D'Antuono 2000, Komanoff and Shaw 2000, UWLP 2002). While these issues are .... through woods, over hill and dale, crossing obstacles such as snow covered ...... Stafford Pond. R - 22. Glocester. RI. 4 ...... Talbot, Roger. 2003. âFilter system ...
PERSONAL WATERCRAFT MANAGEMENT IN RHODE ISLAND: EMERGING CONFLICTS AND RESOLUTIONS BY ELIZABETH HERRON
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MARINE AFFAIRS
UNIVERSITY OF RHODE ISLAND 2004
ABSTRACT
The popularity of personal watercraft (PWC), commonly called ‘jetskis’, has resulted in a variety of management issues including: 1) safety, 2) noise, 3) user conflicts, 4) wildlife / environmental impacts, and 5) pollution. This thesis explored the need for more effective management and resolution of conflicts regarding the use of PWCs on Rhode Island’s fresh and marine waters. Stakeholders were surveyed to identify areas of common concern as well as issues for which there was little stakeholder agreement in order to provide a basis for negotiated management solutions. Three stakeholder groups were assessed using Likert-scale based questionnaires in a mail return format. The stakeholder groups included: 1) PWCs users, 2) other water enthusiasts, and 3) those responsible for management of the resource. Current management strategies and alternatives were assessed, with differences in perceptions between stakeholder groups the primary focus. Results indicated significant differences in perception between stakeholder groups. Resource Managers and PWC Users generally agreed on various PWC management issues. Perceptions between PWC users and Other Resource Users were polarized, with PWC Users generally opposed to most management alternatives. Resource Managers were somewhat more receptive to alternatives. In general, negotiated resolution of PWC concerns in Rhode Island is likely to be unsuccessful without a great deal of stakeholder education, combined with the threat of potential regulatory action. Appreciation of the significance of PWC nuisance issues by Resource Managers was generally lacking, and would be a likely impediment to implementation of new regulations.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge the following individuals and organizations for their support and contributions to this effort: I thank my major professor Dr. William Gordon, who stuck by me through two thesis proposals and one and half theses - over a very long period of time. Thank you for not giving up on me despite some rough times for both of us. I thank Dr. Arthur Gold without whom I do not think I would have completed this project. His guidance, wisdom and steadfast support were absolutely invaluable - and I shall always be thankful. I also extend my gratitude to Dr. Gerald Krausse for taking time away from a very busy retirement to serve on my thesis committee, and provide suggestions and comments that improved the quality of my thesis. I appreciate all the support that the Marine Affairs faculty extended to me, allowing me to finally complete this long journey. I thank the Cooperative Extension Water Quality Program, and especially the URI Watershed Watch gang for all the support and good humor, as well as the logistical assistance provided. I must also thank the many volunteers, lake and watershed association members that responded to my surveys and showed such great interest in my project - all of which made it possible and worthwhile. I certainly cannot thank Linda Green enough for all that she has done. From providing me with the opportunity to pursue this project, and an occasional nudge to keep it on track, to keeping me focused and motivated, and sometimes commiserating with me when things were not going as well as I would like, she truly deserves much of the credit for the successful completion of this endeavor. Thank you for not only being a great boss - but a good friend!
iii
Finally, I thank those that have supported me all along - especially my parents, my husband and my son. My parents provided not only decades of financial and moral support but also the tools and determination needed to accomplish this. More recently they have often provided the time needed to pursue my research by cooking supper, taking care of Jared, and helping out with a variety of errands. My husband Dave endured many late nights, early mornings, and some grouchiness with good humor (usually). Perhaps Dave’s biggest contribution was in recognizing that the best way of ensuring that I would get this done was to tell me I couldn’t do it - I really hate it when someone tells me that! To my son Jared, thank you for giving me the time I needed to finish this. I apologize for the many nights and weekends that I told you ‘mommy will just be a little longer’ that somehow turned into whole days away - thank you for being so patient. And last, but definitely not least, thank you both to my sister Caroline and my Aunt Caroline for your support and good wishes over the years.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I
II
III
IV
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal Watercraft usage of US waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Problem Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE OF SNOW MOBILE AND ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE RECREATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Snowmobiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noise Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mischief and Misuse of Snowmobiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PERSONAL WATER CRAFT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . User Conflicts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wildlife / Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pollution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT PERSONAL WATERCRAFT MANAGEMENT EFFORTS IN RHODE ISLAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PWC Restrictions – Federal, State and Local Levels . . . . . . . . . . Rhode Island Legislative Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlestown / Westerly Ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coventry Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Narrow River Discussions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
v
Page ii iii v viii ix 1 1 3 6 6 8 9 11 13 15 21 21 26 28 30 32 34 34 37 39 40 42
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) CHAPTER V
VI
VII
VIII
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Study Area and Study Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis / Statistical Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESULTS AND DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effectiveness of Current Personal Watercraft Management . . . . . . Perception of Resource Users Regarding Magnitude of PWC User Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acceptance of banning PWC from designated waterbodies . . . . . . Acceptance of space zoning PWC usage within designated waterbodies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acceptance of time zoning PWC usage within designated waterbodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associated Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal Watercraft Regulations Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Personal Watercraft Management in Rhode Island . . . . . . Perception of Resource Users Regarding Magnitude of PWC User Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acceptance of banning PWC from designated waterbodies . . . . . . Acceptance of space zoning PWC usage within designated waterbodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Acceptance of time zoning PWC usage within designated waterbodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Associated Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Personal Watercraft Regulations Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Implications for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vi
Page 46 46 48 49 50 51 54 55 57 57 62 65 69 74 78 84 87 87 88 89 90 91 93 95 97 101 103
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) APPENDIX A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R
RESOURCE MANAGERS SURVEY (OFFICIALS) . . . . . . . . . . . RESOURCE USERS SURVEY (RECREATIONISTS) .. . . . . . . . . RESOURCE MANAGERS SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESOURCE USERS SURVEY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HYPOTHESIS ONE SUPPLEMENTAL T-TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . HYPOTHESIS THREE SUPPLEMENTAL T-TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . HYPOTHESIS FOUR SUPPLEMENTAL T-TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . HYPOTHESIS FIVE SUPPLEMENTAL T-TEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . FACTORS IMPACTING WATER-RELATED ACTIVITIES: PWC USERS VS. OTHER RESOURCE USERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . FACTORS IMPACTING WATER-RELATED ACTIVITIES: RESOURCE MANAGERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RANKING OF FACTORS AFFECTING WATER-RELATED ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESOURCE USER RESPONSES RATING PERSONAL WATERCRAFT CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RESOURCE MANAGER RESPONSES RATING PERSONAL WATERCRAFT CONCERNS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . RANKING CONCERNS WITH PERSONAL WATERCRAFT . . . MATRIX OF STATE PERSONAL WATERCRAFT REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOATING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES MODEL PERSONAL WATERCRAFT ORDINANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PERSONAL WATERCRAFT INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION MODEL PERSONAL WATERCRAFT OPERATIONS ACT . . . . . PERSONAL WATERCRAFT RESPONSIBLE USE ACT OF 1999 (H.R. 3141) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAGHY
..................................................
vii
Page 106 109 113 125 162 163 164 165 166 172 177 178 185 192 193
205 210 216 212
LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 C-1 C-2 D-1 D-2 E F G H K N O
Hypotheses and related tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H1 t-test analysis: Official vs. Recreational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H1 Chi-square analysis: Official vs. Recreational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H2 t-test analysis: PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H2 Chi-square analysis: PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H3 t-test analysis: Official vs. Recreational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H3 Chi-square analysis: Official vs. Recreational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H4 t-test analysis: Official vs. Recreational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H4 Chi-square analysis: Official vs. Recreational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H5 t-test analysis: Official vs. Recreational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H5 Chi-square analysis: Official vs. Recreational . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ranking factors affecting water- related activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ranking personal watercraft concerns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T-tests comparing ratings of enforcement of PWC regulations . . . . . . . Acceptance of Buoys to mark the 200-foot PWC buffer . . . . . . . . . . . . Acceptance of a 300-foot PWC buffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource Managers (Officials) Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource Managers (Officials) Narrative Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . Resource Users Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource Users Narrative Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H1 supplemental t-test analysis: PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H3 supplemental t-test analysis: PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H4 supplemental t-test analysis: PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H5 supplemental t-test analysis: PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency / mean value: Factors affecting water-related activities . . . . Frequency / mean value: Concerns regarding personal watercraft . . . . . Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
viii
Page 56 58 60 63 64 66 67 70 71 75 76 79 81 82 83 84 113 123 125 158 162 163 164 165 177 192 193
LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I-1 I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-6 I-7 I-8 I-9 I-10 J-1 J-2
Page Frequency: Effectiveness of current PWC management – Managers vs. Resource users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency: Effectiveness of current PWC management – PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency: Affect of PWC on recreation – PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . Frequency: Right of local communities to ban PWCs – Managers vs. resource users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency: Right of local communities to ban PWCs – PWC vs. NonPWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency: Right of local communities to space zone PWCs – Managers vs. Resource users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency: Right of local communities to space zone PWCs – PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency: Right of local communities to time zone PWCs – Managers vs. Resource users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency: Right of local communities to time zone PWCs – PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aquatic plants and / or seaweed as a top five factors impact waterrelated activities; PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crowding as a top factor impacting water-related activities; PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fisherpersons as a top factor impacting water-related activities; PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Litter as a top factor impacting water-related activities; PWC vs. NonPWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Power boats as a top factor impacting water-related activities; PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PWC as a top factor impacting water-related activities; PWC vs. NonPWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Speeding craft as a top factor impacting water-related activities; PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Waterfowl as a top factor impacting water-related activities; PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water pollution as a top factor impacting water-related activities; PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Other” as a top factor impacting water-related activities; PWCs – PWC vs. Non-PWC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aquatic plants and / or seaweed as a top factor impacting water-related activities; Resource managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crowding as a top factor impacting water-related activities; Resource managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ix
59 61 65 68 69 72 73 77 78 166 167 167 168 168 169 169 170 170 171 172 173
LIST OF FIGURES (continued) FIGURE J-3 J-4 J-5 J-6 J-7 J-8 J-9 L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 L-5 L-6 L-7 L-8 L-9 L-10 L-11 L-12 M-1 M-2
Page Fisherpersons as a top factor impacting water-related activities; Resource managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Litter / trash as a top factor impacting water-related activities; Resource managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Powerboats as a top factor impacting water-related activities; Resource managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PWC as a top factor impacting water-related activities; Resource managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Waterfowl as a top factor impacting water-related activities; Resource managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Water pollution seaweed as a top factor impacting water-related activities; Resource managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Other” as a top factor impacting water-related activities; Resource managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Age of Operators as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Erratic Maneuvers as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Lack of Slow Speed Control as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Noise as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Rider Safety as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Others Safety as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Speed as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Too Close to Others as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Too Close to Shore as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Water/air Pollution as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Wildlife Disturbance as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource users’ responses ranking Other as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Age of Operators as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Erratic Maneuvers as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
x
173 174 174 175 175 176 176 178 179 179 180 180 181 181 182 182 183 183 184 185 186
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued) FIGURE M-3 M-4 M-5 M-6 M-7 M-8 M-9 M-10 M-11 M-12
Page Resource managers’ responses ranking Lack of Slow Speed Control as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Noise as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Rider Safety as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Others Safety as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Speed as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Too Close to Others as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Too Close to Shore as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Water/air Pollution as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Wildlife Disturbance as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Resource managers’ responses ranking Other as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
xi
186 187 187 188 188 189 189 190 190 191
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Recreational usage of our nation’s waters is protected by the Public Trust Doctrine, a common law concept. As defined by Black’s Law Dictionary (1990), the public trust doctrine, “provides that submerged and submersible lands are preserved for public use of navigation, fishing, and recreation and the state, as trustee for the people, bears responsibility of preserving and protecting the right of the public to the use of these lands and the waters above them for those purposes.” The public’s right to the use of ‘navigable’ waters does not differentiate between various uses or users, and implies protection for all uses equally. However increasingly, personal watercraft (PWC) are being banned from using designated waters nationwide, including recent bans enacted in Rhode Island (RI). The public acceptance of PWC bans suggests that there are significant concerns with PWC use and state and local management options. Personal Watercraft Usage of US Waters Personal watercraft (PWCs) are a type of recreational boat designed for riding entertainment (NTSB 1998, Earth Island 1999, UWLP 2002). Capable of speeds in excess of fifty miles per hour prompting use of the term “thrill craft,” PWCs are generally defined as vessels of less than sixteen feet in length which use an inboard, internal combustion engine to power a water jet pump as its primary source of propulsion (NTSB 1998, Earth Island 1999, Kupperman et al. 1999, Martin 1999, D’Antuono 2000, PWIA 2002, UWLP 2002, BoatTEST 2003). These vessels are designed to be operated by a person (or persons) sitting, standing or kneeling on 1
the vessel, rather than within the confines of a hull. The unique design and propulsion of PWC provide the vessels with a tight turning radius while under power, quick acceleration, and a unique ability to ‘jump’ waves or submerge beneath them temporarily. These features distinguish PWCs from other powerboats in that they are not traditionally used for access and quiet recreation, but were designed more so for their “excitement” value (NTSB 1998, Earth Island 1999, Martin 1999, D’Antuono 2000, UWLP 2002). Commonly called Jet Skis or wet bikes, PWCs account for nearly one-third of new recreational boat sales in the United States (NTSB 1998). According to U.S. Coast Guard and National Marine Manufacturers Association estimates, there were approximately 1.05 million PWCs (owned and presumed to be in operation) in 2001. With an average retail price of $7,900 (based on 2001 boat sales statistics), PWCs are affordable, easy to launch and operate, and are highly maneuverable, making them very attractive to non-traditional boating populations, especially younger people. Nineteen million Americans are estimated to ride personal watercraft each year, thereby establishing a powerful lobbying (represented by the Personal Watercraft Industry Association – PWIA, and American Watercraft Association – AWA) and economic force (PWIA 2002, UWLP 2002). However, this popularity has resulted in significant user conflicts as the numbers of boaters of all types has increased on our freshwater and marine waterways. Conflicts with passive recreationists have also increased (NTSB 1998, Earth Island 1999, CRWR 2002, PWIA 2002, UWLP 2002).
2
Problem Statement: There are numerous issues that challenge the widespread acceptance of PWCs as a form of aquatic transportation and recreation. Five general problems have been associated with PWCs. They include: 1) safety, 2) noise, 3) user conflicts, 4) wildlife / environmental impacts, and 5) pollution (Burger et al. 1999, CRWR 2002, Earth Island 1999, Kupperman et al. 1999, Burger and Leonard 2000, D’Antuono 2000, Komanoff and Shaw 2000, UWLP 2002). While these issues are inherent to the usage of motorized watercraft overall, they are considered generally more severe with PWC because of the nature of the vessel, and the youth or inexperience of those often operating them. User conflicts are perhaps the most difficult issues to address, as technological solutions are generally unavailable for what is essentially a problem of human behavior. Conflicts occur when PWC operators violate no wake zones, exceed legal speed limits, and/or operate too close to shore, swimmers or other recreationists, including boats, clammers or fishers. In addition, shoreline residents and other recreationists often complain that PWC noise is a significant common law nuisance, finding the higher pitched engines to be much more disagreeable compared with traditional powerboats (BEC 1993, Burger et al. 1999, CRWR 2002, Earth Island 1999, Kupperman et al. 1999, Burger and Leonard 2000, D’Antuono 2000, Komanoff and Shaw 2000, UWLP 2002). In response to multiple concerns regarding PWC usage, the State of Rhode Island passed legislation requiring operators to provide proof of successful completion of a boating safety course, regardless of age or experience beginning in
3
2002 (46RIGL§22-9.8). Other Rhode Island legislation enabled specified communities to regulate, and in some cases ban, PWC use from designated waterbodies (46§RIGL27-2). Charlestown became the first Rhode Island community to receive approval from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) to prohibit PWCs on all fresh and marine waters within its jurisdiction. Through the same amendment Westerly was granted authority to regulate PWCs on Quonochontaug Pond, over which it shares jurisdiction with Charlestown (Kuffner 2002a, Davis 2002b). In South Kingstown, another Rhode Island town given the authority to regulate PWCs in 2002, the South Kingstown Waterfront Advisory Council voted to wait until after the 2002 boating season to consider PWC regulation. The Advisory Council wanted time to determine what impacts the State’s mandatory education requirement and increased local enforcement patrols might have, before applying for a PWC ban as requested by some residents and local associations (Davis 2002b). By 2003, none of the remainder of the Rhode Island communities with authority to regulate PWC (Narragansett, North Kingstown and Coventry) opted to enact bans (Bottis 2003, Emblock 2003b, 2003c, Wims 2002). Thus far, PWC management in Rhode Island has diverged from education and enforcement activities to the enactment of wholesale bans on the usage of PWC in designated waterways. Identification of the source of conflicts, as well as development of potential negotiated solutions has not been a priority of PWC management at either state or municipal levels. The State of Rhode Island attempted to do so several years ago through their sponsorship of a series of meetings to discuss
4
public concerns about PWC. However these sessions did not attempt to quantify or assess public perception in any meaningful manner, and mostly provided an opportunity for the public to vent their frustrations (personal experience). While this eventually led to the adoption of new legislation, the regulations implemented addressed safety concerns only, and did not adequately address many of the nuisance issues identified by the public. These nuisance or user conflicts include a broad range of issues, but mostly involve noise complaints, interference with one’s enjoyment of the outdoor experience or with other recreational activities, as well as concerns regarding how close PWCs operate in proximity to other vessels and in near shore settings (Earth Island 1999, Kupperman et al. 1999, Komanoff and Shaw 2000, UWLP 2002). This thesis explores the need for management that is more effective and for resolution of conflicts regarding the use of PWCs on Rhode Island’s fresh and marine waters. Through stakeholder survey research, this thesis identifies several areas of common concern as well as issues over which there was little stakeholder agreement. Current management strategies and alternatives are assessed, the results of which provide a foundation for improved public understanding and discussion, potentially leading to more effective PWC management locally and statewide.
5
CHAPTER II MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE OF SNOW MOBILE AND ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE RECREATION
While PWCs may be a relatively new phenomenon, the issues associated with them are not. The evolution of snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) encountered similar management problems and concerns (Hargarten 1991, Rodgers and Smith 1997, Reich 1999, Bull et al. 2000). Ironically, many of the manufacturers of snowmobiles and ATVs also produce PWCs, providing the industry with an effective precedence to counter efforts to restrict PWCs usage. Snowmobiles Snowmobiles as we know them today were developed in 1959 by JosephArmand Bombardier. Created to address the need for inexpensive, reliable winter transportation in the rural northern territories of Canada and the United States, Bombardier also wanted the vehicles to be fun to ride (Reich 1999). His designs met both the utilitarian and recreational objectives, but widespread acceptance of the product was not immediate. The Bombardier Company, and later competitors, aggressively marketed snowmobiles as a new form of winter recreation. Early advertisements for Bombardier’s Ski-Doo stated that, Outdoor enthusiasts looking for new thrill in winter sports will find them in the Bombardier Ski-Doo, riding cross-country, through woods, over hill and dale, crossing obstacles such as snow covered ditches, mounds, hollows, snow banks etc (Reich 1999). Arctic Enterprises, builders of the Arctic Cat snowmobile, recognized the advantage of distributing snowmobiles through marine outlets in northern U. S. 6
states and Canada where the boating season is limited. This approach provided dealers with products year-round and exposed known outdoor recreationists to the snowmobile. In fact, because of this marketing strategy, and the natural inclination of this segment of the population for mechanized recreation, snowmobile purchasers were more than twice as likely to own motorboats than the general population (Reich 1999). To further promote the fun of snowmobiling, Arctic Enterprises organized the first major snowmobile derby in Wisconsin in 1964. The products of various snowmobile manufacturers were showcased over the course of a weekend involving dozens of races including track and drag races, as well as obstacle derbies – bringing the “thrill” of snowmobiles to the general public. Building awareness of the recreational and economic value of using snowmobiles succeeded in motivating a relatively small, but enthusiastic portion of the population outdoors in the dead of winter, thereby positively transforming the winter economies of many small northern towns (Reich 1999). By March of 1967, more than two hundred thousand snowmobiles were in use across North America. And while the snowmobile had, in the words of Susie Scholwin, creator of the first magazine for snowmobilers Sno Goer, “made winter something to look forward to!” it also generated a great deal of opposition (Reich 1999). Opponents concerns included disruptive noise levels, mischief and misuse of snowmobiles by operators, safety, and environmental impacts. As with PWCs, an industry association, the International Snowmobile Industry Association (ISIA) formed to both promote vehicle use and to address perceived criticism identified
7
with the increasing popularity of snowmobiles (Reich 1999). The ISIA and the snowmobiling community challenged these complaints on many fronts to prevent wide-scale prohibition of snowmobile usage. Noise Levels Excessive noise was considered by the general public to be the most significant impact generated by snowmobile use – and was especially evident in the typically quiet environment of rural northern towns. Perceived excess noise from snowmobiles was associated with technical, economic and social factors (Reich 1999). The high-pitched two-stroke engines used on snowmobiles made it technically more difficult to muffle exhaust noise without robbing the engine of power. The substantial sound absorbing materials needed to effectively reduce noise without power loss made the two-stroke muffler large, bulky and expensive. Moreover, despite the concern that noise could adversely affect the hearing of riders, many preferred the louder machines. In fact, Dr. Leonard Reich noted in his 1999 article “Ski-Dogs, Pol-Cats and Mechanization of Winter: The Development of Recreational Snowmobiling in North America” that, “For some snowmobilers, noise is a large part of the fun of the sport. The sound of that loud motor means power, speed, the thrill of being in control of a revved-up machine.” Put simply, the louder the snowmobile, the better the sales. Meanwhile, state regulations were being enacted establishing decibel limits for full-throttle snowmobiles heard from a distance of fifty feet. Manufacturers discovered that it would be exceedingly difficult to produce marketable machines below 78 decibels, but Canadian officials and some states were considering levels as
8
low as 73 decibels. Through carefully orchestrated lobbying, including support from local snowmobiling clubs and associations, the ISIA prevailed in the decibel limits challenge. First, they responded technologically by significantly quieting the machines, bringing them down to the 78-decibel level. Then, they enlisted the political resources of the industry and the lobbying effectiveness of its enthusiasts to ensure that the decibel limits established by various states were within the easily achievable range, not below 78 decibels (Reich 1999). Mischief and Misuse of Snowmobiles The wintertime mobility of snowmobiles offered an opportunity for serious invasion of private property. Rural landowners were exposed to noise, commotion and a new sense of intrusion, as well as property damage. Some riders did not respect private property, deliberately ignoring “no trespassing” signs, cutting fences, and is some cases riding over fields of winter wheat, low bush blueberries and sapling Christmas trees. In addition, summer and hunting camps that were previously protected by their remoteness, were easily accessible by snowmobile. Vandalism and burglary were common, and very difficult to prosecute. Tracks were typically covered by subsequent snowfalls or the crimes were not discovered until the following spring or summer, making it very difficult to identify culprits (Reich 1999). Local ordinances were quickly enacted in response to these concerns, often resulting in a patchwork of rules and regulations within a county. Some communities attempted to ban snowmobiles completely, while others limited hours of operation, and established restrictions on operating on public or private property.
9
For conscientious riders, these varying regulations made it very difficult to enjoy their sport (Reich 1999). To combat these restrictions, the ISIA and snowmobiling community worked together to develop and promote a national program to encourage community-based actions to affect negative press. Snowmobile clubs worked to establish interconnected trail systems that offered riders the opportunity to ride without infringing on public roads, or people’s privacy. These same clubs also took it upon themselves to exert peer pressure on known ‘offenders,’ recognizing that a few bad actors could taint all riders. The clubs also participated in a variety of events designed to demonstrate that they were effective and thereby good citizens. This included roadside clean ups, fundraisers for charities and providing assistance during emergencies such as transporting doctors or other materials via snowmobile during storms (Reich 1999). These local activities were supported by the ISIA and manufacturers, who were also involved in developing model ordinances and trail development and maintenance criteria. A model snowmobile ordinance addressing the issues of concern was created by the ISIA to replace the patchwork of regulations noted previously. The local clubs and state associations, with lobbying support by the ISIA, promoted this generic ordinance. Bombardier developed its “Snoplan,” a trail design, construction and maintenance plan that was intended to show regulators that, “the sport can be developed in the right way (Reich 1999).” The plan focused on aesthetic, safety and environmental concerns. Through club financing and the use of snowmobile registration and trail usage fees, a network of more than 90,000 miles of
10
trails crossed North America by the late 1970’s, significantly reducing “mischief making,” and reducing opposition to the sport. Safety By its very nature, snowmobiling presents serious concerns for personal safety. The very maneuverability that made snowmobiles popular, also enabled riders to get into get into trouble by flipping the machines on uneven or very steep terrain. Variable terrain or unseen obstacles, as well as speeding on narrow winding trails added to the danger. Cold winter conditions were another source of potential injury, especially because of the open design of the snowmobile. Riders also had limited ability to hear other snowmobiles or cars because of the noise of their own machines, increasing the possibility of collisions. In addition, as there were no licensing requirements, and as snowmobiles were a relatively new invention, many riders had very little operating experience or training. This was often compounded by the attraction that these quick machines had for younger, less mature riders, and that alcohol use was often associated with an outing for many users (Reich 1999). Combined, the technical, environmental and social conditions linked with snowmobiling resulted in a significant number of deaths and serious injuries, tainting this sport for many. In order to improve the safety of snowmobiling three main factors had to be addressed – snowmobile design and construction, operators’ behavior, and the terrain that they were ridden on (Reich 1999). Design and construction flaws were very common in the unregulated environment in which early snowmobiles were being manufactured. As the popularity of snowmobiling soared, more than one hundred manufacturers entered
11
this lucrative market, some with very little understanding of the rigors to which the machines were be exposed. Operating and safety equipment was often limited or ineffective, including headlights and brakes. Components often could not handle the cold, wet, and jarring conditions inherent to snowmobiling, making them prone to failures, often stranding riders far from assistance in harsh winter conditions. Many of the early designs did not take into account rider protection and comfort. Seats and other driving controls were not designed for periods of long use, resulting in injury to operators. The lack of safety standards in the industry lead to numerous preventable injuries and deaths (Reich 1999). When government regulation was threatened in 1973, the ISIA rushed to develop an industry safety standard in order to stave off what was anticipated to be rules that were more restrictive. The ISIA worked with various organizations and agencies to revise the standards, which went into effect in early 1975. Addressing brakes, controls, seats, lights, shields and guards, hand grips, fuel systems and emergency starting equipment, the US Consumer Products Safety Commission accepted the ISIA’s efforts rather than engaging in the challenging task of researching and establishing mandatory standards. Canadian officials did the same and some U.S. states adopted the ISIA standards, effectively ending the impetus for more restrictive governmental regulations (Reich 1999). With improvements in the machines, improvements in operator behavior and judgement were also needed. Snowmobiling clubs undertook rider education with support by the manufacturers who recognized that the industry needed to take the lead or regulations would follow. Major manufacturers such as Polaris, Bombardier
12
and Arctic produced a variety of manuals, films and other materials designed to promote safe, conscientious use of their products. In addition, the ISIA developed a comprehensive rider-training course, published as a 300-page manual, which was typically presented through local clubs and dealers (Reich 1999). Despite this focus on safety, industry-marketing strategies often encouraged poor operating judgement by riders. Promoted as ‘action products’, snowmobiles were often shown leaping over obstacles, spraying snow in arcing maneuvers and racing at high speeds. These ads helped sell not only the machines, but also a style of behavior. Concerned that these ads would undermine the educational efforts, and lead to rider regulation, the ISIA and local clubs worked to eliminate this form of marketing. While the ads were toned down by the mid- 1970’s, they were never eliminated (Reich 1999). Environmental Impacts The last piece of the safety puzzle involved the riding environment. Early snowmobilers frequently depended upon road shoulders, potentially putting them in close contact with automobiles and other vehicles. Because of the open nature of snowmobiles and their light weight, collisions with cars generally resulted in very serious injury and often the death of the snowmobiler. Obstacles such as slope changes, driveways with snowbanks and culverts, generally prohibited use of the roadside public easement. The alternative of riding across typically privately owned fields often resulted in damage to winter wheat or other hardy crops, and was fraught with physical obstacles. In addition, during the 1970’s powerful new environmental
13
advocacy groups were questioning the impact of these noisy, smelly machines on the landscape and wildlife (Reich 1999). Environmental concerns included the impact of snow compaction on both plant life and animals, the disruption of normal winter activities, and increased range and effectiveness of hunters, trappers and fishers using snowmobiles for transportation. In 1970 the Conservation Foundation published a report on the environmental effects of off-road vehicles, and snowmobiles in particular. It recommended comprehensive legislation regulating snowmobiling, prohibiting snowmobiles from most public lands, conducting more research on the impacts of snowmobiles, and imposing a luxury tax to help offset the social cost of the machines (Reich 1999). The ISIA and manufacturers responded as they always had when threatened with regulations and tried to get the ‘upper hand.’ Several manufacturers undertook environmental research, while others commissioned university research efforts. The ISIA used these findings to counter the arguments put forth by environmentalists. They produced a position paper that addressed the issues environmentalists complained about point for point. According to Dr. Reich, “Snowmobiles and Our Environment: Facts and Fantasies” concluded that snowmobiling caused little or no environmental damage, or that there was not enough information available to justify regulation. They also attacked the environmentalists as elitist, suggesting that they were more concerned about keeping others out than protecting the environment (1999).
14
These findings helped the ISIA and local snowmobiling clubs to participate effectively in the decision-making process of a variety of federal and state landmanagement agencies. By the end of the 1970’s, the trend of prohibiting snowmobiles on public lands had largely been turned back. Many of the concerns put forth by environmentalists had been confirmed, but found to be generally very localized. Through careful management, such as restricting usage to a well designed and maintained trail system or other less sensitive areas, snowmobiling’s impact could be negligible. Like motorboating before it, snowmobiling had demonstrated that when conducted with care, it did little environmental damage (Reich 1999). The rise of snowmobiles foreshadowed the rise of PWCs. Snowmobiles were vehicles with little utility for most people, primarily offering a form of thrilling recreation in a potentially hazardous environment. Developing during a time of rising social and environmental activism, the snowmobiling industry was faced with a number of contentious issues right from the start. It approached these with a mix of technological improvements, and especially the lobbying support of dedicated associations as well as the force of enthusiasts to counter the alarmed politicians, annoyed citizens, and aggressive environmentalist (Reich 1999). Importantly, these are the same strategies currently being used to counteract efforts to ban PWCs. All Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) More recently, ATV popularity resulted in many of the same “growing pains” encountered by the snowmobile industry. Noise, physical impacts to the environment, and especially safety concerns were all identified as significant problems with ATVs (Morehouse 1987, Rodgers and Smith 1997, Ross et al. 1999,
15
Bull et al. 2000, Rodgers and Adler 2001, CSPC 2002, NTWC 2002, CFA 2003). As with snowmobiles, technological improvements helped address the noise issue, and the development of trail systems helped limit environmental impacts. However efforts to improve safety have been generally less effective (CPSC 2002, Fulton 2002, NTWC 2002,CFA 2003). The number of crippling injuries to, and deaths of, children caused by ATVs that were designed to scale for their use as well as from adult machines was of particular concern to medical observers (Morehouse 1987, Ross et al. 1999, Bull et al. 2000, Rodgers and Adler 2001, CPSC 2002, NTWC 2002, CFA 2003). Furthermore, design specific problems were evident. Three-wheeled ATVs were considerably more likely to be involved in injuries or deaths than their four-wheeled counterparts, causing manufacturers to enter into a consent decree agreement with the US Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC). Manufacturers agreed to: 1) restrict and eventually eliminate the sale of three-wheeled ATVs, 2) implement more stringent driver age requirements, 3) create a nationwide training program for ATV purchasers and their families and 4) develop voluntary standards to make ATVs safer (Rodgers and Adler 2001). While this consent decree, which expired in April of 1998, appeared to have improved ATV safety somewhat, the number of deaths and injuries caused by ATV usage remained high (Rodgers and Adler 2001). Concerned with the continued safety problems, the CPSC sponsored a study of ATV risk shortly before the consent decree expired to determine if any further regulatory action was warranted (Rodgers and Adler 2001). Rodgers and Adler (2001) found that in order to reduce child
16
injuries it was important to get new drivers to participate in “hands-on” drivers education programs, and critical to encourage consumers to dispose of three-wheeled ATVs still in use. The importance of hands-on training had long been recognized as a critical element of ATV safety. In 1988, the ATV manufacturers supported the development of the ATV Safety Institute (ASI), a non-profit division of the Specialty Vehicle Institute of America. The purpose of the ASI was, “to promote the safe and responsible use of ATVs, thereby reducing accidents and injuries that may result for improper ATV operation by the rider (ASI 2002).” Through the ASI, distributors of all major brands of ATVs in the US can offer free hands-on training to all individuals who purchase new ATVs, including family members. The ASI also provides training at moderate cost to others, such as those who purchase used ATVs (ASI 2002). The half day course still provides hand on training in basic riding skills such as starting, stopping, running, climbing hills, emergency stopping and swerving and riding over obstacles – with the focus on accomplishing these maneuvers safely. The courses also address protective gear, environmental concerns and local laws. Participants receive the ATV Rider Course Handbook, which was designed in consultation with the CPSC. Special training provisions are made for twelve to sixteen year old participants, and parents are encouraged to attend with their children. Separate courses are held for those under the age of twelve, with ATVs sized specifically for youth (ASI 2002). In addition to the ASI courses, numerous
17
programs housed within Cooperative Extension at various universities targeted to the agricultural community also exist. Yet despite these educational efforts, and the attempts by the industry to selfimpose safety standards, nearly 112,000 people are injured or killed by ATVs each year, and that number is rising (CSPC 2002, NTWC 2002, CFA 2003). Confirmed by a report issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which assessed trends between 1997 and 2001, the number of ATV-related injuries and risk of injury to riders increased significantly during those years (CPSC 2002). The larger, faster four-wheeled ATVs now pose as great a threat as the three-wheeled versions banned in 1988. A recent report by the Consumer Federation of America, Bluewater Network and the Natural Trails and Waters Coalition notes that children are still at risk, despite the development of a wider range of child sized ATVs (CFA 2003). Youth ATV-related injuries have been attributed to a number of factors including: no helmet use, immature judgement, risk taking and/or lack of well developed motor skills, riding with a passenger, recreational rather than utilitarian use, and driving an ATV larger than recommended for their age (NCCRAHS 2001a). In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons have issued formal policies recommending that children under the age of sixteen not be allowed to operate ATVs at all (AAP 2000). This reflects the determination that the safe operation of ATVs requires the same or greater skill, judgement and experience as needed for cars (NTWC 2002). Yet, twenty-four states do not have a minimum age to drive an ATV, and nineteen others allow children
18
from the age of eight to twelve to operate them. Only eight states require an ATV operator’s license, and a total of fifteen require any safety training or testing of ATV operators (CFA 2003). With an estimated five million ATV users nationwide, these are significant gaps (ASI 2002). Perhaps because of the greater utilitarian use to which ATVs are put, the ASI and its parent organization the SVIA, have not worked to implement industry model ATV ordinances in the same way that the earlier International Snowmobile Industry Association and newer Personal Watercraft Industry Association have done. This seems to have lead to less of a national consensus regarding regulations, and created the impetus for the AAP to issue its own model ordinance concerning licensing, training and other aspects of ATV safety. However, one essential component of the AAP model that is sure to stir the industry is the banning of those under age sixteen from ATV use (CFA 2003). Unlike snowmobiles, which have largely settled into an uncomfortable public acceptance, ATVs, much like PWC, still face numerous challenges. On June 5, 2003 the CPSC held a public hearing to address the concern that ATV-related injuries had doubled in a recent five year period. The public hearing augmented a written public comment period from October 2002 through March 16, 2003 on a petition by the Consumer Federation of American and other groups to ban the sale of adult-size, four-wheel ATVs sold for the use of children (CPSC 2003a). The Consumer Product Safety Commission declined to do so instead reissuing a warning on November 13, 2003 that those under sixteen years of age should never ride an adult size ATV. The safety alert also recommended that all adult ATV operators take a hands-on training
19
course offered by certified instructors, that riders always wear a helmet and other protective equipment, not carry passengers and not ride on paved roads or use alcohol while operating an ATV (CPSC 2003b). Essentially the CPSC determined that an overall decline in ATV related injuries suggested that voluntary efforts were working and that stronger regulations were not needed at this point. The history and management experiences of snowmobiles and ATVs were quite similar to that of PWCs, and can provide a great deal of insight into the future of PWCs. Results from recent studies assessing ATV-related injuries and their recommendations mirror concerns associated with PWCs, and suggest that PWC problems are likely to be longstanding, despite the move toward mandatory education for PWC operators (NTWC 2002, CFA 2003, CPSC 2002,CPSC 2003b ).
20
CHAPTER III PERSONAL WATER CRAFT ISSUES
Personal watercraft appeal to a wide range of users, often attracting a segment of the population not previously interested in, or with access to, more traditional forms of boating. This appeal has resulted in the presence of more than one million PWC on the waterways of the nation (PWIA 2002, UWLP 2002). This popularity has lead to five general problems associated with PWCs. They include: 1) safety, 2) noise, 3) user conflicts, 4) wildlife / environmental impacts, and 5) pollution (Burger et al. 1999, CRWR 2002, Earth Island 1999, Kupperman et al. 1999, Burger and Leonard 2000, D’Antuono 2000, Komanoff and Shaw 2000, UWLP 2002, Burger 2002, Burger 2003). These issues are inherent to the usage of motorized watercraft overall, however, PWC are significantly different from traditional boats. Thus, they present a unique twist to many of these common concerns. Safety Safety became a significant source of concern as the number of PWCs grew. By 1997, results which factored in Exposure Hours (actual number of hours a vessel is in use) showed that PWC were six times more likely to be involved in an injury causing accident than other open motor boats (CPFPWS 2002). In addition, an increase from twenty-six PWC fatalities in 1993 to eighty-three PWC fatalities in 1997, prompted the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to decide that separate consideration of PWCs was warranted. In 1998 the NTSB issued a study titled, “Safety Study: Personal Watercraft Safety” which supported some of the 21
perceived safety concerns. This study was undertaken in response to an inverse trend that although the overall number of recreational boating fatalities had declined in recent years, the number of personal watercraft-related fatalities had increased. The 1998 NTSB study concluded that PWCs were the only type of recreational vessel for which the leading cause of death was not attributable to drowning but to blunt force trauma. In 1996, the California Department of Boating and Waterways reported an alarming trend that while PWCs accounted for sixteen percent of all recreational boats, they were involved in forty-five percent of all recreational boating accidents, producing fifty-five percent of the people reporting injuries from boating accidents. Perhaps the most striking statistics were that collisions with other vessels made up the majority of recreational boating accidents (sixty-nine percent), and of these collisions, seventy-one percent involved a PWC colliding with another (CDBW 1997, NTSB 1998). Other states reported similar findings (CRWR 2002, Jones 2000). Another startling finding of the NTSB study was the number of injuries PWCs caused to by-standers. The NTSB study (1998) and others reported numerous incidents of PWC operators losing control near shore resulting in the PWC striking swimmers, often children (Rockwell 2001). These types of accidents were largely attributed to the inexperience of the operators and the specific operating and handling characteristics of PWCs. A moveable nozzle connected to a jet pump, rather than a propeller, is used to power and steer PWCs. This results in what manufacturers refer to as “off-throttle steering” issues – essentially “releasing the throttle completely eliminates the ability to steer the watercraft” (as reported in a
22
PWC manufacturer’s manual - NTSB 1998). The NTSB and others concluded that this operating characteristic is counterintuitive, especially to novice operators. This is of particular concern in situations where the operator attempts to avoid potential collisions. When an inexperienced rider realizes that there is the danger of hitting another vessel, person or object, the typical response (based on experience with other motor vehicles) is to release the throttle and then attempt to steer away from the hazard. Unfortunately PWCs like all boats, have no active braking mechanisms. In order to stop they must rely on the force of friction with water to slow them. But while coasting, unlike other boats, there is no steering ability (NTSB 1998, Rockwell 2001). This feature is especially worrisome given the high speeds that PWCs are capable of. A vessel operating at a speed 50 miles per hour (within the capability of most PWCs – BoatTest 2003) would cross an 80-cre lake in under three minutes based on an assumed distance of 16000 feet. Essentially, the speed of PWCs reduces the operating size of a waterbody by resulting in a very limited amount of time needed to cross it – and less time to react to shoreline features, other boaters and unexpected obstacles. Just as drivers on the highway are supposed to leave greater distances between their car and others when operating at higher speeds, in order to operate PWCs safely at higher speeds, more space is needed. Another vessel design safety issue is the frequency of lower limb injuries or trauma caused by the open design features of PWCs, which provides little protection for riders in the event of a collision (NTSB 1998). In addition, the deep foot well design that allows riders to maintain their positions has resulted in numerous leg
23
injuries. When the vessels turned abruptly because of wakes, collision avoidance or excessive maneuvering, the lower leg or ankle of riders has been snapped (Rockwell 2001). Awareness of the impact to personal health and safety has not been limited to the regulatory community. The increased frequency and severity of PWC related injuries alarmed the medical community - especially since the approximately 12,000 injuries treated at emergency rooms in 1995 was nearly 75% higher than those reported to the United States Coast Guard (USGC) that year (Branche et al. 1997, CPFPWC 2002). This trend of increasing injuries prompted numerous evaluations focused on identifying common causes of accidents in order to facilitate the implementation of programs and regulations to prevent such injuries (Swinburn 1996, Branche et al. 1997, Shatz et al. 1998, White and Cheatham 1999, Bull et al. 2000, Rodgers and Adler 2001). Those efforts have had limited success. Based on USCG statistics, mandatory education requirements implemented in some states in response to these safety issues, along with increased regulation discouraging irresponsible behavior, resulted in a nearly ten percent (8.5%) decline in the number of PWC accidents between 1997 and 1999 (UWLP 2002). More recent USGC accident statistics (2002) indicate that while PWCs still make up a larger percent of accidents (28%) than the number of PWCs registered should account for the number of accidents has been declining every year since 1996. Still, more than 2,225 PWCs were reported to have been involved in accidents resulting in 1,362 injuries and 71 fatalities in 2002 (USGC 2003). While the USGS admits that its records generally underreport the
24
number of PWC accidents (emergency room statistics were not available for comparison), it is an indication that at least some safety concerns can be addressed through education and regulation, but not all (Earth Island 1999, CPFPWC 2002, USGC 2003). Despite having enacted a mandatory education requirement for Rhode Island PWC users in 2002, safety concerns were a major focus of PWC opponents in Rhode Island in 2003 following fatalities in multiple incidents. In the first, a thirty-threeyear old man riding a PWC collided with a friend also on a PWC, on July 5, 2003 off Nyatt Point in Barrington. The East Providence man was killed (Hayes 2003). In the second, on Pascoag Reservoir in Burrillville, a twenty-four-year-old Massachusetts father was killed when the PWC he was driving, with his three-yearold son, collided with a boat towing waterskiers. The three-year-old was critically injured but survived, his father died at the scene (Milkovits 2003). This particular accident was especially tragic because the father had been previously cited for reckless operation of a PWC on the reservoir – and thus should have been more conscious of regulations (Shea and Bramson 2003). It also highlights a flaw in Rhode Island’s mandatory education law. As a Massachusetts resident he was not required to have completed a PWC education course in order to operate a PWC in Rhode Island waters (46RIGL§22-9.8). He merely had to meet Massachusetts laws, which currently do not require education for PWC operation by adults (90bMGL§9B). A third PWC accident in 2003 occurred on Waterman Lake in Glocester. Fortunately this accident, which occurred when teenaged brothers collided, only
25
resulted in non-life threatening injuries (Projo 2003). Rhode Islanders are also not immune to accidents while operating PWCs in other states either. A fourteen-yearold Rhode Island girl was airlifted to a Maine hospital after receiving significant injuries while riding a PWC on China Lake in Belfast, Maine. In that incident, the fourteen-year-old was riding on the back of the PWC piloted by her father, spotting her younger sister who was riding a tube. The fourteen-year was thrown from the PWC by rough water, then hit by the tube and its rider, causing a concussion (BMNI 2003). Noise Perhaps one of the biggest causes of conflict regarding PWCs is the noise these generate (BEC 1993, Earth Island 1999, Komanoff and Shaw 2000, UWLP 2002). Studies indicate that PWC noise is one of the most common types of complaints received by water safety officials (MNDNR 1996-2001). Furthermore other research has found that although PWC noise does not generally significantly exceed that of other motorboats, it is much more distracting to those in the area, and perhaps to the operators as well (BEC 1993, PWIA 1999, Wagner 2001, PWIA 2002). A report for the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse, an organization dedicated to reducing noise pollution, titled Drowning in Noise: Noise Costs of Jet Skis in America described PWC noise as more of an annoyance because these vessels continually leave the water (Komanoff and Shaw 2000). This produced three essential problems. First, PWC exhaust noise can increase by fifteen decibels without the muffling effect of the water. This increased engine noise is then
26
followed by the sound of the hull concussion as it re-enters the water “with an explosive “whomp” - sometimes with a series of them” (Komanoff and Shaw 2000). Second, because PWCs have such short hulls (generally less than thirteen feet), a wet bike ridden fast on even a slightly choppy surface will lift out of the water naturally, again eliminating the water’s sound-muffling action and also creating hull concussions. Of course, this is compounded by the fact that much of the fun (as subliminally advertised by most major manufacturers) of PWC use is the thrill of jumping waves. The third and perhaps most significant issue is that the direct noiseamplifying effect of leaving and re-entering the water is compounded by the variable nature of this noise. Decades of psycho-acoustics research have determined that such rapidly varying noise is much more annoying than a constant tone or noise (Komanoff and Shaw 2000). This is easily demonstrated by the contrasts of a lawn mower and a chain saw. While lawn mowers tend to operate at higher decibels, most people object more to chain saws because of the erratic levels of sound when the operator is throttling the machine or accelerating the chain to cut the wood (Wagner 2001). Again, this ‘irritating noise’ is compounded by how these vessels are often operated. Operators of PWCs often circle their machines for long periods of time in a relatively small area. This circling behavior may be caused when parents do not permit younger operators out of their sight (personal experience), or the fact that doing so creates large wakes for jumping (Martin 1999). Residents around one Minnesota lake found the sound of PWCs buzzing around for several hours in front
27
of their property so disturbing that local authorities banned any personal watercraft use for more than 30 minutes in one area (MNDNR 2001). User Conflicts User conflicts represent a significant concern with personal watercraft, and are the major focus of this research. As stated previously, user conflicts include a diverse range of issues. However, noise complaints, interference with other’s enjoyment of the outdoor experience or with other recreational activities, as well as concerns regarding how close PWCs operate to other vessels, swimmers and to the shoreline are common (Earth Island 1999, Kupperman et al. 1999, Komanoff and Shaw 2000, UWLP 2002). One Rhode Island example is the perceived increased usage of Worden Pond by PWC operators following their prohibition from a number of fresh and salt ponds in the Charlestown / Westerly area (Miceli 2003a). The state’s largest natural freshwater pond is blessed with healthy warm water fisheries, abundant recreational opportunities resulting from its linkages to the Chipuxet River and Great Swamp for canoeing and kayaking, large areas of open water with abundant wind for windsurfers, and a state owned and maintained boat launch ramp and parking area. Located in South Kingstown, Worden Pond is also a popular destination for a variety of recreationalists. However, at least one long-time user of this resource noted that following the loss of access to waterbodies in neighboring communities, the number of PWC operating on Worden Pond increased significantly and adversely impacted her enjoyment of the pond (Miceli 2003a). The chief complaint was that typically there were multiple operators of the vessels taking turns. This resulted in
28
frequent trips into and out of the dock and launching area, with accompanying noise, wakes and disturbance to others in the launch area. In addition, the ‘crowds of people hanging out waiting for their turn’ prohibited access to the dock and created a raucous environment (Miceli 2003a). Ms. Miceli stated that in past years she had seldom been bothered while kayaking on Worden Pond. Power boaters typically launched their boats then proceeded out into the pond for hours of fishing or water skiing, well away from the launching area and other operators (2003a, 2003b). The noise issue, as noted previously, is a major concern with PWCs. It is one that is unlikely to be solved through strictly technological means, despite industry claims that they have spent millions of dollars in research in an attempt to reduce the volume of newer PWCs (PWIA 1999, PWIA 2002, UWLP 2002). Communities are challenged with designating acceptable levels of annoyance, and developing use ordinances to regulate PWC use. For example, usage and/or time zoning has been implemented in some communities (Wagner 2001). This concept designates certain portions of a water body, or days of the week for different vessel usage (i.e., human and/or wind powered craft only on Mondays, Wednesday, and every other Saturday, or that motorized vessels are allowed to operate only between 10 am and 4 pm). While these types of restrictions do not make everyone happy, they allow mixed uses with less direct user conflicts, and provide waterfront property owners with a few quiet days or hours each week. Numerous local, state and federal regulatory agencies have addressed these concerns, with varying degrees of success, and controversy (Burger et al. 1999, Earth Island 1999, Kupperman et al. 1999, Dudiak 2001, UWLP 2002, Burger 2003). In
29
response to increased concerns with PWCs, some states (including Rhode Island as of January 1, 2002) require residents to successfully complete an approved personal watercraft safety-training course in order to operate PWCs (46RIGL§22-9.8). Connecticut was one of the first states in New England to stipulate that anyone who operates a PWC on state waters must hold a certificate stating that they have completed a Connecticut State accredited PWC safety course, regardless of age, previous experience, or state of residency (CTDEP 2000, 2002). U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and many other state-approved boating courses are not approved by Connecticut at this point, indicating the importance of PWC specific education (CTDEP 2002). While it is too soon to determine the effectiveness of required education in Connecticut or other states, preliminary indications suggest that the numbers of accidents and injuries have generally declined (UWLP 2002). The success of required education in mitigating associated nuisances has not yet been investigated by area researchers. Wildlife / EnvironmentalIimpacts Personal watercraft also cause direct impacts to wildlife. These include: stress, interruption of normal behavior, generating alarm or flight, causing the displacement of habitat, impacting reproductive success, (specifically interference with courtship and nest abandonment), and direct mortality (Erwin et al. 1995, Burger 1998a, Earth Island 1999, Martin 1999, Burger and Leonard 2000, Burger 2003, UWLP 2002). These disruptions are generally attributable to PWC noise or erratic operations in shallow, near shore waters, or by high-speed operations.
30
Efforts to mitigate impacts to common terns nesting colonies by PWCs in New Jersey resulted in several key marine policy responses (Burger 1998a, Burger and Leonard 2000, Burger 2002). Recognizing that there were larger issues related to safety and noise that were likely not to be solved immediately, stakeholders worked to protect this living resource agreeing that protection was essential. Upon identifying natural resource conflicts, the community responded with a series of actions that Burger (2002) considered essential to the successful mitigation of impacts to the nesting colonies. First, a management review was promulgated at the local level with all the relevant water users, regardless of their direct involvement, included in policy discussions. This prevented state biologists or marine police from dominating the discussions and ensured that extreme measures, such as the complete elimination of PWCs from the waterway, were not suggested. Finally, any regulatory response occurred only after broad-scale public participation (Burger and Leonard 2000, Burger 2003). Burger most recently suggested that long-term vigilance was necessary to ensure program success (2003*). It is possible that this co-management model might provide a strategy for addressing continuing PWC conflicts in Rhode Island (Burger 2003). In Congressional proceedings, the Honorable James Saxton, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries, Conservation and Wildlife and Oceans at a hearing on amending the Coastal Zone Management Act (February 25, 1999) summarized the basis of environmental impact concerns: "PWCs pose the following threats to our natural resources:
Wildlife Disturbance: PWCs’ shallow draft and high maneuverability are not present in larger boats, and allow PWCs to
31
enter sensitive areas not accessible to larger motorized boats. Once there, they disturb nesting birds and wildlife.
Destruction of Aquatic Vegetation: Again, because PWCs are able to enter shallow water and because of the type of propulsion being utilized, they have the ability to uproot aquatic vegetation.
Increased Erosion: PWC users typically spend long periods of time in an area that traditional boats cannot reach and can generate significant wave action. Increased and continuous wave action contributes to shoreline erosion (Saxton 1999)."
Pollution Water and air pollution have been identified as additional impacts by PWCs, although these are often considered no greater than for other motorboats (40 Fed. Reg. 89 - 91, October 4, 1996, Kado et al. 2000, UWLP 2002). Airborne polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon emissions from two-stroke engines (found in PWCs and most current outboard motors) were found to be a significant source of pollution, warranting technology-forcing regulation (40 Fed. Reg. 89 - 91, October 4, 1996). Concerns regarding contamination of both surface and groundwater from the gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MtBE) linked to recreational boating has reinforced the need for more efficient, less polluting engines (Talbot 2003). In fact, in Lake Tahoe (California and Nevada), the use of two-stroke engines has already been prohibited, with large fines, and loss of the vessel possible (TRPA 1999). Because multiple users often operate PWCs for extended periods of time, there is concern that air and water pollution per PWC use day, rather than per hour of use, is higher than for other motorboats (Earth Island 1999, Wagner 2001). In fact, it has been reported that a typical PWC produces more hydrocarbon and oxides of nitrogen emissions during a day of operation (seven hours) than a 1998 California-
32
emissions car driven a total of 100,000 miles (CARB 1998). Newer model PWCs produce much lower emissions, and all manufacturers expect to meet EPA requirements on or before schedule (PWIA 2003a). However, this does not offset the case that nearly one million of the higher polluting PWCs are on the nation’s waters, and are likely to continue in operation for a number of years to come.
33
CHAPTER IV CURRENT PERSONAL WATERCRAFT MANAGEMENT EFFORTS IN RHODE ISLAND
PWC Restrictions – Federal, State and Local Levels The issues associated with PWCs usage have lead to a variety of management strategies, but PWCs restrictions and bans have been the most typical response (Dudiak 2001). One of the first was implemented at the federal level by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which banned PWCs within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (57 Fed. Reg. 43,310, Sept. 18, 1992) 48 F.3d 540). This ban was based on evidence that these vessels harmed the marine environment of the sanctuary. The Personal Watercraft Industry Association sued the Department of Commerce arguing that NOAA's prohibition was unconstitutional because it singled out PWCs. However on March 3, 1995 the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals upheld NOAA's PWC restrictions. In PWIA vs. the Department of Commerce (48 F.3D 540, 310 U.S.APP.D.C 364) the court found that although NOAA's restrictions did indeed single out PWCs, the agency's actions were not "arbitrary and capricious" and were therefore constitutional. More recently, courts upheld National Park Service efforts to eliminate PWCs from most of its land holdings (Dudiak 2001, PWIA 2002). Bans restricting PWCs usage at the state level have generally followed the model of New Hampshire, one of the earliest states to enact such legislation. In New Hampshire, communities with water bodies meeting established criteria (i.e., less
34
than 300 acres, etc.) may petition to restrict PWCs from designated water bodies. This process allows local residents a fair degree of control, while ensuring that the rights of PWC users are protected. The New Hampshire legislation has successfully fended off court challenges largely because it addressed impacts unique to PWCs and/or their usage, and was confined to waterbodies falling within narrow criteria (Earth Island 1999, UWLP 2002). Regionally, the New Hampshire legislation has served as a model for the State of Maine, and in a more restricted manner, Rhode Island. However, there is one critical flaw in the New Hampshire legislation. It was one of the first such enacted, and was written at a time when PWCs were much smaller, typically only able to carry the driver, and many were of the variety where the rider stood upright. Thus, PWCs were defined as vessels capable of carrying a single person. With the advent of two and three person PWCs, many communities discovered that these larger vessels were in fact permitted on lakes that they thought were protected from PWC intrusion. Efforts to correct this flaw have repeatedly failed because of intense lobbying pressure from the PWIA and others (OLP 2003, PWIA 2003b). They argue that the larger vessels, because they carry multiple passengers, are an appropriate form of family recreation and are less prone to abuse (PWIA 2003b). Typically, PWC management efforts are implemented under ‘public nuisance’ or ‘tort’ (harms) provisions. As common law concepts, much of the legal debate has centered here as opposed to taking place within statutorily based law. Few state legislatures have enacted statewide legislation to deal with PWC conflicts
35
on public waters. Rather, they have left it to be debated at the local level under home-rule concepts of public safety. Therefore, the legal realm is primarily local ordinances and the challenges therein, as well as common law court challenges under nuisance parameters noted above (Gries et al. 1926). For example, after a several year battle PWC opponents in Massachusetts were recently successful in getting a home rule bill passed. Under this new law, in addition to a statewide prohibition of PWCs from waterbodies of less than 75 acres, communities have the authority to regulate PWC on waterbodies within their jurisdiction. A similar effort in Rhode Island failed during the 2002/2003 legislative session, and has not been reintroduced since (CLF 2003). Local restrictions are a more common practice, with the precedent having been set in by the County of San Juan, Washington. It initiated one of the earliest locally based restrictions in 1996. This ban was enacted to protect “its special marine environment, its tourist driven economy, and the peaceful use of the San Juan Islands by residents and visitors (San Juan 1998).” The National Marine Manufacturers Association filed a legal challenge on behalf of the PWIA and others challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance. Entitled Weden, et al. v. San Juan County a 7-2 decision in the Washington Supreme Court upheld San Juan County, and made it one of the rallying points of communities seeking local action (1998). This case established a precedent that local, reasonable ordinances addressing PWC issues that did not violate other state laws were a valid exercise of local police powers.
36
Rhode Island Legislative Process Rhode Island’s authority to regulate PWCs on its waters stems from the common law concept of “police power”. Through police power, the state may restrict private activity in order to achieve a broad public benefit, typically defined as the health, safety and welfare of the public (Black’s 1990, Freeman et al 2002.) The power of states, and through state enabling legislation communities, to administer land and water use regulations is derived directly from the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. The so-called "reserved powers doctrine" states that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution are reserved by the states. Chief among these is the "police power” (Freeman et al 2002.) The specific ability of municipalities to enact zoning ordinances was codified in the State Standard Zoning Enabling Act (1921, then amended in 1926) Act to provide a fundamental basis for enabling proper zoning to be undertaken without injustice or the violation of property rights. In fact, Rhode Island had implemented legislation to enable municipal zoning as early as 1921 (Gries et al. 1926). In Rhode Island, the Department of Environmental Management has the responsibility of promulgating and enforcing boating regulations in both inland and marine waters. The regulations are based in the Rhode Island General Laws, which are developed, debated and approved by the Rhode Island Legislature. The two most significant Rhode Island laws for PWC operators are RI General Law 46-22-9.8 Certificate of Boating Safety Education (46RIGL§22-9.8), and RI General Law 4627-2 Regulation of Personal Watercraft (46RIGL§27-2).
37
The first, 46RIGL§22-9.8, requires that all boaters born on or after January 1, 1986, who operates a vessel with a motor larger than ten horsepower and all personal watercraft users regardless of age must successfully complete a boating safety education program as approved by the director of the Department of Environmental Management. Courses must be a minimum of eight hours, and must be State approved, and include a variety of options including home study and online courses (RIDEM 2003a). Exemptions to this requirement include: those operating vessels while under training and the direct supervision of a person on board who is eighteen or older and meets the certification requirements, a person holding a valid commercial vessel operator’s license issued by the US Coast Guard, a state or province, non-residents temporarily using the waters of Rhode Island who meet the requirements of their own state, new residents within the first sixty days of their residency, renters of PWCs or other vessels with greater than ten horsepower motors. Renters that have not completed an approved safety education course “must watch a short instructional video approved by the director of boating safety for the type of craft rented, and pass a written examination (46RIGL§22-9.8).” The mandatory boating education requirement went in to effect on January 1, 2002, and has likely not yet been fully implemented among all applicable boat and PWC operators. The second law with direct consequences for PWC operators in Rhode Island is 46RIGL§27-2, the Personal Watercraft Safety Act. This act outlines requirements for personal watercraft usage that may differ from other vessels of similar horsepower. As of the fall of 2003, and in response to specific local concerns, 46RIGL§27-2 enables varying levels of regulatory authority on the inland waters of
38
seven communities. Charlestown and Westerly were granted the right to enact ordinance regulations controlling the use of personal watercraft within their jurisdiction. Bans or other limitations were permitted on waterbodies meeting designated criteria. The town of Coventry was granted regulatory authority of PWCs on Tiogue Lake only. The towns of South Kingstown, Narragansett, Middletown and North Kingstown were authorized to provide, by ordinance, regulations controlling the use of PWCs on any fresh or inland waters of the town. Interestingly, Narragansett was then given separate authority to control PWCs, including a ban on its inland waters. In addition, South Kingstown was granted separate authority to regulate PWC on Narrow River and Green Hill Pond, but not the ability to ban or otherwise limit their use. All of these provisions indicate that where towns have joint jurisdiction over a body of water that the towns may enter into a binding memorandum regarding each town’s jurisdiction (46RIGL§27-2). Efforts to: 1) include the town of Smithfield in those having regulatory authority or 2) to include all Rhode Island communities, have failed (CFL 2003). This patchwork approach has also lead to considerable debate locally. Charlestown / Westerly Ban Charlestown and Westerly were the first communities in Rhode Island granted the authority to regulate PWCs. Initially spurred by complaints from Quonochontaug area residents, local officials petitioned the legislature for some degree of local control. Eventually the towns were given the authority to provide by ordinance regulations controlling the use of personal watercraft within their jurisdictions. The ordinances may include a ban or limitation on operation
39
waterbodies meeting any one of a specific set of criteria. Those waterbodies on which PWC may be banned: less than three hundred acres in size, or four hundred feet in width, that have a tradition of swimming, shellfishing, fishing, paddle sports or small craft rowing or sailing upon them, that have been demonstrated to be ecologically sensitive, that are bordered by or have portions bordered by significant concentrations of residential development, already have a history of powerboat regulations or where navigational considerations due to congestion can be shown to exist. The Department of Environmental Management determines whether a waterbody meets any of these criteria (46RIGL§27-2). The town of Charlestown determined that two of its coastal salt ponds, Ninigret and Quonochontaug which extends into Westerly, as well as three fresh water ponds Watchaug, Schoolhouse and Deep Ponds in Charlestown met these criteria and submitted an application to RIDEM to ban PWC from these waterbodies. Following an initial rejection by RIDEM on the grounds that the towns had not supplied enough evidence to justify the ban, the request was later approved for Quonochontaug, Ninigret and Watchaug Ponds following an appeal with additional information (Kuffner 2002a, Kuffner 2002b, Davis 2002b). Coventry Ordinance The next Rhode Island community to receive authority from the legislature to exert local control over PWCs was Coventry. In this community, activists living along the shores of Tiogue Lake sought protection from PWCs strictly for their lake. They did not seek to extend control of PWCs on all waterbodies within the town,
40
which would have included the state’s most heavily recreated inland waterbody – Johnson’s Pond (also know as Flat River Reservoir). Tiogue Lake is a large, shallow bowl, surrounded by home covered hills, and bordered by two major roads. In addition, the Coventry Town beach and a state boat ramp facilitate access to the lake. The debate on Tiogue Lake focused primarily on concerns regarding pollution from the two-stroke engines commonly found in late and older model PWCs and the nuisance caused by their noise. Impacts on shoreline erosion were also cited because of the ability of PWCs to operate in shallow water, which also exacerbated noise issues (Kuffner 2003c). Following the success of the Charlestown and Westerly efforts to ban PWCs in Rhode Island, the PWIA determined to support proponents of PWC on Tiogue Lake and in other local communities. With encouragement from the PWIA, one local resident, David Migneault vowed to ride his Jet Ski back and forth “within 201 feet of [an opponent’s] shoreline, according to the law.” Migneault flatly refused compromises such as alternate days of use, although he could accept a phase out of the two-stroke engine models of PWC on the lake (Kuffner 2003c). After more than a year of debate the Coventry Town Council approved a compromise ordinance to control PWCs in August of 2002. The ordinance requires that all PWC owners operating on Tiogue Lake register their craft with the town. The cost of an annual sticker for residents is $20, and $40 for nonresidents. Those under the age of sixteen are prohibited from operating PWCs on the lake at all, as are retailers seeking a spot to “test drive” the craft for prospective buyers. In addition, all PWCs with two-stroke engines will be banned from the lake by April 2007, in
41
line with USEPA regulations, which phase out the sale of two-stroke engines by then (Wims 2002, 2003). By focusing the issues narrowly, and applying the restrictions to a single waterbody that met the state multiple criteria required for the Charlestown and Westerly bans, the Coventry application was approved by the RIDEM upon first submission. Narrow River Discussions Efforts to ban or restrict PWCs on the Narrow River have been a source of great debate, drawing statewide and industry attention over the past several years. The Narrow River is unique in that three towns, Narragansett, South Kingstown and North Kingstown have joint jurisdiction of the waterbody. It is a tidal river with a direct connection to Block Island Sound. It has a well-developed waterfront with many year-round and seasonal homes, and includes the John Chaffee National Wildlife Refuge covering a large portion of its southern reaches. It is a popular area for canoes and especially kayaks, with a kayak livery located adjacent to the wildlife refuge. It is also a well-known and used fishing area. A state owned boat launch ramp, as well as private club marina and beaches provide access. Much of the river is, as its name implies, quite narrow, legally allowing headway speed only for PWCs over much of its length. The river widens out at its southern end (Pettaquamscutt Cove) and its northern reaches (Lower and Upper Ponds) permitting legal use of PWCs at greater than headway speeds in those areas. Powerboats are active throughout most of the river system, but generally avoid the Pettaquamscutt Cover area because of its shallowness.
42
The Narrow River Preservation Association (NRPA) has been attempting since 2001 to have PWCs banned from the river and Pettaquamscutt Cove because of adverse environmental impacts. Their specific concerns include discharge of unburned fuel mixed with engine oil and the gasoline additive MtBE, air pollution, increased turbidity and erosion, as well as impacts to wildlife. The NRPA is also concerned about safety, but their primary focus is on environmental concerns (Lachowicz 2002). Opponents to the ban have included PWC operators, the PWIA, as well as the South Kingstown Waterfront Advisory Commission and South Kingstown Harbormaster. The latter two contend that a ban on PWCs for environmental reasons would be discriminatory, and that current regulations and enforcement are effective (Jones 2002). A RIDEM and Southern Conservation District sponsored Watershed Action Team, a consensus-based stakeholders group developed to promote watershed stewardship, has also devoted much of its effort toward maintaining all forms of boating on the river, including PWCs (DeSilva, 2003). Concerns have been raised that if the NRPA is successful in banning PWCs, they will next turn to eliminating all motorized boating on the river - a concern that NRPA stated as unfounded (Jones 2002a, Lachowicz 2002). The three towns with jurisdiction of Narrow River were granted authority to regulate PWCs over a period of time, and with some confusion. Initially, Representative Eugene Garvey sought enabling legislation to that would allow South Kingstown to regulate PWCs only on Green Hill Pond. Town officials persuaded him to expand it to all town waters. Upon introduction of the bill, other communities
43
asked to be included as well. Following strenuous lobbying by PWC enthusiasts and the industry, North Kingstown, Middletown and Smithfield were removed, providing only South Kingstown and Narragansett with the regulatory authority on Narrow River and for South Kingstown, Green Hill Pond (Davis 2002b). This suggested that PWCs could only be regulated in the lower end of the river, and not in the upper end, which is located in North Kingstown, a potential enforcement nightmare. There were also some language differences between RI House and Senate versions that were in conflict, providing South Kingstown with limited regulatory authority – not the ability to ban, while Narragansett could ban PWCs (Jones 2002a). Eventually, following five years of active lobbying by the NRPA, all three towns, along with Middletown, were granted the authority to provide, by ordinance, regulations controlling the use of PWCs on all waters of the town, including bans (46RIGL§27-2, Jones 2002b). In December of 2002, the three town councils met with those supporting the effort to ban PWCs on Narrow River, as well as opponents to the bans, including paid lobbyist from the PWIA. Statistics, as well as the merit of NRPA’s concerns regarding the impact from PWCs on the environment were debated at length, with no decision reached (Alcalde, 2002, Emblock 2002a, Emblock 2002b, Jones 2002b). As of the writing of this thesis (January 2004), none of three towns have enacted additional regulations on PWC usage on the river. Enforcement efforts have been increased, but considerable debate continues (Emblock 2003c). Most recently, North Kingstown declined to take unilateral action following testimony from over sixty people for or against a ban, opting instead to continue addressing the situation by
44
working with South Kingstown and Narragansett. Both those communities have chosen to depend on increased enforcement and education to reduce perceived impacts (Bottis 2003, Emblock 2003b, Emblock 2003c).
45
CHAPTER V METHODOLOGY
Research Objectives The primary purpose of this research was to provide a foundation for the development of negotiated solutions to PWC use conflicts in Rhode Island. Thus far, the typical response by local communities addressing these conflicts has been to seek complete restrictions of PWC usage on the impacted waterbodies (Davis 2002, Kuffner 2002, Jones 2002). While this certainly reduces user conflicts on those particular waterbodies, it results in increased density of PWCs on nearby waterbodies as PWC users seek alternative sites (Miceli 2003a, 2003b). This creates additional safety concerns and user conflicts on those alternative waterbodies, as more displaced PWCs are operating in areas they are unfamiliar with, and which likely already had a local boating and PWC population. It can be assumed that increased safety concerns and user conflicts at the alternative sites may prompt local officials to seek a PWC ban for their waterway, forcing both the previously displaced, and now newly displaced PWC users to find new alternative sites. This potential “domino effect” of PWC bans reduces recreational opportunities, and can have an economic impact as well. The development of locally negotiated solutions, which reduce user conflicts while permitting some PWC use, would result in more effective water resource management. This research had three principal objectives. The first objective was to identify the current status of PWC management in Rhode Island, specifically to
46
determine stakeholders’ perception of the effectiveness of current regulations and enforcement levels. The views of three stakeholder groups in the PWC issue were assessed using questionnaires primarily in a written format. The stakeholder groups included: 1) PWCs users, 2) other water enthusiasts, including coastal residents, boaters, swimmers, fishers, clammers, etc., and 3) those responsible for management of the resource, including public safety officials, legislators, and municipal officials. In order to develop more effective management plans it was important to understand the significant concern's surrounding current efforts. The second objective was to evaluate differences in the perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the current PWC management regime between stakeholders groups. The responses of the three stakeholder groups to survey questions were compared statistically to determine if they differed in their views on the problems related to a variety of PWC issues. Without a common assessment of the current situation, it is highly unlikely that management strategies will be implemented to effectively address the central concerns, especially user conflicts. Recognizing differences in perception between these important stakeholder groups could create more effective communication, and hopefully initiate negotiated solutions to user conflicts, thereby improving management of local recreational water resources. The third objective was to determine the acceptance by these stakeholder groups to various management options, some of which are not currently in use in Rhode Island. These options typically address more localized concerns, and may provide attractive alternatives for management of PWCs. Whether these alternatives
47
would be widely accepted by these stakeholder groups was largely unknown, but could be an important determinant in implementation of appropriate solutions. This thesis also examined differences in perception of traditional PWC concerns and management issues between PWC-users and other water enthusiasts. It was expected that PWC-users did not consider PWCs to cause significant conflicts, whereas other resource users generally perceived them to be a greater source of user conflict. Identifying the source of those conflicts and the disparity in the perceptions of user groups could provide information needed to facilitate dialog about possible solutions. Further, by examining responses to management alternatives between resource-users groups, it may be possible to identify more acceptable alternatives from which to initiate discussions or education campaigns and thereby begin to develop negotiated solutions. A secondary purpose of this research was to assess how consistent Rhode Island is with the national response to PWC management. This involved a review of current state legislative and agency rulemaking, as well as significant local municipal regulatory initiatives from throughout the nation. Selected case laws were reviewed to highlight the fate of these regulations within the legal system, and provide a gauge for the appropriateness of use in Rhode Island. Research Hypotheses The research hypotheses were designed to test the relationships described in the research objectives. These hypotheses are presented in a combination of null and experiential formats.
48
H1: There are no significant differences in the perception of resource users and resource managers regarding the effectiveness of current personal watercraft management in Rhode Island (H0). H2: There are no significant differences in the perception of PWC users and other water users regarding the magnitude of the PWC user conflict issue in Rhode Island (H0). H3: There are no significant differences in the acceptance by resource users and resource managers to the use of bans (restricting PWCs from designated waterbodies entirely) as a PWC management strategy in Rhode Island (H0). H4: There are significant differences in the acceptance by resource users and resource managers to the use of space zoning (restricting PWCs to designated areas of a water body) as a PWC management alternative in Rhode Island (Ha). H5: There are significant differences in the acceptance by resource users and resource managers to the use of time zoning (restricting PWCs to designated times of the day or days of the week) as a PWC management alternative in Rhode Island (Ha).
Research Assumptions The following assumptions were made relative to those factors that are beyond the scope of the proposed study. A – 1 It was assumed that individuals will respond to survey questions honestly and reasonably.
49
A – 2 It was assumed that developing PWC management strategies that are acceptable to all stakeholders is possible, and therefore should be a goal of resource managers. A – 3 It was assumed that all stakeholder groups would act reasonably in response to suggested management alternatives, considering a balance of uses a goal of management efforts.
Study Area and Study Population This research focused on selected communities within the state of Rhode Island. Selection criteria included the presence of significant recreational waters, marine or fresh; and significant populations of resource users (both active and passive). Communities with public boat launches and/or active lake or watershed associations received preference. The following communities meet the stated criteria and were the focus of this research: Barrington, Bristol, Burrillville, Charlestown, Coventry, Jamestown, Narragansett, Newport, New Shoreham (Block Island), Smithfield, South Kingstown, Tiverton, Warren, Warwick and Westerly. In this study, resource managers consisted of local regulators with primary control of PWC management. At the state level, this included RIDEM park employees, boating safety enforcement officers and policy makers. However, RIDEM officials declined to participate in the survey in order to avoid any complications involving potential policy making by an enforcement agency. State legislators, preferably from districts with significant PWC usage were also identified as resource managers, with their participation solicited as well. Local resource
50
managers included police and marine patrol officers, harbormasters, and harbor commission members or waterfront advisory commission members. For this study, resource users were identified as those people who use Rhode Island aquatic resources for active or passive recreation, as well as for commercial uses. Those indicating that they ride PWC on a regular basis, more than once yearly, were designated as “PWCs users”, all others were considered “other aquatic resource users” (including active and passive recreational activities). Data Collection A multiple questionnaire strategy was used to identify and isolate those PWC issues that were of specific concern to Rhode Island resource users and managers, and to assess their acceptance of a variety of potential user conflict solutions (Appendices A and B). One questionnaire was developed for use with resource managers, titled “Boating / Municipal Official Survey” (Officials survey), with survey and question numbers identified as “O -“(Appendix A). The second survey, developed for use with resource users, was titled “Resource User Survey”, with survey and question numbers identified as “R -“ (Appendix B). The main difference between these two questionnaires was that the resource users survey contained questions regarding the individual’s water recreation experience, including PWC usage. Officials were asked to answer questions regarding current conditions relative to resources and users within their area of jurisdiction. Survey questions were designed for two specific purposes. The first was to provide data for the tests of hypotheses. The second was to provide background information to better understand the nature of user conflicts.
51
Ten-point Likert scale based questions with selected open-ended responses were used to isolate information on regulatory effectiveness, and to determine the acceptance of PWC management alternatives (Ditton and Hunt 1996). In addition to a few basic demographic questions, most were related to whether the respondent perceived PWC usage to be a source of conflict, especially in comparison to other boating activities and environmental factors. Other questions related to what the respondent believed regulations ought or not to permit related to PWCs. Similar survey instruments were administered to the three primary groups making up the study population: resource managers (Officials survey, Appendix A), PWCs users, and other aquatic resource users (Resource Users survey, Appendix B). Initially, beach and boat ramp exit intercept surveys were planned as the principal form of data collection. However, there was little opportunity encountered to intercept large numbers of respondents at launch sites, and there was a degree of reluctance encountered by recreationists not wanting to be interrupted while launching or retrieving their vessels. This reluctance was particularly acute among PWC users, and may have been a defensive response to the barrage of frequently negative press that PWCs were receiving throughout the research period. Therefore, it was decided to utilize a return-by-mail survey approach. Study objectives focused on the need to seek responses from avid or knowledgeable respondents. Therefore, a strategy to randomize responses was not deemed necessary because of cost, and other logistical concerns. Thus, this researcher deliberately sought responses from individuals that reflected ‘manager’ or ‘enthusiast’ concerns.
52
Personal watercraft users were solicited through a variety of outlets. More than 200 surveys were left with the service departments of major PWC dealers and service centers at the end of the 2002 boating season in order to encounter individuals bringing their PWCs in for winterization. These included Boat World, Honda Suzuki World, and Bobby D’s Cycle Service in Warwick, Hillsgrove Cycle and Marine in West Warwick, and Razee Motorcycle Center in North Kingstown. In addition, surveys were left under the windshield wipers of vehicles with PWC trailers in launch ramp parking lots, and in the mailboxes of homes with PWCs tied to their docks. Those advertising PWCs for sale were also targeted through the mail using reverse telephone number search engines on the web. A relatively recently created website www.ripwc.org was also used to solicit PWC respondents, as was email using addresses gathered through a variety of web searches. Mailings to, or attendance at meetings of lake and watershed groups, were conducted to capture a diverse range of resource users. Participants in the URI Watershed Watch volunteer water quality-monitoring program, many of whom are waterfront residents or have a particularly strong connection to a specific waterbody, were also solicited. Responses from lake or watershed group members and volunteer monitors could be especially useful for assessing the views of residents that may no longer recreate on local waters because of PWC conflicts. That group has been typically under-represented in exit surveys, and a concern of significant bias in results in past studies designed to examine the impact of various activities on recreational users (NALMS 2001). By targeting individuals actively involved in
53
water resource protection and enhancement, but not necessarily participating in traditional water-based recreation, that potential bias was possibly reduced. The ‘officials surveys’ were administered to municipal employees and/or appointees charged with aquatic or marine resource management responsibilities, including public safety officials, marine or harbor patrols (Appendix A). Since stateenabling legislation is a critical element to facilitate the local regulation of PWCs, legislators in districts with significant aquatic recreational resources were also sought out. Although, a personal interview approach was planned, mailings to these officials proved to be more efficient, thereby producing a greater diversity of responses. As mentioned earlier, state boating safety officials were not represented to avoid any appearance of conflict between policy development and regulatory enforcement. Analysis / Statistical Methods Data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical tests because of the use of ranked data. The two major tests used were t-test and Chi-square. Statistica statistical software was used to calculate t-test values (StatSoft 2001). Because of limitations in this software, a web Chi-Square calculator (Ball 1996, http://schoodles.com /cgi-bin/web_chi.cgi) was used to perform those statistics. This calculator was accessed through a Georgetown University website, which was also used as a reference for appropriate binning criteria (Connor-Linton 1996, http://www.georgetown.edu/faculty/ballc/webtools/ web_chi.html). The statistical analyses are discussed in detail in Chapter Six. Raw survey results are located in
54
Appendices C and D. Supplemental statistical analyses are also included in Appendices E, F, G, and H. Five major analyses were performed on responses from the questionnaires in the study to test the research hypotheses (see Table 1). Hypothesis 1 used a t-test analysis to determine if the mean of two independent groups, resource users and resource managers, differed significantly with regard to their perceptions and attitudes about the effectiveness of current PWC management in Rhode Island. A ttest analysis was also performed to compare the perceptions and attitudes between resource user groups (PWC users compared to all other recreationists) regarding the magnitude of PWC user conflict (Hypothesis 2). T-test analyses were also employed to test Hypotheses Three, Four and Five which assessed differences between resource users and managers in the acceptance of three management alternatives: bans, space zoning and time zoning (respectively). Two-tailed tests were used to identify if significant differences existed between samples. Given the nature of the issues being addressed, it was expected that there might be significant polarization in the responses of various respondents. Typically individuals either ‘love’ or ‘hate’ these vessels. Thus, few mid-Likert range values were anticipated. However, if of equal skew this polarization could produce midrange mean values, potentially interfering with interpretation of the t-test statistics. Therefore, Chi-square tests were also used as an indication of highly polarized responses that may not be well represented through a t-test, and to confirm any significant differences identified by the t-test statistics.
55
Survey questions not subjected to statistical analyses were included in the questionnaires to adequately classify resource users, and thereby provide greater insight into the results. Information obtained from these additional questions was also used in the discussion and the conclusion, and to identify areas for potential future study.
Table 1. Hypotheses and related tests Hypothesis
Questions Tested
H–1
R 11 – O 6 How would you rate the effectiveness of current PWC use management…? R 16 – PWC users to other water enthusiasts Personal watercraft significantly affect enjoyment of my usual water body. R 23 – O 18 Local communities should have the right to completely prohibit or ban PWCs on some water bodies. R 24 – O 19 Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWCs to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs. R 25 – O 20 Local communities should have the right to time zone or restrict weekly operating hours of PWCs to address local concerns with PWCs.
H–2 H–3
H–4
H–5
56
Tests to be used Chi –square t-test Chi –square t-test Chi –square t-test Chi –square t-test Chi –square t-test
CHAPTER VI RESULTS AND DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS
This chapter describes the results of the research questionnaire conducted over a period extending from July 2002 through September 2003. There were sixtyseven questionnaires returned by aquatic resource users that generally did not use PWCs, and twenty-two returned from resource users that used PWCs regularly. If Rhode Island is similar to other states this is roughly equivalent to the ratio of other boats to PWCs registered in Rhode Island (CDBW 1997, USDOT 2002). Thus, the study group was concluded to adequately reflect the population of resource users. Resource managers, a much smaller population compared to resource users, returned thirty-one questionnaires. Based on interviews and demographic information from the questionnaire, responding resource managers included harbormasters, marine patrol officers, harbor commissioners, and legislators. Data from all of the returned surveys was deemed ‘acceptable’, although not all of the questions on each survey were completed, accounting for differences in the number of responses (N) analyzed for each hypothesis test. This research evaluated the perceptions of these study groups regarding PWC management and the magnitude of user conflicts within Rhode Island. Effectiveness of Current Personal Watercraft Management Hypothesis 1: There are no significant differences in the perception of resource users and resource managers regarding the effectiveness of current personal watercraft management in Rhode Island.
57
Perceptions regarding the effectiveness of current personal watercraft management in Rhode Island were assessed through responses to the question: “How would you rate the effectiveness of current PWC use management?” Resources users were asked to focus on their favorite waterbody or waterbodies (question R-11), while resource managers were asked to answer in relation to waterbodies within their jurisdiction (question O-6). Both groups were asked to answer relative to a ten-point Likert scale with “1” being “extremely effective”, and “10” being “extremely ineffective”.
Table 2. Effectiveness of current PWC use management, Resource Managers (Official) compared with Resource users (Recreational) t-test analysis X R = 6.54 X O = 5.42 X R XO df = 109 t 2 2 NR = 80 SR SO NO = 31 NR NO SR = 3.06 SO = 2.77 H0: When presented with the question “How would you rate the effectiveness of current PWC use management …?, there is no statistically significant difference in perceived effectiveness between response groups. Ha: When presented with the question “How would you rate the effectiveness of current PWC use management …?, there is a statistically significant difference in perceived effectiveness between response groups. Test: t Test, α = .05 for a two-tailed test Result: t value = 1.78 Rejection Region: t < -1.99; t > 1.99 Conclusion: Do not reject H0 at the .05 significance level. There is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that there is no significant difference in perceived effectiveness of current PWC use management between resource managers and resource users. X R = Mean Resource Users Value X O = Mean Officials Value NR = Valid # of Resource Users Responses SR = Resource User Standard Deviation
NO = Valid # of Mean Officials Responses SO = Mean Officials Standard Deviation
58
Results analyzed with a t-test indicated that there were no statistically significant differences found between responses of resources managers and resource users (Table 2). Therefore based on the t-test the null hypothesis was not rejected. Both groups rated the effectiveness of current PWC management as at least “somewhat effective”. The mean response from resource managers (5.4) suggested that as a group they felt that current efforts were more effective than did resource users (mean response = 6.5), but not significantly so. However, it should be noted that based upon an assessment of the frequency of responses, resource users were more likely to respond that they perceived current
Frequency of Responses
PWC management as being “ineffective” (Figure 1).
Effectiveness of Current PWC Management Resource Manager vs Resource Users
20
Resource Users Resource Managers
15 10 5 0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Questionnaire Response Value Extremely effective
Extremely ineffective
Figure 1. Frequency of responses to question regarding the effectiveness of current PWC management – Resource managers vs. resource users
In fact, the same number of individuals responded with a seven or higher (“ineffective” to “extremely ineffective”) as those that responded with a six or lower value (“somewhat ineffective” to “extremely effective”). This degree of polarization
59
within the resource users group created skepticism that the t-test adequately represented differences between study groups. A Chi-square test was performed in order to confirm acceptance of the null hypothesis (Table 3). Significant variation from expected was observed when responses were binned into categories ranging from 1 to 6 and 7 to 10. Given the degree of polarization of responses especially among resource users, the Chi-square was a better test for assessing Hypothesis 1. Based on Chi-square there were significant differences in the perception of resource managers and resource users regarding the effectiveness of current PWC management.
Table 3. Effectiveness of current PWC use management, Resource Managers (Official) compared with Resource users (Recreational) Chi-Square analysis Recreational Official Total
7 46 11 57
Total 78 31 109
X2 = ∑ (O – E)2 / E df = 1 [df = (rows –1) x (columns – 1)] Expected value (E) = (row total x column total) / grand total Observed value (O) = number of responses within that category When presented with the question “How would you rate the effectiveness of current PWC use management …?, there is no statistically significant difference in perceived effectiveness between response groups. Ha: When presented with the question “How would you rate the effectiveness of current PWC use management …?, there is a statistically significant difference in perceived effectiveness between response groups. Test: Chi-Square Test, α = .05 for df = 2 Result: X2 = 4.90 Rejection Region: X2 > 3.84 Conclusion: Reject H0 at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to reject the claim that there is no significant difference in perceived effectiveness of current PWC use management between resource managers and resource users. H0:
60
Supplemental analysis of responses related to Hypothesis 1 identified differences between specific resource users in their perception of PWC management as the likely source of the difference between the t-test results and those from the Chi-square analysis. For evaluating Hypothesis 1 resource users included both those that use PWC regularly (PWC Users) and those that do not (Other Aquatic Resource Users). A histogram of resource user responses categorized by PWC usage
Frequency of Responses
demonstrated a difference in responses by these two groups (Figure 2). Other
Effectiveness of Current PWC Management Other Aquatic Resource Users vs PWC Users
20
Other Aquatic Resource Users PWC Users
15 10 5 0 1
2
3
Extremely effective
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Questionnaire Response Value
Extremely ineffective
Figure 2. Frequency of responses to question regarding the effectiveness of current PWC management – Other aquatic resource users vs. PWC users
aquatic resources users were much more likely to consider current PWC management ineffective or extremely ineffective than were PWC users. A t-test analysis found a significant difference between responses of these groups (Appendix E). A mean value of 7.3 was reported for Other Aquatic Resource Users, versus a mean of 4.4 for PWC users. This indicated that PWC users considered current PWC
61
management more effective than did other aquatic resource users, and were more similar to resource managers in their perceptions of this issue.
Perception of Resource Users Regarding Magnitude of PWC User Conflicts Hypothesis 2: There are no significant differences in the perception of PWC users and other water users regarding the magnitude of the PWC user conflict issue in Rhode Island. User conflict is one of the most difficult areas of PWC management as there are few technological fixes to an essentially human issue. This research evaluated how large an issue user conflicts were, and any potential differences between resource users in their perception of the magnitude of user conflicts in Rhode Island. Respondents were asked how much they agreed with the statement, “Personal watercraft significantly affect enjoyment of my usual water body.” Answers were rated on a ten-point Likert scale, with “1” being “strongly agree” and “10” being “strongly disagree.” Results analyzed with a t-test indicated that there were statistically significant differences found between responses of PWC users and other aquatic resource users (Table 4). These results required that the null hypothesis be rejected. Other aquatic resource users were much more likely to agree or strongly agree (mean = 4.1) that PWC significantly affected their enjoyment than were PWC users (mean = 7.7). This difference was statistically significant. In fact, of the five research hypotheses this was largest difference. For comparison, resource managers’ mean response was 5.7. The question was intended to imply that PWC affected enjoyment in a negative way, and appeared to have been generally answered in that manner. 62
However based on responses to other questions in at least one case it was determined that some PWC users may have answered this question by agreeing that PWCs
Table 4. Magnitude of PWC use conflicts, Personal Watercraft Users (PWC) compared with Other Aquatic Resource Users (Non-PWC) t-test analysis X N = 4.11 XN XP X P = 7.66 t df = 82 SN 2 SP 2 NN = 63 NN NP NP = 21 SN = 3.31 SP = 3.47 H0: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Personal watercraft significantly affect … enjoyment of water bodies?” there are no statistically significant differences in the perception of PWC users and other water users. Ha: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the … statement Personal watercraft significantly affect … enjoyment of water bodies?” there are statistically significant differences in the perception of PWC users and other water users. Test: t Test, α = .05 for a two-tailed test Result: t value = -4.21 Rejection Region: t < -1.99; t > 1.99 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in perceived magnitude of PWC user conflicts between PWC operators and other aquatic resource users. X N = Mean Other Resource Users X P = Mean PWC user Value (Non-PWC) Value NN = Valid # of Resource Users Responses SN = Resource User Standard Deviation
NP = Valid # of Mean Officials Responses SP = Mean Officials Standard Deviation
affected their enjoyment positively. In the case where it was assumed that a PWC user interpreted the question as PWCs positively affecting recreational enjoyment, the survey response value was used in the analysis. This may have skewed the results slightly. In addition, several other aquatic resource users indicated that they typically recreated on waterbodies that do not permit PWCs. Therefore, PWCs
63
would have no impact on their enjoyment, so they disagreed with the statement. Despite those potentially anomalous responses, the histogram and t-test analysis clearly illustrated the divergence of these two groups in terms of how much PWC usage impacted various users (Figure 3, Table 4). This was confirmed by a the ChiSquare test, which found significant differences between responses by PWC users and other aquatic resources users regarding the affect on recreational enjoyment by PWC (Table 5). Table 5. Magnitude of PWC use conflicts, Personal Watercraft Users (PWC) compared with Other Aquatic Resource Users (Non-PWC) Chi-Square analysis Non-PWC PWC Total
5 45 6 51
10 18 15 33
Total 63 21 84
X2 = ∑ (O – E)2 / E df = 1 [df = (rows –1) x (columns – 1)] Expected value (E) = (row total x column total) / grand total Observed value (O) = number of responses within that category When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Personal watercraft significantly affect … enjoyment of water bodies?” there are no statistically significant differences in the perception of PWC users and other water users. Ha: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the … statement Personal watercraft significantly affect … enjoyment of water bodies?” there are statistically significant differences in the perception of PWC users and other water users. Test: Chi-Square Test, α = .05 for df = 1 Result: X2 = 12.13 Rejection Region: X2 > 3.84 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in perceived magnitude of PWC user conflicts between PWC operators and other resource users. H0:
64
Frequency of Responses
PWC Affect Recreational Enjoyment Other Aquatic Resource Users vs PWC Users
25
Other Aquatic Resource Users PWC Users
20 15 10 5 0 1
2
Strongly agree
3
4
5
6
7
Questionnaire Response Value
8
9
10
Strongly disagree
Figure 3. Frequency of responses to question regarding the affect of PWC on recreational enjoyment – Other aquatic resource users vs. PWC users
Acceptance of banning PWC from designated waterbodies Hypothesis 3: There are no significant differences in the acceptance by resource users and resource managers to the use of bans (restricting PWCs from designated waterbodies entirely) as a PWC management strategy in Rhode Island. Outright prohibition of PWCs from specific waterbodies is a commonly used management technique in Rhode Island and other areas. However, it is an oftencontroversial technique, and has been implemented largely on a case-by-case basis by state officials. The questionnaires were designed to assess any differences in acceptance of bans as a PWC management tool. Resource users and managers were asked how much they agreed with the statement, “Local communities should have the right to completely prohibit or ban PWCs on some water bodies.” Answers were rated on a ten-point Likert scale, with “1” being “strongly agree” and “10” being “strongly disagree.” Significant differences between responses of resource users and resource managers were determined through a t-test analysis (Table 6). Then
65
because of a great deal of polarization found among resource user responses, this was confirmed through Chi-square analysis (Table 7). Both tests identified significant differences between study groups, which required that the null hypothesis be rejected.
Table 6. Acceptance of bans as a PWC use management tool, Resource Managers (Official) compared with Resource users (Recreational) t-test analysis X R = 3.81 X R XO X O = 5.61 t df = 117 SR 2 SO 2 NR = 88 NR NO NO = 31 SR = 3.79 SO = 3.06 H0: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to completely prohibit or ban PWCs on some water bodies” there are no significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Ha: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to completely prohibit or ban PWCs on some water bodies” there are significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Test: t Test, α = .05 for a two-tailed test Result: t value = -2.39 Rejection Region: t < -1.99; t > 1.99 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in acceptance of bans as a PWC use management tool between resource managers and resource users.
X R = Mean Resource Users Value NR = Valid # of Resource Users Responses SR = Resource User Standard Deviation
X O = Mean Officials Value NO = Valid # of Mean Officials Responses SO = Mean Officials Standard Deviation
The t-test analysis revealed that resource users generally agreed that local communities should have the right to prohibit PWC usage (mean = 3.8). Resource managers generally disagreed (mean = 5.6) with the idea of local communities
66
having that right. However, the histogram demonstrated no clear trend among resource managers, with responses relatively evenly distributed among all categories of degree of agreement (Figure 4). Conversely, resource users were quite polarized in their responses to this question. In fact, the vast majority of resource users responses’ fell in either the strongly agree category (#1) or strongly disagree (#10), with few intermediate responses (Figure 4).
Table 7. Acceptance of bans as a PWC use management tool, Resource Managers (Official) compared with Resource users (Recreational) Chi-Square analysis Recreational Official Total
3 57 6 63
6 6 13 19
10 25 12 37
Total 88 31 119
X2 = ∑ (O – E)2 / E df = 2 [df = (rows –1) x (columns – 1)] Expected value (E) = (row total x column total) / grand total Observed value (O) = number of responses within that category H0: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to completely prohibit or ban PWCs on some water bodies” there are no significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Ha: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to completely prohibit or ban PWCs on some water bodies” there are significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Test: Chi-Square Test, α = .05 for df = 2 Result: X2 = 27.42 Rejection Region: X2 > 5.99 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in acceptance of bans as a PWC use management tool between resource managers and resource users.
67
Right to Ban PWCs Resource Managers vs Resource Users
Frequency of Responses
50 Resource Managers Resource Users
40 30 20 10 0 1
2
Strongly agree
3
4
5
6
7
Questionnaire Response Value
8
9
10
Strongly disagree
Figure 4. Frequency of responses to question regarding the right of local communities to ban PWCs – Resource managers vs. resource users
This polarity was investigated further through a supplemental t-test performed on resource user responses comparing PWC users and those of other aquatic resource regarding their agreement with the statement that local communities should have the right ban PWCs. The results demonstrated significant differences between resource user group in terms of acceptance of bans as a management tool (Appendix F). Personal watercraft users overwhelmingly disagreed (mean = 9.2) with local communities having the right to ban PWCs. Other resource users overwhelmingly agreed (mean = 2.0) that they ought to have the right to ban PWCs. Extreme polarization was very evident in the histogram comparing responses between these two user groups (Figure 5.) Further, given the strong polarization of this study group, both the supplemental t-test and histogram results suggested the overall acceptance by resource users of bans as a PWC management tool identified
68
through the H3 hypothesis test may have been biased by the difference in the
Frequency of Responses
numbers of responses between these user groups (PWC N = 22, Other users N = 66).
Right to Ban PWC Other Aquatic Resource Users vs PWC Users
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Other Aquatic Resource Users PWC Users
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Questionnaire Response Value Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Figure 5. Frequency of responses to question regarding the right of local communities to ban PWCs – Other aquatic resource users vs. PWC users
Acceptance of space zoning PWC usage within designated waterbodies Hypothesis 4: There are significant differences in the acceptance by resource users and resource managers to the use space zoning (restricting PWCs to designated areas of a water body) as a PWC management alternative in Rhode Island.
Restricting PWCs to specific areas of a water body (and therefore prohibiting them from other areas) is a management tool that has been used in some states, and has been discussed for use in Rhode Island. Whether this would be accepted by stakeholders in Rhode Island, and any difference in acceptance by the various groups, was assessed through this research. Respondents were asked how much they agreed with the statement, “Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWCs to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with 69
PWCs.” Answers were rated on a ten-point Likert scale, with “1” being “strongly agree” and “10” being “strongly disagree.”
Table 8. Acceptance of space zoning as an alternative PWC use management tool, Resource Managers (Official) compared with Resource users (Recreational) t-test analysis
t
X R = 3.69 X O = 4.63 df = 115 NR = 87 NO = 30 SR = 3.54 SO = 2.85
X R XO SR 2 SO 2 NR NO
When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are no significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Ha: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Test: t Test, α = .05 for a two-tailed test Result: t value = -1.34 Rejection Region: t < -1.99; t > 1.99 Conclusion: Do not reject H0 at the .05 significance level. There is not sufficient evidence to reject the claim that there are significant differences in acceptance of space zoning as a PWC use management tool between resource managers and resource users. X R = Mean Resource Users Value X O = Mean Officials Value H0:
NR = Valid # of Resource Users Responses SR = Resource User Standard Deviation
NO = Valid # of Mean Officials Responses SO = Mean Officials Standard Deviation
Considering the reluctance of some stakeholders to even discuss the implementation of this management technique at length, Hypothesis 4 was presented in an experiential format, with significant differences anticipated between study
70
groups (Wims 2002). However, no significant differences between responses of resource users and resource managers were identified through a t-test analysis, with responses tending towards acceptance of space bans (Table 8). The potential for polarization of responses within the resource users group having affected t-test results was addressed through Chi-square analysis, which showed significant differences between resource user and resource manager responses (Table 9). Due to
Table 9. Acceptance of space zoning as an alternative PWC use management tool, Resource Managers (Official) compared with Resource users (Recreational) Chi-Square analysis Recreational Official Total
3 56 10 66
6 9 13 22
10 20 7 27
Total 85 30 115
X2 = ∑ (O – E)2 / E df = 2 [df = (rows –1) x (columns – 1)] Expected value (E) = (row total x column total) / grand total Observed value (O) = number of responses within that category When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are no significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Ha: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Test: Chi-Square Test, α = .05 for df = 2 Result: X2 = 16.5 Rejection Region: X2 > 5.99 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in acceptance of space zoning as a PWC use management tool between resource managers and resource users. H0:
71
the large degree of polarization in responses, the Chi-square test better represents the results, requiring acceptance of Hypothesis 4. Resource managers as a group were somewhat ambivalent with regards to their acceptance of space zoning as a management tool, with a mean response value of 4.6. This value suggested that resource managers were not as strongly in favor of local communities being allowed to use space zoning as a PWC management tool as were resource users. With a mean response value of 3.8, resource users were more
Frequency of Responses
likely to accept space zoning.
Right to Space Zone PWC Resource Managers vs Resource Users
50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Resource Managers Resource Users
1
2
Strongly agree
3
4
5
6
7
8
Questionnaire Response Value
9
10
Strongly disagree
Figure 6. Frequency of responses to question regarding the right of local communities to space zone PWCs – Resource managers vs. resource users
Assessment of the histogram comparing the frequency of responses between these groups confirmed a great deal of polarization in the responses of resource users, whereas resource manager responses were more evenly distributed (Figure 6). The histogram confirmed the ambivalence or wide range of acceptance of space zoning found among resource managers, revealing no clear trend. It also
72
demonstrated a great deal of extreme responses regarding space zoning among resource users. Members of that group either “strongly agreed” or “strongly disagreed” with space zoning as an acceptable PWC management tool.
Frequency of Responses
Right to Space Zone PWC Other Aquatic Resource Users vs PWC Users
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Other Aquatic Resource Users PWC Users
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Questionnaire Response Value Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Figure 7. Frequency of responses to question regarding the right of local communities to space zone PWCs – Other aquatic resource users vs. PWC users
Resource user responses were examined through supplemental t-tests comparing the responses of PWC users with those of other aquatic resource users. This supplemental analysis found that the differences between resource user groups were even greater than those between resource users and managers, with a t statistic of -9.0 (Appendix G). The mean response among PWC users was 7.9, indicating general disagreement with the idea of local communities being allowed to space zone PWC usage. The mean response value for other aquatic resource users was 2.2, indicating general agreement with local communities using space zoning. The response frequency histogram for these subsets of resource users clearly demonstrated this polarization (Figure 7). Again, given the strong polarization
73
within this study group, both the supplemental t-test and histogram results suggested the overall acceptance by resource users of space zoning as a PWC management tool identified through the H4 hypothesis test may have been biased by the difference in the numbers of responses between these user groups (PWC = 22, Other users = 65). Acceptance of time zoning PWC usage within designated waterbodies Hypothesis 5: There are significant differences in the acceptance by resource users and resource managers to the use of time zoning (restricting PWCs to designated times of the day or days of the week) as a PWC management alternative in Rhode Island. Restricting PWC use to designated times of the day or days of the week, and therefore prohibiting their usage during all other times, is another management tool that has been used in other states. It has also received limited discussion for use in Rhode Island (Wims 2002). Whether this would be accepted by stakeholders in Rhode Island, and any difference in acceptance by the various groups, was assessed through this research. Respondents were asked how much they agreed with the statement, “Local communities should have the right to time zone or restrict weekly operating hours (limiting PWCs to selected times of the day, days of the week, or on odd/even days only) to address local concerns with PWCs.” Answers were rated on a ten-point Likert scale, with “1” being “strongly agree” and “10” being “strongly disagree”. As with space zoning, the reluctance of stakeholders to even discuss the implementation of time zoning as an effective PWC management technique, required Hypothesis 5 to be presented in an experiential format, with significant differences anticipated between study groups. Significant differences between responses of resource users and resource managers were in fact identified with a t-test, despite 74
polarization among resource users (Table 10). Differences between resource managers and resource users were confirmed through Chi-square analysis to address potential bias resulting from that polarization (Table 11). These results confirmed the acceptance of Hypothesis 5.
Table 10. Acceptance of time zoning as an alternative PWC use management tool, Resource Managers (Official) compared with Resource users (Recreational) t-test analysis
t
X R = 4.09 X O = 6.40 df = 115 NR = 87 NO = 30 SR = 3.85 SO = 3.12
X R XO SR 2 SO 2 NR NO
When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are no significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Ha: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Test: t Test, α = .05 for a two-tailed test Result: t value = -2.96 Rejection Region: t < -1.99; t > 1.99 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in acceptance of time zoning as a PWC use management tool between resource managers and resource users. X R = Mean Resource Users Value X O = Mean Officials Value H0:
NR = Valid # of Resource Users Responses SR = Resource User Standard Deviation
NO = Valid # of Mean Officials Responses SO = Mean Officials Standard Deviation
75
Table 11. Acceptance of time zoning as an alternative PWC use management tool, Resource Managers (Official) compared with Resource users (Recreational) Chi-Square analysis Recreational Official Total
3.3 53 5 58
6.6 7 9 16
10 27 16 43
Total 87 30 117
X2 = ∑ (O – E)2 / E df = 2 [df = (rows –1) x (columns – 1)] Expected value (E) = (row total x column total) / grand total Observed value (O) = number of responses within that category When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are no significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Ha: When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Test: Chi-Square Test, α = .05 for df = 2 Result: X2 = 19.69 Rejection Region: X2 > 5.99 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in acceptance of time zoning as a PWC use management tool between resource managers and resource users. H0:
As a group, resource managers disagreed with use of time zoning as a management tool, with a mean response value of 6.4. This indicated a stronger negative attitude by resource managers to the use of time zoning than either outright bans or space zoning. Resource users, on the other hand, were nearly as likely to agree with the use of time zoning as they had been to accept either bans or space
76
zoning, with a mean response value of 4.1. Again, significant polarization was
Frequency of Responses
evident among resources user responses (Figure 8.)
Right to Time Zone PWC Resource Managers vs Resource Users
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Resource Managers Resource Users
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Questionnaire Response Value
Strongly agree
9
10 Strongly disagree
Figure 8. Frequency of responses to question regarding the right of local communities to time zone PWCs – Resource managers vs. resource users
The polarization of resource user responses was assessed through supplemental t-tests, which confirmed significant differences between PWC users and other aquatic resource users (Appendix H). The mean response among PWC users was 9.4, indicating strong disagreement with the idea of local communities being allowed to time zone PWC usage. The mean response value for other aquatic resource users was 2.3, indicating general agreement with local communities using time zoning. The t statistic was - 12.4, only exceeded in this research by the - 13.9 t statistic developed when comparing acceptance by resource user groups of outright bans. The response frequency histogram for these subsets of resource users confirmed this polarization (Figure 9).
77
Frequency of Responses
Right to Time Zone PWC Other Aquatic Resource Users vs PWC Users
45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Other Aquatic Resource Users PWC Users
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Questionnaire Response Value Strongly agree
Strongly disagree
Figure 9. Frequency of responses to question regarding the right of local communities to time zone PWCs – Other aquatic resource users vs. PWC users
The strong polarization found within the resource user study group was confirmed by the supplemental t-test and histogram results. These suggested that the difference in the numbers of responses between these user groups (PWC = 22, Other users = 65) may have biased the results, implying an overall acceptance of time zoning by resource users as identified through the t-test. Associated Issues Of additional interest to this researcher were what specific concerns resource users and managers might have regarding PWC usage, and whether PWC users and other aquatic resource users perceived these concerns in the same way. Several questions were included to elucidate some of this. In particular, both resource users and managers were asked, “What factors most impact your water-related activities?”, “Are any of the following issues a concern to you regarding PWC usage?”, and “How would you rate enforcement of PWC regulations…?” For the first two
78
questions, respondents were asked to rank their top five issues from a list of common concerns, including “Other” (Appendices C & D). For PWC concerns, an option of “No Concerns” was included in order to reduce bias. Regarding the question of enforcement, responses were based on a five point Likert scale with “1” being “Excellent” and “5” indicating “Poor – major problems.” Hypotheses were not developed nor tested for these questions. However, evaluating these results provided valuable interpretive insight into issues associated with PWC users conflicts. Histograms were developed comparing PWC user responses with those of other aquatic resource users to the question of the top five factors impacting waterrelated activities (Appendix I). Responses from resource managers were plotted in a separate set of histograms (Appendix J). Tables were also generated that ranked the frequency of responses selected by the study groups (Table 12, Appendix K).
Table 12. Frequency of responses ranking factors affecting water- related activities. Officials Officials PWC Ranking PWC Non-PWC NonRanking N N Ranking PWC N PWC 25 Crowding 15 Crowding 39 Crowding 23 Water pollution 14 Speeding craft 39 Powerboats 21 Litter / trash 13 PWC 38 Water pollution 20 Plants / seaweed 11 Water pollution 36 Litter / trash 20 Speeding craft 10 Litter / trash 35 Fisherpersons 17 Powerboats 5 Powerboats 28 Plants / seaweed 15 Other 5 Plants / seaweed 20 Waterfowl 12 Fisherpersons 4 Waterfowl 12 Other 2 Waterfowl 4 Other 8 Speeding craft * PWC 3 Fisherpersons 5 Total responses 31 22 67 * Accidentally not included in “Official Survey”
79
Evaluating the factors affecting water-related activities on local waterways revealed that crowding was considered by all three groups to have a significant affect on water-related activities (Table 12). Waterfowl and fisherpersons were cited by few as having large affects. Proportionally, more resource managers identified PWCs as one of the top five factors affecting local waterways than either of the resource users groups. However, PWCs were ranked lower in importance (mean value – 3.5) by resource managers than by resource users (PWC mean value = 3.0, other aquatic resource users mean value = 2.4). For other aquatic resource users (non-PWC) speeding craft in general were as significant a factor as PWCs, both in terms of number of responses and importance ranking. Unfortunately, “speeding craft” was accidentally left out of the “Officials” questionnaire, so it was impossible to compare that issue with resource users’ responses. A series of histograms were also developed comparing PWC user responses with those of other aquatic resource users to the question of the top five concerns associated with PWC (Appendix L). Responses from resource managers were plotted in a separate set of histograms (Appendix M). Tables that ranked the frequency of responses selected by the study groups were generated (Table 13, Appendix N). The question regarding PWC concerns found that respondents overwhelmingly indicated concerns with PWC usage (Table 13). Only three of twenty-two PWC user respondents indicated that they had no concerns with PWC use. The specific concerns identified were quite similar to those reported by
80
resource managers, seven of thirty-one who indicated no concerns at all. Age of operators and erratic maneuvers were the top two concerns of both these groups.
Table 13. Frequency of responses ranking personal watercraft concerns Officials PWC NonN N PWC N Erratic 20 Age of operators 18 Erratic 49 maneuvers maneuvers Age of operators 18 Erratic 15 Noise 47 maneuvers Speed 17 Others Safety 11 Wildlife 42 disturbance Others Safety 16 Too close to 10 Others Safety 38 others Too close to 15 Rider safety 8 Water/air 34 shore pollution Noise 14 Speed 5 Speed 32 Too close to 13 Too close to 4 Too close to 31 others shore shore Rider safety 13 Noise 3 Too close to 28 others Lack of slow 11 No concerns 3 Age of operators 21 control Wildlife 9 Wildlife 2 Rider safety 15 disturbance disturbance Water/air 7 Lack of slow 1 Lack of slow 14 pollution control control No concerns 7 Water/air 1 No concerns 1 pollution Total responses 31 22 67
Another area in which resource managers and PWC users were in agreement was in ranking wildlife disturbances and pollution much lower than did other resource users. Noise was a much more significant concern to other aquatic resource users than to either resource managers or PWC users. Noise ranked second in terms of frequency only to erratic maneuvers as a top concern. None of the study groups
81
ranked lack of slow speed control as a top concern, despite the impact on vessel safety resulting from this factor. Perceptions regarding enforcement of existing regulations were also assessed. Respondents were asked, “How would you rate enforcement of PWC regulations …?” Officials were asked relative to waterbodies within their jurisdiction, and resource users relative to the waterbodies they usually use. Answers were rated on a five-point Likert scale, with “1” being “excellent” and “5” being “poor – major problems. ” To assess differences in perception, t-tests were run, and reported in Table 14.
Table 14. T-tests values comparing study group ratings of enforcement of PWC regulations Mean Resource Mean Official t-value Statistically Users Significant? 3.3 2.7 1.92 No Mean Non-PWC Mean PWC t-value 3.8 2.1 4.85 Yes Mean PWC Mean Official t-value 2.1 2.7 -1.63 No Mean Non-PWC Mean Official t-value 3.8 2.7 3.68 Yes
There was no significant difference in the responses of resource users and officials as a group, both with mean values of about 3 or equivalent to “fine – some problems.” However, as with other analyses, there were significant differences between PWC users and other aquatic resource users (non-PWC), as well as between officials and other aquatic resource users. Once again, PWC user responses’ were similar to those of officials, although as a group PWC users ranked current
82
enforcement higher than the other two groups, with a mean value of 2.1, or very good - occasional problems. Acceptance of several additional management strategies was queried by the survey instruments, largely as the basis of future research. Acceptance of the installation of buoys to mark the 200-foot PWC buffer, and implementation of a 300foot buffer to reduce conflicts were investigated. Placement of buoys to indicate the 200-foot PWC buffer were generally acceptable to most respondents (Table 15). Buoys were most likely to be accepted by other aquatic resource users, and least likely to be accepted by PWC users. Several respondents reported aesthetic and other concerns that would need to be addressed in order to implement this strategy (Appendices C and D).
Table 15. Acceptance of Buoys to mark the 200-foot PWC buffer Respondent Mean Median All Resource Users 3.5 3 Non-PWC 2.7 3 PWC 5.5 5 Officials 4.2 4 All Respondents 3.7 3
Expansion of the current 200-foot PWC buffer to 300 feet was not expected by most respondents to be an effective mechanism for reducing conflicts (Table 16). As with other management alternatives, PWC users did not agree with the expansion at all. Officials generally disagreed, while other aquatic resource users were somewhat more positive about a 300-foot buffer reducing conflicts, but not considerably so.
83
Table 16. Acceptance of a 300-foot PWC buffer Respondent Mean Median All Resource Users 5.1 5 Non-PWC 3.9 4 PWC 8.7 10 Officials 5.7 6 All Respondents 5.2 5
Personal Watercraft Regulations Matrix The United States Coast Guard established national standards for boating safety address boat manufacturing and equipment standards, and regulate shipping and transportation in federal waters. States are largely responsible for promulgating boating regulations that are more germane to recreational users, including PWC. This research reviewed state PWC regulations in order to assess how consistent Rhode Island regulations were to other states (Matrix found in Appendix O). The National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) and the Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) each developed similar model PWC regulations. Those model acts, included in the regulations matrix for comparison, are found in Appendices P and Q respectively. These model acts were used as the standards against which to compare state regulations. Rhode Island regulations were also compared to those developed for the proposed `Personal Watercraft Responsible Use Act of 1999' (HR 3141). Found in Appendix R, the Responsible Use act was not enacted. It differed from the NASBLA and PWIA acts in that it was designed to address not only safety concerns, but also several other PWC related issues. Specifically, HR 3141 identified concerns with impacts to sensitive aquatic habitats and disturbance to wildlife, especially
84
birds. The act also recognized the need to support better enforcement of boating regulations, and would have provided grants to enhance development and enforcement of improved PWC regulations and education. The Rhode Island PWC regulations reflect most of the recommendations of the NASBLA model upon which they were based (Appendix P). Three areas where they were dissimilar were the minimum age of operation, mandatory education requirements and buffer zone distances. The NASBLA model establishes a minimum age for operating a PWC without an adult on board at sixteen. Under current Rhode Island regulations, those under sixteen years of age that have successfully completed a state-approved boating safety course can operate a PWC. As of January 1, 2002 certification of successful completion of a boating safety course is required of all resident PWC operators in Rhode Island regardless of age or experience. The NASBLA model essentially ‘grandfathers’ all current PWC operators by setting a mandatory education requirement based on date of birth. This was accomplished by establishing the date of birth after which all PWC users will be required to be certified as sixteen years prior to the date of enactment of the mandatory education regulation. Another difference between the national model and Rhode Island regulations was with protective buffers – the regulated slow no-wake zone adjacent to the shoreline, swimmers, docks etc. designed to prevent potential impacts from wakes, noise and collision. The Rhode Island minimum buffer is 200 feet, whereas NASBLA recommends 100 feet. In nearly all of other sections, the Rhode Island act
85
was identical to the NASBLA model. Rhode Island regulations were generally consistent with most other states’.
86
CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION
Current Personal Watercraft Management in Rhode Island Results from this research indicated that resource managers considered current PWC management somewhat effective overall, whereas resources users were more likely to consider current management less effective. Significant differences were noted when comparing responses from these two groups using the Chi-square test. However, there was a wide range of perceptions regarding effectiveness within groups. Resource users, which included both those who used PWCs on a regular basis, as well as those who did not, were particularly heterogeneous in their perceptions. Nearly half of PWC users reported that current management efforts were extremely effective, whereas more than half of the other resource users considered those efforts ineffective to extremely ineffective. The remainder of responses from both groups was evenly distributed over the whole range of effectiveness. This suggested that the experiences of respondents were quite different, and largely influenced by whether by one enjoyed using PWCs or preferred other forms of aquatic activities. Resource manager responses’ were much more similar to those of PWC users typically. As a group resource managers found PWC management much more effective than did other resource users, but not quite as effective as PWC users thought. This positive response by resource managers and PWC users was expected. Throughout the many years of debate on PWC issues in Rhode Island, both these
87
groups have argued that current regulations are adequate, and that PWCs really do not present a significant concern. This research confirms that view, as well the view of other resource users that current efforts are not working. Perception of Resource Users Regarding Magnitude of PWC User Conflicts As stated previously, user conflict issues are particularly hard to manage as they are linked directly to human behavior and expectations. User conflict can also be difficult to assess. This research assessed the magnitude of user conflict issues by asking how much respondents agreed with the statement “Personal watercraft significantly affect enjoyment of my usual water body.” An additional question explored the source of conflict by asking what concerns, if any, respondents had with PWCs. It should be noted that this research focused on potential user conflicts from PWC use – it did not attempt to determine if PWC riders felt that other resource users were interfering with their enjoyment. This research found that there was a great deal of agreement among other resource users that PWCs did affect their aquatic recreational enjoyment, with more than half answering that they strongly agreed to agreed. Not surprisingly, PWC users overwhelmingly disagreed with this statement. However, what this research also confirmed was that user conflicts were typically very site specific. Waterbodies on which PWCs were not permitted obviously did not have user conflict issues. Those who recreated on open water, Narragansett Bay or Block Island Sound, tended to consider PWCs as not affecting their enjoyment, or affecting it less. Overall, this research determined that user conflicts do exist to a significant degree, and that there
88
were significant differences in how PWC users perceived them compared to other aquatic resource users. Acceptance of banning PWCs from designated waterbodies Outright banning of PWCs from waterbodies is a commonly used technique, partially because it is relatively easy to enforce. If a PWC is found on the waterbody it is in violation – no question of how close to shore, or how fast. However, because of its potentially discriminatory nature, it is often very controversial and should be used as a last resort. This research assessed the acceptance of this technique in Rhode Island, as well as identified any difference in perceptions between study groups. Resource managers were evenly distributed in their acceptance of bans on PWC usage, with a reported mean value of 5.6, slightly toward disagreement with bans (Figure 4). However, resource managers were just as likely to agree with bans, as they were to disagree (score of 1 to 5 = 17, score of 6 to 10 = 14). This indicated that under appropriate circumstances many resource managers would be willing to implement a ban on PWCs. Resource users, as a group, more strongly agreed that communities ought to be able to bans PWC. Not surprisingly however, resource users were much more divided in their acceptance of bans, PWC users overwhelmingly disagreed with them, while other resource users overwhelmingly agreed with them. In fact, on this particular issue respondents either strongly agreed or strongly disagreed. This level of polarization among resource users suggests that the use of bans as a PWC
89
management tool will be very difficult to implement in many situations, and not likely to be a useful component of negotiated solutions. Acceptance of space zoning PWC usage within designated waterbodies Considering the controversy over the implementation of outright bans on PWCs, it was logical to investigate acceptance of management alternatives. This research investigated several of those, but particularly focused on two zoning issues – space and time zoning. Space zoning limits PWCs to specific areas of a waterbody appropriate for PWC usage. While space zoning is much more difficult to enforce than an outright ban, it would permit some use of zoned waterbodies to resident and other PWC users. It would also prohibit PWCs from particularly sensitive areas, a common concern among PWC opponents. Thus, as it addresses several common problems with other techniques, it would be logical that space zoning would be of greater acceptance than bans. Acceptance of space zoning as a PWC management tool by resource managers was equivalent to their acceptance of outright bans, with responses evenly distributed and a mean value of 5.6 (Figure 6). This indicated that under appropriate circumstances many resource managers would be willing to allow communities to create areas within designated waterbodies that prohibited PWCs. Current regulations enabling several communities to regulate PWCs may be sufficient to allow space zoning. To date however, this management tool has yet to be implemented in Rhode Island. Resource users as a group tended to accept space zoning as a viable management tool. Again, there was a great deal of polarization on this issue, with
90
PWC users overwhelmingly disagreeing with the use of space zoning, while other resource users overwhelmingly agreed with them. On this issue again respondents either strongly agreed or strongly disagreed. This level of polarization among resource users suggests that space zoning as a PWC management tool would be very difficult to implement in many situations. This research suggested that despite the more focused nature of the technique, under current conditions space zoning might not be a useful component of negotiated solutions. Acceptance of time zoning PWC usage within designated waterbodies Time zoning is a management technique specifically designed to address user conflict issues. By alternating days or hours of PWC usage with equitable periods during which PWCs are prohibited, waterfront residents and other aquatic resource users are provided with conflict free periods. During the periods PWCs are permitted, PWC users are provided with access to the waterbody. Depending on how the time zoning regulations were written, (i.e. other forms of boating permitted or prohibited during periods when PWCs are allowed) conflicts with other aquatic users can be virtually eliminated through this technique. Time zoning can also be easier to enforce than space zoning. Simply, if a PWC is on the waterway during a prohibited time it is in violation. Time zoning does have some significant drawbacks however. It is truly a compromise technique in that neither group “gets their way.” While waterfront residents and other aquatic resource users get periods of relative quiet, they also get periods of potentially more intense PWC usage, with the associated concerns. For PWC users, there is the potential for the acceptable use time or day to fall at an
91
inconvenient time or on a stormy day, thereby limiting opportunities to enjoy their sport. Essentially, as a true compromise technique, time zoning means that neither group is happy all of the time, and both groups are likely to be negatively impacted at some point. Given this, it could be expected that there would be a narrower range of responses regarding the acceptance of time zoning than to other management techniques. Resource managers were less willing to accept time zoning as a PWC management tool than either space zoning or bans. While responses were distributed over the whole range, the mean response value of 6.4 indicated a more negative attitude toward the use of this technique. This implies that resource managers would be less willing to allow communities to create periods during which PWCs were prohibited to address user conflicts. Resource users as a group were more willing to accept time zoning as a viable management tool. Within the resource user group, there was no agreement on this issue when PWC and other aquatic resource users were compared. Respondents either strongly agreed (other resource users) or strongly disagreed (PWC users) with the use of time zoning. This level of polarization among resource users suggests that time zoning as a PWC management tool would be very difficult to implement. Thus, this research concluded that under current conditions it would be difficult to introduce time zoning as a management alternative during discussions seeking negotiated solutions as an alternative to either no action or outright bans.
92
Associated Issues Three issues of particular importance for understanding the current state of PWC user conflicts in Rhode Island were assessed through this research. Factors that most affected water-related activities in Rhode Island were determined for each of the study groups. Crowding, water pollution and litter / trash were rated in the top five by resource mangers, PWC users and other aquatic resource users (Table 12). This suggested that addressing these issues would significantly improve the quality of water–related activities in Rhode Island, and should be considered major priorities for resource agencies. Another issue that was rated high by two of the three study groups was PWCs. Both resource managers and other aquatic resource users, ranked PWCs as one of the top factors affecting water-related activities. This confirmed that PWCs are a significant issue affecting Rhode Island’s waterways. However, other aquatic resource users did not view PWCs as the most important factor. Crowding and speeding craft posed more widespread concern to many users. In addition, despite recent newspaper accounts insinuating that resource managers did not consider PWCs a significant issue, the majority represented in this research considered them among the most important issues (Emblock 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). These results were somewhat in conflict with the perceived reluctance of resource managers to pursue PWC management. Resource managers also frequently mentioned powerboats, which were the sixth most frequently reported by both resource user groups. This suggested that
93
current safety education and / or enforcement for both PWC operators and other boaters needs improvement. The most interesting result from the assessment of responses to the question regarding PWC concerns was that PWC users overwhelmingly indicated a variety of concerns with PWC usage. Only three of twenty-two respondents had no concerns. Age of operators and erratic maneuvers were the top two concerns among PWC users. Others safety and operating too close to others were the next most selected responses by PWC users, with about half of respondents concerned. This indicates that PWC users were generally aware of, and concerned about the potential for dangerous interactions between PWC users and others. Responses from resource managers were very similar to those of PWC users. However, a higher percentage of resource managers indicated that they had no concerns with PWCs (23 %, or 7 of 31). Whereas, only six resource managers did not include PWCs in their list of top five factors affecting water-related activities. This indicated that there may be somewhat of a disconnect in terms of evaluating the sources of conflict among some resource managers. The responses of resource managers also reflected the enforcement focus of this group. Four of the top five most numerous resource manager responses were factors for which there are specific regulations (erratic maneuvers, age of operators, speed and too close to shore). Concerns at the bottom on their list were issues without easily enforceable criteria like water/air pollution, wildlife disturbance and lack of slow speed control. Erratic maneuvers were at the top of the list for other aquatic resource users, with others safety in the top five. However, the remainder of the top five concerns
94
among other resource users were quite different compared to resource managers or PWC users. Impacts of broader concern including noise, wildlife disturbances and pollution rounded out the top five. These issues fell into a category that could be considered “nuisance issues” as opposed to strict public safety. Regulations pertaining to these issues are typically more ambiguous, focus on acute rather than chronic impacts, and are generally much harder to enforce. This research also found that alternative management strategies such as implementing a wider PWC buffer, 300-feet versus the current 200-feet would not be well received (Table 16), and thus very difficult to implement. Given the difficulty of enforcement of an invisible line such as the PWC buffer, this thesis research also investigated the acceptability of installing buoys along that perimeter (at the current 200-foot distance). While there was much more acceptance of this alternative (Table 15), questions were raised by some respondents regarding the legality, safety and appearance of those buoys (Appendices C and D). Personal Watercraft Regulations Comparison In terms of the current national models proposed by NASBLA and PWIA, Rhode Island’s regulations compared quite favorably. State regulations were as stringent or more stringent than most of those recommended. The minimum age to operate PWC was one area where Rhode Island did not agree with the NASBLA model, and was less stringent. A minimum age of sixteen years is recommended by both the NASBLA and PWIA. However, in Rhode Island those under sixteen can operate PWC after having completed an approved boating safety course.
95
Rhode Island regulations were also generally consistent with HR 3141. State policy, as reflected by the criteria imposed on Charlestown and Westerly for enacting bans, recognized the potential impact to shallow water habitats and disturbance to wildlife. However, Rhode Island use regulations for PWCs were not as protective of the environment as HR 3141 recommended. The federal act stated that “enforceable policies required under this section shall prohibit a person from operating a personal watercraft… in a manner that injures, harasses, or disturbs wading, roosting, or nesting birds or marine mammals (1999).” There was nothing comparable in Rhode Island regulations. Rhode Island regulations were also generally as strict or stricter than most other states. Minimum age of operation varied considerably among states, with several adhering to the sixteen-year-old recommendation. Others allowed younger operators with approved education or an adult on board (like RI). Several states had no minimum age for operating a PWC. Personal floatation devices (PFD) and safety lanyards or other ‘kill switch’ mechanisms were almost universally required by states.
96
CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSIONS
Personal watercraft have captured a significant portion of the recreational boating market, and become a common feature of the aquatic landscape. The popularity and widespread use of PWCs have resulted in a variety of concerns and user conflicts, especially in Rhode Island, as confirmed by this current thesis research. While many of these issues are inherent to the usage of motorized watercraft overall, unique design and use patterns have propelled PWC issues to the headlines, and into legislative chambers. To address safety concerns, mandatory education for PWC users is becoming increasingly common nationally, and has been the law in Rhode Island since January 1, 2002. Mandatory education for at least some segment of the PWC community has reduced the number of accidents in most states that have enacted it (PWIA 2002). Thus far, it has not had a significant impact in Rhode Island. During the 2003 boating season two fatalities resulted from three well-publicized PWC accidents. Education has also not lessened many of the concerns voiced by a variety of organizations regarding PWC issues (Kuffner 2002c, Jones 2002a, Wims 2002). While the Rhode Island education requirement is relatively new, the continued conflicts suggest that additional measures are needed to effectively manage PWC locally. The current research found that stakeholders were quite polarized in their perception of how effective PWC management efforts have been in Rhode Island. Personal watercraft users found current management quite effective, whereas other
97
aquatic resource users generally considered current efforts ineffective. Resource managers also held a wide range of perceptions, but were more likely to consider current efforts effective. This dichotomy of responses does much to explain the frustration that groups such as the NRPA, and residents of Smithfield have experienced in their efforts to modify PWC regulations within their communities. With much of the regulated community feeling very differently regarding the current effectiveness of PWC management efforts than the regulatory community, it is not surprising that that it has been difficult to reach a compromise. Given current budgetary constraints, and the sense by resource managers that current management is effective, it is highly unlikely that significant changes in the current management strategy will occur. This thesis research also found that PWC user conflicts significantly affected enjoyment of Rhode Island aquatic resources – suggesting that the current status was unacceptable. A new management strategy is needed that addresses not only safety concerns, but user conflicts as well. However, this research found that solutions acceptable to all are likely to be elusive. Common practices such as outright bans, space or time zoning had as many opponents as proponents, and were generally opposed by PWC users as a group. Thus, a concerted effort will be required to negotiate management alternatives, and given current conditions it is unlikely to be successful. Effective management of PWC in Rhode Island may not be an appropriate issue for a consensus-based approach – requiring more than a simple voluntary approach.
98
For example, developing minimum criteria for permitting the use of PWCs may be a necessary first step toward improved management statewide. For example, given that PWCs are capable of speeds in excess of 50 miles per hour and have long ‘coasting’ distances after an operator falls off or otherwise loses control which poses potential harm to others, some states have set a minimum acreage requirement for PWCs (NTSB 1998, Rockwell 2001). For example, in Massachusetts PWCs are banned from all lakes and ponds of less than 75 acres (MEP 2003). In Vermont the minimum acreage required to operate PWCs on public waters is 300 acres (VWRB 1997). Three hundred acres is also recommended by the Bluewater Network as the minimum area required to reduce impacts from PWCs (BN 1999). Given the few inland water bodies over 300 acres in Rhode Island, setting that as the state minimum would likely be too restrictive. However, developing criteria that take into account average water body depth and width, along with a minimum overall area, would improve both safety and nuisance issues. It would also demonstrate to the public that regulators were serious about addressing PWC conflicts, and might encourage PWC operators to come to the table more willing to work on negotiated solutions. To help initiate those negotiations, it is also important to note that in general PWC operators recognized that there were some issues of concern with PWCs. For example, age of operators was a primary concern among both PWC users and resource managers, and an issue for which there is a regulatory solution. Erratic maneuvers were also a key concern for both interests, as well as for other aquatic resource users. By focusing initial discussions on these areas of common concern, and fashioning management solutions that address those first, it may be possible to
99
build the degree of trust and mutual respect needed to address more controversial issues. Rhode Island’s regulations managing PWCs were generally consistent with national models, and with what other states were doing. However, this research suggests that these are not adequately addressing all PWC issues, especially user conflicts. Thus, some modification of the existing strategy is needed. In particular, clarification of Rhode Island regulations regarding the minimum age of operation for PWC is needed. The current laws reads, “No person under the age of sixteen (16) shall operate a personal watercraft on the waters of the state unless an adult accompanies him or her or unless he or she has passed a Department of Environmental Management approved or United States Coast Guard approved safety course.” (underline added for emphasis) (46RIGL§27-2). As currently written, this permits youth under sixteen who have completed the required boating safety course to operate PWC in Rhode Island. Since there are no minimum age requirements for taking the state approved boating safety course (as per conversation with Office of Life Long Learning at the Community College of Rhode Island, January 23, 2004) required of all boat operators born after 1986, this resulted in a lowering of the minimum age of PWC operation in Rhode Island. Previously one had to be fourteen years of age in order to complete the PWC certification course required for operators under sixteen. However, RIDEM Division of Law Enforcement claims that the minimum operating age is sixteen (per phone conversation with dispatch officer on duty at the Division of Law Enforcement main telephone number, December 9, 2003).
100
This ambiguity makes it likely that local police or marine patrols, as well as parents, may not realize that it is RIDEM policy that those under sixteen are not supposed to operate PWCs in Rhode Island unaccompanied by an adult. This low minimum age of operation contradicts the PWIA model legislation and NTSB recommendations, which established sixteen as a strict minimum for PWC operation (NTSB 1998, PWIA 2002). The current law is more in line with National Association of Boating Safety Administrators (NASBLA) recommendations, which accepted the younger riders with adult supervision. However, the NTSB questioned the impact of this exemption and promoted the stricter age minimum (NTSB 1998). Addressing the confusion over minimum age of operation is critical as fatal accidents involving those under sixteen have occurred in Maine when minimum operator age rules were not fully understood by officials and parents (Fleming 2003). Since it has been determined that the safe operation of PWCs requires the same or greater skill, judgement and experience as needed for the safe operation of ATVs or cars, it is imperative that the Rhode Island law unambiguously establish sixteen as the minimum age of PWC operation (AAP 2000, NTWC 2002, CFA 2003). Implications For Management Despite recent implementation of stringent educational requirements for PWC operators in Rhode Island, it can be expected that PWC will continue to be a source of concern to resource managers and users in the near future. The history of similar motorized vehicles (ATVs and snowmobiles) combined with the unique characteristics of PWC ensures that some level of nuisance is likely under the current management strategy (Kupperman et al. 1999, Komanoff and Shaw 2000, Dudiak
101
2001, Rodgers and Adler 2001). This research confirmed that many aquatic resource users are experiencing conflicts with PWC. It also showed that PWC users and much of the management community generally do not perceive those conflicts in a similar way. Without a common assessment of the type and magnitude of conflicts, it is highly unlikely that regulations or management options will be implemented that effectively address the central issues. Communities will likely have to determine individually if the status quo is acceptable, or if user conflicts and other nuisance issues are of enough magnitude to warrant changes. New enabling legislation may be needed for most towns to gain authority for regulating PWC on waterbodies within their jurisdiction. One option for stimulating local solutions might be for the legislature to consider passing a “home rule” law permitting towns to regulate PWC on local waterways. This might force local discussions and encourage negotiations when those opposed to PWC regulations realize that they may lose access to favorite resources. Enactment of statewide home rule of PWC management would also permit communities to implement local registration of PWCs, such as Coventry has done, which could generate additional funds needed to improve enforcement on local waterways. This registration requirement also provides local communities with an opportunity to provide PWC operators with information specific to the waterbodies on which they intend to operate, and creates a census of PWC operation locally. Local regulation of PWCs statewide could help alleviate many of the site-specific concerns identified by this thesis research, and is an appropriate use of local zoning and police power statutes.
102
Another important option for reducing both pollution and noise issues would be to encourage the rapid replacement of older technology PWC. In Coventry, PWCs with two-stroke engines will be prohibited from using Tiogue Lake as of 2006. That is the year that the US EPA has mandated that all new PWC will be manufactured with cleaner, quieter engines. The Tiogue Lake ban encourages the use of the improved technology, while not banning PWC outright. Other similar ordinances around the state enacted to protect sensitive areas would foster the conversion to the improved, but more expensive technology, while protecting critical resources. Implications For Future Research While this current research found that PWC users especially were unwilling to accept any of the potential management solutions studied, additional research is needed to refine those responses. This research compared the status quo (essentially few or no restrictions) with options such as bans, space or time zoning, as a means of reducing user conflicts. But assuming that communities determine that additional efforts are needed, given the choice between an outright ban and space zoning, for example, which would be more acceptable? The level of resistance to specific management alternatives needs to be further investigated. Other management options need to be more fully investigated for implementation in Rhode Island also. Buoys placed at a distance of 200 feet from the shoreline to act as a reference for PWC (and other boaters) exiting and returning to launch ramps, and perhaps along public swimming areas could help limit PWC intrusions into these critical areas.
103
One concern noted with PWC usage is that operators often take turns using the vessel, requiring frequent trips into and out of a launch area to exchange passengers. This causes congestion at the ramp, and adjacent areas with riders waiting for their turn. It was suggested that the installation of floating platforms some distance offshore of popular launch ramps for PWC users to use as a staging area could reduce much of this (Miceli 2003b). While this researcher has anecdotal evidence from a reservoir outside of Boise, Idaho that these platforms work, there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. How to install platforms safely, who would own and maintain them, how large would they need to be to be used, would they be used, could they legally be installed? These platforms would address very site-specific issues, so a set of criteria would need to be developed for determining where it might be appropriate to install platforms. Another option suggested during the course of this research for reducing user conflicts was the creation of PWC only parking and launching areas along the marine shoreline (Miceli 2003b). This would encourage PWC users to recreate on waters more suitable to PWC, offshore rather than on inland lakes and upper Narragansett Bay sites. Issues to be investigated include: would they be used, are there any appropriate sites available to create these areas, how would they be enforced, what facilities would be required, who would pay for it, and would the benefit outweigh the costs? However, not all PWC users will choose to operate in designated marine PWC areas. Additional solutions still need to be developed for inland and other waters. The use of peer pressure was very effective for reducing conflicts with
104
snowmobiles through the clubs that were established to maintain trails and such (Reich 1999). The complete lack of PWC clubs or even active websites in Rhode Island suggests that today’s PWC users are less interested in joining clubs or interacting with the community of PWC users. The development of local courtesy patrols could help to enforce regulations through peer pressure. Determining the most effective way of implementing such a program could be an important step toward improved PWC management in Rhode Island.
105
List of Appendices Appendix A.
Resource Managers Survey (Officials)
Appendix B.
Resource Users Survey (Recreationists)
Appendix C.
Resource Managers Survey Results
Appendix D.
Resource Users Survey Results
Appendix E.
Hypothesis One Supplemental t-test
Appendix F.
Hypothesis Three Supplemental t-test
Appendix G.
Hypothesis Four Supplemental t-test
Appendix H.
Hypothesis Five Supplemental t-test
Appendix I.
Top five factors impacting water-related activities. PWC users vs. other aquatic resource users
Appendix J.
Resource manager responses to top factors impacting water-related activities
Appendix K.
Frequency of responses ranking factors affecting water-related activities
Appendix L.
Resource user responses rating personal watercraft concerns
Appendix M.
Resource manager responses rating personal watercraft concerns
Appendix N.
Frequency of responses ranking concerns with personal watercraft
Appendix O.
Matrix of State Personal Watercraft Regulations
Appendix P.
National Association of State Boating Law Enforcement Agencies Model Personal Watercraft Ordinance
Appendix Q.
Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) Model Personal Watercraft Operations Act
Appendix R.
Personal Watercraft Responsible Use Act of 1999 (H.R. 3141)
APPENDIX A RESOURCE MANAGERS SURVEY BOATING / MUNICIPAL OFFICIAL SURVEY Background: 1. Town/state of jurisdiction? __________________________________________ 2. What type of water body(ies) within your jurisdiction are most frequently recreated on? 1 Lake / pond
2 River
3 Salt pond
4 Bay
5 Ocean
6 Other _____________
3. What are the main uses of water bodies within your jurisdiction? Aesthetic/enjoyment ___
Personal watercraft ___
Wildlife viewing ___
Canoeing/kayaking ___
Sailing/wind surfing
Winter uses ___
Clamming ___
Skiing/tubing ___
Other:
Fishing ___
Surfing ___
Pleasure boating ___
Swimming ___
4. In general, how would you rate the current level of satisfaction with water-based activities on water bodies within your jurisdiction? 1 Extremely Satisfied
2 Very 3 Satisfied 4 Very Satisfied Dissatisfied
5 Extremely Dissatisfied
5. What factors most impact recreational experiences within your jurisdiction? Please include up to five, with 1 being the most important impact, to 5 the least. Aquatic plants/ seaweed ___
Litter/trash ___
Waterfowl ___
Crowding ___
PWC ___
Water pollution ___
Fisherpersons ___
Powerboats ____
Other:
Current status: Personal watercraft (PWCs) have regularly been in the news because of efforts to limit or restrict their use in areas. These restrictions are sought to address perceived conflicts with the use of these vessels. 6. How would you rate the effectiveness of current PWC use management on water bodies within your jurisdiction? Extremely Effective 1 2 3
4
Effective 5
106
6
7
Extremely Ineffective 8 9 10
7. Are any of the following issues a concern to you regarding PWC usage? If so, how would you rank your top 5 concerns? (1 most – 5 least): No concerns ___ Age of operators ___
Speed ___
Erratic/reckless maneuvers ___
Traveling too close to others ___
Lack of slow speed control ___
Traveling too close to shore ___
Noise ___
Water / air pollution ___
Safety for operators/riders ___
Wildlife disturbance ___
Safety to others ___
Other:
8. Are current PWC use regulations too restrictive or not restrictive enough? 1
Current regulations adequate
2
Not restrictive enough
3
Too restrictive
4
Not aware of regs.
9. Are PWCs adequately regulated on water bodies within your jurisdiction? Yes _____
No ______
If not, what should be done?
10. How would you rate enforcement of PWC regulations on water bodies within your jurisdiction? 1 Excellent
2 Very Good Occasional Problems
3
Fine Some problems
4 Mediocre - 5 Problems
Poor Major problems
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements using this scale of 1 to 10: Strongly Agree 1 2
3
Agree 4
5
Disagree 6 7
8
Strongly Disagree 9 10
11. Personal watercraft significantly affect public enjoyment of water bodies within my jurisdiction. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12. Local officials have adequate authority to regulate personal watercraft. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
13. Penalties for violating current PWC rules are adequate to discourage additional violations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14. The current 200-foot buffer (no person shall operate a personal watercraft within 200' of swimmers, divers, shore, or moored vessels, except at headway speed) is adequate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
107
15. People under 16 years of age should be able to operate PWCs without an adult provided they have successfully completed a boating safety course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Management solutions: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements using this scale of 1 to 10: Strongly Agree 1 2
3
Agree 4
5
Disagree 6 7
8
Strongly Disagree 9 10
16. A 300 foot buffer, similar to distances used in other areas, would reduce noise and other problems associated with PWC usage. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17. Buoys should be used to visually mark buffer distances at strategic areas to encourage adherence to the designated buffer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 18. Local communities should have the right to completely prohibit or ban PWCs on some water bodies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 19. Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20. Local communities should have the right to time zone or restrict weekly operating hours (limiting PWCs to selected times of the day, days of the week, or on odd/even days only) to address local concerns with PWCs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 21. Renters of boats and PWC should be required to meet ALL of the same requirements for operation as other users (including mandatory education). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 22. Prohibiting those under 16 years of age from operating ANY vessel with a motor of greater than 15 horsepower would improve boating/PWC safety. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 23. Is there anything you would like to see changed regarding PWC education or regulation? Thank you for your responses, and for your time! I hope this effort results in improved understanding of the issues surrounding personal watercraft usage in RI, enabling us to effectively manage our recreational resources.
108
APPENDIX B RESOURCE USERS SURVEY RESOURCE USER SURVEY Background: 1. Town and state of residence? ______________________________________________ 2. Approximate age? (Circle appropriate range.) 1 20
2 21 - 30
3 31 - 40
4 41 - 50
5 51 - 60-
6 61
3. From your home, how far is the water that you recreate on most often? 1 Live on
2 1 mile
3 1 to 5 miles
5 10 Miles
4 5 to 10 miles
Which water body? ______________________________________ 4. On average how often do you participate in water-related activities? 1 4 times per week
2 2–3 times / week
4 2–3 times / month
3 once per week
5 Once a month
6 < Once a Month
5. Do you or members of your household own any canoes/kayaks ____, powerboats ____, sailboats ____, motorized personal watercraft (PWC) ____ or other ____ watercraft? 6. What are your favorite water- related activities? Please include up to your top five uses, with 1 being the most important use, to 5 the least. Aesthetic/enjoyment ___
Personal watercraft ___
Wildlife viewing ___
Canoeing/kayaking ___
Sailing/wind surfing
Winter uses ___
Clamming ___
Skiing/tubing ___
Other:
Fishing ___
Surfing ___
Pleasure boating ___
Swimming ___
7. In general, how would you rate your current level of satisfaction with your waterrelated activities? 1 Extremely Satisfied
2 Very 3 Satisfied 4 Very Satisfied Dissatisfied
109
5 Extremely Dissatisfied
8. What factors most impact your water-related activities? Please include up to five, with 1 being the most important impact, to 5 the least. Aquatic plants/ seaweed ___
PWC ___
Water pollution ___
Crowding ___
Powerboats ____
Other:
Fisherpersons ___
Speeding craft ____
Litter/trash ___
Waterfowl ___
9. Have you ever ridden a PWC? your experience:
No, never ___ If yes, please rank the quality of
1 Excellent
Okay
2 Very Good
3
Did not enjoy
4
5 Disliked it
10. How often do you generally ride a PWC? 1 2 times per week
2 Once per week
3 2 – 3 times per month
4 Once a month
5 < Once a Month
Current status: Personal watercraft (PWCs) have regularly been in the news because of efforts to limit or restrict their use in areas. These restrictions are sought to address perceived conflicts with the use of these vessels. 11. How would you rate the effectiveness of current PWC use management on your favorite water body(ies)? Extremely Effective Effective Extremely Ineffective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12. Are any of the following issues a concern to you regarding PWC usage? If so, how would you rank your top 5 concerns? (1 most – 5 least): No concerns ___ Age of operators ___
Speed ___
Erratic/reckless maneuvers ___
Traveling too close to others ___
Lack of slow speed control ___
Traveling too close to shore ___
Noise ___
Water / air pollution ___
Safety for operators/riders ___
Wildlife disturbance ___
Safety to others ___
Other:
13. Are current PWC use regulations too restrictive or not restrictive enough? Current regulations Too 1 2 Not restrictive 3 4 Not aware adequate enough restrictive of regs. 14. Are PWCs adequately regulated on your favorite water body? Yes _____ No ______ If not, what should be done?
110
15. How would you rate enforcement of PWC regulations on your usual water body(ies)? Fine Poor 1 Excellent 2 Very Good 3 4 Mediocre 5 Occasional Some Major Problems problems Problems problems
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements using this scale of 1 to 10: Strongly Agree 1 2
3
Agree 4
5
Disagree 6 7
8
Strongly Disagree 9 10
16. Personal watercraft significantly affect enjoyment of my usual water body. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 17. Local officials have adequate authority to regulate personal watercraft. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10
18. Penalties for violating current PWC rules are adequate to discourage additional violations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 19. The current 200-foot buffer (no person shall operate a personal watercraft within 200' of swimmers, divers, shore, or moored vessels, except at headway speed) is adequate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20. People under 16 years of age should be able to operate PWCs without an adult provided they have successfully completed a boating safety course. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Management solutions: How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements using this scale of 1 to 10: Strongly Agree 1 2
3
Agree 4
5
Disagree 6 7
8
Strongly Disagree 9 10
21. A 300 foot buffer, similar to distances used in other areas, would reduce noise and other problems associated with PWC usage. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 22. Buoys should be used to visually mark buffer distances at strategic areas to encourage adherence to the designated buffer. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
111
23. Local communities should have the right to completely prohibit or ban PWCs on some water bodies. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 24. Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 25. Local communities should have the right to time zone or restrict weekly operating hours (limiting PWCs to selected times of the day, days of the week, or on odd/even days only) to address local concerns with PWCs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 26. Renters of boats and PWC should be required to meet ALL of the same requirements for operation as other users (including mandatory education). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 27. Prohibiting those under 16 years of age from operating ANY vessel with a motor of greater than 15 horsepower would improve boating/PWC safety. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 28. Is there anything you would like to see changed regarding PWC education or regulation?
Thank you for your responses, and for your time! I hope this effort results in improved understanding of the issues surrounding personal watercraft usage in RI, enabling us to better manage our recreational resources.
112
APPENDIX C RESOURCE MANAGERS SURVEY RESULTS Table C-1. Resource Managers (Officials) Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (1) Survey Town and state of jurisdiction # O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O - 10 O - 11 O - 12 O - 13 O - 14 O - 15
Tiverton, RI Richmond, RI Tiverton, RI Westerly, RI Tiverton, RI Tiverton, RI Coventry, RI Jamestown, RI South Kingstown, RI South Kingstown, RI South Kingstown, RI Warren and Bristol, RI Narragansett, RI Tiverton, RI Narragansett, RI
(2) Type of waterbodies most frequently recreated on 4 1&2 3&4 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - sound 2,3,4 1,2,3,4 1 4,5 3 1,2,3 2,3,5 2 2,3,5 6 - Sakonnet River 2,3,5
O - 16 Coventry, RI O - 17 Bristol, RI O - 18 SK, Charlestown, Westerly & Block Island, RI O - 19 State[wide]
1,2 4 2,3,4,5 1,2
O - 20 O - 21 O - 22 O - 23 O - 24 O - 25 O - 26
Narragansett, RI Middletown, RI South Kingstown, RI South Kingstown, RI South Kingstown, RI District 32, RI House Warwick, RI
2,3,4,5 2,5 2,3 2,3 3 1,2,3,4 5
O - 27 O - 28 O - 29 O - 30 O - 31
Portsmouth, RI South Kingstown, RI Bristol, RI Jamestown, RI Bristol, RI
2,4 2,3,5 4, 6 - Harbor 4 4
113
Table C-1 (continued). Officials Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION (continued) (3) Main water-related activities Survey Aesthetic Canoeing/ Clamming Fishing Boating PWCing sail / wind # kayaking surfing O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O - 10 O - 11 O - 12 O - 13 O - 14 O - 15
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y 4 Y Y
O - 16 O - 17 O - 18 O - 19
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
O - 20 O - 21 O - 22 O - 23 O - 24 O - 25 O - 26
Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y
O - 27 O - 28 O - 29 O - 30 O - 31
Y
1
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 1 Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y 3 Y Y
Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y
Y Y Y
Y Y
Y Y Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y Y Y Y
Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y 2 Y Y Y
Y Y Y
Y Y
Y
114
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
Table C-1 (continued). Officials Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION (continued) (3) Main water-related activities (continued) Survey Skiing Surfing Swimming Wildlife Winter Other # /tubing viewing uses O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O - 10 O - 11 O - 12 O - 13 O - 14 O - 15
Y Y Y Y Y
Y
Y
Y Y Y Y
Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y Y
Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y Y
O - 16 O - 17 O - 18 O - 19
Y Y Y
O - 20 O - 21 O - 22 O - 23 O - 24 O - 25 O - 26
Y Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
O - 27 O - 28 O - 29 O - 30 O - 31
Y
115
hunting
Y
Y Y
(4) Current Satisfaction 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 ? 2 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 2
3 1 2 2 2
Table C-1 (continued). Officials Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (5) Factors most impacting activities Survey Plants/ Crowding Fishers Litter/ # seaweed trash O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O - 10 O - 11 O - 12 O - 13 O - 14 O - 15
2 4 4 3
7
3 2 1 1 1 1 1 4 4
2 4
5
2
4 2
3 3
1 5
2 4 4
5
2
O - 20 O - 21 O - 22 O - 23 O - 24 O - 25 O - 26
3 4 4 4
4 5 2 3
2 4 1
1 3 1 1
1 3
2 3 1
O - 16 O - 17 O - 18 O - 19
3 5
1 1 4 1 2 5 2
5 2 3
3
2 1 2 4
PWC
1 2
2
O - 27 O - 28 O - 29 O - 30 O - 31
Powerboats
5
2 1 1
4
3 1 5 4 4 3 4 5 2 2 2 5
3 4 5
5 5 3 3
2 3 1 1
1 4 5 5
3 4 3
2 2
5 5 4
5 4
116
1 1
4 5 2 3 2
3 5 5 2
Speeding craft (not on survey)
Table C-1 (continued). Officials Survey Results CURRENT STATUS (continued) (5) Most impacting (cont.) Survey Waterfowl Water Other: # pollution O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O - 10 O - 11 O - 12 O - 13 O - 14 O - 15 O - 16 O - 17 O - 18 O - 19 O - 20 O - 21 O - 22 O - 23 O - 24 O - 25 O - 26
O - 27 O - 28 O - 29 O - 30 O - 31
2
1 2
4
2
2-silting in of marinas and channel
2
6 4 3 5 4 5
4 3
5 2 3
1 1 2
1-NRPA
5 3
10 8 2 3 1 5 5
2 5 2
2 3
3
5
8 6 4 8 6 5 5 6 1 4 2 10 10 7 3 7 1 9 7
1 2 4
1
(6) Effectiveness of PWC mgt
6 1 5 5 8
117
Table C-1 (continued). Officials Survey Results CURRENT STATUS (continued) (7) PWC concerns Survey No Age of Erratic Lack of slow # concerns operators maneuvers control O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O - 10 O - 11 O - 12 O - 13 O - 14 O - 15
1 1
1 5 4 3
O - 27 O - 28 O - 29 O - 30 O - 31
7
2 2 1 2 4 1
3
2
1
Rider safety
1
2 3
? 4
5
1 3 2
1 1 4
5
1 1
3 5
2 3
1 2
4 1
1
O - 16 O - 17 O - 18 O - 19 O - 20 O - 21 O - 22 O - 23 O - 24 O - 25 O - 26
1 4 1 2 8 1 5
Noise
2 2 2 3
3
5 3
3 3 3 2
2
3
1 3
1
2
1 1 2
1
3
5
4
1 4 1 1
1 3 5
2 4
118
2
2 5
Table C-1 (continued). Officials Survey Results CURRENT STATUS (continued) (7) PWC concerns (continued) Survey Others Speed Too close to Too close to Water/air Wildlife # Safety others shore pollution disturbance O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O - 10 O - 11 O - 12 O - 13 O - 14 O - 15 O - 16 O - 17 O - 18 O - 19 O - 20 O - 21 O - 22 O - 23 O - 24 O - 25 O - 26
O - 27 O - 28 O - 29 O - 30 O - 31
4 1 3
3 2 2
3 2 3
3 6 5 3
2
4
2 5
5 2 3 2
2 3 2
9
3
3
10
5 11
5
4
3
3
1
3 2
1
4 4
4
5
2
3
3
4 3 2
1
3
5
3 2
3
4 3
3
4
5
3
5 3
3
4
5
3 4 1
2 2 2 2
2
3
2
3
4
119
Table C-1 (continued). Officials Survey Results CURRENT STATUS (continued) (7) PWC concerns (cont) (8) (9) Survey Other: Restrictive Adequately What should be done? # enough? regulated? O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O - 10 O - 11 O - 12 O - 13 O - 14 O - 15 O - 16 O - 17 O - 18 O - 19
1- Requirement of license
O - 20 O - 21 O - 22 O - 23 O - 24 O - 25 O - 26 1 - No wake zone violations, 3 - Operator possessing boater safety O - 27 certificate
O - 28 O - 29 O - 30 O - 31
2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y
3 3 2 ?
Y Y N N
2 2 1 1 1 4 2
N N Y Y Y Y N
"ENFORCEMENT!!!"
1 1 2 2 2
N Y N Y N
"More patrols"
120
"Cite and fine violators"
"training and enforcement" "more patrol in no wake or speed areas" "my only problem is I a volunteer patrol fo "More man power"
"Enforce 5 mph / No Wake Zone"
Table C-1 (continued). Officials Survey Results MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES SECTION (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) Survey Under 16 yr old 300' buffer would Buoys at Right to Right to # operators okay reduce problems buffer ban PWCs space zone O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O - 10 O - 11 O - 12 O - 13 O - 14 O - 15
9 4 9 7 6 7 3 3 4 5 6 5 3 2 8
9 6 8 7 3 5 8 6 ? 3 7 1 7 5 7
2 4 1 1 3 2 5 2 7 2 7 1 3 1 7
1 4 1 6 8 8 8 8 4 2 8 1 5 10 4
1 4 1 5 3 9 5 2 2 7 1 4 5 10
O - 16 O - 17 O - 18 O - 19
10 10 10 5
10 10 1 5
10 9 1 5
10 10 4 5
10 10 4 4
O - 20 O - 21 O - 22 O - 23 O - 24 O - 25 O - 26
See Table C-2 6 5 4 10 6 7
1 4 6 7 8 5 4
1 4 4 6 10 5 4
6 4 9 8 10 4 5
2 4 7 5 4 4 5
O - 27 O - 28 O - 29 O - 30 O - 31
10 1 2 7 6
3 10 4 2 8
5 10 4 1 2
1 10 5 4 1
1 10 5 3 2
121
Table C-1 (continued). Officials Survey Results MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES (continued) (20) (21) (22) Survey Right to time zone Renters same No under 16 yr old # requirements operators O-1 O-2 O-3 O-4 O-5 O-6 O-7 O-8 O-9 O - 10 O - 11 O - 12 O - 13 O - 14 O - 15
1 4 1 6 9 8 8 6 2 9 1 7 10 10
1 4 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 2 1 1
4 10 5 10 2 5 2 1 9 9 10 7 10 10
O - 16 O - 17 O - 18 O - 19
10 10 4 4
1 2 1 1
5 8 1 5
O - 20 O - 21 O - 22 O - 23 O - 24 O - 25 O - 26
8 4 7 7 10 9 5
2 4 3 5 10 1 4
9 not sure 7 5 8 4 3
O - 27 O - 28 O - 29 O - 30 O - 31
10 10 5 6 1
1 10 1 4 1
3 10 6 2 6
122
Table C-2. Resource Managers (Officials) Narrative Survey Results Survey (23) Any changes needed? # O - 1 "Authority to issue citations is of little use without the speed required to pursue and apprehend. Pursuit by official PWC only compounds the safety and noise problems. PWC models should be prohibited from operation in certain areas if their noise level exceeds a specified db level when measured at specified distance. Note: This respondent’s evident bias against PWCs results from his residing on the shore of Fogland Cove, a mooring area very popular with weekend yachtsmen and the finest (most popular) windsurfing waters in the Sakonnet Passage. PWCs menace peace and safety here." O - 4 "more common sense education, easily accessible database for license checks" O - 5 "more effective enforcement by increasing patrol's which could only happen when all Tiverton's mooring collections go back to the harbor patrol instead of the general fun in Tiverton." O - 6 "#19 - only in the case of public drinking water supply. #23 1) Expand safety training for all vessels. 2) Place some sort of code valid for motor boats etc. on state drivers license - make safety training mandatory for all water craft - proof of USGS -or state training. 3) Make PWCs quiet. The main complaint I get is Noise 2-cycle engines can be troublesome to listen to for a long period. Reduce the noise and most of the complaints I receive would vanish. O - 11 "education and enforcement are all I feel are needed. Though they can sometimes be a nuisance, I strongly disagree with any banning. There is no problem when laws are followed." O - 13 "All operators, regardless of age or past experience should be required to pass a 'power squadron' type of safety course effective immediately; Our town must provide the financial & human resources to enforce our current regulations" O - 14 "….Renters of PWCs should be authorized to give basic training to renters before renting with a significant fine of renting a PWC to an operator that did not qualify or is not a qualified operator." O - 15 #17 Buoys - visual pollution. #22 < 16 yr cannot operate now. "The State that collects the fee's should enforce the laws or remove same from the books. Local residents should not pay additional taxes to enforce state laws for a selective few. These people have their agenda. For Example NRPA." O - 16 "Stop discrimination against PWC" O - 17 "Require PWCs to meet emission standards, I.e. outboard motors must meet 4-stoke requirements" O - 18 "Skim boards & boogie boards as well as jet skis should be better regulated on all coastal ponds & ocean front. (Rep Matt McHugh (36)) O - 20 Q #15 Age is not the factor!! Please get off that tact. Ignorance (not gender specific) is the issue! If RI's can't behave on our roadways, what can you expect on our waterways where there is no threat of enforcement.
123
Table C-2 (continued). Officials Narrative Survey Results Survey (23) Any changes needed? # O – 20 Q #23 Most abusers of PWC's as well powerboats are > 16 yrs of age. (cont) Enforcement is a major issue!! 1) Most local communities do not provide for it in their annual budget, ergo: no enforcement 2) It is not realistic to expect complaints from local citizens at their perspective police stations to be indicative of the abuse of PWC's or motor boats because: how do you report a projectile moving @ between 30 to 40 mph with no chance of getting boating reg. #s or keenly observing the description of the projectile or its operators to a land based station. Conclusion: RI does little to enforce the most basic of indiscretions, to expect enforcement of bad behavior on the water is foolhardy." O – 21 #14 200 foot buffer “would be adequate if enforced” O - 22 "No. Most PWC operators abide by the laws, there is always the few that give PWC a bad name." O - 27 "The ecozealots should find something else to make a cause. There is no problem." O - 29 "I think that basic boating education is the solution - many PWC operators (and other boaters as well) don't have a clue re: rights of way - rules of the road, or basic courtesy. I don't like PWCs, but they have as much right to be on the water as I do." O - 30 "Safety class for person's under 16" O - 31 "Two cycle engines are one of the major factors in oil pollution in this country (all types). We should also have a bay speed limit and noise limit. At present there is no limit that I know of in either case. (Thinking of cigarette boats).
124
APPENDIX D RESOURCE USERS SURVEY RESPONSES Table D-1. Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (1) (2) Survey Town of residency State Age How # far
(3) Waterbody
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12
Coventry Hopkinton South Kingstown Warwick North Kingstown North Kingstown East Greenwich Glocester Glocester South Kingstown South Kingstown South Kingstown
RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI
6 6 5 5 6 6 4 4 3 4 6 6
3 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 2
Johnson's Pond Pawcatuck River BI Sound Warwick Pond Narrow River Narrow River Narragansett Bay Lake Washington Waterman Lake BI Sound RI Sound Narrow River
R - 13 R - 14
Exeter Hopkinton
RI RI
6 4
2 2
Yawgoo Pond Ashville Pond
R - 15
North Kingstown
RI
5
4
R - 16 R - 17
Hopkinton Foster
RI RI
4 4
4 4
R - 18 R - 19 R - 20 R - 21
Hopkinton Barrington Exeter Tiverton
RI RI RI RI
2 3 4 4
2 2 4 1
Pt Judith Pond Locustville & Wyoming P., Wood R. Carbuncle Pond Locustville P. Green Falls & Wood R. Barrington River Narragansett Bay Stafford Pond
R - 22 R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 R - 26 R - 27 R - 28 R - 29 R - 30 R - 31
Glocester South Kingstown Johnston Exeter Burrillville West Greenwich Narragansett North Providence Smithfield Warwick
RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI
4 6 6 4 6 4 6 2 4 6
1 2 1 3 1 1 4 2 1 1
Keech Pond Narrow River Hawkins Reservoir Spring Lake Carr's Pond Narragansett Bay Wenscott Reservoir Lower Sprague Reservoir Little Pond
125
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (1) (2) (3) Survey Town of residency State Age How Waterbody # far R - 32 R - 33 R - 34
Warwick Providence South Kingstown
RI RI RI
5 2 4
1 2 1
Little Pond Mashapaug Pond Queens River
R - 35 R - 36 R - 37
Narragansett North Kingstown Narragansett
RI RI RI
3 6 4
3 4 2
Narrow River Tucker Pond Pt Judith Pond
R - 38 R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43
Narragansett Glocester North Kingstown Coventry Coventry Tiverton
RI RI RI RI RI RI
6 4 6 6 6 4
1 1 1 1 1 1
Narrow River Chepachet River Gilbert Stuart Stream Johnson's Pond Johnson's Pond Nanaquaket Pond
R - 44
Richmond
RI
3
3
Worden's Pond
R - 45 R - 46 R - 47 R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 R - 51 R - 52
Narragansett Narragansett South Kingstown Glocester South Kingstown South Kingstown Coventry Portsmouth
RI RI RI RI RI RI RI RI
6 4 5 4 6 6 6
1 3 4 1 2 2 1 3
Narrow River Narrow River Narrow River Waterman Lake Narrow River Narrow River Johnson's Pond Narragansett Bay
R - 53 R - 54 R - 55
Middletown South Kingstown Coventry
RI RI RI
6 4 4
3 4 1
Spectacle Cove, Narragansett Bay Tucker Pond Tiogue Lake
R - 56 R - 57
Coventry North Kingstown
RI RI
4 4
1 4
Johnson's Pond Narragansett Bay
R - 58 R - 59 R - 60 R - 61
Coventry Coventry West Warwick Barrington
RI RI RI RI
6 3 3 2
1 1 3 2
Johnson's Pond Johnson's Pond Narragansett Bay Barrington River
R - 62
North Kingstown
RI
3
3
Narragansett Bay
126
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (1) (2) (3) Survey Town of residency State Age How Waterbody # far
R - 63 R - 64
Middletown Providence
RI RI
4 3
3 4
Sakonnet River & Narragansett Bay Tiogue Lake
R - 65 R - 66
Warwick Burrillville
RI RI
4 4
1 2
Narragansett Bay Spring Lake
R - 67
South Kingstown
RI
6
1
R - 68
Warwick
RI
6
1
Narrow River Providence River - Narragansett Bay
R - 69 R - 70 R - 71 R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 R - 76 R - 77 R - 78 R - 79 R - 80
Narragansett Narragansett Coventry Cranston Cranston West Warwick
RI RI RI RI RI RI
Coventry Coventry Coventry Cranston South Kingstown
RI RI RI RI RI
6 1 - 3 5 1 6 1 4 5 3 4 5 5 1 5 1 6 1 4 1 4 1 5 1
R - 81 R - 82 R - 83 R - 84 R - 85 R - 86
Warwick Warwick Coventry Warwick West Warwick Coventry
RI RI RI RI RI RI
5 5 4 5 3 6
1 2 5 5 4 4
Warwick Pond Narragansett & Greenwich Bays Narragansett Bay
R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
Narragansett Narragansett Warwick
RI RI RI
6 2 5
1 1 1
Pt Judith Pond Pt Judith Pond Pt Judith Pond
127
1 - Atlantic, 3 - Narrow River Narrow River Johnson's Pond Ocean Ocean Narragansett Bay Narrow River Tiogue Lake Tiogue Lake Johnson's Pond Johnson's Pond Narrow River
Johnson's Pond
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (5) Vessels (6) Favorite activities (ranked) Survey Canoe Power sail PWC other Aesthetic Canoeing/ Clamming Fishing # /kayak kayaking R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12 R - 13 R - 14
none none Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
R - 18 R - 19 R - 20 R - 21 R - 22 R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 R - 26 R - 27 R - 28 R - 29 R - 30 R - 31
Y Y Y Y
Y Y none Y
Y
Y none
2 1 1 Y 5 1 4 2 3
Y
Y
8 Y
Y
2 1
Y
1
R - 15 R - 16 R - 17
1 1
1
Y 2
2
none 2 none Y
Y
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Y Y
Y
Y
4 4 4 3 2 Y 2 3 1
Y 1 2 3
5
1
1 3
2 5
1 2
2 1 1 5
3 2 3
1 Y 1
3 Y 2 Y 3
1 rowboat
Y none
Y Y
Y 1 Y Y
128
1 1
3
1
Y
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (5) Vessels (6) Favorite activities (ranked) Survey Canoe Power sail PWC other Aesthetic Canoeing/ Clamming Fishing # /kayak kayaking R - 32 R - 33 R - 34
Y
R - 35 R - 36 R - 37
Y Y Y
R - 38 R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43
Y Y Y
R - 44
Y
R - 45 R - 46 R - 47 R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 R - 51 R - 52
Y
R - 53 R - 54 R - 55
Y Y Y
none Y
Y
3 Y
Y
2
Y
Y Y
1 1
Y Y Y
Y Y Y
Y
Y
Y Y
2 1 1
1
4 4 1 Y Y
1
2
4
1
1 3 1 3 3 3
2
5
2 2 4 1
4
Y
Y
R - 56 R - 57
Y 4 1
Y
Y Y Y Y
1 4
1
Y
Y
Y Y
1 3 5
3 1
5 4
1 5
R - 58 R - 59 R - 60 R - 61
Y Y
Y Y
Y
Y
Y Y Y Y
R - 62
Y
Y
Y
Y
1 Y
5 4 4 5
129
4
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (5) Vessels (6) Favorite activities (ranked) Survey Canoe Power sail PWC other Aesthetic Canoeing/ Clamming Fishing # /kayak kayaking
R - 63 R - 64
Y Y
R - 65 R - 66
Y Y
R - 67
Y
Y Y Y
Y
R - 68
R - 69 R - 70 R - 71 R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 R - 76 R - 77 R - 78 R - 79 R - 80 R - 81 R - 82 R - 83 R - 84 R - 85 R - 86 R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
Y
Y
Y Y
Y Y Y
Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y Paddle boat
Y Y Y
Y
Y Y
Y Y Y
Y Y
Y
2
1 3
2 2
4
1
4
Y
Y
130
1
5
5
Y
Y Y
5
Y 5 5 2
Y Y Y Y
Y Y Y Y
5
2
4 4
4 1 4 4 2 2
2 2 3
Y 5 Y 1 1 1
Y
3 1 5
1
Y
4
3 Y
1 Y
1 5
2 2
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (6) Favorite activities (continued) Survey Boating PWCing sail/wind Skiing Surfing Swimming Wildlife # surfing /tubing viewing R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12
3
5
2 5
2 3 2 3 5 4 Y 3 4 2
3 2
3
2 5
5 4 3 4 5 5 3 4
R - 13 R - 14
4
4 5
R - 15
2
4
R - 16 R - 17 R - 18 R - 19 R - 20 R - 21 R - 22 R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 R - 26 R - 27 R - 28 R - 29 R - 30 R - 31
3
4
1
3 4 2 4
Y 4 5 Y
5 Y 4 1
3 4 1 4 2
2
2
Y 4
131
2 Y Y
3 Y
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (6) Favorite activities (continued) Survey Boating PWCing sail/wind Skiing Surfing Swimming Wildlife # surfing /tubing viewing R - 32 R - 33 R - 34
Y 3 2
2 3
R - 35 R - 36 R - 37
4
5
R - 38 R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43
3 5
Y Y 3
Y Y
R - 44
2
2 3
Y
Y Y 4
5
R - 45 R - 46 R - 47 R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 R - 51 R - 52
3 1
R - 53 R - 54 R - 55
4
R - 56 R - 57
3 3
2
4
R - 58 R - 59 R - 60 R - 61
Y 2 3 2
Y 1 1 1
Y 3
R - 62
3 2
3
3 1 5 2
2
4 4 4
5
1
2 1 3
4
2
5 2
1
2 2 3
2
4
4 2 3
2
1
132
3
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (6) Favorite activities (continued) Survey Boating PWCing sail/wind Skiing Surfing Swimming Wildlife # surfing /tubing viewing
R - 63 R - 64
2 1
R - 65 R - 66
5
R - 67
2
R - 68
2
R - 69 R - 70 R - 71 R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 R - 76 R - 77 R - 78 R - 79 R - 80
1 1
3 5
5 2
4 1
5
3 1
4
5
5
3
1
1 2
1 1 1 1
3 5
5
3
4
4
3 Y
3 2 3 1
5 2 1
1 3
4 3 4 2
3 4 3
R - 81 R - 82 R - 83 R - 84 R - 85 R - 86
Y 2 Y 4 2 2
3 4
R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
3 1 5
4 3
Y 3 4 3
4 Y 2 5
4 3 2
1
133
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (6) Favorites (cont) (7) (8) Factors most impacting activities Survey Winter Other Current Plants/ CrowdingFishers Litter/ Powertrash boats # uses Satisfaction seaweed R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12
5
4
4
1 - Walking
3 2 5 5 3 2 2 4 2 2 2 2
R - 13 R - 14
3 3
R - 15
3
R - 16 R - 17
3 1
R - 18 R - 19 R - 20 R - 21
1 3 3 2
R - 22 R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 R - 26 R - 27 R - 28 R - 29 R - 30 R - 31
3 - Rowing 5 3
5 1
4 4 4
3 1 3 5
3 1 3
3 2 2 1 4 4
5 2 1 3
1
2
5
1
3
4 2
2 1
3
5 1
2 3 3 4 1 1 1 3 2 3
3 3 4 1
2
2
5 1 5 5
4 1 1
2
1 2
5
2 1 2 1
1 2 1
3 3 5
2 4 4 Y
134
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (6) Favorites (cont) (7) (8) Factors most impacting activities Survey Winter Other Current Plants/ CrowdingFishers Litter/ Powertrash boats # uses Satisfaction seaweed R - 32 R - 33 R - 34
5
3 3 1
5 5
4
2 3
3
R - 35 R - 36 R - 37
3 1 1
3 5 2
1 4 4
3
R - 38 R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43
2 3 1 1 2
4 2
1
3
5
R - 44 R - 45 R - 46 R - 47 R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 R - 51 R - 52 R - 53 R - 54 R - 55 R - 56 R - 57
5
4 5
4
5
1 1
2 3 (except for PWC's) 3 3 1 2 4 1 2 2 2 3
3 5 1
2
2 4 2
2 2
R - 58 R - 59 R - 60 R - 61
1 1 2 2
R - 62
1
4 4
4
3 4 5
5 3
4 5
2 4
3 2
4
3 2
2 1
1
135
1 4 3
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (6) Favorites (cont) (7) (8) Factors most impacting activities Survey Winter Other Current Plants/ CrowdingFishers Litter/ Powertrash boats # uses Satisfaction seaweed
R - 63 R - 64
3 4
3 3
4 1
R - 65 R - 66
2 2
2
3
R - 67
3
4
R - 68
3
R - 69 R - 70 R - 71 R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 R - 76 R - 77 R - 78 R - 79 R - 80
3 4 1 1 1 1 3 5 4 3 2 2
R - 81 R - 82 R - 83 R - 84 R - 85 R - 86 R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
5
5
5
Y 5
3
2 4
5
1
5
3 1
2
2 1 1 4 4 5 3
3 4 3 3 2
4 2 4
5 2 2
2 4 2 3 3
5 2
1 3 1 1 3
3 4
2 2 1
4 1 5 2
1 1 2 2 4 5
2 4
2
5 5 4
3 1
136
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (8) Factors most impacting activities (continued) Survey PWC Speeding Waterfowl Water Other: # craft pollution R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12 R - 13 R - 14
1
1 2 1
R - 18 R - 19 R - 20 R - 21 R - 22 R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 R - 26 R - 27 R - 28 R - 29 R - 30 R - 31
4 5 2
5 - noise 6 - Noise
4 4 3
3 2
3
R - 15 R - 16 R - 17
5 2 1 2 4 3
2 4
3 2
3
5
1 4
2
4
1 - Speed limit; 5 - kayaks
1 5
3
4
5 1
1
3 2 3
3
4 1 1 2
1 3 Y
5
137
(water quality)
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (8) Factors most impacting activities (continued) Survey PWC Speeding Waterfowl Water Other: # craft pollution R - 32 R - 33 R - 34
Y 4 2
Y 1
1
R - 35 R - 36 R - 37
2 1
R - 38 R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43
1
R - 44
1
2
R - 45 R - 46 R - 47 R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 R - 51 R - 52
1 5 3
2 2 2
3 1 1
1 2
1
2 3 4
R - 53 R - 54 R - 55
5 1 1
R - 56 R - 57
2
1 3
3
1
R - 58 R - 59 R - 60 R - 61
2 3
5 1
2
3
1 2 - Level of water 2 - Water level None
1
1 - weather 3 3 3
1
5 5 1
2
R - 62
138
4 - Ignorant boaters 2 - Poor access; 3 - Excessive traffic on Rte 1
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND INFORMATION SECTION (continued) (8) Factors most impacting activities (continued) Survey PWC Speeding Waterfowl Water Other: # craft pollution
R - 63 R - 64
5
5 5
R - 65 R - 66
4
3 1
R - 67
1
2
1 3
3
2 1 5
R - 68
2
R - 69 R - 70 R - 71 R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 R - 76 R - 77 R - 78 R - 79 R - 80
3
R - 81 R - 82 R - 83 R - 84 R - 85 R - 86
4 4 5
R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
3 2
1 - weather 3
1 4 1 1 1 3
5 5 5 3 5
1 2 1 1 2 3 3 1
1
3 3 3 5
2 2 1 3 2 3
1 5 5
4 1
3
139
1 - weather & wakes 1 - un-necessary expansion of 5 mph no wake zone
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND (9) (10) Survey Ridden How # a PWC? often
CURRENT STATUS SECTION (11) (12) PWC concerns (ranked) Effectiveness of No Age of Erratic PWC mgt concerns operators maneuvers
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12
N N N N N N N 2 3 N N N
R - 13 R - 14
3 N
5
5 6
R - 15
3
5
7
5
R - 16 R - 17
N 3
5
7 8
1 1
R - 18 R - 19 R - 20 R - 21
4 N N 3
R - 22 R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 R - 26 R - 27 R - 28 R - 29 R - 30 R - 31
N N 3 N N N 3 N N N
5 5
5
5
5
5
9 10 8 10 10 10 5 6 8 8 8 4
4 5 4
3 2
2 2 1 4 1
Not sure 8 6 None-no PWCs used 9 5 1 None allowed 9 1 - "banned there " 5 5 5 -
140
2
Y Y
-
-
3
4 4 1 3 3 3 7 4 Y Y 3 3 -
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND (9) (10) Survey Ridden How # a PWC? often
CURRENT STATUS SECTION (11) (12) PWC concerns (ranked) Effectiveness of No Age of Erratic PWC mgt concerns operators maneuvers
R - 32 R - 33 R - 34
N N N
NA 8 1 - never see any
Y 5
R - 35 R - 36 R - 37
N N N
8 1 - never see any 6
5 1 3
R - 38 R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43
N N N 1 1 2
8 8 9 1 5.5 NA
5
1 1 5
Y
Y
4
2
1 1
5 - Tried it while visiting R - 44 a friend 3 out of state in anUnsure ocean. Not a pond or lake. R - 45 R - 46 R - 47 R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 R - 51 R - 52
N 3 N 1 N N 1 N
R - 53 R - 54 R - 55
N N 3
5
6 10 8
R - 56 R - 57
N 2
3
10 -
5 2
1 1
R - 58 R - 59 R - 60 R - 61
1 1 1 1
1 1 3 1
10 1 8 2
Y 1 4 2
Y 2 1
R - 62
1
2
1
2
1
5 2
10 9 10 1 10 8
3 1 1 2
5 3 1
5
3
1 5
4 1 3
141
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results BACKGROUND (9) (10) Survey Ridden How # a PWC? often
CURRENT STATUS SECTION (11) (12) PWC concerns (ranked) Effectiveness of No Age of Erratic PWC mgt concerns operators maneuvers
R - 63 R - 64
1 1
3 3
6 5
5 3
3 2
R - 65 R - 66
N 2
5
8 1
4
1 1
R - 67
4
5 - once
10
1
R - 68
2
1
5
1
R - 69 R - 70 R - 71 R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 R - 76 R - 77 R - 78 R - 79 R - 80
2 N 1 1 1 1 N N N 2 2 N
5 - once
8 10 10 2 1 2 10 10 10 8 2 7
R - 81 R - 82 R - 83 R - 84 R - 85 R - 86
N 3 N N 1 2
R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
N 2 1
1 1 1 1
5 1
2 3
8 8 4 9 1 10
3 1
7 8 6
5
2 (IQ) 2 2 1 2 1 4 1 5 5
1 2 1 2
5
4 1 1
1 2
2 1
2
1
1 1
142
3 1 1 1 3 1
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results
Survey # R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12
CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (12) Ranked PWC concerns (continued) Lack of Noise Rider Others Speed Too slow safety Safety close to control others 5 3 1 4 1 1 4 3 1 3 1 1 4 2 2 1 5 2 1 2 1 3 1 5 3 4 3 5
R - 13 R - 14
1 4
R - 15 R - 16 R - 17 R - 18 R - 19 R - 20 R - 21 R - 22 R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 R - 26 R - 27 R - 28 R - 29 R - 30 R - 31
2 2
4 4 5
Y Y
-
3 1 2
4
2
4
1
2
3
4 5
4
3 4 2
1 8 1 Y Y 4 4 -
5 6
1 2 5
Y
Y
4 3 Y
-
2 -
5 -
4 3 3 4
3
2
5
3
1
5
1
Water/air pollution
4
5 3
5
143
Too close to shore 2 2 2 2 5 3
5
5
2 3 3 5
3
1 5 Y
2
Y
-
Y Y 5 1 -
1 -
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results
Survey # R - 32 R - 33 R - 34
CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (12) Ranked PWC concerns (continued) Lack of Noise Rider Others Speed Too slow safety Safety close to control others Y Y 4 3 1 2 4 5
R - 35 R - 36 R - 37
1 2
R - 38 R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43
1 1 Y
R - 44 R - 45 R - 46 R - 47 R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 R - 51 R - 52 R - 53 R - 54 R - 55
Y
2 4
4
3
3 Y
4 Y
Y
3
Y
Water/air pollution
1
2 3
2 1
1
2
Too close to shore Y
Y
4 2 Y
1
2
5
1
4
1 3 3 1 5 2
3
1 5
4
2
1
3 3 5
2
1
1 4 5
5
1
1 3 4
4
3
5
2
5
1
R - 56 R - 57
5
2 4
R - 58 R - 59 R - 60 R - 61
1
5 3
1
4 3
4 3
2
R - 62
144
3
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (12) Ranked PWC concerns (continued) Survey Lack of Noise Rider Others Speed Too # slow safety Safety close to control others R - 63 R - 64
3
5
R - 65 R - 66
3
R - 67
4
R - 68
R - 69 R - 70 R - 71 R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 R - 76 R - 77 R - 78 R - 79 R - 80 R - 81 R - 82 R - 83 R - 84 R - 85 R - 86 R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
5 1 4
1
4 1 3
1 1
2 1
2
2 2
3
4
4 1 5
4 2
5
1
2 1
5
2 4
Too close to shore
Water/air pollution
2
2
5
4 2
5 3
5
5 4
5
1 3 5
1
3 1
1
1 1
3 4 3 1 3 3
1 3
3
1 4 5
5 1 1
2
4
3 3 5 4 5
4
1 4 2
2
1
2 3 3
3
4
5
145
4
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (12) Ranked PWC concerns (continued) Survey Wildlife Other: # disturbance R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12 R - 13 R - 14
5 5 5 4 5 5
2
R - 15 R - 16 R - 17 R - 18 R - 19 R - 20 R - 21 R - 22 R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 R - 26 R - 27 R - 28 R - 29 R - 30 R - 31
3 1 1
4 2 2 Y Y 2 -
-
146
(13) Restrictive enough?
(14) Adequately regulated?
2 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 1
N N N N N N Y Y N N N Y
2 2
N N
1
N
4 2
Y Y
2 2 2 4
Not sure N Y
2 1 2 2 2 1 2 4 2 -
N Y Y N Y Y Y N -
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (12) Ranked PWC concerns (continued) Survey Wildlife Other: # disturbance
(13) Restrictive enough?
(14) Adequately regulated?
R - 32 R - 33 R - 34
Y 2 3
2 2 2
Y N Y
R - 35 R - 36 R - 37
4 4 2
2 2 2
N Y N
R - 38 R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43
2 3 Y
2 2 2 1 1 4
N NA N Y Y NA
R - 44
5
2
N
R - 45 R - 46 R - 47 R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 R - 51 R - 52
2
2 2 2 1 2 2
N N N Y N N
4
2
N
R - 53 R - 54 R - 55
5
2 2 2
Y N N
R - 56 R - 57
2 4
N Y
R - 58 R - 59 R - 60 R - 61
3 1 3
N Y N Y
R - 62
1
Y
2 2
2
147
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (12) Ranked PWC concerns (continued) Survey Wildlife Other: # disturbance
(13) Restrictive enough?
(14) Adequately regulated?
R - 63 R - 64
4 5
3 1
N Y
R - 65 R - 66
2
N 1
N Y
R - 67
2
N
R - 68
1
Y
1 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2
N N N Y Y Y N N N N Y N
2 2 1 2 3 2
N N Y N Y N
2 3 1
Y Y
R - 69 R - 70 R - 71 R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 R - 76 R - 77 R - 78 R - 79 R - 80
2 1
R - 81 R - 82 R - 83 R - 84 R - 85 R - 86
2 5 4 3
1-inexperienced operators 1 5
3
R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
148
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (14 - continued) Survey What should be done? # R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12
"Limit use" "cut power, locations of use" "Shore distance rule" "Enforce regs already in place" "license operators" "regulation & enforcement"
(15) (16) Rate Affect enforcement enjoyment 3 5 3 5 5 5 2 3 4 4 5 1
1 3 4 1 1 1 5 4 3 4 3 8
R - 13 "no PWCs on small or narrow lakes and rivers." R - 14
3 5
5 5
R - 15 "Enforce speed regulations in congested areas"
4
7
R - 16 R - 17
3 4
4 6
Not sure 3
10 3 1 10
3 1 2 1 3 3 3 -
2 10 1 4 1 NA 10 NA 5 -
"ban PWCs with their polluting engines"
R - 18 R - 19 "Don't know" R - 20 R - 21 "very little PWC activity on our pond" "enforcement of current laws - speed, distance, R - 22 age" R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 Breakheart -yes, Beach P - No R - 26 No powered vessels allowed on our lake" R - 27 "At my location" R - 28 R - 29 "none are allowed" R - 30 R - 31 -
149
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (14 - continued) Survey What should be done? #
(15) (16) Rate Affect enforcement enjoyment
R - 32 R - 33 "I don't think so" R - 34 "unsure, never see any PWCs on river" "should be banned, alternately, straight line use, R - 35 I.e. going from pt A to pt B, no cruising" R - 36 R - 37 "?"
NA 4 2
10 3 6
4 NA -
5 NA 10
R - 38 "hard to monitor by Police boats. Eliminate them" R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43 "Not a problem yet" "Eliminate them - too noisy and disturbing" #15 "I haven't witnessed any 'problems' - only R - 44 disturbance."
4.5 4 5 1 1 NA
1 2 8 10 10 10
See #14
1
R - 45 R - 46 "more harbor police" R - 47 "ban" R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 "limit speeds" R - 51 R - 52
5 3 4 1 5 5
1 3 1 9 1 1
4
9
R - 53 R - 54 R - 55 "Ban them" "More frequent policing by DEM. Local police R - 56 ineffective." R - 57 "Marine patrol should take more action with R - 58 violations" R - 59 R - 60 "More patrol craft" R - 61
3 1 5
6 10 1
5 1
10 10
4 1 4 1
1 1 4 9
R - 62
2
10
150
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (14 - continued) Survey What should be done? #
(15) (16) Rate Affect enforcement enjoyment
R - 63 "Enforcement of current regs." R - 64 "Banned except for utility use. #15 - What R - 65 enforcement?" R - 66 "More patrols. Prohibit erratic/reckless R - 67 maneuvers"
5 1
10 10
5 1
2 10
5
1
R - 68
3
10
5 5 4 2 1 2 5 5 4 2 4
2 1 10 9 10 9 1 1 1 2 2 2
5 4 4 5 1 5
1 1 7 1 10 5
4 2 1
5 2* 10
"Existing regulations are sufficiently restrictive; but are not enforced. Ban them - since the R - 69 towns won't or can't afford to regulate" R - 70 R - 71 "More police surveillance" R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 "Ban them" R - 76 "Ban" R - 77 "Effective law enforcement" R - 78 "See letter" R - 79 R - 80 "Ban" "All 2-cycle engine powered craft should be R - 81 banned from freshwater use" R - 82 "Greater enforcement of the 200 ft buffer" R - 83 R - 84 "More enforcement" R - 85 R - 86 "More enforcement of laws" R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
151
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (20) (17) (18) (19) Survey Adequate local Penalties 200' buffer Under 16 # authority adequate okay yrs okay
ALTERNATIVES (21) 300' buffer would reduce problems
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12
2 Don't know 4 1 10 10 3 7 8 8 7 4
9 Don't Know 5 10 10 10 5 8 8 8 6 4
5 10 4 5 10 10 4 8 5 10 6 4
9 8 4 10 5 10 10 8 10 10 10 4
5 5 4 1 1 1 3 8
R - 13 R - 14
5 5
8 5
8 5
9 8
4 3
R - 15
4
5
7
5
4
R - 16 R - 17
4 9
5 9
3 4
5 4
3 3
R - 18 R - 19 R - 20 R - 21
10 7 4
Not sure 7 4
Not sure 8 8 4
10 8 10 4
Not sure 4 5 7
R - 22 R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 R - 26 R - 27 R - 28 R - 29 R - 30 R - 31
9 2 1 8 1 1 5 4 9 -
9 1 7 10 7 5 4 7 -
9 1 5 7 10 7 5 3 8 -
10 6 4 6 10 7 10 8 10 -
2 6 3 4 5 2 1 5 2 4
152
2 2 8
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (20) (17) (18) (19) Survey Adequate local Penalties 200' buffer Under 16 # authority adequate okay yrs okay
ALTERNATIVES (21) 300' buffer would reduce problems
R - 32 R - 33 R - 34
6 7 8
6 7 9
8 4 8
10 8 1
5 4 1
R - 35 R - 36 R - 37
8 5 5
8 5 6
8 3 8
7 8 8
5 3 1
R - 38 R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43
6 NA 8 1 1
10 NA 9 1 1 2
9 8 8 1 1 NA
1 10 10 1 1 2
8 6 5 10 10 7
Unknown to me
10
10
6
R - 44 Unknown to me R - 45 R - 46 R - 47 R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 R - 51 R - 52
10 9 1 3 10 7
10 9 10 3 10 7
10 9 10 3 4 10
10 10 10 3 10 10
4
7
7
3
4 2 1 7 4 10 10 3
R - 53 R - 54 R - 55
6 10 9
9 10 9
1 10 9
3 10 10
4 1 1
R - 56 R - 57
4 -
10 -
10 1
10 5
1 10
R - 58 R - 59 R - 60 R - 61
1 1 8 3
7 1 7 2
10 5 4 10
10 4 8 7
4 10 6 10
R - 62
1
3
1
8
10
153
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results CURRENT STATUS SECTION (continued) (20) (17) (18) (19) Survey Adequate local Penalties 200' buffer Under 16 # authority adequate okay yrs okay
ALTERNATIVES (21) 300' buffer would reduce problems
R - 63 R - 64
5 4
5 4
1 2
10 2
6 7
R - 65 R - 66
8 8
8 5
8 3
3 1
1 2
R - 67
10
10
9
4
8
R - 68
5
10
1
10
5
R - 69 R - 70 R - 71 R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 R - 76 R - 77 R - 78 R - 79 R - 80
1 5 5 2 1 9 10 1 5 6 1 7
4 8 5 2 1 2 10 5 6 6 4 8
2 8 1 2 1 2 10 5 3 6 1 9
10 10 10 10 1 9 10 10 10 7 7 9
1 10 10 10 10 9 10 5 8 9 10 4
R - 81 R - 82 R - 83 R - 84 R - 85 R - 86
1 4 8 9 5 6
6 8 8 3 6
1 4 3 9 1 4
10 10 10 10 5 5
1 1 1 1 10 9
R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
6 2 1
4 2 1
6 1 1
8 10 2
1 10 8
154
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES SECTION (continued) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) Survey Bouys Right to Right to Right to Renters # at buffer ban PWCs space zone time zone same req. R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 R-8 R-9 R - 10 R - 11 R - 12
2 1 4 1 1 1 3 3
1 1 4 1 1 1 1 3
1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 4 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1
(27) No under 16 yr old operators 1 1 6 1 5 1 1 4
1 1 6
1 1 9
1 1 8
1 1 10
1 1 4
1 1 8
R - 13 R - 14
5 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
2 1
4 1
R - 15
3
7
6
7
3
5
R - 16 R - 17
3 4
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
4 1
R - 18 Not sure R - 19 4 R - 20 4 R - 21 4
1 6 1 7
1 3 1 7
1 3 1 7
1 4 5 4
1 4 5 9
R - 22 R - 23 R - 24 R - 25 R - 26 R - 27 R - 28 R - 29 R - 30 R - 31
1 10 2 4 1 1 1 2 1 1
2 9 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 -
2 7 1 2 1 1 1 4 1 3
1 3 1 4 1 1 1 3 1 -
2 4 1 2 1 1 1 4 3 1
5 8 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 1
155
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES SECTION (continued) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) Survey Bouys Right to Right to Right to Renters # at buffer ban PWCs space zone time zone same req. R - 32 R - 33 R - 34
4 1 1
1 1 2
2 1 2
2 1 2
1 1 1
(27) No under 16 yr old operators 1 4 2
R - 35 R - 36 R - 37
2 2 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
4 2 1
R - 38 R - 39 R - 40 R - 41 R - 42 R - 43
4 1 10 10 1
1 1 1 10 10 2
1 1 1 10 10 2
1 1 1 10 10 2
1 1 1 1 1 3
7 1 1 10 1 4
R - 44
1
1
1
1
1
4
R - 45 R - 46 R - 47 R - 48 R - 49 R - 50 R - 51 R - 52
4 2 1 3 4 4 1 3
1 1 1 4 1 1 10 3
1 1 1 7 1 10 10 2
1 1 1 4 2 10 10 2
1 1 1 3 2 1 1 10
1 1 1 3 3 1 1 4
R - 53 R - 54 R - 55
2 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
3 1 6
R - 56 R - 57
1 5
1 7
10 7
10 10
1 1
1 10
R - 58 R - 59 R - 60 R - 61
10 6 4 9
10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10
1 1 1 4
1 5 4 4
R - 62
10
10
10
10
5
6
156
Table D-1 (continued) Resource Users Survey Results MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES SECTION (continued) (22) (23) (24) (25) (26) Survey Bouys Right to Right to Right to Renters # at buffer ban PWCs space zone time zone same req.
(27) No under 16 yr old operators
R - 63 R - 64
4 1
10 10
5 6
10 10
5 1
1 10
R - 65 R - 66
2 6
2 1
2 1
4 1
1 1
3 1
R - 67
5
1
1
1
1
7
R - 68
1
10
5
10
1
1
R - 69 R - 70 R - 71 R - 72 R - 73 R - 74 R - 75 R - 76 R - 77 R - 78 R - 79 R - 80
1 5 10 1 10 2
1 1 10 2 10 2 1 10 1 5 10 1
1
1
10 1 9 5 4
1 1 10 9 10 9 1 10 1 2 10 1
10 9 10 9 1 10 1 5 10 1
1 1 1 2 1 10 1 2 1 1
1 3 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 5 4 1
R - 81 R - 82 R - 83 R - 84 R - 85 R - 86
1 1 1 1 10 4
1 6 1 1 10 4
1 6 1 1 10 4
1 6 1 1 10 6
1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 7 1
R - 87 R - 88 R - 89
1 10 5
2 10 10
2 8 8
1 10 8
1 1 1
5 2 8
157
Table D-2. Resource Users Narrative Survey Responses Survey (28) Any changes needed? # R - 1 "I'm just one who thinks PWC are dangerous, noisy, and threaten wildlife. I wouldn't mind seeing them restricted to the Bay only. Stay out of lakes and inland waterways." R - 2 "I am against the use of these type of vehicles. I see no sensitive value in their usage - a ? Intrusion on the vast majority!" R - 3 "If not so already, assure that manufacturer/distributor/retailer of PWC 'own' some of the problem solving - it can lead to quieter & safer designs" R - 4 "operators needed to be educated about the current regulations and the impact of their behavior while driving a PWC. Enforcement and fines need to be levied against reckless drivers. In general PWC operators need to show consideration for other people." R - 5 "Both design & use are at fault, applies to powerboats as well as PWC. A) design-limit pollutant discharge, limit noise, limit wake, rate safety. B) Use- require pass in training course, require license (visible, as for hunting license) fines for violation of local rules. Funds from license fees to allow patrolling enforcement." R - 6 "Just start education & regulation please - no evidence of either in out neighborhood" R - 12 "I think most PWC act responsibly and they have a right on the water. On Narrow River there are more problems with inexperience canoe/kayakers who travel in the boat channel and do not know how to safely stay afloat and control their craft in windy tides. We have too much government control. A five mile speed limit on Narrow River should be in force only on weekends from July 3rd to labor Day from 11 AM to 6 PM. R - 13 "No PWC's on small lakes and narrow rivers, …or big lakes either. And Worden Pond is not big enough for anything over 5 hp that runs at top speed all the time." R - 14 "Increased participation by PWC control advocates at town (level) meetings. R - 15 "Increased buffer zone as well as improved enforcement of existing speed limits and regulations" R - 18 "Not sure" R - 22 "buoys - maybe in some places" R - 23 "I feel that PWC users have the right to use waterways with due consideration for safety, swimmers, etc. I feel they could be regulated if there is scientific evidence of environmental damage - not just because some one does not like them." R - 24 "completely ban PWCs" R - 26 "I'd like to see them eliminated completely, along with snowmobiles, ATVs and dirt bikes. Unfortunately, I know this will never happen. Once people have their toys, they don't want to give them up!" R - 27 "Fresh water ban (on) jetskis"
158
Table D-2 (continued) Resource Users Narrative Responses Survey (28) Any changes needed? # R - 33 "I hate them. It's like 'hiking' in an SUV. They pollute, disrupt wildlife, and disturb other users of waterways. So often my tranquility has been disturbed by noisy jet ski motors. I'd be happy if I never saw another jet ski in a waterbody I was using ever again." R - 38 "short of eliminating them together? Like cars, drivers don't necessarily follow the rules no matter how well educated." R - 41 "We don't need anymore regulation." R - 42 "200 foot buffer should be less" "Less Regulation" R - 44 "Eliminate their use at all inland lakes & ponds. Only allow offshore use with 300 ft buffer to shore. I am glad I do not live within "hearing" range of Worden's Pond or any other pond that allows PWC. Given local communities the right to limit their use. Use for life guarding & emergency of course OK." R - 45 1) PWC's do not belong on Narrow River - they should be banned! 2) In spite of the few documented accidents in RI and Narrow River, their overall safety record nationwide is awful. If we do not ban them, when a catastrophe happens it will be on our consciences! 3) Waterfront property values are negatively impacted by the noise and antics of PWC's R - 46 “More police enforcement on river.” R - 47 "Much more public discussion esp. local Town Councils!" R - 50 "PWC are too noisy to be navigated along a natural estuary. The wake disturbs your ability to control a kayak or canoe and erodes the shoreline. Narrow River is a fragile salt marsh and needs to be protected." R - 52 "More detail" R - 55 I believe that the current rules and regulations on PWC's could help some bodies of water if enforced to the letter of the law. The PWC industry supports this legislation knowing full well they can't be enforced! I also feel that there should be no PWC's on any fresh water body 300 acres or less." R - 56 "#17-They just don't use it; #19 Again, non-enforceable; #20 - Would you give the keys to your car to your 13 year old?; #21 - This distance would ban these PWC from this body of water; #24 - Unenforceable, no effect; #28 Surely as more and more communities ban these vehicles because of noise, recklessness, speed, etc. they will surely migrate to Johnson's Pond where no regulations are in place. The only way to effectively control these PWC is to ban them statewide. As areas are banned other areas are inundated with these PWC. Johnson's Pond will become the last refuge. Help!" R - 57 "Yes hold motor boaters to the same restrictions!" R - 58 "If you own a home on a body of water where wave runners have enjoyed access for years they should not have the right to take it away whenever they want to."
159
Table D-2 (continued) Resource Users Narrative Responses Survey (28) Any changes needed? # R - 59 "PWC laws & restrictions should be the same as any other power boat. I'm allowed in more places and closer to things with my big 22 ft boat at speeds than with my PWCs. A PWC has more control (with proper education) that a boat has, and does less damage because there is no utdrive or propeller cutting seaweed or the bottom. Mandatory education should be for all watercraft including boats. I see people in boats that don't have a clue. They should be educated. I have taken: Boaters Safety (back in 5-4-97), Navigation, GPS, LORAN, Radar, Boater Safety Education (mandatory thru RI DEM DLE) Does my education change when I get on a PWC? NO! So why am I treated like it does? Motorcycles follow the same laws as cars!" R - 60 "Have more enforcement of boating laws. Also have the PWC taken away from anyone with 3 or more violations within any given year." R - 61 "reduce buffer zones in narrow rivers, water skiing areas." R - 62 "No, this is the 'Ocean State', and should be able to be enjoyed by all, not just by those in non-motorized or wind powered craft". R - 63 "There are regulations on the books that regulate the operation of PWC. Why don’t' the authorities enforce these and not create new, unreasonable one. My family and I operate our PWC legally and responsibly" R - 67 "Personally I have no problem with PWC's transiting the area. I think the erratic maneuvers, I.e. 'doughnuts & wake jumping' should be prohibited in all areas except open waters - then only in designated areas." R - 69 "The towns must realize that regulation is a full time job - expensive - time consuming and unpopular - since sufficient manpower is not and probably won't be devoted to this - the best solution is to ban their use from environmentally sensitive and crowded areas. " R - 71 "More education for all ages, but not only for PWCs but all motorized craft. Basic boating courses are not adequate. We definitely need all motorized craft licensed such as automobile and to be insured. Presently the laws are adequate, but without patrol officers to enforce them they are just words on paper. Present police and DEM patrol officers should be assisted with some form of auxiliary officers." R - 73 "The PWC's are by far the better vessels on the water because they don't pollute the water like most boats do. The noise factor is not an issue with PWC's like boats, the majority of owners like myself are older & care about wildlife & respect everything and everyone on the water. I'd like to see people who take the safety course who are giving the classes have first hand knowledge of PWC's know what they talking about first hand & not a bad experience with a child riding one recklessly & be informed with how environmentally sound they are by doing their homework & not just an educated guess..."
160
Table D-2 (continued) Resource Users Narrative Responses Survey (28) Any changes needed? # R - 76 "Ban on all constrained fresh water lakes and rivers!!" R - 80 "Support bans by residents, 'No wake' zones for power boats on Narrow River" R - 81 "200 ft buffer is adequate; although 300 ft would be more desirable. However, as a practical matter enforcement is practically non-existent. More importantly, freshwater bodies need more protection from use of 2cycle engine powered craft, and restriction on the use of engines over a certain displacement. R - 82 "Increase the PWC registration numbers in size (on the PWC). This would assist in the identification of operators who violate the rules. Currently, the numbers are too small to read from shore with binoculars." R - 84 "Encourage co-operation among the users of PWC and allow a panel to be set up so negatively impacted persons have a place to go for help. The noise factors are terrible; I know, I have a rude, disrespectful, inconsiderate jerk of a neighbor." R - 85 Comment to #24: riding in small area is dangerous! #28: I believe there were 3 deadly boating incidents in RI last year and none of them involved PWC. When power boating we drink, when PWCing we do not because we don't sit still and can't carry a cooler. My views and info here pertain only to Narragansett Bay and BI Sound waters. Rules on narrow/small ponds would be different. I don't ride on Johnson's Pond because there are 100 crafts out there per gallon of water. As far noise pollution, there must be regulations that define sound levels (dbs) near ponds. They should be measured to see if a PWC is louder than those levels. I believe a neighbor cutting his lawn would be louder and more consistent. Inboard ski boats (ski nautique) are loud. Go to Johnson's Pond in Cov. on the weekend and see. I think it would help you. They are trying to self-regulate. R - 86 Comment # 21: not applicable to this body of water R - 87 "PWC should be used in designated areas where their noise and speed does not interfere with others, not around homes, boaters, swimmers, clammers, etc. Age limits should be more restrictive that with boaters." R - 88 "It is too restrictive in the Pt. Judith to Wakefield waterway."
161
APPENDIX E HYPOTHESIS ONE SUPPLEMENTAL t-TEST Table E. Effectiveness of current PWC use management, PWC Operators (PWC) compared with other aquatic Resource users (Non-PWC) Supplemental t-test analysis
t
H0:
XN XP
X N = 7.27 X P = 4.38 df = 78 NN = 60 NP = 20 SN = 2.58 SP = 3.40
S N 2 SP 2 N N NP
When presented with the question “How would you rate the effectiveness of current PWC use management …?, there is no statistically significant difference in perceived effectiveness between response groups.
Ha:
When presented with the question “How would you rate the effectiveness of current PWC use management …?, there is a statistically significant difference in perceived effectiveness between response groups.
Test: t Test, α = .05 for a two-tailed test Result: t value = 3.99 Rejection Region: t < -1.99; t > 1.99 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in perceived effectiveness of current PWC use management between PWC operators and other aquatic resource users. X N = Mean Other Resource Users
X P = Mean PWC user Value
(Non-PWC) Value NN = Valid # of Resource Users Responses SN = Resource User Standard Deviation
NP = Valid # of Mean Officials Responses SP = Mean Officials Standard Deviation
162
APPENDIX F. HYPOTHESIS THREE SUPPLEMENTAL t-TEST Table F. Acceptance of bans as a PWC use management tool, PWC Operators (PWC) compared with other aquatic Resource users (Non-PWC) Supplemental t-test analysis
t
H0:
X N = 2.00 X P = 9.28
X N XP S N 2 SP 2 N N NP
df = 86 NN = 66 NP = 22 SN = 2.20 SP = 1.82
When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to completely prohibit or ban PWCs on some water bodies” there are no significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users.
Ha:
When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to completely prohibit or ban PWCs on some water bodies” there are significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users.
Test: t Test, α = .05 for a two-tailed test Result: t value = -13.23 Rejection Region: t < -1.99; t > 1.99 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in acceptance of bans as a PWC use management tool between PWC operators and other aquatic resource users. X N = Mean Other Resource Users
X P = Mean PWC user Value
(Non-PWC) Value NN = Valid # of Resource Users Responses SN = Resource User Standard Deviation
NP = Valid # of Mean Officials Responses SP = Mean Officials Standard Deviation
163
APPENDIX G HYPOTHESIS FOUR SUPPLEMENTAL t-TEST Table G. Acceptance of space zoning as an alternative PWC use management tool, PWC Operators (PWC) compared with other aquatic Resource users (Non-PWC) Supplemental t-test analysis
H0:
X N = 2.25 XN XP X P = 7.91 t df = 85 SN 2 SP 2 NN = 65 NN NP NP = 22 SN = 2.78 SP = 1.24 When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are no significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users.
Ha:
When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users.
Test: t Test, α = .05 for a two-tailed test Result: t value = -9.01 Rejection Region: t < -1.99; t > 1.99 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in acceptance of space zoning as a PWC use management tool between PWC operators and other aquatic resource users. X N = Mean Other Resource Users
X P = Mean PWC user Value
(Non-PWC) Value NN = Valid # of Resource Users Responses SN = Resource User Standard Deviation
NP = Valid # of Mean Officials Responses SP = Mean Officials Standard Deviation
164
APPENDIX H HYPOTHESIS FIVE SUPPLEMENTAL t-TEST Table H. Acceptance of time zoning as an alternative PWC use management tool, PWC Operators (PWC) compared with other aquatic Resource users (Non-PWC) Supplemental t-test analysis
X N = 2.31 X P = 9.36 df = 85 NN = 65 NP = 22 SN = 2.52 SP = 1.52 When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement, ”Local
XN XP t SN 2 SP 2 NN NP
H0:
communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are no significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users. Ha:
When asked, “How much do you agree or disagree with the statement Local communities should have the right to space zone or restrict PWC to specific areas of a water body to address local concerns with PWCs” there are significant differences in the degree of acceptance between resource managers and resource users.
Test: t Test, α = .05 for a two-tailed test Result: t value = -12.37 Rejection Region: t < -1.99; t > 1.99 Conclusion: Accept Ha at the .05 significance level. There is sufficient evidence to accept the claim that there are significant differences in acceptance of time zoning as a PWC use management tool between PWC operators and other aquatic resource users. X N = Mean Other Resource Users
X P = Mean PWC user Value
(Non-PWC) Value NN = Valid # of Resource Users Responses SN = Resource User Standard Deviation
NP = Valid # of Mean Officials Responses SP = Mean Officials Standard Deviation
165
APPENDIX I TOP FIVE FACTORS IMPACTING WATER-RELATED ACTIVITIES. PWC USERS VS OTHER AQUATIC RESOURCE USERS a l n t s s / e a w e e d C a t e g .H i s t o g r a m :P P a l n t s s / e a w e e d P W C U s e S t a t u : s N o n P W C U s e r = 2 0 * 1 * n o r m a l ( x ,2 . 8 ,1 . 3 6 1 1 ) P a l n t s s / e a w e e d P W C U s e S t a t u : s P W C U s e r = 1 1 * 1 * n o r m a l ( x ,2 . 5 4 5 5 ,1 . 2 1 3 6 )
9 8 7 6 5
Nofobs
4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
P W C U s e S t a t u s :N o n P W C U s e r
P W C U s e S t a t u s :P W C U s e r P a l n t s s / e a w e e d
Figure. I-1. Histograms of responses rating aquatic plants and / or seaweed as one of the top five factors impact water-related activities.
166
C r o w d n i g C a t e g . H s i t o g r a m : C r o w d n i g P W C U s e S t a t u s : N o n P W C U s e r = 3 9 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x , 2 . 8 7 1 8 , 1 . 4 3 6 ) C r o w d n i g P W C U s e S t a t u s : P W C U s e r = 1 5 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x , 2 . 8 6 6 7 , 1 . 4 0 7 5 )
1 2
1 0
8
Nofbs
6
4
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
P W C U s e S t a t u s N : o n P W C U s e r
P W C U s e S t a t u s P : W C U s e r C r o w d n i g
Figure. I-2. Histograms of responses rating crowding as one of the top five factors impact water-related activities. s i h e r s C a t e g .H s i t o g r a m :F F s i h e r s P W C U s e S t a t u s :N o n P W C U s e r = 5 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 6 ,1 . 1 4 0 2 ) F s i h e r s P W C U s e S t a t u s :P W C U s e r = 4 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 7 5 ,1 . 7 0 7 8 )
3
Nofbs
2
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
P W C U s e S t a t u s N : o n P W C U s e r
P W C U s e S t a t u s P : W C U s e r F s i h e r s
Figure. I-3. Histograms of responses rating fisherpersons as one of the top five factors impact water-related activities.
167
t i t e r t / r a s h C a t e g .H s i t o g r a m :L L t i t e r t / r a s h P W C U s e S t a t u s :N o n P W C U s e r = 3 5 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 4 5 7 1 ,1 . 3 1 3 8 ) L t i t e r t / r a s h P W C U s e S t a t u s :P W C U s e r = 1 3 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 2 3 0 8 ,1 . 2 3 5 2 )
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
Nofbs
6
4
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
P W C U s e S t a t u s N : o n P W C U s e r
P W C U s e S t a t u s P : W C U s e r L t i t e r t / r a s h
Figure I-4. Histograms of responses rating litter as one of the top five factors impact water-related activities. P o w e r b o a t s C a t e g .H i s t o g r a m : P o w e r b o a t s P W C U s e S t a t u s :N o n P W C U s e r = 2 8 * 1 * n o r m a l ( x ,3 . 3 9 2 9 ,1 . 1 9 6 9 ) P o w e r b o a t s P W C U s e S t a t u s :P W C U s e r = 5 * 1 * n o r m a l ( x ,2 . 6 ,1 . 8 1 6 6 )
1 0 9 8 7 6
Nofbs
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
P W C U s e S t a t u : s N o n P W C U s e r
P W C U s e S t a t u : s P W C U s e r
P o w e r b o a t s
Figure I-5. Histograms of responses rating power boats as one of the top five factors impact water-related activities.
168
W C C a t e g .H s i t o g r a m :P P W C P W C U s e S t a t u s :N o n P W C U s e r = 3 8 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 4 4 7 4 ,1 . 4 2 7 5 ) P W C P W C U s e S t a t u s :P W C U s e r = 3 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 ,2 )
1 6 1 4 1 2 1 0
Nofbs
8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
P W C U s e S t a t u s N : o n P W C U s e r
P W C U s e S t a t u s P : W C U s e r P W C
Figure I-6. Histograms of responses rating personal watercraft as one of the top five factors impact water-related activities. p e e d n i g c r a f t C a t e g .H s i t o g r a m :S S p e e d n i g c r a f t P W C U s e S t a t u s :N o n P W C U s e r = 3 9 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 4 3 5 9 ,1 . 1 6 5 2 ) S p e e d n i g c r a f t P W C U s e S t a t u s :P W C U s e r = 1 0 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 7 ,1 . 7 6 7 )
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
Nofbs
6
4
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
P W C U s e S t a t u s N : o n P W C U s e r
P W C U s e S t a t u s P : W C U s e r S p e e d n i g c r a f t
Figure I-7. Histograms of responses rating speeding craft as one of the top five factors impact water-related activities.
169
W a t e r f o w l C a t e g .H s i t o g r a m : W a t e r f o w l P W C U s e S t a t u s :N o n P W C U s e r = 1 2 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 7 5 ,1 . 3 5 6 8 ) W a t e r f o l P W C U s e S t a t u s :P W C U s e r w = 4 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 5 ,1 )
7 6 5 4
Nofbs
3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
P W C U s e S t a t u s N : o n P W C U s e r
P W C U s e S t a t u s P : W C U s e r W a t e r f o w l
Figure I-8. Histograms of responses rating waterfowl as one of the top five factors impact water-related activities. W a t e r p o u l t o i n C a t e g .H s i t o g r a m : W a t e r p o u l t o i n P W C U s e S t a t u s :N o n P W C U s e r = 3 6 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 8 3 3 3 ,1 . 4 8 3 2 ) W a t e r p o u l t o i n P W C U s e S t a t u s :P W C U s e r = 1 4 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 7 1 4 3 ,1 . 5 4 0 7 )
1 2
1 0
8
Nofbs
6
4
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
P W C U s e S t a t u s N : o n P W C U s e r
P W C U s e S t a t u s P : W C U s e r W a t e r p o u l t o i n
Figure I-9. Histograms of responses rating water pollution as one of the top five factors impact water-related activities.
170
th e r : C a te g .H is to g r a m :O th e r : P W C U s e S t a t u s :N o n P W C U s e rO = 8 * 1 * n o r m a l( x ,1 0 5 .6 2 5 ,3 .7 3 9 3 ) O th e r : P W C U s e S t a t u s :P W C U s e r = 5 * 1 * n o r m a l( x ,1 0 8 .2 ,2 .5 8 8 4 )
3
2
1
P W C U s eS ta tu s:N o n P W C U s e r
None 4-Ignorantboaters 1=WEATHER,WAKES 2-siltinginofmarinasandchanel
4-Ignorantboaters 1=WEATHER,WAKES 2-siltinginofmarinasandchanel
1Spedlimit;5-kayaks (2)-Levelofwater
5noise
None
1Spedlimit;5-kayaks (2)-Levelofwater
5noise
Noofobs
0
P W C U s eS ta tu s:P W C U s e r O th e r :
Figure I-10. Histograms of responses rating “Other” as one of the top five factors impact water-related activities.
171
APPENDIX J RESOURCE MANAGER RESPONSES TO TOP FACTORS IMPACTING WATER-RELATED ACTIVITIES ) c 8 8 1 * v 9 5 s l a i c i f f O ( m a r g o t s i H d e e w a e s / s t n a l P
) 3 0 9 5 . ,1 5 2 6 5 . ,3 x ( l a m r o n * 1 * 6 1 =
6
5
4
Nofbs
3
2
1
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
d e e w a e s / s t n a l P
Figure J-1. Histogram of resource managers’ responses rating aquatic plants and / or seaweed as one of the top factors impacting water-related activities within their jurisdiction.
172
H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) C r o w d n i g
= 2 3 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 2 6 0 9 ,1 . 2 5 1 1 )
1 0 9 8 7 6
Nofbs
5 4 3 2 1 0 1
2
3
4
C r o w d n i g
Figure J-2. Histogram of resource managers’ responses rating crowding as one of the top factors impacting water-related activities within their jurisdiction. H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) F s i h e r s
= 1 7 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 1 7 6 5 ,1 . 2 8 6 2 )
9 8 7 6
Nofbs
5 4 3 2 1 0 2
3
4
5
F s i h e r s
Figure J-3. Histogram of resource managers’ responses rating fisherpersons as one of the top factors impacting water-related activities within their jurisdiction. 173
H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) L t i t e r t / r a s h
= 2 0 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 9 5 ,1 . 5 3 8 1 )
6
5
4
Nofbs
3
2
1
0 1
2
3
4
5
L t i t e r t / r a s h
Figure J-4. Histogram of resource managers’ responses rating litter / trash as one of the top factors impacting water-related activities within their jurisdiction. H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) P o w e r b o a t s
= 2 1 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 5 2 3 8 ,1 . 2 8 9 1 )
8 7 6 5
Nofbs
4 3 2 1 0 1
2
3
4
5
P o w e r b o a t s
Figure J-5. Histogram of resource managers’ responses rating powerboats as one of the top factors impacting water-related activities within their jurisdiction.
174
H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) P W C
= 2 5 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 4 8 ,1 . 4 4 6 8 )
1 0 9 8 7 6
Nofbs
5 4 3 2 1 0 1
2
3
4
5
P W C
Figure J-6. Histogram of resource managers’ responses rating personal watercraft as one of the top factors impacting water-related activities within their jurisdiction. Note: “Speeding Craft” was inadvertently left off the resource manager questionnaire. H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) W a t e r f o w l
= 1 3 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x , 3 . 5 3 8 5 , 1 . 3 9 1 4 )
5
4
Nofbs
3
2
1
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
W a t e r f o w l
Figure J-7. Histogram of resource managers’ responses rating waterfowl as one of the top factors impacting water-related activities within their jurisdiction.
175
H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) W a t e r p o u l t o i n
= 2 0 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x , 2 . 6 5 , 1 . 4 2 4 4 )
9 8 7 6
Nofbs
5 4 3 2 1 0 1
2
3
4
5
W a t e r p o u l t o i n
Figure J-8. Histogram of resource managers’ responses rating water pollution as one of the top factors impacting water-related activities within their jurisdiction. H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) O t h e r :
= 2 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,1 0 1 . 5 ,0 . 7 0 7 1 )
2
Nofbs
1
0 2 s t l i n i g n i o fm a r n i a s a n d c h a n n e l 1 N R P A O t h e r :
Figure J-9. Histogram of resource managers’ responses rating “Other” as one of the top factors impacting water-related activities within their jurisdiction.
176
APPENDIX K FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES RANKING FACTORS AFFECTING WATERRELATED ACTIVITIES Table K. Frequency and mean value of responses to question ranking affecting water-related activities. Officials Officials PWC N Mean N
PWC Mean
NonPWC N
Non- Total N PWC Mean 2.8 46
Plants / seaweed
15
3.3
11
2.5
20
Crowding
23
2.3
15
2.9
39
2.9
77
Fisherpersons
17
3.2
4
2.8
5
3.6
26
Litter / trash
20
3.0
13
3.2
35
2.5
68
Powerboats
21
2.5
5
2.6
28
3.4
54
PWC
25
3.5
3
3.0
38
2.4
66
-
-
10
2.7
39
2.4
49
Waterfowl
12
3.3
4
2.5
12
2.8
28
Water pollution
20
2.7
14
2.7
36
2.8
70
Other:
2
Speeding craft
5
8
The lower the mean value, the higher ranked in terms of being a factor affecting water-related activities.
177
15
APPENDIX L RESOURCE USER RESPONSES RATING PERSONAL WATERCRAFT CONCERNS Note: One Non-PWC, and three PWC users indicated that they had “No concerns” with personal watercraft. H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) A g e o f o p e r a t o r s S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 2 1 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 3 3 3 3 ,1 . 5 5 9 9 ) A g e o f o p e r a t o r s S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " = 1 8 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 0 5 5 6 ,1 . 1 1 )
9 8 7 6 5
Nofbs
4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " A g e o f o p e r a t o r s
Figure L-1. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Age of Operators as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
178
H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) E r r a t c i m a n e u v e r s S u b s e t : I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 4 9 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x , 2 . 5 9 1 8 , 1 . 4 1 3 ) E r r a t c i m a n e u v e r s S u b s e t : I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " = 1 5 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x , 1 . 9 3 3 3 , 1 . 1 6 2 9 )
1 8 1 6 1 4 1 2 1 0
Nofbs
8 6 4 2 0 1234567
1234567
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " E r r a t c i m a n e u v e r s
Figure L-2. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Erratic Maneuvers as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. H i s t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t i o n i s t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) L a c k o f s o l w c o n t r o l S u b s e t :I n c l u d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 1 4 * 1 * n o r m a l ( x ,2 . 9 2 8 6 ,1 . 3 8 4 8 ) L a c k o f s o l w c o n t r o l S u b s e t :I n c l u d e v 7 = " P W C " = F i tn o td r a w n b e c a u s e o fi n v a l i d r a n g e o fv a l u e s
5
4
3
Nofbs
2
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C "
L a c k o f s o l w c o n t r o l
Figure L-3. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Lack of Slow Speed Control as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
179
H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) N o s i e S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 4 7 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 7 2 3 4 ,1 . 5 7 0 1 ) N o s i e S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " = 3 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 3 3 3 3 ,2 . 0 8 1 7 )
1 8 1 6 1 4 1 2 1 0
Nofbs
8 6 4 2 0 12345678
12345678
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " N o s i e
Figure L-4. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Noise as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) R d i e r s a f e t y S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 1 5 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 1 3 3 3 ,1 . 5 0 5 5 ) R d i e r s a f e t y S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " = 8 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 6 2 5 ,1 . 7 6 7 8 )
5
4
3
Nofbs
2
1
0 123456
123456
S u b s e t n I : c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " R d i e r s a f e t y
Figure L-5. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Rider Safety as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
180
H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) O t h e r s S a f e t y S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 3 8 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 5 2 6 3 ,1 . 3 3 0 2 ) O t h e r s S a f e t y S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " = 1 1 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 6 3 6 4 ,1 . 3 6 1 8 )
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
Nofbs
6
4
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
S u b s e t n I : c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " O t h e r s S a f e t y
Figure L-6. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Others Safety as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) S p e e d S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 3 2 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 0 3 1 3 ,1 . 3 3 1 6 ) S p e e S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C "d = 5 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 4 ,1 . 1 4 0 2 )
1 2
1 0
8
Nofbs
6
4
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
S u b s e t n I : c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " S p e e d
Figure L-7. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Speed as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
181
H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) T o o c o l s e t o o t h e r s S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 2 8 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 8 9 2 9 ,1 . 5 2 3 6 ) T o o c o l s e t o o t h e r s S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " = 1 0 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 2 ,0 . 9 1 8 9 )
8 7 6 5
Nofbs
4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " T o o c o l s e t o o t h e r s
Figure L-8. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Too Close to Others as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) T o o c o l s e t o s h o r e S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 3 1 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 0 6 4 5 ,1 . 3 1 4 9 ) T o o c o l s e t o s h o r e S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " = 4 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 5 ,1 . 2 9 1 )
1 0
8
Nofbs
6
4
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " T o o c o l s e t o s h o r e
Figure L-9. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Too Close to Shore as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
182
H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) W a t e r a / r i p o u l t o i n S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 3 4 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 7 9 4 1 ,1 . 4 3 0 8 ) W a t e r a / r i p o u l t o i n S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " = F tn i o td r a w n b e c a u s e o fi n v a d i l r a n g e o fv a u l e s
1 2
1 0
8
Nofbs
6
4
2
0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
S u b s e t n I : c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " W a t e r a / r i p o u l t o i n
Figure L-10. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Water Pollution as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) W d l i f i l e d s i t u r b a n c e S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = 4 2 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 0 4 7 6 ,1 . 3 2 4 3 ) W d l i f i l e d s i t u r b a n c e S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " = 2 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,4 . 5 ,0 . 7 0 7 1 )
1 6 1 4 1 2 1 0
Nofbs
8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " W d l i f i l e d s i t u r b a n c e
Figure L-11. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking Wildlife Disturbance as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
183
H s i t o g r a m ( R e c r e a t o i n s i t s P W C c o n c e r n s 3 8 v * 8 9 c ) O t h e r : S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C " = F tn i o td r a w n b e c a u s e o fi n v a d i lr a n g e o fv a u l e s O t h e r : S u b s e t :I n c u l d e v 7 = " P W C " = F tn i o td r a w n b e c a u s e o fi n v a d i l r a n g e o fv a u l e s
2
1
1-inexpriencdoperatos
1-inexpriencdoperatos
Nofbs
0
S u b s e n I : t c u l d e v 7 = " N o n P W C "
S u b s e n I : t c l u d e v 7 = " P W C " O t h e r :
Figure L-12. Histogram of resource users’ responses ranking “Other” as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
184
APPENDIX M RESOURCE MANAGER RESPONSES RATING PERSONAL WATERCRAFT CONCERNS Note: Seven resource managers indicated that they had “No concerns” with personal watercraft. H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) A g e o f o p e r a t o r s
= 1 8 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 3 8 8 9 ,1 . 1 9 5 )
7
6
5
Nofbs
4
3
2
1
0 1
2
3
4
5
A g e o f o p e r a t o r s
Figure M-1. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking Age of Operators as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
185
H i s t o g r a m ( O f f i c i a l s P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) E r r a t c i m a n e u v e r s
= 2 0 * 1 * n o r m a l ( x ,2 . 7 ,2 . 0 0 2 6 )
1 0 9 8 7 6
Nofbs
5 4 3 2 1 0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
E r r a t c i m a n e u v e r s
Figure M-2. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking Erratic Maneuvers as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. H i s t o g r a m ( O f f i c i a l s P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) L a c k o f s o l w c o n t r o l
= 1 1 * 1 * n o r m a l ( x ,3 . 0 9 0 9 ,1 . 9 7 2 5 )
4
3
Nofbs
2
1
0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
L a c k o f s o l w c o n t r o l
Figure M-3. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking Lack of Slow Speed Control as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
186
H i s t o g r a m ( O f f i c i a l s P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) N o s i e
= 1 4 * 1 * n o r m a l ( x ,2 . 5 ,1 . 3 4 4 5 )
7
6
5
Nofbs
4
3
2
1
0 1
2
3
4
5
N o s i e
Figure M-4. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking Noise as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) R d i e r s a f e t y
= 1 3 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 8 4 6 2 ,1 . 0 6 8 2 )
6
5
4
Nofbs
3
2
1
0 1
2
3
4
5
R d i e r s a f e t y
Figure M-5. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking Rider Safety as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
187
H i s t o g r a m ( O f f i c i a l s P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) O t h e r s S a f e t y
= 1 6 * 1 * n o r m a l ( x ,2 . 6 8 7 5 ,1 . 0 1 4 5 )
7
6
5
Nofbs
4
3
2
1
0 1
2
3
4
O t h e r s S a f e t y
Figure M-6. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking Others Safety as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) S p e e d
= 1 7 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 5 2 9 4 ,1 . 2 8 0 5 )
7
6
5
Nofbs
4
3
2
1
0 2
3
4
5
6
S p e e d
Figure M-7. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking Speed as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
188
H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) T o o c l o s e t o o t h e r s
= 1 3 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,3 . 6 1 5 4 ,2 . 0 2 2 3 )
7
6
5
Nofbs
4
3
2
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 T o o c o l s e t o o t h e r s
Figure M-8. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking Too Close to Others as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) T o o c o l s e t o s h o r e
= 1 5 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,2 . 6 6 6 7 ,0 . 7 2 3 7 )
9 8 7 6
Nofbs
5 4 3 2 1 0 2
3
4
T o o c o l s e t o s h o r e
Figure M-9. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking Too Close to Shore as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
189
H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) W a t e r a / r i p o u l t o i n
= 7 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,4 ,2 . 9 4 3 9 )
3
Nofbs
2
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 0 W a t e r a / r i p o u l t o i n
Figure M-10. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking water / air pollution as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft. H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) W d l i l f i e d s i t u r b a n c e
= 9 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,4 . 4 4 4 4 ,2 . 7 4 3 7 )
4
3
Nofbs
2
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 01 1 W d l i f i l e d s i t u r b a n c e
Figure M-11. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking Wildlife Disturbance as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
190
H s i t o g r a m ( O f f c i a i s l P W C c o n c e r n s 5 9 v * 1 8 8 c ) O t h e r :
= 2 * 1 * n o r m a ( l x ,1 0 1 . 5 ,0 . 7 0 7 1 )
2
Nofbs
1
0 1 R e q u r i e m e n to fl c i e n s e 1 N o w a k e z o n e v o i a l t o i n s ,3 O p e r a t o r p o s s e s s n i g b o a t e r s a f e t y c e r t f i c i a t e O t h e r :
Figure M-12. Histogram of resource managers’ responses ranking “Other” as one of their top concerns with personal watercraft.
191
APPENDIX N FREQUENCY OF RESPONSES RANKING CONCERNS WITH PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
Table N. Frequency and mean value of responses to question ranking concerns regarding personal watercraft Officials Officials PWC N Mean N
PWC Mean
NonPWC N
Non- Total N PWC Mean 1.0 11
No concerns
7
1.0
3
1.0
1
Age of operators Erratic maneuvers Lack of slow control Noise
18
2.4
18
2.1
21
3.3
57
20
2.7
15
1.9
49
2.6
84
11
3.1
1
3.0
14
2.9
26
14
2.5
3
3.3
47
2.7
64
Rider safety
13
2.8
8
2.6
15
3.1
36
Others Safety
16
2.7
11
3.6
38
2.5
65
Speed
17
3.5
5
3.4
32
3.0
54
Too close to others Too close to shore Water/air pollution Wildlife disturbance
13
3.6
10
3.2
28
2.9
51
15
2.7
4
3.5
31
3.1
50
7
4.0
1
5.0
34
2.8
42
9
4.4
2
4.5
42
3.0
53
The lower the mean value, the higher ranked in terms of being considered a concern related to PWC usage.
192
APPENDIX O MATRIX OF STATE PERONAL WATERCRAFT REGULATIONS
Sources:
American Personal Watercraft Rental Association (http://www.apwra.org/statelaws.html)
Assorted state boating safety websites
Boat Safe Boating Council Safe Boating Program (http://www.boatsafe.com/state/) where state = state name
National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) (http://www.nasbla.org)
Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) (http://www.pwia.org)
Notes:
“PFD” = Personal Floatation Device
“Adult” = 18 years or older,
“Buffer distance” = regulated slow no-wake zone adjacent to the shoreline, swimmers, docks etc.
193
NASBLA Model
PWIA Model
194 HR 3141
Wearing of PFD Required
Required
Minimum age
Education requirement
12 years with adult NASBLA approved onboard, 16 years course required for all alone operators born on or after 16 years before the date of enactment of the act. Viewing of instructional video only required for PWC renters. 16 years NASBLA approved course required for all operators born on or after 16 years before the date of enactment of the act. A proficiency exam can be substituted. Nonresident operators must meet the education requirement. Excludes renters. 16 years, unless Mandatory for all accompanied by operators of personal someone over 16 watercraft, including with certification operators of rented of required vessels. training.
Buffer distance
Other
100 feet
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required. $1 M liability insurance for PWC liveries. No PWC rental to persons less than 18 years On PWC with a safety lanyard the lanyard must be used. $1 M liability insurance for PWC liveries. No PWC rental to persons less than 18 years. Liveries responsible for providing education. Training program includes safety & conservation. Mandatory registration of PWC
100 feet
200 feet
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations
State
Education requirement
12 years
None
Alaska
Recommended
None
Recommended
Arizona
Required
None
None
Arkansas
Required
12 – 13 years with adult passenger, alone at 14 years with approved education
Required for 14 – 17 to operate without adult passenger. Viewing safety video required for adult renters.
California
Required
16 years without adult passenger
Colorado
Required
16 years. 14 – 15 years with approved education
For those convicted of boating under the influence of alcohol or drugs State approved course required for 14 –15 year olds to operate PWC
195
Minimum age
Alabama
Wearing of PFD Required
Buffer distance
Recommend 100 to 200 feet
Other Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operation restricted or prohibited on some waterways as per local regulations. Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Safety lanyard required. $50,000 liability insurance required to operate all motorized vessels. $500,000 liability required for PWC liveries. Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required. No PWC operation at night. Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations (continued)
State
Delaware
Required
Florida
Required
Georgia
Required
Hawaii
Required
Minimum age
Education requirement
Under 12 years old must have someone 18 years or older onboard with necessary PWC Operation Certificate None
Connecticut PWC Operation course required for ALL operators. No reciprocity for other state courses.
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Mandatory for all boaters born on or after January 1, 1978. Mandatory for all boaters born on or after Sept. 30, 1980. Either nonproctored or proctored boating safety course required for certification. PWC rental customers must pass PWC permit exam. State approved course required for 12 – 15 year olds to operate PWC
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required.
196
Connecticut
Wearing of PFD Required
16 years to rent or operate. 12 – 15 years old with approved education
Buffer distance
Other
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations (continued)
State
Illinois
Required
Indiana
Required
Iowa
PFD’s must be onboard
12 years
Kansas
Required
12 years with adult Mandatory for all boaters or safety certificate born on or after Jan 1, 1989. NASBLA approved course required for 12 – 15 years olds to operate PWC alone.
197
Idaho
Wearing of PFD Recommended. PFD’s must be onboard
Minimum age
Education requirement
None
For those convicted of boating under the influence of alcohol or drugs and repeat marine offenders 12 years with adult State approved course or education required for 12 –18 year certificate onboard olds to operate PWC alone All operators must Mandatory. Either nonhave valid driver’s proctored or proctored license. 15 years boating safety course can operator with required for certification. approved safety education.
None
Buffer distance
Other Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) recommended
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required. Liability insurance required. PWC rental liveries can only rent to those with a state approved boating safety program certificate. Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations (continued)
State
Minimum age
Louisiana
Required
12 years with adult State approved course or safety certificate required for 12 – 17 years olds to operate PWC alone 13 years None
Maine
Required
16 years
Maryland
Required
Massachusetts
Required
198
Kentucky
Wearing of PFD Required
16 years with safety certificate
Education requirement
None
Mandatory for all boaters born on or after July 1, 1972. Residents from other state 16 years or older visiting for 60 days or less are exempt provided they are on a vessel registered in another state. NASBLA approved course required for 16 & 17 year olds
Buffer distance
Other Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) or circling pattern PWA required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required. State had prohibited all PWC for 2 years.
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations (continued)
State
Minnesota
Required
Mississippi
Required
Missouri
Required
Montana
Required
199
Michigan
Wearing of PFD Required
Minimum age
Education requirement
A proctored boating safety course required for ALL boaters. Internet courses not accepted for Michigan residents. All NASBLA approved courses, including Internet meet requirements for nonMichigan residents. 12 years to operate Minnesota DNR’s home any vessel with an study course required to engine greater than issue permit to 12 to 17 25 hp with valid year olds. operator permit 12 years with Required for anyone born certification after June 30, 1980 to operate any vessel 14 years without a None person 16 or older onboard 12 years without State authorized course an adult onboard required for 13 & 14 year olds to operate PWC without an adult on board
Buffer distance
Other
12 years with approved education certificate
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations (continued)
State
Required
16 years without course
State
Wearing of PFD Required
Minimum age
New Hampshire
Required
16 years with certificate
New Jersey
Required
13 years
New Mexico
Required
None
Nevada
14 years with safety certificate
Six-hour proctored exam course required for those under 16 years to operate. Education requirement
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Buffer distance
200
US Coast Guard approved course required for those 14 to 18 years old to operate PWC By 2008 all persons will be required to have completed a boating safety program. This being phased in, starting with younger persons first. State approved course required for ALL operators – no exceptions. PWC renters must have US Coast Guard recognized course certificate in possession to rent and operate. None
Other Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required. All PWC rated for 2 or more people must display a NH registered watercraft access decal. Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
None
Liability insurance required of all boaters.
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations (continued)
Nebraska
New York
Wearing of PFD Required
North Carolina Required
201
North Dakota
Required
Ohio
Required
Oklahoma
Required
Minimum age
Education requirement
Buffer distance
Other
Proctored safety course required for ALL operators by January 1, 2004. Phased in starting in 2000, with those born on or 1/1/81. 12 years with certificate and proof of age 12 years with certificate or adult onboard 12 to 16 years with an adult onboard (adult may need to be certified depending on age)
NASBLA approved course required for 12 to 16 year olds to operate State approved course required for 12 to 15 year olds to operate State approved course required for all persons born on or after January 1, 1982
12 years
None
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required. PWC may not be rented to those under 16 years, and adults meeting the education requirement age must have certificate Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations (continued)
State
202
Minimum age
Education requirement
Oregon
Wearing of PFD Required
16 years alone, under 16 with a supervising adult onboard
Mandatory education being phased in starting with those 30 years or under as of Jan 1, 2003. By 2009 all boaters will required to carry boater education cards.
Pennsylvania
Required
Proctored boating safety course required for ALL PWC operators
Rhode Island
Required
12 years, no passengers 15 years old or younger allowed 16 years, or less if completed a boat safety course, or accompanied by an adult
South Carolina Required
State approved course required for ALL operators except renters and non-residents. PWC renters must watch instructional video and pass written exam prior to operation 16 years, or less if US Coast Guard completed a boat approved course required safety course, or for those under 16 to accompanied by an operate PWC without an adult adult onboard
Buffer distance
Other Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required. Rental prohibited to those under 18 years. Local communities may have additional regulations
200 feet
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations (continued)
State
Required
None
State Tennessee
Wearing of PFD Required
12 years
None
Texas
Required
16 years, 13 to 15 with certificate or adult onboard
Utah
Required
Vermont
Required
12 years with certificate. 12 to 15 year olds must have an adult onboard, or be within visual supervision of an adult 16 years
State approved course required for all persons born on or after Sept. 1, 1984. State home/classroom study course required for 12 to 17 year olds to operate PWC
Virginia
Required
203
14 years, or less with an adult onboard Minimum age
14 years with certificate
Education requirement
Buffer distance
State approved course 200 feet required for all persons born after January 1, 1974 to operate any motorized vessel. Required for all operators 50 feet for all under 16 years powerboats
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Other Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required Liability insurance required
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations (continued)
South Dakota
14 years, less with an adult onboard
None
State
Minimum age
Education requirement
Buffer distance
West Virginia
Wearing of PFD Required
12 to 14 years with adult onboard only, 15 and older without
None
Wisconsin
Required
12 years with certificate
Wyoming
Required
16 years
State approved boating safety course required for all persons born on or after December 31, 1986 to operate any motorized vessel. Boat Safety Course required for those age between 12 and 16 years None
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required. Rental minimum age is 16 years. Other
Operational safety lanyard (kill switch) required
Table O. Matrix of state personal watercraft regulations (continued)
Required
204
Washington
APPENDIX P NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE BOATING LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES MODEL PERSONAL WATERCRAFT ORDINANCE
http://www.nasbla.org/pdf/Model%20Acts/PWC.pdf
11/17/03
NASBLA MODEL ACT FOR PERSONAL WATERCRAFT
Appendix "F"
(Adopted 9/26/91, Amended 10/2/96, Amended 9/10/97, Amended 9/16/98) General In addition to all other boating laws and regulations in this state the following shall apply to personal watercraft: Section 1. (Definitions.) As used in this chapter: (a) “Personal Watercraft” shall mean a vessel, less than 16 feet, propelled by a waterjet pump or other machinery as its primary source of motor propulsion which is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing or kneeling on, rather than being operated by a person sitting or standing inside the vessel. Section 2. (Regulations of personal watercraft.) (a) No person shall operate a personal watercraft unless each person aboard is wearing a type I, type II, type III or type V personal flotation device approved by the United States Coast Guard, provided no person aboard a personal watercraft shall use an inflatable personal flotation device to meet the PFD requirement of this subsection.
205
(b) A person operating a personal watercraft equipped by the manufacturer with a lanyard type engine cutoff switch shall attach such lanyard to his person, clothing, or personal flotation device as appropriate for the specific vessel. (c) No person shall operate a personal watercraft at any time between sunset and sunrise. (d) No person under the age of 16 shall operate a personal watercraft on the waters of this state, except a person 12 through 15 years of age may operate a personal watercraft if a person at least 18 years of age is aboard the vessel. (e) Every personal watercraft shall at all times be operated in a reasonable and prudent manner. No person shall operate a personal watercraft in an unsafe or reckless manner. Unsafe personal watercraft operation shall include, but not be limited to the following: i. Becoming airborne or completely leaving the water while crossing the wake of another vessel within 100 feet of the vessel creating the wake. ii. Weaving through congested traffic. iii. Operating at greater than slow no wake speed within 100 feet of an anchored or moored vessel, shoreline1, dock, pier, swim float, marked swim area, swimmer(s), surfers, persons engaged in angling or any manually operated propelled vessel. iv. Operating contrary to the “Rules of the Road” or following too close to another vessel, including another personal watercraft. For the purposes of this section, following too close shall be construed as proceeding in the same
206
direction and operating at a speed in excess of 10 MPH when approaching within one hundred feet to the rear or fifty feet to the side of another motorboat or sailboat which is underway unless such vessel is operating in a narrow channel, in which case a personal watercraft may operate at speed and flow of other vessel traffic. (f) No person who owns a personal watercraft or who has charge over or control of a personal watercraft shall authorize or knowingly permit the personal watercraft to be operated in violation of this act. Section 3. (Exemptions.) (a) The provisions of Section 2 shall not apply to a person participating in an officially sanctioned regatta, race, marine parade, tournament, or exhibition. (b) Law enforcement officers and emergency response personnel engaged in the performance of their duties shall be exempt from the provisions of this act. Section 4. (Mandatory Education.) (a) No person born on or after ______ (16 years from date of act) shall operate a personal watercraft unless they have successfully completed a NASBLA approved course or state equivalence exam. Section 5. (Towing Water Skiers.) (a) No person shall operate a personal watercraft towing another person on water skis or other device(s), unless the personal watercraft has, on board, in addition to the operator, an observer who shall monitor the progress of the person(s) being towed.
207
(b) No person shall operate a personal watercraft towing another person on waterskis or other devices(s) unless the total number of persons operating, observing and being towed does not exceed the specified number of passengers as identified by the manufacturer as the maximum safe load for the vessel. Section 6. (Regulation of PWC Liveries) (a) A PWC livery shall carry liability insurance in an amount of not less than one million dollars. (b) PWC livery operators shall provide boating safety instruction in compliance with state established rules and guidelines to all operators of rental personal watercraft not having complied with Section 4 of this act. (c) A PWC livery shall provide to the operator(s) of rental personal watercraft in print, prior to rental, the boating regulations peculiar to the area of rental, including, but not limited to, no-entry zones, no-wake zones, channel routes and water hazards, and tidal flow (where applicable). (d) A PWC livery shall provide the operator(s) of rental personal watercraft with all equipment required under state law. (e) A PWC livery may not lease, hire or rent a personal watercraft to any person under 18 years of age. (f) Any person(s) responsible for delivery of the information specified in subsections (b) and (c) above shall have successfully completed a NASBLA-approved course or state equivalency exam.
208
1- Special consideration should be given to operation on rivers and other narrow bodies of water, particularly when the personal watercraft is operating in strong current requiring speed greater than slow/no wake speed to maintain steerage and make headway.
209
APPENDIX Q PERSONAL WATERCRAFT INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (PWIA) MODEL PERSONAL WATERCRAFT OPERATIONS ACT
Personal Watercraft Industry Association Model Personal Watercraft Operations Act (2/23/98) Section 1. (Short Title) This act may be cited as the Personal Watercraft Operations Act. Section 2. (Definitions) As used in this act: (1) "Personal Watercraft" shall mean a vessel which uses an inboard motor powering a water jet pump as its primary source of motive power and which is designed to be operated by a person sitting, standing, or kneeling on the vessel, rather than the conventional manner of sitting or standing inside the vessel. (2) Specialty Prop-Craft shall mean a vessel which is similar in appearance and operation to a personal watercraft but which is powered by an outboard motor or propeller driven motor. Section 3. (Uniformity of State Law) (1) If any provision of this act is in conflict with any other provision, limitation, or restriction under any law, rule, regulation, or ordinance of this state or any political subdivision, municipality, or agency, this act shall control and such law, rule, regulation, or ordinance shall be deemed superseded.
210
Section 4. (Regulation of Personal Watercraft) (1) No person under the age of sixteen (16) shall operate a personal watercraft on the waters of this state. (2) A person may not operate a personal watercraft unless each person on board or being towed behind is wearing a type I, type II, type III, or type V personal flotation device approved by the United States Coast Guard. Inflatable personal flotation devices do not meet the requirements of this section. (3) A person operating a personal watercraft equipped by the manufacturer with a lanyard-type engine cutoff switch must attach such lanyard to his/her person, clothing, or personal flotation device as appropriate for the specific vessel. (4) A person may not operate a personal watercraft at anytime between the hours of sunset and sunrise. However, an agent or employee of a fire rescue, emergency rescue unit, or law enforcement division is exempt from this subsection while performing his/her official duties. (5) A personal watercraft must at all times be operated in a reasonable and prudent manner. Maneuvers which unreasonably or unnecessarily endanger life, limb, or property shall constitute reckless operation of a vessel and shall include, but not be limited to: (a) Weaving through congested traffic; (b) Jumping the wake of another vessel unreasonably or unnecessarily close to such other vessel or when visibility around such other vessel is obstructed or restricted;
211
(c) Becoming airborne or completely leaving the water while crossing the wake of another vessel within 100 feet of the vessel creating the wake; (d) Operating at greater than slow/no-wake speed within 100 feet of an anchored or moored vessel, shoreline, dock, pier, swim float, marked swim areas, swimmers, surfers, persons engaged in angling, or any manually powered vessel; (e) Operating contrary to navigation rules including following too closely to another vessel, including another personal watercraft. For the purpose of this subsection, "following too closely" shall be construed as proceeding in the same direction and operating at a speed in excess of 10 mph within 100 feet to the rear or 50 feet to the side of another vessel which is underway, unless said vessels are operating in a narrow channel, in which case personal watercraft may operate at the speed and flow of the other vessel traffic within the channel. Section 5. (Required Education except as provided for in Section (7) (1) No person born after January 1, 19___, (Date to establish age at 16) shall operate on the waters of this state a personal watercraft powered by a motor of 10 Horse Power or greater (unless the operator has successfully completed either a safe boater course approved by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators and the state, or a proficiency examination that tests the knowledge of information included in the curriculum of such a course, and has received a certificate as evidence of successful completion of the course or examination).
212
(2) If a non-resident of the state is operating a personal watercraft within the waters of this state, the operator would be subject to the rules and regulations of subsection 5. (1) for education certification. If the non-resident holds in his/her possession proof that he/she has completed within the state of residence, an education course or equivalency test that meets or exceeds the requirements of subsection 5. (1), such proof shall satisfy the requirement. (3) Any operator, resident or non-resident, is required to have available proof of completion of such course on board the personal watercraft while operating on the waters of this state. Section 6. (Towing Water Skiers and Towables) (1) No person shall operate a personal watercraft towing another person on water skis or other towables unless the personal watercraft has, on board, in addition to the operator, a rear-facing observer who shall monitor the progress of the person(s) being towed. (2) No person shall operate a personal watercraft towing another person on water skis or other towables unless the total number of persons operating, observing and being towed does not exceed the specified number of passengers as identified by the manufacturer as the maximum safe load for the vessel. Section 7. (Regulation of Liveries) (1) A livery may not lease, hire, or rent a personal watercraft to or for operation by any person under 18 years of age. (2) A livery must carry liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars. 213
(3) Livery operators must administer boating safety instruction in compliance with department established rules and guidelines to all operators of rental vessels not having a valid safe boating certificate and valid identification. (4) In addition, the livery must supply to the operator(s) in print, prior to rental: (a) The operational characteristics of personal watercraft. (b) The boating regulations peculiar to the area of rental including but not limited to no-entry zones, no-wake zones, channel routes and water hazards, and tidal flow. (c) The common courtesies of operating a vessel on the water and the effect on wildlife, the environment, and other water users. Section 8. (Exemptions) (1) The provisions of section(s) (4) and (5) shall not apply to a performer engaged in a professional exhibition or a person engaging in an officially sanctioned regatta, race, marine parade, tournament, exhibition, or water safety demonstration. (2) The provisions of section(s) (4) and (5) shall not apply to a person who holds a valid master's, mate's, or operator's license issued by the United States Coast Guard. Section 9. (Regulation of Specialty Prop-Craft) The provisions of sections (4), (5) and (6) shall apply to specialty prop-craft.
214
Section 10. (Uniformity of Law) It is the policy of _______ to encourage uniform laws for all vessels. Except as provided in this chapter and other laws of the state; laws, including local laws, ordinances and regulations, that are applicable to the operation of powered vessel shall be uniformly applicable to all types of powered vessels. Local laws, ordinances and regulations shall be operative only so long and to the extent that they are identical to provisions of this chapter, amendments thereto, regulations issued thereunder or other applicable laws of the state. The provisions of this chapter and of other applicable laws of this state shall govern the operation and all other matters related to vessels, provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent adoption of local laws, ordinances or regulations relating to reasonable vessel speed zones and reasonable idle speed zones or vessel exclusion zones (i.e. for swim areas) within their jurisdiction. The state should consider an age ratchet-up approach to education so that adequate instructors, classes and materials can be made available to train users without overloading and/or taxing the system.
215
APPENDIX R PERSONAL WATERCRAFT RESPONSIBLE USE ACT OF 1999 (H.R. 3141)
http://thomas.loc.gov/ Library of Congress, 101 Independence Ave. S.E., Washington, D.C. 20540 106th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 3141 To encourage the safe and responsible use of personal watercraft, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES October 25, 1999 Mr. SAXTON (for himself, Mr. GILCHREST, and Mr. VENTO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned A BILL To encourage the safe and responsible use of personal watercraft, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
216
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the `Personal Watercraft Responsible Use Act of 1999'. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following: (1) The growing popularity of recreational boating, including personal watercraft, has resulted in increased numbers of boaters competing for limited space, which leads to more boating accidents and a diminished experience for all users. (2) Personal watercraft are `thrill craft' that are operated differently from other motorized boats, are designed to be highly maneuverable at high speeds, and are capable of operating at high speeds in shallow areas that are typically inaccessible by other motorized boats. (3) Irresponsible operation of personal watercraft poses a safety risk for untrained operators and other recreational users, and damages valuable aquatic habitat in shallow waters. SEC. 3. PURPOSES AND POLICIES. The purposes and policies of this Act are the following: (1) To ensure the safe and responsible use of personal watercraft in the Nation's waterways. (2) To protect sensitive shallow water habitat that is important for many fish and wildlife species.
217
(3) To reduce conflicts among recreational boaters by providing a forum for collaborative management efforts to develop innovative boating regulations for overcrowded waterways. (4) To provide Federal assistance to States to improve the enforcement of recreational boating laws. SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. In this Act, the following definitions shall apply: (1) TERMS DEFINED IN COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972- Each of the terms `coastal state', `coastal waters', and `Secretary' has the meaning given that term under section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1453). (2) PERSONAL WATERCRAFT- The term `personal watercraft' means a motor vessel that is capable of carrying one or more persons and-(A) uses an inboard motor powering a water jet pump or a caged propeller as its primary source of motive power; and (B) is designed to be operated by a person standing on, kneeling on, sitting in, or sitting astride the vessel. (3) NO-WAKE SPEED- The term `no-wake speed' means the speed at which a personal watercraft moves through the water while maintaining minimum headway and producing the smallest wake possible. SEC. 5. ENFORCEABLE POLICIES IN THE COASTAL ZONE. (a) WITHHOLDING OF ASSISTANCE-
218
(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall withhold up to 10 percent of a coastal state's assistance in each fiscal year under sections 306 and 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1455 and 1456b), unless the coastal state implements enforceable policies and other provisions required under this section regarding the operation of personal watercraft in coastal waters of the State. (2) APPLICATION- Paragraph (1) shall apply after the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. (b) ENFORCEABLE POLICIES- Enforceable policies required under this section shall prohibit a person from operating a personal watercraft in excess of no-wake speed in any of the following areas or manner: (1) In any area designated as a sensitive area in the management program of the coastal state under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.). (2) In waters closer than 200 feet from the shoreline. (3) In a designated right-of-way or navigation channel. (4) In a manner that injures, harasses, or disturbs wading, roosting, or nesting birds or marine mammals. (c) DESIGNATION OF SENSITIVE AREAS(1) DESIGNATION BY STATE- In addition to the enforceable policies required under subsection (b), the management program of a coastal state shall include provisions that designate sensitive areas of the coastal state
219
for purposes of subsection (b)(1) in accordance with the criteria issued under paragraph (2) of this subsection. (2) CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION- The Secretary shall issue criteria for designating sensitive areas under paragraph (1). The criteria shall include a consideration of the following: (A) The presence of unique or valuable aquatic habitat and communities. (B) The presence of aquatic vegetation, nesting birds, shellfish beds, or marine mammals. (C) The importance of an area for other recreational and commercial users. (d) COMPLIANCE- A coastal state that has a program that is otherwise approved by the Secretary in accordance with section 306(d) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1455(d)) may comply with subsection (a) of this section by amending or modifying the program (in accordance with section 306(e) of that Act) to add enforceable policies and other provisions required by that subsection. (e) USE OF GRANTS- A State may use any amount received by the State as assistance under section 306 or 309 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1455, 1456b) to develop and implement enforceable policies and provisions required under this section. (f) REGULATIONS- The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Transportation, shall issue regulations implementing this section before the
220
expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. SEC. 6. PERSONAL WATERCRAFT SAFETY PROGRAM. (a) NATIONAL PERSONAL WATERCRAFT GUIDELINES- Within one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall establish guidelines and standards for the operation of personal watercraft, consistent with the enforceable policies required under section 5(b), in the national recreational boating safety program carried out under section 13101 of title 46, United States Code. The guidelines and standards shall include-(1) mandatory State registration of personal watercraft; (2) a minimum age for a personal watercraft operator of at least 16 years of age, unless the operator is accompanied on the vessel by a passenger who has attained an age greater than 16 years and who has completed the mandatory training program required under paragraph (3); and (3) a requirement that all operators of personal watercraft (including any operator of a rented vessel) must complete a training program that includes safety and conservation components. (b) IMPLEMENTATION FUNDS- A State may use funds received by the State under section 13106 of title 46, United States Code, to develop and implement regulations to improve personal watercraft user safety, reduce conflicts among personal watercraft operators and other boaters, and minimize environmental damage.
221
SEC. 7. LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS. (a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Transportation, subject to the availability of appropriations, may make grants to States to enforce recreational boating laws and regulations, including purchasing necessary equipment and hiring law enforcement personal. A State is eligible for assistance under this subsection if the State has-(1) implemented a recreational boating safety program that incorporates the national guidelines and standards for personal watercraft established under section 6(a); and (2) adopted the enforceable policies described in section 5(b), if the State is a coastal state. (b) ALLOCATION(1) IN GENERAL- Of the total amount available each fiscal year for grants under this section, the Secretary shall allocate to each State an amount that bears the same ratio to such total amount as the number of recreational vessels registered in that State bears to the total number of recreational vessels registered in all States. (2) LIMITATION ON GRANTS TO A STATE- The total amount awarded to a State each fiscal year as grants under this section may not exceed the allocation to the State under paragraph (1) for the fiscal year. (c) REQUIRED MATCH- As a condition of providing a grant under this section to a State, the Secretary shall require the State to provide matching funds according to a 1-to-1 ratio of Federal-to-State contributions. All State matching
222
funds must be from non-Federal sources. The State contribution may be made in the form of in-kind contribution of goods or services. SEC. 8. TASK FORCE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS. (a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary of Transportation, subject to the availability of appropriations, may make grants to States to support the activities of collaborative task forces to minimize conflicts between personal watercraft and other recreational and commercial users. Task forces that receive assistance from the Secretary of Transportation under this section shall-(1) be organized geographically to minimize user conflicts in a watershed or basin; and (2) consist of members that represent personal watercraft recreational users, State boating law administrators, State conservation agencies, other Federal, State, and local agencies with a demonstrated interest in minimizing user conflicts, property owners, and other interested persons. (b) ALLOCATION- The Secretary shall award task force development grants on a competitive basis. No State may receive more than 25 percent of the total amount appropriated for a fiscal year for assistance under this subsection. (c) REGULATIONS- The Secretary of Transportation may issue regulations and requirements for the task force development grant program under this section. (d) REQUIRED MATCH- As a condition of providing a grant under this section to a State, the Secretary shall require the State to provide matching funds according to a 1-to-1 ratio of Federal-to-State contributions. All State
223
matching funds must be from non-Federal sources. The State contribution may be made in the form of in-kind contribution of goods or services. (e) OBLIGATION- Amounts provided as a grant under this section shall be available to the grantee for obligation for 2 years, after which any unobligated amount shall revert to the Secretary of Transportation and remain available for grants under this section for subsequent fiscal years. SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. (a) LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS- For law enforcement grants under section 7, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. (b) TASK FORCE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS- For task force development grants under section 8, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Transportation $2,500,000 for each of fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. SEC. 10. STATE AUTHORITY PRESERVED. Nothing in this Act limits the authority of a State to establish limitations or requirements for the operation of personal watercraft, that are more restrictive than the enforceable policies and other provisions required by this Act.
224
BIBLIOGRAPHY Alcalde, Mark. 2002. “Tri-town meeting ponders Jet Ski ban on waterway.” South County Independent (Rhode Island). December 27, 2002 p. A7. Alcalde, Mark. 2003. “Council makes headway with land swap, watercraft.” South County Independent (Rhode Island). May 8,2003 p. A2. All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) Safety Institute (ASI). 2002. Multiple web pages. (Accessed on 6 October 03). American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention (AAP). 2000. All-terrain vehicle injury prevention: two-, three-, and fourwheeled unlicensed motor vehicles. Pediatrics Vol. 105, (2000) pp 13521354. Ball, Catherine and Jeff Connor-Linton. 1996. Chi-Square Calculator. (Accessed on 10 October 03). Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. (BEC) 1993. Diagnostic/Feasibility Study for the Management of Watchaug Pond Charlestown, Rhode Island. Prepared for the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Black, Henry and Joseph Nolan. 1990. Black's law dictionary: definitions of the terms and phrases of American and English jurisprudence, ancient and modern, 6th Edition. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, MN. 1990. Blethen Maine Newspaper Inc (BMNI). 2003. “Safety on the water”. On-line newspaper. July 8, 2003 (Accessed on 10 September 03). Bluewater Network (BN). 1999. “Personal Watercraft Ordinance Suggestions” (Accessed on 25 march 2004). BoatTEST. 2003. Sea-Doo (PWC) GTX 4-TEC Vans Triple Crown Edition. (Accessed on 30 Mar 2004) Bottis, Beth. 2003. “Council rejects watercraft ban for river; opts instead to seek tritown approach. “ The Standard-Times (Rhode Island). July 10, 2003 pp.1 and 3-A. Branche, CM. 1998. Letter in Response to Personal Water-craft Related Injuries: A Growing Public Health Concern. Journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 279, Issue 6 (1998) pp 433-434.
225
Bull, MJ, P Agran, D Laraque, SH Pollack, GA Smith, HR Spivak, M Tenenbein and SB Tully. 2000. All-terrain Vehicle Injury Prevention: Two-, Three- and Four-wheeled Unlicensed Motor Vehicles. Pediatrics Vol. 105 No. 6 (2000) pp 1325-1354. Burger, Joanna. 1998. Effects of Motorboats and Personal Watercraft on Flight Behavior Over a Colony of Common Terns. The Condor Vol.100 (1998) pp. 528-534. Burger, Joanna, J. Sanchez, M. McMahon, J. Leonard, C.G. Lord, R. Ramos and M. Gochfeld. 1999. Resources and Estuarine Health: Perceptions of Elected Officials and Recreational Fishers. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A Vol 58, Issue 4 (29 Oct 1999) pp. 245-260. Burger, Joanna and Justin Leonard. 2000. Conflict resolution in coastal waters: the case of personal watercraft. Marine Policy Vol. 24 (2000) pp. 61-67. Burger, Joanna. 2001. Multiuse Coastal Commons: Personal Watercraft, Conflicts and Resolutions in Protecting the Commons: A Framework for Resources Management in the Americas. Island Press, NY. Burger, Joanna. 2002. Effects of Motorboats and Personal Watercraft on Nesting Terns: Conflict Resolution and the Need for Vigilance. Journal of Coastal Research Vol. 37 (2002) pp. 7-17. Burger, Joanna. 2003. Personal Watercraft and Boats: Coastal Conflicts With Common Terns. Lake and Reservoir Management Vol. 19, No. 1 (2003) pp. 26-34. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 1998 Proposed Regulations for gasoline Spark-ignition Marine Engines Prepared by the Mobile Sources Control Division, El Monte, CA, Released June 11, 1998 (Accessed on 14 March 02). California Department of Boating and Waterways (CDBW). 1997. “California Boating Safety Report for 1996”. Released May 1997 (Accessed on 15 June 01). Coalition of Parents and Families for Personal Watercraft Safety (CPFPWC). 2002. “Statistics”. (Accessed on 21 Nov 03). Coalition For Responsible Water Recreation (CRWR) “Recreation Groups Fed Up With Jet Skis” (Accessed on 25 March 02).
226
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) “2001 Boater’s Guide” 31 January 2001 (Accessed on 18 June 01). Connor-Linton, Jeff. 1996. “Chi Square Tutorial” Department of Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. (Accessed on 12 Aug 03). Conservation Law Foundation (CFL). 2003. Multiple web pages. (Accessed on 8 October 2003). Consumer Federation of America, Bluewater Network and Natural Trails and Waters Coalition (NTWC) 2002. All-terrain Vehicle ATV Safety Crisis: America’s Children at Risk. August 2003 report presented by multiple organizations (Accessed on 30 September 03). Consumer Federation of America, Bluewater Network and Natural Trails and Waters Coalition (CFA) 2003. All-terrain Vehicle ATV Safety Crisis: America’s Children STILL at Risk. August 2003 report presented by multiple organizations (Accessed on 30 October 03). Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2002. Annual Report of ATV Deaths and Injuries. (Accessed on 6 October 03). Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). 2003a. “35 Witnesses Set to Testify at CPSC Regional ATV Safety Hearing in West Virginia - ATV Injuries Double in 5-year Period, Deaths Continue To Climb.” June 2, 2003 press release (Accessed on 6 October 03). Consumer Product Safety Commission. 2003b. “Safety Commission reissues warning: Young People Under the Age of 16 Should Not Ride Adult-Size ATVs: Safety Alert.” November 13, 2003 press release (Accessed on 30 November 03). D’Antuono, K. 2000. The National Park Service’s Proposed Ban: A New Approach to Personal Watercraft use in the National Parks. Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Vol. 27, No 2, (2000) pp. 243-278. DeSilva, Annette. 2003. Personal communication. Narrow River Watchers Sample drop-off to URI Watershed Watch laboratories, 24 Jun 2003.
227
Davis, Paul. 2002a. “Residents push for PWC ban”. The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island), Wednesday, February 13, 2002 pp. C1, and C3. Davis, Paul. 2002b. “2 more towns jump on watercraft ban wagon”. The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island), June 6, 2002 (Accessed on 10 June 02). Ditton, Robert and Kevin Hunt. 1996. Demographics, Participation, Attitudes, Management Preferences, and Trip Expenditures of Texas Anglers prepared for the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. April 1, 1996. (Accessed on 10 February 02) Dudiak, Tamar. 2001. The Sounds of Silence: Trends in the Regulation of Personal Watercraft. Presented at the 21st Annual International Symposium of the North American Lake Management Society. Madison, WI 7 Nov 2001. Earth Island Institute (Earth Island). 1999. Bluewater Network Jet Skis Position Paper (Accessed on 25 March 02). Emblock, Erin. 2002a. “3 councils meet on rules for Narrow R.” The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island). December 1, 2002, pp. C1 and C5. Emblock, Erin. 2002b. “To ban or not to ban? Councils ponder the question.” The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island). December 12, 2002, pp. D1 and D6. Emblock, Erin. 2003a. “Watercraft ban being considered for Narrow River.” The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island). June 18, 2003, pp. C1-2. Emblock, Erin. 2003b. “Council rejects ban on Narrow River for personal watercraft.” The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island). July 9, 2003, pp. C1-2. Emblock, Erin. 2003c. “Harbormaster sees few problems with personal watercraft.” The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island). August 6, 2003, pp. C1-2. Erwin, RM, JS Hatfield, and TJ Wilmers. 1995. The Value and Vulnerability of Small Estuarine Islands for Conserving Metapopulations of Breeding Waterbirds. Biological Conservation Vol. 71 (1995) pp 187-191. Federal Register. 1996. Air Pollution Control; Gasoline Spark-Ignition Marine Engines: 40 CFR Parts 89, 90,91, October 4, 1996. Fleming, Deirdre. 2003. “Enforcement of laws on ‘Jet Skis’ studied”. Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc. On-line. August 5, 2003 (Accessed on 10 November 03).
228
Freeman, Brandee, Paul Shigley and William Fulton 2001. Police Power (Accessed on 3 Apr 04) Gesualdo, Nicole. 2002. “Council revisit issues on Jet Skis on Tiogue Lake”. The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island), April 23, 2002. (Accessed on 1 July 02). Gries, John, Charles Ball, Edward Bassett, Alfred Bettman, Irving Hiett, John Ihlder, Morris Knowles, Nelson Lewis, J. Horace McFarland, Frederick Law Olmstead and Lawrence Veiller. 1926. “A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act Under Which Municipalities May Adopt Zoning Regulations.” Department of Commerce, Washington DC, Government Printing Office. (Accessed on 25 March 04) Hargarten, S. W. 1991. All-terrain Vehicle Mortality in Wisconsin (USA): A Case Study in Injury Control. American Journal of Emergency Medicine Vol 9, No. 2 (1991) pp 149-152. Hayes, K. 2003. “E. Providence man dies in crash of two personal watercraft” The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island) July 7, 2003, p. B3. House of Representatives Bill 3141 (HR 3141). 1999. `Personal Watercraft Responsible Use Act of 1999'. Library of Congress (Accessed on 21 November 03). Jones, Chess. 2000. Epidemiology of Personal Watercraft-related Injury of Arkansas Waterways, 1994-1997: Identifying Priorities for Prevention. Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol 32 (2000) pp 373-376. Jones, Neal. 2002a. “Town to debate future of jet skis on Narrow River”. The Narragansett Times (Rhode Island), December 11, 2002. Online Zwire (Accessed on 13 May 2003). Jones, Neal. 2002b. “Narrow River debate: to jet or not”. The Narragansett Times (Rhode Island), December 18, 2002. Online Zwire (Accessed on 13 May 2003). Kado, NY, RA Okamoto, J Karim, and PA Kuzmicky. 2000. Airborne Particle Emissions form 2- and 4- stroke Outboard Marine Engines: Polycylic Aromatic Hydrocarbon and Bioassay Analyses. Environmental Science and Technology Vol. 34 No. 13 (2000) pp 2714-2720.
229
Komanoff, Charles and Howard Shaw. “Drowning in Noise: Noise Costs of Jet Skis in America, A Report for the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse” April 2000 (Accessed on 4 June 2001). Kuffner, Alex. 2002a. “DEM rejects watercraft ban on salt ponds” The Providence Journal (Rhode Island). Thursday, February 7, 2002, pp. C1, and C3. Kuffner, Alex. 2002b. “Watercraft ban resurfaces before DEM” The Providence Journal (Rhode Island). March 13, 2002. (Accessed on 10 June 2002). Kuffner, Alex. 2002c. “Personal watercraft users say limits on fun are all wet” The Providence Sunday Journal (Rhode Island), August 18, 2002, pp. A1 and A17. Kupperman, Stacy, Chad Ryan and Anthony Turi. “Personal Watercraft: Safety and Environmental Impact.“ April 9, 1999. The University of Vermont Legislative Research Shop (Accessed on 31 May 2001). Lachowicz, Tony. 2002. “Jet Ski Meeting Postponed.” Narrow River Notes Newsletter of the Narrow River Preservation Association. Fall 2002. Narragansett, RI. Martin, Laurie. 1999. Caught in the Wake: The Environmental and Health Impacts of Personal Watercraft. Izaak Walton League of America. Massachusetts Environmental Police (MEP). 2003. Massachusetts Personal Watercraft (PWC) Safety Laws. (Accessed on 13 April 2004) Massachusetts General Law Chapter 90, Section 9A (90bMGL§9B). Miceli, Gerry. 2003a. Personal communication. E-mail correspondence, Subject: Wordens Pond. Tue, 01 Jul 2003. Miceli, Gerry. 2003b. Personal communication. Blue Water Task Force Sample drop-off to URI Watershed Watch laboratories, 18 Jul 2003. Milkovits, Amanda. 2003. “Boating accidents kills man, injures 3-year-old son.” The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island) July 21, 2003, p.A1. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR). Boating and Water Safety 1996-2001. “General Operation – Personal Watercraft (Jet Skis)” (Accessed on 6 June 2001).
230
Morehouse, Macon. 1987. All-terrain-vehicle Accidents Spur Congressional Concern Congressional Quarterly Weekly Review Vol. 45 (23 May 1987) pp. 1087. National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety (NCCRAHS) 2001a. Fact Sheet Youth ATV Injuries. National Farm Medicine Center (Accessed on 12 July 2003). National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety (NCCRAHS) 2001b. Injury Control Strategies What Can Youth Safety Advocated Do?. National Farm Medicine Center, (Accessed on 12 July 2003). National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 1998. Personal watercraft safety. Safety Study NTSB//SS-98/01. Washington, DC. 98 pp. North American Lake Management Society (NALMS). 2001. Panel Discussion on Personal Watercraft, held at the 21st Annual International Symposium of the North American Lake Management Society. Madison, WI 7 Nov 2001. Ossipee Lake Report (OLP). 2003. “Lakes Legislation Fails to Excite in Concord” Newsletter of the Ossipee Lake Alliance (Accessed on 10 Nov 2003. Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA). 1999. Multiple web pages (Accessed on 10 June 2001, and 19 June 2001). Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) 2002. Multiple web pages. (Accessed on 9 June 2002). Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) 2003a. Multiple web pages. (Accessed on 8 March 2003). Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA) 2003b. “Personal Watercraft Users Can Enjoy NH Waters This Summer Legislation to Discriminate Against Family-Sized Watercraft Thwarted. (Accessed on 28 September 2003) Personal Water Craft Industry v Department of Commerce (PWIA v Commerce). 48 F.3d 540; 1995 US App. LEXIS 4240: 40 ERC (BNA) 1411: 25 ELR 2068 (19 June 2001). Providence Journal Bulletin (Projo). 2003. “Brothers injured in watercraft collision.” August 18, 2003, Northwest edition. (Accessed on 8 Oct 2003)
231
Reich, Leonard. 1999. Ski-Dogs, Pol-Cats and Mechanization of Winter: The Development of Recreational Snowmobiling in North America. Technology and Culture Vol. 40 Issue 3 (1999) pp 484-516. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM). 2003a. Multiple web pages. (Accessed on 8 March 2003, and 28 September 2003). Rhode Island General Law Section 46-27-2 (46RIGL§27.2) Regulation of personal watercraft. Rhode Island General Law Section 46-22-9.8 (46RIGL§22-9.8) Certificate of boating safety education Rockwell, Paul. 2001. “Why Jetskis Kill: Reckless Endangerment on the Water” Published on the Coalition of Parents and Families for Personal Watercraft Safety (CPFPWCs) website January 16, 2002 (Accessed on 18 April 2002). Rodgers, JA, and HT Smith. 1997. Buffer Zone Distances to Protect Foraging and Loafing Waterbirds from Human Disturbances in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin Vol. 25 No. 1 (1997) pp 139-145. Rodgers, Gregory B. and Prowpit Adler. 2001. Risk Factors for All-terrain Vehicle Injuries: A National Case Control Study. American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 153, No. 11 (2001) pp 1112-1118. Ross, R.T., Lynn K. Stuart and Frank E. Davis. 1999. All-terrain Vehicle Injuries in Children: Industry-regulated Failure The American Surgeon Vol. 65, No. 9 (1999) pp 870-873. San Juan County. 1998. Ordinance No. 7 – 1998. “An Ordinance restricting use of personal watercraft within the exterior boundaries of San Juan County and establishing fines and penalties for the violation thereof” (Accessed on 10 June 2001). Saxton, James. 1999. Statement to Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans at hearing on the Coastal Zone Management Act Reauthorization. (Accessed on 15 June 2001). Shatz, David, Orlando Kirton, Mark McKenney, Enrique Ginzburg, Patricia Byers, Jeffery Augenstien, Danny Sleeman and Zenobrio Anquila. 1998. Personal Watercraft Crash Injuries: An Emerging Problem Journal of Trauma Injury Infection and Critical Care Vol. 44 No. 1 (1998) pp 198-201.
232
Shea, Neil and Kate Bramson. 2003. “Watercraft victim cited before in R.I.” The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island) July 22, 2003, p. A1. StatSoft, Inc. 2001. STATISTICA (data analysis software system), version 6. www.statsoft.com. Swinburn, Elizabeth. 1996. Serious Injuries in Jet Skiers. Medical Journal of Australia Vol. 165 No. 11 – 12 (1996) pp 606-609. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). 1999. Environmental Assessment for the Prohibition of Certain Two-stroke Powered Watercraft. Truckee, CA. 67 pp. Talbot, Roger. 2003. “Filter system fails to snare most MtBE”. The Union Leader and New Hampshire Sunday News 16-Feb-03 article on-line (Accessed on 19 February 2003). United States Coast Guard, Commandant (USGC). 2003. Boating Statistics – 2002. Comdt. Publication P16754.16, Washington, DC, December 2003. United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics (USDOT). 2002. National Transportation Statistics 2002. BTS02-08 Washington, DC US Government Printing Office, December 2002. University of Wisconsin Lakes Program (UWLP). 2002. How’s the Water?: Recreation on Wisconsin Lakes University of Wisconsin Lakes Program, College of Natural Resources, UW-Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI. Vermont Water Resources Board (VWRB). 1997. “Vermont Use of Public Waters Rules – Section 3.3” (Accessed on 13 April 2004). Wagner, Kenneth. 2001. Personal communication. New England Chapter of the North American Lake Management Society Annual Conference, Montpelier, VT. 1-June-2001. Weden v. San Juan County, 135 Wn.2d 678. Argued May 13, 1997. Decided July 9, 1998. (Accessed on 2 February 2004). White, MW and ML Cheatham. 1999. The Underestimated Impact of Personal Watercraft Injuries. The American Surgeon Vol. 65, Issue 9 (1999) pp. 865869.
233
Wims, Meaghan. 2002. “After long debate, council is poised to limit Jet Skis”. The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island). 8 August 2002. Online (Accessed on 20 August 2002). Wims, Meaghan. 2003. “No longer a Jet set destination – New restrictions have reduced the number of personal watercraft plying Tiogue Lake”. The Providence Journal Bulletin (Rhode Island). 7 July 2003, p.C1.
234
