a person after inspection.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76114 Suspension or revocation of permit; grounds; hearing; civil action.

Sec. 76114. (1) If the department or the secretary of state finds that the holder of a permit issued pursuant to section 76105 or 76109 is not in compliance with this part, a rule promulgated under this part, or a

provision of or condition in the permit, or has damaged abandoned property or failed to use diligence in

attempting to recover property for which a permit was issued, the department or the secretary of state,

individually or jointly, may summarily suspend or revoke the permit. If the permit holder requests a

hearing within 15 days following the effective date of the suspension or revocation, the commission or the
A – 325

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL RECORDS AND ANTIQUITIES, AMENDED

secretary of state shall conduct an administrative hearing pursuant to chapter 4 of the administrative

procedures act of 1969, Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, being sections 24.271 to 24.287 of the

Michigan Compiled Laws, to consider whether the permit should be reinstated.

(2) The attorney general, on behalf of the department or the secretary of state, individually or jointly, may

commence a civil action in circuit court to enforce compliance with this part, to restrain a violation of this

part or any action contrary to a decision denying a permit, to enjoin the further removal of artifacts,

geological material, or abandoned property, or to order the restoration of an affected area to its prior

condition.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, lmd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76115 Dangers accepted by participants in sport of scuba diving.

Sec. 76115. Each person who participates in the sport of scuba diving on the Great Lakes bottomlands

accepts the dangers that adhere in that sport insofar as the dangers are obvious and necessary. Those

dangers include, but are not limited to, injuries which can result from entanglements in sunken watercraft

or aircraft; the condition of sunken watercraft or aircraft; the location of sunken watercraft or aircraft; the

failure of the state to fund stiff or programs at bottomlands preserves; and the depth of the objects and

bottomlands within preserves.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76116 Violation as misdemeanor; penalty.

Sec. 76116. (1) A person who violates section 76105 or 76106 is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by

imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

(2) A person who violates sections 76107 or 76111 or a rule promulgated under this part is guilty of a

misdemeanor. Unless another penalty is provided in this part, a person convicted of a misdemeanor

under this subsection is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or a fine of not more

than $500.00, or both.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, lmd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76117 Attaching, proceeding against, or confiscating equipment or apparatus; procedure; disposition of proceeds.

Sec. 76117. (1) If a person who violates this part or a rule promulgated under this part uses a watercraft,

mechanical or other assistance, scuba gear, sonar equipment, a motor vehicle, or any other equipment or

apparatus during the course of committing the violation, the items so used may be attached, proceeded

against, and confiscated as prescribed in this part.

(2) To effect confiscation, the law enforcement or conservation officer seizing the property shall file a

verified complaint in the circuit court for the county in which the seizure was made or in the circuit court

for Ingham county. The complaint shall set forth the kind of property seized, the time and place of the

seizure, the reasons for the seizure, and a demand for the property’s condemnation and confiscation.

Upon the filing of the complaint, an order shall be issued requiring the owner to show cause why the

property should not be confiscated. The substance of the complaint shall be stated in the order. The

order to show cause shall fix the time for service of the order and for the hearing on the proposed

condemnation and confiscation.
A – 326

APPENDIX E ABORIGINAL RECORDS AND ANTIQUITIES, AMENDED

(3) The order to show cause shall be served on the owner of the property as soon as possible, but not

less than 7 days before the complaint is to be heard. The court, for cause shown, may hear the complaint

on shorter notice. If the owner is not known or cannot be found, notice may be served in I or more of

the following ways:

(a) By posting a copy of the order in 3 public places for 3 consecutive weeks in the county in which the

seizure was made and by sending a copy of the order by certified mail to the last known business or

residential address of the owner. If the last addresses of the owner are not known, mailing a copy of the

order is not required.

(b) By publishing a copy of the order in a newspaper once each week for 3 consecutive weeks in the

county where the seizure was made and by sending a copy of the order by registered mail to the last

known residential address of the owner. If the last residential address of the owner is not known, mailing a

copy of the order is not required.

(c) In such a manner as the court directs.

(4) Upon hearing of the complaint if the court determines that the property mentioned in the petition was

possessed, shipped, or used contrary to law, either by the owner or by a person lawfully in possession of

the property under an agreement with the owner, an order shall be made condemning and confiscating

the property and directing its sale or other disposal by the department. If the owner signs a property

release, a court proceeding is not necessary. At the hearing, if the court determines that the property was

not possessed, shipped, or used contrary to law, the court shall order the department to immediately

return the property to its owner.

(5) The department shall deposit the proceeds it receives under this section into the state treasury to the

credit of the underwater preserve fund created in section 76118.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.76118 Underwater Preserve fund; creation; sources of revenue; purposes for which money appropriated.

Sec. 76118. (1) The underwater preserve fund is created as a separate fund in the state treasury, and it

may receive revenue as provided in this part, or revenue from any other source.

(2) Money in the underwater preserve fund shall be appropriated for only the following purposes:

(a) To the secretary of state for the development of maritime archaeology in this state.

(b) To the department of commerce for the promotion of Great Lakes bottomlands preserves.

(c) To the department for the enforcement of this part.

History: Add. 1995, Act 58, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.
APPENDIX F

Part 325,

Great Lakes Submerged Lands

Public Act 451 (1994)
A – 328

APPENDIX F GREAT LAKES SUBMERGED LANDS, AMENDED

Part 325, Great Lakes Submerged Lands

Public Act 451 (1994), as amended

324.32501 “Marina purposes” defined.

Sec. 32501. As used in this part, “marina purposes” means an operation making use of submerged bottomlands or filled-in bottomlands of the Great Lakes for the purpose of service to boat owners or operators, which operation may restrict or prevent the free public use of the affected bottomlands or filled-in

lands.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32502 Unpatented lake bottomlands and unpatented made lands in Great Lakes; construction of

part.

Sec. 32502. The lands covered and affected by this part are all of the unpatented lake bottomlands and

unpatented made lands in the Great Lakes, including the bays and harbors of the Great Lakes, belonging

to the state or held in trust by it, including those lands that have been artificially filled in. The waters

covered and affected by this part are all of the waters of the Great Lakes within the boundaries of the

state. This part shall be construed so as to preserve and protect the interests of the general public in the

lands and waters described in this section, to provide for the sale, lease, exchange, or other disposition of

unpatented lands and the private or public use of waters over patented and unpatented lands, and to

permit the filling in of patented submerged lands whenever it is determined by the department that the

private or public use of those lands and waters will not substantially affect the public use of those lands and

waters for hunting, fishing, swimming, pleasure boating, or navigation or that the public trust in the state

will not be impaired by those agreements for use, sales, lease, or other disposition. The word “land” or

“lands” as used in this part refers to the aforesaid described unpatented lake bottomlands and unpatented

made lands and patented lands in the Great Lakes and the bays and harbors of the Great Lakes lying

below and lakeward of the natural ordinary high-water mark, but this part does not affect property rights

secured by virtue of a swamp land grant or rights acquired by accretions occurring through natural means

or reliction. For purposes of this part, the ordinary high-water mark shall be at the following elevations

above sea level, international Great Lakes datum of 1955: Lake Superior, 601.5 feet; Lakes Michigan and

Huron, 579.8 feet; Lake St. Clair, 574.7 feet; and Lake Erie, 571.6 feet.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32503 Agreements pertaining to waters over and filling in of submerged patented lands; lease or

deed of unpatented lands; terms, conditions, and requirements; reservation of mineral rights; exception; riparian owner dredging or placing materials on bottomland; permit; lease or deed permitting

drilling operations for taking oil or gas or for exploration purposes; conditions; execution of agreement, lease, or deed with United States.

Sec. 32503. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, the department, after finding that the public

trust in the waters will not be impaired or substantially affected, may enter into agreements pertaining to

waters over and the filling in of submerged patented lands, or to lease or deed unpatented lands, after
A – 329

APPENDIX F GREAT LAKES SUBMERGED LANDS, AMENDED

approval of the state administrative board. Quitclaim deeds, leases, or agreements covering unpatented

lands may be issued or entered into by the department with any person, and shall contain such terms,

conditions, and requirements as the department determines to be just and equitable and in conformance

with the public trust. The department shall reserve to the state all mineral rights, including, but not limited

to, coal, oil, gas, sand, gravel, stone, and other materials or products located or found in those lands,

except where lands are occupied or to be occupied for residential purposes at the time of conveyance.

(2) A riparian owner shall obtain a permit from the department before dredging or placing spoil or other

materials on bottomland.

(3) The department shall not enter into a lease or deed of unpatented lands that permits drilling operations for the taking of oil or gas, unless all drilling operations originate from locations above and inland of

the ordinary high-water mark. The department shall not enter into a lease or deed of unpatented lands

that permits drilling for exploration purposes unless the drilling operations originate from locations above

and inland of the ordinary high-water mark.

(4) An agreement, lease, or deed entered into under this part by the department with the United States

shall be entered into and executed pursuant to the property rights acquisition act, Act No. 201 of the

Public Acts of 1986, being section 3.251 to 3.262 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

Compiler’s note: In subsection (4), the phrase “being section 3.251 to 3.262” evidently should read “being sections 3.251 to 3.262.”

324.32504 Unpatented lake lands and unpatented made lands; application for conveyance; contents;

qualifications of applicant; consent; approval; fee.

Sec. 32504. (1) Application for a deed or lease to unpatented lands or agreement for use of water areas

over patented lands shall be on forms provided by the department. An application shall include a surveyed

description of the lands or water area applied for, together with a surveyed description of the riparian or

littoral property lying adjacent and contiguous to the lands or water area, certified to by a registered land

surveyor. The description shall show the location of the water’s edge at the time it was prepared and

other information that is required by the department. The applicant shall be a riparian or littoral owner or

owners of property touching or situated opposite the unpatented land or water area over patented lands

applied for or an occupant of that land. The application shall include the names and mailing addresses of all

persons in possession or occupancy or having an interest in the adjacent or contiguous riparian or littoral

property or having riparian or littoral rights or interests in the lands or water areas applied for, and the

application shall be accompanied by the written consent of all persons having an interest in the lands or

water areas applied for in the application.

(2) Before an application is acted upon by the department, the applicant shall secure approval of or

permission for his or her proposed use of such lands or water area from any federal agency as provided

by law, the department with the advice of the Michigan waterways commission, and the legislative body of

the local unit or units of government within which such land or water area is or will be included, or to

which it is contiguous or adjacent. A deed, lease, or agreement shall not be issued or entered into by the

department without such approvals or permission. The department may also require the applicant to

furnish an abstract of title and ownership, and a 20-year tax history on the riparian or littoral property that

is contiguous or adjacent to the lands or water area applied for, as well as on the lands applied for, if

available.
A – 330

APPENDIX F GREAT LAKES SUBMERGED LANDS, AMENDED

(3) The department shall require the applicant to deposit a fee of not less than $50.00 for each application

filed. The fee shall be deposited with the state treasurer to the credit of the state’s general fund. If a deed,

lease, or other agreement is approved by the department, the applicant is entitled to credit for the fee

against the consideration that is paid for the deed, lease, or other agreement.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32505 Unpatented lake bottomlands and unpatented made lands; consideration for conveyances or

lease.

Sec. 32505. (1) If the department determines that it is in the public interest to grant an applicant a deed or

lease to such lands or enter into an agreement to permit use and improvements in the waters or to enter

into any other agreement in regard thereto, the department shall determine the amount of consideration

to be paid to the state by the applicant for the conveyance or lease of unpatented lands.

(2) The department may permit, by lease or agreement, the filling in of patented and unpatented submerged lands and permit permanent improvements and structures after finding that the public trust will

not be impaired or substantially injured.

(3) The department may issue deeds or may enter into leases if the unpatented lands applied for have

been artificially filled in or are proposed to be changed from the condition that exists on October 14,

1955 by filling, sheet piling, shoring, or by any other means, and such lands are used or to be used or

occupied in whole or in part for uses other than existing, lawful riparian or littoral purposes. The consideration to be paid to the state for the conveyance or lease of unpatented lands by the applicant shall be not

less than the fair, cash market value of the lands determined as of the date of the filing of the application,

minus any improvements placed on the lands, but the sale price shall not be less than 30% of the value of

the land. In determining the fair, cash market value of the lands applied for, the department may give due

consideration to the fact that the lands are connected with the riparian or littoral property belonging to the

applicant, and to the uses, including residential and commercial, being made or which can be made of the

lands.

(4) Agreements for the lands or water area described in section 32502 may be granted to or entered into

with local units of government for public purposes and containing those terms and conditions that may be

considered just and equitable in view of the public trust involved and may include the granting of permission to make such fills as may be necessary.

(5) If the unpatented lands applied for have not been filled in or in any way substantially changed from

their natural character at the time the application is filed with the department, and the application is filed

for the purpose of flood control, shore erosion control, drainage and sanitation control, or to straighten

irregular shore lines, then the consideration to be paid to the state by the applicant shall be the fair, cash

value of such land, giving due consideration to its being adjacent to and connected with the riparian or

littoral property owned by the applicant.

(6) Leases or agreements covering unpatented lands may be granted or entered into with riparian or

littoral proprietors for commercial marina purposes or for marinas operated by persons for consideration

and containing terms and conditions that are considered by the department to be just and equitable. The

leases may include either filled or unfilled lake bottomlands, or both. Rental shall commence as of the date

of use of the unpatented lands for the marina operations. Dockage and other uses by marinas in waters

over patented lands on October 14, 1955 shall be considered to be lawful riparian use.
A – 331

APPENDIX F GREAT LAKES SUBMERGED LANDS, AMENDED

(7) If the department after investigation determines that an applicant has willfully and knowingly filled in or

in any way substantially changed the lands applied for with an intent to defraud, or if the applicant has

acquired such lands with knowledge of such a fraudulent intent and is not an innocent purchaser, the sale

price shall be the fair, cash market value of the land. An applicant may request a hearing of a determination

made under this subsection. The department shall grant a hearing if requested.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32506 Unpatented lands and unpatented made lands; value determination by department; appraisal; decision of court.

Sec. 32506. The fair, cash market value of lands approved for sale under this part shall be determined by

the department. Consideration paid to the state shall not be less than $50.00. If the applicant is not

satisfied with the value determined by the department, within 30 days after the receipt of the determination he or she may submit a petition in writing to the circuit court of the county in which the lands are

located, and the court shall appoint an appraiser or appraisers as the court shall determine for an appraisal

of the lands. The decision of the court is final.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32507 Receipts; disposition; accounting; employees.

Sec. 32507. (1) All money received by the department from the sale, lease, or other disposition of land

and water areas under this part shall be forwarded to the state treasurer and be credited to the land and

water management permit fee fund created in section 30113.

(2) The department shall comply with the accounting laws of this state and the requirements with respect

to submission of budgets. The department may hire employees, assistants, and services that may be

necessary within the appropriation made by the legislature and may delegate this authority as may be

necessary to implement this part.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32508 Lands conveyed; taxation.

Sec. 32508. All lands conveyed or leased under this part are subject to taxation and the general property

tax laws and other laws as other real estate used and taxed by the governmental unit or units within which

the land is or may be included.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32509 Rules.

Sec. 32509. The department may promulgate rules, in accordance with the requirements of law, consistent with this part, that may be necessary to implement this part.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32510 Land filled, excavated, or modified without approval; misdemeanor; penalty; issuance or

service of appearance ticket; “minor offense” defined.
A – 332

APPENDIX F GREAT LAKES SUBMERGED LANDS, AMENDED

Sec. 32510. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who excavates or fills or in any manner

alters or modifies any of the land or waters subject to this part without the approval of the department is

guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than

$1,000.00, or both. Land altered or modified in violation of this part shall not be sold to any person

convicted under this section at less than fair, cash market value.

(2) A person who commits a minor offense is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not more

than $500.00 for each violation. A law enforcement officer may issue and serve an appearance ticket upon

a person for a minor offense pursuant to sections 9a to 9g of chapter IV of the code of criminal procedure, Act No. 175 of the Public Acts of 1927, being sections 764.9a to 764.9g of the Michigan Compiled

Laws.

(3) As used in this section, “minor offense” means either of the following violations of this part if the

department determines that restoration of the affected property is not required:

(a) The failure to obtain a permit under this part.

(b) A violation of a permit issued under this part.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32511 Certificate of location of lakeward boundary; application; riparian owner; fee.

Sec. 32511. A riparian owner may apply to the department for a certificate suitable for recording indicating the location of his or her lakeward boundary or indicating that the land involved has accreted to his or

her property as a result of natural accretions or placement of a lawful, permanent structure. The application shall be accompanied by a fee of $200.00 and proof of upland ownership.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32512 Acts prohibited; exceptions.

Sec. 32512. Unless a permit has been granted by the department or authorization has been granted by

the legislature, or except as to boat wells and slips facilitating private, noncommercial, recreational boat

use, not exceeding 50 feet in length where the spoil is not disposed of below the ordinary high-water

mark of the body of water to which it is connected, a person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Construct, dredge, commence, or do any work with respect to an artificial canal, channel, ditch,

lagoon, pond, lake, or similar waterway where the purpose is ultimate connection of the waterway with

any of the Great Lakes, including Lake St. Clair.

(b) Connect any natural or artificially constructed waterway, canal, channel, ditch, lagoon, pond, lake, or

similar waterway with any of the Great Lakes, including Lake St. Clair, for navigation or any other purpose.

(c) Dredge or place spoil or other material on bottomland.

(d) Construct a marina.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32513 Application for permit; contents; fees; disposition of fees.
A – 333

APPENDIX F GREAT LAKES SUBMERGED LANDS, AMENDED

Sec. 32513. (1) Before any work or connection specified in section 32512 is undertaken, a person shall

file an application with the department setting forth the following:

(a) The name and address of the applicant.

(b) The legal description of the lands included in the project.

(c) A summary statement of the purpose of the project.

(d) A map or diagram showing the proposal on an adequate scale with contours and cross-section profiles

of the waterway to be constructed.

(e) Other information required by the department.

(2) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (4), an application for a permit under this section shall be

accompanied by a fee according to the following schedule:

(a) Until October 1, 1999:

(i) For activities included in the minor project category as described in rules promulgated under this part,

$50.00.

(ii) For construction or expansion of a marina, a fee of:

(A) $50.00 for an expansion of 1-10 slips to an existing permitted marina.

(B) $100.00 for a new marina with 1-10 proposed marina slips.

(C) $250.00 for an expansion of 11-50 slips to an existing permitted marina, plus $10.00 for each slip

over 50.

(D) $500.00 for a new marina with 11-50 proposed marina slips, plus $10.00 for each slip over 50.

(E) $1,500.00 if an existing permitted marina proposes maintenance dredging of 10,000 cubic yards or

more or the addition of seawalls, bulkheads, or revetments of 500 feet or more.

(iii) For major projects other than a project described in subparagraph (ii)(E), involving any of the following,

a fee of $2,000.00:

(A) Dredging of 10,000 cubic yards or more.

(B) Filling of 10,000 cubic yards or more.

(C) Seawalls, bulkheads, or revetment of 500 feet or more.

(D) Filling or draining of 1 acre or more of coastal wetland.

(E) New dredging or upland boat basin excavation in areas of suspected contamination.

(F) New breakwater or channel jetty.

(G) Shore protection, such as groins and underwater stabilizers, that extend 150 feet or more on Great

Lakes bottomlands.
A – 334

APPENDIX F GREAT LAKES SUBMERGED LANDS, AMENDED

(H) New commercial dock or wharf of 300 feet or more in length.

(iv) For all other projects not listed in subparagraphs (i) through (iii), $500.00.

(b) Beginning October 1, 1999, a fee of $50.00 for any project listed in subdivision (a).

(3) A project that requires review and approval under this part and 1 or more of the following is subject to

only the single highest permit fee required under this part or the following:

(a) Part 301.

(b) Part 303.

(c) Part 323.

(d) Section 3104.

(e) Section 117 of the subdivision control act of 1967, Act No. 288 of the Public Acts of 1967, being

section 560.117 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

(4) If work has been done in violation of a permit requirement under this part and restoration is not

ordered by the department, the department may accept an application for a permit if the application is

accompanied by a fee equal to 2 times the permit fee required under this section.

(5) The department shall forward all fees collected under this section to the state treasurer for deposit into

the land and water management permit fee fund created in section 30113.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995;—Am. 1995, Act 170, Imd. Eff. Oct. 9, 1995.

324.32514 Application for permit; copies; local units; adjacent riparian owners; objections; hearing;

time; notice.

Sec. 32514. Upon receipt of the application, the department shall mail copies to the department of public

health, the clerks of the county, city, village, and township, and the drain commissioner of the county or, if

none, the road commissioner of the county, in which the project or body of water affected is located, and

to the adjacent riparian owners, accompanied by a statement that unless a written objection is filed with

the department within 20 days after the mailing of the copies, the department may take action to grant the

application. The department may set the application for public hearing. At least 10 days’ notice of the

hearing shall be given by publication in a newspaper circulated in the county and by mailing copies of the

notice to the persons named in this section.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.

324.32515 Permit; issuance; conditions; waterways; maintenance.

Sec. 32515. If the department finds that the project will not injure the public trust or interest including fish

and game habitat, that the project conforms to the requirements of law for sanitation, and that no material

injury to the rights of any riparian owners on any body of water affected will result, the department shall

issue a permit authorizing enlargement of the waterway affected. The permit shall provide that the artificial

waterway shall be a public waterway, except intake or discharge canals or channels on property owned,

controlled, and used by a public utility. The department may impose further conditions in the permit that it
A – 335

APPENDIX F GREAT LAKES SUBMERGED LANDS, AMENDED

finds reasonably necessary to protect the public health, safety, welfare, trust, and interest, and private

rights and property. The existing and future owners of land fronting on the artificial waterway are liable for

maintenance of the waterway in accordance with the conditions of the permit.

History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995.