U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

90-579 PS 2004

THE JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL 

BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, 

WILDLIFE AND OCEANS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSEOF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Thursday, November 20, 2003

Serial No. 108-78

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Scott McInnis, Colorado 

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming 

George Radanovich, California 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania 

Jim Gibbons, Nevada, 

Vice Chairman 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Greg Walden, Oregon 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona 

Tom Osborne, Nebraska 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana 

Rick Renzi, Arizona 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Devin Nunes, California 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Calvin M. Dooley, California 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Tom Udall, New Mexico 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico 

Brad Carson, Oklahoma 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Dennis A. Cardoza, California 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas 

Joe Baca, California 

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska 

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Mark E. Souder, Indiana 

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina 

Randy Neugebauer, Texas 

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Hearing held on Thursday, November 20, 2003 ................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland ................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2 

Pallone, Hon. Frank, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New Jersey ................................................................................................ 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Lowe, Anthony S., Director, Mitigation Division and Federal Insurance 

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency ......................... 15

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16

Salvesen, David A., Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University 

of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ................................................................. 18

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21

Tuggle, Dr. Benjamin N., Chief, Division of Federal Program Activities, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior ..................... 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 6

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 12

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE JOHN H. 

CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES 

SYSTEM 

Thursday, November 20, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans 

Committee on Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Wayne T. 

Gilchrest [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gilchrest and Pallone. 

Mr. GILCHREST. The Subcommittee will come to order. I want to 

welcome all of our witnesses this morning. You arrived on a beautiful, sunny fall day, not too much wind, a gentle breeze, and no 

rain. The only thing left unsolved is the traffic. We will look at that 

on another day. 

We will conduct an oversight hearing on the John H. Chafee and 

Tom Evans Coastal Barrier Resources System. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND 

Mr. GILCHREST. In 1982, Congress enacted legislation to protect 

underdeveloped coastal barrier islands and to stop the endless 

process of rebuilding property that has been damaged or destroyed 

by storms. CBRA is unique and important in that it saves lives, 

saves taxpayers millions of dollars, and helps to conserve some of 

the most fragile land in our coastal ecosystem. 

I strongly support the Coastal Barrier Resources System and 

have grown increasingly troubled by the number of legislative proposals to remove land from various CBRA units and adjust system 

boundaries. 

Since becoming a member of this Subcommittee, since 1995, 

there has been a number of hearings on what were called technical 

changes to the Coastal Barrier Resources System. We have heard 

members argue that their constituents were adversely affected by 

incorrectly drawn boundary lines, failure to meet the number of 

structures per acre rule, the development of infrastructure prior to 

1982, and bad advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

There are even some property owners who simply do not want to 

2

be incorporated within the system, despite the fact that they built 

their homes with the full knowledge that the Federal flood insurance was unavailable. 

While some of these proposals have been enacted, it seems there 

is always another technical change in the pipeline and it is fair to 

say that the system is being undermined an acre at a time. 

There is no language in the Coastal Barrier Resources Act that 

stops a single property owner from building a home on a coastal 

barrier that he owns. However, the message of CBRA is that people 

can develop but taxpayers won’t pay. To protect taxpayers, human 

lives, and fragile habitat, such an owner may not fairly expect the 

public, through Federal flood insurance and other government subsidies, to invest in such risky business within the CBRA system. 

It is my hope that today we can learn how many acres have been 

removed from the system, how many have been added, and what 

is the impact on the ongoing digital mapping effort and what is the 

cumulative impact of legislative efforts to modify the system since 

1982. I look forward to hearing from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Professor David Salvesen, an expert on the Coastal Barrier Resources 

System. 

We look forward to your testimony so that we can find some 

way—not everybody would agree with me on this, but some way to 

effectively deal with the annual bills that we get here in Congress 

to say that I was inadvertently put into the system, a mapping 

error has caused me some financial distress and so I would like it 

to be corrected, and members of Congress will either pass that as 

a freestanding bill or it will be submitted to a conference report 

where it gets into some omnibus bill, goes to Federal court, Federal 

court overrules it, says they didn’t have a right to get their Federal 

funding source because they were in this CBRA system, and then 

the next year it gets put into some omnibus bill and gets passed 

out and it goes on and on like that. 

We are not here to blame anybody at the table in front of us. The 

responsibility lies with us here as members of Congress to uphold 

the Act that was passed so many years ago. But what we would 

like to do is to learn from you basically the history of the system, 

your impressions of its success, how much development has gone 

on in the area of CBRA, perhaps because of local and State policy, 

how much development is there actually on areas that are designated as CBRA, do we keep an accounting of that, what is the 

cost of the annual problem with storms, and where are we with the 

mapping? Will we have a day when someone cannot say they made 

a mistake? Will there be a day when there is a CBRA system that 

is digitized, done, complete, and there will be no more question 

about it? We look forward to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans 

Good morning. Today, the Subcommittee will conduct an oversight hearing on the 

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

In 1982, Congress enacted legislation to protect undeveloped coastal barrier islands and to stop the endless process of rebuilding property that has been damaged 

or destroyed by storms. CBRA is unique and important in that it, saves lives, saves 

3

taxpayers millions of dollars, and helps to conserve some of the most fragile lands 

in our coastal ecosystem. 

I strongly support the Coastal Barrier Resources System and have grown increasingly troubled by the number of legislative proposals to remove land from various 

CBRA units and adjust system boundaries. 

Since becoming a member of this Subcommittee nine years ago, there have been 

a number of hearings on what were called technical changes to the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System. We have heard Members argue that their constituents were adversely affected by incorrectly drawn boundary lines, failure to meet the number of 

structures per acre rule, the development of infrastructure prior to 1982, and bad 

advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. There are even some property owners who simply do not want to be incorporated within the system, despite the fact 

that they built their homes with the full knowledge that federal flood insurance was 

unavailable. 

While some of these proposals have been enacted, it seems there is always another technical change in the pipeline and it is fair to say that the system is being 

undermined an acre at a time. 

There is no language in the Coastal Barrier Resources Act that stops a single 

property owner from building a home on a coastal barrier that he owns. However, 

the message of CBRA is that people can develop, but taxpayers won’t pay. To protect taxpayers, human lives, and fragile habitat, such an owner may not fairly expect the public, through federal flood insurance and other government subsidies, to 

invest in such risky business within the CBRA system. 

It is my hope that today we can learn: how many acres have been removed from 

the system; how many have been added; what is the impact of the ongoing digital 

mapping effort; and what is the cumulative impact of legislative efforts to modify 

the system since 1982. I look forward to hearing from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and Professor David Salveson, 

an expert on the Coastal Barrier Resources System. 

I am now pleased to recognize the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee, Congressman Frank Pallone. 

Mr. GILCHREST. At this point, I would like to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From time to time in 

Congress, we find it necessary to criticize the policies of the executive branch and, of course, it tends to occur more frequently when 

the other political party controls the Administration, and not surprisingly, the former Reagan Administration drew out a steady 

stream of criticism, particularly for their efforts to undermine policies designed to protect our common natural resource heritage. 

What is surprising, however, is that I believe that there was one 

aspect of environmental policy where the Reagan Administration 

actually got it right, and that instance was when the President 

signed the Coastal Barrier Resources Act into law on October 1, 

1982. 

The fundamental weave of conservative fiscal policy and progressive land use planning has been demonstrated to be a cost-effective 

and market-oriented strategy to protect both the Federal taxpayer 

from shouldering ill-advised subsidies for risky coastal development 

and the legitimate rights of property owners to own and develop 

their land as they see fit. Not incidentally, this prudent and sensible combination has also resulted in the preservation of extremely 

valuable open space and coastal fish and wildlife habitats necessary to provide opportunities for public recreation, travel, and 

4

tourism and to maintain environmental quality along our nation’s 

increasingly crowded coastlines. 

The August 2002 report released by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

perhaps best summed up the unique qualities of the Act when it 

stated, and I quote, ‘‘The Act is the essence of free market natural 

resource conservation. It in no way regulates how people can develop their land, but transfers the full cost from Federal taxpayers 

to the individuals who choose to build. By limiting Federal subsidies and letting the market work, the Act seeks to conserve coastal habitat, keep people out of harm’s way, and reduce wasteful Federal spending.’’ 

I agree with all this, I think we all do, but the question, as the 

Chairman has said, is where do we go from here? It has not escaped my notice that we regularly take up legislation introduced to 

address technical corrections to the boundaries of coastal barrier 

units or otherwise protected areas. Clearly, in my view, this circumstance is much more a reflection on the vast improvements 

made in recent years in geographic information systems and digital 

mapping techniques than it is with any inherent flaws in the Act’s 

policies. 

But the question lingers, how should Congress best approach the 

need to modernize the system’s maps, maps that are the physical 

embodiment of the Act’s policies, but to do so without damaging or 

undermining the very policies that the maps represent? 

Also, despite the Act’s effectiveness in preventing some coastal 

development, it is plainly apparent to the most casual observer 

that significant development continues to occur along our shores. 

We need to know why, and perhaps more directly, we need to know 

how other State and local development subsidies may interact to 

thwart the Act’s market-based disincentives for development. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope that our witnesses can provide us with insights into these questions—I know you basically asked the same 

questions—as we look to reauthorize this important law and I 

think this hearing is important in that respect today. Thanks. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. 

Our witnesses this morning are Dr. Benjamin Tuggle, Chief, Division of Federal Program Activities, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, who is accompanied by Ms. Katie Niemi; Mr. Anthony S. 

Lowe, Director, Mitigation Division and Federal Insurance Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency; and Mr. David 

Salvesen, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, University of 

North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

I want to thank each of you for coming this morning, for taking 

the time out to help us with this issue, and I want to thank especially Mr. Anthony Lowe for his fine work and your professional 

crew that came into Maryland during the Isabel storm. They did 

a stunning job and it is well appreciated. 

We will begin this morning with Dr. Benjamin Tuggle. Welcome, 

sir. 

5

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN N. TUGGLE, CHIEF, DIVISION OF 

FEDERAL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES, FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Dr. TUGGLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. 

Pallone, I thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the 

Department of the Interior at this oversight hearing of the John H. 

Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. I am Dr. Benjamin 

Tuggle. I am the Division Chief for Federal Program Activities with 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Before I proceed, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that my 

written testimony be made part of the record. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Without objection, so ordered. 

Dr. TUGGLE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin my 

testimony by saying that the Service shares your concerns about 

the potential risk to the system from numerous boundary revisions. 

Our goal is to map the system accurately so that the delineations 

of the boundaries have lasting integrity. 

In September, the Service testified before this Subcommittee in 

support of three bills that would make system changes. Today, I 

will explain how we are working to maintain the integrity of the 

system and also discuss with you our mapping modernization process that the Service is currently pursuing. 

My written testimony discusses the legislative changes that have 

been made to the system over time and the processes and approaches the Service has developed to carry out our responsibilities 

under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, or as we fondly refer to 

it, CBRA. 

Full system units comprised of private lands were first delineated in 1982 with the passage of CBRA. Full system units generally follow geographic features on the ground, such as rivers or 

roads that were easily discernible. System maps created at that 

time used the technology and base maps with inherent inaccuracies. In some cases, the system unit boundaries are drawn on base 

maps that do not precisely follow the intended geographical features. When this occurs, the result can be the inclusion of private 

property that were not originally intended to be part of the system. 

Most requests and proposed changes to the full system units, 

however, assert that the development criteria used to designate undeveloped coastal barriers were not appropriately applied when the 

unit was originally adopted. Accordingly, the Service examines proposed changes to the full system units. We look at the level of development that existed when the unit was created. 

The Service receives numerous requests to remove land from full 

system units. However, after objective review, we generally find 

that the development criteria were appropriately applied and the 

boundary changes are not warranted. In these cases, the Administration does not support a change. 

In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act, 

which expanded the system to create a new category under CBRA 

called ‘‘otherwise protected areas,’’ or OPAs. OPAs are intended to 

follow protected area boundaries, such as State parks or National 

Wildlife Refuges. Again, much like the original maps that we used 

for full system units, OPAs were originally mapped with limited resources and rudimentary mapping tools. 

6

Unlike changes to the system units, the Service often agrees that 

changes to OPAs are appropriate because OPA boundaries commonly do not coincide with the actual protected area boundaries. 

In those cases, OPAs sometimes include adjacent private lands due 

to the imprecise mapping techniques that were used. When these 

cases come to our attention, we work closely with interested land 

owners, local and State officials, and protected area managers to 

closely and comprehensively map the protected area boundaries 

with precise mapping tools. 

The benefits of converting the existing maps to a digital format 

go way beyond just correcting the depiction of the boundaries. As 

you know, Mr. Chairman, CBRA is a map-driven law that is poised 

for modernization, that can expand electronic government, improve 

customer service, and also complement existing efforts to conserve 

our nation’s coastal resources. 

Congress recognized this when it passed the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000. This Act directed the 

Service to conduct a digital mapping pilot project, and we are 

pleased to report to you that we are making significant progress in 

completing that directive. 

In our efforts to modernize the maps, the Service must work 

hand in hand with Congress in an open and consistent fashion. 

Currently, we are handling these cases on a case-by-case basis that 

are basically driven by Congressional offices and constituents. We 

address these individual cases in an unbiased, transparent way by 

objectively applying standard review criteria and explaining our 

findings to the Subcommittee and the interested parties. 

In the future, after presenting the results of our mapping pilot 

project, we hope to move from the current reactive case-by-case 

process to a holistic, proactive approach. In that holistic approach, 

using the latest digital technology, we want to work closely with 

the Subcommittee to correct existing inaccuracies when they are 

found. Once the modernization effort is completed, we think that 

we will be in a stronger position to further the goals of CBRA. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Administration supports CBRA 

and we want to continue to work with Congress to achieve CBRA’s 

original intent. Our work to correct technical errors is only part of 

a broader goal to modernize all CBRA maps and to provide our customers and partners with the best information. We believe that we 

will help to achieve all three of CBRA’s original goals, which were 

to save taxpayer money, protect people and their property, and to 

conserve valuable fish and wildlife habitat. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared comments. Thank 

you again for this opportunity to testify today and I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Dr. Tuggle. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Tuggle follows:]

Statement of Dr. Benjamin Tuggle, Chief, Division of Federal Program 

Activities, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity 

to present the Administration’s testimony for this oversight hearing on the John H. 

Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (System). I am Dr. Benjamin Tuggle, 

Chief of the Division of Federal Program Activities in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service). 

7

In your request for testimony from the Administration, you requested that we provide a justification of how changes to System maps are beneficial to the integrity 

of the System as a whole. My testimony will attempt to do this by describing the 

Service’s role in implementing the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA), the processes and approaches we have developed to carry out our responsibilities, legislative 

changes that have been made to the System since its creation, and the future 

direction we envision for the System. 

Mr. Chairman, the Administration strongly supports the intent of CBRA and its 

free-market approach to conservation. Congress has determined there is a high 

probability of repetitive storm damage to the Nation’s coastal barrier islands and 

associated areas. It designated undeveloped coastal barrier areas as the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System and prohibited federal spending for flood insurance, 

roads, wastewater treatment systems and other types of infrastructure within the 

System. This minimizes the potential loss of human life and reduces wasteful federal expenditures, but in no way regulates how people can develop their land. Instead, it eliminates federal subsidies and insurance for development within these 

damage-prone areas, while imposing no restrictions on development done at private 

expense. Today, areas designated by CBRA and its amendments comprise approximately 3.1 million acres of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic Ocean, 

the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. Individuals who choose to build and invest in these hazard-prone areas will incur the full 

cost of that risk, instead of passing that cost on to the American taxpayers. It is 

estimated that by 2010, CBRA will have saved American taxpayers approximately 

$1.3 billion. 

CBRA has already greatly benefited the Nation, but we believe that it can do even 

more. CBRA’s conservation accomplishments would be furthered if the federal government were to seek and develop partnerships with local and state governments 

and nongovernmental organizations to encourage conservation initiatives that complement the System. But in order to take these forward steps, we must first modernize the maps that delineate CBRA areas, enabling them to be more effectively 

coupled with other conservation initiatives. This map modernization process must 

ensure that the boundaries on CBRA maps are accurate. By proactively addressing 

the mapping inaccuracies, we will maintain the System’s integrity, and will also be 

able to focus more of our limited resources on promoting partnerships. 

Map Modernization 

CBRA is a map-driven law that is beginning to be modernized by expanding electronic government, improving customer service, and building upon existing tools 

used by our partners to conserve the Nation’s coasts. Congress recognized this when 

it last reauthorized CBRA. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 

2000 directed us to conduct a Digital Mapping Pilot Project that would produce draft 

digital maps of 75 areas and estimate the cost and feasibility of completing digital 

maps for all CBRA areas. We are pleased to report that we are making progress 

on completing the pilot project. 

In our efforts to modernize the maps, we must work hand-in-hand with Congress 

in an open, objective, and consistent process. Currently, this is occurring on a caseby-case basis that is driven by requests from Congressional offices and constituents. 

We address these individual cases in an unbiased and transparent way by objectively applying standard review criteria and explaining our findings to the interested parties and to the Subcommittee. 

In the future, after presenting the results of the pilot project, we hope to move 

from the current reactive case-by-case process, to a holistic proactive process. Once 

the modernization and perfecting effort is completed, we will be in a stronger position to further the goals of CBRA. 

There are many potential benefits to converting the existing maps to digital format. Ultimately, consistent with the President’s E-Government Initiative, CBRA 

maps could be posted on the Internet for greater public access and incorporated into 

local government planning databases. The Service will also work with federal agencies involved in mapping, such as the U.S. Geological Survey and others, to work 

toward reducing redundancies. This would help ensure that people know about 

CBRA’s restrictions on federal spending before they choose to invest in a property 

affected by the law. Modernizing the maps would give landowners, insurance providers, federal agencies, and state and local planners a more precise and accessible 

tool for determining boundary locations, making investment decisions, issuing flood 

insurance policies, and managing coastal areas. Having an accurate baseline of digital maps will allow the Service to be more proactive in the future in recommending 

additional areas to Congress for inclusion in the System. 

8

Digital maps could also be incorporated into programs administered by our partner agencies, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood 

Insurance Program. Instead of consulting with the Service, these agencies would be 

able to conduct an accurate preliminary analysis regarding whether CBRA restrictions apply. 

By making CBRA maps easily available in digital format, we could work with our 

partners to encourage increased bundling of conservation tools to meet CBRA’s conservation goals. The Service has observed that CBRA is most effective when our 

partners complement their conservation approaches with the law’s fiscal disincentive. For example, the State of Texas prohibits State-backed windstorm insurance 

within the System, adding another layer of fiscal disincentive to build in these locations. In North Carolina, the National Audubon Society has targeted its land acquisition investments in a CBRA area, providing long-term protection to the fish and 

wildlife habitat. 

Modernizing existing maps will take time, but electronic governance is clearly the 

future for the Act. Our goal is to map the full System units and ‘‘otherwise protected 

areas’’ accurately and precisely to provide the System and OPAs with lasting integrity. Mr. Chairman, we share your concern of the potential risk to the System from 

numerous boundary revisions, which could over time make it a victim of ‘‘death by 

a thousand cuts.’’ Our efforts to perfect the boundaries of CBRA areas through an 

open and objective process are being undertaken to prevent this from occurring. 

Legislative Changes to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System 

Mr. Chairman, you asked us to assess the legislative changes that have been 

made to the System since it was created in 1982. Before doing so, it is important 

to distinguish between the two different classes of CBRA areas, and to describe how 

we approach proposed changes to these different types of areas. The different classes of CBRA areas are: (1) the private lands component, or ‘‘full System units,’’ and 

(2) ‘‘otherwise protected areas,’’ or OPAs. More detailed information about full System units and OPAs, and the processes by which the Service reviews proposed 

changes to them, can be found in Attachment 1. 

Most proposed changes to full System units assert that the development criteria 

used when the units were created were incorrectly applied. The development criteria 

were applied to areas at the time they were considered for inclusion in the System, 

and relate to the density of development and the level of infrastructure (see Attachment 1 for more information). When the Service examines proposed changes to full 

System units, we look at the level of development that existed when the unit was 

created. The Service receives numerous requests to remove land from full units of 

the System, however, after objective review, we generally find that the development 

criteria were appropriately applied in the past and boundary changes are not warranted. We would like to note that there have been cases in the past where Congress has enacted changes to full System units that were not supported by the 

Service. 

Unlike changes to full System units, the Service often agrees that changes to 

OPAs are appropriate because almost every one of the OPAs is mapped inaccurately. Full System units generally follow geographic features on the ground that 

are easily discernable. We believe, however, that Congress intended OPAs to follow 

protected area boundaries. We regularly uncover cases where OPA boundaries do 

not coincide with the actual protected area boundaries we believe they are meant 

to follow. When these cases come to our attention, we work closely with interested 

land owners, local and state officials, and protected area managers to correctly map 

the protected area boundaries with the high quality mapping tools now available. 

Comprehensive Mapping Approach 

If after applying our review process for full System units and OPAs, the Service 

finds a technical mapping error that warrants a change in one part of a CBRA map, 

we review all adjacent areas to ensure the entire map is accurate. This comprehensive approach to map revisions treats all landowners who may be affected equitably, 

and it also ensures that Congress and the Administration will not have to revisit 

the map in the future. This approach allows us to improve the integrity of the entire 

System by looking at boundary revisions in a holistic fashion instead of pursuing 

incremental fixes for individual areas on a single map. 

This comprehensive approach was developed by the Service, in close coordination 

with the Subcommittee staff, beginning in 1999 with NC-03P, Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Since 1999, there have been seven legislative changes to System 

units and OPAs. Each of these changes was thoroughly scrutinized by the Service, 

Congressional members and staff, appropriate state and local officials, and property 

owners. In all of these cases but one (DE-03P, Cape Henlopen State Park), the comVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:53 May 17, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\90579.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
9

prehensive mapping approach was applied. The comprehensive mapping approach 

was in each case a lengthy process, sometimes taking over a year to complete. Congress has not adopted any changes that the Service did not support since we have 

instituted this high-precision and inclusive approach. 

Although the comprehensive mapping approach is preferred, we have deviated 

from it in limited circumstances when it proves impossible or when the equities of 

a particular situation make a targeted map revision appropriate. We have learned 

over the years that each new CBRA case can present unforeseen circumstances, and 

we must be flexible to appropriately address each case. 

Assessment of Legislative Changes 

Between the enactment of CBRA in 1982 and the enactment of CBIA in 1990, 

there were no changes made to full System units through legislation. The CBIA created OPAs and new full System units, and made changes to numerous existing full 

System units. The CBIA replaced all the 1982 maps with updated 1990 maps. Our 

information indicates that since the enactment of the CBIA in 1990, there have been 

41 separate changes made to CBRA areas through legislation. Of the 41 legislative 

changes, 19 were made to OPAs and 22 were made to full System units. Most of 

the 41 changes made since 1990 removed land from CBRA areas. These legislative 

changes are listed in Attachment 2. 

It is significant to note that since the comprehensive mapping approach was developed in 1999, the frequency of enacted legislative changes has slowed. Between 

1999 and 2003, legislative changes were made to seven CBRA areas. By comparison, 

between 1991 and 1998, legislative changes were made to 34 CBRA areas. It is also 

significant to note that the comprehensive approach can yield significant increases 

to OPAs; since 1999, some of the changes added protected lands in addition to removing private lands. 

Mr. Chairman, you asked us to account for total acres removed from and added 

to CBRA areas by these legislative changes. Unfortunately, we don’t have that information, and it was not possible for us to conduct the research to compile this information in time for today’s hearing. As I just mentioned, the majority of the legislative changes were made before 1999, and were done using the old mapping technology. In order to account for the total acreage change, we would need to compare 

the original maps with the amended maps. This process is lengthy and resource intensive, especially for the large number of changes that were made prior to 1999. 

Consequently, we can provide to you, for the record, acreage changes made since we 

began implementing our comprehensive mapping approach in 1999. 

We recognize the importance of tracking acreage changes to CBRA areas. As we 

carry out our comprehensive mapping approach to all new changes, we use the digital technology to accurately calculate acreage changes, and ensure that such 

changes are accurately tracked and recorded. 

Technical Correction Bills Pending Congressional Action 

Mr. Chairman, you also asked us how many additional changes are pending Congressional action. There are technical correction bills for six CBRA areas currently 

pending Congressional action. The Service testified before this Subcommittee in 

September in support of H.R. 154, H.R. 2501, and H.R. 3056. The other CBRA 

areas are addressed by H.R. 3333 and S. 1643; these bills have not yet been reviewed by the Subcommittee, nor has the Administration stated a position on these 

two bills. 

Conclusion 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, we will continue to work with Congress to achieve 

CBRA’s intentions and ensure the System’s boundaries are accurately delineated. 

Our work to correct technical errors is one part of our broader goal to modernize 

all CBRA maps and provide our partners and customers with better information. 

We believe this will help achieve all three of CBRA’s intentions: saving taxpayers’ 

money, keeping people out of the deadly path of storm surge, and protecting valuable habitat for fish and wildlife. 

The Administration strongly supports the intent of CBRA and its free-market approach to coastal protection. Despite the challenges presented by the fact that the 

controlling CBRA maps were drawn using the imprecise mapping tools of the past, 

the Administration believes that the intent of CBRA has largely been achieved. We 

look forward to working with you to enact digitized maps for all CBRA areas that 

will help us further the goals of the Act. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Thank you again for the 

opportunity to testify at today’s hearing. I would be pleased to respond to any questions.

10

ATTACHMENT 1

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

Full System Units 

The private lands component of the System was first delineated in 1982 with the 

passage of the original CBRA. These original units encompassed approximately 

590,000 acres of privately owned, undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic 

and Gulf coasts. The undeveloped status of System lands was an important underpinning of the law. The Act sought to discourage new construction in these hazardprone and environmentally sensitive areas that were not yet developed. However, 

the Act did not seek to apply its disincentives to existing communities where significant investments had already been made. 

The Department of the Interior published guidance in the Federal Register that 

established two criteria to define undeveloped coastal barriers. These criteria, applied to areas at the time they were considered for inclusion in the System, are as 

follows. (1) The density of development on an undeveloped coastal barrier is less 

than one structure per five acres of land above mean high tide. (2) An undeveloped 

coastal barrier does not contain a full complement of infrastructure. A full complement of infrastructure consists of a road, fresh water supply, wastewater disposal 

system, and electric service to each lot or building site in the area. The purpose of 

the infrastructure criterion was to exclude subdivisions where a significant amount 

of private capital had been spent prior to Congressional designation. Congress codified these criteria in the 2000 reauthorization of CBRA. 

The boundaries of full System units are drawn on U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle maps, most of which are decades old. In nearly all cases, we 

have an understanding of the intent of the lines that define full System units. These 

lines generally follow particular features depicted on the underlying maps, such as 

wetlands demarcations, roads, streams, and other landscape features. However, as 

the courts, our attorneys, and Congress have repeatedly told us, the line as drawn 

on the map is the law, and we must make determinations based on where the line 

actually falls on the ground, not where the Service believes Congress intended it to 

fall. Because of the inaccuracies inherent in the depiction of features on the base 

maps and in the drawing of CBRA lines, most of the 585 full System units contain 

minor inaccuracies. In most cases, these minor inaccuracies don’t affect structures 

or properties, and therefore are not the focus of proposed legislative changes. 

Most proposed changes to full System units assert that the development criteria 

were incorrectly applied when the units were created. Accordingly, when the Service 

examines proposed changes to full System units, we look at the level of development 

that existed when the unit was created. When presented with credible information 

that indicates that the development criteria were not appropriately applied, we review the administrative record, review any additional information provided by the 

interested parties, prepare draft revised maps of the area if appropriate, and then 

present Congress with the factual findings and draft revised maps. If Congress 

chooses to adopt the revised maps, it then enacts new maps for the area through 

legislation. If the Service finds that the development criteria were appropriately applied when a unit was designated, we do not support changes to the unit. 

The Service receives numerous requests to remove land from the System, however, after objective reviews, we generally find that the development criteria were 

appropriately applied in the past and boundary changes are not warranted. Consequently, we have supported very few changes to full System units. Since 1999, we 

have only supported one change based on the development criteria to remove land 

from a full System unit (the unit is T07, the subject of H.R. 154). We would like 

to note that there have been cases in the past where Congress has enacted changes 

to full System units that were not supported by the Service. 

Otherwise Protected Areas 

OPAs were first delineated in 1990 with the passage of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA). Congress created OPAs to limit federal subsidies in coastal 

barriers that are protected (that is, areas already held for conservation purposes, 

such as state parks and National Wildlife Refuges). Unlike full System units, with 

their wide array of restrictions on federal spending, only federal flood insurance is 

prohibited in OPAs. This restriction sought also to discourage development within 

private in holdings. In total, about 1.8 million acres are within OPAs. 

Unlike changes to full System units, the Service often agrees that changes to 

OPAs are appropriate because almost every one of the 271 OPAs is mapped inacVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:53 May 17, 2004 Jkt 088533 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\90579.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: KATHY
11

curately. Full System units generally follow geographic features on the ground that 

are easily discernable. We believe, however, that Congress intended OPAs to follow 

protected area boundaries. These are more difficult to ascertain because they are 

based on property boundaries, not geographic features. When OPAs were first designated more than a decade ago, they were mapped with limited resources and rudimentary mapping tools. As a result, OPAs could not be, and were not, mapped with 

the highest degree of accuracy. 

We regularly uncover cases where OPA boundaries do not coincide with the actual 

protected area boundaries we believe they were meant to follow. OPAs sometimes 

include adjacent private lands that are not in holdings. Because of the OPA designation, the owners of these lands cannot obtain federal flood insurance for their 

homes. We believe that Congress did not intend to include such adjacent private 

lands within the OPAs. When these cases come to our attention, we work closely 

with interested landowners, local and state officials, and protected area managers 

to correctly map the protected area boundaries with the high-quality mapping tools 

now available. All of the changes that have been made to the CBRA areas since 

1999 were supported by the Service, and nearly all of these changes were to OPAs. 

ATTACHMENT 2

JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

• Since the enactment of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) in 1982, several changes have been made to CBRA areas through legislation. 

• Between 1982 and 1990, no changes were made. 

• The Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) of 1990 created otherwise protected areas (OPAs) and new full System units. All 1982 maps were replaced 

with updated 1990 maps. 

• After passage of the CBIA in 1990, stand-alone changes (i.e., changes that were 

not a part of a comprehensive reauthorization like the CBIA) to CBRA areas 

started to be made through legislation. 

• A total of 41 separate changes have been made through legislation since the 

passage of the CBIA. 

• No changes were made in 1991. 

• Between 1992 and 1998, changes made to 34 CBRA areas as follows:

• In 1999, the comprehensive mapping approach was developed 

• Between 1999 and 2003, changes were made to seven CBRA areas as follows 

below. Of these seven, five resulted in removal of developable private land. One 

of these changes (DE-03P) did not follow the comprehensive approach.


90579.001 90579.002
12

Response to questions submitted for the record by Dr. Benjamin N. Tuggle, 

Chief, Division of Federal Program Activities, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Questions from The Honorable Frank Pallone 

1) What were the results of the economic assessment of the System that 

was mandated by the Congress in P.L. 106-514? 

Public Law 106-514 directed the Department of the Interior to assess the impact 

of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) on federal spending resulting from the 

avoidance of federal expenditures for disaster relief, development assistance (for 

roads, wastewater systems, and potable water supply), and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). 

The study estimated that from 1983 through 2010, CBRA’s restrictions on expenditures for disaster relief and development assistance will have resulted in a combined federal savings of about $1.278 billion. Development assistance comprises 

about 93 percent of this total savings. The study also noted that the NFIP, which 

is the most important deterrent to development of the System, probably yields no 

federal taxpayer savings. NFIP is required to be self-sufficient, with income from 

policy premiums exceeding expenses. 

A copy of the study is available at the following web address: www.fws.gov/cep/

TaxpayerSavingsfromCBRA.pdf. 

2) There are cases where developers have been incorrectly advised by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that their property was not within the System and based on those assurances they built houses or subdivisions. • Since the property was always within the System, what responsibility, 

if any, does the Federal Government have in these situations? 

One of the Service’s responsibilities under CBRA is to determine where the lines 

drawn on congressionally-enacted maps actually exist on the ground. We have consistently applied the best available technology to fulfill this responsibility. However, 

as the technology available to us improves, we find that the enacted lines contain 

inherent inaccuracies. That is, the lines don’t always mirror what we believe the intent of Congress was in drawing the lines. On occasion, this can result in situations 

where properties that don’t appear to be included in a CBRA area are revealed by 

higher precision technology to actually be a part of the CBRA area. 

The Service has recently learned of cases where our field personnel issued incorrect property determinations in the past. The determinations were made in good 

faith, using the best tools available at the time. Based on determinations from the 

Service, the NFIP notified landowners that their respective properties are not affected by CBRA and therefore are eligible for federal flood insurance. Subsequently, 

upon using higher precision mapping tools that were not available in the past, the 

Service discovered some instances of incorrect past determinations. The NFIP does 

not honor incorrect determinations and, therefore, must cancel such insurance policies upon learning of the mistake. 

In such situations where the Service has provided incorrect information to citizens, we believe the federal government should provide a remedy to those citizens 

for the financial impact of that incorrect information. We want to honor our past 

determinations so that property owners who received incorrect determinations could 

retain their federal flood insurance. The remedy will need to be determined based 

on the facts for each situation, but could include making recommendations to Congress for private relief legislation or comprehensive map revisions in cases where 

the Service believes affected properties were not originally intended to be part of 

a CBRA area. 

3) Should the Congress consider enacting legislation that would allow the 

Department of the Interior to make small technical changes to the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System maps when minor mistakes are discovered? 

The Service believes that all decisions to make changes to CBRA lines should remain with Congress. Furthermore, we believe that the completion of the Digital 

Mapping Pilot Project will help provide a solution to the issue of the need to make 

technical changes. The Report to Congress that will accompany the pilot project will 

address the different types of changes and the extent of changes that will be necessary to accurately portray CBRA boundaries on modern digital maps. We will provide recommendations for how to revise and perfect all CBRA maps, making the 

need for technical changes in the future very rare. We believe that we should continue our close working relationship with Congress as decisions on boundary 

changes are proposed. 

4) In your written testimony you state that ‘‘conservation accomplishments would be furthered if the federal government were to seek and 

develop partnerships with local and state governments and 

13

nongovernmental organizations to encourage conservation initiatives that 

complement the System.’’ • Could you please expand on this thought? What types of programs are 

you referencing? 

The Service has observed that CBRA works best when its fiscal disincentives are 

complemented by other conservation approaches, implemented by our partners, in 

the same areas. We know that when the economic incentive for development is extremely high, development will occur in CBRA areas despite the Act’s restrictions 

on federal spending. Some state and local governments and non-governmental organizations have employed their own approaches to maintain the natural state of 

coastal barriers before the economic incentive for development surpasses CBRA’s fiscal disincentive. We believe that by digitizing CBRA areas we will provide local communities with important information they can use to make land use planning decisions. This will enable us to conduct outreach to encourage our partners to develop 

conservation approaches that complement CBRA. 

Conservation of lands designated under CBRA could be better achieved if conservation programs such as zoning regulations, targeted land acquisition, long-term 

and voluntary conservation easements, and tax policy that rewards conservation reinforce CBRA’s goals. This is already occurring in some areas. Texas, for example, 

prohibits State-backed windstorm insurance for property in the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System, adding another layer of fiscal disincentive for development to 

CBRA’s free-market approach. On Dauphin Island in Alabama, State and local policies have also reinforced CBRA’s goals. The State’s coastal construction control line 

coincides with the System boundary, and Dauphin Island has zoned the entire area 

for conservation and parkland. Many of these state and local activities are undertaken under the auspices of State Coastal Management Plans under the Coastal 

Zone Management Act, which is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the Commerce Department. In recent years, Congress has also appropriated Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program 

grant funds to NOAA to facilitate state and local acquisition of particularly sensitive 

coastal lands. 

CBRA’s restrictions on federal spending may provide incentive to landowners to 

sell property that is a part of the System, or to agree to conservation easements on 

their properties. Therefore, state and local conservation programs may benefit by 

targeting their land acquisition efforts in the System. For example, the National Audubon Society is buying System lands in North Carolina and will hold them in trust 

for fish and wildlife resources in perpetuity. 

Examples of the pairing of local, state, and non-governmental conservation initiatives with CBRA are few. However, digitizing CBRA areas will enable the Service 

to conduct efficient, effective, and expansive outreach and provide digital information to local communities. A primary focus of a future outreach effort will be to encourage more pairing of other conservation initiatives with CBRA. 

• Should such arrangements or partnerships be formally authorized 

under the Act or does the Service believe that it has adequate authority right now? 

It would be most practicable to explore complementary conservation efforts when 

all CBRA areas are digitized and made available to our partners via the Internet 

and other methods. The Service believes that it currently has the authority to conduct outreach and develop and strengthen partnerships to complement CBRA. 

5) As the maps for the System become increasingly digitized, do you foresee the need to modify the corrections process when questions are raised 

regarding boundaries? 

As the maps for the System become digitized, the Service does not foresee a need 

to modify the corrections process when questions are raised regarding boundaries. 

When interested parties seek changes to System or OPA boundaries, the Service applies standardized mapping procedures and objective review criteria to determine 

whether a change is appropriate. When the Service finds a technical mapping error 

in one part of a coastal barrier map, we review all other nearby boundaries to ensure they are mapped accurately. We work with interested parties as appropriate 

to produce draft maps that we provide to Congress for consideration. This comprehensive approach to boundary changes treats all landowners equitably and prevents Congress and the Administration from having to revisit the same areas in the 

future. The processes and approaches we currently use to assess changes to CBRA 

areas would also be applied to the review of proposed changes to CBRA areas that 

are depicted on digital maps. 

• How can we be confident that any transition to a new corrections process and digitized maps will not result in areas being excluded from the 

System? 

14

The Service’s goal regarding digitizing CBRA areas is to work with Congress to 

maintain the long-term integrity of the System and OPAs by ensuring that the 

boundaries on CBRA maps are accurate. Any transition from the current CBRA 

maps to maps prepared with digital technology must be approved by the Congress. 

The Service supports continuing our ongoing efforts by recommending the legislative 

adoption of digital maps that make changes to CBRA lines to ensure those lines are 

accurate (i.e., they follow the features and/or boundaries that they were intended 

to follow). The Service would make recommendations based on research of the administrative record for each CBRA area. 

Changes made to CBRA lines by digital maps adopted by Congress in the future 

will likely result in some areas being removed from, and some areas being added 

to, System units and OPAs. However, because the digitization process will make the 

boundaries accurate, it will help ensure the integrity of the System over time. In 

making recommendations to Congress, the Service will continue to apply a high 

level of objective scrutiny to all proposed changes to CBRA areas, including during 

any large-scale process of adopting digitized CBRA maps. The Service will continue 

to oppose changes in cases where our objective review indicates that the area was 

appropriately mapped and designated as a System unit or OPA. 

The Digital Mapping Pilot Project will be a first step in any large-scale transition 

to digital maps. The pilot project will digitize and perfect the boundaries of 50 System units and 25 OPAs (in the form of draft digital maps). The pilot project will 

help to identify potential problems that could occur in making a transition to digital 

maps, and will propose solutions to those problems. It is difficult to speculate at this 

juncture whether the maps produced for the pilot project will result in a net acreage 

loss or gain to the System and OPAs if they are enacted by Congress. We anticipate 

that there may not be any significant net change. There may even be a net gain 

to OPAs if we uncover coastal barriers held for conservation purposes that are not 

currently designated as OPAs and these areas are designated as OPAs in the future. 

The System (i.e., non-OPA) maps prepared for Congress as part of the pilot project 

will recommend boundary modifications due to natural changes (erosion and accretion) as well as ‘‘intent changes.’’ Recommended intent changes will be based on research of the administrative record. An example of an intent change is a change to 

a boundary that was intended to follow the edge of a road but actually inadvertently 

bisects private properties on the other side of the road that were not intended to 

be part of the System. 

The OPA maps prepared for Congress as part of the pilot project will recommend 

boundary modifications in cases where the OPA boundaries do not coincide with the 

protected area (e.g., state or national park) boundaries. We anticipate some of these 

recommended changes would remove private lands that are not part of protected 

areas, while other changes would add protected lands that are not currently part 

of OPAs. 

We are confident that the results of the pilot study and accompanying report will 

demonstrate to Congress that all CBRA areas can be digitized in a process that will 

maintain the integrity of the System and OPAs, and will only remove areas from 

CBRA designation that were not intended to be so designated. Additionally, only 

Congress can make changes to the existing CBRA maps and can enact a transition 

to digital maps. As such, Congress itself has the ability to ensure that map changes 

that are inconsistent with CBRA are not made. 

• Would a systematic review of the OPA boundaries be an appropriate 

place to start once the pilot digital maps are completed? 

If the 75 CBRA areas in the Digital Mapping Pilot Project are enacted, there will 

be a variety of possibilities for prioritizing the consideration of the next set of digital 

maps. For example, one possibility, dependent on the availability of resources, is to 

make changes to all CBRA maps (both System units and OPAs) on a state-by-state 

basis. Another is to do a systematic review of OPAs. We anticipate that our Digital 

Mapping Pilot Project and Report to Congress will contain the Administration’s recommended approach. Until the project is completed, we cannot provide a recommendation. 

With regards to a systematic review of OPAs, we note that many CBRA maps contain both OPAs and System units. If we were directed to review OPA boundaries 

first, we would request the ability to maintain our comprehensive mapping approach. This approach attempts to remap all CBRA areas on a map at the same 

time so that the entire map is corrected. This would mean that we would want to 

review any System units that are depicted on any OPA maps that we are directed 

to review. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Lowe? 

15

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY S. LOWE, FEDERAL INSURANCE 

ADMINISTRATOR, AND DIRECTOR, MITIGATION DIVISION, 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. LOWE. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your kind 

words. I will pass those on to the disaster staff as well as the Region III folks who really did the best they could to try to get it 

right for the State of Maryland. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Pallone, members of the Subcommittee, my name is Anthony Lowe, Federal Insurance Administrator and Director of the Mitigation Division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, of the Department of Homeland Security. On behalf of the National Flood Insurance Program, 

the NFIP, we welcome and appreciate the invitation to appear 

today before the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans Subcommittee. 

One of the main goals of FEMA in the Department of Homeland 

Security is to reduce the loss of life and property from natural and 

man-made disasters. The National Flood Insurance Program was 

established to reduce the nation’s risk to the devastation of flood 

losses. The NFIP has a three-pronged approach to achieving its 

purpose, working with communities: First, identifying flood-prone 

areas; second, encouraging communities to adopt sound flood plain 

management; and last, our promise to offer NFIP flood insurance 

in eligible communities to homeowners and businesses. There are 

nearly 20,000 NFIP communities across the country. 

FEMA strongly supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its 

work to delineate the Coastal Barrier Resources System. As you 

know, these systems prohibit Federal insurance and investments 

that would lead to development in these sensitive protected areas. 

Currently, FEMA reflects the system boundaries in our flood insurance rate maps. In addition, the National Flood Insurance Act prohibits the NFIP from providing flood insurance for buildings constructed or substantially improved after placement into the system. 

While the Coastal Barrier Resources Act does not prevent private 

flood insurance in these areas, there is not a well-defined market 

for private flood insurance generally, nor in particular as it pertains to the Coastal Barrier Resources System areas. Private flood 

insurance availability in these areas is inconsistent and largely depends on local transactions and practices. In our experience, private carrier premium rates are typically higher than NFIP premium rates. 

Briefly, I would like to directly answer the questions raised by 

this Subcommittee. One, what would be the additional cost for providing NFIP coverage for properties that are removed from the system through legislative changes? Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Committee, in general, the NFIP uses full actuarial rates for 

such structures. Therefore, there are no additional costs to the program. From a risk perspective, buildings formerly in the system 

are rated similar to other high-risk buildings currently in the 

NFIP. Typically, flood insurance premiums for compliant structures 

in high-risk areas can range anywhere from $500 to $5,000 

annually. 

16

The second question, what would happen to homeowners whose 

policies are canceled because they were found to be within the system? In short, their NFIP policy would be canceled. In practice, two 

situations can result in cancellation of an NFIP policy. One, if an 

existing insured structure is substantially improved or damaged, 

the NFIP policy would not be renewed. Two, if an insured building 

is later shown to be in the system and not eligible for a Federal 

insurance policy or coverage, the policy would be canceled and the 

premium refunded. In these instances, the homeowner would have 

to seek coverage from the private sector. 

Your last question, what is the cost difference between the Federal and private flood insurance coverage? We have little data to 

actually validate specific private insurance rates in the Coastal 

Barrier Resources System. However, our experience suggests that 

private insurance premiums are substantially higher. In fact, our 

research indicates that private insurance can be twice the cost of 

an NFIP policy. 

In conclusion, the mission of the NFIP is to reduce loss of life 

and protect property by accurately identifying flood risks, encouraging sound flood plain management, and insuring properties in eligible communities. We appreciate the opportunity to support the 

Service and look forward to its digital mapping data to better identify these system areas. 

Again, I thank the Subcommittee for this opportunity to testify 

and look forward to answering any questions you may have. Thank 

you. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Lowe. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowe follows:]

Statement of Anthony S. Lowe, Federal Insurance Administrator, and 

Director, Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

Department of Homeland Security 

Chairman Gilchrest, Ranking Member Pallone, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Anthony S. Lowe, Federal Insurance Administrator, and Director 

of the Mitigation Division of the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the Department of Homeland Security. On behalf of the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP), we welcome and appreciate the invitation to appear today before the Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Resources. 

Background 

One of the main goals of the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is to reduce loss of life and property from the 

effects of natural and man-made hazards. The National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP) was established to reduce the Nation’s risk to the devastation of flood loss. 

The NFIP has a three-pronged approach for achieving this goal. First, the flood hazards are identified, and FEMA provides NFIP maps that identify flood-prone areas 

and provide a basis for an actuarial rate for properties located in them. Second, the 

program requires that communities adopt and enforce sound flood plain management ordinances based on these maps and proactively manage development in the 

identified hazard areas. Third, flood insurance is available to residents of those communities to protect against potential economic loss from flooding. 

FEMA supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in administering and 

updating the Coastal Barrier Resources Systems (CBRS), which reduces and restricts Federal Government actions and investments that would result in development in these protected areas by reflecting CBRS boundaries on our NFIP maps. 

The purpose of the CBRS is to protect undeveloped, environmentally sensitive 

places. The National Flood Insurance Act prohibits the NFIP from providing flood 

insurance for buildings constructed or substantially improved after placement in the 

CBRS. 

17

When Congress passes a law that revises CBRS boundaries, FEMA coordinates 

with the FWS to revise the flood insurance rate maps. FWS provides revised maps 

and the new boundaries are transferred onto the flood maps where flood insurance 

prohibition dates are noted. FEMA then presents these draft maps to the FWS for 

review and concurrence. The maps are then published and used by the lending and 

insurance industries. We have worked closely with FWS and our joint efforts have 

resulted in reducing the time it takes to finalize revised maps. We also coordinate 

with the FWS to disseminate information via letters and our website to state and 

local governments, lending institutions, and the insurance industry to keep stakeholders apprise of changes. 

While FEMA mitigation measures serve to protect buildings, FEMA appreciates 

its role in cooperating with FWS to prevent damage to fragile coastlines. We understand that damage to fragile ecosystems can be long-lasting or irreparable and support FWS in their mission. 

Flood Insurance Availability 

Eligibility for Federal flood insurance in CBRS depends upon whether the community in which the building is located is impacted by the 1982 or the 1990 Act. While 

the rules regarding coverage are detailed, generally, a CBRS building will be covered by the NFIP under either Act under the following circumstances: • There was a legally valid building permit for construction of the building issued 

prior to a statutory cut off date (October 1, 1983, for the 1982 Act, November 

16, 1990, for the 1990 Act); • Construction began or was complete prior to the statutory cutoff date; and • The building was not substantially damaged or improved after the statutory 

cutoff date. 

Flood Insurance Costs 

NFIP policy rates are set according to the property’s zone, which takes into account various flood risk factors. Rates are generally commensurate with the risk. 

Flood insurance premiums for compliant structures in flood-prone areas typically 

range from $500 to $5,000 annually. 

The CBRS Act of 1982 does not prevent private development, financing or private 

flood insurance in the CBRS. Private flood insurance availability in CBRS areas is 

inconsistent, and largely dependent on local business practices. Companies may provide flood insurance in the CBRS, but are unlikely to market such an insurance 

product. Private carrier premium rates are typically higher than NFIP premium 

rates. 

Subcommittee Questions 

I would like to address the questions raised by this Subcommittee. First, what 

would be the additional costs for providing NFIP coverage for properties that were 

removed from the CBRS through legislative changes? Second, what would happen 

to homeowners whose policies were cancelled because they were found to be within 

the system? And, third, what is the cost difference between federal and private flood 

insurance? 

In response to the first question, in general, the NFIP uses actuarial rates for 

such structures, and, in these cases, there will be no additional costs to the program. This is due to the fact that buildings in the CBRS would generally—from a 

risk perspective—be similar to other high-risk buildings currently in the NFIP. 

There may, however, be costs from an environmental perspective that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service can address. 

There are two possible situations that can result in the NFIP coverage being cancelled. If an existing insured structure is substantially improved or damaged, the 

NFIP policy will not be renewed. Or, if an insured building is shown to be in the 

CBRS and not eligible for the Federal flood insurance, the NFIP policy will be cancelled and premium refunded when the error is discovered. The homeowner would 

have to seek coverage from the private sector. 

In such a case, there will be cost implications for the homeowner seeking private 

insurance, because (as noted earlier) private insurance will be more expensive. In 

fact, our sources indicate, flood insurance purchased from the private sector might 

cost twice as much as NFIP flood insurance coverage. 

Conclusion 

The mission of NFIP is to reduce flood damages, loss of life, and economic disruption by accurately identifying flood risks, encouraging sound floodplain management 

techniques, and providing a mechanism through which people can insure their 

homes against flooding. We appreciate the opportunity to support the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service in updating and implementing the CBRS and hope that the 

18

information provided will be useful to the Subcommittee in its deliberations. Once 

again, I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify before you today, and 

will be glad to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. David Salvesen? Thank you, sir, for coming. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID A. SALVESEN, CENTER FOR URBAN 

AND REGIONAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA 

AT CHAPEL HILL, CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 

Mr. SALVESEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. I am delighted to be here to talk about CBRA. And for 

the record, when I came last night, it was absolutely pouring. It 

wasn’t a bright sunny day, but I am delighted it has cleared up 

today. 

My name is David Salvesen. I work for the Center for Urban and 

Regional Studies at UNC-Chapel Hill. The Center, briefly, it is an 

organization that conducts research on a wide variety of topics related to housing, land use, transportation, and the environment. 

A few years ago, I spent quite a bit of time researching the 

Coastal Barrier Resources Act. I asked a few simple questions. One 

was what has been the impact of CBRA on development in CBRA 

units, and two, why have some units developed despite the withdrawal of Federal subsidies? What I would like to do is just go very 

quickly through what I did and how I did it and then jump to some 

findings and recommendations. Hopefully, I will get there before 

the timer beeps me. 

I conducted five case studies. I went to five CBRA sites, two in 

Alabama, one in Florida, one in South Carolina, and one in North 

Carolina, and I picked these not at random. I picked them because 

these were the sites that were under tremendous development 

pressure. They had either already undergone some development or 

there was a lot of pressure to develop in these units. 

I talked to people at each of the sites. I spent two, three, four, 

or 5 days. I talked to Realtors, developers, appraisers, elected officials, anybody who would talk to me and seemed knowledgeable 

about CBRA, and what I found was that, first of all, the vast majority of CBRA units remain undeveloped, although it is hard to 

tell sometimes because there has been no complete, comprehensive 

inventory of all the units. But based on my analysis, the vast majority of the sites remain undeveloped. 

Some CBRA units, however, have developed so much that they 

are virtually indistinguishable from the non-CBRA areas, places 

like North Bethany Beach, North Topsail Beach—I should say 

Bethany Beach in Delaware, North Topsail Beach in North Carolina, and Cape San Blas in Florida. 

Many of the CBRA units probably would not have developed anyway. They are low-lying. They are isolated. They consist primarily 

of wetlands. They are inaccessible. And as one person in South 

Carolina told me, at least regarding the CBRA units in South Carolina, most of the lands put in CBRA were the crummy lands anyway. 

There are many different factors that influence development in 

CBRA. That is one person in South Carolina’s opinion. 

19

Mr. GILCHREST. Not crummy lands to the ducks, I guess, or the 

turtles. 

Mr. SALVESEN. No, crummy lands for development. They are not 

the kind of places you would pick for development and that is why 

they were undeveloped in 1982. 

But there are many different factors that influence development 

of CBRA. The withdrawal of subsidies is one of those. The strength 

of the real estate market. Again, the topography or geology. Some 

of the units off the coast of Mississippi would probably never develop. They are just too low-lying and too isolated. The beaches are 

not very attractive. They are mostly a mud mixture. 

One of the key findings, however, is that a strong real estate 

market trumps CBRA. Where the market is strong enough, developers will find it cost effective to build their own infrastructure, to 

put in their own water and sewer system, to build their own roads, 

and even help their buyers find private flood insurance in the private market. 

Private flood insurance is expensive. I would agree with Mr. 

Lowe’s comments. But when you can rent your property for $3,000 

to $4,000 a week during prime season, you just fold that into the 

costs of the rent and you make it back quite easily in a year. And 

I would add that most of the properties that are built along the 

coast today, in my opinion, are built for the rental income they generate. These are not properties where people are going to live in 

year around. 

Most developers and Realtors, unfortunately and surprisingly, 

are unfamiliar with CBRA. When I talked to them about the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, many of them didn’t have a clue what I 

was talking about. These are even people who develop in coastal 

areas. Many insurers, I talked to a gentleman from FEMA, many 

insurers unwittingly issued NFIP policies to people who live in 

CBRA areas. We found this out after Hurricane Fran hit North 

Carolina, that a lot of policies were issued in error and FEMA refunded their money. 

CBRA lands seem to develop last. In many places I went to, the 

non-CBRA areas are developed first because there are fewer restrictions there. You can get the infrastructure. Your people can get 

National flood insurance policies. But when everything else is gone, 

then the CBRA areas are going to go next. As one Realtor told me 

on the Fort Morgan Peninsula in Alabama, he said CBRA lands are 

the only game in town and that is where all the development is 

going to happen now. 

And finally, I think one indication of the strength of CBRA are 

the number of efforts to remove property from the CBRA boundaries. If CBRA wasn’t providing a disincentive for people to develop 

in the CBRA units, then I don’t think we would see so many efforts 

to have people’s property withdrawn from the system. 

In conclusion, I think that by itself, CBRA will not prevent development from occurring. Where the market is strong and where 

State and local governments adopt policies to undermine the Act, 

then development will occur. In some cases, for example, local governments may build private water and sewer systems to facilitate 

development. 

20

But the converse is also true. Where State and local policies support the spirit and intent of CBRA, then development will not 

occur. I didn’t find many examples of this, but Dauphin Island, 

Alabama, is one where the State drew its coastal setback line on 

the same boundary as the CBRA line and the local government, the 

Town of Dauphin Island, zoned the entire area for conservation 

and open space, and so that area has not developed. 

Very quickly, because I am out of time, I think a couple of quick 

recommendations. One is to improve outreach. Again, many people 

have never heard of CBRA. They don’t know about it. They buy 

property. They later find out that they can’t get flood insurance. 

They sue the Realtors or whatever. I think there needs to be greater outreach for buyers, for developers, for insurers, and for State 

and local coastal zone managers. I was shocked at the lack of 

awareness. 

And in order for any market system to work, you have to have, 

if I remember my Economics 101 correctly, you have to have perfect information and there isn’t enough information out there, and 

perhaps that is something the Fish and Wildlife Service could do. 

I think the match should be made much more readily available. 

As a researcher, it was difficult to me. Whenever I wanted to do 

an inventory of my own systems, I had to go either to Washington, 

or Arlington, or the local Fish and Wildlife Service in North Carolina to have a look at their aerial photos and maps. They should 

be digitized. They should be made available to local governments. 

They should be on tax assessor files and in local plans. 

Third, I think, if possible, the Federal Government should try to 

reach partnerships with State and local agencies to identify the 

CBRA areas, to identify and prioritize those areas that should be 

protected either through acquisition programs or whatever. 

I think CBRA should be incorporated in State Coastal Zone Management plans. There should be a requirement for consistency 

among Federal agencies in their decisions that affect CBRA, so if 

you have one agency building a road or expanding a highway that 

is going to affect development that doesn’t seem to be all that consistent with CBRA, perhaps Fish and Wildlife Service should have 

more than just an oversight role in that. 

And finally, I will give a plug for State and local governments 

who would like to acquire some of these CBRA lands. Maybe there 

is some way for the Federal Government to simply buy these areas. 

When I go to North Topsail Beach, every time I go there, I see that 

the lands at the very northernmost part of the island are not in 

CBRA, but most of the area leading up to that are. So whenever 

the road gets washed out or the water and sewer system gets damaged, they have got to repair that. It becomes an issue because 

they say—the local government wants to expand it so they can 

allow more development to occur and the Fish and Wildlife Service 

has held the line and said, no, I am sorry, we can’t expand it but 

we can repair it. If you go back 20 years, you should have just 

bought out those few, relatively few acres up at the top of the island and that would have made things a lot simpler for everybody. 

But in any case, I am sorry to rush through this. I am out of 

time and I thank you for inviting me to give testimony today. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Mr. Salvesen. 

21

1 It has long been known that building on sand in hazard-prone areas is risky business: ‘‘And 

everyone that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish 

man, which built his house upon the sand. And the rain descended, and the floods came, and 

the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.’’ Matthew 

7:26-27. 2 A classic example is Cape Hatteras on North Carolina’s Outer Banks. At the time the Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore was authorized in 1937, there were eight small fishing villages scattered along the three barrier islands that make up the federal seashore. These villages are outside the boundaries of the federal seashore. Development was concentrated primarily in protected areas behind natural dune systems. In 1962, construction of the Herbert Bonner Bridge 

provided direct access to the mainland and stimulated construction on the formerly isolated islands. Second home development occurred in primary sand dunes, rapidly eroding areas sites 

of former inlets and ecologically sensitive areas. By the 1970s, several wells in the Village of 

Avon became contaminated by inadequately treated wastewater from septic tanks. In the 1970s, 

the Cape Hatteras Water Association obtained a loan from the Farmers Home Administration 

to build a water line from Buxton to Avon. The new water line spurred additional development. 

Eventually, however, the limited capacity of the electric transmission line across Bonner Bridge 

curtailed development, at least until the Rural Electricfication Administration subsidized the 

construction of a newer, larger line across the bridge (U.S. Department of Interior, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Undeveloped Coastal Barriers, 1983, pg. A-96). 3 Burby, et al., (1999) stated that federal subsidies, (e.g., federal disaster relief and income 

tax write-offs), have encouraged people to build in hazard-prone locations. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Salvesen follows:]

Statement of David Salvesen, Center for Urban and Regional Studies,

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

BACKGROUND 

Coastal barriers are long, narrow bars of sand found just offshore, wherever low 

coastal plains and other conditions of geology and weather favor their creation. 

Commonly referred to as barrier islands, coastal barriers also include bay barriers 

and barrier spits that attach directly to the mainland. From the Gulf of Maine to 

Padre Island, Texas, coastal barriers form an almost unbroken chain, like beads on 

a necklace, along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The chain includes over 400 barriers 

and totals approximately 2,700 miles of shoreline. Lying parallel to the shore, coastal barriers function as buffers, protecting the mainland against the destructive 

forces of storm-driven waves, hence the name barrier. The barriers themselves survive the occasional onslaughts by rolling with nature’s punches. Rather than stand 

fast against the irrepressible sea, the barriers migrate inland, at varying rates, in 

response to wind, waves, and rising sea levels that roll the sand off their outer 

edges back and into their interiors. 

The wind-swept, isolated beauty of coastal barriers has always attracted people. 

Millions of Americans have enjoyed weekend getaways and summer vacations on 

our barrier beaches. Over the last 20 years or so, many of these isolated outposts 

of sand have undergone a boom in second-home and resort development. Yet, the 

low elevation, narrowness, and shifting sands of coastal barriers make them extremely risky places for beachfront development. 1 It is not uncommon for houses on 

coastal barriers to be washed away, rebuilt, and then destroyed again by a subsequent storm. Coastal barriers do not stand still, which is contrary to the way we 

think of land as behaving (Hansen, 1993). 

For decades, the federal government has encouraged private development on 

coastal barriers through financial assistance for the construction of highways and 

bridges, water supply and wastewater treatment facilities, and beach stabilization 

projects (Godschalk, 1984:1; Brower, Godschalk and Beatley, 1986:258; Jones, 

1991:1027). 2 Federal disaster assistance and flood insurance also have facilitated 

coastal development by transferring much of the risks and costs of development 

from the private sector to the public sector (U.S. DOI, 1982; Beatley, Brower and 

Schwab, 1994). 3 Federal subsidies have perpetuated a cycle of subsidized development, destruction and subsidized redevelopment. After a major coastal storm or hurricane sweeps across a coastal barrier, damaging or destroying development subsidized by government, federal disaster relief helps rebuild the damaged properties. 

For example, after hurricane Frederic destroyed the bridge to Dauphin Island, Alabama, in 1979, the Federal Highway Authority provided funds to reconstruct the 

bridge at a cost of $32 million, a subsidy of about $26,000 (in 1982 dollars) for each 

of the island’s 1,220 permanent residents (Kuehn, 1984:595). 

In 1977, President Carter called for an end to federally subsidized projects on barrier islands. That same year, the Barrier Islands Work Group, comprised of the U.S. 

Department of Interior, the Department of Commerce and the Council on Environmental Quality, began a series of studies that focused on identifying and assessing 

22

4 U.S. Department of the Interior. ‘‘Final Environmental Statement: Undeveloped Coastal Barriers.’’ May 1983. In 1982, an amendment by Senator Chafee, CBRA’s chief sponsor, repealed 

this provision (Section 341(d)(2)), of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act and inserted it into 

CBRA (in S1018). 5 Congressional Record, July 1, 1982, p. 15660. 

6 Coastal Barrier Resources Act: Hearings Before the Environmental Pollution Subcomm. of 

the Senate Comm. on Environment and Public Works, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd Sess. (1981-82), 

Statement by Senator Chaffee. 7Twenty-eight Democrats and 30 Republicans cosponsored the Senate CBRA bill, S.1018, 

while 68 Democrats and 61 Republicans cosponsored the House CBRA bill, H.R. 3252 (Jones, 

1991:1058). 8 In May 1982, the U.S. Department of Interior, in cooperation with the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, released a draft environmental statement for use in implementing OBRA’s 

directive requiring the Secretary of the Interior to designate undeveloped coastal barriers for 

the purpose of prohibiting new federal flood insurance. CBRA became law prior to the completion of the final environmental statement. The designation of undeveloped coastal barriers was 

established legislatively by the Act. 12 Congressional Record. March 2, 1982, pg. 2885

alternative approaches for protecting coastal barriers and reducing recurring federal 

costs associated with their development. In January 1980, the Work Group released 

a Draft Environmental Statement, which examined federal programs that, through 

grants, loans, permits or acquisition, contributed to the development or conservation 

of coastal barriers. The Environmental Statement noted that many federal programs 

worked at cross-purposes, and it called for a consistent federal policy on coastal barriers. 4

In 1981, Congress took the first step toward reducing federal subsidies that facilitate development of coastal barriers when it enacted the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (PL 97-35) or OBRA, which amended the National Flood Insurance Act 

of 1968 and prohibited the sale of federal flood insurance for new construction on 

undeveloped barrier islands after October 1, 1983. 5 In April 1981, Senator John 

Chafee (R-R.I.) introduced a bill (S.B. 1018) that expanded the scope of the prohibition of federal expenditures and financial assistance on designated coastal barriers, 

while Representative Thomas Evans (R-Del.) introduced a nearly identical bill (H.B. 

3252) in the House (Kuehn, 1984:599). Chafee, an early advocate of nonregulatory 

approaches to conserving the coastal environment, called federal subsidies of coastal 

development a ‘‘travesty,’’ particularly when domestic assistance programs were 

being cut. 

In the context of this country’s fiscal austerity, it seems to me subsidizing 

development by the federal government is really a travesty. We are reducing 

school lunch programs. We are reducing support for Medicaid and a host 

of other programs. Certainly it makes no sense to spend federal dollars to 

enrich a group of developers whose goals are hardly compatible with the 

public’s interest or the national interest. 6

The Chafee-Evans bill, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act or CBRA, brought together strange bedfellows—fiscal conservatives, environmentalists and those opposing additional federal regulations, and garnered support among Democrats and Republicans alike. 7 The bill was signed by President Reagan on October 18, 1982. 8

The history of CBRA is summarized briefly in Figure 1.3. 

Figure 1.1: Chronology of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act 

1976 President Carter calls for an end to federally subsidized projects on barrier 

islands. 12

1977 The U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) begins a study to assess options for 

modifying federal programs affecting coastal barriers. 

1980 Results of the DOI study released in a draft Environmental Impact Statement. 

1981 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (PL 97-35) amends the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, withdrawing federal flood insurance from designated coastal barriers. 

1981 Sen. Chafee (R-R.I.) and Rep. Evans (R-Del.) introduce legislation to create 

CBRA 

1982 President Reagan signs Coastal Barrier Resources Act on October 18, 1982. 

1983 Final Environmental Statement issued in May. 

1983 North Carolina developers, led by Marlow Bostic, file lawsuit against the 

federal government, alleging that their property was erroneously included 

in the system. 

23

13M.F. Bostic et al. vs. United States of America, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of N.C., 

No 83-139-CIV-4) 9Financial assistance is defined as ‘‘any form of loan, grant, guaranty, insurance payment, rebate, subsidy, or any other form of direct or indirect federal assistance,’’ CBRA § 3(3), 16 U.S.C. 

§ 3502(3) (1982). 10 Coastal barrier is defined as ‘‘a depositional geologic feature that (i) consists of unconsolidated sedimentary materials, (ii) is subject to wave, tidal, and wind energies, and (iii) protects 

landward aquatic habitats from direct wave attack.’’ The definition encompasses all associated 

aquatic habitats, including wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and near shore waters, CBRA 

§ 3(1), 16 U.S.C. § 3502(3) (1982). 11Fastland—above mean high tide. Generally refers to land that is not wetlands or open 

water. 14 CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3505 § 6(a)(3)) (1982). 15 CBRA (16 U.S.C. 3505 § (6)(a)(6)(F)) (1982). The Act also provides exemptions for nonstructural shoreline stabilization measures, scientific research, and for emergency actions essential to save lives, protect property and public safety. 

1984 Federal judge rules against Bostic and upholds CBRA. The decision was 

affirmed on appeal. 13

1990 Coastal Barrier Improvement Act amends CBRA and expands CBRS. 

1996 Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Fla.) attaches rider to Omnibus Parks bill to remove 

areas from CBRS. President Clinton signs the bill. 

1997 The Coast Alliance, a nonprofit environmental group in Washington, D.C., 

files lawsuit asserting that DOI made changes to the wrong maps. 

1998 United States District Court for the District of Columbia rules in favor of 

the Coast Alliance and strikes down the Fowler amendment. 

1998 Tillie Fowler attaches rider to Omnibus Appropriations bill, which passes 

and is signed by the President. Seventy-five acres removed from CBRS 

units in Florida. 

2000 CBRA reauthorized (Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 

1999). 

* * *

CBRA’s purpose is to minimize loss of life, wasteful expenditures of federal revenues, and damage to fish and wildlife and other natural resources. Prohibitions on 

federal expenditures in designated areas went into effect immediately, while those 

for federal flood insurance did not become effective until one year later (October 1, 

1983). CBRA prohibits federal financial assistance 9 for roads, bridges, flood insurance, utilities, erosion control, and post-storm disaster relief for new development 

on designated ‘‘undeveloped’’ areas of coastal barriers. 10 Areas designated as undeveloped were those with less than one walled and roofed building per five acres of 

fastland, 11 areas lacking urban infrastructure, vehicle access, water supply, wastewater disposal, and electric service to each lot and areas that were not part of a 

development of 100 or more lots. In addition, designated units had to have at least 

one-quarter mile of oceanfront. 

CBRA carves out certain exceptions under which the expenditure of federal money 

is permitted. Section 6 of the Act grants exceptions for energy projects, military activities, Coast Guard facilities, maintenance of channel improvements, and the 

‘‘maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the expansion, of 

publicly-owned or publicly-operated roads, structures, or facilities that are essential 

links in a larger network or system.’’ 14 Structures or facilities include public utilities. A related exemption permits federal expenditures or financial assistance for the 

maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the expansion, of 

publicly-owned or publicly-operated roads, structures, or facilities that are not essential links, but only if such expenditures or assistance are ‘‘consistent with the 

purpose’’ of CBRA. 15 Thus, a developer can build a road within the system, dedicate 

it to public use, and make the road eligible for federal assistance for maintenance 

or replacement after a storm (Kuehn, 1984:623). 

The Federal Highway Administration has determined that all roads and highways 

in the federal-aid highway system are, by definition, ‘‘essential links’’ because they 

are links to a larger network of roads. As a result, all of the roads and highways 

in the federal-aid highway system satisfy the threshold criteria for the 6(a)(3) exception (Babb, 1996). A road that qualifies for the 6(a)(3) exception need not show that 

its construction is consistent with CBRA (Department of Interior, 1983:45667). 

Congress initially designated 186 CBRA units, comprising some 453,000 acres 

along 666 miles of shoreline of the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The units range from 

small, isolated shoals of sand scarcely above sea level to chains of islands stretching 

hundreds of miles, some of which individually exceed a mile in width (GAO, 

1992:11). These designated units comprise the Coastal Barrier Resources System 

24

16Personal communication with Paul Souza, December 28, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Arlington, Va.

(CBRS). In 1990, Congress expanded the system to 854 units by adding new units 

along coastal states from Maine to Texas and by including coastal barriers along 

the Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, the Florida Keys and the Virgin Islands. Two hundred 

and seventy of the new units added in 1990 were already protected from development because they are part of a National Wildlife Refuge, National Seashore, state 

park or are owned by nonprofit land conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy. These already-protected units, which encompass some 1,786,242 acres, are 

known as ‘‘Otherwise Protected Areas’’ or OPAs. 16 Table 1 provides a brief summary 

of certain characteristics (size and composition) of CBRS units, excluding the Otherwise Protected Areas. The vast majority of land (87.4%) in the non-OPA CBRS units 

is comprised of wetlands. 


90579.003
25

17 In 1983, former Interior Secretary James Watt submitted a draft bill to Congress that applied the expenditure limitation approach to wetlands. Entitled the ‘‘Protect Our Wetlands and 

Duck Resources Act of 1983,’’ the legislation would have established a resource system comprising undeveloped wetlands of five acres or more that provide significant wildlife, fisheries, 

or water purification benefits, (Kuehn, 1984:633). The proposed legislation, introduced in the 

Senate by Chaffee, was never enacted. 18 In 1982, there was considerable controversy and debate over whether CBRA’s subsidy limitation approach alone would achieve the Act’s resource protection goals (Jones, 1991:1017). Section 10 of CBRA directed the Secretary of Interior to prepare, within three years of the Act’s 

enactment, a report to Congress that contains recommendations on conserving the natural resources of the CBRS. In response, the Department of Interior released draft reports in 1985 and 

1987, with final recommendations to Congress in 1988. The 1985 report recommended several 

alternative means of conserving natural resources in CBRS units, such as changing the tax code 

(for example to eliminate casualty loss deductions), acquiring land, or requiring consistency with 

CBRA in federal permitting activities (USDOI, 1985). Most of these recommendations never 

made it into the final report. 19Sheaffer and Roland (1981) found that the private sector or state and local governments 

bore the initial costs of providing roads, bridges, or causeways to coastal barriers, while the federal government typically subsidized later expansion, improvement, repair, rehabilitation or replacement (Sheaffer and Roland, 1981:24).

Despite some setbacks, CBRA still enjoys broad bipartisan support in Congress, 

as evidenced by its reauthorization in 2000. The reauthorization codified the criteria 

used to determine if a coastal barrier is developed (one structure per five acres of 

fastland or a full compliment of infrastructure). It also renamed CBRS after its chief 

sponsor and advocate, Senator Chafee, who died in October 1999. Now, CBRS is officially called the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System. 

CBRA departs from more traditional approaches to conserving natural resources, 

such as regulating or acquiring land. If successful, the same technique—withdrawing growth-inducing subsidies—could also be used to protect wetlands, 

floodplains, endangered species habitat, and other natural resources. 17 In adopting 

CBRA, however, federal policymakers may have overlooked the key role of state and 

local governments, as well as the role of policy coalitions, in shaping development 

on coastal barriers. 18 By itself, the Act will not prevent development. In fact, it appears that development in CBRS units will occur if (1) development pressure is 

strong enough to overcome the disincentives posed by CBRA, and (2) state and local 

governments facilitate development in CBRS units. For example, a local government 

may substitute its own subsidies for those withdrawn by the federal government. 

Nothing in the Act prevents this from occurring. However, state and local governments also may enact policies to discourage or prevent development in CBRS units. 

CBRA is a simple, straightforward federal law that seeks to discourage development in designated coastal areas by removing development subsidies, thus making 

development in CBRS units more expensive. The basic premise of the Act is that 

conservation can be achieved without increasing federal regulatory involvement simply by withdrawing federal financial support for development in high-risk coastal 

areas. Several studies have shown that the provision of infrastructure spurs development (Tabors, Shapiro and Rogers, 1976; Urban Systems Research and Engineering, Inc., 1976). Burby, et al, (1988:6) found that locating capital facilities such as 

streets and water and sewer lines in and near flood hazard areas tends to encourage 

urban encroachment into the floodplain. A study of barrier island development near 

four National Seashores (Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; Cumberland Island, Georgia; Padre Island, Texas; and the Gulf Islands in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi) 

found that uniformly, little development occurred on the barrier islands until road, 

bridge, or causeway access was provided from the mainland (Sheaffer & Roland,Inc., 

1981). The corollary was true as well: where no such access existed, little development occurred. 19

26

20 A survey of coastal developers by Godschalk (1984) indicated that the lack of water and 

sewer would constrain development on barrier islands. 21Souza, Paul. Personal communication. December 28, 2001. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Arlington, Va. 

Source of estimates on number of structures in CBRS unit: 

Ft. Morgan Peninsula: direct counts by the author using 2001 aerial photographs 

North Bethany Beach: Daniel, Heather. 2000. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act: 

Impact on Development in the Coastal Zone, Masters Thesis. University of Delaware. 

Cape San Blas: Rough estimate provided by David Richardson, planner for Gulf 

County, Pers. communication, 2/15/02. U.S. GAO (1992) estimated that there were 

332 residences in 1992. 

Moreno Point: U.S. General Accounting Office, 1992. GAO estimated that there 

were 39 structures in 1992. Considerable development has taken place since then, 

and I suspect that Moreno Point would no longer qualify for inclusion in CBRS. 

More recent estimates of development were unavailable. 

Hatteras Island (as of 2002: there are about 100 lots in the CBRS unit, 15 have 

houses on them). 

North Topsail Beach. Direct counts by the author using 1996 (post-Fran) aerial 

photos plus personal communication with John Starzinski, building inspector for 

North Topsail Beach, 2/25/02. The number for North Topsail Beach is somewhat 

misleading. First, many of the structures are high-rise condominiums with up to 230 

units (there are an estimated 820 dwelling units in the CBRS unit of North Topsail 

Beach). Second, over 260 homes at North Topsail Beach were destroyed by Hurricane Fran, most of which were in the CBRS unit. About half that many (130) have 

been rebuilt since 1998. 

Daufuskie Island: Teri Norris, Planner, Beaufort County, S.C. Pers. communication, February 20, 2002. 

Litchfield Beach: direct count by the author during on-site visit and follow-up call 

in 2000. 

Without easy access, a reliable source of potable water, and some form of wastewater treatment, extensive development on coastal barriers is unlikely. 20

The vast majority of CBRS units remain undeveloped. 21 Yet, the lack of development may be due to factors other than the withdrawal of federal subsidies. For example, most CBRS units are remote and relatively inaccessible by automobile. Others consist primarily of wetlands and would be difficult to develop or are in public 

ownership and are off-limits to development. In several CBRS units, however, substantial development has occurred. For example, a 1990 study by the National Wildlife Federation found that, of the 157 CBRS units examined, nearly 600 structures 


90579.004
27

22 ‘‘Although the undeveloped coastal barrier acreage is small, significant effects are also likely 

in Mississippi and Alabama, where there is considerable development pressure on several 

areas,’’ U.S. Department of the Interior. 1983. Final Environmental Statement, Undeveloped 

Coastal Barriers, pg. IV-12. 

had been built since the Act was adopted. Only 10 units showed an increase of ten 

or more structures. Five states (Alabama, Delaware, Florida, North Carolina and 

South Carolina) accounted for 91 percent of the new construction (Jones and 

Stolzenberg, 1990). 

In 1992, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed 34 geographically 

dispersed CBRS units and determined that eight had undergone significant new development since CBRA was enacted. In all, GAO determined that about 1,200 new 

structures were built in CBRS units since 1982, with most of the construction occurring on barrier islands in Alabama, Delaware, Florida, North Carolina and South 

Carolina (GAO, 1992). Several CBRS units have experienced so much development 

that they would no longer meet the criteria for inclusion in the system, i.e., greater 

than one structure per 5 acres of fastland. Table 2 lists the CBRS units that have 

undergone the most development. 

The amount of development in the CBRS units shown ranges from 15 to over 500 

structures. Four of the CBRS units have undergone so much development that they 

no longer meet the minimum criteria for being included in the system: less than one 

structure per five acres of fastland. North Bethany Beach, which is surrounded by 

development, has over 7 structures per five acres of fastland. And the CBRS unit 

at North Topsail Beach includes an estimated 820 dwelling units in some 348 structures. 

RESEARCH METHODS 

From 1998-2002, I conducted an analysis of the Coastal Barrier Resources System 

as part of my dissertation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I conducted case studies of five Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) sites in four 

states: Alabama, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina. In addition, I conducted a survey of state coastal managers (in states with CBRS units) and key informants within each state selected for analysis. My research sought to explain why 

development has occurred in some CBRS units, despite the withdrawal of federal 

subsidies to these units. I sought to answer the following questions: 

1. To what extent does CBRA limit development in CBRS units? 

2. How do the policies and actions (e.g., providing funds for infrastructure in a 

CBRS unit) of state and local governments affect the development of CBRS 

units? 

3. To what extent do other key stakeholders, (e.g., developers and conservation 

groups) account for the difference in the level of development among certain 

CBRS units? 

Previous reports on development in CBRS units (e.g., Godschalk, 1984; GAO, 

1992; Jones and Stoltzenburg, 1990; USDOI, 1983) indicated that CBRS units in 

five states—Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina and Delaware—had 

undergone the most development or were under strong development pressure. In its 

Final Environmental Statement (1983), the U.S. Department of Interior predicted 

that CBRA would have the greatest impact in North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida and Texas ‘‘where large acreages of undeveloped fast land are available for development and intense development pressure now threatens large sections of the 

coast’’ (USDOI, 1983:IV-12). The Department of Interior also predicted that CBRA 

would also have a significant effect in Alabama and Mississippi. 22

In deciding which CBRS units to select for case study, I focused on the states containing CBRS units that had experienced development or were under strong development pressure, i.e., Alabama, Delaware, Florida, South Carolina and North Carolina. In addition, I also sought units that would provide variation by state (i.e., 

CBRS units from different states) and by the amount of development that had occurred. 

Based on published reports, discussions with key informants (primarily federal 

and state resources agencies and nonprofit coastal conservation groups), and analysis of aerial photographs, I identified those CBRS units that had experienced the 

most development. These units are shown in 3. As shown in the table, only 4 CBRS 

units have experienced substantial development, that is, have more than one structure per five acres of fastland, although I was not able to verify the amount of development in all units within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. The Ft. Morgan 

peninsula is included in the table because it has undergone considerable development in the last five years and because it is under intense development pressure. 

Also, the 0.20 figure for the number of structures per five acres of fastland in the 

28

Ft. Morgan CBRS unit is somewhat misleading. First, a large chunk of the CBRS 

unit is within the Bon Secour Wildlife Refuge and thus is off-limits to development. 

Second, much of the recent development is in the form of large, multi-story condominiums, thus calculating the number of dwelling units per five acres of fastland 

may provide a more accurate indication of the amount of development that has occurred. 

Once I narrowed my focus to these five states, the selection of units to study was 

fairly easy, since there were few developed CBRS units to choose from, except for 

those units in Florida. For example, there is only one developed CBRS unit in Delaware (North Bethany Beach), one in North Carolina (North Topsail Beach), one in 

Alabama (Ft. Morgan peninsula) and one in South Carolina (Litchfield Beach). The 

other two CBRS units selected—Dauphin Island, Alabama, and Hutchinson Island, 

Florida—were selected because they were identified by key informants as CBRS 

units subject to strong development pressure. In addition, while other CBRS units 

in Florida—Cape San Blas and Moreno Point—were considered, due to the amount 

of development that has occurred in these units, I selected the Hutchinson Island 

unit because I wanted to build on the pilot study by Godschalk (1984), which included a case study of this unit (as well as North Topsail Beach).

Budget constraints prevented me from including CBRS units from Delaware and 

from including additional CBRS units from within the four states selected. Table 3 

summarizes the characteristics of the most-developed CBRS units identified while 

Table 4 summarizes the characteristics of the five specific CBRS units selected for 

analysis. 

One of the findings of my research is that little is known about the exact amount 

and type of development that has occurred in CBRS units. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not keep an accurate account of development activity (e.g., number 

of dwelling units or structures) in CBRS units. For example, in 1992, the U.S. General Accounting Office estimated that there are 332 residences at Cape San Blas, 

a CBRS unit in Florida (U.S. GAO, 1992:27). However, I could not obtain a more 

recent estimate from the Service—the planner for Gulf County, Florida (where Cape 

San Blas is located) estimated that as of February 2002, there were upwards of 500 

structures in the unit. 

The units selected for case study meet the range of characteristics desired for my 

analysis. That is, variation in size, location (different states), development pressure 

and in the amount of development that has occurred. In addition, each has sufficient 

vacant land for development. As shown in Table 4, the five CBRS units selected 

range in size from 103 acres at Litchfield Beach to over 15,000 acres at Hutchinson 

Island, and in the level of development from low (none) at Dauphin Island to high 

(over 800 dwelling units) at North Topsail Beach. Three of the CBRS units selected 

are on barrier islands, two on peninsulas. Wetlands make up at least 49 percent 

of each of the CBRS units selected, with Hutchinson Island topping the list with 

93 percent of the unit comprised of wetlands. And except for Hutchinson Island, 

each of the units has been struck by a major hurricane since 1982, when CBRA was 

enacted. All of the CBRS units are readily accessible by car and are within a few 

hours drive from a major metropolitan area.


90579.005
29

23 Under the snowball sampling technique, researchers solicit help from respondents or 

interviewees in identifying other key people to interview. 24 U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal Barrier Studies 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, Vol.1, 166. 

At each site, I conducted at least 15 in-depth interviews with key stakeholders—

planners, developers, Realtors, lenders, insurers, regulators, elected officials, and 

representatives of conservation groups—to examine the different factors that influence development in the selected CBRS units. I used the snowball technique 23 to 

identify the key stakeholders at each site, starting with an interview with the town 

or county planner and working from there. The interviews were open-ended, although many of the same questions were asked of all interviewees. I asked each 

interviewee questions to probe their knowledge of CBRA, how the Act affects development in the CBRS unit, the main factors and groups (coalitions) influencing development, and the outcome of that influence. 

FINDINGS 

General 

CBRA is a novel federal approach to protecting coastal barriers. Federal attempts 

to protect coastal resources have generally been limited to fairly traditional approaches: property acquisition, encouragement of state and local land use planning 

through financial incentives, or direct ‘‘command and control’’ regulation. 24 In contrast, CBRA does not rely on regulations, state incentives, or on acquisition, which 

would be expensive, given the price of coastal properties. Instead, the Act simply 

removes federal incentives that encourage development of coastal barriers. The philosophy behind the Act is that the risk associated with new development in areas 

that have been identified as high-risk, damage-prone areas in which to build, should 

not be borne by the American taxpayer. The basic premise of the Act is that conservation can be achieved without increasing federal regulatory involvement simply 

by withdrawing federal financial support for development in high-risk areas. 

For decades, the federal government worked against itself, spending millions 

to acquire and protect some undeveloped coastal barriers and billions to subsidize development on other barriers. The Coastal Barrier Resources Act was 

intended to stop all that, to establish the principle that those who wish to 


90579.006
30

25 Coastal Barrier Resources System: Hearing before the Subcomms. On Fisheries and Wildlife 

Conservation and the Environment and on Oceanography of the House Comm. On Merchant 

Marine and Fisheries, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1989), statement of Rep. Gerry Studds. 

develop undeveloped costal barriers shall do so at their own risk and expense and not at the risk and expense of the federal taxpayer. 25

Congress may have been naive in assuming that the withdrawal of federal subsidies, by itself, would prevent development of designated coastal barriers. As 

Table 2 shows, substantial development has occurred in several CBRS units. To 

date, however, there has been little research examining why these CBRS units have 

developed. 

The case studies and surveys of state coastal managers suggest that there are a 

number of different factors that influence land use in Coastal Barrier Resources 

System units, including market forces, state and local policies and actions, geology, 

accessibility and advocacy coalitions, although it is difficult to tease apart the different factors. At Dauphin Island, Alabama, no development has occurred in the 

CBRS unit in large part due to state policy (the setback line), CBRA and the actions 

of a conservation group. In particular, the conservation group was able to thwart 

the developer’s plans to develop 200 lots on the western end of the island. However, 

geology was also a factor. The west end of the island is narrow, low-lying, and extremely vulnerable to coastal storms, as Hurricane Georges aptly illustrated. In 

comparison, Alabama’s Ft. Morgan peninsula, which is heavily developed, is wider, 

higher in elevation, and its beaches are far more attractive. Also, although both 

places attract crowds in summer, the Ft. Morgan peninsula traditionally has been 

a bigger draw for tourists while Dauphin Island is a relatively quiet, year-round 

beach community. 

State coastal managers varied in their knowledge of the Coastal Barrier 

Resources Act. In states where little or no development had occurred in CBRS units, 

coastal managers tended to have very limited knowledge of the Act, which is not 

surprising given that CBRA is not a high-profile federal program. It was designed 

to be self-implementing: there are no regulations to enforce, no permits to issue, 

and, in most cases, few controversies to address. Only about half of the state coastal 

managers interviewed were knowledgeable about the Act, which makes it difficult 

to draw conclusions (based on the survey results) about the impact of CBRA, among 

other factors, on land use in CBRS units. The findings from the survey of state 

coastal managers were consistent with the case studies in a number of areas. In 

particular, the case studies and surveys both showed that developer interests were 

dominant at North Topsail Beach, Litchfield Beach and the Ft. Morgan peninsula, 

while conservation groups were dominant at Dauphin Island. In addition, the case 

studies and surveys indicated that CBRA is only one of several factors that influence land use in designated coastal barriers. 

Key informants also were asked about their knowledge of CBRA and about the 

relative influence of conservation and development interests in their state. As with 

state coastal managers, the key informants varied considerably in their knowledge 

of CBRA. Most said they were somewhat familiar with the Act, a handful claimed 

they were very familiar, and a few admitted that they never heard of the Act. 

Finally, state and local policies and actions seemed to influence development in 

the CBRS units examined, as illustrated by Alabama’s Coastal Construction Control 

Line, which overlays the CBRS boundary and has helped prevent development in 

the CBRS unit of Dauphin Island. Similarly, the policies and actions of local elected 

officials have facilitated development at North Topsail Beach and the Ft. Morgan 

peninsula, and certainly paved the way for development to occur on Hutchinson Island. 

Impact of CBRA 

The impact of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act varies from place to place. In 

some places, such as North Topsail Beach, the Ft. Morgan peninsula and Litchfield 

Beach, the CBRS units have undergone so much development that they are virtually 

indistinguishable from adjacent areas that are not part of CBRS. In other places, 

such as Dauphin Island and Hutchinson Island, the difference between CBRS and 

non-CBRS areas is very stark. In general, CBRA has made development more difficult and expensive. The withdrawal of federal subsidies for water, sewer and insurance in particular have posed obstacles to development, although, as the case studies of North Topsail Beach, Litchfield Beach and the Ft. Morgan peninsula demonstrated, these obstacles are not insurmountable. Strong land markets, a full complement of infrastructure, the availability of private flood insurance and a cooperative, if not strongly pro-development, town council or county commission enabled development to occur. These three units are some of the most extensively developed 

31

of the entire CBRS system. Even at Dauphin Island, where a proposal to develop 

in the CBRS unit was defeated, Mobile County had offered to provide the infrastructure for a proposed project that received approval (a variance) from the state. In at 

least one place—Hutchinson Island—the added difficulty of developing land in 

CBRS is reflected in land prices: according to Realtors and property appraisers 

interviewed, vacant land located in the CBRS unit is worth less than land outside 

of CBRS, all else being equal. 

In some of the CBRS units studied, the Act may have kept land (in CBRS) from 

being developed, at least until developable land outside the unit became scarce. At 

the Ft. Morgan peninsula, development in the CBRS unit really began only after 

the non-CBRS areas were already developed. At Hutchinson Island, CBRA appears 

to have kept some vacant land off the market long enough for state and local governments to acquire it. In addition, the Act appears to have shaped the type of development that occurs as well—an outcome that was predicted by Godschalk in his 

1984 pilot study. For example, at North Topsail Beach, most of the large, multi-unit 

condominium projects are in the CBRS unit, although at Ft. Morgan, the opposite 

has occurred, with high-rise condominium buildings placed just outside the CBRS 

boundary. 

State coastal managers surveyed stated that CBRA had little or no effect on development in the CBRS units. Eleven of the 15 coastal managers surveyed stated 

that CBRA has had no impact on land use in CBRS units, two said it had a little 

impact, and two said they don’t know. Eleven respondents said that state policies 

and local land markets are the key determinants of land use in CBRS units, not 

CBRA. For example, the coastal manager in Rhode Island stated that CBRA has 

had very little impact, primarily because the state’s coastal regulations are so strict. 

In Connecticut, the state coastal manager noted that the barrier beaches are short 

and narrow, usually less than 100 feet wide, and this poses a severe constraint on 

development in CBRS units. The same holds for Massachusetts. Several states (New 

York, Texas, Virginia, Florida, Maryland and New Jersey) stated that most of the 

CBRS units are owned by the public and thus precluded from development. Finally, 

several states (Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island) restrict the use of state funds for infrastructure on undeveloped coastal barriers. The 

survey of state coastal managers indicated that CBRA was one of several factors 

that determine whether or not development occurs, including land prices, the demand for development, ownership (public or private), and the availability of flood 

insurance. 

Geology is also a factor, as is vehicle access. As mentioned previously, it is hard 

to discount the role of geology in discouraging development at some CBRS units. For 

example, most of the beaches in Louisiana are small, narrow, muddy and inaccessible. According to the deputy commissioner of South Carolina’s coastal management 

program, ‘‘a lot of CBRS units wouldn’t have developed anyway: They are low-lying, 

isolated and inaccessible.’’ In other states, such as Maryland and New Jersey, most 

of the coast was developed long before CBRA was enacted, and most of the remaining undeveloped coastal areas are in public ownership. 

Clearly, CBRA matters to some landowners and developers, as reflected by the 

numerous efforts to have their property removed legislatively from the system, e.g., 

in Florida and in North Carolina. In South Carolina, a developer decided to steer 

clear of the CBRS unit after he saw what The Litchfield Company had to go through 

to develop The Peninsula, e.g., building a private water and sewer system at a cost 

of $2 million. 

Overall, I observed a gradual incursion of development in at least three CBRS 

units: Ft. Morgan peninsula, North Topsail Beach and Litchfield Beach. However, 

this was not the case at Hutchinson Island nor at Dauphin Island. Hutchinson Island may be a special case, due to the extensive amount of wetlands in the CBRS 

unit and the presence of a nuclear power plant on the island. At Dauphin Island, 

CBRA, state policies (setback provision) and the actions of the local group, Forever 

Dauphin Island, all have worked to prevent development from occurring in the 

CBRS unit. 

Importance of State and Local Policies 

At the state level, eight of fifteen coastal managers surveyed stated that state 

policies have a big impact on land use; three responded that state policies have a 

little impact; and four said they have no impact. State coastal managers were not 

asked about the impact of local policies. All state coastal managers surveyed stated 

that their state’s coastal policies were pro-conservation. State actions, however, 

often supported development in CBRS units (e.g, at North Topsail Beach and the 

Ft. Morgan peninsula). Thus, state agencies often work against each other, with one 

agency promoting conservation of the coast and another facilitating development. 

32

Local policies and actions typically supported development of the coast, except at 

Dauphin Island. But local agencies can work against each other, as can a state and 

a local agency. Also, there is a difference between policy adoption and policy implementation. For example, North Carolina coastal policies call for a minimum setback 

to protect structures along the coast from damage caused by coastal erosion. Yet, 

the state has granted numerous variances, especially at North Topsail Beach, to the 

setback requirement. At Hutchinson Island, St Lucie County took steps to facilitate 

development by creating a special assessment district for a water and sewer plant, 

which extended water and sewer lines through the length of the CBRS unit. Yet, 

the county had previously cut allowable densities in half, and state policies encourage conservation of the coast. 

Probably the most important finding about state and local policies and actions is 

that state and local governments are not homogenous, but are comprised of different 

agencies and personalities, with different policies, agendas, resources and beliefs. In 

some cases, the agencies work together toward a common goal, in other cases they 

work against each other. Also, a single agency may have competing objectives, especially in the case of state coastal management agencies, whose mission, typically, 

is to ‘‘preserve and develop’’ the coastal resources of the state. State and local policies and actions were not uniform, but varied within and across levels of government. That is, some were strongly pro-conservation at the state level but strongly 

pro-development at the local level, e.g., North Topsail Beach and Hutchinson Island. 

Overall, I found that state and local policies matter, and that where government 

actions, more than policies, facilitate development, development was likely to occur, 

as was the case at North Topsail Beach and Ft. Morgan. The corollary was also 

true, as was the case at Dauphin Island, where implementation of state (setback 

provision) and local (zoning) policies, helped prevent development from occurring in 

the CBRS unit. The results at Hutchinson Island were mixed, however, with the 

state and local governments often trying to achieve different objectives. Yet, virtually no development has occurred in the CBRS unit at Hutchinson Island. Finally, 

in South Carolina, neither the state nor local government strongly opposed or facilitated development at Litchfield Beach, although the local utility refused to extend 

its water and sewer lines into the CBRS unit. State policies in South Carolina 

strongly favor conservation, but a proposed project on the coast will likely receive 

the necessary permits as long as it complies with the state’s setback requirements. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

Given CBRA’s shortcomings, should the Act be scrapped and relegated to a historical footnote or strengthened to improve its effectiveness? First, as stated previously, 

the vast majority of CBRS units remain undeveloped: only a handful or so have experienced development. Second, CBRA has achieved at least one of its objectives: reducing wasteful expenditures of taxpayer dollars. In several instances (Litchfield 

Beach, for example), the Act has forced developers to bear the risk of investing in 

CBRS units. And after Hurricane Fran damaged much of North Topsail Beach, 

CBRA restricted (although it did not completely prevent) the use of federal funds 

for disaster recovery in the CBRS unit. In addition, the Act has delayed the development of some CBRS units, buying time for state or local governments to purchase 

the land for public use. Still, there are a number of ways the Act could be strengthened, as summarized below. 

Give the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a stronger oversight role 

CBRS does not establish regulatory oversight mechanisms. Neither the USFWS 

nor any other federal agency is authorized to regulate or enforce CBRA. In fact, 

there are no regulations to enforce. Other agencies are required to consult with 

USFWS, but the Service’s role is limited to reviewing actions proposed by federal 

agencies and providing its opinion regarding the consistency of those actions with 

the purposes of CBRA. USFWS is not authorized to investigate possible violations 

of CBRA’s limitations on federal spending, nor is it authorized to enforce the law. 

The final determination of whether a proposed action is consistent with the purpose 

of CBRA rests with the consulting agency. The USFWS does not have veto power 

over other agency decisions. The agency should be provided with the authority to 

ensure that federal agency actions are consistent with the Act’s objectives. This may 

require Congressional action. 

Provide a final arbiter for interagency disputes 

When interagency conflicts arise over CBRA, as they have most recently between 

the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps over dredging from CBRS units for use 

outside the unit, there is no final arbiter of such disputes. The Service can elevate 

disagreements to the assistant administrator, but agencies can proceed with a 

33

project over FWS objections. An entity such as a Council on Environmental Quality 

could help resolve interagency squabbles over CBRA. 

Incorporate CBRA’s goals into local coastal zone management plans 

Local government officials often adopt policies and conduct activities that are inconsistent with the intent of CBRA. The comprehensive plans of coastal jurisdictions 

should include policies that are consistent with CBRA. Such a requirement could 

be incorporated as a performance guideline under the Coastal Zone Management 

Act. Thus, local governments would adopt plans consistent with CBRA and federal 

actions, including federal spending for infrastructure, would have to be consistent 

with those plans. In addition, local plans should include maps that show the CBRS 

boundaries. 

Improve outreach 

No federal agency feels responsible for outreach on CBRA. As a result, many Realtors, buyers, developers, insurers and federal agencies are in the dark about the Act. 

As a result, insurance agents erroneously have issued federal flood insurance policies in CBRS areas. In its evaluation of CBRA, the General Accounting Office found 

that 42 of the 250 residences it sampled in five CBRS units had purchased federal 

flood insurance. On North Topsail Beach, over 100 National Flood Insurance Policies 

were issued in error. When these North Topsail Beach policy-holders filed claims for 

their damaged homes after hurricanes Bonnie and Fran, coverage was refused. Instead, FEMA simply refunded their premiums. The FWS should be given the responsibility and the resources to enhance and expand its outreach on CBRA. One 

possible remedy would be to include CBRS boundaries in parcel maps at all county 

assessor files (digital boundaries). 

To many developers and landowners, CBRA seems unfair, especially when their 

neighbor just across the CBRS boundary has access to federal flood insurance. Also, 

the designation of CBRS units was not based on risk or vulnerability, so the delineation seems arbitrary to many. CBRS units may be less vulnerable than areas 

where federal flood insurance is available. 

Limit federal spending for infrastructure on coastal barriers if it will encourage 

development in a CBRS unit 

On coastal barriers containing both CBRS and nonCBRS areas, federal spending 

for roads, bridges, water and sewer systems to support development outside the 

CBRS area may also encourage development inside the CBRS unit. The President 

could beef up Executive Order 11988 on floodplain management, first issued by 

President Carter in 1977, to include measures that would limit federal support for 

infrastructure projects on coastal floodplains (coastal barriers) if such actions would 

encourage development in CBRS areas. 

Section 1 of the Executive Order calls on federal agencies to ‘‘take action to reduce 

the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and 

welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 

floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; (2) providing Federally undertaken, financed, 

or assisted construction and improvements; and (3) conducting Federal activities 

and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to, water and related and 

resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.’’

Mr. GILCHREST. In light of Mr. Salvesen’s testimony this morning 

and his recommendations, has there been, or I would assume it 

would be a pretty good idea based on one of Mr. Salvesen’s recommendations of outreach to the community, to have town meetings or some type of outreach communication memos to the State 

governments and local governments to determine the policy about 

development, construction, financial support, and extension of a 

road, a water line, sewage treatment plant. All those things are 

local issues. 

And I guess what seems to be important is to communicate to 

them once every few years about this Coastal Barrier Resources 

Act and what it means, because the turnover in local government 

is fairly frequent and we can’t obviously assume that each new 

county commissioner or State legislators or planning person, who 

34

is probably the cousin of the County Supervisor or the County 

Commissioner the way that things work in local government, 

knows anything about all the Federal programs. 

So an aggressive outreach program every few years to reeducate 

local government as to all these Federal programs, I think would 

be highly recommended. If there is anything we can do to help facilitate that, we would like to be a part of that, or if you think it 

might be a good idea to make an amendment to the Act to have 

something like that be completed, and then as we authorize it, 

maybe we can help to fund FEMA and Fish and Wildlife Service 

to do those kinds of outreach programs. 

I think it is important not only to preserve the ecology and the 

ecological integrity of coastal barrier habitat for a full range of 

wildlife and also retain the integrity of the coastal barrier itself for 

it to function the way it has been over the last tens of thousands 

of years. But there are taxpayer dollar issues involved in this. 

There are safety issues involved in this as far as search and rescue 

is concerned when a storm hits. 

But what brought this home to me was the Hurricane Isabel that 

hit the East Coast. And as I traveled my district, which straddles 

the Chesapeake Bay, and whether it was a condominium owner 

that didn’t realize—whether it was someone that owned the unit in 

a condominium that didn’t realize that the condominium owner 

didn’t have Federal flood insurance and so all his stuff was lost, to 

the insurance agent that didn’t know about Federal flood insurance 

who issued the policy, to the bank that didn’t know that the mortgage had to have, or was supposed to have Federal flood insurance 

in order to have that mortgage certified, to the full range down to 

the poor fellow who built the crab shack new Crisfield on the lower 

Eastern Shore that had it there for years and didn’t even have it 

on the—never got a permit to build it, didn’t know anything about 

permits, didn’t know anything about Federal flood insurance, and 

the local government many times was confused even to the point 

where the representative from the State Insurance Commissioner 

didn’t know all of the ins and outs of the Federal Flood Insurance 

Program when discussing it with someone that came from Missouri 

from FEMA to help out in Maryland. 

So from Federal flood insurance issues to CBRA issues, I think 

the outreach recommendation, we will highly recommend and find 

some way for that information to be disseminated to all the areas 

where CBRA units exist. 

And the last thing you wanted to do when you came here this 

morning was listen to a lecture. So it is not a lecture, it is just 

something that we can work more closely together on. 

Dr. Tuggle, do you have some idea when the modernization effort 

of this mapping program will be completed? 

Dr. TUGGLE. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. We are approximately about 

55 or 60 percent finished at this point. We anticipate that we will 

have some news to share with you by the summer of 2004. We 

have made some giant strides in terms of our ability to be able to 

couple and leverage some resources. As you know, in the reauthorization bill, we were authorized $1.5 

million to start this pilot project, and because of competing priorities with the Fish and Wildlife Service, we were unable to request 

35

those funds. However, we were very fortunate and very, shall I say, 

ingenious in the way that we looked at how we were going to leverage other resources, so we were able to come up with some money 

to start the pilot project and to get it initiated. So we fully anticipate that by next summer, we will have some good news to share 

with you in terms of the details. 

Mr. GILCHREST. We will look forward to that, and I guess the 

time frame for another hearing then would be maybe June or July. 

Dr. TUGGLE. Yes, sir. What we would like to do is we would like 

to come up and specifically talk to the Committee members and 

your staffs ahead of that hearing— 

Mr. GILCHREST. Sure. 

Dr. TUGGLE. —to explain to you not only some of the things that 

we have found out in terms of the benefits in terms of the digital 

mapping project, but also some of the problems that I think that 

we need to work with you to get them straightened out— 

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. 

Dr. TUGGLE. —as we move into this digital arena. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Maybe we can sit down and have that meeting 

in, let us say, the February or March time frame. 

Dr. TUGGLE. I will look forward to that. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. I think I am into 8 minutes now. I 

have some more questions, but I will yield at this point to Mr. 

Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just so I understand, would that mean that by next summer, you 

would have digital mapping for the whole system? Is that— 

Dr. TUGGLE. No, sir. We— 

Mr. PALLONE. Would you explain, because I am not clear about 

when you say what is likely to be done by the summer. 

Dr. TUGGLE. In the reauthorization bill, we were tasked with a 

pilot project that called for us to digitize 75 CBRA units, and those 

are the units that we will be presenting to the Committee in terms 

of the complexity of digitizing those maps and also looking at the 

benefits and also the costs associated with potentially digitizing all 

of the CBRA maps. 

Mr. PALLONE. So what percentage is that, 75 of the total, approximately? 

Dr. TUGGLE. Seventy-five units, you mean? 

Mr. PALLONE. Yes. 

Dr. TUGGLE. I would say about a third, close to a third. 

Mr. PALLONE. So then you would come to us in the summer and 

use that as a demonstration and then maybe suggest that we do 

the rest? 

Dr. TUGGLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PALLONE. And then what do you think the cost or time table 

would be for that? 

Dr. TUGGLE. I really think we would have a better idea when we 

have an opportunity to complete the study. A lot of times, what is 

happening is that when we get ready to map OPAs, there is a great 

deal of complexity associated with that because we have to go to 

the local areas and try to figure out who owns the property and 

also work with the county governments and the State governments 

in those cases to actually prove that they own those protected 

36

areas. So there is a lot more complexity associated with OPAs than 

there really are with the other units. 

Mr. PALLONE. And then Mr. Lowe, with these revised digital 

maps, I mean, to what extent is that a priority in terms of determining if an area is eligible for Federal flood insurance? How important is this process for you? 

Mr. LOWE. Yes, it is quite important. We, too, are doing a map 

modernization process where we are digitizing our maps, too. We 

have approximately 100,000 panels, which are paper maps. Some 

of them have been digitized, but certainly not all of them. And so 

this will enable us to be very, very precise once we get that digital 

data from the Service. So we really look forward to it. I think it 

will help out a lot because we, too, have to kind of go back through 

the Service and then back out to our agents and homeowners and 

others who are trying to delineate whether their property is in or 

out. So this would be very important for us, as well. 

Mr. PALLONE. This relates, I guess. The 1994 Flood Insurance 

Reform Act authorized FEMA to force place insurance for properties uninsured in flood zones. How often does FEMA use that authority and do you think it should be used? 

Mr. LOWE. I am not aware of that being used. I think what 

that—my guess is what that is referring to, however, is the lenders’ 

ability to force place— 

Mr. PALLONE. I see. 

Mr. LOWE. —for a homeowner who has a federally backed loan 

in a special flood hazard area, which does happen. Lenders do do 

that. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. And then I wanted to thank Mr. Salvesen for 

being here and for the information you provided us so far, particularly with regard to the outreach. But I just wanted to develop a 

little more in the time we have this idea of subsidies from States 

and localities, you know, whether it is infrastructure or whatever, 

that undermine the intent and effectiveness of the Act. 

You mentioned that we should try to incorporate the CBRA’s 

goals into local Coastal Zone Management plans. Would you just 

develop that a little more? In other words, what can we do in that 

regard to prevent these local governments from promoting development with these subsidies or infrastructure? How do we go about 

getting the towns to incorporate CBRA’s goals? Is there something 

that we could do legislatively or otherwise? 

Mr. SALVESEN. I am not sure how you can force local governments to do that, but what you could do is work with them through 

the development, their Coastal Zone Management plans, which is 

kind of a cooperative undertaking between the State and Federal 

Governments. 

Some States like Florida and North Carolina require their coastal jurisdictions to prepare coastal elements in their local plans, and 

if working through the States through some sort of incentives 

through the Coastal Zone Management Program, I think you could 

do that. 

In other cases, you could make sure that Federal funding isn’t 

being used to undermine the spirit of CBRA. For example, in North 

Topsail Beach, a very, shall we say, creative developer convinced 

the State Department of Transportation to relocate a road away 

37

from the beach so that his lots would be made large enough to develop. That was all in a CBRA area. I don’t know if any Federal 

funding was used by the State Department of Transportation, but 

I would imagine some was. 

So it is that kind of cooperation through the State and local governments, through State governments through the Coastal Zone 

Management Program and working through some sort of oversight 

mechanism to make sure that these kind of things, like moving a 

highway, don’t slip through the cracks where Federal funding is involved. 

There is another interesting case—I will just relay you one more. 

I am sorry to take up more time. But after Hurricane Fran washed 

out the water and sewer lines, there was a big disagreement with 

the Fish and Wildlife Service over whether or not they could use 

the money to expand the existing water line to serve more development in the North part of the island, and as I think I said before, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service said no, you could use our money to 

replace and repair but not to expand. But they did put in a larger 

pipe and through some creative financing they managed to use 

Fish and Wildlife Service funding only for—I shouldn’t say Fish 

and Wildlife, Federal funding only for that portion that would have 

been spent to repair the pipe, but it indeed was enlarged, which 

would make more development possible. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask him one more 

thing? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Take your time. 

Mr. PALLONE. My understanding is that the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System does not establish regulatory oversight mechanisms, so maybe what you are saying, Mr. Salvesen, is that we 

could get Fish and Wildlife to play a stronger role in implementing 

or issuing those kind of regulations? 

Mr. SALVESEN. There are no regulations to enforce, as far as I 

know. The Fish and Wildlife Service, I believe, consults, or other 

agencies consult with Fish and Wildlife Service when they are 

doing something in the CBRA unit, but there are no regulations to 

enforce. There is no regulatory oversight. And the Service, correct 

me if I am wrong, Dr. Tuggle, doesn’t have any power to veto the 

decisions of other agencies. 

So, for example, if the Corps of Engineers wants to renourish a 

beach in a CBRA unit, or if the Department of Transportation 

wants to build a road or bridge in a CBRA unit, the Fish and Wildlife Service can consult with them, but can’t veto that. 

Mr. PALLONE. Did you want to comment on that consultation 

process and whether you think something should be strengthened, 

Dr. Tuggle? 

Dr. TUGGLE. Well, certainly our role now is the keeper of the 

maps and the consultation process with the other Federal agencies. 

I would not at this time be able to comment with you regarding 

strengthening and encouraging some kind of regulatory capacity. I 

think at this point, it is going to take a little bit of providing more 

information, and it is really a sticky wicket when you start to talk 

about Federal oversight as it relates to local kinds of things. 

We are comfortable with our consulting capacity right now and 

what we are trying to do is create a more visible product with the 

38

maps so that the delineation of those lines can be detected at the 

local levels, and as they start their planning processes and they 

make those local land use decisions, that they can be aware. I 

think that the outreach component is one that we thoroughly endorse in that regard. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. 

I think the beauty of the program at its inception was that it was 

not a regulatory program. It simply allowed people to do whatever 

they wanted. They weren’t going to be subsidized by the Federal 

Government. And so for a large extent, as Mr. Salvesen has said, 

most of the CBRA units have not been developed. It has worked. 

We held this hearing because since I have been in Congress and 

on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee and now this 

Committee, we see members, for whatever reason, pressured by 

their constituents to create legislative action to take people out of 

the CBRA units. And since we now have nearly developed all the 

area outside of CBRA, people are now looking at the CBRA units 

and they know they can develop them. 

And that is fine. They can build those houses. They get private 

insurance. They have those little units for $3,000 a week or 

$10,000 a week. We need to encourage people to use tents and 

kayaks more, but what we wanted to do is to see how we could 

take a look at the program, not bring about the heavy hand of the 

Federal Government, not to give FEMA or Fish and Wildlife any 

more responsibility in the vast array of responsibilities than they 

already have, to try to figure out a way to inform people, the public 

in general, that somebody living just on the mainland is subsidizing somebody living a half-a-mile from them on a coastal barrier island, the fragile ecosystem, all these things we are trying to 

protect. 

Plus, I think it was in Mr. Salvesen’s testimony that I went 

through last night, and Mr. Pallone brought it up here this morning, that the Corps of Engineers can scoop out sand from an area 

that is in a Coastal Barrier Resource Area and then take it over 

and dump it someplace else without Fish and Wildlife having any 

authority or anybody having authority to prevent that. That is a 

decision basically by the State government with a plan that they 

create the Corps follows through on with a full range of funding 

available from Congress. 

So I think that without overburdening Fish and Wildlife, there 

ought to be some effort to have greater oversight in something like 

beach replenishment. But the issue of outreach, information transfer, to tell the State, the local government, the local planning office, 

that the CBRA system is alive and well and exists and here it is, 

is one of the most important things that we can do. 

The lack of information on the local level, whether it is CBRA, 

whether it is Federal flood insurance, whether it is the concept of 

a flood plain, how to listen to the news, to know where your house 

is on that map, that if the sea level rises two feet, you are OK. If 

it rises four feet, you had better move out before it hits. The lack 

of information in the public arena is staggering. It is extraordinary. 

So the outreach would be pretty important. 

39

I would like to ask one quick question of Dr. Tuggle. I know this 

will be our decision, but I would like an honest appraisal of the 

question. Should we as a Congress pass legislation for a moratorium on any technical changes in the CBRA units until the digital 

mapping of all CBRA units and OPA is complete? 

Dr. TUGGLE. I will try to be honest as I can. 

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. 

Dr. TUGGLE. I would say no. Quite frankly, since 1999, we have 

developed a system by which we have embraced this comprehensive 

mapping technique, as well as using our contractors to get to the 

digital profiles associated with where these lines are, that we feel 

very comfortable at this point being able to make recommendations 

with development criteria as well as where the line falls on the face 

of the earth and make those recommendations to Congress in a 

way that we fully think we can support the ultimate goals of 

CBRA. 

The world has changed so much since 1982 as it relates to mapping. In 1999, we finally figured out that we needed to be more aggressive with this digital arena. But the question was, how could 

we do that and how far would that range be in terms of the scope? 

I think the combination, with the criteria that we have developed 

and has also been codified in the Reauthorization Act of 2000, that 

we are very comfortable in the way that we are assessing whether 

these lands should or should not be in CBRA at this time. 

May I add one more thing? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes. 

Dr. TUGGLE. And I know I am running out of time and I apologize— 

Mr. GILCHREST. That is all right. 

Dr. TUGGLE. The real sticky wicket in all of this are the OPAs, 

and what we are seeing with OPAs are, originally when they were 

designed, nobody asked the question whether those lines mirrored 

the land ownership, and primarily they were put on a map as a 

line where we think the land ownership is. When those people 

come back to us and they say, this is an OPA, it is supposed to be 

a protected area, we have private land and you have included us 

in the OPA, we have to look at where that line is primarily because 

OPAs were designed strictly for protected areas. We are seeing a 

lot of those kinds of technical corrections come to us primarily because those lines are incorrect. 

We don’t see a lot of legislation that is being proposed that we 

support that are calling for removal for large pieces of property 

from CBRA units because they don’t want to be there. If the criteria was met as it relates to development criteria, Mr. Chairman, 

we are holding the line in terms of whether we think they should 

be in or out. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much, Dr. Tuggle. 

Mr. Pallone, any more questions? 

Mr. PALLONE. No, I don’t have any. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I just have a few more. I know you have a caucus, but I am just going to— 

Mr. PALLONE. I can leave if I have to. 

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. Since 1990, Dr. Tuggle, and I am not sure, 

maybe Mr. Salvesen may know this after your research, do you 

40

have any idea how many acres have been legislatively removed 

from the system? 

Dr. TUGGLE. May I start? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Yes, sir. 

Dr. TUGGLE. We got that question, and quite frankly, through no 

disrespect to the question, we simply cannot answer that question 

at this time. We have discernible numbers since 1999 because we 

have been able to use the digital profiles that were associated with 

that. To go back to 1982 would require significant resources and a 

lot more time than we had to prepare for— 

Mr. GILCHREST. I would assume that, actually since I asked this 

question, I just thought of this, we could probably figure that out, 

legislatively removed from—we could just go back and look at the 

Congressional Record and see how many times we passed a bill to 

remove somebody from CBRA. 

Dr. TUGGLE. Even in those instances, I will be honest with you, 

administrative record does not always include acreage— 

Mr. GILCHREST. You are right. That is right. 

Dr. TUGGLE. and even in some cases when it does, they are not 

correct. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Since the improvement of 1990 of CBRA, do you 

have any idea how many additional acres of FWS land has been 

added to the system? 

Dr. TUGGLE. Added to the system? 

Mr. GILCHREST. Added to the system. 

Dr. TUGGLE. None. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Nothing has been added to the system since— 

Dr. TUGGLE. Not to the system, no. 

Mr. GILCHREST. I see. Acres of wetlands or aquatic habitat added 

to the system? 

Dr. TUGGLE. No. The only thing that would remotely rise to that 

level was some land in North Carolina that was originally an OPA 

and they wanted to be included as a system unit, so that particular 

one was included. But other than—but it still is a protected area. 

But we have not had instances where we have added FWS land 

that was not in a protected area to any of the CBRA units. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Has anybody volunteered their land to be into 

the CBRA units? 

Dr. TUGGLE. No, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GILCHREST. Is there some—could you give us a recommendation—I realize that this is something that we really need to do—

is there a recommendation by the Department to include similar 

units on the West Coast? 

Dr. TUGGLE. We did a study where we basically determined 

that—the geological features on the West Coast are very different 

than they are on the East Coast, and a synopsis, it would require 

probably a change in the way the CBRA is written for the West 

Coast because it is basically a piece of legislation that is written 

for the East Coast. 

We also found that there was not a whole lot of FWS land that 

was available to be included in a CBRA-esque type unit. There 

were a lot of protected areas that were there, but the topography 

was very different. They were not subject to the kinds of hurricanes 

41

and storms that the East Coast is. A lot of the problems that you 

find there are the cliffs and the bluffs that are associated much 

more than the barrier islands. 

So in our determination, we were very comfortable in saying that 

we would not recommend trying to extend CBRA to the West 

Coast. 

Mr. GILCHREST. It would be, actually, I guess, based on what you 

just said, because of its topography and geology, it would have to 

be a different Act, I would suppose. 

Dr. TUGGLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GILCHREST. If you go to protected coastal areas. 

Dr. TUGGLE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Lowe, we have talked back in my office and 

here this morning, your discussion on FEMA’s role in this area. 

You have said that the national Federal Flood Insurance Program, 

based on the premiums that are charged, is more or less self-financing. But, for example, when Fran hit or Isabel hit or other 

storms hit, the program is self-financing for reimbursing the homeowner if they have good coverage. 

Mr. LOWE. Right. I— 

Mr. GILCHREST. But the question, though, is the total cost of Isabel to local communities, to State and the Federal Government goes 

well beyond the homeowner. It is the cost to the National Guard, 

the local police, the local fire department, the local rescue department, areas that are set aside for homeowners because they can’t 

go back into their home, so what it costs to house people, clothe 

people, feed people, haul debris away, all of these things. Is any of 

that, those ancillary damages and costs, is any of that covered by 

the Federal flood insurance? 

Mr. LOWE. Let me answer your, kind of the premise of your question first. The 1994 Act, and I know it is not in my statement, 

doesn’t talk that I am aware of about self-financing. It certainly 

doesn’t require that of the National Flood Insurance Program. 

What you may, in fact, be referring to is— 

Mr. GILCHREST. I guess I didn’t mean that you are required to 

have it self-financing. The discussion around here, members of 

Congress—we are not always so well informed, believe me, myself 

included—is that when people talk about reforming Federal flood 

insurance to save the taxpayers money, other members will say, 

well, Federal flood insurance is self-financing. People pay premiums. So the whole program is covered. 

But, in fact, if you looked at all of the costs in areas of high risk, 

Federal flood insurance, it seems to me, doesn’t come close to covering the cost of a storm in a high-risk area. 

Mr. LOWE. Right. No, I think that is absolutely correct. I mean, 

we cover damage to prescribed policy limits on residences and 

buildings. There are many, many indirect economic costs that simply are not going to be covered, of which you have named many of, 

and some of those can be astronomical. For us, when we look at 

Isabel right now, we are looking at the possibility of about 22,000 

claims, about $450 million. Now, since 1986, the National Federal 

Flood Insurance Program has been able to, in fact, pay that and 

pay its claims without borrowing or certainly borrowing where it 

would have to go to Congress. We basically have a rolling line of 

42

credit which we pay back with interest, and so we do that. And 

that is out of the fund. 

Now, there is a Disaster Relief Fund, of course, that covers most 

of the other things which you mentioned. But the purpose of the 

Federal insurance program, in fact, was to try to reduce the drain, 

if you will, and the pull on taxpayers from the Disaster Relief 

Fund. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. 

That is a vote, but I have one more question for Mr. Salvesen. 

One of the recommendations that you made in your testimony was 

dealing with a stronger oversight role for Fish and Wildlife with 

the CBRA program, and you made another recommendation which 

provides a final arbiter for interagency disputes. It seems to me 

that in an arena where you can have the Corps of Engineers dredging sand in front of a CBRA unit to provide better protection for, 

let us say, a beachfront community a little further down or a little 

further up from that unit—and then I am going to ask Dr. Tuggle 

to quickly respond to that, as well—what role should the Federal 

Government or Fish and Wildlife have in negotiating that with the 

Corps of Engineers or even finding some way to prevent that? 

Mr. SALVESEN. That is a good question. I don’t know if Dr. 

Tuggle would even agree with my suggestion that perhaps Fish 

and Wildlife Service would have more oversight role. But there 

seems to be a need for somebody to perhaps elevate a decision 

when there are conflicts. 

And if you look at something like under the Endangered Species 

Act, we have, what is it called, the ‘‘God Squad’’ or something like 

that it is sometimes known as. Where there are disputes between 

protection of an endangered species and proposed development, 

that decision can be elevated to this ‘‘God Squad’’ which consists 

of the directors of different administration—I think it is Commerce, 

Environment, I can’t name all of them. 

But maybe that is the kind of mechanism you could consider putting in place so that where there are disagreements between Fish 

and Wildlife Service and the Corps about some Federal action that 

may not be consistent with CBRA, you could—it is kind of like 

those of you who are old enough to remember ‘‘Get Smart,’’ you remember whenever Max wanted to discuss something that was controversial and the Chief didn’t agree, he would say, ‘‘Well, we need 

to bring out the cone of silence,’’ you know, and the Chief hated 

that cone of silence. 

So you need something that says, we need to elevate this to a 

higher level so that all of us can sit around and talk about this, 

and that very threat might get them to say, OK, look, you win. We 

will stay out of the CBRA unit. But some mechanism like that 

where the Fish and Wildlife Service would have a little more leeway about decisions that affect development in and around the 

CBRA units. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you very much. I will check that movie 

out this weekend. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SALVESEN. No, it wasn’t a movie, it was just the daily, you 

know, weekly show. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Oh. 

43

Mr. SALVESEN. I am dating myself. I am sorry. 

Mr. GILCHREST. OK. 

Mr. SALVESEN. You never saw the cone of silence? 

Mr. GILCHREST. I guess—no. We will talk about that later. 

Mr. SALVESEN. It is classic. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GILCHREST. It might be something useful for me to know, 

though. 

Dr. Tuggle, any comment on that? 

Dr. TUGGLE. Mr. Chairman, you know, it is—you are right in 

terms of your instincts in terms of this ability to try to arbitrate 

these kinds of decisions. Right now, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

role is to advise the Corps of Engineers in regards to our interpretation of whether removing sand from a CBRA unit is appropriate 

or not. 

One of the things that I might suggest is that you are in a situation where the Corps may have already gotten authorization as 

well as appropriation to fulfill this role and, therefore, which one 

supercedes. I would recommend that if we wanted to pursue this 

to a different degree, we might make a recommendation to CEQ, 

or the Council of Environmental Quality. That might be an excellent body by which we can explain our points of view and the Administration can make a decision in that regard, versus having the 

Service be burdened with some other responsibility or regulation, 

and I am, quite frankly, not an advocate of that. 

Mr. GILCHREST. All right. Well, thank you very much. 

One last comment. In Mr. Salvesen’s testimony, you made a 

number of references to the conflicting role of the Federal Government. On the one hand, we are trying to protect a property and on 

the other hand we are financing the infrastructure for development. 

What we would like to do as we move through this process of understanding this area of the Federal Government’s role in CBRA, 

where some of those conflicts are, when we sit down maybe in 

March to look at the digital mapping in anticipation of another 

hearing in the June-July time frame, we would like to keep all 

three of you abreast of what we are doing so this review, when we 

have it, can bring some very clear, specific recommendations and 

some very positive changes. 

Dr. Tuggle, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Salvesen, we appreciate your testimony very much and for traveling here to give it. Thank you. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ