The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
link to page 1 link to page 1 
Updated October 3, 2023
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
In 1982, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
The System is composed of typical coastal barriers, as well
(CBRA; P.L. 97-348; 16 U.S.C. §§3501-3510), which
as nonbarrier areas along the coast that share similar
established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (System).
qualities but are not backed by aquatic features. The System
It declared the purpose of CBRA to be “to minimize the
has two types of areas: System units and otherwise
loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal
protected areas (OPAs; Figure 1). System units mostly
revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural
consist of private land that was relatively undeveloped (e.g.,
resources associated with coastal barriers.” The System is
housing density of less than one unit per five acres) at the
currently composed of parts of coastal areas along the
time of designation to the System. Beginning in 1990, FWS
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, Puerto Rico,
began designating OPAs, which mostly consist of public
and U.S. Virgin Islands. CBRA was enacted to remove
land and are defined as undeveloped coastal barriers within
federal financial assistance incentives for development on
the boundaries of an area “established under Federal, State,
undeveloped coastal barriers, in recognition of potential
or local law, or held by a qualified organization, primarily
problems associated with developing coastal areas. CBRA
for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural
does not prohibit development within System areas;
resource conservation purposes” (16 U.S.C. §3503).
development may still occur using private and nonfederal
funds.
Figure 1. Examples of Coastal Features and Types of
System Areas Along the Eastern Shore of Virginia
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, flooding, and erosion. Additionally,
development often disrupts the natural movement of sand
and other 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 2019. CBRA may receive
congressional attention due to the effects of coastal storms
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 varying waves, water levels, and
winds (Figure 1). Coastal barriers and associated areas
provide diverse habitats for fish and wildlife and reduce
storm impacts landward of natural and built environments,
among other benefits.
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 away from the shoreline.
expenditures in the System, and making recommendations
In 1982, the System was composed of FWS-recommended
to Congress about potential changes to the System.
undeveloped coastal areas: 186 System units covering
453,000 acres along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
The System has since grown to 870 total units (588 System
natural resources. For example, a 2007 Government
units and 282 OPAs) covering nearly 3.5 million acres
Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 84% of
along over 2,500 shoreline miles across 23 states and
System areas remained undeveloped, but development still
territories.
occurred in the System due to a combination of commercial
interest and public desire, local government support, and
Restrictions to Federal Expenditures
the availability of affordable private flood insurance. The
CBRA prohibits new federal financial assistance in System
GAO study also found that multiple federal agencies had
units, with some exceptions for emergencies; maintenance
provided prohibited financial assistance to property owners
or repair of publicly owned structures; military activities;
within the System. In terms of federal expenditures, in 2002
energy resource exploration, extraction, and transportation;
FWS found that CBRA resulted in savings of
and navigation (16 U.S.C. §§3504, 3505). CBRA broadly
approximately $686 million (nominal dollars) in federal
defines federal financial assistance as “any form of loan,
costs related to infrastructure (roads and waste/potable
grant, guaranty, insurance [including flood insurance],
water systems) and disaster relief from 1983 through 1996.
payment, rebate, subsidy, or any other form of direct or
Another study published in 2019 by Coburn and Whitehead
indirect Federal assistance” (16 U.S.C. §3502).
estimated that CBRA reduced federal coastal disaster
Developments in System units that predate CBRA
expenditures by $9.5 billion (in 2016 dollars) from 1989 to
designation, and/or development in OPAs, still may qualify
2013. The study also projected future federal savings of
for some types of assistance. The only type of financial
between $11 billion and $108 billion by 2068 (in 2016
assistance prohibited in OPAs is federal flood insurance.
dollars). Both the 2002 and 2019 studies used assumptions
For more information on the relationship between the
of the development rate and federal agency expenditures
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s federal flood
that may impact the estimates in different ways.
insurance and CBRA, see CRS Report R44808, Federal
Disaster Assistance: The National Flood Insurance
Issues for Congress
Program and Other Federal Disaster Assistance Programs
Congress may choose to consider questions related to the
Available to Individuals and Households After a Flood, by
expansion, reduction, or modification of System areas;
Diane P. Horn.
FWS’s oversight and consultative role; and appropriations
for CBRA. Some Members of Congress typically introduce
System Map Changes
legislation to expand, reduce, or change the boundaries of
CBRA requires congressional action to modify the
specific System areas each year. Legislative proposals to
boundaries of System areas, with three administrative
modify System boundaries are often in response to FWS
exceptions. Adjustments to System boundaries may be
recommendations and/or constituent requests. For example,
made administratively (1) through minor and technical
in the 118th Congress, Members introduced bills to enact
modifications “necessary solely to reflect changes that have
FWS recommendations and make other System boundary
occurred in the size or location of any System unit as a
changes (e.g., H.R. 2437, H.R. 4821, and H.R. 5490).
result of natural forces” at least once every five years; (2)
through additions to the System at the request of property
Some concerns also have centered on the role and
owners; and (3) by additions of eligible excess federal land
effectiveness of FWS oversight of other federal agency
(16 U.S.C. §3503). FWS conducts its five-year review
spending and actions in the System. FWS has implemented
process on a rolling basis, working on different regions
GAO recommendations from 2021 on consultation with
each year.
federal agencies; Congress has not granted FWS the power
to enforce funding limitations, and the responsibility for
Congress has directed FWS to comprehensively review
complying with CBRA lies with other federal agencies.
CBRS boundaries. Under P.L. 106-514 and P.L. 109-226,
Others have argued that FWS should expand the
Congress charged FWS with completing a pilot study to
interpretation of current statutory exceptions to federal
digitize a subset of System maps; reporting on the
spending restrictions to allow additional types of activities;
feasibility, data needs, and costs of digitizing the entire
some Members have introduced bills to make those changes
System; and subsequently digitizing remaining System
statutorily (e.g., H.R. 524 and H.R. 4821 in the 118th
areas. After Hurricane Sandy, Congress provided
Congress). Expansion of excepted activities may raise
supplemental funding to the Department of the Interior,
concerns about how closely such activities align with the
which used the funds to review System maps in the
declared purposes of CBRA.
Northeast. So far, FWS has comprehensively revised and
digitized approximately 31% of the System. FWS
According to the 2021 GAO report, FWS also has not met
recommended changes to System boundaries in the area
the five-year review requirement due to funding constraints,
covered by the pilot study to Congress in 2016. Congress
among other issues. Some stakeholders have proposed
enacted the majority of recommended changes in P.L. 115-
updating CBRA’s authorization of appropriations, which
358. FWS submitted to Congress recommended changes to
ended in 2010 (e.g., H.R. 5490 in the 118th Congress).
System areas in the Northeast in 2022; those changes are
Congress has continued to appropriate funds to FWS to
awaiting congressional consideration.
implement CBRA (e.g., $1.4 million in FY2023), and FWS
has requested $1.9 million for FY2024.
Evaluating CBRA Effectiveness
Some observers question whether CBRA has minimized the
Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
loss of human life; reduced wasteful federal expenditures;
and prevented damage to coastal fish, wildlife, and other
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 6 · UPDATED
Updated October 3, 2023
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
In 1982, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act
The System is composed of typical coastal barriers, as well
(CBRA; P.L. 97-348; 16 U.S.C. §§3501-3510), which
as nonbarrier areas along the coast that share similar
established the Coastal Barrier Resources System (System).
qualities but are not backed by aquatic features. The System
It declared the purpose of CBRA to be “to minimize the
has two types of areas: System units and otherwise
loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal
protected areas (OPAs; Figure 1). System units mostly
revenues, and the damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural
consist of private land that was relatively undeveloped (e.g.,
resources associated with coastal barriers.” The System is
housing density of less than one unit per five acres) at the
currently composed of parts of coastal areas along the
time of designation to the System. Beginning in 1990, FWS
Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, Puerto Rico,
began designating OPAs, which mostly consist of public
and U.S. Virgin Islands. CBRA was enacted to remove
land and are defined as undeveloped coastal barriers within
federal financial assistance incentives for development on
the boundaries of an area “established under Federal, State,
undeveloped coastal barriers, in recognition of potential
or local law, or held by a qualified organization, primarily
problems associated with developing coastal areas. CBRA
for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural
does not prohibit development within System areas;
resource conservation purposes” (16 U.S.C. §3503).
development may still occur using private and nonfederal
funds.
Figure 1. Examples of Coastal Features and Types of
System Areas Along the Eastern Shore of Virginia
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, flooding, and erosion. Additionally,
development often disrupts the natural movement of sand
and other 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 2019. CBRA may receive
congressional attention due to the effects of coastal storms
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 varying waves, water levels, and
winds (Figure 1). Coastal barriers and associated areas
provide diverse habitats for fish and wildlife and reduce
storm impacts landward of natural and built environments,
among other benefits.
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 away from the shoreline.
expenditures in the System, and making recommendations
In 1982, the System was composed of FWS-recommended
to Congress about potential changes to the System.
undeveloped coastal areas: 186 System units covering
453,000 acres along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts.
https://crsreports.congress.gov
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)
The System has since grown to 870 total units (588 System
natural resources. For example, a 2007 Government
units and 282 OPAs) covering nearly 3.5 million acres
Accountability Office (GAO) study found that 84% of
along over 2,500 shoreline miles across 23 states and
System areas remained undeveloped, but development still
territories.
occurred in the System due to a combination of commercial
interest and public desire, local government support, and
Restrictions to Federal Expenditures
the availability of affordable private flood insurance. The
CBRA prohibits new federal financial assistance in System
GAO study also found that multiple federal agencies had
units, with some exceptions for emergencies; maintenance
provided prohibited financial assistance to property owners
or repair of publicly owned structures; military activities;
within the System. In terms of federal expenditures, in 2002
energy resource exploration, extraction, and transportation;
FWS found that CBRA resulted in savings of
and navigation (16 U.S.C. §§3504, 3505). CBRA broadly
approximately $686 million (nominal dollars) in federal
defines federal financial assistance as “any form of loan,
costs related to infrastructure (roads and waste/potable
grant, guaranty, insurance [including flood insurance],
water systems) and disaster relief from 1983 through 1996.
payment, rebate, subsidy, or any other form of direct or
Another study published in 2019 by Coburn and Whitehead
indirect Federal assistance” (16 U.S.C. §3502).
estimated that CBRA reduced federal coastal disaster
Developments in System units that predate CBRA
expenditures by $9.5 billion (in 2016 dollars) from 1989 to
designation, and/or development in OPAs, still may qualify
2013. The study also projected future federal savings of
for some types of assistance. The only type of financial
between $11 billion and $108 billion by 2068 (in 2016
assistance prohibited in OPAs is federal flood insurance.
dollars). Both the 2002 and 2019 studies used assumptions
For more information on the relationship between the
of the development rate and federal agency expenditures
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s federal flood
that may impact the estimates in different ways.
insurance and CBRA, see CRS Report R44808, Federal
Disaster Assistance: The National Flood Insurance
Issues for Congress
Program and Other Federal Disaster Assistance Programs
Congress may choose to consider questions related to the
Available to Individuals and Households After a Flood, by
expansion, reduction, or modification of System areas;
Diane P. Horn.
FWS’s oversight and consultative role; and appropriations
for CBRA. Some Members of Congress typically introduce
System Map Changes
legislation to expand, reduce, or change the boundaries of
CBRA requires congressional action to modify the
specific System areas each year. Legislative proposals to
boundaries of System areas, with three administrative
modify System boundaries are often in response to FWS
exceptions. Adjustments to System boundaries may be
recommendations and/or constituent requests. For example,
made administratively (1) through minor and technical
in the 118th Congress, Members introduced bills to enact
modifications “necessary solely to reflect changes that have
FWS recommendations and make other System boundary
occurred in the size or location of any System unit as a
changes (e.g., H.R. 2437, H.R. 4821, and H.R. 5490).
result of natural forces” at least once every five years; (2)
through additions to the System at the request of property
Some concerns also have centered on the role and
owners; and (3) by additions of eligible excess federal land
effectiveness of FWS oversight of other federal agency
(16 U.S.C. §3503). FWS conducts its five-year review
spending and actions in the System. FWS has implemented
process on a rolling basis, working on different regions
GAO recommendations from 2021 on consultation with
each year.
federal agencies; Congress has not granted FWS the power
to enforce funding limitations, and the responsibility for
Congress has directed FWS to comprehensively review
complying with CBRA lies with other federal agencies.
CBRS boundaries. Under P.L. 106-514 and P.L. 109-226,
Others have argued that FWS should expand the
Congress charged FWS with completing a pilot study to
interpretation of current statutory exceptions to federal
digitize a subset of System maps; reporting on the
spending restrictions to allow additional types of activities;
feasibility, data needs, and costs of digitizing the entire
some Members have introduced bills to make those changes
System; and subsequently digitizing remaining System
statutorily (e.g., H.R. 524 and H.R. 4821 in the 118th
areas. After Hurricane Sandy, Congress provided
Congress). Expansion of excepted activities may raise
supplemental funding to the Department of the Interior,
concerns about how closely such activities align with the
which used the funds to review System maps in the
declared purposes of CBRA.
Northeast. So far, FWS has comprehensively revised and
digitized approximately 31% of the System. FWS
According to the 2021 GAO report, FWS also has not met
recommended changes to System boundaries in the area
the five-year review requirement due to funding constraints,
covered by the pilot study to Congress in 2016. Congress
among other issues. Some stakeholders have proposed
enacted the majority of recommended changes in P.L. 115-
updating CBRA’s authorization of appropriations, which
358. FWS submitted to Congress recommended changes to
ended in 2010 (e.g., H.R. 5490 in the 118th Congress).
System areas in the Northeast in 2022; those changes are
Congress has continued to appropriate funds to FWS to
awaiting congressional consideration.
implement CBRA (e.g., $1.4 million in FY2023), and FWS
has requested $1.9 million for FY2024.
Evaluating CBRA Effectiveness
Some observers question whether CBRA has minimized the
Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
loss of human life; reduced wasteful federal expenditures;
and prevented damage to coastal fish, wildlife, and other
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 6 · UPDATED