1574 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

proposing critical habitat for 

Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora 

and Lomatium cookii in a takings 

implications assessment. Our taking 

implications assessment concludes that 

critical habitat for L.f. grandiflora and 

Lomatium cookii would not pose 

significant takings implications. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references we 

cited in the proposed rule and in this 

document is available on the Internet at 

http://www.regulations.gov or by 

contacting the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this 

rulemaking are the staff members of the 

Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: December 30, 2009. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Fish Wildlife 

and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2010–323 Filed 1–11– 10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2009-0066] 

[MO 92210-0-0009-B4] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12–month Finding on a 

Petition To Revise Critical Habitat for 

the Florida Manatee (Trichechus 

manatus latirostris) 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce our 

12–month finding on a petition to revise 

critical habitat for the Florida manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris) under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. After a thorough review of all 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that revisions to 

critical habitat for the Florida manatee 

are warranted. However, sufficient 

funds are not available due to higher 

priority actions such as court-ordered 

listing-related actions and judicially 

approved settlement agreements. We 

intend to initiate rulemaking when we 

complete the higher priorities and have 

the necessary resources to do so. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on January 12, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS-R4-ES-2009-0066. Supporting 

documentation we used to prepare this 

finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Jacksonville 

Ecological Services Field Office, 7915 

Baymeadows Way, Suite 200, 

Jacksonville, FL 32256-7517. Please 

submit any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Attn: 

Manatee CH Review, at the above 

address, by telephone at 904-731-3336, 

by facsimile at 904-731-3045, or by email: northflorida@fws.gov. Persons 

who use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800- 

877-8339. Please include ‘‘Florida 

manatee scientific information’’ in the 

subject line for faxes and emails. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

4(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for 

any petition that is found to present 

substantial scientific and commercial 

information indicating that the 

requested revisions to critical habitat 

may be warranted, we make a finding 

within 12 months of the date of receipt 

of the petition and publish a notice in 

the Federal Register indicating how we 

intend to proceed with the requested 

revision. 

Background 

Previous Federal Actions 

We originally listed the Florida 

manatee (Trichechus manatus 

latirostris), a subspecies of the West 

Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), 

as endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001) 

under the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89- 

669; 80 Stat. 926). In 1970, Appendix A 

to 50 CFR Part 17 was amended to 

include additional names to the list of 

foreign endangered species (35 FR 

18319). This listing incorporated West 

Indian manatees into the list under the 

Endangered Species Conservation Act of 

1969 (Pub. L. 91-135; 83 Stat. 275) and 

encompassed the species’ range in the 

Caribbean and northern South America, 

thus including both Antillean (T. m. 

manatus) and Florida manatees in the 

listing. The West Indian manatee is 

currently listed as an endangered 

species under the Act and the 

population is further protected as a 

depleted stock under the Marine 

Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1361- 

1407). 

Critical habitat was designated for the 

Florida manatee on September 24, 1976 

(41 FR 41914). This designation 

delineated specific waterways in Florida 

that were known to be important 

concentration areas for manatees at that 

time. 

On December 19, 2008, we received a 

petition from Wildlife Advocacy Project, 

Save the Manatee Club, Center for 

Biological Diversity, and Defenders of 

Wildlife, requesting that critical habitat 

be revised for the Florida manatee 

(Trichechus manatus latirostris) under 

the Act and the Administrative 

Procedure Act. The petition clearly 

identified itself as a petition and 

included the requisite identification 

information for the petitioners, as 

required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). 

In a January 17, 2009, letter to the 

petitioners, we responded that we had 

received the petition and would make a 

finding, to the maximum extent 

practicable within 90 days, as to 

whether or not the petition presents 

substantial information. We also stated 

that, if the initial finding concludes that 

the petition presents substantial 

information indicating that the 

requested action may be warranted, then 

we have 1 year from the date we 

received the petition to determine how 

we intend to proceed with the requested 

revision, and that we would promptly 

publish a notice of our intentions in the 

Federal Register at the end of this 

period. 

We published our 90–day finding 

regarding the petition to revise critical 

habitat for the Florida manatee on 

September 29, 2009 (74 FR 49842). We 

determined that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

revising critical habitat for the Florida 

manatee under the Act may be 

warranted, thus initiating this 12–month 

finding. Accordingly, we asked the 

public to submit information relevant to 

the finding by October 29, 2009. We 

have fully considered all information 

available and received in response to 

information requested in our 90–day 

finding. 

This 12–month finding discusses only 

those topics directly relevant to the 

revision of existing critical habitat for 

the Florida manatee. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 1575 

Species Information 

The Florida manatee, Trichechus 

manatus latirostris, is a subspecies of 

the West Indian manatee (T. manatus, 

Linnaeus 1758) and is native to Florida. 

Manatees are long-lived marine 

mammals, dark grey in color, and 

average about 10 feet (3 m) in length and 

between 800 to 1,200 pounds (363 to 

544 kg) in weight. Manatees have a 

round, flattened, paddle-shaped tail and 

two front flippers that are used for 

steering while swimming. 

Female manatees are capable of 

reproduction at as early as 4 years of 

age; however, most breed between the 

ages of 7 and 9. Gestation lasts from 12 

to 14 months. Normally an adult female 

would have only one calf every 2 to 5 

years, but there are rare occurrences of 

twins. The mother and calf remain 

together for up to 2 years. Male 

manatees aggregate in mating herds 

around a female when she is ready to 

conceive, but contribute no parental 

care to the calf. 

The major threats to the Florida 

manatee population are human related, 

and include watercraft strikes (direct 

impacts and propeller cuts), which can 

cause injury and death (Rommel et al. 

2007, p. 111; Lightsey et al. 2006, p. 

262); entrapment and crushing in water 

control structures (gates, locks, etc.); 

and entanglement in fishing gear. 

Natural threats include red tide and 

exposure to cold. A comprehensive 

threats analysis, recently conducted as 

part of the Service’s 5–year status 

review, indicated that the single largest 

threat to the persistence of manatees in 

Florida is collisions with watercraft. 

The second most significant threat to 

the species’ survival is the loss of warmwater habitat. The other threats (water 

control structures, entanglement, and 

red tide) are of substantially less impact 

to the overall status of the species 

(USFWS 2007, p. 24; Runge et al. 2007a, 

p. 10). 

The Florida manatee has not 

experienced any curtailment in the 

extent of its range throughout the 

southeastern U.S. To the contrary, 

Florida manatees have expanded their 

summer range to other states along the 

Atlantic and Gulf coasts. It is now not 

uncommon to find manatees in coastal 

waters of Georgia, North and South 

Carolina, Alabama, and Louisiana. 

Habitat Information 

Florida manatees are found in 

freshwater, brackish, and marine 

environments. Typical habitats include 

coastal tidal rivers and streams, 

mangrove swamps, salt marshes, and 

freshwater springs (FWC 2005). As 

herbivores, manatees feed on the wide 

range of aquatic vegetation that these 

habitats provide. Shallow seagrass beds, 

with ready access to deep channels, are 

generally preferred feeding areas in 

coastal and riverine habitats (Smith 

1993, p. 5). In coastal Georgia and 

northeastern Florida, manatees feed in 

salt marshes on smooth cordgrass 

(Spartina alterniflora) by timing feeding 

periods with high tide (Baugh et al. 

1989, p. 89; Zoodsma 1991, p. 124). 

Manatees use springs and freshwater 

runoff sites for drinking water; secluded 

canals, creeks, embayments, and 

lagoons for resting, cavorting, mating, 

calving, and nurturing their young; and 

open waterways and channels as travel 

corridors (Marine Mammal Commission 

1984, p. 8, and 1988, p. 88; Gannon, et 

al. 2007, p. 140; Laist and Boland 2008, 

p. 1). 

Although manatees occupy different 

habitats during various times of the year 

(Deutsch et al. (2003, p. 1), they are a 

subtropical species with little tolerance 

for cold. Their year-round presence in 

Florida represents the northern limit of 

their winter range (Lefebvre et al. 2001, 

p. 425). Within Florida, they require 

stable, long-term sources of warm water 

during cold weather. Prolonged 

exposure to cold water temperatures can 

result in debilitation and death due to 

a phenomenon known as ‘‘cold stress 

syndrome’’ (Rommel et al. 2002, p. 16; 

Bossart et al. 2004, p. 437). An ambient 

water temperature of 68 degrees 

Fahrenheit (20 degrees Celsius) is 

generally considered as the lower 

threshold; below this temperature they 

have been observed to exhibit an 

increase in metabolic rate (Worthy et al. 

1999, p. 4). When water temperatures 

begin to decrease to this temperature, 

manatees will aggregate within the 

confines of warm-water refuges or move 

to the southern tip of Florida. During 

periods of intense cold, they will remain 

at warm-water refuges; during warm 

interludes, they will move from the 

warm-water areas to feed, and return 

once again when water temperatures are 

too cold (Hartman 1979, p. 26; Deutsch 

et al. 2000, p. 22; Stith et al. 2006, p. 

24). Recent studies focusing on manatee 

use of natural warm-water sites include 

those by Koelsch et al. 2000, p. 27; 

Taylor et al. 2005. p. 3; Taylor 2006, p. 

5; USGS 2006, p. 3; Gannon et al. 2006, 

p. 133; Stith et al. 2006, p. iv; Reynolds 

and Barton 2005, 2008, p. 9; and Taylor 

and Provancha 2008, p. 2). 

Historically, manatees relied on the 

warm, temperate waters of south Florida 

and on natural warm-water springs 

scattered throughout the State as buffers 

to the lethal effects of cold winter 

temperatures. In part, as a result of 

human disturbance at natural sites 

(Laist and Reynolds 2005, p. 740), they 

have expanded their winter range to 

include industrial sites and associated 

warm-water discharges as refuges from 

the cold. Although manatees overwinter 

at major springs throughout peninsular 

Florida, nearly two-thirds of the 

population winters at industrial warmwater sites, which are now made up 

almost entirely of power plants (FWC 

FWRI, unpub. synoptic aerial survey 

data). The thermal discharge from 

power plants serves as an attractant to 

manatees because the temperature of the 

discharge is much warmer than the 

surrounding water temperature. Power 

plants in Brevard, Palm Beach, and 

Hillsborough counties maintain the 

largest winter aggregations of manatees 

throughout the winter. There are 

numerous research and monitoring 

studies that have documented historical 

and recent use by manatees at power 

plants ( Keith et al. 2008, p. 16; 

Reynolds 2007, 2009, p. 10; and 

Fonnesbeck et al. 2009, p. 563). 

The Crystal River springs complex in 

Citrus County and Blue Springs along 

the St. Johns River, in Volusia County, 

are the northernmost natural warmwater refuges in Florida used regularly 

by manatees. These and other natural 

springs in the State have experienced an 

increase in manatee use as the Florida 

population has grown (FWC FWRI, 

unpub. synoptic aerial survey data). 

Minor thermal refuges are also used 

by manatees throughout Florida. Most of 

these include canals or boat basins 

where warmer water temperatures 

persist as temperatures in adjacent bays 

and rivers decline. 

The loss of Florida’s warm-water 

habitats is one of the leading threats 

facing the manatee population (Runge 

2007a, p. 2). Reductions in spring flows, 

which affect manatee access and use of 

springs, are being addressed through the 

adoption of minimum flow regulations 

(Florida Springs Task Force 2001, p. 15). 

A minimum spring discharge rate that 

considered the estimated flow rates 

necessary to support overwintering 

manatees has been identified for Volusia 

County’s Blue Spring and is expected to 

be adopted, pending the St. Johns River 

Water Management District’s acceptance 

of a monitoring plan currently under 

development. Similarly, other springs 

used by manatees have been scheduled 

for, or are in the process of developing, 

minimum flow regulations. Those 

requirements would assure adequate 

flows are secured to support manatees. 

All Primary sites, except the Weeki 

Wachee/Mud Creek/Jenkins Creek 

complex, have been protected. Ten of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

1576 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the 47 total known warm-water sites 

still require protection. 

In addition to protecting natural 

warm-water sites, efforts are under way 

to restore and improve them to enhance 

manatee use. As an example, the spring 

run at Homossassa Springs was dredged 

in 2006 to improve manatee access; 

since dredging, studies indicate that the 

run has been attracting more animals 

(Taylor 2009, pers. comm.). 

We and our partners are defining a 

network of migratory corridors based on 

manatee travel patterns and identifying 

other use areas to ensure protection of 

feeding, calving, and nursing areas 

throughout the State (FWC FWRI, 

unpub. data 2006; USGS FISC Sirenia 

Project, unpub. data 2006; Gannon et al. 

2007, p. 134). Many of these sites are 

already known and are variously 

protected under the Florida Manatee 

Sanctuary Act, the Endangered Species 

Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection 

Act. We are currently completing an 

assessment of manatee habitat use at a 

number of natural warm-water sites 

throughout Florida. Recently, we 

initiated a study to predict manatee 

carrying capacity at natural warm-water 

sites, and we are also evaluating effects 

to manatees in South Florida associated 

with Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan activities. 

Industrial thermal discharges are not 

a reliable source of warm water for the 

manatee population in the long term. 

Power plants can be eliminated due to 

plant obsolescence, environmental 

permitting requirements, economic 

pressures, and other factors, and can 

experience disruptions and temporary 

shutdowns. It is difficult to predict how 

manatees will respond to changes at 

artificial warm-water sites. In some 

instances manatees have been observed 

to use less preferred nearby sites, yet, in 

other cases when thermal discharges 

have been eliminated, manatees have 

died due to behavioral persistence or 

site fidelity (USFWS 2000, p. 74). 

Since release of the Service’s 5–year 

status review in 2007, we have new 

information that two of the oldest power 

plants in Florida that attract the largest 

numbers of wintering manatees will be 

undergoing repowering over the next 

several years, and will continue to 

discharge warm water (USFWS 2007, p. 

16). Repowering these facilities will 

reduce the probability of a catastrophic 

winter mortality event for the manatee 

population over the next several 

decades. 

We currently assess the status of the 

Florida manatee population according 

to regional management units within the 

State that reflect the winter-season site 

fidelity of individuals in the population, 

as manatees tend to return to the same 

warm-water sites each winter. The four 

regional management units are: an 

Atlantic Coast unit that occupies the 

east coast of Florida, including the 

Florida Keys and the lower St. Johns 

River north of Palatka; an Upper St. 

Johns River unit that occurs in the river 

south of Palatka; a Northwest unit that 

occupies the Florida Panhandle south to 

Hernando County; and a Southwest unit 

that occurs from Pasco County south to 

Whitewater Bay in Monroe County. 

Typical manatee habitat within these 

geographic boundaries is described in 

Table 1. Exchange of individuals 

between the management units is 

thought to be limited during winter 

months, based on data from telemetry 

(Reid et al. 1991, p. 185; Weigle et al. 

2001, p. 18; Deutsch et al. 1998, p. 18, 

and 2003, p. 2) and photo-identification 

(C. A. Beck, USGS FISC Sirenia Project, 

unpub. data, 2009; K. Higgs, FWC FWRI, 

unpub. data, 2009). Movement between 

management units does occur during 

warm seasons, particularly along the 

same coast, and there are some 

documented cases of wide-ranging 

coastal movements and isolated events 

of intercoastal migration (Reid et al. 

1991, p. 185; Deutsch et al. 1998, p. 18, 

and 2003, p. 2; Beck 2009, pers. comm.). 

Although natural vegetation has 

diminished in some locations due to 

human activities, and exotic vegetation 

has increased in other areas, the 

availability of aquatic vegetation as 

forage is not known to be a limiting 

factor for manatees at this time (Orth et 

al. 2006, p. 994; G.A.J. Worthy, 

University of Central Florida, unpub. 

data 2006). 

Population Status 

The most current information on 

Florida manatee population 

demographics (growth, survival, and 

reproductive rates) includes published 

studies by Runge et al. (2004, 2007b), 

Craig and Reynolds (2004), Kendall et 

al. (2004), and Langtimm et al. (2004), 

and unpublished reports by the Manatee 

Population Status Working Group 

(2005) and Runge et al. (2007a). All of 

these studies indicate that the manatee 

population is doing well throughout 

most of Florida. Population growth 

rates, determined using the Manatee 

Core Biological Model (Runge et al. 

2004, p. 361, and 2007b), are as follows: 

Northwest Region 4.0 percent 

Upper St. Johns River 

Region 6.2 percent 

Atlantic Coast Region 3.7 percent 

Southwest Region -1.1 percent 

Craig and Reynolds (2004, p. 386) 

additionally suggested that populations 

of wintering manatees in the Atlantic 

Coast Region have been increasing at 

rates of between 4 and 6 percent per 

year since 1994. 

In southwest Florida, estimates of 

adult manatee survival and 

reproduction are less precise than in the 

other regions of Florida because the 

time series of data is comparatively 

shorter for this region and there are no 

demographic data available for 

manatees in the southernmost part of 

this region. The estimates could also be 

biased low due to effects from 

temporary emigration (Langtimm et al. 

2004, p. 450; Langtimm 2009 pers. 

comm). Updated estimates of adult 

survival and growth rates for manatees 

in this region are anticipated in early 

2010. 

The most current and best available 

count of the Florida manatee population 

is 3,807 animals, based on a single 

synoptic survey of warm-water refuges 

and adjacent areas in January 2009 

(FWC FWRI 2009 Manatee Synoptic 

Aerial Survey Data). 

Critical Habitat 

Current Critical Habitat Designation 

Critical habitat was designated for the 

Florida manatee (listed in that 

regulation as Trichechus manatus) in 

1976 (50 CFR 17.95(a)) as follows: 

‘‘Florida. Crystal River and its 

headwaters known as King’s Bay, Citrus 

County; the Little Manatee River 

downstream from the U.S. Highway 301 

bridge, Hillsborough County; the 

Manatee River downstream from the 

Lake Manatee Dam, Manatee County; 

the Myakka River downstream from 

Myakka River State Park, Sarasota and 

Charlotte Counties; the Peace River 

downstream from the Florida State 

Highway 760 bridge, De Soto and 

Charlotte Counties; Charlotte Harbor 

north of the Charlotte-Lee County line, 

Charlotte County; Caloosahatchee River 

downstream from the Florida State 

Highway 31 bridge, Lee County; all U.S. 

territorial waters adjoining the coast and 

islands of Lee County; all U.S. territorial 

waters adjoining the coast and islands 

and all connected bays, estuaries, and 

rivers from Gordon’s Pass, near Naples, 

Collier County, southward to and 

including Whitewater Bay, Monroe 

County; all waters of Card, Barnes, 

Blackwater, Little Blackwater, Manatee, 

and Buttonwood Sounds between Key 

Largo, Monroe County, and the 

mainland of Dade County; Biscayne 

Bay, and all adjoining and connected 

lakes, rivers, canals, and waterways 

from the southern tip of Key Biscayne 

northward to and including Maule Lake, 

Dade County; all of Lake Worth, from its 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 1577 

northernmost point immediately south 

of the intersection of U.S. Highway 1 

and Florida State Highway A1A 

southward to its southernmost point 

immediately north of the town of 

Boynton Beach, Palm Beach County; the 

Loxahatchee River and its headwaters, 

Martin and West Palm Beach Counties; 

that section of the intracoastal waterway 

from the town of Seawalls Point, Martin 

County to Jupiter Inlet, Palm Beach 

County; the entire inland section of 

water known as the Indian River, from 

its northernmost point immediately 

south of the intersection of U.S. 

Highway 1 and Florida State Highway 3, 

Volusia County, southward to its 

southernmost point near the town of 

Sewalls Point, Martin County, and the 

entire inland section of water known as 

the Banana River and all waterways 

between Indian and Banana Rivers, 

Brevard County; the St. Johns River 

including Lake George, and including 

Blue Springs and Silver Glen Springs 

from their points of origin to their 

confluences with the St. Johns River; 

that section of the Intracoastal 

Waterway from its confluences with the 

St. Marys River on the Georgia-Florida 

border to the Florida State Highway 

A1A bridge south of Coastal City, 

Nassau and Duval Counties.’’ 

No map was published with the 1976 

designation. The earliest known record 

of a map created from the physical 

description of designated critical habitat 

for the Florida manatee was published 

by the Service’s Office of Biological 

Services in 1980 (USFWS 1980). A more 

recent GIS depiction of the general 

locations of the designated critical 

habitat for the Florida manatee is shown 

in Figure 1. 

Relevant Statutes and Regulations 

Critical habitat is defined in section 

3(5)(A) of the Act as: 

(i) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species, at the time it is listed in 

accordance with the Act, on which are 

found those physical or biological 

features 

(I) essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(II) which may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(ii) specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means the use of 

all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered or 

threatened species to the point at which 

the measures provided under the Act 

are no longer necessary. Such methods 

and procedures include, but are not 

limited to, all activities associated with 

scientific resources management such as 

research, census, law enforcement, 

habitat acquisition and maintenance, 

propagation, or transplantation. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act 

requires consultation on Federal actions 

that may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow the 

government or public to access private 

lands. Such designation does not 

require implementation of restoration, 

recovery, or enhancement measures by 

private landowners. Where a landowner 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization for an action that may 

affect a listed species or critical habitat, 

the consultation requirements of section 

7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the 

event of a destruction or adverse 

modification finding, the landowner’s 

obligation is not to restore or recover the 

species, but to implement reasonable 

and prudent alternatives to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time it is listed must 

contain the physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and be included only if 

those features may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific data available, habitat 

areas containing the essential physical 

and biological features that provide for 

requisite life cycle needs of the species. 

Under the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 

424.12, we can designate critical habitat 

in areas outside the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it is 

listed only when we determine that 

those areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species and that 

designation limited to those areas 

occupied at the time of listing would be 

inadequate to ensure the conservation of 

the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. 

Further, our Policy on Information 

Standards Under the Act (published in 

the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 

FR 34271)), the Information Quality Act 

(section 515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 

5658)), and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

are based on the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

Finding 

The current critical habitat 

designation for the Florida manatee was 

described before critical habitat 

regulations and guidance were 

developed; it does not identify specific 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

manatee for this species’ habitat. 

Instead, it describes specific waterways 

that were known to be important 

concentration areas for manatees at that 

time. We recognize that the geographic 

areas originally described as manatee 

critical habitat need to be updated, 

based on recent scientific studies of 

manatee distribution, habitat use, and 

habitat needs as discussed above. Since 

the original designation, we have more 

information on the specific habitat 

needs of the Florida manatee, including 

the use of warm-water sites (Koelsch et 

al. 2000, p. 27; Taylor et al. 2005. p. 3; 

Taylor 2006, p. 5; USGS 2006, p. 3; 

Gannon et al. 2006, p. 133; Stith et al. 

2006, p. iv; Reynolds and Barton 2005, 

2008, p. 9; and Taylor and Provancha 

2008, p. 2) as well as power plant 

discharges (Keith et al. 2008, p. 16; 

Reynolds 2007, 2009, p. 10; and 

Fonnesbeck et al. 2009, p. 563, among 

others), that will allow us to identify the 

physical or biological features essential 

to manatee conservation. Therefore, 

based on this current and best available 

scientific and commercial information, 

we find that revising critical habitat for 

the Florida manatee under the Act is 

warranted. 

We intend to identify the physical 

and biological features essential to 

conservation of the species, in order to 

address the ecological and conservation 

needs of the Florida manatee. Given the 

significance of warm water to the 

survival of the manatee in Florida, the 

most essential feature will be the 

availability and adequacy of warmwater refugia. Additional features to be 

considered in the analysis may include 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

1578 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

adequate forage within dispersal 

distance of a warm-water refuge, areas 

needed for calving and nursing, and 

important travel corridors for 

movements throughout Florida and 

beyond. The revision may include both 

additions and deletions to the current 

designation, and specific areas within 

and outside of the geographical area 

currently occupied by manatees. We 

find that incorporating these concepts 

into a revised critical habitat 

designation for the Florida manatee is 

important for identifying the specific 

areas essential to the conservation of the 

species or which contain the essential 

features. We request any additional 

information or input on these potential 

essential features. 

How the Service Intends To Proceed 

Section 4(b)(3)(D)(ii) of the Act 

requires that if we find that a revision 

to critical habitat is warranted, then we 

are to indicate how we intend to 

proceed with such revision and 

promptly publish a notice of our 

intention in the Federal Register. We 

have reviewed the best available 

scientific data available, and we find 

that revisions to critical habitat for 

Florida manatee under the Act should 

be made. However, sufficient funds are 

not available due to higher priority 

actions such as listing-related actions 

pursuant to court orders and judiciallyapproved settlement agreements. We 

intend to undertake rulemaking to 

revise critical habitat for the Florida 

manatee when funding and staff 

resources become available. 

The resources available for listing 

actions, including critical habitat 

designations and revisions, are 

determined through the annual 

Congressional appropriations process. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). 

Recognizing that designation of critical 

habitat for species already listed would 

consume most of the overall Listing 

Program appropriation, Congress also 

put in place a critical habitat subcap 

within the overall Listing Program 

budget in FY 2002 and has retained it 

each subsequent year. Thus, through the 

critical habitat subcap, and the amount 

of funds needed to address courtmandated critical habitat designations, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

available for critical habitat revisions. 

Therefore, the funds in the critical 

habitat subcap set the limits on our 

ability to designate critical habitat or 

revise existing designations in a given 

year. 

In FY 2002 and each year until FY 

2006, we had to use virtually all of the 

funds available under the subcap to 

address court-mandated designations of 

critical habitat; consequently, none of 

the critical habitat subcap funds have 

been available for other designations. In 

FY 2007, we were able to use some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations for 

high-priority candidate species. In FY 

2008, we were unable to use any of the 

critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations; 

however, we did use some of this 

money to fund the critical habitat 

portion of some proposed listing 

determinations. In those cases, the 

proposed listing determination and 

proposed critical habitat designation 

were combined into one rule, thereby 

increasing efficiency in our work. In FY 

2009, we have been able to continue this 

practice. However, our current 

projection for FY 2010 is that all of the 

funding anticipated for the critical 

habitat portion of the listing allocation 

will be used to address court-ordered 

critical habitat designations. Therefore, 

we do not anticipate having any funding 

in FY 2010 available to work on 

additional critical habitat designations. 

Nonetheless, given the requirements 

of the relevant law and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel, we have endeavored to make 

our critical habitat designation and 

revision actions as efficient and timely 

as possible. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together as described above. 

We intend to proceed with a revision 

of critical habitat as soon as we have the 

necessary resources. Our critical habitat 

regulations (50 CFR 424.12(c)) state that 

critical habitat will be defined by 

specific limits using reference points 

and lines on standard topographic maps 

of the area. Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

requires that we consider economic, 

national security, and other impacts of 

designating critical habitat. Based on 

these authorities, and on the definition 

of critical habitat under the Act, once 

funding is available, we will take the 

following steps to propose the revision 

of designated critical habitat for the 

Florida manatee: (1) Determine the 

geographical area occupied by the 

species at the time of listing; (2) identify 

the physical or biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species; (3) delineate specific areas 

within the geographical area occupied 

by the species that contain these 

features, and that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; (4) delineate any areas 

outside of the geographical area 

occupied by the species that are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species; and (5) conduct appropriate 

analyses under section 4(b)(2) of the 

Act; and (6) invite the public to review 

and provide comments on the proposed 

revision through a public comment 

period. 

We intend that any revisions to 

critical habitat for the Florida manatee 

be as accurate as possible. Therefore, 

even until we initiate the proposed 

designation we will continue to accept 

additional information and comments 

from all concerned governmental 

agencies, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested party 

concerning this finding. 

Current Designation and Protections 

Until we are able to revise the critical 

habitat designation for the Florida 

manatee, the currently designated 

critical habitat, as well as areas that 

support manatee populations, but are 

outside the current critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act. Federal 

agency actions are subject to the 

regulatory protections afforded by 

section 7(a)(2), which requires Federal 

agencies, including the Service, to 

ensure that actions they fund, authorize, 

or carry out are not likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of any listed 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of critical habitat. 

We expect that the majority of 

regulatory projects will involve a 

Federal nexus, in which case 

consultation under section 7(a)(2) 

would apply. In addition, federally 

funded or permitted projects affecting 

listed species outside their designated 

critical habitat areas may still result in 

jeopardy findings in some cases. 

Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, if a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. For most species, as a result of 

this consultation, we document 

compliance with the requirements of 

section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that may affect, and are likely to 

adversely affect, listed species or critical 

habitat. 

Because manatees are marine 

mammals, they are protected under the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 1579 

(MMPA). Section 17 of the Act provides 

that any more restrictive conflicting 

provisions of the MMPA take 

precedence over the Act (16 U.S.C. 

1543). Section 7(b)(C) of the Act 

identifies the necessary authorization 

pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the 

MMPA for taking of an endangered or 

threatened marine mammal. Because the 

Service has not promulgated a 

rulemaking under MMPA section 

101(a)(5), we do not issue incidental 

take authorization in conjunction with 

consultations on Federal actions under 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act. In order to 

ensure compliance with section 7(a)(2) 

of the Act and the more restrictive 

provisions of the MMPA, any Federal 

action that is determined as ‘‘likely to 

adversely affect the Florida manatee’’ 

(USFWS 2008) will need to: 

(1) Modify the project to the extent 

that take is no longer reasonably certain 

to occur and/or: 

(2) Incorporate Service-approved take 

minimization and avoidance measures, 

as outlined in our 2009 Manatee 

Programmatic Biological Opinion 

(USFWS 2009). 

Therefore, although we are not 

immediately proceeding with a revision 

of the current critical habitat 

designation for the manatee, the current 

designation still provides protections to 

the manatee in addition to the 

protections afforded the manatee 

through listing under the Act and those 

provided under the MMPA. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available, upon 

request, from the Jacksonville Ecological 

Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

staff with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Jacksonville Ecological Services 

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: December 30, 2009. 

Eileen Sobeck, 

Acting Assistant Secretary of Fish Wildlife 

and Parks. 

TABLE 1. REGIONAL DESCRIPTION OF MANATEE HABITAT AND REGION-SPECIFIC THREATS FOR MANATEES IN FLORIDA

Features Northwest 

Management Unit 

Southwest 

Management Unit 

Atlantic Coast 

Management Unit 

Upper St. Johns River 

Management Unit 

Geographic Boundaries Located along Florida’s 

northwest coast, the 

southern boundary of 

the unit is defined by 

the Hernando- Pasco 

County line. While the 

majority of use occurs 

east of the Wakulla 

River, manatees from 

this unit range as far 

west as Texas. 

Located along Florida’s 

southwest coast, the 

northern boundary is 

described by the PascoHernando County line, 

extending south to the 

mouth of Whitewater 

Bay, along the western 

margin of the Everglades. 

Includes Florida’s coastal 

areas from south of the 

mouth of Whitewater 

Bay, through Florida 

Bay and north to the 

mid-Atlantic region. The 

unit extends into the St. 

Johns River as far 

south as Palatka. 

This unit is located upstream of Palatka, Florida, extending to the 

headwaters of the St. 

Johns River. 

Habitat Description This unit incorporates 

coastal seagrass beds 

which extend from the 

shoreline out to the Gulf 

of Mexico. Significant 

features include the 

spring-fed Wakulla, Suwannee, Crystal, and 

Homosassa River systems, which empty into 

the Gulf. 

This unit primarily includes 

in-shore and near-shore 

seagrass beds, which 

border mangrove systems to the south. 

Tampa Bay, Charlotte 

Harbor, and the 

Caloosahatchee River 

are dominant coastal 

features. There are numerous barrier islands 

south of Tampa Bay, 

accompanied by 

passes, inland waterways, etc. Tidal rivers 

and creeks are common 

in this area. 

This unit primarily includes 

in-shore seagrass beds, 

which border mangrove 

systems to the south. 

Predominant features 

include Florida Bay, the 

Florida Keys, Biscayne 

Bay, and barrier islands 

and inland waterways 

that extend into the midAtlantic region. Significant waterways include 

the Indian River Lagoon, Banana River, 

and Mosquito Lagoon. 

From north Florida and 

into more northerly 

states, habitats are typified by large coastal rivers, such as the St. 

Johns River and coastal 

marshes. 

This freshwater system includes extensive eel 

grass beds bordered 

largely by cypress and 

hardwood swamps. 

There are numerous rivers and lakes that make 

up this system. Notable 

features include the 

Ocklawaha River 

(dammed), Lake 

George, Lake Woodruff, 

and Lake Monroe. 

There are many small, 

spring-fed tributaries 

that discharge into this 

system. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

1580 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1. REGIONAL DESCRIPTION OF MANATEE HABITAT AND REGION-SPECIFIC THREATS FOR MANATEES IN FLORIDA— 

Continued 

Features Northwest 

Management Unit 

Southwest 

Management Unit 

Atlantic Coast 

Management Unit 

Upper St. Johns River 

Management Unit 

Winter Sites Crystal River Springs 

Complex (Citrus) 

Homosassa River Springs 

Complex (Citrus).

Weeki Wachee/ Mud 

Creek/ Jenkins Creek 

Springs (Hernando).

Progress Energy Crystal 

River Power Plant (Citrus).

Manatee/Fanning Springs 

(Dixie).

Wakulla/St. Mark’s Complex (Wakulla).

TECO Big Bend Power 

Plant (Hillsborough) 

Warm Mineral Springs 

(Sarasota).

Matlacha Isles (Lee) 

FPL Ft. Myers Power 

Plant (Lee).

Port of the Islands (Collier).

Progress Energy Anclote 

Plant (Pasco).

TECO Gannon Plant 

(Hillsborough).

Progress Energy Bartow 

Power Plant (Pinellas).

Ten Mile Canal Borrow Pit 

(Lee).

Franklin Locks (Lee) 

Spring Bayou/Tarpon 

Springs (Pasco).

Forked Creek (Sarasota)

Tamiami Canal at 

Wootens (Collier).

Big Cypress National Preserve Headquarters 

Canal (Collier).

Sulphur Springs 

(Hillsborough).

Reliant Energy Power 

Plant (Brevard) 

FPL Canaveral Power 

Plant (Brevard County, 

FL).

FPL Riviera Beach Power 

Plant (Palm Beach).

FPL Port Everglades 

Power Plant (Broward).

FPL Fort Lauderdale 

Power Plant (Broward).

Coral Gables Waterway 

(Dade).

Sebastian River (C-54 

canal) (Brevard).

Vero Beach Power Plant 

(Indian River).

Henry D. King Electric 

Station – Ft. Pierce Utilities (St. Lucie).

Big Mud Creek ( St. 

Lucie).

Berkeley Canal (Brevard)

Black Point Park/Black 

Creek (Dade County).

Palmer Lake (Dade)Little 

River (Dade).

Turkey Point Canal 

(Dade).

C-111 canal and canal 

just west of Card Sound 

Bridge (Dade).

Biscayne Canal (Dade) 

Banana River Marine 

Service Marina 

(Brevard).

Canals/Coves, Upper 

Keys (Bayside of Key 

Largo) (Monroe).

Harbor Branch canal (St. 

Lucie).

Blue Spring 

(Volusia)Silver Glen 

Springs (Marion) 

DeLeon Springs (Volusia) 

Salt Springs (Marion) 

Ocklawaha River 

SpringsComplex (Marion/Lake) 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 7 / Tuesday, January 12, 2010 / Proposed Rules 1581 

[FR Doc. 2010–325 Filed 1–11– 10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALSEP12JA10.000</GPH>