U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Final Report to Congress:

John H. Chafee Coastal

Barrier Resources System

Digital Mapping Pilot Project
Cover photograph credit: Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Ecological Services

Washington, D.C. 
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

Acknowledgements

Many people within the Department of the Interior and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) provided support for the Digital Mapping Pilot Project (pilot 

project), including: Cheryl Amrani, Marta Anderson, Martha Balis-Larsen, 

Mitch Bergeson, Cynthia Bohn, Linus Chen, Paul Comlish, Margaret Engesser, 

Teresa Fish, Gary Frazer, Nancy Green, Angela Gustavson, Alyssa Hausman, 

Gary Hunt, Martin Kodis, Dominic Maione, Jonathan Phinney, and Gina Shultz. 

Steve Kalaf, Quinn Moody, and Jen Zosh of Dewberry LLC provided technical and 

mapping support for the pilot project.

The Service would like to thank the Members of Congress who sponsored and 

co-sponsored the 2006 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act, which 

directed the Secretary of the Interior to complete final recommended maps for the 

pilot project and prepare this report, including: former Senator Lincoln Chafee, 

former Congressman Wayne Gilchrest, Senator James Inhofe, the late Senator 

James Jeffords, former Congressman James Leach, as well as current and former 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and House Committee 

on Natural Resources staff who have supported the map modernization effort, 

including: Jason Albritton, William Ball, Harry Burroughs, Dave Jansen, 

John Rayfield, and Matthew Strickler; and the Senate and House Appropriation 

Committees. The Service also extends special thanks to former Congressman 

Thomas Evans, who sponsored the original Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982, 

and has provided unwavering support for the Coastal Barrier Resources System 

ever since.

Authors

Kristy Hatch, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Katie Niemi, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dana Wright, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ii

Suggested citation: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project. 2016.
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

Authority for the Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project and Purpose of this 

Report

In 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) submitted its initial 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital 

Mapping Pilot Project (pilot project) to the Senate Committee on Environment 

and Public Works and the House Committee on Natural Resources, per a 

directive in Section 6 of the 2000 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization 

Act (2000 CBRRA).1 The 2008 pilot project report: (1) contained draft maps 

that proposed modifications to 70 units of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) located in Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, North

Carolina, and South Carolina and (2) described the methodology and results

of the pilot project and the feasibility, data standards and needs, and costs of 

completing digital maps for the remainder of the CBRS. 

The Service made the proposed pilot project maps and report available for public 

review and comment in 2009. Since the publication of the initial report, six units

have been removed from the pilot project and one unit has been added, resulting

in a total of 65 units in the pilot project at this time.2

This final report to Congress provides the final recommended maps for 65 units 

(comprising 274,363 acres and about eight percent of the total CBRS acreage), 

and has been prepared in accordance with Section 3 of the 2006 Coastal Barrier 

Resources Reauthorization Act (2006 CBRRA),3 which specifies that the 

Secretary of the Interior, after providing an opportunity for the submission 

and consideration of public comments, shall submit a report regarding the

digital CBRS maps created under the pilot project to the Senate Committee

on Environment and Public Works and the House Committee on Natural 

Resources. The 2006 CBRRA specifies that the report shall contain: 

(1) the final recommended digital maps created under the pilot project; 

(2) recommendations for the adoption of the digital maps by Congress; 

(3) a summary of the comments received from the Governors of the States, 

other government officials, and the public regarding the digital maps; 

(4) a summary and update of the protocols and findings of the initial pilot 

project report required under Section 6(d) of the 2000 CBRRA, which 

included:

• a description of the cooperative agreements that would be necessary to 

complete digital mapping of the entire CBRS, 

• the extent to which the data necessary to complete digital mapping of 

the entire CBRS are available, 

• the need for additional data to complete digital mapping of the entire 

CBRS, 

• the extent to which the boundary lines on the digital maps differ from 

the boundary lines on the original maps, and

• the amount of funding necessary to complete digital mapping of the 

entire CBRS; and

(5) an analysis of any benefits that the public would receive by using digital 

mapping technology for all CBRS units.

The following table provides an introduction to the chapters of this report and 

notes which chapters and appendixes address the requirements listed above. 

iii
Authority for the Digital Mapping Pilot Project and Purpose of this Report

Report Chapter Description

Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System

This chapter includes an overview of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act and CBRS map modernization.

Chapter 2: Benefits of Map Modernization and 

Successes to Date

This chapter includes an analysis of benefits that the public will 

receive by using digital mapping technology for all CBRS units, 

as required by Section 3(c)(5) of the 2006 CBRRA.

Chapter 3: Pilot Project Public Review Process This chapter includes a summary of the public review process, as 

required by Section 3(b)(2)(A) of the 2006 CBRRA.

Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments and 

Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and 

Updates to Mapping Protocols

This chapter includes a summary of the substantive overarching 

comments received during the public review period regarding the 

proposed maps and a summary and update of the protocols of the 

initial pilot project report, as required by Sections 3(c)(3) and 3(c)

(4) of the 2006 CBRRA, respectively.

Chapter 5: Summary and Update of 

Pilot Project Results

This chapter describes the results of the pilot project and the 

extent to which the boundary lines on the digital maps differ from 

the boundary lines on the original maps, as required by Section 

3(c)(4) of the 2006 CBRRA.

Chapter 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria 

for Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Modifications

This chapter includes a set of guiding principles and criteria to be 

applied to assessments of areas under consideration for removal 

from, addition to, and reclassification within the CBRS, and is 

based upon the lessons learned through the pilot project and 

other comprehensive remapping projects.

Chapter 7: Next Steps and Conclusions This chapter includes a recommendation for the adoption of the 

final recommended maps by Congress, as required by Section 

3(c)(2) of the 2006 CBRRA. This chapter also describes the next 

steps to comprehensively modernize the remainder of the CBRS, 

including the cooperative agreements, digital data needs, data 

availability, and costs associated with completing digital mapping 

of the entire CBRS, as required by Section 3(c)(4) of the 2006 

CBRRA. 

Literature Cited This section contains a list of the sources cited throughout the 

report.

Appendix A: Glossary This appendix includes a glossary of terms used throughout the 

report.

Appendix B: Summary of Historical Changes to 

the Coastal Barrier Resources System

This appendix includes a summary table of the historical changes 

that have been made to the CBRS.

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and 

Final Recommended Maps

This appendix includes unit summaries that update the findings 

of the initial pilot project report, as required by Section 3(c)(4) of 

the 2006 CBRRA. This appendix also includes the final recommended maps created under the pilot project, as required by 

Section 3(c)(1) of the 2006 CBRRA. 

Appendix D: Pilot Project Acreage, Structure 

and Shoreline Changes

This appendix includes the acreage, shoreline, and structure 

changes associated with the final recommended maps included in 

Appendix C.

Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public 

Comments

This appendix includes a summary of the comments received for 

specific units during the public review period regarding the proposed maps, as required by Section 3(c)(3) of the 2006 CBRRA. 

 1 Pub. L. 106-514

2

 Units FL-64P, L07, L08, and L09 were removed from the pilot project because comprehensively revised maps for these areas have been 

adopted by Congress. The Service’s proposed map for Unit FL-64P was made effective via Pub. L. 110-419 on October 15, 2008. 

The Service’s final recommended maps for Units L07, L08, and L09 were made effective via Pub L. 113-253 on December 18, 2014.

Units FL-19 and FL-78P have been removed from the pilot project because the areas within these two units have been incorporated into 

existing adjacent CBRS units (Units FL-19P and FL-78, respectively). Unit NC-01P has been added to the pilot project as a new OPA 

because it contains areas that are currently within a System Unit (Unit NC-01) but are appropriate for reclassification to an OPA. 

3

 Pub. L. 109-226

iv
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

Contents

Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................................................................ii

Authority for the Digital Mapping Pilot Project and Purpose of this Report .............................................................................iii

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................................ix

CHAPTER 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System.............................................................................................. 1

Geomorphology of Coastal Barriers ...............................................................................................................................1

Costs and Risks Associated with the Development of Coastal Barriers ...................................................................1

Effects of Climate Change on the Coastal Environment.............................................................................................2

Coastal Barrier Resources Act .......................................................................................................................................4

Value of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act..................................................................................................................4

Map Modernization Efforts .............................................................................................................................................5

CHAPTER 2: Benefits of Map Modernization and Successes to Date ....................................................................................... 7

Digital Conversion.............................................................................................................................................................8

Comprehensive Map Modernization.............................................................................................................................10

Digital Data and CBRS Mapper ...................................................................................................................................11

CHAPTER 3: Pilot Project Public Review Process ................................................................................................................... 13

Notification Process for the Public Comment Period.................................................................................................13

Distribution Process for the 2008 Pilot Project Report and Proposed Maps .........................................................13

Extension of the Public Comment Period and Public Meetings ...............................................................................13

Results of the Public Comment Period.........................................................................................................................13

CHAPTER 4: Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses, Changes to Maps, 

and Updates to Mapping Protocols............................................................................................................................... 15

Authority of the Service to Recommend Additions to the CBRS.............................................................................16

Effectiveness of the CBRA............................................................................................................................................16

Long-Term Preservation of the CBRS.........................................................................................................................17

Modernizing CBRS Maps Using Digital Technology.................................................................................................17

Public Disclosure of CBRS Designation ......................................................................................................................17

Multiple Layers of Protection on Properties in the CBRS .......................................................................................18

Amend the CBRA to Add Exemptions for Projects Deemed to be of Public Benefit............................................18

Effective Dates for Areas Added to or Reclassified within the CBRS ....................................................................18

Delineation of CBRS Boundaries Based on Legal Descriptions Instead of Maps.................................................19

Age and Quality of Aerial Imagery Used for CBRS Base Maps..............................................................................19

System Unit versus OPA Classification and Reclassification ...................................................................................19

Mapping Channels within the CBRS............................................................................................................................21

Mapping Landward CBRS Boundaries Using Easy-to-Map Features ...................................................................22

Addition of Associated Aquatic Habitat behind a Developed Barrier to the CBRS..............................................23

Inclusion of Docks, Piers, Marinas, and Other Shoreline Structures within the CBRS.......................................24

Shoreline and Development Feature Buffering..........................................................................................................24

Roads and Road Rights-of-Way in OPAs......................................................................................................................27

Mapping Seaward Boundaries of Excluded Areas in the CBRS..............................................................................27

Seaward Limits of CBRS Units ....................................................................................................................................27

v
Contents

CHAPTER 5: Summary and Update of Pilot Project Results ..................................................................................................... 31

Types of Changes to CBRS Boundaries on Pilot Project Maps................................................................................31

Other Changes Affecting Pilot Project CBRS Maps..................................................................................................34

Final Recommended Acreage, Shoreline, and Structure Changes ..........................................................................35

CHAPTER 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for Coastal Barrier Resources System Modifications ..................................... 37

Overview of Guiding Principles and Criteria for Removals from the CBRS..........................................................37

Overview of Guiding Principles and Criteria for Additions to the CBRS ...............................................................37

Overview of Protocol for CBRS Unit Classification...................................................................................................38

Guiding Principles for CBRS Modifications ................................................................................................................38

Definition of a Coastal Barrier ......................................................................................................................................39

Criteria for CBRS Modifications...................................................................................................................................39

CHAPTER 7: Next Steps and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 47

Adoption of the Final Recommended Pilot Project Maps .........................................................................................47

Next Steps to Comprehensively Modernize the Remainder of the CBRS................................................................47

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................................48

Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................................................................... 50

APPENDIX A: Glossary............................................................................................................................................................ A-1

APPENDIX B: Summary of Historical Changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System.............................................. B-1

APPENDIX C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps................................................................... C-1

APPENDIX D: Pilot Project Acreage, Structure, and Shoreline Changes ......................................................................... D-1

APPENDIX E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments..............................................................................................E-1

List of Figures

Figure 1. Four types of coastal barriers: bay barrier, tombolo, barrier spit, and barrier island....................................... 1

Figure 2. Several homes located on the beach in Rodanthe, North Carolina, showing flooding from 

Hurricane Isabel in 2003........................................................................................................................................ 2

Figure 3. Chart showing the historical loss dollars paid between 1978 and 2014 by the National 

Flood Insurance Program ..................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 4. A home in the surf on the Outer Banks, North Carolina ....................................................................................... 3

Figure 5. Flooding of a street in Charleston, South Carolina ................................................................................................ 4

Figure 6. 1990 CBRS map of Unit D01 in Rhode Island that is hard to interpret because the 

boundary varies in width ....................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 7. 1994 CBRS map of Unit FL-72P in Florida showing a gap in the boundary in order to avoid 

covering a label on the map................................................................................................................................... 7

Figure 8. Flow chart showing the differences between the two main CBRS map modernization efforts: 

digital conversion and comprehensive map modernization............................................................................... 8

Figure 9. Example of a Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map that 

shows the CBRS boundary.................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 10. Pie chart showing the percentage of comments submitted by the different types of 

commenters (individuals, local, Federal and State officials, Congress, and other)...................................... 14

Figure 11. Map of CBRS units P19/P19P in Florida showing the complex patchwork of many 

segments of OPAs and System units. ................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 12. 1990 CBRS map of Unit NC-06P in North Carolina showing the CBRS boundary 

following the edge of a channel........................................................................................................................... 22

Figure 13. 1990 CBRS map of Unit L05 in North Carolina showing the CBRS boundary 

following the center of a channel ........................................................................................................................ 22

vi
Contents

Figure 14. Map of CBRS units NC-06/NC-06P in North Carolina where the boundary is drawn at 

the first natural break within one mile of the undeveloped portion of the coastal barrier .........................23

Figure 15. Map of CBRS Unit P05 in Florida showing the boundary with a 20 foot buffer along 

the developed shoreline........................................................................................................................................ 25

Figure 16. Map of CBRS Unit L09 in North Carolina where the boundary follows the shoreline and 

does not require a buffer because the development is set back from the shoreline .................................... 25

Figure 17. Map of CBRS Unit P21 in Florida showing the boundary with a 20 foot buffer along a bridge .................. 26

Figure 18. Map of CBRS Unit P21 in Florida where the boundary is placed away from visible bridge 

infrastructure in order to exclude it from the CBRS ...................................................................................... 26

Figure 19. Map of CBRS Unit L09 in North Carolina where the boundary follows the wetland/fastland 

interface and there is a buffer of 20 feet to ensure development is excluded from the CBRS .................. 26

Figure 20. Map of CBRS Unit FL-13P in Florida showing roads that are included within the OPA............................. 27

Figure 21. 1990 map of CBRS Unit L06 in North Carolina showing two excluded areas that are open 

on the seaward side .............................................................................................................................................. 28

Figure 22. 1990 map of CBRS Unit P11 in Florida showing an excluded area that is closed on the 

seaward side along the shoreline........................................................................................................................ 28

Figure 23. Map of CBRS Unit NC-01 in North Carolina showing an excluded area that is closed on 

the seaward side.................................................................................................................................................... 28

Figure 24. Map of CBRS Unit P22 in Florida where the boundary is open on the seaward side.................................... 29

Figure 25. Map of CBRS Unit C34A in Massachusetts showing a shoreline opposite the unit that is 

less than one mile away across open water ....................................................................................................... 29

Figure 26. Map of CBRS Unit FL-18P in Florida showing the boundary moved to follow a park 

boundary and therefore remove private land from the CBRS....................................................................... 33

Figure 27. Map of CBRS Units DE-07/DE-07P in Delaware showing an area of private land that is 

recommended to be reclassified from OPA Unit DE-07P to System Unit DE-07 ....................................... 34

Figure 28. Map of CBRS Unit FL-43 in Florida showing that there are no changes between the 

exisiting and final recommended boundaries.................................................................................................... 35

Figure 29. Map showing the many discrete segments of CBRS Units D02B/D02BP in Rhode Island.......................... 41

Figure 30. Aerial imagery of Unit L06 in North Carolina showing a main road with scattered structures .................. 41

Figure 31. Aerial imagery of Unit P30 in Florida showing both a paved road and an unimproved road ....................... 42

Figure 32. Map of CBRS Unit FL-45 in Florida showing an area with incomplete development that is 

recommended for addition to the CBRS ........................................................................................................... 42

Figure 33. A 1990 map of CBRS Unit P21 in Florida next to a current map of Unit P21. The two maps 

illustrate the inaccuracies with the original base map that caused a mapping error, and the 

Service’s final recommended boundary that would fix the error ................................................................... 44

Figure 34. A 1990 map of CBRS Unit P16 in Florida next to a current map of unit P16. The two maps 

illustrate the intentional inclusion of a mainland area within the CBRS...................................................... 45

List of Tables

Table 1. Summary of Substantive Overarching Comments and Responses...................................................................... 15

Table 2. Summary of Final Recommended Acreage and Structure Changes ................................................................... 35

Table 3. Summary of Historical Changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System....................................................B-1

Table 4. Page Number of Each Unit Summary and Corresponding Final Recommended Map in this Appendix ....C-3

Table 5. Pilot Project Acreage Changes ...............................................................................................................................D-1

Table 6. Pilot Project Structure and Shoreline Changes ...................................................................................................D-3

Table 7. Summary of Substantive Overarching Comments and Responses Addressed in Chapter 4 ..........................E-1

Table 8. Summary of Unit-Specific Comments....................................................................................................................E-2

vii
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

2000 CBRRA – 2000 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act

2006 CBRRA – 2006 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act

CBIA – Coastal Barrier Improvement Act

CBRA – Coastal Barrier Resources Act

CBRS/System – John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System

Department/DOI – Department of the Interior

FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIM – Flood Insurance Manual

FIRM – Flood Insurance Rate Map

GAO – Government Accountability Office

GIS – Geographic Information System(s)

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

NFIP – National Flood Insurance Program

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NWI – National Wetlands Inventory

OPA – Otherwise Protected Area

Secretary – Secretary of the Interior

Service/USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SFHA – Special Flood Hazard Area

USGS – United States Geological Survey

viii
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION 

Coastal barriers are the narrow 

low lying landforms located at the 

interface of land and sea. These 

unique geological features buffer 

the bays, salt marshes, and wetlands 

behind them that in turn support a 

great diversity of plants and animals, 

and protect people and property on 

the mainland from the full impact 

of hurricane force winds and storm 

surge. Coastal barriers serve as 

popular vacation and recreation 

destinations; however, developing 

and redeveloping these vulnerable 

and often unstable areas is costly, 

not only to the property owners who 

risk losing their homes and lives, 

but also to the American taxpayers 

who subsidize this development. 

Development also interferes with the 

natural movement of the barriers, 

disturbing important habitat for 

nesting sea turtles, migratory birds, 

and other fish and wildlife resources. 

Despite the risks associated with 

building on these narrow spits of 

sand, the aesthetic and recreational 

lures of coastal barriers continue to 

drive the development of these areas 

along our Nation’s coasts. 

Building on an effort initiated by 

President Carter, President Reagan 

and Congress took action to protect 

undeveloped coastal barrier habitat 

from intensive development. The 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA), enacted in 1982, recognized 

that certain actions and programs 

of the Federal Government 

have historically subsidized and 

encouraged development on coastal 

barriers, resulting in the loss of 

natural resources, threats to human 

life, health, and property, and the 

expenditure of millions of tax dollars 

each year. To remove the Federal 

incentive to develop these areas, 

the CBRA designated relatively 

undeveloped coastal barriers along 

the Atlantic and Gulf coasts as part 

of the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System (CBRS) and made these 

“System Units” ineligible for 

most new Federal expenditures 

and financial assistance. In 

1990, Congress reauthorized the 

CBRA with the Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act (CBIA), which 

also expanded the CBRS by 

adding new units, enlarging some 

previously designated units, and 

adding “Otherwise Protected 

Areas” (OPAs) as a second type of 

unit within the CBRS. “System 

Units” are generally comprised of 

privately held areas whereas OPAs 

are generally comprised of areas 

held for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, 

recreational, or natural resource 

conservation purposes (e.g., State 

parks, wildlife refuges, private 

conservation areas, etc.). The only 

Federal funding prohibition within 

OPAs is on Federal flood insurance. 

The CBRA was again reauthorized 

in 2000 and 2006, demonstrating 

consistent bipartisan support for the 

law across decades.

The CBRS currently contains a total 

of 859 geographic units covering 

about 3.3 million acres (400,000 acres 

of fastland (land above mean high 

tide), 2.9 million acres of associated 

aquatic habitat (wetlands and open 

water)) and approximately 2,500 

shoreline miles in 23 States and 

territories along the Atlantic, Gulf 

of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts. Of 

the total units within the CBRS, 585 

are System Units (comprising about 

1.3 million acres) and 274 are OPAs 

(comprising about 2 million acres). 

The CBRS units are depicted on a 

set of maps that is maintained by the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), 

through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service, we, our). 

Areas located within the CBRS 

are not eligible for most new 

Federal expenditures and financial 

assistance. Development can still 

occur within the CBRS provided 

that private developers or other nonFederal parties bear the full cost. 

Over the past 34 years, the CBRA 

has helped to reduce the intensity 

of development in these high-risk 

coastal areas, protect coastal habitat, 

and save millions of taxpayer 

dollars each year. Maintaining 

the beneficial functions of coastal 

barriers as natural storm buffers is 

important as the Nation experiences 

and prepares for increased flooding 

and erosion associated with climate 

change impacts due to increases in 

sea level rise and storm surge, and 

more intense and frequent coastal 

storms throughout the 21st century 

and beyond.

AUTHORITY FOR THE DIGITAL 

MAPPING PILOT PROJECT AND 

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT

A major challenge associated with 

administering the CBRA over the 

years has been the outdated maps 

that depict the CBRS, many of which 

date back to the 1990s. CBRS maps 

have historically been difficult to 

interpret, and in some cases contain 

significant errors. The challenges 

associated with the maps have 

caused hardships for homeowners 

who were either issued Federal 

flood insurance policies in error or 

whose properties were inadvertently 

included within the CBRS. 

Congress recognized the limitations 

and problems associated with the 

CBRS maps and took action to 

address them. The 2000 Coastal 

Barrier Resources Reauthorization 

Act (2000 CBRRA) directed the 

Secretary to conduct a Digital 

Mapping Pilot Project (pilot 

project) that would include: (1) draft 

digital maps for 50-75 CBRS areas 

(representing about ten percent of 

the CBRS) and (2) an accompanying 

report to Congress that describes 

the feasibility and cost of creating 

digital maps for the entire CBRS. 

ix
Executive Summary

The 2006 Coastal Barrier Resources 

Reauthorization Act (2006 CBRRA) 

directs the Secretary to conduct a 

public review and finalize the pilot 

project maps, prepare digital maps 

for the remainder of the CBRS, 

and provide recommendations for 

expansion of the CBRS. The 2006 

CBRRA specifies that this final 

report to Congress shall contain: 

(1) the final recommended digital 

maps created under the pilot 

project; 

(2) recommendations for the 

adoption of the digital maps by 

Congress; 

(3) a summary of the comments 

received from the Governors of 

the States, other government 

officials, and the public 

regarding the digital maps; 

(4) a summary and update of the 

protocols and findings of the 

initial pilot project report 

required under Section 6(d) 

of the 2000 CBRRA, which 

included:

• a description of the cooperative agreements that would 

be necessary to complete 

digital mapping of the entire 

CBRS, 

• the extent to which the data 

necessary to complete digital 

mapping of the entire CBRS 

are available, 

• the need for additional data 

to complete digital mapping 

of the entire CBRS,

• the extent to which the 

boundary lines on the 

digital maps differ from 

the boundary lines on the 

original maps, and

• the amount of funding 

necessary to complete 

digital mapping of the entire 

System; and

(5) an analysis of any benefits 

that the public would receive 

by using digital mapping 

technology for all CBRS units.

In 2008, the Service completed draft 

maps for 70 CBRS units (located 

in Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina) 

and an accompanying report to 

Congress. The draft pilot project 

maps underwent public review in 

2009. They were revised in 2016 to 

incorporate any appropriate changes 

based on updated aerial imagery, 

public input, and objective mapping 

protocols. These maps are included 

in this report as the Service’s 

final recommended maps for 

Congressional consideration. Since 

the publication of the initial 2008 

pilot project report, six units have 

been removed from the pilot project 

and one unit has been added. 

This report includes final 

recommended maps for 65 CBRS 

pilot project units. The final 

recommended units comprise a 

total of 274,363 acres (13,671 acres 

of fastland and 260,692 acres of 

associated aquatic habitat) and about 

eight percent of the total CBRS 

acreage. Forty-one of the total 

pilot project units are System Units 

(comprising 257,725 acres) and 24 

are OPAs (comprising 16,638 acres). 

BENEFITS OF MAP 

MODERNIZATION AND 

SUCCESSES TO DATE

As required by the 2006 CBRRA, 

this final report includes an analysis 

of any benefits that the public 

would receive by using digital 

mapping technology for all CBRS 

units. The Service has two separate 

but complementary approaches 

underway to update the CBRS 

maps, which are known as “digital 

conversion” and “comprehensive 

map modernization.” These two 

mapping efforts and their associated 

benefits are described in Chapter 2.

The Service and the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) entered into an interagency 

partnership in 2011 to facilitate 

a digital conversion of the official 

CBRS maps. This effort modernizes 

the maps to a digital medium that is 

more useful to the public and local, 

State, and Federal agencies. This 

effort is conducted under a limited 

authority in the CBRA that requires 

a regular review and update of the 

CBRS maps (known as the “fiveyear review”). Through the digital 

conversion effort, the existing CBRS 

boundaries are: (1) transferred and 

fitted to updated base maps (i.e., a 

recent aerial image) to ensure that 

the boundaries correspond with the 

natural or development features 

they are clearly intended to follow 

on the official maps; (2) modified 

to reflect any natural changes that 

have occurred since the maps were 

last updated and to incorporate any 

voluntary additions and additions 

of excess Federal property within 

the CBRS; and (3) in limited 

circumstances, modified to correct 

transcription errors between the 

boundaries approved by Congress in 

the past and those depicted on the 

official CBRS maps on file with the 

Service. The revised maps prepared 

through the digital conversion 

process undergo stakeholder 

review by Federal, State, and local 

officials, and are made effective 

administratively by the Service 

through a notice of final map 

availability published in the Federal 

Register. Changes to the CBRS 

that are outside the Service’s limited 

administrative authorities under the 

CBRA cannot be made through the 

digital conversion process.

The benefits associated with digital 

conversion include: more accurate 

and user-friendly CBRS data and 

maps for the public; improved 

accuracy of CBRS boundaries 

depicted on FEMA’s Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps; increased 

awareness of and compliance with 

the CBRA; and opportunities for 

enhanced State, local, and nongovernmental conservation efforts. 

By the end of 2016, the Service will 

have completed digital conversion 

maps for 19 of the 23 States and 

territories that contain CBRS units, 

covering more than 90 percent of the 

total CBRS acreage.

Changes that are outside of the 

scope of digital conversion must be 

made through the comprehensive 

map modernization process. This 

process is more time and resource 

intensive because it entails 

significant research into the intent 

of the original boundaries and 

the development status on-theground at the time the areas were 

originally included within the CBRS, 

public review of the draft maps, 

and Congressional enactment of 

x
Executive Summary

legislation to make the revised maps 

effective. 

In addition to all of the benefits 

of the digital conversion effort 

listed above, comprehensive map 

modernization also addresses 

mapping errors by removing lands 

that were previously included 

in error and conserves natural 

resources by adding qualifying new 

areas to the CBRS. Through fiscal 

year 2016, the Service has prepared 

comprehensively modernized maps 

for approximately 15 percent of the 

total CBRS acreage (including the 

pilot project maps). 

In addition to modernizing the 

CBRS maps using digital technology, 

the Service has also modernized 

the delivery of CBRS information 

to the public by making a CBRS 

boundary dataset available for use 

in Geographic Information System 

applications and making the CBRS 

boundaries available through a 

CBRS Mapper on our website.

PILOT PROJECT PUBLIC REVIEW 

PROCESS

As required by the 2006 CBRRA, 

this final report was prepared 

after providing an opportunity for 

the submission and consideration 

of public comments. Chapter 3 

describes the pilot project public 

review process. On April 7, 2009, 

the Service released to the public 

its initial 2008 pilot project report to 

Congress and announced the start 

of a 90-day public comment period, 

which was later extended to 120 

days. 

We distributed more than 400 copies 

of the report and accompanying 

letters requesting comments to 

a wide variety of stakeholders 

including members of Congress, 

Governors, county and parish chief 

elected officials, local and State 

floodplain administrators and 

emergency managers, State coastal 

zone managers, officials of other 

Federal agencies, park managers, 

and other stakeholders (e.g., nongovernmental organizations). We 

received a total of 159 written 

comments, about half of which were 

from private property owners. The 

remaining comments received were 

mostly from Federal agencies, State 

and local officials, conservation 

organizations, and homeowners 

associations. The Service solicited 

comments from the Governors of all 

23 States and territories containing 

CBRS units; however no comments 

were received from the Governors.

Unit-specific comments were 

received for 26 of the 70 units 

in the 2008 pilot project report. 

The majority of the comments 

received related to the Florida and 

North Carolina pilot project units. 

Significant issues raised during the 

public comment period that are 

relevant to more than one CBRS 

unit are itemized and addressed in 

Chapter 4. Unit-specific comments 

are addressed in Appendix E.

SUMMARY OF PUBLIC 

COMMENTS AND SERVICE 

RESPONSES, CHANGES TO 

MAPS, AND UPDATES TO 

MAPPING PROTOCOLS

As required by the 2006 CBRRA, 

this report contains a summary 

of the comments received from 

government officials and the 

public regarding the digital maps 

and a summary and update of the 

protocols and findings of the 2008 

pilot project report.

Through the course of the pilot 

project and comprehensive 

remapping efforts over the past 

several years, the Service has 

identified the need for updated 

guidance and clarification on 

certain CBRS mapping protocols. 

Chapter 4 contains: (1) a summary 

of the substantive overarching 

comments received during the pilot 

project public comment period and 

the Service’s responses to those 

comments; (2) a summary of any 

changes to pilot project maps as a 

result of public comments; and (3) 

a summary of significant mapping 

protocols that were either updated 

or clarified by the Service through 

the pilot project.

SUMMARY AND UPDATE OF 

PILOT PROJECT RESULTS

As required by the 2006 CBRRA, 

this report contains a summary 

and update of the findings of the 

2008 pilot project report. Chapter 

5 describes the results of the pilot 

project and the extent to which the 

boundary lines on the digital maps 

differ from the boundary lines on the 

original maps.

The types of changes associated with 

the final recommended pilot project 

maps include modifications to reflect: 

• geomorphic change, 

• alignment with geomorphic 

features, 

• alignment with development 

features, 

• alignment with cultural features, 

• additions to the CBRS based on 

a directive in the 2006 CBRRA, 

• unit type reclassifications, 

• removals from the CBRS, and 

• consistent mapping of CBRS 

boundaries in channels. 

In addition to the final recommended 

boundary changes, the Service 

replaced the base map imagery used 

for the proposed maps with newer 

and higher quality imagery. We also 

reconfigured some of the CBRS map 

panels to help reduce confusion and 

improve the usability of the CBRS 

maps. 

The final recommended maps 

for the 65 units contained in 

Appendix C (if adopted by Congress 

through legislation) would remove 

approximately 396 total acres from 

the CBRS (236 acres of fastland 

and 160 acres of associated aquatic 

habitat) and add approximately 

24,510 acres to the CBRS (1,354 

acres of fastland and 23,156 acres 

of associated aquatic habitat). The 

revised maps would remove about 

325 structures from the CBRS and 

add about 35 structures to OPAs 

(mostly park-related). The Service 

is not aware of any existing private 

residential structures located within 

the areas recommended for addition 

to the CBRS.

xi
Executive Summary

The final recommended pilot project 

maps and summaries of change 

for each unit (including acreage, 

shoreline, and structure changes 

for each unit) are provided in 

Appendix C. The acreage, shoreline, 

and structure change numbers 

for each pilot project unit are also 

provided in Appendix D. Below 

is a summary table of the final 

recommended pilot project acreage 

changes. 

Summary of Final Recommended Acreage and Structure Changes

Fastland Acres Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres Total Acres Total Structures

System Units OPAs System Units OPAs System Units OPAs System Units OPAs

Addition to 

the CBRS

379 975 20,491 2,665 20,870 3,640 0 35

Total: 1,354 Total: 23,156 Total: 24,510 Total: 35

Deletion from 

the CBRS

148 88 102 58 250 146 179 146

Total: 236 Total: 160 Total: 396 Total: 325

Net 

Reclassified

(232) 232 11,146 (11,146) 10,914 (10,914) N/A N/A

Total: 0 Total: 0 Total: 0 N/A

Net Change (1) 1,119 31,535 (8,539) 31,534 (7,420) (179) (111)

Total: 1,118 Total: 22,996 Total: 24,114 Total: (290)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

AND CRITERIA FOR CBRS 

MODIFICATIONS

Over the years, the Service has 

received numerous requests 

from property owners and their 

representatives from Congress 

to remove areas from the CBRS. 

Such requests require careful 

assessment to determine whether a 

removal is warranted. In the 2000 

CBRRA, Congress codified criteria 

for the Secretary to “consider” 

when determining whether an 

area warrants removal from the 

CBRS. Another consideration 

when reviewing CBRS units is the 

directive in the 2006 CBRRA to the 

Secretary to recommend additions 

to the CBRS when carrying out 

digital mapping for the remainder 

of the CBRS. Chapter 6 contains 

the Service’s guiding principles and 

criteria for assessing removals from, 

additions to, and reclassifications 

within the CBRS (i.e., reclassifying 

areas from System Unit to OPA and 

vice versa).

When assessing potential 

modifications to the CBRS, the 

Service considers the following 

guiding principles and criteria:

Guiding Principles for CBRS 

Modifications

(1) Whether the area may 

reasonably be considered to 

be a coastal barrier feature, 

or related to a coastal barrier 

ecosystem (this generally 

includes areas that are 

inherently vulnerable to coastal 

hazards such as flooding, storm 

surge, wind, erosion, and sea 

level rise).

(2) Whether inclusion of the area 

within the CBRS is rationally 

related to the purposes of the 

CBRA (i.e., to minimize the 

loss of human life, wasteful 

expenditure of Federal 

revenues, and damage to fish, 

wildlife, and other natural 

resources).

Criteria for CBRS Modifications

(1) The level of development 

on-the-ground at the time the 

area was included within the 

CBRS (i.e., whether the number 

of structures or complement of 

infrastructure on-the-ground 

exceeded the threshold for 

the area to be considered 

undeveloped).

(2) The location of geomorphic, 

cultural, and development 

features on-the-ground at the 

time the area was included 

within the CBRS (i.e., whether 

the CBRS boundary lines on 

the maps precisely follow the 

underlying features they were 

intended to follow on-theground).

The Service generally will not 

recommend a removal unless there 

is clear and compelling evidence that 

an error in boundary delineation was 

made. 

Protocol for CBRS Unit Classification 

One of the significant lessons 

learned through the course 

of the pilot project and other 

comprehensive remapping efforts 

over the past several years is 

that the level of effort necessary 

to research, classify, and in some 

cases, reclassify, small discrete 

areas as System Unit or OPA (based 

on ownership at the time they 

were included within the CBRS) 

is impractical, complicated, and 

cost prohibitive. The Service has 

determined that CBRS boundaries 

should generally be drawn to 

correspond with underlying 

xii
Executive Summary

geomorphic (e.g., shorelines and 

streams), development (e.g., 

property parcel boundaries, roads), 

and cultural features (e.g., county 

lines, park boundaries). Areas that 

qualified as undeveloped coastal 

barriers at the time of their inclusion 

within the CBRS should generally 

be classified as System Unit or 

OPA based on the predominant 

ownership of the coastal barrier 

system at the time it was included 

within the CBRS. These updated 

protocols are described in Chapters 

4 and 6 and will be applied to future 

comprehensive remapping projects.

NEXT STEPS AND 

CONCLUSIONS

As required by the 2006 

CBRRA, this report contains a 

recommendation to Congress for the 

adoption of the final recommended 

pilot project maps and a summary 

and update of the findings of the 

2008 pilot project report (i.e., the 

extent to which the data necessary 

to complete digital mapping of the 

entire CBRS are available, the need 

for additional data and cooperative 

agreements to complete digital 

mapping of the entire CBRS, and 

the amount of funding necessary 

to complete digital mapping of the 

entire CBRS).

Adoption of the Final Recommended 

Pilot Project Maps

Appendix C of this report includes 

final recommended maps for 

65 CBRS pilot project units. The 

Service recommends that Congress 

replace the existing controlling 

maps for the pilot project units 

with the final recommended maps. 

Enactment of these maps will 

address clear mapping errors that 

have unintended negative effects on 

property owners and that warrant 

correction. The Service’s final 

recommended maps will become 

effective only if adopted by Congress 

through legislation. 

Next Steps to Comprehensively 

Modernize the CBRS

The CBRA is a map-based law, and 

although most of the CBRS maps 

have been modernized through the 

digital conversion effort and are 

now more accurate and easier to 

use, some of them may still contain 

legitimate errors that warrant 

a comprehensive review and 

remapping by the Service.

Through fiscal year 2016, the Service 

has created comprehensively 

modernized maps for approximately 

15 percent of the total CBRS 

acreage (about 100 units including 

the pilot project maps). The 

Service has a project underway to 

prepare comprehensively revised 

draft maps for all CBRS units in 

eight northeastern States affected 

by Hurricane Sandy (about 

370 units comprising approximately 

15 percent of the total acreage 

of the CBRS), and will create 

comprehensively modernized maps 

for additional CBRS units given 

the availability of resources for 

this effort. The estimated cost for 

completing comprehensively revised 

maps for the remainder of the 

CBRS (about 400 units comprising 

approximately 70 percent of the 

CBRS acreage) is about $5 million. 

Comprehensive map modernization 

allows for the opportunity to 

correct errors that negatively 

affect property owners and expand 

the CBRS to include eligible 

undeveloped land and associated 

aquatic habitat. The Service 

supports map modernization and will 

continue to prepare comprehensively 

revised maps for remaining areas 

within the CBRS as resources are 

made available for this effort. 

xiii
Dauphin Island, Alabama. (Credit: 

LieutenantCommander Mark Moran, NOAA Corps)
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

CHAPTER 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System

Coastal barriers, the narrow low 

lying landforms located at the 

interface of land and sea, buffer the 

bays, salt marshes, and wetlands 

behind them that in turn support 

a great diversity of plants and 

animals, including many threatened 

or endangered species, and protect 

people and property on the mainland 

from the full impact of hurricane 

winds and storm surge. Coastal 

barriers are continually shifting 

in response to the natural forces 

of wind, wave, and tidal action. 

The location and dynamic nature 

of coastal barriers makes them 

hazardous areas on which to build. 

Development of these areas not 

only puts property owners at risk of 

losing their homes but also disrupts 

the natural movement of the 

barriers, harming fish and wildlife 

habitat, and often increasing natural 

erosion processes. Maintaining 

the beneficial functions of coastal 

barriers as fish and wildlife habitat 

and natural storm buffers will 

be even more important as the 

Nation experiences and prepares 

for increased flooding and erosion 

associated with climate change 

impacts due to increases in sea 

level rise, storm surge, and more 

intense and frequent coastal storms 

throughout the 21st century and 

beyond.1

 Updating the maps 

through this Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) and other 

comprehensive mapping projects 

will help secure the future integrity 

of the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System (CBRS) by correcting 

legitimate technical mapping errors 

and adding eligible areas to the 

CBRS. 

Geomorphology of Coastal Barriers

The term “coastal barrier” generally 

describes a class of low lying coastal 

landforms that are long and narrow 

and parallel to the coast. They are 

completely or mostly surrounded 

by open water, wetlands, or other 

aquatic habitat that separates them 

from the mainland; and they protect 

these landward aquatic habitats 

from direct wave attack. Often, 

substantial portions are sufficiently 

above normal high tides that dunes 

and terrestrial vegetation are 

prevalent. Most coastal barriers 

are comprised of unconsolidated 

sediments (e.g., sand and gravel). 

Figure 1 illustrates the four common 

categories of coastal barriers, 

including bay barriers, tombolos, 

barrier spits, and barrier islands. 

Bay barriers have grown entirely 

across the mouth of a bay. Tombolos 

are formed when sand accumulates 

between the mainland and an island. 

Barrier spits extend into open water. 

Barrier islands are detached from 

the mainland. Coastal barriers are 

dynamic landforms that can, and 

often do, change position in response 

to storms, sea level rise, currents, 

and numerous other factors. The 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA) definition of a coastal 

barrier includes all associated 

aquatic habitats, encompassing 

the adjacent wetlands, marshes, 

estuaries, inlets, and nearshore 

waters.2

 The statutory definition 

is consistent with the fact that 

the upland component and the 

associated aquatic habitat are 

inseparable parts of a single coastal 

barrier ecosystem. 

Costs and Risks Associated with the 

Development of Coastal Barriers

Coastal barriers serve as popular 

vacation and recreation destinations, 

though developing and redeveloping 

these vulnerable and often unstable 

areas is costly, not only to the 

American taxpayers who subsidize 

the development, but to the 

property owners who risk losing 

their homes and lives. Development 

also interferes with the natural 

movement of the barriers, 

disturbing important habitat for 

nesting sea turtles, migratory birds, 

Figure 1. Types of coastal barriers. Bay barriers (a), tombolos (b), barrier spits (c), 

and barrier islands (d).

1
Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

and other fish and wildlife resources. 

Despite the risks associated with 

building on narrow spits of sand, 

the aesthetic and recreational lures 

of coastal barriers continue to drive 

the development of these areas 

along our Nation’s coasts. In many 

cases, this development is enabled 

by the availability of various types 

of Federal financial assistance, 

including Federal flood insurance. 

The Federal Government spends 

hundreds of millions of dollars 

each year on insurance payouts for 

homes located in high-risk coastal 

floodplains, pumping sand back 

onto eroding beaches, and armoring 

the shoreline to protect coastal 

development from the naturally 

occurring processes that continually 

change the coastal barrier profile. 

Such expenditures are further 

exacerbated following major storms. 

Flood insurance claims paid by the 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP) 

following Hurricanes Katrina, 

Wilma, and Rita in 2005 totaled 

about $17.7 billion.3

 Since then, the 

Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts 

have experienced Hurricanes Ike, 

Irene, and Sandy, which were among 

the costliest hurricanes in U.S. 

history.4 Congress appropriated 

approximately $50 billion to Federal 

agencies for Hurricane Sandy 

response and recovery efforts.5 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

alone received more than $3.4 billion 

for construction activities along 

the North Atlantic coast following 

Hurricane Sandy.6

Effects of Climate Change on the 

Coastal Environment

 The Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) states that 

“the population and assets exposed 

to coastal risks as well as human 

pressures on coastal ecosystems 

will increase significantly in the 

coming decades due to population 

growth, economic development, and 

urbanization.”7

 In the U.S., sea level 

rise coupled with storm surges, and 

other climate-related changes, pose 

increasing risks to coastal water 

supplies, energy infrastructure, 

transportation including evacuation 

routes, tourism, commercial and 

recreational activities, and wetlands 

and other ecosystems and the many 

services they provide.8 At a global 

scale, the average rise in sea level 

has been approximately eight inches 

since recordkeeping began in the late 

1800s, the rate of increase has been 

accelerating in recent years, and 

increases in sea level are expected to 

continue well beyond this century.9

Changes in sea level vary regionally, 

and the increase has been greater 

Figure 2. Coastal flooding in Rodanthe, North Carolina after Hurricane Isabel in 2003. (Credit: Hillary Stockdon/USGS).

2
Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

14,000,000

18,000,000

20,000,000

16,000,000

0

1978

1981

19841987

199019931996

1999

2002

20052008

2011

2014

Dollars Paid

Loss Dollars Paid (Calendar/Historical) (000)

Loss payments

Figure 3. Historical loss dollars paid by the National Flood Insurance Program 

by year through 2014. (Credit: FEMA).

in U.S. coastal areas. The Third 

National Climate Assessment notes 

that at a global level the projected 

rise in average sea level is another 

one to four feet in this century, 

although the change in specific 

regions will vary from this global 

average. Storm surges that occur 

on top of higher sea levels are 

already having substantial impacts. 

A recent scientific study based 

on mid-range climate sensitivity 

scenarios has estimated that 

national economic impacts of storm 

surge and sea level rise will be about 

$990 billion through 2100. Eastern 

coastal areas (particularly the midAtlantic and Southeast) and the Gulf 

Coast are especially vulnerable to 

sea level rise, and the mid-Atlantic 

coast has been identified as a 

“hotspot” of accelerated sea level 

rise.10 

One of the many consequences 

of climate change is increased 

flooding and related flood damage. 

When storm surge is considered in 

conjunction with sea level rise, the 

flood hazard on the East Coast is 

projected to increase substantially 

over the 21st century.11 Similarly, 

the East and Gulf Coasts face 

increasing risks of flooding and 

related impacts due to projected 

increases in the co-occurrence of 

storm surges and rainfall.12 

Nuisance flooding also has 

increased on all three U.S. coasts 

between 300 and 925 percent since 

the 1960s, according to a 2014 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) report. One 

main conclusion of the report is that 

acceleration of sea level rise, as is 

projected to occur in this century, 

will further intensify the impacts of 

nuisance flooding and further reduce 

the time between flood events.13

Millions of people reside in U.S. 

coastal counties that are subject 

to the increased risk of erosion, 

flooding, and other effects of climate 

change that can cause widespread 

damage. According to the Third 

National Climate Assessment, even 

more people will be at risk in the 

future as sea level rises, due to the 

expansion of the floodplain and 

the continued movement of people 

to coastal areas: “By 2100, the 

fraction of the U.S. population living 

in coastal counties is expected to 

increase by 50 percent (46.2 million) 

to 144 percent (131.2 million) ... 

many of these new arrivals can be 

expected to locate in high-hazard 

areas. Thus, coastal population 

densities, along with increasing 

economic development, will continue 

to be an important factor in the 

overall exposure to climate change.”14

The associated financial risks of 

increasing coastal populations are 

substantial and this has significant 

implications for the NFIP. The NFIP 

is one of the Federal Government’s 

largest financial obligations. As of 

2014, the NFIP insured over $1.29 

trillion in assets.15 According to 

a 2013 report commissioned by 

FEMA,16 the NFIP is expected to 

nearly double in size by the year 2100 

due to the combined effects of climate 

change and population growth. The 

report also states that “as the number 

of flood insurance policies increase, 

particularly in flood-hazard areas 

such as those on the coasts, the NFIP 

could be exposed to much larger 

events (with respect to losses) than 

similar events would have produced 

in prior years.” 

Figure 4. A home in the surf on the Outer Banks, North Carolina. 

(Credit: Jonathan Phinney/USFWS).

3
Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Figure 5. Nuisance flooding in 

Charleston, South Carolina. 

(Credit: NOAA).

As climate-related impacts to coastal 

areas have become more widely 

observed and the future risks become 

more obvious, interest has increased 

in adaptation measures that can 

avoid or reduce these impacts. This 

includes a growing recognition of 

the importance of maintaining and 

restoring natural coastal habitats 

to shield ecosystems, people, and 

property from the ongoing and 

projected increase in impacts.17

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

Building on an effort initiated by 

President Carter, President Reagan 

and Congress took action to protect 

undeveloped coastal barrier habitat 

from intensive development. The 

CBRA, enacted in 1982, recognized 

that certain actions and programs 

of the Federal Government 

have historically subsidized and 

encouraged development on coastal 

barriers, resulting in the loss of 

natural resources, threats to human 

life, health and property, and the 

expenditure of millions of tax dollars 

each year. The CBRA seeks to save 

taxpayers’ money, keep people out 

of harm’s way, and remove Federal 

incentives to develop coastal barriers 

by restricting most new Federal 

expenditures and financial assistance 

(e.g., beach nourishment, disaster 

assistance, flood insurance, loans, 

and grants) for areas designated 

within the CBRS. The CBRA does 

not prohibit or regulate development; 

however, it removes the Federal 

incentives to build on these unstable 

and environmentally sensitive areas. 

Development can still occur provided 

that private developers or other nonFederal parties bear the full cost. 

In 1990, Congress enacted the 

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act 

(CBIA) which expanded the CBRS 

by adding new units, enlarging 

some previously designated units, 

and adding “Otherwise Protected 

Areas” (OPAs) as a second type of 

unit within the CBRS. “System 

Units” are generally comprised of 

privately held areas, whereas OPAs 

are generally comprised of areas 

held for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, 

recreational, or natural resource 

conservation purposes (e.g., State 

parks, wildlife refuges, private 

conservation areas, etc.). Most new 

Federal expenditures and financial 

assistance are prohibited within 

System Units, whereas the only 

Federal funding prohibition within 

OPAs is on Federal flood insurance. 

The CBRA was again reauthorized 

in 2000 and 2006, demonstrating 

consistent bipartisan support for the 

law across decades.

The CBRS currently contains a total 

of 859 geographic units covering 

about 3.3 million acres (400,000 

acres of fastland (land above mean 

high tide), 2.9 million acres of 

associated aquatic habitat (wetlands 

and open water) and approximately 

2,500 shoreline miles in 23 States and 

territories along the Atlantic, Gulf 

of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin 

Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts. Of 

the total units within the CBRS, 585 

are System Units (comprising about 

1.3 million acres) and 274 are OPAs 

(comprising about 2 million acres). 

The CBRS units are depicted on a 

set of maps that is maintained by the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), 

through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service, we, our). 

The Secretary, through the Service, 

is responsible for administering the 

CBRA, which includes: maintaining 

and updating the official maps of 

the CBRS; consulting with Federal 

agencies that propose spending 

funds within the CBRS; and making 

recommendations to Congress 

regarding removals from and 

additions to the CBRS. 

Value of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act

The CBRA is a proactive planning 

tool that can help to significantly 

reduce the damage caused by storms, 

coastal flooding, and sea level rise. 

According to the IPCC, “planning by 

coastal communities that considers the 

impacts of climate change reduces the 

risk of harm from those impacts. In 

particular, proactive planning reduces 

the need for reactive response to the 

damage caused by extreme events. 

Handling things after the fact can be 

4
Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

more expensive and less effective.”18 

A 2007 Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) report19 estimated 

that 84 percent of CBRS units 

remain undeveloped and 13 percent 

of CBRS units had experienced only 

minimal levels of development since 

they were added to the CBRS. The 

CBRA, especially when combined 

with State and local regulations or 

other protection measures, has been 

largely successful at reducing the 

intensity of development along our 

coasts. A 2002 Service economic 

study20 estimated that between 1983 

and 2010, the CBRA would save 

taxpayers an estimated $1.3 billion 

from avoided Federal spending for 

roads, wastewater systems and 

potable water supply, and disaster 

relief, and will continue to save 

millions more in the future. This 

figure would have been even higher 

if additional Federal programs had 

been included in the assessment. 

Map Modernization Efforts

The CBRA is a map-based law, and 

the official CBRS maps were last 

comprehensively updated more than 

25 years ago with the CBIA of 1990.21

The CBRS maps from the 1990s are 

technologically outdated and in some 

cases difficult to interpret.22 The 

CBRS boundaries on those maps do 

not align precisely with the features 

they were intended to follow on-theground (e.g., shorelines, roads, park 

boundaries, etc.). As a result, some 

properties and projects intended to 

be eligible for Federal subsidies are 

not eligible, and vice versa. These 

errors can have an adverse financial 

effect on property owners and project 

proponents. 

Aside from three minor exceptions, 

only Congress, through new 

legislation, can modify the 

boundaries of the CBRS. These 

exceptions are: (1) voluntary 

additions to the CBRS by the owners 

of undeveloped coastal barrier 

property;23 (2) additions of excess 

Federal property, if such property 

is determined by the Secretary to 

constitute an undeveloped coastal 

barrier;24 and (3) modifications to 

the CBRS made by the Secretary at 

least once every five years to account 

for changes to coastal barriers as a 

result of natural forces.25 Neither 

the Service, nor the Department of 

the Interior (Department or DOI), 

is authorized to make any other 

boundary changes administratively, 

but may make recommendations to 

Congress. When technical mapping 

errors have been found, the Service 

has supported legislation to modify 

boundaries accordingly.

Congress recognized the challenges 

associated with the existing maps 

and took action to address them 

with the 2000 Coastal Barrier 

Resources Reauthorization Act 

(2000 CBRRA),26 which directed the 

Secretary to conduct the pilot project 

by remapping 50-75 CBRS areas 

(representing about ten percent of 

the CBRS) using digital technology 

and preparing an accompanying 

report to Congress that describes 

the feasibility and cost of creating 

digital maps for the entire CBRS.27 

The 2006 Coastal Barrier Resources 

Reauthorization Act (2006 CBRRA)28 

directs the Secretary to finalize the 

pilot project, prepare digital maps 

for the remainder of the CBRS, 

and provide recommendations 

for expansion of the CBRS.29 The 

GAO and the Federal Interagency 

Floodplain Management Task 

Force30 have also recommended 

updating and modernizing the maps.

In 2008, the Service submitted its 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project and 

accompanying draft maps for 70 

CBRS units (located in Delaware, 

Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, 

and South Carolina) to Congress. In 

2009, we conducted a public review 

of the report and draft maps. Since 

the publication of the initial 2008 

report, six units have been removed 

from the pilot project and one unit 

has been added, resulting in a total 

of 65 units in the pilot project at this 

time.31 Forty-one of the total pilot 

project units are System Units and 

24 are OPAs.

Currently, the Service has two map 

modernization efforts underway: 

(1) “digital conversion,” which 

produces modernized maps that 

have very limited changes and 

can be adopted administratively 

(changes are limited to those 

authorized under 16 U.S.C. 3503(c)-

(e)) and (2) “comprehensive map 

modernization,” which produces 

revised maps (such as those created 

through the pilot project) that 

contain more significant changes 

and must be adopted by Congress 

through legislation to become 

effective. These two mapping 

efforts and the benefits of each are 

discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

1

 Global sea level rise already is occurring and, combined with storm surges, is anticipated to have an increasingly significant impact on coastal 

and low-lying areas due to more frequent and severe flooding and erosion, as well as impacts to many species of fish, wildlife and plants (IPCC 

2014). Many coastal areas of the U.S. are at increasing risk. The east coast of the U.S. is considered to be particularly vulnerable to sea level 

rise and related impacts (Moser et al. 2014; Carson et al. 2016). The Third National Climate Assessment noted that in the mid-Atlantic region 

of the U.S. coast, sea level rise and related flooding and erosion threaten coastal homes, infrastructure, ports and other commercial development; the Assessment also raised concern about the potential for profound and in some cases irreversible impacts to coastal ecosystems and 

associated species (Moser et al. 2014). The highest projected change in sea level rise in populated areas of the world is along the east coast of 

the U.S. (Carson et al. 2016). 

2

 16 U.S.C. 3502(1)(B)

3 FEMA Significant Flood Events, 2016. https://www.fema.gov/significant-flood-events 

4

 As of December 31, 2015, flood insurance claims paid by the NFIP totaled about $2.7 billion for Hurricane Ike, $1.3 billion for Hurricane Irene, 

and $8.1 billion for Hurricane Sandy. https://www.fema.gov/significant-flood-events 

5

 GAO. Report to Congressional Committees: High Risk Series, an Update. Publication No. GAO-13-283. February 2013.

6

 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013. Chapter 4 of Pub. L. 113-2.

5
Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

7

 IPCC 2014, pg. 67

8

 Moser et al. 2014

9

 Walsh et al. 2014

10 Moser et al. 2014, Walsh et al. 2014

11 Little et al. 2015

12 Wahl et al. 2015

13 Nuisance flooding is considered an inconvenience to the public and can compromise essential infrastructure (e.g., road closures). Sea level rise 

has contributed to more frequent nuisance flooding that no longer requires a strong storm or hurricane to produce flooding; in some areas, 

flooding is now a direct effect of high tide. The top U.S. cities that have experienced an increase in nuisance flooding are located on the East 

Coast. The impacts of sea level rise along our coasts will become more prevalent and severe over the next several decades (NOAA 2014).

14 Moser et al. 2014

15 FEMA Total Coverage by Calendar Year, 2015. https://www.fema.gov/total-coverage-calendar-year

16 AECOM. 2013. The Impact of Climate Change and Population Growth on the National Flood Insurance Program through 2100. 

17 For example, see Arkema et al. 2013.

18 Wong et al. 2014 (Chapter 5, Coastal Systems and Low-Lying Areas, in the IPCC report Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects). 

19 GAO. 2007. Coastal Barrier Resources System: Status of Development that has Occurred and Financial Assistance Provided by Federal Agencies. Washington, D.C. 

20 USFWS. 2002. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act: Harnessing the Power of Market Forces to Conserve America’s Coasts and Save Taxpayers’ Money. Arlington, VA. 

21 Pub. L. 101-591

22 USFWS. 2008. Chapter 2, Need for Map Modernization In Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital 

Mapping Pilot Project. Arlington, VA.

23 The CBRA authorizes the Secretary to add a parcel of real property to the CBRS if: (1) the owner of the parcel requests, in writing, that the 

Secretary add the parcel to the CBRS and (2) the parcel is an undeveloped coastal barrier (16 U.S.C. 3503(d)). 

24 The CBRA authorizes the Secretary to add excess Federal property to the CBRS following consultation with the Administrator of the U.S. 

General Services Administration (GSA) and a determination that the property constitutes an undeveloped coastal barrier (16 U.S.C. 3503(e)).

25 The CBRA requires the Secretary to review the maps of the CBRS at least once every five 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 CBRS unit as a result 

of natural forces (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)). This process is known as the “five-year review.”

26 Pub. L. 106-514

27 Section 6 of Pub. L. 106-514

28 Pub. L. 109-226

29 Sections 3 and 4 of Pub. L. 109-226

30 Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. 2013. FIFM Task Force Consensus Recommendations and Actions from a Federal 

Floodplain Management Policy Analysis Memo. Washington, D.C. 

31 Units FL-64P, L07, L08, and L09 have been removed from the pilot project because comprehensively revised maps for these areas have been 

adopted by Congress. The Service’s proposed map for Unit FL-64P was made effective via Pub. L. 110-419 on October 15, 2008, and the 

Service’s final recommended maps for Units L07, L08, and L09 were made effective via Pub L. 113-253 on December 18, 2014. Units FL-19 

and FL-78P have been removed from the pilot project because the areas within these two units have been incorporated into existing adjacent 

CBRS units (Units FL-19P and FL-78, respectively). Unit NC-01P has been added to the pilot project as a new OPA because it contains 

areas that are currently within a System Unit (Unit NC-01) but are appropriate for reclassification to an OPA. Information concerning FL-19, 

FL-78P, and NC-01P can be found in the unit summaries in Appendix C.

6
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

CHAPTER 2: Benefits of Map Modernization and 

Successes to Date

Figure 6. CBRS boundaries on the 1990s era maps can be difficult to interpret 

because they are typically about 80-100 feet wide on-the-ground. This 1990 map 

for Rhode Island Unit D01 shows a boundary segment that is about 165 feet wide 

in one area.

Figure 7. On the 1990s era maps, OPA boundaries were created with strips 

of tape depicting a dot pattern. The cartographers opted to avoid obscuring 

annotation on the base maps by leaving gaps in the boundary, such as the one 

shown on the 1994 map for Florida Unit FL-72P.

Section 3(c)(5) of the 2006 CBRRA 

requires that this final pilot project 

report contain an analysis of any 

benefits that the public would 

receive by using digital mapping 

technology for all CBRS units. This 

chapter contains a summary of 

the challenges associated with the 

CBRS maps; the two separate but 

complementary efforts underway to 

modernize the CBRS maps (digital 

conversion and comprehensive map 

modernization); the benefits and 

successes associated with the two 

different mapping processes; and the 

Service’s efforts to provide CBRS 

maps and digital boundary data 

more efficiently to its customers and 

partners.

The maps depicting the CBRS were 

last comprehensively revised in 

1990 using now antiquated manual 

cartographic technologies and base 

maps that were already outdated at 

the time, some dating as far back 

as the 1940s. The 1990s era maps 

are: (1) imprecise and inaccurate 

(the CBRS boundary lines are 

80-100 feet wide on the surface 

of the Earth, and the underlying 

features they are meant to follow 

are not always correctly depicted 

on the base maps); (2) difficult to 

use (the scanned paper maps are 

incompatible with the Geographic 

Information Systems (GIS) 

commonly used today); and (3) in 

some cases contain errors affecting 

property owners and project 

proponents. See Figures 6 and 7 for 

examples of some of the challenges 

associated with the maps.

The benefits and successes of 

both the digital conversion and 

comprehensive map modernization 

efforts are described in this 

chapter, and Figure 8 illustrates 

the differences between the two 

processes. The digital conversion 

effort solves many of the main 

challenges associated with the 

maps by more precisely depicting 

the CBRS boundaries on updated 

7
Chapter 2: Benefits of Map Modernization and Successes to Date

Transfer and fit boundaries to 

new base map

Make administrative modifications

(including natural changes, voluntary additions

and addition of excess Federal lands)

Correct legitimate mapping errors and 

add qualifying areas to the CBRS 

Announce availability of draft maps for 

public review via notice published in the 

Federal Register

Final recommended maps submitted 

to Congress

Maps adopted by Congress through

legislation 

Announce availability of draft maps for stakeholder 

(i.e., Federal, State, and local officials) review via 

notice published in the Federal Register

Maps adopted administratively through

notice published in the Federal Register

= Digital Conversion

= Comprehensive Map Modernization

= Both

CBRS Map Modernization Efforts

Figure 8. This diagram illustrates the differences between the digital conversion process and the comprehensive map 

modernization process.

base maps and making the maps 

available in a GIS format with 

revised boundaries to account for 

natural changes; however, the digital

conversion does not address mapping 

errors. Mapping errors negatively 

affect property owners and result 

in frequent challenges to the 

CBRS maps. Comprehensive map 

modernization not only transfers the 

CBRS boundaries to new base maps 

and makes modifications necessary to 

account for natural changes, but also 

corrects errors that affect property 

owners and adds areas appropriate 

for inclusion to the CBRS. However, 

comprehensive map modernization 

takes a significant amount of time and 

resources. 

In addition to making progress 

on modernizing the CBRS maps 

through digital conversion and 

comprehensive map modernization, 

over the last decade, the Service 

has also modernized the delivery of 

CBRS information to the public by 

making a CBRS boundary dataset 

available for use in GIS applications 

and making the CBRS boundaries 

available through a CBRS Mapper 

on our website.

Digital Conversion

Recognizing that comprehensive 

map modernization for the entire 

CBRS is a time and resource 

intensive endeavor, the Service and 

FEMA entered into an interagency 

partnership in 2011 to facilitate a 

more timely digital conversion of the 

official maps. By the end of 2016, the 

Service will have completed digital 

conversion maps for 19 of the 23 

States and Territories that contain 

CBRS units, covering more than 90 

percent of the total CBRS acreage.1

 

All of the pilot project units 

underwent the digital conversion 

process between 2014 and 2016. 

Through the digital conversion 

effort, the existing CBRS boundaries 

are: (1) transferred and fitted to 

updated base maps (i.e., a recent 

aerial image) to ensure that the 

boundaries correspond with the 

8
Chapter 2: Benefits of Map Modernization and Successes to Date

natural or development features 

they are clearly intended to follow on 

the official maps (such adjustments 

are generally within the width of 

the existing CBRS boundary); 

(2) modified to reflect any natural 

changes that have occurred since 

the maps were last updated (this 

is known as the five-year review) 

and to incorporate any voluntary 

additions and additions of excess 

Federal property within the CBRS; 

and (3) in limited circumstances, 

modified to correct any 

administrative errors made in the 

past in either (a) the transcription 

of the boundaries from maps that 

were reviewed and approved by 

Congress to the official CBRS maps 

on file with the Service or (b) the 

previous inclusion of unqualifying 

(e.g., developed) areas to the 

CBRS through a map modification 

to account for natural changes 

under 16 U.S.C. 3503(c).2

 The 

revised maps prepared through the 

digital conversion process undergo 

stakeholder review by Federal, 

State, and local officials, and are 

made effective administratively by 

the Service through a notice of final 

map availability published in the 

Federal Register. 

Changes to the CBRS boundaries 

through digital conversion are 

limited to the administrative 

modifications the Secretary is 

authorized to make under the 

CBRA.3

 Changes that are outside 

the scope of these authorities 

cannot be made through the 

digital conversion process; such 

changes must be made through the 

comprehensive map modernization 

process, which is described 

in the “Comprehensive Map 

Modernization” section below.

Benefits and Successes Associated 

with Digital Conversion

The digital conversion effort 

provides the public with more 

accurate, reliable, and user-friendly 

CBRS maps and digital boundary 

data that can be integrated into GIS. 

The benefits of digital conversion 

include: (1) more accurate and 

user-friendly CBRS information; 

(2) improved accuracy of CBRS 

boundaries on FEMA’s Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM); 

(3) increased awareness of and 

compliance with the CBRA; and 

(4) opportunities for State, local, 

and non-governmental conservation 

efforts.

• More Accurate and UserFriendly CBRS Information

The digital conversion effort 

significantly improves the 

accuracy and reliability of the 

CBRS maps and boundary 

data. It has historically been 

very difficult for the public and 

Federal agencies responsible 

for implementing the CBRA to 

interpret the 1990s era CBRS 

maps. The Service receives 

numerous requests from 

Federal and State agencies, 

local communities, property 

owners, and other entities to 

determine whether or not a 

particular property or project 

site is located within the CBRS. 

Using the old and difficult to 

interpret paper maps requires a 

time and labor intensive review, 

causing delays in the issuance 

of Federal flood insurance 

(and therefore delays to real 

estate transactions), delays in 

Federally-funded infrastructure 

projects, and delays in the 

provision of disaster assistance.

Digitally converted maps make 

determining whether particular 

properties and project sites are 

located within the CBRS much 

simpler, faster, cheaper, and less 

prone to error. In many cases 

the public is able to determine 

themselves within minutes 

whether a property or project 

site is located within the CBRS 

by using the Service’s online 

CBRS Mapper instead of waiting 

for such a determination from 

the Service. 

• Improved Accuracy of CBRS 

Boundaries on FEMA’s Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps 

The digital conversion effort 

ensures that the CBRS 

boundaries provided to FEMA 

during development of FIRMs 

are consistent with those 

depicted on the official CBRS 

maps and within the CBRS 

Mapper maintained by the 

Service. Although the Service 

maintains the official CBRS 

maps, the FEMA FIRMs are 

still the most utilized source for 

landowners, insurance agents, 

Figure 9. FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map showing CBRS boundaries (hatched area). 

9
Chapter 2: Benefits of Map Modernization and Successes to Date

and other interested parties 

to access CBRS information. 

In the past there have been 

cases where the FIRMs have 

not matched the official CBRS 

maps, which led to the issuance 

of erroneous Federal flood 

insurance policies within the 

CBRS and hardships for many 

homeowners. In 2006, the 

Service and FEMA entered 

into an interagency partnership 

whereby the Service places the 

CBRS boundaries on FIRMs 

to ensure an accurate depiction 

of the CBRS boundaries on the 

FIRMs. This interagency effort 

has resulted in the placement 

of the more accurate CBRS 

boundaries on FIRMs. The 

CBRS information depicted 

on the FIRMs is not updated 

real-time. Instead, users can 

now access the most recent and 

reliable CBRS maps and digital 

boundary data via the Service’s 

website and CBRS Mapper 

instead of relying solely on 

the FEMA FIRMs for CBRS 

information.

• Increased Awareness of and 

Compliance with the CBRA

The digital conversion effort 

improves the accuracy, integrity, 

and usability of the CBRS 

data and maps, which in turn 

increases awareness of and 

compliance with the CBRA by 

reducing erroneous Federal 

expenditures (including invalid 

flood insurance policies) within 

the CBRS. The 1990s CBRS 

maps have historically made 

full compliance with the CBRA 

challenging for Federal agencies 

because they are difficult to 

interpret and incompatible 

with the GIS systems that are 

widely used today. The maps 

have also created challenges 

for the insurance industry. 

In CBRS areas, Federal 

flood insurance is generally 

not available for structures 

constructed after the area was 

included within the CBRS.4

 

The Service is frequently 

contacted by insurance agents 

who have written invalid 

Federal flood insurance policies 

within the CBRS because they 

were unaware of the CBRA 

designation affecting the 

property. In these cases, FEMA 

may not pay a flood insurance 

claim for the invalid policy, even 

if it is first discovered to be 

invalid after the claim is made.

In 2007, the GAO issued a 

report entitled Coastal Barrier 

Resources System: Status of 

Development That Has Occurred 

and Financial Assistance 

Provided by Federal Agencies.

5

 

This report found that four 

Federal agencies provided $21 

million of prohibited financial 

assistance within the CBRS. 

FEMA cited the lack of updated 

CBRS maps and limitations 

with mapping technology as the 

primary reasons for the errors. 

The report recommended 

that the Secretary direct 

the Service to place a high 

priority on completing efforts 

to develop digital maps that 

more accurately depict unit 

boundaries. Modernized maps 

will help reduce the number 

of erroneous Federal flood 

insurance policies that are 

issued, and will also help ensure 

that flood insurance and disaster 

assistance claims are not paid in 

violation of the CBRA following 

a storm.

The CBRA requires that 

Federal agencies annually 

certify to the Secretary that 

their actions are consistent 

with the CBRA’s prohibitions 

on Federal expenditures.6

 

Digitally converted CBRS 

maps will enhance outreach 

efforts at Federal, State, and 

local levels and help facilitate 

Federal certification of CBRA 

compliance.

• Opportunities for State, Local, 

and Non-Governmental Conservation Efforts 

The Service believes that the 

CBRA works best when coupled 

with State, local, and nongovernmental actions to protect 

coastal barriers. The digital 

conversion effort helps conserve 

natural resources by enabling 

State and local governments to 

integrate CBRS boundaries 

into their GIS for planning 

and conservation efforts. For 

example, the State of Maine 

has enacted a law prohibiting 

the expenditure of State funds 

within the Federally-designated 

CBRS.7

 Additionally, digital 

conversion helps facilitate the 

voluntary addition of land to the 

CBRS. Conservation groups 

and other non-governmental 

entities have requested that 

their land be included within 

System Units of the CBRS in 

order to add another layer of 

protection to their land.8 The 

Service reviews such requests 

and can incorporate qualifying 

voluntary additions within the 

CBRS as the maps are updated 

through the digital conversion 

effort.

Comprehensive Map Modernization

Congress recognized the need for 

modernized CBRS maps and, in 

the 2000 CBRRA, directed the 

Secretary to complete a pilot project 

for up to 75 CBRS areas. In the 

2006 CBRRA, Congress directs 

the Secretary to finalize the pilot 

project, prepare digital maps for 

the entire CBRS, and recommend 

additions to the CBRS through the 

map modernization effort. 

The comprehensive map 

modernization approach requires 

a thorough review process and 

generally follows these steps: (1) 

research by the Service into the 

intent of the original boundaries 

and the development status on-theground at the time the areas were 

originally included within the CBRS 

(the Service generally does not 

recommend removal of areas from 

the CBRS unless there is compelling 

evidence that a mapping error was 

made); (2) preparation of draft 

revised maps by the Service; (3) 

public review of the draft maps; (4) 

preparation of final recommended 

maps by the Service that take into 

consideration information provided 

during the public comment period; 

and (5) Congressional enactment of 

legislation to make the revised maps 

effective.

10
Chapter 2: Benefits of Map Modernization and Successes to Date

The Service receives requests from 

numerous property owners and 

other interested parties who seek to 

remove areas from the CBRS. When 

the Service finds a technical mapping 

error that warrants a change in one 

part of a CBRS map, we also review 

adjacent areas on the map to ensure 

that the entire map is accurate. 

This comprehensive approach to 

map revisions (which was developed 

many years ago in coordination 

with the House Natural Resources 

Subcommittee that oversees 

the CBRA) treats all affected 

landowners equitably. It is also 

more efficient and cost-effective in 

the long-run because it ensures that 

all legitimate errors are corrected 

and any new areas appropriate 

for inclusion within the CBRS are 

identified at the same time.9

Through fiscal year 2016, the Service 

has prepared comprehensively 

modernized maps for approximately 

15 percent of the total CBRS 

acreage (including the pilot 

project maps). The Service has 

a project underway to prepare 

comprehensively revised draft 

maps for all CBRS units in eight 

northeastern States affected by 

Hurricane Sandy10 (comprising an 

additional 15 percent of the total 

acreage of the CBRS), and will 

create comprehensively modernized 

maps for the remainder of the CBRS 

as resources are made available for 

this effort.

Benefits and Successes Associated 

with Comprehensive Map 

Modernization

In addition to all of the benefits 

of the digital conversion effort 

listed above, comprehensive map 

modernization also: (1) addresses 

mapping errors by removing areas 

that were previously included in 

error and (2) conserves natural 

resources by adding qualifying new 

areas to the CBRS.

• Address Mapping Errors

Some of the CBRS maps contain 

errors that negatively affect 

property owners. The Service 

receives numerous requests 

from property owners and other 

interested parties who seek to 

remove land from the CBRS. 

The Service addresses these 

requests by objectively applying 

standard review criteria (see 

Chapter 6 for an explanation of 

the Service’s guiding principles 

and criteria for addressing 

mapping errors). The Service 

generally does not recommend 

removal of land from the CBRS 

unless there is compelling 

evidence that a mapping error 

was made.

Through comprehensive map 

modernization the Service 

conducts a thorough assessment 

of each CBRS unit and corrects 

legitimate mapping errors, 

thereby making the maps less 

prone to future challenges 

and preserving the long-term 

integrity of the CBRS. 

• Add Qualifying Areas

The addition of new 

qualifying lands to the CBRS 

through comprehensive 

map modernization reduces 

future taxpayer subsidies 

for flood insurance, coastal 

infrastructure, and disaster 

assistance within vulnerable 

areas along the coast. 

Expansion of the CBRS also 

helps enhance the capacity of 

coastal barriers and wetlands to 

protect mainland communities 

from coastal storms, conserves 

important habitat for many 

fish and wildlife species, 

and increases public safety 

by reducing the intensity of 

development within these 

areas.11 

CBRS maps can help 

communities plan for long-term 

coastal resiliency by steering 

development away from 

vulnerable and valuable natural 

resources and areas that are 

susceptible to the effects of 

climate change such as sea 

level rise and storm surge, as 

well as other extreme weather 

events. The CBRA’s removal 

of Federal funds acts as a 

disincentive to develop these 

areas and can help reduce the 

amount of damage that would 

otherwise have been caused by 

storms like Hurricanes Katrina, 

Ike, Irene, and Sandy. Private 

entities can develop within the 

CBRS, but the CBRA shifts the 

cost for rebuilding homes and 

infrastructure away from the 

Federal taxpayer to private and 

other non-Federal parties who 

choose to take the financial risk 

associated with developing these 

vulnerable areas.

Digital Data and CBRS Mapper

In addition to modernizing the maps, 

the Service continues to enhance the 

accessibility and usability of CBRS 

boundary data for our customers 

and the public. In 2008, the Service 

created an “approximate” (accurate 

to within about 150 feet) digital 

CBRS boundary dataset for use 

in GIS applications, which was 

made available for download on the 

Service’s CBRS website. Since 2014, 

the Service has begun replacing 

that approximate digital boundary 

data with more precise data as it 

is produced for individual CBRS 

units through digital conversion and 

comprehensive map modernization 

projects. 

In the wake of Hurricane Sandy in 

2012, the Service created a CBRS 

Mapper that allows the public to 

view the digital CBRS boundaries 

without the need for GIS software. 

Additionally, the Service now 

makes digital CBRS boundary data 

available at Federal data repositories 

such as the Federal Government’s 

open data warehouse “www.data.

gov”12 and NOAA’s Digital Coast,13 

and plans to provide a web mapping 

service published through ArcGIS 

Online.14 

The digital CBRS boundaries 

and the CBRS Mapper fulfill an 

important need for easily accessible 

and GIS compatible CBRS data, 

which helps improve government 

efficiency and customer service 

while also increasing awareness of 

and compliance with the CBRA.

11
Chapter 2: Benefits of Map Modernization and Successes to Date

1 The Service will not prepare digital conversion maps for Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, or most of the Atlantic coast of New York 

at this time because the maps for those particular States will be revised through a separate project to comprehensively modernize all of the 

CBRS maps for eight northeastern States affected by Hurricane Sandy (see endnote 10 below).

2 Additional information about the digital conversion effort, including the Service’s methodology, can be found in the notice published by the 

Service in the Federal Register on August 29, 2013 (78 FR 53467).

3 See endnotes 23, 24, and 25 in Chapter 1.

4 The NFIP has a Flood Insurance Manual (FIM) that is used primarily by insurers and agents selling and servicing Federal flood insurance. 

Section 19 of the FIM contains information regarding flood insurance eligibility for structures located within the CBRS. The FIM is accessible 

on FEMA’s website at: https://www.fema.gov/flood-insurance-manual. The regulations implementing the CBRA with regards to Federal flood 

insurance eligibility within the CBRS can be found in 44 Code of Federal Regulations Part 71.

5 See endnote 19 in Chapter 1.

6 16 U.S.C. 3506(b)

7 Maine Revised Statutes (38 Rev. Stat. sec. 1901-1905).

8 See endnote 22 in Chapter 1.

9 The 2006 CBRRA authorizes the Secretary to prepare digital maps for the remaining CBRS units outside of the pilot project (Section 4 of Pub. 

L. 109-226). 

10 The CBRS units that are being remapped through the Service’s Hurricane Sandy project are located in eight States: Connecticut, Delaware, 

Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia. Draft maps for the Hurricane Sandy project are anticipated 

to be released for public review starting in 2017. Three CBRS units located in Delaware (Units DE-07, DE-07P, and H01) are included in the 

pilot project and four CBRS units located in Rhode Island (Unit RI-04P, RI-05P, RI-06, and RI-07) were comprehensively remapped in 2014. 

Therefore, these seven units will not be remapped through the Hurricane Sandy project. 

11 There is increasing scientific information on this topic. For example, see the following sources:

Sutton-Grier et al. 2015. Future of our coasts: The potential for natural and hybrid infrastructure to enhance the resilience of our coastal 

communities, economies and ecosystems. Env. Sci. & Policy, 51: 137–148.

Scyphers et al. 2015. Natural shorelines promote the stability of fish communities in an urbanized coastal system. PLoS ONE 10(6):e0118580. 

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118580. 

Nel et al. 2014. Natural hazards in a changing world: A case for ecosystem-based management. PLoSONE 9(5): e95942. doi:10.1371/

journal.pone.0095942. 

Barbier et al. 2013. The value of wetlands in protecting southeast Louisiana from hurricane storm surges. PLoSONE 8(3): e58715.

Spalding et al. 2013. Coastal ecosystems: A critical element of risk reduction. Conservation Letters, May/June 2014, 7(3), 293–301. 

Arkema et al. 2013. Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nat Clim Change 3: 913–18.

12 Data.gov is the central repository for data created by Federal agencies. Data.gov was created in 2009 as a way to make the government more 

transparent by making Federal data available to the public. The website is managed by the GSA, and at the time of this report there were 

nearly 195,000 individual datasets available on the site, which can be accessed at: http://www.data.gov.

13 NOAA’s Digital Coast website, which was created in 2007, provides coastal data, information, and tools for coastal practitioners. The site was 

created primarily for the coastal management community and its data is most relevant to that audience. The Digital Coast can be accessed at: 

https://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast.

14 ArcGIS Online is a cloud-based tool that allows users to create maps and share data, and includes ready to use maps and data layers. Data and 

maps can be accessed through the website or added directly to ArcGIS Desktop. ArcGIS Online can be accessed at: https://www.arcgis.com/

home.

12
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

CHAPTER 3: Pilot Project Public Review Process

Section 3(b) of the 2006 CBRRA 

requires that the Secretary prepare 

this final report after providing 

an opportunity for the submission 

and consideration of public 

comments. On April 7, 2009, the 

Service released to the public its 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project and 

announced the start of a 90-day 

public comment period, which was 

later extended to 120 days. 

This chapter describes the: 

(1) notification process for the public 

comment period; (2) distribution 

process for the 2008 pilot project 

report and proposed maps; 

(3) extension of the public comment 

period and public meetings; and 

(4) results of the public comment 

period. Significant issues raised 

during the public comment period that 

are relevant to more than one CBRS 

unit are itemized and addressed in 

Chapter 4. Unit-specific comments are 

addressed in Appendix E.

Notification Process for the Public 

Comment Period

The Service advised the public of 

the availability of the report and 

draft maps for public review and 

comment via a notice of availability 

in the Federal Register1

 and a 

news release, both published on 

April 7, 2009. The notice and news 

release both contained background 

information on the CBRA, a 

description of the pilot project, 

information on where to obtain a 

copy of the report and draft maps, 

and instructions for submitting 

comments. The Service held a 

virtual press conference (via webcast 

and teleconference) on April 7, 2009. 

The report, draft maps, Federal 

Register notice, news release, and 

other materials related to the pilot 

project were also made available to 

the public on the Service’s website. 

Distribution Process for the 2008 Pilot 

Project Report and Proposed Maps

In April 2009, the Service 

distributed more than 400 copies 

of the report and accompanying 

letters requesting comments to 

stakeholders, including 43 members 

of Congress, 23 Governors, 

33 county and parish chief elected 

officials (CEOs), 79 local and State 

floodplain administrators, 23 State 

coastal zone managers, 56 local 

and State emergency managers, 

39 officials of other Federal 

agencies, 28 park managers, and 

96 other stakeholders (e.g., nongovernmental organizations). In 

addition to the report, members of 

Congress and Governors from the 

five States containing pilot project 

units (Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, 

North Carolina, and South Carolina) 

and county and parish CEOs from 

all 33 affected counties and parishes 

also received full-sized (25"x 32") 

copies of the proposed maps relevant 

to their area of jurisdiction. On 

April 20, 2009, the Service held 

briefings on the pilot project for 

Congressional staff.

Extension of the Public Comment 

Period and Public Meetings

On June 29, 2009, the Service 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register2 and issued a news release 

to announce: (1) an extension of 

the public comment period from 90 

days to 120 days (through August 5, 

2009) to allow the public more time 

to review the report and maps and 

(2) the opportunity to participate in 

virtual public meetings. A media 

advisory regarding the comment 

period extension and the virtual 

public meetings was sent to media 

organizations on June 29, 2009. 

On July 1, 2009, the Service sent 

letters to county and parish planning 

officials transmitting the report and 

draft maps and informing them of 

the extension of the comment period 

and virtual public meetings. The 

Service also sent a notice of the 

comment period extension and the 

virtual public meetings via email to 

most of the individuals to whom the 

report was distributed, although 

email addresses for all stakeholders 

were not available at the time. 

Between July 2 and July 8, 2009, 

the Service published notices in a 

total of 34 local newspapers and/or 

their online equivalents that serve 

the areas containing pilot project 

units to announce the virtual public 

meetings and provide registration 

and participation instructions. In 

addition, between April 8, 2009, and 

February 17, 2010, the news media 

published approximately 20 articles 

concerning the pilot project.

The Service held four virtual 

public meetings (via webcast and 

teleconference) on July 14 and 15, 

2009. Each meeting focused on a 

different geographic area, provided 

an overview of the pilot project, 

and offered an opportunity for 

questions and answers by the public 

and media. More than 60 people, 

including members of the press; 

local, State, and Federal officials; 

and private property owners, 

participated in the virtual public 

meetings.

Results of the Public Comment Period

Throughout the public comment 

period, the Service responded to 

numerous inquiries concerning 

the pilot project from members of 

Congress, local officials, and the 

public via email, letters, meetings, 

and conferences calls. The Service 

received 159 written comments 

during the 120-day public comment 

period (April 7 through August 5, 

2009). Unit-specific comments were 

received for 26 of the 70 units in the 

2008 pilot project report, though 

13
Chapter 3: Pilot Project Public Review Process

three of the units that received 

comments are no longer included 

in the pilot project.3 The majority 

of the comments received related 

to the Florida and North Carolina 

pilot project units. Seventeen of the 

comments received related to CBRS 

units that are not within the scope 

of the pilot project. Comments 

unrelated to the pilot project are not 

addressed in this report. 

Approximately half of the comments 

received were from individuals, 

mostly private property owners. 

The remaining comments received 

were mostly from Federal agencies, 

State and local officials, conservation 

organizations, and homeowners 

associations. The Service solicited 

comments from the Governors of all 

23 States and territories containing 

CBRS units, but no comments were 

received from the Governors. See 

Figure 10 for additional information 

regarding the comments received.

Significant issues raised during the 

public comment period that are 

relevant to more than one CBRS 

unit are itemized and addressed in 

Chapter 4. Unit-specific comments 

are itemized and addressed in 

Appendix E.

Congress

Individuals

Local officials

Other

Federal officials

State officials

Commenter Groups

50 %

22 %

 18 %

6 %

3 %

1 %

Figure 10. Percentage of comments by commenter type. 

1

 74 FR 15743 

2

 74 FR 31044 

3

 Units L07, L08, and L09 have been removed from the pilot project because comprehensively revised maps for these areas have been adopted 

by Congress. The Service’s final recommended maps for these units were made effective via Pub. L. 113-253 on December 18, 2014. The 

Service received comments during the comment period related to all three of these units. The Service assessed these comments and made any 

warranted modifications on the final recommended maps before they were adopted by Congress. The Service has not addressed the comments 

related to these units in Appendix E. Unit FL-64P has also been removed from the pilot project because a comprehensively revised map for 

this area has been adopted by Congress. The Service’s proposed map for Unit FL-64P was made effective via Pub. L. 110-419 on October 15, 

2008. No comments were received during the comment period related to Unit FL-64P. 

14
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

CHAPTER 4: Summary of Public Comments and 

Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates 

to Mapping Protocols

Section 3(c)(3) of the 2006 CBRRA 

requires that this final report 

contain a summary of the comments 

received from Governors, other 

government officials, and the public 

regarding the digital maps. Section 

3(c)(4) of the 2006 CBRRA requires 

that this report contain a summary 

and update of the protocols of the 

initial pilot project report required 

under Section 6(d) of the 2000 

CBRRA.

This chapter contains: 

(1) a summary of the substantive 

overarching comments received 

during the pilot project public 

comment period and the Service’s 

responses to those comments; 

(2) a summary of any changes to 

pilot project maps as a result of 

public comments; and (3) a summary 

of significant mapping protocols that 

were either updated or clarified by 

the Service through the pilot project. 

Table 1 below provides summary 

information regarding these issues. 

Comments that are specific to 

individual pilot project units are 

addressed in Appendix E. Copies of 

the comments received during the 

public review period have not been 

reproduced in this report but will 

be made available by the Service’s 

Headquarters Office upon request.

Table 1. Summary of Substantive Overarching Comments and Responses

Number Issue

Changes to Pilot 

Project Maps

Update or Clarification 

to Protocol

Page 

Number

1 Authority of the Service to Recommend 

Additions to the CBRS

No No 16

2 Effectiveness of the CBRA No No 16

3 Long-Term Preservation of the CBRS No Yes 17

4 Modernizing CBRS Maps Using Digital 

Technology

No Yes 17

5 Public Disclosure of CBRS Designation No No 17

6 Multiple Layers of Protection on 

Properties in the CBRS

No No 18

7 Amend the CBRA to Add Exemptions for 

Projects Deemed to be of Public Benefit

No No 18

8 Effective Dates for Areas Added to or 

Reclassified within the CBRS

No Yes 18

9 Delineation of CBRS Boundaries Based on 

Legal Descriptions Instead of Maps

No No 19

10 Age and Quality of Aerial Imagery Used 

for CBRS Base Maps

Yes Yes 19

11 System Unit versus OPA Classification and 

Reclassification

No Yes 19

12 Mapping Channels within the CBRS No Yes 21

13 Mapping Landward CBRS Boundaries 

Using Easy-to-Map Features

No No 22

14 Addition of Associated Aquatic Habitat 

behind a Developed Barrier to the CBRS

Yes Yes 23

15 Inclusion of Docks, Piers, Marinas, and 

Other Shoreline Structures within the CBRS

No No 24

16 Shoreline and Development Feature 

Buffering

Yes Yes 24

17 Roads and Road Rights-of-Way in OPAs No No 27

18 Mapping Seaward Boundaries of Excluded 

Areas in the CBRS

Yes No 27

19 Seaward Limits of CBRS Units Yes Yes 27

15
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

(1) Authority of the Service to 

Recommend Additions to the CBRS

Comments Received: The Service 

received comments from individuals, 

a homeowners association, and 

State and local officials in North 

Carolina questioning the authority 

of the Service to recommend the 

creation of new units and the 

expansion of existing units within 

the CBRS. The State and local 

officials also commented that the 

CBRA authorizes the Service to 

modify the CBRS boundaries under 

only three limited circumstances: 

voluntary additions to the CBRS, 

additions of excess Federal property, 

and modifications to the CBRS as 

a result of natural forces. These 

officials believe that the Service 

went beyond what is authorized by 

proposing modifications that did not 

fit under one of these circumstances.

Service Response: Section 4(c)(3)

(D) of the 2006 CBRRA directs the 

Secretary to make recommendations 

for additions when carrying out 

digital mapping for the remainder of 

the CBRS. The Service applied this 

directive to the pilot project maps 

because: 

(1) the pilot project maps were 

still being drafted at the time 

of enactment of the CBRRA in 

May of 2006; 

(2) it was more efficient and cost 

effective to identify proposed 

additions at the time that the 

pilot project maps were drafted 

than to revisit those areas at a 

future date; and

(3) this approach is consistent with 

the comprehensive mapping 

approach the Service and 

Congress have followed for most 

revisions to the CBRS in recent 

years.

The Service is authorized to make 

boundary changes administratively 

only under the three circumstances 

mentioned by the commenters. 

However, we may make 

recommendations to Congress 

for other boundary changes. In 

carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service found areas that are 

appropriate for removal from the 

CBRS, addition to the CBRS, and 

reclassification from one type of unit 

to another (OPA to System Unit 

and vice versa). The Service’s final 

recommended changes to the pilot 

project units are depicted on the 

maps included in Appendix C of this 

report. However, the revised maps 

will only become effective if they 

are adopted by Congress through 

legislation.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

(2) Effectiveness of the CBRA

Comments Received: The Service 

received comments from individuals 

stating that the CBRA has failed to 

discourage development in certain 

areas and that those areas should 

therefore be removed from the 

CBRS or the law should be repealed.

Service Response: When 

considering modifications to add 

areas to or remove areas from the 

CBRS, the Service considers the 

purposes of the CBRA as stated in 

the statute:

The Congress declares that 

it is the purpose of this 

Act to minimize the loss 

of human life, wasteful 

expenditure of Federal 

revenues, and the damage 

to fish, wildlife, and other 

natural resources associated 

with the coastal barriers 

along the Atlantic and Gulf 

coasts by restricting future 

Federal expenditures and 

financial assistance which 

have the effect of encouraging 

development of coastal 

barriers, by establishing a 

Coastal Barrier Resources 

System, and by considering 

the means and measures 

by which the long-term 

conservation of these fish, 

wildlife, and other natural 

resources may be achieved.1 

On December 5, 1983, the 

Department published a notice in 

the Federal Register outlining the 

process for how the Department 

would implement Section 10 

of the CBRA of 1982, which 

required a report to Congress 

that included, among other things, 

recommendations for additions, 

deletions, or other modifications 

to the CBRS. The notice states 

the following regarding boundary 

changes:

The legislative history 

provides little guidance on the 

subject of boundary changes 

except to state explicitly 

that development of a unit 

subsequent to the CBRA is 

not grounds for removal from 

the System. The fundamental 

guide for the Department in 

recommending changes to 

the System will be derived 

from the purposes of the 

CBRA, i.e., Section 2(b)“...to 

minimize the loss of human 

life, wasteful expenditure 

of Federal revenues, and 

damage to fish, wildlife, 

and other natural resources 

associated with the coastal 

barriers along the Atlantic 

and Gulf coasts...” It is 

our opinion that reducing 

or eliminating units of the 

System will generally violate 

the purposes of the CBRA 

unless there are mistakes in 

the original designation or 

mapping process.2

The Service continues to apply 

the purposes of the CBRA as a 

fundamental guide in recommending 

changes to the CBRS. While 

some areas within the CBRS have 

developed since their inclusion, 

the CBRA has been successful in 

preventing the Federal taxpayer from 

assuming the risk of building there. 

The Service does not recommend 

removing areas simply because 

development occurred after they 

were added to the CBRS, and does 

not support the repeal of the CBRA.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

16
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

(3) Long-Term Preservation of the 

CBRS

Comments Received: The 

Service received comments from 

conservation organizations and 

individuals urging the Service 

to protect the integrity of the 

CBRS. The common concern from 

commenters was that interested 

parties with development interests 

would use the pilot project as an 

opportunity to remove areas from 

the CBRS.

Service Response: The Service 

receives numerous requests from 

interested parties who seek to 

remove areas from the CBRS. We 

recognize that the pilot project, 

along with other comprehensive 

remapping projects, provides an 

opportunity for stakeholders to 

seek removals from the CBRS. 

The Service endeavors to protect 

the integrity of the CBRS and 

generally does not recommend 

removals in cases where there is not 

clear and compelling evidence that 

a mistake was made as a result of 

incorrect, outdated, or incomplete 

information (often stemming from 

inaccuracies on the original base 

maps). We carefully review all 

proposals to remove areas from the 

CBRS. Changes to the CBRS that 

are recommended through the pilot 

project and other comprehensive 

map modernization projects are still 

only recommendations, and the final 

decision as to whether or not areas 

should be removed from (or added 

to) the CBRS rests with Congress. 

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

Update to Protocol: The Service 

has developed guiding principles 

and criteria for assessing 

modifications to the CBRS based 

on lessons learned through the pilot 

project and other comprehensive 

remapping projects over the 

past several years (see Chapter 

6). These guiding principles are 

consistent with the intent of the 

CBRA and ensure that the Service’s 

recommendations to Congress for 

removals from the CBRS are based 

on clear and compelling evidence 

that a mistake was made, and will 

be applied to future requests for 

removals from the CBRS.

(4) Modernizing CBRS Maps Using 

Digital Technology

Comments Received: The 

Service received comments from 

individuals, homeowners associations,

conservation organizations, Federal 

officials, State officials in Delaware 

and North Carolina, and local 

officials in North Carolina and 

Florida commending the Service for 

modernizing the CBRS maps using 

digital technology. One commenter 

stated that determining whether 

a property is located within the 

CBRS will be more accurate using 

the updated CBRS maps. Although 

supportive of map modernization 

in general, many of these same 

commenters had objections to 

specific boundary changes.

Service Response: The Service 

concurs that modernizing the CBRS 

maps using digital technology has 

many benefits. Chapter 2 explains 

the benefits and successes of our 

efforts to modernize the maps. The 

commenters’ objections to specific 

boundary changes are addressed in 

Appendix E. The Service endeavors 

to protect the integrity of the CBRS 

and generally does not recommend 

removals in cases where there is not 

clear and compelling evidence that 

a mistake was made as a result of 

incorrect, outdated, or incomplete 

information (often stemming from 

inaccuracies on the original base 

maps). We carefully review all 

proposals to remove areas from the 

CBRS. Changes to the CBRS that 

are recommended through the pilot 

project and other comprehensive 

map modernization projects are still 

only recommendations, and the final 

decision as to whether or not areas 

should be removed from (or added to)

the CBRS rests with Congress. 

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

Update to Protocol: The Service 

has developed updated protocols 

for preparing digital maps as well 

as guiding principles and criteria 

for assessing modifications to the 

CBRS, based on lessons learned 

through the pilot project and other 

comprehensive remapping projects 

over the past several years (updated 

mapping protocols are included in 

this chapter and guiding principles 

and criteria are in Chapter 6). The 

Service’s guiding principles and 

criteria are consistent with the 

intent of the CBRA and ensure that 

the Service’s recommendations 

to Congress for removals from 

the CBRS are based on clear and 

compelling evidence that a mistake 

was made, and will be applied to 

future requests for removals from 

the CBRS.

(5) Public Disclosure of CBRS 

Designation

Comments Received: The 

Service received comments from 

an individual and a conservation 

organization concerning the need 

for public disclosure of CBRS 

designations during real estate 

transactions.

Service Response: The Service 

agrees that there should be greater 

disclosure of CBRS designations 

within communities. The Service 

is regularly contacted by property 

owners who purchased property 

without any prior knowledge of 

the CBRS designation affecting 

the property. If the structure on 

a property is located in a FEMA 

Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA),3 

which is often the case for areas 

within the CBRS, flood insurance is 

usually required as a condition of a 

mortgage. In CBRS areas, Federal 

flood insurance is generally not 

available for structures constructed 

after the area was included within 

the CBRS, which leaves the 

homeowner with very few options 

aside from purchasing significantly 

more expensive flood insurance on 

the private market, paying off the 

loan, or selling the home. 

The Federal Government currently 

has no mechanism to mandate CBRS 

disclosure when land is bought or 

sold. However, States and local 

authorities can implement their own 

mandates requiring the disclosure 

17
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

of a CBRS designation before the 

ratification of a contract for the sale 

of real property. Federal, State, and 

local authorities can now integrate 

CBRS data into their GIS platforms 

and other information systems so 

that CBRS information is readily 

available to community officials, 

developers, property owners, 

prospective buyers, and others. 

Additionally, public authorities 

can include CBRS information in 

outreach materials, on building 

permit forms, and in planning 

documents. These actions could help 

to increase awareness of the CBRS 

and the associated prohibitions on 

Federal expenditures and financial 

assistance.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

(6) Multiple Layers of Protection on 

Properties in the CBRS

Comments Received: The Service 

received comments from individuals 

and local officials in North Carolina 

questioning the need for a CBRS 

designation in areas that are already 

regulated at the Federal, State, or 

local level through various laws and/

or zoning designations.

Service Response: When the 

CBRA was enacted, Congress listed 

among its findings that “certain 

actions and programs of the Federal 

Government have subsidized and 

permitted development on coastal 

barriers and the result has been 

the loss of barrier resources, 

threats to human life, health, and 

property, and the expenditure of 

millions of tax dollars each year,” 

and that “a program of coordinated 

action by Federal, State, and local 

governments is critical to the more 

appropriate use and conservation 

of coastal barriers.”4

 The Service 

agrees with these findings and 

believes that the inclusion of areas 

within the CBRS gives them an 

additional layer of protection from 

future development. 

Areas established under Federal, 

State, or local law, or held by a 

qualified organization, primarily 

for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, 

recreational, or natural resource 

conservation purposes, are typically 

included within OPAs of the CBRS.5 

All other areas, including those 

subject to certain regulations and/

or zoning designations (which may 

be subject to change), are typically 

included within System Units rather 

than OPAs. This is consistent 

with guidance developed by the 

Department’s Coastal Barriers Task 

Force in 1982:

Areas held as undeveloped 

open space, for which the 

purpose of protection has 

not been established, should 

not be considered protected. 

Similarly, local zoning 

districts and other areas 

regulated by state or local 

governments for the purpose 

of restricting the nature or 

density of development, such 

as dune districts, floodplains, 

beaches, inlet hazard areas, 

setback zones, and areas 

of special environmental 

concern, should not be 

considered protected. 

Such regulation does not 

necessarily reflect the present 

intent of property owners in 

the regulated areas to protect 

the areas for conservation, 

wildlife management, public 

recreation, or scientific 

purposes.6

The Service will continue to 

recommend that areas such as those 

described above (e.g., areas subject 

to certain regulations and/or zoning 

designations) continue to be included 

within System Units of the CBRS.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

(7) Amend the CBRA to Add 

Exemptions for Projects Deemed to 

be of Public Benefit

Comments Received: The 

Service received comments from 

an advocacy organization and 

State officials in North Carolina 

expressing concern that the CBRA 

does not contain an exemption for 

projects deemed to be of public 

benefit, such as maintenance 

dredging for navigation channels, 

and requesting that the CBRA be 

amended to add such exemptions 

for infrastructure projects within 

the CBRS on a case by case basis. 

These commenters are concerned 

that Federal funding could be 

delayed or denied within areas that 

are newly added to the CBRS.

Service Response: The CBRA 

provides a public benefit in 

minimizing the loss of human life; 

damage to fish, wildlife and other 

natural resources; and wasteful 

expenditures of Federal revenues. 

The Service does not recommend 

amending the CBRA to add 

exemptions for projects deemed 

to be of public benefit. The CBRA 

already contains more than a dozen 

exceptions7

 that could potentially 

be used for such projects (following 

consultation with the Service), 

including a specific exception for 

the maintenance and construction 

of improvements to existing Federal 

navigation channels.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

(8) Effective Dates for Areas Added 

to or Reclassified within the CBRS

Comments Received: The Service 

received comments from State 

officials in Delaware questioning 

what effective date would be used 

for the CBRA prohibitions in areas 

proposed for reclassification from 

OPA to System Unit status, such as 

Unit DE-07.

Service Response: The Service 

recognizes that the effective date 

for additions to and reclassifications 

within the CBRS is significant 

because it determines whether 

Federal expenditures and financial 

assistance are allowable under the 

CBRA for certain projects and 

structures. There are two different 

types of effective dates within the 

CBRS: (1) the “flood insurance 

prohibition date,” which is the date 

18
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

when the prohibition on Federal 

flood insurance first took effect and 

(2) the “CBRA prohibition date,” 

which is the date when all other 

prohibitions on Federal expenditures 

and financial assistance (e.g., beach 

nourishment, dredging, and disaster 

assistance) first took effect. In many 

cases, these two dates are the same; 

however, the dates are different 

when a unit is reclassified from 

OPA to System Unit status because 

the prohibitions within OPAs 

and System Units are different 

(OPAs only carry a prohibition on 

Federal flood insurance whereas 

System Units carry a prohibition 

on Federal flood insurance as 

well as prohibitions on other 

Federal expenditures and financial 

assistance).

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

Clarification to Protocol: The 

Service recognizes the need to 

clarify the protocol for the effective 

date(s) for the prohibition of 

Federal expenditures and financial 

assistance. The flood insurance 

prohibition date for areas added 

to the CBRS by Congressionallyadopted maps is either the date of 

the law that first included the area 

within the CBRS or another date 

that was specified in the law.8

 The 

flood insurance prohibition date for 

areas added through the Service’s 

administrative authorities is the date 

of the Federal Register notice that 

announced the modification to the 

CBRS map(s).

In the case of units reclassified 

from OPA to System Unit status, 

the flood insurance prohibition date 

remains the same as it was prior to 

the reclassification, but the CBRA 

prohibition date (for all Federally 

funded activities other than flood 

insurance) is the date upon which 

the area became part of a System 

Unit (i.e., the date upon which the 

reclassification became effective via 

a law or Federal Register notice). 

Therefore, the CBRA prohibition 

date for areas that are reclassified 

from OPA to System Unit through 

the pilot project will be the date of 

the legislation that adopts them.

(9) Delineation of CBRS Boundaries 

Based on Legal Descriptions Instead 

of Maps

Comments Received: The 

Service received comments from 

an individual, a homeowners 

association, an advocacy 

organization, and State and 

local officials in North Carolina 

recommending that CBRS unit 

boundaries be established by 

definition and legal description 

and that CBRS maps be used as 

approximations of those more 

accurately known boundaries.

Service Response: Establishing 

a legal description for all CBRS 

boundaries is impractical for many 

reasons, primarily because such an 

effort would be extremely resource 

intensive. If boundaries were set by 

legal description, every CBRS unit 

would need to be surveyed on-theground, which would be difficult and 

costly. The CBRS consists of about 

3.3 million acres and more than 7,500 

boundary miles, and many of the 

boundaries are located in open water 

or inaccessible areas. In addition, 

Congress intended the CBRS 

boundaries to have a relationship 

with the underlying geomorphic, 

development, and cultural features 

on-the-ground. The boundaries 

drawn on the maps allow the user 

to see the boundaries of the CBRS 

as they relate to features on the 

underlying base map.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

(10) Age and Quality of Aerial 

Imagery Used for CBRS Base Maps

Comments Received: The Service 

received comments from individuals 

and a homeowners association 

recommending that the aerial 

imagery used as the underlying base 

maps for the pilot project units be 

replaced with more current aerial 

imagery.

Service Response: The Service’s 

original pilot project protocol for the 

age of the base map imagery was 

that it must not be more than two 

years old; however, most of the base 

map imagery used for the proposed 

maps published in the Service’s 2008 

pilot project report is dated 1998 and 

1999. The Service agrees that the 

imagery used for the proposed maps 

was not recent enough. However, we 

decided to not update the imagery 

prior to publication of the 2008 

report (which would have delayed 

the release of the report), planning 

instead to update it following the 

public comment period.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

The Service has replaced the 

base map imagery for the final 

recommended maps with newer 

(dated between 2013 and 2015)9

 and 

better quality imagery. The source 

and date of the base map(s) for 

each unit are included in the unit 

summaries in Appendix C and are 

printed on the title block of each 

map.

Update to Protocol: The Service’s 

updated protocol for selecting aerial 

imagery to serve as the CBRS base 

maps is that the imagery should be: 

(1) recent (less than five years old); 

(2) high resolution (preferably one 

meter per pixel resolution or better); 

(3) orthorectified (i.e., adjusted 

to ensure the proper perspective 

of features relative to their true 

position on the Earth’s surface); and 

(4) available free of charge. This 

protocol is consistent with the base 

map selection criteria identified in 

a notice published in the Federal 

Register by the Service in 201310 

for the digital conversion project 

and the 2008 pilot project report 

(except that the two year maximum 

age of imagery recommended in the 

earlier pilot report has since been 

determined to be impractical and 

has therefore been changed to a five 

year maximum age).

(11) System Unit versus OPA 

Classification and Reclassification 

Comments Received: The 

Service received comments from 

local officials in North Carolina 

and Florida that opposed the 

reclassification of certain areas of 

associated aquatic habitat from OPA 

to System Unit status.

Service Response: The CBRS 

contains two types of units, System 

Units and OPAs. System Units are 

19
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

generally comprised of privately 

held areas. OPAs are generally 

comprised of areas held for wildlife 

refuge, sanctuary, recreational, 

or natural resource conservation 

purposes. However, there are 

cases throughout the CBRS where 

areas held for conservation and/

or recreation are located within 

System Units, as well as cases where 

privately held areas are located 

within OPAs. Through the pilot 

project, the history of the areas 

within the units was evaluated 

to determine whether they were 

appropriately classified as System 

Unit or OPA at the time of inclusion. 

The Service generally recommended 

reclassification of areas from System 

Unit to an OPA, or vice versa, 

depending on when the particular 

area was included within the CBRS 

and whether the area was held for 

conservation and/or recreation 

according to the definition of an 

OPA11 at the time it was included. 

Additionally, the Service sought 

to identify new qualifying areas 

adjacent to existing pilot project 

units as either System Unit or 

OPA depending on the ownership 

and land use at the time the map 

was prepared (e.g., Units DE-07, 

FL-67P).

One of the significant lessons learned 

through the course of the pilot project 

and other comprehensive remapping 

efforts over the past several years 

is that the level of effort necessary 

to research and reclassify discrete 

segments of land and associated 

aquatic habitat based on ownership 

and use at the time of inclusion 

within the CBRS is extremely time 

and resource intensive. Precise 

park boundaries can be difficult 

to acquire, concurrence on such 

boundaries by land owners/managers 

is cumbersome and not always 

attainable, and the reclassification 

or creation of new units with mixed 

ownership is more costly and time 

intensive than larger units of a 

single type. In cases where there 

is a combination of conserved and 

non-conserved areas within a coastal 

barrier system, the resulting map is a 

complex and error prone patchwork 

of OPA/System Unit classification 

that is difficult for stakeholders 

to interpret and the Service to 

administer (see Figure 11).

Minor qualifying areas along the 

fringes of the units may be left out 

of the CBRS under the existing 

System Unit/OPA classification 

protocol, simply because their 

ownership and use does not match 

the adjacent unit type and they are 

too small to warrant the creation 

of a new unit. For example, a small 

privately owned undeveloped area 

that would otherwise qualify for 

inclusion within the CBRS might 

be left out of the CBRS if the 

adjacent unit is an OPA, and the 

private parcel is too small to be a 

new System Unit on its own. The 

Service believes that the protocol 

for CBRS unit classification should 

be simplified so that all qualifying 

undeveloped coastal barrier areas 

and associated aquatic habitat may 

be included within the CBRS, with 

the classification of System Unit 

versus OPA generally determined 

based on the predominant ownership 

of the area at the time of inclusion.

20

Figure 11. The map for Florida Units P19/P19P, which was modified 

in 2000 in an attempt to map OPA Unit P19P to mirror the underlying 

conservation area, resulted in a complex patchwork of OPA/System Unit 

classification. Although the best available data was used to establish the 

location of the underlying conservation area, we now know that some of 

the areas that were mapped within the OPA are privately-owned parcels 

that are not held for conservation/recreation and some of the areas that 

were mapped within the System Unit are conservation areas.
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

Revising the protocol for CBRS 

unit classification means that 

some areas that are not held for 

conservation/recreation will be 

included within OPAs and therefore 

will only have a prohibition on 

Federal flood insurance, while some 

conservation/recreation areas will 

be included within System Units and 

therefore will have the full suite of 

prohibitions on Federal expenditures 

and financial assistance (though 

most land management activities 

associated with conservation 

or passive recreation (e.g., bird 

watching) would fall under one of 

the CBRA’s exceptions following 

consultation with the Service).12 

This is consistent with the Service’s 

1985 approach for delineating 

conservation/recreation areas within 

the CBRS.13 However, this approach 

is a notable departure from the 

Service’s protocol, established in 

1999,14 of mapping OPA boundaries 

as closely as possible to an 

underlying conservation/recreation 

area. Continuing to attempt to 

classify every discrete area within 

the CBRS as System Unit or 

OPA based on land ownership and 

use at the time it was included is 

impractical, complicated, and cost 

prohibitive.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received. The updated 

protocol below will be applied to 

future comprehensively revised 

maps.

Update to Protocol: The Service is 

updating its protocol for classifying 

areas within the CBRS as follows.

CBRS boundaries should 

generally be drawn to correspond 

with underlying geomorphic, 

development, and cultural features. 

Areas that qualified as undeveloped 

coastal barriers at the time of 

their inclusion within the CBRS 

should generally be classified as 

System Unit or OPA based on the 

predominant ownership of the 

coastal barrier system at the time 

of inclusion within the CBRS. OPAs 

will generally be mapped using 

the same criteria and protocols as 

those applied to System Units. The 

following considerations apply:

Non-Conserved Areas within 

OPAs

Areas that are not held for 

conservation/recreation, but 

are (1) interspersed with 

and/or adjacent to a larger 

conservation/recreation area 

and (2) were undeveloped at the 

time they were included within 

the CBRS (or are currently 

undeveloped in the case of 

proposed additions), may be 

included within OPAs.

Conserved Areas within 

System Units

Conserved Prior to CBRS 

Designation

Areas that are held for 

conservation/recreation and 

are (1) interspersed with and/

or adjacent to a larger nonconserved area and (2) were 

undeveloped15 at the time they 

were included within the CBRS 

(or are currently undeveloped in 

the case of proposed additions), 

may be included within System 

Units.

During the course of preparing 

proposed maps, the Service 

will coordinate with the 

conservation/recreation area 

owners (or managers) to seek 

their concurrence on inclusion 

of their area within the System 

Unit. If the owners do not 

concur with System Unit status, 

the Service will classify such 

areas as OPA to the extent 

practicable. Such coordination 

will generally not occur for areas 

smaller than ten acres or certain 

areas of open water where it 

is impractical from a mapping 

perspective to delineate them 

separately as an OPA (i.e., 

small islands or other features 

that are too small to carve out 

from the surrounding area). 

In such cases, portions of the 

conserved areas may still be 

included in the System Unit 

and the stakeholder will receive 

notification of the public review 

period.

An exception is made for 

certain conservation/recreation 

areas that were intentionally 

added to the CBRS as System 

Units through maps adopted 

by Congress.16 The Service 

generally will not seek 

concurrence from owners when 

there is evidence that their 

conservation/recreation area 

was intentionally added to a 

System Unit. Additionally, 

the Service will accommodate 

requests from landowners 

for voluntary additions or 

reclassifications of conserved 

areas within System Units 

rather than OPAs.

Conserved Post CBRS 

Designation

If the areas were not 

predominantly held for 

conservation/recreation at the 

time they were included within 

the CBRS, they are generally 

classified as System Unit. 

Due to the diversity of the 

geography and land ownership along 

the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great 

Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and 

Puerto Rico coasts, there may be 

special cases that are not addressed 

by this protocol. Additionally, the 

Service may weigh coastal barrier 

fastland more than associated 

aquatic habitat when determining 

whether or not a coastal barrier 

area is “predominately” held for 

conservation/recreation.

This updated protocol was applied 

to comprehensively revised maps 

that were adopted by Congress in 

2016 for Florida Units P15/P15P, 

P16/P16P, and FL-63P,17 and will be 

applied to future comprehensively 

revised maps.

(12) Mapping Channels within the 

CBRS

Comments Received: The Service 

received comments from local 

officials in North Carolina and 

Florida asserting that some channels 

within the associated aquatic habitat 

of the units should be considered 

“developed” due to ongoing dredging 

projects and therefore excluded 

from the CBRS.

21
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

Service Response: The Service 

understands the importance of 

navigation channels and recommended 

in its 1988 Report to Congress that 

they be excluded from the CBRS in 

many cases.18 However, Congress 

determined that it would be sufficient 

to exempt existing Federal navigation 

channels from the CBRA’s prohibitions 

on Federal expenditures rather than 

exclude or remove them from the 

CBRS.19 Channels are part of the 

associated aquatic habitat of coastal 

barriers20 and have been included as 

such throughout the CBRS.

In 1982 and 1988 the Department 

published guidance for delineating 

CBRS boundaries located along 

channels and other water bodies.21 

In carrying out the pilot project, the 

Service noted that this guidance has 

not been consistently applied to the 

CBRS maps created in the past. CBRS 

boundaries generally follow the center 

of the channel, but sometimes include 

all or none of the channel within the 

unit (see Figures 12 and 13). The 

2008 pilot project report proposed 

standardizing the channel mapping 

protocol to include the entire channel 

within System Units, but to include 

only half of the channel within OPAs. 

The Service has since recognized that 

it would simplify CBRS mapping to use 

the same protocol for both OPA and 

System Unit boundaries in channels 

and has updated the protocol below. 

This updated protocol for OPA channel 

mapping will not affect Federally 

funded activities within channels 

because the CBRA’s only Federal 

funding prohibition within OPAs 

applies to flood insurance.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received. The updated 

protocol below will be applied to future 

comprehensively revised maps.

Update to Protocol: Where CBRS 

boundaries are intended to follow 

channels, both System Units and 

OPAs will be mapped to include the 

entire channel within the unit. In 

cases where a System Unit and an 

OPA share a coincident boundary 

that follows a channel, the entire 

channel will generally be included 

within the System Unit.

Figure 12. Some CBRS boundaries follow the edge of a channel. The 1990 

map for North Carolina Unit NC-06P shows the boundary following the 

southern edge of the Intracoastal Waterway.

22

Figure 13. Some CBRS boundaries follow the center of a channel. The 

1990 map for North Carolina Unit L05 shows the boundary following the 

center of Shacklefoot Channel.

(13) Mapping Landward CBRS 

Boundaries Using Easy-to-Map 

Features

Comments Received: The 

Service received comments from 

an advocacy organization and 

local officials in North Carolina 

recommending that the landward 

limits and side boundaries of CBRS 

units be based on easy-to-map, wellestablished geographic features, 

such as the centerline of the Atlantic 

Intracoastal Waterway, and not the 

more difficult-to-map marsh and 

mean high tide lines.

Service Response: The associated 

aquatic habitat of coastal barriers 

encompasses the adjacent wetlands, 

marshes, estuaries, inlets, and 

nearshore waters. The Service will 
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

continue to include the associated 

aquatic habitat within the CBRS, 

even in cases where the features 

are dynamic. The CBRA includes a 

provision that allows for the Service 

to make such minor and technical 

modifications to the boundaries of 

the CBRS units as are necessary to 

reflect changes in the size or location 

of the units as a result of natural 

forces. Such revisions are being 

made for most of the CBRS through 

the digital conversion effort (see 

Chapter 2 for additional information 

about digital conversion).

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

(14) Addition of Associated Aquatic 

Habitat behind a Developed Barrier to 

the CBRS

Comments Received: The Service 

received comments from State and 

local officials in North Carolina that 

opposed the addition of associated 

aquatic habitat that is located behind 

developed barriers, such as Emerald 

Isle, North Carolina (Unit NC-06).

Service Response: In carrying out 

the pilot project, the Service noted 

that there are inconsistencies in 

how the associated aquatic habitat 

situated behind development was 

mapped in 1982, 1990, and when 

areas were added to the CBRS 

through subsequent legislative 

amendments. A notice published 

by the Department in the Federal 

Register on March 4, 1985,22 

provided guidance on the delineation 

of landward boundaries, which 

generally follow the interface 

between the aquatic habitat and 

the mainland. The guidance 

stated that associated aquatic 

habitat behind a barrier should 

be included in cases where the 

coastal barrier is 50 percent or 

more undeveloped. However, 

the Department’s 1988 Report to 

Congress states that “Only that 

associated aquatic habitat that is 

behind the undeveloped portion of 

the coastal barrier is included in 

cases where the coastal barrier is 

partially developed.”23 Some units 

include the entire associated aquatic 

habitat, regardless of the level of 

development on the barrier in front 

of it, while others do not include the 

full extent of the associated aquatic 

habitat.

The Service recognizes that aquatic 

habitat located between the coastal 

barrier and the mainland is an 

inseparable part of the coastal 

barrier ecosystem and serves a 

valuable function in protecting 

mainland communities such as 

the ability of wetlands to absorb 

storm surge. Wetlands also provide 

important habitat for fish and 

wildlife species, and there is value in 

including them within the CBRS.24 

Through the initial pilot project 

report, the Service established a 

consistent protocol for including 

associated aquatic habitat behind 

developed barriers. However, the 

Service agrees that there should be 

a limit as to how far these additions 

of associated aquatic habitat may 

extend behind a developed barrier 

(perpendicular to the shoreline), 

and we believe these changes are 

consistent with Congress’ intent to 

include such areas within the CBRS. 

The updated protocol for adding 

associated aquatic habitat behind 

a developed coastal barrier to the 

CBRS is described below.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of 

the comments received. The final 

recommended maps add associated 

aquatic habitat located behind 

developed coastal barriers consistent 

with the updated protocol below. 

Update to Protocol: In cases 

where aquatic habitat associated 

with an undeveloped coastal barrier 

continues behind an adjacent 

developed barrier (perpendicular 

to the shoreline) that is outside of 

the CBRS, some of the associated 

aquatic habitat may be added to the 

unit. The boundary is generally 

drawn along the outside edge of a 

channel that exists in the associated 

aquatic habitat within one mile 

of the undeveloped portion of the 

coastal barrier (see Figure 14). 

This protocol is applied to the final 

recommended pilot project maps 

contained in this report and will be 

applied to future comprehensively 

revised maps.

23

Figure 14. Some CBRS units include portions of associated aquatic 

habitat behind developed coastal barriers. An area behind development 

on Emerald Isle, North Carolina, is recommended for addition to Unit 

NC-06, and the boundary is drawn at the first natural break within one 

mile of the undeveloped portion of the barrier.
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

(15) Inclusion of Docks, Piers, 

Marinas, and Other Shoreline 

Structures within the CBRS

Comments Received: The Service 

received comments from an 

advocacy organization and State 

and local officials in Florida and 

North Carolina seeking to have the 

CBRS boundaries drawn to exclude 

any docks, piers, marinas, and 

other structures located along the 

shoreline. The comments expressed 

concern regarding: (1) maintenance 

and development of structures in 

waterfront areas that are included 

within the CBRS, and (2) obtaining 

permits for docks, piers, and 

marinas within the CBRS.

Service Response: As described 

in the 2008 pilot project report 

and under Issue 12 above, the 

guidance for delineating CBRS 

boundaries located along channels 

and other water bodies has not been 

consistently applied on the CBRS 

maps created in the past. Through 

the pilot project, the Service has 

developed a consistent protocol 

for mapping CBRS boundaries 

within channels, taking into 

consideration the CBRA definition 

of an undeveloped coastal barrier 

and its associated aquatic habitat. 

The boundaries of pilot project 

System Units are modified where 

appropriate to consistently include 

the entire extent of the channel 

within the unit. As a result of this 

channel mapping protocol, additional 

docks, piers, marinas, and other 

shoreline structures are included 

within the CBRS. However, such 

structures are already prevalent 

within the CBRS.

 When comprehensively remapping 

CBRS units, the Service generally 

applies a 20 foot buffer (i.e., leaving 

space between the boundary and 

the feature it is intended to follow) 

along developed shorelines to ensure 

that structures and/or infrastructure 

(e.g., walled and roofed structures, 

roads, and bulkheads) located along 

the shoreline are not inadvertently 

included within the CBRS. The 

Service also generally recommends 

the exclusion of large marinas from 

the CBRS. However, because 

docks, piers, and other similar 

structures are located throughout 

the waterways that are part of 

the associated aquatic habitat of 

the CBRS, and these structures 

frequently change in size and shape 

over time, it would be impractical to 

map CBRS units to exclude them.

It is important to note that although 

the CBRA restricts most Federal 

expenditures and financial assistance 

within the CBRS, it does not 

prohibit Federal agencies from 

issuing permits for activities within 

or adjacent to CBRS units. Federal 

agencies may issue permits within 

the CBRS, including those for the 

construction of docks and marinas.25 

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

(16) Shoreline and Development 

Feature Buffering

Comments Received: The Service 

received comments from local 

officials in Florida concerning the 

pilot project protocol of buffering 

the CBRS boundaries along 

developed shorelines. The question 

is whether the Service considers 

only the presence of structures when 

determining whether a shoreline 

is developed, or whether we also 

consider the presence of existing 

infrastructure such as bulkheads 

and roads that closely follow the 

shoreline.

Service Response: The draft maps 

published in the Service’s 2008 pilot 

project report applied approximately 

50 foot buffers between the 

CBRS boundaries and developed 

shorelines in order to avoid the 

inadvertent inclusion of existing 

development within the CBRS, but 

only considered the presence of 

walled and roofed structures and not 

the presence of other development 

features such as bulkheads or roads. 

However, after consideration of 

the comments, the Service believes 

that a reasonable definition of a 

developed shoreline would include 

bulkheads and roads that run 

parallel to and closely follow (or are 

coincident with) the shoreline. In 

addition, the Service believes that it 

is appropriate to buffer the CBRS 

boundaries along the wetland/

fastland interface (in areas where 

the structures on-the-ground at 

the time the area is or was included 

within the CBRS are very close 

to the wetlands) and along visible 

bridge infrastructure. Applying 

a buffer between the CBRS 

boundaries and certain features will 

reduce the administrative burden 

for those seeking Federal funding or 

financial assistance for projects or 

structures that are located close to 

(but outside of) the CBRS, because 

it will in many cases eliminate the 

need for a CBRS in/out property 

determination and/or CBRA 

consistency consultation.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received. In particular, 

CBRS boundaries are buffered 

along shorelines where existing 

infrastructure such as bulkheads 

and roads run parallel to and closely 

follow (or are coincident with) 

the shoreline. Buffers are also 

added between CBRS boundaries 

and bridges, and in certain cases, 

between CBRS boundaries and 

a developed wetland/fastland 

interface. In preparing the final 

recommended maps (using higher 

quality aerial imagery that is now 

available), the Service determined 

that applying an approximately 

20 foot buffer between CBRS 

boundaries and developed 

shorelines is sufficient to avoid the 

inadvertent inclusion of existing 

structures and infrastructure, while 

still maintaining the relationship 

between the CBRS boundaries and 

the underlying shoreline feature.

Update to Protocol: Through 

the pilot project, the Service 

has developed protocols for 

buffering CBRS boundaries along 

developed shorelines and other 

features to ensure that it is clear 

whether existing structures and/

or infrastructure are within the 

CBRS. The final recommended 

pilot project maps contained in this 

report (and future comprehensively 

revised maps) will apply buffers to 

CBRS boundaries along developed 

shorelines and other development 

features as follows: 

24
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

• Developed shorelines – In cases 

where the CBRS boundaries 

follow a shoreline where structures and/or infrastructure (e.g., 

bulkheads and roads) are close 

to the water, an appropriate 

buffer (about 20 feet) is applied 

between the shoreline and the 

CBRS boundaries (see Figure 

15). Buffers are not applied along 

shorelines that are only sparsely 

developed or along the seaward 

boundaries of excluded areas.

• Developed shorelines with development set-back – No buffer is 

applied in cases where the CBRS 

boundaries follow a shoreline that 

is developed, but the development 

is set back far enough from the 

shore that the structures and/or 

infrastructure are clearly outside 

of the CBRS (see Figure 16).

• Bridges – In cases where the 

CBRS boundaries follow a bridge, 

an appropriate buffer (about 20 

feet) is applied between the bridge 

and the boundaries. Additional 

visible bridge infrastructure (e.g., 

fenders) is generally excluded 

but not buffered (see Figures 

17 and 18). This protocol is not 

intended to allow for existing 

bridges (which are currently not 

within the CBRS) to be expanded, 

but rather to ensure that the 

structure as it existed at the time 

of inclusion within the CBRS is 

clearly outside of the unit.

• Wetland/Fastland Interface – In 

cases where the CBRS boundaries follow a wetland/fastland 

interface and development is 

situated within a few feet of the 

wetlands, an appropriate buffer 

(about 20 feet) is applied (see 

Figure 19). This protocol is only 

applied in limited cases; the 

general protocol is for the CBRS 

boundaries to follow the wetland/

fastland interface without a 

buffer.

• Structures along CBRS boundaries at the break-in-development– 

In all other cases where the 

CBRS boundaries fall very close 

to existing structures or infrastructure that is intended to be 

outside of the unit, an appropriate 

buffer (generally at least 5 feet) is 

applied between the boundaries 

and the structures or infrastructure.

Figure 15. The area within the purple boundary is recommended for 

addition to Florida Unit P05. An approximately 20 foot buffer has been 

applied to the eastern and western boundaries to ensure that it is clear 

that the existing structures and infrastructure are not within the CBRS.

Figure 16. No buffer is necessary when the development is set back 

from the shoreline. The existing boundary of North Carolina Unit L09 

(comprehensively revised in 2014), shown in red, follows the shoreline. 

Adjacent development is clearly not within the CBRS. 

25
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

Figure 17. When a CBRS boundary follows 

a bridge, an appropriate buffer is applied 

between the bridge and the boundary. 

The area within the purple boundary is 

recommended for addition to Florida Unit 

P21. An approximately 20 foot buffer has 

been applied to the segment of boundary 

along the bridge.

Figure 18. In some cases, additional 

accommodations are made to ensure that 

infrastructure associated with an existing 

bridge is outside of the CBRS. The area 

within the purple boundary is recommended 

for addition to Florida Unit P21. This 

boundary was placed to exclude the visible 

bridge fenders.

Figure 19. In cases where the CBRS 

boundaries follow a wetland/fastland 

interface and development is situated within 

a few feet of the wetlands, the boundary 

is buffered by approximately 20 feet. The 

existing boundary of North Carolina Unit 

L09 (comprehensively revised in 2014), 

shown in red, is buffered to clarify that 

the existing development is not within the 

CBRS.

26
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

(17) Roads and Road Rights-of-Way 

in OPAs

Comments Received: The Service 

received comments from local 

officials in Florida regarding 

publicly owned roads and road 

rights-of-way that are located within 

the proposed boundaries of OPAs, 

but are not held for conservation or 

recreation purposes, such as Unit 

FL-13P (see Figure 20). The local 

officials objected to the inclusion of 

these public lands within the OPAs 

because they are not part of the 

underlying conservation areas.

Service Response: Roads and road 

rights-of-way are included within 

OPAs throughout the CBRS. The 

only Federal funding prohibition 

within OPAs is on flood insurance. 

There are no CBRA prohibitions 

affecting Federal funding or financial 

assistance for road construction 

and/or maintenance within OPAs. 

Remapping OPAs to exclude all 

roads and road rights-of-way would 

be resource intensive, impractical, 

and unnecessary. 

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

pilot project maps as a result of the 

comments received.

(18) Mapping Seaward Boundaries 

of Excluded Areas in the CBRS

Comments Received: The Service 

received inquiries from local officials 

in Florida concerning the delineation 

of the seaward boundaries of CBRS 

excluded areas. In particular, 

the local officials believe that the 

seaward boundaries of excluded 

areas should be open at the shoreline 

so that the open water in front of the 

excluded development is not within 

the CBRS. Although these inquiries 

were not submitted as official 

comments, the Service determined 

that this is an important issue to 

address.

Service Response: The seaward 

boundaries of excluded areas are not 

delineated consistently throughout 

the CBRS. In most cases, the 

seaward boundaries of the excluded 

areas are closed at the shoreline; 

however, there are some cases where 

they are left open at the shoreline 

(see Figures 21 and 22). To address 

this inconsistency, in carrying out 

the pilot project, the Service closed 

the seaward boundaries of the 

excluded areas along the shoreline 

(i.e., along the wet/dry sand line 

as interpreted on the base map 

imagery) (see Figure 23). The wet/

dry sand line was chosen because 

it is a feature that is usually visible 

on the base map imagery and 

approximates the mean high tide 

line. This clarifies that only the 

developed area (and not the adjacent 

nearshore area) is excluded from the 

CBRS unit.

Beach nourishment and dredging 

projects in System Units along the 

shoreline of such excluded areas are 

subject to the CBRA and may only 

be conducted with Federal funds 

if they meet one of the exceptions 

under the CBRA.26

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: In 

preparing the final recommended 

maps, the Service noted that the 

proposed maps for a few units 

included in the 2008 pilot project 

report did not close the excluded 

areas at the shoreline according 

to the protocol. This is corrected 

on the final recommended maps in 

Appendix C.

Figure 20. Roads and road rights-of-way are included within OPAs 

throughout the CBRS, even though they are not held for conservation or 

recreation purposes. Florida Unit FL-13P includes portions of Highway 

A1A.

(19) Seaward Limits of CBRS Units

Comments Received: The Service 

received a comment from local 

officials in Florida, requesting that 

the seaward limits of the CBRS 

units be clearly delineated on the 

maps or described in the report 

because of projects such as channel 

dredging or beach nourishment that 

might occur in the nearshore or 

offshore areas of the units.

Service Response: CBRS units 

are generally left open on the 

ocean (i.e., seaward) side and are 

intended to contain the entire 

sand-sharing system, including 

the beach, shoreface, and offshore 

bars (see Figure 24). The sand 

sharing system of coastal barriers 

is normally defined by the 30-foot 

bathymetric contour, and is not 

delineated on the CBRS maps due 

to the dynamics of the systems, 

which cause variability from siteto-site and time-to-time. In the 

Great Lakes and in large coastal 

embayments (e.g., Chesapeake Bay, 

Delaware Bay, and Narragansett 

Bay), the sand-sharing system is 

more limited in extent and is defined 

by the 20-foot bathymetric contour 

or a line approximately one mile 

seaward of the shoreline, whichever 

is nearer the coastal barrier.27 The 

27
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

Figure 21. The seaward boundaries 

of excluded areas are not delineated 

consistently throughout the CBRS. The 

seaward boundaries of some excluded areas 

are left open at the shoreline. This 1990 

map for North Carolina Unit L06 shows the 

excluded areas open on the seaward side. 

Figure 22. This 1990 map for Florida Unit 

P11 shows an excluded area that is closed 

on the seaward side along the shoreline.

Figure 23. In carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service closed the seaward boundaries 

of excluded areas along the shoreline. The 

final recommended boundary for North 

Carolina Unit NC-01, shown in purple, 

generally follows the wet/dry sand line as 

depicted on the base map imagery.

28
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

Figure 24. CBRS units are generally left open on the seaward side and 

are intended to contain the entire sand-sharing system, including the 

beach, shoreface, and offshore bars. The offshore extent of the units is 

generally not delineated on the CBRS maps.

29

Figure 25. The Service is updating the mapping protocol for delineating 

the seaward limits of the CBRS units. In the future, an additional 

boundary segment may be added to close off CBRS units, such as 

Massachusetts Unit C34A, in order to clarify that the land opposite the 

unit is not within the CBRS.

Service agrees that information about 

the seaward limits of CBRS units 

should be more accessible, and this 

information is now included in the title 

block of the final recommended pilot 

project maps.

The Service notes that there are areas, 

mainly in embayments (although they 

were not encountered in the pilot 

project), where a unit would extend 

up onto the land opposite the barrier 

because the intervening water does 

not reach the necessary depth or the 

land opposite the barrier is closer than 

one mile (see Figure 25). Due to these 

factors, the Service is updating the 

protocol for defining and delineating 

the seaward limits of the CBRS units.

Changes to Pilot Project Maps: The 

title blocks of the final recommended 

maps contained in Appendix C include 

a note describing the seaward limits 

of the CBRS units. There are no 

changes between the proposed and final 

recommended pilot project boundaries 

as a result of the comments received.

Update to Protocol: The Service 

will generally leave the offshore side 

of the CBRS units open with the 

understanding that the offshore limits 

of the units are as follows.

In CBRS units located along the 

Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, and 

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

coasts, the offshore extent of the units 

is generally defined by the 30-foot 

bathymetric contour. In large coastal 

embayments and the Great Lakes, the 

offshore extent of the units is generally 

defined by the 20-foot bathymetric 

contour or a line approximately 

one mile seaward of the shoreline, 

whichever is nearer the coastal barrier. 

However, in cases where this would 

result in the unit extending up onto 

land that is obviously not intended to be 

within the CBRS, the offshore extent of 

the unit will be delineated on the map.

In some cases where the extent of the 

CBRS unit is not obvious, the Service 

may extend lateral boundaries (i.e., 

boundaries that are perpendicular to 

the shoreline) or add offshore segments 

of boundary to the map for clarification 

purposes.
Chapter 4: Summary of Public Comments, Service Responses, Changes to Maps, and Updates to Mapping Protocols

1

 16 U.S.C. 3501(b)

2

 48 FR 54542

3

 The land area covered by the floodwaters of the base flood is the SFHA on the NFIP’s maps. The SFHA is the area where the NFIP’s floodplain 

management regulations must be enforced and the area where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance applies. The SFHA includes Zones A, 

AO, AH, A1-30, AE, A99, AR, AR/A1-30, AR/AE, AR/AO, AR/AH, AR/A, VO, V1-30, VE, and V. http://www.fema.gov/special-flood-hazard-area

4

 16 U.S.C. 3501(a)(4) and (5)

5

 16 U.S.C. 3503 note

6

 DOI, Coastal Barriers Study Group. 1982. Preliminary Draft Criteria for Defining and Delineating Protected Coastal Barriers. Washington, D.C.

7

 16 U.S.C. 3505

8

 Section 11 of Pub. L. 97-348 and Section 9 of Pub. L. 101-591

9

 There is one exception. The final recommended maps for Unit L06 and the southern portion of Unit L05 use base map imagery dated 2010 and 

2012 because these particular maps were transmitted to Congress as part of an April 8, 2014, hearing before the House Natural Resources 

Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs.

10 See endnote 2 in Chapter 2.

11 See endnote 5 above.

12 16 U.S.C. 3505(a)(6)(A) is an exception for “Projects for the study, management, protection, and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources and 

habitats, including acquisition of fish and wildlife habitats and related lands, stabilization projects for fish and wildlife habitats, and recreational 

projects” that are consistent with the purposes of the CBRA. Federal expenditures for such projects and activities that meet this exception 

may be made following consultation with the Service.

13 50 FR 8698 

14 Frazer, Gary. 1999. USFWS-DOI, Testimony of Gary Frazer, Acting Assistant Director for Ecological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of the Interior, before the House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, Oversight Hearing on the Coastal Barrier Resources System. May 6, 1999.

15 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1) 

16 The Service’s records include copies of the majority of the maps from the 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System, recommending modifications to the CBRS that were reviewed by Congress in 1990, just prior to enactment of the CBIA. Many of these maps contain 

evidence of areas that were identified as protected on the draft maps, but were intentionally added to the CBRS as System Unit rather than 

OPA (e.g., Units CT-04, CT-05, CT-07, FL-15, and FL-89). 

17 Pub. L. 114-128

18 Pages 115-116 in: DOI, Coastal Barriers Study Group. 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System with recommendations as 

required by Section 10 of the Public Law 97-348, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. Volume 1 in Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. 265 pp.

19 H. Rept. 101-657, Part 1. “The section 10 report recommended exclusion of the channels from the System, based on concerns that the recommended inclusion of large areas of associated aquatic habitat might interfere with plans to study, widen, or deepen Federal navigation channels. 

We believe the amendment to section 6(2) will be sufficient however, to allow for construction and maintenance of improvements authorized by 

Congress.” This amendment modified the exception to the CBRA found at 16 U.S.C. 3505(a)(2): “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.” According to 16 U.S.C. 3505(b), “a Federal navigation channel or 

a related structure is an existing channel or structure, respectively, if it was authorized before the date on which the relevant System Unit or 

portion of the System Unit was included within the CBRS.”

20 See endnote 2 in Chapter 1.

21 47 FR 35707 and DOI, Coastal Barriers Study Group. 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System with recommendations as 

required by Section 10 of the Public Law 97-348, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. Volume 1 in Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 265 pp. 

22 See endnote 13 above.

23 Page II-10 of the 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System. Final Supplemental Legislative. Environmental Impact 

Statement on the Proposed Changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Washington, D.C.

24 See endnote 11 in Chapter 2.

25 16 U.S.C. 3502(3)(C)

26 16 U.S.C. 3505(a)

27 See endnote 13 above. 

30
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

CHAPTER 5: Summary and Update of Pilot Project 

Results

Section 3(c)(4) of the 2006 CBRRA 

requires that this final report 

contain a summary and update of the 

findings of the initial pilot project 

report required under Section 6(d) 

of the 2000 CBRRA. This chapter 

summarizes the results of the pilot 

project and the extent to which the 

boundary lines on the digital maps 

differ from the boundary lines on 

the original maps by describing 

the: (1) types of changes to the 

CBRS boundaries on the pilot 

project maps; (2) changes to the 

pilot project maps that do not affect 

the CBRS boundaries; and (3) final 

recommended acreage, shoreline, 

and structure changes. The final 

recommended pilot project maps 

and summaries of change for each 

unit (including acreage, shoreline, 

and structure changes for each unit) 

are provided in Appendix C. The 

acreage, shoreline, and structure 

change numbers for each pilot 

project unit are also provided in 

Appendix D.

The Service found through the 

course of the pilot project that 

several of the CBRS mapping 

protocols needed to be updated and/

or clarified. Chapter 4 contains 

information about the changes to the 

mapping protocols. The Service also 

learned a number of lessons through 

the pilot project about assessing 

modifications to the CBRS and has 

developed a set of guiding principles 

and criteria to be applied to future 

mapping projects. These guiding 

principles and criteria are described 

in Chapter 6. 

Types of Changes to CBRS 

Boundaries on Pilot Project Maps

Modifications to Reflect Geomorphic 

Change

The CBRA requires that every 

five years the Service makes 

modifications to the boundaries of 

CBRS units solely to reflect changes 

caused by natural forces such as 

accretion and erosion.1

 The pilot 

project units underwent this fiveyear review assessment between 

2014 and 2016 through the digital 

conversion effort; therefore, most 

geomorphic changes depicted 

on the proposed maps included 

in the 2008 pilot project report 

have been incorporated into the 

existing boundaries on the final 

recommended maps contained in 

this report.2

 The final recommended 

boundaries incorporate any 

additional geomorphic changes 

that have occurred following the 

assessment that was conducted 

through the digital conversion effort. 

For more information on digital 

conversion, see Chapter 2.

Alignment with Geomorphic 

Features 

CBRS boundaries are often intended 

to follow geomorphic features such 

as a shoreline or the interface 

between wetlands and fastlands. 

This applies mostly to System Units, 

though there are many cases where 

OPA boundaries follow geomorphic 

features. The boundaries of pilot 

project System Units and OPAs 

were modified where appropriate to 

align with underlying geomorphic 

features.

Alignment with Development 

Features

CBRS boundaries are often intended 

to follow development features 

(e.g., the edge of a road, a bridge, 

or the “break-in-development”) that 

existed on-the-ground when the 

area was included within the CBRS. 

The break-in-development is where 

development ended, immediately 

adjacent to the last structure in a 

cluster or row of structures, or at 

the property parcel boundary of the 

last structure.3

 This applies mostly 

to System Units, though there 

are cases where OPA boundaries 

follow development features. The 

boundaries of pilot project System 

Units and OPAs were modified 

where appropriate to align with 

development features.

Alignment with Cultural Features

CBRS boundaries are often 

intended to follow cultural features 

such as political boundaries or 

conservation/recreation area 

boundaries. Both System Units 

and OPAs follow cultural features; 

however, this applies especially to 

OPAs, which generally coincide 

with the boundaries of the 

underlying conservation and/

or recreation areas (although 

there are several exceptions – see 

Issue 11 in Chapter 4 for additional 

information). The boundaries of 

pilot project System Units and OPAs 

were modified where appropriate to 

align with cultural features.

Additions to the CBRS

In carrying out the pilot project, the 

Service found areas of undeveloped 

fastland4 and associated aquatic 

habitat5 that are not currently within 

the CBRS, but are appropriate for 

inclusion within the CBRS (either 

as additions to existing units or as 

entirely new units). 

Such additions to the CBRS are 

consistent with: (1) Section 4(c)(3)

(D) of the 2006 CBRRA,6

 which 

directs the Secretary to make 

recommendations for the expansion 

of the CBRS when carrying out 

digital mapping for the remainder 

of the CBRS and (2) maps adopted 

by Congress since 1990 that have 

expanded the boundaries of CBRS 

units (e.g., FL-95P, FL-70, FL-70P, 

P16, P16P, and SC-03) to include 

qualifying undeveloped areas that 

were not originally included within 

the CBRS.7

 

In preparing the proposed pilot 

project maps included in the 2008 

report, the Service was not as 

robust in its proposals for additions 

31
Chapter 5: Summary and Update of Pilot Project Results

to the CBRS as it may be in future 

comprehensive remapping projects 

(including the Hurricane Sandy 

project described in Chapter 

2). Instead, the Service mainly 

looked for areas immediately 

adjacent to the existing CBRS units 

because, in part, it was not until 

the 2006 CBRRA that Congress 

specifically directed the Secretary to 

recommend additions to the CBRS. 

In preparing the final recommended 

maps for the pilot project, the 

Service found additional areas where 

qualifying undeveloped fastland 

and associated aquatic habitat could 

have been proposed for addition 

on the maps included in the 2008 

report but were not. However, the 

Service determined that it would 

not be appropriate to recommend 

significant new areas for addition to 

the CBRS without the opportunity 

for public review, except for a few 

cases where the new additions 

are primarily associated aquatic 

habitat and do not affect any private 

structures. These areas are noted 

in the unit summaries in Appendix 

C. See Chapter 6 for additional 

information about the Service’s 

guiding principles and criteria for 

future additions to the CBRS.

• Additions to System Units

The boundaries of pilot project 

System Units were modified 

where appropriate to add 

undeveloped fastland and 

associated aquatic habitat to the 

CBRS. Additionally, four new 

System Units are recommended 

through the pilot project. All 

four of the new System Units 

(Units DE-07, NC-06, FL-01, 

and FL-93) are comprised of a 

combination of areas that are 

reclassified from OPAs and 

areas not currently within the 

CBRS. The recommended 

new units contain undeveloped 

fastland and associated aquatic 

habitat that is appropriate for 

inclusion within the CBRS.

The 2000 CBRRA codified the 

development criteria (density 

of development and existing 

infrastructure)8

 that the Secretary 

is required to consider when making 

recommendations to the Congress 

regarding the addition of any area 

to the CBRS and in determining 

whether, at the time of inclusion of 

a System Unit within the CBRS, 

a coastal barrier is undeveloped. 

During the preparation of the 

final recommended maps for the 

pilot project, the Service reviewed 

the level of development in the 

areas recommended for addition 

by visually analyzing the updated 

base map imagery and oblique 

aerial photos, reviewing property 

parcel records as necessary, 

and reviewing any development 

information provided by interested 

parties during the public comment 

period. The Service is not aware 

of any existing private residential 

structures located on lands that are 

recommended for addition to the 

pilot project System Units. The final 

recommended maps are based upon 

the best data available to the Service 

at the time the maps were prepared. 

• Additions to OPAs

The boundaries of pilot project 

OPAs were modified where 

appropriate to add conservation 

and/or recreation areas to the 

CBRS. When the Service found 

conservation/recreation areas 

that are adjacent to existing 

pilot project units and that meet 

the CBRA definition of an OPA9 

but are not currently within 

the CBRS, the appropriate 

stakeholders were generally 

asked to review and concur with 

the placement of the underlying 

conservation/recreation area 

boundary on a base map. This 

outreach process ensures 

that the Service has the best 

available data with which to 

make changes to the OPA 

boundaries. Additionally, five 

new OPAs are recommended 

through the pilot project. Two 

of the new OPAs (Units P08P 

and P11P) are comprised of 

areas that are reclassified 

from System Units; two of 

the new OPAs (Units NC-01P 

and P09AP) are comprised of 

a combination of areas that 

are reclassified from a System 

Unit and areas not currently 

within the CBRS; and one of 

the new OPAs (Unit FL-67P) is 

comprised entirely of areas not 

currently within the CBRS. 

Unit Type Reclassifications 

In carrying out the pilot project, the 

Service noted cases where areas held 

for conservation and/or recreation 

are located within System Units, as 

well as cases where privately held 

areas (that are not inholdings) are 

located within OPAs. When the 

Service comprehensively remapped 

the CBRS units in the pilot project, 

the conservation/recreation areas 

within the unit were identified 

and the history of those areas was 

evaluated to determine whether 

they were appropriately classified 

as System Unit or OPA. The 

Service’s remapping protocol at the 

time of the pilot project generally 

recommended reclassification 

from System Unit to an OPA, or 

vice versa, depending on when the 

particular area was included within 

the CBRS and whether the area 

was held for conservation/recreation 

at the time it was included.10 An 

exception was made for certain 

conservation/recreation areas where 

the owner/manager specifically 

requested that their area be included 

within the CBRS as a System Unit 

or for certain privately owned 

conservation/recreation areas that 

were intentionally added to the 

CBRS as System Units through 

maps adopted by Congress in the 

past.11 Another exception was 

made for minor portions of land 

and open water in cases where it 

was impractical from a mapping 

perspective to delineate them 

separately as System Unit or OPA 

(e.g., small islands or other features 

that are too small to carve out from 

the surrounding aquatic habitat). 

If the Service found no evidence that 

an area within an existing OPA was 

held for conservation or recreation 

at the time it was originally 

included within the CBRS, then 

the area in question was generally 

recommended for reclassification 

from OPA to System Unit as long 

as it met the CBRA criteria for 

an undeveloped coastal barrier at 

the time it was included within the 

CBRS. The reclassified areas were 

either added to an existing adjacent 

unit (e.g., portions of Unit FL-73P 

became part of Unit FL-78) or 

were given a new unit number (e.g., 

32
Chapter 5: Summary and Update of Pilot Project Results

portions of Unit DE-07P were 

reclassified to new Unit DE-07).

Lessons learned through the 

course of the pilot project and 

other comprehensive remapping 

projects resulted in a revision to the 

Service’s protocol regarding System 

Unit versus OPA classification 

for future mapping projects. See 

Issue 11 in Chapter 4 for more 

information about reclassifications 

and changes to the Service’s OPA 

mapping protocols and Chapter 6 

for additional information about 

the Service’s guiding principles and 

criteria for future mapping.

Removals from the CBRS

In carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service found properties that 

were inappropriately included within 

the CBRS and are appropriate for 

removal. 

• Removals from System Units

The boundaries of pilot project 

System Units were modified 

where appropriate to remove 

private lands that were 

included within the CBRS in 

error. To determine whether 

an area was appropriate for 

removal from a System Unit, 

the Service assessed, as 

necessary, whether the System 

Unit boundary followed the 

underlying feature(s) it was 

intended to follow; the density 

of development on-the-ground 

at the time the area was 

included within the CBRS; and, 

in limited cases, the level of 

infrastructure that was on-theground when the area was 

included within the CBRS. In 

the pilot project the Service 

proactively sought historical 

infrastructure information 

(e.g., the date of installation 

of electrical infrastructure 

from the local electrical utility 

company and information 

regarding road construction 

from the local government) for 

certain areas within Unit L06 to 

help determine whether those 

particular areas are appropriate 

for removal from the CBRS and 

to help determine the feasibility 

of obtaining such information 

for future comprehensive 

remapping projects. The Service 

also reviewed and considered 

any infrastructure information 

for pilot project units that 

was submitted by interested 

parties during the public 

comment period. Proactively 

obtaining the necessary 

historical infrastructure 

documentation is burdensome 

and resource intensive for the 

Service. Therefore, for future 

comprehensive mapping projects, 

the Service will generally rely 

on property owners and other 

interested parties who seek 

removals to provide the historical 

documentation necessary to 

substantiate their infrastructure 

claim (see Chapter 6 for 

additional information on the 

infrastructure review process). 

• Removals from OPAs

The boundaries of pilot project 

OPAs were modified where 

appropriate to remove private 

lands that were included within 

the CBRS in error. The private 

lands that are recommended 

for removal are for the most 

part relatively minor in size, are 

not inholdings, were not held 

for conservation or recreation 

at the time of inclusion, and 

were likely included within the 

OPA inadvertently due to the 

imprecise nature of the 1990s era 

CBRS maps (see Figure 26). In 

cases where a significant portion 

of private land was included 

within the existing OPA and 

met the CBRA criteria for an 

undeveloped coastal barrier at 

the time it was included within 

the CBRS it was reclassified to 

a System Unit (see Figure 27). 

See “Unit Type Reclassifications” 

section above for additional 

information on reclassifications. 

See Chapter 6 for additional 

information about the Service’s 

guiding principles and criteria for 

future removals from the CBRS. 

Modifications to Map CBRS 

Boundaries in Channels Using a 

Consistent Protocol 

Channels are often located between 

coastal barriers and the mainland 

and are a part of the barrier’s 

associated aquatic habitat.12 In 

1982 and 1988, the Department 

published guidance for delineating 

CBRS boundaries located along 

channels and other water bodies.13

In carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service noted that this guidance 

has not been consistently applied 

to the CBRS maps created in the 

past. CBRS boundaries generally 

follow the center of the channel, but 

in some cases include all channels 

Figure 26. The northern boundary of Florida Unit FL-18P, shown in red, 

includes a portion of developed private land. The Service determined that this 

boundary was intended to mirror the boundary of John D. MacArthur Beach 

State Park. The final recommended boundary shown in purple is modified to 

follow the park boundary and remove the private land from the CBRS. 

33
Chapter 5: Summary and Update of Pilot Project Results

Figure 27. Private land adjacent to Delaware Seashore State Park is 

recommended to be reclassified from OPA Unit DE-07P to System Unit 

DE-07. The Service determined that this area was undeveloped when it 

was added to the CBRS and the boundary was intended to follow the 1990 

break-in-development. 

and in other cases include none of 

the channel within the unit. The 

2008 pilot project report proposed 

standardizing the channel mapping 

protocol to include the entire channel 

within System Units, but to include 

only half of the channel within OPAs 

(as there is no impact to channels 

in OPAs, the only restriction within 

OPAs is on Federal flood insurance).

• Modification to Map System 

Unit Boundaries in Channels 

Using a Consistent Protocol 

The boundaries of pilot project 

System Units were modified 

where appropriate to include the 

entire extent of the channel within 

the System Unit instead of placing 

the boundary at the center of 

the channel. A buffer (of about 

20 feet) was generally applied 

along developed shorelines to 

ensure that development and 

infrastructure located on the 

shoreline was not inadvertently 

included within the CBRS 

(see Issue 16 in Chapter 4 for 

additional information).

• Modification to Map OPA 

Boundaries in Channels Using 

a Consistent Protocol 

The boundaries of pilot project 

OPAs were modified where 

appropriate to place the boundary 

at the center of the channel. The 

Service has since recognized that 

it would simplify CBRS mapping 

to use the same protocol for 

both OPA and System Unit 

boundaries in channels and 

has updated this protocol for 

future comprehensive mapping 

projects (see Issue 12 in Chapter 

4 for additional information).

No Modification 

Five of the pilot project units (Units 

LA-01, LA-02, FL-43, FL-80P, 

and S05) contain no recommended 

boundary modifications. This 

scenario only occurs in cases 

where the coastal barrier islands 

associated with the unit have not 

significantly eroded or prograded in 

such a way that requires a boundary 

modification and no mapping errors 

were identified (see Figure 28).

Other Changes Affecting Pilot 

Project CBRS Maps

In addition to the recommended 

boundary changes, there are two 

other notable changes affecting the 

pilot project maps that will help 

reduce confusion and improve the 

usability of the CBRS maps, which 

are: updating the base map imagery 

used for the proposed maps with 

newer and higher quality imagery, 

and reconfiguring some of the 

CBRS map panels.

Updated Base Map Imagery

Most of the base map imagery used 

for the proposed maps included 

in the Service’s 2008 pilot project 

report is from 1998 and 1999. The 

Service has replaced this imagery 

with newer (dated between 2013 and 

2015)14 and better quality imagery 

for the final recommended pilot 

project maps. The source and date 

of the base map(s) for each unit are 

included in the unit summaries in 

Appendix C and are printed on the 

title block of each map.

Reconfigured Map Paneling

Each official CBRS map covers a 

spatial extent roughly equivalent to 

one U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

7.5-minute topographic quadrangle; 

this spatial extent is referred to as 

a “map panel.” There are many 

places throughout the CBRS (as 

well as in the pilot project) where 

the existing map panels overlap each 

other, yet provide no indication that 

there is another unit in the same 

area that is shown on a different 

map panel. This omission is a source 

of confusion for users who assume 

that if no CBRS unit is depicted 

on a specific map, then there is no 

CBRS unit in that area. Through the 

digital conversion effort (between 

2014 and 2016) many existing map 

panels were shifted and/or combined 

to eliminate overlaps and depict all 

CBRS units that exist within the 

spatial extent of a given map panel. 

Therefore, the paneling of the final 

recommended maps in Appendix C 

has been changed in most cases to be 

consistent with the map panels used 

in the digital conversion. The result 

of this change is that (1) the extent 

of the final recommended maps is 

slightly different than the extent of 

the proposed maps in the Service’s 

2008 pilot project report and 

(2) a few maps will depict additional 

CBRS units that have not been 

revised through the pilot project. For 

example, the final recommended map 

depicting Unit P22, which is revised 

by the pilot project, also depicts 

Unit FL-71P, which is not revised 

by the pilot project. Changes to 

the configuration of the CBRS map 

panels do not affect the placement of 

the CBRS boundaries, but will help 

reduce confusion and improve the 

usability of the CBRS maps.

34
Chapter 5: Summary and Update of Pilot Project Results

Figure 28. In limited cases, no boundary modification is necessary. The 

final recommended boundary for Florida Unit FL-43, shown in purple, is 

identical to the existing boundary.

Final Recommended Acreage, 

Shoreline, and Structure Changes

Table 2 summarizes the overall 

acreage, shoreline, and structure 

changes associated with the final 

recommended pilot project maps 

contained in Appendix C. The 

“existing” and “final recommended” 

numbers in this report differ from 

the “existing” and “proposed” 

numbers in the 2008 pilot project 

report for the following reasons: 

(1) changes were made between the 

existing and final recommended 

boundaries to address public 

comments; 

(2) new areas are recommended for 

addition to or removal from the 

CBRS on the final recommended 

maps (that were not proposed 

for addition or removal on the 

proposed maps included in the 

2008 report); 

(3) adjustments were made to 

fit the final recommended 

boundaries to the updated base 

map imagery;

(4) changes were made to the 

existing boundaries of the pilot 

project units between 2014 

and 2016 through the digital 

conversion effort (described in 

Chapter 2);

(5) six units (Units L07, L08, L09; 

Unit FL-19; Unit FL-64P; and 

Unit FL-78P) were removed 

from the pilot project and one 

unit (Unit NC-01P) was added, 

resulting in a total of 65 units in 

the pilot project;15

(6) the updated imagery used for 

the final recommended maps is 

newer and better quality (this 

makes it easier to see and count 

structures, and also shows new 

construction that has occurred 

since the date of the base map 

imagery used for the proposed 

maps); and 

(7) changes were made to the 

methodology for acreage 

calculations (described below). 

The final recommended maps 

for the 65 units contained in 

Appendix C (if adopted by Congress 

through legislation) would remove 

approximately 396 total acres from 

the CBRS (236 acres of fastland 

and 160 acres of associated aquatic 

habitat) and add approximately 

24,510 acres to the CBRS (1,354 

acres of fastland and 23,156 acres 

of associated aquatic habitat). The 

revised maps would remove about 

325 structures from the CBRS and 

add about 35 structures to OPAs 

(mostly park-related). The Service 

is not aware of any existing private 

residential structures located within 

the areas recommended for addition 

to the CBRS.

The net changes were quantified by 

assessing the differences in acreage, 

shoreline, and structures between 

the existing and final recommended 

boundaries. Appendixes C and D 

provide the acreage, shoreline, and 

structure change information for 

each of the 65 pilot project units.

Table 2. Summary of Final Recommended Acreage and Structure Changes

Fastland Acres Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres Total Acres Total Structures

System Units OPAs System Units OPAs System Units OPAs System Units OPAs

Addition to 

the CBRS

379 975 20,491 2,665 20,870 3,640 0 35

Total: 1,354 Total: 23,156 Total: 24,510 Total: 35

Deletion from 

the CBRS

148 88 102 58 250 146 179 146

Total: 236 Total: 160 Total: 396 Total: 325

Net 

Reclassified

-232 232 11,146 -11,146 10,914 -10,914 N/A N/A

Total: 0 Total: 0 Total: 0 N/A

Net Change

-1 1,119 31,535 -8,539 31,534 -7,420 -179 -111

Total: 1,118 Total: 22,996 Total: 24,114 Total: -290

35
Chapter 5: Summary and Update of Pilot Project Results

Acreage Calculations

The total acreage of a CBRS 

unit is comprised of fastland and 

associated aquatic habitat (wetlands 

and open water). For the purpose 

of this pilot project, the wetland/

fastland acreage breakdown 

was derived from the Service’s 

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 

data.16 The sole use of NWI data 

for the wetland/fastland acreage 

calculations for the pilot project is 

a change in methodology from the 

2008 pilot project report. For the 

2008 report, the Service calculated 

the wetland/fastland breakdown of 

acreage by interpretation of infrared 

aerial imagery in consultation with 

NWI data. The Service has since 

determined that the benefits of 

using aerial imagery, while resulting 

in more accurate wetland/fastland 

calculations, did not warrant the 

added cost.

The associated aquatic habitat 

acreage numbers include open water 

landward of the coastal barrier, 

but not nearshore waters seaward 

of the shoreline. For the purpose 

of the acreage calculation, all 

units were artificially closed at the 

seaward shoreline using a dataset 

digitized for this purpose (described 

below) before acreage calculations 

were performed. Although the 

acreage of the nearshore waters 

is not calculated, the entire sandsharing system on the seaward side, 

including the beach and nearshore 

area, is included within the CBRS 

unit. The sand-sharing system 

of coastal barriers is normally 

defined by the 30-foot bathymetric 

contour. In the Great Lakes and 

in large coastal embayments (e.g., 

Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, and 

Narragansett Bay), the sand-sharing 

system is more limited in extent. In 

these cases, the sand-sharing system 

is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric 

contour or a line approximately 

one mile seaward of the shoreline, 

whichever is nearer the coastal 

barrier. See Issue 19 in Chapter 4 for 

additional information regarding the 

seaward limits of CBRS units.

Shoreline Calculations

For purposes of the pilot project, the 

Service digitized a shoreline boundary 

to artificially close off the units along 

the seaward shoreline. This shoreline 

boundary generally follows the wet/

dry sand line as interpreted from the 

base map image. Additionally, the 

shoreline boundary crosses any inlets 

and/or other dividing water bodies 

within each unit. In conjunction 

with the boundaries of the unit, the 

shoreline boundary is also used to 

define the total area of a unit that is 

subject to an acreage calculation (as 

described above).

1

 See endnote 25 in Chapter 1.

2

 Final maps produced through the digital conversion effort, which affected all of the pilot project units, were adopted for CBRS units located 

in Delaware and South Carolina on April 17, 2014 (79 FR 21787); units located in North Carolina on May 4, 2015 (80 FR 25314); and for units 

located in Florida and Louisiana on March 14, 2016 (81 FR 13407). 

3

 47 FR 35696 

4

 The portion of a coastal barrier between the mean high tide line on the ocean side, and the upper limit of tidal vegetation (or, if such vegetation 

is not present, the mean high tide line) at the rear of the coastal barrier.

5

 See endnote 2 in Chapter 1.

6

 See endnote 28 in Chapter 1.

7

 AL-01P (Pub. L. 103-461); DE-03P (Pub. L. 106-128); FL-35 (Pub. L. 105-277); FL-64P (Pub. L. 110-419); FL-95P (Pub. L. 109-355); GA-06P 

(Pub. L. 109-354); NC-03P (Pub. L. 106-116); NC-07P (Pub. L. 108–339); NY-51P (Section 4(e) of Pub. L. 101-591); P19P (Pub. L. 103-461); 

P19P (Pub. L. 106-360); P32 and P32P (Pub. L. 105-277); VA-60 (Pub. L. 108-7); RI-04P, RI-05P, RI-06, RI-07, SC-01, SC-03, FL-70 (new unit); 

FL-70P, L07, L08, and L09 (Pub. L. 113-253); FL-64P (Pub. L. 109-581), P15, P16, and new units P15P and P16P (Pub L. 114-128); NC-01 (Pub. 

L. 106-332).

8

 See endnote 15 in Chapter 4.

9

 See endnote 5 in Chapter 4.

10 System Units are generally comprised of privately held areas. OPAs are generally comprised of areas established under Federal, State, or local 

law, or held by a qualified organization, primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation purposes (Section 

12 of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act; Pub. L. 101-591). See Chapter 4 for additional information. 

11 See endnote 16 in Chapter 4. 

12 See endnote 2 in Chapter 1.

13 See endnote 21 in Chapter 4.

14 See endnote 9 in Chapter 4.

15 See endnote 31 in Chapter 1.

16 Fastland and wetland acreage numbers included in this report inherit the level of accuracy and completeness of NWI data. The NWI metadata states that it “represents the extent of wetlands and deepwater habitats that can be determined with the use of remotely sensed data 

and within the timeframe for which the maps were produced. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the 

experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data, and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. 

There is a margin of error inherent in the use of imagery, thus detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site, may result in revision of 

the wetland boundaries or classification, established through image analysis. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the 

date of the imagery and/or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information 

depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site.” USFWS. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, May 2014. Washington, DC. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands

36
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

CHAPTER 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for 

Coastal Barrier Resources System Modifications

This chapter contains a set of 

guiding principles and criteria 

for assessing modifications to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS). We developed these 

guiding principles and criteria after 

careful consideration of the CBRA’s 

statutory language and legislative 

history, our reports to and testimony 

before Congress, historical 

background records for individual 

CBRS units, notices published in 

the Federal Register, and lessons 

learned through the pilot project 

and other remapping projects.

Overview of Guiding Principles and 

Criteria for Removals from the CBRS

The Service receives numerous 

requests from property owners and 

their representatives from Congress 

who seek to remove areas from the 

CBRS based on an alleged “technical 

mapping error.” 

The Service generally will not 

apply a literal interpretation of the 

statutory definition of a coastal 

barrier to our review of alleged 

mapping errors. The fact that 

an area may not precisely fit the 

definition of a coastal barrier does 

not, by itself, constitute a mapping 

error. When assessing whether 

an area may be appropriate for 

removal from the CBRS, the Service 

considers the following guiding 

principles:

(1) whether the area may 

reasonably be considered to 

be a coastal barrier feature, 

or related to a coastal barrier 

ecosystem (this generally 

includes areas that are 

inherently vulnerable to coastal 

hazards such as flooding, storm 

surge, wind, erosion, and sea 

level rise) and

(2) whether inclusion of the area 

within the CBRS is rationally 

related to the purposes of the 

CBRA (i.e., to minimize the 

loss of human life, wasteful 

expenditure of Federal revenues, 

and damage to fish, wildlife, and 

other natural resources).

The Service considers a technical 

mapping error to be a mistake 

in the delineation of the CBRS 

boundaries that was made as a 

result of incorrect, outdated, or 

incomplete information (often 

stemming from inaccuracies on the 

original base maps). We generally 

will not recommend a removal from 

the CBRS unless there is clear and 

compelling evidence that an error 

in boundary delineation was made. 

When assessing whether an area 

may be appropriate for removal, 

the Service considers the following 

criteria:

(1) the level of development on-theground at the time the area was 

included within the CBRS (i.e., 

the number of structures or 

complement of infrastructure 

on-the-ground exceeded the 

threshold for the area to be 

considered undeveloped)1 and/or

(2) the location of geomorphic, 

cultural, and development 

features on-the-ground at the 

time the area was included 

within the CBRS (i.e., the 

CBRS boundary lines on the 

maps do not precisely follow 

the underlying features they 

were intended to follow on-theground).

See the “Guiding Principles for 

CBRS Modifications” and “Criteria 

for CBRS Modifications” sections 

below for additional information 

regarding how the Service assesses 

potential removals from the CBRS.

Overview of Guiding Principles and 

Criteria for Additions to the CBRS 

The 2006 CBRRA directs the 

Secretary to recommend additions 

when carrying out digital mapping 

for the remainder of the CBRS.2

 

This directive is consistent with the 

comprehensive mapping approach 

the Service and Congress have 

followed for most revisions to the 

CBRS in recent years. Through 

the pilot project and other 

comprehensive remapping projects 

over the past several years, the 

Service has assessed areas adjacent 

to the existing units being revised to 

identify undeveloped areas that were 

not currently within the CBRS, but 

were appropriate for inclusion within 

the CBRS based on the CBRA 

criteria for an undeveloped coastal 

barrier. In future comprehensive 

remapping projects, the Service will 

not only recommend additions in 

areas located immediately adjacent 

to existing CBRS units, but will also 

identify other relatively undeveloped 

areas along the coast that are 

appropriate for inclusion within the 

CBRS. When assessing whether an 

area may be appropriate for addition 

to the CBRS, the Service considers 

the following guiding principles: 

(1) whether the area may 

reasonably be considered to be a 

coastal barrier feature or related 

to a coastal barrier ecosystem 

(this generally includes areas 

that are inherently vulnerable to 

coastal hazards such as flooding, 

storm surge, wind, erosion, and 

sea level rise) and

(2) whether inclusion of the area 

within the CBRS is rationally 

related to the purposes of the 

CBRA (i.e., to minimize the 

loss of human life, wasteful 

expenditure of Federal 

revenues, and damage to fish, 

wildlife, and other natural 

resources).

When assessing potential additions 

to the CBRS, the Service also 

considers the following criteria:

(1) the level of development 

on-the-ground (i.e., whether 

the number of structures and 

37
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) Modifications

complement of infrastructure 

exceed the threshold for 

the area to be considered 

undeveloped) and

(2) in the case of certain additions 

to existing units, the location 

of geomorphic, cultural, and 

development features on-theground at the time the adjacent 

area was included within the 

CBRS (i.e., the CBRS boundary 

lines on the maps do not 

precisely follow the underlying 

features they were intended to 

follow on-the-ground).

See the “Guiding Principles for 

CBRS Modifications” and “Criteria 

for CBRS Modifications” sections 

below for additional information 

regarding how the Service assesses 

potential additions to the CBRS.

Overview of Protocol for CBRS Unit 

Classification 

The CBRS contains two types of 

units, System Units and OPAs. 

System Units are generally 

comprised of privately held areas. 

OPAs are generally comprised 

of areas held for wildlife refuge, 

sanctuary, recreational, or natural 

resource conservation purposes. 

However, there are cases throughout 

the CBRS where areas held for 

conservation and/or recreation are 

located within System Units, as 

well as cases where privately held 

areas (that are not inholdings) are 

located within OPAs. One of the 

significant lessons learned through 

the course of the pilot project and 

other comprehensive remapping 

efforts over the past several years 

is that the level of effort necessary 

to research, classify, and in some 

cases, reclassify, small discrete areas 

as System Unit or OPA based on 

ownership at the time they were 

included in the CBRS is impractical, 

complicated, and cost prohibitive. 

The Service has determined 

that CBRS boundaries should 

generally be drawn to correspond 

with underlying geomorphic, 

development, and cultural features 

and include the entire coastal 

barrier ecosystem. Areas that 

qualified as undeveloped coastal 

barriers at the time of their inclusion 

within the CBRS should generally 

be classified as System Unit or 

OPA based on the predominant 

ownership of the coastal barrier 

area at the time of inclusion within 

the CBRS. This approach is a 

notable departure from the Service’s 

protocol, first established in 1999,3

 

of mapping OPA boundaries as 

closely as possible to an underlying 

conservation and/or recreation area 

(regardless of whether the area was 

undeveloped at the time it was added 

to the OPA). As a result, some 

areas held for conservation and/or 

recreation will now be retained (or 

added in the case of new additions) 

within a System Unit, while some 

private areas will be retained (or 

added in the case of additions) within 

an OPA. The Service’s updated 

general protocol for determining 

CBRS unit classification (both 

for new additions and the 

reclassification of existing areas) is 

described in Chapter 4 (Issue 11).

Guiding Principles for CBRS 

Modifications 

The sections below describe the 

guiding principles the Service will 

apply to its assessment of potential 

modifications to the CBRS.

Purposes of the CBRA

When considering modifications to 

add areas to or remove areas from 

the CBRS, the Service considers the 

purposes of the CBRA as stated in 

the statute:

The Congress declares that it 

is the purpose of this Act to 

minimize the loss of human 

life, wasteful expenditure 

of Federal revenues, and 

the damage to fish, wildlife, 

and other natural resources 

associated with the coastal 

barriers along the Atlantic 

and Gulf coasts by restricting 

future Federal expenditures 

and financial assistance 

which have the effect of 

encouraging development 

of coastal barriers, by 

establishing a Coastal Barrier 

Resources System, and 

by considering the means 

and measures by which the 

long-term conservation of 

these fish, wildlife, and other 

natural resources may be 

achieved.4

On December 5, 1983, the 

Department published a notice in 

the Federal Register outlining the 

process for how the Department 

would implement Section 10 

of the CBRA of 1982, which 

required a report to Congress 

that included, among other things, 

recommendations for additions, 

deletions, or other modifications 

to the CBRS. This notice states 

the following regarding boundary 

changes:

The legislative history 

provides little guidance on the 

subject of boundary changes 

except to state explicitly 

that development of a unit 

subsequent to the CBRA is 

not grounds for removal from 

the System. The fundamental 

guide for the Department in 

recommending changes to the 

System will be derived from 

the purposes of the CBRA ... 

It is our opinion that reducing 

or eliminating units of the 

System will generally violate 

the purposes of the CBRA 

unless there are mistakes in 

the original designation or 

mapping process.5

The Service continues to apply 

the purposes of the CBRA as a 

fundamental guide in recommending 

changes to the CBRS. If the inclusion 

of an area is rationally related to 

the purposes of the Act, and in the 

absence of clear and compelling 

evidence that the area did not qualify 

as undeveloped at the time the area 

was included within the CBRS, or 

that a mistake was made as a result 

of inaccuracies in the depiction of 

the underlying features on the base 

map, the Service generally will not 

recommend the removal of the area 

from the CBRS. Likewise, the 

Service continues to recommend for 

addition to the CBRS areas that are 

rationally related to the purposes 

of the CBRA and meet the CBRA 

criteria for an undeveloped coastal 

barrier (see “Definition of a Coastal 

Barrier” and “Level of Development” 

sections below).

38
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) Modifications

Definition of a Coastal Barrier 

When considering modifications to 

add areas to or remove areas from 

the CBRS, the Service considers 

whether the area can reasonably be 

considered a coastal barrier feature 

or related to a coastal barrier 

ecosystem. The CBRA includes 

the following definition of an 

“undeveloped coastal barrier”:

(1) The term “undeveloped coastal 

barrier” means—

(A) a depositional geologic 

feature (such as a bay 

barrier, tombolo, barrier 

spit, or barrier island) 

that—

(i) is subject to wave, 

tidal, and wind 

energies, and

(ii) protects landward 

aquatic habitats from 

direct wave attack; and

(B) all associated aquatic 

habitats, including 

the adjacent wetlands, 

marshes, estuaries, inlets, 

and nearshore waters; 

but only if such feature and 

associated habitats contain few 

manmade structures and these 

structures, and man’s activities 

on such feature and within such 

habitats, do not significantly 

impede geomorphic and 

ecological processes.6

Through the pilot project and other 

comprehensive remapping projects 

over the past several years, the 

Service has found numerous areas 

located on the mainland that are 

behind undeveloped coastal barriers 

and their associated aquatic habitat, 

as well as other areas that do not 

clearly meet the CBRA’s statutory 

definition of an undeveloped coastal 

barrier but were still included within 

the CBRS. In some cases, there is 

evidence indicating that Congress 

intentionally included such areas 

within the CBRS (particularly with 

the CBIA of 1990).7

The legislative history of the CBRA 

states that “the term ‘coastal 

barrier’ is included in the legislation 

for informational purposes only,” 

and that “this definition is designed 

to demonstrate the values [sic] of 

coastal barriers and provide a logical 

basis for identifying them.”8

 The 

Service has found nothing in the 

legislative history of the CBRA 

indicating that Congress intended 

the Service to analyze whether an 

area literally meets the statutory 

definition of a coastal barrier 

when making recommendations 

to Congress for additions to or 

removals from the CBRS. The 

only directive that Congress has 

specifically given the Service when 

conducting such reviews is that we 

shall consider whether the area 

in question met the development 

criteria at the time that it was (or 

is) first included in the CBRS (see 

“Level of Development” section 

below). 

Areas that may reasonably be 

considered to be coastal barrier 

features, or related to coastal barrier 

ecosystems, which are inherently 

vulnerable to coastal hazards (e.g., 

flooding, storm surge, wind, erosion, 

and sea level rise) are, in most cases, 

rationally related to the purposes of 

the CBRA. Therefore, these areas 

may be appropriate for inclusion 

in the CBRS, even if they do not 

meet all elements of the literal 

definition of a coastal barrier under 

CBRA. Generally, the Service will 

not recommend the removal of such 

areas from the CBRS unless there is 

compelling evidence that a mistake 

in the delineation of the CBRS 

boundaries was made as a result of 

incorrect, outdated, or incomplete 

information. In addition, the Service 

may recommend adding such coastal 

areas to the CBRS because they 

would achieve the purposes of the 

CBRA and are not unlike areas that 

have previously been included in the 

CBRS by Congress.

Criteria for CBRS Modifications

The sections below describe the 

criteria the Service will apply to its 

assessment of potential modifications 

to the CBRS, with consideration 

of the guiding principles described 

above.

Level of Development 

With the passage of the 2000 

CBRRA, Congress codified the 

set of development criteria for 

the Secretary to “consider” 

when making recommendations 

to Congress for additions to or 

removals from the CBRS.9

 These 

criteria are as follows:

 In making any 

recommendation to the 

Congress regarding the 

addition of any area to the 

System or in determining 

whether, at the time of the 

inclusion of a System Unit 

within the System, a coastal 

barrier is undeveloped, the 

Secretary shall consider 

whether within the area - 

(A) the density of development 

is less than one structure 

per five acres of land above 

mean high tide; and (B) there 

is existing infrastructure 

consisting of (i) a road, with 

a reinforced road bed, to each 

lot or building site in the area; 

(ii) a wastewater disposal 

system sufficient to serve each 

lot or building site in the area; 

(iii) electric service for each 

lot or building site in the area; 

and (iv) a fresh water supply 

for each lot or building site in 

the area.10

The legislative history of the 

2000 CBRRA makes it clear that 

Congress codified the density of 

development and infrastructure 

criteria specifically to set a high bar 

for areas to be removed from the 

CBRS. One of the Congressional 

reports associated with the 2000 

CBRRA states that “the criteria 

will make it easier for Congress to 

oppose the removal of undeveloped 

coastal areas from the CBRS.”11 

When reviewing an area to 

determine whether an addition 

to or removal from the CBRS is 

warranted, the Service assesses the 

level of development on-the-ground 

at the time the area was (or is) 

included within the CBRS.12

39
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) Modifications

• Density of Development

When determining whether 

an area was undeveloped and 

appropriately included in 

the CBRS (or is appropriate 

for inclusion), the Service 

inspects aerial imagery 

for the presence of walled 

and roofed structures and 

considers whether the density 

of development on-the-ground 

at the time of inclusion was (or 

is) less than one structure per 

five acres of land above mean 

high tide. On August 16, 1982, 

the Department published a 

notice in the Federal Register

that included the proposed 

definitions and delineations 

criteria of undeveloped coastal 

barriers. This notice states: 

A density threshold of 

roughly one structure per five 

acres of fastland is used for 

categorizing a coastal barrier 

as developed. This threshold is 

cited by the House Committee 

in their report on the Omnibus 

Budget Reconciliation Act 

(House Report 97-158, Volume 

1, page 100) and was used 

in previous Department of 

the Interior delineations. 

It is based on scientific 

considerations and empirical 

observations. At densities 

greater than this threshold, 

the number of structures and 

the associated levels of human 

activity tend to interfere with 

natural processes which build 

and shape (i.e., stabilize the 

surface of) coastal barriers. 

Below the threshold, existing 

development usually results 

in little or no interference with 

natural processes. Of even 

greater importance, above this 

density threshold a strong 

commitment to rebuild after 

major storm damage exists 

thereby assuring the area will 

be stabilized in perpetuity.13

The CBRA does not specify how 

density should be calculated. 

However, in the same Federal 

Register notice, the Department 

stated the following regarding 

density:

To be considered in determining 

density of structures..., a 

man-made structure must:

• be located on the fastland 

portion of the coastal 

barrier;

• have a foundation, an 

enclosed ground area, or, if 

elevated, a projected ground 

area exceeding 200 square 

feet;

• be a walled and roofed 

building as described 

previously, and

• be constructed in 

conformance with all Federal, State, or local legal 

requirements (i.e. only 

legally authorized structures 

will be counted).

Structures that appear to have 

been constructed primarily 

to avoid designation as an 

undeveloped coastal barrier 

will be evaluated on a case-bycase basis. An appurtenant 

structure will be counted as a 

separate structure provided it 

satisfies the above criteria and 

is completely detached from 

any other structure.

In a number of instances 

coastal barrier units are 

complexes with more than 

one discrete segment (i.e. 

areas separated by inlets or 

intervening areas that are 

otherwise protected or clearly 

developed). When applying 

the “density threshold” rule 

to such complexes, density 

calculations will be for each 

discrete segment individually, 

not the entire unit.14

Through the pilot project and 

other comprehensive remapping 

projects over the past several 

years, the Service has 

recognized the need to clarify 

what constitutes a “discrete 

segment” for the purposes 

of calculating the density of 

structures on-the-ground at 

the time an area was (or is) 

included within the CBRS. The 

Service typically considers a 

discrete segment to be one 

piece of a unit that is comprised 

of many disconnected pieces. 

These segments are separated 

either by areas not included 

within the CBRS, or by areas 

that are within different units 

of the CBRS. For example, 

Prudence Island Complex D02B 

in Rhode Island is comprised 

of 16 discrete segments that 

are broken up by areas that are 

not included in the CBRS (see 

Figure 29).

When conducting density of 

development assessments, the 

Service does not consider only 

the acreage of individual parcels 

or subdivisions, but rather 

considers the total fastland 

acreage of the discrete segment 

of the CBRS unit (e.g., a single 

structure on a three acre lot 

will still meet the criteria for 

inclusion so long as the density 

of the discrete segment of 

the CBRS unit in which the 

structure is located has a 

density of development of less 

than one structure per five acres 

of land above mean high tide). 

• Level of Infrastructure 

On-the-Ground

When determining whether 

an area was undeveloped and 

appropriately included in the 

CBRS (or is appropriate for 

inclusion), the Service considers 

whether a full complement of 

infrastructure (i.e., reinforced 

roads, potable water, wastewater 

disposal, and electric lines) was 

(or is) on-the-ground at the time 

of inclusion within the CBRS. 

The Service only conducts 

infrastructure assessments 

in cases where the density 

threshold would have been 

exceeded had the construction of 

the associated structures been 

fully completed.

Infrastructure Review Process 

(Removals): The Service 

receives numerous requests 

for removals from the CBRS 

based on an assertion that 

infrastructure was present at 

the time of inclusion. When 

reviewing such claims, the 

Service carefully assesses 

whether a full complement 

40
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) Modifications

Figure 29. Rhode Island Unit D02B is comprised of many discrete 

segments, some of which are shown here.

of infrastructure was on-theground and available to each lot 

or building site at the time of 

inclusion. Because water, sewer, 

and electric infrastructure is 

typically placed in roadbeds, the 

Service reviews historic aerial 

imagery (from as close to the 

time of inclusion as possible) for 

the presence of improved road 

networks (i.e., paved roads) 

laid out in a pattern similar 

to roads in developed areas in 

the vicinity. The Service does 

not consider the presence of a 

single road, or even a through 

highway, plus associated electric 

transmission and water and 

sewer lines in the highway 

corridor to constitute a full 

complement of infrastructure15 

(see Figure 30). If the road 

was just a throughway with 

no radials, unimproved (e.g., 

gravel or dirt), or revegetating, 

the Service does not consider 

the area to have met the 

development threshold (see 

Figure 31).16 Areas that were 

lacking an intensive level of 

infrastructure on-the-ground 

at the time of inclusion are 

generally not proposed for 

removal from the CBRS based 

on the infrastructure criterion.

Many infrastructure claims 

cannot be substantiated due 

to the lack of available historic 

aerial imagery from the 

appropriate time period, and 

therefore require historical 

documentation (e.g., inspection 

documents and record drawings) 

to support the claim that a full 

complement of infrastructure 

was on-the-ground at the time 

the area was included within 

the CBRS (in many cases two to 

three decades prior). Obtaining 

such historical documentation 

can be difficult and burdensome 

for the Service; therefore we 

generally rely on property 

owners or other interested 

parties who seek a removal 

to provide the necessary 

documentation to support their 

infrastructure claim. 

Figure 30. Historic imagery of North Carolina Unit L06 shows an 

undeveloped coastal barrier with a main road and few scattered 

structures. The Service does not consider the presence of a single road 

such as this, plus associated electric transmission and water and 

sewer lines in the highway corridor to constitute a full complement of 

infrastructure.

41
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) Modifications

Figure 31. Historic imagery of Florida Unit P30 shows that the 

subdivision to the north did not have paved roads and therefore did not 

have a full complement of infrastructure. However, the subdivision to 

the south did have paved roads. Additional research would be necessary 

to determine if this subdivision had the other components necessary to 

constitute a full complement of infrastructure.

Figure 32. A review of recent aerial imagery shows a network of dredged 

canals in this recommended addition to Florida Unit FL-45. An 

analysis of historical imagery shows that there has been no change in 

the development status of this area for more than 20 years. The Service 

does not consider this type of incomplete development to be indicative of 

imminent development.

Infrastructure Review Process 

(Additions): To determine 

whether an area that is 

proposed for addition to the 

CBRS meets the infrastructure 

threshold, recent aerial imagery 

is reviewed to identify the 

presence of infrastructure (as 

described in the prior section) 

(see Figure 32). The Service 

generally does not conduct 

a detailed assessment of the 

infrastructure status beyond 

this level of visual inspection due 

to the limitations of available 

information and resources. 

However, when landowners 

or other interested parties 

provide evidence of a full 

complement of infrastructure 

(e.g., inspection documents and 

record drawings), this additional 

information is reviewed and 

considered by the Service.

Public versus Private 

Infrastructure: Another 

key factor that the Service 

considers when conducting 

an infrastructure assessment 

is whether the existing 

infrastructure was publicly 

or privately capitalized. The 

Department’s 1982 definitions 

and delineation criteria state 

that, “The existence of intensive 

private capitalization on-theground within a coastal barrier 

area is the most significant 

indicator of its development 

status.”17 The Department’s 

1982 Undeveloped Coastal 

Barriers: Report to Congress 

states that:

Implicit in this criterion is the 

requirement that the developer 

must have expended private 

capital to make these services 

available. Only those areas 

that are clearly being developed 

or capitalized “on the ground” 

have been deleted. The entire 

development concept rests 

on this premise. A general 

availability of utilities, 

particularly if provided at 

little or no expense to the 

property owner, does not meet 

this critical requirement; the 

42
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) Modifications

determinant is the level of 

private capital involvement 

on the ground. Development 

is not inevitable until direct 

private construction begins in 

earnest.18

The maps adopted by Congress 

in 1982 and in 1990 sought to 

exclude intensively capitalized, 

privately financed development 

with many lots where a full 

complement of infrastructure 

was already available to each 

lot. The rationale in excluding 

these subdivisions was that 

when private funds were used 

to provide a full complement of 

infrastructure throughout the 

subdivision, it was expected the 

construction of the structures 

was imminent.19 

Infrastructure Supporting 

Prior Uses: When conducting 

assessments of areas for potential 

removal from or addition to the 

CBRS, the Service sometimes 

encounters areas that contain 

infrastructure that was put in 

place long ago to support prior 

uses (e.g., military facilities, 

energy facilities, or structures 

that have since been destroyed 

by a storm or removed). 

While future development 

could potentially access such 

infrastructure, the Service 

believes that the intent of the 

infrastructure criterion is to 

exclude from the CBRS areas 

where there is intensive private 

capitalization for development 

that is underway (e.g., a 

subdivision funded by a developer 

that is under construction). 

Therefore, the Service may 

consider for inclusion within 

the CBRS (and maintaining 

within the CBRS) areas where 

infrastructure was put in place to 

support a prior use. 

Additionally, the Service may 

consider for inclusion within 

the CBRS (and maintaining 

within the CBRS) areas where 

infrastructure was put in place 

long ago, but structures are still 

not present and the passage 

of time has demonstrated that 

further development is not 

imminent.

• Clusters of Structures

When determining whether 

an area was undeveloped and 

appropriately included (or 

is appropriate for inclusion) 

in the CBRS, the Service 

considers whether a “cluster” 

of approximately ten or more 

closely related structures was 

on-the-ground at the time of 

inclusion. Volume 1 of the 

Department’s 1988 Report to 

Congress states:

Clusters of approximately 

10 or more structures are 

specifically excluded from the 

unit where the impact of the 

development on geological 

and ecological processes is 

local and confined primarily 

to the fastland on which the 

structures are located. A 

boundary is drawn around 

the cluster of development to 

exclude it from the unit.20

• On-the-Ground Versus 

Planned Development

The Service receives many 

requests for the removal of 

areas from the CBRS based on 

the assertion that development 

was planned and permitted 

at the time of inclusion. The 

Department’s 1982 definitions 

and delineation criteria state that:

Commitments or legal 

arrangements necessary 

for and leading toward 

construction of either 

structures or infrastructure 

will not be considered relevant 

to the development status of 

coastal barriers except to the 

degree that they are actually 

reflected in the existence of 

structures or infrastructure on 

the coastal barrier, or portion 

thereof.21

We have found nothing in the 

legislative history indicating 

that Congress intended for the 

Service to consider permits, 

approved development plans, or 

other legal indicators of intent 

to develop when proposing areas 

for inclusion within the CBRS. 

In lieu of providing for the 

consideration of such plans, the 

CBRA of 1982 and CBIA of 1990 

provided a delay in the date for 

terminating the availability of 

new Federal flood insurance as a 

means of dealing with structures 

that were already under 

development on-the-ground at 

the time of inclusion within the 

CBRS.22 The Service continues 

to consider only development 

that existed (or exists for new 

additions) on-the-ground at the 

time of inclusion. 

Base Map Inaccuracies along the 

CBRS Boundaries

When reviewing an area to 

determine whether a removal 

from or addition to the CBRS is 

warranted, the Service assesses 

whether the geomorphic, cultural, 

and/or development features of the 

area at the time that it was added 

to the CBRS were depicted with 

reasonable accuracy on the original 

base map. If there was a clear error 

in the depiction of the underlying 

features on the original base map 

that resulted in the unintentional 

inclusion of an area in the CBRS, 

then the Service may propose that 

the area be removed (see Figure 33). 

Similarly, the Service may determine 

that an addition to the CBRS is 

warranted in cases where there is 

a clear error in the depiction of the 

underlying features on the original 

base map.

If the underlying features in an area 

were depicted on the base map with 

reasonable accuracy, the Service 

generally will not recommend a 

removal unless there is clear and 

compelling evidence that the area 

did not meet the development 

criteria (see Figure 34). This 

criterion only applies along the 

margins of the units where base map 

errors affect boundary placement, as 

any base map errors within the unit 

will be reviewed according to the 

development criteria as described 

above. 

43
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) Modifications

Figure 33. This is an example 

of an area on the mainland 

in Florida Unit P21 that 

was inaccurately depicted as 

mangroves on the original base 

map (upper right) and was 

therefore included within the 

CBRS on the premise that it was 

part of the associated aquatic 

habitat of the coastal barrier 

system. Historical imagery 

and information provided to 

the Service by Charlotte County 

shows that this mangrove 

symbology was inaccurate at 

the time the CBRS map for this 

area was created in 1990. This 

is a base map error, and the 

Service’s final recommended 

boundary (shown in purple) 

would remove the area that was 

misrepresented as mangroves 

in the northern part of the unit 

and add additional qualifying 

undeveloped areas to the south 

(lower right).

44
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) Modifications

Figure 34. This is an 

example of an area on the 

mainland in Florida Unit 

P16 that was depicted on the 

original base map (upper left) 

with reasonable accuracy and 

was purposefully included 

within the CBRS. In such 

cases, a removal may not be 

appropriate so long as the 

development criteria were 

appropriately applied.

45
Chapter 6: Guiding Principles and Criteria for Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) Modifications

1

 See endnote 15 in Chapter 4. 

2

 Section 4(c)(3)(D) of Pub. L. 109-226

3

 See endnote 14 in Chapter 4.

4

 See endnote 1 in Chapter 4.

5

 48 FR 54542

6

 16 U.S.C. 3502(1)

7

 The Service’s records include copies of the majority of the maps from the 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System, recommending modifications to the CBRS that were reviewed by Congress in 1990, just prior to enactment of the CBIA. Many of these maps contain 

evidence of additional modifications made to the boundaries by the Congressional committees, some of which included mainland areas within 

the CBRS (e.g., Units SC-03, VA-55, VA-58, and PR-41). 

8

 House Report 97-841, Part 1

9

 Prior to the enactment of the CBRA, the Department was tasked with mapping undeveloped coastal barriers for Congressional consideration. 

The definitions and delineation criteria were published on August 16, 1982, in the Federal Register (47 FR 35696). These criteria were later 

codified by Pub. L. 106-514. 

10

 See endnote 15 in Chapter 4. 

11

 Senate Report 106-252 

12

 The Service generally considers the on-the-ground conditions at the time the area was included within the CBRS (either by an act of Congress 

or by an administrative action of the Service that is published in the Federal Register). However, in the case of areas that were included by the 

CBRA of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-348), the Service uses March 15, 1982, as the cutoff date for its analysis of ground conditions as specified in guidance 

published in the Federal Register on August 16, 1982 (47 FR 35696).

13

 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5.

14

 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5.

15

 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5.

16

 Page 102 of: DOI, Coastal Barriers Study Group. 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System with recommendations as 

required by Section 10 of the Public Law 97-348, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. Volume 1 in Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 265 pp.

17

 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5.

18

 DOI. 1982. Inventory of Undeveloped and Unprotected Barrier Beaches of the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. 

19

 Page II-9 of the Department’s 1988 Final Supplemental Legislative Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed Changes to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System reiterates this policy: “Physical evidence that infrastructure is in place to each unit in the development must be 

present before an area is considered developed. This infrastructure must be provided by the developer, thereby demonstrating his commitment to imminent construction.” 

20

 Page 113 of: DOI, Coastal Barriers Study Group. 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System with recommendations as 

required by Section 10 of the Public Law 97-348, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. Volume 1 in Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 265 pp. 

21

 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5.

22

 Section 3(3)(E) of Pub. L. 97-348 and Section 9 of Pub. L. 101-591

46
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

CHAPTER 7: Next Steps and Conclusions

Section 3(c)(2) of the 2006 CBRRA 

requires that this final report 

contain recommendations for the 

adoption by Congress of the final 

recommended digital maps created 

under the pilot project. Section 3(c)

(4) of the 2006 CBRRA requires 

that this report contain a summary 

and update of the findings of the 

initial pilot project report required 

under Section 6(d) of the 2000 

CBRRA (i.e., the extent to which the 

data necessary to complete digital 

mapping of the entire CBRS are 

available, the need for additional 

data and cooperative agreements 

to complete digital mapping of 

the entire CBRS, and the amount 

of funding necessary to complete 

digital mapping of the entire CBRS). 

This chapter contains: (1) a 

recommendation to Congress for 

adoption of the final recommended 

pilot project maps; (2) next steps 

to comprehensively modernize the 

remainder of the CBRS; and (3) 

conclusions from the pilot project.

Adoption of the Final Recommended 

Pilot Project Maps

The Service recommends 

that Congress adopt the final 

recommended maps for the 

65 CBRS pilot project units in 

Appendix C. The final recommended 

maps remove areas that were 

inappropriately included within 

the CBRS decades ago, while 

also adding undeveloped lands 

and associated aquatic habitat 

that meet the CBRA criteria for 

inclusion within the CBRS. These 

comprehensively revised maps 

were prepared using modern 

cartographic tools and techniques, 

and draft versions were reviewed 

by interested stakeholders through 

a 120-day public comment period. 

The Service assessed the comments 

received during the public comment 

period and made appropriate 

adjustments to the draft maps based 

on the CBRA criteria, objective 

mapping protocols, and the best 

available data. The unit summaries 

in Appendix C describe the extent 

to which the boundary lines on the 

final recommended maps differ from 

both the existing controlling maps 

and the proposed maps that were 

included in Appendix D of the 2008 

pilot project report. Significant 

issues raised during the public 

comment period and modifications 

to existing mapping protocols are 

described in Chapter 4. Responses 

to unit-specific comments are 

included in Appendix E. The final 

recommended maps and related 

information can also be found on 

the Service’s website at: http://www.

fws.gov/ecological-services/habitatconservation/cbra/Act/Pilot.html. 

The Service’s final recommended 

maps will become effective only 

if adopted by Congress through 

legislation. Because coastal barriers 

are highly dynamic areas that are 

subject to continual geomorphic 

change and development conditions 

on-the-ground are also subject to 

change, the Service recommends 

that Congress adopt the maps 

contained in Appendix C in a timely 

manner. Delays in the adoption of 

the final recommended maps may 

necessitate updated reviews by the 

Service of on-the-ground conditions 

that can be time and resource 

intensive.

Next Steps to Comprehensively 

Modernize the Remainder of the CBRS 

The CBRA is a map-based law, and 

although most of the CBRS maps 

have been modernized through the 

digital conversion effort and are 

now more accurate and easier to 

use, some of them may still contain 

legitimate errors that warrant 

a comprehensive review and 

remapping by the Service. 

Through fiscal year 2016, the Service 

has created comprehensively 

modernized maps for approximately 

15 percent of the total CBRS 

acreage (about 100 units including 

the pilot project maps). The 

Service has a project underway to 

prepare comprehensively revised 

draft maps for all CBRS units in 

eight northeastern States affected 

by Hurricane Sandy (about 370 

units comprising approximately 

15 percent of the total acreage 

of the CBRS), and will create 

comprehensively revised maps 

for additional CBRS units given 

the availability of resources for 

this effort. The estimated cost for 

completing comprehensively revised 

maps for the remainder of the 

CBRS (about 400 units comprising 

approximately 70 percent of the 

CBRS acreage) is about $5 million.

The Service continues to make 

progress on the significant backlog 

of requests from property owners 

and other interested parties who 

seek technical correction reviews 

and revised maps to remove land 

from the CBRS.1

 The Service 

does not support removing land 

from the CBRS unless there is 

compelling evidence that a mapping 

error was made (see Chapter 6 for 

additional information concerning 

the guiding principles and criteria 

the Service applies when reviewing 

such requests). In cases where 

mapping errors are found, the 

Service will continue to produce 

comprehensively revised maps for 

Congressional consideration that 

remove areas that were included in 

error and also add qualifying areas 

to the CBRS. 

Digital Data Needs and 

Availability 

Chapter 3 and Appendix B of the 

Service’s 2008 pilot project report 

described: (1) the cooperative 

47
Chapter 7: Next Steps and Conclusions

agreements that will be necessary to 

complete the digital mapping of the 

entire CBRS; (2) the extent to which 

the data necessary to complete 

digital mapping of the entire CBRS 

are available; and (3) the need for 

additional data to complete digital 

mapping of the entire CBRS. Since 

the majority of the data mining for 

the 2008 report was conducted, there 

have been significant advances in 

GIS technology and the availability 

of data. The vast majority of 

GIS data necessary to complete 

digital mapping of the CBRS is 

now available free of charge in the 

public domain through venues such 

as the Federal Government’s open 

data warehouse “www.data.gov,”2

NOAA’s Digital Coast,3 and local 

and State government geographic 

data warehouses, or through 

enterprise subscription services 

that the Service already has access 

to such as ArcGIS Online4

 and 

DigitalGlobe EnhancedView.5 Data 

licensing agreements are seldom 

needed, except in the case of digital 

property parcel data from some local 

governments. Infrastructure data, 

typically comprised of historical 

documentation (e.g., inspection 

documents and record drawings) 

dating back to the 1980’s or 1990’s, 

remains difficult to obtain. 

Costs

The Service’s cost estimate for 

completing comprehensively 

revised maps for the remaining 

approximately 70 percent of the 

CBRS acreage is about $5 million. 

The average cost per unit is 

anticipated to be about $12,000. 

This average cost per unit is taking 

into consideration the economy of 

scale of conducting large mapping 

projects. 

The Service’s 2008 pilot project 

report previously estimated the 

cost of producing comprehensively 

revised maps for the remainder 

of the CBRS to be, on average, 

$18,000 per unit or up to $17 million 

for the entire CBRS.6

 The Service 

has revised and reduced that cost 

estimate due to the following factors:

(1) significant advances in GIS 

technology and data availability 

since the publication of the 

initial 2008 report have made 

obtaining aerial imagery and 

other data necessary for the 

production of the CBRS maps 

far less labor intensive;

(2) modifications and efficiencies 

in the methodology used for 

acreage calculations (including 

reliance on NWI data for the 

wetland/fastland breakdown);

(3) modifications to the Service’s 

protocol for System Unit 

versus OPA classification and 

reclassification;

(4) a partnership with FEMA 

facilitated updates to most of 

the CBRS maps through the 

digital conversion effort (more 

than 90 percent of the total 

CBRS acreage will be digitally 

converted by the end of 2016); 

and 

(5) the Department funded a 

$5 million project to prepare 

comprehensively revised maps 

for the CBRS units in eight 

northeastern States affected by 

Hurricane Sandy (comprising 

approximately 15 percent of the 

total acreage of the CBRS).7

It should be noted that when 

completed in small batches, the 

average cost per unit is typically 

higher. Delays in the adoption of 

the revised maps may necessitate 

updated reviews by the Service of 

on-the-ground conditions, which also 

increases costs.

Conclusions

It has been more than 30 years 

since the CBRA was enacted. 

This common sense approach to 

conservation has successfully 

reduced the intensity of 

development along some of our 

Nation’s most vulnerable and 

ecologically sensitive coastlines, 

without increasing Federal 

regulatory involvement. In passing 

the CBRA, Congress recognized 

that certain actions and programs 

of the Federal Government 

had historically subsidized and 

encouraged development on coastal 

barriers, resulting in the loss of 

natural resources; threats to human 

life, health, and property; and 

the expenditure of millions of tax 

dollars each year. In his Statement 

on Signing the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act (October 18, 1982), 

President Ronald Reagan stated that 

“the CBRA meets a national problem 

with less Federal involvement, 

not more...with enactment of this 

landmark legislation, the Nation 

takes a major step forward on 

the road to restoring a sound 

fiscal and environmental balance 

to the programs of the Federal 

Government.”

The CBRA has saved American 

taxpayers well over $1 billion in its 

first three decades,8

 and continues 

to save taxpayer dollars and 

benefit important habitats for fish 

and wildlife, including migratory 

birds and many threatened and 

endangered species, by removing 

the Federal incentive to develop and 

redevelop the areas of the Atlantic, 

Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. 

Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico 

coasts that are part of the CBRS. 

In 2008, the Service completed 

the first phase of the pilot project, 

which included draft maps for 

70 CBRS units and an accompanying 

report to Congress. The pilot 

project maps were revised to 

incorporate any appropriate 

changes based on public input and 

objective mapping protocols, and 

are included in this report as the 

Service’s final recommended maps 

for Congressional consideration. 

The pilot project now contains 

65 units (six units were removed 

from the pilot project and one unit 

was added after publication of the 

first report). This report contains a 

summary of the comments received 

from government officials and the 

public regarding the draft maps 

and the Service’s responses to those 

comments. The maps contained in 

this report address clear mapping 

errors that have unintended negative 

effects on property owners and 

add qualifying areas to the CBRS. 

These maps will become effective 

only if adopted by Congress through 

legislation. The Service strongly 

recommends that Congress adopt 

the final recommended pilot project 

maps.

The Service has made significant 

strides since 2014 in conducting a 

digital conversion of most of the 

CBRS maps, but some CBRS maps 

still contain legitimate errors that 

warrant a comprehensive review 

48
Chapter 7: Next Steps and Conclusions

and correction. Comprehensive 

map modernization allows for the 

correction of errors that negatively 

affect property owners and 

expansion of the CBRS to include 

eligible undeveloped land and 

associated aquatic habitat. This 

report contains updates to mapping 

protocols and provides a set of 

guiding principles and criteria for 

assessing modifications to the CBRS 

that will guide our mapping efforts 

well into the future. The Service 

supports map modernization and will 

continue to prepare comprehensively 

revised maps for remaining areas 

within the CBRS as resources are 

made available for this effort. 

Today the CBRA is more relevant 

than ever before. The costs of 

armoring vulnerable shorelines, 

replenishing eroded beaches, 

rebuilding washed out roads, 

dredging channels, and subsidizing 

coastal flood insurance will only 

continue to increase with projected 

increases in sea level rise and storm 

surge, and the increased frequency 

and severity of storms impacting 

our coasts. This report highlights 

the importance of the Service’s 

continuing efforts to bring the 

CBRS maps into the digital age and 

provide user-friendly information 

to a wide range of stakeholders, 

including other Federal agencies, 

State and local officials, property 

owners, developers, and others. 

1

 In fiscal year 2016, the Service had a backlog of requests to conduct technical correction reviews of more than 25 CBRS units (not including 

units affected by the pilot project or the Hurricane Sandy project), the earliest of which was received in 2002.

2

 See endnote 12 in Chapter 2.

3

 See endnote 13 in Chapter 2.

4

 See endnote 14 in Chapter 2.

5

 Under the EnhancedView program, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency acquires imagery and imagery-derived products on behalf 

of its clients within the U.S. government. This program provides authorized U.S. government personnel cost-effective, preemptive access to 

unclassified high-resolution satellite imagery. EnhancedView is designed to promote collaboration within the U.S. government for national 

security, homeland defense, and disaster and emergency response situations. The imagery can also be readily shared with other collaborators, 

such as international coalition partners and non-government support and relief organizations. https://dg-cms-uploads-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/document/file/6/DG_EVWHS_DS.pdf

6

 USFWS. 2008. Chapter 6: Costs, Next Steps, and Conclusions In Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project. Arlington, VA. 

7

 See endnote 10 in Chapter 2.

8

 See endnote 19 in Chapter 1.

49
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

Literature Cited

AECOM. 2013. The Impact of 

Climate Change and Population 

Growth on the National Flood 

Insurance Program through 2100. 

Arkema, K.K., G. Guannel, G. 

Verutes, S.A. Wood, A. Guerry, M. 

Ruckelshaus, P. Kareiva, M. Lacayo 

and J.M. Silver. 2013. Coastal 

habitats shield people and property 

from sea-level rise and storms. 

National Climate Change 3: 913–18.

Barbier, E.B., I.Y. Georgiou, B. 

Enchelmeyer, D.J. Reed. 2013. 

The Value of Wetlands in Protecting 

Southeast Louisiana from Hurricane 

Storm Surges. PLoS ONE 8(3): 

e58715. doi:10.1371/journal.

pone.0058715.

Carson, M., A. Kohl, D. Stammer, 

A.B.A. Slangen, C.A. Katsman, 

R.S.W. van de Wal, J. Church, 

N. White. 2016. Coastal sea level 

changes, observed and projected 

during the 20th and 21st century. 

Climatic Change 134:269–281. DOI 

10.1007/s10584-015-1520-1.

Crowell, M., K. Coulton, C. Johnson, 

J. Westcott, D. Bellomo, S. Edelman, 

and E. Hirsh. 2010. An estimate 

of the U.S. population living in 

100-year coastal flood hazard areas. 

Journal of Coastal Research, 26(2), 

201–211. ISSN 0749-0208.

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA). 2015. Special 

Flood Hazard Area. http://www.

fema.gov/special-flood-hazardarea; accessed May 17, 2016. 

—. 2015. Total Coverage by Calendar 

Year. https://www.fema.gov/totalcoverage-calendar-year; accessed 

May 17, 2016. 

—. 2016. Significant Flood Events. 

https://www.fema.gov/significantflood-events; accessed May 17, 2016. 

Federal Interagency Floodplain 

Management Task Force (FIFM). 

2013. FIFM Task Force Consensus 

Recommendations and Actions 

from a Federal Floodplain 

Management Policy Analysis 

Memo. Washington, D.C. http://

www.fema.gov/media-librarydata/20130726-1905-25045-7902/

fifm_tf_consensus_

recommendations_signed.pdf; 

accessed May 17, 2016.

Frazer, Gary. 1999. USFWS-DOI, 

Testimony of Gary Frazer, Acting 

Assistant Director for Ecological 

Services, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, 

before the House Committee on 

Resources, Subcommittee on 

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife 

and Oceans, Oversight Hearing 

on the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System. May 6, 1999. https://

www.fws.gov/ecological-services/

habitat-conservation/cbra/Act/

Legislation.html; accessed May 17, 

2016. 

House Report 97-841, Part 1. Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act. September 

21, 1982. 

House Report 101-657, Part 1. Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. 

August 2, 1990. 

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change). 2014. Climate 

Change 2014: Synthesis Report. 

Contribution of Working Groups I, 

II and III to the Fifth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change [Core 

Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and 

L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, 

Switzerland, 151 pp. 

Little, C.M., R.M. Horton, R.E. Kopp, 

M. Oppenheimer, G.A. Vecchi, and 

G. Villarini. 2015. Joint projections 

of US East Coast sea level and storm 

surge. Nature Climate Change 

5, 1114–1120. DOI: 10.1038/

NCLIMATE2801.

Maine Revised Statutes (38 Rev. Stat. 

sec. 1901-1905).

Melillo, Jerry M., Terese (T.C.) 

Richmond, and Gary W. Yohe, Eds., 

2014: Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States: The Third National 

Climate Assessment. U.S. Global 

Change Research Program, 841 pp. 

DOI:10.7930/J0Z31WJ2.

Moser, S.C., M.A. Davidson, 

P. Kirshen, P. Mulvaney, J.F. Murley, 

J.E. Neumann, L. Petes, and D. 

Reed, 2014: Ch. 25: Coastal Zone 

Development and Ecosystems. 

Climate Change Impacts in the United 

States: The Third National Climate 

Assessment, J.M. Melillo, T.C. 

Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds., 

U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, 579–618. DOI: 10.7930/

J0MS3QNW. http://nca2014.

globalchange.gov/report/regions/

coasts; accessed May 17, 2016.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). 2014. 

Sea Level Rise and Nuisance 

Flood Frequency Changes around 

the United States. Silver Spring, 

Maryland. http://www.noaanews.

noaa.gov/stories2014/20140728_

nuisanceflooding.html; accessed 

May 17, 2016.

50
Literature Cited

Nel, J.L., D.C. Le Maitre, D.C. Nel, 

B. Reyers, S. Archibald, B.W. 

vanWilgen, G.G. Forsyth, A.K. 

Theron, P.J. O’Farrell, J.M. Kahinda, 

F.A. Engelbrecht, E. Kapangaziwiri, 

L. van Niekerk, and L. Barwell. 

2014. Natural hazards in a changing 

world: A case for ecosystem-based 

management. PLoS ONE 9(5): 

e95942. DOI:10.1371/journal.

pone.0095942.

Neumann, J.E., K. Emanuel, S. Ravela, 

L. Ludwig, P. Kirshen, K. Bosma, 

and J. Martinich. 2015. Joint effects 

of storm surge and sea-level rise on 

US Coasts: new economic estimates 

of impacts, adaptation, and benefits 

of mitigation policy. Climatic 

Change (2015) 129:337–349. 

DOI:10.1007/s10584-014-1304-z.

Public Law 97-348, 97th Congress. To 

protect and conserve fish and wildlife 

resources, and for other purposes. 

October 18, 1982.

Public Law 102-440, 102nd Congress. 

To promote the conservation of 

wild exotic birds, to provide for the 

Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Tissue 

Bank, to reauthorize the Fish and 

Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, 

to reauthorize the African Elephant 

Conservation Act, and for other 

purposes. October 23, 1992.

Public Law 103-461, 103rd Congress. 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior 

to make technical corrections to 

maps relating to the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System, and to authorize 

appropriations to carry out the 

Coastal Barrier resources Act. 

November 2, 1994.

Public Law 105-277, 105th Congress. 

Making omnibus consolidated 

and emergency appropriations for 

the fiscal year ending September 

30, 1999, and for other purposes. 

October 21, 1998. 

Public Law 106-116, 106th Congress. 

To clarify certain boundaries of 

maps relating to the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. November 29, 

1999. 

Public Law 106-128, 106th Congress. 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior 

to make corrections to a map relating 

to the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System. December 6, 1999. 

Public Law 106-167, 106th Congress. 

To redesignate the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System as the “John H. 

Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System.” December 9, 1999. 

Public Law 106-332, 106th Congress. 

To clarify certain boundaries on the 

map relating to Unit NC-01 of the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System. 

October 19, 2000. 

Public Law 106-360, 106th Congress. 

To direct the Secretary of the Interior 

to make technical correction to a 

map relating to the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. October 27, 

2000. 

Public Law 106-514, 106th Congress. 

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Reauthorization Act of 2000. 

November 13, 2000. 

Public Law 108-7, 108th Congress. 

Making consolidated appropriations 

for the fiscal year ending September 

30, 2003, and for other purposes. 

February 20, 2003. 

Public Law 108-339, 108th Congress. 

To replace certain Coastal Barrier 

Resources System maps. October 

18, 2004. 

Public Law 109-226, 109th Congress. 

To Reauthorize the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act, and for other 

purposes. May 25, 2006. 

Public Law 109-354, 109th Congress. 

To revise the boundaries of John H. 

Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System Jekyll Island Unit GA-06P. 

October 16, 2006.

Public Law 109-355, 109th Congress. 

To replace a Coastal Barrier 

Resources System map relating to 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Grayton Beach Unit FL-95P in 

Walton County, Florida. October 16, 

2006. 

Public Law 109-581, 109th Congress. 

Replacement of certain Coastal 

Barrier Resources System Maps. 

July 20, 2006. 

Public Law 110-419, 110th Congress. 

To clarify the boundaries of Coastal 

Barrier Resources System Clam Pass 

Unit FL-64P. October 15, 2008. 

Public Law 113-2, 113th Congress. 

Disaster Relief Appropriations. 

Page 127, Stat. 24. January 29, 2013. 

Public Law 113-253, 113th Congress. 

To revise the boundaries of certain 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System units. December 

18, 2014. 

Public Law 114-128, 114th Congress. 

To revise the boundaries of certain 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System units in Florida. 

February 29, 2016. 

Sallenger, A., K. Doran, and P. Howd. 

2012. Hotspot of accelerated 

sea-level rise on the Atlantic 

coast of North America, Nature 

Climate Change. DOI: 10.1038/

NCLIMATE1597.

Scyphers, S.B., T.C. Gouhier, J.H. 

Grabowski, M.W. Beck, J. Mareska, 

and S.P. Powers. 2015. Natural 

shorelines promote the stability of 

fish communities in an urbanized 

coastal system. PLoS ONE 10(6): 

e0118580. DOI:10.1371/journal.

pone.0118580.

Senate Report 101-529. Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act Amendments of 1990. 

October 12, 1990. 

Senate Report 106-252. Coastal Barrier 

Resources Reauthorization Act of 

1999. April 4, 2000.

Spalding, M.D., A.L. McIvor, 

M.W. Beck, E.W. Koch, I. Moller, 

D.J. Reed, P. Rubinoff, T. Spencer, 

T.J. Tolhurst, T.V. Wamsley, B.K. 

van Wesenbeeck, E. Wolanski, and 

C.D. Woodroffe. 2013. Coastal 

ecosystems: A critical element of 

risk reduction. Conservation Letters, 

May/June 2014, 7(3), 293–301.

51
Literature Cited

Strauss, B.H., R.E. Kopp, W.V. Sweet, 

and K. Bitterman. 2016. Unnatural 

Coastal Floods: Sea Level Rise 

and the Human Fingerprint on U.S. 

Floods Since 1950. Climate Central 

Research Report, pp. 1-16.

Sutton-Grier, A.E, K. Wowk, and 

H. Bamford. 2015. Future of 

our coasts: The potential for 

natural and hybrid infrastructure 

to enhance the resilience of our 

coastal communities, economies and 

ecosystems. Environmental Science 

& Policy, 51: 137–148.

Tuggle, B. 2003. USFWS-DOI, 

Testimony of Dr. Benjamin Tuggle 

Before the House Resources 

Committee, Subcommittee on 

Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife 

and Oceans, regarding the John H. 

Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System.

United States Code. 2011 Ed. Title 16, 

Section 3501-3510. Coastal Barrier 

Resources System.

—. 2014 Ed. Title 42, Chapter 50, 

Sections 4001-4131. National Flood 

Insurance.

U.S. Congress. Congressional Record. 

102nd Cong., 1992. Vol. 138, 

No. 142, pt. 2. Public Law 101-591, 

101st Congress. To Reauthorize the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act, and 

for other purposes. November 16, 

1990. 

U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), 

Coastal Barriers Study Group. 1982. 

Preliminary Draft Criteria for 

Defining and Delineating Protected 

Coastal Barriers. Washington, D.C.

—. 1982. Inventory of Undeveloped 

and Unprotected Barrier Beaches of 

the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. 

Washington, D.C.

—. 1983. Final Environmental 

Statement: Undeveloped Coastal 

Barriers. Washington, D.C.

—. 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal 

Barrier Resources System with 

Recommendations as Required by 

Section 10 of Public Law 97-348, 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

of 1982. Vols. 1-22; Executive 

Summary; Appendixes A-D. 

Washington, D.C.

—. 1988. Report to Congress: 

Coastal Barrier Resources System. 

Final Supplemental Legislative 

Environmental Impact Statement 

on the Proposed Changes to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System. 

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Coastal Barriers Task Force. 1982. 

Proposed Undeveloped Coastal 

Barriers of the United States: Interim 

Proposed & Proposed Memoranda. 

Volume II: South Carolina – Texas.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office 

of the Secretary. 1982. Federal 

Flood Insurance Prohibition for 

Undeveloped Coastal Barriers; 

Proposed Identification. 47 FR 

35696 (August 16, 1982).

—. 1983. Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act; Section 10-Report to Congress. 

48 FR 54542 (December 5, 1983).

 —. 1985. Availability of Draft Maps 

of Areas Under Consideration for 

Inclusion in the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. 50 FR 8698 

(March 4, 1985).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS). 1992. “Availability of 

Draft Maps of Oregon Areas Under 

Consideration for Inclusion in the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System.” 

57 FR 14846 (April 23, 1992). 

—. 2002. The Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act: Harnessing the 

Power of Market Forces to Conserve 

America’s Coasts and Save 

Taxpayers’ Money. Arlington, VA. 

—. 2008. Report to Congress: John 

H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project. Arlington, VA. 

—. 2009. “Coastal Barrier Resources 

System Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project.” 74 FR 15743 (April 7, 

2009). 

—. 2009. “Coastal Barrier Resources 

System Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project; Notice of extension of the 

public comment period on report and 

draft maps; notice of public meetings 

via Web cast and teleconference.” 74 

FR 31044 (June 29, 2009).

—. 2010. Rising to the Urgent 

Challenge: Strategic Plan for 

Responding to Accelerating Climate 

Change. Arlington, VA. 

—. 2013. “John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System; Delaware, 

North Carolina, South Carolina, 

Florida, and Texas; Availability 

of Draft Maps and Request for 

Comments.” 78 FR 53467 (August 

29, 2013). 

—. 2014. Classification of Wetlands 

and Deepwater Habitats of 

the United States. May 2014, 

Washington, DC. http://www.fws.

gov/wetlands/Data/metadata/

FWS_Wetlands.xml; accessed May 

17, 2016.

—. 2014. John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System; 

Availability of Final Revised Maps 

for Delaware, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Florida, and Texas. 79 FR 

21787 (April 17, 2014).

—. 2015. John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System; 

Availability of Final Revised Maps 

for Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, 

New York, North Carolina, and 

Virginia. 80 FR 25314 (May 4, 

2015).

—. 2016. John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System; 

Availability of Final Revised Maps 

for Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 

Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Mississippi, New York, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. 81 FR 13407 (March 14, 

2016).

52
Literature Cited

U.S. Government Accountability 

Office (GAO). 2007. Coastal 

Barrier Resources System: Status of 

Development that has Occurred and 

Financial Assistance Provided by 

Federal Agencies. Washington, D.C. 

—. 2013. Report to Congressional 

Committees: High Risk Series, an 

Update. Publication No. GAO-13-

283. 

Wahl, T., S. Jain, J. Bender, S.D. Meyers, 

and M.E. Luther. 2015. Increasing 

risk of compound flooding from 

storm surge and rainfall for 

major US cities. Nature Climate 

Change 5 1093–7. DOI: 10.1038/

NCLIMATE2736.

Walsh, J., D. Wuebbles, K. Hayhoe, 

J. Kossin, K. Kunkel, G. Stephens, 

P. Thorne, R. Vose, M. Wehner, 

J. Willis, D. Anderson, S. Doney, 

R. Feely, P. Hennon, V. Kharin, T. 

Knutson, F. Landerer, T. Lenton, 

J. Kennedy, and R. Somerville. 

2014: Ch. 2: Our Changing Climate. 

Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States: The Third National 

Climate Assessment, J. M. Melillo, 

T.C. Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, 

Eds., U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, 19-67. DOI: 10.7930/

J0KW5CXT.

Wong, P.P., I.J. Losada, J.P. Gattuso, J. 

Hinkel, A. Khattabi, K.L. McInnes, 

Y. Saito, and A. Sallenger. 2014: 

Coastal systems and low-lying areas. 

In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, 

Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part 

A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. 

Contribution of Working Group 

II to the Fifth Assessment Report 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. 

Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, 

M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. 

Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, 

R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. 

Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken, 

P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White 

(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom and 

New York, NY, USA, pp. 361–409.

53
White Ibis (Eudocimus albus) at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge. (Credit: Keenan Adams, USFWS) 54
A-1

APPENDIX A: Glossary

Accretion: An accumulation of sediments along a shoreline.

Associated aquatic habitat: Aquatic habitat associated with coastal barriers, including the adjacent wetlands, 

marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters.

Barrier islands: Coastal barriers completely detached from the mainland. Barrier spits may become barrier 

islands if their connection to the mainland is severed by creation of a permanent inlet. The barrier island represents 

a broadened barrier beach, commonly sufficiently above high tide to have dunes, vegetated zones, and wetland areas.

Barrier spits: Coastal barriers that extend into open water and are attached to the mainland at only one end. They 

can develop into bay barriers if they grow completely across a bay or other aquatic habitat. Alternatively, bay 

barriers can become spits if an inlet is created.

Bathymetry: The underwater equivalent to topography. 

Bay barriers: Coastal barriers that connect two headlands and enclose a pond, marsh, or other aquatic habitat. 

The terms bay mount bar or bay bar are considered to be synonymous.

Break-in-development: Where development ends, either immediately adjacent to the last structure in a cluster of 

structures or at the property parcel boundary of the last structure.

CBRA prohibition date: The date on which all prohibitions on Federal expenditures and financial assistance (e.g., 

beach nourishment, dredging, and disaster assistance) within the CBRS, excluding Federal flood insurance, first 

took effect. The CBRA prohibition date is the date upon which the area was first included within a System Unit 

of the CBRS, either the date of the law for areas added through Congressionally-adopted maps or the date of the 

Federal Register notice for areas added through the Service’s administrative authorities. 

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) (Pub. L. 101-591): This law, enacted in 1990, reauthorized the CBRA 

through fiscal year 1993, made modifications to existing units, added a new type of unit called Otherwise Protected 

Areas (OPAs), and expanded the CBRS to include areas along the Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico 

coasts. 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (Pub. L. 97-348): This law, enacted in 1982, designated relatively 

undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts as part of the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System (CBRS), and made these areas ineligible for most new Federal expenditures and financial assistance. The 

three purposes of this law are to minimize the loss of human life, conserve natural resources associated with coastal 

barriers, and save taxpayers’ dollars.

Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-514): This law, enacted in 2000, reauthorized 

the CBRA through fiscal year 2005, and directed the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to: (1) conduct a digital 

mapping pilot project by remapping 50-75 CBRS areas using digital technology and preparing an accompanying 

report to Congress; and (2) submit to Congress an economic assessment of the CBRS. It also codified the criteria 

for assessing the development status of a coastal barrier.

Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-226): This law, which was actually enacted in 

2006, reauthorized the CBRA through fiscal year 2010, and directed the Secretary to (1) conduct a public review of 

the draft pilot project maps and submit the final recommended maps and accompanying report to Congress, and (2) 

modernize the remainder of the CBRS maps using digital technology.

Coastal Barrier Resources System (see John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System)

Comprehensive map modernization: One of two processes through which the Service modernizes maps of the 

CBRS. The comprehensive map modernization approach requires a thorough review process and generally follows 

these steps: (1) research by the Service into the intent of the original boundaries and the development status 

on-the-ground at the time the areas were originally included within the CBRS (the Service generally does not 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project
Appendix A: Glossary

recommend removal of areas from the CBRS unless there is compelling evidence that a mapping error was made); 

(2) preparation of draft revised maps by the Service; (3) public review of the draft maps; (4) preparation of final 

recommended maps by the Service that take into consideration information provided during the public comment 

period; and (5) Congressional enactment of legislation to make the revised maps effective. 

Consistency consultation: The process required of a Federal agency under the CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3505(a)) prior to 

making Federal expenditures or financial assistance available within the CBRS; consultation is with the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Service).

Digital conversion: One of two processes through which the Service modernizes maps of the CBRS. Through the 

digital conversion effort, the existing CBRS boundaries are: (1) transferred and fitted to updated base maps (i.e., 

a recent aerial image) to ensure that the boundaries correspond with the natural or development features they are 

clearly intended to follow on the official maps (such adjustments are generally within the width of the existing CBRS 

boundary); (2) modified to reflect any natural changes that have occurred since the maps were last updated (this 

is known as the “five-year review”) and to incorporate any voluntary additions and excess Federal property within 

the CBRS; and (3) in limited circumstances, modified to correct any administrative errors made in the past either 

in (a) the transcription of the boundaries from maps that were reviewed and approved by Congress to the official 

CBRS maps on file with the Service or (b) the previous inclusion of unqualifying (e.g., developed) areas to the CBRS 

through a five-year review map modification to account for natural changes. The revised maps prepared through the 

digital conversion process undergo stakeholder review by Federal, State, and local officials, and are made effective 

administratively by the Service through a notice of final map availability published in the Federal Register.

Fastland: The portion of a coastal barrier between the mean high tide line on the ocean side and the upper limit of 

tidal vegetation (or, if such vegetation is not present, the mean high tide line) at the rear of the coastal barrier.

Five-year review: The CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3503(c)) directs the Secretary to conduct, at least once every five years, a 

review of the CBRS maps and make minor and technical modifications to the CBRS boundaries as are necessary to 

reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any CBRS unit as a result of natural forces.

Flood insurance prohibition date: The date on or after which the issuance of Federal flood insurance coverage 

through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is 

prohibited for new construction or substantial improvements of existing structures located within the CBRS. Any 

structure built or substantially improved on or after the prohibition date is ineligible for Federal flood insurance. 

The flood insurance prohibition date for areas added to the CBRS by Congressionally-adopted maps is either the 

date of the law that first included the area within the CBRS or another date that was specified in the law. The 

flood insurance prohibition dates for areas added through the Service’s administrative authorities is the date of the 

Federal Register notice that announced the modifications to the CBRS map(s).

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): The official map of a community on which FEMA has delineated both the 

special hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. The FIRM is the basis for floodplain 

management, mitigation, and insurance activities of the NFIP.

Geographic Information System (GIS): A system designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, 

analyze, and display all forms of geographically referenced information.

Geomorphic: Of or resembling the Earth or its shape or surface configuration.

Inholding: Developed or undeveloped private tracts of land that are not held for conservation or recreation 

purposes by their owners, and are contained within the exterior boundaries of the areas held primarily for wildlife 

refuge, sanctuary, recreation, or natural resource conservation purposes.

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS): A geographic system, established by the CBRA of 

1982, that consists of the undeveloped coastal barriers and other areas located on the coasts of the U.S. that are 

identified and generally depicted on the maps on file with the Secretary entitled “John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System.” The CBRS was renamed the “John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System” by Pub. L. 

106-167 in 1999 to honor the late Senator Chafee. 

Metadata: “Data about data.” It describes the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of data. 

Metadata are used to organize and maintain investments in data, to provide information to data catalogs and 

clearinghouses, and to aid data transfers.

A-2
A-3

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): A Federal program administered through FEMA which enables 

property owners in participating communities to purchase insurance protection against losses from flooding. This 

insurance was designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of 

repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods.

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI): A Federal program administered through the Service which provides 

information to the public on the extent and status of the Nation’s wetlands. NWI has developed a series of 

topical maps to show wetlands and deepwater habitats. These maps have been used extensively to make resource 

management decisions at the Federal, State and local government levels.

Orthorectification: The process of adjusting an aerial photograph to ensure the proper perspective of features in 

the image relative to their true position on the Earth’s surface.

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA): An undeveloped coastal barrier 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 that is included within the CBRS. The only Federal funding 

prohibition within OPAs is on Federal flood insurance.

Prograding: The seaward migration of a shoreline.

Property determination: A determination made by the Service of whether or not a specific property is located 

within the CBRS. The Service’s determination is based upon the official CBRS map of the area and is used by the 

insurance agent and the NFIP to determine the Federal flood insurance eligibility for the property in question.

System Unit: Any undeveloped coastal barrier, or combination of closely-related undeveloped coastal barriers, 

included within the CBRS. Most new Federal expenditures and financial assistance, including Federal flood 

insurance, are prohibited within System Units.

Technical correction: A correction to a CBRS map to fix a legitimate mapping error. Such corrections are done 

on a case-by-case basis and the updated maps become effective through legislation enacted by Congress. When 

the Service makes a technical correction to a map we look at the entire affected CBRS unit(s) and prepare a new 

comprehensively modernized map for the area. 

Tombolos: Coastal barriers that are sand or gravel beaches and connect one or more offshore islands to each other 

or to the mainland. Coastal barriers of this type occur principally in New York and New England. The terms 

connecting bar, tie bar, and tying bar are synonymous.

USGS topographic quadrangle: A four sided map produced by the U.S. Geological Survey that is bounded by 

parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude and displays elevation contours, physical features, and cultural 

features.

Appendix A: Glossary
APPENDIX B: Summary of Historical Changes to the Coastal 

Resources System

Table 3. Summary of Historical Changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Effective 

Date1 Public Law2 Federal Register Notice2 Affected Unit(s) Map Date Additional Co

8/13/1981

Omnibus Budget and 

Reconciliation Act 

(Pub. L. 97-35 

Sec. 341(d))

46 FR 58346

The Omnibus Budget and Reconciliation Ainsurance coverage on or after October 1, stantial improvements located on undevelbe designated by the Secretary of the Int

10/18/1982

Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act

(Pub. L. 97-348)

47 FR 52388

186 CBRS units in Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were established. See Federal Register for full list of affected units

9/30/1982

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRResources System (CBRS) and prohibited financial assistance (with limited exceptiothe units of the CBRS. The CBRA superunits that were established by law rather the Secretary.

12/31/1982 Pub. L. 97-396 T02A and T03A (formerly T02 and T03, respectively) 12/8/1982

4/22/1983 48 FR 17406

A01A, A03C, C03A, C19A, C31, D02, D04, E02, F04,H00, L01, M09, P11, P18, P23, S01A, S02, S03, S05, S06, S07, S08, S09, S10, T02A, T03A, T11

4/18/1983

Changes made administratively under Seeffect. This section allowed for minor and subsequent to the passage of the CBRA. reasons other than boundary modification

11/23/1988 Great Lakes Coastal 

Barrier Act 

(Pub. L. 100-707)

The Great Lakes Coastal Barrier Act addidentification and addition to the CBRS othe shores of the Great Lakes.

11/16/1990

Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act 

(Pub. L. 101-591)

56 FR 26304

Most of the CBRS units created in 1982 were affected. New CBRS units and Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs) were established along the Great Lakes, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts, as well as in the Florida Keys, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

10/24/1990

The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (Camended CBRA to modify existing units a

10/23/1992 Pub. L. 102-440 58 FR 60288 NC-01 (formerly NC-01P), NC-05P, VA-60, VA-60P 10/23/199211/15/1993 58 FR 60288

114 CBRS units in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Ohio, and Michigan were modified. See Federal Register for full list of affected units.

10/15/1992

Changes made administratively under Seinto effect. This section allowed for minor cations subsequent to the passage of the Crevised for reasons other than boundary mmap symbols.

11/2/1994 Pub. L. 103-461 60 FR 10268 NY-75, VA-62P, FL-05P, P11A, FL-15, FL-36P, P17, P17A, P18P, P19P, FL-72P, P31P, FL-95P, AL-01P, MI-21 11/2/1994

5/24/1996 Pub. L. 104-148 62 FR 19125 NY-59P 5/24/1996

10/9/1996 Pub. L. 104-265 62 FR 19125 SC-01 10/9/1996

11/12/1996 Pub. L. 104-333 62 FR 28891 P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25, P32, P32P 11/12/1996 Changes made by Pub. L. 104-333 were la

District Court of DC.

2/24/1997 62 FR 8258

ME-17, ME-18, MA-03, C01B, MA-20P, MA-24, C28, C31, D02B, NY-04P, NY-50, F10, NJ-09, MD-03, MD37P, MD-38, VA-09, VA-23, VA-36, L07, L09, P16, P17, FL-89, FL-99, FL-101, Q01A, VI-07

7/12/1996

Changes made administratively under Seinto effect. This section allows for modificreflect changes that have occurred as a re

1

 The date in the Effective Date column is the date of the Pub. L., or the date of the Federal Register notice (in the cases where the Pub. L. is blank). 2

 Links to all cited Public Laws and Federal Register Notices are available at: https://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/cbra/Historical_Changes_to_CBRS.html

B-1
Table 3. Summary of Historical Changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System (continued)

Effective 

Date1 Public Law2 Federal Register Notice2 Affected Unit(s) Map Date Additional Co

3/5/1998 P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25, P32, P32P The 11/12/1996 maps revised by Pub. L. 10

order from the U.S. Federal District Cour

10/21/1998 Pub. L. 105-277 64 FR 41940 P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25, P32, P32P, FL-35, FL-35P, SC-03, M09 11/12/1996 and 10/21/1998 Pub. L. 105-277 reinstated the 11/12/1996, 

that were previously invalidated by court units.

11/29/1999 Pub. L. 106-116 65 FR 17671 L03, NC-03P 10/18/1999

12/6/1999 Pub. L. 106-128 65 FR 17671 DE-03P 12/6/1999

12/9/1999 Pub. L. 106-167 Pub. L. 106-167 redesignated the Coastal 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resource

10/19/2000 Pub. L. 106-332 66 FR 10735 NC-01 10/19/200010/27/2000 Pub. L. 106-360 66 FR 10734 P19, P19P 10/27/200011/13/2000 Pub. L. 106-514

The 2000 Coastal Barrier Reauthorization mapping pilot project, covering no more thunits, to determine the feasibility and cost entire CBRS.

2/20/2003 Pub. L. 108-7 68 FR 38087 VA-59P, VA-60, VA-60P 2/20/2003

12/1/2003 Pub. L. 108-138 72 FR 54278 T07, T07P 12/1/2003

10/18/2004 Pub. L. 108-339 72 FR 54278 NC-07P 10/18/200410/30/2004 Pub. L. 108-380 72 FR 54278 P25 10/30/2004

5/25/2006 Pub. L. 109-226

The 2006 CBRRA directed the Service to prepare digital maps for the rest of the CBfor expansion.

10/16/2006 Pub. L. 109-354 72 FR 54278 GA-06P 10/16/200610/16/2006 Pub. L. 109-355 72 FR 54278 FL-95P, FL-96 10/16/200610/15/2008 Pub. L. 110-419 74 FR 15743 FL-64P 10/15/2008

4/17/2014 79 FR 21787

69 CBRS units in Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, and Texas. See Federal Register for full list of affected units.

12/6/2013

Changes made administratively under Secinto effect. This section allows for modificreflect changes that have occurred as a rewas also modified to reflect a voluntary ad4(d) of the CBRA as amended by Section 3 

12/18/2014 Pub. L. 113-253 L07, L08, L09, RI-04P, RI-05P, RI-06, RI-07, FL-70, FL-70P, SC-01, SC-03

5/4/2015 80 FR 25314

182 CBRS units in Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia. See Federal Register for full list of affected units

8/1/2014

Changes made administratively under Secinto effect. This section allows for modificreflect changes that have occurred as a re

2/29/2016 Pub. L. 114-128 P15, P15P, P16, P16P, FL-63P 2/29/2016

3/14/2016 81 FR 13407

247 CBRS units in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New York (Great Lakes region), Ohio, and Wisconsin. See Federal Register for full list of affected units.

1/11/2016

Changes made administratively under Secinto effect. This section allows for modificreflect changes that have occurred as a re

1

 The date in the Effective Date column is the date of the Pub. L., or the date of the Federal Register notice (in the cases where the Pub. L. is blank). 2

 Links to all cited Public Laws and Federal Register Notices are available at: https://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/cbra/Historical_Changes_to_CBRS.html

B-2

12/18/2014
Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge sunrise. (Credit: Keenan Adams, USFWS)
APPENDIX C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and 

Final Recommended Maps

Section 3(c)(1) of the 2006 Coastal 

Barrier Resources Reauthorization 

Act (CBRRA) requires that this 

final report contain the final 

recommended digital maps created 

under the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project). Section 3(c)

(4) of the 2006 CBRRA requires that 

this report contain a summary and 

update of the findings of the initial 

pilot project report required under 

Section 6(d) of the 2000 CBRRA, 

which included the extent to which 

the boundary lines on the digital 

maps differ from the boundary lines 

on the original maps.

This appendix contains the final 

recommended maps for 65 pilot 

project units as well as a summary of 

the recommended changes for each 

of the units. The pilot project maps 

depict 56 existing John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) units, eight new units 

comprised of areas recommended 

for reclassification from System 

Unit to Otherwise Protected Area 

(OPA) status or vice versa, and one 

recommended new OPA comprised 

entirely of areas currently not within 

the CBRS. Chapter 5 of this report 

summarizes the results of the pilot 

project and the extent to which the 

boundary lines on the digital maps 

differ from the boundary lines on 

the original maps, including (1) 

the types of changes to the CBRS 

boundaries on the pilot project 

maps; (2) the changes to the pilot 

project maps that do not affect the 

CBRS boundaries; and (3) the final 

recommended acreage, shoreline, 

and structure changes. Chapter 4 

and Appendix E contain a summary 

of changes to the pilot project maps 

as a result of the public comments 

received.

Unit Summaries

The unit summaries in this appendix 

describe the final recommended 

changes to the unit boundaries, the 

associated acreage and shoreline 

mile changes, and the number of 

structures recommended for addition 

to and removal from the CBRS. 

The unit summaries in this appendix 

contain the following information for 

each of the pilot project units.

• Type of Unit: Indicates 

whether the CBRS area is a 

System Unit or an OPA.

• Location of Unit: Provides the 

general location of the CBRS unit.

• Congressional District: 

Provides the Congressional 

District(s) that the CBRS unit is 

located within.

• Date of Final Recommended 

Map(s): Provides the date 

of the final recommended 

map(s) for the CBRS unit. The 

Service’s final recommended 

pilot project maps are either 

dated November 20, 2013, or 

March 18, 2016.

• Number of Maps: Provides the 

number of final recommended 

maps depicting the CBRS 

unit. This number may differ 

from the number of maps that 

currently depict the existing unit 

due to repaneling (as described 

in Chapter 5) and recommended 

additions to the CBRS.

• Base Map Imagery Source(s) 

and Date(s): Provides the 

source(s) and date(s) of the 

underlying aerial imagery used 

as the base map for the CBRS 

unit.

• Establishment of Unit: 

Provides the public law number 

that first established the CBRS 

unit and the date on which that 

law was enacted (except in 

the case of recommended new 

units). For recommended new 

units, this section describes the 

current CBRS status of the area 

within the unit and the Service’s 

assessment as to whether the 

area qualifies for inclusion 

within a System Unit or OPA.

• Historical Changes to Unit: 

Provides a history of changes (if 

any) to the CBRS unit.

• Public Comments: Provides 

information regarding the 2009 

public comment period and 

where to find a summary of 

the comments received and the 

Service’s responses.

• Changes between Proposed 

and Final Recommended 

Boundaries: Describes the 

changes between the proposed 

CBRS unit boundaries depicted 

on the maps included in the 

initial pilot project report 

and the final recommended 

boundaries depicted on the 

maps included in this appendix. 

Minor modifications are made 

to the boundaries of most units 

in the pilot project. These 

modifications include the 

following:

• better alignment of the 

boundaries with parcel data; 

• smoothing and simplification 

of the boundaries (i.e., 

removing unnecessary detail 

and refining the boundaries);

• fitting the boundaries to 

updated base map imagery 

(e.g., to better follow roads, 

wetland/fastland interfaces, 

vegetative breaks, and 

shorelines);

• making the lateral 

boundaries of the units 

perpendicular to the 

shoreline;

• adjustments to better follow 

the Service’s pilot project 

protocol on channel mapping 

(described in Chapter 4 of 

this report); and

• adjustments to better follow 

the Service’s updated pilot 

project protocol on shoreline 

and development feature 

buffering (described in 

Chapter 4 of this report).

C-1

Digital Mapping Pilot Project
• Final Recommended Changes 

to Unit/Final Recommended 

Unit: Describes the changes 

that are recommended to the 

CBRS unit. For recommended 

new units, this section describes 

the areas that are recommended 

for inclusion within the unit.

• Acreage, Shoreline, and 

Structures Table: Provides 

acreage and shoreline mile 

changes, and the number of 

structures recommended for 

addition to and removal from the 

CBRS unit.

Final Recommended Maps

The maps contained in this appendix 

are reduced versions of the final 

recommended pilot project maps. 

Because the maps presented in 

this report are reduced in size 

by approximately 70 percent, the 

legibility of the maps is significantly 

reduced. The final recommended 

maps can be accessed and 

downloaded from the Service’s 

website at: http://www.fws.gov/cbra.

Each map covers roughly the same 

area as one 7.5-minute USGS 

topographic quadrangle map and is 

produced at a scale of 1 to 24,000. 

All maps are referenced to the 

North American Datum of 1983 

and use the Universal Transverse 

Mercator projection, Zones 15 

through 18. Additional information 

about the projection and coordinate 

system is available below the legend 

on each map.

The existing and final recommended 

boundaries are delineated on the 

maps in this appendix as follows:

• Existing Boundary: The 

existing boundary is shown as a 

solid red line for System Units 

and a dashed black and red line 

for OPAs. 

• Final Recommended 

Boundary: The final 

recommended boundary is shown 

as a solid purple line for System 

Units and a dashed black and 

purple line for OPAs. 

Where the solid boundary of a System 

Unit and the dashed boundary of an 

OPA are coincident, only the System 

Unit boundary is shown on the map. 

Where the existing boundary and 

the final recommended boundary are 

coincident, only the final recommended 

boundary is shown on the map.

C-2

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps
Table 4. Page Number of Each Unit Summary and Corresponding Final Recommended Map in this Appendix

Unit County/Parish

Unit 

Summary 

Page #

Final 

Recommended 

Map(s) Page #

Delaware

DE-07* Sussex C-4, C-5 C-9

DE-07P Sussex C-6, C-7 C-9

H01 Sussex C-8 C-9

North Carolina

NC-01 Currituck, 

Dare

C-10, C-11 C-13

NC-01P* Currituck C-12 C-13

NC-05P Carteret C-14 C-15

NC-06* Onslow C-16, C-17 C-24, C-25

NC-06P Onslow, 

Carteret

C-18, C-19 C-24, C-25

L05 Onslow C-20, C-21 C-25, C-26

L06 Onslow C-22, C-23 C-26, C-27

South Carolina

M02 Georgetown C-28 C-30

M03 Georgetown C-29 C-30

Florida

FL-01* Nassau C-31 C-33

FL-01P Nassau C-32 C-33

P04A St. Johns C-34, C-35 C-39

P05 St. Johns C-36, C-37 C-39

P05P St. Johns C-38 C-39

P08 Volusia C-40, C-41 C-43

P08P* Volusia C-42 C-43

FL-13P Brevard C-44 C-48

P09A Brevard C-45, C-46 C-48

P09AP* Brevard C-47 C-48

P10A Indian River, 

St. Lucie

C-49, C-50 C-53

FL-14P St. Lucie C-51, C-52 C-53

P11 St. Lucie C-54, C-55 C-57, C-58

P11P* St. Lucie C-56 C-57

FL-15 Palm Beach C-59 C-63

FL-16P Palm Beach C-60, C-61 C-63

FL-17P Palm Beach C-62 C-63

FL-18P Palm Beach C-64 C-65

FL-19P Broward C-66 C-67

FL-20P Broward C-68, C-69 C-71

Unit County/Parish

Unit 

Summary

Page #

Final 

Recommended 

Map(s) Page #

Florida (continued)

P14A Broward C-70 C-71

FL-39 Monroe C-72 C-74

FL-40 Monroe C-73 C-74

FL-43 Monroe C-75 C-78

FL-44 Monroe C-76 C-78

FL-45 Monroe C-77 C-78

FL-46 Monroe C-79 C-80

P17A Lee C-81 C-85

FL-67 Lee C-82, C-83 C-85

FL-67P* Lee C-84 C-85

P21 Charlotte C-86, C-87 C-90

P21P Charlotte C-88, C-89 C-90

P22 Sarasota C-91, C-92 C-93

FL-72P Sarasota C-94 C-95

FL-73P Manatee C-96 C-100

FL-78 Manatee C-97, C-98 C-100

FL-82 Manatee C-99 C-100

FL-80P Manatee C-101 C-104

FL-81 Hillsborough C-102 C-104

FL-81P Hillsborough C-103 C-104

FL-83 Hillsborough C-105 C-106

FL-85P Pinellas C-107 C-108

P26 Dixie C-109 C-110

FL-89 Franklin C-111, C112 C-113

FL-93* Bay C-114 C-118

FL-93P Bay C-115, C-116 C-118

FL-94 Walton C-117 C-118

Louisiana

LA-01 St. Bernard C-119 C-120

LA-02 St. Bernard C-121 C-122

S04 Lafourche C-123 C-125

S05 Terrebonne, 

Lafourche

C-124 C-125, C-126, 

C-127

S06 Terrebonne C-128, C-129 C-130, C-131,

C-132

S07 Terrebonne, 

St. Mary

C-133, C-134 C-135, C-136, 

C-137, C-138

*Recommended new or reclassified Unit.

C-3

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit DE-07, 

Delaware Seashore, Delaware

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Recommended new 

System Unit

Location of Unit: North of Bethany 

Beach, in Sussex County, Delaware

Congressional District: At Large

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit DE-07 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2015

Establishment of Unit: Most of the 

area recommended for inclusion 

within new System Unit DE-07 is 

currently within existing Otherwise 

Protected Area (OPA) Unit DE-07P, 

which was established by the Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990). The remainder of the area 

recommended for inclusion within 

the new unit is currently not within 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System (CBRS).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s (Service) review found 

no documentation indicating that 

this area is held for conservation 

and/or recreation (in accordance 

with the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act (CBRA) definition of an 

OPA). However, all areas within 

recommended new Unit DE-07 

either qualified as undeveloped 

coastal barrier at the time they were 

first included within the CBRS, 

or for those areas newly added to 

the CBRS, currently qualify, for 

inclusion within a System Unit.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit DE-07. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the boundary of the unit 

is modified to remove from the 

CBRS about 45 structures in the 

area within and south of the South 

Shore Marina community. This area 

is proposed for reclassification from 

OPA Unit DE-07P to new System 

Unit DE-07 on the draft map dated 

June 12, 2006; however, the Service’s 

assessment indicates that these 

private properties are appropriate 

for removal from Unit DE-07P. The 

boundary of the unit is also modified 

to include minor portions (an island 

and an eroding peninsula) of the 

Delaware Seashore State Park within 

Unit DE-07 where it is impractical 

from a mapping perspective to 

delineate them as OPA.

Final Recommended Unit: The final 

recommended map dated March 

18, 2016, creates new System Unit 

DE-07. Included within this new 

unit are the following areas: large 

areas of associated aquatic habitat in 

Rehoboth Bay and Indian River Bay 

(primarily open water); privately 

held lands and associated aquatic 

habitat on the coastal barrier that 

are outside the Delaware Seashore 

State Park boundary and currently 

within OPA Unit DE-07P; associated 

aquatic habitat adjacent to the 

Fresh Pond area of the State Park; 

and the entirety of Beach Cove. 

Minor portions of the State Park are 

included within System Unit DE-07 

in cases where it is impractical from 

a mapping perspective to delineate 

them as OPA.

There are several developed 

areas within this new unit that are 

reclassified from an existing OPA 

to System Unit including: The 

Chancellery subdivision and a few 

other privately owned lots located 

immediately north of the State Park; 

Zacharias Cove subdivision; and 

Wharton’s Cove subdivision. The 

Service’s assessment indicates that 

these areas met the CBRA criteria 

for an undeveloped coastal barrier 

(16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)) at the time 

they were originally included within 

the CBRS and therefore are not 

appropriate for removal.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

C-4
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit DE-07, 

Delaware Seashore, Delaware (continued)

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastand Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 0 0 0 0.0

Added to the CBRS 194 0 194 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 5,164 51 5,113 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 5,358 51 5,307 0.1

Net Change 5,358 51 5,307 0.1 0 

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer 

than 200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-5
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit DE-07P, 

Delaware Seashore, Delaware

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North Bethany 

Beach, in Sussex County, Delaware

Congressional District: At Large

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit DE-07P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2015

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

DE-07P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the boundary of 

Unit DE-07P (via notice published 

in the Federal Register (79 FR 

21787) on April 17, 2014) to account 

for shoreline erosion at the tip of 

Cedar Neck. This modification was 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit DE-07P. 

These minor modifications may 

include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. The boundary 

of the unit is also modified to 

include within OPA Unit DE-07P 

minor portions of private property 

where it is impractical to delineate 

them as System Unit. Similarly, 

minor portions of the Delaware 

Seashore State Park are included 

within System Unit DE-07 where 

it is impractical to delineate them 

as OPA. A boundary is also added 

along the shoreline of the excluded 

area between Units DE-07P and 

H01, which closes it off at the 

shoreline and adds nearshore waters 

to Unit DE-07P.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit DE-07P, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit DE-07P to remove 

from the CBRS numerous private 

properties and associated structures, 

including: five structures within 

and west of Rehoboth Indian Beach 

development; about 45 structures 

within and south of the South 

Shore Marina community; about 37 

structures within Breakwater Beach 

subdivision; and one structure within 

Cotton Patch Hills subdivision.

The boundary of the unit is also 

modified to align with the boundary 

of Delaware Seashore State Park 

and to add to the CBRS the State 

Park’s acquisition of the Fresh Pond 

area. The addition of the Fresh Pond 

area of the State Park includes a 

Delmarva Power electrical facility, but 

because the only prohibition within 

OPAs is on Federal flood insurance, 

it will not be affected by its inclusion 

within the unit. Minor portions of 

the State Park are included within 

adjacent System Unit DE-07 where 

it is impractical to delineate them as 

OPA. Similarly, minor portions of 

private property are included within 

Unit DE-07P where it is impractical 

to delineate them as System Unit.

Areas that are not within the State 

Park and are currently within OPA 

Unit DE-07P, including the open 

water areas and associated aquatic 

habitat in Rehoboth Bay and Indian 

River Bay, and the privately held 

lands and associated aquatic habitat 

on the coastal barrier that were 

undeveloped at the time the unit was 

established, are recommended for 

reclassification to System Unit DE07. The Service’s review found no 

documentation indicating that these 

areas are held for conservation and/

or recreation (in accordance with 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

definition of an OPA); however, they 

do meet the criteria for a System 

Unit. 

The Service’s final recommended map 

depicts changes to the CBRS that will 

only become effective if the updated 

map is adopted through legislation 

enacted by Congress.

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

C-6
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit DE-07P, 

Delaware Seashore, Delaware (continued)

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 7,400 866 6,534 6.8 N/A

Added to the CBRS 699 408 291 1

Removed from the CBRS 78 38 40 88 

Reclassified Area (5,164) (51) (5,113) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 2,857 1,185 1,672 7.0

Net Change (4,543) 319 (4,862) 0.2 (87)

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer 

than 200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-7
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit H01,

North Bethany Beach, Delaware

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: North of Bethany 

Beach, in Sussex County, Delaware 

Congressional District: At Large

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit H01 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2015

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 

97-348 enacted on October 18, 1982) 

originally established Unit H01.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

southwestern boundary of Unit H01 

to remove from the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) an area 

that was incorrectly identified as 

wetlands in 1982.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the landward 

boundary of Unit H01 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register

(79 FR 21787) on April 17, 2014) to 

account for erosion and channel 

migration of an unnamed stream. 

This modification was made in 

accordance with Section 3 of 

Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit H01. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit H01, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit H01 to remove 

from the CBRS development that 

was on-the-ground in 1982 as 

intended by Pub. L. 97-348 (one 

structure on a parcel south of Cotton 

Patch Hills subdivision and ten 

structures in the Bayberry Dunes 

subdivision). The boundary of the 

unit is also modified to add to the 

CBRS associated aquatic habitat in 

the northwest corner of the unit and 

follow a portion of the Unit DE-07P 

boundary, which coincides with 

the Delaware Seashore State Park 

boundary.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 171 125 46 0.7

Added to the CBRS 4 1 3 0

Removed from the CBRS 5 5 0 11 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 170 121 49 0.7

Net Change (1) (4) 3 0.0 (11)

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer 

than 200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

C-8
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

4280000mN

4278000mN

4276000mN

4274000mN

4272000mN

4270000mN

4268000mN

4

98000mE 496000mE 494000mE 492000mE 490000mE

DELAWARE 

SEASHORE

STATE PARK

REHOBOTH

BAY

INDIAN RIVER

BAY

1

Indian River

Inlet

BURTON

ISLAND

Lynch

Thicket

ATLANTIC OCEAN

North Bethany

Beach

CEDAR 

NECK

Long Neck Road

DELAWARE SEASHORE

STATE PARK

DELAWARE

SEASHORE

STATE PARK

FRESH POND

DE-07P

H01

Beach Cove

LONG

NECK

DE-07P

DE-07

DE-07

DE-07P

EXCLUDED

DE-07P

EXCLUDED

DE-07

EXCLUDED

Delaware Seashore Unit DE-07/DE-07P

North Bethany Beach Unit H01

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 1 March 18, 2016

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 18 North

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

C-9
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-01, 

Pine Island Bay, North Carolina

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: North of Duck, 

in Currituck and Dare Counties, 

North Carolina

Congressional District: 3

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit NC-01 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2014

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) originally 

established Unit NC-01 (under 

this Act the unit was established as 

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) 

Unit NC-01P). 

Historical Changes to Unit: Pub. 

L. 102-440 (enacted on October 

23, 1992) modified the boundary 

of Unit NC-01P to include within 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System (CBRS) only areas owned 

by the National Audubon Society (a 

private conservation organization) 

and reclassified this unit from 

Unit NC-01P to Unit NC-01.

Pub. L. 106-332 (enacted on October 

19, 2000) further modified the 

boundary of Unit NC-01 to align 

with the National Audubon Society’s 

Pine Island Sanctuary (now known 

as Donal C. O’Brien, Jr. Sanctuary 

and Audubon Center) property 

boundary and to add associated 

aquatic habitat.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) modified the 

boundary of Unit NC-01 along 

the shoreline of the excluded 

area (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (80 FR 25314) on 

May 4, 2015) to better follow the 

shoreline as depicted on an updated 

base map. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit NC-01. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

NC-01. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. A county-owned 

water plant was inadvertently 

included within a proposed addition 

to the CBRS on the draft map 

dated June 12, 2006. The minor 

modification of the boundary of Unit 

NC-01 to better align with parcel 

data results in the removal of this 

plant from the area recommended 

for addition to the CBRS. In 

addition, an area within Audubon’s 

Pine Island Sanctuary and Center 

(including existing structures and 

future development as indicated 

on Audubon’s master plan) is now 

recommended for reclassification 

from System Unit NC-01 to OPA 

Unit NC-01P. The remainder of the 

Sanctuary will remain within System 

Unit NC-01.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit NC-01, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit NC-01 to better 

align with the boundary of the 

Audubon’s Pine Island Sanctuary 

and Center, which results in some 

small additions and removals. 

In addition, an area within the 

Sanctuary (including existing 

structures and future development 

as indicated on Audubon’s master 

plan) is reclassified from System 

Unit NC-01 to OPA Unit NC-01P. 

The remainder of the Sanctuary will 

remain within System Unit NC-01.

The properties in Pine Island 

Reserve subdivision were owned by 

Audubon when the area was added 

to the CBRS and, therefore, are not 

recommended for removal. This 

area was later sold by Audubon into 

private ownership and developed.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-10

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-01, 

Pine Island Bay, North Carolina (continued)

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 7,174 193 6,981 0.4

Added to the CBRS 15 10 5 0

Removed from the CBRS 2 2 0 0 

Reclassified Area (39) (20) (19) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 7,148 181 6,967 0.4

Net Change (26) (12) (14) 0.0 0 

C-11

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer 

than 200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-01P, 

Pine Island Bay, North Carolina

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Recommended new 

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North of Duck, in 

Currituck County, North Carolina

Congressional District: 3

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit NC-01P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2014

Establishment of Unit: Almost all of 

the area recommended for inclusion 

within new OPA Unit NC-01P is 

currently within existing System 

Unit NC-01, which was established 

by the Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (CBIA) (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted 

on November 16, 1990). A minor 

portion of the area recommended 

for inclusion within the new unit 

is currently not within the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS).

Recommended new Unit NC-01P 

meets the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act (CBRA) criteria 

for an undeveloped coastal barrier 

(16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)) and is 

consistent with the CBRA definition 

of an OPA, which is 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” (Section 12 of the CBIA). 

The area recommended for inclusion 

within this new unit is maintained 

for conservation and/or recreation 

purposes by the National Audubon 

Society (a private conservation 

organization).

Public Comments: The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Service) held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit NC-01P 

because it is a recommended new 

unit that did not exist at the time 

of the comment period. For a 

summary of the comments received 

on other pilot project units and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

During the preparation of the 

final recommended maps for the 

pilot project, the Service found 

that the three structures in the 

small excluded area for System 

Unit NC-01 are now owned by the 

National Audubon Society. Following 

coordination with Audubon, an area 

within Audubon’s Donal C. O’Brien, 

Jr. Sanctuary and Audubon Center 

at Pine Island (including existing 

structures and future development 

as indicated on Audubon’s master 

plan) is reclassified from System 

Unit NC-01 to OPA Unit NC-01P. 

The existing excluded area 

(including three structures) is now 

recommended for addition to OPA 

Unit NC-01P. The remainder of 

the Sanctuary will remain within 

System Unit NC-01. If the final 

recommended map for Units NC01 and NC-01P is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress, 

Audubon will be eligible for Federal 

flood insurance for the structures 

within the OPA that are used in a 

manner consistent with the purpose 

for which the area is protected.

Final Recommended Unit: The final 

recommended map dated March 18, 

2016, creates new OPA Unit NC01P. Included within this new unit 

are areas owned by the National 

Audubon Society that are part of 

the Donal C. O’Brien, Jr. Sanctuary 

and Audubon Center at Pine Island 

(including three structures currently 

within a small excluded area of Unit 

NC-01, other existing structures, and 

future development as indicated on 

Audubon’s master plan).

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 0 0 0 0.0

Added to the CBRS 2 2 0 3

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 39 20 19 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 41 22 19 0.0

Net Change 41 22 19 0.0 3 

C-12

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with 

fewer than 200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

Fosters Channel

keerC slleW

A T L A N T I C O CEA N

C U R R I T U C K SOUN D

DEWS ISLAND

MARSH

ISLAND

NORTH

BURRIS

ISLAND

SOUTH

BURRIS

ISLAND

INDIAN

GAP

ISLAND

HOG ISLANDS

B e a s l e y

B a y

Goat Island

Bay

Pine

Island

Bay

Baums Creek

Beach Creek

Little

Goat Island

Bay

12

12

PINE ISLAND

SANCTUARY

NC-01

EXCLUDED

NC-01P

NC-01

NC-01

4018000mN

4014000mN

4012000mN

4010000mN

4008000mN

4006000mN

4

32000mE 4

28000mE 426000mE 424000mE 4

20000mE

4016000mN

4

22000mE 430000mE

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 2 March 18, 2016

Pine Island Bay Unit NC-01/NC-01P This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2014

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 18 North

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles

C-13
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-05P, 

Roosevelt Natural Area, North 

Carolina

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: West of Atlantic 

Beach, in Carteret County, North 

Carolina

Congressional District: 3

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit NC-05P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2014

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

NC-05P.

Historical Changes to Unit: Pub. 

L. 102-440 (enacted on October 23, 

1992) modified the boundary of Unit 

NC-05P to include within the CBRS 

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

only areas owned by the State of 

North Carolina.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the northern 

boundary of Unit NC-05P (via 

notice published in the Federal 

Register (80 FR 25314) on May 

4, 2015) to account for erosion 

along the shoreline of Bogue 

Sound. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit NC-05P. 

These minor modifications may 

include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit NC-05P, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit NC-05P to align 

with the boundaries of Theodore 

Roosevelt Natural Area and North 

Carolina Aquarium at Pine Knoll 

Shores, both of which are owned by 

the State of North Carolina, and to 

extend the unit approximately one 

mile off-shore into Bogue Sound.

The Service’s final recommended 

map dated March 18, 2016, depicts 

changes to the CBRS that will only 

become effective if the updated 

map is adopted through legislation 

enacted by Congress.

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 295 182 113 0.0

Added to the CBRS 650 3 647 0

Removed from the CBRS 1 1 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 944 184 760 0.0

Net Change 649 2 647 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-14

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

BOGUE SOUND

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Indian Beach

Pine Knoll Shores Atlantic Beach

Theodore Roosevelt

 Natural Area

Hoop Pole Creek

Morehead City

58

70

70

24

58

NC-05P

3846000mN

3844000mN

3842000mN

3840000mN

3838000mN

3836000mN

3

38000mE 336000mE 334000mE 332000mE 330000mE 3

28000mE 340000mE 3848000mN

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 3 March 18, 2016

Roosevelt Natural Area Unit NC-05P This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2014

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 18 North

C-15
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-06, 

Hammocks Beach, North Carolina

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Recommended new 

System Unit

Location of Unit: East of Jacksonville, 

in Onslow County, North Carolina

Congressional District: 3

Date of Final Recommended Maps: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit NC-06 is 

depicted on two maps.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2014

Establishment of Unit: The majority 

of the area recommended for 

inclusion within new System Unit 

NC-06 is currently within existing 

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) 

Unit NC-06P, which was established 

by the Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990). The remainder 

of the area recommended for 

inclusion within the new unit is 

currently not within the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s (Service) review found 

no documentation indicating that 

this area is held for conservation 

and/or recreation (in accordance 

with the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act (CBRA) definition of an 

OPA). However, all areas within 

recommended new Unit NC-06 

either met at the time they were 

first included within the CBRS, or 

for those areas newly added to the 

CBRS, currently meet, the CBRA 

criteria for a System Unit.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

NC-06. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, 

modifications are made to the 

boundary of Unit NC-06 along the 

coincident boundaries with Units 

NC-06P and L05 to account for 

geomorphic change around Bear 

Island and Bear Inlet. Small areas 

of associated aquatic habitat are 

added to the unit along the mouth of 

Queen Creek and near the Highway 

24 bridge over the White Oak River. 

An area behind Emerald Isle (from 

the eastern side of Main Channel to 

the Highway 58 bridge over Bogue 

Sound) was proposed for addition 

to the eastern part of Unit NC-06 

on the draft map dated June 12, 

2006. The eastern boundary of the 

unit is modified so that this area is 

no longer included within the area 

recommended for addition to the 

CBRS. This boundary modification 

is based on an updated protocol 

for the addition of associated 

aquatic habitat behind a developed 

barrier to the CBRS (see Issue 14 

in Chapter 4 of the Service’s 2016 

Final Report to Congress). 

Final Recommended Unit: The final 

recommended map dated March 

18, 2016, creates new System Unit 

NC-06. Included within this new 

unit are the following areas: the 

dynamic undeveloped spits located at 

the eastern end of Bear Island and 

the western end of Emerald Isle; 

associated aquatic habitat and small 

undeveloped islands located landward 

of Bear Island; and the entire width 

of Bogue Inlet, Main Channel, and 

the Intracoastal Waterway. Minor 

portions of Hammocks Beach State 

Park are included within Unit NC-06 

in cases where it was impractical 

from a mapping perspective to 

delineate them as OPA.

The Service’s final recommended 

maps depict changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated maps are adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-16

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-06, 

Hammocks Beach, North Carolina (continued)

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0 0 0 0.0

Added to the CBRS 1,219 11 1,208 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 5,417 170 5,247 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 6,636 181 6,455 1.4

Net Change 6,636 181 6,455 1.4 0 

C-17

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-06P, 

Hammocks Beach, North Carolina

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: East of 

Jacksonville, in Onslow and Carteret 

Counties, North Carolina

Congressional District: 3

Date of Final Recommended Maps: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit NC-06P is 

depicted on two maps.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2014

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

NC-06P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the northern 

lateral boundary of Unit NC-06P 

(via notice published in the Federal 

Register (80 FR 25314) on May 4, 

2015) to reflect natural changes 

that have occurred to Bear Island 

and Bogue Inlet. A portion of the 

southern lateral boundary of the unit 

was modified to reflect the current 

location of Sanders Creek. The 

location of the shoals in Bear Inlet 

has been dynamic, and so has the 

location of the Bear Inlet channel. 

Additionally, the southern lateral 

boundary of the unit is coincident 

with Unit L05. The boundary in 

this area was simply generalized, 

and the geomorphic features of 

the inlet at the time were not used 

to determine the placement of the 

boundary. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit NC-06P. 

These minor modifications may 

include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, 

modifications are made to the 

boundary of Unit NC-06P along 

the coincident boundaries with 

Units NC-06 and L05 to account for 

geomorphic change around Bear 

Island and Bear Inlet.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit NC-06P, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended maps 

dated March 18, 2016, modify the 

boundary of Unit NC-06P to create 

three discrete segments of the unit, 

including two areas of Hammocks 

Beach State Park that were already 

included within Unit NC-06P, and 

to add to the CBRS a portion of 

Hammocks Beach State Park on the 

mainland that was not already within 

the unit.

The following areas currently within 

OPA Unit NC-06P are recommended 

for reclassification to recommended 

new System Unit NC-06: private 

undeveloped parcels and associated 

aquatic habitat that are outside 

of Hammocks Beach State Park. 

The Service’s review found no 

documentation indicating that these 

areas are held for conservation and/

or recreation (in accordance with 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

definition of an OPA); however, they 

do qualify for inclusion as a System 

Unit.

Minor portions of private property 

or open water not held for 

conservation and/or recreation 

are included within Unit NC-06P 

where it is impractical to delineate 

them as System Unit. Similarly, 

minor portions of Hammocks Beach 

State Park, including the dynamic 

undeveloped spit located at the 

eastern end of Bear Island, are 

included within System Unit NC-06 

where it is impractical to delineate 

them as OPA. 

The Service’s final recommended 

maps depict changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated maps are adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-18

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-06P, 

Hammocks Beach, North Carolina (continued)

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 6,545 940 5,605 4.2

Added to the CBRS 35 31 4 5

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area (5,418) (170) (5,248) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,162 801 361 3.2

Net Change (5,383) (139) (5,244) (1.0) 5 

C-19

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit L05, Onslow 

Beach Complex, North Carolina

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of 

Jacksonville, in Onslow County, 

North Carolina

Congressional District: 3

Date of Final Recommended Maps: 

March 18, 2016 (northern segment 

of Unit L05) and November 20, 2013 

(southern segment of Unit L05)

Number of Maps: Unit L05 is 

depicted on two maps.

Base Map Imagery Sources 

and Dates: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, National Agriculture 

Imagery Program, 2014 (northern 

segment of unit); State of North 

Carolina, 2010, and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, National Agriculture 

Imagery Program, 2012 (southern 

segment of unit)

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA) (Pub. L. 97-348 enacted 

on October 18, 1982) originally 

established Unit L05.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

boundary of Unit L05 was 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map through the Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990). No modifications were made 

to the boundary of the unit at that 

time.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the southern 

lateral boundary of the southern 

segment of Unit L05 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register (80 

FR 25314) on May 4, 2015) to follow 

the center of New River Inlet up the 

New River channel. The boundary 

of the unit was also modified due 

to channel migration along Wards 

Channel through to its junction 

with New River. In the northern 

segment of the unit, the northern 

lateral boundary was modified to 

follow the center of Shacklefoot 

Channel and Sanders Creek through 

to its junction with Bear Inlet. The 

location of the shoals in Bear Inlet 

has been dynamic, and so has the 

location of the Bear Inlet channel. 

Additionally, the northern lateral 

boundary of the unit is coincident 

with Unit NC-06P. The boundary 

in this area was simply generalized, 

and the geomorphic features of 

the inlet at the time were not used 

to determine the placement of the 

boundary. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit L05. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit L05. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, modifications are made to 

the boundary of Unit L05 along the 

coincident boundaries with Units 

NC-06 and NC-06P to account for 

geomorphic change around Bear 

Island and Bear Inlet. Modifications 

are also made along the landward 

boundary of the unit to include 

additional areas of associated aquatic 

habitat located northwestward of the 

Intracoastal Waterway.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit L05, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to Unit: 

The final recommended maps dated 

November 20, 2013, and March 18, 

2016, modify the boundary of Unit 

L05 to add to the CBRS associated 

aquatic habitat located on both sides 

of the Intracoastal Waterway and 

undeveloped spoil islands. 

The Service’s final recommended 

maps depict changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated maps are adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Additional Comments: The date 

of the final recommended map 

for the southern segment of this 

unit, November 20, 2013, differs 

from the map date for most of the 

units in the pilot project. This is 

because adjacent Unit L06 was the 

subject of legislation (H.R. 187) 

during the 113th Congress, and 

the Service’s final recommended 

maps for that unit (one of which 

also contains a portion of Unit L05) 

were transmitted to Congress on 

April 8, 2014, as part of testimony 

for a hearing before the House 

Natural Resources Subcommittee 

on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and 

Insular Affairs.

The existing CBRS boundary for 

Unit L05 depicted on the final 

recommended map dated November 

20, 2013, has been superseded by 

the boundary depicted on a revised 

map dated August 1, 2014, to reflect 

changes that have occurred as a 

result of natural forces. Please see 

the map dated August 1, 2014 on the 

Service’s website at: www.fws.gov/

cbra for information regarding the 

current location of the boundary of 

Unit L05.

C-20

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit L05, 

Onslow Beach Complex, North Carolina (continued)

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 3,010 545 2,465 10.4

Added to the CBRS 3,502 75 3,427 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 1 0 1 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 6,513 620 5,893 10.5

Net Change 3,503 75 3,428 0.1 0 

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-21
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit L06, 

Topsail, North Carolina

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of 

Jacksonville, in Onslow County, 

North Carolina

Congressional District: 3

Date of Final Recommended Maps: 

November 20, 2013

Number of Maps: Unit L06 is 

depicted on two maps.

Base Map Imagery Sources and 

Dates: State of North Carolina, 

2010, and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, National Agriculture 

Imagery Program, 2012

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 

97-348 enacted on October 18, 1982) 

originally established Unit L06.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit L06 to include new 

areas within the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the landward 

boundary of Unit L06 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register 

(80 FR 25314) on May 4, 2015) to 

reflect natural changes that occurred 

in the configuration of the marsh, 

wetland/fastland interface, and 

the location of New River Inlet. 

Due to the dynamic nature of the 

New River Inlet and the adjacent 

barrier island to the northeast of 

the unit, the boundary through the 

inlet was modified and generalized 

to account for conditions at the 

time and the potential for future 

change. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 3 

of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John. H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit L06. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the boundary of the unit 

is modified to include additional 

areas of associated aquatic habitat 

located landward of the Intracoastal 

Waterway, and to include the entire 

width of the Intracoastal Waterway 

within the CBRS. The boundary 

of the northern excluded area is 

modified to better follow the breakin-development at the time this 

portion of the unit was established, 

and to better follow the current 

location of the shoreline, which has 

eroded significantly.

In the course of reviewing the 

existing boundary of Unit L06, it 

was determined that the Service 

had incorrectly depicted the 

existing southern lateral boundary 

of the unit on the draft map for 

the pilot project dated June 12, 

2006. The existing boundary is 

actually located approximately 

75 feet further southwest than is 

shown on that map. Because the 

Service recommends no change to 

the boundary of Unit L06 in that 

location, the final recommended 

boundary has been adjusted by 

75 feet southwest to the actual 

location of the existing boundary. 

No structures are affected by this 

correction to the placement of the 

existing boundary for Unit L06.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit L06, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended maps 

dated November 20, 2013, modify 

the boundary of Unit L06 to remove 

several private properties from 

the CBRS, including: about 41 

structures along Waterway Drive in 

the vicinity of Alligator Bay; about 

30 structures at the northern end 

of North Topsail Beach (which are 

now included within the northern 

excluded area); five structures 

along Shell Drive in the vicinity of 

Chadwick Bay; and two structures 

on the mainland in the vicinity of 

Turkey Creek.

The boundary of Unit L06 is also 

modified to add to the CBRS areas 

of associated aquatic habitat and 

the entire width of the Intracoastal 

Waterway. Small areas of wetlands 

and undeveloped areas of fastland 

are recommended for addition to the 

CBRS along both excluded areas.

The Service’s final recommended 

maps depict changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated maps are adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Additional Comments: The date of 

the final recommended maps for 

this unit, November 20, 2013, differs 

from the map date for most of the 

units in the pilot project. This is 

C-22

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit L06, 

Topsail, North Carolina (continued)

because Unit L06 was the subject 

of legislation (H.R. 187) during the 

113th Congress, and the Service’s 

final recommended maps for this 

unit were transmitted to Congress 

on April 8, 2014, as part of testimony 

for a hearing before the House 

Natural Resources Subcommittee 

on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and 

Insular Affairs.

The existing CBRS boundary for 

Unit L06 depicted on the final 

recommended map dated November 

20, 2013, has been superseded by 

the boundary depicted on a revised 

map dated August 1, 2014, to reflect 

changes that have occurred as a 

result of natural forces. Please see 

the map dated August 1, 2014, on the 

Service’s website at: www.fws.gov/

cbra for information regarding the 

current location of the boundary of 

Unit L06.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 5,785 801 4,984 6.8

Added to the CBRS 169 4 165 0

Removed from the CBRS 89 64 25 78 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 5,865 741 5,124 6.6

Net Change 80 (60) 140 (0.2) (78)

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-23
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3840000mN

3838000mN

3836000mN

3834000mN

3832000mN

3830000mN

3828000mN

3

12000mE 310000mE 308000mE 306000mE 304000mE 302000mE 3 E 3

14000mE

ATLANTIC OCEAN

BOGUE INLET

58 24

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

Cedar Point

HAMMOCKS BEACH

STATE PARK

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

Queen Creek

Swansboro

24

W h i t e O a k R i v e r

Main Channel

HUGGINS

ISLAND

BEAR ISLAND

Banks Channel

Emerald Isle

B O G U E S O U N D

58

NC-06

NC-06P

NC-06P

NC-06P

Cow Channel

HAMMOCKS BEACH

STATE PARK

HAMMOCKS BEACH

STATE PARK

Hammocks Beach Unit NC-06/NC-06P (1 of 2)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 4 March 18, 2016

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 18 North

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

C-24
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

ATLANTIC

OCEAN BROWNS

INLET

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

NC-06P

L05

BEAR

INLET

BEAR

ISLAND

Sanders Creek

HAMMOCKS

BEACH

STATE PARK

Freeman Creek

172

Sanders

Creek

Shacklefoot

Channel

Bear

Creek

MARINE CORPS BASE

CAMP LEJEUNE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

L05

L05

NC-06

L05

3840000mN

3838000mN

3836000mN

3834000mN

3832000mN

3830000mN

3828000mN

3

00000mE 298000mE 296000mE 294000mE 2

90000mE 2

92000mE 302000mE

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 5 March 18, 2016

Hammocks Beach Unit NC-06/NC-06P (2 of 2) 

Onslow Beach Complex L05 (1 of 2) 

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2014

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 18 North

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles

C-25
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3826000mN

3824000mN

3822000mN

3820000mN

3818000mN

3816000mN

3814000mN

2

88000mE 286000mE 284000mE 282000mE 292000mE 290000mE

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

L05

L06

Traps Bay

STUMP SOUND

NEW

RIVER

INLET

Chadwick

Bay

Fullard Creek

 EXCLUDED

 EXCLUDED

Sneads Ferry

Mile

Hammock

Bay

Salliers

Bay

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

N e w R i v e r

Wards

Channel

MARINE CORPS BASE

CAMP LEJEUNE

77°23'11"

77°15'12"

34°26'35" 34°26'29"

34°34'3"

77°23'2"

34°34'9"

77°15'21"

Onslow Beach Complex L05 (2 of 2)

Topsail Unit L06 (1 of 2)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

3

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service to show the Service's final recommended boundary

changes to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources

System as directed by Section 3 of the Coastal Barrier

Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-226).

*The "Existing Boundary" shown on this map was digitized to

approximately represent the location of the center of the roughly

80-100 foot thick controlling boundaries shown on the current

official CBRS map for the area. The "Existing Boundary" has

not been fit to the new underlying base map imagery, and

should not be relied on as the official CBRS boundaries for this

area. The official CBRS map for this area is available for

viewing and download at www.fws.gov/cbra.

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Imagery Date(s):

Imagery Source(s):

2010 and 2012 

State of North Carolina and

United States Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983 

North Carolina Statewide Mapping System

Lambert Conformal Conic Projection

3654000mN

November 20, 2013

90°45'0" Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American

Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), Western Hemisphere

2000- meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values, Zone 18 North

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter 

"P" following the unit number

Existing System Unit Boundary (approximate)* 

Existing OPA Boundary (approximate)*

C-26
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3826000mN

3824000mN

3822000mN

3820000mN

3818000mN

3816000mN

3814000mN

2

80000mE 278000mE 276000mE 274000mE 272000mE 270000mE

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

Goose

Bay

Alligator Bay

UV210

Rogers

Bay

Everett Bay

ASHE ISLAND

PERMUDA ISLAND

S T U M P S O U N D

North Topsail Beach

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

Turkey Creek

L06

Mill

Creek

£¤17

UV172

77°31'2"

77°23'3"

34°26'22" 34°26'16"

34°33'50"

77°30'53"

34°33'56"

77°23'12"

Topsail Unit L06 (2 of 2)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

3

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service to show the Service's final recommended boundary

changes to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources

System as directed by Section 3 of the Coastal Barrier

Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-226).

*The "Existing Boundary" shown on this map was digitized to

approximately represent the location of the center of the roughly

80-100 foot thick controlling boundaries shown on the current

official CBRS map for the area. The "Existing Boundary" has

not been fit to the new underlying base map imagery, and

should not be relied on as the official CBRS boundaries for this

area. The official CBRS map for this area is available for

viewing and download at www.fws.gov/cbra.

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Imagery Date(s):

Imagery Source(s):

2010 and 2012 

State of North Carolina and

United States Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983 

North Carolina Statewide Mapping System

Lambert Conformal Conic Projection

3654000mN

November 20, 2013

90°45'0" Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American

Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), Western Hemisphere

2000- meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values, Zone 18 North

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter 

"P" following the unit number

Existing System Unit Boundary (approximate)* 

Existing OPA Boundary (approximate)*

C-27
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit M02, 

Litchfield Beach, South Carolina

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: Northeast of 

Georgetown, in Georgetown County, 

South Carolina

Congressional District: 7

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit M02 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2015

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 

97-348 enacted on October 18, 1982) 

originally established Unit M02.

Historical Changes to Unit: 

The boundary of Unit M02 was 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map through the Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act (Pub. L. 101-591 

enacted on November 16, 1990). 

No modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the landward 

boundary of Unit M02 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register

(79 FR 21787) on April 17, 2014) to 

account for channel migration along 

Clubhouse Creek, wetlands loss, 

and the accretion of the Litchfield 

Beach sand spit and associated 

shoals. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit M02. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the northern boundary 

is moved back to its original 1982 

position to avoid adding four private 

properties (including two houses 

constructed in 1999 and 2000 

that did not appear on the 1999 

underlying aerial imagery used for 

the draft map dated June 12, 2006). 

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit M02, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit M02 to include 

portions of Clubhouse Creek channel 

in the unit and to add to the CBRS 

associated aquatic habitat between 

the coastal barrier and the mainland. 

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 110 28 82 1.2

Added to the CBRS 331 0 331 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 441 28 413 1.2

Net Change 331 0 331 0.0 0 

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-28

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit M03, Pawleys 

Inlet, South Carolina

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: East of 

Georgetown, in Georgetown County, 

South Carolina

Congressional District: 7

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit M03 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2015

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 

97-348 enacted on October 18, 1982) 

originally established Unit M03.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit M03 to add to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) associated aquatic habitat.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the boundary of 

Unit M03 (via notice published in the 

April 17, 2014) to include emergent 

marsh, account for channel migration 

at the north end of the unit, and 

reflect natural changes to the wetland/

fastland interface on the landward 

side of the unit. These modifications 

were made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows for 

modifications to the CBRS boundaries 

to reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary of the 

comments received and the Service’s 

responses, see Chapter 4 and 

Appendix E of the 2016 Final Report 

to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System Digital 

Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit M03. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the northern boundary of 

the unit is adjusted to the south by 

approximately 20 feet to place it in 

the same location as the original 1982 

boundary; the landward boundary is 

substantially revised to better follow 

the wetland/fastland interface and to 

add to the CBRS wetland areas; and, 

the southern boundary is modified 

to follow the west side of Beach 

Bridge Road, adding a small area of 

undeveloped uplands.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit M03, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit M03 to include 

the entire width of the channel of 

a stream between Pawleys Island 

and the mainland, to add to the 

CBRS wetland areas, and to follow 

more precisely the wetland/fastland 

interface on the landward side of 

the unit. The boundary of the unit 

is also modified to align with the 

southern property parcel line of a 

large undeveloped parcel that is 

already mostly within the unit. This 

change puts the entire property 

(including a small area of fastland) 

within the CBRS.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 183 10 173 0.6

Added to the CBRS 48 3 45 0

Removed from the CBRS 1 0 1 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 230 13 217 0.6

Net Change 47 3 44 0.0 0 

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

Federal Register (79 FR 21787) on

C-29

Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

17

Inlet

Midway

Waccamaw River

17 Pawleys Island

ATLANTIC OCEAN

1717

Inlet

Midway

Waccamaw River

17

M03

Clubhouse

Creek

Litchfield Beach

Debidue Beach

M02

3708000mN

3706000mN

3704000mN

3702000mN

3700000mN

3698000mN

3696000mN

3694000mN

6

76000mE 674000mE 672000mE 670000mE 668000mE 666000mE 6

78000mE

Litchfield Beach Unit M02

Pawleys Inlet Unit M03

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 8 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2015

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-30
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-01, 

Fort Clinch, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Recommended new 

System Unit

Location of Unit: Northeast of 

Jacksonville on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Nassau County, Florida

Congressional District: 4

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-01 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: Approximately 

half of the area recommended for 

inclusion within new System Unit 

FL-01 is currently within existing 

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) 

Unit FL-01P, which was established 

by the Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990). The remainder 

of the area recommended for 

inclusion within the new unit is 

currently not within the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS).

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s (Service) review found no 

documentation indicating that this 

area is held for conservation and/

or recreation (in accordance with 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act (CBRA) definition of an 

OPA). However, all areas within 

recommended new Unit FL-01 

either qualified at the time they were 

first included within the CBRS, or 

for those areas newly added to the 

CBRS, currently qualify for inclusion 

within a System Unit.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated June 

12, 2006, from April 7 through August 

5, 2009. There are no comments 

specific to Unit FL-01. For a 

summary of the comments received 

on other pilot project units and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project. 

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit FL-01. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the western boundary of the 

unit is modified to add wetlands on 

the west side of Egans Creek, which 

are part of the associated aquatic 

habitat.

Final Recommended Unit: The final 

recommended map dated March 

18, 2016, creates new System Unit 

FL-01. Included within this new 

unit are the wetlands along Egans 

Creek from the North 14th Street 

Extension to State Highway A1A 

(Atlantic Avenue).

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0 0 0 0.0

Added to the CBRS 248 4 244 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 222 2 220 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 470 6 464 0.0

Net Change 470 6 464 0.0 0 

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-31
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-01P, 

Fort Clinch, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Northeast of 

Jacksonville on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Nassau County, Florida

Congressional District: 4

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-01P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-01P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-01P (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

to review the maps of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

at least once every five years and 

make any modifications to the 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces. No modifications were made 

to the boundary of the unit at that 

time.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to FL-01P. For a 

summary of the comments received 

on other pilot project units and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit FL-01P. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary to 

updated base map imagery.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-01P to align 

with the boundaries of Fort Clinch 

State Park and Dee Dee Bartels 

Nature Center and Fishing Pier 

(managed by Nassau County) and 

to add to the CBRS the portions of 

these conservation and/or recreation 

areas that are not already within 

the unit. The boundary of the unit 

is also modified on the north side 

to extend further into the Atlantic 

Ocean to clarify that the entire 

barrier spit and jetty are included 

within the OPA. 

The wetlands along Egans Creek 

that are not within the State Park 

and are currently within OPA 

Unit FL-01P are recommended 

for reclassification to System 

Unit FL-01. The Service’s 

review found no documentation 

indicating that this area is held for 

conservation and/or recreation (in 

accordance with the CBRA definition 

of an OPA); however, it does qualify 

for inclusion within a System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 1,750 1,058 692 1.9

Added to the CBRS 187 145 42 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area (222) (2) (220) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,715 1,201 514 1.9

Net Change (35) 143 (178) 0.0 0 

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-32
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3402000mN

3400000mN

3398000mN

3396000mN

3394000mN

3392000mN

3390000mN

3388000mN

4

64000mE 462000mE 460000mE 458000mE 4

56000mE 4

54000mE 4

52000mE

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

FORT CLINCH STATE PARK

ATLANTIC OCEAN

A M E L I A R I V E R

C U M B E R L A N D S O U N D

ATLANTIC OCEAN

A M E L I A I S L A N D

A1A

A1A

Fernandina

Beach

LITTLE TIGER ISLAND

Egans 

Creek

108

FORT

CLINCH

CUMBERLAND 

ISLAND

NATIONAL 

SEASHORE

ST. MARYS ENTRANCE

TIGER ISLAND

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

FL-01P

FL-01

CBRS Unit in this area not shown - See official

map for Cumberland Island Unit N06/N06P

A1A

Fort Clinch Unit FL-01/FL-01P

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 9 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-33
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P04A, 

Usina Beach, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: North of 

St. Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, 

in St. Johns County, Florida

Congressional District: 4*

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P04A is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on October 

18, 1982) originally established Unit 

P04A.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

northern boundary of Unit P04A to 

remove an area that was developed 

in 1982, and adjusted the landward 

boundary to add associated aquatic 

habitat to the unit.

Pub. L. 105-277 (enacted on October 

21, 1998) modified the boundary of 

adjacent System Unit P05. Unit 

P04A is depicted on the same map as 

Unit P05, but the boundary of Unit 

P04A was not modified at that time.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the landward 

boundary of Unit P04A (via notice 

published in the Federal Register 

(81 FR 13407) on March 14, 2016) 

to reflect natural changes that 

occurred in the configuration of the 

wetland/fastland interface. The 

northern portion of the boundary 

was modified to account for channel 

migration along Robinson Creek. In 

addition, the name of the unit was 

changed from “Usinas Beach” to 

“Usina Beach” to correct a spelling 

error. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

P04A. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, the 

boundary of the unit is modified to 

add to the CBRS the undeveloped 

northern tip of Camachee Island 

(aka Comatchie Island) and wetlands 

on the northern side of the unit near 

Usina Beach (east of the Tolomato 

River). The boundary of the unit 

is also modified in order to remove 

several small areas of fastland 

that were thought to be wetlands 

and therefore were inadvertently 

proposed for addition to the CBRS 

on the draft map dated June 12, 2006 

(a minor area of wetlands is also 

removed as a result).

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit P04A, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit P04A to remove 

from the CBRS two condominium 

buildings in the Las Palmas on the 

Intracoastal community and fastland 

located near the Fort Mosé Historic 

State Park Visitor Center. These 

areas are recommended for removal 

because the wetland/fastland 

interface that the boundary was 

intended to follow along portions of 

the landward boundary of the unit 

was not depicted correctly on the 

base map used for the October 24, 

1990, CBRS map which first added 

those areas to Unit P04A.

The boundary of the unit is also 

modified to add to the CBRS on the 

northern side of the unit wetlands 

near Usina Beach (east of the 

Tolomato River) and the entire width 

of the Tolomato River, Robinson 

Creek, and several unnamed 

streams.

Portions of Fort Mosé Historic 

State Park are located within 

Unit P04A. Because sufficient 

information regarding the dates 

of acquisition was not available for 

this conservation and/or recreation 

area at the time the draft map 

was prepared, none of the State 

Park lands within the unit are 

recommended for reclassification as 

an OPA. The portion of the State 

Park area within Unit P04A as 

depicted on the final recommended 

map is about 30 acres (mostly 

wetlands), and has been within the 

CBRS since 1990.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

*This Congressional District will take 

effect in the 115th Congress.

C-34
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P04A, 

Usina Beach, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 669 46 623 0.4

Added to the CBRS 61 5 56 0

Removed from the CBRS 5 3 2 2 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 725 48 677 0.4

Net Change 56 2 54 0.0 (2)

C-35

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P05,

Conch Island, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: East of St. 

Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in 

St. Johns County, Florida

Congressional District: 4*

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P05 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (Pub. 

L. 97-348 enacted on October 18, 1982) 

originally established Unit P05.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit P05 to add to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) undeveloped coastal barrier 

and associated aquatic habitat.

Pub. L. 104-333 (enacted on 

November 12, 1996) modified the 

northern boundary of Unit P05 to 

remove from the CBRS certain 

private properties. The maps 

revised by this law were later 

invalidated by a court order on 

March 5, 1998 (Coastal Alliance v. 

Babbitt, Civil Action No. 97-1344 

(D. D.C.)). 

Pub. L. 105-277 (enacted on October 

21, 1998) reinstated the maps 

revised by Pub. L. 104-333 (including 

the map for Unit P05) that were 

previously invalidated by court order.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the northern 

boundary of Unit P05 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register

(81 FR 13407) on March 14, 2016) 

along the eastern shoreline of the 

Tolomato River, north of Vilano 

Point, to account for natural changes 

that occurred in the configuration 

of the shoreline. The landward 

boundary of the unit and a portion 

of the coincident boundary between 

Units P05 and P05P were modified 

to reflect natural changes that 

occurred in the configuration of 

the wetland/fastland interface. 

These modifications were made 

in accordance with Section 3 of 

Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P05. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit P05, and issued revised maps 

(see Historical Changes to Unit 

section above) between 2014 and 

2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit P05 to remove 

from the CBRS nine private 

properties (including six structures) 

in the Porpoise Point subdivision. 

The properties (comprising about 

five acres) are recommended 

for removal because the CBRS 

boundary changes adopted by 

Pub. L. 105-277 for Unit P05 were 

intended to remove these particular 

properties from the CBRS. 

However, this law did not remove 

from the CBRS Lots 7 to 13, Block 8.

The boundary of the unit is also 

modified to add to the CBRS 

wetlands around the Vilano Boat 

Ramp parking lot; the entire width 

of the Matanzas River channel down 

to the Bridge of the Lions; and the 

entire width of the Salt Run channel. 

The boundary is modified to remove 

from the CBRS an area within the 

Ponce de Leon’s Fountain of Youth 

Archaeological Park.

The final recommended map 

reclassifies the southern portion of 

Conch Island from System Unit P05 

to Otherwise Protected Area Unit 

P05P because that area was held 

for conservation and/or recreation 

as Anastasia State Park at the time 

Unit P05 was established. Although 

the northern portion of Conch Island 

is also part of Anastasia State Park, 

it was not acquired until after the 

unit was established and therefore 

will remain within the CBRS as 

System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

*This Congressional District will take 

effect in the 115th Congress.

C-36
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P05, 

Conch Island, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 1,974 573 1,401 2.6

Added to the CBRS 259 5 254 0

Removed from the CBRS 9 2 7 7 

Reclassified Area (408) (226) (182) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,816 350 1,466 1.6

Net Change (158) (223) 65 (1.0) (7)

C-37

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P05P, 

Conch Island, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: East of St. 

Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in 

St. Johns County, Florida

Congressional District: 4*

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P05P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit P05P.

Historical Changes to Unit: Pub. 

L. 105-277 (enacted on October 

21, 1998) modified the boundary of 

adjacent System Unit P05. Unit 

P05P is depicted on the same map as 

Unit P05, but the boundary of Unit 

P05 was not modified at that time.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the coincident 

boundary between Units P05 and 

P05P (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 13407) on 

March 14, 2016) to reflect natural 

changes that occurred in the 

configuration of the wetland/fastland 

interface. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 3 

of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows for 

modifications to the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) boundaries 

to reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P05P. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit P05P, and issued revised maps 

(see Historical Changes to Unit 

section above) between 2014 and 

2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit P05P to align with 

the boundary of Anastasia State Park 

as it existed in 1982 when the adjacent 

System Unit P05 was established.

The final recommended map 

reclassifies the southern portion of 

Conch Island from System Unit P05 

to OPA Unit P05P because that area 

was held for conservation and/or 

recreation as Anastasia State Park 

at the time Unit P05 was established. 

Although the northern portion of 

Conch Island is also part of Anastasia 

State Park, it was not acquired until 

after the unit was established and 

therefore will remain within the 

CBRS as System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended map 

depicts changes to the CBRS that will 

only become effective if the updated 

map is adopted through legislation 

enacted by Congress.

*This Congressional District will take 

effect in the 115th Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 699 569 130 1.6

Added to the CBRS 0 0 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 3 3 0 1 

Reclassified Area 408 226 182 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,104 792 312 2.6

Net Change 405 223 182 1.0 (1)

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-38
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3314000mN

3312000mN

3310000mN

3308000mN

3306000mN

3304000mN

3302000mN

4

76000mE 474000mE 472000mE 470000mE 468000mE 466000mE 464000mE

ST. AUGUSTINE - ST. JOHNS

COUNTY AIRPORT

P04A

T O L O M AT O R I V E R

C O N C H I S L A N D

ANASTASIA

STATE PARK

St. Augustine Inlet

CAPE

FRANCIS VILANO

POINT

Vilano Beach

St. Augustine

1

1

A1A

A1A

A1A

ATLANTIC OCEAN

USINA

BEACH

College Park

16

16

1

207

207

312

FORT MOSE

HISTORIC

STATE PARK

ANASTASIA 

STATE

PARK

St. Augustine 

Beach

Robinson 

Creek

A1A

S A N S E B A S T I A N R I V E R

M A T A N Z A S R I V E R

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

P05P

P05

P05P

P05

COMATCHIE

ISLAND

ANASTASIA

ISLAND

Salt Run

Usina Beach Unit P04A

Conch Island Unit P05/P05P

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 10 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-39
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P08, 

Ponce Inlet, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of St. 

Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Volusia County, Florida

Congressional District: 6

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P08 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 

97-348 enacted on October 18, 1982) 

originally established Unit P08.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit P08 to add to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) associated aquatic habitat.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the southeastern 

boundary of Unit P08 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register

(81 FR 13407) on March 14, 2016) to 

include the sand sharing system as 

visible on an updated base map. A 

portion of the western boundary was 

modified to reflect natural changes 

that occurred in the configuration 

of the shoreline along Leon Cut. 

The northwestern portion of the 

boundary was modified to follow 

the center of the Spruce Creek 

channel. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P08. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the northern boundary of 

the unit near Lighthouse Point Park 

is adjusted to match the existing 

boundary, which was placed offshore to exclude the dock structures 

associated with a large marina. The 

boundary is modified to add to Unit 

P08 minor portions of Lighthouse 

Point Park where it is impractical 

to delineate them as Otherwise 

Protected Area (OPA). Similarly, 

minor portions of a private parcel 

are included within OPA Unit P08P 

where it is impractical to delineate 

them as System Unit.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit P08, and issued revised maps 

(see Historical Changes to Unit 

section above) between 2014 and 

2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies 

the boundary of Unit P08 to 

remove from the CBRS seven 

private properties (including three 

structures) along South Peninsula 

Drive near Lighthouse Point Park 

and a private property (including 

one warehouse structure) located on 

Dixie Freeway south of New Smyrna 

Beach Municipal Airport. The 

boundary of the unit is also modified 

to add to the CBRS wetlands in 

several locations along the landward 

boundary of the unit; to add to the 

CBRS undeveloped fastland on the 

north side of Lighthouse Point Park; 

and to include within the CBRS the 

entire width of channel waterways.

Lighthouse Point Park and Smyrna 

Dunes Park, both managed by 

Volusia County, were held for 

conservation and/or recreation in 

1982 when the area was added to the 

CBRS. These Parks are, therefore, 

recommended for reclassification 

from System Unit P08 to new OPA 

Unit P08P. Doris Leeper Spruce 

Creek Preserve is also included 

within Unit P08; however, the 

Preserve is not recommended for 

reclassification as an OPA because 

it was created after the unit was 

established. 

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-40
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P08,

Ponce Inlet, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 4,213 656 3,557 1.9

Added to the CBRS 144 7 137 0

Removed from the CBRS 12 4 8 6 

Reclassified Area (293) (224) (69) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 4,052 435 3,617 0.8

Net Change (161) (221) 60 (1.1) (6)

C-41

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P08P,

Ponce Inlet, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Recommended new 

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of St. 

Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Volusia County, Florida

Congressional District: 6

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P08P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: Almost all of 

the area recommended for inclusion 

within new OPA Unit P08P is 

currently within existing System 

Unit P08, which was established by 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA) (Pub. L. 97-348 enacted 

on October 18, 1982). A minor 

portion of the area recommended 

for inclusion within the new unit 

is currently not within the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS).

Recommended new Unit P08P 

meets the CBRA criteria for an 

undeveloped coastal barrier (16 

U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)) and is consistent 

with the CBRA definition of an OPA, 

which is 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” (Section 12 

of the Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act; Pub. L. 101-591). Most of the 

area recommended for inclusion 

within this new unit is maintained 

for conservation and/or recreation 

purposes by Volusia County. 

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit P08P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

P08P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, the 

boundary of the unit is modified to 

reclassify two small parcels from 

System Unit P08 to OPA Unit P08P. 

One parcel has been vested to Volusia 

County, and the County plans to 

include it in Lighthouse Point Park. 

The other parcel is included within the 

OPA because it is impractical from a 

mapping perspective to delineate it as 

System Unit.

Final Recommended Unit: The final 

recommended map dated March 

18, 2016, creates new Unit P08P. 

Included within this new unit are 

Smyrna Dunes and Lighthouse 

Point Park, both managed by Volusia 

County. However, minor portions of 

Lighthouse Point Park are included 

within System Unit P08 in cases 

where it is impractical from a mapping 

perspective to delineate them as 

OPA (i.e., small islands or other 

features that are too small to carve 

out from the surrounding aquatic 

habitat). Similarly, minor portions 

of a parcel that are not conserved 

are included within Unit P08P where 

it is impractical from a mapping 

perspective to delineate them as 

System Unit.

Unit P08P includes an approximately 

three acre parcel within Smyrna Dunes 

Park that is owned by Volusia County 

and is leased to the U.S. Air Force for 

purposes other than conservation and/

or recreation. However, this parcel is 

included within Unit P08P because it is 

impractical from a mapping perspective 

to delineate it as System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended map 

depicts changes to the CBRS that will 

only become effective if the updated 

map is adopted through legislation 

enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 0 0 0 0.0

Added to the CBRS 0 0 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 293 224 69 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 293 224 69 1.1

Net Change 293 224 69 1.1 0 

C-42

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3222000mN

3220000mN

3218000mN

3216000mN

3214000mN

3212000mN

3210000mN

3208000mN

5

12000mE 510000mE 508000mE 506000mE 504000mE 502000m 5

00000mE E

P08

P08

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Ponce de Leon Inlet

Ponce

Inlet

Allandale

Rose Bay

1

NEW SMYRNA BEACH

MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

1

A1A

A1A

Strickland

Bay

Turnbull Bay

H A L I FA X R I V E R

I N D I A N R I V E R N O R T H

New Smyrna Beach

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

Ponce de Leon Cut

Glencoe

44

95

Spruce Creek

P08P

P08P

LIGHTHOUSE

POINT PARK

SMYRNA

DUNES

PARK

44

Ponce Inlet Unit P08/P08P

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 11 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-43
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-13P, 

Spessard Holland Park, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of Palm Bay 

on the Atlantic Coast, in Brevard 

County, Florida

Congressional District: 8

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-13P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) originally 

established Unit FL-13P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-13P (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL13P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies 

the boundary of Unit FL-13P to 

remove from the CBRS 11 private 

properties (including ten structures) 

in the Rivers Edge subdivision. 

The boundary of the unit is also 

modified to align with Oak Street 

and the boundaries of the following 

conservation and/or recreation areas 

owned by Brevard County: Flutie 

Athletic Complex, Spessard Holland 

North Beach Park, Spessard 

Holland South Beach Park, and 

Spessard Holland Golf Course.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 201 155 46 0.8

Added to the CBRS 2 2 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 4 4 0 10 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 199 153 46 0.8

Net Change (2) (2) 0 0.0 (10)

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-44
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P09A, 

Coconut Point, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: North of Vero 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Brevard County, Florida

Congressional District: 8

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P09A is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on October 

18, 1982) originally established 

Unit P09A.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit P09A to add to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) undeveloped coastal barrier 

and associated aquatic habitat.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the landward 

boundary of Unit P09A (via notice 

published in the Federal Register

(81 FR 13407) on March 14, 2016) to 

reflect natural changes that occurred 

in the configuration of the shoreline 

of Indian River. In addition, the 

boundaries of the two excluded 

areas were modified to reflect 

natural changes that occurred in the 

shoreline of the Indian River and the 

Atlantic Ocean. These modifications 

were made in accordance with 

Section 3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which 

allows for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit P09A. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P09A. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the southern boundary of 

the unit is modified to account for 

the accreting sand spit of an island 

in the Indian River.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit P09A, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

northern boundary of Unit P09A 

to remove from the CBRS nine 

structures in the Averill Farms 

subdivision. The boundary of the 

southern excluded area is shifted 

to align with development that was 

on-the-ground in 1982 when the 

surrounding area was originally 

included within the CBRS. The 

shift results in the removal from 

the CBRS of four condominium 

buildings in The Cove at South 

Beaches Condominium community 

and one structure in the Atlantic 

Shores subdivision, and the addition 

to the CBRS of undeveloped 

fastland (currently managed by 

Brevard County for conservation). 

The southern boundary of Unit 

P09A is also shifted to align with 

the development that was on-theground in 1982 when the area was 

originally included within the CBRS. 

This shift results in the removal 

from the CBRS of 12 structures in 

Riverside Landing of South Brevard 

subdivision and two structures in 

New Melbourne Beach subdivision. 

The southern boundary of the unit is 

modified to account for the accreting 

sand spit of an island in the Indian 

River.

The portions of Coconut Point Park 

(managed by Brevard County) 

that are currently within System 

Unit P09A are recommended 

for reclassification to Otherwise 

Protected Area (OPA) Unit P09AP. 

There are numerous other 

conservation and/or recreation areas 

located within Unit P09A, but only 

Coconut Point Park was held for 

conservation and/or recreation when 

the area was originally included 

within the CBRS.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-45
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P09A, 

Coconut Point, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 3,214 304 2,910 2.0

Added to the CBRS 54 8 46 0

Removed from the CBRS 15 11 4 28 

Reclassified Area (29) (27) (2) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 3,224 274 2,950 1.8

Net Change 10 (30) 40 (0.2) (28)

C-46

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-46
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P09AP, 

Coconut Point, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Recommended new 

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North of Vero 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Brevard County, Florida

Congressional District: 8

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P09AP is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: 

Approximately half of the area 

recommended for inclusion within 

new OPA Unit P09AP is currently 

within existing System Unit P09A, 

which was established by the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA) (Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on 

October 18, 1982). The remainder of 

the area recommended for inclusion 

within the new unit is currently 

not within the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS).

Recommended new Unit P09AP meets 

the CBRA criteria for an undeveloped 

coastal barrier (16 U.S.C. 3503(g)

(1)) and is consistent with the CBRA 

definition of an OPA, which is 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” (Section 12 of the Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act; Pub. L. 

101-591). The area recommended 

for inclusion within this new unit is 

maintained for conservation and/

or recreation purposes by Brevard 

County and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service).

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

P09AP. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

Final Recommended Unit: The final 

recommended map dated March 18, 

2016, creates new OPA Unit P09AP. 

Included within this new unit are 

Coconut Point Park, managed by 

Brevard County, and lands near 

Coconut Point Park that are owned 

and managed by the Service as part 

of the Archie Carr National Wildlife 

Refuge.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0 0 0 0.0

Added to the CBRS 58 54 4 14

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 29 27 2 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 87 81 6 0.7

Net Change 87 81 6 0.7 1 

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not 

include open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with 

National Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer 

than 200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

4 According to the refuge manager, this structure is a former private residence now owned by Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge.

C-47
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3104000mN

3102000mN

3100000mN

3098000mN

3096000mN

3094000mN

3092000mN

5

48000mE 546000mE 544000mE 542000mE 540000mE 538000mE

Melbourne

Beach

ARCHIE CARR

NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

ATLANTIC

OCEAN Palm Bay

Malabar

Valkaria

VALKARIA AIRPORT

EXCLUDED

EXCLUDED

I N D I A N R I V E R

I N D I A N R I V E R

P09A

95

1

A1A

1

1

A1A

A1A

Oak Street

Hog Point

Cove

CAPE MALABAR

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

514

514

ARCHIE CARR

NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

FL-13P

P09AP

P09AP

P09A COCONUT

POINT

COCONUT POINT

PARK

Spessard Holland Park Unit FL-13P

Coconut Point Unit P09A/P09AP

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0.25

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 12 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-48
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P10A, 

Blue Hole, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of Vero 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Indian River and St. Lucie Counties, 

Florida

Congressional Districts: 8 and 18

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P10A is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on October 

18, 1982) originally established Unit 

P10A.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit P10A to add to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) undeveloped coastal barrier 

and associated aquatic habitat and 

remove from the CBRS a small area 

that was developed in 1982.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the southwestern 

portion of the landward boundary of 

Unit P10A (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) to reflect natural 

changes that have occurred in the 

configuration of the shoreline of an 

unnamed channel. The western 

portion of the landward boundary 

of the unit was modified to reflect 

natural changes that occurred in 

the configuration of the wetland/

fastland interface. The eastern and 

western excluded area boundaries 

were modified to reflect natural 

changes that occurred in the 

configuration of the shoreline of 

the Atlantic Ocean and Blue Hole 

Creek. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John. H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

P10A. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, the 

landward boundary of Unit P10A 

is modified to more consistently 

follow several vegetative breaks 

that are visible on the updated base 

map imagery, and to add areas of 

wetlands. Portions of the southern 

landward boundary are adjusted 

around existing large marinas that 

are not currently within the CBRS 

and are no longer recommended for 

addition to the CBRS as originally 

proposed on the draft map dated 

June 12, 2006. Fort Pierce Inlet, an 

area of associated aquatic habitat 

around the Port of Fort Pierce 

(located south of the North Beach 

Causeway), and areas of associated 

aquatic habitat surrounding 

portions of Fort Pierce Inlet State 

Park are no longer recommended 

for addition or reclassification to 

Unit P10A as originally proposed 

on the 2006 draft map. These 

areas are either included within 

the final recommended boundary 

of adjacent Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA) Unit FL-14P or are not 

recommended for addition to the 

CBRS.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit P10A, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of the excluded area within 

Unit P10A to follow more precisely 

the 1982 break-in-development 

and remove from the CBRS three 

condominium buildings and three 

garage structures that are part of 

the Ocean Harbour Condominium 

Complex. The northern boundary 

of the unit is modified to remove 

portions of five private properties 

(including two structures) in 

the Genesea subdivision and six 

private properties (including four 

structures) in the Oyster Bay 

subdivision.

The final recommended map also 

adds portions of associated aquatic 

habitat (including areas within the 

Indian River Aquatic Preserve) to 

Unit P10A. Some of the associated 

aquatic habitat is currently 

located within Unit FL-14P and is 

recommended for reclassification 

from an existing OPA to System 

Unit status because Florida State 

Aquatic Preserves and Outstanding 

Florida Waters do not meet the 

CBRA definition of an OPA.

There are numerous conservation 

and/or recreation areas currently 

located within Unit P10A, but none 

of them were held for conservation 

and/or recreation when the area 

was originally included within the 

CBRS. Therefore, these areas are 

not recommended for reclassification 

from System Unit to OPA status. 

The modifications to the boundary 

of Unit P10A along the excluded 

C-49
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P10A, 

Blue Hole, Florida (continued)

area and the landward side of 

the unit result in the inclusion 

of additional minor portions of 

several conserved areas to the unit 

because it is impractical from a 

mapping perspective to delineate 

them as OPA. Similarly, minor 

portions of some wetlands that are 

not conserved are included within 

adjacent Unit FL-14P where it is 

impractical to delineate them as 

System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 5,725 840 4,885 3.9

Added to the CBRS 1,408 20 1,388 0

Removed from the CBRS 14 11 3 13 

Reclassified Area 519 26 493 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 7,638 875 6,763 3.9

Net Change 1,913 35 1,878 0.0 (13)

C-50

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-14P, 

Pepper Beach, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: East of Ft. Pierce 

on the Atlantic Coast, in St. Lucie 

County, Florida

Congressional District: 18

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-14P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) originally 

established Unit FL-14P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the boundary of Unit 

FL-14P (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 13407) on 

March 14, 2016) along Fort Pierce 

Cut to reflect natural changes that 

occurred in the configuration of the 

shoreline. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John. H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL14P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

The area within existing Unit 

FL-14P is a complex patchwork of 

State- and county-owned parks and 

preserves as well as wetland areas 

that do not have clear ownership 

information. Additionally, land 

ownership in the area has changed 

since the draft map dated June 12, 

2006, was prepared. The Service 

used information submitted during 

the public comment period and 

other State and county sources 

to review the conservation and/or 

recreation areas within Unit FL-14P 

and determine the recommended 

location for the boundary of the unit.

An outcome of this review is the 

addition of North Causeway Island 

Park and portions of Little Jim 

Bridge Park, State Highway A1A 

(North Causeway Drive), and the 

channel on the north and east side 

of Kings Island Preserve to Unit 

FL-14P. Also, Fort Pierce Inlet, an 

area of associated aquatic habitat 

around the Port of Fort Pierce 

(located south of State Highway 

A1A), and areas of associated 

aquatic habitat surrounding portions 

of Fort Pierce Inlet State Park 

are no longer recommended for 

addition or reclassification to Unit 

P10A as originally proposed on 

the 2006 draft map. These areas 

are either included within the 

final recommended boundary of 

adjacent Unit FL-14P or are not 

recommended for addition to the 

CBRS. A boundary is added along 

the shoreline of the two excluded 

areas in Unit FL-14P, which closes 

them off at the shoreline and adds 

the nearshore waters to the unit.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit FL-14P, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-14P to remove 

from the CBRS two structures 

at the end of Oak Street in the 

Fort Pierce Shores subdivision, 

one building (comprised of five 

residences) in the Coastal Coves 

subdivision, and a fire station on the 

north side of Pepper Park. 

The boundary of the unit is also 

modified to generally align with 

the boundaries of Fort Pierce Inlet 

State Park, Wildcat Cove Preserve 

(owned by St. Lucie County), and 

Pepper Park (managed by St. Lucie 

County) and to add to the CBRS 

the portions of these conservation 

and/or recreation areas that are not 

already within the CBRS. Kings 

Island Preserve (owned by St. Lucie 

County), North Causeway Island 

Park, portions of Little Jim Bridge 

Park, and portions of State Highway 

A1A (North Causeway Drive) are 

also added to Unit FL-14P. Other 

conservation and/or recreation 

areas that are currently within (and 

recommended to remain within) 

Unit FL-14P are Coon Island Park 

and Stan Blum Boat Ramp (both 

managed by St. Lucie County).

A minor portion of undeveloped 

private property (less than two 

acres) in the vicinity of Kings Island 

Preserve is included within the 

OPA because it is impractical from 

a mapping perspective to delineate 

it as System Unit. The parcel is 

mostly narrow and follows the 

shoreline around a cove.

The final recommended map 

reclassifies some portions of Stateand privately-owned associated 

aquatic habitat (including spoil 

islands, open water, and wetlands) 

within the Indian River Aquatic 

Preserve from OPA Unit FL-14P to 

System Unit P10A because Florida 

C-51
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-14P, 

Pepper Beach, Florida (continued)

State Aquatic Preserves and 

Outstanding Florida Waters do not 

meet the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act definition of an OPA. Associated 

aquatic habitat around Fort Pierce 

Inlet State Park and Wildcat Cove 

Preserve (also within the Indian 

River Aquatic Preserve) is not 

recommended for reclassification 

where it is impractical to delineate it 

as System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 2,620 270 2,350 0.7

Added to the CBRS 803 69 734 3

Removed from the CBRS 4 3 1 4 

Reclassified Area (519) (26) (493) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 2,900 310 2,590 3.3

Net Change 280 40 240 2.6 (1)

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-52
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3050000mN

3048000mN

3046000mN

3044000mN

3042000mN

3040000mN

3038000mN

5

66000mE 564000mE 562000mE 572000mE 570000mE 568000mE

P10A

Viking

Indrio

EXCLUDED

Saint Lucie

ATLANTIC OCEAN

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

AVALON STATE PARK

Fort Pierce Cut

FORT PIERCE

INLET STATE

PARK

Fort Pierce Inlet

INDIAN RIVER-VERO

BEACH TO FT. PIERCE

AQUATIC PRESERVE

I N D I A N R I V E R

I N D I A N R I V E R

A1A

A1A

A1A

A1A

1

1

1

SAINT LUCIE COUNTY

INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Blue Hole

Creek

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

ROUND

ISLAND

GARFIELD

POINT

A1A

P10A

QUEENS ISLAND

PRESERVE

KINGS

ISLAND

PRESERVE

FL-14P

P10A

P10A

FL-14P

EXCLUDED

FL-14P

EXCLUDED

FL-14P

FORT PIERCE

INLET STATE

PARK

Blue Hole Unit P10A

Pepper Beach Unit FL-14P

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 13 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-53
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P11, 

Hutchinson Island, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: East of Port St. 

Lucie on the Atlantic Coast, in St. 

Lucie County, Florida

Congressional District: 18

Date of Final Recommended Maps: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P11 is 

depicted on two maps.

Base Map Imagery Source and 

Dates: Florida Department of 

Transportation, 2012 and 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on October 

18, 1982) originally established Unit 

P11.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the southern boundary of 

Unit P11 (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (48 FR 17406) on 

April 22, 1983) to include within the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) additional wetlands. This 

modification was made in accordance 

with Section 4(c)(1) of Pub. L. 

97-348, which allowed minor and 

technical boundary modifications as 

necessary to clarify the boundaries 

of the units.

The Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit P11 to add to the 

CBRS undeveloped coastal barrier 

and associated aquatic habitat 

and remove a small area that was 

developed in 1982.

Pub. L. 104-333 (enacted on 

November 12, 1996) modified 

the northern boundary of the 

southernmost excluded area of 

Unit P11 to remove from the CBRS 

certain private properties. The 

maps revised by this law were later 

invalidated by a court order on 

March 5, 1998 (Coastal Alliance v. 

Babbitt, Civil Action No. 97-1344 (D. 

D.C.)). 

Pub. L. 105-277 (enacted on October 

12, 1998) reinstated the maps 

revised by Pub. L. 104-333 (including 

the map for Unit P11) that were 

previously invalidated by court 

order.

The Service modified the eastern 

boundaries of the two excluded areas 

of Unit P11 (via notice published 

in the Federal Register (81 FR 

13407) on March 14, 2016) to reflect 

natural changes that occurred in 

the configuration of the shoreline of 

the Atlantic Ocean. The landward 

boundary of the unit and western 

boundary of the northern excluded 

area were modified to reflect 

natural changes that occurred in 

the configuration of the shoreline of 

Indian River. These modifications 

were made in accordance with 

Section 3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which 

allows for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P11. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the boundary of the middle 

excluded area is modified to add to 

the CBRS mangroves and wetlands 

owned by Dune Walk by the Ocean 

Condominiums and St. Lucie 

County. The southern boundary 

of the unit is modified to maintain 

within the CBRS the undeveloped 

coastal barrier south of the Island 

Village Condominiums property 

(rather than be removed from the 

CBRS as originally proposed on the 

draft map dated June 12, 2006). The 

Service’s assessment indicates that 

this area met the CBRA criteria 

for an undeveloped coastal barrier 

(16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)) at the time it 

was first included within the CBRS 

and therefore is not appropriate for 

removal.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit P11, and issued revised maps 

(see Historical Changes to Unit 

section above) between 2014 and 

2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended maps 

dated March 18, 2016, modify the 

boundary of Unit P11 to remove 

from the CBRS one condominium 

building in Dune Walk by the Ocean 

community, five condominium 

buildings in Ocean Bay Villas 

community, one condominium 

building in Sand Dollar Villas 

community, eight condominium 

buildings in the Island Village 

Condominiums community, several 

maintenance buildings on the Island 

Dunes Country Club property, and 

three county-owned structures 

located near the Ocean Bay Villas 

Condominiums. In addition, 

a portion of the Island Dunes 

Oceanside Condominiums property 

and a private property nearby are 

removed from the unit.

The boundary of the unit is also 

modified to add to the CBRS 

fastland on the northern end of 

the southernmost excluded area 

and near the causeway to Nettles 

Island and to add associated aquatic 

habitat in Jennings Cove east of 

Hook Point, near the nuclear power 

plant, near Dune Walk by the Ocean 

Condominiums, near the causeway 

to Nettles Island, and in the channel 

between Nettles and Hutchinson 

Islands.

C-54
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P11, 

Hutchinson Island, Florida (continued)

Frederick Douglass Memorial Park 

that is owned by St. Lucie County and 

is currently within System Unit P11 

is recommended for reclassification 

to Otherwise Protected Area Unit 

P11P. There are numerous other 

conservation and/or recreation areas 

located within Unit P11, but only 

Frederick Douglass Memorial Park 

was held for conservation and/or 

recreation when the area was included 

within the CBRS.

The Service’s final recommended maps 

depict changes to the CBRS that will 

only become effective if the updated 

maps are adopted through legislation 

enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 16,155 661 15,494 9.8

Added to the CBRS 60 7 53 0

Removed from the CBRS 19 17 2 19 

Reclassified Area (17) (12) (5) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 16,179 639 15,540 9.6

Net Change 24 (22) 46 (0.2) (19)

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-55
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P11P, 

Hutchinson Island, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Recommended new 

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: East of Port St. 

Lucie on the Atlantic Coast, in St. 

Lucie County, Florida

Congressional District: 18

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P11P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and 

Date: Florida Department of 

Transportation, 2012

Establishment of Unit: All of the area 

recommended for inclusion within 

new OPA Unit P11P is currently 

within existing System Unit P11, 

which was established by the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on October 

18, 1982).

Recommended new Unit P11P 

meets the CBRA criteria for an 

undeveloped coastal barrier (16 

U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)) and is consistent 

with the CBRA definition of an 

OPA, which is 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” 

(Section 12 of the Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act; Pub. L. 101-591). 

The area recommended for inclusion 

within this new unit is maintained 

for conservation and/or recreation 

purposes by St. Lucie County.

Public Comments: The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) held a 120-

day public comment period on the 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project (pilot 

project) draft maps dated June 12, 

2006, from April 7 through August 

5, 2009. There are no comments 

specific to Unit P11P. For a 

summary of the comments received 

on other pilot project units and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P11P. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. 

Final Recommended Unit: The final 

recommended map dated March 18, 

2016, creates new OPA Unit P11P. 

Included within this new unit is 

Frederick Douglass Memorial Park, 

which is owned by St. Lucie County. 

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0 0 0 0.0

Added to the CBRS 0 0 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 17 12 5 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 17 12 5 0.2

Net Change 17 12 5 0.2 0 

C-56

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3036000mN

3034000mN

3032000mN

3030000mN

3028000mN

3026000mN

3024000mN

5

72000mE 570000mE 568000mE 578000mE 576000mE 574000mE

Fort

Pierce

H U T C H I N S O N I S L A N D

P11

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

Indian River Estates

Ankona

EXCLUDED

1

1

1

P11

A1A

A1A

A1A

I N D I A N R I V E R

I N D I A N R I V E R

SAVANNAS PRESERVE

STATE PARK

JENSEN BEACH TO

JUPITER INLET

AQUATIC PRESERVE

BEAR

POINT

MIDDLE

POINT

HERMAN BAY

POINT

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

HOOK POINT

P11P

P11

FREDERICK DOUGLASS

MEMORIAL PARK

Jennings 

Cove

Hutchinson Island Unit P11/P11P (1 of 2)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 14 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2012

Florida Department of Transportation 

C-57
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3022000mN

3020000mN

3018000mN

3016000mN

3014000mN

3012000mN

3010000mN

5

78000mE 576000mE 574000mE 572000mE 570000mE 568000mE

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

EXCLUDED

EXCLUDED

Walton

Jensen

Beach

Ocean Breeze

Park

Rio

North River

Shores

P11

H U T C H I N S O N I S L A N D

A1A

A1A

A1A

NETTLES

ISLAND

I N D I A N R I V E R

I N D I A N R I V E R

SAVANNAS PRESERVE

STATE PARK

JENSEN BEACH TO

JUPITER INLET

AQUATIC PRESERVE

ST. LUCIE RIVER

N O R T H F O R K S T. L U C I E R I V E R

1

1

1

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

Railroad

P11

Hutchinson Island Unit P11 (2 of 2)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 15 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2012, 2013

Florida Department of Transportation 

C-58
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-15, 

Blowing Rocks, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: North of West 

Palm Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Martin County, Florida

Congressional District: 18

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-15 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) originally 

established Unit FL-15.

Historical Changes to Unit: Pub. 

L. 103-461 (enacted on November 

2, 1994) modified the northern and 

southern boundaries of Unit FL-15 

to include within the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) only 

areas that were undeveloped at the 

time of their inclusion within the 

CBRS.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) transferred and fitted to an 

updated base map the boundary of 

Unit FL-15 (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the CBRS at least once 

every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-15. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-15. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

southern boundary of Unit FL15 to remove from the CBRS two 

private properties (including three 

structures) in the Blowing Rocks 

subdivision and some associated 

aquatic habitat in Jupiter Sound. 

The northern boundary of the unit 

is also modified to add to the CBRS 

associated aquatic habitat in Jupiter 

Sound and the portions of the area 

owned by The Nature Conservancy 

that are not already within the unit.

Most of the area currently within 

Unit FL-15 is the Blowing Rocks 

Preserve, owned by The Nature 

Conservancy, a private conservation 

organization. The Nature 

Conservancy’s property is not 

recommended for reclassification 

to an Otherwise Protected Area, 

although it was held for conservation 

when Unit FL-15 was established. 

There is evidence in the Service’s 

records that, in 1990, this privately 

owned conservation area was 

deliberately included by Congress 

within the CBRS as a System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 217 98 119 1.0

Added to the CBRS 8 2 6 0

Removed from the CBRS 16 2 14 3 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 209 98 111 0.9

Net Change (8) 0 (8) (0.1) (3)

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-59
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-16P, 

Jupiter Beach, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North of West Palm 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in Palm 

Beach County, Florida

Congressional District: 18

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-16P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-16P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the western boundary of 

Unit FL-16P (via notice published 

in the Federal Register (81 FR 

13407) on March 14, 2016) to reflect 

natural changes that occurred in 

the configuration of the shoreline of 

an unnamed channel near Jupiter 

Beach Park. A portion of the 

northern boundary was modified to 

reflect natural changes that occurred 

in the configuration of the shoreline 

of Jupiter Inlet. These modifications 

were made in accordance with 

Section 3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which 

allows for modifications to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) boundaries to reflect 

changes that have occurred as a 

result of natural forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit FL-16P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL16P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. The boundary 

of the unit is also modified to add 

to the CBRS a parcel that was 

purchased by Palm Beach County 

for conservation and/or recreation 

purposes in 2008 and is now part 

of DuBois Park. The landward 

boundary of the unit in the vicinity 

of the Palm Beach Ridge by the 

Sea property is modified to follow 

the shoreline (like the existing 

CBRS boundary) instead of the 

parcel boundary. With this change, 

minor portions of associated 

aquatic habitat that are not within 

Jupiter Beach Park are maintained 

within Unit FL-16P (rather than 

be removed from the CBRS as 

originally proposed on the June 12, 

2006 draft map).

The Service conducted a review 

for natural changes of all of the 

existing units in the pilot project, 

including Unit FL-16P, and issued 

revised maps (see Historical 

Changes to Unit section above) 

between 2014 and 2016. Therefore, 

some of the changes originally 

proposed by the pilot project 

have already been adopted and 

will not be reflected in the Final 

Recommended Changes to Unit 

section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-16P to align 

with the boundaries of DuBois 

Park and Jupiter Beach Park, both 

owned by Palm Beach County, and 

to add to the CBRS the portions of 

these Parks which are not already 

within the unit. In addition, the 

northern boundary is modified to 

more consistently follow the center 

of the Loxahatchee River and the 

channel on the south side of the 

DuBois Park peninsula.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-60
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-16P, 

Jupiter Beach, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 51 34 17 0.3

Added to the CBRS 17 7 10 2

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 68 41 27 0.4

Net Change 17 7 10 0.1 2 

C-61

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-17P, 

Carlin, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North of West Palm 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in Palm 

Beach County, Florida

Congressional Districts: 18

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-17P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-17P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-17P (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit FL-17P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL-17P. 

These minor modifications may 

include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery. 

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-17P to remove 

from the CBRS the following 

properties that are partially within 

the OPA: Park Plaza Apartments 

Condominiums; Jupiter Bay East 

Condominiums; and Bella Vista 

on the Park Condominiums. This 

boundary modification removes 

three structures on the Park 

Plaza Apartments Condominiums 

property.

The boundary of the unit is also 

modified to align with the boundary 

of Carlin Park, managed by Palm 

Beach County, and to add to the 

CBRS the portions of the Park 

which are not already within the 

unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 100 88 12 0.5

Added to the CBRS 18 17 1 0

Removed from the CBRS 1 1 0 3 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 117 104 13 0.6

Net Change 17 16 1 0.1 (3)

C-62

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

2988000mN

2986000mN

2984000mN

2982000mN

2980000mN

2978000mN

2976000mN

5

86000mE 596000mE 594000mE 592000mE 590000mE 588000mE

Tequesta

Jupiter Inlet

Beach Colony

FL-16P

Jupiter Inlet

JUPITER BEACH

PARK

A1A

Jupiter

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

95

1

A1A

1

1

A1A

JONATHAN DICKINSON

STATE PARK

H O B E S O U N D

Jupiter

Sound

J U P I T E R I S L A N D

JENSEN BEACH

TO JUPITER INLET

AQUATIC PRESERVE

CARLIN PARK

406

INTRACOASTAL

WATERWAY

L O X A H AT C H E E R I V E R

BLOWING

ROCKS

PRESERVE

FL-17P

FL-15

DUBOIS

PARK

JUPITER BEACH

Blowing Rocks Unit FL-15

Jupiter Beach Unit FL-16P

Carlin Unit FL-17P

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 16 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-63
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-18P, 

MacArthur Beach, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: East of North Palm 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in Palm 

Beach County, Florida

Congressional District: 18

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-18P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-18P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-18P (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit FL-18P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL18P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies 

the boundary of Unit FL-18P to 

align with the boundary of John 

D. MacArthur Beach State Park 

and to remove from the CBRS 

three condominium buildings 

and one associated structure in 

the Greathouse Condominium 

community; five lots in Old Port 

Village subdivision; and a portion 

of St. Paul of the Cross Catholic 

Church property.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 844 156 688 1.6

Added to the CBRS 2 1 1 0

Removed from the CBRS 5 3 2 4 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 841 154 687 1.6

Net Change (3) (2) (1) 0.0 (4)

C-64

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

2974000mN

2972000mN

2970000mN

2968000mN

2966000mN

2964000mN

2962000mN

5

98000mE 596000mE 594000mE 592000mE 590000mE 588000mE

Juno

Beach

FL-18P

North Palm Beach

Lake Park

Riviera Beach

Palm Beach

Shores

John D. MacArthur

Beach State Park

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

ATLANTIC

OCEAN

95

95

95

Lake Worth Inlet

PEANUT

ISLAND

LAKE WORTH

1

1

1

Lake Worth

Creek

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

MUNYON

ISLAND

MacArthur Beach Unit FL-18P

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 17 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-65
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-19P, 

Birch Park, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of Fort 

Lauderdale on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Broward County, Florida

Congressional District: 22

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-19P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-19P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-19P (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit FL-19P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL19P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, 

approximately ten acres of beach 

property, managed by the City of 

Fort Lauderdale as a public beach 

and used for recreational purposes, 

will not be reclassified to new 

System Unit FL-19 as originally 

proposed on the draft map dated 

June 12, 2006. This property is 

currently within (and recommended 

to remain within) OPA Unit FL-19P. 

Because proposed new Unit FL-19 

only contained this public beach, 

that proposed new unit no longer 

exists.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-19P to align 

with the boundary of Hugh Taylor 

Birch State Park and to add to the 

CBRS the portions of the State Park 

which are not already within the 

unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 84 67 17 0.4

Added to the CBRS 106 52 54 4

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 190 119 71 0.4

Net Change 106 52 54 0.0 4 

C-66

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

2902000mN

2900000mN

2898000mN

2896000mN

2894000mN

2892000mN

2890000mN

2888000mN

5

98000mE 596000mE 594000mE 592000mE 590000mE 588000mE 586000mE

Sunrise

E Sunrise Boulevard

E Oakland Park Boulevard

1

Sea Ranch

Lakes

A1A

Fort

Lauderdale

E Las Olas Boulevard

95

N Dixie Highway

HUGH

TAYLOR

BIRCH

STATE

PARK

FORT LAUDERDALE BEACH

811

811

ATLANTIC OCEAN

Lauderdale-by-the-Sea

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

Middle River

New River

870

FL-19P

Birch Park Unit FL-19P

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 18 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-67
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-20P, 

Lloyd Beach, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Southeast of 

Ft. Lauderdale on the Atlantic 

Coast, in Broward County, Florida

Congressional District: 23

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-20P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-20P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-20P (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

to review the maps of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

at least once every five years and 

make any modifications to the 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces. No modifications were made 

to the boundary of the unit at that 

time.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit FL-20P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL20P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, the 

northern boundary is modified to 

maintain within the OPA a small 

area of beach that is part of the John 

U. Lloyd Beach State Park (rather 

than be removed from the CBRS 

as originally proposed on the June 

12, 2006 draft map). The northern 

boundary is also extended to the 

center of the inlet at Lake Mabel.

The southern boundary of Unit FL20P is modified to maintain within 

the CBRS a property containing a 

marina, fishing pier, and beach park 

owned by the City of Dania Beach 

(rather than be removed from the 

CBRS as originally proposed on 

the draft map dated June 12, 2006). 

During the preparation of the final 

recommended maps for the pilot 

project, the Service found that this 

property is held for conservation 

and/or recreational purposes and 

therefore meets the CBRA definition 

of an OPA. With this modification, 

a small private undeveloped parcel 

north of the Dania Beach property 

also remains within Unit FL-20P 

because it is an inholding surrounded 

by conservation and/or recreation 

areas.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-20P to remove 

from the CBRS a U.S. Coast Guard 

parcel, a parcel owned by a private 

university, and an area subleased to 

the U.S. Navy. The boundary of the 

unit is also modified along the north 

to extend to the center of the inlet at 

Lake Mabel and along the west and 

south to more consistently follow the 

center of the Intracoastal Waterway 

and Whiskey Creek, respectively.

The conservation and/or recreation 

areas that are currently within (and 

recommended to remain within) 

Unit FL-20P are: John U. Lloyd 

Beach State Park; a small parcel 

held for conservation and owned 

by the City of Hollywood; property 

held for recreation and owned by the 

City of Dania Beach; and a private 

inholding.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-68
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-20P, 

Lloyd Beach, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 396 227 169 2.6

Added to the CBRS 16 0 16 0

Removed from the CBRS 36 22 14 16 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 376 205 171 2.7

Net Change (20) (22) 2 0.1 (16)

C-69

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System P14A, 

North Beach, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of 

Ft. Lauderdale on the Atlantic 

Coast, in Broward County, Florida

Congressional District: 23

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P14A is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on October 

18, 1982) originally established Unit 

P14A.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

boundary of Unit P14A was 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map through the Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990). No modifications were made 

to the boundary of the unit at that 

time.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) transferred and fitted to 

an updated base map the boundary 

of Unit P14A (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the CBRA 

to review the maps of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

at least once every five years and 

make any modifications to the 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces. No modifications were made 

to the boundary of the unit at that 

time.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit P14A. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P14A. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. 

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit P14A to align with 

property parcel data and to include 

within the CBRS the entire width of 

the Intracoastal Waterway.

Hollywood North Beach Park, 

managed by Broward County, is 

located within Unit P14A, but is not 

recommended for reclassification 

as an Otherwise Protected Area 

because the Park was created 

in 1986 after Unit P14A was 

established.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 110 71 39 0.8

Added to the CBRS 40 3 37 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 150 74 76 0.8

Net Change 40 3 37 0.0 0 

C-70

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

2886000mN

2884000mN

2882000mN

2880000mN

2878000mN

2876000mN

2874000mN

5

98000mE 596000mE 594000mE 592000mE 590000mE 588000mE 586000mE

South Lake

North Lake

INTRACOASTAL

WATERWAY

HOLLYWOOD 

NORTH BEACH

PARK

ATLANTIC OCEAN

WEST LAKE

Dania

Beach E Dania Beach Boulevard

Sheridan Street

5

Hollywood Boulevard

A1A

E Hallandale Beach Boulevard

5

1 A1A

Stranahan River

595

WEST LAKE

PARK

1

P14A

P14A

FL-20P

Lake

Mabel

JOHN U. LLOYD BEACH

STATE PARK

Hollywood

Lloyd Beach Unit FL-20P

North Beach Unit P14A

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 19 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-71
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-39, 

Tavernier Key, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of Key Largo 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County, Florida

Congressional District: 26

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-39 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit FL-39.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the eastern 

boundary of Unit FL-39 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register

(58 FR 60288) on November 15, 

1993) to more accurately follow the 

wetland/fastland interface. This 

modification was made in accordance 

with Section 4(e) of Pub. L. 101-591, 

which allowed minor and technical 

boundary modifications as necessary 

to clarify the boundaries of the units.

The Service modified the 

northeastern boundary of Unit 

FL-39 (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) to account 

for emergent mangroves along 

Plantation Key. A boundary 

segment was added to the northern 

and southern lateral boundaries to 

clarify that Tavernier Key is located 

within the unit. These modifications 

were made in accordance with 

Section 3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which 

allows for modifications to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) boundaries to reflect 

changes that have occurred as a 

result of natural forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John. H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-39. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. Additionally, the 

northern boundary of the northern 

segment of the unit is modified to 

include within the CBRS the entire 

width of the Intracoastal Waterway. 

The boundary is also modified to add 

to the CBRS mangroves and a pond 

to the northern segment of the unit 

and a small undeveloped mangrove 

island to the southern segment of 

the unit.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit FL-39, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-39 to add to 

the CBRS associated aquatic habitat 

(including mangroves in and around 

Community Harbor) and the entire 

width of the Intracoastal Waterway.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 1,210 6 1,204 0.8

Added to the CBRS 143 0 143 0

Removed from the CBRS 1 0 1 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,352 6 1,346 0.8

Net Change 142 0 142 0.0 0 

C-72

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-40, 

Snake Creek, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of Key Largo 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County, Florida

Congressional District: 26

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-40 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-40.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the boundary of adjacent 

System Unit FL-39 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register 

(58 FR 60288) on November 15, 

1993). Unit FL-40 is depicted on 

the same map as Unit FL-39, but 

the boundary of Unit FL-40 was not 

modified at that time.

The Service transferred and 

fitted to an updated base map the 

boundary of Unit FL-40 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register

(81 FR 13407) on March 14, 2016) in 

association with the requirement in 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

to review the maps of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

at least once every five years and 

make any modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces. No modifications were made 

to the boundary of the unit at that 

time.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-40. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-40. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, the 

northern boundary of the northern 

segment of the unit is modified 

to include within the CBRS the 

entire width of the Intracoastal 

Waterway. The western boundary 

of the southern segment is modified 

to include within the CBRS all of 

Snake Creek channel and an area of 

associated aquatic habitat.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-40 to add 

to the CBRS undeveloped coastal 

barrier and associated aquatic 

habitat on the north side of U.S. 

Highway 1, which would add a 

second segment to the unit. The 

boundary of the unit is also modified 

to add smaller undeveloped areas 

south of U.S. Highway 1.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 110 10 100 0.9

Added to the CBRS 2,041 6 2,035 4

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 2,151 16 2,135 1.1

Net Change 2,041 6 2,035 0.2 4 

C-73

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

2762000mN

2760000mN

2758000mN

2770000mN

2768000mN

2766000mN

2764000mN

5

50000mE 548000mE 546000mE 544000mE 542000mE 540000mE

FL-40

FL-39

FL-39

Snake Creek

Plantation

Key

Tavernier

FLORIDA BAY

EVERGLADES

NATIONAL PARK

1

1

WINDLEY

 KEY

PLANTATION POINT

Whale Harbor Channel

H AW K C H A N N E L

Tavernier

Creek

1

1

Burton Drive

TAVERNIER

KEY

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

HAWK CHANNEL

Islamorada

FL-40

Community

Harbor

Tavernier Key Unit FL-39

Snake Creek Unit FL-40

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 20 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-74
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-43, 

Channel Key, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of Key Largo 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County, Florida

Congressional District: 26

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-43 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit FL-43.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-43 (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to FL-43. For a 

summary of the comments received 

on other pilot project units and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

There are no changes between 

the proposed boundary of Unit 

FL-43 depicted on the draft map 

dated June 12, 2006, and the final 

recommended boundary of the unit 

depicted on the map dated March 18, 

2016. 

Final Recommended Changes to Unit: 

The final recommended map dated 

March 18, 2016, makes no changes to 

the boundary of Unit FL-43.

The Service’s final recommended 

map will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 1,187 0 1,187 0.9

Added to the CBRS 0 0 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,187 0 1,187 0.9

Net Change 0 0 0 0.0 0 

C-75

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-44, 

Toms Harbor Keys, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of Key Largo 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County, Florida

Congressional District: 26

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-44 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-44.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the landward boundary of 

Unit FL-44 (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) to reflect natural 

changes in the configuration of the 

mangroves and shoreline along Toms 

Harbor. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-44. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-44. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, 

the western boundary of the unit is 

modified to add to the CBRS an area 

of wetlands and mangroves.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit FL-44, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-44 to add 

to the CBRS undeveloped coastal 

barrier and associated aquatic 

habitat on Grassy Key south of U.S. 

Highway 1, the entire width of Duck 

Key Channel, and portions of Toms 

Harbor.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 363 0 363 1.0

Added to the CBRS 194 3 191 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 557 3 554 1.1

Net Change 194 3 191 0.1 0 

C-76

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-45, 

Deer/Long Point Keys, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: North of Key West 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County, Florida

Congressional District: 26

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-45 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit FL-45.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-45 (via notice published in the 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John. H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-45. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. Additionally, the 

eastern and western boundaries of 

the unit are modified to add to the 

CBRS wetlands and mangroves.

A medical examiner’s office and fire 

training facility owned by Monroe 

County, and an electrical relay 

facility owned by the Florida Keys 

Electric Cooperative Association, 

are located within an area that was 

proposed for addition to Unit FL-45 

on the draft map dated June 12, 

2006. The boundary of Unit FL-45 

is modified to exclude these facilities 

from the area recommended for 

addition to the CBRS.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-45 to add to 

the CBRS areas of undeveloped 

coastal barrier and associated 

aquatic habitat (primarily east of 

Little Crawl Key). Within this 

addition, three areas of existing 

development are excluded from the 

CBRS. 

Curry Hammock State Park is 

located within Unit FL-45, but is not 

recommended for reclassification 

to an Otherwise Protected Area 

because the State Park was acquired 

by the State of Florida after Unit 

FL-45 was established.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

Federal Register (81 FR 13407) legislation enacted by Congress.

on March 14, 2016) in association 

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 1,344 343 1,001 1.4

Added to the CBRS 591 141 450 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,935 484 1,451 2.1

Net Change 591 141 450 0.7 0 

C-77

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

2744000mN

2742000mN

2740000mN

2738000mN

2736000mN

2734000mN

2732000mN

5

10000mE 508000mE 506000mE 504000mE 5

02000mE 500000mE 498000mE

FL-45

FL-44

FL-43

CHANNEL KEY

TOMS HARBOR

KEYS

FLORIDA BAY

DEER KEY

LONG POINT KEY

1

1

1

GRASSY Overseas Highway

KEY 

BURNT

POINT

H AW K C H A N N E L

Coca Plum Drive

FAT DEER KEY

Key Colony

Beach

Toms Harbor Cut

Toms Harbor

DUCK KEY

WALKERS

ISLAND

Duck Key

 Channel

LITTLE

CRAWL

KEY

BAMBOO

KEY

EXCLUDED

EXCLUDED

CURRY HAMMOCK

STATE PARK

Channel Key Unit FL-43

Toms Harbor Keys Unit FL-44

Deer/Long Point Keys Unit FL-45

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 21 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-78
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-46, 

Boot Key, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: North of Key West 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County, Florida

Congressional District: 26

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-46 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit FL-46.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-46 (via notice published in the 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-46. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-46. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, 

the northern boundary of the unit 

is modified to add to the CBRS an 

area of mangroves and wetlands 

adjacent to U.S. Highway 1 and on 

the east side of Knight Key. The 

eastern boundary of the unit is 

modified to add areas of associated 

aquatic habitat and an undeveloped 

public beach owned by the City of 

Marathon. The northern boundary 

of the unit is also modified to remove 

a portion of a large commercial 

marina dock that was inadvertently 

proposed for addition to the CBRS 

on the draft map dated June 12, 

2006, because it was not visible 

on the 1999 base map imagery (a 

small portion of this dock that has 

expanded into the existing portion 

of Unit FL-46 will remain within the 

CBRS).

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-46 to remove 

from the CBRS the Federally owned 

property with radio towers that is 

used by the Voice of America. This 

property is located on Vaca Key 

along Sister Creek. Associated 

aquatic habitat (including mangroves 

and wetlands adjacent to U.S. 

Highway 1 and on the east side of 

Knight Key) and an undeveloped 

coastal barrier (comprising less than 

an acre of public beach) are added 

to Unit FL-46, along with the entire 

width of Boot Key Harbor.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 1,212 118 1,094 1.9

Added to the CBRS 189 2 187 0

Removed from the CBRS 13 12 1 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,388 108 1,280 2.0

Net Change 176 (10) 186 0.1 0 

C-79

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

2730000mN

2728000mN

2726000mN

2724000mN

2736000mN

2734000mN

2732000mN

4

96000mE 494000mE 492000mE 490000mE 488000mE 486000mE

FL-46

BOOT KEY

Boot Key Harbor

Marathon

1

1

Overseas Highway

FLORIDA KEYS MARATHON AIRPORT

Marathon

Shores

Sombrero Beach Road

931

SOMBRERO

BEACH

H AW K C H A N N E L

FLORIDA BAY

VACA KEY

Sister

Creek

KNIGHT KEY

Boot Key Unit FL-46

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 22 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-80
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P17A, 

Bowditch Point, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: North of Naples 

on the Gulf Coast, in Lee County, 

Florida

Congressional District: 19

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P17A is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and 

Date: Florida Department of 

Transportation, 2014

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on 

October 18, 1982) originally 

established Unit P17A.

Historical Changes to Unit: 

The boundary of Unit P17A was 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map through the Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act (Pub. L. 101-591 

enacted on November 16, 1990). 

No modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Pub. L. 103-461 (enacted on 

November 2, 1994) modified the 

southern boundary of Unit P17A to 

include within the CBRS only areas 

that were undeveloped at the time 

the unit was established.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) transferred and fitted to 

an updated base map the boundary 

of Unit P17A (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the CBRA 

to review the maps of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

at least once every five years and 

make any modifications to the 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces. No modifications were made 

to the boundary of the unit at that 

time; however, the name of the unit 

was changed from “Bodwitch Point” 

to “Bowditch Point” to correctly 

identify the underlying barrier 

feature.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P17A. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies 

the boundary of Unit P17A to 

include the entire barrier spit at 

the northern end of Estero Island 

(which has accreted into adjacent 

Unit FL-67) within the unit. 

Bowditch Point Park, owned by 

Lee County, is located within Unit 

P17A, but is not recommended for 

reclassification as an Otherwise 

Protected Area because the Park 

was acquired by the County after 

Unit P17A was established. 

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 32 11 21 0.2

Added to the CBRS 2 1 1 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 66 12 54 0.4

Net Change 34 1 33 0.2 0 

C-81

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-67, 

Bunche Beach, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: North of Naples 

on the Gulf Coast, in Lee County, 

Florida

Congressional District: 19

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-67 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and 

Date: Florida Department of 

Transportation, 2014

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-67.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the northern boundary of 

Unit FL-67 (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) to account for 

natural changes that occurred in 

the configuration of an unnamed 

channel south of Big Shell Island. A 

portion of the western boundary of 

the unit was extended westward to 

account for the migration of the sand 

sharing system in San Carlos Bay. 

In addition, the name of this unit 

was changed from “Bunch Beach” to 

“Bunche Beach” to correct a spelling 

error. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-67. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, the 

landward boundary of the unit along 

Shell Point Boulevard is modified 

to add a small area of mangroves 

that is mostly within Estero Bay 

Preserve State Park. Adjacent 

portions of the same State Park 

are already within Unit FL-67 (see 

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below for additional 

information). The boundary of the 

unit near Little Shell Island in the 

Caloosahatchee River is modified 

to maintain an area of associated 

aquatic habitat within the CBRS, 

and the boundary along Punta Rassa 

north of the Sanibel Causeway is 

modified to add two small areas of 

mangroves and wetlands (one on 

north side of the development and 

the other on the south side at the 

Punta Rassa Boat Ramp).

The boundary of the excluded area 

is modified to remove a portion of 

a commercial marina that existed 

at the time the area was included 

within the CBRS. The coincident 

boundary between Unit FL-67 

and recommended new Otherwise 

Protected Area (OPA) Unit FL-67P, 

located south of where County Road 

867 (McGregor Boulevard) and 

County Road 869 (Summerlin Road) 

meet, is modified to add portions 

of Matlacha Pass National Wildlife 

Refuge (owned by the Service) 

to Unit FL-67P. This area was 

originally proposed for addition to 

System Unit FL-67 on the draft map 

dated June 12, 2006.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit FL-67, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-67 to add to 

the CBRS: portions of undeveloped 

coastal barrier and wetlands along 

Punta Rassa, along the excluded 

area boundary around Connie Mack 

Island, and along the landward 

boundary of the unit (both north and 

south of County Road 867); privately 

owned undeveloped islands in the 

Caloosahatchee River; and the entire 

width of several channels. The final 

recommended map also modifies 

the boundary to remove from the 

CBRS the portions of a hotel located 

along Punta Rassa and a commercial 

marina located just east of Connie 

Mack Island both of which were in 

areas that were developed at the 

time they were included within 

Unit FL-67.

The coincident boundary with Unit 

P17A is modified to include the 

entire barrier spit at the northern 

end of Estero Island (which has 

accreted out of Unit P17A and into 

Unit FL-67) within Unit P17A.

There are three conservation and/

or recreation areas located partially 

within Unit FL-67: the Estero Bay 

Preserve State Park; the San Carlos 

Bay – Bunche Beach Preserve 

(managed by Lee County); and 

a portion of the Matlacha Pass 

National Wildlife Refuge (owned by 

the Service).

A small portion of Estero Bay 

Preserve State Park was first 

acquired by the State of Florida 

prior to the establishment of Unit 

FL-67. Many additional areas were 

later added to the State Park. At the 

time the draft map was prepared, 

sufficient information regarding the 

dates of acquisition was not available 

for the State Park parcels within 

Unit FL-67. Therefore, none of the 

State Park lands are recommended 

for reclassification as an OPA. 

C-82
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System FL-67, 

Bunche Beach, Florida (continued)

Additionally, a minor portion of this 

State Park is added to Unit FL-67 

by the final recommended boundary 

because it is impractical from a 

mapping perspective to delineate it 

as OPA. The portions of Matlacha 

Pass National Wildlife Refuge and 

San Carlos Bay – Bunche Beach 

Preserve (with one minor exception) 

that are currently within Unit FL-67 

were acquired for conservation and/

or recreation purposes after the unit 

was established. Therefore, these 

areas are not recommended for 

reclassification as an OPA.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 3,231 87 3,144 4.3

Added to the CBRS 380 6 374 0

Removed from the CBRS 7 3 4 1 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 3,572 90 3,482 4.1

Net Change 341 3 338 (0.2) (1)

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-83
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-67P, 

Bunche Beach, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Recommended new 

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North of Naples 

on the Gulf Coast, in Lee County, 

Florida

Congressional District: 19

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-67P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and 

Date: Florida Department of 

Transportation, 2014

Establishment of Unit: The area 

recommended for inclusion within 

new OPA Unit FL-67P is currently 

not within the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS).

Recommended new Unit FL67P meets the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act (CBRA) criteria for 

an undeveloped coastal barrier (16 

U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)) and is consistent 

with the CBRA definition of an OPA, 

which is 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” (Section 12 

of the Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act; Pub. L. 101-591). The majority 

of the area recommended for 

inclusion within this new unit is 

maintained for conservation and/or 

recreation purposes by Lee County 

and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service). About four acres 

of an approximately five-acre parcel 

of undeveloped private property that 

is not held for conservation and/or 

recreation is included within the new 

OPA. About one acre of this private 

parcel is currently within System 

Unit FL-67.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit FL-67P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL67P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, 

the coincident boundary between 

recommended new OPA Unit 

FL-67P and Unit FL-67, located 

south of where County Road 867 

(McGregor Boulevard) and County 

Road 869 (Summerlin Road) meet, is 

modified to add portions of Matlacha 

Pass National Wildlife Refuge and 

a privately owned parcel that is 

located between two conserved 

parcels to Unit FL-67P. This area 

was originally proposed for addition 

to System Unit FL-67 as depicted on 

the draft map dated June 12, 2006.

Final Recommended Unit: The final 

recommended map dated March 18, 

2016, creates new OPA Unit FL-67P, 

comprised of two discrete segments. 

Included within this new unit are 

portions of the San Carlos Bay – 

Bunche Beach Preserve; portions 

of Matlacha Pass National Wildlife 

Refuge; and a privately owned 

parcel. This minor portion of private 

property is located near County 

Road 867 (McGregor Boulevard) 

between the Preserve and Refuge, 

and it is impractical from a mapping 

perspective to delineate it as System 

Unit. 

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0 0 0 0.0

Added to the CBRS 179 1 178 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 179 1 178 0.0

Net Change 179 1 178 0.0 0 

C-84

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

2936000mN

2934000mN

2932000mN

2930000mN

2928000mN

2926000mN

2924000mN

4

06000mE 404000mE 402000mE 400000mE 398000mE 396000mE

ESTERO BAY

PRESERVE STATE

PARK

Sanibel

POINT

YBEL

Fort Myers Beach

SANIBEL ISLAND

GULF OF MEXICO

Iona

BOWDITCH POINT

PARK

FL-67

EXCLUDED

CONNIE MACK

ISLAND Punta

Rassa

FISHERMAN

KEY

S A N C A R L O S B A Y

MATLACHA PASS

NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

Periwinkle Way

865

867

867

ESTERO BAY

PRESERVE STATE

PARK

ESTERO BAY

AQUATIC PRESERVE

Estero Pass

ESTERO ISLAND

C A L O O S A H A T C H E E R I V E R

Punta Rassa Cove

SAN CARLOS BAY

SWORD

POINT

KITCHEL

KEY

CHARLOTTE HARBOR

PRESERVE STATE PARK

BUNCHE BEACH

Sanibel Causeway

869

SAN CARLOS 

BAY - BUNCHE 

BEACH PRESERVE

P18P

P17A

FL-67P

FL-67P

FL-67

FL-67

LITTLE SHELL

ISLAND

BIG SHELL

ISLAND

867

Pelican

Bay

FL-67

Matanzas Pass

This unit is not revised in the

 pilot project and is depicted

 for informational purposes.

MATLACHA PASS

NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE 

Bowditch Point Unit P17A

Bunche Beach Unit FL-67/FL-67P

Sanibel Island Complex P18P (1 of 2)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 23 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2014

Florida Department of Transportation 

C-85
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P21, Bocilla 

Island, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of Punta 

Gorda Beach on the Gulf Coast, in 

Charlotte County, Florida

Congressional District: 17

Date of Final Recommended Map:

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P21 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on October 

18, 1982) originally established 

Unit P21.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit P21 to add to the 

CBRS associated aquatic habitat, 

and created adjacent Otherwise 

Protected Area (OPA) Unit P21P.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the landward 

boundary of Unit P21 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register 

(81 FR 13407) on March 14, 2016) 

to account for natural changes 

that occurred along the shoreline 

of Lemon Bay in the northern 

discrete segment of the unit. 

These modifications were made 

in accordance with Section 3 of 

Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. For a summary 

of the comments received and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P21. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the landward boundary 

of the southern segment of the 

unit is modified to remove from the 

CBRS two condominium buildings 

and one associated structure in 

the Hacienda Del Mar community. 

These structures are recommended 

for removal because the mangrove 

feature that the CBRS boundary 

was intended to follow was not 

depicted correctly on the base map 

used for the October 24, 1990, CBRS 

map. The landward boundaries of 

both the northern and southern 

discrete segments of the unit are 

also modified to add to the CBRS 

several areas of associated aquatic 

habitat.

Two islands (Buttonwood and 

Rookery) and the surrounding 

aquatic habitat located to the 

north of the Stump Pass Beach 

State Park are added to OPA Unit 

P21P. The islands and aquatic 

habitat, which are owned by the 

Lemon Bay Conservancy (a private 

conservation organization), were 

originally classified as System Unit 

P21 on the draft map dated June 12, 

2006, because it was not known at 

that time that they met the CBRA 

definition of an OPA.

The boundary of Unit P21 is also 

modified along the Cedar Point 

Environmental Park shoreline, 

which results in the addition of 

minor portions of the Park to 

the unit because it is impractical 

from a mapping perspective to 

delineate them as OPA. Similarly, 

minor portions of some wetlands 

that are not in the Cedar Point 

Environmental Park are included 

within Unit P21P where it is 

impractical to delineate them as 

System Unit. 

A boundary is added along the 

shoreline of the excluded area in the 

southern segment of Unit P21, which 

closes it off at the shoreline and adds 

the nearshore waters to the unit.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit P21, and issued revised maps 

(see Historical Changes to Unit 

section above) between 2014 and 

2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit P21 to remove 

two condominium buildings and one 

associated structure in the Hacienda 

Del Mar community; the upland 

portions of six lots (including one 

structure) in the Eagle Preserve 

Estates subdivision; and the upland 

portion of one lot (including one 

structure) on Downing Street. The 

structures are recommended for 

removal because the mangrove 

features that the CBRS boundary 

was intended to follow were not 

depicted correctly on the base map 

used for the October 24, 1990, CBRS 

map.

In addition, the boundary of the unit 

is modified to align with property 

parcel data to follow more precisely 

the 1982 break-in-development 

and remove six lots (including two 

structures) and several dock lots in 

the Palm Island Estates and Hidden 

Cove Estates subdivisions.

The boundary of the southern 

segment of the unit is modified to 

add to the CBRS the associated 

aquatic habitat in Placida Harbor, 

resulting in the previously discrete 

middle and southern segments of the 

unit connecting to form one segment 

and in the creation of an excluded 

area on Little Gasparilla Island. 

The boundary of the northern 

segment of the unit is modified to 

add to the CBRS associated aquatic 

C-86
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P21,

Bocilla Island, Florida (continued)

habitat in Lemon Bay from Stump 

Pass to Beach Road. The landward 

boundary of the unit is modified to 

add to the CBRS several areas of 

associated aquatic habitat.

Associated aquatic habitat in 

Lemon Bay on the east side of 

Whidden and Little Whidden Keys 

is currently in OPA Unit P21P and 

is recommended for reclassification 

to System Unit P21. The Service’s 

review found no documentation 

indicating that this area is held for 

conservation and/or recreation (in 

accordance with the CBRA definition 

of an OPA); however, it does qualify 

for inclusion within a System Unit. 

Minor portions of Cedar Point 

Environmental Park are included 

within System Unit P21 where it 

is impractical to delineate them as 

OPA. Similarly, minor portions of 

some wetlands that are not in the 

Cedar Point Environmental Park 

are included within Unit P21P where 

it is impractical to delineate them 

as System Unit. Don Pedro Island 

State Park is located within Unit 

P21, but is not recommended for 

reclassification to an OPA because 

the State Park was acquired after 

Unit P21 was established.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 2,002 409 1,593 3.8

Added to the CBRS 1,736 13 1,723 0

Removed from the CBRS 9 4 5 6 

Reclassified Area 90 0 90 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 3,819 418 3,401 3.7

Net Change 1,817 9 1,808 (0.1) (6)

C-87

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P21P, 

Bocilla Island, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of Punta 

Gorda Beach on the Gulf Coast, in 

Charlotte County, Florida

Congressional District: 17

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P21P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) 

(Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) originally 

established Unit P21P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit P21P 

(via notice published in the Federal 

Register (81 FR 13407) on March 

14, 2016) in association with the 

requirement in the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act (CBRA) to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit P21P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P21P. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the open water between 

the barrier and other islands in 

the Stump Pass Beach State Park 

(Manasota Key, Peterson Island, 

and Whidden Key) is modified to 

remain in OPA Unit P21P and not 

be reclassified to System Unit P21 

as depicted on the draft map dated 

June 12, 2006. Although not part of 

the State Park, it is impractical to 

delineate the open water as System 

Unit. Two islands (Buttonwood 

and Rookery) and the surrounding 

aquatic habitat located to the north 

of the State Park are added to 

Unit P21P. The islands and aquatic 

habitat, which are owned by the 

Lemon Bay Conservancy (a private 

conservation organization), were 

originally classified as System Unit 

on the draft map dated June 12, 

2006, because it was not known at 

that time that they met the CBRA 

definition of an OPA, which is defined 

as 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” (Section 12 

of the CBIA).

The boundary of Unit P21P is also 

modified along the Cedar Point 

Environmental Park shoreline, 

which results in the inclusion of 

minor portions of the Park to 

System Unit P21 because it is 

impractical to delineate them as 

OPA. Similarly, minor portions of 

some wetlands that are not in the 

Cedar Point Environmental Park are 

included within Unit P21P where it 

is impractical to delineate them as 

System Unit.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit P21P to add to 

the CBRS two islands (Buttonwood 

and Rookery) and the surrounding 

aquatic habitat. The boundary 

of the unit is also modified to add 

to the CBRS an area owned by 

Charlotte County and located on the 

eastern side of Lemon Bay known 

as Cedar Point Environmental Park. 

These additions meet the CBRA 

definition of an OPA. Minor portions 

of Cedar Point Environmental 

Park are included within System 

Unit P21 where it is impractical to 

delineate them as OPA. Similarly, 

minor portions of some wetlands 

that are not in the Cedar Point 

Environmental Park are included 

within Unit P21P where it is 

impractical to delineate them as 

System Unit.

The boundary of the unit is also 

modified to align it to the northern 

boundary of the Stump Pass Beach 

State Park on Manasota Key where 

it is adjacent to private properties, 

and the boundary at the southern 

end of Manasota Key is modified 

to account for the accretion of the 

island out of the OPA.

Associated aquatic habitat in Lemon 

Bay on the east side of Whidden and 

Little Whidden Keys is currently in 

OPA Unit P21P and is recommended 

for reclassification to System Unit 

P21. The Service’s review found no 

documentation indicating that this 

area is held for conservation and/

or recreation (in accordance with 

the CBRA definition of an OPA); 

however, it does qualify for inclusion 

within a System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-88
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P21P,

Bocilla Island, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 394 116 278 1.1

Added to the CBRS 181 76 105 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area (90) 0 (90) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 485 192 293 1.2

Net Change 91 76 15 0.1 0 

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-89
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

2980000mN

2978000mN

2976000mN

2974000mN

2972000mN

2970000mN

2968000mN

3

76000mE 374000mE 372000mE 370000mE 368000mE 366000mE 364000mE

M A N A S O T A K E Y

P21P

P21

P21

GULF OF MEXICO

ENGLEWOOD

BEACH

776

776

775

775

775

Grove City

Rotonda

Placida

L E M O N B A Y

Stump Pass

THORNTON KEY

PRESERVE

CHARLOTTE HARBOR

PRESERVE

STATE PARK

PLACIDA

HARBOR

LITTLE

GASPARILLA

ISLAND

GASPARILLA

SOUND

STUMP PASS

BEACH STATE 

PARK

EXCLUDED

P21

P21

DON PEDRO

ISLAND STATE PARK

DON PEDRO

ISLAND

P21P

CEDAR POINT

ENVIRONMENTAL

PARK

Bocilla Island Unit P21/P21P

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 24 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-90
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P22, 

Casey Key, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of 

St. Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, 

in Sarasota County, Florida

Congressional District: 16, and 17*

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P22 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Sources 

and Dates: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, National Agriculture 

Imagery Program, 2013, and Florida 

Department of Transportation, 2014

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on October 

18, 1982) originally established 

Unit P22.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit P22 to add to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) wetlands.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the landward 

boundary of Unit P22 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register 

(81 FR 13407) on March 14, 2016) 

to account for natural changes 

that occurred in the configuration 

of the shoreline along Sarasota 

Keys. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit P22. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P22. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the landward boundary 

of the unit is modified to add to the 

CBRS two small areas of mangroves 

(one on the north and the other on 

the south).

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit P22, and issued revised maps 

(see Historical Changes to Unit 

section above) between 2014 and 

2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit P22 to add to the 

CBRS several areas of mangroves 

and wetlands on the east side of 

Little Sarasota Bay. The boundary 

of the unit is modified along the 

north to include the entire width of 

the channel between Siesta Key and 

Bird Keys. This northern boundary 

is also adjusted to generally align 

with parcel data to better follow the 

1982 break-in-development.

There are two Sarasota County 

conservation and/or recreation 

areas, Jim Neville Marine Preserve 

and Palmer Point Park, located 

within Unit P22. The Preserve 

and Park are not recommended 

for reclassification to an Otherwise 

Protected Area, although they were 

held for conservation when Unit P22 

was established. There is evidence 

in the Service’s records that, in 1982, 

it was known that these areas had 

been deeded to the County for open 

space and recreational and nature 

preserve purposes and yet they were 

deliberately included by Congress 

within the CBRS as System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

*This Congressional District will take 

effect in the 115th Congress.

C-91
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P22,

Casey Key, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 615 78 537 0.8

Added to the CBRS 62 5 57 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 677 83 594 0.8

Net Change 62 5 57 0.0 0 

C-92

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3012000mN

3010000mN

3008000mN

3006000mN

3004000mN

3002000mN

3000000mN

2998000mN

3

58000mE 356000mE 354000mE 352000mE 350000mE 348000mE

PALMER POINT

PARK

Vamo

Osprey

P22

GULF OF MEXICO

GULF OF MEXICO

Venice

Nokomis

Laurel

L I T T L E S A R A S O T A B A Y

S I E S T A K E Y

BIRD

KEYS

C A S E Y K E Y

TURNER 

KEY

Venice

Inlet

BIRD

ISLAND

41

41

41

75

75

Roberts Bay

Dona Bay

JIM NEVILLE

MARINE

PRESERVE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

762

FL-71P This unit is not revised in the

 pilot project and is depicted

 for informational purposes.

Venice Inlet Unit FL-71P

Casey Key Unit P22

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 25 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013, 2014

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

Florida Department of Transportation

C-93
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-72P, 

Lido Key, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Southeast of 

Sarasota on the Gulf Coast, in 

Sarasota County, Florida

Congressional District: 16

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-72P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit FL-72P.

Historical Changes to Unit: Pub. L. 

103-461 (enacted on November 2, 

1994) modified the northwestern 

boundary of Unit FL-72P to 

include within the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) only 

areas that were undeveloped at the 

time the unit was established.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) transferred and fitted to an 

updated base map the boundary of 

Unit FL-72P (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review the 

CBRS maps at least once every five 

years and make any modifications 

to the boundaries to reflect changes 

that have occurred as a result of 

natural forces. No modifications 

were made to the boundary of the 

unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit FL-72P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL72P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery. 

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-72P to remove 

from the CBRS a condominium 

building and two associated 

structures located on the Sarasota 

Sands Resort Condominiums 

property.

Unit FL-72P contains two 

conservation and/or recreation 

areas, a mangrove island named 

Otter Key and Ted Sperling Park at 

South Lido Beach (in 2009 the name 

was changed from South Lido Park), 

both of which are owned by Sarasota 

County. The western boundary of 

the unit is modified to generally 

align with the boundary of Ted 

Sperling Park at South Lido Beach 

and to be adjacent to Taft Drive and 

the Boulevard of the Presidents. 

The eastern and southern 

boundaries of the unit are modified 

to follow the center of Big Sarasota 

Pass and the portion of Sarasota Bay 

between Lido Key and Bird Key.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 349 61 288 0.3

Added to the CBRS 59 1 58 0

Removed from the CBRS 1 1 0 3 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 407 61 346 0.6

Net Change 58 0 58 0.3 (3)

C-94

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3028000mN

3026000mN

3024000mN

3022000mN

3020000mN

3018000mN

3016000mN

3

52000mE 350000mE 348000mE 346000mE 344000mE 342000mE 340000mE

OTTER

KEY LIDO KEY

B i g S a r a s o t a P a s s

Siesta Key

South Sarasota

BIRD KEY

COON

KEY

LONGBOAT KEY 789

789

41

41

41

758

758

Kensington Park

Sarasota

Southgate

Ridge Wood Heights

South Gate Ridge

Sarasota Beach Gulf Gate Estates

ROBERTS

BAY

LITTLE

SARASOTA

BAY

SIESTA KEY

PALM ISLAND

TED SPERLING PARK

AT

SOUTH LIDO BEACH

GULF OF MEXICO

GULF OF

MEXICO

SARASOTA BAY

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

FL-72P

Boulevard of the Presidents

Lido Key Unit FL-72P

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 26 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-95
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-73P, 

De Soto, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of 

St. Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, 

in Manatee County, Florida

Congressional District: 16

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-73P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-73P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) transferred and fitted to 

an updated base map the boundary 

of Unit FL-73P (via notice published 

in the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service held a 

120-day public comment period on the 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project (pilot 

project) draft maps dated June 12, 

2006, from April 7 through August 5, 

2009. There are no comments specific 

to Unit FL-73P. For a summary 

of the comments received on other 

pilot project units and the Service’s 

responses, see Chapter 4 and 

Appendix E of the 2016 Final Report 

to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System Digital 

Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit FL-73P. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-73P to align 

with the boundary of the De Soto 

National Memorial, owned by the 

National Park Service, and to add 

to the CBRS the portions of the 

National Memorial which are not 

already within the unit. In addition, 

the boundary of the unit is modified 

to add to the CBRS the Riverview 

Pointe Preserve, owned by Manatee 

County and located on the south side 

of the National Memorial. The open 

water component of the existing 

Unit FL-73P, which is not held for 

conservation and/or recreation 

purposes, is recommended for 

reclassification from an existing OPA 

to System Unit as part of adjacent 

Unit FL-78.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 192 7 185 0.0

Added to the CBRS 13 10 3 2

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area (169) 0 (169) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 36 17 19 0.0

Net Change (156) 10 (166) 0.0 2 

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-96
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-78, 

Rattlesnake Key, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of 

St. Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, 

in Manatee County, Florida

Congressional District: 16

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-78 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) originally 

established Unit FL-78.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit FL-78 

(via notice published in the Federal 

Register (81 FR 13407) on March 

14, 2016) in association with the 

requirement in the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act (CBRA) to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-78. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-78. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery. 

In addition, the boundary of the unit 

is modified to add to Unit FL-78 

a small portion of Emerson Point 

Preserve (formerly Emerson Point 

Park), managed by Manatee County, 

that was proposed on the draft map 

dated June 12, 2006, for addition 

to new Otherwise Protected Area 

(OPA) Unit FL-78P. Manatee County 

concurred with this area being 

added to the CBRS as System Unit 

instead of OPA. Because proposed 

new Unit FL-78P contained only 

that portion of Emerson Point 

Preserve, it no longer exists. Most 

of the remaining preserve area 

is currently located within Unit 

FL-78 and is not recommended for 

reclassification to OPA because the 

Preserve was acquired by the State 

of Florida in 1991 after Unit FL-78 

was established. The southwestern 

boundary of Unit FL-78 is also 

extended further westward to 

include additional shoals and the 

entire Manatee River channel within 

the CBRS.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-78 to remove 

from the CBRS one privately owned 

parcel adjacent to Champlain Bayou 

that was developed at the time the 

unit was established, and to add to 

the CBRS a portion of Emerson 

Point Preserve that is contiguous 

with a portion of the Preserve that is 

currently within the existing unit. 

The boundary of the unit is also 

modified to include the entire width 

of the Manatee River channel 

within Unit FL-78. The open 

water component of the existing 

Unit FL-73P, which is not held for 

conservation and/or recreation 

purposes, is recommended for 

reclassification from an existing OPA 

to System Unit FL-78. 

Unit FL-78 includes portions of 

Terra Ceia Aquatic Preserve that are 

not recommended for reclassification 

to an OPA. Florida State Aquatic 

Preserves and Outstanding Florida 

Waters are generally classified 

within the CBRS as System Units 

because they do not meet the CBRA 

definition of an OPA. Emerson Point 

Preserve is located partially within 

Unit FL-78, but is not recommended 

for reclassification as an OPA 

because the Preserve was acquired 

by the State of Florida in 1991 after 

Unit FL-78 was established. A small 

tract on the eastern end of Emerson 

Point Preserve is separated from 

the main body of the Preserve by 

an undeveloped private property. 

Neither the private property nor the 

separate tract of Preserve property 

is included within the CBRS.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-97
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-78, 

Rattlesnake Key, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 3,231 55 3,176 4.0

Added to the CBRS 536 17 519 0

Removed from the CBRS 3 2 1 1 

Reclassified Area 169 0 169 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 3,933 70 3,863 5.0

Net Change 702 15 687 1.0 (1)

C-98

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-82,

Bishop Harbor, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of 

St. Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, 

in Manatee County, Florida

Congressional District: 16

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-82 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit FL-82.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-82 (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)

to review the maps of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

at least once every five years and 

make any modifications to the 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces. No modifications were made 

to the boundary of the unit at that 

time.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-82. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-82. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, 

the northern boundary of Unit 

FL-82 is moved back to its original 

1990 position due to development 

affecting the mangrove feature 

that the proposed boundary on the 

draft map dated June 12, 2006, was 

following. The landward boundary 

of the unit is modified in several 

places to add areas of mangroves 

and wetlands.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

landward boundary of Unit FL-82 

to add to the CBRS some areas of 

mangroves and wetlands.

Unit FL-82 currently includes 

portions of Terra Ceia Preserve 

State Park, but those portions are 

not recommended for reclassification 

to an Otherwise Protected Area 

(OPA) because the State Park was 

established in 2004 after this area 

was first included within the CBRS. 

Unit FL-82 also currently includes 

portions of Terra Ceia Aquatic 

Preserve that are not recommended 

for reclassification to an OPA. 

Florida State Aquatic Preserves 

and Outstanding Florida Waters are 

generally classified within the CBRS 

as System Units because they do not 

meet the CBRA definition of an OPA.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 1,499 26 1,473 4.6

Added to the CBRS 85 0 85 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,584 26 1,558 4.6

Net Change 85 0 85 0.0 0 

C-99

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3058000mN

3056000mN

3054000mN

3052000mN

3050000mN

3048000mN

3046000mN

3044000mN

3

42000mE 346000mE 344000mE 340000mE 338000mE 336000mE

275

275 275

41

41

Palmetto

Memphis

Rubonia

FL-82

FL-82

FL-78

TERRA CEIA PRESERVE

STATE PARK

TERRA CEIA

AQUATIC PRESERVE

TERRA CEIA

AQUATIC PRESERVE

TAMPA BAY

TAMPA BAY

M A N A T E E R I V E R DE SOTO

POINT

DE SOTO

NATIONAL

MEMORIAL

EMERSON

POINT

Clambar Bayou

SNEAD

ISLAND

Champlain

Bayou

T E R R A C E I A B A Y

BEVILLE

POINT

TERRA CEIA ISLAND

RATTLESNAKE KEY

Critical Bayou

Miguel Bay

JOE ISLAND

Bishop

Harbor MARIPOSA KEY

FL-73P

FL-78

EMERSON POINT 

PRESERVE

TERRA CEIA PRESERVE

STATE PARK

De Soto Unit FL-73P

Rattlesnake Key Unit FL-78

Bishop Harbor Unit FL-82

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 27 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-100
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-80P, 

Passage Key, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Tampa Bay on 

the Gulf Coast, in Manatee County, 

Florida

Congressional District: 16

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-80P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-80P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the northern 

lateral boundary of Unit FL-80P 

(via notice published in the Federal 

Register (81 FR 13407) on March 14, 

2016) to extend westward, and the 

southern lateral boundary to extend 

southward and westward. These 

modifications were made to ensure 

that all of the shoals were clearly 

within the unit. These modifications 

were made in accordance with 

Section 3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which 

allows for modifications to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) boundaries to reflect 

changes that have occurred as a 

result of natural forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit FL-80P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL-80P. 

These minor modifications may 

include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit FL-80P, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to Unit: 

The final recommended map dated 

March 18, 2016, makes no changes 

to the boundary of Unit FL-80P. 

The unit encompasses Passage Key 

National Wildlife Refuge, owned by 

the Service. Passage Key is a lowlying sandbar that fluctuates in size 

and is mostly underwater.

The Service’s final recommended 

map will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 1,141 0 1,141 1.8

Added to the CBRS 0 0 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,141 0 1,141 1.8

Net Change 0 0 0 0.0 0 

C-101

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-81, 

Egmont Key, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of 

St. Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, 

in Hillsborough County, Florida

Congressional District: 16*

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-81 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-81.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the southern boundary of 

Unit FL-81 (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) to account for 

natural changes that occurred 

along the shoreline of Egmont 

Key. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-81. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-81. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit FL-81, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

southern boundary of the northern 

segment of Unit FL-81 to align with 

the Egmont Key National Wildlife 

Refuge boundary. In addition, the 

boundary of the southern segment of 

Unit FL-81 is modified to better align 

with the boundary of the property 

owned by the Tampa Bay Pilots 

Association, which is currently within 

(and recommended to remain within) 

the CBRS as System Unit. The 

Tampa Bay Pilots Association also 

leases approximately five acres from 

the Service on the north and south side 

of their property. This leased land is 

currently within (and recommended to 

remain within) Otherwise Protected 

Area Unit FL-81P. 

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress. *This Congressional District will take 

effect in the 115th Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 294 47 247 0.9

Added to the CBRS 0 0 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area (5) (2) (3) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 289 45 244 0.9

Net Change (5) (2) (3) 0.0 0 

C-102

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-81P, 

Egmont Key, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of 

St. Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, 

in Hillsborough County, Florida

Congressional District: 16*

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-81P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. L. 

101-591 enacted on November 16, 

1990) originally established Unit 

FL-81P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the landward boundary of 

Unit FL-81P (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) to account for 

natural changes that occurred in 

the configuration of the shoreline 

along Egmont Key. The southern 

boundary was moved southward to 

include more of the sand sharing 

system associated with Egmont 

Key. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit FL-81P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL81P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit FL-81P, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

northern boundary of Unit FL81P to align with the boundary 

of Egmont Key National Wildlife 

Refuge, which is owned by the 

Service. The shared boundary 

around the southern segment of 

adjacent Unit FL-81 is adjusted to 

align better with the boundary of 

the property owned by the Tampa 

Bay Pilots Association. The Tampa 

Bay Pilots Association also leases 

approximately five acres from the 

Service on the north and south side 

of their property. This leased land is 

currently within (and recommended 

to remain within) Unit FL-81P. In 

addition, the eastern boundary 

of the unit is modified to move it 

off the shoreline and align it with 

the eastern boundary of adjacent 

System Unit FL-81.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

*This Congressional District will take 

effect in the 115th Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 237 215 22 2.0

Added to the CBRS 451 1 450 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 5 2 3 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 693 218 475 2.0

Net Change 456 3 453 0.0 0 

C-103

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3058000mN

3056000mN

3054000mN

3052000mN

3050000mN

3048000mN

3046000mN

3044000mN

3

34000mE 332000mE 330000mE 328000mE 326000mE 324000mE 322000mE

P24P

FL-81

TAMPA BAY

M U L L E T K E Y

FORT DE SOTO

PARK

FORT

DE SOTO

679

679

GULF OF

MEXICO

TAMPA BAY

GULF OF

MEXICO

Anna Maria

FL-80P

PASSAGE KEY

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

PASSAGE

KEY

FL-81P

FL-81

E G M O N T K E Y

EGMONT KEY

NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

EGMONT KEY

STATE PARK

S o u t h w e s t C h a n n e l

Passage Key Inlet

BEAN

POINT

A N N A M A R I A I S L A N D

SCHOOL

KEY

ANNA MARIA

SOUND

Egmont Channel

FL-81P

This unit is not revised in the

 pilot project and is depicted

 for informational purposes.

Passage Key Unit FL-80P

Egmont Key Unit FL-81/FL-81P

The Reefs Unit P24P (1 of 2)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 28 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-104
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-83, 

Cockroach Bay, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of 

St. Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, 

in Hillsborough County, Florida

Congressional District: 16*

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-83 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit FL-83.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the landward boundary of 

Unit FL-83 (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) to account for 

natural changes that occurred in the 

configuration of the wetland/fastland 

interface. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-83. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-83. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, 

the southeastern and southern 

boundaries of the unit are modified 

to add to the CBRS some areas of 

mangroves and wetlands.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit FL-83, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-83 to add to 

the CBRS some areas of mangroves 

and wetlands in the southern half of 

the unit beginning on the north side 

of Cockroach Bay.

Unit FL-83 currently includes 

portions of Cockroach Bay Preserve 

State Park and Hillsborough County 

environmental lands that are held 

for conservation. Because the State 

Park and County lands were for the 

most part acquired for conservation 

and/or recreation after the unit 

was established, they will remain 

within the CBRS as a System Unit 

and not be reclassified to Otherwise 

Protected Area (OPA). Unit FL83 also includes portions of the 

Cockroach Bay Aquatic Preserve 

that are not recommended for 

reclassification to an OPA. Florida 

State Aquatic Preserves and 

Outstanding Florida Waters are 

generally classified within the CBRS 

as System Units because they do not 

meet the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act definition of an OPA.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

*This Congressional District will take effect in the 115th Congress.

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 3,468 6 3,462 5.5

Added to the CBRS 64 6 58 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 3,532 12 3,520 5.5

Net Change 64 6 58 0.0 0 

C-105

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3072000mN

3070000mN

3068000mN

3066000mN

3064000mN

3062000mN

3060000mN

3

56000mE 354000mE 352000mE 350000mE 348000mE 346000mE 344000mE

Sun FL-83 City

FL-83

C O C K R O A C H B A Y

Lit tle Coc k roa c h Bay

SAND KEY

TROPICAL

ISLAND

TAMPA BAY

TAMPA BAY

COCKROACH BAY

PRESERVE STATE PARK

41

41

Cockroach Bay Road

Gulf City

COCKROACH 

BAY

AQUATIC

PRESERVE

Cockroach Bay Unit FL-83

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 29 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-106
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-85P, 

Sand Key, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: West of Tampa on 

the Gulf Coast, in Pinellas County, 

Florida

Congressional District: 13

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-85P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit FL-85P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-85P (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service held a 

120-day public comment period on the 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project (pilot 

project) draft maps dated June 12, 

2006, from April 7 through August 5, 

2009. There are no comments specific 

to Unit FL-85P. For a summary 

of the comments received on other 

pilot project units and the Service’s 

responses, see Chapter 4 and 

Appendix E of the 2016 Final Report 

to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System Digital 

Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-85P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

southern boundary of Unit FL-85P 

to align with the boundaries of 

Sand Key Park, which is owned by 

Pinellas County, and recreational 

property owned by the City of 

Clearwater.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 521 115 406 0.6

Added to the CBRS 5 1 4 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 526 116 410 0.6

Net Change 5 1 4 0.0 0 

C-107

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3096000mN

3094000mN

3092000mN

3090000mN

3088000mN

3086000mN

3084000mN

3

28000mE 326000mE 324000mE 322000mE 320000mE 318000mE

CLEARWATER

HARBOR

CLEARWATER

HARBOR

Clearwater

GULF OF MEXICO

GULF OF

MEXICO

Mandalay Channel

C L E A R W A T E R B E A C H I S L A N D

60

Clearwater Pass

S A N D K E Y

Belleair

Belleair 

Bluffs

Harbor 

Bluffs

Largo

Baskin

Belleair 

Shore

688

Gulf Boulevard

Gulf Boulevard 699

595

595

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

West Bay Drive

FL-85P

SAND KEY

PARK

Sand Key Unit FL-85P

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 30 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-108
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P26, 

Pepperfish Keys, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: West of Gainesville 

on the Gulf Coast, in Dixie County, 

Florida

Congressional District: 3

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit P26 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA) (Pub. L. 97-348 enacted 

on October 18, 1982) originally 

established Unit P26.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit P26 

(via notice published in the Federal 

Register (81 FR 13407) on March 

14, 2016) in association with the 

requirement in the CBRA to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit P26. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit P26. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit P26 to add to the 

CBRS the area of associated aquatic 

habitat located behind Pepperfish 

Keys. 

Unit P26 currently includes portions 

of the Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic 

Preserve that will remain within 

the unit. Additional portions of 

this Aquatic Preserve (consisting 

primarily of shoals and open water) 

are recommended for addition to 

Unit P26. Florida State Aquatic 

Preserves and Outstanding Florida 

Waters are generally classified 

within the CBRS as System Units 

because they do not meet the CBRA 

definition of an Otherwise Protected 

Area.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 678 107 571 2.7

Added to the CBRS 543 0 543 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,221 107 1,114 2.7

Net Change 543 0 543 0.0 0 

C-109

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3272000mN

3270000mN

3268000mN

3266000mN

3264000mN

3262000mN

3260000mN

2

76000mE 274000mE 272000mE 270000mE 268000mE 266000mE 264000mE

P26

GULF OF MEXICO

BIG GRASSY ISLAND

LITTLE

GRASSY

ISLAND

P E P P E R F I S H K E Y S

HALFWAY

POINT

Cow Creek

BOWLEGS

POINT

361

Bull Cove

Little Rocky Creek

STUART POINT

DRUM

POINT

Buck Creek

BIG BEND

SEAGRASSES AQUATIC

PRESERVE

BIG BEND

SEAGRASSES AQUATIC

PRESERVE

Pepperfish Keys Unit P26

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 31 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s):

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 17 North

Imagery Source(s): 

2013

United States Department of Agriculture 

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-110
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-89, 

Peninsula Point, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of 

Tallahassee on the Gulf Coast, in 

Franklin County, Florida

Congressional District: 2

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-89 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) originally 

established Unit FL-89.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the boundary of Unit 

FL-89 (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (62 FR 8258) on 

February 24, 1997) to include within 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System (CBRS) all of the peninsula 

that is prograding to the north 

across the mouth of Alligator 

Harbor and the associated aquatic 

habitat. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 3 

of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows for 

modifications to the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

The Service modified the landward 

boundary and the western lateral 

boundary of Unit FL-89 (via 

notice published in the Federal 

Register (81 FR 13407) on March 

14, 2016) to be further north and 

west to account for accretion at 

the western tip of Peninsula Point. 

The southern lateral boundary 

of the unit was extended offshore 

to clarify the extent of the unit. 

These modifications were made 

in accordance with Section 3 of 

Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-89. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-89. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit FL-89, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies 

the boundary of Unit FL-89 to 

remove from the CBRS a portion 

of a private property (comprising 

less than one acre and including 

one structure) in the Alligator Point 

subdivision. The boundary of the 

unit is also modified to include a 

barrier feature on the mainland 

that Peninsula Point (at the tip of 

Alligator Point) is accreting toward 

and to add the associated aquatic 

habitat with this feature.

Most of the land currently within 

Unit FL-89 is the John S. Phipps 

Preserve, owned by The Nature 

Conservancy, a private conservation 

organization. The boundary of the 

unit is modified to add to the CBRS 

the portions of the area owned by 

The Nature Conservancy that are 

not already within the unit. The 

Nature Conservancy’s property is 

not recommended for reclassification 

to an Otherwise Protected Area, 

although it was held for conservation 

when Unit FL-89 was established. 

There is evidence in the Service’s 

records that, in 1990, this privately 

owned conservation area was 

deliberately included by Congress 

within the CBRS as a System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-111
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-89, 

Peninsula Point, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 767 10 757 2.2

Added to the CBRS 457 6 451 0

Removed from the CBRS 22 0 22 1 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 1,202 16 1,186 2.6

Net Change 435 6 429 0.4 (1)

C-112

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3312000mN

3310000mN

3308000mN

3306000mN

3318000mN

3316000mN

3314000mN

7

50000mE 748000mE 746000mE 744000mE 742000mE

Alligator

Point

GULF OF MEXICO

ALLIGATOR

HARBOR

OCHLOCKONEE BAY

FL-89

98

30

St. Teresa

ST. JAMES ISLAND

TURKEY 

POINT

ST. MARKS

NATIONAL

WILDLIFE

REFUGE

319

Ochlockonee River

TURTLE

ISLAND

GRANIT POINT

377

Halfway

Lake

Corn

Landing

Lake

Silver

Lake

Bear

Creek

PENINSULA

POINT

JOHN S. PHIPPS

PRESERVE

Peninsula Point Unit FL-89

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 32 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2013

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 16 North

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-113
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-93, 

Phillips Inlet, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Recommended new 

System Unit

Location of Unit: Northwest of 

Panama City on the Gulf Coast, 

in Bay County, Florida

Congressional District: 2

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-93 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The majority 

of the area recommended for 

inclusion within new System Unit 

FL-93 is currently within existing 

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) 

Unit FL-93P, which was established 

by the Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990). The remainder 

of the area recommended for 

inclusion within the new unit is 

currently not within the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS).

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

(Service) review found no 

documentation indicating that this 

area is held for conservation and/

or recreation (in accordance with 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

definition of an OPA). However, 

all areas within recommended new 

Unit FL-93 either qualified at the 

time they were first included within 

the CBRS or, for those areas newly 

added to the CBRS, currently 

qualify for inclusion within a System 

Unit.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-93. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-93. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. The boundary 

of Unit FL-93 is also modified 

to add a small area of wetlands 

along the Powell Lake shoreline 

and to follow parcel data instead 

of a development boundary along 

the north side of the Pinnacle 

Port condominium property. In 

addition, minor portions of a private 

beach that had been proposed to 

be reclassified to System Unit on 

the draft map dated June 12, 2006, 

are now recommended to remain 

within OPA Unit FL-93P because 

it is impractical to delineate them 

as System Unit. Similarly, minor 

portions of Camp Helen State Park 

are included within Unit FL-93 

where it is impractical to delineate 

them as OPA. 

Final Recommended Unit: The final 

recommended map dated March 18, 

2016, creates new System Unit FL93. Included within this new unit 

are the following areas: undeveloped 

private property (comprising 

approximately 39 acres) on the east 

side of Powell Lake near Phillips 

Inlet and the portion of Powell Lake 

south of U.S. Highway 98.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0 0 0 0.0

Added to the CBRS 1 1 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 123 30 93 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 124 31 93 0.0

Net Change 124 31 93 0.0 0 

C-114

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-93P, 

Phillips Inlet, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: Otherwise Protected 

Area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Northwest of 

Panama City on the Gulf Coast, 

in Bay County, Florida

Congressional District: 2

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-93P is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit FL-93P.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

FL-93P (via notice published in 

the Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

to review the maps of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

at least once every five years and 

make any modifications to the 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces. No modifications were made 

to the boundary of the unit at that 

time.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit FL-93P. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in the 

pilot project, including Unit FL93P. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated 

base map imagery. In addition, 

minor portions of a private beach 

that had been proposed to be 

reclassified to System Unit on the 

draft map dated June 12, 2006, 

are now recommended to remain 

within OPA Unit FL-93P because 

it is impractical to delineate them 

as System Unit. Similarly, minor 

portions of Camp Helen State Park 

are included within Unit FL-93 

where it is impractical to delineate 

them as OPA.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-93P to remove 

from the CBRS four condominium 

buildings and several associated 

structures in the Pinnacle Port 

community; nine structures in 

the Carillion Beach subdivision; 

and about 25 undeveloped private 

properties in the vicinity of 

Parkshore Court, Parkshore Drive, 

and Cottage Court. 

The boundary of the unit is also 

modified to align with the boundary 

of Camp Helen State Park and to 

add to the CBRS the portions of the 

State Park which are not already 

within the unit. Minor portions of 

private property are included within 

Unit FL-93P where it is impractical 

from a mapping perspective to 

delineate them as System Unit. 

Similarly, minor portions of the State 

Park are included within Unit FL-93 

where it is impractical to delineate 

them as OPA.

The following areas currently within 

OPA Unit FL-93P are recommended 

for reclassification to System 

Unit FL-93: undeveloped private 

property (comprising approximately 

39 acres) on the east side of Powell 

Lake near Phillips Inlet and the 

portion of Powell Lake south of U.S. 

Highway 98. The Service’s review 

found no documentation indicating 

that these areas are held for 

conservation and/or recreation (in 

accordance with the CBRA definition 

of an OPA); however, they do qualify 

for inclusion within a System Unit.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-115
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-93P, 

Phillips Inlet, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 239 81 158 0.5

Added to the CBRS 157 94 63 14

Removed from the CBRS 13 12 1 17 

Reclassified Area (123) (30) (93) 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 260 133 127 0.5

Net Change 21 52 (31) 0.0 (3)

C-116

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-94, 

Deer Lake Complex, Florida

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: North of Panama 

City on the Gulf Coast, in Walton 

County, Florida

Congressional District: 1

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit FL-94 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2013

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit FL-94.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the westernmost portion of 

the landward boundary of Unit FL94 (via notice published in the Federal 

Register (81 FR 13407) on March 

14, 2016) to reflect natural changes 

in the wetlands along the shoreline 

of an unnamed pond. In addition, 

the boundary following the eastern 

shoreline of Deer Lake and the 

boundary along the central segment 

of the unit were modified to reflect 

natural changes that occurred in the 

configuration of the wetland/fastland 

interface. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit FL-94. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

FL-94. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery. The boundary of the 

unit is also modified to add to the 

CBRS wetlands near Deer Lake.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit FL-94, and issued revised 

maps (see Historical Changes to 

Unit section above) between 2014 

and 2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies the 

boundary of Unit FL-94 to remove 

from the CBRS three buildings 

(comprising 31 residences) in the 

Beachfront Townhomes and Walton 

Dunes Townhomes subdivisions. 

In addition, the eastern boundary 

of the unit is modified to follow a 

vegetative break on the south side 

of Camp Creek Lake and the lateral 

boundary of the unit is aligned to 

be perpendicular to the barrier 

shoreline. The northern boundary 

of the unit is modified to add to the 

CBRS wetlands near Deer Lake, 

to remove from the CBRS a small 

area of uplands on the northeast 

side of Deer Lake, and to align with 

Lakewood Drive.

Deer Lake State Park is located 

partially within Unit FL-94 but is 

not recommended for reclassification 

as an Otherwise Protected Area 

because the State Park was acquired 

in 1996 after Unit FL-94 was 

established.

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 264 159 105 2.1

Added to the CBRS 5 2 3 0

Removed from the CBRS 8 6 2 3 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 261 155 106 1.7

Net Change (3) (4) 1 (0.4) (3)

C-117

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3350000mN

3348000mN

3360000mN

3358000mN

3356000mN

3354000mN

3352000mN

5

98000mE 596000mE 594000mE 592000mE 590000mE 588000mE

Phillips GULF OF MEXICO Inlet

POWELL

LAKE

98

FL-94

Deer

Lake

Intracoastal Waterway

Inlet

Beach

Eastern

Lake

Camp Creek

Lake

DEER LAKE STATE PARK

98

Intracoastal Waterway

FL-93P

FL-93

30A

CAMP HELEN

STATE PARK

Phillips Inlet Unit FL-93/FL-93P

Deer Lake Complex FL-94

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 33 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2013

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 16 North

C-118
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit LA-01, 

Isle au Pitre, Louisiana

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: East of New 

Orleans, in St. Bernard Parish, 

Louisiana

Congressional District: 1

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit LA-01 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2015

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit LA-01.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

LA-01 (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit LA-01. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and Final 

Recommended Boundaries: There 

are no changes between the proposed 

boundary of Unit LA-01 depicted on 

the draft map dated June 12, 2006, 

and the final recommended boundary 

of the unit depicted on the map dated 

March 18, 2016.

Final Recommended Changes to Unit: 

The final recommended map dated 

March 18, 2016, makes no changes to 

the boundary of Unit LA-01.

The Service’s final recommended 

map will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 4,851 0 4,851 4.5

Added to the CBRS 0 0 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 4,851 0 4,851 4.5

Net Change 0 0 0 0.0 0 

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-119
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3340000mN

3338000mN

3336000mN

3334000mN

3332000mN

3330000mN

3328000mN

2

94000mE 2

92000mE 2

90000mE 2

88000mE 2

86000mE 2

84000mE

LA-01

ISLE 

AU PITRE

GRAND PASS

CREOLE GAP

OYSTER BAY

CHANDELEUR

SOUND

SOUTHEAST JACK

 WILLIAMS BAY PELICAN

POINT

DOOR

POINT

POINT 

CHEVRETTE

LITTLE 

BAYOU 

PIERRE

BAYOU 

PIERRE

LA-01

Isle au Pitre Unit LA-01

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 34 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 16 North

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-120
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit LA-02,

Half Moon Island, Louisiana

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: East of New 

Orleans, in St. Bernard Parish, 

Louisiana

Congressional District: 1

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit LA-02 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Dates: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2014 and 2015

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (Pub. 

L. 101-591 enacted on November 

16, 1990) originally established 

Unit LA-02.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

transferred and fitted to an updated 

base map the boundary of Unit 

LA-02 (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 13407) 

on March 14, 2016) in association 

with the requirement in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act to review 

the maps of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) at least 

once every five years and make any 

modifications to the boundaries to 

reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces. No 

modifications were made to the 

boundary of the unit at that time.

Public Comments: The Service 

held a 120-day public comment 

period on the Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project (pilot project) draft maps 

dated June 12, 2006, from April 7 

through August 5, 2009. There are 

no comments specific to Unit LA-02. 

For a summary of the comments 

received on other pilot project units 

and the Service’s responses, see 

Chapter 4 and Appendix E of the 

2016 Final Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to 

the boundaries of most units in 

the pilot project, including Unit 

LA-02. These minor modifications 

may include, but are not limited to: 

better alignment of the boundary 

with parcel data, smoothing and 

simplification of the boundary, and 

fitting the boundary to updated base 

map imagery.

Final Recommended Changes to Unit: 

The final recommended map dated 

March 18, 2016, makes no changes 

to the boundary of Unit LA-02. 

However, the name of Unit LA-02 

is changed from “Grand Island” 

to “Half Moon Island” to correctly 

identify the underlying barrier 

feature.

The Service’s final recommended 

map will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 5,634 0 5,634 4.7

Added to the CBRS 0 0 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 5,634 0 5,634 4.7

Net Change 0 0 0 0.0 0 

C-121

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

3344000mN

3342000mN

3340000mN

3338000mN

3336000mN

3334000mN

3332000mN

2

70000mE 2

68000mE 2

66000mE 2

64000mE 2

62000mE 2

60000mE

MISSISSIPPI

LOUISIANA

LAKE BORGNE

 HALF MOON ISLAND

(FORMERLY GRAND ISLAND)

MISSISSIPPI

SOUND

HERON BAY

LOWER

POINT

CLEAR

HERON

BAY

POINT

Gamblers Bend

LA-02

 CBRS Unit in this area

not shown - See official map

for Heron Bay Point Unit MS-04

LA-02

Half Moon Island Unit LA-02

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 35 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2014, 2015

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator,

Zone 16 North

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

National Agriculture Imagery Program

C-122
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit S04, 

Timbalier Bay, Louisiana

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of New 

Orleans, in Lafourche Parish, 

Louisiana

Congressional District: 1

Date of Final Recommended Map: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit S04 is 

depicted on one map.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2015

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (Pub. L. 

97-348 enacted on October 18, 1982) 

originally established Unit S04.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit S04 to add to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) associated aquatic habitat. 

In addition, the eastern portion of 

Unit S04 was added to Unit S03.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the eastern 

boundary of Unit S04 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register 

(81 FR 13407) on March 14, 2016) 

to account for channel migration 

and wetlands erosion along Bayou 

Lafourche and Belle Pass. A portion 

of the northern boundary following 

an inlet to Devils Bay was modified 

to account for channel migration and 

wetlands erosion. These modifications 

were made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows for 

modifications to the CBRS boundaries 

to reflect changes that have occurred 

as a result of natural forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit S04. For a 

summary of the comments received 

on other pilot project units and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit S04. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. The 

updated base map imagery for the 

final recommended map shows 

significant erosion has occurred in 

Unit S04 since 1998, which is the date 

of the base map imagery used for the 

draft map dated June 12, 2006.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit S04, and issued revised maps 

(see Historical Changes to Unit 

section above) between 2014 and 

2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended map 

dated March 18, 2016, modifies 

the boundary of Unit S04 to add 

to the CBRS the entire width of 

the channel of Belle Pass on the 

southeastern side of the unit and 

Havoline Canal on the northeastern 

side of the unit. 

The Service’s final recommended 

map depicts changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated map is adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 9,822 106 9,716 4.0

Added to the CBRS 169 0 169 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 9,991 106 9,885 4.2

Net Change 169 0 169 0.2 0 

C-123

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

C-123
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit S05, 

Timbalier Islands, Louisiana

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of New 

Orleans, in Terrebonne and 

Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana

Congressional District: 1

Date of Final Recommended Maps: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit S05 is 

depicted on three maps.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2015

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) (Pub. 

L. 97-348 enacted on October 18, 

1982) originally established Unit S05.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit S05 to add to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) associated aquatic habitat 

and East Timbalier Island.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the northern 

boundary of Unit S05 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register 

(81 FR 13407) on March 14, 2016) 

to account for the migration of 

Timbalier Island and East Timbalier 

Island and to include associated 

shoals within the CBRS. The 

western boundary of the unit was 

also moved westward to account 

for the migration of Timbalier 

Island. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit S05. For a 

summary of the comments received 

on other pilot project units and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

The northern boundary of Unit S05 

has been modified to account for the 

migration of Timbalier Island and 

East Timbalier Island and to include 

associated shoals within the CBRS. 

The updated base map imagery for 

the final recommended maps shows 

significant erosion has occurred in 

Unit S05 since 1998, which is the date 

of the base map imagery used for the 

draft map dated June 12, 2006.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit S05, and issued revised maps 

(see Historical Changes to Unit 

section above) between 2014 and 

2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to Unit: 

The final recommended map dated 

March 18, 2016, makes no changes to 

the boundary of Unit S05.

The Service’s final recommended 

maps will only become effective if the 

updated maps are adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 21,548 485 21,063 19.5

Added to the CBRS 0 0 0 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 21,548 485 21,063 19.5

Net Change 0 0 0 0.0 0 

C-124

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

PORT 

FOURCHON

TIMBALIER BAY

S04

GULF OF MEXICO

DEVILS BAY

PIERCE BAY

Belle Pass

S05

EAST TIMBALIER ISLAND

S04

Pearl Bayou

Bayou

Cochon

Bayou Lafourche

Havoline Canal

3230000mN

3226000mN

3224000mN

3222000mN

3220000mN

3218000mN

3216000mN

3230000mN

3228000mN

7

70000mE 768000mE 766000mE 764000mE 762000mE 760000mE

Timbalier Bay Unit S04

Timbalier Islands Unit S05 (1 of 3)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 36 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 15 North

C-125
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

TIMBALIER BAY

S05

CALUMET ISLAND

CASSE-TETE

ISLAND

GULF OF MEXICO

TIMBALIER ISLAND

BRUSH ISLAND

S05

3226000mN

3224000mN

3222000mN

3220000mN

3218000mN

3216000mN

3214000mN

7

58000mE 756000mE 754000mE 752000mE 750000mE 748000mE

Timbalier Islands Unit S05 (2 of 3)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 37 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 15 North

C-126
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

TIMBALIER BAY

S05

TERREBONNE

BAY

GULF OF

MEXICO

TIMBALIER ISLAND

CAT ISLAND PASS

S05

Caillou Pass

3226000mN

3224000mN

3222000mN

3220000mN

3218000mN

3216000mN

3214000mN

7

46000mE 744000mE 742000mE 740000mE 738000mE 736000mE

Timbalier Islands Unit S05 (3 of 3)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 38 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 15 North

C-127
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit S06, 

Isles Dernieres, Louisiana

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of New 

Orleans, in Terrebonne Parish, 

Louisiana

Congressional District: 1

Date of Final Recommended Maps: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit S06 is 

depicted on three maps.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2015

Establishment of Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on October 

18, 1982) originally established 

Unit S06.

Historical Changes to Unit: The U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

modified the hatching symbol on 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System (CBRS) map for Unit S06 

(via notice published in the Federal 

Register (48 FR 17406) on April 22, 

1983). This administrative change 

clarified that the area located within 

Unit S06 included the accreted 

spit at the westernmost tip of Isles 

Dernieres. There was no change 

to the boundary of Unit S06. This 

modification was made in accordance 

with Section 4(c)(1) of Pub. L. 

97-348, which allowed minor and 

technical boundary modifications as 

necessary to clarify the boundaries 

of the units.

The Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit S06 to add to the 

CBRS associated aquatic habitat.

The Service modified the 

northeastern boundary of Unit 

S06 (via notice published in the 

Federal Register (81 FR 13407) on 

March 14, 2016) to account for the 

migration of the Isles Dernieres. 

The northern boundary of the 

unit was modified and generalized 

to account for wetlands erosion 

along Grand Pass des Ilettes. The 

western boundary of the unit was 

moved northwestward to account 

for the migration of the Isles 

Dernieres. The eastern boundary 

of the unit was extended offshore 

to clarify the extent of the unit. 

These modifications were made 

in accordance with Section 3 of 

Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit S06. For a 

summary of the comments received 

on other pilot project units and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit S06. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. The 

updated base map imagery for the 

final recommended maps shows 

significant erosion has occurred in 

Unit S06 since 1998, which is the 

date of the base map imagery used 

for the draft map dated June 12, 

2006. In addition, the northern 

boundary of the unit was modified 

to follow a more prominent channel 

in an area experiencing significant 

erosion and to add an area of 

associated aquatic habitat north of 

Grand Pass des Ilettes. The western 

boundary was moved westward and 

the eastern boundary northward of 

the Isles Dernieres to account for 

the migration of the islands.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit S06, and issued revised maps 

(see Historical Changes to Unit 

section above) between 2014 and 

2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to Unit: 

The final recommended maps dated 

March 18, 2016, modify the northern 

boundary of Unit S06 to add to 

the CBRS an area of associated 

aquatic habitat north of Grand Pass 

des Ilettes and to include within 

the CBRS the entire width of the 

channels (e.g., Grand Pass des 

Ilettes) through the wetlands.

Although Isles Dernieres Barrier 

Islands Refuge (which is a wildlife 

refuge owned by the State) is 

within Unit S06, the Refuge is not 

recommended for reclassification 

as an Otherwise Protected Area 

because it first became a wildlife 

refuge in 1992 after Unit S06 was 

established.

The Service’s final recommended 

maps depict changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated maps are adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-128
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit S06, 

Isles Dernieres, Louisiana (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 37,327 16 37,311 21.4

Added to the CBRS 1,080 0 1,080 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 38,407 16 38,391 21.4

Net Change 1,080 0 1,080 0.0 0 

C-129

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

S06

ISLES DERNIERES

BARRIER ISLANDS REFUGE

LAKE PELTO

BAY BLANC

ISLES DERNIERES

Wine Island

Pass

TERREBONNE

BAY

GULF OF

MEXICO

Pass la Poule

Bodwin Cutoff

Old Camp Pass

S06

3226000mN

3224000mN

3222000mN

3220000mN

3218000mN

3216000mN

3214000mN

3212000mN

7

32000mE 730000mE 728000mE 726000mE 724000mE 7

22000mE

Isles Dernieres Unit S06 (1 of 3)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 39 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 15 North

GULF OF MEXICO

C-130
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

PELICAN LAKE

CAILLOU BOCA

S06

WHISKEY ISLAND

ISLES DERNIERES BARRIER ISLANDS REFUGE

LAKE PELTO

GULF OF MEXICO

BAY ROUND

Bay

Wilson

CAILLOU BAY

S06

S06

Whiskey Pass

TRINITY ISLAND

BAY

CALIFORNIA

Pass de Ilettes

Grand Pass de Ilettes

Pelican 

Bayou

Pass Wilson

Coupe Nouvelle

3226000mN

3224000mN

3222000mN

3220000mN

3218000mN

3216000mN

3214000mN

3212000mN

7

16000mE 714000mE 712000mE 7

20000mE 7

18000mE 710000mE 7

08000mE

Isles Dernieres Unit S06 (2 of 3)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 40 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 15 North

C-131
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

S06

CAILLOU BAY

RACCOON

ISLAND

GULF OF MEXICO

S06

Coupe Colin

ISLES

DERNIERES

Grand Pass 

des Ilettes

ISLES DERNIERES BARRIER ISLANDS REFUGE

3226000mN

3224000mN

3222000mN

3220000mN

3218000mN

3216000mN

3214000mN

3212000mN

7

06000mE 704000mE 702000mE 700000mE 698000mE 6

96000mE

Isles Dernieres Unit S06 (3 of 3)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 41 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 15 North

C-132
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit S07, 

Point au Fer, Louisiana

Summary of Final Recommended 

Changes

Type of Unit: System Unit

Location of Unit: South of Baton 

Rouge, in Terrebonne and St. Mary 

Parishes, Louisiana

Congressional District: 1 

Date of Final Recommended Maps: 

March 18, 2016

Number of Maps: Unit S07 is 

depicted on four maps.

Base Map Imagery Source and Date: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

National Agriculture Imagery 

Program, 2015

Establishment of Unit: The Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

(Pub. L. 97-348 enacted on October 

18, 1982) originally established 

Unit S07.

Historical Changes to Unit: The 

Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act (Pub. L. 101-591 enacted on 

November 16, 1990) modified the 

boundary of Unit S07 to add to the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) associated aquatic habitat 

and remove from the CBRS the 

State-protected Atchafalaya Delta 

Wildlife Management Area.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) modified the eastern 

boundary of Unit S07 (via notice 

published in the Federal Register 

(81 FR 13407) on March 14, 2016) to 

account for channel migration along 

Buckskin Bayou. The northern 

boundary of the unit was modified 

to account for channel migration 

along Blue Hammock Bayou. A 

segment of the western boundary 

of the unit was modified to account 

for wetlands erosion on the western 

side of Point Au Fer Island. Another 

segment of the western boundary 

was modified to include North 

Point due to accretion connecting 

North Point to Point Au Fer (this 

modification results in the inclusion 

within Unit S07 of a minor portion 

of the Atchafalaya Delta Wildlife 

Management Area). Due to the 

significant rate of erosion in this 

area, portions of the boundary of 

Unit S07 were generalized. The 

eastern and western boundaries 

were extended offshore to clarify 

the extent of the unit. Additionally, 

the northern boundary of the unit 

was adjusted near the location 

where Four League Bay joins 

Atchafalaya Bay to close a gap in 

the boundary on the official map 

dated October 24, 1990, for this 

unit. These modifications were 

made in accordance with Section 

3 of Pub. L. 101-591, which allows 

for modifications to the CBRS 

boundaries to reflect changes that 

have occurred as a result of natural 

forces.

Public Comments: The Service held 

a 120-day public comment period on 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) draft maps dated 

June 12, 2006, from April 7 through 

August 5, 2009. There are no 

comments specific to Unit S07. For a 

summary of the comments received 

on other pilot project units and the 

Service’s responses, see Chapter 4 

and Appendix E of the 2016 Final 

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project.

Changes between Proposed and 

Final Recommended Boundaries: 

Minor modifications are made to the 

boundaries of most units in the pilot 

project, including Unit S07. These 

minor modifications may include, but 

are not limited to: better alignment 

of the boundary with parcel data, 

smoothing and simplification of the 

boundary, and fitting the boundary 

to updated base map imagery. In 

addition, the northeastern boundary 

of the unit is modified to add to the 

CBRS an area of wetlands about 

midway along the eastern side of 

Bay Junop and an island made up 

of wetlands and the surrounding 

associated aquatic habitat, located in 

the Blue Hammock Bayou channel 

at The Narrows. The portion of the 

unit’s boundary extending through 

Four League Bay is adjusted to the 

north, which adds open water to 

the CBRS. The western boundary 

is modified to include North Point 

within the CBRS due to accretion 

connecting North Point to Point 

Au Fer. The updated base map 

imagery for the final recommended 

maps shows significant erosion has 

occurred in Unit S07 since 1998, 

which is the date of the base map 

imagery used for the draft map 

dated June 12, 2006. Because the 

shoreline is rapidly eroding along 

Point Au Fer Island, the western 

boundary of the unit is adjusted to 

generally follow the island shoreline, 

but is placed a small distance 

offshore to reduce the frequency 

that this boundary would need to be 

revised.

The Service conducted a review for 

natural changes of all of the existing 

units in the pilot project, including 

Unit S07, and issued revised maps 

(see Historical Changes to Unit 

section above) between 2014 and 

2016. Therefore, some of the 

changes originally proposed by 

the pilot project have already been 

adopted and will not be reflected in 

the Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit section below.

Final Recommended Changes to 

Unit: The final recommended maps 

dated March 18, 2016, modify the 

boundary of Unit S07 to add to 

the CBRS the entire width of the 

channels of Pelican Pass, Taylors 

Bayou, Cross Bayou, the small 

stream cutting through Tony 

Lake, Bay Junop, Buckskin Bayou, 

and Blue Hammock Bayou. The 

northeastern boundary of the unit 

is modified to add to the CBRS an 

area of wetlands about midway 

along the eastern side of Bay Junop 

and an island made up of wetlands 

located in the Blue Hammock Bayou 

channel at The Narrows. The 

portion of the Unit S07 boundary 

extending through Four League Bay 

is adjusted to the north and adds 

open water to the CBRS.

The Service’s final recommended 

maps depict changes to the CBRS 

that will only become effective if the 

updated maps are adopted through 

legislation enacted by Congress.

C-133
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit S07, 

Point au Fer, Louisiana (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2

Shoreline 

(Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 76,792 316 76,476 24.2

Added to the CBRS 4,828 5 4,823 0

Removed from the CBRS 0 0 0 0 

Reclassified Area 0 0 0 0.0

Final Recommended Unit 81,620 321 81,299 24.4

Net Change 4,828 5 4,823 0.2 0 

C-134

1 Land above mean high tide.

2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include 

open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in consultation with National 

Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

3 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 

200 square feet are not included in this structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

GULF OF

MEXICO

FIDDLERS LAKE

BAY JUNOP

FOUR

LEAGUE BAY

CAILLOU BAY

EAST BAY JUNOP

POINT AU 

FER ISLAND

RICE ISLAND

S07

Buckskin

Bayou

Old Oyster

Bayou Lake

Mudhole Bay

Cross Bayou

Proveausal Bay Taylors Bayou

PELICAN

ISLAND

Jack Stout Bayou

S07

Big Hellhole 

Lake

Blue Hammock Bayou

Pelican Pass

Tony

Lake

The Narrows

3240000mN

3238000mN

3236000mN

3234000mN

3232000mN

3230000mN

3242000mN

6

92000mE 690000mE 688000mE 686000mE 684000mE 682000mE

Point au Fer Unit S07 (1 of 4)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 42 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 15 North

C-135
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

FOUR LEAGUE

BAY

LAKE

CHAPEAU

HALTERS ISLAND

SOUTH

 POINT

MOSQUITO ISLAND

MOSQUITO 

BAYOU

POINT AU FER

 ISLAND

S07

Mosquito Pass

S07

Alligator

Bayou

ATCHAFALAYA

BAY

Big Carencro

Bayou

Creole

Bayou

SHELL 

POINT

3254000mN

3252000mN

3250000mN

3248000mN

3246000mN

3244000mN

3242000mN

6

80000mE 678000mE 676000mE 674000mE 672000mE 670000mE

Point au Fer Unit S07 (2 of 4)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 43 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 15 North

C-136
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

S07

POINT AU FER 

ISLAND

BAY

CASTAGNIER

GULF OF

MEXICO

FOUR LEAGUE BAY

MOSQUITO

BAY

S07

S07

S07

3228000mN

3240000mN

3238000mN

3236000mN

3234000mN

3232000mN

3230000mN

6

80000mE 678000mE 676000mE 674000mE 672000mE 670000mE

Point au Fer Unit S07 (3 of 4)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 44 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 15 North

C-137
Appendix C: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Final Recommended Maps

S07

GULF OF

MEXICO

POINT AU FER 

ISLAND

ATCHAFALAYA

BAY

POINT AU

FER

NORTH

POINT

Little Hammock

Narrow 

Hammock

Locust Bayou

DEAD 

ALLIGATOR 

POINT

FISHING 

POINT

FOX 

POINT

TURN

 POINT

S07

S07

POINT AU FER 

ISLAND

3248000mN

3246000mN

3244000mN

3242000mN

3240000mN

3238000mN

3236000mN

6

68000mE 666000mE 664000mE 662000mE 660000mE 658000mE

Point au Fer Unit S07 (4 of 4)

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

1:24,000

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2

Kilometers

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

Feet

Existing and Final Recommended Boundaries

Pilot Project Draft Map 45 March 18, 2016

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to

show final recommended boundary changes to the John H. Chafee

Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) as directed by Section 3 of

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law

109-226).

The seaward side of the CBRS unit includes the entire sand-sharing

system, including the beach and nearshore area. The sand-sharing

system of coastal barriers is normally defined by the 30-foot bathymetric

contour. In large coastal embayments and the Great Lakes, the sandsharing system is defined by the 20-foot bathymetric contour or a line

approximately one mile seaward of the shoreline, whichever is nearer the

coastal barrier.

For additional information about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act

(CBRA) or the CBRS, please visit www.fws.gov/cbra.

3654000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values

Approximate State Boundary

Final Recommended Otherwise Protected Area (OPA)

Boundary; OPAs are identified on the map by the letter

"P" following the unit number

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; OPAs

are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit

number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Final Recommended System Unit Boundary

Imagery Date(s): 2015

Imagery Source(s): United States Department of Agriculture

0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 National Agriculture Imagery Program

Miles

Coordinate System: North American Datum 1983

Universal Transverse Mercator, 

Zone 15 North

LAKE

CHAPEAU

C-138
Digital Mapping Pilot Project Table 5. Pilot Project Acreage Changes (continued) Unit Total (acres) Fastland (acres)1 Associated Aquatic Habitat (acres)2 Existing Final Recommended Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Net Reclassified Net Change Existing Final Recommended Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Net Reclassified Net Change Existing Final Recommended Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Net Reclassified Net Change DE-07 0 5,358 194 0 5,164 5,358 0 51 0 0 51 51 0 5,307 194 0 5,113 5,307 DE-07P 7,400 2,857 699 78 (5,164) (4,543) 866 1,185 408 38 (51) 319 6,534 1,672 291 40 (5,113) (4,862) H01 171 170 4 5 0 (1) 125 121 1 5 0 (4) 46 49 3 0 0 3 NC-01 7,174 7,148 15 2 (39) (26) 193 181 10 2 (20) (12) 6,981 6,967 5 0 (19) (14)

NC-01P 0 41 2 0 39 41 0 22 2 0 20 22 0 19 0 0 19 19NC-05P 295 944 650 1 0 649 182 184 3 1 0 2 113 760 647 0 0 647

NC-06 0 6,636 1,219 0 5,417 6,636 0 181 11 0 170 181 0 6,455 1,208 0 5,247 6,455

NC-06P 6,545 1,162 35 0 (5,418) (5,383) 940 801 31 0 (170) (139) 5,605 361 4 0 (5,248) (5,244)

L05 3,010 6,513 3,502 0 1 3,503 545 620 75 0 0 75 2,465 5,893 3,427 0 1 3,428L06 5,785 5,865 169 89 0 80 801 741 4 64 0 (60) 4,984 5,124 165 25 0 140

M02 110 441 331 0 0 331 28 28 0 0 0 0 82 413 331 0 0 331M03 183 230 48 1 0 47 10 13 3 0 0 3 173 217 45 1 0 44

FL-01 0 470 248 0 222 470 0 6 4 0 2 6 0 464 244 0 220 464

FL-01P 1,750 1,715 187 0 (222) (35) 1,058 1,201 145 0 (2) 143 692 514 42 0 (220) (178)

P04A 669 725 61 5 0 56 46 48 5 3 0 2 623 677 56 2 0 54

P05 1,974 1,816 259 9 (408) (158) 573 350 5 2 (226) (223) 1,401 1,466 254 7 (182) 65

P05P 699 1,104 0 3 408 405 569 792 0 3 226 223 130 312 0 0 182 182

P08 4,213 4,052 144 12 (293) (161) 656 435 7 4 (224) (221) 3,557 3,617 137 8 (69) 60

P08P 0 293 0 0 293 293 0 224 0 0 224 224 0 69 0 0 69 69

FL-13P 201 199 2 4 0 (2) 155 153 2 4 0 (2) 46 46 0 0 0 0

P09A 3,214 3,224 54 15 (29) 10 304 274 8 11 (27) (30) 2,910 2,950 46 4 (2) 40

P09AP 0 87 58 0 29 87 0 81 54 0 27 81 0 6 4 0 2 6

P10A 5,725 7,638 1,408 14 519 1,913 840 875 20 11 26 35 4,885 6,763 1,388 3 493 1,878

FL-14P 2,620 2,900 803 4 (519) 280 270 310 69 3 (26) 40 2,350 2,590 734 1 (493) 240

P11 16,155 16,179 60 19 (17) 24 661 639 7 17 (12) (22) 15,494 15,540 53 2 (5) 46

P11P 0 17 0 0 17 17 0 12 0 0 12 12 0 5 0 0 5 5

FL-15 217 209 8 16 0 (8) 98 98 2 2 0 0 119 111 6 14 0 (8)

FL-16P 51 68 17 0 0 17 34 41 7 0 0 7 17 27 10 0 0 10FL-17P 100 117 18 1 0 17 88 104 17 1 0 16 12 13 1 0 0 1FL-18P 844 841 2 5 0 (3) 156 154 1 3 0 (2) 688 687 1 2 0 (1)FL-19P 84 190 106 0 0 106 67 119 52 0 0 52 17 71 54 0 0 54FL-20P 396 376 16 36 0 (20) 227 205 0 22 0 (22) 169 171 16 14 0 2

P14A 110 150 40 0 0 40 71 74 3 0 0 3 39 76 37 0 0 37

1 Land above mean high tide.2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in 

consultation with National Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

APPENDIX D: Pilot Project Acreage, Structure, and Shoreline Changes

D-1
Appendix D: Pilot Project Acreage, Structure, and Shoreline Changes Table 5. Pilot Project Acreage Changes (continued) Unit Total (acres) Fastland (acres)1 Associated Aquatic Habitat (acres)2 Existing Final Recommended Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Net Reclassified Net Change Existing Final Recommended Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Net Reclassified Net Change Existing Final Recommended Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Net Reclassified Net Change FL-39 1,210 1,352 143 1 0 142 6 6 0 0 0 0 1,204 1,346 143 1 0 142 FL-40 110 2,151 2,041 0 0 2,041 10 16 6 0 0 6 100 2,135 2,035 0 0 2,035 FL-43 1,187 1,187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,187 1,187 0 0 0 0 FL-44 363 557 194 0 0 194 0 3 3 0 0 3 363 554 191 0 0 191 FL-45 1,344 1,935 591 0 0 591 343 484 141 0 0 141 1,001 1,451 450 0 0 450 FL-46 1,212 1,388 189 13 0 176 118 108 2 12 0 (10) 1,094 1,280 187 1 0 186 P17A 32 66 2 0 0 34 11 12 1 0 0 1 21 54 1 0 0 33 FL-67 3,231 3,572 380 7 0 341 87 90 6 3 0 3 3,144 3,482 374 4 0 338 FL-67P 0 179 179 0 0 179 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 178 178 0 0 178 P21 2,002 3,819 1,736 9 90 1,817 409 418 13 4 0 9 1,593 3,401 1,723 5 90 1,808 P21P 394 485 181 0 -90 91 116 192 76 0 0 76 278 293 105 0 -90 15 P22 615 677 62 0 0 62 78 83 5 0 0 5 537 594 57 0 0 57 FL-72P 349 407 59 1 0 58 61 61 1 1 0 0 288 346 58 0 0 58 FL-73P 192 36 13 0 (169) (156) 7 17 10 0 0 10 185 19 3 0 (169) (166) FL-78 3,231 3,933 536 3 169 702 55 70 17 2 0 15 3,176 3,863 519 1 169 687 FL-80P 1,141 1,141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,141 1,141 0 0 0 0 FL-81 294 289 0 0 -5 (5) 47 45 0 0 (2) (2) 247 244 0 0 (3) (3) FL-81P 237 693 451 0 5 456 215 218 1 0 2 3 22 475 450 0 3 453 FL-82 1,499 1,584 85 0 0 85 26 26 0 0 0 0 1,473 1,558 85 0 0 85 FL-83 3,468 3,532 64 0 0 64 6 12 6 0 0 6 3,462 3,520 58 0 0 58

FL-85P 521 526 5 0 0 5 115 116 1 0 0 1 406 410 4 0 0 4

P26 678 1,221 543 0 0 543 107 107 0 0 0 0 571 1,114 543 0 0 543

FL-89 767 1,202 457 22 0 435 10 16 6 0 0 6 757 1,186 451 22 0 429

FL-93 0 124 1 0 123 124 0 31 1 0 30 31 0 93 0 0 93 93

FL-93P 239 260 157 13 (123) 21 81 133 94 12 (30) 52 158 127 63 1 (93) (31)

FL-94 264 261 5 8 0 -3 159 155 2 6 0 (4) 105 106 3 2 0 1

LA-01 4,851 4,851 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,851 4,851 0 0 0 0

LA-02 5,634 5,634 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,634 5,634 0 0 0 0

S04 9,822 9,991 169 0 0 169 106 106 0 0 0 0 9,716 9,885 169 0 0 169

S05 21,548 21,548 0 0 0 0 485 485 0 0 0 0 21,063 21,063 0 0 0 0

S06 37,327 38,407 1,080 0 0 1,080 16 16 0 0 0 0 37,311 38,391 1,080 0 0 1,080S07 76,792 81,620 4,828 0 0 4,828 316 321 5 0 0 5 76,476 81,299 4,823 0 0 4,823

System 

Unit Total 226,191 257,725 20,870 250 10,914 31,534 7,346 7,345 379 148 (232) (1) 218,845 250,380 20,491 102 11,146 31,535

OPA Total 24,058 16,638 3,640 146 (10,914) (7,420) 5,207 6,326 975 88 232 1,119 18,851 10,312 2,665 58 (11,146) (8,539)

Pilot Total 250,249 274,363 24,510 396 0 24,114 12,553 13,671 1,354 236 0 1,118 237,696 260,692 23,156 160 0 22,996

1 Land above mean high tide.2 Associated aquatic habitat includes wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and open water landward of the coastal barrier, but does not include open water seaward of the shoreline. This information is derived from an interpretation of base map imagery in 

consultation with National Wetlands Inventory data and other data sources as necessary.

D-2
Appendix D: Pilot Project Acreage, Structure, and Shoreline Changes Table 6. Pilot Project Structure and Shoreline Changes

1 Approximate structure count derived from base map imagery. Structures without walls and a roof (e.g., picnic shelters) and structures with fewer than 200 square feet are not included in this 

Unit

structure count because they do not meet the definition of a “structure” in 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2).

Structures1 Shoreline Change (in miles)

Added Removed Net Change Existing Final Recommended Net Change

DE-07 0 0 0 0.0 0.1 0.1

DE-07P 1 88 (87) 6.8 7.0 0.2

H01 0 11 (11) 0.7 0.7 0.0

NC-01 0 0 0 0.4 0.4 0.0

NC-01P 3 0 3 0.0 0.0 0.0NC-05P 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

NC-06 0 0 0 0.0 1.4 1.4

NC-06P 5 0 5 4.2 3.2 (1.0)

L05 0 0 0 10.4 10.5 0.1

L06 0 78 (78) 6.8 6.6 (0.2)

M02 0 0 0 1.2 1.2 0.0

M03 0 0 0 0.6 0.6 0.0

FL-01 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FL-01P 0 0 0 1.9 1.9 0.0

P04A 0 2 (2) 0.4 0.4 0.0

P05 0 7 (7) 2.6 1.6 (1.0)

P05P 0 1 (1) 1.6 2.6 1.0

P08 0 6 (6) 1.9 0.8 (1.1)

P08P 0 0 0 0.0 1.1 1.1

FL-13P 0 10 (10) 0.8 0.8 0.0

P09A 0 28 (28) 2.0 1.8 (0.2)

P09AP 1 0 1 0.0 0.7 0.7

P10A 0 13 (13) 3.9 3.9 0.0

FL-14P 3 4 (1) 0.7 3.3 2.6

P11 0 19 (19) 9.8 9.6 (0.2)

P11P 0 0 0 0.0 0.2 0.2

FL-15 0 3 (3) 1.0 0.9 (0.1)

FL-16P 2 0 2 0.3 0.4 0.1

FL-17P 0 3 (3) 0.5 0.6 0.1

FL-18P 0 4 (4) 1.6 1.6 0.0

FL-19P 4 0 4 0.4 0.4 0.0

FL-20P 0 16 (16) 2.6 2.7 0.1

P14A 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 0.0

FL-39 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 0.0

Unit

Structures1 Shoreline Change (in miles)

Added Removed Net Change Existing Final Recommended Net Change

FL-40 0 0 0 0.9 1.1 0.2FL-43 0 0 0 0.9 0.9 0.0FL-44 0 0 0 1.0 1.1 0.1FL-45 0 0 0 1.4 2.1 0.7

FL-46 0 0 0 1.9 2.0 0.1

P17A 0 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.2

FL-67 0 1 (1) 4.3 4.1 (0.2)

FL-67P 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

P21 0 6 (6) 3.8 3.7 (0.1)

P21P 0 0 0 1.1 1.2 0.1

P22 0 0 0 0.8 0.8 0.0

FL-72P 0 3 (3) 0.3 0.6 0.3

FL-73P 2 0 2 0.0 0.0 0.0

FL-78 0 1 (1) 4.0 5.0 1.0

FL-80P 0 0 0 1.8 1.8 0.0

FL-81 0 0 0 0.9 0.9 0.0

FL-81P 0 0 0 2.0 2.0 0.0

FL-82 0 0 0 4.6 4.6 0.0

FL-83 0 0 0 5.5 5.5 0.0

FL-85P 0 0 0 0.6 0.6 0.0

P26 0 0 0 2.7 2.7 0.0

FL-89 0 1 (1) 2.2 2.6 0.4FL-93 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0

FL-93P 14 17 (3) 0.5 0.5 0.0

FL-94 0 3 (3) 2.1 1.7 (0.4)

LA-01 0 0 0 4.5 4.5 0.0LA-02 0 0 0 4.7 4.7 0.0

S04 0 0 0 4.0 4.2 0.2

S05 0 0 0 19.5 19.5 0.0

S06 0 0 0 21.4 21.4 0.0

S07 0 0 0 24.2 24.4 0.2

System 

Unit Total 0 179 (179) 159 160 1

OPA Total 35 146 (111) 28 33 6

Pilot Total 35 325 (290) 187 193 7

D-3
Digital Mapping Pilot Project

APPENDIX E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public 

Comments

Section 3(b) of the 2006 Coastal 

Barrier Resources Reauthorization 

Act (CBRRA) requires that the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 

prepare this final report regarding 

the Digital Mapping Pilot Project 

(pilot project) after providing an 

opportunity for the submission and 

consideration of public comments. 

On April 7, 2009, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) released 

to the public its Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project (including draft digital 

maps dated June 12, 2006, that 

proposed modifications to 70 Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

units) and announced the start of 

a 90-day public comment period, 

which was later extended to 120 days. 

Section 3(c)(3) of the 2006 CBRRA 

requires that this final report contain 

a summary of the comments received 

from Governors, other government 

officials, and the public regarding the 

digital maps.

The Service received 159 written 

comments during the 120-day public 

comment period (April 7 through 

August 5, 2009). Unit-specific 

comments were received for 26 of 

the 70 units in the 2008 pilot project 

report, though three of the units 

that received comments are no 

longer included in the pilot project.1

 

The majority of the comments 

received related to the Florida and 

North Carolina pilot project units. 

Seventeen of the comments received 

related to CBRS units that are not 

within the scope of the pilot project.

The comments received for each 

unit during the public comment 

period and the Service’s responses 

to these comments are summarized 

in this appendix. It is also indicated, 

where appropriate, if the final 

recommended maps (dated November 

20, 2013, or March 18, 2016) were 

modified as a result of the comments. 

Comments concerning labeling 

and typographical errors are not 

addressed in this appendix; however, 

such comments were reviewed and 

corrections were made as appropriate. 

Comments related to units that are 

not currently within the pilot project 

are not addressed in this appendix. 

Significant issues raised during the 

public comment period that are 

relevant to more than one CBRS 

unit are addressed with a Service 

response in Chapter 4 of this final 

report (see Table 7 below). Copies 

of the comments received during the 

public review period have not been 

reproduced in this report, but will 

be made available by the Service’s 

Headquarters Office upon request.

Table 7 . Summary of Substantive Overarching Comments and Responses Addressed in Chapter 4

Number Issue Page Number

1 Authority of the Service to Recommend Additions to the CBRS 16

2 Effectiveness of the CBRA 16

3 Long-Term Preservation of the CBRS 17

4 Modernizing CBRS Maps Using Digital Technology 17

5 Public Disclosure of CBRS Designation 17

6 Multiple Layers of Protection on Properties in the CBRS 18

7 Amend the CBRA to Add Exemptions for Projects Deemed to be of Public Benefit 18

8 Effective Dates for Areas Added to or Reclassified within the CBRS 18

9 Delineation of CBRS Boundaries Based on Legal Descriptions Instead of on Maps 19

10 Age and Quality of Aerial Imagery Used for CBRS Base Maps 19

11 System Unit versus OPA Classification and Reclassification 19

12 Mapping Channels within the CBRS 21

13 Mapping Landward CBRS Boundaries Using Easy-to-Map Features 22

14 Addition of Associated Aquatic Habitat behind a Developed Barrier to the CBRS 23

15 Inclusion of Docks, Piers, Marinas, and Other Shoreline Structures within the CBRS 24

16 Shoreline and Development Feature Buffering 24

17 Roads and Road Rights-of-Way in OPAs 27

18 Mapping Seaward Boundaries of Excluded Areas in the CBRS 27

19 Seaward Limits of CBRS Units 27

E-1
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

Table 8 provides the page number for 

the comments specific to individual 

units addressed in this Appendix.

Table 8. Summary of Unit-Specific Comments

Unit County/Parish Page Number

Delaware

DE-07* Sussex E-3

DE-07P Sussex E-3

H01 Sussex E-4

North Carolina

NC-05P Carteret E-5

NC-06* Onslow E-5

NC-06P Carteret, Onslow E-5

L06 Onslow E-8

South Carolina

M02 Georgetown E-9

M03 Georgetown E-10

Florida

P04A St. Johns E-10

P05 St. Johns E-11

P05P St. Johns E-12

P08 Volusia E-12

FL-13P Brevard E-13

P09AP* Brevard E-14

P10A Indian River, St. Lucie E-14

FL-14P St. Lucie E-14

P11 St. Lucie E-15

FL-39 Monroe E-17

FL-45 Monroe E-17

P17A Lee E-17

FL-67 Lee E-18

FL-67P Lee E-18

P21 Charlotte E-22

*

 Recommended new or reclassified Unit.

E-2
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

DELWARE

Unit DE-07, Delaware Seashore

Comment 1: A homeowners 

association commented that their 

community, The Chancellery, 

was incorrectly placed within an 

Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) as a 

result of a mapping discrepancy. 

Service Response to Comment 1: 

The area in question has not been 

recommended for removal from the 

CBRS; rather, on both the proposed 

map and the final recommended 

map, the area is reclassified from 

OPA Unit DE-07P to System Unit 

DE-07. The CBRS contains two 

types of units, System Units and 

OPAs. System Units are generally 

comprised of privately held areas. 

OPAs are generally comprised 

of areas held for wildlife refuge, 

sanctuary, recreational, or natural 

resource conservation purposes. 

In carrying out the pilot project, the 

Service noted cases where areas held 

for conservation and/or recreation 

are located within System Units, as 

well as cases where privately held 

areas (that are not inholdings) are 

located within OPAs. 

When the Service comprehensively 

remapped the CBRS units in the 

pilot project, the conservation and/or 

recreation areas within the units were 

identified and the history of those 

areas was evaluated to determine 

whether they were appropriately 

classified as System Unit or OPA. 

The Service’s remapping protocol at 

the time of the pilot project generally 

recommended reclassification from 

System Unit to an OPA, or vice versa, 

depending on when the particular 

area was included within the CBRS 

and whether the area was held for 

conservation and/or recreation at the 

time it was included.2

 If the Service 

found no evidence that an area 

within an existing OPA was held for 

conservation and/or recreation at the 

time it was originally included within 

the CBRS, then the area in question 

was generally recommended for 

reclassification from OPA to System 

Unit as long as it met the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

criteria for an undeveloped coastal 

barrier at the time it was included 

within the CBRS.

The area to the north of the Delaware 

Seashore State Park where The 

Chancellery subdivision is located is 

one such area. No structures were 

on-the-ground in this subdivision 

when the area was included within 

the CBRS in 1990. Because the 

Service’s assessment found that 

the area met the CBRA criteria 

for an undeveloped coastal barrier 

at the time of inclusion within the 

CBRS, it is not recommended for 

removal from the CBRS, but rather 

is recommended for reclassification 

from OPA to System Unit. There are 

no changes between the proposed 

and final recommended maps for Unit 

DE-07 as a result of this comment.

Lessons learned through the 

course of the pilot project and other 

comprehensive remapping projects 

resulted in a revision to the Service’s 

protocol regarding System Unit 

versus OPA classification for future 

mapping projects. See Issue 11 

in Chapter 4 for more information 

about reclassifications within the 

CBRS and Chapter 6 for additional 

information concerning the Service’s 

guiding principles and criteria for 

modifications to the CBRS.

Unit DE-07P, Delaware Seashore

Comment 2: State officials 

commented that their records 

indicate Breakwater Beach 

subdivision was undeveloped private 

land in 1982 when the CBRA was 

established, and they believe that it 

meets the criteria for a System Unit.

Service Response to Comment 2: 

Although Breakwater Beach 

subdivision was undeveloped when 

CBRA was first established in 

1982, approximately 15 residential 

structures were already on-theground within this subdivision when 

the area was added to the CBRS in 

November of 1990. The Service’s 

assessment indicates these private 

properties were inappropriately 

included within the CBRS and are 

appropriate for removal from this 

unit. There are no changes between 

the proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit DE-07P as a result of 

this comment.

Comment 3: During the comment 

period, the Service was asked 

whether we had considered the 

infrastructure information for 

the South Shores Community 

and Marina submitted by the 

homeowners association in January 

2005 in support of a request to 

remove the area from the CBRS.

Service Response to Comment 3: 

The Service reviewed the information 

submitted by the homeowners 

association and our historical 

background records for Unit DE-07P. 

In addition, we worked closely with 

the president of the homeowners 

association to obtain additional 

information that was needed for a 

complete assessment. Our review 

found that in 1990, the subject area 

consisted of approximately 90 mobile 

homes in the South Inlet Trailer 

Park, a marina, and an additional 

trailer park south of the marina that 

contained approximately 25 mobile 

homes and one modular home. 

However, the area did not have a 

paved road (which is a necessary 

component of a full complement 

of infrastructure according to the 

CBRA infrastructure criteria).3

The CBRA contains the following 

definition of the term “structure”:

A walled and roofed building, other 

than a gas or liquid storage tank, 

that—

(A) is principally above ground 

and affixed to a permanent site, 

including a manufactured home 

on a permanent foundation; 

and

(B) covers an area of at least 200 

square feet.4

Although not all of the mobile 

homes met this definition, there 

were at least ten of them affixed to a 

permanent foundation. Additionally, 

there were three buildings on the 

South Shore Marina site and one 

modular home in the trailer park 

south of the marina. Though much of 

this area has been redeveloped, the 

Service’s assessment found that the 

development on-the-ground in 1990 

constituted a cluster of structures 

large enough to be excluded from the 

CBRS (see Chapter 6 for additional 

information concerning the Service’s 

criteria for modifications to the 

CBRS). Because the subject area 

did not meet the CBRA criteria for 

E-3
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

an undeveloped coastal barrier at the 

time of inclusion, it is recommended 

for removal from the CBRS on the 

final recommended map. There are 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Unit 

DE-07P as a result of this comment. 

Unit H01, North Bethany Beach

Comment 4: State officials support 

the Service’s proposed removal of the 

Bayberry Dunes subdivision from 

the CBRS. Their records show the 

permit for the first house in Bayberry 

Dunes was issued in December 1981.

Service Response to Comment 4: 

When determining whether the 

removal of an area from the CBRS 

is warranted, the Service assesses 

the level of development on-theground at the time the area was (or 

is) included within the CBRS5 and 

does not consider permits, approved 

development plans, or other legal 

indicators of intent to develop. The 

subject area is recommended for 

removal from the CBRS because 

the Service’s assessment found that 

the infrastructure for the Bayberry 

Dunes subdivision was on-the-ground 

by March 15, 1982, which was the 

cutoff date for the Department of the 

Interior’s (Department) analysis of 

coastal barrier ground conditions in 

the case of areas that were included 

by the CBRA of 1982. Additionally, 

the Service’s background record for 

Unit H01 indicates that the southern 

boundary was intended to be located 

to the north of Bayberry Dunes 

subdivision. The Service did not 

consider the date when the homes 

were permitted in its assessment. 

See Chapter 6 for additional 

information concerning the Service’s 

criteria for modifications to the 

CBRS.

NORTH CAROLINA

Comments affecting all pilot project 

CBRS Units in North Carolina

Comment 5: State and local officials 

are concerned that the Service 

may have overlooked current 

major infrastructure projects and 

potential future improvements 

and never assessed the impact of 

placing the project areas within 

a System Unit of the CBRS. In 

particular, the officials are concerned 

about infrastructure that may be 

damaged or destroyed by a storm 

event. These officials want to know 

if the new restrictions will eliminate 

Federal funding for:

• repair and reconstruction of 

roads and bridges outside the 

original footprint,

• installation of sandbags along 

ocean-front roadways after 

storms,

• construction and maintenance of 

stormwater treatment facilities 

and outfalls,

• dredging and disposal projects, 

and

• beach nourishment.

Service Response to Comment 5: 

When remapping a particular area, 

the Service considers projects to the 

extent that they impact the current 

development status of a coastal 

barrier in accordance with the 

Service’s criteria for modifications 

to the CBRS described in Chapter 6. 

Determinations regarding whether 

specific projects or actions meet an 

exception to the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures are made 

on a case by case basis following 

consultation between the funding 

agency and the Service. There are 

many different exceptions that may 

be applicable and they are each 

dependent upon a number of factors. 

Examples of the specifics considered 

for such consultations may include 

(depending on the type of project) 

but are not limited to: the date 

that the infrastructure that is to 

be repaired was first constructed, 

whether there is a proposed 

expansion in service volume 

and/or area of the infrastructure, 

the specific details regarding where 

sand is proposed to be moved to 

and from, the anticipated effects 

of the particular project on fish 

and wildlife, and/or whether the 

project is to be conducted pursuant 

to certain sections of the Robert 

T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act. Due 

to the case by case nature of 

consultations, the Service cannot 

provide generalized responses to 

whether such projects would be 

allowable under the CBRA. The 

Federal funding agency must consult 

with the Service’s local Ecological 

Services Field Office prior to 

committing funds for a project or 

action within or affecting a System 

Unit of the CBRS. Information 

concerning the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures, and 

exceptions to those limitations, is 

available on the Service’s website at: 

https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/habitat-conservation/cbra/

Consultations/Limitations-andExceptions.html.

Comment 6: State officials 

commented that the Service is 

required to determine both benefits 

and problems associated with 

the approval of the CBRS units, 

and they were unable to find this 

analysis.

Service Response to Comment 6: 

Section 6(d) of the 2000 CBRRA 

required that the initial pilot project 

report to Congress describe the 

results of the pilot project and the 

feasibility, data needs, and costs 

of completing digital maps for the 

entire CBRS. Specifically, that 

report was to include:

• a description of the cooperative 

agreements that would be 

necessary to complete digital 

mapping of the entire CBRS; 

• the extent to which the data 

necessary to complete digital 

mapping of the entire CBRS are 

available; 

• the need for additional data to 

complete digital mapping of the 

entire CBRS; 

• the extent to which the boundary 

lines on the digital maps differ 

from the boundary lines on the 

original maps; and

• the amount of funding necessary 

to complete digital mapping of the 

entire CBRS.

The Service addressed all of the 

above requirements with the initial 

2008 pilot project report. Section 

3(c) of the 2006 CBRRA requires 

that this final pilot project report 

include:

• the final recommended digital 

maps created under the pilot 

project;

• recommendations for the adoption 

of the digital maps by Congress;

E-4
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

• a summary of the comments 

received from the Governors of 

the States, other government 

officials, and the public 

regarding the digital maps;

• a summary and update of the 

protocols and findings of the 

initial pilot project report 

required under Section 6(d) of 

the 2000 CBRRA; and

• an analysis of any benefits 

that the public would receive 

by using digital mapping 

technology for all CBRS units.

The Service addressed all of these 

requirements with this final pilot 

project report. There is no statutory 

requirement that the Service assess 

any benefits and problems with the 

approval of the CBRS units as stated 

by the commenters.

Comment 7: State officials are 

concerned that areas within 

existing units and the proposed new 

additions are not owned by the State 

or Federal Government and request 

that the ownership of all areas within 

the CBRS units be determined.

Service Response to Comment 7: 

The CBRS includes areas that 

are owned by a variety of private, 

Federal, State, and local entities. 

It is not a requirement that any 

areas within the CBRS be owned by 

the State or Federal Government. 

For information on how the Service 

determines whether to classify 

an area as System Unit or OPA, 

see Issue 11 in Chapter 4 and the 

“Overview of Protocol for CBRS 

Unit Classification” section in 

Chapter 6.

Unit NC-05P, 

Roosevelt Natural Area

Comment 8: Local officials 

commented that they are supportive 

of the Service’s efforts to update the 

CBRS maps using the latest mapping 

technology, but are opposed to the 

expansion and creation of new CBRS 

units in the pilot project. However, 

the commenters request that if Unit 

NC-05P is expanded as proposed, 

the northern boundary of the unit be 

moved northward to follow the center 

of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 

instead of the centerline of a channel 

in Bogue Sound.

Service Response to Comment 8: 

In 1982 and 1988 the Department 

published guidance for delineating 

CBRS boundaries through the 

aquatic habitat landward of coastal 

barriers.6 In carrying out the 

pilot project, the Service noted 

that the Department’s guidance 

for delineating these landward 

boundaries has not been consistently 

applied to the CBRS maps created 

in the past, including the map for 

Unit NC-05P. The 1988 published 

guidance states that if there is an 

open water body greater than one 

mile wide landward of the coastal 

barrier, then the boundary is 

generally placed in the open water 

approximately one mile landward 

of the farthest landward extent of 

wetlands on the protected side of 

the coastal barrier. If a discernible 

natural channel, artificial channel, 

or political boundary exists in the 

open water approximately one mile 

landward of the coastal barrier, the 

channel or political boundary is used 

as the landward boundary. The 

northern boundary of Unit NC-05P 

is mapped according to this protocol, 

and not placed in the center of the 

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway 

because it is greater than one mile 

landward of the coastal barrier. 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit NC-05P as a result of 

this comment.

Units NC-06 and NC-06P, 

Hammocks Beach

Comment 9: Local officials 

expressed concern over the inclusion 

within proposed new Unit NC-06 of 

a large area of aquatic and marsh 

habitat behind a barrier island 

(Emerald Isle) that is already fully 

developed, and with the alignment 

of the proposed boundary of the 

unit against the western side of 

the North Carolina Highway 58 

bridge. Commenters stated that 

this bridge is one of the main access 

points onto the barrier island 

from the mainland, and any future 

bridge project is likely to depend on 

Federal funds.

Service Response to Comment 9: 

In carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service noted that there are 

inconsistencies in how the associated 

aquatic habitat situated behind 

development was mapped in 1982, 

1990, and when areas were added 

to the CBRS through subsequent 

legislative amendments. In the 2008 

pilot project report, the Service 

established a consistent protocol for 

adding associated aquatic habitat 

behind a developed coastal barrier to 

the CBRS. The associated aquatic 

habitat of Bogue Sound between 

the channel that empties into the 

Atlantic Ocean at Bogue Inlet and 

the Highway 58 bridge is an area 

that was added behind a developed 

barrier in accordance with this 

protocol. However, in addressing 

the comments received during the 

public comment period opposing 

such additions, the Service agrees 

that there should be a limit as to 

how far additions of associated 

aquatic habitat may extend behind 

a developed barrier. The Service’s 

updated protocol establishes a 

limit with the boundary generally 

drawn along the outside edge of a 

channel that exists in the associated 

aquatic habitat within one mile of the 

undeveloped portion of the coastal 

barrier. For more information 

on this updated protocol for the 

addition of associated aquatic habitat 

behind a developed barrier, see Issue 

14 in Chapter 4. There are changes 

between the proposed and final 

recommended maps for Unit NC-06 

as a result of this comment. The 

boundary of Unit NC-06 on the final 

recommended map is modified to be 

at the eastern edge of the channel 

emptying into the Atlantic Ocean at 

Bogue Inlet and is now almost two 

miles west of the Highway 58 bridge.

Comment 10: Local officials 

requested that the geographic area 

of the existing OPA Unit NC-06P 

be reduced to reflect the holdings of 

the State only, and that the proposed 

new System Unit NC-06 be removed 

entirely from the final pilot project 

report.

Service Response to Comment 10: 

The CBRS contains two types of 

units, System Units and OPAs. 

System Units are generally 

comprised of privately held areas. 

OPAs are generally comprised 

of areas held for wildlife refuge, 

sanctuary, recreational, or natural 

resource conservation purposes. 

In carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service noted cases where 

E-5
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

areas held for conservation and/

or recreation are located within 

System Units, as well as cases where 

privately held areas (that are not 

inholdings) are located within OPAs.

When the Service comprehensively 

remapped the CBRS units in the 

pilot project, the conservation 

and/or recreation areas within 

the units were identified and 

the history of those areas was 

evaluated to determine whether 

they were appropriately classified 

as System Unit or OPA. The 

Service’s remapping protocol at the 

time of the pilot project generally 

recommended reclassification from 

System Unit to OPA, or vice versa, 

depending on when the particular 

area was included within the CBRS 

and whether the area was held for 

conservation and/or recreation at the 

time it was included.7

 If the Service 

found no evidence that an area 

within an existing OPA was held for 

conservation and/or recreation at the 

time it was originally included within 

the CBRS, then the area in question 

was generally recommended for 

reclassification from OPA to System 

Unit as long as it met the CBRA 

criteria for an undeveloped coastal 

barrier at the time it was included 

within the CBRS.

The associated aquatic habitat 

between Bear Island and the 

mainland is one such area. The 

Service’s review found no 

documentation indicating that this 

area is held for conservation and/

or recreation (in accordance with 

the CBRA definition of an OPA); 

however, it qualified for inclusion 

within a System Unit at the time 

it was included within the CBRS. 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Units NC-06 and NC-06P 

as a result of this comment.

Lessons learned through the 

course of the pilot project and 

other comprehensive remapping 

projects resulted in a revision to the 

Service’s protocol regarding System 

Unit versus OPA classification 

for future mapping projects. See 

Issue 11 in Chapter 4 for more 

information about reclassifications 

within the CBRS and changes to 

the Service’s OPA mapping protocol 

and Chapter 6 for additional 

information concerning the Service’s 

guiding principles and criteria for 

modifications to the CBRS.

Comment 11: State and local 

officials are concerned that Federal 

funding prohibitions on areas 

within new System Unit NC-06 will 

have an impact on dredging and 

beach nourishment projects. State 

officials commented specifically 

that Cow Creek Channel, which is 

located behind Bear Island and is 

proposed for reclassification from 

OPA Unit NC-06P to System Unit 

NC-06, is dredged periodically to 

provide public ferry service between 

the mainland and Hammocks 

Beach State Park on Bear Island. 

Although State officials have not 

yet used Federal funds to maintain 

this channel, they would like to 

maintain that option for the future. 

The commenters are concerned that 

reclassification of the associated 

aquatic habitat from Unit NC-06P 

to Unit NC-06 will make consistency 

consultations a requirement for such 

projects, which will add uncertainty, 

increase the time in implementing a 

project, and create controversy.

Service Response to Comment 11: 

The Service’s review found no 

documentation indicating that Cow 

Creek Channel and the marsh 

between Bear Island and the mainland 

are held for conservation and/or 

recreation (in accordance with the 

CBRA definition of an OPA); however, 

they qualified for inclusion within a 

System Unit at the time they were 

included within the CBRS. See Issue 

11 in Chapter 4 for more information 

about reclassifications within the 

CBRS. There are no changes between 

the proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit NC-06 as a result of this 

comment.

There is an exception in the CBRA 

for the maintenance of existing 

Federal navigation channels.8

 

Determinations regarding whether 

specific projects or actions meet an 

exception to the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures are made 

on a case by case basis. The Federal 

funding agency must consult with 

the Service’s local Ecological 

Services Field Office prior to 

committing funds for a project or 

action within or affecting a System 

Unit of the CBRS. Information 

concerning the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures, and 

exceptions to those limitations, is 

available on the Service’s website at: 

https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/habitat-conservation/cbra/

Consultations/Limitations-andExceptions.html.

Comment 12: Local officials are 

concerned that the proposed creation 

of System Unit NC-06 ignores 

the intention of Congress because 

associated aquatic habitats should 

only be included within the CBRS 

if these areas include few manmade 

structures and take into account the 

existence of manmade features and 

human activities that impede the 

natural processes. These officials 

identify the following evidence of 

human activities: structures within 

Hammocks Beach State Park, 

the periodic dredging of channels 

providing access to Bear Island, the 

inclusion of waterfront structures 

along the Swansboro and Cedar 

Point shorelines, and the dredging 

and disposal project activities in the 

Bogue Inlet area. 

Service Response to Comment 12:

The consideration of human 

activities is a part of the CBRA 

definition of an undeveloped coastal 

barrier:

(1) The term “undeveloped coastal 

barrier” means—

(A) a depositional geologic 

feature (such as a bay 

barrier, tombolo, barrier 

spit, or barrier island) 

that—

(i) is subject to wave, tidal, 

and wind energies, and

(ii) protects landward 

aquatic habitats from 

direct wave attack; and

(B) all associated aquatic 

habitats, including 

the adjacent wetlands, 

marshes, estuaries, inlets, 

and nearshore waters; 

but only if such feature and 

associated habitats contain few 

manmade structures and these 

structures, and man’s activities 

on such feature and within such 

habitats, do not significantly 

impede geomorphic and 

ecological processes.9

E-6
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

However, the significance that 

human activities have in considering 

whether an area is undeveloped 

under the CBRA is limited. The 

Department’s May 1983 Final 

Environmental Statement 

Undeveloped Coastal Barriers 

report contains an explanation of 

how this is applied: 

All coastal barriers are 

affected to some degree by 

human activities. Even 

completely undeveloped 

coastal barriers often have 

a considerable history of 

human use and occupancy, 

which have from time to time 

affected environmental quality, 

vegetation, wildlife, and other 

factors. For the most part, 

these impacts have been minor 

and well within the capability 

of the coastal barrier ecosystem 

to mitigate or repair in a short 

period of time. Significant 

impacts--that is, those which 

interfere with the geological 

and ecological processes 

responsible for maintaining 

coastal barrier ecosystems--

are nearly always associated, 

either directly or indirectly, 

with intensive development 

involving large capital 

investments on the site.

10 

If a coastal barrier contains few 

man-made structures but is subject 

to significant levels of human activity 

such as the intensive development 

associated with a large condominium 

development, it is considered 

developed. The 1983 report also 

states:

The wording of this section 

requires evaluation of human 

impacts only in cases where 

structures are present; 

completely undeveloped 

coastal barriers are not 

evaluated (presumably on the 

assumption that, without any 

structures, the probability of 

significant human impacts 

on geological and ecological 

processes is extremely low). 

Although human activities 

(such as the destruction of 

dunes) which significantly 

affect geological processes 

almost always have significant 

impacts on ecological processes 

as well, the converse is less 

often true. Thus, ditching of 

tidal marshes, which can have 

significant ecological impacts 

by damaging or destroying 

habitat for numerous fish and 

wildlife species, may have only 

minor impacts on geologic 

processes. The existence of 

ecologically adverse activities 

alone would not cause a 

coastal barrier to be excluded 

for purposes of denying flood 

insurance coverage.11

This 1983 report goes on to say 

that the impacts of human activities 

are considered in cases where the 

development density is less than 

the threshold for identifying an 

undeveloped coastal barrier, but not 

in cases where the coastal barrier is 

completely undeveloped. Significant 

impacts on both geological and 

ecological processes must be 

present, and the area must contain 

some development in order for it to 

be a factor.

Our review found that the area 

within new System Unit NC-06 

(which includes a large area of 

associated aquatic habitat that is 

recommended for reclassification 

from OPA Unit NC-06P and new 

additions on the north and east) met 

(or meets, for new additions) the 

CBRA criteria for an undeveloped 

coastal barrier at the time it was 

included within the CBRS and is 

well below the density threshold 

of one structure per five acres 

of fastland. There were a few 

scattered structures when the area 

was first included within OPA Unit 

NC-06P, and the Service found no 

significant impacts on geological 

and ecological processes related 

to these structures. There are no 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Units 

NC-06 and NC-06P as a result of 

this comment.

Comment 13: Local officials are 

concerned that the proposed 

expansion of the CBRS to include 

the marsh along the shorelines 

of the Towns of Swansboro and 

Cedar Point will have negative 

consequences for the waterfront 

structures. The commenters 

indicated that the Swansboro 

downtown district is a designated 

urban waterfront area and is on the 

National Register of Historic Places 

due to its long history of use as a 

working waterfront area.

Service Response to Comment 13: 

The CBRA definition of a coastal 

barrier includes all associated 

aquatic habitats, encompassing 

the adjacent wetlands, marshes, 

estuaries, inlets, and nearshore 

waters.12 The statutory definition 

is consistent with the fact that 

the upland component and the 

associated aquatic habitat are 

inseparable parts of a single coastal 

barrier ecosystem. The CBRS 

currently includes approximately 

2.9 million acres of associated 

aquatic habitat, some of which 

is located close to development. 

The subject area that is added 

to Unit NC-06 is consistent with 

the CBRA definition of associated 

aquatic habitat. Unit NC-06 is 

modified where appropriate to 

include the entire width of the 

Intracoastal Waterway within the 

unit in accordance with the Service’s 

channel mapping protocol. As a 

result of this protocol, additional 

docks, piers, marinas, and other 

shoreline structures are included 

within the CBRS. However, such 

structures are already prevalent 

within the CBRS.

When comprehensively remapping 

CBRS units, the Service generally 

applies a 20 foot buffer (i.e., leaving 

space between the boundary and 

the feature it is intended to follow) 

along developed shorelines to ensure 

that structures and/or infrastructure 

(e.g., walled and roofed structures, 

roads, and bulkheads) located along 

the shoreline are not inadvertently 

included within the CBRS. Large 

marinas that existed when the area 

was originally included within the 

CBRS are generally excluded from 

the CBRS. However, because 

docks, piers, and other similar 

structures are located throughout 

the waterways that are part of 

the associated aquatic habitat of 

the CBRS, and these structures 

frequently change in size and shape 

E-7
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

over time, it would be impractical to 

map CBRS units to exclude them. 

See Issue 16 in Chapter 4 for more 

information about the Service’s 

mapping protocol for shoreline 

and development feature buffering 

and Issues 12 and 15 for more 

information about the mapping 

protocols for channels, docks, piers, 

and marinas. 

Unit L06, Topsail

Comment 14: State officials 

commented that they are extremely 

concerned by the mapping of 

Unit L06 because there are 

approximately 12 bridges and 

7.5 miles of roads that the State 

maintains in this unit. The State 

may need to increase the footprint, 

replace, and/or relocate the 

existing roadways and bridges as 

maintenance and traffic conditions 

change. There is also the potential 

that new roadways or bridges will 

be required to serve the growing 

population in this area. 

Service Response to Comment 14: 

There is an exception in the CBRA 

for the maintenance, replacement, 

reconstruction, or repair, but not 

the expansion, of publicly owned or 

publicly operated roads, structures, 

or facilities that are essential links in 

a larger network or system.13 There 

is also an exception in the CBRA 

for roads that are not essential 

links in a larger network or system, 

but projects that fall under that 

exception must meet additional 

requirements.14 Determinations 

regarding whether specific projects 

or actions meet an exception to 

the CBRA’s limitations on Federal 

expenditures are made on a case 

by case basis. The Federal funding 

agency must consult with the 

Service’s local Ecological Services 

Field Office prior to committing 

funds for a project or action within 

or affecting a System Unit of the 

CBRS. Information concerning 

the CBRA’s limitations on Federal 

expenditures, and exceptions to 

those limitations, is available on the 

Service’s website at: https://www.

fws.gov/ecological-services/habitatconservation/cbra/Consultations/

Limitations-and-Exceptions.html.

Most of the area within Unit L06 

has been in the CBRS since 1982. 

Road projects within the unit that 

do not meet an exception under the 

CBRA have been prohibited from 

receiving Federal funds for over 

30 years and will continue to be 

prohibited from receiving Federal 

funds even if no additions are made 

to the existing unit. Of the 169 total 

acres recommended for addition 

to Unit L06, only four acres are 

fastland. The Service generally does 

not consider future development 

or infrastructure projects when 

assessing areas for addition to the 

CBRS (see Chapter 6 for additional 

information concerning the Service’s 

criteria for modifications to the 

CBRS). There are no changes 

between the proposed and final 

recommended maps for Unit L06 as 

a result of this comment.

Comment 15: Local officials, 

individuals, and homeowners 

associations commented that 

Unit L06 should be removed 

in its entirety from the CBRS 

based on a claim that there was 

a full complement of existing 

infrastructure (i.e., roads, 

wastewater disposal system, electric 

service, and fresh water supply) to 

each lot or building site in the area 

when it was included in 1982 within 

the CBRS. Local officials submitted 

documentation concerning the level 

of infrastructure that was on-theground at the time Unit L06 was 

designated in 1982.

Service Response to Comment 15: 

The Service assessed the 

information submitted by the 

commenters and other interested 

parties, Onslow County property 

parcel data, and historical imagery 

and background records for Unit 

L06. Our review found that though 

there were some structures on-theground and a main trunk line of 

infrastructure that ran along the 

length of the unit in 1982, the area 

still met the CBRA criteria for an 

undeveloped coastal barrier when 

it was included within the CBRS in 

1982. Therefore, the Service does 

not recommend removing Unit L06 

from the CBRS or remapping the 

unit to remove the majority of the 

land currently in the unit from the 

CBRS. A summary of the Service’s 

findings related to Unit L06 are 

below. There are no changes 

between the proposed and final 

recommended maps for Unit L06 as 

a result of this comment. 

The Service’s historical background 

record on Unit L06 contains 

information about the existence of 

a main road through North Topsail 

Beach and the basic availability of 

utilities along that road prior to 

the inclusion of the area within the 

CBRS. A July 1982 memo of the 

Department’s Coastal Barriers Task 

Force states that structures were 

scattered over the unit in very low 

densities, primarily along Highway 

210, with the overall density very 

much below the threshold of one 

structure per five acres of fastland. 

In addition, the memo stated that 

no evidence was found that a full 

complement of infrastructure exists 

at each lot or building site within 

Unit L06.

The 1982 CBRS definition and 

delineation criteria state that:

The presence on a coastal 

barrier of a single road, 

or even through highway, 

plus associated electric 

transmission and water and 

sewer lines in this highway 

corridor does not constitute 

the necessary full complement 

of infrastructure necessary to 

support development.15

This is essentially the level of 

infrastructure that existed in North 

Topsail Beach at the time of the 

initial CBRS designation, with the 

exception of a couple of areas that 

had more extensive infrastructure 

and structures on-the-ground, which 

are either currently excluded from 

the unit or recommended for removal 

on the final recommended maps.

Our review of Unit L06 also considered 

the density of development on-theground when the unit was designated 

in 1982. Unit L06 was comprised of 

approximately 797 acres of uplands 

and contained approximately 

35 structures in April of 1982; 

therefore the density of development 

was about one structure per 23 acres of 

land above mean high tide, well below 

the density threshold (one structure 

per five acres of land above mean 

high tide) to be considered developed. 

The Service’s background record 

on Unit L06 indicates that in 1982, a 

E-8
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

review of the aerial photography dated 

April 30, 1982, verified the existence 

of the components of a coastal barrier 

and confirmed the lack of sufficient 

structures and other facilities or visible 

impacts to consider the area developed 

as defined in the CBRA. 

Comment 16: Local officials 

requested that those areas the Town 

of North Topsail Beach had zoned 

as Conservation District prior to 

their inclusion within the CBRS in 

1982 be reclassified from System 

Unit to a new OPA. The commenters 

submitted excerpts from the Town’s 

zoning ordinance. These excerpts 

state that the Conservation 

District is established to protect 

floodplain, coastal waters, and areas 

of environmental concern of the 

Coastal Area Management Act; 

within this zoning designation, only 

water-dependent uses are permitted 

and intensive use of the land is not 

permitted.

Service Response to Comment 16: 

Areas established under Federal, 

State, or local law, or held by a 

qualified organization, primarily 

for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, 

recreational, or natural resource 

conservation purposes, are typically 

included within OPAs of the CBRS.16 

All other areas, including those 

subject to certain regulations and/

or zoning designations (which may 

be subject to change), are typically 

included within System Units rather 

than OPAs. Therefore, the Service 

does not recommend reclassifying 

from System Unit to OPA the 

areas in the Town that are zoned as 

Conservation Districts. See Issue 6 

in Chapter 4 for more information 

concerning this protocol related to 

zoning designations.

Comment 17: The Service received 

many comments on Unit L06 from 

individuals stating that CBRA has 

failed to discourage development in 

the Town of North Topsail Beach and 

the unit should therefore be removed 

from the CBRS or the law should be 

repealed.

Service Response to Comment 17: 

The Service does not recommend 

removing areas simply because they 

have developed after they were added 

to the CBRS, and would not support 

the repeal of the CBRA. See Issue 2 

in Chapter 4 for more information.

Comment 18: Local officials 

requested that five parcels at 

the west end of Waterway Drive 

be removed from the CBRS 

because they believe these parcels 

meet the guidelines for existing 

infrastructure as indicated in 

Section 2 of the 2000 CBRRA17

and are consistent with other 

properties along Waterway Drive 

that are proposed by the Service 

for removal from the CBRS. 

Service Response to Comment 18: 

The Service does not recommend 

removing the five parcels at the 

west end of Waterway Drive from 

the CBRS. On the proposed 

map, the boundary of the unit 

was modified to be located at the 

1990 break-in-development. The 

break-in-development is where 

development ended when the area 

was originally included within the 

CBRS (i.e., the area immediately 

adjacent to the last structure in a 

cluster or row of structures, or at 

the property parcel boundary of 

the last structure).18 The Service’s 

assessment found that, at the time 

of inclusion within the CBRS, the 

five parcels were undeveloped and 

did not have a paved road (which 

is a necessary component of a full 

complement of infrastructure). 

See Chapter 6 for additional 

information concerning the 

Service’s criteria for modifications 

to the CBRS. There are no changes 

between the proposed and final 

recommended maps for Unit L06 as 

a result of this comment.

SOUTH CAROLINA

Unit M02, Litchfield Beach

Comment 19: Local officials 

commented that two existing 

homes on Norris Drive are added 

to Unit M02 on the proposed 

map. The commenters requested 

confirmation that these two homes 

are intended to be included within 

the unit.

Service Response to Comment 19: 

The homes on Norris Drive were 

not visible on the 1999 base map 

imagery used for the proposed 

map. These two homes were 

already on-the-ground at the time 

the proposed maps were produced; 

therefore, on the final recommended 

map, the northern boundary of 

Unit M02 is returned to its existing 

location. The two homes are not 

recommended for addition to the 

CBRS. There are changes between 

the proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit M02 as a result of this 

comment. 

Comment 20: Local officials 

commented that the creeks within 

and proposed for addition to Unit 

M02 are subject to periodic dredging 

and should be removed from the 

CBRS. 

Service Response to Comment 20: 

Some portions of the creeks are 

within Unit M02 and some portions 

of the creeks are recommended 

for addition to the unit. Channels 

are part of the associated aquatic 

habitat of coastal barriers and have 

been included as such throughout 

the CBRS. In carrying out the 

pilot project, the Service noted 

that the Department’s 1982 and 

1988 published guidance19 have not 

been consistently applied to the 

CBRS maps, and we modified the 

boundaries on the proposed maps 

to include the entire width of the 

channel within the CBRS unit. See 

Issue 12 in Chapter 4 for more 

information about the Service’s 

protocol for mapping of channels 

within the CBRS. There are no 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Unit 

M02 as a result of this comment.

There is an exception in the CBRA 

for the maintenance of existing 

Federal navigation channels.20 

Determinations regarding whether 

specific projects or actions meet an 

exception to the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures are made 

on a case by case basis. The Federal 

funding agency must consult with 

the Service’s local Ecological 

Services Field Office prior to 

committing funds for a project or 

action within or affecting a System 

Unit of the CBRS. Information 

concerning the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures, and 

exceptions to those limitations, is 

available on the Service’s website at: 

https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/habitat-conservation/cbra/

Consultations/Limitations-andExceptions.html. 

E-9
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

Comment 21: In accordance with 

the CBRA’s requirement to update 

the CBRS maps at least once every 

five years to account for natural 

changes,21 the Service prepared 

draft revised maps dated November 

30, 2012, for all CBRS units in 

South Carolina. The Service held a 

comment period on these draft maps 

in 2013 for Federal, State, and local 

stakeholders. During the comment 

period, we received a comment 

from the Town of Pawleys Island. 

However, the change requested by 

the Town of Pawleys Island was 

outside the scope of the Service’s 

administrative authority under 

the CBRA in revising the CBRS 

boundaries to account for natural 

changes. Because the pilot project 

comprehensively revises Unit 

M02, the Service is addressing the 

Town’s comment here. The Town of 

Pawleys Island requested that the 

CBRS boundary at the northern end 

of the town (which is the southern 

boundary of Unit M02) be moved 

northward of the jetty at the south 

side of Midway Inlet.

Service Response to Comment 21: 

The Service’s historical background 

record indicates that in 1982, 

when Unit M02 was established, 

the 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 from the CBRS 

the property where the structures 

were located. The area around 

Midway Inlet is a dynamic area 

and has changed significantly since 

1982. The Service recommends that 

the jetty remain within the CBRS. 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit M02 as a result of this 

comment. 

There is an exception in the 

CBRA for the maintenance or 

improvements of existing Federal 

navigation channels and related 

structures, such as jetties.22

Determinations regarding whether 

specific projects or actions meet an 

exception to the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures are made 

on a case by case basis. The Federal 

funding agency must consult with 

the Service’s local Ecological 

Services Field Office prior to 

committing funds for a project or 

action within or affecting a System 

Unit of the CBRS. Information 

concerning the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures, and 

exceptions to those limitations, is 

available on the Service’s website at: 

https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/habitat-conservation/cbra/

Consultations/Limitations-andExceptions.html. 

Unit M03, Pawleys Island

Comment 22: Local officials 

commented that it is difficult to 

determine whether the existing 

groin at the southern end of Springs 

Avenue is located within the CBRS 

because the groin is very close to the 

proposed boundary of Unit M03 on 

the proposed map. The local officials 

recommend that the groin not be 

located within the CBRS because of 

the protection the groin provides to 

the south end of Pawleys Island, and 

because they would like to have the 

option of seeking Federal funds to 

repair the groin if it is damaged.

Service Response to Comment 22: 

Through the course of preparing 

the final recommended maps, the 

Service determined that we had 

incorrectly depicted the existing 

northern lateral boundary of Unit 

M03 on the proposed map. The 

existing boundary is actually located 

approximately 20 feet further south 

than is shown on that map. Because 

the Service recommends no change 

to the boundary of Unit M03 in that 

location, the final recommended 

boundary has been adjusted by 20 

feet south to the actual location of 

the existing boundary. The groin 

on the southern end of Springs 

Avenue is not currently within the 

CBRS and is not recommended for 

addition to the CBRS on the final 

recommended map. There are 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Unit 

M03 as a result of this comment.

Comment 23: Local officials 

commented that the creeks within and 

proposed for addition to Unit M03 

are subject to periodic dredging and 

should be removed from the CBRS.

Service Response to Comment 23: 

Some portions of the creeks are 

within Unit M03, and some portions 

of the creeks are recommended 

for addition to the unit. Channels 

are part of the associated aquatic 

habitat of coastal barriers and have 

been included as such throughout 

the CBRS. In carrying out the 

pilot project, the Service noted 

that the Department’s 1982 and 

1988 published guidance23 have not 

been consistently applied to the 

CBRS maps, and we modified the 

boundaries on the proposed maps 

to include the entire width of the 

channel within the CBRS unit. See 

Issue 12 in Chapter 4 for more 

information about the Service’s 

protocol for mapping of channels 

within the CBRS. There are no 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Unit 

M03 as a result of this comment. 

There is an exception in the CBRA 

for the maintenance of existing 

Federal navigation channels.24 

Determinations regarding whether 

specific projects or actions meet an 

exception to the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures are made 

on a case by case basis. The Federal 

funding agency must consult with 

the Service’s local Ecological 

Services Field Office prior to 

committing funds for a project or 

action within or affecting a System 

Unit of the CBRS. Information 

concerning the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures, and 

exceptions to those limitations, is 

available on the Service’s website at: 

https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/habitat-conservation/cbra/

Consultations/Limitations-andExceptions.html.

FLORIDA

Unit P04A, Usina Beach

Comment 24: Local officials 

requested that the Service review 

several areas of concern where the 

proposed boundary of Unit P04A 

may need to be adjusted or buffered. 

The areas of concern are: (1) a 

private home on Seminole Drive that 

is very close to the CBRS boundary; 

(2) three buildings located on Bella 

Vista Boulevard in Las Palmas on 

E-10
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

the Intracoastal Condominiums 

community that appear to be clipped 

by the CBRS boundary; (3) the 

Las Palmas on the Intracoastal 

Condominiums clubhouse that may 

have been inadvertently included 

within the CBRS; and (4) three 

areas of uplands (lots in the Fort 

Moosa Gardens subdivision, at the 

end of Maralinda Drive, and on the 

south side of Unit P04A along State 

Highway A1A) that appear to have 

been inadvertently added to the 

CBRS.

Service Response to Comment 24: 

The Service has reviewed the 

areas of concern that were 

identified by local officials. The 

final recommended map modifies 

the boundary of Unit P04A to add 

an appropriate buffer (at least five 

feet) between the boundary and the 

structures in (1) and (2) above and to 

remove the uplands specified in (4) 

above. The boundary of Unit P04A 

in these particular areas is intended 

to follow the wetland/fastland 

interface.

The area where the Las Palmas 

on the Intracoastal Condominiums 

clubhouse is located has been 

within the CBRS since 1990. The 

Service’s assessment found that 

this area was undeveloped when it 

was first included within the CBRS 

and the clubhouse was constructed 

about ten years after the area was 

added to Unit P04A. Also, the 

CBRS boundary lines on the maps 

follow the underlying features they 

were intended to follow on-theground. Therefore, the clubhouse 

remains within the CBRS on the 

final recommended map. See 

Chapter 6 for additional information 

concerning the Service’s criteria for 

modifications to the CBRS. 

There are changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit P04A as a result of 

this comment. 

Comment 25: An individual 

submitted comments and supporting 

information to request that the 

proposed southern boundary of 

Unit P04A be moved to the north 

so that it does not cut through the 

uplands located on the commenter’s 

vacant property. In the submitted 

materials, the commenter included 

documentation of a claim that 

there was a full complement of 

existing infrastructure (i.e., roads, 

wastewater disposal system, electric 

service, and fresh water supply) to 

the subject lot when it was included 

within the CBRS on the proposed 

map.

Service Response to Comment 25: 

The proposed southern boundary 

of Unit P04A, where it bisects the 

commenter’s property, is intended to 

follow a wetland/fastland interface 

and include additional wetlands 

within the unit. Updated imagery 

and information submitted by 

the commenter showed that the 

proposed boundary did not correctly 

align with the wetland/fastland 

interface. The final recommended 

map modifies the southern boundary 

of Unit P04A to remove from the 

CBRS an area of uplands on the 

commenter’s property. Because 

the modified Unit P04A boundary 

in this area removes the uplands 

that the commenter was concerned 

about, the Service did not validate 

the submitted infrastructure claim. 

There are changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit P04A as a result of 

this comment. 

Unit P05, Conch Island

Comment 26: Local officials 

commented that Commercial 

Marina at Conch House appears to 

be excluded from Unit P05 on the 

proposed map; however, boat slips 

have been added since then and they 

want to know if those additional slips 

will also be excluded from the unit.

Service Response to Comment 26: 

The Service has reviewed the 

submitted information and the 

2013 base map imagery. The 

Service generally recommends the 

exclusion of large marinas from the 

CBRS. The final recommended 

map modifies the boundary of Unit 

P05 to remove the more recently 

constructed portions of the marina 

from the area recommended for 

addition to the unit. See Issue 15 

in Chapter 4 for more information 

about the Service’s mapping 

protocols for docks, piers, and 

marinas. There are changes 

between the proposed and final 

recommended maps for Unit P05 

as a result of this comment. 

Comment 27: Local officials 

submitted comments concerning 

the difference in buffering along 

the Matanzas River at the Bridge 

of Lions. On the east side of the 

river, there is a buffer between 

the bulkhead and the proposed 

boundary for Unit P05, but on the 

west side, there is no buffer. The 

local officials requested that a 

buffer be added to the west side in 

case Federal funds are needed to 

rebuild the bulkhead.

Service Response to Comment 27: 

The proposed maps applied an 

approximately 50 foot buffer to 

developed shorelines in order to 

avoid the inadvertent inclusion of 

development within the CBRS, 

but only considered the presence 

of walled and roofed structures 

and not the presence of bulkheads 

or roads. However, after 

consideration of the comments, the 

Service believes that a reasonable 

definition of a developed shoreline 

would include bulkheads and roads 

that run parallel to and closely 

follow (or are coincident with) the 

shoreline. The final recommended 

map modifies the boundary of Unit 

P05 to add a buffer of about 20 feet 

on the west side of the Matanzas 

River and reduce the buffer on 

the east side to about 20 feet. See 

Issue 16 in Chapter 4 for more 

information about the Service’s 

mapping protocol for shoreline and 

development feature buffering. 

There are changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit P05 as a result of 

this comment. 

Comment 28: Local officials 

commented that the parking area 

at the Vilano Beach Boat Ramp 

has been extended and requested 

that the extension be excluded 

from Unit P05 like the rest of the 

parking lot. They state that this 

is a park area and Federal grants 

are used for the park from time to 

time.

Service Response to Comment 28: 

The Service has reviewed the 

submitted information and the 

E-11
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

2013 base map imagery. The 

parking area extension at the Vilano 

Beach Boat Ramp is in an area 

that was proposed for addition to 

Unit P05. The Unit P05 proposed 

boundary in that area was intended 

to follow the wetland/fastland 

interface. Therefore, the final 

recommended map modifies the 

boundary of Unit P05 to remove 

the parking area extension from 

the area recommended for addition 

to the unit and follow the current 

wetland/fastland interface. There 

are changes between the proposed 

and final recommended maps 

for Unit P05 as a result of this 

comment. 

Comment 29: Local officials 

submitted a comment asking 

whether the proposed Unit P05 

boundary was intended to include 

the temporary bridge north of the 

Bridge of the Lions.

Service Response to Comment 29:

The final recommended map 

modifies the boundary of Unit P05 

to add an appropriate buffer along 

the Bridge of the Lions. In cases 

where the CBRS boundary follows a 

bridge, an appropriate buffer (about 

20 feet) is applied between the 

bridge and the boundary. Additional 

visible bridge infrastructure (e.g., 

fenders) is generally excluded 

but not buffered. This protocol is 

not intended to allow for existing 

bridges (which are currently not 

within the CBRS) to be expanded, 

but rather to ensure that the 

structure, as it existed at the time 

the adjacent area was included 

within the CBRS, is clearly outside 

of the unit. See Issue 16 in Chapter 

4 for more information about the 

Service’s mapping protocol for 

shoreline and development feature 

buffering. There are changes 

between the proposed and final 

recommended maps for Unit P05 as 

a result of this comment. 

Temporary bridges are generally 

not taken into consideration 

when determining where to 

place the CBRS boundary. Since 

this comment was received, 

the temporary bridge north of 

the Bridge of Lions has been 

demolished.

Unit P05P, Conch Island

Comment 30: Local officials 

submitted comments regarding 

five different areas of concern 

where it appears that the proposed 

boundaries of Unit P05P do not 

precisely follow the boundaries of 

the underlying park, but rather 

include small pieces of both publicly 

(e.g., roads, road rights-of-way) and 

privately owned areas. These areas 

of concern are located along Pope 

Road, Santander Street, Hernandez 

Boulevard, Anastasia Park Drive, 

and the San Jose Forest subdivision. 

The commenters requested that the 

Service review these areas.

Service Response to Comment 30: 

The Service has reviewed the 

submitted information and the 

2013 base map imagery. Minor 

adjustments based on the updated 

imagery were made to the final 

recommended map to better fit 

the boundary of Unit P05P to the 

underlying features they were 

intended to follow, such as roads 

and park boundaries, and to remove 

the small pieces of privately owned 

areas. There are changes between 

the proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit P05P as a result of 

this comment.

Roads and road rights-of-way are 

included within OPAs throughout 

the CBRS. There are no CBRA 

prohibitions affecting Federal 

funding or financial assistance 

for road construction and/

or maintenance within OPAs. 

Remapping OPAs to exclude all 

roads and road rights-of-way would 

be resource intensive, impractical, 

and unnecessary.

Unit P08, Ponce Inlet

Comment 31: Local officials 

requested that the private 

development south of Smyrna 

Dunes Park that is currently within 

Unit P08 be removed based on an 

infrastructure claim (i.e., whether 

a full complement of infrastructure 

including roads, wastewater disposal 

system, electric service, and fresh 

water supply existed to each lot 

or building site in the area when 

it was first included within the 

CBRS) and a phased development 

claim (i.e., whether the area was 

part of a large single ownership of 

property that was in the process 

of being developed under a phased 

development plan). They also 

submitted supporting resolutions 

from the affected homeowners 

associations.

Service Response to Comment 31: 

The Service has reviewed the 

submitted infrastructure and phased 

development information, and 

historical imagery and background 

records for Unit P08. Our review 

found that though there were some 

structures on-the-ground and a 

main trunk line of infrastructure 

that ran along the length of the 

unit, the area in which the private 

development is located still met the 

CBRA criteria for an undeveloped 

coastal barrier when it was included 

within the CBRS in 1982. Therefore, 

the Service does not recommend 

removing the development south of 

Smyrna Dunes Park from the CBRS.

The Service generally considers 

the on-the-ground conditions at the 

time an area was included within the 

CBRS (either by an act of Congress 

or by an administrative action of 

the Service that is published in the 

Federal Register). However, in the 

case of areas that were included 

by the CBRA of 1982, the Service 

identified March 15, 1982, as the 

cutoff date for the Department’s 

analysis of coastal barrier ground 

conditions.25 In addition, Congress 

provided a delay to October 1, 1983, 

for terminating the availability 

of new Federal flood insurance 

for structures that were under 

development but not completed until 

after March 15, 1982.26

The Service’s background record 

on Unit P08 contains information 

indicating that the only permanent 

buildings on the south side of 

Ponce de Leon Inlet are at the U.S. 

Coast Guard Reservation, with 

residential development increasing 

south of the unit. A January 1982 

information summary prepared 

by the Department’s Coastal 

Barriers Task Force states that the 

segment of the unit south of the inlet 

contained a paved road and utility 

E-12
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

corridor leading to the U.S. Coast 

Guard Reservation. In addition, 

this document indicates that a full 

complement of infrastructure at 

each lot and building was not in 

place and only four structures were 

on-the-ground at the time the unit 

was established.

The 1982 CBRS definition and 

delineation criteria state that:

The presence on a coastal 

barrier of a single road, 

or even through highway, 

plus associated electric 

transmission and water and 

sewer lines in this highway 

corridor does not constitute 

the necessary full complement 

of infrastructure necessary to 

support development.27

This is essentially the level of 

infrastructure that existed in the 

southern portion of Unit P08 at the 

time of the initial CBRS designation. 

This area is also discussed in Volume 

14 of the Department’s 1988 Report 

to Congress in the response to 

public comments section for Unit 

P08, which says “the area known as 

‘The Inlet’ was undeveloped in 1982 

when it was included in the original 

CBRS.”28 For more information on 

our review of infrastructure claims, 

see Chapter 6 of this report.

Our review of Unit P08 also 

considered the density of 

development on-the-ground when 

the unit was designated in 1982. The 

Service’s records indicate that the 

density of development in Unit P08 

was below the density threshold 

and that a full complement of 

infrastructure was not available on 

the ground at the time of the unit’s 

designation in 1982. The Service’s 

background record on Unit P08 also 

indicates that in 1982, a review of 

the aerial photography dated May 

10, 1982, verified the existence of 

the components of a coastal barrier 

and confirmed the lack of sufficient 

structures and other facilities or 

visible impacts to consider the area 

developed as defined in the CBRA. 

Local officials assert that the 

development south of Smyrna Dunes 

Park was planned and permitted at 

the time of inclusion. However, the 

Service considers only development 

that existed on-the-ground at the time 

of inclusion. The 1982 CBRS definition 

and delineation criteria state that:

Commitments or legal 

arrangements necessary 

for and leading toward 

construction of either structures 

or infrastructure will not be 

considered relevant to the 

development status of coastal 

barriers except to the degree 

that they are actually reflected 

in the existence of structures or 

infrastructure on the coastal 

barrier, or portion thereof.29

In addition, the Service generally 

does not consider phased 

development in assessments of areas 

for removal from the CBRS (see 

Chapter 6 for additional information 

concerning the Service’s criteria 

for modifications to the CBRS). 

Volume 1 of the Department’s 1988 

Report to Congress states:

When undeveloped coastal 

barrier units were identified in 

1982...“phased development” 

was recognized as a special class 

of developing coastal barrier. 

Under this concept, minimally 

developed or undeveloped 

portions of coastal barriers were 

excluded from the CBRS if they 

were planned from the outset for 

a continuous program of multistage development by a single 

developer and the first stage of 

the development had already 

been substantially completed...

Some phased developments were 

excluded in 1982 if a developer 

could prove that at least one 

phase of the development 

exceeding 100 units had been 

completed and that the developer 

had viable plans, means, and 

intent to promptly move forward 

to construction of the next 

phase.30

The Service’s assessment found 

that the subject area does not meet 

these criteria to be considered as 

phased development. In addition, 

because of the difficulties in making 

consistent determinations about 

phased development, this has not 

been considered in determining 

development status after 1982.31

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit P08 as a result of this 

comment. 

Unit FL-13P, Spessard Holland Park

Comment 32: Local officials 

commented that the boundary on the 

stakeholder concurrence map that 

they provided to the Service in 2005 

does not match the boundary of Unit 

FL-13P on the proposed map. In 

particular, the proposed map of Unit 

FL-13P includes the road rights-ofway, the Indian River, and the Air 

Force Radar Tracking Station that 

were excluded on the stakeholder 

map.

Service Response to Comment 32: 

The stakeholder concurrence map 

that local officials signed is used 

to validate the accuracy of the 

conservation and/or recreation area 

boundary as depicted on a base map. 

This concurrence map does not 

depict the OPA boundary, but rather 

helps to ensure that the Service has 

the best available data with which to 

delineate the OPA boundary on the 

CBRS map.

The stakeholder concurrence map 

does not include water bodies, 

roads, and road rights-of-way 

within the property boundary of 

the conservation and/or recreation 

area unless such features are part 

of the conservation/recreation 

area. However, OPAs often include 

water bodies, roads, and road 

rights-of-way because it would be 

resource intensive, impractical, and 

unnecessary to exclude them, and 

the only Federal funding prohibition 

within OPAs is on Federal flood 

insurance.

The radar tracking station is 

included within Unit FL-13P 

because the property is (1) owned 

by the Brevard County Parks and 

Recreation Department and leased 

to the U.S. Air Force and (2) is too 

minor from a mapping perspective to 

exclude from the unit.

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit FL-13P as a result of 

this comment. 

E-13
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

Unit P09AP, Coconut Point

Comment 33: Local officials 

commented that the boundary on 

the stakeholder concurrence map 

that they provided to the Service in 

2005 does not match the boundary 

of Unit P09AP on the proposed map. 

In particular, the stakeholder map 

excluded the road rights-of-way, and 

these areas are included within Unit 

P09AP on the proposed map.

Service Response to Comment 33: 

The stakeholder concurrence map 

that local officials signed is used 

to validate the accuracy of the 

conservation and/or recreation area 

boundary as depicted on a base map. 

This concurrence map does not depict 

the OPA boundary, but it ensures that 

the Service has the best available 

data with which to delineate the OPA 

boundary on the CBRS map. 

The stakeholder concurrence map 

does not include roads and road 

rights-of-way within the property 

boundary of the conservation and/or 

recreation area unless such features 

are part of the conservation/

recreation area. However, OPAs 

often include roads and road 

rights-of-way because it would be 

resource intensive, impractical, and 

unnecessary to exclude them, and 

the only Federal funding prohibition 

within OPAs is on Federal flood 

insurance. There are no changes 

between the proposed and final 

recommended maps for Unit P09AP 

as a result of this comment.

Unit P10A, Blue Hole and Unit FL14P, Pepper Beach

Comment 34: Individuals and an 

advocacy organization provided 

comments regarding ownership and 

management of areas in the vicinity 

of Queens Cove subdivision. The 

commenters also seem to object to 

the inclusion within the CBRS of 

properties within Queens Cove and 

are concerned that the addition to 

the CBRS of the channels around 

Queens Cove will affect the dredging 

of these channels. The commenters 

also felt there was inadequate 

public notice of the pilot project and 

requested more time for the public 

comment period.

Service Response to Comment 34:

The proposed map for Units P10A 

and FL-14P does not add to the 

CBRS any additional properties 

in Queens Cove subdivision except 

for a minor area on Kings Island. 

Although this area is not held for 

conservation and/or recreation, 

it is included within OPA Unit 

FL-14P because it qualifies as an 

undeveloped coastal barrier and it is 

impractical to delineate it separately 

as a System Unit.

There are some undeveloped lots in 

Blocks 10 and 11 of Queen’s Cove 

that have been within Unit P10A 

since 1982. The Service generally 

will not recommend a removal from 

the CBRS unless there is clear and 

compelling evidence that an error 

in boundary delineation was made. 

When assessing whether an area 

may be appropriate for removal, 

the Service considers the following 

criteria:

(1) the level of development 

on-the-ground at the time the 

area was included within the 

CBRS (i.e., the number of 

structures or complement of 

infrastructure on-the-ground 

exceeded the threshold 

for the area to be considered 

undeveloped)32 and/or

(2) the location of geomorphic, 

cultural, and development 

features on-the-ground at the 

time the area was included 

within the CBRS (i.e., the 

CBRS boundary lines on the 

maps do not precisely follow 

the underlying features they 

were intended to follow on-theground).

The lots in Blocks 10 and 11 do not 

meet either of these criteria for 

removal. They were undeveloped 

when they were included within the 

CBRS, and the CBRS boundary 

to the north of the area follows 

the break-in-development. The 

break-in-development is where 

development ended when the area 

was originally included within the 

CBRS (i.e., the area immediately 

adjacent to the last structure in a 

cluster or row of structures, or at 

the property parcel boundary of the 

last structure).33

There is an exception in the CBRA 

for the maintenance of existing 

Federal navigation channels.34

Determinations regarding whether 

specific projects or actions meet an 

exception to the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures are made 

on a case by case basis. The Federal 

funding agency must consult with 

the Service’s local Ecological 

Services Field Office prior to 

committing funds for a project or 

action within or affecting a System 

Unit of the CBRS. Information 

concerning the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures, and 

exceptions to those limitations, is 

available on the Service’s website at: 

https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/habitat-conservation/cbra/

Consultations/Limitations-andExceptions.html. For channels 

within OPAs, there are no CBRA 

prohibitions affecting Federal 

funding or financial assistance (the 

only prohibition in OPAs applies to 

flood insurance). 

Regarding the comment about 

public notice for the pilot project, 

the Service initially announced a 

90-day comment period that was 

subsequently extended to 120 

days. The Service also held virtual 

public meetings and published 

announcements in local papers. For 

a full description of the public review 

outreach efforts, see Chapter 3.

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Units P10A and FL-14P as 

a result of this comment.

Comment 35: Local officials are 

concerned about the proposed 

expansion of Unit P10A to include 

the Fort Pierce Inlet and the 

Port of Fort Pierce, which are 

parts of a Federally maintained 

deep-water port established in 

1935. A significant portion of the 

port and inlet areas are already 

developed and future development 

and redevelopment is anticipated. 

Other concerns are that dredging 

maintenance is performed by the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

using Federal funds and local 

E-14
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

officials may seek Federal funds 

for future improvements such as 

shoreline stabilization and a sand 

bypassing facility. Local officials and 

a business owner are also concerned 

about the proposed addition to the 

CBRS of the Harbortown Marina, a 

large private marina constructed in 

the early 1980’s and located in the 

port area.

Service Response to Comment 35: 

The Service reviewed the submitted 

materials and other State and 

county data and determined that due 

to the existing level of development, 

the port, inlet, and marina should 

not be added to System Unit P10A. 

Instead, the final recommended 

boundary for OPA Unit FL-14P 

is modified in accordance with the 

Service’s pilot project channel 

mapping protocol to be in the center 

of the channel of the inlet and port 

turning basin. This modification will 

not affect Federally funded activities 

within channels because the CBRA’s 

only Federal funding prohibition 

within OPAs applies to flood 

insurance. The boundary of Unit 

P10A is modified to be north of State 

Route A1A. See Issue 12 in Chapter 

4 for more information about the 

Service’s protocol for mapping of 

channels within the CBRS. There 

are changes between the proposed 

and final recommended maps for 

Units P10A and FL-14P as a result 

of this comment. 

Comment 36: Local officials 

requested that all St. Lucie County 

parks and preserves that are 

identified on the materials they 

provided be classified as OPAs.

Service Response to Comment 36: 

The CBRS contains two types of 

units, System Units and OPAs. 

System Units are generally 

comprised of privately held areas. 

OPAs are generally comprised 

of areas held for wildlife refuge, 

sanctuary, recreational, or natural 

resource conservation purposes. 

In carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service noted cases where 

areas held for conservation and/

or recreation are located within 

System Units, as well as cases 

where privately held areas (that are 

not inholdings) are located within 

OPAs. Some County parks and 

preserves are already within the 

proposed boundary of OPA Unit 

FL-14P; however, some areas that 

are County parks were proposed 

for reclassification from the OPA to 

System Unit P10A or were already 

within Unit P10A. 

When the Service comprehensively 

remapped the CBRS units in the 

pilot project, the conservation and/or 

recreation areas within the unit were 

identified and the history of those 

areas was evaluated to determine 

whether they were appropriately 

classified as System Unit or OPA. 

The Service’s remapping protocol at 

the time of the pilot project generally 

recommended reclassification from 

System Unit to an OPA, or vice versa, 

depending on when the particular 

area was included within the CBRS 

and whether the area was held for 

conservation/recreation at the time it 

was included.35

In preparing the proposed maps, the 

Service made every effort to identify 

the conservation and/or recreation 

areas within Units P10A and FL14P and evaluate their history to 

determine whether such areas were 

appropriately classified as System 

Unit or OPA. Although numerous 

conservation and/or recreation 

areas are located within existing 

Unit P10A, none were held for 

conservation and/or recreation when 

the areas were first included within 

the CBRS. Therefore, such areas in 

Unit P10A are not recommended for 

reclassification to OPA.

The area within existing Unit 

FL-14P is a complex patchwork of 

State and county owned parks and 

preserves as well as wetland areas 

without clear ownership information. 

The Service used the submitted 

materials and other State and 

county data to identify additional 

conservation and/or recreation 

areas that are appropriate to 

remain within or be added to the 

OPA. The boundaries of Unit 

FL-14P on the final recommended 

map have been modified to include 

within the unit most of the County 

parks and preserves that were 

identified by local officials. On the 

final recommended map, any parks 

within existing Unit FL-14P are not 

reclassified to System Unit P10A 

(as shown on the proposed map) 

with the exception of three small 

mosquito control areas, which are 

too small to reclassify. There are 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Units 

P10A and FL-14P as a result of this 

comment.

Lessons learned through the 

course of the pilot project and other 

comprehensive remapping projects 

resulted in a revision to the Service’s 

protocol regarding System Unit 

versus OPA classification for future 

mapping projects. See Issue 11 

in Chapter 4 for more information 

about reclassifications within the 

CBRS and Chapter 6 for additional 

information concerning the Service’s 

guiding principles and criteria for 

modifications to the CBRS.

Unit P11, Hutchinson Island

Comment 37: Local officials 

commented that the northern 

proposed boundary of Unit P11 that 

lies along Blue Heron Boulevard 

could be straightened at the 

point it reaches the dunes on the 

Atlantic Ocean side of the barrier 

island to remove from the CBRS 

the beachfront dune property in 

front of completed development 

(Oceanhouses at Southpointe 

Condominiums).

Service Response to Comment 37: 

The area in question was first 

included within the CBRS in 1982, 

and the developed area to the west 

of the area in question was removed 

from the CBRS in 1990. The Service 

generally will not recommend a 

removal from the CBRS unless there 

is clear and compelling evidence that 

an error in boundary delineation 

was made. When assessing whether 

an area may be appropriate for 

removal, the Service considers the 

following criteria:

(1) the level of development 

on-the-ground at the time the 

area was included within the 

CBRS (i.e., the number of 

structures or complement of 

infrastructure on-the-ground 

exceeded the threshold for 

the area to be considered 

undeveloped)36 and/or

E-15
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

(2) the location of geomorphic, 

cultural, and development 

features on-the-ground at the 

time the area was included 

within the CBRS (i.e., the 

CBRS boundary lines on the 

maps do not precisely follow 

the underlying features they 

were intended to follow on-theground).

The area in question does not meet 

either of these criteria. It was 

undeveloped when it was included 

within the CBRS in 1982 and is 

still undeveloped, and there is not 

a clear error in the depiction of the 

underlying features on the original 

base map that would have resulted 

in the unintentional inclusion of this 

area in the CBRS. There are no 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Unit 

P11 as a result of this comment.

Comment 38: Local officials 

commented that the excluded area 

boundary adjacent to the South 

Hutchinson Island Fire Station No. 

8 could be extended to exclude the 

entire facility from Unit P11 because 

the fire station is for public safety 

and not for encouraging additional 

development.

Service Response to Comment 38: 

The excluded area where the South 

Hutchinson Island Fire Station No. 

8 is located was expanded south 

on the proposed map to remove 

development (including the fire 

station) that was on the ground 

when the area was included within 

the CBRS. To determine whether 

this removal was appropriate, the 

Service reviewed historical records 

and imagery and considered our 

criteria for removing areas from the 

CBRS. 

The southern boundary of 

the excluded area on the final 

recommended map generally follows 

the parcel boundary. Most of the 

South Hutchinson Island Fire 

Station No. 8 property, including 

the structure, is recommended for 

removal from the CBRS; only a 

minor portion of the property will 

remain within the CBRS. There are 

no changes between the proposed 

and final recommended maps for 

Unit P11 as a result of this comment.

Comment 39: Local officials 

commented that the excluded area 

boundary adjacent to the South 

Hutchinson Wastewater Treatment 

Plant could be extended to exclude 

the entire facility from Unit P11 

because of the environmental 

benefits gained from the plant.

Service Response to Comment 39: 

The Service reviewed historical 

imagery from 1982 and found that the 

area south of the South Hutchinson 

Island Fire Station No. 8 property 

where the South Hutchinson 

Wastewater Treatment Plant is 

located was undeveloped when it 

was included within the CBRS. The 

Service generally will not recommend 

a removal from the CBRS unless 

there is clear and compelling 

evidence that an error in boundary 

delineation was made. When 

assessing whether an area may be 

appropriate for removal, the Service 

considers the following criteria:

(1) the level of development 

on-the-ground at the time the 

area was included within the 

CBRS (i.e., the number of 

structures or complement of 

infrastructure on-the-ground 

exceeded the threshold for 

the area to be considered 

undeveloped)37 and/or

(2) the location of geomorphic, 

cultural, and development 

features on-the-ground at the 

time the area was included 

within the CBRS (i.e., the 

CBRS boundary lines on the 

maps do not precisely follow 

the underlying features they 

were intended to follow on-theground).

The area in question does not meet 

either of these criteria. It was 

undeveloped when it was included 

within the CBRS in 1982, and the 

CBRS boundary to the north of the 

area follows a break-in-development. 

The break-in-development is where 

development ended when the area 

was originally included within the 

CBRS (i.e., the area immediately 

adjacent to the last structure in a 

cluster or row of structures, or at the 

property parcel boundary of the last 

structure).38 There are no changes 

between the proposed and final 

recommended maps for Unit P11 as a 

result of this comment.

Comment 40: Local officials asked 

whether a CBRA consistency 

consultation with the Service would 

be required for a wind turbine 

construction project that is being 

proposed by Florida Power and 

Light near the Hutchinson Island 

Nuclear Power Plant.

Service Response to Comment 40: 

There is an exception in the CBRA 

for the use or facility necessary 

for the exploration, extraction, or 

transportation of energy resources, 

which can be carried out only on, in, 

or adjacent to a coastal water area 

because the use or facility requires 

access to the coastal water body.39

Determinations regarding whether 

specific projects or actions meet an 

exception to the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures are made 

on a case by case basis. The Federal 

funding agency must consult with 

the Service’s local Ecological 

Services Field Office prior to 

committing funds for a project or 

action within or affecting a System 

Unit of the CBRS. Information 

concerning the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures, and 

exceptions to those limitations, is 

available on the Service’s website at: 

https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/habitat-conservation/cbra/

Consultations/Limitations-andExceptions.html.

Comment 41: Local officials 

requested that all St. Lucie County 

parks and preserves that are 

identified on the maps they provided 

to the Service with their comment be 

classified as OPAs.

Service Response to Comment 41: 

The CBRS contains two types of 

units, System Units and OPAs. 

System Units are generally 

comprised of privately held areas. 

OPAs are generally comprised 

of areas held for wildlife refuge, 

sanctuary, recreational, or natural 

resource conservation purposes. 

In carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service noted cases where 

areas held for conservation and/

or recreation are located within 

System Units, as well as cases 

where privately held areas (that are 

not inholdings) are located within 

E-16
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

OPAs. Many of the identified parks 

and preserves are currently located 

within Unit P11.

When the Service comprehensively 

remapped the CBRS units in the 

pilot project, the conservation/

recreation areas within the unit were 

identified and the history of those 

areas was evaluated to determine 

whether they were appropriately 

classified as System Unit or OPA. 

The Service’s remapping 

protocol at the time of the pilot 

project generally recommended 

reclassification from System Unit 

to an OPA, or vice versa, depending 

on when the particular area was 

included within the CBRS and 

whether the area was held for 

conservation/recreation at the time 

it was included.40

Although numerous conservation/

recreation areas are located within 

Unit P11, Frederick Douglass Park 

is the only area that was held for 

conservation/recreation at the time 

it was included within the CBRS. 

This park is reclassified to OPA 

on both the proposed and final 

recommended maps; however, the 

other conservation/recreation areas 

will remain within the System Unit. 

Three parcels identified by local 

officials that are south of Unit P11 

and not currently within the CBRS 

are not recommended for addition 

to the CBRS at this time due to 

their size and location. There are no 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Unit 

P11 as a result of this comment. 

Lessons learned through the 

course of the pilot project and 

other comprehensive remapping 

projects resulted in a revision to the 

Service’s protocol regarding System 

Unit versus OPA classification 

for future mapping projects. See 

Issue 11 in Chapter 4 for more 

information about reclassifications 

within the CBRS and changes to 

the Service’s OPA mapping protocol 

and Chapter 6 for additional 

information concerning the Service’s 

guiding principles and criteria for 

modifications to the CBRS.

Comment 42: A homeowners 

association requested help in saving 

a property that contains mostly 

wetlands from being developed. 

The proposed development is 

known as Kristen’s Cove and is 

located on South Hutchinson Island, 

approximately 140 feet north of the 

Martin County line.

Service Response to Comment 42: 

The property in question is 

approximately ten acres and is 

located more than a mile away from 

the nearest CBRS unit (Unit P11). 

The Service does not recommend 

adding this property to the CBRS 

because although the property itself 

is an undeveloped area, it is behind a 

portion of the coastal barrier that is 

entirely developed.

Unit FL-39, Tavernier Key

Comment 43: Local officials 

requested that Community Harbor 

be removed from the proposed 

addition to Unit FL-39 because this 

harbor has been used historically as 

an anchorage for liveaboards and 

has been considered by Monroe 

County for establishment of a 

managed mooring field. In the 

future, the County may desire 

to seek Federal funding for the 

mooring field development and 

maintenance.

Service Response to Comment 43: 

A portion of Community Harbor 

has been within Unit FL-39 

since 1993. More of the harbor 

is recommended for addition to 

the CBRS because it is qualifying 

associated aquatic habitat. In 

determining the development status 

of coastal barriers, the Service does 

not consider development plans, 

commitments, legal arrangements, 

or financial commitments related to 

development except to the degree 

that they are actually reflected 

in the existence of structures or 

infrastructure on-the-ground. See 

Chapter 6 for additional information 

concerning the Service’s criteria 

for modifications to the CBRS. 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit FL-39 as a result of 

this comment.

Unit FL-45, Deer/Long Point Keys

Comment 44: Local officials 

requested that the disturbed/

developed area north of U.S. 

Highway 1, which includes a medical 

examiner’s office, a fire training 

facility, an electrical relay station, 

and a service road, be excluded from 

the proposed addition to Unit FL-45 

because it is already developed.

Service Response to Comment 44: 

The final recommended map 

modifies the boundary of Unit FL-45 

to remove the medical examiner’s 

office, fire training facility, electrical 

relay station, and a portion of 

the service road from the area 

recommended for addition to the 

unit. The Service inadvertently 

included this existing development 

within the proposed addition to Unit 

FL-45 because it was not visible on 

the 1999 base map imagery used 

for the proposed map. There are 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Unit 

FL-45 as a result of this comment.

Unit P17A, Bowditch Point

Comment 45: Local officials 

commented that it is critical that 

Federal resources continue to be 

available for the maintenance of 

Federal channels. The commenters 

also believe that the Service 

should recognize navigation 

channels as pre-existing developed 

infrastructure to eliminate any 

confusion or potential problems in 

interpreting where a channel can 

be dredged, and requested that 

the boundaries be modified to the 

landward edge of the channel rightsof-way.

Service Response to Comment 45: 

Channels are part of the associated 

aquatic habitat of coastal barriers 

and have been included as such 

throughout the CBRS. In carrying 

out the pilot project, the Service 

noted that the Department’s 1982 

and 1988 published guidance41 have 

not been consistently applied to the 

CBRS maps and we modified the 

boundaries on the proposed maps 

to include the entire width of the 

channel within the CBRS unit. The 

northern and eastern boundaries 

of Unit P17A on the proposed map 

were modified to include the entire 

barrier spit at the northern end of 

Estero Island and its associated 

aquatic habitat within Unit P17A. 

The associated aquatic habitat 

(including channels) had been within 

adjacent Unit FL-67 before this 

E-17
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

modification. The channels in Unit 

P17A have been within the CBRS 

either since 1982 or 1990, and in 

Unit FL-67 since 1990. Dredging 

projects within these units that do 

not meet any CBRA exceptions 

have been prohibited from receiving 

Federal funds for 25 years or more 

and will continue to be prohibited 

from receiving Federal funds even 

if no modifications or additions are 

made to the existing units. See 

Issue 12 in Chapter 4 for more 

information about the Service’s 

protocol for mapping of channels 

within the CBRS. There are no 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Unit 

P17A as a result of this comment.

There is an exception in CBRA 

for the maintenance of existing 

Federal navigation channels.42

Determinations regarding whether 

specific projects or actions meet an 

exception to the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures are made 

on a case by case basis. The Federal 

funding agency must consult with 

the Service’s local Ecological 

Services Field Office prior to 

committing funds for a project or 

action within or affecting a System 

Unit of the CBRS. Information 

concerning the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures, and 

exceptions to those limitations, is 

available on the Service’s website at: 

https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/habitat-conservation/cbra/

Consultations/Limitations-andExceptions.html.

Comment 46: Local officials are 

concerned about the Service’s 

protocol regarding navigation 

channels in the 2008 pilot project 

report. In this report, there is a 

discussion on the results of channel 

boundary mapping, which states 

that the effect of the proposed 

changes placing additional channel 

area within System Units would 

be to prohibit the use of Federal 

financial assistance for dredging and 

other projects. The commenters 

believe this is inconsistent with the 

next sentence, which states that 

the Service does not anticipate a 

significant impact due to the change 

in this mapping protocol.

Service Response to Comment 46: 

Channels are part of the associated 

aquatic habitat of coastal barriers 

and have been included as such 

throughout the CBRS.43 Additional 

channel areas are recommended 

for inclusion within System Units 

through the pilot project, and such 

areas would be subject to CBRA’s 

prohibitions if the final recommended 

maps are adopted by Congress. 

However, the Service believes that 

the impact of these additions is not 

significant because there are many 

cases in the affected areas where 

about half of the channels’ width is 

already included within the CBRS 

and they therefore are already 

subject to the CBRA’s prohibitions. 

In addition, there are exceptions 

in the CBRA for existing Federal 

navigation channels and related 

structures. Congress determined 

that it would be sufficient to exempt 

these channels from the CBRA’s 

prohibitions on Federal expenditures 

rather than exclude or remove them 

from the CBRS.44 See Issue 12 in 

Chapter 4 for more information about 

the Service’s protocol for mapping of 

channels within the CBRS.

Units FL-67 and FL-67P, Bunche 

Beach

Comment 47: Local officials 

commented that while Units FL-67 

and FL-67P are undeveloped, these 

units do not seem to fit any of the four 

types of coastal barriers (bay barrier, 

tombolo, spit, or barrier island), and 

the definition of a coastal barrier 

should be amended if the intent is to 

include additional types of geologic 

features.

Service Response to Comment 47: 

While the geologic features that 

comprise Units FL-67 and FL-67P 

do not fit within one of the four 

common categories of coastal barriers 

listed as examples in the CBRA (i.e., 

bay barrier, tombolo, barrier spit, 

or barrier island), these areas are 

functioning coastal barriers along an 

undeveloped coast. The units include 

a depositional geologic feature; are 

subject to wave, tidal, and wind 

energies; and protect landward 

aquatic habitats from direct wave 

attack. 

The legislative history of the CBRA 

states that “the term ‘coastal barrier’ 

is included in the legislation for 

informational purposes only,” and 

that “this definition is designed to 

demonstrate the values [sic] of coastal 

barriers and provide a logical basis 

for identifying them.”45 The Service 

has found nothing in the legislative 

history of the CBRA indicating that 

Congress intended the Service to 

analyze whether an area literally 

meets the statutory definition of 

a coastal barrier when making 

recommendations to Congress for 

additions to or removals from the 

CBRS. The only directive that 

Congress has specifically given the 

Service when conducting such reviews 

is that we shall consider whether the 

area in question met the development 

criteria at the time that it was (or is) 

first included in the CBRS. 

In general, areas that are inherently 

vulnerable to coastal hazards 

(e.g., flooding, storm surge, wind, 

erosion, and sea level rise) and may 

reasonably be considered to be coastal 

barrier features, or related to coastal 

barrier ecosystems, are rationally 

related to the purposes of the CBRA. 

Therefore, these areas may be 

appropriate for inclusion in the CBRS 

even if they do not meet all elements 

of the literal definition of a coastal 

barrier under CBRA. The Service 

generally will not recommend the 

removal of such areas from the CBRS 

unless there is compelling evidence 

that a mistake in the delineation of 

the CBRS boundaries was made 

as a result of incorrect, outdated, 

or incomplete information. See 

Chapter 6 for additional information 

concerning the Service’s criteria for 

modifications to the CBRS. There are 

no changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Units 

FL-67 and FL-67P as a result of this 

comment. 

Comment 48: Local officials 

requested that historical aerial 

imagery be used to determine which 

docks along Connie Mack Island (an 

area excluded from the CBRS) were 

existing at the time the area around 

the island was included within the 

CBRS and to exclude any docks in 

existence prior to that time.

E-18
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

Service Response to Comment 48: 

When comprehensively remapping 

CBRS units, the Service generally 

applies a 20 foot buffer (i.e., leaving 

space between the boundary and the 

feature it is intended to follow) along 

developed shorelines to ensure that 

structures and/or infrastructure 

(e.g., walled and roofed structures, 

roads, and bulkheads) located along 

the shoreline are not inadvertently 

included within the CBRS. Large 

marinas that existed when the 

area was originally included within 

the CBRS are generally excluded 

from the CBRS. However, because 

docks, piers, and other similar 

structures are located throughout 

the waterways that are part of 

the associated aquatic habitat of 

the CBRS, and these structures 

frequently change in size and shape 

over time, it would be impractical to 

map CBRS units to exclude them. 

See Issue 15 in Chapter 4 for more 

information about the Service’s 

mapping protocols for docks, piers, 

and marinas.

The Service has reviewed historical 

aerial imagery of the area around 

Connie Mack Island and found that 

a large commercial marina located 

on the southern side of the island 

existed at the time the area was 

included within the Unit FL-67. 

There are changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit FL-67 as a result 

of this comment. The final 

recommended map modifies the 

boundary of the unit to remove this 

marina from the CBRS. 

Comment 49: A developer that 

owns property within Unit FL67 submitted comments that are 

supportive of the proposed addition 

of some of the undeveloped lands 

to, and the proposed removal of 

developed areas from, the CBRS. 

The commenter would like several 

additional areas removed from the 

CBRS which are described below.

(a) McGregor Boulevard and the 

Sanibel Causeway bridge – 

The commenter believes that 

McGregor Boulevard and the 

Sanibel Causeway should be 

treated like U.S. Route 1 in 

the Florida Keys, which has an 

exemption in the CBRA for not 

only maintenance, replacement, 

reconstruction, or repair, but 

also expansion. Like Route 

1, McGregor Boulevard and 

the Sanibel Causeway are the 

sole means of exiting Sanibel 

and Captiva Islands during 

hurricane evacuations.

(b) Property owned by Lee County 

(including a toll facility and boat 

ramp) adjacent to McGregor 

Boulevard – The commenter 

states that there are extensive 

County-owned facilities and 

structures along McGregor 

Boulevard and believes that 

these areas should be removed 

from the CBRS because they 

are developed.

(c) Sanibel Harbour Resort tennis 

complex and stadium – The 

commenter believes that the 

tennis complex and stadium 

should be removed from the 

CBRS because they existed 

when the area was included 

within the CBRS.

(d) A property known as Sanibel 

Passage, which is owned by the 

developer – In support of the 

request to remove the Sanibel 

Passage property, the developer 

submitted a report, prepared 

by Dr. Donald F. McNeill for 

MLG Island Passage LLC, 

on the geomorphology of the 

area. This report states that 

the natural processes of the 

barrier have been modified to an 

extent that impedes the longterm perpetuation of the coastal 

barrier system. The commenter 

states that the area north of 

McGregor Boulevard, where 

the Sanibel Passage property is 

located, no longer functions as a 

coastal barrier because this area 

has been significantly altered 

by man’s activities, including 

the dredging of mosquito canals 

and clearing and draining of 

wetlands.

(e) A bait and tackle shop (which 

was torn down and replaced 

by a restaurant in 2014) – The 

commenter believes that because 

this property was developed 

before it was included within 

the CBRS, it should be removed 

from the CBRS.

Local officials also commented that 

they would like the County-owned 

facilities near the Sanibel Causeway, 

including a boat ramp, toll facility, 

and a portion of McGregor 

Boulevard removed from the CBRS.

Service Response to Comment 49: 

The Service has reviewed the 

submitted information, our historical 

background records for Unit FL-67, 

and historical aerial imagery of the 

area. Our response to each of the 

areas that the commenter seeks to 

remove from the CBRS is below.

McGregor Boulevard and the 

Sanibel Causeway bridge 

(response to (a) above) – There 

is an exception in the CBRA for 

the maintenance, replacement, 

reconstruction, or repair, but not 

the expansion, of publicly owned or 

publicly operated roads, structures, 

or facilities that are essential links in 

a larger network or system.46 There 

is an additional exception for roads 

that are not essential links in a larger 

network or system that also allows 

for the expansion of U.S. Route 1.47

A 1990 U.S. Senate report discusses 

the reason behind the creation of 

this exception in the CBRA for the 

expansion of U.S. Route 1: 

U.S. Route 1 presents a special 

case because it provides the 

only access to and egress from 

the already heavily developed 

chain of islands which make 

up the Florida Keys. Any 

funds for expansion of this 

highway should be used for 

public safety purposes.48

There is similar language in a 1990 

U.S. House of Representatives 

report.49 The Service agrees with the 

Congress that allowing expansion 

of U.S. Route 1 is a special case for 

the Florida Keys, involving a long 

distance along a heavily developed 

chain of islands. In most other cases 

where a road is the only egress 

from an island (e.g., Florida State 

Road A1A along the Atlantic coast), 

E-19
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

the Service does not recommend 

removing the road from the CBRS 

because the exceptions in the CBRA 

would allow most road projects to 

use Federal funds, just not projects 

involving expansions. There are no 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Unit 

FL-67 as a result of this comment.

Determinations regarding whether 

specific projects or actions meet an 

exception to the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures are made 

on a case by case basis. The Federal 

funding agency must consult with 

the Service’s local Ecological 

Services Field Office prior to 

committing funds for a project or 

action within or affecting a System 

Unit of the CBRS. Information 

concerning the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures, and 

exceptions to those limitations, is 

available on the Service’s website at: 

https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/habitat-conservation/cbra/

Consultations/Limitations-andExceptions.html.

Development on-the-ground at the 

time of inclusion within the CBRS 

(response to (b), (c), and (e) above) 

– The commenter states that there 

are several areas within Unit FL-67 

that were developed at the time 

the areas were included within the 

CBRS: the County-owned property 

adjacent to McGregor Boulevard, 

the Sanibel Harbour Resort tennis 

complex and stadium, and the 

former bait and tackle shack. The 

commenter believes that these areas 

should be removed from the CBRS.

To be considered developed under 

the CBRA, a coastal barrier must 

have a density of one structure for 

every five acres of fastland or have 

a full complement of infrastructure 

on-the-ground to each lot or 

building site at the time the area 

is included within the CBRS. 

Although the development that the 

commenters seek to remove from 

the CBRS was on-the-ground when 

the area was included within the 

CBRS, the structures were few and 

scattered at a density well below 

the threshold. When adopting the 

CBRA, Congress did not intend to 

exclude a relatively small number 

of scattered structures from CBRS 

units even if a full complement of 

infrastructure was available to 

them. Instead, the maps adopted 

by Congress sought to exclude 

intensively capitalized, privately 

financed subdivisions with many 

lots where a full complement of 

infrastructure was available to 

each lot. The rationale in excluding 

these subdivisions was that when 

private funds were used to provide 

a full complement of infrastructure, 

it was expected the construction 

of the structures was imminent.50

Lands without this intensive level of 

infrastructure were included in the 

CBRS. Our review found that the 

area met the CBRA criteria for an 

undeveloped coastal barrier when 

it was included within the CBRS. 

Therefore, the Service recommends 

that these areas remain within 

Unit FL-67. For more information 

on our review of infrastructure 

claims, see Chapter 6 of this report. 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Unit FL-67 as a result of 

this comment. 

Sanibel Passage property 

(response to (d) above) – The 

commenter states that the Sanibel 

Passage property was significantly 

altered by the dredging of mosquito 

canals and the clearing and draining 

of the property prior to its inclusion 

within the CBRS. The commenter 

indicates that McGregor Boulevard, 

which runs east-west through the 

center of Unit FL-67, is situated on 

an elevated dike and therefore, the 

areas north of this road (including 

the Sanibel Passage property) no 

longer function as a coastal barrier. 

One of the key points that the 

commenter cites for why the areas 

north of the road do not function 

as a coastal barrier is that the 

structures and human activities 

on these features significantly 

impede geomorphic and ecological 

processes. In addition, the 

commenter submitted the McNeill 

report in support of the claim that 

these areas do not function as 

a coastal barrier because of the 

extensive modifications. 

The consideration of human 

activities is a part of the CBRA 

definition of an undeveloped coastal 

barrier:

(1) The term “undeveloped coastal 

barrier” means—

(A) a depositional geologic 

feature (such as a bay 

barrier, tombolo, barrier 

spit, or barrier island) 

that—

(i) is subject to wave, 

tidal, and wind 

energies, and

(ii) protects landward 

aquatic habitats from 

direct wave attack; and

(B) all associated aquatic 

habitats, including 

the adjacent wetlands, 

marshes, estuaries, inlets, 

and nearshore waters; 

but only if such feature and 

associated habitats contain few 

manmade structures and these 

structures, and man’s activities 

on such feature and within such 

habitats, do not significantly 

impede geomorphic and 

ecological processes.51

However, the significance that 

human activities have in considering 

whether an area is undeveloped 

under the CBRA is limited. The 

Department’s May 1983 Final 

Environmental Statement 

Undeveloped Coastal Barriers

report contains an explanation in 

how this is applied: 

All coastal barriers are 

affected to some degree by 

human activities. Even 

completely undeveloped 

coastal barriers often have a 

considerable history of human 

use and occupancy, which 

have from time to time affected 

environmental quality, 

vegetation, wildlife, and other 

factors. For the most part, 

these impacts have been minor 

and well within the capability 

of the coastal barrier 

ecosystem to mitigate or repair 

in a short period of time. 

Significant impacts--that is, 

those which interfere with 

the geological and ecological 

processes responsible for 

maintaining coastal barrier 

E-20
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

ecosystems--are nearly always 

associated, either directly 

or indirectly, with intensive 

development involving large 

capital investments on the 

site.52

If a coastal barrier contains few 

man-made structures but is subject 

to significant levels of human 

activity such as the intensive 

development associated with a large 

condominium development, it is 

considered developed. The 1983 

report also states:

The wording of this section 

requires evaluation of human 

impacts only in cases where 

structures are present; 

completely undeveloped 

coastal barriers are not 

evaluated (presumably on the 

assumption that, without any 

structures, the probability of 

significant human impacts 

on geological and ecological 

processes is extremely low). 

Although human activities 

(such as the destruction of 

dunes) which significantly 

affect geological processes 

almost always have significant 

impacts on ecological processes 

as well, the converse is less 

often true. Thus, ditching of 

tidal marshes, which can have 

significant ecological impacts 

by damaging or destroying 

habitat for numerous fish and 

wildlife species, may have only 

minor impacts on geologic 

processes. The existence of 

ecologically adverse activities 

alone would not cause a 

coastal barrier to be excluded 

for purposes of denying flood 

insurance coverage.53

This 1983 report goes on to say 

that the impacts of human activities 

are considered in cases where the 

development density is less than 

the threshold for identifying an 

undeveloped coastal barrier, but not 

in cases where the coastal barrier is 

completely undeveloped. Significant 

impacts on both geological and 

ecological processes must be 

present, and the area must contain 

some development in order for it to 

be a factor.

The Service has reviewed the 

submitted information and historical 

imagery and background records for 

Unit FL-67. Our review found that 

the area within Unit FL-67 had a 

relatively small number of scattered 

structures in 1990. McGregor 

Boulevard, which runs through 

the unit, had (and still has) few 

structures along it. In addition, there 

are no structures on-the-ground 

within the Sanibel Passage property 

now nor where there at the time the 

area was included within the CBRS. 

The presence of mosquito canals and 

McGregor Boulevard are insufficient 

to warrant exclusion; such features 

are typical for coastal areas and 

prevalent through the CBRS. The 

impacts of human activities have 

been minor and well within the 

capability of the coastal barrier 

ecosystem to mitigate or repair in a 

short period of time. The area within 

Unit FL-67 met the density and 

level of infrastructure criteria to be 

considered undeveloped at the time 

it was included within the CBRS. 

There are no changes between the 

proposed and final recommended 

maps for Units FL-67 and FL-67P as 

a result of this comment.

Comment 50: Local officials 

commented that it is critical that 

Federal resources continue to be 

available for the maintenance of 

Federal channels. The commenters 

also believe that the Service should 

recognize navigation channels as 

pre-existing developed infrastructure 

to eliminate any confusion or 

potential problems in interpreting 

where a channel can be dredged, and 

requested that the boundaries be 

modified to the landward edge of the 

channel rights-of-way.

Service Response to Comment 50: 

Channels are part of the associated 

aquatic habitat of coastal barriers 

and have been included as such 

throughout the CBRS. In carrying 

out the pilot project, the Service 

noted that the Department’s 1982 

and 1988 published guidance54 have 

not been consistently applied to 

the CBRS maps, and we modified 

the boundaries on the proposed 

maps to include the entire width of 

the channel within the CBRS unit. 

Although there have been some 

additions of channels to the CBRS 

in Unit FL-67, most channels in the 

unit have been within the CBRS 

since 1990. Dredging projects 

within the unit that do not meet 

any CBRA exceptions have been 

prohibited from receiving Federal 

funds for more than 25 years and 

will continue to be prohibited from 

receiving Federal funds even if no 

modifications or additions are made 

to the existing unit. There are no 

changes between the proposed and 

final recommended maps for Unit 

FL-67 as a result of this comment. 

See Issue 12 in Chapter 4 for more 

information about the Service’s 

protocol for mapping of channels 

within the CBRS.

There is an exception in CBRA 

for the maintenance of existing 

Federal navigation channels.55

Determinations regarding whether 

specific projects or actions meet an 

exception to the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures are made 

on a case by case basis. The Federal 

funding agency must consult with 

the Service’s local Ecological 

Services Field Office prior to 

committing funds for a project or 

action within or affecting a System 

Unit of the CBRS. Information 

concerning the CBRA’s limitations 

on Federal expenditures, and 

exceptions to those limitations, is 

available on the Service’s website at: 

https://www.fws.gov/ecologicalservices/habitat-conservation/cbra/

Consultations/Limitations-andExceptions.html. 

Comment 51: Local officials are 

concerned about the Service’s 

protocol regarding navigation 

channels in the 2008 pilot report. 

In this report, there is a discussion 

on the results of channel boundary 

mapping, which states that the 

effect of the proposed changes 

placing additional channel area 

within System Units would be to 

prohibit the use of Federal financial 

assistance for dredging and other 

projects. The commenters believe 

this is inconsistent with the next 

sentence, which states that the 

Service does not anticipate a 

significant impact due to the change 

in this mapping protocol.

E-21
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

Service Response to Comment 51: 

Channels are part of the associated 

aquatic habitat of coastal barriers 

and have been included as such 

throughout the CBRS.56 Additional 

channel areas are recommended 

for inclusion within System Units 

through the pilot project, and 

such areas would be subject to 

CBRA’s prohibitions if the final 

recommended maps are adopted 

by Congress. However, the Service 

believes that the impact of these 

additions is not significant because 

there are many cases in the affected 

areas where about half of the 

channels’ width is already included 

within the CBRS and they therefore 

are already subject to the CBRA’s 

prohibitions. In addition, there 

are exceptions in the CBRA for 

existing Federal navigation channels 

and related structures. Congress 

determined that it would be 

sufficient to exempt these channels 

from the CBRA’s prohibitions on 

Federal expenditures rather than 

exclude or remove them from the 

CBRS.57 See Issue 12 in Chapter 

4 for more information about the 

Service’s protocol for mapping of 

channels within the CBRS.

Unit P21, Bocilla Island

Comment 52: The Service received 

two comments from individuals 

regarding the removal of properties 

from Unit P21. One commenter 

supported the Service’s proposed 

removal from the CBRS of a 

structure within the Eagle Preserve 

Estates subdivision. Another 

commenter requested the removal 

from the CBRS of 22 homes and 

numerous vacant lots between an 

area called “the Preserve” and 

the CBRS boundary based on an 

infrastructure claim.

Service Response to Comment 52: 

The Service does not recommend 

modifying the boundary for Unit 

P21 to remove from the CBRS 22 

homes and numerous vacant lots 

between “the Preserve” and the 

CBRS boundary. The existing Unit 

P21 boundary in this area was drawn 

at the break-in-development that 

existed at the time it was included 

within the CBRS. The break-indevelopment is where development 

ended when the area was originally 

included within the CBRS (i.e., the 

area immediately adjacent to the 

last structure in a cluster or row of 

structures, or at the property parcel 

boundary of the last structure).58

Although the commenter claimed that 

the area should be removed based on 

existing infrastructure, no supporting 

documentation was submitted to 

show that a full complement of 

infrastructure existed in this area. 

The commenter indicated that the 

area had dirt roads; however the 

CBRA infrastructure criteria require 

roads with a reinforced road bed in 

order to consider an area developed.59

The Service’s assessment found that 

at the time of inclusion within Unit 

P21, the area that the commenter 

seeks to remove from the CBRS was 

undeveloped. There are no changes 

between the proposed and final 

recommended maps for Unit P21 as a 

result of this comment.

1

 Units FL-64P, L07, L08, and L09 have been removed from the pilot project because comprehensively revised maps for these areas 

have been adopted by Congress. The Service’s proposed map for Unit FL-64P was made effective via Pub. L. 110-419 on October 

15, 2008. No comments were received during the comment period related to Unit FL-64P. 

The Service’s final recommended maps for Units L07, L08, and L09 were made effective via Pub. L. 113-253 on December 18, 

2014. The Service did receive comments during the comment period related to all three of these units. The Service assessed 

these comments and made any warranted modifications on the final recommended maps, but because the maps have already been 

adopted, the Service has not addressed the comments related to these units in this Appendix.

2

 See endnote 10 in Chapter 5.

3

 See endnote 15 in Chapter 4.

4

 16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(2)

5

 See endnote 12 in Chapter 6.

6

 See endnote 21 in Chapter 4.

7

 See endnote 5 in Chapter 4.

8

 16 U.S.C. 3505(a)(2) is an exception 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.” Federal expenditures for such projects and activities that meet this exception may be made 

following consultation with the Service. According to 16 U.S.C. 3505(b), “a Federal navigation channel or a related structure is an 

existing channel or structure, respectively, if it was authorized before the date on which the relevant System Unit or portion of the 

System Unit was included within the CBRS.”

9

 See endnote 6 in Chapter 6.

10 Page II-13 of: DOI, Coastal Barriers Study Group. 1983. Final environmental statement: Undeveloped coastal barriers. Washington, D.C.

11 See endnote 10 above. 

12 See endnote 2 in Chapter 1.

13 16 U.S.C. 3505(a)(3) is an exception for “The maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the expansion, of 

publicly owned or publicly operated roads, structures, or facilities that are essential links in a larger network or system.” Federal 

expenditures for such projects and activities that meet this exception may be made following consultation with the Service.

E-22
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

14 16 U.S.C. 3505(a)(6)(F) is an exception for “Maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the expansion (except with respect to 

United States route 1 in the Florida Keys), of publicly owned or publicly operated roads, structures, and facilities.” Projects must also be consistent with the purposes of the CBRA to meet this exception. Federal expenditures for such projects and activities that meet this exception 

may be made following consultation with the Service.

15 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5.

16 See endnote 5 in Chapter 4.

17 See endnote 15 in Chapter 4.

18 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5. 

19 See endnote 21 in Chapter 4.

20 See endnote 8 above.

21 See endnote 25 in Chapter 1.

22 See endnote 8 above.

23 See endnote 21 in Chapter 4.

24 See endnote 8 above. 

25 See endnote 12 in Chapter 6.

26 42 U.S.C. 4028(a)

27 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5.

28 Page 61 of: DOI, Coastal Barriers Study Group. 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System with recommendations as 

required by Section 10 of the Public Law 97-348, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. Volume 14 in Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 

152 pp.

29 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5.

30 See endnote 16 in Chapter 6.

31 See endnote 16 in Chapter 6. “Because it was so difficult to make consistent determinations about phased development, phased development 

was not considered in determining development status after 1982.”

32 See endnote 15 in Chapter 4. 

33 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5.

34 See endnote 8 above.

35 See endnote 10 in Chapter 5.

36 See endnote 15 in Chapter 4. 

37 See endnote 15 in Chapter 4.

38 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5.

39 16 U.S.C. 3505(a)(1) is an exception for “Any use or facility necessary for the exploration, extraction, or transportation of energy resources 

which can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to a coastal water area because the use or facility requires access to the coastal water body.” 

Federal expenditures for such projects and activities that meet this exception may be made following consultation with the Service.

40 See endnote 10 in Chapter 5.

41 See endnote 21 in Chapter 4.

42 See endnote 8 above.

43 See endnote 2 in Chapter 1.

44 See endnote 19 in Chapter 4.

45 See endnote 8 in Chapter 6.

46 See endnote 13 above.

47 See endnote 14 above.

48 S. Rept. 101-529

E-23
Appendix E: Responses to Unit-Specific Public Comments

49 H. Rept. 101-657, Part 1. “The committee recognizes the importance of Route 1 in the Florida Keys, particularly since this highway is 

the only road that provides access to and from the Keys.”

50 See endnote 19 in Chapter 6.

51 See endnote 6 in Chapter 6.

52 See endnote 10 above.

53 See endnote 10 above. 

54 See endnote 21 in Chapter 4.

55 See endnote 8 above.

56 See endnote 2 in Chapter 1.

57 See endnote 19 in Chapter 4.

58 See endnote 3 in Chapter 5. 

59 See endnote 15 in Chapter 4.

E-24


U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

November 2016

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Final Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital Mapping Project