Figure 14. Southeast Coastal Popula-
tion Density, 1960-2010

800
600.
2
=
rs
8
a
2 400
&
:
é
200
o
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000-2010
Year
Frode FS} soutn carina
FEJocoria = E£Nortn carotina

ine and barrier island systems. Many of
these natural systems, especially
throughout the Carolinas, are contained
within a large network of state and na-
tional parks, which limit coastal devel-
opment opportunities.

“Hot Spots” of Growth. As shown in
Table 11, eastern Florida dominates all
three categories: the counties expected

Table 10. Southeast Coastal Popula-

tion per Shoreline Mile
Year
State 1960 1988. 2010
North Carolina 140 202 234
‘South Carolina 176 303 365
Georgia 114 158 179
Florida 824 2,075 2,689
‘Southeast 335 741 940

to increase by the most people; the
counties projected to increase at the
fastest rate; and the counties projected
to have the highest population density.
This is a reflection of the state’s large
and rapidly growing population. Partly
because they already contain large urban
areas (Fort Lauderdale, Miami, Holly-
wood, Hialeah, and West Palm Beach),
Broward, Dade, and Palm Beach coun-
ties in Florida are projected to be the
three leading counties in population
change between 1988 and 2010.
Berkeley and Dorchester counties in
South Carolina also appear on the list
because of their proximity to Charleston.

Coastal counties projected to increase
at the fastest rate are led by Osceola,
Martin, and Flagler counties in Florida.
These are “retirement-oriented” coun-
ties, but will also grow as a result of their

Table 11. Southeast Leading Counties in Population Change

Population Percent
Change, Population Population per
4988-2010 Change, Square Mile,
County (1,000 Persons) County 1988-2010 County 2010
Broward, FL 436 ‘Osceola, FL 72 Seminole, FL 1,391
Dade, FL 366 Martin, FL. 61 Broward, FL 1,340
Palm Beach, FL. 362 Flagler, FL 59 Dade, FL 4115,
Seminole, FL 145 Seminole, FL 54 Duval, FL 915
Orange, FL 131 Indian River, FL 50 Orange, FL 816
Volusia, FL 103 Berkeley, SC 50 New Hanover, NC 704
Brevard, FL 7 St. Johns, FL 48 Palm Beach, FL 592
Osceola, FL 65 St, Lucie, FL 47 Chatham, GA 546
St. Lucie, FL 64 Okeechobee, Fl. 47 Brevard, FL 468
Berkeley, SC 63 Clay, FL 46 Volusia, FL 405
Martin, FL 59 Dorchester, SC 45 St. Lucie, FL 345
Clay, FL 46 Palm Beach, FL 44 Charleston, SC 323
Indian River, FL 43 Liberty, GA 42 Martin, FL 273
St. Johns, FL 38 Broward, FL 7 Indian River, FL. 262
Dorchester, SC 37 Baker, FL. 36 Clay, FL 247
18

Ne


Coastal Counties

evonrona

"
12
13
14
15
16
7
18
19

2
22
23
24

Florida
Alachua
Bay
Calhoun
Charlotte
Citrus
Collier
Columbia
De So
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Glades
Gulf
Hamilton
Hardee
Hendry
Hernando
Highlands
Hillsborough
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson

BFRSESLSE SSL SRL SSLSBBVBR

Lafayette
Lake

Lee

Leon

Levy
Liberty
Madison
Manatee
Marion
Monroe
Okaloosa
Pasco
Pinellas
Polk

Santa Rosa
‘Sarasota
Sumter
‘Suwannee
Taylor
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

47

49
50
51

52
53

55
56
57
58

59
60
61
62
63

65

Alabama
Baldwin
Mobile

Mississippi
Hancock
Harrison
Jackson

Louisiana
Acadia
Ascension
‘Assumption
Calcasieu
Cameron

East Baton Rouge
Iberia

Iberville
Jefferson
Jefferson Davis
Lafourche
Livingston
Orleans
Plaquemines

sBeIg

n
72

4
5
78

78
79
80
81

83
84
85
a6

St Bemard

St Charles

St James
St.John the Baptist,
St. Martin

St. Mary

St Tammany
Tangipahoa
Terrebonne
Vermilion

West Baton Rouge

Texas
Aransas
Brazoria
Calhoun
Cameron
Chambers
Fort Bend
Galveston
Hardin
Harris
Hidalgo

SSLERLSSLEBE

vackson
dotferson
Kenedy
Kieberg
Liberty
Matagorda
Nueces
Orange
Refugio
San Patricio
Victoria
Wharton
Willacy

6e



se

Coastal Counties

‘New York
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Erie
Jetfarson
Monroe
Niagara
Orleans
Oswego

St Lawrence
Wayne

Soovansens

Pennsylvania
11 Erie

Ohio
12 Ashtabula
13 Cuyahoga
14 Erie
15 Lake
16 Lorain
17 Lucas
18 Ottawa

Bs

SSRRBRISBBVBRVRBIRY

Sandusky
Wood

Michigan
‘Alcona

Alger

Allegan

Alpena

Antrim

Arenac

Baraga

Bay

Bonzio

Bortien
Charlevoix
Cheboygan
Chippewa
Delta

Emmet
Gogebic
Grand Traverse

BSIHRESSASSSRSRRBT SEBS

Houghton
Huron

Keweenaw
Leelanau

Mackinac
Macomb
Manistee
Marquette
Mason
Menominee
Monroe
Muskegon
Oceana
‘Ontonagon
Ottawa
Presque Isle
Saginaw
St Clair
Sanilac
‘Schoolcraft

avs 2738s

Tuscola
Van Buren
Wayne

La Porto
Porter

Minois:
Cook

Wisconsin
Ashland
Bayfield

Door
Douglas

BSsysaN

81
82

83

85

Kenosha
Kewaunee
Manitowoc
Marinette
Milwaukee
Oconto
Ozaukee
Racine
Sheboygan

Minnesota
Cook
Lake

St Louis



Table 6. Great Lakes Population, 1960-2010

POPULATION

we [es [ao

[ttt ttf t/t] i]t

© Coastal

{WISCONSIN
ec

a
Senin

ewes

S| 75Se

oh) war steam eae

i Bloiisond asieteot Houten

eZ =
eee a

11401
se nebaciele z

sate

1
heer
153] 8550158]

495) 713480] "720 433]
SUSIE seas bane ale:
ms) se0 ate] Those Yeast 222|

stint neti
tel i

ta SM)
= Be
renee

“Thousand percoe "Porn esque mie

Great Lakes

The Great Lakes region, the third most
populous coastal region, contains 85 of
the Nation's coastal counties. The re-
gion includes the coastal portions of
eight states surrounding the five Great
Lakes along the U.S.-Canada border.
These lakes, in order of greatest surface
water area, are Lake Superior, Lake
Huron, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, and
Lake Ontario. The coastal counties in
this region contain about 19 million
people, or roughly 17 percent of the
Nation's coastal population. The region’s
share of the U.S. coastal population is
expected to drop over the next two dec-
ades because of relatively slow growth
in most of its counties. Between 1980
and 1986, eight of the Nation's 20 lead-
ing counties in population loss were
located in this region.

Population Trends. The Great Lakes
coastal population is expected to in-
crease by eight percent between 1960
and 2010. The decade of maximum
coastal population growth was the 1960s.
However, population declined during the
1970s and 1980s and offset the earlier
increase. Although the region is not
projected to experience rapid growth
over the next two decades, it will remain
an important center for industry and
commerce. The region contains four of
the Nation’s 20 most populous counties.

Unlike the Northeast, the Great Lakes
region has a relatively small proportion
(25 percent) of its population in coastal
counties. With only 17 percent of the
region’s land area in coastal counties,
the population density of 275 persons
per square mile is much lower than the
density in the Northeast. Itis, however,
much higher than the overall U.S. figure
of about 70 persons per square mile.

12


Table 14. Guif of Mexico Leading Counties in Population Change

Population Percent

Change, Population Population per

1988-2010 Change, Square Mile,
County {1,000 Persons) __ County 1988-2010 County 2010
Harris, TX 909 Citrus, FL at Pinellas, FL 3,619
Pinellas, FL 192 Hernando, FL 73 Orleans, LA 2,707
Pasco, FL 182 Pasco, FL 69 Harris, TX 2,132
Lee, FL 161 Collier, FL 63 Jefferson, LA 1,654
Hillsborough, FL 158 Charlotte, FL 62 East Baton Rouge, LA 1,082
Fort Bend, TX 113 Fort Bend, TX 55 Hillsborough, FL 924
East Baton Rouge, LA 111, Lee, FL 52 Sarasota, FL 633
Jefferson, LA 104 Chambers, TX 45 Galveston, TX 615
Sarasota, FL 102 Marion, FL a4 Pasco, FL 606
Hidalgo, TX 102 Brazoria, TX a Lee, FL 585
Polk, FL 1 Glades, FL a4 Escambia, FL 495
Collier, FL 87 Livingston, LA 40 Nueces, TX 410
Marion, FL 84 Hendry, FL 40 Fort Bend, TX 363
Brazoria, TX 76 St. John the Baptist, LA 39 Cameron, TX 361
Citrus, FL 75 Sarasota, FL 39 Leon, FL 356

to increase by the most people; the
counties projected to increase at the
fastest rate; and the counties projected
to have the highest population density.
The counties with the largest projected
increases in absolute population are lo-
cated primarily in Florida, from the Flor-
ida Keys to north of the Tampa area.
Hillsborough and Pinellas counties,
which include Tampa and St. Peters-
burg, are already heavily populated and
large population increases are expected.
Counties with large elderly populations
suchas Collier, Lee, and Pasco are also
projected to have major increases over
the next two decades. Projections indi-
cate that these populations will increase
by at least one-half in each county. In
Harris County, TX, the projected popu-
lation increase of over 900,000 repre-
sents about one-third of the county’s
current population.

Coastal counties in southwestern Flor-
ida will also have the largest percent
increases in population over the next
twodecades. Tenofthe 15 most rapidly
growing counties in the coastal zone of
the Gulf of Mexico are located in this

area. The counties surrounding Hous-
ton (Brazoria, Chambers, and Fort Bend)
will also have high growth rates during
this period. The areas of lowest growth
are in the northwestern corner of Flor-
ida, including several inland counties,
the Louisiana-Texas border area, and
parts of southeastern Texas.

Although coastal populations are in-
creasing rapidly throughout the region,
Gulf coastal counties will not be as
densely settled in the near future as the
major urban areas in the Northeast,
Great Lakes, or Pacific regions. Only
two of the 50 most densely populated
counties in the U.S. coastal zone in
2010 will be in the Gulf of Mexico.
However, 38 Gulf counties are projected
to have a population density greater
than 160 persons per square mile, or
twice the national average in 2010. While
Gulf counties do not have densities
comparable to the most densely settled
counties in the U.S., they do have some
of the most rapidly increasing densities
anywhere in the Nation.

22


Appendix E: Pacific

40



cific ratios of employment to population.
These ratios reflect the long-term struc-
tural differences among areas in age
composition, employment rates, labor
force participation, age structure of
migration flows, and inter-areacommuter
flows (Terleckyj and Coleman, 1989).

Explanation of the Data. All of the
population data for years prior to 1990
are from the Bureau of the Census.
Population data for 1990, 2000, and
2010 are NPA projections. Because the
most recent county-level population
estimates of the Bureau of the Census
are for 1988, and are more valid than the
NPA's 1990 projections, maps and charts
shown in this report that examine
changes over the next two decades are
for the time period 1988-2010, and not
1990-2010. For the same reason, 1988
is used as the "base year" instead of

1990.
ap

The population projections in this paper
only address changes in total popula-
tion. They do not account for the in-
creased demand placed on coastal tour-
ism or recreational resources by visitors
from counties outside of the immediate
coastal area. This demand may take the
form of increased development of sea-
sonal housing, construction of more
hotels and motels, or large and more nu-
merous recreational facilities.

National Overview

The Nation’s coastal areas include some
of the most rapidly growing and densely
populated counties in the U.S. From

_-»1960-2010, the coastal population will

have grown from 80 million to more than
127 million people, an increase of al-
most 60 percent.

Figure 1. Regional Distribution of the
Nation's Coastal Population

Gulf of Mexico’
(13%)

Great Lakes
(17%)

The Northeast and the Pacific regions
have the largest coastal populations in
the U.S. today. Together they account
for about 28 percent of the entire U.S.
population. Figure 1 shows the distribu-
tion, by region, of the Nation’s coastal
population.

The 451 coastal counties account for 20
percent of the Nation’s total land area.
However, if the land area of Alaska is
excluded, the coastal county land area
comprises only 11 percent of the re-
maining national total. Continued popu-
lation growth in coastal areas portends
increased crowding of this relatively

Figure 2. Population Change,
1960-2010

Milfon Persons
MM 2.01020 Mist019 Fjosto12



se

Coastal Counties

‘New Jersay Delaware 88 District of Columbia 107 New Kent 128 Petersburg
48 Atantic 68. Kent 108 Northampton 129. Poquoson
49° Bergen 69 New Casto Virginia 108 Northumbertand 190 Portsmouth
50 Burlington 70 Sussex 89 Accomack 110 Prince George 131 Richmond
51 Camden 9 Arlington 411. Prince Willa 182. Suffolk
52 Cape May Maryland 91 Cariine 112 Richmond 133 Virginia Beach
53. Cumberland 71 Anne Arundel 92 Charles City 443. Spotsylvania 134 Williamsburg
54 Essex 72 Baltimore 93° Chesterfield 114 Stafford
55 Gloucester 73° Cahert 94 Essex 115. Surry
56 Hudson 74 Caroline 95 Fairfax 116 Westmoreland
57 Mercer 75 Cecil 96 Gloucester 117. York
58 Middlesex 76 Charles 97 Hanover 118 Alexandria
59 Monmouth 77 Dorchester 98 Henrico 119 cI
60 Ocean 78 Harford 99. Isle of Wight 120 Colonial Heights
61 Passaic 79 Kent 100 James City 121 Fairfax
62 Salem 80 Prince George's 101 King and Queen 122 Falls Church
63 Somerset 81 Quoon Anne's 102 King George 123 Fredericksburg
64 Union 82 St Marys 103 King Wiliam 424 Hampton

83 Somerset 104 Lancaster 125 Hopewell

Pennsylvania 84 Talbot 105 Mathews 126 Newport News
65 Bucks 85 Wicomico 106 Middlesex 427. Norfolk
68 Delaware 86 Worcester
67 Philadelphia 87 Baltimore City



proximity to large urban centers. The
only Georgia county on the leading
growth list, Liberty, is projected to in-
crease by 42 percent over the next two
decades. This is due primarily to its
proximity to Savannah, as well as to the
effect of Fort Stewart, a large military
reservation located almost entirely within
the county.

Seminole, Broward, and Dade counties
in Florida are projected to be the most
densely populated counties in the South-
east by 2010. Broward and Dade coun-
ties have large land areas, but contain
the entire Miami-Fort Lauderdale met-
ropolitan area. Seminole County has a
high density because of its small land
area and proximity to Orlando. New
Hanover County, NC, also has a small
land area and contains numerous beach
resorts as well as the city of Wilmington.
Chatham County, GA, contains Savan-
nah, the fifth largest city in the region.

The Gulf of Mexico ranks fourth in total
population among the five coastal re-

gions, accounting for 13 percent of the
total U.S. coastal population. In 1988,
the 99 counties in this region were home
to more than 14 million persons. The
Gulf coastal population is projected to
increase by 22 percent, to almost 18
million by 2010. The major population
centers in the Gulf region include Hous-
ton, New Orleans, Tampa, and St. Pe-
tersburg.

Population Trends. The coastal popu-
lation in the Gulf of Mexico is projected
to increase by 144 percent between
1960 and 2010, the second highest of
the five regions. As a region, the great-
est change in population occurred be-
tween 1970 and 1980, when the Gulf
coastal population increased by 33
percent. Western Florida has been and
will continue to be the most rapidly grow-
ing area in the Gulf; its population is
expected to increase by more than 1.5
million overthe nexttwo decades. Texas
is the next most rapidly growing state;
its coastal population is expected to in-
crease by over 1.1 million persons dur-
ing this same period. Both western
Florida and Texas will have the highest

Table 12. Gulf of Mexico Population, 1960-2010

POPULATION

a

[a

eee fh ¢/ (f o/é f/

Persons per square mile

19


Figure 20. Pacific Coastal Popula-
tion Density, 1960-2010

800

8
id

Persons per Square Mile
y

0
1960 1970 1980

Year
[= Jestona F=]Wenegen Fase
Fert vom

waii, and Oregon (Figure 18). Overall,
the rate of growth in the Pacific region is,
and will continue to be, higher than in the
Northeast and Great Lakes, but lower
than for the Southeast and the Gulf of
Mexico.

1990 2000 2010

Population Density. The Pacific (in-
cluding Alaska) is the least densely
populated coastal region. Population
density in the Pacific region averages
36 persons per square mile, well below
the national average. However, popula-
tion density across the region is highly
variable, ranging from the sparsely
populated state of Alaska to the densely
populated coastal areas of California
(particularly southern California), as well
. as Hawaii. Between 1960-2010, popu-
lation densities in California are consis-
tently the highest of all the states in the
region, followed by Hawaii, Washing-
ton, Oregon, and Alaska (Figure 20). In-
creases in population density since the
1960s have been relatively consistent;

Table 16. Pacific Coastal Population
per Shoreline Mile
Year
State 1960 1988 2010
Calfornia 3,815 6,551 8,004
‘Oregon 785 1,140 1,287
Washington 658 1,163 1,405
Alaska 4 13 18
Hawaii 601 1,044 1,242
Pacific 395. 680 827

projections for the next two decades
show smaller increases in density. By
2010, population density is projected to
increase to 76 persons per square mile,
just above the national average. The
total increase is only 40 persons per
square mile over the 50-year period.

Excluding Alaska, the population den-
sity for the Pacific region is dramatically
different. The Pacific would rank third in
population density in 1960 (148 persons
per square mile), after the Northeast
and Great Lakes, and second only after
the Northeast in 2010.

Coastal California population density will
more than double, from 342 persons per
square mile in 1960 to an estimated 718
persons per square mile in 2010.
Washington and Hawaii follow, with
increases of 109 persons per square
mile and 104 persons per square mile,
respectively, over the same 50 year
period.

Population by Shoreline Mile. Popu-
lation-to-shoreline ratios shown in Table
16 indicate that the Pacific currently has
the lowest ratio of all the regions. Cali-
fornia currently has the highest ratio,
and projections suggest that it will more
than double from 1960 to 2010. Alaska’s
population-to-shoreline ratio is so low
that it distorts the regional perspective.
The average regional ratio will not in-
crease as dramatically as in the Gulf of

25


Figure 17. Gulf of Mexico Coastal

Population Density,
1960-2010
500.
400
2
=
g 300
8
i 200
1004
S960 1970 1980 1990 2000 ©2010
Year
ye Fates fone
f= Jectama =e!

tates of growth in the Gulf, 27 and 22
percent respectively. Table 12 summa-
rizes the change in population and
population density for each coastal state
between 1960 and 2010.

Although the Gulf of Mexico region is not
as densely settled as other regions, itis
expected to have the second fastest
rate of growth. Almost one-third of all
Gulf counties will increase in population
by more than 30 percent over the next
two decades. Figures 15 and 16 show,
by coastal county, the percent change in
population between 1988 and 2010, and
the projected population density in 2010.

Population Density. Excluding the
Pacific (because of Alaska’s enormous
size), the Gulf of Mexico is currently the
least densely populated of the five
coastal regions. Population density
across the region averages about 187
persons per square mile andis expected
to increase to 227 persons per square

mile by 2010. As Figure 17 shows,
population density in coastal Texas (316
persons per square mile) has and should
continue to be the highest in the region.
Western Florida, however, is projected
to have the most rapid growth in popula-
tion density, increasing to 195 persons
per square mile in 2010, up from 60
persons per square mile in 1960, a 226
percent increase. Alabama, which
shared the highest average population
density with Texas in 1960, is projected
to have the lowest density by 2010 (190
persons per square mile). Louisiana
and Mississippi will continue to experi-
ence steady increases into 2010.

Population by Shoreline Mile. Table
13 shows that population per shoreline
mile in the Gulf of Mexico will more than
double between 1960 and 2010. Texas
will have the highest ratio, followed by
Florida. Florida’s ratio will increase at a
faster rate than any other Gulf state
during this 50-year period. The 17,141
miles of shoreline in the Gulf region are
highly valued for residential and sea-
sonal housing, especially in Florida as
its population increases into the next
century.

“Hot Spots” of Growth. Table 14 lists
the region's top 15 coastal counties in
three categories: the counties projected

Table 13. Gulf of Mexico Coastal

Population per Shoreline
Mile
Year

State 1960 1988 2010
Florida 433 1,064 1411
Alabama 599 800 886
Mississippi 527 928 1,102
Louisiana 248 352 420
Texas: 798 1,517 1,956
Gulf of Mexico 429 820 1,046

21


ve

Appendix B: Great Lakes



Table 9. Southeast Population, 1960-2010

POPULATION

wo |

‘STATE

NORTH CAROUNA

ea a
saurscaouns
eeaits

[seorsia

eee

FLORIDA

24213

Coasia,
{ica atl

pre sw! ab! i

Hi) 7953 zt
hse ssa
7| 14a 273

ia fs ei
alate tn

a) see
(eieneessinat ye}

oll

183]

i214 30
Hele aaa

“Thousand persons “Persons per square mie

population is projected to increase by
226 percent for the entire 50-year pe-
riod. Population increases in eastern
Florida have been, and are projected to
be, the largest in the counties contain-
ing, or adjacent to Jacksonville, Miami,
Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, and
Orlando. Rapid growth also is projected
to occur around Savannah and Char-
leston.

Although coastal counties comprise only
19 percent of the land area in the four
Southeastern states, they contain more
than 31 percent of the population in
these states. Between 1988 and 2010,
almost one-third (16 of 56) of the coastal
counties are projected to have popula-
tion increases of 35-75 percent. Figures
12 and 13 show, by coastal county, the
percent change in population between
1988 and 2010, and the projected popu-
lation density in 2010.

Population Density. Coastal popula-
tion densities across the region in 1988
ranged from a low of 73 persons per
square mile in North Carolina to a high of
402 persons per square mile in Florida.
The average for the region was 237
persons per square mile, well above the

U.S. average of 70 persons per square
mile. Population density in the South-
east is expected to increase to an aver-
age of 301 persons per square mile by
2010. Figure 14 shows that Florida will
continue to lead the region in population
density, with an increase from 159 per-
sons per square mile in 1960 to slightly
more than 520 persons per square mile
by 2010, achange of about 227 percent.

Seasonal variations in population den-
sity occur even in such low-density areas
as coastal North Carolina. Southeast
coastal areas attract visitors from major
metropolitan centers in the southern
U.S., bringing increased seasonal envi-
ronmental stress in the form of housing,
hotels and motels, recreation, and sup-
porting infrastructure.

Population by Shoreline Mile. Table
10 shows that the population-to-shore-
line mile ratio in the Southeast will al-
most triple in size between 1960 and
2010. Florida’s ratio of 2,075 raises the
regional average because it is much
higher than any other Southeastern
state. The remaining states are more
rural and have a greater number of
shoreline miles because of large estuar-

16


Table 3. Northeast Population, 1960-2010

‘STATE

ee TO t/t

opal eee Fe £56 ean
[ose aaa ie es:

NEW HAMPSHIRE
cot

[MASSACHUSETTS
ce |

7138

falls Rae ISL E alitndl iehal
neweee rie Tae) wees
Eeiaaeanante was MRE ose
Poeoa | gzer| ‘277 aes a
arama rte etl Ell
oavane =
Lesa sande sadli on
bresey : cet] ee oe sa
icdeanantes| si iol iia parison
Sass eM) 3 Se toost| ees tosea
CRORES Sanaa
2 a
sian eames
fes| Sra) a ter | ose ‘ao 3s2
SESH GORMENENESE Noe ge ans atins Eee Sasa

eon

wz

sass
sche 7

Fy Pome

s ecsopgersn
a al ee
a ee TRE
Toe on
sae
= ‘i!

F

i i
pn

Tall

7387S

sesee coat
or

besides

17375) gare aor

“Thousand persons “Persons per square mile

age growth over the next two decades
when compared to the entire U.S. Given
the relatively degraded environmental
quality conditions that already exist in
this region, any growth is likely to make
these problems more severe. Figure 6
shows the percent change in population
in Northeast coastal counties between
1988 and 2010.

As shown in Table 3, all but two of the
states, Pennsylvania and New Hamp-
Shire, in the Northeast region have most
of their population in coastal counties.
About 63 percent of the region's popula-
tion resides in the narrow band of coastal
counties that border the ocean and es-
tuaries in these states. This relatively
high proportion of coastal versus non-
coastal population is even more impor-

tant when one considers that coastal
counties account for only one-fourth of
the total land area in the region. While
almost four million people are expected
to be added to the region's coastal
population by 2010, the ratio of coastal
tonon-coastal population should remain
roughly the same.

Population Density. Because of the
large population and small amount of
land area in these coastal counties, this
region is the most densely populated in
the U.S., with more than 750 persons
per square mile. The population density
should rise to over 830 persons per
square mile by 2010. At that point, the
coastal population density will be more
than five times that of the region’s non-

8


Le

Coastal Counties

Maine ‘New Hampshire Rhode Island New York 42 Rensselaer
1 Cumberland 11 Rockingham 22 Bristol 31 Albany 43° Richmond
2 Hancock 12 Swafford 23° Kent 32 Bronx 44° Rockland
3° Kennebec 24 Newport 33 Columbia 45° Suffolk
4 Knox Massachusetts 25 Providence 34 Dutchess 46 Ulster
5 Lincoln 13 Bamstable 26 Washington 35. Greene 47 Westchester
6 Penobscot 14° Bristol 36 Kings
7 Sagadahoc 15 Dukes Conneticut 37 Nassau
8 Waldo 16 Essex 27 Fairfield bed few York
9 Washington 17 Middlesex 28 Middlesex nae
40 Putnam

10 York 18 Nantucket 29 New Haven a” ¢

19 Norfolk 30 New London Queer

20. Plymouth

21 Suffolk



References

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986a.
County-level projections of economic
activity and population: Alabama, 1990-
2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of
interagency agreements with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority. 153 p.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986b.
County-level projections of economic
activity and population: Florida, 1990-
2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of
interagency agreements with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority. 153 p.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986c.
County-level projections of economic
activity and population: Georgia, 1990-
2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of
interagency agreements with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority. 337 p.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986d.
County-level projections of economic
activity and population: Mississippi,
1990-2035. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce. Preparedas
part of interagency agreements with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Tennessee Valley Authority. 183 p.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986e.
County-level projections of economic
activity and population: North Carolina,
1990-2035. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce. Prepared as
part of interagency agreements with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Tennessee Valley Authority. 218 p.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986f.
County-level projections of economic
activity and population: South Carolina,
1990-2035. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce. Prepared as
part of interagency agreements with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Tennessee Valley Authority. 108 p.

Bureau of Economic Analysis. 1986g.
County-level projections of economic
activity and population: Virginia, 1990-
2035. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce. Prepared as part of
interagency agreements with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority. 291 p.

Bureau of the Census. 1988. County
and city data book, 1988. U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. 797 p.
+ appendices.

Bureau of the Census. 1989a. Current
population reports, population estimates
and projections. Series.p-26, No. 88-a.
County population estimates: July 1,
1988, 1987, and 1986. U.S. Depart-
ment of Commerce. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office. 45 p.

Bureau of the Census. 1989. Statistical
abstract of the United States, 1989. U.S.
Department of Commerce. Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. 956 p.

Edwards, S. F. 1989. Estimates of
future demographic changes in the
coastal zone. Coastal Management.
17(3): 229-240.

28


Figure 3. Population Change in Coastal Counties, 1988-2010

Southeast

Population Change,

1988-2010 (Thousands)
FL [EM 100 or Greater

i 25to99

Hl 7.51024

2107.4

 -72t01



Table 1. Leading Coastal States in
Population Change, 1960-

Coastal County Population Change.
The decade of maximum coastal popu-

2010 lation growth during the study period

Stato AbsoluteTM State Percent (1960-2010) was the 1960s, when

California. 19.2 Florida 226 coastal population increased by more

Texas 11.6 Alaska 208 than 13 million persons, with California,

Florida " sew Hampshire a4 Florida, and New York accounting for
gia . alifornia A

Virgiva 30 Texas 421 approximately 58 percent of the increase.

*Million persons

small, but densely populated, portion of
the Nation. Coastal population will grow
by about 15 percent over the next two
decades.

Coastal vs. Non-coastal States. U.S.
population during the 50-year period,
1960-2010, has, and is projected to,
increase the most in coastal states
(Figure 2). Seventeen of the 20 states
with the largest statewide population
increases are coastal. |n Florida, which
is defined as entirely coastal, the popu-
lation will increase from five million in
1960 to more than 16 million by 2010, a
226 percentincrease. By 2010, Florida’s
population will rank fourth in the Nation,
up from tenth in 1960. California and
Texas have and are projected to expe-
rience dramatic growth between 1960
and 2010. These states, which are
projected to rank first and second re-
spectively in total population in 2010,
will increase by 30 million people (state-
wide) during this 50-year period. Table
1 shows the leading coastal states in ab-
solute and percent population change
between 1960 and 2010.

Coastal growth slowed during the 1970s,
but rebounded in the 1980s. An in-
crease of more than 10 million persons
is projected between 1980 and 1990. In
the 1980s, California, Florida, and Texas
will account for 73 percent of the growth
in coastal areas. Coastal population
growth will slow over the next two dec-
ades, but growth rates throughout the
Nation will also decrease. Table 2 lists
the change in coastal, non-coastal, and
total U.S. populations between 1960
and 2010.

Eight coastal counties in California and
Florida will be in the top 10 counties in
absolute population change between
1988 and 2010. The Southern Califor-
nia counties of Los Angeles, Orange,
and San Diego will grow by 2.6 million
persons during this period. The Miami
area (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach
counties) will also increase rapidly, with
about 1.2 million additional persons
projected by 2010. Only five percent of
coastal counties will decline in popula-
tion over the next 20 years. The largest
declines will occur in the Northeast and
Great Lakes regions. Figure 3 shows

Table 2. U.S. Coastal and Non-coastal Population Change, 1960-2010

Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Change Change Change Change Change
Counties __1960_ 1960-1970 1970 1970-1980 1980 1980-1990 1990 1990-2000 2000 2000-2010 2010
Coastal aor 17 3 9 mi 11 «112 «8 120 «6 127
Non-coastal 101 11112, 18127, 1887 1480S 156
Total i a | 2 2086288
*Million Persons
4


Figure 12. Pgouvation Change in Southeast Coastal Counties, 1988-2010

Percent Change
IB 35 or Greater
20 to 34
E] totoi9g
B -otog

Persons per Square Mile
TM 255 or Greater

TE]. 105 to 254

45 to 104

© oto 44

17


expected in Florida, primarily along the
state’s Gulf coast. Declines in popula-
tion density during this same period are
projected in 23 counties. The largest
declines are expected in the major ur-
ban centers of the Great Lakes and
Northeast.

The most densely populated portion of
the Nation’s coastal zone is the North-
east, where four states and the District
of Columbia have densities exceeding
1,000 persons per square mile. The
Great Lakes region is the second most
densely populated area, with Illinois and
Ohio having the highest population con-
centrations in this region. The South-
east region follows, because of the high
population density of the Miami metro-
politan area. The least densely popu-
lated region is the Pacific, largely a
result of the diluting effect of Alaska’s
vast stretches of uninhabited coastline.
Otherwise, the Gulf of Mexico has the
lowest population density. Figure 5
shows the distribution of coastal county
population density by state.

Coastal County Population by Shore-
line Mile. Coastal areas are often val-
ued for their aesthetic appeal and are
increasingly attractive for commercial
and residential development. Water-
front sites are highly prized for housing.
These same sites are also sought for a
wide variety of recreational activities
and tourist attractions. However, the
appeal and attractiveness of these areas
are being diminished by the pressures
of population growth and the require-
ments of development (New York Water
Pollution Control Association, Inc.,
1989).

Population per shoreline mile serves as
one indicator of “environmental stress”

along the Nation’s coastline. These
figures were developed by dividing the
coastal population of each state by tidal
shoreline mileage (NOAA, 1975).
Coastal areas had a national average of
1,177 persons per shoreline mile in 1988,
and a projected ratio of 1,358 in 2010.
The coastal states with the highest popu-
lation-to-shoreline ratios (due primarily
to their relatively small shorelines) in-
clude: Illinois, 91,740; eastern Pennsyl-
vania, 30,871; Indiana, 15,951; and the
District of Columbia, 15,049.

Northeast

The Northeast is the most populated of
the five regions, accounting for more
than one-third of the Nation’s coastal
population. /tcontains 18 of the 25 most
densely populated counties in the entire
U.S. In 1988, the 134 coastal counties
in this region, stretching from the north-
ern coast of Maine to the Tidewater
region of Virginia, were home to more
than 39 million people, about 16 percent
of the Nation’s total population. The
Northeast coastal populationis projected
to increase by 10 percent over the next
two decades, to almost 43 million in
2010. This increase is almost equiva-
lentto the combined current populations
of Connecticut and Rhode Island. The
major population centers of the region
include New York City, Philadelphia,
Baltimore, Washington, and Boston.

Population Trends. The coastal popu-
lation in the Northeast will increase by
30 percent between 1960 and 2010. As
aregion, the greatest change in popula-
tion occurred during the 1960s, when
the Northeast coastal population in-
creased by 13 percent. The Northeast
region will experience lower than aver-

7


Pacific Regi

The Pacific region, the second most
populated U.S. coastal region, contains
77 coastal counties and such major
population centers as Los Angeles, San
Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, Honolulu,
Portland, and Anchorage. In 1988, the
coastal population of this region was
over 29 million, with 77 percent of the
population living in California. By 2010,
the population will have increased by 22
percent to over 35 million persons.

Population Trends. The coastal popu-
lation in the Pacific region is expected to
more than double between 1960 and
2010, the third highest growth rate among
the five regions. By 2010, the coastal
population is expected to increase by
over six million persons, the largest of
any coastal region. Table 15 shows that
by 2010, all states except for Oregon will
have at least doubled their coastal
population. Alaska’s coastal population
is expected to increase by 380 percent.

The greatest changes in coastal county
population occurred during the 1960s.
From 1960 to the present, and projected
to 2010, Alaska had the largest popula-
tion growth rate. Between 1960 and
1970, Alaska’s population almost
doubled, while other Pacific states saw
increases of only 17-28 percent. Cali-
fornia had the second largest rate of
population increase, followed closely by
Washington.

Growth in the region slowed considera-
bly between 1970 and 1980. Although
Alaska’s population grew by over one-
third, California had the smallest popu-
lation growth rate (15 percent). Average
growth across the region was approxi-
mately 17 percent. Estimates of popu-
lation growth for the 1980s are similar to
the growth that occurred during the
1960s. Growth in Alaska will exceed 40
percent. California follows with over 20
percent growth. The smallest growth
rate is anticipated in Oregon.

Population projections for the next two
decades reflect a slower rate of growth.
Alaska’s rate will be the largest, fol-
lowed by Washington, California, Ha-

Table 15. Pacific Population, 1960-2010

POPULATION

a

=

| =

wilt TE M4 Lit Vt L/t/

ee a

23


A Special Earth Week Report

50 Years of
"Population Change

- along the Nation's Coasts
1960-2010

\
U.S. Department of Commerc
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrati
National Ocean Service

\



Figure 8. Northeast Coastal Population Density, 1960-2010

(a) Maine-New York
5,000

4,000.

g
3
$s

Persons per Square Mile
x
8

$900
_

1 saan PTS
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year
Juewvon Ff rmato tnd = aon tangite

=

(b) New Jersey-Virginia
13,000 ————

_
_

4,000:

3,000

Persons per Square Mile

a

0.
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year

Foner etcoumen, ==]or nay Fa
Jremmiaia — Ea iartens = ]ooanae

coastal counties. Figure 7 shows the
population density of coastal counties in
the Northeast region in 2010.

Figures 8a and 8b show the trend in
population density for the coastal por-
tions of states in the Northeast. The
overall trend for the region is one of slow
growth, with each state’s ranking re-
maining constant, except for New
Hampshire, which is projected to sur-
pass Delaware by 2010. Pennsylvania
has a higher density than other states in
the region, excluding the District of
Columbia, because its counties are al-
most exclusively urban. Six of the
Nation's seven leading states in coastal
county population density are located in
the Northeast.

Population by Shoreline Mile. Table 4
lists the coastal population per shoreline
mile for each of the Northeast states.
The high value for Pennsylvania is the
result of a major population center (Phila-

delphia) comprising a large portion of
the state's coastal zone. In other North-
east states with large coastal population
centers, such as Boston, New York City,
and Baltimore, there is a greater length
of shoreline reaching less populated
portions of the state, consequently low-
ering the overall population per shore-
line mile.

“Hot Spots” of Growth. Table 5 lists
the top 15 coastal counties in the region
for three categories: the counties ex-
pected to increase by the most people;
the counties projected to increase at the
fastest rate; and the counties projected
to have the highest population density.
The counties with the largest projected
increases in population are primarily
suburbs of the large cities in the region.
Suffolk County, NY, for example, is lo-
cated on the eastern end of Long Island,
and will grow largely due to its proximity
to New York City. Queens County, NY,
is one of the boroughs of New York City.

10


Figure 6. Agpu/ation Change in Northeast Coastal Counties, 1988-2010

Percent Change
(BM 25 0r Greater
EE] 15to24
EE] Sto14
1 -totos

Figure 7. Pqpulation Density in Northeast Coastal Counties, 2010

Persons per Square Mile
[M2185 or Greater

i 470to 2184

2] 145 to 469

A oto 144



DATE DUE_

Bae

GAYLORD|No. 2333 Panere0n usa



OE



GESAMP (Group of Experts on the
Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution).
1990. The state of the marine environ-
ment.. UNEP Regional Seas Reports
and Studies No. 115. Nairobi, Kenya:
United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme. 111p.

Lewis, J. 1989. Trouble in paradise.
EPA Journal. 15(5): 3-7.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. 1975. The coastlines of
the United States. US Department of
Commerce. Washington, DC: US
Government Printing Office. 2 p.

National Planning Association Data
Services, Inc. 1988. Key indicators of
county growth 1970-2010 (data base).
Washington, DC: National Planning
Association Data Services, Inc.

New York Water Pollution Control Asso-
ciation, Inc. 1989. Who’s minding the
shore? Clearwaters 19(3): 6-9.

O'Connor, Thomas P. and Charles N.
Ehler. 1990. Results from the NOAA
National Status and Trends Program on
distributions and effects of chemical
contamination in the coastal and estuar-
ine United States. Environmental Moni-
toring and Assessment. (in press).

Slater Hall Information Products, Inc.
1987. County statistics (data base).
Washington, DC: Slater Hall Informa-
tion Products, Inc.

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

Terleckyj, N.E.andC.D. Coleman. 1989.
Data and methods. In: Regional eco-
nomic growth in the United States:
Projections for 1989-2010, summary
volume |. Washington, DC: National
Planning Association Data Services, Inc.

West, N. 1987. Population changes in
coastal jurisdictions with barrier beaches:
1960-1980. In: Cities on the beach:
Management issues of developed
coastal barriers, R. H. Platt, S. G.
Pelezarski, and B. K. R. Burbank (eds.).
Department of Geography Research
Paper No. 224. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press. pp. 55-63.

Wetrogan, S. |. 1988. Current popula-
tion reports, population estimates and
projections. Series p-25, No. 1017.
Projections of population of states, by
age, sex, and race: 1988 to 2000.
Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department
of Commerce. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office. 124 p.

Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. 1987.
CEDDS 1987. The complete economic
and demographic data source (vols. 1-
3). Washington, DC: Woods and Poole
Economics, Inc. 1,447 p.

Personal Communicati

C. Harrington, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Rockville, MD.

29


Figure 4. Population Density, 1960-
2010

Persons per mi2

United
States

Coastal
Counties:

Note: Does not include Alaska.

the projected change in population be-
tween 1988 and 2010 in U.S. coastal
counties.

Coastal County Population Density.
Coastal areas include some of the most
densely populated counties in the Na-
tion. Population density in coastal coun-
ties (excluding Alaska, since its huge
coastal area dilutes the national picture)
has increased dramatically since 1960
(Figure 4). While the population density

in the U.S. was 61 persons per square
mile in 1960, population density in coastal
states was 100 persons per square mile,
and 248 persons per square mile in
coastal counties. By 1988, population
density in coastal counties reached 341
persons per square mile, more than four
times the U.S. average. Population
density in coastal areas is expected to
increase as more people continue to
move into this limited space. About 68
percent of all coastal counties will have
a population density increase of more
than 10 percentbetween 1988 and 2010.

In 1988, 101 counties had a population
density greater than 500 persons per
square mile. The most densely popu-
lated counties, those in which popula-
tion densities exceed 10,000 persons
per square mile, include and/or sur-
round the cities of New York, San Fran-
cisco, Boston, and Philadelphia. The
largest percent change in population
density over the next two decades is

Figure 5. United States and Coastal Population Density, 1988

10.0007

g

=

y

8
2)

Persons per Square Mile

500.

EN

old
US ME

Monies states [El] northeast

Bisoutheast



Figure 15. Population Change in Gulf of Mexico Coastal Courties, 1988-2010

Percent Change
35 or Greater
25 to 34

EI Stot4

Figure 16. Population Density in Gulf of Mexico Coastal Counties, 2070

20


Coastal Counties

North Carolina
Beaufort

Brunswick
Camden
Carteret
‘Chowan
‘Craven
‘Currituck

15

Boseisa

SSRBRRIRV

Pamlico

Pender
Perquimans
Tyrell

Washington

South Carolina
Beaufort
Berkeley
‘Charleston
Colleton
Dorchester

Williamsburg

eeeees

Camden
Chatham
Glynn
Uberty
Mcintosh

Baker
Bradford
Brevard
Broward
Clay

Duval
Flagler

2888S GR

Indian River
Martin

Okeechobee
Orange
Osceola
Palm Beach
Puram

St. Johns
St Luci
Seminole
Union
Volusia

37


8e

Appendix D: Gu!

FLORIDA

oan
Sse



Table 17. Pacific Leading Counties in Population Change

Population Percent
Change, Population Population per

1988-2010 Change, ‘Square Mile,
County (1,000 Persons) County 1988-2010 County 2010
Los Angeles, CA 4.271 Kenai Peninsula, AK cy ‘San Francisco, CA 18,913
Orange, CA 704 Matanuska-Susitna, AK 57 Orange, CA 3,710
‘San Diego, CA 620 ‘San Juan, WA 51 Los Angeles, CA. 2,422
Santa Clara, CA 428 Santa Cruz, CA 50 ‘Alameda, CA 1,998
Alameda, CA 229 Thurston, WA 47 ‘San Mateo, CA 1,657
Ventura, CA 222 San Luis Obispo, CA 46 Honolulu, HI 1,627
Sacramento, CA 202 ‘Anchorage, AK 45 Santa Clara, CA 1,439
Contra Costa, CA 199 Jefferson, WA 44 Multnomah, OR 1,359
King, WA 188 Mason, WA 43 Contra Costa, CA 1,320
‘Sonoma, CA 153 ‘Sonoma, CA 42 Sacramento, CA 1214
‘San Francisco, CA 138 Solano, CA 40 King, WA 764
Honolulu, HI 131 Mendocino, CA 39 ‘Santa Cruz, CA 760
Solano, CA 124 Island, WA 39 San Diego, CA 710
Pierce, WA 7 Kitsap, WA 36 Kitsap, WA 627
San Mateo, CA 112 Maui, Hl 35 Solano, CA 526

Mexico, Southeast, or Northeast. The
very high concentration of population
along the shoreline, particularly in Cali-
fornia, reflects the desirability of shore-
line property for residential housing.

“Hot Spots” of Growth. Table 17 lists
the top 15 coastal counties for three
categories: the counties projected to
increase by the most people; the coun-
ties projected to increase at the fastest
rate; and the counties projected to have
the highest population density. With
respect to increasing population sizes
between 1988 and 2010, 12 of the coun-
ties are located in California. Not sur-
prisingly, Los Angeles, Orange, and San
Diego counties top the list, with Los
Angeles County expecting an increase
of 1.3 million persons. The other Califor-
nia counties in this ranking are part of
the Southern California and San Fran-
cisco Bay metropolitan areas. King and
Pierce counties, WA, and Honolulu also
make this list.

Population density projections for 2010
show a similar pattern. Eleven of the
leading coastal counties are in Califor-
nia, concentrated around San Francisco,

Los Angeles, and San Diego. In 1960,
almost one-half of California’s total
population, and almost 60 percent of the
state’s coastal population, were con-
centrated in the three southernmost
counties. By 2010, 15.8 million persons
will reside in these counties. Although
these counties are already densely popu-
lated, significant growth is still expected
into the next century. King and Kitsap
counties (located around Puget Sound),
Honolulu, and Multnomah (where Port-
land is located), are also densely popu-
lated.

The top 10 counties on the list all have
population densities greater than 1,000
persons per square mile. San Fran-
cisco is the most densely populated,
with over 18,900 persons per square
mile. Orange County is second, with
over 3,700 persons per square mile,
and Los Angeles County third, with over
2,400 persons per square mile. The
tanking changes dramatically in terms
of percent population change during this
same period. Growth of the leading
counties ranges from 35-75 percent.
Two of the top three counties are lo-

26


and cultural features to delineate coastal
boundaries. Most recognize that activi-
ties miles inland can have a significant
impact on the environmental quality of
the coast, and have included these areas
in their management programs.

The coastal U.S. has been divided into
five regions to examine spatial variations
of population. Four of the five regions
are used by NOAA in its coastal assess-
ment activities, including the National
Estuarine Inventory (NEI) program. The
Great Lakes region currently is not in-
cluded in the NEI series, but is included
in this report because it is heavily popu-
lated and represents a large portion of
the Nation's coastal lands and waters,
as defined under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972.

Six maps in the appendix show the
coastal counties and major population
centers in each region.

Population Projections

Source. Two Federal agencies, both
located in the U.S. Department of
Commerce, develop population projec-
tions periodically. However, county-
level population projections are not
available nationwide from either the
Bureau of the Census or the Bureau of
Economic Analysis (BEA). Although
BEA county-level projections are avail-
able for seven coastal states in the
Southeast and Gulf of Mexico, no pro-
jections have been made for other
coastal states. | Consequently, two
economic forecasting firms were identi-
fied as data sources, National Planning
Association Data Services, Inc. (NPA)
and Woods and Poole Economics, Inc.,
both located in Washington, DC.

The NPA and Woods and Poole state-
level projections for 2000 were com-
pared with BEA projections for the seven
southeastern and Gulf states and with
Bureau of the Census projections. The
NPAprojections, on average, were about
two percent greater than the BEA pro-
jections, and about two percent less
than those developed by the Bureau of
the Census. NPA underestimated the
Woods and Poole projections by about
four percent. Because the NPA projec-
tions were closest to the Bureau of the
Census projections, and were more
conservative than the Woods and Poole
projections, the NPA population projec-
tions were chosen for this report.

Population projections were not obtained
from individual states because of incon-
sistencies among state projection tech-
niques. Each state may use different
assumptions (e.g., economic scenar-
ios, fertility, and mortality) and methods
in making their projections. For these
reasons, NOAA chose to use a consis-
tent set of population projections devel-
oped for all states.

How the Projections are Made. NPA
used a three-step process to generate
its population projections. First, na-
tional economic projections were made
for employment and earnings using
historical economic data from the BEA.
Regional economic projections were
then made for 183 Economic Areas (EAs)
defined by the BEA. The EAs are aggre-
gates of contiguous counties and repre-
sent cohesive economic regions of the
U.S. National projections were allo-
cated to the EAs and then to counties to
determine the population projection for
each county. County population projec-
tions were developed using area-spe-

2




Figure 9. Agoulation Change in Great Lakes Coastal Counties, 1988 - 2010

Percent Change
I 150r Greater
EB sto14
Oto4
© -1t0to-1

13


Table 8. Great Lakes Leading Counties in Population Change

Population Percent

Change, Population Population per

1988-2010 Change, ‘Square Mile,
County (100 Persons) County 1988-2010 County 2010
Cook, IL 992 Porter, IN 26 Cook, IL 5,620
Macomb, MI 765 ‘Cook, MN 23 Milwaukee, WI 3,960
Lake, IL 737 Leelanau, MI 21 Wayne, Mi 3,397
Monroe, NY 566 Grand Traverse, Ml 20 ‘Cuyahoga, OH 3,073
Porter, IN 329 Bayfield, WI 19 ‘Macomb, MI 1,625
Ottawa, MI 299 Benzie, MI 18 Lucas, OH 1,361
Brown, WI 285 Door, WI 18 Lake, IL. 1,253
Milwaukee, WI 242 Ozaukee, WI 7 Monroe, NY 1,142
Erie, PA 180 Ottawa, MI 7 Lake, OH 998
Lorain, OH 175 Antrim, Mi 7 961
Lake, OH 158 Emmet, Mi 16 927
‘St. Clair, MI 151 Allegan, MI 16 582
Allegan, MI 143 Lake, iL 15 2 554
Oswego, NY 136 Houghton, MI 45 Kenosha, WI 458
Grand Traverse, MI 129 Alcona, Ml 45 Niagara, NY 4a7

1988 and 2010 contain, or are near,
major cities. Some of these same coun-
ties experienced significant declines in
population between 1980 and 1988.

The counties expected to grow at the
fastest rate are found almost exclusively
on the shores of Lakes Michigan and
Superior. Porter County, IN, is in the
eastern half of the Gary-Hammond met-
ropolitan area. It is expected to experi-
ence continued rapid growth, even
though the metropolitan area as a whole
has been losing population over the last
decade. This pattern also holds true for
Ozaukee County, WI, part of the Mil-
waukee-Racine metropolitan area.

The listof high-density counties for 2010
is not very different from a list that would
be compiled today. High-density coun-
ties are foundin every Great Lakes state
except Minnesota.

Sou

ast

The Southeast has the smallest popula-
tion of the five regions shown, account-
ing for only eight percent of the U.S.

coastal population. In 1988, the 56
counties in this region were home to
more than nine million persons. Four
out of five people living in the coastal
Southeast were located in eastern Flor-
ida. The Southeast coastal population
is projected to increase by 27 percent
over the next two decades, to 11 million
persons in 2010. The major population
centers of the region include Miami,
Jacksonville, Savannah, and Charleston.

Population Trends. The coastal popu-
lation of the Southeast region is pro-
Jected to increase by 181 percent (the
highest of the five regions) between
1960 and 2010. The largest growth
occurred between 1970 and 1980, when
the Southeast coastal population in-
creased by 36 percent. Table 9summa-
rizes the change in population and
population density for each coastal state
between 1960 and 2010.

Eastern Florida has and will dominate
population trends in this region. This
area has experienced extremely rapid
growth; its population increased by 152
percent between 1960 and 1988. Its

15


MAIL OPA MAS

The Second Report of a Coastal Trends Series

50 Years of

Population Change

along the Nation's Coasts
1960-2010

21355 071

“alt

Oo

GCL

Property of csc Library

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

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services
Center
2234 South Hobson Avenue nibrasy
Charleston, sc 29405-2413

NOANCCH a
EH
1990 HOBSON AVE, KS) MAR 14 1692.

cHas. SC 2o4082623
—_

Strategic Assessment Branch
. Ocean Assessments Division
Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Rockville, Maryland 20852



Appendix C: Southeast

36


Figure 18. /gpulation Change in Pactic Coastal Counties, 1988-2070

Percent Change
[Ml 30 or Greater
E] 20 to 29
15 to 19
EE] -20to 14

Persons per Square Mile
WH 575 or Greater

Fl 145 to 574

© 5010 144

1 oto49

24


Coastal Trends Series

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

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

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

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

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


Appendix A: Northeast (Part 2)

32


Ly

Coastal Counties

California
1 Alameda

2 Contra Costa
3 Del Norte
4 Humboldt
5 Los Angeles

6 Marin

7 Mendocino

8 Monterey

9 Napa

10 Orange

11 Sacramento

12 San Diego

13 San Francisco
14 San Joaquin

15 San Luis Obispo
16 San Mateo

17° Santa Barbara
18 Santa Clara
19 Santa Cruz

35

Solano
Sonoma
Ventura

Benton
Clatsop
Columbia
Coos
Curry
Douglas
Lane
Lincoin
Multnomah
Polk
Tillamook
Washington
Yamhill

36
37
38
39
40
a4
42
43

45
46
47
48
49
50

52

Washington
Clallam
Clark
Cowlitz
Grays Harbor
Island
Jefferson
King

Mason
Pacific
Piorce

‘San Juan
Skagit
‘Snohomish
Thurston
Wahkiakum
Whatcom:

BRLSRLSSSIHHes

Alaska

Aleutian Islands
Anchorage

Bathe!

Bristol Bay
Dillingham

Haines

Juneau

Kenai Peninsula
Ketchikan Gatoway
Kobuk

Kodiak Island
Matanuska-Susitna
Nome

North Slope

NAISss

VsaIRS

Prince of Wales-Outer Ketchikan
Sitka

‘Skagway-Yakutat-Angoon
Valdez-Cordova

Wade Hampton
Wrangell-Petersburg

Honolulu
Kalawao
Kauai
Maui



cated in south-central Alaska and reflect
the growth anticipated out from Anchor-
age. Two of the top five are in Washing-
ton. As expected, the greatest growth
will occur in less densely populated
places, where there is more capability
for expansion of a small population base
(Figure 19).

Population projections are inherently
imprecise and do not provide the “final
picture” because of unforeseen eco-
nomic or social changes. In addition,
projections are much less certain as the
geography becomes smaller, e.g., at
the county level, and with increases in
the time horizon. The summary data
presented in this paper should be inter-
preted cautiously, but not to the extent
that they diminish the existing and grow-
ing importance of coastal areas.

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

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Charles N. Ehler,
Director, Office of Oceanography and
Marine Assessment, and Daniel J. Basta,
Chief, Strategic Assessment Branch,
for their guidance and support of this
report and the coastal trends series.
Kevin D. McMahon and Mitchell J. Katz
provided editorial support. The Bureau
of the Census provided all pre-1990
population data.

27


Table 4. Northeast Coastal Population

per Shoreline Mile
Year

State 1960 1988 2010
Maine 188 250 290
New Hampshire 1,212 2,553 3,453
Massachusetts 2,525 2,907 3,324
Rhode Island 2,238 2,585 2,881
‘Connecticut 2,570 3,235 3,631
New York 6,324 6,738 7,130
New Jersey 3,147 3,898 4,223
Pennsylvania 32,182 30,871 32,375
Delaware 4171 1,733 1,910
Maryland 753 1,027 1,135

of Columbia 18,633 15,049 16,212
Virginia 665. 1,133 1,330
Northeast 1,973 2,330 2,557

Fairfax County, VA, is located across
the Potomac River from Washington,
DC. Middlesex County, MA, is west and
north of Boston.

A slightly different pattern emerges for
counties with large increases in their
rate of growth. These counties are lo-
cated at the edges of the existing areas
of urban influence. Instead of being -
directly adjacent to a major city, they are
usually one county beyond the recog-
nized suburban area. This “suburban
sprawl” from the central city outward to
the surrounding counties has been
occurring throughout the U.S., espe-

cially since the end of World War Il. The
percent change map (Figure 6) shows
the pattern of more rapid growth at the
fringes of current metropolitan regions.

A second pattern emerges due to the
influence of an aging population. At
least four of the counties with rapid
projected growth currently have a large
elderly population. These counties (Vir-
ginia Beach, VA; Worcester, MD; Ocean,
NJ; and Barnstable, MA) are popular re-
tirement and resort areas for people
who want to settle on or visit the Atlan-
tic coast.

The Northeastis the most densely popu-
lated region in the entire U.S. The 15
northeastern counties listed in Table 5
for population density are also nation-
wide leaders in population density.
Except for San Francisco County, CA,
nine of the 10 most densely populated
counties in the U.S. in 1988 were in the
Northeast. |n 2010, 56 of the region’s
counties, or 42 percent, are projected to
have a population density larger than
800 persons per square mile, or 10
times the projected national average.

Table 5. Northeast Leading Counties in Population Change

Population Percent Population per

‘Change, Population ‘Square Mile,

1988-2010 Change, 2010
County (1,000 Persons) County 1988-2010 County (1,000 Persons)
Suffolk, NY 225 Spotsylvania, VA 49 New York, NY 1
Fairfax, VA 210 Barnstable, MA 48 Kings, NY 33
Middlesex, MA 144 Charles, MD 43 Bronx, NY a7
‘Ocean, NU 124 Dukes, MA 43 Queens, NY 19
Queens, NY 118 Calvert, MD 42 Suffolk, MA 12
Plymouth, MA 114 Falls Church, VA 40 Philadelphia, PA 12
Virginia Beach, VA 105 Rockingham, NH 39 Hudson, NJ 12
Anne Arundel, MD 93 Fredericksburg, VA 34 District of Columbia 1"
Rockingham, NH 92 Nantucket, MA 33 Baltimore City, MD 9
Fairfield, CT cl Gloucester, VA 33 Richmond, NY 8
New Haven, OT 89 Prince Wiliam, VA 33 ‘Alexandria, VA 8
Bristol, MA 88 Stafford, VA 33 Essex, NJ 7
Barnstable, MA 86 King George, VA 31 Falls Church, VA 7
Bucks, PA 85 Ocean, NU 30 Artington, VA 7
Essex, MA 82 Chesterfield, VA 30 Norfolk, VA_ 6

an


Figure 11. Great Lakes Coastal Popu-
lation Density, 1960-2010

5,000.

4,000. > el

Persons per Square Mile

0
1960 1970 1980

Year
pio ESJpomsnena Eien
ono

1990 2000 2010

Jor
=

Table 6 summarizes the change in popu-
lation and population density for each
coastal state between 1960 and 2010.

=

Figure 9 shows the percent change in
population between 1988 and 2010.
Most of the counties expected to expe-
rience rapid growth in the region have
relatively small populations. Unlike the
Northeast, most of these higher growth
counties are not found near metropoli-
tan areas. The region has 12 coastal
counties expected to lose population
between 1988 and 2010, more than any
other coastal region in the Nation.

Population Density. The population
densities of the coastal portions of these
states through time are shown in Figure
11. Because both Cook and Lake coun-
ties are so highly developed, the coastal
population density of Illinois is much
higher than any other state in the region
and, excluding the District of Columbia,
the Nation.

Table 7. Great Lakes Coastal Popula-

tion per Shoreline Mile
Year
State 1960 1988 2010
New York 6,127 6,273 6,581
Pennsylvania 4,915 5,431 5,785
‘Ohio 8,963 8,892 9,006
Michigan 1,523 1,579 1,639
Indiana 14,859 15,951 16,646
Illinois 86,085 91,740 94,485
Wisconsin: 2,176 2,285 2,422
Minnesota, 1,316 1,135 1,186.
Great Lakes 3,695, 3,835 3,974

Figure 10 shows the population density
for the region in 2010. The counties
containing the major metropolitan areas
in the region (Chicago, Detroit, Cleve-
land, Milwaukee, and Buffalo) appear in
red. In general, population densities are
higher along the southern shores of
Lakes Michigan, Huron, and Erie.

Population by Shoreline Mile. The
coastal population per shoreline mile
(Table 7) confirms the high degree of
development of the two coastal counties
of Illinois. Its population of over 91,000
persons per mile of shoreline is the
highest in the Nation. The shoreline
mile population of Indiana is also high,
15,951, making it the fourth highest in
the U.S. The regional ratio of 3,835 per-
sons per shoreline mile makes the Great
Lakes the highest of the five coastal
regions.

“Hot Spots” of Growth. The slow
growth trend expected for this region is
evident after comparing the leading
growth counties in this region to those in
the four other coastal regions. The
absolute and percent population change
growth figures in Table 8 are lower than
the leading counties in the other re-
gions. Most of the counties with large
projected population increases between

14