John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Availability of Final Revised Maps for Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, and New York, 103854-103857 [2024-29644]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
103854
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / Notices
2. May I review comments submitted by
others?
You may view public comments at
https://www.regulations.gov unless our
allowing so would violate the Privacy
Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) or other Federal law.
businesses, and from individuals
identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, will be
made available for public disclosure in
their entirety.
3. Who will see my comments?
C. Next Steps for Submitted
Applications
If you submit a comment at https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment, including any personal
identifying information, will be posted
on the website. If you submit a
hardcopy comment that includes
personal identifying information, such
as your address, phone number, or
email address, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold
this information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so. Moreover, all
submissions from organizations or
After the comment period closes, we
will make decisions regarding permit
issuance. If we issue permits to any of
the applicants listed above in this
notice, we will publish a subsequent
notice in the Federal Register. You may
locate the notice announcing the permit
issuance by searching https://
www.regulations.gov for the permit
number listed above in this document.
For example, to find information about
the potential issuance of Permit No.
12345A, you would go to https://
www.regulations.gov and search for
‘‘12345A’’.
III. Permits Issued by the Service
We have issued permits to conduct
certain activities involving marine
mammals and marine mammal products
in response to prior permit applications
that we received. This notice informs
the public that the FWS has issued the
permits listed in table 1.
The permittees’ original permit
application materials, along with public
comments we received during public
comment periods for the applications,
are available for review. To locate the
application materials and received
comments, go to https://
www.regulations.gov and search for the
appropriate permit number (e.g.,
PER12345) or docket number (e.g.,
FWS–R7–ES–2020–0004) provided in
table 1.
TABLE 1—PERMITS ISSUED UNDER THE MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT
Applicant
PER6413229 .......................................
14762C ................................................
9061181 ..............................................
041309 ................................................
Matson’s Laboratory .........................................................
National Park Service, Juneau .........................................
Windfall Films Limited .......................................................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Marine Mammals
Management Office.
North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management.
Jason Roehrig, MeatEater Films ......................................
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Polar Bear Program.
0046206 ..............................................
5955318 ..............................................
MA82088B ...........................................
IV. Authority
Peter Fasbender,
Assistant Regional Director for Fisheries and
Ecological Services, Alaska Region.
[FR Doc. 2024–30297 Filed 12–18–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0148;
FF09E42000–FXES111609BFEDR–245]
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier
Resources System; Availability of Final
Revised Maps for Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Maine, and New York
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:08 Dec 18, 2024
The Coastal Barrier Resources
Act requires the Secretary of the Interior
to review the maps of the John H.
Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS) at least once every 5 years and
make any minor and technical
modifications to the boundaries of the
CBRS to reflect changes in the size or
location of any unit as a result of natural
forces since the unit was last mapped.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
have conducted this review for CBRS
units in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Maine, and the Great Lakes region of
New York. This notice announces the
findings of our review and the
availability of final revised maps for 89
CBRS units in these five States.
DATES: Changes to the CBRS depicted on
the final revised maps, dated December
29, 2023, become effective on December
19, 2024.
ADDRESSES: For information about how
to get copies of the maps or where to go
to view them, see Availability of Final
Maps and Related Information, below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Katie Niemi, Coastal Barriers
SUMMARY:
We issue this notice under the
authority of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16
U.S.C. 1361 et seq.), and its
implementing regulations.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Permit
issuance date
Permit No.
Jkt 265001
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Docket No.
6/20/24
6/20/24
6/20/24
6/20/24
FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004.
FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004.
FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004.
FWS–HQ–IA–2023–0022.
6/21/24
FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004.
7/11/24
7/11/24
FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004.
FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004.
Coordinator, via telephone at 703–358–
2071 or email at CBRA@fws.gov.
Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have
a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY,
TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Methodology
Background information on the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA; 16
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and the John H.
Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS), as well as information on the 5year review effort and the methodology
we used to produce the revised maps,
can be found in a notice we published
in the Federal Register on November 22,
2022 (87 FR 71352).
Announced Map Modifications
This notice announces modifications
we made to the maps for several CBRS
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
units in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Maine, and the Great Lakes region of
New York. Most of these modifications
were made to reflect changes to the
CBRS units as a result of natural forces
(e.g., erosion and accretion). CBRA
requires the Secretary of the Interior to
review the maps of the CBRS at least
once every 5 years and make, in
consultation with the appropriate
Federal, State, and local officials
(stakeholders), such minor and
technical modifications to the
boundaries of the CBRS as are necessary
solely to reflect changes that have
occurred in the size or location of any
unit as a result of natural forces (16
U.S.C. 3503(c)).
Our review resulted in a set of 85 final
revised maps, dated December 29, 2023,
depicting a total of 89 CBRS units. This
review included:
• Six of the 137 total units located in
Florida (depicted on 2 final maps)
• All 13 units located in Georgia
(depicted on 16 final maps)
• Fifteen of the 21 total units located in
Louisiana (depicted on 34 final maps)
• All 34 units located in Maine
(depicted on 19 final maps)
• All 21 units located in the Great Lakes
region of New York (depicted on 14
final maps)
We made modifications to a total of
13 units (of the 89 total units reviewed)
due to natural changes in their size or
location since they were last mapped.
We also revised two CBRS units to
correct administrative errors made in
the past on maps for Lee County,
Florida.
Consultation With Federal, State, and
Local Officials
We fulfilled the requirement to
consult with stakeholders by holding a
30-day comment period on the draft
revised boundaries from November 3,
2023, through December 4, 2023 (88 FR
75621).
We notified approximately 220
stakeholders concerning the availability
of the draft revised boundaries,
including: (1) the Chair and Ranking
Member of the House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources, the
Chair and Ranking Member of the
Senate Committee on Environment and
Public Works, and the members of the
Senate and House of Representatives for
the affected areas; (2) the governors of
the affected areas; (3) State and local
officials with floodplain management
and/or land use responsibilities; and (4)
Federal officials with knowledge of the
coastal geomorphology within the
project area.
We reviewed and considered all
comments prior to developing the final
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:08 Dec 18, 2024
Jkt 265001
maps. Summaries of the two written
comments we received, and our
responses are provided below. We
indicated in our response to comments
those that were outside of the scope of
the 5-year review.
Interested parties may view the
comments at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–HQ–ES–2023–0148 or may
contact the individual identified in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above, to
make arrangements to view copies of the
comments.
A. Comment from Buffalo District,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps):
The Corps’ Buffalo District commented
on Unit NY–62, which is the only unit
in the Great Lakes region of New York
with a proposed change. They stated
that the proposed change is not
anticipated to result in any impact to
navigation, and they had no other
comments.
Our Response: We appreciate the
assessment that the proposed change is
not anticipated to result in any impact
to navigation.
B. Comment from Jacksonville
District, Corps: The Corps’ Jacksonville
District raised concerns, questions, and
recommendations regarding the 5-year
review process affecting the six Florida
units included in this review.
Additionally, the Jacksonville District
raised some challenges Corps projects
have faced where they assert CBRA is
having unintended effects in areas
adjacent to CBRS units. However, they
did not request any specific boundary
changes to the units that are the subject
of this review. The issues raised are
described below.
1. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps
expressed concern that this 5-year
review project focused on units most
likely to have changed due to significant
recent storm events and asked how we
select the units to assess in the 5-year
review. The Corps asked when the
remaining units in Florida will be
reviewed, and recommended that
additional Florida units be addressed
before another 5 years pass.
Our Response: We generally prioritize
our 5-year review for the CBRS maps
based on (a) the age of the current
effective maps, (b) the availability of
recent high-resolution aerial
photography (according to the
anticipated U.S. Department of
Agriculture National Agriculture
Imagery Program acquisition schedule),
and (c) where possible, avoiding
overlaps of 5-year review projects in
States where we also have pending
comprehensive map-modernization
projects.
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
103855
However, in this instance, we
prioritized the review of Florida Units
P19 and P19P in 2023 when we became
aware of administrative errors affecting
these units (see Summary of
Modifications to the CBRS Maps below
for additional information). We
included four additional Florida units
in this review because they are depicted
on the same map panels as Units P19
and P19P. We have separate
comprehensive remapping projects in
process for 35 of the 137 total CBRS
units in Florida, and these projects will
address minor boundary modifications
needed to account for natural changes in
the units, as well as significant changes
that require public review and adoption
by Congress, such as additions and
removals.
We intend to conduct 5-year reviews
by the end of FY 2027 for all the
remaining CBRS units that do not have
comprehensive remapping projects in
process or planned for the near future
(including most of the units in Florida).
If the Corps believes specific areas need
a 5-year review boundary modification
to account for natural changes in the
location of the feature that boundary is
intended to follow, those may be
emailed to us for our awareness at any
time at cbra@fws.gov.
2. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps
asked when the comprehensive
remapping process would be initiated to
address the misalignments in the CBRS
boundaries attributed to imprecise
information regarding parcel locations
at the time the maps were produced
(i.e., Units P19 and P19P and the
boundaries of Cayo Costa State Park).
They also asked how we will coordinate
input from stakeholders such as the
Corps and recommended that this
remapping process occur in the near
future.
Our Response: In the notice published
in the Federal Register on November 3,
2023, we identified a need to address
(through the comprehensive remapping
process) significant misalignments in
the locations of the Units P19 and P19P
boundaries and the Cayo Costa State
Park parcels they were intended to
follow. This type of change is outside of
the scope of the 5-year review mapping
process, which allows only such minor
and technical modifications to the
boundaries of the units as are necessary
solely to reflect changes that have
occurred in the size or location of the
units as a result of natural forces. We do
not currently have a comprehensive
remapping project scheduled for these
units. When we address these units
through a separate project in the future,
we will notify a broad array of
stakeholders (including the affected
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
103856
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / Notices
Corps Districts and Divisions) of the
opportunity to provide comments
through a public review period.
3. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps
noted that our review only considered
changes due to natural forces and
recommended that we also consider
how much development has occurred
since establishment of the unit and
potential sea-level rise.
Our Response: It is outside of the
scope of the 5-year review to consider
how much development has occurred
since establishment of the unit and
potential sea-level rise. The 5-year
review allows only such minor and
technical modifications to the
boundaries of the units as are necessary
solely to reflect changes that have
occurred in the size or location of the
units as a result of natural forces.
4. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps
noted that CBRA does not account for
future sea-level and coastal-storm-risk
damages to cultural/historical resources,
and that structural features may be
required to provide protection for those
resources. The Corps recommended that
this could be addressed through an
exemption.
Our Response: This comment is
outside of the scope of the 5-year
review.
5. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps
stated that the CBRS does not account
for the Executive Orders on
environmental justice (EJ), which
provide resiliency for coastal
communities and/or EJ communities,
and that structural features may be
required to provide protection for EJ
communities. The Corps recommended
that this could be addressed through an
exemption.
Our Response: This comment is
outside of the scope of the 5-year
review.
6. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps
expressed concern that many existing
CBRS unit boundaries present
significant and likely unintended
constraints on Federal expenditures
where the project would not result in
promoting new development (i.e., in the
open water/seaward portions of the
units and in existing sugar-cane fields).
The Corps requested that we work with
them to identify, review, and revise
these units using updated geospatial
technology and sea-level considerations.
Our Response: This comment is
outside of the scope of the 5-year
review.
No Changes to Draft Boundaries
We made no changes to the
boundaries as a result of the stakeholder
comments received. The CBRS
boundaries depicted on the final revised
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:08 Dec 18, 2024
Jkt 265001
maps, dated December 29, 2023, are
identical to those that we made
available for stakeholder review and
displayed in a web mapping application
on our website.
Summary of Modifications to the CBRS
Maps
Below is a summary of the changes
depicted on the final revised maps of
December 29, 2023.
Florida
Our review found that five of the six
CBRS units in Florida included in this
review (Units FL–70, FL–70P, P19,
P19P, P20, and P20P) required changes
due to natural forces. In addition, we
modified two units in Florida, P19 and
P19P, to correct administrative errors
affecting four privately owned
structures. The imagery that we used for
this review and the revised maps is from
Lee County and is dated 2022. We also
used 2021 National Agriculture Imagery
Program imagery for adjacent areas. We
did not assess any other CBRS units in
Florida as part of this review (see the
above response to comments from the
Corps’ Jacksonville District for
additional information).
FL–70P: GASPARILLA ISLAND. Unit
FL–70P has two discrete segments, but
modifications to account for natural
changes were only necessary in the
western segment. We modified the
western boundary of the excluded area
of this segment to account for natural
changes in the shoreline between the
Boca Grande Rear Range Lighthouse and
Sea Grape Beach.
P19: NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND. We
modified the boundary along the
western side of North Captiva Island
that is coincident with the northernmost
segment of Unit P19P to account for
natural changes in the shoreline along
the Gulf of Mexico. We also modified
the excluded area boundary at the
northern tip of North Captiva Island to
account for natural changes in the
shoreline along the Gulf of Mexico and
Captiva Pass.
In addition, we modified two
segments of the boundary along the
excluded area to correct an
administrative error made during the
previous 5-year review for this unit that
affected three existing structures; these
structures are now removed from the
unit. We had previously modified that
boundary in 2016 to account for natural
changes in the shoreline. However, we
did not describe that boundary
modification in the Federal Register
notices associated with this unit dated
November 17, 2015 (80 FR 71826), and
March 14, 2016 (81 FR 13407). The 2016
boundary change inadvertently added to
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the unit three existing structures along
the beach in the North Captiva Dunes
subdivision.
The misalignment of the coincident
boundaries of Units P19 and P19P with
Cayo Costa State Park, which we did not
correct because it is outside of the scope
of the 5-year review, is described in a
notice we published in the Federal
Register on November 3, 2023.
P19P: NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND.
Unit P19P has 15 discrete segments that
are all coincident with Unit P19. In the
northernmost segment of Unit P19P, we
modified the western boundary
coincident with Unit P19 to account for
natural changes in the shoreline along
the Gulf of Mexico.
Additionally, we made an adjustment
to correct an administrative error in the
transcription of the boundary from the
CBRS map dated October 27, 2000, to
the map dated January 11, 2016, for this
unit. We found that when we digitized
the southern boundary of the excluded
area on North Captiva Island for the
purposes of the 5-year review in 2015–
2016, we did not properly follow the
boundary transcription methodology
described in the notice published in the
Federal Register (August 29, 2013; 78
FR 53467).
This transcription error resulted in
small portions of six privately owned
parcels, including one existing
structure, being incorrectly depicted as
within the unit in 2016. We adjusted the
southern boundary of the excluded area
(part of the northern boundary of Unit
P19P) to correct this error and maintain
the relationship between the boundary
of Unit P19P and the boundary of Cayo
Costa State Park, as established by
Congress via Pub. L. 106–360 in 2000
and clearly indicated by legislative
history and our background records on
Unit P19P.
The misalignment of the coincident
boundaries of Units P19 and P19P with
Cayo Costa State Park, which we did not
correct because it is outside of the scope
of the 5-year review, is described in a
notice we published in the Federal
Register on November 3, 2023.
P20: CAYO COSTA. We modified the
coincident boundary between Units P20
and P20P at the northern tip of Cayo
Costa to account for natural changes in
the shoreline along Boca Grande Pass.
P20P: CAYO COSTA. Unit P20P has
13 discrete segments, but modifications
to account for natural changes were only
necessary in the northernmost segment.
We modified the coincident boundary
between Units P20 and P20P at the
northern tip of Cayo Costa to account for
natural changes in the shoreline along
Boca Grande Pass.
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / Notices
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Georgia
Our review found that 4 of the 13
CBRS units in Georgia require changes
due to natural forces. The imagery that
we used for this review and the revised
maps is dated 2021.
GA–05P: ALTAMAHA/WOLF
ISLANDS. We modified the coincident
boundary between Units GA–05P and
N03 to account for accretion at the
northern tip of Little St. Simons Island.
N03: LITTLE ST. SIMONS ISLAND.
We modified the coincident boundary
between Units GA–05P and N03 to
account for accretion at the northern tip
of Little St. Simons Island.
N06: CUMBERLAND ISLAND. Unit
N06 has five discrete segments, but
modifications to account for natural
changes were only necessary in the
southernmost segment. We modified the
coincident boundary between Units N06
and N06P along Beach Creek near its
confluence with Cumberland Sound to
account for natural changes in the
shoreline.
N06P: CUMBERLAND ISLAND. Unit
N06P has six discrete segments, but
modifications to account for natural
changes were only necessary in the
southernmost segment. We modified the
coincident boundary between Units N06
and N06P along Beach Creek near its
confluence with Cumberland Sound to
account for natural changes in the
shoreline.
Louisiana
Our review found that 3 of the 15
CBRS units in Louisiana that were
included in this review (Units LA–03P,
LA–04P, LA–05P, LA–07, LA–08P, LA–
09, LA–10, S01, S01A, S02, S03, S08,
S09, S10, and S11) required changes
due to natural forces. The imagery that
we used for this review and the revised
maps is dated 2021.
We did not assess the remaining six
Louisiana units as part of this review
because we prepared revised maps for
them through a separate comprehensive
mapping project. We transmitted those
maps to Congress in 2016, and they
were awaiting adoption through
legislation at the time we conducted our
review. The revised maps for the
remaining six units were adopted by
Pub. L. 118–117 on November 25, 2024.
LA–05P: MARSH ISLAND/RAINEY.
We modified the boundary of the unit
to account for wetland erosion along
Vermilion Bay and West Cote Blanche
Bay. Due to the significant rate of
erosion in this area, we generalized
some of the boundary (i.e., simplified it
so that the map is clear, and the
boundary is not overly detailed).
LA–10: CALCASIEU PASS. We
modified a portion of the northern
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:08 Dec 18, 2024
Jkt 265001
103857
boundary of the unit to account for
wetland erosion along West Cove. Due
to the significant rate of erosion in this
area, we generalized some of the
boundary (i.e., simplified it so that the
map is clear, and the boundary is not
overly detailed).
S10: MERMENTAU RIVER. We
modified the southern boundary of the
excluded area at the western end of the
unit to account for shoreline erosion
along the Gulf of Mexico.
Interested parties may also contact the
individual identified in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above, to make
arrangements to view the final maps at
our Headquarters office. Interested
parties who are unable to access the
maps via the website or at our
Headquarters office may contact the
individual identified in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, above, and
reasonable accommodations will be
made.
Maine
Authority
Our review found that none of the 34
CBRS units in Maine need to be
modified due to changes from natural
forces. The imagery that we used for this
review and the revised maps is dated
2021.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA;
16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Ya-Wei Li,
Assistant Director for Ecological Services.
[FR Doc. 2024–29644 Filed 12–18–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
New York (Great Lakes)
Our review found that 1 of the 21
CBRS units in the Great Lakes region of
New York (the only CBRS units in New
York that were part of this review)
required changes due to natural forces.
The imagery that we used for this
review and the revised maps is dated
2022.
We did not assess the CBRS units in
the Long Island region of New York as
part of this review because we prepared
revised maps for them through a
separate comprehensive mapping
project. We transmitted those maps to
Congress in 2022, and they were
awaiting adoption through legislation at
the time we conducted our review. The
revised maps for the remaining six units
were adopted by Public Law 118–117 on
November 25, 2024.
NY–62: GRENADIER ISLAND. We
modified the eastern lateral boundary of
the unit to account for the accretion of
a sand spit that has migrated outside the
unit.
Availability of Final Maps and Related
Information
The final revised maps dated
December 29, 2023, can be accessed and
downloaded from our website at https://
www.fws.gov/cbra. The boundaries are
available for viewing in the CBRS
Mapper. Additionally, a shapefile and
Web Map Service (WMS) of the
boundaries, which can be used with GIS
software, are available online. These
data are best viewed using the base
imagery to which the boundaries were
drawn; the base imagery sources and
dates are included in the metadata for
the digital boundaries and are also
printed on the official maps. We are not
responsible for any misuse or
misinterpretation of the shapefile or
WMS.
PO 00000
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[256A2100DD/AAKC001030/
A0A501010.999900]
HEARTH Act Approval of Kickapoo
Tribe of Oklahoma, Business Leasing
Ordinance
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) approved the Kickapoo Tribe of
Oklahoma Business Leasing Ordinance
under the Helping Expedite and
Advance Responsible Tribal
Homeownership Act of 2012 (HEARTH
Act). With this approval, the Tribe is
authorized to enter into agriculture,
business, residential, wind and solar,
public, religious, and recreational leases
without further BIA approval.
DATES: BIA issued the approval on
December 16, 2024.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Carla Clark, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Division of Real Estate Services, 1001
Indian School Road NW, Albuquerque,
NM 87104, carla.clark@bia.gov, (702)
484–3233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Summary of the HEARTH Act
The HEARTH Act makes a voluntary,
alternative land leasing process
available to Tribes, by amending the
Indian Long-Term Leasing Act of 1955,
25 U.S.C. 415. The HEARTH Act
authorizes Tribes to negotiate and enter
into business leases of Tribal trust lands
with a primary term of 25 years, and up
to two renewal terms of 25 years each,
without the approval of the Secretary of
E:\FR\FM\19DEN1.SGM
19DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 103854-103857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29644]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0148; FF09E42000-FXES111609BFEDR-245]
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Availability of
Final Revised Maps for Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, and New York
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coastal Barrier Resources Act requires the Secretary of
the Interior to review the maps of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier
Resources System (CBRS) at least once every 5 years and make any minor
and technical modifications to the boundaries of the CBRS to reflect
changes in the size or location of any unit as a result of natural
forces since the unit was last mapped. We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, have conducted this review for CBRS units in Florida, Georgia,
Louisiana, Maine, and the Great Lakes region of New York. This notice
announces the findings of our review and the availability of final
revised maps for 89 CBRS units in these five States.
DATES: Changes to the CBRS depicted on the final revised maps, dated
December 29, 2023, become effective on December 19, 2024.
ADDRESSES: For information about how to get copies of the maps or where
to go to view them, see Availability of Final Maps and Related
Information, below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie Niemi, Coastal Barriers
Coordinator, via telephone at 703-358-2071 or email at [email protected].
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of
hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or
TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals
outside the United States should use the relay services offered within
their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in
the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Methodology
Background information on the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA;
16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier
Resources System (CBRS), as well as information on the 5-year review
effort and the methodology we used to produce the revised maps, can be
found in a notice we published in the Federal Register on November 22,
2022 (87 FR 71352).
Announced Map Modifications
This notice announces modifications we made to the maps for several
CBRS
[[Page 103855]]
units in Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, and the Great Lakes region
of New York. Most of these modifications were made to reflect changes
to the CBRS units as a result of natural forces (e.g., erosion and
accretion). CBRA requires the Secretary of the Interior to review the
maps of the CBRS at least once every 5 years and make, in consultation
with the appropriate Federal, State, and local officials
(stakeholders), such minor and technical modifications to the
boundaries of the CBRS as are necessary solely to reflect changes that
have occurred in the size or location of any unit as a result of
natural forces (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)).
Our review resulted in a set of 85 final revised maps, dated
December 29, 2023, depicting a total of 89 CBRS units. This review
included:
Six of the 137 total units located in Florida (depicted on 2
final maps)
All 13 units located in Georgia (depicted on 16 final maps)
Fifteen of the 21 total units located in Louisiana (depicted
on 34 final maps)
All 34 units located in Maine (depicted on 19 final maps)
All 21 units located in the Great Lakes region of New York
(depicted on 14 final maps)
We made modifications to a total of 13 units (of the 89 total units
reviewed) due to natural changes in their size or location since they
were last mapped. We also revised two CBRS units to correct
administrative errors made in the past on maps for Lee County, Florida.
Consultation With Federal, State, and Local Officials
We fulfilled the requirement to consult with stakeholders by
holding a 30-day comment period on the draft revised boundaries from
November 3, 2023, through December 4, 2023 (88 FR 75621).
We notified approximately 220 stakeholders concerning the
availability of the draft revised boundaries, including: (1) the Chair
and Ranking Member of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural
Resources, the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, and the members of the Senate and House
of Representatives for the affected areas; (2) the governors of the
affected areas; (3) State and local officials with floodplain
management and/or land use responsibilities; and (4) Federal officials
with knowledge of the coastal geomorphology within the project area.
We reviewed and considered all comments prior to developing the
final maps. Summaries of the two written comments we received, and our
responses are provided below. We indicated in our response to comments
those that were outside of the scope of the 5-year review.
Interested parties may view the comments at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2023-0148 or may contact
the individual identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above, to
make arrangements to view copies of the comments.
A. Comment from Buffalo District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps): The Corps' Buffalo District commented on Unit NY-62, which is
the only unit in the Great Lakes region of New York with a proposed
change. They stated that the proposed change is not anticipated to
result in any impact to navigation, and they had no other comments.
Our Response: We appreciate the assessment that the proposed change
is not anticipated to result in any impact to navigation.
B. Comment from Jacksonville District, Corps: The Corps'
Jacksonville District raised concerns, questions, and recommendations
regarding the 5-year review process affecting the six Florida units
included in this review. Additionally, the Jacksonville District raised
some challenges Corps projects have faced where they assert CBRA is
having unintended effects in areas adjacent to CBRS units. However,
they did not request any specific boundary changes to the units that
are the subject of this review. The issues raised are described below.
1. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps expressed concern that this 5-
year review project focused on units most likely to have changed due to
significant recent storm events and asked how we select the units to
assess in the 5-year review. The Corps asked when the remaining units
in Florida will be reviewed, and recommended that additional Florida
units be addressed before another 5 years pass.
Our Response: We generally prioritize our 5-year review for the
CBRS maps based on (a) the age of the current effective maps, (b) the
availability of recent high-resolution aerial photography (according to
the anticipated U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agriculture
Imagery Program acquisition schedule), and (c) where possible, avoiding
overlaps of 5-year review projects in States where we also have pending
comprehensive map-modernization projects.
However, in this instance, we prioritized the review of Florida
Units P19 and P19P in 2023 when we became aware of administrative
errors affecting these units (see Summary of Modifications to the CBRS
Maps below for additional information). We included four additional
Florida units in this review because they are depicted on the same map
panels as Units P19 and P19P. We have separate comprehensive remapping
projects in process for 35 of the 137 total CBRS units in Florida, and
these projects will address minor boundary modifications needed to
account for natural changes in the units, as well as significant
changes that require public review and adoption by Congress, such as
additions and removals.
We intend to conduct 5-year reviews by the end of FY 2027 for all
the remaining CBRS units that do not have comprehensive remapping
projects in process or planned for the near future (including most of
the units in Florida). If the Corps believes specific areas need a 5-
year review boundary modification to account for natural changes in the
location of the feature that boundary is intended to follow, those may
be emailed to us for our awareness at any time at [email protected].
2. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps asked when the comprehensive
remapping process would be initiated to address the misalignments in
the CBRS boundaries attributed to imprecise information regarding
parcel locations at the time the maps were produced (i.e., Units P19
and P19P and the boundaries of Cayo Costa State Park). They also asked
how we will coordinate input from stakeholders such as the Corps and
recommended that this remapping process occur in the near future.
Our Response: In the notice published in the Federal Register on
November 3, 2023, we identified a need to address (through the
comprehensive remapping process) significant misalignments in the
locations of the Units P19 and P19P boundaries and the Cayo Costa State
Park parcels they were intended to follow. This type of change is
outside of the scope of the 5-year review mapping process, which allows
only such minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of the
units as are necessary solely to reflect changes that have occurred in
the size or location of the units as a result of natural forces. We do
not currently have a comprehensive remapping project scheduled for
these units. When we address these units through a separate project in
the future, we will notify a broad array of stakeholders (including the
affected
[[Page 103856]]
Corps Districts and Divisions) of the opportunity to provide comments
through a public review period.
3. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps noted that our review only
considered changes due to natural forces and recommended that we also
consider how much development has occurred since establishment of the
unit and potential sea-level rise.
Our Response: It is outside of the scope of the 5-year review to
consider how much development has occurred since establishment of the
unit and potential sea-level rise. The 5-year review allows only such
minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of the units as are
necessary solely to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or
location of the units as a result of natural forces.
4. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps noted that CBRA does not account
for future sea-level and coastal-storm-risk damages to cultural/
historical resources, and that structural features may be required to
provide protection for those resources. The Corps recommended that this
could be addressed through an exemption.
Our Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the 5-year
review.
5. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps stated that the CBRS does not
account for the Executive Orders on environmental justice (EJ), which
provide resiliency for coastal communities and/or EJ communities, and
that structural features may be required to provide protection for EJ
communities. The Corps recommended that this could be addressed through
an exemption.
Our Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the 5-year
review.
6. Comment: The Jacksonville Corps expressed concern that many
existing CBRS unit boundaries present significant and likely unintended
constraints on Federal expenditures where the project would not result
in promoting new development (i.e., in the open water/seaward portions
of the units and in existing sugar-cane fields). The Corps requested
that we work with them to identify, review, and revise these units
using updated geospatial technology and sea-level considerations.
Our Response: This comment is outside of the scope of the 5-year
review.
No Changes to Draft Boundaries
We made no changes to the boundaries as a result of the stakeholder
comments received. The CBRS boundaries depicted on the final revised
maps, dated December 29, 2023, are identical to those that we made
available for stakeholder review and displayed in a web mapping
application on our website.
Summary of Modifications to the CBRS Maps
Below is a summary of the changes depicted on the final revised
maps of December 29, 2023.
Florida
Our review found that five of the six CBRS units in Florida
included in this review (Units FL-70, FL-70P, P19, P19P, P20, and P20P)
required changes due to natural forces. In addition, we modified two
units in Florida, P19 and P19P, to correct administrative errors
affecting four privately owned structures. The imagery that we used for
this review and the revised maps is from Lee County and is dated 2022.
We also used 2021 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery for
adjacent areas. We did not assess any other CBRS units in Florida as
part of this review (see the above response to comments from the Corps'
Jacksonville District for additional information).
FL-70P: GASPARILLA ISLAND. Unit FL-70P has two discrete segments,
but modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in
the western segment. We modified the western boundary of the excluded
area of this segment to account for natural changes in the shoreline
between the Boca Grande Rear Range Lighthouse and Sea Grape Beach.
P19: NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND. We modified the boundary along the
western side of North Captiva Island that is coincident with the
northernmost segment of Unit P19P to account for natural changes in the
shoreline along the Gulf of Mexico. We also modified the excluded area
boundary at the northern tip of North Captiva Island to account for
natural changes in the shoreline along the Gulf of Mexico and Captiva
Pass.
In addition, we modified two segments of the boundary along the
excluded area to correct an administrative error made during the
previous 5-year review for this unit that affected three existing
structures; these structures are now removed from the unit. We had
previously modified that boundary in 2016 to account for natural
changes in the shoreline. However, we did not describe that boundary
modification in the Federal Register notices associated with this unit
dated November 17, 2015 (80 FR 71826), and March 14, 2016 (81 FR
13407). The 2016 boundary change inadvertently added to the unit three
existing structures along the beach in the North Captiva Dunes
subdivision.
The misalignment of the coincident boundaries of Units P19 and P19P
with Cayo Costa State Park, which we did not correct because it is
outside of the scope of the 5-year review, is described in a notice we
published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2023.
P19P: NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND. Unit P19P has 15 discrete segments that
are all coincident with Unit P19. In the northernmost segment of Unit
P19P, we modified the western boundary coincident with Unit P19 to
account for natural changes in the shoreline along the Gulf of Mexico.
Additionally, we made an adjustment to correct an administrative
error in the transcription of the boundary from the CBRS map dated
October 27, 2000, to the map dated January 11, 2016, for this unit. We
found that when we digitized the southern boundary of the excluded area
on North Captiva Island for the purposes of the 5-year review in 2015-
2016, we did not properly follow the boundary transcription methodology
described in the notice published in the Federal Register (August 29,
2013; 78 FR 53467).
This transcription error resulted in small portions of six
privately owned parcels, including one existing structure, being
incorrectly depicted as within the unit in 2016. We adjusted the
southern boundary of the excluded area (part of the northern boundary
of Unit P19P) to correct this error and maintain the relationship
between the boundary of Unit P19P and the boundary of Cayo Costa State
Park, as established by Congress via Pub. L. 106-360 in 2000 and
clearly indicated by legislative history and our background records on
Unit P19P.
The misalignment of the coincident boundaries of Units P19 and P19P
with Cayo Costa State Park, which we did not correct because it is
outside of the scope of the 5-year review, is described in a notice we
published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2023.
P20: CAYO COSTA. We modified the coincident boundary between Units
P20 and P20P at the northern tip of Cayo Costa to account for natural
changes in the shoreline along Boca Grande Pass.
P20P: CAYO COSTA. Unit P20P has 13 discrete segments, but
modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the
northernmost segment. We modified the coincident boundary between Units
P20 and P20P at the northern tip of Cayo Costa to account for natural
changes in the shoreline along Boca Grande Pass.
[[Page 103857]]
Georgia
Our review found that 4 of the 13 CBRS units in Georgia require
changes due to natural forces. The imagery that we used for this review
and the revised maps is dated 2021.
GA-05P: ALTAMAHA/WOLF ISLANDS. We modified the coincident boundary
between Units GA-05P and N03 to account for accretion at the northern
tip of Little St. Simons Island.
N03: LITTLE ST. SIMONS ISLAND. We modified the coincident boundary
between Units GA-05P and N03 to account for accretion at the northern
tip of Little St. Simons Island.
N06: CUMBERLAND ISLAND. Unit N06 has five discrete segments, but
modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the
southernmost segment. We modified the coincident boundary between Units
N06 and N06P along Beach Creek near its confluence with Cumberland
Sound to account for natural changes in the shoreline.
N06P: CUMBERLAND ISLAND. Unit N06P has six discrete segments, but
modifications to account for natural changes were only necessary in the
southernmost segment. We modified the coincident boundary between Units
N06 and N06P along Beach Creek near its confluence with Cumberland
Sound to account for natural changes in the shoreline.
Louisiana
Our review found that 3 of the 15 CBRS units in Louisiana that were
included in this review (Units LA-03P, LA-04P, LA-05P, LA-07, LA-08P,
LA-09, LA-10, S01, S01A, S02, S03, S08, S09, S10, and S11) required
changes due to natural forces. The imagery that we used for this review
and the revised maps is dated 2021.
We did not assess the remaining six Louisiana units as part of this
review because we prepared revised maps for them through a separate
comprehensive mapping project. We transmitted those maps to Congress in
2016, and they were awaiting adoption through legislation at the time
we conducted our review. The revised maps for the remaining six units
were adopted by Pub. L. 118-117 on November 25, 2024.
LA-05P: MARSH ISLAND/RAINEY. We modified the boundary of the unit
to account for wetland erosion along Vermilion Bay and West Cote
Blanche Bay. Due to the significant rate of erosion in this area, we
generalized some of the boundary (i.e., simplified it so that the map
is clear, and the boundary is not overly detailed).
LA-10: CALCASIEU PASS. We modified a portion of the northern
boundary of the unit to account for wetland erosion along West Cove.
Due to the significant rate of erosion in this area, we generalized
some of the boundary (i.e., simplified it so that the map is clear, and
the boundary is not overly detailed).
S10: MERMENTAU RIVER. We modified the southern boundary of the
excluded area at the western end of the unit to account for shoreline
erosion along the Gulf of Mexico.
Maine
Our review found that none of the 34 CBRS units in Maine need to be
modified due to changes from natural forces. The imagery that we used
for this review and the revised maps is dated 2021.
New York (Great Lakes)
Our review found that 1 of the 21 CBRS units in the Great Lakes
region of New York (the only CBRS units in New York that were part of
this review) required changes due to natural forces. The imagery that
we used for this review and the revised maps is dated 2022.
We did not assess the CBRS units in the Long Island region of New
York as part of this review because we prepared revised maps for them
through a separate comprehensive mapping project. We transmitted those
maps to Congress in 2022, and they were awaiting adoption through
legislation at the time we conducted our review. The revised maps for
the remaining six units were adopted by Public Law 118-117 on November
25, 2024.
NY-62: GRENADIER ISLAND. We modified the eastern lateral boundary
of the unit to account for the accretion of a sand spit that has
migrated outside the unit.
Availability of Final Maps and Related Information
The final revised maps dated December 29, 2023, can be accessed and
downloaded from our website at https://www.fws.gov/cbra. The boundaries
are available for viewing in the CBRS Mapper. Additionally, a shapefile
and Web Map Service (WMS) of the boundaries, which can be used with GIS
software, are available online. These data are best viewed using the
base imagery to which the boundaries were drawn; the base imagery
sources and dates are included in the metadata for the digital
boundaries and are also printed on the official maps. We are not
responsible for any misuse or misinterpretation of the shapefile or
WMS.
Interested parties may also contact the individual identified in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above, to make arrangements to view
the final maps at our Headquarters office. Interested parties who are
unable to access the maps via the website or at our Headquarters office
may contact the individual identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above, and reasonable accommodations will be made.
Authority
Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA; 16 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Ya-Wei Li,
Assistant Director for Ecological Services.
[FR Doc. 2024-29644 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
