U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital Mapping Pilot Project

Acknowledgements

Many people within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided support for the Digital Mapping Pilot Project: Ms. Cynthia Bohn, Ms. Lesli Gray, Mr. Matthew Huggler, Ms. Gina Jones, Ms. Robin NimsElliott, Dr. Mamie Parker, Mr. Paul Souza, Mr. David Stout, Dr. Benjamin Tuggle, Mr. Doug Vandegraft, and Mr. Everett Wilson.

Dewberry & Davis staff provided the technical mapping support, contributed to the research and design of the project, and provided many of the illustrations throughout the report: Mr. Paul Comlish, Mr. Samuel Gold, Mr. Rezwan Karim, and Mr. Chris Langley.

Additional partners who provided valuable information and support for the project include Mr. Larry Handley of the U.S. Geological Survey, and Mr. Brady Harrison of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

The authors would also like to thank the Members of Congress, and their staff, who sponsored and co-sponsored the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000, which directed the Secretary of the Interior to complete a Digital Mapping Pilot Project and report to Congress on the results of the project, and the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to finalize the pilot project maps and create digital maps for the remainder of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System: Representatives Wayne T. Gilchrest, James A. Leach, and Jim Saxton; and Senators John H. Chafee, Lincoln D. Chafee, Mike Crapo, James M. Inhofe, James M. Jeffords, Joseph I. Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Bob Smith.

Primary Authors Contributors

Stephen R. Kalaf, Dewberry & Davis John Antkowiak, Dewberry & Davis

Katie Niemi, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Kristy Hatch, Dewberry & Davis

Martin Kodis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Rachel London, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital Mapping Pilot Project

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fisheries and Habitat Conservation Washington, D.C. i ii Digital Mapping Pilot Project Preface

The Coastal Barrier Resources in recent years are a reminder of the CBRA and modernization Act (CBRA) conserves ecologically the dangers associated with building of the CBRS maps using digital important coastal habitat by in these hazardous areas. By technology. In May 2006, Congress prohibiting most Federal subsidies limiting Federal subsidies such as reaffirmed its support for the that encourage risky development flood insurance within the CBRS, CBRA and its commitment towards along our Nation’s coastal barriers. the CBRA removes unwise Federal digital CBRS mapping by enacting By discouraging coastal barrier incentives to develop these areas. the Coastal Barrier Resources development, the CBRA also Reauthorization Act of 2005 which protects lives and mainland property, A major challenge to maintaining directs the Secretary of the Interior and saves taxpayer dollars. At the the CBRS for the long term is to finalize the pilot project maps by time the CBRA was enacted in 1982, that the existing CBRS maps are conducting a public review of the President Ronald Reagan said, inaccurate, outdated, and difficult maps included in this report, and “This legislation will enhance both to interpret. CBRS information creating digital maps for the entire wise natural resource conservation is difficult to access because the CBRS. Modernized, digital maps and fiscal responsibility. It will boundaries of these areas are will address the inaccuracies of the save American taxpayers millions not available in digital format. outdated maps, correct errors that of dollars while, at the same time, Landowners are sometimes unaware adversely affect private property taking a major step forward in the that their property is within the owners, increase efficiencies conservation of our magnificent CBRS until they are turned down and accessibility by allowing the coastal resources.” Today, bearing for Federal flood insurance, creating integration of CBRS information out President Reagan’s words, the unexpected hardships. Recognizing into digital planning tools, conserve John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier the limitations and problems natural resources, and preserve the Resources System (CBRS) includes associated with the existing set of integrity of the CBRS for the long- more than 3 million acres of coastal CBRS maps, Congress enacted term. barrier habitat, and it is estimated the Coastal Barrier Resources that by 2010, the CBRA will have Reauthorization Act in 2000, The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service saved American taxpayers well over which directs the Secretary of the believes that the CBRA has largely $1 billion. Interior, in consultation with the achieved its goals to minimize Director of the Federal Emergency the loss of human life, wasteful Coastal barriers and their Management Agency, to conduct a expenditure of Federal revenues, associated aquatic habitats are key Digital Mapping Pilot Project. This and the damage to natural resources components of a strong economy is the Administration’s report to associated with America’s coastal and healthy environment. They Congress, as called for in the 2000 barriers. We look forward to support commercial and recreational Act, that provides the results of the working with Congress to move the fisheries; provide essential habitat pilot project, including draft digital CBRA into the digital age where it for many endangered species maps for 70 CBRS areas, and an can continue to achieve its goals with and migratory birds; protect the assessment of the feasibility, data greater efficiency. mainland from severe storms and needs, and costs associated with hurricanes; and are enjoyed by completing digital maps for the millions of vacationing Americans entire CBRS. every year. The devastating hurricanes striking the Gulf Coast The Administration supports

iii Digital Mapping Pilot Project Digital Mapping Pilot Project Authority

Recognizing the limitations and the Senate and the Committee on This report to Congress provides problems associated with the Natural Resources of the House the results of the pilot project and existing set of John H. Chafee of Representatives. The CBRRA an assessment of the feasibility and Coastal Barrier Resources System specifies that the report shall include costs associated with completing (CBRS) maps, the Coastal Barrier a description of: digital maps for the entire CBRS. Resources Reauthorization Act • the cooperative agreements that (CBRRA) of 2000 directs the will be necessary to complete The CBRRA of 2005 directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) digital mapping of the entire Secretary to: (1) finalize the digital to carry out a pilot project that CBRS; mapping pilot project by providing consists of the creation of digital • the extent to which the data for public review of the draft maps maps for no more than 75 units necessary to complete digital and presenting Congress with final and no fewer than 50 units of the mapping of the entire CBRS are recommended pilot project maps; CBRS, one-third of which shall be available; and (2) create draft digital maps for otherwise protected areas (OPAs). • the need for additional data to the remainder of the CBRS, provide The CBRRA specifies that not later complete digital mapping of the for public review, and present than three years after the date entire CBRS; Congress with final recommended of enactment, the Secretary shall • the extent to which the boundary maps. submit a report that describes the lines on the digital maps differ results of the pilot project and the from the boundary lines on the feasibility, data needs, and costs original maps; and of completing digital maps for the • the amount of funding necessary entire CBRS to the Committee on to complete digital mapping of Environment and Public Works of the entire CBRS.

iv Digital Mapping Pilot Project Table of Contents

DIGITAL MAPPING PILOT PROJECT AUTHORITY………………………………………………………………… iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY…………………………………………………………………………………………… ix

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM…………………………………… 1 Geomorphology of Coastal Barriers………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Value of Coastal Barriers…………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 Risks Associated with Development on Coastal Barriers………………………………………………………… 2 Fish and Wildlife Service Role in Administering the Coastal Barrier Resources Act………………………… 4 Legislation that Created and Modified the Coastal Barrier Resources System………………………………… 4

CHAPTER 2: NEED FOR MAP MODERNIZATION………………………………………………………………… 8 Challenges Associated with Existing Maps………………………………………………………………………… 8 Benefits Associated with Digital Maps……………………………………………………………………………… 9

CHAPTER 3: DIGITAL DATA STANDARDS, NEEDS, AND AVAILABILITY………………………………………… 14 National Digital Data Standards…………………………………………………………………………………… 14 Digital Data Needs and Availability………………………………………………………………………………… 14

CHAPTER 4: DIGITAL MAPPING METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………………… 20 Selection of Pilot Project Units……………………………………………………………………………………… 20 Digital Data “Fitting”………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20 Mapping System Units……………………………………………………………………………………………… 20 Mapping Otherwise Protected Areas……………………………………………………………………………… 21

CHAPTER 5: PILOT PROJECT RESULTS……………………………………………………………………………23 Types of Proposed Boundary Changes……………………………………………………………………………… 23 Acreage and Shoreline Changes…………………………………………………………………………………… 32 Background Records………………………………………………………………………………………………… 33

CHAPTER 6: COSTS, NEXT STEPS, AND CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………… 34 Costs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34 Next Steps…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 34 Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY……………………………………………………………………………………… A-1 APPENDIX B: COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM DATA NEEDS AND AVAILABILITY …………………… B-1 APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL CHANGES TO THE CBRS………………………………………… C-1 APPENDIX D: PILOT PROJECT UNIT SUMMARIES AND MAPS………………………………………………… D-1 APPENDIX E: PILOT PROJECT ACREAGE AND SHORELINE CHANGES………………………………………… E-1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Types of coastal barriers. Bay barriers (a), tombolos (b), barrier spits (c), and barrier islands (d)… 1 Figure 2. The habitats created and protected by coastal barriers are vital to recreational industries………… 1 Figure 3. Endangered piping plover, Charadrius melodus, walking on a New Jersey beach………………… 2 Figure 4. A leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, nesting on a coastal barrier in Canaveral National Seashore, Florida……………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Figure 5. Public recreation on Sanibel Island, Florida…………………………………………………………… 2 Figure 6. North Captiva Island, Florida, before and after Hurricane Charley in 2004. The barrier was breached, and the leaves were stripped from the trees. CBRS Units P19 and P19P are located on North Captiva Island………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Figure 7. Unit L06 map enacted by the CBRA in 1982…………………………………………………………… 5 Figure 8. Unit L06 map enacted by the CBIA in 1990…………………………………………………………… 6 Figure 9. A USGS quadrangle dated 1987 was used as the base map for Unit FL-64P (black dots). The actual boundary of the Clam Pass Conservation Area is shaded in purple……………………………………… 9 Figure 10. Sand pumping for a beach nourishment project at Fort Patrick Air Force Base, Florida………… 11 Figure 11. Property determination using digital data……………………………………………………………… 11 Figure 12. Flood Insurance Rate Map showing a portion of Unit M02…………………………………………… 12 v Table of Contents

Figure 13. Endangered wood stork, Mycteria americana, feeds on the shore at Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge, Florida……………………………………………………………………………………………… 13 Figure 14. National Wetlands Inventory layer in a GIS environment…………………………………… ……… 16 Figure 15. The date of construction data is shown by the black dates located within parcels………………… 17 Figure 16. Brevard County, Florida, parcel data (shown in pink) overlaid on a USGS DOQQ………………… 20 Figure 17. The digitized boundary is obtained from a paper CBRS map that has been referenced to a USGS digital raster graphic in order to establish horizontal control, and is then placed on horizontally controlled aerial imagery………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21 Figure 18. Proposed Unit S05 boundary (shown in green) accounts for accretion of Timbalier Island, Louisiana over time………………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 Figure 19. Proposed Unit P04A boundary (shown in green) aligns with a geomorphic feature. The existing boundary is shown in orange………………………………………………………………………………………… 23 Figure 20. Proposed Unit L07 boundary (shown in green) adds associated aquatic habitat behind a developed shoreline. The existing boundary is shown in orange……………………………………………………………… 24 Figure 21. Mapping channels with a regular developed shoreline. The Unit P05 proposed boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange…………………………………………………………… 25 Figure 22. Mapping channels with an undeveloped regular shoreline. The Unit P08 proposed boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange…………………………………………………… 25 Figure 23. Mapping channels with an undeveloped irregular shoreline. The Unit L05 proposed boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange. The boundary is generalized, and as a result, may not include the entire associated aquatic habitat (see blue shaded area)…………………………… 25 Figure 24. Mapping channels with an undeveloped shoreline and emergent aquatic habitat. The Unit P21 proposed boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange………………………… 26 Figure 25. Addition of fastland not currently within the CBRS. The Unit FL-40 boundary is shown in orange and the proposed additions are shown in green…………………………………………………………… 27 Figure 26. The portion of existing System Unit P11 outlined in green is proposed to be reclassified as OPA P11P because it is land that was held for conservation or recreation before Unit P11 was established……… 27 Figure 27. Unit LA-01 has no proposed boundary adjustment…………………………………………………… 29 Figure 28. Proposed Unit FL-93P boundary (shown in green) is adjusted to align with conservation or recreation area boundaries. The existing boundary is shown in orange………………………………………… 29 Figure 29. Proposed Unit FL-14P boundary (shown in green) adds lands held by Kings Island Natural Area to the existing OPA……………………………………………………………………………………………… 30 Figure 30. Proposed Unit FL-20P boundary (shown in green) removes private land that was developed at the time the OPA was enacted. The existing boundary is shown in orange………………………………………30 Figure 31. A privately owned, undeveloped piece of land that is within the existing OPA FL-01P is proposed to be reclassified as System Unit FL-01…………………………………………………………………………… 30 Figure 32. Proposed Unit NC-05P boundary (shown in green) extends to the middle of the channel. The existing boundary is shown in orange……………………………………………………………………………… 31

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Summary of Proposed System Unit Changes………………………………………………… 28 Table 2. Summary of Proposed Otherwise Protected Area Changes…………………………………… 32 Table 3. Summary of Proposed Acreage Changes…………………………………………………… 33 Table 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability…………………………………………………………… B-1 - B-3 Table 5. Summary of Historical Changes to the CBRS………………………………………………… C-1 - C-2

LIST OF BOXES

Box 1. Impact of Hurricanes on Dauphin Island, Alabama……………………………………………… 3 Box 2. Lack of geographic grid coordinate values on existing CBRS maps…………………………… 10 Box 3. Comparison of Imagery Quality………………………………………………………………… 15 Box 4. Alignment with Development Features in Unit L06……………………………………………… 26

vi Digital Mapping Pilot Project List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

CBIA – Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 CBRA – Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 CBRRA of 2000 – Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 CBRRA of 2005 – Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005 CBRS – John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System CIR – Color infrared Department – Department of the Interior DOQQ – Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency FGDC – Federal Geographic Data Committee FIRM – Flood Insurance Rate Map GIS – Geographic Information System NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration NFIA – National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 NFIP – National Flood Insurance Program NOAA – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service NSDI – National Spatial Data Infrastructure NWI – National Wetlands Inventory OBRA – Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 OPA – Otherwise Protected Area Secretary – Secretary of the Interior Service – United States Fish and Wildlife Service USDA – United States Department of Agriculture USGS – United States Geological Survey

Suggested citation: U.S. Department of the Interior. Report to Congress: John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Digital Mapping Pilot Project. 2008. vii Photo by U.S. Geological Survey This aerial photograph of Navarre Beach, Florida, was taken after Hurricane Dennis in 2005. The undeveloped portion of the coastal barrier in the distance is within John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit FL-97.

viii Digital Mapping Pilot Project Executive Summary

OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL assistance. The Coastal Barrier to the CBRS; and (3) the CBRA BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM Improvement Act (CBIA) of 1990 5-year review requirement that reauthorized the CBRA; expanded solely considers changes that have Some of our Nation’s most the CBRS to include undeveloped occurred to System units by natural beautiful beaches, most valuable coastal barriers along the Florida forces such as erosion and accretion. real estate, and most popular Keys, Great Lakes, Puerto Rico, recreational areas are located on and U.S. Virgin Islands; and added The CBRS boundaries are depicted coastal barriers. Coastal barriers a new category of coastal barriers on U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are elongated, narrow landforms to the CBRS called “otherwise topographic quadrangle maps, located at the interface of land protected areas” (OPAs). OPAs are which are, on average, 30 years and sea. Coastal barriers buffer undeveloped coastal barriers that old. The maps are outdated the lagoons, wetlands, and salt are within the boundaries of an area technologically. Because of the marshes behind them that in turn established under Federal, State, limitations of mapping technology support commercial and recreational or local law, or held by a qualified when the CBRS was created, CBRS fisheries and protect people and organization, primarily for wildlife boundaries do not align precisely property on the mainland from the refuge, sanctuary, recreational, with the geomorphic, cultural, or full impact of hurricanes and other or natural resource conservation development features they were severe storms. The location and purposes. intended to follow. As a result, some dynamic nature of coastal barriers properties and projects intended to make building on them a risky By removing Federal subsidies, be eligible for Federal subsidies are proposition. Development of these the CBRA has been instrumental not eligible, and vice-versa. areas not only puts property owners in ensuring that the Federal at risk of losing their homes and Government does not encourage The CBRA has significant impacts lives, but also disrupts the natural the development of these high-risk on property owners within the movement of the barriers, harming and biologically important coastal CBRS. Therefore, it is critical that fish and wildlife habitat, and often barrier habitats. For the 3.1 million the Service be able to determine increasing natural erosion processes. acres currently included in the the exact location of properties and Despite their instability and the CBRS, the CBRA has fulfilled its public works projects (e.g., road risks associated with building on purpose by removing an incentive construction, channel dredging, and narrow spits of sand, the aesthetic to develop without prohibiting beach nourishment) in relation to and recreational lures of coastal development. Development can CBRS boundaries. Some structures barriers have enticed people to still occur provided that private are located mere feet away from develop these areas. In many cases, developers or other non-Federal CBRS boundaries. In these cases, this development is encouraged parties bear the full cost. According even a small error on the CBRS by the availability of various types to a 2002 U.S. Fish and Wildlife map can have significant economic of Federal financial assistance, Service (Service) economic report, effects on a developer or property including Federal flood insurance. the CBRA will save American owner. The Service’s ability to taxpayers approximately $1.3 billion provide efficient customer service With the passage of the Coastal in Federal dollars between 1982 and to the public and other Federal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) 2010. agencies is significantly impeded by in 1982, Congress recognized that the antiquated maps that currently certain actions and programs NEED FOR MAP MODERNIZATION depict the CBRS. Private property of the Federal Government owners seeking Federal flood have historically subsidized and CBRA references a series of maps insurance must sometimes wait encouraged development on coastal that depict the specific boundaries several months for a determination barriers, resulting in the loss of individual System units and of whether or not their property is of natural resources; threats to OPAs; these maps are controlling affected by the CBRA. This is due human life, health, and property; and dictate which lands are affected to the antiquated maps combined and the expenditure of millions of by the CBRA. The maps are with the large volume of requests tax dollars each year. To remove maintained by the Department of for property determinations and the Federal incentive to develop the Interior (Department) through the critical need for accurate these areas, the CBRA designated the Service. Aside from three determinations. Similarly, coastal relatively undeveloped coastal minor exceptions, only Congress communities and developers must barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf has the authority to add or delete sometimes wait several months for coasts as part of the John H. Chafee land from the CBRS and create a determination of whether or not Coastal Barrier Resources System new units. These exceptions a proposed public works project is (CBRS), and made these “System include: (1) voluntary additions to affected by the CBRA. units” ineligible for most new the CBRS by property owners; (2) Federal expenditures and financial additions of excess Federal property Currently, issues arising from ix Executive Summary the inaccuracy of existing maps long-term by reviewing the intent digital mapping of the entire are addressed on a case-by-case of each boundary, applying that CBRS are available, the need for basis when the Service is made intent on more current digital base additional data to complete digital aware of the potential problems. maps, conducting a public review of mapping of the entire CBRS, and In such cases, the Service applies the proposed maps, and providing the cooperative agreements that standard review criteria to assess clear explanations for the locations will be necessary to complete a potential mapping error. If a of boundaries in a comprehensive digital mapping of the entire revision to the map is warranted, background record for each unit. CBRS. In carrying out the pilot Congress works with the Service project, the Service used several and interested stakeholders to AUTHORITY FOR THE DIGITAL types of data, including digital enact a comprehensively revised MAPPING PILOT PROJECT raster graphics, aerial imagery, map created with modern digital geomorphic data (e.g., wetlands technology. Over the past few Recognizing the limitations and soils information), development years, the number of “technical and challenges associated with data (e.g., property parcel, date of correction” requests has increased. the existing set of CBRS maps, construction, and infrastructure This trend is likely to continue as the Coastal Barrier Resources information), and conservation and a result of increasing development Reauthorization Act (CBRRA) of recreation area boundary data (for and redevelopment along the coasts 2000 directs the Secretary of the OPA mapping). The Service found and the effects of the 2005 hurricane Interior (Secretary) to carry out that most of this data is readily season on the availability and cost a pilot project that consists of the available from Federal, State, local, of flood insurance. Addressing creation of digital maps for no more and private entities, generally these individual technical correction than 75 units and no fewer than at little or no cost to the Service. requests is time and resource 50 units of the CBRS, one-third of All primary source data used for intensive and further decreases which shall be OPAs. The CBRRA CBRS mapping in the pilot project overall program efficiency. specifies that not later than three complies with the National Spatial years after the date of enactment, Data Infrastructure (NSDI) and the One way to address these challenges the Secretary shall submit a report other standards established by the is by moving away from the reactive that describes the results of the Federal Geographic Data Committee technical correction process to pilot project and the feasibility, (FGDC). address individual problems, and data needs, and costs of completing toward a proactive process of digital maps for the entire CBRS to Subsequent to the Service’s comprehensively modernizing the the Committee on Environment and acquisition of data necessary entire set of CBRS maps using Public Works of the Senate and the to begin the Digital Mapping digital technology. State and local Committee on Natural Resources of Pilot Project, the Council of governments have begun to take the House of Representatives. The Environmental Quality’s Joint advantage of modern mapping CBRRA specifies that the report Subcommittee on Ocean Science technology with the creation of shall include a description of: and Technology established the geographic information systems Interagency Working Group on (GIS). Many of these GIS are • the cooperative agreements Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IWG- available online for public use in that will be necessary to OCM) to facilitate the coordination the form of mapping websites. complete digital mapping of the and leveraging of mapping resources Government officials and members entire CBRS; across the Federal sector and of the public can access these • the extent to which the data with State and local governments, websites to make planning decisions, necessary to complete digital industry, and non-governmental or get information about certain mapping of the entire CBRS organization interests. As the properties. Without digital CBRS are available; Service continues its modernization boundaries, local governments • the need for additional data to of CBRS maps, we will coordinate cannot integrate reliable CBRS complete digital mapping of the with the IWG-OCM in our data information into their GIS to use in entire CBRS; acquisition. their planning decisions or to make • the extent to which the it available to the public. boundary lines on the digital The most significant shortcomings maps differ from the boundary of the existing CBRS maps are the Modernizing the CBRS maps using lines on the original maps; and outdated and inaccurate base maps digital technology will address the • the amount of funding that currently depict the CBRS. inaccuracies of the outdated maps; necessary to complete digital The Service determined that recent, correct errors that adversely affect mapping of the entire CBRS. orthorectified imagery with a high private property owners; increase image resolution is the most suitable efficiencies and accessibility by DIGITAL DATA STANDARDS, NEEDS, base map for the CBRS. If suitable allowing the integration of CBRS AND AVAILABILITY imagery for a certain area is not information into digital planning available within the public domain, tools; and conserve natural As required by the CBRRA or does not meet national standards, resources. Most importantly, of 2000, this report includes a new imagery may be acquired map modernization will ensure description of the extent to which through cooperative agreements the integrity of the CBRS for the the data necessary to complete with public entities or through the x Executive Summary private sector. PILOT PROJECT RESULTS • addition of conservation or recreation area (affecting 9 DIGITAL MAPPING METHODOLOGY As required by the CBRRA of 2000, units); this report includes a description • removal of private land The Service selected 60 CBRS units of the extent to which the proposed (affecting 9 units); for this pilot project, one-third (20) boundary lines on the pilot project • reclassification from OPA to of which are OPA units. The pilot maps differ from the boundary lines System unit (affecting 10 units); project maps depict a total of 70 on the existing maps. The nature • addition of new OPAs (2 CBRS units (encompassing 284,434 and extent of proposed boundary proposed new units); and acres), including new and reclassified changes varies widely. The pilot • adjustment to map channel units. The pilot project units project maps make the following boundaries consistently represent approximately 10 percent proposed changes to the 45 System (affecting 5 units). of the entire CBRS and are located units: in Delaware, North Carolina, South The proposed pilot project boundary Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. • adjustment to reflect changes are described in Chapter geomorphic change (affecting 5 and are depicted in Appendix D, The pilot project mapping process 14 units); which includes pilot project unit included: selection of pilot project • alignment with geomorphic summaries and maps. Below is a units; adjustments to “fit” the digital features (affecting 28 units); summary table of the proposed pilot data to the underlying base map; • addition of associated aquatic project acreage changes. If enacted, digitization of the existing CBRS habitat (affecting 23 units); the pilot project maps will result in boundaries and establishment of • adjustment to map channel a total net addition of approximately horizontal control; assessment boundaries consistently 23,840 acres to the CBRS (mainly of boundary intent; adjustment (affecting 14 units); associated aquatic habitat). The of existing boundaries to create • alignment with development 363 acres of fastland proposed proposed boundaries that align features (affecting 31 units); for removal from the CBRS are with geomorphic, development, or • alignment with cultural generally private lands that contain cultural features, and, in limited features (affecting 7 units); approximately 300 structures and cases, to add new fastland; and • addition of fastland not will be made eligible for Federal calculation of the acreage and currently within the CBRS flood insurance and other Federal shoreline mileage associated with (affecting 8 units); subsidies if Congress were to enact each unit. In cases where the intent • reclassification from System the proposed pilot project maps. of a CBRS boundary could not be unit to OPA (affecting 7 units); Of the total 1,625 acres of fastland determined, the Service made no and proposed for addition to the CBRS, proposed boundary adjustments. • no adjustment (affecting 3 618 acres are proposed for System units). unit status and are generally The remapping process for each of undeveloped private lands that the pilot project units is documented The pilot project maps make the will be made ineligible for Federal in background records maintained following proposed changes to the 25 flood insurance and other Federal by the Service and available OPA units: subsidies. The Service is not aware upon request at the Service’s of any existing private structures headquarters office. • alignment with cultural features located within the areas proposed (affecting 19 units); for addition to the CBRS.

Summary of Proposed Pilot Project Acreage Changes Associated Fastland Aquatic Total acres Habitat acres acres Addition to 1,624.7 23,366.0 24,990.7 the CBRS Deletion from the 362.8 787.5 1,150.3 CBRS Net Change 1,261.9 22,578.5 23,840.4

CONCLUSIONS, COSTS, AND NEXT maps used to administer the the outdated maps; correcting STEPS CBRS. An investment in CBRS errors that adversely affect private map modernization over the next property owners; increasing The effectiveness of the CBRA several years is critical to achieving efficiencies and accessibility by and the efficiency of the CBRA numerous program goals, including: allowing the integration of CBRS program are limited by the outdated addressing the inaccuracies of information into digital planning xi Executive Summary tools; conserving natural resources; Moving forward with CBRS map (2) Submit final recommended and maintaining the integrity of the modernization, the Service will seek pilot project maps to Congress CBRS for the long-term. to continue coordination with our for its adoption after the Federal partners in order to reduce Service’s consideration of As required by the CBRRA of 2000, duplicative efforts. public comments. this report includes a description (3) Create digital maps for the of the amount of funding necessary The Service has identified three remainder of the CBRS using to complete digital mapping of the general steps necessary to finalize the lessons learned during entire CBRS. The Service estimates the pilot project maps and complete the course of the pilot project that it will cost up to $17 million digital mapping for the remainder and applying the protocols to comprehensively modernize the of the CBRS. The following three described in this report. This CBRS with the new generation of steps are consistent with the will entail replacing the entire digital maps created in the course of directives contained in the Coastal set of existing CBRS maps the pilot project. Barrier Resources Reauthorization with much more accurate Act of 2005: and precise digital maps that The Administration supports the are drafted by the Service, CBRA and modernization of the (1) Public review of the pilot reviewed by the public, and CBRS maps using digital technology. project maps whereby the enacted by Congress. CBRS map modernization is Governors of the States, other consistent with many Administration government officials, and goals and priorities, including the members of the public have President’s Management Agenda the opportunity to review initiative of expanded electronic and provide comments to government and the U.S. Ocean the Service on the proposed Action Plan initiative to coordinate changes depicted on the maps ocean and coastal mapping activities. in Appendix D of this report.

xii Digital Mapping Pilot Project CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

Congress recognized the value of coastal barriers to fish, wildlife, and other natural resources, and the risks associated with their development, when it enacted the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) and created the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) in 1982. The CBRS was subsequently modified by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (CBIA) of 1990 and numerous “technical correction” laws. This chapter describes the geomorphology of coastal barriers, the value of coastal barriers, the risks associated with developing coastal barriers, the role of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in administering the CBRA, and the legislation that created and modified Figure 1. Types of coastal barriers. Bay barriers (a), tombolos (b), barrier spits (c), and barrier the CBRS. islands (d).

Geomorphology of Coastal Barriers within the CBRS. Marshes, tidal channels, shallow lakes, and other wetland areas are In general, the term “coastal Value of Coastal Barriers vital fish and wildlife habitat because barrier” describes a class of low of their role as nursery grounds lying coastal landforms that are long Coastal barriers and the bays, salt for many commercial and sport fish and narrow and parallel to the coast. marshes, and wetlands behind them, species. The commercial and sport They are surrounded, or nearly so, sustain a great diversity of plants fishing industry generates $116.1 by open water, wetlands, or other and animals. Many Service trust billion per year, $31.1 billion of aquatic habitat which separate species, such as migratory birds and which are from commercial and them from the mainland. Often, interjurisdictional fish species, as sport saltwater fishing alone.1 The substantial portions are sufficiently well as threatened and endangered sport fishing industry relies on the above normal high tides that dunes species (e.g., piping plover, and sustained quality of wetland habitat, and terrestrial vegetation are several species of beach mice and and thus relies on the preservation prevalent. Figure 1 illustrates the sea turtles) rely on coastal barrier of the coastal barriers that protect four general categories of coastal habitat for survival. the habitat and support fish species. barriers, including bay barriers, tombolos, barrier spits, and barrier islands. Bay barriers have grown entirely across the mouth of a bay. Tombolos are formed when sand accumulates between the mainland and an island. Barrier spits extend into open water. Barrier islands are detached from the mainland. Coastal barriers can, and often do, change position in response to storms, sea level rise, currents, and numerous other factors. Coastal barriers are distributed along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coasts, as well as in Alaska, Hawaii, the Great Lakes, and the U.S. territories. Currently, only certain coastal barriers located along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Great Lakes coasts, Puerto Figure 2. The habitats created and protected by coastal barriers are vital to recreational indus- Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are tries. (Credit USFWS) 1 Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Migratory birds depend on the food substantial economic investments Risks Associated with Developing sources and habitat created and they represent, are spared the full Coastal Barriers protected by coastal barriers as damage of hurricane winds and feeding and resting stops on their storm surge because coastal barriers Coastal barriers are continually marathon flights from Alaska, and wetlands absorb the brunt of shifting and moving in response to Canada and the northern U.S. to these destructive forces. Scientists the forces of wind, wave, and tidal Mexico and South America. Without estimate that every 2.7 miles of action. A severe storm repeats the the opportunity to feed and rest, wetlands absorbs one foot of storm annual cycle of changing width and they would be unable to complete surge.2 slope of a beach within a few hours. their journey to wintering sites. Figure 6 illustrates the extreme geomorphic change resulting from Hurricane Charley which breached North Captiva Island, Florida, in 2004. The principal threat to beaches and coastal barriers, however, is not intense storms, but a steady reduction in the sand supply caused by dams on tributary streams and the diversion or interruption of littoral transport, (the movement Figure 3. The endangered piping plover, of sedimentary material along the Charadrius melodus, walking on a New Jersey shoreline by waves and currents) beach. (Credit USFWS) along the seaward edge of beaches Endangered manatees take shelter and barriers by bulkheads, in and feed on the grasses that groins, and jetties. In some areas, grow in the calm waters protected offshore mining of beach sand by coastal barriers. Marine turtles has contributed to the problem. return to coastal barriers to build This type of physical alteration their nests and deposit their eggs, compromises the coastal barrier’s after spending decades in the open natural ability to “go with the flow” water. The six marine turtle species and adjust to changes. under U.S. jurisdiction are currently listed as endangered species, and Figure 5. Public recreation on Sanibel Island, Most coastal barriers are made their recovery is dependent upon the Florida. (Credit USFWS) of unconsolidated sediments (e.g., survival of their nests. sand and gravel). This geological Coastal barriers contain some of composition, in addition to their very the Nation’s most beautiful beaches dynamic nature, makes them highly and popular tourist destinations. unstable areas on which to build. More than 180 million Americans Despite their instability and high travel to our coasts each year to take risk, the aesthetic and recreational advantage of the many recreational attributes of coastal barriers activities offered. These visitors to continue to drive the development of coastal States generate over $560 coastal barriers along our Nation’s billion in tourism revenue annually.3 coasts.

Figure 4. A leatherback sea turtle, Dermochelys coriacea, nesting on a coastal barrier in Canaveral National Seashore, Florida. (Credit National Park Service) For most of these species, there is no substitute for coastal barrier habitat. The loss and degradation of coastal barriers removes the staging grounds of vital parts of the life cycle. Increased pressure has been placed on many species populations over the past few decades as they struggle to survive with a shrinking habitat caused, in part, by the rapid development of our coasts.

The benefits provided by coastal barriers extend beyond fish and wildlife. Coastal barriers can change drastically as a result of a storm. Figure 6. North Captiva Island, Florida, before and after Hurricane Charley in 2004. CBRS Units P19 and Mainland communities, and the P19P are located on North Captiva Island. (Credit USGS) 2 Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Box 1. ImpactChapter of Hurricanes 1: Overview on Dauphin of the Island, CBRS Alabama. Draft– FOR INTERNAL REVIEW

Pre- and post-Hurricane Katrina images of Dauphin Island, Alabama, illustrate an area that has been hit hard by hurricanes Frederick (1979); Danny (1997); George (1998); Ivan (2004); and Dennis, Katrina and Wilma (2005); and has repeatedly redeveloped at the expense of the federal taxpayer. Aerial views of Dauphin Island (left) before and after Hurricane Katrina Dauphin Island, Alabama, pre-Hurricane Katrina (Credit NASA) demonstrate the vulnerability of coastal barriers. The images below are enlargements of the detail area (middle left). The structures remaining after Hurricane Ivan in 2004, some partially in the surf of the Gulf of Mexico (bottom left), were almost completely destroyed by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 (bottom right).

Detail Area Note that construction abruptly ends at the Q02 Unit Q02 boundary.

N

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

In Unit Q02 2005 (Post Katrina) In Unit Q02

Reference Q02 Q02 boundary Reference boundary

Out of Out of Unit Q02 Unit Q02

Dauphin Island, Alabama, September 2004 (Credit USGS) Dauphin Island, Alabama, August 2005 (Credit USGS)

5

3 Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Fish and Wildlife Service Role in barriers, which went through a 2000, the legislative histories of Administering the Coastal Barrier public review, pursuant to a Notice those laws, Department reports Resources Act of Proposed Rulemaking published to Congress and other policy in the Federal Register in 1981. documents, and several notices The Department of the Interior Although the enactment of the published in the Federal Register (Department), through the Service, OBRA was an important first step since 1981. Areas designated is responsible for administering the in the protection of undeveloped within the CBRS as System units CBRA by: maintaining the official coastal barriers, it only prohibited are ineligible for most Federal maps of the CBRS; conducting a the issuance of Federal flood financial assistance that might review of the CBRS every 5 years insurance coverage and did not limit support development, including new to make minor and technical modifi- other types of Federal assistance infrastructure projects and Federal cations to the boundaries to reflect in vulnerable coastal areas. In flood insurance coverage through the changes that have occurred in the addition, the maps designated by the National Flood Insurance Program shape or location of any System Secretary were not enacted by law (NFIP).4 units as a result of natural forces and could be subject to lawsuits for (erosion and accretion); consulting years, blocking both development The CBRA designated 186 System with Federal agencies that propose and protection of coastal barriers. units encompassing approximately spending funds within the CBRS 452,834 acres and 666 shoreline (CBRA consistency consultations); Coastal Barrier Resources Act of miles. Prior to the CBRA’s passage, determining whether properties 1982 the Department created draft maps are located in or out of the CBRS for public and Congressional review. (CBRA property determinations); With the passage of the CBRA (P.L. The 1982 units were delineated and making recommendations to 97-348) in 1982, Congress recognized on a set of 177 maps comprised of Congress regarding the addition of that certain actions and programs photocopied enlargements of the areas to the CBRS and determining of the Federal Government U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) whether a coastal barrier was unde- have historically subsidized and map series entitled “topographic veloped at the time of its inclusion in encouraged development on coastal quadrangles” (quadrangles) at a the CBRS. barriers and have resulted in the scale of 1:12,000 which equates to loss of valuable natural resources; one inch of map distance equaling Legislation that Created and Modified threats to human life, health, and 1000 feet on-the-ground (see Figure the Coastal Barrier Resources System property; and the expenditure 7). System unit boundaries were of millions of tax dollars to build hand-drawn directly on the maps. Below is a summary of the legisla- structures and infrastructure and tion that created and modified the then rebuild them after damaging Great Lakes Coastal Barrier Act CBRS. storms. The CBRA designated of 1988 various undeveloped coastal barriers Omnibus Budget Reconciliation along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico The Great Lakes Coastal Barrier Act of 1981 coasts for inclusion in the CBRS. Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-007) directed the Secretary to recommend Prior to the enactment of the CBRA The CBRA introduced one type to Congress and prepare maps in 1982, Congress recognized of CBRS unit, subsequently identifying the boundaries of that certain Federal programs referred to as the “System unit.” undeveloped coastal barriers along have encouraged development The CBRA defines a System the shores of the Great Lakes of coastal barriers, and that the unit as “any undeveloped coastal that the Secretary considered cost of development, including the barrier, or combination of closely- appropriate for inclusion within threats to humans and natural related undeveloped coastal the CBRS. Under this statute, the resources, were more significant barriers, included within the Secretary was not to recommend than previously understood. The John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier any areas for inclusion that were Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act Resources System.” System publicly owned and protected by (OBRA) of 1981 (P.L. 97-35) amended units are generally comprised of Federal, State, or local law, or held the National Flood Insurance Act private lands that were not held for by a privately owned organization of 1968 to prohibit the issuance of conservation or recreation at the primarily for wildlife refuge, Federal flood insurance coverage time of their designation within the sanctuary, recreational, or natural for new construction or substantial CBRS. The boundaries of these resource conservation purposes. improvements of existing structures units are generally intended to on undeveloped coastal barriers as follow geomorphic, development, or The maps prepared by the defined by the OBRA and designated cultural features. Department went through a public by the Secretary of the Interior review and were presented to (Secretary). In response to this System units are delineated Congress for its consideration. directive, the Secretary established on maps according to certain Congress enacted these maps, along a Coastal Barrier Task Force criteria and mapping protocols, with others, in the CBIA of 1990. comprised of representatives from which are specified in the OBRA various agencies in the Department. of 1981, CBRA of 1982, CBIA of This task force developed proposed 1990, Coastal Barrier Resources delineations of undeveloped coastal Reauthorization Act (CBRRA) of 4 Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990

The CBIA of 1990 (P.L. 101- 591) reauthorized the CBRA; made additions, deletions, and modifications to many existing System units; adopted new System units along the Great Lakes, Atlantic, and Gulf coasts; expanded the definition of “coastal barriers,” effectively including secondary barriers and undeveloped coastal barriers in the Florida Keys; and added a second type of coastal barriers to the CBRS known as otherwise protected areas (OPAs).

The CBIA defines an OPA as “an undeveloped coastal barrier within the boundaries of an area established under Federal, State, or local law, or held by a qualified Figure 7. Unit L06 map enacted by the CBRA in 1982. organization, primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, that recommended that • 1990: Many of the “otherwise or natural resource conservation otherwise protected coastal protected” areas identified and purposes.” Unlike System unit barriers be included in the delineated in the Department’s boundaries, which are generally CBRS to ensure that owners of 1988 report to Congress were intended to follow geomorphic property within the boundaries designated by the CBIA as and development features, OPA of these areas not be granted OPAs. boundaries are generally intended Federal flood insurance, and to coincide with the boundaries of that prohibitions on Federal The CBIA enlarged the CBRS conservation or recreation areas flood insurance would be in place to include a total of 857 units such as State parks and national should the land ever become (585 System units and 272 OPAs) wildlife refuges. The only Federal available for future encompassing approximately 3.1 funding prohibition within OPAs is development.6 million acres and 2,470 shoreline Federal flood insurance.5 miles. The 1990 units were • 1982: Congress enacted delineated on a set of 632 maps The Service believes that Congress the CBRA, which excluded comprised of photocopied USGS created OPAs for two primary from the definition of an quadrangles at a scale of 1 inch of reasons: (1) to ensure that the “undeveloped coastal barrier” map distance equaling 2,000 feet land will not be eligible for Federal areas established under Federal, on-the-ground. CBRS boundaries flood insurance if it is ever sold State, or local law, or held by a were again hand drawn directly on or otherwise made available for qualified organization, primarily the maps. The maps enacted by the development; and (2) to ensure that for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, CBIA in 1990 have, in most cases, the restrictions on Federal flood recreational, or natural resource not been updated and are still the insurance apply to privately owned conservation purposes. controlling CBRS maps today (see inholdings within the protected area. Figure 8). • 1988: The Department The Service considers inholdings to submitted a report to Congress Coastal Barrier Resources be developed or undeveloped private that recommended changes to Reauthorization Act of 2000 tracts of land which are not held for existing System units and also conservation or recreation purposes identified “otherwise protected” The CBRRA of 2000 (P.L. 106-514) by their owners, and are contained areas on the draft maps for reauthorized the CBRA; codified within the exterior boundaries of informational purposes. The the development criteria to be used the areas held primarily for wildlife Department did not recommend by the Secretary when making refuge, sanctuary, recreation, or adding these areas to the CBRS recommendations to Congress8; natural resource conservation unless they were made available amended the CBRA to allow for purposes. for development. Further, the voluntary additions to the CBRS; Department recommended that directed the Secretary to complete Below is a summary history of all privately owned property that a Digital Mapping Pilot Project; and OPAs. is within, but is not a part of, an directed the Secretary to complete otherwise protected area (i.e., an economic assessment of the • 1982: The Department inholdings) be included in the CBRS. submitted a report to Congress CBRS.7 5 Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Codification of the development criteria and the directive to undertake a Digital Mapping Pilot Project both attempted to address the problem of increased requests for modifications to CBRS maps. A clearly defined set of criteria used to make recommendations to Congress has been helpful not only to the Service as we react to technical correction requests, but also to the public in understanding which types of situations may merit a technical correction to a CBRS map.

Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005

The Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act (CBRRA) of 2005 (P.L. 109-226) reauthorizes the CBRA through 2010, and directs the Secretary to: (1) finalize the Digital Mapping Pilot Project by providing for public review and presenting Congress with the final recommended digital maps, and (2) create final recommended digital maps for the remainder of the CBRS.

If the goals of the CBRRA of 2005 are achieved, at some point in the future Congress will adopt a new set of maps for the entire CBRS. This will be a major milestone in the history of the CBRA, similar to the Figure 8. Unit L06 map enacted by the CBIA in 1990. passage of the original law in 1982 and the CBIA in 1990. mapping errors are found, the Technical Correction Legislation Service has supported legislation to modify boundaries accordingly. Aside from three minor exceptions, Since 1982, Congress has enacted only Congress, through new technical correction legislation legislation, can modify the to revise the boundaries of 42 boundaries of the CBRS. These CBRS units. Appendix C contains exceptions are: (1) voluntary a summary of all changes to the additions to the CBRS by the CBRS, including technical correction owners of undeveloped coastal changes. barrier property9; (2) additions of excess property under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, if such property is determined to constitute undeveloped coastal barrier by the Secretary10; and (3) a 5-year review conducted by the Secretary to make minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of the CBRS to account for changes to coastal barriers due to natural forces. Neither the Service, nor the Department, is authorized to make any other boundary changes administratively. When technical 6 Chapter 1: Overview of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

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

2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Overland surge elevations coastal Louisiana: Morgan City and vicinity, File No. H-2-22758, Plate A-4 1963.

3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. Coastal Issues: Public Access. http:// coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/public_access.html. 2006.

4 16 U.S.C. 3504 describes the limitations on Federal expenditures affecting the CBRS. 16 U.S.C. 3505 describes the exceptions to these limitations. CBRA amended the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 4028) to read “No new flood insurance coverage may be provided under this title on or after October 1, 1983, for any new construction or substantial improvements of structures located on any coastal barrier within the Coastal Barrier Resources System established by section 4 of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act. A Federally insured financial institution may make loans secured by structures which are not eligible for flood insurance by reason of this section.”

5 P.L. 101-591 Sec. 9. amends the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (U.S.C. 4028), Section 1321 to add the following new subsection: “(b) No new flood insurance coverage may be provided under this title after the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 for any new construction or substantial improvements of structures located in any area identified and depicted on the maps referred to in section 4(a) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act as an area that is (1) not within the Coastal Barrier Resources System and (2) is in an otherwise protected area. Not withstanding the preceding sentence, new flood insurance coverage may be provided for structures in such protected areas that are used in a manner consistent with the purpose for which the area is protected.”

6 U.S. Department of the Interior. 1982. Undeveloped Coastal Barriers: Report to Congress. U.S. Department of Interior, Washington, D.C. states: “The sale of Federal flood insurance for development within governmental areas set aside for conservation purposes seems particularly inappropriate. Not only is this inconsistent with the protection of the conservation area, but it is also inconsistent with the treatment of similar lands outside of the boundaries of the “protected” governmental unit…Therefore, we recommend an amendment to the Reconciliation Act to provide that all undeveloped coastal barriers be subject to designation, regardless of their protected status.” (p 36)

U.S. Department of the Interior, Coastal Barriers Study Group. 1988. Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System with recommendations as required by Section 10 of the Public Law 97-348, the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982. Volume 1 in Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources System. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 265 pp. states: “The only recommendation in the Secretary of the Interior’s August 1982 Report to Congress as required by OBRA was that the statutory definition of undeveloped coastal barriers be modified so that such “otherwise protected” areas could be included under the Act. This recommendation reflected concern that privately owned land within the authorized boundaries of these areas (inholdings) could be developed and granted Federal flood insurance and that some protected areas could become available for future development.” (p 103)

7 U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988 Recommendations, op. cit., p 117: “The Department recommends that all privately owned property that is within but is not a part of an otherwise protected area (i.e. inholdings) on an undeveloped coastal barrier be included in the CBRS. Where accurate maps of inholdings were available (e.g. for the National Seashores and Wildlife Refuges), inholdings are included on the CBRS maps (see appropriate State volumes). Where such information was lacking, inholdings on undeveloped otherwise protected coastal barriers are included by reference.”

8 P.L. 106-514 Sec. 2 states “In making any recommendation to the Congress regarding the addition of any area to the System or in determining whether, at the time of inclusion of a System unit within the System, a coastal barrier is undeveloped, the Secretary shall consider whether within the area – (A) the density of development is less than 1 structure per 5 acres of land above mean high tide; and (B) there is existing infrastructure consisting of – (i) a road, with a reinforced road bed, to each lot or building site in the area; (ii) a wastewater disposal system sufficient to serve each lot or building site in the area; (iii) electric service for each lot or building site in the area; and (iv) a fresh water supply for each lot or building site in the area.”

50 FR 8700 states “A man-made structure is defined as a walled and roofed building constructed in conformance with Federal, State, or local legal requirements, with a projected ground area exceeding two hundred square feet.” This criterion is codified in P.L. 106-514 Sec. 2, where a structure is defined as “a walled and roofed building, other than a gas or liquid storage tank, which is principally above ground and affixed to a permanent foundation; and covers an area of at least 200 square feet.”

9 P.L. 106-514 Sec. 3

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

7 Digital Mapping Pilot Project CHAPTER 2: NEED FOR MAP MODERNIZATION

Over the past two decades, the a high degree of accuracy. Using passing between map revisions. For CBRA has helped to keep people the existing set of CBRS maps to the pilot project units, the average out of harm’s way, removed key accomplish this goal takes significant age of the quadrangle on which the incentives to develop important time and resources leading to CBRS boundaries are delineated is coastal habitat, and saved inefficiencies in determining 30 years. The irregular and often taxpayers’ money. In this sense, whether or not certain private infrequent revisions to the USGS the law has been successful, but properties and proposed projects quadrangles has been problematic the effectiveness of the law is are located within the CBRS and for the CBRS because the CBRS limited by the outdated maps used are therefore ineligible for Federal boundaries are intended to follow to administer the CBRS. CBRA subsidies. Another challenge certain geomorphic, development, references a series of maps that caused by the existing maps is that or cultural features and these depict the specific boundaries of CBRS boundary lines, as they fall features are not always current on individual System units and OPAs; on-the-ground, frequently do not the base maps on which the CBRS these maps are controlling and reflect the original boundary intent. boundaries are delineated. Coastal dictate which lands are affected Fluctuations from this intent of only barriers are inherently dynamic by the CBRA. Modernizing the a few centimeters on the CBRS map and subject to more geomorphic CBRS maps using digital technology can have unintended consequences change than inland areas due to will greatly improve the efficiency to entire properties on-the-ground. their exposure to constant wave, and effectiveness of CBRA An additional challenge is that users wind, and tidal energies and because implementation, positioning the of the existing maps are unable to they are generally composed Service to more fully accomplish the easily integrate CBRS boundaries of unconsolidated sediments. CBRA’s goals. into GIS for proactive planning, Dynamic geomorphic features decision making, and information such as shorelines and wetlands, The existing set of CBRS maps was sharing purposes. development features such as roads created in 1990 using antiquated and structures, and cultural features manual cartographic technologies. The challenges associated with the such as park boundaries shown on The maps are difficult to use existing CBRS maps are attributed the quadrangles were often outdated and incompatible with current to: (1) the age and accuracy of the at the time the quadrangle was geographic information systems base maps on which the CBRS used to create the CBRS map. As (GIS) widely in use by Federal, boundaries are depicted; (2) the now a result, CBRS boundaries that are State, local, and non-governmental antiquated cartographic methods intended to follow these features entities. This chapter describes the used to create the CBRS maps; and were often placed incorrectly. In significant challenges associated (3) the inadequate horizontal control several cases this problem has had with the existing maps and the associated with the existing maps. an adverse impact on property benefits associated with modernizing owners whose properties were the maps using digital technology. Age and Accuracy of Base Maps inadvertently included in the CBRS.

Challenges Associated with Existing In the context of CBRS mapping, USGS uses aerial photos to create Maps accuracy means the CBRS boundary the quadrangles and they update is shown on the map exactly where the quadrangles on an intermittent There are significant challenges it was intended to fall on-the- basis using more recent aerial associated with the existing CBRS ground. For example, if a CBRS imagery as it becomes available. maps including: (1) a resource and boundary was intended to mirror These quadrangle updates are time intensive process to determine a park boundary or a specific mainly focused on revising features boundary locations; (2) discrepancies geomorphic or development feature, identifiable on aerial imagery between where the boundary was the boundary is not accurate if it such as transportation networks, intended to fall on-the-ground and does not exactly follow that intended hydrography, vegetation, and where the boundary is depicted feature. The CBRS boundaries structures. Because cultural on the map; and (3) inability were delineated on the USGS boundaries do not appear on aerial to integrate CBRS boundaries quadrangles that were available imagery, these features are normally into GIS for planning, decision- when the CBRA was enacted in not updated during the quadrangle making, and information sharing 1982, and then again when the CBIA revision process. Cultural features purposes. Because the CBRA can was enacted in 1990. At the time inherit their spatial accuracy on have a significant financial impact these statutes were enacted, the the quadrangles from secondary on property owners and project USGS quadrangles were considered sources such as the National Park proponents, it is essential that the the best and most widely available Service and are often extracted Service be able to locate CBRS mapping medium. The quadrangles, from hard-copy maps that are boundaries relative to on-the- however, were not updated on a neither controlled nor validated ground properties and projects with regular cycle, often with decades before they are added to the 8 Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization quadrangles. Errors that existed on these secondary sources are then promulgated to the quadrangles. As a result, many cultural features shown on quadrangles that were used for the CBRS mapping are inaccurate and/or outdated by varying degrees. County parks and private conservation areas are normally not shown at all on the quadrangles which makes the OPA boundaries that were intended to mirror those features prone to an even higher degree of error (See Figure 9).

An additional challenge associated with the existing set of CBRS maps is that they are subject to instability caused by shrinkage and stretching over time due to variations in humidity. This affects the accuracy Figure 9. A USGS quadrangle dated 1987 was used as the base map for Unit FL-64P (black dots). The of all information on the maps, which actual boundary of the Clam Pass Conservation Area is shaded in purple. in turn affects those end-users who wish to determine the spatial coordinate value, or point on the impossible. position of the CBRS boundaries Earth’s surface. The most common relative to existing and proposed method of ensuring horizontal Benefits Associated with Digital development using GIS. control is to reference a geographic Maps coordinate system such as the Antiquated Cartographic Methods latitude and longitude grid displayed Digital technologies can address on quadrangles. The grid values on existing challenges by moving The cartographic methods used quadrangles are shown as numeric away from the use of CBRS maps to create the existing set of CBRS values at the edge of the map sheet, that depict outdated geomorphic, maps contribute significantly to thereby enabling users to know cultural, and development features, the lack of boundary accuracy and where the quadrangle lies relative to and toward a system of digital the inability to use CBRS maps the surface of the Earth. The grid maps that more accurately depict today in GIS or any digital mapping coordinate values, or geocoordinates, current features on modern aerial environment. CBRS boundaries enable a map user who knows the imagery; can be integrated into were placed by hand on the USGS latitude and longitude values for a GIS for planning purposes; and base maps in 1982 and 1990. These specific property parcel to locate the can be shared via the Internet. hand-drawn ink-on-paper CBRS property with a fairly high degree of The benefits associated with boundary lines have a thickness that accuracy on a quadrangle. comprehensively modernizing translates to over 100 feet on the the entire CBRS using digital Earth’s surface. The rudimentary process used to technology include: improving create the existing set of CBRS access to CBRS information; OPA boundaries were placed on maps often involved splicing increasing efficiencies for project the map by affixing cartographic together adjacent quadrangles for planning; increasing efficiencies for drafting tape embossed with black units that straddled two or more property determinations; facilitating dots directly onto quadrangles. The map panels, and then removing the administrative map revisions; limited accuary of manually placing border information containing the integrating CBRS boundaries the drafting tape on the quadrangle geocoordinates. The absense of with the Federal Emergency contributed to the inaccuracy of OPA geocoordinates on the CBRS maps Management Agency (FEMA) Flood boundaries. and the introduction of further Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs); distortion caused by the attempt to conserving natural resources; Inadequate Horizontal Control line-up adjacent maps has rendered addressing errors affecting private the maps relatively useless in GIS properties; and preserving the long- In today’s data-sharing environments requiring known term integrity of the CBRS. environment, the utility of geocoordinates. This problem is maps created using antiquated illustrated in Box 2. Note that the Improve Access to Information cartographic techniques is grid coordinate values normally significantly limited because of displayed at the outer edge of the Comprehensive map modernization inadequate horizontal control. map on the right are not evident in will enable digital CBRS boundaries Horizontal control, as it relates to the map on the left, thereby making to be posted on the Internet and mapping, means that all points on horizontal control of CBRS made available for incorporation into the map have a precise geographic boundaries on that map virtually Federal, State, and local GIS that 9 Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization Draft– FOR INTERNAL REVIEW Box 2. Lack of geographic grid coordinate values on existing CBRS maps.

Coordinate values were Coordinate values removed from this were not removed CBRS map, making it from all CBRS maps. difficult to determine This example shows the exact location of the coordinates that features such as should be on all maps privately owned for ease of use. properties.

will improveFigure customer 10. Unit L06 service (left) withoutand geographicGIS, creating grid coordinate the impression values and thatUnit P11 (right)entities with gridto know coordinate the exact values location governmentdisplayed efficiency along the by outer helping edge of to the map.this data is official and accurate. of CBRS boundaries relative to ensure that people know about This creates a potential adverse a project site. The use of digital CBRA restrictions on Federal impact for developers and property GIS-based technology will allow spending beforeBenefits they choose Associated to withowners Digital who makeMaps investments based interested parties to review the invest in a property or pursue a on potentially inaccurate information location of CBRS boundaries project that isDigital affected technologies by the law. can addressthat has existing not been challenges created, by validated, moving awayrelative from tothe other use ofinformation layers The availabilityCBRS of digital maps thatCBRS depict outdatedor endorsed geomorphic, by the cultural,Service. and developmentsuch as features, the proposed and location of boundaries will enable a variety of a housing development, a road GIS applications. At this time, a Increase Efficiency of Project expansion project, or critical habitat community planner who wants to Planning 18 for endangered species. The Service superimpose a digital data layer of regularly receives requests from CBRS boundaries onto the digital Comprehensive map modernization Federal and State agencies, local property parcel data in the local GIS will enhance and inform project communities, and private entities must use imprecise and potentially planning and CBRS consistency to determine whether or not a inaccurate CBRS data digitized by consultations with other Federal proposed federally-funded project is non-Service entities. The Service is agencies. Increasing development within the CBRS and if the project aware of cases where such digital within or near CBRS areas requires is consistent with CBRA. Due to data has been integrated into local planners, developers, and public the antiquated maps that currently 10 Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization depict the CBRS, this consultation process is labor intensive and can take several months to complete. This lengthy CBRA consultation process has adverse impacts for time sensitive projects seeking Federal funding. The ability to superimpose digital CBRS boundaries into a GIS will facilitate advance planning of projects by enabling a fast, accurate, and cost-effective assessment of CBRS boundary locations relative to structures, properties, or project sites.

Increase Efficiency of Property Determinations

Comprehensive map modernization will facilitate more efficient determinations of whether or not certain properties and structures are in or out of the CBRS. Currently, Figure 10. Sand pumping for a beach nourishment project at Fort Patrick Air Force Base, Florida. (Credit these determinations require labor Minerals Management Service) and time intensive rectification Facilitate Administrative Map resource intensive. The reviews between the CBRS map, aerial Revisions have taken place twice since the imagery, property parcel data, and enactment of the CBRA in 1982. the structure footprint depicted on Comprehensive map modernization The 5-year review in 1989 modified a survey or plat map. The NFIP will facilitate the Service’s ability to only one unit, and the review in regularly requests the Service to make more accurate, cost-effective, 1997 modified 28 units of the total determine whether or not certain and timely administrative boundary 585 CBRS units at the time.2 properties are within the CBRS, to revisions including: (1) voluntary The availability of digital CBRS help determine their eligibility for additions to the CBRS by property boundaries will allow a much more Federal flood insurance. The lack owners; (2) additions of excess accurate, cost-effective, timely, of digital CBRS maps requires the property under the Federal and comprehensive 5-year review Service to make determinations Property and Administrative by comparing the existing CBRS using an inefficient process that is Services Act; and (3) the CBRA 5- boundaries to updated aerial labor and resource intensive; it can year review requirement to account photograpy that is horizontally take several months to complete for geomorphic changes such as controlled. a single property determination. erosion and accretion1. Conducting This lengthy CBRA property a comprehensive 5-year review Integrate Boundaries with Flood determination process delays without digital maps is time and Insurance Rate Maps property owners seeking to obtain Federal flood insurance and mortgages for their homes, and affects the decision-making process to buy and sell property. Digital maps will allow CBRS information to be incorporated into NFIP and other GIS, allowing property owners and insurance agents to determine, in most cases, whether or not a property is affected by the CBRA within minutes. Figure 11 shows the existing boundary of Unit P10A (shown in orange) superimposed on 1999 aerial imagery and St. Lucie County and Indian River County parcel data (shown in pink) to facilitate a CBRS property determination. The property in question (outlined in blue) is easily and clearly determined to be “out” of the CBRS using this digital information. Figure 11. Property determination using digital data. 11 Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization

Comprehensive map modernization will allow a more seamless and efficient integration of CBRS information onto the FEMA FIRMs. CBRS boundaries are depicted on the FIRMs to help administer the CBRA Federal flood insurance prohibition.3 Figure 12 illustrates a CBRS area depicted on a FIRM (shown as hatched area). When the boundaries of a CBRS area are revised administratively or through legislation, the revised boundaries must be incorporated onto the FIRMs. Due to the inherent difficulties associated with the existing CBRS maps, the FIRMs are not updated with revised CBRS boundaries in a timely manner. CBRS map modernization will facilitate more seamless integration of CBRS boundaries onto the FIRMs which in turn will make accurate CBRS information Figure 12. Flood Insurance Rate Map showing a portion of Unit M02. available to local communities in a more accessible and timely manner. Service to place a high priority on (see Appendix C for a list of these completing its efforts to develop changes). The Service receives Conserve Natural Resources digital maps that more accurately numerous requests from property depict unit boundaries. owners and their Members of Comprehensive map modernization Congress who seek to remove will help conserve natural resources The Service believes that the CBRA private land from the CBRS so that by (1) increasing awareness and works best when coupled with they can develop the land with compliance with the CBRA and (2) State and local actions to protect Federal subsidies. Often these enabling the Service to work with coastal barriers before the economic requests for technical corrections Federal, State, local, and non- incentive for development surpasses are based on claims that the maps governmental entities to more the CBRA’s fiscal disincentives. For are inaccurate or contain errors. fully inform their conservation and example, in North Carolina, The Service addresses these planning efforts with information the National Audubon Society has individual cases by objectively regarding the CBRA’s Federal acquired land in CBRS areas, such applying standard review criteria. funding prohibitions. The maps that as Pine Island Sanctuary (Unit currently depict the CBRS make full NC-01), thereby providing long- When a map revision is warranted, compliance with the CBRA difficult term protection to the fish and the Service works with interested because they are inaccurate and wildlife habitat. State and local stakeholders and Congress to enact difficult to interpret. Additionally, governments could eventually a comprehensively revised map some entities are not even aware integrate CBRS boundaries into made with digital technology. This of the CBRA or its prohibitions their GIS for planning and case-by-case review process is because CBRS boundaries are conservation efforts. By making the resource intensive and lengthy, not easily accessible. In 2007, the CBRS boundaries easily available often taking years to complete. Government Accountability Office in a digital format, the Service Since 1999, digital technologies have issued a report entitled “Coastal can collaborate with its partners been used, in varying degrees, to Barrier Resources System: Status to encourage more bundling of address technical correction changes of Development That Has Occurred conservation tools to further the that were legislatively enacted for and Financial Assistance Provided CBRA’s intentions. 14 units (i.e., Units NC-03P, L03, by Federal Agencies.” The report NC-01, P19, P19P, VA-59P, VA-60, found that four Federal agencies Address Errors Affecting Private VA-60P, T07, P25, NC-07P, GA-06P, provided $21 million of prohibited Properties FL-95P, and FL-96). financial assistance within the CBRS. One agency, FEMA, cited Comprehensive map modernization Comprehensive map modernization the lack of updated CBRS maps and will proactively address errors on will significantly reduce the need for limitations with mapping technology CBRS maps that inadvertently technical correction changes that as the primary reasons why errors affect private properties. remove land from the CBRS, with were made and assistance was Subsequent to the CBIA (from 1990 revisions necessary only to account provided within the CBRS. The through the present), there have for geomorphic change and to add report recommended that the been several legislative technical appropriate land to the CBRS. Secretary of the Interior direct the correction changes to the CBRS 12 Chapter 2: Need for Map Modernization

Preserve the Long-term Integrity of the Coastal Barrier Resources System

Comprehensive map modernization will preserve the long-term integrity of the CBRS by allowing the Service to assess the intent of each CBRS boundary, produce draft digital maps that accurately reflect that intent, conduct a public review of the draft digital maps, and create comprehensive background records that document the reasons for the location of each boundary. The existing CBRS maps are subject to challenges that often result in land being removed from the CBRS. Modernized CBRS maps will allow Congress, as well as Federal, State, and local entities and the public, to Figure 13. Endangered wood stork, Mycteria americana, feeds on the shore at Pelican Island National have confidence that each boundary Wildlife Refuge, Florida. (Credit USFWS) placement is accurate, consistent with the CBRA and objective mapping criteria.

1 16 U.S.C. 3503(c) states: “At least once every 5 years, the Secretary shall review the maps referred to in subsection (a) of this section and shall make, in consultation with the appropriate State, local, and Federal officials, such minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of System units as are necessary solely to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any System unit as a result of natural forces.”

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

62 FR 8258: In the 1997 review, a total of 28 units were modified. These units included: ME-17, ME-18, MA-03, C01B, MA-20P, MA-24, C28, C31, D02B, NY-04P, NY-50, F10, NJ-09, MD-03, MD-37P, MD-38, VA-09, VA-23, VA-36, L07, L09, P16, P17, FL-89, FL-99, FL-101, Q01A, and VI-07.

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

P.L. 101-591 Sec. 9 amends the NFIA to state “No new flood insurance coverage may be provided under this title after the expiration of the 1-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 for any new construction or substantial improvements of structures located in any area identified and depicted on the maps referred to in section 4(A) of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act as an area that is (1) not within the Coastal Barrier Resources System and (2) is in an otherwise protected area. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, new flood insurance coverage may be provided for structures in such protected areas that are used in manner consistent with the purpose for which the area is protected.”

13 Digital Mapping Pilot Project CHAPTER 3: DIGITAL DATA STANDARDS, NEEDS, AND AVAILABILITY

With regards to data needs, the used data that is not certified as boundaries accurately line up with CBRRA of 2000 requires that this NSDI or FGDC compliant, such as specific geographic coordinates report describe: (1) the cooperative certain local digital property parcel on the surface of the Earth. The agreements that will be necessary data. The non-compliant data was Service found that because the to complete digital mapping of the used only as a secondary source of existing CBRS boundaries are entire CBRS; (2) the extent to which information. The Service ensured depicted on USGS base maps, the data necessary to complete compliance with NSDI and FGDC the CBRS boundaries are most digital mapping of the entire CBRS standards before using any data to efficiently horizontally controlled are available; and (3) the need for map a pilot project unit. Validation by using the DRG. The horizontal additional data to complete digital of compliance for each data set was control process is discussed in mapping of the entire CBRS. In either documented in writing or further detail in Chapter 4. DRGs addition, the CBRRA requires present in the digital metadata.1 are available from the USGS, State that all data used to carry out the and local governments, and private pilot project comply with certain Digital Data Needs and Availability vendors. established national data standards. The Service used several imagery Aerial Imagery The Service evaluated and used sources and data sets to create many data types to create the the pilot project maps including As described in Chapter 2 of pilot project maps. These data aerial imagery, geomorphic data, this report, the most significant include aerial imagery as the base development data, conservation and shortcomings of the existing CBRS map; geomorphic data to ensure recreation area boundary data, and maps are the outdated and generally appropriate relationships between a variety of other data types. The inadequate base maps that currently CBRS boundaries and natural sources, availability, advantages, depict the CBRS. In carrying out features (such as wetlands, streams disadvantages and cooperative the pilot project, the Service found and shorelines); development agreements needed to obtain these that aerial imagery is the most data (i.e. digital property parcel different data sets are detailed in suitable medium for CBRS mapping, data, date of construction data, Appendix B. because the CBRS boundaries and infrastructure data) to ensure can be aligned precisely with the appropriate relationships between Subsequent to the Service’s geomorphic and development CBRS boundaries and developed acquisition of data necessary features that are often visible on areas; and conservation and to begin the Digital Mapping the photograph. The three most recreation area boundary data to Pilot Project, the Council of significant factors to consider when ensure appropriate relationships Environmental Quality’s Joint selecting the aerial imagery to be between OPA boundaries and Subcommittee on Ocean Science used as the CBRS base map are age, the underlying conservation or and Technology established the resolution, and orthorectification of recreation areas. The advantages Interagency Working Group on imagery. and disadvantages of these data Ocean and Coastal Mapping (IWG- types are evaluated relative to the OCM) to facilitate the coordination • Age of Imagery: Due to the data source, data availability, and and leveraging of mapping resources dynamic nature of coastal cooperative agreements that will be across the Federal sector and barriers, recent aerial imagery required to complete digital mapping with State and local governments, is important for CBRS mapping. of the entire CBRS. industry, and non-governmental Recent imagery allows accurate organization interests. As the CBRS boundary placement National Digital Data Standards Service continues its modernization relative to geomorphic and of CBRS maps, we will coordinate development features visible The CBRRA of 2000 requires that with the IWG-OCM in our data on the photograph, such as all data used to carry out the pilot acquisition. shorelines, streams, wetlands, project comply with the National road networks, and structures. Spatial Data Infrastructure Digital Raster Graphics Because aerial imagery (NSDI) established by Executive represents a “snapshot in Order 12906, and any other A digital raster graphic (DRG) time,” it becomes outdated standards created by the Federal is a horizontally controlled, quickly, especially in active Geographic Data Committee orthorectified2 image of a scanned hurricane seasons and in areas (FGDC) established by Office of USGS topographic or planimetric where significant development Management and Budget Circular map. DRGs were used in the pilot is occurring. The Service A-16. In carrying out the pilot project to establish horizontal determined that aerial imagery project, the Service used data that control of the digital CBRS used for CBRS mapping should is compliant with both NSDI and boundaries. Horizontal control be no more than 2 years old. FGDC standards. The Service also ensures that the digital CBRS Currently, the aerial imagery 14 Chapter 3: Digital Data Standards, Needs, and Availability

Box 3. Comparison of Imagery Quality.

Existing DE-07P boundary The two images on the right show the differences in aerial imagery obtained for an area within Unit DE- DE-07P 07P in Delaware. The top right image illustrates the existing DE-07P boundary (shown in orange) overlaid on the most recently available USGS DOQQ (dated 1998). The bottom right image illustrates the existing DE-07P boundary (shown in orange) overlaid on 2004 imagery produced USGS DOQQ – 1998 Imagery by the State of Delaware. Note the red arrows Existing DE-07P indicating an area that has boundary developed since the latest available DOQQ imagery. Also, the locally produced imagery in this case is DE-07P higher resolution, making it easier to identify geomorphic and development features.

State of Delaware Imagery – 2004 Imagery

used for the pilot project is, on resolution image (such as 1/3 position on the Earth’s average, 8 years old. Although meter pixel), the greater level of surface. Orthorectification more recent imagery is now detail visible on the image. The ensures that distortion and available, the Service decided resolution of imagery used in the image displacement caused not to delay completion of the pilot project is 1 meter pixels or by the changes in aircraft pilot project to substitute more less. altitude, tilt, and topographic recent imagery. relief are corrected. The • Orthorectification of Service determined that • Resolution of Imagery: Due Imagery: Due to the direct the aerial imagery used for to the need for accurate CBRS relationship between the CBRS CBRS mapping should be boundary placement relative to boundaries and the geomorphic orthorectified. geomorphic and development or development features they features, high resolution are intended to follow on-the- In conducting the pilot project, the imagery is important for ground, it is important that Service researched and utilized a CBRS mapping. The Service the aerial imagery used as the variety of aerial imagery sources to determined that the minimum CBRS base map accurately determine the most suitable CBRS image resolution for CBRS reflects the position of those base map that is readily available at mapping should be 1 meter features on the Earth’s surface. little or no cost to the Service; meets pixels. An image resolution with Orthorectification is the process the standards established by NSDI 1 meter pixels means that each of adjusting an aerial and FGDC; and meets the pixel on the aerial photograph is photograph to ensure the proper factors identified above for CBRS equal to 1 meter of distance on- perspective of features in the mapping (recent, high resolution, the-ground. The higher the image relative to their true orthorectified imagery). The 15 Chapter 3: Digital Data Standards, Needs, and Availability

Service investigated several Federal, DE-07P, H01, P21, and P21P). of Agriculture (USDA), and State, local, and private sources for Since the inception of the pilot NOAA) or contract with a procuring aerial imagery to serve as project in September 2002, the private vendor to acquire the the CBRS base map. These sources number of States and counties necessary aerial imagery. are briefly described below and in using and sharing imagery has more detail in Appendix B. grown substantially. Local Geomorphic Data governments have a need for • Federal Sources: Federal current imagery, and therefore it In carrying out the pilot project, agencies, including USGS is updated frequently, sometimes the Service used wetlands, soils, and the National Oceanic and even annually. The resolution and other geomorphic datasets Atmospheric Administration of the State and local imagery to help determine the proposed (NOAA), have aerial imagery is generally higher than the CBRS boundary placement. available that is, in some resolution of a USGS DOQQ.3 CBRS mapping requires data cases, suitable for CBRS See Box 3 for a comparision of that accurately depict geomorphic mapping. After evaluating Unit DE-07P imagery obtained features on-the-ground because the sources of aerial imagery from the USGS and the State of System unit boundaries are currently available, the Service Delaware. The disadvantages generally intended to follow determined that the USGS associated with State and geomorphic features. These data digital orthophoto quarter local imagery are availability are briefly described below and in quadrangle (DOQQ), produced and cost. In those areas more detail in Appendix B. through the National Digital where high quality imagery is Orthophoto Program, is available at the State or local • Wetlands Data: In carrying generally the most suitable and level, the jurisdictions often out the pilot project, the readily available aerial imagery have proprietary interest in Service used National Wetlands for CBRS mapping. its production and may place Inventory (NWI) data restrictions on its distribution that shows digital graphic The USGS DOQQ is an aerial and use. State and local representations of the type, size, photo that is able to differentiate jurisdictions have different and location of the wetlands items on the Earth’s surface that cost structures for sharing the and deepwater habitats in the are as small as 1 meter in length. data, ranging from no-cost to United States.4 Although a The advantages of DOQQs are thousands of dollars per map small margin of error is inherent that they are readily available, panel. in use of wetlands data (due at no cost, for the entire country. to the dynamic, seasonal and The disadvantages associated • Procuring New Imagery: In ever-changing spatial extent with DOQQs are that they have cases where suitable aerial of these areas, and also due to relatively low image resolution imagery is not available for the age of imagery used to map and they are not updated on a CBRS mapping, the Service the wetlands), this information regular and frequent schedule. can enter into agreements with is a useful tool in determining Sixty-five of the 70 pilot project other Federal agencies that have the general extent of wetlands. units and the most recently aerial imagery programs (such The margin of error can be enacted technical corrections as USGS, U.S. Department minimized by validating the (i.e., Units VA-60, VA-60P, T07, T07P, P25, NC-07P, GA-06P, FL- 95P, and FL-96) were mapped on USGS DOQQs.

• State and Local Sources: State and local governments are increasingly generating up-to-date high quality aerial imagery that is, in many cases, a viable alternative for CBRS mapping when the USGS DOQQs available are more than 2 years old. In carrying out the pilot project, the Service found that high-quality State and locally-generated aerial imagery is available, and is becoming more prevalent as communities increase their digital technology capabilities. Five of the 70 pilot project units were mapped on Figure 14. National Wetlands Inventory layer and color infrared imagery in a GIS State or locally-generated aerial environment. imagery (i.e., Units DE-07, 16 Chapter 3: Digital Data Standards, Needs, and Availability

wetlands data against recent construction data, and in one case, Service was able to procure color infrared (CIR) imagery. infrastructure data, to ascertain digital property parcel data for CIR imagery shows color bands the development status of an area 62 of the 70 pilot project units. which differentiate between at the time of its designation. Other local governments (most types of vegetation that are not This information is useful to help notably in Louisiana) had parcel evident from looking at black understand the historical intent data but it was not available in and white aerial imagery. CIR imagery is helpful when aligning of a CBRS boundary and in digital format. CBRS boundaries to vegetative recommending additions, deletions, features such as the edge of a and reclassifications to the CBRS. • Date of Construction Data: In stand of mangroves. Figure 14 The development data are briefly carrying out the pilot project, illustrates an NWI data layer described below and in more detail the Service obtained the date overlaid on CIR imagery of pilot in Appendix B. of construction information for project Unit P04A. structures located in and around • Digital Property Parcel CBRS areas, generally from • Soils Data: In carrying out the Data: In carrying out the pilot the local property appraiser’s pilot project, the Service used project, the Service, in many office, tax assessor’s office, or USDA’s Natural Resources cases, obtained digital property GIS department. When used in Conservation Service (NRCS) soil data to help determine the parcel data because certain conjunction with digital property interface between the fastland CBRS boundaries are intended parcel data, date of construction and associated aquatic habitat.5 to follow parcel boundaries. information provides valuable The existence of hydric soils is The Service acquired digital insight into the level of an indication of the location of property parcel data from local development at the time an area wetlands because hydric soils governments and used it to was originally designated within are generally saturated for more ensure the accuracy of CBRS the CBRS. Figure 15 illustrates than half the year. The NRCS boundaries relative to property aerial imagery overlaid with the soil data, in conjunction with boundaries. Local governments, St. Johns County digital NWI wetlands data, is useful in especially in urban and high- property parcel data (shown in mapping CBRS boundaries that growth areas, are increasingly pink), and date of construction are intended to follow the extent of wetlands. converting their property parcel data (shown by the black dates data to digital format, and most located within the parcels). This • Other Geomorphic Data: are making this information date of construction information In carrying out the pilot available free of charge through is generally highly accurate project, the Service used some the local property appraiser’s because local governments geomorphic data obtained office, tax assessor’s office, or compile it on an annual basis through State GIS websites, GIS department. During the for their tax assessments. In often affiliated with State course of the pilot project, the limited cases, such as for pilot universities. For example, the State of Florida has mangroves data for the entire Florida coast available in a GIS. This data is useful for CBRS mapping because several CBRS boundaries are delineated at the edges of mangrove stands.

Development Data

When CBRS areas were originally mapped, certain criteria were used to determine the development status of coastal barriers under consideration for designation as System units.6 The development criteria, including density of development and a full complement of infrastructure, were slightly modified and codified by the CBRRA of 2000.7 In carrying out the pilot project, the Service used digital property parcel data, date of Figure 15. The date of construction data is shown by the black dates located within parcels. 17 Chapter 3: Digital Data Standards, Needs, and Availability

project units located in the State when the infrastructure for other underlying conservation of Louisiana, an assessment of the area was available on- and recreation areas the OPAs date of construction data was the-ground. The Service are intended to follow. Due to not conducted because such data concluded that it would be cost the inaccurate base maps and does not exist for those areas. prohibitive to conduct this kind manual cartographic techniques of infrastructure assessment for used in the past, small portions of • Infrastructure Data: In all pilot project units. Instead, private land that are contiguous carrying out the pilot project, the Service relied on visual with the underlying conservation with the exception of Unit cues on the aerial imagery or recreation area (but are L06, the Service did not collect (such as roads) as an indication not inholdings) are sometimes infrastructure data to determine of the level of infrastructure inadvertently and incorrectly whether or not there was a full on-the-ground. The Service included within the boundaries of complement of infrastructure to anticipates that if any areas the OPA. Consequently, the private each lot or building site in the proposed for addition to a property owners of these lands area at the time of the area’s System unit, or reclassification are unable to obtain Federal flood designation within the CBRS. In from OPA to System unit status, insurance. the case of Unit L06, the Service contained a full complement of conducted an infrastructure infrastructure at the time of The Service, whenever possible, assessment for three areas in designation within the CBRS, obtained digital data describing this unit, based on indications interested parties will provide the boundaries of public recreation that some of the areas added the necessary documentation and conservation areas within a in 1990 were served by a full during the public review period given area, including Statewide GIS complement of infrastructure for the pilot project maps. databases, digital property parcel that was not evident on the This approach is similar to the data from local governments, and quadrangles used when the area process used to assess the level direct contact with land managers to was last mapped. of infrastructure prior to the obtain surveys, plat maps, or deeds. CBIA designations in 1990.8 This type of data is becoming more Through this experience with routinely available free of charge Unit L06, the Service learned Conservation and Recreation Area within the public domain. that this type of infrastructure Boundary Data assessment is extremely time and resource intensive because it In carrying out the pilot project, includes contacting local utilities the Service obtained digital and other sources to determine boundary data for the parks and

1 Metadata, or “data about data”, describes the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of data. Metadata are used to organize and maintain investments in data, to provide information to data catalogs and clearinghouses, and to aid data transfers. The FGDC approved the Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata on June 8, 1994. Since that time, many organizations within and outside of the Federal government have adopted the FGDC metadata standard and are using automated indexing and serving mechanisms to provide access to their holdings through the Internet.

2 Orthorectified imagery is airborne or satellite imagery that has been corrected for relief displacement and displays all the properties of an accurate map whereby each pixel is viewed looking straight down. As it relates to image accuracy, a normal aerial photograph has a perspective that causes features closer to the camera appear to be larger than features farther away from the camera.

3 Although DOQQs satisfy NSSDA requirements, State and locally supplied digital orthophotos and those procured from private vendors normally exceed horizontal (radial) RMSE of 2.2 feet, 4.4 feet, or 8.8 feet if compiled at common scales of 1” = 100’, 1” = 200’, or 1” = 400’, respectively.

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

5 Associated aquatic habitat includes the wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters adjacent to coastal barriers. Fastland includes the portion of a coastal barrier between the mean high tide line on the ocean side, and the upper limit of tidal vegetation (or, if such vegetation is not present, the mean high tide line) at the rear of the coastal barrier.

6 47 FR 35708: “A density threshold of roughly one structure per five acres of fastland is used for categorizing a coastal barrier as developed…All or part of a coastal barrier will be considered developed, even when there is less than one structure per five acres of fastland, if there is a full complement of infrastructure in place…A full complement of infrastructure requires that there be vehicle access to each lot or building site plus reasonable availability of a water supply, a waste water disposal system, and electrical service to each lot or building site.”

7 P.L. 106-514 Sec. 2

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

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

“Study Group members also visited many sites. Detailed assessment of the status of infrastructure was not possible, given limitations of available information and resources. When landowners wrote to the [Department], however, claiming a full complement of infrastructure was in place in their property, the claims were investigated. Where a full complement of infrastructure (roads, water and electric lines) provided by the developer to each lot or building site was verified, the barrier was considered developed.”

“Undeveloped coastal barriers, or portions thereof, were delineated using U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle maps and, when available, recent aerial imagery. Development status was determined primarily on the basis of the density of visible structures.”

19 Digital Mapping Pilot Project CHAPTER 4: DIGITAL MAPPING METHODOLOGY

The pilot project mapping Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana. County, Florida, was overlaid on a methodology included: selection The selection of units was based USGS DOQQ. The major road of pilot project units; adjustments primarily on availability of relatively running northwest-southeast to “fit” the digital data to the recent aerial imagery. Another through the bottom left-hand underlying base map; digitization of factor considered was addressing corner of this DOQQ image does not the existing CBRS boundaries and high priority areas for digital maps coincide with the pink lines depicting establishment of horizontal control; based on known development the road’s position on the county assessment of boundary intent; pressures. parcel data. This problem can adjustment of existing boundaries generally be overcome by “fitting” to create proposed boundaries that Digital Data “Fitting” the parcel data to the underlying align with geomorphic, development, aerial imagery being used as the or cultural features, and, in limited Compliance with national data base map. cases, to add new fastland; and standards does not, in and of calculation of the acreage and itself, make data accurate. When A proper fit of the data to the CBRS shoreline mileage associated with NSDI and FGDC compliant base map is important because each unit. data, described in Chapter 3, is positional differences of only a few superimposed on orthorectified feet in CBRS boundaries can affect The remapping process for aerial imagery, it often does not line a homeowner’s eligibility for Federal each of the pilot project units up properly. For example, digital flood insurance. is documented in background property parcel data that has been records maintained by the Service horizontally controlled and placed Mapping System Units and available upon request at the on an aerial photograph that has Service’s headquarters office. The also been horizontally controlled in a The process used to map pilot existing and proposed boundaries GIS may show property boundaries project System units is summarized are delineated on each of the pilot crossing through structures. This below. project maps in Appendix D. The is due to differences in the data “existing” pilot project boundaries sources, such as the aerial imagery Step 1 – Digitize Boundary and have been digitized from the and digital property parcel data, Establish Horizontal Control controlling CBRS map, horizontally and is not a reflection of poor data controlled, and transferred to the quality. It is not uncommon for two A common misconception is that new base map, but have not been NSDI and FGDC compliant base a digital map is, by default, an adjusted to reflect the intent of maps to show physical features such accurate map. The process of the boundary. The “proposed” as roads, streams, and shorelines, in digitizing a CBRS boundary does pilot project boundaries have been slightly different locations. Figure not, in and of itself, make the adjusted to reflect the geomorphic, 16 illustrates a spatial offset that boundary accurate. Horizontal development, or cultural intent of occurred when digital property control is what makes a digital map the boundary, and in limited cases, to parcel data (meeting NSDI and spatially accurate as it provides the add new fastland, based on objective FGDC standards) from Brevard ability to reference all features criteria and mapping protocols.

Selection of Pilot Project Units

The CBRRA of 2000 specifies that the pilot project shall consist of the creation of digital maps for no more than 75 units and no fewer than 50 units of the CBRS, one-third of which shall be OPAs. The Service selected 60 CBRS units for this pilot project, one-third (20) of which are Digital property OPA units. The pilot project maps parcel data does not depict a total of 70 CBRS units, always properly which include 60 existing CBRS align with units, 8 units that are proposed for underlying aerial reclassification from System unit imagery. to OPA status or vice-versa, and two proposed new OPA units. The pilot project units are located in Delaware, North Carolina, South Figure 16. Brevard County, Florida, parcel data (shown in pink) overlaid on a USGS DOQQ. 20 Chapter 4: Digital Mapping Methodology shown on the map to an exact location on the Earth’s surface. The existing CBRS base maps are not horizontally controlled, making the digitized boundaries from these maps incompatible with GIS applications.

The existing CBRS pilot project boundaries were first digitized. Then, the CBRS boundaries were horizontally controlled by linking points on the CBRS maps to specific geographic coordinates on horizontally controlled digital raster graphics (DRGs) of USGS quadrangles or DOQQs. A DRG is a horizontally controlled, orthorectified image of a scanned USGS topographic or planimetric map. The digitized and horizontally controlled CBRS boundary is then placed on the aerial imagery selected as the CBRS map. The layers in this process are illustrated in Figure 17.

Step 2 – Assess Boundary Intent

Once the existing boundaries of the pilot project units were digitized, Figure 17. The digitized boundary is obtained from a paper CBRS map that horizontally controlled, and has been referenced to a USGS digital raster graphic in order to establish transferred to the aerial imagery, the horizontal control, and is then placed on horizontally controlled aerial imagery. Service assessed each boundary in the pilot project unit to understand the intent of the boundary with protocols. In limited cases where for each pilot project unit. respect to geomorphic, development, the proposed boundaries on the and cultural features. System unit pilot project maps deviate from Step 4 – Calculate Acreage and boundaries are generally intended established criteria and mapping Shoreline Changes to follow geomorphic features (e.g., protocols, these exceptions are shorelines and streams) but can also noted. After the mapping was completed, follow development features (e.g., the Service used GIS applications to property parcel boundaries, roads) Three main types of boundary calculate the existing and proposed or cultural features (e.g., county changes were made to the pilot acreage and shoreline length lines, park boundaries). project System units: geomorphic- associated with each pilot project based changes, development- unit. The fastland and associated This assessment included a review based changes, and cultural-based aquatic habitat acreage within of the Service’s record for each changes. These changes were made each unit were also calculated. unit, public laws, notices published in order to: (1) reflect geomorphic The acreage and shoreline length in the Federal Register, reports to changes that have occurred since associated with each pilot project Congress, enacted and historical the unit was last mapped; (2) unit are listed in Appendix E . CBRS maps, aerial imagery, and an align the System unit boundary assortment of data described in with geomorphic features; (3) add Mapping Otherwise Protected Areas Chapter 3. associated aquatic habitat; (4) adjust channel boundaries in a consistent The criteria and protocols for Step 3 – Adjust Existing manner; (5) align the System unit OPA mapping are significantly Boundaries to Create Proposed boundary to development features; different from those of System Boundaries (6) align the System unit boundary units. OPA boundaries are intended with cultural features; (7) add new to follow the boundaries of an area Once the intent of the pilot project fastland not currently within the established under Federal, State, unit boundaries was assessed and CBRS; and (8) reclassify appropriate or local law, or held by a qualified understood, the digitized CBRS lands from System unit to OPA organization, primarily for wildlife boundaries were adjusted to status. These proposed changes refuge, sanctuary, recreational, reflect that intent. The proposed are described in detail in Chapter 5. or natural resource conservation boundaries were delineated using The maps in Appendix D depict the purposes. The process used to map objective criteria and mapping existing and proposed boundaries pilot project OPAs is summarized 21 Chapter 4: Digital Mapping Methodology below. area boundary location with a high Step 4 – Adjust Existing degree of accuracy is to conduct field Boundaries to Create Proposed Step 1 – Digitize Boundary and surveys of the subject site. Field Boundaries Establish Horizontal Control surveys of all OPA boundaries were cost-prohibitive for the pilot project. The Service adjusted the OPA See Step 1 of “Mapping System Instead, existing conservation or boundaries in order to: (1) align Units” section of this chapter. This recreation area boundary data were with cultural features such as step is identical for System units and obtained from the sources described conservation or recreation area OPAs. in Chapter 3; digitized if needed; boundaries; (2) add conservation or overlaid on the orthorectified aerial recreation area; (3) remove adjacent Step 2 –Assess Boundary Intent imagery being used as the base map; private lands that are not inholdings, and fit to the imagery as described as appropriate; (4) reclassify from Once the existing boundaries of the at the beginning of this chapter. OPA to System unit status; (5) pilot project units were digitized, add new OPAs; and (6) map OPA horizontally controlled, and Stakeholders (generally park boundaries that lie in channels in a transferred to aerial imagery, the managers) were asked to review consistent manner. These proposed Service identified the conservation and concur with the placement changes are described in detail in or recreation area(s) each OPA of the conservation or recreation Chapter 5. The maps in Appendix boundary was intended to follow. area boundary on the base map. D depict the existing and proposed This assessment included comparing Upon resolution of any boundary boundaries for each pilot project the existing OPA boundary to discrepancies, stakeholders and unit. digital property parcel data and the Service signed a statement of the conservation or recreation area concurrence and a map depicting Step 5 – Calculate Acreage and boundary data described in Chapter the underlying conservation or Shoreline Changes 3. recreation area boundaries. This concurrence process ensures See Step 4 of the “Mapping System Step 3 – Compile and Validate that the OPA boundaries, which Units” section of this chapter. This Conservation and Recreation Area are based on the underlying step is identical for System units and Boundaries conservation or recreation area OPAs. boundaries, are as accurate as The most reliable means to establish possible. the conservation or recreation

22 Digital Mapping Pilot Project CHAPTER 5: PILOT PROJECT RESULTS

The CBRRA of 2000 requires that this report describe the extent to which the boundary lines on the proposed pilot project maps differ from the boundary lines on the existing maps. This chapter describes the results of the pilot project by: (1) summarizing the different types of proposed boundary changes associated with System units and OPAs; (2) listing the proposed boundary changes associated with each unit in Tables 1 and 2; (3) summarizing the proposed acreage and shoreline changes; and (4) summarizing the general contents of the background records created for each of the units. The pilot project unit summaries and maps are provided in Appendix D. The acreage and shoreline change Figure 18. Proposed Unit S05 boundary (shown in green) accounts for accretion of Timbalier numbers for each pilot project unit Island, Louisiana over time. are provided in Appendix E. has prograded northwest over often intended to follow Types of Proposed Boundary Changes time. Note that the proposed geomorphic features such as Unit S05 boundary accounts shorelines. In Figure 19, the The different types of proposed for this movement and provides proposed Unit P04A boundary boundary changes contained in the an appropriate buffer to shown by the green line is pilot project maps are summarized accommodate future accretion of aligned with the wetlands that it below, along with illustrative Timbalier Island, Louisiana. was intended to follow. examples. Tables 1 and 2 in this chapter list the different types of • Alignment with Geomorphic • Addition of Associated Aquatic boundary changes proposed for each Features: The proposed Habitat: The CBRA defines a of the pilot project System units and boundaries of 28 pilot project coastal barrier to include the OPAs, respectively. System units were adjusted adjacent wetlands, marshes, to align with underlying estuaries, inlets, and near-shore Proposed System Unit Changes geomorphic features on the base waters as “associated aquatic map. CBRS boundaries are habitat.” A notice published by • Adjustment to Reflect Geomorphic Change: The CBRA requires that every 5 years the Service make minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of System units solely to reflect changes in the size or location of the units caused by natural forces such as accretion and erosion.1 To satisfy the CBRA 5-year review requirement for pilot project System units, the Service assessed the geomorphic change that has occurred to the coastal barrier since it was last mapped. The proposed boundaries of 14 pilot project System units were adjusted to reflect geomorphic change. Figure 18 illustrates a Figure 19 Proposed Unit P04A boundary (shown in green) aligns with a geomorphic barrier island in Unit S05 that feature. The existing boundary is shown in orange. 23 Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

the Department in the Federal Department have included be to prohibit the use of Register on March 4, 1985, guidance for the delineation Federal financial assistance for provided guidance on the of CBRS boundaries located dredging and other channel delineation of landward along channels and other water maintenance. The Service boundaries, which often follow bodies.3 In carrying out the does not anticipate that these the landward extent of aquatic pilot project, the Service noted proposed changes will have habitat.2 In carrying out the that this guidance has not been any significant impact on the pilot project, the Service noted consistently applied in the past. maintenance of these channels that this mapping guidance has In addition, the aspects of this because of the exception made in not been consistently applied guidance that exclude portions the CBRA for existing channels and there are inconsistencies of channels from System units and related structures, and in how the associated aquatic are inconsistent with the CBRA because, in general, the areas habitat behind development definition of a coastal barrier, affected already include half of was mapped in 1982, 1990, which includes all associated the channels’ width within the and in subsequent legislative aquatic habitat (adjacent CBRS. amendments when areas were wetlands, marshes, estuaries, added to the CBRS. Some units inlets, and nearshore waters). The proposed System unit include the entire associated The Service believes that a boundaries that lie within aquatic habitat, regardless of consistent approach to the channels were consistently the level of development on placement of CBRS boundaries delineated according to the the barrier, while others do within channels, taking into following mapping protocols not include the full extent of account the CBRA definition developed during the course of the associated aquatic habitat. of a coastal barrier, should be the pilot project: The proposed pilot project applied to the CBRS maps. boundaries consistently include Therefore, the proposed System Developed regular shoreline: the landward aquatic habitat unit boundaries presented In cases of a developed regular, associated with developed and in this report consistently or relatively smooth, shoreline, undeveloped coastal barriers. delineate boundaries located in the proposed boundary includes (See Figure 20) The proposed channels to include all associated most of the channel within the boundaries of 23 pilot project aquatic habitat. The proposed System unit. The boundary is System units were adjusted to boundaries of 14 pilot project placed 50 feet from the shoreline add associated aquatic habitat to System units were adjusted to avoid inadvertent inclusion of the CBRS. to include the entire channel developed property within the within the System unit instead CBRS (see Figure 21). • Adjustment to Map Channel of placing the boundary at the Boundaries Consistently: center of the channel. Undeveloped regular shoreline: Channels are often located In cases of an undeveloped between coastal barriers and These proposed changes place regular shoreline, the proposed the mainland and are a part of additional channel area within boundary includes the entire the barrier’s associated aquatic System units. The effect of width of the channel within the habitat. Past notices published these proposed changes, if System unit. The boundary in the Federal Register by the enacted by Congress, would coincides with the shoreline (see Figure 22).

Undeveloped irregular shoreline: In cases of an undeveloped irregular, or relatively convoluted, shoreline, the proposed boundary includes most of the channel within the System unit. The boundary is generalized and, in some cases, placed a maximum of 50 feet from the shoreline, to avoid a heavily convoluted line while including as much of the associated aquatic habitat as is possible within the CBRS (see Figure 23).

Undeveloped shoreline with emergent aquatic habitat: In cases of an undeveloped Figure 20. Proposed Unit L07 boundary (shown in green) adds associated aquatic habitat behind a shoreline with emergent aquatic developed shoreline. The existing boundary is shown in orange. habitat, the proposed boundary 24 Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

includes most of the channel within the System unit. The boundary is generalized and includes all emergent aquatic habitat growth (such as palm hammocks and mangrove) within the System unit. The boundary is placed 50 feet from the farthest visible extent of growth (see Figure 24).

• Alignment with Development Features: Although System unit boundaries are generally intended to follow certain geomorphic features, there are several cases where System unit boundaries are intended to follow development features

Figure 21. Mapping channels with a regular developed shoreline. The Unit P05 proposed such as the edge of a road, boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange. a bridge, or the “break-in- development,” that existed on-the-ground when the unit was designated. The break- in-development is where development ended, either immediately adjacent to the last structure in a cluster of structures or at the property parcel boundary of the last structure.4 The proposed boundaries of 31 pilot project System units were adjusted to align with development features. Box 4 illustrates an excluded area within Unit L06 which was intended to follow the break- in development that existed in 1982 and exclude from the unit development that already

Figure 22. Mapping channels with an undeveloped regular shoreline. The Unit P08 proposed existed when the area was boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange. designated within the CBRS in 1982.

• Alignment with Cultural Features: The proposed boundaries of 7 pilot project System units were adjusted to align with cultural features such as county boundaries or adjacent conservation or recreation area boundaries. Often, only minor changes were needed to ensure that boundaries following cultural features are accurately placed.

• Addition of Fastland Not Currently Within the CBRS: In carrying out the pilot project, the Service assessed areas Figure 23. Mapping channels with an undeveloped irregular shoreline. The Unit L05 adjacent to existing units, and proposed boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange. The in limited cases, identified boundary is generalized, and as a result, may not include the entire associated aquatic habitat undeveloped fastland that is (see blue shaded area). appropriate for inclusion within 25 Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

the CBRS (see Figure 25). The proposed boundaries of 8 pilot project System units were adjusted to add undeveloped fastland that is not currently within the CBRS. This approach is consistent with the CBRRA of 2005 (P.L. 109-226), Section 4(c)(3)(D) which directs the Secretary to make recommendations for the expansion of the CBRS when carrying out digital mapping for the remainder of the CBRS. Prior to proposing the addition of new fastland to a System unit, the Service assessed the level of development on-the-ground at the time of the pilot project assessment. The CBRRA of 2000 codified guidelines for what Figure 24. Mapping channels with an undeveloped shoreline and emergent aquatic habitat. The the Secretary shall consider Unit P21 proposed boundary is shown in green and the existing boundary is shown in orange. when making recommendations

Box 4. Alignment with Development Features in Unit L06

Unit L06 is located at the northern end of Topsail Island, North Carolina. The USGS quadrangle on which the Unit L06 boundary was drawn is dated 1980, and therefore does not depict development that occurred after 1980 (left). A row of condominium buildings were built along the beach in 1981. The Service’s record indicates that these condominium buildings were intended to be excluded from Unit L06 when it was designated in 1982. The approximate location of the condominium at the end of the row is circled in blue.

When Onslow County digital property parcel data (shown in pink) was overlaid on 1998 aerial imagery, it is evident that the westernmost condominium building (circled in blue) was inadvertently bisected by the Unit L06 boundary (right). Because of this mapping error, the condominium building and several properties located behind the condominium are ineligible for Federal flood insurance. This mapping error most likely occurred as a result of the outdated base map, and the rudimentary cartographic methods that were once used to delineate CBRS boundaries.

Based on the evidence in the record, the proposed boundary of this excluded area (shown in green) follows the western property parcel boundary of the condominium building.

26 Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

to the Congress regarding the addition of any area to the CBRS and in determining whether, at the time of inclusion of a System unit within the CBRS, a coastal barrier is undeveloped. The Service is not aware of any existing structures located on lands proposed for addition to the 8 System units. Due to resource constraints in carrying out the pilot project, the Service was unable to conduct field visits or infrastructure assessments for the pilot project units, with the exception of Unit L06 where an infrastructure assessment was conducted. Instead, the Service used information in the record, digital property parcel Figure 25. Addition of fastland not currently within the CBRS. The Unit FL-40 boundary is data, date of construction data, shown in orange and the proposed additions are shown in green. and visual cues on the aerial imagery to assess the level of designation of the System unit, adjusted to reclassify certain development within the area. the affected land is proposed for lands from System unit to OPA The Service anticipates that reclassification from a System status. Four of these pilot if any new areas proposed unit to an OPA (see Figure 26). project units contain areas that for addition to a System unit Such areas should have been are proposed to be reclassifed contain a full complement of originally included within the as part of adjacent OPAs. The infrastructure, interested parties CBRS as OPAs, not System other 3 units contain areas that will provide the necessary units. An exception is made are proposed to be reclassified as documentation during the public for certain privately owned OPAs and they are not adjacent review period for the pilot areas held for conservation to another OPA, and so the project maps. or recreation that were proposed reclassified area is intentionally added to the CBRS given a new unit number. • Reclassification from System as System units. The proposed Unit to Otherwise Protected pilot project boundaries maintain • No Adjustment: The Area: In carrying out the within the System unit private boundaries of only 3 of the pilot pilot project, the Service noted lands held for conservation or project System units contain cases where lands held for recreation that were established no proposed adjustments. This conservation or recreation are as System units. scenario is only applied in cases located within a System unit. like that shown in Figure 27 for In 1982, the CBRA specified The proposed boundaries of 7 Unit LA-01 where the coastal that lands held for conservation pilot project System units were barrier islands associated with or recreation were not to be included within the CBRS. In 1990, the CBIA designated lands held for conservation or recreation as OPAs. If a pilot project System unit contained lands held for conservation or recreation, the Service researched the history of the area to determine the date that these lands were first held for conservation or recreation. If the land was first held for conservation or recreation after the System unit had already been established, the proposed pilot project boundaries maintain the land within the System unit.

If, alternatively, the land was Figure 26. The portion of existing System Unit P11 outlined in green is proposed to be already held for conservation or reclassified as OPA P11P because it is land that was held for conservation or recreation before recreation prior to the Unit P11 was established. 27 Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

Table 1. Summary of Proposed System Unit Changes

Pilot Project Unit to OPA Change Habitat Features Features the CBRS Addition of Addition of Boundaries Geomorphic Consistently Fastland not Fastland Development Map Channel Adjustment to Adjustment to No Adjustment Alignment with Alignment with Alignment with Reclassification Currently within Cultural Features from System Unit Associated Aquatic Reflect Geomorphic

DE-07*

H01 x x x

NC-01 x

NC-06*

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

L06 x x x x x

L07 x x x x x

L08 x x x x x

L09 x x x x

M02 x x x

M03 x x x x

FL-01*

P04A x x x

P05 x x x x (P05P)

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

P09A x x x x x (P09AP*)

P10A x x x x x

P11 x x x x (P11P*)

FL-15 x x

FL-19*

P14A x x

FL-39 x x x x

FL-40 x x x x

FL-43 x

FL-44 x x x x x x

FL-45 x x x x x

FL-46 x x x x

P17A x x x

FL-67 x x x x x

P21 x x x x x (P21P)

P22 x x x

FL-78 x x x x

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

FL-82 x x

FL-83 x x

P26 x

FL-89 x x x

FL-93*

FL-94 x x

LA-01 x

LA-02 x

S04 x x

S05 x

S06 x x

S07 x x

TOTAL 14 28 23 14 31 7 8 7 3

* Proposed reclassified unit

28 Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

the unit have not significantly eroded or prograded, and the existing boundary was found to be appropriately delineated.

Proposed Otherwise Protected Area Changes

• Alignment with Cultural Features: The general intent of OPA boundaries is to coincide with the boundaries of the underlying conservation or recreation area. The proposed boundaries of 19 pilot project OPAs were adjusted to align with the underlying conservation or recreation area boundaries. (See Figure 28) Privately held inholdings may be included within the exterior Figure 27. Unit LA-01 has no proposed boundary adjustment. boundaries of the conservation or recreation area, and therefore appropriately included within the boundaries of the OPA. The Service is aware of only one such private inholding located within a pilot project unit (unit FL-64P).

• Addition of Conservation or Recreation Area: In carrying out the pilot project, the Service found many cases where lands adjacent to existing CBRS areas are held for conservation or recreation and are not currently within the CBRS. When such areas were found, the appropriate stakeholders were contacted to review and concur with the placement of the conservation or recreation area Figure 28. Proposed Unit FL-93P boundary (shown in green) is adjusted to align with boundary on the base map. The conservation or recreation area boundaries. The existing boundary is shown in orange. proposed boundaries of 9 pilot project OPAs were adjusted to Figure 29 illustrates new remove larger portions of private add conservation or recreation conservation or recreation lands land from the OPA because lands to an existing OPA. This proposed for inclusion in an OPA. the lands are not private approach is consistent with: inholding; have never been held (1) recent technical correction • Removal of Private Land: for conservation or recreation; laws that have expanded the Most OPA boundaries were and did not meet the CBRA boundaries of OPAs to include adjusted to remove very small definition of an undeveloped lands held for conservation portions of private land adjacent coastal barrier at the time they or recreation that were not to the underlying conservation were included within the CBRS originally included within the or recreation area that are (see Figure 30). OPA (e.g. P.L. 109-355 that not inholdings. These expanded the Unit FL-95P adjustments are consistent with • Reclassification from boundary to include the full recent technical correction laws Otherwise Protected Area to extent of Grayton Beach State which correct mapping errors System Unit: The proposed Park) and (2) the CBRRA of that negatively impact property boundaries of 10 pilot project 2005, Section 4(c)(3)(D) which owners by removing land that OPAs were adjusted to reclassify directs the Secretary to make was inadvertently included certain lands from OPA to recommendations for the within the OPA due to the System unit status. This type expansion of the CBRS when imprecise nature of the existing of reclassification is proposed in carrying out digital mapping for maps. The boundaries of 9 pilot cases where the land in question the remainder of the CBRS. project OPAs were adjusted to is adjacent to a conservation or 29 Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

recreation area; is not a private inholding; is not held for conservation or recreation; and met the CBRA definition of an undeveloped coastal barrier at the time the area was included within the OPA. Such areas should have been originally included within the CBRS as System units, not OPAs (see Figure 31). Five of the pilot project units contain areas that are proposed to be reclassified as part of adjacent System units. The other five units are not adjacent to another System unit, so the proposed reclassified area is given a new unit number.

• Addition of new OPAs: Two Figure 29. Proposed Unit FL-14P boundary (shown in green) adds lands held by Kings Island Natural Area to the existing OPA. of the proposed pilot project OPAs are comprised entirely of land that is currently not within the existing boundaries of a System unit or an OPA. In both cases, the Service found conservation or recreational land in the vicinty of existing CBRS areas while researching the history of those units and the surrounding area. These two areas meet the CBIA definition of an otherwise protected area and are consistent with (1) recent technical correction laws that have expanded the boundaries of OPAs to include lands held for conservation or recreation that were not originally included within the OPA (e.g. DE-03P, NC-07P, FL- Figure 30. Proposed Unit FL-20P boundary (shown in green) removes private land that was 95P) and (2) the CBRRA of 2005 developed at the time the OPA was enacted. The existing boundary is shown in orange. (P.L. 109-226), Section 4(c)(3)(D) which directs the Secretary to make recommendations for the expansion of the CBRS when carrying out digital mapping for the remainder of the CBRS.

• Adjustment to Map Channels Consistently: Similar to the situation with System unit boundaries that include or are adjacent to channels, OPAs are currently not mapped consistently as they relate to channels. Past notices included in the Federal Register by the Department have included guidance for delineating CBRS boundaries located along channels and other water bodies. In general, this guidance Figure 31. A privately owned, undeveloped piece of land that is within the existing OPA FL-01P is proposed to be reclassified as System Unit FL-01. states that if a discernible natural channel or man-made 30 Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

channel exists in the open water approximately one mile landward of the coastal barrier, the boundary is drawn along the side nearest the coastal barrier.5 The proposed boundaries of 5 pilot project OPAs were adjusted to map channels within or adjacent to OPAs consistently (see Figure 32). The CBRA’s only Federal funding prohibition within OPAs applies to flood insurance. The CBRA’s prohibitions on dredging and channel maintenance do not apply to channels located within OPAs. In remapping pilot project OPAs with adjacent channels, the Service applied the following mapping protocols: Figure 32. Proposed Unit NC-05P boundary (shown in green) extends to the middle of the . Shoreline of OPA with no channel. The existing boundary is shown in orange. adjacent System unit. If there is no System unit behind a Shoreline of OPA with adjacent conservation or recreation area System unit. In cases such as separated from the mainland by the one described above, but in a channel, the boundary of the which the OPA is adjacent OPA was placed at the center of to a System unit, the landward the channel (or one mile from the boundaries of both units were channel shoreline, whichever was placed to coincide with the closer to the barrier) to minimize shoreline along the channel. the need for future boundary revisions as a result of shoreline erosion and accretion.

31 Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results

Table 2. Summary of Proposed Otherwise Protected Area Changes

Pilot Project OPA Unit Unit Land Addition of Consistently Adjustment to Map Channels Alignment with Reclassification Conservation or Recreation Area Addition of New Cultural Features Removal of Private from OPA to System from OPA DE-07P x x x x (DE-07*) NC-05P x x x NC-06P x x x (NC-06*, L05) FL-01P x x x (FL-01*) x P05P x x (P05) P08P* FL-13P x x P09AP* FL-14P x x x (P10A) P11P* FL-16P x x FL-17P x x FL-18P x x FL-19P x x x (FL-19*) FL-20P x x FL-64P x x x FL-67P* x P21P x x x (P21) FL-72P x x FL-73P x x x (FL-78) FL-78P* x FL-80P x FL-81P x x (FL-81) x FL-85P x FL-93P x x x x (FL-93*) TOTAL 19 9 9 10 2 5

*Proposed reclassified unit

Proposed Acreage and Shoreline approximately 23,840 acres to the The net changes were quantified by Changes CBRS (mainly associated aquatic assessing the differences in acreage habitat). The 363 acres of fastland and shoreline between the existing The CBRRA of 2000 requires that proposed for removal from the and proposed boundaries. The total this report detail the extent to which CBRS are generally private lands acreage is comprised of the fastland the proposed boundaries on the that will be made eligible for Federal and associated aquatic habitat which pilot project maps differ from the flood insurance and other Federal includes open water. For purposes boundaries on the existing maps. subsidies if Congress were to enact of this pilot project, fastland was The proposed pilot project boundary the pilot project maps. Of the total calculated by interpretation of changes are described and depicted 1,625 acres of fastland proposed for infrared aerial imagery along with in Appendix D, which includes pilot addition to the CBRS, 618 acres consultation of the Service’s NWI project unit summaries and maps. are generally undeveloped private data. The associated aquatic habitat Table 3 summarizes the proposed lands that will be made ineligible for acreage numbers include open water pilot project acreage changes. If Federal flood insurance and other landward of the coastal barrier but enacted, the pilot project maps Federal subsidies if Congress enacts do not include open water seaward will result in a total net addition of the pilot project maps. of the shoreline. For the purpose of

32 Chapter 5: Pilot Project Results associated aquatic habitat acreage Background Records signed maps and statements of calculations, all units were artificially concurrence on property boundaries, closed at the seaward shoreline A comprehensive background record correspondence with stakeholders, before acreage calculations were was created for each unit in the pilot and any other documentation performed. The CBRA specifies project. These records contain the that describes the placement of that System units extend to the 30 historical background for each unit, the existing and the proposed foot bathymetric contour. Appendix including previously enacted maps, boundaries. These records are E provides the acreage and documents referenced during the maintained by the Service and, upon shoreline information for each of the boundary intent assessment phase, request, may be viewed by the public pilot project units. maps showing different data types at the Service’s headquarters office. used to assess boundary intent,

Table 3. Summary of Proposed Acreage Changes Associated Aquatic Habitat Fastland acres Total acres acres System Units OPAs System Units OPAs System Units OPAs Addition to the 617.9 1,006.8 21,214.0 2,152.0 21,831.9 3,158.8 CBRS Total: 1,624.7 Total: 23,366.0 Total: 24,990.7 Deletion from 254.0 108.8 691.9 95.6 945.9 204.4 the CBRS Total: 362.8 Total: 787.5 Total: 1,150.3 Reclassification from System -477.9 477.9 -285.8 285.8 -763.7 763.7 unit to OPA Total: 477.9 Total: 285.8 Total: 763.7 Reclassification from OPA to 330.4 -330.4 12,187.6 -12,187.6 12,518.0 -12,518.0 System unit Total: 330.4 Total: 12,187.6 Total: 12,518.0 Net Change 216.4 1,045.5 32,423.9 -9,845.4 32,640.3 -8799.9 Total: 1,261.9 Total: 22,578.5 Total: 23,840.4

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

2 50 FR 8702

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

4 From a memorandum dated July 27, 1982, from the chairman of the Coastal Barriers Task Force to the Secretary of the Department of Interior regarding Unit P08:

“In general, side boundaries of portions of coastal barriers should be more or less perpendicular to the ocean shoreline; however, for an otherwise protected area, the side boundary is the property line of the protected area. For developed areas, the side boundary is placed immediately adjacent to the cluster of structures or the area with a full complement of infrastructure indicating the end of the developed portion of the coastal barrier. Such a “break-in-development” is usually quite evident even if a few scattered structures are located on the undeveloped side of the boundary line. Once the location of the “break-in-development” is established, there are several circumstances where the general “perpendicular boundary” rule is modified. It is desirable that the boundary follow known property lines which, in many cases, may not be perpendicular to the shoreline.”

5 50 FR 8701

33 Digital Mapping Pilot Project CHAPTER 6: COSTS, NEXT STEPS, AND CONCLUSIONS

Costs The pilot project costs identified final recommended maps are above do not include the costs presented to Congress. The CBRRA of 2000 requires that associated with finalizing the pilot (4) The number of proposed new this report describe the amount project maps by conducting a public additions that may need to be of funding necessary to complete review of the draft maps, making researched and mapped. digital mapping of the entire adjustments to the boundary lines CBRS. The Service’s cost estimate as appropriate, and submitting final Contingencies to address these below is based on costs incurred recommended maps to Congress for four factors are accounted for in and lessons learned during the its consideration and adoption. the estimate to comprehensively course of the pilot project, costs modernize the remainder of the associated with creating draft Costs to Remap the Remainder of CBRS. digital maps in response to recent the CBRS technical correction legislation, Next Steps and assumptions made regarding The Service estimates that it will the anticipated level of effort to cost, on average, $18,000 per unit The Administration supports complete digital mapping for the to create draft digital maps for the CBRA and modernization remainder of the CBRS. the remainder of the CBRS, or up of the entire CBRS using to $17 million to comprehensively digital technology. CBRS map Pilot Project Costs modernize the remainder of the modernization is consistent with CBRS maps. We anticipate this to many Administration goals and The Service spent, on average, be a long-term project in order to initiatives, including the President’s $18,000 per unit to create draft accomplish it with the results we Management Agenda initiative of digital maps for the pilot project, seek. The Service will apply the expanded electronic government totaling approximately $1.1 million lessons learned during the course and the U.S. Ocean Action Plan for all pilot project maps. The of the pilot project and anticipates initiative to coordinate ocean pilot project costs incurred to-date economies of scale will be realized and coastal mapping activities. include: in remapping the remainder of the Moving forward with CBRS map CBRS (consisting of approximately modernization, the Service will seek (1) Procuring the necessary data 800 CBRS areas). Although the to continue coordination with our such as aerial imagery to Service will employ the same Federal partners in order to reduce serve as the new base map, general methodology as used in duplicative efforts. The Service geomorphic data, development the pilot project, there are a few has identified three general steps data, and conservation and unknown factors that will affect the necessary to finalize the pilot project recreation area boundary data. costs associated with remapping the maps and complete digital mapping (2) Digitizing the existing remainder of the CBRS, including: for the remainder of the CBRS. The boundaries and establishing following steps are consistent with horizontal control of the existing (1) The amount of new high quality directives contained in the CBRRA CBRS maps. aerial imagery that may need to of 2005: (3) Assessing all existing boundaries be procured. The Service will, to determine the intent of the when necessary and practicable, (1) Public Review of Pilot boundaries with respect to procure new aerial imagery in Project Maps: The CBRRA of geomorphic, development, and cases where imagery available 2005 directs the Secretary to cultural features. within the public domain is not provide an opportunity for the (4) Compiling and validating recent enough or high enough submission of public comments conservation and recreation area quality for CBRS mapping. on the draft pilot project boundaries with appropriate (2) The field validation that may maps, and to consider those stakeholders. need to be conducted on the comments before presenting (5) Adjusting the existing ground. The Service will, when final recommended digital maps boundaries to create proposed necessary and practicable, to Congress. The CBRA’s boundaries using objective conduct field validation to help prohibitions have ramifications criteria and mapping protocols. determine development status on private property owners, (6) Calculating the acreage and on the ground and to validate the and affect decisions on where shoreline associated with placement of boundaries where and how they develop. Public the existing and proposed aerial imagery does not provide review was conducted prior to boundaries. a sufficient level of detail. Congressional enactment of the (7) Creating background records (3) The number of public CBRS maps in 1982 and 1990. to document the placement comments that may require The Service anticipates there of the existing and proposed additional research and will be significant public interest boundaries. boundary adjustments before associated with the draft maps 34 Chapter 6: Costs, Nest Steps, and Conclusions

presented in this report. If digital maps for the entire CBRS address the challenges associated resources are made available, using the lessons learned and with the existing set of maps. We the Service will conduct a protocols developed during have determined the data needs public review of the draft maps the course of the pilot project, and availability for this effort. Most presented in this report, as conduct a public review of those importantly, we have previewed the directed by P.L. 109-226. maps, and present Congress with enormous leap in efficiency and data- final recommended maps for its sharing capabilities that digital maps (2) Submit Final Recommended consideration and adoption. will bring to the CBRA program. Pilot Project Maps to Modernized, digital maps will Congress: The CBRRA of Conclusions allow the Service to respond more 2005 directs the Secretary, quickly to requests for CBRA after considering any public Four major hurricanes, Dennis, property determinations and comments received, to submit Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, made consistency consultations. The final recommended pilot landfall in the United States in 2005. Service’s partners and customers project maps to Congress and The NFIP is expected to pay at least who sometimes wait several months provide recommendations for $23 billion in Federal flood insurance for a determination of whether their the adoption of the maps by claims related to the 2005 hurricane property or proposed project is Congress. If resources are season.1 Hurricane Katrina alone within the CBRS will, in most cases, made available, the Service will caused over $80 billion in damages. be able to determine within minutes submit a second report to the It was also the deadliest hurricane whether their property or project is Senate Environment and Public season since 1928, claiming more within the CBRS. Property owners Works Committee and House than 1,300 lives. Data on sea surface whose property has erroneously Natural Resources Committee, temperatures indicates that we been included in the CBRS due as directed by P.L. 109-226, that should expect active hurricane to the antiquated cartographic includes: (1) a description of the seasons with a higher frequency and techniques of the past will be extent to which the boundary intensity of hurricanes for the next granted relief. Modernized CBRS lines on the digital maps differ two to three decades.2 With the maps will allow for more efficient from the boundary lines on the possible increase in the number and CBRA consultations following original maps; (2) a summary intensity of hurricanes, scientists, a hurricane, allowing disaster of the comments received from elected officials, planning officials, assistance to reach the appropriate the Governors of the States, and citizens are questioning why and people faster. The increased ability other government officials, and how development occurs in hazard- to distribute CBRS information the public regarding the digital prone areas along our Nation’s will make it easy to identify areas maps; (3) recommendations coasts. where CBRS areas overlap with for the adoption of the digital other conservation efforts, and maps by Congress; (4) Over the past two decades, the where existing conservation efforts recommendations for expansion CBRA has helped to keep people can be expanded to take advantage of the CBRS; (5) a summary and out of harm’s way, protect important of the CBRA’s prohibitions. The update on the implementation coastal habitat, and save taxpayers’ Service will also be able to integrate and use of the digital maps money. Development can still occur CBRS boundaries with Federal, created under the pilot project; provided that private developers or State, and local GIS for planning and and (6) a description of the other non-Federal parties bear the informational purposes. Increased feasibility of, and the amount of full cost. In this sense, the law has public awareness of the CBRA will funding necessary for making been successful, but the Service’s help reduce the number of property all of the CBRS maps available effectiveness in implementing the owners who are unaware of the to the public in digital format, law is limited by the outdated maps CBRA’s prohibitions when making and facilitating the integration used to administer the program. investment decisions. Above all, of digital CBRS boundaries modernization of the CBRS maps into Federal, State, and local Lessons learned from years of will preserve the long-term integrity planning tools. CBRA administration and the of the CBRS and greatly improve successful completion of the pilot the efficiency and effectiveness of (3) Create Digital Maps for the project have given the Service the program, allowing the CBRA to Remainder of the CBRS: The valuable insight into the limitations accomplish even more in its goals CBRRA of 2005 directs the of the existing CBRS maps and to keep people out of harm’s way, Secretary to complete digital the need for map modernization. save taxpayer dollars, and conserve maps for the entire CBRS. If We have developed a process and natural resources. resources are made available, protocols to remap the entire CBRS the Service will complete draft with a one time investment that will

1 King, Rawle O. National Flood Insurance Program: Treasury Borrowing in the Aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress. June 6, 2006.

2 Webster, P.J., G. J. Holland, J.A. Curry, H.-R.Chang. “Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment,” Science, Vol. 309, No. 5742, September 2005.

35 Digital Mapping Pilot Project APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

Accretion: An accumulation of sediments along a shoreline.

Associated aquatic habitat: Aquatic habitat associated with coastal barriers, including the adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters.

Bathymetry: The underwater equivalent to topography.

Barrier islands: Coastal barriers completely detached from the mainland. Barrier spits may become barrier islands if their connection to the mainland is severed by creation of a permanent inlet. The barrier island represents a broadened barrier beach, commonly sufficiently above high tide to have dunes, vegetated zones, and wetland areas.

Barrier spits: Coastal barriers that extend into open water and are attached to the mainland at only one end. They can develop into bay barriers if they grow completely across a bay or other aquatic habitat. Alternatively, bay barriers can become spits if an inlet is created.

Bay barriers: Coastal barriers that connect two headlands, and enclose a pond, marsh, or other aquatic habitat. The terms bay mount bar or bay bar are considered to be synonymous.

Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 (CBRA, P.L. 97-348): This law established the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System, in which most Federal funding that supports development is prohibited. The three purposes of this law are to limit the loss of human life, conserve natural resources associated with coastal barriers, and save taxpayers’ dollars.

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-591): This law reauthorized the CBRA through fiscal year 1993, made modifications to existing units, added a new type of unit called “otherwise protected areas,” and expanded the CBRS to include areas along the Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico.

Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-514): This law reauthorized the CBRA through fiscal year 2005, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a digital mapping pilot project, and report to Congress, and submit to Congress an economic assessment of the CBRS. It also codified the criteria for assessing the development status of a coastal barrier.

Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2005: (P.L. 109-226): This law reauthorized the CBRA through fiscal year 2010, and directed the Secretary of the Interior to (1) finalize the draft digital maps presented in this report by conducting a public review of the draft maps and presenting a report and the final recommended maps to Congress, and (2) to modernize the remainder of the CBRS maps using digital technology.

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System: A system, established by the CBRA of 1982, that consists of the undeveloped coastal barriers and other areas located on the coasts of the United States that are identified and generally depicted on the maps on file with the Secretary of the Interior entitled “John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System.” The CBRS was renamed the “John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System” by P.L. 106- 167 in 1999 to honor the late Senator Chafee. CBRA has been amended several times to replace certain maps with new maps with modified boundaries.

Color Infrared (CIR): Images obtained by satellites and high-altitude aircraft that give engineers and scientists a tool to study landforms, vegetation health patterns, environmental pollution, and other effects of human activities on the planet’s surface. Healthy, growing vegetation appears red on color infrared film. Unhealthy or dormant vegetation may appear light red or a light shade of blue-green (cyan).

Digital orthophoto quarter quadrangle (DOQQ): An aerial photo able to differentiate items on the Earth’s surface that are as small as one meter in length. The 3.75-minute DOQQ covers one-fourth the area of a 7.5-minute USGS topographic quadrangle map DOQ and is based on the same geographic grid (Universal Transverse Mercator Projection on the North American Datum of 1983).

Digital raster graphic (DRG): A scanned image of a USGS topographic map. The map is geographically referenced to the surface of the Earth.

Fastland: The portion of a coastal barrier between the mean high tide line on the ocean side, and the upper limit of tidal vegetation (or, if such vegetation is not present, the mean high tide line) at the rear of the coastal barrier. For purposes of this pilot project, fastland was calculated by interpretation of infrared aerial imagery along with National Wetlands Inventory data. The Natural Resources Conservation Service’s soil data was also used as a 36A-1 Appendix A: Glossary resource to indicate the locations of hydric soils.

5-year review: The CBRA directs the Secretary to conduct, at least once every 5 years, a review of the CBRS maps and make minor and technical modifications to the boundaries of System units as are necessary solely to reflect changes that have occurred in the size or location of any System units as a result of natural forces.

Flood insurance rate maps (FIRM)s: Maps prepared by FEMA that identify floodplain areas, the spatial extent of Special Flood Hazard Areas and other thematic features related to flood risk assessment. The FIRM is the basis for floodplain management, mitigation, and insurance activities of the National Flood Insurance Program.

Geographic Information System (GIS): An organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display all forms of geographically referenced information.

Geomorphic: Of or resembling the Earth or its shape or surface configuration.

Horizontal control: Achieved when all points on a map have a geographic reference relative to one of the standard horizontal geographic grids. The most common horizontal grid is latitude - longitude, but other comparable grids are Universal Transverse Mercator and State Plane.

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

Inholding: Developed or undeveloped private tracts of land that are not held for conservation or recreation purposes by their owners, and are contained within the exterior boundaries of the areas held primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreation, or natural resource conservation purposes.

Metadata: “Data about data.” It describes the content, quality, condition, and other characteristics of data. Metadata are used to organize and maintain investments in data, to provide information to data catalogs and clearinghouses, and to aid data transfers.

Orthorectification: The process of adjusting an aerial photograph to ensure the proper perspective of features in the image relative to their true position on the Earth’s surface.

Otherwise protected area (OPA): An undeveloped coastal barrier within the boundaries of an area established under Federal, State, or local law, or held by a qualified organization, primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource conservation purposes.

Planimetric: Indicating only the horizontal positions of features, without regard to elevation, in contrast with a topographic map, which indicates both horizontal and vertical positions.

Prograding: The migration of a shoreline.

Spoil island: An island created using dredged sediments.

System unit: Any undeveloped coastal barrier, or combination of closely-related undeveloped coastal barriers, included within the CBRS established by section 4 of the CBRA.

Tombolos: Coastal barriers that are sand or gravel beaches and connect one or more offshore islands to each other or to the mainland. Coastal barriers of this type occur principally in New York and New England. The terms connecting bar, tie bar, and tying bar are synonymous.

Universal Transverse Mercator: A grid-based method of specifying locations on the surface of the Earth that differs from the traditional method of latitude and longitude in several respects.

USGS topographic quadrangle (quad): A four sided map produced by the U.S. Geologic Survey that is bounded by parallels of latitude and meridians of longitude and displays elevation contours, physical features, and cultural features.

A-237 Digital Mapping Pilot Project APPENDIX B: CBRS DATA NEEDS AND AVAILABILITY Disadvantages Quality of DRGs produced by private vendors may vary. Some areas have not been updated in 8 to 10 years. Not available for all CBRS areas. and availability of Accuracy data varies among State and local sources. This data is often very expensive to procure. Advantages USGS quadrangles were used as the existing CBRS base maps. Because DRGs are also based on USGS quadrangles, they are the best available tool to establish horizontal control of the digital CBRS boundaries. Images are cloud-free, high resolution, orthorectified, and meet strict USGS National Mapping Program standards. NOAA coordinates the creation of any new imagery, including the subsequent processing and quality control. State and local data layers (i.e. parcel data) are often adjusted to fit with respective State and local aerial imagery. Allows flexibility of the location, time, and resolution of the imagery. No No No Necessary B-1 Cooperative Agreement Not generally needed. Some State and local governments require a data licensing agreement before distributing their data to prohibit commercial use of the data. Contractual agreement needed. Data Availability DRGs are scanned, georeferenced USGS topographic quadrangle series maps. They are available from several different sources and cover the entire U.S. The USGS charges for this data but DRGs can usually be acquired from other sources at no charge. NDOP is a partnership agencies between Federal and State, local, private organizations to provide nationwide coverage of orthophotos. Raw images are taken from a variety of sources including the National Agriculture Imagery Program and Photography National Aerial Program programs, and are processed to produce DOQQs NOAA has a variety of imagery sources available. It is also possible to contract with NOAA to have aerial photography flown and processed. Many State and local governments offer imagery on their websites or upon request. The type and quality of the imagery varies among sources. Private vendors sell high- resolution aerial imagery for areas within the U.S. NOAA vendors Data Source www.ndop.gov Private vendors Program (NDOP) www.ngs.noaa.gov USGS, State and local governments, and private National Digital Orthophoto State and local governments (DRG) Data Type Aerial Photography Digital Raster Graphic Table 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability Table 38 Appendix B: Coastal Barrier Resources System Data Needs and Availability Disadvantages Most NWI maps were produced using photography from the 1980’s. Less than 5% of the Nation is mapped with aerial photography flown after 1990. Hydric soils data is not updated frequently. and availability of Accuracy data varies among States. and availability Accuracy of data vary among local governments. and availability Accuracy of data vary among local governments. Difficult to obtain documentation of a full complement of infrastructure. Advantages Wetlands data are available at Wetlands no cost for all CBRS areas. Hydric soils data are available at no cost for most CBRS areas. Mangrove and hydric soils data are sometimes available. Allows the overlay of property boundaries onto aerial imagery used to map CBRS boundaries. Also provides property ownership information. Helps indicate whether certain areas were developed at the time a CBRS area was designated. Helps indicate whether certain areas were developed at the time a CBRS area was designated. No No No Necessary Not generally needed. Not generally needed. Cooperative Agreement Not generally needed. Many local governments require a data licensing agreement before distributing their data to prohibit commercial use of the data. Data Availability B-2 NWI data provides information on the characteristics, extent, and status of the Nation’s wetlands and deepwater habitats and other wildlife habitats. data is available for Wetlands download on the Service’s NWI website. Hydric soils data are available for download at the Natural Resources USDA Conservation Service Spatial Data Gateway. Many States have GIS websites, often affiliated with State universities, that sometimes offer State-specific geomorphic data. Some local governments allow digital property parcel data to be downloaded off their websites. Others provide the data upon request at no cost, or for a fee that may be waived for the Service. However, many counties do not have digital property parcel data available. Date of construction data is sometimes available from the local property or GIS tax assessor, appraiser, department. This type of data is often located within the digital property parcel data metadata. If not, online tax data may be procured from the local government. Some local governments charge a fee for this data or don’t provide service at all. Infrastructure data can be difficult to obtain and is not available in all areas. USDA stakeholders Data Source www.fws.gov/nwi Fish and Wildlife Fish Inventory (NWI) utilities, and other www.nrcs.usda.gov State GIS websites Local governments Local governments Service’s National Wetlands Service’s National Wetlands State and local governments, Soils Data Wetlands Data Wetlands Infrastructure Data Other Geomorphic Data Date of Construction Data Digital Property Parcel Data Digital Property Parcel Data Type Geomorphic Data Development Data Table 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability (continued) 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability Table 39 Appendix B: Coastal Barrier Resources System Data Needs and Availability Disadvantages Not available for all refuges. Most of these areas are located offshore. Not available for all states. and availability Accuracy of data vary among local governments. Not available for all CBRS areas. Advantages Identifies refuge boundaries. Identifies conservation and recreation area boundaries. Identifies conservation and recreation area boundaries. Allows the overlay of property boundaries onto aerial imagery used to map CBRS boundaries. Also provides property ownership information. Identifies conservation and recreation area boundaries, including those that are privately owned. No No No Necessary Not generally needed. Cooperative Agreement Not generally needed. Many local governments require a data licensing agreement before distributing their data to prohibit commercial use of the data. B-3 is available. Data Availability Service managed areas, National Marine Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Boundary data for national national estuarine research national marine sanctuaries, reserves, and some State parks wildlife refuges, national parks, The Service has survey data for national wildlife refuges. Most States keep digital records, or have GIS websites, that depict the boundaries of State-owned or protected lands. Some local governments allow digital property parcel data to be downloaded off their websites. Others provide the data upon request at no cost, or for a fee that may be waived many for the Service. However, local governments do not have digital property parcel data available. Local governments often provide survey data for county-managed parks or other protected lands. Boundary data for conservation and recreation areas are available from some university websites, or upon request from those collecting and maintaining the data. website Universities www.mpa.gov Data Source State governments Local governments Fish and Wildlife Service and Wildlife Fish NOAA Marine Protected Areas Data Type Area Boundary Data Conservation/Recreation Table 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability (continued) 4. CBRS Data Needs and Availability Table 40 Digital Mapping Pilot Project APPENDIX C: SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL CHANGES TO THE CBRS Additional Comments CBRA established the CBRS CBRA as referred to and adopted by Congress, and prohibits the expenditure of most new Federal financial assistance within the units of the CBRS. This unit was modified administratively as part of the Service’s 5-year review to account for geomorphic change. The authority to make this change is provided under Section 4(c)(3) of CBRA. to modify CBIA amended CBRA existing units and expand the CBRS. modified 102-440 P.L. of 303 Section NC-01P to only include lands Society and owned by the Audubon the unit was redesigned as NC-01. Changes made under Section 4(e) 101-591 went into effect. of P.L. This section was established to allow for minor and technical subsequent boundarymodifications to the passage of CBIA. Several of the units were revised for reasons other than boundary modifications, such as change in map symbology. 47 FR 52388 54 FR 19248 56 FR 26304 58 FR 60288 58 FR 60288 60 FR 10268 62 FR 19125 62 FR 19125 Federal Register Notice Federal C-1 Public Law Public P.L. 102-440 P.L. 103-461 P.L. 104-148 P.L. 104-265 P.L. (P.L. 97-348) (P.L. P.L. 101-591 Sec. 4(e) P.L. of 1990 (P.L. 101-591) of 1990 (P.L. P.L. 97-348 Sec. 4(c)(3) P.L. Coastal Barrier Resources Act Coastal Barrier Improvement Act Affected Unit(s) 185 units were designated. See Register for full list of Federal affected units. K03 Almost all units created in 1982 were expanded. New CBRS units were designated along and OPAs and Gulf the Great Lakes, Atlantic, coasts, as well in the Florida Puerto Rico and the U.S. Keys, Islands. Virgin VA-60, NC-01 (NC-01P), NC-05P, VA-60P 114 units were modified. See Register for full list of Federal affected units. P11A, FL- FL-05P, VA-62P, NY-75, P19P, P17, P17A, P18P, 15, FL-36P, AL-01P, FL-95P, P31P, FL-72P, MI-21 NY-59P SC-01 Date 5/4/1989 11/2/1994 5/24/1996 10/9/1996 10/18/1982 11/16/1990 10/23/1992 11/15/1993 Table 5. Summary of Historical Changes to the CBRS. Table This table summarizes the legislative and administrative changes that have been made to CBRS from 1982 2006. C1 Appendix C: Summary of Historical Changes to the CBRS Additional Comments Changes made by P.L. 104-333 Changes made by P.L. were later invalidated by the U.S. District Court of DC. Federal These units were modified administratively as part of the Service’s 5-year review to account for geomorphic change. The authority to make these changes is provided under Section 4(c)(3) of CBRA. 104-333 Changes made by P.L. were invalidated by the U.S. District Court of DC. Federal 105-277 reinstated changes P.L. 104-333 and revised made by P.L. and SC-03. units FL-35, FL-35P, 62 FR 8258 64 FR 41940 65 FR 17671 65 FR 17671 66 FR 10735 66 FR 10734 68 FR 38087 72 FR 54278 72 FR 54278 72 FR 54278 72 FR 54278 72 FR 54278 Federal Register Notice Federal C-2 P.L. 108-7 P.L. Public Law Public P.L. 104-333 P.L. 105-277 P.L. 106-116 P.L. 106-128 P.L. 106-332 P.L. 106-360 P.L. 108-138 P.L. 108-339 P.L. 108-380 P.L. 109-354 P.L. 109-355 P.L. Affected Unit(s) P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25, P32, P32P ME-17, ME-18, MA-03, C01B, MA-24, C28, C31, D02B, MA-20P, F10, NJ-09, MD- NY-50, NY-04P, VA-23, MD-38, VA-09, 03, MD-37P, L07, L09, P16, P17, FL-89, VA-36, FL-99, FL-101, Q01A, VI-07 P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, P25, P32, P32P P05, P05A, P10, P11, P11A, P18, FL-35, FL-35P, P25, P32, P32P, SC-03, M09 L03, NC-03P DE-03P NC-01 P19, P19P VA-60P T07, T07P NC-07P P25 GA-06P FL-96 FL-95P, Date 3/5/1998 2/24/1997 12/6/1999 2/20/2003 12/1/2003 11/12/1996 10/21/1998 11/29/1999 10/19/2000 10/27/2000 10/18/2004 10/30/2004 10/16/2006 10/16/2006 Table 5. Summary of Historical Changes to the CBRS. (continued) Table C2 Digital Mapping Pilot Project APPENDIX D: PILOT PROJECT UNIT SUMMARIES AND MAPS

This appendix contains the maps • Underlying Conservation/ The existing and proposed CBRS of the 70 pilot project units as well Recreation Area(s) in OPA: boundaries are delineated on the as a summary of the proposed Lists all underlying conservation maps in this Appendix as follows: changes for each of the units. The area(s) within the OPA (for OPAs pilot project maps depict a total of only). • Existing Boundary: The 70 John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier • System Unit Criteria: Describes existing boundary is shown as Resources System (CBRS) areas, how the area proposed for a solid orange line for System which include 60 existing CBRS reclassification or addition meets units and a dashed orange line areas, eight units that are proposed the Coastal Barrier Resources for OPAs. This boundary was for reclassification from System Act (CBRA) System unit criteria. digitized from the existing unit to otherwise protected area • Otherwise Protected Area CBRS paper map, horizontally- (OPA) status or vice-versa, and two Criteria: Describes how the controlled, and superimposed on proposed new OPA units comprised area proposed for reclassification aerial photography used as the entirely of areas currently not within or addition meets the CBRA new digital base map. the CBRS. otherwise protected area • Proposed Boundary: The criteria. proposed boundary is shown Unit Summaries • Existing Boundary Description: as a solid green line for System Describes the existing CBRS units and a dashed green line The unit summaries in this appendix boundary location with respect for OPAs. This boundary describe the proposed changes to the to the existing and new CBRS represents the Service’s unit boundaries and the associated base map. recommendation for the acreage and shoreline mile changes. • Proposed Changes to Boundary: boundary placement based on The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Describes the proposed changes the CBRA criteria and objective (Service) documented the proposed to the existing CBRS boundary. CBRS mapping protocols. boundary adjustments in a detailed • Proposed Boundaries: Describes Areas proposed for addition, background record created for each the boundaries of the proposed deletion, or reclassification pilot project unit. The records are new CBRS area. from a System unit to an OPA available for review at the Service’s • Additional Comments: Provides or vice versa, are identified and headquarters upon request. any additional information about annotated on the draft maps. the CBRS area and the proposed The summaries in this appendix boundary adjustments. Where System unit (solid) and OPA contain the following information for • Acreage, Shoreline, and (dashed) boundaries coincide due to each of the pilot project units: Structure Table: Provides the units being contiguous, only the acreage and shoreline mile System unit boundary lines appear • Type of Unit: Indicates whether information and structures on the map. the CBRS area is a System unit affected by the proposed or an OPA. boundaries. Where existing (orange) and • Location of Unit: Describes the proposed (green) boundaries general location of the CBRS Draft Maps coincide, only the existing boundary area with respect to nearby lines appear on the map. cities. A small locator map The draft maps contained in this also illustrates the general unit Appendix are reduced versions of location. the proposed pilot project maps. • Congressional District: Provides Because the maps presented in the Congressional District this report are reduced in size number(s) that the CBRS area is by approximately 70 percent, the located within. legibility of the maps is significantly • Establishment of Unit: Provides reduced. On several maps in the public law number and date this Appendix, the CBRS area is on which the CBRS area was enlarged to enable readers to see the first established. CBRS boundaries that are visible • Current CBRS Status: Indicates on the full size maps. These draft whether any part of a new maps are available for download CBRS area is currently within at the Service’s website: http:// an existing CBRS area (for www.fws.gov/habitatconservation/ proposed new units only). coastal_barrier.html. Full size (25” x • Historical Changes to Unit: 32”) versions of these maps may be Provides a history of changes (if viewed by the public, upon request, any) to the CBRS area. in the Service’s headquarters office. D-1D1 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

Unit County/Parish Page Number Unit County/Parish Page Number Unit Summary Draft Map(s) Unit Summary Draft Map(s) Delaware Florida (cont’d) DE-07 Sussex D3 D6 FL-20P Broward D59 D61 DE-07P Sussex D4 D6 P14A Broward D60 D61 H01 Sussex D5 D6 FL-39 Monroe D62 D64 North Carolina FL-40 Monroe D63 D64 Currituck, NC-01 Dare D7 D8 FL-43 Monroe D65 D68 NC-05P Carteret D9 D10 FL-44 Monroe D66 D68 NC-06 Onslow D11 D15, D16 FL-45 Monroe D67 D68 Onslow, NC-06P Carteret D12 D15, D16 FL-46 Monroe D69 D70 L05 Onslow D13 D16 FL-64P Collier D71 D72 L06 Onslow D14 D17, D18 P17A Lee D73 D77 Pender, New L07 Hanover D19 D20 FL-67 Lee D74, D75 D77 L08 New Hanover D21 D23 FL-67P Lee D76 D77 L09 New Hanover D22 D23,D24 P21 Charlotte D78, D79 D81 South Carolina P21P Charlotte D80 D81 M02 Georgetown D25 D27 P22 Sarasota D82 D83 M03 Georgetown D26 D27 FL-72P Sarasota D84 D85 Florida FL-73P Manatee D86 D90 FL-01 Nassau D28 D30 FL-78 Manatee D87 D90 FL-01P Nassau D29 D30 FL-78P Manatee D88 D90 P04A St. Johns D31 D34 FL-82 Manatee D89 D90 P05 St. Johns D32 D34 FL-80P Manatee D91 D94 P05P St. Johns D33 D34 FL-81 Hillsborough D92 D94 P08 Volusia D35 D37 FL-81P Hillsborough D93 D94 P08P Volusia D36 D37 FL-83 Hillsborough D95 D96 FL-13P Brevard D38 D41 FL-85P Pinellas D97 D98 P09A Brevard D39 D41 P26 Dixie D99 D100 P09AP Brevard D40 D41 FL-89 Franklin D101 D102 Indian River, P10A St. Lucie D42 D47, D48 FL-93 Bay D103 D105 FL-14P St. Lucie D43 D47, D48 FL-93P Bay D104 D105 P11 St. Lucie D44, D45 D48, D49 FL-94 Walton D106 D107 P11P St. Lucie D46 D48 Louisiana Martin, LA-01 St. Bernard D108 D109 FL-15 Palm Beach D50 D53 LA-02 St. Bernard D110 D111 FL-16P Palm Beach D51 D53 S04 Lafourche D112 D114, D115 FL-17P Palm Beach D52 D53 Terrebonne, S05 Lafourche D113 D115 - D117 FL-18P Palm Beach D54 D55 S06 Terrebonne D118 D119 - D121 FL-19 Broward D56 D58 Terrebonne, S07 St. Mary D122 D123 - D126 FL-19P Broward D57 D58

D2D-2 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier from the CBRS a row of properties Resources System Unit DE-07, where development predates the Delaware Seashore, Delaware OPA designation. The boundary DE-07 follows this line out into Rehoboth Type of Unit: Proposed new System Bay and turns south to mirror the unit current western boundary of Unit Location of Unit: South of Rehoboth DE-07P. It is slightly adjusted to Beach, in Sussex County include the entire channel between Congressional District: At Large Long Neck and several small private Current CBRS Status: Part of the islands in the bay, and then continues established within the OPA. Several proposed new System unit DE-07 is south along the existing OPA areas proposed for reclassification within existing otherwise protected boundary to Cedar Neck, where it is from OPA to System unit status area (OPA) Unit DE-07P. The adjusted to follow the shoreline more were undeveloped in 1990, according remainder of the proposed new unit precisely. South of the developed to the CBRA criteria, but are is currently not within the John H. area, the proposed boundary developed now, including: the Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources includes private undeveloped residential lots immediately north System (CBRS). wetlands adjacent to the Fresh Pond of the State park; South Shores System Unit Criteria: Areas of area of Delaware Seashore State Subdivision (a trailer park in 1990); proposed new Unit DE-07 that are Park, and the entirety of Beach Zacharias Cove Subdivision (a trailer currently within Unit DE-07P met Cove. The eastern boundary follows park in 1990); and Wharton’s Cove the Coastal Barrier Resources Act the landward shoreline of the barrier Subdivision (CBRA) definition and criteria of spit, turning inland onto the spit to an undeveloped coastal barrier at include a small tract of developed A U.S. Coast Guard Station is the time they were first included private property south of the State included in the proposed new within the CBRS in 1990. Areas park which was undeveloped in 1990, System unit. Section 6(a)(5) of the of proposed new Unit DE-07 that and is currently within Unit DE-07P. Coastal Barrier Improvement Act are currently not within the CBRS The remainder of the proposed new of 1990 states an exception to the currently meet the CBRA definition System unit boundary is coincident prohibitions on Federal funding and criteria of an undeveloped with the proposed Unit DE-07P for “the construction, operation, coastal barrier. The U.S. Fish and boundary, with the exception that it maintenance, and rehabilitation of Wildlife Service is not aware of the is open to the ocean at the inlet. Coast Guard facilities and access existence of a full complement of Additional Comments: The portions thereto.” infrastructure in this area at the of proposed new Unit DE-07 time the area was first included currently within Unit DE-07P are within the CBRS. proposed for reclassification because Proposed Boundaries: The northern they are not held for conservation boundary of the proposed new unit or recreation, are not inholdings, crosses the barrier spit north of and met the CBRA definition of and the Delaware Seashore State Park criteria for an undeveloped coastal boundary and is adjusted to exclude barrier at the time they were

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres 2 Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added to the 197.1 0.0 197.1 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 5,183.1 100.0 5,083.1 0.2 Proposed Unit 5,380.2 100.0 5,280.2 0.5 Net Change 5,380.2 100.0 5,280.2 0.5 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-3D3 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier of Indian River Inlet and crosses Resources System Unit DE-07P, Beach Cove north of the Cotton Delaware Seashore, Delaware Patch Hills subdivision. There is an DE-07P excluded area around a cluster of Type of Unit: Otherwise protected development on the Atlantic coast area (OPA) south of the inlet. Location of Unit: Between Rehoboth Proposed Changes to Boundary: Beach and Bethany Beach, in Sussex The boundaries of Unit DE-07P County are aligned to the boundaries of Congressional District: At Large Delaware Seashore State Park, remove privately owned property Establishment of Unit: Coastal including an expansion in the south that is not within the boundaries of Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- to include the recent park acquisition the State park and was developed at 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 of Fresh Pond. the time it was included within Unit Historical Changes to Unit: There Additional Comments: There DE-07P. have been no changes to the are no known private inholdings boundaries of Unit DE-07P since its within the proposed boundaries designation in 1990. of Unit DE-07P. Currently, the Underlying Conservation/Recreation OPA includes a large area of open Area(s) in OPA: Delaware Seashore water and privately held lands and State Park (established 1965), is associated aquatic habitat that are owned by the Delaware Department outside the Delaware Seashore State of Natural Resources and Park boundary and not held for Environmental Control. conservation or recreation purposes. Existing Boundary Description: The The area is not an inholding and northern boundary of Unit DE-07P met Coastal Barrier Resources crosses the barrier spit through Act definition of and criteria for private property north of Delaware an undeveloped coastal barrier at Seashore State Park. The western the time it was established within boundary lies in the open water in the OPA. Therefore this area is the bay behind the barrier. The proposed for reclassification from southern boundary follows the OPA Unit DE-07P to new Unit DE- eastern shore of a peninsula south 07. The proposed boundaries

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 7,360.3 894.5 6,465.8 6.8 Added to the 703.4 400.4 303.0 0 CBRS Removed from the 54.4 20.1 34.3 41 CBRS Reclassified Area (5,183.1) (100.0) (5,083.1) (0.2) Proposed Unit 2,826.2 1,174.8 1,651.4 6.3 Net Change (4,534.1) 280.3 (4,814.4) (0.5) (41)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 2002 aerial photography, and 2005 Sussex County property parcel information D4D-4 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Proposed Changes to Boundary: Resources System Unit H01, The northern boundary of Unit H01 North Bethany Beach, Delaware is adjusted to digital property parcel H01 data to follow the southern boundary Type of Unit: System unit of the Cotton Patch Hills subdivision, Location of Unit: North of Bethany which is the northern extent of this Beach, in Sussex County unit, and to add an undeveloped Congressional District: At Large area of associated aquatic habitat Establishment of Unit: Coastal on the northwest corner of the unit. Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) The southern boundary is adjusted enacted on 10/18/1982 to digital property parcel data to Historical Changes to Unit: follow the northern boundary of the 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 modified the Bayberry Dunes subdivision, which southwestern boundary of Unit H01 is the southeastern extent of this to remove land that was incorrectly unit. The landward boundary to identified as wetlands in 1982. the north is adjusted to follow the Existing Boundary Description: The boundary of the proposed addition northern boundary of Unit H01 to Unit DE-07P, which coincides with cuts through a developed area. the Delaware Seashore State Park The landward boundary generally boundary. follows the eastern edge of a stream. The southern boundary cuts through an undeveloped piece of land at the northern edge of a developed property, follows the western side of a highway north, and then cuts across more development.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 167.7 150.1 17.6 0.7 Added to the 4.2 0.1 4.1 0 CBRS Removed from the 5.2 4.6 0.6 14 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 166.7 145.6 21.1 0.7 Net Change (1.0) (4.5) 3.5 0.0 (14)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 2002 aerial photography, and 2005 Sussex County property parcel information

D-5D5 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps Draft — FOR INTERNAL REVIEW

Existing System Unit Boundary JOHN H. CHAFEE COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM Proposed System Unit Boundary This draft map was produced by the U.S. Fish Existing Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; and Wildlife Service to show proposed boundary OPAs are identified on the map by the letter "P" following the unit number changes to the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier (Map 1 of 1) DELAWARE SEASHORE UNIT DE-07/DE-07P Proposed Otherwise Protected Area (OPA) Boundary; Resources System that resulted from the Digital OPAs are identified on the map by the letter "P" Mapping Pilot Project authorized by the Coastal NORTH BETHANY BEACH UNIT H01 (Map 1 of 1) following the unit number Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2000 Geographic coordinates referenced to the North American (Public Law 106-514). 90°45'0" Scale 1:24,000 Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), Western Hemisphere 0 1/2 1 2 Miles 32 000m 2000-meter Universal Transverse Mercator 24 N grid values, zone 18 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000Feet

0 0.5 1 2 Kilometers Date(s) of Aerial Photography: 2002 ´ Draft - June 12, 2006

D-8 This draft map is available for download at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website: http://www.fws.gov/ habitatconservation/coastal_barrier.html.

D6D-6 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier 10/19/2000: P.L. 106-332 further Resources System Unit NC-01, modified Unit NC-01 to align the NC-01 Pine Island Bay, North Carolina boundaries with the Audubon Society’s Pine Island Type of Unit: System unit Sanctuary property boundary and to Location of Unit: North of Duck, in add associated aquatic Currituck and Dare Counties habitat. Congressional District: 3 Existing Boundary Description: On Establishment of Unit: Coastal the western side of the unit, the Unit Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- NC-01 boundary falls in open water 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 (under around the islands in Currituck this Act the unit was established as Sound; on the eastern side, the otherwise protected area (OPA) Unit boundary generally follows the NC-01P) boundaries of Pine Island Sanctuary. Historical Changes to Unit: Proposed Changes to Boundary: The 10/23/1992: P.L. 102-440 modified northern boundary of Unit NC-01 the boundaries of Unit NC-01P to and the boundaries of the two include only lands owned by the excluded areas are adjusted to align Audubon Society and reclassified with more recent digital property this unit from Unit NC-01P to Unit parcel data to follow more precisely NC-01. the boundaries of the Pine Island Sanctuary.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 7,174.4 432.9 6,741.5 0.4 Added to the 21.7 18.9 2.8 0 CBRS Removed from the 7.4 7.2 0.2 1 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 7,188.7 444.6 6,744.1 0.4 Net Change 14.3 11.7 2.6 0.0 (1)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 1999 aerial photography, and 2005 Currituck County property parcel

D-7D7 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D8D-8 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier generally follow the boundaries of Resources System Unit NC-05P, Theodore Roosevelt Natural Area. Roosevelt Natural Area, North Proposed Changes to Boundary: Carolina The northern boundary of Unit NC-05P is modified to follow the Type of Unit: Otherwise protected center of the channel in Bogue area Sound. The eastern, western, and NC-05P Location of Unit: West of Atlantic southern boundaries are aligned Beach, in Carteret County with the boundaries of the Theodore Congressional District: 3 Roosevelt Natural Area. Establishment of Unit: Coastal Additional Comments: There Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- are no known private inholdings 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 within Unit NC-05P. The proposed Historical Changes to Unit: boundaries remove privately 10/23/1992: P.L. 102-440 modified owned property that is not within Unit NC-05P to include only the boundaries of the Theodore lands owned by the State of North Roosevelt Natural Area or the Carolina. North Carolina Aquarium at Pine Underlying Conservation/Recreation Knoll Shores. Area(s) in OPA: Theodore Roosevelt Natural Area (established 1971) and North Carolina Aquarium at Pine Knoll Shores (established 1976), both owned by the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation. Existing Boundary Description: The boundaries of Unit NC-05P Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 297.2 173.0 124.2 0.0 Added to the 650.3 13.7 636.6 0 CBRS Removed from the 1.9 1.3 0.6 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 945.6 185.4 760.2 0.0 Net Change 648.4 12.4 636.0 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2004 Carteret County property parcel information

D-9D9 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D10D-10 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier infrastructure in this area at the Resources System Unit NC-06, time the area was first included Hammocks Beach, North Carolina within the CBRS. Proposed Boundaries: The eastern Type of Unit: Proposed new System boundary of the proposed new unit unit follows the eastern edge of Bogue Location of Unit: East of Inlet, the Bogue Sound shoreline of NC-06 Jacksonville, in Onslow County the barrier island, Congressional District: 3 and the western edge of the State Current CBRS Status: Part of the Highway 68 bridge which crosses exclude Hammocks Beach State proposed new System Unit NC-06 is the wetlands between the barrier Park and are coincident with the within existing otherwise protected island and the mainland. The boundaries of Unit NC-06P. area (OPA) Unit NC-06P. The landward boundary follows the Additional Comments: The portions remainder of the proposed new unit shoreline of the mainland, crossing of proposed new Unit NC-06 is currently not within the John H. Oak River and Queen Creek. The currently within Unit NC-06P are Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources western boundary follows the center proposed for reclassification because System (CBRS). of Bear Inlet, coincident with the they are not held for conservation or System Unit Criteria: Areas of eastern proposed boundary of recreation, are not inholdings, and proposed new Unit NC-06 that are adjacent Unit L05. Just north of met the CBRA definition and criteria currently within Unit NC-06P met the western tip of Bear Island, this for an undeveloped coastal barrier the Coastal Barrier Resources Act coincident boundary follows the at the time the area was established (CBRA) definition and criteria of western edge of a marsh, leaving the within the OPA. an undeveloped coastal barrier at dynamic sand spits and a channel the time they were first included separating them from Bear Island within the CBRS in 1990. Areas within adjacent Unit L05. Proposed of proposed new Unit NC-06 that new Unit NC-06 follows the are currently not within the CBRS boundary of Unit NC-06P east along currently meet the CBRA definition the protected landward shoreline and criteria of an undeveloped of Bear Island back to the western coastal barrier. The U.S. Fish and edge of Bogue Inlet, where the Wildlife Service is not aware of the boundary opens to the ocean. existence of a full complement of Interior boundaries are drawn to Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added to the 2,770.2 47.0 2,723.2 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 5,392.3 149.2 5,243.1 0.8 Proposed Unit 8,162.5 196.2 7,966.3 1.7 Net Change 8,162.5 196.2 7,966.3 1.7 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2006 Onslow County property parcel information

D-11D11 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier southern edge of the Intracoastal Resources System Unit NC-06P, Waterway. The western boundary Hammocks Beach, North Carolina follows Sanders Creek, crosses over a sandy spit, and passes through Type of Unit: Otherwise protected Bear Inlet into the Atlantic Ocean. area Proposed Changes to Boundary: Location of Unit: East of The boundaries of Unit NC-06P NC-06P Jacksonville, in Onslow and Carteret are aligned with the boundaries Counties of Hammocks Beach State Park, Congressional District: 3 including an expansion in the north met the Coastal Barrier Resources Establishment of Unit: Coastal to include a new park acquisition Act definition of and criteria for Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- within the OPA. Because the State an undeveloped coastal barrier at 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 park includes Huggins Island, Bear the time it was established within Historical Changes to Unit: Island, and a piece of land located the OPA. Therefore this area is There have been no changes to the behind the marsh, the proposed proposed for reclassification from boundaries of Unit NC-06P since its boundaries create an OPA that OPA Unit NC-06P to new System designation in 1990. is composed of three discrete Unit NC-06. Underlying Conservation/Recreation segments. Area(s) in OPA: Hammocks Beach Additional Comments: There are State Park (established 1961), no known private inholdings within managed by the North Carolina Unit NC-06P. Currently, the OPA Division of Parks and Recreation includes a large area of private lands Existing Boundary Description: The and associated aquatic habitat that eastern boundary of Unit NC-06P are outside of Hammocks Beach roughly follows Bogue Inlet until it State Park and are not held for reaches the Intracoastal Waterway. conservation or recreation purposes. The northern boundary follows the The area is not an inholding and

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 6,725.9 911.2 5,814.7 3.8 Added to the 36.1 33.9 2.2 34 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area (5,440.5) (149.2) (5,291.3) (0.8) Proposed Unit 1,321.5 795.9 525.6 3.3 Net Change (5,404.4) (115.3) (5,289.1) (0.5) 3

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2006 Onslow County property parcel information 4 According to the Hammocks Beach State Park map (found online at http://ils.unc.edu/parkproject/visit/habe/habe.jpg), these park structures include a visitor center and restroom facilities D12D-12 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier development. The landward Resources System Unit L05, boundary generally follows the Onslow Beach Complex, North eastern edge of the Intracoastal Carolina Waterway and Wards Channel. The western boundary originally Type of Unit: System unit followed the center of New River L05 Location of Unit: Southeast of Inlet, but now cuts across a Jacksonville, in Onslow County sandy spit that has accreted into the Congressional District: 3 inlet and through some developing Establishment of Unit: Coastal shoals at the mouth of the inlet. Additional Comments: Unit L05 Barrier Resources Act, or CBRA, Proposed Changes to Boundary: is located entirely within the U.S. (P.L. 97-348) enacted on 10/18/1982 Northern segment: The northern Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, Historical Changes to Unit: boundary is adjusted to be which is identified for realignment There have been no changes to the contiguous with the proposed on the 2005 Base Realignment and boundaries of Unit L05 since its boundaries of Unit NC-06P and Closure list. There is coastal barrier designation in 1982. proposed new Unit NC-06, which land within Camp Lejeune that is Existing Boundary Description: follow the shoreline of Bear Island not currently in the John H. Chafee Unit L05 consists of two discrete and the channel between Bear Inlet Coastal Barrier Resources System, segments described here as the and the Intracoastal Waterway. The but it is considered developed northern and southern segments. landward boundary is adjusted to according to the CBRA criteria Northern segment: The northern follow the wetland/fastland interface, and is therefore not proposed for boundary of Unit L05 follows the including the Intracoastal Waterway, inclusion within Unit L05. The center of Bear Inlet and cuts across in order to include the entire proposed adjustments to the the tip of Bear Island, which has associated aquatic habitat. landward boundary of Unit L05 add accreted into the unit. The landward Southern segment: The landward undeveloped fastland located on boundary roughly follows Sanders boundary is adjusted to follow the spoil islands to the unit. Creek, Shacklefoot Channel, and wetland/fastland interface, including the eastern edge of the Intracoastal the Intracoastal Waterway, in order Waterway. The southern boundary to include the entire associated crosses Hurst Beach roughly at the aquatic habitat. The western break-in-development. boundary is adjusted to follow the Southern segment: The northern center of New River Inlet and boundary crosses Onslow be contiguous with the proposed Beach roughly at the break-in- boundaries of Unit L06.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 3,045.6 729.2 2,316.4 10.3 Added to the 3,299.2 144.5 3,154.7 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 96.8 0.0 96.8 0.0 Proposed Unit 6,441.6 873.7 5,567.9 10.4 Net Change 3,396.0 144.5 3,251.5 0.1 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2006 Onslow County property parcel information

D-13D13 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier of Sandford Landing is aligned Resources System Unit L06, with digital property parcel data to Topsail, North Carolina remove development that existed on-the-ground when this area was Type of Unit: System unit added to Unit L06. The southern Location of Unit: South of boundary is adjusted to follow the L06 Jacksonville, in Onslow County wetland/fastland break and to align Congressional District: 3 with a road. Establishment of Unit: Coastal Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97- In the northern excluded area of disposal system, electric service, 348) enacted on 10/18/1982 Unit L06, the southern boundary and a fresh water supply served Historical Changes to Unit: is adjusted to align with digital each lot or building site prior to the 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 modified the property parcel data to exclude a areas being added to Unit L06. The boundaries of Unit L06 to include condominium built prior to 1982. results affirmed that sewer and new areas. The western boundary is adjusted water lines were installed along the Existing Boundary Description: to follow digital property parcel main roads and primary electric The northern boundary of Unit data and add undeveloped land to service was available but secondary L06 roughly follows New River Unit L06. The northern boundary services were not constructed Inlet, cutting across an accreted is adjusted to align with digital until the lots were developed. No spit on the north side of the inlet. property parcel data to remove information was available on the The landward boundary generally development that was on-the- roads except what is visible on the follows the center of the Intracoastal ground in 1990 when this area was April 30, 1982, photography in the Waterway and roughly follows the added to Unit L06. The seaward Coastal Barrier Resources Act shoreline and the wetland/fastland boundary is adjusted to follow the of 1982: Photographic Inventory, interface. The southern boundary Atlantic Ocean shoreline. Volume 7, North Carolina. An cuts across Everett Bay and extends infrastructure analysis was not across the barrier island. The In the southern excluded area of performed for any other pilot excluded area boundaries are drawn Unit L06, the southern boundary is project unit due to resource and around clusters of development aligned with digital property parcel time restrictions. The results which existed on-the-ground when data to include the properties that of this analysis were not used as the surrounding area was added to were not developed in 1982 when the a justification of any proposed Unit L06. area was established as Unit L06. boundary adjustments for Unit Proposed Changes to Boundary: The western boundary is adjusted L06, but are included here for The northern boundary of Unit to add associated aquatic habitat information purposes. L06 is adjusted to be contiguous to Unit L06 and follow the eastern with the proposed boundaries of edge of the Intracoastal Waterway. The proposed adjustments to the Unit L05, which follow the center The seaward boundary is adjusted to landward boundary of Unit L06 add of New River Inlet and the New follow the shoreline. undeveloped fastland to the unit. River. The landward boundary Additional Comments: An is adjusted to include the entire infrastructure analysis was Intracoastal Waterway and to follow performed for the development more precisely the wetland/fastland in the area around the excluded interface and the shoreline from areas and in the vicinity of Sandford Swan Point to Turkey Creek. The Landing. This analysis looked at landward boundary in the vicinity whether roads, a wastewater

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 6,043.5 1,032.1 5,011.4 6.9 Added to the 188.4 9.4 179.0 0 CBRS Removed from the 127.6 76.9 50.7 56 CBRS Reclassified Area (48.6) 0.0 (48.6) 0.0 Proposed Unit 6,055.7 964.6 5,091.1 7.3 Net Change 12.2 (67.5) 79.7 0.4 (56)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2006 Onslow County property parcel information D14D-14 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-15D15 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D16D-16 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-17D17 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D18D-18 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier boundary crosses the southern tip Resources System Unit L07, of the island north of New Topsail Lea Island Complex, North Carolina Inlet where the island has accreted into the inlet. From this point, the Type of Unit: System unit northern boundary follows a channel Location of Unit: Northeast of through Topsail Sound, crosses Wilmington, in Pender and New the Intracoastal Waterway, and L07 Hanover Counties roughly follows the wetland/fastland Congressional District: 7 interface along Old Topsail Creek Establishment of Unit: Coastal up to Old Point. The landward adjusted to follow more precisely Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) boundary roughly follows the the wetland/fastland interface along enacted on 10/18/1982 wetland/fastland interface along the the Intracoastal Waterway from Old Historical Changes to Unit: Intracoastal Waterway from Old Topsail Creek to Futch Creek. The 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added Topsail Creek to Futch Creek. The southern boundary is adjusted to associated aquatic habitat to Unit southern boundary generally follows include the entire Nixon Channel in L07. the center of Nixon Channel, which Unit L07 and to follow the break- is also the boundary between Pender in-development on the tip of Figure 2/24/1997: The southern end of Unit and New Hanover Counties, and Eight Island. L07 was modified in accordance with crosses through the northern tip of Additional Comments: The proposed Section 4(c) of P.L. 101-591, which Figure Eight Island. Unit L07 boundary includes portions states that System unit boundaries Proposed Changes to Boundary: of associated aquatic habitat located are to be reviewed every five years The northern boundary of Unit behind development. The proposed and modified to reflect changes L07 is adjusted to follow a break adjustments to the landward caused by natural forces. This unit in vegetation on the barrier island boundary add undeveloped fastland was expanded to include the entire north of New Topsail Inlet, the located on spoil islands to the unit. spit on the south side of Rich Inlet, eastern Banks Channel shoreline to which was no longer completely include the entire channel, a channel within the unit, and to include the through the marsh, and the wetland/ spit’s associated aquatic habitat. fastland interface on the northern Existing Boundary Description: side of the Intracoastal Waterway to The northern boundary of Unit Old Topsail Creek. This adjustment L06 originally followed the center adds associated aquatic habitat to of New Topsail Inlet, but now the Unit L07. The landward boundary is

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 5,989.8 103.1 5,886.7 5.5 Added to the 1,323.0 81.9 1,241.1 0 CBRS Removed from the 35.0 0.0 35.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 7,277.8 185.0 7,092.8 5.8 Net Change 1,288.0 81.9 1,206.1 0.3 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2005 Pender County property parcel information

D-19D19 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D20D-20 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier through development on Figure Resources System Unit L08, Eight Island, follows a channel Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina through Middle Sound, and crosses the Intracoastal Waterway to the Type of Unit: System unit mainland. The landward boundary Location of Unit: East of roughly follows the wetland/fastland L08 Wilmington, in New Hanover interface to Howe Point. The County southern boundary crosses the Congressional District: 7 Intracoastal Waterway and cuts Establishment of Unit: Coastal across Middle Sound through Mason adjusted to follow a river through Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) Inlet. The southern boundary once Middle Sound and to follow the enacted on 10/18/1982 passed through a barrier island to southern edge of Mason Inlet, Historical Changes to Unit: the south of Mason Inlet; however, reflecting geomorphic change, so the 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 modified the inlet has migrated south and the entire inlet is in Unit L08. the northern boundary of Unit L08 boundary now crosses through the Additional Comments: The proposed to exclude development that existed inlet. Unit L08 boundary includes portions prior to the establishment of Unit Proposed Changes to Boundary: of associated aquatic habitat L08 in 1982, and to add associated The northern boundary of Unit located behind development. The aquatic habitat. L08 is aligned with digital property proposed adjustments to the Unit parcel data to exclude development L08 boundaries add undeveloped 2/24/1997: Section 4(c) of P.L. 101- that was on-the-ground in 1982 as fastland located on spoil islands to 591 modified Unit L09, which is intended by P.L. 101-591, and to the unit. depicted on the same map as Unit include additional associated aquatic L08. No changes were made to Unit habitat. The landward boundary is L08 at that time. adjusted to follow more precisely Existing Boundary Description: The the wetland/fastland interface. The northern boundary of Unit L08 cuts southern boundary of Unit L08 is

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 667.2 83.0 584.2 1.0 Added to the 445.8 24.3 421.5 0 CBRS Removed from the 13.3 10.0 3.3 9 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 1,099.7 97.3 1,002.4 1.0 Net Change 432.5 14.3 418.2 0.0 (9)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2003 New Hanover County property parcel information D-21D21 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier wetland/fastland interface along Resources System Unit L09, the Intracoastal Waterway. The Masonboro Island, North Carolina southern boundary cuts across the Intracoastal Waterway and the tidal Type of Unit: System unit flats behind Carolina Beach, and Location of Unit: Southeast of then cuts across the Carolina Beach L09 Wilmington, in New Hanover barrier island roughly at the break- County in-development. Congressional District: 7 Proposed Changes to Boundary: The Establishment of Unit: Coastal northern boundary of Unit L09 is 1990, the wetlands had been filled Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) adjusted to follow more precisely the in and three homes were already enacted on 10/18/1982 break-in-development at the tip of constructed on the spit. Volume 11 Historical Changes to Unit: the spit to the north of Masonboro of the Department of the Interior’s 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 modified the Inlet, and to include the entire 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal landward boundary of Unit L09 to Shinn Creek channel. The landward Barrier Resources System, add associated aquatic habitat. boundary is adjusted to follow Recommendations for Additions more precisely the wetland/fastland to or Deletions from the Coastal 2/24/1997: The northern boundary interface. The southern boundary Barrier Resources System of Unit L09 was modified in is adjusted to follow the wetland/ recommended that all the wetlands accordance with Section 4(c) of P.L. fastland interface and include the between Masonboro Island and the 101-591, which states that System entire associated aquatic habitat. Intracoastal Waterway be added to unit boundaries are to be reviewed The boundary is also aligned with Unit L09. Therefore, the proposed every five years and modified to digital property parcel data to boundary removes the spit from reflect changes caused by natural include an undeveloped portion Unit L09 because the area was forces. This unit was adjusted to of the barrier island and follow incorrectly identified as wetlands in include the entire undeveloped more precisely the 1982 break-in- 1990. portion of the spit on the north development. side of Masonboro Inlet, which had Additional Comments: A spit of migrated outside of the unit, and to land, surrounded by wetlands and include the spit’s associated aquatic located north of the Whiskey Creek habitat. confluence with the Intracoastal Existing Boundary Description: The Waterway, is shown as wetlands on northern boundary of Unit L09 the current John H. Chafee Coastal cuts across the spit on the north Barrier Resources System map, side of Masonboro Inlet roughly which is based on a U.S. Geological at the break-in-development Survey quadrangle dated 1970. and generally follows the center However, it appears that when this of Shinn Creek. The landward area was first added to Unit L09 in boundary generally follows the Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 6,587.7 526.3 6,061.4 9.9 Added to the 213.4 0.0 213.4 0 CBRS Removed from the 50.5 35.6 14.9 17 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 6,750.6 490.7 6,259.9 10.0 Net Change 162.9 (35.6) 198.5 0.1 (17)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 aerial photography, and 2003 New Hanover County property parcel information D22D-22 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-23D23 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D24D-24 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier M02 is aligned with digital property Resources System M02, parcel data to include development Litchfield Beach, South Carolina that is currently bisected by the boundary, but, according to the Type of Unit: System unit U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Location of Unit: Northeast of records, was intended to be M02 Georgetown, in Georgetown County entirely within Unit M02 (this area Congressional District: 1 was undeveloped in 1982). The Establishment of Unit: Coastal landward boundary is adjusted to Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) add associated aquatic habitat. The addition was not adopted because enacted on 10/18/1982 southern boundary is adjusted to a full complement of infrastructure Historical Changes to Unit: follow the fastland/wetland break was on-the-ground and one home There have been no changes to Unit along the tip of Pawleys Island. was built by September of 1990 in M02 since its designation in 1982. Additional Comments: The proposed the proposed addition. However, the Existing Boundary Description: The Unit M02 boundary includes 1990 development and infrastructure northern boundary of Unit M02 portions of associated aquatic were located in the area to the passes through development on habitat located behind development. north of Unit M02 and not in the the barrier spit and extends to the Volume 12 of the Department of the associated aquatic habitat west western side of Clubhouse Creek. Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress: of Clubhouse Creek. Thus, the The landward boundary roughly Coastal Barrier Resources System, associated aquatic habitat west of follows Clubhouse Creek. The Recommendations for Additions Clubhouse Creek is proposed for southern boundary generally follows to or Deletions from the Coastal addition to Unit M02. the shoreline of Pawleys Island and Barrier Resources System the southern edge of Midway Inlet. recommended that the associated The southern boundary once passed aquatic habitat west of Clubhouse through a barrier spit extending Creek and the undeveloped area north toward Midway Inlet; north of the unit be added to Unit however, the inlet has migrated M02. Congress did not adopt the south and the boundary is now on proposed addition to Unit M02 with the southern edge of the inlet. the enactment of the Coastal Proposed Changes to Boundary: Barrier Improvement Act of 1990. The northern boundary of Unit It appears that the proposed Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 88.1 25.3 62.8 1.1 Added to the 348.6 1.4 347.2 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 436.7 26.7 410.0 1.1 Net Change 348.6 1.4 347.2 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 aerial photography, and 2004 Georgetown County property parcel information

D-25D25 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier was on the ground in 1982 when Resources System Unit M03, Unit M03 was first established. The Pawleys Inlet, South Carolina landward boundary is adjusted to follow the eastern edge of the Type of Unit: System unit channel on the western side of Location of Unit: East of Pawleys Island so that the entire M03 Georgetown, in Georgetown County channel is placed within the unit. Congressional District: 1 The landward boundary is also Establishment of Unit: Coastal adjusted to follow more precisely Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) the wetland/fastland interface. George Community, there is enacted on 10/18/1982 Volume 12 of the Department of the conservation land that may meet the Historical Changes to Unit: Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Improvement Act 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added Coastal Barrier Resources System, definition of an otherwise protected associated aquatic habitat to Unit Recommendations for Additions area (OPA). Research at this time M03. to or Deletions from the Coastal indicates that the land is held in Existing Boundary Description: The Barrier Resources System, stated trust by the University of South northern boundary of Unit M03 cuts that the southern boundary was Carolina Development Foundation across the southern tip of Pawleys placed in 1982 to exclude phased to be preserved in a natural state; Island through a row of development development to the south. The however, sufficient documentation along the beach. The landward existing Unit M03 boundary crosses has not been collected from the boundary roughly follows the center through a large parcel that is not foundation at this time to propose a of the channel on the western side subdivided, is undeveloped, and is new OPA. of Pawleys Island and then the owned by one entity. The southern wetland/fastland interface. The boundary is adjusted to align with southern boundary is located south the southern digital property parcel of Pawleys Inlet and north of the line of this property and to include developed area. additional associated aquatic habitat Proposed Changes to Boundary: The that is contiguous with aquatic northern boundary of Unit M03 is habitat currently within Unit M03. aligned with digital property parcel Additional Comments: Within the data to exclude development that vicinity of Unit M03 and Prince

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 187.2 49.1 138.1 0.6 Added to the 47.6 2.5 45.1 0 CBRS Removed from the 10.9 9.4 1.5 1 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 223.9 42.2 181.7 0.6 Net Change 36.7 (6.9) 43.6 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 aerial photography, and 2004 Georgetown County property parcel information

D26D-26 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-27D27 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier within the CBRS currently meet the Resources System Unit FL-01, CBRA definition and criteria of an Fort Clinch, Florida undeveloped coastal barrier. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is Type of Unit: Proposed new System not aware of the existence of a full unit complement of infrastructure in this FL-01 Location of Unit: Northeast of area at the time the area was first Jacksonville on the Atlantic Coast, in included within the CBRS. Nassau County Proposed Boundaries: The eastern Congressional District: 4 and northern boundaries of the currently within Unit FL-01P are Current CBRS Status: Approximately proposed new unit are contiguous proposed for reclassification because half of the proposed new unit is with the proposed western boundary they are not held for conservation currently within existing otherwise of Unit FL-01P, beginning in the or recreation, are not inholdings, protected area (OPA) Unit FL-01P. southeast where the OPA meets and met the CBRA definition of and System Unit Criteria: Areas of State Highway A1A. The western criteria for an undeveloped coastal proposed new Unit FL-01 that are boundary follows the southern barrier at the time the area was currently within Unit FL-01P met shoreline of a small river that established within the OPA. the Coastal Barrier Resources Act divides the aquatic habitat within the (CBRA) definition and criteria of proposed new unit and developed an undeveloped coastal barrier at fastland to the south. The southern the time they were first included boundary follows the northern edge within the John H. Chafee Coastal of State Highway A1A east until it Barrier Resources System (CBRS) meets Unit FL-01P. in 1990. Areas of proposed new Additional Comments: The portions Unit FL-01 that are currently not of proposed new Unit FL-01 Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added to the 202.4 4.7 197.7 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 223.4 7.0 216.4 0.0 Proposed Unit 425.8 11.7 414.1 0.0 Net Change 425.8 11.7 414.1 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Nassau County property parcel information

D28D-28 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier first purchased for conservation or Resources System Unit FL-01P, recreation purposes in 1999. Fort Clinch, Florida Existing Boundary Description: The northern boundary of Unit Type of Unit: Otherwise protected FL-01P and a portion of the area (OPA) western boundary lie in open FL-01P Location of Unit: Northeast of water. The boundary turns east Jacksonville on the Atlantic Coast, in (inland) north of some industrial Nassau County warehouse facilities along the edge Congressional District: 4 of Fort Clinch State Park, then was not held for conservation Establishment of Unit: Coastal south to Egans Creek. It follows or recreation purposes in 1990 Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Egans Creek to a point east of the although a portion of it was included 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Fernandina Beach water treatment within Unit FL-01P. It is therefore Historical Changes to Unit: center and turns east again over proposed that this area be added to There have been no changes to the private wetlands and through the the OPA in its entirety. boundaries of Unit FL-01P since its park to the park’s eastern boundary, designation in 1990. which it follows north and east to the Currently, the OPA includes a large Underlying Conservation/Recreation ocean. area of privately held associated Area(s) in OPA: Fort Clinch Proposed Changes to Boundary: aquatic habitat that is outside the State Park, owned by the Florida The northern boundary of Unit Fort Clinch State Park boundary Department of Environmental FL-01P is adjusted to follow the and not held for conservation or Protection. Land was first center of the channel and to extend recreation purposes. The area is not purchased for conservation or further into the Atlantic Ocean an inholding and met the Coastal recreation purposes in 1935. to include the entire barrier spit Barrier Resources Act definition Fernandina Plaza State Historic and jetty. The inland boundaries of and criteria for an undeveloped Site, a separate tract operated are aligned with the property coastal barrier at the time it independently and not part of the boundaries of the public recreation was established within the OPA. OPA, became part of the park in and conservation lands in order Therefore this area is proposed for 1949. to include the entirety of the park reclassification from Unit FL-01P to lands. proposed new Unit FL-01. Dee Dee Bartels Nature Center Additional Comments: There are and Fishing Pier, managed by no known private inholdings within the Nassau County Board of Unit FL-01P. Dee Dee Bartels Commissioners. This land was Nature Center and Fishing Pier

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 2,008.8 1,105.4 903.4 1.3 Added to the 186.8 148.6 38.2 0 CBRS Removed from the 1.7 0.0 1.7 0 CBRS Reclassified Area (223.4) (7.0) (216.4) 0.0 Proposed Unit 1,970.5 1,247.0 723.5 1.3 Net Change (38.3) 141.6 (179.9) 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Nassau County property parcel information

D-29D29 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D30D-30 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier the wetland/fastland interface. The Resources System Unit P04A, southern boundary generally follows Usinas Beach, Florida a channel through the wetlands and the wetland/fastland interface of Type of Unit: System unit Kurths Island, crosses the Tolomato Location of Unit: East of St. River, and cuts across the barrier P04A Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in island at the break-in-development St. Johns County near the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. Congressional District: 7 Proposed Changes to Boundary: The Establishment of Unit: Coastal northern boundary of Unit P04A is partially within Unit P04A, but is Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) aligned with digital property parcel not proposed for reclassification enacted on 10/18/1982 data to exclude developed properties as an otherwise protected area Historical Changes to Unit: that were intended to be removed in (OPA) at this time. Originally, 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 made 1990 with the passage of P.L. 101- research indicated that the park changes to the northern boundary 591. This boundary is also adjusted was established in 1994 after the of Unit P04A to exclude land that to include all associated aquatic designation of Unit P04A. However, was developed in 1982, and adjusted habitat, including the entirety new information that part of the the landward boundary to add of the Tolomato River, Robinson park was acquired in 1989 was associated aquatic habitat. Creek, and the channel through the obtained recently from the Florida wetlands. The landward boundary Department of Environmental 10/21/1998: P.L. 105-277 made is adjusted to follow more precisely Protection (FDEP). Not enough changes to the boundaries of the wetland/fastland interface. The information has been collected at adjacent System Unit P05. No southern boundary is adjusted to this time to propose reclassification changes were made to the follow more precisely the channel of the park to an OPA. The park is boundaries of Unit P04A at that through the wetlands and the managed by the FDEP. time. wetland/fastland interface of Kurths Existing Boundary Description: Island. As this boundary crosses The northern boundary of Unit the barrier island, it is adjusted to P04A generally follows the break- include wetlands on the river side in-development, cuts across of the island and to follow digital the Tolomato River, and follows property parcel data on the ocean Robinson Creek and a channel side of the island. through the wetlands. The landward Additional Comments: Fort Mose boundary roughly follows Historic State Park is located Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 675.1 42.6 632.5 0.4 Added to the 61.5 1.2 60.3 0 CBRS Removed from the 15.4 0.1 15.3 4 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 721.2 43.7 677.5 0.4 Net Change 46.1 1.1 45.0 0.0 (4)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2003 St. Johns County property parcel information D-31D31 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier turns north to generally follow the Resources System Unit P05, riverside shoreline of Vilano Conch Island, Florida Point, crosses the Tolomato River at the old Vilano Beach bridge, Type of Unit: System unit and generally follows the wetland/ Location of Unit: East of St. fastland interface. The landward P05 Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in boundary generally follows the St. Johns County wetland/fastland interface along the Congressional District: 7 western Matanzas River shoreline to Establishment of Unit: Coastal the Castillo de San Marcos National with the proposed boundaries of Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) Monument. The southern boundary Unit P05P. enacted on 10/18/1982 extends to the center of Matanzas Additional Comments: When Conch Historical Changes to Unit: River, curves around Anastasia Island was established as Unit P05 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added Island, turns south down the in 1982, approximately half of the associated aquatic habitat and approximate center of Salt Run, and island had already been sold to the undeveloped barrier to Unit P05. cuts across Bird Island. State and turned over to the State of Proposed Changes to Boundary: The Florida park system. The southern 11/12/1996: P.L. 104-333 modified northern boundary of Unit P05 is portion of Conch Island is proposed the northern boundary of Unit P05 aligned with digital property parcel for reclassification from System Unit to remove certain property. The data to precisely exclude from the P05 to otherwise protected area map was later invalidated through unit all of the properties that were Unit P05P because this land was a lawsuit brought against the U.S. intended to be excluded by P.L. 105- held for conservation/recreation at Fish and Wildlife Service by Coastal 277, and is adjusted to follow more the time Unit P05 was established. Alliance. (Civil Action No. 97-1344 precisely the Vilano Point riverside (D.D.C.)) shoreline and the wetland/fastland interface on the west side of the 10/21/1998: P.L. 105-277 reinstated Tolomato River. The landward the map modifying Unit P05 that boundary is adjusted to follow was previously invalidated. more precisely the wetland/fastland Existing Boundary Description: The interface and to extend to the northern boundary of Unit P05 Bridge of Lions to include associated crosses Vilano Point north of Saint aquatic habitat which is part of Augustine Inlet, cutting through Matanzas River. The southern development in the Porpoise Point boundary is adjusted to include the subdivision, entire Salt Run channel and to align Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 1,955.2 617.6 1,337.6 2.6 Added to the 253.4 0.1 253.3 0 CBRS Removed from the 13.0 3.7 9.3 7 CBRS Reclassified Area (370.6) (211.3) (159.3) (1.0) Proposed Unit 1,825.0 402.7 1,422.3 1.6 Net Change (130.2) (214.9) 84.7 (1.0) (7)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2003 St. Johns County property parcel information

D32D-32 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier reserved for conservation in Resources System Unit P05P, 1949 and additional parcels were Conch Island, Florida purchased over time. Existing Boundary Description: The Type of Unit: Otherwise protected western and southern boundaries area (OPA) of Unit P05P generally follow the P05P Location of Unit: East of St. boundaries of Anastasia State Park. Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in The northern boundary roughly St. Johns County follows the boundary of Anastasia Congressional District: 7 State Park as it existed prior to 1981. southern portion of Conch Island Establishment of Unit: Coastal Proposed Changes to Boundary: The is proposed for reclassification Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- boundaries of Unit P05P are aligned from System Unit P05 to OPA Unit 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 with the boundaries of Anastasia P05P because this land was held for Historical Changes to Unit: State Park as it existed when the conservation or recreation at the 10/21/1998: P.L. 105-277 made adjacent Unit P05 was established time Unit P05 was established. changes to the boundaries of in 1982. adjacent Unit P05. No changes were Additional Comments: There are made to the boundaries of OPA Unit no known private inholdings within P05P at that time. Unit P05P. When Unit P05 was Underlying Conservation/Recreation mapped in 1982, approximately Area(s) in OPA: Anastasia State half of Conch Island included land Park, owned by the Florida that had already been sold to the Department of Environmental State of Florida and turned over to Protection. The land was first the State park system. The Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 601.5 438.7 162.8 1.5 Added to the 1.9 1.9 0.0 0 CBRS Removed from the 1.5 1.4 0.1 1 CBRS Reclassified Area 370.6 211.3 159.3 1.0 Proposed Unit 972.5 650.5 322.0 2.6 Net Change 371.0 211.8 159.2 1.1 (1)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2003 St. Johns County property parcel information D-33D33 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D34D-34 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier the wetland/fastland interface where Resources System Unit P08, there is no channel. The boundary Ponce Inlet, Florida then crosses Indian River North, turns north to follow the eastern Type of Unit: System unit side of the river, and cuts across the Location of Unit: South of St. barrier spit south of Ponce de Leon P08 Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in Inlet into the Atlantic Ocean. Volusia County. Proposed Changes to Boundary: Congressional District: 24 The northern boundary of Unit Establishment of Unit: Coastal P08 is adjusted to align with digital Additional Comments: There are Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) property parcel data to include three conservation/recreation areas enacted on 10/18/1982 undeveloped fastland; align with located within Unit P08, two of Historical Changes to Unit: the boundaries of the proposed new which were held for conservation 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added otherwise protected area (OPA) or recreation in 1982 when Unit associated aquatic habitat to Unit Unit P08P; follow more precisely the P08 was established. Lighthouse P08. eastern side of the Halifax River; Point Park, held as a conservation Existing Boundary Description: The and include the entire Spruce Creek area since 1980, and Smyrna Dunes northern boundary of Unit P08 channel. The landward boundary Park, conserved since 1982, are both cuts across the barrier spit north of is adjusted to follow more precisely managed by Volusia County Leisure Ponce de Leon Inlet. It continues the wetland/fastland interface and Services. These parks are proposed westward, following the eastern side the western edge of the Ponce de for reclassification from System Unit of the Halifax River, then follows Leon Cut. The southern boundary P08 to new OPA Unit P08P. the approximate center of Spruce is adjusted to follow more precisely Creek. The landward boundary the wetland/fastland interface and roughly follows the wetland/fastland to include the entire channel north interface. South of Redland Canal, of the development. The boundary the landward boundary turns east is also extended south along the and generally follows the western channel of Indian River North to the edge of Ponce de Leon Cut to go State Highway 44 bridge to include around a developed area. The all of a developing sandbar and is southern boundary is located north adjusted to follow more precisely the of a developed area and roughly eastern edge of Indian River North. follows the center of waterways and Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 4,185.3 627.7 3,557.6 1.9 Added to the 162.5 5.6 156.9 0 CBRS Removed from the 25.3 0.0 25.3 0 CBRS Reclassified Area (328.4) (228.6) (99.8) (1.2) Proposed Unit 3,994.1 404.7 3,589.4 0.7 Net Change (191.2) (223.0) 31.8 (1.2) 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Volusia County property parcel information

D-35D35 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier park. Lighthouse Point Park, owned Resources System Unit P08P, by the State of Florida since 1970, Ponce Inlet, Florida has been managed as a conservation area since 1980. Currently the Type of Unit: Proposed new park is managed by Volusia County otherwise protected area (OPA) Leisure Services. P08P Location of Unit: South of St. Proposed Boundaries: The Augustine on the Atlantic Coast, in boundaries of proposed new Unit Volusia County P08P follow the boundaries of Congressional District: 24 Smyrna Dunes Park and Lighthouse or recreation when Unit P08 was Current CBRS Status: The proposed Point Park. established in 1982. new OPA Unit P08P is located Additional Comments: There are no entirely within the boundaries of known private inholdings within the existing System Unit P08. proposed new Unit P08P. A 2.7-acre Otherwise Protected Area Criteria: parcel within Smyrna Dunes Park The proposed new unit meets the is leased to the U.S. Air Force for Coastal Barrier Improvement Act purposes other than conservation or definition of an OPA. Smyrna Dunes recreation. Smyrna Dunes Park and Park is owned by the U.S. Coast Lighthouse Point Park are proposed Guard and was leased to Volusia for reclassification from System Unit County in September 1982 for the P08 to new OPA P08P because this purpose of establishing a public land was held for conservation Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added to the 0.4 0.4 0.0 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 328.4 228.6 99.8 1.2 Proposed Unit 328.8 229.0 99.8 1.2 Net Change 328.8 229.0 99.8 1.2 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Volusia County property parcel information

D36D-36 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-37D37 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Department. Resources System Unit FL-13P, Existing Boundary Description: Spessard Holland Park, Florida The boundaries of Unit FL-13P generally follow the boundaries Type of Unit: Otherwise protected of lands managed by the Brevard area (OPA) County Parks and Recreation FL-13P Location of Unit: South of Palm Bay Department. on the Atlantic Coast, in Brevard Proposed Changes to Boundary: County The boundaries of Unit FL-13P are Congressional District: 15 aligned with the boundaries of lands conservation or recreation and are Establishment of Unit: Coastal managed by the Brevard County not inholdings of lands managed Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Parks and Recreation Department. by the Brevard County Parks and 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Additional Comments: There are Recreation Department. Historical Changes to Unit: There no known private inholdings within have been no changes to the Unit FL-13P. A U.S. Air Force boundaries of OPA Unit FL-13P Radar Tracking Station is included since its designation in 1990. within the OPA. The property Underlying Conservation/Recreation is owned by the Brevard County Area(s) in OPA: Flutie Athletic Parks and Recreation Department Complex, Spessard Holland North and leased to the U.S. Air Force. and South Beach Parks, and The proposed adjustment of Unit Spessard Holland Golf Course, FL-13P boundaries remove from which are all owned by the Brevard the OPA minor portions of privately County Parks and Recreation owned property that are not held for Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 178.2 139.8 38.4 0.8 Added to the 2.2 2.2 0.0 0 CBRS Removed from the 4.0 3.2 0.8 25 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 176.4 138.8 37.6 0.8 Net Change (1.8) (1.0) (0.8) 0.0 (25)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1995 Brevard County property parcel information

D38D-38 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier the north, cuts through development Resources System Unit P09A, on the south, and generally follows Coconut Point, Florida the shoreline on the east and west. Proposed Changes to Boundary: Type of Unit: System unit The northern boundary of Unit Location of Unit: North of Vero P09A and the boundary of the P09A Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in northern excluded area are aligned Brevard County with the boundaries of the proposed Congressional District: 15 new Unit P09AP. The landward Establishment of Unit: Coastal boundary is adjusted to follow added to the John H. Chafee Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) the shoreline more precisely. The Coastal Barrier Resources System enacted on 10/18/1982 southern boundary is shifted north (CBRS) in 1990. Currently, only Historical Changes to Unit: to align with the digital property the northern half of the park is 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added parcel data of a property on the located within Unit P09A, and the associated aquatic habitat and east side of State Highway A1A southern half of the park is not undeveloped areas to Unit P09A. that was intended to be excluded within the CBRS. To add the entire Existing Boundary Description: The in 1982, as indicated by U.S. Fish park within the proposed new OPA northern boundary of Unit P09A and Wildlife Service records. The Unit P09AP, the northern portion is crosses through development on southern excluded area is shifted to proposed for reclassification from the barrier near the break-in- the south and aligned with digital System Unit to OPA status, and development and extends across property parcel data to exclude a the southern portion is proposed the Indian River to the mainland. cluster of development that was on for addition to the OPA for the first The landward boundary generally the ground in 1982 when Unit P09A time. follows the shoreline. The southern was established. boundary extends across the Additional Comments: There Indian River and passes through are numerous conservation or development on the barrier. The recreation areas located within Unit boundary of the northern excluded P09A, but only Coconut Point Park area surrounds an area of developed (managed by the Brevard County and undeveloped land. The Parks and Recreation Department) boundary of the southern excluded was held for conservation or area excludes undeveloped land on recreation when the area was Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 3,204.6 277.4 2,927.2 2.0 Added to the 28.5 7.4 21.1 0 CBRS Removed from the 30.3 11.4 18.9 31 CBRS Reclassified Area (30.1) (26.4) (3.7) (0.2) Proposed Unit 3,172.7 247.0 2,925.7 1.8 Net Change (31.9) (30.4) (1.5) (0.2) (31)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1995 Brevard County property parcel information D-39D39 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier and Wildlife Service, was acquired Resources System Unit P09AP, over time starting in 1991. Coconut Point, Florida Proposed Boundaries: The boundaries of the proposed new unit Type of Unit: Proposed new are aligned with the boundaries of otherwise protected area (OPA) Coconut Point Park and the Archie P09AP Location of Unit: North of Vero Carr NWR. Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in Additional Comments: There are Brevard County no known private inholdings within Congressional District: 15 the proposed new Unit P09AP. The Archie Carr NWR is composed of Current CBRS Status: Part of the northern half of Coconut Point numerous unconnected parcels along proposed new OPA P09AP is within Park is currently located within a 20.5 mile stretch of beach between existing System Unit P09A. The Unit P09A, and the southern half Melbourne and Wabasso. Only the remainder of the proposed new OPA of the park is within the northern Archie Carr NWR parcels near is not currently within the John H. excluded area of Unit P09A. The Coconut Point Park and currently Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources northern portion of the park is not within System Unit P09A are System. proposed for reclassification from proposed for addition to new OPA Otherwise Protected Area Criteria: System Unit P09A to new OPA Unit P09AP. The proposed new unit meets the Unit P09AP because this land was Coastal Barrier Improvement Act held for conservation or recreation definition of an OPA. Coconut Point when it was added to Unit P09A. Park, managed by the Brevard The southern portion of the park is County Parks and Recreation proposed for addition to new OPA Department, has been held for P09AP because this land is held for conservation since 1988. Archie conservation or recreation and is Carr National Wildlife Refuge currently not within the CBRS. (NWR), managed by the U.S. Fish Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added to the 59.8 51.2 8.6 14 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 30.1 26.4 3.7 0.2 Proposed Unit 89.9 77.6 12.3 0.7 Net Change 89.9 77.6 12.3 0.7 1

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1995 Brevard County property parcel information 4 According to the refuge manager, this structure is a former private residence now owned by Archie Carr Wildlife Natural Refuge

D40D-40 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-41D41 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier more precisely the wetland/fastland Resources System Unit P10A, interface. The boundary is adjusted Blue Hole, Florida to the south to include associated aquatic habitat surrounding Type of Unit: System unit otherwise protected area (OPA) Location of Unit: Southeast of Vero Unit FL-14P. Some of the associated P10A Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in aquatic habitat is currently located Indian River and St. Lucie Counties within Unit FL-14P, but is proposed Congressional Districts: 15 and 16 for reclassification from OPA to Establishment of Unit: Coastal System Unit status as part of Department, were acquired in 1996 Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) Unit P10A because Volume 14 of and 2003, respectively. Because enacted on 10/18/1982 the Department of the Interior’s these areas were acquired for Historical Changes to Unit: 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal conservation/recreation purposes 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added Barrier Resources System, after Unit P10A was established, associated aquatic habitat and Recommendations for Additions they are not proposed for undeveloped land to Unit P10A to or Deletions from the Coastal reclassification from System Unit to and removed a small area that was Barrier Resources System, stated OPA status. developed in 1982. that in Florida, Aquatic Preserves Existing Boundary Description: The and Outstanding Florida Waters do The proposed adjustments to northern and southern boundaries of not meet the definition of “otherwise the boundaries of Unit P10A add Unit P10A cross the barrier roughly protected.” The northern and undeveloped fastland to the unit. at the break-in-development, and southern boundaries of the excluded then cross the Indian River. The area are aligned with digital landward boundary generally follows property parcel data to follow the wetland/fastland interface. The more precisely the 1982 break-in- excluded area roughly surrounds development, and the eastern and an area of development, with the western boundaries are adjusted to northern boundary of the excluded follow more precisely the shoreline. area bisecting several structures. Additional Comments: There are Proposed Changes to Boundary: three conservation areas located The northern boundary of Unit within Unit P10A. Avalon State P10A is aligned with digital property Park, managed by the Florida parcel data to follow more precisely Department of Environmental the 1982 break-in-development and Protection was acquired in 1985. is adjusted to include associated Queens Island Preserve and Indrio aquatic habitat. The landward Blueway Buffer, both managed by boundary is adjusted to follow the St. Lucie County Public Works Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 5,569.8 751.5 4,818.3 3.4 Added to the 2,163.5 9.7 2,153.8 0 CBRS Removed from the 23.9 10.3 13.6 8 CBRS Reclassified Area 1,205.0 33.3 1,171.7 0.0 Proposed Unit 8,914.4 784.2 8,130.2 3.6 Net Change 3,344.6 32.7 3,311.9 0.2 (8)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 St. Lucie, Indian River County property parcel information

D42D-42 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Fort Pierce and Pepper Beach State Resources System Unit FL-14P, Recreation Areas as they existed Pepper Beach, Florida in 1990. The western boundary of the OPA follows the Intracoastal Type of Unit: Otherwise protected Waterway, and the unit is divided area (OPA) into two segments by the exclusion FL-14P Location of Unit: East of Ft. Pierce of the State Highway A1A bridge on the Atlantic Coast, in St. Lucie north of the inlet. County. Proposed Changes to Boundary: Congressional District: 16 Volume 14 of the Department of the proposed for inclusion in this OPA Establishment of Unit: Coastal Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress: unit. Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Coastal Barrier Resources System, Additional Comments: There are no 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Recommendations for Additions known private inholdings within the Historical Changes to Unit: to or Deletions from the Coastal proposed boundaries of Unit FL-14P. There have been no changes to the Barrier Resources System states Pepper Beach State Recreation Area boundaries of Unit FL-14P since its that in Florida, Aquatic Preserves was removed from the Florida State designation in 1990. and Outstanding Florida Waters do park system after 1990; the property Underlying Conservation/Recreation not meet the definition of “otherwise was then subdivided into three Area(s) in OPA: Fort Pierce Inlet protected”; therefore, all the open county-owned conservation and State Park owned by the Florida water on the protected side of the recreation areas. No development Department of Environmental coastal barrier in Unit FL-14P, has occurred as a result of the Protection. Pepper Park, managed which was in the Indian River change in ownership. by the St. Lucie County Parks and Aquatic Preserve at the time it Recreation Department. Wildcat was established within the OPA, is Cove Natural Area, managed by the proposed for reclassification as part St. Lucie County Environmental of System Unit P10A. Remaining Resources Department. Coon OPA boundaries are aligned to park Island County Park, managed by boundary lines. The Kings Island the St. Lucie County Environmental Natural Area property was sold to Resources Department. Kings St. Lucie County for conservation Island Natural Area, managed by or recreation purposes in 1998 the St. Lucie County Environmental and is managed by the St. Lucie Resources Department County Environmental Resources Existing Boundary Description: The Department. The park is not boundaries of Unit FL-14P include currently within Unit FL-14P, but is Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 2,578.0 231.6 2,346.4 0.7 Added to the 215.3 15.7 199.6 1 CBRS Removed from the 17.7 8.9 8.8 3 CBRS Reclassified Area (1,205.0) (33.3) (1,171.7) 0.0 Proposed Unit 1,570.6 205.1 1,365.5 0.7 Net Change (1,007.4) (26.5) (980.9) 0.0 (2)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 St. Lucie County property parcel information

D-43D43 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier through development before Resources System Unit P11, turning east to extend into the Hutchinson Island, Florida Atlantic Ocean. The boundary of the northern excluded area roughly Type of Unit: System unit encircles the Hutchinson Island Location of Unit: East of Port St. Nuclear Power Plant. The middle P11 Lucie on the Atlantic Coast, in St. excluded area roughly surrounds Lucie County an area of development containing Congressional District: 16 condominiums, but bisects Establishment of Unit: Coastal structures on the north and south. area is aligned with digital property Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) The southern excluded area roughly parcel data of the properties that enacted on 10/18/1982 surrounds an area of development were intended to be excluded by Historical Changes to Unit: containing condominiums, single P.L. 105-277. The western boundary 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added family homes, and a golf course. is adjusted to follow the Indian associated aquatic habitat and Proposed Changes to Boundary: The River shoreline and the 1990 break- undeveloped coastal barrier areas to northern boundary of Unit P11 is in-development. The eastern Unit P11 and removed a small area aligned with digital property parcel boundary is aligned with digital that was developed in 1982. data to follow more precisely the property parcel data that follows 1982 break-in-development and the Atlantic Ocean shoreline. The 11/12/1996: P.L. 104-333 modified is adjusted to include associated southern boundary is aligned with the northern boundary of the aquatic habitat in Jennings Cove digital property parcel data to southernmost excluded area to to the east of Hook Point. The remove development that was on the remove private property from Unit landward boundary is adjusted to ground in 1982 when Unit P11 was P11. The map was later invalidated follow the shoreline more precisely. established. through a lawsuit brought against The southern boundary is adjusted Additional Comments: There are the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by to include associated aquatic habitat numerous conservation or recreation Coastal Alliance. (Civil Action No. in the channel between Nettles areas located within Unit P11, but 97-1344 (D.D.C.)) Island and Hutchinson Island, follow only Frederick Douglass Memorial the wetland/fastland interface more Park was held for conservation or 10/12/1998: P.L. 105-277 reinstated precisely, and remove development recreation when the area was added the map modifying Unit P11 that that was on the ground in 1990 when to Unit P11. This park, owned by was previously invalidated. this area was added to Unit P11. the St. Lucie County Parks and Existing Boundary Description: The eastern and western boundaries Recreation Department, has been The northern boundary of Unit of the northern excluded area are maintained for conservation or P11 roughly follows the break- adjusted to follow more precisely the recreation since approximately 1940. in-development, extends around shoreline. The southern boundary Thus, Frederick Douglass Memorial Hook Point, and cuts west across is adjusted to add mangroves to Park is proposed for reclassification the Indian River to the mainland. the Unit. The northern, eastern, from System Unit P11 to new The landward boundary follows and southern boundaries of the otherwise protected area Unit P11P. the shoreline of the mainland. middle excluded area are aligned The southern boundary crosses with digital property parcel data the Indian River across from to remove development that was Nettles Island, follows the center on the ground in 1982 when Unit of a waterway between Nettles P11 was established. The western Island and Hutchinson Island, and boundary is extended to the north generally follows the and south to follow the 1982 break- wetland/fastland interface as it in-development. The northern crosses Hutchinson Island, passing boundary of the southern excluded

D44D-44 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System P11, Hutchinson Island, Florida (continued)

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 16,124.2 676.9 15,447.3 9.2 Added to the 66.6 3.1 63.5 0 CBRS Removed from the 72.2 25.5 46.7 18 CBRS Reclassified Area (16.2) (7.7) (8.5) (0.2) Proposed Unit 16,102.4 646.8 15,455.6 9.0 Net Change (21.8) (30.1) 8.3 (0.2) (18)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 St. Lucie County property parcel information

D-45D45 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier by the St. Lucie County Parks Resources System Unit P11P, and Recreation Department, has Hutchinson Island, Florida been maintained for conservation purposes since approximately 1940. Type of Unit: Proposed new Proposed Boundaries: The proposed otherwise protected area (OPA) boundaries of Unit P11P follow the P11P Location of Unit: East of Port St. boundaries of Frederick Douglass Lucie on the Atlantic Coast, in St. Memorial Park. Lucie County Additional Comments: There are no Congressional District: 16 known private inholdings within the Current CBRS Status: The proposed proposed new Unit P11P. Frederick new OPA Unit P11P is located Douglass Memorial Park is proposed entirely within the boundaries of for reclassification from System existing Unit P11. Unit P11 to proposed new OPA Otherwise Protected Area Criteria: P11P because this land was held for The proposed new Unit P11P meets conservation or recreation when it the Coastal Barrier Improvement was first added to Unit P11 in 1982. Act definition of an OPA. Frederick Douglass Memorial Park, owned Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added to the 0.3 0.0 0.3 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 16.2 7.7 8.5 0.2 Proposed Unit 16.5 7.7 8.8 0.2 Net Change 16.5 7.7 8.8 0.2 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D46D-46 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-47D47 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D48D-48 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-D49 49 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Unit FL-15 are aligned with digital Resources System Unit FL-15, property parcel data to exclude land Blowing Rocks, Florida that was developed prior to 1990 when Unit FL-15 was established, Type of Unit: System unit as intended by P.L. 103-461. The Location of Unit: North of West landward boundary is adjusted to FL-15 Palm Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in follow more precisely the shoreline. Martin County Additional Comments: Some of Congressional District: 16 the land within Unit FL-15 was Establishment of Unit: Coastal owned by The Nature Conservancy owners for development. Congress Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- prior to the designation of Unit then enacted the Coastal Barrier 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 FL-15 in 1990. Volume 14 of the Improvement Act of 1990 that Historical Changes to Unit: Department of the Interior’s 1988 established the area as System Unit 11/2/1994: P.L. 103-461 modified the Report to Congress: Coastal FL-15. northern and southern boundaries Barrier Resources System, of Unit FL-15 to only include areas Recommendations for Additions that were undeveloped at the time of to or Deletions from the Coastal their inclusion in Unit FL-15. Barrier Resources System included Existing Boundary Description: The comments from the State of Florida northern and southern boundaries that supported the designation of Unit FL-15 generally follow of privately owned land held for the breaks-in-development. The conservation purposes as System landward boundary roughly follows units, and not as otherwise protected the shoreline of the mainland. areas, in order to prohibit the Proposed Changes to Boundary: The availability of Federal funds should northern and southern boundaries of the land ever be sold by private Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 218.4 84.2 134.2 1.0 Added to the 6.8 1.7 5.1 0 CBRS Removed from the 16.6 1.9 14.7 2 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 208.6 84.0 124.6 1.0 Net Change (9.8) (0.2) (9.6) 0.0 (2)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Martin County property parcel information

D50D-50 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Underlying Conservation/Recreation Resources System Unit FL-16P, Area(s) in OPA: DuBois Park and Jupiter Beach, Florida Jupiter Beach Park, both owned by the Palm Beach County Parks and Type of Unit: Otherwise protected Recreation Department. area (OPA) Existing Boundary Description: The FL-16P Location of Unit: North of West Palm northern boundary of Unit Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in Palm FL-16P generally follows the center Beach County of Jupiter Inlet. The remaining Congressional District: 16 boundaries roughly follow the boundaries of Unit FL-16P are Establishment of Unit: Coastal boundaries of DuBois and Jupiter aligned with the boundaries of Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Beach Parks. DuBois Park and Jupiter Beach 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Proposed Changes to Boundary: The Park. Historical Changes to Unit: There northern boundary of Unit Additional Comments: There are have been no changes to Unit FL- FL-16P is adjusted to follow the no known private inholdings within 16P since its designation in 1990. channel center until it enters the Unit FL-16P. Atlantic Ocean. The remaining Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 55.0 27.8 27.2 0.4 Added to the 14.9 6.0 8.9 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.3 0.0 0.3 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 69.6 33.8 35.8 0.4 Net Change 14.6 6.0 8.6 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2002 Palm Beach County property parcel information

D-51D51 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Underlying Conservation/Recreation Resources System Unit FL-17P, Area(s) in OPA: Carlin Park, Carlin, Florida managed by the Palm Beach County Parks and Recreation Department. Type of Unit: Otherwise protected Existing Boundary Description: The area (OPA) boundaries of Unit FL-17P roughly FL-17P Location of Unit: North of West Palm follow the boundaries of Carlin Park. Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in Palm Proposed Changes to Boundary: Beach County The boundaries of Unit FL-17P the OPA that are not held for Congressional Districts: 16 and 22 are more precisely aligned with the conservation or recreation and are Establishment of Unit: Coastal boundaries of Carlin Park. not inholdings of Carlin Park. Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Additional Comments: There 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 are no known private inholdings Historical Changes to Unit: There within Unit FL-17P. The proposed have been no changes to Unit FL- adjustments to the landward 17P since its designation in 1990. boundary remove minor portions of privately owned property from

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 106.7 91.5 15.2 0.5 Added to the 19.1 17.1 2.0 0 CBRS Removed from the 1.9 1.9 0.0 3 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 123.9 106.7 17.2 0.6 Net Change 17.2 15.2 2.0 0.1 (3)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2002 Palm Beach County property parcel information

D52D-52 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D53 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier land boundaries of Unit FL-18P Resources System Unit FL-18P, generally follow the boundaries of MacArthur Beach, Florida John D. MacArthur Beach State Park. The western boundary lies in Type of Unit: Otherwise protected the Intracoastal Waterway. area (OPA) Proposed Changes to Boundary: FL-18P Location of Unit: East of North Palm The boundaries of Unit FL-18P Beach on the Atlantic Coast, in Palm are more precisely aligned with the Beach County boundaries of John D. MacArthur Congressional District: 22 Beach State Park. Establishment of Unit: Coastal Additional Comments: There Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- are no known private inholdings 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 within Unit FL-18P. The proposed Historical Changes to Unit: There adjustments to the boundaries of have been no changes to Unit Unit FL-18P remove from the OPA FL-18P since its designation in 1990. minor portions of privately owned Underlying Conservation/ property that are not held for Recreation Area(s) in OPA: John conservation or recreation and are D. MacArthur Beach State Park, not inholdings of John D. MacArthur owned by the Florida Department Beach State Park. of Environmental Protection since 1982. Existing Boundary Description: The northern and southern Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 853.7 295.0 558.7 1.6 Added to the 2.0 0.8 1.2 0 CBRS Removed from the 4.0 3.3 0.7 5 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 851.7 292.5 559.2 1.6 Net Change (2.0) (2.5) 0.5 0.0 (5)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2002 Palm Beach County property parcel information

D54D-54 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-55D55 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resources System Unit FL-19, is not aware of the existence of a full Birch Park, Florida complement of infrastructure in this area at the time the area was first Type of Unit: Proposed new System included within the CBRS. unit Proposed Boundaries: The northern FL-19 Location of Unit: South of Fort and southern boundaries of the Lauderdale on the Atlantic Coast, in proposed new unit coincide with the Broward County proposed northern and southern Congressional District: 22 boundaries of Unit FL-19P. The definition of and criteria for an Current CBRS Status: The entire western boundary of the proposed undeveloped coastal barrier at the proposed new Unit FL-19 is new unit turns south to coincide with time they were established within currently within otherwise protected the proposed eastern boundary of the OPA in 1990. These areas are area (OPA) Unit FL-19P. Unit FL-19P at the point where the proposed for reclassification from System Unit Criteria: The proposed northern boundary meets the Hugh OPA Unit FL-19P to new System new Unit FL-19 meets the Coastal Taylor Birch State Park property. Unit FL-19. Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) It follows the property boundary definition and criteria of an south, then east to the shoreline. It undeveloped coastal barrier. Areas turns south again at the shoreline, of proposed new Unit FL-19 that are then west and south again with currently within Unit FL-19P met the property line until it meets the the CBRA definition and criteria proposed southern OPA boundary. of an undeveloped coastal barrier Additional Comments: Portions at the time they were first included of FL-19P are not held for within the John H. Chafee Coastal conservation or recreation, are Barrier Resources System (CBRS). not inholdings, and met the CBRA Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added to the 0.9 0.6 0.3 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 8.5 4.1 4.4 0.3 Proposed Unit 9.4 4.7 4.7 0.4 Net Change 9.4 4.7 4.7 0.4 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1999 Broward County property parcel information

D56D-56 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier include less than half of the southern Resources System Unit FL-19P, portion of Hugh Taylor Birch State Birch Park, Florida Park and adjacent public beachfront. The western boundary follows the Type of Unit: Otherwise protected center of the Intracoastal Waterway. area (OPA) Proposed Changes to Boundary: FL-19P Location of Unit: South of Fort The boundaries of Unit FL-19P Lauderdale on the Atlantic Coast, in are precisely aligned with the Broward County boundaries of Hugh Taylor Birch Congressional District: 22 State Park. property somewhere outside the Establishment of Unit: Coastal Additional Comments: There are State Park boundary and within the Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- no known private inholdings within current OPA, but they cannot locate 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Unit FL-19P. Of the 10.6 acres of it with any certainty. Therefore Historical Changes to Unit: There beach property in the current Unit the beach outside the State Park have been no changes to Unit FL- FL-19P, only 2 acres belong to Hugh boundary and within the current 19P since its designation in 1990. Taylor Birch State Park. According OPA is proposed to be reclassified as Underlying Conservation/Recreation to the City of Fort Lauderdale, the new System Unit FL-19. Area(s) in OPA: Hugh Taylor Birch rest of the beach property within State Park, owned by the Florida the OPA is managed by the city as Department of Environmental a public beach, but is not owned Protection, acquired by the State of by the city. The State Park Florida in 1941. management and the city both Existing Boundary Description: The acknowledge the presence of a small boundaries of Unit FL-19P roughly piece of undeveloped private Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 85.4 71.8 13.6 0.4 Added to the 102.9 90.8 12.1 44 CBRS Removed from the 0.1 0.1 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area (8.5) (4.1) (4.4) (0.3) Proposed Unit 179.7 158.4 21.3 0.1 Net Change 94.3 86.6 7.7 (0.3) 4

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1999 Broward County property parcel information 4 Structures are all Hugh Taylor Birch State Park facilities including restrooms and a ranger’s station

D-57D57 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D58D-58 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier follows the southern edge of the Resources System Unit FL-20P, Turning Basin Inlet. The eastern Lloyd Beach, Florida boundary follows the approximate center of a channel behind the Type of Unit: Otherwise protected barrier. The southern boundary cuts area (OPA) across the barrier roughly at the FL-20P Location of Unit: Southeast of Ft. southern tip of the State park. The Lauderdale on the Atlantic Coast, in unit includes the State park and also Broward County lands belonging to the Coast Guard, Congressional District: 22 the U.S. Navy, Nova University, the developed at the time they were Establishment of Unit: Coastal City of Dania Beach, and a private included within Unit FL-20P in 1990. Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- company. Additional Comments: There are 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Proposed Changes to Boundary: The no known private inholdings within Historical Changes to Unit: There northern and southern boundaries Unit FL-20P. have been no changes to the of Unit FL-20P are aligned with boundaries of Unit FL-20P since its the boundaries of the John U. designation in 1990. Lloyd Beach State Park and a small Underlying Conservation/Recreation adjacent parcel belonging to the Area(s) in OPA: John U. Lloyd Beach City of Hollywood recently acquired State Park, owned by the Florida for conservation purposes. The Department of Environmental remaining private and military Protection since 1974. Single parcel properties listed above are proposed purchased for conservation or for removal from the CBRS because recreation purposes by the City of they are not held for conservation Hollywood in 2002. or recreation purposes, are not Existing Boundary Description: The inholdings within the conservation northern boundary of Unit FL-20P or recreation areas, and were Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 398.3 233.5 164.8 2.6 Added to the 0.3 0.0 0.3 0 CBRS Removed from the 53.7 30.8 22.9 19 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 344.9 202.7 142.2 2.2 Net Change (53.4) (30.8) (22.6) (0.4) (19)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1999 Broward County property parcel information

D-59D59 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier The landward boundaries follow the Resources System P14A, center of the Intracoastal Waterway. North Beach, Florida Proposed Changes to Boundary: The northern and southern boundaries Type of Unit: System unit of both segments of Unit P14A are Location of Unit: Southeast of Ft. aligned with digital property parcel P14A Lauderdale on the Atlantic Coast, in data. The landward boundaries Broward County. of both segments of Unit P14A Congressional District: 20 are adjusted to include the entire Establishment of Unit: Coastal Intracoastal Waterway. Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) Additional Comments: Hollywood enacted on 10/18/1982 North Beach Park, currently owned Historical Changes to Unit: There by Broward County, is located within have been no changes to the both segments of Unit P14A, but is boundaries of Unit P14A since its not proposed for reclassification as designation in 1982. an otherwise protected area because Existing Boundary Description: Unit the park was first established in 1986 P14A is composed of two segments. after Unit P14A was established. In both segments, the northern and southern boundaries roughly follow the break-in-development. Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 108.1 61.3 46.8 0.8 Added to the 42.2 3.3 38.9 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.5 0.0 0.5 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 149.8 64.6 85.2 0.8 Net Change 41.7 3.3 38.4 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 1999 Broward County property parcel information

D60D-60 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-61D61 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier separated by U.S. Highway 1. Resources System Unit FL-39, Southern segment: The eastern Tavernier Key, Florida boundary includes Tavernier Key, and cuts across land at the Type of Unit: System unit wetland/fastland break. The FL-39 Location of Unit: South of Key Largo northern boundary generally in the Florida Keys, in Monroe follows the southern edge of U.S. County Highway 1. The western boundary Congressional District: 18 roughly follows the western edge of Establishment of Unit: Coastal Tavernier Creek. development and to include Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Northern segment: The eastern emergent mangrove extending 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 boundary roughly follows the out into Community Harbor. The Historical Changes to Unit: break-in-development, extends western boundary is adjusted to 11/15/1993: A change was made out into Community Harbor, and follow more precisely the canals, to Unit FL-39 in accordance continues northward around the the 1990 break-in-development, and with Section 4(e) of P.L. 101-591, key to the Intracoastal Waterway. the western shoreline of Tavernier which allowed minor and technical The northern boundary follows the Creek. The southern boundary is boundary modifications to the southern edge of the Intracoastal adjusted to follow more precisely the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Waterway. The western boundary northern edge of U.S. Highway 1. Resources System (CBRS) maps roughly follows several small canals, as necessary to correct clerical and the break-in-development, and the typographical errors in the maps western side of Tavernier Creek. and to add otherwise protected The southern boundary follows the areas to the CBRS at the request northern edge of U.S. Highway 1. of State and local governments Proposed Changes to Boundary: and qualified organizations with Southern segment: The northern jurisdiction over the area. This boundary is adjusted to follow more administrative change modified the precisely the southern edge of U.S. eastern boundary of the southern Highway 1. The western boundary segment of Unit FL-39, moving it is adjusted to follow more slightly east to include additional precisely the western edge of associated aquatic habitat in the Tavernier Creek. unit. Northern segment: The eastern Existing Boundary Description: Unit boundary is adjusted to follow more FL-39 consists of two segments precisely the 1990 break-in- Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 1,196.6 57.9 1,138.7 1.4 Added to the 101.5 1.7 99.8 0 CBRS Removed from the 6.8 1.4 5.4 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 1,291.3 58.2 1,233.1 1.4 Net Change 94.7 0.3 94.4 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Monroe County property parcel information

D62D-62 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier of the Snake Creek channel. Resources System Unit FL-40, Proposed Changes to Boundary: The Snake Creek, Florida eastern boundary of Unit FL-40 is aligned with digital property parcel Type of Unit: System unit data to follow more precisely the FL-40 Location of Unit: South of Key Largo 1990 break-in-development and add in the Florida Keys, in Monroe associated aquatic habitat. The County landward boundary is adjusted to Congressional District: 18 follow more precisely the southern Establishment of Unit: Coastal edge of U.S. Highway 1 and to add Barrier Resources System, Barrier Improvement Act, or CBIA, an area of undeveloped fastland to Recommendations for Additions (P.L. 101-591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Unit FL-40. There is a proposed to or Deletions from the Coastal Historical Changes to Unit: addition of undeveloped coastal Barrier Resources System, but was 11/15/1993: Changes were made to barrier on the north side of US not adopted by Congress with the the boundaries of the adjacent Unit Highway 1 that would add a second enactment of the CBIA. This area is FL-39 in accordance with Section segment to Unit FL-40. The proposed for addition to Unit FL-40 4(e) of P.L. 101-591. No changes proposed boundaries of this area at this time because it still meets were made to the boundaries of Unit include associated aquatic habitat the Coastal Barrier Resources FL-40 at that time. and exclude existing development Act definition and criteria for an Existing Boundary Description: The by following digital property parcel undeveloped coastal barrier. eastern boundary of Unit FL-40 data. The northern boundary cuts through undeveloped wetlands follows the southern edge of the near the break-in-development. The Intracoastal Waterway. This area landward boundary roughly parallels was proposed for addition to the U.S. Highway 1, dipping south in the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier middle of the boundary to roughly Resources System in Volume 14 of follow a wetlands delineation. The the Department of the Interior’s western boundary follows the center 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 105.0 21.2 83.8 1.0 Added to the 1,955.0 29.5 1,925.5 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 2,060.0 50.7 2,009.3 1.1 Net Change 1,955.0 29.5 1,925.5 0.1 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Monroe County property parcel information

D-63D63 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D64D-64 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Existing Boundary Description: The Resources System Unit FL-43, southern boundary of Unit FL-43 Channel Key, Florida generally follows the shoreline north of Toms Harbor Cut. The eastern Type of Unit: System unit and western boundaries parallel FL-43 Location of Unit: South of Key Largo each other in the open water of in the Florida Keys, in Monroe Florida Bay to include Channel Key County in the unit. The northern boundary Congressional District: 18 closes the unit off in open water at Establishment of Unit: Coastal the Intracoastal Waterway. Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Proposed Changes to Boundary: 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 There are no proposed changes to Historical Changes to Unit: There the boundaries of Unit FL-43. have been no changes to the boundaries of Unit FL-43 since its designation in 1990.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 1,187.0 14.5 1,172.5 0.2 Added to the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 1,187.0 14.5 1,172.5 0.2 Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-65D65 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier generally follows the western edge Resources System Unit FL-44, of Duck Key Channel, and moves Toms Harbor Keys, Florida northward across Toms Harbor Channel until it meets the Grassy Type of Unit: System unit Key shoreline. The northern FL-44 Location of Unit: South of Key Largo boundary roughly follows the in the Florida Keys, in Monroe Grassy Key shoreline. The western County boundary is a straight line from Congressional District: 18 the Grassy Key shoreline into the Establishment of Unit: Coastal Atlantic Ocean on the west side of and undeveloped fastland. The Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Toms Harbor Keys. western boundary is adjusted 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Proposed Changes to Boundary: The westward to be at the 1990 break-in- Historical Changes to Unit: There eastern boundary of Unit FL-44 development. have been no changes to the is adjusted to include the entire boundaries of Unit FL-44 since its Duck Key Channel. The northern designation in 1990. boundary is adjusted to follow more Existing Boundary Description: The precisely the shoreline and to eastern boundary of Unit FL-44 include associated aquatic habitat Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 384.1 58.6 325.5 1.0 Added to the 144.1 40.1 104.0 0 CBRS Removed from the 2.5 0.6 1.9 2 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 525.7 98.1 427.6 1.1 Net Change 141.6 39.5 102.1 0.1 (2)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Monroe County property parcel information

D66D-66 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier as it extends out into the Atlantic Resources System Unit FL-45, Ocean. Deer/Long Point Keys, Florida Proposed Changes to Boundary: The eastern boundary of Unit FL- Type of Unit: System unit 45 is moved to the east to include FL-45 Location of Unit: North of Key West additional undeveloped fastland, in the Florida Keys, in Monroe excluding a cluster of existing County development to the east of Little Congressional District: 18 Crawl Key. North of U.S. Higway 1, Establishment of Unit: Coastal the boundary is aligned with digital digital property parcel data where Barrier Improvement Act, or CBIA, property parcel data at the current it crosses Long Point Key south of (P.L. 101-591) enacted on 11/16/1990 break-in-development on Grassy Burnt Point. The western boundary Historical Changes to Unit: There Key. South of U.S Highway 1, the is adjusted to include emergent have been no changes to the boundary is adjusted to align with mangroves. boundaries of Unit FL-45 since its emergent mangroves and digital Additional Comments: Curry designation in 1990. property parcel data at the current Hammock State Park, managed Existing Boundary Description: The break-in-development. This area by the Florida Department of eastern boundary of Unit FL-45 was proposed for addition to the Environmental Protection, is follows the waterway between Little John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier located within Unit FL-45, but is not Crawl Key and Crawl Key, crosses Resources System in Volume 14 of proposed for reclassification as an U.S. Highway 1, and continues into the Department of the Interior’s otherwise protected area because Florida Bay, following the waterway 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal the park was acquired by the State between Crawl Key and Long Point Barrier Resources System, of Florida on September 10, 1991, Key. The northern boundary crosses Recommendations for Additions after Unit FL-45 was established. Long Point Key south of Burnt Point to or Deletions from the Coastal and continues westward in open Barrier Resources System, but was water. The western boundary runs not adopted by Congress with the south until it meets Fat Deer Key enactment of the CBIA. This area is near the break-in-development on proposed for addition to Unit FL-45 the north side of U.S. Highway 1, at this time because it still meets cuts east across undeveloped land the Coastal Barrier Resources near the break-in-development on Act definition and criteria for an Fat Deer Key, roughly follows a undeveloped coastal barrier. The channel, and crosses a tip of land northern boundary is aligned with

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 1,443.3 388.8 1,054.5 1.0 Added to the 543.3 140.9 402.4 0 CBRS Removed from the 9.0 0.1 8.9 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 1,977.6 529.6 1,448.0 1.8 Net Change 534.3 140.8 393.5 0.8 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Monroe County property parcel information

D-67D67 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D68D-68 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier along the shoreline of Sister Creek. Resources System Unit FL-46, About halfway along Sister Creek, Boot Key, Florida the boundary crosses the western side of an unnamed island (excluding Type of Unit: System unit three out of four radio towers). FL-46 Location of Unit: North of Key West The northern boundary follows the in the Florida Keys, in Monroe approximate center of Boot Key County Harbor. The western boundary Congressional District: 18 extends south through open water to Establishment of Unit: Coastal the west of Boot Key. adjustments to the eastern boundary Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Proposed Changes to Boundary: The will remove this island from Unit 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 eastern boundary of Unit FL-46 is FL-46 to exclude the radio towers Historical Changes to Unit: There adjusted to follow more precisely the from the CBRS. have been no changes to the eastern edge of Sister Creek. The boundaries of Unit FL-46 since its northern boundary is adjusted to designation in 1990. include the entire channel of Boot Existing Boundary Description: The Key Harbor. eastern boundary of Unit FL-46 Additional Comments: The island roughly follows the eastern edge of with the radio towers located about Sister Creek north to the center of halfway along Sister Creek is a Boot Key Harbor, bisecting some federally owned island, used by development Voice of America. The proposed

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 1,178.8 116.5 1,062.3 2.0 Added to the 132.4 0.0 132.4 0 CBRS Removed from the 20.0 12.2 7.8 3 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 1,291.2 104.3 1,186.9 2.0 Net Change 112.4 (12.2) 124.6 0.0 (3)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Monroe County property parcel information

D-69D69 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D70D-70 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier are aligned more precisely with the Resources System Unit FL-64P, boundaries of the Clam Bay Pass Clam Pass, Florida Conservation Area. Additional Comments: There are FL-64P Type of Unit: Otherwise protected private inholdings remaining within area (OPA) the proposed boundary which Location of Unit: North of Naples on include several private concession the Gulf Coast, in Collier County structures built on the beachfront Congressional District: 14 of the unit. In several places, the Establishment of Unit: Coastal current boundary passes through map for Unit FL-64P with the Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- private, developed land that is not proposed map dated July 21, 2005. 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 held for conservation or recreation This bill was favorably reported by Historical Changes to Unit: There purposes, and excludes undeveloped the Committee on Resources on July have been no changes to the wetlands that are part of Clam 20, 2006. Legislation was introduced boundaries of Unit FL-64P since its Bay Pass Conservation Area. This in the 110th Congress to replace the designation in 1990. adjustment will remove from Unit existing map for Unit FL-64P. Underlying Conservation/Recreation FL-64P land that is privately owned, Area(s) in OPA: Clam Bay Pass is not an inholding, and was not Conservation Area, owned by Collier held for conservation purposes at County. the time it was included in the OPA, Existing Boundary Description: The and will also add land that is held boundary of Unit FL-64P roughly for conservation or recreation to the follows the boundaries of the Clam OPA. H.R. 4165, introduced by Bay Pass Conservation Area. Congressman Connie Mack on Proposed Changes to Boundary: October 27, 2005 in the 109th The boundaries of Unit FL-64P Congress, would replace the existing Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 555.3 27.9 527.4 2.2 Added to the 65.1 2.0 63.1 0 CBRS Removed from the 47.8 24.1 23.7 17 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 572.6 5.8 566.8 1.9 Net Change 17.3 (22.1) 39.4 (0.3) (17)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Collier County property parcel information

D-71D71 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D72D-72 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier of the spit. Resources System Unit P17A, Proposed Changes to Boundary: The Bowditch Point, Florida southern boundary of Unit P17A is aligned with digital property parcel Type of Unit: System unit data of the properties that were Location of Unit: North of Naples on intended to be excluded by P.L. 103- P17A the Gulf Coast, in Lee County 461. The eastern boundary is Congressional District: 14 adjusted to include the entire Establishment of Unit: Coastal Estero Pass channel in the unit. The Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) northern boundary is adjusted to county in December 1987 after enacted on 10/18/1982 include the portion of the barrier the designation of Unit P17A. In Historical Changes to Unit: spit that has accreted beyond the 1982, the unit name was incorrectly 11/2/1994: P.L. 103-461 modified the Unit P17A boundary. identified as “Bodwitch Point” southern boundary of Unit P17A Additional Comments: The northern because the U.S. Geological Survey to include only areas that were and eastern boundaries of Unit topographic base map contained undeveloped at the time the unit was P17A are contiguous with the a typographical error. Research established. boundaries of adjacent Unit has revealed that the correct name Existing Boundary Description: The FL-67. The adjustment of these two should be “Bowditch Point” and this southern boundary of Unit P17A boundaries results in the expansion has been corrected on the draft map. cuts across Bowditch Point. The of Unit P17A into Unit FL-67. This eastern and northern boundaries change will place the appropriate are contiguous with the boundary of landforms and their associated adjacent Unit FL-67. The eastern aquatic habitats within their discrete boundary follows the approximate System units. Bowditch Point center of Estero Pass. The northern Park, owned by Lee County, is boundary curves around what was located within Unit P17A, but is not once the end of Bowditch Point, but proposed for reclassification as an the spit has since accreted so that otherwise protected area because the boundary now cuts across the tip the park was acquired by the

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 29.7 15.3 14.4 0.2 Added to the 32.1 0.9 31.2 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.3 0.0 0.3 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 61.5 16.2 45.3 0.4 Net Change 31.8 0.9 30.9 0.2 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Lee County property parcel information

D-73D73 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Bay and mangroves, and to follow Resources System Unit FL-67, the western edge of a canal and the Bunche Beach, Florida boundaries of the proposed new otherwise protected area (OPA) Unit Type of Unit: System unit FL-67P. The landward boundary is Location of Unit: North of Naples on adjusted to include mangroves on FL-67 the Gulf Coast, in Lee County the north side of proposed Congressional District: 14 Unit FL-67P, to follow the southern Establishment of Unit: Coastal shoreline of an unnamed pond and Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- the boundaries of proposed Unit FL-67 are not being proposed for 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 FL-67P, to align more precisely with reclassification as an OPA. Estero Historical Changes to Unit: There the western side of a road, and to Bay Preserve State Park, managed have been no changes to the include mangroves. The western by the Florida Department of boundaries of Unit FL-67 since its boundary is adjusted to include Big Environmental Protection was first designation in 1990. and Little Shell Islands, to follow acquired by the State of Florida in Existing Boundary Description: The more precisely the 1990 break-in- 1987. After 1987, many additional eastern boundary of Unit FL-67 development in Punta Rassa, and acres were added to the park. crosses the tip of Bowditch Point to include an accreting island and Because the dates of acquisition and follows the center of Estero developing shoals in San Carlos are unavailable for the Estero Bay Pass (which coincides with a portion Bay. The excluded area boundary is Preserve State Park parcels within of the boundaries of adjacent Unit adjusted to follow the Connie Mack Unit FL-67, those portions are not P17A). From this point, the eastern Island shoreline. The southeastern being proposed for reclassification boundary crosses San Carlos Bay, portion of the boundary is adjusted as an OPA. The northern and and generally follows the center to follow more precisely the north eastern boundaries of Unit P17A are of Pelican Bay and the edge of a side of State Highway 867 and the contiguous with the boundaries of canal west of a developed area. The 1990 break-in-development. Unit FL-67. Unit P17A is proposed landward boundary roughly follows Additional Comments: In 1990, the to be expanded into Unit FL-67 so a break in vegetation, the western unit name was incorrectly identified that the appropriate landforms and side of a road, and the northern as “Bunch Beach” because the U.S. their associated aquatic habitats edge of mangroves. This boundary Geological Survey topographic will be within their discrete System then follows the western edge of a base map contained a typographical units. channel across from development error. Research has revealed and includes developing shoals in the that the correct name is spelled Caloosahatchee River to the east of “Bunche Beach,” and this has been Shell Point. The western boundary corrected on the draft map. There follows a channel between Big and are two parks located partially Little Shell Islands and Shell Point, within Unit FL-67. The San Carlos cuts straight south through San Bay – Bunche Beach Preserve, Carlos Bay to the east of Miguel managed by the Lee County Parks Key, roughly follows the break-in- and Recreation Department, was development in Punta Rassa, and originally established in 1949, when cuts through an accreting island it consisted of a single beachfront and developing shoals in San Carlos acre within what would become Bay. The excluded area boundary Unit FL-67 in 1990. Between 2002 generally follows the shoreline of and 2006, more than 7,880 acres Connie Mack Island, the north side were added to the park. Of those, of State Highway 867, and a break- approximately 5,995 are within in-development. the current boundary of Unit Proposed Changes to Boundary: FL-67. Because all land except The eastern boundary of Unit the beachfront acre was added to FL-67 is adjusted to be coincident San Carlos Bay – Bunche Beach with the proposed boundaries of Preserve after Unit FL-67 was adjacent Unit P17A, to include a established, those portions of the small undeveloped island in Pelican preserve that are within Unit

D74D-74 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System FL-67, Bunche Beach, Florida (continued) Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 3,070.7 122.5 2,948.2 4.6 Added to the 329.2 16.6 312.6 0 CBRS Removed from the 24.3 1.3 23.0 1 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 3,375.6 137.8 3,237.8 4.6 Net Change 304.9 15.3 289.6 0.0 (1)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Lee County property parcel information

D-75D75 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier established in 1949, when it Resources System Unit FL-67P, consisted of a single beachfront acre Bunche Beach, Florida within what would become Unit FL-67 in 1990. Between 2002 Type of Unit: Proposed new and 2006, more than 7,880 acres otherwise protected area (OPA) were added to the park. Of those, Location of Unit: North of Naples on approximately 5,995 are within the FL-67P the Gulf Coast, in Lee County current boundary of Unit FL-67. Congressional District: 14 Proposed Boundaries: The Current CBRS Status: The proposed boundaries of the proposed new the CBRS before it was added to the new OPA Unit FL-67P is not unit follow the boundaries of those Preserve. currently within the John H. Chafee portions of the San Carlos Bay Coastal Barrier Resources System – Bunche Beach Preserve that are (CBRS). not within System Unit FL-67. Otherwise Protected Area Criteria: Additional Comments: There are no Proposed new Unit FL-67P meets known private inholdings within the the Coastal Barrier Improvement proposed new Unit FL-67P. Those Act definition of an OPA. The portions of the San Carlos Bay San Carlos Bay – Bunche Beach – Bunche Beach Preserve that are Preserve, managed by the Lee within System Unit FL-67 are not County Parks and Recreation being proposed for reclassification as Department, was originally an OPA because the land was in Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added to the 170.5 19.5 151.0 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 170.5 19.5 151.0 0.0 Net Change 170.5 19.5 151.0 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Lee County property parcel information

D76D-76 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-77D77 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier roughly follows the wetland/fastland Resources System Unit P21, interface along the mainland. The Bocilla Island, Florida northern boundary cuts across Lemon Bay, follows the center of Type of Unit: System unit Stump Pass, and cuts across the Location of Unit: South of Punta tip of a spit that has accreted into Gorda Beach on the Gulf Coast, in the unit. A portion of the northern P21 Charlotte County boundary is also contiguous with the Congressional District: 13 southern boundary of adjacent OPA Establishment of Unit: Coastal Unit P21P. boundary is adjusted to follow Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) Proposed Changes to Boundary: more precisely the wetland/fastland enacted on 10/18/1982 Southern segment: The southern interface. The northern boundary Historical Changes to Unit: boundary is aligned with digital is adjusted to include associated 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added property parcel data to follow aquatic habitat north to State associated aquatic habitat to more precisely the 1982 break-in- Highway 776, to follow the wetland/ Unit P21, and created otherwise development and is extended to the fastland interface and the proposed protected area (OPA) Unit P21P on mainland to include the associated boundaries of the adjacent Unit the same map. aquatic habitat. The landward P21P. Existing Boundary Description: boundary is adjusted to follow Additional Comments: Open water Unit P21 consists of three discrete the shoreline of the mainland and that is currently within Unit P21P segments. is connected with the landward but is not held for conservation or Southern segment: The northern boundary of the middle segment of recreation purposes, is proposed and southern boundaries cut Unit P21. The northern boundary for reclassification from OPA Unit straight across Little Gasparilla connects with the middle segment, P21P to System Unit P21. Don Island at the break-in-development. follows the Little Gasparilla Island Pedro Island State Park, managed The landward boundary lies about shoreline, and is aligned with digital by the Florida Department of a third of the way across Placida property parcel data to follow Environmental Protection, is Harbor. more precisely the 1982 break-in- located within Unit P21, but is not Middle segment: The southern development. proposed for reclassification as an boundary cuts across Little Middle Segment: The southern OPA because the park was acquired Gasparilla Island roughly at the boundary is aligned with digital by the State of Florida in 1985, after break-in-development and follows property parcel data to follow Unit P21 was established. the channel between two islands to more precisely the 1982 break- the shoreline of the mainland. The in-development and connects landward boundary generally follows with the southern segment. The the wetland/fastland interface landward boundary connects and the shoreline of the mainland. with the southern segment and is The northern boundary generally adjusted to follow more precisely the follows the eastern shoreline of wetland/fastland interface and the Don Pedro Island and cuts through shoreline. The northern boundary is development on Don Pedro Island at adjusted to follow more precisely the the 1982 break-in-development. shoreline of Don Pedro Island. Northern segment: The southern Northern segment: The southern boundary cuts across the barrier, boundary is aligned with digital bisecting areas of development, property parcel data to follow and then crosses Lemon Bay to the more precisely the 1982 break-in- mainland. The landward boundary development. The landward

D78D-78 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System P21, Bocilla Island, Florida (continued) Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 2,078.6 413.4 1,665.2 3.7 Added to the 1,754.2 3.1 1,751.1 0 CBRS Removed from the 12.1 2.2 9.9 1 CBRS Reclassified Area 179.3 (1.8) 181.1 0.0 Proposed Unit 4,000.0 412.5 3,587.5 3.6 Net Change 1,921.4 (0.9) 1,922.3 (0.1) (1)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Charlotte County property parcel information

D-79D79 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Existing Boundary Description: The Resources System Unit P21P, southern boundary of Unit P21P Bocilla Island, Florida cuts across a sandy spit accreting on the tip of the barrier, and follows the Type of Unit: Otherwise protected approximate center of an inlet. The area (OPA) eastern boundary lies in the open P21P Location of Unit: South of Punta water of Lemon Bay. The northern Gorda Beach on the Gulf Coast, in boundary follows the center of a Charlotte County small river, and cuts across the Congressional District: 13 primary barrier roughly at the to private properties. A second Establishment of Unit: Coastal break-in-development. segment of Unit P21P is proposed Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Proposed Changes to Boundary: The on the other side of Lemon Bay to 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 southern boundary of Unit P21P is include Cedar Point Environmental Historical Changes to Unit: There adjusted to the landward shoreline Park. have been no changes to the of the primary barrier to account Additional Comments: There are boundaries of Unit P21P since its for accretion of the island. The no known private inholdings within designation in 1990. eastern and northern boundaries are Unit P21P. The existing boundaries Underlying Conservation/Recreation adjusted to follow the shorelines of of Unit P21P include open water in Area(s) in OPA: Stump Pass Beach the islands making up Stump Pass Lemon Bay that is not part of Stump State Park, acquired by the Florida Beach State Park, and to align it to Pass Beach State Park. This open Department of Environmental the northern park boundary on the water is proposed for reclassification Protection in 1971. primary barrier where it is adjacent from OPA Unit P21P to System Unit P21. Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 434.6 129.9 304.7 1.2 Added to the 111.2 73.6 37.6 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area (179.3) 1.8 (181.1) 0.0 Proposed Unit 366.5 205.3 161.2 1.2 Net Change (68.1) 75.4 (143.5) 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Charlotte County property parcel information

D80D-80 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-81D81 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier landward boundary follows the Resources System Unit P22, wetland/fastland interface. The Casey Key, Florida southern boundary crosses Little Sarasota Bay and cuts across the Type of Unit: System unit barrier island at the break-in- Location of Unit: Southeast of St. development. P22 Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in Proposed Changes to Boundary: Sarasota County The northern boundary of Unit Congressional District: 13 P22 is aligned with digital property Establishment of Unit: Coastal parcel data and follows more established in 1982, these parks are Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) precisely the eastern edge of the not proposed for reclassification as enacted on 10/18/1982 channel separating Siesta Key from an otherwise protected area because Historical Changes to Unit: Bird Keys. The landward boundary the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added is adjusted to follow more precisely records indicate that, in 1982, it was wetlands to Unit P22. the wetland/fastland interface. known that the county owned the Existing Boundary Description: The Additional Comments: There are lands for these parks, and Congress northern boundary of Unit P22 two parks located within Unit still chose to adopt the Unit P22 crosses the barrier island generally P22. The Jim Neville Marine boundaries. at the break-in-development, Preserve and Palmer Point Park roughly follows the channel around were deeded to Sarasota County for Bird Keys, and crosses Little conservation on August 14, 1980. Sarasota Bay until it reaches the Although these lands were held for shoreline of the mainland. The conservation when Unit P22 was

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 618.7 89.7 529.0 0.8 Added to the 31.3 0.8 30.5 0 CBRS Removed from the 4.6 0.0 4.6 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 645.4 90.5 554.9 0.8 Net Change 26.7 0.8 25.9 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Sarasota County property parcel information

D82D-82 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-83D83 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Underlying Conservation/Recreation Resources System Unit FL-72P, Area(s) in OPA: Otter Key and Lido Key, Florida South Lido Park, both owned by the Sarasota County Parks and Type of Unit: Otherwise protected Recreation Department. area (OPA) Existing Boundary Description: The FL-72P Location of Unit: Southeast of northwestern boundary of Unit Sarasota on the Gulf Coast, in FL-72P roughly follows the Sarasota County boundaries of Otter Key and South Congressional District: 13 Lido Park. To the north, west, and to remain parallel to the adjusted Establishment of Unit: Coastal south, the boundaries are in open northwestern boundary in the Gulf Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- water off the coast of Otter Key and of Mexico. 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 South Lido Park. The southern Additional Comments: There are Historical Changes to Unit: boundary follows Big Sarasota Pass. no known private inholdings within 11/2/1994: P.L. 103-461 modified the Proposed Changes to Boundary: Unit FL-72P. northwestern boundaries of OPA The northwestern portion of the Unit FL-72P to include only areas boundary of Unit FL-72P is aligned that were undeveloped at the time more precisely with the boundaries the unit was established. of Otter Key and South Lido Park. The southern boundary is shifted

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 344.1 135.6 208.5 0.3 Added to the 3.4 2.8 0.6 0 CBRS Removed from the 2.0 1.7 0.3 2 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Proposed Unit 345.5 136.7 208.8 0.3 Net Change 1.4 1.1 0.3 0.0 (2)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Sarasota County property parcel information

D84D-84 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-85D85 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier National Memorial. Resources System Unit FL-73P, Proposed Changes to Boundary: De Soto, Florida The boundaries of Unit FL-73P are aligned more precisely with Type of Unit: Otherwise protected the boundaries of De Soto National area (OPA) Memorial. This includes the FL-73P Location of Unit: South of St. addition of an adjacent parcel to the Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in south, owned by Manatee County Manatee County and managed as part of the national Congressional District: 13 memorial. Establishment of Unit: Coastal Additional Comments: There are Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- no known private inholdings within 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Unit FL-73P. The open water Historical Changes to Unit: component of the existing Unit There have been no changes to the FL-73P is proposed for boundaries of Unit FL-73P since its reclassification to System Unit designation in 1990. FL-78 because the boundary of Underlying Conservation/Recreation System Unit FL-78 is proposed to Area(s) in OPA: De Soto National include the entire Manatee River Memorial, owned by the National Channel. Park Service since 1948. Existing Boundary Description: The boundaries of Unit FL-73P roughly follow the boundaries of the De Soto Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 162.1 21.6 140.5 0.6 Added to the 13.7 12.9 0.8 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area (137.8) 0.0 (137.8) 0.0 Proposed Unit 38.0 34.5 3.5 0.7 Net Change (124.1) 12.9 (137.0) 0.1 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Manatee County property parcel information

D86D-86 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier and appears to follow the break-in- Resources System Unit FL-78, development before continuing into Rattlesnake Key, Florida the Manatee River where it turns west and extends past Snead Island. Type of Unit: System unit Proposed Changes to Boundary: Location of Unit: South of St. The landward boundary of Unit FL-78 Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in FL-78 is adjusted to follow more Manatee County precisely the wetland/fastland Congressional District: 13 interface on Terra Ceia Island. The Establishment of Unit: Coastal southern boundary is adjusted to boundary is adjusted to include the Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- follow more precisely the Snead entire Manatee River channel 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Island shoreline, to exclude a parcel within the unit. Emerson Point Historical Changes to Unit: There which was developed at the time Park, managed by Manatee County, have been no changes to the Unit FL-78 was established, and to is located partially within Unit boundaries of Unit FL-78 since its follow more precisely the wetland/ FL-78, but is not proposed for designation in 1990. fastland interface and the edge of reclassification as an OPA because Existing Boundary Description: The mangroves. The southern boundary the park was acquired by the State northern boundary of Unit FL-78 is also adjusted to include the entire of Florida in 1991 after Unit FL-78 crosses through Big Migual Pass and Manatee River channel within Unit was established. Migual Bay. The landward boundary FL-78. continues across Critical Bayou, Additional Comments: The open roughly follows the wetland/fastland water component of the existing interface on Terra Ceia Island, and Unit FL-73P, which is not held for crosses Terra Ceia Bay to include conservation or recreation purposes, several small keys. The southern is proposed for reclassification from boundary generally follows the otherwise protected area (OPA) to shoreline of Snead Island and the System Unit status as part of Unit edge of mangroves on the island FL-78 because the Unit FL-78

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 3,067.9 111.8 2,956.1 4.1 Added to the 279.7 1.3 278.4 0 CBRS Removed from the 5.3 4.5 0.8 1 CBRS Reclassified Area 137.8 0.0 137.8 0.0 Proposed Unit 3,480.1 108.6 3,371.5 4.1 Net Change 412.2 (3.2) 415.4 0.0 (1)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998, 1999 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Manatee County property parcel information

D-87D87 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier conservation by the State of Florida Resources System Unit FL-78P, in 1991. Rattlesnake Key, Florida Proposed Boundaries: The boundaries of proposed new Unit Type of Unit: Proposed new FL-78P follow the boundaries of otherwise protected area (OPA) those portions of Emerson Point FL-78P Location of Unit: South of St. Park that are not within Unit Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in FL-78. However, a small tract Manatee County on the eastern end of the park is Congressional District: 13 separated from the main body of Current CBRS Status: The proposed the park by an undeveloped private new OPA Unit FL-78P is not property. Neither the private currently within the John H. Chafee property nor the separate tract of Coastal Barrier Resources System. park property is included in the Otherwise Protected Area Criteria: proposed OPA. Proposed new Unit FL-78P meets Additional Comments: There are no the Coastal Barrier Improvement known private inholdings within the Act definition of an OPA. Emerson proposed new Unit FL-78P. Point Park, managed by Manatee County, was acquired for Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added to the 12.2 6.2 6.0 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 12.2 6.2 6.0 0.0 Net Change 12.2 6.2 6.0 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Manatee County property parcel information

D88D-88 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier interface). The landward boundary Resources System Unit FL-82, also cuts across Bishop Harbor, Bishop Harbor, Florida Clambar Bay, and Williams Bayou. The southern boundary generally Type of Unit: System unit follows the northern edge of Location of Unit: Southeast of St. Interstate Highway 275 and extends FL-82 Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in out into open water. Manatee County Proposed Changes to Boundary: The Congressional District: 11 northern boundary of Unit FL-82 is Establishment of Unit: Coastal adjusted to follow more precisely the as an OPA because Volume 15 of Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- edge of mangroves. The landward the Department of the Interior’s 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 boundary is adjusted to follow more 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal Historical Changes to Unit: There precisely the road in the north, and Barrier Resources System, have been no changes to the changes in vegetation including Recommendations for Additions boundaries of Unit FL-82 since its the edges of mangroves, and the to or Deletions from the Coastal designation in 1990. wetland/fastland interface. Barrier Resources System stated Existing Boundary Description: Additional Comments: Terra Ceia that in Florida, Aquatic Preserves The northern boundary of Unit Preserve State Park is partially and Outstanding Florida Waters do FL-82 starts in open water, and located within Unit FL-82, but is not meet the definition of “otherwise when the boundary reaches land, not proposed for reclassification protected”. it follows the wetland/fastland as an otherwise protected area interface along Redfish Creek. The (OPA) because the State park was landward boundary roughly follows not established until July 1, 2004, a road for a short distance in the after the designation of Unit FL- northern section and then various 82. Portions of the park are the natural features, including changes area that was previously Terra Ceia in vegetation (such as the edge of Aquatic Preserve. This area is not mangroves and the wetland/fastland proposed for reclassification a Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 1,719.7 89.3 1,630.4 5.1 Added to the 32.1 0.0 32.1 0 CBRS Removed from the 26.1 16.1 10.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 1,725.7 73.2 1,652.5 5.1 Net Change 6.0 (16.1) 22.1 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004, aerial photography, and 2003 Manatee County property parcel information

D-89D89 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D90D-90 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Underlying Conservation/Recreation Resources System Unit FL-80P, Area(s) in OPA: Passage Key Passage Key, Florida National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Type of Unit: Otherwise protected Service. area (OPA) Existing Boundary Description: FL-80P Location of Unit: Tampa Bay on the The boundaries of Unit FL-80P lie Gulf Coast, in Manatee County entirely in open water to include the Congressional District: 13 land and developing shoals of the Establishment of Unit: Coastal Passage Key NWR. Additional Comments: There are Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- Proposed Changes to Boundary: The no known private inholdings within 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 southern boundary of Unit FL-80P Unit FL-80P. Historical Changes to Unit: There is adjusted further south to include have been no changes to the all of the sandy shoals developing off boundaries of Unit FL-80P since its the southern end of Passage Key. designation in 1990.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 655.2 3.2 652.0 1.6 Added to the 82.4 0.0 82.4 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 737.6 3.2 734.4 1.8 Net Change 82.4 0.0 82.4 0.2 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-91D91 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier boundary is adjusted to align more Resources System Unit FL-81, precisely with the northern Egmont Key, Florida boundary of the Egmont Key NWR, which is also the boundary of Type of Unit: System unit adjacent otherwise protected area FL-81 Location of Unit: South of St. (OPA) Unit FL-81P. Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in Southern segment: The northern, Hillsborough County western, and southern boundaries Congressional District: 11 are adjusted to align more precisely Establishment of Unit: Coastal with the boundaries of the Tampa or Deletions from the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act, or CBIA, Bay Pilots Association property. Barrier Resources System, did not (P.L. 101-591) enacted on 11/16/1990 The eastern boundary is adjusted to recommend including the Tampa Historical Changes to Unit: There follow the shoreline. Bay Pilots Association property have been no changes to the Additional Comments: The northern within Unit FL-81. However, the boundaries of Unit FL-81 since its tip of the island belongs to the U.S. map adopted by Congress with the designation in 1990. Coast Guard for the maintenance enactment of the CBIA included this Existing Boundary Description: Unit of a lighthouse. Arrangements property within Unit FL-81. Section FL-81 consists of two segments, between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 5(a)(6) of P.L. 101-591 allows Federal described here as the northern and Service and the Florida Department expenditures to be made available southern segments. of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the operation and maintenance of Northern segment: The northern and between the Coast Guard and “water navigation aids and devices, and eastern boundaries are in the DEP allows the entire island, and for access thereto,” if they are open water around the northern other than the Tampa Bay Pilots consistent with the Coastal Barrier tip of Egmont Key. The southern Association property and the Resources Act of 1982. boundary cuts across Egmont lighthouse facility, to be managed Key at roughly the boundary of by the DEP as Egmont Key State the Egmont Key National Wildlife Park. Not enough information Refuge (NWR). has been collected at this time to Southern segment: The boundaries determine whether the Coast Guard of the southern segment roughly property should be reclassified as follow the boundaries of the an OPA under this arrangement. property owned by the Tampa Bay Volume 15 of the Department of the Pilots Association. Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress : Proposed Changes to Boundary: Coastal Barrier Resources System, Northern segment: The southern Recommendations for Additions to Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 301.6 39.2 262.4 0.9 Added to the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area (4.7) (1.0) (3.7) 0.0 Proposed Unit 296.9 38.2 258.7 0.9 Net Change (4.7) (1.0) (3.7) 0.0 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure countnot conducted; no fastland added or removed

D92D-92 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier FL-81P crosses Egmont Key Resources System Unit FL-81P, at approximately the northern Egmont Key, Florida boundary of the Egmont Key NWR. At the Tampa Bay side of Type of Unit: Otherwise protected the shore, the boundary turns south area (OPA) and follows the shoreline. It briefly FL-81P Location of Unit: South of St. turns inland again to exclude land Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in owned by the Tampa Bay Pilots Hillsborough County Association, returns to following the Congressional District: 11 shoreline, and turns out to the Gulf aligned more precisely to the Establishment of Unit: Coastal of Mexico past the southern tip of boundaries of Egmont Key NWR. Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- the island. Additional Comments: There are 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Proposed Changes to Boundary: The no known private inholdings within Historical Changes to Unit: There eastern boundary of Unit FL-81P Unit FL-81P. have been no changes to Unit is moved off the shoreline as far as FL-81P since its designation in 1990. the eastern boundary of adjacent Underlying Conservation/Recreation System Unit FL-81 in order to Area(s) in OPA: Egmont Key avoid future map revisions due to National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), shoreline changes. The southern owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife boundary is adjusted to include Service since 1974. shoals developing off of the southern Existing Boundary Description: tip of Egmont Key. The remaining The northern boundary of Unit boundaries of Unit FL-81P are Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 289.7 208.2 81.5 1.7 Added to the 536.4 9.7 526.7 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 4.7 1.0 3.7 0.0 Proposed Unit 830.8 218.9 611.9 1.9 Net Change 541.1 10.7 530.4 0.2 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Hillsborough County property parcel information

D-93D93 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D94D-94 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier not proposed for reclassification Resources System Unit FL-83, as an otherwise protected area Cockroach Bay, Florida (OPA) because the state park was not established until July 1, 2004, Type of Unit: System unit after the designation of Unit FL- Location of Unit: Southeast of St. 83. Portions of the park are the FL-83 Petersburg on the Gulf Coast, in area that was previously Cockroach Hillsborough County Bay Aquatic Preserve. This area Congressional District: 11 is not proposed for reclassification System unit to OPA status because Establishment of Unit: Coastal as an OPA because Volume 15 of insufficient information is available Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- the Department of the Interior’s on the location of these parcels. 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal The “Cockroach and Piney Point Historical Changes to Unit: There Barrier Resources System, Creeks” site is also not proposed have been no changes to Unit FL-83 Recommendations for Additions for reclassification from System since its designation in 1990. to or Deletions from the Coastal unit to OPA status because this site Existing Boundary Description: The Barrier Resources System stated was acquired for conservation or northern boundary of Unit FL-83 that in Florida, Aquatic Preserves recreation purposes after Unit FL- cuts through open water northeast and Outstanding Florida Waters do 83 was established in 1990. of Sand Key, and crosses the barrier not meet the definition of “otherwise at the break-in-development. The protected”. Two sites acquired landward boundary roughly follows through Hillsborough County’s the edge of mangroves, a portion Environmental Lands Acquisition of the Cockroach Bay shoreline, and Protection Program (ELAPP) and a levee that is located south are also located partially within of Cockroach Bay. The southern Unit FL-83. The parcels in the boundary generally follows the levee “Cockroach Bay” ELAPP site were and Piney Point Creek. acquired between 1989 and 2004, Proposed Changes to Boundary: The and the “Cockroach and Piney Point landward boundary of Unit FL-83 Creeks” ELAPP site was acquired is adjusted to follow more precisely in 2004. The purpose of ELAPP is the eastern edge of mangroves, the to acquire, preserve, and protect Cockroach Bay shoreline, and the endangered and environmentally northern edge of the levee. The sensitive lands in Hillsborough southern boundary is adjusted to County. Although some of the follow more precisely the northern parcels within the “Cockroach Bay” edge of a levee and the southern ELAPP site were acquired before shoreline of Piney Point Creek. Unit FL-83 was established, they Additional Comments: Cockroach are not proposed at this time for Bay Preserve State Park is partially reclassification from located within Unit FL-83, but is

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 3,292.5 88.0 3,204.5 5.6 Added to the 54.5 12.0 42.5 0 CBRS Removed from the 16.2 6.7 9.5 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 3,330.8 93.3 3,237.5 5.6 Net Change 38.3 5.3 33.0 0.0 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1998 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Hillsborough County property parcel information

D-95D95 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D96D-96 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Existing Boundary Description: The Resources System Unit FL-85P, northern boundary of Unit FL-85P Sand Key, Florida cuts generally through Clearwater Pass. The landward boundary Type of Unit: Otherwise protected generally follows the center of area (OPA) the Intracoastal Waterway. The FL-85P Location of Unit: West of Tampa on southern boundary roughly follows the Gulf Coast, in Pinellas County the boundaries of Sand Key Park. Congressional District: 10 Proposed Changes to Boundary: The Establishment of Unit: Coastal southern boundary of Unit FL-85P Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- is aligned more precisely to the 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 boundaries of Sand Key Park and Historical Changes to Unit: There the City of Clearwater property. have been no changes to Unit FL- The northern and southern 85P since its designation in 1990. boundaries are extended into the Underlying Conservation/Recreation Gulf of Mexico to include the entire Area(s) in OPA: Sand Key Park, peninsula. owned by the Pinellas County Additional Comments: There are Parks and Recreation Department no known private inholdings within since 1984. Public beach walks and Unit FL-85P. sailing school managed by the City of Clearwater since approximately 1991.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 528.2 97.9 430.3 0.8 Added to the 11.1 2.6 8.5 14 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 539.3 100.5 438.8 0.8 Net Change 11.1 2.6 8.5 0.0 1

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Pinellas County property parcel information 4 According to the Clearwater Community Sailing Center, this structure is a sailing center owned by the City of Clearwater for public recreation purposes D-97D97 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D98D-98 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier mainland; however, the proposed Resources System Unit P26, Unit P26 boundary does not include Pepperfish Keys, Florida the associated aquatic habitat on the mainland because it is within the Type of Unit: System unit Jena Unit of the Big Bend Wildlife Location of Unit: West of Gainesville Management Area. At this time, P26 on the Gulf Coast, in Dixie County the associated aquatic habitat within Congressional District: 2 the wildlife management area is not Establishment of Unit: Coastal proposed for addition to the John H. Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources Barrier Resources System stated enacted on 10/18/1982 System as an otherwise protected that in Florida, Aquatic Preserves Historical Changes to Unit: There area (OPA) because sufficient and Outstanding Florida Waters do have been no changes to the information has not been collected to not meet the definition of “otherwise boundaries of Unit P26 since its determine its eligibility as an OPA. protected.” designation in 1982. The Big Bend Seagrasses Aquatic Existing Boundary Description: The Preserve is located along some boundary of Unit P26 falls entirely 150 miles of the northeast Florida in open water around the three Gulf of Mexico coast, including the islands making up Pepperfish Keys. waters surrounding Pepperfish Proposed Changes to Boundary: The Keys. This aquatic preserve is not landward boundary of Unit P26 is proposed for reclassification as adjusted northward to include the an OPA because Volume 15 of the associated aquatic habitat located Department of the Interior’s behind Pepperfish Keys. 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal Additional Comments: The Barrier Resources System, associated aquatic habitat behind Recommendations for Additions to Pepperfish Keys extends onto the or Deletions from the Coastal Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 683.8 0.0 683.8 3.1 Added to the 501.3 0.0 501.3 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 Proposed Unit 1,185.1 0.0 1,185.1 3.1 Net Change 501.3 0.0 501.3 0.0 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-99D99 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D100D-100 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier landward boundary lies entirely Resources System Unit FL-89, within open water in Alligator Peninsula Point, Florida Harbor. The western boundary passes through open water to the Type of Unit: System unit west of Peninsula Point. Location of Unit: South of Proposed Changes to Boundary: FL-89 Tallahassee on the Gulf Coast, in The eastern boundary of Unit Franklin County FL-89 is adjusted to exclude a Congressional District: 2 structure that was on-the-ground Establishment of Unit: Coastal in 1990 when Unit FL-89 was or Deletions from the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act, or CBIA established. The landward and Barrier Resources System included (P.L. 101-591), enacted on 11/16/1990 western boundaries are adjusted to comments from the State of Florida Historical Changes to Unit: account for the northward accretion that supported the designation 2/24/1997: Unit FL-89 boundaries of Alligator Point, and follow the of privately owned land held for expanded northward and westward wetland/fastland interface along the conservation purposes as System to include areas of accretion in the mainland. units and not as otherwise protected unit in accordance with Section Additional Comments: Most of areas in order to prohibit the 4(c) of P.L. 101-591, which states the land on Alligator Point within availability of Federal funds should that System unit boundaries are to Unit FL-89 was owned by The the land ever be sold by private be reviewed every five years and Nature Conservancy prior to the owners for development. Congress modified to reflect changes caused designation of Unit FL-89 in 1990. then enacted the CBIA that by natural forces. The Department of the Interior’s established the area as System Unit Existing Boundary Description: The 1988 Report to Congress: Coastal FL-89. eastern boundary of Unit FL-89 cuts Barrier Resources System, across Peninsula Point. The Recommendations for Additions to

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 639.8 34.2 605.6 1.7 Added to the 671.6 0.3 671.3 0 CBRS Removed from the 22.5 0.3 22.2 1 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 1,288.9 34.2 1,254.7 2.6 Net Change 649.1 0.0 649.1 0.9 (1)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2005 Franklin County property parcel information

D-101D101 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D102D-102 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier within the CBRS currently meet the Resources System Unit FL-93, CBRA definition and criteria of an Phillips Inlet, Florida undeveloped coastal barrier. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is Type of Unit: Proposed new System not aware of the existence of a full unit complement of infrastructure in this FL-93 Location of Unit: Northwest of area at the time the area was first Panama City on the Gulf Coast, in included within the CBRS. Bay County Proposed Boundaries: The eastern Congressional District: 2 boundary of the proposed new and criteria for an undeveloped Current CBRS Status: Most of unit is aligned to digital property coastal barrier at the time they were the proposed new Unit FL-93 is parcel data. The northern established within the OPA. currently within the boundaries of boundary precisely follows the otherwise protected area (OPA) Unit southern edge of the highway. The FL-93P. western boundary is aligned to the System Unit Criteria: Areas of boundaries of Camp Helen State proposed new Unit FL-93 that are Park. This boundary is coincident currently within Unit FL-93P met with the proposed eastern boundary the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of adjacent OPA Unit FL-93P. (CBRA) definition and criteria of Additional Comments: The an undeveloped coastal barrier at portions of proposed new Unit the time they were first included FL-93 currently within FL-93P are within the John H. Chafee Coastal proposed for reclassification because Barrier Resources System (CBRS) they are not held for conservation or in 1990. Areas of proposed new recreation, are not inholdings, Unit FL-93 that are currently not and met the CBRA definition of Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Added to the 4.0 1.9 2.1 0 CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 CBRS Reclassified Area 126.7 35.7 91.0 0.2 Proposed Unit 130.7 37.6 93.1 0.2 Net Change 130.7 37.6 93.1 0.2 0

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2003 Bay County property parcel information

D-103D103 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier excluding an area of development, Resources System Unit FL-93P, then follows the U.S. Highway Phillips Inlet, Florida 98 bridge across the inlet. At the southeast corner of the unit, the Type of Unit: Otherwise protected boundary takes an irregular path area (OPA) back to the Gulf of Mexico. FL-93P Location of Unit: Northwest of Proposed Changes to Boundary: The Panama City on the Gulf Coast, in western and eastern boundaries of Bay County Unit FL-93P are adjusted to align Congressional District: 2 with the boundaries of Camp Helen development in the southeast corner Establishment of Unit: Coastal State Park, including significant of the unit that existed when the Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- areas not currently within the OPA, area was established within the 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 and removing privately owned land OPA. Currently, the OPA includes Historical Changes to Unit: There that is not held for conservation or an area of privately held associated have been no changes to the recreation and is not an inholding aquatic habitat and fastland that boundaries of Unit FL-93P since its of Camp Helen State Park. The are outside the Camp Helen State designation in 1990. landward boundary is adjusted to Park boundary and not held for Underlying Conservation/Recreation follow the center of Powell Lake. conservation or recreation purposes. Area(s) in OPA: Camp Helen State Additional Comments: There are The area is not an inholding and met Park, acquired by the Florida no known private inholdings within the CBRA definition of and criteria Department of Environmental Unit FL-93P. A corporate retreat for an undeveloped coastal barrier Protection in 1996. called Camp Helen, owned by at the time it was established within Existing Boundary Description: Avondale Textile Mills, had been the OPA. Therefore this area is It is not clear what the existing in this area since 1945. It was sold proposed for reclassification from boundaries of Unit FL-93P follow. in 1987 to private interests. The OPA Unit FL-93P to System Unit Volume 15 of the Department of the State of Florida purchased the FL-93. Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress land and established Camp Helen shows the boundaries on an outdated State Park in 1996. The base map U.S. Geological Survey topographic used to delineate the boundaries base map. The western boundary in the 1988 Report to Congress: follows the Bay County boundary Coastal Barrier Resources System, for a short distance inland from the Recommendations for Additions shoreline. It intermittently follows to or Deletions from the Coastal U.S. Highway 98 and what may be Barrier Resources System was contour lines around an area outdated and does not show shown on the base map as wetlands, significant condominium Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 241.9 82.9 159.0 0.6 Added to the 157.1 94.8 62.3 0 CBRS Removed from the 13.4 12.0 1.4 6 CBRS Reclassified Area (126.7) (35.7) (91.0) (0.2) Proposed Unit 258.9 130.0 128.9 0.3 Net Change 17.0 47.1 (30.1) (0.3) (6)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2003 Bay County property parcel information

D104D-104 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-105D105 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier the western edge of an unnamed Resources System Unit FL-94, lake on the west side of Deer Lake, Deer Lake Complex, Florida and extends straight out into the Gulf of Mexico once it reaches the Type of Unit: System unit southern edge of the lake. Location of Unit: North of Panama Proposed Changes to Boundary: The FL-94 City on the Gulf Coast, in Walton eastern boundary of Unit FL-94 is County aligned with digital property parcel Congressional District: 2 data and is adjusted to follow more Establishment of Unit: Coastal precisely the Camp Creek Lake the-ground in 1990 when Unit FL-94 Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- shoreline. The northern boundary was established. 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 is aligned with the southern side of Additional Comments: Deer Lake Historical Changes to Unit: There the State Highway 30A bridge over State Park is located partially within have been no changes to the Camp Creek Lake and is adjusted Unit FL-94, but is not proposed boundaries of Unit FL-94 since its to follow more precisely the break for reclassification as an otherwise designation in 1990. between the sand and vegetated protected area because the park was Existing Boundary Description: The areas and the shorelines of Camp acquired on February 6, 1996, after eastern boundary of Unit FL-94 Creek Lake and the unnamed lake the designation of Unit FL-94. generally follows the shoreline of on the west side of Deer Lake. The Camp Creek Lake and the southern western boundary is adjusted to edge of State Highway 30A. The follow more precisely the shoreline northern boundary follows the break of the unnamed lake on the west between the sand and vegetated side of Deer Lake and is aligned areas. The western boundary with digital property parcel data to generally follows exclude development that was on- Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 265.7 89.2 176.5 1.8 Added to the 3.2 1.4 1.8 0 CBRS Removed from the 17.2 12.0 5.2 11 CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 251.7 78.6 173.1 1.7 Net Change (14.0) (10.6) (3.4) (0.1) (11)

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count derived from 1999 and 2004 aerial photography, and 2004 Walton County property parcel information

D106D-106 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-107D107 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Existing Boundary Description: Resources System Unit LA-01, The boundary of Unit LA-01 falls Isle au Pitre, Louisiana entirely in open water around the three islands making up the unit. Type of Unit: System unit Proposed Changes to Boundary: Location of Unit: East of New There are no proposed changes to LA-01 Orleans, in St. Bernard Parish the boundary of Unit LA-01. Congressional District: 3 Establishment of Unit: Coastal Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Historical Changes to Unit: There have been no changes to Unit LA-01 since its designation in 1990.

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 5,029.6 12.8 5,016.8 6.1 Added to the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 5,029.6 12.8 5,016.8 6.1 Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D108D-108 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-109D109 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier two islands making up the unit. The Resources System Unit LA-02, northern boundary follows the State Grand Island, Louisiana boundary between Mississippi and Louisiana. Type of Unit: System unit Proposed Changes to Boundary: LA-02 Location of Unit: East of New There are no proposed changes to Orleans, in St. Bernard Parish the boundaries of Unit LA-02. Congressional District: 3 Additional Comments: According Establishment of Unit: Coastal to the 1994 U. S. Geological Survey Barrier Improvement Act (P.L. 101- topographic map titled Saint Joe 591) enacted on 11/16/1990 Pass, the name of the large island Historical Changes to Unit: There within Unit LA-02 has changed from have been no changes to Unit LA-02 Grand Island to Half Moon Island. since its designation in 1990. Existing Boundary Description: The boundary of Unit LA-02 falls entirely in open water around the Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 6,013.6 0.0 6,013.6 2.4 Added to the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 6,013.6 0.0 6,013.6 2.4 Net Change 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D110D-110 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-111D111 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier canal. The northern boundary Resources System Unit S04, roughly follows the center of Timbalier Bay, Louisiana Havoline Canal and a small stream that connects Havoline Canal and Type of Unit: System unit Devils Bay, and then the boundary Location of Unit: South of New passes through Devils Bay. The S04 Orleans, in Lafourche Parish western boundary crosses through Congressional District: 3 Timbalier Bay. A portion of the Establishment of Unit: Coastal western boundary once passed Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) through East Timbalier Island. The flotation canal is adjusted to align enacted on 10/18/1982 island has eroded, and the boundary with the eastern shoreline of Bayou Historical Changes to Unit: now lies in open water with all of Lafourche. The northern portion of 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 modified East Timbalier Island to the west. the boundary that follows Havoline Unit S04 to add associated aquatic Also, a portion of the western Canal is adjusted to include the habitat. In addition, the eastern boundary is contiguous with the entire Havoline Canal channel. The portion of Unit S04 was added to eastern boundary of adjacent Unit northern portion of the boundary Unit S03. S05. following the small stream that Existing Boundary Description: Proposed Changes to Boundary: connects Havoline Canal and Devils The eastern boundary of Unit S04 The eastern portion of the Unit S04 Bay is adjusted to align with the generally follows the center of Belle boundary that follows Belle Pass is northern shoreline of that stream. Pass, and the western side of Bayou adjusted to include the entire Belle Lafourche, switching to the eastern Pass channel. The eastern portion side of Bayou Lafourche after the of the boundary that follows Bayou point where it meets a flotation Lafourche north of the Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 10,425.5 32.8 10,392.7 3.5 Added to the 170.6 0.0 170.6 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.1 0.0 0.1 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 10,596.0 32.8 10,563.2 3.6 Net Change 170.5 0.0 170.5 0.1 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D112D-112 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier boundary is contiguous with a Resources System Unit S05, portion of the western boundary Timbalier Islands, Louisiana of adjacent System Unit S04. The northern boundary runs through Type of Unit: System unit Timbalier and Terrebonne Bays, Location of Unit: South of New leaving about one mile of open Orleans, in Terrebonne and water behind Timbalier and East S05 Lafourche Parishes Timbalier Islands. The western Congressional District: 3 boundary once ran through open Establishment of Unit: Coastal water; however, Timbalier Island S05. Section 6(a)(1) of P.L. 101- Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) has accreted westward so that the 591 allows the use of Federal enacted on 10/18/1982 boundary now cuts across the tip of expenditures and financial assistance Historical Changes to Unit: the island. for “[a]ny use or facility necessary 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added Proposed Changes to Boundary: for the exploration, extraction, or associated aquatic habitat and East The northern boundary of Unit transportation of energy resources Timbalier Island to Unit S05. S05 is adjusted to account for the which can be carried out only on, in, Existing Boundary Description: The northward accretion of a small or adjacent to a coastal water area boundary of Unit S05 falls mostly in island within the unit. The western because the use or facility requires open water. The eastern boundary boundary is adjusted to account for access to the coastal water body.” once passed through East Timbalier the westward accretion of Timbalier Island. The island has eroded, Island. and the boundary now lies in open Additional Comments: The proposed water with all of East Timbalier changes to the northern boundary Island to the west. Also, the eastern will add an oil platform to Unit

Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures:

Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 17,723.3 355.7 17,367.6 17.8 Added to the 732.5 0.0 732.5 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.0 0.0 0.0 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 18,455.8 355.7 18,100.1 18.4 Net Change 732.5 0.0 732.5 0.6 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D-113D113 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D114D-114 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-115D115 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D116D-116 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-117D117 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier at Whiskey Pass, follows channels Resources System Unit S06, for the most part through the Isles Dernieres, Louisiana wetlands, and heads south through Caillou Bay until the boundary is Type of Unit: System unit about one mile north of Raccoon Location of Unit: South of New Island where it turns west. The S06 Orleans, in Terrebonne Parish western boundary lies in open water Congressional District: 3 west of Raccoon Island. Establishment of Unit: Coastal Proposed Changes to Boundary: Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) The northern boundary of Unit S06 Additional Comments: Although enacted on 10/18/1982 from near the point where it turns Terrebonne Barrier Islands State Historical Changes to Unit: north at Whiskey Pass through the Wildlife Refuge is within Unit 11/16/1990: P. L. 101-591 added wetlands is adjusted to include the S06, the refuge is not proposed for associated aquatic habitat to Unit entire channel. The western portion reclassification as an otherwise S06. of Raccoon Island has migrated protected area because the refuge Existing Boundary Description: northward. Therefore, the boundary was not acquired by the State until The eastern boundary of Unit S06 north of Raccoon Island is adjusted 1992. generally follows Wine Island Pass. to be approximately one mile from The northern boundary crosses the farthest landward extent of the through Lake Pelto about one mile island. north of Isles Dernieres, turns north Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 35,658.7 29.9 35,628.8 21.0 Added to the 1,229.6 0.0 1,229.6 N/A CBRS Removed from the 0.1 0.0 0.1 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 36,888.2 29.9 36,858.3 21.0 Net Change 1,229.5 0.0 1,229.5 0.0 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D118D-118 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-119D119 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D120D-120 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-121D121 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier it joins Fourleague Bay, and heads Resources System Unit S07, north through Fourleague Bay Point au Fer, Louisiana about one mile east of Point au Fer Island. Near the location where Type of Unit: System unit Fourleague Bay joins Atchafalaya Location of Unit: South of Baton Bay, there is a gap in the boundary. S07 Rouge, in Terrebonne and St. Mary The Unit S07 boundary in Volume Parishes 18 of the Department of the Congressional District: 3 Interior’s 1988 Report to Congress: Establishment of Unit: Coastal Coastal Barrier Resources System, Proposed Changes to Boundary: Barrier Resources Act (P.L. 97-348) Recommendations for Additions The eastern and northeastern enacted on 10/18/1982 to or Deletions from the Coastal portions of the Unit S07 boundary Historical Changes to Unit: Barrier Resources System, are adjusted to include in the unit 11/16/1990: P.L. 101-591 added continued northward through open the entire channels of Pelican Pass, associated aquatic habitat to Unit water on a separate map, ended Taylors Bayou, Cross Bayou, the S07 and removed that portion of at the Terrebonne and St. Mary small stream cutting through Tony the unit that was part of the State- Parishes boundary, and then turned Lake, Bay Junop, Buckskin Bayou, protected Atchafalaya Delta Wildlife southward through open water. and Blue Hammock Bayou. The Management Area. This separate map, however, was northern boundary is adjusted to Existing Boundary Description: not adopted by Congress with the connect the gap in the boundary, The eastern boundary of Unit S07 enactment of the Coastal Barrier described above. The implied generally follows the center of Improvement Act of 1990, thereby boundary on the current map for Pelican Pass, Taylors Bayou, Cross leaving a gap in the boundary. The this area is the edge of the map, and Bayou, and a small stream cutting western boundary once followed therefore, the proposed boundary through Tony Lake. From this Point au Fer Island shoreline, but follows this line. The western point, the boundary cuts across because the island has eroded, the boundary is adjusted to follow the Bay Junop and follows the center of existing Unit S07 boundary now Point au Fer Island shoreline. Buckskin Bayou to Blue Hammock lies slightly offshore. The western Bayou. The northern boundary boundary turns south into the Gulf follows the center of Blue Hammock of Mexico after passing the tip of Bayou to the west where Point au Fer Island. Acreage, Shoreline, and Structures: Associated Aquatic Total Acres Fastland Acres1 Shoreline (Miles) Structures3 Habitat Acres2 Existing Unit 78,027.4 0.0 78,027.4 24.2 Added to the 1,282.2 0.0 1,282.2 N/A CBRS Removed from the 331.7 0.0 331.7 N/A CBRS Reclassified Area 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Proposed Unit 78,977.9 0.0 78,977.9 24.3 Net Change 950.5 0.0 950.5 0.1 N/A

1 Land above mean high tide 2 Includes adjacent wetlands, marshes, estuaries, inlets, and nearshore waters 3 Structure count not conducted; no fastland added or removed

D122D-122 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-123D123 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D124D-124 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D-125D125 Appendix D: Pilot Project Unit Summaries and Maps

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

D126D-126 Digital Mapping Pilot Project APPENDIX E: PILOT PROJECT ACREAGE AND SHORELINE CHANGES 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.2 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 (0.5) (0.5) (1.0) (1.2) (0.2) (0.2) Change 0.5 6.3 0.7 0.4 0.0 1.7 3.3 7.3 5.8 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.4 1.6 2.6 0.7 1.2 0.8 1.8 0.7 3.6 0.7 9.0 0.2 1.0 0.4 0.6 1.6 0.4 10.4 10.0 Proposed Shoreline (miles) 0.0 6.8 0.7 0.4 0.0 0.0 3.8 6.9 5.5 1.0 9.9 1.1 0.6 0.0 1.3 0.4 2.6 1.5 1.9 0.0 0.8 2.0 0.0 3.4 0.7 9.2 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.5 1.6 0.0 10.3 Existing 3.5 2.6 8.3 8.8 8.6 2.0 0.5 4.7 79.7 43.6 45.0 84.7 31.8 99.8 12.3 (0.8) (1.5) (9.6) 636.0 418.2 198.5 347.2 414.1 159.2 (179.9) (980.9) 5,280.2 7,966.3 3,251.5 1,206.1 3,311.9 Change (4,814.4) (5,289.1) 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 1.5 0.0 1.7 9.3 0.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.7 0.0 34.3 50.7 35.0 14.9 15.3 25.3 18.9 13.6 46.7 14.7 from CBRS Removed 2 4.1 2.8 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.6 0.3 5.1 8.9 1.2 0.3 45.1 38.2 60.3 21.1 63.5 197.1 303.0 636.6 179.0 421.5 213.4 347.2 197.7 253.3 156.9 199.6 CBRS 2,723.2 3,154.7 1,241.1 2,153.8 Added to 8.8 4.7 21.1 99.8 37.6 12.3 35.8 17.2 760.2 525.6 410.0 181.7 414.1 723.5 677.5 322.0 124.6 559.2 5,280.2 1,651.4 6,744.1 7,966.3 5,567.9 5,091.1 7,092.8 1,002.4 6,259.9 1,422.3 3,589.4 2,925.7 8,130.2 1,365.5 15,455.6 Associated Aquatic Habitat (acres) Proposed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 62.8 38.4 27.2 15.2 124.2 584.2 138.1 903.4 632.5 162.8 134.2 558.7 6,465.8 6,741.5 5,814.7 2,316.4 5,011.4 5,886.7 6,061.4 1,337.6 3,557.6 2,927.2 4,818.3 2,346.4 15,447.3 Existing 1.4 1.1 7.7 6.0 4.7 11.7 12.4 81.9 14.3 11.7 77.6 32.7 15.2 (4.5) (6.9) (1.0) (0.2) (2.5) 100.0 280.3 196.2 144.5 141.6 211.8 229.0 (67.5) (35.6) (30.4) (26.5) (30.1) (115.3) (214.9) (223.0) Change 0.0 4.6 7.2 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 3.7 1.4 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 8.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.9 3.3 0.0 E-1 20.1 76.9 10.0 35.6 11.4 10.3 25.5 from CBRS Removed 6 0.0 0.1 9.4 0.0 1.4 2.5 4.7 1.2 0.1 1.9 5.6 0.4 2.2 7.4 9.7 3.1 0.0 1.7 0.8 0.6 18.9 13.7 47.0 33.9 81.9 24.3 51.2 15.7 17.1 400.4 144.5 148.6 CBRS Added to Fastland (acres) Fastland 7.7 4.7 97.3 26.7 42.2 11.7 43.7 77.6 84.0 33.8 100.0 145.6 444.6 185.4 196.2 795.9 873.7 964.6 185.0 490.7 402.7 650.5 404.7 229.0 138.8 247.0 784.2 205.1 646.8 106.7 292.5 1,174.8 1,247.0 Proposed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.0 25.3 49.1 42.6 84.2 27.8 91.5 894.5 150.1 432.9 173.0 911.2 729.2 103.1 526.3 617.6 438.7 627.7 139.8 277.4 751.5 231.6 676.9 295.0 1,032.1 1,105.4 Existing 9.4 14.3 12.2 36.7 46.1 89.9 16.5 14.6 17.2 (1.0) (1.8) (9.8) (2.0) 648.4 432.5 162.9 348.6 425.8 371.0 328.8 (38.3) (31.9) (21.8) (130.2) (191.2) 5,380.2 8,162.5 3,396.0 1,288.0 3,344.6 Change (4,534.1) (5,404.4) (1,007.4) 0.0 5.2 7.4 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 1.5 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.9 4.0 0.0 54.4 35.0 13.3 50.5 10.9 15.4 13.0 25.3 30.3 23.9 17.7 72.2 16.6 from 127.6 CBRS Removed 4.2 1.9 0.4 2.2 0.3 6.8 2.0 0.9 21.7 36.1 47.6 61.5 28.5 59.8 66.6 14.9 19.1 197.1 703.4 650.3 188.4 445.8 213.4 348.6 202.4 186.8 253.4 162.5 215.3 CBRS 2,770.2 3,299.2 1,323.0 2,163.5 Added to Total (acres) Total 9.4 89.9 16.5 69.6 166.7 945.6 436.7 223.9 425.8 721.2 972.5 328.8 176.4 208.6 123.9 851.7 5,380.2 2,826.2 7,188.7 8,162.5 1,321.5 6,441.6 6,055.7 7,277.8 1,099.7 6,750.6 1,970.5 1,825.0 3,994.1 3,172.7 8,914.4 1,570.6 16,102.4 Proposed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 88.1 55.0 167.7 297.2 667.2 187.2 675.1 601.5 178.2 218.4 106.7 853.7 7,360.3 7,174.4 6,725.9 3,045.6 6,043.5 5,989.8 6,587.7 2,008.8 1,955.2 4,185.3 3,204.6 5,569.8 2,578.0 16,124.2 Existing P05 P08 P11 L05 L06 L07 L08 L09 H01 M02 M03 Unit P05P P08P P11P P04A P09A P10A FL-01 FL-15 FL-19 DE-07 NC-01 NC-06 P09AP FL-01P FL-13P FL-14P FL-16P FL-17P FL-18P DE-07P NC-05P NC-06P 1 Appendix E: Pilot Project Acreage and Shoreline Changes 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.2 0.0 0.0 (0.3) (0.4) (0.3) (0.1) (0.3) (0.1) Change 0.1 2.2 0.8 1.4 1.1 0.2 1.1 1.8 2.0 1.9 0.4 4.6 0.0 3.6 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.7 4.1 0.0 5.1 1.8 0.9 1.9 5.6 0.8 3.1 2.6 0.2 0.3 1.7 6.1 2.4 Proposed Shoreline (miles) 0.4 2.6 0.8 1.4 1.0 0.2 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.2 0.2 4.6 0.0 3.7 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.6 4.1 0.0 5.1 1.6 0.9 1.7 5.6 0.8 3.1 1.7 0.0 0.6 1.8 6.1 2.4 Existing 7.7 0.0 0.3 6.0 8.5 0.0 0.0 38.4 94.4 39.4 30.9 25.9 22.1 82.4 33.0 93.1 (3.7) (3.4) Change 102.1 393.5 124.6 289.6 151.0 415.4 530.4 501.3 649.1 (22.6) (30.1) (143.5) (137.0) 1,925.5 1,922.3 from 0.0 0.5 5.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 8.9 7.8 0.3 0.0 9.9 0.0 4.6 0.3 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 5.2 0.0 0.0 CBRS 22.9 23.7 23.0 10.0 22.2 Removed 0.3 0.0 0.6 0.8 6.0 0.0 8.5 2.1 1.8 0.0 0.0 CBRS 12.1 38.9 99.8 63.1 31.2 37.6 30.5 32.1 82.4 42.5 62.3 104.0 402.4 132.4 312.6 151.0 278.4 526.7 501.3 671.3 Added to 1,925.5 1,751.1 3.5 6.0 21.3 85.2 45.3 93.1 142.2 427.6 566.8 151.0 161.2 554.9 208.8 734.4 258.7 611.9 438.8 128.9 173.1 Associated Aquatic Habitat (acres) Proposed 1,233.1 2,009.3 1,172.5 1,448.0 1,186.9 3,237.8 3,587.5 3,371.5 1,652.5 3,237.5 1,185.1 1,254.7 5,016.8 6,013.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 46.8 83.8 14.4 81.5 164.8 325.5 527.4 304.7 529.0 208.5 140.5 652.0 262.4 430.3 683.8 605.6 159.0 176.5 Existing 1,138.7 1,172.5 1,054.5 1,062.3 2,948.2 1,665.2 2,956.1 1,630.4 3,204.5 5,016.8 6,013.6 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 6.2 0.0 5.3 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 86.6 29.5 39.5 15.3 19.5 75.4 12.9 10.7 37.6 47.1 (0.9) (3.2) (1.0) Change 140.8 (30.8) (12.2) (22.1) (16.1) (10.6) E-2 from 0.1 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.0 1.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 1.7 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 CBRS 30.8 12.2 24.1 16.1 12.0 12.0 Removed 0.0 3.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.9 3.1 0.8 2.8 1.3 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 2.6 0.0 0.3 1.9 1.4 0.0 0.0 CBRS 90.8 29.5 40.1 16.6 19.5 73.6 12.9 12.0 94.8 140.9 Added to Fastland (acres) Fastland 5.8 6.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 64.6 58.2 50.7 14.5 98.1 16.2 19.5 90.5 34.5 73.2 38.2 93.3 34.2 37.6 78.6 12.8 158.4 202.7 529.6 104.3 137.8 412.5 205.3 136.7 108.6 218.9 100.5 130.0 Proposed 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 71.8 61.3 57.9 21.2 14.5 58.6 27.9 15.3 89.7 21.6 89.3 39.2 88.0 97.9 34.2 82.9 89.2 12.8 233.5 388.8 116.5 122.5 413.4 129.9 135.6 111.8 208.2 Existing 0.0 1.4 6.0 0.0 0.0 94.3 41.7 94.7 17.3 31.8 26.7 12.2 82.4 38.3 11.1 17.0 (4.7) Change 141.6 534.3 112.4 304.9 170.5 412.2 541.1 501.3 649.1 130.7 (53.4) (68.1) (14.0) (124.1) 1,955.0 1,921.4 from 0.1 0.5 6.8 0.0 0.0 2.5 9.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 4.6 2.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CBRS 53.7 20.0 47.8 24.3 12.1 26.1 16.2 22.5 13.4 17.2 Removed 0.3 0.0 3.4 0.0 4.0 3.2 0.0 0.0 CBRS 42.2 65.1 32.1 31.3 13.7 12.2 32.1 82.4 54.5 11.1 102.9 101.5 144.1 543.3 132.4 329.2 170.5 111.2 279.7 536.4 501.3 671.6 157.1 Added to 1,955.0 1,754.2 Total (acres) Total 61.5 38.0 12.2 179.7 344.9 149.8 525.7 572.6 170.5 366.5 645.4 345.5 737.6 296.9 830.8 539.3 130.7 258.9 251.7 Proposed 1,291.3 2,060.0 1,187.0 1,977.6 1,291.2 3,375.6 4,000.0 3,480.1 1,725.7 3,330.8 1,185.1 1,288.9 5,029.6 6,013.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 85.4 29.7 398.3 108.1 105.0 384.1 555.3 434.6 618.7 344.1 162.1 655.2 301.6 289.7 528.2 683.8 639.8 241.9 265.7 Existing 1,196.6 1,187.0 1,443.3 1,178.8 3,070.7 2,078.6 3,067.9 1,719.7 3,292.5 5,029.6 6,013.6 Unit P21 P22 P26 P21P P14A P17A LA-01 LA-02 FL-39 FL-40 FL-43 FL-44 FL-45 FL-46 FL-67 FL-78 FL-82 FL-81 FL-83 FL-89 FL-93 FL-94 FL-19P FL-20P FL-64P FL-67P FL-72P FL-73P FL-78P FL-80P FL-81P FL-85P FL-93P 2 Appendix E: Pilot Project Acreage and Shoreline Changes 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.1 4.0 1.5 5.5 Change 3.6 18.4 21.0 24.3 30.9 174.9 205.8 Proposed Shoreline (miles) 3.5 17.8 21.0 24.2 29.4 170.9 200.3 Existing 170.5 732.5 950.5 1,229.5 Change 32,423.9 22,578.5 (9,845.4) 0.1 0.0 0.1 331.7 95.6 from 691.9 787.5 CBRS Removed 170.6 732.5 1,229.6 1,282.2 CBRS 2,152.0 21,214.0 23,366.0 Added to 10,563.2 18,100.1 36,858.3 78,977.9 9,293.7 Associated Aquatic Habitat (acres) Proposed 260,105.8 269,399.5 10,392.7 17,367.6 35,628.8 78,027.4 Existing 19,139.1 227,681.9 246,821.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 216.4 Change 1,045.5 1,261.9 E-3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 from CBRS 254.0 108.8 362.8 Removed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CBRS 617.9 1,006.8 1,624.7 Added to Fastland (acres) Fastland 0.0 32.8 29.9 355.7 8,668.0 6,366.5 Proposed 15,034.5 0.0 32.8 29.9 355.7 8,451.6 5,321.0 Existing 13,772..6 170.5 732.5 950.5 1,229.5 Change 32,640.3 23,840.4 (8,799.9) 0.1 0.0 0.1 from 331.7 CBRS 945.9 204.4 1,150.3 Removed 170.6 732.5 CBRS 1,229.6 1,282.2 Added to 3,158.8 21,831.9 24,990.7 Total (acres) Total Proposed 10,596.0 18,455.8 36,888.2 78,977.9 15,660.2 268,773.8 284,434.0 Existing 10,425.5 17,723.3 35,658.7 78,027.4 24,460.1 236,133.5 260,593.6 Unit S04 S05 S06 S07 Unit OPA OPA Total CBRS System Subtotal Subtotal 3

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service http://www.fws.gov

Photo by U.S. Geological Survey This photograph of Pine Beach, Alabama, was taken on September 17, 2004, following Hurricane Ivan. The hurricane breached the coastal barrier at a location with adjacent development. The undeveloped coastal habitat in the foreground is included within John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System Unit Q01P.