WSP08850 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

o ~d"~8 4 Purpose of and Need/or Action safety threats, the National Park Service acted arbitrarily and capriciously when making the challenged decisions. In response to the suit, the National Park Service and the environmental group negotiated a settlement. The resulting settlement agreement, signed by the judge on April ]2,2001, changed portions ofNPS's PWC rule. While 21 units could continue PWC use in the short-tenn, each of those parks desiring to continue long-tenn PWC use must promulgate a park-specific special regulation in 2002. In addition, the settlement stipulates that the National Park Service must base its decision to issue a park-specific special regulation to continue PWC use through an environmental analysis conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NEPA analysis at a minimum, according to the settlement, must evaluate PWC impacls on water quality, air quality, soundscapes, wildlife, wildlife habitat, shoreline vegetation, visitor conflicts, and visitor safety. In 2001, the National Park Service adopted its new management policy for personal watercraft. The policy prohibits PWC use in national park system units unless their use remains appropriate for the specific park unit (NPS Managemelll Policies 2001, sec. 8.2.3.3). The policy statement authorizes the use based on the park's authorizing memorandum of agreement, resources, values, other park uses, and overall management strategies. As the settlement deadline approached and the park units were preparing to prohibit PWC use, the National Park Service, Congress, and PWC user groups sought legal methods to keep Ihe parks open to this activity. On March 2&, 2002, the Personal Watercraft Industry Association filed suit against the National Park Service for its final PWC regulation, challenging its discrimination between personal watcrcraft and other vessels and the NPS decision to close units without conducting an environmental analysis. PWlA requested the court enjoin the National Park Service from implementing thc ban on PWC use effective April 22, 2002. The court refuscd to enjoin the ban. On April 22, 2002, the following units closed for PWC use: Assateague Island National Seashore, Big Thicket National Preserve, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore, Fire Island National Seashore, and Gateway National Recreation Area. On September IS, 2002, eight other park units were scheduled 10 close to PWC use including Curecanti National Recreation Area. The proposed September 16, 2002 prohibition of personal watercraft was averted with the execution of a stipulated modification to the settlement agreement. The modified settlement agreement was approved by the court on September 9, 2002, and extended unrestricled personal watercraft use in some selected national park system units until November 6, 2002. PWC use at Curecant; National Recreation Area was stopped after November 6, 2002, and is to remain closed until thc environmental assessment process has been completed. If an alternative is sclected to continue PWC use, then a special regulation to authorize that use in the future will have to be drafted. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The purpose of and the need for ,aking action is to evaluate a range of alternatives and strategies for the management ofPWC use at Curecanti National Recreation Area in order to ensure the protection of park resources and values, while offering recreational opportunities as provided for in the national recreation area's authorizing memorandum of agreement, purpose, mission, and goals. Upon completion of the NEP A process, the National Park Service may either take action to adopt special regulations to manage PWC use at Curecanti, or remain closed to PWC use as allowed for in the National Park Service March 2000 rule. 3