[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 16602-16641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8179]



[[Page 16601]]

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

Part II





Deparment of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of Three 
Additional Manatee Protection Areas in Florida; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2003 / Proposed 
Rules  

[[Page 16602]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AJ06


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of 
Three 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 three additional manatee protection areas in Florida. We are 
proposing this action under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (ESA), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended 
(MMPA), to further recovery of the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus 
latirostris) by reducing the number of takings. We are proposing to 
designate areas in Lee, Duval, Clay, St. Johns, and Volusia Counties as 
manatee refuges in which certain waterborne activities would be 
regulated. Specifically, watercraft would be required to operate at 
idle, slow speed, 40 kilometers per hour (25 mph), or 48 kilometers per 
hour (30 mph) in areas described in the proposed rule. 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 June 3, 2003. We 
will hold public hearings on Tuesday, May 13, in Ft. Myers, FL; 
Wednesday, May 14, in Daytona Beach, FL; and Thursday, May 15, in 
Jacksonville, FL. See additional information on the public comment 
process in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES: Formal public hearings will be held from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. 
at the following locations:

Ft. Myers, FL, on Tuesday, May 13, at the Harborside Convention Hall, 
1375 Monroe St.; Daytona Beach, FL, on Wednesday, May 14, at the Ocean 
Center, 101 N. Atlantic Ave.; Jacksonville, FL, on Thursday, May 15, at 
The University Center, University of North Florida campus, 4567 St. 
Johns Bluff Rd. South.

    If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments by any one of 
several methods:
    1. You may submit written comments and information by mail to the 
Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Attn: Proposed Manatee Refuges, 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 Web site at http://northflorida.fws.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hankla, Peter Benjamin, or Jim 
Valade (see Addresses section), telephone 904/232-2580; or visit our 
Web site at http://northflorida.fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The West Indian manatee is federally listed as an endangered 
species under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (32 FR 4001) and the 
species is further protected as a depleted stock under the MMPA (16 
U.S.C. 1361-1407). Florida manatees, a subspecies of the West Indian 
manatee (Domning and Hayek, 1986), live in freshwater, brackish, and 
marine habitats in coastal and inland waterways of the southeastern 
United States. The majority of the population can be found in Florida 
waters 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 water temperatures generally above 
20[deg] Celsius (68[deg] Fahrenheit) to survive during periods of cold 
weather. During the winter months, most manatees rely on warm water 
from industrial discharges and natural springs for warmth. In warmer 
months, they expand their range and occasionally are seen as far north 
as Rhode Island on the Atlantic Coast and as far west as Texas on the 
Gulf Coast.

Status of the Florida Manatee

    Long-term studies, as described below, suggest that there are four 
relatively distinct regional populations of manatees in Florida--(a) 
the Northwest Region, along the Gulf of Mexico from Escambia County 
east and south to Hernando County; (b) the Upper St. Johns River 
Region, consisting of Putnam County from Palatka south to Lake and 
Seminole counties; (c) the Atlantic Region, consisting of counties 
along the Atlantic coast from Nassau County south to Miami-Dade County 
and that portion of Monroe County adjacent to the Florida Bay and the 
Florida Keys; and counties along the lower portion of the St. Johns 
River north of Palatka, including Putnam, St Johns, Clay and Duval 
counties; and (d) the Southwest Region, consisting of counties along 
the Gulf of Mexico from Pasco County south to Whitewater Bay in Monroe 
County.
    Despite significant efforts dating back to the late 1970s and early 
1980s, scientists have been unable to develop a useful means of 
estimating or monitoring trends in the size of the overall manatee 
population in the southeastern United States (O'Shea, 1988; O'Shea et 
al., 1992; Lefebvre et al., 1995). Even though many manatees aggregate 
at warm-water refuges in winter and most, if not all, such refuges are 
known, direct counting methods (i.e., by aerial and ground surveys) are 
unable to account for uncertainty in the number of animals that may be 
away from these refuges at any given time, the number of animals not 
seen because of turbid water, and other factors. The use of mark-
resighting techniques to estimate manatee population size based on 
known animals in the manatee photo-identification database has also 
been impractical, as the proportion of unmarked manatees cannot be 
estimated.
    The only data on population size include un-calibrated indices 
based on maximum counts of animals at winter refuges made within one or 
two days of each other. Based on such information in the late 1980s, 
the total number of manatees throughout Florida was originally thought 
to include at least 1,200 animals (Service, 2001). Because aerial and 
ground counts at winter refuges are highly variable depending on the 
weather, water clarity, manatee behavior, and other factors (Packard et 
al., 1985; Lefebvre et al., 1995), interpretation of these data to 
assess short-term trends is difficult (Packard and Mulholland, 1983; 
Garrott et al., 1994).
    Beginning in 1991, the State of Florida initiated a statewide, 
synoptic, aerial survey program to count manatees in potential winter 
habitat during periods of severe cold weather

[[Page 16603]]

(Ackerman, 1995). These surveys are much more comprehensive than those 
used to estimate a minimum population during the 1980s. The highest 
statewide, minimum count from these surveys was 3,276 manatees in 
January 2001; the highest count on the east coast of Florida included 
1,814 animals (January 2003) and the highest on the west coast included 
1,756 (January 2001).
    Due to the problems mentioned above, we do not know what proportion 
of the total manatee population is counted in these surveys. These 
uncorrected counts do not provide a basis for assessing population 
trends, although trend analyses of temperature-adjusted aerial survey 
counts may provide insight to general patterns of population growth in 
some regions (Garrott et al., 1994, 1995; Craig et al., 1997; Eberhardt 
et al., 1999).
    It is possible, however, to monitor the number of manatees using 
the Blue Spring (Volusia County) and Crystal River (Citrus County) 
warm-water refuges. At Blue Spring (in the Upper St. Johns River 
Region), with its unique combination of clear water and confined spring 
area, it has been possible to count the number of resident animals by 
identifying individual manatees from scar patterns. The data indicate 
that this group of animals has increased steadily since the early 1970s 
when it was first studied. During the 1970s the number of manatees 
using the spring increased from 11 to 25 (Bengtson, 1981). In the mid-
1980s about 50 manatees used the spring (Service, 2001), and by the 
winter of 1999-2000, the number had increased to 147 (Hartley, 2001).
    In the Northwest Region, the clear, shallow waters of Kings Bay 
(Citrus County) have made it possible to monitor the number of manatees 
using this warm-water refuge at the head of Crystal River. Large 
aggregations of manatees apparently did not exist there until recent 
times (Service, 2001). The first careful counts were made in the late 
1960s. Since then, manatee numbers have increased significantly. From 
1967 to 1968, Hartman (1979) counted 38 animals in Kings Bay. By 1981-
1982, the maximum winter count had increased to 114 manatees (Powell 
and Rathbun, 1984), and in November 2000, the maximum count was 301 
(Service, 2003).
    Both births and immigration of animals from other areas have 
contributed to the increases in manatee numbers at Crystal River and 
Blue Spring. Animals may be further attracted to these areas because of 
local manatee protection areas. Three manatee sanctuaries (areas in 
which waterborne activities are prohibited) in Kings Bay were 
established in 1980; an additional three were added in 1994, and a 
seventh in 1998. The increases in counts at Blue Spring and Crystal 
River are accompanied by estimates of adult survival and population 
growth that are higher than those determined for the Atlantic coast 
(Eberhardt and O'Shea, 1995; Langtimm et al., 1998; Eberhardt et al., 
1999).
    While aircraft synoptic surveys provide a ``best estimate'' of the 
minimum Florida manatee population size, there are no confidence 
intervals (derived through reliable, statistically based, population-
estimation techniques) for these estimates. With the exception of a few 
places where manatees may aggregate in clear, shallow water, not all 
manatees can be seen from aircraft because of water turbidity, depth, 
surface conditions, variable times spent submerged, and other 
considerations. Thus, results obtained during typical manatee synoptic 
surveys yield unadjusted partial counts. While these results are of 
value in providing information on where manatees occur, likely relative 
abundance in various areas, and seasonal shifts in manatee abundance, 
they do not provide good population estimates, nor can they reliably 
measure trends in the manatee population. Consequently, the Florida 
Manatee Recovery Plan (Service, 2001) concludes that ``despite 
considerable effort in the early 1980s, scientists have been unable to 
develop a useful means of estimating or monitoring trends in size of 
the overall manatee populations in the southeastern United States.''
    Population models employ mathematical relationships based on 
survival and reproduction rates to estimate population growth and 
trends in growth. A deterministic model (a model in which there are no 
random events) that uses classical mathematical approaches and various 
computational procedures with data on reproduction and survival of 
living, identifiable manatees suggests a maximum population growth rate 
of about 7 percent per year, excluding emigration or immigration 
(Eberhardt and O'Shea, 1995). This maximum was based on studies 
conducted between the late 1970s and early 1990s in the well-protected 
winter aggregation area at Crystal River and did not require estimation 
of the population size. The analysis showed that the chief factor 
affecting the potential for population growth is survival of adults.
    Estimated adult survival in the Atlantic Region (a larger region 
with less protection) has suggested slower or no population growth 
between the late 1970s and early 1990s. This modeling shows the value 
of using survival and reproduction data obtained from photo-
identification studies of living manatees to compute population growth 
rates with confidence intervals, providing information that can be used 
to infer long-term trends in the absence of reliable population size 
estimates. Collection of similar data has been initiated only recently 
in that area of Florida from Tampa Bay to the Caloosahatchee River 
(beginning in the mid-1990s) and none is available for many of the 
remaining areas used by manatees in southwestern Florida (Southwest 
Region).
    A population viability analysis (PVA), in which random events, such 
as red tide and extremely cold winters, are incorporated into a model, 
was carried out for manatees based on age-specific mortality rates 
estimated from the age distribution of manatees found dead throughout 
Florida from 1979 through 1992 (Marmontel et al., 1997). This method of 
estimating survival relied on certain assumptions that were not fully 
testable; despite this, the results again pointed out the importance of 
adult survival to population persistence. Given a population size that 
reflected a 1992 minimum population estimate, the PVA showed that if 
adult mortality as estimated for the study period were reduced by a 
modest amount (for example, from 11 percent down to 9 percent), the 
Florida manatee population would likely remain viable for many years. 
However, the PVA also showed that slight increases in adult mortality 
would result in extinction of manatees within the next 1,000 years.
    The above review demonstrates that using statewide population size 
``estimates'' of any kind is scientifically weak for estimating 
population trends in manatees. The weight of scientific evidence 
suggests that the potential for population increases over the last two 
decades is strong for two protected aggregation areas. New population 
analyses, based on more recent (since 1992) information, are not yet 
available in the peer-reviewed literature.
    In 2001, the Manatee Population Status Working Group (MPSWG) 
provided a statement summarizing what they believed to be the status of 
the Florida manatee at that time (Wildlife Trust, 2001). The MPSWG 
stated that, for the Northwest and Upper St. Johns River regions, 
available evidence indicated that there had been a steady increase in 
animals over the last 25 years. The statement was less optimistic for 
the Atlantic Region due to an adult survival rate that was lower than 
the rate necessary to sustain population

[[Page 16604]]

growth. The MPSWG believed that this region had likely been growing 
slowly in the 1980s, but then may have leveled off or even possibly 
declined. They considered the status of the Atlantic Region to be ``too 
close to call.'' Such finding was consistent with high levels of human-
related and, in some years, cold-related deaths in this region. 
Regarding the Southwest Region, the MPSWG acknowledged that further 
data collection and analysis would be necessary to provide an 
assessment of the manatee's status in this region. Preliminary 
estimates of adult survival available to the MPSWG at that time 
indicated that the Southwest Region was similar to the Atlantic Region 
and ``substantially lower than [the adult survival estimates] for the 
Northwest and Upper St. Johns Regions.'' The Southwest Region was cited 
as having had high levels of watercraft-related deaths and injuries and 
natural mortality events (i.e., red tide and severe cold).
    Recent information suggests that the overall manatee population has 
grown since the species was listed in 1967 (50 CFR 17.11). Based on 
data provided at the April 2002 Manatee Population Ecology and 
Management Workshop, we believe that the Northwest and Upper St. Johns 
River regions and are approaching demographic benchmarks established in 
the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (Service, 2001) for reclassification 
from endangered to threatened status. We also believe that the Atlantic 
Region is close to meeting the downlisting benchmark for adult 
survival, at a minimum, and is close to meeting or exceeding other 
demographic criteria. We are less optimistic, however, regarding the 
Southwest Region. Although data are still insufficient or lacking to 
compare the Southwest Region's status to the downlisting/delisting 
criteria, preliminary data for adult survival indicate that this Region 
is below the benchmarks established in the recovery plan.
    Although we are optimistic about the potential for recovery in 
three out of the four regions, it is important to clarify that in order 
to downlist or delist the manatee, pursuant to the ESA, all four 
regions must simultaneously meet the appropriate criteria as described 
in the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (Service, 2001). Additionally, 
either action would necessarily be based on a status assessment for the 
species throughout its range (including the United States and 
Caribbean) and would consider the factors, as described in section 
4(a)(1) of the ESA, that determine whether any species is categorized 
as endangered or threatened.
    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 must be reduced or eliminated such that 
the species no longer fits the definitions of threatened or endangered. 
While suggestions of increasing population size are very encouraging, 
there has been no confirmation that significant threats to the species, 
including human-related mortality, injury, and harassment, and habitat 
alteration, have been reduced or eliminated to the extent that the 
Florida manatee may be reclassified from endangered to threatened 
status. Pursuant to our mission, we continue to assess this information 
with the goal of meeting our manatee recovery objectives.

Threats to the Species

    Human activities, and 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 kills or injures wildlife (50 CFR 17.3). Such an act may include 
significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures 
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, 
including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass includes intentional 
or negligent acts or omissions that create 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, with certain exceptions, on the 
take and importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products 
(section 101(a)) and 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 unless authorized. 
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.
    Human use of the waters of the southeastern United States has 
increased dramatically as a result of residential growth and increased 
visitation. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the State of 
Florida. The human population of Florida has grown by 246 percent since 
1970, from 6.8 million to 16.7 million residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 
2003), and is expected to exceed 18 million by 2010, and 20 million by 
the year 2020. According to a 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 that 
travel Florida waterways. In 2002, 961,719 vessels were registered in 
the State of Florida (Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 
2003). This represents an increase of 59 percent since 1993. 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 Florida waters each year.
    Increases in the human population and the concomitant increase in 
human activities in manatee habitat compound the effect of such 
activities on manatees. Human activities in manatee habitat include 
direct and indirect effects. Direct impacts include injuries and deaths 
from watercraft collisions, deaths from water control structure 
operations, lethal and sublethal entanglements with recreational and 
commercial fishing gear, and alterations of behavior due to harassment. 
Indirect effects include habitat alteration and destruction, which 
include such activities as the creation of artificial warm water 
refuges, decreases in the quantity and quality of warm water in natural 
spring areas, changes in water quality in various parts of the State, 
the introduction of marine debris, and other, more general 
disturbances.
    Manatee mortality has continued to climb steadily. Average annual 
total mortality in the 1990s (227.9) was

[[Page 16605]]

nearly twice that of the 1980s (118.2). In 2002, 305 manatee deaths 
were documented in Florida. Total deaths over the past 5 years are 
almost three times greater than they were in the first half of the 
1980s. Although a large part of this increase may be due to an increase 
in manatee abundance, rapid growth in human activities and development 
may also be significant factors. Over the past 5 years, human-related 
manatee mortality has accounted for 33 percent of all manatee deaths, 
with watercraft-related deaths accounting for 28 percent of the total. 
These rates are about 5 to 7 percent higher than the early 1980s, when 
about 28 percent of all deaths were human-related and 21 percent were 
due to watercraft.
    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, 2002). 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 cause of human-related 
manatee deaths. Data collected during manatee carcass salvage 
operations in Florida indicate that a total of 1,145 manatees (from a 
total carcass count of 4,545) are confirmed victims of collisions with 
watercraft (1978 to 2002). This number may underestimate 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 25 percent 
of all manatee mortalities since 1978. 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) (FWCC: Florida Marine 
Research Institute (FMRI) Manatee Mortality Database, 2003). The last 5 
years have been record years for the number of watercraft-related 
mortalities.
    The second largest cause of human-related manatee mortality is 
entrapment in water control structures and navigation locks (FWCC: FMRI 
Manatee Mortality Database, 2003). 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 164 manatee 
deaths between 1978 and 2002, or approximately 4 percent of all deaths 
during this period. 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. We have been 
working, through an interagency task force, with various Federal and 
State agencies to retrofit these structures with reversing mechanisms 
that prevent manatee crushings.
    Manatees are also affected by other human-related activities. 
Impacts resulting from these activities include deaths 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 124 manatee deaths since 1978, an 
average of more than 4 deaths per year. As with watercraft-related 
mortalities, these deaths also appear to be increasing, with 40 of 
these deaths occurring between 1998 and 2002 (an average of 8 deaths 
per year over the last 5 years).

Manatee Protection Areas

    To minimize the number of injuries and deaths associated with 
watercraft activities, we and the State of Florida have designated 
manatee protection areas at sites throughout coastal Florida where 
conflicts between boats and manatees have been well documented and 
where manatees are known to frequently occur. These areas include 
posted signs to inform the boating public about restrictions and 
prohibitions. We propose to enhance existing protection areas by 
establishing three additional manatee refuges in five Florida counties.
    Federal 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 have discretion, by regulation, to establish 
manatee protection areas whenever there is substantial evidence showing 
such establishment is necessary to prevent the taking of one or more 
manatees (that is, to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 
trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct). 
In accordance with 50 CFR 17.106, areas may be established on an 
emergency basis when such takings are imminent.
    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 dredge and 
fill activities.

Relationship to Manatee Lawsuit

    On January 13, 2000, several organizations and individuals filed 
suit against the Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers alleging 
violations of the ESA, the MMPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, 
and the Administrative Procedure Act. Four groups representing 
development and boating interests intervened. Following extensive 
negotiations, the suit was resolved by a Settlement Agreement dated 
January 5, 2001. On October 24, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Formal 
Notice of Controversy alleging that the Service had violated provisions 
of the Settlement Agreement. On April 17, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an 
Expedited Motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement, and on July 9, 
2002, the Court found that the Service had not fulfilled its settlement 
requirements to designate refuges and sanctuaries throughout peninsular 
Florida. On August 1, 2002, and November 7, 2002, the Court ordered the 
Federal defendants to show cause why they should not be held in 
contempt for violating the Court's orders of January 5, 2002, January 
17, 2002, and August 1, 2002.
    To resolve these controversies, the plaintiffs and Federal 
defendants entered into a Stipulated Order wherein the Service agreed 
to submit to the Federal Register for publication a proposed rule for 
the designation of additional manatee protection areas. The areas in 
this notice represent those areas that the Service has determined, 
based on the current, best available data,

[[Page 16606]]

should be considered for designation as manatee refuges.

Site Selection Process and Criteria

    In order to establish a site as a manatee protection area, we must 
determine that there is substantial evidence showing such establishment 
is necessary to prevent the take of one or more manatees. In 
documenting historic manatee use and harm and harassment, we relied on 
the best available information (although some data are admittedly 
sparse), including aerial survey and mortality data and additional 
information from FMRI and the U.S. Geological Survey's Sirenia Project, 
manatee experts, as well as the public, and our best professional 
judgment.

Definitions

    The following terms are used in 50 CFR 17.108. We present them here 
to aid in understanding this proposed rule.
    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.

Areas Proposed for Designation as Manatee Refuges

Caloosahatchee River--San Carlos Bay Manatee Refuge

    We are proposing to establish a manatee refuge in the 
Caloosahatchee River and San Carlos Bay in Lee County (in the Southwest 
Region) for the purpose of regulating vessel speeds, from the Seaboard 
Coastline Railroad trestle, downstream to Channel Marker ``93,'' and 
from Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel Causeway. Except as provided 
in 50 CFR 17.105, watercraft will be required to proceed as follows:
    a. from the Seaboard Coastline Railroad trestle at Beautiful 
Island, downstream to a point 152 meters (500 feet) east of the Edison 
Bridge, a distance of approximately 7.2 km (4.5 miles), slow speed in 
the marked navigation channel from November 15 to March 31 and not more 
than 40 kilometers (km) per hour (25 miles per hour (mph)) in the 
channel from April 1 to November 14;
    b. from a point 152 meters (500 feet) east of the Edison Bridge 
downstream to a point 152 meters (500 feet) west of the Caloosahatchee 
Bridge, approximately 1.1 km (0.7 miles) in length, slow speed year-
round, shoreline-to-shoreline including the marked navigation channel;
    c. from a point 152 meters (500 feet) west of the Caloosahatchee 
Bridge downstream to a point 152 meters (500 feet) northeast of the 
Cape Coral Bridge, a distance of approximately 10.9 km (6.8 miles), 
year-round, slow speed shoreline buffers extending out to a distance of 
approximately 91 meters (300 feet) from the marked navigation channel. 
(In any location where the distance from the shoreline to within 
approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of the near side of the channel is 
less than 0.4 km (0.25 mile), the slow speed buffer will extend to the 
edge of the marked navigation channel.) Vessel speeds between these 
buffers (including the marked navigation channel) are limited to not 
more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) throughout the year;
    d. from a point 152 meters (500 feet) northeast of the Cape Coral 
Bridge downstream to a point 152 meters (500) feet southwest of the 
Cape Coral Bridge, a distance of approximately 0.3 km (0.2 mile), slow 
speed, channel included, year-round;
    e. from a point 152 meters (500 feet) southwest of the Cape Coral 
Bridge to Channel Marker ``72,'' a distance of approximately 1.9 km (or 
1.2 miles), slow speed year-round, shoreline buffers extending out to a 
distance of approximately 91 meters (300 feet) from the marked 
navigation channel. (In any location where the distance from the 
shoreline to within approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of the near side 
of the channel is less than \1/4\ mile, the slow speed buffer will 
extend to the edge of the marked navigation channel.) Vessel speeds 
between these buffers (including the marked navigation channel) are 
limited to not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph);
    f. from Channel Marker ``72'' to Channel Marker ``82'' (in the 
vicinity of Redfish Point), for a distance of approximately 3.1 km (1.9 
miles) in length, slow speed year-round shoreline-to-shoreline, 
including the marked navigation channel;
    g. from Channel Marker ``82'' to Channel Marker ``93,'' a distance 
of approximately 3.9 km (2.4 miles), in length, slow speed year-round, 
shoreline buffers extending out to a distance of approximately 91 
meters (300 feet) from the marked navigation channel. (In any location 
where the distance from the shoreline to within approximately 91 meters 
(300 feet) of the near side of the channel is less than 0.4 km (0.25 
mile), the slow speed buffer will extend to the edge of the marked 
navigation channel.) Vessel speeds between these buffers, including the 
marked navigation channel, are limited to not more than 40 km per hour 
(25 mph);
    h. from Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel Causeway, slow speed 
year-round in San Carlos Bay within the following limits: a northern 
boundary described by the southern edge of the marked navigation 
channel, a line approximately 2.9 km (1.8 miles) in length; a southern 
boundary described by the Sanibel Causeway (approximately 1.9 km or 1.2 
miles in length); a western boundary described by a line that connects 
the western end of the eastern most Sanibel Causeway island and 
extending northwest to the western shoreline of Merwin Key 
(approximately 3.1 km or 1.9 miles in length); the eastern boundary 
includes the western limit of the State-designated manatee protection 
area (68C-22.005) near Punta Rassa (approximately 2.9 km or 1.8 miles 
in length). Speeds are unrestricted in the channel and bay waters to 
the west of this area.
    Manatee presence has been documented in this area through aerial 
surveys, photo-identification studies, telemetry studies, and a carcass 
salvage program (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 
(FWCC, 2000). Per these studies, it is apparent the Caloosahatchee 
River is used throughout its length throughout the year by manatees. 
Primary winter-use

[[Page 16607]]

areas include the Florida Power and Light Company's Fort Myers Power 
Plant and Matlacha Pass, upstream and downstream (respectively) of the 
proposed refuge. The power plant is a major winter refuge for manatees. 
On January 6, 2001, 434 manatees were observed wintering in this region 
(FWCC: FMRI Aerial Survey Database, 2003).
    In warmer months, manatees use the river as a travel corridor 
between upstream fresh water, foraging, and resting sites and 
downstream foraging areas. Manatees use the canal systems in Fort Myers 
and Cape Coral (between the Edison Bridge upstream and Shell Point) to 
rest and drink fresh water (Weigle, et al., 2002). Manatees travel west 
of Shell Point to feed in the seagrass beds in San Carlos Bay and 
adjacent waterways.
    An analysis of the telemetry data indicates that manatees appear to 
travel along shallow areas relatively close to shore and cross the 
river in narrow areas near Redfish Point and Shell Point. The Redfish 
and Shellfish Point sections of the river represent specific areas 
where manatees and boats overlap during their travels (Weigle et al., 
2002). The funneling of high speed watercraft and manatees through 
these narrow areas increases the likelihood of manatee-watercraft 
collisions in this area. Four watercraft-related manatee mortalities 
occurred in this area since January 2001 (FWCC: FMRI Manatee Mortality 
Database, 2003). Given this history, we designated Shell Island (the 
area around Shell Point) as a manatee refuge on November 8, 2002 (67 FR 
68450).
    The number of registered vessels in Lee County has increased by 25 
percent over the past 5 years (from 36,255 vessels in 1998 to 45,413 in 
2002) (FWCC, 2002). According to the FWCC's recent study of manatee 
mortality, manatee habitat, and boating activity in the Caloosahatchee 
River (FWCC, 2002), vessel traffic increases as the day progresses and 
doubles on the weekends compared to weekdays. The highest volumes of 
traffic were recorded in the spring and lowest volume in the winter. 
Highest vessel traffic densities occurred at Shell Point where the 
Caloosahatchee River and San Carlos Bay converge. Many of the boats in 
the lower Caloosahatchee River originate from the Cape Coral canal 
system and head toward the Gulf of Mexico.
    Presently, there are State-designated, manatee speed zones 
throughout most of Lee County. Seasonal speed zones were established in 
the Caloosahatchee and Orange rivers around the Fort Myers power plant 
in 1979 (68C-22.005 FAC). Additional speed zones were established in 
the Caloosahatchee River downstream of the power plant in November 1989 
(68C-22.005 FAC). Speed zones were established countywide in November 
1999 (68C-22.005 FAC). The majority of these zones include shoreline 
buffers that provide protection in nearshore areas frequented by 
manatees. All zones were to be posted with the appropriate signage by 
July 2001 (68C-22.004 and 68C-22.005 FAC). Compliance with speed zones 
in the Caloosahatchee averaged only 57 percent (FWCC, 2002).
    According to FWCC: FMRI's manatee mortality database, 764 manatee 
carcasses were recorded in Lee County from 1974 to 2002 (FWCC: FMRI 
Manatee Mortality Database, 2003). Of this total, 163 manatee deaths 
were watercraft-related (21 percent of the total number of deaths in 
Lee County). Over the past 13 years, the County's rate of increase in 
watercraft-related manatee mortality is higher than the rates of 
increase in watercraft-related mortality in southwest Florida and in 
watercraft-related deaths statewide. Areas east of the Edison Bridge 
and west of Shell Point are areas with recent increases in watercraft-
related mortality; eight watercraft-related deaths have occurred east 
of the railroad trestle and seven have occurred in San Carlos Bay since 
2000, including two watercraft-related deaths in San Carlos Bay since 
July 2001, when State speed zones were marked (FWCC: FMRI Manatee 
Mortality Database, 2003).
    We believe the measures in this proposed regulation will improve 
manatee protection and are necessary to prevent the take of at least 
one manatee by harassment, injury, and/or mortality by extending 
coverage to currently unprotected areas used by manatees. The increased 
width of the shoreline buffers downstream of the Caloosahatchee Bridge 
will provide a greater margin of safety for manatees in this important 
manatee area.

Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge

    We are proposing to establish a manatee refuge for the purpose of 
regulating waterborne vessel speeds in portions of the St. Johns River 
(in the Atlantic Region) and adjacent waters in Duval, Clay, and St. 
Johns Counties from Reddie Point upstream to the mouth of Peter's 
Branch (including Doctors Lake) in Clay County on the western shore, 
and to the southern shore of the mouth of Julington Creek in St. Johns 
County on the eastern shore. Except as provided in 50 CFR 17.105, 
watercraft will be required to proceed as follows:
    a. From Reddie Point upstream to the Main Street Bridge, a distance 
of approximately 11.6 km (or 7.2 miles), slow speed, year-round, 
outside the navigation channel and not more than 40 km per hour (25 
mph) in the channel (from Channel Marker ``81'' to the Main Street 
Bridge, the channel is defined as the line of sight extending west from 
Channel Markers ``81'' and ``82'' to the center span of the Main Street 
Bridge);
    b. From the Main Street Bridge to the Fuller Warren Bridge, a 
distance of approximately 1.6 km (or 1.0 miles) slow speed, channel 
included, year-round;
    c. Upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge, a 305-meter (1,000-foot), 
slow speed, year-round, shoreline buffer to the south bank of the mouth 
of Peter's Branch in Clay County along the western shore (approximately 
31.1 km or 19.3 miles); and in Doctors Lake in Clay County, slow speed, 
year-round, along a 274-meter (900-foot) shoreline buffer 
(approximately 20.8 km or 12.9 miles); and a 305-meter (1,000-foot), 
slow speed, year-round, shoreline buffer to the south bank of the mouth 
of Julington Creek in St. Johns County along the eastern shore 
(approximately 32.5 km or 20.2 miles) to a line north of a western 
extension of the Nature's Hammock Road North.
    Manatee presence has been documented in this area through aerial 
surveys, photo-identification studies, telemetry studies, and a carcass 
salvage program. Manatees occur throughout the proposed manatee 
protection area; the extent of use varies by habitat type and time of 
year (White et al., 2002). Telemetry and aerial survey data indicate 
that peak numbers occur between March and June with heaviest use along 
the St. Johns River shorelines upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge and 
along the southeast shoreline of Doctors Lake. The latter appears to 
correlate with the highest quality feeding habitat. Recent studies 
demonstrate little use during the December through February period 
(White et al., 2002). While there were warm water discharges (i.e., 
power plant and industrial effluents) located within the area of the 
proposed refuge, these man-made attractants no longer exist.
    Vessel speeds are currently restricted throughout the proposed 
manatee protection area. In 1989, boating restricted areas were adopted 
by Duval County and established by the State of Florida for portions of 
the St. Johns River. These include a bank-to-bank, slow-speed zone 
between the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge and the Main Street 
Bridge and a ``slow down/minimum wake when flashing'' zone

[[Page 16608]]

between the Main Street and Hart Bridges, activated during special 
events at the discretion of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office (16N-
24.016 Duval County Boating Restricted Areas). The first manatee 
protection areas were adopted in 1989 by Duval County and in 1994 by 
the State of Florida. These measures included a slow-speed, channel 
exempt zone from Reddie Point to the Main Street Bridge and a 91-meter 
(300-foot) shoreline buffer in portions of the St. Johns River upstream 
of the Fuller Warren Bridge. The manatee protection areas were 
reconfigured in 2001. Current protection measures consist of shoreline 
buffers that vary in width from 91 to 274 meters (300 to 900 feet). 
There are provisions downstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge that 
include a shoreline buffer of 152 meters (500 feet) or 61 meters (200 
feet) from the end of docks, whichever is greater (an expansion of the 
1989 91-meter (300-foot) buffer) (68C-22.027 FAC). We believe that the 
variable shoreline buffers are not adequately posted, which makes these 
areas hard to enforce and difficult for the boating public to 
understand and comply with these measures.
    Overall, 270 manatee deaths were recorded in Duval County between 
1974 and 2002 (FWCC: FMRI Manatee Mortality Database, 2003). Ninety-
four of these deaths included deaths caused by watercraft collision. 
Fifty-one watercraft-related manatee deaths occurred within the 
proposed manatee protection area. Of these, 24 were recovered between 
Reddie Point and the Matthews Bridge, 10 were recovered between the 
Hart and Acosta bridges, 6 were recovered between the Fuller Warren and 
Buckman bridges, and 11 were recovered upstream of the Buckman Bridge. 
Most of these deaths have occurred in that portion of the river where 
manatees and boats are most constricted (FWCC, 2000). From 1994 to 
2001, when the area was protected under the initial State rule, manatee 
deaths averaged two per year between Reddie Point and the Fuller Warren 
Bridge. In 2002, subsequent to adoption of the current rule, one 
watercraft-related death was documented in this area; a single 
watercraft-related death was documented upstream of the Fuller Warren 
Bridge in 2001.
    We believe the proposed measures in this regulation will improve 
manatee protection and are necessary to prevent the taking of at least 
one manatee through harassment, injury, and/or mortality by extending 
coverage to currently unprotected areas used by manatees, by improving 
the ability of the public to understand and, thus, comply with the 
vessel operation restrictions, and by improving the ability of law 
enforcement personnel to enforce the restrictions. The proposed 
configuration should be less complicated, easier to post, and will 
reduce reliance on waterway users to judge distances from the shoreline 
or the ends of docks and piers. The increased width of the shoreline 
buffers upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge will also provide a 
greater margin of safety for manatees between areas of high speed 
boating activity and highest manatee use. The proposal will not detract 
from operation of the boater safety zone downstream of the Main Street 
Bridge during special events.

Halifax and Tomoka Rivers Manatee Refuge

    We are proposing to establish a manatee refuge in the Halifax River 
and associated waterbodies in Volusia County (in the Atlantic Region) 
for the purpose of regulating vessel speeds, from the Volusia/Flagler 
county line to New Smyrna Beach. Except as provided in 50 CFR 17.105, 
watercraft will be required to proceed as follows:
    a. From the Volusia County/Flagler County line at Halifax Creek 
south to Channel Marker ``9'', a distance of approximately 11.3 km (7.0 
miles) in length, slow speed, year-round outside the marked channel 
with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the channel;
    b. From Channel Marker ``9'' to a point 152 meters (500 feet) north 
of the Granada Bridge (State Road 40) (including the Tomoka Basin), a 
distance of approximately 5.0 km (3.1 miles) in length, slow speed, 
year-round, 305-meter (1,000-foot) minimum buffers along shorelines 
with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in areas between the buffers 
(and including the marked navigation channel);
    c. In the Tomoka River, all waters upstream of the U.S. 1 bridge, a 
distance of approximately 7.2 km (4.5 miles) in length, slow speed, 
year-round, shoreline to shoreline; from the U.S. 1 bridge downstream 
to Latitude 29[deg]19'00'', a distance of approximately 2.1 km (1.3 
miles) in length, idle speed, year-round, shoreline to shoreline; from 
Latitude 29[deg]19'00'' downstream to the confluence of Strickland 
Creek and the Tomoka River, and including Strickland, Thompson, and 
Dodson creeks, a combined distance of approximately 9.7 km (6 miles) in 
length, slow speed, year-round, shoreline to shoreline; from the 
confluence of Strickland Creek and the Tomoka River downstream to the 
mouth of the Tomoka River, a distance of approximately 1.4 km (0.9 
miles) in length, idle speed, year-round, shoreline to shoreline;
    d. From 152 meters (500 feet) north to 305 meters (1,000 feet) 
south of the Granada Bridge (State Road 40), a distance of 
approximately 0.5 km (0.3 miles) in length, slow speed, year-round, 
channel included;
    e. From a point 305 meters (1,000 feet) south of the Granada Bridge 
(State Road 40) to a point 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Seabreeze 
Bridge, a distance of approximately 6.4 km (4.0 miles) in length, slow 
speed, year-round, 305-meter (1,000-foot) minimum buffers along 
shorelines with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in areas between 
the buffers, and including the marked navigation channel;
    f. From 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Seabreeze Bridge, to 
Channel Marker ``40,'' a distance of approximately 3.7 km (2.3 miles) 
in length, slow speed, year-round, channel included;
    g. From Channel Marker ``40'' to a point 152 meters (500 feet) 
north of the Dunlawton Bridge, a distance of approximately 14.5 km (9 
miles) in length, slow speed, year-round, 305-meter (1,000-foot) 
minimum buffers along shorelines with not more than 40 km per hour (25 
mph) in areas between the buffers, and including the marked navigation 
channel;
    h. From 152 meters (500 feet) north to 152 meters (500 feet) south 
of the Dunlawton Bridge, a distance of approximately 0.3 km (0.2 miles) 
in length, slow speed, year-round, channel included;
    i. From 152 meters (500 feet) south of the Dunlawton Bridge to 
Ponce Inlet, a distance of approximately 10.5 km (6.5 miles) in length, 
slow speed, year-round outside of marked channels with not more than 40 
km per hour (25 mph) in the channel; in Wilbur Bay, a distance of 
approximately 2.7 km (1.7 miles) in length, slow speed, year-round, 
shoreline to shoreline; along the western shore of the Halifax River, a 
distance of approximately 3.1 km (1.95 miles), slow speed, year-round, 
with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the marked channels; in 
Rose Bay, a distance of approximately 2.7 km (1.7 miles), slow speed, 
year-round, with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the marked 
channels; in all waters of Mill Creek, Tenmile Creek, and Dead End 
Creek, a combined distance of approximately 5.1 km (3.2 miles) in 
length, slow speed, year-round, shoreline to shoreline; in Turnbull 
Bay, a distance of approximately 3.9 km (2.4 miles), slow speed, year-
round, with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the marked 
channels; in Spruce Creek, for a distance of approximately 5.6 km (3.5

[[Page 16609]]

miles), shoreline to shoreline, April 1 to August 31, slow speed, and 
from September 1 through March 31, not more than 40 km per hour (25 
mph);
    j. In waters north of Ponce Inlet, between Live Oak Point and 
Channel Marker ``2,'' a distance of approximately 2.9 km (1.8 miles), 
slow speed, year-round, shoreline to shoreline; in waters adjacent to 
Ponce Inlet, slow speed, year-round outside of the marked navigation 
channel and other marked access channels, with not more than 40 km per 
hour (25 mph) in the marked channels; in waters within Ponce Inlet, 
speeds are restricted to not more than 48 km per hour (30 mph);
    k. In the Intracoastal Waterway from Redland Canal to the A1A 
Bridge (New Smyrna Beach), for a distance of approximately 5.3 km (3.3 
miles) in length, slow speed, year-round, channel included.
    Manatee presence has been documented in this area through aerial 
surveys, photo-identification studies, telemetry studies, and a carcass 
salvage program (FWCC, 2000). In general, manatees primarily use the 
Halifax River as a travel corridor (Deutsch, 1998, 2000); manatees use 
the downtown Daytona Beach area marinas as a source of drinking water 
and may calve here. The Tomoka River system is a known calving area, as 
evidenced by observations of calving manatees (McNerney, 1982) and 
aerial observations of significant numbers of cow and calf pairs (FWCC, 
2000). Other activities observed throughout these systems include 
playing and/or engaging in sexual activity, feeding, and resting. 
Manatees are known to occur in these areas throughout the year 
(Deutsch, 1998, 2000), although they are more abundant during the 
warmer months of the year (FWCC, 2000).
    Two hundred and eight manatee deaths occurred in Volusia County 
between 1974 and 2002 (FWCC: FMRI Manatee Mortality Database, 2003). 
This number includes 60 watercraft-related deaths. Of these, 30 
watercraft-related deaths occurred in coastal Volusia County, 
(including 6 deaths in the Tomoka River system and 16 in the Halifax 
River). Twenty of these deaths have occurred over the past 10 years and 
seven of these over the past 2 years. Three of the watercraft-related 
deaths occurred in the Tomoka River in 2001. Carcass recovery sites for 
manatees known to have died as a result of watercraft collision include 
the lower Tomoka River and tributaries, the Halifax River in downtown 
Daytona Beach, areas to the south of Channel Marker ``40'' and the 
Dunlawton Bridge, and areas to the south of Ponce Inlet. Watercraft-
related deaths occur between the months of March and October, with most 
occurring in May, June, and July.
    The existing, State-designated manatee protection areas in coastal 
Volusia County were adopted by the State of Florida in 1994 (68C-22.012 
FAC). These measures include slow and idle speed restrictions in the 
Tomoka River and associated waterbodies (except for in those areas 
upstream and downstream of Alligator Island), 91-meter (300-foot) 
shoreline buffers along most of the Halifax River (with maximum speeds 
varying between 40 and 48 km per hour (25 and 30 mph) outside of the 
buffers), slow speeds in the downtown Daytona Beach area (except for a 
watersports area to the south of Seabreeze Bridge), and a complex of 
varying restrictions between the Dunlawton Bridge and New Smyrna Beach. 
The existing State measures include 10 different types of restrictions 
that are used to restrict 30 discrete areas within the area of the 
proposed refuge. Fifteen watercraft-related manatee deaths were 
documented within the area of the proposed refuge since the protection 
areas were first adopted. Seven of these deaths occurred in 2001, and 
no watercraft-related deaths were known to have occurred in 2002.
    We believe the proposed measures in this regulation will improve 
manatee protection and will prevent the take of at least one manatee 
through harassment, injury, and/or mortality by extending coverage to 
currently unprotected areas used by manatees, and by improving the 
ability of the public to understand and thus, comply, with protection 
measures through simplification of restrictions. The increased width of 
the shoreline buffers along the Halifax River will provide a greater 
margin of safety for manatees.

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 of these areas should or should not be 
designated as manatee refuges, including data in support of these 
reasons;
    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;
    4. Potential adverse effects to the manatee associated with 
designating manatee protection areas for the species; and
    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.
    Comments submitted electronically should be embedded in the body of 
the e-mail message itself or attached as a text-file (ASCII), and 
should not use special characters and encryption. Please also include 
``Attn: RIN 1018-AJ06,'' your full name, and return address in your e-
mail message. Comments submitted to [email protected] will receive an 
automated response confirming receipt of your 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.

[[Page 16610]]

    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
60-day comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a 
final rulemaking and will refine this proposal if and when appropriate. 
Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this proposal.

Public Hearings

    We have scheduled three formal public hearings to receive oral 
comments on the proposed Federal manatee protection areas. Each hearing 
will run from 6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. These hearings will afford the 
general public and interested parties an opportunity to hear 
information and make formal comments.
    Formal public hearings will be held at the following locations:

Tuesday, May 13, in Ft. Myers, FL, at the Harborside Convention Hall, 
1375 Monroe St.
Wednesday, May 14, in Daytona Beach, FL, at the Ocean Center, 101 N. 
Atlantic Ave.
Thursday, May 15, in Jacksonville, FL, at The University Center, 
University of North Florida campus, 4567 St. Johns Bluff Rd. South.

    Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and 
participate in the public hearing should contact Chuck Underwood of the 
Jacksonville Field Office at 904/232-2580, extension 109, or via e-mail 
to [email protected], as soon as possible. In order to allow 
sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week 
before the hearing.
    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 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 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 
over $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, 
jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A cost-benefit 
analysis is not required. It is not expected that any significant 
economic impacts would result from the establishment of three manatee 
refuges (approximately 185 river km (115 river miles)) in five counties 
in the State of Florida.
    The purpose of this rule would be to establish three manatee 
protection areas in Florida. The three areas are located in the 
Caloosahatchee River in Lee County, the St. Johns River in Duval, Clay 
and St. Johns Counties, and the Halifax River and Tomoka River in 
Volusia County. We are proposing to reduce the level of take of 
manatees by controlling certain human activity in these three areas. 
For the three manatee refuges, the areas would be year-round slow speed 
with certain site-specific exceptions, including 40 km per hour (25 
mph) in most channels. Affected waterborne activities would include 
transiting, cruising, water skiing, fishing, and the use of all water 
vehicles. This rule could result in impacts on recreational boaters, 
commercial charter boats, and commercial fishermen, primarily in the 
form of restrictions on boat speeds in specific areas. We could 
experience increased administrative costs due to this proposed rule. In 
addition, the rule would be expected to produce economic benefits for 
some parties as a result of increased manatee protection and decreased 
boat speeds in the manatee refuge areas.
    Regulatory impact analysis requires the comparison of expected 
costs and benefits of the proposed rule against a ``baseline,'' which 
typically reflects the regulatory requirements in existence prior to 
the rulemaking. For purposes of this analysis, the baseline assumes 
that we take no additional regulatory actions to protect the manatee. 
In fact, even with no further activity by us, an extensive system of 
State-designated manatee protection areas is already in place in each 
of the proposed manatee refuges. Thus, the proposed rule will have only 
an incremental effect. As discussed below, the net economic impact is 
not expected to be significant, but cannot be monetized given available 
information.
    The economic impacts of this rule would be due to the changes in 
speed zone restrictions in the proposed manatee refuge areas. These 
speed zone changes are summarized below.
    In Lee County, in the Caloosahatchee River area, the designation of 
the proposed Caloosahatchee-San Carlos Bay Manatee Refuge would result 
in the following changes:
    [sbull] The portion of the channel upstream of the Edison Bridge 
(to Beautiful Island) would change from a 40 km per hour (25 mph) limit 
to seasonal slow speed (i.e., 6.4 to 12.9 km per hour (4 to 8 mph) 
depending on hull design) from November 15 to March 31.
    [sbull] The portion of the channel 152 meters (500 feet) east and 
west of the Edison/ Caloosahatchee Bridge complex would change from 40 
km per hour (25 mph) to slow speed year-round.
    [sbull] Between the Edison/Caloosahatchee Bridge complex and Cape 
Coral Bridge, shoreline buffers would change from slow speed within 0.4 
km (0.25 mile) of shore to variable width, approximating within 91 
meters (300 feet) of the marked navigation channel at varying 
locations. This change eliminates two unprotected shoreline areas along 
the north shore at and below the Edison/Caloosahatchee Bridge complex.
    [sbull] The shore to shore, channel-included buffer, 152 meters 
(500 feet) east and west of Cape Coral Bridge would change from 40 km 
per hour (25 mph) year-round to slow speed year-round.
    [sbull] Between the Cape Coral Bridge and the Shell Island Manatee 
Refuge, the slow speed, shoreline buffer, year-round would change from 
0.4 km (0.25 mile) in width to a variable width, generally 
approximating within 91 meters (300 feet) of the marked navigation 
channel at varying locations. The channel is included in portions of 
this area, between channel markers ``72'' and ``82.''
    [sbull] The area to the west of the Shell Island Manatee Refuge, 
south of the Intracoastal Waterway, north of the Sanibel Causeway, to a 
line extending southwest from the southern tip of Merwin Key, would 
change from unregulated to slow speed year-round.

[[Page 16611]]

    Speed zones have been in existence in the Caloosahatchee River 
since 1979. Since 1989, almost all of the near shore waters of the 
Caloosahatchee have been under a slow speed restriction year-round. The 
proposed Caloosahatchee River Manatee Refuge would affect approximately 
35.4 km (22 river miles) overall. For the most part, the proposed 
regulation would widen existing slow speed areas by varying widths, 
dependent upon various factors. The greatest width of the affected area 
is approximately 2.4 km (1.5 miles), along the western shore north of 
Fourmile Point.
    In Duval, Clay, and St. Johns Counties, in the St. Johns River and 
tributaries (including Doctor's Lake), the proposed designation of the 
Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge would result in the following 
changes from the current speed restrictions:
    [sbull] In the downtown Jacksonville area, between Reddie Point and 
the Main Street Bridge, slow speed zones would be extended out to the 
channel from 91 to 274 meter (300- to 900-foot) shoreline buffers. The 
channel would be changed from unrestricted speed to a 40 km per hour 
(25 mph) limit.
    [sbull] Between the Main Street Bridge and the Fuller Warren 
Bridge, slow speed shoreline buffers would change from variable width, 
slow speed (currently variable width along the western and northern 
shore and 183 meters (600 feet) on the eastern shore) to bank to bank, 
channel included, slow speed.
    [sbull] South of the Fuller Warren Bridge to the southern bank of 
the mouth of Julington Creek (St. Johns County) on the eastern shore 
and to the mouth of Peter's Creek (Clay County) along the western 
shore, slow speed shoreline buffers would change from variable width 
(152 meters (500 feet) from shore or 61 meters (200 feet) from the end 
of docks) to 305 meters (1,000 feet), minimum. Boat speed remains 
unregulated outside of the buffer.
    [sbull] In Doctors Lake and Inlet, slow speed shoreline buffers 
would be extended from variable width (152 meter (500 feet) minimum or 
61 meters (200 feet) beyond docks), to a 274 meter (900-foot) minimum 
buffer along both shorelines.
    Overall, the proposed St. Johns River Manatee Refuge would affect 
approximately 66 km (41 miles) of the St. Johns River and adjacent 
waters. In areas upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge, newly protected 
areas would include extending existing slow speed areas out an 
additional 91 to 152 meters (300 to 500 feet). Downstream of the Fuller 
Warren Bridge, shoreline buffers would be extended from their variable 
widths to the channel. The greatest width of the shoreline buffer in 
this area is approximately 1.6 km (1 mile).
    In Volusia County, for the Halifax and Tomoka Rivers Manatee Refuge 
including the Halifax River and tributaries (including Halifax Creek 
and the Tomoka River Complex), the Ponce Inlet area, and Indian River 
North, the proposed rule would result in the following changes from 
current speed restrictions:
    [sbull] The channel in Halifax Creek would change to 40 km per hour 
(25 mph) from 48 km per hour (30 mph) (40 km per hour (25 mph) at 
night).
    The two reaches of the Tomoka River upstream of U.S. Highway 1, 
where the speed restriction was 40 km per hour (25 mph) for part or all 
of the year, would change to a year-round slow speed restriction.
    [sbull] In the Halifax River from the Tomoka River Basin and the 
southern extent of Halifax Creek to Seabreeze Bridge, the 91-meter 
(300-foot) slow speed shoreline buffer would be extended to 305 meters 
(1,000 feet), and the speed limit would change from 48 km per hour (30 
mph) (40 km per hour (25 mph) at night) outside the buffer and marked 
navigation channel to 40 km per hour (25 mph).
    [sbull] In the vicinity of the Granada Bridge, the current shore to 
shore, channel-included buffer, 152 meters (500 feet) north and 305 
meters (1,000 feet) south of the SR 40 Bridge (Granada Bridge) would 
change from a 91-meter (300-foot) slow speed buffer (56 km per hour (35 
mph) outside of buffer) to slow speed.
    [sbull] The area between Seabreeze and Channel Marker ``40'' would 
change from slow speed channel included (excepting a watersports area 
south of Seabreeze Bridge) to slow speed channel included (including 
the watersports area south of Seabreeze Bridge).
    [sbull] The shoreline buffers in the Halifax River from Channel 
Marker ``40'' to the Dunlawton Bridge would change from 91 meters (300 
feet) to 305 meters (1,000 feet). The speed limit would change from 48 
km per hour (30 mph) (40 km per hour (25 mph) at night) outside the 
buffer and marked navigation channel to 40 km per hour (25 mph).
    [sbull] The shore to shore, channel-included buffer, 152 meters 
(500 feet) north and south of the Dunlawton Bridge would change from a 
91-meter (300-foot) slow speed buffer 56 km per hour (35 mph outside of 
buffer) to slow speed. Waters between the Dunlawton Bridge and Ponce 
Inlet will change from variable zones with 48 km per hour (30 mph) 
within the channel to slow speed year-round outside the channel, 40 km 
per hour (25 mph) within the channel.
    [sbull] The waters within Ponce Inlet and adjacent waterbodies 
would change from variable zones with 48 km per hour (30 mph) within 
the channel to year-round, slow speed shoreline to shoreline zones 
outside of marked channels (except for maintenance of the existing 
seasonal slow speed zone in the headwaters of Spruce Creek), including 
40 km per hour (25 mph) within the marked channels. The existing 48 km 
per hour (30 mph) limit within Ponce Inlet would remain unchanged.
    [sbull] The waters within the Indian River North, running north to 
south along the eastern shore of the river immediately south of Ponce 
Inlet would change from 48 km per hour (30 mph) to slow speed.
    Overall, the Halifax River and Tomoka River Manatee Refuge would 
affect approximately 85 km (53 miles) of Volusia County's waterways. 
The majority of the changes would include extending the shoreline 
buffers within the Halifax River from 91 meters (300) to 305 meters 
(1,000 feet). Given the confusing nature of the existing State 
restrictions in this area, the overall impact of the proposed changes 
would be to make the speed restrictions more consistent and clear.
    In addition to speed zone changes, the proposed rule would no 
longer allow for the speed zone exemption process in place under State 
regulations. Currently, Florida's Manatee Sanctuary Act allows the 
State to provide exemptions from speed zone requirements for certain 
activities, including fishing and events such as high-speed boat races. 
Under State law, commercial fishermen and professional fishing guides 
can apply for permits granting exemption from speed zone requirements 
in certain counties. However, speed zone exemptions have not been 
authorized in most of the areas affected by the proposed rule. Speed 
zone exemption permits for commercial fishing and professional fishing 
guides are not available for affected areas in Duval County, coastal 
Volusia County, and in the Caloosahatchee River (except along a small 
portion of San Carlos Bay/Matlacha Pass, at the mouth of the river) 
(FWCC, 2003g). Exceptions to these proposed Federal speed zones would 
require a formal rulemaking (including publishing the proposed rule in 
the Federal Register, public review, and comment) prior to the Service 
making a final decision. Based on available information, there have 
been very few events permitted in the affected areas in the past 5 
years (Service, 2003c; Lee County, 2003). Therefore, the lack of a 
process for speed zone exemptions is not likely to have much impact.

[[Page 16612]]

    In order to gauge the economic effect of this proposed rule, both 
benefits and costs must be considered. Potential economic benefits 
related to this rule would include increased manatee protection and 
tourism related to manatee viewing, increased property values, 
increased boater safety, increased fisheries health, and decreased 
seawall maintenance costs. Potential economic costs are related to 
increased administrative activities related to implementing the rule 
and affected waterborne activities. Economic costs will be measured 
primarily 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. In addition, there may be some 
impact on commercial fishing because of the need to maintain slower 
speeds in some areas. While the State of Florida has 19,312 km (12,000 
miles) of rivers and 1.21 million hectares (3 million acres) of lakes, 
this rule would affect less than 185 km (115 river miles). The 
extension of slower speed zones as proposed in this rule would not be 
expected to affect enough waterborne activity to create a significant 
economic impact (i.e., an annual impact of over $100 million).

Economic Benefits

    We believe that the designation of the three manatee refuges 
proposed in this rule would increase the level of manatee protection in 
these areas. Two studies have examined the public's willingness to pay 
for protection of the manatee (Bendle and Bell, 1995; Fishkind & 
Associates, 1993). Based on these contingent valuation studies, it is 
believed that there is large public support for manatee protection 
regulations such as this proposed rule.
    It is difficult to apply the results of these studies to this 
proposed rule, because neither study measures an impact similar to that 
associated with this rulemaking. For example, the Fishkind study was 
designed to gauge the economic impact of the Florida Manatee Sanctuary 
Act. First, the estimates of economic benefit are predicated on a 
different baseline in terms of both the manatee population being 
protected at that time versus now and the regulatory conditions in 
existence, such as current manatee protection areas. Second, the 
Fishkind study is not clear about the type and extent of manatee 
protection. The study does not clearly state if protection refers 
simply to the establishment of speed zones, or whether implementation 
and enforcement are included. Nor does the study clearly state whether 
residents are providing a willingness to pay for manatee protection for 
a specific region or for the entire manatee population in the State of 
Florida. While neither of these studies are specific enough to apply to 
this proposed rule, they provide an indication that the public holds 
substantial value for the protection of the manatee.
    Another potential economic benefit is increased tourism that could 
result from an increase in manatee protection. To the extent that some 
portion of Florida's tourism is due to the existence of the manatee in 
Florida waters, the protection provided by this rule may result in an 
economic benefit to the tourism industry. We are not able to make an 
estimate of this benefit given available information.
    Florida waterfront property owners may benefit from manatee 
protection areas such as the three proposed manatee refuges. Bell and 
McLean (1997) showed that speed zone enforcement may provide an 
economic benefit to adjacent landowners. Bell and McLean studied the 
impact of posted manatee speed zones on the property values of 
waterfront homes in Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. The 
authors found a strong relationship between property values and slow 
speed zones, and found evidence that slow speed zones may have a 
positive impact on home sale price. Slow speed zones were found to 
correlate with as much as a 15 to 20 percent increase in sale price, 
although this result has not been corroborated by other studies. The 
authors speculated that speed zones may increase property values by 
reducing noise and fast traffic, as well as making it easier for boats 
to enter and leave primary waterways. In each of the three manatee 
refuge areas there are stretches of river where residential property 
owners may experience these benefits.
    In addition, due to reductions in boat wake associated with speed 
zones, property owners may experience some economic benefits related to 
decreased expenditures for maintenance and repair of shoreline 
stabilization structures (i.e., seawalls along the water's edge). Speed 
reductions may also result in increased boater safety. Another 
potential benefit of slower speeds is that fisheries in these areas may 
be more productive because of less disturbance. These types of benefits 
cannot be quantified with available information.
    Based on previous studies, we believe that this rule would produce 
some economic benefits. However, given the lack of information 
available for estimating these benefits, the magnitude of these 
benefits is unknown.

Economic Costs

    The economic impact of the designation of three manatee protection 
areas would result from the fact that in certain areas, boats will be 
required to go slower than under current conditions. As discussed 
above, an extensive system of manatee speed zones promulgated by the 
State exists in each of the areas covered under this rule. The rule 
would add to these areas by extending shoreline buffers and reducing 
speed limits slightly in some channels. Some impacts may be felt by 
recreationists who would have to use alternative sites for their 
activity or who would have a reduced quality of the waterborne activity 
experience at the designated sites because of the proposed rule. For 
example, the extra time required for anglers to reach fishing grounds 
could reduce onsite fishing time and could result in lower consumer 
surplus for the trip. Other impacts of the rule may be felt by 
commercial charter boat outfits, commercial fishermen, and agencies 
that perform administrative activities related to implementing the 
rule.

Affected Recreational Activities

    For some boating recreationists, the inconvenience and extra time 
required to cross additional slow speed areas may reduce the quality of 
the waterborne activity, or cause them to forgo the activity. This will 
manifest in a loss of consumer surplus to these recreationists. In 
addition, to the extent that recreationists forgo recreational 
activities, this could result in some regional economic impact. In this 
section, we examine the waterborne activities taking place in each area 
and the extent to which they may be affected by designation of the 
proposed manatee refuge. The resulting potential economic impacts are 
discussed below for each manatee refuge area. These impacts cannot be 
quantified because the number of recreationists and anglers using the 
designated sites is not known.
    Caloosahatechee River Area: In the proposed Caloosahatchee River 
Manatee Refuge, affected waterborne activities include transiting, 
fishing, sailing, waterskiing, and personal watercraft use. The number 
of registered recreational vessels in Lee County in 2002 was 45,413 
(Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 2003). Based on aerial 
surveys and boat traffic surveys conducted in 1997 and 1998, the 
highest number of vessels observed on the Caloosahatchee River sites on 
a given day was 477 vessels. Based on

[[Page 16613]]

aerial, boat traffic, and boater compliance surveys of the 
Caloosahatchee River, over 60 percent of vessels observed were small 
powerboats, while less than seven percent were personal watercraft 
(e.g., jet skis) (Gorzelany, 1998). Waterskiing and personal watercraft 
use in the Caloosahatchee primarily occurs between the Caloosahatchee 
and Cape Coral Bridges (Lee County, 2003). Shell Point and Redfish 
Point are also popular access areas where personal watercraft use may 
be affected (FWCC, 2002). The Caloosahatchee River area is also a 
popular location for recreational guiding for snook and redfish 
fishing, particularly at night (FWCC, 2003c). The extra time required 
for anglers to reach fishing grounds could reduce onsite fishing time 
and could result in lower consumer surplus for the trip. The number of 
anglers on the Caloosahatchee, and their origins and destinations are 
currently unknown. One study indicates that approximately 70 percent of 
the boat traffic on the Caloosahatchee originates from the Cape Coral 
Canal system (FWCC, 2002). Another boat traffic survey indicated that 
the majority of boat traffic exits the Caloosahatchee River in the 
morning and enters the river in the afternoon. The majority of vessels 
leaving the Caloosahatchee River travel south toward the Sanibel 
Causeway and Gulf of Mexico. Approximately 94 percent of vessel traffic 
on the Caloosahatchee was reported as ``traveling,'' while less than 
one percent was engaged in ``skiing'' based on boater compliance 
observations at 10 sites along the Caloosahatchee River (Gorzelany, 
1998).
    Based on these trends, it appears that most recreational waterborne 
activity on the Caloosahatchee River will be affected by the proposed 
manatee refuge. While the proposed designation will cause an increase 
in travel time, it is unlikely that the increase will be great enough 
to cause a significant economic dislocation. Much of the boat traffic 
on the Caloosahatchee likely originates from the Cape Coral Canal 
system (FWCC, 2002), and would experience added travel time of 
approximately 25 minutes (from Cape Coral Bridge to Sanibel Causeway) 
for a trip that currently lasts 50 minutes. At most, a boat traveling 
from Beautiful Island to the Sanibel Causeway will experience added 
travel time of 40 minutes to 1 and a half hours (depending on time of 
the year) due to the proposed designation; currently this trip would 
take approximately 1 and one-quarter hours.
    The small percentage of recreational boaters using the river for 
waterskiing or personal watercraft use will choose either to go to 
alternative sites such as San Carlos Bay or Pine Island Sound or to 
forgo the activity. The amount of added travel time to get to an 
alternative site will depend on the origin of the trip and whether the 
trip originates from a dock or a ramp. For example, ramp users may 
choose to trailer their boats to a different location, closer to the 
alternative site and may experience little added travel time. For dock 
users, under the proposed rule, travel time on the Caloosahatchee from 
the Cape Coral Bridge to the Sanibel Causeway could be approximately 1 
and one-quarter hours. The amount of added travel time and the expected 
quality of the experience will likely influence the recreationists' 
choice of whether to travel to an alternative site or forgo the 
activity. The number of recreationists who will use alternative sites 
or forgo recreational activities is unknown, but it is not expected to 
be a large enough number to result in a significant economic impact.
    St. Johns River Area: In the proposed St. Johns River Manatee 
Refuge, the affected recreational waterborne activities are likely to 
include cruising, fishing, and waterskiing. Based on a survey of boat 
ramp users in Duval County, these three activities were the most 
popular reasons cited as the primary purpose of the trip. Recreational 
fishing was cited as the primary purpose by 62 percent of those 
surveyed, while cruising was cited by 19 percent and waterskiing was 
cited by 7 percent (Jacksonville University, 1999). The total number of 
recreational vessels registered in Duval, Clay, and St. Johns counties 
in 2002 is 57,388 (Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 
2003). The portion of these vessels using the St. Johns River area 
covered by the proposed designation is unknown. Recreational fishing 
for bass, redfish, sea trout, croaker, and flounder, as well as 
shrimping with nets, are popular activities in the near shore waters of 
the St. Johns River south of the Fuller Warren Bridge. Because the 
submerged aquatic vegetation near shore provides food, and docks 
provide protection for the fish, this is where the fishing activity 
primarily takes place (FWCC, 2003c). Because recreational fishing is 
likely occurring primarily in existing slow speed areas, the extension 
of slow speed zones out 152 meters (500 feet) further will not have a 
significant effect. Recreationists engaging in fishing or cruising are 
unlikely to experience much impact due to the proposed regulation. The 
expanded/extended buffers are not expected to increase travel times by 
any more than about 8 minutes (one way). The proposed designation will 
cause some inconvenience in travel time, but alternative sites within 
the proximity of proposed designated areas are available for all 
waterborne activities. Because the designated areas are part of larger 
waterbodies where large areas remain unrestricted, the impact of the 
proposed designation on recreational waterborne activities in the St. 
Johns River and adjacent waterbodies will be limited. Recreationists 
engaging in cruising, fishing, and waterskiing may experience some 
inconvenience by having to go slower or use un-designated areas; 
however, the extension of slow speed zones is not likely to result in a 
significant economic impact.
    Halifax River and Tomoka River Area: In the proposed Halifax River 
and Tomoka River Manatee Refuge, affected waterborne activities include 
fishing, traveling, cruising, waterskiing, and personal watercraft use. 
Based on a boating activity study that relied on a variety of survey 
mechanisms, the two most popular activities in the Intracoastal 
Waterway in Volusia County were recreational fishing and traveling 
(Volusia County Environmental Management Services, 1996). 
Recreationists engaging in fishing or traveling are unlikely to 
experience much impact due to the proposed regulation. Rather, these 
boaters will be able to utilize the channel for transiting the river or 
moving to the next fishing ground. The two most popular destinations 
are the Mosquito Lagoon and the Ponce Inlet area (Volusia County 
Environmental Management, 2002). Recreationists engaging in fishing or 
traveling may experience some inconvenience by having to go slower or 
use marked channels; however, small changes in boater behavior due to 
the extension of slow speed zones should not result in a significant 
economic impact.
    For the Tomoka River, the primary activity that will be affected by 
the designation is waterskiing. A ski club uses the river in an area 
currently designated at 40 km per hour (25 mph). Under the proposed 
designation, this will be changed to slow speed. The nearest 
alternative site where these recreationists can water ski is at least 
11 to 16 km (7 to 10 miles) away (Volusia County, 2003). It is 
estimated that the on-the-water travel time for the skiers to reach the 
nearest alternative site could be up to 2\1/2\ hours. The proposed 
regulation may cause some water skiers to forgo this activity, or may 
reduce the quality of their experience. The number of skiers that may 
be affected and the number of trips per year are not

[[Page 16614]]

currently known. With additional information on the number of affected 
individuals, we could estimate the impact of lost or diminished skiing 
days given the value of a waterskiing day published in the literature. 
One study by Bergstrom and Cordell (1991) suggested the lost surplus 
value may be $38/day (2002$) for a day of waterskiing. They applied a 
multi-community, multi-site travel cost model to estimate demand 
equations for 37 outdoor recreational activities and trip values, 
including water skiing. The analysis was based on nationwide data from 
the Public Area Recreational Visitors Study collected between 1985 and 
1987 and several secondary sources.
    In the Halifax River, one of the activities that may be affected by 
the proposed designation is personal watercraft (PWC) use. These 
activities are primarily taking place in the recreational zones located 
south of the Seabreeze Bridge and north of the Dunlawton Bridge. PWC 
likely represent a very small portion of vessels on the Intracoastal 
Waterway in Volusia County. Based on a boating activity study from 1994 
to 1995, less than two percent of observations in the Intracoastal 
Waterway area were PWCs (based on 12,000 observations during aerial, 
boat ramp and shoreline, and mailing surveys) (Volusia County 
Environmental Management Services, 1996). The number of pleasure PWC in 
Volusia County in 2000 was 2,432, with 204 rental PWC (FWCC, 2000a). 
The nearest alternative site for using personal watercraft is near the 
Dunlawton Bridge, where an area remains unrestricted between the 
channel and the shoreline buffer, or in the Ponce Inlet vicinity, 
approximately 20 km (12.5 miles) downriver. Under the proposed rule, 
travel time from the Daytona Beach watersports area (south of Seabreeze 
Bridge) to the Ponce Inlet area would be approximately one hour. Added 
travel time to reach alternative sites would depend on the origin of 
the trip, which is currently unknown. The proposed regulation may cause 
some personal watercraft users to forgo this activity, or may reduce 
the quality of their experience. The number of PWC users that may be 
affected and the number of trips per year are not currently known. To 
the extent that these recreationists choose to forgo the activity, this 
could also impact local businesses that rent personal watercraft.
    Currently, not enough data are available to estimate the loss in 
consumer surplus that water skiers in the Tomoka River or PWC users in 
the Halifax River will experience. While some may use substitute sites, 
others may forgo the activity. The economic impact associated with 
these changes on demand for goods and services is not known. However, 
given the number of recreationists potentially affected, and the fact 
that alternative sites are available, it is not expected to amount to a 
significant economic impact.

Affected Commercial Charter Boat Activities

    Various types of charter boats use the waterways in the affected 
counties, primarily for fishing and nature tours. The number of charter 
boats using the Caloosahatchee, Halifax, and St. Johns Rivers, and 
their origins and destinations are currently unknown. For nature tours, 
the extension of slow speed zones is unlikely to cause a significant 
impact, because they are likely traveling at slow speeds. The extra 
time required for commercial charter boats to reach fishing grounds 
could reduce onsite fishing time and could result in fewer trips. The 
fishing activity is likely occurring at a slow speed and will not be 
affected. In the Caloosahatchee and St. Johns Rivers, fishing charters 
may experience some impact from the extension of slow speed zones, 
depending on their origins and destinations. Added travel time may 
affect the length of a trip, which could result in fewer trips overall, 
creating an economic impact. In the Halifax River, it is likely that 
most fishing charters are heading offshore or to the Mosquito Lagoon, 
and will experience little impact from the proposed rule (Volusia 
County, 2003).

Affected Commercial Fishing Activities

    Several commercial fisheries may experience some impact due to the 
proposed regulation. Specifically, the blue crab fishery and, to a 
lesser extent, mullet fishing, along the Caloosahatchee River; the crab 
and shrimp industries in the St. Johns River; and the crab and mullet 
fishing industries in Volusia County may experience some economic 
impact. To the extent that the proposed regulation establishes 
additional speed zones in commercial fishing areas, this may increase 
the time spent on the fishing activity, affecting the efficiency of 
commercial fishing. While limited data are available to address the 
size of the commercial fishing industry in the proposed manatee 
refuges, county-level data generally provide an upper bound estimate of 
the size of the industry and potential economic impact. This section 
first provides some background on the blue crab industry in Florida, 
and then addresses the impact of the proposed rule on the commercial 
fishing industry for each manatee refuge area.
    One industry in particular that may be affected by the proposed 
rule is the blue crab fishery, which represents a sizeable industry in 
the State of Florida. Based on a study done for the Florida Fish and 
Wildlife Commission, Division of Marine Fisheries (Murphy et al., 
2001), between 1986 and 2000 the average annual catch statewide was 6.4 
million kilograms (14.1 million pounds) (39.7 million crabs). However, 
year to year fluctuation is significant, including highs of 8.2 million 
kilograms (18 million pounds) statewide in 1987 and 1996 and a low of 
2.5 million kilograms (5.5 million pounds) statewide in 1991. In the 
last 3 years, blue crab landings have been depressed throughout the 
East Coast and Gulf of Mexico, though specific reasons for this are 
unknown at this time (FWCC, 2003d). Landings in 2001 were approximately 
3.4 million kilograms (7.4 million pounds) statewide. Based on a 2001 
weighted average price of $1.06 per 0.5 kilograms (pound) of crab, this 
represents just under $8 million (FWCC: FMRI, 2003). Data from 2001 on 
marine fisheries landings from FWCC: FMRI is preliminary and subject to 
revision.
    Caloosahatchee River Area: Lee County, where the proposed 
Caloosahatchee River Manatee Refuge is located, had 157 licensed blue 
crab boat operators in 2001 (FWCC: FMRI, 2003). Crabbing in the 
Caloosahatchee is likely to be impacted by the extension of slow speed 
areas because crab boats may have to travel at slower speeds between 
crab pots, thereby potentially reducing the number of crabs landed on a 
daily basis. For example, to the extent that crab boat operators 
frequently change fish pot locations in search of optimal fishing 
grounds, this activity could be affected by extension of existing slow 
speed zones (FWCC, 2003a). The extension of slow speed zones will 
likely cause fishermen to have to travel out to the channel and back 
rather than travel in direct lines across and throughout the river. The 
affected crabbing area in the Caloosahatchee River is approximately 27 
km (17 miles) long (from the Edison Bridge to Merwin Key in San Carlos 
Bay) and just under 2.4 km (1.5 miles) wide at its widest point.
    In 2001, blue crab landings in Lee County were 175,805 kilograms 
(387,585 pounds), and the weighted average price was $1.06 per 0.5 
kilograms (pound) for blue crab statewide. The entire value of the blue 
crab fishery in Lee County is estimated to be $411,167 (FWCC: FMRI, 
2003). Only a small portion of this value is likely to be affected, as 
the activity will still occur but with some changes due

[[Page 16615]]

to additional speed zones. In addition, this figure includes landings 
for all of Lee County. The number of crab boats operating and the 
amount of blue crab landings occurring in areas that would be newly 
designated speed zones under this proposed rule is unknown. Crabbing 
likely occurs in parts of Lee County outside of the Caloosahatchee 
River, including Charlotte Harbor, San Carlos Bay, Estero Bay, etc. 
(FWCC, 2003e). The county-wide figures provide an upper bound estimate 
of the economic impact on this fishery; this would assume that the 
proposed regulation closed down the entire fishery, which is not the 
case.
    In Lee County, commercial mullet fishing is also occurring in the 
proposed Caloosahatchee River Manatee Refuge area. These fishermen may 
also be impacted by slower commuting times from boat launch (e.g., dock 
or ramp) to fishing grounds. However, fishing activity associated with 
mullet fishing generally includes slow net casting within a relatively 
small geographic area (FWCC, 2003e). Therefore, speed limits are less 
likely to affect mullet fishing, relative to the blue crab fishery. In 
2001, based on mullet landings in Lee County of 997,903 kilograms (2.2 
million pounds), and the weighted average price of $0.66 for mullet 
statewide, the value of the mullet fishery in Lee County is estimated 
to be $1.4 million (FWCC: FMRI, 2003). Only a small portion of these 
values is likely to be affected, as the activity will still occur but 
with some changes due to additional speed zones. In addition, this 
figure includes landings for all of Lee County. The amount of mullet 
fishing occurring in areas that would be newly designated speed zones 
under this proposed rule is unknown.
    St. Johns River Area: In the St. Johns River Manatee Refuge, most 
of which is in Duval County, current commercial fishing can be divided 
into activity south and north of the Fuller Warren Bridge. Commercial 
fishing north (i.e., downstream) of the bridge consists primarily of 
shrimping, while commercial fishing activity south of the bridge 
consists primarily of blue crab fishing. Commercial net shrimping is 
not allowed south of the Fuller Warren Bridge (Jacksonville Port 
Authority, 2003).
    Commercial blue crab fishing occurs both north and south of the 
Fuller Warren Bridge. Crab fishing is likely to be impacted by the 
proposed manatee refuge. The extension of the shoreline buffer zone may 
impact fishing operations because the majority of crabbing activity 
takes place in the submerged aquatic vegetation, which is located along 
the immediate shoreline (FWCC, 2003b). Therefore, when crabbers enter 
and exit these shoreline areas, they will be required to travel slowly 
(i.e., 6.4 to 12.9 km per hour (4 to 8 mph)) for approximately 152 
additional meters (500 feet) (incremental to the existing variable 
width shoreline buffer). In addition, travel between pots within the 
buffer will also be slowed, thereby potentially reducing the number of 
crabs landed on a daily basis. However, once outside the shoreline 
buffer, boats can travel up to 40 km per hour (25 mph) in areas 
downstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge, and at unrestricted speeds 
upstream.
    There were 61 commercial licences for blue crab issued in Duval 
County in 2001 (FWCC: FMRI, 2003). In 2001, based on blue crab landings 
in Duval County of 506,401 pounds, and the weighted average price of 
$1.06 per 0.5 kilogram (pound) for blue crab statewide, the value of 
the blue crab fishery in Duval County is estimated to be $537,213 
(FWCC: FMRI, 2003). Only a small portion of this value is likely to be 
affected, as the activity will still occur but with some changes due to 
additional speed zones. In addition, this figure includes landings for 
all of Duval County. The number of crab boats operating and the amount 
of blue crab landings occurring in areas that would be newly designated 
speed zones under this proposed rule is unknown. The county-wide 
figures provide an upper bound estimate of the economic impact on this 
fishery; this would assume that the proposed regulation closed down the 
entire fishery, which is not the case.
    Commercial shrimping north of the Fuller Warren Bridge in the St. 
Johns River is likely to receive minimal impact due to the extension of 
year-round slow speed areas outside of the marked channels. Impacts to 
this industry are likely to be minimal because shrimp boats tend to 
trawl at a slow speed. Nonetheless, shrimp boats will still be required 
to travel at slower speeds between fishing grounds, thereby potentially 
increasing the time it takes to access fishing areas and reducing 
shrimp landed on a daily basis (Jacksonville Port Authority, 2003).
    The majority of commercial shrimping activity in the St. Johns 
River occurs between the mouth of Trout River and the Fuller Warren 
Bridge, which closely approximates the proposed northern limit of the 
St. Johns Manatee Refuge (Jacksonville Port Authority, 2003). 
Commercial shrimping activity in Duval County also occurs along the 
Nassau River, which represents the border between Duval and Nassau 
County, and, to a lesser extent, along the Intracoastal Waterway (FWCC, 
2003f). Shrimp landings in Clay County are negligible, based on the 
fact that commercial shrimping is not allowed upriver of the Fuller 
Warren Bridge. Shrimp landings in St. Johns County most likely 
represent activity along the Intracoastal Waterway and not in the St. 
Johns River area. While there is some limited commercial bait shrimping 
activity along this stretch of river, the vast majority of commercial 
shrimping in this area is related to the harvest of shrimp for food 
production (FWCC, 2003e). In 2001, based on shrimp landings in Duval 
County of 997,903 kilograms (2.2 million pounds), and the weighted 
average price of $2.33 for shrimp statewide, the value of the shrimp 
fishery in Duval County is estimated to be about $5.2 million (FWCC: 
FMRI, 2003). Less than one percent of commercial shrimp landings in 
2001 in Duval County are related to bait shrimp (FWCC: FMRI, 2003); 
therefore, these figures represent only food shrimp harvest. Only a 
small portion of this value is likely to be affected, as the activity 
will still occur but with some changes due to additional speed zones. 
In addition, this figure includes landings for all of Duval County. The 
number of shrimp boats operating and the amount of shrimp landings 
occurring in areas that would be newly designated speed zones under 
this proposed rule is unknown. The county-wide figures provide an upper 
bound estimate of the economic impact on this fishery; this would 
assume that the proposed regulation closed down the entire fishery, 
which is not the case.
    Halifax River and Tomoka River Area: In Volusia County, the 
proposed Halifax River and Tomoka River Manatee Refuge includes a 
variety of waterways, including the Tomoka River, the Tomoka Basin, 
Halifax Creek, the Halifax River, Ponce de Leon Inlet, and Spruce 
Creek. In these areas, it is likely that blue crab and mullet fishing 
activities will be impacted by the proposed expanded speed zones. As 
discussed above for Lee County, crab boats will have to travel at 
slower speeds in some locations between crab pots, thereby potentially 
reducing the number of crabs landed on a daily basis. The speed limits 
may also slow transit speeds between fishing grounds for both crab and 
mullet fishing boats. As noted above, mullet fishing activity generally 
includes slow net casting and, therefore, such activities are unlikely 
to receive much impact. Note also that along the Halifax River, a 
channel is available for boats to travel up to 25 mph. The

[[Page 16616]]

proposed manatee refuge area along the Halifax River stretches from the 
Flagler-Volusia County line in Halifax Creek past the Ponce de Leon 
Inlet to the South Causeway Bridge (New Smyrna Beach), a distance of 
approximately 43.5 km (27 miles). The waterbody ranges from 0.5 km (0.3 
miles) to just over 1.6 km (1 mile) in width. The manatee refuge also 
includes tributaries and river basins of varying length and width. The 
number of fishing boats operating and the amount of blue crab and 
mullet landings occurring in areas that will be newly designated speed 
zones under this proposed rule is unknown.
    There were 128 licensed blue crab operators in Volusia County in 
2001. In 2001, based on blue crab landings in Volusia County of 230,577 
kilograms (508,337 pounds), and the weighted average price of $1.06 for 
blue crab statewide, the value of the blue crab fishery in Volusia 
County is estimated to be $539,266 (FWCC: FMRI, 2003). In 2001, based 
on mullet landings in Volusia County of 188,675 kilograms (415,958 
pounds), and the weighted average price of $0.66 for mullet statewide, 
the value of the mullet fishery in Volusia County is estimated to be 
$272,591 (FWCC: FMRI, 2003). Only a small portion of these values is 
likely to be affected, as the crabbing and fishing activities will 
still occur but with some changes due to additional speed zones. In 
addition, crabbing and mullet fishing occur in parts of Volusia County 
outside of the proposed manatee refuge area, including Mosquito Lagoon, 
St. Johns River, Lake George, etc. (Ponce Inlet Authority, 2003). The 
county-wide figures provide an upper bound estimate of the economic 
impact on these fisheries; this would assume that the proposed 
regulation closed down the entire fishery, which is not the case.
    Given available data, the impact on the commercial fishing industry 
of extending slow speed zones in portions of the Caloosahatchee, St. 
Johns, and Halifax Rivers cannot be quantified. The proposed 
designation will likely affect commercial fishermen by way of added 
travel time, which may result in an economic impact. However, because 
the proposed manatee refuge designations will not prohibit any 
commercial fishing activity, and because there is a channel available 
for boats to travel up to 40 km per hour (25 mph) in most affected 
areas, it is unlikely that the proposed rule will result in a 
significant economic impact on the commercial fishing industry. It is 
important to note that in 2001, the total annual value of potentially 
affected fisheries is approximately $8.3 million (2001$); this figure 
represents the economic impact on commercial fisheries in these 
counties in the unlikely event that the fisheries would be entirely 
shut down, which is not the situation associated with this rule.

Agency Administrative Costs

    The cost of implementing the rule has been estimated based on 
historical expenditures by the Service for manatee refuges and 
sanctuaries established previously. The Service expects to spend 
approximately $600,000 (2002$) for posting and signing 15 previously 
designated manatee protection areas. This represents the amount that 
the Service will pay contractors for creation and installation of 
manatee signs. While the number and location of signs needed to post 
the proposed manatee refuges is not known, the cost of manufacturing 
and posting signs to delineate the manatee refuges proposed in this 
rule are not expected to exceed the amount being spent to post 
previously designated manatee protection areas (Service, 2003a). In 
addition, the Service anticipates that it will spend $1.7 million 
(2002$) for enforcement of newly designated manatee refuges annually. 
These costs are overstated because they represent the cost of enforcing 
13 new manatee refuges and sanctuaries designated earlier on November 
8, 2002, as well as the 3 manatee refuges included in this rule. The 
costs of enforcement include hiring and training five new law 
enforcement agents and two special agents, and the associated training, 
equipment, upkeep and clerical support (Service, 2003b). Finally, there 
may be some costs for education and outreach to inform the public about 
these new manatee refuge areas.
    While the State of Florida has 19,312 km (12,000 miles) of rivers 
and 1.21 hectares (3 million acres) of lakes, the proposed rule will 
affect less than 185 kilometers (115 river miles). The speed 
restrictions on approximately 185 km (115 miles) proposed as manatee 
refuges in this rule will cause inconvenience due to added travel time 
for recreationists and commercial charter boats and fishermen. As a 
result, the rule will impact the quality of waterborne activity 
experiences for some recreationists, and may lead some recreationists 
to forgo the activity. The extension of existing State speed zones for 
185 km (115 miles) is not expected to affect waterborne activity to the 
extent that it would have a significant economic impact. The proposed 
rule does not prohibit recreationists from participating in any 
activities. Alternative sites are available for all waterborne 
activities that may be affected by this rule. The distance that 
recreationists may have to travel to reach an un-designated area 
varies. Waterskiers in the Tomoka River will likely experience the 
greatest inconvenience in terms of added travel time, as travel to the 
nearest alternative site would take approximately 2\1/2\ hours. The 
regulation will likely impact some portion of the charter boat and 
commercial fishing industries in these areas as well. The inconvenience 
of having to go somewhat slower outside of marked channels may result 
in changes to commercial and recreational behavior, resulting in some 
regional economic impacts. Given available information, the net 
economic impact of designating the three manatee refuges is not 
expected to be significant (i.e., an annual economic impact of over 
$100 million). While the level of economic benefits that may be 
attributable to the manatee refuges is unknown, these benefits would 
cause a reduction in the economic impact of the rule.
    b. The precedent to establish manatee protection areas has been 
established primarily by State and local governments in Florida. We 
recognize the important role of State and local partners and continue 
to support and encourage State and local measures to improve manatee 
protection. We are proposing to designate areas where existing State 
and local designations are considered minimal protection and where 
existing designations are confusing and/or unenforceable.
    c. This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients. 
Minimal restriction 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 their recipients are expected to 
occur.
    d. This rule will not raise novel legal or policy issues. We have 
previously established other manatee protection areas.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996), 
whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice of rulemaking 
for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make available for 
public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the 
effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions) (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.). However, no

[[Page 16617]]

regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. Thus, for a regulatory 
flexibility analysis to be required, impacts must exceed a threshold 
for ``significant impact'' and a threshold for a ``substantial number 
of small entities.'' See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
This section presents a screening level analysis of the potential 
effects of the proposed designation of three manatee protection areas 
on small entities. We certify that this 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.
    In order to determine whether the rule will have a significant 
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities, we utilize 
available information on the industries most likely to be affected by 
the proposed designation of three manatee refuges. Currently no 
information is available on the specific number of small entities that 
are potentially affected. This rule will add travel time to boating 
recreationists and commercial activities resulting from extension of 
existing speed zones. Because the only restrictions on recreational 
activity result from added travel time, and alternative sites are 
available for all waterborne activities, we believe that the economic 
effect on small entities resulting from changes in recreational use 
patterns will not be significant. The economic effects on small 
business resulting from this rule are likely to be indirect effects 
related to reduced demand for goods and services if recreationists 
choose to reduce their level of participation in waterborne activities. 
Similarly, because the only restrictions on commercial activity result 
from the inconvenience of added travel time, and boats can continue to 
travel up to 40 km per hour (25 mph) in marked channels in most areas, 
we believe that any economic effect on small commercial fishing or 
charter boat entities will not be significant. Also, the indirect 
economic impact on small businesses that may result from reduced demand 
for goods and services from commercial entities is likely to be 
insignificant. Based on an analysis of public comment, further 
refinement of the impact on small entities may be possible.
    In order to determine whether small entities will be affected 
significantly, we examined county-level earnings data. We compared 
personal income data for the counties potentially affected to statewide 
averages to provide some background information about each county's 
economic situation. Because specific information about earnings of 
small entities potentially affected (both the total level and the 
amount of earnings potentially affected by the rule) is not available, 
we examined county-level earnings for industries potentially impacted 
by the proposed designation. We further analyzed county business 
patterns data to examine the numbers of establishments in the affected 
counties that have a small number of employees. As stated above, 
economic impacts are believed to be minor and mostly will not interfere 
with the existing operation of small businesses in the affected 
counties.
    Selected economic characteristics of the five affected counties are 
shown in Table 1. As demonstrated in the table, all counties except St. 
Johns have a lower per capita income than the State average. Growth in 
total personal income is slower than the statewide average in Duval, 
Lee, and Volusia counties. St. Johns County greatly exceeds the 
statewide average in growth in both total and per capita personal 
income. For all five counties, the services sector represents the 
industry with the greatest earnings. The proportion of industry 
earnings attributable to amusement and recreation (a subcategory of the 
services industry potentially impacted by the rule) was relatively low 
for each county, ranging from one to five percent of total industry 
earnings. As a result, a small impact to the recreation sector is 
unlikely to have a significant effect on county-level income. 
Similarly, the proportion of industry earnings related to the fishing 
sector was less than 0.2 percent for each county. Thus, a small impact 
to the fishing sector is unlikely to adversely affect county-level 
income.

                                    Table 1.--Economic Characteristics of the Five Affected Counties in Florida--2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          10-year                  10-year                      Amusement and         Fishing industry
                                                           annual                   annual                   recreation industry          earnings
                                                 Per     growth of      Total     growth of      Total             earnings       ----------------------
                                                capita      per       Personal      total     earnings by  -----------------------
                  Counties                     personal    capita    income 2000   personal  industry--all
                                                income     income      (000$)       income     industries    Thousands   Percent    Thousands   Percent
                                               2000 ($)     \1\                      \1\         (000$)       of $'s     of total    of $'s     of total
                                                         (percent)                (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clay........................................     25,421        3.8     3,601,576        8.4      1,225,569      18,565        1.5          73       0.01
Duval.......................................     27,084        4.1    21,118,751        6.3     19,916,074     194,900        1.0       3,440       0.02
Lee.........................................     26,655        3.0    11,833,528        7.0      6,379,956     106,875        1.7      10,619       0.17
St Johns....................................     40,635        7.7     5,057,864       15.9      1,553,900      82,280        5.3         581       0.04
Volusia.....................................     22,574        3.6    10,046,808        6.2      4,748,268     128,280        2.7       (\2\)         NA
State of Florida............................     27,764        4.0   445,739,968        7.2    282,260,357   5,392,786        1.9      85,609      0.03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Growth rates were calculated from 1990 and 2000 personal income data.
\2\ BEA has withheld this information in order to avoid disclosure of confidential information.
 
 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Regional Economic Information System, Regional Accounts Data, Local Area Personal Income (http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/reis/)

    The employment characteristics of the five affected counties are 
shown in Table 2. The latest available published data for the total 
number of establishments broken down by industry and county are from 
1997. We included the following SIC (Standard Industrial 
Classification) categories, because they include businesses most likely 
to be directly affected by the designation of the proposed manatee 
refuges:
    [sbull] Fishing, hunting, trapping (SIC 09)
    [sbull] Water transportation (SIC 44)
    [sbull] Miscellaneous retail (SIC 59)
    [sbull] Amusement and recreation services (SIC (79)

[[Page 16618]]

    [sbull] Non-classifiable establishments (NCE)

                                   Table 2.--Employment Characteristics of the Five Affected Counties in Florida--1997
                                                    [(includes SIC Codes 09, 44, 59, 79, and NCE \1\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Select SIC codes (includes SIC codes 09, 44, 59, 79, and NCE) 1
                                 Total mid-   Mid-March        Total     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   March      employment  establishments                      No. of          No. of          No. of          No. of
           Counties              employment  \2\ (select       (all            Total      establishments  establishments  establishments  establishments
                                  \2\ (all    SIC codes)    industries)   establishments       (1-4            (5-9           (10-19           (20+
                                industries)                                                 employees)      employees)      employees)      employees)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clay..........................       28,106        1,940          2,747             255             158              48              30              19
Duval.........................      361,302       14,459         21,016           1,510             877             330             164             139
Lee...........................      135,300        7,734         11,386             974             602             193              92              87
St Johns......................       33,173        1,971          3,127             273             177              58              24              14
Volusia.......................      127,948        7,116         10,716             989             643             188              73             85
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Descriptions of the SIC codes included in this table as follows: SIC 09--Fishing, hunting, and trapping; SIC 44--Water transportation; SIC 59--
  Miscellaneous retail service division; SIC 79--Amusement and recreation services; NCE--non-classifiable establishments division.
\2\ Table provides the high-end estimate whenever the Census provides a range of mid-March employment figures for select counties and SIC codes.
 
 Source: U.S. Census County Business Patterns (http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html)

    As shown in Table 2, the vast majority (over 80 percent) of these 
business establishments in each of the five affected counties have less 
than ten employees, with the largest number of establishments employing 
less than four employees. In addition, in 1997, only four to seven 
percent of total mid-March employment for industries in the affected 
counties was in the industries likely to be affected by the proposed 
rule. Any economic impacts associated with this rule will affect some 
proportion of these small entities.
    Since the proposed designation is for the development of manatee 
refuges, which only require a reduction in speed, we do not believe the 
designation would cause significant economic effect on small 
businesses. For example, because the manatee refuge designations will 
not prohibit any commercial fishing activity, and because there is a 
channel available for boats to travel at up to 40 km per hour (25 mph) 
in most areas, it is unlikely that the rule will result in a 
significant economic impact on commercial fishing entities. Currently 
available information does not allow us to quantify the number of small 
business entities such as charter boats or commercial fishing entities 
that may incur direct economic impacts due to the inconvenience of 
added travel times resulting from the rule. An examination of county 
level information indicates that these economic impacts will not be 
significant for the affected counties. Based on an analysis of public 
comment, further refinement of the impact on small entities may be 
possible. In addition, the inconvenience of slow speed zones may cause 
some recreationists to change their behavior, which may cause some loss 
of income to some small businesses. The number of recreationists that 
will change their behavior, and how their behavior will change is 
unknown; therefore the impact on potentially affected small business 
entities cannot be quantified. However, because boaters will experience 
only minimal added travel time in most affected areas, we believe that 
this proposed designation will not cause a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act

    This 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 rule may cause some inconvenience in the 
form of added travel time for recreationists and commercial fishing and 
charter boat businesses because of speed restrictions in manatee refuge 
areas, but this should not translate into any significant business 
reductions for the many small businesses in the five affected counties. 
An unknown portion of the establishments shown in Table 2 could be 
affected by this rule. Because the only restrictions on recreational 
activity result from added travel time, and alternative sites are 
available for all waterborne activities, we believe that the economic 
impact on small entities resulting from changes in recreational use 
patterns will not be significant. The economic impacts on small 
business resulting from this rule are likely to be indirect effects 
related to reduced demand for goods and services if recreationists 
choose to reduce their level of participation in waterborne activities. 
Similarly, because the only restrictions on commercial activity result 
from the inconvenience of added travel time, and boats can continue to 
travel up to 40 km per hour (25 mph) in marked channels in most areas, 
we believe that any economic impact on small commercial fishing or 
charter boat entities will not be significant. Also, the indirect 
economic impact on small businesses that may result from reduced demand 
for goods and services from commercial entities is likely to be 
insignificant. Based on an analysis of public comment, further 
refinement of the impact on small entities may be possible.
    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 
rule. The recreational charter boat and commercial fishing industries 
may be affected by lower speed limits for some areas when traveling to 
and from fishing grounds. However, because of the availability of 40 km 
per hour (25 mph) channels in most areas, this impact is likely to be 
limited.
    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 rule may generate some level of inconvenience to 
recreationists due to added travel time, but the resulting economic 
impacts are believed to be minor and will not interfere with the normal 
operation of businesses in the affected counties. Added travel time to 
traverse some areas is not expected to be a major factor that will 
impact business activity.

[[Page 16619]]

Energy Supply, Distribution or Use (Executive Order 13211)

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on 
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and 
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. Because this rule is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and it 
only requires vessels to proceed at slow or idle speeds in 185 km (115 
miles) of waterways in Florida, it is not expected to significantly 
affect energy supplies, distribution, and use. Therefore, this action 
is not a significant energy action and no Statement of Energy Effects 
is required.

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 imposes no substantial 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, this rule does not have 
significant takings implications. A takings implication assessment is 
not required. The proposed manatee protection areas are located over 
State-or privately-owned submerged bottoms. Any property owners in the 
vicinity will have navigational access to and the wherewithal to 
maintain 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. 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 regulation would not impose new recordkeeping 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 Jim Valade (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:

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. Amend Sec.  17.108 by adding paragraphs (c)(12) through (c)(14) 
as follows:


Sec.  17.108  List of designated manatee protection areas.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (12) The Caloosahatchee River--San Carlos Bay Manatee Refuge.
    (i) The Caloosahatchee River--San Carlos Bay Manatee Refuge is 
described as all waters of the Caloosahatchee River and San Carlos Bay 
downstream of the Seaboard Coastline trestle at Beautiful Island to 
Channel Marker ``93'' and from Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel 
Causeway, in Lee County. A map showing the refuge and four maps showing 
specific areas in the refuge are at paragraph (12)(x) of this section.
    (ii) From the Seaboard Coastline Railroad trestle at Beautiful 
Island, downstream to a point 152 meters (500 feet) east of the Edison 
Bridge, a distance of approximately 7.2 kilometers (4.5 miles), 
watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed in the marked 
navigation channel from November 15 to March 31 and at not more than 40 
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) in the channel from April 1 to 
November 14. See map of ``Edison Bridge Area'' in paragraph (12)(x) of 
this section.
    (iii) From a point 152 meters (500 feet) east of the Edison Bridge 
downstream to a point 152 meters (500 feet) west of the Caloosahatchee 
Bridge, approximately 1.1 kilometers (0.7 mile) in length, shoreline-
to-shoreline (including the marked navigation channel), watercraft are 
required to proceed at slow speed channel included, year-round. See map 
of ``Edison Bridge Area'' in paragraph (12)(x) of this section.
    (iv) From a point 152 meters (500 feet) west of the Caloosahatchee 
Bridge downstream to a point 152 meters (500 feet) northeast of the 
Cape Coral Bridge, a distance of approximately 10.9 kilometers (6.8 
miles), watercraft are required to proceed year-round at slow speed, 
while traveling within shoreline buffers extending out from the shore 
to a distance of approximately 91 meters (300 feet) from the marked 
navigation channel. In any location where the distance from the 
shoreline to within approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of the near side 
of the channel is less than

[[Page 16620]]

0.4 kilometers (0.25 mile), the slow speed buffer will extend to the 
edge of the marked navigation channel. Watercraft are required to 
proceed at not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) 
throughout the year between these buffers (including the marked 
navigation channel). See map of ``Cape Coral Bridge Area'' in paragraph 
(12)(x) of this section.
    (v) From a point 152 meters (500 feet) northeast of the Cape Coral 
Bridge downstream to a point 152 meters (500 feet) southwest of the 
Cape Coral Bridge, a distance of approximately 0.4 kilometer (0.25 
mile), shoreline-to-shoreline (including the marked navigation 
channel), watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed, channel 
included, year-round. See map of ``Cape Coral Bridge Area'' in 
paragraph (12)(x) of this section.
    (vi) From a point 152 meters (500 feet) southwest of the Cape Coral 
Bridge to Channel Marker ``72,'' a distance of approximately 1.9 
kilometers (1.2 miles), watercraft are required to proceed at slow 
speed year-round, within shoreline buffers that extend out to a 
distance of approximately 91 meters (300 feet) from the marked 
navigation channel. In any location where the distance from the 
shoreline to within approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of the near side 
of the channel is less than 0.4 kilometers (0.25 mile), the slow speed 
buffer will extend to the edge of the marked navigation channel. 
Watercraft are required to proceed at not more than 40 kilometers per 
hour (25 miles per hour) when operating in between these buffers. See 
map of ``Redfish Point Area'' in paragraph (12)(x) of this section.
    (vii) From Channel Marker ``72'' to Channel Marker ``82'' (in the 
vicinity of Redfish Point), for a distance of approximately 3.1 
kilometers (1.9 miles) in length, shoreline-to-shoreline (including the 
marked navigation channel), watercraft are required to proceed at slow 
speed, year-round. See map of ``Redfish Point Area'' in paragraph 
(12)(x) of this section.
    (viii) From Channel Marker ``82'' to Channel Marker ``93,'' a 
distance of approximately 3.9 kilometers (2.4 miles) in length, 
watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed year-round, when 
operating within shoreline buffers that extend out to a distance of 
approximately 91 meters (300 feet) from the marked navigation channel. 
In any location where the distance from the shoreline to within 
approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of the near side of the channel is 
less than 0.4 kilometers (0.25 mile), the slow speed buffer will extend 
to the edge of the marked navigation channel. Watercraft are required 
to proceed at not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) 
when operating between these buffers. See map of ``Redfish Point Area'' 
in paragraph (12)(x) of this section.
    (ix) From Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel Causeway, watercraft 
are required to proceed at slow speed year-round in San Carlos Bay 
within the following limits: a northern boundary described by the 
southern edge of the marked navigation channel, a line approximately 
2.9 kilometers (1.8 miles) in length; a southern boundary described by 
the Sanibel Causeway (approximately 1.9 kilometers (1.2 miles) in 
length); a western boundary described by a line that connects the 
western end of the easternmost Sanibel Causeway island and extending 
northwest to the western shoreline of Merwin Key (approximately 3.1 
kilometers (1.9 miles) in length); the eastern boundary includes the 
western limit of the State-designated manatee protection area (68C-
22.005) near Punta Rassa (approximately 2.9 kilometers (1.8 miles) in 
length). Speeds are unrestricted in the channel and bay waters to the 
west of this area. See map of ``San Carlos Bay'' in paragraph (12)(x) 
of this section.
    (x) Five maps of the Caloosahatchee River--San Carlos Bay Manatee 
Refuge follow:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 16621]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.000


[[Page 16622]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.001


[[Page 16623]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.002


[[Page 16624]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.003


[[Page 16625]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.004

    (13) The Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge.
    (i) The Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge is described as 
portions of the St. Johns River and adjacent waters in Duval, Clay, and 
St. Johns Counties

[[Page 16626]]

from Reddie Point upstream to the mouth of Peter's Branch, including 
Doctors Lake, in Clay County on the western shore, and to the southern 
shore of the mouth of Julington Creek in St. Johns County on the 
eastern shore. A map showing the refuge and two maps showing specific 
areas of the refuge are at paragraph (13)(v) of this section.
    (ii) From Reddie Point upstream to the Main Street Bridge, a 
distance of approximately 11.6 kilometers (or 7.2 miles), watercraft 
are required to proceed at slow speed, year-round, outside the marked 
navigation channel and at speeds of not more than 40 kilometers per 
hour (25 miles per hour) in the marked channel (from Channel Marker 
``81'' to the Main Street Bridge, the channel is defined as the line of 
sight extending west from Channel Markers ``81'' and ``82'' to the 
center span of the Main Street Bridge). See map of ``St. Johns River 
Bridges Area'' in paragraph (13)(v) of this section.
    (iii) From the Main Street Bridge to the Fuller Warren Bridge, a 
distance of approximately 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile), shore-line to 
shore-line, watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed (channel 
included), year-round. See map of ``St. Johns River Bridges Area'' in 
paragraph (13)(v) of this section.
    (iv) Upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge, a 305-meter (1,000-
foot), slow speed, year-round, shoreline buffer to the south bank of 
the mouth of Peter's Branch in Clay County along the western shore 
(approximately 31.1 kilometers (19.3 miles)); and in Doctors Lake in 
Clay County, slow speed, year-round, along a 274-meter (900-foot) 
shoreline buffer (approximately 20.8 kilometers (12.9 miles)); and a 
305-meter (1,000-foot), slow speed, year-round, shoreline buffer to the 
south bank of the mouth of Julington Creek in St. Johns County along 
the eastern shore (approximately 32.5 kilometers (20.2 miles)) to a 
line north of a western extension of the Nature's Hammock Road North. 
Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed within these buffer 
areas. See map of ``Lower St. Johns River'' in paragraph (13)(v) of 
this section.
    (v) Three maps of the Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge follow:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 16627]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.005


[[Page 16628]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.006


[[Page 16629]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.007

    (14) The Halifax and Tomoka Rivers Manatee Refuge.
    (i) The Halifax and Tomoka Rivers Manatee Refuge is described as 
the Halifax River and associated waterbodies in Volusia County, from 
the

[[Page 16630]]

Volusia County--Flagler County line to New Smyrna Beach. A map showing 
the refuge and eight maps showing specific areas in the refuge are at 
paragraph (14) (xiii) of this section.
    (ii) From the Volusia County/Flagler County line at Halifax Creek 
south to Channel Marker ``9,'' a distance of approximately 11.3 
kilometers (7.0 miles) in length, watercraft are required to proceed at 
slow speed, year-round outside the marked channel and at not more than 
40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) in the channel. See maps of 
``Halifax Creek'' and ``Tomoka River Basin'' in paragraph (14) (xiii) 
of this section.
    (iii) From Channel Marker ``9'' to a point 152 meters (500 feet) 
north of the Granada Bridge (State Road 40) (including the Tomoka 
Basin), a distance of approximately 5.0 kilometers (3.1 miles) in 
length, slow speed, year-round, 305-meter (1,000-foot) minimum buffers 
along shorelines with not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles 
per hour) in areas between the buffers (and including the marked 
navigation channel). Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed 
within the buffers and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles 
per hour) in areas between the buffers (and including the marked 
navigation channel). See maps of ``Tomoka River Basin'' and ``Tomoka 
River'' in paragraph (14) (xiii) of this section.
    (iv) In the Tomoka River, all waters upstream of the U.S. 1 bridge, 
a distance of approximately 7.2 kilometers ( 4.5 miles) in length, slow 
speed, year-round, shoreline to shoreline; from the U.S. 1 bridge 
downstream to Latitude 29[deg] 19' 00'', a distance of approximately 
2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles) in length, idle speed, year-round, shoreline 
to shoreline; from Latitude 29[deg] 19' 00'' downstream to the 
confluence of Strickland Creek and the Tomoka River, and including 
Strickland, Thompson, and Dodson creeks, a combined distance of 
approximately 9.7 kilometers (6 miles) in length, slow speed, year-
round, shoreline to shoreline; from the confluence of Strickland Creek 
and the Tomoka River downstream to the mouth of the Tomoka River, a 
distance of approximately 1.4 kilometers (0.9 miles) in length, idle 
speed, year-round, shoreline to shoreline. Watercraft are required to 
proceed at idle speed within the described idle speed areas and at slow 
speed within the described slow speed areas. See map of ``Tomoka 
River'' in paragraph (14) (xiii) of this section.
    (v) From 152 meters (500 feet) north to 305 meters (1,000 feet) 
south of the Granada Bridge (State Road 40), a distance of 
approximately 0.5 kilometers (0.3 miles) in length, slow speed, year-
round, shoreline to shoreline. Watercraft are required to proceed at 
slow speed when operating within these areas. See map of ``Halifax 
River A'' in paragraph (14) (xiii) of this section.
    (vi) From a point 305 meters (1,000 feet) south of the Granada 
Bridge (State Road 40) to a point 152 meters (500 feet) north of the 
Seabreeze Bridge, a distance of approximately 6.4 kilometers (4.0 
miles) in length, slow speed, year-round, 305-meter (1,000-foot) 
minimum buffers along shorelines with not more than 40 kilometers per 
hour (25 miles per hour) in areas between the buffers, and including 
the marked navigation channel. Watercraft are required to proceed at 
slow speed within the buffers and not more than 40 kilometers per hour 
(25 miles per hour) in areas between the buffers (and including the 
marked navigation channel). See map of ``Halifax River A'' in paragraph 
(14) (xiii) of this section.
    (vii) From 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Seabreeze Bridge, to 
Channel Marker ``40,'' a distance of approximately 3.7 kilometers (2.3 
miles) in length, slow speed, channel included, year-round. Watercraft 
are required to proceed at slow speed when operating within these 
areas. See map of ``Halifax River B'' in paragraph (14) (xiii) of this 
section.
    (viii) From Channel Marker ``40'' to a point 152 meters (500 feet) 
north of the Dunlawton Bridge, a distance of approximately 14.5 
kilometers (9 miles) in length, slow speed, year-round, 305-meter 
(1,000-foot) minimum buffers along shorelines with not more than 40 
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) in areas between the buffers, 
and including the marked navigation channel. Watercraft are required to 
proceed at slow speed within the buffers and not more than 40 
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) in areas between the buffers 
(and including the marked navigation channel). See map ``Halifax River 
B'' in paragraph (14) (xiii) of this section.
    (ix) From 152 meters (500 feet) north to 152 meters (500 feet) 
south of the Dunlawton Bridge, a distance of approximately 0.3 
kilometers (0.2 miles) in length, slow speed, channel included, year-
round, shoreline to shoreline. Watercraft are required to proceed at 
slow speed when operating within these areas. See map of ``Halifax 
River B'' in paragraph (14) (xiii) of this section.
    (x) From 152 meters (500 feet) south of the Dunlawton Bridge to 
Ponce Inlet, a distance of approximately 10.5 kilometers (6.5 miles) in 
length, slow speed, year-round outside of marked channels with not more 
than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) in the channel; in 
Wilbur Bay, a distance of approximately 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles) in 
length, slow speed, year-round, shoreline to shoreline; along the 
western shore of the Halifax River, a distance of approximately 3.1 
kilometers (1.95 miles), slow speed year-round, with not more than 40 
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) in the marked channels; in Rose 
Bay, a distance of approximately 2.7 kilometers (1.7 miles), slow speed 
year-round, with not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per 
hour) in the marked channels; in all waters of Mill Creek, Tenmile 
Creek, and Dead End Creek, a combined distance of approximately 5.1 
kilometers (3.2 miles) in length, slow speed, year-round, shoreline to 
shoreline; in Turnbull Bay, a distance of approximately 3.9 kilometers 
(2.4 miles), slow speed year-round, with not more than 40 kilometers 
per hour (25 miles per hour) in the marked channels; in Spruce Creek, 
for a distance of approximately 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles), shoreline 
to shoreline, April 1 to August 31, slow speed, and from September 1 
through March 31, not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per 
hour). Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed within the 
buffers and not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) in 
areas between the buffers (including within marked channels). See maps 
of ``Ponce Inlet Area A,'' ``Ponce Inlet Area B,'' and ``Ponce Inlet 
Area C'' in paragraph (14) (xiii) of this section.
    (xi) In waters north of Ponce Inlet, between Live Oak Point and 
Channel Marker ``2,'' a distance of approximately 2.9 kilometers (1.8 
miles), slow speed, channel included, year-round; in waters adjacent to 
Ponce Inlet, slow speed, year-round outside of the marked navigation 
channel and other marked access channels, with not more than 40 
kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) in the marked channels. 
Watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed within the buffers and 
not more than 40 kilometers per hour (25 miles per hour) in areas 
between the buffers (including within marked channels). In the waters 
of Ponce Inlet, watercraft are required to proceed at speeds of not 
more than 48 kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour). See map of 
``Ponce Inlet Area B'' in paragraph (14) (xiii) of this section.
    (xii) In the Intracoastal Waterway from Redland Canal to the A1A 
Bridge (New Smyrna Beach, for a distance of approximately 5.3 
kilometers (3.3 miles) in length, slow speed, channel included, year-
round. Watercraft are required to

[[Page 16631]]

proceed at slow speed when operating within this area. See map of 
``Ponce Inlet Area B'' in paragraph (14) (xiii) of this section.
    (xiii) Nine maps of the Halifax and Tomoka Rivers Manatee Refuge 
follow:

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 16632]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.008


[[Page 16633]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.009


[[Page 16634]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.010


[[Page 16635]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.011


[[Page 16636]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.012


[[Page 16637]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.013


[[Page 16638]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.014


[[Page 16639]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.015


[[Page 16640]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP04AP03.016



[[Page 16641]]


    Dated: March 26, 2003.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-8179 Filed 4-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C