I thought the following draft preservation plan on the Monitor might be of
interest to list members.  Comments are due by 2/2/98.
 
Marc Kodack
[log in to unmask]
 
 
 
[Federal Register: December 4, 1997 (Volume 62, Number 233)]
[Notices]
[Page 64208-64210]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04de97-30]
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
 
 
Notice of Availability of Draft Proposed Comprehensive, Long
Range Preservation Plan for the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary
 
AGENCY: Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), Office of Ocean and
Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), National Ocean Service (NOS),
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of
Commerce (DOC).
 
ACTION: Notice.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
SUMMARY: In section 4 of Public Law 104-238 (The National Marine
Sanctuaries Preservation Act (Act); October 11, 1996), Congress
directed the Secretary of Commerce to prepare a long-range,
comprehensive plan for the management stabilization, preservation, and
recovery of artifacts and materials of the USS MONITOR. NOAA, on behalf
of the Secretary of Commerce, developed a draft plan, entitled
``Charting a New Course for the MONITOR: Comprehensive, Long Range
Preservation Plan with Options for Management, Stabilization,
Preservation, Recovery, Conservation and Exhibition of Materials and
Artifacts from the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary.'' The draft plan
presents a range of options including a comprehensive management
strategy that should ensure that, insofar as possible, the MONITOR will
be preserved and protected for future generations. The draft plan
recommends the application of state-of-the-art technology in overcoming
the present rapid deterioration of the MONITOR through the combined
strategies of stabilization and selective recovery.
 
DATES: Comments on the draft plan are invited and will be considered if
submitted in writing by February 2, 1998.
 
ADDRESSES: Copies of the draft plan may be obtained from Dana Hill,
MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary, The Mariners Museum, 100 Museum
Drive, Newport News, VA 23606, tel. (757) 599-3122.
    The draft plan is also published on the World Wide Web at http://
www/nos.gov/nmsp/monitor/
    Comments should be submitted to John Broadwater, Manager, MONITOR
National Marine Sanctuary, The Mariners Museum, 100 Museum Drive,
Newport News, VA 23606.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Hill at (757) 599-3122.
 
SUPPLEMENTRY INFORMATION:
 
I. Background
 
    The USS MONITOR was a radical departure from traditional warship
design. The vessel was built almost entirely of iron; it was fully
steam powered with no masts or sails; the engineering spaces, crews and
officers quarters, and galley were all below the waterline; the hull
was completely armored with a 5-foot-high, 32-inch-thick armor belt
encircling the vessel for protection during battle. The most novel
feature was the MONITOR's 22-foot-diameter, 9-foot-high iron turret.
Positioned amidships, the armored turret could be rotated to train its
two 11-inch Dahlgren smoothbore cannon in any direction.
    The MONITOR was launched at Greenpoint, New York, on January 30,
1862. In early March, the MONITOR was ordered to Hampton Roads,
Virginia, where on March 9 it engaged the CSS VIRGINIA, a Confederate
ironclad constructed over the modified hull of the scuttled USS
MERRIMACK. In the ensuing four-hour battle, the two vessels frequently
bombarded each other at point-blank range with no substantial damage to
either vessel. Although the battle ended in a draw, the MONITOR's
performance impressed the
 
[[Page 64209]]
 
U.S. Navy and introduced features including full iron armor, low
freeboard and revolving turret that altered naval technology forever.
    Shortly after midnight on December 31, 1862, while under tow by the
USS RHODE ISLAND to Beaufort, North Carolina, the MONITOR sank in a
storm off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, with a loss of sixteen
officers and crewmen.
    In 1973 the wreck of the USS MONITOR was located by an
interdisciplinary scientific team operating from the Duke University
Research Vessel EASTWARD. A second expedition in April 1974, partly
sponsored by the U.S. Navy and the National Geographic Society,
provided detailed photographic documentation from which an assessment
of the wreck was made. A photomosaic produced by the Naval Intelligence
Division revealed that, with the exception of damage to the stern
section and the collapse of the lower hull forward of the midships
bulkhead, the wreck was in relatively good condition.
    In recognition of the MONITOR's significance in American history
and its profound impact on naval technology, the MONITOR was designated
by the Secretary of Commerce as the first National Marine Sanctuary on
January 30, 1975, pursuant to Title III of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (renamed the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act or NMSA), 16 U.S.C. 1431 et seq. Regulations
implementing the designation are found at 15 CFR part 922, subpart F.
NOAA is responsible for the management of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary
encompasses a vertical column of water one nautical mile in diameter 16
miles off the coast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina. The wreck of the
MONITOR lies upside down in 230 feet of water, with the stern resting
on the displaced turret, which is also upside down. Since 1977 NOAA has
conducted numerous expeditions to the MONITOR designed to generate
information on the condition of the wreck.
    Since 1991, a dramatic increase in the deterioration of the
MONITOR's hull has been documented, leading NOAA to conclude that the
collapse of the MONITOR's hull is imminent. In 1992, responding to the
alarming degradation of the MONITOR's hull, NOAA commenced a broad
range of initiatives including several expeditions to the Sanctuary, a
cooperative effort with the U.S. Navy to help stabilize the MONITOR's
hull, and development of a comprehensive plan for management of the
Sanctuary and possible recovery of portions of the MONITOR. Because of
the importance of these efforts and the limitations on funding, NOAA
developed partnerships with several organizations, including the U.S.
Navy, the National Undersea Research Program, The Mariners Museum,
private dive groups and organizations, and others.
    In 1993 and 1995, NOAA conducted major engineering and
archaeological surveys at the Sanctuary in conjunction with further
archival research and several small-scale site operations. Private
research divers also assisted NOAA during this period in the recovery
of additional data on the MONITOR's condition. This research concluded
that a concerted, well-planned effort would be required to preserve the
remains of the MONITOR. Planning efforts were initiated for the conduct
of additional archival, engineering and on-site research aimed at
identifying viable options for the preservation of the MONITOR. NOAA
also communicated the situation to Congress and the public.
    In 1996, Congress directed the Secretary of Commerce to prepare a
long-range, comprehensive plan for the management, stabilization,
preservation, and recovery of artifacts and materials of the USS
MONITOR. Section 4 of Public Law 104-238 (The National Marine
Sanctuaries Preservation Act (Act); October 11, 1996. The Secretary was
also directed, to the extent feasible, to utilize the resources of
other Federal and private entities with expertise and capabilities that
are helpful. NOAA, on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce, developed a
draft plan, entitled ``Charting a New Course for the MONITOR:
Comprehensive, Long Range Preservation Plan with Options for
Management, Stabilization, Preservation, Recovery, Conservation and
Exhibition of Materials and Artifacts from the MONITOR National Marine
Sanctuary.'' The draft plan presents a range of options including a
comprehensive management strategy that should ensure that, insofar as
possible, the MONITOR will be preserved and protected for future
generations. The draft plan recommends the application of state-of-the-
art technology in overcoming the crisis at the Sanctuary through the
combined strategies of stabilization and selective recovery.
 
II. Summary of the Draft Plan
 
    The draft plan includes a wide range of options for comprehensive
preservation and management of the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary.
In developing these options, NOAA reviewed all previous reports and
proposals for on-site activities, including papers presented at a
MONITOR conference in Raleigh, North Carolina, previous engineering and
corrosion reports and the Draft Revised Management Plan for the MONITOR
National Marine Sanctuary (NOAA 1982), all of which addressed
preliminary recommendations. NOAA sought and received assistance from
the U.S. Navy, Oceaneering International, Inc., The Mariners Museum,
and others. In addition, NOAA held informal discussions with numerous
engineers, archaeologists, and other specialists in order to identify
new technology that might be applicable for the MONITOR situation. The
draft plan presents all options for stabilizing and/or preserving the
MONITOR that were identified by NOAA as viable. The plan contains
sufficient information to permit the formulation of a comprehensive
phased approach to the problem. Once an option (or combination of
options) has been selected, it will be necessary to seek expert
assistance from appropriate disciplines (ocean engineers, nautical
archaeologists, artifact conservators, etc.) to assist with the
development of a detailed implementation plan.
    The draft plan presents several options along with pertinent
information on advantages, disadvantages, required action and estimated
costs. Advantages and disadvantages address potential impacts on the
MONITOR and its contents. Options are discussed and compared, and
recommendations are presented.
    Since the MONITOR is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places, and in addition, is a National Historic Landmark, any plan
proposing on-site activities that could disturb the site in any way
must be reviewed by state and Federal officials, in compliance with
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and other
pertinent laws.
    In establishing an archaeology plan, consideration must be given to
the fact that the MONITOR's hull and contents are threatened with
damage or loss due to the rapid deterioration of the hull and loss of
structural integrity. NOAA considers the MONITOR to be a threatened
site and, therefore, will develop the archaeology plan accordingly.
Federal law includes special provisions for threatened sites, with
consideration being given to the relative impact to a threatened
resource if left undisturbed versus taking positive action to preserve
the resource. In the MONITOR's case, an effective argument can be made
that if positive steps are not taken to stabilize the hull and/or
recover some of the material, the entire
 
[[Page 64210]]
 
site could be irreparably damaged by continued deterioration in as
little as one to five years. The draft plan is in keeping with the
National Marine Sanctuaries Program's Strategic Plan for the 21st
Century. The Program's primary goal is to protect sanctuary resources,
making our sanctuaries world-class models for effective, innovative
management of protected areas (Sanctuaries and Reserves Division 1997).
 
III. Summary of Options
 
    The options in the draft plan are summarized as follows:
    A. Non-intervention. With this option, NOAA would continue to
manage the Sanctuary in accordance with the current policy but would
take no action to prevent continuing deterioration. This option would
allow nature to take its course, likely resulting in the ultimate
collapse of the MONITOR's hull.
    B. In Situ Preservation by Encapsulation. With this option, the
MONITOR would be entombed in some acceptable manner (i.e. covering with
sand, grass mats, etc.). Possible impacts on the MONITOR and its
environment might include additional damage to the wreck due to the
weight of the covering material and the loss of access to the wreck.
    C. In Situ Preservation by Shoring. This option would be
accomplished through the use of approved methods and materials, such as
sand bags, grout bags, or jacks, to support portions of the hull that
are suspended above the bottom by the position of the turret. Impact to
the MONITOR and its environment would be negligible and some portions
of the wreck would be given improved support.
    D. In Situ Preservation by Cathodic Protection. This option would
involve the installation of a passive (sacrificial anode) or active
(impressed current) cathodic protection system to reduce the corrosive
action from the marine environment. Impact to the MONITOR and its
environment is uncertain, and would not prevent inevitable collapse.
    E. Selective Recovery. This option includes a selective approach to
recovering hull components and artifacts that are of significant
historic value. Objects being considered for selective recovery include
the propeller, turret, cannons, engine and small artifacts. Possible
impact to the MONITOR and its environment might include unavoidable
damage to other portions of the wreck and contents during recovery
operations.
    F. Full Recovery. In this option, the entire hull, turret, cannons
and all contents would be recovered, conserved, and, eventually
displayed. This could include recovery of the entire hull as a single
unit or a series of smaller recoveries. Possible impact to the MONITOR
might include damage during recovery of portions of the hull and
contents; however, if raised, the MONITOR could be conserved and
reconstructed for display.
    G. Selective Recovery Followed by Encapsulation. This option
combines selective recovery with in situ preservation by encapsulation.
Following recovery of all selected hull components and artifacts, the
site would be encapsulated for protection of the remaining cultural
material. Possible impact to the MONITOR might include unavoidable
damage to other portions of the wreck and contents during recovery
operations and additional damage to the wreck due to the weight of the
covering material and the loss of access to the wreck.
    H. Selective Recovery Combined with Shoring. This option combines
selective recovery with in situ preservation by shoring of the
remaining material, which would provide improved support. Possible
impact to the MONITOR and its environment might include unavoidable
damage to other portions of the wreck and contents during recovery
operations.
    I. Expanded Enforcement of Sanctuary Regulations. This option
addresses evidence of increased illegal encroachment on the Sanctuary
by increasing enforcement activities at the site to prevent further
damage from illegal activities. Unless combined with one or more of the
other options, the only impact might be a reduction of damage from
human causes.
    Because of the MONITOR's significance in American history and its
status as a National Historic Landmark, NOAA is making this draft plan
available to the public and invites comments and other pertinent
information.
 
    Dated: November 28, 1997.
Captain Evelyn J. Fields,
Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services and Coastal
Zone Management.
[FR Doc. 97-31748 Filed 12-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-08-M