Joseph Coyne

The proposed rule described in the opening statement says: “The Coast Guard has made the decision to move the upriver line of the Umpqua River Regulated Navigation Area from aid number 8 back to its previous location at aid number 6, ensuring unfettered recreational usage of the Half Moon Bay and Windy Bay, Ore. areas. The longitude and latitude description utilized in the proposed rule describes neither line mentioned, but instead describes a RNA line that may have been utilized in 1972. In my opinion this is a fatal flaw in the presentation of a legal document. The government should not be permitted to describe the situation in erroneous language and then rely on the technical description in that same document, in terminology unused by the vast majority of public, to be effective. It is misleading at best. This proposed rule is the third time the USCG has attempted to describe the RNA for the Umpqua River. The first placed one of the markers off the coast of Columbia, the second attempt placed a marker near the Azores and now this third attempt: with an understandable description in ordinary English which was the result of a public meeting and conveys statements made by the USCG; AND a nautical description unknown to the public or to the USCG personnel to have been in effect. It appears that this was not done in an intentional attempt to mislead the public, but with the failure to listen and to fully understand the river and the matter they are dealing with. While either line ensures the “unfettered recreational usage of the Half Moon Bay and the Windy Bay, OR”, there is a need for accuracy. If the 1972 line is to be utilized, it creates an issue as to how to educate the mariner public of the where the line is before they enter the water and if they are on the water. To date the USCG has failed to make a chart available showing either line and the public should have the right to know what area is being restricted prior having the rule enforced