Comment from Kelly Burns

Document ID: NOAA-NOS-2008-0287-0009
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration
Received Date: January 24 2011, at 11:40 AM Eastern Standard Time
Date Posted: February 16 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: January 14 2011, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: March 15 2011, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80bd13d4
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

RULE: Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Regulations Revisions. CONTEXT: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been conducting a review of the management plan and regulations for Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary to prohibit wastewater discharges from cruise ships; to update the language referring to tribal welfare considerations when issuing permits; to correct the size of the sanctuary based on new area estimates without revising the sanctuary's actual boundaries; and to update the list of definitions; and update outdated information such as office location. COMMENT: Section 304(e) of the NSMA requires the NOAA to review the management plan to each sanctuary regularly to determine necessary revisions to better protect vulnerable sanctuaries. Furthermore Section 1441 (b)(3) of NSMA delegates to the agency the responsibility to maintain the natural biological communities in the sanctuaries. Therefore, when scientific knowledge of these areas and the need to protect them from degradation comes to light, the regulation, like the understanding needs to change. The new changes regarding the prohibition of the discharge of grey or treated water into the sanctuary is a reasonable one. Though the burden is minimal on passing ships, the benefits to the sanctuary are enormous. By a simple prohibition in limited circumstances in a limited area of space, the regulation could be preventing irreversible degradation of the sensitive area because the water prohibited from discharge may include bacteria, viruses, and detergents. Though it is a step in the right direction, and it is admirable that the agency is attempting to regulate grey water discharge without fully understanding the effects on the sanctuary environment, there may be a potential for further regulation in surrounding areas or buffer zones. It appears on the face that the prohibition is just in the area designated as a sanctuary but because of water currents much

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 14
Comment from nancy matthews
Public Submission    Posted: 02/16/2011     ID: NOAA-NOS-2008-0287-0006

Mar 15,2011 11:59 PM ET
Comment from Whitney Stohr
Public Submission    Posted: 02/16/2011     ID: NOAA-NOS-2008-0287-0007

Mar 15,2011 11:59 PM ET
Comment from Scott Forrester
Public Submission    Posted: 02/16/2011     ID: NOAA-NOS-2008-0287-0008

Mar 15,2011 11:59 PM ET
Comment from Kelly Burns
Public Submission    Posted: 02/16/2011     ID: NOAA-NOS-2008-0287-0009

Mar 15,2011 11:59 PM ET
Comment from Patrick Rooks
Public Submission    Posted: 02/16/2011     ID: NOAA-NOS-2008-0287-0010

Mar 15,2011 11:59 PM ET