[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46870-46917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-19913]



[[Page 46869]]

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

Part III





Department 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; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 151 / Wednesday, August 6, 2003 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 46870]]


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

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: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), establish three 
additional manatee protection areas in Florida. This action is 
authorized 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 preventing the taking of one or more manatees. We are 
designating areas in Lee, Duval, Clay, St. Johns, and Volusia counties 
as manatee refuges in which certain waterborne activities will be 
regulated. Specifically, watercraft will be required to operate at 
either slow speed or not more than 40 kilometers per hour (km/h) (25 
miles per hour) in areas described in the rule. We also announce the 
availability of a final environmental assessment for this action.

DATES: Effective date: This rule is effective September 5, 2003.
    Compliance date: Mandatory compliance with this rule will occur 
when appropriate signage has been installed in the regulated areas.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available for inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at the Jacksonville Field 
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint Drive, South, 
Suite 310, Jacksonville, Florida 32216.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Hankla, Peter Benjamin, Stefanie 
Barrett, 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 native 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. We have concluded that these groups meet the criteria for 
designation as separate stocks, per the MMPA (67 FR 69081, November 14, 
2002).
    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). 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 stocks, 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 Stock due to an adult survival rate 
that was lower than the rate necessary to sustain population 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 Stock to be ``too close to 
call.'' This finding was consistent with high levels of human-related 
and, in some years, cold-related deaths in this Stock. Regarding the 
Southwest Stock, 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 Stock was similar to the Atlantic Stock and ``substantially 
lower than [the adult survival estimates] for the Northwest and Upper 
St. Johns Regions.'' The Southwest Stock 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 stocks 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 
Stock is relatively close to meeting the downlisting benchmark for 
adult survival, and is close to meeting or exceeding other demographic 
criteria. We are less optimistic, however, regarding the Southwest 
Stock. Although data are still insufficient or lacking to compare the 
Southwest Stock's status to the downlisting/delisting criteria, 
preliminary data for adult survival and modeling results indicate that 
this stock is below the benchmarks established in the recovery plan, 
and may be experiencing a population decline.
    Although we are optimistic about the potential for recovery in two 
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). In addition to meeting 
the demographic criteria established in the recovery plan, in order for 
us to determine that an endangered species

[[Page 46871]]

has recovered to a point that it warrants reclassification to 
threatened or removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants, the species' status must have improved to the 
point at which the current classification is no longer appropriate 
under the threat-based listing factors 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 definition of endangered, if 
reclassifying to threatened, or threatened, for delisting. While 
suggestions of increasing manatee 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. Accordingly, the Third Revision of the Florida Manatee Recovery 
Plan (Service, 2001) establishes criteria for downlisting and delisting 
the Florida manatee under the relevant threat factors in section 
4(a)(1) of the ESA. 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 in this region. This phenomenon is particularly evident in 
the State of Florida. The human population of Florida has grown by 146 
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 2020. According to a report by the Florida Office of 
Economic and Demographic Research (2000), it is expected that, by 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 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 (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 cause 
direct and indirect effects to manatees. Direct effects 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 can result from habitat alteration 
and destruction, such 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.
    The number of watercraft-related deaths each year continues to 
rise. The following is an excerpt from an analysis conducted by the 
U.S. Geological Survey's Biological Resources Division (USGS-BRD) for 
our recent efforts to promulgate incidental take regulations for 
manatees pursuant to the MMPA. ``There has been an increasing trend in 
watercraft-related mortality in all four stocks over the past decade. 
This is reflected in increases in the average annual number of 
watercraft-related mortalities as the period over which the average is 
taken becomes more recent. For instance, in the Atlantic Stock, the 
mean observed mortality due to watercraft was 25.8 per year for the 
period 1990 to 1999, 29.8 per year for the period 1993 to 2002, and 
37.0 per year for the most recent 5-year period. This trend is 
statistically significant in all four stocks. The slope of the increase 
(as fit to the period 1992 to 2002) does not differ between the Upper 
St. Johns and Northwest stocks (5.96 percent), nor does it differ 
between the Atlantic and Southwest regions (9.53 percent). To interpret 
these rates of increase, however, it is important to compare them to 
the historic growth rates (1990 to 1999) in each stock, to account for 
the increase in watercraft-related mortalities that would be expected 
due to increases in manatee population size. In the Atlantic and 
Southwest stocks, the rate of increase in watercraft-related mortality 
over that period far outstripped the estimated growth rate of those 
populations (by 8.5 percent in the Atlantic and 10.6 percent in the 
Southwest). In the Northwest stock, the rate of increase in mortality 
(6.0 percent) is somewhat larger than the estimated growth rate (3.6 
percent). In the Upper St. John's stock, the increase in boat-related 
mortality can be completely explained by the estimated increase in the 
population size.
    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). From 1976 to 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 any cause, 
including 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

[[Page 46872]]

corresponding change in the rate of population growth or decline 
(Marmontel et al., 1997). Accordingly, the Service is continuing to 
assess, and take steps to reduce, significant causes of mortality to 
manatees.
    Collisions with watercraft are the largest cause of human-related 
manatee deaths. Data collected during manatee carcass salvage 
operations in Florida indicate that 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 and because not all carcasses are found. 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) (Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission's (FWCC) 
Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) Manatee Mortality Database, 
2003). The last 5 years have been record high 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 from 1978 to 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 from 1998 to 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 are enhancing existing protection 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 substantial evidence shows 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 area--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 we agreed to submit to the Federal Register for publication a 
proposed rule for the designation of the additional manatee protection 
areas in the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County; the lower St. Johns 
River in Duval, St. Johns, and Clay Counties; and the Halifax and 
Tomoka Rivers in Volusia County, on or before March 31, 2003, and a 
final decision on the proposed rule on or before July 31, 2003. The 
proposed rule was submitted to the Federal Register on March 31, 2003, 
and published on April 4, 2003 (68 FR 16602). This notice constitutes 
the final rule and was submitted to the Federal Register on July 31, 
2003.

Site Selection Process and Criteria

    In order to establish a site as a manatee protection area, we must 
determine that substantial evidence shows such establishment is 
necessary to prevent the take of one or more manatees. We reviewed the 
sites referenced in the Stipulated Order and determined that the 
proposed sites met this test. This was based on aerial survey and 
telemetry data, mortality (carcass recovery) data, additional 
information from FMRI and the U.S. Geological Survey's Sirenia Project, 
manatee experts, and our best professional judgment. The areas 
designated in this final rulemaking are those that we have determined, 
based on the best currently available data and the public comments 
received, should be designated as manatee refuges. Where the final 
designations differ from

[[Page 46873]]

the proposal, we have determined that either alternative or existing 
measures are sufficient to protect manatees (see ``Summary of Comments 
and Recommendations'' and ``Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule'' 
below).

Effective Date

    This rule is effective 30 days after the date of this publication 
and once the manatee protection areas are marked and posted.

Definitions

    The following terms are defined in 50 CFR 17.108. We present them 
here to aid in understanding this rule.
    Planning 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. Exceptions to slow speed restrictions are contained in 
50 CFR 17.105 and include activities ``* * * reasonably necessary to 
prevent the loss of life or property due to weather conditions or other 
reasonably unforeseen circumstances, or to render necessary assistance 
to persons or property''.
    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 (although the channel may also have a 
higher posted speed limit). Exceptions to slow speed restrictions are 
contained in 50 CFR 17.105 and include activities ``* * * reasonably 
necessary to prevent the loss of life or property due to weather 
conditions or other reasonably unforeseen circumstances, or to render 
necessary assistance to persons or property''.
    Slow speed (channel included) means that the slow-speed designation 
applies to the entire marked area, including within the designated 
channel. Exceptions to slow speed restrictions are contained in 50 CFR 
17.105 and include activities ``* * * reasonably necessary to prevent 
the loss of life or property due to weather conditions or other 
reasonably unforeseen circumstances, or to render necessary assistance 
to persons or property''.
    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.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the April 4, 2003, proposed rule (68 FR 16602), we requested all 
interested parties to submit factual reports or information that might 
contribute to the development of a final rule. We published legal 
notices announcing the proposal, inviting public comment, and 
announcing the schedule for public hearings, in the Fort Myers News-
Press, Daytona Beach News-Journal, Naples Daily News, Orlando Sentinel, 
Charlotte Sun-Herald, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Florida Times-Union, St. 
Augustine Record, and Clay Today. We held the public hearings at the 
Harborside Convention Hall in Fort Myers, Florida, on May 13, 2003; the 
Ocean Center in Daytona Beach, Florida, on May 14, 2003; and at the 
University Center, University of North Florida, in Jacksonville, 
Florida, on May 15, 2003. Approximately 3,325 people attended the 
public hearings. We received oral comments from 203 individuals. The 
comment period closed on June 3, 2003.
    In addition to soliciting comments from the public, we solicited 
peer review comments from three independent experts in manatee ecology, 
boating activity, and waterway regulation, from The Ocean Conservancy, 
Mote Marine Laboratories, and the United States Coast Guard, 
respectively. Their comments and our responses are summarized below.
    During the comment period, we received approximately 5,931 written 
and oral comments concerning the proposal. Most were form letters 
expressing support for the proposed designation; however, most 
substantive comments expressed concern or opposition to the proposed 
action. The following is a summary of the comments received and our 
responses. Comments of a similar nature have been grouped together.
    Comment 1: Several commentors, including the FWCC, suggested that 
the Service does not have the resources to enforce these additional 
zones. They are concerned that lack of enforcement will result in the 
new zones being less protective than the existing zones. The FWCC also 
expressed concern that, in areas where Federal and State speed zones 
overlap, enforcement by State law enforcement officers may be 
complicated.
    Response 1: We are fully committed to implementing these protection 
areas, including enforcement of these areas upon posting. However, we 
are very aware of the fact that compliance is critical to the 
effectiveness of manatee protection area regulations and that 
compliance is facilitated, in large part, by enforcement. We are also 
aware that enforcement resources are limited at all levels of 
government, and that cooperation among law enforcement agencies is 
needed to maximize effectiveness of limited resources. We know that 
State and local law enforcement agencies have many enforcement mandates 
in addition to manatee protection and that it may be difficult for 
these agencies to make enforcement of Federal manatee protection areas 
a high priority, particularly if they do not agree that the Federal 
designations are necessary or appropriate.
    We believe that local and State law enforcement improves compliance 
with Federal designations and leads to more effective Federal rules. 
The final rule has been designed to reflect the best available 
information regarding manatee and boating use of these waters, and was 
also intended to address (to the extent possible) State and local 
concerns regarding the proposed rule. We have attempted to make our 
designations consistent with existing regulations, where possible, in 
order to minimize the boating public's confusion and facilitate 
signage, enforcement, and compliance, while ensuring appropriate 
protection for manatees.
    Comment 2: Several commentors believe that adoption of new zones at 
this time is premature. The FWCC stated that they are currently 
studying the zones in Lee and Duval Counties and are currently 
collecting new data in Volusia County. Their report on Duval County is 
expected in November 2003. The new data collection from Volusia County 
is expected to be completed in June 2004.
    Response 2: We have concluded that the actions identified in the 
final rule are warranted and prudent to undertake at this time, and 
that sufficient information is currently available to

[[Page 46874]]

support these designations. We recognize and support efforts to 
continually evaluate and improve information regarding manatee 
distribution and habitat use, boating activity, and the effectiveness 
of existing regulations. But we also know perfect information will 
never be available to definitively address all the issues that are 
raised by such rulemakings. We have attempted to design this final rule 
to address issues that we believe are necessary and appropriate to 
address at this time, without hindering the State's ability to make 
additional changes as needed in the future. In some areas there is 
considerable overlap between our final designations, existing State 
regulations, and FWCC regulatory actions anticipated in the near future 
(e.g., the Halifax River). We are committed to working with the FWCC to 
make necessary changes through the rulemaking process at that time to 
our manatee protection areas to ensure consistency with State 
designations as long as manatee protection is not compromised. If 
changes are beneficial and/or necessary, we may initiate concurrent 
rulemaking with the FWCC to ensure consistency with State-designated 
zones to meet this goal.
    Comment 3: Several commentors believe that implementation of 
Federal zones that are not consistent with the existing FWCC zones will 
confuse boaters, reduce compliance, and delay dissemination of 
educational material.
    Response 3: We have made our final designations as consistent as 
possible with existing regulations, in order to minimize boater 
confusion and enhance compliance while ensuring appropriate protection 
for manatees. We recognize that, in those areas where these Federal 
designations represent considerable changes to the existing 
regulations, educational material specific to those areas will need to 
be updated.
    Comment 4: The FWCC and other commentors believe that the Service 
could improve existing zones by providing funds for improved signage of 
existing manatee protection zones.
    Response 4: Appropriate signage is critical to effective 
implementation of manatee protection areas. For example, we have long 
identified the inadequacy of the signage of the current State manatee 
protection zone on the St. Johns River as the primary deficiency of the 
existing regulations in this area. Establishment of Federal manatee 
protection areas will make it easier for us to devote Federal funding 
to signage in the areas designated.
    Comment 5: The FWCC and other commentors also believe that the 
Service should/could have used funds spent on new rules to increase 
Federal enforcement of existing manatee protection zones.
    Response 5: We agree that, in general, enforcement of existing 
manatee protection areas can be more cost effective than establishment 
of new areas. However, when substantial evidence shows that 
establishment of a manatee protection area is necessary to prevent the 
taking of one or more manatees then designation of a manatee protection 
area may be a proper course of action for us to take. Such a situation 
exists for the areas designated by this rule. Notwithstanding this 
determination, we would like to emphasize that we have increased our 
efforts to enforce existing Federal and State manatee protection areas.
    Comment 6: Although they do not necessarily recommend it, the FWCC 
commented that, as an alternative to the proposed rule, the Service 
could adopt existing State zones, thereby eliminating any conflict 
between sign posting and enforcement issues. Further, adopting the 
existing State zones as Federal zones may provide more security to the 
zones by making legal challenges to the zones more difficult to mount.
    Response 6: In some cases we did this, but in some cases we believe 
that adoption of existing State zones would hinder State efforts to 
modify zones in the future, and in some cases we believed that 
additional protection for manatees is needed at this time.
    Comment 7: One peer reviewer noted that any manatee protection area 
with either a channel exempt, 25 mph in the channel, or shoreline 
buffer designation should, in general, result in minimal impact to 
recreational boating (the reviewer acknowledges that recreational 
boating activity varies widely from location to location, and some 
areas, as well as some commercial activities, may be more significantly 
impacted than others). According to the peer reviewer's studies, a vast 
majority of recreational boat traffic is already traveling between 20 
and 30 mph. Additionally, very few hull designs are not capable of 
achieving and maintaining planing speed at 25 mph. Therefore, slow-
speed, channel exempt (or 25 mph in the channel) seems to be a 
reasonably effective management alternative in areas where manatee use 
is well documented and there is a well defined, marked channel.
    Response 7: We agree with this assessment, and as such believe that 
our final designations should result in minimal adverse impacts on the 
boating public, except in those limited areas in which high-speed 
travel was previously allowed.
    Comment 8: One commentor stated that our proposed rule ``makes 
clear that there is a far more compelling basis for designating these 
areas as refuges than existed for some of the other protected areas 
recently created by the Service.''
    Response 8: In our previous rulemakings (finalized in 2002) (67 FR 
680-696 and 67 FR 68450-68489), we established four criteria for 
selecting Federal manatee protection areas. The sites addressed in this 
final rule were evaluated against those criteria during the previous 
rulemaking. They were not selected because in 2002 we concluded that, 
due to the earlier commitment of our limited resources to higher 
priority sites, we could not enact adequate protection measures at 
these sites and/or the State or local agencies were in a better 
position to address concerns at these sites. Per the Stipulated Order, 
we made a commitment to reevaluate these sites. As a result of this 
reevaluation we have concluded that Federal action is warranted at 
portions of these sites at this time, and that we now have the 
capability to implement these actions. Additionally, new information, 
such as FMRI's 2002 Caloosahatchee River study, was not available 
during the 2002 rulemaking. Specifically, the study showed significant 
manatee use of the Redfish Point area of the river and that manatees 
were likely crossing the river at this point, as opposed to confining 
most of their movement to shoreline habitat as they appear to do in 
most of the Caloosahatchee River. We do not agree with the commentor 
that these designations are more important to manatee conservation than 
previous Service actions.
    Comment 9: One commentor noted that the Service stated in the March 
18, 2003, Stipulated Order and the proposed rule that these zones were 
justified.
    Response 9: It is correct to say that we had determined that 
portions of these three large areas met the criteria for designation as 
manatee protection areas. The proposed rule depicts the maximum extent 
of actions that were determined to be potentially warranted through the 
preliminary review conducted during the negotiations regarding the 
Stipulated Order. We put these sites out to the public as a proposed 
rule in order to collect information and data and have modified the 
designations in this final rule to reflect that analysis.
    Comment 10: One commentor stated that the Service ``could refrain 
from adopting the refuges only by demonstrating that scientific data 
not previously available to the agency has

[[Page 46875]]

somehow eliminated the need for the refuges.''
    Response 10: We disagree with the commentor. The Service would not 
have agreed to propose the manatee protection if we did not believe 
that substantial evidence shows such establishment is necessary to 
prevent the taking of one or more manatees. Nevertheless, our agreement 
in the Stipulated Order to propose the protection areas was ``based on 
the current best available data'' (Stipulation, ] 1) and the Service 
``retain[ed] its discretion consistent with the Administrative 
Procedure Act in reaching its final decision with respect to [the] 
manatee protection areas.'' (Stipulation, ] 2) Numerous management 
options are available to improve manatee protection, and we could have 
concluded, after receiving input from the interested parties, the 
State, and other concerned citizens, that one of these other options 
would be more effective in protecting manatees in these areas.
    Designation of manatee protection areas involves both scientific 
and practical considerations. This final rule reflects the results of 
in-depth analysis of the areas, including careful evaluation of manatee 
and watercraft use information, site visits, coordination with State 
and local regulatory experts, and review of public comments. This 
review revealed aspects of the available scientific information that 
were not fully considered during the development of the proposed rule, 
as well as many practical considerations that were not factored into 
the original analysis.
    Comment 11: Peer review comments from the U.S. Coast Guard stated 
that speed limit requirements (i.e., 25-mph maximum allowable speed) 
are not enforceable by the Coast Guard as they do not have the 
equipment or training necessary to determine the speed of a vessel.
    Response 11: Our Division of Law Enforcement believes that a 
specific speed limit (e.g., 25 mph) is enforceable. Additionally, we 
have adopted a 25-mph speed limit in several areas in order to be 
consistent with State regulations. In our view, this will improve 
manatee protection in these areas by enhancing public understanding and 
compliance.
    Comment 12: Peer review comments from the U.S. Coast Guard stated 
that slow speed areas will be enforceable if zones are clearly and 
adequately marked. Otherwise, it will be difficult for enforcement 
officers to document cases based on distance judgments.
    Response 12: We concur with the reviewer's comment. We intend to 
design and implement sign plans that will clearly and effectively mark 
the new manatee protection areas to facilitate public understanding and 
compliance, as well as ensure the enforceability of the zones. 
Additionally, we intend to work with State and local agencies to 
enforce these zones.
    Comment 13: One peer reviewer concurred with the following 
assumptions of this proposed rule--(1) information on the existence of 
four subpopulations; (2) the difficulty of reliably monitoring trends 
in the overall population; (3) the problems associated with using 
uncalibrated indices based on maximum counts at winter refuges; and (4) 
the lack of utility and reliability of uncorrected counts as a basis 
for assessing population estimates or measuring trends in the 
population. These assumptions ``reflect the views of [the] manatee 
scientific community, including the consensus of the 2002 Manatee 
Population and Ecology Workshop panel of experts.''
    Response 13: Comment noted.
    Comment 14: One peer reviewer stated that assessments, such as the 
determination that the Atlantic and Southwest stocks are less stable 
than the Crystal River (i.e., Northwest) and St. Johns River stocks, 
are supported by available scientific data. These assessments indicate 
that the Atlantic and Southwest stocks require additional management 
and conservation efforts.
    Response 14: We concur with the reviewer regarding the need for 
additional management and conservation efforts in the Atlantic and 
Southwest stocks. We believe it is important to note that management 
and conservation efforts include a variety of options to improve or 
provide additional protection for manatees, such as enforcement, 
education, and improving the signage of existing zones. The designation 
of manatee protection areas is only one of those options and may not be 
the most beneficial or appropriate management/conservation tool in some 
areas or situations.
    Comment 15: One peer reviewer noted that the current status of 
manatee populations within the Atlantic and Southwest stocks, while not 
critical or in imminent danger at this time, indicates that additional 
management and protection is warranted to expedite recovery and to put 
safeguards in place as the human population in Florida continues to 
grow. The reviewer concurs with the Service's assessment that ``* * * 
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 * * *'' (68 FR 16604). With 
the anticipated continued human population growth and development of 
Florida and the recent increase in human-related manatee mortality, 
especially from collision with watercraft, there is cause for concern 
relative to manatee adult survival and species recovery. The need for 
additional manatee protection areas is underscored by these facts.
    Response 15: We concur with the reviewer regarding the status of 
the manatees in the Atlantic and Southwest stocks. The Caloosahatchee 
River-San Carlos Bay Manatee Refuge is located within the range of the 
Southwest Stock while the Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge and 
Halifax and Tomoka Rivers Manatee Refuge are both located within the 
range of the Atlantic Stock. As noted above, a variety of management 
and conservation options, in addition to or in lieu of manatee 
protection areas, can and should be explored to improve the status of 
these stocks.
    Comment 16: One peer reviewer stated that further explanation was 
needed regarding the Service's assumption that designation of ``manatee 
protection areas at sites * * * where conflicts between boats and 
manatees have been well documented'' should ``minimize the number of 
injuries and deaths associated with watercraft activities'' (68 FR 
16605). While the reviewer agrees with this assumption, she believes 
that a scientific basis for this assertion would better justify the 
rationale for designating manatee protection areas to minimize death 
and injury (for example, work by Mote Marine Laboratory and Brad Weigle 
using tethered and manned airships, respectively, and at the very 
least, anecdotal information from manatee researchers regarding manatee 
response to watercraft).
    Response 16: We concur. The reviewer is correct in that, while no 
empirical studies specifically address this assumption, researchers 
have documented manatee response to oncoming boats. Manatee response to 
boats at distances of approximately 100 meters (328 feet) was 
documented in a study conducted in 1994 (Weigle et al., 1994). Boat 
speeds during these response trials varied between slow speed and 48 
km/h (30 mph). While no specific behavior was observed for each speed 
trial, researchers observed that bottom-resting manatees did not 
respond to oncoming boats and that manatees observed surface resting or

[[Page 46876]]

observed in shallows all responded to the presence of approaching 
boats. A study conducted from 1999 to 2000 documented manatee response 
to random boat traffic (Nowacek et al., 2000). In each observation, 
manatees responded either by accelerating, turning, or moving toward or 
into a nearby channel when approached by boats.
    Studies further addressed response times (Wells et al., 1999). ``At 
an average initial response distance of 20 meters, the animal has less 
than two seconds to respond to a planing vessel and about seven seconds 
to respond to a vessel approaching at slow speed'' (Wells et al., 
1999). Based on these observations, it is apparent that manatees will 
respond to the presence of oncoming boats and that their ability to 
successfully do so is predicated on the speed of the oncoming boat. As 
such, protection areas that regulate boat speeds should minimize the 
incidence of manatee-boat encounters and, thereby, ``the number of 
injuries and deaths associated with watercraft activities.''
    Comment 17: One peer reviewer believes the section on 
``Relationship to Manatee Lawsuit'' is distracting to the overall 
intent of the rule, unless there is a legal requirement for its 
inclusion.
    Response 17: The comment is noted; however, we believe it is 
important for the public to be aware of the lawsuit.
    Comment 18: One peer reviewer suggested the addition of scale bars 
to the maps.
    Response 18: The final maps have been revised accordingly.
    Comment 19: One peer reviewer believed it would strengthen the rule 
and the Service's position to include a timeframe on which the 
requirement of ``preventing the take of one or more manatees'' is 
based.
    Response 19: The only specific reference to a timeframe in our 
manatee protection area regulations is in regard to establishment on an 
emergency basis if the anticipated taking is ``imminent'' (50 CFR 
17.106). That said, our regulations state that the establishment of 
manatee protection areas may occur if there is ``substantial evidence'' 
that the action is necessary to prevent the taking of one or more 
manatees. While not specific, this phrase strongly implies that there 
is a proximate connection between our action (establishment of a 
manatee protection area) and the result (prevention of take). We 
interpret this to mean that action may be warranted in those areas 
where take is documented and ongoing with sufficient regularity to 
indicate that it is likely to continue in the near future unless 
appropriate action is taken. In other words, our manatee protection 
area designations are intended to prevent take that we expect may occur 
in the near future in the absence of such regulations.
    Comment 20: Several commentors suggest that the existing State and 
Federal zones on the Caloosahatchee are relatively new, and have so far 
been effective. Many of these commentors speculate that past manatee 
watercraft-related mortalities may have been related to fuel barges 
traveling the river to the power plant. These operations have now been 
greatly reduced.
    Response 20: Our analysis indicates that the existing zones in the 
Caloosahatchee River do in fact provide appropriate protection over 
most of the areas on the river where manatees and watercraft are likely 
to interact. Our final designation has targeted those areas of the 
river and San Carlos Bay where the best available information indicates 
that the existing zones do not adequately protect manatees from high-
speed collisions. Additionally, our adoption of the existing shoreline 
buffer zones will enable us to devote Federal funds to improving 
signage and enforcement.
    Comment 21: One commentor noted that the most recently documented 
compliance rates on the Caloosahatchee River are low. The commentor 
cited this as evidence that the existing regulations are inadequate. 
Further, the commentor stated that Lee County boater compliance studies 
indicate the majority of boaters travel outside speed-restricted areas. 
The commentor concluded from this that manatees are being killed 
outside the existing zones and that the existing zones are therefore 
inadequate.
    Response 21: The commentor does not indicate what percentage this 
``majority'' comprises, or the level of boat traffic within the 
existing speed zones. Neither does the commentor mention that, while it 
is true that vessels navigating the Caloosahatchee River spend most of 
their time in the unregulated center of the river, all vessels 
navigating this river must pass through regulated waters at some point 
in their journey. Therefore, the statement is misleading. When the fact 
that all vessels on the river must travel through manatee speed zones 
is combined with the above-noted low levels of historic compliance, it 
is clear that this high volume of (noncompliant) high-speed vessel 
traffic in existing zones is the most likely contributing factor to 
manatee take in most parts of the river.
    Comment 22: One commentor claims that the existing aerial survey 
data for the Caloosahatchee are skewed toward the shallower near-shore 
areas due to the flight path and observer and availability bias.
    Response 22: We base our regulatory determinations on the best 
available information. We cannot base our determinations on speculation 
that manatees occur in areas not identified in the available data 
unless the data show such inferences to be reasonable. For example, we 
have determined that improved manatee protection in the vicinity of the 
Cape Coral Bridge is warranted. The data indicate that the 
Caloosahatchee River is used primarily as a travel corridor, and 
because aerial survey data indicate substantial manatee use upstream 
and downstream of the Cape Coral Bridge, it is reasonable to infer from 
these data that manatees do regularly occur near the Cape Coral Bridge. 
Additional protection is warranted due to the funneling effect of both 
watercraft and manatees that bridges often cause. Conversely, the 
commentor provides no basis, nor can we identify one, for assuming that 
manatees make more extensive use of the center portion of the river 
than is depicted in the available data.
    Comment 23: With reference to the portion of the Caloosahatchee 
River from the Railroad Trestle to the Edison Bridge, one peer reviewer 
noted that aerial survey and telemetry data appear to indicate that 
manatees are distributed throughout this area, as opposed to 
concentrating along the shoreline as they appear to do in other areas 
of the river. The reviewer also noted that the seasonal component of 
the designation may not be warranted, as telemetry and aerial data do 
no show a strong seasonal bias. Furthermore, this area experiences 
generally lower overall watercraft use. Therefore, the reviewer 
believed that, although the proposed protection area (i.e., slow speed 
in the channel from November 15 to March 31, 25-mph maximum speed in 
the channel April 1 to November 14) is justified, allowing a 25-mph 
maximum speed in the channel year-round may be feasible and justifiable 
without posing a significant threat to manatees. Another peer reviewer 
and other commentors also stated that it may be acceptable to leave the 
navigation channel as 25 mph year-round because this portion of the 
river has substantially less boat traffic than lower areas of the 
river. The FWCC stated that manatees are most abundant between Channel 
Marker ``23'' and the railroad tressle.
    Response 23: Based on the comments as well as a more thorough 
evaluation by our biologists, we have modified our proposed rule to 
better reflect the best

[[Page 46877]]

available information regarding manatee use of this area. The final 
rule designates the portion of the Caloosahatchee River navigation 
channel from the Seaboard Coastline Railroad trestle downstream to 
Channel Marker ``25'' to be slow speed in the channel from November 15 
to March 31, and not more than 25 mph in the remainder of the year.
    Aerial survey data indicate that manatees do occur throughout this 
portion of the river throughout the year. However, the analysis of 
available data by FMRI (FWCC 2002) indicates that manatees are less 
likely to occur near the navigation channel downstream of the general 
area of Marker ``25''. This generally coincides with the change in the 
physiography of the river in this area. The river narrows upstream of 
channel Marker ``25,'' and Beautiful Island and other smaller islands 
act to further constrict the river. This constriction explains the 
change in manatee distribution at this point in the river. Manatees are 
more likely to be found in and near the navigation channel upstream of 
Marker ``25'' than downstream. This fact, combined with the above-
referenced lower level of boat traffic in this portion of the river 
relative to areas further downstream, led us to conclude that the 
existing regulations downstream of Marker ``25'' were sufficient, 
whereas increased protection is warranted between Marker ``25'' and the 
railroad trestle.
    Comment 24: With reference to the portion of the Caloosahatchee 
River from the Edison Bridge to the Caloosahatchee Bridge, one peer 
reviewer noted that manatee sightings are lower in this area than in 
other portions of the river and may not warrant the proposed slow speed 
(channel included) designation. However, a year-round slow speed zone 
in this area may be warranted for other reasons, such as travel through 
a constrained area and/or boater safety. Another peer reviewer stated 
that the proposed rule seems appropriate for this area, noting that the 
current slow speed restrictions are along the southern shore only, 
creating a situation where many boats ``short-cut'' the area by running 
on plane along the north shore. The FWCC stated that telemetry data, 
boat traffic patterns, and the physical configuration of the downtown 
area may combine to make that area higher risk for manatees.
    Response 24: We have carefully reviewed the above comments and 
other public comments and concluded that the proposed action is 
warranted in this area due to the reasons cited in our proposed rule 
and comments received from the FWCC and peer review.
    Comment 25: With reference to the portion of the Caloosahatchee 
River from the Caloosahatchee Bridge to the Cape Coral Bridge, one peer 
reviewer noted that distribution and travel data suggest that manatees 
remain close to the shoreline and away from the channel. Requiring slow 
speed within the 6-foot contour line would encompass most of the aerial 
survey sightings and is the depth at which manatees most frequently 
occur. This depth also provides manatees the opportunity to escape from 
passing watercraft. In the Caloosahatchee River, most of the manatee 
sightings as well as the 6-foot contour line appears to fall within 500 
meters (1,640 feet) from the shore. From a scientific perspective, it 
may be feasible to allow a 25-mph corridor from major access points to 
the channel in waters deeper than 6 feet. Another peer reviewer 
indicated that the proposed designations seem appropriate based on 
boating activity in the area. The FWCC stated that data do not support 
expansion of the shoreline buffer beyond the existing 0.25-mile width, 
but designation of the waters between the existing buffer zones as 25-
mph maximum speed would provide some potential reduction of risks to 
manatees.
    Response 25: We generally agree with the reviewers' interpretation 
that manatee use data in this portion of the river indicate that 
manatees travel along the shoreline. We conducted a more detailed 
review of the recent special study of the Caloosahatchee River by the 
Florida Marine Research Institute (FWCC 2002), and it appears that the 
majority of manatee use in this area occurs within the current 0.25-
mile (402 meters) shoreline buffer, a conclusion that is very similar 
to the peer reviewer's conclusions. Therefore, this final rule adopts a 
0.25-mile minimum shoreline buffer, as marked. Between the shoreline 
buffers, the maximum allowable speed will be 25 mph, including the 
channel, except where the channel occurs within 0.25 mile from the 
shoreline and watercraft are restricted to slow speed.
    While we agree that water depths of 6 feet or greater afford 
manatees greater opportunity to avoid collisions with watercraft, it 
does not appear that the 6-foot contour line approximates manatee 
distribution in this portion of the river, as this contour extends a 
great distance from shore in this area (particularly from the western 
shoreline), whereas manatee aerial survey data show manatee use 
concentrated closer (generally within 0.25 mile) to shore.
    Comment 26: With reference to the portion of the Caloosahatchee 
River northwest and southeast of the Cape Coral Bridge, as with the 
Edison/Caloosahatchee Bridges area, peer reviewers noted that manatee 
sightings are lower in this area than in other portions of the river 
and may not warrant the proposed slow speed (channel included) 
designation. However, a year-round slow speed zone in this area may be 
warranted for other reasons, such as travel through a constrained area 
and/or boater safety. The FWCC and others stated that further speed 
restrictions were not warranted in the vicinity of this bridge.
    Response 26: Even though manatees have not been sighted as 
frequently near the bridge as in other portions of the river, because 
this portion of the river is used primarily as a travel corridor it is 
reasonable to conclude that manatees sighted upstream and downstream of 
this bridge regularly travel under the bridge. Therefore, it is logical 
to conclude that manatees regularly occur in this area. We believe 
that, due to the presence of causeways and pilings, many bridges, 
including the Cape Coral Bridge, create a funneling effect for both 
watercraft traffic and manatees. Therefore, we believe additional 
protection measures are warranted in the vicinity of such bridges. 
Further, we believe that the river beneath the Cape Coral Bridge is 
sufficiently wide to allow for the higher speed operation in the 
navigation channel. As such, we have modified our proposal for this 
area from a shoreline-to-shoreline slow speed zone. We will allow 
watercraft to proceed at not more than 25 mph in the channel and slow 
speed outside the channel from 500 feet upstream and 500 feet 
downstream of the Cape Coral Bridge.
    Comment 27: With reference to the portion of the Caloosahatchee 
River southeast of the Cape Coral Bridge to Channel Marker ``72,'' 
comments received were essentially the same as those addressed in 
comment 25 due to the similarity of the proposed designations.
    Response 27: See the response to comment 25.
    Comment 28: With reference to the portion of the Caloosahatchee 
River from Channel Marker ``72'' to Channel Marker ``82,'' one peer 
reviewer stated data indicate that manatees occur along the shoreline 
as well as toward the channel in this portion of the river, with 
telemetry data indicating that animals may be crossing the channel to 
get from one side of the river to the other at Redfish Point (a 
relatively narrow portion of the river). Therefore, the proposed rule 
for this portion of the river appears to be justified. Another

[[Page 46878]]

peer reviewer believed that this transition zone (requiring boaters to 
change speeds as they enter and leave this area) is not beneficial from 
a boating perspective. A common complaint among boaters is that there 
are too many changes in speed zones and that it is difficult for 
boaters to keep track of which zone they are in. Although the river 
narrows slightly at Redfish Point, this reviewer believed there is not 
sufficient evidence to suggest that boat traffic is significantly more 
concentrated in this area. The reviewer stated that, unless compelling 
evidence shows that there is an increased risk to manatees in this 
area, the shore-to-shore slow speed zone is not necessary, and 
suggested modifying the zone to be consistent with zones immediately 
upstream and downstream. The FWCC noted that a variety of data suggest 
that manatees may be at risk in the Redfish Point area of the river. We 
also received many comments from the boating public regarding the 
increased time needed to traverse the 1.9-mile slow speed zone we 
proposed to establish at Redfish Point. Many commentors recommended 
allowing for high-speed travel in the marked channel.
    Response 28: We concur with the reviewers' interpretation of the 
available data regarding manatee movement patterns in the area of 
Redfish Point. Additionally, as the river narrows to approximately 1-
half mile at Redfish Point, we believe that manatees are at higher risk 
of watercraft collision in this area. Because available evidence 
indicates that manatees cross the river regularly at this point, we do 
not believe it is appropriate to maintain a high-speed channel in this 
area. However, we did conduct a more detailed review of the available 
data and concluded that sufficient manatee protection could be achieved 
in this area by reconfiguring and shortening the slow speed zone, as 
reflected in the final rule. Our analysis of aerial and telemetry data 
indicates that manatee use is greatest between Channel Markers ``72'' 
and ``76.'' We have also attempted to address the concern associated 
with the frequent changes in designations along the river by 
maintaining a 25-mph corridor under the Cape Coral Bridge and through 
the channel between Channel Marker ``99'' and the Sanibel Causeway. 
These changes should make it easier for boaters to follow the 
designations as they navigate the river.
    Comment 29: With reference to the portion of the Caloosahatchee 
River from Channel Marker ``82'' to Channel Marker ``93,'' comments 
received were essentially the same as those addressed in comment 25 due 
to the similarity of the proposed designations.
    Response 29: See the response to comment 25.
    Comment 30: With reference to the portion of the Caloosahatchee 
River from Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel Causeway, one peer 
reviewer noted that aerial survey data indicate that manatees use both 
the deep and shallow water of this area and telemetry data show 
``manatee places and corridors,'' particularly along the eastern 
boundary of this area. While allowing 25 mph in the deeper waters would 
provide relief for boaters, manatee use of the area justifies inclusion 
of the area in the proposed rule. Another peer reviewer noted that this 
area experiences an extremely high volume of boat traffic at times, in 
fact, so congested that travel speeds can be self-limiting. The 
majority of the vessel traffic remains in or near the marked channel 
between Channel Marker ``99'' and the Sanibel Causeway. It may be 
acceptable, therefore, to retain a speed of 25 mph in the channel and 
slow speed outside of the channel in this area. This area should be a 
priority for enforcement and compliance initiatives. The FWCC believes 
that regulation of the channel from marker ``99'' to the Sanibel 
Causeway would increase risks to manatees because of potential changes 
in boat traffic patterns. The data suggest that additional manatee 
protection zones should be considered around Fisherman's Key and Big 
Island. Several commentors noted that the configuration of the proposed 
rule (slow speed including the channel) would encourage boaters 
traveling between Sanibel Causeway and the Caloosahatchee River to 
travel up the unregulated channel on the western side of San Carlos Bay 
and through the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) east-west ``Miserable 
Mile'' channel. This would place more high-speed boat traffic in an 
area of San Carlos Bay that is heavily used by manatees. Many 
commentors expressed concern regarding our proposed regulation of the 
navigation channel at slow speed, due to the resulting increase in 
travel time.
    Response 30: We acknowledge that the proposal for this area may 
have done more harm than good for manatees utilizing the shallow 
seagrass flats of San Carlos Bay because the high volume of traffic 
would likely be diverted to the ``Miserable Mile'' channel where the 
manatees occur in the adjacent shallow seagrass flats. The diversion of 
a high volume of watercraft traffic into an already-congested channel 
may have also created a human safety issue. We have therefore modified 
this protection area to exclude the channel and an adjacent buffer from 
the regulation. The configuration of the final rule provides protection 
of the grass beds near the various keys in San Carlos Bay, without 
disrupting established boating travel patterns.
    Comment 31: With reference to the portion of the St. Johns River 
from Reddie Point to the Main Street Bridge, one peer reviewer noted 
that, based on aerial survey data, manatee use of the area supports the 
proposed rule. The reviewer believes that the existing shoreline 
buffers are likely not adequate. The FWCC and the City of Jacksonville 
stated that available data indicate that the existing shoreline buffers 
are adequate in this area. The FWCC also stated that the existing 
buffer zones would be easier to mark than the proposed designations.
    Response 31: We have reevaluated this area and believe that, based 
on the available data, our proposed rule for this portion of the St. 
Johns River is appropriate, with one exception. We have determined that 
the downstream boundary of this protection area should be moved 
upstream (south) to Channel Marker ``73'' instead of Reddie Point. We 
believe this revision is necessary given the configuration of the river 
relative to the marked navigation channel. Downstream of Channel Maker 
``73'' the river widens and curves. At this point the navigation 
channel hugs the western shoreline. Such configuration is not intuitive 
and most boaters will tend to continue on a straighter path up the 
middle of the river, particularly if traveling upstream from Reddie 
Point. We agree with the FWCC that a clear and effective sign plan in 
this portion of the river would be difficult, at best, due to the 
channel configuration as well as water depth, minimal existing signs, 
and the current watercraft traffic in the areas (i.e., large ships, 
barges, and tug boats in addition to recreational watercraft). We note 
the signage for the existing speed zones in this area is inadequate to 
inform boaters of the location of the existing zones. Overall, we 
believe that speed zones that follow the marked navigation channel in 
this area will be easier for boaters to understand, with the exception 
of the above noted area downstream of Channel Marker ``73,'' where we 
intend to work with the FWCC regarding signage of the existing zones.
    Comment 32: With reference to the portion of the St. Johns River 
from the Main Street Bridge to the Fuller Warren Bridge, one peer 
reviewer noted that, based on aerial survey data, manatee use of this 
area is not notably higher than

[[Page 46879]]

in other areas of the river. The sighting data do not appear to justify 
the establishment of a year-round slow speed zone in this portion of 
the river for manatee protection. However, the proposed rule may be 
warranted based on other issues, such as constrained waterways and/or 
boater safety. The FWCC and others provided similar comments regarding 
this portion of the St. Johns River.
    Response 32: This area of the river is used as a travel corridor, 
and because manatees are regularly sighted upstream and downstream of 
this area, it is reasonable to conclude that they regularly traverse 
this area. Additionally, in this area the river narrows and curves and 
the presence of many bridges in the downtown Jacksonville area creates 
a funneling effect for both watercraft traffic and manatees. This 
combination of factors warrants implementation of additional manatee 
protection measures in this area.
    Comment 33: With reference to the portion of the St. Johns River 
upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge including Doctors Lake, one peer 
reviewer noted that aerial survey data indicate that manatees routinely 
use these areas. Extending the shoreline buffers, as proposed, provides 
additional protection to manatees that often spend much of their time 
within these shoreline areas for many activities, such as resting, 
feeding, and caring for young. Additionally, several carcasses of 
manatees killed by watercraft have been recovered in this portion of 
the river. The available data justify the inclusion of this area in the 
proposed rule. The City of Jacksonville, Clay County, and others stated 
that the existing regulations were adequate in this area and that 
Federal designation was not warranted. The FWCC recommends that if we 
were to do anything in this area we should adopt a Federal zone the 
same as the existing State zones, or alternatively consider adoption of 
a fixed 700-foot buffer in this area. The FWCC further stated that the 
greatest contribution we could make to improving manatee protection in 
this area would be through improved signage and enforcement.
    Response 33: We concur with the peer reviewer's interpretation of 
the data that manatees generally utilize the shoreline areas. Upon 
further review of the data and the public comments, our final rule is 
modified slightly from the proposed rule in that the shoreline slow 
speed buffer will be a minimum of 700 feet from the shoreline, but not 
more than 1,000 feet in the St. Johns River, as marked, and a minimum 
of 700 feet from the shoreline, but not more than 900 feet in Doctors 
Lake, as marked. The intent is to mark the zones as close to the 700-
foot minimum as possible, but given the non-linear configuration of the 
shoreline in both the river and the lake, the maximum distance allows 
flexibility to design an effective, understandable, and enforceable 
sign plan. The Federal designation of this portion of the river and 
Doctors Lake will enable us to devote Federal funds to appropriately 
marking this area.
    Comment 34: Peer review comments stated that the proposed rule in 
the St. Johns River will be easier to post than the existing 
configuration, which is beneficial because better signage translates to 
better compliance and better protection.
    Response 34: We concur with the reviewer and believe that the final 
rule, which is modified slightly from the proposed rule, will allow us 
to effectively post the new Federal manatee protection areas in the 
lower St. Johns River. We note that the existing signage in this 
portion of the river is inadequate.
    Comment 35: Peer review comments cautioned us not to assume that 
manatee deaths in the St. Johns River occurred at the location where 
the carcasses were recovered, as implied in the proposed rule (68 FR 
16608). Often it is not known where the death occurred, rather it is 
known where the carcass was recovered.
    Response 35: We agree. The language in the final rule has been 
changed to avoid giving this impression, which was not intended.
    Comment 36: One commentor assumed that, since Duval County was 
designated as an ``Area of Inadequate Protection'' under the Service's 
final interim strategy for section 7 consultation, the waters of the 
County would be one of the highest priorities for refuge status.
    Response 36: In response to the commentor, we wish to clarify that 
the reach of the St. Johns River within Duval County considered to be 
an ``Area of Inadequate Protection'' (AIP) was not designated as such 
due to inappropriate design of the existing zones, but rather because 
we believe the signage of the existing zones to be inadequate. In some 
areas of the Duval/Clay/St. Johns County portion of the St. Johns 
River, inadequate signage also resulted in a reduced ability to enforce 
the zones. We did not consider this area to be as high a priority as 
actions taken in previous rulemakings. Our final designation will 
enable us to correct the signage deficiency.
    Comment 37: One commentor stated that the submerged aquatic 
vegetation in the main stem of the St. Johns River extends 
approximately 900 feet from the shoreline and states further that this 
distance is variable. The commentor believed that the proposed 
shoreline buffer will improve manatee protection by expanding it and 
creating consistency. The commentor claimed this expansion ``from 300 
to 1,000 feet will only increase boater travel time by 1.6 minutes.''
    Response 37: We believe that our final designation, which 
designates a slow speed shoreline buffer extending a minimum of 213 
meters (700 feet) and a maximum of 305 meters (1,000 feet), encompasses 
the area most used by manatees and will have limited adverse effects on 
boater use of the St. Johns River.
    Comment 38: With reference to the Halifax Creek from the Flagler/
Volusia County line to Channel Marker ``9,'' peer review comments 
stated that manatees use this area as a travel corridor and have little 
room to navigate around boat traffic within or outside of the channel 
in this narrow, constrained northern stretch of the river. These 
factors support the proposed rule.
    Response 38: We agree.
    Comment 39: With reference to the Halifax River from Channel Marker 
``9'' to the Granada Bridge, peer review comments stated that the 
proposed rule improves the existing zones without substantial changes. 
Extension of the shoreline buffers should increase protection of 
manatees without interfering with watercraft traffic.
    Response 39: Manatees exhibit a general tendency to utilize the 
nearshore waters preferentially throughout their range. As such, 
establishment of slow speed shoreline buffers is often an effective 
strategy for minimizing collisions between manatees and watercraft. 
However, any given manatee may deviate from this pattern at any time 
and wander farther from shore than ``normal.'' Therefore, wider buffers 
would always be considered to be most protective of manatees if no 
other factors were considered.
    With respect to the Halifax river, subsequent to publishing the 
proposed rule, we conducted a more detailed analysis of this area and 
determined that the river is approximately 2,000 feet wide over most of 
its length. The practical effect of our proposed rule (a 1,000-foot 
shoreline buffer) would have been to make the river slow speed outside 
the ICW channel. In areas where the river is somewhat wider than 2,000 
feet, the proposed rule would have

[[Page 46880]]

created unregulated ``pockets'' that would have been difficult or 
impossible to regulate, and would have been of no practical use to 
boaters. While our stated intent in proposing a 1,000-foot shoreline 
buffer was, in part, to make the regulations in this area more 
understandable and enforceable, the proposed rule would have actually 
had the opposite effect by creating the unregulated ``pockets'' 
discussed above, thereby potentially compromising manatee protection 
instead of enhancing it. Additionally, the FWCC noted that manatee use 
data for this portion of Volusia County are limited and dated. We agree 
and further note that the limited available data do not support the 
need for a ``slow-speed outside the channel'' designation. We have, 
therefore, concluded that establishment of a 1,000-foot shoreline 
buffer is not prudent.
    Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, we also 
examined possible alternatives for expanding the shoreline buffers to 
some other distance from shoreline. As stated previously, wider buffers 
are generally more protective, so expansion of the existing 300-foot 
buffer to some greater distance would arguably improve manatee 
protection. As indicated above, the widest possible buffer for the 
Halifax River would have been 1,000 feet (as proposed), or slow speed 
outside the channel for all practical purposes, which was determined to 
be unwarranted. Additionally, the quality of the available data is such 
that we cannot conclude that substantial evidence supports expansion of 
the shoreline buffer to some distance other than the currently 
designated 300 feet. In other words, we conclude that the selection of 
some other width for the shoreline buffer would be arbitrary. We 
support the FWCC's ongoing efforts to collect additional data regarding 
manatee distribution and habitat use in this area, in order to provide 
for better informed decision-making.
    Comment 40: With reference to the Tomoka River upstream of U.S. 1, 
peer review comments noted that manatee sightings occur throughout the 
river and sightings of manatee calves coupled with perinatal carcasses 
close to I-95 indicate the importance of this section as a nursery 
area. The continuation of the slow speed designation to I-95 is 
justified. Another peer reviewer noted that eliminating the 25-mph 
status in narrow waterways such as the Tomoka River and Spruce Creek is 
appropriate for areas where manatee activity is well documented because 
the entire waterway can function as a channel, with boats traveling at 
high speeds along the entire width. Further, in-channel and out-of-
channel designations in narrow waterways present a problem for law 
enforcement because it may be difficult to distinguish whether the 
vessel is in or out of the channel. There are also obvious human safety 
benefits to slowing watercraft down in narrow waterways. This peer 
reviewer also noted that, while there are differences in the 
established definitions of ``idle'' and ``slow'' speed zones, in the 
reviewer's experience, there is little practical difference between 
boats traveling at idle versus slow speed. Such differences between the 
two designations are difficult to enforce and may not provide a 
significantly different level of protection for manatees. The reviewer 
recommends the designation of more enforceable, consistent slow speed 
zones throughout the length of this river. The FWCC noted that the 
Tomoka River and its tributaries are known calving and nursing areas 
for manatees, so it is appropriate to consider extra protection in this 
system. However, they recommended that we defer Federal designation 
pending completion of their reevaluation of the zones in Volusia 
County, and stated that their review would consider whether speed zone 
designations in this area should be seasonal. Another commentor noted 
that manatee carcasses have been discovered from the Tomoka River in 
every month except February.
    Response 40: Given the narrow configuration of the river, 
documented high seasonal use by manatees, and demonstrated watercraft-
related mortality in this river, we have concluded that it is 
appropriate to take Federal action at this time to eliminate the 25-mph 
zone between Alligator Island and the I-95 Bridge on a seasonal basis. 
We agree with the peer reviewer that a consistent designation 
throughout the length of the Tomoka River would be preferable. However, 
we do not have the authority to undo more restrictive existing 
regulations, such as the existing idle speed and year-round zones. 
Except for the portion of the Tomoka River where we are implementing a 
Federal seasonal slow speed zone, we believe the existing zones in the 
river to be adequate and possibly more restrictive than necessary given 
the seasonality of manatee use. We decided not to overlay the existing 
zones with Federal designations over most of the river in order to 
avoid hindering State efforts to revise these zones in the future. We 
have determined that seasonal designations are appropriate for this 
area. While manatee carcasses may have been recovered throughout the 
year in the Tomoka River, it is important to note that no watercraft-
related mortalities have been recorded during winter months. Carcasses 
found in winter months are more likely related to cold stress as there 
are no reliable warm water sources in the Tomoka River.
    Comment 41: With reference to the Halifax River at the Granada 
Bridge, peer review comments indicated that, although manatees have 
been spotted in this area during aerial surveys, the sighting data do 
not justify the establishment of a year-round slow speed zone in this 
area for manatee protection. However, the proposed rule may be 
warranted based on other issues, such as constrained waterways and/or 
boater safety.
    Response 41: We believe that the presence of causeways and pilings 
associated with many bridges (including the Granada Bridge) creates a 
funneling effect for both watercraft traffic and manatees. Therefore, 
we believe additional protection measures are warranted in the vicinity 
of such bridges and have finalized the rule as proposed in this portion 
of the Halifax River.
    Comment 42: With reference to the Halifax River from the Granada 
Bridge to Seabreeze Bridge, peer reviewer comments noted that, although 
manatees have been sighted in this area, the abundance does not appear 
to be as great as in other regions. However, manatees moving from one 
higher-use area to another will likely move through this area as a 
travel corridor, justifying the need for some protection. Although no 
empirical data support the benefits of regulating watercraft speeds at 
25 mph versus 30 mph; it is intuitive that watercraft traveling at 
higher speeds afford manatees less time to get out of the way, would 
impact a manatee with greater force, and would cause more harm than 
those at lower speeds. The available data support the proposed rule in 
this area. The FWCC commented that in its more recent rulemakings the 
agency has consistently used 25 mph as the ``minimum planing speed'' 
for most vessels.
    Response 42: As noted above, a more detailed analysis of this area 
subsequent to publication of the proposed rule revealed that the 
proposed 1,000-foot slow speed shoreline buffers are not warranted. 
With reference to establishing a 25-mph speed limit outside the 
shoreline buffers, we believe that this action will enhance manatee 
protection by making the regulations more consistent throughout the 
area, thereby improving compliance by making the zones easier for 
boaters to understand.

[[Page 46881]]

    Comment 43: With reference to the Halifax River from the Seabreeze 
Bridge to Channel Marker ``40,'' peer review comments stated that, 
based on the recovery of perinatal carcasses, this area may be an 
important nursery area. This may not be the best location for the high-
speed watersports area.
    Response 43: We concur with the reviewer's interpretation of the 
data. The final rule consists of a slow speed zone from 500 feet north 
to 500 feet south of the Seabreeze Bridge and reduces the speed in the 
Seabreeze watersports area to slow speed to be consistent with the 
existing speed zone in the area. Although our final rule for the area 
is scaled back from the proposed rule in that we do not overlay the 
entire existing zone with a Federal slow speed zone, we believe the 
final rule provides improved protection where it is most needed (i.e., 
at the pinch point created by the bridge and the high-speed watersports 
area). Additionally, we conclude that the existing designation of slow 
speed (channel included), is warranted through this section of the 
river because of the high volume of boat traffic in the Daytona Beach 
area.
    Comment 44: With reference to the Halifax River from Channel Marker 
``40'' to the Dunlawton Bridge, peer review comments stated that the 
proposed rule improves the existing zones without substantial changes. 
Extension of the shoreline buffers should increase protection of 
manatees without interfering with watercraft traffic. Manatees often 
rest, feed, mill, and socialize in waters less than 6 feet deep, not 
just within 300 feet of shore. The proposal eliminates a second high-
speed watersports area. Although this area appears to be a travel 
corridor for manatees, and carcasses of manatees killed by watercraft 
have been recovered from the area, this high-speed area appears to be 
in a ``less egregious'' area than the high-speed area near the 
Seabreeze Bridge, based on the data.
    Response 44: See the response to comment 39 regarding shoreline 
buffers, and the response to comment 41 regarding constricted areas 
near bridges.
    Comment 45: With reference to the Halifax River north and south of 
the Dunlawton Bridge, peer review comments noted that, although 
manatees have been sighted in this area during aerial surveys and 
manatee carcasses attributed to watercraft collisions have been 
recovered from the area, the reviewer does not believe that those data 
justify the establishment of a year-round slow speed zone in this area 
for manatee protection. However, the proposed rule may be warranted 
based on other issues, such as constrained waterways and/or boater 
safety.
    Response 45: See response to comment 41.
    Comment 46: With reference to the Halifax River from south of the 
Dunlawton Bridge to Ponce Inlet, peer review comments stated that the 
proposed rule improves the existing zones without substantial changes. 
Extension of the shoreline buffers should increase protection of 
manatees without interfering with watercraft traffic. Manatees often 
rest, feed, mill, and socialize in waters less than 6 feet deep, not 
just within 300 feet of shore. The change from 30 mph to 25 mph 
intuitively improves manatee protection, but the reviewer knows of no 
empirical data to support it. The proposed rule will increase the 
uniformity of the regulations, which should improve boater 
comprehension of and compliance with the manatee protection zones.
    Response 46: There is a wide variety of existing speed zones in 
this area that we believe to be unnecessarily complicated and 
confusing. Our proposed rule would have simplified the speed zones to a 
degree, by eliminating the 30 mph designation, and would have improved 
manatee protection somewhat in this area, but would not have improved 
the logistical situation enough to significantly reduce or eliminate 
boater confusion and increase compliance. We do not have the ability to 
substantially modify the existing zones in this area unilaterally 
because many of the State-designated speed zones are as restrictive as 
the proposed rule and we do not have the authority to impose 
regulations that are less restrictive than existing State rules. 
Simplifying these zones would necessarily need to be done by the FWCC. 
The FWCC stated in its comments that the agency is collecting 
additional data on manatee distribution in Volusia County for the 
purpose of reevaluating the existing speed zones. Because we do not 
want to hinder the State's efforts to improve the existing zones, we 
have decided not to designate this area at this time beyond reducing 
the maximum allowable speed, outside of existing slow speed zones, from 
30 mph to 25 mph.
    Comment 47: One peer reviewer was unclear as to why the Ponce Inlet 
has a proposed speed limit of 30 mph. This speed may be appropriate if 
it has been determined that 30 mph is necessary to navigate through the 
inlet, or it is a designated watersports area. Otherwise, it creates 
confusion for boaters to have too many types of speed zones.
    Response 47: We believe the existing State-designated zone in the 
Ponce Inlet is adequate and have, therefore, decided not to implement 
Federal regulations in the Ponce Inlet at this time. Our proposed rule 
in this area simply mirrored the existing zone. The FWCC is currently 
collecting additional data regarding manatee distribution in this area, 
and we concluded that, in the absence of such information, we did not 
have a solid basis for action at this time. Additionally, Federal 
designation could possibly hinder State efforts to modify the speed 
zones in this area, should updated information warrant such action.
    Comment 48: With reference to the Live Oak Point to Channel Marker 
``2,'' peer review comments noted that manatee sightings in this area 
are more frequent than in other nearby areas; therefore, the proposed 
rule is supported by the available data.
    Response 48: We concur with the reviewer's interpretation of the 
data. However, the proposed rule would have simply resulted in the 
federalization of the existing State-designated zones. For this final 
rule, we believe that it is not necessary to overlay the existing zones 
that appear to be appropriately designed and signed. Therefore, we will 
not proceed with designating this area at this time.
    Comment 49: With reference to the ICW from Redland Canal to the A1A 
Bridge, peer review comments noted that manatee sightings in the area 
just south of the Ponce Inlet are more frequent than in other nearby 
areas, and these sightings are probably why the area is currently 
designated as slow speed. The existing 30-mph stretch occurs in an area 
where manatee sightings have occurred. The data support the proposed 
designation of the area to slow speed.
    Response 49: We agree.
    Comment 50: Some commentors strongly suggested that the Service 
maintain at least a 25-mph channel at New Smyrna.
    Response 50: We carefully considered this comment in light of the 
increased travel time that would result from our proposed designation. 
However, in light of the available information, we have concluded that 
slow speed designation in this area should include the channel in order 
to effectively improve manatee protection in this area.
    Comment 51: One peer reviewer stated that the proposed rule in the 
Halifax and Tomoka Rivers will be easier to post than the existing 
configuration, which is beneficial because better signage translates to 
better compliance and better protection.

[[Page 46882]]

    Response 51: We agree.
    Comment 52: One commentor claims that the proposed zones in the 
Halifax River will help improve boater compliance by reducing the 
complex mosaic of different zones without indicating how the proposed 
zones would be more understandable than the existing zones.
    Response 52: Based on our analysis and information provided by 
Volusia County, we have determined that aspects of our proposed zones 
would have actually created additional confusion, while eliminating 
very little (see Response 39). Our final designations provide for some 
simplification of the regulations in this area; further improvements 
are dependent on State action. We have attempted to design our manatee 
protection areas to avoid hindering future State actions, while 
ensuring appropriate protection for manatees.
    Comment 53: One commentor stated that the Service has previously 
designated both refuges and sanctuaries in areas without documented 
mortality; therefore, these proposed refuges are fully justified.
    Response 53: Manatee protection area designations serve different 
purposes in different areas. The previously designated protection areas 
to which the commentor is referring were located at and around warm 
water sites where take by harassment was the primary concern. By 
contrast, the proposed regulations are not specifically designed to 
provide additional protection at warm water sites, except in a small 
portion of the upstream extent of the Caloosahatchee River-San Carlos 
Bay Manatee Refuge (i.e., in the vicinity of the Seaboard Coastline 
Railroad trestle to the Beautiful Island area). There are, in fact, no 
warm water aggregation sites within either the Lower St. Johns River 
Manatee Refuge or the Halifax and Tomoka Rivers Manatee Refuge. Rather, 
the purpose of the proposed refuges, which establish slow speed zones, 
is to minimize the risk of high-speed collisions between watercraft and 
manatees in areas where collisions are likely to occur.
    Comment 54: We received two comments regarding the effects of the 
proposed regulations on seaplane operations. Both recommended that 
seaplanes in general should be excluded from regulation under the 
rules, and one identified a seaplane operation that would be severely 
affected by the proposed speed restrictions on the Caloosahatchee 
River.
    Response 54: According to our regulations the terms ``Water 
vehicle, watercraft, and vessel'' are defined to include, but are not 
limited to, ``boats (whether powered by engine, wind, or other means), 
ships (whether powered by engine, wind, or other means), barges, 
surfboards, personal watercraft, water skis, or any other device or 
mechanism the primary or an incidental purpose of which is locomotion 
on, or across, or underneath the surface of the water.'' This 
definition is sufficiently broad to include seaplanes, and the 25-mph 
speed limit on the Caloosahatchee River would effectively preclude the 
use of seaplanes in this area. After reviewing the information provided 
during the public comment period we have concluded that the seaplane 
business currently operating on the Caloosahatchee River poses an 
insignificant and discountable threat to manatees. Based on information 
provided during the public comment period, the seaplanes operating at 
this location take off and land in the middle of the river, well 
outside the existing 0.25 mile buffer zones. This portion of the river 
does not receive significant manatee use, based on review of aerial 
survey and telemetry data. During take-off and landing, the seaplanes 
are operating at speeds in excess of 25 mph for no more than a few 
seconds over a distance of approximately 1,500 feet. Given the location 
on the river and the short distance involved, it is exceedingly 
unlikely that seaplanes would encounter manatees while taking off and 
landing.
    By definition, a manatee refuge is an area in which ``certain'' 
waterborne activities are restricted to prevent the taking of one or 
more manatees. For the portion of the Caloosahatchee River-San Carlos 
Bay Refuge between the Caloosahatchee River Bridge and the Cape Coral 
Bridge (the area currently utilized by seaplanes), we have concluded 
that the waterborne activities to be regulated per this rule need not 
include seaplanes. As such, the final rule has been modified to state 
that in this portion of the Caloosahatchee River all watercraft, except 
seaplanes, are required to operate at speeds less than 25 mph. As far 
as we know, no other seaplane operations would be affected by these 
regulations, so we are not adopting a broader exclusion for seaplanes 
at this time.
    Comment 55: One peer reviewer commented that, based on boat surveys 
he conducted in the Caloosahatchee River, it appears that the proposed 
rule should not have a significant impact on the majority of boaters 
using this river because--(1) The Caloosahatchee River functions as a 
boating corridor as opposed to a destination (i.e., it is used as a 
pathway to and from other boating destinations); (2) the majority of 
boat traffic remains within or near the Intracoastal Waterway when 
traveling through the river; and (3) speedgun studies conducted in the 
river prior to a numerical speed regulation demonstrated that the 
average vessel speed was 24.33 mph. Similar speedgun results have been 
found in other areas. Many of the public comments, however, expressed 
concern that the proposed rule would concentrate boat traffic within 
the navigation channel, thereby compromising boater safety.
    Response 55: The available research on boating activity in this 
area (as summarized in the reviewers' comments) appears to indicate 
that threats to boater safety are more perceived than actual. 
Nonetheless, these perceptions are strong among local boaters and would 
clearly undermine public support for the proposed speed zones, thereby 
compromising compliance and ultimately the effectiveness of the 
regulation. Additionally, we have determined that the configuration of 
the proposed rule lacks a solid biological basis (see Response 25). As 
such, we have modified the final rule to better reflect the best 
available information regarding manatee use of this river, which will 
have the additional benefit of assuaging boater concerns for safety.
    Comment 56: Many commentors believe that the economic impacts of 
the rule are underestimated. In particular, several commentors believe 
that the rule fails to properly analyze the full range of businesses 
that will be affected or the cumulative effect of reduced boating in 
Florida resulting from slower speed zones. Some commentors stated that 
the proposed rule does not adequately address how the restrictions will 
affect the dock building industry, restaurants, hotels, and marinas. 
Other commentors indicated that businesses dependent on water access or 
transportation, such as commercial fishing, waterfront restaurants, and 
fishing guides, would be severely impacted and may no longer be 
economically viable. One commentor believes all service industries on 
the Caloosahatchee River would be affected. One commentor believes that 
the economic impact on commercial fishing is dismissed in the analysis. 
Another commentor noted that recreational fishing trips will be 
affected.
    Response 56: The discussion in the proposed rule assesses in a 
qualitative manner the economic effects of the rule to determine if it 
would have a significant economic effect. In order to make this 
determination, we examined the categories of impact that are likely to 
have minor impact and focused on

[[Page 46883]]

activities that are likely to incur the greatest economic impacts. In 
particular, the analysis focuses on recreational and commercial boating 
activities likely to be affected by the rule. We believe that the rule 
will lead to changes in recreational activities based on increased 
travel time and may cause some consumers to forgo some activities. The 
economic impacts associated with these changes are above-and-beyond 
those associated with the system of State-designated manatee protection 
areas already in place in each of the manatee refuges established in 
this rule. For example, some impacts associated with manatee protection 
areas in the Caloosahatchee River are already occurring because of 
existing slow speed zones implemented by the State beginning in 1979. 
The economic impacts of this rule are related only to the inconvenience 
of travel time that is additional to these existing slow speed zones. 
We do not expect that changes in consumer activity related to these 
additional speed zones would result in significant economic impacts. 
Moreover, based on further review by the Service and in response to 
various comments, the extent of the speed zone restrictions initially 
proposed has been reduced in the final rule. Therefore, we continue to 
believe that the economic impact of the speed zones in the final rule 
will not be significant (i.e., over $100 million annually).
    We consider only economic impacts associated with this rule. 
Comments that discuss the overall contribution of industries in general 
do not describe the effects of this proposed rule specifically. In 
addition, the analysis estimates impacts on a broad geographic area. 
Comments that provide information on the impacts to specific sites that 
cannot be generalized to the broad geographic area are not able to be 
incorporated into the current analysis.
    Comment 57: One commentor noted that popular activities such as 
water skiing and wakeboarding will not be possible along the entire 
length of the Caloosahatchee River.
    Response 57: The analysis acknowledges that some recreationists may 
have to travel farther to participate in certain activities or may 
choose to forgo some activities. However, the speed zone restrictions 
imposed by the rule do not preclude participation in any recreational 
activities. Further, based on Caloosahatchee River data, the major use 
of the river is for travel and not waterskiing or wakeboarding 
(Gorzelany, 1998). Thus, it is unlikely that including the number of 
forgone waterskiing and wakeboarding trips resulting from the rule 
would result in a determination of significant economic impact. 
Moreover, based on further review by the Service and in response to 
various comments, the speed zone restrictions initially proposed for 
the Caloosahatchee River and San Carlos Bay have been reduced in the 
final rule. Therefore, the number of forgone waterskiing and 
wakeboarding trips are expected to be minimal, and we continue to 
believe that the economic impact of the speed zones in the final rule 
will not be significant.
    Comment 58: One commentor stated that Clay County is unlikely to 
experience any benefits due to an increase in tourism related to 
manatee viewing because of the shallow and/or brackish nature of the 
water.
    Response 58: While the brackish nature of Doctors Lake and the 
shallow waters of St. Johns River do not lend themselves to manatee 
viewing as well as clear, deep water, there are currently manatee 
viewing points in these areas within the proposed designated manatee 
protection areas. Economic benefits related to increased tourism 
resulting from increased manatee protections afforded by this rule are 
indeed expected to be small, if any occur. The rule does not attempt to 
quantify these benefits, or to assign them to a particular area; 
however, we believe that such benefits may occur as a result of this 
rule.
    Comment 59: One commentor stated that consumer surplus is not 
defined in the proposed rule.
    Response 59: Consumer surplus is an economic measure based on the 
principle that some consumers benefit at current prices because they 
are able to purchase goods and services at a price that is less than 
their total willingness to pay for the good. For example, boaters may 
incur consumer surplus benefits when they can drive at faster speeds on 
the water because their enjoyment of the boating experience increases. 
Due to lack of available data, the Service did not quantify the net 
change in consumer surplus resulting from this rule.
    Comment 60: One commentor believes that it is incumbent upon the 
Service to perform a cost-benefit analysis in order to determine 
whether the economic impact of the rule is over $100 million.
    Response 60: Agencies should assess the potential costs and 
benefits of significant regulatory actions. Accordingly, the Service 
has performed a preliminary economic analysis and determined that the 
economic impact of designating three additional manatee protection 
areas will not be significant (i.e., over $100 million annually). 
However, a qualitative discussion of the likely costs and benefits is 
found in the Required Determinations section of the preamble. As was 
noted in the proposed rule, and supported by statements of several 
commentors, existing manatee protection regulations in the affected 
areas are already extensive. Based on further review by the Service and 
in response to various comments, the speed zone restrictions proposed 
have been reduced in the final rule. Therefore, we continue to believe 
that the economic impact of the speed zones in the final rule will not 
be significant.
    Comment 61: A number of commentors were concerned that the proposed 
rule would affect property owners' ability to build docks on their 
property.
    Response 61: This rule establishes three manatee protection areas. 
In so doing, we are regulating the speed at which boats can travel in 
certain waters in five counties in Florida. This rule in no way affects 
property owners' ability to build a dock on their property. The Service 
considers it unlikely that property owners would choose not to build a 
dock on their property as a result of this rule.
    Comment 62: A number of commentors were concerned that the proposed 
rule would negatively affect property values. In addition, one 
commentor noted that, despite the introduction of slow speed zones in 
the Tomoka and Halifax Rivers, property values have continued to 
increase. Several commentors believe that property values will increase 
as a result of the rule. Another commentor noted that property values 
on Doctors Lake have risen considerably over the past 10 years during 
which time slow speed zones have been established in the lake. Another 
commentor stated that the impact of the rule could be greater than $100 
million based on the belief that the rule could cause 200 people each 
to decide not to spend $500,000 on a home in Cape Coral because of the 
rule.
    Response 62: We determined the economic impact of the proposed rule 
by considering the net effect of the rule on the housing market. The 
analysis is not based on a single site-specific study. However, we do 
believe that more information is needed to better understand the impact 
of manatee protection areas on property values in specific areas. Given 
the timeframe of the analysis, performing primary research such as an 
original study of property values is not feasible.
    Comment 63: One commentor stated that our analysis was based on the 
Bell and McLean (1997) study, which they believe is suspect and out-of-
date.

[[Page 46884]]

    Response 63: There is very little published information available 
regarding the impact of slow speed zones on property values. We believe 
that more information is needed to better understand the impact of 
manatee protection areas on property values in specific areas. Given 
the timeframe of the analysis, performing primary research, such as an 
original study of property values, was not feasible. The study by Bell 
and McLean appears to be one of the few studies and the most recent 
study addressing this issue.
    Comment 64: Several commentors suggested that tax revenues from a 
loss in property values could be negatively impacted by the rule. That 
is, property value reductions in an area may lead to lower real estate 
and other tax revenues.
    Response 64: While some existing properties may realize a gain in 
value (thereby generating greater tax revenues), other properties may 
experience a loss in value (thereby reducing tax revenues). Given the 
lack of data, it is difficult to know the magnitude of this overall 
effect. However, the Bell and McLean (1997) study suggests that 
property values may increase with slow speed zone implementation, which 
would lead to increased tax revenue. However, given the timeframe of 
the analysis, performing the primary research to determine the overall 
effect was not feasible.
    Comment 65: One commentor believes the rule to be a major rule 
(will have an annual impact of more than $100 million on the economy), 
given that it threatens the recreation of 1.4 million boaters in 
Florida and a $15 billion marine industry in Florida.
    Response 65: It appears that the commentor's boater and marine 
industry information is based on a 2001 study performed by Thomas J. 
Murray and Associates for the Marine Industries Association of Florida, 
titled ``Florida's Recreational Marine Industry--Economic Impact and 
Growth 1980-2000'' (no citation was provided). This study conducts a 
regional economic impact of retail sales by motorboat and yacht dealers 
in the State of Florida (Revenue Kind Code 28). The analysis estimates 
the direct, indirect, and induced impacts associated with this sector 
to calculate the $14.1 billion economic impact. We have focused on the 
economic impact likely resulting from the rule--those impacts 
associated with a reduction in marine recreational and commercial 
fishing activities due to slow speed zones. Murray et al. measures an 
impact not associated with the proposed rule; thus, these impacts have 
not been incorporated into the analysis.
    Comment 66: The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy 
(SBA-Advocacy) recommends that the Service complete an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    Response 66: This screening-level study indicates that changes to 
existing speed zones would affect a number of small entities, but the 
economic impacts would not be to a substantial number of entities. In 
addition, we believe that the rule would not have a significant 
economic impact on these affected entities. Because we certify that 
this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is 
not required.
    Comment 67: SBA-Advocacy recommends that the Service refine its 
analysis in order to determine whether a substantial number of small 
entities will be significantly affected by the rule. In particular, 
SBA-Advocacy suggests revising the analysis to focus exclusively on 
entities affected by the rule.
    Response 67: Based on a review of publicly available data sources, 
the data that would be needed to satisfy SBA-Advocacy's concerns are 
not available. Alternative analyses, different from the one described 
in the proposed rule, could be conducted; however, none of these 
analyses would be able to produce the level of detail recommended by 
SBA-Advocacy.
    Comment 68: SBA-Advocacy has indicated that, as a result of 
preliminary outreach conducted, a substantial number of small entities 
will face significant economic impacts from the rule. Affected entities 
identified generally by SBA-Advocacy include charter fishing companies, 
a ferry company, a boat builder, harbor facilities, restaurants, marine 
construction firms, and realtors. SBA-Advocacy recommended that the 
Service conduct outreach to affected small entities to obtain 
information on the potential impacts of the proposed rule and to 
solicit input on alternatives to minimize regulatory burdens imposed on 
small entities.
    Response 68: While we agree that there is the potential for an 
economic effect on a number of small entities in the affected area, 
information on the total number of small businesses in the affected 
area does not exist. Conducting outreach efforts to obtain data on the 
impact to small entities, beyond providing a public review comment 
period, would require a level of effort that is incompatible with the 
timeframe of the rule. In addition, we received no comments during the 
public comment that included information on substantial numbers of 
entities impacted, or significant impacts.
    Furthermore, Federal courts and Congress have indicated that a 
Regulatory Flexibility Act/Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act (RFA/SBREFA) analysis should be limited to direct and 
indirect impacts on entities subject to the requirements of the 
regulation. As such, entities not directly regulated by the proposed 
establishment of manatee protection areas need not be considered in 
this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis. For example, SBA-Advocacy suggested 
impacts on restaurants and realtors should be considered; however, 
these entities are not subject to the restrictions on speed at which a 
boat can travel, and are therefore correctly excluded from the 
analysis.
    Comment 69: One commentor suggested his fast ferry business would 
experience dire effects from the regulation. Another commentor 
suggested his jet ski business would be negatively affected. Other 
commentors suggested that the rule would impact small businesses.
    Response 69: Because of its location in Fort Myers, this ferry 
service is currently incurring costs related to speed zones affecting 
its travel time. The commentor did not provide a specific estimate of 
how much time would be added to his trip that would impact the value of 
his business. While the length of a trip aboard this ferry service will 
be affected, it may still be the fastest alternative available to 
consumers and consumers may still choose this option. Given available 
information, it is difficult to determine whether this business will be 
significantly affected. Because the jet ski business indicated that 
personal watercraft sales and service are only approximately 20 percent 
of revenues for this business and the expected reduction in sales and 
service related to jet skis is 17 to 25 percent, the expected overall 
impact on revenues would be less than 5 percent. Based on further 
review by the Service and in response to various comments, the speed 
zone restrictions initially proposed have been reduced in the final 
rule. Therefore, the impacts anticipated by the commentors will likely 
also be reduced correspondingly. Given our analysis of available 
information, we continue to believe that the economic impact of the 
speed zones in the final rule will not result in significant impacts to 
a substantial number of small entities.

[[Page 46885]]

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    In the Caloosahatchee River-San Carlos Bay Manatee Refuge, we have 
reduced the length of the seasonal slow speed area of the channel from 
the Seaboard Coastline Railroad trestle. This portion of the manatee 
protection area was proposed to be approximately 7.2 km (4.5 miles) in 
length and has been reduced to approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mile). Based 
on the comments as well as a more thorough evaluation by our 
biologists, we have modified our proposed rule to better reflect the 
best available information regarding manatee use of this area. The 
final rule designates the portion of the Caloosahatchee River 
navigation channel from the Seaboard Coastline Railroad trestle 
downstream to Channel Marker ``25'' to be slow speed in the channel 
from November 15 to March 31, and not more than 25 mph in the remainder 
of the year.
    Aerial survey data indicate that manatees do occur throughout this 
portion of the river throughout the year. However, the analysis of 
available data by FMRI (FWCC 2002) indicates that manatees are less 
likely to occur near the navigation channel downstream of the general 
area of Marker ``25.'' This generally coincides with the change in the 
physiography of the river in this area. The river narrows upstream of 
Channel Marker ``25'' and Beautiful Island and other smaller islands 
act to further constrict the river. This explains the change in manatee 
distribution at this point in the river. Manatees are more likely to be 
found in and near the navigation channel upstream of Marker ``25'' than 
downstream. This fact, combined with the above-referenced lower level 
of boat traffic in this portion of the river relative to areas further 
downstream, led us to conclude that the existing regulations downstream 
of Marker ``25'' were sufficient, whereas increased protection is 
warranted between Marker ``25'' and the railroad trestle.
    In three segments of the main body of the river, we are 
establishing ``slow speed'' shoreline buffers similar to the existing 
0.40-km (0.25-mile) shoreline buffers, and are establishing a speed 
limit not to exceed 40 km per hour (25 mph) between the buffers. In the 
proposed regulations, the shoreline slow speed buffers would have 
extended out to within 91 meters (300 feet) of the marked navigation 
channel. We conducted a more detailed review of the recent special 
study of the Caloosahatchee River by the Florida Marine Research 
Institute (FWCC 2002) and it appears that the majority of manatee use 
in this area occurs within the current 0.40 km (0.25 mile) shoreline 
buffer. We believe these changes better reflect the known shoreline use 
patterns of manatees, allow boaters to have more time to avoid manatees 
should they be encountered between the buffers, and provide manatees 
greater time to react to oncoming vessels. Our final regulation states 
that the slow speed shoreline buffers will have a minimum width of 0.40 
km (0.25 mile), as marked, recognizing that in some locations signage 
may be placed at a slightly greater distance from shore in order to 
provide a more easily identifiable boundary.
    While we acknowledge that water depths of 6 feet or greater afford 
manatees greater opportunity to avoid collisions with watercraft, it 
does not appear that the 6-foot contour line approximates manatee 
distribution in this portion of the river, as this contour extends a 
great distance from shore in this area (particularly from the western 
shoreline), whereas manatee aerial survey data show manatee use 
concentrated closer (generally within 0.40 km (0.25 mile)) to shore.
    For the portion of the Caloosahatchee River--San Carlos Bay Refuge 
between the Caloosahatchee River Bridge and the Cape Coral Bridge, we 
have concluded that the waterborne activities to be regulated per this 
rule need not include seaplanes. After reviewing the information 
provided during the public comment period, we have concluded that the 
seaplane business currently operating on the Caloosahatchee River poses 
an insignificant and discountable threat to manatees. Based on 
information provided during the public comment period, the seaplanes 
operating at this location take off and land in the middle of the 
river, well outside the existing 0.40 km (0.25 mile) buffer zone. This 
portion of the river does not receive significant manatee use, based on 
review of aerial survey and telemetry data. During take-off and 
landing, the seaplanes are operating at speeds in excess of 40 km per 
hour (25 mph) for no more than a few seconds over a distance of 
approximately 457 meters (1,500 feet). Given the location on the river 
and the short distance involved, it is exceedingly unlikely that 
seaplanes would encounter manatees while taking off and landing. As 
such, the final rule has been modified to state that, in this portion 
of the Caloosahatchee River, all watercraft, except seaplanes, are 
required to operate at speeds less than 25 mph.
    At Redfish Point, we are reducing the downstream extent of the 
shoreline to shoreline slow speed zone from Channel Marker ``82'' to 
Channel Marker ``76.'' This better reflects the known manatee use 
patterns and provides a slow speed corridor for manatees crossing 
between the canals of Cape Coral and Deep Lagoon. We conducted a more 
detailed review of the available data and concluded that sufficient 
manatee protection could be achieved in this area by reconfiguring and 
shortening the slow speed zone. Our analysis of aerial and telemetry 
data indicates that manatee use is greatest between Channel Markers 
``72'' and ``76.''
    In San Carlos Bay, the navigation channel and adjacent waters from 
Channel Marker ``99'' south to the Sanibel Causeway will be excluded 
from regulation. The proposal to make this slow speed would have 
potentially done more harm than good for manatees utilizing the shallow 
seagrass flats of San Carlos Bay because the high volume of traffic 
would likely be diverted to the ``Miserable Mile'' channel where the 
manatees occur in the adjacent shallow seagrass flats. The diversion of 
a high volume of watercraft traffic into an already-congested channel 
may have also created a human safety issue. The final designation 
protects the known areas of high manatee use in San Carlos Bay.
    In the Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge, we have reduced the 
downstream extent of the manatee protection area from Reddie Point to 
Channel Marker ``73,'' a distance of about 1.6 kilometers (1 mile). 
Existing manatee protection measures downstream of Channel Marker 
``73'' to Reddie Point are sufficient, provided that signage is 
improved by the State, and moving the boundary will improve compliance 
in the area without compromising manatee protection. We intend to work 
with the State to improve the signage in the Reddie Point area.
    Shoreline buffers in the St. Johns River upstream of the Fuller 
Warren Bridge have been revised to be from 213 to 305 meters (700 to 
1,000 feet) in the river (as marked) and 213 to 274 meters (700 to 900 
feet) in Doctors Lake (as marked). This will encompass the areas of 
highest known manatee use. The adopted zone width will allow us to 
approximate the current manatee protection area configuration, remedy 
the posting issue with the current zones, and minimize any perceived 
increased risk to human safety in Doctors Lake as a result of our 
action.
    In the Halifax and Tomoka Rivers Manatee Refuge, there have been 
several

[[Page 46886]]

changes. In the Tomoka River we are including only a seasonal slow 
speed zone in the area currently designated as 40 km per hour (25 mph) 
immediately downstream of the I-95 bridge. This will protect manatees 
during their highest use period. We believe the existing slow and idle 
speed zones in the river to be adequate and the year-round zones are 
possibly more restrictive than necessary given the seasonality of 
manatee use.
    We are maintaining the current 91-meter (300-foot) slow speed 
buffer zones in much of the river and are adopting a 40-km-per-hour 
(25-mph) speed limit between the buffers. This will provide sufficient 
protection in areas known to be used by manatees and will improve 
compliance by making the zones easier to understand. It will also avoid 
creating any additional safety risks to boaters as a result of our 
action. We had proposed a 305-meter (1,000-foot) buffer in many of 
these areas. In some cases, these buffers could have compressed high-
speed use into very small areas as much of the river is very close to 
610 meters (2,000 feet) wide. The practical effect of our proposed rule 
would have been to make the river slow speed outside the ICW channel. 
In areas where the river is somewhat wider than 2,000 feet, the 
proposed rule would have created unregulated ``pockets'' that would 
have been difficult or impossible to regulate, and would have been of 
no practical use to boaters. While our stated intent in proposing a 
1,000-foot shoreline buffer was, in part, to make the regulations in 
this area more understandable and enforceable, the proposed rule would 
have actually had the opposite effect by creating the unregulated 
``pockets'' discussed above, thereby, potentially compromising manatee 
protection instead of enhancing it. Additionally, the FWCC noted that 
manatee use data for this portion of Volusia County are limited and 
dated. We agree and further note that the limited available data do not 
support the need for a ``slow-speed outside the channel'' designation. 
We have, therefore, concluded that establishment of a 1,000-foot 
shoreline buffer is not prudent.
    Subsequent to the publication of the proposed rule, we also 
examined possible alternatives for expanding the shoreline buffers to 
some other distance from shoreline. As stated previously, wider buffers 
are generally more protective; so expansion of the existing 300-foot 
buffer to some greater distance would arguably improve manatee 
protection. As indicated above, the widest possible buffer for the 
Halifax River would have been 1,000 feet (as proposed), or slow speed 
outside the channel for all practical purposes, which was determined to 
be unwarranted. Additionally, the quality of the available data is such 
that we cannot conclude that substantial evidence supports expansion of 
the shoreline buffer to some distance other than the currently 
designated 300 feet. In other words, we conclude that the selection of 
some other width for the shoreline buffer would be arbitrary. We 
support the FWCC's ongoing efforts to collect additional data regarding 
manatee distribution and habitat use in this area, in order to provide 
for better informed decisionmaking.
    In other portions of the Halifax River and adjacent waterbodies 
north and south of Ponce Inlet, we are placing a 40-km-per-hour (25-
mph) cap on speeds not more restrictively regulated. We had proposed 
slow speed outside of marked channels in many of these areas.
    The key features of this final designation in the Halifax and 
Tomoka Rivers are the elimination or modification of watersports areas 
and slowing boat speeds around the bridges' areas, which may function 
as pinch points where manatees and boats are forced into close 
proximity. We believe these are the areas that are most problematic for 
manatees within the original proposal and are the measures necessary to 
avoid take of manatees.

Areas Designated as Manatee Refuges

Caloosahatchee River--San Carlos Bay Manatee Refuge

    We are establishing a manatee refuge in portions of 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 Channel Marker ``25,'' a distance of 
approximately 1.6 km (1 mile), 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 402 meters (1,320 feet), as marked. 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, with the 
exception of seaplanes;
    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 outside the marked navigation channel and a speed limit of not 
more than 40 km per hour (25mph) in the channel, 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), year-round, slow speed shoreline buffers extending out to a 
minimum distance of approximately 402 meters (1,320 feet), as marked. 
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;
    f. from Channel Marker ``72'' to Channel Marker ``76'' (in the 
vicinity of Redfish Point), for a distance of approximately 1.8 
kilometers (1.1 miles) in length, slow speed year-round shoreline-to-
shoreline, including the marked navigation channel;
    g. from Channel Marker ``76'' to Channel Marker ``93,'' a distance 
of approximately 5.2 kilometers (3.2 miles), in length, year-round, 
slow speed shoreline buffers extending out to a minimum distance of 
approximately 402 meters (1,320 feet), as marked. 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; and
    h. In San Carlos Bay, from Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel 
Causeway, slow speed year-round 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 Channel Marker ``7''

[[Page 46887]]

(approximately 2.9 kilometers (1.8 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). However this area excludes the 
marked navigation channel from Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel 
Causeway and adjacent waters, as marked.
    Manatee presence has been documented in the designated areas 
through aerial surveys, photo-identification studies, telemetry 
studies, and a carcass salvage program (FWCC 2002). Per these data and 
analysis, it is apparent the Caloosahatchee River is used throughout 
its length throughout the year by manatees. Primary winter-use areas 
include the Florida Power and Light Company's Fort Myers Power Plant 
and Matlacha Pass, upstream and downstream (respectively) of the 
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, manatee use is concentrated within the existing 
402-meter (0.25-mile) buffer. They 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.
    A more in-depth analysis of the telemetry data indicates that 
manatees appear to travel along shallow areas relatively close (within 
approximately 402 meters or 0.25 miles) to shore and cross the river in 
narrow areas near Redfish Point and Shell Point (FWCC 2002). 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 these findings, 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 carcasses have been 
recovered east of the railroad trestle and seven have been recovered in 
San Carlos Bay since 2000, including two watercraft-related carcasses 
in San Carlos Bay since July 2001, when State speed zones were marked 
(FWCC: FMRI Manatee Mortality Database, 2003). From January 1, 2003, to 
June 30, 2003, there have been 7 watercraft-related manatee mortalities 
in Lee County, one of which occurred in the Caloosahatchee River.
    We believe the measures in this regulation will improve manatee 
protection in the Caloosahatchee River and San Carlos Bay and are 
necessary to prevent the take of at least one manatee in this area by 
harassment, injury, and/or mortality by extending coverage and/or 
improving upon existing protection measures in areas used by manatees.

Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge

    We are establishing 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 Channel Marker ``73'' 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 Channel Marker ``73'' upstream to the Main Street Bridge, a 
distance of approximately 16.8 kilometers (10.4 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 bridge fenders 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 213- to 305-meter (700- 
to 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 213- to 274-meter (700- to 
900-foot) shoreline buffer (approximately 20.8 km or 12.9 miles); and a 
213- to 305-meter (700- to 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 manatee protection area; 
the extent of use varies by habitat type and time of

[[Page 46888]]

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 (typically within 213 meters or 700 feet 
of shore) 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 refuge, these man-made 
attractants no longer exist.
    Vessel speeds are currently restricted throughout the 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 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 upstream 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 carcasses were recovered within 
the manatee protection area. Of these, 24 were recovered between 
Channel Marker ``73'' 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 carcasses have been recovered in that 
portion of the river where manatees and boats are most constricted 
(FWCC 2003). From 1994 to 2001, when the area was protected under the 
initial State rule, watercraft-related manatee deaths averaged two per 
year between Channel Marker ``73'' and the Fuller Warren Bridge. In 
2002, subsequent to adoption of the current rule, one watercraft-
related carcass was documented in this area; a single watercraft-
related carcass was recovered upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge in 
2001.
    We believe the measures in this regulation will improve manatee 
protection in the Lower St. Johns River and are necessary to prevent 
the taking of at least one manatee in this area through harassment, 
injury, and/or mortality. The regulation extends coverage to currently 
unprotected areas used by manatees, improves the ability of the public 
to comply with the vessel operation restrictions, and improves the 
ability of law enforcement personnel to enforce the restrictions. The 
configuration is 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 regulation 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 establishing a manatee refuge in portions of 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, 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, not more than 
40 km per hour (25 mph) in areas between the existing 91-meter (300-
foot) buffers (and including the marked navigation channel);
    c. in the Tomoka River, the current 40-km-per-hour (25-mph) zone 
approximately 1.6 km (1 mile) downstream of the I-95 bridge will be 
slow speed shoreline to shoreline from April 1 through August 31;
    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, not 
more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in areas between the existing 91-
meter (300-foot) buffers, and including the marked navigation channel;
    f. from 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Seabreeze Bridge, to 152 
meters (500 feet) north of the Main Street Bridge, a distance of 
approximately 1 km (0.6 miles) in length, slow speed, year-round, 
channel included;
    g. from Channel Marker ``40'' south of the Seabreeze Bridge to a 
point a minimum of 152 meters (500 feet) north, as marked, of the 
Dunlawton Bridge, a distance of approximately 6.6 kilometers (4.1 
miles) in length, not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in areas 
between the existing 91-meter (300-foot) buffers, and including the 
marked navigation channel;
    h. from a minimum of 152 meters (500 feet) north, as marked, to a 
minimum of 152 meters (500 feet) south, as marked, of the Dunlawton 
Bridge, a distance of approximately 0.3 km (0.2 miles) in length, slow 
speed, year-round, channel included. The existing 30-meter (100-foot) 
shoreline buffer immediately north and west of the bridge/causeway for 
a distance of approximately 640 meters (2,100 feet) would also be 
increased to 91 meters (300 feet) as marked;
    i. from a minimum of 152 meters (500 feet) south, as marked, of the 
Dunlawton Bridge to Ponce Inlet, a distance of approximately 10.5 km 
(6.5 miles) in length, not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in waters 
not more restrictively designated; along the western shore of the 
Halifax River, a distance of approximately 3.1 km (1.9 miles), not more 
than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the waters not more restrictively 
designated; in Rose Bay, a distance of approximately 2.7 km (1.7 
miles), not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in waters not more 
restrictively designated; in Turnbull Bay, a distance of approximately 
3.9 km (2.4 miles), not more than 40 km per

[[Page 46889]]

hour (25 mph) in waters not more restrictively designated; and
    j. in the Intracoastal Waterway and adjacent waters 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, 2003). In general, manatees primarily use the 
Halifax River as a travel corridor (Deutsch et al., 1998 and Deutsch et 
al., 2000); manatees use the downtown Daytona Beach area marinas as a 
source of drinking water and may calve there. 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 et al., 1998 and Deutsch et al., 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 
carcasses attributed to watercraft were recovered in coastal Volusia 
County, (including 6 in the Tomoka River system and 16 in the Halifax 
River). Twenty of these carcasses were recovered over the past 10 years 
and seven of these over the past 2 years. Three of the watercraft-
related carcasses were found 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 
final refuge. Fifteen watercraft-related manatee carcasses were 
recovered within the area of the final refuge since the State 
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 measures in this regulation will improve manatee 
protection in the Halifax and Tomoka Rivers and will prevent the take 
of at least one manatee in this area through harassment, injury, and/or 
mortality by reducing boat speeds in areas used by manatees, and by 
improving the ability of the public to understand and, thus, comply 
with protection measures through simplification of restrictions.

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 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 quantitative assessment of 
the costs and benefits is not required, nor is consideration of 
alternatives. It is not expected that any significant economic impacts 
would result from the establishment of three manatee refuges 
(approximately 141.6 river km (87.8 river miles)) in five counties in 
the State of Florida.
    The purpose of this rule is 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 preventing take of manatees by controlling certain human activity 
in these three areas. For the three manatee refuges, the areas are 
year-round or seasonal slow speed, or speed limits of 40 km per hour 
(25 mph). Affected waterborne activities include transiting, cruising, 
water skiing, fishing, and the use of all water vehicles. This rule 
will impact recreational boaters, commercial charter boats, and 
commercial fishermen, primarily in the form of restrictions on boat 
speeds in specific areas. We will experience increased administrative 
costs due to this rule. Conversely, the rule may also 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 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 
manatee refuges. Thus, the 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 manatee refuge areas. These speed zone 
changes are summarized below.
    In Lee County, in the Caloosahatchee River area, the designation of 
the Caloosahatchee-San Carlos Bay Manatee Refuge results in the 
following changes:
    [sbull] The portion of the channel from the Seaboard Coastline 
Railroad trestle at Beautiful Island, downstream to Channel Marker 
``25'' changes from a 40 km per hour (25 mph) limit to seasonal 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.
    [sbull] The portion of the channel 152 meters (500 feet) east and 
west of the Edison/ Caloosahatchee Bridge complex changes 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 approximate the existing shoreline 
protection configuration (i.e., slow speed within 0.4 km (0.25 mile) 
but limits speeds between the buffers to not more than 40 km per hour 
(25 mph). However, this change also eliminates two unprotected 
shoreline areas along the north shore at and below the Edison/
Caloosahatchee Bridge complex.

[[Page 46890]]

    [sbull] The shore to shore, channel-included buffer, 152 meters 
(500 feet) east and west of Cape Coral Bridge changes from 40 km per 
hour (25 mph) year-round to slow speed year-round, channel excluded.
    [sbull] Between the Cape Coral Bridge and the Shell Island Manatee 
Refuge, shoreline buffers approximate the existing shoreline protection 
configuration (i.e., slow speed within 0.4 km (0.25 mile)) but limits 
speeds between the buffers to not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph). 
The exception to this is from Channel marker ``72'' to Channel marker 
``76,'' where the slow speed zone runs from shoreline to shoreline.
    [sbull] In San Carlos Bay, much of 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 Channel 
Marker ``7'', changes from unregulated to slow speed year-round. The 
exception to this is the navigation channel and adjacent waters, which 
extend from Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel Causeway, and which 
remain unregulated.
    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 
Caloosahatchee River Manatee Refuge affects approximately 25.8 km (16 
river miles) overall. For the most part, the regulation expands 
existing slow speed zones in areas around the bridges, maintains or 
slightly expands shoreline buffers, and slows portions of the 
navigation channel.
    In Duval, Clay, and St. Johns Counties, in the St. Johns River and 
tributaries (including Doctors Lake), the designation of the Lower St. 
Johns River Manatee Refuge results in the following changes from the 
current speed restrictions:
    [sbull] In the downtown Jacksonville area, between Channel marker 
``73'' and the Main Street Bridge, slow speed zones extend out to the 
channel from 91- to 274-meter (300- to 900-foot) shoreline buffers. The 
channel changes 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 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, slow 
speed (channel included).
    [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 change from variable width (152 
meters (500 feet) from shore or 61 meters (200 feet) from the end of 
docks) to between 213-305 meters (700-1,000 feet) as marked. Boat speed 
remains unregulated outside of the buffer.
    [sbull] In Doctors Lake and Inlet, slow speed shoreline buffers 
extend from variable width (152 meters (500 feet) minimum or 61 meters 
(200 feet) beyond docks), to a 213-274 meter (700-900 feet) as marked 
buffer along both shorelines. Boat speed also remains unregulated 
outside of the buffer.
    Overall, the Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge affects 
approximately 56 km (35 miles) of the St. Johns River and adjacent 
waters. In areas upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge, newly protected 
areas extend existing slow speed areas out no more than an additional 
152 meters (500 feet) but will approximate the existing shoreline 
buffer in many areas. Downstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge, shoreline 
buffers will be slightly 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 final rule will result in the following changes from current 
speed restrictions:
    [sbull] The channel in Halifax Creek changes to 40 km per hour (25 
mph) from 48 km per hour (30 mph) (40 km per hour (25 mph) at night).
    [sbull] An approximate 1.6-km (1-mile) reach of the Tomoka River 
downstream of I-95, where the speed restriction was 40 km per hour (25 
mph), changes to a seasonal (April 1 to August 31) slow speed 
restriction.
    [sbull] In the Halifax River from the Tomoka River Basin and the 
southern extent of Halifax Creek to 152 meters (500 feet) north of the 
Seabreeze Bridge (except in the vicinity of the Granada Bridge), the 
speed limit changes from 48 km per hour (30 mph) (40 km per hour (25 
mph) at night) outside the buffer and in the marked navigation channel 
to 40 km per hour (25 mph).
    [sbull] In the vicinity of the Granada Bridge (the SR 40 Bridge), 
the current shore-to-shore, channel-included buffer, 152 meters (500 
feet) north and 305 meters (1,000 feet) south of the bridge, changes 
from a 91-meter (300-foot) slow speed buffer (48 km per hour (30 mph) 
outside of buffer) to slow speed.
    [sbull] The area approximately 152 meters (500 feet) north of the 
Seabreeze Bridge to 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Main Street 
Bridge, changes from slow speed (channel included) excepting the 
watersports area, to slow speed (channel included) (including the 
watersports area) shoreline to shoreline.
    [sbull] Between the shoreline buffers in the Halifax River from 
Channel Marker ``40'' south of the Seabreeze Bridge to a minimum of 152 
meters (500 feet) north, as marked, of the Dunlawton Bridge, the speed 
limit changes from 48 km per hour (30 mph) (40 km per hour (25 mph) at 
night) outside the buffer and in the marked navigation channel to 40 km 
per hour (25 mph).
    [sbull] The shore-to-shore, channel included buffer, a minimum of 
152 meters (500 feet) north and south, as marked, 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. The adjacent western 
shoreline slow speed buffer north of the bridge increases from 30 
meters (100 feet) to 91 meters (300 feet) for a distance of 640 meters 
(2,100 feet).
    [sbull] Waters between the Dunlawton Bridge and Ponce Inlet will 
change from 48 km per hour (30 mph) to 40 km per hour (25 mph) where it 
is not more restrictively designated by existing regulation.
    [sbull] Waters adjacent to Ponce Inlet change from variable zones 
with 48 km per hour (30 mph) within the channel to not more than 40 km 
per hour (25 mph) in waters not more restrictively designated.
    [sbull] The Intracoastal Waterway (Indian River North) and adjacent 
waters from Redland Canal to the A1A Bridge (New Smyrna Beach) 
maintains the existing slow speed (channel included), year round, 
designation but eliminates the existing exception for the New Smyrna 
Beach watersports area.
    Overall, the Halifax River and Tomoka River Manatee Refuge will 
affect approximately 58.2 km (36.1 miles) of Volusia County's 
waterways. The majority of the changes would include reducing the 
maximum speed limit, slowing boats around the bridges, and reducing or 
eliminating watersports zones. The overall impact of the changes would 
be to reduce the likelihood of take of manatees in areas where boats 
and manatees are most likely to interact and to reduce some of the 
complexity of the speed restrictions to be more consistent and clear 
and thus improve compliance.
    In addition to speed zone changes, the rule no longer allows for 
the speed zone exemption process in place under State

[[Page 46891]]

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 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 final Federal speed zones will 
require a formal rulemaking (including publishing a proposed rule in 
the Federal Register, public review, and comment) prior to our making a 
final decision. Based on available information, very few events have 
been permitted to take place 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.
    In order to gauge the economic effect of this rule, both benefits 
and costs must be considered. Potential economic benefits related to 
this rule 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, as well as potential decreased property values. Economic 
costs are 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, 
the rule may have 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 will affect approximately 141.6 km (87.8 
river miles). The extension of slower speed zones in this rule is not 
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 in 
this rule will 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, we 
believe that there is large public support for manatee protection 
regulations.
    It is difficult to apply the results of these studies to this 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 is specific enough to apply to this rule, they provide an 
indication that the public holds substantial value for the protection 
of the manatee.
    Another potential economic benefit is increased tourism resulting 
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 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 produces 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 results from the fact, that in certain areas, boats are 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 will add to 
these areas by extending shoreline buffers and reducing speed limits 
slightly in some channels. Some impacts may be felt by recreationists 
who have to use alternative sites for their activity or who have a 
reduced quality of the waterborne activity experience at the designated 
sites because of the 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

[[Page 46892]]

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 manatee refuges. 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.
    Caloosahatchee River Area: In the 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 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 manatee 
refuge. While the 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 15 
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 an estimated added 
travel time of 20 minutes to 35 minutes (depending on time of the year) 
due to the final 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 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 Lower 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 
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 by not more than 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 regulation. The expanded/
extended buffers are not expected to increase travel times by any more 
than about 8 minutes (one way). The designation will cause some 
inconvenience in travel time, but alternative sites within the 
proximity of 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 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 undesignated 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 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 regulation. The two most popular 
destinations are the Mosquito Lagoon and the Ponce Inlet

[[Page 46893]]

area (Volusia County Environmental Management, 2002). Recreationists 
engaging in fishing or traveling may experience some inconvenience by 
having to go slower; 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 affected by the 
designation is waterskiing. A ski club has used the river in an area 
currently designated at 40 km per hour (25 mph). This will change to 
slow speed for a portion of the year. 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 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 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 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 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 expanded shoreline buffer, or in the Ponce Inlet 
vicinity, approximately 20 km (12.5 miles) downriver. Under the 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 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 these boats 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 rule 
(Volusia County, 2003).

Affected Commercial Fishing Activities

    Several commercial fisheries may experience some impact due to the 
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 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 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 rule on the commercial fishing industry for each manatee refuge 
area.
    One industry in particular that may be affected by the 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 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 minimally impacted by limited extension of slow speed 
areas. In slow speed areas crab boats have to travel at slower speeds 
between crab pots, thereby potentially reducing the number

[[Page 46894]]

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 slightly affected by 
extension of some existing slow speed zones (FWCC, 2003a).
    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 very small portion of this value is likely to be 
affected, as the activity will still occur but with some limited 
changes due 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 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 regulation closed down the entire fishery, which is not 
the case.
    In Lee County, commercial mullet fishing is also occurring in the 
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 likely 
to have a very limited effect on mullet fishing. 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 very 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 rule is unknown.
    St. Johns River Area: In the Lower 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 
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 not more than 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 are newly designated 
speed zones under this rule is unknown. The county-wide figures provide 
an upper bound estimate of the economic impact on this fishery; this 
would assume that the 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 approaches the 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 some 
limited commercial bait shrimping occurs 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 rule is unknown. The county-wide 
figures provide an upper bound estimate of the economic impact on this 
fishery; this would assume that the regulation closed down the entire 
fishery, which is not the case.
    Halifax River and Tomoka River Area: In Volusia County, the Halifax 
River and Tomoka River Manatee Refuge includes a variety of waterways, 
including the Tomoka River, the Tomoka Basin, Halifax Creek, and the 
Halifax River. In these areas, it is likely that blue crab and mullet 
fishing activities will be impacted by the speed zones. As discussed 
above for Lee County, crab boats will have to travel at slower

[[Page 46895]]

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 
corridor is available for boats to travel up to 25 mph. The 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 are newly designated speed zones under this 
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 very 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 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 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 designation will 
likely affect commercial fishermen by way of added travel time, which 
may result in an economic impact. However, because the manatee refuge 
designations will not prohibit any commercial fishing activity, and 
because there is a corridor available for boats to travel up to 40 km 
per hour (25 mph) in most affected areas, it is unlikely that the 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 manatee refuges is not known, the cost of manufacturing and posting 
signs to delineate the manatee refuges in this rule is 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 rule will affect 
approximately 156 kilometers (97 river miles). The speed restrictions 
on approximately 156 km (97 miles) of 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 156 km (97 miles) is 
not expected to affect waterborne activity to the extent that it would 
have a significant economic impact. The 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. Water skiers in the Tomoka River will 
likely experience the greatest inconvenience in terms of added travel 
time, as travel by water to the nearest alternative site could take 
approximately 2\1/2\ hours depending on time of year. 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 in some areas 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 designating 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 sites would result 
from this rule, but the restriction is believed to enhance manatee 
viewing opportunities. No entitlements, grants, user fees, loan 
programs or effects on the rights and obligations of their recipients 
are expected to occur.
    d. This rule does not raise novel legal or policy issues. We have 
previously established other manatee protection areas.

[[Page 46896]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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 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 recreationist's 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 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.
    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 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                    Amusement and recreation      Fishing industry
                                              10-year                       annual    Total earnings      industry earnings             earnings
                                Per capita     annual    Total personal   growth of    by industry-- ---------------------------------------------------
           Counties              personal    growth of     income 2000      total     all industries
                               income 2000   per capita      (000$)        personal       (000$)       Thousands    Percent of   Thousands    Percent of
                                   ($)       income \a\                   income \a\                   of dollars     total      of dollars     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          (b)           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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/).
 aGrowth rates were calculated from 1990 and 2000 personal income data.
 bBEA has withheld this information in order to avoid disclosure of confidential information.

    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 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)
    [sbull] Non-classifiable establishments (NCE)

[[Page 46897]]



                                                       Table 2.--Employment Characteristics of the Five Affected Counties in Florida--1997
                                                                         (Includes SIC Codes 09, 44, 59, 79, and NCE\a\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                         Select SIC Codes (Includes SIC Codes 09, 44, 59, 79, and NCE\a\)
                                                                      Total Mid-     Mid-March         Total     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        March      employment\b\  establishments                     Number of       Number of       Number of       Number of
                             Counties                               employment\b\   (select SIC        (all            Total      establishments  establishments  establishments  establishments
                                                                         (all          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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census County Business Patterns (http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html).
 \a\ 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
 \b\ Table provides the high-end estimate whenever the Census provides a range of mid-March employment figures for select counties and SIC codes.

    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 rule. Any 
economic impacts associated with this rule will affect some proportion 
of these small entities.
    Since the 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 
route 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 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 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 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.
    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) routes 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.

[[Page 46898]]

Added travel time to traverse some areas is not expected to be a major 
factor that will impact business activity.

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 less than 
11.2 km (7 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 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 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. An 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 rule is available 
upon request from the Jacksonville Field Office (see ADDRESSES 
section).

Author

    The primary authors of this document are Stefanie Barrett, James 
Valade, Peter Benjamin, Kalani Cairns, and David Hankla (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.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
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.


0
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 Channel Marker ``25'', a distance of 
approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile), 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 (km/h) (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 minimum distance of approximately

[[Page 46899]]

402 meters (1,320 feet), as marked. Watercraft, with the exception of 
seaplanes, are required to proceed at not more than 40 km/h (25 miles 
per hour) throughout the year between these buffers (including the 
marked navigation channel where not more restrictively designated). 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 (excluding the marked navigation 
channel), watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed, year-round. 
In the marked navigation channel, watercraft are required to proceed at 
not more than 40 km/h (25 miles per hour) throughout the year. 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 year-round 
at slow speed, while traveling within shoreline buffers extending out 
from the shore to a minimum distance of approximately 402 meters (1,320 
feet), as marked. Watercraft are required to proceed at not more than 
40 km/h (25 miles per hour) throughout the year between these buffers 
(including the marked navigation channel where not more restrictively 
designated). See map of ``Redfish Point Area'' in paragraph (12)(x) of 
this section.
    (vii) From Channel Marker ``72'' to Channel Marker ``76'' (in the 
vicinity of Redfish Point), for a distance of approximately 1.8 
kilometers (1.1 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 ``76'' to Channel Marker ``93,'' a 
distance of approximately 5.2 kilometers (3.2 miles) in length, 
watercraft are required to proceed year-round at slow speed, while 
traveling within shoreline buffers extending out from the shore to a 
minimum distance of approximately 402 meters (1,320 feet), as marked. 
Watercraft are required to proceed at not more than 40 km/h (25 miles 
per hour) throughout the year between these buffers (including the 
marked navigation channel where not more restrictively designated). See 
map of ``Redfish Point Area'' in paragraph (12)(x) of this section.
    (ix) Except as described below and as marked, 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 Channel 
Marker ``7'' (approximately 2.9 kilometers (1.8 miles) in length); and 
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). However this area excludes the 
marked navigation channel from Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel 
Causeway and adjacent waters, as marked. 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 46900]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.058


[[Page 46901]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.059


[[Page 46902]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.060


[[Page 46903]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.061


[[Page 46904]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.062

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    (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 from approximately Channel Marker ``73'', as marked, 
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 Channel Marker ``73'' upstream to the Main Street Bridge, 
a distance of approximately 16.8 kilometers (or 10.4 miles), watercraft 
are required to proceed at slow speed, year-round, outside the marked 
navigation channel and at speeds of not more than 40 km/h (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 fenders 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), shoreline to 
shoreline, 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 213-meter (700-foot) 
to 305-meter (1,000-foot) as-marked, watercraft are required to proceed 
at 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, watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed, year-
round, along a 213-meter (700-foot) to 274-meter (900-foot) as-marked, 
shoreline buffer (approximately 20.8 kilometers (12.9 miles)); and a 
213-meter (700-foot) to 305-meter (1,000-foot) as-marked, watercraft 
are required to proceed at 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. 
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 46905]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.063


[[Page 46906]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.064


[[Page 46907]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.065

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
    (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 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) (xii) 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 
not more than 40 km/h (km/h)(25 miles per hour) in the channel. See 
maps of ``Halifax Creek'' and ``Tomoka River Basin'' in paragraph (14) 
(xii) 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 km (3.1 miles) in length, 
watercraft are required to proceed at not more than 40 km/h (25 mph) in 
areas between the existing 91-meter (300-foot) buffers (and including 
the marked navigation channel). See maps of ``Tomoka River Basin'' and 
``Tomoka River'' in paragraph (14) (xii) of this section.
    (iv) In the Tomoka River, from the I-95 Bridge to Alligator Island, 
as marked, a distance of approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile), 
watercraft are required to proceed at slow speed, shoreline to 
shoreline, from April 1 to August 31. See map of ``Tomoka River'' in 
paragraph (14) (xii) 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, watercraft are 
required to proceed at slow speed, year-round, shoreline to shoreline. 
See map of ``Halifax River A'' in paragraph (14) (xii) 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 km (4.0 miles) in 
length, watercraft are required to proceed at not more than 40 km/h (25 
mph) in areas between the existing 91-meter (300-foot) buffers (and 
including the marked navigation channel). See map of ``Halifax River 
A'' in paragraph (14) (xii) of this section.

[[Page 46908]]

    (vii) As marked, from 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Seabreeze 
Bridge, to 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Main Street bridge, a 
distance of approximately 1 kilometer (1 mile) in length, watercraft 
are required to proceed at slow speed (channel included), year-round. 
See map of ``Halifax River B'' in paragraph (14) (xii) of this section.
    (viii) From Channel Marker ``40'' to a point a minimum of 152 
meters (500 feet) north, as marked, of the Dunlawton Bridge, a distance 
of approximately 14.5 kilometers (9 miles) in length, watercraft are 
required to proceed at not more than 40 km/h (25 mph) in areas between 
the existing 91-meter (300-foot) buffers (and including the marked 
navigation channel). See map of ``Halifax River B'' in paragraph (14) 
(xii) of this section.
    (ix) As marked, a minimum of 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, watercraft are 
required to proceed at slow speed (channel included), year-round, 
shoreline to shoreline; and adjacent to the western shoreline of the 
Halifax River north of the Dunlawton Bridge for a distance of 
approximately 640 meters (2,100 feet), and a minimum of 91 meters (300 
feet) from shore, as marked, watercraft are required to proceed at slow 
speed, year-round. See map of ``Halifax River B'' in paragraph (14) 
(xii) of this section.
    (x) As marked, from a minimum of 152 meters (500 feet) south of the 
Dunlawton Bridge to Redland Canal, a distance of approximately 10.5 
kilometers (6.5 miles) in length, watercraft are required to proceed at 
not more than 40 km/h (25 mph) in waters not more restrictively 
designated; along the western shore of the Halifax River, a distance of 
approximately 3.1 km (1.95 miles), watercraft are required to proceed 
at not more than 40 km/h (25 mph) in the waters not more restrictively 
designated; in Rose Bay, a distance of approximately 2.7 km (1.7 
miles), watercraft are required to proceed at not more than 40 km/h (25 
mph) in waters not more restrictively designated; in Turnbull Bay, a 
distance of approximately 3.9 km (2.4 miles), watercraft are required 
to proceed at not more than 40 km/h (25 mph) in waters not more 
restrictively designated. See maps of ``Ponce Inlet Area A,'' ``Ponce 
Inlet Area B,'' and ``Ponce Inlet Area C'' in paragraph (14) (xii) of 
this section.
    (xi) As marked, in the Intracoastal Waterway and adjacent waters 
from Redland Canal to the A1A Bridge (New Smyrna Beach, for a distance 
of approximately 5.3 kilometers (3.3 miles) in length, watercraft are 
required to proceed at slow speed (channel included), year-round. See 
map of ``Ponce Inlet Area B'' in paragraph (14) (xii) of this section.
    (xii) Nine maps of the Halifax and Tomoka Rivers Manatee Refuge 
follow:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 46909]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.066


[[Page 46910]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.067


[[Page 46911]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.068


[[Page 46912]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.069


[[Page 46913]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.070


[[Page 46914]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.071


[[Page 46915]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.072


[[Page 46916]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.073


[[Page 46917]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06AU03.074


    Dated: July 29, 2003.
Craig Manson,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 03-19913 Filed 8-5-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C