Gulf Islands National Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use, 26232-26245 [06-4180]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• National Park Service

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 86 (Thursday, May 4, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26232-26245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-4180]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

36 CFR Part 7

RIN 1024-AD21


Gulf Islands National Seashore, Personal Watercraft Use

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule designates areas where personal watercraft 
(PWC) may be used in Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida and 
Mississippi. This final rule implements the provisions of the National 
Park Service (NPS) general regulations authorizing parks to allow the 
use of PWC by promulgating a special regulation. Individual parks must 
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: Effective Date: This rule is effective May 4, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Mail inquiries to Superintendent, Gulf Islands National 
Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563. E-mail: 
Jerry--Eubanks@nps.gov, 850-934-2604.

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

Personal Watercraft Regulation

    On March 21, 2000, the National Park Service published a regulation 
(36 CFR 3.24) on the management of personal watercraft (PWC) use within 
all units of the national park system (65 FR 15077). This regulation 
prohibits PWC use in all national park units unless the NPS determines 
that this type of water-based recreational activity is appropriate for 
the specific park unit based on the legislation establishing that park, 
the park's resources and values, other visitor uses of the area, and 
overall management objectives. The regulation banned PWC use in all 
park units effective April 20, 2000, 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 Gulf Islands National Seashore

    Gulf Islands National Seashore is located in the northeastern 
portion of the Gulf of Mexico and includes a widely spaced chain of 
barrier islands extending nearly 160 miles from the eastern end of 
Santa Rosa Island in Florida to Cat Island in Mississippi. Other 
islands in the national seashore include Horn, Petit Bois, and East 
Ship and West Ship islands in Mississippi and a section of Perdido Key 
in Florida. Gulf Islands National Seashore also includes mainland 
tracts at Pensacola Forts and Naval Live Oaks Reservation near 
Pensacola, Florida, and Davis Bayou, adjacent to Ocean Springs, 
Mississippi. The national seashore contains 139,775.46 acres within the 
authorized boundary, excluding Cat Island (only a portion has been 
acquired as of this date). Of this total acreage, 19,445.46 acres are 
fastlands (above water) and 119,730 acres are submerged lands.
    Gulf Islands National Seashore contains snowy-white beaches, 
sparkling blue waters, fertile coastal marshes, and dense maritime 
forests. Visitors can explore 19th century forts, enjoy shaded picnic 
areas, hike on winding nature trails, and camp in comfortable 
campgrounds. In addition, Horn and Petit Bois islands located in 
Mississippi are federally designated wilderness areas. Nature, history, 
and recreational opportunities abound in this national treasure. All 
areas of Gulf Islands National Seashore in the Florida District and the 
Davis Bayou area in the Mississippi District are reachable from 
Interstate 10. The Mississippi District barrier islands are only 
accessible by boat.

Purpose of Gulf Islands National Seashore

    Gulf Islands National Seashore, Florida and Mississippi, was 
authorized by Act of Congress, Public Law 91-660, January 8, 1971, to 
provide for recognition of certain historic values such as coastal 
fortifications and other purposes such as the preservation and 
enjoyment of undeveloped barrier islands and beaches.
    Gulf Islands National Seashore conserves certain outstanding 
natural, cultural and recreational resources along the Northern Gulf 
Coast of Florida and Mississippi. These include several coastal defense 
forts spanning more than two centuries of military activity, historic 
and prehistoric archaeological sites, and pristine examples of intact 
Mississippi coastal barrier islands, salt marshes, bayous, submerged 
grass beds, complex terrestrial communities, emerald green water, and 
white sand beaches.
    Gulf Islands National Seashore was established for the following 
purposes:
     Preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas 
possessing outstanding natural, historic, and recreational values.
     Conserve and manage the wildlife and natural resources.
     Preserve as wilderness any area within the national 
seashore found to be suitable and so designated in accordance with the 
provisions of the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 890).
     Recognize, preserve, and interpret the national historic 
significance of Fort Barrancas Water Battery (Battery San Antonio), 
Fort Barrancas; Advanced Redoubt of Fort Barrancas at Pensacola Naval 
Station; Fort Pickens on Santa Rosa Island, Florida; Fort McRee site, 
Perdido Key, Florida; and Fort Massachusetts on West Ship Island, 
Mississippi, in accordance with the Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 
666). That act states: ``It is a National policy to preserve for public 
use historic sites, buildings, and objects of National significance for 
inspiration and benefits of the people of the United States.''

[[Page 26233]]

Significance of Gulf Islands National Seashore

    Gulf Islands National Seashore is significant for the following 
reasons:
     Nationally significant historical coastal defense forts 
representing a continuum of development.
     Several mostly undisturbed, natural areas in close 
proximity to major population centers.
     Areas of natural significant high quality beaches, dunes, 
and water resources.
     Endangered species occur in several areas.
     Contains regionally important prehistoric archaeological 
sites.
     Provides outstanding controlled areas conducive to the 
successful reintroduction of native threatened and endangered species.
     Provides habitat for early life stages of many coastal and 
marine flora and fauna of commercial and recreational importance.
     Provides a benchmark to compare environmental conditions 
in developed areas of the Gulf Coast.

Authority and Jurisdiction

    Under the National Park Service's Organic Act of 1916 (Organic Act) 
(16 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) Congress granted the NPS broad authority to 
regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks. In 
addition, the Organic Act (16 U.S.C. 3) allows the NPS, through the 
Secretary of the Interior, to ``make and publish such rules and 
regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for the use and 
management of the parks * * *''
    16 U.S.C. 1a-1 states, ``The authorization of activities shall be 
conducted in light of the high public value and integrity of the 
National Park System and shall not be exercised in derogation of the 
values and purposes for which these various areas have been established 
* * *''
    As with the United States Coast Guard, NPS's regulatory authority 
over waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, including 
navigable waters and areas within their ordinary reach, is based upon 
the Property and Commerce Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. In regard 
to the NPS, Congress in 1976 directed the NPS to ``promulgate and 
enforce regulations concerning boating and other activities on or 
relating to waters within areas of the National Park System, including 
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States * * *'' (16 
U.S.C. 1a- 2(h)). In 1996 the NPS published a final rule (61 FR 35136; 
July 5, 1996) amending 36 CFR 1.2(a)(3) to clarify its authority to 
regulate activities within the National Park System boundaries 
occurring on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

PWC Use at Gulf Islands National Seashore

    Personal watercraft use emerged at Gulf Islands National Seashore 
in the 1980s. Although PWC use was a small percentage of total boat use 
within the national seashore, park staff believes that use had 
increased over the five years prior to the closure. If reinstated, PWC 
use at the national seashore is not expected to decrease. In fact, an 
increase in usage would be expected as more residents purchase personal 
watercraft and tourism continues to grow.
    Prior to the closure to personal watercraft in April 2002, personal 
watercraft were recognized as a Class A motorboat and were treated as 
any other such vessel. All regulations that apply to any registered 
vessel operating in waters of Florida and Mississippi that are 
regulated by the NPS applied to personal watercraft.
    Personal watercraft were permitted throughout the national 
seashore, except as follows: no motorized vessels are permitted above 
the mean high tide line on the designated wilderness islands of Horn 
and Petit Bois; the lakes, ponds, lagoons and inlets of East Ship 
Island, West Ship Island, Horn Island, Petit Bois Island, and Cat 
Island (lands under NPS management) are closed to the use of motorized 
vessels; the lagoons of Perdido Key within Big Lagoon are closed to all 
combustion engines; and the areas 200 feet from the remnants of the old 
fishing pier and 200 feet from the new fishing pier at Fort Pickens are 
closed to all boating operations. There are also seasonal closures to 
watercraft to protect nesting shorebirds and other sensitive wildlife 
and relict dunes.
    Perdido Key in Florida and East Ship and West Ship islands in 
Mississippi have the most concentrated boating use within the national 
seashore. Many area residents in both States have boat docks and own 
boats or personal watercraft, and visit the national seashore.
    Florida District. In Florida, the park is situated between the Gulf 
of Mexico and the Pensacola Bay system. Although the Gulf offers almost 
unlimited area for personal watercraft use, most operation occurs 
within the bay. In 2000, personal watercraft comprised 12.5% of all 
registered vessels statewide. In the Florida District of the park, it 
is estimated that personal watercraft comprised 0.5% of recreational 
boating. Personal watercraft traversed along the north shoreline of 
Santa Rosa Island while very few traversed the south, or Gulf, 
shoreline. In general, PWC usage within the Florida District of the 
park was concentrated in the Perdido Key area. During the summer 
months, most areas of PWC use consisted of 6 or 7 personal watercraft 
per month, while on a peak-use day PWC activity in the Perdido Key area 
might have comprised 25 personal watercraft. The reason for the higher 
use in the Perdido Key area is the sheltered nature of the area and the 
proximity to residences with launching facilities.
    Mississippi District. The Mississippi portion of the park separates 
the Gulf of Mexico from the Mississippi Sound. Personal watercraft 
account for 6% of the registered boats in Mississippi, and it is 
estimated that they comprised approximately 4% of recreational boating 
in the Mississippi District of the park. The islands are situated 
between 6 to 14 miles from the mainland, weather conditions can change 
quickly, and large ships use the intracoastal waterway shipping 
channels. These factors combined to limit PWC use in the Mississippi 
District as transportation to the islands, and use of Gulfside waters 
was almost nonexistent except immediately adjacent to the islands. 
Observations of PWC use indicate that they were mainly used for 
recreational riding and not for transportation. Most personal 
watercraft used in the Mississippi District of the park were towed by 
larger boats from the Pascagoula/Biloxi/Gulfport, Mississippi, area. 
The primary use season reflects overall visitation patterns, with use 
decreasing during the winter months.
    PWC use areas are similar to general motorboat use areas. Personal 
watercraft were concentrated mostly on the east and west tips of the 
islands, around the West Ship Island Pier, and the entire north side of 
Spoil Island.

NPRM and Environmental Assessment

    On March 17, 2005, the National Park Service published a Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the operation of PWC at Gulf Islands 
National Seashore (70 FR 12988). The proposed rule for PWC use was 
based on alternative B (one of three alternatives considered) in the 
Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared by NPS for Gulf Islands National 
Seashore. The EA was open for public review and comment from April 19, 
2004 to May 18, 2004. Copies of the EA may be downloaded at https://
www.nps.gov/guis/pphtml/documents.html or obtained at park 
headquarters Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Mail inquiries 
should be directed to park headquarters: Gulf Islands National 
Seashore, 1801 Gulf Breeze Parkway, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563.

[[Page 26234]]

    The purpose of the EA was to evaluate a range of alternatives and 
strategies for the management of PWC use at Gulf Islands 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 2002 and considered a 
10-year period, from 2002 to 2012. The EA evaluated three alternatives 
concerning the use of personal watercraft at Gulf Islands:
     The no-action alternative would continue the prohibition 
of PWC use in Gulf Islands National Seashore. No special rule would be 
promulgated.
     Alternative A would reinstate PWC use under a special NPS 
regulation as previously managed.
     Alternative B would reinstate PWC use under a special NPS 
regulation with additional management prescriptions.
    Based on the environmental analysis prepared for PWC use at Gulf 
Islands, and after considering the comments received, as discussed 
below, the NPS considers alternative B the environmentally preferred 
alternative because it best fulfills park responsibilities as trustee 
of this sensitive habitat; ensures safe and healthy, productive, and 
aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; and attains a wider 
range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk 
to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.
    This document contains regulations to implement alternative B at 
Gulf Islands National Seashore.

Summary of Comments

    A proposed rule was published in the Federal Register for public 
comment on March 17, 2005 with the comment period lasting until May 16, 
2005 (70 FR 12988). The National Park Service received 4,516 timely 
written responses regarding the proposed regulation and EA. Of the 
responses, 4,394 were form letters in 3 different formats, and 122 were 
separate letters. Of the 122 separate letters, 98 were from 
individuals, 10 from organizations, 5 from government agencies, 2 from 
Indian Tribes, and 7 from members of State legislatures and the U.S. 
Congress. Within the following discussion, the term ``commenter'' 
refers to an individual, organization, or public agency that responded. 
The term ``comments'' refers to statements made by a commenter.

General Comments

    1. One commenter stated that the environmental assessment (EA) 
failed to use the best data available and picked alternative B without 
adequate scientific justification.
    NPS Response: Where data was lacking, best professional judgment 
prevailed, using assumptions and extrapolations from scientific 
literature, other park units where personal watercraft are used, and 
personal observations of park staff. The NPS believes that the EA is in 
full compliance with the court-ordered settlement and that the Finding 
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) shows that alternative B (reinstate 
PWC use with additional management prescriptions) is the preferred 
alternative and that the decision has been adequately analyzed and 
explained.
    2. Several commenters stated that by allowing damaging PWC use on 
park waters the NPS violates its mandate to fully protect park 
resources.
    NPS Response: No part of the settlement agreement or NPS analysis 
of PWC use has violated or overturned Gulf Islands National Seashore's 
enabling legislation. Both the personal watercraft settlement agreement 
and the authorizing legislation for Gulf Islands were considered when 
developing alternatives for the EA. The objective of the EA, as 
described in the ``Purpose and Need'' chapter, was derived from the 
enabling legislation for Gulf Islands. As further stated in that 
chapter, a special analysis on the management of personal watercraft 
was also provided under each alternative to meet the terms of the 
settlement agreement between Bluewater Network and the National Park 
Service.
    As a result, the alternatives presented in the EA would protect 
resources and values while providing recreational opportunities at Gulf 
Islands. As required by NPS policies, the impacts associated with 
personal watercraft and other recreational uses are evaluated under 
each alternative to determine the potential for impairment to park 
resources. The NPS finds that the preferred alternative (alternative B) 
will not result in impairment of park resources and values for which 
Gulf Islands National Seashore was established.
    3. One commenter stated that PWC usage, even with restrictions, 
will negatively impact the natural experience of Florida National 
Scenic Trail users and compromise the Certification Agreement between 
the Gulf Islands National Seashore, the USDA Forest Service, and the 
Florida Trail Association.
    NPS Response: Under alternative B, the preferred alternative, as 
implemented in this final rule, a flat wake zone will be established 
300 yards from all park shorelines at the low-water mark, with more 
stringent restrictions at West Ship Island Pier and around designated 
wilderness boundaries. This restriction should be sufficient in 
minimizing the disturbance to land-based recreational users, including 
trail users.
    4. One commenter stated that the EA underestimated the PWC 
population in its analysis, and that the National Marine Manufacturers 
Association Web site was incorrectly quoted.
    NPS Response: A check of the NMMA Web site revealed that indeed, 
PWC numbers for the years 2000 and 2001 are higher than quoted in the 
EA (1.24 million for 2000 and 1.29 million for 2001). However, the 
numbers were underestimated by approximately 23 percent for 2001, not 
30 percent as the comment indicates.
    Regardless, these are nationwide PWC numbers that were not used in 
the impacts analysis. The numbers used in the impacts analysis were 
park-specific, based on available visitor data for each district and 
observations by Gulf Islands National Seashore staff.
    5. Several commenters stated that alternative B is in direct 
conflict with Florida law, which expressly prohibits discriminatory 
regulation of PWC.
    NPS Response: The National Park Service has the authority to 
regulate maritime activities within Gulf Islands National Seashore 
boundaries. Although the NPS will seek to work cooperatively with state 
entities on vessel management, the National Park Service does not 
relinquish the authority to regulate activities that occur in NPS 
waters and that impact national seashore resources.
    6. Several commenters stated that the EA fails to meet the 
requirements of NEPA because a reasonable range of alternatives was not 
evaluated. The park should have considered an alternative that better 
protects park wilderness values, water resources, and areas that were 
damaged by Hurricane Ivan.
    NPS Response: The NPS believes a reasonable range of alternatives 
was evaluated, including an alternative that would reinstate PWC use as 
previously managed (alternative A), an alternative that would continue 
the PWC ban (no-action alternative), and the preferred alternative 
(alternative B), which will reinstate PWC use with additional 
management restrictions, such as additional flat wake zones. After

[[Page 26235]]

analyses were done for every applicable impact topic with the best 
available data and input from the public was analyzed, Gulf Islands 
selected alternative B as its preferred alternative. Alternative B will 
allow PWC to use the majority of park waters, while still providing 
resource protection.
    With regard to the wilderness areas, the park considered closing 
specific areas and designated beach access points, but ultimately 
determined that park resources and values would be protected with 
additional flat wake zone areas. PWC operating at a flat wake speed in 
the 0.5 mile flat wake zone around the wilderness areas would create 
the same amount, or perhaps less, noise than other watercraft that are 
also allowed near the wilderness areas.
    With regard to keeping PWC farther away from fragile areas where 
pollutants can collect, within all areas of the park, collection of 
pollutants from PWC should be minimal under the final rule for the 
following reasons: Use is relatively low in all areas of the park; the 
flat wake speed zone areas will reduce the amount of pollutants 
emitted; and the bodies of water within the park are not closed and are 
subject to regular flushing. Hurricane Ivan had not occurred at the 
time the EA was written, but the impacts from PWC operating at flat 
wake speeds would probably not have a large impact on resources damaged 
by hurricanes. Through the Superintendent's Compendium, the park has 
the option of temporarily closing areas to all vessels if necessary to 
protect damaged resources.
    7. Several commenters stated that the proposed restrictions under 
alternative B discriminate against PWC because alternative B regulates 
PWC use at Gulf Islands more restrictively than other motorized vessels 
without any reasonable justification.
    NPS Response: It appears that PWC are being discriminated against 
but the prohibition from traveling above a flat wake speed for PWCs 
within 300 yards of the shoreline essentially equals the playing field 
for all vessels. Shallow, uneven bottom lands within 300 yards of most 
shorelines severely restrict vessels other than PWC from traveling at 
high speeds. These shallow waters in effect create a self-imposed speed 
restriction for all other vessels while PWCs were still able to travel 
at high speeds. Within 300 yards of shore you will find submerged 
aquatic vegetation (seagrass beds) and aquatic fauna. The jet engine 
thrust from a PWC running at high speeds through the shallow waters 
will likely impact these aquatic species. Also PWC traveling above a 
flat wake speed in these shallow near shore waters creates a potential 
for conflict and a safety concern for water sports enthusiast that may 
be restricted to these shallow waters and for fisherman traversing at 
slow speeds or at anchor.
    Though these rules were developed specifically to regulate PWC use, 
the park realizes and appreciates that an appearance of discrimination 
exists between PWC and other vessels and that there may be a need for 
rulemaking to regulate vessels other than PWC in similar ways we are 
managing PWC. The park is committed to working toward rulemaking that 
will correct these differences.
    8. One commenter was concerned that the current EA is being 
politically manipulated in order to reauthorize PWC operation and that 
the EA has made a 180 degree turn from the 2001 determination.
    NPS Response: Due to the increased level of public comment and 
congressional interest, Gulf Islands reanalyzed the issues and impact 
topics described in the 2001 determination in more detail in the EA. 
The results of the in-depth analysis in the EA indicated that impacts 
would range from negligible to moderate for all impact topics, and 
chose alternative B as the preferred alternative.
    9. One commenter stated that the proposed rule should be rejected 
because it unfairly limits PWC use and that the short- and long-term 
impacts of alternatives A and B are essentially identical.
    NPS Response: The enabling legislation that established Gulf 
Islands National Seashore in 1971 states that the park was established 
``In order to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas 
possessing outstanding natural, historic and recreational values. * * 
*'' The preferred alternative meets this legislation and the objectives 
of the national seashore to a large degree, as well as meeting the 
purpose and need for action, and therefore is within the legislative 
and regulatory duties of Gulf Islands National Seashore. NPS agrees 
that PWC use will neither impair nor significantly impact park 
resources. Impacts differ between alternative A and B for soundscapes, 
shoreline and submerged aquatic vegetation, wildlife and wildlife 
habitat, aquatic fauna, visitor use and experience, and visitor 
conflicts and safety. The EA provides sufficient justification for why 
alternative B (Reinstate PWC Use Under a Special Regulation with 
Additional Management Prescriptions) was chosen as the preferred 
alternative. Alternative B provides additional restrictions that are 
necessary for resource protection, and its selection is not arbitrary 
or capricious.
    10. Mississippi Senator William G. Hewes III commented that 
allowing PWC in certain areas where boats are already prevalent is a 
better option than banning them outright.
    NPS Response: Under this final rule, PWC use will be reinstated 
with additional management prescriptions to protect natural and 
cultural resources, to mitigate PWC safety concerns, to provide for 
visitor health and safety, and to enhance overall visitor experience. 
As part of this final rule, flat wake zones will be established in 
various locations within the national seashore.
    11. One commenter suggested the placement of buoys along the 
coastline to delineate the flat wake zones.
    NPS Response: The seashore has over 100 miles of shoreline. 
Placement of buoys throughout the entire park would not be feasible due 
to cost and maintenance, and the buoys would be confusing to most 
operators. The park believes that through education and enforcement, 
such delineation will not be necessary. Where it is shown that 
education or enforcement do not result in compliance, buoys could be 
placed as a temporary measure. The limits of the flat wake zones offer 
an envelope large enough to allow the prudent operator and enforcement 
officer to recognize when gross violation may be occurring.
    12. One commenter is concerned that the prohibition of PWC within 
200 feet of non-motorized vessels and people in the water will 
eliminate PWC use for legitimate and accepted recreational activities, 
such as towing and water sports.
    NPS Response: Towing of waterskiers is allowed so long as the 
activity does not significantly impact natural resources or create 
potentially hazardous situations. The final rule will not preclude 
towing or water sports, but will control PWC speeds in portions of 
Seashore waters. The intent of the 200' prohibition would apply to 
operating near swimmers, divers, fisherman, or non-motorized vessels 
that may be in or on the water, and are not affiliated with the PWC. 
Examples of times when the 200' prohibition would not apply are as 
follows: A passenger, intended passenger or skier associated with the 
PWC who may be skiing, wading or waiting in the water to be picked up 
by the PWC. A water skier may not ski within the flat wake zone.
    13. Several members of the Mississippi legislature and U.S. 
Congress stated that PWC should be allowed within Gulf Islands National

[[Page 26236]]

Seashore and that they should not be discriminated against.
    NPS Response: The EA analyzed a variety of impact topics to 
determine if personal watercraft use was consistent with the park's 
enabling legislation and management goals and objectives. As a result 
of this analysis, it was determined that the management prescriptions 
under alternative B, Reinstate PWC Use with Additional Management 
Prescriptions, would best protect natural and cultural resources, 
mitigate PWC safety concerns, provide for visitor health and safety, 
and enhance overall visitor experience.
    14. One commenter suggested that a 100-yard flat wake zone be 
established for all motorized craft within park waters. Several 
commenters suggested that a 300-yard flat wake zone be established for 
all motorized craft within park waters, as the Final Rule governing PWC 
use in the Lake Mead National Recreation Area reflects. The U.S. Coast 
Guard and the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators 
have recommended a policy that requires uniform application of flat 
wake zones to all motorized vessels.
    NPS Response: As described under the ``Scope of the Analysis'' in 
the ``Purpose and Need'' section of the EA, the focus of the EA is to 
define management alternatives specific to PWC use. The plan analyzed a 
variety of impact topics to determine if personal watercraft use was 
consistent with the park's enabling legislation and management goals 
and objectives. The goal of the EA was not to determine if these 
restrictions should also apply to boats. That analysis must be 
completed as part of a separate EA. Gulf Islands National Seashore will 
consider subsequent rulemaking to address the issue of flat wake zones 
for other watercraft.
    15. One commenter stated that the EA reaches many conclusions 
regarding the impact of PWC upon Gulf Islands National Seashore 
resources and wildlife that are directly contradicted by the 2001 
Determination, specifically regarding visitor conflicts and complaints 
from PWC.
    NPS Response: No documented complaints have been received by the 
public regarding PWC. In addition, no comments were received about PWC 
in the annual visitor surveys over the last four years.

Comments Regarding Water Quality

    16. One commenter stated that there is no requirement that people 
use lower emission engines, so there is no legitimate basis for the 
assumption regarding cumulative impacts. In addition, the amount of 
emissions from PWC compared to cumulative emissions from all motorized 
watercraft is very high, considering the percentage of recreational 
boaters who use PWC is only 0.5.
    NPS Response: Impact estimates for personal watercraft and other 
motorboats have been revised in the errata to more correctly reflect 
impacts to water quality as discussed on pages 107-125 of the EA. Based 
on these revised impact estimates, personal watercraft contribute up to 
29 percent of the total pollutants to water in 2002 and up to 42 
percent of the total pollutants in 2012, depending on the district 
(Florida or Mississippi) and the area within the district. While 
personal watercraft constitute fewer than 1 percent of the motorboats 
in the Florida District and 4 percent in the Mississippi District, they 
typically operate for much longer periods of time than other 
motorboats.
    17. One commenter stated that the analysis represents an outdated 
look at potential emissions from an overstated PWC population of 
conventional two-stroke engines, and underestimated the accelerating 
changeover to four-stroke and newer two-stroke engines. The net effect 
is that the analysis overestimates potential PWC hydrocarbon emissions, 
including benzene and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), to the 
water. In addition, the water quality analysis uses assumptions that 
result in overestimation of potential PWC hydrocarbon emission to the 
water. For example, the analysis states that benzo(a)pyrene 
concentrations in gasoline can be ``up to 2.8 mg/kg.''
    NPS Response: The estimates of personal watercraft use and 
emissions are based on the best information available at the time of 
preparation of the EA and are meant to be conservative (i.e., 
protective of the environment). By using conservative input assumptions 
in estimating impact to water quality, the probability of 
underestimating impacts is minimized.
    The evaporation rate for benzene--half-life of approximately 5 
hours at 25 [deg]C--is based on information presented by the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and Verschuren (see EA). 
Because impacts to water quality were determined to be negligible 
before any discussion or application of this evaporation rate, it was 
not discussed in the impact assessments of the alternatives.
    As stated in Appendix A of the EA, the concentration of 
benzo(a)pyrene can be up to 2.8 mg/kg (or 2.07 mg/L). Because this 
concentration could be found in the gasoline used in Gulf Islands, this 
measure was used to be protective of the environment. It is not an 
unrealistic assumption.
    Annual sales of personal watercraft (200,000 units) are mentioned 
on page 7 of the EA. However, the text directs the reader to Table 1, 
which shows that ownership declined after 1995. The discussion of 
national trends is not germane to the estimate of PWC use in the 
seashore since the numbers of personal watercraft and hours of use are 
based on observations by park staff (see page 109 of the EA).
    In summary, if changes in evaporation rates, concentrations of 
gasoline constituents, sales of personal watercraft, and rates of 
replacement of older personal watercraft were made, as suggested, the 
conclusions of negligible impacts from personal watercraft would not 
change. However, these conclusions would no longer be considered as 
conservative (protective of the environment) and could be challenged by 
other parties.
    18. One commenter questioned the assertion that PWC will be 
responsible for 50 percent of the cumulative boating hours, since PWC 
emissions are declining at a faster rate than the NPS and the USEPA 
presume.
    NPS Response: Risk estimates for personal watercraft and other 
motorboats have been revised to more correctly reflect impacts to water 
quality. Impacts to water quality from PWC use in both districts and in 
both years evaluated (2002 and 2012) are still negligible despite these 
recalculations.
    Emission rates for personal watercraft were taken from data 
presented in NPS, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and Bluewater 
Network (see page 107 of the EA), and the rate of decrease taken from 
data presented by the USEPA in 1996 and 1997. These rates may be higher 
than more recent estimates, but they are conservative and are meant to 
be protective of the environment. Even with these conservative emission 
rates, impacts to water quality from personal watercraft are expected 
to be negligible.
    The percentage of contributions from personal watercraft may appear 
disproportionate to the number of PWC versus other motorboats, but 
personal watercraft are typically operated for longer periods of time 
than other motorboats in both districts of the park.
    Projections of PWC emissions in 2012 indicate that they will 
increase from 2002 due to the increased number of personal watercraft 
(for example, see revised Tables 30 and 32 in the Errata). As seen in 
Table 23 of the EA, the numbers of personal watercraft will increase at 
an annual rate of 9.6 percent,

[[Page 26237]]

or a 250 percent increase over 10 years. In contrast, other motorboats 
are expected to increase at a slower annual rate of 3.7 percent, or a 
144 percent increase over 10 years. Consequently, the proportion of 
emissions from personal watercraft is expected to increase from 2002 to 
2012--personal watercraft would contribute up to 29 percent of the 
total pollutants to water in 2002 and up to 42 percent of the total 
pollutants in 2012, depending on the district (Florida or Mississippi) 
and the area within the district. Personal watercraft would not be 
responsible for a decreasing percentage of emissions as posited in the 
comment.
    19. One commenter stated that studies have shown that two-cycle 
engine emissions did not have a huge effect on the marine environment 
because any fuel that mixes with water swiftly evaporated. The amount 
of unburned fuel that does pass through two-cycle engines is in a 
gaseous state and is superheated by the combustion process.
    NPS Response: Without a citation in the comment, it is difficult to 
examine these assertions. However, the California Air Resources Board 
(CARB 1999) states that a PWC operated for 7 hours emits more smog-
forming emissions than a 1998 passenger car driven 100,000 miles 
(161,000 km). This CARB emission estimate is roughly one-fifth the rate 
in the comment. Other estimates of fuel emission rates range between 
1.5 and 4.5 gallons/hour (National Park Service 1999; Personal 
Watercraft Illustrated In: Bluewater Network 2001). For the purpose of 
estimating impacts to water quality and air quality in the Gulf Islands 
EA, it was assumed that PWC with two-cycle engines discharge fuel at a 
rate of 3 gallons/hour. Regarding evaporation of fuel, in the EA (page 
111), the evaporation rate of benzene (half life of approximately 5 
hours; USEPA 2001) is factored into the water quality impact 
assessment.

Comments Regarding Air Quality

    20. One commenter stated that the analysis does not properly 
account for the rapid engine conversion that is occurring due to the 
phase-in of cleaner running engine technologies.
    NPS Response: A conservative approach was used in the analysis, 
since the number of PWC already converted to four-stroke engines is not 
known. In addition, the USEPA model takes into account the reduction in 
emissions over time. Even with the conservative approach, the analysis 
for alternative B presented in the EA indicates that PWC use at Gulf 
Islands National Seashore would result in negligible impacts to air 
quality.
    21. One commenter stated that continued PWC operation will 
contribute major, not moderate, damage to the area's air quality, and 
that over the next ten years, the NPS estimates that eliminating PWC 
will reduce carbon monoxide (CO) emissions by more than 50 tons.
    NPS Response: The definition of major air quality impact on page 
130 of the EA is:
     Emissions levels would be greater than or equal to 250 
tons/year for any pollutant, and
     The first highest 3-year maximum for each pollutant is 
greater than NAAQS [National Ambient Air Quality Standards].
    The annual emissions of CO for personal watercraft and other 
motorized boats in the Florida District (Table 42 of the EA) would be 
563.6 tons in 2002 and 908.5 tons in 2012. The cumulative emissions are 
correctly termed ``moderate'' because, as described on page 133 of the 
EA, ``* * * moderate [adverse impacts] for CO and hydrocarbons (HC) 
based on the quantities of emissions and maximum pollutant levels that 
are less than the NAAQS.'' NAAQS (concentrations) are defined as 9 
parts per million (ppm) over 8 hours and 35 ppm over 1 hour. Of the 
cumulative emissions, personal watercraft would contribute only 9.0 
tons in 2002 and 17.9 tons in 2012 (Table 40 of the EA). These PWC 
emissions are considerably lower than 50 tons/year and are, therefore, 
negligible. The comment is correct in that eliminating personal 
watercraft would improve air quality at the seashore (Florida and 
Mississippi districts) by reducing CO emissions by an estimated 56.5 
tons/year. However, impacts would be moderate.
    22. One commenter expressed concern that PWC emissions were 
declining faster than forecasted by the USEPA. As the Sierra Report 
documents, in 2002, hydrocarbons (HC) plus nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) emissions from the existing fleet of PWC were already 
23% lower than they were before the USEPA regulations became effective, 
and will achieve reductions greater than 80% by 2012.
    NPS Response: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) 
data incorporated into the 1996 Spark Ignition Marine Engine rule were 
used as the basis for the assessment of air quality, and not the Sierra 
Research data. It is agreed that the Sierra Research data show a 
greater rate of emissions reductions than the assumptions in the 1996 
Rule and in the USEPA's NONROAD Model, which was used to estimate 
emissions. However, the level of detail included in the Sierra Research 
report was not carried into the EA for reasons of consistency and 
conformance with the model predictions. Most states use the USEPA's 
NONROAD Model for estimating emissions from a broad array of mobile 
sources. To provide consistency with state programs and with the 
methods of analysis used for other similar NPS assessments, the NPS has 
elected not to base its analysis on focused research such as the Sierra 
Report for assessing PWC impacts.
    It is agreed that the Sierra Research report provides data on 
``worst case'' scenarios. However worst case or short-term scenarios 
were not analyzed for air quality impacts in this or other NPS PWC EAs.
    It is also agreed that the relative quantity of HC plus 
NOX are a very small proportion of the county-based 
emissions, and that this proportion will continue to be reduced over 
time. The EA takes this into consideration in the analysis.
    California Air Resources Board (CARB) certified PWCs may be used; 
however, the degree of certainty of overall use of this engine type 
nationwide is not well established. For consistency and conformity in 
approach, the NPS has elected to rely on the assumptions in the 1996 
S.I. Engine Rule, which are consistent with the widely used NONROAD 
emissions estimation model. The outcome is that estimated emissions 
from combusted fuel may be in the conservative range, if compared to 
actual emissions.
    23. One commenter stated that improved engine technology would 
actually cause an increase in NOX emissions, a precursor for 
ground level ozone. Ozone has been a problem for Pensacola in the past, 
although it is in attainment at this time.
    NPS Response: The comment is correct in its assertion that 
``improved engines'' would result in an increase in NOX 
emissions. According to data presented in CARB (2001), the carbureted 
two-stroke engines in personal watercraft and outboard motors had lower 
NOX emissions (12-20 grams/test) than either the two-stroke 
direct injection engines (102-128 grams/test) or the four-stroke 
engines (230-4226 grams/test). The impact thresholds described on page 
130 of the EA, including ``impairment,'' are based on measurable 
parameters, whereas a standard of degradation, as suggested, could not 
be pragmatically applied in the impact analyses.

[[Page 26238]]

    24. One commenter stated that the Lake Mead National Recreation 
Area's proposed PWC rule stated that PAH concentrations derived from 
modeling conducted by Sierra Research were orders of magnitude below 
the permissible exposure limits established by the Occupational Safety 
and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for 
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A proper PAH analysis refutes 
claims by PWC opponents that PAH emissions from PWC operating in the 
Gulf Islands National Seashore will endanger human health.
    NPS Response: The criteria for analysis of impacts from PWC to 
human health are based on the NAAQSs for criteria pollutants, as 
established by the USEPA under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and on criteria 
pollutant annual emission levels. This methodology was selected to 
assess air quality impacts for all NPS PWC EAs to promote regional and 
national consistency, and identify areas of potential ambient standard 
exceedances. PAHs are not assessed specifically as they are not a 
criteria pollutant. However, they are indirectly included as a subset 
of total hydrocarbons (THC), which are assessed because they are the 
focus of the USEPA's emissions standards directed at manufacturers of 
spark ignition marine gasoline engines (see October 4, 1996; 61 FR 
52088). Neither peak exposure levels nor NIOSH nor OSHA standards are 
included as criteria for analyzing air quality related impacts except 
where short-term exposure is included in a NAAQS. The NPS agrees with 
the technical statement and summation that adverse health risk to the 
public would be unlikely from exposure.
    As stated above, the methodology for assessing air quality impacts 
was based on a combination of annual emission levels and the NAAQSs, 
which are aimed at protection of the public. OSHA and NIOSH standards 
are intended primarily for workers and others exposed to airborne 
chemicals for specific time periods. The OSHA and NIOSH standards are 
not as suitable for application in the context of local and regional 
analysis of a park or recreational area as are the ambient standards, 
nor are they intended to protect the general public from exposure to 
pollutants in ambient air.
    The ``Kado Study'' (Kado et al. 2000) presented the outboard engine 
air quality portion of a larger study described in Outboard Engine and 
Personal Watercraft Emissions to Air and Water: A Laboratory Study 
(CARB 2001). In the CARB report, results from both outboards and 
personal watercraft (two-stroke and four-stroke) were reported. The 
general pattern of emissions to air and water shown in CARB (2001) was 
two-stroke carbureted outboards and personal watercraft having the 
highest emissions, and four-stroke outboard and personal watercraft 
having the lowest emissions. The only substantive exception to this 
pattern was in NOX emissions to air--two-stroke carbureted 
outboards and personal watercraft had the lowest NOX 
emissions, while the four-stroke outboard had the highest emissions. 
Therefore, the pattern of emissions for outboards is generally 
applicable to personal watercraft and applicable to outboards directly 
under the cumulative impacts evaluations.

Comments Regarding Soundscapes

    25. One commenter stated that continued PWC use in the Gulf Islands 
National Seashore will not result in sound emissions that exceed the 
applicable Federal or State noise abatement standards, and 
technological innovations by the PWC companies will continue to result 
in substantial sound reductions.
    NPS Response: The NPS concurs that on-going and future improvements 
in engine technology and design will likely further reduce the noise 
emitted from PWC. However, based on location and time, ambient noise 
levels at the national seashore can range from negligible to moderate, 
and improved technology resulting in a reduction of noise emitted from 
PWC would not significantly change impact thresholds.
    26. One commenter cited noise testing conducted at Glen Canyon 
National Recreation Area (NRA) that indicated the maximum noise levels 
for PWC were actually lower than the maximum noise levels for other 
motorized vessels. In particular, the levels for PWC at 25 meters (82 
feet) were approximately 68 to 76 A-weighted decibels, whereas the 
levels for other motorized vessels at 82 feet were approximately 64 to 
86 A-weighted decibels.
    NPS Response: The 2001 noise study at Glen Canyon National 
Recreation Area is discussed on pages 143 and 144 of the EA, and the 
correct numbers are cited. Specific noise studies were conducted in 
three areas of the park as part of this assessment. The noise of two or 
more PWC operating at the same time (when one unit produces 76 dB), and 
at a distance of 25 meters from the source, was shown to be 79 dB. 
Ambient sound levels at Gulf Islands National Seashore vary due to the 
wide range of land cover types and visitor and other activities within 
and near the national seashore. In addition to intensity, other aspects 
of PWC noise were assessed, including changes in pitch. In most 
locations, except in high use areas, natural sounds would prevail and 
motorized noise would be very infrequent or absent.
    27. One commenter stated that the EA does not include any noise 
complaint data, and relies on anecdotal accounts. Gulf Islands is one 
of the most heavily used parks in the National Park System and the 
park's soundscapes are already impacted by a variety of ``human-caused 
sounds.'' The park experiences high ambient noise levels because of its 
proximity to a major airport, numerous military bases, and high-traffic 
commercial waterways. Furthermore, the 15dBA increase is meaningless 
because it lacks context. Any reference to decibel increases must 
indicate the distance from which the sound was measured and the method 
by which the measurement was taken.
    NPS Response: The EA states that the level of sound impact 
associated with PWC use varies based on location, time of day, and 
season. The EA also states that sound impacts associated with PWC use 
would be most prevalent in quieter areas, such as coves, river 
corridors, and backwater areas. Sound impacts associated with PWC use 
in areas where ambient sound levels are high or where nearshore 
operation is restricted would be expected to be negligible, while the 
higher levels of impact (minor to moderate) would be expected to occur 
in areas where, or during times when, ambient noise levels are lower.
    The reference to the 15dBA noise level increase associated with PWC 
leaving the water was taken from a study conducted by Komanoff and Shaw 
(2000) and is referenced in the EA.
    The scope of the EA did not include the conduct of site-specific 
studies or sound testing studies for PWC use at the Gulf Islands 
National Seashore. Analysis of potential impacts of PWC use relating to 
sound was based on best available data, input from park staff, and the 
results of analysis using that data.
    28. One commenter stated that there is no evidence that PWC noise 
adversely affects aquatic fauna or animals. PWC typically exhaust above 
the water or at the air/water transition area; therefore, most PWC 
sound is transmitted through the air and not the water.
    NPS Response: Typically PWC exhaust below or at the air/water 
transition areas, not above the water. Sound transmitted through the 
water is not expected to have more than negligible adverse impacts on 
fish (page 111 of the EA), and the EA does not

[[Page 26239]]

state that PWC noise adversely affects underwater fauna.
    29. One commenter suggested that PWC engine noise could adversely 
affect the experience of hikers and other recreational users along the 
Florida National Scenic Trail, which follows the Gulf of Mexico surf-
line nearly the entire length of Gulf Islands National Seashore. 
Section 7c of the National Trails System Act states ``the use of 
motorized vehicles by the general public along any national scenic 
trail shall be prohibited.'' Allowing PWC use along the Gulf of Mexico 
surf line where the trail is located appears to violate the spirit of 
the National Trails System Act and the National Park Service's 
certification agreement with the Florida Trail Association and the USDA 
Forest Service.
    NPS Response: Under this final rule, a flat wake zone will be 
established 300 yards from all park shorelines at the low-water mark, 
with more stringent restrictions at West Ship Island Pier and around 
designated wilderness boundaries. This restriction should be sufficient 
to minimize the disturbance to land-based recreational users from 
noise, including trail users.

Comments Regarding Shoreline/Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

    30. One commenter stated that natural forces, such as waves and 
wind, have a greater impact on vegetation than PWC use.
    NPS Response: The EA was not conducted to determine if personal 
watercraft caused more environmental damage to park resources than 
other boats, other shoreline uses, or natural forces, but rather to 
determine if PWC use has an impact on the resources. Access of PWC into 
emergent marsh habitats, beaching PWC on vegetated shorelines for 
access, and nearshore operation of PWC has potential to result in 
damage to vegetation.
    31. One commenter is concerned that if PWC were allowed 
unrestricted access, they could cause severe damage to seagrasses, 
which take years to recover.
    NPS Response: The EA found that access of PWC into emergent marsh 
habitats, beaching of PWC on vegetated shorelines for access, and 
nearshore operation of PWC has potential to result in damage to 
vegetation. Specifically, under alternative A the EA found that 
reinstating PWC use within the national seashore would have adverse 
impacts to seagrass habitats in both the Florida and Mississippi 
districts that would be direct and indirect, minor to moderate, and 
short- and long-term, because shallow water habitats in the park are 
the preferred areas for PWC use, particularly in the Perdido Key and 
Mississippi Sound areas. However, alternative B found that PWC use 
would have impacts to seagrass habitats that are direct and indirect, 
minor, and short- and long-term. The flat wake zoning will restrict PWC 
impacts to about one-half of the potential seagrass habitat in the 
Florida District and one-quarter of the potential seagrass habitat in 
the Mississippi District. Therefore, alternative B, as implemented in 
this final rule, will have fewer adverse impacts to submerged aquatic 
vegetation than alternative A.

Comments Regarding Wildlife and Threatened and Endangered Species

    32. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurs with the 
determination of ``not likely to adversely affect'' any of the 
threatened or endangered species found within the national seashore.
    NPS Response: Comment noted.
    33. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) stated that PWC 
can enter and maneuver in shallow water areas at high speeds that can 
result in erosion of shorelines supporting emergent marshes and a 
disturbance to benthic habitats including submerged aquatic vegetation 
(SAV) and shallow water zones utilized by a wide diversity of fish, 
invertebrates, and aquatic mammals. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for 
various species has been designated within the park.
    NMFS further stated that in addition to being EFH for various 
species, the project area provides nursery, foraging, and refuge 
habitat for other commercially and recreationally important fish and 
shellfish. Although alternative B, if strictly enforced, would provide 
significant habitat protection, the NMFS is concerned about the need to 
protect SAV habitat from PWC outside of the flat wake zones as well. 
Adequately educating the public about these flat wake zones, marking 
them appropriately, enforcing the conditions/restrictions, and 
monitoring the protective measure will be difficult and require an 
extensive effort by Gulf Islands National Seashore. Details addressing 
these issues should be included in the EA. Because no entry zones are 
easier to manage and enforce, this management tool should be given 
greater consideration, especially for areas of particular concern.
    NPS Response: Gulf Islands National Seashore has created a 
subaquatic vegetation management plan, which outlines how the park 
proposes to manage PWC use with regard to the four components in the 
1995 Florida Marine Research Institute seagrass scarring report. The 
four-point approach to management options includes education, channel 
marking, enforcement, and limited-monitoring zones, which will reduce 
impacts from PWC to EFH and associated species within the park.
    The education component includes enhancing PWC user and boater 
education through interpretive talks, onsite bulletins, pamphlets, and 
brochures made available to PWC operators at marinas and boater 
registration locations, as well as to visitors who rent PWC. The park 
will also explore the feasibility of installing informational signs at 
marinas and boat launching sites to alert PWC operators to applicable 
flat wake zones. All media will clearly delineate and emphasize open 
and flat wake zones. Park staff will also attend boat shows within the 
greater Pensacola-Gulf Breeze, Florida, area to distribute boater 
education materials to interested PWC operators.
    Gulf Islands National Seashore does not intend to install any new 
channel markers or aids to navigation within park waters. Park managers 
determined that channel markers would impose substantial visual 
intrusions to the view shed surrounding the islands and shorelines. It 
would also be cost prohibitive to acquire and maintain the number of 
signs necessary to delineate the 108 miles of coastal marine areas 
within the park. If monitoring results indicate a large increase in the 
number of scars occurring due to PWC use, the park will implement more 
restrictive closures through signage or other measures.
    Park-commissioned law enforcement rangers will increase their water 
based patrols and vigilance in proximity to all flat wake zones. The 
rangers have full delegated authority to enforce all applicable laws 
within the jurisdictional boundaries of the park, including issuing 
verbal and written warnings and penalty citations at their discretion. 
NPS also has the wherewithal through the Park System Resource 
Protection Recovery Act to pursue legal recourse and secure damage 
recovery funds from violators who may cause significant resource 
injuries requiring restoration.
    Regarding limited-monitoring zones, park resource managers will 
compare aerial photography taken before and after the implementation of 
special regulations permitting PWC use to quantify seagrass injuries 
and associated scarring. Biologists will also establish random 
underwater sample plots within all park seagrass beds in the PWC flat 
wake zones to determine if there is any increase in scarring attributed 
to PWC

[[Page 26240]]

use and to characterize observed injuries to seagrass beds. If resource 
managers observe a proportional increase to the amount of seagrass 
scarring after PWC is permitted, these areas will be identified for 
subsequent increased enforcement and/or closure. Surveys will also be 
conducted on an annual basis to determine the familiarity and 
understanding of PWC operators' knowledge of PWC restrictions.
    34. One commenter stated that the analysis lacked site-specific 
data for impacts to wildlife, fish, and threatened and endangered 
species at Gulf Islands.
    NPS Response: The scope of the EA did not include the conduct of 
site-specific studies regarding potential effects of PWC use on 
wildlife species at Gulf Islands National Seashore. Analysis of 
potential impacts of PWC use on wildlife at the national seashore was 
based on best available data, input from park staff, and the results of 
analysis using that data. A list of federal and state protected species 
is provided in Table 10 of the EA.
    35. One commenter stated that PWC use and human activities 
associated with their use may not be any more disturbing to wildlife 
species than any other type of motorized or non-motorized watercraft. 
The commenter cites research by Dr. Rodgers, of the Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Conservation Commission, whose studies have shown that PWC are 
no more likely to disturb wildlife than any other form of human 
interaction. PWC posed less of a disturbance than other vessel types. 
Dr. Rodgers' research clearly shows that there is no reason to 
differentiate PWC from motorized boating based on claims on wildlife 
disturbance.
    NPS Response: We agree that some research indicates that personal 
watercraft are no more apt to disturb wildlife than are small outboard 
motorboats; however, disturbance from both PWC and outboard motorboats 
does occur. Dr. Rodgers recommends that buffer zones be established for 
all watercraft, creating minimum distances between boats (personal 
watercraft and outboard motorboats) and nesting and foraging 
waterbirds. Several shoreline restrictions related to wildlife and 
wildlife habitat are included under the final rule as an added 
precaution. Impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat under all the 
alternatives were judged to be negligible to moderate from all visitor 
activities.
    In addition, the EA was not conducted to determine if personal 
watercraft caused more environmental damage to park resources than 
other boats, but rather to determine if personal watercraft use was 
consistent with the national seashore's enabling legislation and 
management goals and objectives. The alternatives identified and the 
determination of their consequences were based upon the best 
information available.
    36. One commenter pointed out discrepancies for wildlife impacts 
between the EA and the 2001 Determination. Specifically, the EA states 
that nearshore flat wake zones will minimize wildlife impacts, even 
though no new surveys have been conducted to support this conclusion.
    NPS Response: The EA does not imply that all potential impacts 
associated with nearshore use of PWC would be minimized as a result of 
implementing a flat wake zone. Implementation of a flat wake zone would 
reduce potential impacts associated with high speed use in nearshore 
areas as compared to use without the speed restriction. The scope of 
the EA did not include the conduct of surveys to determine potential 
effects of the current PWC ban on wildlife use or the effects of PWC 
use on visitor experience at Gulf Islands National Seashore. Analysis 
of potential impacts of PWC use or the ban of their use at the national 
seashore was based on best available data, input from park staff, and 
the results of analysis using that data.
    37. One commenter stated that the EA did not adequately investigate 
the impact of PWC use on marine mammals or the impact of the PWC ban on 
biological migration patterns.
    NPS Response: The scope of the EA did not include the conduct of 
surveys to determine potential effects of the current PWC ban on 
biological use patterns or marine mammals in Gulf Islands National 
Seashore. Analysis of potential impacts of PWC use on wildlife at the 
national seashore was based on best available data, input from park 
staff, and the results of analysis using that data.
    38. One commenter reminded NPS that consultation with the USFWS and 
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) must be completed before any 
regulations are finalized. Consultation with the NMFS is required under 
section 305 of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. In addition, either ``small 
take permits'' or a waiver is required under the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act.
    NPS Response: NPS consulted with the Fish and Wildlife Service and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service as required under section 7 of 
the Endangered Species Act. Concurrence with the EA's determinations 
was received from the Fish and Wildlife Service on May 10, 2005, and 
from the National Marine Fisheries Service on November 4, 2005. NPS 
consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service Habitat 
Conservation Division as required under section 305 of the Magnuson-
Stevens Act. Gulf Islands National Seashore developed a subaquatic 
vegetation management plan, which outlines how the park proposes to 
manage PWC use with regard to the four components in the 1995 Florida 
Marine Research Institute seagrass scarring report. This plan is 
described further above. NPS also consulted with the National Marine 
Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources regarding the Marine 
Mammal Protect Act. In a letter dated November 15, 2005, NMFS stated 
that an authorization for incidental taking under section 101(a)(5) of 
the Marine Mammal Protect Act is not necessary.

Comments Related to Visitor Experience and Satisfaction

    39. One commenter stated that demographic and usage information 
demonstrates that today's PWC owner typically uses PWC for family-
oriented outings, and that they are not reckless ``stunt'' operators.
    NPS Response: NPS agrees that some PWC operators are more mature 
and are not reckless with their machines, and that many trips are 
family-oriented. However, PWC use does vary, and some operators still 
use the machines for ``thrill,'' including stunts, wake jumping, and 
other more risky exercises. Some users can still create disturbanc