us Arn_1v corgs of Engineers Life Jacket Policy Study 15 Jan 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................3 II. BACKGROUND III. STUDY PROCESS IV. POLICIES............................................................................................6 V. REGULATIONS VERSUS EDUCATION.....................................................9 VI. RESULTS...........................................................................................12 MEASUREMENTS WEAR RATES.................................................12 RECREATION EFFECTS......................................14 MANAGEMENT IMPACTS/BENEFITS................15 COST TO AGENCY OF NOT HAVING POLICY....16 PROS AND CONS.............................................16 VII. RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................18 APPENDICES: A...........................LIFE JACKET MANDATE STUDY INTERIM REPORT B...........................PITTSBURGH DISTRICT SUMMARY C...........................VICKSBURG DISTRICT SUMMARY D...........................SACRAMENTO (PINE FLAT LAKE) SUMMARY E...........................PORTLAND DISTRICT POSITION PAPER F...........................RESERVED G...........................LIFE JACKET LOANER PROGRAM GUIDELINES H...........................NBSAC LIFE JACKET RESOLUTION I............................JSI WEAR RATE DATA J...........................USACE RECREATIONAL FATALITIES STATISTICAL SUMMARY K..........................LIFE JACKET POLICY STUDY PDT 2 I. INTRODUCTION. This report documents findings from the second-phase of the HQUSACE Life Jacket Policy Study directed by MG Don Riley, while serving as Director of Civil Works. The earliest results of investigation conducted for MG Riley during 2007-2008 can be read in the "Life Jacket Mandate Study Interim Report" under Addendum A; this report was presented to MG Riley during a briefing on 28 Feb 2008, and covers MSC and field management perspective on proposed Corps life jacket policy, as well as the study team's recommendations to the Commander. While he agreed with most of the study team's recommendations presented with the Interim Report, MG Riley did not readily accept the recommendation that "no change be made to our current policy regarding life jacket wear on Corps waters"; he requested further information before making a final decision. When the team proposed controlled testing of life jacket policy as a method of gathering practical information, MG Riley directed that field demonstrations begin as soon as possible in "one or more Corps districts", and agreed on a threeyear field test with actual policy implementation. II. BACKGROUND. As explained under Paragraph II of the Interim Report, dated 2 May 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the nation's largest provider of outdoor recreation. In 2008, when the study began, the Corps hosted more than 357 million visits to its recreational projects nationwide, and more recently 317 million visits were recorded in fiscal year 2011. Of the many recreational opportunities available on Corps lands and waters, boating and swimming rank among the highest; it is most unfortunate that more visitors' lives are lost while engaged in these activities in Corps management areas than any other form of outdoor recreation. This fact has challenged Corps leadership for decades to seek consistently more effective methods to keep visitors safe. As early as the 1970's, Corps facilities established park ranger staffs to enhance public safety initiatives and to educate the public on the risks associated with some recreation behaviors. Staff outdoor recreation planners, safety specialists, park architect and engineering staffs aggressively have pursued park facility and beach designs that incorporate strong safety standards. Because the majority of public fatalities experienced in Corps-managed areas involve water-based recreation, park rangers traditionally use interpretive opportunities, such as school visits, campground programs and community events, to deliver key water safety messages; ranger boat and park patrols are utilized routinely for more focused awareness and visitor assistance. III. STUDY PROCESS. In a memorandum dated 1 May 2008, Michael Ensch, then Chief, Operations Division announced MG Riley's decision to "conduct an applied, and monitored for effectiveness, life jacket wear requirement field test", and asked MSC commanders to give "serious consideration to voluntary participation in this demonstration exercise." (See Addendum A.) While several districts were openly hesitant to participate, Vicksburg District leadership did volunteer for the test, with the caveat that they be able to limit testing to specific lakes. In discussions with Ohio Lakes and Rivers Division Operations leadership and the study PDT, it was determined that it would also be beneficial to include Pittsburgh District in the study to provide a comparative measure of policy effect, and to provide foundational data for the district 3 related to their policy that had been established in 1990 (in research done for the Life Jacket Mandate Study Interim Report, little or no documentation was found by district personnel or others that documented policy effect). For most districts, the perceived challenges of participating in the field testing of policy kept many managers from volunteering. By the end of May, Operations made the decision to move forward with testing, with only Vicksburg and Pittsburgh Districts participating. Because the 2008 recreation season was already underway, it was decided to use the remainder of 2008 to prepare for the field test at the start of 2009 recreation season. Upon hearing that the Corps was planning to conduct life jacket policy field tests, US Coast Guard Boating Safety Division Chief Jeff Hoedt offered to track wear rates at applicable test locations. USCG was just finishing its 10th year of a national voluntary wear rates study under a grant awarded to JSI Research and Training, Inc., and while wear rate data would prove to be tremendously beneficial to the Corps in assessing policy effectiveness, it would also provide the USCG with key information important to their own recreational boating safety efforts. This service was provided to the Corps at no cost other than a small amount of on-site staff coordination with JSI to assure project access and locate prime observation areas. The timing of the USCG offer was perfect, allowing JSI to move immediately to establish wear rate baselines at the test sites for a full recreation season, prior to public notification of intent to test and actual policy implementation. The Study PDT worked with research experts from the Corps Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) and test-districts leadership to determine appropriate measurements for the four-year field test (baseline plus three test years). While public fatality reduction was the primary motivation for policy testing, the commitment to MG Riley was to capture management challenges and weigh end benefits of implementing life jacket policies on agency-managed waters. In final, the discussion group identified several measurements to track throughout the test: - - Life jacket wear rates Recreation effects (loss of visitation, etc.) Budget and staffing implications Congressional, partners/stakeholders and general public reaction Recreation-related fatalities in areas with policies When these measurements were shared with MG Riley, he asked that one additional consideration be included: - Cost to the agency of not having a life jacket policy Once measurements and basic test parameters were established, it was agreed by members of the Study PDT that no further action was required of them until field testing was completed; at that 4 point, they would regroup to review the findings and present final recommendations to Headquarters. While district and lake staffs truly managed their own field tests, national policy test oversight and upward reporting was managed by the National Operations Center for Water Safety (NOC). Headquarters leadership was kept informed through annual in-progress-review briefings and/or white paper updates (sample in Appendix F). Following the end of the first policy implementation year, MG Riley, who had promoted to Deputy Chief of Engineers, was provided an IPR briefing at his request; a similar IPR was provided for MG Merdith "Bo" Temple, who as in the position of Deputy Commanding General for Civil Works and Emergency Management. During this briefing, impressed by the 70% wear rates documented on the Vicksburg lakes (with no citations written), MG Riley directed the NOC to expand the test to include one or more districts and attempt to include a river system in the test to provide comparative data on the differences between compliance on lakes that Corps solely manages versus rivers that tend to have multi-jurisdiction management. When asked to participate, Sacramento District Operations leadership agreed but requested to limit testing to Pine Flat Lake only; available staff and recreational boating levels at this lake were determined to provide their best options. JSI Research and Training, Inc. began gathering baseline wear rate observations late in the recreation season of 2010, and policy was implemented 1 April 2011. Portland District tentatively agreed to consider inclusion of reservoirs they manage along the lower Columbia River (John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville Lock and Dam Projects). However, prior to commitment, district leadership requested time for additional review and internal discussions with district and project managers. After several months of consideration, on 26 October 2010, Portland District provided a thoroughly-written position paper (Appendix E), identifying the pro's-and-con's of testing policy along these reservoirs. They based their final decision to not participate in the national study on identified challenges that would make policy implementation difficult and unsuccessful in their region. Their greatest concerns included: ? ? ? ? ? Area of enforcement versus available resources. Number & locations of river access sites versus ability to inform users and post the restriction. Needed supplemental resources for study participation versus significant cuts to the recreation budget slated for FY12 and CE-CW specifically stating that no additional funding or staffing allocations would be provided to support this effort. Limited number of adequately trained rangers versus the need for competent river patrol. Corps rangers as the sole enforcers of this Title 36 regulation versus the number of enforcement jurisdictions on the Columbia River. 5 IV. POLICIES Later in this report, expanded information is provided about each participating district and policy tests. Comparatively though, each district opted to test life jacket policies that specifically address public fatality issues of their area; unfortunately this resulted in three sets of test policies. In hindsight, it may have been more beneficial for test purposes to have the exact set of policies in all areas, simply to have a greater grasp on whether certain triggers caused the results received. For example, it remains unclear now at test-end whether Pine Flat Lake's policies would have been less controversial to their boating group if they had tested the identical policies applied at the Mississippi Lakes Project or whether conversely, Pine Flat Lake's policies would have created the same level of public pushback in Mississippi. USACE Study Lakes Region Test Lakes Control Lakes Pittsburgh Test Youghiogheny River Lake Shenango River Lake (All Western PA) Berlin Lake (OH) Tygart Lake (WV) Vicksburg Test Grenada Lake Enid Lake Arkabutla Lake Sardis Lake (Mississippi) Pine Flat Lake (Central CA) Ross R. Barnett Reservoir Bay Springs Lake (Mississippi) Sacramento Test Millerton Lake (Central CA) BUILDING STRONG(R) 6 Policies by USACE Test Region Site Nonmotorized Boats Less than 16 feet Boats 1626 feet Boats greater than 26 feet Pittsburgh District Less than 16 feet At all times No policy No policy Vicksburg District At all At all times When times under main regardless propulsion of size No policy Sacramento At all At all times When When District times under main under main (Pine Flat regardless propulsion propulsion Lake) of size (with (with exception) exception) Swimming Nonswimmers When outside designated area When 100' from shore (CA law) BUILDING STRONG(R) Pittsburgh District opted to make no changes to their life jacket policy adopted in 1990, which required life jackets be worn by occupants of vessels - motorized or not - under 16 feet. They held to this decision even after the 2008 baseline and 2009 "test year" wear rate observations reported their wear rates for vessels affected by the policy hovered around 14%, and at only 3% of all boaters on their test waters. The Mississippi Lakes Project's policies were the most consistent in gaining compliance, with wear rates staying in the 70% or higher range throughout the three test years. Wayne Stogsdill, the operations project manager for the Mississippi Lakes Project, explained that the rules they set closely matched those of B.A.S.S.-sponsored fishing tournaments common in their part of the country. Popular events, the fishing tournament rules were already familiar with the boaters who typically recreated on one or more of the four Mississippi test lakes. However, the posted restrictions and knowledge of the life jacket regulations seemed to motivate those who would not generally wear a life jacket when not participating in a tournament; the difference measured by wear rates measured at the nearby control lakes. Notably, Pine Flat Lake's test included vessels of all lengths, under certain operating conditions. Given that Pine Flat Lake typically attracts a large number of vessels such as cabin cruisers and houseboats, some of the protest against the policy test in Sacramento District may have been 7 resulted from inclusion of watercraft greater than 26 feet in length. Many boaters feel strongly that larger craft, which are inherently more stable plus have additional safety features such as higher gunwales, do not present the same level of risk as most smallcraft or paddlecraft. Also, word-of-mouth information shared among boaters led many to believe that the large craft policies applied at all times, rather than when operating under main propulsion; for example, houseboat owners complained about having to sleep in a life jacket, not realizing that the policy did not apply when inside a cabin. When setting life jacket wear policies, all three sites included a life jacket regulation applicable to swimmers, primarily due to the fact that swimming accounted for nearly half of public recreation fatalities in each of their regions. In Pittsburgh District, the policy adopted in 1990, along with the boating policy, applies only to "non-swimmers"; on the Mississippi Lakes Project, swimmers outside of designated swim beaches were required to wear life jackets; and at Pine Flat Lake, where there are no designated swim beaches due to heavy lake fluctuations, life jackets were required for swimmers 100 feet from shore. All three test regions reported that the swimming regulations were by far the most difficult to enforce. Related Policies in Other Agencies Several actions have been taken since the Corps began its study on life jacket policy. It should be noted that the Corps is not the first agency to consider life jacket policy as a means of reducing public fatalities; U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) adopted a life jacket policy for children under the age of 13 in 2002, a move that resulted in the majority of the U.S. states adopting related state laws. The subject Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2002 [67 FR 8881], and became effective on March 29, 2002. It requires that children aboard recreational vessels wear personal flotation devices (PFDs), or lifejackets. The Federal requirement applies to children under 13 years of age, except when they are below decks or in an enclosed structure. However, the Federal requirement adopts the applicable age of children set by a State statute within that State/Territory/District even when it was a lesser requirement. Also, states not having their own law had to abide by the Federal law. In recent years, New York passed a law that requires life jackets be worn by adult boaters as well, during in winter months and additional states are considering adopting similar regulations. In 2010, USCG asked their National Boating Safety Advisory Council (NBSAC) if the USCG should pursue life jacket policies for adults. After much review and lively debate on the issue, the Council eventually proposed that USCG seek life jacket policies for vessels under 18 feet in length (Addendum H). Although gaining the NBSAC recommendation was an important step in the USCG consideration of policy, there is much work and lengthy, defined process to follow before a USCG regulation on adult life jacket wear becomes a reality. 8 Adult life jacket policy is also being seriously considered at state levels throughout the nation. A topic of discussion at numerous National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA) gatherings, it is clear that not all State BLAs support regulations of this nature. Others who do support it have either experienced or anticipate difficulty getting regulations of this nature passed through their state legislation. NASBLA reports that their members are fairly split on the matter, but continue to participate in discussions and seek facts. V. REGULATIONS VERSUS EDUCATION It is clear that everyone desires to see fewer lives lost. Many support education as the answer, and in addition to considering life jacket regulations, a heavy push is underway to adopt mandatory boater education before life jacket wear laws. The Study PDT does not disagree with the fact that education can have a dramatic effect in fatality reduction, as demonstrated in the Corps' own statistics: since the earliest days of public recreation management, Corps has used education as its primary tool for fatality reduction, with great success. 9 While highly successful in bringing numbers of fatalities down from nearly 500 in the early 1970's to an average 150/year in most recent times, the fact is that the 150/year average has held steady over the past decade. Considering that educational outreach for water safety is at an alltime high, it is unclear if education alone is enough. MG Riley took note in 2007 that greater than 90% of public fatality victims were not wearing a life jacket when they drowned. That trend continues today. It was important to the process that all three test regions continued their educational outreach throughout the course of the life jacket policy test. Not only did this allow the park rangers at the project to deliver water safety and other key recreation safety messages, it allowed opportunity to educate members of the public on policy test as well as the importance of life jackets in general. In 2010, direct interpretive contacts took a dramatic spike, particularly in Vicksburg District, but this can be related to a national partnership the NOC secured with Collaborative Summer Reading Libraries, a nationwide effort linking Corps park rangers and others into programming at community libraries in 48 states. Thousands Number of Water Safety Direct Interpretive Contacts 100 50 National Avg 2008 5,494 2009 3,139 2010 4,573 2011 5,351 56,669 MVK 45,798 48,016 89,792 LRP 1,154 124 15,228 336 SPK 4,305 500 1,865 1,665 10 Over the course of 10 years, USCG Voluntary Life Jacket Study has disclosed that on average, only about 8% of adult boaters actually wear a life jacket when boating. In discussions with boaters using Corps-managed waters, park rangers have learned that perception of risk while riding in a boat is low; most boaters have no intentions of entering the water and advise that "if something happens" they have life jackets on board. Without the experience of sudden immersion, there is little comprehension of the challenges they'll face should it happens. While some survive with ease, our statistics confirm that many do not. It should be noted that traditionally, much of Corps water safety outreach has been targeted towards children; many park rangers theorize that educating youth is a proactive way of instilling strong safety values in future adults. Also, research has determined that educating the "influencers" (spouses and children) in an individual's life, positive changes can result in an adult's behavior. This approach benefitted the Corps immensely when first adopted in the mid1980's, and statistics now show drownings involving children have declined dramatically over the years. Today, however, our trend data discloses that our greatest at-risk visitors are older adolescent and young adult males, ages 18-35; in 2011, 44% fell into this category. Unfortunately, this is the most difficult group for our park rangers to reach with key water safety messages. One traditional method of educational outreach - handing out printed publications - is no longer an effective tool, as this age group now seeks and receives their information online, from their smart phones and via social media. The NOC recognizes all of these facts, but is challenged by field educators' continued demands for youthoriented materials, such as stickers and coloring books. Annual product development managed by the NOC is based on field requests and the Water Safety Product Advisory PDT. The current national team is focusing heavily on educational materials and methods that will be more effective in reaching the target age group. The current campaign theme is "Are You Next?" For the purposes of the test, all participating regions were monitored for educational outreach made through both direct and indirect contacts. Comparatively among the three regions, Vicksburg's level of outreach far exceed that of the other two districts, likely due to the fact that they maintained a greater number of park rangers on staff, some of whom were assigned duties specifically related to water safety outreach. Pittsburgh District sought to work large scale events, such as the Pittsburgh Pirates ballgame, where a high number of contacts could be made with no additional effort. Pine Flat utilized a Student Conservation Association (SCA) water safety intern whose only job was to assist project park rangers with public water safety education. 11 VI. RESULTS It is difficult to declare the overall policy test under this study as highly successful. Three test regions brought three very different set of results. A summary of the measurements from all regions is provided below, and further discussed in each of the individual summaries that follow in this report: Wear rates The Study PDT concluded that the greatest success of policy implementation under the study occurred in Vicksburg District; wear rates over the course of the three-year policy test not only registered high, the levels of compliance held consistent in the 70% percentile during the primary months of the recreation season. Staff reports show that man hours and boat patrols did not change significantly, and project staff messaging changed from solely educational to a combination of educational and enforcement. Fatalities reduced by 75% (from four in the baseline year to only one in each of the test years). Vicksburg District Commander Colonel Jeffrey Eckstein was so pleased with the test outcome that he recently directed to adopt the very same policies indefinitely for the Mississippi Lakes Project. It must be recognized that Vicksburg District and the Mississippi Lakes Project were better staffed and equipped to work the initiative in their region and did not experience implementation controversy from the public. Vicksburg District 12 Pittsburgh District, on the other hand, showed surprisingly low wear rates among boaters on waters they manage where life jacket policy has been in place since 1990; even more surprising considering the policy is enforceable by both Corps and state officers. Wear rates in the regulated group of motorized vessels less than 16 feet in length did increase from the baseline of 7.3% in 2008 to less than 20% in 2009, but when Pittsburgh District management refused to make changes to established policy and/or enforcement effort, U.S. Coast Guard opted to end the wear rate study on Pittsburgh Lakes. Funding from Corps sources to continue wear observations in the District was not available and wear rate statistics from subsequent years of the study are not available from that region. After reviewing the information available, the Study PDT could come to no other conclusion but that the policy in this region had become ineffective, most likely from inconsistent or minimal enforcement activity by law enforcement. The outcome of this region's study offers a very clear example of what can happen when a policy is allowed to go stale and truly illustrates the non-compliance that can occur if not worked diligently. Pittsburgh District The most challenged among the test areas was by far Pine Flat Lake in Sacramento District where managers were met with a number of complaints from local residents, recreation groups, lake concessionaires and general members of the public. Most interesting is the fact that a significant number of public comments came from boaters from far outside the Pine Flat Lake region, due largely from efforts of manufacturer and marina operators groups and boating organizations. While many of the written and voiced complaints expressed concern over federal government interference with personal choices, others addressed fears that life jacket policies 13 would give the appearance that recreational boating is unsafe, and that if perceived that way by the public, could impact boating sales and the associated industries in the long run. Despite the controversy, public compliance with the posted restrictions was high early in the recreation season, reaching nearly 88% wear rates in the high visitation month of June. By season's end, as fewer smallcraft were present on the water and larger vessels such as cabin cruisers and houseboats accounted for most of the lake's boating, over all policy compliance fell. This was not especially surprising, as owners in this group were most resistant to the policy applied to large craft. Additionally, local business staffs were incorrectly advising visitors that the policy test had ended, which may have led to reduced compliance. Sacramento District Recreation effects Despite much speculation from industry and concessionaires, implementing life jacket policy on Corps waters did not result in tremendous loss of recreation use of the lakes, nor did it seem to impact local commerce. Other effects felt in the regions did a lot more to impact recreation, such as unusual and often extreme weather conditions, high water, economic impacts (i.e., gas prices, more families taking "stay-cations", city pool closings) , and large community events. While the Corps lakes had some visitation fluctuation, it was mimicked at non-test lakes of the regions. 14 Management Impacts/Benefits All regions reported that they did little to change their day-to-day operations while implementing the policies and all treated the posted restrictions as routine visitor assistance regulations applicable in their management areas. Pittsburgh and Sacramento Districts, both who had smaller staffs and therefore conducted fewer patrols to enforce the regulations, were not as successful in maintaining consistently high wear rate percentages. It should be noted, however, that Pine Flat Lake achieved remarkable early season wear rates, their numbers only declining as the season progressed. It is surmised that as word got out in the area that park rangers were not being aggressive in enforcing the policy, and merely issuing warnings for first time offenses, boaters were less apt to comply. Boaters would don their life jackets if they saw park rangers patrolling the lake, but when the patrol boat was docked and park rangers were not in sight, they did not always comply with the policy. Other factors may have contributed to the end-of-theseason decline in wear rates, including extreme heat, misinformation from local businesses, and the inability of the Sheriff's department to enforce the regulation. Lake Manager Tom Ehrke personally was challenged by an onslaught of public calls and emails, as well as negative news articles and Congressional letters and contacts. While Pine Flat Lake's park ranger staff and other resources may not have been impacted, Manager Ehrke's exceptional efforts to follow-up on all complaints or questions about the policy test or new regulations on the lake did cause disruption to his normal project operations. Despite some challenges, the benefits during the policy test were valuable; fewer lives were lost in any of the test areas throughout the test. It should be noted that none of these districts historically registered high numbers of drownings or other water-related deaths, but throughout the test, for the most part, no fatalities occurred in the test areas. Additionally, Vicksburg 15 documented several testimonials where near-drowning victims attested that had it not been for the life jacket requirement, they would have not survived. (See Vicksburg summary.) Each of the three test districts reported that they did not add new equipment and utilized boats and other project resources already available to their park ranger staffs. The only exception involved signage; the policies tested were new to both Vicksburg and Sacramento District, and each region had to purchase signs in order to adequately post their newest "posted restrictions". A summary of costs can be found in each region's summary. Pittsburgh District did not need to post new signage, except in cases where replacements were required as part of routine operations. Cost to Agency of Not Having Policy The final consideration that MG Riley asked the PDT to consider was what it was costing the agency to not have a policy. While this question lends itself to a dollar amount, the PDT was unable to provide such because of privacy information policies and undocumented costs. Instead, the PDT opted to identify the tangible and intangible "costs". - - Defense or settlement of tort claims or other law suits (protected information) Emotional costs on staff summoned to work public fatality incidents (untracked) o Rescue and retrieval efforts o Assistance to distraught family and/or friends at the scene Management challenges to maintain "safest" recreation environment (untracked) PROS and CONS: PROS: ? Life jackets save lives. ? Potential to save lives would be enhanced with Corps-implemented life jacket policy: Life jacket policies can successfully reduce boating-related public fatalities when resources (staff and equipment) are adequate to regularly enforce the policy. ? Life jacket policy can be successful when a communication plan is implemented that adequately addresses public, business owners, political and stakeholder concerns and minimizes negative or inaccurate public responses. ? Policies based on local conditions are the easiest to justify to the public. For example, if boating fatalities are high in the area or a recent incident in their area awakens public concern, compliance is more likely. ? Life jacket policy can be highly successful when complemented by public educational outreach. 16 ? Policy would increase life jacket wear among high-risk boater groups. Currently, nearly 90% of all USACE water-related fatality victims were not wearing life jackets. US Coast Guard reports that eight out of ten boaters who drowned were using vessels less than 21 feet in length. ? Life jacket policy would support Corps efforts to reduce public recreation fatalities. CONS: ? Boat length information is not readily available in USACE public fatality statistics; however, boating-related fatalities are only 33% of the total USACE water-related fatalities, therefore a life jacket mandate policy applied only to boaters does not address the problem of swimmers drowning. ? Life jacket policies would require active enforcement initially to gain desired results. Corps projects do not all currently have the appropriate levels of resources to meet this requirement. Limited staffs and budgets in some districts could result in inconsistent enforcement of policy and initial start-up costs for signage, equipment and other resources would create an undue burden on project budgets. ? Corps lakes, rivers and waterways differ greatly. While establishing a new Corps life jacket policy may mesh well with routine operations in some areas, others would be severely taxed to adequately prepare and enforce. Challenges such as multiple jurisdictions, access points, public and political pushback can hamper effective implementation. ? Corps-wide adoption of policy may temporarily result in some loss of recreation. ? Nearly half of annual Corps public fatalities involved swimming activities. Life jacket policies work most effectively when applied to vessels; swimming life jacket policies are difficult to enforce. ? Under current budget planning, recreation business line faces budget reductions in the next few fiscal year cycles. Historically, these types of budget cuts in the recreation business line have resulted in staff cuts that specifically have affected park ranger boat patrols and water safety educational outreach. ? Current public sentiment opposes Government-imposed controls and/or regulations of any type, as demonstrated by "Tea Party" politics and "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations. ? The US Coast Guard is recognized by most as the leader in establishing federal boating regulations and when they initiate new federal laws, the states usually follow in compliance or risk the loss of federal support. 17 ? The state and local agencies that conduct boat patrol and enforcement on our waters would not be able to enforce USACE regulations unless they adopt similar rules. In a survey conducted for the Life Jacket Mandatory Study Interim Report (Appendix A), district staffs reported that on average 77% of patrol hours during the recreation season were conducted by other agencies and only 23% by Corps park rangers. ? Corps projects that have high public use visitation on land may see an increase in problems in those areas if they redirect their visitor assistance to focus on regulation enforcement for water-based recreation. ? Some Corps projects have not had complete support of US Magistrates and US Attorneys in enforcing our regulations due to other case load priorities. Regulations under Title 36, part 327.12a (posted restrictions) may be perceived by some of them as not worth their time. Once someone has their case dropped, word travels fast that our tickets mean nothing. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS The Study PDT carefully reviewed and considered without bias all findings collected during the Life Jacket Policy Study. Based on review and discussion, the team offers the following recommendations and basis of their determinations: - - The PDT recommends that no additional regulation be added to Title 36, CFR 327, that would require life jackets be worn while recreating on all Corps-managed waters at this time. Current authority under 327.12(a) allows for District Commanders to set life jacket requirement policies under what is referred to as "local posted restrictions authority." o Many Corps areas are patrolled by other than agency personnel who would not necessarily be able to enforce Corps policy; this combined with staffing concerns in some Corps regions could result in inconsistent enforcement and greater confusion to the public. o Most evident of all findings was that, while life jacket policy can be an effective tool for increasing survival rates on Corps waters, the policy rapidly loses its value if not regularly and aggressively enforced. The PDT recommends that the Corps collaborate with the U.S. Coast Guard, working "selective expansion" of policy, to include wear rate observations to assess implementation effectiveness. Policy should be heavily considered in districts where boating fatality rates run significantly high. o This Life Jacket Policy Study evaluated management challenges and benefits. Although fatality reduction was the overriding goal of the effort, testing did not provide adequate proof that end results would be measureable fatality reduction. 18 - o Several Corps districts annually register significant numbers of boating fatalities. District commanders should be encouraged to seriously consider some type of life jacket policy that addresses problems of their region. The PDT recommends that field water safety education focus on the greatest "at risk" age/gender group: the older adolescent and adult males. The PDT recommends further expansion of the Corps' Life Jacket Loaner Program. (Guidelines - Appendix G) 19 APPENDIX A LIFE IACKET MANDATE STUDY INTERIM REPORT us Army at Engineers Life Jacket Mandate Study Interim Report 2 May 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................3 II. BACKGROUND III. STUDY PROCESS IV. PDT INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................4 V. STATISTICAL INFORMATION A. CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC)................................5 B. CORPS OF ENGINEERS STATISTICAL INFORMATION............7 C. US LIFESAVING ASSOCIATION STATISTICS..........................11 D. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STATISTICS VI. PITTSBURGH DISTRICT (LRP) MANDATORY WEAR INITIATIVE..............12 VII. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE SURVEY SUMMARY............................13 VIII. PARTNER REACTION.........................................................................15 IX. POTENTIAL OPTIONS..............................................................................16 X. SUMMARY............................................................................................18 XI. LIFE JACKET STUDY PRODUCT DELIVERY TEAM (PDT) PARTICIPANTS..19 2 I. INTRODUCTION. A Life Jacket Mandate Study was initiated at the request of USACE Director of Civil Works, MG Don Riley, in April 2007, to analyze the impacts and benefits of establishing a Federal regulation under Title 36, CFR 327 that would require members of the public to wear a life jacket while recreating on Corps waters. The study, led by the HQUSACE National Operation Center for Water Safety, was conducted in-house by a product delivery team (PDT) comprised of a variety of recreation and safety managers from Corps headquarters, division, district and lake staffs. The PDT used data collected from a district questionnaire, an employee survey on the Corps NRM Gateway web site, interagency discussions and written comments, fatality and accident report statistics, general comments from field leadership, and self-analysis of current national educational materials and programming, to determine their final recommendations for MG Riley. On 28 February 2008, the PDT briefed MG Riley with their findings. Based on information gathered from district and field offices as well as U.S. Coast Guard, state agencies and other nonCorps partners, the PDT's recommendation was to not change Title 36 to establish a regulation requiring life jacket wear on Corps waters at this time. The PDT recommended that the Corps continue to support U.S. Coast Guard's life jacket wear initiatives and to aggressively pursue voluntary wear of life jackets through targeted public education actions, life jacket loaner programs and increased partnerships. MG Riley decided to defer his decision on establishing a policy until additional information can be gathered. Specifically, he requested that the PDT identify districts willing to conduct a field test exercise in which the life jacket wear requirement is applied and monitored for effectiveness. This is the interim report of the PDT findings prior to the initiation of a field test. II. BACKGROUND. The US Army Corps of Engineers is the Nation's largest provider of outdoor recreation, operating more than 2,500 recreation areas at 456 projects (mostly lakes) in 43 states and leasing an additional 1,800 sites to State or local park and recreation authorities or private interests. The Corps hosts nearly 372 million visits a year at its lakes, beaches and other areas, and estimates that 25 million Americans (one in ten) visit a Corps project at least once a year. The US Army Corps of Engineers is the steward of the 12 million acres of lands and waters at Corps water resources projects. Our rangers and park staff are the stewards serving and supporting our visitors and the nation. Since the vast majority of our recreation areas are located next to water, the Corps, in partnership with other agencies, is active in the National Water Safety Program. From 1998 through 2007, the Corps recorded 1,641 accidental and unintentional deaths resulting from activities around or near bodies of Corps managed waters. Statistical records on Corps of Engineer facilities indicate that 92% of the water-related fatalities involved persons who were not wearing a PFD. III. STUDY PROCESS. The initial phase of the study consisted of two internal questionnaires designed to gather opinions regarding critical information needed to assist the PDT in formulating a recommendation. A district questionnaire was distributed in September 2007 to 34 district points of contact (POCs). Their responses were consolidated and placed on the Natural Resource Management (NRM) Gateway web site at "http://corpslakes.usace.army.mil". It was suggested that those POC's informally contact state partners to ascertain a preliminary partner position. A short 12-question version of the district survey was placed on the NRM Gateway for employees to anonymously share their opinions. The results of that survey are also posted on the NRM Gateway. 3 On 15-16 November 2007, the PDT met in HQ for internal discussions and to formally and initially meet with known partners for an open discussion concerning the study topic. A summary of that meeting report is in Section VIII of this report. Formal written comments regarding a life jacket mandate were solicited from partners at that meeting and via email following that meeting. The meeting report and written comments from states are available on the NRM Gateway. MG Riley was briefed on the PDT findings on 28 February 2008. He decided to defer his decision on establishing a policy and requested that the PDT identify districts willing to conduct a field test exercise in which the life jacket wear requirement is applied and monitored for effectiveness. He also agreed to meet with the US Coast Guard to discuss their role in mandating life jacket wear. This launched the second phase of this study which is not part of this interim report. IV. PDT INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS. A. The following PDT recommendations were not accepted by MG Riley in their entirety. 1. PDT recommends that no change be made to our current policy regarding life jacket wear on Corps waters. 2. PDT recommends that a letter be prepped for MG Riley's signature advising the US Coast Guard of the findings of our study. This letter will encourage the USCG to consider adopting a life jacket wear policy for adults that would have broader application than a policy set by the US Army Corps of Engineers. 3. PDT requests that the DCW concur with team's alternate recommendations that specifically address education outreach, partnerships and facility management. These recommendations include: a. Educational outreach (1) Refocus public education/awareness directed at targeted risk groups (2) Revamp marketing strategy to develop key messages and actions for targeted audiences (3) Further investigate brokering educational incentive products at the national level b. Develop national life jacket loaner program policy and standards. c. Expand partnerships for recreational safety. V. STATISTICAL INFORMATION. To approach this study, the PDT needed to fully understand the statistics and trends associated with drownings, not only from a Corps perspective, but from a National perspective. Statistical information from a National perspective was gathered from the Center for Disease Control, (CDC), United States Lifesaving Association (USLA), and the National Park Service. In the CDC data, all drownings regardless of source or activity are recorded. This presents a frequency rate, based on population, which gives an understanding of the national scope of the issue. For example, this data includes home accidents (drownings in bathtubs; toilets; laundry tubs; swimming pools), occupational drowning and drowning as a result of water based recreational activity. While it is this last category (water-based recreational activity) that the Corps is most concerned with, little archival data was found that provides adequate detail to allow us to use this activity exclusively in our study approach. The following paragraphs provide summary data from different sources. While this data cannot be used as exact statistical comparisons, it provided the team with circumstantial data that allowed the study team to better evaluate the relative degree of success of the current Corps water safety program and water-based accident rates. 4 A. Center For Disease Control (CDC) - The CDC provides a national perspective for all deaths listed as caused by drowning. The following tables, charts and graphs provide trend data for drownings in all settings, recreational, industrial, etc. It helps us to understand trends and demographics relative to all national drownings. 10 Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths, United States, 2005, All Races, Both Sexes Age Groups Rank <1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ All Ages 1 Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Suffocation Drowning MV Traffic MV Traffic MV Traffic MV Traffic Poisoning Poisoning MV Traffic Fall MV Traffic 748 493 560 763 10,657 7,047 6,729 6,983 4,287 15,802 43,667 2 Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional MV Traffic MV Traffic Fire/burn Drowning Poisoning Poisoning MV Traffic MV Traffic Poisoning MV Traffic Poisoning 140 489 138 132 2,484 4,386 6,491 6,179 2,007 7,048 23,618 3 Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Drowning Fire/burn Drowning Fire/burn Drowning Drowning Fall Fall Fall Unspecified Fall 64 208 121 85 649 385 607 1,181 1,451 5,069 19,656 4 Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Pedestrian, Other Land Other Land Other Land Fire/burn Fall Drowning Fire/burn Suffocation Suffocation Unspecified Other Transport Transport Transport 36 295 497 506 509 3,271 6,551 129 47 63 298 5 Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Other Spec., Unspecified Suffocation Suffocation Suffocation Fall Fire/burn Drowning Fire/burn Fire/burn Suffocation classifiable 22 126 44 59 236 340 492 405 1,178 5,900 229 6 Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Natural/ Pedestrian, Natural/ Natural/ Poisoning Firearm Firearm Fire/burn Suffocation Suffocation Drowning Environment Other Environment Environment 20 37 203 228 306 466 3,582 38 25 376 1,069 7 Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Natural/ Other Land Other Spec., Natural/ Fall Fall Poisoning Unspecified Unspecified Poisoning Fire/burn Environment Transport classifiable Environment 16 34 34 198 369 931 3,299 17 199 305 459 8 Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Natural/ Struck by Other Other Land Other Spec., Natural/ Poisoning Suffocation Suffocation Unspecified Drowning Environment or Against Transport Transport NECN Environment 17 175 196 388 266 16 31 32 272 506 2,462 9 Unintentional Unintentional Three Struck by Other Land Tied or Against Transport 15 9 25 Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Pedestrian, Other Spec., Other Spec., Other Land Fire/burn Unspecified Unspecified Drowning Other classifiable classifiable Transport 171 196 259 465 22 365 219 1,533 10 Two Tied 4 Three Tied 18 Unintentional Three Firearm Tied 22 15 WISQARSTM Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Unintentional Other Other Natural/ Other Other Other Land Other Spec., Transport Transport Environment Transport Transport Transport classifiable 138 152 238 235 210 263 1,479 Produced By: Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Data Source: National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), National Vital Statistics System TABLE 1 Statistics from the 2005 CDC data indicate that drowning of all forms (recreation, domestic, occupational) is the #6 cause of unintentional injury death for all ages in the United States, as shown 5 in Table 1. Note that the trend indicates that drownings occur in the top three cause range within the age groups from less than age 1 through 34, then begin a steady decrease. Fatalities By Age Group Fatlatiies 800 600 400 200 0 <1 1-4 5-9 10-14 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ Age Group TABLE 2 Drowning Deaths (Nationally) 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 19 81 19 84 19 87 19 90 19 93 19 96 19 99 20 02 Deaths Years TABLE 3 Drowning Rate/100,000 Population 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 ` 2002 1999 1996 1993 1990 1987 1984 1981 Rate/100,000 TABLE 4 6 Over the course of record keeping, CDC has charted the trend in all drowning deaths as illustrated by Tables 2 through 4. Additionally, a one year snapshot of data for water-based recreational fatalities was found in a Center for Disease Control document. The document is titled "Non-fatal and Fatal Drownings in Recreational Water Settings" --- United States, 2001 - 2002. B. Corps of Engineers Statistical Information. The Corps of Engineers archival information on public fatalities was somewhat fragmented and deemed unreliable prior to 1998. That was when the gathering and consolidation of ENG 3394s (United States Army Corps of Engineers Accident Investigation Reports) began at the National level to evaluate water-related fatalities. With the advent of the new reporting requirements associated with ENGLINK in 2005, Corps of Engineers public fatality statistics are considered to be more accurate. Unlike the Center for Disease Control however, the Corps groups their deaths as "recreation fatalities" or "water-related fatalities". For the purpose of this study, the PDT separated water-related fatalities from the overall recreation fatality category. Water-related fatalities from FY98-07 include drownings (86%), trauma deaths (9%) typically as a result of boat collisions, hypothermia (2%), medical (1%), carbon monoxide (1%) and unknown (1%). However, we only began tracking CO deaths in FY06 and we suspect there were more before it was identified as a problem. Table 5 provides insight into the trends associated with recreation fatalities from 1972 to present. This illustrates a decrease in public fatalities since public safety educational efforts were introduced and a leveling out as educational efforts have remained steady. Also, since 1998 water-related fatalities have been categorized by activity type as shown by the colored bars. Corps of Engineers Water-related Fatalities 1971 to 2007 500 450 400 300 250 200 150 100 50 20 07 20 05 20 03 20 01 19 99 19 97 19 95 19 93 19 91 19 89 19 87 19 85 19 83 19 81 19 79 19 77 19 75 19 73 0 19 71 Number of Fatalities 350 Fiscal Year Swimming Undesignated Boating Collision Falls Boating Other Swimming Designated Other non boating Boating Capsize Uncategorized (before 98) TABLE 5 7 Corps of Engineers Public Water-related Fatality Activity Categories By Number 5 8 9 10 11 Number of Fatalities 26 19 2 4 11 20 17 14 12 34 40 24 35 2 9 6 2 9 7 14 14 33 97 96 2004 13 8 12 10 18 15 7 13 15 26 27 71 69 65 2005 2006 2007 9 92 66 1998 31 64 28 28 16 17 40 2 3 11 5 10 18 20 7 8 15 8 5 12 5 18 1999 2001 2000 72 72 2002 2003 Fiscal Year Swimming Undesignated Falls Swimming Designated Boating Capsize Boating Collision Boating Other Other non boating TABLE 6 Corps of Engineers Public Water-related Fatality Activity Categories By Percentage 120.0% 2.3% 3.7% 8.9% Percent of Total 80.0% 11.2% 12.1% 4.6% 5.2% 1.1% 2.2% 9.6% 10.3% 100.0% 6.7% 7.2% 1.4% 5.8% 13.7% 11.7% 1.5% 2.3% 3.8% 7.6% 8.4% 6.2% 4.8% 21.4% 19.2% 4.4% 5.0% 6.3% 10.1% 7.6% 8.4% 5.2% 26.3% 4.4% 8.2% 10.7% 9.7% 5.8% 9.5% 21.4% 17.5% 16.4% 11.8% 7.9% 3.9% 5.7% 5.3% 3.3% 3.3% 9.1% 9.6% 22.5% 60.0% 1.3% 6.2% 11.6% 16.5% 17.4% 9.4% 19.5% 40.0% 20.0% 45.3% 49.5% 51.7% 55.0% 45.2% 46.8% 2001 2002 42.1% 44.7% 43.7% 41.9% 2004 2005 2006 2007 0.0% 1998 1999 2000 2003 Fiscal Year Swimming Undesignated Falls Boating Collision ` Swimming Designated Boating Capsize Boating Other Other non boating TABLE 7 8 Tables 6 and 7 illustrate the categories of activities visitors are engaged in that result in public recreation fatalities. When we combine all of the swimming in undesignated area fatalities, it makes up the highest risk activity category for the 10-year period showing an average of 46.6%. In most cases, these individuals were exceeding their swimming abilities. The second highest risk activity average at 19.6% are those who fall either from boats (12.5%) and other places i.e. docks, shoreline etc. (7.1%). The other activity category averages are 8.8% swimming in designated swimming areas, 8.3% capsizing usually due to weather or overloading and 8% collisions. Only 4.7% of all water-related fatality victims in the 10-year period were wearing a life jacket. Percent of Total FY 98 - FY 07 Water Based Fataltites 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 46.56% 42.24% 7.12% Boating Related Drowning Swimming Related Drownings Falls from Shoreline or Water Structure (i.e dock) 4.08% Non-Vessel Drowning TABLE 8 FY 98 - FY 07 Fatalities 900 800 765 694 700 Number 600 500 400 300 200 117 100 67 0 Boating Related Drow ning Sw imming Related Falls from Drow nings Shoreline or Water Structure (i.e dock) Non-Vessel Drow ning TABLE 9 The data indicates in Table 8 and 9 that over the course of the past 10 years fatalities have fallen into the following four (4) general groupings. A swimming-related fatality is when an individual intentionally enters the water. However, if they are swimming from a boat those are included in the 9 boating category in these tables. It should be noted that 113 or 16.28% of the boating-related fatalities in Table 8 and 9 were people swimming around a boat who intentionally entered the water. Fatalities by Age Group (FY 98 - 2007) 0-9 10-20 4%3% 6% 5% 9% 21-30 31-40 24% 41-50 12% 51-60 61-70 16% 21% 71+ UK TABLE 10 Table 10 illustrates the ages of water-related fatality victims in 10-year periods from FY98-07. The majority (24%) are in the aged 10-20 range with 21% in the 21-30 year old age groups. However, if when we break this down into an 18-35 year old age group, it shows 38% is the highest risk age group. National Drowning Rate vs CE Drowning Rate CE Water Based Fatalities (FY 98-07) 2.50 Fatalities 2.00 Freq/100,000 Number of Fatalitie 250 200 150 100 1.50 1.00 0.50 50 0.00 0 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Fiscal Year TABLE 11 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 Fiscal Year CE Rate/100,000 visits National Rate/100,000 population TABLE 12* *Note: Table 12 - 1998 statistical trend inaccurate due to incomplete visitation data in OMBIL There is no direct comparison in Tables 11 and 12 between the USACE water-related fatality experience and the national drowning rate since the USACE water-related fatality experience includes all water-related fatalities rather than exclusively drowning. However, drownings are 86% of all USACE water-related fatalities. Water-related fatalities on Corps of Engineers Water Resource Development Projects compositely average 4.71% of the nation's drowning deaths over the past 10 years. The much lower frequency rate experienced by the Corps lends some credence that our various water safety programs are having a positive impact. 10 C. US Lifesaving Association Statistics. Data was found for recreational beach fatalities as reported and compiled by the US Lifesaving Association. Their statistics are collected annually from America's beach lifeguard providers on a collaborative and volunteer basis. Normally, people recreating in the water or on the sand, and at adjacent picnic areas, parking lots, recreation concessions and bike paths are included in the beach visitation data. It does not include people that merely transit on bikes or in cars. The data provides a comparative 6 year trend based on annual population samples ranging from a low of 223.5 million persons to a high of 273.4 million persons. Recreation Fatalities Deaths per 100,000 Population 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 USLA Frequency Rates 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 USACE Frequency Rate TABLE 13 Table 13 indicates the frequency rate of fatalities based on the number of fatalities per 100,000 populations according to the US Lifesaving Association and USACE data. It should be noted that USLA beach visitation is based on estimates by lifeguards without benefit of a positive methodology to determine actual visitation. D. National Park Service Statistics. National Park Service data was obtained for the 2007 recreation season. The National Park Service and the Corps of Engineers both develop recreational fatality frequency rates using the same formula (# public recreating fatalities times 1,000,000 divided by visitor days.). The following chart provides a snapshot of comparative data between the USACE and NPS for the 2007 recreation season. AGENCY USACE NPS VISITOR DAYS (Millions) 211.4 109 FATALITIES RATE 175 97 .83 .95 11 VI. PITTSBURGH DISTRICT (LRP) MANDATORY WEAR INITIATVE. A. The Director of Civil Works asked the PDT to specifically look at a program that was implemented in the Pittsburgh District. The following events and timeline were determined. May 1981 - May 1985. LRP implements District-wide alcohol ban. Began in 1981, the ban extended to all projects by 1985. Congressional elements were notified and were publicized through news releases. According to some staff, while the alcohol ban has not eliminated alcohol from the projects, recreation areas are no longer party destinations. May 1990 - LRP establishes the requirement that Personal Flotation Devices (PFDs) must be worn by all people on all boats less than 16 ft in length, all canoes and all non-swimmers. The rulemaking took place under Title 36, Chapter III, Part 327, Rules and Regulations Governing Use of Water Resource Development Projects Administered by the Chief of Engineers, Section 12, Restrictions. Section a of this regulation indicates that ...The District Commander may establish and post a schedule of visiting hours or restrictions on the public use of a project or portion of a project. The District Commander may close or restrict the use of a project or portion of a project when necessitated by reason of public health, public safety, maintenance, resource protection, or other reasons in the public interest. Entering or using a project in a manner which is contrary to the schedule of visiting hours, closures or restrictions is prohibited. o o o o May 8 1990 - PFD policy approved by LTC Roudabush, Pittsburgh District Engineer. May 11 1990 - Sixty-two (62) letters were mailed to Federal legislators & State boating law administrators. May 15 1990 - A District-wide press release was sent to all newspapers. Memorial Day 1990 - Signage installed at lake projects prior to holiday. Flyers and posters developed and distributed prior to the start of the summer recreating season. By 1991, the regulation was in effect at 13 of the 16 district lakes. Overall, the regulation was accepted by the boating public. In 1991, there were several hundred verbal warnings, 223 written warnings, and 12 citations issued for violations of the new regulation. In Pennsylvania, although the Boating Law Administrator expressed angst over the LRP Regulation, he did not ask for it to be rescinded. Note that a period of four years passed between the Pittsburgh District Rulemaking and the date of adoption of the rule for Pittsburgh District Lakes by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PF&BC). The adoption of the rule by the PF&BC coincided with the arrival of Mr. Peter Colangelo as the Executive Director for the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PF&BC). Mr. Colangelo had served as the US Army Corps Chief of the Natural Resource Management Branch in the Pittsburgh District prior to his retirement from the Corps and subsequent employment by the PF&BC. The regulation currently applies only on Pittsburgh District Lakes in Pennsylvania. Lakes in Pennsylvania under the Philadelphia and Baltimore Districts are not covered by the special alcohol nor PFD requirements initiated by the Pittsburgh District. The enforcement of the regulations on the Pittsburgh District lakes is the responsibility of both the USACE park rangers and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission Officers. Warning and Citations are issued by PF&BC officers under PA Fish and Boat Code, Section 5124. 12 Most state or local agencies cannot enforce Title 36, CFR. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PF&BC) is the primary boating enforcement agency for waters in Pennsylvania, to include waters managed or held in fee by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As a result of the Pittsburgh District initiative, the PF&BC, adopted, under Pennsylvania Code the following to allow its officers to be consistent with Corps's rangers on the waterways in the Pittsburgh District. A sample portion of the regulation for the Corps Youghiogheny River Lake is shown below. ? 111.26. Fayette County. (a) Dunlap Creek Reservoir. The operation of boats powered by internal combustion motors is prohibited. (b) Virgin Run Lake. The operation of boats powered by internal combustion motors is prohibited. (c) Youghiogheny River Lake. Persons shall wear a Coast Guard approved personal flotation device at all times when on board boats less than 16 feet in length or any canoe or kayak. Authority The provisions of this ? 111.26 amended under the Fish and Boat Code, 30 Pa.C.S. ? 5124. Source The provisions of this ? 111.26 adopted June 3, 1994, effective June 4, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 2795; amended March 9, 2001, effective March 10, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 1369. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (227695). B. General Comments Summarizing Pittsburgh District Mandatory PFD Program. No increase in staffing (temporary or permanent rangers) took place to accomplish the new 327.12.a requirement. A reduction in force (R.I.F.) in 2004 reduced staffing even further. Both the Pittsburgh District staff and officers of the PF&BC reported that violations of this restriction are rarely enforced. Tracking the effectiveness of this policy has been, and continues to be, a problem. While the program has not been "ineffective", there has not been sufficient tracking to quantify its success. Approximately 110 327.12a citations are issued each year. The majority (more than 50%) are issued for alcohol. Averages of three citations per year are issued for lack of PFD usage. Although the policy has been in place in LRP since 1990, a direct correlation to decreased fatalities is not clear. VII. SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE SURVEYS SUMMARY. A. In most cases the Corps of Engineers is not the primary enforcement agency on the waters that it manages. Either by statute or agreements state and other agencies provide primary enforcement capabilities on the water. Cooperative partners generally don't have the capacity to enforce Title 36 nor other Corps of Engineers restrictions under state or local statute or code. As such, the Corps of Engineers would implement any form of mandatory PFD wear without the enforcement cooperation of our partners until such time that state and local entities adopt similar codes for enforcement under their statutes. 13 It should also be noted that approximately 37% of Corps of Engineers owned water resource development projects have no rangers to provide enforcement of any aspects of Title 36. Additionally, at those projects where rangers do exist, 22% are staffed by only one ranger; 16% by 2 rangers; and 8% by 3 rangers. Only 16% of the Corps of Engineers projects listed have staffing of more than 3 personnel. Under Title 36, rangers have no arrest authority, but have the authority to issue collateral forfeiture citations. Collateral forfeiture schedules (dollar value for each violation) are set by the Federal Magistrate in the applicable district serving that water resource development project. Federal Magistrates enjoy a great deal of latitude in their interpretation and/or enforcement of Title 36, especially under Section 12 Restrictions, and there are inconsistencies in how Title 36 is enforced by them. Should the Corps of Engineers develop a new restriction; the courts will ultimately determine the effectiveness of prosecution of violators under this rule. B. Complete versions of all questionnaire results are available on the NRM Gateway. What follows is a summary of the primary concerns identified in those survey responses from district POCs and employees. 1. Enforcement a.100% of the District POC responses said the Corps alone does not have adequate staffing to enforce a mandate under Title 36, 327.12a, posted restrictions. 80% of 1,193 employees surveyed said the same. b. Corps average time of boat patrol during a busy week of the recreation season is 8-13 hours per week. Other agencies (i.e. States, Coast Guard, CG Auxiliary, local law enforcement) during same time period patrol an average of 28-34 hours per week. Patrols during non-recreation season drop to 2-3 hours per week for the Corps and 5-7 hours per week for other agencies. c. In order to adequately enforce a new Corps regulation 55% said it would require an additional 20 or more hours per week of boat patrol and 21% stated it would require 15-20 more hours per week. d. The types of program adjustments mentioned that would have to be made to accommodate an increase in boat patrol include reduced land-based patrols, reduced outreach/educational efforts, increase costs of equipment (boats) purchases, etc. e. 93% felt that if adopted, the Corps should allow a minimum of 1-year transition or warning period. Several commented that it may take more time than that. f. The majority of state agencies who patrol "Corps waters" do so under state laws, not Corps-issued agreements or contracts. g. When we asked respondents if the public would comply with a posted life jacket requirement even if we didn't have adequate enforcement, all of the District POCs said no. Only 12% of employees surveyed said yes people would comply, and 23% said maybe people would. 2. US Coast Guard a. The majority (97%) of District responses said it would be best if the USCG took the lead in this effort because states would likely follow or risk losing Federal funds. b. On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being negative and 10 being positive impacts 68% of District POCs and 53% of employees rated in the more positive (6-10) range if the USCG adopted a life jacket wear requirement. 88% of District POCs and 69% of employees rated (1-5) negative impact if the Corps adopted this policy. 14 3. Economic Impacts-Local Businesses/Partners/Stakeholders/Leaders a. 65% responded either yes or maybe we may see a negative impact on local businesses if we implemented a mandatory wear requirement b. 71% anticipate negative impact on partnerships c. Most anticipate that we may not have the support of Congress (69%), state legislatures (63%), or local politicians (59%) 4. Education and Outreach a. 54% of projects reporting do not work with local water safety councils b. 51% of field educational efforts are directed to elementary-aged children or younger, 23% middle school, 15% direct efforts towards high-school-aged. Only 11% direct their educational efforts to Young Adults (18-30) and 11% to Adults c. Within current staffing and funding capabilities, the level of educational & outreach efforts were reported as average (29%), above average (47%), or maximized (15%) 5. Opinions. Table 14 shows that the majority (62%) of District Engineers and Operations Chiefs, and 34.49% of Safety Chiefs do not support a life jacket mandate. However, the majority (65.51%) of Safety Office Chiefs support a life jacket mandate in some form, but only 31% of District Engineers and Operations Chiefs do. The most common condition mentioned in support of the "yes with conditions" option was if the US Coast Guard took the lead. District Engineers, Operations Chiefs, & Safety Chiefs support for implementation of a District regulation to Title 36, 327.12(a) that mandates life jacket wear? Yes Yes with conditions Support Total No No with conditions Do Not Support Total Not sure Not applicable # DE 4 5 9 16 2 18 2 5 % DE 13.79% 17.24% 31.03% 55.17% 6.90% 62.07% 6.90% #OD 4 5 9 17 1 18 4 3 %OD 13.79% 17.24% 31.03% 58.62% 3.45% 62.07% 13.79% #SO 9 10 19 8 2 10 1 4 %SO 31.03% 34.48% 65.51% 27.59% 6.90% 34.49% 3.45% Table 14 VIII. PARTNER REACTION. A. Those from outside the Corps of Engineers who attended the16 Nov 07 Interagency meeting to discuss this study proposal included Joseph Carro, US Coast Guard (USCG), Office of Boating Safety; Cindy Squares, National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA), Chief Counsel for Public Affairs; Matthew Long, National Association of State Boating Law Administrators (NASBLA), Director, Government Relations; Ruth Wood, National Safe Boating Council, Chair; Margaret Podlich, BoatUS; John Potts, US Coast Guard Auxiliary, Department Chief, Boating; Raphael Kozolchyk, Personal Watercraft Industry Association (PWIA); Gale Alls, US Power Squadron (USPS). 15 US Army Corps of Engineers attendees were Richard Wright, HQ Chief, Safety and Occupational Health; Jim Walker, HQ, Chief, Navigation; Steve Austin, Senior Policy Advisory for Park Ranger Activities; Karl Anderson, HQ Safety-Construction, Operations, and Training program manager; Lynda Nutt, Manager National Operations Center for Water Safety; Michael Tustin, Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (LRD), Safety Chief; Madeline Morgan, Chief, Safety, Ft. Worth District; Rachel Garren, Natural Resources Specialist, St. Louis District and Policy Advisor HQUSACE Water Safety Team; Charlie Burger, Deputy Chief, Operations, Ft. Worth District. B. In summary, partners expressed appreciation for being brought into this discussion early in the process. All were very concerned about this initiative because of negative repercussions due to inconsistencies and enforcement issues. BoatUS requested more data and would like to continue being involved with this initiative. NMMA suggested that even if we implement a regulation on a district by district basis it is critical for us to allow public comments. NASBLA said that 47 states have some form of boating education requirement. Their position is that uniformity is essential for law enforcement. It is a nightmare for them and for the public when agencies have inconsistencies in regulations. The Federal Boating Act is what they support. USPS said they support the "under 13 wear requirement" and they have no position on mandatory use. Their priority is to support boating educational initiatives. PWIA supports mandatory PFD wear on all personal watercraft, except they don't support inflatables. Also, they do not have a position on mandatory use for other vessels. USCG would like to see us extrapolate more data such as "under 13 fatalities" that could have been saved by wearing life jackets. USCGA supports the USCG in all their educational efforts. Further written correspondence from partners is posted on the NRM Gateway. IX. POTENTIAL OPTIONS. A. There were no set parameters for this study identifying what a life jacket requirement would entail. It should be noted that there are only two ways to implement changes to Title 36 that would be necessary to implement a life jacket mandate at any Corps project. One is for USACE to change Title 36 at the National level, which requires going through the Federal Register public review process. This along with other approval processes can take years to implement. We will not consider doing this until this study is completed. Another way is for a District Engineer to use his authority in Title 36, 12.a. to make additional regulations that apply only to their district or specific projects within their district. There is no authorized process to implement a Title 36 change from the MSC level. B. Those wanting to participate in the test phase of this study would need to determine parameters at their district in cooperation with members of the Life Jacket Mandate Study PDT. There was some discussion by the PDT about possible parameters. Below is a bullet list of options, starting with those requiring the least amount of effort, and the pros and cons for each option. 1. Mandatory PFD Loaner Program - HQ consistent policy on loaner boards. 2. Status Quo a. Pro o Can be performed within existing resource allocations. o Public reaction unchanged. b. Con o Fatality rate will most likely remain consistent. o Quantifying success is difficult. o Public reaction unchanged. 16 3. Increase education/awareness. a. Pro o Able to target high risk groups. o National awareness (professional) using major media. o Public reaction expected to be favorable. b. Con o May be expensive. (resource intensive) o Quantifying success is difficult. 4. Mandatory boater education training / licensing a. Pro o Trained and educated boaters aren't usually involved in accidents b. Con o This would need to be done at the state level to be the most effective. o Quantifying success is difficult. 5. Pittsburgh Example - Mandatory on boats less than 16 ft in length, all canoes and all nonswimmers a. Pro o Potential to reduce fatalities in the boating category. b. Con o Selective regulation to a small portion of the using public. Nationally we don't know how many boats on our lakes are less than 16'. We do not have statistics indicating accident rate specifically for these vessels? o Expected negative public reception for this user group. o Quantifying success is difficult. (CE doesn't require statistical breakdown based on boat size). 6. Mandatory on all watercraft not carrying passengers for hire while underway. (option - at all times) a. Pro o Potential to reduce fatalities in boating category. o Quantifying success should be achievable. b. Con o May leave out fishing guides operating "undercover". o Would eliminate tour boats/ferries. o From a resource perspective, trade education for enforcement. o Relocation of recreational opportunities from CE controlled waters to one less restrictive. o Expected negative public reception for this user group. 7. Mandatory on all watercraft while underway. (option - at all times) May have to make allowances for houseboats - tour boats. a. Pro o Potential to reduce fatalities. o Quantifying success should be achievable. 17 b. Con o From a resource perspective, trade education for enforcement. o Relocation of recreational opportunities from CE controlled waters to one less restrictive. o Expected negative public reception for this user group. 8. Mandatory for any time someone is on/in the water, to include those swimming outside designated swimming areas (sub-option require only those under age 13). a. Pro o Potential to reduce fatalities from the highest risk behavior--swimming. o Quantifying success should be achievable. b. Con o From a resource perspective, trade education for enforcement. o Relocation of recreational opportunities from CE controlled waters to one less restrictive. o Expected negative public reception for this user group. o Concerns that we may increase our liability for fatalities within the designated areas, especially since we don't have lifeguards and often no rescue equipment at designated swim areas. X. SUMMARY. A Life Jacket Mandate Study was initiated at the request of USACE Director of Civil Works, MG Don Riley, in April 2007, to analyze the impacts and benefits of establishing a Federal regulation under Title 36, CFR 327 that would require members of the public to wear a life jacket while recreating on Corps waters. The study, led by the HQUSACE National Operation Center for Water Safety, was conducted in-house by a product delivery team (PDT) comprised of a variety of recreation and safety managers from Corps headquarters, division, district and lake staffs. The PDT used data collected from a district questionnaire, an employee survey on the Corps NRM Gateway web site, interagency discussions and written comments, fatality and accident report statistics, general comments from field leadership, and self-analysis of current national educational materials and programming to determine their final recommendations for MG Riley. On 28 February 2008, the PDT briefed MG Riley with their findings. Based on information gathered, the PDT's recommendation was to not change Title 36 to establish a regulation requiring life jacket wear on Corps waters at this time. The PDT recommended that the Corps continue to support U.S. Coast Guard's life jacket wear initiatives and to aggressively pursue voluntary wear of life jackets through targeted public education actions, life jacket loaner programs and increased partnerships. MG Riley decided to defer his decision on establishing a policy until additional information can be gathered. Specifically, he requested that the PDT identify districts willing to conduct a field test exercise in which the life jacket wear requirement is applied and monitored for effectiveness. This Interim Report only summarizes the first inquiry stage of the life jacket mandate study prior to the initiation of a field test. New initiatives are often put into place without giving thought to the long term determination of the degree of success of that imitative. The obvious benefit of a mandatory PFD requirement could be the potential to save lives and reduce drowning incidences on Corps of Engineers waters. Unknown would be the public's reception toward a new rule, the extent of voluntary compliance, and the actual reduction of the number of fatalities as a result of the rulemaking. Also unknown would be the visitation and fiscal impacts that may result from the public relocating to other recreational opportunities as a result of the rulemaking. Determining the degree of success would involve consistent data collection across all affected Corps of Engineers districts. 18 During the preparation of this study, it was noted that archival data concerning Corps of Engineers public fatalities was not available in a reliable automated and consistent format. This and future examinations of this issue is reliant on accurate, consistent and relatively complete information. XI. LIFE JACKET STUDY PRODUCT DELIVERY TEAM (PDT) PARTICIPANTS. Lynda Nutt, Manager, National Operations Center (NOC) for Water Safety Stephen Austin, Senior Policy Advisor for Park Ranger Activities, CECW-CO-N Rachel Garren, Policy Advisor Water Safety NOC, Natural Resources Specialist, CEMVS Brenda Warren, Public Safety Program, CESO Kareem El-Naggar, Assistant Chief of Operations, CELRD Kevin Paff, Natural Resources Specialist, CENWD Michael Tustin, Chief, Safety and Occupational Health, CELRD Gary King, Chief, Safety and Occupational Health, CESAD Charles Burger, Assistant Chief of Operations, CESWF Madeline Morgan, Chief, Safety and Occupational Health, CESWF Joe Ferguson, Safety Specialist, CESPK Dwight Beall, Operations Project Manager, CENAB, Raystown Lake 19 APPENDIX PITTSBURGH DISTRICT SUMMARY Pittsburgh District Baseline 2008 Test Years 2009-2011 Test observation lakes: Shenango River Lake (B) Youghiogheny River Lake (1) Control lakes: Tygart Lake (D) Berlin Lake (E) Measurements: Measurement Man-hours for policy patrol Wear Rates (overall average) Congressional Inquiries Public letters/emails Water-related fatalities Visitation Warnings issued (verbal/written) Citations issued Baseline 2008 Test 2009 Test 2010 Test 2011 3,184 3.3% 0 0 3 5908395 44 2,120 3.7% 0 0 2 5690986 45 2,452 Not recorded 0 0 3 5814499 37 2,132 Not recorded 0 0 3 5531988 15 9 25 31 27 Project Description For the purposes of the HQUSACE Life Jacket Policy Study, Pittsburgh District reporting was limited to two western Pennsylvania lakes where life jacket policies had been previously established. Life jacket wear rates observations were conducted on the Youghiogheny River Lake and Shenango River Lake (both in western Pennsylvania), and the Corps' Berlin Lake (in Ohio) and Tygart Lake (in West Virginia) served as control lakes. Study Methodology Life jacket policy was not a new concept to the recreation managers of Pittsburgh District, in that the District Commander had authorized life jackets policies for occupants of all canoes, kayaks and boats under 16 feet in length and for non-swimmers back in FY90. Those policies along with alcohol bans in recreation areas were instrumental in reducing public fatalities in that region from a cumulative annual average of 4.57 fatalities during the 23 years prior to enactment to a cumulative annual average of 2.45 fatalities over the 22 year period since being established. Additionally, in 1995, the PA Fish and Boat Commission adopted these same policies for each of the nine Pittsburgh District lakes in Pennsylvania so that they could also provide enforcement. Because of prior unique and independent actions in the arenas of alcohol bans and mandatory life jacket policy, Pittsburgh District was reluctant to change or revisit their long standing practice for purposes of the current National Life Jacket Policy Study. Nevertheless, Pittsburgh District staff agreed to participate in the National Life Jacket Policy Study as a blind control reference of Corps lakes where a mandatory wear policy was already long established. Pittsburgh District's policy requiring life jackets has been in place since 1990 and was implemented under Title 36, CFR 327.12(a), Posted Restrictions. It continues to be enforced as a posted restriction today. Specifically, the posted restriction requires life jackets for: o Everyone on board all boats less than 16 feet in length, all canoes, all kayaks and all nonswimmers. For the purposes of this study, project and district staffs continued their routine business, and did not make significant changes in preparation for or during the test phase of the National Life Jacket Policy Study. It was their position that there was no need for fresh notifications to local congressional offices, media or members of the public, since the Pittsburgh District policy would remain unchanged and had already been well established and familiar to regular visitors to the regulated waters; and staff efforts to advise local authorities and stakeholders had already been dealt with when the policy was first established in the early 1990's. While district and lake staff did actively engage in water safety outreach throughout the current study period, educational efforts did not include any heightened emphasis or information related to the National Life Jacket Policy Study. Related to Pittsburgh District's inclusion as a blind control, there was an original US Coast Guard intention to have JSI conduct wear observations in Pittsburgh District for the full three years of the Life Jacket Policy Study. However, disappointed by low wear rates and perceived lack of enforcement of the standing policies by both Corps park rangers and State law enforcement agents, USCG announced that they would not continue wear observation work in Pittsburgh District. Despite the NOC's efforts to encourage USCG to stay through the full three-year period, once Pittsburgh District made it clear that they were not willing to make changes to its pre-existing mandatory wear policy or enforcement efforts, USCG stood by their decision and ended the JSI observations in that region. This action left a substantial information gap on the Pittsburgh District test lakes, given that the wear rate observations proved to be a valuable tool in measuring success of failure of the policies. Other measurement data continued to be provided by Pittsburgh District staff. Study Outreach More information on the early outreach effort history of the Pittsburgh District mandatory wear policy and alcohol restrictions can be found in Appendices attached to this summary. Enforcement Efforts Park ranger staffs at Pittsburgh District lakes have long enforced their District life jacket policies under Rules and Regulations Governing Public Use of Water Resource Development Projects Administered by the Chief of Engineers, Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Parks, Forests and Public Property, specifically 327.12a Posted Restrictions since 8 May 1990 (see Appendices). The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, through adoption of the Pittsburgh District policy in 1995, also have the authority to enforce using state regulations on the District's nine lakes in Pennsylvania. Neither Corps nor state game agents made any significant changes to their enforcement efforts as a result of the National Life Jacket Policy Study. During the test period, park rangers at Pittsburgh District lakes in PA, OH and WV logged approximately 2472 hours of boat patrol each recreation season, writing a total of 141 warnings and 92 citations as reported in OMBIL for violations under 327.12a Restrictions. Pittsburgh does not keep records of verbal warnings nor of the breakdown of written warnings or citations issued under 327.12a Restrictions and it should be noted that these actions may have involved either life jacket violations or possession of alcohol violations or a combination of the two. Other Water Safety Efforts For three years prior to 2008, Pittsburgh District reported having practically eliminated all water safety education and enforcement efforts dating back to a Reduction in Force there in 2004. Subsequently, seasonal and summer staffing was restored in 2008 as a result of an LRD water safety initiative. As part of that initiative, over the four year period from 2008 to 2011, Pittsburgh District purchased new replacement patrol boats for each of its fifteen lake projects and annually hired 24 temporary summer park rangers to assist with water safety education and boat patrol enforcement efforts. The number of boat patrol hours increased from zero (0) in 2007 to an average of 2,500 during the 2008 to 2011 period. Annual public on and off site water safety direct interpretive contacts reported in 2008 numbered 1,154; during 2009, 124 reported direct contacts were made ; in 2010, 15,228 direct contacts; and in 2011, 336 were reported, according to information pulled from their OMBIL reports. District employees also performed 18 water rescues and assisted 155 distressed boaters. Ten life jacket loaner stations were installed and 38 boat ramps and 11 courtesy docks were stenciled with life jacket "wear it" messages. The Pittsburgh District also implemented a new water safety communications strategy in collaboration with the Pittsburgh Pirates Baseball Club that included PFD "wear it" water safety messages on Pittsburgh Pirate T-shirt giveaways, water safety videos involving Corps, State, USCG and Pittsburgh Pirate team members broadcast on the scoreboard and ROOT Sports network for each home game, and life jacket "wear it" messages on electronic billboards in various locations in the region Sample interpretive water safety sign used on electronic billboards in Pittsburgh District. Visitation Visitation in the Pittsburgh District fluctuated slightly during the baseline and three-year test period, with 5,908,409 visits in 2008; 5,784,401 in 2009; 5,814,486 in 2010; and 5,549,945 in 2011. The two test projects show a slight decrease in visits between the same time periods. The high at Shenango was in FY10 at 584,728 and that went down in FY11 to 459,785. The high at Youghiogheny was in FY09 at 493,654 and it has steadily decreased to 449,622 in FY11. Pittsburgh District (LRP)Visitation FY08-11 7,000,000 6,000,000 Visits 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 - 2008 2009 2010 2011 Shenango 448,388 531,487 584,728 459,785 Youghiogheny 483,205 493,654 451,471 449,622 LRP Test Lakes Total 931,593 1,025,141 1,036,199 909,407 5,908,395 5,784,401 5,814,486 5,549,945 LRP total Public Comment Pittsburgh District does not typically receive any recurring public comment on its mandatory wear policy since the initial flurry of interest when its restrictions were first adopted twenty-three year ago and the district did not publicize that a National Life Jacket Policy Study was being conducted elsewhere on select Corps lakes. Effects on Staff All Pittsburgh District actions during the study period were related to the district and LRD water safety initiatives and were independent of the national study. The Pittsburgh District did not alter or initiate any specific actions as part of the Life Jacket Policy Study. The Pittsburgh District's inclusion in this study is only to provide a blind control consisting of a set of Corps Lakes with a now 23 year history of having a mandatory life jacket wear restriction in place. Conclusions: Pittsburgh District Wear rate observations captured on Pittsburgh District's western Pennsylvania lakes where life jacket policies have been in place since 1990 showed surprisingly low numbers of around 3%, well under the national average for voluntary wear rate of about 8%. Pittsburgh District reports active patrols and enforcement efforts from both park ranger and state agent patrols, but effectiveness of such efforts are not reflected in the scientific findings. The Pittsburgh District experience suggests that policy can lose its effect if allowed to go stale and not kept current to evolving recreational use; i.e., in Pittsburgh District staff indicate significantly fewer boats under 16 feet in length on its lakes today versus twenty three years ago with the exception of jet skis. Patrol efforts are spent dealing with watercraft of larger size, resulting in fewer contacts for enforcement the District's established life jacket policy. There is no life jacket wear requirement for vessels 16' and larger. Despite low life jacket wear rates among smallcraft boaters, the Pittsburgh District experience also demonstrates a sustained lower level of annual fatalities, resulting from adoption of its mandatory wear and alcohol restrictions regardless of varying levels of visitor education or enforcement efforts over time. The rate of fatalities since adoption of special restrictions has remained consistently lower at approximately 2.45 annual fatalities at district lakes versus the 4.57 annual fatalities at those same district lakes over a similar period prior to adoption. USACE and the USCG should consider review of the Pittsburgh District record and its applicability to current day water based recreation fatalities experienced on their waters. 17 May 1990 flgpur . FOR AREA RESOURCE MANAGERS AND PRGJECT MANAGERS SUBJECT: Pereonal ?loatation Device Regulatien Requiring that Must Be warn by All People on Boarfi All Boats Less Than 15 Feet in Length, All Canoes and All Non-Swimmers 1. The statue of the subject regulation is as follows: a. The new regulation was approved by Lieutenant Colonel William D. Roudabueh, Dietrict Engineer, on 8 May 1990 (see enclosure b. Letters to Federal legislators and State beating law administrators were sent out on 11 May 1990 {see enclosure c. A Diatrictwwide press release was sent out to all newepapere on 15 May 1990 (see enclosure d. signs are being made at Loyalhanna sign shoe and will be distributed to all prejects for immediate installation. The new sign is of the same size of the youth PFD signs already installed at all projects. Remove the youth PFD signs and replace with the new PFD requirement signs (see enclosure e. A 4" Bel/2" two~sided flyer in being printed now for availability prior to Memorial flay weekend, 25-23 May 1990 enclosure f. A 17" 22" poster is being printed new for availability prior to Memorial Day {see enclosure 6). 2. Every effort should be made to educate the public as to the need for this type of regulation through personal contacts, camp fire pregrame, ccdew awphone messages, handing out flyers and an boat patrol schedule. I have enclosed additional resource materials concerning the importance of wearing PPD: for you re become familiar with, to enable you to cenvey the rationale behind this regulation to the visiting public {see enclosure 7). Good luck! Pic. Qfmgu? Encle PETER A. as Shief; fiaterel Reeoerce Kanagement Branch GREAT LAKES AND OHIO RIVER DIVISION PITTSBURGH DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT OF A BAN ON ALCOHOL BEVERAGES AT PITTSBURGH DISTRICT FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS 3 July 20fl1 or LRP ALCOHO anus TAB 1 Summary of procedures for establishing alcohol bans in the Pittsburgh District TAB 2 Memo from OED Division Commander, Dated 11 December 1935, supporting alcohol bans on land and water surfaces of Corps flood control projects TAB 3 Procedures for establishing alcohol bans at Pittsburgh District flood control projects TAB 4 Memo dated 1 May 1986, signed by District Engineer, approving establishment of alcohol bans at all Corps flood control projects in the Pittsburgh District TAB 5 Samples of letters to Congressional elements and sample news releases TAB 5 Chronological listing of alcohol ban implementation in the Pittsburgh District TAB Memo dated 3 June 1937, signed by Chief, Natural Resources Management Branch. Operations and Readiness Division, Pittsburgh District, establishing alcohol bans on all Corps flood control projects, to include lake surfaces TAB Hemoranda and supporting Statements of Findings for each flood control project prohibiting alcoholic beverages CEORP--OR--R 1 June 1995 ALCOHOL.BAN ALCOHOL BAN WITHIN THE PITTSBURGH DISTRICT 1. During the late 1970's the Pittsburgh District, like most Corps Districts, experienced increased incidents of disorderly conduct, public assaults, public accidents, drownings, increased litter, vandalism, and a general lack of a family atmosphere at its Corps managed recreation areas. 2. After a thorough analysis it became readily apparent that these increasing problems were due to the prevalence of alcohol at our projects. Since Title 36 CFR, Part 327 did not prohibit or in any way regulate the use of alcoholic beverages, and chic and prohibited alcohol in their parks, many of our visitors were primarily coming to our parks so that they had an outdoor setting in which to consume alcohol. Participation in legitimate recreation activities was secondary in their reasons for visiting our parks. 3. at the start of the 1981 recreation season the District implemented an alcohol restriction at three of its fifteen projects. Because of the success of the restriction and the positive public reception, this restriction was later expanded to include all the District's projects in 1986. 4. The following procedures or steps were taken in establishing the alcohol ban in the Pittsburgh District. a. a Statement of Findings was prepared to document the authority for imposing the ban, to identify the existing situation, and to clearly state the justification for the restriction. b. after the Statement of Findings was reviewed and found acceptable a memo was prepared presenting the findings to the District Commander for his approval- The memo was originated by the Natural Resource Management Branch and routed through the Chief of OR and Office of Counsel. c. after approval by the Commander, letters were sent to Senators and Congressmen within the District. These letters reiterated the Statement of Findings and explained the District's position for imposing the restriction. As a courtesy these letters were sent out before a news release was sent to the media. d. a draft news release was sent to PAD after the congressional letters were sent out. e. appropriate signs were procured and instructions were sent to the field regarding the enforcement of the restriction. 5. At some projects local governments passed ordinances prohibiting alcohol at public recreation areas so that local police also had the authority to enforce the restriction. A combination of Title 35 enforcement and local police enforcement made the restriction even more effective. 6. There is no question that the alcohol restriction has increased visitor safety and reduced management problems at our projects. Families returned to our campgrounds and day use areas. The number of drownings decreased and incidents of vandalism and the littering of beverage containers greatly declined. . .- OF THE . owro DIVISION. cones or encaweens P.o.eox1iss new.-r TO AITENTIDN OF oeoco-on 11 BEG SUBJECT: Public Safety at Civil works erojects CDBUSACE 20 Mass. Ave., N.H. HASH DC 20314-1000 1. In response to your letter of 18 april 1255, subject as above, the Ohio River Division Plan to Prevnn: Public Fatalities and status of actions to date is enclosed. 2. Through several studies within the division, detailed in the enclosed plan and status report, we have identified four priority actions that would efifectively curb the number one cause of public fatalities--drowning. They are prohibit alcohol, require PFD's be worn by boaters when underway, restrict swimming to designated areas and increase public awareness and education of water safiety. We firmly believe implementation of these actions will save lives. However, unprecedented support by HQUSACE is essential to fully implement these actions. Our objective in presenting the following actions to HQUSACE is to emphasize that a new look at Corps policies is needed if the number of public fatalities is to be substantially reduced. a. Prohibit alcohol on all Corps projects (including the lake surface}. since most drownings involve alcohol, this one restriction can significantly reduce our public fatalities. .with the current emphasis on enforcement of laws against drunk driving, now may be the best time to address the same problem on our late surfaces. an alternative would be to ban alcohol in recreation areas only. while this will help reduce the problem. it would have less influence on reduction of water related fatalities. 5- Require that all children under wear a PFD while in a boat underway on project waters. A similiar law has been successfully adopted by the State of Ohio. This regulation would serve to increase water safiety awareness by children and adults and over time could lead to regulations requiring PFD use by all boat occupants when underway. c. Investigate the political possibilities of amending Public Law B9--72 and current cost sharing policies to allow the construction of swimming beaches at 109 percent Federal expense in the interest of public safety and wel1~being. If this can be done, consider the merits vs. liabilities of restricting swimming to designated swimming areas. If all-. it lentil ref; fits' ORDCO-DR SUBJECT: Public Safety at Civil Works Projects 11 DEC E05 d. Expand the'$6 million dollar authority for cooperative law enforcement agreements to permit contracting for increased water safety patrols. with current FTE's, we cannot effectively patrol the lake surface to enforce the additional rules needed to reduce drownings. e. (bnduct a nationwide public affairs water safety campaign, targeted at youthful males, using well--known personalities. 3- WE imP1Em9fitEd Same 05 these xecommendrtions on a case-byecase basis as described in the enclosed plan. as a result, public fatalities in OED have been reduced from a three--year average of ED fatalities, with a frequency of .11 per million recreation days of use, to 54 deaths in E5 {frequency of" we believe a frequency_rate of .50 is attainable with HQUSACE support. 4. we E1rmly.helieve futher major reductions in public fatalities throughout the Corps can only be accomplished with the suggested policy changes. The Ohio River Division is willing to conduct a broader pilot test of any of the recommended actions. We thin: tt"t at last we have a handle on the methods and the resource commitments needed to save lives. with the proposed policy changes and the additional personnel resources to implement them, substantial progress in reducing tragic loss of life can finally be obtained. OHIO RIVER DIVISION PITTSBURGH DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT OF A BAN ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Procedures For Establishing Ban Statement of findings {By Eroject and District Office) Authority {Title 35, CFR. PART Restrictions) and discusses existing prob1em(s) findings and recommendations Approval by Commander from Chief OH--R with statement of finding enclosed ~~Approval by Commander Pub lic Involveznent Notification of District Congressional Elements from DE to District Congressional elements >>--Letters sent before news releases News Releases sent to all appropriate news media ~--Announces date of implementation and 30 day warning period Implementation of Alcohol Ban posted day verbal and written warning period wupost-implementation enforcement via Title 35, CFR (verbal and written warnings and citiations) and assistance of local police. 252.. 'ii. URPUR--R 14 May 85 Turak/jsf419l FTS F22-4191 OHIO RIVER DIVISION PITTSBURGH DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT OF A BAN UN ALEGHDLIC The following procedures or steps were taken in establishing alcohol bans at FITTSEUFEH DISTRICT Flood Control Projects. These same procedures can also be used to develop District Regula- tions falling under Title 35, EFR. Statement of Findings The Statement of Findings is used to document the authority for imposing the restriction, identify the existing situation, discuss the problem and present the findings. Sample Statement of Findings are inclosed. The headings are as follows: 1. 2. AREAS UNDER 3. RESTRICTIDH UNDER EUHSIDERATIUH: 4. 5. EXISTING 5. 7. FINDINGS. The above is supplied by the project is) seeking the restriction, and should be as detailed as possible. Approval By The Commander After the Statement of Findings is reviewed and found acceptable, a EF is prepared presenting the findings to the District Commander for his approval. A Sample DF is inclosed. The BF is originated by the Chief of NRME and routed through Office of Counsel and Chief, Operations and Readiness Division. GMT 2 is prepared for the Commander's signature. Notification of District Congressional Elements after approval by the Commander, letters are sent to Senators and Congressmen within the District. These letters reiterate the Statement of Findings and explain our position in imposing the particular Restriction. A5 a courtesy. these letters are sent out before a news release is sent to the media. This is necessary so that our representatives are aware of our actions before being reported in the media. UHID RIVER DIVISION PITTSBURGH DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT or"n one LIC eevennoss page 2 of 2 News Release A draft news release is sent to FAQ after the congressional letters are sent out. The Statement of Finflings and text from the congressional letters can be used to develop the draft news release. Follow--Up Appropriate signs shoe'. -roered and instructions sent to the field regarding the enforcement of the restriction imposed. Additional Information on alcohol Restrictions Also inclosed is a 11 Dec 85 letter to DEE from BG Peter J. Offringa, Uhio River Division Eommander, recommending a prohibi-_ tion of Alcoholic Beverages on all Corps projects including the lake surface. flreffixno Ls' rust-osrruon FORM I-II-I Ill form, In Ml 31045'. |:-tbpononr agency in aereaeucs on ornce 5rHfiOL Efloafi?r Banning of Alcoholic Beverages at Pittsburgh District Flood Control Projects are FROM ogre GMT1 THRU: ya,-5% ORPCIR :31 Hay 1986 TD: Chief, Operations Reed1ness#?9 In: District Gommender 1. The problems described in the attached Statements of Findings concerning the imposition of prohibition of alcoholic beverages at Pittsburgh District Flood Control projects are adversely affecting the public health, wealfiere and safety. maintenance in certain areas, and protection of Government and private property. 2. The alcohol ban will be enforced at the following projects: Kinrua Dam Allegheny Reservoir, Woodcock Creek Lake, Union City Dam, Tioneste Lake, Mosquito Lake, M.J. Kirwen Dem Reservoir, Tygert Lake, Stonewall Jackson Lake, Mahoning Creek Lake. Loyelhanne Lake end Conemeugh Lske. Alcohol bans are presently in force at Berlin. Youghiogheny.Shenengo, East Branch and Crooked Creek Lakes. 3. For the.above reasons, the following actions concerning the imposition of a ban on alcoholic beverages at the Pittsburgh District projects will be taken. a. Each area will be posteo with signs that read "Alcoholic Eeverasfifi Pr0hibitEd"- b. Enforcement actions under the authority of Title 36. CPR, Chapter Section 32?.12a for 30 days etter public notice will consist of verbal warnings. filfig fit'; ishllifafll' fiubiflfi. H'-'Jud; 5,4,4 rsdanw-ale on 5 Atchs PETER A. CDLANGELB Chief, Natural Resources Management Branch CF: PAD Safety URPDE (ORPDR-RIOI May 36) I H. T0 Chief, Uper 5. Readiness Div. reo oeroe one may 36 Cm 2 ATTH: Approved. I Colonel, Command no res>> -Mina - CEURP-03-5 SUBJECT: Banning of alcoholic Beverages on the Waters of Pittsburgh District Flood control Projects - CHI 1 4. This BF establishes a District policy prohibiting the consumption, use, and presence of all alcoholic beverages on developed and undeveloped recreation areas and lake surfaces at rittsburgh District flood control projects. Violators of this prohibition will be cited-under Title 36, CFR, Section 32?.l2A Restrictions. 5. Since all project areas have been posted with "alcoholic beverages prohibited" signs, additional signing may not he necessary. after a 30--day imlenentation period, enforcement action will consist of verbal andfor written warnings. Repeat offenders will he cited. This prohibition goes into effect on July 193?. FUIZ. PETE A. CDLANGELD chief, Natural Resource Hanagement Branch FORM pg, 9! gm; harm, you All 310-15:11-In ore-none.-It tuner 41 '[160. on ornce svuaou. Banning of Alcoholic Beverages on the Waters cEoay--oa-g of Pittsburgh District Flood Control Frojects 70 All Facility Managers, CEDELF-OF.-R 3 June 3? cm: Resource Managers. and Mr. Turakfjk/?191 Area Resource Managers 1. Reference the following: a. 1 May 1936, Subject: Banning Pittsburgh District Flood Control Drojects. of Alcoholic Beverages at b. ORPOP-R, 29 Hay 1985, Subject: East branch Lake. Banning of Alcoholic Beverages at c. DRPOP-R, 31 March 1932, Subject: Crooked Creek Lake. Banning of Alcoholic Beverages at d. DRPUP-R, 27 Hay 1931, Subject: Yonghioghenv Lake. Banning of Alcoholic Beverages at e. 21 Hay 1981, Subject: Banning of Alcoholic Beverages at Shenango River lake. - E. 21 Hay 1981, subject: Banning of Alcoholic Beverages at Berlin Lake. 3. 11 December 1935, Subject: Public Safety and Civil Horks Projects. 2. References 1a through If above initiated bane on alcohol at District flood control projects. All bans are supported by a separate "Statement of Findings" submitted for each project. Congressional elements were notified and the prohibi- tions were publicized through news releases. The bans are effective and continue to be a coin factor in eliminating problems associated with erratic behavior at our recreation areas. 3- Several studies Within the Ohio River Division conclude that prohibiting alcohol on all projects including the lake surface can significantly reduce public fatalities since most drownings involve alcohol. In a 11 December 1935 letter to CED USAGE, General Offringe reported that the "Ohio River Division ?lan to Prevent Public Fatalities" recooends prohibiting alcohol on all Corps projects including the lake surfaces. DA 2435 FHEVIUUS EDITIONS W1I.I.. 8E U553 "TI1fi.'? Hr>> SAMPLE LETTER. To cord 6 eess en: Hay 5, 1986 Honorable House of Representatives Longworth House Office Bldg. Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Mr. This letter is to inform you of a prohibition on the consumption, use and presence of alcoholic .everages at all Corps of nngineers Water Resource Development Projects. This prohibition applies to all Corps-operated camping, pic- nicking, boat launching, outflow areas, other day use areas and parking lots associated with these areas and any undeveloped areas at the project. In the past, permitted use of alcohol on project lands has resulted in citations written for problems which could have been avoided. In mos: cases, the individuals involved were intoxicated and were extremely difficult to reason with. Project Resource Managers have received complaints every recreation season about beer parties, underage drinking, and loud, boisterous behavior by individuals who sometimes monopolize portions of day use areas and parking lots. This behavior discourages other members of the public from using the Corps developed and undeveloped recreation areas. It has been estimated that alcohol is involved in at least 50 percent of all drownings and is a major cause of death in recreational boating accidents. Permitting alcohol has also resulted in a litter problem and hazard to the public because numerous broken beer bottles and rusty - -cans are found along the shoreline where visitors recreate. . 1 and Ohio State Parks' rules and regulations do not permit alcohol. We feel the present abuse directed toward the facili- ties, project personnel and the public can be-stghificantly reduced if alcoholic beverages are also prohibited in Corps areas. Presently there are such prohibitions in place at Berlin Lake in Ohio, Shenango Lake in and Lake in and Maryland and Crooked Creek Lake and East Branch Clarion River Lake in The prohibitions will be extenaed to the following Pittsburgh District ?rojects and will at to all Corps-operated portions of these projects including endear] Qonemaugh River Lake, Hahoning Creek Lake, Tionesta Lake, Woodcock Creek Lake, Union City Dee, and Loyelhanna Lake in Mosquito Creek Lake and Michael J. Kirwan in Ghio; Kinzua Dan and Allegheny Reservoir in and New York; and Stonewall Jackson Lake and Tygart Lake in West Virginia. During June, project personnel will be warning visitors about the ban. Beginning July 1, use of appropriate signs, verbal and written warnings, citations and assistance of local law enforcement agencies will be used to enforce this regulation. Violators may be required to appear for a hearing before a United States Magistrate. The purpose of the ban is to consider the public interest by pro- viding the public with safe and enjoyable recreation opportunities while protecting and enhancing these resources." Sincerely, Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer EAMDLE I News ALCOHOL PROHIBITED AT CORPS OF ENGINEERS LAKE PROJECTS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES HILL BE PROHIBITED AT ALL CORPS OF ENGINEERS OPERATED RECREATION AREAS, ACCORDING TO COL. RICHARD ROTHBLUM, DISTRICT ENGINEER FOR THE PITTSBURGH DISTRICT. THIS RULING. EFFECTIVE AS OF MIDNIGHT. OUL. I, 1985, HILL PROHIBIT THE CONSUMPTION, USE AND PRESENCE OF ALL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. THE ROTHBLUM SAID, USE OF ALCOHOL ON PROJECT LANDS HAS RESULTED IN CITATIONS HRITTEN FOR PROBLEMS NHICH COULD HAVE BEEN AVDIDED. IN MOST INDIVIDUALS HERE INTOXICATED AND HERE EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO REASON HE ADDED THAT THERE ARE ALSO COMPLAINTS EVERY RECREATION SEASON ABOUT BEER PARTIES, UNDERAEE DRINKING, AND LOUD AND BOISTEROUS BEHAVIOR BY INDIVIDUALS HHO MONOPOLIZE PORTIONS OF DAY USE AREAS AND PARKING LOTS. THIS BEHAVIOR OISCOURAGES THE PUBLIC FROM USING CORPS DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED CORPS RECREATION AREAS. IT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED THAT ALCOHOL IS INVOLVED IN AT LEAST SOS OF ALL DROHNINGS AND IS A MAJOR CAUSE OF DEATH IN RECREATIONAL BOATING ACCIDENTS. ROTHBLUM SAID, ALSO RESULTED IN A LITTER PROBLEM AND HAZARDS TO THE PUBLIC BECAUSE NUMEROUS BROKEN BEER BOTTLES AND RUSTY CANS ARE FOUND ALONG THE SHORELINE WHERE VISITORS PRESENTLY THERE ARE SUCH PRDHIBITIONS IN PLACE AT BERLIN LAKE IN OHIO, SHENANGO LAKE IN AND OHIO, YOUGHIDGHENY LAKE IN AND MARYLAND AND CROOKED CREEK LAKE AND EAST BRANCH CLARION RIVER LAKE IN THE PROHIBITIONS HILL BE EXTENDED TO THE FOLLOWING PITTSBURGH DISTRICT PROJECTS AND HILL APPLY TO ALL PORTIONS OF THESE INCLUDING UNDEVELOPED AREAS: CONEMAUGH RIVER LANE, MAHONING CREEK TIDNESTA LAKE, HDODCOCK CREEK LANE. UNION CITY DAN, AND LDYALHANNA LAKE IN MOSQUITO AND MICHAEL J. KIRNAN IN OHIO: KINZUA DAN AND ALLEGHENY RESERVOIR IN AND NEH YORK: AND STONENALL JACKSON LAKE NEST VIRGINIA. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES HILL PROHIBITED AT EORPS CAMPING, PICNICKING, BOAT LAUNCHING, OUTFLON AREAS, OTHER DAV USE AREAS AND PARKING LOTS ASSOCIATED NITH THESE AREAS AND ANY UNDEVELOPED AREAS AT THE PROJECT. FEDERAL REGULATIONS ALLON A DISTRICT ENGINEER TO CLOSE OR RESTRICT THE USE OF A CORPS PROJECT OR PORTIONS OF A PROJECT NHEN NECESSITATED .BV REASON OF HEALTH, PUBLIC SAFETY, MAINTENANCE OR OTHER REASONS HE FEELS ARE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST. THE AND OHIO STATE RULES AND REGULATIONS DO NOT PERHIT ALCOHOL. ROTHBLUN FEELS THAT THE PRESENT ABUSE DIRECTED TONARDS FACILITIES, PROJECT PERSONNEL AND THE PUBLIC CAN BE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED IF ALCOHOLIC ARE ALSO PROHIBITED IN CORPS AREAS. IS THE POLICY OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO CONSIDER THE PUBLIC INTEREST EV PROVIDING THE PUBLIC NITH SAFE AND EHJOVABLE RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES NHILE PROTECTING AND ENHANCING THESE ROTHBLUN SAID. DURING JUNE, PROJECT PERSONNEL WILL BE NARNING VISITORS ABOUT THE BAN. BEGINNING JULY 1, USE OF APPROPRIATE SIGNS. VERBAL AND NRITTEN NARNINGS, CITATIONS AND ASSISTANCE OF LOCAL LAN ENFORCEMENT WILL BE USED TO ENFORCE THIS NEH REGULATION. VIDLATORS BE REQUIRED TO APPEAR FOR A HEARING BEFORE A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE. Establishment of a ban of alcoholic beverages-at Pittsburgh District Flood Control Projects. 21 May 1951 -- 2? May 1931 -- 31 Hatch 1982 29 May 1985 - 01 May 1935 - Shenango River Lake Berlin Lake Ynughiogheny River Lake Crooked Creek Lake East Branch Lake Kinzua Dam, Woodcock, Union City. Tinnesta, Hnsquito, Layalhanna, Cnnemaugh, H.J. Kirwan, Tygart, Stonewall Jackson, Mahoning . DISPOSITION FORM For an 0! IN: him In Al Ml-Tl. Ifbn nu-uni spur In urun-u:: an ounce mung': Banning of Alcoholic Beverages at Shenango River Lake. . IE CRT THRU: Office of Counselfi; 'Rn" Chief, Opera Div 21 May 31 TD: Bistrict Engineer . Turakf68TO 1. The problems described in the attached "Statement of Findings Concerning an Imposition of a Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverages at Shenango Lake, Pittsburgh District" are adveralv affecting the public health, welfare and safety, main- tenonce in certain areas, and protection of government and private property. 2. For the above reasons, the following action concerning the imposition of a ban on alcoholic beverages at Shenango Lake-will be taken: a- Each area will he posted with signs that read - "Alcoholic Beverages Prohibited". . h. Enforcement actions under the authority of Title 36, GEE, Chaper Section 327.12 for 30 days after public notice has been given, will consist of verbal warnings. c. efter the initial 30 days implementation period, enforcement action will consist of verbal and/or written warning. Repeat offenoers will he cited. WILLIAM H. COMES Chief, Dperation Div incl as ORPOP-R (21 May 31) thief, Opera Div FROM: District Engineer DATE: 21 May 81 CME 2 ATTN: 0RPDP--R Afiproved. District Engineer DA Form I-I, an ouon.t.'rI. 1 Statement of Findings Concerning Imposition of a Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverages at Shenango Lake, Pittsburgh District- 1. PROJECT. Shenango Lake. 2. AREAS UNDER CONSIDERATION. All Corps operated recreation areas within the project boundaries (examples; Hahaney Public Use area, Shenango Recreation area. Mercer Recreation Area. fishermen access area, etc). 3. RESTRICTION UNDER CGNSIDERATIDN. Banning of all alcoholic beverages from all Corps of Engineers developed and operated areas at Shenango Lake. Prohibition would include the consumption, use and presence of all alcoholic beverages. h. AUTHORITY. Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulatons, Part 323.12, Restrictions, states that "The District Engineer may establish and post a schedule of visiting hours andfor restrictions on the public use of a project or a portion of a project. The District Engineer may close or restrict the use of a project or portion of a project when necessitated by reason of public health, public safety, maintenance or other reasons in the public interest. Entering or using a project in a manner which is contrary to the schedule of visiting hours, closure or restrictions is prohibited." 5. EXISTING SITUATION. The Shenango Lake Project has an annual average visitation of approximately one million-five hundred thousand people. The project is located in a semiwurban setting within the Shenango Valley with several cities within easy driving distance. Warren and Youngstown, Ohio and New Castle, Pa. are within a Zfirmile radius while Pittsburgh is approximately BB miles away. The project consists of approximately 15,000 acres of public land including a 3,500 acre recreational lake. A number of public recreation areas have been developed by the Corps within the confines of the project lands. Heavy usage of these areas and heavy alcoholic consumption by some members of the public contribute to many of the problems encountered at Shenango Lake- 36 CFR Part 32? does not prohibit or in any way regulate the use of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, Shenango tends to attract people whose first concern is to find a place to drink rather than a place to camp or picnic. This attitude among some campers and recreating public has led many unnecessary situations which probably would have not happened if the partiers would not have been drinking on project lands. 6. PROBLEM. Permitting alcoholic beverages within recreation areas have resulted in the following problems at Shenango: a. Littering of alcoholic beverage containers and paraphernalia associated with the consuption of alcoholic beverages on Shenango project lands. Littering continues to be a problem at Shenango Lake and seems to be on an increase within the recreation areas as well as the outlining project areas. Shenango garbage collection methods are ineffective and sufficient manpower is not available to continually police the recreation areas for littered material. The resultant accumulation of litter*poses a public health and safety problem. b. Incidents associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages: Approximately incidents concerning problems associated with alcoholic beverages were logged at Shenango Lake by Corps employees during the 1930 recreational season. Problems such as loud noise, music and abusive language in the camping areas, intoxication of members of the public using Shenango recreation area, vandalism to government and private property, physical abuse and under-age drinking occurred at Shenango Lake. The Pymatuning Township Police Department, whose authority includes the Shenango and Hercer recreation "camping and day use" areas, responded to l5 calls concerning alcoholic beverages and made 13 arrests within the above two mentioned areas during the 1980 recreation season. FINUINGE. The use of alcoholic beverages within recreation area contributes to many of the problems encountered at Shenango Lake. It is the policy of the Corps of Engineers to consider the public interest by providing the public with safe and enjoyable recreational opportunities while protecting and enhancing these resources. Since our present authority limits management practices to an inadequate level in coping with the alcohol problem, it is felt that the present abuse directed toward the facilities, project personnel and the public can be significantly reduced if the use and possession of alcoholic beverages are prohibited. The use of appropriate signs, verbal and written warnings, citations, and assistance of local law enforcement personnel will help to enforce this regulation. Statement of Findings Concerning Imposition of a Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverages at Berlin Lake, Ohio Pittsburgh District 1. PROJEET. Berlin Lake. 2. AREAS UNUER CONSIDERATION. All recreation areas within the project boundaries (examples; Mill Creek Recreation Area, German Church campground the dam site picnic area, etc.) at the following locations: a. Hill Creek Recreation Area is located on the Dale Road, one mile south of 0hio State Route 22d, and four miles east of Deerfield, Ohio. b. German Church Campgroud is located on German Church Road, mile east State Route 225, and five miles north of Alliance, Ohio. c. Dan picnic area is located on the west abutment on Berlin Dam off of Bonner Road, ih miles north of State Route 22$. d. other areas within project boundaries operated by the Corps of Engineers. 3. RESTRICTION UNDER CGHSIDERAIIDN. Banning of all alcoholic beverages from all Corps of Engineers developed and operated recreation areas at Berlin Lake. This would include the consumption, use and presence of all alcoholic beverages. a. AUTHURITY. Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32?.l2, Restrictions states that: The District Engineer may Establish and post a schedule of visiting hours andfor restrictions on the public use of a Project or portion of a project. The District Engineer may close or restrict the use of a project or portions of a project when necessitated by reason of public health, public safety, maintenance or other reasons in the public interest. Entering or using a project in a manner which is contrary to the schedule of visiting hours, closure or restrictions is prohibited." 5. EXISTING SITUATION. a. Hill Creek Recreation Area consists of a large, heavily used picnic and suiming area adjacent to a 305 site Class A campgroud through which boaters must drive to get to a six-lane boat launching ramp. Visitation in July and august, 1980, exceeded 50,000 people. other areas on the project also had quite high visitation during the 1930 recreation season. b. German Church Campground is a primitive campground which has 36 camp sites. This area has been a trouble spot for a few years and was closed by the Corps in 1930 due to the many problems which were occurring. It was closed in IBTE by police order after a major disturbance which resulted from the excessive use of alcoholic beverages. c. The dam picnic area is a small, secluded area which has 25 picnic sites and a capacity for 100 cars. This area is not as heavily used as the Mill Creek Recreation Area. 35 CFR Part 327 does not prohibit or in any way regulate the use of alcoholic beverages. Therefore, Berlin Lake tends to attract people whose first concern is to find a place to drink rather than a place to camp or picnic. This attitude among some campers has led to many unnecessary situations which probably would not have occurred if the "partiers" would not have been drinking on project lands. 6. PROBLEM. Permitted use of alcohol on the project has resulted in. the following problems: a. Citations were written in 1980 which could have been avoided. Sixteen citations were written for 36 CFR Section 32T.9, Sanitation. In nearly all of these incidents, empty beer cans made up the bulk of the litter. Seven citations were written for 36 CFR Section 32?.26, Interference with Employees. In most cases. these individuals were intoxicated and failed to comply with a lawful directive of a Corps Ranger. at Berlin Lake in 1980 eleven citations were written for Section 32?.26. This was more than at any other project throughout the coutry. In most cases, the subjects had been drinking excessively and were extremely difficult to reason with. b. Berlin attracts people who are not condusive to family-type camping and tend to discourage the family unit from using the area. The Ohio State Parks rules and regulations do not permit alcohol, so the "partiers" tend to congregate at Berlin Lake. The general attitude among the campers and picnikers is that if alcohol were to be prohibited Berlin, particularly at the Mill Creek Recreation Area ad the German Church Campgroud, only an undesirable clientele would be adversely affected. 35 CFR 327-125. State that "Quiet hours shall be maintained in all public use areas between the hours of 10 p_m, and 5 a,m_ Exceggive noise during such times which unreasonably disturbs persons is prohibited." In every case of excessive noise after quiet hours in 1950 and previous years, the subjects warned andfor cited were drinking. This noise There are everv recreation season from campers who are kept awake well into the night by loud, boisterous neighbors. The complainers rarely return. This is our loss because they are usually families who come to Berlin to relax and enjoy what-nature has to offer, not to see how much beer other campers could drink in one night. c. Hazards to the Public. The shoreline area where most visitors swim in the Mill Creek Recreation Area is a depository for beer bottles and cans. Many small children use this area ad are quite susceptible to injuries due to stepping or falling on broken bottles and rusty cans. The glass and metal containers found along the shoreline are almost exclusively beer bottles and cans. In most cases, people who drink alcoholic beverages in excess,'tend not to properly dispose of their litter, thereby causing this hazard along the shoreline. Last summer a very young girl was cut on broken glass in the swimming area. She was taken to a local hospital where she received 8 stitches. Fortunately. no more accidents of this type were reported as having occurred. d. The rangers cannot effectively handle individuals who are under the influence of alcohol, especially the ones who display violent behavior. . Corps of Engineers rangers do not have the authority to deal with violent behavior effectively. in other words, they cannot arrest, detain or otherwise control the person- They must wait for the proper authorities. Alcohol tends to aggravate violent behavior, therefore, making the ranger's job even more difficult than it has to be. The less violent and even just rowdy behavior that project personnel have to contend with. the easier their job becomes and the better the Corps looks in the eyes of the public. P. FIHDING5. Alcoholic beverages, while permitted at Berlin Lake Recreation Areas have caused a nuisance not only to the employees of the project but to the rest of the public who come to enjoy themselves at the facility. Berlin Lake's reputation as a "party place" reflects mainly on the Corps of Engineers in general and the project in particular. It is the policy ofi the Corps of Engineers to manage its projects in the best interest in the public, providing it with safe, pleasant recreational opportunities while protecting the natural resources. Since our present authority limits management practices to an inadequate level in coping with the alcohol problem, it is felt that the present abuse directed towards the facilities, project personnel and the public can be significantly reduced if alcoholic beverages are are prohibited. The use of appropriate signs, verbal and written warnings, citations and the assistance of local law enforcement personnel will help :0 enforce this regulation. Statement of Findings Concerning Imposition of a Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverages at Kinzua Dan and Allegheny Reservoir Pittsburgh District 1. PROJECT. Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir. 2. AREAS UNDER CONSIDERATION. All Corps-operated recreation areas within the project boundaries. This includes the picnicking, visitor center, boat launching. outflow area, the parking lots associated with these areas, and any undeveloped areas at the project. 3. RESTRICTION UNDER CDNSIDERATION. Banning alcoholic beverages from all Corps of Engineers-operated recreation areas at Kinzua Dam and Allegheny Reservoir including developed and undeveloped areas. Prohibition would include the consumption, use. and presence of all alcoholic beverages. 4. AUTHORITY. Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 32?.l2, Restrictions, states that "The District Engineer may establish and post a schedule of visiting hours andfor restrictions on the public use of a project or a portion of a project. The District Engineer may close or restrict the use of a project or portion of a project when necessitated by reason of public health. public safety, maintenance or other reasons in the public interest. Entering or using a project in a manner which is contrary to the schedule of visiting hours, closure or restrictions is prohibited". 5. EXISTING SITUATION. Title 36 has no provisions governing the use of alcohol on Federal projects. The portion of the project which lies in is under Forest Service jurisdiction which does not prohibit alcoholic beverages. The New York portion. under the jurisdiction of Allegany State Park, prohibits the use of alcoholic beverages. 6. PRDELEH. The permitted use of alcohol on the project has resulted in the following problems: a. The main problem at Kinzua Dam has been the consumption of alcohol in cars while parked at the Dverlooks and Visitor Center. while there has not been an apparent increase in vandalism. littering has increased. The problem is with people who drink off--project and then visit our areas already intoxicated. b. Corps of Engineers Rangers are frequently criticized for their inability to deal effectively with such rowdy and boisterous groups as are commonly involved in complaint--type situations. Corps Rangers do not have the authority to handle uncooperative or violent behavior which is typically encountered in situations involving alcohol consumption. They can neither arrest nor detain uncooperative individuals. Alcohol tends to aggravate aggressive and uncooperative behavior. therefore. amting their job more difficult and potentially hazardous. F. FINDINGS. There have been a number of altercations which involved the consumption of alcohol. Undoubtedly. alcohol was a prime contributing factor toward the incident. Attempting to deal with such situations places the orps Ranger and Park Technician. with his very limited authority, in a very touchy and potentially hazardous situation. To ignore an incident draws immense criticism from onlooking visitors and reflects badly on both the Ranger and the Corps. Similar documents on file for other LRP parks. POSTED: JANUARY 14TH, 2012 NEW PENNSYLVANIA LIFE JACKET RULES FOR COLD WEATHER I was at a dinner last week when a friend and I were talking about the lack of winter weather so far in December and January. In fact, he was telling me about how just that afternoon, he had taken his canoe and put in at the lagoons and paddled for over two hours. He said it was great, and this extension of his season was wonderful. He then went on to tell me that in a few corners filled with tall grass, a little glaze of very thin ice was still present in the water. I ask him if he was aware of the new "mandatory cold-weather life jacket regulations" that just went into effect in Pennsylvania. You guessed it! He did not know what I was talking about. The new regulation, which takes effect as of November 1, 2012, is as follows: A person shall wear a Coast Guard approved personal flotation device (PFD or Life Jacket) during the cold-weather months from November 1st through April 30th while underway or at anchor on boats less than 16 feet in length or any size canoe or kayak. His first reaction was that he never wears a life jacket in the lagoons. He feels that he is a good swimmer, so it is not needed. My answer was that next year, all that is going to change in cold weather. He will not have a choice during cold weather. I fell that the new rule is very good, and am sure that the Fish Commission and other agencies will be enforcing it come next November. The reasoning behind this change is that cold-water shock is a major factor in boating fatalities when the water temperatures fall to less than 70 degrees. This shock causes people to involuntarily gasp and can result in the person hyperventilating, aspirating water and reducing their ability to swim and breathe properly. After a bit of discussion, he agreed with the reasoning. We then talked a bit about a few other cold-water safety ideas, which are as follows: o o o o o o o o The life jackets offer additional insulation from the cold. Know the waters where you are going to boat. Let someone else know where you are boating. Have a cell phone that is fully charged. Wear clothes that still insulate even when wet, (Fleece, polypropylene). If you should fall into the water, cover your mouth and nose with your hands. Stay with the boat; get back in it or at least on top of it. Do not remove your clothing while in the water. I think in cold weather, it is not a good idea to canoe, kayak or boat alone. You are just asking for trouble if you should fall into the water. Enjoy Presque Isle, but do it safely. APPENDIX VICKSBURG DISTRICT SUMMARY Vicksburg District Mississippi Lakes Project Baseline 2008 Test Years 2009-2011 Policy lakes: Arkabutla Lake Sardis Lake Enid Lake Grenada Lake Control lakes: Bay Springs Reservoir Ross Barnett Reservoir Measurements: Measurement Baseline 2008 2009 2010 2011 Man hours for policy (boat patrol) ++ 1248 1199 1291 8.8% 0 74% 0 71% 0 70.6% 0 - 34 2 1 Visitation Warnings Issued 4 5,565,443 - 1-Boating 5,271,841 876 1-Swimming 5,238,368 1488 1-Swimming 4,883,321 945 Citations Issued - 0 3 120 News Articles/Radio/Television 104 26 50 22 Wear Rates (Overall Average) Congressional Inquiries Public Letters/emails/phone calls* Water-related Fatalities *These totals include all types of contacts fielded by the Project Office along with emails and letters received by Lake Resource Managers. The lake offices did not track telephone calls individually; they were included in the weekly contact numbers. ++ Estimated in the Interim Report: 12 boat hours per week Corps and 8 per week other agency during recreational boating season. Project Description: Vicksburg District was the first district to voluntarily agree to test policy for the Life Jacket Policy Study. Testing occurred only on the four lakes located in North Mississippi: Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid, and Grenada lakes. Each lake is an independent organization with a Resource Manager, ranger staff and O&M personnel. All four lakes are under the direct management of the Mississippi Project Management Office. These four lakes were formed by dams constructed as part of the comprehensive flood control plan known as the Mississippi River and Tributaries Project. They were built between the late 1930s and the mid-1950s. Vicksburg District made a wise decision to conduct policy testing only on the waters of the Mississippi Projects to minimize public confusion over Corps policy. Although the district manages lakes in the state of Arkansas, they were not included in the study due to their close proximity to Little Rock District lake projects. Staff realized that testing on Arkansas waters might confuse visitors in that Little Rock District lakes would not be involved in the test and therefore would not have life jacket policies in place. The state of Mississippi is split between the Vicksburg and Mobile districts; however, lake projects in the Mobile District are not located close to the North Mississippi lakes and it was determined they would not be impacted by the life jacket policy. Additionally, Mississippi lakes' management was confident the distance was great enough to Mobile projects to prevent visitors from leaving the Mississippi lakes due to the new policy. The four Mississippi lakes have proven to be popular recreation destinations for local residents and regional visitors once they were made accessible in the early 1940's. By 1970, a significant number of recreational fatalities had been documented by lake managers, leading district leadership to hire staff park rangers to monitor recreational activities of lake visitors and provide educational outreach on associated risks. At Sardis Lake alone, a total of 160 lives were lost due to drowning since the project became operational in 1940. In the 1990s, when it was noted that a significant number of drownings involved alcohol consumption, lake managers acted to adopt alcohol restrictions and bans. Each of these initiatives proved to be effective, resulting in a reduction of public fatalities by nearly 50% between 1972 and present day. Review of the public fatalities that have been documented since 1998 shows that 92% of drowning victims were not wearing a life jacket; this trend was a key motivator for district leadership to agree to participate in the HQUSACE Life Jacket Policy Study when it was announced in 2007. Vicksburg District's participation in the Life Jacket Policy Study provided the Corps with the opportunity to study the effects of policy introduction, including visitor compliance and management impacts. Most valuable to the study was the ability to document findings at several lakes within the same region. It was significant that the four lakes were the primary recreational waters of that region, each attracted large numbers of visitors, offered year-round recreation and hosted a variety of recreational activities. Study Methodology: Since Vicksburg District did not have established life jacket policies, such as those in place in Pittsburgh District, their first step in prepping for participation in the Life Jacket Policy Study was to determine what policies would be tested. Vicksburg's managers determined early on that the established Pittsburgh District policy which required life jackets be worn on vessels under 16 feet in length would not adequately address recreational risks found on their own waters. Through careful review of their fatality records, staff determined that to seriously be effective in fatality reduction, testing would have to encompass larger sized vessels, and all paddlecraft. Additionally, with nearly half of their fatalities involving swimming in non-designated waters, staff opted to include a life jacket policy for swimmers outside of designated beach areas. A "swimmer" for this policy was defined as an individual in waters outside of a designated swim area who was unable to touch lake bottom; the policy did not apply to waders and excluded activities such as hand grabbling or noodling for fish. Policies were specifically set to achieve the maximum possible impact by reaching the majority of visitors involved in water-based recreational activities. Internal review identified boaters in small classes of vessels (< 26') and swimmers in non-designated areas as Vicksburg District's greatest recreation risk groups. In addition to review of recreation fatality records, staff closely examined State life jacket laws, determining that current Mississippi law requires life jackets be carried for each person on board all vessels <26' in length; however, actual wear is only required by boaters less than 13 years old while the vessel is underway. Life jacket wear is currently mandatory in Mississippi under state law for users of personal watercraft. Beyond activities already covered under State laws, Vicksburg staff determined that their greatest risk groups were boaters in smallcraft actively fishing, hunting and/or generally boating. Under further review, staff explored fishing tournament regulations that set life jacket standards for boating anglers participating in local events held on Mississippi Lakes Project waters and discovered a successful level of compliance among participants; it was believed that adopting similar policies for their test might result in greater compliance overall from boaters from the region. In final, Vicksburg determined that their test policies would include requirements for: o All boaters on vessels 16'-26' to wear a U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket while the vessel is under power by the main propulsion unit. Boaters on this class of vessel are permitted to remove their life jacket while the primary power source of the vessel is not running. Boat operators are required to ensure that all occupants of the vessel are in compliance with regulations. o All boaters on powered vessels <16' and non-powered vessels, regardless of length, are required to wear a U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket at all times. Boat operators are required to ensure that all occupants of the vessel are in compliance with regulations. o All swimmers outside of non-designated areas to wear a U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket. Study Outreach: Project staff took exceptional care in prepping for test implementation once their participation was determined. Using a slow and methodical approach, they initiated regional awareness by first advising local Congressional offices, state and local law enforcement agencies, and Federal Magistrates, before making their announcements to local media, public user groups, and onsite visitors. Interpretive and posted restriction signage was developed and installed at access points around the lakes. Although actual policy implementation and enforcement did not begin until 22 May 2009, district and project staff were actively engaged in community relations and education on the planned changes as early as the previous fall. In the interim, existing State life jacket requirements continue to be enforced through 36 CFR 327.3 (e) Vessels; once test policy went into effect, it was enforced under Title 36 CFR 327.12 (a) Posted Restrictions. Test policy was reviewed and approval by HQUSACE Office of Counsel before program implementation. Staff also continued routine educational outreach with water safety messaging, making small revisions to information shared to inform on the new life jacket requirements established at the lakes, for instance park rangers placed more than 40,000 information flyers on vehicles in project parking lot as one method of making park visitors aware of the new policies. Although implementation did initially add to man hours of certain staff members, it did not interfere with normal project operations. Outreach was a standard activity for the purposes of this test; however its focus was on policy rather than water safety in general. The project's Operations Project Manager concluded that he felt no impact or extended effort was required of him or his staff in order to implement the test policies and that staff effort would have increased due to other initiatives even had the project not participated in the Life Jacket Policy Study. Enforcement Efforts: The Mississippi Lakes park ranger staffs enforced the life jacket policies under Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 111, Part 327, Section 12(a), which states, "The District Commander may establish and post a schedule of visiting hours and/or restrictions on the public use of a project or portion of a project. The District Commander may close or restrict the use of a project or portion of a project when necessitated by reason of public health, public safety, maintenance, resource protection or other reasons in the public interest. Entering or using a project in a manner which is contrary to the schedule of visiting hours, closures or restrictions is prohibited." Rangers were instructed to enforce the regulation to the best of their ability utilizing existing resources while continuing to balance all other agency missions. The ranger staff was also instructed to follow the USACE Visitor Assistance philosophy of attempting to gain compliance at the lowest level. Mississippi Lakes Project did not experience staffing challenges, with an average of 20 park rangers per lake available for visitor assistance duties to include temporary rangers. Prior to implementation of test policy on the lakes, typically 400 routine patrols occurred for public safety in any given week during recreation season, with patrolling rangers making one-on-one contact with all visitors including on-the-water boaters and swimmers. During the recreation seasons of the test period, managers made little or no change to boat patrol with the exception of message. Whereas, prior to policy implementation, educational contacts advised on the importance of life jackets for safety along with conducting equipment safety checks, once the policies were in place, rangers used these patrols for policy education and/or enforcement contacts. Man hours dedicated to boat patrols and other visitor assistance patrols did not increase significantly as a result of participation in the Life Jacket Policy Study. Local and state boat patrolling officers were unable to assist in enforcement of the Corps policy but were instrumental in aiding park rangers through notifications to boaters not in compliance. This type of assistance came from one state agency that routinely patrolled all four lakes. During the test period, Mississippi Lakes Project park rangers logged approximately 800 man hours of boat patrol annually, as demonstrated in the following chart: Lake Arkabutla Enid Baseline 2008* Test Year 2009* 300 Test Year 2010 311 Test Year 2011 295 288 288 250 247 290 288 Grenada 250 145 214 480 Sardis 450 496 492 *MS lakes' staff did not start tracking boat patrol hours until May 2010; however, we did not increase our boat patrols, so the Baseline year and Test Year 2009 would show similar numbers had they been tracked. Also, the variances in patrol hours from year to year would simply result from weekends with poor weather conditions or absence of operators due to illness or other reasons which resulted in fewer hours of vessels being on the water. Rangers used a gradual increase of enforcement throughout the three recreation seasons of the study, allowing for an education-first approach particularly during the first year of enforcement. This approach matches the Corps' visitor assistance philosophy of using the lowest level of enforcement required for gaining compliance. During the baseline year, 12,502 direct contacts were made by park rangers working the four Mississippi Lakes, informing visitors of the life jacket policies that would go into effect in May 2009. Beginning May 2009, park rangers utilized a data base to track vessels that were either issued a verbal warning, written warning or citation. Park rangers were instructed to follow Corps policy to gain compliance at the lowest level of enforcement. The data base was shared by the four lakes in order to track users in the event they moved from lake to lake. There was also a management decision to instruct park rangers to primarily issue verbal warnings during the first year of enforcement unless they had same-day repeat violators. Based on the data gathered during the first year of enforcement, management deduced each lake's clientele was fairly loyal and did not travel from lake to lake. The data base became non-functional after the first year when the District upgraded computer systems. Park rangers then relied on internal logs kept by each lake's boat operators. During the second year of enforcement, park rangers were instructed to move to the next level of enforcement and primarily issue written warnings. During the third and final year of the test, managers were instructed to have park rangers increase their level of enforcement by issuing citations to visitors who frequented their lakes and repeatedly disregarded the life jacket rules. Enforcement data was tracked by lake and that data clearly shows the level of buy-in from each lake's management to issue citations for non-compliance. Overall, during the three-year study period over 3,000 verbal warnings were given, 145 written warnings and 123 citations were issued for non-compliance. By analyzing the number of contacts, it is evident that attempts to gain compliance at the lowest level were successful. 600 2009 Policy Enforcement Efforts by Month 500 400 300 200 100 0 MAY JUN JUL Boat Patrol Hours AUG SEP # of Warnings OCT 2010 Policy Enforcement Efforts by Month 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 MAY JUN JUL AUG Boat Patrol Hours SEP OCT # of Warnings Policy Enforcement Efforts by Year 1600 1400 1457 1242 1200 1000 1291 1199 857 850 800 600 400 200 0 26 0 2009 31 3 2010 Boat Patrol Hours # of Verbal Warnings # of Written Warnings Citations Issued 88 2011 120 2011 Policy Enforcement Efforts by Month 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 MAY JUN JUL AUG Boat Patrol Hours SEP # of Warnings OCT Other Water Safety Efforts: TYPE OF SIGN NUMBER INSTALLED/REPLACED Regulatory 150* Interpretive (Billboards) Other (Describe) Bulletin Boards (Posters) & Banners 9 $8,500.00 Approximately $300 per billboard 100 Approximately $7,200.00 for all four lakes ESTIMATED COSTS *As with the beginning of any new program that requires signage, a bulk order of signs had to be purchased. The total of 150 signs was purchased for all four lakes which would break down to approximately $2,000 per lake. In addition to signage, lake managers purchased banners, posters and billboard wraps which increased the expense to approximately $5,000 per lake. Visitation: Key Recreation Activities at the Mississippi Lakes Project: o Day Use - Picnicking, swimming, hiking, cycling, sightseeing, fishing (from bank and boat) o Camping o Boating - Recreational boating and fishing Description of Usage by Lake: o Arkabutla - Large camping crowd, fishing, and sailing o Enid - Very large camping crowd, fishing, and boating o Sardis - Very large day use crowds, heavy boating (fishing and recreational use) o Grenada - Mainly day use crowds, numerous fishing tournaments, many large special events, and fairly large group of recreational boaters Visitation at most of the Mississippi lakes overall did not show significant loss due to implementation of life jacket policy; Sardis Lake may be the exception, although with other regional impacts it is difficult to say. Annual pass sales at Sardis Lake did decrease, but not significantly. Although the lakes' visitation numbers mostly held steady or showed slight increases, some fluctuations in numbers did occur, due largely to inclement weather, economic impacts, gas prices, lake levels and whether sport fishing conditions were favorable or not. In 2011, Arkabutla experienced high water conditions during the recreation season. Also, July and August were extremely hot and humid months for all four lakes. Sardis Lake mainly has large summer day use crowds which includes boating. The drop in visitation may be due to the life jacket policy; however, we don't have enough data to confirm. Annual pass sales at Sardis and Arkabutla lakes have decreased, but increased noticeably at Enid and Grenada lakes. Annual Visitation by Lake 2,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 500,000 0 2006 2007 2008 Arkabutla Sardis 2009 Enid 2010 2011 Grenada Summer Visitation by Lake 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 2008 2009 Arkabutla Sardis 2010 Enid 2011 Grenada Vicksburg District (MVK) Visitation FY08-11 Visits 10,000,000 9,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000 6,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 - 2008 2009 2010 2011 Arkabutla 958,210 965,005 1,049,722 903,666 Enid 649,029 768,690 731,182 671,502 Grenada 1,966,496 1,994,428 1,995,276 1,978,944 Sardis 2,007,017 1,536,706 1,469,932 1,329,209 MVK- MS Test Lakes 5,580,752 5,264,829 5,246,112 4,883,321 MVK All Projects 9,501,219 9,426,648 9,164,955 8,888,117 Annual Pass Sales by Lake 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 Arkabutla 2007 Sardis 2008 Enid 2009 Grenada 2010 Conclusions: Prior to implementation of life jacket policies for the Life Jacket Policy Study testing, adult wear rates at the Mississippi Lakes were close to nationwide averages for voluntary wear rates of just over 8 percent. During the first recreation season of test policy, wear rates peaked at nearly 80 percent. During the second and third years of the test, wear rates on the four Vicksburg District lakes held steady in the 70 percentile range. Drowning fatalities at the Mississippi Lakes dropped from a total of seven deaths in the three years prior to policy implementation to one death during each of the 3 years of the test; of the three drownings that occurred during the actual test period (one boating, two swimming), only the one boating incident involved a victim who was not in compliance with the posted restrictions. The other incidents either occurred within a designated swimming area or resulted from a medical event. As a result of the study implementation and the efforts of Mississippi Project Management Office personnel, mandatory life jacket testing at the Mississippi Lakes Project has been deemed a success by Vicksburg District leadership. Not only have adult wear rates significantly increased, fatality reduction has been realized and lives have been saved. Testimonials from lake visitors were received during this study period credited the imposed life jacket policies with saving their lives. By example, within the first weeks of enforcement, four fishermen were rescued following lengthy periods of time in the water before being reported as missing. All four testified they were wearing their life jackets only because of the policy at the lake. Publicity stemming from these "near misses" has been instrumental in raising life jacket awareness among adult user groups of the region. District and the Mississippi test lakes staffs affirm that they knew from the beginning that the decision to participate in the study would have challenges, but they also knew without doubt that the Mississippi lakes and the US Army Corps of Engineers had an opportunity to significantly impact national policy. Based on the broad success of the Vicksburg District three-year policy testing, District Commander Colonel Jeffrey Eckstein recently approved continuation of all tested policies for an indefinite period. Existing Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks Regulations on Life Jackets. ?All vessels must carry one wearable U.S. Coast Guard - approved life jacket for each person on board. ?Besides being U.S. Coast Guard-approved, all life jackets must be: o In good and serviceable condition. o Readily accessible, which means you are able to put the life jacket on quickly in an emergency. o Of the proper size for the intended wearer. Sizing for life jackets is based on body weight and chest size. ?In addition to the above requirements, vessels 16 feet in length or longer must have one Type IV U.S. Coast Guard-approved throwable personal flotation device on board and readily accessible. ?Children 12 years old and younger must wear a Type I, II, or III U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket whenever underway in a vessel less than 26 feet in length. ?Each person riding on or being towed behind a personal watercraft must wear a Type I, II, or III U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket. Mississippi Project Management Office - Additional regulations applicable to all project waters at Arkabutla, Sardis, Enid, and Grenada Lakes. ?All persons must wear a Type I, II, or III U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket at all times while swimming outside of designated swimming areas. Waivers may be issued by Park Managers to exempt participants of special events, such as triathlons, from this requirement while participating in the event. ?All persons must wear a Type I, II, or III U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket at all times while skiing or being pulled by a vessel, regardless of vessel length. ?All persons must wear a Type I, II, or III U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket on powered vessels 16 feet in length to 26 feet in length whenever under power by the main propulsion unit. This does not include when the vessel is powered by a trolling motor or is stationary. ?All persons must wear a Type I, II, or III U.S. Coast Guard-approved life jacket at all times on powered vessels less than 16 feet in length or on non-powered vessels, regardless of length. Non-powered vessels include, but are not limited to canoes, kayaks, flat bottoms, sailboats, and paddleboats. F_[u_ni_Tje Founder The difference between life and death A BCIAIIHG ACCIDEHI cm HIIPPEN IN IHE nfan moves in uiiexpectedly: wlnda. lilnw and crash git]: ufn l'IIi:i1. lfi riff balance and they ulien his life juultel under l'Ii.< kid yuiim-lf. It can in you. I .51 ill when I lhiut-l atnuill LI tmIr- nament ti-.ick i|'l I..ikt-. ll' Prri lilinps and Iii: partiiei Hu-l> Lil Kenziieky that and sturini clay i-rlieii their boat enpsirerl and sank, tll-C)" wouldn't It was as as tl1'.It. :3 till: j.irki:1 spells llie r]iI'I'ereriei: life iilitl death. Iifi: '!i1tJwL'iJ. flit' seat." Whit-ii I Founded und ll'LL' B.-KS5 1963. I wanted Iu.-.5 i.I and re spectral ;|'Jur1_ Olic ti-l Iirsl and obvious euncerns was to ensure that my cumpclilura relurried liunie after a day n1" I liullela. ei.'eri.' is w]ii.- It'll.' of has always been .1 BAR: tourna- ment rule. The 'r'I.'bl must be on and fits- tciieri the big is I enwitragcd anglers lu keep mi at all something it while Int easier with the inimduction of ltle hiukmg back at out an Fetjr recmd river the years, I .1 in prnud ul uur and the example we - 5i."l. I lune said next step tun liar all hunter>> at all su, il 5Iiuul?lii'I he .1 xurprisu lu [:ell itru] aupimrl the (jorp.-: (if cm .1 three lack-.-i Pilul Frcigranl. ]u.~it .ii. ii'tirId's Ia rgest bass iiriili lliuii lmllii i-.-irh its -156 projects and _i'eIiI', is "11: iiu1iuri'sl.i.rgest nf is it lI'tII'l4.l ti-ul'. that Iins m.'LtIc 3 itiuitilailiunail true lur the world-class Iiilt, u'l'Lc:rI 1,111.: .111: viilli Fri- like llie and rr:crr::!ti0n:1I hdinlilig. ing; and skiing. is a re- sponslhility. "I'lii_- .-iiunning statistics: 1993 and 200?, there wen-1.6--It '.11.L'itl.I.'Ill2ll. water-related deaths at Ctirp-5 pri.iji.-us alime. and '.l2peri.eiitu1'ilie vietilns were not i.i.'carIrLg at lih: jacket. Why'ia tint? Corp; is its waltz' See lhe Cu'u5' l|lL' :41 basaninsiernzimfht. Lear'! more 3::-out arcgyavii gr page 0' lliis PRESS RELEASES, ARTICLES, COMMERCIALS states require lmgiters to h:wi;' LL22-. (kins! life Jacki.-I24 readily Fur huarci. tin. it-hi; an: an nmny lives being lust? prrililcui is state laws shurl til requiring adults to actu- ally we-.ir the life are rnade la uirri-' in their limits. I-"Lil Ilirui: llii: In-'2ItIt'r safe'- ty piugrairiis and cruiipriigne: have urliiczsieil l'l'L'Iill.L'I? and w.Jlr.'r abniit the imimrtance UT W-L'Jit'iI'i1i] lite iackclia and how liiejiiekeis lives. Uiifirrtuiialely. tlieir pmgrarn.-= an-J nut caused -.1 in wc.i[ rates aniurig adults. 50. in 2003, the Cinrps a Icril ill. <> Sardi:-, tjreiiaria. will eFI'eeli--eiie nI'regiIia- lien: and eiifc-rceineiit to increase lifeimkel usage by adult tlurpru 3.5 ill? I. [hm [lime are going 'In sat-'c lives. 'Wl'w:i I reprr: imni ihu wliere the piltil. prugram is Matters taking pluee. I prmid In learn [lief rule: utter luulna men! rules. Tliey liuee 'l:iLi:n 1| build step in requir- ing Eu wear life jackets. Hut wlieriei-er is L-Imiige. lhi:n_- ji. alwzifg til llie upruur caused bi! atltrimuliilr: ht.'.'Lt tiull use. II scum: and Nuw Ilie iieeds the supptirt nia iup nrgani like wiili whu Ilie iir pemirial safety amt dun iinylirne Iliey are tin ilic I1 is Iiupe that I-I-.-3.35 mernhers will |i::r-2111:: like liare in MI uIt'i1't' Alter Itio?t amt rivers e-four great naliun Is the end < 26 ft., and Drifting/Anchored Boats 16-26 ft. Note #2: The drop-off in number of boaters observed in 2011 in both the intervention and control lakes during the summer months was in all likelihood due to many days with unusually extreme heat and humidity. SEASONAL VARIATIONS The types of boating activities change on the lakes in the spring and fall seasons. There are more hunters and anglers on the water in the spring and fall periods and fewer family recreational boaters. This leads to a change in the distribution of boat types on the lakes tending toward more skiffs and smaller boats. Also, these are periods of times that both control and intervention lakes see more fishing tournaments. Therefore, as indicated in the pre-regulation year data, wear rates go up somewhat on both the intervention lakes as well as the control lakes in the spring and fall periods. (See Table 2) Pre-Regulation Intervention lake totals: Summer (8.8%), Fall (27.9%), Spring (29.7%) Pre-Regulation Control lake totals: Summer (5.1%), Fall (19.3%), Spring (21.7%) For the control lakes post-regulation years, the wear rates for each season were similar to those observed in the pre-regulation period, with some variations across the years (and by individual lake) depending on whether there were fishing tournaments active on the observation days. However, for the intervention lakes post-regulation, the wear rates jump substantially in all three post-regulation years compared to the pre-regulation year. For example, in Year 2 Post-Regulation the wear rates were as follows: 2nd Year Post-Regulation Intervention lake totals: Summer (71.0%), Fall (65.9%), Spring (59.3%) 2nd Year Post-Regulation Control lake totals: Summer (5.9%), Fall (24.8%), Spring (28.5%) Table 2: Trends in Adult Wear Rates by Season in Mississippi Table 2. Trends in Adult Wear Rates, By Season for Intervention Lakes Summer PreRegulation (2008) N % Year 1 Post Regulation (2009) N % Year 2 Post Regulation (2010) N % Year 3 Post Regulation (2011) N % 13.9 869 83.9 621 85.7 743 83.2 556 6.3 1174 80.1 1095 62.3 888 70 Grenada Lake 319 5 1269 75.3 1731 70.9 1095 74.5 Sardis Lake 401 9.7 1705 63.9 2149 71.4 1564 62.7 TOTAL 1700 8.8 5017 74 5596 71 4290 70.8 Arkabutla Lake 78 48.7 81 82.7 66 75.8 40 47.5 Enid Lake 81 17.3 27 81.5 102 60.8 52 53.8 Grenada Lake 19 10.5 281 91.5 100 62 188 61.7 Sardis Lake 30 13.3 37 81.1 148 67.6 145 66.9 TOTAL 208 27.9 426 88.3 416 65.9 425 61.2 Arkabutla Lake 52 38.5 104 83.7 39 64.1 . . Enid Lake 104 46.2 152 80.9 84 56 . . Grenada Lake 98 13.3 249 81.5 225 63.1 . . Sardis Lake Spring 424 Enid Lake Fall Arkabutla Lake 106 24.5 72 62.5 136 53.7 . . 360 29.7 577 79.4 484 59.3 . . 2268 13.8 6020 75.6 6496 69.8 4715 69.9 TOTAL All Seasons, All Intervention Lakes Total Table 2. Trends in Adult Wear Rates, By Season for Control Lakes Summer Fall Spring Bay Springs Lock and Dam Ross R Barnett Reservoir TOTAL Bay Springs Lock and Dam Ross R Barnett Reservoir TOTAL Bay Springs Lock and Dam Ross R Barnett Reservoir TOTAL All Seasons, All Control Lakes Total PreRegulation (2008) N % Year 1 Post Regulation (2009) N % Year 2 Post Regulation (2010) N % Year 3 Post Regulation (2011) N % 224 6.3 1472 5.7 1926 7.2 1712 6 204 428 3.9 5.1 2496 3968 5.3 5.5 3043 4969 5.1 5.9 2232 3944 6.5 6.3 37 21.6 39 30.8 147 24.5 245 5.7 150 18.7 79 41.8 171 25.1 214 14 187 19.3 118 38.1 318 24.8 459 9.6 109 28.4 223 29.6 141 36.2 . . 177 17.5 459 27.2 199 23.1 . . 286 21.7 682 28 340 28.5 . . 901 13.3 4768 9.5 5627 8.3 4403 6.7 Note: Rates exclude PWCs, Boats > 26 ft., and Drifting/Anchored Boats 16-26 ft. Note #2: The drop-off in number of boaters observed in 2011 in both the intervention and control lakes during the summer months was in all likelihood due to many days with unusually extreme heat and humidity. AGE AND GENDER OF BOATERS Age of Boaters Table 3 shows changes in life jacket wear behavior for children, teenagers and adults at both the intervention lakes and the control lakes. Children under 13 wore life jackets at relatively high rates on both the intervention and control lakes before the regulations changed, since state law mandated wearing for all boaters under the age of 13 in Mississippi even before the new regulations went into effect. Total year wear rates of children under 13 in the intervention lakes moved from 94.3%, to 96.4% to 97.8% and then to 95.2% while the control lakes moved from 96.6% to 84.1% to 87.7% and then to 86.1%. It should be noted that these wear rates reflect, for the most part, summer activity since there were relatively few children observed on the lakes in the spring and fall seasons. For teenagers who were not previously mandated by state law, large improvements were observed on the intervention lakes. At the intervention lakes the wear rates went from 47.8% to 88.2% to 87.0% and then to 91.3% while control lakes went from 25.4% to 37.7% to 28.3% and then to 28.5%. As for younger children, these totals are predominately due to summer activity since relatively few teenagers are on the lakes in the spring and fall seasons. Gender of Adults Results were similar for adult men and women with substantial changes post-regulation on the four intervention lakes while the control lakes showed essentially no changes in the summer periods for men or women. (See Table 3) On the intervention lakes male yearly average wear rates moved from 15.9% to 76.9% to 71.1% and then to 70.5% and females moved from 9.1% to 72.3% to 67.2% and then to 68.7%. On the control lakes no increases over time were noted for either males or females. Control lake males yearly average rates moved from 15.4% to 12.2% to 10.8% and then to 8.7%; control lake females yearly average rates moved from 6.5% to 4.7% to 4.5% and then to 3.6%. Table 3: Trends in Wear Rates by Boater Characteristics in Mississippi Table 3. Trends in Wear Rates, By Boater Characteristics PreRegulation (2008) Year 1 Post Regulation (2009) Year 2 Post Regulation (2010) Year 3 Post Regulation (2011) Adults, No PWC/WS -- Intervention (% Wearing) 13.8% 75.6% 69.8% 69.9% . . . N Wearing 314 4549 4536 3297 . . . N Total Observed 2271 6020 6496 4715 -- Control (% Wearing) 13.3% 9.5% 8.3% 6.7% . . . N Wearing 120 453 469 293 . . . N Total Observed 901 4769 5628 4403 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 94.3% 96.4% 97.8% 95.2% . . . N Wearing 282 895 741 747 . . . N Total Observed 299 929 758 785 -- Control (% Wearing) 96.6% 84.1% 87.7% 86.1% . . . N Wearing 86 530 625 596 . . . N Total Observed 89 630 713 692 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 47.8% 88.2% 87.0% 91.3% . . . N Wearing 76 611 450 365 . . . N Total Observed 160 693 517 400 -- Control (% Wearing) 25.4% 37.7% 28.3% 28.5% . . . N Wearing 16 126 91 91 . . . N Total Observed 63 334 321 319 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 15.9% 76.9% 71.1% 70.5% . . . N Wearing 251 3264 3208 2196 . . . N Total Observed 1577 4243 4515 3113 -- Control (% Wearing) 15.4% 12.2% 10.8% 8.7% . . . N Wearing 106 371 371 230 . . . N Total Observed 687 3038 3445 2650 Age 0-12, No PWC/WS Age 13-17, No PWC/WS Adult-Males, No PWC/WS Table 3. Trends in Wear Rates, By Boater Characteristics PreRegulation (2008) Year 1 Post Regulation (2009) Year 2 Post Regulation (2010) Year 3 Post Regulation (2011) Adult-Females, No PWC/WS -- Intervention (% Wearing) 9.1% 72.3% 67.2% 68.7% . . . N Wearing 63 1281 1324 1101 . . . N Total Observed 693 1771 1971 1602 -- Control (% Wearing) 6.5% 4.7% 4.5% 3.6% . . . N Wearing 14 82 98 63 . . . N Total Observed 214 1730 2174 1753 Note: Rates exclude PWCs, Boats > 26 ft., and Drifting/Anchored Boats 16-26 ft. TYPES OF BOATS Tables 4 and 5 show results for adults by types of boats. In Mississippi the most common boats used during the summer are power boats--mainly skiffs, runabout/speedboats and pontoon boats. In the fall and spring, skiffs are the predominant boat used. All Power Boats primarily includes speedboats, skiffs and pontoon boats since most of the few cabin cruisers seen on the lakes fall outside the size limitation for the regulations. On the intervention lakes the average yearly wear rates for this type of boat moved from 13.5% to 75.6% to 69.8% and then to 69.9% On the control lakes no such increases were noted as the rates moved from 13.0% to 8.9% to 7.5% and then to 6.1%. Open motorboats (combination of skiffs and speedboats/runabouts). For the Mississippi lakes studied, there is a good mix of speedboats and skiffs during the summer months. In the fall and spring, the boats observed are almost exclusively skiffs. The averages for the year are weighted in the three post-regulation years to match the ratio of skiffs to speedboats observed in the preregulation year. The intervention lakes wear rates moved from 16.1% to 77.9% to 72.9% and then to 74.4%, while on the control lakes rates stayed fairly flat--moving from 15.5% to 11.7% to 9.8% and then to 8.4%. Table 4: Trends in Adult Wear Rates for All Power Boats & Open Motor Boats in Mississippi (Excluding non-regulated boats, PWC's and towed watersports participants) Year 1 Post Pre-Regulation Regulation (2008) (2009) Year 2 Post Regulation (2010) Year 3 Post Regulation (2011) -- Intervention (% Wearing) 13.5% 75.6% 69.8% 69.9% . . . N Wearing 297 4428 4464 3257 . . . N Total Observed 2200 5854 6399 4657 -- Control (% Wearing) 13.0% 8.9% 7.5% 6.1% . . . N Wearing 115 415 409 262 . . . N Total Observed 888 4655 5480 4295 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 16.1% 77.9% 72.9% 74.4% . . . N Wearing 271 3518 3496 2453 . . . N Total Observed 1687 4514 4798 3297 -- Control (% Wearing) 15.5% 11.7% 9.8% 8.4% . . . N Wearing 111 387 370 241 . . . N Total Observed 716 3311 3795 2855 Table 4. Trends in Adults Wear Rates, By Power Boat & Open Motor Boats All Power Boats, No PWC/WS Open Motor Boats Note: The Open Motorboat category is created by grouping "Skiffs" and "Speedboat/Runabouts" together. The proportion of Skiffs to Speedboat/Runabouts in the post-regulation years have been set to reflect the proportion observed in the preregulation year (separately for intervention and control lakes). TYPES OF BOATS (CONTINUED) Wear rates for specific types of power boats are shown in Table 5. Skiffs tend to be smaller types of power boats and are often used by anglers many of whom participate in fishing tournaments that also require wearing of life jackets. Therefore, it is not surprising that the pre-regulation wear rates for skiffs were somewhat higher than for speedboats. But even with higher pre-regulation wear rates, there were still substantial increases at the intervention lakes with yearly average rates moving from 27.0% to 83.7% to 79.2% and then to 81.9%. The control lakes showed no such large increases moving only from 20.9% to 26.9% to 24.8% and then to 24.7%. Speedboats/runabouts at the intervention lakes showed even greater changes than skiffs with yearly averages moving from 4.3% to 71.7% to 66.3% and then to 68.4%, but no such increases were seen on the control lakes moving from 5.3% to 2.7% to 2.8% and then to 1.3%. Pontoon boats on the intervention lakes showed a change from 5.1% to 68.4% to 60.6% and then to 59.2%. The control lakes showed no such increases moving from 2.7% to 2.0% to 2.4% and then to 1.5%. Table 5: Trends in Adult Wear Rates by Type of Power Boat in Mississippi (Excluding non-regulated boats, PWCs and towed watersports participants) PreRegulation (2008) Year 1 Post Regulation (2009) Year 2 Post Regulation (2010) Year 3 Post Regulation (2011) -- Intervention (% Wearing) 27.0% 83.7% 79.2% 81.9% . . . N Wearing 236 1963 1949 1200 . . . N Total Observed 876 2346 2461 1465 -- Control (% Wearing) 20.9% 26.9% 24.8% 24.7% . . . N Wearing 98 332 296 216 469 1235 1195 875 Table 5. Trends in Adults Wear Rates, By Type of Power Boat Skiffs . . . N Total Observed Speedboats -- Intervention (% Wearing) 4.3% 71.7% 66.3% 68.4% . . . N Wearing 35 1555 1547 1253 . . . N Total Observed 811 2168 2334 1832 -- Control (% Wearing) 5.3% 2.7% 2.8% 1.3% . . . N Wearing 13 55 74 25 . . . N Total Observed 247 2076 2600 1980 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 5.1% 68.4% 60.6% 59.2% . . . N Wearing 26 903 964 786 . . . N Total Observed 507 1321 1591 1328 -- Control (% Wearing) 2.7% 2.0% 2.4% 1.5% . . . N Wearing 4 25 38 20 . . . N Total Observed 149 1262 1611 1331 Pontoon SIZE OF POWER BOATS In Figure 2 and Table 6 life jacket wear rates for different sized power boats are presented. The size categories are less than 16 feet, 16 to 20.9 feet, and 21 to 26 feet (since boats over 26 feet are not covered by the mandatory regulations). On the Mississippi lakes the vast majority of boats observed in the 21 to 26 feet category are pontoon boats with some large skiffs (bass boats used by anglers) and larger speedboats; there are almost no cabin cruisers on these lakes. For power boats less than 16 feet in length, yearly averages at the intervention lakes moved from 21.7% to 72.2% to 62.7% and then to 63.3% while at the control lakes the yearly average rates stayed relatively flat moving from 18.7% to 17.9% to 15.1% and then to 10.7%. For power boats between 16 and 20.9 feet in length, yearly averages at the intervention lakes went from 14.6% to 79.0% to 75.9% and then to 75.6% while at the control lakes wear rates did not increase moving from 14.1% to 13.0% to 9.0% and then to 7.6%. For power boats between 21 and 26 feet in length (three-quarters of which are pontoon boats), yearly averages at the intervention lakes moved from 6.5% to 72.8% to 62.7% and then to 64.1% while at the control lakes rates remained flat moving from 5.9% to 3.2% to 5.2% and then to 4.0%. Non-regulated power boats, boats over 26 feet in length or between 16 and 26 feet that are either at anchor or drifting, wear rates would not be expected to change. However, yearly averages for these craft on the intervention lakes went from 12.0% to 35.6% to 28.2% and then to 26.5%. Either there was a "spillover" effect of the regulations to larger sized craft, or observers may have misclassified boats close to 26 feet in length and coded them either as over 26 feet or boaters on boats 16 to 26 feet that were drifting or anchored kept their life jackets on even though not required when not underway. For these types of non-regulated power boats on the control lakes the rates stayed low moving from 5.8% to 3.4% to 3.8% and then to 3.1%. Figure 2. Average Wear Rate for Adults by Size of Power Boat by Intervention and Control Lakes for All Years (Mississippi) Table 6: Trends in Adult Wear Rates by Size of Power Boat in Mississippi (Excluding PWCs and towed watersports participants) PreRegulation (2008) Year 1 Post Regulation (2009) Year 2 Post Regulation (2010) Year 3 Post Regulation (2011) -- Intervention (% Wearing) 13.5% 75.6% 69.8% 69.9% -- Control (% Wearing) 13.0% 8.9% 7.5% 6.1% -- Intervention (% Wearing) 21.7% 72.2% 62.7% 63.3% . . . N Wearing 44 552 381 195 . . . N Total Observed 204 765 608 308 -- Control (% Wearing) 18.7% 17.9% 15.1% 10.7% . . . N Wearing 20 57 33 19 . . . N Total Observed 107 319 219 177 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 14.6% 79.0% 75.9% 75.6% . . . N Wearing 222 2161 2599 1811 . . . N Total Observed 1522 2734 3424 2397 -- Control (% Wearing) 14.1% 13.0% 9.0% 7.6% . . . N Wearing 84 290 243 164 . . . N Total Observed 594 2233 2691 2151 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 6.5% 72.8% 62.7% 64.1% . . . N Wearing 31 1715 1484 1251 . . . N Total Observed 474 2355 2367 1952 -- Control (% Wearing) 5.9% 3.2% 5.2% 4.0% . . . N Wearing 11 68 133 79 . . . N Total Observed 187 2103 2570 1967 Table 6. Trends in Adult Wear Rates, By Size of Power Boat All Power Boats, No PWC/WS Power Boat Size <16 ft Power Boat Size 16-20.9ft Power Boat Size 21ft to 26ft Powered Boats>26ft & Drifting/Anchored 16-26ft Boats -- Intervention (% Wearing) 12.0% 35.6% 28.2% 26.5% . . . N Wearing 30 192 196 127 . . . N Total Observed 251 539 696 480 -- Control (% Wearing) 5.8% 3.4% 3.8% 3.1% . . . N Wearing 14 24 32 14 . . . N Total Observed 241 709 846 450 ACTIVITIES Figure 3 and Table 7 show evidence of the effects of the boaters' activity on life jacket wear rates and also the impact on adult wear rates due to the presence of kids on board. Kids on board or not on board. On the intervention lakes, adult boaters that had kids (0 to 12 years of age) on board showed somewhat greater increases (6.9% to 75.9% to 68.5% and then to 71.6%) than for boats with no kids on board (7.8% to 67.7% to 63.8% and then to 63.3%). The influence of kids on board increased the wear rates by 5% to 8% for adults on the intervention lakes. For the control lakes there was also a small difference for adults with kids on board compared to no kids (0.5% to 4%), but the rates for the adults with kids on board stayed very low moving from 6.5% to 3.6% to 4.6% and then to 3.1%. This table also shows the impact of fishing or intending to fish activities on life jacket wear rates. The higher wear rates during pre-regulation periods for those involved in fishing or intending to fish compared to other activities are, in part, due to the type of boat and boat size used in these activities. It is also due to the fact that some boaters who are fishing or intending to fish are participating in tournaments which require wearing of life jackets when underway. On the intervention lakes for those involved in fishing or intending to fish yearly averages moved from 27.6% to 84.4% to 78.6% and then to 80.2%. On the control lakes yearly averages stayed relatively flat moving from 24.9% to 30.6% to 33.3% and then to 29.2%. For boaters participating in all other activities (mostly pleasure boating) on the intervention lakes the yearly averages moved from 8.3% to 70.7% to 65.5% and then to 66.4%. On the control lakes the yearly averages hardly changed moving from 3.5% to 4.2% to 4.7% and then to 3.2%. Figure 3. Average Wear Rates for Adults Fishing/Intending to Fish vs All Other Activities by Intervention and Control Lakes for All Years (Mississippi) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Intervention, Fishing/Intent to Fish Intervention, All other activities Control, Fishing/Intent to Fish Control, All other activities 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2008 (Pre-regulation) 2009 2010 2011 Table 7: Trends in Adult Wear Rates by Presence of Kids and by Boat Activity in Mississippi (Excluding non-regulated boats, PWC's and towed watersports participants) Table 7. Trends in Adult Wear Rates, By Boat Passengers & Boat Activity PreRegulation (2008) Year 1 Post Regulation (2009) Year 2 Post Regulation (2010) Year 3 Post Regulation (2011) Adults on Power Boats for Pleasure, No PWC/WS - Intervention -- With no Kids (% Wearing) 7.8% 67.7% 63.8% 63.3% . . . N Wearing 85 1628 1852 1394 . . . N Total Observed 1084 2406 2905 2201 -- With Kids (% Wearing) 6.9% 75.9% 68.5% 71.6% . . . N Wearing 32 988 930 891 . . . N Total Observed 464 1301 1357 1244 Adults on Power Boats for Pleasure, No PWC/WS - Control -- With no Kids (% Wearing) 2.4% 3.1% 3.2% 2.2% . . . N Wearing 9 87 113 58 . . . N Total Observed 372 2776 3572 2595 -- With Kids (% Wearing) 6.5% 3.6% 4.6% 3.1% . . . N Wearing 7 33 55 35 . . . N Total Observed 107 915 1184 1119 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 27.6% 84.4% 78.6% 80.2% . . . N Wearing 180 1812 1682 972 . . . N Total Observed 652 2147 2140 1212 -- Control (% Wearing) 24.9% 30.6% 33.3% 29.2% . . . N Wearing 103 295 241 170 . . . N Total Observed 413 964 724 582 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 8.3% 70.7% 65.5% 66.4% . . . N Wearing 134 2737 2854 2325 . . . N Total Observed 1619 3873 4356 3503 -- Control (% Wearing) 3.5% 4.2% 4.7% 3.2% . . . N Wearing 17 158 228 123 . . . N Total Observed 488 3805 4904 3821 Fishing/Intent to Fish, No PWC/WS All other activities, No PWC/WS THE IMPACT OF PATROL HOURS ON WEAR RATES In 2010 and 2011 we obtained information from the four MS USACE lake managers on the number of patrol hours conducted for each day during the summer months. We conducted analyses to look for a relationship between patrol hours on the weekends and wear rates. We focused on wear rates for non-anglers since many anglers participate in fishing tournaments that also have mandatory wear regulations. Based on preliminary analyses in 2010 we found there was a relationship between density of patrol hours (hours per 1000 acres of lake surface area) and non-angler (either fishing or intending to fish) wear rates. Our findings, using information from both 2010 and 2011 summer periods, are summarized below in Table 8 and Figure 4. Table 8: 2010-2011 Adult Summer Wear Rates and Weekend Patrol Hours Arkabutla 2010 Patrol Hours Per 1000 Acres 14.5 1 84 1 Arkabutla 2011 13.8 2 84 2 Enid 2010 Grenada 2010 Grenada 2011 Sardis 2010 Sardis 2011 Enid 2011 8.7 6.3 6.3 5.4 4.9 3.8 3 4 5 6 7 8 58 70 69 58 58 65 6 3 4 7 8 5 Lake & Year Ranking Non-Angler Wear Rates Ranking Figure 4: 2010-2011 Adult Summer Wear Rates and Weekend Patrol Hours 2010-2011 Adult Summer Wear Rates & Weekend Patrol Hours per 1,000 acre 100 Weekend Patrol Hours per 1,000 acre 80 y = 2.1873x + 50.856 R? = 0.6742 60 Linear (Weekend Patrol Hours per 1,000 acre) 40 20 0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 Inspection of these rankings shows that with the exception of the Enid Lake data there is a perfect correlation between patrol hour density and non-angler wear rates (see Figure 4). Enid Lake shows lower wear rates than might be predicted given the high patrol hour density in 2010 and higher wear rates than might be expected given the low patrol hour density in 2011. The data from the other three lakes for the two-year period correlate perfectly with the higher patrol density leading to higher wear rates among non-angler boaters. CONCLUSIONS FOR MISSISSIPPI The test of mandatory regulations in the Vicksburg District in four Mississippi lakes was very successful. There was an immediate increase in wear rates in the first year of the regulation and that increase stayed relatively steady for the next three years. The increase in wear rates was generally from 10% pre-regulation to 70% post-regulation. The increases were seen for all types of boaters: male and female adults, teens and even those children under age 13 who were already covered by state regulations. The increases were seen for all types of boats and boat sizes that were regulated (boats over 26 feet in length were not regulated although there were relatively few of this size boat on the four lakes). The increases were seen for all types of boating activities whether fishing, intending to fish or any other boating activity. There was some variation in levels of compliance with the regulations by lake ranging from 58% to 84% for non-angler activity boaters. Much of this variation could be accounted for by differences in the density of patrolling by rangers on the lake. Although the amount of hours of patrolling were similar on the four lakes, since the lakes varied in size (surface acreage) when the hours were standardized by 1,000 acres of surface area, it was seen that more patrol density led to higher wear rates. This page has intentionally been left blank. V. RESULTS FOR CALIFORNIA PINE FLAT LAKE INTERVENTION In 2011 the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) implemented an additional test of mandatory regulations at Pine Flat Lake in the Fresno, California area. Millerton Lake, managed by the state park service and in the same area, was used as a control lake (see map in Appendix for locations). The intervention began on April 1, 2011. Baseline observations were conducted one weekend in each of April, May, and October 2010 and 2 weekends in each of July, August, and September 2010. Baseline observations were conducted again in 2011 for one weekend in both February and March. Intervention year observations were conducted two weekends in 2011 in each of April, May, June, September; a total of nine weekends in July and August; and one weekend in October. Observations were conducted for a full day on either a Saturday or Sunday, alternating each weekend as to which lake was observed on Saturday and which on Sunday. The regulations were similar to those in Mississippi, but differed in one regard. At Pine Flat, all boat lengths were included in the mandatory regulations. For non-powered boats (paddle craft and sailboats) life jackets were required at all times. For powered boats under 16 feet, life jackets were required at all times. For powered boats over 16 feet, life jackets were only required when the boat was moving under primary propulsion. This contrasts with Mississippi where boats over 26 feet were not regulated. OVERALL COMPARISONS FOR CALIFORNIA DISTRICT Figure 5 and Table 9 show overall adult life jacket wear rate changes for the intervention lake (Pine Flat) compared to the control lake (Millerton). Data are available to compare one year of preregulation behaviors with one year of post-regulation behaviors. Pre-regulation behaviors were measured in the summer of 2010 and spring of 2011 before the new regulations took effect. The post-regulation year includes spring 2011 after the regulations took effect (April 1), summer 2011 and fall 2011. Please note that all rates throughout this California section follow the same sequence comparing the pre-regulation period (summer 2010 and spring 2011) to the post-regulation period (spring, summer, and fall 2011). The average life jacket wear rates for adults (excluding PWCs, and towed watersports participants) for the intervention lake, changed from 8.4% (pre-regulation) to 40.2% (post-regulation). At the control lake life jacket wear rates for adults showed a much lower increase across this time period-- 3.1% to 9.5%. Figure 5. Average Adult Wear Rates by Intervention and Control Lake for All Years in California 100% 90% 80% 70% Pine Flat Lake (Intervention) 60% Millerton Lake (Control) 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 (Pre-regulation) 2011 SEASONAL VARIATIONS The types of boating activities change on the lakes in the spring and fall seasons. There are a lot more anglers on the water in the spring and fall periods and fewer family recreational boaters. This also leads to a change in the distribution of boat types on the lakes tending toward more skiffs and smaller boats. Also, these are periods of times that both control and intervention lakes see more fishing tournaments. At Pine Flat summer rates went from 2.9% to 37.1% compared to Millerton where they went from 3.0% to 6.7%. In the spring, Pine Flat moved from 45.9% to 68.6% and Millerton from 5.6% to 37.4%. This increase at Millerton may reflect some confusion on the part of boaters in the early months of the regulation, as to whether Millerton was also included in the new regulations. (See Table 9) Table 9: Trends in Adult Wear Rates by Lakes in California District Pre-Regulation Trends Table 9. Trends in Adult Wear Rates, By Lakes Summer 2010 Spring 2011 (Pre) Pre-Regulation Total (2010) Pine Flat Lake (Intervention), Adults, No PWC/WS (% Wearing) 2.9% 45.9% 8.4% . . . N Wearing 51 119 170 . . . N Total Observed 1754 259 2013 Millerton Lake (Control), Adults, No PWC/WS (% Wearing) 3.0% 5.6% 3.1% . . . N Wearing 79 7 86 . . . N Total Observed 2635 126 2761 Post-Regulation Trends Table 9. Trends in Adult Wear Rates, By Lakes Spring 2011 Summer (Post) 2011 Fall 2011 PostRegulation YTD 2011 Pine Flat Lake (Intervention), Adults, No PWC/WS (% Wearing) 68.6% 37.1% 29.2% 40.2% . . . N Wearing 432 1564 121 2117 . . . N Total Observed 630 4223 415 5268 Millerton Lake (Control), Adults, No PWC/WS (% Wearing) 37.4% 6.7% 26.0% 9.5% . . . N Wearing 177 506 117 800 . . . N Total Observed 474 7515 450 8439 Note: Rates exclude PWCs, and towed boaters in the water. AGE AND GENDER OF BOATERS Age of Boaters Table 10 shows changes in life jacket wear behavior for children, teenagers and adults at both the intervention and the control lakes. Children under 13 wore life jackets at relatively high rates on both the intervention and control lakes before the regulations changed, because California law mandated wearing for all boaters under the age of 13 even before this new regulations went into effect. Annual wear rates of children under 13 in the intervention lake moved from 84.6% to 92.6% while the control lake moved from 92.6% to 87.8%. For teenagers, who were not previously mandated by state law, large improvements were observed on the intervention lake. At the intervention lake the wear rates went from 15.1% to 69.6% while at the control lake it went from 15.5% to 40.5%. Gender of Adults Results were similar for adult men and women with notable changes post-regulation on the intervention lake while the control lakes showed less changes (see Table 10). Men moved from 11.2% to 41.9% on Pine Flat compared to Millerton with rates of 3.3% rising to 11.7%. Women moved from 2.6% to 37.0% at Pine Flat compared to Millerton where rates moved from 2.9% to 6.0%. Table 10: Trends in Wear Rates by Boater Characteristics in California District Summer 2010 Spring 2011 (Pre) PreRegulation Spring Total 2011 (2010) (Post) Summer 2011 Fall 2011 PostRegulation YTD 2011 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 2.9% 45.9% 8.4% 68.6% 37.1% 29.2% 40.2% . . . N Wearing 51 119 170 432 1564 121 2117 . . . N Total Observed 1754 259 2013 630 4223 415 5268 -- Control (% Wearing) 3.0% 5.6% 3.1% 37.4% 6.7% 26.0% 9.5% . . . N Wearing 79 7 86 177 506 117 800 . . . N Total Observed 2635 126 2761 474 7515 450 8439 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 85.4% 33.3% 84.6% 90.6% 93.9% 80.6% 92.6% . . . N Wearing 164 1 165 58 383 25 466 . . . N Total Observed 192 3 195 64 408 31 503 -- Control (% Wearing) 93.1% 71.4% 92.6% 74.1% 88.2% 93.9% 87.8% . . . N Wearing 284 5 289 43 786 62 891 . . . N Total Observed 305 7 312 58 891 66 1015 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 13.1% 100.0% 15.1% 75.8% 69.5% 54.5% 69.6% . . . N Wearing 23 4 27 25 242 6 273 . . . N Total Observed 175 4 179 33 348 11 392 -- Control (% Wearing) 15.6% 0.0% 15.5% 50.0% 39.0% 76.9% 40.5% . . . N Wearing 34 . 34 18 210 10 238 . . . N Total Observed 218 2 220 36 538 13 587 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 3.7% 46.3% 11.2% 68.9% 37.9% 34.9% 41.9% . . . N Wearing 41 112 153 323 1006 106 1435 . . . N Total Observed 1122 242 1364 469 2656 304 3429 -- Control (% Wearing) 3.0% 6.5% 3.3% 41.4% 8.0% 29.9% 11.7% . . . N Wearing 48 7 55 150 360 94 604 . . . N Total Observed 1581 107 1688 363 4502 314 5179 Table 10. Trends in Wear Rates, By Boater Characteristics Adults, No PWC/WS Age 0-12, No PWC/WS Age 13-17, No PWC/WS Adult Males, No PWC/WS Summer 2010 Spring 2011 (Pre) PreRegulation Spring Total 2011 (2010) (Post) Summer 2011 Fall 2011 PostRegulation YTD 2011 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 1.6% 41.2% 2.6% 68.1% 35.5% 13.5% 37.0% . . . N Wearing 10 7 17 109 556 15 680 . . . N Total Observed 631 17 648 160 1565 111 1836 -- Control (% Wearing) 2.9% 0.0% 2.9% 24.3% 4.8% 16.9% 6.0% . . . N Wearing 31 . 31 27 146 23 196 . . . N Total Observed 1054 19 1073 111 3012 136 3259 Table 10. Trends in Wear Rates, By Boater Characteristics Adult Females, No PWC/WS TYPES OF BOATS Tables 11 and 12 show results for adults by types of boats. On Pine Flat and Millerton Lakes the most common boats used are power boats--mainly skiffs, runabout/speedboats and pontoon boats. All Power Boats primarily includes speedboats, skiffs and pontoon boats since relatively few cabin cruisers are seen on the lakes. On the intervention lake the average yearly wear rates for this type of boat moved from 8.4% to 40.1%. On the control lake much smaller increases were noted as the rates moved from 3.0% to 9.1%. Open motorboats (combination of skiffs and speedboats/runabouts). The intervention lake wear rates moved from 10.4% to 43.2%, while the control lake rates showed a much smaller increase moving from 3.0% to 10.3%. Table 11: Trends in Adult Wear Rates for All Power Boats & Open Motor Boats in California District (Excluding PWCs and towed watersports participants) Summer 2010 Spring 2011 (Pre) PreSpring Regulation 2011 Total (2010) (Post) Summer Fall 2011 2011 PostRegulation YTD2011 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 2.8% 45.9% 8.4% 68.8% 36.9% 29.2% 40.1% . . . N Wearing 48 119 167 432 1554 121 2107 . . . N Total Observed 1741 259 2000 628 4208 415 5251 -- Control (% Wearing) 2.8% 5.9% 3.0% 37.3% 6.4% 26.4% 9.1% . . . N Wearing 74 7 81 165 476 116 757 . . . N Total Observed 2613 118 2731 443 7433 440 8316 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 3.5% 49.2% 10.4% 71.3% 39.9% 32.1% 43.2% . . . N Wearing 47 118 165 365 1315 108 1788 . . . N Total Observed 1344 240 1584 512 3295 336 4143 -- Control (% Wearing) 2.9% 5.5% 3.0% 39.3% 7.1% 31.7% 10.3% . . . N Wearing 63 6 69 161 428 106 695 . . . N Total Observed 2207 109 2316 410 6018 334 6762 Table 11. Trends in Adults Wear Rates, By Power Boat & Open Motor Boats All Power Boats, No PWC/WS Open Motor Boats TYPES OF BOATS (CONTINUED) Wear rates for specific types of power boats are shown in Table 12. Skiffs tend to be smaller types of power boats and are often used by anglers many of whom participate in fishing tournaments on both lakes that also require wearing of life jackets; therefore it is not surprising that wear rates are higher for this type of boat than other types of boats. There were increases at the intervention lake with yearly average rates moving from 31.9% to 67.1% while the control lake moved from 7.7% to 34.9%. Speedboats/runabouts are the most common type of boats seen on both lakes. The intervention lake showed similar amounts of changes as with yearly averages moving from 2.7% to 36.3%, but a much smaller increase was seen on the control lake moving from 2.5% to 5.5%. Pontoon boats on the intervention lakes showed a change from 0.0% to 33.1%. The control lakes showed no such increases moving from 3.1% to 3.9%. Table 12: Trends in Adult Wear Rates by Type of Power Boat in California District (Excluding PWCs and towed watersports participants) Table 12. Trends in Adults Wear Spring Rates, By Type of Power Boat Summer 2011 2010 (Pre) PreRegulation Spring Total 2011 (2010) (Post) Summer Fall 2011 2011 PostRegulation YTD 2011 Skiffs -- Intervention (% Wearing) 16.0% 51.3% 31.9% 73.0% 64.0% 65.7% 67.1% . . . N Wearing 37 97 134 222 334 67 623 . . . N Total Observed 231 189 420 304 522 102 928 -- Control (% Wearing) 6.9% 10.6% 7.7% 61.1% 23.1% 63.6% 34.9% . . . N Wearing 12 5 17 129 175 77 381 . . . N Total Observed 173 47 220 211 759 121 1091 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 0.9% 41.2% 2.7% 68.8% 35.4% 17.5% 36.3% . . . N Wearing 10 21 31 143 981 41 1165 . . . N Total Observed 1113 51 1164 208 2773 234 3215 -- Control (% Wearing) 2.5% 1.6% 2.5% 16.1% 4.8% 13.6% 5.5% . . . N Wearing 51 1 52 32 253 29 314 . . . N Total Observed 2034 62 2096 199 5259 213 5671 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 13.3% 24.3% 20.0% 22.7% . . . N Wearing . . . 2 25 2 29 . . . N Total Observed 20 1 21 15 103 10 128 -- Control (% Wearing) 1.1% 16.7% 2.1% 0.0% 2.5% 20.0% 2.8% . . . N Wearing 1 1 2 . 6 1 7 . . . N Total Observed 89 6 95 4 240 5 249 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 67.0% 29.5% 20.0% 33.1% . . . N Wearing . . . 63 204 11 278 . . . N Total Observed 329 15 344 94 691 55 840 -- Control (% Wearing) 3.2% 0.0% 3.1% 0.0% 3.6% 8.9% 3.9% . . . N Wearing 10 . 10 . 42 9 51 . . . N Total Observed 317 3 320 25 1171 101 1297 Speedboats Cabin Cruiser Pontoon SIZE OF POWER BOATS In Figure 6 and Table 13 life jacket wear rates for different sized power boats are presented; the size categories presented are less than 16 feet, 16 to 20.9 feet, and 21 feet and over. For boats over 16 feet, the boaters are on boats that are moving under their main propulsion (requirement for regulation to apply). At both the intervention and control lake, there is a common finding that as boat length increases, wear rate decreases. For power boats less than 16 feet in length, yearly averages at the intervention lake moved from 22.9% to 68.1% whereas at the control lake the increase was much less moving from 8.2% to 23.9%. For power boats between 16 and 20.9 feet in length, yearly averages at the intervention lake went from 10.3% to 42.3% whereas at the control lake it went from 4.5% to 10.6%. For power boats over 21 feet in length yearly averages at the intervention lake moved from 3.5% to 30.9% while at the control lake rates increased by a small amount from 1.2% to 4.9%. Non-regulated power boats, boats over 16 feet in length that are either at anchor or drifting, wear rates would not be expected to change if boaters were aware of this nuance. Any change that is observed could be attributed to either lack of awareness of this aspect of the regulation or boaters finding it more convenient to leave their life jackets on when the boat is not underway. These data are not shown in the table, but, for the intervention lake these boaters showed wear rates moving from 8.5% to 22.8% and at the control lake moving from 0.0% to 7.4%. Figure 6. Average Adult Life Jacket Wear Rates by Size of Power Boats by Intervention and Control Lakes for All Years in California 100% Intervention, <16ft 90% Intervention, 16-20.9ft 80% Intervention, 21-26ft 70% Control, 16-20.9ft 60% Control, 21-26ft Control, <16ft 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 (Pre-regulation) 2011 Table 13: Trends in Adult Wear Rates by Size of Power Boat in California District (Excluding non-regulated boats, PWCs and towed watersports participants) Spring Table 13. Trends in Adult Wear Summer 2011 Rates, By Size of Power Boat 2010 (Pre) PreSpring Regulation 2011 Total (2010) (Post) PostSummer Regulation 2011 Fall 2011 YTD2011 All Power Boats, No PWC/WS -- Intervention (% Wearing) 2.8% 45.9% 8.4% 68.8% 36.9% 29.2% 40.1% -- Control (% Wearing) 2.8% 5.9% 3.0% 37.3% 6.4% 26.4% 9.1% -- Intervention (% Wearing) 12.5% 43.8% 22.9% 80.0% 69.0% 40.6% 68.1% . . . N Wearing 8 14 22 48 140 13 201 . . . N Total Observed 64 32 96 60 203 32 295 -- Control (% Wearing) 8.5% 7.1% 8.2% 52.9% 20.8% 35.7% 23.9% . . . N Wearing 4 1 5 9 43 5 57 . . . N Total Observed 47 14 61 17 207 14 238 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 3.8% 48.8% 10.3% 70.1% 39.0% 24.1% 42.3% . . . N Wearing 38 81 119 330 1001 61 1392 . . . N Total Observed 993 166 1159 471 2571 253 3295 -- Control (% Wearing) 4.4% 5.6% 4.5% 38.2% 7.2% 30.9% 10.6% . . . N Wearing 56 4 60 135 334 93 562 . . . N Total Observed 1260 71 1331 353 4634 301 5288 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 0.3% 39.3% 3.5% 55.7% 28.8% 36.2% 30.9% . . . N Wearing 2 24 26 54 413 47 514 . . . N Total Observed 684 61 745 97 1434 130 1661 -- Control (% Wearing) 1.1% 6.1% 1.2% 29.2% 3.8% 14.4% 4.9% . . . N Wearing 14 2 16 21 99 18 138 . . . N Total Observed 1306 33 1339 73 2592 125 2790 Power Boat Size <16 ft Power Boat Size 16-20.9ft Power Boat Size 21ft+ ACTIVITIES Figure 7 and Table 14 show evidence of the effects of the boaters' activity on life jacket wear rates and in particular show the impact of fishing or intending to fish activities on life jacket wear rates. The higher wear rates during pre-regulation periods for those involved in fishing or intending to fish compared to other activities are, in part, due to the type of boat and boat size used in these activities. It is also due to the fact that some boaters who are fishing or intending to fish were participating in tournaments which required wearing of life jackets when underway even before the new regulations went into effect. On the intervention lake, for those involved in fishing or intending to fish, yearly averages moved from 34.0% to 70.8%. On the control lake yearly averages moved from 8.7% to 48.1%. Some of this difference reflects the presence of fishing tournaments on some days observations took place on these control lakes, whereas in the pre-regulation year there were not active tournaments on the control lake observation days. For boaters participating in all other activities, mostly pleasure boating, on the intervention lake the yearly averages moved from 2.2% to 36.4% while on the control lake the yearly averages showed a small increase from 2.8% to 6.7%. Figure 7. Average Adult Wear Rates by Boating Activity by Intervention and Control Lakes for All Years in California 100% 90% 80% 70% Intervention, Fishing/Intent to Fish Control, Fishing/Intent to Fish Intervention, All other activities Control, All other activities 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2010 (Pre-regulation) 2011 Table 14: Trends in Adult Wear Rates by Boat Activity in California District (Excluding non-regulated boats, PWCs and towed watersports participants) Table 14. Trends in Adult Wear Rates, By Boat Passengers & Boat Activity Spring Summer 2011 2010 (Pre) PreSpring Regulation 2011 Total (2010) (Post) PostSummer Regulation 2011 Fall 2011 YTD 2011 Fishing/Intent to Fish, No PWC/WS -- Intervention (% Wearing) 18.2% 48.3% 34.0% 77.7% 64.7% 76.3% 70.8% . . . N Wearing 34 100 134 146 194 74 414 . . . N Total Observed 187 207 394 188 300 97 585 -- Control (% Wearing) 8.1% 9.4% 8.7% 69.2% 31.4% 63.5% 48.1% . . . N Wearing 7 6 13 108 95 73 276 . . . N Total Observed 86 64 150 156 303 115 574 -- Intervention (% Wearing) 1.1% 36.5% 2.2% 64.7% 34.9% 14.8% 36.4% . . . N Wearing 17 19 36 286 1370 47 1703 . . . N Total Observed 1567 52 1619 442 3923 318 4683 -- Control (% Wearing) 2.8% 1.6% 2.8% 21.8% 5.7% 13.1% 6.7% . . . N Wearing 72 1 73 69 411 44 524 . . . N Total Observed 2549 62 2611 318 7212 335 7865 All other activities, No PWC/WS VI. CONCLUSIONS This evaluation report provides evidence of the effectiveness of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' test of mandatory regulations in two areas--the Vicksburg District in northern Mississippi and the Southern Sacramento District in Fresno, California. Both tests showed success in increasing adult life jacket wear rates--increasing to approximately 70% in Mississippi and 40% in Fresno. The Mississippi findings are important because not only did the wear rates increase dramatically, but they remained at these high levels for three boating seasons. Although the Fresno trial was also successful, it was evaluated for only one boating season and the increases were not as dramatic as they were in Mississippi. It is useful to note what was similar and what was different about these test areas and their results. In Mississippi the regulations covered boats that were up to 26 feet in length. However, since almost all boats on the four test lakes were less than 26 feet in length, the regulations covered almost all boating activity. The four test lakes were the primary recreational boating destinations in the area; there were no competing, non-regulated lakes nearby. The boating activity at these lakes included a great deal of family oriented boating. The lakes were also host to numerous fishing tournaments which had their own set of mandatory wear regulations. Enforcement such as visible ranger patrols and an active program of giving out "warnings" to boaters were also in place in all four of the lakes. In the year leading up to the implementation of the regulations, there was a good deal of publicity about the impending changes. During this time there were some grumblings from the local boating community about the impending regulations, but the newspaper reports were generally balanced and none of the "opposition" was organized or came from outside groups. High compliance rates were seen right away providing "visual" evidence to the boating community that most other boaters supported the regulations. All of these factors encouraged compliance with the regulations. The only factor that worked in opposition to compliance was the weather in Mississippi during the summer boating season. It was very hot and humid and the fact that inflatable style life jackets were not a big component may have led to reduced compliance with the regulations. In Fresno the regulations covered all boats, no matter how large. Given the presence of larger speedboats, cabin cruisers and pontoon boats on the lake for which the perceived risk of capsizing or falling overboard was probably lower, compliance was lower for these boats. This "visual" lack of compliance early on probably helped to erode compliance on medium sized boats as the summer progressed. In contrast to Mississippi, alternative non-regulated lakes were nearby (the control lake Millerton Lake being the main one). Even though usage remained high at Pine Flat, it was likely that boaters spent time on both lakes over the summer, and this "inconsistency" in whether regulations were in place probably contributed to erosion of wear rates in the summer. Fishing tournaments operated in the spring and fall, but less frequently in the summer months and thus synergistic support from additional regulations and compliance did not make as much of an impact as in Mississippi. The shape of Pine Flat lake (a very long tail along the river bed) meant that much of the time enforcement patrols were on the lake, they were not visible to the boating traffic in the main body of the lake. Perhaps the key difference between the two test experiences, however, was the presence of organized, outside opposition to the regulations in Fresno. A national boating user group lobbied actively against the regulations and generated negative publicity and position papers both in the printed press and on the internet. In spite of all of this, adult wear rates increased by a factor of five. VII. APPENDIX Map: Fresno, California Sites 08::-ulh Fork orth Fork f\ I ,2 New Auberry /Meadow Lakes McKenzie Point Area i Mllferton Lake as Framer 1-onhnuse imsl I A enu 12 Istand Park Rec Area 41 075?" Pine Flat Lake I ,2 4. . 0 Sequoia National Forest Tn'mmer Piedrao _fiume?5- A firaveshoro . -. Beg Bunch 180 aw Vafley 1 ,i 0 Claim: dmiston Minkter [yny Li can park 0 Ave Sanger Nauele ea ile Fugue: ?woIr cezla !a a I Wahtoke Eastono -. - _flE_ |er -H 63 Miley in: Orange Buwles -. -- 'r 41 . . -J19 aqac ee ey Selma . Monmou X. J31 A East Camthers MhuEURl1ainie_A_ Sui%0rO$Ifl omg. J40 Map: Mississippi Sites 2009 Boat Form I 00000 000 00000000 00000 000 I I I I1 2:3: I I I I1 E=;g I I I E33: '0 9:033 3333 2. non. Ea: E53 3:3' 3'0" 0000000u3$ 3 0000000130 3 0000000130 0000 3333333 3 3333333 3 3 3 "3fi%3EI3 3 3 I: 0333'' 00 I: 0333-" 00 I: 0333r_1"3' 2.33 D5'?fl 2:33 D5'?fl 3 3 3.13 3 3 3.13 3 3 3.E100 3 3' E200 3 3' 300 0999333 0330333 an' 3 E39. 3321:: 3339. 3532 'mug 32:12:33 323333 323333 fl II 'l II II 000 000 000 0:30 0 0:10 0 0:30 0 2333333 2330333 22230333 333.; 33:: 33:: 33.0" 3% 33.0" 3% 33.:$fiqqm0M0pbn I I I I I I :$jqfiqfiq0pp:: :$jqfiq0fi0pp0 :$fiqfiqfiq0pp0 3 mm0mbbM0mb$ fim0@MOM0mb3 ll||Ill|| dd0hbb00bb3r dd0hH000fib3 @d0hhb00hb3r :mmga mm; 0300000 bbfi lIl|l|lI| 4; 4; 3 fid0@bbfi0fi@3 @dI0fi0fi0b@$ fid 3 fifi0(R)bmM0bb? fifi0bbmM0bh? fififi0MOM0bb? 3 qmq0@0@0pb3 Ii-. Ii-. Ii-. 3 42''LJIJ I392: - :01: 0 SM JBIBI J0 CI :awu IN W5 5939 C1 LJCI U9 B53 II L-JE5 Cl JEIIJEIE 1'3' C1 2009 Site Form 3 anwfiww 332?: USACE RECREATION FATALITIES STATISTICAL SUMMARY USACE Public Recreation Fatality One-Page Summary FY98 - FY11 ## Activity Summary (Based on Codes) Number Swimming Total Designated Area Undesignated Area Boating Total Swimming Collision PWC Capsized Falls from Boat *****Other Boating Other Falls Other Recr Total 1074 210 864 975 212 132 55 187 276 113 146 95 TOTAL 2290 % of Total 46.90% 9.17% 37.73% 42.58% 9.26% 5.76% 2.40% 8.17% 12.05% 4.93% 6.38% 4.15% Total Undesignated Swimming Area Total Falls Boat, Dock, Shore, etc. 47.0% 18.4% 100.0% Category Summary Gender 246 2024 20 2290 Female Male Unknown % 10.7% 88.4% 0.9% *Wearing PFD YES 108 NO 2046 Unknown 95 *N/A 41 2290 Total Common Age Groupings 13 and under 9% 10% Age14-17 39% Age18-35 24% Age36-53 Age 54 & Over 15% 214 233 889 544 350 2290 **Alcohol/Drug YES 461 NO 1231 SUSP 34 Unk 564 2290 % 4.7% 89.3% 4.1% 1.8% % 20% 54% 1% # 25% **** Swimming Fatalities (incl boat&swim) 10 Yr Age Groupings Age 0-9 6% 23% Age 10-20 22% Age 21-30 15% Age 31-40 13% Age 41-50 Age 51-60 9% Age 61-70 6% 71 & Over 4% Age Unknown 3% 135 520 493 350 295 216 126 95 60 2290 Designated Area Undesignated Area 221 1065 % 17% 83% 1286 Total Swimming Only ***Cause D = Drowning T = Trauma DH = Hypothermia M = Medical *****CO = Carbon Monoxide U = Unknown 1959 198 46 24 11 52 2290 86% 9% 2% 1% 0% 2% 100% Note: * New not applicable category in PFD section in FY06 **FY06-combined alcohol/drugs together so we could summarize with FY98-05 data, assumed that if no alcohol reported then no drugs were involved ***Started tracking in FY06 - carbon monoxide as new cause **** All swimming-related drownings including boating & swimming when location is known *****BAC, BAE, BAM,BAS (Control/Speed, Electrical, Carbon Monoxide, Skiing/Towing) # Started tracking "Suspected" Alcohol in 2010 ## Started including all public recreation-related fatalities in FY11 (7 additions) APPENDIX LIFE IACKET POLICY STUDY PRODUCT DELIVERY TEAM Life Jacket Policy Study PDT was comprised of: Lynda Nutt, Operations Division, HQUSACE National Operations Center for Water Safety manager Stephen Austin, HQUSACE, Senior Policy Advisor for Park Rangers Samuel Crispin, HQUSACE, Safety and Occupational Health, Loss Prevention Manager Rachel Garren, National Operations Center for Water Safety assistant/Natural Resource Specialist, Mississippi Valley Division, St. Louis District Jerry Balcom, Chief, Safety and Occupational Health, South Atlantic Division Madeline Morgan, Chief, Safety and Occupational Health, Southwestern Division, Fr. Worth District Charles Burger, Chief, Operations Division, Southwestern Division, Ft. Worth District Wayne Stogsdill, Operations Project Manager, Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg District, Mississippi Lakes Project Tom Ehrke, Resource Manager, South Pacific Division, Sacramento District, Pine Flat Lake Project Chris Gray-Garcia, South Pacific Division, Sacramento District, Public Affairs Specialist Greg Webb, Resource Manager, Northwestern Division, Portland District, Bonneville Lock and Dam Pam Samuels, Park Ranger, Mississippi Valley Division, Vicksburg District, Mississippi Lakes Project Team senior advisors: Michael Ensch, HQUSACE, Chief, Operations and Regulatory Mary Coulombe, HQUSACE, Chief, Natural Resources, Operations Division Richard Wright, HQUSACE, Chief, Safety and Occupational Health Doug Garman, HQUSACE, Public Affairs