# 64 FR 67536: Designated Critical Habitat: Re-proposed Critical Habitat for Johnson's Seagrass

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-31304

## Section

- **Citation:** 64 FR 67536
- **Heading:** Designated Critical Habitat: Re-proposed Critical Habitat for Johnson's Seagrass
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 64 / 64 FR 67536

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 226

[Docket No. 991116305-9305-01; I.D. No. 110599D]
RIN 0648-AL82

Designated Critical Habitat: Re-proposed Critical Habitat for
Johnson's Seagrass

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of hearing; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS re-proposes to designate critical habitat for Johnson's
seagrass (Halophila johnsonii) pursuant to section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). Johnson's seagrass is found on the east coast of
Florida from Sebastian Inlet to central Biscayne Bay. Within this
range, 10 areas are proposed for critical habitat: a portion of the
Indian River Lagoon, north of the Sebastian Inlet Channel; a portion of
the Indian River Lagoon, south of the Sebastian Inlet Channel; a
portion of the Indian River Lagoon near the Fort Pierce Inlet; a
portion of the Indian River Lagoon, north of the St. Lucie Inlet; a
portion of Hobe Sound; a site on the south side of Jupiter Inlet; a
site in central Lake Worth Lagoon; a site in Lake Worth Lagoon, Boynton
Beach; a site in Lake Wyman, Boca Raton; and a portion of the Biscayne
Bay Aquatic Preserve.
The designation of critical habitat provides explicit notice to
Federal agencies and the public that these areas and features are vital
to the conservation of the species.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by January 3,
2000. A public hearing on this proposed action is scheduled for
Thursday, December 16, 1999, from 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.
the Biscayne
Bay Aquatic Preserve.
The designation of critical habitat provides explicit notice to
Federal agencies and the public that these areas and features are vital
to the conservation of the species.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by January 3,
2000. A public hearing on this proposed action is scheduled for
Thursday, December 16, 1999, from 7:00 p.m.-9:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this proposed designation of critical
habitat should be addressed to Mr. Charles Oravetz, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Protected Resources Division, NMFS, Southeast Regional
Office, 9721 Executive Center Drive North, St. Petersburg, Florida
33702-2432. Comments may be sent via facsimile (fax) to 727-570-5517.
Comments will not be accepted if submitted via e-mail or Internet. A
public hearing on this proposal will be held at the South Florida Water
Management District auditorium, 3301 Gun Club Road, West Palm Beach,
Florida, 33416-4680 (see DATES).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Layne Bolen, Southeast Region,
Protected Resources Division, NMFS, 727-570-5312, [email protected]
or Marta Nammack, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 301-713-1401,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

NMFS published a proposed rule to list Johnson's seagrass as a
threatened species on September 15, 1993 (58 FR 48326) and a proposed
rule to designate critical habitat on August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39716). A
public hearing on both the proposed listing and critical habitat
designation was held in Vero Beach, Florida, on September 20, 1994. As
a result of public input during the comment period, NMFS postponed
further action on listing. NMFS reopened the comment period for the
proposed listing on April 20, 1998 (63 FR 19468)
osed
rule to designate critical habitat on August 4, 1994 (59 FR 39716). A
public hearing on both the proposed listing and critical habitat
designation was held in Vero Beach, Florida, on September 20, 1994. As
a result of public input during the comment period, NMFS postponed
further action on listing. NMFS reopened the comment period for the
proposed listing on April 20, 1998 (63 FR 19468). In order to update
the original status report (Kenworthy, 1993) and to include information
from new field and laboratory research on species distribution,
ecology, genetics and phylogeny, NMFS convened a workshop on the
biology, distribution, and abundance of H. johnsonii. The results of
this workshop were summarized in the proceedings (Kenworthy, 1997)
submitted to NMFS on October 15, 1997. The final rule to list Johnson's
seagrass as a threatened species was published by NMFS on September 14,
1998 (63 FR 49035).
On February 23, 1999, NMFS established and convened a recovery team
to prepare a recovery plan and develop recommendations for critical
habitat for Johnson's seagrass. Based on these recommendations and the
best available scientific data on the distribution, ecology and
genetics of this species, NMFS has developed a new proposal to
designate critical habitat for Johnson's seagrass. A draft recovery
plan for Johnson's seagrass is anticipated by January 2000.
The proposed designation identifies those physical and biological
features of the habitat that are essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management consideration or
protection. The economic and other impacts resulting from designating
critical habitat, over and above those that result from listing the
species, are expected to be minimal.
NMFS has completed a conference opinion with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) on maintenance dredging which will be used to fulfill
the ESA section 7 consultation requirement
re special management consideration or
protection. The economic and other impacts resulting from designating
critical habitat, over and above those that result from listing the
species, are expected to be minimal.
NMFS has completed a conference opinion with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) on maintenance dredging which will be used to fulfill
the ESA section 7 consultation requirement. NMFS expects that normal
maintenance dredging activities and routine operations on ports will
not be negatively impacted by this proposed critical habitat
designation.

Critical Habitat

Section 4(a)(3)(A) of the ESA requires that, to the maximum extent
prudent and determinable, NMFS designate critical habitat concurrently
with a determination that a species is endangered or threatened. NMFS
has determined that sufficient information exists to propose
designating critical habitat for Johnson's seagrass currently listed as
threatened under the ESA. NMFS will consider all available information
and data in finalizing this proposal.
The use of the term ``essential habitat'' within this document
refers to critical habitat as defined by the ESA and should not be
confused with the requirement to describe and identify Essential Fish
Habitat pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Definition of Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as ``(i)
the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species
* * * 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 * * * upon
a determination by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.'' The term
``conservation'', as defined in section 3(3) of the ESA, means ``* * *
to use and the use of al
nd (II) which may require
special management considerations or protection; and (ii) specific
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species * * * upon
a determination by the Secretary of Commerce (Secretary) that such
areas are essential for the conservation of the species.'' The term
``conservation'', as defined in section 3(3) of the ESA, means ``* * *
to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to
bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at
which the measures provided pursuant to this Act are no longer
necessary.''
In designating critical habitat, NMFS must consider the
requirements of the species, including: (1) space for individual and
population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air,

light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements;
(3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing
of offspring; and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and
ecological distributions of the species (50 CFR 424.12(b)).
In addition, NMFS must focus on and list the known physical and
biological features (primary constituent elements) within the
designated area(s) that are essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. These essential features may include, but are not limited
to, food resources, water quality or quantity, and vegetation and
sediment types and stability (50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors
y constituent elements) within the
designated area(s) that are essential to the conservation of the
species and that may require special management considerations or
protection. These essential features may include, but are not limited
to, food resources, water quality or quantity, and vegetation and
sediment types and stability (50 CFR 424.12(b)).

Consideration of Economic and Other Factors

The economic, environmental and other impacts of a designation must
also be evaluated and considered. NMFS must identify present and future
activities that may adversely modify the proposed critical habitat or
be affected by a designation. An area may be excluded from a critical
habitat designation if NMFS determines that the overall benefits of
exclusion outweigh the benefits of designation, unless the exclusion
will result in the extinction of the species (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(2)).
The impacts considered in this analysis are only those incremental
impacts that specifically result from designating critical habitat
above the economic and other impacts attributable to listing the
species or resulting from other authorities. These incremental impacts
are expected to be minimal (see Significance of Designating Critical
Habitat section). In general, the designation of critical habitat
highlights geographical areas of concern and reinforces the substantive
protection resulting from the listing itself.
Impacts attributable to listing include those resulting from the
``take'' prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA and associated
regulations. The term ``take'', as defined in the ESA, means ``to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.'' (16 U.S.C.
1532(19)). Harm can occur through destruction or modification of
habitat (whether or not designated as critical) that significantly
impairs essential behaviors, including breeding, feeding, rearing or
migration (64 FR 60727; November 8, 1999)
he ESA, means ``to
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.'' (16 U.S.C.
1532(19)). Harm can occur through destruction or modification of
habitat (whether or not designated as critical) that significantly
impairs essential behaviors, including breeding, feeding, rearing or
migration (64 FR 60727; November 8, 1999).
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits certain activities that directly or
indirectly affect endangered species. These prohibitions apply to all
individuals, organizations, and agencies subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Section 9 prohibitions apply automatically to endangered species; as
described here, this is not the case for threatened species. Section
4(d) of the ESA directs the Secretary to implement regulations ``to
provide for the conservation of [threatened] species'' that may include
extending any or all of the prohibitions of section 9 to threatened
species.
Section 9(a)(2)(E) of the ESA also prohibits violations of
protective regulations for threatened species of plants implemented
under section 4(d). NMFS may issue protective regulations pursuant to
section 4(d) for Johnson's seagrass in a future rulemaking.
Impacts attributable to listing also include those resulting from
the responsibility of all Federal agencies under section 7 of the ESA
to ensure that their actions are not likely to jeopardize endangered or
threatened species. An action could be likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species through the destruction or
adverse modification of its habitat, whether or not that habitat has
been designated as critical.
As indicated above, NMFS has completed a conference opinion with
the COE on maintenance dredging. This conference opinion included an
analysis of the effects of maintenance dredging on proposed critical
habitat
to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species through the destruction or
adverse modification of its habitat, whether or not that habitat has
been designated as critical.
As indicated above, NMFS has completed a conference opinion with
the COE on maintenance dredging. This conference opinion included an
analysis of the effects of maintenance dredging on proposed critical
habitat. NMFS concluded that normal maintenance dredging activities and
routine operations on ports are not likely to destroy or adversely
modify proposed critical habitat.

Significance of Designating Critical Habitat

The designation of critical habitat does not, in itself, restrict
state or private activities within the area or mandate any specific
management or recovery actions. A critical habitat designation
contributes to species conservation primarily by identifying important
areas and describing the features within those areas that are essential
to the species, thus alerting public and private entities to the
importance of the area. Under the ESA, the only regulatory impact of a
critical habitat designation is through the provisions of section 7.
Section 7 applies only to actions with Federal involvement (e.g.,
authorized, funded, or conducted by a Federal agency) and does not
affect exclusively state or private activities.
Under the ESA section 7 provisions, a designation of critical
habitat would require Federal agencies to ensure that any action they
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to destroy or adversely
modify the designated critical habitat. Activities that destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are defined as those actions that
``appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the
survival and recovery'' of the species (50 CFR 402.02). Regardless of a
critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must ensure that their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
listed species
habitat. Activities that destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are defined as those actions that
``appreciably diminish the value of critical habitat for both the
survival and recovery'' of the species (50 CFR 402.02). Regardless of a
critical habitat designation, Federal agencies must ensure that their
actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the
listed species. Activities that jeopardize a species are defined as
those actions that ``reasonably would be expected, directly or
indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival
and recovery'' of the species (50 CFR 402.02). Using these definitions,
activities that are likely to destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat would also be likely to jeopardize the species. Therefore, the
protection provided by a critical habitat designation generally
duplicates the protection provided under the section 7 jeopardy
provision. Critical habitat may provide additional benefits to a
species in cases where areas outside of the species' current range have
been designated. In these cases, Federal agencies are required to
consult with NMFS under section 7 (50 CFR 402.14 (a)), when these
designated areas may be affected by their actions. The effects of these
actions on designated areas may not have been recognized but for the
critical habitat designation.
A designation of critical habitat provides Federal agencies with a
clearer indication as to when consultation under section 7 of the ESA
is required, particularly in cases where the action would not result in
direct mortality, injury, or harm to individuals of a listed species
(e.g., an action occurring within the critical habitat area when or
where Johnson's seagrass is not present). The critical habitat
designation, in describing the essential features of the habitat, also
helps determine which activities conducted outside the designated area
are subject to ESA section 7 (i.e., activities that may affect
essential features of the designated area)
activities. The
economic and other impacts of these actions would be considered at the
time regulations are proposed, and, therefore, are not considered in
the critical habitat designation process. Other Federal, state and
local laws or regulations, such as zoning or wetlands protection, may
also provide special protection for critical habitat areas.

Process for Designating Critical Habitat

Developing a proposed critical habitat designation involves three
main considerations. First, the biological needs of the species are
evaluated and essential habitat areas and features are identified. If
alternative areas exist that would provide for the conservation of the
species, such alternatives are also identified. Second, the need for
special management considerations or protection of the area(s) or
features is evaluated. Finally, the probable economic and other impacts
of designating these essential areas as critical habitat are evaluated.
After considering the requirements of the species, the need for special
management, and the impacts of the designation, a notification of the
proposed critical habitat is published in the Federal Register for
comment. After considering all comments and any new information
received on the proposal, the final critical habitat designation is
published. Final critical habitat designations may be revised, using
the same process, as new data become available.
A description of the critical habitat, need for special management
considerations, and impacts of designating critical habitat for
Johnson's seagrass and the proposed action, are described in the
following sections.

Critical Habitat of Johnson's Seagrass
abitat designation is
published. Final critical habitat designations may be revised, using
the same process, as new data become available.
A description of the critical habitat, need for special management
considerations, and impacts of designating critical habitat for
Johnson's seagrass and the proposed action, are described in the
following sections.

Critical Habitat of Johnson's Seagrass

The biology of Johnson's seagrass is discussed in the final rule to
list the species as threatened (63 FR 49035, September 14, 1998) and
includes information on the current status of the species, its life
history characteristics and habitat requirements, as well as projects,
activities and other factors affecting the species. The physical
habitat that supports Johnson's seagrass includes both shallow
intertidal as well as deeper subtidal zones. The species prospers and
is able to colonize and maintain stable populations either in water
that is clear and deep (2-5 m) or in water that is shallow and turbid.
In tidal channels, it inhabits coarse sand substrates.
Based on published reports and discussions with seagrass experts,
the distributional range of Johnson's seagrass is limited to the east
coast of Florida from central Biscayne Bay (25 deg.45' N. lat.) to
Sebastian Inlet (27 deg.51' N. lat.). There have been no reports of
healthy populations of this species outside the presently known range.
Although the species occurs throughout the Indian River Lagoon and Lake
Worth, the 10 specific areas proposed for critical habitat encompass
the largest known contiguous populations of Johnson's seagrass, those
areas known to have persistent populations, those populations known to
have persistent flowering, those populations found to have unique
genetic variability, and/or populations that include the northern and
southern limits of the species' range.
The species is distributed in patches within its range
tical habitat encompass
the largest known contiguous populations of Johnson's seagrass, those
areas known to have persistent populations, those populations known to
have persistent flowering, those populations found to have unique
genetic variability, and/or populations that include the northern and
southern limits of the species' range.
The species is distributed in patches within its range. The
dimensions of patches range from a few square centimeters to
approximately 327 square meters (sq.m.). The survival of the species
likely depends on maintaining its existing viable populations,
especially the areas where the larger patches are found. The Sebastian
Inlet population is believed to be the northern limit of its
distribution and includes flowering patches that have a known
persistence of at least 10 years. Ft. Pierce Inlet and Jupiter Inlet
are also found to have persistent and flowering populations. The other
areas proposed for critical habitat designation represent the core
range of the species where Johnson's seagrass is found to be abundant
compared to other parts of its range, exhibits unique genetic make-up,
or comprises the southern limit of its range. Spread of the species
into new areas is limited by its reproductive potential. Johnson's
seagrass possesses only female flowers; thus vegetative propagation,
most likely through asexual branching, appears to be its only means of
reproduction and dispersal. If an established community is disturbed,
regrowth and reestablishment are extremely unlikely. If extirpated from
an area, it is doubtful that the species would be capable of
repopulation. This species' method of reproduction impedes the ability
to increase distribution as establishment of new vegetation requires
considerable stability in environmental conditions and protection from
human-induced disturbances
community is disturbed,
regrowth and reestablishment are extremely unlikely. If extirpated from
an area, it is doubtful that the species would be capable of
repopulation. This species' method of reproduction impedes the ability
to increase distribution as establishment of new vegetation requires
considerable stability in environmental conditions and protection from
human-induced disturbances.
Based on the best available information, general physical and
biological features of the areas proposed for critical habitat
designation include adequate water quality, salinity levels, water
transparency, and stable, unconsolidated sediments that are free from
physical disturbance. The specific areas occupied by Johnson's seagrass
are those with one or more of the following criteria: (1) Locations
with populations that have persisted for 10 years; (2) locations with
persistent flowering populations; (3) locations at the northern and
southern range limits of the species; (4) locations with unique genetic
diversity; and (5) locations with a documented high abundance of
Johnson's seagrass compared to other areas in the species' range.
Explanations for these criteria are:
1. Persistent populations. Surveys of H. johnsonii distribution and
abundance in the Indian River Lagoon indicate that populations
fluctuate dramatically. In some areas populations disappear and re-
appear on both intra- and inter-annual time scales (Virnstein et al.,
1997). Some populations have disappeared and not returned. Since sexual
reproduction and seed dispersal are unknown, this species may rely on
vegetative fragmentation for recruitment and establishment of new
populations. Recruitment from fragmentation and migration are random
processes which do not guarantee the persistence of the species in any
one location. Perennial populations which have persisted for 10 years
exist in several locations, including Sebastian Inlet, Fort Pierce
Inlet, Jupiter Inlet and Hobe Sound
ies may rely on
vegetative fragmentation for recruitment and establishment of new
populations. Recruitment from fragmentation and migration are random
processes which do not guarantee the persistence of the species in any
one location. Perennial populations which have persisted for 10 years
exist in several locations, including Sebastian Inlet, Fort Pierce
Inlet, Jupiter Inlet and Hobe Sound. Environmental characteristics of
these sites appear favorable to the species, while in other locations
in the lagoon, populations have disappeared. Locations where
populations have persisted should receive critical habitat
consideration.
2. Persistent flowering populations. The existence of male flowers
or recruitment by seed have not been documented for H. johnsonii. These
observations suggest that this species does not reproduce sexually, and
if it does, it is a very rare event. Yet, large clones of mature female
plants flower prolifically at several locations, including Sebastian
Inlet, Fort Pierce Inlet, Jupiter Inlet and Lake Worth Lagoon. The
environmental conditions at these sites appears to be suitable for

flowering, and if there are any males present, these would be likely
habitats for successful reproduction. Locations where there are
persistent flowering populations should receive critical habitat
consideration.
3. Northern and southern ranges of the populations. The
geographical limits of the distributional range of a species can
indicate a reduction or expansion of the species' range. Greater
adaptative stresses can occur at the limits of the species' range. If
the range extension were shrinking, the edges should be protected to
prevent further loss. Second, the distribution limits may be a point
where the populations are expanding and invading new environments. The
unique phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of these populations
could be an important reservoir for characteristics resistant to
extinction and conducive to survival and growth
If
the range extension were shrinking, the edges should be protected to
prevent further loss. Second, the distribution limits may be a point
where the populations are expanding and invading new environments. The
unique phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of these populations
could be an important reservoir for characteristics resistant to
extinction and conducive to survival and growth. The northern and
southern ranges of Johnson's seagrass are defined as Sebastian Inlet
and central Biscayne Bay, respectively. These limits to the species'
range should receive critical habitat consideration.
4. Populations with unique genetic variability. The Boca Raton and
Boynton Beach sites have populations which are distinguished by a
higher index of genetic variation than any of the central and northern
populations examined to date. These two sites possibly represent a
genetically semi-isolated group which could be the reservoir of a large
part of the overall genetic variation found in this species.
Information is lacking on the geographic extent of this genetic
variability. Locations with populations that have unique genetic
variability should receive critical habitat consideration.
5. Areas of abundance. The Lake Worth Lagoon and Palm Beach County
seagrass populations represent an abundant core of Halophila species,
including Johnson's seagrass. Previously a freshwater lake, Lake Worth,
was transformed into a lagoon beginning in 1877 when an ocean inlet was
stabilized. With dredging of the Intracoastal Waterway, shoreline
development, and sewage disposal, the lagoon was permanently altered.
Presently, there are about 2000 acres of seagrass in the lagoon
covering 35 percent of the bottom. It is estimated that between 20 and
25 percent of the seagrass coverage is comprised of mixed assemblages
of H. decipiens and H. johnsonii. This is proportionately more
Halophila coverage than occurs elsewhere along the southeast coast of
Florida
ge disposal, the lagoon was permanently altered.
Presently, there are about 2000 acres of seagrass in the lagoon
covering 35 percent of the bottom. It is estimated that between 20 and
25 percent of the seagrass coverage is comprised of mixed assemblages
of H. decipiens and H. johnsonii. This is proportionately more
Halophila coverage than occurs elsewhere along the southeast coast of
Florida. Presently, conditions within Lake Worth Lagoon and in Palm
Beach County in general appear to be conducive to the survival of H.
johnsonii. Locations within Lake Worth and Palm Beach County should be
considered as critical habitat.
The area proposed for critical habitat in Lake Worth Lagoon, near
Bingham Island, consists of the largest recorded contiguous patch of
Johnson's seagrass: a 30-acre meadow of Johnson's seagrass intermixed
with sparse coverage of H. decipiens and Halodule wrightii (Smith and
Mezich, 1991 and 1999).

Need for Special Management Consideration or Protection

NMFS has determined that the essential areas and features described
here are at risk and may require special management consideration or
protection. Special management may be required because of the following
activities: (1) Vessel traffic and the resulting propeller dredging and
anchor mooring; (2) dredging; (3) dock, marina, and bridge construction
and shading from these structures; (4) water pollution; and (5) land
use practices including shoreline development, agriculture, and
aquaculture. Activities associated with recreational boat traffic
account for the majority of human use associated with the proposed
critical habitat areas. The destruction of the benthic community due to
boating activities, propeller dredging, anchor mooring, and dock and
marina construction was observed at all sites during a study by NMFS
from 1990 to 1992. These activities severely disrupt the benthic
habitat, breaching root systems, severing rhizomes, and significantly
reducing the viability of the seagrass community
critical habitat areas. The destruction of the benthic community due to
boating activities, propeller dredging, anchor mooring, and dock and
marina construction was observed at all sites during a study by NMFS
from 1990 to 1992. These activities severely disrupt the benthic
habitat, breaching root systems, severing rhizomes, and significantly
reducing the viability of the seagrass community. Propeller dredging
and anchor mooring in shallow areas are a major disturbance to even the
most robust seagrasses. This destruction is expected to worsen with the
predicted increase in boating activity. Trampling of seagrass beds, a
secondary effect of recreational boating, also disturbs seagrass
habitat. Populations of Johnson's seagrass inhabiting shallow water and
water close to inlets, where vessel traffic is concentrated, will be
most affected.
The constant sedimentation patterns in and around inlets require
frequent maintenance dredging, which could either directly remove
essential seagrass habitat or indirectly affect it by redistributing
sediments, burying plants and destabilizing the bottom structure.
Altering benthic topography or burying the plants may remove them from
the photic zone.
Permitted dredging of channels, basins, and other in-and on-water
construction projects cause loss of Johnson's seagrass and its habitat
through direct removal of the plant, fragmentation of habitat, and
shading. Docking facilities that, upon meeting certain provisions, are
exempt from state permitting also contribute to loss of Johnson's
seagrass through construction impacts and shading. Fixed add-ons to
exempt docks (such as finger piers, floating docks, or boat lifts) have
recently been documented as an additional source of seagrass loss due
to shading (Smith and Mezich, 1999).
Decreased water transparency caused by suspended sediments, water
color, and chlorophylls could have significant detrimental effects on
the distribution and abundance of the deeper water populations of
Johnson's seagrass
t docks (such as finger piers, floating docks, or boat lifts) have
recently been documented as an additional source of seagrass loss due
to shading (Smith and Mezich, 1999).
Decreased water transparency caused by suspended sediments, water
color, and chlorophylls could have significant detrimental effects on
the distribution and abundance of the deeper water populations of
Johnson's seagrass. A distribution survey in Hobe and Jupiter Sounds
indicates that the abundance of this seagrass diminishes in the more
turbid interior portion of the lagoon where reduced light limits
photosynthesis.
Other areas of concern include seagrass beds located in proximity
to rivers and canal mouths where low salinity, highly colored water is
discharged. Freshwater discharge into areas adjacent to seagrass beds
may provoke physiological stress upon the plants by reducing the
salinity levels. Additionally, colored waters released into these areas
reduce the amount of sunlight available for photosynthesis by rapidly
attenuating shorter wavelengths of Photosynthetically Active Radiation.
Also, continuing and increasing degradation of water quality due to
increased land use and water management threatens the welfare of
seagrass communities. Nutrient over-enrichment caused by inorganic and
organic nitrogen and phosphorous loading via urban and agricultural
land run-off stimulates increased algal growth that may smother
Johnson's seagrass, shade rooted vegetation, and diminish the oxygen
content of the water. Low oxygen conditions have a demonstrated
negative impact on seagrasses and associated communities.
Special consideration and protection for these and other habitat
features are evaluated in the ESA section 7 consultation process.
Special management needs and the protection of these habitat features
are being addressed in the development and implementation of the
recovery plan.

Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat
monstrated
negative impact on seagrasses and associated communities.
Special consideration and protection for these and other habitat
features are evaluated in the ESA section 7 consultation process.
Special management needs and the protection of these habitat features
are being addressed in the development and implementation of the
recovery plan.

Activities That May Affect Critical Habitat

A wide range of activities funded, authorized or carried out by
Federal agencies may affect the essential habitat requirements of
Johnson's seagrass. These include authorization by the COE for beach
nourishment, dredging, and

related activities including construction of docks and marinas; bridge
construction projects funded by the Federal Highway Administration;
actions by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the COE to
manage freshwater discharges into waterways; regulation of vessel
traffic by the U.S. Coast Guard; management of national refuges and
protected species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; management of
vessel traffic (and other activities) by the U.S. Navy; approval of
changes to Florida's coastal zone management plan by NOAA's National
Ocean Service, and management of commercial fishing and protected
species by NMFS.

Expected Impacts of Designating Critical Habitat

This designation will identify specific habitat areas that have
been determined to be essential for the conservation of Johnson's
seagrass and that may be in need of special management considerations
or protection. It will require Federal agencies to evaluate their
activities with respect to the critical habitat of this species and to
consult with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA before engaging in
any action that may affect the critical habitat.
As discussed in the section on activities that may impact essential
habitat and features, the Federal activities that may affect critical
habitat are the same activities that may affect the species itself
activities with respect to the critical habitat of this species and to
consult with NMFS pursuant to section 7 of the ESA before engaging in
any action that may affect the critical habitat.
As discussed in the section on activities that may impact essential
habitat and features, the Federal activities that may affect critical
habitat are the same activities that may affect the species itself. For
plants, this is particularly true when analyzing the impacts of
designating critical habitat. For example, the activities that affect
water quality, an essential feature of critical habitat, will also be
considered in terms of how they affect the species itself.
Should this proposed designation of critical habitat be adopted,
Federal agencies will continue to engage in ESA section 7 consultations
to determine if the actions they authorize, fund or carry out are
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of Johnson's seagrass;
however, with designation, they would also need to address explicitly
impacts to the species' critical habitat. This is not expected to
affect materially the scope of future consultations or result in
greater economic impacts, since most impacts to Johnson's seagrass
habitat will already be considered in ESA section 7 consultations.
The economic costs to be considered in a critical habitat
designation are the incremental costs of designation above the economic
impacts attributable to listing or attributable to authorities other
than the ESA. NMFS has determined that there are few, if any,
incremental net costs for areas within the species' current
distribution, and no areas outside the current range are proposed for
critical habitat designation.

Proposed Critical Habitat; Geographic Extent
re the incremental costs of designation above the economic
impacts attributable to listing or attributable to authorities other
than the ESA. NMFS has determined that there are few, if any,
incremental net costs for areas within the species' current
distribution, and no areas outside the current range are proposed for
critical habitat designation.

Proposed Critical Habitat; Geographic Extent

Based on available information, NMFS proposes to designate critical
habitat that is considered essential for the survival and that may
require special management consideration or protection. The critical
habitat designation proposed by this rule includes: (1) Locations with
populations that have persisted for 10 years; (2) locations with
persistent flowering populations; (3) locations at the northern and
southern range limits of the species; (4) locations with unique genetic
diversity; and (5) core locations with a documented high abundance of
Johnson's seagrass compared to other areas in the species' range.
NMFS is not including in the proposed designation any areas outside
the species' currently known geographical area. NMFS has concluded
that, at this time, proper management of the essential features of the
areas around Sebastian and Ft. Pierce Inlet, Hobe Sound, Jupiter Inlet,
Lake Worth, Boca Raton, and northern Key Biscayne will be sufficient to
provide for the survival and recovery of this species. NMFS may
reconsider this evaluation and propose additional areas for critical
habitat at any time. Johnson's seagrass occurs in numerous locations
throughout its range in areas outside of those currently being proposed
for critical habitat. Information on genetic variability and
persistence of Johnson's seagrass is currently lacking in these areas
or the survival and recovery of this species. NMFS may
reconsider this evaluation and propose additional areas for critical
habitat at any time. Johnson's seagrass occurs in numerous locations
throughout its range in areas outside of those currently being proposed
for critical habitat. Information on genetic variability and
persistence of Johnson's seagrass is currently lacking in these areas.
Future research, however, involving genetic studies and comprehensive,
long-term field surveys, could identify additional areas that are
essential to the conservation of the species and require special
management considerations, and would, therefore, warrant designation as
critical habitat. Also, if a male flower of Johnson's seagrass is
identified in an area, this area should be designated as critical
habitat.
The 10 areas proposed for critical habitat designation include:
(1) A portion of the Indian River, Florida, north of Sebastian
Inlet Channel, defined by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.51'15.03''N, 80 deg.27'55.49''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.51'16.57''N, 80 deg.27'53.05''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.51'08.85''N, 80 deg.27'50.48''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.51'11.58''N, 80 deg.27'47.35''W

(2) A portion of the Indian River, Florida, south of the Sebastian
Inlet Channel, defined by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.51'01.32''N, 80 deg.27'46.10''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.51'02.69''N, 80 deg.27'45.27''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.50'59.08''N, 80 deg.27'41.84''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.51'01.07''N, 80 deg.27'40.50''W
t corner: 27 deg.51'11.58''N, 80 deg.27'47.35''W

(2) A portion of the Indian River, Florida, south of the Sebastian
Inlet Channel, defined by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.51'01.32''N, 80 deg.27'46.10''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.51'02.69''N, 80 deg.27'45.27''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.50'59.08''N, 80 deg.27'41.84''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.51'01.07''N, 80 deg.27'40.50''W

(3) A portion of the Indian River Lagoon in the vicinity of the
Fort Pierce Inlet. This site is located on the north side of the
entrance channel just west of a small mangrove vegetated island where
the main entrance channel bifurcates to the north. The area is defined
by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.28'06.00''N, 80 deg.18'48.89''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.28'04.43''N, 80 deg.18'42.25''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.28'02.86''N, 80 deg.18'49.06''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.28'01.46''N, 80 deg.18'42.42''W

(4) A portion of the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, north of the St.
Lucie Inlet, from South Nettles Island to the Florida Oceanographic
Institute, defined with the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.16'44.04''N, 80 deg.14'00.00''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.16'44.04''N, 80 deg.12'51.33''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.12'49.70''N, 80 deg.11'46.80''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.12'49.70''N, 80 deg.11'02.50''W

(5) Hobe Sound beginning at State Road 708 (27 deg.03'49.90''N,
80 deg.07'20.57''W) and extending south to 27 deg.00'00.00''N,
80 deg.05#32.54''W.
llowing coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.16'44.04''N, 80 deg.14'00.00''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.16'44.04''N, 80 deg.12'51.33''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.12'49.70''N, 80 deg.11'46.80''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.12'49.70''N, 80 deg.11'02.50''W

(5) Hobe Sound beginning at State Road 708 (27 deg.03'49.90''N,
80 deg.07'20.57''W) and extending south to 27 deg.00'00.00''N,
80 deg.05#32.54''W.

(6) Jupiter Inlet at a site located just west of the entrance to
Zeek's Marina on the south side of Jupiter Inlet and defined by the
following coordinates (note a south central point was included to
better define the shape of the southern boundary):

Northwest corner: 26 deg.56'43.34''N, 80 deg.04'47.84''W
Northeast corner: 26 deg.56'40.93''N, 80 deg.04'42.61''W
Southwest corner: 26 deg.56'40.73''N, 80 deg.04'48.65''W
South central point: 26 deg.56'38.11''N, 80 deg.04'45.83''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.56'38.31''N, 80 deg.04'42.41''W

(7) A portion of Lake Worth, Florida, just north of Bingham Island
defined by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 26 deg.40'44.00''N, 80 deg.02'39.00''
Northeast corner: 26 deg.40'40.00''N, 80 deg.02'34.00''W
Southwest corner: 26 deg.40'32.00''N, 80 deg.02'44.00''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.40'33.00''N, 80 deg.02'35.00''W

(8) A portion of Lake Worth Lagoon, Florida, located just north of
the Boynton Inlet, on the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway,
defined by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 26 deg.33'28.00''N, 80 deg.02'54.00''W
Northeast corner: 26 deg.33'30.00''N, 80 deg.03'04.00''W
Southwest corner: 26 deg.32'50.00''N, 80 deg.03'11.00''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.32'50.00''N, 80 deg.02'58.00''W

(9) A portion of northeast Lake Wyman, Boca Raton, Florida, defined
by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 26 deg.22'27.00''N, 80 deg.04'23.00''W
Northeast corner: 26 deg.22'27.00''N, 80 deg.04'18.00''W
Southwest corner: 26 deg.22'23.00''N, 80 deg.04'22.00''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.22'23.00''N, 80 deg.04'19.00''W
g.03'11.00''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.32'50.00''N, 80 deg.02'58.00''W

(9) A portion of northeast Lake Wyman, Boca Raton, Florida, defined
by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 26 deg.22'27.00''N, 80 deg.04'23.00''W
Northeast corner: 26 deg.22'27.00''N, 80 deg.04'18.00''W
Southwest corner: 26 deg.22'23.00''N, 80 deg.04'22.00''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.22'23.00''N, 80 deg.04'19.00''W

(10) A portion of Northern Biscayne Bay, Florida, defined by the
following: The northern boundary of Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, N.E.
163rd Street, and including all parts of the Biscayne Bay Aquatics
Preserve as defined in 18-18.002 of the Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.) excluding the Ortega River beyond its mouth, and all Federal
navigation channels at the Port of Miami, not including the
Intracoastal Waterway, to the currently documented southern-most range
of Johnson's seagrass, Central Key Biscayne (25 deg.45'N).
Maps are provided for reference purposes to guide Federal agencies
and other interested parties in locating the general boundaries of the
proposed critical habitat. They do not constitute the definition of the
boundaries of critical habitat. Persons must refer to the regulations
at 50 CFR 226.91 for the actual boundaries of the designated critical
habitat. Figures 1 through 9 illustrate the ten areas proposed as
critical habitat for Johnson's seagrass.

Request for Comments

NMFS is soliciting information, comments and/or recommendations on
any aspect of this proposal from all interested parties. NMFS will
consider all information, comments and recommendations received before
reaching a final decision.
The public hearing on this proposed action has been scheduled for
Thursday, December 2, 1999. Interested parties will have an opportunity
to provide oral and written testimony at the public hearing.

Special Accommodations
ons on
any aspect of this proposal from all interested parties. NMFS will
consider all information, comments and recommendations received before
reaching a final decision.
The public hearing on this proposed action has been scheduled for
Thursday, December 2, 1999. Interested parties will have an opportunity
to provide oral and written testimony at the public hearing.

Special Accommodations

This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to Layne Bolen (see ADDRESSES).

References

The complete citations for the references used in this document are
available upon request (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Classification

NMFS has determined that Environmental Assessments or an
Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared for
this critical habitat designation. See Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 698 (1996).
NMFS proposes to designate 10 areas in the range of Johnson's
seagrass as critical habitat. This designation will not impose any
additional requirements or economic effects upon small entities beyond
those which may accrue from section 7 of the ESA. Section 7 requires
Federal agencies to ensure that any action they carry out, authorize,
or fund is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
listed species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat (ESA section 7(a)(2)). The consultation
requirements of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the
time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with
NMFS and ensure that their actions do not jeopardize a listed species,
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated
ted species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat (ESA section 7(a)(2)). The consultation
requirements of section 7 are nondiscretionary and are effective at the
time of species' listing. Therefore, Federal agencies must consult with
NMFS and ensure that their actions do not jeopardize a listed species,
regardless of whether critical habitat is designated.
In the future, should NMFS determine that designation of additional
habitat areas in the species' range and/or outside the species' current
range is necessary for conservation and recovery, NMFS will analyze the
incremental costs of the action and assess its potential impacts on
small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Accordingly, the Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of
Commerce has certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration that the proposed critical habitat designation,
if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, as described in the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined
that the proposed designation is consistent to the maximum extent
practicable with the approved Coastal Zone Management Program of the
State of Florida. This determination has been submitted for review by
the responsible State agency under section 307 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, has determined
this rule is not significant for purposes of E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, NMFS has prepared the following
federalism summary impact statement. When NMFS issued a proposed rule
to designate critical habitat for Johnson's seagrass in 1994, NMFS
began consulting with the State of Florida
nt for purposes of E.O. 12866.
This proposed rule does not contain a collection-of-information
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
In accordance with E.O. 13132, NMFS has prepared the following
federalism summary impact statement. When NMFS issued a proposed rule
to designate critical habitat for Johnson's seagrass in 1994, NMFS
began consulting with the State of Florida. While the State expressed
support for protection of Johnson's seagrass, it also expressed concern
over the possible economic impacts of a critical habitat designation.
NMFS understands the concerns of the State regarding timely maintenance
of state and federal navigation channels, ports, and inlets, and NMFS'
goal is to protect the species with minimal effects to these
activities. Concerns regarding possible economic impacts of a critical
habitat designation are addressed in the preamble to this rule. In
addition, NMFS has completed a conference opinion with the COE on the
effects of maintenance dredging on Johnson's seagrass and its proposed
critical habitat. NMFS expects that operations on ports will not be
negatively impacted by this proposed critical habitat designation.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE99.032

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE99.033

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE99.034

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE99.035

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE99.036

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE99.037

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE99.038

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE99.039

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02DE99.040

BILLING CODE 3510-22-C

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 226

Endangered and threatened species.

Dated: November 29, 1999.
Penelope D. Dalton,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.
Endangered and threatened species.

Dated: November 29, 1999.
Penelope D. Dalton,
Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries
Service.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 50 CFR part 226 is
proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 226--DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT

1. The authority citation for part 226 continues to read as
follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1533.

2. Section 226.211 is added to part 226 to read as follows:

Sec. 226.211 Critical habitat for Johnson's seagrass

Critical habitat is designated to include substrate and water in
the following ten portions of the Indian River Lagoon and Biscayne Bay
within the current range of Johnson's seagrass.
(a) A portion of the Indian River, Florida, north of Sebastian
Inlet Channel, defined by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.51'15.03''N, 80 deg.27'55.49''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.51'16.57''N, 80 deg.27'53.05''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.51'08.85''N, 80 deg.27'50.48''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.51'11.58''N, 80 deg.27'47.35''W

(b) A portion of the Indian River, Florida, south of the Sebastian
Inlet Channel, defined by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.51'01.32''N, 80 deg.27'46.10''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.51'02.69''N, 80 deg.27'45.27''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.50'59.08''N, 80 deg.27'41.84''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.51'01.07''N, 80 deg.27'40.50''W

(c) A portion of the Indian River Lagoon in the vicinity of the
Fort Pierce Inlet. This site is located on the north side of the
entrance channel just west of a small mangrove vegetated island where
the main entrance channel bifurcates to the north. The area is defined
by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.28'06.00''N, 80 deg.18'48.89''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.28'04.43''N, 80 deg.18'42.25''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.28'02.86''N, 80 deg.18'49.06''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.28'01.46''N, 80 deg.18'42.42''W
ntrance channel just west of a small mangrove vegetated island where
the main entrance channel bifurcates to the north. The area is defined
by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.28'06.00''N, 80 deg.18'48.89''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.28'04.43''N, 80 deg.18'42.25''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.28'02.86''N, 80 deg.18'49.06''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.28'01.46''N, 80 deg.18'42.42''W

(d) A portion of the Indian River Lagoon, Florida, North of the St.
Lucie Inlet; from South Nettles Island to the Florida Oceanographic
Institute, defined with the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 27 deg.16'44.04''N, 80 deg.14'00.00''W
Northeast corner: 27 deg.16'44.04''N, 80 deg.12'51.33''W
Southwest corner: 27 deg.12'49.70''N, 80 deg.11'46.80''W
Southeast corner: 27 deg.12'49.70''N, 80 deg.11'02.50''W

(e) Hobe Sound beginning at State Road 708 (27 deg.03'49.90''N,
80 deg.07'20.57''W) and extending south to 27 deg.00'00.00''N,
80 deg.05'32.54''W.
(f) Jupiter Inlet at a site located just west of the entrance to
Zeek's Marina on the south side of Jupiter Inlet and defined by the
following coordinates (note a south central point was included to
better define the shape of the southern boundary):

Northwest corner: 26 deg.56'43.34''N, 80 deg.04'47.84''W
Northeast corner: 26 deg.56'40.93''N, 80 deg.04'42.61''W
Southwest corner: 26 deg.56'40.73''N, 80 deg.04'48.65''W
South central point: 26 deg.56'38.11''N, 80 deg.04'45.83''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.56'38.31''N, 80 deg.04'42.41''W
(g) A portion of Lake Worth, Florida, just north of Bingham Island
defined by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 26 deg.40'44.00''N, 80 deg.02'39.00''W
Northeast corner: 26 deg.40'40.00''N, 80 deg.02'34.00''W
Southwest corner: 26 deg.40'32.00''N, 80 deg.02'44.00''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.40'33.00''N, 80 deg.02'35.00''W
5.83''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.56'38.31''N, 80 deg.04'42.41''W
(g) A portion of Lake Worth, Florida, just north of Bingham Island
defined by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 26 deg.40'44.00''N, 80 deg.02'39.00''W
Northeast corner: 26 deg.40'40.00''N, 80 deg.02'34.00''W
Southwest corner: 26 deg.40'32.00''N, 80 deg.02'44.00''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.40'33.00''N, 80 deg.02'35.00''W

(h) A portion of Lake Worth Lagoon, Florida, located just north of
the Boynton Inlet, on the west side of the Intracoastal Waterway,
defined by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 26 deg.33'28.00''N, 80 deg.02'54.00''W
Northeast corner: 26 deg.33'30.00''N, 80 deg.03'04.00''W
Southwest corner: 26 deg.32'50.00''N, 80 deg.03'11.00''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.32'50.00''N, 80 deg.02'58.00''W

(i) A portion of northeast Lake Wyman, Boca Raton, Florida, defined
by the following coordinates:

Northwest corner: 26 deg.22'27.00''N, 80 deg.04'23.00''W
Northeast corner: 26 deg.22'27.00''N, 80 deg.04'18.00''W
Southwest corner: 26 deg.22'23.00''N, 80 deg.04'22.00''W
Southeast corner: 26 deg.22'23.00''N, 80 deg.04'19.00''W

(j) A portion of Northern Biscayne Bay, Florida, defined by the
following: The northern boundary of Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, NE.
163rd Street, and including all parts of the Biscayne Bay Aquatics
Preserve as defined in 18-18.002 of the Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.) excluding the Ortega River beyond its mouth, and all Federal
navigation channels at the Port of Miami, not including the
Intracoastal Waterway, to the currently documented southernmost range
of Johnson's seagrass, Central Key Biscayne (25 deg. 45#N).

[FR Doc. 99-31304 Filed 11-29-99; 4:07 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P

## Nearby sections

- [64 FR 58 Organization and Operations of Federal Credit Unions; Fidelity Bond and Insurance Coverage for Federal Credit Unions; Requirements for Insurance](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-34031.md)
- [64 FR 61 Pay-Per-Call Rule](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-34408.md)
- [64 FR 435 Airworthiness Directives; British Aerospace Model BAC 1-11 200 and 400 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-49.md)
- [64 FR 443 Airworthiness Directives; Raytheon Aircraft Company Models C90A, B200, B200C, B200T, B200CT, 300, B300, B300C, and A200CT Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-44.md)
- [64 FR 447 Proposed Modification of Class D Airspace and Class E Airspace and Establishment of Class E Airspace; Rapid City, SD](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-83.md)
- [64 FR 465 Threatened Fish and Wildlife; Listing of the Gulf of Maine/Bay of Fundy Population of Harbor Porpoise as Threatened Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA)](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-138.md)
- [64 FR 628 Labor Condition Applications and Requirements for Employers Using Nonimmigrants on H-1B Visas in Specialty Occupations and as Fashion Models; Labor Certification Process for Permanent Employment of Aliens in the United States](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_98-34668.md)
- [64 FR 1003 Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes Florida: Redesignation of the Duval County Sulfur Dioxide Unclassifiable Area to Attainment](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-230.md)
- [64 FR 1157 Certain Plant Regulators: Cytokinins, Auxins, Gibberellins, Ethylene, and Pelargonic Acid; Tolerance Exemptions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-429.md)
- [64 FR 1542 List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: Addition](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-505.md)
- [64 FR 1545 Airworthiness Directives; Boeing Model 737-100, -200, -300, -400, and -500 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-482.md)
- [64 FR 1560 Proposed Modification of Class E Airspace; Port Clinton, OH](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-499.md)
- [64 FR 1585 Great Lakes Pilotage Regulations](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-126.md)
- [64 FR 1786 Fixed Satellite Service and Terrestrial System in the Ku-Band](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-578.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_99-31304. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.