FR 2020-29043

The document from the Federal Register outlines a proposal by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to revise the boundaries of the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) in specific areas of Florida and South Carolina. This initiative is a response to the Coastal Barrier Resources Reauthorization Act of 2006, which necessitates creating digital maps for these coastal zones and making informed recommendations about their expansion. The document invites public review and comments on the proposed boundary changes before final recommendations are made to Congress.

General Summary

The proposal involves changing the boundaries of the CBRS, which comprises undeveloped lands acting as natural barriers against severe coastal events such as storms. These regions, often home to critical wildlife habitats, will have their boundaries adjusted to include or exclude certain areas based on current development levels. There are proposed alterations for two existing units in Florida and six in South Carolina, including the establishment of two entirely new units.

Significant Issues and Concerns

One of the primary concerns revolves around the potential complexity and accessibility of the document for the general public. Terms like "geomorphic features," "System Units," and "Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs)" may be too technical, hindering full comprehension by those unfamiliar with specific environmental or regulatory jargon. Moreover, the process described for revising these boundaries seems intricate and maybe perceived as inefficient due to multiple data reviews and stakeholder outreach phases.

The criteria for what precisely qualifies as "undeveloped" land for inclusion in the CBRS remain somewhat obscure, potentially leading to disputes or misunderstandings among property owners or local governments. Additionally, while the document notes that federal spending that encourages development is restricted in these areas, specific examples or explanations are lacking, which might cause confusion about how these restrictions are applied.

Broad Public Impact

For the general public, especially those living near the affected areas in Florida and South Carolina, the document signifies changes to their local environment and federal protections. Residents and property owners might find that their properties are now within or outside the CBRS, impacting their property's value and the federal insurance or financial assistance they can receive for development. The public's ability to provide input before the revision is formalized suggests an opportunity for those directly affected to influence the process.

Stakeholder Impact

On the positive side, environmental groups and conservationists may view these revisions as a significant step toward better preservation of coastal ecosystems. By expanding the CBRS, the government aims to bolster natural defenses against storms, potentially reducing future disaster recovery costs.

Conversely, some property owners might view these changes negatively, particularly if they own land that is reclassified into the CBRS. Such inclusion might reduce their ability to develop their property with federal assistance. While the option for voluntary addition is mentioned, without specified incentives, property owners might not see a tangible benefit in voluntarily restricting development rights.

The requirement for local officials to engage in outreach might lead to inconsistencies in how information is disseminated, possibly resulting in uneven participation or awareness among the citizens who might be most affected by these changes.

In conclusion, while the document and proposed changes aim to address environmental and developmental concerns in sensitive coastal areas, clear communication, accessibility of information, and fairness in stakeholder engagement are crucial components that need careful attention to ensure the changes are beneficial and understood by all.

The Federal Register document concerning the John H. Chafee Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) makes a critical financial point related to past government spending. Congress, through the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982, recognized that historical Federal Government projects and programs have inadvertently encouraged development in areas highly vulnerable to natural disasters, such as storm-prone coastal barriers. This has not only resulted in the loss of natural resources and posed threats to human life, health, and property but also involved the expenditure of billions of tax dollars.

The text suggests that a significant amount of public funds have been utilized in efforts that may not have been as effective or judicious as intended. The financial concern centers around unnecessary federal expenditures resulting from incentivizing development in these vulnerable areas. This ties into the broader issue of federal spending prohibitions in the CBRS, which aims to minimize such expenditures by reducing government support for potentially risky developments. However, the document does not clearly specify the types of federal projects or expenditures that are prohibited, which could add to potential confusion for stakeholders trying to understand the financial implications.

The CBRA seeks to rectify this by prohibiting most new federal expenditures that would encourage development within the CBRS. This includes limiting federal flood insurance to ensure that private developers or non-federal parties bear the full cost of any development in these areas. The document also briefly alludes to voluntary additions by property owners but does not clearly state any incentives for these property owners to make such contributions to the CBRS. Understanding the financial or practical benefits for property owners making these additions could provide clarity and potentially encourage more contributions, aligning personal and public financial interests.

Additionally, the financial aspect of preparing and updating digital maps of the CBRS could require significant resource allocation. The text suggests a potentially lengthy and complex process involving data collection, stakeholder engagement, and technical map revisions. These procedures could imply substantial logistical costs, yet specifics of funding sources or budgetary allocations for these efforts are not detailed. Thus, there is a potential area of concern regarding the efficiency of the processes involved and whether they represent the best use of public funds.

Overall, while the document emphasizes the past misuse of funds in certain areas, it lacks clarity on current and future financial practices and strategies, posing a risk of inefficient use of resources in the ongoing management and expansion of the CBRS.