[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 183 (Thursday, September 21, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55111-55119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7846]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 7

RIN 1024-AC99


Curecanti National Recreation Area, 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 Curecanti National Recreation Area, Colorado. This 
final 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. Individual parks must 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: Effective Date: This rule is effective September 21, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Mail inquiries to Superintendent, Curecanti National 
Recreation Area, 102 Elk Creek, Gunnison, CO 81230 or e -mail NPS at 
[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). The 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 management objectives. The regulation prohibited PWC use in all 
park units effective April 20, 2000, except 21 preserves, 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. On 
November 7, 2002 PWC use was discontinued at Curecanti National 
Recreation Area.

Description of Curecanti National Recreation Area

    Curecanti National Recreation Area (Curecanti) was established in 
1965 to provide for conservation of scenic, natural, historic, 
archeological, and wildlife values. The goal of the National Recreation 
Area is to provide for public use and enjoyment while ensuring visitor 
safety, resource preservation, and conservation. Curecanti is located 
along U.S. Highway 50 (U.S. 50) west of Gunnison, Colorado.
    Three reservoirs, named for corresponding dams on the Gunnison 
River, form the heart of Curecanti. The three reservoirs are Blue Mesa 
Reservoir, Morrow Point Reservoir, and Crystal Reservoir. Blue Mesa 
Reservoir is Colorado's largest body of water and is home to the 
biggest Kokanee Salmon fishery in the United States. Morrow Point 
Reservoir is the beginning of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. Crystal 
Reservoir is the site of the Gunnison Diversion Tunnel, a National 
Historic Civil Engineering Landmark. In addition to the three 
reservoirs, recently discovered dinosaur fossils, a 5,000 acre 
archeological district, a narrow gauge train, and traces of 6,000 year 
old dwellings further enhance the significance of Curecanti.

Purpose of Curecanti National Recreation Area

    The purpose and significance statements listed below are from 
Curecanti's Strategic Plan and General Management Plan. Curecanti 
National Recreation Area was established for the following purposes:
    1. Conserve the scenery, natural, historic, and archeological 
resources, and wildlife of Curecanti.
    2. Provide for public use and enjoyment in such a way as to ensure 
visitor safety and resource preservation or conservation by 
establishing and maintaining facilities and providing protection and 
interpretive services.
    3. Manage the lands, waters, and activities of Curecanti in such a 
way that it does not interfere with the purposes of the Colorado River 
Storage Project Act and other Bureau of

[[Page 55112]]

Reclamation agreements affecting the operation of the Aspinall Unit.
    4. Mitigate the loss of fish and wildlife resources as a result of 
the Colorado River Storage Project.

Significance of Curecanti National Recreation Area

    The following statements summarize the significance of Curecanti:
    1. Blue Mesa Reservoir is one of the largest high-altitude bodies 
of water in the United States. It provides an exciting diversity of 
water recreation opportunities for windsurfers, sail boaters, and water 
skiers.
    2. The scenic values of the canyon, the needles, the pinnacles, and 
the reservoirs provide dramatic contrast, which causes visitors to slow 
down, pause, and reflect on the diversity of the landscape and its 
spaciousness.
    3. Curecanti provides one of the best cold-water fishing 
opportunities in the nation. This is due primarily to the Kokanee 
salmon run occurring in Blue Mesa. The Morrow Point and Crystal 
Reservoirs' trout fisheries routinely attract fishing enthusiasts from 
throughout the nation because of the high-quality trout fishing and 
uniqueness of the canyon environment.
    4. The prehistoric and historic stories of human culture in the 
Curecanti area are recorded in the traces and tracks left by Native 
Americans, miners, railroaders, and ranchers. The cultural history of 
this area documents not only the human struggles to survive but also 
how changing human value systems; economic, social, and technological 
changes; and the importance of water have shaped the use and character 
of the land and its people. Cultural history contains archeological 
examples of some of the oldest villages found in North America, 
predating the building of the pyramids.
    5. The narrow-gauge railroad exhibit in Cimarron graphically 
portrays the story of technology's effects of shaping people and using 
land; the agony and difficulties of building track in narrow canyons in 
the winter where the sun seldom shined; and of taking the hard way 
instead of the easy trail. Examples of a locomotive, tender, and 
caboose used on the railroad are on exhibit at Cimarron.
    The park's mission statement is as follows: ``Curecanti National 
Recreational Area will preserve, protect, and interpret the tremendous 
collection of nationally significant, diverse natural and cultural 
resources balanced with the provision of outstanding recreational 
opportunities.''

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) authorizes 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, derives from 
the U.S. Constitution. In regard to the NPS, based upon the Property 
and Commerce Clauses, 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 Curecanti National Recreation Area

    Curecanti National Recreation Area includes Blue Mesa Reservoir, 
which was created with the completion of the Blue Mesa Dam. Blue Mesa 
Reservoir is comprised of three basins: Sapinero, Cebolla, and Iola as 
well as various arms. The basins are often referred to as the main body 
of the reservoir to distinguish activities there from activities in the 
arms.
    Approximately 1 million visitors use Curecanti's facilities 
annually. This figure includes visitors who pursue water-based 
recreation activities on the reservoir and those who engage in other 
recreation opportunities. Motorboats and other watercraft have been 
used in Curecanti since 1975. Personal watercraft have emerged at 
Curecanti only since their introduction in the 1980s, and particularly 
since the summer of 1995 when personal watercraft were available for 
rent from a park concessioner. Park staff believes PWC use has 
increased since 1995, and a registration survey mailed to vessel users 
requesting an annual permit revealed that in 2000, 0.69% of over 400 
respondents were PWC users. The annual use is estimated to have been 
792 PWC in 2002, and is predicted to increase at approximately 2% 
annually to 965 PWC in 2012. Based on ranger observation, most PWC 
users are from Colorado, they limit their PWC use to approximately 2 
hours, and they wear a wetsuit because of cold-water temperatures and 
high afternoon winds. In addition, PWC use has conflicted with both 
bank and boat fishermen from Dry Creek to Bay of Chickens. Before the 
prohibition on PWC use, the General Management Plan and 
Superintendent's Compendium allowed personal watercraft and other 
watercraft to operate only on the main body of the Blue Mesa Reservoir 
and lake arms with speed and zone restrictions. PWC use was prohibited 
in all other areas of the park through restrictions on horsepower and 
restrictions on motorized vessels. Personal watercraft generally did 
not operate at the extreme ends of lake arms because the arms are 
narrow in width. On the main body of the reservoir, personal watercraft 
were widely distributed. In addition to the main body, high-use areas 
include the Iola Basin and Colorado State Highway 149 (Highway 149) 
areas. Other locations with limited use include Stevens Creek, Cebolla 
Basin, Soap Creek Arm, Bay of Chickens, and the main marina at Elk 
Creek.
    This rulemaking is focusing exclusively on PWC use at the park. The 
park also intends to develop a water/vessel management plan for the use 
of other vessels.

NPRM and Environmental Assessment

    On March 17, 2006, the National Park Service published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the operation of PWC at Curecanti (71 FR 
13792). The proposed rule for PWC use was based on alternative A (one 
of three alternatives considered) in the Environmental Assessment (EA) 
prepared by NPS for Curecanti. The EA was open for public review and 
comment from June 11, 2003 until July 13, 2003. The EA is available at 
http://www.nps.gov/cure/webvc/pwc_use.htm.
    The purpose of the environmental assessment was to evaluate a range 
of alternatives and strategies for the management of PWC use at 
Curecanti to ensure the protection of park resources and values while 
offering recreational

[[Page 55113]]

opportunities as provided for in the National Recreation Area'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 assessment also 
compared each alternative to PWC use before November 7, 2002, when the 
prohibition took effect.
    The environmental assessment evaluated three alternatives 
addressing the use of personal watercraft at Curecanti:
    Alternative A--By using a special regulation, the park would 
reinstate PWC use as previously managed prior to November 7, 2002, and 
would add one buffer zone as described below. Under this alternative, 
PWC use would occur in areas of Blue Mesa Reservoir and portions of the 
lake arms. Areas appropriate for PWC use would include Sapinero, 
Cebolla, and Iola Basins; Bay of Chickens; Dry Creek; Elk Creek; the 
Highway 149 area; and Lake Fork, Soap Creek, and West Elk arms. 
Operation of all motorized watercraft would continue to be prohibited 
in areas east of Beaver Creek within the Gunnison River Canyon and in 
the area downstream from the East Portal diversion dam. All designated 
launch areas on Blue Mesa Reservoir (developed and unimproved) would 
remain open to PWC use. Personal watercraft would be allowed to land on 
any shoreline at Blue Mesa Reservoir.
    The following areas would remain closed to all boating, including 
personal watercraft, and shoreline entry: Blue Mesa Dam downstream for 
225 yards, Morrow Point Dam downstream for 130 yards, Crystal Dam 
downstream for 700 yards, and East Portal diversion dam upstream for 60 
yards. In addition, the following areas would be zoned as flat wake 
speed areas: The area upstream from Lake City Bridge to Beaver Creek; 
the area within the arms of Blue Mesa Reservoir that is less than 1,000 
feet from shore to shore at full pool level. These areas will be marked 
by designated buoys. These arms include Soap Creek Arm, West Elk Arm, 
Lake Fork Arm, and Cebolla Arm; narrow waterways off the Bay of 
Chickens and Dry Creek; Elk Creek and Lake Fork Marinas; and Iola and 
Stevens Creek boat launch areas.
    In addition to the areas outlined above, a 100-foot buffer zone 
from the shoreline would be established at the Stevens Creek 
campground, as marked by buoys. The buffer area would be zoned as a 
flat wake speed area. A buffer zone will provide for the protection of 
an active Gunnison sage grouse lek and nesting area, and would mitigate 
potential noise impacts from PWC use and associated shoreline use 
during the lek and nesting season (mid-March-July).
    Alternative B--Same as alternative A, with the following additional 
restrictions. This alternative would establish a 100-foot buffer zone 
along the south shore of Blue Mesa Reservoir from 0.5 mile west of Iola 
to 0.5 mile east of Middle Bridge for soundscape, cultural resource, 
and wildlife protection as well as to prevent erosion.
    Alternative B includes further speed restrictions. Under this 
alternative, the additional speed restrictions would apply to PWC use 
in each of the lake arms on Blue Mesa Reservoir from the mouth of each 
lake arm upriver to the flat wake areas. In these restricted areas PWC 
use would need to operate at flat wake speeds when within 150 feet of 
another boat, a person in or floating on the water, shore fisherman, a 
launching ramp, a dock, or a designated swimming area.
    No-Action Alternative--The park would continue the PWC prohibition. 
PWC use would not be reinstated and the National Park Service would not 
take action to draft a special regulation to reinstate PWC use.
    Alternative A 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 A at 
Curecanti.

Summary of Comments

    A proposed rule on PWC use in the Curecanti National Recreation 
Area was published in the Federal Register for public comment on March 
17, 2006, with the comment period lasting until May 16, 2006 (71 FR 
13792). The National Park Service (NPS) received 2,325 timely written 
comments regarding the EA and proposed regulation. Of the comments, 
1,935 were form letters in 10 different formats, 345 were on a 
petition, and 45 were separate letters. Of the 45 separate letters, 37 
were from individuals, 7 from organizations, and 1 from a public 
agency. 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. Several commenters, including Bluewater Network and the American 
Canoe Association, stated that the EA failed to use the best data 
available and picked alternative A without adequate scientific 
justification.
    NPS Response: The EA analyzed 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.
    2. 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: The NPS analysis of PWC use specifically considered 
the requirements of Curecanti National Recreation Area's enabling 
legislation. The authorizing legislation for Curecanti was carefully 
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 Curecanti. As a result, the 
alternatives presented in the EA were developed to protect resources 
and values while providing recreational opportunities at Curecanti. As 
required by NPS policies, the impacts associated with PWC and other 
recreational uses are evaluated under each alternative to determine the 
potential for impairment to park resources. NPS has concluded that 
alternative A would not result in impairment of park resources and 
values for which the Curecanti was established. The recreation area's 
enabling legislation also states that the ``Secretary shall administer 
Curecanti National Recreation Area for general purposes of public 
outdoor recreation.'' The goal of the national recreation area is to 
provide each visitor with an educational, enjoyable, safe and memorable 
experience.
    3. One commenter suggested clarifying the language in the proposed 
rule about landing restrictions near the dam.
    NPS Response: We agree and text has been added to the rule to 
address the buoyed barricaded sections in the vicinity of the dams, 
where boats are not allowed.
    4. One commenter stated the analysis did not adequately consult 
with and seek the expertise of various agencies,

[[Page 55114]]

which appears to violate the NPS PWC regulations.
    NPS Response: The final PWC regulation published by the NPS in 
March 2000 indicates that we intend to seek the expertise of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA) and other relevant agencies and literature when 
deciding whether to allow continued PWC use in units of the National 
Park System. The EA references EPA and OSHA regulations and studies 
throughout the document.
    5. Several commenters stated that the decision violates the Organic 
Act 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 NPS 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 NPS 
applied these laws and policies to analyze the effects of personal 
watercraft on Curecanti resources and values can be found under 
``Impairment Analysis'' in the ``Methodology'' section of the EA.
    Under the EA's methodology, an impairment to a particular park 
resource or park value is indicated when the impact reaches the 
magnitude of ``major,'' 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 impact topic, the EA establishes thresholds or 
indicators of magnitude of impact. 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 NPS has determined that the preferred 
alternative would not result in impairment of park resources or values.
    6. One commenter is concerned about PWC use conflicting with 
swimmers and anglers at Curecanti.
    NPS Response: Additional management restrictions have been put into 
effect in the regulation to prevent conflicts with swimmers, shore 
anglers and watercraft. The popular day use areas, such as Dry Creek 
and Bay of Chickens, have flat wake buoys in place to keep vessels at 
flat wake speeds in congested areas until they are out into open water. 
The preferred alternative would keep this restriction in place.
    7. One commenter is concerned that the assumption of PWC growth at 
Curecanti may be underanalyzed, and instead of using a 2 percent growth 
rate in the analysis, a 5 percent growth rate would more accurately 
reflect the conditions in Colorado.
    NPS Response: The estimated annual increase in PWC use of 2% 
appears justified in light of several lines of evidence. While the 
overall increase in PWC use from 1994 to 2002 is over 300%, the 
majority of that increase occurred through 1997. Since then, the 
increases decreased every year to the point where there was a net 
decrease of 1% between 2001 and 2002. This decrease in PWC use in 
Colorado parallels the decrease in nationwide PWC use and the decrease 
in visitors to the park between 1999 and 2001. The projected annual 
growth in population in the region and the state is 1.7 to 2.0%. For 
this combination of reasons, the projected increase in PWC use at the 
park is reasonable.

Comments Regarding Water Quality

    8. Several commenters stated that research indicated that direct-
injection 2-stroke engines are dirtier than 4-stroke engines.
    NPS Response: Total hydrocarbons (THC) emissions factors for 2-
stroke carbureted PWC engines are approximately 13 times greater than 
for 4-stroke PWC engines. This is a major factor in the EPA rule 
requiring the phase out of carbureted 2-stroke engines. However, the 
two-stroke direct injection engines are almost as clean burning as the 
four-stroke.
    9. 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 PWC on a high-use day would be negligible for all chemicals 
evaluated based on ecological and human health benchmarks and for 
benzo(a)pyrene based on human health benchmarks.
    10. One commenter stated that the assumption that there is enough 
water in the lake to dilute PWC pollutants to levels that do not 
violate state and Federal standards is incorrect, and that the 
concentration of PWC operation in certain areas of the lake means that 
there is less water available for mixing.
    NPS Response: As described on pages 51 and 52 of the EA, the 
effective mixing zone volume of 52,433 acre-feet (which is compared to 
the threshold volumes) is based on the difference between the volume at 
minimum pool (192,270 acre-feet) and the volume at the thermocline 
(139,837 acre-feet). This is a conservative estimate of the mixing zone 
for the reservoir because the lowest recorded elevation of the 
reservoir is 7,428 feet while the minimum pool elevation is 7,393 feet, 
a difference of 35 feet. At the time of preparation of the EA (January 
2003), the elevation was 7,445 feet, 52 feet above minimum pool. While 
PWC use may be concentrated in, but not restricted to, areas between 
Elk Creek and the Lake City Bridge and in the Soap Creek Arm, water in 
these areas will mix with waters outside of the areas. The maximum 
calculated threshold volume needed to dilute emissions from personal 
watercraft under any alternative is 4,534 acre-feet for benzene in 2002 
(see Table 18 of EA). Impacts to water quality are termed negligible in 
view of the fact that the threshold volume is less than the available 
mixing zone volume and that the half-life of benzene is less than 5 
hours. This assessment of adverse impacts due to PWC use on a peak-use 
day (16 personal watercraft) is conservative even if PWC use is 
concentrated in a few areas of the reservoir.
    11. 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 new 2-stroke engines. The EA also states 
that benzo(a)pyrene concentrations in gasoline range from 0.19 to 2.8 
mg/kg, but the EA chooses the highest figure for the analysis. The net 
effect is that the analysis overestimates potential PWC hydrocarbon 
emissions, including benzene and polycystic aromatic hydrocarbons 
(PAHs), to the water in Blue Mesa Reservoir.
    NPS Response: Assumptions regarding PWC use (16 per day in 2002 and 
20 per day in 2012) were based on actual count data from the month of 
July 2002 and on park staff observations. Because of holiday timing in 
2001 and poor weather, the observation of 9 personal watercraft on a 
peak-use day was thought to be more typical of a non-peak use summer 
day, not a peak-use day. Therefore, peak-use PWC numbers in 2002 were 
estimated to be 16 vessels. PWC use at other times of the year ranged 
from 0 to 4 PWC per day. Data for the years 2001 and 2002 were the only 
data available for Curecanti (page 75 of EA). Because data from other 
years were not available, trends in PWC use at Curecanti could not be 
determined for use in the EA. The July 2002 estimate can be considered 
a ``worst case''

[[Page 55115]]

estimate, but it is not ``unrealistic'' since it is based on actual 
Curecanti data and park staff observations. Despite these conservative 
estimates, impacts to water quality from personal watercraft are judged 
to be negligible for all alternatives evaluated. 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.
    12. One commenter stated that even minor oil spills can cause 
increased levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and PAHs in the 
water, which will cause damage to aquatic wildlife.
    NPS Response: Impacts to wildlife from PWC under alternative A 
range from negligible to minor adverse. Impacts to water quality from 
the discharge of fuel constituents under alternative A range from 
negligible to minor adverse.
    13. One commenter stated that levels of methyl tertiary-butyl ether 
(MTBE) levels must be tested and disclosed to the public, yet the EA 
does not disclose the levels of toxins (BTEX, PAHs and MTBE) from 
samples taken in the summer of 2000.
    NPS Response: MTBE was not included in the analysis of impacts to 
water quality because MTBE is banned in Colorado and is unlikely to be 
brought into the park in large quantities. Although potential 
concentrations of gasoline-related constituents in the water were not 
included in the proposed rule, they were used in the calculations of 
water volumes needed to dilute constituents to levels below the 
ecotoxicological and human health benchmarks in the Environmental 
Consequences section of the EA.
    Colorado is not the only state to ban MTBE. According to data 
provided by the Energy Information Administration (EIA) (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/mtbeban/table1.htm), which was last 
updated March 27, 2003, 17 states have banned or restricted the 
concentration of MTBE in gasoline.

Comments Regarding Air Quality

    14. 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 
(VOCs) from personal watercraft were not included in the calculation of 
air quality impacts primarily because these losses are insignificant 
relative to emissions from other operating watercraft. Also, permeation 
losses were not included because of numerous related unknown 
contributing factors such as the number of personal watercraft 
refueling at the reservoir and the location of refueling (inside or 
outside of the airshed). 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, we believe the inclusion of permeation 
losses would not have a significant effect on the results of the air 
quality impact analyses.
    15. One commenter expressed concern that PWC emissions were 
declining faster than forecasted by the EPA. As the Sierra Report 
documents, in 2002, hydrocarbons (HC) + nitrogen oxides 
(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 EPA 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 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 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 Spark Ignition 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

    16. One commenter stated that continued PWC use at Curecanti 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 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 of motorized vessels beyond minor to 
moderate through out 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. Furthermore, many PWC owners modify the 
exhaust system to increase horsepower and thrust, which can render 
useless the attempts by manufacturers to reduce engine noise levels.
    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 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 104 of the EA. The analysis did not assume even 
distribution of PWC and predicted moderate impacts from concentrated 
PWC use in one area.

Comments Regarding Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species

    18. One commenter stated that the analysis lacked site-specific 
data for impacts to wildlife, fish, and threatened and endangered 
species at Curecanti.

[[Page 55116]]

    NPS Response: The park did not conduct site-specific studies 
regarding potential effects of PWC use on wildlife species at 
Curecanti. 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.
    19. 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. 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 PWC are no more apt to disturb wildlife than 
are small outboard motorboats; however, disturbance from both PWC and 
outboard motorboats does occur. In addition to this conclusion, Dr. 
Rogers recommends that buffer zones be established, creating minimum 
distances between boats (personal watercraft and outboard motorboats) 
and nesting and foraging waterbirds. Under the final rule, there will 
be a 100-foot buffer around Steven's Creek campground for Gunnison sage 
grouse protection. This buffer area will be zoned as flat wake speed 
for all motorized watercraft. The arms of the lake would remain flat 
wake speed areas to minimize disturbances to wildlife and visitors. 
Impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat under all the alternatives 
were judged to be minor to moderate from all visitor activities.
    20. One commenter is concerned that the EA does not consider a 
large enough area inland in its analysis for PWC noise and its impact 
upon wildlife. The EA states that PWC may disturb wildlife along the 
shore, extending inland approximately 100 feet, while the distance used 
for analyzing impacts upon humans is \3/4\ of a mile.
    NPS Response: The evaluation area used in the EA for noise impacts 
to wildlife is 200 feet, not 100 feet from the shoreline. Even within 
this relative short distance from personal watercraft, noise impacts to 
wildlife are expected to be short-term and either minor or negligible. 
Noise levels from PWC use would be decreased further at greater 
distances. However, additional potentially affected wildlife may be 
present within 3/4 mile of the shoreline. Therefore impact levels may 
increase slightly from those described for the various alternatives and 
wildlife categories. In the errata to the EA, impacts described as 
negligible were changed to minor, impacts described as minor were 
changed to moderate, and ranges of impacts from negligible to minor 
were changed to minor to moderate.
    21. Several commenters are concerned about PWC impacting the 
Gunnison sage grouse and its habitat and lek located near Stevens Creek 
campground.
    NPS Response: Under the final rule, a 100-foot buffer area, as 
marked by buoys, will be implemented around Steven's Creek campground 
for protection of the Gunnison sage grouse lek. This buffer area will 
be zoned as flat wake speed for all motorized vessels.
    22. One comment stated that the additional buffer zones proposed 
for Gunnison sage grouse protection are not necessary because the NPS 
already has procedures in place that protect the grouse lek located 
near Stevens Creek campground.
    NPS Response: The flat wake zone near Stevens Creek campground will 
apply to all motorized boats, and would afford additional protection to 
the Gunnison sage grouse during the lek season, which extends from 
March through mid-May, when PWC and other boats may be in use on the 
reservoir.

Comments Regarding Vegetation

    23. One commenter stated that there has been no documentation of 
any adverse effects to shoreline vegetation from PWC use.
    NPS Response: The NPS agrees. There are no sensitive shoreline 
species and vegetation along the Blue Mesa Reservoir shoreline is 
generally lacking. The shoreline buffer established near Stevens Creek 
campground and in the arms of the lake will provide some additional 
protection from erosion caused from wave action created by PWC. 
Shoreline vegetation is more likely to be impacted from wave action 
when the reservoir is at full pool.

Comments Regarding Visitor Safety

    24. One commenter stated that the conclusion that PWC use poses a 
health and safety risk ``primarily to the operators'' themselves is 
mistaken and the analysis does not adequately assess the safety threat 
posed to park visitors by PWC use.
    NPS Response: Incidents involving watercraft of all types, 
including PWC, are reported to and logged by NPS 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 of the EA, 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.
    25. 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: The mediating factors described in the comment are 
recognized. However, these factors are unlikely to fully explain the 
large difference in percentages (PWC are only 7.5% of registered 
vessels, yet they are involved in 36% of reported accidents). In other 
words, PWC 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 impact relative to other motorboats at 
the national recreation area.
    26. 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 (NMMA), 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 less than 1% of PWC boats 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 the PWC Industry Association (PWIA). 
Bombardier also did a recall for its 1993, 1994, and 1995 models to 
reassess possible fuel tank design flaws.

[[Page 55117]]

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 watercraft subject to the recall in that the 
replacement tanks had revised filler neck radius, 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 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 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.
    27. One commenter stated that demographic and usage information 
demonstrates that today's PWC owner typically uses PWC for family-
oriented outings, and that they are not reckless ``stunt'' operators.
    NPS Response: NPS agrees that some PWC operators are more mature 
and are not reckless with their machines, and that many trips are 
family-oriented. However, PWC use does vary, and many operators still 
use the machines for ``thrill,'' including stunts, wake jumping, and 
other more risky exercises. Some users can still create disturbances or 
safety concerns, especially if children are operating the vessel. As 
part of the implementation of the final rule, NPS will provide 
additional enforcement and education to minimize the possibility of any 
serious injuries.
    28. One commenter stated that even though the industry has 
attempted to promote three-person PWC as family machines, they are 
advertised and marketed as thrillcraft that tout the machine's speed 
and power in advertisements.
    NPS Response: NPS agrees. However, some PWC operators are better 
educated and are not reckless with their machines, and many trips are 
family-oriented. PWC use does vary, and many operators still use the 
machines for ``thrill,'' including stunts, wake jumping, and other more 
risky exercises.
    29. One commenter stated that several agencies, including the U.S. 
Coast Guard and the National Association of State Boating Law 
Administrators, recommend uniform application of flat wake zones to all 
motorized vessels.
    NPS Response: The flat wake restrictions apply to all vessels, not 
just PWC. All vessels are required to observe the flat wake regulatory 
buoys as required by 36 CFR 3.6(c).
    30. Several commenters were concerned about the NPS' reliance on 
PWC ``self-policing'' regarding speed and flat wake zones, and that 
both alternative A and B will require additional staff to monitor and 
enforce the restrictions.
    NPS Response: The EA does state that generally there is at least 
one law enforcement ranger on the reservoir daily during daylight 
hours. There are also employees from other divisions who make boating 
contacts and/or report violations they observe while performing their 
tasks on the reservoir. Park staff noted that visitors frequently 
report violators of boating regulations, especially in the marinas.
    Furthermore, enforcement would also be required under the no-action 
alternative. The park is fully aware that this new regulation will 
require short-term changes and reallocation of assets and resources, 
with an increase in enforcement. However, this effort will generally 
occur at popular boating use areas that are already the focus of 
enforcement activity. Enforcement of the November 6, 2002, prohibition 
of PWC required an increased focus on education and PWC enforcement 
during routine patrols at a limited number of popular use areas. This 
education and enforcement effort became successful in about two boating 
seasons. Additional educational efforts and a presence on the water by 
park rangers are proven methods of protecting resources for the future 
enjoyment of all visitors, with the end result of enhancing the visitor 
experience.

Comments Regarding Cultural Resources

    31. One commenter stated that the analysis refers to a potential 
concern that the ability of PWC operators to access remote areas of the 
park unit might make certain cultural, archeological and ethnographic 
sites vulnerable to looting or vandalism.
    NPS Response: The EA was focused on the analysis of impacts from 
PWC use. The use of a PWC can make it easier to reach some remote 
upstream areas, compared to hiking to these areas and we agree that the 
type of impacts to cultural resources from any users of remote areas of 
the park would be similar if they can reach these areas. However, there 
is no indication of any instances where these problems have occurred 
from PWC users. Nor is there any reason to believe that PWC users are 
any more likely to pose these concerns than canoeists, kayakers, 
hikers, or others who might access these same areas.

Comments Regarding Socioeconomics

    32. Several commenters stated that the proposed rule fails to 
mention the economic impacts on the PWC-related businesses in the area. 
One of the comments also mentions a recently published economic study 
that discusses the economic impact of prohibiting PWC at national parks 
nationwide.
    NPS Response: NPS reviewed the Trade Partnership study quoted in 
the comment, which concludes that PWC sales grew steadily through 1995, 
and have declined dramatically since then. The study blames this 
decline in sales on the PWC prohibition at National Parks. While the 
PWC prohibition at some National Park units may have contributed 
slightly to decline in PWC sales, NPS disagrees with the study's 
conclusion that the prohibition is the primary reason for the decline 
in sales. Initially PWC use occurred in only 32 of the 87 park units 
that allow motorized boating. These 32 park units comprise a very small 
percentage of the total waterways in the United States that can 
accommodate PWC. A decline in PWC sales can be attributed to many other 
reasons, including economic reasons, perceptions about the machines, 
and limitations by other public entities. In fact, at least 34 states 
have either implemented or considered regulating PWC use and operation, 
and various Federal agencies have managed PWC use differently than 
other classes of motorized watercraft.
    The economic analysis report quoted in the comment (Economic 
Analysis of Management Alternatives for Personal Watercraft in 
Curecanti National Recreation Area, MACTEC Engineering 2003) concludes 
that the rule is not expected to reduce any of the local area's PWC-
related businesses' profit margins or reduce the competitiveness

[[Page 55118]]

of PWC rental and retail businesses. The report also concludes that 
increases in revenue are projected under the rule, relative to the no-
action alternative, for firms selling and renting PWC to Curecanti 
visitors.
    The purpose of the economic analysis was not to look at national 
economic trends of the service-wide rule, but to consider local and 
regional economic impacts of the Curecanti proposed rule.

Changes to the Final Rule

    The final rule is the same as proposed in the NPRM, except that 
language has been added to paragraph (d)(1) of Sec.  7.51 to address 
the buoyed barricaded sections in the vicinity of the Blue Mesa Dam, 
where boats are not allowed. This change was made in response to 
comments, as discussed in section 3 of the Summary of Comments, above.

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 Curecanti National Recreation Area'' (MACTEC Engineering, July 
2003). This document may be viewed on the park's Web site at: http://www.nps.gov/cure/webvc/pwc_use.htm.
    (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 ``Economic Analysis of 
Management Alternatives for Personal Watercraft in Curecanti National 
Recreation Area'' (MACTEC Engineering, July 2003). This document may be 
viewed on the park's Web site at: http://www.nps.gov/cure/webvc/pwc_use.htm.

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.

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 requried. 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 Curecanti National 
Recreation Area. The Environmental Assessment (EA) was open for public 
review and comment from June 11, 2003 until July 13, 2003. A Finding of 
No Significant Impact (FONSI) was approved on June 16, 2006. These 
documents are available at http://www.nps.gov/cure/webvc/pwc_use.htm, 
or copies can be obtained directly from the park.

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 rule allows use of PWC in Curecanti National Recreation Area 
under specified conditions. Because current regulations do not allow 
use of PWC at all, this rule relieves a restriction on the public. For 
this reason, and because NPS wishes to allow the public to take 
advantage of the new rules as soon as possible, this final rule is 
effective upon publication in the Federal Register, as allowed by the

[[Page 55119]]

Administrative Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).
    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register (71 FR 
13792) on March 17, 2006, with a 60-day period for notice and comment 
consistent with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7

    National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.


0
In consideration of the foregoing, 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 D.C. Code 8-137(1981) and D.C. Code 40-721 (1981).


0
2. Add new paragraph (d) to Sec.  7.51 to read as follows:


Sec.  7.51  Curecanti Recreation Area.

* * * * *
    (d) Personal Watercraft (PWC). PWC may operate within Curecanti 
National Recreation Area in the following designated areas and under 
the following conditions:
    (1) PWC may operate and land on Blue Mesa Reservoir between Beaver 
Creek and Blue Mesa dam, except that PWC may not operate in the buoyed 
barricaded section in the vicinity of the dam.
    (2) PWC must operate at ``flat wake'' speeds within Blue Mesa 
Reservoir in the following areas upstream of designated buoys:
    (i) Soap Creek arm at approximate longitude 107[deg]8'9'' N 
latitude 38[deg]30'16'' W.
    (ii) West Elk arm at approximate longitude 107[deg]16'45'' N 
latitude 38[deg]29'43'' W.
    (iii) Cebolla arm at approximate longitude 107[deg]12'16'' N 
latitude 38[deg]27'37'' W.
    (iv) Lake Fork arm at approximate longitude 107[deg]18'19'' N 
latitude 38[deg]27'2'' W.
    (3) PWC must operate at ``flat wake'' speeds in the following 
areas:
    (i) Within 100' of shoreline inside Dry Creek cove.
    (ii) Within 500' of shoreline along old highway 50 and Bay of 
Chickens.
    (iii) Within the buoyed area around Elk Creek and Lake Fork 
marinas.
    (iv) Within the buoyed area at Iola, Stevens Creek, and Ponderosa 
boat launch.
    (v) From Lake city bridge east to Beaver Creek.
    (vi) Within 100' of shoreline adjacent to Stevens Creek campground.
    (4) PWC may only be launched from designated boat launch sites.
    (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.

David M. Verhey,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 06-7846 Filed 9-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P