* Articles Editor, 1999-2000, BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW.
1 See Personal Watercraft Use Within the NPS System, 63 Fed. Reg. 49,312, 49,313 (1998) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 1 & 3) (proposed Sept. 15, 1998).
2 See Jack Sullivan, Commotion on the Ocean, Lakes and Rivers – Jet Skiers Are Making Waves, Boston Herald, Aug. 2, 1998, at 19.
3 See Lindsey Kate Shaw, Comment, Land Use Planning at the National Parks: Canyonlands National Park and Off-Road Vehicles, 68 U. Colo. L. Rev. 795, 795 & n.5 (1997) (comparing 37 million visitors in 1950 to 52 million visitors in 1990, and estimating 500 million visitors in 2010).
4 See, e.g., 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,314–49,315; John Carey, Those #!*&#! Jet Skis Roar up the Potomac, Bus. Wk., Sept. 14, 1998, at 56.
5 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,314.
6 See 16 U.S.C.  1 (1994); 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,314.
7 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,313–49,314.
8 See id. at 49,313.
9 See id. An additional twelve units will be able to use the locally-based procedures for two years after the proposed rule is finalized. See id. The thirteen units discussed in the text are allowed to continue PWC use for two years following final rule publication. See id.
10 See, e.g., Susan Sward & Jim Doyle, Jet Ski Ban Sought for Golden Gate Rec Area; Ocean Environmentalists in S.F. Delighted by Plan, S.F. Chronicle, Oct. 16, 1998, at A22; Garvey Winegar, National Park Service May Put Jet Skiers in Deep Water, Richmond Times Dispatch, Sept. 23, 1998, at E-3; John Donaldson, Personal Watercraft Industry Association, National Park Service Has Gone Too Far (visited Jan. 2, 1999) <http:www.pwia.org/Hot_NPS.-htm#anchor1458443> [hereinafter National Park Service Has Gone Too Far].
11 See Chip Davis, National Park Service, Personal Watercraft Use to Be Regulated in the Parks (visited Sept. 29, 1999) <http://www.aqd.nps.gov/pubs/yir/yir98/chapter01/-chapter01pg3.html>.
12 See National Park Service, Designation of National Park System Units (visited Jan. 2, 1999) <http://www.nps.gov/legacy/nomenclature.html> [hereinafter Designation]. There are numerous designations within the National Park System, many of which describe the use and/or purpose of a particular unit. See id. For example, a “national park” usually refers to large natural places having a wide variety of attributes, including historic assets, while a “national recreation area” may emphasize water-based recreation or function as an urban park that combines scarce open spaces with the preservation of significant historic resources to provide outdoor recreation for large numbers of people. See id.
13 See Robin W. Winks, The National Park Service Act of 1916: “A Contradictory Mandate?”, 74 Denv. U.L. Rev. 575, 575–76 (1997).
14 16 U.S.C.  1 (1994). Prior to the successful passage of the Organic Act in 1916, Congress struggled for six years to establish some type of bureau to efficiently administer the eleven national parks then in existence and to enable the American public to experience their natural wonders. See Winks, supra note 13, at 585–87. The preamble cited in the text (written by landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.) and the remaining two and a half pages of the Organic Act were the result of the 64th Congress’s decision to sketch the System in very general terms. See id. at 595–96. This approach avoided previous pitfalls of failed national park legislation, such as disagreements about whether a fee should be charged to Americans entering units in automobiles. See id. at 595.
15 See Richard West Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History 9–10 (1997).
16 See id.
17 See Winks, supra note 13, at 596.
18 See id. at 585–87 (quoting President William Howard Taft’s 1912 comments on the importance of national parks).
19 See Ann E. Lane, Scenic Air Tours Over Our National Parks: Exploitation of Our National Resources or Environmental Solution?, 62 J. Air L. & Com. 523, 526 (1996).
20 See id.
21 See 16 U.S.C.  3 (1994).
22 Id.  1a-2(h).
23 See Shaw, supra note 3, at 800.
24 See id.
25 See Winks, supra note 13, at 577.
26 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1.
27 Id.
28 See id.  1c.
29 See id.
30 See H.R. Rep. No. 91–1265 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3785, 3785.
31 See id. at 3785–87.
32 See id.
33 See, e.g., Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202, 204–05 (6th Cir. 1991) (noting that NPS was rethinking categorical management policies in light of 1970 amendments); Michael A. Mantell & Philip C. Metzger, Managing National Park System Resources: A Handbook on Legal Duties, Opportunities, and Tools 13–14 (Michael A. Mantell ed., 1990). The 1970 congressional amendments eventually led NPS to discontinue its categorical management policies and to conclude that the System should be administered as an integrated whole unless provided otherwise by a System unit’s enabling legislation. See Mantell & Metzger, supra, at 13–14.
34 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (1994).
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 See H.R. Rep. No. 95–581, pt. 1, at 21 (1977) reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 463, 467.
38 See id.
39 Sierra Club v. Andrus, 487 F. Supp. 443, 448 (D.D.C. 1980) (quoting S. Rep. No. 95–528 (1977)).
40 See H.R. Rep. No. 95–581, at 33.
41 See id.
42 See, e.g., Mantell & Metzger, supra note 33, at 15; Winks, supra note 13, at 578–79.
43 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 33, at 16; Criteria for Parklands (visited Jan. 3, 1999) <http://www.nps.gov/legacy/criteria.html> [hereinafter Criteria for Parklands].
44 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 33, at 16; Criteria for Parklands, supra note 43.
45 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 33, at 16; Criteria for Parklands, supra note 43.
46 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 33, at 16; Criteria for Parklands, supra note 43.
47 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1, 1c (1994).
48 See id.
49 See id.  459d.
50 See id.  459d, d-1, d-4.
51 Id.  459d-4.
52 See 16 U.S.C.  459d to 459d-7.
53 See id.  460t.
54 See id.
55 See id.  460t-1(c).
56 See id.  460fff(a).
57 See 16 U.S.C.  459d-4, 460fff-1(a).
58 See id.  460fff-1(a).
59 See id.  460fff-1(d)(1).
60 See id.  3 (providing that “the Secretary of the Interior shall make and publish such rules and regulations as he may deem necessary or proper for the use and management of the parks, monuments, and reservations under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.”); Bicycle Trails Council v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1451 (9th Cir. 1996).
61 See 5 U.S.C.  706(2)(A) (1994). Since the Organic Act does not provide for or prohibit judicial review, the Administrative Procedure Act governs standards of reviewability. See id.
62 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1451.
63 See id. (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984)); National Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903 (D.D.C. 1986).
64 See Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1211 (D. Utah 1998) (quoting Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842–43 (1984)).
65 See id.
66 See id.
67 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1452.
68 See id. at 1453–54. The challenged regulation read, in part: “use of a bicycle is prohibited. . . . Routes may only be designated for bicycle use based on a written determination that such use is consistent with the protection of the park area’s natural, scenic and aesthetic values, safety considerations and management objectives and will not disturb wildlife or park resources.” 36 C.F.R.  4.30 (1998).
69 See National Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903, 911 (D.D.C. 1986).
70 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1452–54 (reasoning the Organic Act and the 1970 and 1978 amendments clearly intended that NPS manage all System areas uniformly with the fundamental goal as resource protection, or, alternatively, even if Congress was ambiguous about off-road bicycling, reasonable statutory interpretation permitted a prohibition); Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 909–10 (citing Congress’s failure to explicitly allow hunting and trapping in the Organic Act, but stating that if particular System unit enabling legislation expressly authorized it, NPS could permissibly interpret the Organic Act as prohibiting hunting and trapping generally).
71 See, e.g., Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1452; Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 909–10; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1211 (D. Utah 1998).
72 See, e.g., Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1452; Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 909–10.
73 See, e.g., Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1452–53 (citing language and legislative history of 1970 and 1978 amendments to reason safeguarding the integrity and resource values of the System is NPS’ overarching management concern); Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 909–10 (highlighting Organic Act’s referencing a single purpose¾conservation¾in support of general ban on hunting and trapping).
74 See, e.g., Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1452–53; Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 909–10.
75 See, e.g., Wilderness Pub. Rights Fund v. Kleppe, 608 F.2d 1250, 1254 (9th Cir. 1979); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1211–12.
76 See Kleppe, 608 F.2d at 1254 (stating that where several administrative solutions exist for a problem, courts will uphold any one with a rational basis); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1211 (stating that any reasonable accommodation of conflicting mandates is permissible).
77 See Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1211.
78 See Voyageurs Region Nat’l Park Ass’n v. Lujan`, 966 F.2d 424, 427 (8th Cir. 1992) (finding snowmobile use within a corridor of a national park acceptable because of evidence that snowmobiling would not permanently change area); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1211–12 (allowing off-road vehicles in part of System units where unique resources would not be severely or permanently impaired).
79 See Voyageurs Region Nat’l Park Ass’n, 966 F.2d at 427; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1211–12.
80 See Mausolf v. Babbitt, 125 F.3d 661, 669–70 (8th Cir. 1997); Bicycle Trails Council v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1455–56 (9th Cir. 1996).
81 See Mausolf, 125 F.3d at 669 (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)).
82 See id.
83 See id. at 669–70; Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1455–56.
84 See Mausolf, 125 F.3d at 669–70.
85 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1456; infra notes 148–50 and accompanying text (discussing adequacy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s concise and general statement explaining its PWC ban in a marine sanctuary).
86 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (1994).
87 Id.
88 See, e.g., Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202, 206–07 (6th Cir. 1991); Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1460–61; National Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903, 911–12 (D.D.C. 1986).
89 See Michigan United Conservation Clubs, 949 F.2d at 207–08.
90 See id.
91 See id. at 208.
92 See 949 F.2d at 203–04. Trapping, like hunting, is prohibited generally in all units of the National Park System. See 36 C.F.R.  2.2(b) (1998). In this case, the court relied on National Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, a case cited throughout this Comment, to deny that trapping is a subset of hunting, reasoning that because Congress has generally provided for trapping explicitly, an omission in other statutes must be presumed to be intentional. See Michigan United Conservation Clubs, 949 F.2d at 207–08.
93 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1461 (citing language of unit enabling legislation to reach conclusion).
94 See id.
95 See id.
96 See id.
97 See id. at 1457–58.
98 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1459–61.
99 See id. at 1461.
100 See id.
101 See Shaw, supra note 3, at 800. There is some controversy over whether the NPS Management Policies have the force of law. See id. (noting cases in which the court has appeared to decide both ways). None of the cases surveyed for this Comment explicitly address this issue, but several of them do cite NPS Management Policies. See, e.g., Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202, 204–05 (6th Cir. 1991).
102 See National Park Service, NPS Management Policies: Introduction (visited Jan. 1, 1999) <http://www.nps.gov/planning/mngmtplc/npsmpint.html> [hereinafter NPS Management Policies: Introduction].
103 See id.
104 See id.
105 See id.
106 See National Park Service, NPS Management Policies: Visitor Use (visited Jan. 1, 1999) <http://www.nps.gov/planning/mngmtplc/upvu.html> [hereinafter NPS Management Policies: Visitor Use].
107 See id.
108 See id.
109 See The Personal Watercraft Story (visited Jan. 2, 1999) <http://www.pwia.org-/Abo_PWC.htm> [hereinafter Personal Watercraft Story]. There are five companies active in the PWC market: Kawasaki, Yamaha, Bombardier Recreational Products, Arctic Cat, and Polaris. See id. Arctic Cat and Polaris are also known as “giants” in the snowmobiling industry. See id.
110 See id.
111 See id.
112 See Elliott Almond, Making Waves, Seattle Times, July 23, 1998, at C1; Personal Watercraft Story, supra note 109.
113 See Personal Watercraft Story, supra note 109.
114 See id.
115 See id.
116 See National Transp. Safety Bd., NTSB/SS-98/01, Personal Watercraft Safety V (1998). In 1993, there were twenty-six PWC fatalities, and in 1997 there were eighty-three PWC fatalities. See id.
117 See id.
118 See Almond, supra note 112.
119 See National Parks & Conservation Ass’n, Ban Sought on Jet Skis in National Parks (May 19, 1998); David Brauer, Water Scooters Creating a Legal Splash, Chi. Trib., May 26, 1998, at 6; Winegar, supra note 10.
120 See David Holmstrom, Water “Motorcycles” Catch Negative Spray; Industry Looks for Way to Resolve Environmentalists’ Concerns about Pollution, Noise, and Habitat Disruption, Christian Sci. Monitor, May 20, 1998, at 14.
121 See Terry Tomalin, Personal Watercraft: The Great Outdoors, St. Petersburg Times, June 20, 1998, at 7.
122 See id. The Personal Watercraft Industry Association disputes and downplays possible damage to seagrasses, marine mammals, fish, and other aquatic life. See PWIA: Environmental Protection (visited Jan. 2, 1999) <http://www.pwia.org/Env_PWC.htm>. The Association maintains that PWC will lose power if operated in areas containing vegetation and sediment, as these materials will be drawn into the jet pumps powering the vessels. See id.
123 See 46 C.F.R.  24.10–17 (1997).
124 See id. at  24.10–17, 25.25, 25.30.
125 16 U.S.C.  1a-2 (h) (1994).
126 See H.R. Rep. No. 94–1569, 13 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4290, 4298–99.
127 See id. at 24.
128 See National Park Serv., U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, National Park Service Announces Proposed Rule for Personal Watercraft Use in Parks (Sept. 15, 1998). PWC have been banned at the following units: Yellowstone National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Everglades National Park, Glacier National Park, Ozark National Scenic Riverways, and Golden Gate National Recreation Area. See id.; U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, The Golden Gate National Recreation Area to Prohibit Use of Jet Skis (Personal Watercraft) in Park Waters Effective November 1 (Oct. 28, 1998).
129 See Everglades National Park Special Regulations, 59 Fed. Reg. 58,781, 58,782 (1994). The ban was promulgated under 36 C.F.R. section 1.5, which authorizes closures and public use limits based on a determination that action is necessary for “the maintenance of public health and safety, protection of environmental or scenic values, protection of natural or cultural resources, . . . [or] implementation of management responsibilities.” See 36 C.F.R.  1.5 (1998).
130 See id.
131 See National Park Service, Appendix A: Administrative Record Detailing the NPS Decision to Ban the Use of Personal Watercraft on Lake Crescent Olympic National Park, Washington (visited Jan. 1, 1999) <http://www.nps.gov/htdocs4/olym/lceis/lca.html> [hereinafter NPS Appendix A].
132 See id.
133 See id.
134 Id.
135 See id.
136 See NPS Appendix A, supra note 131.
137 See id.
138 See 48 F.3d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
139 See id. at 541–42.
140 See id. at 542.
141 See id.
142 See id. at 544.
143 See Personal Watercraft Indus. Ass’n, 48 F.3d at 544–46.
144 See id. at 545 (noting the disturbance to sea otters, harbor seals, and the Sanctuary’s kelp forests caused by PWC.)
145 See id.
146 See id.
147 See id.
148 See Personal Watercraft Indus. Ass’n, 48 F.3d at 545.
149 See 5 U.S.C.  553(c) (1994); Personal Watercraft Indus. Ass’n, 48 F.3d at 545.
150 See 5 U.S.C.  553(c); Personal Watercraft Indus. Ass’n, 48 F.3d at 545.
151 See Personal Watercraft Use Within the NPS System, 63 Fed. Reg. 49,312, 49,314 (1998) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 1 & 3) (proposed Sept. 15, 1998).
152 See id.
153 See, e.g., Sward & Doyle, supra note 10 (citing San Francisco Board of Supervisors-imposed ban on jet skis within 1200 feet of the city’s shoreline). Increased PWC regulation on state and local levels has resulted in a number of lawsuits questioning the regulatory scope of states, counties, and/or cities in the PWC context. See generally Buckley v. City of Redding, 66 F.3d 188 (9th Cir. 1995); Kaneohe Bay Cruises, Inc. v. Hirata, 861 P.2d 1 (Haw. 1993).
154 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,316.
155 Id.
156 See id.
157 See id. at 49,316.
158 See id. The thirteen units are: Amistad, Bighorn Canyon, Chickasaw, Curecanti, Gateway, Glen Canyon, Golden Gate, Lake Mead, Lake Meredith, Lake Roosevelt, Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Areas, and Gulf Islands and Padre Islands National Seashores. See id.
159 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,316.
160 See id. The additional twelve areas are: Assateague Island, Cape Canaveral, Cape Cod, Cape Hatteras, Cape Lookout, Cumberland Island, and Fire Island National Seashores; Indiana Dunes, Pictured Rocks, and Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshores; and Delaware Water Gap and Chattahoochee River National Recreation Areas. See id.
161 See id. at 49,316.
162 See id. at 49,312.
163 See id. at 49,313.
164 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,314.
165 See id.
166 See id.
167 See id.
168 See id. at 49,314–49,315.
169 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,314–49,315.
170 See id. at 49,315.
171 See id. at 49,313.
172 See id.
173 Id. (quoting 36 C.F.R.  1.5(a) (1998)).
174 See 63 Fed. Reg. At 49,313 (quoting 36 C.F.R.  1.5(b),(e), 1.7 (1998)).
175 See 36 C.F.R. 1.5(c) (1998).
176 See id. at  1.7(a)(1)-(4).
177 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,313. A rulemaking through the Federal Register requires nationwide notice and an opportunity to comment on any proposal to authorize PWC use in a unit of the National Park System. See id.
178 See id.
179 See id.
180 See id.
181 See id.
182 See Personal Watercraft Industry Association, PWIA Fact Sheet, (visited Jan. 2, 1999) <http://www.pwia.org/Abo_Fact.htm>.
183 See National Park Service Has Gone Too Far, supra note 10.
184 See id.
185 See id.
186 See id.
187 See id.
188 See National Park Service Has Gone Too Far, supra note 10.
189 See id.
190 See id.
191 See id.
192 See id.
193 See National Park Service Has Gone Too Far, supra note 10.
194 See generally Bicycle Trails Council v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445 (9th Cir. 1996); National Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903 (D.D.C. 1986).
195 See, e.g., supra notes 128–37 and accompanying text.
196 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (1994); Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1451–54; H.R. Rep. No. 91–1265 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3785, 3785.
197 16 U.S.C.  1a-1, 3.
198 See H.R. Rep. No. 91–1265 at 3785–86.
199 See, e.g., Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1451–54; Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 906.
200 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1452 (quoting Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842–43 (1984)).
201 See, e.g., Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 909. But see Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1452–53. In applying the Chevron analysis, the Ninth Circuit posed the first question as to whether Congress intended the Organic Act and the 1970 and 1978 amendments to uniformly manage all areas with the fundamental goal of resource protection. See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1452. The court answered in the affirmative. See id. at 1453. Although posing such a question in the PWC analysis would yield the same answer (and make proceeding to the next question unnecessary), it seems more logical that most courts would ask a narrower question which focused more on a relationship between the Organic Act and the specific activity in question. See, e.g., Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 909.
202 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1454.
203 See id.; 628 F. Supp. at 909–10.
204 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1454; Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 909.
205 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1454.
206 See id.
207 See id.
208 See id.; Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 909.
209 82 F.3d at 1454.
210 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (1994); see also supra notes 27–32 and accompanying text.
211 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1454.
212 See id. at 1455; Mausolf v. Babbitt, 125 F.3d 661, 669–70 (8th Cir. 1997).
213 See 82 F.3d at 1455; Personal Watercraft Use Within the NPS System, 63 Fed. Reg. 49,312, 49,313–14 (1998) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 1 & 3) (proposed Sept. 15, 1998).
214 See 48 F.3d 540, 545 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
215 See Mausolf, 125 F.3d at 669–70.
216 See id.; 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,313–49,314.
217 See 16 U.S.C.  1 (1994); National Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903, 909–10 (D.D.C. 1986); Lane, supra note 19, at 525.
218 16 U.S.C.  1.
219 See id.; Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202, 207 (6th Cir. 1991); Potter, 628 F. Supp. at 909–10; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 33, at 13.
220 See Wilderness Pub. Rights Fund v. Kleppe, 608 F.2d 1250, 1254 (9th Cir. 1979); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1211 (D. Utah 1998).
221 See 16 U.S.C.  1.
222 See id.
223 See id.
224 See id.
225 See Mantell & Metzger, supra note 33, at 13. The authors also make the point that, as a practical effect, if the preservation mandate is neglected, both conservation and enjoyment of the System are endangered. See id.
226 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; H.R. Rep. No. 95–581, pt. 1, at 21 (1977) reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 463, 467.
227 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; H.R. Rep. No. 95–581 at 21, 33.
228 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; H.R. Rep. No. 95–581 at 21, 33.
229 See NPS Management Policies: Introduction, supra note 102.
230 See id.
231 See id.
232 See id.; Personal Watercraft Use Within the NPS System, 63 Fed. Reg. 49,312, 49,313–49,314 (1998) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 1 & 3) (proposed Sept. 15, 1998).
233 See Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202, 207 (6th Cir. 1991); National Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903, 909–10, 912 (D.D.C. 1986).
234 628 F. Supp. at 905, 912. In this opinion, the court also directed attention to the 1978 amendment’s reference to a singular “purpose” of the Organic Act. See id. at 910.
235 See, e.g., Michigan United Conservation Clubs, 949 F.2d at 207; Bicycle Trails Council v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996).
236 See, e.g., Michigan United Conservation Clubs, 949 F.2d at 207; Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1450.
237 See Wilderness Pub. Rights Fund v. Kleppe, 608 F.2d 1250, 1254 (9th Cir. 1979); Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Dabney, 7 F. Supp. 2d 1205, 1211 (D. Utah 1998).
238 See Kleppe, 608 F.2d at 1254; Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1211.
239 See Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1211 (citing Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 845 (1984) for reasonable accommodation test in situation of conflicting statutory mandates).
240 See id.
241 See Personal Watercraft Use Within the NPS System, 63 Fed. Reg. 49,312, 49,316–49,317 (1998) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 1 & 3) (proposed Sept. 15, 1998).
242 See Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1212.
243 See id; 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,313.
244 See Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1212.
245 See id.; 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,313.
246 See Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 7 F. Supp. 2d at 1212; 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,313.
247 See Personal Watercraft Indus. Ass’n v. Department of Commerce, 48 F.3d 540, 544-45 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
248 See 46 C.F.R.  24.10–17 (1997).
249 See Personal Watercraft Indus. Ass’n, 48 F.3d at 544-45; see 46 C.F.R.  25.25, 25.30; Everglades National Park Special Regulations, 59 Fed. Reg. 58,781, 58,783–58,784 (1994).
250 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-2(h) (1994).
251 See H.R. Rep. No. 94–1569, 13 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4290, 4298–99.
252 See id.
253 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-2(h); H.R. Rep. No. 94–1569 at 13.
254 See 48 F.3d 540, 544 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
255 See id. at 544 (citing United States v. Edge Broad. Co., 509 U.S. 418 (1993) for its statement that an agency does not have “to make progress on every front before it can make progress on any front.”).
256 See id. at 545.
257 See id. at 546.
258 See Personal Watercraft Use Within the NPS System, 63 Fed. Reg. 49,312, 49,316–49,317 (1998) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 1 & 3) (proposed Sept. 15, 1998).
259 See id. at 49,316.
260 See id.
261 See id. at 49,313.
262 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (1994); Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202 (6th Cir. 1991); 36 C.F.R.  1.5 (1998).
263 See 36 C.F.R.  1.5(a).
264 See id.
265 See id.
266 See id.
267 See id.  1.5(b).
268 See 36 C.F.R.  1.5(b); Personal Watercraft Use Within the NPS System, 63 Fed. Reg. 49,312, 49,316–49,317 (1998) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 1 & 3) (proposed Sept. 15, 1998).
269 See 36 C.F.R.  1.5(b).
270 See id.; see, e.g., Sward & Doyle, supra note 10, at A-22; Winegar, supra note 10, at E3.
271 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (1994); Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202, 207-08 (6th Cir. 1991).
272 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; Michigan United Conservation Clubs, 949 F.2d at 204; David J. Simon, Our Common Lands: Defending the National Parks 77–78 (1988).
273 See Michigan United Conservation Clubs, 949 F.2d at 207–08 (reasoning System unit enabling legislation permitting hunting did not extend to trapping because the legislation in question and legislative histories did not mention trapping and, in other instances, Congress had explicitly provided for trapping); see also supra notes 89–92 and accompanying text.
274 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; Michigan United Conservation Clubs, 949 F.2d at 207–08.
275 See 16 U.S.C.  459d-d-7, 460fff-fff-2, 460t-t-3 (1994).
276 See id.  459d-d-7, 460fff-fff-2.
277 See id.  460fff(a)(1); Bicycle Trails Council v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1460–61 (9th Cir. 1996).
278 See Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1461.
279 See id.
280 See 16 U.S.C.  460fff(a)(2), 460t(a), 460t-2(a). For example, Bighorn Canyon’s enabling legislation leaves it to the Secretary of the Interior to provide “for conservation of scenic, scientific, historic, and other values contributing to public enjoyment.” Id.  460t-2(a).
281 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1.
282 See id.  1, 1a-1; Michigan United Conservation Clubs v. Lujan, 949 F.2d 202, 207 (6th Cir. 1991); Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1451–54; National Rifle Ass’n v. Potter, 628 F. Supp. 903, 909–10 (D.D.C. 1986); H.R. Rep. No. 91–1265 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3785, 3785; Mantell & Metzger, supra note 33, at 13.
283 See Personal Watercraft Use Within the NPS System, 63 Fed. Reg. 49,312, 49,313 (1998) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 1 & 3) (proposed Sept. 15, 1998).
284 See id. at 49,314. For example, Everglades National Park and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, consisting of representatives from Nevada and California, banned PWC from their respective jurisdictions. See id.
285 See id. at 49,313–49,314.
286 See Sward & Doyle, supra note 10.
287 See id. (citing spokeswoman who said GGNRA acted in part because “there was the possibility that as other agencies put tighter controls on jet skis, their use would increase in the bay.”).
288 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1 (1994); Bicycle Trails Council v. Babbitt, 82 F.3d 1445, 1451–54 (9th Cir. 1996); H.R. Rep. No. 91–1265 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3785, 3785.
289 See Personal Watercraft Use Within the NPS System, 63 Fed. Reg. 49,312, 49,313 (1998) (to be codified at 36 C.F.R. pts. 1 & 3) (proposed Sept. 15, 1998). Since, theoretically, all Americans had the opportunity to comment on and then, if need be, challenge NPS’s handling of PWC use, the PWIA’s complaint that there was no public participation in the process is unfounded. See id.; National Park Service Has Gone Too Far, supra note 10.
290 See 36 C.F.R.  1.5(3)(c), 1.7(a)(1) & (2) (1998).
291 See 16 U.S.C.  1a-1; Bicycle Trails Council, 82 F.3d at 1451–54; H.R. Rep. No. 91–1265 (1970), reprinted in 1970 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3785, 3785.
292 See Winks, supra note 13, at 585.
293 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,313–49,314.
294 See id. at 49,314.
295 See id. at 49,313.
296 See id. at 49,313–49,314.
297 See id.
298 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,313.
299 See id.
300 See 36 C.F.R.  1.5, 1.7 (1998).
301 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,314.
302 See, e.g., id. at 49,314–49,315; Carey, supra note 4, at 56.
303 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,314.
304 See generally Personal Watercraft Indus. Ass’n v. Department of Commerce, 48 F.3d 540 (D.C. Cir. 1995); 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,313.
305 See 63 Fed. Reg. at 49,316.