Carteret County 2030

Imagining the Futures

Department of City and Regional Planning

PREPARED FOR

North Carolinas Eastern Region Military Growth Task Force

December 2011

PREPARED BY Land Use & Environmental Planning Workshop Department of City and Regional Planning University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Team Members Brennan Bouma Daniel Brookshire Katrina Durbak Vivian Jaynes Barron Monroe Ryan Parzick Kyle Vangel Casey Weissman-Vermeulen
Cover photos courtesy of: National Park Service Cape Lookout National Seashore; Carteret County, North Carolina; U.S. Forest Service Croatan National Forest; Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point

David Daddio (Project Manager) dwdaddio@unc.edu ii

Scenarios deal with two worlds; the world of facts and the world of perceptions. They explore for facts but they aim at perceptions inside the heads of decision-makers. Their purpose is to gather and transform information of strategic significance into fresh perceptions. This transformation process is not trivialmore often than not it does not happen. When it works, it is a creative experience that generates a heartfelt Aha and leads to strategic insights beyond the minds reach. - Pierre Wack

iii

Executive Summary
Background and Purpose In light of impending military and non military growth in the region and with limited regional planning capacity in Eastern North Carolina, the Military Growth Task Force (MGTF) began fostering regional partnership in early 2010. The PlanIt East effort brings together stakeholders from across the region to create a framework for dealing with pressures on infrastructure, military encroachment, environmental quality, workforce housing, and others. This effort will culminate in a fall 2012 Reality Check exercise an initiative intended to foster collective visioning among a diverse group of organizations and stakeholders from across the region and develop local capacity for substantive policy change. This document was prepared as part of a student workshop. Pursuant to MGTFs guidance, the report is designed to support and make recommendations for their upcoming visioning exercise. It is also designed to illustrate the value of contingent and robust plans. Drawing on comparative communities to inform alternative futures, we demonstrate some applications of scenario planning principles in Carteret County, one of the nine counties in the PlanIt East region, in order to inform the larger regional effort. Comparative Communities and Growth Drivers To understand the drivers and patterns of growth, we researched communities with issues similar to Carteret County. In particular, we focused on the interactions between transportation and port investments, military installations, and tourism industries. We termed these issues growth drivers. The following communities were chosen for the reasons specified: Accomack County, VA - Strong tourism industry and a major transportation infrastructure improvement Barnstable County, MA - Strong tourism industry and history of planning coordination between the military and local governments Beaufort County, SC - History of high military employment and influence Jackson County, MS - Economically important port and a recently closed military base Kent County, DE - Recent, major transportation infrastructure improvement and high population growth Okaloosa County, FL - Strong tourism industry and recent transportation infrastructure improvement Scenario Planning Based on our understanding of the drivers and information gathered from the comparative communities, we developed three scenarios, which represent possible futures of Carteret County. These scenarios are not intended to be future land use patterns, but rather are plausible stories designed to trigger conversations and ideas about controllable local policy alternatives in light of the uncontrollable external forces the County is subject to. These three scenarios are: iv

Cooperation Drives Success Carteret County booms as improvements to Highway 70 facilitate travel to the rapidly growing Research Triangle area. Recognizing the immense opportunities and challenges associated with this growth, key regional stakeholders including local governments, the military, tourism interests, port operators and environmental advocates come together and proactively develop strategies to deal with growth pressures. Tourist Trap Carteret County experiences rapid population and housing growth as improvements to Highway 70 facilitate travel to the Research Triangle Area. In the face of this growth, regional stakeholders are unable to come to an agreement on how to best manage growth in a way that enhances its sustainability and prosperity. Second-home construction becomes the dominant industry, and development sprawls into marginal areas. External Forces Dominate Increasing global integration and geopolitical pressures lead Carteret County to become a key center of shipping and logistics and military operations, training, and mobilization. A number of defense related-businesses spring up along the corridor between Carteret and Craven Counties. Moreover, a multimillion-dollar expansion at the Port of Morehead City and improved highway access make Carteret particularly attractive to logistics businesses. Indicators The three scenarios were qualitatively assessed using four performance indicators:
Scenario Cooperation Drives Success Tourist Trap External Forces Dominate Development Outside Sewer Service Areas Medium High High Flood Risk Medium High High Encroachment on Agricultural Lands Low Medium Medium Encroachment on High Biodiversity Value Areas Low Medium Medium

Lessons Learned The key takeaways from this project are: Forging partnerships involves deep deliberation and is possible only over time. The pursuit of one preferred scenario in scenario planning distracts from the consideration of multiple uncontrollable external forces. Scenario planning has tremendous data needs. Storm surge in the near term is similar to sea level rise in the long term. Instead of relying on technology to create scenarios, focus more on the purpose of the stories. Scenario planning should draw upon both local expertise and outside knowledge. v

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................................. vii List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................... viii List of Tables............................................................................................................................................................................. ix List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................. x 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Carteret County and its Growth Drivers .................................................................................................................. 3

Background ............................................................................................................................................................ 1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................... 2

3. Comparative Communities Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 16

History ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Growth Drivers in Carteret County.............................................................................................................. 5 Transportation Improvements and Ports ............................................................................................ 5 Highways ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Port of Morehead City .............................................................................................................................. 6 Military Influence ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Tourism & Retirement............................................................................................................................... 11 Tourism Employees and Establishments ..................................................................................... 11 Seasonal Housing .................................................................................................................................... 12 Elderly Population .................................................................................................................................. 13 Growth Management....................................................................................................................................... 14 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 Case Study Communities ............................................................................................................................... 16 Accomack County, Virginia ...................................................................................................................... 19 Barnstable County, Massachusetts....................................................................................................... 20 Beaufort County, South Carolina ........................................................................................................... 22 Jackson County, Mississippi .................................................................................................................... 23 Kent County, Delaware .............................................................................................................................. 24 Okaloosa County, Florida ......................................................................................................................... 25 Growth Drivers .................................................................................................................................................. 27 Transportation Improvements and Ports ......................................................................................... 27 Military Influence ........................................................................................................................................ 33 Tourism & Retirement............................................................................................................................... 38 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 42 Cooperation Drives Success .................................................................................................................... 48 Tourist Trap ................................................................................................................................................... 50 External Forces Dominate ....................................................................................................................... 52 Natural Hazards and Disaster Resiliency ............................................................................................... 54 Indicators ............................................................................................................................................................. 58

4. Scenario Planning ............................................................................................................................................................ 45

5. Insights and Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................................... 59 Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Appendix A: Data Sources and Methods for Tourism Analysis .......................................................................... 62 Appendix B: Growth Management and Environmental Protection .................................................................. 64 Appendix C: Mapping Process .......................................................................................................................................... 70

vi

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Professor Nikhil Kaza for serving as the instructor for this workshop and for his continuous guidance and support throughout the process. We would also like to thank Mark Sutherland and Carron Day from PlanIt East for their encouragement; Maureen Dougherty and Allen Willis from Carteret County for providing local land suitability and cadastral data; John Finnegan, Maureen Meehan, and Allison Weakley of North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources for their assistance in obtaining data environmental data; Brian Batten from Dewberry, Inc. for providing sea level rise data; and Ben Rasmussen and Lindsey Morse for sharing the Volpe Centers experience with scenario planning in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of the client or anyone else listed herein.

vii

List of Abbreviations
AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone BRAC Base Closure and Realignment Commission CAMA Coastal Area Management Act CAPA Chesapeake Atlantic Preservation Area CCC Cape Cod Commission CRC Coastal Resource Commission DRI Developments of Regional Impact JCUA Jackson County Utility Authority MCAS Marine Corps Air Station MGTF Military Growth Task Force MMR Massachusetts Military Reservation NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources NC DOT North Carolina Department of Transportation NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Otis ANGB - Otis Air National Guard Base RPP Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan UDA Urban Development Area VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled ZDSO Zoning and Development Standards Ordinance

viii

List of Tables
Table 1: Population Change Comparison .................................................................................................... 17 Table 2: Houshttp://www.playmakersrep.org/ing Unit Change Comparison........................... 17 Table 3: Total Employment Change Comparison .................................................................................... 17 Table 4: Kent Co. VMT Change (in thousands) ......................................................................................... 28 Table 5: Mid-Bay Bridge (FL) Traffic Volume Change ........................................................................... 30 Table 6: Okaloosa Co. /Destin Growth Indicator Comparison ........................................................... 30 Table 7: Carteret Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing ................................................. 38 Table 8: Accomack Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing ............................................. 39 Table 9: Barnstable Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing ............................................ 40 Table 10: Okaloosa Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing ............................................. 41 Table 11: Population Average Annual Growth ......................................................................................... 43 Table 12: Difference Between Average Annual Housing Unit Growth and Population Growth ............................................................................................................................................................................. 43 Table 13: Difference Between Average Employment Growth & Population Growth .............. 44 Table 14: Scenario Comparison ...................................................................................................................... 47 Table 15: Scenario Performance Indicators .............................................................................................. 58

ix

List of Figures
Figure 1: Map of MGTF 9-County Region and Planned Infrastructure Improvements .............. 1 Figure 2: Carteret Co. Population ...................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Population Projection for Carteret Co. ........................................................................................ 4 Figure 4: Planned Transportation Improvements Along the US 70 Corridor in NC.................... 6 Figure 5: Port of Morehead City Annual Tonnage, 2001-2010............................................................. 7 Figure 6: Map of Military Influence in North Carolinas Eastern Region ......................................... 9 Figure 7: Carteret Co. Military Employment and Earnings, 1969-2009 ........................................ 10 Figure 8: Military Employment as Percent of Employment in Carteret Co. ................................. 10 Figure 9: Tourism Employees and Establishments in Carteret Co. ................................................. 12 Figure 10: Adult Population (65 Years and Older) in Carteret Co. .................................................. 13 Figure 11: Map of Comparative Communities .......................................................................................... 17 Figure 12: Population Change in Comparative Communities, Indexed ......................................... 18 Figure 13: Housing Unit Change in Comparative Communities, Indexed ..................................... 18 Figure 14: Total Employment Change in Comparative Communities, Indexed ......................... 18 Figure 15: VMT Change in Select Case Study Communities ................................................................ 27 Figure 16: Kent Co. Population Density and Roads, 1990 and 2010 .............................................. 29 Figure 17: Okaloosa Co. Population Density and Roads, 1990 and 2010 ..................................... 30 Figure 18: Port of Pascagoula Annual Tonnage ....................................................................................... 32 Figure 19: Military Employment as Share of Total Employment in Carteret Co. and Select Comparative Communities ...................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 20: Total Military Jobs in Carteret Co. and Select Comparative Communities ............. 34 Figure 21: Seasonal Housing Unit Change, Indexed for Carteret Co. and Select Comparative Communities .................................................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 22: Cooperation Drives Success Concept Map ........................................................................... 49 Figure 23: Tourist Trap Concept Map .......................................................................................................... 51 Figure 24: External Forces Dominate Concept Map ............................................................................... 53 Figure 25: Carteret Co. Under 15 Inch and 1 Meter Sea Level Rise Projections ........................ 56 Figure 26: Croatan National Forest Land Adjustment Plan ................................................................ 68 Figure 27: Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary ..................................... 69 Figure 28: Carteret Co. Protected and Managed Lands ........................................................................ 73 Figure 29: Carteret Co. Soil Map ..................................................................................................................... 73 Figure 30: Carteret Co. Infrastructure Map................................................................................................ 74 Figure 31: Carteret Co. 2010 Population Density Map ......................................................................... 74 Figure 32: CAMA Land Use Suitability Map ............................................................................................... 75

1. Introduction
Background
Reacting to mandates from the U.S. Congress that triggered employment increases at Eastern North Carolinas military installations totaling approximately 17,000, North Carolinas Eastern Region - in partnership with the nine surrounding counties that would be most affected by the impacts formed the Military Growth Task Force (MGTF) in 2008. The task force, consisting of representatives from Carteret, Craven, Duplin, Jones, Lenoir, Onslow, Pamlico, Pender, and Wayne counties, assembled a comprehensive 800-page Regional Growth Management Plan designed to inventory impacts of impending population growth (estimated at 83,000 new residents) and make mitigation recommendations. Of the 467 recommendations in the report, representing billions of dollars in investment, MGTF estimates that 90% necessitate regional collaboration for implementation. A map of the nine-county region is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1: Map of MGTF 9-County Region and Planned Infrastructure Improvements

Source: NC OneMap GeoSpatial Portal

With limited regional planning capacity in Eastern North Carolina, MGTF set the objective to coordinate existing organizations and experts into one unified regional partnership in early 2010. The PlanIt East effort brings together various entities in the region to create a framework for dealing with pressures on infrastructure, encroachment, environmental quality, workforce housing, and others. This effort is expected to culminate in a fall 2012 Reality Check exercise. This is event is intended to foster collective visioning among a diverse group of organizations and stakeholders and form lasting coalitions for substantive policy change.

Purpose
This document is designed to support and make recommendations for MGTFs upcoming Reality Check visioning exercise. To that end, PlanIt East informed us that a test run applying scenario planning to Carteret County would inform their larger regional effort; owing to the fact that it represents a sampling of issues facing the PlanIt East region. These issues include planned roadway capacity improvements, substantial military presence, and a large tourism industry. This report highlights how the examination of multiple future scenarios of population and economic change through a scenario planning framework can help planners and other policymakers identify contingent and robust plans. After initial background research on the County and the identification and examination of factors projected to drive its growth (or growth drivers), we chose six case communities to inform and set the parameters for three Carteret County scenarios. To construct these futures and understand their impacts, we delved into the forces that are likely to shape the County as well as the interactions of the paths they may take. Using ArcGIS, and applying suitability and growth management parameters, we produced three conceptual maps and measured the implications of the different growth scenarios. The report is organized into the following chapters: 2. Introduction to Carteret County: an overview of the community including a brief history and an examination of factors driving its growth 3. Comparative Communities Analysis: summarizes the case study communities through the lenses of our growth driver framework; connecting them to Carteret County and setting the bounds of our projections for the Countys future growth and development 4. Scenario Planning: describes three alternative futures for Carteret grounded in the experience of the case study communities and in light of projected sea level rise; presenting visualizations of the three scenarios with each overlaid with different projections of sea level rise 5. Insights and Lessons Learned: observations provided by the team participants 2

2. Carteret County and its Growth Drivers

History
From its initial settlement by the Tuscarora Indians to its current status as a tourist destination, Carteret County has followed a similar trajectory to other Atlantic coastal communities while at the same time carving its own unique path. Created in 1722, Carterets early history after the arrival of European settlers was marked by the creation of plantations and coastal villages that relied on fishing, whaling, and trade. Traded goods included tobacco, grains, fish, lumber and later cotton. Although Portsmouth (now abandoned) and Beaufort were the major port towns early on, Morehead City was established in 1858 and quickly rose to prominence as a cornerstone of the Countys economy and largest population center.1 The arrival of rail service in the late 1850s made Carteret more accessible for trade and later tourism.2 Carterets beaches form the heart of an area of North Carolinas southern Outer Banks called the Crystal Coast.3 By the turn of the 20th century, tourism began to grow significantly in Beaufort and Morehead City. With the construction of US Highway 70, US Highway 17, and State Route 24, Carteret became even more accessible, and both the tourism industry as well as population steadily grew. Morehead City is known as a tourist destination but is also economically important because of its commercial port. Figure 2: Carteret Co. Population
70,000 60,000 50,000 Population 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census

1John

Locke Foundation.(2011). North Carolina History Project Carteret County. Retrieved on September 30, 2011 from http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/54/entry. 2Sadler, L. & Jenkins, K. (2007). Carteret County. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing. 3CoastalGuide. (2011). Crystal coast of North Carolina. Retrieved on September 30, 2011 from http://www.CrystalCoast.com/.

Today, Carteret continues to grow (See Figure 2). From 1970 to 2010, the Countys population more than doubled, with the 2010 US Census putting the total population at 66,500.4 Other counties in the region most notably Craven, Onslow and Jones - displayed similar growth trends during this period. This increased growth from the 1970s onward is likely tied to demographic changes in the state as a whole, particularly the explosive population growth in Wake County and the Triangle region, as well as the considerable military presence in and around the region. As we discuss later in this chapter, Carterets coastal location draws not only tourists and second home buyers, but also retirees. The distribution of growth in County reflects these trends: while growth has spread out somewhat in the western part of the County, the coast remains the most densely populated and settled area. According to Office of State Management and Budget, Carteret Countys population is expected to grow at a rate of 1.33% annually, rising from almost 67,000 people today to over 86,000 by 2030 (See Figure 3). Nevertheless, the planned expansion of highways 17 and 70 will improve access to the area, potentially bringing more residents than predicted in the coming decades. Historically, similarly situated communities where highway capacity improvements are made show dramatic increases in in-migration. Perhaps more significantly, such an improvement would dramatically improve access from the exploding Research Triangle Region, improving the appeal of Carteret County for beach tourism and increasing the number of seasonal housing units. Figure 3: Population Projection for Carteret Co.
100,000 95,000 90,000 85,000 Population 80,000 75,000 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Source: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management Population Estimates and Projections

4U.S.

Census Bureau. (2011). Carteret County profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010. Retrieved on September 30, 2011 from http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DP DP1&prodType=table.

At the same time, port facilities in Morehead City are expected to expand and a railroad spur linking the Port directly to Kinstons Global TransPark is slated for completion in early 2012 (See Figure 1). These improvements, coupled with the expansion of the Panama Canal in 2014, are poised to change freight patterns, mean that Carteret could become a major logistics center in the global economy in addition to a regional tourist stronghold and national military outpost. These factors point to three main growth drivers that will influence Carteret Countys growth: transportation improvements and ports, military influence, and tourism & retirement.

Growth Drivers in Carteret County

Transportation Improvements and Ports One of the most relevant forces for economic and population growth in a community, especially a coastal community, is the speed and volume at which people and goods can be moved in and out. These rates are determined by the transportation system and in the case of Carteret County we will be focusing on two major elements: the highway system and the Port of Morehead City. Highways According to data from the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), between 2000 and 2008 the Countys primary and secondary highway system grew by less than 10 lane miles. In this largely rural county, this amounts to a 2.0% increase. In contrast, the state of North Carolinas roadways grew by 6.5%, and the national road networks lane miles increased 22.4% during that time period. The major highway corridors in Carteret County, based on size and number of trips per day, are US 70 and US 24. Historical maps of the County from 1953 show US 70 as a paved road, with at-grade crossings at every intersection. These highways are now wider and grade separated in places, though several at-grade crossings remain. In Carteret County, there were only 3 miles of lane mile increases in roads that are wider than 48 feet, due to widening of existing highways. The larger changes in the highway system that carries people into Carteret County occurred outside the Countys borders. With the 2005 US 70 Access Management Study report5, the state DOT began planning in earnest to expand access to Carteret County. Currently there are plans to make highway 70
5Kimley

Horn and Associates, Inc. (July 2005). US 70 Access Management Study Clayton to Morehead City, NC. Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways. Retrieved on October 5, 2011 from http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us70corridor/download/US70_Access_Management_Study_Report. pdf.

into a high-speed, limited-access super-corridor to connect Carteret to population centers in central NC such as Raleigh and Durham. This process involves creating a series of bypasses to circumvent the local traffic in the small towns along the corridor as well as several smaller improvements (See Figure 4). Figure 4: Planned Transportation Improvements Along the US 70 Corridor in NC

Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc./ NCDOT, http://www.super70corridor.com/

Guiding this process is the US 70 Corridor Commission which is made up of representatives from each of the counties the corridor runs through. They project the completion of all of these improvements by 2035. Future plans for widening and speeding up US 17 as a corridor to connect coastal towns to the north may also have an impact on Carterets future growth trajectory. Since US 17 connects with US 70 north of Carteret County, any additional impact on Carteret County of the expansion of US 17 will be felt as further increases in traffic along US 70. Port of Morehead City The Port of Morehead City is an important economic asset of Carteret County. It is one of the deepest ports on the East Coast of the United States and handles breakbulk and bulk cargo. Transportation infrastructure, including rail provided by Norfolk Southern Railway, and US Highways 70 and 17 connect the Port with points inland. Multi-modal distribution 6

hubs are located in Kinston at the Global TransPark, in Greensboro at the Piedmont Triad Inland Terminal, and in Charlotte at the Charlotte Inland Terminal.6 Among the Ports most traded imports each year are sulfate products, rubber, and scrap metal, while phosphate is overwhelmingly the ports biggest export.7 A graph of the Ports annual tonnage over the past 10 years is shown below (See Figure 5). Tonnage fell during the early 2000s recession, climbed through the middle of the decade, and then fell steadily during the Great Recession. Figure 5: Port of Morehead City Annual Tonnage, 2001-2010
3,000 2,500 Tons (Thousands) 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0

Source: North Carolina Ports 2010 Port Statistics

In 2009, the Port of Morehead City ranked 84th among American ports in total trade, 65th in foreign trade, and 90th in domestic trade. By comparison, in 2004, it ranked 94th in total trade, 72nd in foreign trade, and 112th in domestic trade.8 While total tonnage did fall between 2004 and 2009, the Port fared relatively well considering its ranking improved in each category. The presence of the Port of Morehead City has enabled Carteret County to develop a specialized sector in water transportation. Carteret County has a Location Quotient (LQ)9 of

6North

Carolina Ports Website, Facilities. (2011). Retrieved on October 1, 2011 from http://www.ncports.com/facilities.htm. 7North Carolina Ports Website, Port of Morehead City 2010 Statistics. (2011). Retrieved on October 1, 2011 from http://www.ncports.com/_Port_Statistics.htm. 8American Association of Port Authorities. (2009). Port industry statistics. Retrieved from http://www.aapa ports.org/Industry/content.cfm?ItemNumber=900&navItemNumber=551. 9A location quotient is an analytical tool to measure the concentration of a sector in a studied region in comparison to a reference region. A location quotient above 1.0 indicates that the sector comprises a

2.29 in the water transportation sector, meaning it is relatively more specialized in this sector than the United States as a whole.10 The County is not, however, specialized in support activities for transportation, which has an LQ of 0.57. Therefore, it is not clear that a large cluster of industries has developed in the County around the Port. While the Port is not at full capacity given its falling volume, it does have 150 additional acres available for development. A 2011 report on North Carolinas maritime strategy suggests the possibility that the acreage on Radio Island could be developed to enable the Port to handle container traffic.11 Because the Port of Morehead City has a deeper channel depth than the Port of Wilmington, it may be better positioned to benefit from major pending infrastructure improvements. The first is the planned expansion of the Panama Canal that will increase capacity and allow larger container ships to pass through. Since ships from a number of Morehead Citys largest trading partners India, Venezuela, China, Indonesia, and Thailand pass through the Panama Canal, this expansion is likely to result in greater volume for the Port. Highway improvements scheduled for US 70 may make the Port more competitive due to greater ease of distributing goods from it.12 Additionally, a new rail spur of the Norfolk Southern Railroad linking the Port directly to the Global TransPark is scheduled to open in early 2012.13 Spirit AeroSystems, the TransParks major tenant to date, cited the presence of the Port of Morehead City as a key factor in its location decision.14 Should the Global TransPark succeed in attracting additional tenants and come into its own as a logistics hub, it is likely this growth will spur further trade volume at the Port of Morehead City in a symbiotic manner. Military Influence The military bases and landing strips around and within Carteret exert economic and land use influence on the County (Figure 6). The most influential military base for Carteret is the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and its associated air fields. Cherry Point is located in Craven County between New Bern and Morehead City, but its economic and
greater proportion of employment in the studied region than in the reference region. This would indicate the studied region is likely specialized in the sector. 10U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Quarterly census of employment and wages, Carteret County and the United States. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cew/. 11 North Carolina Maritime Study (2011). Maritime Advisory Council. Retrieved from http://files.www.ncmaritimestudy.com/public-outreach/NC_Maritime_AC_Meeting__2011-07112.pdf. 12North Carolina Ports. (2011). Port of Morehead City. Retrieved from http://www.ncports.com/Port_of_Morehead_City.htm. 13North Carolina Global TransPark. (2011). Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.ncgtp.com/transport.html. 14North Carolina Ports. (2008). Ports help Global TransPark recruiting. Retrieved from http://www.ncports.com/news_detail_325.htm.

environmental impacts influence Carteret County. Congress authorized Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point on July 9, 1941. Building the base required the clearing of an 8,000acre tract of swamps, farms and timberland. During World War II, Cherry Point trained units and individual Marines for service in the Pacific theater. The air station also served as a base for anti-submarine operations. Since World War II, the installation has been involved in nearly every major US military operation. Currently, Cherry Point serves as an all-weather jet base for servicemen deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The air station and its associated support locations occupy more than 29,000 acres. Cherry Point is home to Marine Transport Squadron 1, which includes the PEDRO search and rescue unit.15 Figure 6: Map of Military Influence in North Carolinas Eastern Region

Source: NC OneMap GeoSpatial Portal

In 2009 the military employed over 400 Carteret residents, which is close to the employment levels of the early 1970s (See Figure 7). However, military earnings have increased to an inflation adjusted historical high, which could be due to more senior level military staff living in Carteret and commuting to the main air station base. Figure 8
15U.S.

Marine Corps.(n.d.).About MCAS Cherry Point. Retrieved on September 30, 2011 from http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcascherrypoint/Pages/mcascherrypoint/AboutCP.aspx.

illustrates how military jobs have declined as a percentage of total Carteret jobs since 1969. Therefore, while the total number of military employees living in Carteret County has remained at historic levels, economic diversification and population growth in Carteret County has diminished the militarys share of the total jobs held by Carteret residents. Figure 7: Carteret Co. Military Employment and Earnings, 1969-2009
$35,000 Total Military Earnings (Thousands of Dollars) $30,000 $25,000 $20,000 $15,000 $10,000 $5,000 $0 700 600 Number of Military Jobs 500 400 300 200 100 0

Earnings (000s dollars, 2009 dollars) Jobs

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Figure 8: Military Employment as Percent of Employment in Carteret Co.

4.5% 4.0% Percent of Total County Employment 3.5% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

10

Tourism & Retirement Carteret County experienced considerable growth in tourism over the last forty years. The Countys 2011-12 Budget estimates the tourism industrys annual economic impact at $250 million. The North Carolina Department of Commerce (NCDC) has a database that has tracked tourism output over the last twenty years. Based on the NCDCs Travel Economic Impact Model (TEIM), in 1991 Carteret Countys tourism industry earned $138 million, placing Carteret County as the 10th largest out of North Carolinas 100 counties16. The amount of tourism- generated revenue increased significantly by 2010 to $271 million; however Carterets standing fell by three spots, placing it as 13th largest out of North Carolinas 100 counties. During this 20 year time period, the only times that tourism output decreased from year to year was during recessions. For example, during the Great Recession, tourism declined 0.80% and 4.8% for 2008 and 2009 respectively. This trend shows the tourism industrys dependency on the larger economy. Nevertheless, the growth in tourism generated revenue was well above average for North Carolina counties and shows the importance of the tourism industry in Carteret County. Given that the port is losing its economic impact because of reduced tonnage the importance of tourism is all that more pronounced as it fills the gap in the local economy. It is undetermined as to what drove the tourism growth over the last twenty years but one can assume that it is strongly correlated to the Countys pristine beaches and very low property taxes.17 We sought and were unable to find a simple metric of how many tourists visited Carteret County over the last forty years, so we used several proxy metrics. We decided to indirectly measure tourism by using a total number of tourism employees and establishments as well as the total number of seasonal housing units. Tourism Employees and Establishments The tourism industry from 1970-1980 we used the SIC code 70, which included Hotel and other travel lodging. In 1998 the Census Bureau transitioned from the SIC codes to the NAICS codes for categorizing industry statistics. Under this new system the tourism industry is broken down into a more nuanced classification. This metric includes Hotels, Bed and Breakfast, RV campgrounds, Full-Service Restaurants, and Rooming and Boarding House. We excluded the Full-Service Restaurants for two reasons: 1) they were not included in the SIC codes and 2) Full-Service Restaurants are not necessarily a direct link to tourism.

North Carolina Department of Commerce.(2011).Travel Economic Impact Model. Retrieved from http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism/research/economic-impact/teim. (Dec 5th, 2011). 17 From 2003-2008 the property tax was $.42 per every $100 of assessed value, which is below average for North Carolina. With the Great Recession, housing market crash and revaluation all occurring at the same time (2008), the tax rate fell even further to $.23 per every $100 of assessed value.
16

11

Based on our metric (See Appendix A), the forty-year period (1970-2009) saw Carterets tourism employees increase by 28%. During that same time period the number of tourism establishments decreased by 18%. The industry peaked in terms of establishments and employees in 1990 with a total of 45 travel lodging establishments and 514 tourist industry employees. Figure 9: Tourism Employees and Establishments in Carteret Co.
600 500 Tourism Employees 400 300 200 100 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 50 45 40

30 25 20 Employees Establishments 15 10 5 0

Source: County Business Patterns

This metric provides a decent forecast of the strength of the tourism industry. There is a strong relationship between increasing numbers of tourism employees and tourism establishments with the strength of the tourism industry. A 2009 report by Tourism Economics states that lodging is the third largest component of the tourist industry in North Carolina. 18 As lodging goes so goes the tourist industry in North Carolina. Seasonal Housing Since 1970, Carteret has experienced dramatic growth in its occasional use or seasonal housing stock. According to the Census, the County had only about 500 seasonal housing units in 1970. This total increased by a factor of 30 in the subsequent decades. In 2010, Carteret County ranked fourth in North Carolina in terms of the share of seasonal housing

18

The Economic Contribution of Tourism to the State of North Carolina. Tourism Economics. (November 2009). Retrieved on December 5, 2011 from http://www.nccommerce.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=D1fGQ6o6v7U%3D&tabid=1547&mid=466 6

Tourism Establishments

35

12

units to total housing units, following only Dare, Avery, and Macon Counties.19 As of 2010, Carteret Countys total seasonal housing stock was approximately 15,400 units, or just over 30% of all housing in Carteret County. Presumably, one reason for seasonal housing growth is the Countys traditionally low property tax rate. According to the North Carolina Department of Revenue, from 20082011 Carteret had the lowest tax rate in the state at $0.23 per $100 of assessed value. After its most recent revaluation, the rate increased to $0.30, ranking it third lowest in the state, behind Dare and Macon Counties. The low property tax is an incentive to build, so the upward trend is expected to continue, but at a much slower pace in the near term because of the economic recession. Elderly Population Carterets elderly population20 has not only grown in absolute terms but also as a percentage of the total population. In 1950, the total number of elderly people in the County was 1,570. By 2010, that number had increased seven-fold to 12,600 (See Figure 10). As a percentage of population the elderly, in 1950, comprised 7% of Carteret Countys total population. Today, nearly 1 in every 4 individuals in Carteret County is over 65 years old. The graying of Carterets population will have a significant impact on land use as developers seek to accommodate retirees moving into the area as well those aging in place. Access to retail, health services, housing types, and transportation options will all have to be considered in light of these changing demographics. Figure 10: Adult Population (65 Years and Older) in Carteret Co.
14,000 Number o Elderly 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: US Census Bureau 2005 Land Use Plan Carteret County, North Carolina, update. (2009). Retrieved on October 1, 2011. From http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/planning/Carteret%20Co/Carteret%20County%20LUP%20Update.pdf 20 For demographic data, we looked at the trend in retirement ages from 1950 through the present. There is a consistent decrease in the average retirement age, according to the U.S. Department of Labor and Statistics, from 67 years in 1950 to 62 years in 2000. To keep consistency in the data from the Censuses, we used a retirement age of 65 since that was a benchmark used in all Censuses.
19

13

Growth Management
The structure of growth management of Carteret County provides a framework for understanding how the County and the incorporated municipalities within it manage growth. Eastern North Carolina generally has a weak planning framework and implements regulations only to the extent that they are required at the state or federal levels. The choices made by Carteret County and the municipalities within it are indicative of politically expressed preference for development, its character, composition intensity and spatial distribution even if and when those preferences are enacted or supported by inaction. Land use planning and management can take on different forms in different places, utilizing a range of alternate methods to achieve a variety of objectives. Understanding the specific methods in place and the objectives they highlight can offer a glimpse into the physical future of the area. In addition, the existing framework can help shed light on how current planning methods, policies, and strategies might be adjusted to create alternative future scenarios. The Carteret County Land Use Plan was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). CAMA requires each of the 20 coastal counties of North Carolina to prepare and adopt a land use plan, following the guidelines of the Coastal Resource Commission (CRC), within the Division of Coastal Management, under the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Municipalities within the County are permitted to make and implement their own land use plans in accordance with CRC guidelines. Carteret County holds CAMA land use planning responsibilities for those municipalities without CAMA plans, as well as all unincorporated areas of the County. The CRC outlines specific areas of environmental concern, which necessitate permitting for development, and state and federal consistency determinations. These areas of environmental concern broadly include the estuarine and ocean system, the ocean hazard system, public water supplies, and natural and cultural resource areas. In addition, the North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan aims to limit pollution and protect fish habitats in light of port expansion projects. The direction of Carteret Countys growth is restrained by the above-mentioned state environmental guidelines as well as by limitations of water and wastewater services, particularly in areas that are poorly suited for septic systems. At the same time, actions by state and federal agencies make transportation and other infrastructure investments that influence the amount and distribution of development. This is particularly true of the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The former plans and carries out transportation investments leveraging federal funds. The latter provides loans for low-income homeownership in rural areas as well as for individual water and wastewater facilities through the USDA Rural Development Program.

14

State and federal institutions play an appropriate role by addressing larger, regional issues or providing funding for specific causes. However, there is a lack of a consistent vision across the different levels, and in particular on the part of Carteret County to lead the direction and efforts of the large number of players involved in shaping its physical landscape. Please see Appendix B for more information on the Countys growth management framework.

Conclusion
This brief look at Carterets past and present highlights the major forces that shaped and are still shaping the County today. Just as transportation investments in the late 19th century (railroad) and mid-20th century (highways and cars) improved access to the County and helped spur the tourism industry and population growth in coastal areas, upcoming transportation projects could have a similar effect on the County. Although it remains to be seen what kind of impact the Panama Canal expansion will have on the County, the Port of Morehead City is a force that will continue to influence the areas economy. Carterets location between two major military installations and the presence of training fields and protected areas within Carteret mean that the intensity, direction, and placement of future growth and development within the County are especially important topics that involve a diverse group of stakeholders. To get a better sense of how these growth drivers may influence Carteret Countys future development and to start the process of scenario development, we next take a look at several communities that have dealt with similar issues or faced similar circumstances in the past.

15

3. Comparative Communities Analysis

After the initial task of examining the history and current state of Carteret, the next step involved identifying comparative communities that would help inform the scenario creation. We looked at the county level to make data collection and comparison more uniform and then determined characteristics that would make them more relevant to Carterets situation. These characteristics included: a coastal location, a nearby military base, and a nearby port. To narrow the list and pinpoint the communities that would be most useful, we also looked at how these places related to the growth drivers that we identified for Carteret - military base influence, transportation infrastructure investments, strong tourism industry, and an economically important or growing port. We determined that the strongest candidates would have at least 2-3 of these growth drivers.

Case Study Communities

The following lists the comparative communities along with the primary reason behind each selection: Accomack County, VA - Strong tourism industry and a major transportation infrastructure improvement Barnstable County, MA - Strong tourism industry and history of planning coordination between the military and local governments Beaufort County, SC - History of high military employment and influence Jackson County, MS - Economically important port and a recently closed military base Kent County, DE - Recent, major transportation infrastructure improvement and high population growth Okaloosa County, FL - Strong tourism industry and recent transportation infrastructure improvement To provide a quick overview and comparison, the following tables and figures show the location as well as the population, housing unit, and employment trends over time for these six communities in relation Carteret County. After briefly introducing each community (history, growth trends, and growth management framework), we present the heart of our case study discussion which looks at these communities through the lens of the highlighted growth drivers - transportation investments, military influence, and tourism - and ties their experience to possible futures for Carteret. The chapter concludes by linking the growth driver trends in the case study communities to our scenario planning exercise for Carteret County. The figures below are referenced throughout the comparative community discussion that follows as well as at the conclusion of the chapter.

16

Figure 11: Map of Comparative Communities

Table 1: Population Change Comparison

2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 1960 1950 Carteret 66,469 59,383 52,556 41,092 31,603 30,940 23,059 Accomack 33,164 38,305 31,703 31,268 29,004 30,635 33,832 Barnstable 215,888 222,230 186,605 147,925 96,656 70,286 46,805 Beaufort 162,233 120,937 86,425 65,364 51,136 44,187 26,993 Jackson 139,668 131,420 115,243 118,015 87,975 55,522 31,401 Kent 162,310 126,697 110,993 98,219 81,892 65,651 37,870 Okaloosa 180,822 170,498 143,776 109,920 88,187 61,175 27,533

Source: US Census Bureau

Table 2: Housing Unit Change Comparison

2010 2000 1990 1980 1970 Carteret 48,179 40,947 34,576 20,598 12,720 Accomack 21,002 19,550 15,840 13,149 11,729 Barnstable 160,281 147,083 135,192 70,948 65,676 Beaufort 93,023 60,509 45,981 26,855 14,097 Jackson 60,067 51,678 45,542 41,966 27,584 Kent 65,338 50,481 42,106 35,005 25,242 Okaloosa 92,407 78,593 62,569 42,899 27,296

Source: US Census Bureau

Table 3: Total Employment Change Comparison

2009 1999 1989 1979 1969 Carteret 36,125 31,931 23,118 16,637 10,376 Accomack 18,340 16,806 15,809 15,615 11,428 Barnstable 138,963 125,581 102,008 73,652 45,772 Beaufort 95,218 78,075 54,995 40,406 31,903 Jackson 66,014 67,339 51,901 53,319 34,726 Kent 84,490 70,442 57,099 46,424 42,500 Okaloosa 122,650 109,059 81,176 54,609 39,139

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

17

Figure 12: Population Change in Comparative Communities, Indexed

7 6 Indexed to 1950 5 4 3 2 1 0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: US Census Bureau

Figure 13: Housing Unit Change in Comparative Communities, Indexed

7 6 Indexed to 1970 5 4 3 2 1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: US Census Bureau

Figure 14: Total Employment Change in Comparative Communities, Indexed

4.0 3.5 Indexed to 1969 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 Carteret Accomack Barnstable Beaufort Jackson Kent Okaloosa

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

18

Accomack County, Virginia Accomack County is located in the Virginia portion of the Delmarva Peninsula, to the north of Northampton County, VA, and to the south of Worcester County, MD. Throughout the 19th century, shellfishing and farming were the main components of the Accomack economy. During the 20th and into the 21st century, tourism became a major part of the Countys economy, particularly with respect to the islands of Chincoteague and Assateague. After the construction of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in 1952, the County became much more accessible to mainland Maryland and the District of Columbia. The 1964 completion of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel further opened up the area to development and provided quick access to Norfolk, VA, and the major naval base there.21 NASAs Wallops Flight Facility (opened 1945) is a major source of economic activity for the area. Today, Accomack County works with the Chesapeake Bay Commission and other regional efforts in the tri-state region (MD, VA, DE) to restore and improve the environmental quality of the Bay. Like other parts of Northern Virginia and the D.C. area, the main concern facing Accomack County is how to balance the short-term individual economic interests of landowners with the long-term sustainability of the Countys natural resources. To address these concerns, Accomack County has a robust set of development management tools, both on its own, and within the state regulations and requirements of Virginia. Specifically, these fall into the broad categories of water quantity and quality, distribution of development and maintenance of the rural character, fiscal capacity to provide infrastructure, and jobs and housing for residents. Accomack County relies on a number of statewide policies and regulations to guide development, in addition to the growth management framework and guidelines it has established locally. At the state level, comprehensive land use planning is encouraged and seen as an important, evolving framework for guiding development, even though it is not necessarily binding. Accomack County is part of the Chesapeake Atlantic Preservation Area (CAPA) and as such, is subject to CAPA regulations and requirements. CAPA primarily addresses water quality issues and also restricts and manages development within a buffer zone of waterways, most commonly as a 100-ft vegetative buffer. In conjunction with CAPA requirements, the Department of Planning offers information on Best Management Practices (BMP) relating to stormwater and administers the septic system pump-out notification program. The Eastern Shore of Virginia Hazard Mitigation Plan includes Accomack County and has been approved and adopted by Accomack County. In addition, statewide building codes require additional regulations for construction in flood zones and high wind zones, especially along coasts. Managing growth and development on the county level in Accomack County is guided by one main overarching principle: denser development. To guide development to settle in
21Chesapeake

Bay Program. (December 23, 2009). Bay History. Retrieved on October 1, 2011 from http://www.chesapeakebay.net/history.htm.

19

denser patterns and around existing and neighboring corridors and infrastructure systems, Accomack County created a number of Urban Development Areas (UDA) and tied funding to them in several ways. The first policy that would enforce the UDA is the road impact tax, which levies high traffic impact fees for developments outside a UDA. In addition, funding for infrastructure, affordable housing and economic development is limited to UDAs or areas directly adjacent to a UDA. Furthermore, the County is attempting to guide development away from shorelines and coastlines and toward the central and northern portions of the County where groundwater withdrawals have the least impact. Tying specific development to allocation of funding or infrastructure from the County is critical to ensuring their success, as the UDAs do not establish strict growth boundaries. Accomack Countys tourism industry has been able to thrive under the guidance of the growth management strategy. Using the number of lodging establishments and number of lodging employees to measure the strength of the sector, it would appear that the industry is not particularly strong. In 2009 only 1% of the total population worked in the tourism industry and the County had a mere 18 lodging establishments. The best way to measure the strength of Accomacks tourism industry is to look at the number of seasonal housing units and seasonal housing units as a percentage of total housing units. Looking at seasonal housing strongly reflects tourisms influence. In 2010 Accomack County had 4,827 seasonal housing units, which was 67% of the Countys total housing stock. Two major reasons for the growth in the seasonal housing stock is its location, on the Delmarva Peninsula, and the transportation mentioned above. Carteret County similarly has these two factors working in its favor. Despite Accomacks considerable increase housing units, population growth has not followed. Although this kind of extremely low population growth is not likely in Carteret given past trends, Accomacks experience could help inform a scenario where population growth is more stagnant while tourism remains a vital part of the economy. Barnstable County, Massachusetts Barnstable County is located in southeastern Massachusetts and encompasses the area known as Cape Cod. The unique geography of the Cape and the County has helped make the area an iconic historical, natural, and leisure destination. After whaling vanished from the Cape, fishing still remained an important part of the economy throughout much of the 20th century.22 Today, the natural beauty of the area and its close proximity to major east coast population centers has made tourism and real estate the primary drivers of the Capes economy. In 2000, the average price of a house in the region was $600,000 and the area has a reputation for being a popular, though very expensive place to live and retire.

22

Theroux, P. (2000, June 11). At the edge of the sea. (Review of the book The enduring shore: a history of Cape Cod, Marthas Vineyard, and Nantucket). The New York Times. Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/11/books/at-the-edge-of-thesea.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.

20

Barnstable County has several military installations, with the main bases consisting of Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), the Otis Air National Guard Base (ANGB), and Camp Edwards. Otis ANGB, was originally scheduled for a Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) closure, but was spared at the last minute due to local support for the base and how it supports the MMR. One of the reasons that MMR has been able to remain is because it prevents development to an important aquifer water basin for the Cape, and the land area for the base would need to remain undeveloped to help preserve water quality for Cape residents. In 1989, the Massachusetts state legislature passed the Cape Cod Commission Act in response to growing concern over the detrimental impacts of the Capes mid-1980s development boom on the areas land and water resources. The Act created the Cape Cod Commission (CCC), a regional land use planning, economic development, and regulatory agency responsible for developing and implementing a more coordinated approach to regional growth management. To achieve the goal of coordinated regional growth management, the CCC is charged with three primary responsibilities: to prepare and oversee the implementation of a regional land use policy plan for all of Cape Cod; to recommend for designation specific areas of Cape Cod as districts of critical planning concern; and to review and regulate developments of regional impact. The Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan (RPP) provides the planning framework for growth management and resource protection throughout Barnstable County. By establishing a coherent set of land use goals and policies, the RPP aims to guide new development on the Cape toward areas that are supported by adequate infrastructure and away from ecologically sensitive or culturally significant areas that could be harmed by inappropriate development. To that end, the RPP includes a regional land use vision map that identifies four general categories of desired land uses based upon existing and desired development patterns, local zoning, and infrastructural and natural constraints on development. As both a planning document and a regulatory document, the RPP not only sets general growth policy for the County, but also imposes specific minimum performance standards applicable to developments of regional impact (DRIs). Where an applicant requests a local development permit for a project that meets one of the DRI thresholds, local review is suspended and the project is referred to the CCC for DRI review. To secure approval by the CCC, the DRI must satisfy the following four criteria: The benefit from the proposed development must be greater than the probable detriment; The proposed development must be consistent with the minimum performance standards of the RPP; The proposed development must be consistent with municipal zoning and any applicable certified local comprehensive plan; and The proposed development must be consistent with any special regulations approved by the CCC if the project is located within a designated district of critical planning concern.

21

Barnstable Countys combination of a robust tourism industry, strong regional planning, and a history of cooperation between military stakeholders and municipalities provides an interesting and informative model for Carterets future planning efforts. Although Carteret certainly faces different challenges, the planning policies, tools, and actions that stakeholders have utilized in Barnstable may be helpful as Carteret looks at manage growth and development. Beaufort County, South Carolina Beaufort County is located in southeastern South Carolina. Historically, this area of South Carolina was sparsely populated. From the 1790s until the 1950s the population ranged from 18,000 people to 35,000 people. This was largely attributed to the Countys geographic isolation. Until recently, large portions of Beaufort County were only accessible by boat. Sound planning, transportation investment and both tourism industry and military growth have resulted in a population explosion. The most rapid population growth occurred between 1990 and 2010, with the Countys population almost doubling in size from 86,000 to 162,000. In 1994, the South Carolina legislature passed the Local Government Comprehensive Planning Enabling Act, requiring all county and municipal governments that regulate land use to adopt a comprehensive plan. In 1997, Beaufort County became the first county in the state to adopt a comprehensive plan. In 1999, the County adopted the Zoning and Development Standards Ordinance (ZDSO). The ZDSO established eleven base zoning districts and five overlay districts The 2010 Beaufort County Comprehensive Plan emphasized coordinated regional growth management. One of the Comprehensive Plans goals is to protect rural lands and natural resources. One of the development management tools requiring coordinated regional management to protect rural land is the establishment of growth boundaries. This is evident as the land under the Countys jurisdictional control decreases with municipal annexations of unincorporated lands. Over the last ten years, the percentage of county land encompassed within municipal boundaries has grown from 11.4% to 31.7% as the Countys five municipalities have grown through annexation. Since 2000, Beaufort Countys goal of protecting rural lands and critical natural resources has been pursued through the Rural and Critical Lands Preservation Program (RCLPP). Over 17,000 acres across the County are preserved for conservation, parks, buffers, and scenic vistas. In Beaufort County, just as preservation is a central component of growth management, the military is a central component to the economy. Beaufort County is home to both the United States Marine Corps East Coast Basic Training Command at Parris Island and the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) at Beaufort. In 1969, the military accounted for 58% of total employment in Beaufort County. Over the next four decades the Countys population grew as well as employment. In 2009, the military accounted for 11% of total employment, although military jobs remained constant for over 20 years. 22

In addition to employment expansion, the Countys population also expanded over the past 40 years, increasing from 51,000 in 1970 to more than 162,000 in 2010. Some of the growth can be attributed to the infrastructure investments that took placed in the mid1900s. From the 1930s-1950s, transportation investments such as the Port Royal Bridge opened the area to tourism. Hilton Head Island in the mid-1950s was a predominately agricultural area and geographically isolated. Because of Port Royal Bridge, Hilton Head Island is now one of Americas premier vacation and retirement destinations. Beaufort Countys retirement population is also closely tied to the investment in transportation infrastructure. Carteret County could experience a similar increase in retirement population and tourism with the expansion of highways 70 and 17. Beaufort Countys experience at managing the impacts from the mid-century investments could prove useful to Carteret County today. Jackson County, Mississippi Jackson County is located at the extreme southeastern corner of Mississippi, with the state of Alabama along its eastern border, the Gulf of Mexico along its southern border, Harrison County to the west, and George County to the north. Founded in 1812, the Countys early industries included shipbuilding, timber and sawmilling, pecans, and coastal trade centered on the Port of Pascagoula.23 The establishment of the Jackson County Port Authority in 1958 cemented the importance of the port and its related industries to the Countys economy and identity: Chevron USA and Ingalls Shipbuilding (a division of NorthropGrumman) are two of the largest companies in the County.24 25 Over 50 percent of all land in Jackson County is either undeveloped or in agricultural use. Within the unincorporated areas of Jackson County, single-family and mobile homes account for over 99 percent of all residential land uses. In contrast, multi-family housing occupies only 175 acres of total land in the unincorporated portion of the County. Similarly, industrial and commercial activities occupy less than one percent of land in Jackson Countys unincorporated areas. Jackson County last updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2009. The purpose of the plan is to establish short and long-term development polices but it does not provide a coherent growth management strategy. Although the overall strategy for growth management may be lacking, Jackson County does benefit from a well-developed and coordinated system for the planning and provision of water and wastewater, the Jackson County Utility Authority (JCUA). The JCUA imposes water and wastewater connection requirements for both new and existing development and planning requirements for both the Authority and for retail providers of water and wastewater services.
23Jackson 24

County Mississippi. (2009). Brief history of Jackson County. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from http://www.co.jackson.ms.us/about/history/. Security. (2011). Ingalls Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Miss. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/ingalls.htm.

Ibid.

25Global

23

Water is not only a fundamental service provided by the local government but it is also the economic lifeblood of Jackson County. The Countys Port of Pascagoula, one of the 20 largest ports in the United States, is a deep-water port with public and private terminals. Various types of industries such as shipbuilding and oil refineries have grown because of the Port. Pascagoula also benefits from economies of scale as Biloxi, the 85th largest port in the United States (about 20 miles away) and Mobile, the 13th largest port in the United States (about 40 miles away) are connected by a vast transportation infrastructure network. The Port of Pascagoula was the primary reason for selection of Jackson County, Mississippi as a case study. Pascagoula, like Morehead City, is a deepwater port. The character of development that has occurred in Pascagoula and the economic benefits the County has reaped from the port illustrate the opportunities and challenges that may accompany port expansion in Carteret County. A study conducted in 2004 found that operations associated with the Jackson County Port Authority created 19,370 direct jobs, $902 million in personal income, $393 million in spending, $50 million in state tax revenue and $27 million in tax revenues to Jackson County.26 While the Port of Pascagoula is at present significantly larger than the Port of Morehead City handling roughly ten times the annual tonnage should the Port of Morehead City expand in the future it could eventually have a similar economic presence in Carteret. Kent County, Delaware Kent Countys history largely mirrors that of its home state of Delaware.27 While agriculture defined the states early history, today Delawares chief products come from a number of different industries, including fishing, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing.28 In addition, Delawares corporation-friendly laws and regulations (originally set out in 1899 in the General Assemblys An Act Providing a General Corporation Law) make it one of the top addresses in the country for corporations.29 This corporation-friendly atmosphere can also be seen in the state Department of Labors occupation and industry projections for Kent County: along with healthcare-related occupations and arts/design/entertainment/media occupations, business and financial operations-related occupations are projected to be high-growth over the next eight years.30 Since Dover the
Port of Pascagoula (2011). Economic Impact. Retrieved on November 1, 2011 from http://www.portofpascagoula.com/economic-impact.html. 27State of Delaware. (2011). Delaware economy & people; Delaware geography. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from http://delaware.gov/facts/people.shtml and http://delaware.gov/facts/geo.shtml. 28State of Delaware. (2011). Delaware economy &people. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from http://delaware.gov/facts/people.shtml 29Delaware Living. (n.d.). Delaware living history. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from http://www.delawareliving.com/history.html. 30State of Delaware Department of Labor. (2008). Occupation and industry projections Kent County. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from http://www.delawareworks.com/oolmi/Information/LMIData/Projections/Kent.aspx.
26

24

state capital is located in Kent County, government-related jobs are also an important part of the economy. Kent County experienced a period of unprecedented growth and development in the first decade of the 21st century more than in any of the previous three decades. While ten-year population increases ranged from 13%-20% between 1970 and 2000, from 2000 to 2010 the Countys population grew by 28%. Housing units saw a corresponding increase of 30% from 2000-2010, a large jump from the 1990-2000 number (20%). Although a number of factors likely contributed to this growth, a major transportation project (State Route 1 limited access highway) in the County was also completed in the early 2000s. In response to this growth, Kent County put together a comprehensive plan to more fully prepare for and guide future development and investment in a manner and direction adhering to its values. Kent County and its residents seek to foster sustainable communities, to ensure provision of adequate infrastructure, and to preserve the history, natural resources, and rural character of the area. The guiding objective in Kent County is to create vibrant community centers, which will cluster development for the benefit of the residents, the efficient and cost effective allocation of services and infrastructure, and the preservation of agricultural land. Sprawling development is seen as threat to these objectives. The County sees the intertwined elements of circulation, public spaces and use of private lands, relying on the success of each other for the community to thrive. Growth management strategies range from growth overlay zones to density bonuses and a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. Kent County adheres to state requirements regarding recharge and wellhead protection areas by limiting development and impervious surface cover, and by trying to limit pollutants from contaminating groundwater. Kent Countys experience informs the transportation-related portions of our scenarios for Carteret County. Specifically, the Kent County case study provides insight on how the Highway 70 and Highway 17 improvements may impact Carterets future growth and development. Okaloosa County, Florida Okaloosa County is located in northwest Florida, bordered by the state of Alabama to the north, Santa Rosa County to the west, Walton County to the east, and the Gulf of Mexico to the south. The County was officially established in 1915 and started off largely rural in character with fishing and farming villages as the main population centers.31 The arrival of the military in the 1930s and the formation and expansion of Eglin Air Force Base in the 1940s introduced dramatic changes; the massive base was accompanied by paved roads, electricity and other infrastructure investments to the area, and the economy of Okaloosa County was fundamentally redefined.32 Looking at population change in Okaloosa between

31Okaloosa 32

County Online. (n.d.). About Okaloosa County Okaloosa County history. Retrieved on September 25, 2011 from http://www.co.okaloosa.fl.us/about_history.html.

Ibid.

25

1970 and 2010, the most rapid growth occurred in the 1980s, with a 2.7% average annual growth rate. In terms of official planning efforts, the County approaches future land use and development in a systematic and coordinated way. The Countys comprehensive plan focuses on three areas of concern: valuable, vulnerable or protected lands; provision of services; and the spatial distribution of development, specifically discouraging and preventing sprawl. The primary tools designed to help manage growth include: the Okaloosa County Water Plan which requires the consideration of water supplies and facilities in any future land use plans and designations; an Urban Development Boundary which aims to limit sprawl and encourage more dense, infill development in the County; and Rural Community Overlay Zones which aim to cluster development in urban areas and preserve the rural character of other communities in the County. Okaloosa also employs a number of policies that focus on conservation and protection of valuable or vulnerable lands. The Conservation Policy provides protection of public supply wellhead protection areas and environmentally sensitive lands. Wetland protection regulations for tidal and non-tidal wetlands include buffer zones for building construction (25-50 feet from the mean or ordinary high water line) and requirements for vegetated buffers. Okaloosas rigorous growth management strategies have resulted in a vibrant tourism industry. A tourist destination for many years, Okaloosas number of tourism employees and establishments have expanded and contracted over the last forty years. Okaloosa experienced significant peaks of tourism employment in 1990 and 2007 with 1686 and 2307 employees respectively. Seasonal housing growth has been steady over the last forty years. In 1970 the County had 612 occasional use houses, which constituted 5.4% of the Countys total housing units. The increase over the next 40 years is evidence that Okaloosa County is a legitimate tourist destination. By 2010 the seasonal housing stock increased to 6,755, which is one-third of the Countys total housing units. With a strong tourism industry and a significant military base, Okaloosa County presents an excellent case study of how these two forces can interact and influence growth and development in an area. In particular, the tourism industrys impact on Okaloosa Countys growth, economy, and land use development informs our scenarios for Carteret County. Although Carteret currently has a substantial tourism industry, the longer history and larger scope of tourism in Okaloosa provides valuable information on the possible future impacts of tourism in Carteret.

26

Growth Drivers
This section takes a more in-depth look at the three identified growth drivers: transportation improvements and ports, military influence, and tourism & retirement. Within the individual growth driver sections, we provide a more detailed description and analysis of each growth drivers role in the relevant case study communities. The final part of this chapter links the growth driver trends in the case study communities to our scenario planning exercise for Carteret County. Transportation Improvements and Ports Transportation improvements often precipitate growth in the areas in which they occur. In addition to responding to the mobility needs of new development already underway, such improvements can induce further development by enhancing the accessibility of a location. As previously discussed, there are plans to make US Highway 70, the main route to Carteret County from points west, into a limited-access highway. Carteret will be much more accessible from rapidly growing areas including the Triangle and Triad once these transportation improvements are in place, facilitating the growth of the tourism and logistics industries in the County. Additionally, the expansion of the Panama Canal may increase the volume of trade at the Port of Morehead City, further accelerating the Countys growth. In order to determine what these impacts may mean for Carteret and inform the construction of our scenarios, it is helpful to examine the experience of the case study communities. Figure 15 below compares the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Carteret and two of the transportation-centered comparative communities - Kent and Okaloosa during the last decade. Although all three appear to have followed similar trajectories, Kent and Okaloosa saw larger VMT increases in the early 2000s. These more substantial increases could signal future transportation trends for Carteret. Figure 15: VMT Change in Select Case Study Communities
7 6 5 4 VMT (Millions) 3 2 1 0 Carteret Kent Okaloosa

Sources: Transportation Information Booklet (2010). Retrieved from http://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/publications/information-booklet/

27

Data Book (2007). Retrieved from http://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/publications/data-book-annual-report; Crash profiles (2007). Retrieved from http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/crashdata/profiles.html; Crash profiles (2008). Retrieved from http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/crashdata/profiles.html; Summary since 1990 (2011). Retrieved from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/mileagerpts/public.shtm

Kent County Kent County, DE, is located on the Delmarva Peninsula which historically restricted land access to the area to the north where the Peninsula connects to the mainland. After the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel were completed in the 1950s and 60s, land travelers from the west and south of the Delmarva Peninsula had more options for reaching Kent County and the peninsula as a whole. Access to Kent County from the north was greatly improved by the construction of the Korean War Veterans Memorial Highway, an extension of Delaware Route 1. Constructed in portions, the highways major stages were completed in 1993, 1995, and 2003. Route 1 is now a limited access highway that connects I-95 (which goes through Washington D.C. and other major cities to the north) to Dover Air Force Base (located in Kent County). Examining the change in VMT provides an indication of how the highway construction impacted the volume of traffic in the County. As shown in Figure 15 above and Table 4 below the completion of Route 1 in 2003 corresponds with a significant increase in VMT for the County. Strong population and household growth accompanied this increase in VMT. Between 2000 and 2010, Kent Countys population grew 28% to a total of 162,310 residents, while the state of Delaware as a whole grew only 15%. Housing units also increased during this period by 29% to a total of 65,338 units. While we cannot attribute Kent Countys disproportionate growth between 2000 and 2010 solely to this highway improvement, we can conclude that its construction had a major influence on the areas high growth rate. Table 4: Kent Co. VMT Change (in thousands)
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Average Annual % Change Daily VMT 3,682 3,809 3% 3,859 1% 4,016 4% 4,445 11% 4,545 2% 4,601 1% 4,655 1% 4,388 -6% 4,471 2%

Source: Delaware DOT Highway Statistics, 2000-2009

Figure 16 shows the spatial distribution of Kent Countys in population density changes over time as related to major road infrastructure. In 1990, the densest population centers 28

were concentrated in and around Dover. In 2010, these areas remained the densest population centers in the County. The tracts close to the US Route 1/Memorial Highway improvement experienced some of the largest increases in density. Kent Countys high growth in areas close to the highway following its construction may offer a glimpse into the quantity and location of development that Carteret County may experience following the improvements to US Highway 70. Figure 16: Kent Co. Population Density and Roads, 1990 and 2010 1990 2010

Source: US Census Bureau; Social Explorer

Okaloosa County Destin, FL, is located on a peninsula within Okaloosa County, FL. Although Destin is linked to other coastal communities by US Highway 98, Florida Department of Transportation decided a bridge across Choctawhatchee Bay would provide more direct access to the city and serve as a hurricane evacuation route. The 3.6-mile Mid-Bay Bridge was constructed between 1992 and 1993 and opened to traffic in June 1993. The bridge connects Florida Route 20 and US Highway 98 and provides easier access to Destin for travelers coming from I-10 and points north than did existing routes. Examining the annual volume of traffic on the Mid-Bay Bridge provides an indication of how this transportation improvement has enhanced Destins accessibility. As Table 5 below shows, the volume of traffic more than tripled in the 10 years following the bridges opening. The period corresponds with a significant increase in population and housing units in Destin. Table 6 shows that Destins population growth and housing unit growth significantly outpaced that of Okaloosa County as a whole since the bridges construction. Destins population grew at a rate similar to Florida, but its housing units grew at a much faster rate, to the point where in 2010 the City had more housing units than people. Clearly, the Mid-Bay Bridge facilitated tourism and second-home growth in Destin.

29

Table 5: Mid-Bay Bridge (FL) Traffic Volume Change

Fiscal Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Annual Traffic Volume 1,896,661 2,513,848 3,043,997 3,402,779 3,695,064 4,056,689 4,463,449 4,518,228 5,161,898 5,945,318 % Change Base Year 33% 21% 12% 9% 10% 10% 1% 14% 15%

Source: Traffic Engineers Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2010, URS

Table 6: Okaloosa Co. /Destin Growth Indicator Comparison

Indicator Population Population Population Housing Units Housing Units Housing Units Geography Destin Okaloosa Co. Florida Destin Okaloosa Co. Florida 1990 8,080 143,776 12,937,926 7,269 62,569 6,100,262 2000 11,119 170,498 15,982,378 10,599 78,593 7,302,947 2010 % Change 1990-2010 12,305 52% 180,822 26% 18,801,310 45% 13,672 92,407 8,989,580 88% 48% 47%

Source: US Census Bureau; Social Explorer

Figure 17 shows the spatial distribution of Okaloosa Countys population density changes over time as related to major road infrastructure. In 1990, the Countys population was clearly concentrated along the coast and to the north of Interstate 10 in the middle of the state. Figure 17: Okaloosa Co. Population Density and Roads, 1990 and 2010 1990 2010

Source: US Census Bureau; Social Explorer

30

The 2010 map shows similar patterns, but with a significant population density increase on the Destin peninsula. This change seems to be a direct result of the opening of the Mid-Bay Bridge (SR 293) in the 1990s. As with Kent County, the experience in Okaloosa and Destin demonstrates the potentially dramatic population and housing growth that can accompany a highway improvement. While Carteret is not guaranteed to experience a similar level of growth in the coming years, recent high growth rates in the county, state, and nearby metropolitan areas lend credence to the possibility. Jackson County The Port of Pascagoula, located in Jackson County, MS, is one of the twenty largest ports in the United States. A deep-water port on the Gulf Coast, the Port contains public and private terminals and consists of two harbors. Pascagoula had been a major port since the midnineteenth century, but it grew especially quickly during the 1950s and 1960s following the completion of a development plan and dredging project. The Jackson County Port Authority began operating the public cargo facilities there in 1958. In the 1960s, Ingalls Shipbuilding, which had operated in Pascagoula for decades, greatly expanded its facilities and several chemical plants were constructed near the port. This rapid growth of both the port facilities and related industries produced rapid population growth in the County during the 1950s (76.8% vs. 0% growth in the state as a whole) and 1960s (58.5% vs. 2% growth in the state in the state as a whole). Today, the Port of Pascagoula remains a critical component of Jackson Countys economy. The Port retains its complementary industry clusters; Ingalls Shipbuilding is the largest private employer in the state and the Port is home to one of Chevrons largest refineries in the nation. The presence of the port has enabled Jackson County to become specialized in support activities for transportation, with a location quotient of 2.58 in that sector. The Port of Pascagoula is the 16th largest port in the United States in terms of total trade, with 36.6 million tons annually. Figure 18 charts the Ports annual tonnage over the past 10 years. Tonnage increased until 2005, when the Port was devastated by Hurricane Katrina, and spiked in 2006 before leveling in the latter part of the decade during the Great Recession. Much like the Ports tonnage, Jackson Countys population grew modestly during the past decade, at 6% versus 4% population growth in the state as a whole. While many factors beyond port growth impact Jackson Countys population growth, the Countys historical experience has demonstrated a strong correlation between port and population growth.

31

Figure 18: Port of Pascagoula Annual Tonnage

40 38 36 34 Tons (Millions) 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Source: US Army Corps of Engineers Navigation Data Center Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center

While the Port of Morehead City has a long way to go before reaching the size of the of the Port of Pascagoula it is currently about 1/10th the size this case study demonstrates the potential of a growing port to spur population and economic growth around it, and vice versa. As growth at the Port of Pascagoula leveled off over the last decade, so too did population and economic growth in Jackson County. If trade volume at the Port of Morehead City grows substantially, be it from opportunities related to highway improvements, growth of the Global TransPark, or the expansion of the Panama Canal, Carteret County is likely to experience corresponding growth in population and logistics industries.

32

Military Influence Although the main function of U.S. military bases is to serve as personnel training facilities, they inevitably have important impacts on their surrounding community. In addition to active personnel, military installations generate civilian employment both on base (service jobs) and off base (defense industry research and contractors). As such, they are important contributors to the economic health of their community. Due to the nature of military training exercises such as flying, weapons testing, and combat training, bases have important environmental and land use implications. In particular, the need for large swaths of land for these kinds of exercises often comes into conflict with residential development, especially in high-growth or tourism-dependent areas. When military bases expand, these inherent conflicts are usually magnified. As mentioned earlier, Carteret is situated between two recently expanded military bases (Camp Lejeune and MCAS Cherry Point) that exert considerable influence on the regions economy and identity. Combined with a strong tourist industry and impending transportation improvements (Highways 70 and 17) that will likely lead to further population growth, the growth of these two bases could have important implications for Carteret Countys future. As demonstrated in Figure 19 and other data we collected, all of our case study communities have experienced a decline in military jobs as a share of total jobs. However, Figure 20 demonstrates total military jobs have not experienced the same level of decline which suggests that there is still a significant military presence in these communities, but its role as a primary source of employment has declined. To better understand how Carterets nearby bases (especially MCAS Cherry Point) will interact with the forces of population growth and tourism, the following sections discuss some of the lessons learned from relevant case study communities. Figure 19: Military Employment as Share of Total Employment in Carteret Co. and Select Comparative Communities
70% Percent of Total Employment 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Barnstable Okaloosa Beaufort Carteret

33

Figure 20: Total Military Jobs in Carteret Co. and Select Comparative Communities
20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 Jobs 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Barnstable Okaloosa Beaufort Carteret

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Barnstable County The unique geography of Cape Cod and Barnstable County has helped make the area an iconic historical, natural, and leisure site for generations of Americans. Part of this legacy has included hosting military installations on the Cape. Today Barnstable County still hosts several military bases including the Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), the Otis Air National Guard Base (ANGB), and Camp Edwards. The MMR is a military training facility located in the western portion of Barnstable. Directly attached to the MMR is the Otis ANGB, portions of which have been on Cape Cod since 1911.33 In Barnstable, military employment compared to total employment has not been very high. Since the late 1970s, military employment has consistently made up about 2% of total employment in the County (See Figure 19). Other industries, historically fishing and now tourism, dominate the local economy. Despite this small influence on the Barnstable economy, the local and broader Massachusetts community demonstrated enthusiastic support for Otis when it was threatened with closure as a part of the BRAC process. Governor Mitt Romney at the time even lobbied on behalf of the base to keep it open.34 One of the reasons that MMR has been able to remain is because it prevents development to an important aquifer water basin for the Cape and the land area for the base would need
GlobalSecurity.org. Military Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), Otis Air National Guard Base, Camp Edwards. Retrieved on November 15, 2011 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/mmr.htm 34Dennehy, K. (2005, September 13). New deal: Otis stays. Cape Cod Times (Hyannis, MA) n.pag. Retrieved on November 18, 2011, from NewsBank on-line database (America's News)
33

34

to remain undeveloped and help preserve water quality for Cape residents. Historically, the military has had a negative environmental impact on Cape Cod, especially on drinking water. Munitions, fuel spills, and seeping contaminants from decades of training exercises poisoned the groundwater and concerns forced the Environmental Protection Agency to order a cease-fire at the MMR in 1997 and there was an activist movement to take away control of the state-owned land from the military. Since then, the military has spent over $1 billion on cleanup and has greatly improved water quality for Barnstable residents.35 This continued commitment to environmental improvement was one of the reasons the Cape Cod community still supports the presence of Otis, the MMR, and Camp Edwards. With the residential and tourist growth pressures in addition to the BRAC closure recommendations on Cape Cod, the ability of the MMR and Otis to remain open could provide lessons for Carteret County, NC. The ability of the bases to change community support from wanting the bases closed in the late 1990s to active lobbying to keep them provides an important lesson to Carteret. If the military can demonstrate commitment to improving environmental quality in its host area, this can bolster community support for the bases even in areas under high growth pressure. Beaufort County The Beaufort County area has had an extensive military history dating back to the Precolonial era. Currently home to Parris Island, the United States Marine Corps East Coast Basic Training Command and the Marine Corps Air Station (MCAS) Beaufort the military continues to shape the County economically and spatially. In terms of employment, military jobs have fallen as a percentage of total employment from a 1969 peak of 58% to around 11% today (See Figure 19). While the total number of military jobs fell in the 1980s and then plateaued in the 1990s (See Figure 20), the dramatic decrease in percentage of total employment can be attributed to the rise of other employment sectors. Also, these figures do not account for civilian base jobs, nor do they include jobs in other defense-related sectors. Despite the drop in jobs, the various military installations in the County remain an important economic force. For MCAS Beaufort alone, the Fiscal Year 2010 total economic impact (includes things like salaries, construction expenditures, and materials/supplies/services expenditures) is estimated to be over $805 million.36 The confluence of a base personnel/operations expansion at MCAS Beaufort and a spike in population and housing unit growth in the 1990s offers some insights for Carteret. Much of this development was related to the areas booming resort areas and retirement communities (Hilton Head, Port Royal, etc.). Around the same time, BRAC brought additional personnel and operations responsibilities to MCAS Beaufort. In response to the development pressures that this brought to areas near the base, the military and the community prepared a Joint Land Use Study to explore options for addressing these
35Rebuilding

trust - Military making good progress restoring Upper Cape base. Cape Cod Times (Hyannis, MA) n.pag. Retrieved November 18, 2011, from NewsBank on-line database (America's News) 36Commanding Officer, Business Performance Office, MCAS Beaufort. (2011, June 14). Economic impact 2010: Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina. Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcasbeaufort/Documents/EconomicImpact_2011jch.pdf

35

conflicts. Implementation measures from this study included: development of a coordinated Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Overlay district for affected land that was also incorporated into ordinances and maps for the surrounding jurisdictions; incorporation of noise attenuation measures into existing building code for new construction in the local jurisdictions; and establishment of a resident advisory committee in the AICUZ area to provide an avenue for their voices in the planning process.37 MCAS Beaufort has also created an active and inclusive Encroachment Partnering Program, which focuses on developing buffering zones in areas that are particularly sensitive to the bases noise and flyover impacts. As of 2007, the program had completed six of these buffering projects with another six in progress.38 Beaufort Countys success in implementing land use coordination measures and buffering zones provides some possible best practices for Carteret and MCAS Cherry Point as they work to better manage expected population, tourism, and housing growth. Okaloosa County, FL Okaloosa hosts the largest military installation in the U.S., Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), which is an important force in Okaloosa County and Northwest Florida as a whole. The base was founded in 1935 as the Valparaiso Bombing and Gunnery Base and grew significantly in the 1940s when the War Department acquired 384,000 acres of the Choctawhatchee National Forest from the US Forest Service.39 Over the years, the base has served a number of different functions, from fighter pilot training to aircraft testing to research, development and testing of air armament.40 Today Eglin comprises 724 square miles of land, the main base occupies 10,500 acres, and the entire installation is located in portions of three counties (Walton, Okaloosa, and Santa Rosa) with a detachment in Gulf County.41 Figure 19 shows that military employment has stayed relatively high though it has gradually declined in influence as a percentage of total employment for the County. In 2009, military employment accounted for approximately 11.5% of the Countys total employment. A report completed by the Haas Center for Business Research and Economic Development in 2008 looks at the broader economic impacts of the military in Florida and in Okaloosa County specifically. For Okaloosa, they estimate that Department of Defense spending ($2.75 billion in 2008) directly and indirectly accounted for about 59,000 jobs

37Office

of Economic Adjustment. Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from http://www.oea.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26:marine-corpsair-station-beaufort-south-carolina&template=modal. 38Lachman, B.E., Wong, A., &Resetar, S.A. (2007). The thin green line: an assessment of DoDs readiness and environmental protection initiative to buffer installation encroachment. Arlington, VA: RAND Corporation. 39Eglin Air Force Base Newcomers Guide. (2011). Fort Walton Beach, FL: Military Media, Inc. Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from http://www.eglinguideonline.com/. 40 Ibid. 41Environmental Assessment Addressing the Emerald Breeze Resort, Santa Rosa Island, Fort Walton Beach, Florida. (August 2009). Eglin Air Force Base, FL: 96th Air Base Wing. Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from http://www.eglin.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-017.pdf.

36

and over $1 million in wages.42 These wages come mainly from the following sectors: professional & technical services, retail trade, administrative & waste services, construction, and accommodation & food services. Overall, they calculate that defense spending (goods & services, salaries & wages, and pensions & transfers) and its effect on employment, sales, consumption spending, etc. contributed over $5 million to the Countys gross regional product in 2008; and over the next several years, they expect this contribution to grow to $6 million by 2013.43

42Haas

Center for Business Research and Economic Development. (January 2011). Florida defense industry economic impact analysis: volume two county analyses. Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from http://www.floridadefense.org/documents/HAAS%20Study%202011/FLdefense_Volume_2.pdf.

43Ibid.

37

Tourism & Retirement Tourism and retirement is an important component of many coastal counties economies. This growth driver impacts the type of development each county will undergo in the future. Spatially, it is expected that tourism-based development will locate near the most scenically desirable locales. Emerald Isle and Atlantic Beach, in the southeastern portion of Carteret County, are good examples of this type of development. Because of the desire for occasional-use beachfront property for summer vacation, Carterets seasonal housing stock has increased by a factor of 30 over the last 40 years, from 4% of total housing units to 32% (See Table 7). In addition to the location of development, a tourism-based economy influences the type of services provided. It is reasonable to expect a wide breadth of services from hotel lodging to recreation activities in this type of economy. Furthermore, services provided and/or maintained by the County will be strained as the seasonal population increases the pressure on the existing roads, water and sewer, and scenic overlooks. Table 7: Carteret Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing
Total Seasonal Housing Units 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

503 3,376 10,138 13,537 15,402

Percent of Total Housing Units 4.0% 16.4% 29.3% 33.1% 32.0%

The combination of future transportation improvements (Highways 70 and 17) and the two military bases in neighboring counties will impact the tourism industrys growth and development. To better understand how Carterets tourism industry will be influenced by these external factors, the following sections discuss the population and seasonal housing trends (See Figure 21) of three similarly situated communities. Figure 21: Seasonal Housing Unit Change, Indexed for Carteret Co. and Select Comparative Communities
Indexed to 1970 (1970 =1) 31 26 21 16 11 6 1 2000 2010 Carteret Accomack Barnstable Okaloosa

1970 1980 1990 Source: U.S. Census Bureau

38

Accomack County Accomack County, VA is located on the Delmarva Peninsula, south of Kent County, DE. Before the construction of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge and Tunnel this section of the peninsula was sparsely populated. In fact, this section of the peninsula is still sparsely populated. As seen in Figure 12, the population of Accomack County decreased by 668 people between 1950 and 2010. A better measure of growth for the County is looking at the total number of housing units. From 1970-2010 the total housing stock increased by 79%, from 11,700 to 21,000 (See Figure 13). Since the population actually decreased over a 40 year time period, we attribute the increase in housing stock to seasonal housing development. Accomacks tourism industry benefited from the transportation investment in the 1960s. The Chesapeake Bay Bridge and the Chesapeake Bay Tunnel improved access to the southern portion of the Delmarva Peninsula sparking regular housing and seasonal housing construction (See Figure 21). When looking only at the tourism establishment and employee data, it would appear that tourism is not a major industry in Accomack County. However, when looking at seasonal housing the importance of tourism in the County emerges. In 1970 the County had around 600 occasional-use houses, which constituted 5.4% of the Countys total housing units. In 2010 seasonal housing comprised nearly of total housing stock (See Table 8). As seen in Figure 21, the seasonal housing stock increased by a factor of 7.8, which signals that Accomack has become a second home destination. The slow but consistent increase in tourism (seasonal homes) is attributed to a growth management strategy that emphasizes water quantity and quality, distribution of development and maintenance of the rural character, fiscal capacity to provide infrastructure, and jobs and housing for residents. Table 8: Accomack Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing
Total Seasonal Housing Units 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 612 463 1,408 2,585 4,827 Percent of Total Housing Units 5.4% 4.0% 8.9% 13.2% 23.0%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Barnstable County Barnstable County, MA is located in southeastern Massachusetts and encompasses the area known as Cape Cod. The area has undergone significant population growth and residential development resulting from tourism growth, growth management strategies, and transportation investments. In 1950 Barnstables population was around 46,800. Over the next 60 years, the population increased to 215,900, a factor of 4.5. Seasonal housing growth was not as dramatic, increasing by a factor of 2.6 from 1970-2010 (See Figure 21). 39

Over the past fifty years Barnstable Countys tourism industry has had its ups and downs. The tourism industry has accounted for as little as 1.1% (2006) of the total employment to as much as 2.4% (1998). In 1960, the industry was relatively small with 305 employees and 71 establishments. The industry grew well into the 1990s, peaking in 1998 with 2,885 total employees. The establishment peak was set 8 years earlier in 1990 with 270 lodging establishments. Since Barnstables peak in the 1990s, the industry has gradually declined. In 2009 there were 1,663 employees working at 163 establishments. As with other case study communities and Carteret County itself, the volatile trend of tourism establishment and tourism employment correlates well with the ebb and flow of the seasonal housing construction. If there is an increase in tourism employees and establishments it sends a signal that the tourism industry as a whole (which includes a bevy of other sectors and thus the entire economy) is doing well. In Barnstable County, revenue generated from the broad tourism industry (property taxes from second home owners, occupancy taxes in hotels/resorts, sales taxes in restaurants, etc.) has become the dominating force in the local economy. The seasonal housing data shows a prevalence of tourism in Barnstable County. As seen in Figure 21, the seasonal housing stock increased by a factor of 8.4. Table 9 below shows that as of 2010, one in every three houses in the County are for seasonal or occasional-use. Many factors have led to Barnstable Countys second home construction boom, from the sound growth management policies promoted by the Cape Cod Commission (CCC)44 to the cache of living in one of the most exclusive areas in the United States. Some would argue that those two factors are closely related. The relationship between growth management and a robust tourist industry may be a point of interest for the local officials and citizens of Carteret County. Table 9: Barnstable Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing
Total Seasonal Housing Units 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 6,714 7,213 46,834 47,016 56,863 Percent of Total Housing Units 15.2% 10.1% 34.6% 32.0% 35.5%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

44

The Cape Cod Commission Act produced the CCC. Prior to this act the impacts of development on the Cape was proving ruinous to the landscape and water quality of the area. The Cape Cod Commissions purpose is to manage growth and maintain the qualities that has made Cape Cod a desirable place to live and vacation.

40

Okaloosa County In Okaloosa County, FL, population and housing stock both grew. The population surged from 1950-2010, from just under 61,000 to nearly 181,000. That is a 122% increase. Housing also increased but by only 57%, from 27,000 in 1970 to 92,500 in 2010 (See Figure 13). Okaloosa Countys tourism industry (lodging), as a percentage of the overall economy, peaked in 1990, constituting 2.1% of the market. The number of establishments also peaked at 53 units that year. The percentage fell to 1.1% in 1998 and hovered around there until 2007, when it bumped back up to 1.8%. In this same year, the employment peaked at 2,307. After 2007, the number of employees dropped significantly to 732 employees in 2008, though the number of establishments fell minimally from 42 in 2007 to 39 in 2008. The number of employees fell even further (by 32 employees) the following year, but the number of establishments increased to 46. In this instance, our lodging metric correlates well with the strength of Okaloosas overall economy. During the economic recession when the number tourist establishments and employees fell, so did the amount of tourist-generated revenue. The strength of the tourism sector is more a factor of overall economic health than anything else. Transportation investments and shoreline development (both of which are present in Okaloosa County) improves access and increase an areas desirability but ultimately, the industrys strength is dependent upon the visitors discretionary income. In 1970, the County had 612 occasional use houses, which constituted 5.4% of the Countys total housing units. The increase over the next 40 years is evidence that Okaloosa County is a legitimate tourist destination. As seen in Figure 21, the seasonal housing stock increased by an impressive factor of 23.7. Table 10 shows the absolute increase as well as the increase in seasonal housing as a percentage of total housing stock in Okaloosa County over the last 40 years. By 2010 the seasonal housing stock increased to 6,755, which is just over 7% of the Countys total housing units. Table 10: Okaloosa Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing
Total Seasonal Housing Units 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 284 1,088 3,345 4,258 6,755 Percent of Total Housing Units 1.0% 2.5% 5.3% 5.4% 7.3%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

[1] Please see Appendix A for the definition of SIC 70 [2] Please see Appendix A for the definition of NAICS code 72111

41

Conclusion
Through our case study research, we determined the impacts of major growth drivers on our case study communities and used these impacts to inform scenarios for Carterets growth and development. In the following chapter on potential scenarios for Carteret, we leveraged the Beaufort County and Barnstable County case studies as evidence for a scenario in which regional planning and development in Carteret is driven by cooperation. In that scenario, as in the Beaufort and Barnstable County case studies, the military base and the surrounding communities work together to ensure that population growth and base expansion occur simultaneously without one developing at the expense of the other. We used the Accomack County and Okaloosa County case studies as justification for a scenario in which tourism becomes the primary economic driver in the area while the militarys influence contracts. The Jackson County, Kent County and Okaloosa County case studies offer support for a scenario in which military expansion, logistics industry growth, and infrastructure improvements were the main forces driving in growth in the area. An important part of this process was determining the population, housing unit, and employment growth Carteret County should expect to experience given its own historical trends and those of the comparative communities. For each of the scenario concepts described above, an estimate of population, housing unit, and job growth was articulated for Carteret County. As previously noted, the North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management expects Carteret County to grow at a rate of 1.33% annually between 2010 and 2030. The State has grown at a slightly lower rate over the past two decades. For the scenario emphasizing cooperation in the face of growth, we observe that comparative communities such as Barnstable, Beaufort, and Kent have varied widely between -0.3% and 3% in annual growth rates over the past decade (See Table 11). We believe an estimate of 1.75% average annual growth is reasonable for this scenario. For the scenario emphasizing tourist development, we looked to Barnstable, Beaufort, and Okaloosa, which all historically had very high population growth rates but have slowed in recent years. An average annual growth rate of 2.0% was selected for Carteret in this scenario. Finally, for the scenario emphasizing external forces, we looked to Jackson and Kent, and Okaloosa, which experienced varying growth rates depending on when major infrastructure / military build-up projects occurred. For this scenario, we also selected a 1.75% average annual growth rate for Carteret.

42

Table 11: Population Average Annual Growth

Carteret 1950-2010 2000-2010 1990-2000 1980-1990 1970-1980 1960-1970 1950-1960 1.78% 1.13% 1.23% 2.49% 2.66% 0.21% 2.98% Accomack -0.03% -1.43% 1.91% 0.14% 0.75% -0.55% -0.99% Barnstable 2.58% -0.29% 1.76% 2.35% 4.35% 3.24% 4.15% Beaufort 3.03% 2.98% 3.42% 2.83% 2.49% 1.47% 5.05% Jackson 2.52% 0.61% 1.32% -0.24% 2.98% 4.71% 5.86% Kent 2.46% 2.51% 1.33% 1.23% 1.83% 2.24% 5.66% Okaloosa 3.19% 0.59% 1.72% 2.72% 2.23% 3.72% 8.31%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

In order to determine how housing unit growth in Carteret may differ by scenario, we examined the historical difference between the average annual housing unit growth and population growth both in Carteret and the case study communities. In Carteret, housing units grew at an average annual rate 1.5% higher than population, likely reflecting secondhome construction. However, the difference between the two indicators was much smaller in recent years. Informing the cooperation scenario, Barnstable, Beaufort, and Kent experienced housing unit growth that was between 0.1% and 1.4% greater than population growth (See Table 12). Given this range, we believe a growth differential of 0.75% is appropriate for Carteret County, placing annual housing unit growth at 2.5%. For the scenario emphasizing tourism development, in Barnstable, Beaufort and Okaloosa, housing unit growth surpassed population growth by a range of between 1.1% to 1.4%. We have decided to let annual housing unit growth surpass population growth by 1.25% in this scenario, placing annual housing growth at 3.25%. For the scenario influenced by external forces, housing unit growth surpassed population growth by a range between 0.1% and 1% in Jackson, Kent, and Okaloosa Counties. We chose a growth differential of 0.5% for this scenario, making the average annual housing unit growth rate equal to 2.25%. Table 12: Difference Between Average Annual Housing Unit Growth and Population Growth
Carteret 1970-2010 2000-2010 1990-2000 1980-1990 1970-1980 1.51% 0.51% 0.48% 2.82% 2.28% Accomack 1.13% 2.15% 0.22% 1.74% 0.39% Barnstable 0.23% 1.15% -0.92% 4.31% -3.57% Beaufort 1.90% 1.41% -0.63% 2.69% 4.17% Jackson 0.80% 0.91% -0.05% 1.06% 1.30% Kent 0.68% 0.11% 0.50% 0.63% 1.49% Okaloosa 1.28% 1.04% 0.59% 1.12% 2.40%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Lastly, a similar methodology is employed to estimate how employment growth in Carteret differs by scenario. The difference between average annual employment and population growth is measured for Carteret and the case study communities. In Carteret, there was only a 0.1% differential between employment growth and population growth over the past 43

decade. For the cooperation scenario, we examine Barnstable, Beaufort, and Kent, which had a differential between the indicators ranging between -1% and 1.3% over the past decade. Here, we elect to have a zero differential between population and employment growth, meaning both grow at 1.75% annually. The comparative communities relevant for the tourism scenario, Barnstable, Beaufort, and Okaloosa, similarly, had a difference between employment growth and population growth equal to between -1% and 1.3% annually (See Table 13). We attribute a 0.25% differential to this scenario, making average annual employment growth equal to 2.25% annually. Finally, the counties relevant to the external forces scenario Jackson, Kent, and Okaloosa experienced population growth of between -0.8% and 0.6% over the past decade, but tended to have larger differentials during the periods in which industrial and military employment was growing rapidly. We therefore decided to project a differential of zero for Carteret, making the average annual employment growth rate equal to 1.75% in Carteret. Table 13: Difference Between Average Employment Growth & Population Growth
Carteret 1970-2010 2000-2010 1990-2000 1980-1990 1970-1980 1.29% 0.11% 2.05% 0.85% 2.17% Accomack 0.85% 2.31% -1.30% -0.01% 2.42% Barnstable 0.79% 1.31% 0.34% 0.96% 0.52% Beaufort -0.16% -0.98% 0.15% 0.30% -0.09% Jackson 0.46% -0.81% 1.32% -0.03% 1.40% Kent 0.01% -0.67% 0.79% 0.86% -0.95% Okaloosa 1.09% 0.59% 1.28% 1.32% 1.16%

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

44

4. Scenario Planning
Many community and regional planning processes posit one vision of the future. This vision, arising from the planning process, is critically informed by an analysis of relevant past trends and future projections. Yet even when employing the most precise forecasting techniques and relying on the best data sources, predicting the future is difficult. Myriad forces, some internal, but many external, influence the pace and character of growth and development in a community. As a result, a planning process that is focused on a certain future can be rendered nearly useless as a policy and implementation guide if the course of events break differently than what was expected. To deal with the inherent uncertainty involved in planning for the future be it by a community, government, or private entity scenario planning has emerged as a tool to engender adaptability and contemplation amongst participants. Scenario planning asks participants to construct plausible alternative futures, some of which perhaps undesirable, that arise from the interplay of forces both within and external to local control. In doing so, scenario planning broadens the frame of mind of participants, shaking them from their assumptions and helping them conceive of difficult trade-offs that decision and policymakers may face in the future. While scenario planning may not result in a tidy vision for the future, it forces planners and decision-makers to brace for a range of outcomes and build flexibility into the policies contained within the eventually adopted plan. It is our hope that these scenarios will cause decision-makers in Carteret County to take a step back and consider how well they are prepared for the futures described herein. What aspects of these futures can be shaped by local policies? Which policies are more likely to produce outcomes considered desirable? What aspects are beyond the reach of local decisions? How can policymakers respond quickly to mitigate changing circumstances? These futures were constructed to show a range of plausible, not necessarily most likely, outcomes for Carteret County. None of these futures are guaranteed or unavoidable. These futures are informed by past trends in Carteret Growth Drivers Used County, current political realities, physical constraints, Within the Scenarios: and our analysis of the experiences of comparative 1.) Transportation and Ports communities. The experience of these similarly situated 2.) Military coastal counties illustrates patterns and consequences 3.) Tourism of development that may play out similarly in Carteret. All of the studied counties wrestled with one or more of the three key growth drivers identified in Carteret. Of course, these communities are not identical to Carteret and the macro external forces at play are different than those of thirty or even ten years ago. Thus, our analysis of the case studies was a jumping off point for scenario construction rather than a straightjacket. Growth scenarios were mapped using general future land use categories and broad, county-level designations of areas of development. The location and amount of growth 45

depicted in the maps reflect both the specific growth drivers and a set of development suitability factors. The suitability factors considered and the method for directing growth with respect to each factor, based on the different scenarios, are described in Appendix C along with maps of the different suitability factors. Summaries of the three scenarios we have developed for Carteret County (Table 14) along with narrative stories and conceptual maps of each (Figure 22, Figure 23, and Figure 24) are included below. The scenarios are followed by cross-cutting conversation about natural hazards and disaster resiliency. The chapter concludes with a characterization of how each scenario performs based on metrics of: development outside current sewer service areas, flood risk, encroachment on agricultural land, and encroachment on high biodiversity value areas.

46

Table 14: Scenario Comparison

Metric 2010-2030 Population Growth 2010-2030 Household Growth 2010-2030 Employment Growth / Wages Sectoral Composition Cooperation Drives Success 27,570 (1.75% annually) 30,770 (2.50% annually) 15,250 (1.75% annually) Mix of Wages Knowledge-based Sectors Military Contractors Logistics Firms Tourist Establishments Military operations continue and personnel grows in future BRAC rounds Tourist Trap 32,300 (2.00% annually) 43,160 (3.25% annually) 20,700 (2.25% annually) Low Wage Tourist Establishments Residential Construction External Forces Dominate 27,570 (1.75% annually) 27,000 (2.25% annually) 15,250 (1.75% annually) High Wage Military Contractors Logistics Firms

Military Status

Military operations downsized as Bogue Landing Field is closed

Tourism Status

Tourism continues to be an important but not dominant sector

Tourism becomes the dominant industry, fueled by hotel and second-home growth Collaboration never catches on, resulting in piecemeal and incomplete solutions

Military operations significantly ramp up and become more dominant economic force Tourism declines as the area loses its natural beauty and traditional character Collaboration is primarily driven by military and logistics needs, with less input from other stakeholders Development is strictly regulated in the vicinity of military and port operations, but has free reign in other areas Seal level rises in accordance with baseline estimates The strong economy enables spending on services like schools and parks

Countywide Collaboration

Strong regional collaboration results in a vision and implementation plan for the Countys future Growth management fosters a healthy environment and dynamic economy

Development Management Strategies

Local governments enact piecemeal solutions that ultimately fail to achieve smart growth in the region Seal level rises in accordance with baseline estimates Low-paying tourism jobs result in greater demand for County social services

Impact of Sea Level Rise

Seal level rises in accordance with baseline estimates A prosperous economy enables spending on services like schools and parks

Social Impacts

47

Cooperation Drives Success Carteret County booms as improvements to Highway 70 facilitate travel to the rapidly growing Research Triangle area. Recognizing the immense opportunities and challenges associated with this growth, key regional stakeholders including local governments, the military, tourism interests, port operators and environment advocates convene to development a proactive strategy that will best meet the needs of all parties. The resulting working agreement channels growth into areas most suitable environmentally, socially, and fiscally. With this development management framework in place, new growth avoids sensitive environmental areas and areas of low soil percolation such as the northeastern section of the County, as well as military and port installations. The areas that are developed are located along or proximate to existing roads, water and sewer lines. Commercial development occurs within municipal boundaries surrounding the port and along the western section of Highway 70. The port expands onto nearby Radio Island and the County maintains a buffer around military installations. Because of its stability and its strong growth management practices, future BRAC rounds add personnel to MCAS Station Cherry Point. Bolstered by this strong cooperative spirit and healthy environment, Carteret is well equipped to handle the challenges associated with growth and secure a sustainable and economically competitive future. The County becomes renowned for its diverse and resilient coastal economy anchored by knowledge-based service, military, logistical, and tourism sectors.

48

Figure 22: Cooperation Drives Success Concept Map

49

Tourist Trap Carteret County experiences rapid population and housing growth as improvements to Highway 70 facilitate travel to the Research Triangle Area. Yet in the face of this growth, regional stakeholders are unable to come to an agreement on how the County can best manage this growth in a way that enhances its sustainability and prosperity. Second-home construction becomes the dominant industry, and development sprawls into areas with poor soil quality. The waterfront of the White Oak River estuary on the western side of the County becomes more developed, diminishing water quality and encroaching on protected lands. Low-income permanent residents are pushed out from beachfront and relocate in less-served inland areas of the County. Tourism comes to dominant Carteret, now often known as The New Myrtle Beach, and traffic congestion harms quality of life. Military capabilities are compromised in the face of this rapid growth, as residential protests result in the closure of the Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field Bogue in the southwestern part of the County. Due to the diminished facilities available in Carteret, MCAS Station Cherry Point ceases to be a major employer of county residents after a BRAC round in the 2020s substantially reduces the number of personnel there. The land on Radio Island, once planned for port expansion, is instead developed as vacation rental housing, thwarting the growth of the logistics industry.

50

Figure 23: Tourist Trap Concept Map

51

External Forces Dominate Increasing global integration and geopolitical pressures lead Carteret County to become a more important center of shipping and logistics and military operations, training, and mobilization. Heightened U.S. military deployments spark greater defense appropriations, and many new personnel at MCAS Cherry Point chose to reside in Carteret. A number of defense related-businesses and contractors spring up along the corridor between Carteret and Craven Counties. Moreover, in response to the expansion of the Panama Canal, a multimillion-dollar expansion at the Port of Morehead City significantly increases its capacity to handle higher volumes of trade. Combined with improved highway access to the now thriving Global TransPark in Kinston, Carteret County becomes extremely attractive to logistics businesses. The military and logistics interests forge a coalition that takes pains to protect expansion opportunities for military and logistics infrastructure, but largely ignores managing development in environmentally sensitive and scenic areas. Existing residents displaced by the increased commercial and industrial development priorities relocate to dispersed developments in the northeast section of the County that are not adjacent to existing infrastructure and feature low soil percolation. Vacationers and second-home owners feel that Carteret has lost much of its charm, and tourism and related industries decline as Carteret increasingly becomes a node in the global logistics and military support network.

52

Figure 24: External Forces Dominate Concept Map

53

Natural Hazards and Disaster Resiliency

As a coastal county in North Carolina, Carteret faces, and should prepare for, a number of hazards and changing conditions due to a combination of storms, ongoing natural processes, and climate change. These hazards include coastal erosion, storm surge, hurricanes, flooding, and sea level rise. Different areas of the County are at risk for different hazards; however, many low-lying areas are at risk for multiple hazards. Although there is some uncertainty over the exact extent or likelihood of particular risks, the impacts of natural hazards will undoubtedly be felt. Area residents are quite familiar with the Countys vulnerability to serious storm events. Indeed, 17 tropical storms or hurricanes hit the County in the ten-year period from 1994-2004.45 With more than one storm impacting the County each year, storm surge is a factor that could greatly influence development patterns. Planning for near term and long term risks is an essential aspect of building a sustainable and resilient community. While we do not delve into each potential risk in this report, our consideration of sea level rise also illustrates vulnerability to storm surge and coastal erosion in Carteret County. Although there is no doubt that climate change is accelerating sea level rise, uncertainty remains with regard to the exact levels predicted for specific dates. Scientist project sea levels to rise by 1 to 1.5 meters (approximately 5 feet) along the North Carolina coast by the year 2100. This will undoubtedly inundate some low-lying areas of the County and increase the intensity of the storm surge associated with coastal storms. Extrapolating from this estimate, it is reasonable to anticipate increases in sea levels of at least 15 inches, or 0.4 meters, by mid-century. Figure 25 shows the base map of Carteret County under projected rises in sea levels of 0.4 and 1 meter. The lower projection is useful for planning more immediate action and adaptation. Although a one meter rise in sea levels is projected beyond the time frame of the scenarios presented in this report, this information is nevertheless useful for considering long term infrastructure investments and for directing development patterns. These will likely remain in place and continue to guide future development for many decades, when sea levels will be considerably higher. An explanation of the data used to generate these maps, as well as information about new, more detailed data sets currently being developed, can be found in Appendix C. Should a major storm directly strike Carteret County in the near future, water could be as high as 1.5 to 2 meters (5 6.5 feet) above sea level. The eastern portions of Carteret County are more likely to bear the brunt of this impact.46 Conservative 0.4 meter and 1 meter projections of sea level rise illustrate the areas potentially affected by flooding and storm surge, as well as inundated by rising sea levels. The impact of this inundation would be felt differently in each of the scenarios described.
Carteret County. (2005). Carteret County hazard mitigation plan. Retrieved on October 1, 2011 from http://www.carteretcountygov.org/pdfs/planning/MitigationPlanCarteret.pdf. 46 Ibid. p. 46
45

54

The Tourist Trap scenario, with its concentrated development along waterfront areas and uncontrolled development in areas with low soil percolation, would be the most affected. Furthermore, the higher peak levels of traffic accompanying this type of tourism-based development might impede the effectiveness of evacuation efforts. The External Forces Dominate scenario would likely be more resilient to disasters as the resources of the military and the port could be put towards clean up and restoration of their operations. Furthermore, less new residential development would have occurred along the most vulnerable waterfront areas. However, should the military facilities sustain substantial damage or the port require a large dredging operation to restore the necessary deep water channels, the Countys economy might take a long time to recover. The Cooperation Drives Success scenario would likely fare as well or better than the previous scenario. While more waterfront housing would likely be lost to the storm, the diversified economy and well-established relationships between the County, local governments, port, and military could facilitate evacuation and cleanup efforts and sustain the economy during the recovery process. A wide range of adaptation strategies will be necessary to prepare for and adapt to the risks of rising sea levels. These will probably include strengthening and protecting critical infrastructure, development, and investments through structural and policy approaches, while directing growth away from more vulnerable areas. More specific adaptation measures for existing and new development will likely follow the Countys broader growth priorities, but should seriously take into account the real risks to life, property, and infrastructure from rising sea levels and the other likely hazards facing Carteret County.

55

Figure 25: Carteret Co. Under 15 Inch and 1 Meter Sea Level Rise Projections

56

57

Indicators
The three scenarios were assessed using four performance indicators: development outside current sewer service areas, flood risk, encroachment on agricultural land, and encroachment on high biodiversity value areas. Because the scenarios are meant to provide conceptual visualizations of alternative development possibilities rather than precise forecasts of future growth, the performance indicators were assessed on a comparative, rather than quantitative, basis. For each indicator evaluated, scenarios were ranked according to their relative performance. Data on the location of high biodiversity areas and agricultural areas was obtained using NCDENRs Conservation Planning Tool, which is a data resource comprised of assessments and maps that identify and prioritize high value natural resources statewide. Flood hazard area data was downloaded from the NC One Map Geospatial Portal. Finally, the Division of Coastal Management provided data on sewer service areas. Table 15 shows that both the Tourist Trap and External Forces Dominate scenarios perform equally poorly across the four indicators. More fragmented development in each of these scenarios contributes to encroachment of both agricultural lands and areas with high biodiversity value. Similarly, non-contiguous growth results in a greater amount of development in areas unlikely to be connected to sewer services through infrastructure expansion. While the Cooperation Drives Success scenario performed the best across all four of the indicators evaluated, this scenario still exhibited a significant amount of development outside of areas currently served by sewer infrastructure. This reflects the fact that sewer infrastructure is limited to a very small portion of the County at present. Table 15: Scenario Performance Indicators
Development Outside Sewer Service Areas Medium High High Encroachment on Agricultural Lands Low Medium Medium Encroachment on High Biodiversity Value Areas Low Medium Medium

Scenario Cooperation Drives Success Tourist Trap External Forces Dominate

Flood Risk Medium High High

As it is unlikely that any one scenario will play out entirely, it is important to consider the priorities that the different performance indicators reveal. Preservation of agricultural land might not hold the highest priority if more profitable and sustainable uses for the land are pursued. Some areas of high flood risk should be avoided entirely, but there might be value for developing in other areas at risk of flooding. In that case, adequate flood hazard mitigation measures should be implemented to protect residents and safeguard public and private property. Any encroachment on biodiversity areas of high value should be mindful of state and federal regulations.

58

5. Insights and Lessons Learned

Throughout the course of this project, we learned many lessons about case study selection, the application of scenario planning in practice, and the technical tools therein. Based on the discussions within the group, and in light of PlanIt Easts upcoming Reality Check exercise for North Carolinas Eastern Region, this chapter offers insights and lessons learned: Forging partnerships involves deep deliberation and is possible only over time: MGTF is well aware of (and indeed founded upon) the importance of partnerships and their potential to lead to mutual benefit. Carteret County alone has a huge array of public and private planning processes occurring. From three federal land management agencies, to the Port of Morehead City, marine science research institutions, and conservation groups, the opportunities for partnerships and tangible mutual gain for the military and region are numerous. Instead of relying on technology to create scenarios, focus more on the purpose of the stories: Having worked with ArcGIS and CommunityViz in this process, we recommend further efforts be mindful that these are technical tools, rather than decision-making entities. Software outputs are ultimately determined by specific, deliberate choices and assumptions about development parameters. This is especially difficult in the context of the limited growth management framework present in the region. These tools can provide a standard method for presentation and quantification of development possibilities and impacts; however, outputs depend on decisions of which inputs are used and how their importance is weighted. Scenario planning has tremendous data needs: Modern planning processes are increasingly data hungry as are the technical tools and decision support systems upon which they depend. There is no shortage of entities that produce and maintain such data sets, but identifying accessible, useful data proved extremely difficult through the course of this project. Rarely were we able to search for and download data off the internet. In pursuing this data, we were bounced around to multiple different points of contact and, more often than not, it had to be transferred by compact discs through the mail. CAMA land suitability and sea level rise data proved particularly useful for this analysis. NCDENRs Conservation Planning Tool presents an interesting opportunity to measure potential growth scenarios against impacts to biodiversity/habitat, forestry/agriculture, and water services. Storm surge in the near term is similar to sea level rise in the long term: MGTF should not be deterred from incorporating sea level rise into its Reality Check exercise by the skepticism about climate change that may be held by some stakeholders in the region. The mandatory evacuation issued for Carteret County during Hurricane Irene in August combined with the history of more damaging storms should act as a reminder to the region of its vulnerability to near-term storm events. While the location of areas inundated by storm surge depends on the complex interactions of wind, rain, and tide as well as the 59

storm surge itself, we expect a high amount of overlap between the low-lying areas close to the coast which are susceptible to storm surge flooding and those areas which will eventually be impacted by sea level rise. The pursuit of one preferred scenario in scenario planning distracts from the consideration of multiple uncontrollable external forces: In this project, no single scenario provides either the answer to the challenges facing a growing Carteret County, or an exact forecast of development. It is especially valuable to consider that the Cooperation Drives Success Scenario does not provide a simple solution, in part due to the lack of strong coordinated and comprehensive regional growth management in the County, as well as because of the competing and evolving priorities of the residents and stakeholders. While some aspects of the future are locally controllable, many are driven by uncontrollable external forces. A single preferred scenario ignores the futures inherent uncertainty. Compelling stories engender cooperation and original thinking and open the door to contingent and robust plans capable of guiding future land use decisions under a number of alternative futures. By telling a variety of stories, the goal should be to encourage stakeholders within the PlanIt East region to develop robust enough plans that can withstand a variety of future scenarios, not just a desired ideal. Scenario planning should draw upon both local expertise and outside knowledge: Having input from only local stakeholders leads to groupthink. At the same time, reliance on external expertise can overlook important pieces of local knowledge that could inform scenarios. While this project did not significantly incorporate local knowledge, it did succeed in introducing novel conceptions of the future. Before beginning their Reality Check exercise, PlanIt East should consider convening a scenario planning steering committee led by a consultant specializing in scenario planning and composed of subject matter experts, both local and external.

60

Appendices

61

Appendix A: Data Sources and Methods for Tourism Analysis

This appendix is meant to highlight the specific data sources used in this report to measure the tourism industry in various communities and to illustrate the methodologies used in our analysis. It includes the following items: Methodology of Selecting the Proper SIC/NAICS codes Data Source Definitions for Tourism Industry Metric

To measure the size of the tourist industry in the respective counties we wanted to measure tourists visits over time. However, a direct measure of how many tourists visited the six comparative communities was not available. We decided to indirectly measure tourism by using the total number of employees in the tourism industry and the total number of tourist lodging establishments in each county. The Census Bureau has this data in the form of SIC and NAICS codes. In this report, the percentage of the total employment in each county are measured by selected SIC and NAICS codes only for lodging. There are other factors that contribute to tourism in a region, but they could not be measured on a consistent basis between years. Therefore, the percentages of the employment from the tourism industry compared to the overall employment within each county are higher than reported here. Definition47 for SIC 70 This major group includes commercial and noncommercial establishments engaged in furnishing lodging, or lodging and meals, and camping space and camping facilities. Industry Group 701: Hotels and Motels 7011 Hotels and Motels Industry Group 702: Rooming And Boarding Houses 7021 Rooming and Boarding Houses Industry Group 703: Camps And Recreational Vehicle Parks 7032 Sporting and Recreational Camps 7033 Recreational Vehicle Parks and Campsites Industry Group 704: Organization Hotels And Lodging Houses, On 7041 Organization Hotels and Lodging Houses, on Membership Basis 2007 NAICS Definition48 for NAICS 72111 This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing short-term lodging in facilities known as hotels, motor hotels, resort hotels, and motels. The establishments in this industry may offer food and beverage services, recreational services, conference rooms and convention services, laundry services, parking, and other services.
Definition provided by U.S. Department of Labor (http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/sic_manual.display?id=60&tab=group) 48 Definition provided by U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/econ/industry/def/d72111.htm)
47

62

Cross-References. Establishments primarily engaged in:

Providing short-term lodging with a casino on the premises are classified in Industry 721120, Casino Hotels; and Providing short-term lodging in facilities known as bed-and-breakfast inns, youth hostels, housekeeping cabins and cottages, and tourist homes are classified in Industry, Other Traveler Accommodation.

Indexed entries that bring are linked to 72111:

Alpine skiing facilities with accommodations (i.e., ski resort) Auto courts, lodging Automobile courts, lodging Health spas (i.e., physical fitness facilities) with accommodations Hotel management services (i.e., providing management and operating staff to run hotel) Hotels (except casino hotels) Hotels (except casino hotels) with golf courses, tennis courts, and/or other health spa facilities (i.e., resorts) Hotels, membership Hotels, resort, without casinos Hotels, seasonal, without casinos Membership hotels Motels Motor courts Motor hotels without casinos Motor inns Motor lodges Resort hotels without casinos Seasonal hotels without casinos Ski lodges and resorts with accommodations Summer resort hotels without casinos Tourist lodges

63

Appendix B: Growth Management and Environmental Protection

In this appendix, we look at: - Growth management in Carteret County and it main municipalities, as outlined in their land use plans - Environmental issues and restrictions on development - Water and wastewater services and plans - Federal land ownership Overview of Carteret County Land Use Plans: Direction & Growth Management The main issues put forth in Carteret Countys land use plan include: general sustainability; balance between growth and natural resource protection; water quality and protection; history, heritage, and community character; continued support of the military; and a sustainable economy in both industries and jobs. In addition, the current growth of older populations, who will require appropriate needs in terms of housing, land use needs, transportation, medical and other personal and professional services, is expected to continue in Carteret County. Although Carteret County as a whole has steadily grown from 19802003, the growth has slowed with each successive decade. Looking more carefully at trends within the County, the greatest losses in population were from the eastern portions of the County, while the western portion of the County experienced the greatest growth. Between 1990 and 2000, the changes in population of municipalities in the different areas of the County reveal a strong divide. Eastern Carteret County municipalities that lost population in this period include: Stacy Township (-48.6%), Sea Level Township (-40.4%), Indian Beach (-37.9%), Atlantic Beach (-8.1%) and Beaufort (-1.0%). Western Carteret County municipalities that gained population in this same period include: White Oak Township (+55.4%), Cedar Point (+47.9%) and Emerald Isle (+43.3%). Although only 30% of land in Carteret County zoned, areas of environmental concern and with specific environmentally significant features may also be regulated. However, the restrictions on development in Carteret County are largely limited, and are considered secondary to issues of economic development and public access to beaches. The main and most effective policies restricting land use fall into three categories: (A) Restrictions on construction of marinas, docks, piers, and drainage ditches in primary nursery areas and wetland areas have served to protect both water quality and the Countys commercial and recreational fishing resources. Floating structures have been prohibited in all public trust waters; (B) Set-back requirements for new parking lots associated with waterfront developments have helped control run-off into public trust waters; and (C) Restrictions on industrial development in shoreline areas has helped control pollution of estuarine and Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW). In addition, the County supports and provides septic sewage removal throughout the County as needed, and complies with state and federal regulations over specific, critical areas of environmental concern, as well as in areas at high risk of natural hazards. 64

Environmental Features and Restrictions on Development Environmental features that may dictate land suitability, use, and development are listed in this section. Although the CAMA plans are required largely to address these issues, the regulatory framework does not require extensive restrictions on land use for all these concerns. Land in Carteret County is divided into three classes, based on a composite of the environmental features listed below. Class I includes only minimal hazards; Class II contains development hazards and limitations which should be addressed by restrictions on types of land use, site planning, or provision of public space; Class III contains serious hazards for development or lands where the impact of development may cause serious damage to the functions of natural systems. Class III covers approximately 40% of land in Carteret County. Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC), classified by the Coastal Resource Commission (CRC), are areas of natural importance classified to protect them from uncontrolled development which may cause irreversible damage to property, public health, or the environment. State level CRC regulations limit development in AECs, which are determined and regulated by the NC Division of Coastal Management. Of the four categories of AECs, two are present in Carteret County. Estuarine and Ocean System AECs are protected lands designated by mandatory setbacks from high water levels, estuaries, and tidally flooded wetlands containing specific plant species. (Freshwater Wetlands, on the other hand, are protected by the federal Clean Water Act, regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers.) Ocean Hazard System AECs are protected lands designated based on a variety of calculations and engineering and statistical analyses to predict areas of erosion, significant shoreline changes and flooding, along coasts and ocean inlets especially from major storms. While the CRCs use standards give priority to the conservation of coastal wetlands, estuarine waters and public trust areas, certain water-dependent uses are allowed, specifically those that require water access and which cannot function elsewhere. Construction for those uses must comply with state guidelines. The key, relevant guidelines for development in these AECs including: (a) not to weaken or eliminate natural barriers to erosion, (b) limiting impervious surface cover not to exceed 25-30% of AEC area, based on type, and (c) maintaining a buffer from normal water levels. The only Ocean Hazard System AECs under Carteret County planning jurisdiction are located along the ocean shoreline areas of the unincorporated community of Salter Path, located on Bogue Banks. These are identified on-site by DCM permitting staff. Development in these areas must also comply with the above guidelines. Soils in the planning jurisdiction, have limitations for many uses due to wetness, flooding and high sand content. Countywide, approximately 99% of the soils in Carteret County have moderate to severe limitations for conventional onsite soil absorption waste treatment systems (septic systems), yet there is no centralized sewer system in most areas. Although the County has put forward a general Soil Suitability for Septic Systems Map, any 65

designation of septic suitability must be made on-site by a licensed soil scientist or county environmental systems health specialist. Primary Nursery Areas house early development of fish and shellfish, and are generally located in the upper reaches of creeks and bays, surrounded by marshes or wetlands. Anadromous Fish Spawning Areas include three main spawning areas in Carteret County for anadromous fish, which are valuable recreational and commercial species, while also an integral part of the ecosystem. Flood Hazards and Storm Surge Areas are based on national standards. FEMA designated flood zones, based on the 100-year floodplain, in Carteret County fall within four groups based on risk of flooding under different conditions. Storm surge models, also by FEMA, show areas of impact based on the category and speed of a hurricane. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requires local designation of floodplains to receive funding for homeowners in flood-prone areas. Non-coastal Wetlands are regulated under the Clean Water Act, and permitting for development must go through the Army Corps of Engineers. However, the NC Division of Water Quality actually regulates the uses within wetlands. Natural Heritage Sites support important ecological features including rare or high quality plant or animal species or natural communities. Natural Heritage Areas of particular significance in terms of bio-diversity are found in 45 sites comprising over 99,600 acres in Carteret County, yet this program does not regulate these lands development on them, to protect the valuable biodiversity therein. Water and Wastewater As population growth in Carteret County continues into the future, water and wastewater service providers will confront significant challenges in meeting the needs of an increasing number of residents. At the same time that area service providers must meet growing service demands, they must also comply with increasingly stringent environmental regulations. Future efforts to satisfy both environmental protection goals and increasing water and wastewater service needs may be hampered by the largely decentralized approach to infrastructure provision across the County. Water Supply Groundwater is the primary source of drinking water in Carteret County. Although central water service is provided in some areas, potable water provision is divided among a large number of public and private non-profit entities. Along with individual wells, Carteret Countys decentralized water supply system is made up of 20 separate service providers (CAMA Plan p.15). In total, the combined capacity for all water facilities in the County is 9.6 million gallons per day (MGD), while the total average daily use in the County is approximately 4.2 MGD, which is equivalent to 44.8 percent of the available supply (RMGTF p.270). 66

Although excess water capacity currently exists in Carteret County, the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area (CCPCUA) rules mandate significant withdrawal reductions from the Black Creek Cretaceous Aquifer. Within Carteret County, these rules primarily affect service providers in the western portion of the County. Adopted in 2002 in response to significant drawdown of the Black Creek Aquifer and corresponding threats to water quality, the CCPCUA rules (codified at 15 NCAC 2E .0501-0507) require water users that pump more than 100,000 gallons per day to reduce their withdrawals from the Black Creek Aquifer by 75% by 2018. Compliance with the CCPUA rules could force some Carteret County water service providers to seek alternative sources of supply. While water stored in the Castle Hayne Aquifer is one such alternative, it requires additional treatment, which could put added financial strain on water providers that currently rely on the Black Creek Aquifer. Wastewater As with the provision of potable water, Carteret County has a highly decentralized system for the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater. Wastewater treatment is carried out by a collection of public and private entities, including the towns of Beaufort and Morehead City, the Marine Corps (at the Bogue Atlantic Outlying Fields and BT-11), as well as private companies operating package wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). In those areas of the County that are not connected to a public or private sewer collection system, septic systems serve as the only method for treating and disposing of sewage. However, countywide, approximately 99% of soils have moderate to severe limitations for the installation of new septic systems. Future growth in Carteret County could be restricted unless sewer infrastructure is expanded to service these currently unserved areas of the County. Under current law, the construction of publicly funded WWTPs is subject to the State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) permitting process, whereas privately funded package WWTPs are not. Because the SEPA process adds 6 months on average to the permitting process, developers have an incentive to pursue private package WWTPs instead of seeking connection to public sewer collection systems in order to speed up the development process. Thus, current regulations incentivize further decentralization of wastewater infrastructure in Carteret County. Moreover, future consolidation could be difficult given that private package WWTPs are not required to be designed in accordance with local water and sewer authority standards. As Carteret County continues to grow, lack of coordination in wastewater treatment could constrain development and/or pose serious threats to regional water quality.

67

Federal and Other Conservation Land Ownership in Carteret County A large percentage of the land in Carteret County consists of areas not under County or municipal planning or regulatory authority. This includes federal, state, and non-profit property and easements that are managed for permanent conservation or open space as well as lands used for military purposes. These lands are not available for future development. Three of the four federal land management agencies operate units in Carteret County (in order of acreage): U.S. Forest Service The Croatan National Forest is a 159,886-acre coastal forest, a longleaf pine ecosystem, which provides key habitat for the red cockaded woodpecker (a federally listed endangered species) and spans three counties including Craven, Carteret, and Jones. The Forest Services 2002 Land and Resource Management Plan for the unit identifies 43,917 acres of private property desirable for acquisition (from willing sellers) and 1,783 for disposal based on resource, recreation, and consolidation management needs. While most of the acquisition land identified is in Craven County, X acres is located in Carteret. Were these acquisition plans to be carried out, Forest Service ownership would account for approximately 20 percent of the tri-county area.

Figure 26: Croatan National Forest Land Adjustment Plan

Source: U.S. Forest Service Croatan National Forest 2002 Land and Resource Management Plan, Appendix D

68

National Park Service The Cape Lookout National Seashore is a 28,400-acre park unit spanning three barrier islands and 56 miles of beach and marsh. The Cape Lookout Lighthouse is Carterets most iconic and visited landmark. The park makes up nearly 70% of Carteret Countys coastline and is only accessible by passenger ferry from Harkers Island and Beaufort/Morehead City and vehicle ferries to the northeast. The Park Service is currently exploring consolidation of passenger services to enhance accessibility and visitor experience.49 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge is a 14,480-acre wildlife sanctuary consisting primarily of brackish marsh, but also containing some uplands. The Refuge and its surrounding waters provide wintering habitat for thousands of ducks and nesting habitat for colonial water birds. The unit lies entirely within Carteret County and has the authority to purchase 2,407 acres of private property within its acquisition boundary from willing sellers.

Figure 27: Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary

Source: Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge 2006 Comprehensive Conservation Plan

49http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=359&projectID=27607&documentID=39309

69

Appendix C: Mapping Process

The suitability factors we considered, and the manner by which such factors influenced our allocation of future growth, are listed below, with no prioritization for the order: Federal and State Protected Lands: Development in these areas was prohibited. Soil Suitability: Different levels of soil percolation determine the level of appropriateness for septic tank usage in an area. However, a situation of uncoordinated or unmanaged growth could drive residents to develop in areas of poor percolation and poor septic suitability, as these lands could be more affordable, despite potential negative environmental effects. Water and Sewer Piped Service: Development in areas served by piped water and sewer networks is most desirable and therefore these areas are more suitable than those which are currently unserved and which are too distant to expect service through infrastructure expansion A medium to high level of suitability was given to areas adjacent to those served by existing piped water and sewer networks, as those networks could be extended with relative ease. Major Roads and Highways: Development in relatively close proximity to major roads was considered on a scale, with greater suitability resulting from greater access. Although neighborhood roads can be built relatively easily, the improvements to Highway 70 will make this the artery best equipped to transport people between different parts of the County, both for local trips and for trips to destinations outside the County. Furthermore, new development would benefit from the increased access to goods and services along this major transportation route. Development along different sections of Highway 70 varies across the different growth scenarios to reflect the different economic forces that may grow or shrink in the future. While a future of increased tourism would likely result in new development closer to the coast, a future of heightened commercial and industrial activity would result in more development along the western section of the highway. Existing Population Densities: New development in close proximity or adjacent to areas of existing denser populations is desirable. Contiguous development patterns allow new residents and businesses to benefit from the goods, services, and community character provided by existing neighborhoods. Furthermore, proximity to existing development and a focus on increasing existing densities is fiscally and environmentally prudent both for developers as well as local governments. However, a lack of coordination in land use management could result in isolated pockets of new development scattered throughout the County, further from existing infrastructure and with greater long-term economic and environmental costs. This is likely to happen if the more desirable areas close to existing higher densities become too expensive. Without affordable housing options, this could drive less affluent year-round residents to relocate to areas further inland. While property in such areas is less desirable and therefore likely to be more affordable, scattered development is likely to result in higher long-term infrastructure costs and more

70

adverse environmental impacts. The exact location of such pockets of new development would vary based on the growth drivers under each scenario. Military Land and its immediate surroundings: The suitability of development on, and in close proximity to, military land depends on the priorities of the growth drivers of different scenarios. A situation that is favorable for a continued or strengthened military presence would respect the military land and would consider new, potentially encroaching development as less desirable in its immediate proximity. In contrast, should residents, County officials, and other stakeholders prove to be unconcerned with preserving the military presence, the County might see military lands and their immediate surroundings as highly suitable for future growth. CAMA: CAMA designates unincorporated areas of the County as high, medium, low, and least suitable for development, based on a combination of factors including environmental protection, water quality, military lands, and proximity to development, compatibility with existing uses, infrastructure, community facilities, and historic, culturally significant or scenic elements.50

Figure 28 shows a map of the protected and managed lands in Carteret County, including military land. Figure 29 shows a map of the soil suitability for septic tanks. Figure 30 shows a map of the major infrastructure in Carteret County, specifically major roads and piped water and sewer networks. Figure 31 shows the 2010 population density in Carteret County. Figure 32 presents the CAMA Land Suitability Map for Carteret County. In addition, we considered the spatial distribution and density of existing development, based on tax records. We identified areas where new growth could likely occur. However, these are not restricted to undeveloped areas, as there is also potential for infill development, on brownfield sites, vacant lots, and valuable land. Within current development, we identified those properties where the value of the land was 75% or greater than the total value of the property as more likely to be redeveloped in the future.

50

Carteret County 2005 CAMA Land Use Plan. Adopted 2009. http://www.carteretcountygov.org/pdfs/planning/Carteret%20LUP%20adoption%20hearing%20c opyMarch182009.pdf

71

Sea Level Rise Maps: Our maps for sea level rise projections are based on calculated inundation levels, the extents of which were generated from the state wide LiDAR dataset. Most models of projected sea level rise either rely entirely on inundation data, or use this as the base level analysis to which they add additional factors. Modeling of inundation data should include terrestrial topography and floodplain data, as well as bathymetric mapping, which assesses the depth and topography of oceans, lakes, rivers, etc. A comprehensive modeling of projected sea level rise would also include calculations of coastal erosion, geologic assessments and maps which consider soils, absorption, runoff, and erosion, vegetation, and land subsidence. Few states have calculated and compiled such a thorough dataset to consider the gradations of effects of sea level rise. The state of North Carolina is presently in the process of compiling such a dataset, in a public-private cooperative project including the North Carolina Office of Geospatial and Technology Management, the Department of Environmental Resources, several universities including North Carolina State University, Eastern Carolina University, Appalachian State University, and the University of North Carolina, and the private engineering firm Dewberry. That project is anticipated to be completed in 2012. Given the widespread use of inundation data for assessing sea level rise, and as more detailed data is not yet available, we feel this is an appropriate dataset to use to consider future impacts on Carteret County.

72

Figure 28: Carteret Co. Protected and Managed Lands

Source: NCDENR Conservation Planning Tool

Figure 29: Carteret Co. Soil Map

Source: NCDENR Division of Coastal Management

73

Figure 30: Carteret Co. Infrastructure Map

Source: NCDENR Division of Coastal Management

Figure 31: Carteret Co. 2010 Population Density Map

Source: 2010 US Census

74

Figure 32: CAMA Land Use Suitability Map

Source: Carteret County Planning and Development based on 2005 CAMA Land Use Plan

75