In responding to requests from the public and carrying out mapping projects, the Service may find areas that were inappropriately included within the CBRS and constitute technical mapping errors. We consider a technical mapping error to be a mistake in the delineation of the CBRS boundaries that was made as a result of incorrect, outdated, or incomplete information (often stemming from inaccuracies on the original base maps). 

When assessing whether an area may be appropriate for removal from the CBRS, we consider the following guiding principles:

1. Whether the area may reasonably be considered to be a coastal barrier feature, or related to a coastal barrier ecosystem (this generally includes areas that are inherently vulnerable to coastal hazards such as flooding, storm surge, wind, erosion, and sea level rise) and
2. Whether inclusion of the area within the CBRS is rationally related to the purposes of CBRA (i.e., to minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources). 

We also consider the following criteria: 

1. The level of development on the ground at the time the area was included within the CBRS (i.e., whether the number of structures or complement of infrastructure on the ground exceeded the threshold for the area to be considered undeveloped) (16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)) and/or
2. The location of geomorphic, cultural, and development features on the ground at the time the area was included within the CBRS (i.e., whether the CBRS boundary lines on the maps precisely follow the underlying features they were intended to follow on the ground). 

The Service may make recommendations to Congress to remove areas that were inappropriately included within the CBRS and constitute technical mapping errors. The Service generally does not recommend removals from the CBRS unless there is clear and compelling evidence that a technical mapping error was made.

The Service recommends modifications to the CBRS unit boundaries where appropriate to add undeveloped fastland (land above mean high tide) and associated aquatic habitat (wetlands and open water) to the CBRS, either as additions to existing units or as entirely new units. Such additions to the CBRS are consistent with section 4(c)(3) of the 2006 Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act (Pub. L. 109-226), which directs the Secretary to make recommendations for expansion of the CBRS.

When assessing potential additions to the CBRS, we consider the following guiding principles:

1. Whether the area may reasonably be considered to be a coastal barrier feature, or related to a coastal barrier ecosystem (this generally includes areas that are inherently vulnerable to coastal hazards such as flooding, storm surge, wind, erosion, and sea level rise) and
2. Whether inclusion of the area within the CBRS is rationally related to the purposes of CBRA (i.e., to minimize the loss of human life, wasteful expenditure of Federal revenues, and damage to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources). 

We also consider the following criteria: 

1. The level of development on the ground (i.e., whether the number of structures or complement of infrastructure on the ground exceeds the threshold for the area to be considered undeveloped) (16 U.S.C. 3503(g)(1)) and/or
2. In the case of certain additions to existing units, the location of geomorphic, cultural, and development features on the ground at the time the adjacent area was included within the CBRS (i.e., whether the CBRS boundary lines on the maps precisely follow the underlying features they were intended to follow on the ground).

The CBRA mapping criteria were originally published in the Federal Register (47 FR 35696) on August 16, 1982, by the Department of the Interior. Congress later codified the development criteria through the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 (Section 2 of Pub. L. 106-514). Additional information about the Service’s guiding principles and criteria for assessing modifications to the CBRS is available in Chapter 6 of our 2016 report to Congress on the Digital Mapping Pilot Project. These guiding principles and criteria were also published in the Federal Register (86 FR 118) on January 4, 2021.

No. The legislative history of CBRA states: “The Committee does not envision that the Secretary will recommend deletions because development has occurred within a System unit subsequent to the passage of this Act. It is the intent of this legislation that those who choose to develop within the Coastal Barrier Resource System after enactment do so at their own risk. Recommending changes to such units for this purpose would obviously not be consistent with the intent of this legislation” (House Report 97-841 Part 1). 

Consistent with this statement and with the criteria described above, the Service generally does not recommend that Congress remove areas from the CBRS unless there is clear and compelling evidence that a technical mapping error was made.

No. The Department of the Interior’s 1982 definitions and delineation criteria (47 FR 35696) state that:

“Commitments or legal arrangements necessary for and leading toward construction of either structures or infrastructure will not be considered relevant to the development status of coastal barriers coastal barriers
Learn more about coastal barrier landforms.

Learn more about coastal barriers except to the degree they are actually reflected in the existence of structures or infrastructure on the coastal barrier, or portion thereof.”

In 2000, via Pub. L. 106-514, Congress codified the development criteria that the Service is required to use when evaluating potential changes to the CBRS, and these criteria focus on the presence of actual structures or infrastructure on the ground at the time of designation rather than plans for development (see above for additional information on the criteria).

In lieu of providing for the consideration of development plans, Congress provided a delay in the date for terminating the availability of new federal flood insurance as a means of dealing with structures that were already under development on the ground at the time of inclusion within the CBRS (see our flood insurance webpage for more information). When reviewing requests for removals from the CBRS, the Service continues to consider only development that existed (or exists for new additions) on the ground at the time of designation.

Not necessarily. CBRA designated areas within the CBRS that were relatively undeveloped at the time of designation, not entirely undeveloped, and many units included scattered structures. The criteria used to designate the CBRS units allowed development below a density of one structure structure
Something temporarily or permanently constructed, built, or placed; and constructed of natural or manufactured parts including, but not limited to, a building, shed, cabin, porch, bridge, walkway, stair steps, sign, landing, platform, dock, rack, fence, telecommunication device, antennae, fish cleaning table, satellite dish/mount, or well head.

Learn more about structure per five acres of land above mean high tide. There is a grandfathering provision allowing for existing structures that were added to the CBRS to carry flood insurance. The rules vary depending on when the structure was built and when the unit was designated. See our flood insurance webpage for more information.

While many areas within the CBRS are highly vulnerable to flooding, the Service’s recommended additions are based on a variety of factors, including a set of guiding principles and the statutory development criteria. The CBRS includes many areas that are not within a FEMA designated special flood hazard area. For additional information, see our FAQs on additions to the CBRS above.

There are two types of units within the CBRS—System Units and OPAs. The Service generally recommends reclassification of an area from a System Unit to an OPA if it was predominantly held for conservation and/or recreation (according to the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act definition of an OPA at 16 U.S.C. 3502(a)(5)) at the time it was first included within the CBRS. Areas that were not predominantly held for conservation and/or recreation at the time of designation are usually classified as System Units. 

The Service generally recommends reclassification of an area from an OPA to a System Unit if the area was not held for conservation and/or recreation at the time of designation. Additionally, the Service accommodates requests from landowners for voluntary reclassifications of conservation/recreation areas from OPA to System Unit status.

Additional information on the Service’s protocol for CBRS unit type classification is described in a notice published in the Federal Register in January 2021 (86 FR 118).

Yes. The Service may administratively add areas to the CBRS, or reclassify conservation/recreation areas from OPA to System Unit status (16 U.S.C. 3503(d)). The owner of the parcel must make such a request in writing. The parcel must be an undeveloped coastal barrier (16 U.S.C. 3502) to qualify for voluntary addition to the CBRS. For additional information, please contact us at cbra@fws.gov.

No. CBRS boundaries cannot be changed by LOMA or LOMR. Those documents are issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency for changes to Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). FEMA does not have authority to make changes to the CBRS maps, which are separate from the FIRMs.

See our federal flood insurance and CBRA page.

See our general CBRA FAQs.