BEFORE THE FISH, WILDLIFE AND PARKS COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

�

�

To: All Concerned Persons

�

1. On January 31, 2008, the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission (commission) published MAR Notice No. 12-340 on the proposed adoption of the above-stated rule at page 87 of the 2008 Montana Administrative Register, Issue No. 2.

�

�

2. The commission has adopted New Rule I (ARM 12.11.3106) as proposed but with the following changes from the original proposal, matter to be stricken interlined, new matter underlined:

�

NEW RULE I (12.11.3106) SWAN LAKE (1) Swan Lake is located in Flathead Lake County.

(2) remains as proposed.

�

3. The following comments were received and appear with the commission's responses:

�

Comment 1: One person was not in favor of this rule stating there isn't a wake problem at the north end of the lake as long as ARM 12.11.115 is honored.

�

Response 1: Citizens petitioned the commission using the procedures outlined in ARM 12.11.117 stating safety concerns. The north end of Swan Lake is narrow, shallow, and rocky and the numbers of vessels recreating on Swan Lake is increasing. The increased use has the potential for safety issues warranting extension of the no wake zone.

�

Comment 2: The commission received several comments supporting this rule stating the clearly marked extension of the no wake zone would benefit public safety because islands and shoreline protrusions restrict visibility and because people unfamiliar with the area are unaware of the shallow and rocky area.

�

Response 2: The north end of Swan Lake is narrow, shallow, and rocky with changing water levels throughout the year. Historically people have run their boats on top of shoals and rocks causing significant damage to their vessels. The no wake zone requires people to travel at slow speed and should allow ample opportunity for people to see and avoid hazards of navigation including other recreationists.

�

�

Comment 3: One person stated opposition to this rule if the primary concern is the Kootenai Lodge.

�

Response 3: The development of the Kootenai Lodge could result in increased boat use in the area, but it is not the primary concern for implementing the rule change. There is continued use and development of Swan Lake bringing increased numbers of boaters to the area. The rule provides a means to mitigate safety concerns in the narrow, shallow, and rocky north portion of Swan Lake generated by congestion and increased boat use.

�

Comment 4: The commission received several comments stating this rule would provide a reduction of noise benefiting people and wildlife.

�

�

Response 4: Boats traveling at a no wake speed generally are quieter and will produce less sound to disturb people and wildlife.

�

Comment 5: The commission received a few comments stating they were in favor of this rule because of the benefit of water quality.

�

Response 5: This rule should reduce shoreline erosion on the north of Swan Lake due to boat wakes and as a result reduce the sediments deposited in that portion of the lake.

�

Comment 6: The commission received several comments in support of the proposed rule, stating that boats and docks are being damaged; boats are being slammed into docks because of wakes and have to be removed from the water.

�

Response 6: Boats traveling at speeds that cause a wake cause more potential for wave action on shores than those traveling at speeds that cause no wake as required by this rule. This rule should eliminate wakes, thus eliminating damage to docks as a result of wave action caused by motorized boats traveling above a wake speed.

�

Comment 7: One person supported this rule but asked to extend it down the lake to a boat launch.

�

Response 7: The proposed rule uses a natural landmark that is clearly definable. It provides the public with a clear delineation that is easily understood and enforceable. Defining the boundary at the southern tip of the southern most island approximately 3/4 of a mile from the outlet was a compromise to the originally proposed 1-mile-long no wake zone.

�

Comment 8: The commission received a comment in favor of the proposed rule, stating that wake-producing watercraft needs to yield to nonmotorized users just as cars yield to pedestrians.

�

Response 8: This rule will be a supplement to other existing rules and regulations including boating laws that state all vessels must be 75 feet from a fisherman or waterfowl hunter and personal watercraft still must maintain a 200-foot no wake zone from any dock, swimmer, swimming raft, nonmotorized boat, or anchored vessel. Vessels cannot make a reckless approach to, departure from, or passage by a dock, ramp, diving board, or float.

�

�

Certified to the Secretary of State May 12, 2008.