Analysis of coastal growth and development in North Carolina since enactment of the coastal area management act

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

now M.,

lift

Nit

An Analysis of Coastal Growth
and Development in North Carolina

Neil Alan Armingeon

May 1989

COASTAL ZONE
HT TWORMATION CENTER
393
.N6
A53
1989 ivision of Coastal Management
-------Irth Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development

AN ANALYSIS OF COASTAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
IN NORTH CAROLINA SINCE THE ENACTMENT
OF THE COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ACT.

Neil Alan Armingeon

Duke University
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Durham, NC 27706

May 1989

Final Report Submitted to:

North Carolina Department of Natural Resources
and Community Development
Division of Coastal Management
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27611

ABSTRACT

This paper analyzes growth and development in North Carolina's 20
coastal counties since the enactment of the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA). The data includes: CAMA permitting
trends, population growth and projections, travel and tourism
expenditures, a questionnaire regarding CAMA and coastal
development, and residential building permits. CAMA permitting
began in 1978, and the total number of permits issued increased
steadily until 1986. Permitting trends vary from county to
county, however, in 1986 and 1987, Brunswick, Dare, and Carteret
Counties accounted for over 60 percent of the total CAMA permits
issued. During the period from 1980 to 1986, four of the five
fastest growing counties in the state were located in the coastal
region. Projected permanent population estimates indicate that
many coastal counties' populations will continue to increase at a
rate that is above the state's projected growth. Tourism is the
fastest growing industry in the coastal region. Since 1971, the
coastal counties' travel and tourism revenues has increased by
almost 9 times. The majority of those who responded to the
questionnaire indicated that CAMA regulations have not had a
negative effect on the construction industry (i.e., slowed
building). Federal and state agencies use building permits as an
economic index of the construction industry. To quantitatively
determine CAMA's effects on the housing industry, residential
(single- and multi-family unit) building permit data for the
coastal counties were compared to state-wide building permit data.
From 1978 to 1986, the issuance rate of building permits in the 20
astal counties exceeded the permit issuance rate state-wide.
Data analysis suggests that CAMA procedures or regulations have
co

not slowed growth or development in North Carolina's 20 coastal
counties.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Author wishes to express his gratitude to
the following people: Rich Shaw, Division of
Coastal Management (DCM), for his patient guidance,
help with the manuscript, and his support; Melissa
McCullough, The Environmental Protection Agency,
for her assistance in the intial stages of this
project; Dr. Robert G. Healy, School of Forestry
and Environmental Studies, Duke University, for
"adopting" me as his advisee, and for his helpful
suggestions and continuing support; George Matthis
and John Parker, DCM, for their help with CAMA
permit data; Mona Riggins, DCM, for her patience,
phone directories, and assistance with the land use
plans; Jeannette Holmes, DCM, for her assistance
with the graphics; The Staff of DCM in Raleigh, for
their laughter and support; Tom Harper, NC Travel
and Tourism, for his patience and assistance; Celia
Fuller, Office of State Budget and Management, for
her help with the data collection; Walter Clark and
Lundie Spence, UNC Sea Grant Program, for "planting
the seed" and their friendship and encouragement;
and finally to the citizens of North Carolina's
coastal counties for sharing your knowledge,
insight, and beautiful homeland with a I'Dit Dot"
from Duke.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................... iv
LIST OF FIGURES ............................ ...v
LIST OF TABLES ............................... ........ vii
INTRODUCTION ............................................... 1
SUMMARY OF RESULTS ......................................... 3
BACKGROUND ................................................. 5
STUDY AREA ................................................. 8
CAMA PERMITS ............................................... 12
POPULATION ................................................. 21
Permanent Population Data ............................. 21
Future Population Estimates ........................... 26
Seasonal Population Data .............................. 28
TRAVEL AND TOURISM ......................................... 30
THE HOUSING INDUSTRY AND CAMA .............................. 41
The Questionnaire ..................................... 42
Results ............................................... 43
Building Permits ...................................... 46
Building Permit Comparison ............................ 45
Conclusions ........................................... 54
MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 56
APPENDIX 1 (CAMA/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT QUESTIONNAIRE) ........ 59
LITERATURE CITED ........................................... 60

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. The 20 North Carolina counties regulated
by the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) ........... 9
2. Location of the six case study counties ................ 10
3. CAMA development permit trends for the 20
coastal counties regulated by CAMA .................. 14
4. CAMA development permits for Beaufort
County, N.C ......................................... 15
5. CAMA development permits for Currituck
County, N.C ......................................... 15
6. CAMA development permits for Dare County, N.C .......... 16
7. CAMA development permits for Carteret
County, N.C ........................................ 16
8. CAMA development permits for New Hanover
County, N.C ........................................ 17
9. CAMA development permits for Brunswick
County, N.C ........................................ 17
10. CAMA development permits (total) for Fiscal
Year 1986 ......................................... 18
11. CAMA development permits (total) for Fiscal
Year 1987 ......................................... 19
12. Permanent population growth rates for Bertie,
Hertford, Gates, Chowan, and Perquimans
counties ............... 22
13. Permanent population growth rates for Pasquotank,
Camden, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties .......... 22
14. Permanent population growth rates for Beaufort,
Craven, and Pamlico Counties... 24
15. Permanent population growth rates for C t t'
Currituck, Dare, and Hyde Counties ................ 24
16. Permanent population growth rates for Pender,
Onslow, New Hanover, and Brunswick Counties ....... 25
17. Projected permanent population growth rates
for Beaufort, Currituck and Dare Counties ......... 27
18. Projected permanent population growth rates
for Brunswick, Carteret, and New Hanover
Counties .......................................... 27
19. Total North Carolina travel and tourism
expenditures for 1971 ............................. 31
20. Total North Carolina travel and tourism
expenditures for 1978 ............................. 31
21. Total North Carolina travel and tourism
expenditures for 1982 ............................. 32
22. Total North Carolina travel and tourism
expenditures for 1987 ............................. 32
23. Total travel and tourism expenditures for
Beaufort County, N.C .............................. 34
24. Total travel and tourism expenditures for
Currituck County, N.C ............................. 34

LIST OF FIGURES

Figgre Page

25. Total travel and tourism revenues for
Dare County, N.C .................................... 35
26. Total travel and tourism revenues for
New Hanover County, N.C ............................ 35
27. Total travel and tourism revenues for
Carteret County, N.C ................................ 36
28. Total travel and tourism revenues for
Brunswick County, N.C ............................. .. 36
29. Percentage of Beaufort County's work force
employed through tourism activities ............... 37
30. Percentage of Currituck County's work force
employed through tourism activities ................ 37
31. Percentage of Dare County's work force
employed through tourism activities ............... 39
32. Percentage of Carteret County's work force
employed through tourism activities ............... 39
33. Percentage of New Hanover County's work force
employed through tourism activities ............... 40
34. Percentage of Brunswick County's work force
employed through tourism activities ............... 40
35. Comparison between state-wide building permits
and CAMA-regulated counties' building permits ..... 49
36. Comparison between state-wide building permits
and Beaufort and Carteret Counties'
building permits .................................. 50
37. Comparison between state-wide building permits
and Brunswick and New Hanover Counties'
building permits .................................. 52
38. Comparison between state-wide building permits
and Currituck and Dare Counties'
building permits .................................. 53

LIST OF TABLES

Table Pacie

1. Peak Seasonal Population 1985 .......................... 28

2. Responses to the CAMA/Building trades
Questionnaire ..................................... 44-45

vii

INTRODUCTION

Since it was first introduced in the General Assembly in
1973, the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) has been both a
force for orderly growth and a hub of controversy. In 1974,
after one of the longest and most turbulent legislative debates
in North Carolina history, CAMA emerged as an experiment in land
,ounties. Coastal legislators
use planning for the 20 coastal c
opposed the program fearing it would stymie development and usurp
local government's authority to direct local growth patterns
(Olson, 1989; Finger and Jacobs, 1982). The debate concerning
CAMA was so emotional, that for the first.time in the state's
history, a legislative committee held public hearings up and down
the coast. The bill was actually voted down in the Senate, but
its sponsors, granted a one night reprieve, struck a compromise
that swung 15 votes their way (Olson, 1989).

In attempting to balance "the often conflicting needs", as
the act's preamble states, "of a society expanding in
industrial development, in population, and in the
recreational aspirations of its citizens",.CAMA has
stirred strong opposition every step of the way (Finger
and Jacobs, 1982).

Today, 15 years after CAMA's stormy passage, North
Carolina's coastal management program is considered a model for
other coastal states (Owens, 1985). CAMA functions on the
principle that it is appropriate for government to operate in the
interest of all the state's citizens by placing reasonable
restrictions on coastal growth and development (Finger and
Jacobs, 1982). State-level management has proven to be an ideal
tool for balancing national, state-wide, and local management
concerns (Owens, 1985). This "balancing act", encouraging
economic growth while protecting fragile environments, is CAMA's
difficult mission.

To date, CAMA has been effective in solving its first order
problems --- establishing a management framework and the means for
conflict resolution; managing development in hazardous ocean-
front areas; and preventing environmental degradation such as
filling and dredging of salt marshes (Owens, 1985). The success
of CAMA's management plans, however, is linked to controversy.
CAMA did eliminate the need for some permits, but the permitting
process is more carefully scrutinized. one developer, recently
interviewed, noted, "The regulations are so complex... it's almost
impossible for anyone to understand them and follow them the way
they should be followed" (Olson, 1989).

Due to increasing development in the coastal area, CAMA's
regulations, as well as other state and federal environmental
regulations, have become more stringent. A review of a major
permit involves soliciting comments about the project from 14
other state and federal agencies. Some of CAMA's opponents

believe that the cost of these regulations is a slowing of the
region's economic growth (Olson, 1989; Finger and Jacobs, 1982).
The controversy regarding the economic effects of CAMA has
persisted since the statute's enactment. This dispute is
the basis of this paper.

It is difficult to assess the impacts of CAMA on coastal
growth. A previous study determined that CAMA regulations did
not restrict the ability of the landowners to use their land,
however, that study was conducted over eight years ago (Liner,
1980). Since that study, the North Carolina coastal region has
undergone rapid growth and development. Has this growth,
however, been altered or reduced by the policies and procedures
of CAMA?

Today, the coastal region is the fastest growing area in the
state. Of the five counties in the state experiencing the
greatest population increases, four are coastal counties (OSBM,
1988). To understand growth in North Carolina's coastal
region, one must consider many interrelated factors.

This study addresses growth and development in the 20
coastal counties since the enactment of the Coastal Area
Management Act. Data analysis includes population growth, CAMA
permitting trends, and travel and tourism expenditures. The
final section focuses on the question of whether or not CAMA
regulations have had an adverse effect on the building trades in
the coastal counties. To obtain public opinions regarding CAMA
and development, a questionnaire was administered to county
planners, local CAMA permit officers, and representatives of the
North Carolina Home Builders Association. To quantitatively
determine CAMA's effects on housing starts, residential (single-
and Multi-family unit) building permit issuance rates in the the
coastal counties are compared to state-wide issuance rates. The
results of this comparison provide a method for determining
CAMA's economic effects on one segment of growth, the housing
industry. Finally, management recommendations based on
the analysis of these data are presented.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) has now been in
effect for 15 years. During this period, the 20 coastal counties
that are regulated by CAMIA have changed dramatically. The
purpose of this document was to provide the reader with a broad
overview of the growth and development that has altered not only
the coastal ecosystem, but also -the lives of the citizens who
share these systems. Although a tremendous amount of data was
introduced, the author hopes that the discussions, the
analysis, and the results were clearly explained and easily
understood. This section summarizes the salient points of -this
study.

e Although Europeans visited North Carolina's coastline 400
years ago, the inception of recent development occurred in
the mid-1800s. As access -to the Outer Banks improved
growth and development increased.

o Land use in coastal areas is regulated by the same kind of
federal, state, and local laws that govern land use
throughout the country. Because of the environmentally
complex nature of coastal areas and the public's special
interest in preserving the unique environment of the coast,
coastal lands are generally subject to more laws and
regulations than inland properties.

e The Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) was enacted
by the General Assembly in the 1974 Session. The Act
provided a system capable of preserving and managing the
ecological conditions of the barrier dune systems, beaches,
and estuarine systems, while insuring the economic
development of the coastal area.

e CAMA established a "two-tiered" management approach. The
first tier involves the regulation of development in
designated Areas of Environmental Concern (AECs). The
second tier involves land use planning for each county.

e CAMA regulations are controversial. opponents believe that:
1) CAMA allows state intervention into private property
rights, and 2) the CAMA permitting process has had a
negative effect on coastal building activity.

e CAMA permitting began in 1978 and the total number of permits
issued increased steadily until 1986. Since 1986, however,
the total number of permits issued has fallen annually.

e The general permit, introduced in 1983, was the principal
permit type issued by DCM during 1987 and 1988.

o CAMA permitting trends vary from county to county, however,
in 1986 and 1987, Brunswick, Dare, and Carteret Counties
accounted for over 60 percent of the permits issued.

e During the period from 1980 to 1986, four of the five
fastest growing counties in the state were located in the
coastal region. Some coastal counties are experiencing
permanent population increases of four to six times that of
the state's growth rate.

e Projected permanent population estimates indicate that many
coastal counties' populations will continue to increase at
a rate that is above the state's projected growth.

e Some beach communities are experiencing "peak seasonal',
population increases 40 to 50 times that of the permanent
population.

9 Tourism is the fastest growing industry in the coastal
region. Since 1971, the 20 coastal counties' travel and
tourism revenues have increased by almost 9 times.

e In 1987, the coastal region's share of travel expenditures was
over 20 percent of the state's total. In some coastal
counties, as many as 40 percent of the total work force are
employed by the travel and tourism industry.

o The majority of coastal county planners and Local CAMA Permit
Officers who responded to a questionnaire regarding CAMA
regulations and coastal development indicated that CAMA
regulations have not had a negative effect on the
construction industry (i.e., slowed building).

9 Federal and state agencies use building permits as an economic
index of the construction industry. From 1978 to 1986, the
issuance rate of building permits in the 20 coastal
counties exceeded the permit issuance rate state-wide. In
specific coastal counties, building permit issuance rates
exceeded that of the state by as much as four times.

* Data analysis suggests that CAMA procedures or regulations
have not slowed growth or development in North Carolina's
20 coastal counties.

BACKGROUND

The first Europeans visited coastal North Carolina about 400
years ago, and settlements north of Albemarle Sound began soon
afterward. Southern migration to the Pamlico shore led to the
establishment of Bath, the oldest incorporated town in the state
(Bellis, et al., 1976; Copeland et al., 1984).

The main activities of the early settlers included shipping,
fishing, farming, and timber production (Copeland et al., 1984).
In some respects, the landscape encountered by these early
residents was very similar to todayls: shallow brackish sounds
and lagoons, extensive grass marshes, large swamp forests of bald
cypress and mixed hardwoods reaching inland along the riverine
floodplains, and scattered areas of pines and upland hardwoods
(Bellis et al., 1976).

The virgin timber stands that covered the sound regions were
well suited for the burgeoning ship and boat building industry.
In addition, the native pine produced valuable naval stores (tar,
pitch, turpentine, and rosin), which became a primary export of
colonial North Carolina. Numerous plantations were established in
the Albemarle Sound region as large expanses of land were cleared
for timber and farming (Stick, 1982). Slowly, the landscape of
coastal North Carolina began to change.

The abundant resources encouraged additional settlement. The
population, although still sparse, grew with the introduction of
new farming and timber operations. These early settlements
established a pattern that generally persists today along the
coast. The pattern includes: numerous communities and small
towns on or near the water; farms surrounding the towns; forests,
providing raw materials for export and local use; and miles of
coastal waters yielding shellfish and finfish (Stick, 1982).

For the early settlers, the rich farmlands, timber resources,
and abundant wildlife, were the major attractions of the coastal
region. However, the pristine waters and 300 miles of ocean
shoreline began to encourage recreational activities.

Although Portsmouth, Ocracoke, and Beaufort were visited by
summer vacationers as early as the mid-1700s, Nags Head became the
first important seashore resort. The community grew quickly in
the 1830s, and it was a flourishing resort by the beginning of the
Civil War (Pilkey et al., 1978). Morehead City emerged in the
late 1850s as a resort to rival Nags Head. The community was
built on the mainland to improve accessibility and to better
endure storms and hurricanes (Pilkey et al., 1978). In the late
1800s, the Ocean View Railroad was constructed from Wilmington to
Wrightsville Beach; thus, a new shoreline was opened for
development (Pilkey et al., 1978). On Bogue Banks, Alantic
Beach began developed with the construction of several dance
pavilions in the early 1900s. The first bridge to Bogue Banks,

completed in 1928, further increased growth on the barrier islands
(Pilkey et al., 1978). A new and important industry evolved in
North Carolina: tourism.

Early development of the coastal region was slow. Access to
the area was limited, and social and political pressure to build
bridges to the barrier islands was not particularly strong (Pilkey
et al., 1978). State sponsored ferry service and the completion
of more bridges in the 1940s improved access to the coastal areas,
and development activities began to increase.

In the 1950s and 60s, the traditional fishing camps and
sparsely developed beaches were replaced by beach communities
dominated by single-family cottages and small motels. The 1970
National Estuarine Study classified large areas of North
Carolina's northeastern and southern coastline as relatively
unmodified (Miller and Rublee, 1981). Since that study, however,
the region has changed significantly.

Interest in the North Carolina coastal zone has risen
dramatically in recent years. The 1970s and 80s have seen the
introduction of high-rise condominiums, time share residential
ventures, golf courses, and planned communities built around large
marinas (Owens, 1985). Increasing population and subsequent
economic growth magnify demands for resources and space.
Coinciding with these demands are changing values within the
population that place greater emphasis on the quality of life
(Miller and Rublee, 1981). The coastal region is the focus of
many competing demands, which include: national defense,
commerce, energy development, real estate development,
recreation, and conservation (U.S. Department of the Interior,
1987). Thus, managing the state's coastal resources is a complex
task.

Land use in coastal areas is regulated by the same kind of
federal, state, and local laws that govern land use throughout the
country. For numerous reasons, however, coastal lands are
generally subject to more laws and regulation than inland
properties (Liner, 1980). These reasons include: the
environmentally complex nature of coastal areas, the economic
value of estuarine systems, the public's special interest in
preserving the unique natural environment of the coast, and
finally, accelerated development pressures can cause severe
detrimental consequences in fragile coastal ecosystems (Liner,
1980).

In North Carolina, the coalescence of these issues led to the
enactment of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) in 1974.
Before passage, the law was subjected to the most intense scrutiny
and debate ever experienced by a environmental bill in the state's
history (Owens, 1987). This debate continues today. Proponents
of CAMA believe the bill has shaped coastal development in a
positive way, and that it is protecting valuable coastal resources

J .I

for future generations. one of the major criticisms of CAMA is
that it takes land use controls away from property owners and in
some cases, has caused slowed economic growth in coastal areas.
Opponents add that no other area in North Carolina is subjected to
this type of state regulation; CAMA represents heavy handed state
intrusions into the affairs of landowners in coastal areas (Ifeath
and Mosley, 1980).

The CAMA regulatory process applies to the Areas of
Environmental Concern (AECs). AECs, however, comprise only three
percent of the total land area of the 20 coastal counties.
Analyzing CAMA's financial impacts is a complicated undertaking
that depends on many complex variables. A previous study
indicated that permit decisions alter construction standards and
methods of development but noted, 11 ... [I]n general, regulations
under CAMA and the Dredge and Fill Law (a part of the permit
process) have not substantially restricted the ability of the
landowners to use their land" (Liner, 1980). CAMA was not written
to to be antagonistic toward coastal development, nor was it
designed to prevent coastal development. To the contrary, one of
the goals of CAMA is to manage II[T]he economic development of the
coastal area, including but not limited to construction, location
and design of industries, port facilities, commercial
establishments and other developments (N.C.G.S. 113A-102 (b),
Liner, 1980). Despite this mandate and the previous study's
conclusions, the question remains, has CAMA affected growth and
development in the coastal areas?

Although the debate regarding CAMA's impacts on economic
growth continues, one fact is certain, since the enactment of CAMA
the 20 coastal counties have undergone many changes. Using
selected parameters, this study delineates and analyzes coastal
growth and development that has occurred since the early 70s.

The report is divided into two sections. The first section
examines the growth that has occurred in the 20 coastal counties
regulated by CAMA. The study period begins in 1970, prior to the
passage of CAMA, and ends with 1988 data. These data include CAMA
permits, population trends, and travel and tourism expenditures.
The final section focuses on the question of whether or not CAMA
regulations have had an adverse effect on the building trades in
the coastal counties.

STUDY AREA

The provisions of the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)
apply to the 20 coastal counties located along the state's tidal
rivers, sounds, and the Atlantic ocean. Figure one shows the
geographic area regulated by CAMA. The coastal counties are:

Beaufort Hertford
Bertie 'Hyde
Brunswick New Hanover
Camden Onslow
Carteret Pamlico
Chowan Pasquotank
Craven Pender
Currituck Perquimans
Dare Tyrrell
Gates Washington.

These counties represent a diverse mix of land uses, growth
patterns, and economic development. In some cases, growth and
development data will be presented for all 20 counties as a whole.
Some data will be presented for individual counties. Six "case
study counties" provide more detailed development trends for
specific coastal regions.

The six counties were selected to represent: different
geographic regions within the coast (i.e., northern vs. southern
coast, inland vs. ocean front); differing rates of development and
growth; and different economic growth rates. Figure two shows the
location of the six counties. A brief description of the counties
follows.

Beaufort is an inland county at the mouth of the Pamlico
River in the central coastal region. As the ocean front counties
become fully developed, it is predicted that growth will shift to
the counties bordering the sounds. Planned Unit Developments
(PUDs) built around marinas and golf courses are typical of this
new development. Beaufort County, now experiencing this growth
pattern, was selected to demonstrate development trends in sound-
side counties.

Currituck is the northern-most ocean-front county. Although
growing rapidly, its growth rate is much slower than other coastal
counties. Northern access to Currituck Banks, the fastest growing
area in the county, is limited. The county provides a chance to
study how limited access has affected the county's growth
patterns.

Dare, in the northern coastal region, is the fastest g rowing

N
Gates

Hertford

N
X
C,

Bertie

1.;'??@ashington, )Tyrrell Dare

NI 7
$
Beaufort
Hyde

NI
Craven >1

Pamlico

Onslow

Pender

New
Hanover

Brunswick

Figurg 1 'L' The 20 North Carolina counties regulated by the
@@I

Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA)(Source: Division of Coastal
Management, 1989).

Gates

Herliord
N

Berlie

)TYT-rell Dare
Washington,

aeaufori
Hyde

craven

Pamlic

Onslow

Pen(jer

New
Hanover

Brunswick

Location of the six case study counties.
@@7y
4-1711-1case study county.

coastal county. The county is experiencing tremendous increases
in both seasonal and permanent populations. Trends evident in
Dare County could indicate future growth patterns for some of the
slower growing Outer Banks ocean-front counties such as Currituck.

Carteret is a rapidly growing county in the central coastal
area. Carteret County, bordering Bogue Sound and the Atlantic
Ocean, was the last county to complete its land use plan. Rapid
growth has caused an overloading of current wastewater treatment
systems and subsequent water quality problems (Armingeon et al.,
1989). Carteret County was selected because growth trends
presented in this study might aid in the planning of public
facilities for future use.

New Hanover is located in the southeastern part of the state.
New Hanover County and Wilmington, the largest city in the coastal
region, was one of the first coastal areas to employ a full-time
planning department. The county was selected to exhibit growth
trends in a county that utilized long term planning.

Brunswick is the southern-most coastal county. It was one of
the last coastal counties to begin extensive development, but
today it is one of the fastest growing of the CAMA regulated
areas. The county was selected to compare growth in the southern
region to that of the Northern region.

CAMA development permits, an indirect indicator of growth,
are discussed in the following section.

CAMA PERMITS

Although the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) was ratified
on April 12, 1974, the regulatory provisions did not go into
effect until March 1978 (Parker, 1989). Under CAMA, the CRC is
required to provide a simplified, coordinated system of permits
for the coastal area. This is accomplished through the AEC
regulatory program. As noted earlier, a CAMA permit is required
for development in AECs. "The intent of CAMA's permit program is
not to stop development, but rather to make sure that development
within AECs does not threaten public safety or continued
productivity and value of important natural areas" (DCM, 1988).
A CAMA permit functions as a single application form for five
separate state and federal project reviews: 1) The CAMA AEC
development permit, 2) the State Division of Environmental
Management water quality certification, 3) an easement required by
the Department of Administration for placing fill material in
public trust waters, 4) a State dredge-and-fill and coastal
wetlands permit, and 5) a 1140411 permit for controlling the filling
of wetlands as required by the federal Clean Water Act and
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Finger and
Jacobs, 1982).

This section presents CAMA permit data. The data, collected
from Division of Coastal Management records, represents CAMA
development permits issued during the period from Fiscal Year 1980
to Fiscal Year 1988 (the State's Fiscal Year is July 1 to June
30). First, to ascertain permitting trends for the entire coastal
area, the total number of CAMA development permits are examined.
Next, CAMA development permits for the case study counties are
analyzed to determine permitting trends in these specific areas.

Figure three illustrates the coast-wide CAMA permit data.
The total number of permits issued grew steadily from 1980 to
1986. The total permits, however, peaked in fiscal year 1986 and
declined the following two years. since fiscal year 1989 was not
yet complete at this writing, it is impossible to determine if
CAMA permits will continue to decline, or if 1986 represents the
maximum permitting issuance period. The number of minor permits
peaked in 1986 and declined the following two years. Major
permits peaked in 1985, but have remained constant during the
years that followed. One of the most interesting permitting
trends concerns general permits. General permits were introduced
in 1983 to streamline the CAMA permitting process. In some
instances, the general permit can be issued the same day as the
field visit by the permit officer. Since their introduction, the
use of general permits is increasing and has not peaked. This
growth coincides with the general decline in the issuance of major
permits.

The six case study counties illustrate regional CAMA

permitting trends. Beaufort County experienced fluctuating
permitting trends during the early 80s. From 1984 to 1986 the
county showed a tremendous increase in total permits issued
(Figure four). General permits represent much of this increase.
In 1987, total permits issued decreased.

Currituck County experienced a constant increase in total
permits from 1980 to 1987 (Figure five). Major permits grew
steadily until 1986, but declined slightly in 1987. As in the
case of Beaufort County, Currituck. is also,experiencing a growing
use of general permits.

Dare County experienced fluctuating rates of permit growth
during the study period (Figure six). The total number of permits
declined in 1984, but rose sharply in 1986 and 87. There was
constant growth in the issuance of major permits.

Carteret County, like Dare, experienced a tremendous increase
in the total number of permits issued in 1986 and 87 (Figure
seven). There was a notable increase in the number of major
permits issued in 1987. The county, however, did not exhibit the
rapid growth of general permits experienced by some counties.

New Hanover County experienced constant growth in total
permits until 1984 (Figure eight). In 1986, this number declined
substantially and remained constant the following year. There is
little indication that general permits have become popular in this
county.

Brunswick County presented the most noticeable shift in
permit issuance trends (Figure nine). CAMA permits rose
constantly from 1980 to 1984. In 1986, however, there was a
tremendous increase in the total number of permits granted. Much
of this activity was minor permitting. In 1987, there was a
drastic decrease in the number of permits issued. The number of
general permits issued in this county is small when compared to
Dare or Beaufort.

As noted earlier, 1986 was the peak year for CAMA development
permits. To further define permitting trends, the total permits
for each of the six counties were compared to the total number of
permits authorized in the remaining 14 counties. In 1986, the six
counties represented 81.5 percent of CAMA permits issued (Figure
10). Brunswick County's total permits were almost 40 percent of
the total. Carteret and Dare Counties combined for almost 25
percent of the total. These three counties represented over 62
percent of permitting activity during this year. During 1987, a
similar trend was present (Figure 11). The six counties accounted
for 87 percent of the total permits issued during the year.
Carteret County accounted for 29 percent of the total development
permits. Brunswick and Dare Counties combined for 34 percent of
the total permitting activities. Although the number of CAMA
permits has increased, it appears much of this growth is occurring

CAIVIA. Pernnits (Thousands)
4 r

01 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

Fiscal Year
(riscai Year Is July 1 -June 30)
Major General Minor Total
Figure 3. CAMA development permit trends for the 20 coastal
counties regulated by CAMA. Shown are: major; minor; general;
and total permits issued for Fiscal year 1980 to Fiscal year 1988
(Source: Division of Coastal Management, 1989).

250 CAMA Permits

200

150-

100

50-

0 1980 1982 984 1986 1987

Fiscal Year
(Fiscal Year Is July 1-June 30)
Minor Permits M Major Permits @ General Permit Total Permits

igure 4. CAMA development permit trends for Beaufort County,
.C.. Sh'ovn are: major; minor; general; and total permits issued
from Fiscal year 1980 to Fiscal year 1987 (Source: Division of
Coastal Management, 1989).

CAMA Permits
250

200

150-

100 -

0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1987
Fiscal Year
(Fiscal Year Is J I I June 30)
Minor Permits ED Major Permits j!@ General Permit Total Permits
FigUr,e 5A. CAMA development permit trends for Currituck Countyr
N.C.. Shown are: major; minor; general; and total permits issued
from Fiscal year 1980 to Fiscal year 1987 (Source: Division of
Coastal Management, 1989).

15,

CAMA Permits
500 -

4DD -

300

200

1DO

198D 1982 1984 1986 1987

Fiscal Year
(Fiscal Year Is Jyjy_I-June 30)
Minor Permits M Major Pern-Cits E@J General Permit Total Permits

Figure 6. CAMA development permit trends for Dare Couniy, N.C..
Shown are: major; minor; general; and total permits issued from
Fiscal year 1980 to Fiscal year 1987 (Source: Division of Coastal
Management, 1989)

CAMA Permits
80D -

600 -

400 -

200 -

0
1980 1982 1984 1986 1987

Fiscal Year
(FIscal Year Is J 1 1 -June 30)
Minor Permits Major Permits General Permit Total Permits

Figure 7. CAMA development permit trends for Carteret county,
N.C.. Shown are: major; minor; general; and total permits issued
from Fiscal year 1980 to Fiscal year 1987 (Source: Division of
Coastal Management, 1989).

CAMA Permits
200 -

150 -

50 -

0 ...
1980 1982 1984 1986 1987

Fiscal Year
(Fiscal Year is J@@l -June 30)
Ml Minor Permits M Major Permits General Permit Total Permits

Picure 8 CAMA development permit trends for New Hanover County,
N.C.. Shown are: major; minor; general; and total permits issued
from Fiscal year 1980 to Fiscal year 1987 (Source: Division of
Coastal Management, 1989).

CAMA Perm its
1200

1000

6DO -

400 -

200 -

0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1987

Fiscal Year
(Fiscal Year Is J I I June 30)
Minor Permits ED Major Permits n -General Permit Total Permits
FIgUre 9,_ CAMA development permit trends for- Brunswick County.,
Ll

N.C.. included are: major; minor; general; and total permits
issued from Fiscal year 1980 to Fiscal year 1987 (Source:
Division of Coastal Management, 1989).

Other Counties
18.5% Beaufort
7.9%
.............
..............
....... .......
....I..........
.. ............

...........
? Curr*tuck
Do re .... A ............
....... ...
.......... :. -
..........
11.6% ............. ........... 6.4%
..............

N. Han.
...................
..............
4.9%

Carteret
12.6%

Brunswick
38.2%

Figure 10, CAMA development permits (total) for Fiscal year 1986.
Total number of permits issued for each of the six case study
counties are shown as percentages of the total number of permits
issued (Source: Division of Coastal Management, 1989).

...........
. ...........
Cc rte ret
.....................
............ ............
.......... .............. .
........... ................
............. .. .........
.............................
................. ...........
Do re 9.0%
2
................ ....... .......
. ..............................
.......... ......... ...........
.......... . ..................
.......... ..... ..............
19.3% ........ . .. .........................
...............................
............. ...................
...................................
......... . . ..... .............
....................... ...........
........... ............ ...........
..................................
....................
............ ................... ...
..... .. . .. ..................
..............
.................... ................
............................
........... ...I.............. . ....
............. .......................
...............*.....................
... ... . ..........................
.....I.. . ................*...
..... ...........I .......... .......
......................................
...... .. . ................ .......
............... .......................
... .. ....................... .......
....I..................................
...................... ............. .
......................................
... . .. ...................
.......................... ...........
. ...... .................. .
................
...............
...............
..... ...............................
............ . ............... .
.... ......................I......
................ ........... ..
... .................. ... .
......... * *........ ........
...... ......... . ..........
......... . .. .. ............
.....................
......... . .. ...............
... .....................
...........* ..........
....... ........ ..
............................
.......... ......... ...
................
........................ .

............... .
.................
N. Han.
6.6%
................
B r u n s w i c k
14.7% ...........

Beaufort
8.7%

Other Counties Currituck
13.0% 8.8%

Figure 11, CAMA development permits (total) for Fiscal year 1987.
Total number of permits issued for each of the six case study
counties are shown a percentages of the total number of permits
issued (Source: Division of Coastal Management, 1989).

in a small number of the counties regulated by the statute.

CAMA permits are issued for a variety of structures, such as
a dwelling, or for a bulkhead or pier. Therefore, an examination
of permits may not always indicate growth in a particular segment
of the economy, e.g. the housing industry. Housing starts, an
economic indicator, are examined in a later section. The next
section analyzes population data for the 20 coastal counties.

POPULkTION

Analyzing population data is a simple method for
determining growth in a particular area and for comparing
different counties or regions of the state. In the conventional
land use planning process, analysis of population trends and
future growth are often relatively uncomplicated procedures of
collecting one set of figures from secondary sources. Sources
for these data can be the U. S. Census Bureau or State agencies,
and future growth trends are computed based on recent or
existing trends.

Population in the coastal counties was analyzed because
information regarding population growth and population growth
projections is important for planning future coastal management
strategies. Population data, including past, current, and
future estimates will be discussed in this section.

Permanent Population Data
The number of permanent residents in an area can be
determined with reasonable accuracy using census data.
Population data for permanent residents were collected from the
"North Carolina Population Projection Series", compiled by the
North Carolina Office Of State Budget And Management (OSBM).
Trend projections are based on the Adjusted Migration technique.
"In general, trend projections are accurate only to the extent
that the future repeats the past" (OSBM, 1988).

The initial population analysis will center on how rapidly
the coastal counties' population are increasing, or in some cases
decreasing. The population growth rate, or percent change in
permanent populations, was computed for all 20 counties.
These data were then compared to the overall growth rate of the
state which served as a control. Coastal counties were loosely
grouped by two criteria: 1) inland or ocean-front, and
2) geographic location (e.g. northern, central region etc.).
Population comparisons are presented for two periods, 1970 to
1980 and 1980 to 1988. The 1988 data was based on OSBM
projections. The inland counties will be discussed first.

Figure 12 presents population data for Bertie, Hertford,
Gates, Chowan, and Perquimans Counties, all of which border the
Albemarle Sound. These counties are in the northern coastal
area. In the period 1970 to 1980, only Chowan County had a
growth rate greater than the state's growth rate. During the
period 1980 to 1988, Chowan County's population continued to
increase, but at a rate which dropped below the state's growth
rate. Hertford County lost population during the 1970s, but
demonstrated a slight increase during 1980 to 1988 (OSBM, 1988).
Gates County's growth rate was below that of the state during
the 70s, but growth during the 80s equalled the state's growth
rate. For the period 1980 to 1988, Perquimans County's
population grew faster than the state. Bertie County was the

% CHANGE IN POPULATION
2D% -
16.7% 15.7% 14.9%
15% - 3.6

..... 10.3% :::::10.3%
10% -

4.1%
..... .....
2.4% 4%::::'.,- ...
1 %

0%
-5% L - 4.4%
-1 D% 1970-1980 1980-1988

Bertie Co. Hertford Co. @ Gates Co. Chowon Co.

Perquirrians Co State
Figure 12, Permanent population growth rates for Bertie,
Hertford, Gates, Chovan, and Perquimans Counties. The state's
population growth rate is used for a control. Data are presented
for 1970 to 1980, And 1980 to 1988 (Source: Office of State
Budget and Management, 1988).
% CHANGE IN POPULAT10N
20% -

1S.7%
15% -

10.3%
10% - 8%
6.9%
5% 4.4% 5.4% 4.9%
3% 71
0% - ...... .......

-1.3%

-5% 1970-1980 198D-1988

Posquotank Co M Camden Co. Tyrrell Co. Washington Co.

State

Figure 1j. Permanent population growth rates for Pasquotank,
Camden, Tyrrell, and Washington Counties. The state's population
growth rate is used for a control. Data are presented for 1970 to
1980, and 1980 to 1988 (Source: office of State Budget and
Management, 1988). 13,6 8.9%
3v
L

slowest growing county in this group. In general, the inland
counties in northeastern North Carolina are among the slowest
growing of the CAMA regulated counties (OSMB, 1988).

Figure 13 illustrates data for Pasquotank, Camden, Tyrrell,
and Washington Counties. These counties are in the northern
coastal region and all border the Albemarle Sound. All four
counties experienced growth well below the state's average for
both study periods. Pasquotank County lost population during
the 70s, but was the fastest growing county in this group in
this decade. Washington County grew slowly during the 70s and
has lost population since 1980 (OSMB, 1988).

Figure 14 presents data for Beaufort, Craven, and Pamlico
counties. These counties are centrally located and border the
Pamlico Sound. During 1970 to 1980, none of these counties grew
at a rate that exceeded the state's growth rate. For the period
1980 to 1988, only Craven County's growth surpassed the state's
increase. Beaufort and Pamlico Counties' growth rate fell by
approximately half during the 80s (OSMB, 1988). Next, the
discussion moves to the ocean-front counties where rapid
population growth is occurring.

The growth rates in this group of ocean-front counties show
drastic contrasts (Figure 15). Carteret, Currituck, and Dare
Counties are among the fastest growing counties in the state.
In the decade 1970 to 1980, Currituck County showed a population
increase (+59.0%) of almost four times greater than the state;
Currituck was the second fastest growing county in the state
(OSMB, 1988; Currituck County, 1986). Currituck County's growth
slowed during the second period, but was still two and one half
times greater than the state's growth rate. From 1980 to 1986,
the county was the fifth fastest growing county in the state.
Dare County was the fastest growing county in the state during
1970 to 1980 (Dare County, 1988). It experienced a growth rate
of +91.2 percent, almost six times greater than the state rate.
The county's growth slowed to 56.3 percent for the second
period, but it was still five and one half times the state's
growth rate. From 1980 to 1986, Dare County remained the
fastest growing county in the state (OSMB, 1988). Carteret
County grew at a rate that was double the state's growth rate
during the 70s, and is now experiencing growth approximately two
and one half times the state's current rate. Hyde County has
only a small ocean-front area (Ocracoke Island); the majority of
the county borders the Pamlico Sound. Hyde County's growth rate
is well below the rates of other ocean-front counties, falling
almost two percent from 1980 to 1988 (OSMB, 1988).

Figure 16 illustrates the data for Pender, Onslow, New
Hanover, and Brunswick Counties. This group of counties
represent the fastest growing region in the coast and in
the state (Mather, 1988; OSMB, 1988). In the period from 1970
to 1980 only Onslow County grew at a rate below the state

CHANGE IN POPULATION
2D% -

15% - 13.6% 15.7% 14.8%
12.2%

10% - 9.8%

6.8%

5% 4.7%
....... ...

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

0% ........
1970-1980 1980-1988

Beaufort Co. M Craven Co. Parnrico Co. State

Figure-14, Permanent population growth rates for Beaufort,
Craven, and Pamlico. Counties. The state's population growth rate
is used for a control. Data are presented for*1970 to 1980, and
1980 to 1988 (Source: Office of State Budget and Management,
1988).
120% % CHANGE IN POPULATION

100% - 91.2%

80% -
60% - 59% 56.3%

40% -
30% 26.7 26%
20% - 5.4% MA 15.7% D. 3%

-2 0%
1970-1980 1980-1988

Curnrituck Co. = Dore Co, Hy,;e Co. Carteret Co.

state

Figure 15, Permanent population growth rates for Carteret,
307

15.77.
4 7.R 71 D. 37-
=5

Currituck, Dare and Hyde Counties. The state's population growth
rate is used for a control. Date are presented for 197o to 1980,
and 1980 to 1988 (Source: Office of State Budget and Management,
1988).

% CHANGE IN POPULATION
60% -

50% - 47.7%
44.1%

40% -

30% -
24.7
20.8%
20% ......
15.7%
13% 14.1
9.4% 0.3%
10%
...... .......
...... ......
...... .......
...... .......

...... ......
...... .......
...... ......
D% ....
1970-198D 1980-1988

Pender Co. Onslow Co. N. Hanover Co. M Brunswick Co.

State

Ficiure 16, Permanent population growth rates for Pender, Onslow,
New Hanover, and Brunswick Counties. The state's population
growth rate is used,for a control. Data are presented for 1970 to
1980, and 1980 to 1988 (Source: Office of State Budget and
Management, 1988).
tl 5.7 @1,
947.
Lj@ L

increase. Brunswick County grew at a rate of 47.7 percent, or
three times greater than the state. From 1980 to 1986,
Brunswick County was the second fastest growing county in the
state, and the county is expected to grow at approximately the
same rate during the remainder of this decade (OSBM, 1988;
Brunswick County, 1987). For the period 1970 to 1980, New
Hanover County's growth rate was well above that of the rest of
the state. Growth has slowed during the current decade,
although it still remains above the state average. Pender
County is experiencing growth rates greater the New Hanover
County, and over twice the State's growth. In this group, only
Onslow County failed to surpass the state's growth rate during
the 1970s, however, it too is now experiencing growth above
state-wide levels (OSBM, 1988).

Future Population Estimates
Future population projections for the six case study
counties are illustrated in Figures 17 and 18. Population
estimates, obtained from OSBM, are for permanent populations
based on current trends. Each county's projected growth is
compared to the state's growth for the same period. As in the
previous section, the rate of population increase is shown as a
percentage. Projections are made for two periods, 1990 to 2000
and 2000 to 2010.

Figure 17 illustrates the projected growth rates for
Beaufort, Currituck, and Dare Counties. For the period 1990 to
2000, Dare County is projected to grow at a rate of four times
that projected for the state. Currituck County is projected to
increase at a rate of two and one half times that of the state.
Beaufort County's growth is not expected to surpass the state's
growth rate. For the decade 2000 to 2010, all three counties
indicate a slowing rate of population growth. Dare and
Currituck Counties, however, are projected to experience growth
much greater than the state. Beaufort County's growth is
expected to be less than the state's projected growth (OSBM,
1988).

Figure 18 represents projected growth rates for Brunswick,
Carteret, and New Hanover Counties. For the period 1990 to
2000, all counties are projected to experience growth rates
slower than those of the previous decade. Brunswick County is
likely to experience population increase at a rate of almost
four times the state's projected rate. Carteret County's
projected growth will is estimated to be twice the state's. New
Hanover County should experience population growth slightly
higher than the state's growth. For the period 2000 to 2010,
population growth rates are projected to decline for all of
these counties, however, Brunswick and Carteret are expected to
grow much faster than the state as a whole. New Hanover's
growth rate is expected to slightly exceed that of the state
(OSBM, 1988).

% OF POPULATION INCREASE
50% -

41.5%

40% -

29.6%
30% r 25.4%

21.7%
20% .......

9.8%
10% - .......
6.2% 7.1%
4.7% .......

0%-
1990-2000 2000-2010
Estirnafe EstTmate
Beaufort Co. Dare Co. ED Currituck Co. State

Figurg 17, Projected permanent population growth rates for
Beaufort, Currituck, and Dare Counties. Estimated rates are for
permanent populations based on current trends. The state's
projected population'growth rate is used for a control. Data are
presented for 1990 to 2000, and 2000 to 2010 (Source: Office of
State Budget and Management, 1988).

% OF POPULATION INCREASE
50% - 1

40% - 36.5%

30% - 27.5%

22.8%

20% - ....... 17.3%

.. .... .......
1 D. 7%
9.8%
....... .......

....... ......
....... ......
....... .......
....... ........
....... .......
....... ....
....... .......
....... .......
10% -
7.1%

0% 1990-2000 2000-2010
Estimate EstInnate
Brunswick Co. @ Carteret Co. N. Hanover Co. state

Figure 18, Projected permanent population growth rates for
@627. @477. 2 j17 7a

Brunswick, Carteret, and New Hanover Counties. Estimated rates
are for permanent populations based on current trends. The
state's projected population growth rate is used for a control.
Data are presented for 1990 to 2000, and 2000 to 2010 (Source:
Office of State Budget and Management, 1988).

Seasonal Population Data
For seasonally attractive localities, particularly those
with high tourist visitation, population analysis and estimation
is not as simple. Summer resort communities experience wide
fluctuations of population according to the season. These
seasonal increases can far exceed any of the population growth
rates previously discussed. For example-, in the 1970s, peak
seasonal population increases (i.e., above permanent resident
population) in Carteret County municipal areas averaged 121
percent (Carteret County, 1985). Seasonal populations are
comprised of three groups; year-round or permanent residents,
seasonal residents, and day visitors. Seasonal estimates are
often published for "peak seasonal days", or the day of highest
annual visitation to resort areas (e.g. the Fourth of July).
Often these data are based on the number of recreation dwellings
or on traffic counts.

To demonstrate the extremes that seasonal populations can
represent, seasonal population data is listed below (Table One)
for some select beach communities. The percentage increase is
computed using the difference between the permanent population
and the number of seasonal visitors during the "peak day".

Table 1: Peak Seasonal Population 1985

Permanent IlPeak"
Location Pop. Pop. Increase

a) Ocean Isle Beach 372 22,560 +5960
b) Sunset Beach 189 7,536 +4090
c) Nags Head 1,653 (est.) 30,768 (est.) +1760
d) Atlantic Beach 1,350 (est.) 18,500 (est.) +1270
e) Kill Devil Hills 2,596 30,136 +1060
f) Wrightsville Bch. 4,046 27,994 +592
g) Kure Beach 1,081 (est.) 7,420 (est.) +586
h) Carolina Beach 3,900 (est.) 12,500 (est.) +220

Source:
a) Ocean Isle, 1987;
b) Sunset Beach, 1987;
c) Nags Head, 1985;
d) Atlantic Beach, 1988.
e) Kill Devil Hills, 1987;
f) Wrightsville Beach, 1986;
g) Kure Beach, 1986;
h) Carolina Beach, 1986.

The population variation experienced by these and other
beach communities is phenomenal. The increases are so large
that it is difficult to place these data in proper perspective.
Small communites such as Sunset Beach, Ocean Isle, and Nags Head
are experiencing tremendous fluctuations in annual populations.

This kind of explosive seasonal growth makes planning
public facilities and services very difficult. Local
governments in many coastal counties must design their facility
and service capacities to meet peak seasonal demand. A
statement in Dare County's LUP expressed it succinctly, "If an
analogy were to be made between Dare County and a major airline
company, it might be said that better than four out of every
five planes are grounded and out of service for the majority of
any given year" (Dare County, 1988).

Seasonal population fluctuations can create economic havoc
with businesses, and poses significant problems for the small
local governments found in most coastal counties (Dare County,
1988). The tremendous influx of seasonal residents represents a
severe strain on the carrying capacity of the coastal area. The
seasonal populations, however, represent a much needed boost for
the economies of this region. This point is illustrated in the
next section which addresses the travel and tourism industry.

TRAVEL AND TOURISM

More than 227,000 North Carolinians, or ten percent of
North Carolina's private employment, work in businesses directly
serving travelers. Other areas of the economy, retail trade for
example, also owe a portion of their earnings to travel-related
expenditures. "Estimates indicate that each travel dollar
yields another 79 cents of spending as it moves through the
economy of the state" (NC Travel Study, 1987). If we include
secondary economic impacts, travel-related jobs support another
112,000 jobs statewide (NC Travel Study, 1987).

Already one of the state's larger industries, tourism is
likely to grow within the next few years to become the largest,
surpassing textiles, furniture, and tobacco (Barnett, 1988).
Much of the growth in the tourism industry is occurring in the
coastal region. Dare County, the state's leader in the tourism
industry, generated $18,607 in travel revenue for each permanent
resident in 1986. When one compares that figure to the state's
average, $805 per resident, it is easy to understand the impact
that tourism is having on the coast. Of the top 21 counties
with above average per-capita tourism spending, six are found in
the CAMA regulated counties (Barnett, 1988). Clearly, tourism
is the coastal region's fastest growing economic segment.

Travel and tourism expenditures are presented in two groups
of data. The first analysis will focus on the coastal region's
share of the total travel and tourism expenditures from 1971
(pre-CAMA) to 1987. The second analysis will examine the impact
of travel and tourism on selected counties. These data include
tourism expenditures and the percentage of the work force
employed by tourism. The Division of Travel and Tourism in
the North Carolina Department of Commerce compiles and publishes
an annual travel study. These reports provided the data for this
discussion. In order to adjust expenditures for inflation,
revenues were adjusted to 1984 dollars (1984 = 100) using the
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The CPI for entertainment was
judged applicable for this conversion.

Figure 19 shows the 1971 travel expenditures for North
Carolina. For this year, the twenty coastal counties captured a
9.0 percent share of the total amount (NC Travel Study, 1972).
@y 1978, the year CAMA permitting began, that share had
increased slightly (Figure 20) (NC travel Study, 1979). In
1982, tourism added $497 million to the economies of the coastal
counties. This dollar amount was slightly above 15 percent of
the state's total travel revenues (Figure 21) (NC Travel Study,
1983). In 1987, travel related expenditures represented a $989
million industry to coastal counties (Figure 22). In a period
of 16 years, the coastal counties' share of the total travel
expenditures more than doubled (NC Travel Study, 1987).

The case study counties provide insight into how this

$ 106.4 MILLION

20 Coastal Counties
9.0%

State
91.0%

Total Expenditures $1.7 Bill.ion
(Adjusted to 1984 $)

Figure 19, Total North Carolina travel and tourism expenditures
for 1971. The 20 coastal counties' revenues are shown as a
percentage of the total expenditures (Source: North Carolina
Travel and Tourism, 1972).

$ 250.9 MILLION
20 Coastal Counties
9.4%

State
90.6%

Total Expenditures $3.94 Billion
(Adjusted to 1984 $)

Figgre 20, Total North Carolina travel and tourism expenditures
for 1978. The 20 coastal counties' revenues are shown as a
percentage of the total expenditures (Source: North Carolina
Travel and Tourism, 1979).

$ 497 MILLION
20 Coastal Counties
15.4%

'State
84.6%

Total Expenditures $3.23 Billion
(Adjusted to 1984 $)

Figure 21.L.Total North Car olina travel and tourism expenditures
for 1982. The 20 coastal counties' revenues are shovn as a
percentage of the total expenditures (Source: North Carolina
Travel and Tourism, 1983).

$ 989 MILLION
20 Coastal Counties
20.1%

"tote
79.9%

Total Expenditures $4.94 Billion
(Adjusted to 1984 $

aure 22, Total North Carolina travel and tourism expenditures
f r 1987. The 20 coastal counties' revenues are shovn as a
percentage of the total expenditures (Source: North Carolina
Travel and Tourism, 1988).

enormous revenue can vary from county to county. Figures 23 to
28 illustrate travel expenditures for individual counties.
Beaufort County experienced a fluctuating rate of revenue (Figure
23). Travel expenditures grew -during the late 70s and early 80s,
however, the county's 1987 revenues were half that of 1971
revenues. Generally, the inland counties' share of the
tourist market is a small percentage of the coastal region's
total annual amount (NC Travel Study, 1987). This is evident
when one compares inland counties with ocean-front counties.

Not all ocean-front counties share in this huge economic
windfall. Currituck County's travel expenditures are the lowest
of the six counties studied (Figure 24). As noted, Currituck
Banks has limited access and has grown at a slower rate than that
of most ocean-front counties. Although increasing, tourism
revenues are well below those of the other five counties. A
comparison of Currituck and adjacent Dare County presents a
startling contrast.

Dare County benefits more from tourism than any other
county in the state. Tourism accounted for more than $347
million in revenue for the county in 1987 (Figure 25). From the
period 1971 to 1987, tourism expenditures grew an amazing 2900
percent! Dare County illustrates the impact tourism can have on
coastal economies. The 1987 NC Travel Study points out that to
estimate the total economic benefits to an area, one must
multiply the travel expenditure by a "multiplier" of $1.79 (NC
Travel Study, 1987). Using this figure, the total tourism based
economic benefit to Dare County for 1987 was $621 million.

New Hanover County's expenditures have grown steadily
during the study period (Figure 26). The county was second to
Dare in tourism revenues. Carteret and Brunswick Counties, two
of the fastest growing coastal counties have also reaped
tremendous benefits from travel and tourism (Figures 27 & 28).
From 1982 to 1987, travel related expenditures increased almost
one and one half times in Carteret County, and tripled in
Brunswick County.

The majority of the 20 CAMA regulated counties are rural.
In many of them, the agricultural economic base is declining
(Albemarle Regional Planning Commission, 1987). Travel and
tourism represent large revenues for these counties, as well as
new job sources. Since 1981, The Division of Travel and Tourism
has collected data relating to the percent of the total work
force that is employed through these activities. These data are
presented for the six case study counties.

Although only a small percent of Beaufort County's work
force is employed by travel and tourism related jobs, the
percentage is increasing annually (Figure 29). Currituck
County's percentage fluctuates, but has remained above ten
percent for the period from 1981 to 1986 (Figure 30). Dare

MILLION
$16 - (Adjusted to 1984 $

$14 - $12.2

$12 - $10.4

$10 $8.3

$8
$5.04
$6

so K
1971 1978 1982 1987

YEAR

Beaufort Co.

Ficure 2.1...Total travel and tourism expenditures for Beaufort
County, N.C.. Revenues are shown for the period 1971 to 1987
(Source: North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

MILLION $
$6 - (Adjusted to 1984 $

$5 -
$4.05

$3 $2.3 $2.52
$2 $1.62

$D
1971 1978 YEAR 1982 1987

Currituck Co.

Figure 24, Total travel and tourism expenditures for Currituck,
County., N.C.. Revenues are shown for the period 1971 to 1987
(Source: North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

MILLION
SE00 (Adjusted to 1984

$400 - $347

$300 -

$200 - $164.9

$100 - $38.2

so
1971 1978 1982 1987

YEAR

Dare Co.

Figuze 25, Total travel and tourism revenues tor Dare County,
N.C.. Revenues are shown for the period 1971 to 1987 (Source:
North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

MILLION $
$300 - (Adjusted to 1984 $

$250 -
$200 - $202.7
$143.6

1150 -

$83.2
$1 DO -

$36
$50 -

$0
1971 1978 1982 1987

YEAR

New Hanover Co.
LEE

Figure 26. Total travel and tourism revenues for New Hanover
County, N.C.. Revenues are shown for the period 1971 to 1987
(Source: North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

MILLION $
MID
(Adjusted to 1984 $

$135

$92.2

$1 4.8 $23.5

1971 1978 1982 1987

YEAR

Carteret Co.

Figure 27, Total travel and tourism revenues for Carteret County,
N.C.. Revenues are shown for the period 1971 to 1987 (Source:
North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

$160 MILLION $
(Adjusted to 1984 $

$140 -

$120 -

$100

...........

...........
$60
$36.7
$40
............
$20 $6.2

..... .... ..

............
1971 1978 1982 1987

YEAR

Brunswick Co.
/-7

Figure 28, Total travel and tourism revenues for Brunswick
County, N.C.. Revenues are shown for the period 1971 to 1987
(Source: North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

10% % OF WORK FORCE EMPLOYED BY TOURISM

8% 6.8%

6.1%

4,3%

0% 1981 1982 1984 1986
YEAR

Beaufort Co.

Figure 29, Percentage of Beaufort County's work force employed
through tourism activities. Employment figures are shown from
1981 to 1986 (Source: North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

% OF WORK FORCE EMPLOYED BY TOURISM
20% -

15% - 13.5% 12.8%
11.6% 11%

10% -

5% -

0%
1981 1982 1984 1986

YEAR

CURRITUCK Co.

Figure 39-L. Percentage of Currituck County's work force employed
through tourism activities. Employment figures are shown from
1981 to 1986 (Source: North Carolina,Travel and Tourism).

County is a clear example of the effects tourism can have on a
county's work force. In the period from 1981-1986, almost 40
percent of the jobs in the county were directly based on travel
and tourism (Figure 31).

The Division of Travel and Tourism has computed a "job
multiplier" to determine the indirect number of jobs that "spin-
off" from travel expenditures: 1.66 times the number of primary
jobs (NC Travel Study, 1987). Therefore, in Dare County the
actual percentage of the total work force employed by tourism is
close to 50 percent (NC Travel Study,.1987). Carteret County
ranks second in this category. For the same study period,
between 18 and 19 percent of the county's work force was
employed through tourism (Figure 32). New Hanover and Brunswick
Counties' employment figures are similar (Figures 33 & 34).
Since 1980, both counties have experienced an annual increase in
the number of tourism based jobs.

Tourism is the fastest growing industry in North Carolina,
and the coastal area is the site of much of this growth
(Barnett, 1988). As the number of seasonal visitors increase,
the need for new housing and facilities also increases. Many of
these facilities are constructed on ocean-front or sound-side
sites regulated by CAMA. The following section examines
residential building permit data.

% OF WORK FORCE EMPLOYED BYTOURISM
6D% -

50% -
41.5% 40.7% 36.5% 38,9%
4D% -

30% -

20%

10%

0% - 1981 1982 1984 1 b86

YEAR

Dore Co.

Figure 31, Percentage of Dare County's work force employed
through tourism activities. Employment figures are shown from
1981 to 1986 (Source: North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

% OF WORK FORCE EMPLOYED BY TOURISM
30% -

25% -
19.2% 19.8%
20% - 17.8% 17.8%

15% -

10% -

5% -
0% - -- 1
1981 1982 1984 1986-

YEAR

Carteret Co.

Figure 32, Percentage of Carteret County's work force employed
through tourism activities. Employment figures are shown from
1981 to 1986 (Source: North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

20% % OF WORK FORCE EMPLOYED BY TOURISM

15% 12.7% 13.5% 13.6%
11.6% ...........

..........

10%

..........

0%j
1981 1982 1984 1986

YEAR

New Honover Co.

Figure 33. Percenta-ge of New Hanover County's work force employed
through tourism activities. Employmen@'IigUres are shown from
1981 to 1986 (Source: North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

% OF WORK FORCE EMPLOYED BY TOURISM
20%

15% - 13.1%

10.8% .. .......
........ ... .. ..
......... .....
9,2% . .......
........... ...........
...........
..........
10%
..........
.. ... ...........
........... ..... .....

... ..... ..........
........... ...........
..... ... .....
............
....... .. .......... ..........
....... ........... ......... ......
.......... ...........
........... ......
..... ...........
5% ............
.......... .... ...... ...... ....
.......... ........... .......... .... I ......
........... .......... .. ... .... ............
..........

..... . . ..... .....
........... .... I ..... ....
.... . ........ .......
. . . ........ . . . ......... ...........
.......... .......

0% ..........
1981 1982 YEAR 1984 1986
= Brunswick Go.

Figuzg 34, Percentage of Brunswick County's work force employed
through tourism activities. Employment figures are shown from
..........

1981 to 1986 (Source: North Carolina Travel and Tourism).

THE HOUSING INDUSTRY AND CAMA

Housing developments have caused extensive damage in
coastal zones. Housing developments constitute the
primary competitor for coastal zone resources and dominate
land use patterns within the coastal zone (Richardson,
1978).

Development on and near estuarine shorelines in the
Pamlico River and western Pamlico Sound of North Carolina
poses several threats to the environmental quality of the
Pamlico estuary. Shoreline development may be associated
with water pollution and degradation of estuarine habitats
through improper wastewater treatment, excessive or
polluted storm runoff quality, and habitat destruction
(Phillips, 1985).

A subsidiary of the Weyerhauser Co. is seeking state
approval for an 875-acre development at Chocowinity Bay
on the Pamlico River. It would be one of the largest
residential projects in Beaufort County (The News and
Observer, 1989).

Property values have doubled in Carteret County since the
last revaluation in 1981 from $1.6 billion to $3 billion
the tax assessor said Wednesday. The Assessor, C.
Sterling Hancock, said the demand for land in the county-
especially waterfront property-has caused the property
values to rise since the last revaluation. 'People just
want into this county and when people want something, they
will pay for it' (News and Observer, 1989)

This lengthy introduction is provided in hopes that it
will afford the reader some insight into one of the most
difficult questions that the North Carolina Coastal Management
Program must deal with: how can policymakers weigh the value of
economic development against that of maintaining a fragile
ecosystem? As noted throughout this paper, CAMA is a
controversial statute. Many developers see CAMA regulations as
a barrier to economic growth, especially growth in the housing
industry (Olson, 1989; Finger and Jacobs, 1982). Some
conservation groups, however, feel that CAMA regulations do not
go far enough, spending too much time and money on planning
rather than action (McGuire, 1983; Finger and Jacobs, 1982).

The economic effects of land use controls such as those
authorized by CAMA are difficult to assess. Proper analysis is
often impeded by the lack of methodology and practical
restraints. It is often not possible to separate the impacts of
land use controls from the effects of other associated
variables, including housing demand, interest rate changes, and
concurrent environmental legislation.

41-

Despite these problems, the intent of this study was to
determine if CAMA has had a negative effect on the building
trades in the coastal counties. This analysis consisted of two
components: 1) a questionnaire administered to coastal county
planners, Local CAMA Permit Officers (LPOs), and representatives
of the North Carolina Home Builders Association, to obtain their
opinions regarding the effects of CAMA regulations on the
housing industry; and 2) a building permit comparison
between the 20 coastal counties and state-wide data. A
discussion of the questionnaire follows.

The Questionnaire
Many groups are actively involved with coastal development
from a regulatory and/or an economic standpoint. From those,
the author selected three that he believed would present a
diverse group of opinions. The first group, Local Permit
Officers (LPOs) are employed by local governments, often
serving dual roles as building inspectors and LPOs. The LPOs,
trained by DCM staff members, issue both general and minor
CAMA development permits. The questionnaire was administered to
12 LPOs selected from throughout the 20 counties. Those
surveyed had served as LPOs from eight months to over ten years.

The second group that was surveyed were county planners.
The planners were selected because of their daily involvement
with county and region-wide construction activity. The length
of service for the-planners ranged from nine months to ten
years. The majority of the 20 counties regulated by CAMA do not
have full-time planners, however, the questionnaire was
administered to the eight full-time planners. Finally, the
questionnaire was administered to the five coastal
representatives of the North Carolina Home Builders Association
(HBA). The author believed that they could provide insight into
CAMA from a non-regulatory viewpoint.

The questionnaire, was designed so that the same questions
were appropriate for each group. A self-addressed stamped
return envelope and a cover letter, explaining the nature of the
project, were enclosed with each questionnaire. The completed
forms were unsigned so that the participants would remain
anonymous, however, it was possible to identify the responses by
groups (i.e. planners, builders, etc.). Each response was
tallied separately and the participants were not required to
answer all the questions for a response to be counted.

Some of the questions were general in nature, for example:
"In your opinion, is CAMA supported by the majority of citizens
in your county or area"'? and "Are you familiar with the
permitting process required by the Coastal Area Management Act
(CAM.A)11--' The majority of the questions were directed at
obtaining the participants, opinions regarding the effects of
CAMA on the housing industry. Since these responses were most
significant to this analysis, only these questions will be

discussed in detail, however, a complete questionnaire is
presented for the reader's information in Appendix One.

Results
The survey was not designed to be analyzed statistically,
but rather to gather responses from a varied audience regarding
the impacts of CAMA on the building trades. Because the survey
population was so small, it is difficult to assign any far
reaching conclusions. The responses, or lack of responses in
some cases, did hint at the complex nature of the relationship
between land use planning and economic growth.

The response to the questionnaire varied from group to
group. Fifty-eight percent of the LPOs returned the
questionnaire, and 62.5 percent of the county planners
responded. There was no response to the questionnaire from the
representatives of the Home Builders Association. The author
does attempt to assign any significance into this group's
response, or lack of response. 'The HBA's failure to complete
the survey would seem to indicate either: 1) lack of interest in
the project, or 2) CAMA regulations are controversial within
this group, or misunderstood by -the recipients of the
questionnaire.

The results from the questionnaire are shown on the
following pages in Table Two. The answers are presented as a
percentage of the total number of respondents. only the answers
that pertain to CAMA's effect on the building trades are shown.

Table 2: Responses to the CAMA/Building Trades Questionnaire

1) In your opinion, has CAMA caused any economic hardships on
the building trades in your area?

Planners (N = 5)

YES No
0% 100%

Local Permit Officers (N = 7

YES NO
0% Home Builders Association 100%
No Response

2) In your opinion, has CAMA had a positive or negative effect
on the overall economic growth in your area?

Planners (N = 5)

POSITIVE NEGATIVE NO EFFECT
60% 20% 20%

Local Permit Officers (N = 7)

POSITIVE NEGATIVE NO EFFECTS
17% 0% 83%

Home Builders Association
No Response

3) In your opinion, has CAMA had a positive or negative effect
on housing construction in your area?

Planners (N = 5)

POSITIVE NEGATIVE NO EFFECT
60% 0% 40%

Local Permit Officers (N = 7)

POSITIVE NEGATIVE NO EFFECT
50% 0% 50%

Home Builders Association
No response

Table 2 Responses to the CAMA/Building trades Questionnaire

4) Have CAMA regulations steered coastal development from
environmentally fragile areas, such as estuarine shorelines
or ocean-front areas, to locations suited for development
but not covered by CAMA regulations, e.g. inland areas?

Planners (N = 5)

YES No
60% 40%

Local Permit Officers (N 7)

YES NO NO EFFECT
29% 58% 14%

Home Builders Association
No Response

Questionnaire was administered January, 1989.

The results indicate that in the opinions of the LPOs and
county planners who responded, CAMA has not caused the building
trades any economic hardships (i.e., slowed building). The
planners indicated that CAMA has had a positive effect on their
county's overall economic growth. The LPOs, however, thought
that CAMA regulations have had no effect on the growth in their
region. Responding to question three, the majority of the
planners indicated that CAMA has actually had a positive effect
on the construction industry. Their reasons for this included:
CAMA maintains water quality which attracts quality housing;
CAMA's low density emphasis encourages quality housing; and
setback regulations increase property values while offering more
protection to environmentally sensitive areas. The responses
were varied on the question of whether or not CAMA has steered
development away from environmentally sensitive areas, however,
the majority of the participants felt that CAMA is directing
growth away from the ocean-front and estuaries.

Although the results of the questionnaire were interesting
and informative, they in themselves were not useful as a
quantitative indicator of the effects of CAMA regulation on the
housing industry. The second component of this section will
deal with housing permits, a general index of housing
activities that can be quantified.

Building Permits
The long-term outlook for housing is determined primarily
by demographic pressures and income growth. Housing starts in
North Carolina are expected to remain above the 70,000 unit
annual rate for the remainder of this decade before declining
slightly in the mid 1990s (OSBM, 1987). Housing starts are used
as an general economic index by federal and state governments
(Scheideler, 1989). Home construction, an important industry
for various reasons, employs many primary workers, as well as
numerous "spin-off" jobs. For this reason the housing industry
was selected as a means of determining overall economic
development in the coastal region and as a method for comparing
coastal growth with that of the entire state.

Two types of housing data are collected by the Bureau of
the Census: housing starts, and building permits.
Unfortunately, in this state, housing starts are only published
for Mecklenburg County (Scheideler, 1989). Building permits for
new homes, however, are compiled state-wide. The Census Bureau
points out that building permits do not represent the number of
units actually put into construction, and should not be directly
interpreted as "housing starts" (Census Bureau, 1985).

However, the continuing sample surveys made each month by
the Census Bureau indicate that-for the nation as a whole-
only two percent of the housing units authorized by
permits are never constructed. The surveys also show that
a major proportion of the 'units normally get under way
during the month of permit issuance, and that most of the
remainder are started within the following three months
(Census Bureau, 1985).

There are limitations to these data. These include:
building permits do not reflect residential construction outside
areas subject to local permit requirements; some new residential
construction works in permit jurisdiction escapes recording; and
finally, changes in the boundaries of permit-issuing places due
to annexations, new incorporations, etc., may result in some
problems of comparability in the statistics over time (Census
Bureau, 1985). Despite these limitations the Census Bureau
concludes,

To the extent that these limiting factors apply rather
consistently over an extended period, they may not
seriously impair the usefulness of building permit
statistics as indicators of trends in residential
construction activity (Census Bureau, 1985)

Therefore, housing permit data can be useful for indicating
building trends in the coastal region. Furthermore, if this
regional data is compared to state-wide data, a general index
between construction activity inside and outside CAMA regulated
counties can be obtained. The results of such a comparison are
presented below.

Building Permit Comparison
The data were obtained for residential (single-family and
multi-family) units from the U.S. Census Bureau. In accordance
with the Census Bureau's definition of a unit, one building
containing 50 apartments appears in these data as 50 housing
units (Census Bureau, 1987). These data do not include hotels,
motels, and other structures for transient accommodations.
Although these structures are obviously important in tourist
based economies, such as those present on the coast, collection
of these data was beyond the scope of this project.

As in the previous comparison of growth parameters, the
author wanted to use state-wide data for a control. The
building permit data for a single county was much smaller than
the state-wide data, therefore, a method was devised so that
these data could be compared. Using a simple proportional
equation, housing permit data was converted to "building permits
per 100,000 population". The method of conversion is shown.
below.

State-wide building permits (year) Permits
State-wide population (year) 100,000

County-wide building permits (year) Permits
County-wide population (year) 100,000

The building permit data were obtained for 1976 (pre-CAMA),
1978 (CAMA permitting began), 1982, and 1986. Population data
was obtained from the office of State Budget and Management's
"Profile" series (OSBM, 1986). In the following discussion, the
term building permits actually refers to building permits per
100,000 population. one final note regarding the data: not
all counties in North Carolina report building permit data or
the data was not published by the Bureau of Census. The
"U.S.Census Bureau Construction Report", from which these data
were obtained, publishes a relative standard error for the
building permit data. The average standard error for these data
is three percent, and it was assumed that this error would be
distributed evenly throughout the calculations.

The first analysis was a comparison between state-wide
residential building permit data and building permit data for
the CAMA regulated counties. This comparison was used as an
indicator of residential housing activity throughout the coastal
region during the study period (Figure 35). During 1976,
building permits in the 20 coastal counties were issued at a
rate slightly lower than the state-wide issuance rate. In 1978,
the trend was reversed; the coastal counties issuance rate was
somewhat higher than the state's rate. The author believed that
in anticipation of CAMA permitting regulations the issuance rate
for both 1976 and 1978 would greatly exceed the state's rate;
however, this was not the case. In 1982, however, the issuance
of permits in the coastal counties surpassed the state's permit
distribution by 37 percent. During 1986, the coastal counties'
exceeded the issuance rate for the state, although the rate
surplus decreased to 16 percent. One should be reminded that
these data were for county-wide housing activity and CAMA
regulates only three percent of the total area. This
comparison, however, suggests that despite CAMA regulations, the
issuance of building permits in the 20 coastal counties exceeded
the state's issuance rate. As reported throughout this study,
there is a wide discrepancy in trends as one makes county by
county comparisons. Therefore, to further analyze housing
permit data, the six selected counties were compared to the
state-wide permit trends.

The permit comparisons between the state's issuance rate
and the rate for individual counties presents some interesting
contrasts. Building permit for Beaufort and Carteret Counties
are presented in Figure 36. During 1976, Beaufort County

Year

500
1976
476

638
1978
698

5 7
1982
889

1070
1986 1255

_j
0 500 1000 ill-DOO

Building perMits/100,000

State EM Coastal Counties

Figure 35, comparison between state-wide building permits and
CAMA regulated counties' building permits. Data are presented as
building permits/100,000 population. Building permits are for
residential housing, including single-family and.multi-family
units. Study period includes 1976, 1978, 1982, and 1986
(Source: U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), 1977; USCB, 1979; USCB,
1983; and USCB, 1987; and OSBM, 1986).

Year

10 -17 6 500 874

12 7 R

638

1978 396

1900

557

1982 302 *

..........
..........
2 4 0 8

1070

-1986 368

.............
12 9 5
............

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

State Beaufort Co, Carteret Co,

Figure 36. Comparison between state-wide building permits' and
Beaufort and Carteret Counties' building permits. Data are
presented as building permits/100,000 population. Building
permits are for residential housing, including single-family and
multi-family units. Study period includes- 1976, 1978, 1982, and
1986 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), 1977; USCB, 1979; USCB,
1983; USCB, 1987; and OSBM, 1986).
@@500
@39 C
"3 0.2-

@368

exceeded the state's issuance rate by 42 percent, however, since
1978, the county's building permit issuance rate has been well
below that of the state. This trend is further supported by
data that were presented in earlier sections of this report.
When compared to the other case study counties, Beaufort is not
developing as rapidly as the ocean-front counties. Carteret
County, however, presents a much different picture.

In 1976, Carteret County's building permit issuance rate
was 2.5 times greater than the state's issuance rate. During
1978, this figure rose to almost three times greater than that
of the state's rate. During 1982, the issuance of building
permits in the county was 4.3 times greater than the state's
average. That figure fell drastically in 1986; the county's
issuance rate was 1.3 times greater than that of the state. As
in the comparison between all 20 counties and the state-wide
data, there is no way to fully assess how these rates would be
modified if CAMA regulation were not in effect. The previous
sections indicate that Carteret County is one of the fastest
growing counties in the state. The building permit data support
that fact.

The permit data for New Hanover and Brunswick Counties are
shown in Figure 37. Brunswick County's permitting rate was
below that of the state during 1976, however, the permitting
issuance rate in 1978 rose to 2.5 times greater than that
experienced state-wide. Building permit issuance was over three
times that of the state during 1982. In 1986, the county's
building activity slowed, although the permitting rate was
greater than that of the state. Brunswick County's building
permit trends, in combination with the county's other growth
parameters, suggests that Brunswick County will continue to grow
at a rate greater than state-wide mean. New Hanover County's
permitting rates surpassed the state's average during all of the
study periods, however, the county did not exhibit permit
issuance rates as large as some of the other case study
counties.

Figure 38 shows permitting activity for Currituck and Dare
counties. Dare County, the fastest growing county in the state,
showed an interesting permit trend. In 1976, before CAMA
permitting began, building inspectors in the county issued a
total of 3423 residential building permits. This represented an
issuance rate of almost seven times the state's rate during the
same period. During 1978, the year CAMA permitting began,
permit issuance decreased, but it still was over four times
greater than the state's average. It would be difficult to
pinpoint the reasons for this decline, although CAMA permitting
requirements may explain a segment of it. one further
explanation might be that during this period much of the
building activity was connected with hotel and motel
construction, a fact that is not shown by these data.
Residential housing permitting remained constant during 1982 and

Year

500
1976 1523
417

538
1978 834 1571

5-57
1982 795

18 4

1070
198c) 1543

1539

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Building permits/100,000

State N, Hanover Co, Brunswick Co.

Figure 37. Comparison between state-wide building permits and
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties' building permits. Data axe
presented as building permits/100,000 population. Building
permits are for residential housing, including single-family and
multi-family units. Study period includes 1976, 1978, 1982, and
1986 (Source: U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), 1977; USCB, 1979; USCB,
1983; USCB, 1987; and OSBM, 1986).

Year

. . . . . .. . . . . .
.......... ....
197 1460
.........................
....... .........
............... ......I.........

3423

...... ..........
...... ..........
............
1978 1336
FEZ . ......
2580

1982 908

2416

1070

...... ....
1986 2768

2464

0 2 3 4
(ThOLJsands)
Building permits/100,000

State = Currituck Co. M Dare Co.

Figure 38, Comparison betveen state-vide building permits and
Currituck and Dare Counties' building permits. Data are presented
as building permits/100,000 population. Building permits are for
residential housing, including single-family and multi-family
units. Study period includes 1976, 1978, 1982, and 1986 (Source:
U.S. Census Bureau (USCB), 1977; USCB, 1979; USCB, 1983; USCB,
1987; and OSBM, 1986).

1986, and the county's issuance rate was slightly greater than
two times that of the other counties in North Carolina. Based
on these data, it would appear that Dare County's housing
industry has not experienced any negative effects from CAMA
regulations.

As noted in an earlier section, Currituck County has
developed at a slower rate than many of the other ocean-front
counties. Currently, however, it is one of the fastest growing
counties in the state, and the building permit data seems to
support this fact. During 1976 and 1978, the county issued
building permits at a rate of 2.5 times greater than the state-
wide issuance rate. In 1982, the total number of building
permits fell to a rate slightly higher than the statels. There
was an overall decline in the state during the same period,
however, the decline was not as evident in the other selected
counties. In 1986, Currituck County issued building permits at
a greater rate than any of the other five counties, including
Dare, and at rate greater than 2.5 times that of the state.
These data, when considered with other growth indicators, seem
to suggest that Currituck County may continue to grow at a pace
greater than many of the other coastal counties.

Conclusions
Neither the questionnaire nor the building permit
comparison was designed to to be statistically analyzed. For
this reason, the results of these analyses are not conclusive.
When one considers both components of this exercise together,
the results, however, do point toward the same conclusion. CAMA
regulations have not slowed housing construction in the coastal
areas.

The survey participants are actively involved in the
construction industry in their areas, and the building permit
analysis generally supported their observations regarding the
effects of CAMA on the building trades. The author regrets that
the Home Builders Association chose not to participate in the
survey. The questionnaire was a forum, albeit a small one,
which enabled all the groups to express their opinions about
CAMA, positive or negative. The majority of the planners and
LPOs who responded thought CAMA has had little or no discernible
effect on the building industry in their area.

The Census Bureau and the State of North Carolina collect
and analyze building permit data to estimate the general status
of the building trades. There are many complex variables that
affect construction, and building permits are only one indicator
of building activity. The building permit comparison, however,
when combined with the other indicators of growth presented in
previous sections, does seem to indicate that the housing
industry in the 20 coastal counties has not been adversely
affected by the CAMA permitting system. The issuance of
building permits in some of the coastal counties was two to

three times greater than that of the state as a whole during the
same period. The reader is also reminded that these data did
not include hotel or motel construction activity. Based on the
travel expenditures presented earlier, one must assume that many
new motels and hotels are being constructed to accommodate this
market. Therefore, the author contends that the building permit
data presented here are actually understated.

It is hoped this analysis will serve as the foundation for
further analysis regarding the economic consequences of CAMk
regulations.

MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

During this study, I have taken great care to collect and
present these data in an objective manner. I began this project
with little background and with no preconceived ideas about
coastal development. I think that I have presented an accurate
description of the growth that has occurred in North Carolina's
coastal region during the past 15 years. In the final section
I present my personal opinions regarding CAMA and coastal
development in North Carolina. I emphasize that these opinions
are my own, and in no way are they intended to represent the
policies or opinions of any agency or other persons.

Prior to May 1988, 1 was unfamiliar with the Coastal Area
Management Act (CAMA). The only previous experience I had with
the North Carolina coast was an occasional trip to the beach.
During the past year, I've had the pleasure of working on two
projects involving the coastal area: this project, and a project
examining wastewater disposal problems and alternatives for
Carteret County. During the course of my studies, I developed a
deep respect for the coast and its citizens. I also developed an
understanding of the complex nature of coastal resource planning
and management, specifically, the difficulty of balancing human
needs and environmental limitations

This past year was interesting, frustrating, challenging,
stimulating, and rewarding. I've dissected population data,
travel and tourism data, building permits, CAMA permits, AECs,
LUPs, the CRAC, and the CRC. I've spoken with mayors, planners,
county commissioners, developers, retirees, wastewater treatment
plant operators, fishermen, county managers, tourists, bartenders,
marine scientists, children, environmentalists, and surfers. All
of these people had two things in common: they loved the coast,
and they were worried about how things were changing. To some,
change meant shellfish bed closings and overflowing septic tanks.
To others, change meant increased regulations and permits. I
believe these experiences and exchanges of ideas provided me with
some ideas for management recommendations for North Carolina's
coast. Not directed at any specific group, they are suggestions
shared with the reader in hopes of stimulating some action or some
response.

I The CAMA land use Rlans (LUP) should incorporate a
carrying capacity analysis into the Rianning Rrocess.
Many of coastal areas are reaching the limits of
the ecosystem's ability to supply water, accommodate
wastewater discharge, treat septic tank outflow, and
store solid waste. A carrying capacity analysis for each
county, similar to the study completed in Dare County,
should form the foundation of the new LUPs. These fragile
systems have limitations, and these limitations must be
included in the planning process. If the LUP process is

A II

to remain a useful tool for resource protection and
management, these plans must include carrying capacity
data.

A regional conference on waste management in coastal areas
should be organized by the Department of Natural Resources
and Community Develooment: including the Division of
Environmental Management, the Division of Coastal
Management, and the Coastal Resources Commission.
The management of waste, both liquid and solid, is
the most serious problem facing the coastal region.
Many of the ocean-front communities are experiencing
water quality problems because of the overloading of
wastewater treatment plants and failing septic tanks.
In some coastal counties, solid waste disposal facilities
are rapidly filling up; some sites will close during the
1990s. As noted in the population section, peak seasonal
populations can exceed permanent populations by as much
as ten times. These seasonal populations overload
existing treatment systems, and produce tremendous amounts
of solid waste. Waste disposal should be examined from a
regional viewpoint rather than by a single county plan.
I believe that a group of counties could cooperate to
build a regional waste disposal system large enough to
handle seasonal loads, but economically feasible enough to
serve permanent populations. Almost all of the coastal
counties are connected by adjacent water bodies.
Therefore, one county's water quality problem is really a
regional water quality problem. The state must provide
technical assistance to coastal counties now experiencing
water quality problems. Many of the water quality
problems in the coastal area begin in the inland counties.

A study should be conducted to determine the positive
effects of CAMA regplations.
This study indicates that CAMA regulations have had little
effect on coastal growth and development. In my opinion,
much of the criticisms directed at CAMA's supposed
economic effects are unfounded. Morever, I suspect that
CAMA has had a positive rather than a negative economic
effect on the coastal area. The travel and tourism
industry is a good example. Tourism is based on the
amenities regulated by CAMA. One of the major reasons
people visit the coast is to experience the ocean-front
beaches and the estuaries. Therefore, CAMA regulations
are responsible for protecting the basis of an industry
that grossed over $1.14 billion in 1987. Property values
have increased drasticall- during the past 15 years. Some
.Y
planners expressed the belief that these increases are
directly due to CAMA regulations. Further research is
needed to evaluate the true economic benefits of CAMA. A
study, similar to this one, might uncover data to support
this theory. Finally, the public must be educated

concerning the continuing economic value of CAMA
regulations and coastal zone management in general. There
is a growing interest in the protection of coastal
resources. Educa"tional seminars should be conducted in
inland regions as well as on the coast. The management of
North Carolina's coastal resources is important to all of
its citizens.

The men and women who designed and wrote the Coastal Area
Management Act were true visionaries. They were able to imagine
North Carolina's coast 15 years into the future. What they
imagined has come to pass, perhaps at a rate even beyond what they
envisioned. The next test for CAMA will be the ensuing 15 years.
I would hope that someone will conduct a similar study in the
future and conclude that the coast of North Carolina is a place
where environmental ethics and human needs have coexisted in
harmony.

4 11
I
Appendix 1. CAMA/Coastal Development Questionnaire. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
59 1

QUESTIONNAIRE

1) How long have you been employed as a Local Permit Officer for
your county?

2.) In your opinion, has CAMA had a positive or negative effect on
housing construction in your area?

If positive, could you please list an example of one positive
effect.

If negative, could you please list an example of one negative
effect.

3) In your opinion, is CAMA supported by the majority of citizens
in your county?

4) In your opinion, has CAMA caused any economic hardships on the
building trades in your area?

If yes, could you list an example of one such hardship?

5) Have CAMA regulations steered coastal devel opment from
environmentally fragile areas, such as estuarine shorelines or
oceanfront areas, to locations suited for development but not
covered by CAMA regulations, e.g.inland areas?

6) In your opinion, has CAMA had a positive or negative effect on
P
the overall economic growth in your area?

If positive, could yuu list an example of a positive effect.

If negative, could you list an example of a negative effect

7.) Have you noted an increased awareness (e.g. more interest.) toward
planning and growth management in your area?

If yes, why@)

8) Any comments?

THANK YOU

QUESTIONNAIRE

1) How long have you been employed as a planner for your county?

2) Are you familiar with the permitting process required by the
Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA.)?

3) In your opinion, has CAMA had a positive or negative effect on
housing construction in your area?

If positive, could you please list an example of one positive
effect.

If negative, could you please list an example of one negative
effect.

4) In your opinion, is CAMA supported by the majority of citizens in
your county?

5) In your opinion, has CAMA caused any economic hardships on the
building trades in your area?

If yes, could you list an example of one such hardship?

6) Have CAMA regulations steered coastal development from
environmentally fragile areas, such as estuarine shorelines or
oceanfront areas, to locations suited for development but not
covered by CAMA regulations, e.g.inland areas?

7) In your opinion, has CAMA had a positive or negative effect on
P
the overall economic growth in your area?

If positive, could you list an example of a positive effect.

If negative, could you list an example of a negative effect

8) In your opinion, have CAMA regulations made your planning job
easier, or more complicated?

Easier, why?

More complicated, why?

9.) Have you noted an increased awareness (e.g. more interest) toward
planning and growth management in your area?

If yes, why?

10) Any comments?

THANK YOU

LITERATURE CITED

Albemarle Regional Planning and Development Commission. 1987.
The Albemarle Regional Planning and Development Commission's
1987 Overall Economic Development Plan Update. Planning
Region R.

Armingeon, N. A., M. K. Gausling, J. D. Hebert, M. J. Mahon,
J. E. Nowell, J. P. Ple, and A. M. Romano. 1989.
Wastewater disposal in Carteret County: public opinion and
alternatives. Duke University, Durham, NC. 65 pp.

Atlantic Beach. 1988. Land Use Plan Update: Town of Atlantic
Beach, North Carolina. 87 pp.

Bellis, V., M. P. O'Conner, and S. R. Riggs. 1975. Estuarine
shoreline erosion in the Albemarle-Pamlico region of North
Carolina. UNC Sea Grant publication SG-75-29. 12 pp.

Barnett, J. 1988, May 22. "Tourism: N.C.'s fast-rising
industry". The News and Observer [Raleigh, NC]. p. 1-2 1.

Brunswick County. 1987. Brunswick County Land Use Plan and
Policies for Growth and Development. 154 pp.

Carolina Beach. 1986. Blueprint for the Future: Town of
Carolina Beach Land Use Plan. 199 pp.

Carteret County. 1985. Carteret County Land Use Plan.
209 pp.

Copeland, B. J., R. G. Hodson, and S. R. Riggs. 1984. The
ecology of the Pamlico River, North Carolina: An estuarine
profile. United States Fish and Wildlife Service FWS/OBS-
82/06. 83 pp.

Currituck County. 1986. Currituck County Land Use Plan.
109 pp.

Dare County. 1988. Dare County Land Use Plan and Policies for
Growth and Development. 136 pp.
Division of Coastal Management. 1988. @rotecting coastal
resources through the CAMA permit process. North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development,
Raleigh, NC. 84 pp.

Finger, B. and B. Jacobs. 1982. Coastal Management. NCINSIGHT.
5(1): 2-13.

Heath, M. S. and A. C. Mosley. :1980. The Coastal Area
Management Act: a progress report. Popular Government
45(4): 1-6.

Kill Devil Hills. 1987. Town of Kill Devil Hills Land Use Plan.
115 pp.

Kure Beach. 1986. Land Use Plain Update-Kure Beach, NC. 50 pp.

Liner, C. D. 1980. The impact of state regulation of coastal
regulation in North Carolina. Institute of Government. The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 120 pp.

Mather, T. 1988, September 18. "Pollution fouling state's
coastal waters". The News -and Observer (Raleigh, NC].
p. 10A.

McGuire, K. 1983, October 30. "Coastal program faces stormy
seas". Sunday-Star News [Wilmington, NC]. pp. 1A, 9A,
and 10A.

Miller, J. M., and P. Rublee. 1981. Ecological considerations
for highways in coastal wetlands (Part II). North Carolina
Department of Transportation, Division of Highways, Raleigh,
NC. 154 pp.

Nags Head. 1985. Town of Nags Head, North Carolina. Land Use
Plan Update. 103 pp.

News and Observer. 1988, December 29. "Property values in
Carteret double from 181 to $3 billion". The News and
Observer [Raleigh, NCJ. p. 12C.

News and observer. 1989, April 4. 11$40 million project planned
on south shore of Pamlico". The News and Observer [Raleigh,
NCJ. p. 5B.

North Carolina General Statute 113-102 (b).

North Carolina Travel Study. 1972. Division of Travel and
Tourism, Department of Commerce, Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Travel Study. 1979. Division of Travel and
Tourism, Department of Commerce, Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Travel Study. 1983. Division of Travel and
Tourism, Department of Commerce, Raleigh, NC.

North Carolina Travel Study (Technical Report). 1987. Division
of Travel and Tourism, Department of Commerce, Raleigh, NC.
53 pp.

ocean Isle. 1987. Ocean Isle Beach, North Carolina CAMA Land
Use. 70 pp.

Office of State Budget and Management. 1986. Profile, North
Carolina Counties. Seventh Edition. Management and
Information Services. Raleigh, NC. 300 pp.

Office of State Budget and Management. 1987. North Carolina
long-term economic-demographic projections. Management and
Information Services. Raleigh, NC. 30 pp.

Office of State Budget and Management. 1988. North Carolina
population projections: 1988-2010. Management and
Information Services. Raleigh, NC. 31 pp.

Olson, J. 1989, April 2. "Rocky beginning didn't kill coastal
management plan". Sunday Star-News. [Wilmington, NC].
pp. 1A, 8A, and 9A.

Olson, J. 1989, April 3. "Development thrives on coast".
Wilmington Morning Star. [Wilmington, NC]. pp. 1A, 8A,
and 9A.

Owens, D. W. 1985. Coastal management in North Carolina.
American Planning Association Journal 51: 322-329.

Owens, D. W. 1987 . North Carolina regulatory systems for
development. In: Coastal Zone 187. eds. 0. T. Magoon, H.
Converse. D. Miner, L. T. Tobin, D. Clark! and G. Domurat.
(2): 1480-1486.

Parker, J. 1989. Personal communication. Chief Permit
Officer, Division of Coastal Management. Raleigh, NC.

Phillips, J. D. 1985. Pamlico river shore development trends,
1976-1984, and conservation alternatives. Pamlico-Tar River
Foundation, Washington, NC. 6 pp.

Pilkey, 0. H., Jr., W. J. Neal, and 0. H. Pilkey, Sr. 1978.
From Currituck To Calabash. North Carolina Science and
Technology Research Center. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. 228 pp.

Richardson, D.K. 1978. The Cost Of Environmental Protection:
Regulating Housing Development In the Coastal Zone. Center
for Urban Policy Research. Rutgers-The State University of
New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey. 278 pp.

Scheideler, W. 1989. Personal communication. Statistician,
Management and Information Services. Office of State Budget
and Management, Raleigh, NC.

Stick, D. 1982. Historical perspectives of Albemarle Sound,
pages 3-6 In: Albemarle Sound trends and management. UNC
Sea Grant publication SG-82--02. 92 pp.

Sunset Beach. 1987. Town of Sunset Beach Land Use Plan
Update. 78 pp.

United States Bureau of the Census. 1977. Construction Reports-
Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits and Public
Contracts, Annual 1976. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.. 110 pp.

United States Bureau of the Census. 1979. Construction Reports-
Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits and Public
Contracts, Annual 1978. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.. 108 pp.

United States Bureau of the Census. 1983. Construction Reports-
Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits and Public
Contracts, Annual, 1982. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.. 110 pp.

United States Bureau of the Census. 1985. Construction Reports-
Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits and Public
Contracts, Annual, 1984. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.. 110 pp.

United States Bureau of the Census. 1987. Construction Reports-
Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits and Public
Contracts, Annual, 1986. U.S. Government printing Office,
Washington, D.C.. 110 pp.

United States Department of Interior. 1987. Draft report to
Congress: coastal resources system, executive summary.
Coastal Barrier Study Group, Washington, D.C.. 25 pp.

Wrightsville Beach. 1986. Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina
CAMA Land Use Plan. 87 pp.

'lip; -1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
limmillim
3 6668 14101 8988_