Cape Lookout National Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use, 77089-77101 [E5-8003]
Download as PDF
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
with the applicant. Rather, the capacity
of an applicant’s affiliates is to be
included in the market share calculated
for the applicant. To the extent
available, the statement must include all
pertinent data about storage or other
alternatives and other constraining
competition.
(5) Statement E—potential
competition. This statement must
describe potential competition in the
relevant markets. To the extent
available, the statement must include
data about the potential competitors,
including their costs, and their distance
in miles from the applicant’s facilities
and major consuming markets. This
statement must also describe any
relevant barriers to entry and the
applicant’s assessment of whether ease
of entry is an effective counter to
attempts to exercise market power in the
relevant markets.
(6) Statement F—maps. This
statement must consist of maps showing
the applicant’s principal facilities,
pipelines to which the applicant intends
to interconnect and other pipelines
within the area to be served, the
direction of flow of each line, the
location of the alternatives to the
applicant’s service offerings, including
their distance in miles from the
applicant’s facility. The statement must
include a general system map and maps
by geographic markets. The information
required by this statement may be on
separate pages.
(7) Statement G—market power
measures. This statement must set forth
the calculation of the market
concentration of the relevant markets
using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index.
The statement must also set forth the
applicant’s market share, inclusive of
affiliated service offerings, in the
markets to be served. The statement
must also set forth the calculation of
other market power measures relied on
by the applicant. The statement must
include complete particulars about the
applicant’s calculations.
(8) Statement H—other factors. This
statement must describe any other
factors that bear on the issue of whether
the applicant lacks significant market
power in the relevant markets. The
description must explain why those
other factors are pertinent.
(9) Statement I—prepared testimony.
This statement must include the
proposed testimony in support of the
application and will serve as the
applicant’s case-in-chief, if the
Commission sets the application for
hearing. The proposed witness must
subscribe to the testimony and swear
that all statements of fact contained in
the proposed testimony are true and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
correct to the best of his or her
knowledge, information, and belief.
§ 284.504 Periodic review requirement for
market power determinations.
Applicants granted the authority to
charge market-based rates under
§ 284.503 are required to file an updated
market-power analysis within five years
of the date of the Commission order
granting authority to charge marketbased rates, and every five years
thereafter.
§ 284.505 Market-based rates for storage
providers without a market-power
determination.
(a) Any storage service provider
seeking market-based rates for storage
capacity, pursuant to the authority of
Section 4(f) of the Natural Gas Act,
related to a specific facility put into
service after August 8, 2005, may apply
for market-based rates by complying
with the following requirements:
(1) The storage service provider must
demonstrate that market-based rates are
necessary to encourage the construction
of the storage capacity in the area
needing storage services; and
(2) The storage service provider must
provide a means of protecting customers
from the potential exercise of market
power.
(b) Any storage service provider
seeking market-based rates for storage
capacity pursuant to this section will be
presumed by the Commission to have
market power.
[FR Doc. E5–8031 Filed 12–28–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024–AD44
Cape Lookout National Seashore,
Personal Watercraft Use
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The National Park Service
(NPS) is proposing to designate areas
where personal watercraft (PWC) may
be used in Cape Lookout National
Seashore, North Carolina. This proposed
rule implements the provisions of the
NPS general regulations authorizing
park areas to allow the use of PWC by
promulgating a special regulation. The
NPS Management Policies 2001 directs
individual parks to determine whether
PWC use is appropriate for a specific
park area based on an evaluation of that
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77089
area’s enabling legislation, resources
and values, other visitor uses, and
overall management objectives.
DATES: Comments must be received by
February 27, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by the number RIN 1024–
AD44, by any of the following methods:
• Federal rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail or hand delivery to:
Superintendent, Cape Lookout National
Seashore, 131 Charles Street, Harkers
Island, NC 28531.
• For additional information see
‘‘Public Participation’’ under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry
Case, Regulations Program Manager,
National Park Service, 1849 C Street,
NW., Room 7241, Washington, DC
20240. Phone: (202) 208–4206. E-mail:
jerry_case@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 (EA)
published January 2005. 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 NPS
published a regulation (36 CFR 3.24) on
the management of 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 waterbased recreational activity is
appropriate for the specific park unit
based on the legislation establishing that
park, the park’s resources and values,
other visitor uses of the area, and overall
management objectives. The regulation
banned PWC use in all park units
effective April 20, 2000, except for 21
parks, lakeshores, seashores, and
recreation areas. The regulation
established a 2-year grace period
following the final rule publication to
provide these 21 park units time to
consider whether PWC use should be
permitted to continue.
Description of Cape Lookout National
Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore was
established by Congress in 1966 to
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
77090
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
conserve and preserve for public use
and enjoyment the outstanding natural,
cultural, and recreational values of a
dynamic coastal barrier island
environment for future generations.
Cape Lookout National Seashore is a
low, narrow, ribbon of sand located
three miles off the mainland coast in the
central coastal area of North Carolina
and occupies more than 29,000 acres of
land and water from Ocracoke Inlet on
the northeast to Beaufort Inlet to the
southwest. The national seashore
consists of four main barrier islands
(North Core Banks, Middle Core Banks,
South Core Banks, and Shackleford
Banks), which consist mostly of wide,
bare beaches with low dunes covered by
scattered grasses, flat grasslands
bordered by dense vegetation, and large
expanses of salt marsh alongside the
sound. There are no road connections to
the mainland or between the islands.
Coastal barrier islands, such as those
located in Cape Lookout National
Seashore, are unique land forms that
provide protection for diverse aquatic
habitats and serve as the mainland’s
first line of defense against the impacts
of severe coastal storms and erosion.
Located at the interface of land and sea,
the dominant physical factors
responsible for shaping coastal
landforms are tidal range, wave energy,
and sediment supply from rivers and
older, pre-existing coastal sand bodies.
Relative changes in local sea level also
profoundly affect coastal barrier island
diversity. Coastal barrier islands exhibit
the following six characteristics:
• Subject to the impacts of coastal
storms and sea level rise.
• Buffer the mainland from the
impact of storms.
• Protect and maintain productive
estuarine systems which support the
nation’s fishing and shellfishing
industries.
• Consist primarily of unconsolidated
sediments.
• Subject to wind, wave, and tidal
energies.
• Include associated landward
aquatic habitats which the non-wetland
portion of the coastal barrier island
protects from direct wave attack.
Coastal barrier islands protect the
aquatic habitats between the barrier
island and the mainland. Together with
their adjacent wetland, marsh,
estuarine, inlet, and nearshore water
habitats, coastal barriers support a
tremendous variety of organisms.
Millions of fish, shellfish, birds,
mammals, and other wildlife depend on
barriers and their associated wetlands
for vital feeding, spawning, nesting,
nursery, and resting habitat.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
Shackleford Banks contains the park’s
most extensive maritime forest as well
as wild horses that have adapted to this
environment over the centuries. The
islands are an excellent place to see
birds, particularly during spring and fall
migrations. A number of tern species,
egrets, herons, and shorebirds nest here.
Loggerhead turtles climb the beaches at
nesting time.
Purpose of Cape Lookout National
Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore was
authorized on March 10, 1966, by Public
Law 89–366. Additional legislation,
Public Law 93–477 (October 26, 1974),
called for another 232-acre tract of land
to be acquired, a review and
recommendation of any suitable lands
for wilderness designation, and
authorized funding for land acquisition
and essential public facilities.
The purpose of Cape Lookout
National Seashore is to conserve and
preserve for public use and enjoyment
the outstanding natural, cultural, and
recreational values of a dynamic coastal
barrier island environment for future
generations. The national seashore
serves as both a refuge for wildlife and
a pleasuring ground for the public,
including developed visitor amenities.
The mission of Cape Lookout National
Seashore is to:
• Conserve and preserve for the
future the outstanding natural resources
of a dynamic coastal barrier island
system;
• Protect and interpret the significant
cultural resources of past and
contemporary maritime history;
• Provide for public education and
enrichment through proactive
interpretation and scientific study; and
• Provide for sustainable use of
recreation resources and opportunities.
Significance of Cape Lookout National
Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore is
nationally recognized as an outstanding
example of a dynamic natural coastal
barrier island system. Cape Lookout is
designated as a unit of the CarolinianSouth Atlantic Biosphere Reserve,
United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organizations (UNESCO)
Man and the Biosphere Reserve
Program. The park contains:
• Cultural resources rich in the
maritime history of humankind’s
attempt to survive at the edge of the sea;
and
• Critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species and other unique
wildlife including the legislatively
protected wild horses of Shackleford
Banks.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 * * *.’’ 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 Clause and, as with
the United States Coast Guard’s
authority, Commerce Clause 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.
Motorboats and other watercraft have
been in use at Cape Lookout National
Seashore since the park was established
in 1966. It is unknown when PWC use
first began at the national seashore. In
compliance with the settlement with the
Bluewater Network, the national
seashore closed to PWC use in April
2002. Personal watercraft are prohibited
from launching or landing on any lands,
boat ramps or docks within the
boundaries of the national seashore.
Personal watercraft may not be towed
on trailers or carried on vehicles within
national seashore boundaries except at
the Harker’s Island unit. This closure
pertains to all of the barrier islands
within the national seashore and the
waters on the soundside of the islands
within 150 feet of the mean low
waterline. Outside of the park boundary,
PWC use is governed by North Carolina
PWC regulations. At present, the areas
that were previously used by PWC
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
owners for landing are closed with
signs.
Prior to the PWC closure, all areas of
the park were open to PWC use.
However, the majority of PWC use was
concentrated in two areas of the
national seashore that receive the
heaviest visitor day-use in the park: (1)
On the sound-side of South Core Banks
at the Lighthouse (from the Lighthouse
dock through Barden Inlet and Lookout
Bight), and (2) the Shackleford Banks
from Wade Shores west to Beaufort
Inlet. Personal watercraft use of ocean
beaches was rare due to rough surf
conditions in the ocean and the hazard
of beaching PWC in the ocean surf.
Some PWC use occurred along North
and South Core Banks from Portsmouth
Village at the northern end of the
national seashore to the lighthouse. This
use was infrequent because of the
prevalence of marshes and general lack
of sound-side beaches along Core Banks,
the large expanse of open water in Core
Sound between the barrier islands and
mainland North Carolina, and the low
population of the adjacent communities
in the ‘‘down east’’ as this portion of the
national seashore is known locally. At
public meetings held in October 2001,
several participants indicated they had
used their PWC to travel from locations
such as Atlantic and Davis to the barrier
islands. The popularity of Cape Lookout
and Shackleford Banks where PWC use
was concentrated can be attributed to
the excellent soundside beaches in these
areas, the attraction of the Cape Lookout
lighthouse, traditional use of
Shackleford Banks, their proximity to
major inlets, and their close proximity
to the three largest coastal population
centers in Carteret County: Atlantic
Beach, Morehead City, and Beaufort.
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Resource Protection and Public Use
Issues
Cape Lookout National Seashore
Environmental Assessment
As a companion document to this
proposed rule, NPS has issued the Cape
Lookout National Seashore, Personal
Watercraft Use Environmental
Assessment. The EA was open for
public review and comment from
January 24, 2005 to February 24, 2005.
Copies of the EA may be downloaded at
https://www.nps.gov/calo/pphtml/
documents.html or requested by
telephoning (252) 728–2250. Mail
inquiries should be directed to park
headquarters: Cape Lookout National
Seashore, 131 Charles Street, Harkers
Island, NC 28531.
The purpose of the EA was to evaluate
a range of alternatives and strategies for
the management of PWC use at Cape
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
Lookout National Seashore to ensure the
protection of park resources and values
while offering recreational opportunities
as provided for in the National
Seashore’s enabling legislation, purpose,
mission, and goals. The analysis
assumed alternatives would be
implemented beginning in 2003 and
considered a 10-year period, from 2003
to 2013.
The EA evaluates three alternatives
concerning the use of PWC at Cape
Lookout National Seashore. The
alternatives considered include:
• No-Action Alternative: Do not
reinstate PWC use within the national
seashore. No special regulation would
be promulgated.
• Alternative A: Reinstate PWC use as
previously managed under a special
regulation.
• Alternative B: Reinstate PWC use
under a special NPS regulation with
additional management prescriptions.
Based on the analysis prepared for
PWC use at Cape Lookout National
Seashore, alternative B is considered the
environmentally preferred alternative
because it would best fulfill park
responsibilities as trustee of sensitive
habitat; ensure safe, healthful,
productive, and aesthetically and
culturally pleasing surroundings; and
attain a wider range of beneficial uses of
the environment without degradation,
risk of health or safety, or other
undesirable and unintended
consequences.
This document proposes regulations
to implement alternative B at Cape
Lookout National Seashore.
The NPS will consider the comments
received on this proposal, as well as the
comments received on the EA when
making a final determination. In the
final rule, the NPS will implement
alternative B as proposed, or choose a
different alternative or combination of
alternatives. Therefore, the public
should review and consider the other
alternatives contained in the EA when
making comments on this proposed
rule.
The following summarizes the
predominant resource protection and
public use issues associated with PWC
use at Cape Lookout National Seashore.
Each of these issues is analyzed in the
Cape Lookout National Seashore,
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 generally, and it is
assumed that any impacts caused by
these engines also apply to two-stroke
engines in PWC. Two-stroke engines
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77091
(and PWC) discharge a gas-oil mixture
into the water. Fuel used in PWC
engines contains many hydrocarbons,
including benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene (collectively
referred to as BTEX). Polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) also are
released from boat engines, including
those in PWC. These compounds are not
found appreciably in the unburned fuel
mixture, but rather are products of
combustion. Discharges of all these
compounds—BTEX and PAHs—have
potential adverse effects on aquatic life
and human health if present at high
enough concentrations. A common
gasoline additive, methyl tertiary butyl
ether (MTBE) is also released with the
unburned portion of the gasoline. The
PWC industry suggests that although
some unburned fuel does enter the
water, the fuel’s gaseous state allows it
to evaporate readily.
A typical conventional (i.e.,
carbureted) two-stroke PWC engine
discharges as much as 30% of the
unburned fuel mixture into the exhaust.
At common fuel consumption rates, an
average two-hour ride on a PWC may
discharge three gallons (11.34 liters) of
fuel into the water. The Bluewater
Network states that PWC can discharge
between three and four gallons of fuel
over the same time period. However, the
newer four-stroke technology can
reduce these emissions to meet current
regulatory standards for both water and
air quality. The percentage of emissions
of BTEX and MTBE compounds from
four-stroke inboard or outboard motors
is less than those from a two-stroke
outboard engine or an existing twostroke PWC engine.
Under the proposed regulation, based
on alternative B in the EA, PWC use
would be allowed within ten designated
access areas, as identified in the
‘‘Alternatives’’ chapter of the EA and in
the proposed rule. Personal watercraft
within these access areas would be
restricted to a perpendicular approach
to the shoreline at flat-wake speed.
Personal watercraft operation would be
prohibited in park waters outside of the
access areas. All state regulatory
requirements would continue to apply.
Because of the requirement for a
perpendicular approach to the shoreline
at flat-wake speed under this
alternative, each PWC trip was assumed
to be of only 5 minutes duration within
park jurisdictional waters at 10% of fullthrottle.
The results of the water quality
analysis for PWC activity (table 24 of the
EA) shows that for all discharged
pollutants evaluated, the
ecotoxicological threshold volumes
estimated for 2003 and 2013 would be
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
77092
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
well below volumes of water available
at the study areas. Threshold volumes
are less than an acre-foot, while water
volumes in the park range from 3,890 to
6,810 acre-feet. Impacts on aquatic
organisms would be expected to be
negligible for all pollutants evaluated.
Threshold volumes for human health
benchmarks of benzo(a)pyrene and
benzene estimated for 2003 and 2013
are also less than an acre-foot, which is
well below volumes of water available
in the study areas. Impacts on human
health would be expected to be
negligible for all pollutants evaluated.
Mixing, flushing, and the resulting
dilution of park waters by adjacent
waters would further reduce pollutant
concentrations. Tidal currents at
Beaufort and Ocracoke inlets reach
speeds of up to 4 knots. Incoming tides
more than double the available water
volume. Outgoing tides transport
soluble pollutants out of park waters to
the Atlantic Ocean.
Overall, water quality impacts due to
PWC emissions of organic pollutants in
both 2003 and 2013 would be negligible.
Cumulative impacts associated with
the implementation of alternative B
under the proposed regulation would
result from the cumulative activities
taking place around Cape Lookout,
including other motorized watercraft
that use nearby waters and point and
non-point sources of urban pollutants.
Based on 2003 observations, on a typical
peak use day, motorized watercraft are
assumed to be distributed as follows:
565 at Shackleford Banks, 380 at South
Core Banks, and 20 at North Core Banks.
Assuming a 1.6% average annual
increase (except for ferries), non-PWC
numbers would increase by 2013 to 640
at Shackleford Banks, 430 at South Core
Banks, and 24 at North Core Banks.
Threshold volumes calculated for all
motorized watercraft are shown in table
25 of the EA. For all discharged
pollutants evaluated, the
ecotoxicological threshold volumes
estimated for 2003 and 2013 would be
well below volumes of water available
in park jurisdictional waters in the
study areas. Threshold volumes would
be 37 acre-feet or less, while park
jurisdictional water volumes range from
3,890 to 6,810 acre-feet. Impacts on
aquatic organisms are expected to be
negligible for all pollutants evaluated.
Threshold volumes for risks to human
health from benzo(a)pyrene and
benzene would also be well below the
jurisdictional volumes in all areas in
2003 and 2013. Threshold volumes
would be 44 acre-feet or less, while park
jurisdictional water volumes range from
3,890 to 6,810 acre-feet. Risks to human
health from benzo(a)pyrene and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
benzene, largely attributable to nonPWC use, would be expected to be
negligible for all areas in 2003 and 2013.
Under the proposed regulation, water
quality impacts from PWC use, based on
ecotoxicological and human health
benchmarks, would be negligible for all
pollutants in all areas in both 2003 and
2013. Cumulative water quality impacts
from all motorized watercraft under the
proposed regulation, based on
ecotoxicological benchmarks, would be
negligible for all pollutants in all areas
in both 2003 and 2013. Cumulative
impacts on human health from all
motorized watercraft would be
negligible in 2003 and 2013. In 2013,
cumulative water quality impacts from
watercraft are expected to be lower than
in 2003 due to reduced emission rates.
Therefore, implementation of this
proposed regulation would not result in
an impairment of water quality.
Air Quality
Personal watercraft emit various
compounds that pollute the air. Up to
one third of the fuel delivered to the
typical two-stroke carbureted PWC
engine is unburned and discharged; the
lubricating oil is used once and is
expelled as part of the exhaust; and the
combustion process results in emissions
of air pollutants such as volatile organic
compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), particulate matter (PM), and
carbon monoxide (CO). Personal
watercraft also emit fuel components
such as PAH that are known to cause
adverse health effects.
Even though PWC engine exhaust is
usually routed below the waterline, a
portion of the exhaust gases go into the
air. These air pollutants may adversely
impact park visitor and employee health
as well as sensitive park resources. For
example, in the presence of sunlight,
VOC and NOX emissions combine to
form ozone (O3). O3 causes respiratory
problems in humans, including coughs,
airway irritation, and chest pain during
inhalations. O3 is also toxic to sensitive
species of vegetation. It causes visible
foliar injury, decreases plant growth,
and increases plant susceptibility to
insects and disease. CO can affect
humans as well. It interferes with the
oxygen carrying capacity of blood,
resulting in lack of oxygen to tissues.
NOX and PM emissions associated with
PWC use can degrade visibility. NOX
can also contribute to acid deposition
effects on plants, water, and soil.
However, because emission estimates
show that NOX from PWC are minimal
(less than 5 tons per year), acid
deposition effects attributable to PWC
use are expected to be minimal.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Impacts to human health. Under the
proposed regulation, special use areas
would be identified where PWC could
access Shackleford Banks, South Core
Banks, and North Core Banks. Personal
watercraft access could only access the
beach in these areas and approach only
perpendicular to the beach at flat-wake
speeds. Personal watercraft use and
access would be prohibited in all other
areas of the national seashore. Safety
and operating restrictions would be
dictated by the North Carolina PWC
regulations outlined under alternative A
and additional NPS operating
restrictions.
Human-health air quality impacts
from the implementation of alternative
B under this proposed regulation would
be similar to those described for
alternative A in the EA for 2003 and
2013 and would be negligible for CO,
PM10, HC, and NOX. The human health
risk from PAH would also be negligible
in 2003 and 2013. The additional
restrictions would not change the type
of PWC in use, nor increase or decrease
the number of PWC forecasted.
Assuming that PWC are primarily used
for transportation, the estimated daily
duration of use of an individual PWC
would decrease from 10 minutes under
alternative A to 5 minutes under
alternative B for both 2003 and 2013.
Therefore, impacts would be negligible
and at even lower levels than under
alternative A.
Under the proposed regulation,
cumulative impacts to human health
from all boating use in the national
seashore would not change from
alternative A. Adverse impacts on
human health from air pollutants in
2003 would be negligible for CO, PM10,
NOX, and HC. In 2013, levels would
remain negligible for CO, PM10, NOX,
and HC.
Because no reduction in PWC use is
expected, the proposed regulation
would result in negligible air quality
impacts on human health from PWC
emissions, similar to alternative A. The
additional management prescriptions
would slightly reduce PWC emissions as
compared with alternative A. Negligible
adverse impacts from PWC emissions
for CO, PM10, HC, and NOX would occur
in 2003 and 2013. The risk from PAH
would also be negligible in 2003 and
2013.
Cumulative adverse impacts from
PWC and other boating emissions at the
national seashore would be the same as
for alternative A. Adverse impacts on
human health from air pollutants in
2003 would be negligible for CO, PM10,
NOX, and HC. In 2013, levels would
remain negligible for CO, PM10, NOX,
and HC. Regional ozone emissions
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
would improve due to a reduction in HC
emissions.
This proposed regulation would have
negligible adverse impacts on human
health air quality conditions, with
future reductions in CO and HC
emissions due to improved emission
controls. The PWC contribution to
emissions of HC is estimated to be less
than 5% of the cumulative boating
emissions in 2003 and 2013. All impacts
would be long-term.
Therefore, implementation of this
proposed regulation would not result in
an impairment of air quality as it relates
to human health.
Impacts to air quality related values.
Under the proposed regulation, the
annual number of PWC using the Cape
Lookout National Seashore would be the
same as alternative A. Additional
management prescriptions under the
proposed regulation, including the
adoption of special use areas, would not
affect PWC use numbers and potential
future increases. The predicted emission
levels and impacts of continued PWC
use to air quality related values would
be similar to those described for
alternative A based on annual emission
rates. Assuming that PWCs are primarily
used for transportation, the estimated
daily duration of PWC use of an
individual PWC would decrease from 10
minutes under alternative A to 5
minutes under alternative B for both
2003 and 2013. Impacts on air quality
related values from PWC in 2003 and
2013 would be negligible.
Cumulative adverse impacts on air
quality related values at the national
seashore in both 2003 and 2013 would
be the same as described under
alternative A. HC contribution to ozonerelated air quality values would be
negligible. In 2013, NOX emissions
would slightly increase but would
remain well below 50 tons per year, and
there would be a reduction in HC
emissions, resulting in a reduced
contribution to ozone levels relative to
2003. Predicted year 2013 regional
SUM06 ozone levels would be in the
same range as year 2003; the impact
would remain negligible.
The impacts of the proposed
regulation on air quality related values
would be the same as alternative A.
Emissions of each pollutant would be
substantially less than 50 tons per year
in both 2003 and 2013. Negligible
adverse impacts on air quality related
values from PWC would occur in both
2003 and 2013. In both 2003 and 2013,
adverse impacts from cumulative
emissions from motorized boats and
PWC would be negligible. This
conclusion is based on calculated levels
of pollutant emissions (table 31 of the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
EA), regional SUM06 values, and the
lack of observed visibility impacts or
ozone-related plant injury in the
national seashore.
Therefore, implementation of this
proposed regulation would not result in
an impairment of air quality related
values.
Soundscapes
The primary soundscape issue
relative to PWC use is that other visitors
may perceive the sound made by PWC
as an intrusion or nuisance, thereby
disrupting their experiences. This
disruption is generally short-term
because PWC are generally used as
transportation to and from the islands.
However, if PWC use changed from
mostly transport to more extended
recreational riding or if PWC use would
increase and concentrate at popular
visitation areas, such as Shackleford
Banks and the lighthouse, related noise
would become more of an issue,
particularly during certain times of the
day. Additionally, visitor sensitivity to
PWC noise varies from kayakers (more
sensitive) to swimmers at popular
beaches (less sensitive).
Under the proposed regulation, PWC
would be reinstated at Cape Lookout in
specific locations. Personal watercraft
would have access to areas that had
been historically popular with PWC
users; restrictions under this proposed
regulation were based on safety reasons
or the need to protect natural resources,
particularly marshlands, which PWC
avoid. However, all PWC operating
within the special use areas defined
under this proposed regulation would
be required to operate at flat-wake speed
within the national seashore’s
boundaries, which includes all waters
from the mean low water line on the
oceanside to 150 feet beyond the mean
low water line. In addition, the area
consisting predominantly of maritime
forest along the soundside of
Shackleford Banks would be closed to
PWC use for safety reasons due to the
high amount of visitor use in this area.
Therefore, visitors using this area of
Shackleford Banks would not
experience adverse impacts because of
the absence of PWC noise. Impacts
throughout Shackleford Banks would be
adverse, short-term, and minor.
The flat-wake speed restrictions
would also lessen adverse impacts in
the waters adjacent to the Cape Lookout
lighthouse and the northern areas of the
national seashore. Personal watercraft
would be permitted access at specific
locations along Core Sound, which were
historically used by PWC in the past.
Because most of the Core Sound
consists of marshlands, PWC use along
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77093
the South and North Core Banks was
low before the ban, even during summer
holiday weekends. For these reasons,
noise impacts in the national seashore’s
northern reaches would be adverse,
short-term, but negligible.
Combining PWC noise with other
noise sources, such as other motorized
vessels, beach activities, and off-road
vehicle use, would increase the overall
sound level at the national seashore.
However, limiting PWC to flat-wake
speed in all permitted areas of the
national seashore would reduce adverse
noise impacts considerably. Increased
visitation expected to the Cape Lookout
lighthouse would result in increased
noise from both motorboats and PWC
accessing this area. Therefore,
cumulative impacts would be adverse,
short-term, and negligible to minor
under this proposed regulation,
depending on location.
Personal watercraft would be
permitted in areas historically preferred
by PWC users under this proposed
regulation, but only at flat-wake speed,
resulting in adverse, short-term,
negligible to minor impacts, depending
on location. Cumulative impacts would
be adverse, short-term, and negligible to
minor under this proposed regulation,
depending on location.
Therefore, implementation of this
proposed regulation would not result in
an impairment of the national seashore’s
soundscape.
Shoreline and Submerged Aquatic
Vegetation
Personal watercraft are able to access
areas that other types of watercraft may
not, which may cause direct disturbance
to vegetation. Indirect impact to
shoreline vegetation may occur through
trampling if operators disembark and
engage in activities on shore. In
addition, wakes created by PWC may
affect shorelines through erosion by
wave action.
Personal watercraft are very
maneuverable and can operate well in
waters less than a foot deep. Since most
PWC rides begin in shallow water, the
process of getting started from a
standstill results in a substantial amount
of water being directed towards the
bottom at high velocity, potentially
disturbing the sediment and submerged
aquatic vegetation in shallow water
areas. Disturbance of submerged aquatic
vegetation beds diminishes their
ecological value and productivity,
affecting the entire ecosystem. As PWC
are frequently operated in shallow areas
in a repetitive manner, impacts on
submerged aquatic vegetation beds can
be severe. Potential direct impacts on
submerged aquatic vegetation beds by
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
77094
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
PWC can occur through collision,
uprooting of submerged aquatic
vegetation, and alteration of natural
sediments. Potential indirect impacts of
PWC use include adverse effects on the
growth and health of submerged aquatic
vegetation beds as a result of increased
turbidity, decreased available sunlight,
and deposition of suspended sediment
on plants.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC
use would be allowed within 10
designated access areas, as identified in
the ‘‘Alternatives’’ chapter of the EA
and the proposed rule language.
Personal watercraft operation within
these access areas would be restricted to
a perpendicular approach to the
shoreline at flat-wake speed. Personal
watercraft would be prohibited in park
waters outside of the access areas. All
state regulatory requirements would
continue to apply.
These 10 designated access areas were
chosen to avoid marshes and highcongestion beach areas. Indirect impacts
from PWC use to shoreline vegetation
would occur but would be limited to the
designated access areas and would
therefore be negligible to minor and
short-term. Impacts on shoreline
vegetation associated with low salt
marsh habitats would not occur, since
PWC use would be restricted in these
areas.
As PWC would be prohibited in park
waters outside of the access areas,
submerged aquatic vegetation beds in
these areas would not be directly
impacted by PWC use. Most of the
access areas do not contain submerged
aquatic vegetation beds, so PWC
operation in these areas would have
little potential to adversely impact this
habitat. Additionally, the flat-wake
speed restriction would minimize the
potential for PWC to damage submerged
aquatic vegetation beds through
collision or uprooting and would reduce
sediment resuspension and its
detrimental effects. Reinstating PWC use
in park waters and restricting their
operation to a flat-wake perpendicular
approach to the shoreline in designated
access areas would result in negligible,
indirect short- and long-term impacts on
submerged aquatic vegetation beds.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC
use would be limited to flat-wake speed
within ten designated access areas,
resulting in a negligible contribution to
cumulative impacts on shoreline
vegetation and submerged aquatic
vegetation beds. Adverse direct and
indirect cumulative effects associated
with future increased use by motorized
watercraft, including PWC, would be
minor around landing areas and in tidal
marsh habitats. Non-PWC motorized
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
vessels would be able to operate
throughout park waters, including areas
where submerged aquatic vegetation
beds occur. Potential direct impacts on
submerged aquatic vegetation beds by
all motorized vessels include propeller
scarring, collision, uprooting, and
sediment alteration. Potential indirect
impacts include increased turbidity,
decreased available sunlight, and
suspended sediment deposition on
submerged aquatic vegetation beds.
However, both PWC and non-PWC trip
lengths are short and speeds are low,
which reduces the likelihood of adverse
impacts. As PWC are outnumbered by
non-PWC motorized vessels in park
waters by more than 10 to 1, and most
PWC use would not occur around
submerged aquatic vegetation beds,
nearly all impacts on shoreline
vegetation and submerged aquatic
vegetation beds would be attributed to
non-PWC vessels.
Impacts on shoreline vegetation and
submerged aquatic vegetation beds from
all types of motorized vessels under this
proposed regulation are expected to be
minor, direct and indirect, and shortand long-term.
Reinstating PWC use in park waters
and restricting their operation to a flatwake perpendicular approach to the
shoreline in designated access areas is
expected to have negligible, indirect
short-term impacts on submerged
aquatic vegetation beds and negligible to
minor short-term impacts on shoreline
vegetation. Non-PWC vessels would still
be able to access submerged aquatic
vegetation beds under this alternative,
and would be responsible for nearly all
of the cumulative motorized vessel
impacts on submerged aquatic
vegetation beds. Motorized vessels,
including PWC, are expected to have
minor, direct and indirect, short- and
long-term cumulative impacts on
shoreline vegetation and submerged
aquatic vegetation beds.
Therefore, implementation of this
proposed rule would not result in an
impairment of shoreline vegetation and
submerged aquatic vegetation beds.
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Some research suggests that PWC use
affects wildlife by causing interruption
of normal activities, alarm or flight,
avoidance or degradation of habitat, and
effects on reproductive success. This is
thought to be a result of a combination
of PWC speed, noise, and ability to
access sensitive areas, especially in
shallow-water depths.
Waterfowl and nesting birds are the
most vulnerable to PWC. Fleeing a
disturbance created by PWC may force
birds to abandon eggs during crucial
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
embryo development stages, prevent
nest defense from predators, or
contribute to stress and associated
behavior changes. Potential impacts on
sensitive species, such as loggerhead sea
turtles and piping plover, are
documented in the ‘‘Threatened,
Endangered, or Special Concern
Species’’ section.
Aquatic wildlife react to high levels of
underwater noise in various ways,
depending on the species, exposure
period, intensities, and frequencies.
Because of the way PWC are used, noise
is usually produced at various
intensities, and this continual change in
loudness during normal use makes
PWC-generated noise much more
disturbing than the constant sounds of
conventional motorboats. The sudden
increases in noise levels can startle
aquatic wildlife, triggering flight
responses. In areas of high boating use,
the energy cost to aquatic fauna due to
noise-induced stresses could be
significant, potentially affecting their
survival.
Intense sounds can inflict pain and
damage the sensory cells of the ears of
mammalian species, and there is
concern that similar sounds can impair
hearing in aquatic wildlife species. One
of the few direct studies on the impact
of sound on fishes conducted under
laboratory conditions found that when
fish were subjected to high decibel
levels for four hours, some sensory cells
of the ears were damaged. This damage
does not show up until a few days after
exposure, and it is a short-term effect
(regeneration did occur after a few
days). Fish exposed to high decibel
noise levels may have a short-term
disadvantage in detecting predators and
prey, potentially adversely affecting
their survival. In addition, several
species of fish in the drum family
produce sounds as part of their mating
behavior, so short-term hearing damage
could negatively affect reproduction.
Loggerhead turtle nesting has been
shown to be negatively affected by loud
noises such as close overflights by
aircraft, but it is unknown at what
frequencies and intensity noise might
affect sea turtles or damage their
hearing.
Although marine mammals show a
diverse behavioral range that can
obscure correlations between a specific
behavior and the impact from noise,
experts from around the country have
voiced concern that PWC activity can
have negative impacts on marine
mammals, disturbing normal rest,
feeding, social interactions, and causing
flight. Toothed whales (including
dolphins), produce sounds across a
broad range of frequencies for
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
communication as well as echolocation,
a process of creating an acoustic picture
of their surroundings for the purpose of
hunting and navigation. Watercraft
engine noise can mask sounds that these
animals might otherwise hear and use
for critical life functions and can cause
temporary hearing threshold shifts.
Bottlenose dolphins exposed to less
than an hour of continuous noise at 96
dB experienced a hearing threshold shift
of 12 to 18 dB, which lasted hours after
the noise terminated. A hearing
threshold shift of this degree would
substantially reduce a dolphin’s
echolocation and communication
abilities. In 1998 C. Perry reviewed
numerous scientific studies
documenting increased swimming
speed, avoidance, and increased
respiration rates in whales and dolphins
as a result of motorized watercraft noise.
Whales have been observed to avoid
man-made noise of 115 dB, and at
higher frequencies, whales become
frantic, their heart rates increase, and
vocalization may cease.
Bottlenose dolphins and manatees
may be present in the waters
surrounding Cape Lookout National
Seashore in the summer months and
could be affected by PWC-generated
noise. Kemp’s ridley, loggerhead,
leatherback, and green sea turtles occur
in the waters around Cape Lookout
National Seashore, and three of these
species have nested on park beaches. In
addition, more than 200 species of fish
probably occur in the waters
surrounding Cape Lookout National
Seashore. Essential fish habitat occurs
in the vicinity of Cape Lookout for a
number of commercially and
recreationally important fish (refer to
the ‘‘Aquatic Wildlife’’ section in the
‘‘Affected Environment’’ chapter of the
EA).
This proposed regulation would
establish 10 special use areas to provide
PWC access within the Cape Lookout
National Seashore boundaries. Personal
watercraft use would be prohibited in
all other areas of the national seashore.
Implementing flat-wake zones in
these areas would limit adverse impacts
on wildlife within the national seashore
boundaries. Impacts of PWC use
associated with noise and potential
collision impacts with aquatic wildlife
would be minimized within national
seashore boundaries with the reduction
of allowable speeds and adverse noise
fluctuations. Negligible, short-term
adverse indirect impacts on terrestrial
and aquatic wildlife and habitat are
expected under the proposed regulation,
as noise would be reduced with the
implementation of the flat-wake zone.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
In areas previously open to PWC use
that are not within the 10 special use
areas, adverse impacts would be
eliminated or reduced as PWC noise
would be eliminated from these areas
and would not create a disturbance to
wildlife and wildlife habitats. As PWC
would be prohibited in park waters
outside of the access areas, aquatic
wildlife in these areas would not be
impacted by PWC use. In the designated
access areas, the PWC flat-wake speed
requirement and perpendicular
approach would not generate waves and
would minimize sediment resuspension
and damage to seagrass beds. The flatwake speed limit would further
minimize PWC engine noise and fuel
emissions to water. Aquatic wildlife
species inhabiting the shallow waters
and seagrass beds within the access
areas would experience negligible
impacts from PWC operation.
Reinstating PWC use in park waters
and restricting their operation to a flatwake perpendicular approach to the
shoreline in designated access areas is
expected to have short-term, negligible,
direct and indirect adverse impacts on
aquatic wildlife species and habitats.
Under the proposed regulation,
motorized vessels, including PWC,
would have adverse impacts on aquatic
wildlife and habitats in park waters,
especially in high-use areas such as
Shackleford Banks and Lookout Bight.
Because non-PWC vessels vastly
outnumber PWC in park waters, most
cumulative boating impacts on aquatic
wildlife would be caused by non-PWC
vessels and would be similar to those
described under alternative A.
Restricting PWC to access areas and flatwake speed would result in a negligible
contribution to cumulative impacts.
Cumulative impacts on dolphins, sea
turtles, fish and shellfish, and their
habitats from all motorized vessel use
are expected to be short-term, minor,
direct and indirect, and adverse.
Impacts on terrestrial wildlife,
specifically birds, from all motorized
vessel use are expected to be short-term,
negligible to minor, direct and indirect,
and adverse. Noise levels and the ability
of other motorized watercraft users to
access Shackleford Banks and Lookout
Bight are expected to adversely affect
terrestrial wildlife and shorebirds and
waterfowl that may utilize the landing
area and adjacent areas by causing alarm
or flight responses. Effects are expected
to be negligible to minor because these
areas have a generally high level of
visitation, regardless of PWC usage, and
species sensitive to a high level of noise
and human activity would probably not
regularly use these areas or immediately
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77095
adjacent habitats during high use
periods.
The proposed regulation would
minimize potential adverse impacts of
PWC use in the 10 designated special
use areas to negligible to minor, shortterm, adverse impacts. The flat-wake
requirements would reduce the level of
PWC disturbance in the restricted areas
and in nearby marshes. Reinstating PWC
use in park waters and restricting their
operation to a flat-wake perpendicular
approach to the shoreline in designated
access areas is expected to have shortterm, negligible to minor, direct and
indirect adverse impacts on terrestrial
and aquatic wildlife species and
habitats.
Cumulative impacts associated with
an increase in all types of motorized
vessel use are expected to be short-term,
negligible to minor, direct and indirect,
and adverse.
Therefore, implementation of this
proposed regulation would not result in
an impairment of terrestrial or aquatic
wildlife or habitats in park waters.
Threatened, Endangered, or Special
Concern Species
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 NPS
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.
At Cape Lookout National Seashore it
has been determined that none of the
alternatives are likely to adversely affect
any of the listed species that are known
to occur or may occur within or adjacent
to PWC activity within the boundaries
of Cape Lookout National Seashore.
National Park Service Management
Policies 2001 state that potential effects
of agency actions will also be
considered on state or locally listed
species. The NPS is required to control
access to critical habitat of such species,
and to perpetuate the natural
distribution and abundance of these
species and the ecosystems upon which
they depend.
The species at Cape Lookout National
Seashore that have the potential to be
affected by proposed PWC management
alternatives include species that are
known to inhabit or are likely to inhabit
the area, plus those that could possibly
be found in the area, but would most
likely be transients or migrants.
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
77096
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
Under the proposed regulation, PWC
use would be allowed within ten
designated access areas, as identified in
the ‘‘Alternatives’’ chapter of the EA
and in the proposed rule language.
Personal watercraft operation within
these access areas would be restricted to
a perpendicular approach to the
shoreline at flat-wake speed. Personal
watercraft operation would be
prohibited in park waters outside of the
access areas. All state regulatory
requirements would continue to apply.
This proposed regulation may affect, but
is not likely to adversely affect, federally
listed threatened or endangered
terrestrial species in the Cape Lookout
National Seashore. Effects to federally
listed threatened or endangered species
associated with PWC use under the
proposed regulation would be similar to
those discussed under alternative A.
However, the potential for impacts
would be further minimized due to
reduced levels of activity and use.
Enforcement of flat-wake zones in the
ten designated special use areas would
decrease potential for near-shore noise
associated with the PWC use to
adversely affect protected species such
as the piping plover.
As PWC operation would be
prohibited in park waters outside of the
access areas, aquatic special concern
species in these areas would not be
impacted by PWC use. Manatees and
whales are not likely to be present in
park waters during the summer when
PWC use is high. Sea turtles and the
Carolina diamondback terrapin are
likely to be present in park waters
during the summer. These turtles may
be affected but are not likely to be
adversely affected by PWC use under
this proposed regulation, because most
park waters would be off-limits to PWC
and because the flat-wake speed
restriction would further reduce the
potential for collision, as well as
reducing engine noise production and
fuel discharge to water.
Reinstating PWC use in park waters
and restricting their operation to a flatwake perpendicular approach to the
shoreline in designated access areas
may affect but is not likely to adversely
affect aquatic special concern species.
The majority of piping plover nests
are located on North Core Banks, which
accounted for 10 out of 14 nesting pairs
in 2003. The majority of PWC activity
occurs at Shackelford Banks and the
lighthouse area at South Core Banks.
Sea beach amaranth, piping plover
nesting, and gull-billed tern nesting
areas are all roped off where present.
These species generally occur in areas of
low PWC use, and PWC use may affect
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
but is not likely to adversely affect these
species.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC
use would be limited to flat-wake speed
within designated access areas, resulting
in a negligible contribution to
cumulative impacts. Non-PWC
motorized vessels would be able to
operate throughout park waters. Because
manatees are not common in the area
and northern right whales and
humpback whales are not likely to occur
in park waters in the summer, PWC and
other motorized watercraft use may
affect but are not likely to adversely
affect these species. As previously
mentioned, trip lengths for PWC and
non-PWC are short, and due to the
park’s very shallow waters, operation of
these vessels primarily consists of slow
speed operation. Because of these
factors, PWC and non-PWC vessel use
may affect but is not likely to adversely
affect sea turtles or Carolina
diamondback terrapins. Non-PWC
vessels outnumber PWC in park waters
by more than 10 to 1, so any motorized
vessel impacts on special concern
species would be predominantly
attributed to non-PWC vessels.
Due to the location of sensitive
species and the areas of high PWC use
and other motorized watercraft being
typically separate, PWC use and other
motorized watercraft may affect but are
not likely to adversely affect special
concern species.
Reinstating PWC use in park waters
and restricting their operation to a flatwake perpendicular approach to the
shoreline in designated access areas
may affect but are not likely to adversely
affect manatees or whales in park
waters, as these species are not present
in areas or during seasons of peak PWC
use. Personal watercraft and other
motorized vessel use may affect but is
not likely to adversely affect sea turtles
or Carolina diamondback terrapins
because of the slow vessel speeds and
short trip lengths.
Therefore, implementation of this
alternative would not result in an
impairment of aquatic special concern
species in park waters.
Visitor Use and Experience
Some research suggests that PWC use
is viewed by some segments of the
public as a nuisance due to their noise,
speed, and overall environmental
effects, while others believe that PWC
are no different from other motorcraft
and that people have a right to enjoy the
sport. The primary concern involves
changes in noise, pitch, and volume due
to the way PWC are operated.
Additionally, the sound of any
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
watercraft can carry for long distances,
especially on a calm day.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC
would have access to 10 areas
distributed along the entire national
seashore. These areas include those that
were historically popular with PWC
users, such as the Cape Lookout
lighthouse area and the west end of
Shackleford Banks. Fifty-one miles of
the seashore’s sound side and 56 miles
of the oceanside would be closed to
PWC use. Five of a total of 10 miles
(50%) of soundside sandy beaches
would be available to PWC use.
Impacts on PWC Users. Personal
watercraft users would experience
beneficial impacts, as they would have
access to those areas that were
historically popular with PWC riders.
Personal watercraft would be restricted
from the marshlands along the Core
Banks, which they avoided anyway for
practical reasons. With the exception of
the closed areas between the two toilet
facilities on Shackleford Banks and
those in the lighthouse area of South
Core Banks, PWC would have access to
many of the areas frequented by PWC
prior to the ban. Therefore, benefits
would be similar to having access to the
entire national seashore, with the
exception of the restricted area on
Shackleford and near the lighthouse.
Impacts would be beneficial, long-term,
and minor since approximately only 1%
of all visitors would be affected.
Impacts on Other Boaters. Personal
watercraft would return to popular areas
such as the Cape Lookout lighthouse
area and Shackleford Banks, with the
exception of the restricted section.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC
users would be required to operate at
flat-wake speed within park waters,
providing a beneficial impact to all
boaters, particularly kayakers and
canoeists, who would be most affected
by wakes and noise. Canoeists and
kayakers paddling the marshlands along
the Core Sound would experience
negligible impacts from reinstated PWC
use because PWC would be prohibited
in marshland areas. Although some
complaints have been submitted
regarding PWC use in these areas, PWC
have primarily avoided marshlands in
the past. Boaters in the national
seashore’s northern reaches would
experience few, if any, impacts, given
the extremely low PWC use in this area
in the past. Paddlers and motor boat
operators using the west end of
Shackleford near Beaufort Inlet or the
Cape Lookout lighthouse area would
experience the most adverse impacts
due to congestion in these popular
areas. Other motorized boat users would
also interact with PWC, and may
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
experience adverse impacts for similar
reasons. However, motorized boat users
may find PWC use more compatible
with their type of recreation. Depending
on location, overall impacts on other
boaters would be adverse, short- and
long-term, and negligible to minor due
to flat-wake PWC speed restrictions in
park waters.
Impacts on Other Non-PWC Users. As
with other boaters, other non-PWC users
would experience benefits from flatwake speed restrictions under this
proposed regulation. The PWC
restricted area along Shackleford Banks
between the two toilet facilities would
provide beneficial impacts on visitors in
this area. A stretch of maritime forest
fronts the sound in this restricted area,
providing a natural, pristine wilderness
setting that is popular with campers
(Wade’s Shore is located near the
eastern toilet facility on Shackleford).
Restricting PWC in this area would
enhance wilderness values there,
including preservation of the primeval
character of the wilderness, natural
conditions (including lack of man-made
noise), outstanding opportunities for
solitude, and a primitive recreational
experience. Because most non-fishing
visitors come to the national seashore
seeking a remote beach experience,
restricted PWC use under this
alternative would provide a beneficial
impact to these visitors. In addition,
89% of respondents during public
scoping indicated that they were in
favor of banning PWC from the national
seashore. Therefore, a majority of
visitors may perceive PWC use as
incompatible with their experience at
Cape Lookout National Seashore and
would prefer restricted access, even
though PWC represented only a small
percentage of national seashore visitors.
Restricting PWC within national
seashore waters to flat-wake speed
would also be particularly beneficial to
swimmers, anglers, and beach combers,
who may be more likely to experience
adverse impacts from PWC use than
motorized boat users.
Short-term impacts on all visitors
would occur depending on the duration
of exposure to PWC during a given visit.
Visitors would also experience longterm impacts in that PWC use would
have restricted access to the national
seashore indefinitely into the future.
Cumulative impacts would be similar
to those described under alternative A
in the EA regarding an increase in
motorized boaters accessing the Cape
Lookout lighthouse starting in 2005.
However, flat-wake speed restrictions
under this alternative would provide a
benefit in areas of increasing congestion.
An increase in boaters in Barden Inlet,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
combined with restricted, reinstated
PWC use, would result in an adverse
impact in this area. Combining
restricted PWC use with other
motorized boat use would result in an
adverse impact. Even though only 1% of
visitors used PWC to access the national
seashore in the past, impact levels
would be moderate due to expected
increases in visitation.
Reinstating PWC use with restricted
access would result in beneficial
impacts on PWC users, but adverse,
short- and long-term impacts on other
boaters (motorized and nonmotorized)
ranging from negligible to moderate
depending on location and type of boat
use. Cumulative impacts would be
adverse, short- and long-term, and
negligible due to the historically low
numbers of PWC at the national
seashore and additional PWC use
restrictions.
Visitor Conflict and Safety
Industry representatives report that
PWC accidents decreased in some states
in the late 1990s. The National
Transportation Safety Board reported
that in 1996 PWC represented 7.5% of
state-registered recreational boats but
accounted for 36% of recreational
boating accidents. In the same year PWC
operators accounted for more than 41%
of the people injured in boating
accidents. Personal watercraft operators
accounted for approximately 85% of the
persons injured in accidents studied in
1997. Only one PWC-related injury has
been reported at Cape Lookout National
Seashore, although much of the waters
in the area are outside of park
boundaries and many incidents likely
are not reported to any agency at all.
The park currently does little or no
water-based enforcement, which would
be necessary to better identify PWC/
visitor safety issues. Very few PWC
violations have been documented by
national seashore staff.
Personal watercraft speeds, wakes,
and operations near other users can
pose hazards and conflicts, especially to
canoeists and sea kayakers. Kayakers
and canoeists have complained about
PWC, and other visitors have
complained that PWC use conflicts with
swimming and other beach activities.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC
would be reinstated in 10 special use
areas throughout the national seashore.
All visitors would experience beneficial
impacts due to restricting PWC to flatwake speeds when operating within
national seashore boundaries, which
should reduce conflicts between PWC
and other users, particularly swimmers,
anglers, and nonmotorized boaters. In
addition, park staff would support the
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77097
state boater education program; if such
support resulted in more PWC operators
enrolling in the program, all visitors
could experience beneficial impacts as
83% of all PWC operators involved in
accidents in North Carolina in 2003 had
no formal PWC education.
PWC Users/Swimmer Conflicts.
Personal watercraft would have access
to two special use areas on the
soundside of Shackleford Banks, with a
non-use area in between where the
maritime forest fronts the shoreline.
This non-use area was chosen based on
congestion and safety issues at the
island, where swimming and beach
activities (including overnight camping)
are common. Therefore, by restricting
PWC use in this popular area, impacts
on swimmers would be reduced
compared to reinstating PWC
throughout the entire island, and
impacts would be negligible to minor
and of short duration in this area.
PWC Users/Other Boater Conflicts.
Other motorized watercraft frequent the
same areas, including the soundside of
Shackleford Banks and the areas near
the Cape Lookout lighthouse. Under this
proposed regulation, PWC would have
access to the same areas that are popular
with boaters. The lighthouse area has
been popular with PWC users in the
past and continues to be a strong
attraction for all national seashore
visitors. Personal watercraft would be
permitted to operate in three use areas
in the Cape Lookout Bight area, being
most restricted in the boat docking areas
and beach near the lighthouse and the
marshes near Catfish Point. A landing
zone 300 feet north of the NPS ferry
dock should help distribute PWC users
accessing this area. Such restrictions,
along with flat-wake speed
requirements, should help alleviate
potential conflicts with other boaters in
this popular area and keep adverse
impacts at minor levels.
Personal watercraft would not be
permitted to use marshlands along the
North and South Core Banks, where
kayakers have complained about PWC
use in marshes from Cape Lookout north
to New Drum Inlet. Conflicts and
potential for accidents would be
minimal farther north, where PWC use
has historically been extremely low.
PWC Users/Other Visitor Conflicts.
Personal watercraft users would
continue to conflict with other national
seashore users, such as anglers and
other beach recreationists. However,
anglers fishing near the maritime forest
on Shackleford Banks would benefit
from PWC prohibition in this area. No
accidents or injuries between PWC and
non-PWC users have been reported to
national seashore staff, although some
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
77098
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
could have occurred, particularly
outside of the park’s jurisdiction, and
not been reported.
Overall, reinstating PWC use in
restricted areas would result in adverse,
short- and long-term impacts that would
vary from negligible in low-use areas, to
minor in localized, high-use areas where
a small number of visitors would be
affected due the low numbers of PWC
accessing the national seashore in
restricted use areas, as well as the flatwake speed restrictions called for under
this proposed regulation.
Cumulative impacts would be similar
to those described under alternative A
in the EA, although PWC use would be
restricted to specific areas of the
national seashore. When combined with
increased visitation expected
throughout the national seashore,
particularly at the Cape Lookout
lighthouse area, reinstating PWC would
increase potential for conflicts and
accidents, particularly in localized
areas. However, the restrictions on
Shackleford and the Cape Lookout area
would help alleviate such problems.
Therefore, cumulative impacts would be
adverse, long-term and vary from
negligible to moderate depending on
location.
Reinstating PWC use in restricted
areas would result in adverse, short- and
long-term impacts that would vary from
negligible in low-use areas, to minor in
localized, high-use areas where a small
number of visitors would be affected
due the low numbers of PWC accessing
the national seashore in restricted use
areas. Cumulative impacts would be
adverse, long-term and vary from
negligible to moderate depending on
location.
Cultural Resources
The environment at Cape Lookout
National Seashore has deterred
extensive human settlement in the area.
Human occupation of the Outer Banks
region initially occurred over 3,000
years ago by a hunting-fishing-gathering
people. The peoples of the Outer Banks
are considered to be small groups of
extended families, such as the situation
among the living Algonkian hunters of
the North. Earlier peoples may have
used the area, but there is a strong
likelihood that wave action or other
natural processes removed any very
early sites long ago.
Little is known about the nomadic
hunters on the islands, and specific
information about the area up to the
time of Colonial English occupation is
lacking. Shell midden sites on the
Shackleford Banks and at Cape Lookout
are the only remains of early human
occupation. However, these sites (most
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
of which are outside the national
seashore’s jurisdiction) have been
reduced to almost unintelligible
remains.
Cape Lookout National Recreation
Area has 36 recorded archeological
sites. These sites are difficult to monitor
and protect due to the changing
landscape of the barrier islands. Shell
middens were found on the islands in
the past, but most have been washed
away by storms. None of the aboriginal
sites currently known to exist within the
national seashore were felt to be
culturally and scientifically significant
enough to justify their nomination to the
National Historic Register.
Of the 36 recorded archeological sites,
some could potentially be impacted by
PWC use at Cape Lookout. The majority
of the sites exist on Shackleford Banks,
primarily in the salt marshes; some are
located on small, marshy islands
adjacent to Shackleford. Little evidence
of these sites remains due to advanced
stages of erosion and other
environmental factors. The sites have
become damaged from overwash or are
submerged at high tide, and only
erosional remnants remain. Severe
erosion and movement of the land mass
have almost obliterated several sites.
Some of the sites are covered with thick
vegetation, obscuring portions of the site
from view. One site has been affected by
past use of the area by sheep and goats,
to the extent that little evidence of the
site remains intact. According to park
staff, looting and vandalism of cultural
resources is not a substantial problem.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC
users would have access to specific
locations within the national seashore.
When riding within NPS jurisdiction,
PWC would be required to operate
perpendicular to the shore and at flatwake speed. Therefore, impacts on
archeological sites from wave action
would be greatly minimized. In
addition, very few PWC have
historically used the national seashore,
and most would not operate in salt
marsh areas where many archeological
sites are located, further reducing the
potential for adverse impact. Therefore,
no negligible long-term, adverse impacts
from PWC wave action would be
expected.
Potential impacts resulting from
vandalism and illegal collection would
be similar to those expected under
alternative A. However, the PWC
landing restrictions on Shackleford and
Cape Lookout would prevent PWC from
landing in areas with archeological
sites. Although PWC users could land in
the designated areas and walk to some
sites, many are submerged or located in
salt marshes on small satellite islands,
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
which are difficult to access by foot or
PWC. Other sites are obscured by thick
vegetation and difficult to identify.
Therefore, impacts from vandalism and
looting (which have historically been
insubstantial) are expected to be
adverse, long-term, but negligible.
Impacts from other boaters and
visitors would be combined with
impacts from PWC users. However,
impacts from vandalism and illegal
collecting would be negligible due to
the difficulty in identifying these sites,
as described above. Adverse effects due
to wave action from boats would
continue to impact aboriginal sites, but
would not be appreciably augmented by
waves from PWC use due to the flatwake speed and perpendicular approach
restrictions described under this
proposed regulation. Wild horses would
continue to impact archeological sites as
described under alternative A. Past use
of the area by sheep and goats could
have also adversely impacted these
sites. Erosion due to natural causes
would continue to result in the most
damaging impacts on archeological
sites. Therefore, cumulative impacts
resulting from vandalism, illegal
collecting, waves from boats, and wild
horses would be adverse, long-term, and
negligible.
Restricting areas of use and requiring
PWC to operate perpendicular to the
shore and at flat-wake speed within the
national seashore’s jurisdiction would
minimize impacts on archaeological
resources from wave action. Restricting
areas of use would also minimize
impacts resulting from vandalism and
illegal collecting. Cumulative impacts
would be adverse, long-term, and
negligible.
Therefore, implementation of this
proposed regulation would not result in
an impairment of cultural resources.
The Proposed Rule
Under this NPRM, which is based on
the preferred alternative, alternative B, a
special regulation at 36 CFR 7.49 would
reinstate PWC use at the national
seashore. Under the proposed rule,
special use areas would be identified
where PWC could access certain
sections of Shackleford Banks, South
Core Banks, and North Core Banks.
Personal watercraft would be prohibited
in all other areas of the national
seashore, and PWC would not be
allowed to beach on the oceanside.
Safety and operating restrictions would
be dictated by the North Carolina PWC
regulations outlined under alternative A
and additional NPS operating
restrictions.
The state of North Carolina ceded
legal jurisdiction to the NPS for all land
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
and waters from the mean low water on
the oceanside to 150 feet from the mean
low water mark on the soundside.
Waters beyond this 150 feet boundary
within Back Sound and beyond the
legislated boundary along Core Sound
are managed by the state of North
Carolina. National Park Service legal
jurisdiction on the oceanside of
Shackleford Banks, South Core Banks,
and North Core Banks is to the mean
low water mark.
Special Use Areas. Ten special use
areas would provide for PWC access
within Cape Lookout National Seashore
boundaries. Personal watercraft would
be allowed to access these areas on
North Core Banks, South Core Banks
(including Cape Lookout), and
Shackleford Banks by remaining
perpendicular to shore and operating at
flat-wake speed. Under the proposed
rule, PWC use would not be authorized
for recreational use parallel to the
shoreline, but only for access to those
areas identified below specifically for
landing purposes. In all cases, PWC
would have access to the sound side of
the barrier islands only. No PWC access
to the seashore’s ocean side would be
permitted. The ten special use areas
identified in the proposed rule include
the following:
1. North Core Banks
• Ocracoke Inlet Access—Wallace
Channel dock to the demarcation line in
Ocracoke Inlet, near Milepost 1.
• Milepost 11B Access—Existing
sound-side dock at Mile post 11B
approximately 4 miles north of Long
Point.
• Long Point Access—Ferry landing
at Long Point cabin area (formerly called
the Morris Marina Kabin Kamp) near
Milepost 16.
• Old Drum Inlet Access—Soundside
beach near Milepost 19 (as designated
by signs), approximately 1⁄2 mile north
of Old Drum inlet (adjacent to the crossover route) encompassing
approximately 50 feet.
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
2. South Core Banks
• New Drum Inlet Access—Soundside beach near Milepost 23 (as
designated by signs), approximately 1⁄4
mile long, beginning approximately 1⁄2
mile south of New Drum Inlet.
• Great Island Access—Carly Dock at
the Great Island cabin area (formerly
called the Alger Willis Fish Camp) near
Milepost 30 (noted as South Core BanksGreat Island on map).
3. Cape Lookout
• Lighthouse Area North Access—A
zone 300 feet north of the NPS dock at
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
the lighthouse ferry dock near Milepost
41.
• Lighthouse Area South Access—
Sound-side beach 100 feet south of the
‘‘summer kitchen’’ to 200 feet north of
the Cape Lookout Environmental
Education Center Dock.
• Power Squadron Spit Access—
Sound-side beach at Power Squadron
Spit across from rock jetty to end of the
spit.
4. Shackleford Banks
• Shackleford West End Access—
Soundside beach at Shackleford Banks
from Whale Creek west to Beaufort Inlet,
except the area between the Wade
Shores toilet facility and the passenger
ferry dock.
Access and Wake Restrictions. Within
these special use areas, all PWC would
be required to remain perpendicular to
shore and operate at flat-wake speed
that would result in no visible wake
within park waters.
Equipment and Emissions. As noted
in the EA, the Environmental Protection
Agency promulgated a rule to control
exhaust emissions from new marine
engines, including outboards and PWC.
Emission controls provide for
increasingly stricter standards beginning
in model year 1999 (EPA 1996a, 1997).
Under this alternative, it is assumed that
PWC two-stoke engines would be
converted to cleaner direct-injected or
four-stroke engines in accordance with
the Environmental Protection Agency’s
assumptions (40 CFR parts 89–91, ‘‘Air
Pollution Control; Gasoline SparkIgnition and Spark-Ignition Engines,
Exemptions; Rule, 1996). This proposed
rule would not accelerate this
conversion from two-stroke to fourstroke engines for PWC.
Visitor Education. Cape Lookout park
staff would support the state boater
education program by annually
outlining state and park PWC
regulations within park brochures such
as the park newspaper. Park staff would
educate visitors about PWC regulations
in park and state waters to help them
understand the differences between
park regulations and PWC regulations
for other local jurisdictions along the
Outer Banks.
Cooperation with Local Entities. The
park would work with local and state
governments to encourage consistent
PWC user behavior within state waters
adjacent to park PWC special use areas.
The park would like to encourage the
state to define a PWC use zone in state
waters adjacent to Cape Lookout
National Seashore that would encourage
flat-wake and perpendicular access to
the shore.
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
77099
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.
The NPS has completed the report
‘‘Economic Analysis of Personal
Watercraft Regulations in Cape Lookout
National Seashore’’ (MACTEC
Engineering, December 2005). This
document may be viewed on the park’s
Web site at: https://www.nps.gov/calo/
pphtml/documents.html.
(2) This rule will not create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere
with an action taken or planned by
another agency. Actions taken under
this rule will not interfere with other
agencies or local government plans,
policies or controls. This rule is an
agency specific rule.
(3) This rule does not alter the
budgetary effects of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights
or obligations of their recipients. This
rule will have no effects on
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights or obligations of
their recipients. No grants or other
forms of monetary supplements are
involved.
(4) This rule does not raise novel legal
or policy issues. This rule is one of the
special regulations being issued for
managing PWC use in National Park
Units. The NPS published general
regulations (36 CFR 3.24) in March
2000, requiring individual park areas to
adopt special regulations to authorize
PWC use. The implementation of the
requirement of the general regulation
continues to generate interest and
discussion from the public concerning
the overall effect of authorizing PWC
use and NPS policy and park
management.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior
certifies that this rulemaking will not
have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is
based on a report entitled ‘‘Economic
Analysis of Personal Watercraft
Regulations in Cape Lookout National
Seashore’’ (MACTEC Engineering,
December 2005). This document may be
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
77100
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
viewed on the park’s Web site at: https://
www.nps.gov/calo/pphtml/
documents.html.
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.
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:10 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
required. An OMB Form 83-I is not
required.
National Environmental Policy Act
The NPS has analyzed this rule in
accordance with the criteria of the
National Environmental Policy Act and
has prepared an EA. The EA was
available for public review and
comment from January 24, 2005, to
February 24, 2005. Copies of the EA
may be downloaded at https://
www.nps.gov/calo/pphtml/
documents.html or requested by
telephoning (252) 728–2250. Mail
inquiries should be directed to park
headquarters: Cape Lookout National
Seashore, 131 Charles Street, Harkers
Island, NC 28531.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
‘‘Government to Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments’’ (59 FR 22951) and 512
DM 2, we have evaluated potential
effects on federally recognized Indian
tribes and have determined that there
are no potential effects.
Clarity of Rule
Executive Order 12866 requires each
agency to write regulations that are easy
to understand. We invite your
comments on how to make this rule
easier to understand, including answers
to questions such as the following: (1)
Are the requirements in the rule clearly
stated? (2) Does the rule contain
technical language or jargon that
interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the
format of the rule (grouping and order
of sections, use of headings,
paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its
clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to
read if it were divided into more (but
shorter) sections? (A ‘‘section’’ appears
in bold type and is preceded by the
symbol ‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered heading;
for example § 7.49, Cape Lookout
National Seashore.) (5) Is the
description of the rule in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
the preamble helpful in understanding
the proposed rule? What else could we
do to make the rule easier to
understand?
Send a copy of any comments that
concern how we could make this rule
easier to understand to: Office of
Regulatory Affairs, Department of the
Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may
also e-mail the comments to this
address: Exsec@ios.doi.gov.
Drafting Information: The primary
authors of this regulation are: Robert A.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Vogel, Superintendent, Wouter Ketel,
Chief Ranger, Michael W. Rikard, Chief
of Resource Management, Jeff R. Cordes,
Resource Management Specialist,
Michael E. McGee, Facility Manager,
Donna Tipton, Administrative Officer,
Cape Lookout National Seashore; Sarah
Bransom, Environmental Quality
Division; and Jerry Case, NPS,
Washington, DC.
Public Participation
If you wish to comment, you may
mail or hand deliver your comments to:
Cape Lookout National Seashore, 131
Charles Street, Harkers Island, NC
28531. Comments may also be
submitted on the Federal rulemaking
portal: https://www.regulations.gov
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Please identify comments
by: RIN 1024–AD44.
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
NPS proposes to amend 36 CFR part 7
as follows:
PART 7—SPECIAL REGULATIONS,
AREAS OF THE NATIONAL PARK
SYSTEM
1. The authority for part 7 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1, 3, 9a, 460(q),
462(k); sec. 7.96 also issued under D.C. Code
8–137 (1981) and D.C. Code 40–721 (1981).
2. Add new § 7.49 to read as follows:
§ 7.49
Cape Lookout National Seashore.
Personal watercraft (PWC) may
operate within Cape Lookout National
Seashore only under the conditions
specified in paragraphs (a) through (e) of
this section and in the designated areas
specified paragraph (f) in this section.
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 249 / Thursday, December 29, 2005 / Proposed Rules
(a) PWC are allowed in the following
areas only when remaining
perpendicular to shore and operating at
flat-wake speed.
(b) PWC use is not authorized for
recreational use parallel to the
shoreline, but only for access to the
following areas specifically for landing
purposes.
(c) In all cases, PWC have access to
the sound side of the barrier islands
only.
(d) PWC are prohibited in all areas of
the national seashore except for the
areas listed in paragraph (f) of this
section. PWC are not allowed to beach
on the oceanside.
(e) 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.
(f) PWC use is allowed only in the
locations specified in this paragraph.
(1) North Core Banks:
Access
(i) Ocracoke
Inlet.
(ii) Milepost
11B.
(iii) Long Point
(iv) Old Drum
Inlet.
Location
Wallace Channel dock to the
demarcation line in
Ocracoke Inlet near Milepost 1.
Existing sound-side dock at
mile post 11B approximately 4 miles north of
Long Point.
Ferry landing at the Long
Point Cabin area.
Sound-side beach near Milepost 19 (as designated by
signs), approximately 1⁄2
mile north of Old Drum
inlet (adjacent to the
cross-over route) encompassing approximately 50
feet.
(2) South Core Banks:
Access
Location
wwhite on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSAL
(i) New Drum
Inlet.
Sound-side beach near Milepost 23 (as designated by
signs), approximately 1⁄4
mile long, beginning approximately 1⁄2 mile south
of New Drum Inlet.
(ii) Great IsCarly Dock at Great Island
land Access..
Camp, near Milepost 30
(noted as South Core
Banks-Great Island on
map).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:50 Dec 28, 2005
Jkt 208001
(3) Cape Lookout
Access
Location
(i) Lighthouse
Area North.
A zone 300 feet north of the
NPS dock at the lighthouse ferry dock near
Milepost 41.
Sound-side beach 100 feet
south of the ‘‘summer
kitchen’’ to 200 feet north
of the Cape Lookout Environmental Education Center Dock.
Sound-side beach at Power
Squadron Spit across from
rock jetty to end of the spit
(ii) Lighthouse
Area South.
(iii) Power
Squadron
Spit.
(4) Shackleford Banks West End Access
Sound-side beach at Shackleford Banks
from Whale Creek west to Beaufort Inlet,
except the area between the Wade
Shores toilet facility and the passenger
ferry dock.
Dated: December 20, 2005.
Paul Hoffman,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife
and Parks.
[FR Doc. E5–8003 Filed 12–28–05; 8:45 am]
77101
initiated reconsideration processes on
five specific issues in the CAIR and
requested comment on those issues. In
this notice, EPA is announcing its
decision to reconsider one additional
specific issue in the CAIR and is
requesting comment on that issue.
The specific issue addressed in
today’s notice relates to the potential
impact of a recent D.C. Circuit Court
decision, New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3
(D.C. Cir. 2005), on the analysis used in
developing CAIR to identify highly costeffective emission reductions. This
court decision vacated the pollution
control project (PCP) exclusion in the
New Source Review (NSR) regulations
(the exclusion allowed certain
environmentally beneficial PCPs to be
excluded from certain NSR
requirements).
The EPA is seeking comment only on
the aspect of the CAIR specifically
identified in this notice. We will not
respond to comments addressing other
provisions of the CAIR or any related
rulemakings.
Comments must be received on
or before February 16, 2006. If
BILLING CODE 4312–52–P
requested, a public hearing will be held
on January 17, 2006 in Washington, DC.
For additional information on a public
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
hearing, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
AGENCY
INFORMATION section of this preamble.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
40 CFR Parts 51 and 96
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
[EPA–HQ–OAR 2003–0053; FRL–8016–6]
OAR–2003–0053, by one of the
Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of following methods:
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone
on-line instructions for submitting
(Clean Air Interstate Rule):
comments. Attention Docket ID No.
Supplemental Notice of
EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0053.
Reconsideration
• E-mail: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov.
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
Agency (EPA).
OAR–2003–0053.
• Fax: The fax number of the Air
ACTION: Notice of reconsideration;
Docket is (202) 566–1741. Attention
request for comment; notice of
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
opportunity for public hearing.
0053.
SUMMARY: On May 12, 2005, EPA
• Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West
published in the Federal Register the
(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No.
final ‘‘Rule to Reduce Interstate
EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0053,
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Environmental Protection Agency,
Ozone’’ (Clean Air Interstate Rule or
Mailcode: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania
CAIR). The CAIR requires certain
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
upwind States to reduce emissions of
• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and/or sulfur
(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No.
dioxide (SO2) that significantly
EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–0053,
contribute to nonattainment of, or
Environmental Protection Agency, 1301
interfere with maintenance by,
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102;
downwind States with respect to the
Washington, DC. Such deliveries are
fine particle (PM2.5) and/or 8-hour ozone only accepted during the Docket’s
national ambient air quality standards
normal hours of operation, and special
(NAAQS). Subsequently, EPA received
arrangements should be made for
11 petitions for reconsideration of the
deliveries of boxed information.
final rule. Through Federal Register
Instructions: Direct your comments to
notices dated August 24, 2005 and
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2003–
December 2, 2005, EPA previously
0053. EPA’s policy is that all comments
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\29DEP1.SGM
29DEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 249 (Thursday, December 29, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 77089-77101]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E5-8003]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024-AD44
Cape Lookout National Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is proposing to designate
areas where personal watercraft (PWC) may be used in Cape Lookout
National Seashore, North Carolina. This proposed rule implements the
provisions of the NPS general regulations authorizing park areas to
allow the use of PWC by promulgating a special regulation. The NPS
Management Policies 2001 directs individual parks to determine whether
PWC use is appropriate for a specific park area based on an evaluation
of that area's enabling legislation, resources and values, other
visitor uses, and overall management objectives.
DATES: Comments must be received by February 27, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by the number RIN 1024-
AD44, by any of the following methods:
Federal rulemaking portal: https://www.regulations.gov
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail or hand delivery to: Superintendent, Cape Lookout
National Seashore, 131 Charles Street, Harkers Island, NC 28531.
For additional information see ``Public Participation''
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerry Case, Regulations Program
Manager, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Room 7241,
Washington, DC 20240. Phone: (202) 208-4206. E-mail: jerry_
case@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 (EA) published January 2005. 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 NPS published a regulation (36 CFR 3.24) on
the management of PWC use within all units of the national park system
(65 FR 15077). This regulation prohibits PWC use in all national park
units unless the NPS determines that this type of water-based
recreational activity is appropriate for the specific park unit based
on the legislation establishing that park, the park's resources and
values, other visitor uses of the area, and overall management
objectives. The regulation banned PWC use in all park units effective
April 20, 2000, except for 21 parks, lakeshores, seashores, and
recreation areas. The regulation established a 2-year grace period
following the final rule publication to provide these 21 park units
time to consider whether PWC use should be permitted to continue.
Description of Cape Lookout National Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore was established by Congress in 1966
to
[[Page 77090]]
conserve and preserve for public use and enjoyment the outstanding
natural, cultural, and recreational values of a dynamic coastal barrier
island environment for future generations. Cape Lookout National
Seashore is a low, narrow, ribbon of sand located three miles off the
mainland coast in the central coastal area of North Carolina and
occupies more than 29,000 acres of land and water from Ocracoke Inlet
on the northeast to Beaufort Inlet to the southwest. The national
seashore consists of four main barrier islands (North Core Banks,
Middle Core Banks, South Core Banks, and Shackleford Banks), which
consist mostly of wide, bare beaches with low dunes covered by
scattered grasses, flat grasslands bordered by dense vegetation, and
large expanses of salt marsh alongside the sound. There are no road
connections to the mainland or between the islands.
Coastal barrier islands, such as those located in Cape Lookout
National Seashore, are unique land forms that provide protection for
diverse aquatic habitats and serve as the mainland's first line of
defense against the impacts of severe coastal storms and erosion.
Located at the interface of land and sea, the dominant physical factors
responsible for shaping coastal landforms are tidal range, wave energy,
and sediment supply from rivers and older, pre-existing coastal sand
bodies. Relative changes in local sea level also profoundly affect
coastal barrier island diversity. Coastal barrier islands exhibit the
following six characteristics:
Subject to the impacts of coastal storms and sea level
rise.
Buffer the mainland from the impact of storms.
Protect and maintain productive estuarine systems which
support the nation's fishing and shellfishing industries.
Consist primarily of unconsolidated sediments.
Subject to wind, wave, and tidal energies.
Include associated landward aquatic habitats which the
non-wetland portion of the coastal barrier island protects from direct
wave attack.
Coastal barrier islands protect the aquatic habitats between the
barrier island and the mainland. Together with their adjacent wetland,
marsh, estuarine, inlet, and nearshore water habitats, coastal barriers
support a tremendous variety of organisms. Millions of fish, shellfish,
birds, mammals, and other wildlife depend on barriers and their
associated wetlands for vital feeding, spawning, nesting, nursery, and
resting habitat.
Shackleford Banks contains the park's most extensive maritime
forest as well as wild horses that have adapted to this environment
over the centuries. The islands are an excellent place to see birds,
particularly during spring and fall migrations. A number of tern
species, egrets, herons, and shorebirds nest here. Loggerhead turtles
climb the beaches at nesting time.
Purpose of Cape Lookout National Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore was authorized on March 10, 1966, by
Public Law 89-366. Additional legislation, Public Law 93-477 (October
26, 1974), called for another 232-acre tract of land to be acquired, a
review and recommendation of any suitable lands for wilderness
designation, and authorized funding for land acquisition and essential
public facilities.
The purpose of Cape Lookout National Seashore is to conserve and
preserve for public use and enjoyment the outstanding natural,
cultural, and recreational values of a dynamic coastal barrier island
environment for future generations. The national seashore serves as
both a refuge for wildlife and a pleasuring ground for the public,
including developed visitor amenities.
The mission of Cape Lookout National Seashore is to:
Conserve and preserve for the future the outstanding
natural resources of a dynamic coastal barrier island system;
Protect and interpret the significant cultural resources
of past and contemporary maritime history;
Provide for public education and enrichment through
proactive interpretation and scientific study; and
Provide for sustainable use of recreation resources and
opportunities.
Significance of Cape Lookout National Seashore
Cape Lookout National Seashore is nationally recognized as an
outstanding example of a dynamic natural coastal barrier island system.
Cape Lookout is designated as a unit of the Carolinian-South Atlantic
Biosphere Reserve, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organizations (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere Reserve Program. The park
contains:
Cultural resources rich in the maritime history of
humankind's attempt to survive at the edge of the sea; and
Critical habitat for endangered and threatened species and
other unique wildlife including the legislatively protected wild horses
of Shackleford Banks.
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
* * *.'' 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 Clause and, as
with the United States Coast Guard's authority, Commerce Clause 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.
Motorboats and other watercraft have been in use at Cape Lookout
National Seashore since the park was established in 1966. It is unknown
when PWC use first began at the national seashore. In compliance with
the settlement with the Bluewater Network, the national seashore closed
to PWC use in April 2002. Personal watercraft are prohibited from
launching or landing on any lands, boat ramps or docks within the
boundaries of the national seashore. Personal watercraft may not be
towed on trailers or carried on vehicles within national seashore
boundaries except at the Harker's Island unit. This closure pertains to
all of the barrier islands within the national seashore and the waters
on the soundside of the islands within 150 feet of the mean low
waterline. Outside of the park boundary, PWC use is governed by North
Carolina PWC regulations. At present, the areas that were previously
used by PWC
[[Page 77091]]
owners for landing are closed with signs.
Prior to the PWC closure, all areas of the park were open to PWC
use. However, the majority of PWC use was concentrated in two areas of
the national seashore that receive the heaviest visitor day-use in the
park: (1) On the sound-side of South Core Banks at the Lighthouse (from
the Lighthouse dock through Barden Inlet and Lookout Bight), and (2)
the Shackleford Banks from Wade Shores west to Beaufort Inlet. Personal
watercraft use of ocean beaches was rare due to rough surf conditions
in the ocean and the hazard of beaching PWC in the ocean surf. Some PWC
use occurred along North and South Core Banks from Portsmouth Village
at the northern end of the national seashore to the lighthouse. This
use was infrequent because of the prevalence of marshes and general
lack of sound-side beaches along Core Banks, the large expanse of open
water in Core Sound between the barrier islands and mainland North
Carolina, and the low population of the adjacent communities in the
``down east'' as this portion of the national seashore is known
locally. At public meetings held in October 2001, several participants
indicated they had used their PWC to travel from locations such as
Atlantic and Davis to the barrier islands. The popularity of Cape
Lookout and Shackleford Banks where PWC use was concentrated can be
attributed to the excellent soundside beaches in these areas, the
attraction of the Cape Lookout lighthouse, traditional use of
Shackleford Banks, their proximity to major inlets, and their close
proximity to the three largest coastal population centers in Carteret
County: Atlantic Beach, Morehead City, and Beaufort.
Resource Protection and Public Use Issues
Cape Lookout National Seashore Environmental Assessment
As a companion document to this proposed rule, NPS has issued the
Cape Lookout National Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use Environmental
Assessment. The EA was open for public review and comment from January
24, 2005 to February 24, 2005. Copies of the EA may be downloaded at
https://www.nps.gov/calo/pphtml/documents.html or requested by
telephoning (252) 728-2250. Mail inquiries should be directed to park
headquarters: Cape Lookout National Seashore, 131 Charles Street,
Harkers Island, NC 28531.
The purpose of the EA was to evaluate a range of alternatives and
strategies for the management of PWC use at Cape Lookout National
Seashore to ensure the protection of park resources and values while
offering recreational opportunities as provided for in the National
Seashore's enabling legislation, purpose, mission, and goals. The
analysis assumed alternatives would be implemented beginning in 2003
and considered a 10-year period, from 2003 to 2013.
The EA evaluates three alternatives concerning the use of PWC at
Cape Lookout National Seashore. The alternatives considered include:
No-Action Alternative: Do not reinstate PWC use within the
national seashore. No special regulation would be promulgated.
Alternative A: Reinstate PWC use as previously managed
under a special regulation.
Alternative B: Reinstate PWC use under a special NPS
regulation with additional management prescriptions.
Based on the analysis prepared for PWC use at Cape Lookout National
Seashore, alternative B is considered the environmentally preferred
alternative because it would best fulfill park responsibilities as
trustee of sensitive habitat; ensure safe, healthful, productive, and
aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; and attain a wider
range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk
of health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
This document proposes regulations to implement alternative B at
Cape Lookout National Seashore.
The NPS will consider the comments received on this proposal, as
well as the comments received on the EA when making a final
determination. In the final rule, the NPS will implement alternative B
as proposed, or choose a different alternative or combination of
alternatives. Therefore, the public should review and consider the
other alternatives contained in the EA when making comments on this
proposed rule.
The following summarizes the predominant resource protection and
public use issues associated with PWC use at Cape Lookout National
Seashore. Each of these issues is analyzed in the Cape Lookout National
Seashore, 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 generally, and it is assumed that any
impacts caused by these engines also apply to two-stroke engines in
PWC. Two-stroke engines (and PWC) discharge a gas-oil mixture into the
water. Fuel used in PWC engines contains many hydrocarbons, including
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (collectively referred to as
BTEX). Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) also are released from
boat engines, including those in PWC. These compounds are not found
appreciably in the unburned fuel mixture, but rather are products of
combustion. Discharges of all these compounds--BTEX and PAHs--have
potential adverse effects on aquatic life and human health if present
at high enough concentrations. A common gasoline additive, methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) is also released with the unburned portion
of the gasoline. The PWC industry suggests that although some unburned
fuel does enter the water, the fuel's gaseous state allows it to
evaporate readily.
A typical conventional (i.e., carbureted) two-stroke PWC engine
discharges as much as 30% of the unburned fuel mixture into the
exhaust. At common fuel consumption rates, an average two-hour ride on
a PWC may discharge three gallons (11.34 liters) of fuel into the
water. The Bluewater Network states that PWC can discharge between
three and four gallons of fuel over the same time period. However, the
newer four-stroke technology can reduce these emissions to meet current
regulatory standards for both water and air quality. The percentage of
emissions of BTEX and MTBE compounds from four-stroke inboard or
outboard motors is less than those from a two-stroke outboard engine or
an existing two-stroke PWC engine.
Under the proposed regulation, based on alternative B in the EA,
PWC use would be allowed within ten designated access areas, as
identified in the ``Alternatives'' chapter of the EA and in the
proposed rule. Personal watercraft within these access areas would be
restricted to a perpendicular approach to the shoreline at flat-wake
speed. Personal watercraft operation would be prohibited in park waters
outside of the access areas. All state regulatory requirements would
continue to apply. Because of the requirement for a perpendicular
approach to the shoreline at flat-wake speed under this alternative,
each PWC trip was assumed to be of only 5 minutes duration within park
jurisdictional waters at 10% of full-throttle.
The results of the water quality analysis for PWC activity (table
24 of the EA) shows that for all discharged pollutants evaluated, the
ecotoxicological threshold volumes estimated for 2003 and 2013 would be
[[Page 77092]]
well below volumes of water available at the study areas. Threshold
volumes are less than an acre-foot, while water volumes in the park
range from 3,890 to 6,810 acre-feet. Impacts on aquatic organisms would
be expected to be negligible for all pollutants evaluated.
Threshold volumes for human health benchmarks of benzo(a)pyrene and
benzene estimated for 2003 and 2013 are also less than an acre-foot,
which is well below volumes of water available in the study areas.
Impacts on human health would be expected to be negligible for all
pollutants evaluated. Mixing, flushing, and the resulting dilution of
park waters by adjacent waters would further reduce pollutant
concentrations. Tidal currents at Beaufort and Ocracoke inlets reach
speeds of up to 4 knots. Incoming tides more than double the available
water volume. Outgoing tides transport soluble pollutants out of park
waters to the Atlantic Ocean.
Overall, water quality impacts due to PWC emissions of organic
pollutants in both 2003 and 2013 would be negligible.
Cumulative impacts associated with the implementation of
alternative B under the proposed regulation would result from the
cumulative activities taking place around Cape Lookout, including other
motorized watercraft that use nearby waters and point and non-point
sources of urban pollutants. Based on 2003 observations, on a typical
peak use day, motorized watercraft are assumed to be distributed as
follows: 565 at Shackleford Banks, 380 at South Core Banks, and 20 at
North Core Banks. Assuming a 1.6% average annual increase (except for
ferries), non-PWC numbers would increase by 2013 to 640 at Shackleford
Banks, 430 at South Core Banks, and 24 at North Core Banks.
Threshold volumes calculated for all motorized watercraft are shown
in table 25 of the EA. For all discharged pollutants evaluated, the
ecotoxicological threshold volumes estimated for 2003 and 2013 would be
well below volumes of water available in park jurisdictional waters in
the study areas. Threshold volumes would be 37 acre-feet or less, while
park jurisdictional water volumes range from 3,890 to 6,810 acre-feet.
Impacts on aquatic organisms are expected to be negligible for all
pollutants evaluated.
Threshold volumes for risks to human health from benzo(a)pyrene and
benzene would also be well below the jurisdictional volumes in all
areas in 2003 and 2013. Threshold volumes would be 44 acre-feet or
less, while park jurisdictional water volumes range from 3,890 to 6,810
acre-feet. Risks to human health from benzo(a)pyrene and benzene,
largely attributable to non-PWC use, would be expected to be negligible
for all areas in 2003 and 2013.
Under the proposed regulation, water quality impacts from PWC use,
based on ecotoxicological and human health benchmarks, would be
negligible for all pollutants in all areas in both 2003 and 2013.
Cumulative water quality impacts from all motorized watercraft under
the proposed regulation, based on ecotoxicological benchmarks, would be
negligible for all pollutants in all areas in both 2003 and 2013.
Cumulative impacts on human health from all motorized watercraft would
be negligible in 2003 and 2013. In 2013, cumulative water quality
impacts from watercraft are expected to be lower than in 2003 due to
reduced emission rates.
Therefore, implementation of this proposed regulation would not
result in an impairment of water quality.
Air Quality
Personal watercraft emit various compounds that pollute the air. Up
to one third of the fuel delivered to the typical two-stroke carbureted
PWC engine is unburned and discharged; the lubricating oil is used once
and is expelled as part of the exhaust; and the combustion process
results in emissions of air pollutants such as volatile organic
compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter
(PM), and carbon monoxide (CO). Personal watercraft also emit fuel
components such as PAH that are known to cause adverse health effects.
Even though PWC engine exhaust is usually routed below the
waterline, a portion of the exhaust gases go into the air. These air
pollutants may adversely impact park visitor and employee health as
well as sensitive park resources. For example, in the presence of
sunlight, VOC and NOX emissions combine to form ozone
(O3). O3 causes respiratory problems in humans,
including coughs, airway irritation, and chest pain during inhalations.
O3 is also toxic to sensitive species of vegetation. It
causes visible foliar injury, decreases plant growth, and increases
plant susceptibility to insects and disease. CO can affect humans as
well. It interferes with the oxygen carrying capacity of blood,
resulting in lack of oxygen to tissues. NOX and PM emissions
associated with PWC use can degrade visibility. NOX can also
contribute to acid deposition effects on plants, water, and soil.
However, because emission estimates show that NOX from PWC
are minimal (less than 5 tons per year), acid deposition effects
attributable to PWC use are expected to be minimal.
Impacts to human health. Under the proposed regulation, special use
areas would be identified where PWC could access Shackleford Banks,
South Core Banks, and North Core Banks. Personal watercraft access
could only access the beach in these areas and approach only
perpendicular to the beach at flat-wake speeds. Personal watercraft use
and access would be prohibited in all other areas of the national
seashore. Safety and operating restrictions would be dictated by the
North Carolina PWC regulations outlined under alternative A and
additional NPS operating restrictions.
Human-health air quality impacts from the implementation of
alternative B under this proposed regulation would be similar to those
described for alternative A in the EA for 2003 and 2013 and would be
negligible for CO, PM10, HC, and NOX. The human
health risk from PAH would also be negligible in 2003 and 2013. The
additional restrictions would not change the type of PWC in use, nor
increase or decrease the number of PWC forecasted. Assuming that PWC
are primarily used for transportation, the estimated daily duration of
use of an individual PWC would decrease from 10 minutes under
alternative A to 5 minutes under alternative B for both 2003 and 2013.
Therefore, impacts would be negligible and at even lower levels than
under alternative A.
Under the proposed regulation, cumulative impacts to human health
from all boating use in the national seashore would not change from
alternative A. Adverse impacts on human health from air pollutants in
2003 would be negligible for CO, PM10, NOX, and
HC. In 2013, levels would remain negligible for CO, PM10,
NOX, and HC.
Because no reduction in PWC use is expected, the proposed
regulation would result in negligible air quality impacts on human
health from PWC emissions, similar to alternative A. The additional
management prescriptions would slightly reduce PWC emissions as
compared with alternative A. Negligible adverse impacts from PWC
emissions for CO, PM10, HC, and NOX would occur
in 2003 and 2013. The risk from PAH would also be negligible in 2003
and 2013.
Cumulative adverse impacts from PWC and other boating emissions at
the national seashore would be the same as for alternative A. Adverse
impacts on human health from air pollutants in 2003 would be negligible
for CO, PM10, NOX, and HC. In 2013, levels would
remain negligible for CO, PM10, NOX, and HC.
Regional ozone emissions
[[Page 77093]]
would improve due to a reduction in HC emissions.
This proposed regulation would have negligible adverse impacts on
human health air quality conditions, with future reductions in CO and
HC emissions due to improved emission controls. The PWC contribution to
emissions of HC is estimated to be less than 5% of the cumulative
boating emissions in 2003 and 2013. All impacts would be long-term.
Therefore, implementation of this proposed regulation would not
result in an impairment of air quality as it relates to human health.
Impacts to air quality related values. Under the proposed
regulation, the annual number of PWC using the Cape Lookout National
Seashore would be the same as alternative A. Additional management
prescriptions under the proposed regulation, including the adoption of
special use areas, would not affect PWC use numbers and potential
future increases. The predicted emission levels and impacts of
continued PWC use to air quality related values would be similar to
those described for alternative A based on annual emission rates.
Assuming that PWCs are primarily used for transportation, the estimated
daily duration of PWC use of an individual PWC would decrease from 10
minutes under alternative A to 5 minutes under alternative B for both
2003 and 2013. Impacts on air quality related values from PWC in 2003
and 2013 would be negligible.
Cumulative adverse impacts on air quality related values at the
national seashore in both 2003 and 2013 would be the same as described
under alternative A. HC contribution to ozone-related air quality
values would be negligible. In 2013, NOX emissions would
slightly increase but would remain well below 50 tons per year, and
there would be a reduction in HC emissions, resulting in a reduced
contribution to ozone levels relative to 2003. Predicted year 2013
regional SUM06 ozone levels would be in the same range as year 2003;
the impact would remain negligible.
The impacts of the proposed regulation on air quality related
values would be the same as alternative A. Emissions of each pollutant
would be substantially less than 50 tons per year in both 2003 and
2013. Negligible adverse impacts on air quality related values from PWC
would occur in both 2003 and 2013. In both 2003 and 2013, adverse
impacts from cumulative emissions from motorized boats and PWC would be
negligible. This conclusion is based on calculated levels of pollutant
emissions (table 31 of the EA), regional SUM06 values, and the lack of
observed visibility impacts or ozone-related plant injury in the
national seashore.
Therefore, implementation of this proposed regulation would not
result in an impairment of air quality related values.
Soundscapes
The primary soundscape issue relative to PWC use is that other
visitors may perceive the sound made by PWC as an intrusion or
nuisance, thereby disrupting their experiences. This disruption is
generally short-term because PWC are generally used as transportation
to and from the islands. However, if PWC use changed from mostly
transport to more extended recreational riding or if PWC use would
increase and concentrate at popular visitation areas, such as
Shackleford Banks and the lighthouse, related noise would become more
of an issue, particularly during certain times of the day.
Additionally, visitor sensitivity to PWC noise varies from kayakers
(more sensitive) to swimmers at popular beaches (less sensitive).
Under the proposed regulation, PWC would be reinstated at Cape
Lookout in specific locations. Personal watercraft would have access to
areas that had been historically popular with PWC users; restrictions
under this proposed regulation were based on safety reasons or the need
to protect natural resources, particularly marshlands, which PWC avoid.
However, all PWC operating within the special use areas defined under
this proposed regulation would be required to operate at flat-wake
speed within the national seashore's boundaries, which includes all
waters from the mean low water line on the oceanside to 150 feet beyond
the mean low water line. In addition, the area consisting predominantly
of maritime forest along the soundside of Shackleford Banks would be
closed to PWC use for safety reasons due to the high amount of visitor
use in this area. Therefore, visitors using this area of Shackleford
Banks would not experience adverse impacts because of the absence of
PWC noise. Impacts throughout Shackleford Banks would be adverse,
short-term, and minor.
The flat-wake speed restrictions would also lessen adverse impacts
in the waters adjacent to the Cape Lookout lighthouse and the northern
areas of the national seashore. Personal watercraft would be permitted
access at specific locations along Core Sound, which were historically
used by PWC in the past. Because most of the Core Sound consists of
marshlands, PWC use along the South and North Core Banks was low before
the ban, even during summer holiday weekends. For these reasons, noise
impacts in the national seashore's northern reaches would be adverse,
short-term, but negligible.
Combining PWC noise with other noise sources, such as other
motorized vessels, beach activities, and off-road vehicle use, would
increase the overall sound level at the national seashore. However,
limiting PWC to flat-wake speed in all permitted areas of the national
seashore would reduce adverse noise impacts considerably. Increased
visitation expected to the Cape Lookout lighthouse would result in
increased noise from both motorboats and PWC accessing this area.
Therefore, cumulative impacts would be adverse, short-term, and
negligible to minor under this proposed regulation, depending on
location.
Personal watercraft would be permitted in areas historically
preferred by PWC users under this proposed regulation, but only at
flat-wake speed, resulting in adverse, short-term, negligible to minor
impacts, depending on location. Cumulative impacts would be adverse,
short-term, and negligible to minor under this proposed regulation,
depending on location.
Therefore, implementation of this proposed regulation would not
result in an impairment of the national seashore's soundscape.
Shoreline and Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Personal watercraft are able to access areas that other types of
watercraft may not, which may cause direct disturbance to vegetation.
Indirect impact to shoreline vegetation may occur through trampling if
operators disembark and engage in activities on shore. In addition,
wakes created by PWC may affect shorelines through erosion by wave
action.
Personal watercraft are very maneuverable and can operate well in
waters less than a foot deep. Since most PWC rides begin in shallow
water, the process of getting started from a standstill results in a
substantial amount of water being directed towards the bottom at high
velocity, potentially disturbing the sediment and submerged aquatic
vegetation in shallow water areas. Disturbance of submerged aquatic
vegetation beds diminishes their ecological value and productivity,
affecting the entire ecosystem. As PWC are frequently operated in
shallow areas in a repetitive manner, impacts on submerged aquatic
vegetation beds can be severe. Potential direct impacts on submerged
aquatic vegetation beds by
[[Page 77094]]
PWC can occur through collision, uprooting of submerged aquatic
vegetation, and alteration of natural sediments. Potential indirect
impacts of PWC use include adverse effects on the growth and health of
submerged aquatic vegetation beds as a result of increased turbidity,
decreased available sunlight, and deposition of suspended sediment on
plants.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC use would be allowed within 10
designated access areas, as identified in the ``Alternatives'' chapter
of the EA and the proposed rule language. Personal watercraft operation
within these access areas would be restricted to a perpendicular
approach to the shoreline at flat-wake speed. Personal watercraft would
be prohibited in park waters outside of the access areas. All state
regulatory requirements would continue to apply.
These 10 designated access areas were chosen to avoid marshes and
high-congestion beach areas. Indirect impacts from PWC use to shoreline
vegetation would occur but would be limited to the designated access
areas and would therefore be negligible to minor and short-term.
Impacts on shoreline vegetation associated with low salt marsh habitats
would not occur, since PWC use would be restricted in these areas.
As PWC would be prohibited in park waters outside of the access
areas, submerged aquatic vegetation beds in these areas would not be
directly impacted by PWC use. Most of the access areas do not contain
submerged aquatic vegetation beds, so PWC operation in these areas
would have little potential to adversely impact this habitat.
Additionally, the flat-wake speed restriction would minimize the
potential for PWC to damage submerged aquatic vegetation beds through
collision or uprooting and would reduce sediment resuspension and its
detrimental effects. Reinstating PWC use in park waters and restricting
their operation to a flat-wake perpendicular approach to the shoreline
in designated access areas would result in negligible, indirect short-
and long-term impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation beds.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC use would be limited to flat-
wake speed within ten designated access areas, resulting in a
negligible contribution to cumulative impacts on shoreline vegetation
and submerged aquatic vegetation beds. Adverse direct and indirect
cumulative effects associated with future increased use by motorized
watercraft, including PWC, would be minor around landing areas and in
tidal marsh habitats. Non-PWC motorized vessels would be able to
operate throughout park waters, including areas where submerged aquatic
vegetation beds occur. Potential direct impacts on submerged aquatic
vegetation beds by all motorized vessels include propeller scarring,
collision, uprooting, and sediment alteration. Potential indirect
impacts include increased turbidity, decreased available sunlight, and
suspended sediment deposition on submerged aquatic vegetation beds.
However, both PWC and non-PWC trip lengths are short and speeds are
low, which reduces the likelihood of adverse impacts. As PWC are
outnumbered by non-PWC motorized vessels in park waters by more than 10
to 1, and most PWC use would not occur around submerged aquatic
vegetation beds, nearly all impacts on shoreline vegetation and
submerged aquatic vegetation beds would be attributed to non-PWC
vessels.
Impacts on shoreline vegetation and submerged aquatic vegetation
beds from all types of motorized vessels under this proposed regulation
are expected to be minor, direct and indirect, and short- and long-
term.
Reinstating PWC use in park waters and restricting their operation
to a flat-wake perpendicular approach to the shoreline in designated
access areas is expected to have negligible, indirect short-term
impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation beds and negligible to minor
short-term impacts on shoreline vegetation. Non-PWC vessels would still
be able to access submerged aquatic vegetation beds under this
alternative, and would be responsible for nearly all of the cumulative
motorized vessel impacts on submerged aquatic vegetation beds.
Motorized vessels, including PWC, are expected to have minor, direct
and indirect, short- and long-term cumulative impacts on shoreline
vegetation and submerged aquatic vegetation beds.
Therefore, implementation of this proposed rule would not result in
an impairment of shoreline vegetation and submerged aquatic vegetation
beds.
Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat
Some research suggests that PWC use affects wildlife by causing
interruption of normal activities, alarm or flight, avoidance or
degradation of habitat, and effects on reproductive success. This is
thought to be a result of a combination of PWC speed, noise, and
ability to access sensitive areas, especially in shallow-water depths.
Waterfowl and nesting birds are the most vulnerable to PWC. Fleeing
a disturbance created by PWC may force birds to abandon eggs during
crucial embryo development stages, prevent nest defense from predators,
or contribute to stress and associated behavior changes. Potential
impacts on sensitive species, such as loggerhead sea turtles and piping
plover, are documented in the ``Threatened, Endangered, or Special
Concern Species'' section.
Aquatic wildlife react to high levels of underwater noise in
various ways, depending on the species, exposure period, intensities,
and frequencies. Because of the way PWC are used, noise is usually
produced at various intensities, and this continual change in loudness
during normal use makes PWC-generated noise much more disturbing than
the constant sounds of conventional motorboats. The sudden increases in
noise levels can startle aquatic wildlife, triggering flight responses.
In areas of high boating use, the energy cost to aquatic fauna due to
noise-induced stresses could be significant, potentially affecting
their survival.
Intense sounds can inflict pain and damage the sensory cells of the
ears of mammalian species, and there is concern that similar sounds can
impair hearing in aquatic wildlife species. One of the few direct
studies on the impact of sound on fishes conducted under laboratory
conditions found that when fish were subjected to high decibel levels
for four hours, some sensory cells of the ears were damaged. This
damage does not show up until a few days after exposure, and it is a
short-term effect (regeneration did occur after a few days). Fish
exposed to high decibel noise levels may have a short-term disadvantage
in detecting predators and prey, potentially adversely affecting their
survival. In addition, several species of fish in the drum family
produce sounds as part of their mating behavior, so short-term hearing
damage could negatively affect reproduction. Loggerhead turtle nesting
has been shown to be negatively affected by loud noises such as close
overflights by aircraft, but it is unknown at what frequencies and
intensity noise might affect sea turtles or damage their hearing.
Although marine mammals show a diverse behavioral range that can
obscure correlations between a specific behavior and the impact from
noise, experts from around the country have voiced concern that PWC
activity can have negative impacts on marine mammals, disturbing normal
rest, feeding, social interactions, and causing flight. Toothed whales
(including dolphins), produce sounds across a broad range of
frequencies for
[[Page 77095]]
communication as well as echolocation, a process of creating an
acoustic picture of their surroundings for the purpose of hunting and
navigation. Watercraft engine noise can mask sounds that these animals
might otherwise hear and use for critical life functions and can cause
temporary hearing threshold shifts. Bottlenose dolphins exposed to less
than an hour of continuous noise at 96 dB experienced a hearing
threshold shift of 12 to 18 dB, which lasted hours after the noise
terminated. A hearing threshold shift of this degree would
substantially reduce a dolphin's echolocation and communication
abilities. In 1998 C. Perry reviewed numerous scientific studies
documenting increased swimming speed, avoidance, and increased
respiration rates in whales and dolphins as a result of motorized
watercraft noise. Whales have been observed to avoid man-made noise of
115 dB, and at higher frequencies, whales become frantic, their heart
rates increase, and vocalization may cease.
Bottlenose dolphins and manatees may be present in the waters
surrounding Cape Lookout National Seashore in the summer months and
could be affected by PWC-generated noise. Kemp's ridley, loggerhead,
leatherback, and green sea turtles occur in the waters around Cape
Lookout National Seashore, and three of these species have nested on
park beaches. In addition, more than 200 species of fish probably occur
in the waters surrounding Cape Lookout National Seashore. Essential
fish habitat occurs in the vicinity of Cape Lookout for a number of
commercially and recreationally important fish (refer to the ``Aquatic
Wildlife'' section in the ``Affected Environment'' chapter of the EA).
This proposed regulation would establish 10 special use areas to
provide PWC access within the Cape Lookout National Seashore
boundaries. Personal watercraft use would be prohibited in all other
areas of the national seashore.
Implementing flat-wake zones in these areas would limit adverse
impacts on wildlife within the national seashore boundaries. Impacts of
PWC use associated with noise and potential collision impacts with
aquatic wildlife would be minimized within national seashore boundaries
with the reduction of allowable speeds and adverse noise fluctuations.
Negligible, short-term adverse indirect impacts on terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife and habitat are expected under the proposed
regulation, as noise would be reduced with the implementation of the
flat-wake zone.
In areas previously open to PWC use that are not within the 10
special use areas, adverse impacts would be eliminated or reduced as
PWC noise would be eliminated from these areas and would not create a
disturbance to wildlife and wildlife habitats. As PWC would be
prohibited in park waters outside of the access areas, aquatic wildlife
in these areas would not be impacted by PWC use. In the designated
access areas, the PWC flat-wake speed requirement and perpendicular
approach would not generate waves and would minimize sediment
resuspension and damage to seagrass beds. The flat-wake speed limit
would further minimize PWC engine noise and fuel emissions to water.
Aquatic wildlife species inhabiting the shallow waters and seagrass
beds within the access areas would experience negligible impacts from
PWC operation.
Reinstating PWC use in park waters and restricting their operation
to a flat-wake perpendicular approach to the shoreline in designated
access areas is expected to have short-term, negligible, direct and
indirect adverse impacts on aquatic wildlife species and habitats.
Under the proposed regulation, motorized vessels, including PWC,
would have adverse impacts on aquatic wildlife and habitats in park
waters, especially in high-use areas such as Shackleford Banks and
Lookout Bight. Because non-PWC vessels vastly outnumber PWC in park
waters, most cumulative boating impacts on aquatic wildlife would be
caused by non-PWC vessels and would be similar to those described under
alternative A. Restricting PWC to access areas and flat-wake speed
would result in a negligible contribution to cumulative impacts.
Cumulative impacts on dolphins, sea turtles, fish and shellfish, and
their habitats from all motorized vessel use are expected to be short-
term, minor, direct and indirect, and adverse.
Impacts on terrestrial wildlife, specifically birds, from all
motorized vessel use are expected to be short-term, negligible to
minor, direct and indirect, and adverse. Noise levels and the ability
of other motorized watercraft users to access Shackleford Banks and
Lookout Bight are expected to adversely affect terrestrial wildlife and
shorebirds and waterfowl that may utilize the landing area and adjacent
areas by causing alarm or flight responses. Effects are expected to be
negligible to minor because these areas have a generally high level of
visitation, regardless of PWC usage, and species sensitive to a high
level of noise and human activity would probably not regularly use
these areas or immediately adjacent habitats during high use periods.
The proposed regulation would minimize potential adverse impacts of
PWC use in the 10 designated special use areas to negligible to minor,
short-term, adverse impacts. The flat-wake requirements would reduce
the level of PWC disturbance in the restricted areas and in nearby
marshes. Reinstating PWC use in park waters and restricting their
operation to a flat-wake perpendicular approach to the shoreline in
designated access areas is expected to have short-term, negligible to
minor, direct and indirect adverse impacts on terrestrial and aquatic
wildlife species and habitats.
Cumulative impacts associated with an increase in all types of
motorized vessel use are expected to be short-term, negligible to
minor, direct and indirect, and adverse.
Therefore, implementation of this proposed regulation would not
result in an impairment of terrestrial or aquatic wildlife or habitats
in park waters.
Threatened, Endangered, or Special Concern Species
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 NPS 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.
At Cape Lookout National Seashore it has been determined that none
of the alternatives are likely to adversely affect any of the listed
species that are known to occur or may occur within or adjacent to PWC
activity within the boundaries of Cape Lookout National Seashore.
National Park Service Management Policies 2001 state that potential
effects of agency actions will also be considered on state or locally
listed species. The NPS is required to control access to critical
habitat of such species, and to perpetuate the natural distribution and
abundance of these species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.
The species at Cape Lookout National Seashore that have the
potential to be affected by proposed PWC management alternatives
include species that are known to inhabit or are likely to inhabit the
area, plus those that could possibly be found in the area, but would
most likely be transients or migrants.
[[Page 77096]]
Under the proposed regulation, PWC use would be allowed within ten
designated access areas, as identified in the ``Alternatives'' chapter
of the EA and in the proposed rule language. Personal watercraft
operation within these access areas would be restricted to a
perpendicular approach to the shoreline at flat-wake speed. Personal
watercraft operation would be prohibited in park waters outside of the
access areas. All state regulatory requirements would continue to
apply. This proposed regulation may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect, federally listed threatened or endangered terrestrial
species in the Cape Lookout National Seashore. Effects to federally
listed threatened or endangered species associated with PWC use under
the proposed regulation would be similar to those discussed under
alternative A. However, the potential for impacts would be further
minimized due to reduced levels of activity and use. Enforcement of
flat-wake zones in the ten designated special use areas would decrease
potential for near-shore noise associated with the PWC use to adversely
affect protected species such as the piping plover.
As PWC operation would be prohibited in park waters outside of the
access areas, aquatic special concern species in these areas would not
be impacted by PWC use. Manatees and whales are not likely to be
present in park waters during the summer when PWC use is high. Sea
turtles and the Carolina diamondback terrapin are likely to be present
in park waters during the summer. These turtles may be affected but are
not likely to be adversely affected by PWC use under this proposed
regulation, because most park waters would be off-limits to PWC and
because the flat-wake speed restriction would further reduce the
potential for collision, as well as reducing engine noise production
and fuel discharge to water.
Reinstating PWC use in park waters and restricting their operation
to a flat-wake perpendicular approach to the shoreline in designated
access areas may affect but is not likely to adversely affect aquatic
special concern species.
The majority of piping plover nests are located on North Core
Banks, which accounted for 10 out of 14 nesting pairs in 2003. The
majority of PWC activity occurs at Shackelford Banks and the lighthouse
area at South Core Banks. Sea beach amaranth, piping plover nesting,
and gull-billed tern nesting areas are all roped off where present.
These species generally occur in areas of low PWC use, and PWC use may
affect but is not likely to adversely affect these species.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC use would be limited to flat-
wake speed within designated access areas, resulting in a negligible
contribution to cumulative impacts. Non-PWC motorized vessels would be
able to operate throughout park waters. Because manatees are not common
in the area and northern right whales and humpback whales are not
likely to occur in park waters in the summer, PWC and other motorized
watercraft use may affect but are not likely to adversely affect these
species. As previously mentioned, trip lengths for PWC and non-PWC are
short, and due to the park's very shallow waters, operation of these
vessels primarily consists of slow speed operation. Because of these
factors, PWC and non-PWC vessel use may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect sea turtles or Carolina diamondback terrapins. Non-PWC
vessels outnumber PWC in park waters by more than 10 to 1, so any
motorized vessel impacts on special concern species would be
predominantly attributed to non-PWC vessels.
Due to the location of sensitive species and the areas of high PWC
use and other motorized watercraft being typically separate, PWC use
and other motorized watercraft may affect but are not likely to
adversely affect special concern species.
Reinstating PWC use in park waters and restricting their operation
to a flat-wake perpendicular approach to the shoreline in designated
access areas may affect but are not likely to adversely affect manatees
or whales in park waters, as these species are not present in areas or
during seasons of peak PWC use. Personal watercraft and other motorized
vessel use may affect but is not likely to adversely affect sea turtles
or Carolina diamondback terrapins because of the slow vessel speeds and
short trip lengths.
Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not result in
an impairment of aquatic special concern species in park waters.
Visitor Use and Experience
Some research suggests that PWC use is viewed by some segments of
the public as a nuisance due to their noise, speed, and overall
environmental effects, while others believe that PWC are no different
from other motorcraft and that people have a right to enjoy the sport.
The primary concern involves changes in noise, pitch, and volume due to
the way PWC are operated. Additionally, the sound of any watercraft can
carry for long distances, especially on a calm day.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC would have access to 10 areas
distributed along the entire national seashore. These areas include
those that were historically popular with PWC users, such as the Cape
Lookout lighthouse area and the west end of Shackleford Banks. Fifty-
one miles of the seashore's sound side and 56 miles of the oceanside
would be closed to PWC use. Five of a total of 10 miles (50%) of
soundside sandy beaches would be available to PWC use.
Impacts on PWC Users. Personal watercraft users would experience
beneficial impacts, as they would have access to those areas that were
historically popular with PWC riders. Personal watercraft would be
restricted from the marshlands along the Core Banks, which they avoided
anyway for practical reasons. With the exception of the closed areas
between the two toilet facilities on Shackleford Banks and those in the
lighthouse area of South Core Banks, PWC would have access to many of
the areas frequented by PWC prior to the ban. Therefore, benefits would
be similar to having access to the entire national seashore, with the
exception of the restricted area on Shackleford and near the
lighthouse. Impacts would be beneficial, long-term, and minor since
approximately only 1% of all visitors would be affected.
Impacts on Other Boaters. Personal watercraft would return to
popular areas such as the Cape Lookout lighthouse area and Shackleford
Banks, with the exception of the restricted section. Under this
proposed regulation, PWC users would be required to operate at flat-
wake speed within park waters, providing a beneficial impact to all
boaters, particularly kayakers and canoeists, who would be most
affected by wakes and noise. Canoeists and kayakers paddling the
marshlands along the Core Sound would experience negligible impacts
from reinstated PWC use because PWC would be prohibited in marshland
areas. Although some complaints have been submitted regarding PWC use
in these areas, PWC have primarily avoided marshlands in the past.
Boaters in the national seashore's northern reaches would experience
few, if any, impacts, given the extremely low PWC use in this area in
the past. Paddlers and motor boat operators using the west end of
Shackleford near Beaufort Inlet or the Cape Lookout lighthouse area
would experience the most adverse impacts due to congestion in these
popular areas. Other motorized boat users would also interact with PWC,
and may
[[Page 77097]]
experience adverse impacts for similar reasons. However, motorized boat
users may find PWC use more compatible with their type of recreation.
Depending on location, overall impacts on other boaters would be
adverse, short- and long-term, and negligible to minor due to flat-wake
PWC speed restrictions in park waters.
Impacts on Other Non-PWC Users. As with other boaters, other non-
PWC users would experience benefits from flat-wake speed restrictions
under this proposed regulation. The PWC restricted area along
Shackleford Banks between the two toilet facilities would provide
beneficial impacts on visitors in this area. A stretch of maritime
forest fronts the sound in this restricted area, providing a natural,
pristine wilderness setting that is popular with campers (Wade's Shore
is located near the eastern toilet facility on Shackleford).
Restricting PWC in this area would enhance wilderness values there,
including preservation of the primeval character of the wilderness,
natural conditions (including lack of man-made noise), outstanding
opportunities for solitude, and a primitive recreational experience.
Because most non-fishing visitors come to the national seashore seeking
a remote beach experience, restricted PWC use under this alternative
would provide a beneficial impact to these visitors. In addition, 89%
of respondents during public scoping indicated that they were in favor
of banning PWC from the national seashore. Therefore, a majority of
visitors may perceive PWC use as incompatible with their experience at
Cape Lookout National Seashore and would prefer restricted access, even
though PWC represented only a small percentage of national seashore
visitors.
Restricting PWC within national seashore waters to flat-wake speed
would also be particularly beneficial to swimmers, anglers, and beach
combers, who may be more likely to experience adverse impacts from PWC
use than motorized boat users.
Short-term impacts on all visitors would occur depending on the
duration of exposure to PWC during a given visit. Visitors would also
experience long-term impacts in that PWC use would have restricted
access to the national seashore indefinitely into the future.
Cumulative impacts would be similar to those described under
alternative A in the EA regarding an increase in motorized boaters
accessing the Cape Lookout lighthouse starting in 2005. However, flat-
wake speed restrictions under this alternative would provide a benefit
in areas of increasing congestion. An increase in boaters in Barden
Inlet, combined with restricted, reinstated PWC use, would result in an
adverse impact in this area. Combining restricted PWC use with other
motorized boat use would result in an adverse impact. Even though only
1% of visitors used PWC to access the national seashore in the past,
impact levels would be moderate due to expected increases in
visitation.
Reinstating PWC use with restricted access would result in
beneficial impacts on PWC users, but adverse, short- and long-term
impacts on other boaters (motorized and nonmotorized) ranging from
negligible to moderate depending on location and type of boat use.
Cumulative impacts would be adverse, short- and long-term, and
negligible due to the historically low numbers of PWC at the national
seashore and additional PWC use restrictions.
Visitor Conflict and Safety
Industry representatives report that PWC accidents decreased in
some states in the late 1990s. The National Transportation Safety Board
reported that in 1996 PWC represented 7.5% of state-registered
recreational boats but accounted for 36% of recreational boating
accidents. In the same year PWC operators accounted for more than 41%
of the people injured in boating accidents. Personal watercraft
operators accounted for approximately 85% of the persons injured in
accidents studied in 1997. Only one PWC-related injury has been
reported at Cape Lookout National Seashore, although much of the waters
in the area are outside of park boundaries and many incidents likely
are not reported to any agency at all. The park currently does little
or no water-based enforcement, which would be necessary to better
identify PWC/visitor safety issues. Very few PWC violations have been
documented by national seashore staff.
Personal watercraft speeds, wakes, and operations near other users
can pose hazards and conflicts, especially to canoeists and sea
kayakers. Kayakers and canoeists have complained about PWC, and other
visitors have complained that PWC use conflicts with swimming and other
beach activities.
Under this proposed regulation, PWC would be reinstated in 10
special use areas throughout the national seashore. All visitors would
experience beneficial impacts due to restricting PWC to flat-wake
speeds when operating within national seashore boundaries, which should
reduce conflicts between PWC and other users, particularly swimmers,
anglers, and nonmotorized boaters. In addition, park staff would
support the state boater education program; if such support resulted in
more PWC operators enrolling in the program, all visitors could
experience beneficial impacts as 83% of all PWC operators involved in
accidents in North Carolina in 2003 had no formal PWC education.
PWC Users/Swimmer Conflicts. Personal watercraft would have access
to two special use areas on the soundside of Shackleford Banks, with a
non-use area in between where the maritime forest fronts the shoreline.
This non-use area was chosen based on congestion and safety issues at
the island, where swimming and beach activities (including overnight
camping) are common. Therefore, by restricting PWC use in this popular
area, impacts on swimmers would be reduced compared to reinstating PWC
throughout the entire island, and impacts would be negligible to minor
and of short duration in this area.
PWC Users/Other Boater Conflicts. Other motorized watercraft
frequent the same areas, including the soundside of Shackleford Banks
and the areas near the Cape Lookout lighthouse. Under this proposed
regulation, PWC would have access to the same areas that are popular
with boaters. The lighthouse area has been popular with PWC users in
the past and continues to be a strong attraction for all national
seashore visitors. Personal watercraft would be permitted to operate in
three use areas in the Cape Lookout Bight area, being most restricted
in the boat docking areas and beach near the lighthouse and the marshes
near Catfish Point. A landing zone 300 feet north of the NPS ferry dock
should help distribute PWC users accessing this area. Such
restrictions, along with flat-wake speed requirements, should help
alleviate potential conflicts with other boaters in this popular area
and keep adverse impacts at minor levels.
Personal watercraft would not be permitted to use marshlands along
the North and South Core Banks, where kayakers have complained about
PWC use in marshes from Cape Lookout north to New Drum Inlet. Conflicts
and potential for accidents would be minimal farther north, where PWC
use has historically been extremely low.
PWC Users/Other Visitor Conflicts. Personal watercraft users would
continue to conflict with other national seashore users, such as
anglers and other beach recreationists. However, anglers fishing near
the maritime forest on Shackleford Banks would benefit from PWC
prohibition in this area. No accidents or injuries between PWC and non-
PWC users have been reported to national seashore staff, although some
[[Page 77098]]
could have occurred, particularly outside of the park's jurisdiction,
and not been reported.
Overall, reinstating PWC use in restricted areas would result in
adverse, short- and long-term impacts that would vary from negligible
in low-use areas, to minor in localized, high-use areas where a small
number of visitors would be affected due the low numbers of PWC
accessing the national seashore in restricted use areas, as well as the
flat-wake speed restrictions called for under this proposed regulation.
Cumulative impacts would be similar to those described under
alternative A in the EA, although PWC use would be restricted to
specific areas of the national seashore. When combined with increased
visitation expected throughout the national seashore, particularly at
the Cape Lookout lighthouse area, reinstating PWC would increase
potential for conflicts and accidents, particularly in localized areas.
However, the restrictions on Shackleford and the Cape Lookout area
would help alleviate such problems. Therefore, cumulative impacts would
be adverse, long-term and vary from negligible to moderate depending on
location.
Reinstating PWC use in restricted areas would result in adverse,
short- and long-term impacts that would vary from negligible in low-use
areas, to minor in localized, high-use areas where a small number of
visitors would be affected due the low numbers of PWC accessing the
national seasho