|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Beginning on December 1, 2000, large container ships and bulk product carriers will follow a number of new safety measures intended to greatly reduce the chance of catastrophic oil and hazardous waste spills. While most people attribute huge oil spills only to oil tankers, these container ships can carry one million gallons of heavy bunker fuel (similar to crude oil) and in the event of an accident, that fuel is capable of causing enormous ecological damage. To give an idea of how important these new measures are, as recently as February 1999, the 639-foot bulk carrier New Carissa ran aground on the Oregon Coast spilling at least 70,000 gallons of oil and killing hundreds of birds and countless other organisms. A spill the size of the Exxon Valdez could cover the entire range of the Southern sea otter and could effectively cause the extinction of this familiar Central California icon. Other resources at risk from a catastrophic spill in the Sanctuary include:
According to Dr. Holly Price, Director of the Sanctuary Water Quality Protection Program, when there is so much at stake it is always better to prevent disasters, than to try to clean up after one. "Once oil hits the water, it's very difficult to avoid large economic and environmental losses," says Price. Initially flagged as a priority during Sanctuary designation proceedings, the Sanctuary and the U.S. Coast Guard convened a unique joint effort in 1997 to resolve this important issue. Agreement was finally reached after 18 months of meetings with state agencies, including the California Department of Fish and Game and the Coastal Commission, environmental groups, such as the Center for Marine Conservation and Save Our Shores, and representatives from the shipping and oil industries. Because the new routes are in international waters, NOAA then took the plan to the United Nations' International Maritime Organization (IMO), an organization of international shipping nations, for final approval in May. Currently these massive ships transit the Sanctuary as close as two nautical miles (nm) away from the Big Sur coast and other ecologically sensitive areas. The new measures place the vessels 13-20 nm offshore in defined northbound and southbound tracks at an average of 10 nm farther from the Sanctuary's coastline. According to Price, the new routes keep the ships far enough off shore that should they lose power, a rescue tug could intercept them before they drift ashore. The new routes also keep large vessels out of primary fishing grounds, typically located in the shallower waters closer to land. Ships carrying hazardous cargoes, such as chemicals and refined petroleum, will be moved even farther from the coast, between 25-30 nm, and oil tankers will continue their journeys at 50 nm offshore. Setting these fixed cruising distances also ensures that the large vessels move in predictable and defined corridors, thereby reducing the risk of collisions. A final part of the vessel traffic agreement is an adjustment to the San Francisco port approach. Starting in mid-July ships entering the SF bay began using set corridors angled away from the rocky San Mateo coast and further away from those productive fishing grounds. The next step, Price explains, is to spread the word of these new environmental measures to mariners. This huge task is made a little easier because members of the shipping industry, such as the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and the San Francisco Bar Pilots, were brought to the table early on to provide crucial input to the new measures, and are now helping to promote and conduct outreach on them. To better inform merchant ship owners and captains, the new routes will also be added to the nautical charts used to navigate coastal waters. The Sanctuary wants to thank all the many agency, industry and environmental group representatives whose expertise and persistence turned this proposal into reality.
The Sanctuary is forever protected from offshore oil, gas and mineral exploration and extraction. Dumping of harmful materials, chumming for Great White Sharks and harming marine mammals are among the nine other prohibited activities. One lesser-known regulation prohibits "drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on the seabed of the Sanctuary…" It is this regulation that has come into play with a new proposal by Global Photon Systems, Inc. to build a submarine fiber optic cable. The proposed project involves laying approximately 250 miles of fiber optic cable buried one meter beneath the Sanctuary floor (where feasible) in an effort to provide additional fiber optic service within California's growing internet market. The one-inch wide submarine cable would extend from San Diego to San Francisco connecting to land at seven sites, two of which are proposed within the Sanctuary boundaries. To date, Global Photon has completed a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the State of California to fulfill criteria required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for projects capable of causing environmental damage. The Sanctuary has taken the position that the state's Final EIR does not adequately address the special status and special protections required for a national marine sanctuary. The concerns include:
Despite these shortfalls, the State Lands Commission certified the state-required EIR and authorized issuance of a permit for the project with the provision that the permit is not valid north of Morro Bay without the permission of the Sanctuary. In a letter by William J. Douros, Sanctuary Superintendent, to the Commission and during comment in a public hearing, the Sanctuary stated its public objection to the certification of the EIR. "We testified that the EIR did not adequately address the Sanctuary's special status," says Scott Kathey, Policy Analyst for the Sanctuary. "The same criteria were used to evaluate environmental concerns inside the Sanctuary as outside." In June 1999, the Sanctuary told Global Photon that it needed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required under the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address these important issues. Global Photon declined stating that the state EIR submitted to the State Lands Commission is sufficient to address Sanctuary concerns. According to Kathey, the Sanctuary is legally obligated to invoke the NEPA process of environmental review, which requires federal agencies to complete an EIS for any action under federal jurisdiction that may have significant environmental impact. Telecommunication companies across the nation have been awaiting policy guidelines by NOAA regarding the placement of submarine cables through the 13 national marine sanctuaries. To this end the Department of Commerce, the agency that manages NOAA's National Marine Sanctuary Program, convened a series of meetings with national environmental groups and cable companies to help develop a national policy on cable laying in National Marine Sanctuaries. A draft policy was released for public review and comment on August 23, 2000, and can be found at the Sanctuary website. The public can submit written comments to NOAA until October 23, 2000. "The end result of the environmental review process will be whether we do or don't issue a permit for this type of activity in the Sanctuary," continues Kathey. "This decision will be based on what the impacts are. The EIS doesn't tell us what to do &endash; just what the impacts are. But we see this as one crucial part because of what Sanctuaries are about. We need a quality document in which we can trust the integrity of the data in order to make the best decision for the future of the Sanctuary." Note: A second independent request to lay fiber optic cable in the Sanctuary was submitted by MFS Globenet, Inc. and Worldcom Network Services, Inc. This international consortium recently installed their cable in Oregon and abandoned its application for a cable in the Sanctuary. MCI Worldcom has expressed an interest in independently continuing the process for approval of the proposed route. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Home | Introduction | Visitors | Education | Research | Protection | Calendar | Foundation | Search Credits For comments or question please refer to the Webmaster Last modified on: October 15,
2000 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
