Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

CFR Citation: 50 CFR Part 17

RIN ID: RIN 1018-AJ06

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of Three Additional Manatee Protection Areas in Florida

DATES: We will consider comments on both the proposed rule and the draft environmental assessment that are received by June 3, 2003. We will hold public hearings on Tuesday, May 13, in Ft. Myers, FL; Wednesday, May 14, in Daytona Beach, FL; and Thursday, May 15, in Jacksonville, FL. See additional information on the public comment process in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to establish three additional manatee protection areas in Florida. We are proposing this action under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), and the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA), to further recovery of the Florida manatee (Trichechus manatus latirostris) by reducing the number of takings. We are proposing to designate areas in Lee, Duval, Clay, St. Johns, and Volusia Counties as manatee refuges in which certain waterborne activities would be regulated. Specifically, watercraft would be required to operate at idle, slow speed, 40 kilometers per hour (25 mph), or 48 kilometers per hour (30 mph) in areas described in the proposed rule. We also announce the availability of a draft environmental assessment for this action.

SUMMARY: Interior Department, Fish and Wildlife Service,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

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. 13611407). Florida manatees, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee (Domning and Hayek, 1986), live in freshwater, brackish, and marine habitats in coastal and inland waterways of the southeastern United States. The majority of the population can be found in Florida waters throughout the year, and nearly all manatees use the waters of peninsular Florida during the winter months. The manatee is a cold intolerant species and requires warm water temperatures generally above 20[deg] Celsius (68[deg] Fahrenheit) to survive during periods of cold weather. During the winter months, most manatees rely on warm water from industrial discharges and natural springs for warmth. In warmer months, they expand their range and occasionally are seen as far north as Rhode Island on the Atlantic Coast and as far west as Texas on the Gulf Coast.

Status of the Florida Manatee

Longterm 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 MiamiDade County and that portion of Monroe County adjacent to the Florida Bay and the Florida Keys; and counties along the lower portion of the St. Johns River north of Palatka, including Putnam, St Johns, Clay and Duval counties; and (d) the Southwest Region, consisting of counties along the Gulf of Mexico from Pasco County south to Whitewater Bay in Monroe County.

Despite significant efforts dating back to the late 1970s and early 1980s, scientists have been unable to develop a useful means of estimating or monitoring trends in the size of the overall manatee population in the southeastern United States (O'Shea, 1988; O'Shea et al., 1992; Lefebvre et al., 1995). Even though many manatees aggregate at warmwater refuges in winter and most, if not all, such refuges are known, direct counting methods (i.e., by aerial and ground surveys) are unable to account for uncertainty in the number of animals that may be away from these refuges at any given time, the number of animals not seen because of turbid water, and other factors. The use of mark resighting techniques to estimate manatee population size based on known animals in the manatee photoidentification database has also been impractical, as the proportion of unmarked manatees cannot be estimated.

The only data on population size include uncalibrated indices based on maximum counts of animals at winter refuges made within one or two days of each other. Based on such information in the late 1980s, the total number of manatees throughout Florida was originally thought to include at least 1,200 animals (Service, 2001). Because aerial and ground counts at winter refuges are highly variable depending on the weather, water clarity, manatee behavior, and other factors (Packard et al., 1985; Lefebvre et al., 1995), interpretation of these data to assess shortterm trends is difficult (Packard and Mulholland, 1983; Garrott et al., 1994).

Beginning in 1991, the State of Florida initiated a statewide, synoptic, aerial survey program to count manatees in potential winter habitat during periods of severe cold weather
[[Page 16603]]
(Ackerman, 1995). These surveys are much more comprehensive than those used to estimate a minimum population during the 1980s. The highest statewide, minimum count from these surveys was 3,276 manatees in January 2001; the highest count on the east coast of Florida included 1,814 animals (January 2003) and the highest on the west coast included 1,756 (January 2001).

Due to the problems mentioned above, we do not know what proportion of the total manatee population is counted in these surveys. These uncorrected counts do not provide a basis for assessing population trends, although trend analyses of temperatureadjusted aerial survey counts may provide insight to general patterns of population growth in some regions (Garrott et al., 1994, 1995; Craig et al., 1997; Eberhardt et al., 1999).

It is possible, however, to monitor the number of manatees using the Blue Spring (Volusia County) and Crystal River (Citrus County) warmwater refuges. At Blue Spring (in the Upper St. Johns River Region), with its unique combination of clear water and confined spring area, it has been possible to count the number of resident animals by identifying individual manatees from scar patterns. The data indicate that this group of animals has increased steadily since the early 1970s when it was first studied. During the 1970s the number of manatees using the spring increased from 11 to 25 (Bengtson, 1981). In the mid 1980s about 50 manatees used the spring (Service, 2001), and by the winter of 19992000, the number had increased to 147 (Hartley, 2001).

In the Northwest Region, the clear, shallow waters of Kings Bay (Citrus County) have made it possible to monitor the number of manatees using this warmwater refuge at the head of Crystal River. Large aggregations of manatees apparently did not exist there until recent times (Service, 2001). The first careful counts were made in the late 1960s. Since then, manatee numbers have increased significantly. From 1967 to 1968, Hartman (1979) counted 38 animals in Kings Bay. By 1981 1982, the maximum winter count had increased to 114 manatees (Powell and Rathbun, 1984), and in November 2000, the maximum count was 301 (Service, 2003).

Both births and immigration of animals from other areas have contributed to the increases in manatee numbers at Crystal River and Blue Spring. Animals may be further attracted to these areas because of local manatee protection areas. Three manatee sanctuaries (areas in which waterborne activities are prohibited) in Kings Bay were established in 1980; an additional three were added in 1994, and a seventh in 1998. The increases in counts at Blue Spring and Crystal River are accompanied by estimates of adult survival and population growth that are higher than those determined for the Atlantic coast (Eberhardt and O'Shea, 1995; Langtimm et al., 1998; Eberhardt et al., 1999).

While aircraft synoptic surveys provide a ``best estimate'' of the minimum Florida manatee population size, there are no confidence intervals (derived through reliable, statistically based, population estimation techniques) for these estimates. With the exception of a few places where manatees may aggregate in clear, shallow water, not all manatees can be seen from aircraft because of water turbidity, depth, surface conditions, variable times spent submerged, and other considerations. Thus, results obtained during typical manatee synoptic surveys yield unadjusted partial counts. While these results are of value in providing information on where manatees occur, likely relative abundance in various areas, and seasonal shifts in manatee abundance, they do not provide good population estimates, nor can they reliably measure trends in the manatee population. Consequently, the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (Service, 2001) concludes that ``despite considerable effort in the early 1980s, scientists have been unable to develop a useful means of estimating or monitoring trends in size of the overall manatee populations in the southeastern United States.''

Population models employ mathematical relationships based on survival and reproduction rates to estimate population growth and trends in growth. A deterministic model (a model in which there are no random events) that uses classical mathematical approaches and various computational procedures with data on reproduction and survival of living, identifiable manatees suggests a maximum population growth rate of about 7 percent per year, excluding emigration or immigration (Eberhardt and O'Shea, 1995). This maximum was based on studies conducted between the late 1970s and early 1990s in the wellprotected winter aggregation area at Crystal River and did not require estimation of the population size. The analysis showed that the chief factor affecting the potential for population growth is survival of adults.

Estimated adult survival in the Atlantic Region (a larger region with less protection) has suggested slower or no population growth between the late 1970s and early 1990s. This modeling shows the value of using survival and reproduction data obtained from photo identification studies of living manatees to compute population growth rates with confidence intervals, providing information that can be used to infer longterm trends in the absence of reliable population size estimates. Collection of similar data has been initiated only recently in that area of Florida from Tampa Bay to the Caloosahatchee River (beginning in the mid1990s) and none is available for many of the remaining areas used by manatees in southwestern Florida (Southwest Region).

A population viability analysis (PVA), in which random events, such as red tide and extremely cold winters, are incorporated into a model, was carried out for manatees based on agespecific mortality rates estimated from the age distribution of manatees found dead throughout Florida from 1979 through 1992 (Marmontel et al., 1997). This method of estimating survival relied on certain assumptions that were not fully testable; despite this, the results again pointed out the importance of adult survival to population persistence. Given a population size that reflected a 1992 minimum population estimate, the PVA showed that if adult mortality as estimated for the study period were reduced by a modest amount (for example, from 11 percent down to 9 percent), the Florida manatee population would likely remain viable for many years. However, the PVA also showed that slight increases in adult mortality would result in extinction of manatees within the next 1,000 years.

The above review demonstrates that using statewide population size ``estimates'' of any kind is scientifically weak for estimating population trends in manatees. The weight of scientific evidence suggests that the potential for population increases over the last two decades is strong for two protected aggregation areas. New population analyses, based on more recent (since 1992) information, are not yet available in the peerreviewed literature.

In 2001, the Manatee Population Status Working Group (MPSWG) provided a statement summarizing what they believed to be the status of the Florida manatee at that time (Wildlife Trust, 2001). The MPSWG stated that, for the Northwest and Upper St. Johns River regions, available evidence indicated that there had been a steady increase in animals over the last 25 years. The statement was less optimistic for the Atlantic Region due to an adult survival rate that was lower than the rate necessary to sustain population
[[Page 16604]]
growth. The MPSWG believed that this region had likely been growing slowly in the 1980s, but then may have leveled off or even possibly declined. They considered the status of the Atlantic Region to be ``too close to call.'' Such finding was consistent with high levels of human related and, in some years, coldrelated deaths in this region. Regarding the Southwest Region, the MPSWG acknowledged that further data collection and analysis would be necessary to provide an assessment of the manatee's status in this region. Preliminary estimates of adult survival available to the MPSWG at that time indicated that the Southwest Region was similar to the Atlantic Region and ``substantially lower than [the adult survival estimates] for the Northwest and Upper St. Johns Regions.'' The Southwest Region was cited as having had high levels of watercraftrelated deaths and injuries and natural mortality events (i.e., red tide and severe cold).

Recent information suggests that the overall manatee population has grown since the species was listed in 1967 (50 CFR 17.11). Based on data provided at the April 2002 Manatee Population Ecology and Management Workshop, we believe that the Northwest and Upper St. Johns River regions and are approaching demographic benchmarks established in the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (Service, 2001) for reclassification from endangered to threatened status. We also believe that the Atlantic Region is close to meeting the downlisting benchmark for adult survival, at a minimum, and is close to meeting or exceeding other demographic criteria. We are less optimistic, however, regarding the Southwest Region. Although data are still insufficient or lacking to compare the Southwest Region's status to the downlisting/delisting criteria, preliminary data for adult survival indicate that this Region is below the benchmarks established in the recovery plan.

Although we are optimistic about the potential for recovery in three out of the four regions, it is important to clarify that in order to downlist or delist the manatee, pursuant to the ESA, all four regions must simultaneously meet the appropriate criteria as described in the Florida Manatee Recovery Plan (Service, 2001). Additionally, either action would necessarily be based on a status assessment for the species throughout its range (including the United States and Caribbean) and would consider the factors, as described in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, that determine whether any species is categorized as endangered or threatened.

In order for us to determine that an endangered species has recovered to a point that it warrants removal from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants, the species must have improved in status to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under the criteria set out in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. That is, threats to the species must be reduced or eliminated such that the species no longer fits the definitions of threatened or endangered. While suggestions of increasing population size are very encouraging, there has been no confirmation that significant threats to the species, including humanrelated mortality, injury, and harassment, and habitat alteration, have been reduced or eliminated to the extent that the Florida manatee may be reclassified from endangered to threatened status. Pursuant to our mission, we continue to assess this information with the goal of meeting our manatee recovery objectives.

Threats to the Species

Human activities, and particularly waterborne activities, are resulting in the take of manatees. Take, as defined by the ESA, means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm means an act which kills or injures wildlife (50 CFR 17.3). Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation that kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass includes intentional or negligent acts or omissions that create the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).

The MMPA sets a general moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the take and importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products (section 101(a)) and makes it unlawful for any person to take, possess, transport, purchase, sell, export, or offer to purchase, sell, or export, any marine mammal or marine mammal product unless authorized. Take, as defined by section 3(13) of the MMPA means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Harassment is defined under the MMPA as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which(i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild; or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Human use of the waters of the southeastern United States has increased dramatically as a result of residential growth and increased visitation. This phenomenon is particularly evident in the State of Florida. The human population of Florida has grown by 246 percent since 1970, from 6.8 million to 16.7 million residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2003), and is expected to exceed 18 million by 2010, and 20 million by the year 2020. According to a report by the Florida Office of Economic and Demographic Research (2000), it is expected that, by the year 2010, 13.7 million people will reside in the 35 coastal counties of Florida. In a parallel fashion to residential growth, visitation to Florida has increased dramatically. It is expected that Florida will have 83 million visitors annually by the year 2020, up from 48.7 million visitors in 1998. In concert with this increase of human population growth and visitation is the increase in the number of watercraft that travel Florida waterways. In 2002, 961,719 vessels were registered in the State of Florida (Division of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, 2003). This represents an increase of 59 percent since 1993. The Florida Department of Community Affairs estimates that, in addition to boats belonging to Florida residents, between 300,000 and 400,000 boats registered in other States use Florida waters each year.

Increases in the human population and the concomitant increase in human activities in manatee habitat compound the effect of such activities on manatees. Human activities in manatee habitat include direct and indirect effects. Direct impacts include injuries and deaths from watercraft collisions, deaths from water control structure operations, lethal and sublethal entanglements with recreational and commercial fishing gear, and alterations of behavior due to harassment. Indirect effects include habitat alteration and destruction, which include such activities as the creation of artificial warm water refuges, decreases in the quantity and quality of warm water in natural spring areas, changes in water quality in various parts of the State, the introduction of marine debris, and other, more general disturbances.

Manatee mortality has continued to climb steadily. Average annual total mortality in the 1990s (227.9) was
[[Page 16605]]
nearly twice that of the 1980s (118.2). In 2002, 305 manatee deaths were documented in Florida. Total deaths over the past 5 years are almost three times greater than they were in the first half of the 1980s. Although a large part of this increase may be due to an increase in manatee abundance, rapid growth in human activities and development may also be significant factors. Over the past 5 years, humanrelated manatee mortality has accounted for 33 percent of all manatee deaths, with watercraftrelated deaths accounting for 28 percent of the total. These rates are about 5 to 7 percent higher than the early 1980s, when about 28 percent of all deaths were humanrelated and 21 percent were due to watercraft.

The continuing increase in the number of recovered dead manatees throughout Florida has been interpreted as evidence of increasing mortality rates (Ackerman et al., 1995). Between 1976 and 1999, the number of carcasses collected in Florida increased at a rate of 5.8 percent per year, and deaths caused by watercraft strikes increased by 7.2 percent per year (Service, 2002). Because the manatee has a low reproductive rate, a decrease in adult survivorship due to watercraft collisions could contribute to a longterm population decline (O'Shea et al., 1985). It is believed that a 1 percent change in adult survival likely results in a corresponding change in the rate of population growth or decline (Marmontel et al., 1997).

Collisions with watercraft are the largest cause of humanrelated manatee deaths. Data collected during manatee carcass salvage operations in Florida indicate that a total of 1,145 manatees (from a total carcass count of 4,545) are confirmed victims of collisions with watercraft (1978 to 2002). This number may underestimate the actual number of watercraftrelated mortalities, since many of the mortalities listed as ``undetermined causes'' show evidence of collisions with vessels. Collisions with watercraft comprise approximately 25 percent of all manatee mortalities since 1978. Approximately 75 percent of all watercraftrelated manatee mortality has taken place in 11 Florida counties (Brevard, Lee, Collier, Duval, Volusia, Broward, Palm Beach, Charlotte, Hillsborough, Citrus, and Sarasota) (FWCC: Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) Manatee Mortality Database, 2003). The last 5 years have been record years for the number of watercraftrelated mortalities.

The second largest cause of humanrelated manatee mortality is entrapment in water control structures and navigation locks (FWCC: FMRI Manatee Mortality Database, 2003). Manatees may be crushed in gates and locks or may be trapped in openings where flows prevent them from surfacing to breathe. Locks and gates were responsible for 164 manatee deaths between 1978 and 2002, or approximately 4 percent of all deaths during this period. While there are no welldefined 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, largescale 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 humanrelated 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 watercraftrelated mortalities, these deaths also appear to be increasing, with 40 of these deaths occurring between 1998 and 2002 (an average of 8 deaths per year over the last 5 years).

Manatee Protection Areas

To minimize the number of injuries and deaths associated with watercraft activities, we and the State of Florida have designated manatee protection areas at sites throughout coastal Florida where conflicts between boats and manatees have been well documented and where manatees are known to frequently occur. These areas include posted signs to inform the boating public about restrictions and prohibitions. We propose to enhance existing protection areas by establishing three additional manatee refuges in five Florida counties.

Federal authority to establish protection areas for the Florida manatee is provided by the ESA and the MMPA, and is codified in 50 CFR, part 17, subpart J. We have discretion, by regulation, to establish manatee protection areas whenever there is substantial evidence showing such establishment is necessary to prevent the taking of one or more manatees (that is, to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct). In accordance with 50 CFR 17.106, areas may be established on an emergency basis when such takings are imminent.

We may establish two types of manatee protection areasmanatee refuges and manatee sanctuaries. A manatee refuge, as defined in 50 CFR 17.102, is an area in which we have determined that certain waterborne activities would result in the taking of one or more manatees, or that certain waterborne activities must be restricted to prevent the taking of one or more manatees, including but not limited to, a taking by harassment. A manatee sanctuary is an area in which we have determined that any waterborne activity would result in the taking of one or more manatees, including but not limited to, a taking by harassment. A waterborne activity is defined as including, but not limited to, swimming, diving (including skin and scuba diving), snorkeling, water skiing, surfing, fishing, the use of water vehicles, and dredge and fill activities.

Relationship to Manatee Lawsuit

On January 13, 2000, several organizations and individuals filed suit against the Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers alleging violations of the ESA, the MMPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Four groups representing development and boating interests intervened. Following extensive negotiations, the suit was resolved by a Settlement Agreement dated January 5, 2001. On October 24, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Formal Notice of Controversy alleging that the Service had violated provisions of the Settlement Agreement. On April 17, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an Expedited Motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement, and on July 9, 2002, the Court found that the Service had not fulfilled its settlement requirements to designate refuges and sanctuaries throughout peninsular Florida. On August 1, 2002, and November 7, 2002, the Court ordered the Federal defendants to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for violating the Court's orders of January 5, 2002, January 17, 2002, and August 1, 2002.

To resolve these controversies, the plaintiffs and Federal defendants entered into a Stipulated Order wherein the Service agreed to submit to the Federal Register for publication a proposed rule for the designation of additional manatee protection areas. The areas in this notice represent those areas that the Service has determined, based on the current, best available data,
[[Page 16606]]
should be considered for designation as manatee refuges.

Site Selection Process and Criteria

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

Definitions

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

Idle speed means the minimum speed needed to maintain watercraft steerage.

Planing means riding on or near the water's surface as a result of the hydrodynamic forces on a watercraft's hull, sponsons (projections from the side of a ship), foils, or other surfaces. A watercraft is considered on plane when it is being operated at or above the speed necessary to keep the vessel planing.

Slow speed means the speed at which a watercraft proceeds when it is fully off plane and completely settled in the water. Watercraft must not be operated at a speed that creates an excessive wake. Due to the different speeds at which watercraft of different sizes and configurations may travel while in compliance with this definition, no specific speed is assigned to slow speed. A watercraft is not proceeding at slow speed if it is(1) on a plane, (2) in the process of coming up on or coming off of plane, or (3) creating an excessive wake. A watercraft is proceeding at slow speed if it is fully off plane and completely settled in the water, not plowing or creating an excessive wake.

Slow speed (channel exempt) designates a larger area where slow speed is required, through which a maintained, marked channel is exempt from the slow speed requirement.

Slow speed (channel included) means that the slowspeed designation applies to the entire marked area, including within the designated channel.

Wake means all changes in the vertical height of the water's surface caused by the passage of a watercraft, including a vessel's bow wave, stern wave, and propeller wash, or a combination of these. Areas Proposed for Designation as Manatee Refuges

Caloosahatchee RiverSan Carlos Bay Manatee Refuge

We are proposing to establish a manatee refuge in the Caloosahatchee River and San Carlos Bay in Lee County (in the Southwest Region) for the purpose of regulating vessel speeds, from the Seaboard Coastline Railroad trestle, downstream to Channel Marker ``93,'' and from Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel Causeway. Except as provided in 50 CFR 17.105, watercraft will be required to proceed as follows:

a. from the Seaboard Coastline Railroad trestle at Beautiful Island, downstream to a point 152 meters (500 feet) east of the Edison Bridge, a distance of approximately 7.2 km (4.5 miles), slow speed in the marked navigation channel from November 15 to March 31 and not more than 40 kilometers (km) per hour (25 miles per hour (mph)) in the channel from April 1 to November 14;

b. from a point 152 meters (500 feet) east of the Edison Bridge downstream to a point 152 meters (500 feet) west of the Caloosahatchee Bridge, approximately 1.1 km (0.7 miles) in length, slow speed year round, shorelinetoshoreline 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), yearround, slow speed shoreline buffers extending out to a distance of approximately 91 meters (300 feet) from the marked navigation channel. (In any location where the distance from the shoreline to within approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of the near side of the channel is less than 0.4 km (0.25 mile), the slow speed buffer will extend to the edge of the marked navigation channel.) Vessel speeds between these buffers (including the marked navigation channel) are limited to not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) throughout the year;

d. from a point 152 meters (500 feet) northeast of the Cape Coral Bridge downstream to a point 152 meters (500) feet southwest of the Cape Coral Bridge, a distance of approximately 0.3 km (0.2 mile), slow speed, channel included, yearround;

e. from a point 152 meters (500 feet) southwest of the Cape Coral Bridge to Channel Marker ``72,'' a distance of approximately 1.9 km (or 1.2 miles), slow speed yearround, shoreline buffers extending out to a distance of approximately 91 meters (300 feet) from the marked navigation channel. (In any location where the distance from the shoreline to within approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of the near side of the channel is less than \1/4\ mile, the slow speed buffer will extend to the edge of the marked navigation channel.) Vessel speeds between these buffers (including the marked navigation channel) are limited to not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph);

f. from Channel Marker ``72'' to Channel Marker ``82'' (in the vicinity of Redfish Point), for a distance of approximately 3.1 km (1.9 miles) in length, slow speed yearround shorelinetoshoreline, including the marked navigation channel;

g. from Channel Marker ``82'' to Channel Marker ``93,'' a distance of approximately 3.9 km (2.4 miles), in length, slow speed yearround, shoreline buffers extending out to a distance of approximately 91 meters (300 feet) from the marked navigation channel. (In any location where the distance from the shoreline to within approximately 91 meters (300 feet) of the near side of the channel is less than 0.4 km (0.25 mile), the slow speed buffer will extend to the edge of the marked navigation channel.) Vessel speeds between these buffers, including the marked navigation channel, are limited to not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph);

h. from Channel Marker ``99'' to the Sanibel Causeway, slow speed yearround in San Carlos Bay within the following limits: a northern boundary described by the southern edge of the marked navigation channel, a line approximately 2.9 km (1.8 miles) in length; a southern boundary described by the Sanibel Causeway (approximately 1.9 km or 1.2 miles in length); a western boundary described by a line that connects the western end of the eastern most Sanibel Causeway island and extending northwest to the western shoreline of Merwin Key (approximately 3.1 km or 1.9 miles in length); the eastern boundary includes the western limit of the Statedesignated manatee protection area (68C22.005) near Punta Rassa (approximately 2.9 km or 1.8 miles in length). Speeds are unrestricted in the channel and bay waters to the west of this area.

Manatee presence has been documented in this area through aerial surveys, photoidentification studies, telemetry studies, and a carcass salvage program (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC, 2000). Per these studies, it is apparent the Caloosahatchee River is used throughout its length throughout the year by manatees. Primary winteruse
[[Page 16607]]
areas include the Florida Power and Light Company's Fort Myers Power Plant and Matlacha Pass, upstream and downstream (respectively) of the proposed refuge. The power plant is a major winter refuge for manatees. On January 6, 2001, 434 manatees were observed wintering in this region (FWCC: FMRI Aerial Survey Database, 2003).

In warmer months, manatees use the river as a travel corridor between upstream fresh water, foraging, and resting sites and downstream foraging areas. Manatees use the canal systems in Fort Myers and Cape Coral (between the Edison Bridge upstream and Shell Point) to rest and drink fresh water (Weigle, et al., 2002). Manatees travel west of Shell Point to feed in the seagrass beds in San Carlos Bay and adjacent waterways.

An analysis of the telemetry data indicates that manatees appear to travel along shallow areas relatively close to shore and cross the river in narrow areas near Redfish Point and Shell Point. The Redfish and Shellfish Point sections of the river represent specific areas where manatees and boats overlap during their travels (Weigle et al., 2002). The funneling of high speed watercraft and manatees through these narrow areas increases the likelihood of manateewatercraft collisions in this area. Four watercraftrelated manatee mortalities occurred in this area since January 2001 (FWCC: FMRI Manatee Mortality Database, 2003). Given this history, we designated Shell Island (the area around Shell Point) as a manatee refuge on November 8, 2002 (67 FR 68450).

The number of registered vessels in Lee County has increased by 25 percent over the past 5 years (from 36,255 vessels in 1998 to 45,413 in 2002) (FWCC, 2002). According to the FWCC's recent study of manatee mortality, manatee habitat, and boating activity in the Caloosahatchee River (FWCC, 2002), vessel traffic increases as the day progresses and doubles on the weekends compared to weekdays. The highest volumes of traffic were recorded in the spring and lowest volume in the winter. Highest vessel traffic densities occurred at Shell Point where the Caloosahatchee River and San Carlos Bay converge. Many of the boats in the lower Caloosahatchee River originate from the Cape Coral canal system and head toward the Gulf of Mexico.

Presently, there are Statedesignated, 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 (68C22.005 FAC). Additional speed zones were established in the Caloosahatchee River downstream of the power plant in November 1989 (68C22.005 FAC). Speed zones were established countywide in November 1999 (68C22.005 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 (68C22.004 and 68C22.005 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 watercraftrelated (21 percent of the total number of deaths in Lee County). Over the past 13 years, the County's rate of increase in watercraftrelated manatee mortality is higher than the rates of increase in watercraftrelated mortality in southwest Florida and in watercraftrelated deaths statewide. Areas east of the Edison Bridge and west of Shell Point are areas with recent increases in watercraft related mortality; eight watercraftrelated deaths have occurred east of the railroad trestle and seven have occurred in San Carlos Bay since 2000, including two watercraftrelated deaths in San Carlos Bay since July 2001, when State speed zones were marked (FWCC: FMRI Manatee Mortality Database, 2003).

We believe the measures in this proposed regulation will improve manatee protection and are necessary to prevent the take of at least one manatee by harassment, injury, and/or mortality by extending coverage to currently unprotected areas used by manatees. The increased width of the shoreline buffers downstream of the Caloosahatchee Bridge will provide a greater margin of safety for manatees in this important manatee area.

Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge

We are proposing to establish a manatee refuge for the purpose of regulating waterborne vessel speeds in portions of the St. Johns River (in the Atlantic Region) and adjacent waters in Duval, Clay, and St. Johns Counties from Reddie Point upstream to the mouth of Peter's Branch (including Doctors Lake) in Clay County on the western shore, and to the southern shore of the mouth of Julington Creek in St. Johns County on the eastern shore. Except as provided in 50 CFR 17.105, watercraft will be required to proceed as follows:

a. From Reddie Point upstream to the Main Street Bridge, a distance of approximately 11.6 km (or 7.2 miles), slow speed, yearround, outside the navigation channel and not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the channel (from Channel Marker ``81'' to the Main Street Bridge, the channel is defined as the line of sight extending west from Channel Markers ``81'' and ``82'' to the center span of the Main Street Bridge);

b. From the Main Street Bridge to the Fuller Warren Bridge, a distance of approximately 1.6 km (or 1.0 miles) slow speed, channel included, yearround;

c. Upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge, a 305meter (1,000foot), slow speed, yearround, 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, yearround, along a 274meter (900foot) shoreline buffer
(approximately 20.8 km or 12.9 miles); and a 305meter (1,000foot), slow speed, yearround, 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, photoidentification studies, telemetry studies, and a carcass salvage program. Manatees occur throughout the proposed manatee protection area; the extent of use varies by habitat type and time of year (White et al., 2002). Telemetry and aerial survey data indicate that peak numbers occur between March and June with heaviest use along the St. Johns River shorelines upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge and along the southeast shoreline of Doctors Lake. The latter appears to correlate with the highest quality feeding habitat. Recent studies demonstrate little use during the December through February period (White et al., 2002). While there were warm water discharges (i.e., power plant and industrial effluents) located within the area of the proposed refuge, these manmade attractants no longer exist.

Vessel speeds are currently restricted throughout the proposed manatee protection area. In 1989, boating restricted areas were adopted by Duval County and established by the State of Florida for portions of the St. Johns River. These include a banktobank, slowspeed zone between the Florida East Coast Railroad Bridge and the Main Street Bridge and a ``slow down/minimum wake when flashing'' zone
[[Page 16608]]
between the Main Street and Hart Bridges, activated during special events at the discretion of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office (16N 24.016 Duval County Boating Restricted Areas). The first manatee protection areas were adopted in 1989 by Duval County and in 1994 by the State of Florida. These measures included a slowspeed, channel exempt zone from Reddie Point to the Main Street Bridge and a 91meter (300foot) shoreline buffer in portions of the St. Johns River upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge. The manatee protection areas were reconfigured in 2001. Current protection measures consist of shoreline buffers that vary in width from 91 to 274 meters (300 to 900 feet). There are provisions downstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge that include a shoreline buffer of 152 meters (500 feet) or 61 meters (200 feet) from the end of docks, whichever is greater (an expansion of the 1989 91meter (300foot) buffer) (68C22.027 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. Fiftyone watercraftrelated manatee deaths occurred within the proposed manatee protection area. Of these, 24 were recovered between Reddie Point and the Matthews Bridge, 10 were recovered between the Hart and Acosta bridges, 6 were recovered between the Fuller Warren and Buckman bridges, and 11 were recovered upstream of the Buckman Bridge. Most of these deaths have occurred in that portion of the river where manatees and boats are most constricted (FWCC, 2000). From 1994 to 2001, when the area was protected under the initial State rule, manatee deaths averaged two per year between Reddie Point and the Fuller Warren Bridge. In 2002, subsequent to adoption of the current rule, one watercraftrelated death was documented in this area; a single watercraftrelated death was documented upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge in 2001.

We believe the proposed measures in this regulation will improve manatee protection and are necessary to prevent the taking of at least one manatee through harassment, injury, and/or mortality by extending coverage to currently unprotected areas used by manatees, by improving the ability of the public to understand and, thus, comply with the vessel operation restrictions, and by improving the ability of law enforcement personnel to enforce the restrictions. The proposed configuration should be less complicated, easier to post, and will reduce reliance on waterway users to judge distances from the shoreline or the ends of docks and piers. The increased width of the shoreline buffers upstream of the Fuller Warren Bridge will also provide a greater margin of safety for manatees between areas of high speed boating activity and highest manatee use. The proposal will not detract from operation of the boater safety zone downstream of the Main Street Bridge during special events.

Halifax and Tomoka Rivers Manatee Refuge

We are proposing to establish a manatee refuge in the Halifax River and associated waterbodies in Volusia County (in the Atlantic Region) for the purpose of regulating vessel speeds, from the Volusia/Flagler county line to New Smyrna Beach. Except as provided in 50 CFR 17.105, watercraft will be required to proceed as follows:

a. From the Volusia County/Flagler County line at Halifax Creek south to Channel Marker ``9'', a distance of approximately 11.3 km (7.0 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround outside the marked channel with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the channel;

b. From Channel Marker ``9'' to a point 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Granada Bridge (State Road 40) (including the Tomoka Basin), a distance of approximately 5.0 km (3.1 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, 305meter (1,000foot) minimum buffers along shorelines with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in areas between the buffers (and including the marked navigation channel);

c. In the Tomoka River, all waters upstream of the U.S. 1 bridge, a distance of approximately 7.2 km (4.5 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, shoreline to shoreline; from the U.S. 1 bridge downstream to Latitude 29[deg]19'00'', a distance of approximately 2.1 km (1.3 miles) in length, idle speed, yearround, shoreline to shoreline; from Latitude 29[deg]19'00'' downstream to the confluence of Strickland Creek and the Tomoka River, and including Strickland, Thompson, and Dodson creeks, a combined distance of approximately 9.7 km (6 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, shoreline to shoreline; from the confluence of Strickland Creek and the Tomoka River downstream to the mouth of the Tomoka River, a distance of approximately 1.4 km (0.9 miles) in length, idle speed, yearround, shoreline to shoreline;

d. From 152 meters (500 feet) north to 305 meters (1,000 feet) south of the Granada Bridge (State Road 40), a distance of approximately 0.5 km (0.3 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, channel included;

e. From a point 305 meters (1,000 feet) south of the Granada Bridge (State Road 40) to a point 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Seabreeze Bridge, a distance of approximately 6.4 km (4.0 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, 305meter (1,000foot) minimum buffers along shorelines with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in areas between the buffers, and including the marked navigation channel;

f. From 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Seabreeze Bridge, to Channel Marker ``40,'' a distance of approximately 3.7 km (2.3 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, channel included;

g. From Channel Marker ``40'' to a point 152 meters (500 feet) north of the Dunlawton Bridge, a distance of approximately 14.5 km (9 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, 305meter (1,000foot) minimum buffers along shorelines with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in areas between the buffers, and including the marked navigation channel;

h. From 152 meters (500 feet) north to 152 meters (500 feet) south of the Dunlawton Bridge, a distance of approximately 0.3 km (0.2 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, channel included;

i. From 152 meters (500 feet) south of the Dunlawton Bridge to Ponce Inlet, a distance of approximately 10.5 km (6.5 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround outside of marked channels with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the channel; in Wilbur Bay, a distance of approximately 2.7 km (1.7 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, shoreline to shoreline; along the western shore of the Halifax River, a distance of approximately 3.1 km (1.95 miles), slow speed, yearround, with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the marked channels; in Rose Bay, a distance of approximately 2.7 km (1.7 miles), slow speed, yearround, with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the marked channels; in all waters of Mill Creek, Tenmile Creek, and Dead End Creek, a combined distance of approximately 5.1 km (3.2 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, shoreline to shoreline; in Turnbull Bay, a distance of approximately 3.9 km (2.4 miles), slow speed, year round, with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the marked channels; in Spruce Creek, for a distance of approximately 5.6 km (3.5 [[Page 16609]]
miles), shoreline to shoreline, April 1 to August 31, slow speed, and from September 1 through March 31, not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph);

j. In waters north of Ponce Inlet, between Live Oak Point and Channel Marker ``2,'' a distance of approximately 2.9 km (1.8 miles), slow speed, yearround, shoreline to shoreline; in waters adjacent to Ponce Inlet, slow speed, yearround outside of the marked navigation channel and other marked access channels, with not more than 40 km per hour (25 mph) in the marked channels; in waters within Ponce Inlet, speeds are restricted to not more than 48 km per hour (30 mph);

k. In the Intracoastal Waterway from Redland Canal to the A1A Bridge (New Smyrna Beach), for a distance of approximately 5.3 km (3.3 miles) in length, slow speed, yearround, channel included.

Manatee presence has been documented in this area through aerial surveys, photoidentification studies, telemetry studies, and a carcass salvage program (FWCC, 2000). In general, manatees primarily use the Halifax River as a travel corridor (Deutsch, 1998, 2000); manatees use the downtown Daytona Beach area marinas as a source of drinking water and may calve here. The Tomoka River system is a known calving area, as evidenced by observations of calving manatees (McNerney, 1982) and aerial observations of significant numbers of cow and calf pairs (FWCC, 2000). Other activities observed throughout these systems include playing and/or engaging in sexual activity, feeding, and resting. Manatees are known to occur in these areas throughout the year (Deutsch, 1998, 2000), although they are more abundant during the warmer months of the year (FWCC, 2000).

Two hundred and eight manatee deaths occurred in Volusia County between 1974 and 2002 (FWCC: FMRI Manatee Mortality Database, 2003). This number includes 60 watercraftrelated deaths. Of these, 30 watercraftrelated deaths occurred in coastal Volusia County, (including 6 deaths in the Tomoka River system and 16 in the Halifax River). Twenty of these deaths have occurred over the past 10 years and seven of these over the past 2 years. Three of the watercraftrelated deaths occurred in the Tomoka River in 2001. Carcass recovery sites for manatees known to have died as a result of watercraft collision include the lower Tomoka River and tributaries, the Halifax River in downtown Daytona Beach, areas to the south of Channel Marker ``40'' and the Dunlawton Bridge, and areas to the south of Ponce Inlet. Watercraft related deaths occur between the months of March and October, with most occurring in May, June, and July.

The existing, Statedesignated manatee protection areas in coastal Volusia County were adopted by the State of Florida in 1994 (68C22.012 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), 91meter (300foot) shoreline buffers along most of the Halifax River (with maximum speeds varying between 40 and 48 km per hour (25 and 30 mph) outside of the buffers), slow speeds in the downtown Daytona Beach area (except for a watersports area to the south of Seabreeze Bridge), and a complex of varying restrictions between the Dunlawton Bridge and New Smyrna Beach. The existing State measures include 10 different types of restrictions that are used to restrict 30 discrete areas within the area of the proposed refuge. Fifteen watercraftrelated manatee deaths were documented within the area of the proposed refuge since the protection areas were first adopted. Seven of these deaths occurred in 2001, and no watercraftrelated deaths were known to have occurred in 2002.

We believe the proposed measures in this regulation will improve manatee protection and will prevent the take of at least one manatee through harassment, injury, and/or mortality by extending coverage to currently unprotected areas used by manatees, and by improving the ability of the public to understand and thus, comply, with protection measures through simplification of restrictions. The increased width of the shoreline buffers along the Halifax River will provide a greater margin of safety for manatees.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:

1. The reasons why any of these areas should or should not be designated as manatee refuges, including data in support of these reasons;

2. Current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible effects on manatees;

3. Any foreseeable economic or other impacts resulting from the proposed designations;

4. Potential adverse effects to the manatee associated with designating manatee protection areas for the species; and

5. Any actions that could be considered in lieu of, or in conjunction with, the proposed designations that would provide comparable or improved manatee protection.

Comments submitted electronically should be embedded in the body of the email message itself or attached as a textfile (ASCII), and should not use special characters and encryption. Please also include ``Attn: RIN 1018AJ06,'' your full name, and return address in your e mail message. Comments submitted to manatee@fws.gov will receive an automated response confirming receipt of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your e mail message, contact us directly by calling our Jacksonville Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Our practice is to make all comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. In some circumstances, we would withhold also from the rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish for us to withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. However, we will not consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Peer Review

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

[[Page 16610]]

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

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

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

Persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to attend and participate in the public hearing should contact Chuck Underwood of the Jacksonville Field Office at 904/2322580, extension 109, or via email to chuck_underwood@fws.gov, as soon as possible. In order to allow sufficient time to process requests, please call no later than one week before the hearing.

Written comments submitted during the comment period receive equal consideration with those comments presented at a public hearing. Clarity of the Rule

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

Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this proposed rule easier to understand to: Office of Regulatory Affairs, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. You may email your comments to the following address:
Execsec@ios.doi.gov.
Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with the criteria in Executive Order 12866, this rule is not a significant regulatory action. The Office of Management and Budget makes the final determination under Executive Order 12866.

a. This proposed rule will not have an annual economic impact of over $100 million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of government. A costbenefit analysis is not required. It is not expected that any significant economic impacts would result from the establishment of three manatee refuges (approximately 185 river km (115 river miles)) in five counties in the State of Florida.

The purpose of this rule would be to establish three manatee protection areas in Florida. The three areas are located in the Caloosahatchee River in Lee County, the St. Johns River in Duval, Clay and St. Johns Counties, and the Halifax River and Tomoka River in Volusia County. We are proposing to reduce the level of take of manatees by controlling certain human activity in these three areas. For the three manatee refuges, the areas would be yearround slow speed with certain sitespecific exceptions, including 40 km per hour (25 mph) in most channels. Affected waterborne activities would include transiting, cruising, water skiing, fishing, and the use of all water vehicles. This rule could result in impacts on recreational boaters, commercial charter boats, and commercial fishermen, primarily in the form of restrictions on boat speeds in specific areas. We could experience increased administrative costs due to this proposed rule. In addition, the rule would be expected to produce economic benefits for some parties as a result of increased manatee protection and decreased boat speeds in the manatee refuge areas.

Regulatory impact analysis requires the comparison of expected costs and benefits of the proposed rule against a ``baseline,'' which typically reflects the regulatory requirements in existence prior to the rulemaking. For purposes of this analysis, the baseline assumes that we take no additional regulatory actions to protect the manatee. In fact, even with no further activity by us, an extensive system of Statedesignated manatee protection areas is already in place in each of the proposed manatee refuges. Thus, the proposed rule will have only an incremental effect. As discussed below, the net economic impact is not expected to be significant, but cannot be monetized given available information.

The economic impacts of this rule would be due to the changes in speed zone restrictions in the proposed manatee refuge areas. These speed zone changes are summarized below.

In Lee County, in the Caloosahatchee River area, the designation of the proposed CaloosahatcheeSan Carlos Bay Manatee Refuge would result in the following changes:
[sbull] The portion of the channel upstream of the Edison Bridge (to Beautiful Island) would change from a 40 km per hour (25 mph) limit to seasonal slow speed (i.e., 6.4 to 12.9 km per hour (4 to 8 mph) depending on hull design) from November 15 to March 31.
[sbull] The portion of the channel 152 meters (500 feet) east and west of the Edison/ Caloosahatchee Bridge complex would change from 40 km per hour (25 mph) to slow speed yearround.
[sbull] Between the Edison/Caloosahatchee Bridge complex and Cape Coral Bridge, shoreline buffers would change from slow speed within 0.4 km (0.25 mile) of shore to variable width, approximating within 91 meters (300 feet) of the marked navigation channel at varying locations. This change eliminates two unprotected shoreline areas along the north shore at and below the Edison/Caloosahatchee Bridge complex. [sbull] The shore to shore, channelincluded buffer, 152 meters (500 feet) east and west of Cape Coral Bridge would change from 40 km per hour (25 mph) yearround to slow speed yearround.
[sbull] Between the Cape Coral Bridge and the Shell Island Manatee Refuge, the slow speed, shoreline buffer, yearround would change from 0.4 km (0.25 mile) in width to a variable width, generally approximating within 91 meters (300 feet) of the marked navigation channel at varying locations. The channel is included in portions of this area, between channel markers ``72'' and ``82.''
[sbull] The area to the west of the Shell Island Manatee Refuge, south of the Intracoastal Waterway, north of the Sanibel Causeway, to a line extending southwest from the southern tip of Merwin Key, would change from unregulated to slow speed yearround.

[[Page 16611]]

Speed zones have been in existence in the Caloosahatchee River since 1979. Since 1989, almost all of the near shore waters of the Caloosahatchee have been under a slow speed restriction yearround. The proposed Caloosahatchee River Manatee Refuge would affect approximately 35.4 km (22 river miles) overall. For the most part, the proposed regulation would widen existing slow speed areas by varying widths, dependent upon various factors. The greatest width of the affected area is approximately 2.4 km (1.5 miles), along the western shore north of Fourmile Point.

In Duval, Clay, and St. Johns Counties, in the St. Johns River and tributaries (including Doctor's Lake), the proposed designation of the Lower St. Johns River Manatee Refuge would result in the following changes from the current speed restrictions:
[sbull] In the downtown Jacksonville area, between Reddie Point and the Main Street Bridge, slow speed zones would be extended out to the channel from 91 to 274 meter (300 to 900foot) shoreline buffers. The channel would be changed from unrestricted speed to a 40 km per hour (25 mph) limit.
[sbull] Between the Main Street Bridge and the Fuller Warren Bridge, slow speed shoreline buffers would change from variable width, slow speed (currently variable width along the western and northern shore and 183 meters (600 feet) on the eastern shore) to bank to bank, channel included, slow speed.
[sbull] South of the Fuller Warren Bridge to the southern bank of the mouth of Julington Creek (St. Johns County) on the eastern shore and to the mouth of Peter's

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT David Hankla, Peter Benjamin, or Jim Valade (see Addresses section), telephone 904/2322580; or visit our Web site at http://northflorida.fws.gov.