DOCSLIB.ORG

Department of the Interior National Park Service

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Department of the Interior National Park Service Thursday, November 30, 2006 Part IV Department of the Interior National Park Service 36 CFR Part 13 Glacier Bay National Park, Vessel Management Plan Regulations; Final Rule VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:58 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\30NOR3.SGM 30NOR3 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES3 69328 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 230 / Thursday, November 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR prepared when the vessel entry quota individuals. Many proposed changes was increased. The court prohibited either received supporting comments or National Park Service vessel traffic above the pre-1996 levels, no comments. These sections are being unless an EIS was prepared. The court adopted as proposed, unless noted 36 CFR Part 13 decision went into effect in late summer otherwise below. The proposed sections RIN 1024–AD25 2001 resulting in a reduction in vessel that did receive comments of opposition traffic. Following the court decision, or revision are discussed below. Congress enacted legislation (Sec. 130, Glacier Bay National Park, Vessel General Comments Management Plan Regulations Pub. L. 107–63, 115 Stat. 442, Nov. 5, 2001) that returned the vessel quotas to Proposed Quota/Permit System AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. the 2000 calendar year level until 1. One commenter expressed support ACTION: Final rule and technical changed based on an EIS that was for the simplification of vessel amendment. directed to be completed by January 1, management in Glacier Bay. The State of 2004. The EIS was completed and Alaska also commended the NPS on SUMMARY: This rule revises the special announced in the Federal Register on regulations for vessel quotas and efforts to simplify the rules, but said the October 10, 2003. The Record of rule is still complex and recommended operating requirements for cruise ships, Decision (ROD) for the EIS was signed tour vessels, charter vessels, private that the NPS further simplify the on November 21, 2003. On March 3, system. vessels, and passenger ferries within 2006, a proposed rule was published in NPS Response: One of the goals of the Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. the Federal Register (71 FR 10940) to NPS in this rulemaking was to simplify The rule implements the related final implement a portion of the ROD. the vessel regulations for Glacier Bay to environmental impact statement Under these revised rules, daily vessel the extent practical, while protecting completed in 2003 for vessel quotas remain unchanged, however, the park resources and access by all user management in the park and preserve. regulations provide an administrative groups. The NPS will continue to This rule also makes nonsubstantive procedure for increases in seasonal evaluate other ways to further simplify technical reorganizational changes for quotas up to the daily maximum of two vessel management. all of part 13. The part 13 cruise ships. Although the final reorganization, while not included in regulation provides for an increase in NPS Administrative Use the proposed rule, is a result of seasonal quotas of cruise ships, 2. Several commenters suggested the comments received regarding the increased resource protection is also NPS address and possibly limit complexity of the Glacier Bay provided by extending the seasonal-use administrative use. Other commenters regulations specifically, as well as day quota season for cruise ships to recommended that NPS increase comments received previously for include May and September, requiring scientific research efforts. various rulemaking documents the superintendent to carefully evaluate NPS Response: The majority of NPS concerning the organization of part 13 available studies before allowing any use of Glacier Bay is for research generally. increase in cruise ship numbers, and purposes so the park can make better revising operating requirements. Subject DATES: This rule is effective on January management decisions. There are other 2, 2007. to the established daily quotas, seasonal NPS administrative uses of the Bay; limitations are eliminated for all other including emergency response, law FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: vessel categories. Pursuant to statute, a enforcement, personnel transfers to Glacier Bay vessel management new vessel category, passenger ferry, is cruise ships, and access by other State information: Tomie Patrick Lee, added with a daily quota of one. The and Federal agencies with shared Superintendent, Glacier Bay National various proposals regarding definitions jurisdiction of the Bay. The NPS is Park and Preserve, P.O. Box 140, and vessel operational requirements aware that administrative use of vessels Gustavus, Alaska 99826. Telephone: have also been adopted unless noted has an impact and the park carefully (907) 967–2230. otherwise in the ‘‘Changes to the Final considers the need for such use against Part 13 reorganization information: Rule’’ section. As used within this the effect on park resources. Vic Knox, Deputy Regional Director, document, the terms ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘our,’’ and National Park Service, 240 W. 5th ‘‘us’’ refer to the National Park Service. Poor Communication Between the City Avenue, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. of Gustavus and the NPS Telephone: (907) 644–3501. Summary of Comments 3. One commenter stated that there SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed rule was published for has been insufficient communication public comment on March 3, 2006 (71 between the NPS and the City of Background FR 10940), with the initial comment Gustavus and that the City Council was This rule revises the special period lasting until May 2, 2006. The not adequately informed about the regulations for vessel quotas and National Park Service received 28 changes in vessel management. operating requirements for cruise ships, timely written responses, plus two NPS Response: The NPS is committed tour vessels, charter vessels, private petitions, regarding various sections of to cooperating with all interested vessels, and passenger ferries within the proposed rule. One petition was parties, including the City of Gustavus, Glacier Bay National Park. The rule signed by 113 individuals and the other regarding management of park implements a final environmental was signed by 106 individuals. All of resources. The NPS has consistently impact statement (FEIS) completed in the written responses were either communicated with the Mayor of 2003 for vessel management in the Park. separate letters or e-mail messages. Of Gustavus and the City Council since the In 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of the 28 written responses, one was from city’s formation on April 1, 2004. Appeals determined that a 1996 the State of Alaska, two were from non- Additionally, there have been numerous increase in vessels into Glacier Bay governmental organizations (including public meetings in the Gustavus area violated the National Environmental one consolidated response from 6 over the past several years regarding Policy Act because an environmental signatory groups), 5 were from small changes to vessel management in impact statement (EIS) had not been businesses, and 15 were submitted by Glacier Bay. VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:58 Nov 29, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30NOR3.SGM 30NOR3 pwalker on PRODPC60 with RULES3 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 230 / Thursday, November 30, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 69329 Regulation of Private Vessels the regulations are difficult for the vessel permits each day as a ‘‘transit’’ 4. One individual commented that the public and government to use. permit. This ‘‘transit’’ permit could be NPS is over-regulating private vessels. Accordingly, the NPS has decided to used by several different vessels This individual observed that all known reorganize the entire Part 13. This provided that only one vessel is using collisions with whales have been caused reorganization will establish several the permit at a time. The ‘‘transit’’ by large commercial touring vessels. new subparts and redesignate all permit could be used to directly exit NPS Response: The NPS does not sections. It also redesignates numerous Bartlett Cove and allow the vessel to believe that the park can support paragraphs as sections. These changes return directly to Bartlett Cove. It would unlimited private vessel traffic. The will make the rule much easier to use not allow travel into any other part of environmental analysis indicates that all by introducing new headings and Glacier Bay. The superintendent will types of vessel traffic impact marine eliminating many levels of subdivisions, develop application procedures and resources as well as the visitor particularly in the Glacier Bay operating conditions as part of the experience in Glacier Bay. All vessels regulations. With the exception of vessel compendium. This provision would used for non-administrative purposes, management in Glacier Bay, the cease to be effective five years from the including private vessels, are limited by substance of the Part 13 regulations and effective date of these regulations. The NPS does not believe ANILCA number, route, and speed in particular their corresponding relationship to 36 section 1110(b) applies in this parts of the Bay where whales are CFR parts 1–7 and 12 remain circumstance. Gustavus is not within known to occur during the summer completely unaffected by these changes. the boundaries of the park or effectively months. There have been two known The changes to vessel management in surrounded by the park, nor is access to whale fatalities that have occurred in Glacier Bay are clearly identified in the or from Gustavus impeded by the park the Bay due to vessel strikes. One was proposed rule and changes to the boundary. caused by a large commercial vessel and proposed rule are delineated in the the other by a vessel of unknown size. following section of this document Vessel Definitions titled ‘‘Changes to the Final Rule.’’ In 2003, there also was a nonfatal 8. One commenter suggested that the collision between a small vessel and a Specific Comments NPS adopt vessel definitions that whale in park waters.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Navigating Troubled Waters a History of Commercial Fishing in Glacier Bay, Alaska
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Navigating Troubled Waters A History of Commercial Fishing in Glacier Bay, Alaska Author: James Mackovjak National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve “If people want both to preserve the sea and extract the full benefit from it, they must now moderate their demands and structure them. They must put aside ideas of the sea’s immensity and power, and instead take stewardship of the ocean, with all the privileges and responsibilities that implies.” —The Economist, 1998 Navigating Troubled Waters: Part 1: A History of Commercial Fishing in Glacier Bay, Alaska Part 2: Hoonah’s “Million Dollar Fleet” U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve Gustavus, Alaska Author: James Mackovjak 2010 Front cover: Duke Rothwell’s Dungeness crab vessel Adeline in Bartlett Cove, ca. 1970 (courtesy Charles V. Yanda) Back cover: Detail, Bartlett Cove waters, ca. 1970 (courtesy Charles V. Yanda) Dedication This book is dedicated to Bob Howe, who was superintendent of Glacier Bay National Monument from 1966 until 1975 and a great friend of the author. Bob’s enthusiasm for Glacier Bay and Alaska were an inspiration to all who had the good fortune to know him. Part 1: A History of Commercial Fishing in Glacier Bay, Alaska Table of Contents List of Tables vi Preface vii Foreword ix Author’s Note xi Stylistic Notes and Other Details xii Chapter 1: Early Fishing and Fish Processing in Glacier Bay 1 Physical Setting 1 Native Fishing 1 The Coming of Industrial Fishing: Sockeye Salmon Attract Salters and Cannerymen to Glacier Bay 4 Unnamed Saltery at Bartlett Cove 4 Bartlett Bay Packing Co.
    [Show full text]
  • Mammals and Amphibians of Southeast Alaska
    8 — Mammals and Amphibians of Southeast Alaska by S. O. MacDonald and Joseph A. Cook Special Publication Number 8 The Museum of Southwestern Biology University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico 2007 Haines, Fort Seward, and the Chilkat River on the Looking up the Taku River into British Columbia, 1929 northern mainland of Southeast Alaska, 1929 (courtesy (courtesy of the Alaska State Library, George A. Parks Collec- of the Alaska State Library, George A. Parks Collection, U.S. tion, U.S. Navy Alaska Aerial Survey Expedition, P240-135). Navy Alaska Aerial Survey Expedition, P240-107). ii Mammals and Amphibians of Southeast Alaska by S.O. MacDonald and Joseph A. Cook. © 2007 The Museum of Southwestern Biology, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Special Publication, Number 8 MAMMALS AND AMPHIBIANS OF SOUTHEAST ALASKA By: S.O. MacDonald and Joseph A. Cook. (Special Publication No. 8, The Museum of Southwestern Biology). ISBN 978-0-9794517-2-0 Citation: MacDonald, S.O. and J.A. Cook. 2007. Mammals and amphibians of Southeast Alaska. The Museum of Southwestern Biology, Special Publication 8:1-191. The Haida village at Old Kasaan, Prince of Wales Island Lituya Bay along the northern coast of Southeast Alaska (undated photograph courtesy of the Alaska State Library in 1916 (courtesy of the Alaska State Library Place File Place File Collection, Winter and Pond, Kasaan-04). Collection, T.M. Davis, LituyaBay-05). iii Dedicated to the Memory of Terry Wills (1943-2000) A life-long member of Southeast’s fauna and a compassionate friend to all.
    [Show full text]
  • Geographic Response Strategies Section G of the Southeast Alaska Subarea Contingency Plan
    Southeast Alaska Geographic Response Strategies Section G of the Southeast Alaska Subarea Contingency Plan June 2003 This document was produced by: Tim L. Robertson Consulting PO Box 175 Seldovia, AK 99663 (907) 234-7821 Southeast Alaska SUBAREA CONTINGENCY PLAN GEOGRAPHIC RESPONSE STRATEGIES TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE Introduction ........................................................................................................................... G-1-1 B. Southeast Alaska Response Zone 2 (no GRS sites at this time) ................................. G-3-3 A. Southeast Alaska Geographic Response Zone 1 ......................................................... G-1-2 B. Southeast Alaska Geographic Response Zone 2 ......................................................... G-1-4 C. Southeast Alaska Response Zone 3............................................................................. G-3-5 C. Southeast Alaska Geographic Response Zone 3 ......................................................... G-1-6 Blind Slough North ......................................................................................... SE03-01 Kah Sheets Bay ................................................................................................ SE03-02 D. Southeast Alaska Geographic Response Zone 4 ......................................................... G-1-8 Petersburg Creek .............................................................................................. SE03-03 E. Southeast Alaska Geographic Response Zone 5 ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Linking Wolf Diet to Changes in Marine and Terrestrial Prey Abundance
    Linking Wolf Diet to Changes in Marine and Terrestrial Prey Abundance Lafferty, D. J. R., Belant, J. L., White, K. S., Womble, J. N., & Morzillo, A. T. (2014). Linking Wolf Diet to Changes in Marine and Terrestrial Prey Abundance. Arctic, 67(2), 143-148. doi:10.14430/arctic4382 10.14430/arctic4382 Arctic Institute of North America Version of Record http://cdss.library.oregonstate.edu/sa-termsofuse ARCTIC VOL. 67, NO. 2 (JUNE 2014) P. 143 – 148 http://dx.doi.org/10.14430/arctic4382 Linking Wolf Diet to Changes in Marine and Terrestrial Prey Abundance DIANA J.R. LAFFERTY,1,2 JERROLD L. BELANT,1 KEVIN S. WHITE,3 JAMIE N. WOMBLE4 and ANITA T. MORZILLO5 (Received 27 May 2013; accepted in revised form 20 November 2013) ABSTRACT. Since most wolf (Canis lupus) diet studies have been conducted in inland ecosystems, comparatively few data are available on diets of wolves in coastal systems. We investigated the diet of wolves in Glacier Bay, Alaska, from 12 May to 28 June in both 2010 and 2011. Although we identified 12 different prey species, including birds and small to medium-sized mammals, in wolf scats, moose (Alces alces) was the most frequent food item, observed in 80% of all scats. In contrast, a study conducted in 1993 in an area 37 km away found harbor seal (Phoca vitulina richardii) in 41% of wolf scats. Although we cannot account for differences in sampling design between the two studies, wolf diets may have changed between the two time periods. Key words: wolves, Canis lupus, diet, Glacier Bay, Alaska RÉSUMÉ.
    [Show full text]
  • 236 Subpart N—Special Regulations— Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve
    § 13.1006 36 CFR Ch. I (7–1–12 Edition) the following exempted commu- Commercial fishing means conducting nity(ies) may use aircraft for access to fishing activities under the appropriate lands and waters within the park for commercial fishing permits and li- subsistence purposes in accordance censes as required and defined by the with a permit issued by the Super- State of Alaska. intendent: Anaktuvuk Pass. Commercial fishing vessel means any motor vessel conducting fishing activi- § 13.1006 Customary trade. ties under the appropriate commercial In the Gates of the Arctic National fishing licenses as authorized under Preserve unit which contains the this subpart. Kobuk River and its tributaries, ‘‘cus- Cruise ship means any motor vessel of tomary trade’’ shall include—in addi- at least 100 tons gross (U.S. System) or tion to the exchange of furs for cash— 2,000 tons gross (International Conven- the selling of handicraft articles made tion System) certificated to carry from plant material taken by local more than 12 passengers for hire. rural residents of the park area. Daily vessel quota means the max- imum number of vessels allowed, by § 13.1008 Solid waste disposal. vessel category, on any one calendar (a) A solid waste disposal site may day. accept non-National Park Service solid Glacier Bay means all waters inside a waste generated within the boundaries line drawn between Point Gustavus at of the park area. 135°54.927′ W longitude; 58°22.748′ N lati- (b) A solid waste disposal site may be tude and Point Carolus at 136°2.535′ W located within one mile of facilities as longitude; 58°22.694′ N latitude.
    [Show full text]
  • By Gregory P. Streveler by David A. Brew
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY IN COOPERATION WITH THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RESEARCH AND EXPLORATION IN THE GLACIER BAY REGION, SOUTHEASTERN ALASKA, 1798-1992 By Doris L. Howe U.S. Geological Survey Volunteer-for-Science U.S. National Park Service Volunteer-in-Park 5119 E. Harbor Drive Friday Harbor, WA 98250 and Box 67 Gustavus, AK 99826-0067 INCLUDING AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF UNPUBLISHED REPORTS By Gregory P. Streveler Box 94 Gustavus, AK 99826-0094 AND AN INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SECTION By David A. Brew U.S. Geological Survey, MS 904 345 Middlefield Road Menlo Park, CA 94025-3591 OPEN-FILE REPORT 92-596 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government Bibliography of Research and Exploration In the Glacier Bay Region, southeastern Alaska, 1798-1992 Doris L. Howe (Compiler) INTRODUCTION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS By David A. Brew The entries in this bibliography span almost two centuries of the human history, scientific research, and exploration activities in the Glacier Bay region of southeastern Alaska (Fig. 1). The reports, articles, and maps listed cover a wide variety of topics, but they are all unified by one common concern. That concern is the quest for knowledge about all aspects of the region. Almost without exception, the scientists and others who have produced this material consider themselves privileged to have been part of that quest; it is their hope that this bibliography will aid in continuing and expanding comprehensive scientific studies in the region.
    [Show full text]