Coastal Barrier Resources System: Status of Development That Has
Occurred and Financial Assistance Provided by Federal Agencies
(19-MAR-07, GAO-07-356).
In 1982, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. The
Coastal Barrier Resources Act, as amended (CBRA), designates 585
units of undeveloped coastal lands and aquatic habitat as the
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). CBRA
prohibits most federal expenditures and assistance within the
system that could encourage development, but it allows federal
agencies to provide some types of assistance and issue certain
regulatory permits. In 1992, GAO reported that development was
occurring in the CBRS despite restrictions on federal assistance.
GAO updated its 1992 report and reviewed the extent to which (1)
development has occurred in CBRS units since their inclusion in
the system and (2) federal financial assistance and permits have
been provided to entities in CBRS units. GAO electronically
mapped address data for structures within 91 randomly selected
CBRS units and collected information on federal financial
assistance and permits for eight federal agencies.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-356
ACCNO: A66984
TITLE: Coastal Barrier Resources System: Status of Development
That Has Occurred and Financial Assistance Provided by Federal
Agencies
DATE: 03/19/2007
SUBJECT: Coastal zone management
Conservation programs
Disaster relief aid
Erroneous payments
Federal regulations
Federal/state relations
Government guaranteed loans
Housing programs
Insurance
Land management
Property
Policies and procedures
Coastal Barrier Resources System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-356
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]CBRS Remains Largely Undeveloped
* [4]The Majority of CBRS Units Have Not Experienced Development
* [5]A Small Percentage of Units Have Experienced Some Level of D
* [6]The Extent to Which Federal Agencies Have Provided Financial
* [7]Four Federal Agencies Have Provided Some Financial Assistanc
* [8]FEMA National Flood Insurance Program
* [9]FEMA Individuals and Households Program
* [10]Department of Housing and Urban Development
* [11]Small Business Administration
* [12]Department of Veterans Affairs
* [13]Federal Agencies Have Provided Assistance That Is Allowable
* [14]Federal Emergency Management Agency
* [15]Federal Highway Administration
* [16]Corps of Engineers
* [17]EPA-Authorized State Agencies and the Corps Have Issued Perm
* [18]Conclusions
* [19]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [20]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [21]Determining the Extent of Development in CBRS Units
* [22]Determining the Extent of Federal Assistance Provided to CBR
* [23]FEMA National Flood Insurance Program
* [24]FEMA IHP Program
* [25]SBA
* [26]HUD Housing Programs
* [27]VA Home Loan Guaranty Program
* [28]USDA Business and Industry, Community Facilities, and
Housin
* [29]USDA Utility Programs
* [30]FEMA Public Assistance Grant Program
* [31]Federal Highway Administration
* [32]Massachusetts
* [33]Rhode Island
* [34]South Carolina
* [35]Florida
* [36]North Carolina
* [37]U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
* [38]U.S. Department of Agriculture
* [39]Department of Homeland Security
* [40]U.S. Coast Guard
* [41]Department of Housing and Urban Development
* [42]Environmental Protection Agency
* [43]Federal Highway Administration
* [44]Small Business Administration
* [45]Department of Veterans Affairs
* [46]GAO Contact
* [47]Staff Acknowledgments
* [48]GAO's Mission
* [49]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [50]Order by Mail or Phone
* [51]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [52]Congressional Relations
* [53]Public Affairs
Report to the Honorable Wayne T.Gilchrest, House of Representatives
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
March 2007
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM
Status of Development That Has Occurred and Financial Assistance Provided
by Federal Agencies
GAO-07-356
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 4
Background 6
CBRS Remains Largely Undeveloped 10
The Extent to Which Federal Agencies Have Provided Financial Assistance
and Permits to Entities in CBRS Units Varies 16
Conclusions 26
Recommendations for Executive Action 27
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 29
Appendix II CBRS Units We Reviewed 35
Appendix III Snapshots of Selected CBRS Units 40
Massachusetts 40
Rhode Island 43
South Carolina 47
Florida 49
North Carolina 52
Appendix IV Programs and Types of Federal Assistance Analyzed 57
Appendix V Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
60
Appendix VI Comments from the Department of the Interior 62
Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs 64
Appendix VIII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 66
Tables
Table 1: Examples of FEMA Disaster Assistance Since 1998 24
Table 2: CBRS Units Included in Random Sample and Approximate Number of
New Structures 35
Table 3: CBRS Units Included in GAO's Random Sample That Were Analyzed to
Determine the Extent of Federal Expenditures and Permits 38
Table 4: Additional CBRS Units Suggested for Review by FWS That Were
Analyzed to Determine the Extent of Federal Expenditures and Permits 39
Figures
Figure 1: Boat Meadow CBRS Unit in Massachusetts 11
Figure 2: CBRS Units We Visited in Massachusetts 41
Figure 3: House and Beach on the Squaw Island, CBRS Unit in Massachusetts
42
Figure 4: CBRS Units We Visited in Rhode Island 44
Figure 5: Home with a Backyard in the Prudence Island, Rhode Island CBRS
Unit 45
Figure 6: Portion of the Prudence Island Complex CBRS Unit 46
Figure 7: Inlet Where Proposed Dredging Project Would Occur in the
Prudence Island CBRS Unit 47
Figure 8: CBRS Units We Visited in South Carolina 48
Figure 9: CBRS Units We Visited in Florida 50
Figure 10: CBRS Units We Visited in North Carolina 53
Figure 11: House in North Topsail CBRS Unit on the Edge of the Ocean 55
Abbreviations
CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act as amended
CBRS John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOI Department of the Interior
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FWS Fish and Wildlife Service
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
IHP FEMA's Individuals and Households Program
NFIP FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OPA Otherwise Protected Areas
SBA Small Business Administration
VA Department of Veterans Affairs
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
March 19, 2007
The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Gilchrest:
The U.S. coasts are among the most rapidly growing and developed areas in
the nation. From 1980 to 2003, the population in U.S coastal areas is
estimated to have increased by 33 million people and is projected to
increase by another 7 million people by 2008. Coastal barriers, such as
islands and broad sandy barrier beaches, serve as the mainland's first
line of defense against the impacts of hurricanes and coastal storms.
These areas are also biologically rich and provide protection for a
variety of fish and wildlife species, including migratory birds,
shellfish, and sea turtles. While the geological composition of coastal
barriers makes them highly unstable areas on which to build, their
desirable waterfront locations make them attractive for development. As
development and population increase, the risk to human life, property, and
valuable habitat increases, and the natural buffers that minimize storm
damage are degraded. For example, when Hurricane Isabel made landfall
along North Carolina's Outer Banks in 2003, it caused widespread wind and
storm surge damage to several piers, several thousand homes and
businesses, and damaged or washed away sections of a highway.
Recognizing that development in coastal barrier areas can be impacted by
the actions and programs of the federal government, Congress enacted the
Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982. The stated purpose of the Coastal
Barrier Resources Act as amended (CBRA) is 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 and the shores of the Great
Lakes by restricting future federal expenditures and financial assistance,
which have the effect of encouraging development of coastal barriers.
Through CBRA, Congress designated 585 units of undeveloped coastal land
and associated aquatic habitats comprising nearly 1.3 million acres as the
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS).^1 Congress,
through the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990, also designated an
additional 1.8 million acres already held for conservation or recreation,
such as national wildlife refuges, national parks and seashores, and state
and county parks, as otherwise protected areas (OPA).
^1For the purposes of CBRA, a coastal barrier was considered undeveloped
if the density of development was less than one structure per 5 acres of
land above mean high tide.
CBRA does not prohibit development in CBRS units by owners willing to
develop their properties without the benefit of federal financial
assistance, such as federal flood insurance, loans, grants, subsidies or
other forms of direct or indirect federal assistance.^2 Instead, with
certain exceptions, CBRA prohibits federal expenditures or financial
assistance within CBRS units that might encourage development. The
prohibition includes--but is not limited to--the issuance of flood
insurance policies, home loans, loan guarantees, and new or expanded
infrastructure construction within CBRS units. However, the act does
exempt certain federal expenditures or financial assistance from the
general prohibition, such as emergency operations that are essential to
saving lives, maintaining and replacing existing publicly owned
infrastructure, energy development, and activities related to national
security. In addition, CBRA allows agencies to issue permits to entities
within the CBRS for certain federally regulated activities, such as the
construction of bridges and docks or the discharge of dredged or fill
materials into waters that fall under federal jurisdiction.
Under CBRA, no single federal agency is assigned overall responsibility
for administering activities in the CBRS; instead, all federal agencies
must abide by the provisions of the act and are required to certify
annually that they are in compliance with CBRA.^3 CBRA does assign the
Secretary of the Interior responsibility for, among other things, the
tasks of consulting with other federal agencies that propose spending
funds within the CBRS, maintaining maps for each CBRS unit, and
recommending modifications to CBRS unit boundaries, as needed. These maps
are used by property owners; federal, state, and local agencies; and other
parties, such as insurance agents, to determine whether a property or
planned project is within a CBRS unit and therefore whether it is
ineligible for federal financial assistance. Within the Department of the
Interior (DOI) these responsibilities belong to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). The existing maps that depict CBRS unit boundaries are
outdated technologically and present challenges to users. In May 2006, the
Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to initiate a map
modernization project for all of the units in the CBRS that is to be
completed by 2013.^4 This effort is designed to create digital maps of all
CBRS units that are more accurate and less time consuming for agencies and
others to use than the maps currently available.
^2Financial assistance as defined by the act does not include general
revenue sharing grants; deposit or account insurance for customers of
financial institutions; the purchase of mortgages or loans by federal
associations or corporations such as the Federal National Mortgage
Association; assistance for environmental studies, planning, and other
assessments that are required incident to the issuance of permits or other
authorizations under federal law; and assistance for programs entirely
unrelated to development, such as the federal old-age survivors or
disability insurance program.
^3Such reports and certifications shall be submitted annually to the
Secretary of the Interior. 16 U.S.C. S 3506(b).
In 1992, we reported that development was occurring in some CBRS units
despite restrictions on federal assistance.^5 CBRA has been amended
several times and the CBRS has expanded to include significantly more
units. In this context, you asked us to update our 1992 report and review
the extent to which (1) development has occurred in the CBRS and (2)
federal agencies have provided financial assistance and issued permits to
entities in CBRS units.
To determine the extent of development that has occurred within CBRS
units, we selected a stratified random sample of 91 units located
throughout the system. The sample included units designated as part of the
system in 1982 and 1990. We did not include otherwise protected areas in
our analysis. For each unit, we obtained and electronically mapped address
or parcel data for structures within the unit boundaries.^6 Throughout
this report, the percentage of units that have experienced development is
a statistical estimate based on our analysis of the development in the 91
randomly selected units, which can be projected to the entire system. The
random sample was stratified by region to select an equal number of units
in northern and southern regions. In addition, we conducted site visits
and/or interviewed officials for a subset of 59 units in 13 states to
determine the extent of and reasons for development. To determine the
extent of federal expenditures and financial assistance made to
individuals and entities within CBRS units, we identified and collected
information on financial assistance provided in selected CBRS units from
those federal agencies that, based on our previous report and our
discussions with FWS, were the most likely to have provided assistance.
These agencies include the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
Small Business Administration (SBA), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the
Corps), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). We also
interviewed officials with these agencies about the agencies' procedures
for preventing prohibited expenditures from being provided to individuals
and entities in CBRS units. To determine the extent to which federal
agencies issued permits for projects within selected CBRS units, we
interviewed officials and analyzed data provided by the Corps, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and state agencies authorized to
administer EPA programs. The information we gathered on federal financial
assistance and permits cannot be generalized to the entire universe of
CBRS units. We determined that the agency data were sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of our review. A more detailed description of our scope
and methodology is presented in appendix I. We performed our work between
February 2006 and February 2007 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
^4Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No.
109-226, S 4(a), 120 Stat 381.
^5GAO, Coastal Barriers: Development Occurring Despite Prohibitions
Against Federal Assistance, [54]GAO/RCED-92-115 (Washington, D.C.: July
17, 1992). Our 1992 report only covered units designated by the original
1982 act.
^6We electronically mapped the location of the addresses using MapInfo
Software.
Results in Brief
Most units within the CBRS remain undeveloped; however, about 3 percent of
units have experienced significant levels of development. Specifically, an
estimated 84 percent of all CBRS units have remained undeveloped (no new
structures were built) since they were included in the system, while about
13 percent have experienced minimal levels of development--consisting of
less than 20 additional structures per unit since becoming part of the
CBRS. An estimated 3 percent of units experienced significant
development--consisting of 100 or more structures per unit--since becoming
part of the CBRS. According to federal and local officials, CBRA has
played little role in the extent of development within the CBRS units that
we reviewed. For those units that have remained undeveloped, officials
identified the following factors as being primarily responsible for
inhibiting development (1) the lack of suitably developable land in the
unit; (2) the lack of accessibility to the unit; (3) state laws
discouraging development within coastal areas; and (4) ownership of land
within the unit by groups, such as the National Audubon Society, who are
seeking to preserve the natural state of the unit. For those units that we
reviewed where development has occurred, local officials said that CBRA
did little to discourage development and identified the following factors
as being primarily responsible for contributing to development: (1) a
combination of commercial interest and public desire to build in the unit,
(2) local government support for development to improve the economic base
of the area, and (3) the availability of affordable private flood
insurance. Overall, we found that CBRS units in the southern region of the
United States are experiencing greater development than units in the
north. This is largely because the amount of developable land is greater
in the south.
Federal agencies have provided some financial assistance that is
prohibited by CBRA, some assistance that is allowed under CBRA, and issued
hundreds of permits for federally regulated construction projects to
property owners and other entities in CBRS units. More specifically,
o Four agencies--FEMA, HUD, SBA, and VA--provided financial
assistance to property owners in CBRS units that is prohibited by
CBRA. For example, we determined that 73 FEMA flood insurance
policies with total policy values of $20 million and 5 HUD insured
loans totaling $384,000 were made to entities in CBRS units and
were active in 2006. While FEMA, SBA, and VA have procedures in
place intended to prevent prohibited financial assistance from
being provided to property owners in CBRS units, HUD does not have
such procedures. FEMA officials cited the lack of updated CBRS
maps and limitations with mapping technology as the primary
reasons why errors were made and assistance was provided to
entities within the CBRS. FWS has begun a congressionally directed
effort to modernize and correct CBRS unit maps. However, according
to FWS officials, completing that effort is contingent upon
receiving specific funding for the effort. In the meantime, FWS is
working with FEMA to update the digital flood maps used by
FEMA--an effort that should improve FEMA's, insurance agents' and
other's ability to determine if a property is eligible for federal
flood insurance. VA and SBA officials acknowledged that they had
provided assistance prohibited by CBRA and told us that they will
monitor compliance with their procedures more carefully in the
future. HUD officials told us that they have no procedures under
their single-family mortgage insurance programs related to CBRA
because it would be unnecessary in practical terms. For example,
agency officials believed it was unlikely that these programs
would fund projects in the CBRS because of the high-priced homes
generally found in these areas. In response to our findings, HUD
officials said that they would be developing CBRA policy guidance
and associated training to ensure future compliance.
o Three federal agencies have provided some financial assistance
that is allowed under CBRA, but the total extent of this
assistance is unknown. For example, in the past 10 years, FEMA has
provided at least $5.6 million in disaster assistance to the unit
in North Topsail, North Carolina, for debris removal and repairs.
Similarly, FHWA has provided $1.1 million for road repair to the
unit in Cape San Blas, Florida. However, because these federal
agencies do not track the amount of allowable financial assistance
they provide to CBRS units, they could not provide us with the
complete and reliable data needed to estimate the total extent of
such assistance.
o The Corps and states authorized by the EPA have issued hundreds
of permits allowed by CBRA to entities within the CBRS. Since
1983, in 20 CBRS units the Corps issued at least 194 permits to
allow, among other things, the construction of piers, mosquito
control ditches, erosion control areas, and the raising of fish
and shellfish. Similarly, since 1983, in 9 CBRS units
EPA-authorized state agencies issued 41 permits, primarily for
storm water runoff from construction activities and the discharge
of water from treatment systems.
We are recommending that FEMA, HUD, SBA, and VA obtain official
determinations from FWS on whether the properties we identified as
receiving federal assistance in violation of CBRA are in fact
located within a CBRS unit and cancel all inappropriate loan
guarantees and insurance policies. We are also recommending that
these agencies examine their policies and procedures to ensure
that they are adequate to prevent federal assistance from being
provided to entities in CBRS units. In addition, so that federal
agencies and other parties can more accurately determine whether a
property is within CBRA and whether it is eligible for assistance,
we recommend that FWS place a high priority on completing its
efforts to develop digital maps that more accurately depict unit
boundaries. In commenting on our report, DHS, DOI, and HUD
generally agreed with our recommendations. SBA had no comment on
the draft report. VA agreed with our findings and one of our
recommendations but did not concur with the recommendation to
cancel all inappropriate loan guarantees, stating that it would
inflict disproportionate harm on lenders and veterans. While we
understand VA's concerns about the adverse effect that this could
have on the potentially affected parties, we believe that VA
should rescind these loan guarantees because they were made in
violation of CBRA.
Background
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.^7 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.^8 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:
o the construction or purchase of any structure, facility, or
related infrastructure;
o the construction or purchase of any road, airport, boat landing
facility, or other facility on, or bridge or causeway to, any CBRS
unit;
o any project to prevent the erosion of, or to otherwise
stabilize, any inlet, shoreline, or inshore area for the purpose
of encouraging development; and
o 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:
o the exploration, extraction, or transportation of energy
resources that can be carried out only on, in, or adjacent to a
coastal water area;
o the maintenance or construction of improvements of existing
Federal navigation channels and related structures;
o 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;
o military activities essential to national security; and
o 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.
CBRS Remains Largely Undeveloped
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.
The Majority of CBRS Units Have Not Experienced Development
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.^9 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.^10 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.
Figure 1: 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.^11 In addition, both Maine
and Massachusetts do not allow state funds or grants to be used
for projects to encourage development in barrier beaches.^12 In
Rhode Island, any coastal development project must receive a
permit from the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council,
and an official explained that it was highly unlikely that permits
would be issued for new development in coastal regions of the
state.
Preservation Efforts by Conservation Groups. A number of CBRS
units include land owned by entities seeking to preserve the area
in its natural state. In some cases, CBRS units have lands that
are owned by federal, state, or local governments, such as local
parks or national forests. For example, the Whitefish Point unit
in Michigan is part of the Hiawatha National Forest. In other
cases, land in CBRS units is owned by conservation groups seeking
to prevent development. For example, a significant portion of the
Southgate Ponds unit in the U.S. Virgin Islands is owned by the
St. Croix Environmental Association; the Fox Islands unit in
Virginia is owned by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation; and the Pine
Island Bay unit in North Carolina is mostly owned by the National
Audubon Society. Although these owners have sought to prevent
development within the unit, as the land becomes more valuable,
owners may experience pressure to sell it for development
purposes. Private home owners have also taken actions to prevent
continued development in one CBRS unit we reviewed. Some portions
of the Prudence Island Complex unit in Rhode Island are located in
private home owners' backyards. Home owners have voluntarily
placed their land into a conservation easement to formally protect
it from future development.
A Small Percentage of Units Have Experienced Some Level of
Development, but Significant Development Has Been Concentrated
in a Few Units
Although the majority of CBRS units remain undeveloped, 16 percent
have experienced some level of development. While the range of
development varies between one additional structure for some units
to over 400 new structures for another unit, the amount of
development in most of the units has been small. Thirteen percent
of the units have added less than 20 structures. Where there has
been significant development, it has been concentrated in a
relatively small number of units. We estimate that only 3 percent
of CBRS units have experienced the addition of 100 or more new
structures since their inclusion in the CBRS.
The majority of the CBRS units within our sample that have
experienced development are located in the southern United States.
Two units experiencing the most extensive development were the
Topsail, North Carolina unit and the Cape San Blas, Florida unit.
Several other units in the south, such as the Four Mile Village
unit in Florida and Bird Key Complex in South Carolina, have plans
for continued development. None of the units in our sample located
in the northern United States had experienced such extensive
development. One factor contributing to increased development in
the south is the greater amount of developable acres; 80 percent
of the developable land in the CBRS is located in southern
units--those located south of New Jersey.
Local officials cited several factors as being primarily
responsible for the development that has occurred.^13
Commercial Interest and Public Desire to Build in the Unit.
Officials told us that development had occurred in several areas
because the public's desire to develop in the unit was stronger
than the disincentive of CBRA. For example, the Currituck Banks
unit in North Carolina has experienced an increase of at least 400
new residential homes since its inclusion in the CBRS. Although
this unit only has beach access for four-wheel drive vehicles,
approximately 75 percent of the land south of the unit is
currently built to capacity, and the increasing demand for
residential structures is sending developers into the adjoining
CBRS unit. Local officials stated that the lack of federal
assistance did not appear to have any affect on the rate of
development in the area. Similarly, the Cape San Blas unit in
Florida has continued to experience increased development with at
least 900 new structures--primarily single family vacation
homes--being built since the unit's inclusion in the CBRS.
Officials in Cape San Blas believe that as other coastal locations
around Florida became too expensive to find affordably priced
ocean front homes, the area of Cape San Blas became a highly
desirable location. Accounting for the significant development
that has occurred in the Topsail unit in North Carolina, officials
stated that the basic reason was simply supply and demand: people
want to live on the coast of North Carolina, and the area that
includes the CBRS unit had developable land available.
Local Government Support for Development. Local officials
explained that local governments with a pro-development attitude
aided in increasing development in CBRS units. For example, local
officials in Topsail, North Carolina told us that most of the
1,600 structures located in the Topsail CBRS unit were constructed
after the unit's inclusion in the CBRS.^14 These officials
indicated that the county government had begun development plans
for land within the unit prior to its inclusion in CBRS. These
officials noted that the county had targeted the area for
development to promote tourism and increase the local tax base,
and that certain infrastructure was built to support this
increased development. As the result of these pro-development
policies, a large portion of the unit has been developed with
residential homes--many of which serve as vacation rentals during
the summer months. Similarly, in the Cape San Blas unit in Florida
the local government had development plans for the area prior to
the adoption of CBRA. Local officials there said that the area was
already subdivided into lots for development and that some
existing infrastructure, such as roads, water systems, and
telephone systems, was already built when the unit was added to
the CBRS.
Availability of Affordable Private Flood Insurance. Officials
familiar with several CBRS units told us that initially
restrictions on the availability of federal flood insurance had
little impact on the development that occurred in some CBRS units.
Lenders did not require flood insurance in order for home owners
to obtain mortgage loans at the time most of the development
occurred. According to these officials, home owners within CBRS
units that chose to get flood insurance could readily get private
flood insurance at rates comparable with federal flood insurance.
However, in the past few years FEMA has updated its flood-zone
maps and has designated some CBRS areas as special flood hazard
areas. This change in designation has made areas that once did not
require owners to obtain flood insurance in order to receive
financing into areas where owners are now required to have flood
insurance prior to obtaining mortgage loans. At the same time,
officials said that in several CBRS units the cost of private
insurance has skyrocketed and is no longer comparable to national
flood insurance program rates. According to a local banker in Cape
San Blas, a $250,000 home outside the CBRS unit can obtain flood
insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program for $470
per year, but private flood insurance for homes located in the
CBRS unit that are not eligible for national flood insurance could
cost between $5,070 and $12,500 a year, depending on the insurance
company.
The new requirements mandating flood insurance for mortgages in
some units and the increased costs of private flood insurance may
begin to impact development in the CBRS in the future, according
to local officials. For example, officials in Currituck County
noted that the flood zone determination change had significantly
reduced the number of building permits issued for new development
in the CBRS unit since 2005 and suggested that the unit will now
experience less future development. Likewise, the Cape San Blas
unit in Florida has also been affected by the flood zone
determination change. A local official stated that since FEMA
adopted a special flood hazard area for the CBRS unit in 2002,
property values in the unit have decreased by 30 percent. Because
the cost of private flood insurance has risen dramatically in the
last couple of years, a number of residents and officials
representing areas within the CBRS, including Cape San Blas and
Topsail, have unsuccessfully attempted to remove the areas from
the CBRS, primarily so that residents would be eligible to obtain
flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program.
Our review of CBRS units did not include OPAs because FWS
officials informed us that these areas were classified separately
from system units and that the land was already protected from
development by other mechanisms--such as its designation as a
state or federal park. OPAs are not under the same limitations as
CBRS units; the only restriction placed on federal spending within
these areas is the prohibition on federal flood insurance.
However, we found instances where land within OPAs was sold to
private developers and development had increased in the area. For
example, in the St. Andrews Complex unit in Florida, the Bahia de
Tallaboa unit in Puerto Rico, and the Mustang Island unit in
Texas, development has continued despite the units' designation as
an OPA.
The Extent to Which Federal Agencies Have Provided Financial
Assistance and Permits to Entities in CBRS Units Varies
We found that federal agencies have provided some financial
assistance prohibited by CBRA, some assistance allowed by CBRA,
and hundreds of permits for federally regulated construction
projects to entities within the CBRS units included in our review.
Four agencies provided financial assistance expressly prohibited
by CBRA to property owners in CBRS units. Three federal agencies
also provided financial assistance to entities in CBRS units that
is allowed under CBRA, but they do not track the amount of
assistance they provided. As a result, we were unable to determine
the total extent of such assistance. Finally, the Corps and
EPA-authorized state agencies have issued hundreds of permits for
a variety of federally regulated construction projects within CBRS
units.
Four Federal Agencies Have Provided Some Financial Assistance
That Is Prohibited by CBRA
Four federal agencies--FEMA, HUD, SBA, and VA--provided some
financial assistance that is expressly prohibited by CBRA to
property owners in CBRS units. Our review of approximately 4,500
addresses uncovered 73 active FEMA flood insurance policies, 37
inappropriate FEMA disaster assistance payments, 5 HUD home loan
guarantees, 3 SBA disaster loans, and 11 VA home loan guarantees
that should not have been made to property owners in CBRS units.
Although three of the four agencies have procedures to prevent and
detect assistance to property owners in CBRS units, agency
officials cited several reasons why this erroneous assistance was
provided in violation of CBRA, including the lack of updated CBRS
maps, which makes determining the precise locations of properties
and CBRS unit boundaries difficult.
FEMA National Flood Insurance Program
FEMA provides federally backed flood insurance for home owners,
renters, and business owners in participating communities that are
not in the CBRS. Structures that are built or substantially
improved following their inclusion within the CBRS are not
eligible for federal flood insurance. However, our review of
policies active as of May 2006 identified 73 National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) policies for properties in CBRS units.
The flood insurance policies ranged from $26,500 to $350,000 and
totaled approximately $20 million. Although these policies
violated the CBRA, FEMA officials said it is unlikely that the
agency would actually pay a claim on these policies, because
before paying a claim, FEMA adjusters would first conduct a
physical inspection of the property and determine whether it was
in a CBRS unit. If a property was found to be within the CBRS,
FEMA would deny the claim and refund the policy owner's insurance
premium.
To prevent flood insurance policies from being issued for
properties in CBRS units, FEMA's Flood Insurance Manual requires
that private insurance companies participating in the NFIP
determine if a property is eligible for flood insurance. Prior to
issuing a policy, the agent is required to review FEMA's flood
insurance maps to determine if the property is located within the
CBRS and collect information to determine if the structure was
built prior to the unit's inclusion in the CBRS. However,
according to FEMA, insurance agents have made mistakes and issued
policies in violation of CBRA for two reasons:
o It may be difficult to locate a property and determine whether
it is in a CBRS unit, especially when a property is near or
adjacent to a CBRS boundary. For example, at one location we
visited, we identified homes adjacent to each other where one
property was in the CBRS and the other was not. In other CBRS
units, some homes had backyards that fell within the CBRS.
Furthermore, new streets may not be depicted on existing maps.
According to FEMA officials, the insurance agent must often make a
judgment call when determining whether a property is within the
CBRS.
o The agent may not be familiar with CBRA prohibitions and may not
follow procedures. According to FEMA officials and officials from
a private insurance agency with whom we spoke, some home owners
obtain flood insurance from insurance agents located inland, away
from coastal areas, who might not have been aware of the CBRA
restrictions.
According to FEMA officials, the agency takes a number of steps to
identify properties that may have inappropriately received federal
flood insurance. Since 1998, FEMA has sought to assist private
companies with identifying flood insurance policies that
potentially were ineligible for flood insurance coverage because
the property was within the CBRS. To accomplish this task, FEMA
uses computer mapping technology to plot addresses and determine
whether they are potentially in a CBRS unit.^15 However, the
computer software FEMA relies on cannot always correctly locate
all addresses on the map. For example, this can occur if a street
or address range is not included in the software, which can happen
when a street or a range of addresses is new. Twenty of the 73
flood insurance policies that we determined were issued for a
property that was in a CBRS unit could not be located on a map by
FEMA's computer software. In addition, computer mapping technology
has inherent inaccuracies and may plot properties in the wrong
location. For example, using our mapping software, we determined
another 20 of the 73 flood insurance policies were for a property
in the CBRS but were not identified as being in a CBRS unit by
FEMA's mapping software.^16 FEMA officials said they recognize
that their software may not always identify new addresses and
streets in CBRS units, and so the agency obtains quarterly updates
of new streets and addresses and rechecks insured properties
against the updated information to identify any that might be
located in CBRS units.
When FEMA's computer plotting reveals that a property for which a
federal flood insurance policy has been issued may be in a CBRS
unit, FEMA reports the error to the insurance company. Once an
insurance company receives notification in the form of an error
message that they may have written an ineligible policy, the
company may take one of four actions:
1. The company can agree that the property is located
in a CBRS unit and cancel the policy back to the
inception date of coverage.
2. The company may agree that the property is located
in a CBRS unit but prove that the building was
constructed prior to the CBRS designation. In these
cases, the policy is deemed valid and may remain in
effect.
3. The company can disagree that the property is
located in a CBRS unit and assume responsibility for
the risk. In these cases, the policy would remain
active, FEMA would continue to collect the premiums,
but the insurance company would be responsible for
paying any claims filed. Insurance companies have
assumed liability for the risks associated with 29 of
the 73 flood insurance policies that we identified
had been issued for properties located in CBRS units.
4. The company can request that FWS make an official
determination regarding whether the property is in
the CBRS. If FWS determines that the property is in a
CBRS unit, the policy is then cancelled back to the
inception date of coverage. However, FEMA officials
expressed concern about the length of time FWS takes
to make a property determination. Typically, it takes
FWS a year to respond to inquiries for a property
determination. As of January 17, 2007, FEMA was
waiting for determinations on 544 addresses from FWS.
According to FWS officials, the process for making property
determinations is labor intensive because they are using CBRS maps
that were created more than 15 years ago and are not available in
digital format. FWS officials told us that modernized digital maps
of the CBRS would improve the accuracy and efficiency of the
property determination process, allowing its customers and
partners, in many cases, to determine within minutes whether a
property is located within the CBRS. In 2000, the Congress
directed the Secretary of the Interior to create draft digital
maps for at least 50 and not more than 75 units, or nearly 10
percent of the CBRS.^17 FWS has created draft digital maps of 60
CBRS units that it must submit to the Congress for its
consideration.^18 In May 2006, the Congress also instructed the
Secretary of the Interior to create maps for the rest of the CBRS
by May 2013.^19 According to FWS, digital maps would replace the
paper maps currently being used that are (1) outdated
technologically and (2) sometimes inaccurate and may not align
precisely with the natural or man-made features that the Congress
intended the boundaries to follow. FWS officials believe that
modernizing the CBRS maps will address the inaccuracies of the
existing maps.
To implement the map modernization project, FWS officials said
that they investigated several options for procuring data to
produce the required draft digital maps, including federal, state,
local, and private sources. In many cases, FWS was able to obtain
data internally or from other federal agencies at little or no
cost, including wetlands data and national wildlife refuge
boundaries from within FWS, aerial imagery from the U.S.
Geological Survey, hydric soils data from the Department of
Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, and digital
boundaries for many federally protected areas from NOAA.
FEMA is also conducting a map modernization effort that includes
preparing digital flood insurance maps. In 2006, FWS entered into
an interagency agreement with FEMA whereby FWS will place current
CBRS boundaries onto FEMA's digital flood maps. FEMA provided FWS
with $40,000 for an initial set of maps for some units. While the
FEMA maps are not the "official" CBRS maps adopted by the
Congress, FWS officials said that these digital maps will allow
property owners, insurance agents, and others to have a much more
accurate and precise tool for determining whether a property or
project site is located near a CBRS area and would require an
official determination from FWS.
FEMA Individuals and Households Program
FEMA's Individuals and Households Program (IHP)^20 provides
housing assistance and other assistance, such as medical or
funeral assistance, for needs arising from a declared emergency or
major disaster. For owners or renters residing in CBRS units, FEMA
regulations allow providing temporary housing assistance (rent)
but generally do not allow providing funds for housing repairs or
construction assistance. However, we found that since August 26,
1998, FEMA provided 37 disaster assistance payments to individuals
in CBRS units included in our review totaling $25,393. Most of the
payments were for purposes labeled by FEMA as "Other Eligible
Property Items." According to FEMA officials, "Other Eligible
Property Item" payments were for post-disaster purchases for
emergency needs such as chainsaws, generators, heating fuel,
dehumidifiers, air purifiers, and wet/dry vacuums.^21 These
payments were made under six different disaster declarations, all
to individuals living in CBRS units in North Carolina and Florida.
The units included Coconut Point, Cape San Blas, Blue Hole, Ponce
Inlet, and Ormond-by-the-Sea in Florida, and Currituck Banks and
Topsail in North Carolina. In addition to payments for "Other
Eligible Property Items," one payment of $645.95 was made for home
repairs. FEMA procedures require officials making payment
determinations in potential CBRS areas to document that the
property is not in a CBRS unit prior to approving assistance for
those types of assistance not allowed in such areas. However,
according to a FEMA official, in these cases the procedures were
not followed when these payments were approved.^22
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Through its Mortgage Insurance Homes program, HUD insures lenders
against losses on mortgage loans used to finance the purchase of
proposed, under construction, or existing housing, as well as to
refinance indebtedness on existing housing as long as these
properties are not located in the CBRS. In our review of insured
home loans active as of June 2006, we identified five HUD-insured
loans for properties located in CBRS units. Three of the loans
were for properties in the Prudence Island Complex unit in Rhode
Island; one in the Topsail unit in North Carolina; and one in the
Cape San Blas unit in Florida. These insured loans were approved
by HUD between 1985 and 2000, with loan amounts ranging from
approximately $50,000 to $137,000, for a total of about $384,000.
Despite the fact that all of HUD's programs are subject to CBRA
restrictions, HUD officials said that they have no procedure under
their single family (one- to four-family property) mortgage
insurance programs related to CBRA. HUD officials further
indicated that while they could implement better controls for
restrictions on providing single family mortgage insurance in the
CBRS, it would be unnecessary in practical terms. HUD officials
provided three primary reasons why it was unlikely that a
HUD-insured loan would be provided for a property in a coastal
area. First, HUD regulations require that flood insurance be
obtained under the NFIP before HUD will insure single family
mortgages for properties in FEMA-identified special flood hazard
areas. HUD officials stated that because properties located in the
CBRS would likely be in special flood hazard areas and the NFIP
flood insurance is prohibited in the CBRS, HUD would not be able
to insure single family mortgages for these properties. However,
HUD's explanation does not account for the fact that portions of
CBRS units may not be in a special flood hazard area and that FEMA
prohibitions are not universal as the NFIP flood insurance may be
available to homes built before the area's inclusion in the CBRS.
Second, most HUD insurance for single family mortgages is for
first-time home owners who typically are not buying homes in the
higher priced ranges found in the CBRS. Third, property values in
the CBRS are such that mortgage amounts would likely exceed the
program limits for typical HUD-insured single family mortgages, as
the mortgage limit for a one family property ranges from
approximately $170,000 to $310,000, depending on the location. In
response to our findings, HUD officials said that the department
would be developing CBRA policy guidance and associated training
to ensure future compliance.
Small Business Administration
Following the issuance of a disaster declaration, SBA provides
disaster loans to eligible home owners for repair or replacement
of their primary residences. However, residences located in CBRS
units are ineligible for this disaster loan assistance. During our
review of the period January 1, 1990, through May 30, 2006, we
found that SBA had made three disaster loans for home repairs for
properties in CBRS units.^23 The three loans ranged from $5,000 to
$10,000 and totaled $24,200. These loans have been paid in full
and were made to individuals in the Florida CBRS units of Blue
Hole and Cape San Blas, and the Creek Beach unit in New York. To
prevent disaster loans from being provided to properties within
the CBRS, SBA procedures call for agency staff to consult FEMA's
flood maps to determine whether a property is within a CBRS unit
before approving disaster loans. SBA officials acknowledge that
two of these loans should not have been approved, but did not
agree that the third loan was for a property within CBRS. These
officials stated that it is sometimes difficult for agency staff
to determine if a property is within the CBRS with the existing
FEMA flood maps. SBA officials said that as a result of our review
the agency will increase the number of quality assurance reviews
conducted in any disaster area that includes a CBRS unit.
Department of Veterans Affairs
VA issues home loan guarantees to help eligible recipients obtain
homes or refinance home loans except in CBRS units. However, our
review of home loan guarantees active as of September 2006 found
that VA had provided 11 loan guarantees for homes in a CBRS unit.
Nine of these 11 loan guarantees were issued to home owners in the
Topsail unit in North Carolina, while the other two were provided
to home owners in the Ormond-by-the-Sea unit in Florida. The
amount of the 11 loan guarantees ranged from a low of about
$14,340 to a high of about $45,900 for a total value of $352,188.
VA officials told us that the agency's Lenders Handbook includes
provisions that inform readers that properties in CBRS units are
ineligible as security for a VA-guaranteed loan. VA appraisers are
instructed during training sessions to reject assignments
appraising such properties. Also, to verify that loan guarantees
are provided lawfully, agency officials said that they or their
designees (1) examine appraisal paperwork for all loan
applications looking for anomalies; (2) inspect 10 percent of all
loan applicant properties to verify, among other things, that they
are not in CBRS units; (3) review paperwork for 10 percent of all
closed loans; and (4) visit lender offices and sample VA loans for
compliance. In reviewing the provisions included in VA's handbook,
we determined that it inaccurately instructs appraisers to obtain
the maps for determining the location of a property from the U.S.
Geological Survey rather than from FWS.
VA officials acknowledge that agency staff should have identified
the 11 properties we discovered as located within the CBRS during
their initial review of the appraisal paperwork. VA officials
explained that as a result of our findings, they have (1)
corrected the Lenders Handbook provisions to instruct staff to use
maps maintained by FWS and (2) instructed officials at VA regional
loan centers to modify their training to both lenders and
appraisers to emphasize the procedures designed to prevent issuing
loans to persons who reside in CBRS units.
Federal Agencies Have Provided Assistance That Is Allowable under
CBRA, but the Extent of Such Assistance Is Unknown
We found that three federal agencies had provided financial
assistance allowable under CBRA to entities within the CBRS. We
were unable to determine the total extent of such assistance,
because these federal agencies do not track the amount of
allowable financial assistance they provide to entities in CBRS
units, and they could not provide us with the data necessary to
estimate the total assistance provided.
Federal Emergency Management Agency
After a disaster, FEMA may provide disaster funding in CBRS units
for emergency assistance such as debris removal and emergency
protection measures. FEMA may also provide disaster funding
following an emergency for activities like repairing roads or
utilities, repairing existing water channels, or disposing of
sand. Because FEMA could not provide reliable data on whether this
disaster assistance was within a CBRS unit for each project, we
could not determine the full extent of the allowable disaster
assistance provided by FEMA. However, with FEMA's data, we were
able to identify that some of the projects were within CBRS units.
For example, since 1998, FEMA provided at least $5.6 million in
disaster assistance to the Topsail unit in North Carolina to fund
projects to remove debris, replace signs, and repair beach access
crosswalks and public beach facilities after Hurricanes Ophelia,
Floyd, Irene, and Isabel. Similarly, in both the Cape San Blas,
Florida and Topsail, North Carolina CBRS units, FEMA provided
funds to construct an emergency berm in order to protect existing
development after storms destroyed protective dunes and caused
beach erosion. Table 1 provides examples of some of the disaster
assistance FEMA has provided to CBRS units since 1998.
^7Aside from minor exceptions, only Congress, through new legislation, can
modify the boundaries of the CBRS. To determine whether the revisions
constitute appropriate technical corrections, FWS conducts objective
reviews to examine whether or not the area was undeveloped when it was
included in the CBRS and whether or not the boundaries on the map
correctly follow the natural or man-made features they were intended to
follow on the ground. When technical mapping errors are found, FWS has
supported legislation to modify boundaries accordingly. Since the CBRS was
designated in 1982, Congress has enacted technical correction legislation
to revise the boundaries of 42 CBRS units.
^8FWS anticipates the draft maps and report will be submitted to the
Congress in 2007.
^9The random probability sample included 91 geographically dispersed CBRS
units. All percentage estimates from the sample have margins of error of
plus or minus 10 percentage points, unless otherwise noted.
^10Developable land is the number of fastland acres in each unit. Fastland
is situated above the mean high-tide line and is generally not wetlands.
FWS determined the fastland acres for each unit within the CBRS.
^11According to Massachusetts state officials, the Wetlands Protection Act
regulations established a "no net loss of wetlands" policy for all coastal
areas and barrier beaches. Under the Massachusetts Coastal Wetlands
Restriction Act, the Massachusetts Commissioner of Environmental
Protection can regulate and prohibit dredging, filling, or otherwise
altering coastal wetlands.
^12In 1980, Massachusetts Governor Edward J. King issued Executive Order
No. 181 preventing the use of state funds and grants for construction
projects to encourage growth and development in hazard prone barrier
beaches. See also Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 38, SS 1901-1905.
^13To determine the reasons development occurred, we interviewed local
officials in a number of developed units in our sample as well as
officials for the Cape San Blas unit in Florida and the Topsail unit in
North Carolina.
^14The date structures were built in the Topsail unit was not readily
available when we conducted this analysis, so we could not determine the
exact number of structures built since the unit's inclusion in the CBRS.
^15According to FEMA officials, FEMA does this plotting for all properties
in a community where a CBRS unit is located. Every month FEMA plots
addresses of new policies or policies that have changed. All addresses in
a community with a CBRS unit are reviewed at least once a year.
^16FEMA uses MapInfo software with MapMarker to plot locations. This
software is updated more frequently than the software that we use. In
these 20 instances, our software located properties within the CBRS
boundary, but FEMA's software did not. However, we physically verified
that 14 of these 20 properties appeared to be within CBRS boundaries
during a site visit to the unit. We did not visit the locations where the
remaining 6 properties were located.
^17The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000, Pub. L. No.
106-514, S6, 114 Stat. 2394, 2396, required FWS to prepare draft digital
maps for a portion of the CBRS.
^18The Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 2005 directs the Secretary of the
Interior to finalize the pilot project maps by conducting a public review
of the draft maps, making adjustments as necessary, and presenting final
recommended maps to the Congress its consideration. At that point, the
Congress could adopt the pilot project maps as the official CBRS maps
through legislation.
^19The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No.
109-226 S 4, 120 Stat. 381, 382 (2006).
^20Our study also includes data from disasters that predate IHP, from its
predecessor program called "Disaster Housing/Individual and Family Grant
Program."
^21CBRA exempts from its general prohibition assistance for emergency
actions essential to saving lives and the protection of property and the
public health, as performed under particular sections of the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended. 16
U.S.C. S 3505(a)(6)(E). In its regulations, FEMA describes these actions
to include, among other things, removing debris and repairing primary
residences to make them habitable. However, for the expenditures described
above as "Other Eligible Property Items," such as chainsaws and
generators, FEMA officials said those payments were prohibited.
^22We issued a report on the challenges that the IHP program experienced
during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and recommended that FEMA address the
potential for fraud and abuse identified in the program. GAO, Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita: Unprecedented Challenges Exposed the Individuals and
Households Program to Fraud and Abuse; Actions Needed to Reduce Such
Problems in Future, [57]GAO-06-1013 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2006).
^23SBA approved seven loans in CBRS units, however, individuals did not
initiate four of these loans and they were cancelled.
Table 1: Examples of FEMA Disaster Assistance Since 1998
Total
Storm and year Unit Project description obligated
Floyd and Topsail Beach, Replace traffic control $13,979
Irene, 1999 North Carolina signage
Floyd and Topsail Beach, Debris removal 1,304,417
Irene, 1999 North Carolina
Charley and Ormond-by-the Sea, Restore an electrical 11,361
Bonnie, 2004 Florida substation
Ivan, 2004 Cape San Blas, Construct an emergency berm 1,423,766
Florida
Frances, 2004 Ponce Inlet, Restore Turtle 23,666
Florida Rehabilitation Laboratory
at the Marine Science
Center
Dennis, 2005 Dog Island, Florida Repair damaged road 37,372
surfaces
Dennis, 2005 Dog Island, Florida Debris removal 470,833
Ophelia, 2005 Topsail Beach, Construct emergency berms $1,167,146
North Carolina
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.
As mentioned earlier, FEMA is also allowed to provide limited
disaster assistance to individuals through the IHP after the
President declares an emergency or major disaster in an area,
including CBRS units. We found that since August 26, 1998, FEMA
provided $8,237 to 16 individuals in CBRS units for emergency
rental assistance. These payments were made to individuals in CBRS
units in Florida and North Carolina.
Federal Highway Administration
An exception to the limitations within CBRA allows FHWA to
administer federal funding for projects on publicly owned or
operated roads that are essential links in a larger transportation
network and do not expand the existing transportation system.
Because, as stated in agency guidance, FHWA determined that all
roads within the federal highway system, including those in CBRS
units, are usually "essential links" in a larger transportation
network, most projects within CBRS units are permissible under
CBRA after a consultation process with FWS. Although FHWA does not
maintain data on which projects were located within CBRS units, we
were able to identify--based on information provided by state
officials--some examples of allowable projects in CBRS units that
received federal funds from FHWA. For example, according to data
from the Florida Department of Transportation, federal funding
totaling approximately $1.1 million was provided to repair a road
in the Cape San Blas unit after each of three hurricanes--Opal,
Corps of Engineers
Earl, and Ivan.
An exception to the limitations within CBRA allows the Corps to
provide assistance in CBRS units after consultation with FWS as
part of its mission to maintain and improve existing navigation
channels. We found that since 1983, the Corps performed at least
24 such projects in CBRS units, and most were to dredge channels.
Many of these projects occurred along the Atlantic Intracoastal
Waterway or in channels connecting this waterway to the Atlantic
Ocean. Of the 24 projects, two-thirds occurred in CBRS units in
South Carolina while the others were located in North Carolina,
Florida, and Massachusetts. However, it is difficult to calculate
the value of the Corps' assistance to CBRS units because nearly
all of the Corps' projects involve activities both inside and
outside CBRS units, and the Corps does not breakout project costs
based on CBRS boundaries.
EPA-Authorized State Agencies and the Corps Have Issued Permits
for Federally Regulated Construction Projects in CBRS Units
EPA-authorized state agencies and the Corps have issued permits to
property owners and entities within CBRS units for a number of
different projects.^24 Since 1983, EPA-authorized state agencies
issued at least 41 permits to property owners and entities in nine
different CBRS units. All of the permits were associated with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), primarily
to allow storm water discharges from construction sites or for
discharges from water or wastewater treatment systems. Florida, as
an EPA-authorized permitting state, issued 38 of the 41 permits.
Of the remaining three permits, two were issued by New York and
one by the U.S. Virgin Islands, both of which are authorized by
EPA to issue NPDES permits.
The Corps was unable to provide a complete list of all the permits
it had issued since CBRA was enacted. However, we have determined
that since 1983, the Corps issued at least 194 permits in 20
different CBRS units for purposes such as erosion control,
constructing piers and mosquito control ditches, filling wetlands,
and raising fish and shellfish. Of these 194 permits:
o Eighty-three were authorized under Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899. The act gives the Corps
authority to issue permits to construct piers or marinas in
navigable waters.
o Eighty-seven were authorized under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. Section 404 provides the Corps with the authority to
issue or deny permits for discharges of dredged or fill material
into waters under federal jurisdiction, including wetlands.
o Twenty-four involved activities covered by both Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act.
Almost two-thirds of these permits were issued to property owners
and entities in CBRS units in Florida; the remaining permits were
issued to entities in units in the Carolinas and New England.
Conclusions
Although CBRA has limited the amount of federal financial
assistance provided to some CBRS units, it does not appear to have
been a major factor in discouraging development in those CBRS
units that have developable land, local government and public
support for development, and access to affordable private flood
insurance. Despite CBRA's prohibitions on federal assistance to
units in the CBRS, four federal agencies--FEMA, HUD, SBA, and
VA--have provided such assistance. While the amount of assistance
provided in violation of CBRA is not large, it does raise concerns
about the ability of federal agencies to fully comply with the
requirements of the act. Unless federal agencies follow the
procedures they have established to prevent the provision of
prohibited assistance and have access to up-to-date and reliable
maps to ensure that accurate determinations are made for
properties located in CBRS units, it is likely that some
violations of CBRA may continue to occur.
Recommendations for Executive Action
In light of the federal financial assistance that was provided in
violation of CBRA, we are recommending that the Secretaries of
DHS, HUD, and VA, and the Administrator of SBA direct their
agencies to (1) obtain official determinations from the FWS on
whether the properties we identified as receiving federal
assistance in violation of CBRA are in fact located within a CBRS
unit and if they are, cancel all inappropriate loan guarantees and
insurance policies that have been made to the owners of these
properties and (2) examine their policies and procedures to ensure
that they are adequate to prevent federal assistance that is
prohibited by CBRA from being provided to entities in CBRS units.
In addition, given the importance of digital maps to making
accurate CBRS determinations, we are recommending that the
Secretary of the Interior direct FWS to place a high priority on
completing its efforts to develop digital maps that more
accurately depict unit boundaries.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Defense,
DHS, DOI, HUD, SBA, and VA. We received comments via e-mail from
the Department of Defense, DHS, and SBA, and we received written
comments from the DOI, HUD, and VA.
The Department of Defense and the SBA stated that they had no
comments on the draft report, and DHS provided only technical
comments and stated that it concurred with the report's
recommendations. In its written comments, DOI stated that it
supports efforts to improve CBRS property determinations and
ensure compliance with CBRA. DOI also indicated that it will
consider our recommendation concerning prioritization of the
completion of digital maps as it develops future budget requests.
In its written comments, HUD stated that the loan guarantees in
question have already been terminated. HUD also noted that it is
now developing policy guidance and associated training to ensure
that no future violations of CBRA occur. In its written comments,
VA stated that it agreed with our findings and one of our
recommendations but did not agree with our recommendation to
cancel the inappropriate loan guarantees that it had made in
violation of CBRA. VA stated that it did not believe that the
small number of loan guarantees that we found indicated a pattern
of abuse of CBRA and that canceling these guarantees would inflict
a disproportionate harm on lenders and veterans who were not
responsible for the erroneous property determinations that the
loan guarantees were based on. While we understand VA's concerns
for the adverse impacts that could affect the parties involved, we
believe that because these loan guarantees violate CBRA they
should be rescinded.
^24In most cases, permits to regulate point sources that discharge
pollutants into waters of the United States are issued by EPA-authorized
states rather than by EPA itself.
We have also incorporated the technical comments provided by DHS
and DOI, as appropriate, throughout this report. HUD's written
comments are presented in appendix V, DOI's written comments are
presented in appendix VI, and VA's written comments are presented
in appendix VII.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees as well as the Administrator, Small Business
Administration; the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
the Secretaries of the Army, Defense, Homeland Security; Housing
and Urban Development, Interior, and Veterans Affairs. We also
will make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov .
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-3841 or [email protected] . Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.
Sincerely yours,
Anu K. Mittal
Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
We were asked to address issues related to the Coastal Barrier
Resources Act, as amended, (CBRA) by reviewing development that
has occurred and federal funding that has been provided within the
John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS).
Specifically, we were asked to determine (1) the extent of
development within the CBRS and (2) the extent of federal
assistance provided to CBRS units.
Determining the Extent of Development in CBRS Units
To determine the extent of development in the system, we
determined the number of structures within each unit. We
accomplished the task by electronically mapping addresses with
MapInfo and layering electronic boundaries of CBRS units from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Q3 Digital Flood
Insurance Rate Map data product with the mapped addresses. FEMA's
Q3 data provides the external boundaries for CBRS units, though it
is not an exact replica of the boundaries. Our results are
representative of the extent of development within the CBRS.
We focused our review on a stratified random sample of 91 units
drawn from the 584 total units in the system, excluding otherwise
protected areas.^1 The sample was drawn so that the results from
the sample would have a precision margin of about plus or minus 10
percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval. We were
able to collect and analyze data for 84 of the 91 CBRS units,
representing a weighted response rate of 92 percent.^2 Of the 84
units, 42 units are located in the north and 42 units are located
in the south. Northern units include those located in Connecticut,
Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode
Island. Southern units are those located in Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Virginia, Texas, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. As a result
of the high response rate, we reweighted the sample to represent
the entire population of units.
Because we followed a probability procedure based on random
selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples
that we might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided
different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of
our particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence
interval. This is the interval that would contain the actual
population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have
drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of the
confidence intervals in this report will include the true values
in the study population. All percentage estimates from the sample
have margins of error of plus or minus 10 percentages points or
less.
To identify the number of structures within the CBRS units in our
sample, we obtained address or parcel data from local government
offices--including tax assessor's offices and on-line databases,
geographic information system departments, and information
technology departments. The exact dates for the parcel and address
datasets vary by location--however, we requested the most recent
available data. We also collected year-built data, value, and type
of structure when available. After determining whether the
structure was within the CBRS unit, we reviewed the year-built
data to determine how many structures were built since the unit's
inclusion in the CBRS. We did not independently assess the
reliability of each address dataset provided by the local
governments. However, for a number of address datasets we assessed
the reliability of the data through interviews with knowledgeable
local officials and verification of the addresses in the dataset
by visual inspection during site visits.
The electronic mapping was performed using roads and highways data
provided by MapInfo's 2002 StreetSmart program. As a result, our
analysis would not be able to map structures located on a street
not included in the 2003 roads and highways dataset. Once the
addresses were mapped, they were layered in MapInfo with FEMA's Q3
data. On the basis of conversations with FEMA and FWS officials,
we believe these data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes
of this study. Since the FEMA Q3 data CBRS boundaries may not be
precise, the results of our analysis could incorrectly reflect
whether a structure is within a CBRS unit. As with any electronic
mapping technology, accuracy issues are inherent and may impact
reliability of the results.
We conducted site visits to 18 CBRS units in Florida,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.
During the site visits, we observed the CBRS units and interviewed
local, state, and federal officials, home owners, realtors,
insurance agents, and environmental officials to discuss the
extent of development and factors encouraging or discouraging
development in the units.
In addition to the site visits, we conducted telephone interviews
with local, state, or federal officials in Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia,
and Puerto Rico. Using the data collected during the site visits
and the telephone interviews, we were able to determine reasons
why development has or has not occurred in those units.
Determining the Extent of Federal Assistance Provided to CBRS Units
To determine the extent of federal assistance provided to CBRS
units, we identified eight agencies with programs that may have
provided assistance to these areas. Appendix IV includes a
complete list of these programs. We reviewed and analyzed federal
legislation and regulations that are applicable to federal
assistance to CBRS units, including the CBRA. For each of the
programs that provide assistance that is prohibited in a CBRS
unit, we interviewed officials regarding their agency procedures
for preventing assistance to CBRS units. In instances where we
identified violations, we collected additional information about
the assistance provided and interviewed agency officials regarding
the agency's plans to prevent prohibited assistance from being
provided in the future.
We compiled a list of 4,472 addresses in 37 CBRS units that had at
least one address. (See app. II for a list of CBRS units in our
review.) As the section above details, we obtained address data
from local county government sources and electronically mapped
addresses within the boundaries of CBRS units. Next, we obtained
data from each agency on program assistance provided and
determined whether this assistance was provided within one of the
CBRS units or to an address in a CBRS unit.
We gathered additional data to determine whether civil works
projects administered by the Corps and permits issued by the Corps
or EPA-authorized state agencies were for an activity within a
CBRS unit. We asked agency officials to provide latitude and
longitude data for every project that occurred or permit that was
issued in any of the counties that contained at least one of the
37 CBRS units. Then we electronically mapped the coordinates to
determine if the activity occurred within the boundaries of a CBRS
unit. Corps officials, however, were unable to provide latitude
and longitude data for a large percentage of the permits issued.
For each agency program, we assessed the accuracy and reliability
of the data system by obtaining from the agency written responses
regarding (1) the agency's methods of data collection and quality
control reviews, (2) practices and controls over accuracy of data
entry, and (3) any limitations of the data. We determined that the
agencies' data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our
review unless noted below. The details of our analysis for each
agency program are provided below.
FEMA National Flood Insurance Program
To identify flood insurance policies in CBRS units, we obtained
data from FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program for all policies
as of May 8, 2006. As mentioned above, we compiled a list of 4,472
addresses in 37 CBRS units. Because structures built prior to a
CBRS unit's inclusion in the system may still obtain flood
insurance, we had to determine whether each structure was built
prior to the unit's inclusion in the CBRS. Of the 4,472 addresses,
we were able to determine that 648 structures were built prior to
the unit's inclusion in the CBRS, and we deleted these addresses
from our analysis. We reviewed the addresses of all the structures
built after the unit's inclusion in the CBRS and addresses where
we could not determine the year built in our flood insurance
analysis. Thus, we reviewed 3,824 addresses in 21 units to
determine if the structure had federal flood insurance. Structures
that were built prior to the CBRS unit's inclusion in the system
cannot obtain federal flood insurance if the property has been
substantially improved. We did not collect data on whether
properties had been improved. If we identified a flood insurance
policy among the addresses where we were unable to determine the
year built, we reviewed the year-built data in FEMA's database. If
FEMA's data revealed that the structure was built prior to the
unit's inclusion in CBRA, we eliminated the match from our review.
FEMA IHP Program
We provided FEMA our list of addresses located in 37 CBRS units.
FEMA compared our list of addresses with addresses for which
Individuals and Households Program (IHP) payments had been
provided from its National Emergency Management Information
System. FEMA reviewed payments from the system from August 26,
1998, to August 2, 2006.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) provided loan data for
business and disaster loans in all states with CBRS units from its
Loan Accounting System. SBA provided us records for loans approved
January 1, 1990, through May 30, 2006. While we did not find any
matches for business loans, SBA officials told us that the address
in the database could be a mailing address and not the physical
address of the business. For SBA disaster loans, the SBA officials
said that the address in the database is the location where the
assistance was provided.
HUD Housing Programs
We obtained data for 13 of the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) single family and multifamily housing
programs. (See app. IV for a list of the programs reviewed.) HUD
provided data from its Real Estate Management System and Single
Family Housing Enterprise Data Warehouse database for loans as of
June 2006.
VA Home Loan Guaranty Program
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided loan guarantee
data from its Home Loan Guaranty database. VA provided us records
for active loan guarantees as of October 2006.
USDA Business and Industry, Community Facilities, and Housing
Programs
We obtained data for 22 of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) business and industry, community facilities and single
family and multifamily housing programs. USDA provided this
information from its Automated Multi-Family Housing Accounting
System, Guaranteed Loan System, MortgageServ Loan Servicing System
databases, and Multi-Family Information System. The information
was as of July 2006.
USDA Utility Programs
For USDA's utility programs, we used a different methodology
because the projects are not associated with one structure as with
a flood insurance policy or a housing loan. For USDA's electric
programs, USDA officials reviewed the construction work plans and
the environmental reports for recent loans to electric service
providers who provide service to selected counties in Florida,
North Carolina, and Virginia that include one or more of the CBRS
units included in our review. USDA officials determined that it
does not appear that they have financed projects serving a CBRS
unit.
For USDA's water and waste programs, we requested the
environmental assessment forms statements for the projects in the
counties that included a CBRS unit we identified as having 100 or
more structures. We then reviewed these records to determine if
they indicated that USDA officials had considered whether the
projects would impact a CBRS unit when reviewing them.
FEMA Public Assistance Grant Program
FEMA provided data from its National Emergency Management
Information System on disaster assistance provided to counties and
territories in our review, including data for the U.S. Virgin
Islands and Puerto Rico. The data were from November 1998 through
July 2006. We reviewed assistance designated by FEMA as being
within a CBRS unit. However, we determined that this designation
was not sufficiently reliable to identify all projects within the
CBRS. We could not determine the full extent of assistance
provided to CBRS units because the CBRS designation in the data
was not always reliable. In addition, some assistance was provided
countywide, and we could not determine if this assistance was
provided to the unit. As a result, we provide examples of disaster
assistance in our report. Where data were available, we
electronically mapped the location of the assistance to verify it
was within a CBRS unit.
Federal Highway Administration
We obtained data for projects receiving federal aid that received
federal funds between January 1996 and July 2006 in counties with
a CBRS unit that we identified as having 10 or more structures.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) officials extracted the data
for these projects from the Financial Management Information
System---a database that tracks projects that receive federal
funding. To determine whether assistance was provided that is
prohibited by law, we identified new construction projects or
projects that added capacity to existing roadways. To determine
whether these projects were within a CBRS unit, we relied upon
interviews and location analysis provided by FHWA officials and
Department of Transportation officials from New Jersey, North
Carolina, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and the
Virgin Islands. For projects in New Jersey, state officials
provided aerial photographs with the location of federally funded
projects. For North Carolina, we met with FHWA officials to review
maps displaying the location of federally funded projects. For
Puerto Rico, FHWA and Puerto Rico Department of Transportation
officials electronically mapped the location of projects. For
Florida, we relied upon analysis conducted by an official at the
Florida FHWA division office. For Rhode Island, South Carolina,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, Department of Transportation
officials or public works department officials provided a paper
map marked with the location of the projects.
Because of the volume of projects that are allowable, we did not
determine the number of allowable projects in every CBRS unit.
However, we did review the allowable projects in Gulf County,
Florida, and Onslow County, North Carolina.
^1According to the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), there are 585 units in
the system. However, FWS considers the Waites Island Complex to be two
units because portions of the units are in North Carolina and South
Carolina. We counted this as one unit for our analysis. We excluded OPAs
from our review based on discussions with FWS officials. According to the
officials, they did not believe that OPAs were subject to the same level
of development as full system units since they were often protected from
development by other mechanisms.
^2We were unable to obtain data for seven units within the sample because
the local governments were unable to provide address data or year built
for the structures in these areas.
Appendix II: CBRS Units We Reviewed
This appendix provides information on the CBRS units that we
reviewed. Table 2 shows the units included within our random
sample and the approximate number of new structures in each unit.
Table 2: CBRS Units Included in Random Sample and Approximate Number of
New Structures
100 or
Unit No new 1-5 New 6-10 New 11-15 New More new
number CBRS unit State structures structures structures structures structures
Q01A Pelican Island AL X
AL-03 Skunk Bayou AL X
E03 Jordan Cove CT X
CT-13 Kelsey Island CT X
CT-01 Mason Island^a CT
E09 Norwalk Islands CT X
FL-34 Biscayne Bay FL X
FL-46 Boot Key FL X
P20 Cayo Costa FL X
P31A Four Mile Village FL X
P05A Matanzas River FL X
P18 Sanibel Island FL
Complex X
FL-99 Tom King FL X
P10 Vero Beach FL X
S01A Bay Joe Wise LA
Complex X
S05 Timbalier Islands LA X
C19 Black Beach MA X
C11A Boat Meadow MA X
C15 Centerville MA X
C00 Clark Pond MA X
C16 Dead Neck MA X
C31 Elizabeth Islands MA X
C10 Freemans Pond MA X
MA-30 Herring Brook MA X
C32 Mishaum Point MA X
MA-24 Naushon Island MA
Complex X
MA-16 Nobscusset MA X
MA-33 Phinneys Harbor MA X
C03A Rexhame MA X
C28 South Beach MA X
C14 Squaw Island MA X
C24 Tuckernuck Island MA X
C01C West Head Beach MA X
MD-53 Blake Creek MD X
MD-39 Drum Point MD X
MD-15 Long Point MD X
MD-56 St. Catherine MD
Island X
MD-35 Wilson Pond MD X
A03 Jasper ME X
A09 Seapoint ME X
A03B Starboard ME X
MI-59 Laughing Whitefish MI
River^a
MI-66 Lightfoot Bay^a MI
MI-02 Toledo Beach MI X
MI-43 Whitefish Point MI X
MS-04 Heron Bay Point MS x
R02 Marsh Point MS X
L01 Currituck Banks NC X
L03 Hatteras Island NC X
L08 Wrightsville Beach NC X
NJ-04B Metedeconk Neck NJ X
NY-12 Centerpoint Harbor NY X
NY-41 Clam Island NY X
NY-39 Cow Neck NY X
NY-59 Fire Island NY X
NY-57 Georgica/Wainscott NY
Ponds X
NY-30 Hog Neck Bay NY X
NY-64 The Isthmus NY X
NY-11 Lloyd Harbor NY X
NY-10 Lloyd Point NY X
NY-42 Mill Creek^a NY
F10 Napeague^a NY
F05 Old Field Beach NY X
NY-16 Stony Brook Harbor NY X
NY-76 Walker NY X
PR-53 Bajio de Marea PR X
PR-68 Boca Prieta^a PR
PR-79 Penon Brusi^a PR
PR-59 Punta Ballena PR X
PR-40 Punta Tuna PR X
RI-12 East Matunick RI
Beach X
RI-07 Hazards Beach RI X
RI-02A McCurry Point RI X
D02B Prudence Island RI
Complex X
M07 Bird Key Complex SC X
M08 Captain Sams Inlet SC X
M06 Morris Island SC
Complex X
T12 Boca Chica TX X
T11 South Padre Island TX X
TX-04 Swan Lake TX X
VI-08 Cangarden Bay VI X
VI-09 Krause Lagoon VI X
VI-17 Pond Bay VI X
VI-06 Robin Bay VI X
VI-04 Southgate Pond VI X
VI-11 Westend Saltpond VI X
VA-42 Chesapeake Beach VA X
VA-25 Fox Islands VA X
VA-45 Harveys Creek VA X
VA-46 Ingram Cove VA X
VA-16 Scarborough Neck VA X
Source: GAO analysis of CBRS units.
Note: There was no development in any unit between 16 and 100 structures.
aThe number of new structures is unknown for these units.
Tables 3 and 4 show the CBRS units we included in our analysis to
determine the extent of federal expenditures and permits made to entities
in the CBRS. Table 3 displays the CBRS units included within our sample
that had structures--regardless of whether the structures were built prior
to or after the units inclusion in the CBRS. Table 4 lists the additional
CBRS units that were suggested for inclusion in our review by FWS because
the agency had information suggesting that development was occurring in
these areas.
Table 3: CBRS Units Included in GAO's Random Sample That Were Analyzed to
Determine the Extent of Federal Expenditures and Permits
Unit number CBRS unit State
CT-13 Kelsey Island CT
CT-01 Mason Island CT
E09 Norwalk Islands CT
FL-46 Boot Key Island FL
P31A Four Mile Village FL
P05A Matanzas River FL
P18 Sanibel Island Complex FL
P10 Vero Beach FL
C19 Black Beach MA
C11A Boat Meadow MA
C00 Clark Pond MA
C16 Dead Neck MA
C31 Elizabeth Islands MA
C14 Squaw Island MA
L01 Currituck Banks NC
L08 Wrightsville Beach NC
NJ-04B Metedeconk Neck NJ
NY-59 Fire Island NY
NY-30 Hog Neck Bay NY
NY-42 Mill Creek NY
F10 Napeague NY
NY-16 Stony Brook Harbor NY
RI-12 East Matunick Beach RI
D02B Prudence Island Complex RI
M07 Bird Key Complex SC
M08 Captain Sams Inlet SC
VA-45 Harveys Creek VA
Source: GAO analysis of CBRS units.
Table 4: Additional CBRS Units Suggested for Review by FWS That Were
Analyzed to Determine the Extent of Federal Expenditures and Permits
Unit Number CBRS unit State
P10A Blue Hole FL
P30 Cape San Blas FL
P09A Coconut Point FL
FL-94 Deer Lake Complex FL
P28 Dog Island FL
FL-92 Indian Peninsula FL
P07 Ormond-by-the-Sea FL
P08 Ponce Inlet FL
FL-98 Santa Rosa Island FL
L06 Topsail NC
Source: GAO analysis of CBRS units.
Appendix III: Snapshots of Selected CBRS Units
Massachusetts
Within the state of Massachusetts, there are 62 CBRS units. The units
consist of 64,076 total acres of land, with 88 percent of the land
considered wetlands by FWS.^1 We visited six CBRS units--Black Beach, Boat
Meadow, Centerville, Herring Brook, Sandy Neck, and Squaw Island. These
units were primarily salt marsh or wetland areas with narrow coastal beach
areas. Only the Boat Meadow unit had experienced any new development since
inclusion in the CBRS. Figure 2 displays the CBRS units we visited during
our site visit.
^1For purposes of this appendix, wetlands include associated aquatic
habitat such as nearshore waters and inlets.
Figure 2: CBRS Units We Visited in Massachusetts
The Herring Brook and Sandy Neck units both include land used as a public
beach destination. The Sandy Neck unit is a coastal barrier beach, with
both public and private beach areas, approximately 6 miles long varying in
width from 200 yards to one-half mile. The unit is classified by the local
government as a conservation and recreation area. Several homes are
located on the unit, but one local official noted they are all registered
by the state as historic places.
The Centerville unit and the Squaw Island unit each have a barrier beach,
but the beach is privately owned. The Centerville unit serves as a private
beach and protective buffer for the homes bordering the unit. A local
official noted the residents annually pay for a beach nourishment project
in order to keep the protective buffer for their homes. The Squaw Island
unit is a barrier beach and wetlands surrounding an area of developed land
that was excluded from CBRS. The excluded area consists of homes valued
between $1.7 and $6.9 million. Figure 3 displays a portion of Squaw
Island.
Figure 3: House and Beach on the Squaw Island, CBRS Unit in Massachusetts
Both the Black Beach and Boat Meadow units consist primarily of salt
marshes and wetlands. The southern portion of the Black Beach unit has one
street of homes that were built prior to CBRA. One local official
described the homes as "traditional Cape Cod" style houses. The Boat
Meadow unit has several neighborhoods bordering the unit with one
neighborhood partially included in the unit. It is within this area that
new development--three single-family homes--has occurred since the unit's
inclusion in the CBRS.
Rhode Island
Within the state of Rhode Island, there are 21 CBRS units. The CBRS units
consist of 10,320 total acres, with 83 percent considered wetlands by the
FWS. During our site visit to Rhode Island, we focused our review on the
Prudence Island Complex unit. The Prudence Island Complex unit consists of
numerous separate pieces of land all included in one CBRS unit. The unit
is located in residential neighborhoods in several counties around the
Narragansett Bay. Although approximately 50 homes are located within the
CBRS unit, only 8 of the homes have been built since inclusion within
CBRS. Figure 4 shows the CBRS units that we visited in Rhode Island.
Figure 4: CBRS Units We Visited in Rhode Island
Several areas included in the Prudence Island Complex are backyards of
private homes. Home owners voluntarily included the CBRS land in their
backyards in conservation easements, limiting the right of future owners
of the property to develop the land. Figure 5 is one of the homes with a
backyard that falls in the CBRS unit boundaries.
Figure 5: Home with a Backyard in the Prudence Island, Rhode Island CBRS
Unit
Another area included in the unit is owned by the Rhode Island Country
Club and serves as a golf practice area. Figure 6 is the country club land
that is included in the CBRS.
Figure 6: Portion of the Prudence Island Complex CBRS Unit
The unit also includes a small beach and a wetland inlet located in a
residential neighborhood. The inlet leads to the Rhode Island Country
Club. A local official stated that the County Club has asked the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to re-dredge the inlet to improve the playability of
the golf course--which gets heavily saturated during rains. Dredging
within the CBRS unit would allow water to run off the course faster.
Figure 7 shows the area within the CBRS unit that would be dredged.
Figure 7: Inlet Where Proposed Dredging Project Would Occur in the
Prudence Island CBRS Unit
South Carolina
Within the state of South Carolina, there are 16 CBRS units. FWS officials
determined that the units consist of 97,856 total acres, with 90 percent
of land considered wetlands. We visited two units in South Carolina--Bird
Key Complex and Captain Sams Inlet (see fig. 8). Each of the units has
experienced the addition of 10 or fewer residential homes since its
inclusion in the CBRS. The developed portions of both of these units are
located on coastal islands--the Captain Sams Inlet homes are located on
Seabrook Island, and the Bird Key Complex homes are located on Kiawah
Island.
Figure 8: CBRS Units We Visited in South Carolina
Development in the Captain Sams Inlet CBRS unit is located in the Seabrook
Island Resort--a 2,200-acre, privately gated, beachfront community on
Seabrook Island. According to local officials, the title to the land where
these homes are located was in dispute for years, which delayed its
development, unlike the rest of the island. Local officials also stated
that they believe that if the title to the land had not been in dispute,
the area would have developed at the time of the CBRS unit designations
and most likely would not have been included in the CBRS. Because of the
CBRS inclusion, the property owners in the unit are no longer eligible for
certain types of federal assistance, in particular federal flood
insurance, which they noted is much less expensive than privately
available insurance. Officials with whom we met on neighboring Kiawah
Island stated that a developer has plans to build up to 50 units on a
20-acre portion of the Captain Sams Inlet CBRS unit that is located on
Kiawah Island.
Development in the Bird Key Complex CBRS unit is located on the northeast
portion of Kiawah Island, which is also a privately gated, beachfront
community with approximately 3,000 homes. The southern portion of the CBRS
unit includes a few homes that we identified as being located in the unit,
an 18-hole golf course, and an area of land called "Cougar Island." Kiawah
officials told us that a private developer has plans to build 360 homes on
24 acres of Cougar Island at a future date.
Florida
Within the state of Florida, there are 67 CBRS units. The units range
extensively in size and composition and encompass 285,937 total acres
along both the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts. Overall, 87 percent of the land
within the units is considered wetlands by FWS. We visited three
units--Four Mile Village, Cape San Blas, and Deer Lake Complex (see fig.
9). All three units we visited had experienced some level of development.
However, the development ranged from 11 new structures in Deer Lake
Complex to at least 900 new structures in Cape San Blas since the units
inclusion in the CBRS.
Figure 9: CBRS Units We Visited in Florida
The Four Mile Village unit in Florida has experienced an increase of at
least 100 new residential structures since its inclusion in CBRS. This
unit is expected to continue to experience development, as a 167-home
private development project called Cypress Dunes is completed. The Cypress
Dunes project consists of a 44-acre gated community and will include a
clubhouse, pool, exercise center, dining facility, and tennis courts, all
entirely within the CBRS unit.
The 1,637-acre Topsail Hill Preserve State Park makes up more than
one-half of the Four Mile Village CBRS unit. The preserve was purchased in
1992 with funds from the Conservation Acquisition of Recreation Lands
program, also known as Forever Florida. Topsail was purchased for its
unique natural ecosystems, including freshwater coastal dune lakes, wet
prairies, scrub, pine flatwoods, marshes, cypress domes, seepage slopes
and 3.2 miles of sparkling white sand beaches. The park also includes
areas to bike, walk, swim, fish, and access to the beach, plus a
full-facility campground features a swimming pool, tennis courts, and
shuffleboard courts.
The Cape San Blas CBRS unit is located on a peninsula in the Florida
panhandle. It has experienced significant development since its inclusion
within the CBRS with the addition of at least 900 new homes. Primarily,
the homes are single-family residences used as vacation homes and rentals.
In November 2002, FEMA designated parts of Cape San Blas as a special
flood hazard area. Mortgage lenders require home owners in these zones to
obtain flood insurance. Because federal flood insurance is not available
in CBRS, home owners with mortgages must obtain private flood insurance.
At the same time, officials told us that the cost of private insurance has
skyrocketed and is no longer comparable to national flood insurance
program rates. According to local officials, tourism in the Cape San Blas
area is important to the economy of the county. They told us that property
values in the unit have decreased since FEMA adopted a special flood
hazard area for the CBRS unit. Residents and local officials have
unsuccessfully attempted to remove Cape San Blas from the CBRS so that
residents would be eligible to obtain flood insurance through the National
Flood Insurance Program. In the 109th Congress, legislation was introduced
in the House of Representatives that would exempt Cape San Blas, along
with another unit, from CBRA's prohibitions and the limitations on flood
insurance.^2 However, the bill never came to a vote.
We identified some development in the Deer Lake Complex unit since its
inclusion within the CBRS. A total of 11 new single-family homes have been
constructed within the unit.
^2H.R. 3280, 109th Cong. (2005)
North Carolina
Within the state of North Carolina, there are 10 CBRS units consisting of
52, 215 total acres--approximately 6,809 of those are considered
developable acres by FWS. We visited four CBRS units--Topsail, Lea Island,
Currituck Banks, and Wrightsville Beach (see fig. 10). Both Topsail and
Currituck have experienced significant levels of development since
inclusion within the CBRS. In contrast, Lea Island and Wrightsville Beach
are impractical locations for development as they are significantly
affected by erosion and shifting sands.
Figure 10: CBRS Units We Visited in North Carolina
The Topsail unit in North Topsail is a barrier island with low elevation
without the protection of substantial dunes. It has a total of
approximately 1,600 structures and local officials stated that most of the
structures were built after CBRA was enacted. The unit consists of single
and multifamily homes, a few hotels/motels, a convenience store, and the
North Topsail Beach Town Hall.
In recent years, the unit has been hit several times by hurricanes. For
example, in 1996, Hurricanes Bertha and Fran caused significant damage.
The storms leveled dunes, cut new channels across the island, dumped tons
of sand, and destroyed more than 300 buildings. The federal government
provided funds that assisted in repairing the streets, repairing water and
sewer lines, replacing signs, and removing substantial debris. Since that
time, the area has been rebuilt, but other storms have continued to cause
damage. We identified at least $5.6 million in disaster assistance that
was provided to entities in the unit since November 1998.
Portions of the Topsail CBRS unit have experienced substantial levels of
erosion. As the soil erodes, the ocean becomes dangerously close to the
homes. Figure 11 pictures one of several homes in the Topsail area where
the ocean waves make contact with the home's foundation.
Figure 11: House in North Topsail CBRS Unit on the Edge of the Ocean
Several areas outside of the CBRS unit have approved plans for a federally
funded Corps beach renourishment project. However, because areas within
the CBRS unit are ineligible for federal funding for a beach renourishment
project, local officials are pursuing other opportunities to fund the
portion of the project that falls within the CBRS boundaries. For example,
the Town of North Topsail Beach recently proposed a $34 million bond
package to pay for the beach renourishment project, but the voters
rejected the proposal in November 2006.
According to local officials, during the time when much of the development
occurred in the Topsail unit, affordable private flood insurance was
generally available. However, in recent years the cost of private flood
insurance has increased tremendously. Currently, these officials said that
many residents are frustrated with CBRA's prohibitions on the availability
of federal flood insurance and federal funding for beach renourishment
projects. According to these officials, residents in the Topsail CBRS unit
are upset that they must pay significantly higher insurance premiums than
their neighbors who own properties just outside of the unit who can obtain
federal flood insurance.
The Currituck Banks CBRS unit is located on the outer banks of North
Carolina, with the northern boundary at the Virginia state line. The unit
has also experienced significant new development, with at least 400 new
residential homes built since inclusion in CBRS. Local officials stated
that rapid development has occurred in the area since the late 1980s and
that as of June 2006, there were 550 single-family dwellings within the
unit. However, officials noted this only represents 18 percent of the
total capacity of homes that can be built in the unit. County planning
staff noted that the area currently has 3,088 actual or planned building
lots available. Although the Currituck Banks unit does not have any paved
roads and is only accessible by four-wheel drive vehicle or boat, it still
continues to be developed, partly because people on the Outer Banks are
seeking the solitude that living in the CBRS unit can provide. Moreover,
the unit has an extensive canal system that allows residents direct boat
access to their homes and the mainland.
The Lea Island CBRS unit is a tiny barrier island, accessible only by
boat, and located south of the Figure Eight Island. The island is
privately owned, but local officials stated that conservation groups are
slowly trying to buy more of the island. The island is approximately 60
acres long with most of the land less than 10 feet above sea level. The
island is in a constant state of flux due to erosion and shifting sand.
According to a local coastal official, 15 homes previously existed on Lea
Island, but all of them--except for one small cabin--had been destroyed by
natural disasters.
At the time CBRA was enacted, FWS determined that the Wrightsville Beach
unit had 83 developable acres of land. However, sand continuously shifts
within the unit. At one point, the majority of sand in the unit had
shifted to such an extent that the entire unit was under water. According
to local officials, to keep the unit above water, local entities must
continually dredge an inlet adjacent to the unit to replenish the unit
with sand.
Appendix IV: Programs and Types of Federal Assistance Analyzed
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Permits - Section 404 and Section 10
Civil Works programs
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Business and Industry Programs
Business and Industry Direct Loans
Business and Industry Guaranteed Loans
Intermediary Relending Program
Rural Business Enterprise Grants
Rural Business Opportunity Grants
Rural Economic Development Loans
Rural Economic Development Grants
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program
Community Facilities Programs
Community Facilities Direct Loans
Community Facilities Guaranteed Loans
Community Facilities Grants
Electric Programs
Hardship Loans
Municipal Loans
Treasury Loans
FFB Guaranteed Loans
Single Family Housing Programs
Rural Housing Guaranteed Loan
Rural Housing Direct Loan
Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Loan
Housing Repair and Rehabilitation Grant
Rural Housing Site Loans
Mutual Self-Help Housing Grants
Homes for Sale
Multifamily Housing Programs
Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants
Rural Rental Housing Loans
Guaranteed Rental Housing
Rental Assistance Program
Water and Waste Programs
Water and Waste Disposal Loans
Water and Waste Disposal Grants
Emergency Community Water Assistance Grants
Revolving Fund Program
Household Water Well System Program
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Flood Insurance Program
Individuals and Households Program
Public Assistance Program (Disaster)
U.S. Coast Guard
Permits for bridges over navigable waters of the United States
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Single Family Housing Programs
Mortgage Insurance - Section 203(b)
Rehabilitation Mortgage Insurance - Section 203(k)
Mortgage Insurance for Condominium Units - Section 234(c)
Home Equity Conversion Mortgage - Section 255
Multifamily Housing Programs
Supportive Housing for the Elderly - Section 202
Mortgage Insurance for Cooperative Housing - Section 213
New Construction/Substantial Rehabilitation of Apartments with Nonprofit
Sponsors - Section 221(d)(3)
New Construction/Substantial Rehabilitation of Apartments with For- profit
Sponsors - Section 221(d)(4)
Refinancing of Apartment Primary Loans - Section 223(a)(7)
Healthcare Facilities - Section 232
Refinancing of Healthcare Facilities - Section 232
Supplemental Loan Insurance - Section 241(a)
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities - Section 811
Environmental Protection Agency
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Aid Highway Program
Small Business Administration
7 (a) and 504 Loan programs
Disaster Loan program
Department of Veterans Affairs
Veterans Benefits Administration Home Loan Guaranty Program
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of the Interior
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Anu K. Mittal (202) 512-3841 or [email protected]
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Sherry McDonald, Assistant
Director; Natalie Herzog; Stuart Ryba; Jay Spaan; Amy Ward-Meier; and
Leigh M. White made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to
this report were Kevin Bray, John Delicath, Nancy Hess, Gloria Saunders
and Jay Smale.
(360666)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-356 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Anu Mittal at (202) 512-3841 or
[email protected].
Highlights of [66]GAO-07-356 , a report to the Honorable Wayne T.
Gilchrest, House of Representatives
March 2007
COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM
Status of Development That Has Occurred and Financial Assistance Provided
by Federal Agencies
In 1982, Congress enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. The Coastal
Barrier Resources Act, as amended (CBRA), designates 585 units of
undeveloped coastal lands and aquatic habitat as the John H. Chafee
Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). CBRA prohibits most federal
expenditures and assistance within the system that could encourage
development, but it allows federal agencies to provide some types of
assistance and issue certain regulatory permits. In 1992, GAO reported
that development was occurring in the CBRS despite restrictions on federal
assistance. GAO updated its 1992 report and reviewed the extent to which
(1) development has occurred in CBRS units since their inclusion in the
system and (2) federal financial assistance and permits have been provided
to entities in CBRS units.
GAO electronically mapped address data for structures within 91 randomly
selected CBRS units and collected information on federal financial
assistance and permits for eight federal agencies.
[67]What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends, among other things, that the four agencies that provided
prohibited loan guarantees or insurance policies to CBRS units first
verify and then cancel those that are in violation of CBRA. Three agencies
agreed with our recommendation; VA did not, stating that it would inflict
unfair harm to the affected veterans.
An estimated 84 percent of CBRS units remain undeveloped, while 16 percent
have experienced some level of development. About 13 percent of the
developed units experienced minimal levels of development--typically
consisting of less than 20 additional structures per unit since becoming
part of the CBRS, and about 3 percent experienced significant
development-- consisting of 100 or more structures per unit--since
becoming part of the CBRS. According to federal and local officials, CBRA
has played little role in the extent of development within the CBRS units
that we reviewed because they believe that other factors have been more
important in inhibiting development. These include (1) the lack of
suitably developable land in the unit; (2) the lack of accessibility to
the unit; (3) state laws discouraging development within coastal areas;
and (4) ownership of land within the unit by groups, such as the National
Audubon Society, who are seeking to preserve its natural state. In units
that GAO reviewed where development had occurred, federal and local
officials also identified a number of factors that have contributed to
development despite the unit's inclusion in the CBRS. These include (1) a
combination of commercial interest and public desire to build in the unit,
(2) local government support for development, and (3) the availability of
affordable private flood insurance.
Multiple federal agencies have provided some financial assistance to
property owners in CBRS units that is expressly prohibited by CBRA; some
assistance allowed under CBRA; and hundreds of permits for federally
regulated development activities within the unit. Specifically, four
agencies--the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department
of Veterans Affairs, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the
Small Business Administration--provided financial assistance, such as
flood insurance and loan guarantees, totaling about $21 million that is
prohibited by CBRA to property owners in CBRS units. Although most of
these agencies had processes in place to prevent such assistance from
being provided, they cited problems with inaccurate maps as being a key
factor leading to these errors. With regard to financial assistance
allowed by CBRA, GAO found that three federal agencies have provided such
assistance but did not track how much assistance they provided, so the
total extent of this assistance is unknown. With regard to permits issued
in CBRS units for federally regulated activities, GAO identified hundreds
of permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers and state agencies
authorized to issue permits on behalf of the Environmental Protection
Agency. These permits covered various activities such as the construction
of piers, the discharge of dredged or fill material into federally
regulated waters, and permits associated with water discharges from
construction sites or wastewater treatment systems.
References
Visible links
54. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-92-115
57. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1013
66. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-356
*** End of document. ***