[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                               50 Yers of;"ï¿½~wï¿½~j~~i'i ~ r
























       .A615~~~~~~~~~~~~~"
1    Population9Cha0ge
                                                               I%  ~Flz
             alongï¿½~  th  ato' cat
                                   1960-2010~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ï¿½(.ï¿½(:P K:ï¿½I
                                          IIp             i























             1990~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i -I -iï¿½dSs1










Publication of a coastal trends report series is a new and evolving activity of the
Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment (OMA) of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The series will investigate and illustrate the
effects of current and projected development in the Nation's coastal areas. The
series was initiated in 1989 as part of NOAA's program of strategic assessments of
the Nation's coastal and ocean resources.

The series presents information on current and future development patterns and
their direct and indirect effects upon our national coastal resource base. The reports
are a basis for identifying patterns of resource use and environmental quality
concerns about the Nation's coastal areas.

The mission of NOAA's Strategic Assessment Program is to organize and synthe-
size existing information and knowledge of important characteristics of the Nation's
coastal and ocean regions, and to communicate this information clearly to decision-
makers and their institutions, both in the public and private sectors. The assess-
ments are characterized as "strategic" because they develop information of a
nature, and at spatial and temnporal scales, appropriate for: (1) setting and modifying
national or regional objectives for coastal resource management; (2) identifying
various means to achieve these objectives; and (3) evaluating the effects of their im-
plementation. They are intended to complement, not replace, the detailed "tactical"
analyses required to make local decisions.

Some of the data used in these reports have been presented in other NOAA
publications, particularly its series of regional strategic assessment data atlases.
These large-format thematic atlases present information on important features and
activities in the Nation's coastal areas. Each atlas contains sections on the physical
and biotic -environments,. living marine resources, economic activities, environ-
mental quality, and jurisdictions of each region. An East Coast Data Atlas was
published in 1980.i an extensive revision and expansion of this atlas will begin in
1990. A Gulf of Mexico Data Atlas was published in 1985; a Bering Chukchi, and
Beaufort Seas Data Atlas in 1989. A West Coast of North America Data Atlas is
scheduled for completion in 1990.               .X

Additional information on coastal population and NOAA'" coastal trends. report
series is available from: Thomas J. Culliton, Strategic Assessrnmet Banch, Ocean
Assessments Division, Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment, National
Ocean Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 6001 Executive
Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852.







           The Second Report of a Coastal Trends Series

                         50 Years of

           Population Change

                along the Nation's Coasts
                         1960-2010







                                    Property of CSC Library


               Thomas J. Culliton, Maureen A. Warren,
               Timothy R. Goodspeed, Davida G. Remer,
            Carol M. Blackwell, and John J. McDonough, III

                     US Department of Commrerce
                     NOAA Coastal Services Center Librazy
                     2234 South Hobson Avenue
                     Charleston, SC 29405-2413

         LIBRARY               E MOs
        NOAA/CCEH1
     1990 HOBSON AVE.        AR                     1 4 ï¿½
   CHAS, SC 29408-23 28
       Q1-~       ~          %
                    Strategic Assessment Branch
     '  K   Office   Ocean Assessments Division
            Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment
                      National Ocean Service
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
     ,,J~~ ~         Rockville, Maryland 20852
At )







and cultural features to delineate coastal    The NPA and Woods and Poole state-
boundaries. Most recognize that activi-   level projections for 2000 were corn-
ties miles inland can have a significant    pared with BEAprojectionsfortheseven
impact on the environmental quality of   southeastern and Gulf states and with
the coast, and have included these areas    Bureau of the Census projections. The
in their management programs.            N PA projections, on average, were about
                                         two percent greater than the BEA pro-
The coastal U.S. has been divided into   jections, and about two percent less
five regionsto examine spatial variations    than those developed by the Bureau of
of population. Four of the five regions    the Census.  NPA underestimated the
are used by NOAA in its coastal assess-    Woods and Poole projections by about
ment activities, including the National    four percent. Because the NPA projec-
Estuarine Inventory (NEI) program. The    tions were closest to the Bureau of the
Great Lakes region currently is not in-   Census projections, and were more
cluded in the NEI series, but is included    conservative than the Woods and Poole
in this report because it is heavily popu-    projections, the NPA population projec-
lated and represents a large portion of   tions were chosen for this report.
the Nation's coastal lands and waters,
as defined under the Coastal Zone    Population projections were not obtained
Management Act of 1972.                  from individual states because of incon-
                                         sistencies among state projection tech-
Six maps in the appendix show the    niques.  Each state may use different
coastal counties and major population    assumptions (e.g., economic scenar-
centers in each region.                   ios, fertility, and mortality) and methods
                                         in making their projections. For these
 3ï¿½_                            _ .  .  ï¿½ ,  -  reasons, NOAA chose to use a consis-
                                         tent set of population projections devel-
Source. Two Federal agencies, both    oped for all states.
located in the U.S. Department of
Commerce, develop population projec-    How the Projections are Made. NPA
tions periodically.  However, county-    used a three-step process to generate
level population projections are not   its population projections.  First, na-
available nationwide from either the   tional economic projections were made
Bureau of the Census or the Bureau of   for employment and earnings using
Economic Analysis (BEA).  Although    historical economic data from the BEA.
BEA county-level projections are avail-    Regional economic projections were
able for seven coastal states in the    then madefor 183 EconomicAreas (EAs)
Southeast and Gulf of Mexico, no pro-    defined by the BEA. The EAs are aggre-
jections have been made for other    gates of contiguous counties and repre-
coastal states.    Consequently, two    sent cohesive economic regions of the
economic forecasting firms were identi-   U.S.  National projections were allo-
fied as data sources, National Planning    cated to the EAs and then to counties to
Association Data Services, Inc. (NPA)    determine the population projection for
and Woods and Poole Economics, Inc.,   each county. County population projec-
both located in Washington, DC.          tions were developed using area-spe-

2







 cific ratios of employment to population.    Figure 1. Regional Distribution of the
 These ratios reflect the long-term struc-          Nation's Coastal Population
 tural differences among areas in age
 composition, employment rates, labor            P(2ac) 
                                                   (26%)                 Northeast
 force participation, age structure of                                    (35%)
 migration flows, and inter-area commuter
 flows (Terleckyj and Coleman, 1989).

 Explanation of the Data.  All of the   Gulf of Mexico
 population data for years prior to 1990     (13%)
 are from the Bureau of the Census.
 Population data for 1990, 2000, and               Southeast    Great Lakes
 2010 are NPA projections. Because the               (8%)            (17%)
 most recent county-level population
 estimates of the Bureau of the Census
 arefor1988, and are morevalidthanthe    The Northeast and the Pacific regions
 NPA's 1990projections, maps and charts    have the largest coastal populations in
 shown  in this report that examine    the U.S. today. Together they account
 changes over the next two decades are   for about 28 percent of the entire U.S.
 for the time period 1988-2010, and not    population. Figure 1 shows the distribu-
 1990-2010. For the same reason, 1988    tion, by region, of the Nation's coastal
 is used as the "base year" instead of   population.
 1990.
                                     ..~    The 451 coastal counties account for 20
  The population projections in this paper    percent of the Nation's total land area.
                                            However, if the land area of Alaska is
 only address changes in total popula-    However,  the          land area
            tion  They do not account for the in-   excluded, the coastal county land area
 tion. They do not account for the in-
 creased demand placed on coastal tour-    comprises only 11 percent of the re
                                            maining national total. Continued popu-
 ism or recreational resources by visitors   main  ing national total. Continued popu-
            from counties outside of the immediate lation growth in coastal areas portends
 from counties outside of the immediate
            castalarea. Thisdemandmaytakethe    increased crowding of this relatively
 coastal area. Th is demand may take the
 form of increased development of sea-
 sonal housing, construction of more                 1960-2010
 hotels and motels, or large and more nu-
 merous recreational facilities.



 The Nation's coastal areas include some
 of the most rapidly growing and densely
 populated counties in the U.S.  From         -,
.1960-2010, the coastal population will  .
 have grown from 80 million to more than
 127 million people, an increase of al-   Million Persons
 most 60 percent.                          *2.0to20 1.3tol.9 0.5tol.2 D-.1 to0.4

                                                                                3








Table 1. Leading Coastal States in        Coastal County Population Change.
        Population Change, 1960-         The decade of maximum coastal popu-
        2010                             lation growth during the study period
State    Absolute*  State      Percent    (1960-2010) was  the  1960s, when
California  19.2    Florida     226      coastal population increased by more
Texas     11.6    Alaska        208      than 13 million persons, with California,
Florida   11.2    New Hampshire 129      Florida, and New York accounting for
Georgia    3.5    California    122
Georgina   3.5    Texal i fon 122        approximately58percentoftheincrease.
Mirgioni 3.0 Texas 121 Coastal growth slowed during the 1970s,
      W illion persons                   but rebounded in the 1980s.  An in-
small, but densely populated, portion of   crease of more than 10 million persons
the Nation. Coastal population will grow    is projected between 1980 and 1990. In
by about 15 percent over the next two    the 1980s, California, Florida, and Texas
decades.                                  will account for 73 percent of the growth
                                          in coastal areas. Coastal population
Coastal vs. Non-coastal States. U.S.    growth will slow over the next two dec-
population during the 50-year period,    ades, but growth rates throughout the
1960-2010, has, and is projected to,    Nation will also decrease. Table 2 lists
increase the most in coastal states    the change in coastal, non-coastal, and
(Figure 2). Seventeen of the 20 states   total U.S. populations between 1960
with the largest statewide population    and 2010.
increases are coastal. In Florida, which
is defined as entirely coastal, the popu-    Eight coastal counties in California and
lation will increase from five million in   Florida will be in the top 10 counties in
1960 to more than 16 million by 2010, a    absolute population change between
226 percent increase. By2010, Florida's    1988 and 2010. The Southern Califor-
population will rank fourth in the Nation,    nia counties of Los Angeles, Orange,
up from tenth in 1960. California and    and San Diego will grow by 2.6 million
Texas have and are projected to expe-    persons during this period. The Miami
rience dramatic growth between 1960    area (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach
and 2010.  These states, which are    counties) will also increase rapidly, with
projected to rank first and second re-   about 1.2 million additional persons
spectively in total population in 2010,    projected by 2010. Only five percent of
will increase by 30 million people (state-   coastal counties will decline in popula-
wide) during this 50-year period. Table    tion over the next 20 years. The largest
1 shows the leading coastal states in ab-    declines will occur in the Northeast and
solute and percent population change    Great Lakes regions.  Figure 3 shows
between 1960 and 2010.

Table 2. U.S. Coastal and Non-coastal Population Change, 1960-20 10
               Percent     Percent      Percent      Percent      Percent
               Change      Change       Change       Change       Change
Counties   1960 1960-1970 1970 1970-1980 1980 1980-1990 1990 1990-2000 2000 2000-2010 2010
Coastal   80    17    93    9    101   11   112    8         120    6     127
Non-coastal 101    11   112   13    127    9   138    7       148    5    156
Total    181    14   205   11    228   10   249    7          268    6    283
Million Persons
4





Figure 3. Popula/Arn Chal~ge //? Coastal Covntle5 1.988-20/0







                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~DENorth A l E/ast






           H~~~~~~~~I~




                                                         D  L  U  N0ortheaste


         Paci~~~~~~~~~uf o  eico5o9
                                                            NCto.
                                                         SC~E  72o







Figure 4. Population Density, 1960-      in the U.S. was 61 persons per square
         2010                            mile in 1960, population density in coastal
                                          states was 100 persons per square mile,
                                          and 248 persons per square mile in
 '~E   400,           <_r         g    |  |  | E | 1 S i R coastal counties. By 1988, population
               ,CL~~~5 400  ~density in coastal counties reached 341
                                 2O 200    persons per square mile, more than four
          o-0               ~~980       times the U.S. average.   Population
                      1960               density in coastal areas is expected to
       Coastal    [-7- Coastal  United    increase as more people continue to
       Counties   L  States    - States    move into this limited space. About 68
 Note: Does not include Alaska.         percent of all coastal counties will have
                                          a population density increase of more
the projected change in population be-    than 10 percent between 1988and2010.
tween 1988 and 2010 in U.S. coastal
counties.                                In 1988, 101 counties had a population
                                          density greater than 500 persons per
Coastal County Population Density.    square mile. The most densely popu-
Coastal areas include some of the most    lated counties, those in which popula-
densely populated counties in the Na-    tion densities exceed 10,000 persons
tion. Population densityincoastal coun-    per square mile, include and/or sur-
ties (excluding Alaska, since its huge    round the cities of New York, San Fran-
coastal area dilutes the national picture)   cisco, Boston, and Philadelphia. The
has increased dramatically since 1960    largest percent change in population
(Figure 4). While the population density    density over the next two decades is

Figure 5. United States and Coastal Population Density, 1988

      1 OOOOj  '         9'72. 954                                  4,093



_g 4
  0-                        i ic

                   * *ii i i ii l

                  ' ' : 





      US ME NH MA RI CT  NYNJPA DE'MD'DCVA'NC SC  GA FL' FL' AL'MSLA TX CA OR  WAAK' HI NY PA OH Ml IN IL WI MN
     * United States  .  Northeast  * Southeast   E Gulf of Mexico     Pacific   Great Lakes
6







expected in Florida, primarily along the    along the Nation's coastline.  These
state's Gulf coast. Declines in popula-    figures were developed by dividing the
tion density during this same period are    coastal population of each state by tidal
projected in 23 counties. The largest    shoreline  mileage  (NOAA,  1975).
declines are expected in the major ur-   Coastal areas had a national average of
ban centers of the Great Lakes and    1,177 persons pershoreline mile in1988,
Northeast.                                and a projected ratio of 1,358 in 2010.
                                          The coastal states with the highest popu-
The most densely populated portion of   lation-to-shoreline ratios (due primarily
the Nation's coastal zone is the North-    to their relatively small shorelines) in-
east, where four states and the District   clude: Illinois, 91,740; eastern Pennsyl-
of Columbia have densities exceeding    vania, 30,871; Indiana, 15,951; and the
1,000 persons per square mile.  The    District of Columbia, 15,049.
Great Lakes region is the second most
densely populated area, with Illinois and          - 
Ohio having the highest population con-
centrations in this region. The South-    The Northeast is the most populated of
east region follows, because of the high    the five regions, accounting for more
population density of the Miami metro-    than one-third of the Nation's coastal
politan area. The least densely popu-    population. Itcontains 18ofthe25most
lated region is the Pacific, largely a    densely populated counties in the entire
result of the diluting effect of Alaska's    U.S. In 1988, the 134 coastal counties
vast stretches of uninhabited coastline.   in this region, stretching from the north-
Otherwise, the Gulf of Mexico has the    ern coast of Maine to the Tidewater
lowest population density.  Figure 5    region of Virginia, were home to more
shows the distribution of coastal county    than 39 million people, about 16 percent
population density by state.              of the Nation's total population.  The
                                          Northeast coastal population is projected
Coastal County Population byShore-    to increase by 10 percent over the next
line Mile. Coastal areas are often val-   two decades, to almost 43 million in
ued for their aesthetic appeal and are    2010. This increase is almost equiva-
increasingly attractive for commercial    lent to the combined current populations
and residential development.  Water-    of Connecticut and Rhode Island. The
front sites are highly prized for housing.    major population centers of the region
These same sites are also sought for a    include New York City, Philadelphia,
wide variety of recreational activities   Baltimore, Washington, and Boston.
and tourist attractions. However, the
appeal and attractiveness of these areas    Population Trends. The coastal popu-
are being diminished by the pressures    lation in the Northeast will increase by
of population growth and the require-    30 percent between 1960 and 2010. As
ments of development (New York Water    a region, the greatest change in popula-
Pollution  Control  Association,  Inc.,   tion occurred during the 1960s, when
1989).                                    the Northeast coastal population in-
                                          creased by 13 percent. The Northeast
Population per shoreline mile serves as    region will experience lower than aver-
one indicator of "environmental stress"
                                                                              7










Table 3. Northeast Population, 1960-2010

                                                              POPULATION
                               1960           1970            1980            1990             2000           2010


     STATE       LasdAroa                   0                                               I ,
                (Sq. Mi.)/
MAINE            30,995      969     31      994     32    1,125    36    1,220      39    1,313     42    1,387      45
 Coastal         12129       655     54      686     57      795    66       879    72       953    79      ,
                                                                   Placid, Ilil*    I101010 _83,-01
 .4o    RhrItj9   i         ;B9   -MEi f  t,690A  21                              I 12. IN RN) ".M. 
NEW HAMPSHIRE    8,993       607     67      738     82      921    102    1,126    125    1,287    143    1.392     155
 Coastal          1069       159    149      209    196      276    258      353    331      414    399      452    423
 p46s1dI~o~ooo    iSI   ~la99{sl~iE)        gii AN   112'                       Ila, SM   7i Z
MASSACHUSETTS    7,824    9,149    658    5,689    727    5,737    733    5,978    764    6,344    811    6.687    855
 Coastal          3535     3836    1805    4,260   1 295    4 121          449     i 2       14    353    54    121428
RHODE ISLAND      1.055      859    815      950    901      947    898    1,002   950    1,055  1,001    1,106   1,048
 CoastaI         ~ 1905      909            9.5 0~0    981   9412   600    tEO9   92 ~. 1~Q0,9             1t59   1040
                             Z~~~~~~~~ N
CONNECTICUT       4,872    2,535    520    3,032    622    3,108    638    3,262   670    3.443    707   3,623    744
 Coastal          2284    1,589    695    1 883    825    1 936      4     2025 887        2 13      34    2,244    982
                  i~~l II 1~~~11 ~~l~~~~t~l i~~lillO$ 1!1~~~~11~~~11~~  ~11~~111111~~~ li~~i~~ll~~ 11~~1 18~PI  -11 10,0011111
NEWYORK          47,377   16,782    354   18,241    385   17,558    371   17,771    375   18,220    385   18,976    401
 Coastal          7,70    11699   I,49   12742   1I683    12?082  14596   12330  1629   12I638   1669   13 191   11743
                 570o   MPt               61  'I         96%        I      9,
NEW JERSEY        7,468    6,067    812   7,171    960    7,365    986    7,686  1,029    8,027  1,075   8,433   1,129
 Coastal          5686 8     639    992    ,566  14155    6669   1173    6934 1219    7213   1269 7567   1331
PENNSYLVANIA      44,888   11,319    252   11,801    263   11,864    264   11,944   266    12,289    274   12,805    285
 Coastal            930    2864   3080    2970   3,194    2,72    2  927    2,717  921     27769  2 978    2881   36098
11        ,lt  1(?                      I            1,11JI (, Iy)l R N OAj    17tA   WW    I Fd'M   9
DELAWARE          1,932      446    231      548    284  94         307      654   338       691    357      728    377
 Coastal           932       446    231      548    294      594    307      654   338       691    357      728    377
MARYLAND          9,837    3,101    315   3,924    399    4,217    429    4,631   471       4,943    502    5,239    533
  iiasta w-;-P    6444 1            37    2079    490 2 :   0M 9             2. 9                              i 4 I7303 6  
DIST. OFCOLUMBIA     63      764  12,126     757  12.011     638  10,127     621  9,864      636  10,091     665  10,550
 Coastal             6 .   764  12 126       757   2011      638  0)27       62   9664       636  10,091     665  1050
VIRGINIA         39,704    3,967    100   4,651    117    8,347    135    6,088   153    6,591    166   6,988    176
 Coastal          6,914 2   ,203    247    2776    311      374    356    3772    423    433    464   4409          495
TOTAL            205,008   52.566    256   58,496    285   59,421    290   61,984   302   64,838    316  68,029      332
 Coasta          51,610   33,116    642   37.323    723   37,221    721   39,053   757   40 855    792  421922      832
-1 1199MO86Itt'   (29O141H  (90   110(0 I    (64(04 I. 1                   1 j        92II4s99oI    94  MAINE A0 1291 716EVEN al9
'Thouand per-- "Prsons per square mile
age growth over the next two decades    tant when one considers that coastal
when comparedtotheentire U.S. Given    counties account for only one-fourth of
the relatively degraded environmental    the total land area in the region. While
quality conditions that already exist in   almost four million people are expected
this region, any growth is likely to make    to be added to the region's coastal
these problems more severe. Figure 6    population by 2010, the ratio of coastal
shows the percent change in population    to non-coastal population should remain
in Northeast coastal counties between    roughly the same.
1988 and 2010.
                                                        Population Density. Because of the
As shown in Table 3, all but two of the   large population and small amount of
states, Pennsylvania and New Hamp-    land area in these coastal counties, this
shire, in the Northeast region have most    region is the most densely populated in
of their population in coastal counties.    the U.S., with more than 750 persons
About 63 percent of the region's popula-    per square mile. The population density
tion resides in the narrow bandof coastal    should rise to over  30 persons per
                                                        should rise to over 830 persons per
counties that border the ocean and es-
tuaries in these states. This relatively    square mile by 2010. At that point, the
        tuares n tesestaes.This relatively
high proportion of coastal versus non-    coastal population density will be more
high proportion of coastal versus nn
coastal population is even more impor-    than five times that of the region's non-


8











Figure B. Poplatmbn Change 7N Ao,/hgast Coasta/Counties, IggB-20 10

















                                                        Percent Change
                                                          2~% 5orGreater
                                                        I 15to 24
                                                        5 StoI4
                                                        ] -10to5


Figure 7. Populat2bn Deris7D yn Ivy beast2CoastlC0rn~es, 2010


















                                                      Persons per Square Mile
                                liz~~~~~~~ 2185 or Greater
                                                      ~ 470toP2184
                                                      E   145to469
                                                      L   Otol44








Figure 8. Northeast Coastal Population Density, 1960-2010
      (a) Maine-New York                       (b) New Jersey-Virginia
 5,000                                   13,000 C


  4,000-                                   4,000-


(  3,000-                                  3,000-
                               n         o-r

 2,000                                   o  2,000


  1,000  1,000'


     0                        0  2010           00  2010
     1960  1670  1680  1690  2000  2010       1960  1970  1980  1990  2000  2010
                   Year                                     Year
  3  New York l   Rhode Island I-E New Hampshire  E   District of Columbia   E-  New Jersey [_    Virginia
   Massachusetts Connecticut  ~ Maine  i    [1Pennsylvania    7- ~Maryland   3 Delaware


coastal counties.  Figure 7 shows the    delphia) comprising a large portion of
population density of coastal counties in   the state's coastal zone. In other North-
the Northeast region in 2010.            east states with large coastal population
                                          centers, such as Boston, New York City,
Figures 8a and 8b show the trend in   and Baltimore, there is a greater length
population density for the coastal por-   of shoreline reaching less populated
tions of states in the Northeast.  The    portions of the state, consequently low-
overall trend forthe region is one of slow    ering the overall population per shore-
growth, with each state's ranking re-   line mile.
maining constant, except for New
Hampshire, which is projected to sur-    "Hot Spots" of Growth. Table 5 lists
pass Delaware by 2010. Pennsylvania    the top 15 coastal counties in the region
has a higher density than other states in   for three categories: the counties ex-
the region, excluding the District of   pected to increase by the most people;
Columbia, because its counties are al-   the counties projected to increase at the
most exclusively urban.   Six of the   fastest rate; and the counties projected
Nation's seven leading states in coastal   to have the highest population density.
countypopulation density are located in   The counties with the largest projected
the Northeast.                           increases in population are primarily
                                          suburbs of the large cities in the region.
Population byShoreline Mile. Table4    Suffolk County, NY, for example, is lo-
lists the coastal population per shoreline    cated on the eastern end of Long Island,
mile for each of the Northeast states.    and will grow largely due to its proximity
The high value for Pennsylvania is the   to New York City. Queens County, NY,
result of a major population center (Phila-   is one of the boroughs of New York City.

10








Table 4. Northeast Coastal Population          cially since the end of World War II. The
         per Shoreline Mile                   percent change map (Figure 6) shows
                           Year               the pattern of more rapid growth at the
 State             1960    1988    2010        fringes of current metropolitan regions.
 Maine              188     250      290
 New Hampshire    1,212    2,553    3,453
 Massachusetts    2,525    2,907    3,324      A second pattern emerges due to the
 Rhode Island     2,238    2,585    2,881      influence of an aging population.  At
 Connecticut      2,570    3,235    3,631
 New York         6,324    6,738    7,130      least four of the counties with rapid
 New Jersey       3,147    3,898    4,223      projected growth currently have a large
 Pennsylvania    32,182   30,871   32,375
 Delaware         1,171    1,733    1,910      elderly population. These counties (Vir-
 Maryland           753    1,027    1,135      ginia Beach, VA; Worcester, MD;Ocean,
 District of Columbia  18,633   15,049   16,212
                                             NJ; and Barnstable, MA) are popular re-
 Virginia           665    1,133    1,330
 Northeast        1,973    2,330    2,557      tirement and resort areas for people
                                             who want to settle on or visit the Atlan-
Fairfax County, VA, is located across    tic coast.
the Potomac River from Washington,
DC. Middlesex County, MA, is west and          The Northeast is the most densely popu-
north of Boston.                               lated region in the entire U.S.  The 15
                                             northeastern counties listed in Table 5
A slightly different pattern emerges for    nor theastern counties listed in Table 5
counties with large increases in their    for population density are also nation-
                                             wide leaders in population density.
rate of growth.  These counties are lo-    Except for San Francisco County,
cated at the edges of the existing areas       nine of the 10 most densely populated
                                             nine of the 10 most densely populated
of urban influence.   Instead of being         counties in the U.S. in 1988 were in the
directly adjacent to a major city, they are    Northeast   In 2010, 56 of the region's
usually one county beyond the recog-    counties, or42 percent, are projected to
nized suburban area.  This "suburban           have a population density larger than
sprawl" from the central city outward to    800 persons per square mile, or 10
the  surrounding  counties  has  been          times the projected national average.
occurring throughout the U.S., espe-


Table 5. Northeast Leading Counties in Population Change
                  Population                      Percent                    Population per
                  Change,                       Population                   Square Mile,
                  1988-2010                       Change,                        2010
 County         (1,000 Persons)   County         1988-2010    County          (1,000 Persons)
 Suffolk, NY        225        Spotsylvania, VA     49       New York, NY          71
 Fairfax, VA        210        Barnstable, MA       48       Kings, NY            33
 Middlesex, MA      144        Charles, MD          43       Bronx, NY             27
 Ocean, NJ          124         Dukes, MA           43       Queens, NY            19
 Queens, NY         118        Calvert, MD          42       Suffolk, MA           12
 Plymouth, MA       114        Falls Church, VA     40       Philadelphia, PA      12
 Virginia Beach, VA  105        Rockingham, NH      39       Hudson, NJ            12
 Anne Arundel, MD    93         Fredericksburg, VA  34       District of Columbia  11
 Rockingham, NH      92        Nantucket, MA        33       Baltimore City, MD    9
 Fairfield, CT       91        Gloucester, VA       33       Richmond, NY           8
 New Haven, CT       89        Prince William, VA   33       Alexandria, VA         8
 Bristol, MA         88        Stafford, VA         33       Essex, NJ              7
 Barnstable, MA      86        King George, VA      31       Falls Church, VA       7
 Bucks, PA           85        Ocean, NJ            30       Arlington, VA         7
 Essex, MA           82        Chesterfield, VA     30       Norfolk, VA           6

                                                                                    11









Table 6. Great Lakes Population, 1960-2010

                               |J~~~~~~ ~~POPULATION
                            | 1960      1970         1980    |    1990    |    2000    |    2010





PENNSYLVANIA    44,888  11,319   252  11,601   253  11,984   264  11.944  268  12,289   274   -2,805   885
    STATE  ,aOd~rea   ï¿½   /        /.   /        ï¿½ /          , / //       ,~ /
              (Sq. MO/ 
NEW YORK       47,377  16,782   354  18,241   385  17,558   371  17,771   375  18,220   385  18,976   401
 Coastal       9,945  2,500  251   2,704  272   2,611  263   2,551  257   2,596  261   2,685  270
PENNSYLVANIA    44,888  11,319  252  11,601   263  11,864   264  11,944  266  12,289  274  12.805   280
 Coastal        804   251   312   264   328   280   348    279   347    285   354   295   367
OHIFO         41,004  9,706   237  10,65 7   260  10,798   263  10,761   262  11,002  268  11.411   278
Coastal 3 774         2 ,796  74 1 3 020  800  2,802   756   2,736  725   2,733   724  2,810  745
MICHIGAN       56,954  7,823   137  8,8682   156  9.262   163  9,216  162  9.505   167  9,865   173
 Coastal    931477   4694   140  5099   16   5034   160   4832   154  40 97 156  9054   161
INDIANA       35,932  4,662   130  5,195   145  5,490   153  5,550   154  5,711   159  5,925   16l
 Coastal        1,519   669   440   739   486   751   495    713  469    722  475   749   493
ILLINOIS       55,645  10,081   181  11,110   200  11,427   205  11,560  208  11,846  213  12,331   222
 Coastal I4      12  5423   3 841  50876  4,162   694  4,033   5704  440   0716  4070   0 93   4 2161  3
WISCONSIN      54,426  3,952   73  4,418   81  4,706    86  4,886   90  5,148   95  5,378   99
 Coastal      10,510  1,785 170  1,915   182  1,882   179  1,864  177  1,916   182  1,986   189
MINNESOTA      79,548  3,414   43  3,806   48  4,076   51   4,363   55  4,690   59  4,950   62
 Coastal       959 0    249   26   237   25  239 32            5 2      12 22    216   23 224   23
TOTAL         415,774  67,741   163  74.111   178  75,181   181  768,052  183  78,409   189  81,641   196
 Coastal      69036  10367   266  1955   26  19,34492 2              74 18892,109 2747  19,55 277
*Thousand persons "Penso per square mile


     E-.                       . -                   Population Trends. The Great Lakes
                                                   coastal population is expected to in-
The Great Lakes region, the third most                crease by eight percent between 1960
populous coastal region, contains 85 of               and  2010.   The  decade  of maximum
the Nation's coastal counties.  The re-               coastalpopulationgrowthwasthe1960s.
gion  includes the coastal  portions  of              However,populationdeclinedduringthe
eight states surrounding the five Great               1970s and 1980s and offset the earlier
Lakes along the U.S.-Canada border.                   increase.   Although  the region is not
These lakes, in order of greatest surface             projected to experience  rapid growth
water area,  are Lake  Superior,  Lake                over the next two decades, it will remain
Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, and                  an  important center for industry  and
Lake Ontario.  The coastal counties in                commerce.  The region contains four of
this  region  contain  about  19  million             the Nation's 20 most populous counties.
people, or roughly 17 percent of the
Nation's coastal population. The region's             Unlike the Northeast, the Great Lakes
share of the U.S. coastal population is               region has a relatively small proportion
expected to drop over the next two dec-               (25 percent) of its population in coastal
ades because of relatively slow growth                counties.  With only 17 percent of the
in most of its counties.  Between  1980               region's land area in coastal counties,
and 1986, eight of the Nation's 20 lead-              the population density of 275 persons
ing counties  in population  loss  were               per square mile is much lower than the
located in this region,                               density in the Northeast.  It is, however,
                                                   much higher than the overall U.S. figure
                                                   of about 70 persons per square mile.

12












Figure 9. PouainCagf   ra~ksCatlCute~1988-2010

                                                    Percent Change
























F i gure 1 0. Populaton Denslvity/ Gloat Lakes CoastalCounties, 2010

                                                     Persons per Square Mile
                                                       U295 or Greater


























                                                                         13








Figure 11. Great Lakes Coastal Popu-    Table 7. Great Lakes Coastal Popula-
          lation Density, 1960-2010              tion per Shoreline Mile
  5,000                                                           Year
                                          State           1960    1988   2010
                                          New York        6,127   6,273  6,581
  4,000 Pennsylvania                                     4,915    5,431  5,785
                                          Ohio            8,963    8,892  9,006
                                          Michigan        1,523    1,579  1,639
 800- Indiana                                            14,859  15,951  16,646
                                          Illinois       86,085   91,740  94,485
                                          Wisconsin       2,176   2,285  2,422
C 600-                                   Minnesota       1,316    1,135   1,186
                                          Great Lakes     3,695   3,835  3,974
a. 400.

                                         Figure 10 shows the population density
   200.... O--A .,FX :: A  -           for the region in 2010. The counties
                                         containing the major metropolitan areas
     0                                   in the region (Chicago, Detroit, Cleve-
     1960  1970  1980  1990  2000  2010
                   Year                 land, Milwaukee, and Buffalo) appear in
     ,111inois  FPennsylvania PMichigan  red. In general, population densities are
     9EOhio   E NewYork   F:Minnesota    higher along the southern shores of
      Z1lndiana  EW-isconsin             Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie.

Table6summarizesthechangeinpopu-    Population by Shoreline Mile.  The
lation and population density for each    coastal population per shoreline mile
coastal state between 1960 and 2010.    (Table 7) confirms the high degree of
                                         development of the two coastal counties
Figure 9 shows the percent change in   of Illinois. Its population of over 91,000
population between 1988 and 2010.    persons per mile of shoreline is the
Most of the counties expected to expe-    highest in the Nation.  The shoreline
rience rapid growth in the region have    mile population of Indiana is also high,
relatively small populations. Unlike the    15,951, making it the fourth highest in
Northeast, most of these higher growth    the U.S. The regionalratio of3,835per-
counties are not found near metropoli-    sonspershoreline mile makes the Great
tan areas. The region has 12 coastal    Lakes the highest of the five coastal
counties expected to lose population    regions.
between 1988 and 2010, more than any
other coastal region in the Nation.      "Hot Spots" of Growth.  The slow
                                         growth trend expected for this region is
Population Density. The population    evident after comparing the leading
densities of the coastal portions of these    growth counties in this region to those in
states through time are shown in Figure    the four other coastal regions.  The
1 1. Because both Cook and Lake coun-    absolute and percent population change
ties are so highly developed, the coastal    growth figures in Table 8 are lower than
population density of Illinois is much    the leading counties in the other re-
higher than any other state in the region    gions. Most of the counties with large
and, excluding the District of Columbia,    projected population increases between
the Nation.

14








Table 8. Great Lakes Leading Counties in Population Change
               Population                    Percent
                Change,                     Population                Population per
               1988-2010                    Change,                    Square Mile,
County       (100 Persons)    County        1988-2010   County           2010
Cook, IL         992        Porter, IN        26       Cook, IL          5,620
Macomb, MI       765       Cook, MN           23       Milwaukee, WI     3,960
Lake, IL         737        Leelanau, Ml      21       Wayne, MI         3,397
Monroe, NY       566       Grand Traverse, Ml  20      Cuyahoga, OH      3,073
Porter, IN       329        Bayfield, WI      19       Macomb, Ml        1,625
Ottawa, MI       299        Benzie, MI        18       Lucas, OH         1,361
Brown, WI        255        Door, WI          18       Lake, IL          1,253
Milwaukee, WI    242       Ozaukee, WI        17       Monroe, NY        1,142
Erie, PA         180       Ottawa, MI         17       Lake, OH           998
Lorain, OH       175       Antrim, MI         17       Lake, IN           961
Lake, OH         158        Emmet, MI         16       Erie, NY           927
St. Clair, MI    151        Allegan, MI       16       Lorain, OH         582
Allegan, Ml      143        Lake, IL          15       Racine, WI         554
Oswego, NY       136        Houghton, MI      15       Kenosha, WI        458
Grand Traverse, MI    129   Alcona, MI        15       Niagara, NY        427

1988 and 2010 contain, or are near,    coastal population.  In 1988, the 56
major cities. Some of these same coun-    counties in this region were home to
ties experienced significant declines in    more than nine million persons.  Four
population between 1980 and 1988.          out of five people living in the coastal
                                          Southeast were located in eastern Flor-
The counties expected to grow at the    ida. The Southeast coastal population
fastest rate are found almost exclusively    is projected to increase by 27 percent
on the shores of Lakes Michigan and    over the next two decades, to 11 million
Superior.  Porter County, IN, is in the    persons in 2010. The major population
eastern half of the Gary-Hammond met-    centers of the region include Miami,
ropolitan area. It is expected to experi-    Jacksonville, Savannah, and Charleston.
ence continued rapid growth, even
though the metropolitan area as awhole    Population Trends. The coastal popu-
has been losing population over the last   lation of the Southeast region is pro-
decade. This pattern also holds true for   jected to increase by 181 percent (the
Ozaukee County, WI, part of the Mil-    highest of the five regions) between
waukee-Racine metropolitan area.           1960 and 2010.  The largest growth
                                          occurred between 1970 and 1980, when
The listof high-densitycountiesfor201 0    the Southeast coastal population in-
is not very different from a list that would    creased by 36 percent. Table 9 summa-
be compiled today. High-density coun-    rizes the change in population and
ties are found in every Great Lakes state    population density for each coastal state
except Minnesota.                         between 1960 and 2010.

                                          Eastern Florida has and will dominate
                                          population trends in this region. This
The Southeast has the smallest popula-    area has experienced extremely rapid
tion of the five regions shown, account-    growth; its population increased by 152
ing for only eight percent of the U.S.    percent between 1960 and 1988.  Its

                                                                               15








Table 9. Southeast Population, 1960-2010
                                                POPULATION
                        190      1970      1980  1990           2000      2010

   STATE   L-rrd ra                               / 0   0    / ,          0Al
NORTH CAROLINA    48,843  4,5586  3  5,084  104  5,882  120  6,597  135  7,056  145  7,400  152
 Coastal    91378  474  50  510  54   5886  64  699   75   752  80   789  84
SOUTH CAROLINA  30,203  2,383  79  2,591  86  3,122  103  3,534  117  3,812  126  4,010  133
 Coastal    7806  507  65   565  72   724  93   889  114   984  126  1049  134
GEORGIA  55,056  3,943  68  4,588  79  5.463  94  6,458  ill  7,053  121  7,472  129
 Coastal    2,887  267  93  281  97   326  113  374  130  399  138   418  145
FLORIDA    54,153  4,952  91  6,791  125  9,746  180  12,837  237    14,811  273  18.143  298
 Coastal   17,210  2,744  159  3 01  227  5513  320 7169  417  8230  476  6967  520
TOTAL      191,255    15,833  83    1 8,054  100    24,213  127  29,425  154    32,742  171 35 ,025    183
 Coastal   37,281  3,92  107  5,257  141  7,19  182  9,131  245  10,   278  11,214  301
'Thousand persons "Persons per square mile

population is projected to increase by    U.S. average of 70 persons per square
226 percent for the entire 50-year pe-    mile. Population density in the South-
riod.  Population increases in eastern    east is expected to increase to an aver-
Florida have been, and are projected to    age of 301 persons per square mile by
be, the largest in the counties contain-    2010. Figure 14 shows that Florida will
ing, or adjacent to Jacksonville, Miami,    continue to lead the region in population
Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and    density, with an increase from 159 per-
Orlando. Rapid growth also is projected    sons per square mile in 1960 to slightly
to occur around Savannah and Char-    more than 520 persons per square mile
leston.                                  by 2010, a change of about 227 percent.

Although coastal counties comprise only    Seasonal variations in population den-
19 percent of the land area in the four    sityoccureveninsuchlow-densityareas
Southeastern states, they contain more    as coastal North Carolina. Southeast
than 31 percent of the population in   coastal areas attract visitors from major
these states. Between 1988 and 2010,    metropolitan centers in the southern
almost one-third (16 of 56) of the coastal    U.S., bringing increased seasonal envi-
counties are projected to have popula-    ronmental stress in the form of housing,
tion increases of 35-75 percent. Figures    hotels and motels, recreation, and sup-
12 and 13 show, by coastal county, the    porting infrastructure.
percent change in population between
1988 and 2010, and the projected popu-    Population by Shoreline Mile. Table
lation density in 2010.                   10 shows that the population-to-shore-
                                           line mile ratio in the Southeast will al-
Population Density. Coastal popula-    most triple in size between 1960 and
tion densities across the region in 1988    2010. Florida's ratio of 2,075 raises the
ranged from a low of 73 persons per    regional average because it is much
squaremileinNorthCarolinatoahighof    higher than any other Southeastern
402 persons per square mile in Florida.   state. The remaining states are more
The average for the region was 237    rural and have a greater number of
persons per square mile, well above the    shoreline miles because of large estuar-

16











Figure 12. Pplto   hnai  o~atCatlonis   9921















                                                    Percenyt Change



                                                    El -iotog,




Figure 13. PpltbDssvkSotesCosaCun     2010
















                                                   Persons per Square Mile
                                                     25*rGrae
                                                     0105 to 254

                                                     l 0to 44







                                                                            17









Figure 14. Southeast Coastal Popula-            Table 10. Southeast Coastal Popula-
           tion Density, 1960-2010                         tion per Shoreline Mile
   800                                                                       Year
                                              State               1960     1988     2010
                                              North Carolina      140       202      234
                                              South Carolina      176       303      365
   600-                                         Georgia              114      158       179
. Florida                                                           824      2,075    2,689
                                              Southeast           335       741      940

8,,-                       /to increase by the most people; the
   400
                                             counties projected to increase at the
                                             fastest rate; and the counties projected
                                             to have the highest population density.
                                             This is a reflection of the state's large
                                             and rapidly growing population.  Partly
                                             because they already contain large urban
    80   1990                                  areas (Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Holly-
                     Year                     wood, Hialeah, and West Palm Beach),
           PFIorida    ISouthCarolina          Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach coun-
           t-Gresoraia   I- INorth Carolina    ties in Florida are projected to be the
                                             three leading counties in population
ine and barrier island systems. Many of    change  between  1988  and  2010.
these  natural  systems,  especially            Berkeley and Dorchester counties in
throughout the Carolinas, are contained         South Carolina also appear on the list
within a large network of state and na-         becauseoftheirproximitytoCharleston.
tional parks, which limit coastal devel-
opment opportunities.                           Coastal counties projected to increase
                                              at the fastest rate are led by Osceola,
"Hot Spots" of Growth.  As shown in    Martin, and Flagler counties in Florida.
Table 11, eastern Florida dominates all    These are "retirement-oriented" coun-
three categories: the counties expected         ties, but will also grow as a result of their

Table 11. Southeast Leading Counties in Population Change
                 Population                       Percent
                  Change,                        Population                    Population per
                 1988-2010                        Change,                      Square Mile,
 County         (1,000 Persons)   County          1988-2010    County              2010
 Broward, FL        436         Osceola, FL          72        Seminole, FL        1,391
 Dade, FL           366         Martin, FL           61        Broward, FL         1,340
 Palm Beach, FL     362         Flagler, FL          59        Dade, FL            1,115
 Seminole, FL       145         Seminole, FL         54        Duval, FL             915
 Orange, FL          131        Indian River, FL     50        Orange, FL            816
 Volusia, FL         103        Berkeley, SC         50        New Hanover, NC       704
 Brevard, FL         77         St. Johns, FL        48        Palm Beach, FL        592
 Osceola, FL         65         St. Lucie, FL        47        Chatham, GA           546
 St. Lucie,,FL       64         Okeechobee, FL       47        Brevard, FL           468
 Berkeley, SC        63         Clay, FL             46        Volusia, FL           405
 Martin, FL          59         Dorchester, SC       45        St. Lucie, FL         345
 Clay, FL            46         Palm Beach, FL       44        Charleston, SC        323
 Indian River, FL    43         Liberty, GA          42        Martin, FL            279
 St. Johns, FL       38         Broward, FL          37        Indian River, FL      262
 Dorchester, SC      37         Baker, FL            36        Clay, FL              247

18









proximity to large urban centers. The    gions, accounting for 13 percent of the
only Georgia county on the leading    total U.S. coastal population. In 1988,
growth list, Liberty, is projected to in-   the 99 counties in this region were home
crease by 42 percent over the next two    to more than 14 million persons. The
decades.  This is due primarily to its   Gulf coastal population is projected to
proximity to Savannah, as well as to the    increase by 22 percent, to almost 18
effect of Fort Stewart, a large military   million by 2010. The major population
reservation located almostentirelywithin    centers in the Gulf region include Hous-
the county.                               ton, New Orleans, Tampa, and St. Pe-
                                            tersburg.
Seminole, Broward, and Dade counties
in Florida are projected to be the most    Population Trends. The coastal popu-
denselypopulatedcountiesintheSouth-    lation in the Gulf of Mexico is projected
east by 2010. Broward and Dade coun-    to increase by 144 percent between
ties have large land areas, but contain    1960 and 2010, the second highest of
the entire Miami-Fort Lauderdale met-    the five regions. As a region, the great-
ropolitan area. Seminole County has a    est change in population occurred be-
high density because of its small land    tween 1970 and 1980, when the Gulf
area and proximity to Orlando.  New    coastal population increased by 33
Hanover County, NC, also has a small    percent. Western Florida has been and
land area and contains numerous beach    will continue to be the most rapidly grow-
resorts as well as the city of Wilmington.    ing area in the Gulf; its population is
Chatham County, GA, contains Savan-    expected to increase by more than 1.5
nah, the fifth largest city in the region.  million overthe nexttwo decades. Texas
                                            is the next most rapidly growing state;
~_~'rni~llvo                             its coastal population is expected to in-
                                            crease by over 1.1 million persons dur-
The Gulf of Mexico ranks fourth in total   ing this same period.  Both western
population among the five coastal re-   Florida and Texas will have the highest

Table 12. Gulf of Mexico Population, 1960-2010
                           |I~~~~~~ ~           ~POPULATION 
                       1960       1970  19   80       1990       2000      2010 


   STATE    Lnre  Lar ne                                             /
            (Sq. Mi. /            0 e       0         e l e
FLORIDA    54,153  4,952  91  6,791  125  9,746  180    12,837  237    14,811  273    16,143  298
 Coastal 36,943   2,207  60  2,890  78  4,234  115 5,668  153  6,80  178  7,187  195
ALABAMA    50,767  3,267  64  3,444  68  3.894  77  4,139  82  4,339  85  4,515  69
 Coastal    26827  363  129  377  133  444  157  464  171   514  182  538  190
MISSISSIPPI  47,233  2,178  46  2,217  47  2,521  53    '2,650  56  2,770  59  2.882  61
 Coastal    1,790  189  106  240  134  300  166  344  192   373  209  396  221
LOUISIANA  44,521  3,257  73  3,645  82  4,206  94  4,548  102  4,86680  110  5,160  116
 Coastal 16535 1 912   116  2211  134  2092  157 262  17   3003  165  3240  196
TEXAS      262017  9,580  37  11,199  43    14,229  54    17,625  67    19,727  75    21,182  81
 Coastal   20,784  2681  129  3289  106  41421   213  0409  260 ,690  293 6,72  316
TOTAL     458,691  20,293  44    27,296  60    34,596  75    41,800  91    46,527  101    49.882  109
 Coasta    78,679  7,303 9        114   11J991  152   14,7262  1   16 615  211    17932  22 7
alo sa1l:  NORrenl, MiST2 H, WNM -IR,         n9,  Em ABilly )36%eW il  3  6135%'-' -,R ORN
'Thousand persons *Persons per square mile

                                                                                  19











Figure 15. PouaNnCag  ' uff~xc   osaCute,18&8700




















                                    J15 to 24
                                  1] -5 to 14


Figure 16  oua5nDn.~           '/ofaioCatlCut421




















                                     40to94
                                  E3 0)to 39 





20







Figure 17. Gulf of Mexico Coastal       mile by 2010.  As Figure 17 shows,
           Population Density,          population density in coastal Texas (316
           1960-2010                    persons per square mile) has and should
   500                                  continue to be the highest in the region.
                                         Western Florida, however, is projected
                                         to have the most rapid growth in popula-
   400-                                 tion density, increasing to 195 persons
                                         per square mile in 2010, up from 60
   300-                                 persons per square mile in 1960, a 226
 vr                 -   /percent increase.   Alabama, which
   200- W          -Ad                  shared the highest average population
                                         density with Texas in 1960, is projected
 E.                                     to have the lowest density by 2010 (190
   100-~-    /persons per square mile).  Louisiana
                                         and Mississippi will continue to experi-
                                         ence steady increases into 2010.
    0
     1960  1970  1980  1990  2000  2010
                   Year                 Population by Shoreline Mile. Table
      pTexas   E Louisiana  EFlorida    13 shows that population per shoreline
      'Alabama .FMississippi            mile in the Gulf of Mexico will more than
                                         double between 1960 and 2010. Texas
rates of growth in the Gulf, 27 and 22   will have the highest ratio, followed by
percent respectively. Table 12 summa-    Florida. Florida's ratio will increase at a
rizes the change in population and    faster rate than any other Gulf state
population densityforeach coastal state   during this 50-year period. The 17,141
between 1960 and 2010.                  miles of shoreline in the Gulf region are
                                         highly valued for residential and sea-
Although the Gulf of Mexico region is not   sonal housing, especially in Florida as
as densely settled as other regions, it is   its population increases into the next
expected to have the second fastest   century.
rate of growth. Almost one-third of all
Gulf counties will increase in population    "Hot Spots" of Growth. Table 14 lists
by more than 30 percent over the next   the region's top 15 coastal counties in
two decades. Figures 15 and 16 show,    three categories: the counties projected
by coastal county, the percent change in
population between 1988 and 201 0, and    Table 13. Gulf of Mexico Coastal
the projected population density in 2010.         Population per Shoreline
                                                  Mile
Population Density.  Excluding the                               Year
Pacific (because of Alaska's enormous    state            1960   1988   2010
size), the Gulf of Mexico is currently the    Florida     433   1,064   1,411
                                         Alabama          599    800    886
least densely populated of the five   Mississippi         527    928   1,102
coastal  regions.  Population density    Louisiana        248    352    420
across the region averages about 187    Tulf of Mexico   4798   1,517   1.9546
                                         Gulf of Mexico   429    820   1,046
persons per square mile and is expected
to increase to 227 persons per square

                                                                            21








Table 14. Gulf of Mexico Leading Counties in Population Change
                Population                    Percent
                 Change,                     Population                 Population per
                1988-2010                    Change,                    Square Mile,
County       (1,000 Persons)   County       1988-2010   County            2010
 Harris, TX        909       Citrus, FL         81       Pinellas, FL      3,619
 Pinellas, FL      192       Hernando, FL       73       Orleans, LA       2,707
 Pasco, FL         182       Pasco, FL          69       Harris, TX        2,132
 Lee, FL           161      Collier, FL         63       Jefferson, LA     1,654
 Hillaborough, FL  158       Charlotte, FL      62       East Baton Rouge, LA   1,082
 Fort Bend, TX     113       Fort Bend, TX      55       Hillaborough, FL    924
 East Baton Rouge, LA ill    Lee, FL            52       Sarasota, FL       633
 Jefferson, LA     104       Chambers, TX       45       Galveston, TX       615
 Sarasota, FL      102       Marion, FL         44       Pasco, FL           606
 Hidalgo, TX       102       Brazoria, TX       41       Lee, FL             585
 Polk, FL           91       Glades, FL         41       Eacambia, FL        495
 Collier, FL        87       Livingston, LA     40       Nuecea, TX         410
 Marion, FL         84       Hendry, FL         40       Fort Bend, TX       363
 Brazoria, TX       76       St. John the Baptist, LA   39  Cameron, TX     361
 Citrus, FL         75       Sarasota, FL       39       Leon, FL           356

to increase by the most people; the    area. The counties surrounding Hous-
counties projected to increase at the    ton (Brazoria, Chambers, and Fort Bend)
fastest rate; and the counties projected    will also have high growth rates during
to have the highest population density.    this period. The areas of lowest growth
The counties with the largest projected    are in the northwestern corner of Flor-
increases in absolute population are lo-   ida, including several inland counties,
cated primarily in Florida, from the Flor-    the Louisiana-Texas border area, and
ida Keys to north of the Tampa area.    parts of southeastern Texas.
Hillsborough and Pinellas counties,
which include Tampa and St. Peters-    Although coastal populations are in-
burg, are already heavily populated and    creasing rapidly throughout the region,
large population increases areexpected.    Gulf coastal counties will not be as
Counties with large elderly populations    densely settled in the near f utu re as the
such as Collier, Lee, and Pasco are also    major urban areas in the Northeast,
projected to have major increases over    Great Lakes, or Pacific regions.  Only
the next two decades. Projections indi-    two of the 50 most densely populated
cate that these populations will increase    counties in the U.S. coastal zone in
by at least one-half in each county.  In    201 0 will be in the Gulf of Mexico.
Harris County, TX, the projected popu-    However, 38 Gulf counties are projected
lation increase of over 900,000 repre-    to have a population density greater
sents about one-third of the county's    than 160 persons per square mile, or
current population.                        twice the national average in 201 0. While
                                           Gulf counties do not have densities
Coastal counties in southwestern Flor-    comparable to the most densely settled
ida will also have the largest percent    counties in the U.S., they do have some
increases in population over the next    of the most rapidly increasing densities
two decades. Ten of the 15 most rapidly    anywhere in the Nation.
growing counties in the coastal zone of
the Gulf of Mexico are located in this

22








 ï¿½. - .      , , *The greatest changes in coastal county
                                            population occurred during the 1960s.
The Pacific region, the second most    From 1960 to the present, and projected
populated U.S. coastal region, contains    to 2010, Alaska had the largest popula-
            77 coastal countietion growth rate.  Between 1960 and
77 coastal           counti es and such major    1970, Alaska's population almost
population centers as Los Angeles, Sanlaskas population almost
Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Honolulu,    doubled, while other Pacific states saw
Portland, and Anchorage. In 1988, the    increases of only 17-28 percent. Cali-
coastal population of this region was    fornia had the second largest rate of
over 29 million, with 77 percent of the   population increase, followed closely by
population living in California. By 2010,    Washington.
the population will have increased by 22
percent to over 35 million persons.      Growth in the region slowed considera-
                                            bly between 1970 and 1980. Although
                                            Alaska's population grew by over one-
Population Trends. The coastal popu-    third, California had the smallest popu-
lation in the Pacific region is expected to   lation growth rate (15 percent). Average
more than double between 1960 and    growth across the region was approxi-
2010, thethird highestgrowth rateamong    mately 17 percent. Estimates of popu-
the five regions. By 2010, the coastal    lation growth forthe 1980s are similarto
population is expected to increase by    the growth that occurred during the
over six million persons, the largest of    1960s. Growth in Alaska will exceed 40
any coastal region. Table 15 shows that   percent. California follows with over 20
by2010, allstates exceptforOregon will   percent growth.  The smallest growth
have at least doubled their coastal   rate is anticipated in Oregon.
population. Alaska's coastalpopulation
is expected to increase by 380 percent.      ulation projections for the next two
                                            decades reflect a slower rate of growth.
                                            Alaska's rate will be the largest, fol-
                                            lowed by Washington, California, Ha-


Table 15. Pacific Population, 1960-2010
                                                POPULATION
                      1960       1970   |  1980      1990  2000  2010

   STATE   LandArea4                                                  
            (Sq.Mi)                                                       e
CALIFORNIA  156,299  15,717  101  19,971  12  23,668  151    29.,040  186    32,482  208    34,901  223
 Coaslal   38,188  13,073  342  16,682  436  19,238  504    23,091  605  25,605  671  27,429  716
OREGON     96,184  1,769  1a  2,092  22  2,633  27  2,B08  29  3,042  32  3,222  34
 Coastal   1669    1107    00 6 1200  96 I   52   0i 79 S M 1,612  02 I721 101    101   IN2
WASHINGTON  66,511  2,853  43  3,413  51  4,132  62  4,733  71  5,235  79  5,593  64
          2645  1992, 97  2523  122  3-045  148  3548 172  3962  192  4,253 20
ALASKA    570,033  226  0   303   1   402   1   555   1   641   1   698   1

HAWAII     6,425  633  98   770  120  965  150  1,118  174  1,222  190  1,307  203
 Coastal    6.425  633  98   770  120  965  150  1,118  174  1.222  10  1,307  203
TOTAL     896.252    21,198  24  26,548  30    31,800  35    38,284  43  42,623  48  45,721  51
 Coastal  465  088  16,930,  39 2 1500  46    25,13 4  54    2978,40  643 3 3061  71    35404  76
'Thousand persons "Persons per square mile

                                                                                  23











F ig ure 18S. Populatio Change 17 Paciic Coqastal Counties, 1988&2010











                                                                       Pe rce nt C ha nge
                                                                          30 orGreater


                                                                        U-20 to 14








Figure 19. Pplto  estk  aii  osa  onis21











                                                               W    Persons per Square M ile
                                                                       0575 or Greater
                                                                        145 to 574














24








Figure 20. Pacific Coastal Popula-       Table 16. Pacific Coastal Population
           tion Density, 1960-2010                 per Shoreline Mile
  800                                                            Year
                                          State            1960   1988    2010
                                          Calfornia       3,815   6,551   8,004
                                          Oregon            785   1,140   1,287
   600 -               /Washington                          658   1,163   1,405
                                          Alaska             4      13      18
                                          Hawaii            601   1,044   1,242
 la           /                          Pacific            395    680    827
 40-
                                          projections for the next two decades
     *,                                 show smaller increases in density. By
                                         2010, population density is projected to
  200-          =      -                increase to 76 persons per square mile,
                                         just above the national average. The
      - - -.-              -  total increase is only 40 persons per
    ï¿½960  1970  1980  1990  2000  2010   square mile over the 50-year period.
    1970  1970       1990  2000  2010
                   Year
      F 0California F Washington 7AIaska  Excluding Alaska, the population den-
       - -Hawaii   --3Oregon             sity for the Pacific region is dramatically
                                         different. The Pacific would rank third in
waii, and Oregon (Figure 18). Overall,   population density in 1960 (148 persons
the rate of growth in the Pacific region is,   per square mile), after the Northeast
and will continue to be, higherthan in the    and Great Lakes, and second only after
Northeast and Great Lakes, but lower   the Northeast in 2010.
than for the Southeast and the Gulf of
Mexico.                                  Coastal Califomiapopulation density will
                                          more than double, from 342personsper
Population Density. The Pacific (in-   square mile in 1960 to an estimated 718
cluding Alaska) is the least densely    persons per square mile in 2010.
populated coastal region.  Population    Washington and Hawaii follow, with
density in the Pacific region averages    increases of 109 persons per square
36 persons per square mile, well below    mile and 104 persons per square mile,
the nationalaverage. However, popula-   respectively, over the same 50 year
tion density across the region is highly   period.
variable, ranging from the sparsely
populated state of Alaska to the densely    Population by Shoreline Mile. Popu-
populated coastal areas of California   lation-to-shorelineratiosshown in Table
(particularly southern California), aswell    16 indicate that the Pacific currently has
as Hawaii. Between 1960-2010, popu-    the lowest ratio of all the regions. Cali-
lation densities in California are consis-   fornia currently has the highest ratio,
tently the highest of all the states in the    and projections suggest that it will more
region, followed by Hawaii, Washing-    than doublefrom 1960to 2010. Alaska's
ton, Oregon, and Alaska (Figure 20). In-   population-to-shoreline ratio is so low
creases in population density since the   that it distorts the regional perspective.
1960s have been relatively consistent;    The average regional ratio will not in-
                                         crease as dramatically as in the Gulf of

                                                                              25








Table 17. Pacific Leading Counties in Population Change
               Population                   Percent
                Change,                    Population                 Population per
               1988-2010                    Change,                    Square Mile,
County       (1,000 Persons)   County       1988-2010   County           2010
Los Angeles, CA  1,271      Kenai Peninsula, AK    65  San Francisco, CA  18,913
Orange, CA        704      Matanuska-Susitna, AK  57   Orange, CA        3,710
San Diego, CA     620       San Juan, WA      51       Los Angeles, CA   2,422
Santa Clara, CA   428      Santa Cruz, CA     50       Alameda, CA       1,998
Alameda, CA       229      Thurston, WA       47       San Mateo, CA     1,657
Ventura, CA       222       San Luis Obispo, CA    46  Honolulu, HI      1,627
Sacramento, CA   202       Anchorage, AK      45       Santa Clara, CA   1,439
Contra Costa, CA  199      Jefferson, WA      44       Multnomah, OR     1,359
 King, WA          186      Mason, WA          43       Contra Costa, CA  1,320
Sonoma, CA        153      Sonoma, CA         42       Sacramento, CA    1,214
San Francisco, CA  138     Solano, CA         40       King, WA            764
 Honolulu, HI      131       Mendocino, CA     39       Santa Cruz, CA      760
Solano, CA        124      Island, WA         39       San Diego, CA      710
 Pierce, WA        117      Kitsap, WA         36       Kitsap, WA          627
San Mateo, CA    112       Maui, HI           35       Solano, CA          526

Mexico, Southeast, or Northeast. The    Los Angeles, and San Diego. In 1960,
very high concentration of population    almost one-half of California's total
along the shoreline, particularly in Cali-    population, and almost 60 percentof the
fornia, reflects the desirability of shore-    state's coastal population, were con-
line property for residential housing.    centrated in the three southernmost
                                          counties. By 2010,15.8 million persons
"Hot Spots" of Growth. Table 17 lists   will reside in these counties.  Although
the top 15 coastal counties for three    thesecountiesarealreadydenselypopu-
categories: the counties projected to   lated, significant growth is still expected
increase by the most people; the coun-    into the next century. King and Kitsap
ties projected to increase at the fastest    counties (located around Puget Sound),
rate; and the counties projected to have    Honolulu, and Multnomah (where Port-
the highest population density.  With    land is located) are also densely popu
respect to increasing population sizes    lated.
between 1988 and 2010, 12 of the coun-
ties are located in California. Not sur-
prisingly, Los Angeles, Orange, and San    The top 10 counties on the list all have
Diego counties top the list, with Los    population densities greater than 1,000
Angeles County expecting an increase    persons per square mile.  San Fran-
of 1.3 million persons. The other Califor-    cisco is the most densely populated,
nia counties in this ranking are part of   with over 18,900 persons per square
the Southern California and San Fran-    mile.  Orange County is second, with
cisco Bay metropolitan areas. King and    over 3,700 persons per square mile,
Pierce counties, WA, and Honolulu also    and Los Angeles County third, with over
make this list.                            2,400 persons per square mile.  The
                                          ranking changes dramatically in terms
Population density projections for 2010    ranking chang es dramatically in terms
                                          of percent population change during this
show a similar pattern.  Eleven of the    same period   Growth of the leading
leading coastal counties are in Califor-    counties ranges from 35-75 percent.
 nia, concentrated around San Francisco,    Two of the top three counties are lo-


26







cated in south-central Alaska and reflect               . 
the growth anticipated out from Anchor-
age. Two of the top five are in Washing-    We would like to thank Charles N. Ehier,
ton. As expected, the greatest growth    Director, Office of Oceanography and
will occur in less densely populated    MarineAssessment, and DanielJ. Basta,
places, where there is more capability    Chief, Strategic Assessment Branch,
forexpansionof a smallpopulationbase    for their guidance and support of this
(Figure 19).                               report and the coastal trends series.
                                          Kevin D. McMahon and Mitchell J. Katz
                                          provided editorial support. The Bureau
                                          of the Census provided all pre-1990
Population projections are inherently    population data.
imprecise and do not provide the "final
picture" because of unforeseen eco-
nomic or social changes. In addition,
projections are much less certain as the
geography becomes smaller, e.g., at
the county level, and with increases in
the time horizon. The summary data
presented in this paper should be inter-
preted cautiously, but not to the extent
thatthey diminish the existing and grow-
ing importance of coastal areas.

As coastal populations increase across
the U.S., the management of this growth
and its direct and indirect effects from
this growth will be even more important
than today. The Nation's large and
growing coastal population already has
indirectly resulted in significant losses of
habitat and living resources, increased
demands on water, energy, and waste
treatment and disposal, and diminished
environmental quality in many areas.
Although population increases are an
indicator of economic development, the
concomitant side-effects of this growth
create new environmental challenges to
both public and private interests.







                                                                              27







 ..... Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986f.
                                        County-level projections of economic
                                       activityandpopulation: South Carolina,
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986a.    1990-2035.  Washington, DC:  U.S.
County-level projections of economic    Departmentof Comerce. Prepared as
activityandpopulation: Alabama, 1990-   part of interagency agreements with the
2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-   part of interagency agreements with the
         2035  WashingtonDC:  U.S.Depart-    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of   Tennessee Valley Authority. 108 p.
interagency agreements with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten-    Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986g.
nessee Valley Authority. 153 p.         County-level projections of economic
                                        activity and population: Virginia, 1990-
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986b.    2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
County-level projections of economic    ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of
activity and population: Florida, 1990-   interagency agreements with the U.S.
2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-   Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten-
ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of   nessee Valley Authority. 291 p.
interagency agreements with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten-    Bureau of the Census. 1988. County
nessee Valley Authority. 153 p.         and city data book, 1988. U.S. Depart-
                                        ment of Commerce. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986c.    U.S. Government Printing Office. 797 p.
County-level projections of economic   + appendices.
activityandpopulation: Georgia, 1990-
          2035. Washington, DC  US. Depart-    Bureau of the Census. 1989a. Current
                                       population reports, population estimates
ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of   population reports, population estimates
                                        and projections. Series p-26, No. 88-a.
                                        County population estimates: July 1,
Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten-    1988, 1987, and 1986.  U.S. Depart-
nessee Valley Authority. 337 p.         ment of Commerce. Washington, DC:
                                        U.S. Government Printing Office. 45 p.
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986d.
County-level projections of economic   Bureau of the Census. 1989. Statistical
activity and population:  Mississippi,   abstractofthe UnitedStates, 1989. U.S.
1990-2035.  Washington, DC:  U.S.    Department of Commerce.  Washing-
DepartmentofCommerce. Preparedas    ton, DC:  U.S. Government Printing
part of interagency agreements with the   Office. 956 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Tennessee Valley Authority. 183 p.      Edwards, S. F.  1989.  Estimates of
                                       future demographic changes in the
Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986e.   coastal zone.  Coastal Management.
County-level projections of economic
activity and population: North Carolina,
1990-2035. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce. Prepared as
part of interagency agreements with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Tennessee Valley Authority. 218 p.
28







GESAMP  (Group of Experts on the   Terleckyj, N.E. and C.D. Coleman. 1989.
Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution).    Data and methods. In: Regional eco-
1990. The state of the marine environ-    nomic growth in the United States:
ment.  UNEP Regional Seas Reports    Projections for 1989-2010, summary
and Studies No. 115. Nairobi, Kenya:    volume I. Washington, DC:  National
United  Nations  Environment  Pro-    PlanningAssociation DataServices, Inc.
gramme. 111p.
                                        West, N. 1987. Population changes in
Lewis, J. 1989. Trouble in paradise.    coastaljurisdictionswithbarrierbeaches:
EPA Journal. 15(5): 3-7.                 1960-1980.  In: Cities on the beach:
                                        Management issues of developed
National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric    coastal barriers, R. H. Platt, S. G.
Administration. 1975. The coastlines of   Pelczarski, and B. K. R. Burbank (eds.).
the United States. US Department of    Department of Geography Research
Commerce.   Washington,  DC:   US    Paper No. 224. Chicago, IL: University
Government Printing Office. 2 p.         of Chicago Press. pp. 55-63.

National  Planning Association  Data    Wetrogan, S. I. 1988. Currentpopula-
Services, Inc. 1988. Key indicators of   tion reports, population estimates and
county growth 1970-2010 (data base).    projections.  Series p-25, No. 1017.
Washington, DC:  National Planning    Projections of population of states, by
Association Data Services, Inc.          age, sex, and race:  1988 to 2000.
                                        Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department
NewYork Water Pollution Control Asso-    of Commerce. Washington, DC: U.S.
ciation, Inc. 1989. Who's minding the    Government Printing Office. 124 p.
shore? Clearwaters 19(3): 6-9.
                                        Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 1987.
O'Connor, Thomas P. and Charles N.    CEDDS 1987. The complete economic
Ehler. 1990.  Results from the NOAA    and demographic data source (vols. 1-
National Status and Trends Program on    3). Washington, DC: Woods and Poole
distributions and effects of chemical    Economics, Inc. 1,447 p.
contamination in the coastal and estuar-
ine United States. EnvironmentalMoni-          -I                  *
toring and Assessment. (in press).
                                        C. Harrington, National Ocean Service,
Slater Hall Information Products, Inc.   National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric
1987.  County statistics (data base).    Administration, Rockville, MD.
Washington, DC: Slater Hall Informa-
tion Products, Inc.

Slater Hall Information Products, Inc.
1988. Population statistics (data base).
Washington, DC: Slater Hall Informa-
tion Products, Inc.


                                                                           29






w
0













                                                                                                   6






                                                                                         a










                                                                   ....


                                                                                     21




                                                                            26
                                                               27
                                                      32                                          22 A,

                                                     38 RHODE ISLAND


                                                      43 36 41














Coastal Counties
    Maine                      New Hampshire                 Rhode Island                   New York                 42  Rensselaer
1  Cumberland             11  Rockingham                 22  Bristol                    31  Albany                   43  Richmond
2  Hancock                12  Strafford                  23  Kent                       32  Bronx                    44  Rockland
3  Kennebec                                              24  Newport                    33  Columbia                 45  Suffolk
4  Knox                        Massachusetts             25  Providence                 34  Dutchess                 46  Ulster
5  Lincoln                13  Bamrnstable                26  Washington                 35  Greene                   47  Westchester
6   Penobscot             14  Bristol                                                   36  Kings
7  Sagadahoc              15  Dukes                          Conneticut                 37  Nassau
8  Waldo                  16  Essex                      27  Fairfield                  38  NewYork
                                          17                                           ~~~~~~~~~~39  Orange
9  Washington             17  Middlesex                  28  Middlesex                  39  Orange
10  York                   18  Nantucket                 29  New Haven                  40  Putnam
                           19  Norfolk                   30  New London                 41  Queens
                           20  Plymouth
                           21  Suffolk






CA)










                                                                                  ............ ~~~~~NEW JERSEY














                                                                                             76~~~~~~~~~~~~~6



















                                                                                        11 a13   2














Coastai Counties
    Nuew aersy                   Delaware               88  Distrct of Columbia         107 New Kent                   128 Petersburg
48  Atlantic                 68  Kent                                                    108 Northampton               129 Poquoson
49  Bergen                   69  New Castle                   Virginia                   109 Northumberland            130 Portsmouth
50  Burlington               70  Sussex                  89  Accomack                    110 Prince George             131  Richmond
51  Camden                                               90  Arlington                   111  Prince William           132 Suffolk
52  Cape May                      Maryland               91  Caroline                    112 Richmond                  133 Virginia Beach
53  Cumberland               71  Anne Arundel            92  Charles City                113 Spotsylvania              134 Williamsburg
54  Essex                    72  Baltimore               93  Chesterfield               114 Stafford
55  Gloucester               73  Calvert                 94  Essex                       115 Surry
56  Hudson                   74  Caroline                95  Fairfax                     116 Westmoreland
57  Mercer                   75  Cecil                   96  Gloucester                 117 York
58  Middlesex                76  Charles                 97  Hanover                     118 Alexandria
59  Monmouth                 77  Dorchester              98  Henrico                    119 Chesapeake
60  Ocean                    78  Harford                 99  Isle of Wight              120 Colonial Heights
61  Passaic                  79  Kent                    100 James City                  121  Fairfax
62  Salem                    80  Prince George's         101  King and Queen             122 Fails Church
63  Somerset                 81  Queen Anne's            102 King George                 123 Fredericksburg
64  Union                    82  St Mary's               103 King William               124 Hampton
                            83  Somerset                104 Lancaster                  125 Hopewell
    Pennsylvania            84  Talbot                  105 Mathews                     126 Newport News
65  Bucks                    85  Wicomico                106 Middlesex                  127 Norfolk
66  Delaware                 86  Worcester
67  Philadelphia             87  Baltimore City













            .. ......... 41
  .................. ...... ...... as
... .. ... ...
... ..............
  ...............
   .............
.....................
   ..........................
.......................
 ......................
    ....................
         ............. ....
  .............. .
      ..........
           ........... -...... 44
    .....................
  ....................... .... ....
                    ...... ..................
  ............ .............. ......
      .................... ........... ...
  ....................... . ................. .. ...
                 .... . ...........
                                      ............
                                       ...........
  .. .......... . .... . ........... I.......
            ...........
         ....... .... .
        ................ .......... ............... .... ...
          ..........
  .......................
 ........................ .... .... .
   ..................... ..... ......
                 .... ........
     ............................. 28
     .................. .....
    ............ ...........
                                   ........... so
                                                                                                     Buffalo
                                                                        .... ....... .......
                                                                                               loveland
                                                                                                                   .................. ........ ....
                                                                                                          ........... ............
                                                                                                                 .......... ................
                                                                                                                          . ..........
                                                                                                    ..........................
                                                                                                                            ...............
                                                                                                                             .......... .
                                                                                                                    . ; .. . . .........
                                     .............................. . 14  Y.5   t
                                               .............. ................... .... . ..........
                                                                                                    :l:-:...::..::::: .......................
                                                           ................ ......
                                                     ..... .......................... .............
                                                                          ..............
                                                    ..... . . ..... .... -                                                                                         ::::: .............
                                                              .................... ........
                                                         ........... ...... ..................... ..... ........
                                      ................. ........ .. ........... ................. .. .... .......................
                                   ............................ ... ..... ...................
                                     .................... ......
                                 . ............................. ..... ...... ................
                                                         ......................... .. ..............
                                                         ......................... ..
                                                          ........................ . ..........
                                                         .......................... ..
                                                         ............................................................ .............. . .. ...
                                                         ................................................... ..
                                                         ... .. .. .... ......
                                                         .........................
                                                         .... .................... .
                                                         ..........................
                                                          ........ ......














                   Coastal Counties
                       New York                19  Sandusky                  38  Houghton                  60  Tuscola                  74  Kenosha
                    1  Cayuga                  20  Wood                       39  Huron                     61  Van Buren                75  Kewaunee
                    2  Chautauqua                                             40  losco                     62  Wayne                    76  Manitowoc
                    3  Erie                         Michigan                  41  Keweenaw                                               77  Marinette
                    4  Jefferson                21  Alcona                    42  Leelanau                       Indiana                 78  Milwaukee
                    5  Monroe                  22  Alger                      43  Luce                      63  Lake                     79  Oconto
                    6  Niagara                 23  Allgan                     44  Mackinac                  64  La Porte                 80  Ozaukee
                    7  Orleans                 24  Alpena                     45  Macomb                    65  Porter                   81  Racine
                    8  Oswego                  25  Antrim                     46  Manistee                                               82  Sheboygan
                    9  St Lawrence             26  Arenac                     47  Marquette                       inois
                                                   10  Wayne  27  Baraga48  Mason                          66  Cook                          Minnesota
                                               28  Bay                       49  Menominee                  67  Lake                     83  Cook
                             Pennsylvania      29  Benzie                     50  Monroe   84  Lake
                   11  Erie                    30  Berrien                    51  Muskegon                       Wisconsin               85  St Louis
                                               31  Charlevoix                52  Oceans                     68  Ashland
                       Ohio                   32  Cheboygan                  53  Ontonagon                 69  Bayfield
                                                                             54  Ottawa
                   12  Ashtabula               33  Chippewa                           wa                    70  Brown
                   13  Cuyahoga                34  Delta                      55  Presque ile               71  Door
                   14  Erie                    35  Emmet                      57                            72  Douglas
                   15  Lake                    36  Gogebic                    58  Sanilac                   73  Iron
                   16  Lorain                  37  Grand Traverse             59  Schoolcraft
                   17 Lucas
                   18 Ottawa







CA
CT'



























































36




















Coastal Counties

     North Carolina     15  Pamlico                  Georgia       44  Indian River
  1  Beaufort            16  Pasquotank          30  Bryan          45  Martin
  2  Bertie              17  Pender              31  Camden         46  Nassau
  3  Brunswick           18  Perquimans          32  Chatham        47  Okeechobee
 4  Camden              19  Tyrrell             33  Glynn          48  Orange
  5  Carteret            20  Washington          34  Liberty        49  Osceola
  6  Chowan                    ou   Carolina    35  Mcintosh        50  Palm Beach
  7  Craven                                                         51  Putnam
   Curriuck              21  Beaufort                 Florida       52  St Johns
  9  Dare                22  Berkeley            36  Baker          53  St Lucie
 10  Gates               23  Charleston         37  Bradford        54  Seminole
 11  Hertford            24  Colleton            38  Brevard        55  Union
 12  Hyde               25  Dorchester           39  Broward        56  Volusia
 13  New Hanover         26  Georgetown         40  Clay
 14  Onslow              27  Horry              41  Dade
                        28  Jasper             42  Duval
                        29  Williamsburg        43  Flagler
































                                                                                             37





w
00







                          ..........
                         . ..... ..
                          ........ ..
                          ...... .......
                          ............
                       .. .......... .
                        .. .......
                           ...........

                       ... ..... ...






                                                                                               LORIDA




                                                                                         25
                                          .... Orleans la 41
                                                               54 Tampa
                                                                                           37
                                                                                       P.t.rsbur 2
                                                                                            40





                                                                                               34














Coastal Counties
    Florida                  25  Lafayette                   Alabama                 66  St. Bernard                  87  Jackson
1  Alachua                   26  Lake                   47  Baldwin                  67  St. Charles                  88  Jefferson
2  Bay                       27  Lee                    48  Mobile                   68  St James                      89  Kenedy
3  Calhoun                   28  Leon                                                69  St. John the Baptist          90  Kleberg
4  Charlotte                 29  Levy                        Mississippi             70  St. Martin                    91  Liberty
5  Citrus                    30  Liberty                49  Hancock                  71  St. Mary                      92  Matagorda
6  Collier                   31  Madison                50  Harrison                 72  St Tammany                   93  Nueces
7  Columbia                  32  Manatee                51  Jackson                  73  Tangipahoa                   94  Orange
8   De Soto                  33  Marion                                              74  Terrebonne                   95  Refugio
9   Dixie                    34  Monroe                      Louisiana               75  Vermilion                     96  San Patricio
10  Escambia                  35  Okaloosa               52  Acadia                   76  West Baton Rouge             97  Victoria
11  Franklin                  36  Pasco                  53  Ascension                                                 98  Wharton
12  Gadsden                   37  Pinellas               54  Assumption                    Texas                       99  Willacy
13  Gilchrist                 38  Polk                   55  Calcasieu                77  Aransas
14  Glades                    39  Santa Rosa             56  Cameron                  78  Brazoria
15  Gulf                      40  Sarasota               57  East Baton Rouge         79  Calhoun
16  Hamilton                  41  Sumter                 58  Iberia                   80  Cameron
17  Hardee                    42  Suwannee               59  Iberville                81  Chambers
18  Hendry                    43  Taylor                 60  Jefferson                82  Fort Band
19  Hernando                  44  Wakulla                61  Jefferson Davis          83  Galveston
20  Highlands                 45  Walton                 62  Lafourche                84  Hardin
21  Hillsborough              46  Washington             63  Livingston               85  Harris
22  Holmes                                               64  Orleans                  86  Hidalgo
23  Jackson                                              65  Plaquemines
24 Jefferson






































76 6













           5~~~~~~~~~~3













Coastal Counties
    California           20  Solano                 Washington              Alaska                  67  Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan
1  Alameda               21  Sonoma            36  Clallam             53  Aleutian Islands         68  Sitka
2  Contra Costa          22  Ventura           37  Clark                54  Anchorage               69  Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon
3  Del Norte                                   38  Cowlitz              55  Bethel                  70  Valdez-Cordova
4   Humboldt                  Oregon           39  Grays Harbor         56  Bristol Bay             71  Wade Hampton
5  Los Angeles           23  Benton            40  Island               57  Dillingham              72  Wrangell-Petersburg
6  Marin                 24  Clatsop           41  Jefferson            58  Haines
7  Mendocino             25  Columbia          42  King                59  Juneau                        Hawaii
8  Monterey              26  Coos              43  Kitsap               60  Kenai Peninsula         73  Hawaii
9  Napa                  27  Curry             44  Mason                61  Ketchikan Gateway       74  Honolulu
10  Orange                28  Douglas           45  Pacfic              62  Kobuk                    75  Kalawao
11  Sacramento            29  Lane              46  Pierce              63  Kodiak Island            76  Kauai
12  San Diego             30  ULincoln          47  San Juan            64  Matenuska-Susitna        77  Maui
13  San Francisco         31  Multnomah         48  Skagit              65  Nome
14  San Joaquin           32  Polk              49  Snohomish           66  North Slope
15  San Luis Obispo       33  Tillamook         50  Thurston
16  San Mateo             34  Washington        51  Wahkiakum
17  Santa Barbara         35  Yamhill           52  Whatcom
18 Santa Clara
19 Santa Cruz




























                 DATE DUE
GAYLORD N5- o. 2333



















   GAYLORD No. 2333                  PRINTED IN U.S.A.



pKK          4                KKK4    jKK1        44  44    4                   }K4   K44    KK4K                                  <K               K4K1K
                                                                                                                                                        4   V
              41 44, <1                 44K          4K  KI  I         4 K4 44  t1  iK414                       I       4K1 44144   444K11   L4(      4   4K 44
    444            4K44            4    4   44441         4441K  4444   Ki 4444             K  K'K          'KA1                                        I
  4j4K            44  44K4K         44 K? 4 <         nij       Kj4;1            44  KI     I        4.KK;K4   4[K4KiKH14    14 KK1444K4ij                  4         4K>

     44 4441     444   444  K4  KK       44                      4?    44         4K KK4,44               < 4KK      i.K1414 4K'K    i414<41K14   1141KK4K14
                       K4                                                       K   4        ;44  1    41        1 144K1    4?4KK          IIKI  41K4      K K44ll1
                                                                  1<         44    K4  44  44    4,4   2          P    4K 1     1 114 1I  KK,K 444K4 4         44'
Kl                                                             4     44  4  4 4K444  K4                                                                      4  442 441
     K4    1   4                                  44 K4                        K   441      4444  4KI;14K   4K44444K411KK41144444I411  444 K44, 444
       111     4                                                                    1'144 K   ii    4KKKP   lK41I41Y441114
                                  44414                                44  4  < 444 1441?            44444 '4144>4   '44       44444              44 41414 4141K44K14
     41                4JK 4144     4                               <                  4    K  }K       K     44K4   444   1 1                           KI4  
'4K4 44  4,    K            1 1K1 4K44K  4,444 41  44 4j               14                                                                    1K414K
          44                   4  11                4             K4K    4                  K      4111' 44K4  14      44 l,4             KK4,1     4iK  4
       <K           1                                                  4              414  4,  4               444 4          4K411  4K1441K4 4             44
                                          1                                                      KKK                 1  K41li'4                                     44
                                                                                                        4i<1,4,       14441K44444<4  K14< <4441111
                                                                  441   41                                                      '44     '4444    444
        KK   1  4                                                      14
                                                                                                                         414          41K

    14 4<         K                             I411'   44444
         444444
     K         444           I   I44             444              1       1            <1                                         4   Kj  K I
       4444                              1K44 44<    4          44   :4      4K   4K 4       '4  4           "4                             4
                                                            4     1  44    4 4        44         4444

                                                                 K  44                                        K4                I   Kj
                            4       K                                  4444,       1    4                    4              44             4
                                     4                                                       44444141
                                                                                 '4K4    44444                          44K    K K4
                                               4444         4  K14 4K  44                                         K                 44
                                         4444              4   K4        4K4           <4         44      4K          44      4              K4          444 41 4

                                                  44            4       4<   Kl          '4K  44                    4K   K     4      4l14KK4  4444        44   K      K
                                        4   4                                       44K             44         44      KK       1444    KK4iIIK4l4K44K4144K4
                                                                     4          4    444               1     444K44K41K4                 4          K            4,
                                                                                                                               44   114    44    K K  4


                                                                                 4           4

                                                                                          1                                          K       4                         K
                                                                                                                                        4    44

                                                                                       4   4

                                                                                                  4    1                          4          14
                                                                                     K                    44     4             44  4            K
                                                                                                          K    K      44
                                                                                        14             K   <K            1                      4
                                                                                         K                                       41   41

                                                                                                         44                               4I                  44


                                                                                           K           44        K        K4  44               44               4      4
                                                                                               44    11            444    44                   4K    f  K4
                                                                                                                 4         I                                44
                                                                                                             K         1   K44          K]             K     444

                                                                                                                              K44 4    4414    K                  K
                                                                                      44                44        l44           44       KK4    44444   44          K
                                                                                                K    444                 4'1                            K
                                                                                                                                                                    4<

                                                                                                                                                        41
                                                                                        1K  1114                  KK  4    I44  1K                                  444
                                                               4                                                                                           ii          1K


                                                                                                                                                         KK  1K 4


                                                  K       j        K                              ___        44      44   44K 4444    App1KQ,:
                                                                                           4                              aStttljTIeflds  """"
                            K                                 414 . I    The Second                                  a                                       K 44
                                            50 Years of Population Change along' thNat1osKCastIl1602d10i
                                                                     1'                 K4                        K.    ..'4.444.4.]4K  '14 414<4   44IK'K'j  444  4  K  4K  14
                                                   K     K                                          44          4
                                                 4      4'K             444<                                       4'''4.K'. 44' 4'44 '14ikKKKK1K,44.442.,,    44K
                                                                               K 144K  44    441                    K    4  Il.K..1P4!.;KK;i             1  KK4