Coastal Trends Report Series

Population Trends Along the

Coastal United States: 1980-2008 U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service
Cover Photo: Ocean City, MD; Kevin Fleming, Corbis

Panel Photo: North Miami Beach, FL; Mr. William Folsom, NMFS/NOAA

Inside Cover Photo: Charleston, SC; K. Crossett, NOS/NOAA

c

Assessing the effects of current and projected population growth and development

in the nation’s coastal areas has been a continuing effort within the Special

Projects office of NOAA’s National Ocean Service. The mission of Special Projects

is to enhance the performance and capacity of NOAA’s National Ocean Service and

its partners through strategic problem solving, integration, and innovation, as well

as to ensure more effective and efficient delivery of products and services to the

coastal stewardship community. Special Projects conducts analyses and

assessments for coastal areas and works to identify issues and solutions, assemble

and synthesize data, evaluate and prioritize options, and develop products that

support quality coastal resource management.

This report updates a previous report issued by Special Projects that was compiled

over a decade ago. It provides coastal population data, trends, and projections,

and is intended to help provide insight as to where coastal population has occurred

in the past few decades and where it is likely to occur in the next five years. This

report will also be included in the Assessments section of NOAA’s forthcoming

Spatial Trends in Coastal Socioeconomics (STICS) Web site

(http://stics.noaa.gov).
Population Trends Along

the Coastal United States:

1980-2008

Kristen M. Crossett

Thomas J. Culliton

Peter C. Wiley

Timothy R. Goodspeed

September 2004

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA’s National Ocean Service

Management and Budget Office

Special Projects

Coastal Trends Report Series
2

3

6

9

11

14

14

16

22

18

20

24

26

27

2

1

3

Introduction

Geographic Units

Population Data

National Overview

Regional and State Trends

Population in Coastal Counties

Building Along the Coast

Characteristics of the Coastal Population

Regional Trends

Northeast Region

Southeast Region

Gulf of Mexico Region

Pacific Region

Great Lakes Region

Population by Coastal Watershed

Conclusion

References

Appendix A. Population Change

Appendix B. Total Housing Units

Appendix C. Northeast

Appendix D. Southeast

Appendix E. Gulf of Mexico

Appendix F. Pacific

Appendix G. Great Lakes

31

32

36

39

42

45

Figures

Figure 1. Regional distribution of nation’s coastal population

Figure 2. Coastal county population in 2003

Figure 3. Coastal county percent population change in 2003

Figure 4. Population density of the United States, coastal states,

 coastal counties, and noncoastal counties from 1980 to

 2008

Figure 5. Coastal county population density in 2003

Figure 6. Seasonal housing units in 2000

Figure 7. Population by age group

Figure 8. Coastal and noncoastal median household income by

 region in 2000

Figure 9. Median household income in 2000

Figure 10. Projected population change in the Northeast region,

 2003-2008

Figure 11. Projected percent population change in the Northeast

 region, 2003-2008

Figure 12. Projected population change in the Southeast region,

 2003-2008

Figure 13. Projected percent population change in the Southeast

 region, 2003-2008

Figure 14. Projected population change in the Gulf of Mexico

 region, 2003-2008

Figure 15. Projected percent population change in the Gulf of

 Mexico region, 2003-2008

Tables

Table 1. Coastal geographic regions, coastal states, and

 coastal counties

Table 2. Leading states in coastal population growth,

 1980-2003

Table 3. Leading coastal states in number of building

 permits issued from 1998 to 2002

Figure 16. Projected population change in the Pacific region,

 2003-2008

Figure 18. Projected population change in the Great Lakes region,

 2003-2008

Figure 19. Projected percent population change in the Great Lakes

 region, 2003-2008

Figure 17. Projected percent population change in the Pacific

 region, 2003-2008

Figure 20. Ten most populated coastal watersheds with their

 associated population density for 2000

Figure 21. Population change in coastal watersheds, 1980-2000

30

2

3

9

4

3

7

10

11

13

15

15

17

17

19

19

21

21

23

23

24

25

12

8

5

Table of Contents
South Florida; South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)

Coastal areas are also subject to major population

influxes during peak vacation periods. Ocean City, MD,

for example, had almost 4 million seasonal visitors

between the Memorial Day and Labor Day holidays in

2003 (Ocean City Public Relations Office, 2004). With

more people comes the need for increased infrastructure,

which may lead to even more negative effects on natural

resources (National Safety Council, 1998). In the next

few decades, coastal areas will also see a growing

proportion of older Americans and an

unprecedented number of Americans

reaching retirement age. This also has

the potential to place demands on

coastal resources as there will be more

time for people to enjoy the many

coastal amenities (Culliton, 1998).

This report updates a previous population report issued

by the National Ocean Service, NOAA (Culliton et al.,

1990) and focuses on population change along our

nation’s coast from 1980 to 2008. Historical population

trends and short-term projections of population change

in the nation’s coastal areas are provided. It is

anticipated that coastal decision makers and

stakeholders will use this update to enhance coastal

management.

Coastal areas are home to a wealth of natural

resources and are rich with diverse species, habitat

types, and nutrients (WRI, 2000). They also sustain

a wealth of economic activity. Employment, recreation

and tourism, waterborne commerce, and energy and

mineral production are driving forces of population

migration to these areas (Bookman et al., 1999; The

Heinz Center, 2000; U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy,

2004). Coastal management policies seek to balance

economic growth and environmental protection. The

value of coastal resources is illustrated in the breadth

and depth of their use. Ironically, the qualities that

make them so desirable are the very ones that have

led to their endangerment.

Coastal ecosystems are pressured by population growth,

leaving them vulnerable to pollution, habitat degradation

and loss, overfishing, invasive species, and increased

coastal hazards such as sea-level rise (WRI, 2000;

Hinrichsen, 1998; National Safety Council, 1998). It was

estimated that in 2003, approximately 153 million

people (53 percent of the nation’s population) lived in the

673 U.S. coastal counties, an increase of 33 million

people since 1980. With such a large percentage of the

population living in coastal areas, it

is no wonder that 10 of the 15 most

populous cities in the United States

are located in coastal counties (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2001d).

Since 1980, coastal population

growth has generally reflected the same rate of growth

as the entire nation, but in the limited space of coastal

counties. This increasing density, coupled with the fastgrowing economy of coastal areas (Colgan, 2004), will

make the task of managing coastal resources

increasingly difficult, especially with the nation’s coastal

population expected to increase by more than 7 million

by 2008 and 12 million by 2015 (W&PE, 2003).

7

Introduction

1

An estimated 153

million people lived in

coastal counties in 2003.
1

Physical boundaries and natural characteristics of the

landscape, such as watersheds, provide meaningful

geographic areas to evaluate the environmental

consequences of a growing population. However, local

and community-level decisions and legislation are usually

made within the frame of political boundaries. The U.S.

Census Bureau compiles population data using several

different geographic units. There are 30 coastal states in

the United States containing a total of 673 coastal

counties, boroughs, parishes, or county equivalents.

NOAA’s Special Projects office defines a county as coastal

if one of the following criteria is met: (1) at a minimum,

15 percent of the county’s total land area is located

within a coastal watershed or (2) a portion of or an entire

county accounts for at least 15 percent of a coastal

cataloging unit. For the purposes of this report, coastal

states and counties are grouped into five regions:

Northeast, Southeast, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and Great

Lakes. The number of states and coastal counties

contained in each region is shown below.

to the state level and compared both to state projections

developed by the U.S. Census Bureau and to each other.

At the state level, all three datasets were comparable,

not demonstrating significant differences. After further

analyses, the Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., dataset

demonstrated more conservative population projection

estimates, and was used for this report.

Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., employs a four-step

process to generate county population projections. First,

forecasts of total United States variables such as income,

earnings, population, and inflation are made. Second,

the country is divided into 172 Economic Areas (EA).

Employment is projected and used to estimate earnings

within each EA. EAs are defined by the Bureau of

Economic Analysis to meet minimum size and other

criteria necessary to facilitate regional analyses such as

projections. County to county commuting flows are

analyzed in defining the EA boundaries in an effort to

ensure that, to the extent possible, each EA is both the

place of work and the place of residence for its labor force

(Johnson, 1995). Third, total population for each EA is

projected based on net migration rates projected from

employment opportunities. Last, following this process

using EAs as the control data, county population

projections are generated (W&PE, 2003).

Making estimates of future data is not an exact science.

The methods Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., employ

to make projections are based on analysis of historical

data. Consequently, limitations are inherent to the data,

and projections should not be interpreted as future

predictions. Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. (2003)

notes that economic and demographic events may result

in outcomes different from the projections and that

limitations may result from making projections for small

geographic areas. Ultimately, the projections presented

in this report are not intended to highlight the projected

population change of individual counties but rather to

present, on a regional basis, where change is likely to

occur.

Population data for U.S. counties for 1980, 1990, 2000,

and 2003 were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau.

The U.S. Census Bureau does not make population

projections for the county level, but rather at the state

and national levels. County-level population projections

were obtained from three private firms and compared.

Datasets from Geolytics, Inc., NPA Data Services, Inc.,

and Woods and Poole Economics, Inc., were aggregated

TABLE 1. Coastal geographic regions, states, and counties

Source: National Ocean Service/NOAA

Geographic Units

Population Data

72

Introduction

Region

Number

of States

Number of

Coastal Counties

114658180

103

144

88

158

Northeast

Southeast

Gulf of Mexico

Pacific

Great Lakes

Land Area

(Sq. Mi.)

82,124

63,516

116,644

511,073

115,418
Our coasts are among the most rapidly growing and

developed areas in the nation. In 2003, the coastal

population was greatest in the Northeast and Pacific

regions, followed by the Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, and

finally the Southeast. Figure 1 shows the regional

distribution of coastal population in 2003. Figure 2 shows

the distribution of this population on a county basis.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Great Lakes

18%

Pacific

26%

Gulf of

Mexico

13%

Southeast

9%

Northeast

34%

7

Total coastal population between the years 1980 and

2003 increased by 33 million people or 28 percent,

roughly consistent with the nation’s rate of increase.

Coastal population within the Pacific region showed the

largest gain during this time with almost 12 million

people, followed by the Northeast with 8 million people.

The Southeast region, however, exhibited the largest rate

of change with a 58 percent increase, followed by the

Pacific at 46 percent, and the Gulf of Mexico at 45

percent. The rate of growth in the Northeast and Great

Lakes regions was considerably smaller with 18 percent

and 6 percent increases, respectively. Percent population

change in coastal counties is presented in Figure 3.

The Southeast has increasingly become a leading

destination for retirees and job-seekers. Between the

years 1995 and 2000, the Census Bureau reported that

the highest levels of migration were to states that fall

within the Southeast region and the Gulf of Mexico

region, particularly to Florida, Georgia, and North

Carolina (Franklin, 2003).

In contrast, the lowest levels of migration were to states

found in the Northeast region. Additionally, New York,

Pennsylvania, and New Jersey saw a considerable

amount of population lost to out-migration during this

period (Franklin, 2003).

The leading states in terms of absolute and percent

coastal population change during the past two decades

are found in Table 2. California led in coastal population

change, increasing by 9.9 million people, over twice the

growth of any other state (with the exception of Florida).

This represents an increase of 1,179 persons every day

in California’s coastal areas. The coastal population

change in Florida ranks second, accounting for an

additional 7.1 million people. Other leaders in coastal

population change included Texas, Washington, and

Michigan. Of the states listed, half are within the

Northeast region alone.

As one of the main drivers of coastal population increase

in the Southeast and Gulf of Mexico regions, Florida

shows the greatest percent population change between

1980 and 2003, reaching nearly 75 percent. Alaska and

Washington also show high rates of growth, increasing by

63 percent and 54 percent, respectively.

National Overview

FIGURE 1. Regional distribution of the nation’s coastal population

in 2003

Regional and State Trends

3

State

Total Change

(Million Persons) State

Percent

Change

California

Florida

Texas

Washington

Virginia

New York

New Jersey

Maryland

Michigan

Massachusetts

Florida

Alaska

Washington

Texas

Virginia

California

New Hampshire

Delaware

Georgia

South Carolina

9.9

7.1

2.5

1.7

1.6

1.6

1.2

1.2

0.8

0.7

75

63

54

52

48

47

46

38

35

33

TABLE 2. Leading states in coastal population growth, 1980-2003

Source: U.S. Census Bureau
FIGURE 2. Coastal county population in 2003

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Leading Coastal Counties in Population in 2003 (Millions)

Los Angeles, CA 9.9

Cook, IL 5.4

Harris, TX 3.6

Orange, CA 3.0

San Diego, CA

Kings (Brooklyn), NY

2.9

2.5

74

National Overview
FIGURE 3. Coastal county percent population change

in 2003

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Leading Coastal Counties in Percent

Population Change, 1980 to 2003

Flagler, FL 470

Osceola, FL 318

Matanuska-Susitna, AK 284

Camden, GA 240

Collier, FL

Hernando, FL

233

223

75

National Overview
Population Trends leading coastal county in population increase in the years

to come (2003-2008). It, along with Orange, San

Bernardino, and Riverside counties, CA, will account for

12 percent of the nation’s expected total coastal

population increase. Counties in South Florida (Broward,

Palm Beach, Orange, and Miami-Dade) along with Harris

County, TX, also are anticipated to experience major

growth during this period.

The largest rate of change from 1980 to 2003 occurred

in coastal counties found in Florida,

Alaska, Georgia, Texas, and Virginia.

Flagler County, FL, located in the

Southeast, increased 470 percent,

followed by Osceola County, FL, at

318 percent. Several additional

counties in Florida experienced

substantial rates of increase during

this time as well. Florida has increasingly become a

“retirement magnet,” a migratory destination for retirees

in recent decades (Frey, 2003). The largest state-tostate migration between 1995 to 2000, for example, was

from New York to Florida, reflecting this migratory trend

(Perry, 2003).

Despite the continual population growth in coastal

counties, recent trends have also shown an increase in

migration from coastal states to noncoastal states. For

instance, from 1995 to 2000, California contributed to

large migration flows to Nevada and Arizona (attributed

to retiree migration and other economic factors) (Perry,

2003). In addition, California has contributed to at least

one-third of Colorado’s net migration during this period

(Perry, 2003). At the county level, Maricopa County, AZ,

and Clark County, NV, are expected to be two of the four

leading counties in population growth in the entire United

States from 2003 to 2008. Overall, from 1990-2003,

noncoastal counties emerged as having a greater

population increase than coastal counties. This greater

population growth and percent change in noncoastal

counties is expected to continue from 2003 to 2008.

Population in Coastal Counties

76

National Overview

Coastal counties constitute only 17 percent of the total

land area of the United States (not including Alaska), but

account for 53 percent of the total population. This ratio

of coastal county population to the population of the

United States as a whole has remained relatively stable

(between approximately 52 and 54 percent) since 1970.

Coastal county population is not growing significantly

faster than noncoastal population, but rather, it is the

continued population growth in the

limited land area of coastal counties

that is of growing importance and

the focus of increasing attention.

Of the 10 coastal counties that

experienced the greatest increases

in population from 1980 to 2003, six

Coastal counties contain

53% of the nation’s

population, yet, excluding

Alaska, account for only

17% of U.S. land area.

Washington, DC; Hisham S. Ibrahim/

Getty Images

are in California, three

are in Florida, and one is

in Texas. The combined

population increase of

these 10 counties alone

accounts for 30 percent

of the coastal population

growth during this

period. Los Angeles, CA,

had the highest growth

overall, followed by

Harris, TX, and Riverside,

CA. In contrast,

approximately 14 percent

of all U.S. coastal

counties (the majority

located in the Great

Lakes and Northeast

regions) lost population.

It is projected that San

Diego, CA, will be the
San Francisco, CA; Jeremy Woodhouse/Getty Images

Leading States in Coastal Population

Density in 2003 (Persons per Square Mile)

Illinois

New Jersey

Rhode Island

4,330

1,208

1,030

Massachusetts

Pennsylvania

Connecticut

939

794

719

United

States

Coastal

States

Coastal

Counties

Noncoastal

Counties

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

1980 1990 2000 2003 2008

Persons per Square Mile

7

Population Density

National Overview

Most of the nation’s most densely populated areas are

located along the coast. In fact, 23 of the 25 most

densely populated U.S. counties are coastal. Coastal

counties average 300 persons per square mile, much

higher than the national average of 98 persons per

square mile (population density values presented in this

report exclude Alaska because its extensive coastal land

area dilutes the national average). The most densely

populated counties in the nation, New York (Manhattan),

Kings (Brooklyn), Bronx, and Queens comprise portions

of New York City. Together, these counties average

almost 39 thousand persons per square mile.

Since 1980, population density has increased in coastal

counties by 65 persons per square mile, or by 28 percent.

By 2008, it is expected to increase by 13 persons per

square mile, or 4 percent. The ratio of national,

FIGURE 4. Population density of the United States, coastal

states, coastal counties and noncoastal counties from 1980

to 2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

coastal state, and noncoastal county population density

to coastal population density has remained relatively

constant since 1980 (only fluctuating by fractions of a

percent). Figure 4 demonstrates this trend. For

example, the population density of the nation as a whole

has been approximately one-third that of coastal

counties throughout this period. The population density

of noncoastal counties has remained between 18% and

19% of coastal county population density. Figure 5

shows the population density of coastal counties

nationwide.
FIGURE 5. Coastal county population density in 2003

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

NewYork, NY

Kings, NY

Bronx, NY

Queens, NY

San Francisco, CA

Hudson, NJ

16

13

Leading Coastal Counties in Population

Density in 2003 (Thousands of Persons per Square Mile)

68

35

32

20

78

National Overview
7

In 2000, coastal counties contained 52 percent of the

nation’s total housing supply (comparable to the

proportion of coastal population to total U.S.

population). The leading states in total housing units in

coastal counties were California, Florida, and New York.

Together, these states comprised 41 percent of the

coastal county total.

At the county level, Los Angeles County, CA, had the

highest number of housing units at approximately 3.3

million, double that of any other county except Cook

County, IL, with 2.1 million housing units. Total housing

units within coastal counties are shown in Appendix B.

Commercial, hotel, and recreational construction is an

important component of the coastal economy and

contributes significantly to overall development in some

areas.

The construction of single-family and multi-family homes

may act as an indicator of both economic growth as well

as increased “sprawl” along the coastline. The number

of building permits issued for homes helps pinpoint where

the greatest amount of residential development has

occurred. In coastal counties from 1999 to 2003, 2.8

million building permits were issued for the construction

of single-family housing units (43% of the nation’s total)

and 1 million building permits were issued for the

construction of multi-family housing

units (51% of the nation’s total). Within

this five-year period, the leading states

in single-family unit construction were

found in all five regions. Florida and

California combined made up 37% of all

permits issued for single-family units

and 42% of all multi-family units in coastal counties (U.S.

Census Bureau, 2000, 2001a, 2002, 2003a, 2004). Table

3 shows the 10 leading states in coastal residential

housing construction during this five-year period.

TABLE 3. Leading coastal states in building permits issued for

single-family and multi-family housing units from 1999 to 2003.

One component of total housing

units is seasonal or vacation

homes. The location and growth

in the number of seasonal

housing units indicate areas

where people congregate seasonally or for short periods.

In 2000, there were approximately 2.1 million seasonal

homes in coastal counties (54 percent of the nation’s

total). Florida had the largest number of seasonal

housing units, 24 percent of the coastal county total,

followed by Michigan, California, and New York. Figure 6

shows total seasonal housing units within coastal

counties in 2000.

Several coastal counties that are low in population

emerge as being popular seasonal destinations. For

instance, looking beyond the dominance of Florida and

Southern California, large numbers of seasonal homes

are found in Maine, the Outer Banks of North Carolina,

northern Michigan, Maryland, and Delaware (Figure 6).

It is important to note that some coastal counties and

communities are subject to intense development not

indicated by total housing or seasonal housing numbers.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Housing

Seasonal Housing

Building Permits

Building Along the Coast

9

National Overview

More than 1,540 singlefamily housing units are

permitted for construction

every day in coastal counties.

State

Building Permits for

Single-Family Units

(Thousands) State

Florida

California

Texas

Michigan

Virginia

Washington

New Jersey

Maryland

New York

Pennsylvania

Florida

California

New York

Texas

Washington

Illinois

New Jersey

Virginia

Michigan

Maryland

607

443

199

193

142

118

113

105

101

90

264

186

103

66

53

45

42

40

36

26

Building Permits for

Multi-Family Units

(Thousands)
FIGURE 6. Seasonal housing units in 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Leading States in Coastal Seasonal Housing in 2000 (Thousands)

Florida 506

Michigan 230

California 177

New York 173

New Jersey 115

Massachusetts 95

107

National Overview
7

The breakdown of age groups can be a useful method to

gauge the direction of population in coastal counties with

regard to community lifestyle priorities (e.g., active

marine recreation, family-oriented activities, seniororiented features). Figure 7 provides a breakdown of age

groups in 2000 for coastal and noncoastal

counties. The majority of the

population within each age group

lives in coastal counties. The

difference between coastal and

noncoastal county population is

largest in the under-16 age group

and in the 35-44 age group, which

encompasses a significant portion

of the Baby Boomer generation. In

these age groups, coastal county population exceeded

noncoastal population by approximately 3.2 and 3.3

million persons, respectively. In 2000, Baby Boomers

ranged in age from 36 to 54 (Center for Health

Communication, Harvard School of Public Health, 2004).

In coastal counties, over the 20-year period from 1980

to 2000, the 35–44 and 45–54 age groups saw

a significant increase in population, rising from 21

percent of the total coastal population to 30 percent of

the total coastal population. The proportion of young

adults (aged 18-24) fell from 13 percent to 9 percent of

the total during this same time period. However, in the

year 2000, the proportion of the population within each

age group that resided in coastal counties (and within

each specific coastal region) was relatively consistent

with the national average (falling

within 1 to 2 percent).

The oldest age group (65 and older)

is often one of special interest

because of the assumption that older

Americans retire to warmer areas

near the ocean. The data do not show

any great change over the years, as

this group increased 1 percent of the total coastal

population each decade (from 1980 to 2000). Of growing

attention, however, is the number of Americans that will

enter the 65 and over age group in the upcoming

decades.

Age

FIGURE 7. Population by age group in coastal and noncoastal

counties in 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Characteristics of the Coastal Population

11

National Overview

20

15

10

5

0

<16 16-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

Age Groups

25

35

30

Number of Persons

(Millions)

Coastal Counties Noncoastal Counties

Patuxent River, Maryland; Mary Holinger NODC/NOAA

Between 1980 and 2000,

middle-aged adults rose

from 21 to 30 percent of

the population

in coastal counties.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

FIGURE 8. Coastal and noncoastal median

household income (county average) by region in 2000 Median Household Income (County Average) (Dollars)

Coastal Counties Noncoastal Counties

Income is a demographic attribute that can be very

illustrative in the study of the geographic patterns of

population. The geographic breakdown of income in

coastal counties and between coastal and noncoastal

counties can be an important determinant of why certain

geographic areas are chosen over others and what

attributes are important to residency patterns. Figure 9

shows the median household income of coastal counties.

Counties that fall within the highest

category (median household

income greater than $58,000)

appear to surround, are adjacent

to, or are within commuting

distance of large cities such as New

York, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago,

Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Counties exhibiting the

lowest median household income category (less than

$34,000) tend to be found in more rural areas,

particularly in the Southeast and Gulf of Mexico regions.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

Northeast Southeast Gulf of

Mexico

Pacific Great

Lakes

On average, coastal counties have a higher median

household income than noncoastal counties, differing by

almost 17%. However, this difference decreases when

coastal counties are compared to noncoastal counties

within coastal states. The difference in average median

household income is reduced to 14%.

Median household income within coastal and noncoastal

counties also differs within regions (Figure 8) as the

location of large cities and the cost of living may vary. For

instance, in the Northeast region, the

average median household income in

coastal counties is almost $13,000

greater than noncoastal counties.

The Pacific region shows a similar

pattern with a difference of $8,600.

In the Gulf of Mexico region, there is

less than one percent difference

between coastal and noncoastal counties. The Southeast

region is the only region where the average of median

household income of noncoastal counties exceeds coastal

counties.

Income

127

National Overview

Median household income

for coastal counties is

approximately 17% higher

than noncoastal counties.

Baltimore and Montgomery Counties, MD; M. Crossett
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

FIGURE 9. Median household income in 2000

Leading States in Median Household Income in 2000 (Dollars)

Connecticut

New Jersey

55,500

55,200

Maryland

Massachusetts

51,300

48,900

California

New Hampshire

48,700

48,700

13

National Overview
New York, NY; Corbis

Air Quality

r eP

ec nt of Total C

oastal Population in 2003

c

The Northeast region is the most populated coastal

region in the United States. In 2003, 52.6 million people,

or 34 percent of the nation’s total coastal population,

resided there. The Northeast region extends from

northern Maine south to the tidewaters of Virginia,

encompassing the coastlines of 11 states. Ten of the 11

states in the region have the majority of their populations

in coastal counties. The 180 coastal counties found in this

region (including the District of Columbia) constitute 40

percent of the region’s total land area and contain 77

percent of the region’s population. Of the nation’s 10

largest metropolitan areas, four are located along the

coast of this region: New York, Washington

DC/Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Boston.

In contrast to population change, percent population

change from 2003 to 2008 reveals a different pattern.

The greatest percent coastal population change is

expected to occur in the two southernmost states of the

region, Maryland and Virginia (Figure 11). Of the 10

leading coastal counties in percent population change,

eight are located in Virginia and two are located in

Maryland, all averaging a 13 percent to 23 percent

increase in growth. Additionally, many of these counties

are located further from major metropolitan centers than

those leading in absolute growth.

Ground-level ozone, created primarily from motor

vehicles, industrial emissions, and chemical solvents,

has the potential to cause respiratory health problems

From 2003 to 2008, the Northeast coastal population is

expected to increase by approximately 1.7 million

people. This change will occur most heavily in counties

that fall within, are adjacent to, or are one county beyond

major metropolitan centers. Six of the counties expecting

large population increases will be found in and around

New York City and four outside of Washington, DC (Figure

10). For instance, Fairfax, VA, located adjacent to

Washington, DC, is expected to show the greatest

increase, growing by over 100,000 people in this fiveyear period. Queens County, Kings County, and Suffolk

County, NY, are all expected to increase between 54,000

and 86,000 people.

In 2003, the population density of the combined

coastal counties in this region was 641 persons per

square mile, up from 543 in 1980, and is expected to

climb to 661 in 2008. This is over 11 times the nation’s

noncoastal population density (not including Alaska).

Of the 25 most densely populated coastal counties in

the United States, 21 are found in the Northeast

region.

Northeast

34%

Pacific

Gulf of

Mexico

Southeast

26%

13%

9%

Great

Lakes

18%

and is particularly

dangerous to

children with

asthma. Of the

474 counties

nationwide that do

not meet the 8-

hour ozone

standard (or that

cause a county

downwind to fail),

231 are coastal

(USEPA 2004).

The majority (197)

of these coastal

counties are found

in the Northeast

and Great Lakes

regions (USEPA

2004).

Regional Trends

Population Density

Hot Spots of Growth

Northeast Region

147
FIGURE 10. Projected population change in the Northeast Region:

2003-2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

FIGURE 11. Projected percent population change in the Northeast

Region: 2003-2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

7

15

Regional Trends
Miami-Dade County, Florida; SFWMD

Land Conversion

The Southeast region is the least populated coastal

region of the United States. In 2003, 14 million people,

or 9 percent of the nation’s coastal county population,

resided there. The Southeast region extends from the

northern Outer Banks of North Carolina to the southern

tip of Florida. Only one of the region’s states, Florida,

has most of its population living in coastal counties. The

103 coastal counties in this region constitute 33 percent

of the region’s total land area and contain 37 percent of

the region’s population. The region’s largest

metropolitan area found along the coast is Miami/Fort

Lauderdale, FL (the twelfth largest in the entire United

States).

In 2003, the coastal population density of the region was

224 persons per square mile, up from 142 in 1980, and

expected to increase to 241 in 2008. The expected

population density increase from 1980 to 2008

represents the largest percent increase of any region.

The most densely populated counties in the region are

Broward County, FL, with 1,437 persons per square mile,

and Seminole County, FL, with 1,254 persons per square

mile. By 2008, these counties are expected to increase

in population density by 10 percent and 14 percent,

respectively.

From 2003 to 2008, coastal population in the Southeast

region is expected to grow by 1.1 million people or 8

percent. This is the largest percent increase of all

regions within this period. Of the 10 leading counties in

population change, 8 are expected to be in Florida

(Figure 12). Population growth will be most prominent in

the southernmost portion of Florida, with Broward

County expected to increase by 167,000 persons and

Palm Beach County expected to increase by 151,000

persons.

The nation’s coastal counties are losing 1,997 acres of

farmland per day to urban and other land uses. This is

approximately 2 percent faster than noncoastal counties.

The average size of farms in coastal counties has

decreased by 15 percent between 1987 and 2002

compared to a decrease of 7 percent in noncoastal

counties (USDA, 2004).

Coastal counties with high percent population change are

found throughout the region. Particularly, counties in

Florida and North Carolina rank highest (Figure 13). For

example, Brunswick, NC, is expected to show the

greatest percent increase, 17 percent, followed by

Nassau, FL, with 16 percent. The fastest-growing

counties in South Carolina and Georgia are expected to

Northeast average 10 to 12 percent growth. 34%

Pacific

Gulf of

Mexico

Southeast

26%

13%

9%

Great

Lakes

18%

r eP

ec nt of Total C

oastal Population in 2003

Population Density

Hot Spots of Growth

Southeast Region

16

Regional Trends
FIGURE 12. Projected population change in the Southeast Region:

2003-2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

FIGURE 13. Projected percent population change in the

Southeast Region: 2003-2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

7

17

Regional Trends
2

Tampa, FL; K. Arnold

Waterborne Commerce

The Gulf of Mexico region is the fourth most populated

coastal region in the United States. In 2003, the region’s

coastal population was just over 19.1 million, 13 percent

of the nation’s coastal population. The Gulf of Mexico

region extends from the Florida Keys westward to the

southern tip of Texas, following the coastline of six

states. Only two of the region’s states, Louisiana and

Florida, have the majority of their populations in coastal

counties. The 144 coastal counties found in this region

constitute 23 percent of the region’s total land area and

contain 32 percent of the region’s population. Of the

nation’s 10 largest metropolitan areas, one is located

along the coast in this region: Houston-GalvestonBrazoria.

In 2003, the population density of coastal counties in this

region was 164 persons per square mile, up from 113 in

1980, and expected to increase to 175 in 2008. This is

the least densely populated of all the regions (when

Alaska is not included in the population density

calculation for the Pacific region). Two of the three most

densely populated coastal counties in the region are

Pinellas, FL, found within the large metropolitan area of

Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, with 3,308 persons

per square mile, and Harris, TX, found within HoustonGalveston-Brazoria with 2,080 persons per square mile.

By 2008, these counties are expected to increase in

population density by 4 percent and 5 percent,

respectively.

Gulf Coast (Figure 14). Harris, TX, located northwest of

Galveston Bay and containing the city of Houston, is

expected to increase by 168,750 persons. This is more

than double that of any other county in this region.

In terms of percentages, coastal population growth is

expected to occur heavily in the Florida panhandle, in

Alabama, and in southern Texas (Figure 15), where the

increase is expected to reach over 18 percent in some

counties.

From 2003 to 2008, the Gulf of Mexico’s coastal

population is expected to grow by just over 1.2 million

people or 7 percent. This is the second-highest rate of

growth during this period, just behind the Southeast

region. The leading coastal counties in population

change are found in Texas and along Florida’s central

Nationwide, waterborne tonnage coming through the

principal U.S. ports has increased by 14.5 million in the

past five years. Of the 10 leaders in waterborne tonnage,

seven are found in the Gulf of Mexico. The Port of South

Louisiana alone accounts for approximately 9% of all the

waterborne tonnage through principal U.S. ports (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, 1998; 2000).

Northeast

34%

Pacific

Gulf of

Mexico

Southeast

26%

13%

9%

Great

Lakes

18%

eP cr ent of Total Coastal Population in 2003

Population Density

Hot Spots of Growth

Gulf of Mexico Region

18

Regional Trends
7

19

Regional Trends

FIGURE 14. Projected population change in the Gulf of Mexico Region: 2003-2008

FIGURE 15. Projected percent population change in the Gulf of Mexico Region:2003-2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.
3

California Aqueduct, CA; Joseph Sohm, Corbis

Water Consumption

c

The Pacific region is the second most populated coastal

region in the United States. In 2003, the population

reached 39.4 million people, or 26 percent of the nation’s

total coastal population. The Pacific region includes the

coastlines of California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and

the entire state of Hawaii. All five states in the Pacific

region have the majority of their populations in coastal

counties. The 88 coastal counties constitute 57 percent

of the region’s total land area and contain 84 percent of

the region’s population. Of the nation’s 10 largest

metropolitan areas, two are found along the coast in this

region: Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA, and

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA. Other

metropolitan areas include Honolulu, HI, Portland, OR,

and Anchorage, AK.

In 2003, the coastal population density (not including

Alaska) of the Pacific Region was 303 persons per square

mile, up from 207 in 1980, and expected to increase to

320 in 2008. Of the 25 most densely populated coastal

counties in the United States, two are found in the Pacific

region: Orange County, CA, and San Francisco County,

CA. The state of Alaska has the smallest coastal

population density with an average of 1.4 persons per

square mile.

San Bernardino County, CA, also are expected to be

leaders of population growth for the entire nation.

In terms of percentages, coastal population growth

presents a much different pattern, where counties in

California represent only half of the 10 leading counties

in expected percent increase (Figure 17). San Benito,

CA, shows the highest expected increase with 19 percent,

followed by Jefferson County, WA, with 16 percent.

Population projection data provided by Woods and Poole

Economics, Inc., for individual counties in Alaska are

insufficient and therefore not presented graphically.

The Pacific region consumes 9.6 billion gallons of water

per day. This is more than double that of any other

region with the exception of the Gulf of Mexico region (6

billion gallons per day). In total, the nation’s coastal

counties consume 20 billion gallons of water per day

(however, this is four times less than the total water

consumption in noncoastal counties) (U.S. Census

Bureau, 2001c).

From 2003 to 2008, the Pacific region is expected to

increase by 2.2 million people or 6 percent in coastal

population. A large portion of this growth is expected to

occur in Southern California, where four counties make

up 37 percent of this projected growth (Figure 16). The

10 leading coastal counties in expected population

increase contain, fall within, or are adjacent to the large

metropolitan areas of San Diego, CA, Los AngelesRiverside-Orange County, CA, San Francisco-OaklandSan Jose, CA, Sacramento-Yolo, CA, and Seattle-TacomaBremerton, WA. San Diego County, Orange County, and

Northeast

34%

Pacific

Gulf of

Mexico

Southeast

26%

13%

9%

Great

Lakes

18%

r eP

ec nt of Total C

oastal Population in 2003

Population Density

Hot Spots of Growth

Pacific Region

20

Regional Trends
FIGURE 16. Projected population change in the Pacific Region:

2003-2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

FIGURE 17. Projected percent population change in the Pacific

Region: 2003-2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

7

21

Regional Trends
4

Chicago, IL; Corbis

Transportation

c

The Great Lakes region is the third most populated

coastal region in the United States. In 2003, 27.5 million

people, or 18 percent of the nation’s total coastal

population, resided there. The Great Lakes region

extends from the northeasternmost counties in New York

westward toward Minnesota, encompassing the

coastlines of eight states along Lake Ontario, Lake Huron,

Lake Erie, Lake Michigan, and Lake Superior. Only two

states within this region, New York and Michigan, have

the majority of their populations in coastal counties. The

158 coastal counties in this region constitute 28 percent

of the region’s total land area and contain 33 percent of

the region’s population. Of the nation’s 10 largest

metropolitan areas, two are found along the coast in this

region: Detroit and Chicago.

In 2003, the population density of the combined coastal

counties in this region was 238 persons per square mile,

up from 2226 in 1980, and expected to climb to 244 in

2008. This is the third-highest following the Northeast

and Pacific regions. Of the 25 most densely populated

coastal counties in the United States, one is found in the

Great Lakes region: Cook County, IL.

From 2003 to 2008, the Great Lakes coastal population

as a whole is expected to increase by approximately

650,000 people. This is the smallest population increase

of all regions. As in the Northeast region, coastal

population increases and decreases will occur most

heavily in counties that fall within, are adjacent to, or are

one county beyond major metropolitan centers (Figure

18). Lake County, IL, located north of Chicago, is

expected to climb by 74,000 people, and Oakland

County, MI, by 72,000 people, the greatest increases of

any counties in the region. Of the leading coastal

counties in population change, two show large decreases

in population.

Between the years

1980 and 2000, the

number of vehicles in

the nation’s coastal

counties have

increased by 25.5

million (or 43%). The

greatest increase was

found in the Northeast

region, with 8 million

additional cars. The

greatest percent

increase of vehicles

was found in the

Southeast region,

with 74 percent, and

the smallest percent

increase was in the

Great Lakes region,

with 24 percent more

vehicles. Although

the overall number of

vehicles has increased

since 1980, in 2000

there were fewer

vehicles per capita

(U.S. Census Bureau,

1980; 2001e).

While the largest overall population increases are

expected to occur in southern Michigan, Illinois, and

Ohio, coastal counties showing large increases in percent

population are located primarily in northern Michigan

(Figure 19). Benzie County, MI, is expected to increase

by 15 percent, followed by Grand Traverse, MI, and Lake,

MI, each of which are expected to increase by 13 percent.

Northeast

34%

Pacific

Gulf of

Mexico

Southeast

26%

13%

9%

Great

Lakes

18%

eP cr ent of Total Coastal Population in 2003

Population Density

Hot Spots of Growth

Great Lakes Region

22

Regional Trends
7

23

Regional Trends

FIGURE 18. Projected population change in the Great Lakes Region: 2003-2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

FIGURE 19. Projected percent population change in the Great Lakes Region: 2003-2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.
5

5000

4500

4000

3500

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Population

(Millions)

Persons per Square Mile

Chesapeake

Bay

Hudson River/

Raritan Bay

San Francisco

Bay

Galveston

Bay

San Pedro

Bay

Delaware Bay

Long Island

Sound

Cape

Canaveral

Puget Sound

Total Population Population DensityGreat South Bay

0

Watersheds are geographic areas defined by natural

hydrology and provide a sensible foundation from which

water and coastal resources can be managed. In an

attempt to provide population information in geographic

units that are useful to coastal managers and planners,

NOAA has produced population estimates for coastal

watersheds (Estuarine Drainage Areas (EDAs) and

Coastal Drainage Areas (CDAs)) of the contiguous United

States. Population estimates for coastal watersheds for

1980 were created by determining the Census tract

centroids (and their associated population estimates)

that fell within each watershed. The same method was

applied to 1990 and 2000 population data with the use of

Census block groups (National Ocean Service/NOAA,

2000). The land area covered by coastal watersheds and

their total population in 2000 are smaller than that of

coastal counties by almost 145,000 square miles and 21

million people (not including Alaska and Hawaii).

The total population of coastal watersheds in 2000 was

approximately 127 million people or 45 percent of the

national population. This is a growth of 24 million people

since 1980. The 10 most populated coastal watersheds

in 2000 along with their population densities are shown

in Figure 20.

Five of the 10 most populated watersheds are located

from southern Virginia to New England. The Hudson

River/Raritan Bay and Chesapeake Bay watersheds were

the most populated overall, with over 13 million and 10

million people, respectively. However, San Pedro Bay

was the most densely populated coastal watershed with

4,634 persons per square mile.

Population change from 1980 to 2000 was greatest in the

Chesapeake Bay, which grew by over two million. It was

closely followed by San Francisco Bay, which grew by 1.8

million, and San Pedro Bay, which grew by 1.7 million.

Areas of the country where growth was heaviest during

this period are shown in Figure 21. Of the 10 most

populated coastal watersheds, the greatest percent

population changes are found in the Southeast and

Pacific regions. The populations in St. Johns River, FL,

Cape Canaveral, FL, and Santa Ana, CA, all grew by over

70 percent.

Population by Coastal Watershed

FIGURE 20. Ten most populated coastal watersheds with their

associated population density for 2000.

Source: National Ocean Service/NOAA, and U.S. Census Bureau

Ventura County, CA; Rich Reid / Colors of Nature.com

274

C
FIGURE 21. Population change in the coastal watersheds: 1980-2000

Source: National Ocean Service/NOAA, and U.S. Census Bureau

25

Population by Coastal Watershed
Although population increase and coastal development

give rise to numerous economic benefits, they also may

result in the loss of critical habitat, green space, and

biodiversity. Public policymakers and coastal managers

are confronted with the daily task of finding a balance

between benefiting from economic growth while

mitigating the effects of this growth on coastal

environments. This task is becoming ever more

challenging as the coastal population continues to grow

in a limited space.

Population estimates and projections should be used

cautiously as uncertainty and limitations are inherent to

the data. However, these data provide critical

information for coastal decision makers about recent and

projected demographic trends along the coast.

Characteristics such as age and income data provide

information about who is living on the coast and why.

Planning for and managing increased demands on

infrastructure and resources are becoming increasingly

complex and require analyses of demographic data.

As the coastal population continues to grow (at the same

rate as the rest of the nation), attention is brought to the

methods by which the coastal environment is managed

and studied. A change in paradigm is taking place,

moving away from management based on political

boundaries and toward an ecosystem-based

management approach to population growth, urban

sprawl, and their interactions with the sensitive coastal

environment. Recently, the U.S. Commission on Ocean

Policy (2004) highlighted the need to manage coastal

resources in the framework of the watersheds that affect

them, ultimately recognizing the crucial connection

between coastal and upland areas and the effects of a

growing population.

The authors thank the following individuals for their

assistance. John Hayes compiled Census data and

provided an editorial review. Percy Pacheco compiled

Census data. Gini Kennedy provided advice on graphic

design. Susan Sargent, Alison Hammer, Brent Ache, and

Pam Rubin provided editorial reviews. Kara Shuster

assisted in compiling the appendices. Charles Bookman,

James Fitzsimmons, Marc Perry, and Frank Hobbs

provided peer reviews.

Conclusion

Acknowledgments

267
Bookman, C. A., T. J. Culliton, and M. A. Warren. 1999.

Trends in U.S. Coastal Regions, 1970-1998. Addendum

to the Proceedings, Trends and Future Challenges for

U.S. National Ocean and Coastal Policy. Silver Spring,

MD: U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Center for Health Communication, Harvard School of

Public Health. 2004. Reinventing Aging: Baby Boomers

and Civic Engagement. Boston, MA: Harvard School of

Public Health. Available from:

<http://research.aarp.org/general/boomers_engageme

nt.html> (accessed July 28, 2004).

Colgan, C. S. 2004. The National Ocean Economics

Project. 2004. The Changing Ocean and Coastal Economy

of the United States: A Briefing Paper for Governors.

Prepared for National Governors Association.

Culliton, T. J. 1998. Population: Distribution, Density and

Growth. Silver Spring, MD: DOC, NOAA. Available from:

<http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/websites/retiredsites/su

pp_sotc_retired.html> (accessed October 15, 2003).

Culliton, T. J., M. A. Warren, T. R. Goodspeed, D. G.

Remer, C. M. Blackwell, and J. J. McDonough. 1990. 50

Years of Population Change Along the Nation’s Coasts:

1960-2010, A Special Earth Week Report. Rockville, MD:

DOC, NOAA. (Coastal Trends Series No. 2).

Franklin, R. S., U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Domestic

Migration Across Regions, Divisions, and States: 1995-

2000. Washington, DC: DOC, U.S. Census Bureau.

Available from:

<http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-7.pdf>

(accessed December 12, 2003).

Frey, W. H. 2003. Boomers and Seniors in the Suburbs:

Aging Patterns in Census 2000. Washington, DC: The

Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan

Policy. (Living Cities Census Series). Available from:

<http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/es/urban/publica

tions/freyboomers.pdf> (accessed January, 21, 2004).

Geolytics, Inc. 2003. CensusCD Estimates, Projections,

Consumer Expenditures and Profiles 2003/2008. East

Brunswick, NJ.

H. John Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the

Environment. 2000. Evaluation of Erosion Hazards.

Washington, DC: The Heinz Center.

Hinrichsen, Don. 1998. Coastal Waters of the World: Trends,

Threats, and Strategies. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Johnson, K. P., Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). 1995.

 Redefinition of BEA Economic Areas. Available from:

<http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/regional/articles/0295rea>

(accessed May 15, 2004).

National Ocean Service, NOAA. 2000. Spatial patterns of

socioeconomic data from 1970 to 2000: a national research

dataset aggregated by watershed and political boundaries

[electronic resource]. Available from:

<http://cads.nos.noaa.gov/> (accessed October 20, 2003).

National Safety Council. 1998. Coastal Challenges: A Guide

to Coastal and Marine Issues. Environmental Health Center.

Washington, DC: National Safety Council.

NPA Data Services, Inc. 2003. Key Indicators of County

Growth 1970 – 2025, Extended to 2030 (2003 Edition).

Arlington, VA.

Ocean City Public Relations Office. 2004. Number of Visitors

to Ocean City, MD by Year & Summer. Ocean City, MD.

7

References

27
Perry, M. J., U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. State-to-State

Migration Flows:1995 to 2000. Washington, DC: DOC, U.S.

Census Bureau. Available from:

<http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/censr-8.pdf>

(accessed December 12, 2003).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998; 2000; 2002.

Waterborne Tonnage for Principal U.S. Ports and all 50

States and U.S. Territories. Waterborne Tonnages for

Domestic, Foreign, Imports, Exports and Intra-State

Waterborne Traffic. Navigation Data Center, Waterborne

Commerce Statistics Center. Available from:

<http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/wcsc.htm>

(accessed April 13, 2004).

U.S. Census Bureau. 1980. 1980 Census of Population and

Housing. Washington, DC. Obtained via Geolytics, Inc., East

Brunswick, NJ.

___. 1991. 1990 Census of Population and Housing.

Washington, DC, 1990. Obtained via Geolytics, Inc., East

Brunswick, NJ.

___. 2000. 1999 Residential Construction Data Files.

Manufacturing and Construction Division. Residential

Construction Branch. Washington, DC: DOC, U.S. Census

Bureau.

___. 2001a. 2000 Residential Construction Data Files.

Manufacturing and Construction Division. Residential

Construction Branch. Washington, DC: DOC, U.S. Census

Bureau.

___. 2001b. Appendix A: Census 2000 Geographic Terms

and Concepts. Available from:

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger/glossry2.pdf

(accessed April 5, 2004).

___. 2001c. County and City Data Book: 2000 (13th Edition).

Washington, DC: DOC, U.S. Census Bureau.

___. 2001d. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2002

(122nd Edition). Washington, DC: DOC, U.S. Census Bureau.

___. 2001e. Summary File 1, 2000 Census of Population

and Housing. Washington, DC. Obtained via Geolytics,

Inc., East Brunswick, NJ.

___. 2002. 2001 Residential Construction Data Files.

Manufacturing and Construction Division. Residential

Construction Branch. Washington, DC: DOC, U.S. Census

Bureau.

___. 2003a. 2002 Residential Construction Data Files.

Manufacturing and Construction Division. Residential

Construction Branch. Washington, DC: DOC, U.S. Census

Bureau.

___. 2003b. 2003 County Population Estimates. Available

from: <http://eire.census.gov/popest/estimates.php>

(accessed April 12, 2004).

___. 2004. 2003 Residential Construction Data Files.

Manufacturing and Construction Division. Residential

Construction Branch. Washington, DC: DOC, U.S. Census

Bureau.

U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. 2004. Preliminary

Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy

Governors’ Draft. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2004. 2002

Census of Agriculture. National Agriculture Statistics

Service. Available from:

<http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/> (accessed July

28, 2004).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 8-Hour

Ground-level Ozone Designations. Available from:

<http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/index.htm>

(accessed April 15, 2004).

287

References
1

2

3

4

5

U.S. Geologic Survey. 1987. Hydrologic Unit Maps, What

are Hydrologic Units? Available from:

<http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html> (accessed May 3,

2004).

Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation.

2003. Soil and Water Conservation, Hydrologic Unit

Hydrology. Available from:

<http://www.dcr.state.va.us/sw/hu.htm> (accessed May

3, 2004).

Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. (W&PE). 2003. 2003

Desktop Data Files. Washington, DC: W&PE.

World Resources Institute (WRI). 2000. World

Resources: 2000-2001. Washington, DC: WRI.

7

 Hydrologic units are classified at four levels: regions,

sub-regions, accounting units, and cataloging units.

Cataloging units are the smallest hydrologic unit in this

hierarchy (U.S. Geologic Survey, 1987). There are 2,150

cataloging units in the United States, with an average

cataloging unit size of 703 square miles (Virginia

Department of Conservation and Recreation, 2003).

 Principal ports are defined by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (2002). The five-year period of study was

1998 to 2002.

 Water consumption represents “that part of water

withdrawn that is evaporated, transpired, incorporated

into products or crops, consumed by humans or

livestock, or otherwise removed from the immediate

water environment” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001).

References

 Total number of vehicles for coastal counties was

quantified using the “1-car per household,” ” 2-car per

household,” and “3-car per household” fields in the 2000

Census. Numbers of households were multiplied by the

number of cars they contained and totaled (households

with more than three cars were not used in this

calculation).

 A Census Tract is a statistical subdivision of a county or

county equivalent area containing between 1,500 and

8,000 persons. A Census block group is an aggregation

of Census blocks (the smallest Census geographic unit)

containing between 600 and 3,000 persons. In the

standard hierarchy of Census geographic entities, block

groups lie just below Census tracts (U.S. Census Bureau,

2000). For further information on Census geographies,

visit http://www.census.gov/geo/www/reference.html.

Endnotes

29
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix A: Population Change

307
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix B: Total Housing Units

317
Appendix C: Northeast

327
Appendix C: Northeast

337
Appendix C: Northeast

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Maine

Androscoggin

Cumberland

Franklin

Hancock

Kennebec

Knox

Lincoln

Oxford

Penobscot

Sagadahoc

Somerset

Waldo

Washington

York

New Hampshire

Belknap

Carroll

Hillsborough

Merrimack

Rockingham

Strafford

Massachusetts

Barnstable

Berkshire

Bristol

Dukes

Essex

Hampden

Middlesex

Nantucket

Norfolk

Plymouth

Suffolk

Worcester

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

Rhode Island

Bristol

Kent

Newport

Providence

Washington

Connecticut

Fairfield

Hartford

Litchfield

Middlesex

New Haven

New London

Tolland

Windham

New York

Albany

Bronx

Columbia

Dutchess

Greene

Kings

Nassau

New York

Orange

Putnam

Queens

Rensselaer

Richmond

Rockland

Schenectady

Suffolk

Ulster

Westchester

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

New Jersey

Atlantic

Bergen

Burlington

Camden

Cape May

Cumberland

Essex

Gloucester

Hudson

Hunterdon

Mercer

Middlesex

Monmouth

Morris

Ocean

Passaic

Salem

Somerset

Sussex

Union

Pennsylvania

Adams

Berks

Bucks

Chester

Delaware

Lancaster

Lebanon

Lehigh

Montgomery

Philadelphia

Schuylkill

York

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

Delaware

Kent

New Castle

Sussex

Maryland

Anne Arundel

Baltimore

Calvert

Caroline

Carroll

Cecil

Charles

Dorchester

Harford

Howard

Kent

Montgomery

Prince George's

Queen Anne's

St. Mary's

Somerset

Talbot

Wicomico

Worcester

Baltimore

District of

Columbia

Virginia

Accomack

Amelia

Appomattox

Arlington

Buckingham

Caroline

Charles City

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

Chesterfield

Cumberland

Dinwiddie

Essex

Fairfax

Fauquier

Fluvanna

Gloucester

Goochland

Hanover

Henrico

Isle of Wight

James City

King and Queen

King George

King William

Lancaster

Louisa

Mathews

Middlesex

New Kent

Northampton

Northumberland

Nottoway

Orange

Powhatan

Prince Edward

Prince George

Prince William

Richmond

Spotsylvania

Stafford

Surry

Westmoreland

York

Alexandria

Chesapeake

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

Colonial Heights

Fairfax

Falls Church

Fredericksburg

Hampton

Hopewell

Manassas

Manassas Park

Newport News

Norfolk

Petersburg

Poquoson

Portsmouth

Richmond

Suffolk

Virginia Beach

Williamsburg

Coastal Counties

347
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

Appendix C: Northeast

30,862

20,226

66

8,968

4,209

47

7,840

6,610

84

1,045

1,045

100

4,845

4,845

100

47,214

7,751

16

7,417

7,059

95

44,817

6,884

15

1,954

1,954

100

9,774

7,578

78

61

61

100

39,594

13,902

35

204,391

82,124

40

1,125

1,016

90

921

721

78

5,737

5,534

96

947

947

100

3,108

3,108

100

17,558

12,232

70

7,365

7,280

99

11,864

5,280

45

594

594

100

4,217

3,882

92

638

638

100

5,347

3,396

64

59,420

44,629

75

36

50

103

171

732

837

906

906

641

641

372

1,578

993

1,031

265

767

304

304

431

512

10,464

10,464

135

244

291

543

1,228

1,122

91

1,109

891

80

6,016

5,800

96

1,003

1,003

100

3,287

3,287

100

17,990

12,593

70

7,730

7,639

99

11,882

5,464

46

666

666

100

4,781

4,407

92

607

607

100

6,187

4,152

67

62,488

47,630

76

40

55

124

212

767

877

960

960

678

678

381

1,625

1,042

1,082

265

794

341

341

489

582

9,949

9,949

156

299

306

580

1,275

1,184

93

1,236

1,007

81

6,349

6,125

96

1,048

1,048

100

3,406

3,406

100

18,976

13,572

72

8,414

8,312

99

12,281

5,750

47

784

784

100

5,296

4,865

92

572

572

100

7,079

4,794

68

66,716

51,417

77

41

59

138

239

810

927

1,003

1,003

703

703

402

1,751

1,134

1,177

274

835

401

401

542

642

9,378

9,378

179

345

326

626

1,306

1,215

93

1,288

1,053

82

6,433

6,206

96

1,076

1,076

100

3,483

3,483

100

19,190

13,773

72

8,638

8,529

99

12,365

5,826

47

817

817

100

5,509

5,055

92

563

563

100

7,386

5,024

68

68,056

52,620

77

42

60

144

250

821

939

1,030

1,030

719

719

406

1,777

1,165

1,208

276

846

418

418

564

667

9,236

9,236

187

361

333

641

1,332

1,244

93

1,356

1,114

82

6,598

6,364

96

1,094

1,094

100

3,520

3,520

100

19,590

14,136

72

8,916

8,802

99

12,572

5,941

47

857

857

100

5,786

5,301

92

560

560

100

7,809

5,362

69

69,991

54,295

78

43

62

151

265

842

963

1,047

1,047

727

727

415

1,824

1,202

1,247

281

863

439

439

592

700

9,187

9,187

197

385

342

661

STATE

Land Area

(Sq. Mi.) Absolute* Density** Absolute Density Absolute Density Absolute Density Absolute Density

MAINE

Coastal

Coastal Percent

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Coastal

Coastal Percent

MASSACHUSETTS

Coastal

Coastal Percent

RHODE ISLAND

Coastal

Coastal Percent

CONNECTICUT

Coastal

Coastal Percent

NEW YORK

Coastal

Coastal Percent

NEW JERSEY

Coastal

Coastal Percent

PENNSYLVANIA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

DELAWARE

Coastal

Coastal Percent

MARYLAND

Coastal

Coastal Percent

DC

Coastal

Coastal Percent

VIRGINIA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

TOTAL

Coastal

Coastal Percent

1980 1990 2000 2003 2008

*Thousand Persons **Persons per square mile

7

Northeast Population, 1980-2008

35
Appendix D: Southeast

367
Appendix D: Southeast

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

North Carolina

Anson

Beaufort

Bertie

Bladen

Brunswick

Camden

Carteret

Chowan

Columbus

Craven

Cumberland

Currituck

Dare

Duplin

Edgecombe

Gates

Halifax

Hertford

Hyde

Jones

Lenoir

Martin

New Hanover

Northampton

Onslow

Pamlico

Pasquotank

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

Pender

Perquimans

Pitt

Richmond

Sampson

Scotland

Tyrrell

Washington

Wayne

Wilson

South Carolina

Allendale

Beaufort

Berkeley

Charleston

Chesterfield

Clarendon

Colleton

Darlington

Dillon

Dorchester

Florence

Georgetown

Hampton

Horry

Jasper

Kershaw

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

Lancaster

Lee

Marion

Marlboro

Sumter

Williamsburg

Georgia

Appling

Atkinson

Bacon

Brantley

Bryan

Bulloch

Camden

Charlton

Chatham

Coffee

Effingham

Glynn

Irwin

Jeff Davis

Jenkins

Liberty

Long

McIntosh

Montgomery

Pierce

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

Screven

Tattnall

Toombs

Ware

Wayne

Florida

Baker

Brevard

Broward

Clay

Duval

Flagler

Indian River

Martin

Miami-Dade

Nassau

Okeechobee

Orange

Osceola

Palm Beach

Putnam

St. Johns

St. Lucie

Seminole

Volusia

7

Coastal Counties

37
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

Appendix D: Southeast

STATE

Land Area

(Sq. Mi.) Absolute* Density** Absolute Density Absolute Density Absolute Density Absolute Density

1980 1990 2000 2003 2008

NORTH CAROLINA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

SOUTH CAROLINA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

GEORGIA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

FLORIDA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

TOTAL

Coastal

Coastal Percent

48,711

19,591

40

30,110

15,233

51

57,906

12,076

21

53,927

16,616

31

190,654

63,516

33

5,882

1,598

27

3,122

1,288

41

5,463

620

11

9,746

5,483

56

24,213

8,989

37

121

82

104

85

94

51

181

330

127

142

6,629

1,756

26

3,487

1,455

42

6,478

705

11

12,938

7,288

56

29,531

11,205

38

136

90

116

96

112

58

240

439

155

176

8,049

1,985

25

4,012

1,653

41

8,186

821

10

15,982

9,072

57

36,230

13,532

37

165

101

133

109

141

68

296

546

190

213

8,407

2,017

24

4,147

1,713

41

8,685

844

10

17,019

9,664

57

38,258

14,238

37

173

103

138

112

150

70

316

582

201

224

9,003

2,138

24

4,416

1,820

41

9,202

889

10

18,397

10,468

57

41,019

15,315

37

185

109

147

120

159

74

341

630

215

241

*Thousand Persons **Persons per square mile

Southeast Population, 1980-2008

387
7

Appendix E: Gulf of Mexico

39
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

Florida

Bay

Calhoun

Charlotte

Citrus

Collier

DeSoto

Dixie

Escambia

Franklin

Gadsden

Gilchrist

Glades

Gulf

Hardee

Hendry

Hernando

Hillsborough

Holmes

Jackson

Jefferson

Lafayette

Lake

Lee

Leon

Levy

Liberty

Madison

Manatee

Marion

Monroe

Okaloosa

Pasco

Pinellas

Polk

Santa Rosa

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

Sarasota

Sumter

Suwannee

Taylor

Wakulla

Walton

Washington

Georgia

Decatur

Grady

Thomas

Alabama

Baldwin

Clarke

Covington

Escambia

Geneva

Mobile

Monroe

Washington

Mississippi

Amite

George

Hancock

Harrison

Jackson

Lamar

Marion

Pearl River

Pike

Stone

Walthall

Wilkinson

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

Louisiana

Acadia

Ascension

Assumption

Avoyelles

Beauregard

Calcasieu

Cameron

East Baton Rouge

East Feliciana

Evangeline

Iberia

Iberville

Jefferson

Jefferson Davis

Lafayette

Lafourche

Livingston

Orleans

Plaquemines

Pointe Coupee

Rapides

Sabine

St. Bernard

St. Charles

St. Helena

St. James

St. John the Baptist

St. Landry

St. Martin

St. Mary

St. Tammany

Tangipahoa

Terrebonne

Vermilion

Vernon

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

Washington

West Baton Rouge

West Feliciana

Texas

Aransas

Austin

Bee

Brazoria

Brooks

Calhoun

Cameron

Chambers

Colorado

DeWitt

Duval

Fayette

Fort Bend

Galveston

Goliad

Harris

Hidalgo

Jackson

Jasper

Jefferson

Jim Hogg

Jim Wells

Kenedy

Kleberg

Lavaca

Liberty

Live Oak

Matagorda

Newton

Nueces

Orange

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

Refugio

San Patricio

Starr

Tyler

Victoria

Waller

Washington

Webb

Wharton

Willacy

Coastal Counties

Appendix E: Gulf of Mexico

407
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

STATE

Land Area

(Sq. Mi.) Absolute* Density** Absolute Density Absolute Density Absolute Density Absolute Density

1980 1990 2000 2003 2008

FLORIDA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

GEORGIA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

ALABAMA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

MISSISSIPPI

Coastal

Coastal Percent

LOUISIANA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

TEXAS

Coastal

Coastal Percent

TOTAL

Coastal

Coastal Percent

53,927

33,565

62

57,906

1,603

3

50,744

8,731

17

46,907

6,778

14

43,562

25,733

59

261,797

40,234

15

514,843

116,644

23

9,746

3,990

41

5,463

83

2

3,894

610

16

2,521

482

19

4,206

3,253

77

14,229

4,806

34

40,059

13,225

33

181

119

94

52

77

70

54

71

97

126

54

119

78

113

12,938

5,313

41

6,478

85

1

4,041

640

16

2,573

509

20

4,220

3,292

78

16,987

5,582

33

47,236

15,421

33

240

158

112

53

80

73

55

75

97

128

65

139

92

132

15,982

6,495

41

8,186

95

1

4,447

712

16

2,845

588

21

4,469

3,510

79

20,852

6,850

33

56,781

18,250

32

296

194

141

59

88

82

61

87

103

136

80

170

110

156

17,019

6,926

41

8,685

96

1

4,501

721

16

2,881

599

21

4,496

3,539

79

22,119

7,277

33

59,701

19,159

32

316

206

150

60

89

83

61

88

103

138

84

181

116

164

18,397

7,474

41

9,202

100

1

4,730

768

16

3,022

638

21

4,662

3,683

79

23,766

7,743

32

63,778

20,406

32

341

223

159

62

93

88

64

94

107

143

91

192

124

175

*Thousand Persons **Persons per square mile

7

Gulf of Mexico Population, 1980-2008

Appendix E: Gulf of Mexico

41
Appendix F: Pacific

427
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

California

Alameda

Contra Costa

Del Norte

Humboldt

Los Angeles

Marin

Mendocino

Monterey

Napa

Orange

Riverside

Sacramento

San Benito

San Bernardino

San Diego

San Francisco

San Joaquin

San Luis Obispo

San Mateo

Santa Barbara

Santa Clara

Santa Cruz

Siskiyou

Solano

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

Sonoma

Sutter

Trinity

Ventura

Yolo

Oregon

Benton

Clackamas

Clatsop

Columbia

Coos

Curry

Douglas

Josephine

Lane

Lincoln

Multnomah

Tillamook

Washington

Clallam

Clark

Cowlitz

Grays Harbor

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

Island

Jefferson

King

Kitsap

Lewis

Mason

Pacific

Pierce

San Juan

Skagit

Skamania

Snohomish

Thurston

Wahkiakum

Whatcom

Alaska

Aleutians East

Aleutians West

Anchorage

Bethel

Bristol Bay

Dillingham

Haines

Juneau

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Kenai Peninsula

Ketchikan Gateway

Kodiak Island

Lake and Peninsula

Matanuska-Susitna

Nome

North Slope

Northwest Arctic

Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan

Sitka

Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon

Valdez-Cordova

Wade Hampton

Wrangell-Petersburg

Yakutat

Hawaii

Hawaii

Honolulu

Kalawao

Kauai

Maui

7

Coastal Counties

Appendix F: Pacific

43
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

STATE

Land Area

(Sq. Mi.) Absolute* Density** Absolute Density Absolute Density Absolute Density Absolute Density

1980 1990 2000 2003 2008

CALIFORNIA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

OREGON

Coastal

Coastal Percent

WASHINGTON

Coastal

Coastal Percent

ALASKA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

HAWAII

Coastal

Coastal Percent

TOTAL

Coastal

Coastal Percent

155,959

77,812

50

95,997

21,003

22

66,544

24,714

37

571,951

381,121

67

6,423

6,423

100

896,874

511,073

57

23,668

21,038

89

2,633

1,506

57

4,132

3,109

75

406

336

83

965

965

100

31,804

26,954

85

152

270

27

72

62

126

1

1

150

150

35

53

29,760

26,269

88

2,842

1,585

56

4,867

3,777

78

552

458

83

1,108

1,108

100

39,130

33,197

85

191

338

30

75

73

153

1

1

173

173

44

65

33,872

29,660

88

3,421

1,808

53

5,894

4,587

78

627

529

84

1,212

1,212

100

45,026

37,796

84

217

381

36

86

89

186

1

1

189

189

50

74

35,484

30,952

87

3,560

1,863

52

6,131

4,778

78

649

549

85

1,258

1,258

100

47,082

39,399

84

228

398

37

89

92

193

1

1

196

196

52

77

37,430

32,585

87

3,832

1,972

51

6,591

5,160

78

685

582

85

1,286

1,286

100

49,825

41,585

83

240

419

40

94

99

209

1

2

200

200

56

81

*Thousand Persons **Persons per square mile

Pacific Population, 1980-2008

Appendix F: Pacific

447
7

Appendix G: Great Lakes

45
Appendix G: Great Lakes

123456789

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

New York

Cattaraugus

Cayuga

Chautauqua

Clinton

Erie

Franklin

Genesee

Hamilton

Herkimer

Jefferson

Lewis

Livingston

Monroe

Niagara

Onondaga

Ontario

Orleans

Oswego

St. Lawrence

Wayne

Wyoming

Pennsylvania

Erie

Ohio

Ashland

Ashtabula

Crawford

Cuyahoga

Defiance

Erie

Fulton

Geauga

Hancock

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

Henry

Huron

Lake

Lorain

Lucas

Marion

Medina

Ottawa

Portage

Sandusky

Seneca

Summit

Trumbull

Wood

Wyandot

Michigan

Alcona

Alger

Allegan

Alpena

Antrim

Arenac

Baraga

Barry

Bay

Benzie

Berrien

Branch

Calhoun

Cass

Charlevoix

Cheboygan

Chippewa

Clare

Crawford

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

Delta

Dickinson

Eaton

Emmet

Gogebic

Grand Traverse

Hillsdale

Houghton

Huron

Ionia

Iosco

Jackson

Kalamazoo

Kalkaska

Kent

Keweenaw

Lake

Lapeer

Leelanau

Lenawee

Livingston

Luce

Mackinac

Macomb

Manistee

Marquette

Mason

Mecosta

Menominee

Missaukee

Monroe

Montcalm

Montmorency

Muskegon

Newaygo

Oakland

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

Oceana

Ogemaw

Ontonagon

Osceola

Oscoda

Otsego

Ottawa

Presque Isle

Roscommon

Saginaw

St. Clair

St. Joseph

Sanilac

Schoolcraft

Tuscola

Van Buren

Washtenaw

Wayne

Wexford

Indiana

Elkhart

Kosciusko

LaGrange

Lake

LaPorte

Noble

Porter

St. Joseph

Steuben

Illinois

Cook

Lake

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

Wisconsin

Ashland

Bayfield

Brown

Calumet

Door

Douglas

Florence

Fond du Lac

Forest

Iron

Kenosha

Kewaunee

Manitowoc

Marinette

Menominee

Milwaukee

Oconto

Outagamie

Ozaukee

Racine

Shawano

Sheboygan

Washington

Minnesota

Carlton

Cook

Lake

St. Louis

Coastal Counties

467
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and W&PE, Inc.

Appendix G: Great Lakes

STATE

Land Area

(Sq. Mi.) Absolute* Density** Absolute Density Absolute Density Absolute Density Absolute Density

1980 1990 2000 2003 2008

NEW YORK

Coastal

Coastal Percent

PENNSYLVANIA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

OHIO

Coastal

Coastal Percent

MICHIGAN

Coastal

Coastal Percent

INDIANA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

ILLINOIS

Coastal

Coastal Percent

WISCONSIN

Coastal

Coastal Percent

MINNESOTA

Coastal

Coastal Percent

TOTAL

Coastal

Coastal Percent

47,214

21,416

45

44,817

802

2

40,948

10,550

26

56,804

51,155

90

35,867

4,072

11

55,584

1,394

3

54,310

15,394

28

79,610

10,635

13

415,154

115,418

28

17,558

3,629

21

11,864

280

2

10,798

4,416

41

9,262

8,207

89

5,490

1,276

23

11,427

5,694

50

4,706

2,268

48

4,076

269

7

75,180

26,039

35

372

169

265

349

264

419

163

160

153

313

206

4,085

87

147

51

25

181

226

17,990

3,647

20

11,882

276

2

10,847

4,312

40

9,295

8,251

89

5,544

1,275

23

11,431

5,621

49

4,892

2,322

47

4,375

242

6

76,256

25,946

34

381

170

265

344

265

409

164

161

155

313

206

4, 033

90

151

55

23

184

225

18,976

3,650

19

12,281

281

2

11,353

4,418

39

9,938

8,859

89

6,080

1,378

23

12,419

6,021

48

5,364

2,469

46

4,919

248

5

81,332

27,324

34

402

170

274

350

277

419

175

173

170

338

223

4,319

99

160

62

23

196

237

19,190

3,645

19

12,365

280

2

11,436

4,416

39

10,080

8,984

89

6,196

1,397

23

12,654

6,037

48

5,472

2,499

46

5,059

248

5

82,452

27,506

33

406

170

276

349

279

419

177

176

173

343

228

4,330

101

162

64

23

199

238

19,590

3,673

19

12,572

283

2

11,727

4,463

38

10,412

9,297

89

6,466

1,455

23

13,038

6,168

47

5,712

2,563

45

5,360

252

5

84,877

28,153

33

415

171

281

353

286

423

183

182

180

357

235

4,425

105

166

67

24

204

244

*Thousand Persons **Persons per square mile

7

Great Lakes Population, 1980-2008

47