link to page 1 link to page 1 
Updated May 31, 2018
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
In 1982, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
expenditures in the System, and making recommendations
(CBRA; P.L. 97-348), which established the John H.
to Congress about potential changes to the System.
Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (System).
Congress aimed to “minimize the loss of human life,
The System is composed of typical coastal barriers, as well
wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and the damage
as nonbarrier areas along the coast that share similar
to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with
qualities but are not backed by aquatic features. The System
coastal barriers.” CBRA was enacted to remove federal
has two types of areas: system units and otherwise
financial assistance incentives for development on
protected areas (OPAs; Figure 1). System units mostly
undeveloped coastal barriers, in recognition of potential
consist of private land that was relatively undeveloped (e.g.,
problems associated with developing coastal areas. CBRA
housing density of less than one unit per five acres) at the
does not prohibit development within System areas;
time of designation to the System. Beginning in 1990, FWS
therefore, development may still occur using private and
began designating OPAs, which mostly consist of public
nonfederal funds. The System is currently composed of
land and are defined as undeveloped coastal barriers within
parts of coastal areas along the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of
the boundaries of an area “established under Federal, State,
Mexico, Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.
or local law, or held by a qualified organization, primarily
for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural
CBRA has been reauthorized and legislatively modified
resource conservation purposes” (16 U.S.C. §3503).
numerous times, most recently in 2006 (16 U.S.C. §§3501-
3510). CBRA may receive increasing attention from
Figure 1. Examples of Coastal Features and Types of
Congress due to the effects of recent coastal storms and
System Areas Along the Eastern Shore of Virginia
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.
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 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 1). Coastal barriers and associated areas provide
diverse habitats for fish and wildlife and protect the
landward natural and built environments from the impacts
of coastal storms and hurricanes.
Source: CRS using ESRI and FWS data.
Coastal Barrier Resources System
Notes: FWS defines the seaward side of a System area on a coastal
Under CBRA, the Secretary of the Interior and FWS are
barrier by the 30 foot (ft) bathymetric contour and in large coastal
responsible for maintaining and updating official System
embayments and the Great Lakes by whichever is closer: the 20 ft
maps, consulting with federal agencies regarding
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 comprised of FWS-
Evaluating CBRA Effectiveness
recommended undeveloped coastal areas (186 system units
Many observers question whether CBRA has minimized the
covering 453,000 acres along the Atlantic and Gulf of
loss of human life; wasteful federal expenditures; and
Mexico coasts). The System has since grown to 862 total
damage to coastal fish, wildlife, and other natural resources.
units (585 system units and 277 OPAs) covering 3.5 million
Moreover, in the last 10 years, no federal agency has
acres along 2,500 shoreline miles across 23 states and
completed comprehensive analyses to assess program
territories.
effectiveness. In 2007, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) estimated that 84% of System areas remained
Restrictions to Federal Expenditures
undeveloped and 16% had experienced some level of
CBRA prohibits new federal financial assistance in System
development, including 3% of units that had experienced
units, with some exceptions for emergencies; maintenance
significant development (100 or more structures per unit).
or repair of publicly owned structures; military activities;
Within newly developed areas, GAO found that the effect
energy resource exploration, extraction, and transportation;
of System designations on rates of development was
and navigation (16 U.S.C. §§3504, 3505). CBRA broadly
minimal; desirable locations near other development, versus
defines federal financial assistance as “any form of loan,
areas that were harder to access, were often developed
grant, guaranty, insurance [including flood insurance],
regardless of System status. According to a 2002 FWS
payment, rebate, subsidy, or any other form of direct or
study, from 1983 through 1996, CBRA resulted in federal
indirect Federal assistance” (16 U.S.C. §3502).
savings of approximately $686 million (nominal dollars) in
Development built in System units before CBRA
costs related to infrastructure (roads and waste/potable
designation, and/or development in OPAs, still may qualify
water systems) and disaster relief. In terms of protecting
for some types of assistance. The only type of financial
important habitat for fish and wildlife, some have surmised
assistance prohibited in OPAs is federal flood insurance.
that by slowing development, CBRA has given
For more information on the relationship between the
nongovernmental organizations and community groups
Federal Emergency Management Agency and CBRA, see
more time to find management alternatives for these areas,
CRS Report R44808, Federal Disaster Assistance: The
such as establishing reserves or protected areas.
National Flood Insurance Program and Other Federal
Disaster Assistance Programs Available to Individuals and
Issues for Congress
Households After a Flood, by Diane P. Horn.
Ongoing issues have included expansion, reduction, or
modification of System areas; consistency between state
System Map Changes and Updates
and federal coastal activities; and FWS’s oversight role.
CBRA requires congressional action to modify the
Legislation to expand, reduce, or change the boundaries of
boundaries of System areas, with three administrative
specific System areas is introduced by some Members of
exceptions. Adjustments to System boundaries may be
Congress each year. Significant boundary modifications are
made administratively (1) through minor and technical
often in response to FWS recommendations and/or
modifications due to natural forces in accordance with a
constituent requests. FWS receives more constituent
required five-year review process; (2) through additions to
requests for map reviews than it is able to complete in a
the System at the request of property owners; and (3) by
given year, due to staff and budget limitations. FWS
additions of eligible excess federal land. Congress must
estimates that comprehensively revised maps for the
approve changes beyond this administrative scope,
remaining 70% of System acreage would cost an additional
including substantial recommendations from FWS and
$5 million. In the 115th Congress, 10 bills (H.R. 1256, H.R.
changes requested by constituents.
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
To make maps more useful to the public and to local, state,
introduced that would modify System boundaries or change
and federal agencies, FWS is conducting an effort to reflect
federal financial system exceptions.
natural changes, correct transcription errors, and convert
existing maps into a digital format under its existing
Additional stakeholder concerns have centered on the
administrative five-year review. Through March 2018,
integration of CBRA goals and state coastal zone
FWS had completed digital conversion maps for 94% of the
management plans under the Coastal Zone Management
System’s acreage. To address constituent requests and
Act (16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.) and on the appropriate role of
changes that are beyond the scope of the digital conversion
FWS oversight of other federal agency actions in the
process, Congress directed the FWS to complete a pilot
System.
study to digitize a subset of System maps; report on the
feasibility, data needs, and costs of digitizing the entire
CBRA was last reauthorized in 2006. Although its
System; and subsequently digitize remaining System areas
authorization of appropriations expired in 2010, Congress
(P.L. 106-514 and P.L. 109-226, respectively). As a result,
has continued to fund CBRA. CBRA has been funded at
approximately 15% of the System’s acreage has been
roughly $1.4 million in FY2017 and FY2018, and FWS has
comprehensively remapped and submitted to Congress for
requested similar funding in FY2019.
approval. Lastly, an additional push to review System maps
was funded through post-Hurricane Sandy recovery funds
Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
provided to the Department of the Interior, resulting in
R. Eliot Crafton, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
comprehensively revised maps for an additional 15% of the
System’s acreage.
IF10859
https://crsreports.congress.gov
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 3 · UPDATED