Summary

Coastal islands buffer the U.S. mainland from hurricanes and are an important source of habitat for fish and wildlife, including some endangered species. More and more islands, despite being highly unstable, are being developed because of their natural beauty and the dwindling supply of beachfront property. This development has also been spurred by the availability of national flood insurance and other federal assistance. Congress, in an effort to cut down on environmental damage and the government's exposure to losses from storm damage, passed legislation a decade ago that prohibits new federal financial assistance on most coastal islands. Although this legislation has discouraged development on some coastal islands and other islands are unlikely to be developed any time soon because they are either inaccessible or unsuitable for building, significant development has occurred since 1982 in some attractive and accessible islands. Extensive new development can be expected in these and similar areas in the future. Most federal agencies have not provided new financial assistance for the coastal islands. Two exceptions involve the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which underwrote flood insurance obtained by ineligible property owners, and the Air Force, which granted an easement on land within Florida's Eglin Air Force Base at no cost to a quasi-state agency that wanted to build a bridge to one of the coastal islands. GAO also discovered that permits issued by agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have allowed development on certain coastal islands.

GAO found that: (1) 9 of 34 CBRS units have significant development under way since CBRA enactment; (2) particularly attractive CBRS units are prone to private development due to geographical makeup, accessibility, and a lack of alternative developable coastal land; (3) development on coastal barriers interferes with land mass movement, wildlife habitat, and inland protection from storms; (4) the Air Force and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided assistance to property owners within CBRS, contrary to CBRA prohibitions; (5) federal agencies did not comply with certification process requirements or implement revised regulations for the certification process; and (6) the cumulative effect of added CBRS units and permits for dredging or filling threatens wetlands and adjacent aquatic habitats.