Coastal barriers are unique land forms that function as buffers, protecting the mainland against the destructive forces of hurricanes and other coastal storms. Coastal barriers also provide habitat for migratory birds and other wildlife; and they provide essential nesting and feeding areas for commercially and recreationally important species of fish and other aquatic organisms such as sea turtles. In the United States, coastal barriers are predominantly distributed along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts but can also be found in areas surrounding the Great Lakes, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. From the Gulf of Maine to Padre Island, Texas, coastal barriers form an almost unbroken chain along the coastline. Coastal barriers are generally unsuitable for development because the movement of unstable sediments undermines man-made structures. Despite this threat, coastal areas that include coastal barriers are among the most rapidly growing and developed areas in the nation, accounting for 53 percent of the total population in the United States according to a 2004 report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Ocean Service. In 1982, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to minimize (1) the loss of human life; (2) wasteful expenditures of federal revenue; and (3) damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources associated with coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts by restricting future federal expenditures and financial assistance, which have the effect of encouraging development of coastal barriers. The act designated 186 units, comprising about 453,000 acres along 666 miles of shoreline from Maine to Texas, which would later be known as the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Subsequently, the CBRS was further expanded to include additional units along coastal states from Maine to Texas, plus units in the Great Lakes, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Currently, the CBRS includes 585 units, which consist of undeveloped coastal barrier lands and aquatic habitat that comprises nearly 1.3 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat. The CBRS was also expanded to include 272 OPAs that comprise an additional 1.8 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat. Most of the land in these OPAs is publicly held for conservation or recreational purposes, such as national wildlife refuges, national parks and seashores, and state and county parks; but some OPAs may also include some private property that may or may not be held for conservation. Under CBRA, no single federal agency has overall responsibility for administering activities within the CBRS; instead, all federal agencies must abide by the provisions of the act. CBRA does assign the Secretary of the Interior responsibility for, among other things, maintaining maps of each CBRS unit and recommending modifications to CBRS unit boundaries, as needed. Within the Department of Interior, these responsibilities belong to the FWS. Both agencies and property owners can request decisions from FWS regarding whether specific properties are within CBRS boundaries. Finally, agencies must consult with FWS to determine whether a proposed project is within the CBRS, and if so, whether the project is consistent with CBRA. The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 directed the Secretary of the Interior to complete a Digital Mapping Pilot Project for at least 50 but not more than 75 units in the CBRS and submit a report to the Congress that describes the results of the pilot project and the feasibility, data needs, and costs of completing digital maps for the entire CBRS. Currently, FWS is conducting a pilot project to create updated digital CBRS maps that would provide federal agencies and others with an enhanced tool for determining accurate boundary locations. Later, the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 directed the Secretary of the Interior to create digital maps by 2013 for all CBRS units not included in the pilot project. However, according to agency officials, the ability to conduct this project and the actual completion date will depend upon the specific funding that the agency receives for this project. CBRA does not prohibit development in CBRS units by owners who are willing to develop their properties without the benefit of federal financial assistance. Instead, with certain exceptions, CBRA prohibits federal expenditures or financial assistance within CBRS units that might encourage development. The prohibitions include, but are not limited to the following: the construction or purchase of any structure, facility, or related infrastructure; the construction or purchase of any road, airport, boat landing facility, or other facility on, or bridge or causeway to, any CBRS unit; any project to prevent the erosion of, or to otherwise stabilize, any inlet, shoreline, or inshore area for the purpose of encouraging development; and the issuance of flood insurance coverage under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 for any new construction or substantially improved property. CBRA allows certain federal assistance within the CBRS for limited activities after consultation with FWS. However, the act does not require the agencies to obtain FWS’ approval before acting. Such assistance includes, but is not limited to the following: the exploration, extraction, or transportation of energy resources that can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to a coastal water area; the maintenance or construction of improvements of existing Federal navigation channels and related structures; the maintenance, replacement, reconstruction, or repair, but not the expansion, of publicly owned or operated roads, structures, or facilities that are essential links in a larger network or system; military activities essential to national security; and assistance for emergency operations essential to saving of lives and protecting property. CBRA has no provisions prohibiting the administration of federal regulatory activities, such as issuing certain permits, within the CBRS. Three federal agencies—the Corps, EPA, and the U.S. Coast Guard—issue permits that regulate, among other things, the discharge of dredged or fill material into federally regulated waters, including wetlands; the discharge of wastes into navigable waters; and the construction of bridges over navigable waters. Because much of the CBRS is comprised of wetlands and aquatic habitat, activities undertaken in these areas can require a permit from one or more of these agencies. Federal legislation other than CBRA provides the authority for issuing these permits. Among these are the Clean Water Act, the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, and the Bridge Act of 1906, as amended. Despite the concentration of significant levels of development in a few units, most of the CBRS remains undeveloped. Specifically, we found an estimated 84 percent of all CBRS units remain undeveloped—with no new structures built since the unit was included in the CBRS. We found that factors such as the lack of suitably developable land in the unit and state laws discouraging development were responsible for inhibiting development. We also determined that an estimated 13 percent of CBRS units experienced minimal levels of development—consisting of less than 20 additional structures per unit since becoming part of the CBRS—while 3 percent of CBRS units experienced significant development—100 or more additional structures per unit. According to local officials, commercial interest and public desire to build in some units and local government support for development were some of the key factors contributing to the development in the CBRS units we reviewed. Appendix II lists the units in our review and the status of development in those units. On the basis of our analysis of a random sample of CBRS units, we estimate that 84 percent of the units experienced no new development since their inclusion in the CBRS. For the units in our sample, the undeveloped units were generally smaller in total acreage and had less developable acreage than the developed units. Although CBRA does not appear to have been a primary factor in discouraging development in the units we reviewed, officials indicated that in those areas where CBRA prohibitions are complemented by local and state government objectives for development, it is unlikely that there will be significant increases in development. Local officials cited several factors as being primarily responsible for inhibiting development. The Lack of Suitably Developable Land. This was a primary factor for the lack of development in a number of CBRS units that we reviewed. For example, the Boat Meadow unit in Massachusetts is comprised almost entirely of salt marshes with small sand bars scattered throughout shallow water, making the land unsuitable for development. Similarly, in the Wrightsville Beach unit in North Carolina, the sand continuously shifts, making the land too unstable for development. Figure 1 is an example of the type of terrain generally found in the Boat Meadow CBRS unit in Massachusetts. Lack of Accessibility to the Unit. A number of federal and local officials noted that some CBRS units are not easily accessible or are located in remote locations that are not desirable to developers. For example, a number of units, such as the Bay Joe Wise Complex in Louisiana, are only accessible by boat. Other units, such as the Boca Chica unit in Texas, are in such remote locations that an official said developers are not willing to build there. In addition, several remote and inaccessible locations do not currently have the infrastructure needed to develop the unit. For example, an official said the lack of existing infrastructure and the high cost of constructing development-quality water and sewage infrastructure have discouraged development on the North Padre Island unit in Texas. State Laws Discouraging Development. State laws were cited by a number of officials as reasons why development had not occurred in some CBRS units. Some states have adopted specific restrictions to prevent development in coastal or wetland areas, which are often found in CBRS units. For example, a number of units in Massachusetts—such as Black Beach and Squaw Island—have not experienced development due in part to wetland and coastal protection laws enacted by the state. In addition, both Maine and Massachusetts do not allow state funds or grants to be used for projects to encourage development in barrier beaches.