[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 25 (Friday, February 6, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5799-5810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2556]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 7

RIN 1024-AD01


Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, 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 Lake Roosevelt 
National Recreation Area, Washington. 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 require individual parks to determine whether 
PWC use is appropriate for a specific park area based on an evaluation 
of that area's enabling legislation, resources and values, other 
visitor uses, and overall management objectives.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed rule should be sent or hand 
delivered to Superintendent, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, 
1008 Crest Drive, Coulee Dam, WA 99116. E-mail comments may also be 
sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#640805160b2400010a4a0a14174a030b12"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1975786b76597d7c773777696a377e766f">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.
    For additional information see ``Public Participation'' under 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kym Hall, Special Assistant, National 
Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 3145, Washington, DC 20240. 
Phone: (202) 208-4206. e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#652e1c083a2d040909250b15164b020a13"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d16243002153c31311d332d2e733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 April 28, 2003. 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. The regulation established a 2-
year grace period for 21 park units with existing PWC use to consider 
whether PWC use should be permitted to continue.

Description of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area

    Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area was established in eastern 
Washington State in 1946 following the Secretary of the Interior's 
approval of a Tri-Party Agreement among the National Park Service, the 
Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The reservoir 
and related lands were administered as the recreation area under this 
agreement until 1974 when Interior Secretary Rogers C.B. Morton 
directed that the agreement for the management of the lake be expanded 
to include the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and the 
Spokane Tribe of Indians. Secretary Morton's directive was prompted by 
the Interior Solicitor's opinion that the tribes have exclusive rights 
to hunting, boating, and fishing within those areas of the reservoir 
that are within the boundaries of the two Indian reservations. An 
accord was reached on April 5, 1990, when the Secretary of the Interior 
approved the Lake Roosevelt Cooperative Management Agreement. The 
agreement confirmed and established management authority of the two 
Indian tribes over the portions of Lake Roosevelt and related lands 
within the boundaries of their respective reservations that were 
previously administered as part of the national recreation area. In 
1997, the name of the park was changed from Coulee Dam National 
Recreation Area to Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area.
    With the approval of the Lake Roosevelt Cooperative Management 
Agreement, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area was defined as the 
waters and lands managed by the National Park Service. Lake Roosevelt 
National Recreation Area consists of 312 miles of shoreline along the 
Columbia River. The National Park Service administers 47,438 acres of 
the 81,389-acre water surface (at full pool), and 12,936 acres of 
adjacent land. The lands of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area 
consist primarily of a narrow band of shore above the maximum high 
water mark (1,290 feet), which was originally purchased by the Bureau 
of Reclamation for construction of the reservoir. The national 
recreation area also includes shoreline along about 29 miles of the 
Spokane River Arm of the lake and about 7 miles along the Kettle River 
Arm. Most of the remainder of the shoreline and surface area of Lake 
Roosevelt lies within the reservation boundaries of the Spokane Tribe 
and the Colville Confederated Tribes and is not part of the national 
recreation area. The Bureau of Reclamation retains the

[[Page 5800]]

management of the dam, an area immediately around the dam, and a few 
other locations that are necessary for operating the reservoir.
    The NPS at Lake Roosevelt preserves and protects a rich cultural 
history throughout the park. 9,000 years of human use of the area is 
evident throughout the park through a variety of archeological 
resources. Historical features such as St. Paul's Mission and Fort 
Spokane attest to a more recent history. The natural features around 
the lake tell the story of the Ice Age Floods that shaped this 
landscape about 13,000 years ago. The recreation area is home to many 
species of wildlife and fish, including bald eagles, peregrine falcons, 
black bear, kokanee salmon and walleye. Ponderosa Pine and Douglas Fir 
are plentiful. Popular types of recreation include fishing, swimming, 
boating, water skiing, picnicking, and camping from boats and vehicles.

Purpose of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area

    The purpose and significance statements below are from Lake 
Roosevelt's Strategic Plan (NPS 2000) and General Management Plan (NPS 
2000). Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area was established for the 
following purposes:
    (1) To provide opportunities for diverse, safe, quality, outdoor 
recreational experiences for the public.
    (2) To preserve, conserve, and protect the integrity of natural, 
cultural, and scenic resources.
    (3) To provide opportunities to enhance public appreciation and 
understanding about the area's significant resources.
    The Recreation Area has no specific enabling legislation and was 
created under an act passed in 1946 authorizing the administration of 
the areas by the NPS pursuant to cooperative agreements. [Act of August 
7, 1946, ch. 788, 60 Stat. 855; 16 U.S.C. 17j-2(b)].

Significance of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area

    The following statements summarize the significance of Lake 
Roosevelt National Recreation Area:
    (1) It offers a wide variety of recreation opportunities in a 
diverse natural setting on a 154-mile-long lake that is bordered by 312 
miles of publicly owned shoreline that is available for public use.
    (2) It contains a large section of the upper Columbia River and a 
record of continuous human occupation dating back more than 9,000 
years.
    (3) It is contained within three distinct geologic provinces--the 
Okanogan Highlands, the Columbia Plateau, and the Kootenay Arc, which 
were sculpted by Ice Age floods.
    The park's mission statement is as follows: As a unit of the 
national park system, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area is 
dedicated to conserving, unimpaired, the natural and cultural resources 
and recreational and scenic values of Lake Roosevelt for the enjoyment, 
education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The 
recreation area also shares responsibility for advancing a great 
variety of programs designed to help extend the benefits of natural and 
cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation.

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, the NPS's regulatory 
authority over waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, 
including navigable waters and areas within their ordinary reach, is 
based upon the Property and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. 
In regard to the NPS, Congress in 1976 directed the NPS to ``promulgate 
and enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or 
relating to waters within areas of the National Park System, including 
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States * * *'' (16 
U.S.C. 1a-2(h)). In 1996 the NPS published a final rule (61 FR 35136, 
July 5, 1996) amending 36 CFR 1.2(a)(3) to clarify its authority to 
regulate activities within the National Park System boundaries 
occurring on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

PWC Use at Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area

    A variety of watercraft can be found on Lake Roosevelt during the 
summer season, e.g., ski boats, PWC, runabouts, day cruisers, sailboats 
(some with auxiliary motors), houseboats, and, to a lesser degree, 
canoes, kayaks, and rowboats. Activities on the lake associated with 
boating include sightseeing, water skiing, fishing, swimming, camping, 
picnicking, and sailing. The park estimates that there were over 50,000 
boat launches during the 2001 primary boating season based on the 
launch fees counted at the park. Most boaters reside within 100 miles 
of Lake Roosevelt but others come from cities and communities 
throughout Washington, as well as from Idaho, Oregon and Canada. PWC 
use is estimated at approximately 56 PWC users on a peak use summer day 
in 2002, increasing to an average of 62 PWC users per peak use day by 
2012.
    PWC use began on Lake Roosevelt during the 1980s but did not become 
fairly common until the mid-1990s. PWC are often used as a houseboat 
accessory. Activities undertaken by PWC on Lake Roosevelt include 
running up and down sections of the lake, towing skiers, jumping wakes, 
and general boating activities. Surveys of boat trailers conducted in 
2001 and 2002 estimate the number of PWC to be approximately 4% of all 
boating use at Lake Roosevelt. PWC are allowed to launch, operate, and 
beach from dawn to dusk throughout the national recreation area. The 
primary PWC use season is June through September with some use from 
April through May and October through December, but no use in winter 
months because the weather and water is generally too cold.
    In the past, PWC were regulated as vessels under the 
Superintendent's Compendium and, along with other vessels, were allowed 
in all areas of the lake. The Superintendent's Compendium is 
terminology the NPS uses to describe the authority provided to the 
Superintendent under 36 CFR 1.5 and 1.7. It allows for local, park-
specific regulations for a variety of issues and under specific 
criteria. Before the closure, areas 100 feet around swim beaches, 
marinas, and narrow sections of the lake had speed or ``flat-wake'' 
restrictions applicable to all boats based on Washington State boating 
regulations. In addition, before the closure, flat-wake zones on the 
lake included Hawk Creek from the waterfall at the campground to an 
area called ``the narrows'' and on the Kettle River above the Napoleon 
Bridge. Crescent Bay Lake, located near Lake Roosevelt but not a 
connected waterway, was closed to all motorized craft. In flat-wake 
zones boats and PWC could not exceed flat-wake speed which is defined 
as a minimal disturbance of the water by a vessel in order to prevent 
damage or injury.

[[Page 5801]]

    None of the concessioners at Lake Roosevelt currently rent PWC. 
Within 60 to 100 miles of the park, a total of five PWC dealerships 
were identified in Wenatchee, Spokane, and Okanogan. No PWC dealerships 
were identified closer to the park. A total of three rental shops were 
found within 30 miles of the park including Banks Lake, Sun Lake, and 
Blue Lake.
    Within 100 miles of Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area there 
are several major lakes and many smaller lakes that allow PWC. The 
larger lakes include Banks Lake and Lake Chelan in Washington and Lake 
Coeur d'Alene and Lake Pend Oreille in Idaho.
    Some research suggests that PWC are viewed by some segments of the 
public as a ``nuisance'' due to their noise, speed, and overall effects 
on the environment while others view PWC as no different from other 
watercraft and that PWC users have a ``right'' to enjoy their sport. 
There has been some conflict between PWC and fishermen, canoeists, and 
swimmers at Lake Roosevelt.
    Due to their ability to reach speeds in the 60 miles per hour range 
and their ability to access shallow-draft areas, PWC can create wakes 
that pose a conflict for both shore and boat fishermen and a safety 
hazard to other users such as canoeists, kayakers and windsurfers. At 
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, some complaints by fisherman, 
canoeists or swimmers have been received concerning wakes created by 
PWC. Some complaints have also been received concerning the operating 
speed of PWC.
    A total of only eight safety incidents involving PWC were reported 
on Lake Roosevelt during the years 1997 through 2002.

Resource Protection and Public Use Issues

Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area Environmental Assessment

    In addition to this proposed rule, NPS has issued the Personal 
Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment for Lake Roosevelt National 
Recreation Area. The Environmental Assessment (EA) was open for public 
review and comment from April 28, 2003 to May 28, 2003. Copies of the 
EA may be downloaded at http://www.nps.gov/laro or by calling 509-633-
9441 ext. 110 or by writing to the Superintendent, Lake Roosevelt 
National Recreation Area, 1008 Crest Drive, Coulee Dam, WA 99116.
    The purpose of the EA was to evaluate a range of alternatives and 
strategies for the management of PWC use at Lake Roosevelt to ensure 
the protection of park resources and values while offering recreational 
opportunities as provided for in the National Recreation Area's 
enabling legislation, purpose, mission, and goals. The analysis assumed 
alternatives would be implemented beginning in 2002 and considered a 
10-year use period, from 2002 to 2012. In addition, the analysis 
assumes that PWC annual use will increase approximately 1% annually and 
due to the narrow and linear characteristics of the reservoir, each PWC 
that launches is assumed to recreate on waters managed by both NPS and 
tribal entities during an average trip, regardless of launch point. The 
NPS assumes no jurisdiction over tribal waters and generally does not 
enforce regulations in those areas, however, because of existing 
Memorandums of Understanding with the tribes the park may respond to 
law enforcement or emergency situations on tribal waters.
    The EA evaluates three alternatives concerning the use of PWC at 
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area.
    Alternative A would allow PWC use under a special NPS regulation in 
accordance with NPS Management Policies 2001, park practices, and state 
regulations. That is, after the effective date of a final rule, PWC use 
would be the same as it was before the closure on November 7, 2002. 
Therefore, under Alternative A, PWC use would be allowed throughout the 
recreation area, with limitations only in areas where restrictions 
existed before the closure. These areas include the following: Crescent 
Bay Lake (motorized watercraft restricted), Upper Kettle River, above 
the Napoleon Bridge (flat wake), and Upper Hawk Creek from the 
waterfall near the campground through the area known as the ``narrows'' 
(flat wake). Launch and retrieval of PWC would continue to be permitted 
only at designated boat launch ramps within Lake Roosevelt National 
Recreation Area. PWC users would be able to land anywhere along the 
shoreline, except in designated swimming areas. All non-conflicting 
State and Federal watercraft laws and regulations would continue to be 
enforced.
    As with Alternative A, Alternative B would reinstate PWC use under 
a special regulation, but specific limits and use areas would be 
defined. However, based on comments received from the public during the 
EA scoping process and through the comment period, this proposed rule 
would implement Alternative B with one modification; the Kettle River 
would be closed to PWC above the Hedlund Bridge. The EA does not 
discuss this modification but impacts from this additional closure have 
been analyzed by the NPS and will be discussed in the decision document 
for this EA and we are soliciting additional comments on this closure 
in this proposed rule. Throughout this proposed rule, the preferred 
alternative will continue to be referred to as Alternative B however it 
differs slightly from the Alternative B referred to in the EA.
    Under Alternative B, PWC use would be reinstated within Lake 
Roosevelt in most locations of the recreation area where it was allowed 
prior to November 7, 2002 with some new restrictions. Under this 
alternative, the current flat-wake zone in Hawk Creek and the 
restriction on motorized watercraft use on Crescent Bay Lake would 
remain. In addition, extra flat-wake speed zoning would be implemented. 
These flat-wake restrictions would apply to the following areas: Within 
200 feet from launch ramps, marina facilities, campgrounds, beaches 
occupied by swimmers, water skiers and other persons in the water and 
the Spokane Arm from 100 feet west of the Two Rivers Marina on the 
downstream end, to 100 feet east of the Fort Spokane launch ramp on the 
upstream end, above the vehicle bridge. In addition to the extra flat-
wake zones, PWC use would be prohibited on the Kettle River from 
Hedlund Bridge, north to the headwaters. Except for Napoleon Bridge 
launch on the Kettle River where PWC launching would be prohibited, 
launch and retrieval of PWC would be permitted only at designated boat 
launch ramps within Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area. As with 
Alternative A, PWC users would be able to land anywhere along the 
shoreline, except in designated swimming areas and all state and 
federal watercraft laws and regulations would continue to be enforced.
    The no-action alternative would continue the current closure on PWC 
use within this national park system unit.
    Based on the environmental analysis prepared for PWC use at Lake 
Roosevelt National Recreation Area, Alternative B is the preferred 
alternative and is also considered the environmentally preferred 
alternative because it would best fulfill park responsibilities as 
trustee of this sensitive habitat; ensuring safe, healthful, 
productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; and 
attaining a wider range of beneficial uses of the environment without 
degradation, risk of health or safety, or other undesirable and 
unintended consequences.

[[Page 5802]]

    This document proposes regulations to implement Alternative B at 
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area.
    The NPS will consider the comments received on this proposal, as 
well as the comments received on the EA. 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 EA 
when making comments on this proposed rule.
    The following summarizes the predominant resource protection and 
public use issues associated with reinstating PWC use at Lake Roosevelt 
National Recreation Area under the proposed rule which implements 
Alternative B. Each of these issues is analyzed in the Lake Roosevelt 
National Recreation Area, Personal Watercraft Use Environmental 
Assessment.

Water Quality

    Most research on the effects of PWC 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 the PWC powered by them. There is 
general agreement that two-stroke engines discharge a gas-oil mixture 
into the water. Fuel used in PWC engines contains many hydrocarbons, 
including BTEX. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) also are 
released from boat engines, including those in PWC. These compounds are 
not found appreciably in the unburned fuel mixture, but rather are 
products of combustion. Discharges of these compounds--BTEX and PAH--
have potential adverse effects on water quality. A common gasoline 
additive, MTBE, is currently being used in the state of Washington; 
however, a ban on its use took effect on December 31, 2003. A small 
percentage of all types of boaters may come from surrounding states or 
Canada and could potentially be carrying fuel that contains MTBE but 
the numbers of these users would be low.
    A typical conventional (i.e., carbureted) two-stroke PWC engine 
discharges as much as 30% of the unburned fuel mixture directly into 
the water. At common fuel consumption rates, an average two-hour ride 
on a PWC may discharge 3 gallons of fuel into the water. According to 
the California Air Resources Board, an average PWC can discharge 
between 1.2 and 3.3 gallons of fuel during one hour at full throttle. 
However, hydrocarbon (HC) discharges to water are expected to decrease 
substantially over the next 10 years due to mandated improvements in 
engine technology by the EPA.
    Under this proposed rule, PWC use would be reinstated within Lake 
Roosevelt in all locations where it was allowed prior to November 7, 
2002 except on the Kettle River. In addition to the current flat wake 
zone on Hawk Creek, and the restriction on motorized watercraft use on 
Crescent Bay Lake, additional flat wake speed zoning would be 
implemented. These flat wake restrictions would apply to the following 
areas: Within 200 feet of launch ramps, marina facilities, campgrounds, 
beaches occupied by swimmers, water skiers, and other persons in the 
water and on the Spokane Arm from 100 feet west of the Two Rivers 
Marina on the downstream end, to 100 feet east of the Fort Spokane 
launch ramp on the upstream end, above the vehicle bridge.
    Since PWC are assumed to operate for only short periods of time in 
flat-wake zones, effects from low throttle operation in these areas 
would likely be insignificant. Therefore, calculations only address 
full throttle operation in the main body of the reservoir. However, it 
is acknowledged that emissions could potentially build up in areas 
where use is heavy such as around launch facilities and shallow water 
high activity areas where flat-wake zoning would be extended. Retention 
time for waters contained in the lake range from 28 to 52 days 
depending on the time of year and how much water the dam is releasing. 
This proposal would also establish a resource monitoring program 
addressing water quality sampling for watercraft emissions in areas of 
high PWC and motorized vessel use. These efforts would assist in the 
detection and future prevention of adverse impacts from PWC and other 
boating use in the above flat-wake zones.
    Under this proposed rule, cumulative adverse impacts from PWC and 
other watercraft would be negligible and long-term for benzo(a)pyrene, 
benzene and MTBE. (For an explanation of terms such as ``negligible'' 
and ``adverse'' in regard to water quality, see page 93 of the EA.). 
The proposed additional flat-wake zone restrictions would not change 
the cumulative impacts on water quality in NPS or tribal managed 
waters. The impacts to water quality on the Kettle River would result 
in localized, long-term, minor, beneficial impacts due to the 
elimination of pollutant loads.
    PWC use under this proposed rule would have negligible adverse 
effects on water quality based on ecotoxicological threshold volumes. 
Cumulative pollutant loads in 2002 and 2012 from PWC and other 
motorboats would be well below ecotoxicological benchmarks and 
criteria. Adverse water quality impacts from PWC from benzo(a)pyrene, 
benzene and MTBE based on human health (ingestion of water and fish) 
benchmarks would be negligible in both 2002 and 2012, based on 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state of Washington water 
quality criteria. Cumulative adverse impacts from PWC and other 
watercraft would be negligible for benzo(a)pyrene, benzene and MTBE. 
Cumulative impacts from PWC and other motorboats to water quality would 
also be applicable to tribal managed waters. Therefore the 
implementation of this proposed rule would not result in an impairment 
of the water quality resource at Lake Roosevelt.

Air Quality

    PWC emit various compounds that pollute the air. In the two-stroke 
engines commonly used in PWC, 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 (NO<INF>X</INF>), particulate matter (PM), and carbon 
monoxide (CO). PWC also emit fuel components such as benzene 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 VOC and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions combine to form ozone. Ozone causes respiratory problems in 
humans, including cough, airway irritation, and chest pain during 
inhalations. Ozone is also toxic to sensitive species of vegetation. It 
causes visible foliar injury, decreases plant growth, and increases 
plant susceptibility to insects and disease. Carbon monoxide can affect 
humans as well. It interferes with the oxygen carrying capacity of 
blood, resulting in lack of oxygen to tissues. NO<INF>X</INF> and PM 
emissions associated with PWC use can also degrade visibility. 
NO<INF>X</INF> can also contribute to acid deposition effects on 
plants, water, and soil. However, because emission estimates show that 
NO<INF>X</INF> from PWC are minimal (less than 5 tons per year), acid 
deposition effects attributable to PWC use are expected to be minimal.
    In this proposed rule, negligible adverse impacts for HC, 
PM<INF>10</INF>, and NO<INF>X</INF>, and minor impacts for CO would 
occur for 2002 and 2012. (For an explanation of terms such as 
``negligible'' and

[[Page 5803]]

``adverse'' in regard to air quality, see page 105 of the EA.) The risk 
from PAH would also be negligible in 2002 and 2012. Cumulative adverse 
impacts from PWC and other boating emissions within the national 
recreation area would be moderate for CO and HC, and negligible for 
PM<INF>10</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> in 2002. In 2012, NO<INF>X</INF> 
impact would increase to minor; impacts for the other pollutants would 
remain at 2002 levels. A beneficial impact to regional ozone emissions 
would occur due to a reduction in HC emissions.
    This proposed rule would not interfere with, maintain or improve 
existing human health air quality conditions, with future reductions in 
PM<INF>10</INF> and HC emissions due to improved emission controls from 
EPA. The PWC contribution to emissions of HC is estimated to be 10% to 
11% of the cumulative boating emissions in 2002 and 2012. Cumulative 
impacts from watercraft emissions would also be applicable to adjacent 
areas under tribal jurisdiction. All impacts would be long term. 
Therefore, the implementation of this proposed rule would not result in 
an impairment of air quality.

Soundscapes

    The primary soundscape issue relative to PWC use is that other 
visitors may perceive the sound made by PWC as an intrusion or 
nuisance, thereby disrupting their experiences. This disruption is 
generally short term because PWC travel along the shore to outlying 
areas. However, as PWC use increases and concentrates at beach areas, 
related noise becomes more of an issue, particularly during certain 
times of the day. Additionally, visitor sensitivity to PWC noise varies 
from fishermen (more sensitive) to swimmers at popular beaches (less 
sensitive).
    The biggest difference between noise from PWC and noise from 
motorboats is that the PWC repeatedly leave the water during use, 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 noise is often perceived as 
more disturbing than the constant noise 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. 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 proposal, PWC use would be reinstated with new 
restrictions to enhance overall visitor experience. This proposal would 
result in a reduction in noise levels from PWC to park visitors, 
including fishermen and near shoreline users of the swimming, picnic, 
and camping areas, as flat-wake speed would be implemented in these 
areas, resulting in beneficial impacts.
    Overall, minor to moderate adverse impacts would result from PWC 
use on the soundscape of the recreation area. Impacts would generally 
be short-term, although they could periodically be more consistent and 
bothersome at shoreline areas on the very high use days, where 
motorized watercraft noise may predominate off and on for most of the 
day. Most visitors to Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area during 
those high use periods expect to hear motorized craft during the day, 
as the lake is known by the mostly local and regional users for 
providing this type of recreational opportunity, in addition to other 
activities.
    Noise from PWC would have minor to moderate adverse impacts at most 
locations at Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area and the immediate 
surrounding area. (For an explanation of impact terms such as 
``minor'', ``moderate'' and ``adverse'' in regard to soundscape, see 
page 118 of the EA.) Impact levels would relate to the number of PWC 
operating as well as the sensitivity of other visitors. The new 
proposed restrictions on PWC use and proposed flat-wake areas would 
have beneficial impacts to some park visitors from reduced noise 
levels. Cumulative adverse noise impacts from PWC and other watercraft, 
automobiles on SR 25, aircraft, lumber operations, and other visitor 
activities would be minor to moderate because these sounds would be 
heard occasionally throughout the day, and may predominate on busy days 
during the high use season. Cumulative impacts to the soundscape at 
adjacent tribal managed visitor use areas would be similar to impacts 
in NPS-managed areas. Therefore, implementation of this proposed rule 
would not result in an impairment of the park's soundscape.

Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat

    Some research suggests that PWC use affects wildlife by causing 
interruption of normal activities, flight and alarm responses, 
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 
PWC. Fleeing a disturbance created by PWC may force birds to abandon 
eggs during crucial embryo development stages, prevent nest defense 
from predators, and contribute to stress and associated behavior 
changes. Impacts to sensitive species, such as the bald eagle, are 
documented under ``Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern 
Species.''
    Under the proposed rule, PWC use would occur in the recreation 
areas with additional limitations such as an extension of the previous 
100' zone to 200' flat-wake restrictions around activity areas and 
along a small stretch of the Spokane Arm and a prohibition of PWC use 
on the Kettle River. The added flat-wake restrictions would be 
implemented in areas where visitor activities are currently high, 
precluding the existence of prime wildlife habitat. Therefore, these 
flat-wake restrictions would have beneficial impacts through a decrease 
in noise and disturbance by PWC.
    Impacts to mammals would be negligible to minor because most 
species rarely use the shoreline. Most are either transient visitors 
from inland parts of the recreation area or are generally acclimated to 
human intrusion. Primary habitat areas for large mammals such as deer 
and elk are typically located further inland. Small mammals common to 
the area such as marmots, skunks, and chipmunks generally acclimate 
easily to human activity and have the ability to avoid use areas. 
Suitable breeding habitat for birds is located in the Hawk Creek and 
Kettle and Colville Rivers, but these locations are protected by flat-
wake designations or are inaccessible to PWC. In addition, most PWC are 
not used in the spring due to low water and air temperatures, further 
minimizing the potential for disturbance to breeding individuals. Fish 
could potentially be affected through pollutant loads and/or physical 
disturbance but reinstated use of PWC would create pollutant loads that 
are well below ecotoxicological benchmarks. Adverse impacts from 
physical disturbance by PWC use to fish populations and spawning areas 
at Lake Roosevelt would be short-term, negligible to minor.
    Under the proposal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife from PWC 
use at Lake Roosevelt National Recreation

[[Page 5804]]

Area would be negligible to minor. (For an explanation of terms such as 
``negligible'' and ``adverse'' in regard to wildlife and wildlife 
habitat see pages 123-124 of the EA.) All wildlife impacts would be 
temporary and short term. Cumulative impacts would also be adverse, and 
minor to moderate. Therefore, implementation of this proposed rule 
would not result in impairment to wildlife or wildlife habitat.

Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species

    This proposed regulation aims to protect threatened or endangered 
species, or species of special concern, and their habitats from PWC 
disturbances. The same issues described for PWC use and general 
wildlife also pertain to special status species. Potential impacts from 
PWC include inducing flight and alarm responses, disrupting normal 
behaviors and causing stress, degrading habitat quality, and 
potentially affecting reproductive success. Special status species at 
the recreation area include federal or state listed threatened, 
endangered, or candidate species. Additionally, some species at Lake 
Roosevelt are designated by the state or other local governments as 
species of special concern.
    The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) mandates that 
all federal agencies consider the potential effects of their actions on 
species listed as threatened or endangered. If the National Park 
Service determines that an action may adversely affect a federally 
listed species, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 
required to ensure that the action will not jeopardize the species' 
continued existence or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat. No consultation with USFWS is 
required under this proposed rule.
    PWC use at Lake Roosevelt may affect, but is not likely to 
adversely affect the following species with federal or state status: 
bald eagle, bull trout, California bighorn sheep, American peregrine 
falcon, American white pelican, black tern, moose, least bladdery 
milkvetch, Nuttal's pussytoes, or giant helleborine. The identified 
special status species are either not permanent residents that are 
present during times of PWC use, do not have preferred habitat in the 
areas used by PWC, are not usually accessible, or are generally 
acclimated to human activity. (For an explanation of terms such as 
``negligible'' and ``adverse'' in regard to threatened, endangered, or 
special concern species see pages 129-130 of the EA.)
    There would be no effect to all other federal or state listed 
species including the Canada lynx, gray wolf, grizzly bear, or woodland 
caribou. None of these species are believed to have resident 
populations within the recreation area, although habitat may exist in 
undeveloped forested areas near northern portions of the park.
    For example, Lake Roosevelt provides opportunities for wintering 
activity for bald eagles. The over-wintering population is large while 
the resident population is low. The highest PWC use occurs in July and 
August, which does not coincide with wintering bald eagle activity. PWC 
use may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles or 
their habitat.
    Ute ladies'-tresses is not known to occur within the recreation 
area and potential habitat for the orchid is limited to side drainages 
where PWC use would not likely occur or would be restricted. Columbia 
crazyweed historically occurred along shoreline however, these 
populations were extirpated with the construction of the Grand Coulee 
Dam and no known populations occur in the recreation area now.
    As outlined in the EA, and stated previously, several of the listed 
species that may occur in the Lake Roosevelt area are either not 
permanent residents that are present during times of PWC use, do not 
have preferred habitat in the areas used by PWC, are not usually 
accessible, or are generally acclimated to human activity. 
Reinstatement of PWC use within the national recreation area with 
additional management strategies may affect, but is not likely to 
adversely affect, any of the listed wildlife or plant species due to 
additional flat-wake restrictions and prohibited PWC use on the Kettle 
River. While some disturbance to special status species could occur 
from PWC use, other visitor activities on the lake and shoreline, or 
lake operations, these cumulative impacts would not be of sufficient 
duration or intensity to cause adverse impacts. Reduced impacts would 
occur in designated areas where PWC would be prohibited or where 
additional speed or flat-wake restrictions would be enforced.

Shoreline Vegetation

    PWC use would result in negligible adverse effects on shoreline 
vegetation because shoreline vegetation is generally lacking. (For an 
explanation of terms such as ``negligible'' and ``adverse'' in regard 
to shorelines see page 135 of the EA.) Sensitive wetland and riparian 
areas are located in inaccessible or protected areas with regulated PWC 
access such as in the Kettle River and Crescent Bay Lake. Watercraft 
activity could cause negligible adverse impacts to shorelines through 
watercraft-induced wave action or visitor access. Wind-caused wave 
action and lake level fluctuation could cause negligible impacts 
through erosion to the shoreline of the open areas of the reservoir. 
Lake level fluctuations could also have minor adverse impacts to 
sensitive vegetation in side drainages. Cumulative impacts to tribal 
managed shorelines at Lake Roosevelt from motorized boating and PWC use 
would be similar to impacts on NPS-managed areas. Therefore, 
implementation of this proposed rule would not result in an impairment 
of shoreline vegetation.

Visitor Experience

    In proposing this regulation for Lake Roosevelt, NPS aims to 
minimize conflicts between PWC users, other park visitors, and other 
water recreationists.

Impacts on PWC Users

    Designation of the flat-wake zones and prohibited use on the Kettle 
River would have negligible to minor adverse impacts on most PWC users 
within the national recreation area since these areas would either not 
be accessible or would not be available for use. (For an explanation of 
terms such as ``negligible'' and ``adverse'' in regard to visitor 
experience see page 139-140 of the EA.) However, the majority of the 
lake surface would still be accessible and available to PWC users. PWC 
use was low on the Kettle River prior to the November 2002 closure; 
therefore, the restricted PWC use under the proposed rule would cause 
negligible adverse impacts to PWC users. Other visitors to the national 
recreation area would experience long-term benefits since conflicts 
between PWC users and other visitors, primarily fishermen using the 
Kettle River, would be reduced. PWC use on the Kettle River and use of 
the Napoleon Bridge boat launch has been very low. At times of low 
water in Lake Roosevelt, such as during the spring drawdown, the upper 
reaches of the Kettle River are unnavigable by boat because the river 
becomes too shallow to navigate. Impacts on alternative boat launches 
located on the main body of Lake Roosevelt within 10 river miles of the 
mouth of the Kettle River would be minimal. Visitors wanting to launch 
PWC in the area can use Snag Cove, approximately 6 river miles from the 
mouth of the Kettle River of the Marcus Island boat launch that is 
located approximately 2 river miles from the mouth of the Kettle River.

[[Page 5805]]

    Impacts on Other Boaters. Other boaters at Lake Roosevelt National 
Recreation Area would interact with PWC operators on an increasing 
basis as overall boating numbers likely increase over the next ten 
years. PWC use is expected to increase at the same rate as other boat 
use; however, PWC would still only comprise approximately 4% of total 
boats on Lake Roosevelt by 2012. High-use areas for PWC users and 
boaters include Porcupine Bay, Fort Spokane, Kettle Falls, and Bradbury 
Beach.
    Generally, few non-motorized watercraft (sea kayaks, canoes, and 
windsurfers) use Lake Roosevelt, so interactions with these user groups 
would be infrequent. In addition, prohibition of PWC use on Kettle 
River and the flat wake zone on upper Hawk Creek would provide calmer 
waters that lead to creeks favored by canoeists and kayakers. Motorized 
boats are more likely to interact with PWC. The most common area for 
PWC/boater interaction is near the boat launches, as the majority of 
motorized boats enter the water at the marinas and then motor into the 
main body of the lake.
    Under this proposed rule, the 200-foot flat-wake zone around launch 
ramps, marina facilities, and the flat-wake zone on the stretch of the 
Spokane River at Two Rivers Marina would benefit other boaters 
(motorized and non-motorized). The prohibited use of PWC on the Kettle 
River would also benefit other motorized and non-motorized boaters 
since there would be less physical disturbance to other boaters. 
Boaters in other areas of the lake would see impacts similar to those 
previous to the closure to PWC use. Overall, long-term impacts on the 
experience of other boaters would be beneficial.
    Impacts on Other Visitors. Campers, swimmers, water skiers, 
anglers, hikers, and other shoreline visitors to the lake would 
interact with PWC users and experience impacts similar to those 
previous to the closure on PWC use. Swimmers and other persons in the 
water at shoreline areas that are also popular with PWC would 
experience beneficial impacts as a result of the increased flat-wake 
zone designations and areas where PWC use is prohibited. Shoreline 
campers would experience a beneficial impact especially in areas along 
the Kettle River due to restrictions on PWC use. Shoreline hikers would 
experience impacts similar to before the closure or negligible to minor 
adverse. All visitors would experience negligible to minor beneficial 
impacts. Overall, implementation of this proposed rule would result in 
long-term negligible to minor beneficial impacts on other visitors.
    Designation of the flat-wake zones, increasing the zone from 100' 
to 200', and prohibited PWC use on the Kettle River would have 
negligible to minor adverse impacts on most PWC users within the 
national recreation area since these areas would not be available for 
normal PWC use; however, the majority of the lake surface would still 
be accessible and available to PWC users. Other boaters and shoreline 
users would experience long-term, negligible to minor, beneficial 
impacts, especially at launch areas and high-use facilities. Swimmers, 
water skiers, and other persons in the water would experience 
beneficial impacts on their experience.
    Cumulative effects of PWC use, other motorized boats, and other 
visitors would result in long-term, negligible to minor adverse 
impacts, while plans to improve or expand facilities would have long-
term beneficial impacts on visitor experience within the national 
recreation area. Cumulative impacts from PWC use, motorized boats, and 
other visitors would also be applicable to adjacent tribal managed 
visitor use areas.

Visitor Conflict and Safety

    Of the 46 incidents on Lake Roosevelt reported to the National Park 
Service between 1997 and 2002, 17% (or eight incidents) involved a PWC. 
Further, 55% of the incidents that involved two vessels making contact 
with each other (five out of nine incidents) involved at least one PWC, 
and three of the five two-vessel incidents (or 33%) involved two PWC 
striking each other. One PWC accident resulted in the death of the 
operator.
    PWC speeds, wakes, and operations near other users can pose hazards 
and conflicts. Proportionally, there have been more complaints received 
by park staff about unsafe behavior by PWC users than any other 
watercraft users. Complaints have also been received from anglers, 
swimmers, and canoeists concerning speed of, and wakes created by, PWC.
    Under this proposed rule, PWC use would be reinstated but PWC 
operation would be prohibited on Kettle River from Hedlund Bridge north 
to the headwaters and in other areas PWC use would only be allowed to 
occur at flat-wake speed within 200 feet of launch ramps, marina 
facilities, campground areas, beaches occupied by swimmers, water 
skiers and other persons in the NPS designated waters, and on the 
stretch of the Spokane Arm from 100 feet west of the Two Rivers Marina 
to 100 feet east of the Fort Spokane launch ramp above the vehicle 
bridge. In addition, the National Park Service would establish a 
monitoring program to determine if and when additional regulations 
would be needed to protect visitor safety. PWC use could potentially be 
discontinued in certain areas depending on the results of monitoring.
    PWC User/Swimmer Conflicts. The greatest potential for conflict 
between PWC users and swimmers is at the high-use areas near Spring 
Canyon, Porcupine Bay, Fort Spokane, Kettle Falls, and Bradbury Beach. 
The 200-foot flat-wake designation around beaches occupied by swimmers 
would double the flat-wake zone relative to state regulations and would 
result in a beneficial impact on swimmers at high-use areas. Increasing 
the flat wake zone around beaches occupied by swimmers is beneficial to 
swimmers because the water turbulance created by PWC will dissipate 
significantly before reaching the shore. The remaining park locations 
would experience little or no conflict between PWC users and swimmers. 
There are few swimmers in other areas of the park that are frequented 
by PWC users, including the Kettle River, which PWC use would be 
prohibited. Thus conflicts in these segments would constitute 
negligible adverse impacts. (For an explanation of terms such as 
``negligible'' and ``adverse'' in regard to visitor conflict and safety 
see page 146-147 of the EA.) Overall, impacts to the safety of swimmers 
would be long-term, negligible to minor, and beneficial.
    PWC Users/Other Boater Conflicts. Impacts on other boaters on the 
majority of the lake would be long term, negligible to minor adverse. 
However, flat-wake restrictions near marinas, launch ramps, and on the 
stretch of the Spokane Arm near the Two Rivers marina and the 
prohibition of PWC use on Kettle River from Hedlund Bridge north to the 
headwaters would reduce the potential for conflict with other boaters 
in these areas. Impact on other boaters in the launch areas and marinas 
under this proposed rule would be long-term, negligible to minor 
beneficial.
    Overall, PWC use would have a negligible to minor adverse impact on 
conflicts and safety of boat users within the national recreation area. 
The restrictions in this proposed rule would have beneficial impact on 
conflict and safety on boaters concentrated at high use areas and boat 
launches.
    PWC Users/Other Visitor Conflicts. PWC users and other visitors 
would interact under this proposed rule; however, the prohibited use on 
the Kettle River, in addition to the 200 foot flat-wake zone 
designations around

[[Page 5806]]

waterskiers, beaches occupied by swimmers and persons in the water 
would result in a long term beneficial impact on other visitors. 
Shoreline campers would also experience a beneficial impact on safety 
and conflict issues under this propose rule. Overall, implementation of 
this proposed rule would have a beneficial impact on the safety of 
swimmers.
    Reinstated PWC use with the additional restriction proposed in this 
rule would have short- and long-term, negligible to minor beneficial 
impacts on visitor conflicts and safety near the designated swim areas, 
boat launches, marinas, and campgrounds as well as on other visitors to 
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area. Cumulative impacts to visitor 
conflict and safety in tribal managed areas would be the same as before 
the closure on PWC use and the proposed restrictions would not affect 
tribal managed areas. Cumulative impacts related to visitor conflicts 
and safety would be negligible to minor adverse for all NPS user groups 
in the short and long term, particularly near the high use areas.

Cultural Resources

    Under this proposed rule, Lake Roosevelt plans to manage PWC use 
and access to protect cultural resources including sacred sites 
important to Native Americans.
    Reinstating PWC use within the national recreation area would have 
the potential to affect archeological resources by providing visitor 
access to resources or by causing wave action and erosion. However, 
potential impacts directly attributable to continued unrestricted PWC 
use are difficult to quantify. The most likely impact to archeological 
sites would result from PWC users landing in areas otherwise 
inaccessible to most other national recreation area visitors and 
illegally collecting or damaging artifacts. According to park staff, 
looting and vandalism of cultural resources is not a substantial 
problem. PWC-induced wave action is also not considered to be a large 
threat to archeological resources within the recreation area, as most 
PWC use does not occur during lake drawdowns when resources are most 
vulnerable.
    Under the proposed rule, the creation or extension of flat-wake 
restrictions would reduce PWC-induced wave action. Project by project 
inventories and a monitoring program would determine if and when 
additional regulations would be necessary to protect cultural 
resources, resulting in minor to moderate beneficial impacts. Long-term 
impacts to archeological resources would continue to be minor. (For an 
explanation of terms such as ``minor'' and ``moderate'' in regard to 
cultural resources see pages 152-153 the EA.)
    Although additional flat-wake restrictions and use prohibitions on 
the Kettle River within the national recreation area would reduce wave 
action in some areas and provide a minor beneficial impact, PWC use 
could have minor adverse impacts on listed or potentially listed 
archeological resources from possible illegal collection and vandalism. 
Continuing PWC use under a special regulation is not expected to 
negatively affect the overall condition of cultural resources due to 
resource monitoring that would be conducted. Archeological resources in 
areas managed by the Colville Confederated Tribes and Spokane Tribe of 
Indians could experience minor to moderate adverse impacts as a result 
of PWC and other visitor use. All impacts would occur over the short 
and long term. Therefore, implementation of this proposed rule would 
not result in an impairment of cultural resources.

Socioeconomic Effects

    This proposed rule would continue PWC use in a way that would 
minimize the socioeconomic effects to park visitors and local 
businesses. Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area experiences 
relatively low rates of PWC visitation. PWC make up only approximately 
4% of motorized watercraft that recreate on Lake Roosevelt. There are 
other destinations in the area that are more popular with PWC users 
such as Lake Chelan and other parks of the Columbia River. No PWC sales 
or rental shops are located on the banks of Lake Roosevelt, and the 
nearest rental facility is located on Banks Lake only three miles away.
    If PWC use decreases as a result of the restrictions and the 
closure on the Kettle River, then the suppliers of PWC sales and rental 
services would be adversely affected. It is unlikely that the proposed 
restrictions would have substantial impacts on the sales shops because 
they are located 60 to 100 miles away from the national recreation area 
and nearby substitute areas are more popular locations for PWC use.
    Under the proposed rule it is anticipated that decrease in PWC use 
as a result of the regulation would be essentially zero because the 
prohibited use on the Kettle River and implementation of the extension 
of the flat-wake zones would not affect the number of visitors to the 
lake that use PWC and the majority of the recreation area would still 
be open for PWC use. The economic analysis shows an average annual 
economic benefit of $147,000 to the local economy upon implementation 
of the final rule.

Environmental Justice

    This proposed rule continues PWC use in a manner that would have no 
adverse effects related to environmental justice. PWC users at the 
national recreation area represent a cross-section of ethnic groups and 
income levels from the surrounding counties. Under the proposed rule 
all PWC user groups would continue to have access to the lake, except 
Crescent Bay Lake that is closed to all motorized watercraft use and 
the Kettle River from Hedlund Bridge north to the headwaters that is 
closed to PWC use.
    There would be no adverse effects related to environmental justice 
since reinstating PWC use within the national recreation area would not 
disproportionately affect minority or low income populations. 
Recreational use facilities managed by the Indian Tribes would continue 
to be available to PWC users, providing long-term beneficial impacts to 
tribal managed facilities on both NPS and tribal lands from the 
reinstatement of PWC use. Reduced conflicts with other watercraft would 
result from the dispersion of PWC use from tribal waters to other areas 
of the lake, resulting in a long-term beneficial impact.

National Recreation Area Management and Operations

    This proposed rule manages PWC use in a manner that minimizes the 
conflicts with state, tribal, and local requirements to the extent 
possible. PWC use under the proposed rule would be managed similar to 
state boating regulations with additional management prescriptions. 
These management strategies are more restrictive than state PWC 
regulations and include additional flat-wake speed zoning and areas of 
restricted use. The prescriptions are within the NPS legal mandate to 
regulate recreational activities under their jurisdiction, and there 
would be minimal conflict with state or other federal policies or 
regulations. Conflicts with regulations and policies of the Spokane 
Tribe of Indians and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 
Reservation would exist due to differences in restrictions on the 
National Park Service versus tribal waters, which are contiguous.
    Waters adjacent to the NPS-managed waters of Lake Roosevelt are 
under tribal jurisdiction and would not be included in the 
prescriptions implemented for PWC use on NPS-administered waters under 
this

[[Page 5807]]

proposed rule. This could potentially cause some confusion to PWC users 
because of the difference in regulations within the same body of water. 
Adverse impacts related to differences in tribal requirements or 
policies would be negligible to minor. The tribes enforce Washington 
State boating laws and regulations so differences in management 
prescriptions for the NPS or tribal water areas would be minimal since 
NPS regulations are generally consistent with state laws and 
regulations. There would be no conflict with other federal, state, or 
local PWC regulations or policies, and adverse impacts would be 
negligible. The NPS will work with the tribes to try to develop 
regulations that are consistent among all jurisdictions on the waters 
of Lake Roosevelt to reduce the confusion to the public. In addition, 
the proposed rule would have negligible to minor adverse impacts on 
park operations. Staffing would continue at current levels, though 
increased enforcement efforts would likely be required to implement 
additional flat-wake zoning and prohibited PWC use on the Kettle River. 
Additional educational efforts would also be required to inform PWC 
users of new regulations.

The Proposed Rule

    Under the proposed rule, PWC use would be allowed throughout the 
recreation area, with certain restrictions. These restrictions are: 
Crescent Bay Lake, the Kettle River from Hedlund Bridge north to the 
headwaters (no PWC use), and Upper Hawk Creek from the waterfall near 
the campground through the area known as the ``narrows'' (flat-wake 
speed restriction). This proposed rule on PWC use on Lake Roosevelt 
would only apply to waters managed by the National Park Service and 
would not apply to waters that are managed by the Colville Confederated 
Tribes and Spokane Tribe of Indians.
    As was the case prior to the November 2002 closure, Crescent Bay 
Lake continues to be closed to all motorized uses and Upper Hawk Creek 
continues to be flat wake for all motorized watercraft. The launch and 
retrieval of PWC would continue to be permitted only at designated boat 
launch ramps within Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area. However, 
under the proposed rule, launching from Napoleon Bridge Launch would be 
prohibited because PWC use would not be allowed in the Kettle River. 
Previously, the NPS restricted PWCs to flat-wake speed within 100' of 
launch ramps, marina facilities, campground areas, swim beaches, water 
skiers, or other persons in the water under Washington State 
regulations. The proposed rule increases the flat-wake distance in 
those same areas to 200'. PWC users would be able to land anywhere 
along the shoreline, except in designated swimming areas. Visitor 
education programs, such as boater safety education, that are designed 
to promote safe and environmentally friendly boating practices would 
continue. The programs would include personal contacts, newspaper 
articles, posting of information on boat launch bulletin boards and 
formal educational programs.
    In addition to the above restrictions, operation of PWC would only 
be allowed to occur at flat-wake speeds in the stretch of the Spokane 
Arm from 100 feet west of the Two Rivers Marina on the downstream end, 
to 100 feet east of the Fort Spokane launch ramp on the upstream end, 
above the vehicle bridge.
    In the future, PWC use could be discontinued in specific areas 
managed by National Park Service that experience cultural or natural 
resource degradation or public safety issues should monitoring of such 
areas reveal unacceptable impacts.
    Finally, other NPS boating regulations and State and other federal 
watercraft laws and regulations would continue to be enforced, 
including regulations that address reckless or negligent operation, 
excessive speed, hazardous wakes or washes, hours of operation, age of 
driver and distance between vessels.

Economic Summary

    The preferred alternative (Alternative B) and another alternative 
(Alternative A) were analyzed to determine the economic impacts of 
allowing the use of personal watercraft (PWC) in Lake Roosevelt 
National Recreation Area (LARO).\1\ Alternative C, which would maintain 
a ban on PWC in LARO, represents the baseline for this analysis. The 
economic impacts of Alternatives A and B are measured relative to that 
baseline. Alternative A would reinstate PWC use in LARO as previously 
managed prior to the ban subject to specific location, flat wake, 
launch and retrieval, and operating restrictions. Alternative B would 
also reinstate PWC use, but includes additional location and flat wake 
restrictions to mitigate watercraft safety and visitor health and 
safety concerns, and to enhance the overall visitor experience. 
Additionally, Alternative B would establish a monitoring program to 
determine any future impacts of allowing PWC use in LARO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This summary briefly describes the results of the economic 
analysis presented in National Park Service 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The primary beneficiaries of Alternatives A and B are the visitors 
who would use PWCs within the recreation area if permitted, PWC users 
in substitute areas outside LARO where individuals displaced from LARO 
ride because of the ban, and the businesses that serve PWC users. All 
visitors using PWCs in LARO prior to the ban are assumed to regain 
their full economic value for PWC use in LARO under both Alternatives A 
and B. PWC users who currently ride in substitute areas outside LARO 
are assumed to gain some economic value if these areas are less crowded 
than under baseline conditions due to reinstating PWC use in LARO. 
Finally, suppliers of PWC rentals, sales, and service, as well as local 
hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and other businesses that serve PWC 
users, will likely experience an increase in business under 
Alternatives A and B.
    While beneficiaries may gain more economic value under Alternative 
A than Alternative B due to fewer restrictions, NPS was unable to 
quantify any differences, and considers the benefits of those two 
alternatives to be similar. For both Alternatives A and B, PWC users 
are expected to gain a total present value of benefits between 
$1,076,400 and $1,311,300 over the next ten years, depending on the 
discount rate used.\2\ Businesses are expected to gain a total present 
value of benefits between $9,600 and $78,000, depending on the discount 
rate used. The total present values of these benefits are presented in 
Table 1, and their amortized values per year are given in Table 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Quantified economic impacts were discounted over the ten-
year timeframe using both 3 and 7-percent discount rates. A 3-
percent discount rate is indicated by the economics literature 
(e.g., Freeman, 1993) and by two Federal rule-makings (61 FR 453; 61 
FR 20584). A 7-percent discount rate is required by Office of 
Management and Budget Circular A-94.

[[Page 5808]]



 Table 1.--Total Present Value of Benefits (thousands of dollars) for Personal Watercraft Use in Lake Roosevelt
                                     National Recreation Area, 2003 to 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         PWC users           Businesses                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative A:
Discounted at 3% \a\................        $1,311.3  $12.1 to $78.0.........  $1,323.5 to $1,389.3.
Discounted at 7% \b\................         1,076.4  9.6 to 61.6............  1,086.0 to 1,138.0.
Alternative B:
Discounted at 3% \a\................         1,311.3  12.1 to 78.0...........  1,323.5 to 1,389.3.
Discounted at 7% \b\................         1,076.4  9.6 to 61.6............  1,086.0 to 1,138.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The economics literature supports a 3-percent discount rate in the valuation of public goods (e.g., Freeman,
  1993). Federal rule-makings also support a 3-percent discount rate in the valuation of lost natural resource
  use (61 FR 453; 61 FR 20584).
\b\ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, revised January 2003.


   Table 2.--Amortized Benefits per Year (Thousands of Dollars) for Personal Watercraft Use in Lake Roosevelt
                                    National Recreation Area, 2003 to 2012 a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         PWC users           Businesses                      Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative A:
Discounted at 3% \b\................          $153.7  $1.4 to $9.1...........  $155.2 to $162.9.
Discounted at 7% \c\................           153.3  1.4 to 8.8.............  154.6 to 162.0.
Alternative B:
Discounted at 3% \b\................           153.7  1.4 to 9.1.............  155.2 to 162.9.
Discounted at 7% \c\................           153.3  1.4 to 8.8.............  154.6 to 162.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This is the total present value of benefits reported in Table 1 amortized over the ten-year analysis
  timeframe at the indicated discount rate.
\b\ The economics literature supports a 3-percent discount rate in the valuation of public goods (e.g., Freeman,
  1993). Federal rule-makings also support a 3-percent discount rate in the valuation of lost natural resource
  use (61 FR 453; 61 FR 20584).
\c\ Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94, revised January 2003.

    The costs associated with Alternatives A and B would accrue 
primarily to LARO visitors who do not use PWCs and whose recreation 
area experience is negatively affected by the use of PWCs within the 
recreation area. At LARO, non-PWC uses include boating, canoeing, 
fishing, and hiking. Impacts to these users may include the aesthetic 
costs associated with noise and visibility impacts, human health costs, 
ecosystem degradation costs, and safety and congestion costs. Average 
annual visitation to LARO was over 1.4 million people from 1998 to 
2002. Most of these visitors are believed to come to the park for some 
form of water-based recreation. However, non-PWC users accounted for 
over 99 percent of total visitation.
    ``Nonusers'' of the recreation area may also bear some costs under 
Alternatives A and B. For example, individuals who do not visit the 
recreation area may experience a reduction in economic value simply 
from the knowledge that the natural resources of the recreation area 
may be degraded by PWC use. Part of this loss may stem from a decreased 
assurance that the quality of the recreation area's resources is being 
protected for the enjoyment of future generations.
    Most of the costs associated with Alternatives A and B are believed 
to be relatively small. Evaluating these costs in monetary terms was 
not feasible with currently available data, but they are qualitatively 
described in the economic analysis. Therefore, the benefits presented 
in Tables 1 and 2 above overstate the net benefits (benefits minus 
costs) of the different alternatives. If all costs could be quantified, 
the indicated net benefits for each alternative would be lower than the 
benefits indicated in Tables 1 and 2.
    The costs associated with aesthetics, ecosystem protection, human 
health and safety, congestion, and nonuse values would likely be 
greater for Alternative A and for Alternative B due to the additional 
restrictions on PWC use in Alternative B. Since the quantified benefits 
for Alternatives A and B were the same, inclusion of these un-
quantified costs would reasonably result in Alternative B having the 
greatest level of net benefits. Therefore, based on this analysis, the 
selection of Alternative B as the preferred alternative was considered 
reasonable.

References

Freeman, A. M. III. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource 
Values: Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 
1993.
National Park Service. ``Economic Analysis of Management Alternatives 
for Personal Watercraft in Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area.'' 
Report prepared for the National Park Service by MACTEC Engineering and 
Consulting, Inc., BBL Sciences, Inc., and RTI International, October 
2003.

Compliance With Other Laws

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    This document is not a significant rule and has not been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
    (1) This rule will not have an effect of $100 million or more on 
the economy. It will not adversely affect in a material way the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities. This determination is based on the report ``Economic 
Analysis of Management Alternatives for Personal Watercraft in Lake 
Roosevelt National Recreation Area'' (MACTEC Engineering and 
Consulting, Inc., October 2003).
    (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

[[Page 5809]]

forms of monetary supplements are involved.
    (4) This rule does 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Department of the Interior certifies that this rulemaking will 
not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small 
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). 
This certification is based on a report entitled report ``Economic 
Analysis of Management Alternatives for Personal Watercraft in Lake 
Roosevelt National Recreation Area'' (MACTEC Engineering and 
Consulting, Inc., October 2003).

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

    As a companion document to this NPRM, NPS has issued the Personal 
Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment for Lake Roosevelt National 
Recreation Area. The Environmental Assessment (EA) was open for public 
review and comment from April 28, 2003 to May 28, 2003. Copies of the 
environmental assessment may be downloaded at http://www.nps.gov/laro 
or obtained by calling 509-633-9441 ext. 110 or writing to the 
Superintendent, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, 1008 Crest 
Drive, Coulee Dam, WA 99116. Based on comments received from the public 
during the EA scoping process and through the comment period, a change 
was made to Alternative B that would close the Kettle River to PWC use 
above the Hedlund Bridge. The EA does not discuss this modification but 
impacts from this additional closure have been analyzed by the NPS and 
will be discussed in the final decision document for this EA.

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 have evaluated potential 
effects on federally recognized Indian tribes and have determined that 
there are potential effects.
    Lake Roosevelt conducted preliminary consultation with the Spokane 
Tribe of Indians and the Confederated Tribes of the Colville 
Reservation in 2000 when the original rulemaking came into effect. 
Since that time, the park has continued to keep the Tribes informed in 
writing about various milestones during the PWC process. The Colville 
Tribes have also commented on the EA which supports this rulemaking and 
has supported the preferred alternative which is implemented through 
this rulemaking. The NPS has also consulted with the Tribes on the 
provisions of the proposed regulation and its possible effects on 
tribal waters.

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. 7.55 Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area.) (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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9edbe6edfbfddef7f1edb0faf1f7b0f9f1e8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fabf82899f99ba939589d49e9593d49d958c">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Drafting Information: The primary authors of this regulation are: 
Dan Mason, Chief Ranger, and Lynne Brougher, Chief of Interpretation, 
Lake Roosevelt NRA; Sarah Bransom, Environmental Quality Division; and 
Kym Hall, Special Assistant, Washington, DC.

Public Participation

    Comments on the proposed rule should be sent or hand delivered to 
The Superintendent, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area, 1008 Crest 
Drive, Coulee Dam, WA 99116. Comments may also be received by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfd3decdd0ffdbdad191d1cfcc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d111c0f123d19181353130d0e531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>. If you comment by e-mail, please include ``PWC rule'' 
in the subject line and your

[[Page 5810]]

name and return address in the body of your Internet message.
    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. Amend Sec. 7.55 by revising the section title and adding new 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec. 7.55  Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area.

* * * * *
    (c) Personal Watercraft (PWC). (1) PWCs are allowed on the waters 
within Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area except in the following 
areas:
    (i) Crescent Bay Lake.
    (ii) Kettle River above the Hedlund Bridge.
    (2) Launch and retrieval of PWC are permitted only at designated 
launch ramps. Launching of PWC at Napoleon Bridge launch ramp is 
prohibited.
    (3) PWC may land anywhere along the shoreline except in designated 
swimming areas.
    (4) PWC may not be operated at greater than flat-wake speeds in the 
following locations:
    (i) Upper Hawk Creek from the waterfall near the campground through 
the area known as the ``narrows'' to the confluence of the lake, marked 
by ``flat wake'' buoy(s).
    (ii) Within 200 feet of launch ramps, marina facilities, campground 
areas, water skiers, beaches occupied by swimmers or other persons in 
the water.
    (iii) The stretch of the Spokane Arm from 100 feet west of the Two 
Rivers Marina on the downstream end, to 100 feet east of the Fort 
Spokane launch ramp on the upstream end, above the vehicle bridge.
    (5) The Superintendent may temporarily limit, restrict or terminate 
access to the areas designated for PWC use after taking into 
consideration public health and safety, natural and cultural resource 
protection, and other management activities and objectives.

    Dated: January 20, 2004.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 04-2556 Filed 2-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-VL-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>