```

[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
```