Full text of "U.S.S. Monitor National Marine Sanctuary : management plan"

See other formats

U.S.S. Monitor
National Marine
Sanctuary

Management Plan

il/1 Atlantic l?ntun>

rfSSJSS^

k3"

'^SS Sf^

\ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Washington, D.C.

North Carolina

Department of Cultural Resources

Raleigh, N.C.

u\'.

This document is a revised edition of the 1982 MONITOR
National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan. This
plan will be reviewed and updated annually by NOAA
with assistance from North Carolina's Division of
Archives and History, the MONITOR Technical Advi-
sory Committee, and the MONITOR Federal Review
Committee. NOAA welcomes your comments on this
plan by October I, 1983 for consideration during prepa-
ration of the 1984 plan.

^llT P'\

'^■^H^

U.S.S. Monitor Project

May 4, 1983

To Whom It May Concern

In September, 1982, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration (NCAA) and Bast Carolina University (ECU) in Greenville,
North Carolina, finalized an agreement for the University to carry
out three MONITOR-related projects: l) to develop, edit, publish,
and distribute Cheesebox . the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary
Semiannual Activities Report; 2) to establish a MONITOR archival
collection within the existing University manuscript collection; and
3) to prepare a plan for the next expedition to the MONITOR
National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA and ECU are currently exploring
the possibility of an expanded agreement whereby the University would
plan and conduct on-site research activities as well as develop and
carry out research-related interpretive and educational programs.

For further information on ECU's MONITOR-related activities,
plaase contact Gordon P. Watts, Jr., or William N. Still, Jr.,
Department of History, East Carolina University, Greenville,
North Carolina 27834.

Program in \hiritmn History and I 'itdi ru ../* r />< ■■ uit It
EAST CAROLINA UNIVEHM'n l>l IWH'I Ml \ I < H Ills I < >in KENV1LI.E. NC 27(v'H

l«)19| 75" 64l!)7

U.S.S. Monitor
National Marine
Sanctuary

Management Plan

February 1983

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

Washington, D.C.

North Carolina

Department of Cultural Resources

Raleigh, N.C.

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2011 with funding from

LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/ussmonitornationOOunse

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 1

INTRODUCTION 13

National Marine Sanctuary Program Goals 13

Site Designation Background 13

SANCTUARY RESOURCES AND USES 14

Environmental Setting 14

Description of Wreck 15

THE HULL 16

THE DECK 20

THE TURRET 20

THE PLAN 21

Goals and Objectives 21

Administration 23

Resources Studies Plan 24

Resources Studies 25

Interpretive Programs 27

Regulations 29

Surveillance and Enforcement 29

BIBLIOGRAPHY 30

APPENDICES

A. Rules and Regulations 32

B. Research Permits 36

C. Policy for Management of MONITOR Collections 36

D. Memorandum of Agreement 38

E. Violation Procedure 40

F. Sanctuary Designation 41

G. Summary of Expeditions 41

SUMMARY

On March 9, 1862, at Hampton Roads, Virginia,
the USS MONITOR fought what has become the
most celebrated battle in American naval history.
This historic engagement, the first battle of ironclad
warships, was the highlight of a promising service
career cut short when the "Cheese-box-on-a-raft"

was lost at sea on December 31, 1862. While the
MONITOR proved to be as "impregnable" to shot and
shell as the designer, Swedish-American engineer
John Ericsson, had promised, the ironclad was unable
to weather heavy gale-driven seas off Cape Hatteras,
North Carolina.

Eleven months after being launched at Greenpoint, Long Island, the U.S.S. MONITOR
and sixteen members of the crew disappeared in the "Graveyard of the Atlantic."

In 1973, an interdisciplinary scientific party em-
ployed intensive historical research and sophisticated
electronic equipment to locate and subsequently
identify the historic warship's remains. Announcement
of the discovery stimulated considerable interest in
further investigation of the wreck, recovery of arti-
facts associated with the ship, and possible salvage

of the remains of the vessel. To ensure that the
MONITOR would be preserved for systematic scien-
tific investigation and development as a resource
of national significance, the wreck was designated
as the United States first national marine sanctuary
by the U.S. Department of Commerce on January 30,
1975.

Duke University vessel EASTWARD, designated specifically for marine biological and geo-
logical investigation, served as the research platform for the 1973 expedition that located
the remains of the MONITOR.

U.S.S. MONITOR (Painting by Alan Chesley)

Today the remains of John Ericsson's "Cheesebox-
on-a-Raft" represent a unique legacy from the past.
The shipwreck and its contents preserve an irreplace-
able historical record and represent a monument to
the American naval tradition the MONITOR helped
to create.

John Ericsson

Officers examine the turret following the MONITOR'S historic engagement at Hampton
Roads. Dents in the turret were inflicted by the VIRGINIA during the 4 hour battle.
(Courtesy of National Archives)

An indication of the historical data and cultural material protected at the MONITOR
National Marine Sanctuary is apparent in the few existing photographs of the warship.
(Courtesy of National Archives)

Diver working within the grid frame during archaeological site testing conducted in 1979.
Artist's sketch (below) of diver and submersible JOHNSON SEA LINK.
(Sketch by Joan Jannaman)

Diver investigating the interior of the MONITOR.

Systematic archaeological investigation of the
wreckage can provide an opportunity to examine as-
pects of our past that are not recorded in surviving
manuscript sources. Study of the warship can supply
valuable information about the design and construction
of the vessel that has come to represent the historic
mid-nineteenth century transition in naval archi-

tecture and warfare. Analysis of material from the
MONITOR affords rare insight into the technological
development of an industrial society. Artifacts from
the ship's stores and personal property of the crew
can greatly enhance our understanding of life aboard
the United States Navy's first ironclad warship.

MONITOR MS

pfTi i 1

0 9 10 IS 20 25

Over 108 artifacts were recovered from the excavation conducted in 1979, including a
white ceramic soap dish (above) and a Hartwell's glass storage jar with lid and rubber
seal (below).

I M n.» i nlwfc ii

MOMITOR 106

f»2i2K22£v *n tms management plan,

NOAA has set forth a policy
for the management of the
MONITOR National Ma-
rine Sanctuary that recog-
nizes the importance of the
MONITOR as an irreplace-
able cultural resource. This
management plan represents an effort to provide an
integrated program of preservation, research and inter-
pretation for an underwater archaeological site. As such,
it is imperative that management-related research
activities be designed in accordance with the system-
atic methodology of the archaeological discipline. An
archaeological approach is essential for ensuring the
greatest return of information, and the preservation
of the wreck and its associated artifacts in a manner
that will enhance its national significance. Archaeo-
logical research will enable NOAA, the on-site man-
ager, and interested professionals to better evaluate
the options for long-term management of the sanctu-
ary.

This management plan introduces research objectives
so that parties interested in the MONITOR may plan
effectively and contribute both to determining the prop-
er disposition of the wreck and to the basic store of
knowledge regarding this unique resource.

To date, the following management options for the
MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary have been
identified. These options do not necessarily reflect final
management decisions. The implementation of any one
option will not preclude reevaluation of other options
in light of new technological application in conserva-
tion, engineering, marine salvage, or environmental
determination.

One option is that of noninterference with the wreck
site. This would preclude destructive on-site research
activities.

Another option is to continue limited on-site inves-
tigation and provide controlled public access to the
site in a manner that will not compromise the archae-
ological integrity and historical value of the shipwreck.
Through the review system, proposals would be approved
to collect data and small artifacts that answer specif-
ic historical, archaeological, engineering and conser-
vation questions.

Another option is to conduct partial or selective
recovery of the remains of the MONITOR. Through
the review system proposals would be approved for sys-
tematic recovery, conservation, interpretation and
display of the remains of the MONITOR and all associ-
ated artifacts.

Another option, complete recovery of the wreck for
preservation, interpretation, and display, shall be held
open as a management decision until such time that
all data that can be reasonably gathered on the wreck
and its environment has been accumulated and analyzed.

Because of the complex nature of addressing these
options, decisions will be made by NOAA based on
the recommendations from the Federal Review Com-
mittee, the North Carolina Division of Archives and
History and its Technical Advisory Committee and
any qualified scientific parties with an interest in the
management of the MONITOR National Marine Sanc-
tuary (see Appendix D). The interdisciplinary task force
will review site-related data and recommend the most
viable option(s) in terms of long-range preservation,
data return, determination of environmental conditions,
funding, existing technology, acceptable methodology in
archaeology, engineering and conservation, museolo-
gy, interpretation, and economics.

On November 9, 1982, the Technical Advisory Com-
mittee resolved and recommended to NOAA that the
option to recover the vessel be adopted as a major goal in
the sanctuary management plan. That resolution was
stated as follows:

In keeping with the primary goals of protec-
tion and preservation of the MONITOR and
all its associated records, documents and ar-
chaeological collections and to insure that the
public of this and future generations have max-
imum access to the U.S.S. MONITOR, includ-
ing its artifacts and other data, the MONITOR
Technical Advisory Committee of the MONITOR
National Marine Sanctuary resolves and re-
commends to NOAA that a major goal in the
management plan for the sanctuary be the
recovery of the vessel from the wreck site and
its removal to an appropriate location for study,
conservation and display.

The Technical Advisory Committee will be respon-
sible for adopting and formulating plans that will detail
every stage in the development of this management
option. Proposals for research in the sanctuary will be
submitted through the existing review process for evalu-
ation and then sent to NOAA for approval. NOAA
will evaluate the proposals in light of the potential for
future research and their ability to strengthen the pres-
ervation and interpretive goals that have been outlined in
this document.

This MONITOR Sanctuary Management Plan de-
scribes the sanctuary's goals and objectives and the
activities to be undertaken to meet these goals.

3
O
c/5

H
w

3
o
as

-J
<

o
£2

■3

5
U

'in

>•

a
o

O _

l/i

'—

X
H

as
o
z

u.
o

3
H
J

U
u.
O

— w —
o

Z Q

_o Z_
35 <

r w

£ UJ

u .
— O i-

2 O
X

>
u

OS"
t-

si
C
«

<
>
o
o

-J
o

<
>

c/5

X o

u c
— S -2-

c/$ «

a. u

—I
U
OS
<

OS
<

—

UJ
H

t/5

—

C*L

U Q-
oS

pMM

DC
U

>•
>
<
Z

OS
UJ

H
Z

</>

OS
3
U

>
o

>-,

-1
<

-2-
o

H
M

o
1)

-o
a
u

<
H

u
u

X
H
h
O

-J=
o

c
a

<?:

<
>

Z
3

2 o

U —

-U

t-i

(73

OS
UJ

y
>

y _

1/5

z z

UJ 2

C/3

z
<

•a

c
a

o
so

1—

5
E

t—

3 s

Q. "

H
OS

o
u

U
"O

a
<—

C
1

-J

<
z

c
a

o
a>
u

D-

00_

>>
u

03
3

— IE
U

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

Department of Commerce
Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
John V. Byrne, Administrator

National Ocean Service

Kelly E. Taggart. Acting Assistant Administrator

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Peter L. Tweedt, Acting Director

Sanctuary Programs Division
Nancy Foster, Chief
Richard J. Podgorny. Projects Manager

Department of the Navy
John Lehman, Secretary

Naval Historical Center

John D. H. Kane, Jr., Director

Office of the Curator

Henry A. Vadnais, Jr., Branch Head

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Department of Cultural Resources
Sara W. Hodgkins, Secretary

Archaeology and Historic Preservation Section
John Little, Administrator

Underwater Archaeology Branch
Richard W. Lawrence, Head
Diana M. Lange, Sanctuary Coordinator

MONITOR Technical Advisory Committee Members

Mr. Barto Arnold

Texas Antiquities Committee

Box 12276, Capital Station

Austin. TX 78711

512/475-6328

Mr. W. A. Cockrell
Department of Anthropology

G-24 Bellamy Building
Florida State University
Tallahassee, FL 32306
904/644-2525

Dr. Donald Hamilton

Nautical Archaeology

Bolton Hall

Texas A & M University

College Station, TX 77843

713/845-6398

Mr. Daniel J. Lenihan

Chief

Submerged Cultural Resources

Unit
Southwest Cultural Resource Center
National Park Service
Santa Fe, NM 87503
505/988-6750

Mr. Edward M. Miller
One Brice Road
Annapolis, MD 21401
301/730-4055

Dr. Bruce Muga
4110 King Charles Road
Durham, NC 27707
919/493-1502

Capt. Ernest W. Peterkin, USNR (Ret)
7118 Westhaven Drive
Camp Springs, MD 20748
301/449-4241

Mr. Curt Peterson
Museum of History
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611
919/733-3164

Dr. Stanley R. Riggs
Department of Geology
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27834
919/757-6131

Capt. Willard F. Searle, USN (Ret)
808 Timber Branch Parkway
Alexandria, VA 23202
703/549-7775

Mr. Gordon P. Watts, Jr.
Program in Maritime History &

Underwater Research
Department of History
East Carolina University
Greenville, NC 27834
919/757-6085

MONITOR Federal Review Committee Members

Mr. Calvin R. Cummings

Chief

Branch of Cultural Resources

Denver Service Center, TMW

National Park Service

P.O. Box 25287

Denver, CO 80225

303/234-6112

Dr. Phillip K. Lundeberg, Curator

Division of Naval History

National Museum of American History

Washington, DC 20560

202/357-2249

Mr. Charles McKinney

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Washington, DC 20240

202/272-3754

Dr. Forrest C. Poque, Director
Dwight D. Eisenhower Institute

for Historical Research
Room 4027, NMAH
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
202/357-2183

Mr. Henry A. Vadnais, Jr.
Branch Head
Office of the Curator
Naval Historical Center
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, DC 20374
202/433-2318

Captain Harry Allendorfer
Director, Maritime Preservation
National Trust for Historic Preservation
1785 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
202/673-4127

Rear Admiral John D. Costello
Commander, 5th Coast Guard District
Federal Building
43 1 Crawford Street
Portsmouth, VA 23705
804/398-6000

Commander T. A. Damon
Naval Memorial Museum
Washington Navy Yard
Building 76

Washington, DC 20374
202/433-3519

Mr. Robert R. Garvey, Jr.

Executive Director

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

1522 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

202/254-3974

Admiral John D. H. Kane, Jr.
Curator for the Navy
Naval Historical Center
Washington Navy Yard
Building 57

Washington, DC 20374
202/433-2210

U.S.S. MONITOR NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY

MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1431-1434, Sec-
tion 302a) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, after
consultation with appropriate Federal agencies and the
affected state, and following Presidential approval,
to designate ocean waters as marine sanctuaries for
the purpose of preserving their distinctive conserva-
tion, recreational, ecological, cultural, and esthetic val-
ues. The Act is administered by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) through the
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management's
National Marine Sanctuary Program.

National Marine Sanctuary Program Goals

The mission of the National Marine Sanctuary
Program is to establish a system of national marine
sanctuaries based on the identification, designation,
and comprehensive management of special marine areas
for the long-term benefit and enjoyment of the pub-
lic. The overall goals of the National Sanctuary Pro-
gram are:

1. Enhance resource protection through the imple-
mentation of a comprehensive, long-term management
plan tailored to the specific resources.

2. Promote and coordinate research to expand sci-
entific knowledge of significant marine resources and
improve management decision-making.

3. Enhance public awareness, understanding, and
wise use of the marine environment through public
interpretive and recreational programs.

4. Provide for maximum compatible public and pri-
vate use of special marine areas.

Site Designation Background

In September 1974, the State of North Carolina nom-
inated the site of the MONITOR, which lies in 220
feet of water 16 miles off Cape Hatteras, North Caro-
lina, for marine sanctuary status to protect the wreck
from unauthorized activities. The official designation
of the Nation's first national marine sanctuary was
made by NOAA on January 30, 1975.

Designation of the MONITOR site as a national
marine sanctuary recognizes its importance as an
irreplaceable cultural resource. A properly managed
sanctuary will protect and preserve the MONITOR
as a unique part of the national heritage in a way that
will enable the MONITOR to be both meaningful and
accessible to the public, as well as scientific researchers.
Therefore, NOAA's coordination with citizens, scientific
organizations, and North Carolina and Federal agen-
cies is important in developing a sanctuary management
plan that expresses goals, objectives, and tasks that
will enhance the MONITOR'S value as a source of
historic and scientific information. This management
plan for the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary
will be reviewed and updated annually.

SANCTUARY RESOURCES
AND USES

Environmental Setting

The remains of the MONITOR lie on the Continental
Shelf 16.1 miles south-southeast of the Cape Hatter-
as Light. The MONITOR National Marine Sanctu-
ary consists of a vertical column of water in the Atlantic
Ocean one nautical mile in diameter extending from
the surface to the seabed. The center of the water col-
umn is 35° 00' 23" north latitude and 75° 24' 32" west
longitude. In the vicinity of the wreckage the ocean
bottom is composed of sand, shell hash and clay below
the surface. Bathymetric profiles of the area indicate
that the bottom surface slopes gently away to the
southeast.

Diamond Shoals
/ I -Light Station

* monitor

■4TO£=^==s:

Atlantic Ocean

NAUTICAL MILES

STATUTE MILES

(Drawing by Sherry King)

Ttew="

}

BATMYIICTKIC WWflLi TMdOU*H
USA MONITOR MARINE SANCTUARY

A n,^.^.'

A bathymetric profile illustrates the wreck's relationship to the Continental Shelf and
the gentle slope of the sea floor through the sanctuary.
(Drawing by Sherry King)

While the MONITOR is thought to be outside the western margin of the Gulf Stream,
counter currents and eddies influence environmental conditions at the wreck site.

Visibility in the 220 foot deep water varies accord-
ing to turbidity, the presence of microorganisms, and
the intensity and angle of sunlight. Records to date
indicate that visibility varies from approximately 10
feet to more than 100 feet.

Although the site appears to be outside the western
margin of the Gulf Stream, eddies created by that cur-
rent may directly influence the area. Changes in cur-
rent direction and velocity occur almost constantly.
Within a 24-hour period, direction has been observed
to change 360 degrees. Current velocities are known
to vary from 0.02 to more than 1.5 knots at the bottom
and surface currents appear to be considerably stronger.
Both temperature and salinity in the area seem to be
related to these current patterns. While little specific
data is available, temperature projections indicate an
annual variation between 1 1 and 20 degrees Celsius.

Wind patterns in the area of the MONITOR National
Marine Sanctuary can be generalized as prevailing from
the north to west between November and February;
north-northwest and south-southeast between March
and June; south-southeast during July and August;
and north-northeast during September and October.
However, unpredictable variation has been observed
and spontaneous storms frequently occur.

Description of Wreck

The present condition of the MONITOR can be
directly related to both damage that occurred at the
time of sinking and deterioration which has resulted
from more than a century of immersion in a sea water
environment. The inverted hull of the warship rests
partially submerged in bottom sediment with the port
quarter supported by the displaced 21-1/2-foot outside
diameter, 9-foot high and 8-inch thick turret.

to tft -s& ? _ 2

I ss \|(l\| 'I I lit

Photomosaic of the wreck site made from photographs taken in 1974 by Alcoa Marine Corp.
(Photomosaic courtesy of Naval Intelligence Support Center: Sketch by Steve Daniel.)

One of several frequently contradictory plans of Ericsson's MONITOR.

THE HULL

Analysis of the wreckage confirms that the condi-
tion of the aft portion of the hull differs dramatically
from the remains forward of the midships bulkhead.
Aft of the bulkhead, the bottom plating survives intact.
However, along both of the sloping sides of the dis-
placement hull, the plating has deteriorated and to a
large degree only the remains of the iron frame sur-
vive. Above the aft overhang the distinctive skeg and

propeller shaft can be traced to the propeller and sup-
port yoke. The starboard quarter is buried to a depth
of approximately 5 feet while the port quarter is sup-
ported more than 7 feet above the bottom by the tur-
ret. Inside the hull, steam propulsion and auxiliary
machinery has survived intact and in a good state of
preservation.

Natural deterioration of the plating exposing the framing of the starboard side of the
lower hull.

Heavy marine fouling virtually obscures the propeller located immediately below the
skeg which is the highest point on the site.

77ie turret, displaced during sinking, supports the port quarter of the inverted hull.
(Drawing by Joan Jannaman)

A spoked wheel on one of two blower engines that were used to create a forced draft for
the boilers can be seen from the port side.

(Photography by Gordon Watts) . . ^

C&aptam (&taw 2L MP"1

Forward of the midships bulkhead, damage to the
lower hull is extensive. Although displaced sections of
lower hull plating exist along the starboard side, no
intact plating has been identified along the port side.
In fact, much of the material in evidence along the
port side has been identified as portions of the interior
of the ship or equipment and fittings that were stowed
below the crew's quarters, ward room, and galley. From
the circular anchor well immediately aft of the bow,
anchor chain leads over the hull and into the bottom
sediment to the south. Aft of the anchor well, the deck

beams that support the pilot house are visible. Although
most of the armor belt on the starboard side is buried,
its stable condition is evident at the bow and along the
port side.

Although incomplete, the data available indicated
that the destruction of the lower hull forward of the
midships bulkhead closely resembles that which results
from an explosion of considerable force. As the site is
located in the traditional shipping lane off the North
Carolina coast, it is possible that the damage is the
result of the effects of depth charge attacks during

Damage to the lower hull forward of the midships bulkhead is extensive.
(Drawing by Joan Jannaman)

Artist's rendering of the remains oftffe U.S.S. MONITOR.

World War II. During the war enemy submarines fre-
quently rested on the shallow bottom of the continen-
tal shelf during the day, surfacing at night to destroy
merchant shipping along the coast. In an effort to pre-
vent this, the Navy and Coast Guard made a practice
of dropping depth charges on all sonar targets. Quite
possibly one of these targets could have been the
MONITOR. An explosion of this type in the area for-
ward of the midships bulkhead would certainly have
been capable of collapsing the already weakened hull
of the vessel, and may also explain the distribution of
hull plates yards from the wreck.

THE DECK

Forward of the pilot house, virtually all of the deck
is free of the bottom sediment. The lower 12 inches of
the pilot house structure is exposed above the sediment.
From this point aft to the present position of the tur-
ret, the entire port side of the vessel remains free of
the bottom, supporting its own weight and that of the
sediment accumulated within the confines of the hull.
Aft of the engineering space, the deck has suffered
extensive damage and considerably less of the deck
there supports itself. The armor plating on the deck is
separated from the deck planking in several areas, indi-
cating advanced deterioration.

At both the wardroom and midships locations where
the deck of the MONITOR is ruptured, material associ-
ated with the ship is washing out of the wreck and
onto the sediment below. The amount of material redis-

tributed in this manner appeared to be augmented by
pressure created by the current flowing over the wreck.

In the vicinity of the turret, deck plates have been
dislodged by destruction associated with the stern of
the vessel. Behind the turret the deck has, in fact, com-
pletely separated and armor plates hang suspended by
deteriorated fittings. Forward of the turret, deck armor
plates are generally in their original position and
distrubance is slight. Below the position of the port
boiler uptake hatch, a portion of the smokepipe breach-
ing is protruding from the deck and into the sediment.

THE TURRET

Structurally the remains of the turret are in excel-
lent condition. The gun ports are blocked by heavy
wrought iron port stoppers that protected the ordnance
and gun crew from hostile fire. Wood bucklers that
covered the gun ports while underway are not present,
although bolts that held them in place are intact and
protrude from the rammer holes in the port stoppers.
Aside from basketball-size dents still visible through
the heavy fouling, little damage is apparent. Probing
the turret floor with a 3-foot compressed gas probe
during the 1979 expedition indicated that the wood
floor of the structure has deteriorated but remains intact
under a layer of sediment and coral. Examination of the
structure produced no indication of access hatches in
the base. A depression in the center of the turret floor
indicated that the shaft upon which the turret rotated
had dislodged as the turret and hull separated.

Gun ports, blocked by iron port stoppers, are visible above the sand bottom.
(Photograph by Gordon Walts)

Gordon P. Watts, Jr., underwater archaeologist, works with
photographic equipment used to record the 1979 archaeo-
logical expedition to the MONITOR sanctuary.

For a more detailed description of the MONITOR
site, please refer to "Investigating the Remains of
the U.S.S. MONITOR: A Final Report on 1979 Site
Testing in the MONITOR Marine Sanctuary". The
1979 expedition was jointly sponsored by NOAA,
the State of North Carolina, and Harbor Branch
Foundation of Fort Pierce, Florida. The report was
prepared by North Carolina's Underwater Archaeo-
logy Branch and is available upon request from
NOAA's Sanctuary Programs Division in Wash-
ington, D.C.

THE PLAN

Sanctuary Management Plans include six elements:

A. Goals and Objectives — Site-specific goals and
objectives tailored to the sanctuary.

B. Administration — An administrative section that
describes the sanctuary's daily operations and
the responsibilities of NOAA and the site man-
ager.

C. Resource Studies — A comprehensive resource
studies plan that identifies data gaps, focuses
on management related research, and assigns
priorities.

D. Interpretation — An interpretive plan designed to
communicate the significance of the resources
being protected.

E. Surveillance and Enforcement.

F. Regulations.

Goals and Objectives

Site-specific goals provide the framework with-
in which sanctuary management activities are struc-
tured. These goals are normally long-term and some-
what open-ended with specific objectives tailored to
short-term sanctuary needs and formulated in accor-
dance with the National Marine Sanctuary Program's
overall goals.

The U.S.S. MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary
goals and objectives are:

Goal 1 — To protect and preserve the MONITOR
and all of its associated records, documents and
archaeological collections.

Objective — Design and implement a manage-
ment plan with an effective administrative sys-
tem to insure long-term protection of the site.

Goal 2 — To insure the systematic scientific recov-
ery and dissemination of historical and cultural infor-
mation preserved at the MONITOR site; and to
preserve and develop the physical remains of the

^^^^HHBp TOhI^^^^B^ ^^^^

Vessels used during the 1979 expedition were the R/V JOHNSON (above) and the sub-
mersible JOHNSON SEA LINK (below}, supplied by Harbor Branch Foundation of Fort
Pierce, Florida.

MONITOR in a manner which appropriately enhances
both the significance and interpretive potential of the
warship remains.

Objective — Develop a resource studies plan for
the MONITOR which establishes methods for:

1) Assimilating data

2) Defining research alternatives.

3) Identifying future alternative manage-
ment options for the site.

Goal 3 — To enhance public awareness and under-
standing of the MONITOR as a historic and cultural
resource by providing interpretive educational services
and materials.
Objective —

1) Develop appropriate publications.

2) Provide written, audiovisual, and other
materials as appropriate to communicate
the historical and cultural message of
the MONITOR.

3) Explore new communication approaches
to bringing the MONITOR closer to the
general public.

In reality, these three site-specific goals greatly
overlap each other. Effective preservation can only be
carried out through comprehensive administration of
the MONITOR site (see Protection and Preservation
Section) and through proper conservation and cur-
ation of artifacts removed from the wreck. Care for
MONITOR artifacts will be provided by NOAA, the
North Carolina Division of Archives and History (DAH)
and the Curator for the U.S. Navy (Appendix C: Policy
for Management of MONITOR Collections).

Administration

NOAA and the State of North Carolina (N.C.) coop-
eratively manage the site of the U.S.S. MONITOR
through an agreement which designates the N.C.
Department of Cultural Resources, Division of Archives
and History as on-site manager.

Under this Cooperative Agreement the State provides
the following:

• A sanctuary coordinator position at the N.C.
Underwater Archaeology Branch, Kure Beach,
N.C;

• On-site implementation of the management plan;

• An annual review, with the MONITOR Federal
Review Committee and the State of North Caro-
lina Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) of cur-
rent research proposals and recommendations for
refinement of the proposal review system;

• A review of and recommendations to NOAA for
action on permit applications;

• A record of sanctuary research and status of
ongoing projects;

• Coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard regard-
ing surveillance and enforcement;

• Submission of periodic administrative reports to
NOAA;

• Annual review of the MONITOR Sanctuary Man-
agement Plan with NOAA;

• Assistance in selection of qualified technical
reviewers for research proposals and maintains
communication among reviewers.

NOAA's Sanctuary Programs Division (SPD) is
responsible for management of all of the National
Marine Sanctuaries. SPD responsibilities for the
MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary include:

• Development of sanctuary goals and objectives and
the overall management plan;

• Supervision of on-site implementation of the man-
agement plan;

• Issuance of all sanctuary permits;

• Funding of management plan implementation;

• Development and implementation of a policy for
administering and managing the collection of arti-
facts from the MONITOR Sanctuary (Appendix
C: Policy for Management of MONITOR Col-
lections);

• Annual review and revision of the sanctuary
management plan to include new research data
that affect management decisions.

In addition, NOAA and the Department of the Navy
signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to
the effect that the Curator for the Navy will provide
curatorial services for the artifacts recovered from the
MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary.

Under this MOU the Curator for the U.S. Navy:

• Provides curatorial services required for the proper
management and control of the artifacts recovered
from the MONITOR Sanctuary (Appendix C:
Policy for Management of MONITOR Collections).

• Develops and maintains a continuous register of
the MONITOR collections.

• Manages loans, exhibitions and storage of the
MONITOR artifacts.

• Assists NOAA in the review of applications re-
questing loan of MONITOR artifacts.

As a vital part of all management activities, inter-
agency cooperation will play a major role in this plan.
NOAA will insure coordination and cooperation among
all agencies involved in MONITOR sanctuary man-
agement activities, especially administration and
enforcement.

NOAA will maintain an ad hoc Federal Committee
consisting of representatives from the U.S. Coast Guard;
Department of the Interior; U.S. Navy; the Smithsonian
Institution; National Trust for Historical Preservation;

and the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation
for advice and technical assistance concerning:

• Design and implementation of MONITOR research
projects;

• Review of research permits; and,

• Setting priorities for management goals, objectives
and tasks.

Resources Studies Plan

The wreckage and associated artifacts that the
remains of the MONITOR preserve represent histor-
ical and cultural data as well as a rare collection of
physical evidence from a dramatic period in American
history. The psychological impact of the MONITOR'S
successful engagement with the VIRGINIA swept the
warship from relative obscurity to a position of inter-
national attention. The MONITOR'S celebrated "victo-
ry" at Hampton Roads assured the naval vessel a rep-
utation achieved by no other ship of the United States
Navy. The past century has by no means diluted this
interest and attention. Properly investigated, preserved,
and displayed, the MONITOR can become an unpar-
alleled national resource offering scientific, historical,
educational and recreational opportunities for Amer-
ican people. NOAA, together with the North Carolina
sanctuary on-site manager, contributes toward public
understanding of the contemporary research conducted
at the sanctuary through publication and dissemina-
tion of research findings.

NOAA generally will not provide financial support
for research expeditions in the MONITOR Sanctuary.
However, availability of funds permitting, NOAA will
consider proposals for limited assistance towards some
research-related activities, such as financing analysis
of data or cost of publications.

Research is essential to the acquisition of data that
contribute directly to resolving management, interpreta-
tion, protection, and preservation problems in the
MONITOR Sanctuary. Therefore, the research goal
of this management plan outlines research objectives
and tasks that serve as a guide to the systematic devel-
opment of research projects that yield data of the highest
priority. Persons interested in developing alternative
proposals can receive technical assistance from NOAA
and the North Carolina site manager. At the present
time NOAA will encourage and give highest priority
to research proposals that contribute to responsible
option assessment and yield the following types of
information:

— Historical data through archival records and
on-site investigation to enable development of
comprehensive depiction of the MONITOR as the
vessel existed on December 31, 1862.

— Archaeological data that contributes towards the
development of an adequate model of the nature
and disposition of the wreck and its associated
artifacts through application of systematic prin-
ciples of underwater archaeology.
— Environmental-oceanographic data that contributes
towards a better understanding of the effects the
environment has on the preservation of the wreck
in situ and on any on-site activities.
— Engineering studies to determine missing design
and construction information for the vessel, meth-
ods for deployment of equipment and personnel
on deepwater archaeological sites, and development
of predictive models on the effects of alternative
recovery methods for the wreck or its selected
features.
— Conservation data to identify preservation prob-
lems with the wreck in situ and development of
predictive models on the problems encountered
with recovery, stabilization and display of the
wreck and its associated artifacts.
— Public benefit through research and educational
activities including publications, films, photographs,
public lectures and museum exhibits. Public educa-
tional efforts should provide the means to com-
municate the sanctuary's rules and regulations;
present to the public the history and nature of
scientific research activities on the MONITOR;
and make available research data on the MONITOR
to the scientific community at large.
All future activities in the MONITOR Sanctuary
involving potential recovery of material from the site
will include provisions for cleaning, conservation, and
storage of the material, including adequate staff, facili-
ties, equipment, supplies, and budget. In addition, due to
the historical importance of the vessel and its value as
a unique cultural resource, every effort will be made
to provide public access to any recovered material in
the form of exhibits.

Management of the MONITOR Sanctuary involves a
continuous process of refining management decisions
as research provides new baseline data that contrib-
ute toward accomplishing the sanctuary objectives.
Consequently, a primary consideration of all agencies
and parties interested in the MONITOR should be to
investigate and understand the environment, condition
and structure of the wreck and make their analyses
available to the public and scientific community.

This MONITOR sanctuary management plan serves
to assist experts in their respective fields in planning
research, and once accumulation and analysis of suf-
ficient information on the MONITOR has been accom-
plished, NOAA will be able to evaluate more fully
future research and/or recovery options. From this pro-

cess a decision relating to the MONITOR'S proper
disposition will emerge that assures preservation of
the values protected by the sanctuary.

The current Resources Studies Plan lists those pri-
ority projects underway or planned for FY 83; and iden-
tifies those already suggested for the future, provided
that funds are available and adequate interest is demon-
strated by the public and the research community. Many
of these studies are interrelated and could be con-
ducted simultaneously. The current Resources Studies
list does not preclude the introduction of additional
studies.

List of Resources Studies

1. Analysis of water conditions and sea state.

2. Study of currents, visibility, erosion, depositional
patterns, and the nature of the water column in
the MONITOR Sanctuary.

3. Surface and sub-surface sediment studies.

4. On-site engineering and structural data collection.

5. Establish an on-site provenience system.

6. Continued site definition.

7. On-site test excavations.

8. Location, documentation and recovery of the
anchor.

9. Investigation of the interior of the turret.

10. Develop a conservation plan, including procedures,
and facilities necessary for conservation, cur-
ation and display of material recovered from the
wreck.

11. Conduct a photogrammetric analysis of existing
stereo photography.

12. Produce a photographic index of 1977 NOAA —
HARBOR BRANCH FOUNDATION explora-
tions of the MONITOR site.

13. An engineering structural assessment of the
MONITOR.

14. On-site collection of ship's structure data.

15. Determination of the rate of deterioration of the
remains of the MONITOR.

16. Compile a catalog of existing plans and drawings
of the MONITOR. Completion of a comprehen-
sive set of engineering drawings from the above
catalog, and determination of the necessary in-
formation that exists only at the site.

17. Archival study and location of the ship's contents.

Resources Studies

1. Study Title: Analysis of water conditions and sea
state.
Information Needs: A survey of the existing weather
and environmental records pertaining to the Hat-

teras area and the development of a comprehen-
sive model of the annual weather conditions will
be an invaluable aid to on-site research.

2. Study Title: Study of currents, visibility, erosion,

depositional patterns, and the nature of the water
column in the MONITOR Sanctuary.
Information Needs: An environmental definition of
the MONITOR site is necessary for two reasons.
First, to determine the effect of the environment
on the wreck, and second, to assist in the planning
and conduct of on-site research. The deployment
and maintenance of current meter arrays, the col-
lection of water column analysis data (e.g., Salini-
ty, Temperature, Depth [STD], oxygen content,
suspended particulate matter) and the collation
of these data will assist in determining the con-
ditions encountered during on-site archaeologi-
cal research.

3. Study Title: Surface and sub-surface sediment

studies.
Information Needs: Analysis of the character of the
sediments will assist in determining methods and
techniques for use in large-scale excavation at
the site.

4. Study Title: On site collection of ship's structure

data.
Information Needs: To verify and/or establish the
location and nature of internal and external fea-
tures that cannot be documented through histori-
cal or archival research.

5. Study Title: Establish an on-site provenience system.
Information Needs: To tie additional research to a

master grid, the placement of a series of datum
casings, initiated during the 1979 expedition to
the site, should be completed.

6. Study Title: Continued site definition.
Information Needs: To produce an acoustic, mag-
netic, bathymetric, seismic and videographic
record of the site that will define bottom and sub-
bottom conditions, and to locate and identify
material associated with the wreck but existing
outside the confines of the hull remains.

7. Study Title: On-site test excavations.
Information Needs: To evaluate the nature and

extent of the archaeological record, test excava-
tions both inside and outside the confines of the
hull could generate historical, engineering and
environmental data that would expand knowledge
of the wreck site and its environment.

8. Study Title: Location, documentation and recovery

of the anchor.
Information Needs: Recovery of the anchor will pro-
vide archaeologists with insight into the methods
and techniques necessary to locate, document,

recover and conserve large objects associated with
the MONITOR site, information on the condi-
tion of other similar material at the site and a
study of sedimentation in the MONITOR Sanc-
tuary since December 31, 1862.

9. Study Title: Investigation of the interior of the turret.
Information Needs: To accurately establish the con-
tents and conditions of the turret for the devel-
opment and assessment of turret recovery operations.

10. Study Title: Develop a conservation plan, including

procedures, and facilities necessary for conser-
vation, curation and display of material recovered
from the wreck, for each of the following options.

a) Continued limited collection of small artifacts.

b) Partial or selected recovery of portion of the
wreck.

c) Complete recovery of the wreck.
Information Needs: To insure that all material recov-
ered from the site will undergo proper conserva-
tion and to provide a facility for continued con-
servation and display of the artifacts.

11. Study Title: Conduct a photogrammetric analy-

sis of existing stereo photography.
Information Needs: To generate horizontal and verti-
cal profiles and produce a photomosaic of the
wreck site.

12. Study Title: Produce a photographic index of 1977

NOAA-HARBOR BRANCH FOUNDATION
explorations of the MONITOR site. (Completed:
1981.)
Information Needs: To provide researchers with a
catalog of existing photographs that can be used
for historical research, and the planning and oper-
ation of future research at the site. (Contracted
to: Edward M. Miller, Annapolis, Maryland.)

13. Study Title: An engineering structural assessment

of the MONITOR (Completed: December, 1981.)
Information Needs: Before plans for the recovery
of the MONITOR can be considered, it will be
necessary to identify and define specific on-site
engineering data that must be collected and ana-
lyzed to determine feasible, suitable and accep-
table recovery options. These data will be utilized
to determine the techniques for the recovery of
the MONITOR or portions of the vessel struc-
ture. Engineering studies and on-site data col-
lection will be designed to assess the nature and
extent of structural damage to the hull. (Contract-
ed to: Dr. Bruce Muga, Durham, North Carolina.)

14. Study Title: On-site engineering and structural

data collection.
Information Needs:' To perform the necessary in
situ measurements to answer the questions gen-
erated by the above engineering assessment,
specifically:

1 ) Examine the condition of the turret.

a. Determine the degree of corrosive welding
between the turret bearing surface and the
armor belt and estimate the actual contact
area.

b. Note any nicks, bends, striations or chat-
ter marks on the turret and armor belt that
could constitute evidence of long-term set-
tlement or differential movement of the
turret and hull.

c. Determine the turret's deviation from ver-
tical with a pitch and/or roll gauge, taking
several measurements around the periphery
of the turret.

d. Measure the clearance between the turret
and the port armor belt on the downstream
side.

e. Note any appendages that might restrict
free movement of the turret. If any append-
ages are present, the nature of the connec-
tions and the effort necessary to disengage
them should be determined.

f. Determine the condition of the interior of
the turret, its contents and the degree of
siltation.

g. Examine the condition of the turret roof
to determine if the roof and roof beams
can tolerate the abrasive forces during slid-
ing/dragging operations. This can be ac-
complished by visual inspection from the
turret interior or by excavation adjacent
to the turret on the downstream side.

h. Determine the nature and condition of the
soil in the vicinity of and exterior to the
turret along the movement path. A mini-
mum of 4 borings to a depth of at least 6
inches below the turret roof should be taken
and the presence or absence of any ob-
struction should be noted.

2) Determine the competency of the 10" by 10"
oak deck beam main frame members.

a. Determine the degree of deterioration of
the beams by visual inspection in conjunc-
tion with physical probing, noting local
discolorations, surface perforations and
average penetration distances to competent
material.

b. Remove a 4-foot or longer section of one
of the already damaged beams that can
be used to conduct strength tests under con-
trolled laboratory conditions. These tests
should include axial stress, shear stress and
bending stress tests, and transverse and lon-
gitudinal wave propagation tests.

c. Conduct either wave decay tests on two
beams at least 18-feet long or place one
or more of the deck beams in axial com-
pression and measure the differential
movements at selected locations. These tests
will determine any undetected beam damage
resulting from large-scale causes such as
initial capsizing, depth charge or physical
decay of the material.
3) Evaluate the adequacy of the connections.

a. Examine the area around the bolts, pins
or spikes which join the oak deck beams
to the port armor belt bracket for evidence
of splitting of the beam or deterioration
of the beam or connector.

b. Examine the spike connections which join
the deck plates to the oak deck beams.
Spike head diameters should be measured
and the degree of corrosive welding should
be noted.

c. Conduct pushing or pulling tests either in
the field or laboratory to determine the
maximum load necessary to initiate move-
ment.

d. Conduct pulling tests of a specially de-
signed high capacity magnet to determine
the possibility of enhancing the strength
of existing members and the critical con-
nections.

15. Study Title: Determination of the rate of deteriora-

tion of the remains of the MONITOR (Completed:
January, 1983).
Information Needs: To determine the current rate
of natural deterioration of the wreck to assist in
the evaluation of management options. (Contract-
ed to: Edward M. Miller, Annapolis, Maryland.)

16. Study Title: Compile a catalog of existing plans

and drawings of the MONITOR (Completed:
1982).
Information Needs: Completion of a comprehen-
sive set of engineering drawings from the above
catalog, and determination of the necessary in-
formation that exists only at the site. (Con-
tracted to: Ernest W. Peterkin, Camp Springs,
Maryland.)

Today the remains of John Ericsson's "Cheesebox-
on-a-Raft" represents a unique legacy from the
past. The shipwreck and its contents preserve an
irreplaceable historical record and represent a
monument to the American naval tradition the
MONITOR helped to create. There is no accu-
rate set of plans of the MONITOR as it existed
on December 31, 1862. Through studies of con-
temporary drawings and on-site research it will

be possible to develop a comprehensive depiction
of the MONITOR. The drawings that are pro-
duced by these studies will be invaluable for future
historical, archaeological and engineering assess-
ments of the wreck.
17. Study Title: Archival study and location of the
ship's contents. (Completed: 1983).
Information Needs: To accurately assess the arch-
aeological record preserved at the site it will be
necessary to determine the nature, extent and
location of the ship's stores fittings, equip-
ment, ordnance and personal effects aboard the
MONITOR at the time of its sinking. (Contracted
to: Ernest W. Peterkin, Camp Springs, Maryland.)

List of Interpretive Programs

A. Publications

1. Activities Report: "CHEESEBOX"

2. "Information for Potential Researchers"

3. Copies of conference papers

4. Expedition reports, operations manuals, and
analytical and technical reports

B. Materials oriented toward teaching institutions

1. MONITOR educational material for middle or
secondary school levels

2. "Diver's Orientation and Introduction of the
MONITOR"

3. History of the MONITOR

C. Multimedia material oriented toward reaching gen-
eral public through film, videotapes, lectures,
artifact loans (already existing)

1. Scientific documentary film

2. Traveling MONITOR exhibit

3. Engineering model of wreck in situ

4. Feasibility study for TV broadcast

Interpretive Programs

The interpretive programs for the U.S.S. MONITOR
National Marine Sanctuary include the following
elements:

A. Publications

1. NOAA, DAH, and other interested parties will
compile and distribute a MONITOR semi-
annual activities report "CHEESEBOX" de-
scribing the current status of research activi-
ties in the sanctuary and selected episodes from
the MONITOR'S history. (Contracted to: Pro-
gram in Maritime History and Underwater
Research, East Carolina University, Greenville,
North Carolina.)

2. DAH and NOAA will develop and distribute a
pamphlet, on request, entitled "Information

for Potential Researchers" describing the
MONITOR Sanctuary rules and regulations
and research permit procedures.

3. NOAA and DAH will develop and/or make
available reprints or copies from professional
conference papers regarding the MONITOR
and/or underwater archaeology.

4. NOAA and DAH will develop and/or make
available MONITOR expedition reports, oper-
ations manuals and analytical and technical
reports.

B. Material oriented toward teaching institutions

1. Study Title: To develop educational material on

the MONITOR for use at the middle and sec-
ondary school levels.
Information Needs: To facilitate our country's youth
in developing an appreciation of the role the
MONITOR played in shaping the American naval
tradition we know today. The educational mate-
rial will be devoted to the MONITOR and will
be generally consistent with the objectives of the
national curricula regarding study of the Civil
War Period. The material will be readily adapt-
able to either the middle or secondary school
levels.

2. Study Title: Produce a biographical sketch of the six

commanding officers of the U.S.S. MONITOR.
Information Needs: To complement technical re-
search on the MONITOR, a 10 to 20 page bio-
graphical sketch will be produced for each of the
six officers who commanded the MONITOR dur-
ing her brief history. Military and personal bio-
graphical information will be obtained from the
MONITOR archives at East Carolina Universi-
ty as well as from private collections and State
repositories.

3. Study Title: Conduct a search of the military and

other records for information concerning the men
who served aboard the U.S.S. MONITOR.
Information Needs: To provide information concern-
ing those who served aboard the MONITOR, mili-
tary and genealogical information will be collected
on each of the 125 MONITOR crewmen who have
been identified to date. Military records include
Pension Application Files containing an official
statement of veteran's naval service, as well as
information of a personal nature, Bounty-Land
Warrant Application Files containing service
data and the veteran's age and place of resi-
dence at the time the application was made, and
MONITOR Muster Rolls containing the man's
name, rank, age, state of birth, previous service,
payment dates and physical description. Genea-
logical information will be obtained through an

advertisement in the "The Genealogical Helper",
the most widely circulated genealogical magazine
available, listing all crew members and request-
ing personal information from descendants. The
final result will be a copy of all records and
correspondence along with a biographical sum-
mary derived from the material obtained.

4. Study Title: To develop a concise curriculum guide

entitled "Diver's Orientation and Introduction
of the MONITOR".
Information Needs: To develop a program to intro-
duce and instruct divers prior to their research
at the MONITOR Sanctuary regarding safety
procedures, the physical arrangements of the
wreck, and detailed description of locations of
doors, hatches, ladders, and the probable loca-
tions of the 1500 classes of MONITOR artifacts.

5. Study Title: To write, compile and edit a compre-

hensive text on the history of the MONITOR.
Information Needs: To provide to the public an
authoritative work on the MONITOR. Authori-
ties in the naval historical field will be requested
to assist NOAA in the compilation of bibliogra-
phical and textual information for the work. The
book will be an anthology of the stages of the
MONITOR'S life, from her conception by John
Ericsson to her management as a National Marine
Sanctuary by NOAA in the 1980's. Specific needs
will be:

— Location of suitable text authors.
— Compilation of bibliographical and textual data.
— Determination of suitable publication format.

C. Multimedia material oriented toward reaching

the general public to make known the history of

the MONITOR and the information generated from

recent scientific research.

— NOAA has available on request a 28 minute, color/
sound, 16mm movie "Down to the MONITOR"
describing through illustration the famous battle,
and through recent filming the discovery of
MONITOR artifacts.

— NOAA and DAH will arrange on request to make
available videotapes with sound of the entire 1979
MONITOR expedition jointly sponsored by
NOAA, DAH, and Harbor Branch Foundation
of Florida.

— NOAA and DAH provide lectures on the
MONITOR sanctuary on request at professional
conferences, academic seminars, and other
public and scientific programs.

— NOAA and the Curator of the U.S. Navy will
make arrangements on written request to make
available for temporary loan artifacts for dis-
play from the MONITOR collection.

1. Study Title: Produce a professional scientific doc-

umentary film of the MONITOR wreck.
Information Needs: To provide the public with an
authoritative, entertaining medium with which
to communicate the MONITOR'S historical and
cultural value. Persons knowledgeable in the
MONITOR, such as those who have contributed
to the text (see Study Title B.3) will be request-
ed to assist NOAA's Public Affairs Office in pro-
ducing an accurate documentary film.

2. Study Title: Develop a traveling MONITOR muse-

um exhibit.
Information Needs: Since the MONITOR is remote
and its recovered artifacts few, a traveling museum
exhibit would bring the MONITOR to the Ameri-
can people and explain its importance as an irre-
placeable cultural resource.

3. Study Title: Construct a large scale engineering

model of the MONITOR wreck in situ with
emphasis on structure displacement and bottom
topography.
Information Needs: To accurately represent the pres-
ent arrangement of the MONITOR'S remains and
to assist investigators in the planning and perfor-
mance of safe and efficient on-site research
activities.

4. Study Title: Feasibility study for transmission of a

live television picture from the MONITOR Sanc-
tuary to surveillance, research and visitor centers
on shore. (Completed: 1981).
Information Needs: Establish feasibility of on-site
surveillance and recording of scientific and moni-
toring observation and explore possibilities to bring
the MONITOR to the public via PBC, Cable
T.V., etc. (Contracted to: Southwest Research
Institute, San Antonio, Texas.)

Regulations

After sanctuary designation in January 1975, to insure
public awareness of Federal Laws protecting the
MONITOR, NOAA published rules and regulations
in the Federal Register (Appendix A). These regula-
tions allow transit of surface vessels through the
MONITOR Sanctuary, but prohibit activities such as
anchoring, salvage and recovery, diving, dredging, deto-
nation of explosives, drilling or coring, cable laying,

trawling, and discharging waste materials. Diving that is
consistent with the MONITOR Sanctuary goals may
be permissible. However, such activity -requires a written
permit from NOAA for the purpose of protecting the
wreck, assurance of optimum safety procedures, and
maintaining a record of the sanctuary's public use.
NOAA reserves the rights both to have a representa-
tive present during any activity within the sanctuary
and to receive a copy of any photographs and/or vid-
eotapes that are taken by the permitted researcher (See
Appendix B, Research Permits.)

Surveillance and Enforcement

NOAA seeks to insure adequate surveillance and
enforcement activities for each designated sanctuary.
Such activities are designed on a site-specific basis.
In Federal waters, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is
the primary enforcement agency and, depending upon
the need at any given site, the USCG will enforce sanc-
tuary regulations as a part of their routine surveillance
activities depending on budgetary and manpower
limitations.

Surveillance and enforcement of regulations for the
U.S.S. MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary are car-
ried out by the USCG in cooperation with NOAA and
the onsite manager (North Carolina Division of Archives
and History). The Coast Guard will report to NOAA
any sightings of vessels at the site which appear to be
there for purposes not permitted by sanctuary reg-
ulations.

Specifically the responsibilities for surveillance
and enforcement are as follows:

A. USCG:

• Conducts visual surface and aerial surveillance
of the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary
during routine patrols.

• Investigates possible violations of the sanctu-
ary rules and regulations (see Appendix E, Vio-
lation Procedure).

• Reports to NOAA suspected or actual viola-
tions of the sanctuary rules and regulations.

B. NOAA, On-site Manager, and Commander of
the Fifth Coast Guard District, Portsmouth, Vir-
ginia.

• Periodically review effectiveness of sanctuary
surveillance and enforcement system.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

An asterisk (*) indicates that the publication is avail-
able from NOAA.

Bankhead, J. P. 1 January 1863, letter to S.P. Lee,
Official Records of the Union and Confederate
Navies in the War of the Rebellion, (hereinafter
cited: O.R.) Washington, 1894-1927, 1, 8:347-8.

Bankhead, J. P. 27 January 1863, letter to G. Welles
(MONITOR Papers) United States National Ar-
chives, War Records Branch, Navy Section, Naval
Records Collection of the Office of Naval Records
and Library, Washington, D.C. Record Group 45.

Baxter, James Phinney. The Introduction of the Iron-
clad Warship. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1933.

Beachem, CD., D.A. Meyn, and R.A. Bayles. Mechani-
cal Properties of Wrought Iron from Hull Plate of
U.S.S. MONITOR, Naval Research Laboratory,
Washington, D.C, November 20, 1979, NRL Memo-
randum Report 4123.

*Brennan, William J. "The MONITOR Marine Sanc-
tuary— An Historic Ship Launches an Important
Marine Program." NOAA Magazine, April 1975.

Brown, D.R. 10 January 1863, report to S.D. Trenchard,
O.R.I, 8:365-8.

Butts, F.B. 1887, The Loss of the MONITOR, pub-
lished in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. New
York.

Carrison, Daniel J. The Navy from Wood to Steel —
1860-1890. New York: Franklin Watts, 1965.

*Childress, Floyd. "The Lantern." NOAA Magazine,
October 1977. pp. 7-9.

*Childress, Floyd, Watts, Gordon P., Jr., Cook, Roger
W. and Chester C. Slama. Preliminary Report, Stereo
Photography and Artifact Retrieval, 16 July — 2
August 1977, MONITOR Marine Sanctuary, U.S.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Office of Coastal Zone Management 1977.

Daly, R.W. (Ed.). 1964, Aboard the USS MONITOR:
1862 Annapolis.

*D'Angelo, Schoenewaldt Associates (Compiler). "Pre-
liminary Recovery Feasibility Study". U.S.S. MON-
ITOR Technical Report Series, U.S. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office
of Coastal Zone Management, February 1981.

Eggleston, J.R. "Captain Eggleston's Narrative of the
Battle of the Merrimac." Southern Historical Society
Papers, September 1916.

Ericsson, John. "The Building of the MONITOR." In
Battles and Leaders of the Civil War. Edited by
Robert V. Johnson and Clarence G. Buel. 4 vols.
New York: Century, 1887. Vol. 1.

♦Gorman, Brian. "U.S.S. MONITOR, The First. . ."
NOAA Magazine, January/February 1980.

Greene, Samuel Dana. "An Eyewitness Account": "I
Fired the First Gun and Thus Commenced the Great
Battle." American Heritage, June 1957.

Headley, Phineas Camp. The Miner Boy and His Moni-
tor; or, the Career and Achievements of John Erics-
son, the Engineer. New York: Appleton, 1865.

Hill, Dina B. (Ed.). "Hull Plate Sample Analysis and
Preservation". U.S.S. MONITOR Technical Report
Series, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management,
April 1981.

Hoehling, Adolph A. Thunder at Hampton Roads.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1976.

"Iron-clad Vessels." Harper's New Monthly Magazine.
(New York) CXLVIII September, 1862.

Fox, G.V. January 30, 1862, Telegram to J. Ericsson,
O.R., 1,6:538.

Jones, Virgil Carrington. "An Ironclad for Davy Jones."
In his The Civil War at Sea: March 1862 — July
1863; The River War. Vol 2. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart and Winston, 1961.

Keeler, William Frederick. Aboard the U.S.S. MONITOR-
1862: The Letters of Acting Paymaster William
Frederick Keeler, U.S. Navy to His Wife, Anna.
Edited by Robert W. Daly (Naval Letters Series.
V.2.) Annapolis, Maryland: U.S. Naval Institute,
1964.

Lee, S. P. December 24, letter to S.D. Trenchard, O.R.,
1,6:338.

Log of the U.S.S. RHODE ISLAND, 29 December
1862 through 1 January 1863. Record Group 45,
National Archives, Washington.

MacBride, R. Civil War Ironclads. New York. 1962
McCordock, Robert Stanley. The Yankee Cheese
Box. Philadelphia: Dorrance, 1938.

Melton, M. 1968. The Confederate Ironclads. New
York.

Miller, E.M. The Ship that Launched the Modern Navy.
Annapolis: Leeward Publishing Company, 1979.

Miller, E.M. "Bound for Hampton Roads." Civil War
Times Illustrated, Volume XX, Number 4, July
1981, pp. 22-31.

*Muga, Bruce. Engineering Investigation of the USS
MONITOR. 1982.

National Trust for Historic Preservation in the Unit-
ed States. The MONITOR— Its Meaning and Future,
Papers from a National Conference, Raleigh, North
Carolina, April 2-4, 1978. The Preservation Press,
Washington, D.C. 1978.

Newton, John G. "How We Found the MONITOR."
National Geographic, January 1975, pp. 48-61.

Peterkin, Ernest. "Building a Vehemoth." Civil War
Times Illustrated, Volume XX, Number 4, July
1981.

Praist, Paul H. "Ships that Changed the War." U.S.
Naval Institute Proceedings, June 1961, pp. 76-89.

Preston, Robert L. "Did the Monitor or Merrimac
Revolutionize Naval Warfare?" William and Mary
Quarterly, July 1915, pp. 58-66.

Senate Executive Document 86, 40th Congress, 2nd
Session, Washington. 1868.

Shapack, Arnold R. "Oak to Iron-Monitors in the Unit-
ed States Naval History." Master's thesis, Univer-
sity of Maryland, 1973.

*Southwest Research Institute. A Feasibility Study
for Transmission of a Live Television Picture of
the USS MONITOR to Visitor Centers Onshore.
1982.

State of North Carolina, Department of Cultural
Resources, Division of Archives and History. Min-
utes of Meeting Held at the Smithsonian Concern-
ing the U.S.S. MONITOR, October 23, 1978.

♦Still, William N., Jr. "Archival Sources." U.S.S.
MONITOR Technical Report Series, U.S. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office
of Coastal Zone Management, February 1981.

Still, William N., Jr. "Confederate Naval Strategy:
The Ironclad." Journal of Southern History, August
1961, pp. 330-343 and Iron Afloat, Auburn, 1971.

Still, William N., Jr. "The Most Cowardly Exhibition",
Civil War Times Illustrated. Volume XX, Number
4, July 1981, pp. 32-37.

Tise, Larry E. "Searching for the MONITOR." Civil
War Times Illustrated, Volume XX, Number 4, July
1981, pp. 38-44, 44-45.

Trenchard, S.D. 3 January 1863, report to S.P. Lee.
O.R. 1,8:350-1.

Trenchard, S.D. 10 January 1863, report to J. P.
Bankhead. O.R. 1, 8:357-8.

*Tucker, Rockwell G. (Compiler). "Environmental
Data." U.S.S. MONITOR Technical Report Series,
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Feb-
ruary 1981.

*U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration. Final Environmental Impact Statement
Summary: Designation of the Submerged Wreck-
age of the MONITOR as a Marine Sanctuary, 1974.

*U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration. "Investigating the Remains of the U.S.S.

MONITOR: A Final Report on the 1979 Site Test-
ing in the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary."
NOAA in cooperation with the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources. 1981.

*U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration. "Operations Manual: MONITOR Marine
Sanctuary — A Photogrammatic Survey." NOAA in
cooperation with Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc.,
July 1977.

*U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration. "Operations Manual: MONITOR Marine
Sanctuary — An Archaeological and Engineering
Assessment," NOAA, in cooperation with Harbor
Branch Foundation, Inc., and the North Carolina
Department of Cultural Resources, August 1979.

Washington, D.C. National Archives. Log of the U.S.S.
MONITOR, Record Group 45.

Watters, J. January 1, 1863, report to J. P. Bankhead.
O.R., 1,8:349-50.

*Watts, Gordon P., Jr. Investigating the Remains of
the USS Monitor: A Final Report on 1979 Site Test-
ing in the Monitor National Marine Sanctuary. 1982.
(limited copies available).

Watts, Gordon P., Jr. "The Location and Identifica-
tion of the Ironclad U.S.S. MONITOR." The Inter-
national Journal of Nautical Archaeology and
Underwater Exploration. September 1975, pp.
301-329.

Watts, Gordon P., Jr. and James A. Pleasants, Jr.
U.S.S. MONITOR: A Bibliography. 1981.

*Watts, Gordon P., Jr. Pleasants, James A., Cook,
Roger W., and Morris, Kenneth.

"Preliminary Report: Archaeological and Engineer-
ing Expedition MONITOR Marine Sanctuary,
August 1-26, 1979." U.S. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone
Management, 1979. Floyd Childress and Sarah
Goodnight, ed.

Webber, R.J. 1969, Monitors of the U.S. Navy. Wash-
ington.

Welles, G. March 6, 1862. Telegram to H. Paulding.
O.R. 1,6:682

Welles, G. (Compiler). The Original United States War-
ship "MONITOR" New Haven, Connecticut: Corne-
lius S. Bushnell National Memorial Association,
1899.

White, William Chapman and Ruth M. White. Tin
Can on a Shingle. New York: Dutton, 1957.

Worden, John Lorimer. The MONITOR and the
MERRIMAC: Both Sides of the Story Told by Lieut.
J.L. Worden, U.S.N. Lieut. Greene, U.S.N, of the
MONITOR, and H. Ashton Ramsay, CSC, Chief
Engineer of the MERRIMAC. New York: Harper,
1912 APPENDIX B:

*1982 MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary Man-
agement Plan. 1982.

*1983 MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary Man-
agement Plan. 1983.

APPENDIX A: RULES AND REGULATIONS

MONDAY MAY 19, 1975
WASHINGTON, D.C.

Volume 40 Number 97— FEDERAL REGISTER

Part I

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

MONITOR MARINE SANCTUARY
Final Regulations

Chapter IX-NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PART 924— MONITOR MARINE SANCTUARY

FINAL REGULATIONS

On January 30, 1975, the Secretary of Commerce
designated as a marine sanctuary an area of the Atlantic
Ocean around and above the submerged wreckage of
the Civil War ironclad MONITOR pursuant to the
authority of Section 302(a) of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (86 Stat 1052,
1061, hereafter the Act). The sanctuary area (hereaf-
ter the Sanctuary) is about 16.10 miles south-southeast
of Cape Hatteras (North Carolina) Light.

Section 302(f) of the Act directs the Secretary to
issue necessary and reasonable regulations to control
any activities permitted within a designated marine
sanctuary. This section also provides that no permit,
license, or other authorization issued pursuant to any
other authority shall be valid unless the Secretary shall
certify that the permitted activity is consistent with
the purposes of Title III of the Act ("Marine Sanctu-
aries"); and that it can be carried out within the regula-
tions promulgated under section 302(f).

The authority of the Secretary to administer the pro-
visions of the Act has been delegated to the Adminis-
trator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, U.S. Department of Commerce (hereafter the
Administrator, 39 FR 10255, March 19, 1974).

On February 5, 1975, the Administrator published
in the Federal Register interim regulations applicable to
the MONITOR Marine Sanctuary (40 FR 5347), and
invited comments on these regulations until March 7,
1975. Comments which have been received have sug-
gested six changes in the regulations as follows:

1. That Section 924.2, the description of the Sanc-
tuary, be somewhat shortened and revised to read:

The Sanctuary consists of a vertical water column
in the Atlantic Ocean one mile in diameter extending
from the surface to the seabed, the center of which is
at 35°00'23" north latitude and 73°24'32" west longi-
tude.

2. That Section 924.3, which prohibits "bottom
anchoring" in the Sanctuary, be revised to read:

Anchoring in any manner, stopping, remaining, or
drifting without power at any time.

3. That Section 924. 3(i), which prohibits the "dis-
charging of waste material" into the waters of the Sanc-
tuary, be revised to read:

Discharging waste material into the water in viola-
tion of any Federal statute or regulation.

It was stated that this change was felt to be desir-
able because of the breadth of the original language,
and the difficulty of enforcing a prohibition which could
be constructed to extend to routine operational dis-
charges from vessels-such as bilge, sanitary and gal-
ley wastes-which discharges would have no adverse
impact on the MONITOR.

4. That Section 924.4, which lists penalties for the
commission of prohibited acts within the Sanctuary,
be revised to read:

Section 303 of the Act authorizes the assessment of
a civil penalty of not more than $50,000.00 against
any citizen of the United States for each violation of
any regulation issued pursuant to Title III of the Act,

and further authorizes proceedings in rem against any
vessel used in violation of the penalty described above.
See also 15 CFR 922 (published at 39 FR 23254 23257,
June 27, 1974), for details applicable to any instance
of a violation of these regulations.

Essentially this change substitutes "the penalty
described above" for "Any such regulations" at the
end of the first sentence of the interim regulations:
and rephrases the second and third sentences without
substantially changing their meaning.

5. That so much of the last part of Section 924.5 as
provides that "except that, no permit is required for
the conduct of any activity immediately necessary in
connection with an air or marine casualty" be revised
to read:

"except that, no permit is required for the
conduct of any activity necessary for the pro-
tection of life, property or the environment."
The suggested change would appear to add an envi-
ronmental casualty, such as oil spill, to the air and/or
marine casualties already contemplated by the regu-
lation.

6. That Section 924.7, having to do with certifica-
tion procedures, be revised so as to require any Federal
agency which, as of the effective date of the regula-
tions, has authorized any prohibited activity in the
Sanctuary, be required to notify the Administrator of
that fact in writing. The change was from "activity,"
as stated in the interim regulations, to "prohibited activ-
ity". It was stated that the Secretary's concern should
be with any prohibited activity, not with an activity
not prohibited.

Except as noted below, and for the reasons there set
out, the Administrator has decided to accept these sug-
gested changes, and they have been incorporated into
the final regulations. With regard to the suggested
changes in Section 924.4 (paragraph 4. above) it is
felt that the substitution of "penalty" for "regulations"
somewhat misstates the thought involved since the
violation in question is of the regulations, not of the
penalty. Otherwise, the suggested changes do not alter
the meaning of the interim language. Therefore Sec-
tion 924.4 will be retained in its present form. With
regard to the suggested change in Section 924.5
(paragraph 5, above), it is felt that there must be an
immediate and urgent need for the activity if it is to
be conducted without a permit. Therefore the words
"immediately and urgently" will be added before "nec-
essary". At the same time, it is felt that a permit should
be required for any activity to be conducted in a sanctu-
ary pertaining to an air or marine casualty already
passed, in regard to which there is no need for imme-
diate entry into the sanctuary, such as in relation to
salvage or recovery operations. Therefore Section 924.5
(a) (2) has been appropriately modified. Finally the
Administrator felt it desirable to provide for the exten-

sion of the various time limits prescribed in Section
924.3 for good cause shown. This has been done by the
addition of a new paragraph (e).

There having been no other comments, and the
Administrator being of the view that no additional
changes in the regulations are necessary at this time,
there are published herewith final regulations pertaining
to the MONITOR Marine Sanctuary to become effec-
tive May 19, 1975.

1 5 CFR Part 924 is revised as follows:

Sec.

924.1 Authority.

924.2 Description of the Sanctuary.

924.3 Activities Prohibited Within the Sanctuary.

924.4 Penalties for Commission of Prohibited Acts.

924.5 Permitted Activities.

924.6 Permit Procedures and Criteria.

924.7 Certification Procedures.

924.8 Appeals of Administrative Action.

AUTHORITY: Sees. 302(0, 302(g), 303 Marine Pro-
tection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972.

924.1 Authority.

The Sanctuary has been designated by the Secretary
of Commerce pursuant to the authority of Section 302
(a) of the Act. The following regulations are issued
pursuant to the authorities of Sections 302 (f), 302
(g) and 303 of the Act.

924.2 Description of the Sanctuary.

924.3 Activities prohibited within the Sanctuary.

Except as may be permitted by the Administrator,
no person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
shall conduct, nor cause to be conducted, any of the
following activities in the Sanctuary:

(a) anchoring in any manner, stopping, remaining,
or drifting without power at any time;

(b) any type of subsurface salvage or recovery
operation;

(d) lowering below the surface of the water any grap-
pling, suction, conveyor, dredging or wrecking device;

(e) detonation below the surface of the water of any
explosive or explosive mechanism;

(f) seabed drilling or coring;

(g) lowering, laying, positioning or raising any type
of seabed cable or cablelaying device;

(h) trawling; or

(i) discharging waste material into the water in vio-
lation of any Federal statute or regulation.

924.4 Penalties for commission of prohibited acts.

Section 303 of the Act authorizes the assessment of
a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each vio-
lation of any regulation issued pursuant to Title III of
the Act, and further authorizes a proceeding in rem
against any vessel used in violation of any such regu-
lation. Details are set out in Subpart (D) of Part 922
of this Chapter (39 FR 23254, 23257, June 27, 1974).
Subpart (D) is applicable to any instance of a viola-
tion of these regulations.

924.5 Permitted Activities.

Any person or entity may conduct in the Sanctuary
any activity listed in 924.3 of this Part if: (a) such
activity is either (1) for the purpose of research relat-
ed to the MONITOR, or (2) pertains to salvage or
recovery operations in connection with an air or marine
casualty; and (b) such person or entity is in possession
of a valid permit issued by the Administrator author-
izing the conduct of such activity; except that no permit
is required for the conduct of any activity immediate-
ly and urgently necessary for the protection of life,
property or the environment.

924.6 Permit Procedures and Criteria.

(a) Any person or entity who wishes to conduct in
the Sanctuary an activity for which a permit is author-
ized by Section 924.5 (hereafter a permitted activity)
may apply in writing to the Administrator for a permit to
conduct such activity citing this section as the basis
for the application. Such application should be made
to the Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospher-
ic Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. 20230. Upon receipt of such appli-
cation the Administrator shall request and such person
or entity shall supply to the Administrator such
information and in such form as the Administrator
may require to enable him to act upon the application.

(b) In considering whether to grant a permit for the
conduct of a permitted activity for the purpose of
research related to the MONITOR, the Secretary shall
evaluate such matters as (1) the general professional
and financial responsibility of the applicant; (2) the
appropriateness of the research method(s) envisioned
to the purpose(s) of the research; (3) the extent to which
the conduct of any permitted activity may diminish
the value of the MONITOR as a source of historic,
cultural, aesthetic and/or maritime information; (4)
the end value of the research envisioned; and (5) such
other matters as the Administrator deems appropriate.

(c) In considering whether to grant a permit for the
conduct of a permitted. activity in the Sanctuary in
relation to an air or marine casualty, the Administra-
tor shall consider such matters as (1) the fitness of the
applicant to do the work envisioned; (2) the necessity
of conducting such activity; (3) the appropriateness
of any activity envisioned to the purpose of the entry

into the Sanctuary; (4) the extent to which the con-
duct of any such activity may diminish the value of
the MONITOR as a source of historic, cultural, aes-
thetic and/or maritime information; and (5) such other
matters as the Administrator deems appropriate.

(d) In considering any application submitted pursuant
to this Section the Administrator may seek and con-
sider the views of any person or entity, within or outside
of the Federal Government, as he deems appropriate:
except that he shall seek and consider the views of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

(e) The Administrator may, in his discretion grant
a permit which has been applied for pursuant to this
Section, in whole or in part, and subject to such con-
dition^) as he deems appropriate except that the
Administrator shall attach to any permit granted for
research related to the MONITOR the condition that
any information and/or artifact(s) obtained in the
research shall be made available to the public. The
Administrator may observe any activity permitted by
this Section and/or may require the submission of one
or more reports of the status or progress of such activity.

(f) A permit granted pursuant to this Section is
nontransferable.

(g) The Administrator may amend, suspend or revoke
a permit granted pursuant to this Section in whole or
in part, temporarily or indefinitely if, in his view the
permit holder (hereafter the Holder) has acted in vio-
lation of the terms of the permit; or the Administrator
may do so for other good cause shown. Any such action
shall be in writing to the Holder, and shall set forth
the reason(s) for the action taken. Any Holder in relation
to whom such action has been taken may appeal the
action as provided in 924.8 of this Part.

924.7 Certification Procedures.

Any Federal agency which, as of the effective date
of these regulations, already has permitted, licensed
or otherwise authorized any prohibited activity in the
Sanctuary shall notify the Administrator of this fact
in writing. The writing shall include a reasonably
detailed description of such activity, the person(s)
involved, the beginning and ending dates of such
permission the reason(s) and purpose(s) for same and
a description of the total area affected. The Adminis-
trator shall then decide whether the continuation of
the permitted activity, in whole or in part, or subject
to such condition(s) as he may deem appropriate is
consistent with the purposes of Title III of the Act
and can be carried out within these regulations. He
shall inform the Federal agency of his decision in these
regards and the reason(s) therefore, in writing. The
decision of the Secretary made pursuant to this Sec-
tion shall be final action for the purpose of the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act.

924.8 Appeals of Administrative Action.

(a) In any instance in which the Administrator, as
regards a permit authorized by, or issued pursuant to,
this Part: (1) denies a permit (2) issues a permit
embodying less authority than was requested: (3) condi-
tions a permit in a manner unacceptable to the appli-
cant: or (4) amends, suspends, or revokes a permit for
a reason other than the violation of regulations issued
under this Part, the applicant or the permit holder, as
the case may be (hereafter the Appellant), may appeal
the Administrator's action to the Secretary. In order
to be considered by the Secretary, such appeal shall
be in writing, shall state the action(s) appealed and
the reason(s) therefore; and shall be submitted within
30 days of the action(s) by the Administrator to which
the appeal is directed. The Appellant may request a
hearing on the appeal.

(b) Upon receipt of an appeal authorized by this
Section, the Secretary may request, and if he does,
the Appellant shall provide such additional informa-
tion and in such form as the Secretary may request in
order to enable him to act upon the appeal. If the Appel-
lant has not requested a hearing the Secretary shall
decide the appeal upon (1) the basis of the criteria set
out in Section 924.6(b) or Section 924.6(c) of this part,
as appropriate (2) information relative to the application
on file in NOAA (3) information provided by the Appel-
lant, and (4) such other considerations as he deems
appropriate. He shall notify the Appellant of his
decision, and the reason(s) therefore in writing within
30 days of the date of his receipt of the appeal.

ing Officer designated for that purpose by the Secre-
tary after first giving notice of the time, place, and
subject matter of the hearing in the FEDERAL REG-
ISTER. Such hearing shall be held no later than 30
days following the Secretary's receipt of the appeal.
The Appellant and any interested person may appear
personally or by counsel at the hearing, present evi-
dence, cross-examine witnesses, offer argument and
file a brief. Within 30 days of the last day of the hear-
ing, the Hearing Officer shall recommend in writing a
decision to the Secretary based upon the considerations
outlined in paragraph (b) of this Section and based
upon the record made at the hearing.

(d) The Secretary may adopt the Hearing Officer's
recommended decision in whole or in part, or may reject
or modify it. In any event the Secretary shall notify
the Appellant of his decision and the reason(s) there-
fore, in writing within 15 days of his receipt of the
recommended decision of the Hearing Officer. The Sec-
retary's action, whether without or after a hearing as
the case may be, shall constitute final action for the
purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act.

(e) Any time limit prescribed in this Section may be
extended by the Secretary for good cause, either upon
the Secretary's own motion and upon written notification
to an Appellant stating the reason(s) therefore, or upon
the written request of an Appellant to the Secretary
stating the reason(s) therefore, except that no time
limit may be extended more than 30 days.

R. L. CARNAHAN

Acting Assistant Administrator for Administration
FR Doc. 75-13009 Filed 5-16-75;8:45am

APPENDIX B: RESEARCH PERMITS

Scientific and archaeological research is encouraged
in the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary. Writ-
ten application for research permits should be sumitted
to:

Assistant Administrator

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20235

The permits are issued in accordance with Title III
of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972 (86 Stat. 1051; 16 USC 1431-1434) and
regulations under 15 CFR Parts 922, 924.

Research proposals should be organized to include
a table of contents, abstract, bibliography, the back-
ground (what events led to this proposal), research
design and description, a description of planned data
management techniques, and qualifications of research
personnel. The proposal also must include a descrip-
tion of the expected impact of the proposed research
on site, the time required for the research (including
duration of in-the-field time), and expected date of
submission of the draft and final reports. If the research
includes the recovery of artifacts, a detailed plan must
be submitted which includes analysis, conservation,

funding commitments, and a statement of where field
and lab records will be curated.

NOAA has established a system by which proposals
for research within the MONITOR National Marine
Sanctuary can be reviewed and evaluated by members of
the scientific community and appropriate Federal agen-
cies before NOAA decides to issue a permit. A Mem-
orandum of Agreement assigns to the State of North
Carolina the responsibility for administering the review
process for research proposals as well as for assisting
interested scientists in the development of research
proposals.

For specific details on the review procedure, refer
to the MOA in Appendix D. Anyone needing assistance
in preparing research proposals can contact the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History. Initial
inquiries should be made at least twelve weeks before
the January 1, deadline. Address inquiries to:

MONITOR Research Review Coordinator

State of North Carolina

Department of Cultural Resources

Division of Archives and History

109 East Jones Street

Raleigh, NC 27611

(919) 733-7305 or (919) 458-9042

APPENDIX C: POLICY FOR MANAGEMENT OF MONITOR COLLECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

NOAA has responsibility for managing and preserv-
ing recovered collections generated from the research
at the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary. NOAA's
other responsibility is to make collections available
for research and exhibits.

In executing these responsibilities, NOAA has devel-
oped a system for collections management with the
Curator for the Navy. A joint NOAA/Navy Memo-
randum of Understanding (MOU) designates the Depart-
ment of the Navy to provide the curatorial services
required for the proper management and control of
artifacts recovered from the MONITOR National
Marine Sanctuary. Included in these requirements is
a continuous register of the MONITOR collections
and catalogue descriptions, photographs of all artifacts,
and compilation of conservation information. The man-
agement of exhibitions and storage of artifacts are also
the responsibility of the Curator for the Navy. With
NOAA, the Navy will review applications for the loan
of artifacts and will, with NOAA's concurrence, arrange
for the loan of objects for exhibition.

The artifacts registration procedure will be the
responsibility of the Curator for the Navy. After items
recovered from the MONITOR have been duly iden-

tified, measured, weighed (if deemed necessary),
photographed and properly preserved under NOAA's
supervision, the artifacts and all associated documenta-
tion will be transferred to the Curator for the Navy.
On receipt of materials and related data in good con-
dition, the Curator will assume responsibility for these
properties. The Curator will enter the information into
the Navy's computerized registration system and will
assign an accession number to each item which will
henceforth serve as a control number. The record on
each individual artifact will fully identify that object
and include its present location and conditions as of
the last report.

1. OUTLINE OF MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE

Research permit requirements assure that planning
for collections management is introduced in the pro-
posal phase and is fully developed in the research design
with funding commitments. Parties interested in seeking
a permit for research involving the retrieval of arti-
facts must provide in the initial proposal a description
of a plan for conservation which minimizes deteriora-
tion and insures preservation of the artifacts collect-
ed. Analysis should include at a minimum: Photography
and cataloging of the artifacts, and a statement of cura-
torial responsibilities for the original field and lab

records. A description of the preservation process to
be applied to recovered objects must also be provided.
The proposal is then examined by the Federal Review
Committee, the on-site manager, and their Advisory
Task Force. If approved, NOAA will issue the research
permit.

After the above requirements are met to NOAA's
satisfaction, the objects and pertinent records are to
be transferred to the Curator for the Navy. If the princi-
pal investigator can provide appropriate environmen-
tally controlled, secure, and accessible facilities, he/she
may retain, with NOAA's approval, the collections on
a temporary loan and the transfer of properties to the
Curator for the Navy will proceed on paper only. A
formal loan agreement would then be executed.

2. ELIGIBILITY FOR REGISTRATION

The principal investigator (the "permittee" for
research) will be responsible for the cost of transfer-
ring recovered objects to the Curator for the Navy
after the following conditions of acceptance for regis-
tration have been met:

a. Proper conservation treatment is completed and
records describing the techniques, chemical process-
es, and specific long-term maintenance problems (such
as the degradation potential of protective coatings)
are provided,

b. The artifacts are cataloged and photographed,

c. Copies of pertinent documents supporting the iden-
tification of the objects that will be useful in carrying
out the curatorial function are provided, e.g., research
proposal, operations manual, field and analytical
records, and published works and manuscript sources,
among others, and

d. Preferably, recovered artifacts are to be delivered to
the Curator for the Navy by the permittee at the Wash-
ington Navy Yard, in Washington, D.C. Items small
enough to be forwarded through the Postal Service by
registered mail shall be addressed as follows:

Curator for the Navy
Naval Historical Center
Washington Navy Yard
Washington, DC 20374

Large crated items are to be shipped as follows:

Receiving Officer

Supply and Fiscal Department

Building 176

Washington Navy Yard

Washington, DC 20374

The Curator for the Navy can be reached at (202)
433-2220/2318.

3. REGISTRATION

The Curator for the Navy will be responsible for
maintaining registration records for MONITOR

artifacts recovered from the MONITOR National
Marine Sanctuary. In so doing, the Curator will:

a. Preserve the integrity of the archaeologist's col-
lecting strategies and analytical procedures within the
registration process.

b. Develop a cross index system to relate to the
permittee's initial field or lab assessing process of all
properties recovered from the MONITOR during
research.

c. An in-house computerized accessioning system
capability allows input and recall of data from the
Curator's own office space. This added facility rend-
ers the present system all the more responsive to inquir-
ies on the MONITOR objects.

4. STORAGE AND EXHIBITION

The Curator for the Navy will be responsible to
NOAA for maintaining the MONITOR collection by
providing stable environmental control for artifacts
in Navy custody and assuring NOAA that such arti-
facts are secure while in storage. The Curator will sub-
mit an annual report to NOAA covering all items in
the collection, those in storage, on exhibit, on loan and
those added to the collection during the current cal-
endar year. This report will, in turn, require the Curator
to inspect personally all objects in the collection annual-
ly. The Curator will require, on the anniversary date
of the loan, written reports with accompanying photo-
graphs of all objects from the borrowers at sites where
Curator visitation is not feasible.

Exhibitions will be encouraged. However, their design,
construction, and associated costs will be the respon-
sibility of the requesting organization. Neither NOAA
nor the Curator for the Navy is staffed or funded to
provide such services. Prior to their execution proposed
exhibit designs and plans are to be submitted by eli-
gible organizations for review by both NOAA and the
Curator for the Navy. On receipt of approval, organ-
izations can proceed with their plans as submitted or
modified.

5. LOANS

Institutions interested in the loan of artifacts should
make a written request to NOAA. NOAA, with the
assistance of the Navy, will review the applications
and, with NOAA's approval, the Navy will arrange
for the loan transaction.

As part of the requirement for obtaining MONITOR
artifacts for exhibition, each requesting organization
will have to provide NOAA with certain data. For this
reason, a form has been developed that poses questions
concerning provisions for environmental controls,
security, insurance, personnel and funding. This form
will be sent to eligible requestors on receipt of their
initial inquiry.

MONITOR artifacts can be loaned to educational
institutions of higher learning, research organizations,

museums, Federal and State agencies and incorporated
municipalities that meet the following minimal criteria:

a. Facilities to house artifacts must include environ-
mental control; security; insurance; and when the loan is
for exhibit purposes, the facilities must also have muse-
um trained personnel and handicapped persons' ac-
commodations. On application, a Facility Report form
will be sent to each organization interested in obtaining
MONITOR artifacts.

b. Funding must be available for transporting the
materials from the present location to the desired site
and return and for preparing a suitable exhibit.

c. A loan agreement must be executed for materials
that will be placed with eligible organizations for a
maximum of two years. Accompanying the loan agree-
ment will be a report on the condition of the objects as
they leave the custody of the Curator for the Navy. At
the end of one year, the borrower will submit an updated

report on the present condition of the objects; the Cura-
tor will prepare a report on the objects' condition at
the time of their return.

6. DEACCESSIONING

If deaccessioning becomes necessary, the decision
to do so will be evaluated by the Curator for the Navy,
the onsite manager, and the Technical Advisory Com-
mittee who then pass on their recommendations to
NOAA for final decision. "Deaccession" is the per-
manent transfer of custody for an object to another
institution or disposal by means of destruction, in which
case, the object may not under any circumstance become
part of a personal curation.

7. AVAILABILITY OF COLLECTION

All collections and records made under the provis-
ions of a NOAA permit must be available for research
and public education without charge and upon reason-
able notice.

APPENDIX D: MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

1983 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT between
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
and the North Carolina Division of Archives and History
for Management of the MONITOR National Marine
Sanctuary.

I. BACKGROUND

The MONITOR Marine Sanctuary was created pur-
suant to the Title III of the Marine Protection, Re-
search, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Public Law
92-532, on January 30, 1975. Since that time, the
Director of the Division of Archives and History,
hereinafter referred to as Director, has been designated
on-site manager of the sanctuary to assist the Marine
Sanctuary Projects Manager (SPM) of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) with
the planning and implementation of specific manage-
ment-related research activities and in assisting investi-
gators in the preparation of proposals to conduct
research in the sanctuary. The Director, as Review
Coordinator, has been responsible for conducting an
annual review of all proposed research projects and
coordinating the activities of the Technical Advisory
Committee. All assistance by the Director has to date
been through an annually renewable Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA).

1. At the time of this agreement, NOAA's Marine
Sanctuary Projects Manager is:
Dr. Richard J. Podgorny
Sanctuary Projects Manager

Sanctuary Programs Division
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20235

2. At the time of this agreement, the Director, Divi-
sion of Archives and History/Review Coordina-
tor, Dr. William S. Price, Jr., has delegated the
responsibilities outlined in this MOA to:

Dr. John J. Little
Administrator/Deputy State Historic

Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
North Carolina Department of Cultural

Resources

109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27611

3. The individual responsible for providing techni-
cal assistance for research operations conducted
at the site and technical support in monitoring
permitted research in the sanctuary is entitled
Operations Coordinator. At the time of this agree-
ment, the Operations Coordinator is:

Mr. Richard W. Lawrence, Head
Underwater Archaeology Unit
Division of Archives and History
P.O. Box 58
Kure Beach, NC 28449

4. The individual responsible for managing all activi-
ties related to the State's involvement with the

MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary and serv-
ing as liaison between the State on-site sanctu-
ary projects manager (Director) and the Federal
Marine Sanctuary Projects Manager (SPM) is
entitled Sanctuary Coordinator. At the time of
this agreement the Sanctuary Coordinator is:

Ms. Diana M. Lange, MONITOR Sanctuary
Coordinator

Underwater Archaeology Unit

Division of Archives and History

P.O. Box 58

Kure Beach, NC 28449

II. PROPOSAL

Because the MONITOR-related activities and re-
sponsibilities of the Division of Archives and History
have greatly increased since the creation of the sanc-
tuary, the Director proposes to expand the current
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT to reflect the
growth and diversity of those responsibilities. (Contact
NOAA's Marine Sanctuary Programs Division for cop-
ies of the original 1975 Memorandum of Agreement).

The Director and other personnel of the Division of
Archives and History will continue to assist in all phases
of management-related activities, to coordinate the
review of research proposals, coordinate and participate
in meetings as necessary, supervise contractual projects,
and conduct other activities that are required to facili-
tate the effective management of the MONITOR
National Marine Sanctuary.

HI. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA AND DIRECTOR,
DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY'S RE-
SPONSIBILITIES

1. The Director, Division of Archives and History
will plan and undertake specific management
related research activities as mutually agreed upon
with NOAA which will include (1) providing tech-
nical assistance in engineering, marine archaeolo-
gy and conservation, (2) provide technical sup-
port in monitoring permitted research in the sanc-
tuary, (3) administering the review process for
proposals to conduct research in the sanctuary
and (4) publishing reports and educational materi-
als prepared by the North Carolina Division of
Archives and History or by contract with other
individuals.

2. The Director will organize a yearly meeting of
the Technical Advisory Committee and appro-
priate staff personnel from NOAA and the
Division of Archives and History to discuss cur-
rent research proposals and to review the man-
agement goals and objectives outlined in the
MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary Man-
agement Plan.

3. The Director will apprise and seek appropriate
guidance from NOAA's Sanctuary Projects Man-
ager (SPM) as he assists investigators in the
preparation of each proposal for research in the
sanctuary, collect and coordinate all completed
proposals and conduct an annual review of all
such proposals received prior to November 1st of
each year according to the following schedule:

a. By November 10th the Director will mail a copy
of each proposal received to NOAA's SPM and
to every member of the Federal Review Com-
mittee, Technical Advisory Committee, and to
any technical experts the Director selects, or a
memo to NOAA indicating no proposals were
received.

b. Each reviewer will be given thirty days to review
all proposals and submit a recommendation for
each proposal accepting it, conditionally accept-
ing it or rejecting it. The Director will insure
that all recommendations are received no later
than December 15th (and will avoid further
use of any technical expert who fails to respond
in a timely manner).

c. By January 1st, the Director will forward a rec-
ommended decision on each proposal to NOAA's
SPM accepting it, rejecting it, or accepting it
with conditions. Such decisions shall be support-
ed by appropriate documentation, including cop-
ies of all comments and recommendations.
Where comments and recommendations are
received by December 15th from individuals,
agencies or sources other than those specific-
ally solicited in accordance with paragraph (a),
the Director shall consider these in making a
recommended decision and include them in doc-
umentation. Such comments received after
December 15th will be forwarded directly to
NOAA's SPM.

d. Where review indicates that a modified proposal
would be given additional consideration, the
Director will contact the applicant and outline
the changes determined desirable. The Direc-
tor shall inform NOAA's SPM of the changes
suggested and the time within which he antic-
ipates being able to make a decision on a mod-
ified proposal.

4. In cases where previously approved proposals
require alteration or where new proposals are
received which demonstrate that scheduling
immediate review will permit investigators to take
advantage of a significant opportunity the Director
may initiate the review process at any time dur-
ing the calendar year. In such cases, the review-
ers will normally be given thirty days to review
the proposals and the Director will endeavor to
coordinate the review in a period of time shorter
than this total 45 day period.

5. Where it is clearly evident that a proposed research
project represents no threat to the archaeologi-
cal or historical integrity of the site the Director
may, following consultation with at least two rec-
ognized authorities with experience in the disci-
pline involving the proposed work, prepare a writ-
ten report of this finding and recommend to
NOAA's SPM that a permit be granted. Where
it is determined that there is potential for adverse
impact, the proposal will be routed through the
normal review process channels.

6. Each appplication for a research permit in the
sanctuary will be evaluated in terms of how the
proposed research is related to the sanctuary's
preservation, research and education goals. The
significance of the research must be examined in
terms of the project's contribution to these goals.
Each proposal will be considered in light of the
potential impact of the proposed work on the
archaeological and historical integrity of the
MONITOR site. Reviewers will also be asked to
evaluate each proposal in terms of their ability
to achieve the established objectives of the pro-
posal. Proposal methodology and techniques will
be evaluated to determine if data collection and
evaluation systems insure the greatest return of
information. Equipment used in the research will
be evaluated to determine if it is the most appro-

priate available to accomplish the tasks involved
and the plan for conservation of any artifacts col-
lected will be evaluated to determine if it is suf-
ficient to minimize deterioration and to insure
preservation of artifacts.

7. Governmental agencies or other groups indicat-
ing an interest in reviewing proposals will receive
copies of all proposals only by submitting a written
request to NOAA's SPM.

8. When a decision to grant a permit has been
reached the Director will notify the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation of the pending
action and will submit the proper documentation to
the Council for their review and comment accord-
ing to the requirements of Section 106, National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The Command-
er of the Fifth U.S. Coast Guard District will be
notified of any permits issued for activity in the
MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary.

IV. NOAA INVOLVEMENT

As part of the joint nature of this effort, NOAA
will continue to provide management funds, technical
assistance and guidance in matters related to the man-
agement of the MONITOR National Marine Sanctu-
ary which require the participation of the Director and
North Carolina's Division of Archives and History.

APPENDIX E: VIOLATION PROCEDURE

Violators are subject to civil penalties of up to $50,000
under Public Law 92-532. They will be notified of the
alleged violation at the scene by the issuance of a Coast
Guard Enforcement Action Report (EAR) CG-520,
Offense Investigation Report: (OIR) CG-5202; and
Offense Investigation Report Supplement (OIR-SUP):
CG-5202-A. Evidentiary materials found in the pos-
session of the violator (i.e., artifacts, concretions, etc.)
will be seized by Coast Guard personnel and statements
taken. No further action against the violator will
normally be taken at this time. Copies of the Enforce-
ment Action or the Offense Investigation Report are
distributed as the format indicates. Statements of
evidentiary materials are transferred with the copy of
the Report of Boarding to the NOAA Office of Gen-

eral Counsel which evaluates all relevant information
for sufficiency of evidence and severity of the offense.
If appropriate, the NOAA Office of General Counsel
draws a notice of violation specifying the precise vio-
lation involved and the proposed penalty and sends it
to the violator for appropriate action.

If the need arises, U.S. vessels and their operators
are subject to seizure by the Coast Guard under the
combining authority of 14 USC 89 and 16 USC 1433
(c). If a contempt of court is involved (Sec 16 USC
1433 (d)), the operator would be subject to arrest by
the Coast Guard for disobedience of the restraining
order. Violations of foreign vessels will be reported to
the U.S. Department of State.

APPENDIX F: SANCTUARY DESIGNATION

WHEREAS Title III of the Marine Protection, Re-
search and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, Public Law 92-532,
authorized the Secretary of Commerce, with approval
of the President of the United States, to designate
Marine Sanctuaries; and,

WHEREAS the wreckage of the U.S.S. MONITOR
has recently been identified; and,

WHEREAS it is the concensus of concerned organ-
izations and individuals that the wreckage should be
protected for its historic, cultural, and technological
values; and,

WHEREAS the vessel has been placed on the National
Register of Historic Places.

I, THEREFORE, designate the site of the U.S.S.
MONITOR to be THE MONITOR MARINE SANC-
TUARY the area of which is to encompass a vertical
section of the water column from the surface to the
seabed and extending horizontally one mile in diame-
ter from a center point located at 35°00'23" North
Latitude and 75°24'32" West Longitude; and hereby
affirm that the regulations promulgated according to
the aforementioned authority will provide the neces-
sary protection of law to preserve the esthetic values
of this Historic Place.

January 30, 1975

Signature

Frederick B. Dent

Secretary of Commerce

APPENDIX G: SUMMARY OF EXPEDITIONS TO THE

MONITOR SITE FOLLOWING ITS INITIAL

LOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION

ALCOA SEAPROBE: April 1-7, 1974

Sponsoring Agencies: United States Navy, National
Geographic.

Participants: United States Navy, National Geographic,
Duke University, North Carolina Division of Ar-
chives and History, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

Purpose: To obtain a complete photographic and tele-
vision tape record of the wreck, and to collect spe-
cific samples of the remains for laboratory analysis.

Description of Work: Although foul weather prevent-
ed recovery of the desired samples, SEAPROBE's
dynamic positioning and precision photographic sys-
tems made it possible to collect more than 1400
high quality photographs of the entire wreck. Sev-
eral additional hours of television tape records were
also made during the photographing process.

Conclusions: Analysis of this data has confirmed the
identification of the wreck as that of the MONI-
TOR, and has provided much previously unavailable
data about the forward portion of the wreck. Photo-
graphs and television tapes of the bow area clearly
show the distinct overlapping armor platform for-
ward of the lower hull and the unique circular anchor
well. Selected photographs from the collection were
used by the Naval Intelligence Support Center to
prepare a complete photomosaic of the wreck.

R/V EASTWARD: May, 1974

Sponsoring Agencies: Duke University, University of
Delaware.

Participants: Duke University, University of Delaware.

Purpose: To recover bottom samples from the MON-
ITOR site.

Description of Work: While returning from a geophysi-
cal survey of the Delaware coast, the EASTWARD
was allotted 4 hours to work at the MONITOR site.
Twenty five minutes were spent dragging a dredge
through the sand in the vicinity of the wreck. Sam-
ples recovered include a decklight cover 10 inches
in diameter as well as several small ferrous con-
cretions.

Conclusions: While the extent of volumetric corrosion
and accumulation of calcareous deposits on the deck
light cover, identified as being a type used on the
MONITOR, was determined during cleaning, no
systematic analysis of the remaining artifacts has
been reported.

CGC CHILULA: August 12-16, 1974

Sponsoring Agency: United States Coast Guard.

Participants: United States Coast Guard, Massachu-
setts Institute of Technology, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, North Carolina Di-
vision of Archives and History, United States Navy.

Purpose: To determine whether existing portable under-
water search equipment provided by the Coast Guard
Research and Development Center could be success-
fully used by Coast Guard ships and boats to locate
an underwater target. To utilize an underwater
camera/strobe system from Massachusetts Institute
of Technology and the SNOOPY television/pro-
pulsion system from the United States Navy to
inspect the wreck of the MONITOR. To recover
the camera system lost at the MONITOR site dur-
ing the August, 1973 expedition and recover fur-
ther samples from the site.

Description of Work: Due to Federal restrictions pro-
hibiting bottom disturbing activities at the site and
the heavy sea state encountered, no recovery or
remote camera work was conducted at the site. How-
ever, sidescan sonar contact was made with the wreck.

Conclusions: Although no information concerning the
MONITOR was gathered during this expedition,
the experience proved useful in developing the var-
ious search and photographic systems.

R/V BEVERIDGE: August 19-22 and 26-28, 1974

Sponsoring Agency: Duke University.

Participants: Duke University, Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.

Purpose: To observe the wreck of the MONITOR with
underwater television, retrieve the camera system
lost during the August, 1973 expedition, and take
horizontal photographs with a new underwater
camera/strobe system.

Description of Work: The wreck was located using
sidescan sonar but due to Federal restrictions no
recovery operations were conducted. However, ob-
servations were made of the wreck using the under-
water television system. For a variety of logistical
reasons the underwater camera/strobe system was
not used.

Conclusions: Due to the limited amount of data gained
on this expedition no conclusions have been pub-
lished.

R/V EASTWARD: June 9-10 and June 16, 1976

Sponsoring Agencies: National Science Foundation
Grant to the Cooperative Oceanographic Program
of Duke University Marine Laboratory.

Participants: MONITOR Research and Recovery Foun-
dation, University of Delaware.

Purpose: To obtain data concerning the magnetic field
and subbottom acoustic reflectors in the MONITOR

National Marine Sanctuary, in conjunction with a
geophysical survey of the Delaware continental shelf.

Description of Work: A total of eight crossings of the
wreck were made using a Varian proton precession
magnetometer during the two periods of research.
Acoustic reflection measurements of the wreck site
were made utilizing an Edo-western subbottom pro-
filer with a hull mounted 3.5 kHz transducer.

Conclusions: From the magnetic data collected, re-
searchers were able to isolate certain magnetic char-
acteristics of the MONITOR and their effect on
the regional magnetic field. It was also concluded
that no fragments of ferrous metal larger than 3m
on a side exist further than 100m from the wreck.
The acoustic data indicated the general direction
of slope of the subbottom reflectors in the area, and
the MONITOR'S relative position to these reflectors.

R/V CAPE HENLOPEN: April 4-8, 1977

Sponsoring Agencies: Exxon Education Foundation,
University of Delaware.

Participants: MONITOR Research and Recovery Foun-
dation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
tration, University of Delaware.

Purpose: To obtain measurements of the near bottom
currents, to take coring samples of the sediments
beneath the MONITOR wreck, and to conduct hori-
zontal television observations of the wreck.

Description of Work: A Braincon current meter was
installed just outside of the MONITOR National
Marine Sanctuary to measure the near bottom cur-
rents during the period of the expedition. An 18
foot core, was taken southeast of the remains of the
MONITOR using a standard 6m Ewing type piston
core. Finally, a television camera was lowered to
the site enabling a horizontal view of the forward
section of the wreck.

Conclusions: From this work the researchers were able to
make a number of observations concerning the
strength and direction of the near bottom currents
in the MONITOR National Marine Sanctuary, the
type and condition of the sediments beneath the
wreck and what effect these factors will have in
future work and recovery operations at the site. In
addition, the television cameras provided further
information on the structure and condition of the
wreck.

R/V JOHNSON and R/V SEA DIVER: July 17—
August 2, 1977

Sponsoring Agencies: Harbor Branch Foundation,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Participants: Harbor Branch Foundation, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, North
Carolina Division of Archives and History, United
States Navy.

Purpose: To conduct a photogrammetric survey of the
MONITOR and the controlled recovery of materi-
al from the MONITOR site.

Description of Work: Preliminary work was carried
out using sidescan sonar on the wreck and then
searching the surrounding area with this sonar one
half mile in all directions to detect any protrusions
from the bottom. No such protrusions were found.
A remote controlled vehicle, CORD, equipped with a
television camera, was sent to the wreck of the MON-
ITOR and closed circuit television pictures were
transmitted to the surface vessels. Visibility was quite
good, in excess of 100 feet, and the CORD system
allowed complete scanning of the wreck from bow
to stern. The photogrammetric survey was conducted
using two submersibles, JOHNSON-SEA-LINK
I, and JOHNSON-SEA-LINK II, and divers who
were transported to and from the site in the sub-
mersibles. A total of three passes were made over
the wreck for the horizontal and oblique stereo
photography. Two of these passes were made with
black and white film and one with color film. The
final operation involved the recovery of an iron hull
plate which had been disturbed when a camera sys-
tem had fouled the wreck during the August, 1973
expedition. The location of this plate had been well
documented during previous expeditions as well as
during the photogrammetric survey of the wreck.
The camera system which fouled the plate and was
subsequently lost was also recovered at this time.
In addition, a brass signal lantern that had been
discovered lying 40 feet north of the turret on the
sea floor was recovered to prevent its loss or destruc-
tion at the site.

Conclusions: The detailed investigation of the closed
circuit television and photogrammetric data coupled
with the analysis of the hull plate and brass lantern
will greatly add to what is already known concern-
ing the extent and structural integrity of the remains
of the MONITOR. From this information it will be
possible to more reasonably assess the direction of
future work at the site, particularly in planning for
any further recovery and preservation of material
from the site. This expedition also allowed the first
on-site inspection of the wreck by divers and the
crews of the submersibles. Their observations have
provided insight into the structure and condition of
the MONITOR'S armor belt, turret, deck, and
machinery that was not possible before with the use of
remote camera systems.

R/V CALYPSO: June 9-14, 1979

Sponsoring Agency: Cousteau Society.

Participants: Cousteau Society.

Purpose: To photograph the MONITOR with movie
film to be used as a segment in a one-hour televi-
sion special on "Historical Wrecks."

Description of Work: Divers using standard SCUBA
equipment descended 210 feet to the wreck staying
ten minutes at that depth and then ascending at
given rates and decompressing for approximately
45 minutes at 30, 20 and 10 feet. Two buoys were
positioned near the wreck: one buoy, (Bl), 80 meters
south of the wreck and another, (B2), 100 meters
north. Two film crews, of 4 divers each, moved over
the wreck, drifting with the prevailing current from
buoy to buoy, filming as they passed. Appproxi-
mately 12 minutes of film were exposed, however,
film quality was somewhat impaired by poor visi-
bility and low light level.

Conclusions: The methods used by the Cousteau Society
were novel in several respects: Use of SCUBA equip-
ment with air as a breathing medium, deployment
of eight divers at one time, in water decompression
of divers and use of satellite navigation system and
radar for positioning. These procedures could have
been accomplished only by a team with as much
experience as Cousteau's divers. Photographic cover-
age of the wreck provided additional information
on the condition of the wreck as well as environ-
mental conditions at the site.

R/V JOHNSON: August 1-26, 1979

Sponsoring Agencies: National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, North Carolina Division of
Archives and History, Harbor Branch Foundation,
Inc.

Participants: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, North Carolina Division of Archives
and History, Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc.

Purpose: To establish permanent reference points adja-
cent to the wreck, test the structural components of
the MONITOR, conduct a test excavation in the
forward portion of the wreck within the hull, and
undertake a general reconnaissance of the site by
diver observations and hand-held photography.

Description of Work: Three underwater archaeologists,
supported by a team of 20 technicians, divers, and
crew members, conducted 49 dives; during 36 of
which the divers left the submersible, JOHNSON-
SEA-LINK I, for a working dive. Breathing a gas
mixture of 12 percent oxygen and 88 percent heli-

um, the divers spent, per dive, approximately 60 Conclusions: Data generated by the research project

minutes on the bottom and about four and one-half afforded valuable insight into the archaeological and

hours in decompression upon return to the support vessel engineering problems presented by this and other

R/V JOHNSON. From the excavations, the divers re- deepwater archaeological sites. This information has

covered 106 objects of historic and scientific signif- significantly broadened the knowledge upon which

icance representing a broad range of materials in- . . . . . .„ . ,

.... • , , , • -r~, sanctuary management decisions will be made.

eluding brass, iron, leather, glass, and ceramics. The

artifacts have undergone conservation analysis and
will be part of a future exhibit on the MONITOR.

Acknowledgments:

Special thanks to Ms. Barbara L. Brooks, MONITOR
Sanctuary Secretary, North Carolina Division of Archives
and History, Kure Beach, N.C., and Ms. Lois Mills,
Clerk/typist, NOAA's Sanctuary Programs Division,
Washington, D.C. for their invaluable assistance in pre-
paring this document for publication.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "U.S.S. Monitor National Marine Sanctuary : management plan"

See other formats