[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 170 (Thursday, September 2, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53630-53641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-20025]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 7

RIN 1024-AC98


Chickasaw National Recreation Area, Personal Watercraft Use

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This rule designates areas where personal watercraft (PWC) may 
be used in Chickasaw National Recreation Area, Oklahoma. This rule 
implements the provisions of the National Park Service (NPS) general 
regulations authorizing park areas to allow the use of PWC by 
promulgating a special regulation. The NPS Management Policies 2001 
require individual parks to determine whether PWC use is appropriate 
for a specific park area based on an evaluation of that area's enabling 
legislation, resources and values, other visitor uses, and overall 
management objectives.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective September 2, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Mail inquiries to Connie Rudd, Superintendent, Chickasaw 
National Recreation Area, 1008 W. Second Street, Sulphur, OK 73086, e-
mail: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kym Hall, Special Assistant, National 
Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 3145, Washington, DC 20240. 
Phone: (202) 208-4206. E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Personal Watercraft Regulation

    On March 21, 2000, the National Park Service published a regulation 
(36 CFR 3.24) on the management of PWC use within all units of the 
National Park System (65 FR 15077). This regulation prohibits PWC use 
in all National Park System units unless the NPS determines that this 
type of water-based recreational activity is appropriate for the 
specific park unit based on the legislation establishing that park, the 
park's resources and values, other visitor uses of the area, and 
overall management objectives. The regulation banned PWC use in all 
park units effective April 20, 2000, except 21 parks, lakeshores, 
seashores, and recreation areas. The regulation established a 2-year 
grace period following the final rule publication to provide these 21 
park units time to consider whether PWC use should be allowed.

Description of Chickasaw National Recreation Area

    Chickasaw National Recreation Area is a part of America's national 
system of parks, monuments, battlefields, recreation areas, and other 
natural and cultural resources. Chickasaw National Recreation Area is 
located in Murray County, near U.S. Highway 177, just south of the town 
of Sulphur, Oklahoma, approximately 90 miles south of Oklahoma City. 
Chickasaw National Recreation Area encompasses 9,888.83 acres of land 
and water. The recreation area includes many lakes and creeks, with the 
largest water areas being the Lake of the Arbuckles, created by the 
Arbuckle Dam, and Veterans Lake. Chickasaw National Recreation Area is 
the first national park in the State of Oklahoma. It is also one of the 
most heavily visited parks for its size in the National Park System, 
with over 3 million total visits including 1.5 million visits a year to 
use the park's recreational facilities. Chickasaw remains relatively 
undeveloped. Summer visitors engage in camping, picnicking, hiking, 
mountain biking, horseback riding, hunting, sightseeing, auto touring, 
nature viewing, photography, boating, waterskiing, fishing, and 
swimming.
    The significance of Chickasaw stems from the following resources 
and values of the park:
     The availability of both mineral and fresh water, which 
come from one of the most complex geological and hydrological features 
in the United States.
     The presence of the cultural landscape of Platt Historic 
District, which reflects the era of 1933-1940 when the Civilian 
Conservation Corp (CCC) implemented NPS ``rustic'' designs.
     The availability of recreational opportunities for 
visitors to experience a wide range of outdoor experiences--swimming, 
boating, fishing, hiking, observing nature, hunting, camping, biking, 
horseback riding, family reunions, and picnicking.

[[Page 53631]]

     The presence of a transition zone where the eastern 
deciduous forest and the western prairies meet, which is unique to the 
central part of the United States.

Purpose of Chickasaw National Recreation Area

    Chickasaw National Recreation Area was originally established by 
act of Congress as Sulphur Springs Reservation in 1902 near Sulphur, 
Oklahoma. Congress enlarged Sulphur Springs Reservation slightly and 
established it as Platt National Park in 1906. Later, it was combined 
with Lake of the Arbuckles to create the present day Chickasaw National 
Recreation Area.
    The purpose of the park is addressed in the following statements 
that are excerpts from the park's Strategic Plan. The laws establishing 
Chickasaw provided for the National Park Service to:
     Provide for the proper utilization and control of springs 
and waters of its creeks.
     Provide for efficient administration of other adjacent 
areas containing scenic, scientific, natural, and historic values.
     Provide public outdoor recreation use and enjoyment of 
Arbuckle Reservoir.
     Permit hunting and fishing in some areas.
    Therefore, the purpose of Chickasaw is the protection of springs 
and waters; the preservation of sites of archaeological or ethnological 
interest; the provision of outdoor recreation; the administration of 
scenic, scientific, natural, and historic values; the memorialization 
of the Chickasaw Indian Nation; and the provision for hunting and 
fishing.

Authority and Jurisdiction

    Under the National Park Service's Organic Act of 1916 (Organic Act) 
(16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) Congress granted the NPS broad authority to 
regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks. In 
addition, the Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 3) allows the NPS, through the 
Secretary of the Interior, to ``make and publish such rules and 
regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for the use and 
management of the parks * * *''
    16 U.S.C. 1a-1 states, ``The authorization of activities shall be 
conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the 
National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the 
values and purposes for which these various areas have been established 
* * *''
    As with the United States Coast Guard, NPS's regulatory authority 
over waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including 
navigable waters and areas within their ordinary reach, is based upon 
the Property and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In regard 
to the NPS, Congress in 1976 directed the NPS to ``promulgate and 
enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or 
relating to waters within areas of the National Park System, including 
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States * * *'' (16 
U.S.C. 1a-2(h)). In 1996 the NPS published a final rule (61 FR 35136, 
July 5, 1996) amending 36 CFR 1.2(a)(3) to clarify its authority to 
regulate activities within the National Park System boundaries 
occurring on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

PWC Use at Chickasaw National Recreation Area

    Visitation at Chickasaw has remained relatively stable the last 
three years, with an average of 3 million visitors annually, including 
traffic passing through the park on U.S. Highway 177. Approximately 1.5 
million visitors annually use the recreation area's facilities, 
including visitors pursuing recreational activities on the reservoir 
and those engaging in other recreational opportunities. Based on ranger 
observations and contacts, most PWC users are from the immediate 
region; within a radius of about 200 miles are Oklahoma City and the 
Dallas/Fort Worth area, with a population of about 5.5 million.
    The majority of PWC use occurs primarily from April through 
September, although PWC users may be on the lake year-round. PWC users 
spend an average of four hours on the lake during a daily visit.
    The park began counting PWC in 1996, and through the end of June 
2001 approximately 1,820 PWC had been counted in the park (on a 
cumulative basis), compared to about 7,150 vessels. Based on the number 
of annual launch ramp permits issued, PWC use declined from 1997 to 
2000. In addition to annual permits, day use permits are also issued. 
These do not specify the type of vessel being used and, based on staff 
observations, the percent of PWC entering the lake is higher for day 
use permits during the warm weather season. On busy summer weekends in 
2001 and 2002, park staff observed between 34 and 94 PWC per day in the 
recreation area.
    According to park records, approximately 59 PWC per day were 
observed during the midweek July 4, 2002, holiday period (Wednesday 
through Friday). Approximately 114 PWC per day were observed on 
Saturday and Sunday during that holiday weekend.
    Lake of the Arbuckles is the only lake in Chickasaw open to PWC 
use; the ``Superintendent's Compendium'' (1.5 and 1.7) has closed all 
lakes of 100 acres or less to PWC use, including Veterans Lake (67 
acres). The central part of the main body of Lake of the Arbuckles is a 
high-use area for PWC. Four areas of Lake of the Arbuckles are closed 
to all vessels to protect swimmers. Those areas are: the Goddard Youth 
Camp Cove, a 150 foot wide zone around the picnic area at the end of 
Hwy 110 (known as ``The Point'') beginning at the buoy line on the 
north side of the picnic area and extending south and east into the 
cove to the east of the picnic area, the cove located directly north of 
the north branch of the F Loop Road, and the Buckhorn Campground D Loop 
beach shoreline. These closures are sometimes violated in the Buckhorn 
and The Point areas when visitors on PWC and vessels access picnic 
sites.
    There are several areas designated as flat wake zones and are 
described as: the Guy Sandy arm upstream (north) of the east/west buoy 
line located near Masters pond, the Guy Sandy Cove (boat launch) west 
of the buoy marking the entrance to the cove, Rock Creek upstream 
(north) of the east/west buoy line at approximately 034[deg]27'50'' 
north latitude, the Buckhorn Ramp bay, east of the north/south line 
drawn from the Buckhorn Ramp Breakwater Dam, a 150 foot wide zone along 
the north shore of the Buckhorn Creek arm starting at the north end of 
the Buckhorn Boat Ramp Breakwater Dam and continuing southeast to the 
Buckhorn Campground D Loop Beach, the cove south and east of the 
Buckhorn Campground C and D Loops, the cove located east of Buckhorn 
Campground B Loop and adjacent to Buckhorn Campground A Loop, the 
second cove east of Buckhorn Campground B Loop, fed by a creek 
identified as Dry Branch, and Buckhorn Creek upstream (east) of the 
east/west buoy line located at approximately 096[deg]59'3.50'' 
longitude, known as the G Road Cliffs area.
    PWC may land along the shore of the lake for access to non-water 
areas but launch and retrieval of PWC continues to be required at 
designated launch areas.
    Conflicts in visitor use can arise in areas that restrict vessels 
of any kind, such as the end of Highway 110 and along the Buckhorn 
Pavilion to the F Loop picnic areas along the lake. These areas attract 
swimmers who may or may

[[Page 53632]]

not be associated with a vessel or PWC, and the conflict occurs when 
these vessels come into the areas to beach, pick up passengers, or 
change operators.
    From 1995 to 2000 there were 20 vessel accidents in the recreation 
area, eight of which involved PWC. Four of the PWC accidents were 
collisions with vessels, two were collisions with other PWC, and two 
involved PWC operators falling or being thrown off their vessels. Six 
of the eight accidents resulted in personal injury, and two only in 
property damage. The accidents occurred in the following areas: 
Buckhorn Arm (4), Guy Sandy Arm (2), Point Arm (1), and the central 
lake area (1). From 2001 to present, a total of seven accidents have 
been reported, five vessel-only accidents and two PWC-only accidents.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Environmental Assessment

    On March 25, 2004, the National Park Service published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the operation of PWC at Chickasaw 
National Recreation Area (NRA) (69 FR 15277). The proposed rule for PWC 
use was based on alternative B in the Environmental Assessment (EA) 
prepared by NPS for Chickasaw NRA. The EA was available for public 
review and comment from March 10, 2003, through April 8, 2003, and the 
NPRM was available for public comment from March 25, 2004, through May 
24, 2004.
    The purpose of the environmental assessment was to evaluate a range 
of alternatives and strategies for the management of PWC use at 
Chickasaw National Recreation Area to ensure the protection of park 
resources and values while offering recreational opportunities as 
provided for in the National Recreation Area's enabling legislation, 
purpose, mission, and goals. The analysis assumed alternatives would be 
implemented beginning in 2002 and considered a 10-year period, from 
2002 to 2012.
    The environmental assessment evaluated four alternatives concerning 
the use of PWC at Chickasaw National Recreation Area. Three of the 
alternatives considered in the environmental assessment permit PWC use 
in the park under certain conditions. Alternative A reestablishes the 
PWC policies that existed prior to November 6, 2002, when PWC use was 
permitted in Chickasaw National Recreation Area under the current 
Superintendent's Compendium (1.5 and 1.7) (Revised October 23, 2002, 
http://www.nps.gov/ chic/compen02.htm) Alternative B permits PWC use in 
roughly the same areas as Alternative A with some additional 
restrictions, and monitoring and enforcement policies. Alternative C 
builds on the enforcement and monitoring policies and other 
restrictions in Alternative B, by adding additional area and operating 
restrictions to further limit the use of PWC.
    In addition to these three alternatives for permitting restricted 
PWC use, a no action alternative was considered that prohibits all PWC 
use within the National Recreation Area. All four alternatives were 
evaluated with respect to PWC impacts on water quality, air quality, 
soundscapes, wildlife, wildlife habitat, shoreline vegetation, visitor 
conflicts, visitor safety, and cultural resources.
    Based on the analysis, NPS determined that Alternative B is the 
park's preferred alternative. Alternative B best accomplishes the 
objectives of managing PWC use and fulfilling the park's mission 
without restricting lawful use. This document contains regulations to 
implement Alternative B at Chickasaw National Recreation Area.

Summary of Comments

    The proposed rule was published for public comment on March 25, 
2004, with the comment period lasting until May 24, 2004. The National 
Park Service received 78 timely written responses regarding the 
proposed regulation. Of the responses, 46 were on a petition, and 32 
were separate letters. Of the 32 separate letters, 22 were from 
individuals, 6 from organizations, and 4 from businesses. Within the 
analysis, the term ``commenter'' refers to an individual, organization, 
or public agency that responded. The term ``comments'' refers to 
statements made by a commenter.

General Comments

    1. Several commenters stated that PWC should not be singled out for 
analysis and restriction.
    NPS Response: The Environmental Assessment (EA) was not designed to 
determine if personal watercraft caused more environmental damage to 
park resources than other boats, but rather, to determine if personal 
watercraft use was consistent with the park's enabling legislation and 
management goals and objectives.
    2. One commenter stated that allowing PWC use violates the park's 
enabling legislation and NPS mandate to protect resources from harm.
    NPS Response: The objective of the Environmental Assessment, as 
described in the ``Purpose and Need'' chapter of the EA, was ``to 
ensure the protection of park resources and values''. As further stated 
in that chapter, a special analysis on the management of personal 
watercraft was also provided under each alternative to meet the terms 
of the settlement agreement between the Bluewater Network and the 
National Park Service, to consider impacts to water quality, air 
quality, soundscape, wildlife and wildlife habitat, shorelines and 
shoreline vegetation, visitor experience, and visitor conflicts and 
safety. As a result, the alternatives presented in the Environmental 
Assessment protect resources and values while providing recreational 
opportunities at Chickasaw National Recreation Area. As required by NPS 
policies, the impacts associated with personal watercraft and other 
recreational uses were evaluated under each alternative to determine 
the potential for impairment to park resources. Alternative B would not 
result in impairment of park resources and values for which the 
Chickasaw National Recreation Area was established. The recreation 
area's enabling legislation also states that the ``Secretary shall 
administer Chickasaw National Recreation Area for general purposes of 
public outdoor recreation.'' The recreation area was established as a 
unit of the national park system. The goal of the national recreation 
area is to provide each visitor with an educational, enjoyable, safe 
and memorable experience.
    3. One commenter states that the EA does not use the best available 
data and violates the court settlement with the Bluewater Network.
    NPS Response: A summary of the NPS rulemaking and associated 
personal watercraft litigation is provided in Chapter 1, Purpose of and 
Need for Action, Background, of the EA. NPS believes it has complied 
with the court order and has assessed the impacts of personal 
watercraft on those resources specified by the settlement agreement, as 
well as other resources that could be affected. This analysis was done 
for every applicable impact topic with the best available data, as 
required by Council on Environmental Quality Regulations (40 CFR 
1502.22). Where data was lacking, best professional judgment prevailed 
using assumptions and extrapolations from scientific literature, other 
park units where personal watercraft are used, and personal 
observations of park staff. The NPS believes that the environmental 
assessment is in full compliance with the court-ordered settlement and 
that the rationale for limited use within the national recreation area 
has been adequately analyzed and explained.

[[Page 53633]]

    4. One commenter is concerned about the use of Federal Aid in Sport 
Fish Restoration Act (FASFRA) funds to construct boat launches and 
facilities.
    NPS Response: There are no provisions within the preferred 
alternative for construction of new boat launches and facilities. No 
FASFRA funds are used within the national recreation area to construct 
boat launches.
    5. Several commenters stated that the decision violates the Organic 
Act, and other NPS laws, and will result in the impairment of 
resources.
    NPS Response: The ``Summary of Laws and Policies'' section in the 
``Environmental Consequences'' chapter of the EA summarizes the three 
overarching laws that guide the National Park Service in making 
decisions concerning protection of park resources. These laws, as well 
as others, are also reflected in the NPS Management Policies. An 
explanation of how the Park Service applied these laws and policies to 
analyze the effects of personal watercraft on Lake Meredith National 
Recreation Area resources and values can be found under ``Impairment 
Analysis'' in the ``Methodology'' section of the EA.
    An impairment to a particular park resource or park value must rise 
to the magnitude of a major impact, as defined by its context, 
duration, and intensity and must also affect the ability of the 
National Park Service to meet its mandates as established by Congress 
in the park's enabling legislation. For each resource topic, the 
Environmental Assessments establish thresholds or indicators of 
magnitude of impact. An impact approaching a ``major'' level of 
intensity is one indication that impairment could result. For each 
impact topic, when the intensity approached ``major,'' the park would 
consider mitigation measures to reduce the potential for ``major'' 
impacts, thus reducing the potential for impairment.
    The PWC Use Environmental Assessment is a proactive measure to 
protect national recreation area resources from harm. The purpose of 
the EA is to assess the impacts of PWC use on identified resources 
within the recreation area boundaries. The National Park Service has 
determined that under the final rule, which is based on the preferred 
alternative, Alternative B, there will be no negative impacts on park 
resources or values.

Comments Regarding the Preferred Alternative

    6. One commenter stated that the carrying capacity restriction in 
the preferred alternative seem difficult to determine and unfair to PWC 
users without a carrying capacity for other types of boats.
    NPS Response: This comment is correct in part. There is no 
definitive threshold to determine when minor or moderate adverse 
effects occur. Monitoring protocols for these effects have not been 
established for Chickasaw National Recreation Area. The reason that the 
carrying capacity issue is directed toward PWCs is because PWC use is 
the subject of this particular Environmental Assessment. Carrying 
capacities for other watercraft may be addressed in future 
Environmental Assessments.

Comments Regarding Water Quality

    7. One commenter stated that the analysis disregarded or overlooked 
relevant research regarding impacts to water quality from PWC use as 
well as the impact to downstream resources and long term site-specific 
water quality data on PWC pollutants.
    NPS Response: The EA states that in 2002 impacts to water quality 
from PWCs on a high-use day would be negligible for all chemicals 
evaluated based on ecological benchmarks and for benzo(a)pyrene based 
on human health benchmarks; impacts would be moderate for benzene and 
human health. In 2012, impacts would be negligible based on all 
ecological and human health benchmarks. ``Impairment'' is clearly 
defined in the EA (page 78) and is the most severe of the five 
potential impact categories. The other impact categories starting with 
the least severe are: negligible, minor, moderate, and major. Impacts 
downstream from the lake are not expected to be more severe when the 
environmental processes affecting concentrations of organics (e.g., 
evaporation, dilution, deposition) are considered.
    8. One commenter stated that the analysis represents an outdated 
look at potential emissions from an overstated PWC population of 
conventional 2-stroke engines, and underestimated the accelerating 
changeover to 4-stroke and newer 2-stroke engines. The net effect is 
that the analysis overestimates potential PWC hydrocarbon emissions, 
including benzene and PAHs, to the water in the Lake of the Arbuckles.
    NPS Response: Assumptions regarding PWC use (135 per day in 2002 
and 148 per day in 2012) were based on actual count data from the month 
of July 2002. These data were the only data available for Chickasaw 
(EA, page 76). Because data from other high-use days or other months or 
years were not available, trends in PWC use at Chickasaw could not be 
determined for use in the EA. The July 2002 data can be considered a 
``worst case'' estimate, but it is not ``unrealistic'' since it is 
based on actual Chickasaw data. Despite these conservative estimates, 
impacts to water quality from personal watercraft are judged to be 
negligible to moderate for all alternatives evaluated. Cumulative 
impacts from personal watercraft and other outboard motorboats are 
expected to be negligible to major. If the assumptions used were less 
than conservative, the conclusions could not be considered protective 
of the environment, while still being within the range of expected use.
    The assumption of all personal watercraft using 2-stroke engines in 
2002 is recognized as conservative. It is protective of the environment 
yet follows the emission data available in CARB (1998) and Bluewater 
Network (2001) at the time of preparation of the EA. The emission rate 
of 3 gallons per hour at full throttle is a mid-point between 3 gallons 
in two hours (1.5 gallons per hour; NPS 1999) and 3.8 to 4.5 gallons 
per hour for an average 2000 model year personal watercraft (Personal 
Watercraft and Bluewater Network 2001). The assumption also is 
reasonable in view of the initiation of production line testing in 2000 
(EPA 1997) and expected full implementation of testing by 2006 (EPA 
1996).
    Reductions in emissions used in the water quality impact assessment 
are in accordance with the overall hydrocarbon emission reduction 
projections published by the EPA (1996). EPA (1996) estimates a 52% 
reduction by personal watercraft by 2010 and a 68% reduction by 2015. 
The 50% reduction in emissions by 2012 (the future date used in the EA) 
is a conservative interpolation of the emission reduction percentages 
and associated years (2010 and 2015) reported by the EPA (1996) but 
with a one-year delay in production line testing (EPA 1997).
    The estimate of 2.8 mg/kg for benzo(a)pyrene in gasoline used in 
the calculations is considered conservative, yet realistic, since it is 
within the range of concentrations measured in gasoline according to 
Gustafson et al. (1997).
    9. One of the commenters stated that the analysis overstates the 
potential water quality impacts of resuming PWC use because the newer 
engine technology is not taken into account.
    NPS Response: The assumption of all personal watercraft using 2-
stroke engines in 2002 is recognized as conservative. It is protective 
of the environment yet follows the emission data available in CARB 
(1998) and

[[Page 53634]]

Bluewater Network (2001) at the time of preparation of the EA. The 
emission rate of 3 gallons per hour at full throttle is a mid-point 
between 3 gallons in two hours (1.5 gallons per hour; NPS 1999) and 3.8 
to 4.5 gallons per hour for an average 2000 model year personal 
watercraft (Personal Watercraft and Bluewater Network 2001). The 
assumption also is reasonable in view of the initiation of production 
line testing in 2000 (EPA 1997) and expected full implementation of 
testing by 2006 (EPA 1996).
    Reductions in emissions used in the water quality impact assessment 
are in accordance with the overall hydrocarbon emission reduction 
projections published by the EPA (1996). EPA (1996) estimates a 52% 
reduction by personal watercraft by 2010 and a 68% reduction by 2015. 
The 50% reduction in emissions by 2012 (the future date used in the EA) 
is a conservative interpolation of the emission reduction percentages 
and associated years (2010 and 2015) reported by the EPA (1996) but 
with a one-year delay in production line testing (EPA 1997).
    For benzene, factors other than numbers of PWCs or watercraft would 
affect surface water concentrations. The half-life of benzene in water 
is less than five hours at summer water temperatures near 30 [deg]C 
(Verschuren 1983; USEPA 2001). In other words, half the benzene in 
water would evaporate in five hours, in many cases reducing it to below 
the human health criterion of 1.2 [mu]g/L. Given that threshold volumes 
of benzene and human health impacts were greater than calculated 
threshold volumes for any other compound, this evaporation rate is more 
applicable to the discussion of water quality impacts than evaporation 
of unspecified gasoline and additives described in the comment.
    The NPS used emission reduction estimates from the EPA (1996) that 
are readily available for public review and not confidential sales 
information. Because the Sierra Research analysis is based on ``* * *'' 
confidential sales information * * *,'' the NPS cannot challenge the 
assumptions in the Sierra Research analysis. The NPS did not ``ignore'' 
the manufacturers' confidential sales data.
    Use of the Sierra information, if verified, could have potentially 
reduced the calculated water quality threshold volumes. However, impact 
estimates for personal watercraft are already negligible to minor (EA 
pages 26 and 71-85), using the impact threshold descriptions provided 
on page 68 of the EA. Impacts to water quality from other motorboats 
are potentially more significant than those due to personal watercraft. 
Therefore, cumulative impacts from personal watercraft and other 
motorboats, which are negligible to moderate, would not be reduced 
substantially by the inclusion of the Sierra emission reduction 
projections for personal watercraft.

Comments Regarding Air Quality

    10. One commenter stated that the use of air quality data collected 
at Lake Murray, 20 miles from the NRA, in the analysis does not provide 
the best representation of air quality at the lake.
    NPS Response: The Lake Murray monitoring station is the closest air 
quality monitoring site to the study area. The data from this site were 
discussed in the EA; however, these data were not used in the impact 
analysis. The analysis was based on the results of an EPA air emissions 
model, which used estimated PWC and boat usage at Chickasaw NRA as 
inputs.
    11. One commenter stated that the analysis failed to mention the 
impact of PWC permeation losses on local air quality.
    NPS Response: Permeation losses of volatile organic compounds (VOC) 
from personal watercraft were not included in the calculation of air 
quality impacts primarily because these losses are insignificant 
relative to emissions from operating watercraft. Using the permeation 
loss numbers in the comment (estimated to be half the total of 7 grams 
of losses per 24 hours from the fuel system), the permeation losses per 
hour are orders of magnitude less than emissions from operating 
personal watercraft. Therefore, including permeation losses would have 
no effect on the results of the air quality impact analyses. Also, 
permeation losses were not included because of numerous related unknown 
contributing factors, such as number of personal watercraft refueling 
at the reservoir and the location of refueling (inside or outside of 
the airshed).
    12. One commenter stated that the use of the study by Kado et al. 
to suggest that the changeover from two-stroke carbureted to two-stroke 
direct injection engines may increase emissions of polycyclic aromatic 
hydrocarbons (``PAH'') is in error.
    NPS Response: The criteria for analysis of impacts from PWC to 
human health are based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQSs) for criteria pollutants, as established by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Air Act, and on 
criteria pollutant annual emission levels. This methodology was 
selected to assess air quality impacts for all NPS EAs to promote 
regional and national consistency, and identify areas of potential 
ambient standard exceedances. PAHs are not assessed specifically as 
they are not a criteria pollutant. However, they are indirectly 
included as a subset of Total Hydrocarbons (THC), which are assessed 
because they are the focus of the EPA's emissions standards directed at 
manufacturers of spark ignition marine gasoline engines (see 61 FR 
52088; October 4, 1996). Neither peak exposure levels nor NIOSH nor 
OSHA standards are included as criteria for analyzing air quality 
related impacts except where short-term exposure is included in a 
NAAQS. The methodology for assessing air quality impacts was based on a 
combination of annual emission levels and the NAAQSs, which are aimed 
at protection of the public.
    The ``Kado Study'' (Kado et al. 2000) presented the outboard engine 
air quality portion of a larger study described in Outboard Engine and 
Personal Watercraft Emissions to Air and Water: A Laboratory Study 
(CARB 2001). In the CARB report, results from both outboards and 
personal watercraft (2-stroke and 4-stroke) were reported. The general 
pattern of emissions to air and water shown in CARB (2001) was 2-stroke 
carbureted outboards and personal watercraft having the highest 
emissions, and 4-stroke outboard and personal watercraft having the 
lowest emissions. The only substantive exception to this pattern was in 
NOX emissions to air--2-stroke carbureted outboards and 
personal watercraft had the lowest NOX emissions, while the 
4-stroke outboard had the highest emissions. Therefore, the pattern of 
emissions for outboards is generally applicable to personal watercraft 
and applicable to outboards directly under the cumulative impacts 
evaluations.
    We agree with the technical statement and summation that adverse 
health risk to the public would be unlikely from exposure. The 
methodology for assessing air quality impacts is based on a combination 
of annual emission levels and the NAAQSs, which are aimed at protection 
of the public. OSHA and NIOSH standards are intended primarily for 
workers and others exposed to airborne chemicals for specific time 
periods. The OSHA and NIOSH standards are not as suitable for 
application in the context of local and regional analysis of a park or 
recreational area as are the ambient standards, nor are they intended 
to protect the general public from exposure to pollutants in ambient 
air.

[[Page 53635]]

    13. One commenter expressed concern that PWC emissions were 
declining faster than forecasted by the EPA. As the Sierra Report 
documents, in 2002, HC + NOX emissions from the 
existing fleet of PWC were already 23% lower than they were before the 
EPA regulations became effective, and will achieve reductions greater 
than 80% by 2012.
    NPS Response: The U.S. EPA's data incorporated into the 1996 Spark 
Ignition Marine Engine rule were used as the basis for the assessment 
of air quality, and not the Sierra Research data. It is agreed that 
these data show a greater rate of emissions reductions than the 
assumptions in the 1996 Rule and in the EPA's NONROAD Model, which was 
used to estimate emissions. However, the level of detail included in 
the Sierra Research report has not been carried into the EA for reasons 
of consistency and conformance with the model predictions. Most States 
use the EPA's NONROAD Model for estimating emissions from a broad array 
of mobile sources. To provide consistency with State programs and with 
the methods of analysis used for other similar NPS assessments, the NPS 
has elected not to base its analysis on focused research such as the 
Sierra Report for assessing PWC impacts.
    It is agreed that the relative quantity of HC + NOX are 
a very small proportion of the county based emissions and that this 
proportion will continue to be reduced over time. The EA takes this 
into consideration in the analysis.
    For consistency and conformity in approach, the NPS has elected to 
rely on the assumptions in the 1996 S.I Engine Rule which are 
consistent with the widely used NONROAD emissions estimation Model. The 
outcome is that estimated emissions from combusted fuel may be in the 
conservative range, if compared to actual emissions.
    14. Several commenters stated that research indicated that direct-
injection 2-stroke engines are dirtier than 4-stroke engines.
    NPS Response: It is agreed that two-stroke carbureted and two-
stroke DI engines generally emit greater amounts of pollutants than 
four-stroke engines. Only 4 of the 20 PAHs included in the analyses 
were detected in water: naphthalene, 2-methylnaphthalene, fluorene, and 
acenaphthylene. The discussion of toxicity of PAHs in the comment must 
be from another (unreferenced) document since this discussion was not 
found in CARB (2001). It is agreed that some pollutants (BTEX and 
formaldehyde) were reported by CARB in the test tanks after 24 hours at 
approximately 50% the concentrations seen immediately following the 
test. No results for PAH concentrations after 24 hours were seen in the 
CARB (2001) results, but a discussion of sampling/analyses of PAHs in 
the six environmental compartments was presented.
    EPA NONROAD model factors differ from those for CARB. As a result 
of the EPA rule requiring the manufacturing of cleaner PWC engines, the 
existing carbureted 2-stroke PWC will, over time, be replaced with PWC 
with less-polluting models. This replacement, with the anticipated 
resultant improvement in air quality, is parallel to that experienced 
in urban environments as the automobile fleet becomes cleaner over 
time.
    15. One commenter stated that the analysis failed to consider that 
the PWC companies have been rapidly converting from carbureted two-
stroke engine models to direct injection two-stroke and four-stroke 
engine models and most PWC units will meet the more stringent CARB 
standards over time.
    NPS Response: The California Air Resources Board regulations were 
not discussed for Chickasaw because the park is located in Oklahoma. 
Because CARB regulations are not enforceable in Oklahoma, the schedule 
for reductions in emissions as stipulated by USEPA (1996, 1997) was 
applied in the impact analyses. For example, it is estimated that 
approximately a 50% reduction in hydrocarbon emissions would be seen by 
2012 (Table 17 of the EA). This is an interpolation of the fleet 
emission reduction percentages and associated years (2010 and 2015) by 
the USEPA (1996) but with a one-year delay in production line testing 
(USEPA 1997).

Comments Regarding Soundscapes

    16. One commenter stated that continued PWC use in the Chickasaw 
NRA will not result in sound emissions that exceed the applicable 
Federal or State noise abatement standards and technological 
innovations by the PWC companies will continue to result in substantial 
noise reductions.
    NPS Response: The NPS concurs that on-going and future improvements 
in engine technology and design would likely further reduce the noise 
emitted from PWC. However, given the ambient noise levels in the 
recreation area, it is unlikely that the improved technology could 
reduce all cumulative impacts beyond minor to moderate throughout the 
recreation area.
    17. One commenter stated that the NPS places too much hope in new 
technologies significantly reducing PWC noise since there is little 
possibility that the existing fleet of more than 1.1 million machines 
(most of which are powered by conventional two-stroke engines) will be 
retooled to reduce noise.
    NPS Response: The analysis of the preferred alternative states that 
noise from PWC would continue to have minor to moderate, temporary 
adverse impacts, and that impact levels would be related to the number 
of PWC and sensitivity of other visitors. This recognizes that noise 
will occur and will bother some visitors, but site-specific modeling 
was not needed to make this assessment. The availability of noise 
reduction technologies is also growing, and we are not aware of any 
scientific studies that show these technologies do not reduce engine 
noise levels. Also, the analysis did not rely heavily on any noise 
reduction technology. It recognizes that the noise from the operation 
of PWC will always vary, depending on the speed, manner of use, and 
wave action present.
    Although PWC use does occur throughout the lake, it is concentrated 
more in certain areas, and this is noted in the soundscapes impact 
analysis that follows the introductory statements and assumptions 
listed on page 103 of the EA. The analysis of impacts states that ``PWC 
users generally distribute themselves throughout the lake, although the 
density of personal watercraft can be higher near launch areas and 
shoreline use areas, especially near the Buckhorn developed area.'' The 
analysis did not assume even distribution of PWC and predicted moderate 
impacts from concentrated PWC use in one area.
    The noise annoyance costs in the ``Drowning in Noise'' study are 
recognized in the EA by the moderate impacts predicted, although no 
monetary costs are assigned. These costs would vary by type and 
location of user. Given the intended usage of the higher use marina/
beach areas of Chickasaw and visitor expectations and tolerances at 
these areas, it is unlikely that the PWC noise experienced there would 
meet the definition of ``major'' impact, as defined in the EA.
    18. One commenter stated that the noise associated with PWC is more 
invasive due to the constantly fluctuating noise levels.
    NPS Response: The EA discusses the fluctuating noise aspect of PWC 
operation in the Affected Environment section (page 53 of the EA), 
under ``Visitor Responses to PWC Noise,'' and recognizes that the 
``irregular noise may be more annoying than that of a standard 
motorboat * * *'' The analysis recognizes that different visitors will 
have different tolerance for PWC noise.

[[Page 53636]]

    19. One commenter stated that the new technologies proposed by the 
personal watercraft industry will not reduce noise impacts associated 
with PWC use.
    NPS Response: The analysis did not assume that PWC noise would be 
substantially reduced in the future, although it does recognize that 
newer machines, and those powered by 4-stroke engines, are quieter. The 
analysis does take into account continued noise from PWC and an 
increase in PWC numbers over time.
    20. One commenter stated that there is no evidence that PWC noise 
adversely affects aquatic fauna or animals.
    NPS Response: Typically PWC exhaust below or at the air/water 
transition areas, not above the water. Sound transmitted through the 
water is not expected to have more than negligible adverse impacts on 
fish and the EA does not state the PWC noise adversely affects 
underwater fauna.
    21. One commenter stated that the analysis did not include Drowning 
in Noise: Noise Costs of PWC in America and therefore the noise 
analysis underrepresents the actual impacts.
    NPS Response: One of the initial tasks in the development of the 
Chickasaw EA was a literature search. Drowning in Noise: Noise Costs of 
Jet Skis in America was one of the many studies reviewed. The reference 
to that study (Komanoff and Shaw 2000) was discussed in the ``Summary 
of Available Research on the Effects of Personal Watercraft'' section 
of the EA.

Comments Regarding Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

    22. Two commenters stated that the analysis lacked site-specific 
data for impacts to fish, wildlife, and threatened and endangered 
species at Chickasaw NRA.
    NPS Response: The scope of the EA did not include conducting site-
specific studies regarding potential effects of PWC use on wildlife 
species at Chickasaw National Recreation Area. No admission of an 
absence of a complete inventory of all NRA wildlife can be found on 
page 55 of the EA as claimed in the comments. Analysis of potential 
impacts of PWC use on wildlife at the national recreation area was 
based on best available data, input from park staff, and the results of 
analysis using that data. A listing of mammals, amphibians, and 
reptiles known to occur in Chickasaw NRA is provided in Table 9, and a 
list of protected species is provided in Table 10 of the EA.
    23. One commenter stated that PWC use and human activities 
associated with their use may not be any more disturbing to wildlife 
species than any other type of motorized or non-motorized watercraft. 
The commenter cites research by Dr. James Rodgers, of the Florida Fish 
and Wildlife Conservation Commission, whose studies have shown that PWC 
are no more likely to disturb wildlife than any other form of human 
interaction. PWC posed less of a disturbance than other vessel types. 
Dr. Rodgers' research clearly shows that there is no reason to 
differentiate PWC from motorized boating based on claims on wildlife 
disturbance.
    NPS Response: Based on the documents provided as part of this 
comment, it appears that personal watercraft are no more apt to disturb 
wildlife than are small outboard motorboats. In addition to this 
conclusion, Dr. Rodgers recommends that buffer zones be established, 
creating minimum distances between boats (personal watercraft and 
outboard motorboats) and nesting and foraging waterbirds. In Chickasaw 
National Recreation Area, a 150-ft wide no-wake zone along portions of 
the shoreline is already established where the use of watercraft is 
restricted. With this restriction in mind, impacts to wildlife and 
wildlife habitat under all four alternatives were judged to be 
negligible to minor at most locations along the shoreline.
    24. One commenter states that the analysis shows that a ban on PWC 
could result in ``some animals reinhabiting'' areas of previously high 
PWC operation, therefore a ban would be a better alternative.
    NPS Response: This apparent inconsistency between discussions of 
impacts under alternative A and the no-action alternative will be 
corrected in the EA. The ban on PWC would allow use of some areas 
currently avoided by animals, but this avoidance does not constitute a 
change in population or community structure, but rather a temporary and 
periodic limitation on use of all available habitat.
    25. One commenter states that the analysis indicates no impacts to 
aquatic organisms such as plankton and zooplankton. However, research 
at Lake Tahoe clearly shows that two-stroke motors release pollutants 
that are toxic to microscopic organisms at minute levels. Moreover, the 
NPS leaves the impression that PWC operation that pushes wildlife out 
of preferred habitat is acceptable.
    NPS Response: Results of toxicity studies at Lake Tahoe are not 
directly applicable to Chickasaw. Many confounding factors, including 
water transparencies, suspended solids, UV light levels, and a 
different mix of engine types (2- and 4-stroke) affect the 
phototoxicity of PAHs in water. Also, the process of photodegradation 
of PAHs in addition to phototoxicity is occurring in water as described 
by Fasnacht and Blough (2002). Given that the greatest calculated 
threshold volume for a PAH (1-methyl naphthalene) released by PWCs is 
less than 1% of the available volume, it is highly unlikely that there 
is any measurable impact on aquatic life in the lake.
    Regarding flushing of birds along shorelines, full discussions of 
potential impacts to birds are provided in the Environmental 
Consequences section of the EA. For all alternatives, the impacts to 
birds from PWCs are described as minor since most PWC use is not in the 
spring breeding season, and shoreline use of PWCs is around developed 
facilities where desirable wildlife habitat characteristics are 
lacking.
    26. One commenter stated that wildlife biologists are finding that 
PWC cause lasting impacts to fish and wildlife.
    NPS Response: A large portion of this comment is about potential 
impacts to marine mammals, in particular, bottlenose dolphins. Marine 
mammals are not found in Lake of the Arbuckles. The preferred 
alternative (alternative B) calls for monitoring for the presence of 
threatened or endangered species, and seasonally or permanently closing 
areas as needed to protect these species.
    It is agreed that most of the PWCs currently in use have 2-stroke 
engines. However, in response to USEPA (1996, 1997) regulations, all 
new PWCs must have lower emissions of pollutants, and these lower 
emission requirements will be met through the use of direct injection 
2-stroke engines or 4-stroke engines. By 2006, USEPA requirements will 
reduce PWC noise, in association with improvements to engine technology 
(USEPA 1996). Also, in response to public complaints, the PWC industry 
reportedly is using new technologies to reduce sound by 50 to 70% in 
1999 and newer models (Sea-Doo 2000; Hayes 2002). Over the long term, 
the increased use of new PWC models will help reduce noise levels and 
organic pollutant emission levels which will minimize effects on fish 
and wildlife.

Comments Regarding Shoreline/Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

    27. One commenter stated that there has been no documentation of 
any adverse effects to shoreline vegetation from PWC use.
    NPS Response: We agree that PWC use as recommended by the

[[Page 53637]]

manufacturer should not adversely affect submerged aquatic vegetation. 
At Chickasaw NRA, the primary concern is shoreline vegetation, and the 
analysis recognizes that PWC use would result in only negligible to 
minor adverse impacts to this vegetation, mostly from PWC operators 
leaving their vessels and trampling vegetation.

Comments Associated With Visitor Use, Experience, and Safety

    28. One commenter stated that the reported accident numbers 
involving PWC are higher because they get reported more often than 
other boating accidents.
    NPS Response: Incidents involving watercraft of all types, 
including personal watercraft, are reported to and logged by National 
Park Service staff. A very small proportion of incidents in the 
recreation area are estimated to go unreported. In the ``Visitor 
Conflicts and Visitor Safety'' section of the ``Affected Environment'' 
chapter, it is reported by the National Transportation Safety Board 
that in 1996 personal watercraft represented 7.5% of State-registered 
recreational boats but accounted for 36% of recreational boating 
accidents. In the same year, PWC operators accounted for more than 41% 
of people injured in boating accidents. PWC operators accounted for 
approximately 85% of the persons injured in accidents studied in 1997. 
In other words, personal watercraft are 5 times more likely to have a 
reportable accident than are other boats. Despite these national 
boating accident statistics, impacts of PWC use and visitor conflicts 
are judged to be negligible relative to swimmers and minor relative to 
other motorboats at the national recreation area.
    29. One commenter stated that the analysis did not adequately 
address PWC fire hazards.
    NPS Response: According to the National Marine Manufacturers 
Association, PWC manufacturers have sold roughly 1.2 million watercraft 
during the last ten years. Out of 1.2 million PWC sold the U.S. Coast 
Guard had only 90 reports of fires/explosions in the years from 1995-
1999. This is a minute fraction of PWC having reports of problems 
associated with fires/explosions. As far as the recall campaigns 
conducted by Kawasaki and Bombardier, the problems that were associated 
with fuel tanks were fixed. Kawasaki conducted a recall for potentially 
defective fuel filler necks and fuel tank outlet gaskets on 23,579 
models from the years 1989 and 1990. The fuel tank problems were 
eliminated in Kawasaki's newer models, and the 1989 and 1990 models are 
most likely not in use anymore since life expectancy of a PWC is only 
five to seven years according to PWIA. Bombardier also did a recall for 
its 1993, 1994, and 1995 models to reassess possible fuel tank design 
flaws. However, the number of fuel tanks that had to be recalled was a 
very small percent of the 1993, 1994, and 1995 fleets because fuel tank 
sales only amounted to 2.16% of the total fleet during this period 
(Bombardier Inc.). The replacement fuel tanks differed from those 
installed in the watercrafts subject to the recall in that the 
replacement tanks had revised filler neck radiuses, and the 
installation procedure now also requires revised torque specifications 
and the fuel system must successfully complete a pressure leak test. 
Bombardier found that the major factor contributing to PWC fires/
explosions was over-torquing of the gear clamp. Bombardier was legally 
required by the U.S. Coast Guard to fix 9.72% of the recalled models. 
Out of 125,349 recalls, the company repaired 48,370 units, which was 
approximately 38% of the total recall, far exceeding their legal 
obligation to repair units with potential problems.
    Further fuel tank and engine problems that could be associated with 
PWC fires has been reduced significantly since the National Marine 
Manufacturers Association set requirements for meeting manufacturing 
regulations established by the U.S. Coast Guard. Many companies even 
choose to participate in the more stringent Certification Program 
administered by the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA). 
The NMMA verifies annually, or whenever a new product is put on the 
market, boat model lines to determine that they satisfy not only the 
U.S. Coast Guard Regulations but also the more rigorous standards based 
on those established by the American Boat and Yacht Council.
    30. Several commenters stated that the analysis does not adequately 
assess the safety threat posed to park visitors by PWC use.
    NPS Response: The concern about PWC operation and safety is 
discussed in the EA. Some of the provisions of the preferred 
alternative, such as extended no wake zones, and the formation of a PWC 
user group and PWC user education program, were included to provide a 
higher level of safe PWC operations and to lessen potential conflicts 
with other park users. The NPS agrees that some PWC users operate their 
vessels in an unsafe manner, and has provided for additional locational 
restrictions and safety--focused education in its preferred alternative 
(see response above). In addition, enforcement will be increased to 
enforce new restrictions and promote education about safe operation. 
Finally, the NPS' analysis recognizes the danger of PWC operation. 
However, not all PWC operation results in loss of a ``safe and 
healthful'' environment, and NPS cannot regulate activities based on 
the type of injuries likely to be sustained if the public wishes to 
participate in an activity that is supported by the park's enabling 
legislation. However, NPS is providing safe operating instruction, use 
restrictions, and enforcement to minimize the possibility of any 
serious injuries.
    31. One commenter, Personal Watercraft Industry Association, stated 
that there is no basis to impose no-wake restrictions on PWC only, as 
proposed in Alternative B, and doing so would endanger all boaters.
    NPS Response: The proposed no-wake zones under Alternative B would 
apply to all motorized vessels. The description of Alternative B on 
page 23 of the EA does not indicate that the no wake zone applies only 
to PWC.

Comments Related to Socioeconomics

    32. One commenter stated that the analysis did not adequately 
assess socioeconomic impacts on the regional economy.
    NPS Response: The number of recreational visits at Chickasaw 
National Recreation Area in calendar year 2002, through November, was 
1,609,152. In 2003 through November, the recreational visits were 
1,510,270; a reduction of 6.15%. This percentage is similar to the 
reduction in visitation at Glen Canyon and the eight un-named parks in 
the above comment. There were no PWCs allowed at Chickasaw during that 
time. The number of boats on the Lake of the Arbuckles in 2002 through 
November were 64,500 boats, plus 3,236 PWCs, for a total of 67,736. The 
total boats through November 2003 were 55,826 (no PWCs). The decrease 
of boats overall was 17.6 percent. However, the percentage of boats 
that were PWCs in 2002 was only 4.7 percent. The reduction in usage 
correlates with the nationwide decrease in visitation regardless of the 
PWC ban. Several factors including high fuel prices, a general sluggish 
economy, and the fear of terrorism could also be factors for the 
decline.
    The socioeconomic study did not address the future potential costs 
of environmental damage. The study looked at the potential effect that 
the ban would have on the local economy, and the potential effects on 
socio-economically disadvantaged groups.

[[Page 53638]]

The comment is correct in stating that the same level of analysis was 
not given to the future environmental costs.
    33. One commenter stated that by banning PWC use at the park, there 
would be an increase in other visitors which would offset the economic 
losses from PWC users.
    NPS Response: The evaluation concentrated on the effects of PWC 
management on the local economy. There is no data available indicating 
that the presence of PWC has decreased the recreation area visitation 
by other visitors. Thus, a conclusion cannot be made that banning PWC 
would increase use by other groups. According to the visitor survey 
(summer 2000), most visitors identified issues associated with PWC 
operation within the recreation area as ``no problem or slight 
problem.''

Changes to the Final Rule

    Based on the preceding comments and responses, the NPS has made no 
changes to the proposed rule language with regard to PWC operations.

Summary of Economic Impacts

    Alternative A would reinstate Personal Water Craft (PWC) use at 
Chickasaw National Recreation Area as previously managed prior to 
November 2002, and as described in the 2000 Superintendent's 
Compendium. That Compendium permitted the use of PWCs in Lake of the 
Arbuckles under existing boating regulations, closed lakes 100 acres or 
less to PWCs, and imposed no-wake speed restrictions in certain areas. 
Alternative B would reinstate PWC use as previously managed, but with 
additional management restrictions. Alternative C would reinstate PWC 
use as previously managed, but limit use areas. Alternative D is the 
no-action alternative and represents the baseline conditions for this 
economic analysis. PWCs would be banned under Alternative D. All 
benefits and costs associated with Alternatives A, B, and C are 
measured relative to that baseline.
    The primary beneficiaries of Alternatives A, B, and C would be the 
park visitors who use PWCs and the businesses that provide services to 
PWC users such as rental shops, restaurants, gas stations, and hotels. 
Additional beneficiaries include individuals who use PWCs in substitute 
areas outside the park where PWC users displaced from Chickasaw 
National Recreation Area ride due to the ban. Over a ten-year horizon 
from 2005 to 2014, the present value of benefits to PWC users is 
expected to range between $5,596,540 and $8,522,620, depending on the 
alternative analyzed and the discount rate used. The present value of 
benefits to businesses over the same timeframe is expected to range 
between $28,850 and $379,750. These benefit estimates are presented in 
Table 1. The amortized values per year of these benefits over the ten-
year timeframe are presented in Table 2.

    Table 1.--Present Value of Benefits for PWC Use in Chickasaw National Recreation Area, 2005-2014 (2001 $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    PWC users         Businesses               Total \a\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative A:
    Discounted at 3% \b\.......................      $8,522,620  $49,780 - $379,750    $8,572,400 - $8,902,370
    Discounted at 7% \b\.......................       6,995,650  40,850 - 311,710      7,036,500 - 7,307,360
Alternative B:
    Discounted at 3% \b\.......................       7,670,370  42,500 - 317,680      7,712,870 - 7,988,050
    Discounted at 7% \b\.......................       6,296,090  34,890 - 260,760      6,330,980 - 6,556,850
Alternative C:
    Discounted at 3% \b\.......................       6,818,120  35,150 - 255,530      6,853,270 - 7,073,650
    Discounted at 7% \b\.......................       5,596,540  28,850 - 209,750      5,625,390 - 5,806,290
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits may not sum to the indicated -aves\rules.xmltals due to independent rounding.
\b\ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 recommends a 7% discount rate in general, and a 3% discount
  rate when analyzing impacts to private consumption.


  Table 2.--Amortized Total Benefits per Year for PWC Use in Chickasaw
              National Recreation Area, 2005-2014 (2001 $)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Amortized total benefits per year \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative A:
    Discounted at 3% \b\.......  $1,004,947 to $1,043,629
    Discounted at 7% \b\.......  1,001,839 to $1,040,404
Alternative B:
    Discounted at 3% \b\.......  904,184 to $936,443
    Discounted at 7% \b\.......  901,389 to $933,548
Alternative C:
    Discounted at 3% \b\.......  803,412 to $829,248
    Discounted at 7% \b\.......  800,929 to $826,685
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This is the present value of total benefits reported in Table 1
  amortized over the ten-year analysis timeframe at the indicated
  discount rate.
\b\ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 recommends a 7%
  discount rate in general, and a 3% discount rate when analyzing
  impacts to private consumption.

    The primary group that would incur costs under Alternatives A, B, 
and C would be the park visitors who do not use PWCs and whose park 
experiences would be negatively affected by PWC use within the park. At 
Chickasaw National Recreation Area, non-PWC uses include boating, 
canoeing, fishing, and hiking. Additionally, the public could incur 
costs associated with impacts to aesthetics, ecosystem protection, 
human health and safety, congestion, nonuse values, and enforcement. 
However, these costs

[[Page 53639]]

could not be quantified because of a lack of available data.
    Because the costs of Alternatives A, B and C could not be 
quantified, the net benefits associated with those alternatives 
(benefits minus costs) also could not be quantified. However, from an 
economic perspective, the selection of Alternative B as the preferred 
alternative was considered reasonable even though the quantified 
benefits are smaller than under Alternative A because certain costs 
could not be quantified. Those costs, relating to non-PWC use, 
aesthetics, ecosystem protection, human health and safety, congestion, 
or nonuse values, would likely be greater for Alternative A than for 
Alternative B due to increasingly stringent restrictions on PWC use. 
Quantification of these costs could reasonably result in Alternative B 
having the greatest level of net benefits.

Compliance With Other Laws

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    This document is not a significant rule and has not been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
    (1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on 
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities.
    The National Park Service has completed the report ``'Economic 
Analysis of Management Alternatives for Personal Watercraft in 
Chickasaw National Recreation Area'' (MACTEC Engineering) dated June 
2003. The report found that this rule will not have a negative economic 
impact. In fact this rule, which will not impact local PWC dealerships 
and rental shops, may have an overall positive impact on the local 
economy. This positive impact on the local economy is a result of an 
increase of other users, most notably canoeists, swimmers, anglers and 
traditional boaters seeking solitude and quiet, and improved water 
quality.
    (2) This rule will not create a serious inconsistency or otherwise 
interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency.
    Actions taken under this rule will not interfere with other 
agencies or local government plans, policies, or controls. This is an 
agency specific rule.
    (3) This rule does not alter the budgetary effects of entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of 
their recipients. This rule will have no effects on entitlements, 
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights or obligations of 
their recipients. No grants or other forms of monetary supplements are 
involved.
    (4) This rule does not raise novel policy issues. This regulation 
is one of the special regulations being issued for managing PWC use in 
National Park Units. The National Park Service published the general 
regulations (36 CFR 3.24) in March 2000, requiring individual park 
areas to adopt special regulations to authorize PWC use. The 
implementation of the requirements of the general regulation continues 
to generate interest and discussion from the public concerning the 
overall effect of authorizing PWC use and National Park Service policy 
and park management but no significant changes to use are implemented 
in this rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this document will 
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
This certification is based upon the finding in a report prepared by 
the National Park Service entitled, ``Economic Analysis of Management 
Alternatives for Personal Watercraft in Chickasaw National Recreation 
Area'' (MACTEC Engineering) dated June 2003. The focus of this study 
was to document the impact of this rule on two types of small entities, 
PWC dealerships and PWC rental outlets. This report found that the 
potential loss for these types of businesses as a result of this rule 
would be minimal to none.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA)

    This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.
    The National Park Service has completed an economic analysis to 
make this determination. This rule:
    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions.
    c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or 
tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per 
year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, 
local or tribal governments or the private sector.
    This rule is an agency specific rule and imposes no other 
requirements on other agencies, governments, or the private sector.

Takings (Executive Order 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant taking implications. A taking implication assessment is not 
required. No takings of personal property will occur as a result of 
this rule.

Federalism (Executive Order 13132)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
Federalism Assessment.
    This rule only affects use of NPS administered lands and waters. It 
has no outside effects on other areas and only allows use within a 
small portion of the park.

Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that this rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This regulation does not require an information collection from 10 
or more parties and a submission under the Paperwork Reduction Act is 
not required. An OMB Form 83-I is not required.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Park Service has analyzed this rule in accordance with 
the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and has prepared 
an Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA was open for public review and 
comment from March 10, 2003, through April 8, 2003. The EA has been 
posted on the NPS Web site (http://www.nps.gov/chic/CHICPWCEA.pdf). A 
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was signed on June 28, 2004.
    Copies of these documents may be requested by calling Susie Staples 
at 580-622-3161, extension 1-220, or by writing the Superintendent, 
Chickasaw National Recreation Area, 1008 W. 2nd Street, Sulphur, OK 
73086.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,

[[Page 53640]]

``Government to Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated potential 
effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that 
there are no potential effects. The following tribes were contacted; 
Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Caddo Tribal Council, The Chickasaw Nation, 
The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Comanche Tribal Business Committee, The 
Pawnee Business Council, The Wichita Executive Committee. None of the 
tribes had any comments on the proposed action.

Administrative Procedure Act

    This final rule is effective upon publication in the Federal 
Register. In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 
specifically, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), this rule, 36 CFR 7.57(h), is exempt 
from the requirement of publication of a substantive rule not less than 
30 days before its effective date.
    As discussed in this preamble, the final rule is a part 7 special 
regulation for Chickasaw National Recreation Area that relieves the 
restrictions imposed by the general regulation, 36 CFR 3.24. The 
general regulation, 36 CFR 3.24, prohibits the use of PWC in units of 
the national park system unless an individual park area has designated 
the use of PWC by adopting a part 7 special regulation. The proposed 
rule was published in the Federal Register (69 FR 15277) on March 25, 
2004, with a 60-day period for notice and comment consistent with the 
requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The Administrative Procedure Act, 
pursuant to the exception in paragraph (d)(1), waives the section 
553(d) 30-day waiting period when the published rule ``grants or 
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction.'' In this rule the 
NPS is authorizing the use of PWCs, which is otherwise prohibited by 36 
CFR 3.24. As a result, the 30-day waiting period before the effective 
date does not apply to the Chickasaw National Recreation Area final 
rule.
    The Attorney General's Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 
explained that the ``reason for this exception would appear to be that 
the persons affected by such rules are benefited by them and therefore 
need no time to conform their conduct so as to avoid the legal 
consequences of violation. The fact that an interested person may 
object to such issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule does not change 
the character of the rule as being one `granting or recognizing 
exemption or relieving restriction,' thereby exempting it from the 
thirty-day requirement.'' This rule is within the scope of the 
exception as described by the Attorney General's Manual and the 30-day 
waiting period should be waived. See also, Independent U.S. Tanker 
Owners Committee v. Skinner, 884 F.2d 587 (DC Cir. 1989). In this case, 
the court found that paragraph (d)(1) is a statutory exception that 
applies automatically for substantive rules that relieves a restriction 
and does not require any justification to be made by the agency. ``In 
sum, the good cause exception must be invoked and justified; the 
paragraph (d)(1) exception applies automatically'' (884 F.2d at 591). 
The facts are that the NPS is promulgating this special regulation for 
the purpose of relieving the restriction, prohibition of PWC use, 
imposed by 36 CFR 3.24 and therefore, the paragraph (d)(1) exception 
applies to this rule.
    In accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, this rule is 
also excepted from the 30-day waiting period by the ``good cause'' 
exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) and is effective upon publication in 
the Federal Register. As discussed above, the purpose of this rule is 
to comply with the 36 CFR 3.24 requirement for authorizing PWC use in 
park areas by promulgating a special regulation. ``The legislative 
history of the APA reveals that the purpose for deferring the 
effectiveness of a rule under section 553(d) was `to afford persons 
affected a reasonable time to prepare for the effective date of a rule 
or rules or to take other action which the issuance may prompt.' S. 
Rep. No. 752, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 15 (1946); H.R. Rep. No. 1980, 79th 
Cong., 2d Sess. 25 (1946).'' United States v. Gavrilovic, 551 F.2d 
1099, 1104 (8th Cir. 1977). The persons affected by this rule are PWC 
users and delaying the implementation of this rule for 30 days will not 
benefit them; but instead will be counterproductive by denying them, 
for an additional 30 days, the benefits of the rule.

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7

    District of Columbia, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the National Park Service 
amends 36 CFR part 7 as follows:

PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

0
1. The authority citation for part 7 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q), 462(k); Sec. 7.96 also 
issued under D.C. Code 8-137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).


0
2. Add new paragraph (b) to Sec.  7.50 to read as follows:


Sec.  7.50  Chickasaw Recreation Area.

* * * * *
    (b) Personal watercraft (PWC). (1) PWC may operate on Lake of the 
Arbuckles except in the following closed areas:
    (i) The Goddard Youth Camp Cove.
    (ii) A 150 foot wide zone around the picnic area at the end of 
Highway 110 known as ``The Point'', beginning at the buoy line on the 
north side of the picnic area and extending south and east into the 
cove to the east of the picnic area.
    (iii) The cove located directly north of the north branch of F Loop 
Road.
    (iv) A 150 foot wide zone around the Buckhorn Campground D Loop 
shoreline.
    (2) PWC may not be operated at greater than flat wake speed in the 
following locations:
    (i) The Guy Sandy arm north of the east/west buoy line located near 
Masters Pond.
    (ii) The Guy Sandy Cove west of the buoy marking the entrance to 
the cove.
    (iii) Rock Creek north of the east/west buoy line at approximately 
034[deg]27[min]50[sec] North Latitude.
    (iv) The Buckhorn Ramp bay, east of the north south line drawn from 
the Buckhorn Boat Ramp Breakwater Dam.
    (v) A 150 foot wide zone along the north shore of the Buckhorn 
Creek arm starting at the north end of the Buckhorn Boat Ramp 
Breakwater Dam and continuing southeast to the Buckhorn Campground D 
Loop beach.
    (vi) The cove south and east of Buckhorn Campground C and D Loops.
    (vii) The cove located east of Buckhorn Campground B Loop and 
adjacent to Buckhorn Campground A Loop.
    (viii) The second cove east of Buckhorn Campground B Loop, fed by a 
creek identified as Dry Branch.
    (ix) Buckhorn Creek east of the east/west buoy line located at 
approximately 096[deg]59[min]3.50[sec] Longitude, known as the G Road 
Cliffs area.
    (x) Within 150 feet of all persons, docks, boat launch ramps, 
vessels at anchor, vessels from which people are fishing, and shoreline 
areas near campgrounds.
    (3) PWC may only be launched from the following boat ramps:
    (i) Buckhorn boat ramp.
    (ii) The Point boat ramp.
    (iii) Guy Sandy boat ramp.
    (iv) Upper Guy Sandy boat ramp.
    (4) The fueling of PWC is prohibited on the water surface. Fueling 
is allowed only while the PWC is away from the water surface and on a 
trailer.

[[Page 53641]]

    (5) The Superintendent may temporarily limit, restrict or terminate 
access to the areas designated for PWC use after taking into 
consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource 
protection, and other management activities and objectives.

    Dated: August 24, 2004.
Paul Hoffman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-20025 Filed 9-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-2H-P