[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 207 (Thursday, October 27, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 61893-61905]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21426]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024--AC93
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Personal Watercraft Use
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule designates areas where personal watercraft
(PWC) may be used in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Michigan. This
final rule implements the provisions of the National Park Service (NPS)
general regulations authorizing parks 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.
DATES: This rule is effective October 27, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Mail inquiries to Superintendent, Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore, N8391 Sand Point Road, P.O. Box 40, Munising, Michigan
49862-0040. E-mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Case, Regulations Program
Manager, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 7241,
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 personal watercraft (PWC) use within
all units of the national park system (65 FR 15077). This regulation
prohibits PWC use in all national park 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
[[Page 61894]]
management objectives. The regulation prohibits PWC use in all park
units effective April 20, 2000, except a limited exception was provided
for 21 parks, lakeshores, seashores, and recreation areas. The
regulation established a 2-year grace period following the final rule
publication to give these 21 park units time to consider whether PWC
use should be allowed. Accordingly, on April 22, 2002, Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore closed for PWC use.
Description of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is situated in the north-central
section of Michigan's Upper Peninsula, along the southern shore of Lake
Superior. The eastern half of the Upper Peninsula is bounded by Lakes
Superior, Michigan, and Huron. There are a variety of other national
parks in the upper Great Lakes, including Apostle Islands National
Lakeshore and Isle Royale National Park on Lake Superior, and Sleeping
Bear Dunes and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshores on Lake Michigan.
Canadian provincial parks are also located on Lake Superior.
The national lakeshore stretches from Munising to Grand Marais,
approximately 40 miles to the northeast. The shoreline consists of
narrow sandy beaches, sandstone cliffs, and a perched sand dune system.
The sandy shoreline is susceptible to erosion from natural weather
conditions.
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore was authorized in 1966. The
lakeshore is noted for its multicolored sandstone cliffs, beaches, sand
dunes, waterfalls, inland lakes, wildlife, and forested shoreline.
Attractions include a lighthouse and former Coast Guard lifesaving
stations, along with old farmsteads and orchards. The lakeshore is a
year-round recreational destination where hiking, camping, hunting,
nature study, and winter activities abound.
Purpose of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
As formulated during the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore general
management planning process, the purpose of the national lakeshore
includes the following:
Preserve a portion of the Great Lakes shoreline for its
geographic, scientific, scenic, and historic features, and its
associated ecological processes.
Provide opportunities for public benefit in recreation,
education, enjoyment, and inspiration.
Protect the character and use of the shoreline zone while
allowing economic utilization of the inland buffer zone's renewable
resources.
Significance of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
As stated in the national lakeshore's Draft General Management
Plan/Wilderness Study/Environmental Impact Statement, Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore is significant because:
1. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore preserves and affords public
access to a spectacular and diverse segment of the Lake Superior
shoreline.
2. Unmatched in their scenic value, the 200-foot high Pictured
Rocks cliffs rise perpendicularly from Lake Superior, creating a rock
mosaic of form, color, and texture, which is enhanced by cascading
waterfalls. Grand Sable Dunes, perched atop 300-foot-high sand banks
above Lake Superior, is one of two perched dune systems on the Great
Lakes; within these dunes live unique plant communities resulting from
geomorphic processes.
3. Twelve miles of unspoiled and undeveloped Lake Superior beach
contrast with the Pictured Rocks cliffs and Grand Sable Dunes.
4. Bedrock geology and glacial landforms provide significant
topographic relief marked by streams, inland lakes, and a diversity of
associated vegetation.
5. The shoreline offers extraordinary and inspirational scenic
vistas of Lake Superior, which has the largest surface area of any
fresh water lake on earth.
6. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore offers a variety of affordable
year-round recreational opportunities for appropriate public use.
7. Within a distinct area, the lakeshore contains a spectrum of
cultural resources focused on the human use of Lake Superior and its
shoreline.
8. Lying in a transition zone between boreal and eastern hardwood
forest, the lakeshore's scientifically recognized assemblage of flora
and fauna is representative of associations unique to the Lake Superior
Basin.
9. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore is the only national park
system area with a legislated buffer zone.
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 Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
PWC use in Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore began around 1990.
Before the ban, use was only allowed on Lake Superior, and it was
relatively low. Restrictions on inland lakes precluded PWC use on those
lakes. Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore has jurisdiction on the
surface water of Lake Superior extending 0.25 mile from the shoreline.
This final rule would only apply to the waters under the lakeshore's
jurisdiction. In addition, Michigan's Personal Watercraft Safety Act of
1998 (Public Act 116) stipulates regulations for PWC use. One of the
regulations is that personal watercraft cannot operate within 200 feet
of the shoreline unless traveling perpendicular to shoreline at no-wake
speed.
Before the ban, PWC operation on Lake Superior was concentrated
between Sand Point and Chapel Beach, along the Lake Superior shoreline.
The eastern side of the park had little PWC use. Rivers and streams
within Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore are not accessible to personal
watercraft due to extremely small size, shallow depths, and rocky
bottoms. On inland lakes within the Lakeshore boundaries, the size of
powerboat engines is restricted to two- and four-stroke internal
[[Page 61895]]
combustion engines of 50 hp or less, essentially eliminating PWC use.
Before the ban was imposed, most PWC users at the park were from
within 100 miles of the lakeshore. Based on staff observations, some
users came from other parts of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, and
perhaps Ohio and Illinois. There are many other areas for water-based
recreation in this portion of the Upper Peninsula, including State
parks, national forests, and other lakes with public access. Such areas
include other portions of Lake Superior (excluding the shore of Grand
Island), many lakes within the Escanaba River and Lake Superior State
Forests, several lakes within the Hiawatha National Forest, Manistique
Lake, South Manistique Lake, and Lake Michigan.
To document actual PWC use and to provide peak usage information,
staff conducted a survey at the Sand Point launch July 4-8, 2001.
During the five-day survey, small craft warnings prohibited personal
watercraft on two days. PWC use for the remaining three days ranged
from 8 to 13 personal watercraft each day. Thus, the peak number of
personal watercraft that were operating before the ban in the lakeshore
was 13 per day--6.6 from the Sand Point launch and 6.6 from the
Munising boat ramp.
Before the ban, because personal watercraft were also launched from
the Munising boat ramp on the west end of the lakeshore, the city was
contacted to determine launch numbers. However, specific data were not
available. Based on discussions with lakeshore staff, the number of
personal watercraft launched from Munising was assumed to be the same
as the number launched from Sand Point. Based on the analysis of the
survey and assumptions, 6.6 personal watercraft would be launched from
the Munising boat ramp each day during July and August weekends. All of
these personal watercraft would likely travel within the lakeshore's
jurisdiction.
Grand Marais, on the east end of the lakeshore, also has boat
launch facilities. According to city staff, very few personal
watercraft are launched--perhaps 12 all summer, for an average of 1
personal watercraft every seven days. This analysis assumes that on
average no personal watercraft would be launched from Grand Marais
during July and August.
The low PWC numbers are primarily a result of the cold water
temperature, cool ambient air temperature, changeable weather
conditions, and heavy winds and wave action. The average PWC trip
within Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore lasted between three and five
hours, from mid morning to mid or late afternoon. State regulations
restrict operations to the hours of 8 a.m. to one hour before sunset.
Most PWC users cruised and sometimes raced along the shoreline,
explored the rock cliffs up close, jumped the wakes of tour boats
(which make 4-5 foot swells), and traveled to beach destinations and
spent the day or afternoon on the beach. Fewer PWC users assembled in
pontoons and did short trips or went to beach areas. A very small
number may have done day trips between Munising and Grand Marais (40+
miles). Only a few users asked about PWC camping opportunities.
Before the ban, PWC users were distributed throughout the
lakeshore. According to NPS staff, most personal watercraft were
operated on the west end of the lakeshore. This is consistent with the
launch locations and predicted launch numbers. Few PWC operators
traveled the entire length of the lakeshore due to the long distance,
rough waters, and potential for changing weather.
Generally, there is very little information specific to visitor
concerns about PWC use. Visitor surveys were conducted for the winter
of 1999-2000 and for the summer of 2000 (with questions specific to PWC
use in the national lakeshore). A majority of the respondents to the
survey supported or strongly supported restricting PWC use to
designated areas. No PWC accidents have been observed or reported to
NPS staff. Five incident reports have been documented, one for
operating too close to other motorcraft, two for operating too close to
swimmers, and two for operating illegally on inland lakes. There are no
observations or reports related to natural resource concerns.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Environmental Assessment
On November 15, 2004, the National Park Service published a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the operation of PWC at Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore (69 FR 65556). The proposed rule for PWC use
was based on alternative B (one of three alternatives considered) in
the Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by NPS for Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore. The environmental assessment was available for
public review and comment for the period August 1 through November 15,
2002. An errata sheet was prepared to address the changes to
alternative B, the preferred alternative. To request a copy of the
document and the errata sheet contact Superintendent, Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore, N8391 Sand Point Road, P.O. Box 40, Munising, MI
49862-0040. A copy of the Environmental Assessment and the errata sheet
may also be found at http://www.nps.gov/piro/pwc/pwc.htm.
The purpose of the environmental assessment was to evaluate a range
of alternatives and strategies for the management of PWC use at
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore to ensure the protection of park
resources and values while offering recreational opportunities as
provided for in the National Lakeshore's enabling legislation, purpose,
mission, and goals. The assessment assumed alternatives would be
implemented beginning in 2002 and considered a 10-year period, from
2002 to 2012.
The environmental assessment evaluated three alternatives
addressing the use of personal watercraft at Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore. The errata sheet modified one of the alternatives,
Alternative B. Each alternative is described below:
Alternative A--Under alternative A, PWC use would continue as was
provided and managed within Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore before
the ban. PWC use would be unrestricted on Lake Superior from the
lakeshore's 0.25-mile jurisdictional boundary to the lakeshore's
shoreline. Launch and retrieval of personal watercraft would be
permitted only at the Sand Point boat ramp on Lake Superior. PWC users
would be able to land anywhere along the shoreline. PWC users would
continue to abide by Michigan's Personal Watercraft Safety Act of 1998
(Public Act 116) and related regulations.
Alternative B--Alternative B was modified by the errata dated
October 2003. Under the modified alternative B, PWC use would be
allowed to operate on the waters of Lake Superior within the boundaries
of Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore from the western boundary of the
lakeshore up to the east end of Miners Beach.
PWC use would be allowed under the following conditions: Personal
watercraft may only be launched from a designated launch site at Sand
Point, PWC users may beach their craft only at Sand Point Beach and
Miners Beach, and PWC users may not launch or operate in any other area
of the lakeshore. The superintendent of the park may temporarily limit,
restrict, or terminate access to areas designated for PWC use after
taking into consideration public health and safety, natural and
cultural resource protection, and other management activities and
objectives. PWC use would be restricted at specific locations during
the permitted use of ethnographic resources. Boat patrols would be
conducted in the vicinity of
[[Page 61896]]
the ethnographic resource use in order to reduce the potential for PWC-
related intrusion into the ceremonial activity. PWC users would
continue to abide by Michigan's Personal Watercraft Safety Act of 1998
(Public Act 116) and related regulations, as identified in alternative
A. This alternative would allow PWC use along the Lake Superior
shoreline within the western end of the park, covering approximately 8
miles of shoreline. The numbers of personal watercraft would not be
restricted.
No-Action Alternative--Under the no-action alternative, the
National Park Service would take no action to reinstate the use of
personal watercraft at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and no special
rule would be promulgated to continue personal watercraft use. Under
this alternative, NPS would continue to prohibit personal watercraft
use at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore begun on April 22, 2002.
As stated in the NPRM, alternative B is the park's preferred
alternative because it best fulfills the park responsibilities as
trustee of the sensitive habitat; ensures safe, healthful, productive,
and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; and attains a
wider range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation,
risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended
consequences. This final rule contains regulations to implement
alternative B at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.
Summary of Comments
A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register for public
comment on November 15, 2004, with the comment period lasting until
January 14, 2005 (69 FR 65556). The National Park Service (NPS)
received 600 timely written responses regarding the Environmental
Assessment (EA) and proposed regulation. Of the responses, 387 were
form letters in 6 different formats, and 213 were separate letters. Of
the 213 separate letters, 202 were from individuals, 8 from
organizations, one from a congressional affiliation, and 2 from
government agencies. Within the following discussion, 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. One commenter stated that the Environmental Assessment (EA)
failed to use the best data available and picked alternative B without
adequate scientific justification.
NPS Response: Where data was lacking, best professional judgment
prevailed, using assumptions and extrapolations from scientific
literature, other park units where personal watercraft (PWC) are used,
and personal observations of park staff. The NPS believes that the EA
is in full compliance with the court-ordered settlement and that the
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) shows that modified
alternative B (Continued PWC use under special NPS regulation with
management restrictions) is the preferred alternative and that decision
has been adequately analyzed and explained.
2. The American Land Alliance suggested that the EA fails to
analyze the surrounding opportunities for PWC use in the Upper
Peninsula, because there are ample opportunities outside the park for
PWC use, including state and private lands.
NPS Response: The location of nearby launching facilities is
described in several sections of the EA and includes the Munising boat
ramp and Grand Marais public launch, as well as the lakeshore's Sand
Point launch. The EA notes that there are many other areas for water-
based recreation in the central Upper Peninsula, including state parks,
national forests, and other lakes with public access (See page 51 of
the EA, Affected Environment--Visitor Use and Experience). There is a
text change on the errata sheet adding other areas available for water-
based recreation.
3. One commenter stated that the labeling of the alternative
prohibiting PWC as the ``no-action alternative'' is misleading since
PWC have been used without restriction for many years at the lakeshore.
The commenter suggested issuing a revised EA with a clear designation
of a No PWC alternative, and providing a new comment period after the
revised EA is released.
NPS Response: The NPS Director's Order 12 states that a
full range of alternatives must be examined and that ``the alternatives
carried forward for analysis must meet project objectives to a large
degree, although not necessarily completely.'' Under a full range of
alternatives, the no-action alternative is developed as a viable choice
in the range of alternatives and it sets a baseline of existing impact
continued into the future against which to compare impacts of action
alternatives. The No-Action alternative is a continuation of existing
conditions and activities, which at the time the environmental analyses
were being conducted was a ban on personal watercraft.
4. Two commenters stated that the EA fails to meet the requirements
of NEPA because a reasonable range of alternatives was not evaluated.
NPS Response: A summary of the personal watercraft litigation is
contained under ``Personal Watercraft Regulatory Framework'' in the
``Purpose and Need'' chapter of the EA. The NPS had to comply with the
court order, which resulted from Bluewater v. Stanton, and assess the
impacts of personal watercraft on those resources specified by the
judge, as well as other resources that could be affected. NPS believes
a reasonable range of alternatives was evaluated. After analyses were
done for every applicable impact topic with the best available data and
input from the public was analyzed, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore
management selected modified alternative B as its preferred
alternative. Implementation of Alternative B in the final rule will
allow PWC use west of Miners Beach.
5. Several commenters stated that allowing PWC use with additional
restrictions violates the park's enabling legislation and NPS mandate
to protect resources from harm.
NPS Response: No part of the settlement agreement or NPS analysis
of PWC use has violated or overturned Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore's enabling legislation. Both the personal watercraft
settlement agreement and the authorizing legislation for Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore were considered when developing alternatives for the
EA. The objective of the EA, as described in the ``Purpose and Need''
chapter of the EA, was derived from the enabling legislation for
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. As further stated in this 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 Bluewater Network and the NPS.
As a result, the alternatives presented in the EA protect resources
and values while providing recreational opportunities at Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore. As required by NPS policies, the impacts associated
with personal watercraft and other recreational uses are evaluated
under each alternative to determine the potential for impairment to
park resources. The NPS finds that implementation of the modified
preferred alternative (alternative B) in the final rule will not result
in impairment of park resources and values for which the Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore was established.
6. One commenter suggested that the EA does not comply with the
court settlement with Bluewater Network, and
[[Page 61897]]
is out of compliance with the agreement.
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 judge, as well as other
resources that could be affected. This analysis was completed 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 EA is in full compliance with the court-
ordered settlement and that the FONSI shows that the decision to
implement modified alternative B (Continued PWC use under special NPS
regulation with management restrictions) as the preferred alternative
in the final rule has been adequately analyzed and explained.
7. One commenter stated that PWC have not been recognized by the
U.S. Coast Guard as Class A vessels, and that the Coast Guard has
refrained from defining PWC.
NPS Response: The NPS has chosen to define PWC and our definition
is as follows: Personal watercraft refers to a vessel, usually less
than 16 feet in length, which uses an inboard, internal combustion
engine powering a water jet pump as its primary source of propulsion.
The vessel is intended to be operated by a person or persons sitting,
standing or kneeling on the vessel, rather than within the confines of
the hull.
8. One person commented that the EA incorrectly references the
Michigan Personal Watercraft Safety Act of 1998 regarding the
prohibition of PWC `through submerged and emergent vegetation.'
NPS Response: The statement in the EA was incorrect and has been
updated on the errata sheet as follows: Guiding Regulations and
Policies, second paragraph, change last sentence to read ``Personal
watercraft are not allowed to operate in waters where the water depth
is less than two feet unless the watercraft is being operated at slow,
no-wake speed or is being docked or launched.''
9. Several commenters stated that the preferred alternative is
likely to violate the Organic Act by sacrificing full protection of
park resources if PWC use is allowed within the park. Further, the
draft regulations appear to violate the NPS mandate to fully protect
park resources by allowing the use of damaging PWC on park waters.
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 Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore resources and values can be found under ``Impairment
Analysis'' in the ``Methodology'' section of the EA.
Impact thresholds are not arbitrary; rather, they are established
by a review of applicable literature, consultation with subject matter
experts, applicable regulatory standards, and best professional
judgment. The methods for establishing specific thresholds are
disclosed under each impact topic.
The National Park Service has determined that, under the modified
preferred alternative (alternative B), as implemented in this final
rule, there will be no major negative impacts on park resources or
values.
10. One commenter stated that PWC use estimates used in the EA are
inaccurate. Specifically, the launch points within the lakeshore are
unmonitored, so the number of PWC that use the lakeshore, along with
trends in PWC use, are unknown.
NPS Response: See Errata Sheet, Table 11, for the EA: The totals
have been corrected and do not substantially change NPS conclusions.
The 2000 and 2001 data indicate a 1% increase in PWC registration.
While PWC registration increased by as much as 19% in 1996, the past
five years of data exhibit a substantial decreasing trend in PWC
registration in the state. This trend is also confirmed by industry
sales data (http://www.pwia.org/Abo_PWC.htm). In consultation with
park staff and through review of national data, the NPS believes that a
2% annual increase in PWC use at the lakeshore is appropriate.
Historical use of PWC is described on pages 51 and 52 of the
``Affected Environment'' section of the EA. The NPS used all available
data to extrapolate PWC use trends within the lakeshore. PWC visitor
use trends were determined using data available from the park,
discussions with staff, as well as discussions with the Cities of
Munising and Burt Township, which oversee local public launch
facilities. The best practicable data was used and the NPS is confident
that the analysis provides a reasonable evaluation of potential PWC use
within the lakeshore.
11. One commenter stated that there is an error in Table 12: Peak
Daily Visitor Use Numbers in the EA, because the whole chart is based
on an overly simplistic interpretation of the PWC/Motorboat
relationship. When segment three states that there will be zero ``PWC
users,'' the model accidentally extrapolates that there will be zero
``other motorboats'' as well. In addition, the model should have
predicted some amount of growth in kayaking and canoeing over the next
10 years.
NPS Response: Alternative B and the no-action alternative assume
that all motorized craft would be excluded from areas designated as
primitive under a draft or final general management plan. The potential
primitive area would extend 0.25 mile into Lake Superior from the
shoreline, between Spray Falls and 1.25 miles east of Sevenmile Creek.
The modified preferred alternative (alternative B), as implemented in
this final rule, further restricts PWC use by discontinuing PWC use
east of Miners Beach.
The number of sea kayakers and canoeists was estimated to increase
5% over the next ten years. A more accurate estimate, per recent
discussions with park staff, would be an increase of 5% per year over
the next 10 years. Thus, the number of canoeists/kayakers is estimated
to increase from 45 persons in 2002 to 73 persons in 2012. These
visitors would be distributed throughout the lakeshore. Although this
is a relatively large increase in use as compared to the numbers
evaluated in the EA, it would not change the evaluation that was
completed. As indicated in the Visitor Experience section (page 107 of
the EA), most non-motorized craft are concentrated closer to shore,
such that interactions between these users and PWC would be infrequent.
Additionally, PWC present near the shore are required to travel at
flat-wake speed and would have minimal impact on non-motorized
watercraft in that area.
Comments Regarding Water Quality
12. One commenter stated that impacts to water quality from PWC are
underestimated. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) can remain
suspended in the water column or deposited in sediment for years after
initial deposition. Even minor, short-
[[Page 61898]]
term oil spills can cause detrimental damage to aquatic wildlife.
Exposure to hydrocarbon (HC) pollution can interfere with biological
processes of the lakeshore's plants and wildlife.
NPS Response: The protection of water quality within the Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore has been addressed in the EA in a conservative
evaluation of surface water quality impacts. Estimated minimum
threshold volumes of water were determined for the PWC use areas where
concentrations of gasoline constituents discharged from personal
watercraft and other outboard engines could potentially be toxic to
aquatic organisms or humans. Using the estimated threshold volumes,
volumes of the areas being evaluated, PWC and other motorboat high-use-
day loadings of chemicals identified as constituents of gasoline, and
water quality benchmarks, it is possible to identify potentially
unacceptable impacts to human health or the environment. Chronic water
quality benchmarks protective of aquatic populations and protective of
human health were acquired from various sources, including USEPA water
quality criteria. Potential impacts to wildlife and plants from
personal watercraft were addressed in other sections of the EA.
This comment appears to have several errors in its assertions
regarding the water quality impact section of the EA: None of the three
alternatives is expected to have a ``moderate to major'' impact as
stated in the comment. All water quality impacts from personal
watercraft are expected to be negligible to minor. Despite the fact
that estimated water concentrations of individual PAHs are well below
water quality benchmarks, cumulative impacts from PWC and motorboat use
were judged to be ``minor to moderate'' when the potential for
phototoxicity from total PAHs is considered.
This comment also misquotes the EA as follows: ``* * * most PWC gas
and oil spills `volatize' into the atmosphere * * *''. The EA for
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore considers the range of organic
compound behavior in water on page 65 of the EA:
Many organic pollutants that are initially dissolved in the
water volatilize to the atmosphere, especially if they have high
vapor pressures, are lighter than water, and mixing occurs at the
air/water interface. Other compounds that have low vapor pressure,
low solubility, and high octanol/water partition coefficients tend
to adhere to organic material and clays and eventually adsorb onto
sediments.
13. One commenter stated that the analysis represents an outdated
look at potential emissions from an overstated PWC population of
conventional two-stroke engines, and underestimated the accelerating
changeover to four-stroke and newer two-stroke engines. The net effect
is that the analysis overestimates potential PWC HC emissions,
including benzene and PAHs, to the water. In addition, the water
quality analysis uses assumptions that result in overestimation of
potential PWC HC emission to the water. For example, the analysis
states that benzo(a)pyrene concentrations in gasoline can be ``up to
2.8 mg/kg.''
NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that the assumption of all
personal watercraft using 2-stroke engines in 2002 is conservative but
believes it was appropriate to be protective of park resources. The
assumption is consistent with emission data available in California Air
Resources Board (CARB) (1998) and Bluewater Network (2001). 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).
14. One commenter stated that the ``cleaner and quieter'' PWC will
still cause significant damage to the environment and wildlife because
PWC produce pollutants such as PAHs that are toxic to plants and
animals even at minute levels.
NPS Response: Personal watercraft and outboard motorboat engines
discharge both unburned and burned gasoline and oil. In fact, it was
shown in the EA that because more outboards than personal watercraft
are used in the lakeshore, the outboards contributed more of the
organic compounds evaluated (PAHs and benzene) than personal
watercraft. The new engine technology, including four-stroke engines
and two-stroke direct injection engines, substantially reduces the
emissions of most pollutants to the water and the air. As older
personal watercraft are replaced with new, cleaner models, the emission
rates of pollutants will decrease.
It is agreed that some research indicates that PAH toxicity can be
enhanced by exposure to ultraviolet radiation in oligotrophic lakes
having high light penetration (Oris et al. 1998). Limited data indicate
that, under these conditions, PAHs may have toxic effects on fish and
zooplankton at very low concentrations (less than 1 [mu]g/L).
Conversely, some PAHs may be degraded via photodegradation or microbial
degradation (Fasnacht and Blough 2002; Albers 2002). Impacts to water
quality from the emission of selected PAHs present in gasoline
emissions (benzo(a)pyrene, naphthalene, and 1-methyl naphthalene) were
evaluated in the EA. Also, the potential for increased toxic effects of
PAHs is recognized and discussed qualitatively in the impact analyses,
where appropriate.
15. One commenter stated that Lake Superior was designated by the
U.S. and Canada Joint Commission as a zero discharge body of water, and
the considerable amount of pollution discharged by PWC comprises more
than ``zero'' discharge.
NPS Response: The impacts of both noise and discharge of burned and
unburned fuel by personal watercraft were evaluated in the EA. In 1991,
an International Joint Commission recommended that Lake Superior be a
``zero discharge'' demonstration zone (GLC 2003). However, the latest
listing (March 2003) of priorities by the Great Lakes Commission in
``2003 Great Lakes Program: Restore the Greatness'' does not mention
zero discharge as a priority for the coming year. The only current
reference to zero discharge found on the Great Lakes Commission Web
site (http://www.glc.org) is for zero discharge of aquatic nuisance
species that are often carried in ship ballast water that is dumped
after the ships enter the Great Lakes. Zero discharge of fuel from
recreational boating does not appear to be an achievable objective
since one of every three registered recreational vessels in the United
States is found in the Great Lakes (GLC 2003). In response to the EPA
emission reduction regulations (EPA 1996, 1997),
[[Page 61899]]
the discharge of fuel and its associated pollutants by personal
watercraft and other motorboats is being reduced. The net effect of
this reduction is factored into the EA impact analysis of water
quality.
Comments Regarding Air Quality
16. One commenter stated that the analysis does not properly
account for the rapid engine conversion that is occurring due to the
phase-in of cleaner running engine technologies.
NPS Response: A conservative approach was used in the analysis,
since the numbers of PWC that have already converted to four-stroke
engines are not known. In addition, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) model takes into account the reduction in emissions over time.
Even with the conservative approach, the analysis for alternative B
presented in the EA indicates that current PWC use at Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore would result in negligible to moderate impacts to
air quality.
17. One commenter indicated that direct-injected two-stroke engines
are dirtier than four-stroke engines.
NPS Response: The comment is correct in stating the relationships
between emissions of two-stroke direct injection and four-stroke PWC
engines. EPA NONROAD model factors differ from those of the California
Air Resources Board (CARB). As a result of the EPA rule requiring the
manufacturing of cleaner PWC engines, the existing carbureted two-
stroke PWC will, over time, be replaced with less-polluting PWC 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.
18. One commenter stated that the analysis fails to mention the
impact of PWC permeation losses on local air quality.
NPS Response: Permeation losses of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) 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 from fuel systems 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 the number of personal watercraft
refueling at the lakeshore and the location of refueling (inside or
outside of the airshed).
19. One commenter stated that none of the air quality monitoring
sites used as part of the analysis are located at the lakeshore, and
that the most recent data available to the NPS are from 1999.
NPS Response: The statewide air quality monitoring sites are
located near areas where air quality is known or likely to be impaired.
As the comment states, data used in the EA were obtained from the 1999
Air Quality Report which, at time of preparation, was the best
published regional source of general air quality information. Current
site-specific background air monitoring data were also reviewed,
available from the State of Michigan's website http://www.michigan.gov/deq/0,1607,7-135-3310_4104---,00.html. The closest monitoring site is
for PM2.5 located at Traverse City, Michigan. It is agreed
that monitoring sites distant from the location do not provide
representative data for Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore; however,
they are the nearest available sources of data. The absence of closer
State monitoring sites is indicative of the good overall air quality in
the area and attainment status with respect to all national ambient air
quality standards. No health or environmental risks are identified by
the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality that would warrant
more frequent or intensive monitoring in the area. The EA analyzed air
impacts by assessing the effects of predicted pollutant emissions,
rather than measuring ambient air conditions, due to the lack of
available site-specific monitoring data and cost and uncertainty
factors inherent in obtaining and interpreting such data. In this
context, the NPS takes the position that ``appropriate consideration''
has been given to air quality impacts from PWC.
20. One commenter stated that the EA fails to analyze new four-
stroke engine technology. The PAH concentrations derived from worst-
case modeling are orders of magnitude below the permissible exposure
limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH); therefore, continued PWC use would not pose any adverse health
risks for park visitors under worst-case airborne PAH concentrations.
NPS Response: The criteria for analysis of impacts from PWC to
human health are based on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for criteria pollutants, as established by the U.S. 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.
As stated above, the methodology for assessing air quality impacts
was based on a combination of annual emission levels and the NAAQS,
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.
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 (two-stroke and four-stroke) were reported. The
general pattern of emissions to air and water shown in CARB (2001) was
two-stroke carbureted outboards and personal watercraft having the
highest emissions, and four-stroke outboard and personal watercraft
having the lowest emissions. The only substantive exception to this
pattern was in nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions to air: Two-
stroke carbureted outboards and personal watercraft had the lowest
NOX emissions, while the four-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.
21. One commenter expressed concern that PWC emissions were
declining faster than forecasted by the
[[Page 61900]]
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 incorporate 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 Sierra Research report provides data on
``worst case'' scenarios. However worst case or short-term scenarios
were not analyzed for air quality impacts in this or other NPS EAs.
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.
CARB certified PWC may be used; however, the degree of certainty of
overall use of this engine type nationwide is not well established. 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.
Comments Regarding Soundscapes
22. One commenter stated that continued PWC use in the Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore 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 sound reductions.
NPS Response: The NPS concurs that on-going and future improvements
in engine technology and design will likely further reduce the noise
emitted from PWC. However, given the ambient noise levels at the
lakeshore, it is unlikely that the improved technology could reduce all
impacts to negligible adverse, particularly at the Sand Point launch.
23. One commenter cited noise testing conducted at Glen Canyon
National Recreation Area (NRA) that indicated the maximum noise levels
for PWC were actually lower than the maximum noise levels for other
motorized vessels. In particular, the levels for PWC at 25 meters (82
feet) were approximately 68 to 76 A-weighted decibels (dB), whereas the
levels for other motorized vessels at 82 feet were approximately 64 to
86 A-weighted decibels.
NPS Response: A correction has been included in the errata sheet to
indicate that one PWC would emit 68 to 76 A-weighted dB at 82 feet. The
reasons for assuming that PWC operate in pairs at the National
Lakeshore are stated in the EA, and are based on staff observation and
safety issues related to operating small watercraft at the park. Based
on the PWC noise levels from the Glen Canyon study, two PWC would emit
66 to 77 dB at 82 feet, 65 to 75 dB at 100 feet, and 59 to 69 dB at 200
feet. The noise levels of two PWC traveling together would be less than
the NPS noise limit of 82 dB at 82 feet for all alternatives. Given
that ambient sound levels range from 22 dBA to 55 dBA in the lakeshore,
the operation of PWC 200 feet from shore would still have negligible to
minor adverse effects on the soundscape. In most locations natural
sounds would prevail and motorized noise would be very infrequent or
absent. At destinations such as the Sand Point launch and Miners
Castle, natural sounds would predominate but motorized noise could be
heard occasionally throughout the day. The correction noted above will
not change the impact determinations identified in the original
analysis.
24. One commenter stated that the EA has no site-specific support
regarding the conclusion that PWC will inflict ``short-term negligible
impacts'' upon the lakeshore's soundscapes and ``negligible adverse
impacts'' upon visitor experience. The commenter stated that most of
the public comments received on the lakeshore's draft General
Management Plan (GMP) complained about PWC noise and urged that the
machines be banned.
NPS Response: The effects of PWC on soundscapes were evaluated for
site-specific areas, such as Sand Point, and general use areas, such as
backcountry locations. The effects of PWC noise were determined to be
negligible adverse to minor adverse, depending on the alternative and
location. While many comments on the GMP were related to PWC noise,
commenters also mentioned noise from chain saws, snowmobiles, and cars.
Additionally, the visitor use survey conducted in the summer of 2000
provided the following results: on a scale of 1 (not a problem) to 5
(very serious problem), backcountry visitors ranked ``PWC disturbing
backcountry experience'' as 1.6 (no problem to slight problem).
Frontcountry users identified PWC disruption as 1.4 on the same scale.
Overall, more than 80% of the 228 persons responding to this question
indicated that PWC operation within the lakeshore was ``no problem.''
The NPS is confident that the soundscape analysis portrays an accurate
description of the effects of PWC operation within the lakeshore.
25. One commenter stated that the impact of PWC on non-motorized
visitors was grossly underestimated.
NPS Response: As stated previously, the summer visitor survey
indicated that over 80% of the respondents, including backcountry
visitors, identified PWC disturbance as ``no problem.'' Approximately
8% of the 228 respondents identified PWC disturbances as a ``serious or
very serious'' problem. The NPS recognizes that the degree to which a
visitor is disturbed is a function of the timing, duration, and
character of the PWC activity, as well as the visitor's personal
perceptions of PWC use. Based on the data evaluated, the NPS is
confident that the impact evaluation provides a reasonable estimate of
PWC impacts on soundscapes and visitor experience.
Comments Regarding Wildlife
26. 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. 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, and that 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: The NPS agrees that some research indicates that
personal watercraft are no more apt to disturb wildlife than are small
outboard motorboats; however, disturbance from both PWC and outboard
motor boats does occur. Dr. Rodgers recommends
[[Page 61901]]
that buffer zones be established for all watercraft, creating minimum
distances between boats (personal watercraft and outboard motorboats)
and nesting and foraging waterbirds. As part of the Michigan Personal
Watercraft Safety Act, PWC operating within 200 feet of the shoreline
of any Great Lake must travel perpendicular to the shore and operate at
a flat-wake speed. With this restriction in mind, impacts to wildlife
and wildlife habitat under all three alternatives were judged to be
negligible at most locations along the shoreline.
In addition, the EA was not conducted 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 national lakeshore's enabling legislation and
management goals and objectives. The alternatives listed and the
determination of their consequences was based upon the best information
available.
27. One commenter stated that PWC cause lasting impacts to fish and
wildlife. Two-stroke engines have been shown to produce pollutants that
cause significant damage to aquatic plants and fish.
NPS Response: It is anticipated that more combustion-efficient
engines in personal watercraft will reduce pollutant emissions to air
and water in the same manner that increased efficiencies in automobile
engines, combined with catalytic converters and other technologies,
decreased the amount and types of automobile exhaust emissions. EPA-
sponsored evaluations of different personal watercraft engine designs
and emissions concluded that emission reductions would result with
implementation of the EPA emission standards for marine engines. The
modified preferred alternative provides for further protection of
wildlife in the lakeshore. Phasing in of new personal watercraft
technology under the modified preferred alternative (alternative B)
will reduce impacts to aquatic and shoreline species by reducing the
discharge of fuel components into the water. These reductions should
indirectly benefit wildlife by reducing some of the contaminant loading
of surface waters.
PAH toxicity to fish and wildlife species is a complicated topic
because PAHs consist of dozens of different chemical compounds, each of
which has substantially different toxicity characteristics in water,
sediment, and soils, and toxicity varies dramatically among different
fish and wildlife species. The ecological toxicity analysis for PAHs
reported in the EA explains the chemical, physical, and biological
conditions that were used to conduct the assessment of PAH effects to
fish species.
Comments Regarding Threatened and Endangered Species
28. One commenter stated that the EA lacks site-specific data on
PWC impacts to threatened and endangered species.
NPS Response: The scope of the EA did not include site-specific
surveys for species with the potential to occur at Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore. Potential for the occurrence and the location of
special status species at Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore was based
on existing surveys and studies conducted in the park in addition to
input by park staff and federal and state agencies responsible for
special status species management and protection.
Identification of state and federally listed species was
accomplished through discussions with park staff and informal
consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Primary steps in
assessing impacts on listed species were to determine (1) which species
are found in areas likely to be affected by management actions
described in the PWC alternatives, (2) current and future use and
distribution of PWC by alternative, (3) habitat loss or alteration
caused by the alternatives, and (4) displacement and disturbance
potential of the actions and the species' potential to be affected by
PWC activities.
The information used in the analysis was obtained through best
professional judgment of park staff and experts in the field and by
conducting a literature review.
Documentation of the occurrence and locations of federal and state
rare, threatened and endangered species at Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore was provided by National Park Service through several studies
and surveys that have been conducted at the park. A list of federal and
state protected species is provided in Table 6 in the EA.
29. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service commented that the Grand
Sable Dunes site was last verified by the Michigan Natural Features
Inventory (MNFI) in 1989, and recommended that the current presence of
Pitcher's thistle be verified.
NPS Response: The location of Pitcher's thistle described in the EA
is based on discussion with park staff and is current. Park staff will
advise the MNFI as requested.
30. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) commented that the
``not likely to adversely affect'' determination for both action
alternatives for the gray wolf, bald eagle, and Pitcher's thistle
suggests that there are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable
effects of the proposed actions on these species. These effects are not
clear in the EA. The USFWS stated that the EA seems to make a better
case that the alternatives would have no effect on these three species,
and suggested the park considers these determinations and provides
support when the park requests Section 7 consultation with the USFWS
office.
NPS Response: The determination of ``not likely to adversely
affect'' was made based on the fact that, while PWC may provide access
to locations where threatened/endangered species may be present, the
likelihood of having an effect is extremely unlikely to occur. The
errata has been updated to reflect a ``no effect'' determination for
the gray wolf and Pitcher's thistle. After further analysis and
discussions with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff, the ``not likely
to adversely affect'' determination for the bald eagle will remain,
since the bald eagle's use of the shoreline is limited and known nest
sites are located east of Miners Beach, where PWC use would be
prohibited. The errata has been updated with further information to
support this determination.
31. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service suggested that the extent to
which bald eagles use the Lake Superior shoreline within Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore be described. If any such use occurs or can be
expected to occur in the future, the park should clarify whether PWC
use in the lakeshore could affect bald eagles.
NPS Response: Based on discussions with park staff, the bald
eagle's use of the Lake Superior shoreline within Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore is limited. Known nest sites are located east of
Miners Beach, where PWC use would be prohibited under the preferred
alternative. The errata has been updated to reflect this.
32. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that NPS must
complete Section 7 consultation with the USFWS prior to completing a
FONSI. The USFWS concurs that the only federally listed species
currently on or near Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore are the piping
plover, gray wolf, bald eagle, and Pitcher's thistle.
NPS Response: As indicated on page 96 of the Environmental
Consequences section of the EA, Section 7 consultation would be
initiated if the NPS determined that actions in the preferred
alternative would be ``likely to adversely affect'' one or more of the
federally listed threatened or endangered species identified in the
lakeshore. The modified preferred
[[Page 61902]]
alternative (alternative B) will have no effect on piping plover,
Pitcher's thistle, gray wolf, or Lake Huron tansy, and is not likely to
adversely affect the common loon, bald eagle or the peregrine falcon.
The errata has been updated to reflect a ``no effect'' determination
for the gray wolf. The USFWS concurred with this determination after
submitting this comment.
33. One commenter stated that the EA inadequately describes the
impacts from PWC to osprey and bald eagle, and underestimates the
impacts to the peregrine falcon and common loon, along with other
species.
NPS Response: The NPS concurs that some studies have shown that PWC
operation in proximity to nesting osprey and other wildlife species can
have adverse affects. Studies also indicate that the timing, duration,
and character (aggressiveness of PWC operation) of these interactions
are important factors in determining the effect. As discussed in the EA
(pages 20 and 96-101), state regulations require that PWC operating
within 200 feet of the shore must be running perpendicular to the shore
at flat-wake speeds. This state regulation minimizes the potential for
adverse affects on shoreline wildlife at the lakeshore.
34. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that piping plovers
currently do not nest on Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, but at
nearby at Grand Marais. Nesting occurred there in 2002 and has occurred
there annually for more than 10 years. As the EA indicates, there is
the potential for piping plover to use the Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore beach, at least for foraging, if not nesting. The piping
plover breeding population has increased in recent years. As the
population expands, piping plover may be found in previously unexpected
areas. The USFWS recommended annual efforts to survey Pictured Rocks
National Lakeshore for the bird. The USFWS also recommended that when
the park requests Section 7 consultation, it refer to the appropriate
information in the EA that supports the conclusion that interactions
between piping plovers and PWC would be extremely limited.
NPS Response: Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore staff will continue
to monitor and document piping plover activities within the lakeshore.
PWC would not be allowed in the Grand Sable segment, where potential
piping plover habitat exists. If plovers ever become established in the
western end of the lakeshore, then mitigating actions could be required
to minimize any adverse effect from PWC use. The modified preferred
alternative will result in ``no effect'' on future populations of
piping plover that may inhabit the lakeshore.
Comments Regarding Shoreline/Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
35. One commenter stated that since PWC lack an exposed propeller,
they are much more environmentally friendly in shallow water
environments. Further, Michigan law prohibits PWC from operating in
less than two feet of water and in areas where aquatic rooted
vegetation is visible in sensitive wetland areas.
NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that scientists do not agree on
the potential for impacts to aquatic vegetation from personal
watercraft. However, because of their design, personal watercraft can
potentially operate in shallower water than conventional outboard
motorboats, and it is not possible to know if all operators fully
adhere to manufacturer's recommendations. As described in the EA (pages
103-104), impacts to sensitive shoreline vegetation are expected to be
negligible for all alternatives and both years evaluated (2002 and
2012).
Comments Associated With Visitor Experience
36. One commenter stated that the EA failed to adequately assess
the safety threat posed to park visitors by PWC use, and failed to
analyze existing accident data available from the U.S. Coast Guard.
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 on the lake
are estimated to go unreported. The accident data for the three-year
period of 1999 through 2001 displays a consistent pattern and differs
from nationally reported results for all watercraft. In the ``Visitor
Conflicts and Visitor Safety'' section of the ``Affected Environment''
chapter of the EA, it is reported that personal watercraft represent 26
percent of the watercraft on the lake but did not exceed 18 percent of
all watercraft accidents over the three-year time period. While
personal injury rates for personal watercraft were somewhat higher,
they did not exceed 24 percent of all watercraft personal injuries--
approximately equal to their representation in the population of all
watercraft.
37. One commenter stated that keeping PWC 200 feet from shore is
not sufficient to prevent serious loss to those seeking solitude and/or
a natural experience. What happens if the number of PWC users increases
over the years to a level that is intolerable?
NPS Response: The best available data was used to determine
existing and future PWC use in the lakeshore, and was based on a
visitor survey, discussion with park staff, and discussion with local
launch site operators in Grand Marais and Munising. The analysis
indicates that PWC use would have minor adverse impacts to backcountry
visitors who seek solitude within the lakeshore. The selection of the
modified preferred alternative (alternative B) would result in
negligible to moderate beneficial impacts on soundscapes and visitor
experience for non-PWC users.
38. One commenter indicated that the EA fails to include the
numbers of comments received about PWC noise and offers no comparison
of those comments with others regarding noise produced by other
recreational pursuits, such as tour boats. Were the noise comments
regarding PWC use any more positive or negative than those related to
other lakeshore user groups?
NPS Response: The comments received for the GMP regarding noise
disturbance from PWC, motorboats, and other recreational users have not
been quantified. However, the summer visitor survey conducted in 2000
provides specific data about noise issues within the lakeshore. Over
80% of the survey respondents, including backcountry visitors,
identified PWC disturbance as ``no problem.'' Approximately 8% of the
228 respondents identified PWC disturbances as a ``serious or very
serious'' problem. Likewise, approximately 6% of those surveyed
identified motorized boats on Lake Superior ``disturbing my backcountry
experience'' as a ``serious or very serious'' problem; 4% indicated
that too many commercial tour boats on Lake Superior shoreline as a
``serious or very serious problem''; and 1% indicated noise from
airplanes as a ``serious or very serious problem.'' Overall, only 2.6%
of those surveyed indicated that too much noise on Lake Superior
shoreline was a ``serious or very serious problem.''
39. One commenter stated that the 1998 Boating Accident Report
Database (BARD) estimates reported in the EA are outdated, and that
more recent BARD data shows that, despite the increasing number of PWC
in use, the number of reported PWC-associated accidents has been
declining every year since 1997.
NPS Response: Incidents involving watercraft of all types,
including personal watercraft, are reported to and logged by National
Park Service staff. A
[[Page 61903]]
very small proportion of incidents on the lake are estimated to go
unreported. The accident data for the three-year period of 1999 through
2001 displays a consistent pattern and differs from nationally reported
results for all watercraft. In the ``Visitor Conflicts and Visitor
Safety'' section of the ``Affected Environment'' chapter of the EA, it
is reported that personal watercraft represented 26 percent of the
watercraft on the lake but did not exceed 18 percent of all watercraft
accidents over the three-year time period. While personal injury rates
for personal watercraft were somewhat higher, they did not exceed 24
percent of all watercraft personal injuries--approximately equal to
their representation in the population of all watercraft.
40. One commenter stated that, according to Coast Guard statistics,
PWC represent roughly 10 percent of all boats, yet are involved in
approximately 30 percent of all boating accidents. In addition, nearly
80 percent of PWC accidents are the result of a collision with objects
such as another boat, swimmer, or dock.
NPS Response: The concern about PWC operation and safety is
discussed in the EA, which provides similar national statistics (page
16) and statistics from the park itself (page 51). Some of the
provisions of the preferred alternative, such as increasing the number
of areas with flat-wake restrictions, were included to provide a higher
level of safe PWC operations and to lessen potential conflicts with
other park users.
Comments Associated With Visitor Conflicts and Safety
41. One commenter stated that the accident data used in the
analysis was outdated and incorrect because PWC accidents are reported
more often than other boating accidents.
NPS Response: We disagree. Incidents involving watercraft of all
types, including personal watercraft, are reported to and logged by
National Park Service staff. A very small proportion of watercraft
accidents at Fire Island National Seashore are estimated to go
unreported.
42. One commenter suggested that all boaters should abide by the
restrictions, and that there is no justification for imposing any
additional restrictions or requirements on PWC operators based on
safety considerations.
NPS Response: The proposed alternatives did not impose additional
restrictions or requirements on PWC based solely on safety
considerations. The final rule, implementing modified preferred
alternative (alternative B), will discontinue PWC use east of Miners
Beach. The selection of modified alternative B is based on the
evaluation of all issues analyzed in the EA and the public comments
received regarding the proposed action.
43. Several commenters stated that the NPS analysis downplayed the
threat PWC pose to the visiting public, specifically regarding 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 received only 90 reports of fires/explosions in the years from
1995-1999. This is less than 1% of PWC boats reporting 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 recalled 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. The
replacement fuel tanks differed from those installed in the watercraft
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 have been reduced significantly since the National Marine
Manufacturers Association (NMMA) 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 NMMA. The NMMA verifies boat
models annually, or whenever a new product is put on the market, 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.
Comments Associated With Cultural Resources
44. One commenter suggested that the NPS consider requiring permits
or other approval for ceremonial activities, so that motorized boaters
can be given adequate advance notice of any specific time/location
restrictions on vessel usage. This will better enable PWC users and
other boaters to respect these observances, reduce the potential for
user conflicts, and assist in enforcement efforts.
NPS Response: Historically, tribal groups pursuing traditional
activities in the park have been very small and permits have not been
issued. In addition, past observances have occurred in seasons of the
year when PWC use is light or non-existent. If and when the ceremonial
activities become larger in scope or number, the park will initiate
more formal permitting.
Comments Regarding Socioeconomics
45. One commenter stated that there is no discussion of the
economic costs of continued PWC operation upon the lakeshore's
wildlife, public safety, and visitor use. In addition, it is
questionable to assume that a PWC ban will automatically result in a
decrease in park visitation. The commenter states that the EA also
incorrectly assumes that a PWC ban will reduce the consumer surplus of
other motorized boaters.
NPS Response: The socioeconomic study did not address the future
potential costs of environmental damage. The study examined the
potential effect that the ban would have on the local economy, and the
potential effects on socio-economically disadvantaged groups. The
comment is correct in stating that the same level of analysis was not
given to the future environmental costs.
The number of recreational visits at Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore in calendar year 2000 was 424,533, which is a 4.6% reduction
from 1999. The most recent available visitation data was used at the
time the EA was written. A variety of factors influence visitor use
numbers at national parks; therefore, it is not possible to precisely
ascertain
[[Page 61904]]
specific reasons for increases or decreases in visitation.
46. One commenter stated that the analysis of socioeconomic effects
of the different alternatives failed to consider the possibility that
the no-action alternative could have positive economic effects upon
those renting kayaks or providing guiding services.
NPS Response: The evaluation concentrated on the effects of PWC
management on the local economy. No data is available indicating that
the presence of PWC has decreased the lakeshore visitation by kayakers
or 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 lakeshore as ``no problem or slight problem.''
This indicates that banning PWC would not have a substantial effect on
visitor experience or visitor satisfaction. The NPS concurs that a ban
on PWC would allow local businesses to target their marketing and
services to an audience that is sensitive to PWC use.
Comments Related to Enforcement
47. Several commenters stated that additional staff would be
required to adequately address the increased enforcement needed under
the final rule.
NPS Response: The NPS used the best available data to evaluate
potential conflicts between PWC and other park visitors. The NPS
concurs that it is likely that some violations are not reported,
particularly those that may be considered minor infractions by the
general public. The evaluation in the EA assumed that some violations
would occur and noted that staffing was insufficient to properly police
existing boating activities, with or without PWC use in the lakeshore.
The analysis indicated that increased staffing would be necessary
to more adequately monitor watercraft on Lake Superior. The NPS
believes that operation of PWC in the lakeshore will not require more
staff than that required for increased monitoring of all watercraft
because (1) the number of PWC operating within the lakeshore is small
in comparison to the number of other motorboats and watercraft, (2) the
location of PWC operation is separated from most other visitors
(excluding motorboats) and (3) the increased patrols necessary to
monitor all boating traffic will increase the observed presence of
policing such that all infractions will likely decrease.
Changes to the Final Rule
Based on the preceding comments and responses, the NPS has made no
substantive changes to the proposed rule language with regard to PWC
operations.
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 Personal Watercraft Regulations in Pictured
Rocks National Lakeshore'' (RTI, International, November 2004).
(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 rule 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 legal or policy issues. This
rule is one of the special regulations being issued for managing PWC
use in National Park Units. The National Park Service published 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 requirement 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this rulemaking 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 on a report entitled report ``Economic
Analysis of Personal Watercraft Regulations in Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore'' (RTI, International, November 2004), copies of which are
available from the address in the ADDRESSES section.
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. This final 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 does not impose any 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 takings implications. A taking implication assessment is
not required. No taking 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 final rule only affects use of NPS
administered lands and waters. It has no outside effects on other areas
by allowing PWC use in specific areas 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.
[[Page 61905]]
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
As a companion document to the NPRM, NPS issued the Personal
Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment for Pictured Rocks National
Lakeshore and subsequent errata sheet. The environmental assessment was
available for public review and comment for the period August 1 through
November 15, 2004. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was
signed on September 9, 2005. To request a copy of these documents
contact Superintendent, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, N8391 Sand
Point Road, P.O. Box 40, Munising, MI 49862-0040. A copy of the
Environmental Assessment, errata sheet, and FONSI may also be found at
http://www.nps.gov/piro/pwc.
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``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.
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 7.32(d), 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 Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore 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 51788) on August 23,
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 Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore final rule.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
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 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 DC Code 8-137 (1981) and DC Code 40-721 (1981).
0
2. Amend Sec. 7.32 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 7.32 Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore.
* * * * *
(d) Personal Watercraft (PWC). (1) PWC are allowed on the waters
within Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, from the western boundary of
the lakeshore to the east end of Miners Beach.
(2) PWC may be launched only from a designated launch site at Sand
Point.
(3) PWC users may beach their craft only at Sand Point Beach and
Miners Beach.
(4) 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: October 19, 2005.
Paul Hoffman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-21426 Filed 10-26-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-U