Notice2024-29644
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Availability of Final Revised Maps for Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, and New York
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
December 19, 2024
Effective
December 19, 2024
Issuing agencies
Interior DepartmentFish and Wildlife Service
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 244 (Thursday, December 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 103854-103857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e1a2a3b3a0a1879692cf868e97"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b0f3f2e2f1f0d6c7c39ed7dfc6">[email protected]</span></a>.
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:
<bullet> Six of the 137 total units located in Florida (depicted on 2
final maps)
<bullet> All 13 units located in Georgia (depicted on 16 final maps)
<bullet> Fifteen of the 21 total units located in Louisiana (depicted
on 34 final maps)
<bullet> All 34 units located in Maine (depicted on 19 final maps)
<bullet> 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 <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3053524251705647431e575f46">[email protected]</a>.
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 <a href="https://www.fws.gov/cbra">https://www.fws.gov/cbra</a>. 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on December 19, 2024.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.