Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5799

PART 1656—ALTERNATIVE SERVICE 

1. The authority citation for part 1656 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Military Selective Service Act 

(50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.); E.O. 11623.

2. Amend part 1656, Alternative 

Service, to remove the words ‘‘Civilian 

Review Board’’ and add, in their place, 

the words ‘‘District Appeal Board’’, in 

the following places: 

a. Section 1656.11(b)(4) 

b. Section 1656.13(d) and (f) and (g) 

and (h) 

c. Section 1656.18(c)

§ 1656.1 [Amended] 

3. Amend § 1656.1 to remove 

paragraph (b)(6) and redesignate 

paragraphs (b)(7) through (14) as 

paragraphs (b)(6) through (13).

§ 1656.3 [Amended] 

4.–5. Amend § 1656.3 to remove 

paragraph (a)(10) and redesignate 

paragraphs (a)(11) through (13) as 

paragraphs (a)(10) through (12).

§ 1656.13 [Amended] 

6.–7. Amend § 1656.13 by removing 

paragraph (e) and by redesignating 

paragraphs (f) through (h) as paragraphs 

(e) through (g).

§ 1656.18 [Amended] 

8. Amend § 1656.18(c) by revising the 

phrase ‘‘§ 1656.13(c) or (g)’’ to read 

‘‘§ 1656.13(c) or (f)’’.

Dated: January 28, 2004. 

Lewis C. Brodsky, 

Acting Director of Selective Service.

[FR Doc. 04–2427 Filed 2–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8015–01–P

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 

laro@den.nps.gov. If you comment by email, 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: Kym_Hall@nps.gov.

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 

5800 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 nonconflicting 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 flatwake 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. 

5802 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 longterm 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 flatwake 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 

(NOX), 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 NOX 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. 

NOX and PM emissions associated with 

PWC use can also degrade visibility. 

NOX can also contribute to acid 

deposition effects on plants, water, and 

soil. However, because emission 

estimates show that NOX 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, PM10, and NOX, 

and minor impacts for CO would occur 

for 2002 and 2012. (For an explanation 

of terms such as ‘‘negligible’’ and 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 PM10 and NOX in 2002. In 

2012, NOX 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 

PM10 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 

5804 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 flatwake 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 highuse 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 highuse 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 longterm, 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 

5806 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 longterm 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 NPSadministered waters under this 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 5807

1This summary briefly describes the results of the 

economic analysis presented in National Park 

Service 2003.

2Quantified 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.

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’’ (flatwake 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.

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.

5808 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

aThe 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). bOffice 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. 

aThis is the total present value of benefits reported in Table 1 amortized over the ten-year analysis timeframe at the indicated discount rate. bThe 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). cOffice 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 unquantified 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 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 ‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered heading; 

for example § 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: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.

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 email at laro@den.nps.gov. If you 

comment by e-mail, please include 

‘‘PWC rule’’ in the subject line and your 

5810 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 25 / Friday, February 6, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

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 § 7.55 by revising the 

section title and adding new paragraph 

(c) to read as follows:

§ 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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[Docket No. 040127028–4028–01; I.D 

012104B]

RIN 0648–AR69

Sea Turtle Conservation; Restrictions 

to Fishing Activities

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments.

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to prohibit 

the use of all pound net leaders from 

May 6 to July 15 each year in the 

Virginia waters of the mainstem 

Chesapeake Bay, south of 37° 19.0′ N. 

lat. and west of 76° 13.0′ W. long., and 

all waters south of 37° 13.0′ N. lat. to the 

Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel at the 

mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, and the 

James and York Rivers downstream of 

the first bridge in each tributary. 

Additionally, NMFS proposes to 

prohibit the use of all leaders with 

stretched mesh greater than or equal to 

8 inches (20.3 cm) and leaders with 

stringers from May 6 to July 15 each 

year in the Virginia waters of the 

Chesapeake Bay outside the 

aforementioned area, extending to the 

Maryland-Virginia State line and the 

Rappahannock River downstream of the 

first bridge, and from the Chesapeake 

Bay Bridge Tunnel to the COLREGS line 

at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. 

This action, taken under the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (ESA), is necessary 

to conserve sea turtles listed as 

threatened or endangered.

DATES: Comments on this action are 

requested, and must be received at the 

appropriate address or fax number (see

ADDRESSES) by no later than 5 p.m., 

eastern daylight time, on March 8, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this 

action or requests for copies of the 

literature cited, the draft Environmental 

Assessment (EA), or Regulatory Impact 

Review (RIR) and Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis should be 

addressed to the Assistant Regional 

Administrator for Protected Resources, 

NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, 

Gloucester, MA 01930. Comments and 

requests for supporting documents may 

also be sent via fax to 978–281–9394. 

Comments will not be accepted if 

submitted via e-mail or the Internet.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carrie Upite (ph. 978–281–9328 x6525, 

fax 978–281–9394), or Barbara 

Schroeder (ph. 301–713–1401, fax 301–

713–0376).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

All sea turtles that occur in U.S. 

waters are listed as either endangered or 

threatened under the ESA. Kemp’s 

ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), 

leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and 

hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) sea 

turtles are listed as endangered. 

Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green 

(Chelonia mydas) sea turtles are listed 

as threatened, except for populations of 

green turtles in Florida and on the 

Pacific coast of Mexico, which are listed 

as endangered. Under the ESA and its 

implementing regulations, taking listed 

sea turtles—even incidentally—is 

prohibited, with exceptions identified 

in 50 CFR 223.206 for threatened sea 

turtles. The incidental take of 

endangered species may only legally be 

authorized by an incidental take 

statement or an incidental take permit 

issued pursuant to section 7 or 10 of the 

ESA.

On June 17, 2002, based upon the best 

available information on sea turtle and 

pound net interactions at the time, 

NMFS issued an interim final rule that 

prohibited the use of all pound net 

leaders measuring 12 inches (30.5 cm) 

and greater stretched mesh and all 

pound net leaders with stringers in the 

Virginia waters of the mainstem 

Chesapeake Bay and portions of the 

Virginia tributaries from May 8 to June 

30 each year (67 FR 41196). Included in 

this interim final rule was a year-round 

requirement for fishermen to report all 

interactions with sea turtles in their