John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Availability of Final Revised Maps for Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin
| Court | Fish And Wildlife Service |
| Citation | 88 FR 55710 |
| Published date | 16 August 2023 |
| Record Number | 2023-17552 |
| Section | Notices |
Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 16, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55710-55714]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17552]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2023-N021; FF09E42000-FXES111609BFEDR-234]
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System; Availability of
Final Revised Maps for Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, South
Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin
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 as are
necessary to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location
of any unit as a result of natural forces. We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, have conducted this review for all of the CBRS units
in Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and
Wisconsin, and 10 units in South Carolina. This notice announces the
findings of our review and the availability of final revised maps for
116 CBRS units in the project area, except for the North Carolina
units. We did not prepare final revised maps for the North Carolina
units because sufficient data was not available in some areas.
DATES: Changes to the CBRS depicted on the final revised maps, dated
December 30, 2022, become effective on August 16, 2023.
ADDRESSES: For information about how to get copies of the maps or where
to go to view them, see the Availability of Final Maps and Related
Information section.
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 used to produce the revised maps, can be
found in a notice the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
published in the Federal Register on November 22, 2022 (87 FR 71352).
Announced Map Modifications
This notice announces modifications to the maps for several CBRS
units in Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas,
and Wisconsin. Most of the 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 (Secretary) 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,
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)).
The Service's review resulted in a set of 118 final revised maps,
dated December 30, 2022, depicting a total of 116 CBRS units. The set
of maps includes:
36 maps for 46 CBRS units located in Michigan
1 map for 1 CBRS unit located in Minnesota
9 maps for 7 CBRS units located in Mississippi
7 maps for 10 CBRS units located in Ohio
7 maps for 10 CBRS units located in South Carolina
53 maps for 35 CBRS units located in Texas
5 maps for 7 CBRS units located in Wisconsin
The Service made modifications to a total of 18 CBRS units (of the
133 units reviewed) due to natural changes in their size or location
since they were last mapped. No revised maps were prepared for the 17
North Carolina units that were included in our initial review. Because
of ongoing geomorphic change in certain units and the need for
additional data, the North Carolina units will be reviewed again in the
future.
[[Page 55711]]
Consultation With Federal, State, and Local Officials
CBRA requires consultation with the appropriate Federal, State, and
local officials (stakeholders) on the proposed CBRS boundary
modifications to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or
location of any CBRS unit as a result of natural forces (16 U.S.C
3503(c)). The Service fulfilled this requirement by holding a 30-day
comment period on the draft revised boundaries for Federal, State, and
local stakeholders, from November 22, 2022, through December 22, 2022.
This comment period was announced in a notice published in the Federal
Register (87 FR 71352) on November 22, 2022.
The Service notified approximately 340 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.
Comments and Service Responses
Below is a summary of the 10 written comments and/or
acknowledgements received from stakeholders (Federal, State, and local
officials) and the Service's responses. One additional anonymous
comment not pertaining to the 5-year review was received but is not
summarized below. Interested parties may view the comments received
during the stakeholder review period at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS-HQ-ES-2022-0107 or may contact the Service
individual identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
make arrangements to view copies of the comments.
(1.) Comment from the Manistee County Planning Department,
Michigan: Manistee County indicated that the proposed change in the
CBRS boundary around Snake Island appeared to be accurate. However,
they raised a concern with the inland shoreline of Arcadia Lake, which
they assert is not accurately shown on the point (located on the north
side of the lake) and asked that it be corrected.
Our Response: We reviewed the official November 2, 1994, map for
Unit MI-21, which is based upon a 1983 U.S. Geological Survey
topographic quadrangle, and found that the boundary in question was not
drawn to follow the shoreline of Arcadia Lake. Because this particular
segment of boundary was not drawn to follow a geomorphic feature on the
official map, no changes are warranted through the 5-year review
process.
(2.) Comment from Representative Gregory F. Murphy, MD, House of
Representatives, 3rd District, North Carolina: Representative Murphy
requested that the Service exclude the lots serviced by infrastructure
along North Carolina Highway 210 and New River Inlet Road from Unit
L06, because he asserts these lots were mistakenly placed in the unit
when the CBRS was first mapped.
Our Response: Changes to the CBRS boundaries through the 5-year
review effort are limited to the administrative modifications the
Secretary is authorized to make under CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)-(e)).
Changes that are outside the scope of this authority must be made
through the comprehensive map modernization process, which entails
Congressional enactment of legislation to make the revised maps
effective. Unit L06 has already undergone the comprehensive map
modernization process, and the revised maps for the unit were adopted
by Congress via the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2018 (Pub.
L. 115-358). These maps (dated December 21, 2018) removed about 78
structures from the CBRS and added about 170 acres to the CBRS (mostly
wetlands). The results of the Service's review of the level of
infrastructure within Unit L06 are described in our response to Comment
15 in Appendix E of our 2016 Final Report to Congress: John H. Chafee
Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital Mapping Pilot Project. While
we found some structures on the ground and a main trunk line of
infrastructure that ran along the length of the unit in 1982 when it
was first included within the CBRS, the area still met the CBRA
criteria for an undeveloped coastal barrier. Therefore, we do not
recommend remapping to remove the land currently in the CBRS unit
except for a minor and technical correction to address an error in the
vicinity of Barton Bay Court (affecting two existing structures) that
was identified in 2021. We transmitted a draft revised map (dated April
30, 2021) correcting this minor error to Congress on August 10, 2021.
That revised map will not take effect unless adopted by Congress
through legislation. Additional information about this map is available
on our website at https://www.fws.gov/project/current-coastal-barrier-resources-system-remapping-projects.
(3.) Comment from the Mayor of the Town of North Topsail Beach,
North Carolina: The Town supports Representative Murphy's and
Representative David Rouzer's efforts to exclude from Unit L06 the
portions of North Topsail Beach serviced by infrastructure. The Town
asserts that the Service did not consider the full complement of
infrastructure in place at the time the area was first included in 1982
within the CBRS.
Our Response: See above response to Representative Murphy.
(4.) Comment from the Carteret County Beach Commission, North
Carolina: Carteret County had no comment regarding the CBRS units in
North Carolina, as no changes to the current maps are recommended at
this time.
(5.) Comment from the National Park Service (NPS): The NPS
commented in response to the Service's decision that we plan to revisit
the North Carolina units due to ongoing geomorphic change and the need
for additional data (including the NPS's completed Cape Hatteras and
Cape Lookout National Seashores boundary surveys). The NPS provided a
point of contact for further information about the status of the
seashore boundary surveys, which were ongoing at the time of the 2022
5-year review.
(6.) Comment from the North Carolina Department of Public Safety:
The State of North Carolina had no comment on the proposed
modifications. They appreciate the Service's deferral of proposed
changes in North Carolina due to the dynamic coast and the survey being
conducted by the NPS.
(7.) Comment from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR):
The ODNR commented that the proposed change to the southern boundary of
Unit OH-06 includes a portion of a Federal navigation channel in
Sandusky Bay. They assert that the existing area is adequate to account
for potential accretion of the Bay Point sand spit and therefore no
modification to the existing boundary is needed. However, if the
boundary is to be modified, ODNR recommends that the proposed boundary
be adjusted to eliminate inclusion of the Federal navigation channel.
Additionally, ODNR commented that the revision of the CBRS units is a
Federal agency activity that will have reasonably foreseeable effects
on coastal uses and resources in Ohio's coastal zone. As ODNR is the
designated State agency charged with implementing Ohio's federally
approved Coastal Management Program under the
[[Page 55712]]
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1451-1464 and 15 CFR part
930), they assert that the Service is required to submit a Federal
consistency determination to ODNR for this project. After the comment
period closed, we received an email from the Buffalo District of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurring with ODNR's comment.
Our Response: We reviewed the expansion of Unit OH-06 and agree
that the proposed change was larger than necessary to account for
geomorphic change at Bay Point. We have reduced the proposed addition
to include only the area where accretion is occurring, and the Federal
navigation channel is no longer proposed for inclusion within the unit.
However, CBRA does exempt Federal expenditures (following consultation
between the action agency and the Service) for ``the maintenance or
construction of improvements of existing Federal navigation channels
(including the Intracoastal Waterway) and related structures (such as
jetties), including the disposal of dredge materials related to such
maintenance or construction'' (16 U.S.C. 3505(a)(2)).
Regarding ODNR's CZMA comment, the Service has determined that the
modification of the CBRS boundaries to comply with the statutory 5-year
review requirement does not require a consistency review under the
CZMA. Federal agencies are responsible for ensuring that consistency
review under the CZMA is completed as needed for each action they fund,
authorize, or carry out. The CZMA's implementing regulations at 15 CFR
930.31(a) define ``Federal agency activity'' in part as any functions
performed by or on behalf of a Federal agency in the exercise of its
statutory responsibilities. The term includes a range of activities
where a Federal agency makes a proposal for action initiating an
activity or series of activities when coastal effects are reasonably
foreseeable (e.g., a Federal agency's proposal to physically alter
coastal resources, a plan that is used to direct future agency actions,
a proposed rulemaking that alters uses of the coastal zone). Thus, as
the CZMA regulation makes clear, the consistency requirement is
directed at Federal agency activities that result in effects to coastal
zone resources or uses.
CBRA encourages the conservation of storm-prone and dynamic coastal
barriers by requiring that no new Federal expenditures or financial
assistance be made available within CBRS units unless allowed under
CBRA. The units were originally designated on a set of maps adopted by
Congress through legislation, and these maps are maintained by the
Service. CBRA does not restrict activities conducted with private,
State, or local funds, and it also contains exceptions that allow
Federal agencies to fund certain projects and provide financial
assistance within the CBRS following consultation with the Service.
Inclusion of areas within the CBRS through the 5-year review (which
makes minor and technical modifications to existing CBRS units to
address geomorphic change) results in a requirement that Federal
agencies ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out is
compliant with CBRA and its consultation requirement. Even in a case
where Federal funding for a project is prohibited by CBRA, it may still
be carried out with an alternative non-Federal funding source.
Therefore, while we understand the ODNR's position, we have determined
that the 5-year review is not a Federal agency activity itself, and a
CZMA Federal consistency review is not needed.
(8.) Comment from the Town Administrator of the Town of Pawleys
Island, South Carolina: Pawleys Island commented that there are no
proposed changes to CBRS Unit M02; however, they have concerns with the
inclusion of a jetty (located on the south side of Midway Inlet on the
north end of Pawleys Island) within the current boundary of the unit.
In particular, the Town requests clarity on the implications of the
CBRS on making repairs to the jetty, which are anticipated to occur in
the next couple of years. The Town also requested a meeting with the
Service to discuss this matter further.
Our Response: Changes to the CBRS boundaries through the 5-year
review process are limited to the administrative modifications the
Secretary is authorized to make under CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)-(e)).
Changes that are outside the scope of this authority must be made
through the comprehensive map modernization process, which requires
Congressional enactment of legislation to make the revised maps
effective. Unit M02 has already undergone the comprehensive map
modernization process, and the revised maps for the unit were adopted
by Congress via the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2018 (Pub.
L. 115-358). At that time, the Service carefully reviewed the area
where the jetty is located, and we determined that the jetty was not
included within the CBRS as the result of a mapping error.
Our historical background records indicate that in 1982, when Unit
M02 was established, the Department of the Interior (Department) was
aware of the shoreline stabilizing structures (at that time, it was
rock revetments and a small pile-driven groin) at the north end of
Pawleys Island. The Department considered the presence of these
structures and found no basis for excluding the property where the
structures were located from the CBRS. This issue is addressed in the
response to Comment 21 in Appendix E of our 2016 Final Report to
Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital
Mapping Pilot Project. The Service met with the Town Administrator in
January 2023 to discuss as requested.
(9.) Comment from FEMA, Region 6, Mitigation Division: FEMA
requested that we contact the floodplain administrator for the City of
Rio Grande City, Texas, for the review of this CBRS mapping project
(including possible permit requirements). In addition, FEMA requested
that the CBRS mapping project comply with Executive Orders (EOs) 11988
and 11990 if it is federally funded.
Our Response: The Service did not contact Rio Grande City, as it is
over 100 miles inland and our mapping project is along the coast of
Texas. However, the Service did specifically contact State and local
officials with floodplain management and/or land use responsibilities
in the affected areas. Additionally, EOs 11988 and 11990 do not apply
to the Service's CBRS mapping activities, as there is no associated on-
the-ground activity or financial assistance. Furthermore, CBRA does not
plan, regulate, or license any land use or development (it merely
limits the use of Federal funds for certain prohibited activities, with
no restrictions on private, State, or locally funded projects). CBRA is
consistent with the spirit of both EOs (which seek to avoid adverse
impacts associated with the modification or development of floodplains
and wetlands) because it discourages development and modification of
coastal barriers and their associated aquatic habitat.
(10.) Comment from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Coastal/
Marine Hazards and Resources Program: USGS concurred with the CBRS
review process, indicating that updated imagery detected necessary
changes resulting from natural processes to a handful of the CBRS
units. USGS identified some minor inconsistencies between boundaries
and current imagery in a few cases and a difference in the level of
fidelity to small-scale features defining boundaries in some areas.
USGS recommended that boundary changes in submerged areas
[[Page 55713]]
(e.g., Unit WI-04) be more clearly explained.
Our Response: We met with USGS to discuss the specific issues
raised. Based on the comments USGS provided, we found that the summary
of change for Unit WI-04 needed to be updated to provide additional
explanation for the change. We acknowledge that there are some
inconsistencies and differences in the level of fidelity to small-scale
features, due to a variety of reasons. Some inconsistencies were
inherited from the original mapping of the units in the 1980s and 1990s
(which was done by hand on 1:24,000 scale USGS topographic
quadrangles). We are limited in our authority to make administrative
changes to the boundaries under CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)-(e)) and cannot
make changes solely to make the boundaries more consistent with each
other.
Additionally, we declined to make changes to certain boundaries
where there may be a relationship between the boundary and another
feature (such as a park boundary or an international boundary); This
can lead to perceived inconsistencies. However, in such cases, further
review may be warranted through the comprehensive remapping process.
Furthermore, some changes in the units cannot be addressed through our
5-year review authority, because they are caused by human activity
rather than by natural forces.
Changes to Draft Boundaries
As a result of a stakeholder comment received during the comment
period, the Service made one change to the boundaries (which were
displayed on a web mapping application on the Service's website and are
now depicted on the final revised maps, dated December 30, 2022). This
boundary change is to Ohio Unit OH-06, and the justification for this
change is described in the Consultation with Federal, State, and Local
Officials section of this notice. The remaining CBRS boundaries
depicted on the final revised maps, dated December 30, 2022, are
identical to those that were announced for stakeholder review.
Summary of Modifications to the CBRS Maps
Below is a summary of the changes depicted on the final revised
maps of December 30, 2022.
Michigan
The Service's review found that 3 of the 46 CBRS units in Michigan
required changes due to natural forces. The imagery that was used for
this review and the revised maps is dated 2020. Additionally, one
adjustment was needed to the northern lateral boundary of Sadony Bayou
Unit MI-22 to maintain the relationship between the boundary and a
structure that was on the ground prior to the designation of the CBRS
unit in 1990. This structure appeared to be outside of the unit on the
2012 NAIP imagery used for the previous official map but appears to be
within the unit on the 2020 imagery due to an approximately 10-foot
difference in location between the two images. The boundary has been
adjusted to the south by about 10 feet to maintain the relationship
between the boundary and the structure that was depicted on the
previous map, and the structure remains outside of the unit.
In September 2022, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names voted to
replace the names of nearly 650 geographic features that had previously
featured a derogatory word for indigenous women. These name changes
affect three Michigan units, which have been updated accordingly.
MI-05: HURON CITY. The boundary of the unit has been modified to
account for shoreline erosion along Lake Huron to the east of Willow
Creek.
MI-13: BIRDSONG BAY. The name of this unit has been changed from
``Squaw Bay'' to ``Birdsong Bay'' to reflect the new name of the
underlying feature.
MI-21: ARCADIA LAKE. The boundary of the unit has been modified to
account for natural changes along the shoreline of the peninsula
located between Arcadia Lake and Lake Michigan.
MI-25: MINO-KWE POINT. The name of this unit has been changed from
``Squaw Point'' to ``Mino-kwe Point'' to reflect the new name of the
underlying feature.
MI-40: GREEN ISLAND. The boundary of the unit has been modified to
account for shoreline erosion along Lake Michigan at Point la Barbe.
MI-64: MINO-KWE JIIGIBIIK. The name of this unit has been changed
from ``Squaw Beach'' to ``Mino-kwe jiigibiik'' to reflect the new name
of the underlying feature.
Minnesota
The Service's review found that the boundaries of Unit MN-01 (the
only CBRS unit in Minnesota) did not need to be modified due to changes
from natural forces. The imagery that was used for this review and the
revised map is dated 2021.
Mississippi
The Service's review found that two of the seven CBRS units in
Mississippi required changes due to natural forces. The imagery that
was used for this review and the revised maps is dated 2021.
R02: DEER ISLAND. The western boundary of the unit has been
modified to account for accretion at the western end of Deer Island.
R03: CAT ISLAND. The southern boundary of the eastern segment of
the unit has been modified to account for accretion of the spit at the
south end of Cat Island.
North Carolina
The Service reviewed the 17 CBRS units in North Carolina, but made
no changes. Revised maps have not been produced for this State. The
imagery that was used on the currently effective maps is dated 2010,
2012, or 2014, depending on the unit. The imagery that was used for
this review is dated 2020.
While no changes have been made to the CBRS boundaries in North
Carolina at this time, future changes may be warranted for the
boundaries of Unit NC-03P, which were updated by Congress in 1999
through Public Law 106-116 to align with the boundaries of Cape
Hatteras National Seashore at that time. However, significant shoreline
erosion has occurred along the Atlantic coast of Hatteras Island,
particularly in the villages of Rodanthe, Waves, Avon, and Buxton, and
the CBRS boundary is now hundreds of feet offshore in some places.
Erosion is occurring at a rate of 2-4 meters per year in some areas.
In those places where the shoreline has eroded significantly, the
boundary of Cape Hatteras National Seashore is now the mean high-water
line. Numerous structures may be located seaward of the mean high-water
line due to erosion and may be on property owned by the National Park
Service. Some of these structures have been deemed uninhabitable due to
compromised septic systems and/or other issues. At the time of our
review, the National Park Service was planning to conduct a boundary
survey. As the survey was incomplete before our 5-year review effort
was completed, we have not made any boundary modifications at this
time. We will also continue to monitor geomorphic change occurring in
other areas in North Carolina, including the northwestern boundary of
Unit L03AP (where geomorphic change is occurring very near to the CBRS
boundary along Shackleford Banks).
In the future, we plan to revisit the North Carolina CBRS units
through the 5-year review authority, provided that sufficient data is
available at the time of our review. More information about our review
of North Carolina units can be found in a notice the Service published
[[Page 55714]]
in the Federal Register on November 22, 2022 (87 FR 71352).
Ohio
The Service's review found that 1 of the 10 CBRS units in Ohio
required changes due to natural forces. The imagery that was used for
this review and the revised maps is dated 2021.
OH-06: BAY POINT. The southern boundary of the unit has been
modified to account for the southward accretion of Bay Point.
South Carolina
The Service's review found that 3 of the 10 CBRS units in South
Carolina that are included in this review (Units M02, M03, M08, M09/
M09P, M10, M13, SC-01, SC-03, and SC-10P) required changes due to
natural forces. The imagery that was used for this review and the
revised maps is dated 2021.
The remaining 13 South Carolina units were not included in this
review because they were either comprehensively reviewed in 2021 or
they will be included in a more comprehensive review (beyond the scope
of the 5-year review) at a later date, at which time the Service will
also complete an assessment of changes necessary due to natural forces.
M03: PAWLEYS INLET. The southwestern boundary of the unit has been
modified to account for natural changes in the wetlands.
M09: EDISTO COMPLEX. The coincident boundary between Units M09 and
M09P has been modified to follow the current location of Jeremy Inlet.
The landward boundary of the unit has been modified to reflect natural
changes in the configuration of the wetlands along the Townsend River.
M09P: EDISTO COMPLEX. The coincident boundary between Units M09 and
M09P has been modified to follow the current location of Jeremy Inlet.
Texas
The Service's review found that 6 of the 35 CBRS units in Texas
required changes due to natural forces. The imagery that was used for
this review and the revised maps is dated 2020.
T03A: BOLIVAR PENINSULA. The boundary of the unit has been modified
to reflect natural changes in the configuration of the wetlands on and
around the Bolivar Peninsula.
T04: FOLLETS ISLAND. The boundary of the unit (a portion of which
is coincident with Unit T04P) has been modified to reflect erosion
along the shorelines of Mud Island and Moody Island.
T04P: FOLLETS ISLAND. The boundary of the unit (a portion of which
is coincident with Unit T04) has been modified to reflect erosion along
the shoreline of Moody Island.
T07: MATAGORDA PENINSULA. The coincident boundary between Units T07
and T07P has been modified to account for natural changes at the mouth
of Caney Creek.
T07P: MATAGORDA PENINSULA. The coincident boundary between Units
T07 and T07P has been modified to account for natural changes at the
mouth of Caney Creek.
T12: BOCA CHICA. The boundary of the unit has been modified to
account for natural changes along the shoreline of the Rio Grande.
Wisconsin
The Service's review found that three of the seven CBRS units in
Wisconsin required changes due to natural forces. The imagery that was
used for this review and the revised maps is dated 2020.
WI-03: PESHTIGO POINT. The southern boundary of the western segment
of the unit has been modified to account for erosion and an increased
lake level in Green Bay.
WI-04: DYERS SLOUGH. The eastern boundary of the unit has been
modified to account for erosion and an increased lake level in Green
Bay and maintain a relationship between the boundary and the shoreline
of the landform at the mouth of the Peshtigo River.
WI-07: FLAG RIVER. The western boundary of the unit has been
modified to reflect natural changes in the configuration of the
wetlands at the mouth of the Flag River.
Availability of Final Maps and Related Information
The final revised maps dated December 30, 2022, can be accessed and
downloaded from the Service's 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. The
Service is not responsible for any misuse or misinterpretation of the
shapefile or WMS.
Interested parties may also contact the Service individual
identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to make arrangements to
view the final maps at the Service's Headquarters office. Interested
parties who are unable to access the maps via the Service's website or
at the Service's Headquarters office may contact the Service individual
identified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, and reasonable
accommodations will be made.
Signing Authority
Gary Frazer, Assistant Director for Ecological Services, approved
this action on August 9, 2023, for publication. On August 9, 2023, Gary
Frazer authorized the undersigned to sign the document electronically
and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as
an official document of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Martha E. Balis-Larsen,
Acting Assistant Director for Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-17552 Filed 8-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
