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. 

3. Who will see my comments? 

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 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

made available for public disclosure in 

their entirety. 

C. Next Steps for Submitted 

Applications 

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

Permit No. Applicant Permit 

issuance date Docket No. 

PER6413229 ....................................... Matson’s Laboratory ......................................................... 6/20/24 FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004. 

14762C ................................................ National Park Service, Juneau ......................................... 6/20/24 FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004. 

9061181 .............................................. Windfall Films Limited ....................................................... 6/20/24 FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004. 

041309 ................................................ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Marine Mammals 

Management Office.

6/20/24 FWS–HQ–IA–2023–0022. 

0046206 .............................................. North Slope Borough Department of Wildlife Management.6/21/24 FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004. 

5955318 .............................................. Jason Roehrig, MeatEater Films ...................................... 7/11/24 FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004. 

MA82088B ........................................... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Marine Mammals Management Polar Bear Program.7/11/24 FWS–R7–ES–2024–0004. 

IV. Authority 

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. 

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 

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 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 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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / Notices 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 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 


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 

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. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 244 / Thursday, December 19, 2024 / Notices 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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

[256A2100DD/AAKC001030/ 

A0A501010.999900] 

HEARTH Act Approval of Kickapoo 

Tribe of Oklahoma, Business Leasing 

Ordinance 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: 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: 

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 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with NOTICES1