[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 51 (Thursday, March 17, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12988-13001]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-4734]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024-AD21
Gulf Islands National Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing to designate
areas where personal watercraft (PWC) may be used in Gulf Islands
National Seashore, Florida and Mississippi. This proposed rule
implements the provisions of the NPS general regulations authorizing
park areas to allow the use of PWC by promulgating a special
regulation. The NPS Management Policies 2001 directs 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: Comments must be received by May 16, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule should be sent to the
Superintendent, Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze
Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563. Comments may also be sent by e-mail to
[email protected]. If you comment by e-mail, please include ``PWC rule''
in the subject line and your name and return address in the body of
your Internet message. Also, you may hand deliver comments to Gulf
Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL
32563. For additional information see ``Public Participation'' under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
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
Additional Alternatives
The information contained in this proposed rule supports
implementation of portions of the preferred alternative in the
Environmental Assessment published March 2004. The public should be
aware that two other alternatives were presented in the EA, including a
no-PWC alternative, and those alternatives should also be reviewed and
considered when making comments on this proposed rule.
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 management objectives. The regulation banned PWC use in all
park units effective April 20, 2000, except for 21 parks, lakeshores,
seashores, and recreation areas. The regulation established a 2-year
grace period following the final rule publication to provide these 21
park units time to consider whether PWC use should be permitted to
continue.
Description of Gulf Islands National Seashore
Gulf Islands National Seashore is located in the northeastern
portion of the Gulf of Mexico and includes a widely spaced chain of
barrier islands extending nearly 160 miles from the eastern end of
Santa Rosa Island in Florida to Cat Island in Mississippi. Other
islands in the national seashore include Horn, Petit Bois, and East
Ship and West Ship islands in Mississippi and a section of Perdido Key
in Florida. Gulf Islands National Seashore also includes mainland
tracts at Pensacola Forts and Naval Live Oaks Reservation near
Pensacola, Florida, and Davis Bayou, adjacent to Ocean Springs,
Mississippi. The national seashore contains 139,775.46 acres within the
authorized boundary, excluding Cat Island (only a portion has been
acquired as of this date). Of this total acreage, 19,445.46 acres are
fastlands (above water) and 119,730 acres are submerged lands.
Gulf Islands National Seashore contains snowy-white beaches,
sparkling blue waters, fertile coastal marshes, and dense maritime
forests. Visitors can explore 19th century forts, enjoy shaded picnic
areas, hike on winding nature trails, and camp in comfortable
campgrounds. In addition, Horn and Petit Bois islands located in
Mississippi are federally designated wilderness areas. Nature, history,
and recreational opportunities abound in this national treasure. All
areas of Gulf Islands National Seashore in the Florida
[[Page 12989]]
District and the Davis Bayou area in the Mississippi District are
reachable from Interstate 10. The Mississippi District barrier islands
are only accessible by boat.
Purpose of Gulf Islands National Seashore
Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida and Mississippi, was
authorized by Act of Congress, Public Law 91-660, January 8, 1971, to
provide for recognition of certain historic values such as coastal
fortifications and other purposes such as the preservation and
enjoyment of undeveloped barrier islands and beaches.
Gulf Islands National Seashore conserves certain outstanding
natural, cultural and recreational resources along the Northern Gulf
Coast of Florida and Mississippi. These include several coastal defense
forts spanning more than two centuries of military activity, historic
and prehistoric archaeological sites, and pristine examples of intact
Mississippi coastal barrier islands, salt marshes, bayous, submerged
grass beds, complex terrestrial communities, emerald green water, and
white sand beaches.
Gulf Islands National Seashore was established for the following
purposes:
Preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas
possessing outstanding natural, historic, and recreational values.
Conserve and manage the wildlife and natural resources.
Preserve as wilderness any area within the national
seashore found to be suitable and so designated in accordance with the
provisions of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890).
Recognize, preserve, and interpret the national historic
significance of Fort Barrancas Water Battery (Battery San Antonio),
Fort Barrancas; Advanced Redoubt of Fort Barrancas at Pensacola Naval
Station; Fort Pickens on Santa Rosa Island, Florida; Fort McRee site,
Perdido Key, Florida; and Fort Massachusetts on West Ship Island,
Mississippi, in accordance with the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat.
666). That act states: ``it is a National policy to preserve for public
use historic sites, buildings, and objects of National significance for
inspiration and benefits of the people of the United States.''
Significance of Gulf Islands National Seashore
Gulf Islands National Seashore is significant for the following
reasons:
Nationally significant historical coastal defense forts
representing a continuum of development.
Several mostly undisturbed, natural areas in close
proximity to major population centers.
Areas of natural significant high quality beaches, dunes,
and water resources.
Endangered species occur in several areas.
Contains regionally important prehistoric archaeological
sites.
Provides outstanding controlled areas conducive to the
successful reintroduction of native threatened and endangered species.
Provides habitat for early life stages of many coastal and
marine flora and fauna of commercial and recreational importance.
Provides a benchmark to compare environmental conditions
in developed areas of the Gulf Coast.
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' 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 Gulf Islands National Seashore
Personal watercraft use emerged at Gulf Islands National Seashore
in the 1980s. Although PWC use was a small percentage of total boat use
within the national seashore, park staff believes that use had
increased over the five years prior to the closure. If reinstated, PWC
use at the national seashore is not expected to decrease. In fact, an
increase in usage would be expected as more residents purchase personal
watercraft and tourism continues to grow.
Prior to the closure to personal watercraft in April 2002, personal
watercraft were recognized as a Class A motorboat and were treated as
any other such vessel. All regulations that apply to any registered
vessel operating in waters of Florida and Mississippi that are
regulated by the NPS applied to personal watercraft.
Personal watercraft were permitted throughout the national
seashore, except as follows: no motorized vessels are permitted above
the mean high tide line on the designated wilderness islands of Horn
and Petit Bois; the lakes, ponds, lagoons and inlets of East Ship
Island, West Ship Island, Horn Island, Petit Bois Island, and Cat
Island (lands under NPS management) are closed to the use of motorized
vessels; the lagoons of Perdido Key within Big Lagoon are closed to all
combustion engines; and the areas 200 feet from the remnants of the old
fishing pier and 200 feet from the new fishing pier at Fort Pickens are
closed to all boating operations. There are also seasonal closures to
watercraft to protect nesting shorebirds and other sensitive wildlife
and relict dunes.
Perdido Key in Florida and East Ship and West Ship islands in
Mississippi have the most concentrated boating use within the national
seashore. Many area residents in both States have boat docks and own
boats or personal watercraft, and visit the national seashore.
Florida District. In Florida, the park is situated between the Gulf
of Mexico and the Pensacola Bay system. Although the Gulf offers almost
unlimited area for personal watercraft use, most operation occurs
within the bay. In 2000, personal watercraft comprised 12.5% of all
registered vessels statewide. In the Florida District of the park, it
is estimated that personal watercraft comprised 0.5% of recreational
boating. Personal watercraft traversed along the north shoreline of
Santa Rosa Island while very few traversed the south, or Gulf,
shoreline. In general, PWC usage within the Florida District of the
park was concentrated in the Perdido Key area. During the summer
months, most
[[Page 12990]]
areas of PWC use consisted of 6 or 7 personal watercraft per month,
while on a peak-use day PWC activity in the Perdido Key area might have
comprised 25 personal watercraft. The reason for the higher use in the
Perdido Key area is the sheltered nature of the area and the proximity
to residences with launching facilities.
Mississippi District. The Mississippi portion of the park separates
the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi Sound. Personal watercraft
account for 6% of the registered boats in Mississippi, and it is
estimated that they comprised approximately 4% of recreational boating
in the Mississippi District of the park. The islands are situated
between 6 to 14 miles from the mainland, weather conditions can change
quickly, and large ships use the intracoastal waterway shipping
channels. These factors combined to limit PWC use in the Mississippi
District as transportation to the islands, and use of Gulfside waters
was almost nonexistent except immediately adjacent to the islands.
Observations of PWC use indicate that they were mainly used for
recreational riding and not for transportation. Most personal
watercraft used in the Mississippi District of the park were towed by
larger boats from the Pascagoula/Biloxi/Gulfport, Mississippi, area.
The primary use season reflects overall visitation patterns, with use
decreasing during the winter months.
PWC use areas are similar to general motorboat use areas. Personal
watercraft were concentrated mostly on the east and west tips of the
islands, around the West Ship Island Pier, and the entire north side of
Spoil Island.
Resource Protection and Public Use Issues
Gulf Islands National Seashore Environmental Assessment
As a companion document to this proposed rule, NPS has issued the
Gulf Islands National Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use Environmental
Assessment. The Environmental Assessment (EA) was open for public
review and comment from April 19, 2004 to May 18, 2004. Copies of the
environmental assessment may be downloaded at http://www.nps.gov/guis/pphtml/documents.html or obtained at park headquarters Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mail inquiries should be directed to park
headquarters: Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway,
Gulf Breeze, FL 32563.
The purpose of the environmental assessment was to evaluate a range
of alternatives and strategies for the management of PWC use at Gulf
Islands to ensure the protection of park resources and values while
offering recreational opportunities as provided for in the National
Seashore's enabling legislation, purpose, mission, and goals. The
analysis assumed alternatives would be implemented beginning in 2002
and considered a 10-year period, from 2002 to 2012.
The environmental assessment evaluates three alternatives
concerning the use of personal watercraft at Gulf Islands:
The no-action alternative would continue the prohibition
of PWC use in Gulf Islands National Seashore. No special rule would be
promulgated.
Alternative A would reinstate PWC use under a special NPS
regulation as previously managed.
Alternative B would reinstate PWC use under a special NPS
regulation with additional management prescriptions.
Based on the environmental analysis prepared for PWC use at Gulf
Islands, alternative B is considered the environmentally preferred
alternative because it would best fulfill park responsibilities as
trustee of this sensitive habitat; ensure safe and healthy, productive,
and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; and attain a
wider range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation,
risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended
consequences.
This document proposes regulations to implement alternative B at
Gulf Islands National Seashore.
The NPS will consider the comments received on this proposal, as
well as the comments received on the Environmental Assessment when
making a final determination. In the final rule, the NPS will implement
alternative B as proposed, or choose a different alternative or
combination of alternatives. Therefore, the public should review and
consider the other alternatives contained in the Environmental
Assessment when making comments on this proposed rule.
The following summarizes the predominant resource protection and
public use issues associated with PWC use at Gulf Islands National
Seashore. Each of these issues is analyzed in the Gulf Islands National
Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment.
Water Quality
Most research on the effects of personal watercraft on water
quality focuses on the impacts of two-stroke engines, and it is assumed
that any impacts caused by these engines also apply to two-stroke
engines in personal watercraft. Two-stroke engines (and some personal
watercraft) discharge a gas-oil mixture into the water. Fuel used in
many PWC and motorboat engines contains many hydrocarbons, including
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (collectively referred to as
BTEX). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) also are released from
boat engines, including those in personal watercraft. These compounds
are not found appreciably in the unburned fuel mixture, but rather are
products of combustion. Discharges of all these compounds--BTEX and
PAHs--have potential adverse effects on aquatic life and human health
if present at high enough concentrations. A common gasoline additive,
methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) also is released with the unburned
portion of the gasoline. In 2001, premium grade fuel (octane of 90 and
higher) in Florida had MTBE concentrations ranging from 0% to 10.8% of
the fuel mixture, with an average of 3.5%; no data was available for
Mississippi. For this assessment, it was assumed that the concentration
of MTBE in fuel used by all vessels in the Florida and Mississippi
districts is 3.5%. There are no plans to ban the use of MTBE in fuels
in Florida or Mississippi. The PWC industry suggests that although some
unburned fuel does enter the water, the fuel's gaseous state allows it
to evaporate readily.
A typical conventional (i.e., carbureted) two-stroke PWC engine
discharges as much as 30% of the unburned fuel mixture into the
exhaust. At common fuel consumption rates, an average two-hour ride on
a personal watercraft may discharge 3 gallons (11.34 liters) of fuel
into the water. According to data from Personal Watercraft Illustrated
and the Environmental Protection Agency, an average 2000 model-year
personal watercraft can discharge between 3.8 and 4.5 gallons of fuel
during one hour at full throttle. (As described in appendix A of the
Environmental Assessment, an estimated discharge rate of 3 gallons per
hour is used in the water quality impact calculations.)
Florida District. Under the proposed regulation, based on
alternative B in the Environmental Assessment, PWC use would be
reinstated in all waters within the Florida District as previously
managed under the Superintendent's Compendium, and all State regulatory
requirements would apply. In addition, a PWC flat wake zone would be
established a minimum of 300 yards from all park shorelines. PWC flat
wake
[[Page 12991]]
speed engine emissions were assumed to be negligible; therefore it was
assumed that the same number of PWC-hours of full-throttle use under
alternative A in the three areas would occur, but only beyond 300 yards
of park shorelines. This effectively reduces the available water volume
for diluting PWC engine emissions.
The results of the water quality analysis for PWC activity shows
that for all discharged pollutants evaluated, the ecotoxicological
threshold volumes estimated for 2002 and 2012 would be well below
volumes of water available at the three areas. Threshold volumes range
from 0.1 to 260 acre-feet, while water volumes accessible to personal
watercraft under this alternative range from 13,010 to 301,704 acre-
feet. Impacts to aquatic organisms are expected to be negligible for
all pollutants evaluated.
Threshold volumes for human health benchmarks of benzo(a)pyrene and
benzene are also well below volumes of water available at the three
areas in 2002 and 2012. Threshold volumes range from 7 to 310 acre-
feet, while water volumes available to personal watercraft range from
13,010 to 301,704 acre-feet. Impacts to human health are expected to be
negligible for all pollutants evaluated. Mixing, flushing, and the
resulting dilution of park waters by adjacent waters would further
reduce pollutant concentrations. Tidal currents at the Pensacola Bay
entrance reach a speed of 4.1 knots. Incoming tides increase the
available water volume, especially at the Big Lagoon area of Perdido
Key where the average depth is less than 8 feet. Outgoing tides
transport soluble pollutants out of park waters to the Gulf of Mexico.
Mississippi District. Under the proposed regulation, PWC use would
be reinstated in all waters within the Mississippi District as
previously managed under the Superintendent's Compendium, and all State
regulatory requirements would apply. In addition, a PWC flat wake zone
would be established 300 yards from park shorelines at West Ship, East
Ship, and Spoil Islands and 0.5 mile from Horn and Petit Bois Islands
and West Ship Island pier. PWC flat wake speed engine emissions were
assumed to be negligible, so it was assumed that the same number of
PWC-hours of full-throttle use under alternative A in Mississippi Sound
and in Gulf-side waters would occur, but only beyond the flat wake
boundary. This effectively reduces the available water volume for
diluting PWC engine emissions.
The results of the water quality analysis for PWC activity shows
that for all discharged pollutants evaluated, the ecotoxicological
threshold volumes estimated for 2002 and 2012 would be well below
volumes of water available at both areas. Threshold volumes range from
2 to 1,800 acre-feet, while water volumes available to PWC use range
from 183,665 to 273,952 acre-feet. Impacts to aquatic organisms are
expected to be negligible for all pollutants evaluated.
Threshold volumes for human health benchmarks of benzo(a)pyrene and
benzene are also well below volumes of water available at both areas in
2002 and 2012. Threshold volumes range from 140 to 2,200 acre-feet,
while volumes available to PWC use range from 183,665 to 273,952 acre-
feet. Impacts to human health are expected to be negligible for all
pollutants evaluated. Mixing, flushing, and the resulting dilution of
park waters by adjacent waters would further reduce pollutant
concentrations. Incoming tides increase the available water volume,
especially in shallow areas. Outgoing tides transport soluble
pollutants out of park waters to Mississippi Sound and the Gulf of
Mexico.
Conclusion. Under the proposed regulation, water quality impacts
from PWC use based on ecotoxicological and human health benchmarks
would be negligible adverse for all pollutants in all areas of the
national seashore in 2002. In 2012, although PWC use is projected to
increase more rapidly than non-PWC use, all water quality impacts from
PWC use are expected to remain negligible due to reduced emission rates
of newer technology engines.
In 2002, personal watercraft contributed approximately 30% of the
cumulative emissions from all motorized watercraft, and in 2012,
personal watercraft will contribute approximately 50% of the cumulative
emissions. Impacts would still be negligible for all pollutants in all
areas of the national seashore in 2002 and 2012. At most, cumulative
impact threshold volumes would constitute less than 5% of the volume
available to personal watercraft. In 2012, even with increased
motorcraft use, cumulative water quality impacts from all watercraft
are expected to be lower than in 2002 due to reduced emission rates. It
is recognized that the current phase-in of cleaner running engine
technologies by the Personal Watercraft Industry should result in a
reduced amount of water pollutants and an overall reduction of
hydrocarbon emissions.
Implementation of this proposed regulation would not result in an
impairment of water quality.
Air Quality
Personal watercraft emit various compounds that pollute the air. Up
to one third of the fuel delivered to the typical two-stroke carbureted
PWC engine is unburned and discharged; the lubricating oil is used once
and is expelled as part of the exhaust; and the combustion process
results in emissions of air pollutants such as volatile organic
compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter
(PM), and carbon monoxide (CO). Personal watercraft also emit fuel
components such as PAH that are known to cause adverse health effects.
Even though PWC engine exhaust is usually routed below the
waterline, a portion of the exhaust gases go into the air. These air
pollutants may adversely impact park visitor and employee health as
well as sensitive park resources. For example, in the presence of
sunlight VOC2 and NOX emissions combine to form
ozone (O3). O3 causes respiratory problems in
humans, including coughs, airway irritation, and chest pain during
inhalations. O3 is also toxic to sensitive species of
vegetation. It causes visible foliar injury, decreases plant growth,
and increases plant susceptibility to insects and disease. CO can
affect humans as well. It interferes with the oxygen carrying capacity
of blood, resulting in lack of oxygen to tissues. NOX and PM
emissions associated with PWC use can degrade visibility.
NOX can also contribute to acid deposition effects on
plants, water, and soil. However, because emission estimates show that
NOX from personal watercraft are minimal (less than 5 tons
per year), acid deposition effects attributable to PWC use are expected
to be minimal. It is recognized that the current phase-in of cleaner
running engine technologies by the Personal Watercraft Industry should
result in a reduced amount of air pollutants and an overall reduction
of hydrocarbon emissions.
Impacts to human health. Under the proposed regulation, the use of
the national seashore by personal watercraft would be reinstated with
some additional restrictions to the management strategies in force
prior to the closure. The additional restrictions would establish a
flat wake zone 300 yards from all park shorelines at the low-water
mark, except at the West Ship Island Pier and around all designated
wilderness boundaries where a 0.5-mile flat wake zone would be
established. Furthermore, no PWC operation would be permitted within
200 feet of non-motorized watercraft and people in the water. Human-
health air quality impacts from the proposed regulation would be
[[Page 12992]]
the same as described for alternative A for 2002 and 2012 in both
Florida and Mississippi and would be negligible for CO,
PM10, HC, and NOX. The human health risk from PAH
would also be negligible in 2002 and 2012. The additional restrictions
would not change the type of personal watercraft in use, nor increase
or decrease the number of personal watercraft forecasted or their daily
duration of use between 2002 and 2012.
Because no reduction in PWC use is expected, the proposed
regulation would result in the same air quality impacts to human health
from PWC emissions as alternative A. The additional management
prescriptions would not noticeably affect PWC emissions as compared to
alternative A; therefore, the total increase in emissions resulting
from alternative A shown in tables 40 and 41 of the Environmental
Assessment for the Florida and Mississippi districts, respectively, is
the same for the proposed regulation. Negligible adverse impacts from
PWC emissions for CO, PM10, HC, and NOX would
occur for 2002 and 2012 in both the Florida and Mississippi districts.
The risk from PAH would also be negligible in 2002 and 2012.
Cumulative adverse impacts from PWC and other boating emissions at
the national seashore would be the same as for alternative A. In the
Florida District, adverse impacts to human health from air pollutants
in 2002 would be negligible for PM10 and NOX and
moderate for CO and HC. In 2012, levels would remain negligible for
PM10 and NOX, and moderate for CO and HC. In the
Mississippi District, impacts would be minor for CO and negligible for
PM10, HC, and NOX, in 2002. In 2012, CO impact
would increase to moderate; and impacts for the other pollutants would
remain at 2002 levels. Regional ozone emissions would improve due to a
reduction in HC emissions. The proposed regulation would have
negligible adverse impacts to human health air quality conditions, with
future reductions in PM10 and HC emissions due to improved
emission controls. The PWC contribution to emissions of HC is estimated
to be less than 1% of the cumulative boating emissions in 2002 and
2012. All impacts would be long term.
Implementation of the proposed regulation would not result in an
impairment of air quality as it relates to human health.
Impacts to air quality related values. Under the proposed
regulation, the annual number of personal watercraft using the Gulf
Islands National Seashore would be the same as alternative A for both
the Florida and Mississippi districts. Additional management
prescriptions under the proposed regulation, including flat wake
restrictions, would not affect PWC use numbers and potential future
increases. The predicted emission levels and impacts of continued PWC
use to air quality related values would be the same as those described
for alternative A based on annual emission rates. Impacts to air
quality related values from PWC in 2002 and 2012 would be minor.
The impacts of the proposed regulation on air quality related
values would be the same as alternative A. Emissions of each pollutant
would be less than 50 tons per year in both 2002 and 2012. Minor
adverse impacts to air quality related values from PWC would occur in
both 2002 and 2012 in both districts of the national seashore. In both
2002 and 2012, adverse impacts from cumulative emissions from motorized
boats and PWC would be moderate in the Florida District, and minor in
the Mississippi District. This conclusion is based on calculated levels
of pollutant emissions, regional SUM06 values, and the lack of observed
visibility impacts or ozone-related plant injury in the national
seashore.
Implementation of the proposed regulation would not result in an
impairment of air quality related values.
Soundscapes
The primary soundscape issue relative to PWC use is that other
visitors may perceive the sound made by personal watercraft as an
intrusion or nuisance, thereby disrupting their experiences. This
disruption is generally short term because personal watercraft travel
for a relatively short time along the shore and spend most of the time
in outlying areas. However, PWC occasionally congregate in popular
shoreline areas with other visitors, and as PWC use increases, related
noise may become more of an issue, particularly during certain times of
the day. Additionally, visitor sensitivity to PWC noise varies from
fisherman (more sensitive) to swimmers at popular beaches (less
sensitive).
The biggest difference between noise from personal watercraft and
noise from motorboats is that PWC continually leave the water, which
magnifies noise in two ways. Without the muffling effect of water, the
engine noise is typically 15 dBA louder and the smacking of the craft
against the water surface results in a loud ``whoop'' or series of
them. With the rapid maneuvering and frequent speed changes, the
impeller has no constant ``throughput'' and no consistent load on the
engine. Consequently, the engine speed rises and falls, resulting in a
variable pitch. This constantly changing sound is often perceived as
more disturbing than the constant sound from motorboats.
PWC users tend to operate close to shore, to operate in confined
areas, and to travel in groups, making noise more noticeable to other
recreationists (e.g., if identical boats emit 75 dB, two such boats
together would be expected to emit 78 dB, three boats together would
emit 80 dB). Motorboats traveling back and forth in one area at open
throttle or spinning around in small inlets also generate complaints
about noise levels; however, most motorboats tend to operate away from
shore and to navigate in a straight line, thus being less noticeable to
other recreationists.
Under this proposed regulation, based on alternative B in the
Environmental Assessment, a special regulation would be written to
reinstate personal watercraft use. Additional management strategies
would mitigate watercraft safety concerns, protect natural and cultural
resources, and enhance overall visitor experience.
PWC use would follow the same patterns assumed in alternative A;
however, the proposed regulation would implement flat wake zoning for
personal watercraft to help minimize the effects of PWC noise to park
visitors, including anglers and near shoreline users of the swimming,
picnic, and camping areas. The magnitude of noise near the speed
restriction areas would be dependent on the changes in location and
speed of the personal watercraft. As described in the analysis for
alternative A in the Environmental Assessment, a reduction from 40 mph
to 20 mph would reduce PWC noise levels approximately 5 dBA. Noise
reductions would occur with reductions in speed limits below 20 mph.
Increasing the distance from the personal watercraft to the listener
from 100 to 200 feet would result in a noise reduction of about 6 dBA.
The types of adverse impacts to the soundscape of Gulf Islands
National Seashore would be generally the same as alternative A because
of the type of sound. However, the level of impact would be less due to
increased distances between the PWC activity and shoreline activity.
Overall, negligible to minor adverse impacts would result from PWC use
on the soundscape of the national seashore. Impacts would generally be
short in duration but occur over the long-term. Although they could
periodically be more frequent at shoreline areas on very high use days
where motorized watercraft noise may predominate for most of the day,
most
[[Page 12993]]
visitors to Gulf Islands National Seashore during those high use
periods expect to hear motorized craft during the day, as the seashore
is known for providing this type of recreational opportunity in
addition to other activities. Since motorized noise would be expected
to be infrequent and at low levels due to use restrictions, minor
adverse impacts might occur if PWC users choose to operate in areas of
the park that are away from launch areas and campgrounds, and where
shoreline visitors would be anticipating a quiet, wilderness experience
such as at Horn and Petit Bois Islands. As in alternative A, impacts
could potentially increase if the noise output on newer engines does
not decrease substantially enough to overcome the increase in PWC use.
Noise from personal watercraft would be short-term in duration but
would be expected to occur over the long-term. Impacts would be
negligible to minor adverse depending on the location, within the unit,
the time of day, and the time of year. Flat wake zoning would reduce
noise levels from PWC in shoreline areas, specifically those areas
around Horn and Petit Bois Islands. Impact levels would relate to the
number of personal watercraft operating as well as the sensitivity of
other visitors and could potentially increase by 2012 based on noise
levels of newer engine technology.
Cumulative adverse noise impacts from personal watercraft and other
watercraft, commercial boats, and aircraft would be negligible to
moderate. Impacts would be short in duration but occur over the long-
term because of the high volume of annual boating use, and could
increase with increased boating use in the future.
Implementation of the proposed regulation would not result in an
impairment of the park's soundscape.
Shoreline and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Personal watercraft are able to access areas that other types of
watercraft may not, which may cause direct disturbance to vegetation.
Indirect impact to shoreline vegetation may occur through trampling if
operators disembark and engage in activities on shore. In addition,
wakes created by personal watercraft may affect shorelines through
erosion by wave action.
Under the proposed regulation, PWC use would be reinstated in all
waters within the national seashore as previously managed under the
Gulf Islands National Seashore Superintendent's Compendium, and all
State regulatory requirements would apply. In addition, a flat wake
zone would be established 300 yards from all park shorelines except
around the West Ship Island Pier and around wilderness boundaries (Horn
and Petit Bois Islands) where 0.5-mile flat wake zones would be in
effect. The flat wake zoning component of the management prescriptions
under the proposed regulation would minimize both erosion effects from
PWC induced wave action and direct PWC disturbance to shoreline marsh
and dune communities. These impacts would be adverse and negligible
under the proposed regulation. Minor adverse impacts from PWC use to
emergent vegetation communities within the national seashore would
result from visitor disturbance to dune communities as a result of PWC
access. Overall, PWC use would have negligible to minor adverse impacts
on shoreline vegetation communities within the national seashore.
Of the approximately 1,930 acres of potential seagrass habitat
within the Florida District of the national seashore, about 1,000 acres
would be open to full-throttle PWC use. In the Perdido Key area of the
Florida District, where PWC use is most intense (peak use of 25
personal watercraft), only about 300 of the 640 acres of seagrass
habitat would be accessible to PWC full-throttle use. Direct and
indirect PWC impacts to seagrass beds would occur, but would be
minimized by the wake restrictions. Potential direct impacts would
include collision, uprooting, and sediment alteration. Indirect impacts
would include increased turbidity, decreased available sunlight, and
deposition of suspended sediment, which adversely affects the growth
and health of seagrass beds. Under the proposed regulation, PWC use
within the Florida District would have impacts to submerged aquatic
vegetation communities that are direct and indirect, minor, and short-
and long-term.
In the Mississippi District, a flat wake zone would be established
300 yards from park shorelines at West Ship, East Ship, and Spoil
Islands and 0.5 mile from the shorelines at Horn and Petit Bois Islands
and West Ship Island pier. Approximately 700 of the 3,300 acres of
potential seagrass habitat would be accessible to full-throttle PWC use
under the proposed regulation. Direct and indirect adverse PWC impacts
to seagrass habitats would occur, but would be minimized by the flat
wake zoning. Under the proposed regulation, PWC use within the
Mississippi District would have impacts to seagrass habitats that are
direct and indirect, minor, and short- and long-term.
Projected increases in PWC use within the national seashore would
potentially result in higher levels of impacts in 2012 relative to
2002.
PWC use would cause negligible adverse impacts to shoreline
vegetation from physical disturbance and wave action, and minor adverse
impacts from visitor access to emergent shoreline vegetation
communities. PWC use under the proposed regulation would have impacts
to seagrass habitats that are direct and indirect, minor, and short-
and long-term, because shallow water habitats in the national seashore
are the preferred areas for PWC use, particularly the Perdido Key and
Mississippi Sound areas. The flat wake zoning would restrict PWC
impacts to about one-half of the potential seagrass habitat in Florida
and one-quarter of the potential seagrass habitat in Mississippi.
Therefore, the proposed regulation, based on alternative B in the
Environmental Assessment, would have fewer adverse impacts to shoreline
and submerged aquatic vegetation than alternative A. Cumulative impacts
to shoreline vegetation would include effects from all visitor
activities, including PWC use and other motorized vessels, and would be
minor to moderate. Cumulative impacts to seagrass habitats associated
with use by all motorized vessels would be minor to moderate locally,
as motorboat use could continue to cause propeller scarring and
sediment resuspension and its effects. Impacts would potentially be
higher in 2012 relative to 2002 due to projected increases in PWC and
other motorized watercraft use.
Implementation of this proposed regulation would not result in an
impairment of shoreline or submerged aquatic vegetation.
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Some research suggests that PWC use affects wildlife by causing
interruption of normal activities, alarm or flight, avoidance or
degradation of habitat, and effects on reproductive success. This is
thought to be a result of a combination of PWC speed, noise, and
ability to access sensitive areas, especially in shallow-water depths.
Waterfowl and nesting birds are the most vulnerable to personal
watercraft. Fleeing a disturbance created by personal watercraft may
force birds to abandon eggs during crucial embryo development stages,
prevent nest defense from predators, or contribute to stress and
associated behavior changes.
Impacts to sensitive species, such as the manatee and the Perdido
Key beach mouse, are discussed in the
[[Page 12994]]
``Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species'' section.
Under the proposed regulation, based on alternative B of the
Environmental Assessment, PWC use would occur as under alternative A,
with additional management prescriptions. A flat wake zone would be
established 300 yards from all park shorelines, with the exception of
the West Ship Island Pier, where a flat wake zone would extend 0.5 mile
from the shoreline and 0.5 mile from either side of the pier. A flat
wake zone would also be established 0.5 mile from the shorelines around
all designated wilderness boundaries and no PWC operation would be
permitted within 200 feet of non-motorized watercraft and people in the
water.
Impacts to aquatic wildlife species, especially in high use areas
such as the Perdido Key area, the area north of Santa Rosa Island, and
Mississippi Sound would be fewer than alternative A. The proposed
regulation would minimize impacts from PWC because the most shallow
water habitats and considerable portions of seagrass bed habitats lie
within the PWC flat wake zones prescribed by the proposed regulation.
Aquatic wildlife species inhabiting shallow protected waters and
seagrass beds within the flat wake zone would not be subjected to PWC
full-throttle impacts. However, PWC use in areas providing essential
fish habitats could disrupt normal feeding and other critical life
functions of fish and shellfish species and could adversely affect
suitability of these areas to meet life cycle requirements. Adverse
impacts to fish and shellfish and their habitat from PWC-generated
sediment resuspension and emissions may occur in these areas.
Reinstating PWC use in park waters with the establishment of a PWC flat
wake zone would have fewer adverse impacts than alternative A. The
proposed regulation is expected to have short-term, minor, direct and
indirect adverse impacts to aquatic wildlife species and habitats.
The extended flat wake zoning under the proposed regulation would
minimize impacts from PWC activity to terrestrial wildlife species by
restricting speed near shoreline habitat areas and thus limiting the
potential for disturbance from noise and rapid approach by personal
watercraft. Impacts to terrestrial mammals from PWC use would be
negligible due to both the infrequent use of shoreline areas by these
species and the extension of flat wake zoning.
Prior established seasonal closures of areas around avian nesting
sites in conjunction with increased flat wake zoning under the proposed
regulation would minimize long-term impacts to nesting individuals.
Adverse impacts to avian species from PWC noise and activity within the
national seashore would be negligible to minor from short-term
disturbance from PWC noise and access to loafing or foraging
shorebirds, wading birds, and other water birds. Osprey would also
experience short-term negligible to minor adverse effects due to the
potential for PWC access to disturb roosting or feeding activities.
Projected increases in PWC use within the national seashore would
result in higher levels of impacts in 2012 relative to 2002.
Under the proposed regulation, flat wake zoning prescriptions would
minimize impacts to shoreline wildlife within the national seashore.
Reinstating PWC use in park waters while establishing a flat wake zone
is expected to have short-term, minor, direct and indirect adverse
impacts to aquatic wildlife species and habitats. PWC use would
contribute negligible short-term adverse impacts to terrestrial
mammals, and negligible to minor mostly short-term adverse impacts to
avian species with primary habitat located in shoreline areas.
Cumulative impacts to aquatic and avian wildlife associated with
all types of motorized vessel use are expected to be short-term, minor,
direct and indirect, and adverse. There would be a slight potential for
some long-term impacts to avian species if nesting individuals are
disturbed to an extent that would cause individuals to relocate.
Cumulative impacts to terrestrial wildlife would be negligible to minor
and short term.
Impacts in 2012 would likely be higher relative to 2002 levels due
to the projected increase in PWC and other motorized watercraft use
within the national seashore.
Implementation of the proposed regulation would not result in
impairment to aquatic or terrestrial wildlife or wildlife habitat.
Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species
The same issues described for PWC use and general wildlife also
pertain to special status species. Potential impacts from personal
watercraft include inducing flight and alarm responses, disrupting
normal behaviors and causing stress, degrading habitat quality, and
potentially affecting reproductive success. In addition to wildlife,
threatened, endangered, or special concern plant species are also at
risk from disturbance related to PWC use. Special status species at the
national seashore include federally listed threatened, endangered, or
candidate species. Additionally, some species at Gulf Islands National
Seashore are designated by the States of Florida and/or Mississippi as
threatened, endangered, or special concern species.
Under the proposed regulation, based on alternative B of the
Environmental Assessment, PWC use would occur as under alternative A,
with additional management prescriptions. A flat wake zone would be
established 300 yards from all park shorelines, with the exception of
the West Ship Island Pier, where a flat wake zone would extend 0.5 mile
from the shoreline and 0.5 mile from either side of the pier. A flat
wake zone would also be established 0.5 mile from the shorelines around
all designated wilderness boundaries and no PWC operation would be
permitted within 200 feet of non-motorized watercraft and people in the
water.
The extended flat wake zoning under the proposed regulation would
minimize impacts from PWC activity to threatened and endangered species
by restricting speed near shoreline habitat areas and thus limiting the
potential for disturbance from noise and rapid approach by personal
watercraft.
Potential impacts to special status species from PWC use within the
national seashore under the proposed regulation are as follows.
Aquatic Species. PWC use may affect, but is not likely to adversely
affect, the Florida manatee, Atlantic green, Kemp's ridley, Atlantic
loggerhead, and alligator snapping sea turtles through collisions and
noise impacts. The 300-yard PWC flat wake zone would encompass much of
the shallow seagrass habitats in the Perdido Key area and north of
Santa Rosa Island in the Florida District, and in Mississippi Sound in
the Mississippi District where manatees and turtles may occur, thereby
minimizing the chance of collisions.
The Gulf sturgeon and its designated critical habitat may be
affected but are not likely to be adversely affected by PWC noise and
water quality impacts, because much of this habitat in the national
seashore occurs within the 300-yard PWC flat wake zone. PWC use may
affect, but is unlikely to adversely affect, the State listed saltmarsh
topminnow. The PWC flat wake zone restriction would eliminate full-
throttle PWC use in the salt marsh and shoreline habitats of the
national seashore where this fish occurs.
Terrestrial Species. Direct adverse impacts from personal
watercraft to the Perdido Key beach mouse and the Santa Rosa beach
mouse would be unlikely due to the nocturnal nature of both species and
the general avoidance of
[[Page 12995]]
human activity. Closures of sensitive dune ecosystems as stated in the
Gulf Islands National Seashore Superintendent's Compendium would
minimize the potential for indirect effects related to PWC access and
resultant visitor activity in habitat areas. PWC use under the proposed
regulation may affect the Perdido Key and Santa Rosa species of beach
mouse, but adverse effects to the species would be unlikely.
The gopher tortoise could be potentially affected by disturbance to
individuals or habitat from people with shoreline access, including PWC
users. Within the national seashore, the gopher tortoise is known
mainly to occur in inland locations, away from areas of PWC access, and
is unlikely to be adversely affected by PWC use.
Avian Species. Flat wake zoning of personal watercraft within at
least 300 yards of shoreline areas would minimize adverse impacts from
PWC noise and physical disturbance to the federally or State listed
bird species in both the Florida and Mississippi districts of the
national seashore. Minor effects from PWC use to special status bird
species may occur under the proposed regulation. As in other
alternatives, seasonal closures of important nesting sites for
shoreline birds reduce the potential for impacts to nesting
individuals. Under the proposed regulation, the slower speeds and
decreased noise from personal watercraft that would result from
implementation of flat wake zoning in shoreline areas, would preclude
adverse effects from PWC use within the national seashore to the bald
eagle, piping plover, American peregrine falcon, brown pelican,
southeastern snowy plover, least tern, southeastern American kestrel,
black skimmer, reddish egret, snowy egret, and little blue heron. Any
effects that would occur from PWC use would be short-term in nature and
would likely result in temporary flight responses by loafing or
foraging individuals.
Special Status Plants. The additional management prescriptions
under the proposed regulation would not affect the accessibility of
shoreline areas or reduce the potential for PWC users to disembark and
explore the islands, potentially impacting special status plant
species.
The affinity of the white-top pitcher plant for bogs and other wet
environments precludes impacts from typical recreational exploration
and trampling within either the Florida or Mississippi district of the
national seashore. No effects to this species are expected to result
from PWC access within the national seashore.
Within the national seashore, populations of Cruise's golden aster
and Godfrey's golden aster that occur in dune communities would be the
most susceptible to trampling by visitors with PWC access to the
shoreline. Closures of sensitive dune communities to foot traffic as
mandated by the Superintendent's Compendium would serve as a measure of
protection for both Cruise's and Godfrey's golden asters from PWC user
access. PWC use within the national seashore may affect, but is
unlikely to adversely affect Cruise's golden aster and Godfrey's golden
aster.
Visitors who gain access by personal watercraft and explore areas
away from the shoreline may affect Curtiss' sandgrass. Adverse impacts
are unlikely as it is not present in the open shoreline areas of the
shoreline where visitor exploration and access is likely to occur.
Large-leaved jointweed may be affected but is unlikely to be
adversely affected by PWC activity within the national seashore due to
the isolated occurrence of the species in locations away from open
shoreline areas where personal watercraft would be likely to land and
to its location in the Naval Live Oaks area where PWC use would be low.
Conclusion. Reinstating PWC use within the national seashore and
establishing a PWC flat wake zone would minimize the likelihood of
adverse effects on threatened or endangered species in the national
seashore boundaries from PWC use. PWC use may affect, but would be
unlikely to adversely affect, any federally or State-listed species. In
combination with prior mandated closures of sensitive habitat areas,
the extension of flat wake zoning to a minimum of 300 yards from the
shoreline under the proposed regulation would serve as a measure of
protection against impacts from PWC use to terrestrial and avian
special status species. PWC use would have no effect on the white-top
pitcher plant.
Cumulative impacts to special status species from non-PWC sources
would be the same as under alternative A. PWC use would contribute
slightly to cumulative effects, but PWC or other visitor use and
activities would not be likely to cause adverse impacts to special
status species within the national seashore.
Implementation of the proposed regulation would not result in an
impairment of threatened or endangered species.
Visitor Use and Experience
Some research suggests that PWC use is viewed by some segments of
the public as a nuisance due to their noise, speed, and overall
environmental effects, while others believe personal watercraft are no
different from other watercraft and that people have a right to enjoy
the sport. The primary concern involves changes in noise, pitch, and
volume due to the way personal watercraft are operated. Additionally,
the sound of any watercraft can carry for long distances, especially on
a calm day.
Under the proposed regulation, based on alternative B of the
Environmental Assessment, PWC use would be reinstated as described
under alternative A, with additional management prescriptions. A flat
wake zone would be established 300 yards from all park shorelines, with
the exception of the West Ship Island Pier, where a flat wake zone
would extend 0.5 mile from the shoreline and 0.5 mile from either side
of the pier. A flat wake zone would also be established 0.5 mile from
the shorelines around all designated wilderness boundaries and no PWC
operation would be permitted within 200 feet of non-motorized
watercraft and people in the water.
Impact on PWC Users. Under the proposed regulation, PWC use would
be reinstated and all of the national seashore waters would be
accessible to PWC use except where restricted. Implementation of the
above mentioned flat wake areas would prohibit high speed maneuvering
in these areas, but this type of activity would still be allowed
outside of the flat wake areas within park waters. Compared to the
baseline of no PWC use in the national seashore, the proposed
regulation would have beneficial impacts on PWC users, because they
would be allowed to recreate with a personal watercraft in the national
seashore. However, implementation of the restrictions included in the
proposed regulation would have negligible adverse impacts on the
visitor experience of PWC users, because their access would be more
limited.
Impact on Other Boaters. The majority of motorized boating in the
Florida District occurs in Gulf waters on the south side of the islands
(4,500 compared to 500 in non-Gulf waters in 2002). However, PWC favor
the bay and sound areas, where waters are calm (2 PWC in Gulf waters
compared to 37 in non-Gulf waters in 2002). The PWC restrictions
defined by Escambia County, Florida, would also apply under alternative
B, benefiting boaters in this area.
[[Page 12996]]
PWC are more prevalent and more evenly distributed in the
Mississippi District (a total of 161 PWC in Mississippi in 2002).
Conversely, far fewer boaters visit the Mississippi District (1,607 in
Mississippi compared to 5,000 in Florida in 2002). East and West Ship
islands experience the heaviest visitor use and boaters there would
likely experience the biggest impacts. PWC concentrate in areas that
boaters also prefer, usually on the east and west ends of the islands,
around the West Ship Island Pier, and the north side of Spoil Island.
Under the proposed regulation, PWC would be prohibited within 200
feet of non-motorized watercraft and people in the water. The
additional flat wake restrictions included the proposed regulation
would also benefit motorized boaters in both districts, because they
would likely share the same waters as PWC users. Therefore, impacts to
motorized boaters would be long-term and adverse due to an increase in
the number of vessels operating in the same space, but negligible to
minor.
Personal watercraft would be operating in park waters along with
non-motorized watercraft users. However, PWC would be prohibited from
areas 200 feet from the old fishing pier and 200 feet from the new
fishing pier at Fort Pickens. In addition, a flat wake zone would be
established 300 yards from all park shorelines, except at the West Ship
Island Pier, where the flat wake zone would extend 0.5 mile from the
shoreline and either side of the pier. The flat wake zone would also
extend 0.5 mile from the shoreline around all wilderness boundaries.
PWC would also be prohibited within 200 feet of non-motorized
watercraft. The proposed canoe trail along the north side of Perdido
Key would provide a non-motorized boat route for canoeists and kayakers
to enjoy. The canoe trail would be within the flat wake zone
established 300 yards from the shoreline, providing beneficial impacts
to these non-motorized boaters. In addition, park staff have received
no documented complaints from non-motorized boaters concerning PWC use,
and few canoeists and kayakers visit the park. Therefore, impacts to
non-motorized watercraft under the proposed regulation would be long-
term, adverse, and negligible to minor.
Impact on Other Visitors. Swimmers, anglers, campers, hikers, and
other shoreline visitors to the national seashore would have contact
with personal watercraft users. Shoreline areas that are popular with
both personal watercraft and other shoreline users include the north
sides of the Mississippi islands and the Perdido Key area.
Swimmers. High-density beach use occurs on Rosamond Johnson Beach
at Perdido Key, Opal Beach in the Santa Rosa area, Langdon Beach at
Fort Pickens, and West Ship Island. PWC use in the Florida District
would likely be concentrated in the Perdido Key area primarily on the
bay, or north side of the key. However, few PWC traversed the south, or
Gulf shoreline, reducing the amount of adverse impacts to the Rosamond
Johnson Beach (in Perdido Key), as well as Opal and Langdon Beach,
where PWC use was less frequent. The proposed regulation would further
restrict PWC use by establishing a flat wake zone 300 yards from all
park shorelines, which would benefit swimmers at all swim beaches. The
proposed regulation would also prohibit PWC use within 200 feet of
people in the water. For these reasons, impacts from PWC use in the
Florida District would likely be long-term, adverse, and minor.
Most PWC use in the Mississippi District would likely occur as
recreational riding on the north side of the islands, as before the
ban. PWC use would be concentrated on the east and west ends of the
Mississippi islands and around the West Ship Island Pier. West Ship
Island experiences most of the high-density beach use in the
Mississippi District. However, swimming is prohibited within 200 feet
of the West Ship Island Pier, and under the proposed regulation a flat
wake zone would be established 0.5 mile from the shoreline and either
side of the pier, minimizing some impacts to beach users in the area.
Therefore, impacts to swimmers from PWC use in this area of West Ship
Island would likely be long-term, adverse, and minor. In addition, a
flat wake zone would also be established 0.5 mile from the shorelines
around the wilderness areas of Horn and Petit Boise islands, limiting
impacts to swimmers and beach users on these islands. The lakes, ponds,
lagoons, and inlets of the islands in the Mississippi District would be
closed to motorized vessels. These restrictions, coupled with lower
visitation at the islands of Cat, East Ship, Horn, and Petit Bois,
would likely result in long-term, adverse, negligible to minor impacts
to swimmers in the Mississippi District.
For the reasons stated above, overall impacts to swimmers in both
the Florida and Mississippi districts would be long-term, adverse, and
minor.
Divers. Diving and snorkeling are common near Fort Pickens and the
sea grass beds north of Santa Rosa Island, which are both in the
Florida District. PWC prefer the calm waters of Santa Rosa Sound, which
is north of the island, so divers there would be adversely impacted.
Diving and PWC use are both prohibited within 200 feet of the Fort
Pickens piers. However, snorkelers would benefit from the restriction
described under the proposed regulation limiting PWC use to flat wakes
300 yards from all park shorelines. In addition, the proposed
regulation would further prohibit PWC operation within 200 feet of
people in the water, which would benefit both snorkelers and divers.
For these reasons, impacts to divers and snorkelers would be long-term
and adverse, but negligible due to the distribution of PWC, the
additional restrictions imposed under the proposed regulation, and the
small number of PWC users and divers that visit the park.
Anglers. Impacts to anglers would be similar to those described
under alternative A of the Environmental Assessment. The same
restrictions would apply to the lagoons of Perdido Key and the fishing
piers at Fort Pickens. However, the proposed regulation calls for an
additional flat wake zone 300 yards from all park shorelines. In
addition, a flat wake zone would extend 0.5 mile from the shoreline and
either side of the pier at West Ship Island, and a 0.5-mile flat wake
zone would be established around the wilderness islands of Horn and
Petit Bois. Although the additional flat wake restrictions would
benefit anglers in all areas of the park, impacts would likely be long-
term and adverse, but negligible due to additional PWC restrictions.
Campers and Hikers. Impacts to campers and hikers would be similar
to those described under alternative A of the Environmental Assessment,
particularly in the Florida District since most of the restrictions
under the proposed regulation would apply to the Mississippi District.
However, the proposed regulation calls for establishment of a flat wake
zone 300 yards from all park shorelines, which would benefit all
campers and hikers at the park. PWC use at Horn and Petit Bois islands
in the Mississippi District would be restricted to flat wake speed 0.5
mile from the shoreline, which would benefit users of these wilderness
areas. PWC operation would be limited to daylight hours in both
districts, when campers may be participating in other activities.
PWC use would have long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts
on the experience of all camping and hiking visitors due to the
additional restrictions described under the proposed regulation.
[[Page 12997]]
Conclusion. The proposed regulation would provide overall
beneficial impacts on PWC users, because they would be allowed to
recreate with a personal watercraft in the national seashore, although
PWC users would be required to comply with additional restrictions.
Impacts of PWC use on motorized and non-motorized boaters would be
negligible to minor, long-term, adverse. Impacts to swimmers would also
be long-term, adverse, and minor. Impacts to divers, snorkelers, and
anglers would be long-term and adverse, but negligible. PWC use would
have long-term, negligible to minor, adverse impacts on the experience
of all camping and hiking visitors. Overall PWC use would result in
long-term, adverse, negligible to minor impacts to non-PWC users.
Cumulative impacts would be long-term, adverse, and minor.
Visitor Conflict and Safety
Industry representatives report that PWC accidents decreased in
some States in the late 1990s. The National Transportation Safety Board
reported 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. Since PWC operators can be as young as 12 in several
States, accidents can involve children. The American Academy of
Pediatrics recommends that no one younger than 16 operate personal
watercraft.
In Florida in 2000, personal watercraft comprised 12.5% of all
registered vessels statewide and accounted for 32% of all boating
accidents. In the Florida District in 2000, 44 boating violation
citations were issued, 36% of which were to personal watercraft. An
analysis of park boating violations in Mississippi from 1997 to
September 2001 reveals that 58% of the violations involved a personal
watercraft.
Under the proposed regulation, based on alternative B of the
Environmental Assessment, PWC use would be reinstated as under
alternative A, with additional management prescriptions. A flat wake
zone would be established 300 yards from all park shorelines, with the
exception of at the West Ship Island Pier, where a flat wake zone would
extend 0.5 mile from the shoreline and 0.5 mile from either side of the
pier. A flat wake zone would also be established 0.5 mile from the
shorelines around all designated wilderness boundaries, and no PWC
operation would be permitted within 200 feet of non-motorized
watercraft and people in the water. In addition, PWC user and boater
education would be provided through interpretive talks, onsite
bulletins, and brochures given to PWC registrants and visitors who rent
personal watercraft. These educational efforts would benefit all
seashore visitors described below.
Impact on PWC Users. Under the proposed regulation, PWC use would
be reinstated and all of the national seashore waters would be
accessible to PWC use except where restricted. Implementation of the
flat wake zones would not permit high speed maneuvering use in these
areas, but this type of activity would be permitted outside these areas
in park waters. However, PWC users would experience beneficial safety
impacts because the restrictions would minimize conflicts and potential
for accidents between PWC, other PWC, and non-PWC users. Overall,
impacts to PWC users would be long-term, beneficial, and minor.
Impact on Other Boaters. The majority of motorized boating in the
Florida District occurs in Gulf waters on the south side of the
islands. However, PWC favor the bay and sound areas, where waters are
calm. This natural distribution would help alleviate conflicts between
boaters and PWC users in the Florida District.
PWC are more prevalent and more evenly distributed in the
Mississippi District, which has far fewer boaters than the Florida
District. East and West Ship islands experience the heaviest visitor
use and boaters there would likely experience the biggest impacts. PWC
concentrate in areas that boaters also prefer, usually on the east and
west ends of the islands, around the West Ship Island Pier, and the
north side of Spoil Island. In addition, PWC would also be prohibited
within 200 feet of non-motorized watercraft in both districts. A flat
wake zone would be established 300 yards from all park shorelines,
except at the West Ship Island Pier, where the flat wake zone would
extend 0.5 mile from the shoreline and either side of the pier. The
flat wake zone would also extend 0.5 mile from the shoreline around all
wilderness boundaries. These restrictions would provide additional
safety measures to both PWC and motorboat users at the seashore.
For the reasons described above, impacts to motorized boaters in
both districts would be long-term and adverse. However, these impacts
would be negligible to minor due to the additional restrictions and PWC
prohibitions defined under the proposed regulation.
PWC would interact with non-motorized boaters as well. PWC use
would be prohibited 200 feet from the old fishing pier and 200 feet
from the new fishing pier at Fort Pickens. The proposed canoe trail
along the north side of Perdido Key would provide a safe, non-motorized
boat route for canoeists and kayakers to enjoy because it would be
within the flat wake zone established 300 yards from the shoreline. In
addition, park staff have received no documented complaints from non-
motorized boaters concerning PWC use. Nonmotorized boaters would also
benefit from safety measures provided by additional restrictions
described above. In addition, both Mississippi and Florida require that
PWC operators use cut-off devices, which would not necessarily reduce
the amount of conflict but would improve safety for non-motorized
watercraft users at the seashore. Therefore, impacts to non-motorized
watercraft under the proposed regulation would be long-term, adverse,
and negligible to minor.
Impact on Other Visitors. Swimmers, anglers, campers, hikers, and
other shoreline visitors to the national seashore would have contact
with personal watercraft users. Shoreline areas that are popular with
both personal watercraft and other shoreline users include the north
sides of the Mississippi islands and the Perdido Key area.
Swimmers. Impacts to swimmers would be similar to those described
under alternative A of the Environmental Assessment. However, the
proposed regulation would further restrict PWC use by establishing a
flat wake zone 300 yards from all park shorelines, which would benefit
swimmers at non-designated swim beaches. The proposed regulation would
also prohibit PWC use within 200 feet of people in the water, providing
additional safety and reducing the likelihood of conflicts and
accidents.
In addition, a flat wake zone would also be established 0.5 mile
from the shorelines around the wilderness areas of Horn and Petit Bois
islands, limiting impacts to swimmers and beach users on these islands.
The lakes, ponds, lagoons, and inlets of the islands in the Mississippi
District would be closed to motorized vessels.
Both Mississippi and Florida require that PWC operators use cut-off
devices, which would not necessarily reduce the amount of conflict but
would improve safety for swimmers at the seashore. Therefore, impacts
to swimmers from PWC use in both districts would likely
[[Page 12998]]
be long-term, adverse, and minor due to additional restrictions and the
concentration of PWC activity to the north side of most designated swim
beaches.
Anglers. Impacts to anglers would be similar to those described
under alternative A of the Environmental Assessment. The proposed
regulation calls for an additional flat wake zone 300 yards from all
park shorelines at the low-water mark. In addition, a flat wake zone
would extend 0.5 mile from the shoreline and either side of the pier at
West Ship Island, and a 0.5-mile flat wake zone would be established
around the wilderness islands of Horn and Petit Bois. Although the
additional flat wake restrictions would benefit anglers in all areas of
the park, impacts would likely be long-term and adverse, but negligible
due to additional PWC restrictions.
Campers and Hikers. The Florida District receives a much higher
amount of camping visitation compared to the Mississippi District. The
Fort Pickens campground provides the highest number of campsites (200)
but is not located on the shoreline, and primitive camping is also
allowed on the east end of Perdido Key. The Davis Bayou campground in
the Mississippi District provides 51 campsites. No designated campsites
exist on the Mississippi islands, but backcountry camping occurs on the
islands.
Backcountry campers on Perdido Key and East Ship Island would
experience long-term, minor, adverse impacts from PWC use under the
proposed regulation. A flat wake zone would be established 300 yards
from all park shorelines, which would reduce impacts to campers and
hikers. PWC use at Horn and Petit Bois islands would be restricted to
flat wake speed one-half mile from the shoreline, which would benefit
users of these wilderness areas. PWC operation would be limited to
daylight hours in both districts, when campers may be participating in
other activities.
PWC use would have long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the
experience of all camping and hiking visitors due to restrictions
contained under the proposed regulation and distribution of types of
visitor activities.
Conclusion. Impacts to PWC users would be long-term, beneficial,
and minor. Impacts to motorized and non-motorized boaters would be
long-term, adverse, and negligible to minor. Swimmers would likely
experience long-term, adverse, and minor impacts. Anglers in all areas
of the park would likely experience long-term and adverse, but
negligible impacts due to additional PWC restrictions. PWC use would
have long-term, minor, adverse impacts on the experience of all camping
and hiking visitors due to restrictions contained under the proposed
regulation and distribution of types of visitor activities. Cumulative
impacts would be adverse and minor over the short term and long term.
Cultural Resources
PWC users would have access to unknown archaeological and submerged
cultural resources under the proposed regulation. Both known and
undocumented submerged resources exist. Given the expanded wake
restrictions under the proposed regulation, PWC use is unlikely to
result in damage to submerged resources close to shore. Water depth is
likely to protect other submerged resource.
Potential impacts directly attributable to unrestricted PWC use are
difficult to quantify. The most likely impact to archaeological sites
would result from PWC users landing in areas otherwise inaccessible to
most other national seashore visitors and illegally collecting or
damaging artifacts. According to park staff, looting and vandalism of
cultural resources has been a problem. A direct correlation of impacts
attributed to PWC users is difficult to draw, since many of these areas
are also accessible to other watercraft users and visitors. Under the
proposed regulation, PWC users within the national seashore would have
only minor adverse impacts on listed or potentially listed
archaeological resources.
Restricting areas of use and the establishment of a flat wake speed
zone would serve as a measure to minimize impacts on potentially listed
archaeological resources from possible illegal collection and
vandalism. Cumulative impacts from other activities on archaeological
resources that are readily accessible could be minor to moderate and
adverse, due to the number of visitors and the potential for illegal
collection or destruction.
Implementation of the proposed regulation would not result in an
impairment of cultural resources.
The Proposed Rule
Under this NPRM, which is based on the preferred alternative,
alternative B, a special regulation at 36 CFR 7.12 would reinstate PWC
use at the national seashore. The proposed rule would include the
management actions listed under alternative A, as well as additional
management prescriptions under alternative B to protect natural and
cultural resources, to mitigate PWC safety concerns, to provide for
visitor health and safety, and to enhance overall visitor experience.
The management actions listed under alternatives A and B include
the following:
1. Area of Use and Location Restrictions. PWC use would be allowed
throughout the national seashore, except in areas where use
restrictions for all vessels had been in place before April 22, 2002,
including:
The lakes, ponds, lagoons and inlets of East Ship Island,
West Ship Island, Horn Island, Petit Bois Island and Cat Island are
closed to the use of motorized vessels.
The lagoons of Perdido Key within Big Lagoon are closed.
The areas 200 feet from the remnants of the old fishing
pier and 200 feet from the new fishing pier at Fort Pickens are closed.
Operating a vessel in excess of 5 mph or creating a wake
is prohibited within 500 feet of the Davis Bayou launch ramp, the West
Ship Island Pier, the Horn Island Pier, and the Fort Pickens Pier;
within the buoyed, area at Spoil (Sand) Island; and within the posted
area on the north side of Perdido Key near the Fort McRee site.
Seasonal closures within the seashore to protect wildlife
and habitat as determined necessary by superintendent.
PWC would be allowed to beach at any point along the shore
not closed by the above.
The additional management restrictions under alternative B include
the following:
A flat wake zone would be expanded to 300 yards from all
park shorelines with the exception of:
--At the West Ship Island Pier a flat wake zone would extend 0.5 mile
from the shoreline and 0.5 mile from either side of the pier.
--Around all designated wilderness boundaries a flat wake zone would be
established 0.5 mile from the shorelines.
No PWC operation would be permitted within 200 feet of
non-motorized watercraft and people in the water.
In addition, applicable State and Federal boating laws and
regulations would apply to PWC operators, including regulations that
address reckless or negligent operation, excessive speed, hazardous
wakes or washes, hours of operation, age of driver, and distance
between vessels. The boating regulations for Florida and Mississippi
have been adopted by the NPS and apply to PWC use at Gulf Islands
National Seashore.
Further, it is a management objective of the park staff at Gulf
Islands National
[[Page 12999]]
Seashore to promote and enhance PWC user and boater education through
interpretive talks, onsite bulletins, and brochures given to PWC
registrants and visitors who rent personal watercraft. Within the
capabilities of staff levels and funding, the park will also seek to
increase awareness and enhance enforcement of Federal laws and
regulations pertaining to harassment of marine mammals through ongoing
water patrols (Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act).
Summary of Economic Impacts: Personal Watercraft Regulations in Gulf
Islands National Seashore
Alternative C, the no-action alternative, represents the baseline
of this analysis. Under that alternative, all PWC use would remain
prohibited in the park. Alternative A would permit PWC use as managed
in the park prior to the ban and Alternative B would permit PWC use,
but with additional restrictions compared with pre-ban management. All
benefits and costs associated with these regulatory alternatives are
measured relative to the baseline established by Alternative C.
Therefore, there are no incremental benefits or costs associated with
Alternative C.
The primary beneficiaries of Alternatives A and B would be the park
visitors who use PWCs and the businesses that provide services to PWC
users such as rental shops, restaurants, gas stations, and hotels. The
present value of benefits to PWC users are estimated to range between
$670,100 and $881,500 for these alternatives. The present value of
benefits to PWC users for Alternatives A and B are estimated to range
between $479,900 and $4,130,400. Additional beneficiaries include the
individuals who use PWCs outside the park where PWC users that are
displaced from the park may decide to ride if PWC use within the park
were prohibited. These benefit estimates are presented in Table 1. The
amortized values per year of these benefits over the ten-year timeframe
are presented in Table 2.
Table 1.--Present Value of Benefits for PWC Use in Gulf Islands National Seashore, 2003-2012
[In thousands] a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PWC users Businesses Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative A:
Discounted at 3% \b\........ $881.5 $664.6 to $4,130.4.............. $1,546.1 to $5,011.9.
Discounted at 7% \b\........ 705.3 511.9 to 3,181.2................ 1,217.2 to 3,886.5.
Alternative B:
Discounted at 3% \b\........ 837.5 623.1 to 3,859.6................ 1,460.5 to 4,697.0.
Discounted at 7% \b\........ 670.1 479.9 to 2,972.6................ 1,149.9 to 3,642.7.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Benefits may not sum to the indicated totals due to independent rounding.
\b\ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 recommends a 7% discount rate in general, and a 3% discount
rate when analyzing impacts to private consumption.
Table 2.--Amortized Total Benefits per Year for PWC Use in Gulf Islands
National Seashore, 2003-2012
[In thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amortized total benefits per
year \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative A:
Discounted at 3% \b\............. $181.3 to $587.5.
Discounted at 7% \b\............. 173.3 to 553.4.
Alternative B:
Discounted at 3% \b\............. 171.2 to 550.6.
Discounted at 7% \b\............. 163.7 to 518.6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\This is the present value of total benefits reported in Table 1
amortized over the ten-year analysis timeframe at the indicated
discount rate.
\b\ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-4 recommends a 7%
discount rate in general, and a 3% discount rate when analyzing
impacts to private consumption.
The primary group that would incur costs under Alternatives A and B
would be the park visitors who do not use PWCs and whose park
experiences would be negatively affected by PWC use within the park. At
Gulf Islands National Seashore, non-PWC uses include boating, canoeing,
fishing, and hiking. Additionally, the public could incur costs
associated with impacts to aesthetics, ecosystem protection, human
health and safety, congestion, nonuse values, and enforcement. However,
these costs could not be quantified because of a lack of available
data. Nevertheless, the magnitude of costs associated with PWC use
would likely be greatest under Alternative A, and lower for Alternative
B due to increasingly stringent restrictions on PWC use.
Because the costs of Alternatives A and B could not be quantified,
the net benefits associated with those alternatives (benefits minus
costs) also could not be quantified. However, from an economic
perspective, the selection of Alternative B as the preferred
alternative was considered reasonable even though the quantified
benefits are somewhat smaller than under Alternative A. That is because
the costs associated with non-PWC use, aesthetics, ecosystem
protection, human health and safety, congestion, and nonuse values
would likely be greater under Alternative A than under Alternative B.
Quantification of those costs could reasonably result in Alternative B
having the greatest level of net benefits.
Compliance With Other Laws
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
This document is a significant rule and has 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.
[[Page 13000]]
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 Gulf Islands National Seashore'''
(MACTEC Engineering, January 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 ``Economic Analysis of
Personal Watercraft Regulations in Gulf Islands National Seashore''
(MACTEC Engineering, January 2004).
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 proposed 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 proposed 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 required. An OMB Form 83-I is not required.
National Environmental Policy Act
The National Park Service has analyzed this rule in accordance with
the criteria of the National Environmental Policy Act and has prepared
a draft Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA was available for public
review and comment from April 19, 2004 to May 18, 2004. Copies of the
environmental assessment may be downloaded at http://www.nps.gov/guis/pphtml/documents.html or obtained at park headquarters Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mail inquiries should be directed to park
headquarters: Gulf Islands National Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway,
Gulf Breeze, FL 32563.
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.
Clarity of Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make
this rule easier to understand, including answers to questions such as
the following: (1) Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? (2)
Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that interferes with
its clarity? (3) Does the format of the rule (grouping and order of
sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to read if it were divided into
more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' appears in bold type and is
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example
Sec. 7.12, Gulf Islands National Seashore.) (5) Is the description of
the rule in the ``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble
helpful in understanding the proposed rule? What else could we do to
make the rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department
of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.
You may also e-mail the comments to this address: [email protected].
Drafting Information: The primary authors of this regulation are:
Nina Kelson, Hank Snyder, and J.D. Lee, Gulf Islands National Seashore;
Sarah Bransom, Environmental Quality Division; and Kym Hall and Jerry
Case, NPS, Washington, DC.
Public Participation
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of
several methods. You may mail comments to Gulf Islands National
Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway,
[[Page 13001]]
Gulf Breeze, FL 32563. You may also comment via the Internet to:
[email protected]. Please also include ``PWC Rule'' in the subject line
and your name and return address in the body of your Internet message.
Finally, you may hand deliver comments to Gulf Islands National
Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of
respondents, available for public review during regular business hours.
Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address
from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable
by law. If you wish us to withhold your name and/or address, you must
state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we
will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials or organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 7
District of Columbia, National Parks, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service
proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7 as follows:
PART 7--SPECIAL REGULATIONS, AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
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).
2. Add new paragraph (c) to Sec. 7.12 to read as follows:
Sec. 7.12 Gulf Islands National Seashore.
* * * * *
(c) Personal Watercraft (PWC). (1) PWCs may operate within Gulf
Islands National Seashore except in the following closed areas:
(i) The lakes, ponds, lagoons and inlets of Cat Island, East Ship
Island, West Ship Island, Horn Island, and Petit Bois Island;
(ii) The lagoons of Perdido Key within Big Lagoon;
(iii) The areas within 200 feet from the remnants of the old
fishing pier and within 200 feet from the new fishing pier at Fort
Pickens; and
(iv) Within 200 feet of non-motorized vessels and people in the
water.
(2) PWC may not be operated at greater than flat wake speed in the
following locations:
(i) Within 0.5 miles from the shoreline or either side of the pier
at the West Ship Island Pier;
(ii) Within 0.5 miles from the shoreline on the designated
wilderness islands of Horn and Petit Bois; and
(iii) Within 300 yards from all other park shorelines.
(3) PWC are allowed to beach at any point along the shore except as
follows:
(i) PWC may not beach in any restricted area listed in paragraph
(c)(1) of this section; and
(ii) PWC may not beach above the mean high tide line on the
designated wilderness islands of Horn and Petit Bois.
(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: February 23, 2005.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 05-4734 Filed 3-16-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-52-P