U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources 

System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project

Acknowledgements

Many people within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided support for the Digital Mapping Pilot Project: 

Ms. Cynthia Bohn, Ms. Lesli Gray, Mr. Matthew Huggler, Ms. Gina Jones, Ms. Robin NimsElliott, 

Dr. Mamie Parker, Mr. Paul Souza, Mr. David Stout, Dr. Benjamin Tuggle, 

Mr. Doug Vandegraft, and Mr. Everett Wilson. 

Dewberry & Davis staff provided the technical mapping support, contributed to the research and design of the 

project, and provided many of the illustrations throughout the report: Mr. Paul Comlish, Mr. Samuel Gold, Mr. 

Rezwan Karim, and Mr. Chris Langley.

Additional partners who provided valuable information and support for the project include Mr. Larry Handley of the 

U.S. Geological Survey, and Mr. Brady Harrison of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

The authors would also like to thank the Members of Congress, and their staff, who sponsored and co-sponsored 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000, which directed the Secretary of the Interior to 

complete a Digital Mapping Pilot Project and report to Congress on the results of the project, and the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to finalize the pilot 

project maps and create digital maps for the remainder of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System: 

Representatives Wayne T. Gilchrest, James A. Leach, and Jim Saxton; and Senators John H. Chafee, Lincoln D. 

Chafee, Mike Crapo, James M. Inhofe, James M. Jeffords, Joseph I. Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Bob 

Smith.

Primary Authors

Stephen R. Kalaf, Dewberry & Davis

Katie Niemi, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Contributors

John Antkowiak, Dewberry & Davis

Kristy Hatch, Dewberry & Davis

Martin Kodis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Rachel London, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

i

Report to Congress: 

John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources 

System Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Fisheries and Habitat Conservation

Washington, D.C. 
ii
iii

Preface

The Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act (CBRA) conserves ecologically 

important coastal habitat by 

prohibiting most Federal subsidies 

that encourage risky development 

along our Nation’s coastal barriers. 

By discouraging coastal barrier 

development, the CBRA also 

protects lives and mainland property, 

and saves taxpayer dollars. At the 

time the CBRA was enacted in 1982, 

President Ronald Reagan said, 

“This legislation will enhance both 

wise natural resource conservation 

and fiscal responsibility. It will 

save American taxpayers millions 

of dollars while, at the same time, 

taking a major step forward in the 

conservation of our magnificent 

coastal resources.” Today, bearing 

out President Reagan’s words, the 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) includes 

more than 3 million acres of coastal 

barrier habitat, and it is estimated 

that by 2010, the CBRA will have 

saved American taxpayers well over 

$1 billion.

Coastal barriers and their 

associated aquatic habitats are key 

components of a strong economy 

and healthy environment. They 

support commercial and recreational 

fisheries; provide essential habitat 

for many endangered species 

and migratory birds; protect the 

mainland from severe storms and 

hurricanes; and are enjoyed by 

millions of vacationing Americans 

every year. The devastating 

hurricanes striking the Gulf Coast 

in recent years are a reminder of 

the dangers associated with building 

in these hazardous areas. By 

limiting Federal subsidies such as 

flood insurance within the CBRS, 

the CBRA removes unwise Federal 

incentives to develop these areas.

A major challenge to maintaining 

the CBRS for the long term is 

that the existing CBRS maps are 

inaccurate, outdated, and difficult 

to interpret. CBRS information 

is difficult to access because the 

boundaries of these areas are 

not available in digital format. 

Landowners are sometimes unaware 

that their property is within the 

CBRS until they are turned down 

for Federal flood insurance, creating 

unexpected hardships. Recognizing 

the limitations and problems 

associated with the existing set of 

CBRS maps, Congress enacted 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Reauthorization Act in 2000, 

which directs the Secretary of the 

Interior, in consultation with the 

Director of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, to conduct a 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project. This 

is the Administration’s report to 

Congress, as called for in the 2000 

Act, that provides the results of the 

pilot project, including draft digital 

maps for 70 CBRS areas, and an 

assessment of the feasibility, data 

needs, and costs associated with 

completing digital maps for the 

entire CBRS.

The Administration supports 

the CBRA and modernization 

of the CBRS maps using digital 

technology. In May 2006, Congress 

reaffirmed its support for the 

CBRA and its commitment towards 

digital CBRS mapping by enacting 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Reauthorization Act of 2005 which 

directs the Secretary of the Interior 

to finalize the pilot project maps by 

conducting a public review of the 

maps included in this report, and 

creating digital maps for the entire 

CBRS. Modernized, digital maps 

will address the inaccuracies of the 

outdated maps, correct errors that 

adversely affect private property 

owners, increase efficiencies 

and accessibility by allowing the 

integration of CBRS information 

into digital planning tools, conserve 

natural resources, and preserve the 

integrity of the CBRS for the longterm.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

believes that the CBRA has largely 

achieved its goals to minimize 

the loss of human life, wasteful 

expenditure of Federal revenues, 

and the damage to natural resources 

associated with America’s coastal 

barriers. We look forward to 

working with Congress to move the 

CBRA into the digital age where it 

can continue to achieve its goals with 

greater efficiency.

Digital Mapping Pilot Project
iv

Recognizing the limitations and 

problems associated with the 

existing set of John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) maps, the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Reauthorization Act 

(CBRRA) of 2000 directs the 

Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 

to carry out a pilot project that 

consists of the creation of digital 

maps for no more than 75 units 

and no fewer than 50 units of the 

CBRS, one-third of which shall be 

otherwise protected areas (OPAs). 

The CBRRA specifies that not later 

than three years after the date 

of enactment, the Secretary shall 

submit a report that describes the 

results of the pilot project and the 

feasibility, data needs, and costs 

of completing digital maps for the 

entire CBRS to the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works of 

the Senate and the Committee on 

Natural Resources of the House 

of Representatives. The CBRRA 

specifies that the report shall include 

a description of:

•	 the cooperative agreements that

will 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.

This report to Congress provides 

the results of the pilot project and 

an assessment of the feasibility and 

costs associated with completing 

digital maps for the entire CBRS. 

The CBRRA of 2005 directs the 

Secretary to: (1) finalize the digital 

mapping pilot project by providing 

for public review of the draft maps 

and presenting Congress with final 

recommended pilot project maps; 

and (2) create draft digital maps for 

the remainder of the CBRS, provide 

for public review, and present 

Congress with final recommended 

maps.

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

Digital Mapping Pilot Project Authority
v

DIGITAL MAPPING PILOT PROJECT AUTHORITY........................................................................... iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................... ix

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM.......................................... 1

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

Value of Coastal Barriers......................................................................................................... 1

Risks Associated with Development on Coastal Barriers.................................................................. 2

Fish and Wildlife Service Role in Administering the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.............................. 4

Legislation that Created and Modified the Coastal Barrier Resources System....................................... 4

CHAPTER 2: NEED FOR MAP MODERNIZATION........................................................................... 8

Challenges Associated with Existing Maps.................................................................................... 8

Benefits Associated with Digital Maps.......................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 3: DIGITAL DATA STANDARDS, NEEDS, AND AVAILABILITY................................................ 14

National Digital Data Standards................................................................................................ 14

Digital Data Needs and Availability............................................................................................. 14

CHAPTER 4: DIGITAL MAPPING METHODOLOGY...........................................................................20

Selection of Pilot Project Units................................................................................................... 20

Digital Data “Fitting”............................................................................................................... 20

Mapping System Units............................................................................................................ 20

Mapping Otherwise Protected Areas.......................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 5: PILOT PROJECT RESULTS.......................................................................................23

Types of Proposed Boundary Changes.......................................................................................... 23

Acreage and Shoreline Changes................................................................................................ 32

Background Records............................................................................................................... 33

CHAPTER 6: COSTS, NEXT STEPS, AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................. 34

Costs.................................................................................................................................... 34

Next Steps........................................................................................................................... 34

Conclusions........................................................................................................................... 35

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY................................................................................................... A-1

APPENDIX B: COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM DATA NEEDS AND AVAILABILITY ........................ B-1

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL CHANGES TO THE CBRS................................................ C-1

APPENDIX D: PILOT PROJECT UNIT SUMMARIES AND MAPS......................................................... D-1

APPENDIX E: PILOT PROJECT ACREAGE AND SHORELINE CHANGES................................................ E-1 

LIST OF FIGURES

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

Figure 2. The habitats created and protected by coastal barriers are vital to recreational industries............ 1

Figure 3. Endangered piping plover, Charadrius melodus, walking on a New Jersey beach..................... 2

Figure 4. A leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, nesting on a coastal barrier in Canaveral National 

Seashore, Florida.....................................................................................................................2

Figure 5. Public recreation on Sanibel Island, Florida..................................................................... 2

Figure 6. North Captiva Island, Florida, before and after Hurricane Charley in 2004. The barrier was 

breached, and the leaves were stripped from the trees. CBRS Units P19 and P19P are located on 

North Captiva Island............................................................................................................... 2

Figure 7. Unit L06 map enacted by the CBRA in 1982..................................................................... 5

Figure 8. Unit L06 map enacted by the CBIA in 1990..................................................................... 6

Figure 9. A USGS quadrangle dated 1987 was used as the base map for Unit FL-64P (black dots). The 

actual boundary of the Clam Pass Conservation Area is shaded in purple............................................. 9

Figure 10. Sand pumping for a beach nourishment project at Fort Patrick Air Force Base, Florida............ 11

Figure 11. Property determination using digital data........................................................................ 11

Figure 12. Flood Insurance Rate Map showing a portion of Unit M02................................................... 12

Table of Contents

Digital Mapping Pilot Project
vi

Figure 13. Endangered wood stork, Mycteria americana, feeds on the shore at Pelican Island National 

Wildlife Refuge, Florida............................................................................................................ 13

Figure 14. National Wetlands Inventory layer in a GIS environment................................................... 16

Figure 15. The date of construction data is shown by the black dates located within parcels..................... 17

Figure 16. Brevard County, Florida, parcel data (shown in pink) overlaid on a USGS DOQQ..................... 20

Figure 17. The digitized boundary is obtained from a paper CBRS map that has been referenced to a USGS 

digital raster graphic in order to establish horizontal control, and is then placed on horizontally controlled 

aerial imagery........................................................................................................................ 21

Figure 18. Proposed Unit S05 boundary (shown in green) accounts for accretion of Timbalier Island, 

Louisiana over time............................................................................................................... 23

Figure 19. Proposed Unit P04A boundary (shown in green) aligns with a geomorphic feature. The existing 

boundary is shown in orange...................................................................................................... 23

Figure 20. Proposed Unit L07 boundary (shown in green) adds associated aquatic habitat behind a developed 

shoreline. The existing boundary is shown in orange........................................................................24

Figure 21. Mapping channels with a regular developed shoreline. The Unit P05 proposed boundary is shown 

in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange..................................................................... 25

Figure 22. Mapping channels with an undeveloped regular shoreline. The Unit P08 proposed boundary is 

shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange............................................................ 25

Figure 23. Mapping channels with an undeveloped irregular shoreline. The Unit L05 proposed boundary 

is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange. The boundary is generalized, and as a 

result, may not include the entire associated aquatic habitat (see blue shaded area).................................25

Figure 24. Mapping channels with an undeveloped shoreline and emergent aquatic habitat. The Unit P21 

proposed boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange.............................. 26

Figure 25. Addition of fastland not currently within the CBRS. The Unit FL-40 boundary is shown in 

orange and the proposed additions are shown in green..................................................................... 27

Figure 26. The portion of existing System Unit P11 outlined in green is proposed to be reclassified as OPA 

P11P because it is land that was held for conservation or recreation before Unit P11 was established......... 27

Figure 27. Unit LA-01 has no proposed boundary adjustment............................................................ 29

Figure 28. Proposed Unit FL-93P boundary (shown in green) is adjusted to align with conservation or 

recreation area boundaries. The existing boundary is shown in orange................................................ 29

Figure 29. Proposed Unit FL-14P boundary (shown in green) adds lands held by Kings Island Natural 

Area to the existing OPA............................................................................................................30

Figure 30. Proposed Unit FL-20P boundary (shown in green) removes private land that was developed at 

the time the OPA was enacted. The existing boundary is shown in orange.............................................30

Figure 31. A privately owned, undeveloped piece of land that is within the existing OPA FL-01P is proposed 

to be reclassified as System Unit FL-01....................................................................................... 30

Figure 32. Proposed Unit NC-05P boundary (shown in green) extends to the middle of the channel. The 

existing boundary is shown in orange.......................................................................................... 31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Proposed System Unit Changes......................................................... 28

Table 2. Summary of Proposed Otherwise Protected Area Changes.......................................... 32

Table 3. Summary of Proposed Acreage Changes............................................................ 33

Table 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability..................................................................... B-1 - B-3

Table 5. Summary of Historical Changes to the CBRS......................................................... C-1 - C-2

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1. Impact of Hurricanes on Dauphin Island, Alabama......................................................3

Box 2. Lack of geographic grid coordinate values on existing CBRS maps................................. 10

Box 3. Comparison of Imagery Quality........................................................................... 15

Box 4. Alignment with Development Features in Unit L06...................................................... 26

Table of Contents
vii

CBIA – Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990

CBRA – Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982

CBRRA of 2000 – Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000

CBRRA of 2005 – Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005

CBRS – John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System

CIR – Color infrared

Department – Department of the Interior

DOQQ – Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle

FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency

FGDC – Federal Geographic Data Committee

FIRM – Flood Insurance Rate Map

GIS – Geographic Information System

NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NFIA – National Flood Insurance Act of 1968

NFIP – National Flood Insurance Program

NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service

NSDI – National Spatial Data Infrastructure

NWI – National Wetlands Inventory

OBRA – Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981

OPA – Otherwise Protected Area

Secretary – Secretary of the Interior

Service – United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USDA – United States Department of Agriculture

USGS – United States Geological Survey

Suggested citation:

U.S. Department of the Interior. Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Digital Mapping Pilot Project. 2008.

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Digital Mapping Pilot Project
viii

Photo by U.S. Geological Survey

This aerial photograph of Navarre Beach, Florida, was taken after Hurricane Dennis in 2005. 

The undeveloped portion of the coastal barrier in the distance is within John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System Unit FL-97.
ix

Executive Summary

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL 

BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

Some of our Nation’s most 

beautiful beaches, most valuable 

real estate, and most popular 

recreational areas are located on 

coastal barriers. Coastal barriers 

are elongated, narrow landforms 

located at the interface of land 

and sea. Coastal barriers buffer 

the lagoons, wetlands, and salt 

marshes behind them that in turn 

support commercial and recreational 

fisheries and protect people and 

property on the mainland from the 

full impact of hurricanes and other 

severe storms. The location and 

dynamic nature of coastal barriers 

make building on them a risky 

proposition. Development of these 

areas not only puts property owners 

at risk of losing their homes and 

lives, but also disrupts the natural 

movement of the barriers, harming 

fish and wildlife habitat, and often 

increasing natural erosion processes. 

Despite their instability and the 

risks associated with building on 

narrow spits of sand, the aesthetic 

and recreational lures of coastal 

barriers have enticed people to 

develop these areas. In many cases, 

this development is encouraged 

by the availability of various types 

of Federal financial assistance, 

including Federal flood insurance.

With the passage of the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

in 1982, Congress 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 John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS), and made these “System 

units” ineligible for most new 

Federal expenditures and financial 

assistance. The Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act (CBIA) of 1990 

reauthorized the CBRA; expanded 

the CBRS to include undeveloped 

coastal barriers along the Florida 

Keys, Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, 

and U.S. Virgin Islands; and added 

a new category of coastal barriers 

to the CBRS called “otherwise 

protected areas” (OPAs). OPAs are 

undeveloped coastal barriers that 

are 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.

By removing Federal subsidies, 

the CBRA has been instrumental 

in ensuring that the Federal 

Government does not encourage 

the development of these high-risk 

and biologically important coastal 

barrier habitats. For the 3.1 million 

acres currently included in the 

CBRS, the CBRA has fulfilled its 

purpose by removing an incentive 

to develop without prohibiting 

development. Development can 

still occur provided that private 

developers or other non-Federal 

parties bear the full cost. According 

to a 2002 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) economic report, 

the CBRA will save American 

taxpayers approximately $1.3 billion 

in Federal dollars between 1982 and 

2010.

NEED FOR MAP MODERNIZATION

CBRA references a series of maps 

that depict the specific boundaries 

of individual System units and 

OPAs; these maps are controlling 

and dictate which lands are affected 

by the CBRA. The maps are 

maintained by the Department of 

the Interior (Department) through 

the Service. Aside from three 

minor exceptions, only Congress 

has the authority to add or delete 

land from the CBRS and create 

new units. These exceptions 

include: (1) voluntary additions to 

the CBRS by property owners; (2) 

additions of excess Federal property 

to the CBRS; and (3) the CBRA 

5-year review requirement that 

solely considers changes that have 

occurred to System units by natural 

forces such as erosion and accretion. 

The CBRS boundaries are depicted 

on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

topographic quadrangle maps, 

which are, on average, 30 years 

old. The maps are outdated 

technologically. Because of the 

limitations of mapping technology 

when the CBRS was created, CBRS 

boundaries do not align precisely 

with the geomorphic, cultural, or 

development features they were 

intended to follow. As a result, some 

properties and projects intended to 

be eligible for Federal subsidies are 

not eligible, and vice-versa.

The CBRA has significant impacts 

on property owners within the 

CBRS. Therefore, it is critical that 

the Service be able to determine 

the exact location of properties and 

public works projects (e.g., road 

construction, channel dredging, and 

beach nourishment) in relation to 

CBRS boundaries. Some structures 

are located mere feet away from 

CBRS boundaries. In these cases, 

even a small error on the CBRS 

map can have significant economic 

effects on a developer or property 

owner. The Service’s ability to 

provide efficient customer service 

to the public and other Federal 

agencies is significantly impeded by 

the antiquated maps that currently 

depict the CBRS. Private property 

owners seeking Federal flood 

insurance must sometimes wait 

several months for a determination 

of whether or not their property is 

affected by the CBRA. This is due 

to the antiquated maps combined 

with the large volume of requests 

for property determinations and 

the critical need for accurate 

determinations. Similarly, coastal 

communities and developers must 

sometimes wait several months for 

a determination of whether or not 

a proposed public works project is 

affected by the CBRA.

Currently, issues arising from 
x

the inaccuracy of existing maps 

are addressed on a case-by-case 

basis when the Service is made 

aware of the potential problems. 

In such cases, the Service applies 

standard review criteria to assess 

a potential mapping error. If a 

revision to the map is warranted, 

Congress works with the Service 

and interested stakeholders to 

enact a comprehensively revised 

map created with modern digital 

technology. Over the past few 

years, the number of “technical 

correction” requests has increased. 

This trend is likely to continue as 

a result of increasing development 

and redevelopment along the coasts 

and the effects of the 2005 hurricane 

season on the availability and cost 

of flood insurance. Addressing 

these individual technical correction 

requests is time and resource 

intensive and further decreases 

overall program efficiency.

One way to address these challenges 

is by moving away from the reactive 

technical correction process to 

address individual problems, and 

toward a proactive process of 

comprehensively modernizing the 

entire set of CBRS maps using 

digital technology. State and local 

governments have begun to take 

advantage of modern mapping 

technology with the creation of 

geographic information systems 

(GIS). Many of these GIS are 

available online for public use in 

the form of mapping websites. 

Government officials and members 

of the public can access these 

websites to make planning decisions, 

or get information about certain 

properties. Without digital CBRS 

boundaries, local governments 

cannot integrate reliable CBRS 

information into their GIS to use in 

their planning decisions or to make 

it available to the public. 

Modernizing the CBRS maps using 

digital technology will address the 

inaccuracies of the outdated maps; 

correct errors that adversely affect 

private property owners; increase 

efficiencies and accessibility by 

allowing the integration of CBRS 

information into digital planning 

tools; and conserve natural 

resources. Most importantly, 

map modernization will ensure 

the integrity of the CBRS for the 

long-term by reviewing the intent 

of each boundary, applying that 

intent on more current digital base 

maps, conducting a public review of 

the proposed maps, and providing 

clear explanations for the locations 

of boundaries in a comprehensive 

background record for each unit.

AUTHORITY FOR THE DIGITAL 

MAPPING PILOT PROJECT 

Recognizing the limitations 

and challenges associated with 

the existing set of CBRS maps, 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Reauthorization Act (CBRRA) of 

2000 directs the Secretary of the 

Interior (Secretary) to carry out 

a pilot project that consists of the 

creation of digital maps for no more 

than 75 units and no fewer than 

50 units of the CBRS, one-third of 

which shall be OPAs. The CBRRA 

specifies that not later than three 

years after the date of enactment, 

the Secretary shall submit a report 

that describes the results of the 

pilot project and the feasibility, 

data needs, and costs of completing 

digital maps for the entire CBRS to 

the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works of the Senate and the 

Committee on Natural Resources of 

the House of Representatives. The 

CBRRA specifies that the report 

shall include a description of:

•	 the cooperative agreements

that will 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.

DIGITAL DATA STANDARDS, NEEDS, 

AND AVAILABILITY

As required by the CBRRA 

of 2000, this report includes a 

description of 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, and 

the cooperative agreements that 

will be necessary to complete 

digital mapping of the entire 

CBRS. In carrying out the pilot 

project, the Service used several 

types of data, including digital 

raster graphics, aerial imagery, 

geomorphic data (e.g., wetlands 

and soils information), development 

data (e.g., property parcel, date of 

construction, and infrastructure 

information), and conservation and 

recreation area boundary data (for 

OPA mapping). The Service found 

that most of this data is readily 

available from Federal, State, local, 

and private entities, generally 

at little or no cost to the Service. 

All primary source data used for 

CBRS mapping in the pilot project 

complies with the National Spatial 

Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and the 

other standards established by the 

Federal Geographic Data Committee 

(FGDC).

Subsequent to the Service’s 

acquisition of data necessary 

to begin the Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project, the Council of 

Environmental Quality’s Joint 

Subcommittee on Ocean Science 

and Technology established the 

Interagency Working Group on 

Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IWGOCM) to facilitate the coordination 

and leveraging of mapping resources 

across the Federal sector and 

with State and local governments, 

industry, and non-governmental 

organization interests. As the 

Service continues its modernization 

of CBRS maps, we will coordinate 

with the IWG-OCM in our data 

acquisition.

The most significant shortcomings 

of the existing CBRS maps are the 

outdated and inaccurate base maps 

that currently depict the CBRS. 

The Service determined that recent, 

orthorectified imagery with a high 

image resolution is the most suitable 

base map for the CBRS. If suitable 

imagery for a certain area is not 

available within the public domain, 

or does not meet national standards, 

new imagery may be acquired 

through cooperative agreements 

with public entities or through the 

Executive Summary
xi

private sector.

DIGITAL MAPPING METHODOLOGY

The Service selected 60 CBRS units 

for this pilot project, one-third (20) 

of which are OPA units. The pilot 

project maps depict a total of 70 

CBRS units (encompassing 284,434 

acres), including new and reclassified 

units. The pilot project units 

represent approximately 10 percent 

of the entire CBRS and are located 

in Delaware, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. 

The pilot project mapping process 

included: selection of pilot project 

units; adjustments to “fit” the digital 

data to the underlying base map; 

digitization of the existing CBRS 

boundaries and establishment of 

horizontal control; assessment 

of boundary intent; adjustment 

of existing boundaries to create 

proposed boundaries that align 

with geomorphic, development, or 

cultural features, and, in limited 

cases, to add new fastland; and 

calculation of the acreage and 

shoreline mileage associated with 

each unit. In cases where the intent 

of a CBRS boundary could not be 

determined, the Service made no 

proposed boundary adjustments.

The remapping process for each of 

the pilot project units is documented 

in background records maintained 

by the Service and available 

upon request at the Service’s 

headquarters office.

PILOT PROJECT RESULTS 

As required by the CBRRA of 2000, 

this report includes a description 

of the extent to which the proposed 

boundary lines on the pilot project 

maps differ from the boundary lines 

on the existing maps. The nature 

and extent of proposed boundary 

changes varies widely. The pilot 

project maps make the following 

proposed changes to the 45 System 

units:

•	 adjustment to reflect

geomorphic change (affecting 

14 units);

•	 alignment with geomorphic

features (affecting 28 units);

•	 addition of associated aquatic

habitat (affecting 23 units); 

•	 adjustment to map channel

boundaries consistently 

(affecting 14 units);

•	 alignment with development

features (affecting 31 units);

•	 alignment with cultural

features (affecting 7 units);

•	 addition of fastland not

currently within the CBRS 

(affecting 8 units); 

•	 reclassification from System

unit to OPA (affecting 7 units); 

and

•	 no adjustment (affecting 3

units).

The pilot project maps make the 

following proposed changes to the 25 

OPA units:

•	 alignment with cultural features

(affecting 19 units);

•	 addition of conservation or

recreation area (affecting 9 

units);

•	 removal of private land

(affecting 9 units);

•	 reclassification from OPA to

System unit (affecting 10 units); 

•	 addition of new OPAs (2

proposed new units); and

•	 adjustment to map channel

boundaries consistently 

(affecting 5 units).

The proposed pilot project boundary 

changes are described in Chapter 

5 and are depicted in Appendix D, 

which includes pilot project unit 

summaries and maps. Below is a 

summary table of the proposed pilot 

project acreage changes. If enacted, 

the pilot project maps will result in 

a total net addition of approximately 

23,840 acres to the CBRS (mainly 

associated aquatic habitat). The 

363 acres of fastland proposed 

for removal from the CBRS are 

generally private lands that contain 

approximately 300 structures and 

will be made eligible for Federal 

flood insurance and other Federal 

subsidies if Congress were to enact 

the proposed pilot project maps. 

Of the total 1,625 acres of fastland 

proposed for addition to the CBRS, 

618 acres are proposed for System 

unit status and are generally 

undeveloped private lands that 

will be made ineligible for Federal 

flood insurance and other Federal 

subsidies. The Service is not aware 

of any existing private structures 

located within the areas proposed 

for addition to the CBRS.

Summary of Proposed Pilot Project Acreage Changes

Fastland

acres

Associated

Aquatic

Habitat

acres

Total

acres

Addition to

the CBRS 1,624.7 23,366.0 24,990.7

Deletion 

from the

CBRS

362.8 787.5 1,150.3

Net Change 1,261.9 22,578.5 23,840.4

CONCLUSIONS, COSTS, AND NEXT 

STEPS

The effectiveness of the CBRA 

and the efficiency of the CBRA 

program are limited by the outdated 

maps used to administer the 

CBRS. An investment in CBRS 

map modernization over the next 

several years is critical to achieving 

numerous program goals, including:

addressing the inaccuracies of 

the outdated maps; correcting 

errors that adversely affect private 

property owners; increasing 

efficiencies and accessibility by 

allowing the integration of CBRS 

information into digital planning 

Executive Summary
xii

tools; conserving natural resources; 

and maintaining the integrity of the 

CBRS for the long-term. 

As required by the CBRRA of 2000, 

this report includes a description 

of the amount of funding necessary 

to complete digital mapping of the 

entire CBRS. The Service estimates 

that it will cost up to $17 million 

to comprehensively modernize the 

CBRS with the new generation of 

digital maps created in the course of 

the pilot project. 

The Administration supports the 

CBRA and modernization of the 

CBRS maps using digital technology. 

CBRS map modernization is 

consistent with many Administration 

goals and priorities, including the 

President’s Management Agenda 

initiative of expanded electronic 

government and the U.S. Ocean 

Action Plan initiative to coordinate 

ocean and coastal mapping activities. 

Moving forward with CBRS map 

modernization, the Service will seek 

to continue coordination with our 

Federal partners in order to reduce 

duplicative efforts.

The Service has identified three 

general steps necessary to finalize 

the pilot project maps and complete 

digital mapping for the remainder 

of the CBRS. The following three 

steps are consistent with the 

directives contained in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Reauthorization 

Act of 2005:

(1) Public review of the pilot 

project maps whereby the 

Governors of the States, other 

government officials, and 

members of the public have 

the opportunity to review 

and provide comments to 

the Service on the proposed 

changes depicted on the maps 

in Appendix D of this report.

(2) Submit final recommended 

pilot project maps to Congress 

for its adoption after the 

Service’s consideration of 

public comments. 

(3) Create digital maps for the 

remainder of the CBRS using 

the lessons learned during 

the course of the pilot project 

and applying the protocols 

described in this report. This 

will entail replacing the entire 

set of existing CBRS maps 

with much more accurate 

and precise digital maps that 

are drafted by the Service, 

reviewed by the public, and 

enacted by Congress.

Executive Summary
1

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL BARRIER 

RESOURCES SYSTEM

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

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

islands (d).

Figure 2. The habitats created and protected by coastal barriers are vital to recreational industries. (Credit USFWS)

Congress recognized the value of 

coastal barriers to fish, wildlife, 

and other natural resources, and 

the risks associated with their 

development, when it enacted 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act (CBRA) and created the 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) in 

1982. The CBRS was subsequently 

modified by the Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act (CBIA) of 1990 

and numerous “technical correction” 

laws. This chapter describes the 

geomorphology of coastal barriers, 

the value of coastal barriers, the 

risks associated with developing 

coastal barriers, the role of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

in administering the CBRA, and the 

legislation that created and modified 

the CBRS. 

Geomorphology of Coastal Barriers

In general, the term “coastal 

barrier” describes a class of low 

lying coastal landforms that are long 

and narrow and parallel to the coast. 

They are surrounded, or nearly so, 

by open water, wetlands, or other 

aquatic habitat which separate 

them from the mainland. Often, 

substantial portions are sufficiently 

above normal high tides that dunes 

and terrestrial vegetation are 

prevalent. Figure 1 illustrates the 

four general 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 can, and often 

do, change position in response to 

storms, sea level rise, currents, and 

numerous other factors. Coastal 

barriers are distributed along the 

Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts, as 

well as in Alaska, Hawaii, the Great 

Lakes, and the U.S. territories. 

Currently, only certain coastal 

barriers located along the Atlantic, 

Gulf, and Great Lakes coasts, Puerto 

Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are 

within the CBRS.

Value of Coastal Barriers

Coastal barriers and the bays, salt 

marshes, and wetlands behind them, 

sustain a great diversity of plants 

and animals. Many Service trust 

species, such as migratory birds and 

interjurisdictional fish species, as 

well as threatened and endangered 

species (e.g., piping plover, and 

several species of beach mice and 

sea turtles) rely on coastal barrier 

habitat for survival.

Marshes, tidal channels, shallow 

lakes, and other wetland areas are 

vital fish and wildlife habitat because 

of their role as nursery grounds 

for many commercial and sport fish 

species. The commercial and sport 

fishing industry generates $116.1 

billion per year, $31.1 billion of 

which are from commercial and 

sport saltwater fishing alone.1 The 

sport fishing industry relies on the 

sustained quality of wetland habitat, 

and thus relies on the preservation 

of the coastal barriers that protect 

the habitat and support fish species.
2

Figure 5. Public recreation on Sanibel Island, 

Florida. (Credit USFWS)

Figure 6. North Captiva Island, Florida, before and after Hurricane Charley in 2004. CBRS Units P19 and 

P19P are located on North Captiva Island. (Credit USGS)

Figure 3. The endangered piping plover,

Charadrius melodus, walking on a New Jersey 

beach. (Credit USFWS)

Figure 4. A leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys 

coriacea, nesting on a coastal barrier in Canaveral 

National Seashore, Florida. (Credit National Park 

Service)

Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Migratory birds depend on the food 

sources and habitat created and 

protected by coastal barriers as 

feeding and resting stops on their 

marathon flights from Alaska, 

Canada and the northern U.S. to 

Mexico and South America. Without 

the opportunity to feed and rest, 

they would be unable to complete 

their journey to wintering sites.

Endangered manatees take shelter 

in and feed on the grasses that 

grow in the calm waters protected 

by coastal barriers. Marine turtles 

return to coastal barriers to build 

their nests and deposit their eggs, 

after spending decades in the open 

water. The six marine turtle species 

under U.S. jurisdiction are currently 

listed as endangered species, and 

their recovery is dependent upon the 

survival of their nests.

For most of these species, there is no 

substitute for coastal barrier habitat. 

The loss and degradation of 

coastal barriers removes the staging 

grounds of vital parts of the life 

cycle. Increased pressure has been 

placed on many species populations 

over the past few decades as they 

struggle to survive with a shrinking 

habitat caused, in part, by the rapid 

development of our coasts.

The benefits provided by coastal 

barriers extend beyond fish and 

wildlife. Coastal barriers can change

drastically as a result of a storm. 

Mainland communities, and the 

substantial economic investments 

they represent, are spared the full 

damage of hurricane winds and 

storm surge because coastal barriers 

and wetlands absorb the brunt of 

these destructive forces. Scientists 

estimate that every 2.7 miles of 

wetlands absorbs one foot of storm 

surge.2

Coastal barriers contain some of 

the Nation’s most beautiful beaches 

and popular tourist destinations. 

More than 180 million Americans 

travel to our coasts each year to take 

advantage of the many recreational 

activities offered. These visitors to 

coastal States generate over $560 

billion in tourism revenue annually.3

Risks Associated with Developing 

Coastal Barriers

Coastal barriers are continually 

shifting and moving in response to 

the forces of wind, wave, and tidal 

action. A severe storm repeats the

 annual cycle of changing width and

 slope of a beach within a few hours. 

Figure 6 illustrates the extreme 

geomorphic change resulting from 

Hurricane Charley which breached 

North Captiva Island, Florida, 

in 2004. The principal threat to 

beaches and coastal barriers, 

however, is not intense storms, but a 

steady reduction in the sand supply 

caused by dams on tributary streams 

and the diversion or interruption of 

littoral transport, (the movement 

of sedimentary material along the 

shoreline by waves and currents) 

along the seaward edge of beaches 

and barriers by bulkheads, 

groins, and jetties. In some areas, 

offshore mining of beach sand 

has contributed to the problem. 

This type of physical alteration 

compromises the coastal barrier’s 

natural ability to “go with the flow” 

and adjust to changes.

Most coastal barriers are made 

of unconsolidated sediments (e.g., 

sand and gravel). This geological 

composition, in addition to their very 

dynamic nature, makes them highly 

unstable areas on which to build. 

Despite their instability and high 

risk, the aesthetic and recreational 

attributes of coastal barriers 

continue to drive the development of 

coastal barriers along our Nation’s 

coasts. 
3

Chapter 1: Overview of the CBRS Draft– FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 

5

Pre- and post-Hurricane Katrina images of 

Dauphin Island, Alabama, illustrate

an area that has been hit hard by hurricanes 

Frederick (1979); Danny (1997); George 

(1998); Ivan (2004); and Dennis, Katrina 

and Wilma (2005); and has repeatedly 

redeveloped at the expense of the federal 

taxpayer. Aerial views of Dauphin Island 

(left) before and after Hurricane Katrina 

demonstrate the vulnerability of coastal 

barriers. The images below are 

enlargements of the detail area (middle 

left). The structures remaining after 

Hurricane Ivan in 2004, some partially in 

the surf of the Gulf of Mexico (bottom 

left), were almost completely destroyed by 

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (bottom right). 

Note that construction abruptly ends at the 

Unit Q02 boundary. 

Dauphin Island, Alabama, pre-Hurricane Katrina (Credit NASA)

Q02

Detail Area

N

Dauphin Island, Alabama, post-Hurricane Katrina (Credit NASA)

Q02

boundary 

Dauphin Island, Alabama, September 2004 (Credit USGS)

Reference

In Unit Q02 

Out of 

Unit Q02 

Dauphin Island, Alabama, August 2005 (Credit USGS)

Q02

boundary 

In Unit Q02 2005 (Post Katrina)

Reference

Out of 

Unit Q02 

Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Box 1. Impact of Hurricanes on Dauphin Island, Alabama.
4

Fish and Wildlife Service Role in 

Administering the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act 

The Department of the Interior 

(Department), through the Service, 

is responsible for administering the 

CBRA by: maintaining the official 

maps of the CBRS; conducting a 

review of the CBRS every 5 years 

to make minor and technical modifications to the boundaries to reflect 

changes that have occurred in the 

shape or location of any System 

units as a result of natural forces 

(erosion and accretion); consulting 

with Federal agencies that propose 

spending funds within the CBRS 

(CBRA consistency consultations); 

determining whether properties 

are located in or out of the CBRS 

(CBRA property determinations); 

and making recommendations to 

Congress regarding the addition of 

areas to the CBRS and determining 

whether a coastal barrier was undeveloped at the time of its inclusion in 

the CBRS.

Legislation that Created and Modified 

the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Below is a summary of the legislation that created and modified the 

CBRS.

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation 

Act of 1981

Prior to the enactment of the CBRA 

in 1982, Congress recognized 

that certain Federal programs 

have encouraged development 

of coastal barriers, and that the 

cost of development, including the 

threats to humans and natural 

resources, were more significant 

than previously understood. The 

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 

(OBRA) of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) amended 

the National Flood Insurance Act 

of 1968 to prohibit the issuance of 

Federal flood insurance coverage 

for new construction or substantial 

improvements of existing structures 

on undeveloped coastal barriers as 

defined by the OBRA and designated 

by the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary). In response to this 

directive, the Secretary established 

a Coastal Barrier Task Force 

comprised of representatives from 

various agencies in the Department. 

This task force developed proposed 

delineations of undeveloped coastal 

barriers, which went through a 

public review, pursuant to a Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking published 

in the Federal Register in 1981. 

Although the enactment of the 

OBRA was an important first step 

in the protection of undeveloped 

coastal barriers, it only prohibited 

the issuance of Federal flood 

insurance coverage and did not limit 

other types of Federal assistance 

in vulnerable coastal areas. In 

addition, the maps designated by the 

Secretary were not enacted by law 

and could be subject to lawsuits for 

years, blocking both development 

and protection of coastal barriers. 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 

1982

With the passage of the CBRA (P.L. 

97-348) in 1982, Congress recognized 

that certain actions and programs 

of the Federal Government 

have historically subsidized and 

encouraged development on coastal 

barriers and have resulted in the 

loss of valuable natural resources; 

threats to human life, health, and 

property; and the expenditure 

of millions of tax dollars to build 

structures and infrastructure and 

then rebuild them after damaging 

storms. The CBRA designated 

various undeveloped coastal barriers 

along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico 

coasts for inclusion in the CBRS.

The CBRA introduced one type 

of CBRS unit, subsequently 

referred to as the “System unit.” 

The CBRA defines a System 

unit as “any undeveloped coastal 

barrier, or combination of closelyrelated undeveloped coastal 

barriers, included within the 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System.” System 

units are generally comprised of 

private lands that were not held for 

conservation or recreation at the 

time of their designation within the 

CBRS. The boundaries of these 

units are generally intended to 

follow geomorphic, development, or 

cultural features.

System units are delineated 

on maps according to certain 

criteria and mapping protocols, 

which are specified in the OBRA 

of 1981, CBRA of 1982, CBIA of 

1990, Coastal Barrier Resources 

Reauthorization Act (CBRRA) of 

2000, the legislative histories of 

those laws, Department reports 

to Congress and other policy 

documents, and several notices 

published in the Federal Register 

since 1981. Areas designated 

within the CBRS as System units 

are ineligible for most Federal 

financial assistance that might 

support development, including new 

infrastructure projects and Federal 

flood insurance coverage through the 

National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP).4

The CBRA designated 186 System 

units encompassing approximately 

452,834 acres and 666 shoreline 

miles. Prior to the CBRA’s passage, 

the Department created draft maps 

for public and Congressional review. 

The 1982 units were delineated 

on a set of 177 maps comprised of 

photocopied enlargements of the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

map series entitled “topographic 

quadrangles” (quadrangles) at a 

scale of 1:12,000 which equates to 

one inch of map distance equaling 

1000 feet on-the-ground (see Figure 

7). System unit boundaries were 

hand-drawn directly on the maps.

Great Lakes Coastal Barrier Act 

of 1988

The Great Lakes Coastal Barrier 

Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-007) directed 

the Secretary to recommend 

to Congress and prepare maps 

identifying the boundaries of 

undeveloped coastal barriers along 

the shores of the Great Lakes 

that the Secretary considered 

appropriate for inclusion within 

the CBRS. Under this statute, the 

Secretary was not to recommend 

any areas for inclusion that were 

publicly owned and protected by 

Federal, State, or local law, or held 

by a privately owned organization 

primarily for wildlife refuge, 

sanctuary, recreational, or natural 

resource conservation purposes. 

The maps prepared by the 

Department went through a public 

review and were presented to 

Congress for its consideration. 

Congress enacted these maps, along 

with others, in the CBIA of 1990.

Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System
5

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act 

of 1990

The CBIA of 1990 (P.L. 101-

591) reauthorized the CBRA; 

made additions, deletions, and 

modifications to many existing 

System units; adopted new System 

units along the Great Lakes, 

Atlantic, and Gulf coasts; expanded 

the definition of “coastal barriers,” 

effectively including secondary 

barriers and undeveloped coastal 

barriers in the Florida Keys; and 

added a second type of coastal 

barriers to the CBRS known as 

otherwise protected areas (OPAs).

The CBIA defines an OPA as 

“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.” Unlike System unit 

boundaries, which are generally 

intended to follow geomorphic 

and development features, OPA 

boundaries are generally intended 

to coincide with the boundaries of 

conservation or recreation areas 

such as State parks and national 

wildlife refuges. The only Federal 

funding prohibition within OPAs is 

Federal flood insurance.5

The Service believes that Congress 

created OPAs for two primary 

reasons: (1) to ensure that the 

land will not be eligible for Federal 

flood insurance if it is ever sold 

or otherwise made available for 

development; and (2) to ensure that 

the restrictions on Federal flood 

insurance apply to privately owned 

inholdings within the protected area. 

The Service considers inholdings to 

be developed or undeveloped private 

tracts of land which 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. 

Below is a summary history of 

OPAs.

•	 1982: The Department

submitted a report to Congress 

that recommended that 

otherwise protected coastal 

barriers be included in the 

CBRS to ensure that owners of 

property within the boundaries 

of these areas not be granted 

Federal flood insurance, and 

that prohibitions on Federal 

flood insurance would be in place 

should the land ever become 

available for future 

development.6

•	 1982: Congress enacted

the CBRA, which excluded 

from the definition of an 

“undeveloped coastal barrier” 

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.

•	 1988: The Department

submitted a report to Congress 

that recommended changes to 

existing System units and also 

identified “otherwise protected” 

areas on the draft maps for 

informational purposes. The 

Department did not recommend 

adding these areas to the CBRS 

unless they were made available 

for development. Further, the 

Department recommended that 

all privately owned property that 

is within, but is not a part of, an 

otherwise protected area (i.e., 

inholdings) be included in the 

CBRS.7

•	 1990: Many of the “otherwise

protected” areas identified and 

delineated in the Department’s 

1988 report to Congress were 

designated by the CBIA as 

OPAs.

The CBIA enlarged the CBRS 

to include a total of 857 units 

(585 System units and 272 OPAs) 

encompassing approximately 3.1 

million acres and 2,470 shoreline 

miles. The 1990 units were 

delineated on a set of 632 maps 

comprised of photocopied USGS 

quadrangles at a scale of 1 inch of 

map distance equaling 2,000 feet 

on-the-ground. CBRS boundaries 

were again hand drawn directly on 

the maps. The maps enacted by the 

CBIA in 1990 have, in most cases, 

not been updated and are still the 

controlling CBRS maps today (see 

Figure 8).

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Reauthorization Act of 2000

The CBRRA of 2000 (P.L. 106-514) 

reauthorized the CBRA; codified 

the development criteria to be used 

by the Secretary when making 

recommendations to Congress8; 

amended the CBRA to allow for 

voluntary additions to the CBRS; 

directed the Secretary to complete 

a Digital Mapping Pilot Project; and 

directed the Secretary to complete 

an economic assessment of the 

CBRS.

Figure 7. Unit L06 map enacted by the CBRA in 1982.

Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System
6

Codification of the development 

criteria and the directive to 

undertake a Digital Mapping Pilot 

Project both attempted to address 

the problem of increased requests 

for modifications to CBRS maps. A 

clearly defined set of criteria used to 

make recommendations to Congress 

has been helpful not only to the 

Service as we react to technical 

correction requests, but also to the 

public in understanding which types 

of situations may merit a technical 

correction to a CBRS map.

Coastal Barrier Resources 

Reauthorization Act of 2005

The Coastal Barrier Resources 

Reauthorization Act (CBRRA) of 

2005 (P.L. 109-226) reauthorizes the 

CBRA through 2010, and directs 

the Secretary to: (1) finalize the 

Digital Mapping Pilot Project by 

providing for public review and 

presenting Congress with the final 

recommended digital maps, and (2) 

create final recommended digital 

maps for the remainder of the 

CBRS.

If the goals of the CBRRA of 2005 

are achieved, at some point in the 

future Congress will adopt a new 

set of maps for the entire CBRS. 

This will be a major milestone in the 

history of the CBRA, similar to the 

passage of the original law in 1982 

and the CBIA in 1990.

Technical Correction Legislation

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 property9; (2) additions of 

excess property under the Federal 

Property and Administrative 

Services Act, if such property 

is determined to constitute 

undeveloped coastal barrier by 

the Secretary10; and (3) a 5-year 

review conducted by the Secretary 

to make minor and technical 

modifications to the boundaries of 

the CBRS to account for changes 

to coastal barriers due to natural 

forces. Neither the Service, nor 

the Department, is authorized to 

make any other boundary changes 

administratively. When technical 

mapping errors are found, the 

Service has supported legislation 

to modify boundaries accordingly. 

Since 1982, Congress has enacted 

technical correction legislation 

to revise the boundaries of 42 

CBRS units. Appendix C contains 

a summary of all changes to the 

CBRS, including technical correction 

changes.

Figure 8. Unit L06 map enacted by the CBIA in 1990.

Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System
7

1 American Sportfishing Association, Sportfishing in America: Values of Our Traditional Pastime, http://www.asafishing.org/asa/images/

statistics/participation/sportfishing_america/fish_eco_impact.pdf

2

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Overland surge elevations coastal Louisiana: Morgan City and vicinity, File No. H-2-22758, Plate A-4 

1963.

3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Coastal Issues: Public Access. http://

coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/public_access.html. 2006.

4 16 U.S.C. 3504 describes the limitations on Federal expenditures affecting the CBRS. 16 U.S.C. 3505 describes the exceptions to 

these limitations. CBRA amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4028) to read “No new flood insurance coverage may be 

provided under this title on or after October 1, 1983, for any new construction or substantial improvements of structures located on any coastal 

barrier within the Coastal Barrier Resources System established by section 4 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. A Federally insured financial 

institution may make loans secured by structures which are not eligible for flood insurance by reason of this section.”

5 P.L. 101-591 Sec. 9. amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (U.S.C. 4028), Section 1321 to add the following new subsection: 

“(b) No new flood insurance coverage may be provided under this title after the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the 

enactment of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 for any new construction or substantial improvements of structures located in any 

area identified and depicted on the maps referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act as an area that is (1) not within the 

Coastal Barrier Resources System and (2) is in an otherwise protected area. Not withstanding the preceding sentence, new flood insurance 

coverage may be provided for structures in such protected areas that are used in a manner consistent with the purpose for which the area is 

protected.”

6 U.S. Department of the Interior. 1982. Undeveloped Coastal Barriers: Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, 

D.C. states: “The sale of Federal flood insurance for development within governmental areas set aside for conservation purposes seems 

particularly inappropriate. Not only is this inconsistent with the protection of the conservation area, but it is also inconsistent with the treatment 

of similar lands outside of the boundaries of the “protected” governmental unit...Therefore, we recommend an amendment to the Reconciliation 

Act to provide that all undeveloped coastal barriers be subject to designation, regardless of their protected status.” (p 36)

U.S. Department of the Interior, 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. states: “The only recommendation 

in the Secretary of the Interior’s August 1982 Report to Congress as required by OBRA was that the statutory definition of undeveloped coastal 

barriers be modified so that such “otherwise protected” areas could be included under the Act. This recommendation reflected concern that 

privately owned land within the authorized boundaries of these areas (inholdings) could be developed and granted Federal flood insurance and 

that some protected areas could become available for future development.” (p 103)

7 U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988 Recommendations, op. cit., p 117: “The Department recommends that all privately owned 

property that is within but is not a part of an otherwise protected area (i.e. inholdings) on an undeveloped coastal barrier be included in the 

CBRS. Where accurate maps of inholdings were available (e.g. for the National Seashores and Wildlife Refuges), inholdings are included on 

the CBRS maps (see appropriate State volumes). Where such information was lacking, inholdings on undeveloped otherwise protected coastal 

barriers are included by reference.”

8 P.L. 106-514 Sec. 2 states “In making any recommendation to the Congress regarding the addition of any area to the System or in 

determining whether, at the time of 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 1 structure per 5 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.”

50 FR 8700 states “A man-made structure is defined as a walled and roofed building constructed in conformance with Federal, State, or 

local legal requirements, with a projected ground area exceeding two hundred square feet.” This criterion is codified in P.L. 106-514 Sec. 2, where 

a structure is defined as “a walled and roofed building, other than a gas or liquid storage tank, which is principally above ground and affixed to a 

permanent foundation; and covers an area of at least 200 square feet.” 

9 P.L. 106-514 Sec. 3

10 P.L. 101-591 Sec. 4(d)

Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System
8

Over the past two decades, the 

CBRA has helped to keep people 

out of harm’s way, removed key 

incentives to develop important 

coastal habitat, and saved 

taxpayers’ money. In this sense, 

the law has been successful, but 

the effectiveness of the law is 

limited by the outdated maps used 

to administer the CBRS. CBRA 

references a series of maps that 

depict the specific boundaries of 

individual System units and OPAs; 

these maps are controlling and 

dictate which lands are affected 

by the CBRA. Modernizing the 

CBRS maps using digital technology 

will greatly improve the efficiency 

and effectiveness of CBRA 

implementation, positioning the 

Service to more fully accomplish the 

CBRA’s goals.

The existing set of CBRS maps was 

created in 1990 using antiquated 

manual cartographic technologies. 

The maps are difficult to use 

and incompatible with current 

geographic information systems 

(GIS) widely in use by Federal, 

State, local, and non-governmental 

entities. This chapter describes the 

significant challenges associated 

with the existing maps and the 

benefits associated with modernizing 

the maps using digital technology.

Challenges Associated with Existing 

Maps

There are significant challenges 

associated with the existing CBRS 

maps including: (1) a resource and 

time intensive process to determine 

boundary locations; (2) discrepancies 

between where the boundary was 

intended to fall on-the-ground and 

where the boundary is depicted 

on the map; and (3) inability 

to integrate CBRS boundaries 

into GIS for planning, decisionmaking, and information sharing 

purposes. Because the CBRA can 

have a significant financial impact 

on property owners and project 

proponents, it is essential that the 

Service be able to locate CBRS 

boundaries relative to on-theground properties and projects with 

a high degree of accuracy. Using 

the existing set of CBRS maps to 

accomplish this goal takes significant 

time and resources leading to 

inefficiencies in determining 

whether or not certain private 

properties and proposed projects 

are located within the CBRS and 

are therefore ineligible for Federal 

subsidies. Another challenge 

caused by the existing maps is that 

CBRS boundary lines, as they fall 

on-the-ground, frequently do not 

reflect the original boundary intent. 

Fluctuations from this intent of only 

a few centimeters on the CBRS map 

can have unintended consequences 

to entire properties on-the-ground. 

An additional challenge is that users 

of the existing maps are unable to 

easily integrate CBRS boundaries 

into GIS for proactive planning, 

decision making, and information 

sharing purposes. 

The challenges associated with the 

existing CBRS maps are attributed 

to: (1) the age and accuracy of the 

base maps on which the CBRS 

boundaries are depicted; (2) the now 

antiquated cartographic methods 

used to create the CBRS maps; and 

(3) the inadequate horizontal control 

associated with the existing maps.

Age and Accuracy of Base Maps

In the context of CBRS mapping, 

accuracy means the CBRS boundary 

is shown on the map exactly where 

it was intended to fall on-theground. For example, if a CBRS 

boundary was intended to mirror 

a park boundary or a specific 

geomorphic or development feature, 

the boundary is not accurate if it 

does not exactly follow that intended 

feature. The CBRS boundaries 

were delineated on the USGS 

quadrangles that were available 

when the CBRA was enacted in 

1982, and then again when the CBIA 

was enacted in 1990. At the time 

these statutes were enacted, the 

USGS quadrangles were considered 

the best and most widely available 

mapping medium. The quadrangles, 

however, were not updated on a 

regular cycle, often with decades 

passing between map revisions. For 

the pilot project units, the average 

age of the quadrangle on which the 

CBRS boundaries are delineated is 

30 years. The irregular and often 

infrequent revisions to the USGS 

quadrangles has been problematic 

for the CBRS because the CBRS 

boundaries are intended to follow 

certain geomorphic, development, 

or cultural features and these 

features are not always current on 

the base maps on which the CBRS 

boundaries are delineated. Coastal 

barriers are inherently dynamic 

and subject to more geomorphic 

change than inland areas due to 

their exposure to constant wave, 

wind, and tidal energies and because 

they are generally composed 

of unconsolidated sediments. 

Dynamic geomorphic features 

such as shorelines and wetlands, 

development features such as roads 

and structures, and cultural features 

such as park boundaries shown on 

the quadrangles were often outdated 

at the time the quadrangle was 

used to create the CBRS map. As 

a result, CBRS boundaries that are 

intended to follow these features 

were often placed incorrectly. In 

several cases this problem has had 

an adverse impact on property 

owners whose properties were 

inadvertently included in the CBRS.

USGS uses aerial photos to create 

the quadrangles and they update 

the quadrangles on an intermittent 

basis using more recent aerial 

imagery as it becomes available. 

These quadrangle updates are 

mainly focused on revising features 

identifiable on aerial imagery 

such as transportation networks, 

hydrography, vegetation, and 

structures. Because cultural 

boundaries do not appear on aerial 

imagery, these features are normally 

not updated during the quadrangle 

revision process. Cultural features 

inherit their spatial accuracy on 

the quadrangles from secondary 

sources such as the National Park 

Service and are often extracted 

from hard-copy maps that are 

neither controlled nor validated 

before they are added to the 

CHAPTER 2: NEED FOR MAP MODERNIZATION

Digital Mapping Pilot Project
9

quadrangles. Errors that existed 

on these secondary sources are then 

promulgated to the quadrangles. 

As a result, many cultural features 

shown on quadrangles that were 

used for the CBRS mapping are 

inaccurate and/or outdated by 

varying degrees. County parks 

and private conservation areas are 

normally not shown at all on the 

quadrangles which makes the OPA 

boundaries that were intended to 

mirror those features prone to an 

even higher degree of error (See 

Figure 9).

An additional challenge associated 

with the existing set of CBRS maps 

is that they are subject to instability 

caused by shrinkage and stretching 

over time due to variations in 

humidity. This affects the accuracy 

of all information on the maps, which 

in turn affects those end-users 

who wish to determine the spatial 

position of the CBRS boundaries 

relative to existing and proposed 

development using GIS.

Antiquated Cartographic Methods

The cartographic methods used 

to create the existing set of CBRS 

maps contribute significantly to 

the lack of boundary accuracy and 

the inability to use CBRS maps 

today in GIS or any digital mapping 

environment. CBRS boundaries 

were placed by hand on the USGS 

base maps in 1982 and 1990. These 

hand-drawn ink-on-paper CBRS 

boundary lines have a thickness that 

translates to over 100 feet on the 

Earth’s surface.

OPA boundaries were placed on 

the map by affixing cartographic 

drafting tape embossed with black 

dots directly onto quadrangles. The 

limited accuary of manually placing 

the drafting tape on the quadrangle 

contributed to the inaccuracy of OPA 

boundaries.

Inadequate Horizontal Control

In today’s data-sharing 

environment, the utility of 

maps created using antiquated 

cartographic techniques is 

significantly limited because of 

inadequate horizontal control. 

Horizontal control, as it relates to 

mapping, means that all points on 

the map have a precise geographic 

coordinate value, or point on the 

Earth’s surface. The most common 

method of ensuring horizontal 

control is to reference a geographic 

coordinate system such as the 

latitude and longitude grid displayed 

on quadrangles. The grid values on 

quadrangles are shown as numeric 

values at the edge of the map sheet, 

thereby enabling users to know 

where the quadrangle lies relative to 

the surface of the Earth. The grid 

coordinate values, or geocoordinates, 

enable a map user who knows the 

latitude and longitude values for a 

specific property parcel to locate the 

property with a fairly high degree of 

accuracy on a quadrangle.

The rudimentary process used to 

create the existing set of CBRS 

maps often involved splicing 

together adjacent quadrangles for 

units that straddled two or more 

map panels, and then removing the 

border information containing the 

geocoordinates. The absense of 

geocoordinates on the CBRS maps 

and the introduction of further 

distortion caused by the attempt to 

line-up adjacent maps has rendered 

the maps relatively useless in GIS 

environments requiring known 

geocoordinates. This problem is 

illustrated in Box 2. Note that the 

grid coordinate values normally 

displayed at the outer edge of the 

map on the right are not evident in 

the map on the left, thereby making 

horizontal control of CBRS 

boundaries on that map virtually 

impossible.

Benefits Associated with Digital 

Maps

Digital technologies can address 

existing challenges by moving 

away from the use of CBRS maps 

that depict outdated geomorphic, 

cultural, and development features, 

and toward a system of digital 

maps that more accurately depict 

current features on modern aerial 

imagery; can be integrated into 

GIS for planning purposes; and 

can be shared via the Internet. 

The benefits associated with 

comprehensively modernizing 

the entire CBRS using digital 

technology include: improving 

access to CBRS information; 

increasing efficiencies for project 

planning; increasing efficiencies for 

property determinations; facilitating 

administrative map revisions; 

integrating CBRS boundaries 

with the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs); 

conserving natural resources; 

addressing errors affecting private 

properties; and preserving the longterm integrity of the CBRS.

Improve Access to Information

Comprehensive map modernization 

will enable digital CBRS boundaries 

to be posted on the Internet and 

made available for incorporation into 

Federal, State, and local GIS that 

Figure 9. A USGS quadrangle dated 1987 was used as the base map for Unit FL-64P (black dots). The 

actual boundary of the Clam Pass Conservation Area is shaded in purple.

Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization
10

Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization Draft– FOR INTERNAL REVIEW 

18

Benefits Associated with Digital Maps 

Digital technologies can address existing challenges by moving away from the use of 

CBRS maps that depict outdated geomorphic, cultural, and development features, and 

Coordinate values were 

removed from this 

CBRS map, making it 

difficult to determine 

the exact location of 

features such as 

privately owned 

properties. 

Coordinate values 

were not removed 

from all CBRS maps. 

This example shows 

the coordinates that 

should be on all maps 

for ease of use. 

Figure 10. Unit L06 (left) without geographic grid coordinate values and Unit P11 (right) with grid coordinate values 

displayed along the outer edge of the map. 

Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization

Box 2. Lack of geographic grid coordinate values on existing CBRS maps.

will improve customer service and 

government efficiency by helping to 

ensure that people know about 

CBRA restrictions on Federal 

spending before they choose to 

invest in a property or pursue a 

project that is affected by the law. 

The availability of digital CBRS 

boundaries will enable a variety of 

GIS applications. At this time, a 

community planner who wants to 

superimpose a digital data layer of 

CBRS boundaries onto the digital 

property parcel data in the local GIS 

must use imprecise and potentially 

inaccurate CBRS data digitized by 

non-Service entities. The Service is 

aware of cases where such digital 

data has been integrated into local 

GIS, creating the impression that 

this data is official and accurate. 

This creates a potential adverse 

impact for developers and property 

owners who make investments based 

on potentially inaccurate information 

that has not been created, validated, 

or endorsed by the Service.

Increase Efficiency of Project 

Planning

Comprehensive map modernization 

will enhance and inform project 

planning and CBRS consistency 

consultations with other Federal 

agencies. Increasing development 

within or near CBRS areas requires 

planners, developers, and public 

entities to know the exact location 

of CBRS boundaries relative to 

a project site. The use of digital 

GIS-based technology will allow 

interested parties to review the 

location of CBRS boundaries 

relative to other information layers 

such as the proposed location of 

a housing development, a road 

expansion project, or critical habitat 

for endangered species. The Service 

regularly receives requests from 

Federal and State agencies, local 

communities, and private entities 

to determine whether or not a 

proposed federally-funded project is 

within the CBRS and if the project 

is consistent with CBRA. Due to 

the antiquated maps that currently 
11

depict the CBRS, this consultation 

process is labor intensive and can 

take several months to complete. 

This lengthy CBRA consultation 

process has adverse impacts for time 

sensitive projects seeking Federal 

funding. The ability to superimpose 

digital CBRS boundaries into a GIS 

will facilitate advance planning of 

projects by enabling a fast, accurate, 

and cost-effective assessment of 

CBRS boundary locations relative 

to structures, properties, or project 

sites.

Increase Efficiency of Property 

Determinations

Comprehensive map modernization 

will facilitate more efficient 

determinations of whether or not 

certain properties and structures are 

in or out of the CBRS. Currently, 

these determinations require labor 

and time intensive rectification 

between the CBRS map, aerial 

imagery, property parcel data, and 

the structure footprint depicted on 

a survey or plat map. The NFIP 

regularly requests the Service to 

determine whether or not certain 

properties are within the CBRS, to 

help determine their eligibility for 

Federal flood insurance. The lack 

of digital CBRS maps requires the 

Service to make determinations 

using an inefficient process that is 

labor and resource intensive; it can 

take several months to complete 

a single property determination. 

This lengthy CBRA property 

determination process delays 

property owners seeking to obtain 

Federal flood insurance and 

mortgages for their homes, and 

affects the decision-making process 

to buy and sell property. Digital 

maps will allow CBRS information 

to be incorporated into NFIP and 

other GIS, allowing property owners 

and insurance agents to determine, 

in most cases, whether or not a 

property is affected by the CBRA 

within minutes. Figure 11 shows 

the existing boundary of Unit P10A 

(shown in orange) superimposed on 

1999 aerial imagery and St. Lucie 

County and Indian River County 

parcel data (shown in pink) 

to facilitate a CBRS property 

determination. The property in 

question (outlined in blue) is easily 

and clearly determined to be “out” 

of the CBRS using this digital 

information.

Facilitate Administrative Map 

Revisions 

Comprehensive map modernization 

will facilitate the Service’s ability to 

make more accurate, cost-effective, 

and timely administrative boundary 

revisions including: (1) voluntary 

additions to the CBRS by property 

owners; (2) additions of excess 

property under the Federal 

Property and Administrative 

Services Act; and (3) the CBRA 5-

year review requirement to account 

for geomorphic changes such as 

erosion and accretion1. Conducting

a comprehensive 5-year review 

without digital maps is time and 

resource intensive. The reviews 

have taken place twice since the 

enactment of the CBRA in 1982. 

The 5-year review in 1989 modified 

only one unit, and the review in 

1997 modified 28 units of the total 

585 CBRS units at the time.2 

The availability of digital CBRS 

boundaries will allow a much more 

accurate, cost-effective, timely, 

and comprehensive 5-year review 

by comparing the existing CBRS 

boundaries to updated aerial 

photograpy that is horizontally 

controlled.

Integrate Boundaries with Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps

Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization

Figure 10. Sand pumping for a beach nourishment project at Fort Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. (Credit 

Minerals Management Service)

Figure 11. Property determination using digital data.
12

Comprehensive map modernization 

will allow a more seamless and 

efficient integration of CBRS 

information onto the FEMA FIRMs. 

CBRS boundaries are depicted 

on the FIRMs to help administer 

the CBRA Federal flood insurance 

prohibition.3 Figure 12 illustrates 

a CBRS area depicted on a FIRM 

(shown as hatched area). When 

the boundaries of a CBRS area 

are revised administratively or 

through legislation, the revised 

boundaries must be incorporated 

onto the FIRMs. Due to the 

inherent difficulties associated 

with the existing CBRS maps, 

the FIRMs are not updated with 

revised CBRS boundaries in a timely 

manner. CBRS map modernization 

will facilitate more seamless 

integration of CBRS boundaries 

onto the FIRMs which in turn will 

make accurate CBRS information 

available to local communities in a 

more accessible and timely manner.

Conserve Natural Resources

Comprehensive map modernization 

will help conserve natural resources 

by (1) increasing awareness and 

compliance with the CBRA and (2) 

enabling the Service to work with 

Federal, State, local, and nongovernmental entities to more 

fully inform their conservation and 

planning efforts with information 

regarding the CBRA’s Federal 

funding prohibitions. The maps that 

currently depict the CBRS make full 

compliance with the CBRA difficult 

because they are inaccurate and 

difficult to interpret. Additionally, 

some entities are not even aware 

of the CBRA or its prohibitions 

because CBRS boundaries are 

not easily accessible. In 2007, the 

Government Accountability Office 

issued a report entitled “Coastal 

Barrier Resources System: Status 

of Development That Has Occurred 

and Financial Assistance Provided 

by Federal Agencies.” The report 

found that four Federal agencies 

provided $21 million of prohibited 

financial assistance within the 

CBRS. One agency, FEMA, cited 

the lack of updated CBRS maps and 

limitations with mapping technology 

as the primary reasons why errors 

were made and assistance was 

provided within the CBRS. The 

report recommended that the 

Secretary of the Interior direct the 

Service to place a high priority on 

completing its efforts to develop 

digital maps that more accurately 

depict unit boundaries.

The Service believes that the CBRA 

works best when coupled with 

State and local actions to protect 

coastal barriers before the economic 

incentive for development surpasses 

the CBRA’s fiscal disincentives. For 

example, in North Carolina, 

the National Audubon Society has 

acquired land in CBRS areas, such 

as Pine Island Sanctuary (Unit 

NC-01), thereby providing longterm protection to the fish and 

wildlife habitat. State and local 

governments could eventually 

integrate CBRS boundaries into 

their GIS for planning and 

conservation efforts. By making the 

CBRS boundaries easily available 

in a digital format, the Service 

can collaborate with its partners 

to encourage more bundling of 

conservation tools to further the 

CBRA’s intentions.

Address Errors Affecting Private 

Properties

Comprehensive map modernization 

will proactively address errors on 

CBRS maps that inadvertently 

affect private properties. 

Subsequent to the CBIA (from 1990 

through the present), there have 

been several legislative technical 

correction changes to the CBRS 

(see Appendix C for a list of these 

changes). The Service receives 

numerous requests from property 

owners and their Members of 

Congress who seek to remove 

private land from the CBRS so that 

they can develop the land with 

Federal subsidies. Often these 

requests for technical corrections 

are based on claims that the maps 

are inaccurate or contain errors. 

The Service addresses these 

individual cases by objectively 

applying standard review criteria. 

When a map revision is warranted, 

the Service works with interested 

stakeholders and Congress to enact 

a comprehensively revised map 

made with digital technology. This 

case-by-case review process is 

resource intensive and lengthy, 

often taking years to complete. 

Since 1999, digital technologies have 

been used, in varying degrees, to 

address technical correction changes 

that were legislatively enacted for 

14 units (i.e., Units NC-03P, L03, 

NC-01, P19, P19P, VA-59P, VA-60, 

VA-60P, T07, P25, NC-07P, GA-06P, 

FL-95P, and FL-96). 

Comprehensive map modernization 

will significantly reduce the need for 

technical correction changes that 

remove land from the CBRS, with 

revisions necessary only to account 

for geomorphic change and to add 

appropriate land to the CBRS.

Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization

Figure 12. Flood Insurance Rate Map showing a portion of Unit M02.
13

Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization

Figure 13. Endangered wood stork, Mycteria americana, feeds on the shore at Pelican Island National 

Wildlife Refuge, Florida. (Credit USFWS) 

1 16 U.S.C. 3503(c) states: “At least once every 5 years, the Secretary shall review the maps referred to in subsection (a) of this section 

and shall make, in consultation with the appropriate State, local, and Federal officials, such minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of 

System units as are necessary solely to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any System unit as a result of natural forces.”

2 54 FR 19248: In the 1989 review, only one unit, K03, was modified.

62 FR 8258: In the 1997 review, a total of 28 units were modified. These units included: ME-17, ME-18, MA-03, C01B, MA-20P, MA-24, 

C28, C31, D02B, NY-04P, NY-50, F10, NJ-09, MD-03, MD-37P, MD-38, VA-09, VA-23, VA-36, L07, L09, P16, P17, FL-89, FL-99, FL-101, Q01A, 

and VI-07.

3 16 U.S.C. 3504 and 42 U.S.C. 4028

P.L. 101-591 Sec. 9 amends the NFIA to state “No new flood insurance coverage may be provided under this title after the expiration of 

the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 for any new construction or substantial 

improvements of structures located in any area identified and depicted on the maps referred to in section 4(A) of the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act as an area that is (1) not within the Coastal Barrier Resources System and (2) is in an otherwise protected area. Notwithstanding the 

preceding sentence, new flood insurance coverage may be provided for structures in such protected areas that are used in manner consistent with 

the purpose for which the area is protected.”

Preserve the Long-term Integrity 

of the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System

Comprehensive map modernization 

will preserve the long-term integrity 

of the CBRS by allowing the Service 

to assess the intent of each CBRS 

boundary, produce draft digital 

maps that accurately reflect that 

intent, conduct a public review of 

the draft digital maps, and create 

comprehensive background records 

that document the reasons for the 

location of each boundary. The 

existing CBRS maps are subject to 

challenges that often result in land 

being removed from the CBRS. 

Modernized CBRS maps will allow 

Congress, as well as Federal, State, 

and local entities and the public, to 

have confidence that each boundary 

placement is accurate, consistent 

with the CBRA and objective 

mapping criteria.
14

CHAPTER 3: DIGITAL DATA STANDARDS, NEEDS, 

AND AVAILABILITY

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

With regards to data needs, the 

CBRRA of 2000 requires that this 

report describe: (1) the cooperative 

agreements that will be necessary 

to complete 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. In 

addition, the CBRRA requires 

that all data used to carry out the 

pilot project comply with certain 

established national data standards.

The Service evaluated and used 

many data types to create the 

pilot project maps. These data 

include aerial imagery as the base 

map; geomorphic data to ensure 

appropriate relationships between 

CBRS boundaries and natural 

features (such as wetlands, streams 

and shorelines); development 

data (i.e. digital property parcel 

data, date of construction data, 

and infrastructure data) to ensure 

appropriate relationships between 

CBRS boundaries and developed 

areas; and conservation and 

recreation area boundary data to 

ensure appropriate relationships 

between OPA boundaries and 

the underlying conservation or 

recreation areas. The advantages 

and disadvantages of these data 

types are evaluated relative to the 

data source, data availability, and 

cooperative agreements that will be 

required to complete digital mapping 

of the entire CBRS.

National Digital Data Standards

The CBRRA of 2000 requires that 

all data used to carry out the pilot 

project comply with the National 

Spatial Data Infrastructure 

(NSDI) established by Executive 

Order 12906, and any other 

standards created by the Federal 

Geographic Data Committee 

(FGDC) established by Office of 

Management and Budget Circular 

A-16. In carrying out the pilot 

project, the Service used data that 

is compliant with both NSDI and 

FGDC standards. The Service also 

used data that is not certified as 

NSDI or FGDC compliant, such as 

certain local digital property parcel 

data. The non-compliant data was 

used only as a secondary source of 

information. The Service ensured 

compliance with NSDI and FGDC 

standards before using any data to 

map a pilot project unit. Validation 

of compliance for each data set was 

either documented in writing or 

present in the digital metadata.1

Digital Data Needs and Availability

The Service used several imagery 

sources and data sets to create 

the pilot project maps including 

aerial imagery, geomorphic data, 

development data, conservation and 

recreation area boundary data, and 

a variety of other data types. The 

sources, availability, advantages, 

disadvantages and cooperative 

agreements needed to obtain these 

different data sets are detailed in 

Appendix B.

Subsequent to the Service’s 

acquisition of data necessary 

to begin the Digital Mapping 

Pilot Project, the Council of 

Environmental Quality’s Joint 

Subcommittee on Ocean Science 

and Technology established the 

Interagency Working Group on 

Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IWGOCM) to facilitate the coordination 

and leveraging of mapping resources 

across the Federal sector and 

with State and local governments, 

industry, and non-governmental 

organization interests. As the 

Service continues its modernization 

of CBRS maps, we will coordinate 

with the IWG-OCM in our data 

acquisition.

Digital Raster Graphics

A digital raster graphic (DRG) 

is a horizontally controlled, 

orthorectified2 image of a scanned 

USGS topographic or planimetric 

map. DRGs were used in the pilot 

project to establish horizontal 

control of the digital CBRS 

boundaries. Horizontal control 

ensures that the digital CBRS 

boundaries accurately line up with 

specific geographic coordinates 

on the surface of the Earth. The 

Service found that because the 

existing CBRS boundaries are 

depicted on USGS base maps, 

the CBRS boundaries are most 

efficiently horizontally controlled 

by using the DRG. The horizontal 

control process is discussed in 

further detail in Chapter 4. DRGs 

are available from the USGS, State 

and local governments, and private 

vendors. 

Aerial Imagery 

As described in Chapter 2 of 

this report, the most significant 

shortcomings of the existing CBRS 

maps are the outdated and generally 

inadequate base maps that currently 

depict the CBRS. In carrying out 

the pilot project, the Service found 

that aerial imagery is the most 

suitable medium for CBRS mapping, 

because the CBRS boundaries 

can be aligned precisely with the 

geomorphic and development 

features that are often visible on 

the photograph. The three most 

significant factors to consider when 

selecting the aerial imagery to be 

used as the CBRS base map are age, 

resolution, and orthorectification of 

imagery.

•	 Age of Imagery: Due to the 

dynamic nature of coastal 

barriers, recent aerial imagery 

is important for CBRS mapping. 

Recent imagery allows accurate 

CBRS boundary placement 

relative to geomorphic and 

development features visible 

on the photograph, such as 

shorelines, streams, wetlands, 

road networks, and structures. 

Because aerial imagery 

represents a “snapshot in 

time,” it becomes outdated 

quickly, especially in active 

hurricane seasons and in areas 

where significant development 

is occurring. The Service 

determined that aerial imagery 

used for CBRS mapping should 

be no more than 2 years old. 

Currently, the aerial imagery 
15

The two images on the 

right show the differences 

in aerial imagery obtained 

for an area within Unit DE07P in Delaware. The top 

right image illustrates the 

existing DE-07P boundary 

(shown in orange) overlaid 

on the most recently 

available USGS DOQQ 

(dated 1998). The bottom 

right image illustrates the 

existing DE-07P boundary 

(shown in orange) overlaid 

on 2004 imagery produced 

by the State of Delaware. 

Note the red arrows 

indicating an area that has 

developed since the latest 

available DOQQ imagery. 

Also, the locally produced 

imagery in this case is 

higher resolution, making it 

easier to identify 

geomorphic and 

development features.

USGS DOQQ – 1998 Imagery 

Existing DE-07P 

boundary 

DE-07P

State of Delaware Imagery – 2004 Imagery 

Existing DE-07P 

boundary 

DE-07P

Chapter 3: Digital Data Standards, Needs, and Availability

Box 3. Comparison of Imagery Quality.

used for the pilot project is, on 

average, 8 years old. Although 

more recent imagery is now 

available, the Service decided 

not to delay completion of the 

pilot project to substitute more 

recent imagery.

•	 Resolution of Imagery: Due 

to the need for accurate CBRS 

boundary placement relative to 

geomorphic and development 

features, high resolution 

imagery is important for 

CBRS mapping. The Service 

determined that the minimum 

image resolution for CBRS 

mapping should be 1 meter 

pixels. An image resolution with 

1 meter pixels means that each 

pixel on the aerial photograph is 

equal to 1 meter of distance onthe-ground. The higher the 

resolution image (such as 1/3 

meter pixel), the greater level of 

detail visible on the image. The 

resolution of imagery used in the 

pilot project is 1 meter pixels or 

less.

•	 Orthorectification of 

Imagery: Due to the direct 

relationship between the CBRS 

boundaries and the geomorphic 

or development features they 

are intended to follow on-theground, it is important that 

the aerial imagery used as the 

CBRS base map accurately 

reflects the position of those 

features on the Earth’s surface. 

Orthorectification is 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. Orthorectification 

ensures that distortion and 

image displacement caused 

by the changes in aircraft 

altitude, tilt, and topographic 

relief are corrected. The 

Service determined that 

the aerial imagery used for 

CBRS mapping should be 

orthorectified.

In conducting the pilot project, the 

Service researched and utilized a 

variety of aerial imagery sources to 

determine the most suitable CBRS 

base map that is readily available at 

little or no cost to the Service; meets 

the standards established by NSDI 

and FGDC; and meets the 

factors identified above for CBRS 

mapping (recent, high resolution, 

orthorectified imagery). The 
16

Service investigated several Federal, 

State, local, and private sources for 

procuring aerial imagery to serve as 

the CBRS base map. These sources 

are briefly described below and in 

more detail in Appendix B.

•	 Federal Sources: Federal 

agencies, including USGS 

and the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), have aerial imagery 

available that is, in some 

cases, suitable for CBRS 

mapping. After evaluating 

the sources of aerial imagery 

currently available, the Service 

determined that the USGS 

digital orthophoto quarter 

quadrangle (DOQQ), produced 

through the National Digital 

Orthophoto Program, is 

generally the most suitable and 

readily available aerial imagery 

for CBRS mapping.

The USGS DOQQ is an aerial 

photo that is able to differentiate 

items on the Earth’s surface that 

are as small as 1 meter in length. 

The advantages of DOQQs are 

that they are readily available, 

at no cost, for the entire country. 

The disadvantages associated 

with DOQQs are that they have 

relatively low image resolution 

and they are not updated on a 

regular and frequent schedule. 

Sixty-five of the 70 pilot project 

units and the most recently 

enacted technical corrections 

(i.e., Units VA-60, VA-60P, T07, 

T07P, P25, NC-07P, GA-06P, FL95P, and FL-96) were mapped on 

USGS DOQQs.

•	 State and Local Sources: 

State and local governments 

are increasingly generating 

up-to-date high quality aerial 

imagery that is, in many cases, 

a viable alternative for CBRS 

mapping when the USGS 

DOQQs available are more than 

2 years old. In carrying out the 

pilot project, the Service found 

that high-quality State and 

locally-generated aerial imagery 

is available, and is becoming 

more prevalent as communities 

increase their digital technology 

capabilities. Five of the 70 pilot 

project units were mapped on 

State or locally-generated aerial 

imagery (i.e., Units DE-07, 

DE-07P, H01, P21, and P21P). 

Since the inception of the pilot 

project in September 2002, the 

number of States and counties 

using and sharing imagery has 

grown substantially. Local 

governments have a need for 

current imagery, and therefore it 

is updated frequently, sometimes 

even annually. The resolution 

of the State and local imagery 

is generally higher than the 

resolution of a USGS DOQQ.3 

See Box 3 for a comparision of 

Unit DE-07P imagery obtained 

from the USGS and the State of 

Delaware. The disadvantages 

associated with State and 

local imagery are availability 

and cost. In those areas 

where high quality imagery is 

available at the State or local 

level, the jurisdictions often 

have proprietary interest in 

its production and may place 

restrictions on its distribution 

and use. State and local 

jurisdictions have different 

cost structures for sharing the 

data, ranging from no-cost to 

thousands of dollars per map 

panel. 

•	 Procuring New Imagery: In 

cases where suitable aerial 

imagery is not available for 

CBRS mapping, the Service 

can enter into agreements with 

other Federal agencies that have 

aerial imagery programs (such 

as USGS, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA), and 

NOAA) or contract with a 

private vendor to acquire the 

necessary aerial imagery.

Geomorphic Data

In carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service used wetlands, soils, 

and other geomorphic datasets 

to help determine the proposed 

CBRS boundary placement. 

CBRS mapping requires data 

that accurately depict geomorphic 

features on-the-ground because 

System unit boundaries are 

generally intended to follow 

geomorphic features. These data 

are briefly described below and in 

more detail in Appendix B.

•	 Wetlands Data: In carrying 

out the pilot project, the 

Service used National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI) data 

that shows digital graphic 

representations of the type, size, 

and location of the wetlands 

and deepwater habitats in the 

United States.4 Although a 

small margin of error is inherent 

in use of wetlands data (due 

to the dynamic, seasonal and 

ever-changing spatial extent 

of these areas, and also due to 

the age of imagery used to map 

the wetlands), this information 

is a useful tool in determining 

the general extent of wetlands. 

The margin of error can be 

minimized by validating the 

Figure 14. National Wetlands Inventory layer and color infrared imagery in a GIS 

environment.

Chapter 3: Digital Data Standards, Needs, and Availability
17

Chapter 3: Digital Data Standards, Needs, and Availability

Figure 15. The date of construction data is shown by the black dates located within parcels.

wetlands data against recent 

 color infrared (CIR) imagery. 

 CIR imagery shows color bands 

which differentiate between 

types of vegetation that are not 

evident from looking at black 

and white aerial imagery. CIR 

imagery is helpful when aligning 

CBRS boundaries to vegetative 

features such as the edge of a 

stand of mangroves. Figure 14 

illustrates an NWI data layer 

overlaid on CIR imagery of pilot 

project Unit P04A.

•	 Soils Data: In carrying out the 

pilot project, the Service used 

USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) 

soil data to help determine the 

 interface between the fastland 

and associated aquatic habitat.5 

The existence of hydric soils is 

an indication of the location of 

wetlands because hydric soils 

are generally saturated for more 

than half the year. The NRCS 

soil data, in conjunction with 

NWI wetlands data, is useful in 

mapping CBRS boundaries that 

are intended to follow the extent 

of wetlands.

•	 Other Geomorphic Data: 

In carrying out the pilot 

project, the Service used some 

geomorphic data obtained 

through State GIS websites, 

often affiliated with State 

universities. For example, the 

State of Florida has mangroves 

data for the entire Florida 

coast available in a GIS. This 

data is useful for CBRS 

mapping because several CBRS 

boundaries are delineated at the 

edges of mangrove stands.

Development Data

When CBRS areas were originally 

mapped, certain criteria were used 

to determine the development 

status of coastal barriers under 

consideration for designation as 

System units.6 The development 

criteria, including density of 

development and a full complement 

of infrastructure, were slightly 

modified and codified by the 

CBRRA of 2000.7 In carrying out 

the pilot project, the Service used 

digital property parcel data, date of 

construction data, and in one case, 

infrastructure data, to ascertain 

the development status of an area 

at the time of its designation. 

This information is useful to help 

understand the historical intent 

of a CBRS boundary and in 

recommending additions, deletions, 

and reclassifications to the CBRS. 

The development data are briefly 

described below and in more detail 

in Appendix B.

•	 Digital Property Parcel 

Data: In carrying out the pilot 

project, the Service, in many 

cases, obtained digital property 

parcel data because certain 

CBRS boundaries are intended 

to follow parcel boundaries. 

The Service acquired digital 

property parcel data from local 

governments and used it to 

ensure the accuracy of CBRS 

boundaries relative to property 

boundaries. Local governments, 

 especially in urban and highgrowth areas, are increasingly 

converting their property parcel 

data to digital format, and most 

are making this information 

available free of charge through 

the local property appraiser’s 

office, tax assessor’s office, or 

GIS department. During the 

course of the pilot project, the 

Service was able to procure 

digital property parcel data for 

62 of the 70 pilot project units. 

Other local governments (most 

notably in Louisiana) had parcel 

data but it was not available in 

digital format.

•	 Date of Construction Data: In 

carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service obtained the date 

of construction information for 

structures located in and around 

CBRS areas, generally from 

the local property appraiser’s 

office, tax assessor’s office, or 

GIS department. When used in 

conjunction with digital property 

parcel data, date of construction 

information provides valuable 

insight into the level of 

development at the time an area 

was originally designated within 

the CBRS. Figure 15 illustrates 

aerial imagery overlaid with the 

St. Johns County digital 

property parcel data (shown in 

pink), and date of construction 

data (shown by the black dates 

located within the parcels). This 

date of construction information 

is generally highly accurate 

because local governments 

compile it on an annual basis 

for their tax assessments. In 

limited cases, such as for pilot 
18

project units located in the State 

of Louisiana, an assessment of 

date of construction data was 

not conducted because such data 

does not exist for those areas.

•	 Infrastructure Data: In 

carrying out the pilot project, 

with the exception of Unit 

L06, the Service did not collect 

infrastructure data to determine 

whether or not there was a full 

complement of infrastructure to 

each lot or building site in the 

area at the time of the area’s 

designation within the CBRS. In 

the case of Unit L06, the Service 

conducted an infrastructure 

assessment for three areas in 

this unit, based on indications 

that some of the areas added 

in 1990 were served by a full 

complement of infrastructure 

that was not evident on the 

quadrangles used when the area 

was last mapped. 

Through this experience with 

Unit L06, the Service learned 

that this type of infrastructure 

assessment is extremely time 

and resource intensive because it 

includes contacting local utilities 

and other sources to determine 

when the infrastructure for 

the area was available onthe-ground. The Service 

concluded that it would be cost 

prohibitive to conduct this kind 

of infrastructure assessment for 

all pilot project units. Instead, 

the Service relied on visual 

cues on the aerial imagery 

(such as roads) as an indication 

of the level of infrastructure 

on-the-ground. The Service 

anticipates that if any areas 

proposed for addition to a 

System unit, or reclassification 

from OPA to System unit status, 

contained a full complement of 

infrastructure at the time of 

designation within the CBRS, 

interested parties will provide 

the necessary documentation 

during the public review period 

for the pilot project maps. 

This approach is similar to the 

process used to assess the level 

of infrastructure prior to the 

CBIA designations in 1990.8

Conservation and Recreation Area 

Boundary Data

In carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service obtained digital 

boundary data for the parks and 

other underlying conservation 

and recreation areas the OPAs 

are intended to follow. Due to 

the inaccurate base maps and 

manual cartographic techniques 

used in the past, small portions of 

private land that are contiguous 

with the underlying conservation 

or recreation area (but are 

not inholdings) are sometimes 

inadvertently and incorrectly 

included within the boundaries of 

the OPA. Consequently, the private 

property owners of these lands 

are unable to obtain Federal flood 

insurance.

The Service, whenever possible, 

obtained digital data describing 

the boundaries of public recreation 

and conservation areas within a 

given area, including Statewide GIS 

databases, digital property parcel 

data from local governments, and 

direct contact with land managers to 

obtain surveys, plat maps, or deeds. 

This type of data is becoming more 

routinely available free of charge 

within the public domain.

Chapter 3: Digital Data Standards, Needs, and Availability

1 Metadata, or “data about data”, 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. The FGDC 

approved the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata on June 8, 1994. Since that time, many organizations within and outside of the 

Federal government have adopted the FGDC metadata standard and are using automated indexing and serving mechanisms to provide access to 

their holdings through the Internet.

2 Orthorectified imagery is airborne or satellite imagery that has been corrected for relief displacement and displays all the properties 

of an accurate map whereby each pixel is viewed looking straight down. As it relates to image accuracy, a normal aerial photograph has a 

perspective that causes features closer to the camera appear to be larger than features farther away from the camera.

3 Although DOQQs satisfy NSSDA requirements, State and locally supplied digital orthophotos and those procured from private vendors 

normally exceed horizontal (radial) RMSE of 2.2 feet, 4.4 feet, or 8.8 feet if compiled at common scales of 1” = 100’, 1” = 200’, or 1” = 400’, 

respectively.

4 http://www.fws.gov/nwi/. National Wetlands Inventory Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

5 Associated aquatic habitat includes the wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters adjacent to coastal barriers. 

Fastland includes 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.

6 47 FR 35708: “A density threshold of roughly one structure per five acres of fastland is used for categorizing a coastal barrier as 

developed...All or part of a coastal barrier will be considered developed, even when there is less than one structure per five acres of fastland, 

if there is a full complement of infrastructure in place...A full complement of infrastructure requires that there be vehicle access to each lot or 

building site plus reasonable availability of a water supply, a waste water disposal system, and electrical service to each lot or building site.”

7 P.L. 106-514 Sec. 2
19

Chapter 3: Digital Data Standards, Needs, and Availability

8 Department of the Interior, 1988 Recommendations, op. cit., pp. 110 & 113 respectively:

“Study Group members also visited many sites. Detailed assessment of the status of infrastructure was not possible, given limitations 

of available information and resources. When landowners wrote to the [Department], however, claiming a full complement of infrastructure was 

in place in their property, the claims were investigated. Where a full complement of infrastructure (roads, water and electric lines) provided by 

the developer to each lot or building site was verified, the barrier was considered developed.”

“Undeveloped coastal barriers, or portions thereof, were delineated using U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle maps and, 

when available, recent aerial imagery. Development status was determined primarily on the basis of the density of visible structures.”
20

Digital property 

parcel data does not 

always properly 

align with 

underlying aerial 

imagery.

CHAPTER 4: DIGITAL MAPPING METHODOLOGY

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

Figure 16. Brevard County, Florida, parcel data (shown in pink) overlaid on a USGS DOQQ.

The pilot project mapping 

methodology included: selection 

of pilot project units; adjustments 

to “fit” the digital data to the 

underlying base map; digitization of 

the existing CBRS boundaries and 

establishment of horizontal control; 

assessment of boundary intent; 

adjustment of existing boundaries 

to create proposed boundaries that 

align with geomorphic, development, 

or cultural features, and, in limited 

cases, to add new fastland; and 

calculation of the acreage and 

shoreline mileage associated with 

each unit.

The remapping process for 

each of the pilot project units 

is documented in background 

records maintained by the Service 

and available upon request at the 

Service’s headquarters office. The 

existing and proposed boundaries 

are delineated on each of the pilot 

project maps in Appendix D. The 

“existing” pilot project boundaries 

have been digitized from the 

controlling CBRS map, horizontally 

controlled, and transferred to the 

new base map, but have not been 

adjusted to reflect the intent of 

the boundary. The “proposed” 

pilot project boundaries have been 

adjusted to reflect the geomorphic, 

development, or cultural intent of 

the boundary, and in limited cases, to 

add new fastland, based on objective 

criteria and mapping protocols.

Selection of Pilot Project Units

The CBRRA of 2000 specifies that 

the pilot project shall consist of the 

creation of digital maps for no more 

than 75 units and no fewer than 

50 units of the CBRS, one-third of 

which shall be OPAs. The Service 

selected 60 CBRS units for this pilot 

project, one-third (20) of which are 

OPA units. The pilot project maps 

depict a total of 70 CBRS units, 

which include 60 existing CBRS 

units, 8 units that are proposed for 

reclassification from System unit 

to OPA status or vice-versa, and 

two proposed new OPA units. The 

pilot project units are located in 

Delaware, North Carolina, South 

Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. 

The selection of units was based 

primarily on availability of relatively 

recent aerial imagery. Another 

factor considered was addressing 

high priority areas for digital maps 

based on known development 

pressures.

Digital Data “Fitting”

Compliance with national data 

standards does not, in and of 

itself, make data accurate. When 

NSDI and FGDC compliant 

data, described in Chapter 3, is 

superimposed on orthorectified 

aerial imagery, it often does not line 

up properly. For example, digital 

property parcel data that has been 

horizontally controlled and placed 

on an aerial photograph that has 

also been horizontally controlled in a 

GIS may show property boundaries 

crossing through structures. This 

is due to differences in the data 

sources, such as the aerial imagery 

and digital property parcel data, 

and is not a reflection of poor data 

quality. It is not uncommon for two 

NSDI and FGDC compliant base 

maps to show physical features such 

as roads, streams, and shorelines, in 

slightly different locations. Figure 

16 illustrates a spatial offset that 

occurred when digital property 

parcel data (meeting NSDI and 

FGDC standards) from Brevard 

County, Florida, was overlaid on a 

USGS DOQQ. The major road 

running northwest-southeast 

through the bottom left-hand 

corner of this DOQQ image does not 

coincide with the pink lines depicting 

the road’s position on the county 

parcel data. This problem can 

generally be overcome by “fitting” 

the parcel data to the underlying 

aerial imagery being used as the 

base map.

A proper fit of the data to the CBRS 

base map is important because 

positional differences of only a few 

feet in CBRS boundaries can affect 

a homeowner’s eligibility for Federal 

flood insurance.

Mapping System Units

The process used to map pilot 

project System units is summarized 

below.

Step 1 – Digitize Boundary and 

Establish Horizontal Control

A common misconception is that 

a digital map is, by default, an 

accurate map. The process of 

digitizing a CBRS boundary does 

not, in and of itself, make the 

boundary accurate. Horizontal 

control is what makes a digital map 

spatially accurate as it provides the 

ability to reference all features 
21

Figure 17. The digitized boundary is obtained from a paper CBRS map that 

has been referenced to a USGS digital raster graphic in order to establish 

horizontal control, and is then placed on horizontally controlled aerial 

imagery.

shown on the map to an exact 

location on the Earth’s surface. 

The existing CBRS base maps are 

not horizontally controlled, making 

the digitized boundaries from 

these maps incompatible with GIS 

applications.

The existing CBRS pilot project 

boundaries were first digitized. 

Then, the CBRS boundaries were 

horizontally controlled by linking 

points on the CBRS maps to 

specific geographic coordinates 

on horizontally controlled digital 

raster graphics (DRGs) of USGS 

quadrangles or DOQQs. A DRG 

is a horizontally controlled, 

orthorectified image of a scanned 

USGS topographic or planimetric 

map. The digitized and horizontally 

controlled CBRS boundary is then 

placed on the aerial imagery selected 

as the CBRS map. The layers in this 

process are illustrated in Figure 17.

Step 2 – Assess Boundary Intent 

Once the existing boundaries of the 

pilot project units were digitized, 

horizontally controlled, and 

transferred to the aerial imagery, the 

Service assessed each boundary in 

the pilot project unit to understand 

the intent of the boundary with 

respect to geomorphic, development, 

and cultural features. System unit 

boundaries are generally intended 

to follow geomorphic features (e.g., 

shorelines and streams) but can also 

follow development features (e.g., 

property parcel boundaries, roads) 

or cultural features (e.g., county 

lines, park boundaries).

This assessment included a review 

of the Service’s record for each 

unit, public laws, notices published 

in the Federal Register, reports to 

Congress, enacted and historical 

CBRS maps, aerial imagery, and an

assortment of data described in 

Chapter 3.

Step 3 – Adjust Existing 

Boundaries to Create Proposed 

Boundaries

Once the intent of the pilot project 

unit boundaries was assessed and 

understood, the digitized CBRS 

boundaries were adjusted to 

reflect that intent. The proposed 

boundaries were delineated using 

objective criteria and mapping 

protocols. In limited cases where 

the proposed boundaries on the 

pilot project maps deviate from 

established criteria and mapping 

protocols, these exceptions are 

noted.

Three main types of boundary 

changes were made to the pilot 

project System units: geomorphicbased changes, developmentbased changes, and cultural-based 

changes. These changes were made 

in order to: (1) reflect geomorphic 

changes that have occurred since 

the unit was last mapped; (2) 

align the System unit boundary 

with geomorphic features; (3) add 

associated aquatic habitat; (4) adjust 

channel boundaries in a consistent 

manner; (5) align the System unit 

boundary to development features; 

(6) align the System unit boundary 

with cultural features; (7) add new 

fastland not currently within the 

CBRS; and (8) reclassify appropriate 

lands from System unit to OPA 

status. These proposed changes 

are described in detail in Chapter 5. 

The maps in Appendix D depict the 

existing and proposed boundaries 

for each pilot project unit. 

Step 4 – Calculate Acreage and 

Shoreline Changes

After the mapping was completed, 

the Service used GIS applications to 

calculate the existing and proposed 

acreage and shoreline length 

associated with each pilot project 

unit. The fastland and associated 

aquatic habitat acreage within 

each unit were also calculated. 

The acreage and shoreline length 

associated with each pilot project 

unit are listed in Appendix E .

Mapping Otherwise Protected Areas

The criteria and protocols for 

OPA mapping are significantly 

different from those of System 

units. OPA boundaries are intended 

to follow 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. The process used to map 

pilot project OPAs is summarized 

Chapter 4: Digital Mapping Methodology
22

below.

Step 1 – Digitize Boundary and 

Establish Horizontal Control

See Step 1 of “Mapping System 

Units” section of this chapter. This 

step is identical for System units and 

OPAs.

Step 2 –Assess Boundary Intent

Once the existing boundaries of the 

pilot project units were digitized, 

horizontally controlled, and 

transferred to aerial imagery, the 

Service identified the conservation 

or recreation area(s) each OPA 

boundary was intended to follow. 

This assessment included comparing 

the existing OPA boundary to 

digital property parcel data and 

the conservation or recreation area 

boundary data described in Chapter 

3.

Step 3 – Compile and Validate 

Conservation and Recreation Area 

Boundaries

The most reliable means to establish 

the conservation or recreation 

area boundary location with a high 

degree of accuracy is to conduct field 

surveys of the subject site. Field 

surveys of all OPA boundaries were 

cost-prohibitive for the pilot project. 

Instead, existing conservation or 

recreation area boundary data were 

obtained from the sources described 

in Chapter 3; digitized if needed; 

overlaid on the orthorectified aerial 

imagery being used as the base map; 

and fit to the imagery as described 

at the beginning of this chapter.

Stakeholders (generally park 

managers) were asked to review 

and concur with the placement 

of the conservation or recreation 

area boundary on the base map. 

Upon resolution of any boundary 

discrepancies, stakeholders and 

the Service signed a statement of 

concurrence and a map depicting 

the underlying conservation or 

recreation area boundaries. This 

concurrence process ensures 

that the OPA boundaries, which 

are based on the underlying 

conservation or recreation area 

boundaries, are as accurate as 

possible.

Step 4 – Adjust Existing 

Boundaries to Create Proposed 

Boundaries

The Service adjusted the OPA 

boundaries in order to: (1) align 

with cultural features such as 

conservation or recreation area 

boundaries; (2) add conservation or 

recreation area; (3) remove adjacent 

private lands that are not inholdings, 

as appropriate; (4) reclassify from 

OPA to System unit status; (5) 

add new OPAs; and (6) map OPA 

boundaries that lie in channels in a 

consistent manner. These proposed 

changes are described in detail in 

Chapter 5. The maps in Appendix 

D depict the existing and proposed 

boundaries for each pilot project 

unit.

Step 5 – Calculate Acreage and 

Shoreline Changes

See Step 4 of the “Mapping System 

Units” section of this chapter. This 

step is identical for System units and 

OPAs.

Chapter 4: Digital Mapping Methodology
23

CHAPTER 5: PILOT PROJECT RESULTS

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

Figure 18. Proposed Unit S05 boundary (shown in green) accounts for accretion of Timbalier 

Island, Louisiana over time.

Figure 19 Proposed Unit P04A boundary (shown in green) aligns with a geomorphic 

feature. The existing boundary is shown in orange.

The CBRRA of 2000 requires that 

this report describe the extent 

to which the boundary lines on 

the proposed pilot project maps 

differ from the boundary lines on 

the existing maps. This chapter 

describes the results of the pilot 

project by: (1) summarizing 

the different types of proposed 

boundary changes associated with 

System units and OPAs; (2) listing 

the proposed boundary changes 

associated with each unit in Tables 1 

and 2; (3) summarizing the proposed 

acreage and shoreline changes; 

and (4) summarizing the general 

contents of the background records 

created for each of the units. The 

pilot project unit summaries and 

maps are provided in Appendix D. 

The acreage and shoreline change 

numbers for each pilot project unit 

are provided in Appendix E. 

Types of Proposed Boundary Changes

The different types of proposed 

boundary changes contained in the 

pilot project maps are summarized 

below, along with illustrative 

examples. Tables 1 and 2 in this 

chapter list the different types of 

boundary changes proposed for each 

of the pilot project System units and 

OPAs, respectively.

Proposed System Unit Changes

•	 Adjustment to Reflect 

Geomorphic Change: The 

CBRA requires that every 5 

years the Service make minor 

and technical modifications to 

the boundaries of System units 

solely to reflect changes in the 

size or location of the units 

caused by natural forces such 

as accretion and erosion.1 To 

satisfy the CBRA 5-year review 

requirement for pilot project 

System units, the Service 

assessed the geomorphic change 

that has occurred to the coastal 

barrier since it was last mapped. 

The proposed boundaries of 14 

pilot project System units were 

adjusted to reflect geomorphic 

change. Figure 18 illustrates a 

barrier island in Unit S05 that 

has prograded northwest over 

time. Note that the proposed 

Unit S05 boundary accounts 

for this movement and provides 

an appropriate buffer to 

accommodate future accretion of 

Timbalier Island, Louisiana.

•	 Alignment with Geomorphic 

Features: The proposed 

boundaries of 28 pilot project 

System units were adjusted 

to align with underlying 

geomorphic features on the base 

map. CBRS boundaries are 

often intended to follow 

geomorphic features such as 

shorelines. In Figure 19, the 

proposed Unit P04A boundary 

shown by the green line is 

aligned with the wetlands that it 

was intended to follow.

•	 Addition of Associated Aquatic 

Habitat: The CBRA defines a 

coastal barrier to include the 

adjacent wetlands, marshes, 

estuaries, inlets, and near-shore 

waters as “associated aquatic 

habitat.” A notice published by 
24

Figure 20. Proposed Unit L07 boundary (shown in green) adds associated aquatic habitat behind a 

developed shoreline. The existing boundary is shown in orange.

Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

 the Department in the Federal 

Register on March 4, 1985, 

provided guidance on the 

delineation of landward 

boundaries, which often follow 

the landward extent of aquatic 

habitat.2 In carrying out the 

pilot project, the Service noted 

that this mapping guidance has 

not been consistently applied 

and there are inconsistencies 

in how the associated aquatic 

habitat behind development 

was mapped in 1982, 1990, 

and in subsequent legislative 

amendments when areas were 

added to the CBRS. Some units 

include the entire associated 

aquatic habitat, regardless of 

the level of development on 

the barrier, while others do 

not include the full extent of 

the associated aquatic habitat. 

The proposed pilot project 

boundaries consistently include 

the landward aquatic habitat 

associated with developed and 

undeveloped coastal barriers. 

(See Figure 20) The proposed 

boundaries of 23 pilot project 

System units were adjusted to 

add associated aquatic habitat to 

the CBRS.

•	 Adjustment to Map Channel 

Boundaries Consistently: 

Channels are often located 

between coastal barriers and 

the mainland and are a part of 

the barrier’s associated aquatic 

habitat. Past notices published 

in the Federal Register by the 

Department have included 

guidance for the delineation 

of CBRS boundaries located 

along channels and other water 

bodies.3 In carrying out the 

pilot project, the Service noted 

that this guidance has not been 

consistently applied in the past. 

In addition, the aspects of this 

guidance that exclude portions 

of channels from System units 

are inconsistent with the CBRA 

definition of a coastal barrier, 

which includes all associated 

aquatic habitat (adjacent 

wetlands, marshes, estuaries, 

inlets, and nearshore waters). 

The Service believes that a 

consistent approach to the 

placement of CBRS boundaries 

within channels, taking into 

account the CBRA definition 

of a coastal barrier, should be 

applied to the CBRS maps. 

Therefore, the proposed System 

unit boundaries presented 

in this report consistently 

delineate boundaries located in 

channels to include all associated 

aquatic habitat. The proposed 

boundaries of 14 pilot project 

System units were adjusted 

to include the entire channel 

within the System unit instead 

of placing the boundary at the 

center of the channel. 

These proposed changes place 

additional channel area within 

System units. The effect of 

these proposed changes, if 

enacted by Congress, would 

be to prohibit the use of 

Federal financial assistance for 

dredging and other channel 

maintenance. The Service 

does not anticipate that these 

proposed changes will have 

any significant impact on the 

maintenance of these channels 

because of the exception made in 

the CBRA for existing channels 

and related structures, and 

because, in general, the areas 

affected already include half of 

the channels’ width within the 

CBRS.

The proposed System unit 

boundaries that lie within 

channels were consistently 

delineated according to the 

following mapping protocols 

developed during the course of 

the pilot project:

Developed regular shoreline: 

In cases of a developed regular, 

or relatively smooth, shoreline, 

the proposed boundary includes 

most of the channel within the 

System unit. The boundary is 

placed 50 feet from the shoreline 

to avoid inadvertent inclusion of 

developed property within the 

CBRS (see Figure 21).

 Undeveloped regular shoreline: 

In cases of an undeveloped 

regular shoreline, the proposed 

boundary includes the entire 

width of the channel within the 

System unit. The boundary 

coincides with the shoreline (see 

Figure 22).

Undeveloped irregular 

shoreline: In cases of an 

undeveloped irregular, or 

relatively convoluted, shoreline, 

the proposed boundary includes 

most of the channel within the 

System unit. The boundary 

is generalized and, in some 

cases, placed a maximum of 

50 feet from the shoreline, to 

avoid a heavily convoluted line 

while including as much of the 

associated aquatic habitat as is 

possible within the CBRS (see 

Figure 23).

Undeveloped shoreline with 

emergent aquatic habitat: 

In cases of an undeveloped 

shoreline with emergent aquatic 

habitat, the proposed boundary 
25

Figure 21. Mapping channels with a regular developed shoreline. The Unit P05 proposed 

boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange. 

Figure 22. Mapping channels with an undeveloped regular shoreline. The Unit P08 proposed 

boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange.

Figure 23. Mapping channels with an undeveloped irregular shoreline. The Unit L05 

proposed boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange. The 

boundary is generalized, and as a result, may not include the entire associated aquatic habitat 

(see blue shaded area).

Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

includes most of the channel 

within the System unit. The 

boundary is generalized and 

includes all emergent aquatic 

habitat growth (such as palm 

hammocks and mangrove) within 

the System unit. The boundary 

is placed 50 feet from the 

farthest visible extent of growth 

(see Figure 24).

•	 Alignment with Development 

Features: Although System 

unit boundaries are generally 

intended to follow certain 

geomorphic features, there are 

several cases where System 

unit boundaries are intended 

to follow development features 

such as the edge of a road, 

a bridge, or the “break-indevelopment,” that existed 

on-the-ground when the unit 

was designated. The breakin-development is where 

development ended, either 

immediately adjacent to the 

last structure in a cluster of 

structures or at the property 

parcel boundary of the last 

structure.4 The proposed 

boundaries of 31 pilot project 

System units were adjusted to 

align with development features. 

Box 4 illustrates an excluded 

area within Unit L06 which was 

intended to follow the breakin development that existed 

in 1982 and exclude from the 

unit development that already 

existed when the area was 

designated within the CBRS in 

1982. 

•	 Alignment with Cultural 

Features: The proposed 

boundaries of 7 pilot project 

System units were adjusted to 

align with cultural features such 

as county boundaries or adjacent 

conservation or recreation area 

boundaries. Often, only minor 

changes were needed to ensure 

that boundaries following 

cultural features are accurately 

placed.

•	 Addition of Fastland Not 

Currently Within the CBRS: 

In carrying out the pilot project, 

the Service assessed areas 

 adjacent to existing units, and 

in limited cases, identified 

undeveloped fastland that is 

appropriate for inclusion within 
26

the CBRS (see Figure 25). The 

proposed boundaries of 8 pilot 

project System units were

adjusted to add undeveloped 

fastland that is not currently 

within the CBRS. This 

approach is consistent 

with the CBRRA of 2005 (P.L. 

109-226), Section 4(c)(3)(D) 

which directs the Secretary to 

make recommendations for the 

expansion of the CBRS when 

carrying out digital mapping 

for the remainder of the CBRS. 

Prior to proposing the addition 

of new fastland to a System unit, 

the Service assessed the level of 

development on-the-ground at 

the time of the pilot project 

assessment. The CBRRA of 

2000 codified guidelines for what 

the Secretary shall consider 

when making recommendations 

Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

Box 4. Alignment with Development Features in Unit L06

Unit L06 is located at the northern end of Topsail Island, North Carolina. The USGS quadrangle on 

which the Unit L06 boundary was drawn is dated 1980, and therefore does not depict development that 

occurred after 1980 (left). A row of condominium buildings were built along the beach in 1981. The 

Service’s record indicates that these condominium buildings were intended to be excluded from Unit L06 

when it was designated in 1982. The approximate location of the condominium at the end of the row is 

circled in blue. 

When Onslow County digital property parcel data (shown in pink) was overlaid on 1998 aerial imagery, 

it is evident that the westernmost condominium building (circled in blue) was inadvertently bisected by 

the Unit L06 boundary (right). Because of this mapping error, the condominium building and several 

properties located behind the condominium are ineligible for Federal flood insurance. This mapping 

error most likely occurred as a result of the outdated base map, and the rudimentary cartographic 

methods that were once used to delineate CBRS boundaries.

Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed boundary of this excluded area (shown in green) 

follows the western property parcel boundary of the condominium building. 

Figure 24. Mapping channels with an undeveloped shoreline and emergent aquatic habitat. The 

Unit P21 proposed boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange.
27

Figure 26. The portion of existing System Unit P11 outlined in green is proposed to be 

reclassified as OPA P11P because it is land that was held for conservation or recreation before 

Unit P11 was established.

Figure 25. Addition of fastland not currently within the CBRS. The Unit FL-40 boundary is 

shown in orange and the proposed additions are shown in green.

Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

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. The 

Service is not aware of any 

existing structures located on 

lands proposed for addition 

to the 8 System units. Due to 

resource constraints in carrying 

out the pilot project, the Service 

was unable to conduct field visits 

or infrastructure assessments 

for the pilot project units, with 

the exception of Unit L06 where 

an infrastructure assessment 

was conducted. Instead, the 

Service used information in the 

record, digital property parcel 

data, date of construction data, 

and visual cues on the aerial 

imagery to assess the level of 

development within the area. 

The Service anticipates that 

if any new areas proposed 

for addition to a System unit 

contain a full complement of 

infrastructure, interested parties 

will provide the necessary 

documentation during the public 

review period for the pilot 

project maps.

•	 Reclassification from System 

Unit to Otherwise Protected 

Area: In carrying out the 

pilot project, the Service noted 

cases where lands held for 

conservation or recreation are 

located within a System unit. 

In 1982, the CBRA specified 

that lands held for conservation 

or recreation were not to be 

included within the CBRS. In 

1990, the CBIA designated 

lands held for conservation or 

recreation as OPAs. If a pilot 

project System unit contained 

lands held for conservation 

or recreation, the Service 

researched the history of the 

area to determine the date that 

these lands were first held for 

conservation or recreation. 

If the land was first held for 

conservation or recreation after 

the System unit had already 

been established, the proposed 

pilot project boundaries maintain 

the land within the System unit. 

 If, alternatively, the land was 

already held for conservation or 

recreation prior to the 

designation of the System unit, 

the affected land is proposed for 

reclassification from a System 

unit to an OPA (see Figure 26). 

Such areas should have been 

originally included within the 

CBRS as OPAs, not System 

units. An exception is made 

for certain privately owned 

areas held for conservation 

or recreation that were 

intentionally added to the CBRS 

as System units. The proposed 

pilot project boundaries maintain 

within the System unit private 

lands held for conservation or 

recreation that were established 

as System units.

 The proposed boundaries of 7 

pilot project System units were 

adjusted to reclassify certain 

lands from System unit to OPA 

status. Four of these pilot 

project units contain areas that 

are proposed to be reclassifed 

as part of adjacent OPAs. The 

other 3 units contain areas that 

are proposed to be reclassified as 

OPAs and they are not adjacent 

to another OPA, and so the 

proposed reclassified area is 

given a new unit number.

•	 No Adjustment: The 

boundaries of only 3 of the pilot 

project System units contain 

no proposed adjustments. This 

scenario is only applied in cases 

like that shown in Figure 27 for 

Unit LA-01 where the coastal 

 barrier islands associated with 
28

Table 1. Summary of Proposed System Unit Changes

Pilot Project 

Unit

Adjustment to 

Reflect Geomorphic 

Change

Alignment with 

Geomorphic 

Features

Addition of 

Associated Aquatic 

Habitat

Adjustment to 

Map Channel 

Boundaries 

Consistently

Alignment with 

Development 

Features

Alignment with 

Cultural Features

Addition of 

Fastland not 

Currently within 

the CBRS

Reclassification 

from System Unit 

to OPA

No Adjustment

DE-07*

H01 x x x

NC-01 x

NC-06*

L05 x x x x x x (NC-06P)

L06 x x x x x

L07 x x x x x

L08 x x x x x

L09 x x x x

M02 x x x

M03 x x x x

FL-01*

P04A x x x

P05 x x x x (P05P)

P08 x x x x x x x (P08P*)

P09A x x x x x (P09AP*)

P10A x x x x x

P11 x x x x (P11P*)

FL-15 x x

FL-19*

P14A x x

FL-39 x x x x

FL-40 x x x x

FL-43 x

FL-44 x x x x x x

FL-45 x x x x x

FL-46 x x x x

P17A x x x

FL-67 x x x x x

P21 x x x x x (P21P)

P22 x x x

FL-78 x x x x

FL-81 x x x x (FL-81P)

FL-82 x x

FL-83 x x

P26 x

FL-89 x x x

FL-93*

FL-94 x x

LA-01 x

LA-02 x

S04 x x

S05 x

S06 x x

S07 x x

TOTAL 14 28 23 14 31 7 8 7 3

* Proposed reclassified unit

Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results
29

Figure 28. Proposed Unit FL-93P boundary (shown in green) is adjusted to align with 

conservation or recreation area boundaries. The existing boundary is shown in orange.

Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

Figure 27. Unit LA-01 has no proposed boundary adjustment.

the unit have not significantly 

eroded or prograded, and the 

existing boundary was found to 

be appropriately delineated.

Proposed Otherwise Protected 

Area Changes

•	 Alignment with Cultural 

Features: The general intent 

of OPA boundaries is to 

coincide with the boundaries 

of the underlying conservation 

or recreation area. The 

proposed boundaries of 19 pilot 

project OPAs were adjusted 

to align with the underlying 

conservation or recreation area 

boundaries. (See Figure 28) 

Privately held inholdings may 

be included within the exterior 

boundaries of the conservation 

or recreation area, and therefore 

appropriately included within 

the boundaries of the OPA. The 

Service is aware of only one such 

private inholding located within a 

pilot project unit (unit FL-64P).

•	 Addition of Conservation or 

Recreation Area: In carrying 

out the pilot project, the Service 

found many cases where lands 

adjacent to existing CBRS 

areas are held for conservation 

or recreation and are not 

currently within the CBRS. 

When such areas were found, 

the appropriate stakeholders 

were contacted to review and 

concur with the placement of the 

conservation or recreation area 

boundary on the base map. The 

proposed boundaries of 9 pilot 

project OPAs were adjusted to 

add conservation or recreation 

lands to an existing OPA. This 

approach is consistent with: 

(1) recent technical correction 

laws that have expanded the 

boundaries of OPAs to include 

lands held for conservation 

or recreation that were not 

originally included within the 

OPA (e.g. P.L. 109-355 that 

expanded the Unit FL-95P 

boundary to include the full 

extent of Grayton Beach State 

Park) and (2) the CBRRA of 

2005, Section 4(c)(3)(D) which 

directs the Secretary to make 

recommendations for the 

expansion of the CBRS when 

carrying out digital mapping for 

the remainder of the CBRS. 

Figure 29 illustrates new 

conservation or recreation lands 

proposed for inclusion in an OPA.

•	 Removal of Private Land: 

Most OPA boundaries were 

adjusted to remove very small 

portions of private land adjacent 

to the underlying conservation 

or recreation area that are 

not inholdings. These 

adjustments are consistent with 

recent technical correction laws 

which correct mapping errors 

that negatively impact property 

owners by removing land that 

was inadvertently included 

within the OPA due to the 

imprecise nature of the existing

 maps. The boundaries of 9 pilot 

project OPAs were adjusted to 

remove larger portions of private 

land from the OPA because 

the lands are not private 

inholding; have never been held 

for conservation or recreation; 

and did not meet the CBRA 

definition of an undeveloped 

coastal barrier at the time they 

were included within the CBRS 

(see Figure 30).

•	 Reclassification from 

Otherwise Protected Area to 

System Unit: The proposed 

boundaries of 10 pilot project 

OPAs were adjusted to reclassify 

certain lands from OPA to 

System unit status. This type 

of reclassification is proposed in 

cases where the land in question

is adjacent to a conservation or 
30

Figure 30. Proposed Unit FL-20P boundary (shown in green) removes private land that was 

developed at the time the OPA was enacted. The existing boundary is shown in orange.

Figure 31. A privately owned, undeveloped piece of land that is within the existing OPA 

FL-01P is proposed to be reclassified as System Unit FL-01.

Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

Figure 29. Proposed Unit FL-14P boundary (shown in green) adds lands held by Kings Island 

Natural Area to the existing OPA.

recreation area; is not a private 

inholding; is not held for 

conservation or recreation; and 

met the CBRA definition of an 

undeveloped coastal barrier at 

the time the area was included 

within the OPA. Such areas 

should have been originally 

included within the CBRS as 

System units, not OPAs (see 

Figure 31). Five of the pilot 

project units contain areas that 

are proposed to be reclassified 

as part of adjacent System units. 

The other five units are not 

adjacent to another System unit, 

so the proposed reclassified area 

is given a new unit number.

•	 Addition of new OPAs: Two 

of the proposed pilot project 

OPAs are comprised entirely 

of land that is currently not 

within the existing boundaries 

of a System unit or an OPA. In 

both cases, the Service found 

conservation or recreational 

land in the vicinty of existing 

CBRS areas while researching 

the history of those units and the 

surrounding area. These two 

areas meet the CBIA definition 

of an otherwise protected 

area and are consistent with 

(1) recent technical correction 

laws that have expanded the 

boundaries of OPAs to include 

lands held for conservation 

or recreation that were not 

originally included within the 

OPA (e.g. DE-03P, NC-07P, FL95P) and (2) the CBRRA of 2005 

(P.L. 109-226), Section 4(c)(3)(D) 

which directs the Secretary to 

make recommendations for the 

expansion of the CBRS when 

carrying out digital mapping for 

the remainder of the CBRS.

•	 Adjustment to Map Channels 

Consistently: Similar to the 

situation with System unit 

boundaries that include or are 

adjacent to channels, OPAs 

are currently not mapped 

consistently as they relate to 

channels. Past notices included 

in the Federal Register by the 

Department have included 

guidance for delineating CBRS 

boundaries located along 

channels and other water 

bodies. In general, this guidance 

states that if a discernible 

natural channel or man-made 
31

channel exists in the open water 

approximately one mile landward 

of the coastal barrier, the 

boundary is drawn along the side 

nearest the coastal barrier.5 The 

proposed boundaries of 5 pilot 

project OPAs were adjusted to 

map channels within or adjacent 

to OPAs consistently (see Figure 

32). The CBRA’s only Federal 

funding prohibition within OPAs 

applies to flood insurance. The 

CBRA’s prohibitions on dredging 

and channel maintenance do 

not apply to channels located 

within OPAs. In remapping 

pilot project OPAs with adjacent 

channels, the Service applied the 

following mapping protocols:

Shoreline of OPA with no 

adjacent System unit. If there is 

no System unit behind a 

conservation or recreation area 

separated from the mainland by 

a channel, the boundary of the 

OPA was placed at the center of 

the channel (or one mile from the 

channel shoreline, whichever was

 closer to the barrier) to minimize 

the need for future boundary 

revisions as a result of shoreline 

erosion and accretion.

 

Shoreline of OPA with adjacent 

System unit. In cases such as 

the one described above, but in 

which the OPA is adjacent 

to a System unit, the landward 

boundaries of both units were 

placed to coincide with the 

shoreline along the channel.

Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

Figure 32. Proposed Unit NC-05P boundary (shown in green) extends to the middle of the 

channel. The existing boundary is shown in orange.
32

Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

Table 2. Summary of Proposed Otherwise Protected Area Changes

Pilot Project 

Unit

Alignment with 

Cultural Features

Addition of 

Conservation or 

Recreation Area

Removal of Private 

Land

Reclassification 

from OPA to System 

Unit

Addition of New 

OPA

Adjustment to 

Map Channels 

Consistently

DE-07P x x x x (DE-07*)

NC-05P x x x

NC-06P x x x (NC-06*, L05)

FL-01P x x x (FL-01*) x

P05P x x (P05)

P08P*

FL-13P x x

P09AP*

FL-14P x x x (P10A)

P11P*

FL-16P x x

FL-17P x x

FL-18P x x

FL-19P x x x (FL-19*)

FL-20P x x

FL-64P x x x

FL-67P* x

P21P x x x (P21)

FL-72P x x

FL-73P x x x (FL-78)

FL-78P* x

FL-80P x

FL-81P x x (FL-81) x

FL-85P x

FL-93P x x x x (FL-93*)

TOTAL 19 9 9 10 2 5

*Proposed reclassified unit

Proposed Acreage and Shoreline 

Changes

The CBRRA of 2000 requires that 

this report detail the extent to which 

the proposed boundaries on the 

pilot project maps differ from the 

boundaries on the existing maps. 

The proposed pilot project boundary 

changes are described and depicted 

in Appendix D, which includes pilot 

project unit summaries and maps. 

Table 3 summarizes the proposed 

pilot project acreage changes. If 

enacted, the pilot project maps 

will result in a total net addition of 

approximately 23,840 acres to the 

CBRS (mainly associated aquatic 

habitat). The 363 acres of fastland 

proposed for removal from the 

CBRS are generally private lands 

that will be made eligible for Federal 

flood insurance and other Federal 

subsidies if Congress were to enact 

the pilot project maps. Of the total 

1,625 acres of fastland proposed for 

addition to the CBRS, 618 acres 

are generally undeveloped private 

lands that will be made ineligible for 

Federal flood insurance and other 

Federal subsidies if Congress enacts 

the pilot project maps.

The net changes were quantified by 

assessing the differences in acreage 

and shoreline between the existing 

and proposed boundaries. The total 

acreage is comprised of the fastland 

and associated aquatic habitat which 

includes open water. For purposes 

of this pilot project, fastland was 

calculated by interpretation of 

infrared aerial imagery along with 

consultation of the Service’s NWI 

data. The associated aquatic habitat 

acreage numbers include open water 

landward of the coastal barrier but 

do not include open water seaward 

of the shoreline. For the purpose of 
33

1 16 U.S.C. 3503(c)

2 50 FR 8702 

3 47 FR 35696, 50 FR 8701, 57 FR 14846

4 From a memorandum dated July 27, 1982, from the chairman of the Coastal Barriers Task Force to the Secretary of the Department of 

Interior regarding Unit P08:

“In general, side boundaries of portions of coastal barriers should be more or less perpendicular to the ocean shoreline; however, for 

an otherwise protected area, the side boundary is the property line of the protected area. For developed areas, the side boundary is placed 

immediately adjacent to the cluster of structures or the area with a full complement of infrastructure indicating the end of the developed portion 

of the coastal barrier. Such a “break-in-development” is usually quite evident even if a few scattered structures are located on the undeveloped 

side of the boundary line. Once the location of the “break-in-development” is established, there are several circumstances where the general 

“perpendicular boundary” rule is modified. It is desirable that the boundary follow known property lines which, in many cases, may not be 

perpendicular to the shoreline.”

5 50 FR 8701

Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

Fastland acres Associated Aquatic Habitat 

acres

Total acres

System Units OPAs System Units OPAs System Units OPAs

Addition to the 

CBRS 617.9 1,006.8 21,214.0 2,152.0 21,831.9 3,158.8

Total: 1,624.7 Total: 23,366.0 Total: 24,990.7

Deletion from 

the CBRS 254.0 108.8 691.9 95.6 945.9 204.4

Total: 362.8 Total: 787.5 Total: 1,150.3

Reclassification 

from System 

unit to OPA

-477.9 477.9 -285.8 285.8 -763.7 763.7

Total: 477.9 Total: 285.8 Total: 763.7

Reclassification 

from OPA to 

System unit

330.4 -330.4 12,187.6 -12,187.6 12,518.0 -12,518.0

Total: 330.4 Total: 12,187.6 Total: 12,518.0

Net Change 216.4 1,045.5 32,423.9 -9,845.4 32,640.3 -8799.9

Total: 1,261.9 Total: 22,578.5 Total: 23,840.4

Table 3. Summary of Proposed Acreage Changes

associated aquatic habitat acreage 

calculations, all units were artificially 

closed at the seaward shoreline 

before acreage calculations were 

performed. The CBRA specifies 

that System units extend to the 30 

foot bathymetric contour. Appendix 

E provides the acreage and 

shoreline information for each of the 

pilot project units.

Background Records

A comprehensive background record 

was created for each unit in the pilot 

project. These records contain the 

historical background for each unit, 

including previously enacted maps, 

documents referenced during the 

boundary intent assessment phase, 

maps showing different data types 

used to assess boundary intent, 

signed maps and statements of 

concurrence on property boundaries, 

correspondence with stakeholders, 

and any other documentation 

that describes the placement of 

the existing and the proposed 

boundaries. These records are 

maintained by the Service and, upon 

request, may be viewed by the public 

at the Service’s headquarters office.
34

CHAPTER 6: COSTS, NEXT STEPS, AND 

CONCLUSIONS

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

Costs

The CBRRA of 2000 requires that 

this report describe the amount 

of funding necessary to complete 

digital mapping of the entire 

CBRS. The Service’s cost estimate 

below is based on costs incurred 

and lessons learned during the 

course of the pilot project, costs 

associated with creating draft 

digital maps in response to recent 

technical correction legislation, 

and assumptions made regarding 

the anticipated level of effort to 

complete digital mapping for the 

remainder of the CBRS. 

Pilot Project Costs

The Service spent, on average, 

$18,000 per unit to create draft 

digital maps for the pilot project, 

totaling approximately $1.1 million 

for all pilot project maps. The 

pilot project costs incurred to-date 

include: 

(1) Procuring the necessary data 

such as aerial imagery to 

serve as the new base map, 

geomorphic data, development 

data, and conservation and 

recreation area boundary data. 

(2) Digitizing the existing 

boundaries and establishing 

horizontal control of the existing 

CBRS maps.

(3) Assessing all existing boundaries 

to determine the intent of the 

boundaries with respect to 

geomorphic, development, and 

cultural features.

(4) Compiling and validating 

conservation and recreation area 

boundaries with appropriate 

stakeholders.

(5) Adjusting the existing 

boundaries to create proposed 

boundaries using objective 

criteria and mapping protocols.

(6) Calculating the acreage and 

shoreline associated with 

the existing and proposed 

boundaries.

(7) Creating background records 

to document the placement 

of the existing and proposed 

boundaries.

The pilot project costs identified 

above do not include the costs 

associated with finalizing the pilot 

project maps by conducting a public 

review of the draft maps, making 

adjustments to the boundary lines 

as appropriate, and submitting final 

recommended maps to Congress for 

its consideration and adoption. 

Costs to Remap the Remainder of 

the CBRS

The Service estimates that it will 

cost, on average, $18,000 per unit 

to create draft digital maps for 

the remainder of the CBRS, or up 

to $17 million to comprehensively 

modernize the remainder of the 

CBRS maps. We anticipate this to 

be a long-term project in order to 

accomplish it with the results we 

seek. The Service will apply the 

lessons learned during the course 

of the pilot project and anticipates 

economies of scale will be realized 

in remapping the remainder of the 

CBRS (consisting of approximately 

800 CBRS areas). Although the 

Service will employ the same 

general methodology as used in 

the pilot project, there are a few 

unknown factors that will affect the 

costs associated with remapping the 

remainder of the CBRS, including:

(1) The amount of new high quality 

aerial imagery that may need to 

be procured. The Service will, 

when necessary and practicable, 

procure new aerial imagery in 

cases where imagery available 

within the public domain is not 

recent enough or high enough 

quality for CBRS mapping.

(2) The field validation that may 

need to be conducted on the 

ground. The Service will, when 

necessary and practicable, 

conduct field validation to help 

determine development status 

on the ground and to validate the 

placement of boundaries where 

aerial imagery does not provide 

a sufficient level of detail.

(3) The number of public 

comments that may require 

additional research and 

boundary adjustments before 

final recommended maps are 

presented to Congress.

(4) The number of proposed new 

additions that may need to be 

researched and mapped.

Contingencies to address these 

four factors are accounted for in 

the estimate to comprehensively 

modernize the remainder of the 

CBRS.

Next Steps

The Administration supports 

the CBRA and modernization 

of the entire CBRS using 

digital technology. CBRS map 

modernization is consistent with 

many Administration goals and 

initiatives, including the President’s 

Management Agenda initiative of 

expanded electronic government 

and the U.S. Ocean Action Plan 

initiative to coordinate ocean 

and coastal mapping activities. 

Moving forward with CBRS map 

modernization, the Service will seek 

to continue coordination with our 

Federal partners in order to reduce 

duplicative efforts. The Service 

has identified three general steps 

necessary to finalize the pilot project 

maps and complete digital mapping 

for the remainder of the CBRS. The 

following steps are consistent with 

directives contained in the CBRRA 

of 2005:

(1) Public Review of Pilot 

Project Maps: The CBRRA of 

2005 directs the Secretary to 

provide an opportunity for the 

submission of public comments 

on the draft pilot project 

maps, and to consider those 

comments before presenting 

final recommended digital maps 

to Congress. The CBRA’s 

prohibitions have ramifications 

on private property owners, 

and affect decisions on where 

and how they develop. Public 

review was conducted prior to 

Congressional enactment of the 

CBRS maps in 1982 and 1990. 

The Service anticipates there 

will be significant public interest 

associated with the draft maps 
35

presented in this report. If 

resources are made available, 

the Service will conduct a 

public review of the draft maps 

presented in this report, as 

directed by P.L. 109-226. 

(2) Submit Final Recommended 

Pilot Project Maps to 

Congress: The CBRRA of 

2005 directs the Secretary, 

after considering any public 

comments received, to submit 

final recommended pilot 

project maps to Congress and 

provide recommendations for 

the adoption of the maps by 

Congress. If resources are 

made available, the Service will 

submit a second report to the 

Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee and House 

Natural Resources Committee, 

as directed by P.L. 109-226, that 

includes: (1) a description of the 

extent to which the boundary 

lines on the digital maps differ 

from the boundary lines on the 

original maps; (2) a summary 

of the comments received from 

the Governors of the States, 

other government officials, and 

the public regarding the digital 

maps; (3) recommendations 

for the adoption of the digital 

maps by Congress; (4) 

recommendations for expansion 

of the CBRS; (5) a summary and 

update on the implementation 

and use of the digital maps 

created under the pilot project; 

and (6) a description of the 

feasibility of, and the amount of 

funding necessary for making 

all of the CBRS maps available 

to the public in digital format, 

and facilitating the integration 

of digital CBRS boundaries 

into Federal, State, and local 

planning tools.

(3) Create Digital Maps for the 

Remainder of the CBRS: The 

CBRRA of 2005 directs the 

Secretary to complete digital 

maps for the entire CBRS. If 

resources are made available, 

the Service will complete draft 

digital maps for the entire CBRS 

using the lessons learned and 

protocols developed during 

the course of the pilot project, 

conduct a public review of those 

maps, and present Congress with 

final recommended maps for its 

consideration and adoption.

Conclusions

Four major hurricanes, Dennis, 

Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, made 

landfall in the United States in 2005. 

The NFIP is expected to pay at least 

$23 billion in Federal flood insurance 

claims related to the 2005 hurricane 

season.1 Hurricane Katrina alone 

caused over $80 billion in damages. 

It was also the deadliest hurricane 

season since 1928, claiming more 

than 1,300 lives. Data on sea surface 

temperatures indicates that we 

should expect active hurricane 

seasons with a higher frequency and 

intensity of hurricanes for the next 

two to three decades.2 With the 

possible increase in the number and 

intensity of hurricanes, scientists, 

elected officials, planning officials, 

and citizens are questioning why and 

how development occurs in hazardprone areas along our Nation’s 

coasts.

Over the past two decades, the 

CBRA has helped to keep people 

out of harm’s way, protect important 

coastal habitat, and save taxpayers’ 

money. Development can still occur 

provided that private developers or 

other non-Federal parties bear the 

full cost. In this sense, the law has 

been successful, but the Service’s 

effectiveness in implementing the 

law is limited by the outdated maps 

used to administer the program.

Lessons learned from years of 

CBRA administration and the 

successful completion of the pilot 

project have given the Service 

valuable insight into the limitations 

of the existing CBRS maps and 

the need for map modernization. 

We have developed a process and 

protocols to remap the entire CBRS 

with a one time investment that will 

address the challenges associated 

with the existing set of maps. We 

have determined the data needs 

and availability for this effort. Most 

importantly, we have previewed the 

enormous leap in efficiency and datasharing capabilities that digital maps 

will bring to the CBRA program.

Modernized, digital maps will 

allow the Service to respond more 

quickly to requests for CBRA 

property determinations and 

consistency consultations. The 

Service’s partners and customers 

who sometimes wait several months 

for a determination of whether their 

property or proposed project is 

within the CBRS will, in most cases, 

be able to determine within minutes 

whether their property or project is 

within the CBRS. Property owners 

whose property has erroneously 

been included in the CBRS due 

to the antiquated cartographic 

techniques of the past will be 

granted relief. Modernized CBRS 

maps will allow for more efficient 

CBRA consultations following 

a hurricane, allowing disaster 

assistance to reach the appropriate 

people faster. The increased ability 

to distribute CBRS information 

will make it easy to identify areas 

where CBRS areas overlap with 

other conservation efforts, and 

where existing conservation efforts 

can be expanded to take advantage 

of the CBRA’s prohibitions. The 

Service will also be able to integrate 

CBRS boundaries with Federal, 

State, and local GIS for planning and 

informational purposes. Increased 

public awareness of the CBRA will 

help reduce the number of property 

owners who are unaware of the 

CBRA’s prohibitions when making 

investment decisions. Above all, 

modernization of the CBRS maps 

will preserve the long-term integrity 

of the CBRS and greatly improve 

the efficiency and effectiveness of 

the program, allowing the CBRA to 

accomplish even more in its goals 

to keep people out of harm’s way, 

save taxpayer dollars, and conserve 

natural resources.

Chapter 6: Costs, Nest Steps, and Conclusions

1 King, Rawle O. National Flood Insurance Program: Treasury Borrowing in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Congressional 

Research Service, The Library of Congress. June 6, 2006.

2 Webster, P.J., G. J. Holland, J.A. Curry, H.-R.Chang. “Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming 

Environment,” Science, Vol. 309, No. 5742, September 2005.
36

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

A-1

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.

Bathymetry: The underwater equivalent to topography.

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.

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.

Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA, P.L. 97-348): This law established the John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, in which most Federal funding that supports development is prohibited. The three 

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

and save taxpayers’ dollars.

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-591): This law reauthorized the CBRA through fiscal year 

1993, made modifications to existing units, added a new type of unit called “otherwise protected areas,” and 

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

Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-514): This law reauthorized the CBRA through 

fiscal year 2005, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a digital mapping pilot project, and report to 

Congress, and 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: (P.L. 109-226): This law reauthorized the CBRA through 

fiscal year 2010, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to (1) finalize the draft digital maps presented in this 

report by conducting a public review of the draft maps and presenting a report and the final recommended maps to 

Congress, and (2) to modernize the remainder of the CBRS maps using digital technology.

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System: A system, established by the CBRA of 1982, that consists of 

the undeveloped coastal barriers and other areas located on the coasts of the United States that are identified and 

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

Resources System.” The CBRS was renamed the “John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System” by P.L. 106-

167 in 1999 to honor the late Senator Chafee. CBRA has been amended several times to replace certain maps with 

new maps with modified boundaries.

Color Infrared (CIR): Images obtained by satellites and high-altitude aircraft that give engineers and scientists a 

tool to study landforms, vegetation health patterns, environmental pollution, and other effects of human activities 

on the planet’s surface. Healthy, growing vegetation appears red on color infrared film. Unhealthy or dormant 

vegetation may appear light red or a light shade of blue-green (cyan).

Digital orthophoto quarter quadrangle (DOQQ): An aerial photo able to differentiate items on the Earth’s surface 

that are as small as one meter in length. The 3.75-minute DOQQ covers one-fourth the area of a 7.5-minute USGS 

topographic quadrangle map DOQ and is based on the same geographic grid (Universal Transverse Mercator 

Projection on the North American Datum of 1983).

Digital raster graphic (DRG): A scanned image of a USGS topographic map. The map is geographically 

referenced to the surface of the Earth.

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. 

For purposes of this pilot project, fastland was calculated by interpretation of infrared aerial imagery along with 

National Wetlands Inventory data. The Natural Resources Conservation Service’s soil data was also used as a 
37

Appendix A: Glossary

A-2

resource to indicate the locations of hydric soils.

5-year review: The CBRA directs the Secretary to conduct, at least once every 5 years, a review of the CBRS maps 

and make minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of System units as are necessary solely to reflect 

changes that have occurred in the size or location of any System units as a result of natural forces.

Flood insurance rate maps (FIRM)s: Maps prepared by FEMA that identify floodplain areas, the spatial extent of 

Special Flood Hazard Areas and other thematic features related to flood risk assessment. The FIRM is the basis for 

floodplain management, mitigation, and insurance activities of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Geographic Information System (GIS): An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic 

data, and personnel 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.

Horizontal control: Achieved when all points on a map have a geographic reference relative to one of the standard 

horizontal geographic grids. The most common horizontal grid is latitude - longitude, but other comparable grids 

are Universal Transverse Mercator and State Plane.

Hydric soil: Soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding, and is wet for the majority of the 

year.

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.

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.

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.

Planimetric: Indicating only the horizontal positions of features, without regard to elevation, in contrast with a 

topographic map, which indicates both horizontal and vertical positions.

Prograding: The migration of a shoreline.

Spoil island: An island created using dredged sediments.

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

included within the CBRS established by section 4 of the CBRA.

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.

Universal Transverse Mercator: A grid-based method of specifying locations on the surface of the Earth that 

differs from the traditional method of latitude and longitude in several respects.

USGS topographic quadrangle (quad): A four sided map produced by the U.S. Geologic Survey that is bounded 

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

features.
38 Table 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability 

Data Type Data Source Data Availability Cooperative Agreement Necessary Advantages Disadvantages

Digital Raster Graphic 

(DRG)

USGS, State and local 

governments, and private 

vendors

DRGs are scanned, georeferenced USGS topographic quadrangle series maps. They are available from several different sources and cover the entire U.S. The USGS charges for this data but DRGs can usually be acquired from other sources at no charge.

No

USGS quadrangles were used as the existing CBRS base maps. Because DRGs are also based on USGS quadrangles, they are the best available tool to establish horizontal control of the digital CBRS boundaries. 

Quality of DRGs produced by private vendors may vary.

Aerial Photography

National Digital Orthophoto 

Program (NDOP)

www.ndop.gov

NDOP is a partnership between Federal agencies and State, local, and private organizations to provide nationwide coverage of orthophotos. Raw images are taken from a variety of sources including the National Agriculture Imagery Program and National Aerial Photography Program programs, and are processed to produce DOQQs

No

Images are cloud-free, high resolution, orthorectified, and meet strict USGS National Mapping Program standards.

Some areas have not been updated in 8 to 10 years.

NOAA

www.ngs.noaa.gov

NOAA has a variety of imagery sources available. It is also possible to contract with NOAA to have aerial photography flown and processed.

No

NOAA coordinates the creation of any new imagery, including the subsequent processing and quality control.

Not available for all CBRS areas.

State and local governments

Many State and local governments offer imagery on their websites or upon request. The type and quality of the imagery varies among sources.

Not generally needed. Some State and local governments require a data licensing agreement before distributing their data to prohibit commercial use of the data.

State and local data layers (i.e. parcel data) are often adjusted to fit with respective State and local aerial imagery. 

Accuracy and availability of data varies among State and local sources.

Private vendors

Private vendors sell highresolution aerial imagery for areas within the U.S. 

Contractual agreement needed.

Allows flexibility of the location, time, and resolution of the imagery.

This data is often very expensive to procure.

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

APPENDIX B: CBRS DATA NEEDS AND 

AVAILABILITY

B-1
39

Data Type Data Source Data Availability Cooperative Agreement Necessary Advantages Disadvantages

Geomorphic Data

Wetlands Data

Fish and Wildlife

Service’s National Wetlands 

Inventory (NWI) 

www.fws.gov/nwi

NWI data provides information on the characteristics, extent, and status of the Nation’s wetlands and deepwater habitats and other wildlife habitats. Wetlands data is available for download on the Service’s NWI website.

No Wetlands data are available at no cost for all CBRS areas.

Most NWI maps were produced using photography from the 1980’s. Less than 5% of the Nation is mapped with aerial photography flown after 1990.

Soils Data

USDA

www.nrcs.usda.gov

Hydric soils data are available for download at the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Spatial Data Gateway.

No

Hydric soils data are available at no cost for most CBRS areas.

Hydric soils data is not updated frequently.

Other Geomorphic Data State GIS websites

Many States have GIS websites, often affiliated with State universities, that sometimes offer State-specific geomorphic data. 

Not generally needed. Mangrove and hydric soils data are sometimes available. Accuracy and availability of data varies among States.

Development Data

Digital Property Parcel Data Local governments

Some local governments allow digital property parcel data to be downloaded off their websites. Others provide the data upon request at no cost, or for a fee that may be waived for the Service. However, many counties do not have digital property parcel data available. 

Not generally needed. Many local governments require a data licensing agreement before distributing their data to prohibit commercial use of the data.

Allows the overlay of property boundaries onto aerial imagery used to map CBRS boundaries. Also provides property ownership information. 

Accuracy and availability of data vary among local governments.

Date of Construction Data Local governments

Date of construction data is sometimes available from the local property appraiser, tax assessor, or GIS department. This type of data is often located within the digital property parcel data metadata. If not, online tax data may be procured from the local government. Some local governments charge a fee for this data or don’t provide this service at all.

Not generally needed.

Helps indicate whether certain areas were developed at the time a CBRS area was designated.

Accuracy and availability of data vary among local governments.

Infrastructure Data

State and local governments, 

utilities, and other 

stakeholders

Infrastructure data can be difficult to obtain and is not available in all areas.

No

Helps indicate whether certain areas were developed at the time a CBRS area was designated. 

Difficult to obtain documentation of a full complement of infrastructure.

Table 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability (continued)

Appendix B: Coastal Barrier Resources System Data Needs and Availability

B-2
40 Table 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability (continued)

Appendix B: Coastal Barrier Resources System Data Needs and Availability Data Type Data Source Data Availability Cooperative Agreement Necessary Advantages Disadvantages Conservation/Recreation Area Boundary Data Fish and Wildlife Service The Service has survey data for national wildlife refuges. No Identifies refuge boundaries. Not available for all refuges. NOAA Marine Protected Areas website www.mpa.gov Boundary data for national wildlife refuges, national parks, National Marine Fisheries Service managed areas, national marine sanctuaries, national estuarine research reserves, and some State parks is available. No Identifies conservation and recreation area boundaries. Most of these areas are located offshore. State governments Most States keep digital records, or have GIS websites, that depict the boundaries of State-owned or protected lands. Not generally needed. Identifies conservation and recreation area boundaries. Not available for all states. Local governments Some local governments allow digital property parcel data to be downloaded off their websites. Others provide the data upon request at no cost, or for a fee that may be waived for the Service. However, many local governments do not have digital property parcel data available. Local governments often provide survey data for county-managed parks or other protected lands. Not generally needed. Many local governments require a data licensing agreement before distributing their data to prohibit commercial use of the data. Allows the overlay of property boundaries onto aerial imagery used to map CBRS boundaries. Also provides property ownership information. Accuracy and availability of data vary among local governments.

Universities

Boundary data for conservation and recreation areas are available from some university websites, or upon request from those collecting and maintaining the data.

No

Identifies conservation and recreation area boundaries, including those that are privately owned. 

Not available for all CBRS areas.

B-3
C1

APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL 

CHANGES TO THE CBRS

Digital Mapping Pilot Project Table 5. Summary of Historical Changes to the CBRS. This table summarizes the legislative and administrative changes that have been made to the CBRS from 1982 to 2006.

C-1

Date Affected Unit(s) Public Law Federal Register Notice Additional Comments

10/18/1982

185 units were designated. See Federal Register for full list of affected units.

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(P.L. 97-348) 47 FR 52388

CBRA established the CBRS as referred to and adopted by Congress, and prohibits the expenditure of most new Federal financial assistance within the units of the CBRS.

5/4/1989 K03 P.L. 97-348 Sec. 4(c)(3) 54 FR 19248

This unit was modified administratively as part of the Service’s 5-year review to account for geomorphic change. The authority to make this change is provided under Section 4(c)(3) of CBRA.

11/16/1990

Almost all units created in 1982 were expanded. New CBRS units and OPAs were designated along the Great Lakes, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts, as well as in the Florida Keys, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act 

of 1990 (P.L. 101-591) 56 FR 26304

CBIA amended CBRA to modify existing units and expand the CBRS. 

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

Section 303 of P.L. 102-440 modified NC-01P to only include lands owned by the Audubon Society and the unit was redesigned as NC-01.

11/15/1993

114 units were modified. See Federal Register for full list of affected units.

P.L. 101-591 Sec. 4(e) 58 FR 60288

Changes made under Section 4(e) of P.L. 101-591 went into effect. This section was established to allow for minor and technical boundary modifications subsequent to the passage of the CBIA. Several of the units were revised for reasons other than boundary modifications, such as change in map symbology.

11/2/1994

NY-75, VA-62P, FL-05P, P11A, FL15, FL-36P, P17, P17A, P18P, P19P, FL-72P, P31P, FL-95P, AL-01P, MI-21

P.L. 103-461 60 FR 10268

5/24/1996 NY-59P P.L. 104-148 62 FR 1912510/9/1996 SC-01 P.L. 104-265 62 FR 19125
C2

C-2

11/12/1996 P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25, P32, P32P P.L. 104-333 Changes made by P.L. 104-333 were later invalidated by the U.S. Federal District Court of DC.

2/24/1997

ME-17, ME-18, MA-03, C01B, MA-20P, MA-24, C28, C31, D02B, NY-04P, NY-50, F10, NJ-09, MD03, MD-37P, MD-38, VA-09, VA-23, VA-36, L07, L09, P16, P17, FL-89, FL-99, FL-101, Q01A, VI-07

62 FR 8258

These units were modified administratively as part of the Service’s 5-year review to account for geomorphic change. The authority to make these changes is provided under Section 4(c)(3) of CBRA.

3/5/1998 P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25, P32, P32P Changes made by P.L. 104-333 were invalidated by the U.S. Federal District Court of DC.

10/21/1998

P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25, P32, P32P, FL-35, FL-35P, SC-03, M09

P.L. 105-277 64 FR 41940

P.L. 105-277 reinstated changes made by P.L. 104-333 and revised units FL-35, FL-35P, and SC-03.

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

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

10/19/2000 NC-01 P.L. 106-332 66 FR 1073510/27/2000 P19, P19P P.L. 106-360 66 FR 10734

2/20/2003 VA-60P P.L. 108-7 68 FR 3808712/1/2003 T07, T07P P.L. 108-138 72 FR 54278

10/18/2004 NC-07P P.L. 108-339 72 FR 5427810/30/2004 P25 P.L. 108-380 72 FR 5427810/16/2006 GA-06P P.L. 109-354 72 FR 5427810/16/2006 FL-95P, FL-96 P.L. 109-355 72 FR 54278

Date Affected Unit(s) Public Law Federal Register Notice Additional Comments

Appendix C: Summary of Historical Changes to the CBRS Table 5. Summary of Historical Changes to the CBRS. (continued)
D1

APPENDIX D: PILOT PROJECT UNIT SUMMARIES 

AND MAPS

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

This appendix contains the maps 

of the 70 pilot project units as well 

as a summary of the proposed 

changes for each of the units. The 

pilot project maps depict a total of 

70 John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) areas, 

which include 60 existing CBRS 

areas, eight units that are proposed 

for reclassification from System 

unit to otherwise protected area 

(OPA) status or vice-versa, and two 

proposed new OPA units comprised 

entirely of areas currently not within 

the CBRS. 

Unit Summaries

The unit summaries in this appendix 

describe the proposed changes to the 

unit boundaries and the associated 

acreage and shoreline mile changes. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) documented the proposed 

boundary adjustments in a detailed 

background record created for each 

pilot project unit. The records are 

available for review at the Service’s 

headquarters upon request. 

The 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: Describes the 

general location of the CBRS 

area with respect to nearby 

cities. A small locator map 

also illustrates the general unit 

location.

•	 Congressional District: Provides 

the Congressional District 

number(s) that the CBRS area is 

located within.

•	 Establishment of Unit: Provides 

the public law number and date 

on which the CBRS area was 

first established.

•	 Current CBRS Status: Indicates 

whether any part of a new 

CBRS area is currently within 

an existing CBRS area (for 

proposed new units only).

•	 Historical Changes to Unit: 

Provides a history of changes (if 

any) to the CBRS area.

•	 Underlying Conservation/

Recreation Area(s) in OPA: 

Lists all underlying conservation 

area(s) within the OPA (for OPAs 

only).

•	 System Unit Criteria: Describes 

how the area proposed for 

reclassification or addition meets 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act (CBRA) System unit criteria.

•	 Otherwise Protected Area 

Criteria: Describes how the 

area proposed for reclassification 

or addition meets the CBRA 

otherwise protected area 

criteria.

•	 Existing Boundary Description: 

Describes the existing CBRS 

boundary location with respect 

to the existing and new CBRS 

base map.

•	 Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

Describes the proposed changes 

to the existing CBRS boundary.

•	 Proposed Boundaries: Describes 

the boundaries of the proposed 

new CBRS area.

•	 Additional Comments: Provides 

any additional information about 

the CBRS area and the proposed 

boundary adjustments.

•	 Acreage, Shoreline, and 

Structure Table: Provides 

acreage and shoreline mile 

information and structures 

affected by the proposed 

boundaries. 

Draft Maps

The draft maps contained in this 

Appendix are reduced versions of 

the proposed 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. On several maps in 

this Appendix, the CBRS area is 

enlarged to enable readers to see the 

CBRS boundaries that are visible 

on the full size maps. These draft 

maps are available for download 

at the Service’s website: http://

www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/

coastal_barrier.html. Full size (25” x 

32”) versions of these maps may be 

viewed by the public, upon request, 

in the Service’s headquarters office. 

The existing and proposed CBRS 

boundaries are delineated on the 

maps in this Appendix as follows:

•	 Existing Boundary: The 

existing boundary is shown as 

a solid orange line for System 

units and a dashed orange line 

for OPAs. This boundary was 

digitized from the existing 

CBRS paper map, horizontallycontrolled, and superimposed on 

aerial photography used as the 

new digital base map.

•	 Proposed Boundary: The 

proposed boundary is shown 

as a solid green line for System 

units and a dashed green line 

for OPAs. This boundary 

represents the Service’s 

recommendation for the 

boundary placement based on 

the CBRA criteria and objective 

CBRS mapping protocols. 

Areas proposed for addition, 

deletion, or reclassification 

from a System unit to an OPA 

or vice versa, are identified and 

annotated on the draft maps.

Where System unit (solid) and OPA 

(dashed) boundaries coincide due to 

the units being contiguous, only the 

System unit boundary lines appear 

on the map.

Where existing (orange) and 

proposed (green) boundaries 

coincide, only the existing boundary 

lines appear on the map.

D-1
D2

The following table provides the page number for each unit summary and corresponding draft map in this Appendix.

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

Unit County/Parish Page Number

Unit Summary Draft Map(s)

Delaware

DE-07 Sussex D3 D6

DE-07P Sussex D4 D6

H01 Sussex D5 D6

North Carolina

NC-01

Currituck, 

Dare D7 D8

NC-05P Carteret D9 D10

NC-06 Onslow D11 D15, D16

NC-06P

Onslow, 

Carteret D12 D15, D16

L05 Onslow D13 D16

L06 Onslow D14 D17, D18

L07

Pender, New 

Hanover D19 D20

L08 New Hanover D21 D23

L09 New Hanover D22 D23,D24

South Carolina

M02 Georgetown D25 D27

M03 Georgetown D26 D27

Florida

FL-01 Nassau D28 D30

FL-01P Nassau D29 D30

P04A St. Johns D31 D34

P05 St. Johns D32 D34

P05P St. Johns D33 D34

P08 Volusia D35 D37

P08P Volusia D36 D37

FL-13P Brevard D38 D41

P09A Brevard D39 D41

P09AP Brevard D40 D41

P10A

Indian River, 

St. Lucie D42 D47, D48

FL-14P St. Lucie D43 D47, D48

P11 St. Lucie D44, D45 D48, D49

P11P St. Lucie D46 D48

FL-15

Martin, 

Palm Beach D50 D53

FL-16P Palm Beach D51 D53

FL-17P Palm Beach D52 D53

FL-18P Palm Beach D54 D55

FL-19 Broward D56 D58

FL-19P Broward D57 D58

Unit County/Parish Page Number

Unit Summary Draft Map(s)

Florida (cont’d)

FL-20P Broward D59 D61

P14A Broward D60 D61

FL-39 Monroe D62 D64

FL-40 Monroe D63 D64

FL-43 Monroe D65 D68

FL-44 Monroe D66 D68

FL-45 Monroe D67 D68

FL-46 Monroe D69 D70

FL-64P Collier D71 D72

P17A Lee D73 D77

FL-67 Lee D74, D75 D77

FL-67P Lee D76 D77

P21 Charlotte D78, D79 D81

P21P Charlotte D80 D81

P22 Sarasota D82 D83

FL-72P Sarasota D84 D85

FL-73P Manatee D86 D90

FL-78 Manatee D87 D90

FL-78P Manatee D88 D90

FL-82 Manatee D89 D90

FL-80P Manatee D91 D94

FL-81 Hillsborough D92 D94

FL-81P Hillsborough D93 D94

FL-83 Hillsborough D95 D96

FL-85P Pinellas D97 D98

P26 Dixie D99 D100

FL-89 Franklin D101 D102

FL-93 Bay D103 D105

FL-93P Bay D104 D105

FL-94 Walton D106 D107

Louisiana

LA-01 St. Bernard D108 D109

LA-02 St. Bernard D110 D111

S04 Lafourche D112 D114, D115

S05

Terrebonne, 

Lafourche D113 D115 - D117

S06 Terrebonne D118 D119 - D121

S07

Terrebonne, 

St. Mary D122 D123 - D126

D-2
D3

DE-07

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit DE-07, 

Delaware Seashore, Delaware

Type of Unit: Proposed new System 

unit

Location of Unit: South of Rehoboth 

Beach, in Sussex County

Congressional District: At Large

Current CBRS Status: Part of the 

proposed new System unit DE-07 is 

within existing otherwise protected 

area (OPA) Unit DE-07P. The 

remainder of the proposed new unit 

is currently not within the John H. 

Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System (CBRS).

System Unit Criteria: Areas of 

proposed new Unit DE-07 that are 

currently within Unit DE-07P met 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA) definition and criteria of 

an undeveloped coastal barrier at 

the time they were first included 

within the CBRS in 1990. Areas 

of proposed new Unit DE-07 that 

are currently not within the CBRS 

currently meet the CBRA definition 

and criteria of an undeveloped 

coastal barrier. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is not aware of the 

existence of a full complement of 

infrastructure in this area at the 

time the area was first included 

within the CBRS. 

Proposed Boundaries: The northern 

boundary of the proposed new unit 

crosses the barrier spit north of 

the Delaware Seashore State Park 

boundary and is adjusted to exclude 

from the CBRS a row of properties 

where development predates the 

OPA designation. The boundary 

follows this line out into Rehoboth 

Bay and turns south to mirror the 

current western boundary of Unit 

DE-07P. It is slightly adjusted to 

include the entire channel between 

Long Neck and several small private 

islands in the bay, and then continues 

south along the existing OPA 

boundary to Cedar Neck, where it is 

adjusted to follow the shoreline more 

precisely. South of the developed 

area, the proposed boundary 

includes private undeveloped 

wetlands adjacent to the Fresh Pond 

area of Delaware Seashore State 

Park, and the entirety of Beach 

Cove. The eastern boundary follows 

the landward shoreline of the barrier 

spit, turning inland onto the spit to 

include a small tract of developed 

private property south of the State 

park which was undeveloped in 1990, 

and is currently within Unit DE-07P. 

The remainder of the proposed new 

System unit boundary is coincident 

with the proposed Unit DE-07P 

boundary, with the exception that it 

is open to the ocean at the inlet.

Additional Comments: The portions 

of proposed new Unit DE-07 

currently within Unit DE-07P are 

proposed for reclassification because 

they are not held for conservation 

or recreation, are not inholdings, 

and met the CBRA definition of and 

criteria for an undeveloped coastal 

barrier at the time they were 

established within the OPA. Several 

areas proposed for reclassification 

from OPA to System unit status 

were undeveloped in 1990, according 

to the CBRA criteria, but are 

developed now, including: the 

residential lots immediately north 

of the State park; South Shores 

Subdivision (a trailer park in 1990); 

Zacharias Cove Subdivision (a trailer 

park in 1990); and Wharton’s Cove 

Subdivision

A U.S. Coast Guard Station is 

included in the proposed new 

System unit. Section 6(a)(5) of the 

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act 

of 1990 states an exception to the 

prohibitions on Federal funding 

for “the construction, operation, 

maintenance, and rehabilitation of 

Coast Guard facilities and access 

thereto.”

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: 

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres 2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Added to the 

CBRS 197.1 0.0 197.1 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Reclassified Area 5,183.1 100.0 5,083.1 0.2

Proposed Unit 5,380.2 100.0 5,280.2 0.5

Net Change 5,380.2 100.0 5,280.2 0.5 N/A

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-3
D4

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit DE-07P, 

Delaware Seashore, Delaware

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Between Rehoboth 

Beach and Bethany Beach, in Sussex 

County

Congressional District: At Large

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit DE-07P since its 

designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Delaware Seashore 

State Park (established 1965), is 

owned by the Delaware Department 

of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit DE-07P 

crosses the barrier spit through 

private property north of Delaware 

Seashore State Park. The western 

boundary lies in the open water in 

the bay behind the barrier. The 

southern boundary follows the 

eastern shore of a peninsula south 

of Indian River Inlet and crosses 

Beach Cove north of the Cotton 

Patch Hills subdivision. There is an 

excluded area around a cluster of 

development on the Atlantic coast 

south of the inlet.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The boundaries of Unit DE-07P 

are aligned to the boundaries of 

Delaware Seashore State Park, 

including an expansion in the south 

to include the recent park acquisition 

of Fresh Pond.

Additional Comments: There 

are no known private inholdings 

within the proposed boundaries 

of Unit DE-07P. Currently, the 

OPA includes a large area of open 

water and privately held lands and 

associated aquatic habitat that are 

outside the Delaware Seashore State 

Park boundary and not held for 

conservation or recreation purposes. 

The area is not an inholding and 

met Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act definition of and criteria for 

an undeveloped coastal barrier at 

the time it was established within 

the OPA. Therefore this area is 

proposed for reclassification from 

OPA Unit DE-07P to new Unit DE07. The proposed boundaries 

remove privately owned property 

that is not within the boundaries of 

the State park and was developed at 

the time it was included within Unit 

DE-07P.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 7,360.3 894.5 6,465.8 6.8

Added to the 

CBRS 703.4 400.4 303.0 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 54.4 20.1 34.3 41

Reclassified Area (5,183.1) (100.0) (5,083.1) (0.2)

Proposed Unit 2,826.2 1,174.8 1,651.4 6.3

Net Change (4,534.1) 280.3 (4,814.4) (0.5) (41)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 2002 aerial photography, and 2005 Sussex County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-4

DE-07P
D5

H01

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit H01, 

North Bethany Beach, Delaware

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: North of Bethany 

Beach, in Sussex County

Congressional District: At Large

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 modified the 

southwestern boundary of Unit H01 

to remove land that was incorrectly 

identified as wetlands in 1982.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit H01 

cuts through a developed area. 

The landward boundary generally 

follows the eastern edge of a stream. 

The southern boundary cuts through 

an undeveloped piece of land at 

the northern edge of a developed 

property, follows the western side 

of a highway north, and then cuts 

across more development.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit H01 

is adjusted to digital property parcel 

data to follow the southern boundary 

of the Cotton Patch Hills subdivision, 

which is the northern extent of this 

unit, and to add an undeveloped 

area of associated aquatic habitat 

on the northwest corner of the unit. 

The southern boundary is adjusted 

to digital property parcel data to 

follow the northern boundary of the 

Bayberry Dunes subdivision, which 

is the southeastern extent of this 

unit. The landward boundary to 

the north is adjusted to follow the 

boundary of the proposed addition 

to Unit DE-07P, which coincides with 

the Delaware Seashore State Park 

boundary.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 167.7 150.1 17.6 0.7

Added to the 

CBRS 4.2 0.1 4.1 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 5.2 4.6 0.6 14

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 166.7 145.6 21.1 0.7

Net Change (1.0) (4.5) 3.5 0.0 (14)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 2002 aerial photography, and 2005 Sussex County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-5
D6

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

Scale 1:24,000

0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000Feet

0 0.5 1 2 Kilometers

0 1/2 1 2 Miles

DELAWARE SEASHORE UNIT DE-07/DE-07P (Map 1 of 1)

NORTH BETHANY BEACH UNIT H01 (Map 1 of 1)

Date(s) of Aerial Photography: 2002

This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service to show proposed boundary

changes to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier

Resources System that resulted from the Digital

Mapping Pilot Project authorized by the Coastal

Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000

(Public Law 106-514).

¥ Draft - June 12, 2006

3224000mN 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 

grid values, zone 18

90°45'0" Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American

Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), Western Hemisphere

Proposed Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; 

OPAs are identified on the map by the letter "P" 

following the unit number

Proposed System Unit Boundary

Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; 

OPAs are identified on the map by the letter "P" 

following the unit number

Existing System Unit Boundary

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps Draft — FOR INTERNAL REVIEW

D-8

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-6
D7

NC-01 John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-01, 

Pine Island Bay, North Carolina

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: North of Duck, in 

Currituck and Dare Counties

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990 (under 

this Act the unit was established as 

otherwise protected area (OPA) Unit 

NC-01P) 

Historical Changes to Unit: 

10/23/1992: P.L. 102-440 modified 

the boundaries of Unit NC-01P to 

include only lands owned by the 

Audubon Society and reclassified 

this unit from Unit NC-01P to Unit 

NC-01.

10/19/2000: P.L. 106-332 further 

modified Unit NC-01 to align the 

boundaries with the Audubon 

Society’s Pine Island 

Sanctuary property boundary and to 

add associated aquatic 

habitat.

Existing Boundary Description: On 

the western side of the unit, the Unit 

NC-01 boundary falls in open water 

around the islands in Currituck 

Sound; on the eastern side, the 

boundary generally follows the 

boundaries of Pine Island Sanctuary.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern boundary of Unit NC-01 

and the boundaries of the two 

excluded areas are adjusted to align 

with more recent digital property 

parcel data to follow more precisely 

the boundaries of the Pine Island 

Sanctuary.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 7,174.4 432.9 6,741.5 0.4

Added to the 

CBRS 21.7 18.9 2.8 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 7.4 7.2 0.2 1

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 7,188.7 444.6 6,744.1 0.4

Net Change 14.3 11.7 2.6 0.0 (1)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 1999 aerial photography, and 2005 Currituck County property parcel

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-7
D8

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-8
D9

NC-05P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-05P, 

Roosevelt Natural Area, North 

Carolina

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area 

Location of Unit: West of Atlantic 

Beach, in Carteret County

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: 

10/23/1992: P.L. 102-440 modified 

Unit NC-05P to include only 

lands owned by the State of North 

Carolina.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Theodore Roosevelt 

Natural Area (established 1971) and 

North Carolina Aquarium at Pine 

Knoll Shores (established 1976), 

both owned by the North Carolina 

Division of Parks and Recreation.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The boundaries of Unit NC-05P 

generally follow the boundaries of 

Theodore Roosevelt Natural Area.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

NC-05P is modified to follow the 

center of the channel in Bogue 

Sound. The eastern, western, and 

southern boundaries are aligned 

with the boundaries of the Theodore 

Roosevelt Natural Area.

Additional Comments: There 

are no known private inholdings 

within Unit NC-05P. The proposed 

boundaries remove privately 

owned property that is not within 

the boundaries of the Theodore 

Roosevelt Natural Area or the 

North Carolina Aquarium at Pine 

Knoll Shores.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 297.2 173.0 124.2 0.0

Added to the 

CBRS 650.3 13.7 636.6 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 1.9 1.3 0.6 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 945.6 185.4 760.2 0.0

Net Change 648.4 12.4 636.0 0.0 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2004 Carteret County property parcel information 

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-9
D10

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-10
D11

NC-06

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-06, 

Hammocks Beach, North Carolina

Type of Unit: Proposed new System 

unit

Location of Unit: East of 

Jacksonville, in Onslow County

Congressional District: 3

Current CBRS Status: Part of the 

proposed new System Unit NC-06 is 

within existing otherwise protected 

area (OPA) Unit NC-06P. The 

remainder of the proposed new unit 

is currently not within the John H. 

Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System (CBRS).

System Unit Criteria: Areas of 

proposed new Unit NC-06 that are 

currently within Unit NC-06P met 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA) definition and criteria of 

an undeveloped coastal barrier at 

the time they were first included 

within the CBRS in 1990. Areas 

of proposed new Unit NC-06 that 

are currently not within the CBRS 

currently meet the CBRA definition 

and criteria of an undeveloped 

coastal barrier. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service is not aware of the 

existence of a full complement of 

infrastructure in this area at the 

time the area was first included 

within the CBRS. 

Proposed Boundaries: The eastern 

boundary of the proposed new unit 

follows the eastern edge of Bogue 

Inlet, the Bogue Sound shoreline of 

the barrier island, 

and the western edge of the State 

Highway 68 bridge which crosses 

the wetlands between the barrier 

island and the mainland. The 

landward boundary follows the 

shoreline of the mainland, crossing 

Oak River and Queen Creek. The 

western boundary follows the center 

of Bear Inlet, coincident with the 

eastern proposed boundary of 

adjacent Unit L05. Just north of 

the western tip of Bear Island, this 

coincident boundary follows the 

western edge of a marsh, leaving the 

dynamic sand spits and a channel 

separating them from Bear Island 

within adjacent Unit L05. Proposed 

new Unit NC-06 follows the 

boundary of Unit NC-06P east along 

the protected landward shoreline 

of Bear Island back to the western 

edge of Bogue Inlet, where the 

boundary opens to the ocean. 

Interior boundaries are drawn to 

exclude Hammocks Beach State 

Park and are coincident with the 

boundaries of Unit NC-06P.

Additional Comments: The portions 

of proposed new Unit NC-06 

currently within Unit NC-06P are 

proposed for reclassification because 

they are not held for conservation or 

recreation, are not inholdings, and 

met the CBRA definition and criteria 

for an undeveloped coastal barrier 

at the time the area was established 

within the OPA.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Added to the 

CBRS 2,770.2 47.0 2,723.2 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 5,392.3 149.2 5,243.1 0.8

Proposed Unit 8,162.5 196.2 7,966.3 1.7

Net Change 8,162.5 196.2 7,966.3 1.7 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2006 Onslow County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-11
D12

NC-06P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit NC-06P, 

Hammocks Beach, North Carolina

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area 

Location of Unit: East of 

Jacksonville, in Onslow and Carteret 

Counties

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: 

There have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit NC-06P since its 

designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Hammocks Beach 

State Park (established 1961), 

managed by the North Carolina 

Division of Parks and Recreation

Existing Boundary Description: The 

eastern boundary of Unit NC-06P 

roughly follows Bogue Inlet until it 

reaches the Intracoastal Waterway. 

The northern boundary follows the 

southern edge of the Intracoastal 

Waterway. The western boundary 

follows Sanders Creek, crosses over 

a sandy spit, and passes through 

Bear Inlet into the Atlantic Ocean.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The boundaries of Unit NC-06P 

are aligned with the boundaries 

of Hammocks Beach State Park, 

including an expansion in the north 

to include a new park acquisition 

within the OPA. Because the State 

park includes Huggins Island, Bear 

Island, and a piece of land located 

behind the marsh, the proposed 

boundaries create an OPA that 

is composed of three discrete 

segments.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit NC-06P. Currently, the OPA 

includes a large area of private lands 

and associated aquatic habitat that 

are outside of Hammocks Beach 

State Park and are not held for 

conservation or recreation purposes. 

The area is not an inholding and 

met the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act definition of and criteria for 

an undeveloped coastal barrier at 

the time it was established within 

the OPA. Therefore this area is 

proposed for reclassification from 

OPA Unit NC-06P to new System 

Unit NC-06.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 6,725.9 911.2 5,814.7 3.8

Added to the 

CBRS 36.1 33.9 2.2 34

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area (5,440.5) (149.2) (5,291.3) (0.8)

Proposed Unit 1,321.5 795.9 525.6 3.3

Net Change (5,404.4) (115.3) (5,289.1) (0.5) 3

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2006 Onslow County property parcel information

4

 According to the Hammocks Beach State Park map (found online at http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/visit/habe/habe.jpg), these park structures 

include a visitor center and restroom facilities

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-12
D13

L05

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit L05, 

Onslow Beach Complex, North 

Carolina

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of 

Jacksonville, in Onslow County

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act, or CBRA, 

(P.L. 97-348) enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

There have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit L05 since its 

designation in 1982.

Existing Boundary Description: 

Unit L05 consists of two discrete 

segments described here as the 

northern and southern segments. 

Northern segment: The northern 

boundary of Unit L05 follows the 

center of Bear Inlet and cuts across 

the tip of Bear Island, which has 

accreted into the unit. The landward 

boundary roughly follows Sanders 

Creek, Shacklefoot Channel, and 

the eastern edge of the Intracoastal 

Waterway. The southern boundary 

crosses Hurst Beach roughly at the 

break-in-development. 

Southern segment: The northern 

boundary crosses Onslow 

Beach roughly at the break-indevelopment. The landward 

boundary generally follows the 

eastern edge of the Intracoastal 

Waterway and Wards Channel. 

The western boundary originally 

followed the center of New River 

Inlet, but now cuts across a 

sandy spit that has accreted into the 

inlet and through some developing 

shoals at the mouth of the inlet.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

Northern segment: The northern 

boundary is adjusted to be 

contiguous with the proposed 

boundaries of Unit NC-06P and 

proposed new Unit NC-06, which 

follow the shoreline of Bear Island 

and the channel between Bear Inlet 

and the Intracoastal Waterway. The 

landward boundary is adjusted to 

follow the wetland/fastland interface, 

including the Intracoastal Waterway, 

in order to include the entire 

associated aquatic habitat.

Southern segment: The landward 

boundary is adjusted to follow the 

wetland/fastland interface, including 

the Intracoastal Waterway, in order 

to include the entire associated 

aquatic habitat. The western 

boundary is adjusted to follow the 

center of New River Inlet and 

be contiguous with the proposed 

boundaries of Unit L06.

Additional Comments: Unit L05 

is located entirely within the U.S. 

Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, 

which is identified for realignment 

on the 2005 Base Realignment and 

Closure list. There is coastal barrier 

land within Camp Lejeune that is 

not currently in the John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System, 

but it is considered developed 

according to the CBRA criteria 

and is therefore not proposed for 

inclusion within Unit L05. The 

proposed adjustments to the 

landward boundary of Unit L05 add 

undeveloped fastland located on 

spoil islands to the unit.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 3,045.6 729.2 2,316.4 10.3

Added to the 

CBRS 3,299.2 144.5 3,154.7 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 96.8 0.0 96.8 0.0

Proposed Unit 6,441.6 873.7 5,567.9 10.4

Net Change 3,396.0 144.5 3,251.5 0.1 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2006 Onslow County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-13
D14

L06

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit L06, 

Topsail, North Carolina

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of 

Jacksonville, in Onslow County

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-

348) enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 modified the 

boundaries of Unit L06 to include 

new areas.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

L06 roughly follows New River 

Inlet, cutting across an accreted 

spit on the north side of the inlet. 

The landward boundary generally 

follows the center of the Intracoastal 

Waterway and roughly follows the 

shoreline and the wetland/fastland 

interface. The southern boundary 

cuts across Everett Bay and extends 

across the barrier island. The 

excluded area boundaries are drawn 

around clusters of development 

which existed on-the-ground when 

the surrounding area was added to 

Unit L06.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

L06 is adjusted to be contiguous 

with the proposed boundaries of 

Unit L05, which follow the center 

of New River Inlet and the New 

River. The landward boundary 

is adjusted to include the entire 

Intracoastal Waterway and to follow 

more precisely the wetland/fastland 

interface and the shoreline from 

Swan Point to Turkey Creek. The 

landward boundary in the vicinity 

of Sandford Landing is aligned 

with digital property parcel data to 

remove development that existed 

on-the-ground when this area was 

added to Unit L06. The southern 

boundary is adjusted to follow the 

wetland/fastland break and to align 

with a road. 

In the northern excluded area of 

Unit L06, the southern boundary 

is adjusted to align with digital 

property parcel data to exclude a 

condominium built prior to 1982. 

The western boundary is adjusted 

to follow digital property parcel 

data and add undeveloped land to 

Unit L06. The northern boundary 

is adjusted to align with digital 

property parcel data to remove 

development that was on-theground in 1990 when this area was 

added to Unit L06. The seaward 

boundary is adjusted to follow the 

Atlantic Ocean shoreline.

In the southern excluded area of 

Unit L06, the southern boundary is 

aligned with digital property parcel 

data to include the properties that 

were not developed in 1982 when the 

area was established as Unit L06. 

The western boundary is adjusted 

to add associated aquatic habitat 

to Unit L06 and follow the eastern 

edge of the Intracoastal Waterway. 

The seaward boundary is adjusted to 

follow the shoreline. 

Additional Comments: An 

infrastructure analysis was 

performed for the development

in the area around the excluded 

areas and in the vicinity of Sandford 

Landing. This analysis looked at 

whether roads, a wastewater 

disposal system, electric service, 

and a fresh water supply served 

each lot or building site prior to the 

areas being added to Unit L06. The 

results affirmed that sewer and 

water lines were installed along the 

main roads and primary electric 

service was available but secondary 

services were not constructed 

until the lots were developed. No 

information was available on the 

roads except what is visible on the 

April 30, 1982, photography in the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

of 1982: Photographic Inventory, 

Volume 7, North Carolina. An 

infrastructure analysis was not 

performed for any other pilot 

project unit due to resource and 

time restrictions. The results 

of this analysis were not used as 

a justification of any proposed 

boundary adjustments for Unit 

L06, but are included here for 

information purposes.

The proposed adjustments to the 

landward boundary of Unit L06 add 

undeveloped fastland to the unit.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 6,043.5 1,032.1 5,011.4 6.9

Added to the 

CBRS 188.4 9.4 179.0 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 127.6 76.9 50.7 56

Reclassified Area (48.6) 0.0 (48.6) 0.0

Proposed Unit 6,055.7 964.6 5,091.1 7.3

Net Change 12.2 (67.5) 79.7 0.4 (56)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2006 Onslow County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-14
D15

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-15
D16

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-16
D17

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-17
D18

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-18
D19

L07

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit L07, 

Lea Island Complex, North Carolina

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: Northeast of 

Wilmington, in Pender and New 

Hanover Counties

Congressional District: 7

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat to Unit 

L07.

2/24/1997: The southern end of Unit 

L07 was modified in accordance with 

Section 4(c) of P.L. 101-591, which 

states that System unit boundaries 

are to be reviewed every five years 

and modified to reflect changes 

caused by natural forces. This unit 

was expanded to include the entire 

spit on the south side of Rich Inlet, 

which was no longer completely 

within the unit, and to include the 

spit’s associated aquatic habitat.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

L06 originally followed the center 

of New Topsail Inlet, but now the 

boundary crosses the southern tip 

of the island north of New Topsail 

Inlet where the island has accreted 

into the inlet. From this point, the 

northern boundary follows a channel 

through Topsail Sound, crosses 

the Intracoastal Waterway, and 

roughly follows the wetland/fastland 

interface along Old Topsail Creek 

up to Old Point. The landward 

boundary roughly follows the 

wetland/fastland interface along the 

Intracoastal Waterway from Old 

Topsail Creek to Futch Creek. The 

southern boundary generally follows 

the center of Nixon Channel, which 

is also the boundary between Pender 

and New Hanover Counties, and 

crosses through the northern tip of 

Figure Eight Island.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

L07 is adjusted to follow a break 

in vegetation on the barrier island 

north of New Topsail Inlet, the 

eastern Banks Channel shoreline to 

include the entire channel, a channel 

through the marsh, and the wetland/

fastland interface on the northern 

side of the Intracoastal Waterway to 

Old Topsail Creek. This adjustment 

adds associated aquatic habitat to 

Unit L07. The landward boundary is 

adjusted to follow more precisely 

the wetland/fastland interface along 

the Intracoastal Waterway from Old 

Topsail Creek to Futch Creek. The 

southern boundary is adjusted to 

include the entire Nixon Channel in 

Unit L07 and to follow the breakin-development on the tip of Figure 

Eight Island.

Additional Comments: The proposed 

Unit L07 boundary includes portions 

of associated aquatic habitat located 

behind development. The proposed 

adjustments to the landward 

boundary add undeveloped fastland 

located on spoil islands to the unit.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 5,989.8 103.1 5,886.7 5.5

Added to the 

CBRS 1,323.0 81.9 1,241.1 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 35.0 0.0 35.0 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 7,277.8 185.0 7,092.8 5.8

Net Change 1,288.0 81.9 1,206.1 0.3 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2005 Pender County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-19
D20

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-20
D21

L08

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit L08, 

Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: East of 

Wilmington, in New Hanover 

County

Congressional District: 7

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 modified 

the northern boundary of Unit L08 

to exclude development that existed 

prior to the establishment of Unit 

L08 in 1982, and to add associated 

aquatic habitat.

2/24/1997: Section 4(c) of P.L. 101-

591 modified Unit L09, which is 

depicted on the same map as Unit 

L08. No changes were made to Unit 

L08 at that time.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit L08 cuts 

through development on Figure 

Eight Island, follows a channel 

through Middle Sound, and crosses 

the Intracoastal Waterway to the 

mainland. The landward boundary 

roughly follows the wetland/fastland 

interface to Howe Point. The 

southern boundary crosses the 

Intracoastal Waterway and cuts 

across Middle Sound through Mason 

Inlet. The southern boundary once 

passed through a barrier island to 

the south of Mason Inlet; however, 

the inlet has migrated south and the 

boundary now crosses through the 

inlet.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

L08 is aligned with digital property 

parcel data to exclude development 

that was on-the-ground in 1982 as 

intended by P.L. 101-591, and to 

include additional associated aquatic 

habitat. The landward boundary is 

adjusted to follow more precisely 

the wetland/fastland interface. The 

southern boundary of Unit L08 is 

adjusted to follow a river through 

Middle Sound and to follow the 

southern edge of Mason Inlet, 

reflecting geomorphic change, so the 

entire inlet is in Unit L08. 

Additional Comments: The proposed 

Unit L08 boundary includes portions 

of associated aquatic habitat 

located behind development. The 

proposed adjustments to the Unit 

L08 boundaries add undeveloped 

fastland located on spoil islands to 

the unit.

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 667.2 83.0 584.2 1.0

Added to the 

CBRS 445.8 24.3 421.5 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 13.3 10.0 3.3 9

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 1,099.7 97.3 1,002.4 1.0

Net Change 432.5 14.3 418.2 0.0 (9)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2003 New Hanover County property parcel 

information

D-21
D22

L09

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit L09, 

Masonboro Island, North Carolina

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of 

Wilmington, in New Hanover 

County

Congressional District: 7

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 modified the 

landward boundary of Unit L09 to 

add associated aquatic habitat.

2/24/1997: The northern boundary 

of Unit L09 was modified in 

accordance with Section 4(c) of P.L. 

101-591, which states that System 

unit boundaries are to be reviewed 

every five years and modified to 

reflect changes caused by natural 

forces. This unit was adjusted to 

include the entire undeveloped 

portion of the spit on the north 

side of Masonboro Inlet, which had 

migrated outside of the unit, and to 

include the spit’s associated aquatic 

habitat.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit L09 

cuts across the spit on the north 

side of Masonboro Inlet roughly 

at the break-in-development 

and generally follows the center 

of Shinn Creek. The landward 

boundary generally follows the 

wetland/fastland interface along 

the Intracoastal Waterway. The 

southern boundary cuts across the 

Intracoastal Waterway and the tidal 

flats behind Carolina Beach, and 

then cuts across the Carolina Beach 

barrier island roughly at the breakin-development.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern boundary of Unit L09 is 

adjusted to follow more precisely the 

break-in-development at the tip of 

the spit to the north of Masonboro 

Inlet, and to include the entire 

Shinn Creek channel. The landward 

boundary is adjusted to follow 

more precisely the wetland/fastland 

interface. The southern boundary 

is adjusted to follow the wetland/

fastland interface and include the 

entire associated aquatic habitat. 

The boundary is also aligned with 

digital property parcel data to 

include an undeveloped portion 

of the barrier island and follow 

more precisely the 1982 break-indevelopment.

Additional Comments: A spit of 

land, surrounded by wetlands and 

located north of the Whiskey Creek 

confluence with the Intracoastal 

Waterway, is shown as wetlands on 

the current John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System map, 

which is based on a U.S. Geological 

Survey quadrangle dated 1970. 

However, it appears that when this 

area was first added to Unit L09 in 

1990, the wetlands had been filled 

in and three homes were already 

constructed on the spit. Volume 11 

of the Department of the Interior’s 

1988 Report to Congress: Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System 

recommended that all the wetlands 

between Masonboro Island and the 

Intracoastal Waterway be added to 

Unit L09. Therefore, the proposed 

boundary removes the spit from 

Unit L09 because the area was 

incorrectly identified as wetlands in 

1990.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 6,587.7 526.3 6,061.4 9.9

Added to the 

CBRS 213.4 0.0 213.4 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 50.5 35.6 14.9 17

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 6,750.6 490.7 6,259.9 10.0

Net Change 162.9 (35.6) 198.5 0.1 (17)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2003 New Hanover County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-22
D23

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-23
D24

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-24
D25

M02

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System M02, 

Litchfield Beach, South Carolina

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: Northeast of 

Georgetown, in Georgetown County

Congressional District: 1

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

There have been no changes to Unit 

M02 since its designation in 1982.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit M02 

passes through development on 

the barrier spit and extends to the 

western side of Clubhouse Creek. 

The landward boundary roughly 

follows Clubhouse Creek. The 

southern boundary generally follows 

the shoreline of Pawleys Island and 

the southern edge of Midway Inlet. 

The southern boundary once passed 

through a barrier spit extending 

north toward Midway Inlet; 

however, the inlet has migrated 

south and the boundary is now on 

the southern edge of the inlet.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

M02 is aligned with digital property 

parcel data to include development 

that is currently bisected by the 

boundary, but, according to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

records, was intended to be 

entirely within Unit M02 (this area 

was undeveloped in 1982). The 

landward boundary is adjusted to 

add associated aquatic habitat. The 

southern boundary is adjusted to 

follow the fastland/wetland break 

along the tip of Pawleys Island.

Additional Comments: The proposed 

Unit M02 boundary includes 

portions of associated aquatic 

habitat located behind development. 

Volume 12 of the Department of the 

Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress: 

Coastal Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System

recommended that the associated 

aquatic habitat west of Clubhouse 

Creek and the undeveloped area 

north of the unit be added to Unit 

M02. Congress did not adopt the 

proposed addition to Unit M02 with 

the enactment of the Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. 

It appears that the proposed 

addition was not adopted because 

a full complement of infrastructure 

was on-the-ground and one home 

was built by September of 1990 in 

the proposed addition. However, the 

1990 development and infrastructure 

were located in the area to the 

north of Unit M02 and not in the 

associated aquatic habitat west 

of Clubhouse Creek. Thus, the 

associated aquatic habitat west of 

Clubhouse Creek is proposed for 

addition to Unit M02.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 88.1 25.3 62.8 1.1

Added to the 

CBRS 348.6 1.4 347.2 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 436.7 26.7 410.0 1.1

Net Change 348.6 1.4 347.2 0.0 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 aerial photography, and 2004 Georgetown County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-25
D26

M03

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit M03, 

Pawleys Inlet, South Carolina

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: East of 

Georgetown, in Georgetown County 

Congressional District: 1

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat to Unit 

M03.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit M03 cuts 

across the southern tip of Pawleys 

Island through a row of development 

along the beach. The landward 

boundary roughly follows the center 

of the channel on the western side 

of Pawleys Island and then the 

wetland/fastland interface. The 

southern boundary is located south 

of Pawleys Inlet and north of the 

developed area.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern boundary of Unit M03 is 

aligned with digital property parcel 

data to exclude development that 

was on the ground in 1982 when 

Unit M03 was first established. The 

landward boundary is adjusted 

to follow the eastern edge of the 

channel on the western side of 

Pawleys Island so that the entire 

channel is placed within the unit. 

The landward boundary is also 

adjusted to follow more precisely 

the wetland/fastland interface. 

Volume 12 of the Department of the 

Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress: 

Coastal Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, stated 

that the southern boundary was 

placed in 1982 to exclude phased 

development to the south. The 

existing Unit M03 boundary crosses 

through a large parcel that is not 

subdivided, is undeveloped, and is 

owned by one entity. The southern 

boundary is adjusted to align with 

the southern digital property parcel 

line of this property and to include 

additional associated aquatic habitat 

that is contiguous with aquatic 

habitat currently within Unit M03. 

Additional Comments: Within the 

vicinity of Unit M03 and Prince 

George Community, there is 

conservation land that may meet the 

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act 

definition of an otherwise protected 

area (OPA). Research at this time 

indicates that the land is held in 

trust by the University of South 

Carolina Development Foundation 

to be preserved in a natural state; 

however, sufficient documentation 

has not been collected from the 

foundation at this time to propose a 

new OPA.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 187.2 49.1 138.1 0.6

Added to the 

CBRS 47.6 2.5 45.1 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 10.9 9.4 1.5 1

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 223.9 42.2 181.7 0.6

Net Change 36.7 (6.9) 43.6 0.0 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 aerial photography, and 2004 Georgetown County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-26
D27

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-27
D28

FL-01 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-01, 

Fort Clinch, Florida

Type of Unit: Proposed new System 

unit

Location of Unit: Northeast of 

Jacksonville on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Nassau County

Congressional District: 4

Current CBRS Status: Approximately 

half of the proposed new unit is 

currently within existing otherwise 

protected area (OPA) Unit FL-01P.

System Unit Criteria: Areas of 

proposed new Unit FL-01 that are 

currently within Unit FL-01P met 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA) definition and criteria of 

an undeveloped coastal barrier at 

the time they were first included 

within the John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

in 1990. Areas of proposed new 

Unit FL-01 that are currently not 

within the CBRS currently meet the 

CBRA definition and criteria of an 

undeveloped coastal barrier. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

not aware of the existence of a full 

complement of infrastructure in this 

area at the time the area was first 

included within the CBRS. 

Proposed Boundaries: The eastern 

and northern boundaries of the 

proposed new unit are contiguous 

with the proposed western boundary 

of Unit FL-01P, beginning in the 

southeast where the OPA meets 

State Highway A1A. The western 

boundary follows the southern 

shoreline of a small river that 

divides the aquatic habitat within the 

proposed new unit and developed 

fastland to the south. The southern 

boundary follows the northern edge 

of State Highway A1A east until it 

meets Unit FL-01P.

Additional Comments: The portions 

of proposed new Unit FL-01 

currently within Unit FL-01P are 

proposed for reclassification because 

they are not held for conservation 

or recreation, are not inholdings, 

and met the CBRA definition of and 

criteria for an undeveloped coastal 

barrier at the time the area was 

established within the OPA.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 202.4 4.7 197.7 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 223.4 7.0 216.4 0.0

Proposed Unit 425.8 11.7 414.1 0.0 

Net Change 425.8 11.7 414.1 0.0 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Nassau County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-28
D29

FL-01P 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-01P, 

Fort Clinch, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Northeast of 

Jacksonville on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Nassau County

Congressional District: 4

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: 

There have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-01P since its 

designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Fort Clinch 

State Park, owned by the Florida 

Department of Environmental 

Protection. Land was first 

purchased for conservation or 

recreation purposes in 1935. 

Fernandina Plaza State Historic 

Site, a separate tract operated 

independently and not part of the 

OPA, became part of the park in 

1949. 

Dee Dee Bartels Nature Center 

and Fishing Pier, managed by 

the Nassau County Board of 

Commissioners. This land was 

first purchased for conservation or 

recreation purposes in 1999.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

FL-01P and a portion of the 

western boundary lie in open 

water. The boundary turns east 

(inland) north of some industrial 

warehouse facilities along the edge 

of Fort Clinch State Park, then 

south to Egans Creek. It follows 

Egans Creek to a point east of the 

Fernandina Beach water treatment 

center and turns east again over 

private wetlands and through the 

park to the park’s eastern boundary, 

which it follows north and east to the 

ocean.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

FL-01P is adjusted to follow the 

center of the channel and to extend 

further into the Atlantic Ocean 

to include the entire barrier spit 

and jetty. The inland boundaries 

are aligned with the property 

boundaries of the public recreation 

and conservation lands in order 

to include the entirety of the park 

lands.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-01P. Dee Dee Bartels 

Nature Center and Fishing Pier 

was not held for conservation 

or recreation purposes in 1990 

although a portion of it was included 

within Unit FL-01P. It is therefore 

proposed that this area be added to 

the OPA in its entirety.

Currently, the OPA includes a large 

area of privately held associated 

aquatic habitat that is outside the 

Fort Clinch State Park boundary 

and not held for conservation or 

recreation purposes. The area is not 

an inholding and met the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act definition 

of and criteria for an undeveloped 

coastal barrier at the time it 

was established within the OPA. 

Therefore this area is proposed for 

reclassification from Unit FL-01P to 

proposed new Unit FL-01.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 2,008.8 1,105.4 903.4 1.3

Added to the 

CBRS 186.8 148.6 38.2 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 1.7 0.0 1.7 0

Reclassified Area (223.4) (7.0) (216.4) 0.0

Proposed Unit 1,970.5 1,247.0 723.5 1.3

Net Change (38.3) 141.6 (179.9) 0.0 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Nassau County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-29
D30

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-30
D31

P04A

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P04A, 

Usinas Beach, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: East of St. 

Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in 

St. Johns County

Congressional District: 7

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 made 

changes to the northern boundary 

of Unit P04A to exclude land that 

was developed in 1982, and adjusted 

the landward boundary to add 

associated aquatic habitat.

10/21/1998: P.L. 105-277 made 

changes to the boundaries of 

adjacent System Unit P05. No 

changes were made to the 

boundaries of Unit P04A at that 

time.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

P04A generally follows the breakin-development, cuts across 

the Tolomato River, and follows 

Robinson Creek and a channel 

through the wetlands. The landward 

boundary roughly follows 

the wetland/fastland interface. The 

southern boundary generally follows 

a channel through the wetlands and 

the wetland/fastland interface of 

Kurths Island, crosses the Tolomato 

River, and cuts across the barrier 

island at the break-in-development 

near the Atlantic Ocean shoreline.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern boundary of Unit P04A is 

aligned with digital property parcel 

data to exclude developed properties 

that were intended to be removed in 

1990 with the passage of P.L. 101-

591. This boundary is also adjusted 

to include all associated aquatic 

habitat, including the entirety 

of the Tolomato River, Robinson 

Creek, and the channel through the 

wetlands. The landward boundary 

is adjusted to follow more precisely 

the wetland/fastland interface. The 

southern boundary is adjusted to 

follow more precisely the channel 

through the wetlands and the 

wetland/fastland interface of Kurths 

Island. As this boundary crosses 

the barrier island, it is adjusted to 

include wetlands on the river side 

of the island and to follow digital 

property parcel data on the ocean 

side of the island.

Additional Comments: Fort Mose 

Historic State Park is located 

partially within Unit P04A, but is 

not proposed for reclassification 

as an otherwise protected area 

(OPA) at this time. Originally, 

research indicated that the park 

was established in 1994 after the 

designation of Unit P04A. However, 

new information that part of the 

park was acquired in 1989 was 

obtained recently from the Florida 

Department of Environmental 

Protection (FDEP). Not enough 

information has been collected at 

this time to propose reclassification 

of the park to an OPA. The park is 

managed by the FDEP.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2003 St. Johns County property parcel 

information

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 675.1 42.6 632.5 0.4

Added to the 

CBRS 61.5 1.2 60.3 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 15.4 0.1 15.3 4

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 721.2 43.7 677.5 0.4

Net Change 46.1 1.1 45.0 0.0 (4)

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-31
D32

P05

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P05,

Conch Island, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: East of St. 

Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in 

St. Johns County

Congressional District: 7 

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit:

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat and 

undeveloped barrier to Unit P05.

11/12/1996: P.L. 104-333 modified 

the northern boundary of Unit P05 

to remove certain property. The 

map was later invalidated through 

a lawsuit brought against the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service by Coastal 

Alliance. (Civil Action No. 97-1344 

(D.D.C.))

10/21/1998: P.L. 105-277 reinstated 

the map modifying Unit P05 that 

was previously invalidated.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit P05 

crosses Vilano Point north of Saint 

Augustine Inlet, cutting through 

development in the Porpoise Point 

subdivision, 

turns north to generally follow the 

riverside shoreline of Vilano 

Point, crosses the Tolomato River 

at the old Vilano Beach bridge, 

and generally follows the wetland/

fastland interface. The landward 

boundary generally follows the 

wetland/fastland interface along the 

western Matanzas River shoreline to 

the Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument. The southern boundary 

extends to the center of Matanzas 

River, curves around Anastasia 

Island, turns south down the 

approximate center of Salt Run, and 

cuts across Bird Island.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern boundary of Unit P05 is 

aligned with digital property parcel 

data to precisely exclude from the 

unit all of the properties that were 

intended to be excluded by P.L. 105-

277, and is adjusted to follow more 

precisely the Vilano Point riverside 

shoreline and the wetland/fastland 

interface on the west side of the 

Tolomato River. The landward 

boundary is adjusted to follow 

more precisely the wetland/fastland 

interface and to extend to the 

Bridge of Lions to include associated 

aquatic habitat which is part of 

Matanzas River. The southern 

boundary is adjusted to include the 

entire Salt Run channel and to align 

with the proposed boundaries of 

Unit P05P. 

Additional Comments: When Conch 

Island was established as Unit P05 

in 1982, approximately half of the 

island had already been sold to the 

State and turned over to the State of 

Florida park system. The southern 

portion of Conch Island is proposed 

for reclassification from System Unit 

P05 to otherwise protected area 

Unit P05P because this land was 

held for conservation/recreation at 

the time Unit P05 was established.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 1,955.2 617.6 1,337.6 2.6

Added to the 

CBRS 253.4 0.1 253.3 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 13.0 3.7 9.3 7

Reclassified Area (370.6) (211.3) (159.3) (1.0)

Proposed Unit 1,825.0 402.7 1,422.3 1.6

Net Change (130.2) (214.9) 84.7 (1.0) (7)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2003 St. Johns County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-32
D33

P05P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P05P, 

Conch Island, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: East of St. 

Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in 

St. Johns County

Congressional District: 7

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit:

10/21/1998: P.L. 105-277 made 

changes to the boundaries of 

adjacent Unit P05. No changes were 

made to the boundaries of OPA Unit 

P05P at that time.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Anastasia State 

Park, owned by the Florida 

Department of Environmental 

Protection. The land was first 

reserved for conservation in 

1949 and additional parcels were 

purchased over time.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

western and southern boundaries 

of Unit P05P generally follow the 

boundaries of Anastasia State Park. 

The northern boundary roughly 

follows the boundary of Anastasia 

State Park as it existed prior to 1981.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

boundaries of Unit P05P are aligned 

with the boundaries of Anastasia 

State Park as it existed when the 

adjacent Unit P05 was established 

in 1982.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit P05P. When Unit P05 was 

mapped in 1982, approximately 

half of Conch Island included land 

that had already been sold to the 

State of Florida and turned over to 

the State park system. The 

southern portion of Conch Island 

is proposed for reclassification 

from System Unit P05 to OPA Unit 

P05P because this land was held for 

conservation or recreation at the 

time Unit P05 was established.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 601.5 438.7 162.8 1.5

Added to the 

CBRS 1.9 1.9 0.0 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 1.5 1.4 0.1 1

Reclassified Area 370.6 211.3 159.3 1.0

Proposed Unit 972.5 650.5 322.0 2.6

Net Change 371.0 211.8 159.2 1.1 (1)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2003 St. Johns County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-33
D34

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-34
D35

P08

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P08, 

Ponce Inlet, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of St. 

Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Volusia County.

Congressional District: 24

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit:

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat to Unit 

P08.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit P08 

cuts across the barrier spit north of 

Ponce de Leon Inlet. It continues 

westward, following the eastern side 

of the Halifax River, then follows 

the approximate center of Spruce 

Creek. The landward boundary 

roughly follows the wetland/fastland 

interface. South of Redland Canal, 

the landward boundary turns east 

and generally follows the western 

edge of Ponce de Leon Cut to go 

around a developed area. The 

southern boundary is located north 

of a developed area and roughly 

follows the center of waterways and 

the wetland/fastland interface where 

there is no channel. The boundary 

then crosses Indian River North, 

turns north to follow the eastern 

side of the river, and cuts across the 

barrier spit south of Ponce de Leon 

Inlet into the Atlantic Ocean.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

P08 is adjusted to align with digital 

property parcel data to include 

undeveloped fastland; align with 

the boundaries of the proposed new 

otherwise protected area (OPA) 

Unit P08P; follow more precisely the 

eastern side of the Halifax River; 

and include the entire Spruce Creek 

channel. The landward boundary 

is adjusted to follow more precisely 

the wetland/fastland interface and 

the western edge of the Ponce de 

Leon Cut. The southern boundary 

is adjusted to follow more precisely 

the wetland/fastland interface and 

to include the entire channel north 

of the development. The boundary 

is also extended south along the 

channel of Indian River North to the 

State Highway 44 bridge to include 

all of a developing sandbar and is 

adjusted to follow more precisely the 

eastern edge of Indian River North. 

Additional Comments: There are 

three conservation/recreation areas 

located within Unit P08, two of 

which were held for conservation 

or recreation in 1982 when Unit 

P08 was established. Lighthouse 

Point Park, held as a conservation 

area since 1980, and Smyrna Dunes 

Park, conserved since 1982, are both 

managed by Volusia County Leisure 

Services. These parks are proposed 

for reclassification from System Unit 

P08 to new OPA Unit P08P.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 4,185.3 627.7 3,557.6 1.9

Added to the 

CBRS 162.5 5.6 156.9 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 25.3 0.0 25.3 0

Reclassified Area (328.4) (228.6) (99.8) (1.2)

Proposed Unit 3,994.1 404.7 3,589.4 0.7

Net Change (191.2) (223.0) 31.8 (1.2) 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Volusia County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-35
D36

P08P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P08P, 

Ponce Inlet, Florida

Type of Unit: Proposed new 

otherwise protected area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of St. 

Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Volusia County

Congressional District: 24

Current CBRS Status: The proposed 

new OPA Unit P08P is located 

entirely within the boundaries of 

existing System Unit P08.

Otherwise Protected Area Criteria:

The proposed new unit meets the 

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act 

definition of an OPA. Smyrna Dunes 

Park is owned by the U.S. Coast 

Guard and was leased to Volusia 

County in September 1982 for the 

purpose of establishing a public 

park. Lighthouse Point Park, owned 

by the State of Florida since 1970, 

has been managed as a conservation 

area since 1980. Currently the 

park is managed by Volusia County 

Leisure Services.

Proposed Boundaries: The 

boundaries of proposed new Unit 

P08P follow the boundaries of 

Smyrna Dunes Park and Lighthouse 

Point Park.

Additional Comments: There are no 

known private inholdings within the 

proposed new Unit P08P. A 2.7-acre 

parcel within Smyrna Dunes Park 

is leased to the U.S. Air Force for 

purposes other than conservation or 

recreation. Smyrna Dunes Park and 

Lighthouse Point Park are proposed 

for reclassification from System Unit 

P08 to new OPA P08P because this 

land was held for conservation 

or recreation when Unit P08 was 

established in 1982.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 0.4 0.4 0.0 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 328.4 228.6 99.8 1.2

Proposed Unit 328.8 229.0 99.8 1.2 

Net Change 328.8 229.0 99.8 1.2 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Volusia County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-36
D37

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-37
D38

FL-13P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-13P, 

Spessard Holland Park, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of Palm Bay 

on the Atlantic Coast, in Brevard 

County

Congressional District: 15

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of OPA Unit FL-13P 

since its designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Flutie Athletic 

Complex, Spessard Holland North 

and South Beach Parks, and 

Spessard Holland Golf Course, 

which are all owned by the Brevard 

County Parks and Recreation 

Department. 

Existing Boundary Description: 

The boundaries of Unit FL-13P 

generally follow the boundaries 

of lands managed by the Brevard 

County Parks and Recreation 

Department.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The boundaries of Unit FL-13P are 

aligned with the boundaries of lands 

managed by the Brevard County 

Parks and Recreation Department.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-13P. A U.S. Air Force 

Radar Tracking Station is included 

within the OPA. The property 

is owned by the Brevard County 

Parks and Recreation Department 

and leased to the U.S. Air Force. 

The proposed adjustment of Unit 

FL-13P boundaries remove from 

the OPA minor portions of privately 

owned property that are not held for 

conservation or recreation and are 

not inholdings of lands managed 

by the Brevard County Parks and 

Recreation Department. 

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 178.2 139.8 38.4 0.8 

Added to the 

CBRS 2.2 2.2 0.0 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 4.0 3.2 0.8 25

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 176.4 138.8 37.6 0.8 

Net Change (1.8) (1.0) (0.8) 0.0 (25)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1995 Brevard County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-38
D39

P09A

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P09A, 

Coconut Point, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: North of Vero 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Brevard County

Congressional District: 15

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982 

Historical Changes to Unit:

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat and 

undeveloped areas to Unit P09A.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit P09A 

crosses through development on 

the barrier near the break-indevelopment and extends across 

the Indian River to the mainland. 

The landward boundary generally 

follows the shoreline. The southern 

boundary extends across the 

Indian River and passes through 

development on the barrier. The 

boundary of the northern excluded 

area surrounds an area of developed 

and undeveloped land. The 

boundary of the southern excluded 

area excludes undeveloped land on 

the north, cuts through development 

on the south, and generally follows 

the shoreline on the east and west.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

P09A and the boundary of the 

northern excluded area are aligned 

with the boundaries of the proposed 

new Unit P09AP. The landward 

boundary is adjusted to follow 

the shoreline more precisely. The 

southern boundary is shifted north 

to align with the digital property 

parcel data of a property on the 

east side of State Highway A1A 

that was intended to be excluded 

in 1982, as indicated by U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service records. The 

southern excluded area is shifted to 

the south and aligned with digital 

property parcel data to exclude a 

cluster of development that was on 

the ground in 1982 when Unit P09A 

was established.

Additional Comments: There 

are numerous conservation or 

recreation areas located within Unit 

P09A, but only Coconut Point Park 

(managed by the Brevard County 

Parks and Recreation Department) 

was held for conservation or 

recreation when the area was 

added to the John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS) in 1990. Currently, only 

the northern half of the park is 

located within Unit P09A, and the 

southern half of the park is not 

within the CBRS. To add the entire 

park within the proposed new OPA 

Unit P09AP, the northern portion is 

proposed for reclassification from 

System Unit to OPA status, and 

the southern portion is proposed 

for addition to the OPA for the first 

time.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 3,204.6 277.4 2,927.2 2.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 28.5 7.4 21.1 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 30.3 11.4 18.9 31

Reclassified Area (30.1) (26.4) (3.7) (0.2)

Proposed Unit 3,172.7 247.0 2,925.7 1.8 

Net Change (31.9) (30.4) (1.5) (0.2) (31)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1995 Brevard County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-39
D40

P09AP

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P09AP, 

Coconut Point, Florida 

Type of Unit: Proposed new 

otherwise protected area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North of Vero 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Brevard County

Congressional District: 15

Current CBRS Status: Part of the 

proposed new OPA P09AP is within 

existing System Unit P09A. The 

remainder of the proposed new OPA 

is not currently within the John H. 

Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System.

Otherwise Protected Area Criteria: 

The proposed new unit meets the 

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act 

definition of an OPA. Coconut Point 

Park, managed by the Brevard 

County Parks and Recreation 

Department, has been held for 

conservation since 1988. Archie 

Carr National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), managed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, was acquired 

over time starting in 1991.

Proposed Boundaries: The 

boundaries of the proposed new unit 

are aligned with the boundaries of 

Coconut Point Park and the Archie 

Carr NWR.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

the proposed new Unit P09AP. The 

northern half of Coconut Point 

Park is currently located within 

Unit P09A, and the southern half 

of the park is within the northern 

excluded area of Unit P09A. The 

northern portion of the park is 

proposed for reclassification from 

System Unit P09A to new OPA 

Unit P09AP because this land was 

held for conservation or recreation 

when it was added to Unit P09A. 

The southern portion of the park is 

proposed for addition to new OPA 

P09AP because this land is held for 

conservation or recreation and is 

currently not within the CBRS.

Archie Carr NWR is composed of 

numerous unconnected parcels along 

a 20.5 mile stretch of beach between 

Melbourne and Wabasso. Only the 

Archie Carr NWR parcels near 

Coconut Point Park and currently 

not within System Unit P09A are 

proposed for addition to new OPA 

Unit P09AP.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 59.8 51.2 8.6 14

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 30.1 26.4 3.7 0.2

Proposed Unit 89.9 77.6 12.3 0.7 

Net Change 89.9 77.6 12.3 0.7 1

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1995 Brevard County property parcel 

information

4

 According to the refuge manager, this structure is a former private residence now owned by Archie Carr Wildlife Natural Refuge

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-40
D41

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-41
D42

P10A

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P10A, 

Blue Hole, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of Vero 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Indian River and St. Lucie Counties

Congressional Districts: 15 and 16

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit:

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat and 

undeveloped land to Unit P10A 

and removed a small area that was 

developed in 1982.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern and southern boundaries of 

Unit P10A cross the barrier roughly 

at the break-in-development, and 

then cross the Indian River. The 

landward boundary generally follows 

the wetland/fastland interface. The 

excluded area roughly surrounds 

an area of development, with the 

northern boundary of the excluded 

area bisecting several structures.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

P10A is aligned with digital property 

parcel data to follow more precisely 

the 1982 break-in-development and 

is adjusted to include associated 

aquatic habitat. The landward 

boundary is adjusted to follow 

more precisely the wetland/fastland 

interface. The boundary is adjusted 

to the south to include associated 

aquatic habitat surrounding 

otherwise protected area (OPA) 

Unit FL-14P. Some of the associated 

aquatic habitat is currently located 

within Unit FL-14P, but is proposed 

for reclassification from OPA to 

System Unit status as part of 

Unit P10A because Volume 14 of 

the Department of the Interior’s 

1988 Report to Congress: Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, stated 

that in Florida, Aquatic Preserves 

and Outstanding Florida Waters do 

not meet the definition of “otherwise 

protected.” The northern and 

southern boundaries of the excluded 

area are aligned with digital 

property parcel data to follow 

more precisely the 1982 break-indevelopment, and the eastern and 

western boundaries are adjusted to 

follow more precisely the shoreline. 

Additional Comments: There are 

three conservation areas located 

within Unit P10A. Avalon State 

Park, managed by the Florida 

Department of Environmental 

Protection was acquired in 1985. 

Queens Island Preserve and Indrio 

Blueway Buffer, both managed by 

the St. Lucie County Public Works 

Department, were acquired in 1996 

and 2003, respectively. Because 

these areas were acquired for 

conservation/recreation purposes 

after Unit P10A was established, 

they are not proposed for 

reclassification from System Unit to 

OPA status.

The proposed adjustments to 

the boundaries of Unit P10A add 

undeveloped fastland to the unit.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 5,569.8 751.5 4,818.3 3.4 

Added to the 

CBRS 2,163.5 9.7 2,153.8 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 23.9 10.3 13.6 8

Reclassified Area 1,205.0 33.3 1,171.7 0.0

Proposed Unit 8,914.4 784.2 8,130.2 3.6 

Net Change 3,344.6 32.7 3,311.9 0.2 (8)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 St. Lucie, Indian River County 

property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-42
D43

FL-14P 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-14P, 

Pepper Beach, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: East of Ft. Pierce 

on the Atlantic Coast, in St. Lucie 

County.

Congressional District: 16

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990 

Historical Changes to Unit:

There have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-14P since its 

designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Fort Pierce Inlet 

State Park owned by the Florida 

Department of Environmental 

Protection. Pepper Park, managed 

by the St. Lucie County Parks and 

Recreation Department. Wildcat 

Cove Natural Area, managed by the 

St. Lucie County Environmental 

Resources Department. Coon 

Island County Park, managed by 

the St. Lucie County Environmental 

Resources Department. Kings 

Island Natural Area, managed by 

the St. Lucie County Environmental 

Resources Department

Existing Boundary Description: The 

boundaries of Unit FL-14P include 

Fort Pierce and Pepper Beach State 

Recreation Areas as they existed 

in 1990. The western boundary of 

the OPA follows the Intracoastal 

Waterway, and the unit is divided 

into two segments by the exclusion 

of the State Highway A1A bridge 

north of the inlet.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

Volume 14 of the Department of the 

Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress: 

Coastal Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System states 

that in Florida, Aquatic Preserves 

and Outstanding Florida Waters do 

not meet the definition of “otherwise 

protected”; therefore, all the open 

water on the protected side of the 

coastal barrier in Unit FL-14P, 

which was in the Indian River 

Aquatic Preserve at the time it 

was established within the OPA, is 

proposed for reclassification as part 

of System Unit P10A. Remaining 

OPA boundaries are aligned to park 

boundary lines. The Kings Island 

Natural Area property was sold to 

St. Lucie County for conservation 

or recreation purposes in 1998 

and is managed by the St. Lucie 

County Environmental Resources 

Department. The park is not 

currently within Unit FL-14P, but is 

proposed for inclusion in this OPA 

unit.

Additional Comments: There are no 

known private inholdings within the 

proposed boundaries of Unit FL-14P. 

Pepper Beach State Recreation Area 

was removed from the Florida State 

park system after 1990; the property 

was then subdivided into three 

county-owned conservation and 

recreation areas. No development 

has occurred as a result of the 

change in ownership.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 2,578.0 231.6 2,346.4 0.7 

Added to the 

CBRS 215.3 15.7 199.6 1

Removed from the 

CBRS 17.7 8.9 8.8 3

Reclassified Area (1,205.0) (33.3) (1,171.7) 0.0

Proposed Unit 1,570.6 205.1 1,365.5 0.7 

Net Change (1,007.4) (26.5) (980.9) 0.0 (2)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 St. Lucie County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-43
D44

P11

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P11, 

Hutchinson Island, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: East of Port St. 

Lucie on the Atlantic Coast, in St. 

Lucie County

Congressional District: 16

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit:

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat and 

undeveloped coastal barrier areas to 

Unit P11 and removed a small area 

that was developed in 1982.

11/12/1996: P.L. 104-333 modified 

the northern boundary of the 

southernmost excluded area to 

remove private property from Unit 

P11. The map was later invalidated 

through a lawsuit brought against 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by 

Coastal Alliance. (Civil Action No. 

97-1344 (D.D.C.))

10/12/1998: P.L. 105-277 reinstated 

the map modifying Unit P11 that 

was previously invalidated.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

P11 roughly follows the breakin-development, extends around 

Hook Point, and cuts west across 

the Indian River to the mainland. 

The landward boundary follows 

the shoreline of the mainland. 

The southern boundary crosses 

the Indian River across from 

Nettles Island, follows the center 

of a waterway between Nettles 

Island and Hutchinson Island, and 

generally follows the 

wetland/fastland interface as it 

crosses Hutchinson Island, passing 

through development before 

turning east to extend into the 

Atlantic Ocean. The boundary of 

the northern excluded area roughly 

encircles the Hutchinson Island 

Nuclear Power Plant. The middle 

excluded area roughly surrounds 

an area of development containing 

condominiums, but bisects 

structures on the north and south. 

The southern excluded area roughly 

surrounds an area of development 

containing condominiums, single 

family homes, and a golf course.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern boundary of Unit P11 is 

aligned with digital property parcel 

data to follow more precisely the 

1982 break-in-development and 

is adjusted to include associated 

aquatic habitat in Jennings Cove 

to the east of Hook Point. The 

landward boundary is adjusted to 

follow the shoreline more precisely. 

The southern boundary is adjusted 

to include associated aquatic habitat 

in the channel between Nettles 

Island and Hutchinson Island, follow 

the wetland/fastland interface more 

precisely, and remove development 

that was on the ground in 1990 when 

this area was added to Unit P11. 

The eastern and western boundaries 

of the northern excluded area are 

adjusted to follow more precisely the 

shoreline. The southern boundary 

is adjusted to add mangroves to 

the Unit. The northern, eastern, 

and southern boundaries of the 

middle excluded area are aligned 

with digital property parcel data 

to remove development that was 

on the ground in 1982 when Unit 

P11 was established. The western 

boundary is extended to the north 

and south to follow the 1982 breakin-development. The northern 

boundary of the southern excluded 

area is aligned with digital property 

parcel data of the properties that 

were intended to be excluded by 

P.L. 105-277. The western boundary 

is adjusted to follow the Indian 

River shoreline and the 1990 breakin-development. The eastern 

boundary is aligned with digital 

property parcel data that follows 

the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The 

southern boundary is aligned with 

digital property parcel data to 

remove development that was on the 

ground in 1982 when Unit P11 was 

established.

Additional Comments: There are 

numerous conservation or recreation 

areas located within Unit P11, but 

only Frederick Douglass Memorial 

Park was held for conservation or 

recreation when the area was added 

to Unit P11. This park, owned by 

the St. Lucie County Parks and 

Recreation Department, has been 

maintained for conservation or 

recreation since approximately 1940. 

Thus, Frederick Douglass Memorial 

Park is proposed for reclassification 

from System Unit P11 to new 

otherwise protected area Unit P11P.

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-44
D45

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 16,124.2 676.9 15,447.3 9.2 

Added to the 

CBRS 66.6 3.1 63.5 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 72.2 25.5 46.7 18

Reclassified Area (16.2) (7.7) (8.5) (0.2)

Proposed Unit 16,102.4 646.8 15,455.6 9.0 

Net Change (21.8) (30.1) 8.3 (0.2) (18)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 St. Lucie County property parcel 

information

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System

P11, Hutchinson Island, Florida (continued)

D-45
D46

P11P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P11P, 

Hutchinson Island, Florida

Type of Unit: Proposed new 

otherwise protected area (OPA)

Location of Unit: East of Port St. 

Lucie on the Atlantic Coast, in St. 

Lucie County

Congressional District: 16

Current CBRS Status: The proposed 

new OPA Unit P11P is located 

entirely within the boundaries of 

existing Unit P11.

Otherwise Protected Area Criteria:

The proposed new Unit P11P meets 

the Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act definition of an OPA. Frederick 

Douglass Memorial Park, owned 

by the St. Lucie County Parks 

and Recreation Department, has 

been maintained for conservation 

purposes since approximately 1940.

Proposed Boundaries: The proposed 

boundaries of Unit P11P follow the 

boundaries of Frederick Douglass 

Memorial Park.

Additional Comments: There are no 

known private inholdings within the 

proposed new Unit P11P. Frederick 

Douglass Memorial Park is proposed 

for reclassification from System 

Unit P11 to proposed new OPA 

P11P because this land was held for 

conservation or recreation when it 

was first added to Unit P11 in 1982.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 0.3 0.0 0.3 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Reclassified Area 16.2 7.7 8.5 0.2

Proposed Unit 16.5 7.7 8.8 0.2 

Net Change 16.5 7.7 8.8 0.2 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-46
D47

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-47
D48

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-48
D49

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D- 49
D50

FL-15

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-15, 

Blowing Rocks, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: North of West 

Palm Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Martin County 

Congressional District: 16

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit:

11/2/1994: P.L. 103-461 modified the 

northern and southern boundaries 

of Unit FL-15 to only include areas 

that were undeveloped at the time of 

their inclusion in Unit FL-15.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern and southern boundaries 

of Unit FL-15 generally follow 

the breaks-in-development. The 

landward boundary roughly follows 

the shoreline of the mainland.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern and southern boundaries of 

Unit FL-15 are aligned with digital 

property parcel data to exclude land 

that was developed prior to 1990 

when Unit FL-15 was established, 

as intended by P.L. 103-461. The 

landward boundary is adjusted to 

follow more precisely the shoreline.

Additional Comments: Some of 

the land within Unit FL-15 was 

owned by The Nature Conservancy 

prior to the designation of Unit 

FL-15 in 1990. Volume 14 of the 

Department of the Interior’s 1988 

Report to Congress: Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System included 

comments from the State of Florida 

that supported the designation 

of privately owned land held for 

conservation purposes as System 

units, and not as otherwise protected 

areas, in order to prohibit the 

availability of Federal funds should 

the land ever be sold by private 

owners for development. Congress 

then enacted the Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990 that 

established the area as System Unit 

FL-15.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 218.4 84.2 134.2 1.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 6.8 1.7 5.1 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 16.6 1.9 14.7 2

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 208.6 84.0 124.6 1.0 

Net Change (9.8) (0.2) (9.6) 0.0 (2)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Martin County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-50
D51

FL-16P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-16P, 

Jupiter Beach, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North of West Palm 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in Palm 

Beach County

Congressional District: 16

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990 

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to Unit FL16P since its designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: DuBois Park and 

Jupiter Beach Park, both owned by 

the Palm Beach County Parks and 

Recreation Department.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit 

FL-16P generally follows the center 

of Jupiter Inlet. The remaining 

boundaries roughly follow the 

boundaries of DuBois and Jupiter 

Beach Parks.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern boundary of Unit 

FL-16P is adjusted to follow the 

channel center until it enters the 

Atlantic Ocean. The remaining 

boundaries of Unit FL-16P are 

aligned with the boundaries of 

DuBois Park and Jupiter Beach 

Park.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-16P.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 55.0 27.8 27.2 0.4 

Added to the 

CBRS 14.9 6.0 8.9 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.3 0.0 0.3 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 69.6 33.8 35.8 0.4 

Net Change 14.6 6.0 8.6 0.0 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2002 Palm Beach County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-51
D52

FL-17P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-17P, 

Carlin, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North of West Palm 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in Palm 

Beach County

Congressional Districts: 16 and 22

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to Unit FL17P since its designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Carlin Park, 

managed by the Palm Beach County 

Parks and Recreation Department.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

boundaries of Unit FL-17P roughly 

follow the boundaries of Carlin Park.

Proposed Changes to Boundary:

The boundaries of Unit FL-17P 

are more precisely aligned with the 

boundaries of Carlin Park.

Additional Comments: There 

are no known private inholdings 

within Unit FL-17P. The proposed 

adjustments to the landward 

boundary remove minor portions of 

privately owned property from 

the OPA that are not held for 

conservation or recreation and are 

not inholdings of Carlin Park.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 106.7 91.5 15.2 0.5

Added to the 

CBRS 19.1 17.1 2.0 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 1.9 1.9 0.0 3

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 123.9 106.7 17.2 0.6 

Net Change 17.2 15.2 2.0 0.1 (3)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2002 Palm Beach County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-52
D53

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.
D54

FL-18P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-18P, 

MacArthur Beach, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: East of North Palm 

Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in Palm 

Beach County

Congressional District: 22

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to Unit 

FL-18P since its designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/

Recreation Area(s) in OPA: John 

D. MacArthur Beach State Park, 

owned by the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection since 

1982.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The northern and southern 

land boundaries of Unit FL-18P 

generally follow the boundaries of 

John D. MacArthur Beach State 

Park. The western boundary lies in 

the Intracoastal Waterway.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The boundaries of Unit FL-18P 

are more precisely aligned with the 

boundaries of John D. MacArthur 

Beach State Park.

Additional Comments: There 

are no known private inholdings 

within Unit FL-18P. The proposed 

adjustments to the boundaries of 

Unit FL-18P remove from the OPA 

minor portions of privately owned 

property that are not held for 

conservation or recreation and are 

not inholdings of John D. MacArthur 

Beach State Park. 

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 853.7 295.0 558.7 1.6 

Added to the 

CBRS 2.0 0.8 1.2 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 4.0 3.3 0.7 5

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 851.7 292.5 559.2 1.6 

Net Change (2.0) (2.5) 0.5 0.0 (5)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2002 Palm Beach County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-54
D55

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-55
D56

FL-19

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-19, 

Birch Park, Florida

Type of Unit: Proposed new System 

unit

Location of Unit: South of Fort 

Lauderdale on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Broward County

Congressional District: 22

Current CBRS Status: The entire 

proposed new Unit FL-19 is 

currently within otherwise protected 

area (OPA) Unit FL-19P.

System Unit Criteria: The proposed 

new Unit FL-19 meets the Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 

definition and criteria of an 

undeveloped coastal barrier. Areas 

of proposed new Unit FL-19 that are 

currently within Unit FL-19P met 

the CBRA definition and criteria 

of an undeveloped coastal barrier 

at the time they were first included 

within the John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

is not aware of the existence of a full 

complement of infrastructure in this 

area at the time the area was first 

included within the CBRS. 

Proposed Boundaries: The northern 

and southern boundaries of the 

proposed new unit coincide with the 

proposed northern and southern 

boundaries of Unit FL-19P. The 

western boundary of the proposed 

new unit turns south to coincide with 

the proposed eastern boundary of 

Unit FL-19P at the point where the 

northern boundary meets the Hugh 

Taylor Birch State Park property. 

It follows the property boundary 

south, then east to the shoreline. It 

turns south again at the shoreline, 

then west and south again with 

the property line until it meets the 

proposed southern OPA boundary.

Additional Comments: Portions 

of FL-19P are not held for 

conservation or recreation, are 

not inholdings, and met the CBRA 

definition of and criteria for an 

undeveloped coastal barrier at the 

time they were established within 

the OPA in 1990. These areas are 

proposed for reclassification from 

OPA Unit FL-19P to new System 

Unit FL-19.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 0.9 0.6 0.3 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 8.5 4.1 4.4 0.3

Proposed Unit 9.4 4.7 4.7 0.4 

Net Change 9.4 4.7 4.7 0.4 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1999 Broward County property parcel 

information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-56
D57

FL-19P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-19P, 

Birch Park, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of Fort 

Lauderdale on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Broward County

Congressional District: 22

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to Unit FL19P since its designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Hugh Taylor Birch 

State Park, owned by the Florida 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, acquired by the State of 

Florida in 1941.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

boundaries of Unit FL-19P roughly 

include less than half of the southern 

portion of Hugh Taylor Birch State 

Park and adjacent public beachfront. 

The western boundary follows the 

center of the Intracoastal Waterway.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The boundaries of Unit FL-19P 

are precisely aligned with the 

boundaries of Hugh Taylor Birch 

State Park.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-19P. Of the 10.6 acres of 

beach property in the current Unit 

FL-19P, only 2 acres belong to Hugh 

Taylor Birch State Park. According 

to the City of Fort Lauderdale, the 

rest of the beach property within 

the OPA is managed by the city as 

a public beach, but is not owned 

by the city. The State Park 

management and the city both 

acknowledge the presence of a small 

piece of undeveloped private 

property somewhere outside the 

State Park boundary and within the 

current OPA, but they cannot locate 

it with any certainty. Therefore 

the beach outside the State Park 

boundary and within the current 

OPA is proposed to be reclassified as 

new System Unit FL-19.

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 85.4 71.8 13.6 0.4 

Added to the 

CBRS 102.9 90.8 12.1 44

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.1 0.1 0.0 0

Reclassified Area (8.5) (4.1) (4.4) (0.3)

Proposed Unit 179.7 158.4 21.3 0.1 

Net Change 94.3 86.6 7.7 (0.3) 4

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1999 Broward County property parcel 

information

4

 Structures are all Hugh Taylor Birch State Park facilities including restrooms and a ranger’s station

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-57
D58

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-58
D59

FL-20P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-20P, 

Lloyd Beach, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Southeast of Ft. 

Lauderdale on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Broward County

Congressional District: 22

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-20P since its 

designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: John U. Lloyd Beach 

State Park, owned by the Florida 

Department of Environmental 

Protection since 1974. Single parcel 

purchased for conservation or 

recreation purposes by the City of 

Hollywood in 2002.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit FL-20P 

follows the southern edge of the 

Turning Basin Inlet. The eastern 

boundary follows the approximate 

center of a channel behind the 

barrier. The southern boundary cuts 

across the barrier roughly at the 

southern tip of the State park. The 

unit includes the State park and also 

lands belonging to the Coast Guard, 

the U.S. Navy, Nova University, the 

City of Dania Beach, and a private 

company.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern and southern boundaries 

of Unit FL-20P are aligned with 

the boundaries of the John U. 

Lloyd Beach State Park and a small 

adjacent parcel belonging to the 

City of Hollywood recently acquired 

for conservation purposes. The 

remaining private and military 

properties listed above are proposed 

for removal from the CBRS because 

they are not held for conservation 

or recreation purposes, are not 

inholdings within the conservation 

or recreation areas, and were 

developed at the time they were 

included within Unit FL-20P in 1990.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-20P.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 398.3 233.5 164.8 2.6 

Added to the 

CBRS 0.3 0.0 0.3 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 53.7 30.8 22.9 19

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 344.9 202.7 142.2 2.2 

Net Change (53.4) (30.8) (22.6) (0.4) (19)

1

 Land above mean high tide 2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1999 Broward County property parcel information 

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-59
D60

P14A

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System P14A, 

North Beach, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of Ft. 

Lauderdale on the Atlantic Coast, in 

Broward County.

Congressional District: 20

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit P14A since its 

designation in 1982.

Existing Boundary Description: Unit 

P14A is composed of two segments. 

In both segments, the northern and 

southern boundaries roughly 

follow the break-in-development. 

The landward boundaries follow the 

center of the Intracoastal Waterway. 

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern and southern boundaries 

of both segments of Unit P14A are 

aligned with digital property parcel 

data. The landward boundaries 

of both segments of Unit P14A 

are adjusted to include the entire 

Intracoastal Waterway.

Additional Comments: Hollywood 

North Beach Park, currently owned 

by Broward County, is located within 

both segments of Unit P14A, but is 

not proposed for reclassification as 

an otherwise protected area because 

the park was first established in 1986 

after Unit P14A was established.

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 108.1 61.3 46.8 0.8 

Added to the 

CBRS 42.2 3.3 38.9 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.5 0.0 0.5 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 149.8 64.6 85.2 0.8 

Net Change 41.7 3.3 38.4 0.0 0

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide 2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1999 Broward County property parcel information 

D-60
D61

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-61
D62

FL-39

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-39, 

Tavernier Key, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of Key Largo 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County

Congressional District: 18

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit:

11/15/1993: A change was made 

to Unit FL-39 in accordance 

with Section 4(e) of P.L. 101-591, 

which allowed minor and technical 

boundary modifications to the 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS) maps 

as necessary to correct clerical and 

typographical errors in the maps 

and to add otherwise protected 

areas to the CBRS at the request 

of State and local governments 

and qualified organizations with 

jurisdiction over the area. This 

administrative change modified the 

eastern boundary of the southern 

segment of Unit FL-39, moving it 

slightly east to include additional 

associated aquatic habitat in the 

unit.

Existing Boundary Description: Unit 

FL-39 consists of two segments 

separated by U.S. Highway 1. 

Southern segment: The eastern 

boundary includes Tavernier 

Key, and cuts across land at the 

wetland/fastland break. The 

northern boundary generally 

follows the southern edge of U.S. 

Highway 1. The western boundary 

roughly follows the western edge of 

Tavernier Creek. 

Northern segment: The eastern 

boundary roughly follows the 

break-in-development, extends 

out into Community Harbor, and 

continues northward around the 

key to the Intracoastal Waterway. 

The northern boundary follows the 

southern edge of the Intracoastal 

Waterway. The western boundary 

roughly follows several small canals, 

the break-in-development, and the 

western side of Tavernier Creek. 

The southern boundary follows the 

northern edge of U.S. Highway 1.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

Southern segment: The northern 

boundary is adjusted to follow more 

precisely the southern edge of U.S. 

Highway 1. The western boundary 

is adjusted to follow more 

precisely the western edge of 

Tavernier Creek.

Northern segment: The eastern 

boundary is adjusted to follow more 

precisely the 1990 break-indevelopment and to include 

emergent mangrove extending 

out into Community Harbor. The 

western boundary is adjusted to 

follow more precisely the canals, 

the 1990 break-in-development, and 

the western shoreline of Tavernier 

Creek. The southern boundary is 

adjusted to follow more precisely the 

northern edge of U.S. Highway 1.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 1,196.6 57.9 1,138.7 1.4 

Added to the 

CBRS 101.5 1.7 99.8 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 6.8 1.4 5.4 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 1,291.3 58.2 1,233.1 1.4 

Net Change 94.7 0.3 94.4 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Monroe County property parcel information 

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-62
D63

FL-40 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-40, 

Snake Creek, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of Key Largo 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County

Congressional District: 18

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act, or CBIA, 

(P.L. 101-591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit:

11/15/1993: Changes were made to 

the boundaries of the adjacent Unit 

FL-39 in accordance with Section 

4(e) of P.L. 101-591. No changes 

were made to the boundaries of Unit 

FL-40 at that time.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-40 

cuts through undeveloped wetlands 

near the break-in-development. The 

landward boundary roughly parallels 

U.S. Highway 1, dipping south in the 

middle of the boundary to roughly 

follow a wetlands delineation. The 

western boundary follows the center 

of the Snake Creek channel.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-40 is 

aligned with digital property parcel 

data to follow more precisely the 

1990 break-in-development and add 

associated aquatic habitat. The 

landward boundary is adjusted to 

follow more precisely the southern 

edge of U.S. Highway 1 and to add 

an area of undeveloped fastland to 

Unit FL-40. There is a proposed 

addition of undeveloped coastal 

barrier on the north side of US 

Highway 1 that would add a second 

segment to Unit FL-40. The 

proposed boundaries of this area 

include associated aquatic habitat 

and exclude existing development 

by following digital property parcel 

data. The northern boundary 

follows the southern edge of the 

Intracoastal Waterway. This area 

was proposed for addition to the 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System in Volume 14 of 

the Department of the Interior’s 

1988 Report to Congress: Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, but was 

not adopted by Congress with the 

enactment of the CBIA. This area is 

proposed for addition to Unit FL-40 

at this time because it still meets 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act definition and criteria for an 

undeveloped coastal barrier.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 105.0 21.2 83.8 1.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 1,955.0 29.5 1,925.5 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 2,060.0 50.7 2,009.3 1.1 

Net Change 1,955.0 29.5 1,925.5 0.1 0

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Monroe County property parcel information 

D-63
D64

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-64
D65

FL-43 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-43, 

Channel Key, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of Key Largo 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County

Congressional District: 18

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-43 since its 

designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

southern boundary of Unit FL-43 

generally follows the shoreline north 

of Toms Harbor Cut. The eastern 

and western boundaries parallel 

each other in the open water of 

Florida Bay to include Channel Key 

in the unit. The northern boundary 

closes the unit off in open water at 

the Intracoastal Waterway.

Proposed Changes to Boundary:

There are no proposed changes to 

the boundaries of Unit FL-43.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 1,187.0 14.5 1,172.5 0.2 

Added to the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 1,187.0 14.5 1,172.5 0.2 

Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-65
D66

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-44, 

Toms Harbor Keys, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of Key Largo 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County

Congressional District: 18

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-44 since its 

designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-44 

generally follows the western edge 

of Duck Key Channel, and moves 

northward across Toms Harbor 

Channel until it meets the Grassy 

Key shoreline. The northern 

boundary roughly follows the 

Grassy Key shoreline. The western 

boundary is a straight line from 

the Grassy Key shoreline into the 

Atlantic Ocean on the west side of 

Toms Harbor Keys.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-44 

is adjusted to include the entire 

Duck Key Channel. The northern 

boundary is adjusted to follow more 

precisely the shoreline and to 

include associated aquatic habitat 

and undeveloped fastland. The 

western boundary is adjusted 

westward to be at the 1990 break-indevelopment.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 384.1 58.6 325.5 1.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 144.1 40.1 104.0 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 2.5 0.6 1.9 2

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 525.7 98.1 427.6 1.1 

Net Change 141.6 39.5 102.1 0.1 (2)

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Monroe County property parcel information 

FL-44 

D-66
D67

FL-45 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-45, 

Deer/Long Point Keys, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: North of Key West 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County

Congressional District: 18

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act, or CBIA, 

(P.L. 101-591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-45 since its 

designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-45 

follows the waterway between Little 

Crawl Key and Crawl Key, crosses 

U.S. Highway 1, and continues into 

Florida Bay, following the waterway 

between Crawl Key and Long Point 

Key. The northern boundary crosses 

Long Point Key south of Burnt Point 

and continues westward in open 

water. The western boundary runs 

south until it meets Fat Deer Key 

near the break-in-development on 

the north side of U.S. Highway 1, 

cuts east across undeveloped land 

near the break-in-development on 

Fat Deer Key, roughly follows a 

channel, and crosses a tip of land 

as it extends out into the Atlantic 

Ocean.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The eastern boundary of Unit FL45 is moved to the east to include 

additional undeveloped fastland, 

excluding a cluster of existing 

development to the east of Little 

Crawl Key. North of U.S. Higway 1, 

the boundary is aligned with digital 

property parcel data at the current 

break-in-development on Grassy 

Key. South of U.S Highway 1, the 

boundary is adjusted to align with 

emergent mangroves and digital 

property parcel data at the current 

break-in-development. This area 

was proposed for addition to the 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System in Volume 14 of 

the Department of the Interior’s 

1988 Report to Congress: Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, but was 

not adopted by Congress with the 

enactment of the CBIA. This area is 

proposed for addition to Unit FL-45 

at this time because it still meets 

the Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act definition and criteria for an 

undeveloped coastal barrier. The 

northern boundary is aligned with 

digital property parcel data where 

it crosses Long Point Key south of 

Burnt Point. The western boundary 

is adjusted to include emergent 

mangroves. 

Additional Comments: Curry 

Hammock State Park, managed 

by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, is 

located within Unit FL-45, but is not 

proposed for reclassification as an 

otherwise protected area because 

the park was acquired by the State 

of Florida on September 10, 1991, 

after Unit FL-45 was established.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 1,443.3 388.8 1,054.5 1.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 543.3 140.9 402.4 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 9.0 0.1 8.9 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 1,977.6 529.6 1,448.0 1.8

Net Change 534.3 140.8 393.5 0.8 0

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Monroe County property parcel information 

D-67
D68

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-68
D69

FL-46 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-46, 

Boot Key, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: North of Key West 

in the Florida Keys, in Monroe 

County

Congressional District: 18

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-46 since its 

designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-46 

roughly follows the eastern edge of 

Sister Creek north to the center of 

Boot Key Harbor, bisecting some 

development 

along the shoreline of Sister Creek. 

About halfway along Sister Creek, 

the boundary crosses the western 

side of an unnamed island (excluding 

three out of four radio towers). 

The northern boundary follows the 

approximate center of Boot Key 

Harbor. The western boundary 

extends south through open water to 

the west of Boot Key.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-46 is 

adjusted to follow more precisely the 

eastern edge of Sister Creek. The 

northern boundary is adjusted to 

include the entire channel of Boot 

Key Harbor.

Additional Comments: The island 

with the radio towers located about 

halfway along Sister Creek is a 

federally owned island, used by 

Voice of America. The proposed 

adjustments to the eastern boundary 

will remove this island from Unit 

FL-46 to exclude the radio towers 

from the CBRS.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 1,178.8 116.5 1,062.3 2.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 132.4 0.0 132.4 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 20.0 12.2 7.8 3

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 1,291.2 104.3 1,186.9 2.0 

Net Change 112.4 (12.2) 124.6 0.0 (3)

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Monroe County property parcel information 

D-69
D70

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-70
D71

FL-64P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-64P, 

Clam Pass, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North of Naples on 

the Gulf Coast, in Collier County

Congressional District: 14

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-64P since its 

designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Clam Bay Pass 

Conservation Area, owned by Collier 

County.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

boundary of Unit FL-64P roughly 

follows the boundaries of the Clam 

Bay Pass Conservation Area.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The boundaries of Unit FL-64P 

are aligned more precisely with the 

boundaries of the Clam Bay Pass 

Conservation Area.

Additional Comments: There are 

private inholdings remaining within 

the proposed boundary which 

include several private concession 

structures built on the beachfront 

of the unit. In several places, the 

current boundary passes through 

private, developed land that is not 

held for conservation or recreation 

purposes, and excludes undeveloped 

wetlands that are part of Clam 

Bay Pass Conservation Area. This 

adjustment will remove from Unit 

FL-64P land that is privately owned, 

is not an inholding, and was not 

held for conservation purposes at 

the time it was included in the OPA, 

and will also add land that is held 

for conservation or recreation to the 

OPA. H.R. 4165, introduced by 

Congressman Connie Mack on 

October 27, 2005 in the 109th 

Congress, would replace the existing 

map for Unit FL-64P with the 

proposed map dated July 21, 2005. 

This bill was favorably reported by 

the Committee on Resources on July 

20, 2006. Legislation was introduced 

in the 110th Congress to replace the 

existing map for Unit FL-64P.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 555.3 27.9 527.4 2.2 

Added to the 

CBRS 65.1 2.0 63.1 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 47.8 24.1 23.7 17

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 572.6 5.8 566.8 1.9 

Net Change 17.3 (22.1) 39.4 (0.3) (17)

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Collier County property parcel information 

D-71
D72

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-72
D73

P17A

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P17A, 

Bowditch Point, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: North of Naples on 

the Gulf Coast, in Lee County

Congressional District: 14

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/2/1994: P.L. 103-461 modified the 

southern boundary of Unit P17A 

to include only areas that were 

undeveloped at the time the unit was 

established.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

southern boundary of Unit P17A 

cuts across Bowditch Point. The 

eastern and northern boundaries 

are contiguous with the boundary of 

adjacent Unit FL-67. The eastern 

boundary follows the approximate 

center of Estero Pass. The northern 

boundary curves around what was 

once the end of Bowditch Point, but 

the spit has since accreted so that 

the boundary now cuts across the tip 

of the spit. 

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

southern boundary of Unit P17A is 

aligned with digital property parcel 

data of the properties that were 

intended to be excluded by P.L. 103-

461. The eastern boundary is 

adjusted to include the entire 

Estero Pass channel in the unit. The 

northern boundary is adjusted to 

include the portion of the barrier 

spit that has accreted beyond the 

Unit P17A boundary. 

Additional Comments: The northern 

and eastern boundaries of Unit 

P17A are contiguous with the 

boundaries of adjacent Unit 

FL-67. The adjustment of these two 

boundaries results in the expansion 

of Unit P17A into Unit FL-67. This 

change will place the appropriate 

landforms and their associated 

aquatic habitats within their discrete 

System units. Bowditch Point 

Park, owned by Lee County, is 

located within Unit P17A, but is not 

proposed for reclassification as an 

otherwise protected area because 

the park was acquired by the 

county in December 1987 after 

the designation of Unit P17A. In 

1982, the unit name was incorrectly 

identified as “Bodwitch Point” 

because the U.S. Geological Survey 

topographic base map contained 

a typographical error. Research 

has revealed that the correct name 

should be “Bowditch Point” and this 

has been corrected on the draft map.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 29.7 15.3 14.4 0.2 

Added to the 

CBRS 32.1 0.9 31.2 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.3 0.0 0.3 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 61.5 16.2 45.3 0.4 

Net Change 31.8 0.9 30.9 0.2 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Lee County property parcel information

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-73
D74

FL-67 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-67, 

Bunche Beach, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: North of Naples on 

the Gulf Coast, in Lee County

Congressional District: 14

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-67 since its 

designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-67 

crosses the tip of Bowditch Point 

and follows the center of Estero 

Pass (which coincides with a portion 

of the boundaries of adjacent Unit 

P17A). From this point, the eastern 

boundary crosses San Carlos Bay, 

and generally follows the center 

of Pelican Bay and the edge of a 

canal west of a developed area. The 

landward boundary roughly follows 

a break in vegetation, the western 

side of a road, and the northern 

edge of mangroves. This boundary 

then follows the western edge of a 

channel across from development 

and includes developing shoals in the 

Caloosahatchee River to the east of 

Shell Point. The western boundary 

follows a channel between Big and 

Little Shell Islands and Shell Point, 

cuts straight south through San 

Carlos Bay to the east of Miguel 

Key, roughly follows the break-indevelopment in Punta Rassa, and 

cuts through an accreting island 

and developing shoals in San Carlos 

Bay. The excluded area boundary 

generally follows the shoreline of 

Connie Mack Island, the north side 

of State Highway 867, and a breakin-development.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The eastern boundary of Unit 

FL-67 is adjusted to be coincident 

with the proposed boundaries of 

adjacent Unit P17A, to include a 

small undeveloped island in Pelican 

Bay and mangroves, and to follow 

the western edge of a canal and the 

boundaries of the proposed new 

otherwise protected area (OPA) Unit 

FL-67P. The landward boundary is 

adjusted to include mangroves on 

the north side of proposed 

Unit FL-67P, to follow the southern 

shoreline of an unnamed pond and 

the boundaries of proposed Unit 

FL-67P, to align more precisely with 

the western side of a road, and to 

include mangroves. The western 

boundary is adjusted to include Big 

and Little Shell Islands, to follow 

more precisely the 1990 break-indevelopment in Punta Rassa, and 

to include an accreting island and 

developing shoals in San Carlos 

Bay. The excluded area boundary is 

adjusted to follow the Connie Mack 

Island shoreline. The southeastern 

portion of the boundary is adjusted 

to follow more precisely the north 

side of State Highway 867 and the 

1990 break-in-development. 

Additional Comments: In 1990, the 

unit name was incorrectly identified 

as “Bunch Beach” because the U.S. 

Geological Survey topographic 

base map contained a typographical 

error. Research has revealed 

that the correct name is spelled 

“Bunche Beach,” and this has been 

corrected on the draft map. There 

are two parks located partially 

within Unit FL-67. The San Carlos 

Bay – Bunche Beach Preserve, 

managed by the Lee County Parks 

and Recreation Department, was 

originally established in 1949, when 

it consisted of a single beachfront 

acre within what would become 

Unit FL-67 in 1990. Between 2002 

and 2006, more than 7,880 acres 

were added to the park. Of those, 

approximately 5,995 are within 

the current boundary of Unit 

FL-67. Because all land except 

the beachfront acre was added to 

San Carlos Bay – Bunche Beach 

Preserve after Unit FL-67 was 

established, those portions of the 

preserve that are within Unit 

FL-67 are not being proposed for 

reclassification as an OPA. Estero 

Bay Preserve State Park, managed 

by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection was first 

acquired by the State of Florida in 

1987. After 1987, many additional 

acres were added to the park. 

Because the dates of acquisition 

are unavailable for the Estero Bay 

Preserve State Park parcels within 

Unit FL-67, those portions are not 

being proposed for reclassification 

as an OPA. The northern and 

eastern boundaries of Unit P17A are 

contiguous with the boundaries of 

Unit FL-67. Unit P17A is proposed 

to be expanded into Unit FL-67 so 

that the appropriate landforms and 

their associated aquatic habitats 

will be within their discrete System 

units.

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-74
D75

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

FL-67, Bunche Beach, Florida (continued)

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 3,070.7 122.5 2,948.2 4.6 

Added to the 

CBRS 329.2 16.6 312.6 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 24.3 1.3 23.0 1

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 3,375.6 137.8 3,237.8 4.6 

Net Change 304.9 15.3 289.6 0.0 (1)

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Lee County property parcel information

D-75
D76

FL-67P 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-67P, 

Bunche Beach, Florida

Type of Unit: Proposed new 

otherwise protected area (OPA)

Location of Unit: North of Naples on 

the Gulf Coast, in Lee County

Congressional District: 14

Current CBRS Status: The proposed 

new OPA Unit FL-67P is not 

currently within the John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System 

(CBRS).

Otherwise Protected Area Criteria: 

Proposed new Unit FL-67P meets 

the Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act definition of an OPA. The 

San Carlos Bay – Bunche Beach 

Preserve, managed by the Lee 

County Parks and Recreation 

Department, was originally 

established in 1949, when it 

consisted of a single beachfront acre 

within what would become Unit 

FL-67 in 1990. Between 2002 

and 2006, more than 7,880 acres 

were added to the park. Of those, 

approximately 5,995 are within the 

current boundary of Unit FL-67.

Proposed Boundaries: The 

boundaries of the proposed new 

unit follow the boundaries of those 

portions of the San Carlos Bay 

– Bunche Beach Preserve that are 

not within System Unit FL-67. 

Additional Comments: There are no 

known private inholdings within the 

proposed new Unit FL-67P. Those 

portions of the San Carlos Bay 

– Bunche Beach Preserve that are 

within System Unit FL-67 are not 

being proposed for reclassification as 

an OPA because the land was in 

the CBRS before it was added to the 

Preserve.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 170.5 19.5 151.0 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 170.5 19.5 151.0 0.0 

Net Change 170.5 19.5 151.0 0.0 0

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Lee County property parcel information

D-76
D77

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-77
D78

P21

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P21, 

Bocilla Island, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of Punta 

Gorda Beach on the Gulf Coast, in 

Charlotte County

Congressional District: 13

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit:

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat to 

Unit P21, and created otherwise 

protected area (OPA) Unit P21P on 

the same map.

Existing Boundary Description: 

Unit P21 consists of three discrete 

segments.

Southern segment: The northern 

and southern boundaries cut 

straight across Little Gasparilla 

Island at the break-in-development. 

The landward boundary lies about 

a third of the way across Placida 

Harbor.

Middle segment: The southern 

boundary cuts across Little 

Gasparilla Island roughly at the 

break-in-development and follows 

the channel between two islands to 

the shoreline of the mainland. The 

landward boundary generally follows 

the wetland/fastland interface 

and the shoreline of the mainland. 

The northern boundary generally 

follows the eastern shoreline of 

Don Pedro Island and cuts through 

development on Don Pedro Island at 

the 1982 break-in-development.

Northern segment: The southern 

boundary cuts across the barrier, 

bisecting areas of development, 

and then crosses Lemon Bay to the 

mainland. The landward boundary 

roughly follows the wetland/fastland 

interface along the mainland. The 

northern boundary cuts across 

Lemon Bay, follows the center of 

Stump Pass, and cuts across the 

tip of a spit that has accreted into 

the unit. A portion of the northern 

boundary is also contiguous with the 

southern boundary of adjacent OPA 

Unit P21P.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

Southern segment: The southern 

boundary is aligned with digital 

property parcel data to follow 

more precisely the 1982 break-indevelopment and is extended to the 

mainland to include the associated 

aquatic habitat. The landward 

boundary is adjusted to follow 

the shoreline of the mainland and 

is connected with the landward 

boundary of the middle segment of 

Unit P21. The northern boundary 

connects with the middle segment, 

follows the Little Gasparilla Island 

shoreline, and is aligned with digital 

property parcel data to follow 

more precisely the 1982 break-indevelopment.

Middle Segment: The southern 

boundary is aligned with digital 

property parcel data to follow 

more precisely the 1982 breakin-development and connects 

with the southern segment. The 

landward boundary connects 

with the southern segment and is 

adjusted to follow more precisely the 

wetland/fastland interface and the 

shoreline. The northern boundary is 

adjusted to follow more precisely the 

shoreline of Don Pedro Island.

Northern segment: The southern 

boundary is aligned with digital 

property parcel data to follow 

more precisely the 1982 break-indevelopment. The landward 

boundary is adjusted to follow 

more precisely the wetland/fastland 

interface. The northern boundary 

is adjusted to include associated 

aquatic habitat north to State 

Highway 776, to follow the wetland/

fastland interface and the proposed 

boundaries of the adjacent Unit 

P21P.

Additional Comments: Open water 

that is currently within Unit P21P 

but is not held for conservation or 

recreation purposes, is proposed 

for reclassification from OPA Unit 

P21P to System Unit P21. Don 

Pedro Island State Park, managed 

by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, is 

located within Unit P21, but is not 

proposed for reclassification as an 

OPA because the park was acquired 

by the State of Florida in 1985, after 

Unit P21 was established.

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-78
D79

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System

P21, Bocilla Island, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 2,078.6 413.4 1,665.2 3.7 

Added to the 

CBRS 1,754.2 3.1 1,751.1 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 12.1 2.2 9.9 1

Reclassified Area 179.3 (1.8) 181.1 0.0

Proposed Unit 4,000.0 412.5 3,587.5 3.6 

Net Change 1,921.4 (0.9) 1,922.3 (0.1) (1)

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Charlotte County property parcel information

D-79
D80

P21P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P21P, 

Bocilla Island, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of Punta 

Gorda Beach on the Gulf Coast, in 

Charlotte County

Congressional District: 13

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit P21P since its 

designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Stump Pass Beach 

State Park, acquired by the Florida 

Department of Environmental 

Protection in 1971.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

southern boundary of Unit P21P 

cuts across a sandy spit accreting on 

the tip of the barrier, and follows the 

approximate center of an inlet. The 

eastern boundary lies in the open 

water of Lemon Bay. The northern 

boundary follows the center of a 

small river, and cuts across the 

primary barrier roughly at the 

break-in-development.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

southern boundary of Unit P21P is 

adjusted to the landward shoreline 

of the primary barrier to account 

for accretion of the island. The 

eastern and northern boundaries are 

adjusted to follow the shorelines of 

the islands making up Stump Pass 

Beach State Park, and to align it to 

the northern park boundary on the 

primary barrier where it is adjacent 

to private properties. A second 

segment of Unit P21P is proposed 

on the other side of Lemon Bay to 

include Cedar Point Environmental 

Park.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit P21P. The existing boundaries 

of Unit P21P include open water in 

Lemon Bay that is not part of Stump 

Pass Beach State Park. This open 

water is proposed for reclassification 

from OPA Unit P21P to System Unit 

P21.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 434.6 129.9 304.7 1.2 

Added to the 

CBRS 111.2 73.6 37.6 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area (179.3) 1.8 (181.1) 0.0

Proposed Unit 366.5 205.3 161.2 1.2 

Net Change (68.1) 75.4 (143.5) 0.0 0

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Charlotte County property parcel information

D-80
D81

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-81
D82

P22

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P22, 

Casey Key, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of St. 

Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in 

Sarasota County

Congressional District: 13

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982 

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

wetlands to Unit P22.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit P22 

crosses the barrier island generally 

at the break-in-development, 

roughly follows the channel around 

Bird Keys, and crosses Little 

Sarasota Bay until it reaches the 

shoreline of the mainland. The 

landward boundary follows the 

wetland/fastland interface. The 

southern boundary crosses Little 

Sarasota Bay and cuts across the 

barrier island at the break-indevelopment.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

P22 is aligned with digital property 

parcel data and follows more 

precisely the eastern edge of the 

channel separating Siesta Key from 

Bird Keys. The landward boundary 

is adjusted to follow more precisely 

the wetland/fastland interface.

Additional Comments: There are 

two parks located within Unit 

P22. The Jim Neville Marine 

Preserve and Palmer Point Park 

were deeded to Sarasota County for 

conservation on August 14, 1980. 

Although these lands were held for 

conservation when Unit P22 was 

established in 1982, these parks are 

not proposed for reclassification as 

an otherwise protected area because 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

records indicate that, in 1982, it was 

known that the county owned the 

lands for these parks, and Congress 

still chose to adopt the Unit P22 

boundaries.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 618.7 89.7 529.0 0.8 

Added to the 

CBRS 31.3 0.8 30.5 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 4.6 0.0 4.6 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 645.4 90.5 554.9 0.8 

Net Change 26.7 0.8 25.9 0.0 0

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Sarasota County property parcel information

D-82
D83

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-83
D84

FL-72P 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-72P, 

Lido Key, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Southeast of 

Sarasota on the Gulf Coast, in 

Sarasota County

Congressional District: 13

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/2/1994: P.L. 103-461 modified the 

northwestern boundaries of OPA 

Unit FL-72P to include only areas 

that were undeveloped at the time 

the unit was established.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Otter Key and 

South Lido Park, both owned by 

the Sarasota County Parks and 

Recreation Department.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northwestern boundary of Unit 

FL-72P roughly follows the 

boundaries of Otter Key and South 

Lido Park. To the north, west, and 

south, the boundaries are in open 

water off the coast of Otter Key and 

South Lido Park. The southern 

boundary follows Big Sarasota Pass. 

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northwestern portion of the 

boundary of Unit FL-72P is aligned 

more precisely with the boundaries 

of Otter Key and South Lido Park. 

The southern boundary is shifted 

to remain parallel to the adjusted 

northwestern boundary in the Gulf 

of Mexico.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-72P.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 344.1 135.6 208.5 0.3 

Added to the 

CBRS 3.4 2.8 0.6 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 2.0 1.7 0.3 2

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Proposed Unit 345.5 136.7 208.8 0.3 

Net Change 1.4 1.1 0.3 0.0 (2)

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Sarasota County property parcel information

D-84
D85

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-85
D86

FL-73P 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-73P, 

De Soto, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of St. 

Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in 

Manatee County

Congressional District: 13

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: 

There have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-73P since its 

designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: De Soto National 

Memorial, owned by the National 

Park Service since 1948.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

boundaries of Unit FL-73P roughly 

follow the boundaries of the De Soto 

National Memorial.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The boundaries of Unit FL-73P 

are aligned more precisely with 

the boundaries of De Soto National 

Memorial. This includes the 

addition of an adjacent parcel to the 

south, owned by Manatee County 

and managed as part of the national 

memorial.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-73P. The open water 

component of the existing Unit 

FL-73P is proposed for 

reclassification to System Unit 

FL-78 because the boundary of 

System Unit FL-78 is proposed to 

include the entire Manatee River 

Channel.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 162.1 21.6 140.5 0.6 

Added to the 

CBRS 13.7 12.9 0.8 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area (137.8) 0.0 (137.8) 0.0

Proposed Unit 38.0 34.5 3.5 0.7 

Net Change (124.1) 12.9 (137.0) 0.1 0

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Manatee County property parcel information

D-86
D87

FL-78 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-78, 

Rattlesnake Key, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of St. 

Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in 

Manatee County

Congressional District: 13

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-78 since its 

designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit FL-78 

crosses through Big Migual Pass and 

Migual Bay. The landward boundary 

continues across Critical Bayou, 

roughly follows the wetland/fastland 

interface on Terra Ceia Island, and 

crosses Terra Ceia Bay to include 

several small keys. The southern 

boundary generally follows the 

shoreline of Snead Island and the 

edge of mangroves on the island 

and appears to follow the break-indevelopment before continuing into 

the Manatee River where it turns 

west and extends past Snead Island.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The landward boundary of Unit 

FL-78 is adjusted to follow more 

precisely the wetland/fastland 

interface on Terra Ceia Island. The 

southern boundary is adjusted to 

follow more precisely the Snead 

Island shoreline, to exclude a parcel 

which was developed at the time 

Unit FL-78 was established, and to 

follow more precisely the wetland/

fastland interface and the edge of 

mangroves. The southern boundary 

is also adjusted to include the entire 

Manatee River channel within Unit 

FL-78.

Additional Comments: The open 

water component of the existing 

Unit FL-73P, which is not held for 

conservation or recreation purposes, 

is proposed for reclassification from 

otherwise protected area (OPA) to 

System Unit status as part of Unit 

FL-78 because the Unit FL-78 

boundary is adjusted to include the 

entire Manatee River channel 

within the unit. Emerson Point 

Park, managed by Manatee County, 

is located partially within Unit 

FL-78, but is not proposed for 

reclassification as an OPA because 

the park was acquired by the State 

of Florida in 1991 after Unit FL-78 

was established.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 3,067.9 111.8 2,956.1 4.1 

Added to the 

CBRS 279.7 1.3 278.4 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 5.3 4.5 0.8 1

Reclassified Area 137.8 0.0 137.8 0.0

Proposed Unit 3,480.1 108.6 3,371.5 4.1 

Net Change 412.2 (3.2) 415.4 0.0 (1)

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998, 1999 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Manatee County property parcel information

D-87
D88

FL-78P 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-78P, 

Rattlesnake Key, Florida

Type of Unit: Proposed new 

otherwise protected area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of St. 

Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in 

Manatee County

Congressional District: 13

Current CBRS Status: The proposed 

new OPA Unit FL-78P is not 

currently within the John H. Chafee 

Coastal Barrier Resources System.

Otherwise Protected Area Criteria:

Proposed new Unit FL-78P meets 

the Coastal Barrier Improvement 

Act definition of an OPA. Emerson 

Point Park, managed by Manatee 

County, was acquired for 

conservation by the State of Florida 

in 1991.

Proposed Boundaries: The 

boundaries of proposed new Unit 

FL-78P follow the boundaries of 

those portions of Emerson Point 

Park that are not within Unit 

FL-78. However, a small tract 

on the eastern end of the park is 

separated from the main body of 

the park by an undeveloped private 

property. Neither the private 

property nor the separate tract of 

park property is included in the 

proposed OPA. 

Additional Comments: There are no 

known private inholdings within the 

proposed new Unit FL-78P.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 12.2 6.2 6.0 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 12.2 6.2 6.0 0.0 

Net Change 12.2 6.2 6.0 0.0 0

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Manatee County property parcel information

D-88
D89

FL-82

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-82, 

Bishop Harbor, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of St. 

Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in 

Manatee County

Congressional District: 11

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-82 since its 

designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

FL-82 starts in open water, and 

when the boundary reaches land, 

it follows the wetland/fastland 

interface along Redfish Creek. The 

landward boundary roughly follows 

a road for a short distance in the 

northern section and then various 

natural features, including changes 

in vegetation (such as the edge of 

mangroves and the wetland/fastland 

interface). The landward boundary 

also cuts across Bishop Harbor, 

Clambar Bay, and Williams Bayou. 

The southern boundary generally 

follows the northern edge of 

Interstate Highway 275 and extends 

out into open water.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

northern boundary of Unit FL-82 is 

adjusted to follow more precisely the 

edge of mangroves. The landward 

boundary is adjusted to follow more 

precisely the road in the north, and 

changes in vegetation including 

the edges of mangroves, and the 

wetland/fastland interface.

Additional Comments: Terra Ceia 

Preserve State Park is partially 

located within Unit FL-82, but is 

not proposed for reclassification 

as an otherwise protected area 

(OPA) because the State park was 

not established until July 1, 2004, 

after the designation of Unit FL82. Portions of the park are the 

area that was previously Terra Ceia 

Aquatic Preserve. This area is not 

proposed for reclassification a

as an OPA because Volume 15 of 

the Department of the Interior’s 

1988 Report to Congress: Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System stated 

that in Florida, Aquatic Preserves 

and Outstanding Florida Waters do 

not meet the definition of “otherwise 

protected”.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 1,719.7 89.3 1,630.4 5.1 

Added to the 

CBRS 32.1 0.0 32.1 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 26.1 16.1 10.0 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 1,725.7 73.2 1,652.5 5.1 

Net Change 6.0 (16.1) 22.1 0.0 0

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Manatee County property parcel information

D-89
D90

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-90
D91

FL-80P 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-80P, 

Passage Key, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Tampa Bay on the 

Gulf Coast, in Manatee County

Congressional District: 13

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-80P since its 

designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Passage Key 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), 

owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The boundaries of Unit FL-80P lie 

entirely in open water to include the 

land and developing shoals of the 

Passage Key NWR.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

southern boundary of Unit FL-80P 

is adjusted further south to include 

all of the sandy shoals developing off 

the southern end of Passage Key.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-80P.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 655.2 3.2 652.0 1.6 

Added to the 

CBRS 82.4 0.0 82.4 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 737.6 3.2 734.4 1.8 

Net Change 82.4 0.0 82.4 0.2 N/A

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-91
D92

FL-81 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-81, 

Egmont Key, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of St. 

Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in 

Hillsborough County

Congressional District: 11

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act, or CBIA, 

(P.L. 101-591) enacted on 11/16/1990 

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-81 since its 

designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: Unit 

FL-81 consists of two segments, 

described here as the northern and 

southern segments. 

Northern segment: The northern 

and eastern boundaries are in 

open water around the northern 

tip of Egmont Key. The southern 

boundary cuts across Egmont 

Key at roughly the boundary of 

the Egmont Key National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR). 

Southern segment: The boundaries 

of the southern segment roughly 

follow the boundaries of the 

property owned by the Tampa Bay 

Pilots Association.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

Northern segment: The southern 

boundary is adjusted to align more 

precisely with the northern 

boundary of the Egmont Key 

NWR, which is also the boundary of 

adjacent otherwise protected area 

(OPA) Unit FL-81P. 

Southern segment: The northern, 

western, and southern boundaries 

are adjusted to align more precisely 

with the boundaries of the Tampa 

Bay Pilots Association property. 

The eastern boundary is adjusted to 

follow the shoreline.

Additional Comments: The northern 

tip of the island belongs to the U.S. 

Coast Guard for the maintenance 

of a lighthouse. Arrangements 

between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Florida Department 

of Environmental Protection (DEP) 

and between the Coast Guard and 

the DEP allows the entire island, 

other than the Tampa Bay Pilots 

Association property and the 

lighthouse facility, to be managed 

by the DEP as Egmont Key State 

Park. Not enough information 

has been collected at this time to 

determine whether the Coast Guard 

property should be reclassified as 

an OPA under this arrangement. 

Volume 15 of the Department of the 

Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress : 

Coastal Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions to 

or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, did not 

recommend including the Tampa 

Bay Pilots Association property 

within Unit FL-81. However, the 

map adopted by Congress with the 

enactment of the CBIA included this 

property within Unit FL-81. Section 

5(a)(6) of P.L. 101-591 allows Federal 

expenditures to be made available 

for the operation and maintenance of 

“water navigation aids and devices, 

and for access thereto,” if they are 

consistent with the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act of 1982.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 301.6 39.2 262.4 0.9 

Added to the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Reclassified Area (4.7) (1.0) (3.7) 0.0

Proposed Unit 296.9 38.2 258.7 0.9 

Net Change (4.7) (1.0) (3.7) 0.0 N/A

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure countnot conducted; no fastland added or removed

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-92
D93

FL-81P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-81P, 

Egmont Key, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: South of St. 

Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in 

Hillsborough County

Congressional District: 11

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to Unit 

FL-81P since its designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Egmont Key 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), 

owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service since 1974.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

FL-81P crosses Egmont Key 

at approximately the northern 

boundary of the Egmont Key 

NWR. At the Tampa Bay side of 

the shore, the boundary turns south 

and follows the shoreline. It briefly 

turns inland again to exclude land 

owned by the Tampa Bay Pilots 

Association, returns to following the 

shoreline, and turns out to the Gulf 

of Mexico past the southern tip of 

the island.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-81P 

is moved off the shoreline as far as 

the eastern boundary of adjacent 

System Unit FL-81 in order to 

avoid future map revisions due to 

shoreline changes. The southern 

boundary is adjusted to include 

shoals developing off of the southern 

tip of Egmont Key. The remaining 

boundaries of Unit FL-81P are 

aligned more precisely to the 

boundaries of Egmont Key NWR.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-81P.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 289.7 208.2 81.5 1.7 

Added to the 

CBRS 536.4 9.7 526.7 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 4.7 1.0 3.7 0.0

Proposed Unit 830.8 218.9 611.9 1.9 

Net Change 541.1 10.7 530.4 0.2 0

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Hillsborough County property parcel information 

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-93
D94

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-94
D95

FL-83

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-83, 

Cockroach Bay, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: Southeast of St. 

Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in 

Hillsborough County

Congressional District: 11

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to Unit FL-83 

since its designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit FL-83 

cuts through open water northeast 

of Sand Key, and crosses the barrier 

at the break-in-development. The 

landward boundary roughly follows 

the edge of mangroves, a portion 

of the Cockroach Bay shoreline, 

and a levee that is located south 

of Cockroach Bay. The southern 

boundary generally follows the levee 

and Piney Point Creek.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

landward boundary of Unit FL-83 

is adjusted to follow more precisely 

the eastern edge of mangroves, the 

Cockroach Bay shoreline, and the 

northern edge of the levee. The 

southern boundary is adjusted to 

follow more precisely the northern 

edge of a levee and the southern 

shoreline of Piney Point Creek.

Additional Comments: Cockroach 

Bay Preserve State Park is partially 

located within Unit FL-83, but is 

not proposed for reclassification 

as an otherwise protected area 

(OPA) because the state park was 

not established until July 1, 2004, 

after the designation of Unit FL83. Portions of the park are the 

area that was previously Cockroach 

Bay Aquatic Preserve. This area 

is not proposed for reclassification 

as an OPA because Volume 15 of 

the Department of the Interior’s 

1988 Report to Congress: Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System stated 

that in Florida, Aquatic Preserves 

and Outstanding Florida Waters do 

not meet the definition of “otherwise 

protected”. Two sites acquired 

through Hillsborough County’s 

Environmental Lands Acquisition 

and Protection Program (ELAPP) 

are also located partially within 

Unit FL-83. The parcels in the 

“Cockroach Bay” ELAPP site were 

acquired between 1989 and 2004, 

and the “Cockroach and Piney Point 

Creeks” ELAPP site was acquired 

in 2004. The purpose of ELAPP is 

to acquire, preserve, and protect 

endangered and environmentally 

sensitive lands in Hillsborough 

County. Although some of the 

parcels within the “Cockroach Bay” 

ELAPP site were acquired before 

Unit FL-83 was established, they 

are not proposed at this time for 

reclassification from 

System unit to OPA status because 

insufficient information is available 

on the location of these parcels. 

The “Cockroach and Piney Point 

Creeks” site is also not proposed 

for reclassification from System 

unit to OPA status because this site 

was acquired for conservation or 

recreation purposes after Unit FL83 was established in 1990.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 3,292.5 88.0 3,204.5 5.6 

Added to the 

CBRS 54.5 12.0 42.5 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 16.2 6.7 9.5 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 3,330.8 93.3 3,237.5 5.6 

Net Change 38.3 5.3 33.0 0.0 0

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Hillsborough County property parcel information 

D-95
D96

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-96
D97

FL-85P 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-85P, 

Sand Key, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: West of Tampa on 

the Gulf Coast, in Pinellas County

Congressional District: 10

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to Unit FL85P since its designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Sand Key Park, 

owned by the Pinellas County 

Parks and Recreation Department 

since 1984. Public beach walks and 

sailing school managed by the City 

of Clearwater since approximately 

1991.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

northern boundary of Unit FL-85P 

cuts generally through Clearwater 

Pass. The landward boundary 

generally follows the center of 

the Intracoastal Waterway. The 

southern boundary roughly follows 

the boundaries of Sand Key Park.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

southern boundary of Unit FL-85P 

is aligned more precisely to the 

boundaries of Sand Key Park and 

the City of Clearwater property. 

The northern and southern 

boundaries are extended into the 

Gulf of Mexico to include the entire 

peninsula.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-85P.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 528.2 97.9 430.3 0.8 

Added to the 

CBRS 11.1 2.6 8.5 14

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 539.3 100.5 438.8 0.8 

Net Change 11.1 2.6 8.5 0.0 1

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Pinellas County property parcel information 

4

 According to the Clearwater Community Sailing Center, this structure is a sailing center owned by the City of Clearwater for public recreation 

purposes

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-97
D98

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-98
D99

P26

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit P26, 

Pepperfish Keys, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: West of Gainesville 

on the Gulf Coast, in Dixie County

Congressional District: 2

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982 

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit P26 since its 

designation in 1982.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

boundary of Unit P26 falls entirely 

in open water around the three 

islands making up Pepperfish Keys.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

landward boundary of Unit P26 is 

adjusted northward to include the 

associated aquatic habitat located 

behind Pepperfish Keys.

Additional Comments: The 

associated aquatic habitat behind 

Pepperfish Keys extends onto the 

mainland; however, the proposed 

Unit P26 boundary does not include 

the associated aquatic habitat on 

the mainland because it is within the 

Jena Unit of the Big Bend Wildlife 

Management Area. At this time, 

the associated aquatic habitat within 

the wildlife management area is not 

proposed for addition to the John H. 

Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System as an otherwise protected 

area (OPA) because sufficient 

information has not been collected to 

determine its eligibility as an OPA. 

The Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic 

Preserve is located along some 

150 miles of the northeast Florida 

Gulf of Mexico coast, including the 

waters surrounding Pepperfish 

Keys. This aquatic preserve is not 

proposed for reclassification as 

an OPA because Volume 15 of the 

Department of the Interior’s 

1988 Report to Congress: Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions to 

or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System stated 

that in Florida, Aquatic Preserves 

and Outstanding Florida Waters do 

not meet the definition of “otherwise 

protected.”

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 683.8 0.0 683.8 3.1 

Added to the 

CBRS 501.3 0.0 501.3 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Proposed Unit 1,185.1 0.0 1,185.1 3.1 

Net Change 501.3 0.0 501.3 0.0 N/A

1

 Land above mean high tide

2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-99
D100

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-100
D101

FL-89 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-89, 

Peninsula Point, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of 

Tallahassee on the Gulf Coast, in 

Franklin County

Congressional District: 2

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act, or CBIA 

(P.L. 101-591), enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: 

2/24/1997: Unit FL-89 boundaries 

expanded northward and westward 

to include areas of accretion in the 

unit in accordance with Section 

4(c) of P.L. 101-591, which states 

that System unit boundaries are to 

be reviewed every five years and 

modified to reflect changes caused 

by natural forces.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-89 cuts 

across Peninsula Point. The 

landward boundary lies entirely 

within open water in Alligator 

Harbor. The western boundary 

passes through open water to the 

west of Peninsula Point.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The eastern boundary of Unit 

FL-89 is adjusted to exclude a 

structure that was on-the-ground 

in 1990 when Unit FL-89 was 

established. The landward and 

western boundaries are adjusted to 

account for the northward accretion 

of Alligator Point, and follow the 

wetland/fastland interface along the 

mainland.

Additional Comments: Most of 

the land on Alligator Point within 

Unit FL-89 was owned by The 

Nature Conservancy prior to the 

designation of Unit FL-89 in 1990. 

The Department of the Interior’s 

1988 Report to Congress: Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions to 

or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System included 

comments from the State of Florida 

that supported the designation 

of privately owned land held for 

conservation purposes as System 

units and not as otherwise protected 

areas in order to prohibit the 

availability of Federal funds should 

the land ever be sold by private 

owners for development. Congress 

then enacted the CBIA that 

established the area as System Unit 

FL-89. 

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 639.8 34.2 605.6 1.7 

Added to the 

CBRS 671.6 0.3 671.3 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 22.5 0.3 22.2 1

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 1,288.9 34.2 1,254.7 2.6 

Net Change 649.1 0.0 649.1 0.9 (1)

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Franklin County property parcel information 

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-101
D102

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-102
D103

FL-93 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-93, 

Phillips Inlet, Florida

Type of Unit: Proposed new System 

unit

Location of Unit: Northwest of 

Panama City on the Gulf Coast, in 

Bay County

Congressional District: 2

Current CBRS Status: Most of 

the proposed new Unit FL-93 is 

currently within the boundaries of 

otherwise protected area (OPA) Unit 

FL-93P.

System Unit Criteria: Areas of 

proposed new Unit FL-93 that are 

currently within Unit FL-93P met 

the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

(CBRA) definition and criteria of 

an undeveloped coastal barrier at 

the time they were first included 

within the John H. Chafee Coastal 

Barrier Resources System (CBRS) 

in 1990. Areas of proposed new 

Unit FL-93 that are currently not 

within the CBRS currently meet the 

CBRA definition and criteria of an 

undeveloped coastal barrier. The 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is 

not aware of the existence of a full 

complement of infrastructure in this 

area at the time the area was first 

included within the CBRS. 

Proposed Boundaries: The eastern 

boundary of the proposed new 

unit is aligned to digital property 

parcel data. The northern 

boundary precisely follows the 

southern edge of the highway. The 

western boundary is aligned to the 

boundaries of Camp Helen State 

Park. This boundary is coincident 

with the proposed eastern boundary 

of adjacent OPA Unit FL-93P.

Additional Comments: The 

portions of proposed new Unit 

FL-93 currently within FL-93P are 

proposed for reclassification because 

they are not held for conservation or 

recreation, are not inholdings, 

and met the CBRA definition of 

and criteria for an undeveloped 

coastal barrier at the time they were 

established within the OPA.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 4.0 1.9 2.1 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0

Reclassified Area 126.7 35.7 91.0 0.2

Proposed Unit 130.7 37.6 93.1 0.2 

Net Change 130.7 37.6 93.1 0.2 0

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2003 Bay County property parcel information 

D-103
D104

FL-93P

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-93P, 

Phillips Inlet, Florida

Type of Unit: Otherwise protected 

area (OPA)

Location of Unit: Northwest of 

Panama City on the Gulf Coast, in 

Bay County

Congressional District: 2

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-93P since its 

designation in 1990.

Underlying Conservation/Recreation 

Area(s) in OPA: Camp Helen State 

Park, acquired by the Florida 

Department of Environmental 

Protection in 1996.

Existing Boundary Description: 

It is not clear what the existing 

boundaries of Unit FL-93P follow. 

Volume 15 of the Department of the 

Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress 

shows the boundaries on an outdated 

U.S. Geological Survey topographic 

base map. The western boundary 

follows the Bay County boundary 

for a short distance inland from the 

shoreline. It intermittently follows 

U.S. Highway 98 and what may be 

contour lines around an area 

shown on the base map as wetlands, 

excluding an area of development, 

then follows the U.S. Highway 

98 bridge across the inlet. At the 

southeast corner of the unit, the 

boundary takes an irregular path 

back to the Gulf of Mexico.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

western and eastern boundaries of 

Unit FL-93P are adjusted to align 

with the boundaries of Camp Helen 

State Park, including significant 

areas not currently within the OPA, 

and removing privately owned land 

that is not held for conservation or 

recreation and is not an inholding 

of Camp Helen State Park. The 

landward boundary is adjusted to 

follow the center of Powell Lake.

Additional Comments: There are 

no known private inholdings within 

Unit FL-93P. A corporate retreat 

called Camp Helen, owned by 

Avondale Textile Mills, had been 

in this area since 1945. It was sold 

in 1987 to private interests. The 

State of Florida purchased the 

land and established Camp Helen 

State Park in 1996. The base map 

used to delineate the boundaries 

in the 1988 Report to Congress: 

Coastal Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System was 

outdated and does not show 

significant condominium 

development in the southeast corner 

of the unit that existed when the 

area was established within the 

OPA. Currently, the OPA includes 

an area of privately held associated 

aquatic habitat and fastland that 

are outside the Camp Helen State 

Park boundary and not held for 

conservation or recreation purposes. 

The area is not an inholding and met 

the CBRA definition of and criteria 

for an undeveloped coastal barrier 

at the time it was established within 

the OPA. Therefore this area is 

proposed for reclassification from 

OPA Unit FL-93P to System Unit 

FL-93.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 241.9 82.9 159.0 0.6 

Added to the 

CBRS 157.1 94.8 62.3 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 13.4 12.0 1.4 6

Reclassified Area (126.7) (35.7) (91.0) (0.2)

Proposed Unit 258.9 130.0 128.9 0.3 

Net Change 17.0 47.1 (30.1) (0.3) (6)

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2003 Bay County property parcel information 

D-104
D105

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-105
D106

FL-94 

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit FL-94, 

Deer Lake Complex, Florida

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: North of Panama 

City on the Gulf Coast, in Walton 

County

Congressional District: 2

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990 

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to the 

boundaries of Unit FL-94 since its 

designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-94 

generally follows the shoreline of 

Camp Creek Lake and the southern 

edge of State Highway 30A. The 

northern boundary follows the break 

between the sand and vegetated 

areas. The western boundary 

generally follows 

the western edge of an unnamed 

lake on the west side of Deer Lake, 

and extends straight out into the 

Gulf of Mexico once it reaches the 

southern edge of the lake.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 

eastern boundary of Unit FL-94 is 

aligned with digital property parcel 

data and is adjusted to follow more 

precisely the Camp Creek Lake 

shoreline. The northern boundary 

is aligned with the southern side of 

the State Highway 30A bridge over 

Camp Creek Lake and is adjusted 

to follow more precisely the break 

between the sand and vegetated 

areas and the shorelines of Camp 

Creek Lake and the unnamed lake 

on the west side of Deer Lake. The 

western boundary is adjusted to 

follow more precisely the shoreline 

of the unnamed lake on the west 

side of Deer Lake and is aligned 

with digital property parcel data to 

exclude development that was onthe-ground in 1990 when Unit FL-94 

was established.

Additional Comments: Deer Lake 

State Park is located partially within 

Unit FL-94, but is not proposed 

for reclassification as an otherwise 

protected area because the park was 

acquired on February 6, 1996, after 

the designation of Unit FL-94.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 265.7 89.2 176.5 1.8 

Added to the 

CBRS 3.2 1.4 1.8 0

Removed from the 

CBRS 17.2 12.0 5.2 11

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 251.7 78.6 173.1 1.7 

Net Change (14.0) (10.6) (3.4) (0.1) (11)

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3

 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Walton County property parcel information 

D-106
D107

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-107
D108

LA-01

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit LA-01, 

Isle au Pitre, Louisiana

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: East of New 

Orleans, in St. Bernard Parish

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to Unit LA-01 

since its designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The boundary of Unit LA-01 falls 

entirely in open water around the 

three islands making up the unit.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

There are no proposed changes to 

the boundary of Unit LA-01.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 5,029.6 12.8 5,016.8 6.1 

Added to the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 5,029.6 12.8 5,016.8 6.1 

Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

D-108
D109

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-109
D110

LA-02

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit LA-02,

Grand Island, Louisiana

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: East of New 

Orleans, in St. Bernard Parish

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101-

591) enacted on 11/16/1990

Historical Changes to Unit: There 

have been no changes to Unit LA-02 

since its designation in 1990.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The boundary of Unit LA-02 falls 

entirely in open water around the 

two islands making up the unit. The 

northern boundary follows the State 

boundary between Mississippi and 

Louisiana. 

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

There are no proposed changes to 

the boundaries of Unit LA-02.

Additional Comments: According 

to the 1994 U. S. Geological Survey 

topographic map titled Saint Joe 

Pass, the name of the large island 

within Unit LA-02 has changed from 

Grand Island to Half Moon Island.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 6,013.6 0.0 6,013.6 2.4 

Added to the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 6,013.6 0.0 6,013.6 2.4 

Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-110
D111

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-111
D112

S04

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit S04, 

Timbalier Bay, Louisiana

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of New 

Orleans, in Lafourche Parish

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 modified 

Unit S04 to add associated aquatic 

habitat. In addition, the eastern 

portion of Unit S04 was added to 

Unit S03.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The eastern boundary of Unit S04 

generally follows the center of Belle 

Pass, and the western side of Bayou 

Lafourche, switching to the eastern 

side of Bayou Lafourche after the 

point where it meets a flotation 

canal. The northern boundary 

roughly follows the center of 

Havoline Canal and a small stream 

that connects Havoline Canal and 

Devils Bay, and then the boundary 

passes through Devils Bay. The 

western boundary crosses through 

Timbalier Bay. A portion of the 

western boundary once passed 

through East Timbalier Island. The 

island has eroded, and the boundary 

now lies in open water with all of 

East Timbalier Island to the west. 

Also, a portion of the western 

boundary is contiguous with the 

eastern boundary of adjacent Unit 

S05.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The eastern portion of the Unit S04 

boundary that follows Belle Pass is 

adjusted to include the entire Belle 

Pass channel. The eastern portion 

of the boundary that follows Bayou 

Lafourche north of the 

flotation canal is adjusted to align 

with the eastern shoreline of Bayou 

Lafourche. The northern portion of 

the boundary that follows Havoline 

Canal is adjusted to include the 

entire Havoline Canal channel. The 

northern portion of the boundary 

following the small stream that 

connects Havoline Canal and Devils 

Bay is adjusted to align with the 

northern shoreline of that stream.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 10,425.5 32.8 10,392.7 3.5 

Added to the 

CBRS 170.6 0.0 170.6 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.1 0.0 0.1 N/A

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 10,596.0 32.8 10,563.2 3.6 

Net Change 170.5 0.0 170.5 0.1 N/A

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-112
D113

S05

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit S05, 

Timbalier Islands, Louisiana

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of New 

Orleans, in Terrebonne and 

Lafourche Parishes

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat and East 

Timbalier Island to Unit S05.

Existing Boundary Description: The 

boundary of Unit S05 falls mostly in 

open water. The eastern boundary 

once passed through East Timbalier 

Island. The island has eroded, 

and the boundary now lies in open 

water with all of East Timbalier 

Island to the west. Also, the eastern 

boundary is contiguous with a 

portion of the western boundary 

of adjacent System Unit S04. The 

northern boundary runs through 

Timbalier and Terrebonne Bays, 

leaving about one mile of open 

water behind Timbalier and East 

Timbalier Islands. The western 

boundary once ran through open 

water; however, Timbalier Island 

has accreted westward so that the 

boundary now cuts across the tip of 

the island.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit 

S05 is adjusted to account for the 

northward accretion of a small 

island within the unit. The western 

boundary is adjusted to account for 

the westward accretion of Timbalier 

Island.

Additional Comments: The proposed 

changes to the northern boundary 

will add an oil platform to Unit 

S05. Section 6(a)(1) of P.L. 101-

591 allows the use of Federal 

expenditures and financial assistance 

for “[a]ny 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.”

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 17,723.3 355.7 17,367.6 17.8 

Added to the 

CBRS 732.5 0.0 732.5 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 18,455.8 355.7 18,100.1 18.4 

Net Change 732.5 0.0 732.5 0.6 N/A

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-113
D114

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-114
D115

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-115
D116

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-116
D117

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-117
D118

S06

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit S06, 

Isles Dernieres, Louisiana

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of New 

Orleans, in Terrebonne Parish

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P. L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat to Unit 

S06.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The eastern boundary of Unit S06 

generally follows Wine Island Pass. 

The northern boundary crosses 

through Lake Pelto about one mile 

north of Isles Dernieres, turns north 

at Whiskey Pass, follows channels 

for the most part through the 

wetlands, and heads south through 

Caillou Bay until the boundary is 

about one mile north of Raccoon 

Island where it turns west. The 

western boundary lies in open water 

west of Raccoon Island.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The northern boundary of Unit S06 

from near the point where it turns 

north at Whiskey Pass through the 

wetlands is adjusted to include the 

entire channel. The western portion 

of Raccoon Island has migrated 

northward. Therefore, the boundary 

north of Raccoon Island is adjusted 

to be approximately one mile from 

the farthest landward extent of the 

island.

Additional Comments: Although 

Terrebonne Barrier Islands State 

Wildlife Refuge is within Unit 

S06, the refuge is not proposed for 

reclassification as an otherwise 

protected area because the refuge 

was not acquired by the State until 

1992.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3

Existing Unit 35,658.7 29.9 35,628.8 21.0 

Added to the 

CBRS 1,229.6 0.0 1,229.6 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 0.1 0.0 0.1 N/A

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 36,888.2 29.9 36,858.3 21.0 

Net Change 1,229.5 0.0 1,229.5 0.0 N/A

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-118
D119

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-119
D120

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-120
D121

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-121
D122

S07

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 

Resources System Unit S07, 

Point au Fer, Louisiana

Type of Unit: System unit

Location of Unit: South of Baton 

Rouge, in Terrebonne and St. Mary 

Parishes

Congressional District: 3

Establishment of Unit: Coastal 

Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) 

enacted on 10/18/1982

Historical Changes to Unit: 

11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added 

associated aquatic habitat to Unit 

S07 and removed that portion of 

the unit that was part of the Stateprotected Atchafalaya Delta Wildlife 

Management Area.

Existing Boundary Description: 

The eastern boundary of Unit S07 

generally follows the center of 

Pelican Pass, Taylors Bayou, Cross 

Bayou, and a small stream cutting 

through Tony Lake. From this 

point, the boundary cuts across 

Bay Junop and follows the center of 

Buckskin Bayou to Blue Hammock 

Bayou. The northern boundary 

follows the center of Blue Hammock 

Bayou to the west where 

it joins Fourleague Bay, and heads 

north through Fourleague Bay 

about one mile east of Point au Fer 

Island. Near the location where 

Fourleague Bay joins Atchafalaya 

Bay, there is a gap in the boundary. 

The Unit S07 boundary in Volume 

18 of the Department of the 

Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress: 

Coastal Barrier Resources System, 

Recommendations for Additions 

to or Deletions from the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System, 

continued northward through open 

water on a separate map, ended 

at the Terrebonne and St. Mary 

Parishes boundary, and then turned 

southward through open water. 

This separate map, however, was 

not adopted by Congress with the 

enactment of the Coastal Barrier 

Improvement Act of 1990, thereby 

leaving a gap in the boundary. The 

western boundary once followed 

Point au Fer Island shoreline, but 

because the island has eroded, the 

existing Unit S07 boundary now 

lies slightly offshore. The western 

boundary turns south into the Gulf 

of Mexico after passing the tip of 

Point au Fer Island.

Proposed Changes to Boundary: 

The eastern and northeastern 

portions of the Unit S07 boundary 

are adjusted to include in the unit 

the entire channels of Pelican Pass, 

Taylors Bayou, Cross Bayou, the 

small stream cutting through Tony 

Lake, Bay Junop, Buckskin Bayou, 

and Blue Hammock Bayou. The 

northern boundary is adjusted to 

connect the gap in the boundary, 

described above. The implied 

boundary on the current map for 

this area is the edge of the map, and 

therefore, the proposed boundary 

follows this line. The western 

boundary is adjusted to follow the 

Point au Fer Island shoreline.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Associated Aquatic 

Habitat Acres2 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 

Existing Unit 78,027.4 0.0 78,027.4 24.2 

Added to the 

CBRS 1,282.2 0.0 1,282.2 N/A

Removed from the 

CBRS 331.7 0.0 331.7 N/A

Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Proposed Unit 78,977.9 0.0 78,977.9 24.3 

Net Change 950.5 0.0 950.5 0.1 N/A

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

1

 Land above mean high tide

2

 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters

3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-122
D123

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-123
D124

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-124
D125

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-125
D126

Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/

habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D-126
1

APPENDIX E: PILOT PROJECT ACREAGE AND 

SHORELINE CHANGES

Digital Mapping Pilot Project

E-1

Unit

Total (acres) Fastland (acres) Associated Aquatic Habitat (acres) Shoreline (miles) 

Existing Proposed Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Change Existing Proposed Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Change Existing Proposed Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Change Existing Proposed Change

DE-07 0.0 5,380.2 197.1 0.0 5,380.2 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 5,280.2 197.1 0.0 5,280.2 0.0 0.5 0.5 

DE-07P 7,360.3 2,826.2 703.4 54.4 (4,534.1) 894.5 1,174.8 400.4 20.1 280.3 6,465.8 1,651.4 303.0 34.3 (4,814.4) 6.8 6.3 (0.5)

H01 167.7 166.7 4.2 5.2 (1.0) 150.1 145.6 0.1 4.6 (4.5) 17.6 21.1 4.1 0.6 3.5 0.7 0.7 0.0 

NC-01 7,174.4 7,188.7 21.7 7.4 14.3 432.9 444.6 18.9 7.2 11.7 6,741.5 6,744.1 2.8 0.2 2.6 0.4 0.4 0.0 

NC-05P 297.2 945.6 650.3 1.9 648.4 173.0 185.4 13.7 1.3 12.4 124.2 760.2 636.6 0.6 636.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

NC-06 0.0 8,162.5 2,770.2 0.0 8,162.5 0.0 196.2 47.0 0.0 196.2 0.0 7,966.3 2,723.2 0.0 7,966.3 0.0 1.7 1.7 

NC-06P 6,725.9 1,321.5 36.1 0.0 (5,404.4) 911.2 795.9 33.9 0.0 (115.3) 5,814.7 525.6 2.2 0.0 (5,289.1) 3.8 3.3 (0.5)

L05 3,045.6 6,441.6 3,299.2 0.0 3,396.0 729.2 873.7 144.5 0.0 144.5 2,316.4 5,567.9 3,154.7 0.0 3,251.5 10.3 10.4 0.1 L06 6,043.5 6,055.7 188.4 127.6 12.2 1,032.1 964.6 9.4 76.9 (67.5) 5,011.4 5,091.1 179.0 50.7 79.7 6.9 7.3 0.4 L07 5,989.8 7,277.8 1,323.0 35.0 1,288.0 103.1 185.0 81.9 0.0 81.9 5,886.7 7,092.8 1,241.1 35.0 1,206.1 5.5 5.8 0.3 L08 667.2 1,099.7 445.8 13.3 432.5 83.0 97.3 24.3 10.0 14.3 584.2 1,002.4 421.5 3.3 418.2 1.0 1.0 0.0 L09 6,587.7 6,750.6 213.4 50.5 162.9 526.3 490.7 0.0 35.6 (35.6) 6,061.4 6,259.9 213.4 14.9 198.5 9.9 10.0 0.1 

M02 88.1 436.7 348.6 0.0 348.6 25.3 26.7 1.4 0.0 1.4 62.8 410.0 347.2 0.0 347.2 1.1 1.1 0.0 M03 187.2 223.9 47.6 10.9 36.7 49.1 42.2 2.5 9.4 (6.9) 138.1 181.7 45.1 1.5 43.6 0.6 0.6 0.0 

FL-01 0.0 425.8 202.4 0.0 425.8 0.0 11.7 4.7 0.0 11.7 0.0 414.1 197.7 0.0 414.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 

FL-01P 2,008.8 1,970.5 186.8 1.7 (38.3) 1,105.4 1,247.0 148.6 0.0 141.6 903.4 723.5 38.2 1.7 (179.9) 1.3 1.3 0.0 

P04A 675.1 721.2 61.5 15.4 46.1 42.6 43.7 1.2 0.1 1.1 632.5 677.5 60.3 15.3 45.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 

P05 1,955.2 1,825.0 253.4 13.0 (130.2) 617.6 402.7 0.1 3.7 (214.9) 1,337.6 1,422.3 253.3 9.3 84.7 2.6 1.6 (1.0)

P05P 601.5 972.5 1.9 1.5 371.0 438.7 650.5 1.9 1.4 211.8 162.8 322.0 0.0 0.1 159.2 1.5 2.6 1.1 

P08 4,185.3 3,994.1 162.5 25.3 (191.2) 627.7 404.7 5.6 0.0 (223.0) 3,557.6 3,589.4 156.9 25.3 31.8 1.9 0.7 (1.2)

P08P 0.0 328.8 0.4 0.0 328.8 0.0 229.0 0.4 0.0 229.0 0.0 99.8 0.0 0.0 99.8 0.0 1.2 1.2 

FL-13P 178.2 176.4 2.2 4.0 (1.8) 139.8 138.8 2.2 3.2 (1.0) 38.4 37.6 0.0 0.8 (0.8) 0.8 0.8 0.0 

P09A 3,204.6 3,172.7 28.5 30.3 (31.9) 277.4 247.0 7.4 11.4 (30.4) 2,927.2 2,925.7 21.1 18.9 (1.5) 2.0 1.8 (0.2)

P09AP 0.0 89.9 59.8 0.0 89.9 0.0 77.6 51.2 0.0 77.6 0.0 12.3 8.6 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.7 0.7 

P10A 5,569.8 8,914.4 2,163.5 23.9 3,344.6 751.5 784.2 9.7 10.3 32.7 4,818.3 8,130.2 2,153.8 13.6 3,311.9 3.4 3.6 0.2 

FL-14P 2,578.0 1,570.6 215.3 17.7 (1,007.4) 231.6 205.1 15.7 8.9 (26.5) 2,346.4 1,365.5 199.6 8.8 (980.9) 0.7 0.7 0.0 

P11 16,124.2 16,102.4 66.6 72.2 (21.8) 676.9 646.8 3.1 25.5 (30.1) 15,447.3 15,455.6 63.5 46.7 8.3 9.2 9.0 (0.2)

P11P 0.0 16.5 0.3 0.0 16.5 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 7.7 0.0 8.8 0.3 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 

FL-15 218.4 208.6 6.8 16.6 (9.8) 84.2 84.0 1.7 1.9 (0.2) 134.2 124.6 5.1 14.7 (9.6) 1.0 1.0 0.0 

FL-16P 55.0 69.6 14.9 0.3 14.6 27.8 33.8 6 0.0 6.0 27.2 35.8 8.9 0.3 8.6 0.4 0.4 0.0 FL-17P 106.7 123.9 19.1 1.9 17.2 91.5 106.7 17.1 1.9 15.2 15.2 17.2 2 0.0 2.0 0.5 0.6 0.1FL-18P 853.7 851.7 2.0 4.0 (2.0) 295.0 292.5 0.8 3.3 (2.5) 558.7 559.2 1.2 0.7 0.5 1.6 1.6 0.0 

FL-19 0.0 9.4 0.9 0.0 9.4 0.0 4.7 0.6 0.0 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.3 0.0 4.7 0.0 0.4 0.4 
2

Unit

Total (acres) Fastland (acres) Associated Aquatic Habitat (acres) Shoreline (miles) 

Existing Proposed Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Change Existing Proposed Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Change Existing Proposed Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Change Existing Proposed Change

FL-19P 85.4 179.7 102.9 0.1 94.3 71.8 158.4 90.8 0.1 86.6 13.6 21.3 12.1 0.0 7.7 0.4 0.1 (0.3)FL-20P 398.3 344.9 0.3 53.7 (53.4) 233.5 202.7 0.0 30.8 (30.8) 164.8 142.2 0.3 22.9 (22.6) 2.6 2.2 (0.4)

P14A 108.1 149.8 42.2 0.5 41.7 61.3 64.6 3.3 0.0 3.3 46.8 85.2 38.9 0.5 38.4 0.8 0.8 0.0 

FL-39 1,196.6 1,291.3 101.5 6.8 94.7 57.9 58.2 1.7 1.4 0.3 1,138.7 1,233.1 99.8 5.4 94.4 1.4 1.4 0.0 FL-40 105.0 2,060.0 1,955.0 0.0 1,955.0 21.2 50.7 29.5 0.0 29.5 83.8 2,009.3 1,925.5 0.0 1,925.5 1.0 1.1 0.1 FL-43 1,187.0 1,187.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,172.5 1,172.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 FL-44 384.1 525.7 144.1 2.5 141.6 58.6 98.1 40.1 0.6 39.5 325.5 427.6 104.0 1.9 102.1 1.0 1.1 0.1 FL-45 1,443.3 1,977.6 543.3 9.0 534.3 388.8 529.6 140.9 0.1 140.8 1,054.5 1,448.0 402.4 8.9 393.5 1.0 1.8 0.8 FL-46 1,178.8 1,291.2 132.4 20.0 112.4 116.5 104.3 0.0 12.2 (12.2) 1,062.3 1,186.9 132.4 7.8 124.6 2.0 2.0 0.0 

FL-64P 555.3 572.6 65.1 47.8 17.3 27.9 5.8 2.0 24.1 (22.1) 527.4 566.8 63.1 23.7 39.4 2.2 1.9 (0.3)

P17A 29.7 61.5 32.1 0.3 31.8 15.3 16.2 0.9 0.0 0.9 14.4 45.3 31.2 0.3 30.9 0.2 0.4 0.2 

FL-67 3,070.7 3,375.6 329.2 24.3 304.9 122.5 137.8 16.6 1.3 15.3 2,948.2 3,237.8 312.6 23.0 289.6 4.6 4.6 0.0 

FL-67P 0.0 170.5 170.5 0.0 170.5 0.0 19.5 19.5 0.0 19.5 0.0 151.0 151.0 0.0 151.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

P21 2,078.6 4,000.0 1,754.2 12.1 1,921.4 413.4 412.5 3.1 2.2 (0.9) 1,665.2 3,587.5 1,751.1 9.9 1,922.3 3.7 3.6 (0.1)

P21P 434.6 366.5 111.2 0.0 (68.1) 129.9 205.3 73.6 0.0 75.4 304.7 161.2 37.6 0.0 (143.5) 1.2 1.2 0.0 

P22 618.7 645.4 31.3 4.6 26.7 89.7 90.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 529.0 554.9 30.5 4.6 25.9 0.8 0.8 0.0 

FL-72P 344.1 345.5 3.4 2.0 1.4 135.6 136.7 2.8 1.7 1.1 208.5 208.8 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 FL-73P 162.1 38.0 13.7 0.0 (124.1) 21.6 34.5 12.9 0.0 12.9 140.5 3.5 0.8 0.0 (137.0) 0.6 0.7 0.1 

FL-78 3,067.9 3,480.1 279.7 5.3 412.2 111.8 108.6 1.3 4.5 (3.2) 2,956.1 3,371.5 278.4 0.8 415.4 4.1 4.1 0.0 

FL-78P 0.0 12.2 12.2 0.0 12.2 0.0 6.2 6.2 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

FL-82 1,719.7 1,725.7 32.1 26.1 6.0 89.3 73.2 0.0 16.1 (16.1) 1,630.4 1,652.5 32.1 10.0 22.1 5.1 5.1 0.0 

FL-80P 655.2 737.6 82.4 0.0 82.4 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 652.0 734.4 82.4 0.0 82.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 

FL-81 301.6 296.9 0.0 0.0 (4.7) 39.2 38.2 0.0 0.0 (1.0) 262.4 258.7 0.0 0.0 (3.7) 0.9 0.9 0.0 

FL-81P 289.7 830.8 536.4 0.0 541.1 208.2 218.9 9.7 0.0 10.7 81.5 611.9 526.7 0.0 530.4 1.7 1.9 0.2 

FL-83 3,292.5 3,330.8 54.5 16.2 38.3 88.0 93.3 12.0 6.7 5.3 3,204.5 3,237.5 42.5 9.5 33.0 5.6 5.6 0.0 

FL-85P 528.2 539.3 11.1 0.0 11.1 97.9 100.5 2.6 0.0 2.6 430.3 438.8 8.5 0.0 8.5 0.8 0.8 0.0 

P26 683.8 1,185.1 501.3 0.0 501.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 683.8 1,185.1 501.3 0.0 501.3 3.1 3.1 0.0 

FL-89 639.8 1,288.9 671.6 22.5 649.1 34.2 34.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 605.6 1,254.7 671.3 22.2 649.1 1.7 2.6 0.9 FL-93 0.0 130.7 4.0 0.0 130.7 0.0 37.6 1.9 0.0 37.6 0.0 93.1 2.1 0.0 93.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 

FL-93P 241.9 258.9 157.1 13.4 17.0 82.9 130.0 94.8 12.0 47.1 159.0 128.9 62.3 1.4 (30.1) 0.6 0.3 (0.3)

FL-94 265.7 251.7 3.2 17.2 (14.0) 89.2 78.6 1.4 12.0 (10.6) 176.5 173.1 1.8 5.2 (3.4) 1.8 1.7 (0.1)

LA-01 5,029.6 5,029.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.8 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 5,016.8 5,016.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.1 6.1 0.0 LA-02 6,013.6 6,013.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6,013.6 6,013.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 0.0 

E-2

Appendix E: Pilot Project Acreage and Shoreline Changes
3

E-3

Unit

Total (acres) Fastland (acres) Associated Aquatic Habitat (acres) Shoreline (miles) 

Existing Proposed Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Change Existing Proposed Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Change Existing Proposed Added to CBRS Removed from CBRS Change Existing Proposed Change

S04 10,425.5 10,596.0 170.6 0.1 170.5 32.8 32.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 10,392.7 10,563.2 170.6 0.1 170.5 3.5 3.6 0.1 S05 17,723.3 18,455.8 732.5 0.0 732.5 355.7 355.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 17,367.6 18,100.1 732.5 0.0 732.5 17.8 18.4 0.6 S06 35,658.7 36,888.2 1,229.6 0.1 1,229.5 29.9 29.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 35,628.8 36,858.3 1,229.6 0.1 1,229.5 21.0 21.0 0.0 S07 78,027.4 78,977.9 1,282.2 331.7 950.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 78,027.4 78,977.9 1,282.2 331.7 950.5 24.2 24.3 0.1 

System 

Unit 

Subtotal

236,133.5 268,773.8 21,831.9 945.9 32,640.3 8,451.6 8,668.0 617.9 254.0 216.4 227,681.9 260,105.8 21,214.0 691.9 32,423.9 170.9 174.9 4.0

OPA 

Subtotal 24,460.1 15,660.2 3,158.8 204.4 (8,799.9) 5,321.0 6,366.5 1,006.8 108.8 1,045.5 19,139.1 9,293.7 2,152.0 95.6 (9,845.4) 29.4 30.9 1.5

CBRS 

Total 260,593.6 284,434.0 24,990.7 1,150.3 23,840.4 13,772..6 15,034.5 1,624.7 362.8 1,261.9 246,821.0 269,399.5 23,366.0 787.5 22,578.5 200.3 205.8 5.5

Appendix E: Pilot Project Acreage and Shoreline Changes


U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

Photo by U.S. Geological Survey

This photograph of Pine Beach, Alabama, was taken on September 17, 2004, following Hurricane Ivan. The hurricane breached the coastal barrier at 

a location with adjacent development. The undeveloped coastal habitat in the foreground is included within John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources 

System Unit Q01P.