Updated May 31, 2018July 5, 2019
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
In 1982, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
(CBRA; P.L. 97-348; 16 U.S.C. §§3501-3510), which
), which established the John H.
Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources
System (System).
Congress aimed to “ It declared the purpose of CBRA to be
“to minimize the loss of human life,
wasteful expenditure of
Federal revenues, and the damage
to fish, wildlife, and
other natural resources associated with
coastal barriers.”
CBRA was enacted to remove federal
financial assistance
incentives for development on
undeveloped coastal barriers,
in recognition of potential
problems associated with
developing coastal areas. CBRA
does not prohibit
development within System areas;
therefore, development
may still occur using private and
nonfederal funds. The
System is currently composed of
parts of coastal areas
along the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
Mexico, Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.
CBRA has been reauthorized and legislatively modified
numerous times, most recently in 2006 (16 U.S.C. §§35013510). CBRA may receive increasing attention from
Congress due to the effects of recent coastal storms and
subsequent federal expenditures. Coastal areas are of
interest for development because of their aesthetic and
recreational significance and resulting high taxable land
values. However, due to the dynamic nature of these
systems, development on coastal barriers and along the
coast in general may be at a relatively high risk of storm
damage and long-term erosion. Additionally, development
often disrupts the natural movement of sandy materials that
maintain the protective nature of the shoreline and may
harm fish and wildlife habitat.
expenditures in the System, and making recommendations
to Congress about potential changes to the System.
Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands.
The System is composed of typical coastal barriers, as well
as nonbarrier areas along the coast that share similar
qualities but are not backed by aquatic features. The System
has two types of areas: systemSystem units and otherwise
protected areas (OPAs; Figure 1). System units mostly
consist of private land that was relatively undeveloped (e.g.,
housing density of less than one unit per five acres) at the
time of designation to the System. Beginning in 1990, FWS
began designating OPAs, which mostly consist of public
land and are defined as undeveloped coastal barriers within
the boundaries of an area “established under Federal, State,
or local law, or held by a qualified organization, primarily
for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural
resource conservation purposes” (16 U.S.C. §3503).
Figure 1. Examples of Coastal Features and Types of
System Areas Along the Eastern Shore of Virginia
Stakeholders have questioned whether a modified CBRA
would still meet its original congressional intent of a
nonregulatory approach to development. Some stakeholders
have shown interest in the expansion or reduction of the
System, the coordination of state and federal activities in
coastal areas, and the appropriate role for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). This In Focus provides
background information about CBRA and the System and
briefly describes selected possible issues for Coastal areas are of interest for development because of
their aesthetic and recreational significance and resulting
high taxable land values. However, due to the dynamic
nature of coastal systems, development on coastal barriers
and along the coast in general may be at a relatively high
risk of storm damage and erosion. Additionally,
development often disrupts the natural movement of sandy
materials that maintain the protective nature of the shoreline
and may harm fish and wildlife habitat.
CBRA has been reauthorized and legislatively modified
numerous times, most recently in 2006. CBRA may receive
attention from the 116th Congress due to the effects of
coastal storms in 2016, 2017, and 2018 and subsequent
federal expenditures. Some stakeholders have shown
interest in the expansion, reduction, or modification of
System areas; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s (FWS’s)
oversight role; and authorization of appropriations. This In
Focus provides background information about CBRA and
the System and briefly describes selected possible issues for
Congress.
Characteristics of Coastal Barriers
Coastal barriers are low-lying, shifting landforms in the
form of peninsulas/spits, islands, bay barriers, and other
formations and associated aquatic habitats (e.g., marsh,
wetlands, inlets) subject to wave, tidal, and wind energies
(Figure waves, tides, and winds (Figure
1). Coastal barriers and associated areas provide
diverse diverse
habitats for fish and wildlife and protect the
landward landward
natural and built environments from the impacts
of coastal
storms and hurricanes.
Coastal Barrier Resources System
Under CBRA, the Secretary of the Interior and FWS are
responsible for maintaining and updating official System
maps, consulting with federal agencies regarding
expenditures in the System, and making recommendations
to Congress about potential changes to the System.
Source: CRS using ESRI and FWS data.
Notes: FWS defines the seaward side of a System area on a coastal
barrier by the 30 foot (ft) bathymetric contour and in large coastal
embayments and the Great Lakes by whichever is closer: the 20 ft
bathymetric contour or a line one mile seaward of the shoreline.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
Upon enactment, the System was comprisedcomposed of FWSrecommended undeveloped coastal areas (186 system units
covering 453,000 acres along the Atlantic and Gulf of
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
Mexico coasts). The System has since grown to 862 total
units (585 system units and 277 OPAs) covering 3.5 million
acres along 2,500 shoreline miles across 23 states and
territories.
Restrictions to Federal Expenditures
Evaluating CBRA Effectiveness
CBRA prohibits new federal financial assistance in System
units, with some exceptions for emergencies; maintenance
or repair of publicly owned structures; military activities;
energy resource exploration, extraction, and transportation;
and navigation (16 U.S.C. §§3504, 3505). CBRA broadly
defines federal financial assistance as “any form of loan,
grant, guaranty, insurance [including flood insurance],
payment, rebate, subsidy, or any other form of direct or
indirect Federal assistance” (16 U.S.C. §3502).
Development builtDevelopments in System units beforethat predate CBRA
designation, and/or development in OPAs, still may qualify
for some types of assistance. The only type of financial
assistance prohibited in OPAs is federal flood insurance.
For more information on the relationship between the
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s federal flood
insurance and CBRA, see
CRS Report R44808, Federal
Disaster Assistance: The
National Flood Insurance
Program and Other Federal
Disaster Assistance Programs
Available to Individuals and
Households After a Flood, by Diane P. Horn.
System Map Changes and Updates
CBRA requires congressional action to modify the
boundaries of System areas, with three administrative
exceptions. Adjustments to System boundaries may be
made administratively (1) through minor and technical
modifications due to natural forces in accordance with a
required five-year review process; (2) through additions to
the System at the request of property owners; and (3) by
additions of eligible excess federal land. Congress must
approve changes beyond this administrative scope,
including substantial recommendations from FWS and
changes requested by constituents.
To make maps more useful to the public and to local, state,
and federal agencies, FWS is conducting an effort to reflect
natural changes, correct transcription errors, and convert
existing maps into a digital format under its existing
administrative five-year review. Through March 2018,
FWS had completed digital conversion maps for 94% of the
System’s acreage. To address constituent requests and
changes that are beyond the scope of the digital conversion
process, Congress directed the FWS to complete a pilot
study to digitize a subset of System maps; report on the
feasibility, data needs, and costs of digitizing the entire
System; and subsequently digitize remaining System areas
(P.L. 106-514 and P.L. 109-226, respectively). As a result,
approximately 15% of the System’s acreage has been
comprehensively remapped and submitted to Congress for
approval. Lastly, an additional push to review System maps
was funded through post-Hurricane Sandy recovery funds
provided to the Department of the Interior, resulting in
comprehensively revised maps for an additional 15% of the
System’s acreage.
Evaluating CBRA Effectiveness
Many observers question whether CBRA has minimized the
loss of human life; wasteful federal expenditures; and
damage to coastal fish, wildlife, and other natural resources.
Moreover, in the last 10 years, no federal agency has
completed comprehensive analyses to assess program
effectiveness. In 2007, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) estimated that 84% of System areas remained
undeveloped and 16% had experienced some level of
development, including 3% of units that had experienced
significant development (100 or more structures per unit).
Within newly developed areas, GAO found that the effect
of System designations on rates of development was
minimal; desirable locations near other development, versus
areas that were harder to access, were often developed
regardless of System status. According to a 2002 FWS
study, from 1983 through 1996, CBRA resulted in federal
savings of approximately $686 million (nominal dollars) in
costs related to infrastructure (roads and waste/potable
water systems) and disaster relief. In terms of protecting
important habitat for fish and wildlife, some have surmised
that by slowing development, CBRA has given
nongovernmental organizations and community groups
more time to find management alternatives for these areas,
such as establishing reserves or protected areas.
Issues for Congress
Ongoing issues have included expansion, reduction, or
modification of System areas; consistency between state
and federal coastal activities; and FWS’s oversight role.
Legislation to expand, reduce, or change the boundaries of
specific System areas is introduced by some Members of
Congress each year. Significant boundary modifications are
often in response to FWS recommendations and/or
constituent requests. FWS receives more constituent
requests for map reviews than it is able to complete in a
given year, due to staff and budget limitations. FWS
estimates that comprehensively revised maps for the
remaining 70% of System acreage would cost an additional
$5 million. In the 115th Congress, 10 bills (H.R. 1256, H.R.
2947, H.R. 3047, H.R. 4091, H.R. 4692, H.R. 4880/S.
1395, H.R. 5787, S. 1745, and S. 2866) have been
introduced that would modify System boundaries or change
federal financial system exceptions.
Additional stakeholder concerns have centered on the
integration of CBRA goals and state coastal zone
management plans under the Coastal Zone Management
Act (16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.) and on the appropriate role of
FWS oversight of other federal agency actions in the
System.
CBRA was last reauthorized in 2006. Although its
authorization of appropriations expired in 2010, Congress
has continued to fund CBRA. CBRA has been funded at
roughly $1.4 million in FY2017 and FY2018, and FWS has
requested similar funding in FY2019
Diane P. Horn.
Some observers question whether CBRA has minimized the
loss of human life; reduced wasteful federal expenditures;
and prevented damage to coastal fish, wildlife, and other
natural resources. For example, a 2007 Government
Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 84% of
System areas remained undeveloped, but development still
occurred in some System areas due to a combination of
commercial interest and public desire, local government
support, and the availability of affordable private flood
insurance. The GAO study also found that multiple federal
agencies had provided prohibited financial assistance to
property owners within System areas. In contrast, FWS in
2002 found that CBRA resulted in federal savings of
approximately $686 million (nominal dollars) in costs
related to infrastructure (roads and waste/potable water
systems) and disaster relief from 1983 through 1996.
Further, a 2019 study in the Journal of Coastal Research by
Coburn and Whitehead estimated that CBRA reduced
federal coastal disaster expenditures by $9.5 billion (in
2016 dollars) from 1989 to 2013. The study also projected
future federal savings of between $11 billion and $108
billion by 2068 (in 2016 dollars). Both the 2002 and 2019
studies used assumptions of the development rate and
federal agency expenditures that may impact the estimates
in different ways.
System Map Changes
Issues for Congress
CBRA requires congressional action to modify the
boundaries of System areas, with three administrative
exceptions. Adjustments to System boundaries may be
made administratively (1) through minor and technical
modifications “as are necessary solely to reflect changes
that have occurred in the size or location of any System unit
as a result of natural forces” at least once every five years;
(2) through additions to the System at the request of
property owners; and (3) by additions of eligible excess
federal land (16 U.S.C. §3503). FWS completed its most
recent five-year review process in 2016. During the process,
FWS converted existing maps into a digital format and
modified CBRS boundaries to reflect natural changes. As of
July 1, 2019, FWS had completed digital conversion maps
for 94% of the System’s acreage.
Congress may choose to consider questions related to the
expansion, reduction, or modification of System areas;
FWS’s oversight role; and authorization of appropriations.
Some Members of Congress typically introduce legislation
to expand, reduce, or change the boundaries of specific
System areas each year. Legislative proposals to modify
System boundaries are often in response to FWS
recommendations and/or constituent requests. In the 116th
Congress, bills have been introduced and/or passed that
would enact additional FWS recommendations and make
other System boundary changes (e.g., H.R. 1047, H.R.
2834/S. 1406, and P.L. 116-9).
Restrictions to Federal Expenditures
Congress has directed FWS to comprehensively review
CBRS boundaries. Under P.L. 106-514 and P.L. 109-226,
Congress charged FWS with completing a pilot study to
digitize a subset of System maps; reporting on the
feasibility, data needs, and costs of digitizing the entire
System; and subsequently digitizing remaining System
areas. As a result, approximately 14% of the System’s
acreage has been comprehensively reviewed. FWS
recommendations for changes to these areas were submitted
to Congress for approval in 2016, with the majority of
recommended changes enacted in P.L. 115-358. PostHurricane Sandy, Congress provided supplemental funding
to the Department of the Interior, which used the funds to
review System maps in the Northeast. As a result, FWS
comprehensively revised maps for an additional 16% of the
System’s acreage. FWS is finalizing its recommendations to
Congress for changes in these areas.
Concerns also have centered on the role of FWS oversight
of other federal agency spending and actions in the System.
Some have argued that FWS should expand the
interpretation of current statutory exemptions to federal
spending restrictions to allow additional types of activities.
Expansion of exempted activities may raise concerns about
how closely such activities align with the declared purposes
of CBRA.
CBRA’s authorization of appropriations expired in 2010.
Congress has continued to appropriate funds to FWS to
implement CBRA—$1.4 million in each of FY2017
through FY2019. FWS has requested $1.4 million for
FY2020.
Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
R. Eliot Crafton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IF10859
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10859 · VERSION 34 · UPDATED