Table Of Content

Wftzp ¥J&50\S£Ot> -VvciA V-h&D NationalParkService U.S.Departmentofthe Interior LakeRooseveltNational RecreationArea Washington LAKE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL RECREATION AREA Personal Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment NATIONAL PARK SERVICE WATER RESOURCES DIVISION FORTCOLLINS, COLORADO RESOURCE ROOM PROPERTY Gft^W^ -pATZA^- \>4fr Printed on recycled paper NationalParkService U.S.Departmentofthe Interior LakeRooseveltNational RecreationArea Washington LAKE ROOSEVELT NATIONAL RECREATION AREA Personal Watercraft Use Environmental Assessment April2003 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/personalwatercra03nati SUMMARY Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area was established in 1946 following the Secretary ofthe Interior's approval ofa Tri-Party Agreement among the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Reclamation, and the Bureau ofIndian Affairs. The park is dedicated to conserving the natural and cultural resources and recreational and scenic values ofLake Roosevelt forthe enjoyment, education, and inspiration ofthe more than one million visitors that visit the recreation area annually. The purpose ofand the need for taking action is to evaluate a range ofalternatives and strategies for managing personal watercraft (PWC) use at Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area to ensure the protection ofpark resources and values while offering recreational opportunities as provided for in the national recreation area's authorizing memorandum ofagreement, purpose, mission, and goals. Upon completion ofthis process, in accordance with the NationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct (NEPA), the National Park Service may either take action to adopt special regulations to manage PWC use, or it may PWC not reinstate use at this park unit. BACKGROUND More than one million personal watercraft are estimated to be in operation today in the United States. Sometimes referred to as "jet skis" or "wet bikes," these vessels use an inboard, internal combustion engine powering a waterjet pump as its primary source ofpropulsion. They are used for enjoyment, particularly for touring and maneuvers such as wavejumping, and they are capable ofspeeds in the 60 mile-per-hour (mph) range. Personal watercraft were once the fastest growing segment ofthe boating PWC industry and represented over one-third oftotal sales. National ownership increased every year between 1991 and 1998; the rate ofannual increase peaked in 1994 at 32% and dropped slightly in 1999, 2000, and 2001. While PWC use remains a relatively new recreational activity, it has occurred in 32 of the 87 national park system units that allow motorized watercraft. After studies in Everglades National Park showed that PWC use resulted in damage to vegetation, adversely impacted shorebirds, and disturbed the life cycles ofother wildlife, the NPS prohibited PWC use by a special regulation at the park in 1994. In recognition ofits duties under its OrganicAct and NPS ManagementPolicies, as well as increased awareness and public controversy about PWC use, the NPS PWC subsequently reevaluated its methods of regulation. Historically, the National Park Service had grouped personal watercraft with all vessels; thus, PWC use was allowed when the unit's superintendent's compendium allowed the use ofother vessels. Later, the National Park Service closed seven units to PWC use through the implementation ofhorsepower restrictions, general management plan revisions, and park- specific regulations such as those promulgated by Everglades National Park. In May 1998, the BluewaterNetwork filed a petition urging the National Park Service to initiate a PWC rulemaking process to prohibit use throughout the national park system. In response to the petition, the National Park Service issued an interim management policy requiring superintendents ofparks where PWC use can occur but had not yet occurred to close the unit to such use until the rule was finalized. The National Park Service envisioned the servicewide regulation as an opportunity to evaluate impacts from PWC use before authorizing the use. On March 21, 2000, the National Park Service issued a regulation PWC prohibiting use in most units and required 21 units to determine the appropriateness ofcontinued PWC use. In response to the PWC final regulation, BluewaterNetwork sued the National Park Service, challenging the NPS decision to allow continued PWC use in 21 units while prohibiting PWC use in other units. In response to the suit, the National Park Service and the environmental group negotiated a settlement. Each in Summary PWC park desiring to continue long-term use must promulgate a park-specific special regulation in 2002. In addition, the settlement stipulates that the National Park Service must base its decision to issue a park- PWC specific special regulation to continue use through an environmental analysis conducted in accordance with NEPA. The NEPA analysis at a minimum, according to the settlement, must evaluate PWC impacts on water quality, air quality, soundscapes, wildlife, wildlife habitat, shoreline vegetation, visitor conflicts, and visitor safety. As the settlement deadline approached and the park units were preparing to prohibit PWC use, the PWC National Park Service, Congress, and user groups sought legal methods to keep the parks open to this activity. However, no method was successful. On November 6, 2002, Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area was closed to PWC use. If, as a result ofthis environmental assessment, an alternative is PWC selected that would allow use to be reinstated, then a special regulation to authorize that use will be drafted. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED This environmental assessment evaluates three alternatives concerning the use ofpersonal watercraft at Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area. • 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. (The park has identified alternative B as the preferred alternative.) • The no-action alternative would continue the prohibition ofPWC use on NPS-managed waters of Lake Roosevelt. Based on the environmental analysis prepared for PWC use at the recreation area, alternative B is considered the environmentally preferred alternative because it would best fulfill park responsibilities to ensure safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; protect sensitive habitat; and attain a wider range ofbeneficial uses ofthe environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Impacts ofthe three PWC management alternatives were assessed in accordance with Director's Order #12: Conservation Planning, EnvironmentalImpactAnalysis andDecision-Making. The Director's Order #12 Handbook requires that impacts to park resources be analyzed in terms oftheir context, duration, and intensity. It is crucial for the public and decision-makers to understand the implications of those impacts in the short and long term, cumulatively, and within context, based on an understanding and interpretation by resource professionals and specialists. To determine impacts, methodologies were identified to measure the change in park resources that would occur with the implementation ofthe PWC management alternatives. Thresholds were established for each impact topic to help understand the severity and magnitude ofchanges in resource conditions, both adverse and beneficial. Each PWC management alternative was compared to a baseline to determine the context, duration, and PWC intensity ofresource impacts. The baseline, for purposes ofimpact analysis, is the reinstatement of IV Summary use as managed prior to the November 2002 ban (alternative A). The impact analysis utilizes a projection ofPWC use over the next 10 years. Table A summarizes the results ofthe impact analysis forthe impact topics that were assessed in the "Environmental Consequences" chapter. Summary TABLE A: SUMMARY OF THE IMPACTANALYSIS AlternativeB: Reinstate PWC UseunderaSpecial AlternativeA: Reinstate NPS Regulationwith No-ActionAlternative: PWC Use underaSpecial Additional Management ContinueProhibitionofPWC NPS Regulationas Prescriptions Useon NPS-ManagedWaters ImpactTopic Previously Managed (PreferredAlternative) ofLakeRoosevelt WaterQuality PWC use impacts: Neqliqible PWC use impacts: Same as PWC use impacts: Pollutant adverseeffects in 2002 and alternativeA. loadsto NPS-managedwaters 2012 based onecotoxicological Cumulative impacts: Same as from personalwatercraftwould thresholdvolumes.Adverse beeliminated. alternativeA. waterquality impactsfrom Cumulative impacts: PWC benzo(a)pyrene, benzene and MTBE based on human health ciomnptarcitbsutoionnNtPoSc-ummualnaatgiveed (ingestion ofwaterandfish) waterswould beeliminated. benchmarkswould be negligible Impactsfromotherwatercraft oinnbEotPhA2a0n0d2satnadte2o0f12, based waonudlldonbge-tneergmli.giNbelgel,igaidbvleerse, Washington waterquality cumulative impactstotribal- criteria. managedwaterswould include Cumulative impacts: Impacts impactsfrom PWC useand from personalwatercraftand otherwatercraft. motorized boatswould be negligible, adverse, and long- termforbenzo(a)pyrene, benzene and MTBE, andwould applyto both NPS-and tribal- managedwaters. AirQuality PWC use impacts: Neqliqible PWC use impacts: Same as PWC use impacts: Beneficial adverse impactsto human alternativeA. impactson human healthfor aahiiemnrapdbtaohcNrtOnrseexlf,paraotolnemldduCttmaoOintnthosfeorrHPaCtd,hWveCePyrMesae1r0 CalutmeurlnaattiivveeA.impacts: Same as CoaafsnOd,PthW2He0CC1r,i2siPnkdMtfuhre1eo0mtnaoanPttdiAhoeHNnaeOflloxir,mai2ns0a0wt2eiloln 2002. The riskfrom PAHwould recreation area. also be negligible. In 2012, Cumulative impacts: PWC therewould be a negligible increase in NOxemissionsand ciomnptarcitbsutwioonultdocbuemuelliamtiinvaeted. a decrease in emissionsofthe Othercumulative impacts in otherpollutants, althoughthe NPS-managed areas remain wiompualcdtrleemvaelinfotrhtehsesaemepolalsutiannts tPhWeCsaumseeacsonitnianluteesrntaotiveA. 2002 contributetocumulative Cumulative impacts: Neqliqible impacts intribal-managed faonrdPCMO10,inan2d00m2odaenrda2t0e1f2o.rNHOC, areas. emissionswould be negligible in 2002 and minorin2012. Althoughtherewould be an increase in NOxemissionsin 2012, the greaterreduction in HC emissionswouldto result in a beneficial impactto regional ozone concentrations. All impactswould be longtermand would applyto both NPS-and tribal-managedwaters. VI Summary AlternativeB: Reinstate PWC UseunderaSpecial AlternativeA: Reinstate NPS Regulationwith No-ActionAlternative: PWC UseunderaSpecial Additional Management Continue ProhibitionofPWC NPS Regulationas Prescriptions Useon NPS-ManagedWaters ImpactTopic Previously Managed (PreferredAlternative) ofLakeRoosevelt AirQuality Related PWC use impacts: Neqliqible PWC use impacts: Same as PWC use impacts: PWC Valuesfrom PWC adverse impacts in 2002 and alternativeA. emissionswould beeliminated. Pollutants 2012 underalternativeA. Cumulative impacts: Same as Cumulative impacts: PWC Cumulative impacts: Moderate alternativeA. contributiontocumulative adverse impacts in 2002 and impacts in NPS-managed 2012 to both NPS-andtribal- areaswould beeliminated. managed areas. Othercumulative impacts in NPS-managed areas remain the same as in alternativeA. PWC usecontinuesto contributetocumulative impacts intribal-managed areas. Soundscapes PWC use impacts: Short-term PWC use impacts: Flat-wake PWC use impacts: Noisewould minorto moderate adverse restrictionswould have bedecreased relativetoother related tothe numberof beneficial impactsto some duetothe elimination ofPWC personalwatercraftoperating as parkvisitorswithin the national usewithinthe national well asthe sensitivityofother recreation area from reduced recreation area. Therewould visitors. noise levels. Impact levels be occasionallynoticeable Cumulative impacts:Adverse would bethe same as beneficialeffects on the noise impactsfrom personal alternativeA. soundscape in some areas. watercraftand otherwatercraft, Cumulative impacts: Same as There could be minoradverse automobiles, aircraft, and alternativeA. eifnfcercetassiendtPheWpCarokpefrraotmion lumberoperationswould be outside parkboundaries. minorto moderate, andwould predominate on busydays Cumulative impacts: Lonq- during the high use season term, minorto moderate Impactswould be long-term adverse impacts. Contribution because ofthe high volume of tocumulative impactsfrom annual boating use. Cumulative PWC usewithin the national impactswould be similarfor recreation area would be both NPS and tribal-managed eliminated. areas. Wildlife andWildlife PWC use impacts: Neqliqibleto PWC use impacts: Beneficial PWC use impacts: Beneficial Habitat minoradverse impactsonfish, impactstowildlifeduetothe impactsduetothe elimination waterfowl, and otherwildlife. decreased noise and ofpersonalwatercrafton park- Impactswould be short-term. disturbancefrom personal managedwaters. Cumulative impacts: Short-term, watercraft and the abilityto Cumulative impacts: PWC minoradverse effectsonwildlife mitigate future impacts. Impact contributionwould be andwildlife habitatfromvisitor levels remain as in eliminatedwithin the national activities. Lakeoperationswould alternativeA. recreation area. Other have minorto moderate adverse Cumulative impacts: Same as cumulative impactswould be impactstofish, and minorto alternativeA. similartoalternativeA. PWC moderate adverse impactsto usewould continueto riparian andwetland areasthat contributetocumulative provide habitatforwildlife impacts intribal-managed Cumulative impactstotribal- areas. managedwildlife resources would be similartothosefor NPS-managed areas. VII Summary AlternativeB: Reinstate PWC UseunderaSpecial AlternativeA: Reinstate NPS Regulationwith No-ActionAlternative: PWC UseunderaSpecial Additional Management Continue ProhibitionofPWC NPS Regulationas Prescriptions Useon NPS-ManagedWaters ImpactTopic Previously Managed (PreferredAlternative) ofLakeRoosevelt Threatened and PWC use impacts: Mavaffect, PWC use impacts: Similarto PWC use impacts: Potentialfor Endangered, and butunlikelytoadversely affect alternativeAexcept resource impactsto specialstatus SpecialConcern federalorstate listed orspecial monitoringwould have specieswithin the national Species concern species. beneficial impacts. recreation areawould be Cumulative impacts: Visitor Cumulative impacts: Sameas eliminatedduetocontinuation activitiesand lake operations alternativeA. ofban ofpersonalwatercraft mayaffect, butwould notlikely on NPS-managedwaters. causeadverse effectstofederal Cumulative impacts: PWC orstate listed orspecialconcern contribution would be species. eliminated in national recreation area. Other cumulative impacts similarto alternativeA. PWC usewould continuetocontributeto cumulative impacts intribal- managed areas. Shorelinesand PWC use impacts: Neqliqible PWC use impacts: Beneficial PWC use impacts: Beneficial ShorelineVegetation adverseeffects. impactstosensitiveshoreline impactsfromelimination of vegetationwithin the national PWC useon NPS-managed Cumulative impacts: Neqliqible recreation area overthe short waters. adverse impactsduetovisitor activitiesand minoradverse and long termduetofuture Cumulative impacts: impactsfromwind-caused wave resource monitoring. Contributionfrom PWC use in action and lake operations. Cumulative impacts: Same as national recreation areawould Cumulative impactswould be alternativeA. be eliminated. Other similaron both NPS andtribal- cumulative impactswithinthe managed shorelines. recreation areawould bethe sameas in alternativeA PWC usewould continueto contributetocumulative impacts intribal-managed areas. VisitorUse and PWC use impacts: Neqliqibleto PWC use impacts: Same as PWC use impacts: Beneficial Experience minoradverse impactson alternativeAfornon-PWC impactson theexperiencesof experiencesformostvisitors in users. Designation oftheflat- most non-PWCvisitors using the shortand long-term. wakezoneswithin national park-managedwaters, and Cumulative impacts: Neqliqible recreation areawaterswould minorto moderate adverse tgmioomaapmnlaiascngtoisenrdobsonhatorvhreitsaN-isPttoeSdrr-umeexaapntdeodvrevitirerssinibetcaoler- ahPidmaWpvvaeCecrtnsuesesgeloirinmgspisabawlcnietdmstmbooeenmnreisfmn,ioocsrwitaalter moiinmnacpnaralaeclgatPsseeWdodCnwcarvutiossewierdtrsiosnrdsgwu.oteouIlttmordpiabbaclet-s activities. Plansforfuture skiers, and otherpersons in long term, moderate, and expansion orimprovementsto thewater. adverse. visitorfacilitiesatwithinthe Cumulative impacts: Same as Cumulative impacts: Neqliqible national recreation areawould alternativeA. long-termadverse effecton have long-term beneficial PWC usersatnearbywater impacts on visitorexperience. bodiesthatwould potentially receive increased PWC use. Minorto moderate adverse impactson visitorstotribal managed areas ofLake Roosevelt. Impacts relatedto non-PWC visitoractivitiesand facility improvementplans would remainthe same as alternativeA. VIII