Curecanti National Recreation Area: Personal Watercraft Use Enviornmental Assessment

Home Browse Search

PURPOSE of AND NEED FOR ACTION combustion engines including personal watercraft because of their effects on water quality. Lake Tahoe's ban began in 2000. In July 1998, the Washington State Supreme Court in Weden V. San Juan County (135 Wash. 2d 678 [1998]) found that the county had the authority to ban the use of personal watercraft as a proper use of its police power in order to protect the public health, safety, or general welfare. Further, personal watercraft are different from other vessels, and Washington counties have the authority to treat them differently. In recognition of its duties under the Organic Act and NPS Management Policies, as well as increased awareness and public controversy, the National Park Service reevaluated its methods of PWC regulation. Historically, the National Park Service grouped personal watercraft with all vessels; thus, people could use personal watercraft when the unit's superintendent's compendium allowed the use of other vessels. Later the Park Service closed seven units to PWC use through the implementation of horsepower restrictions, general management plan revisions, and park - specific regulations such as those promulgated by Everglades National Park. In May 1998, the Bluewater Network, a coalition of more than 70 organizations representing more than 4 million Americans, filed a petition urging the National Park Service to initiate a rulemaking process to prohibit PWC use throughout the national park system. In response to the petition, the National Park Service issued an interim management policy requiring superintendents of parks where personal watercraft can occur but where it had never occurred to close the unit to such use until the rule was finalized. In addition, the National Park Service proposed a specific PWC regulation premised on the notion that personal watercraft differ from conventional watercraft in terms of design, use, safety record, controversy, visitor impacts, resource impacts, horsepower -to- vessel - length ratio, and thrust capacity (63 FR 49, 312 -17, Sept. 15, 1998). The Personal Watercraft Industry Association believes that through the 2002 model year the output on a limited number of higher rated models was around 155 and 165 hp (PWIA 2002b). The National Park Service envisioned the servicewide regulation as an opportunity to evaluate impacts from PWC use before authorizing the use. The preamble to the servicewide regulation calls the regulation a "conservative approach to managing PWC use" considering the resources concerns, visitor conflicts, visitor enjoyment, and visitor safety. During a 60 -day comment period the National Park Service received approximately 20,000 comments on the proposed regulation. As a result of public comments and further review, the National Park Service promulgated an amended regulation that prohibited PWC use in most units and required the remaining units to determine the appropriateness of continued PWC use (36 CFR 3.24(a), current draft; 65 FR 15,077 -90, Mar. 21, 2000). Specifically, the regulation allowed the National Park Service to designate PWC use areas and to continue their use by promulgating a special regulation in 11 units by amending the units' superintendents' compendiums in 10 units, including Curecanti National Recreation Area (36 CFR 3.24(b), current draft). Curecanti was one of the compendium parks, not one of the special regulation parks. The National Park Service based the distinction between designation methods on the units' degree of motorized watercraft use. In response to the PWC final regulation, Bluewater Network sued the National Park Service under the Administrative Procedures Act and the NPS Organic Act. The organization challenged NPS's decision to allow continued PWC use in 21 units while prohibiting such use in other units. In addition, the organization also disputed the NPS decision to allow 10 units to continue PWC use after 2002 by making entries in superintendents' compendiums, which would not require the opportunity for public input through a notice and comments rulemaking process. Further, the environmental group claimed that because personal watercraft cause water and air pollution, generate increased noise levels, and pose public 2