[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 155 (Friday, August 10, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42318-42350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19929]



[[Page 42317]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



Endagered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To 
Establish Sixteen Additional Manatee Protection Areas in Florida; 
Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 155 / Friday, August 10, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 42318]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AH80


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To 
Establish Sixteen Additional Manatee Protection Areas in Florida

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
establish 16 additional manatee protection areas in Florida. We are 
proposing this action under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA), and the Marine Mammal 
Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407)(MMPA), to 
further recovery of the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus 
latirostris) through a reduction in the level of take. In evaluating 
the need for additional manatee protection areas, we considered the 
needs of the manatee at an ecosystem level with the goal of ensuring 
that adequate, protected areas are available throughout peninsular 
Florida to satisfy the biological requirements of the species, with a 
view toward the manatee's recovery. We are proposing to designate four 
areas in Hillsborough, Pinellas, and Citrus Counties, as manatee 
sanctuaries in which all waterborne activities would be prohibited, 
with an exception for residents. The remaining 12 areas, located in 
Pinellas, Sarasota, Charlotte, Desoto, Lee, and Brevard Counties, would 
be designated as manatee refuges in which certain waterborne activities 
would be prohibited or regulated. We also announce the availability of 
a draft environmental assessment for this action.

DATES: We will consider comments on both the proposed rule and the 
draft environmental assessment that are received by October 9, 2001. We 
will hold a public hearing in Melbourne, Brevard County, on September 
13, 2001, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at the Radison Hotel and 
Conference Center, 3101 North Highway A1A, Melbourne. We will hold 
additional public hearings at dates, times, and sites to be determined. 
See additional information on the public hearing process in 
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any 
one of several methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information to the Field 
Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
6620 Southpoint Drive, South, Suite 310, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.
    2. You may hand-deliver written comments to our Jacksonville Field 
Office, at the above address, or fax your comments to 904/232-2404.
    3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
[email protected]. For directions on how to submit electronic 
comment files, see the ``Public Comments Solicited'' section.
    We request that you identify whether you are commenting on the 
proposed rule or draft environmental assessment. Comments and materials 
received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation 
of this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by 
appointment, during normal business hours from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., at 
the above address. You may obtain copies of the draft environmental 
assessment from the above address or by calling 904/232-2580, or from 
our website at http://northflorida.fws.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hankla, Peter Benjamin, or 
Cameron Shaw (see ADDRESSES section), telephone 904/232-2580; or visit 
our website at http://northflorida.fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The Florida manatee is federally listed as an endangered species 
under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (32 FR 4001) and is also 
federally protected under the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407). It resides in 
freshwater, brackish, and marine habitats of coastal and inland 
waterways in the southeastern United States. The majority of this 
population resides in the waters of the State of Florida throughout the 
year, and nearly all manatees use the waters of peninsular Florida 
during the winter months. The manatee is a cold-intolerant species and 
requires warm waters (above 20 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit)) 
to survive during periods of cold weather. During the winter months 
many manatees rely on the warm water from natural springs and 
industrial outfalls for warmth. During the summer months they expand 
their range and are seen rarely as far north as Rhode Island on the 
Atlantic Coast and as far west as Texas on the Gulf Coast.
    Recent information indicates that the overall manatee population 
has grown since the species was listed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2000a). However, in order for us to determine that an endangered 
species has recovered to a point that it warrants removal from the List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, the species must have 
improved in status to the point at which listing is no longer 
appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. 
That is, threats to the species that caused it to be listed must be 
reduced or eliminated such that the species no longer fits the 
definitions of threatened or endangered. While indications of 
increasing population size are very encouraging, there is no indication 
that important threats to the species, including human-related 
mortality and harassment, have been effectively reduced or eliminated.
    Human activities, particularly waterborne activities, are resulting 
in the take of manatees. Take, as defined by the ESA, means to harass, 
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to 
attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm means an act which actually 
kills or injures wildlife (50 CFR 17.3). Such an act may include 
significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills 
or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral 
patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass means an 
intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood 
of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to 
significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but 
are not limited to, breeding, feeding or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
    The MMPA sets a general moratorium on the taking and importation of 
marine mammals. Section 101(a) of the MMPA makes it unlawful for any 
person to take, possess, transport, purchase, sell, export, or offer to 
purchase, sell, or export, any marine mammal or marine mammal product 
except as permitted for public display, scientific research, or 
enhancing the survival of the species. Take, as defined by section 
3(13) of the MMPA means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt 
to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
    Harassment is defined under the MMPA as any act of pursuit, 
torment, or annoyance which--(i) has the potential to injure a marine 
mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or (ii) has the potential to 
disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing 
disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, 
migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

[[Page 42319]]

    Human use of the waters of the southeastern United States has 
increased dramatically as a function of residential growth and 
increased visitation. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the 
State of Florida. The population of Florida has grown by 124 percent 
since 1970 (6.8 to 15.2 million, U.S. Census Bureau) and is expected to 
exceed 18 million by 2010, and 20 million by the year 2020. According 
to a recent report by the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic 
Research (2000), it is expected that by the year 2010, 13.7 million 
people will reside in the 35 coastal counties of Florida. In a parallel 
fashion to residential growth, visitation to Florida has increased 
dramatically. It is expected that Florida will have 83 million visitors 
annually by the year 2020, up from 48.7 million visitors in 1998. In 
concert with this increase of human population growth and visitation is 
the increase in the number of watercraft which ply Florida waters. In 
1999, there were 829,971 vessels registered in the State of Florida. 
This is an increase in registered vessels of almost 20 percent since 
1993 (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2000). During 
this same period, the number of watercraft-related manatee mortalities 
has increased by 144 percent, from 35 to 82 deaths per year. The 
Florida Department of Community Affairs estimates that, in addition to 
boats belonging to Florida residents, between 300,000 and 400,000 boats 
registered in other States use State waters each year.
    The large increase in human use of waters inhabited by manatees has 
had direct and indirect impacts on this endangered species. Direct 
impacts include injuries and death from vessel impacts, deaths and 
injuries from water control structure operations, lethal and sub-lethal 
entanglements with commercial and recreational fishing gear, and 
alterations of behavior due to harassment. Indirect impacts include 
habitat destruction and alteration, decreases in water quality 
throughout some aquatic habitats, decreases in quantity of warm water 
at natural sites, marine debris, and general disturbance from human 
activities.
    Approximately 75 percent of all watercraft-related manatee 
mortality has taken place in 11 Florida counties (Brevard, Lee, 
Collier, Duval, Volusia, Broward, Palm Beach, Charlotte, Hillsborough, 
Citrus, and Sarasota) (Florida Marine Research Institute Manatee 
Mortality Database 2000). Manatee mortality has continued to climb 
steadily. Average annual mortality in the 1990s (227.9) was nearly 
twice that of the 1980s (118.2), and this trend continued in 2000, when 
273 dead manatees were recorded. Total mortalities over the past 4 
years have averaged 45 percent higher than in the early 1990s. When the 
record high total of 1996 is added (the year in which the red tide die-
off inflated total mortality to 416 animals), average annual mortality 
over the past 5 years has been nearly 60 percent greater than in the 
early 1990s (draft Marine Mammal Commission Annual Report to Congress 
2000).
    The continuing increase in the number of recovered dead manatees 
throughout Florida has been interpreted as evidence of increasing 
mortality rates (Ackerman et al. 1995). Between 1976 and 1999, the 
number of carcasses collected in Florida increased at a rate of 5.8 
percent per year, and deaths caused by watercraft strikes increased by 
7.2 percent per year (Service 2000a). Because the manatee has a low 
reproductive rate, a decrease in adult survivorship due to watercraft 
collisions could contribute to a long-term population decline (O'Shea 
et al. 1985). It is believed that a 1 percent change in adult survival 
likely results in a corresponding change in the rate of population 
growth or decline (Marmontel et al. 1997).
    Collisions with watercraft are the largest source of human-related 
manatee deaths. Data collected during manatee carcass salvage 
operations in Florida indicate that a total of 979 manatees (from a 
total carcass count of 4,021) are confirmed victims of collisions with 
watercraft since 1976. This number may not accurately represent the 
actual number of watercraft-related mortalities since many of the 
mortalities listed as ``undetermined causes'' show evidence of 
collisions with vessels. Collisions with watercraft comprise 
approximately 24 percent of all manatee mortalities since 1976. The 
last 5 years have been record years for the number of watercraft-
related mortalities, and watercraft-related deaths have become a larger 
proportion of total mortality. Since 1998, watercraft-related deaths 
have represented about 30 percent of all mortality, a 5 percent 
increase compared to the early 1990s. During the 1980s and 1990s the 
manatee population apparently grew; however, if population growth rate 
levels off and manatee mortality continues to increase, a decline in 
abundance is inevitable (draft Marine Mammal Commission Annual Report 
to Congress 2000).
    The second largest cause of human-related manatee mortality is 
entrapment in water control structures and navigation locks (Florida 
Marine Research Institute Manatee Mortality Database 2000). Manatees 
may be crushed in gates and locks or may be trapped in openings where 
flows prevent them from surfacing to breathe. Locks and gates were 
responsible for 159 manatee deaths between 1976 and 1999 (Service 
2000b). While there are no well-defined patterns characterizing these 
mortalities, it is believed that periods of low rainfall increase the 
likelihood of manatees being killed in these structures. These periods 
require more frequent, large-scale movements of water, which require 
more frequent gate openings and closings in areas that attract manatees 
searching for fresh water.
    Manatees are also affected by other human-related activities. 
Impacts resulting from these activities include death caused by 
entrapment in pipes and culverts; entanglement in ropes, lines, and 
nets; ingestion of fishing gear or debris; vandalism; and poaching. 
These activities have accounted for 106 manatee deaths since 1976, an 
average of 4 deaths per year. As with watercraft-related mortalities, 
other human-related deaths also appear to be increasing, with 31 
deaths, approximately 3 percent of the total mortalities, recorded 
between 1997 and 2000 attributed to these sources. This is an average 
of 7.75 deaths per year over the last 4 years attributable to other 
human-related activities.
    Harassment of manatees is a concern, particularly when it impedes 
the use of warm water areas critical to manatee survival during periods 
of cold weather. In particular, there is an increasing number of 
swimmers and divers visiting Florida's waters to view and swim with the 
manatees. The presence of large numbers of people and the resultant 
disturbance has been documented to cause manatees to leave warm water 
areas (Jay Gorzaleny, Mote Marine Laboratory, personal communication). 
On occasion, divers and swimmers have been observed attempting to pet, 
chase, ride, and even sit on manatees. This type of harassment may 
cause the manatee to leave warmer water to find relief from the 
harassment in colder areas where there are fewer people. Such 
responses, if they are instigated by human harassment, are considered 
take under the ESA and MMPA.
    In response to these problems and the watercraft-related impacts in 
particular, conservation agencies such as the Service and the Florida 
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC), have increased their 
emphasis on enforcement and compliance with manatee speed zones by 
adding new officers, conducting law enforcement task force initiatives, 
increasing

[[Page 42320]]

overtime, and increasing the proportion of law enforcement time devoted 
to manatee conservation. We are also evaluating development proposals 
which would increase watercraft traffic in manatee habitats where speed 
zones, signage, and enforcement are insufficient. To help address the 
negative effects of human actions on manatees, we are proposing to 
establish 4 additional manatee sanctuaries and 12 additional manatee 
refuges in Florida.
    The authority to establish protection areas for the Florida manatee 
is provided by the ESA and the MMPA, and is codified in 50 CFR, part 
17, subpart J. We may, by regulation, establish manatee protection 
areas whenever there is substantial evidence showing such establishment 
is necessary to prevent the taking of one or more manatees.
    We may establish two types of manatee protection areas--manatee 
refuges and manatee sanctuaries. A manatee refuge, as defined in 50 CFR 
17.102, is an area in which we have determined that certain waterborne 
activities would result in the taking of one or more manatees, or that 
certain waterborne activities must be restricted to prevent the taking 
of one or more manatees, including but not limited to a taking by 
harassment. A manatee sanctuary is an area in which we have determined 
that any waterborne activity would result in the taking of one or more 
manatees, including but not limited to a taking by harassment. A 
waterborne activity is defined as including, but not limited to, 
swimming, diving (including skin and SCUBA diving), snorkeling, water 
skiing, surfing, fishing, the use of water vehicles and dredging and 
filling activities.
    In response to our advanced notice of proposed rulemaking for the 
development of this proposed rule and during several related public 
workshops, many commentors cited the increase in the overall size of 
the manatee population as evidence that the establishment of additional 
manatee protection areas is not needed. Recent data regarding the size 
of the manatee population are very encouraging, and indicate that 
local, State, and Federal efforts to recover the manatee are working. 
However, we remain concerned that waterborne activities are resulting 
in take of manatees, which is not allowed under the ESA and MMPA, and 
which may slow or even impede further recovery. It is our obligation 
under the ESA and MMPA to further manatee recovery, so that we may 
someday achieve our goal of removing the species from the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. This includes using 
available tools, as practicable, to reduce the level of human-related 
manatee mortality. The establishment of manatee protection areas is one 
such tool. We are pursuing other complementary tools simultaneously, as 
described in the next two sections.

Synopsis of Manatee Lawsuit Settlement

    In Save the Manatee Club v. Ballard, Civil No. 00-00076 EGS 
(D.D.C.), several organizations and individuals filed suit against the 
Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
alleging violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Marine Mammal 
Protection Act (MMPA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and 
Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Four groups representing 
development and boating interests intervened. Following extensive 
negotiations, a Settlement Agreement was approved by the court on 
January 5, 2001. Under the terms of the settlement, the Service agreed 
to the following:
     Submit a Proposed Rule for New Refuges and Sanctuaries to 
the Federal Register by April 2, 2001, and submit a final rule by 
September 28, 2001. Subsequent to the Federal settlement, the FWC also 
voted to settle Save the Manatee v. Egbert, Case No. 90-00-400CIV17-WS 
(N.D.Fla.) (the State case). That settlement, which has yet to be 
accepted by the court, calls for very similar protective measures in 
many of the locations proposed in this rule. As a result, the parties 
in the Federal lawsuit agreed to extend the April 2 deadline in an 
attempt to negotiate a means to avoid duplication of effort and better 
serve the public. Subsequent negotiations resulted in additional 
extensions, and the current deadline for submitting the proposal is 
August 3, 2001. The Service also agreed to evaluate the propriety of 
invocation of its emergency sanctuary/refuge designation authority. An 
Advance Notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal 
Register on September 1, 2000, and a series of six (6) public workshops 
were held in December 2000. 1,752 comments were received in response to 
the Advance Notice, and 396 people attended the public workshops. The 
comments received are summarized in the Site Selection Process and 
Criteria section. The Service is currently coordinating its assessment 
with on-going State efforts to improve manatee speed zone regulations. 
Our coordination with the state of Florida is summarized in the next 
section. At least one public hearing will be conducted on the Service's 
proposed rule, and additional hearings will be conducted if requested 
by the public.
     Revise the Manatee Recovery Plan. The Service was 
required, by December 1, 2000, to make a draft revised Recovery Plan 
available for public review and comment, and to circulate its final 
revised Recovery Plan for signature no later than February 28, 2001. 
The Service published a draft revised Recovery Plan on November 30, 
2000, and received over 500 comments. The Plaintiffs and Interveners 
agreed to new dates for development of a second draft and finalization 
of the Recovery Plan. As a result of the comments, the Service made 
substantial revisions to the Recovery Plan and subsequently issued a 
second draft for public review and comment on July 10, 2001. The 
Recovery Plan will be finalized by October 31, 2001.
     Pursue a rulemaking proceeding to adopt incidental take 
regulations under the MMPA. By March 6, 2001, the Service was required 
to submit to the Federal Register an Advance Notice of proposed 
rulemaking; invite by letter the Corps and other entities that conduct 
activities which may influence factors relating to effects of 
watercraft on manatees to participate in the MMPA rulemaking process; 
and promptly provide copies of the Federal Register notice and 
invitation letters to the Plaintiffs and Interveners. The Advanced 
Notice was published in the Federal Register on March 12, 2001, and 
copies of the Advanced Notice and invitation letters were mailed to the 
Plaintiffs and Interveners on March 6, 2001. The Service will determine 
if any anticipated take by entities participating in the rulemaking 
process meets the requirements set forth in section 101(a)(5) of the 
MMPA, 16 USC 1371(a)(5). The process should result in: (1) If the 
requirements set forth in section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA are deemed 
satisfied, a proposed and final MMPA incidental take regulation; (2) 
preparation of appropriate NEPA documentation which will include the 
direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the overall MMPA regulation 
(either an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS)); (3) detailed assessments of agency programs, 
including cumulative effects on manatees and their habitat, for any 
activities covered under the regulation; and (4) consultation pursuant 
to section 7 of the ESA. The Service has determined that it will 
prepare an EIS in association with this action. Draft and final 
products are due

[[Page 42321]]

on November 5, 2002, and May 5, 2003, respectively. If the requirements 
of the MMPA cannot be met, the Service must notify the Plaintiffs and 
Interveners as soon as practicable, and publish a negative finding in 
the Federal Register with the bases for denying request. The Service 
must publish its negative finding by May 5, 2003. The Service will 
conduct public hearings on draft proposals as appropriate.
     By March 6, 2001, furnish Plaintiffs and Interveners with 
a letter describing how the Service will spend increased enforcement 
resources in FY-2001. This letter was sent on March 6, 2001.
     Revise and make available for public review, its ``interim 
guidance'' for addressing potential manatee impacts associated with 
development and permitting of new watercraft access facilities. The 
Service was required to submit this document by March 6, 2001. This 
document was timely submitted and appeared in the Federal Register on 
March 14, 2001. The Service agreed to provide at least thirty (30) days 
of public comment and actually provided sixty (60) days comment on the 
revised draft guidance. A final decision on the guidance will be 
submitted to the Federal Register by August 13, 2001.
     Provide written progress reports on the status of tasks 
agreed upon in the settlement agreement every 6 months. The first 
report was due and was provided to the parties on July 5, 2001.
     Provide copies of concurrence and non-concurrence letters 
to Plaintiffs and Interveners. Whenever the Service sends a letter to 
the Corps in response to the Corps' determination that a project ``may 
affect'' the manatee or ``may affect but is not likely to adversely 
affect'' the manatee, it is required to concurrently make a copy of the 
correspondence available to the Plaintiffs and Interveners. This 
obligation may be satisfied by establishing a web-based system or by 
transmitting a copy of the letter by U.S. mail or electronically. Until 
such time as the Service establishes a web-based system, it will 
forward copies by U.S. mail. These letters have been provided 
accordingly.
     Provide copies of Biological Opinions (BO). Whenever the 
Service issues a final BO regarding the effect of a particular project 
on manatees or manatee critical habitat, it is required to concurrently 
make a copy of that opinion available to Plaintiffs and Interveners. 
This obligation may be satisfied by establishing a web-based system or 
by transmitting a copy of the letter by U.S. mail or electronically. 
Until such time as the Service establishes a web-based system, it will 
forward copies by U.S. mail. These letters have been provided 
accordingly.

Coordination With State Actions

    We acknowledge that there exists a network of manatee speed zones 
and sanctuaries, which have been established throughout peninsular 
Florida by Federal, State, and local governments. This existing 
structure works toward the above-stated goal of providing adequate 
protected areas throughout peninsular Florida to satisfy the biological 
requirements of the species. The purpose of our evaluation is to 
identify gaps in the existing network and to propose appropriate 
measures for filling those gaps.
    We recognize that the existing system of speed zones and 
sanctuaries has been established primarily by State and local 
governments. We also recognize the important role of our State and 
local partners, and we continue to support and encourage State and 
local measures to improve manatee protection. We have focused the 
currently proposed action on those sites in which we have determined 
that Federal action can effectively address the needs in the particular 
area.
    The sites contained in this proposed rule were selected based on 
the criteria described below, prior to the disclosure of terms of the 
proposed settlement in the State case. That proposed settlement 
contains a list of sites that the FWC will be evaluating for potential 
State designation of speed zones and sanctuaries. There is considerable 
overlap in terms of sites identified in that settlement and the sites 
discussed in this proposed rule. The fact that the State's list of 
sites is more expansive than this proposed rule does not indicate a 
determination on our part that sites on the State's list do not warrant 
designation, but is rather a reflection of our staffing and funding 
limitations in designating and maintaining a large number of Federal 
manatee protection areas.
    We have been coordinating closely with the FWC since the terms of 
their proposed settlement were disclosed, to determine which sites are 
most appropriate for State designation and which are better suited for 
Federal designation. At the time our proposed rule was prepared, there 
was not a final agreement on the terms of the proposed State 
settlement. Pursuant to the terms of our settlement agreement described 
previously we were required to submit this proposed rule to the Federal 
Register by April 2, 2001, which was prior to the time in which the FWC 
made a final decision regarding sites they intend to evaluate. As 
stated previously, the deadline was extended on several occasions by 
agreement of the parties in an attempt to negotiate a means to avoid 
duplication of effort and better serve the public. Therefore, there is 
considerable possible overlap between this proposal and likely State 
action which could occur in the near future.
    We strongly believe that the State should have leadership in 
establishing additional manatee protection areas. However, we also must 
meet our settlement obligations. Therefore, we intend to participate in 
the State's evaluation. If the State adopts identical or comparable 
manatee protection measures to the ones contained in this proposal, we 
will assess whether withdrawing these designations is appropriate. We 
will also continue to monitor sites that are not currently included in 
this proposed rule. If we identify additional needs, we will work with 
the State to establish necessary protection or may propose actions in 
the future, as appropriate. The converse is true if we find current 
protection areas are no longer necessary or prudent. Given that 
reducing watercraft-related manatee mortality is important to the 
recovery of the species, and given recent watercraft-related mortality 
in Brevard County, we intend to proceed expeditiously to final 
rulemaking for the Barge Canal and Sykes Creek sites once all public 
comments have been considered. The remaining 14 sites in this proposed 
rule are somewhat less urgent than the Barge Canal and Sykes Creek; 
however, we are concerned about the potential for lengthy delays in 
implementing what appear to be appropriate actions to reduce take at 
these sites. Therefore, we intend to defer final rulemaking on these 
sites until December 1, 2002. At that time, if we determine that 
designation is warranted for the remaining 14 sites, and should the 
State be unable to complete rulemaking on those sites, we intend to 
proceed with final rulemaking on those sites.

Site Selection Process and Criteria

    In preparation for this proposed action, we met with 
representatives from local, State, and Federal agencies and 
organizations involved in manatee research, management, and law 
enforcement. These meetings helped us to develop a list of sites 
throughout Florida and southeast Georgia that manatee experts believed 
should be considered for possible designation as manatee protection 
areas.
    As mentioned above, we published an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking in the Federal Register on September 1,

[[Page 42322]]

2000 (65 FR 53222). The purpose of the advance notice was to inform the 
public that we were initiating the process of investigating areas for 
possible designation as manatee protection areas, and to solicit 
initial public input. We received 1,752 responses to the advance 
notice. Of these, 1,737 supported our efforts to establish additional 
manatee protection areas, and 13 opposed them. The remaining 2 comments 
did not state a specific opinion.
    We also conducted six public workshops throughout peninsular 
Florida to present the list of potential sites and to solicit public 
input. A total of 396 people attended the workshops, and 166 provided 
either oral or written comments. Of these, 79 were general in nature, 
either supporting our efforts to establish additional manatee 
protection areas (40) or opposing them (39). An additional 36 comments 
were not specific to the topic or discussed other items. Fifteen 
commentors provided specific information or comments, including 
recommendations to increase enforcement, increase education, use new 
technology including satellite tracking of manatees, and other rule-
related topics. Of the remaining comments, 28 specifically opposed and 
8 specifically supported the establishment of additional manatee 
protection areas.
    We selected sites for inclusion in the proposed rule from the list 
of sites developed through the preliminary meetings and the information 
gathered at the public workshops and in response to the advance notice. 
We based site selection on four factors--(1) evidence that the site is 
used by manatees; (2) historic evidence of take (harm or harassment) of 
manatees at the site due to waterborne human activities; (3) the 
potential for additional take based on manatee and human use of the 
site; and (4) a determination that we could implement effective 
measures at the site to address the identified problem.
    In documenting manatee use and historic manatee harm and 
harassment, we relied on the best available data including aerial 
survey data and manatee mortality data, information from the Florida 
Marine Research Institute, Pathobiology Laboratory, and other 
information from State and Federal sources. These data were 
supplemented with information from manatee experts, the public, and our 
best professional judgment. In determining the potential effectiveness 
of our proposed actions, we considered the costs of managing and 
enforcing sites versus the benefits to manatee conservation. Costs 
associated with site management include installation and maintenance of 
appropriate signage, public education, and enforcement. In addition, 
designation of sanctuaries in the waters bordered by private property 
would entail additional administrative burdens in terms of identifying 
and providing access to affected residents. We considered these 
administrative burdens in selecting sites. Finally, we evaluated the 
effectiveness of our proposed actions against the likely effectiveness 
of actions by State and/or local governments. As stated previously, it 
was our goal to avoid sites that could be most effectively addressed by 
State or local government. However, the parallel suits against the 
State and Federal governments limited early coordination in the 
development of this proposal and the proposed State settlement. 
Therefore, duplication of effort may occur in the future. To resolve 
this, as appropriate we will consider withdrawing any actions where 
comparable State or local protection is established. We did, however, 
make every effort to make our proposed designations consistent with the 
existing adjacent State or local designations.

Definitions

    `Idle speed' means the minimum speed needed to maintain watercraft 
steerage.
    `Planing' means riding on or near the water's surface as a result 
of the hydrodynamic forces on a watercraft's hull, sponsons 
(projections from the side of a ship), foils, or other surfaces. A 
watercraft is considered on plane when it is being operated at or above 
the speed necessary to keep the vessel planing.
    `Slow speed' means the speed at which a watercraft proceeds when it 
is fully off plane and completely settled in the water. Watercraft must 
not be operated at a speed that creates an excessive wake. Due to the 
different speeds at which watercraft of different sizes and 
configurations may travel while in compliance with this definition, no 
specific speed is assigned to slow speed. A watercraft is not 
proceeding at slow speed if it is--(1) on a plane, (2) in the process 
of coming up on or coming off of plane, or (3) creating an excessive 
wake. A watercraft is proceeding at slow speed if it is fully off plane 
and completely settled in the water, not plowing or creating an 
excessive wake.
    `Slow speed (channel exempt)' designates a larger area where slow 
speed is required, through which a maintained, marked channel is exempt 
from the slow speed requirement.
    `Slow speed (channel included)' means that the slow-speed 
designation applies to the entire marked area, including within the 
designated channel.
    `Wake' means all changes in the vertical height of the water's 
surface caused by the passage of a watercraft, including a vessel's bow 
wave, stern wave, and propeller wash, or a combination of these.
    We propose to amend the definition of water vehicle to include the 
terms watercraft and vessel. These terms are used interchangeably in 
the proposed rule and in 50 CFR subpart J. We also propose to add 
personal watercraft to this definition.
    We propose to amend the ``Exception for residents'' to allow 
vessels other than boats access to private residences, boat houses, and 
boat docks through existing and proposed sanctuaries by the residents 
and their authorized guests.

Areas Proposed for Designation as Manatee Sanctuaries

Blue Waters

    We propose to establish a seasonal manatee sanctuary, containing 
1.7 hectares (ha) (4.1 acres) more or less, at the headwaters of the 
Homosassa River, adjacent to the Homosassa Springs State Wildlife Park, 
commonly referred to as the Blue Waters, in Citrus County. This 
sanctuary would prohibit engaging in all waterborne activities from 
October 1 through March 31, inclusive.
    The headwaters of the Homosassa River are an important wintering 
site for manatees (Service Aerial Manatee Census Data, unpubl. report). 
The site is in close proximity to the Homosassa Spring, a Class 1 
magnitude spring, which provides warm water from the Florida aquifer. 
This warm water is essential to the survival and well-being of a 
significant number of manatees during cold weather periods, with as 
many as 123 manatees being observed at the site at one time (Service 
Aerial Manatee Census Data, unpubl. report). Homosassa Springs State 
Wildlife Park, located directly upstream from the site and containing 
the spring itself, is not accessible to the manatees wintering at Blue 
Waters because the spring head is used as a care facility for captive 
manatees.
    The presence of manatees, coupled with the shallow clear nature of 
the water, has attracted an increasingly large number of swimmers and 
divers to the site. The primary objective of these visitors is to 
interact in the water with the manatees. The waters of the Homosassa 
River are currently regulated

[[Page 42323]]

as an idle speed zone, and the State Park maintains a no-entry zone 
from a line approximately 61 meters (m) (200 feet (ft)) upstream of the 
confluence of the spring run and the northeast fork of the river. The 
number of visitors has grown to the point where manatees are observed 
leaving the site and swimming downstream to colder water (Jay 
Gorzaleny, Mote Marine Laboratory, personal communication). This 
adversely affects manatees by increasing the amount of energy required 
to maintain body temperature and could potentially cause physiologic 
harm to the animals, particularly smaller manatees, which are not able 
to maintain body temperatures as well as adult-sized animals (Worthy et 
al. 2000).
    The establishment of a manatee sanctuary at this location would 
provide manatees with an undisturbed area in which to rest and sleep, 
by extending the no-entry zone currently maintained by the State Park 
approximately 61 m (200 ft) downstream in the spring run. The waters in 
the existing no-entry zone are, for the most part, too shallow to be 
accessible to manatees. The public would still have opportunities to 
interact with the manatees outside the proposed sanctuary, as manatees 
enter and exit the sanctuary. Interaction and viewing activities would 
probably increase as manatees would remain in the Blue Waters for more 
extended periods of time due to decreased disturbance. This has proven 
to be the case with the manatee sanctuaries in Kings Bay/Crystal River, 
Citrus County, Florida.

Bartow Electric Generating Station

    We propose to establish a seasonal manatee sanctuary, containing 
approximately 73.5 ha (181.5 acres), at the warm water outflow of the 
Bartow Electric generating station in Tampa Bay, Pinellas County. This 
seasonal closure would prohibit all waterborne activity at this site 
from October 1 through March 31, inclusive. In addition, we propose to 
establish a manatee refuge in the South Gandy Channel north of the 
Bartow station (see ``Areas Proposed for Designation as Manatee 
Refuges'' section below).
    A large percentage of the manatees residing in the middle Gulf of 
Mexico area of Florida winter at the warm water outflows of two 
operating electrical power plants in Tampa Bay (Florida Marine Research 
Institute Aerial Survey Data 2000). Minimizing disturbance of manatees 
at these warm water sites during winter months is critical to the 
survival of these manatees. We have proposed this area based on 
observed manatee use patterns in response to cold weather/cooler 
ambient water temperatures. Currently, manatees use the Bartow site for 
warmth during periods of cold weather. The maximum manatee count at 
this site was 102 manatees on February 25, 1999 (Florida Marine 
Research Institute Aerial Survey Data).
    Warm water effluent from this plant attracts manatees during cold 
weather periods. Large numbers of fish are also attracted to this site, 
which, in turn, attracts large numbers of fishermen. The disturbance by 
boats causes manatees to move out of the area, thereby increasing 
metabolic rates and energy consumption of the animals as they attempt 
to maintain body temperatures (Worthy et al. 2000). There have also 
been cases of manatees being hooked by and entangled with fishing gear 
(Florida Marine Research Institute Manatee Mortality Database). 
Pinellas County has recently adopted a no-motor zone, in which only 
nonmotorized watercraft are permitted, in the immediate area of the 
outflow. While we applaud this initial action, we believe that the no-
motor zone designation will not prevent harassment of manatees at this 
important warm water site. Establishing a sanctuary at this site would 
provide manatees with undisturbed access to this warm water outflow. We 
have selected the area proposed to be closed based on observed manatee 
use patterns during cold weather/cooler ambient water temperatures 
(Florida Marine Research Institute Aerial Survey Data).

Tampa Electric Company (TECO) Big Bend

    We propose to establish a seasonal manatee sanctuary, containing 
30.8 ha (76.2 acres) more or less, at the warm water outflow of the 
TECO Big Bend electric generating station in Tampa Bay, Hillsborough 
County. A seasonal closure would prohibit all waterborne activity at 
this site from October 1 through March 31, inclusive. In addition, we 
propose to establish a manatee refuge in the area south of this 
proposed sanctuary (see ``Areas Proposed for Designation as Manatee 
Refuges'' section below).
    A large percentage of the manatees residing in the middle Gulf of 
Mexico area of Florida winter at the warm water outflows of two 
operating electrical power plants in Tampa Bay (Florida Marine Research 
Institute Aerial Survey Data). We proposed this area based on observed 
manatee use patterns in response to cold weather/cooler ambient water 
temperatures. Currently, manatees use the TECO site for warmth during 
periods of cold weather. Minimizing disturbance of manatees at these 
warm water sites during winter months is critical to the survival of 
these manatees. The highest manatee count at this site was 316 on 
January 6, 2001 (Florida Marine Research Institute Aerial Survey Data).
    Warm water effluent from this plant attracts manatees during cold 
weather periods. Large numbers of fish are also attracted to this site, 
which, in turn, attracts large numbers of fishermen. The disturbance by 
boats causes manatees to move out of the area, thereby increasing 
metabolic rates and energy consumption of the animals in an attempt to 
maintain body temperatures (Worthy et al. 2000). Cases have been 
documented of manatees being hooked by and entangled with fishing gear 
(Florida Marine Research Institute Manatee Mortality Database). There 
is currently a seasonal no-entry zone in the immediate vicinity of the 
TECO outflow; however, this zone is too small to prevent harassment of 
manatees by fishermen. Establishing a sanctuary at this site would 
provide manatees with an expanded area during winter months. We have 
selected the area proposed to be closed based on observed manatee use 
patterns in response to cold weather/cooler ambient water temperatures 
(Florida Marine Research Institute Aerial Survey Data).

Port Sutton

    We propose to establish a seasonal manatee sanctuary, containing 
1.1 ha (2.7 acres) more or less, at the warm water outflow of the TECO 
Gannon electric generating station on Tampa Bay, Hillsborough County. A 
seasonal closure would prohibit all waterborne activity at this site 
from October 1 through March 31, inclusive. In addition, we propose to 
establish a manatee refuge in the Port Sutton area surrounding the 
proposed sanctuary (see ``Areas Proposed for Designation as Manatee 
Refuges'' section below).
    A large percentage of the manatees residing in the middle Gulf of 
Mexico area of Florida winter at the warm water outflows of two 
operating electrical power plants in Tampa Bay. The Gannon plant is 
currently being retooled and is scheduled to go on-line in the near 
future. Once operating, the plant outflow is expected to attract 
wintering manatees. Therefore, limiting the disturbance of manatees 
using this site will be critical to the survival of manatees using this 
site during the winter. We have proposed this area based on observed 
manatee use patterns in response to cold weather/cooler ambient water 
temperatures.

[[Page 42324]]

    Warm water effluent from this plant will attract manatees during 
cold weather periods. Large numbers of fish also will be attracted to 
this site, which, in turn, will attract large numbers of fishermen. The 
disturbance by boats causes manatees to move out of the area, thereby 
increasing metabolic rates and energy consumption of the animals in an 
attempt to maintain body temperatures (Worthy et al. 2000). Manatees 
have been hooked by and entangled with fishing gear. The area currently 
lacks a no-entry zone. Establishing a sanctuary at this site would 
provide manatees with undisturbed access to this warm water outflow. We 
have selected the area proposed to be closed based on observed manatee 
use patterns in response to cold weather/cooler ambient water 
temperatures (Florida Marine Research Institute Aerial Survey Data).

Areas Proposed for Designation as Manatee Refuges

South Gandy Navigation Channel

    We propose to establish a seasonal manatee refuge, containing 30.3 
ha (74.8 acres) more or less, in the South Gandy Channel north of the 
Bartow electric generating station, Pinellas County, with the purpose 
of regulating watercraft operation to slow speed from October 1 through 
March 31, inclusive.
    We discuss the reasons for proposing this site in the description 
of the proposal to establish a manatee sanctuary at the Bartow electric 
generating station, adjacent to this site (see ``Areas Proposed for 
Designation as Manatee Sanctuaries'' section). Regulating this area as 
a slow-speed zone rather than as a sanctuary would afford ingress and 
egress through the area.

TECO Big Bend

    We propose to establish a manatee refuge, containing 93.5 ha (231 
acres) more or less, in the waters adjacent to, and south of, the 
proposed manatee sanctuary at the TECO Big Bend electric generating 
station in Hillsborough County to provide ingress and egress to the 
lagoon and canals in North Apollo Beach. Watercraft activity within 
this refuge would be regulated to idle speed from October 1 through 
March 31, inclusive.
    We discuss the reasons for proposing this site in the description 
of the proposal to establish a manatee sanctuary at the TECO Big Bend 
electric generating station (see ``Areas Proposed for Designation as 
Manatee Sanctuaries'' section). Regulating this area as an idle-speed 
zone rather than as a sanctuary would afford ingress and egress through 
the area with a minimum anticipated adverse impact to manatees.

Port Sutton

    We propose to designate the Port Sutton area surrounding the 
proposed manatee sanctuary at the TECO Gannon electric generating 
station, Hillsborough County, as a manatee refuge, containing 39.2 ha 
(96.9 acres) more or less. Watercraft would be required to proceed at 
idle speed within this refuge from October 1 through March 31, 
inclusive.
    We discuss the reasons for proposing this site in the description 
of the proposal to establish a manatee sanctuary at the TECO Gannon 
electric generating station, adjacent to this site (see ``Areas 
Proposed for Designation as Manatee Sanctuaries'' section). Regulating 
this area as an idle-speed zone rather than as a sanctuary would afford 
ingress and egress through the area with a minimum anticipated adverse 
impact to manatees.

Pansy Bayou

    We propose to establish a manatee refuge, containing 47 ha (116.1 
acres) more or less, in the Pansy Bayou area in Sarasota County to 
regulate vessel traffic to slow speed all year.
    Manatees consistently use this site as both a travel corridor and 
feeding site (Florida Marine Research Institute Aerial Survey Data). 
Pansy Bayou proper is currently closed under State law to all vessel 
traffic except residents, and serves as a manatee sanctuary. The site 
of the proposed refuge is currently used as a water-ski area, and the 
remaining waters around the proposed refuge are currently designated by 
the State as slow speed (channel included) zones (F.A.C. 62N-
22.026(2)(a)(4)). Aerial survey data indicate significant manatee use 
in this area. There were 113 aerial surveys flown during all seasons 
between 1985 and 1993 in the area of Pansy Bayou. During each survey, 
manatees were detected in and around the high-speed water-ski area 
(within 1.2 kilometers (km) (0.75 mile (mi))), with the maximum number 
of 12 manatees observed during 1 survey. Two watercraft-related manatee 
mortalities have occurred within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the proposed manatee 
refuge. High-speed watercraft operation in this area poses a continuing 
threat to a substantial number of manatees. Establishment of a slow-
speed zone would minimize the risk of manatee take due to watercraft 
collisions.

Little Sarasota Bay

    We propose to establish a manatee refuge, containing 214.2 ha 
(529.4 acres) more or less, to control vessel speeds in the little 
Sarasota Bay area in Sarasota County. The speed designation for this 
area would be slow speed (channel exempt) all year.
    This area is consistently used by manatees for feeding and as a 
travel corridor. Aerial survey data indicate a significant amount of 
use by manatees (Florida Marine Research Institute Aerial Survey Data). 
In the period between 1985 and 1993, there were 24 aerial surveys, 
conducted during all seasons of the year, in which manatees were 
detected in the proposed area. The maximum number of manatees observed 
during one survey was seven. Concurrently, the areas of Sarasota Bay 
within 1.6 km (1 mi) to the north and south of the proposed area were 
also flown. Manatees were also detected in these areas, with a maximum 
count of 12 manatees to the north of the site and 13 manatees to the 
south of the site. Four watercraft-related manatee mortalities have 
occurred in the vicinity of this site (Florida Marine Research 
Institute Manatee Mortality Database). There are currently no speed 
zones in this portion of Sarasota County. The current unregulated 
nature of vessel operation has high potential for resulting in manatee 
take. Establishing a slow-speed zone outside of the main navigation 
channel would reduce the potential for take by limiting vessel speeds 
in those waters where manatees are most likely to occur.

Lemon Bay

    We propose to establish a manatee refuge, containing approximately 
379.9 ha (938.8 acres), in Lemon Bay, Charlotte County, for the purpose 
of regulating vessel speed. Speed designation would be slow speed 
(channel exempt) all year.
    Lemon Bay is used consistently by manatees for feeding and as a 
travel corridor. Aerial survey data indicate that this area is used 
extensively by manatees (Florida Marine Research Institute Aerial 
Survey Database). In the period between 1987 and 1998, there were 122 
aerial surveys of the area, conducted during all seasons, during which 
manatees were observed. The highest number of manatees observed within 
the area of the proposed refuge during one survey was nine. There are 
currently no speed zones for manatee protection in this portion of 
Charlotte County. The unregulated nature of this water body makes the 
taking of manatees very likely, due to the high speed at which 
watercraft currently travel through areas frequented by manatees. Six 
watercraft-related manatee mortalities have occurred at

[[Page 42325]]

this site (Florida Marine Research Institute Manatee Mortality 
Database). Establishing a slow-speed zone outside of the main 
navigation channel would reduce the likelihood of manatee take 
occurring.

Peace River

    We propose to establish a manatee refuge, containing 4,892 ha 
(12,088.1 acres) more or less, in the Peace River in Charlotte and 
Desoto Counties. This refuge would include the river and all associated 
waters northeast of the Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41). Waters within 
the marked navigation channel would be regulated to allow watercraft to 
travel at a maximum speed of 40 km per hour (kph) (25 mi per hour 
(mph)). All waters outside of the marked channel would be regulated to 
provide for slow-speed vessel operation. These regulations would be in 
effect all year.
    The Peace River is used throughout the year by manatees. There were 
36 aerial surveys flown between 1987 and 1988, during which manatees 
were observed in the Peace River area. The maximum number of manatees 
observed during one flight was 16. A significant number of manatee 
mortalities have occurred at this site, including 11 watercraft-related 
mortalities. Of this number, six deaths have occurred since 1995. There 
are currently no speed zones for manatee protection in the Peace River. 
As a result, watercraft currently travel at high speeds through areas 
of the Peace River frequented by manatees. The establishment of the 
proposed refuge would slow vessel traffic in those portions of the 
Peace River where watercraft are most likely to encounter manatees, 
thereby minimizing the likelihood of take.

Shell Island

    We propose to establish a manatee refuge, containing approximately 
32.6 ha (80.5 acres), for the purpose of regulating vessel speed as 
slow speed (channel included) in the navigation channel that is located 
just north of Shell Island at the mouth of the Caloosahatchee River, 
Lee County. This regulation would be in effect all year.
    The Caloosahatchee River system supports large numbers of manatees. 
The Florida Power and Light electrical generating station located on 
this river is a major wintering refuge for manatees. On January 6, 
2001, 434 manatees were observed there (Florida Marine Research 
Institute Aerial Survey Database). Most manatees using the 
Caloosahatchee River must pass through the Intracoastal Waterway 
navigation channel north of Shell Island when entering or exiting the 
river. This funneling of watercraft traveling at high speed and 
manatees through a narrow channel has a high probability of resulting 
in take of manatees. Four watercraft-related manatee mortalities have 
occurred at this site, as well as in close proximity to this site. 
Establishing a slow-speed zone would minimize the likelihood of manatee 
take occurring at this site.

Haulover Canal

    We propose to establish a manatee refuge, containing 408.1 ha 
(1,008.3 acres) more or less, at the Haulover Canal in Brevard County 
and extend the existing slow-speed zone eastward and westward from the 
ends of the canal. All waters lying within a radius of 0.8 km (0.5 mi) 
of each end of the Haulover Canal and including the canal itself would 
be designated as a slow speed (channel included) zone all year.
    Manatees moving between the Mosquito Lagoon and the Indian River 
travel through the Haulover Canal. Aerial survey data indicate 
significant manatee use of the site. The canal functions in a funnel-
like fashion, concentrating manatees and boats. While vessels are 
currently required to proceed at slow speed within the confines of the 
canal, there is no speed regulation to the east and west of the canal. 
Watercraft approaching an area where manatees are concentrated have a 
high probability of taking manatees. Five watercraft-related 
mortalities have occurred in the vicinity of the canal (Florida Marine 
Research Institute Manatee Mortality Database). Regulating boats to 
operate at slow speed not only within the canal, but also at the 
entrances to both ends of the canal in barbell fashion, would minimize 
the potential for take of manatees.

Barge Canal

    We propose to establish a manatee refuge, containing approximately 
276.3 ha (682.7 acres), for the purpose of regulating watercraft 
operation to slow speed (channel included) for the entire length of the 
Barge Canal and extending eastward to the Canaveral Locks, Brevard 
County. These regulations would be in effect all year.
    The Barge Canal serves as a travel corridor between the Indian and 
Banana Rivers for manatees and mariners alike. Aerial survey data 
indicate significant use of the site by manatees. Currently there are 
four areas within the Barge Canal that are regulated by the State as 
40-km-per-hour (25-mph) zones with a 7.6-m (25-ft) slow-speed shoreline 
buffer, all year, while the remainder of the Barge Canal is a slow-
speed all-year zone. High-speed vessel operation in a confined 
migration corridor has an enhanced likelihood of resulting in take of 
manatees. There have been 16 watercraft-related manatee mortalities in 
the Barge Canal and its vicinity (Florida Marine Research Institute 
Manatee Mortality Database). Regulating vessels to operate at slow 
speed would minimize the potential for take of manatees.
    The State recently approved new regulations for Brevard County that 
would also designate the Barge Canal as a slow speed zone; thereby 
providing the comparable level of manatee protection as our proposed 
designation. A number of organizations and individuals have appealed 
the State's rulemaking and it is uncertain at this time when, or 
whether, the State's designation may take effect. It is our view that 
reducing watercraft speeds in certain manatee habitat is essential to 
the recovery of the species. Therefore, we are proposing this 
designation at this time so that appropriate protective measures will 
be in place should the State be unable to implement their rulemaking. 
We considered promulgation of an emergency designation of the Barge 
Canal as a manatee refuge, and determined that such a designation may 
be warranted given the high level of watercraft related manatee 
mortality in this area. However, given the high level of public use of 
this waterway, and the anticipated high level of public interest/
concern regarding this proposed action, we determined that proposed 
designation was the most prudent course of action. Nonetheless, it is 
our intention to proceed with final rulemaking on this site as 
expeditiously as possible following the careful consideration of all 
comments received in response to this notice.

Sykes Creek

    We are proposing the establishment of a manatee refuge, containing 
342.3 ha (845.8 acres) more or less, in Sykes Creek in Brevard County 
for the purposes of regulating watercraft operation to slow-speed 
(channel included) all year.
    Aerial survey data indicate a significant amount of manatee use of 
Sykes Creek. Manatees consistently use this site for feeding, resting, 
and breeding. Like the Barge Canal, it is a fairly narrow water body 
and has been the site of 13 watercraft-related manatee mortalities 
(Florida Marine Research Institute Manatee Mortality Database). High-
speed vessel operation in this area has a high likelihood of resulting 
in take of manatees. Regulating vessels to proceed at slow speed would 
minimize the likelihood of a take incident.

[[Page 42326]]

    The State recently approved new regulations for Brevard County that 
would also designate the Sykes Creek as a slow speed zone; thereby 
providing the comparable level of manatee protection as our proposed 
designation. A number of organizations and individuals have appealed 
the State's rulemaking and it is uncertain at this time when, or 
whether, the State's designation may take effect. It is our view that 
reducing watercraft speeds in certain manatee habitat is essential to 
the recovery of the species. Therefore, we are proposing this 
designation at this time so that appropriate protective measures will 
be in place should the State be unable to implement their rulemaking. 
We considered promulgation of an emergency designation of Sykes Creek 
as a manatee refuge, and determined that such a designation may be 
warranted given the high level of watercraft related manatee mortality 
in this area. However, given the high level of public use of this 
waterway, and the anticipated high level of public interest/concern 
regarding this proposed action, we determined that proposed designation 
was the most prudent course of action. Nonetheless, it is our intention 
to proceed with final rulemaking on this site as expeditiously as 
possible following the careful consideration of all comments received 
in response to this notice.

Cocoa Beach

    We propose to establish a manatee refuge, containing 23.9 ha (59.1 
acres) more or less, to regulate vessel operation to slow speed all 
year in the area adjacent to Municipal Park at Cocoa Beach, Brevard 
County.
    Aerial survey data indicate a significant amount of manatee use of 
this site. The area contains a substantial amount of sea grasses and is 
consistently used as a foraging area by manatees. A high incidence of 
watercraft-related manatee carcass recovery has occurred in the 
vicinity of this site, and one watercraft-related manatee mortality has 
occurred at this site. The site is currently a water-ski area regulated 
by the State as a 56-kph (35-mph) zone all year (F.A.C. 62N-
22.006(1)(h)), whereas the surrounding waters are regulated as slow-
speed zones all year (F.A.C. 62N-22.006(1)(d)). Given the use of the 
area by manatees, high-speed vessel operation at this location has a 
high probability of resulting in take of manatees. Requiring vessels to 
proceed at slow speed would minimize potential manatee take.

Public Comments Solicited

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit 
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental 
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested 
party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments 
concerning:
    1. The reasons why any area should or should not be designated as a 
manatee sanctuary or a manatee refuge;
    2. Current or planned activities in the subject areas and their 
possible effects on manatees;
    3. Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the 
proposed designations; and
    4. Potential adverse effects to the manatee associated with 
designating manatee protection areas for the species.
    5. Any actions that could be considered in lieu of, or in 
conjunction with, the proposed designations that would provide 
comparable or improved manatee protection.
    Please submit comments as an ASCII file format and avoid the use of 
special characters and encryption. Please also include ``Attn: [RIN 
number]'' and your name and return address in your e-mail message. If 
you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received 
your e-mail message, contact us directly by calling our Jacksonville 
Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Our practice is to make all comments, including names and home 
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular 
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold 
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to 
the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold 
also from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable 
by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you 
must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, 
we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions 
from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or 
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), we will seek the expert opinions of at least three appropriate 
and independent specialists regarding this proposed rule. The purpose 
of such a review is to ensure that our decisions are based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We will send 
these peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately following 
publication in the Federal Register. We will invite these peer 
reviewers to comment, during the comment period, on the specific 
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of these 
manatee protection areas.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a 
final rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.

Public Hearings

    The ESA provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests must be filed within 30 days of the date of this 
proposal. We have scheduled one public hearing for this proposal. We 
will hold additional public hearings at dates, times, and sites to be 
determined. Requests for additional hearings must be made in writing 
and should be addressed to the Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field 
Office (see ADDRESSES section). We will publish a separate notice in 
the Federal Register providing information about the time and location 
for those hearings. Written comments submitted during the comment 
period receive equal consideration with those comments presented at a 
public hearing.

Clarity of the Rule

    Executive Order 12866 requires each agency to write regulations/
notices that are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to 
make this proposed rule easier to understand, including answers to 
questions such as the following: (1) Are the requirements in the 
proposed rule clearly stated? (2) Does the proposed rule contain 
unnecessary technical language or jargon that interferes with the 
clarity? (3) Does the format of the proposed rule (grouping and order 
of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its 
clarity? (4) Is the description of the proposed rule in the 
``Supplementary Information'' section of the preamble helpful in 
understanding the proposed rule? (5) What else could we do to make the 
proposed rule easier to understand?
    Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this 
proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, 
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C

[[Page 42327]]

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may e-mail your comments to the 
following address: [email protected].

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this 
proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of 
Management and Budget makes the final determination under Executive 
Order 12866.
    a. This proposed rule will not have an annual economic impact of 
$100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, 
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit 
analysis is not required. We do not expect that any significant 
economic impacts would result from the establishment of 4 manatee 
sanctuaries (264.538 acres) and 12 manatee refuges (16,751.604 acres) 
in 7 Counties in the State of Florida. The public support for manatee 
protection is substantial in Florida. Using a contribution continuum 
method and reinforced by other empirical techniques, a study by Bendle 
and Bell in 1993 estimated that Floridians placed an asset value of 
$3.2 billion (2001 dollars) on the protection of the manatee 
population. This amounts to a per-household value of $18.12. The $3.2 
billion is an estimate of the benefit derived by Floridians from the 
existence of the manatee population.
    The purpose of this proposed rule is to establish 16 additional 
manatee protection areas in Florida. We are proposing to reduce the 
level of take of manatees by controlling human activity in 4 areas 
proposed as sanctuaries and 12 areas proposed as refuges. Affected 
waterborne activities include swimming, diving, snorkeling, water 
skiing, surfing, fishing, the use of water vehicles, and dredging and 
filling activities. For the four areas designated as sanctuaries all 
waterborne activities would be prohibited from October 1 to March 31. 
For the 12 areas designated as refuges the areas would be slow-speed 
zones. The economic effect of these designations will be measured by 
the number of recreationists who use alternative sites for their 
activity or have a reduced quality of the waterborne activity 
experience at the designated sites. The State of Florida has 12,000 
miles of rivers and 3 million acres of lakes so the designation of 
17,000 acres (roughly 25 linear miles), most of which is for lower 
speed zones, is unlikely to prevent any waterborne activity because of 
this rule, although some individuals may need to modify slightly when 
and where they pursue certain waterborne activities. Only one water 
craft company is known to use one of the proposed sites as a testing 
area for new hull designs. Alternative sites without speed zones are 
available nearby which would cost the manufacturer additional travel 
time and equipment re-calibration for the testing. No cost estimate for 
this adjustment is available at this time.
    For boating recreationists, the inconvenience and extra time 
required to cross a slow-speed zone will reduce the quality of the 
waterborne activity for some participants. The extra time required for 
commercial charter boats to reach fishing grounds will reduce on-site 
fishing time and could result in lower consumer surplus for the trip. 
The number of recreationists and charter boats using the designated 
sites is not known. The State of Florida has nearly 800 thousand 
registered boats, but only those boats and recreationists using the 
designated sites will potentially be affected. However, since Florida 
has 12 thousand miles of rivers and streams and 3 million acres of 
lakes and ponds, it is likely that only a small percentage of boat 
users will be affected by this rule. The current designation of roughly 
25 linear miles will cause some inconvenience in travel time over these 
areas, but alternative sites within the proximity of the manatee 
sanctuaries and refuges are available for all waterborne activities. 
Furthermore, none of the areas designated is the entire surface area of 
a water body. The undesignated parts of the water bodies are available 
for waterborne activities. Recreationists may be inconvenienced by 
having to travel to an undesignated area, but they are not prohibited 
from participating in any of the waterborne activities. Currently, no 
data sources estimate the amount of recreational activity in and around 
the 16 areas to be designated as either manatee sanctuaries or refuges. 
However, the majority (16,751.604 acres) of the areas proposed to be 
designated are for manatee refuges, which require only reduced speed. 
The 264.538 acres proposed as manatee sanctuaries are, for the most 
part, next to electric power generating plants and are part of larger 
water bodies where unrestricted waterborne recreational activity can 
take place. For these reasons, we believe some inconvenience to the 
public may occur because of reduced travel speeds but that the economic 
impact will not be significant.
    b. This proposed rule is consistent with the approach used by State 
and local governments to protect manatees in Florida. We recognize the 
important role of State and local partners, and we continue to support 
and encourage State and local measures to improve manatee protection. 
The Service has focused the currently proposed action on those sites in 
which we have determined that Federal action can effectively address 
the needs in the particular area. However, as previously described, 
there is unavoidable potential for duplication and overlap. Therefore, 
we are eager to work with State and local agencies to develop and 
implement measures in the areas described in the proposed rule that 
would be equally protective of manatees. We also welcome their comments 
and participation between now and the time this rule is finalized to 
increase the likelihood of consistency of our final action with 
possible future action by the State or local agencies. If comparable 
protections are put in place before we make this rule final, we will 
consider excluding those areas from Federal protection.
    c. This proposed rule will not materially affect entitlements, 
grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of 
their recipients. Minimal restrictions to existing human uses of the 
proposed sites would result from this rule, but the restriction is 
believed to enhance manatee viewing opportunities. No entitlements, 
grants, user fees, loan programs or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients are expected to occur.
    d. This proposed rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. 
We have previously established other manatee sanctuaries. This proposed 
action will reduce the need for enforcement actions to prevent the 
takings of manatees by harassment resulting form human-related 
waterborne activities.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant 
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities as defined 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). An 
initial/final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required. 
Accordingly, a Small Entity Compliance Guide is not required.
    To determine the potential effects of this proposed rule on small 
entities, we looked at economic data from the seven counties in Florida 
that would be affected. Table 1, below, depicts general economic 
characteristics of those counties, and table 2 gives employment data. 
As can be seen in table 1, the growth rate in per capita income is 
slower than the State average in Citrus, Brevard, and Charlotte 
Counties, but the rate of growth in total personal income exceeds the 
State average except in Brevard County, where it is slightly lower. 
Larger households account for the lower per capita income estimates in 
these counties. The proportion of total

[[Page 42328]]

industry earnings coming from the amusements and recreation sector 
ranges from 0.5 percent in Brevard County to 2.7 percent in Sarasota 
County. All of these counties had the service sector as the largest 
economic contributor followed by retail trade and the real estate 
sectors. Overall, the affected counties had only a small proportion of 
earnings coming from the amusement and recreation sector. As a result, 
a small impact to the recreation sector would not result in a 
significant effect on county-level income.

                                   Table 1.--Economic Characteristics of the Seven Affected Counties in Florida--1997
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Services
                                                 Per capita    10 year                                                       industry
                                                  personal     rate of       Personal      10 year rate   Total industry   earnings for     Percent of
    Selected Florida counties       Employment     income       growth    income  ($000)     of growth       earnings     amusements and       total
                                                 (dollars)    (percent)                      (percent)        ($000)        recreation
                                                                                                                              ($000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing Sanctuaries:
    Citrus.......................       35,663      $18,493          3.9      $2,060,167             6.9        $793,347          $6,650             0.8
    Hillsborough.................      644,694      $23,719          5.2     $21,558,783             6.6     $18,847,236        $267,676             1.4
    Pinellas.....................      506,946      $28,367          4.9     $24,770,929             5.5     $13,876,518        $114,826             0.8
Establishing Refuges:
    Brevard......................      223,815      $22,205          3.7     $10,342,080             6.3      $6,255,354         $34,237             0.5
    Charlotte....................       47,091      $21,861          3.7      $2,894,781             7.6        $995,159         $10,336             1.0
    Lee..........................      196,448      $25,568          4.4      $9,862,900             7.3      $4,848,936         $61,103             1.3
    Sarasota.....................      169,984      $35,654          5.2     $10,706,931             6.8      $4,239,034        $114,742             2.7
State of Florida.................    8,032,538      $24,799          4.5    $363,979,647             6.6    $220,985,959      $4,255,304            1.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://govinfo.library.orst.edu/cgi-bin/reis-list


     Table 2.--Employment Characteristics of the Seven Affected Counties in Florida--1997 (includes sic codes 09, 44, 59, 79, services, and nec) \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Number of       Number of       Number of       Number of
                                                             Mid-March         Total      establishments  establishments  establishments  establishments
                Selected Florida counties                   employment    establishments        (1-4            (5-9           (10-19       (20 and over
                                                                                            employees)      employees)      employees)      employees)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishing Sanctuaries:
    Citrus..............................................           8,926           1,044             655             214              95              80
    Hillsborough........................................         232,128          12,363           7,316           2,261           1,308           1,478
    Pinellas............................................         197,842          12,852           7,954           2,344           1,226           1,328
Establishing Refuges:
    Brevard.............................................          65,049           5,292           3,145           1,075             581             491
    Charlotte...........................................          13,759           1,281             807             244             120             110
    Lee.................................................          63,411           4,977           3,061             930             494             492
    Sarasota............................................          73,819           5,125           3,231             936             473            485
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/cbpbin/go.cgi
\1\ sic 09--Fishing, hunting, and trapping
sic 44--water transportation
sic 59--miscellaneous retail
services division
sic 79--amusement and recreation services
nonclassifiable establishments division

    Table 2 provides employment data using Standard Industrial 
Classification (SIC) codes. The latest available published data for the 
total number of establishments in the SIC codes for fishing, hunting, 
trapping (SIC code 9), water transportation (SIC code 44), 
miscellaneous retail and services (SIC code 59), amusement and 
recreation services (SIC code 79), and nonclassifiable establishments 
is 1997. These are the establishments most likely to be directly 
associated with recreationists pursuing waterborne activities where 
manatees may be involved. As can be seen on Table 2, of the total 
number of establishments in these SIC codes, a large proportion employ 
fewer than 9 employees with the largest number of establishments 
employing fewer than 4 employees. If any economic impacts are 
associated with this rule, they will affect some proportion of these 
small entities. Since the bulk of the acreage proposed (16,751.604 
acres) by this rule is for manatee refuges, which would only require a 
reduction in speed, we do not believe the minor inconvenience caused by 
going slower in designated areas will cause more than an insignificant 
economic effect. The inconvenience may cause some recreationists to go 
to alternative sites, which may cause some loss of income to some small 
businesses. However, the inconvenience is small so we believe that this 
will not be a significant economic dislocation. For the four areas 
designated as sanctuaries (264.538 acres), the restriction on human 
activity from October 1 to March 31 may cause some recreationists to go 
to alternative sites. However, three of the areas designated are in 
front of power plants, and the fourth (Blue

[[Page 42329]]

Waters) is only 4.145 acres. The designated areas are relatively small 
and part of large water bodies having large areas with no restrictions 
on human activity. Recreationists can pursue waterborne activities in 
close proximity to the manatee sanctuaries without entering the 
sanctuaries. For this reason, we believe that there will be an 
insignificant economic effect from the designation of the four areas as 
manatee sanctuaries. Without a significant change in recreationists' 
use patterns, there should be an equally insignificant change in 
business activity.
    The only known direct effect will be on a business using one of the 
areas to test hull designs. The economic cost of relocating the test 
site, which requires boats going at high speed, is not known. 
Substitute sites are available within a reasonable distance, but the 
quality of the substitutes for the required testing is not known. 
Information obtained during the public comment period on the proposed 
rule may allow further analysis of this and any other effects 
identified.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This proposed rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This 
proposed rule:
    a. Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more. As shown above, this proposed rule may cause some inconvenience 
to recreationists because of the speed restriction on manatee refuge 
areas, but this should not translate into any significant business 
reductions for the many small businesses in the seven affected 
counties. An unknown portion of the establishments shown on Table 2 
could be affected by this rule. Because the restrictions on 
recreational activity are believed to be no more than an inconvenience 
for recreationists, we believe that any economic effect on small 
entities resulting from changes in recreational use patterns will be 
insignificant also.
    b. Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for 
consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government 
agencies, or geographic regions. It is unlikely that there are 
unforeseen changes in costs or prices for consumers stemming from this 
proposed rule. The charter boat industry may be affected with lower 
speed limits for some areas when traveling to and from fishing grounds. 
Based on an analysis of public comment, further refinement of the 
impact on this industry may be possible. We believe that it is unlikely 
that reduced speed limits will result in a significant economic effect.
    c. Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of 
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. As 
stated above, this proposed rule may generate some level of 
inconvenience to recreationists because of speed limits, but it is 
believed to be minor and will not interfere with the normal operation 
of businesses in the affected counties. The added travel time to 
traverse some areas is not expected to be a major factor that will 
impact business activity.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    a. This rule will not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. A Small Government Agency Plan is not required. The 
designation of manatee refuges and sanctuaries imposes no new 
obligations on State or local governments.
    b. This rule will not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million or 
greater in any year, i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the rule does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required. The proposed manatee protection areas are located over 
State-owned submerged bottoms. Any property owners in the vicinity will 
have navigational access to their property.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have 
significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
State, in the relationship between the Federal Government and the 
State, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. As discussed earlier, we coordinated with 
the State of Florida to the extent possible on the development of this 
proposed rule.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, the Office of the 
Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 
of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This regulation does not contain collections of information that 
require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. The proposed regulation will not impose new record keeping 
or reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations.

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have analyzed this rule in accordance with the criteria of the 
National Environmental Policy Act. This rule does not constitute a 
major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human 
environment. A draft environmental assessment has been prepared and is 
available for review upon request by writing to the Field Supervisor 
(see ADDRESSES section).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175 and 512 DM 2, we have evaluated 
possible effects on Federally recognized Indian tribes and have 
determined that there are no effects.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is 
available upon request from the Jacksonville Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary author of this document is Cameron Shaw (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Authority

    The authority to establish manatee protection areas is provided by 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361-
1407), as amended.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

[[Page 42330]]

PART 17--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
    2. In Sec. 17.102, remove the definition for ``water vehicle'' and 
add definitions, in alphabetical order, as follows:


Sec. 17.102  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Idle speed is defined as the minimum speed needed to maintain 
steerage (direction) of the vessel.
* * * * *
    Planing means riding on or near the water's surface as a result of 
the hydrodynamic forces on a water vehicle's hull, sponsons, foils, or 
other surfaces. A water vehicle is considered on plane when it is being 
operated at or above the speed necessary to keep the vessel planing.
    Slow speed is defined as the speed at which a water vehicle 
proceeds when it is fully off plane and completely settled in the 
water. Due to the different speeds at which water vehicles of different 
sizes and configurations may travel while in compliance with this 
definition, no specific speed is assigned to slow speed. A water 
vehicle is not proceeding at slow speed if it is: on a plane; in the 
process of coming up on or coming off of plane; or creating an 
excessive wake. A water vehicle is proceeding at slow speed if it is 
fully off plane and completely settled in the water, not plowing or 
creating an excessive wake.
    Slow speed (channel exempt) means that the slow-speed designation 
does not apply to those waters within the maintained, marked channel.
    Slow speed (channel included) means that the slow-speed designation 
applies both within and outside the designated channel.
    Wake means all changes in the vertical height of the water's 
surface caused by the passage of a water vehicle, including a vessel's 
bow wave, stern wave, and propeller wash, or a combination thereof.
* * * * *
    Water vehicle, watercraft, and vessel include, but are not limited 
to, boats (whether powered by engine, wind, or other means), ships 
(whether powered by engine, wind, or other means), barges, surfboards, 
personal watercraft, water skis, or any other device or mechanism the 
primary or an incidental purpose of which is locomotion on, or across, 
or underneath the surface of the water.
    3. Amend Sec. 17.108 as follows:
    a. Revise the introductory text of paragraph (a);
    b. Remove the Kings Bay map from the end of the section and add a 
new map following paragraph (a)(7);
    c. Add paragraphs (a)(8) to (11);
    d. Revise the text of paragraph (b);
    e. Remove the note following paragraph (b); and
    f. Add paragraph (c).


Sec. 17.108  List of designated manatee protection areas.

    (a) Manatee sanctuaries. The following areas are designated as 
manatee sanctuaries. For areas in paragraphs (a)(1) to (a)(7) of this 
section, all waterborne activities are prohibited during the period 
November 15 to March 31 of each year. For areas in paragraphs (a)(8) to 
(a)(11) of this section, all waterborne activities are prohibited 
during the period October 1 to March 31 of each year. The areas that 
will be posted as manatee sanctuaries are described as follows:
* * * * *
    (7) * * *

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 42331]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.000


[[Page 42332]]


    (8) A tract of submerged land, lying in Section 28, Township 19 
South, Range 17 East, in Citrus County, more particularly described as 
the headwaters of the Homosassa River (adjacent to the Homosassa 
Springs State Wildlife Park), including the main spring and spring run 
to the point where the run enters the northeast fork of the river along 
the southeastern shore; to be known as the Blue Waters Manatee 
Sanctuary (Figure 1), containing approximately 1.7 hectares (ha) (4.1 
acres).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.001


[[Page 42333]]


    (9) A tract of submerged land, lying in Sections 16 and 21, 
Township 30 South, Range 17 East, in Pinellas County, Florida, more 
particularly described as the warm-water outflow of the Bartow electric 
generating station located on the northern shore of Weedon Island, 
lying along a north-south axis line from the shoreline to, but not 
including, the South Gandy Channel on the western shore of Old Tampa 
Bay; to be known as the Bartow Electric Generating Station Manatee 
Sanctuary (Figure 2), containing approximately 73.5 ha (181.5 acres).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.002


[[Page 42334]]


    (10) A tract of submerged land, lying west of Sections 10 and 15, 
in Township 31 South, Range 19 East, in Hillsborough County, Florida, 
more particularly described as the waters in and around the warm-water 
outflow of the TECO Big Bend electric generating station located west 
of Jackson Branch and including the Big Bend area of eastern Tampa Bay; 
to be known as the TECO Big Bend Manatee Sanctuary (Figure 3), 
containing approximately 30.8 ha (76.2 acres).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.003


[[Page 42335]]


    (11) A tract of submerged land, lying in Section 4, Township 30 
South, Range 19 East in Hillsborough County, Florida, more particularly 
described as the warm-water outflow of the TECO Gannon electric 
generating station; to be known as the Port Sutton Manatee Sanctuary 
(Figure 4), containing approximately 1.1 ha (2.7 acres).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.004


[[Page 42336]]


    (b) Exception for residents. Watercraft access to private 
residences, boat houses, and boat docks through these sanctuaries by 
the residents and their authorized guests is permitted. Any such 
authorized boating activity must be conducted by operating watercraft 
at idle speed/no wake. Residents' watercraft will be identified by the 
placement of a sticker provided by the Fish and Wildlife Service in a 
conspicuous location on each vessel. Use of the waters within the 
sanctuaries by watercraft will be only for the purpose of access to 
residences and the storage of such watercraft in waters adjacent to 
residences.
    (c) Manatee refuges. The following areas are designated as manatee 
refuges. For each manatee refuge, we will state which, if any, 
waterborne activities are prohibited, and state the applicable 
restrictions, if any, on permitted waterborne activities. The areas 
that will be posted are described as follows:
    (1)(i) The South Gandy Navigation Channel Manatee Refuge (Figure 5) 
is described as that portion of the South Gandy Navigation Channel in 
Pinellas County between the channel marker ``1'' and the point of land 
southwest of channel marker ``5''; containing approximately 30.3 ha 
(74.8 acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed from October 
1 through March 31, inclusive.

[[Page 42337]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.005


[[Page 42338]]


    (2)(i) The TECO Big Bend Manatee Refuge (Figure 6) is in 
Hillsborough County and is described as the entrance channel, and those 
waters south of the proposed manatee sanctuary at the TECO Big Bend 
electric generating station described in paragraph (a)(10) of this 
section; containing approximately 93.5 ha (231 acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed from October 
1 through March 31, inclusive.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.006


[[Page 42339]]


    (3)(i) The Port Sutton Manatee Refuge (Figure 7) is described as 
those waters surrounding the proposed Port Sutton manatee sanctuary 
described in paragraph (a)(11) of this section, including all waters 
within Port Sutton, Hillsborough County; containing approximately 39.2 
ha (96.9 acres) more or less.
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed from October 
1 through March 31, inclusive.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.007


[[Page 42340]]


    (4)(i) The Pansy Bayou Manatee Refuge (Figure 8) is described as 
that portion of Sarasota Bay, Sarasota County, lying northwesterly of a 
line 45.7 meters (150 feet) northwesterly of and parallel with a line 
perpendicular to the John Ringling Parkway Bridge connecting St. 
Armands Key to City Island from the northwesterly end of said bridge, 
southwesterly of a line 228.6 meters (750 feet) northeasterly of and 
parallel with the centerline of the John Ringling Parkway (running 
northwesterly from St. Armands Key), northwesterly of a line 320 meters 
(1,050 feet) northwesterly of and parallel with a line perpendicular to 
the aforementioned John Ringling Parkway Bridge connecting St. Armands 
Key to City Island from the northwesterly end of said bridge, and 
southwesterly of a line 990.6 meters (3,250 feet) northeasterly of and 
parallel with the centerline of the aforementioned John Ringling 
Parkway (running Northwesterly from St. Armands Key); containing 
approximately 47 ha (116.1 acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed all year.

[[Page 42341]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.008


[[Page 42342]]


    (5)(i) The Little Sarasota Bay Manatee Refuge (Figure 9) is 
described as those waters lying southerly of a line that bears north 90 
degrees 00'00" E (true) and runs through the southerly tip of the first 
unnamed island south of Red Intracoastal Waterway Channel Marker ``40'' 
(latitude 27 degrees 10'07" N, longitude 82 degrees 30'05" W) and those 
waters lying northerly of the Blackburn Point Bridge, Sarasota County; 
containing approximately 214.2 ha (529.4 acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed (channel 
exempt) all year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.009


[[Page 42343]]


    (6)(i) The Lemon Bay Manatee Refuge (Figure 10) is described as 
those waters of Lemon Bay lying south of the Sarasota/Charlotte County 
boundary and north of a line north 60 degrees 14'00" E (true) parallel 
with a series of small islands approximately 1.6 kilometer (1 mile) 
south of the Bay Road Bridge; containing approximately 379.9 ha (938.8 
acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed (channel 
exempt) all year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.010


[[Page 42344]]


    (7)(i) The Peace River Manatee Refuge (Figure 11) is described as 
all waters of the Peace River and associated water bodies north and 
east of the Tamiami Trail (U.S. Highway 41), Charlotte and Desoto 
Counties; containing approximately 4,892 ha (12,088.1 acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are allowed to travel at a maximum speed of 40 
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) all year within the marked 
navigation channel. Outside of the marked channel, watercraft are 
required to proceed at slow speed all year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.011


[[Page 42345]]


    (8)(i) The Shell Island Manatee Refuge (Figure 12) is described as 
all waters within the marked Intracoastal Waterway channel between 
Green Marker ``99'' (approximate latitude 26 degrees 31'00" N, 
approximate longitude 82 degrees 00'52" W) and Green Marker ``93'' 
(approximate latitude 26 degrees 31'37" N, approximate longitude 81 
degrees 59'46" W), Lee County; containing approximately 32.6 ha (80.5 
acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed (channel 
included) all year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.012


[[Page 42346]]


    (9)(i) The Haulover Canal Manatee Refuge (Figure 13) is described 
as all waters lying within a radius of 0.8 kilometer (0.5 mile) of each 
end of the Haulover Canal and including the canal itself, in Brevard 
County; containing approximately 408.1 ha (1,008.3 acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed (channel 
included) all year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.013


[[Page 42347]]


    (10)(i) The Barge Canal Manatee Refuge (Figure 14) is described as 
all waters lying within the banks of the Barge Canal, Brevard County, 
including all waters lying within the marked channel in the Banana 
River that lie between the east entrance of the Barge Canal and the 
Canaveral Locks; containing approximately 276.3 ha (682.7 acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed (channel 
included) all year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.014


[[Page 42348]]


    (11)(i) The Sykes Creek Manatee Refuge (Figure 15) is described as 
all waters, including the marked channel in Sykes Creek, Brevard 
County. In particular, the portion of Sykes Creek southerly of the 
southern boundary of that portion of the creek commonly known as the 
``S'' curve (said boundary being a line bearing East from a point on 
the western shoreline of Sykes Creek at approximate latitude 28 degrees 
23'24" N, approximate longitude 80 degrees 41'27" W) and northerly of 
the Sykes Creek Parkway; containing approximately 342.3 ha (845.8 
acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed (channel 
included) all year.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.015


[[Page 42349]]


    (12)(i) The Cocoa Beach Manatee Refuge (Figure 16) is described as 
the waterbody west of Municipal Park within the City of Cocoa Beach 
commencing at a point 45.7 meters (150 feet) west of the southwest 
corner of the canal running between Willow Green and Country Club 
Roads, thence southerly (and parallel to the golf course shoreline) to 
a point 45.7 meters (150 feet) west of the southwest corner of the 
Municipal Golf Course shoreline, thence south to marker ``502,'' thence 
westerly (inclusive of the area known as the ``400 Channel'') to Red 
marker ``500,'' thence northerly to Red marker ``309,'' inclusive of 
the ``400 Channel,'' thence southeasterly to the southwest corner of 
the canal referenced as the point of origin, all these waters being 
within the eastern half of Sections 8 and 17, Township 25 South, Range 
37 East; containing approximately 23.9 ha (59.1 acres).
    (ii) Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed all year.

[[Page 42350]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP10AU01.016


    Dated: August 2, 2001.
J. Steven Griles,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-19929 Filed 8-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C