Amicus Brief - Emerald Isle

Transcription

NO. 409PA15
THIRD DISTRICT
********************************************************
SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
********************************************************
GREGORY P. NIES and DIANE S.
NIES,
Plaintiff-Petitioners,
v.
TOWN OF EMERALD ISLE, a North
Carolina Municipality,
Defendant-Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
**************************
BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
GRAHAM KENAN PROFESSOR OF LAW EMERITUS JOSEPH KALO,
THE NORTH CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, THE NORTH CAROLINA BEACH, INLET &
WATERWAY ASSOCIATION, THE COUNTIES OF BRUNSWICK,
CARTERET, NEW HANOVER, ONSLOW, AND PENDER, NORTH
CAROLINA, THE TOWNS OF ATLANTIC BEACH, CAROLINA BEACH,
CASWELL BEACH, HOLDEN BEACH, INDIAN BEACH, KURE BEACH,
NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH, OAK ISLAND, OCEAN ISLE BEACH, PINE
KNOLL SHORES, SUNSET BEACH, SURF CITY, TOPSAIL BEACH, AND
WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH, NORTH CAROLINA, AND THE VILLAGE OF
BALD HEAD ISLAND, NORTH CAROLINA
**************************
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1
INTEREST OF AMICI .............................................................. 3
A.
Joseph Kalo, Graham Kenan Professor of
Law Emeritus ......................................................... 3
B.
North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners....................................................... 4
C.
North Carolina Beach, Inlet & Waterway
Association............................................................. 4
D.
Southern Coastal Local Governments ................... 5
ARGUMENT.............................................................................. 6
I.
II.
The public has made frequent, uninterrupted use of
the full width of the ocean beaches of North
Carolina from time immemorial. ..................................... 6
A.
The full width of our State’s ocean beaches
have historically and currently been used for
a variety of purposes. ............................................. 6
B.
The State of North Carolina has taken the
position that, as a matter of customary law,
all natural dry sand beaches are open to
public trust uses and that any title to that
area is subject to the right of the public to
make such uses..................................................... 11
Private title to natural dry sand beaches in North
Carolina is encumbered by a customary public
right of use...................................................................... 16
- ii -
A.
The public has acquired a legal right to use
our State’s dry sand beaches pursuant to the
public trust doctrine. ............................................ 17
B.
The public has also acquired a legal right to
use our State’s dry sand beaches pursuant to
the doctrine of custom.......................................... 21
III.
The public’s legal right to access and use the dry
sand beach does not infringe upon private property
rights. .............................................................................. 23
IV.
Denying public access and use of North Carolina’s
dry sand beaches would diminish the quality of life
and strong coastal economies that North
Carolinians have long enjoyed due to the
traditional recognition of such access and use. .............. 24
A.
Plaintiffs’ position, if adopted, would
dramatically transform the way that our
citizens and visitors use our ocean beaches. ........ 24
B.
Plaintiffs’ position, if adopted, would also
have devastating impacts on our State’s
economy and tourism industry............................. 25
CONCLUSION ........................................................................ 27
- iii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Bost v. Mingues,
64 N.C. 44 (1870) ................................................................. 21
Concerned Citizens v. Holden Beach Enterprises,
95 N.C. App. 38, 381 S.E.2d 810 (1989) ............................. 20
Concerned Citizens v. Holden Beach Enterprises,
329 N.C. 37, 404 S.E.2d 677 (1991) ............................. passim
Etheridge v. Jones,
30 N.C. 100 (1847) ................................................................. 8
Fabrikant v. Currituck County,
174 N.C App. 30, 621 S.E.2d 19 (2005) .............................. 17
Fish House v. Clarke,
204 N.C. App. 130, 693 S.E.2d 208 (2010) ......................... 18
Gwathmey v. State of North Carolina,
342 N.C. 287, 464 S.E.2d 674 (1995) .............................. 1, 17
Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State of North Carolina,
366 N.C. 289, 749 S.E.2d 429 (2012) .................................. 15
Nash v. Morton,
48 N.C. 3 (1855) ..................................................................... 8
Nies v. Town of Emerald Isle,
__ N.C. App. __, 780 S.E.2d 187 (2015) ..................... 2, 6, 17
Peele v. Morton,
396 F. Supp. 584 (E.D.N.C. 1975) ......................................... 8
Penland v. Ingle,
138 N.C. 456, 50 S.E. 850 (1905) ........................................ 21
Peterson v. South & Western R.R.,
143 N.C. 260, 55 S.E.2d 618 (1906) .................................... 21
- iv -
State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay,
462 P.2d 671 (Or. 1969) ................................................. 21, 22
State v. Anderson,
123 N.C. 705, 31 S.E. 219 (1898) ........................................ 21
State v. Vick,
213 N.C. 235, 195 S.E. 779 (1938) ........................................ 7
Storm v. Town of Wrightsville Beach,
189 N.C. 679, 128 S.E.2d 17 (1925) ...................................... 7
Town of Emerald Isle v. State of North Carolina,
320 N.C. 640, 360 S.E.2d 756 (1987) ...................... 18, 19, 26
West v. Slick,
313 N.C. 33, 326 S.E.2d 601 (1985) ...................................... 8
Winder v. Blake,
49 N.C. 332 (1857) ............................................................... 21
Statutes
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-131(e) .............................................. 11, 17
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-134.1(b).............................................. 12
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 146-6(f) .......................................................... 6
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-205 ..................................................... 23
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 77-20 ...................................................... 12, 13
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 77-20(a) .......................................................... 1
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 77-20(d).............................................. 1, 12, 13
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 77-20(e) .............................................. 1, 12, 13
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 153A-145.3 ................................................ 23
N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-45.1 .................................................. 11, 12, 17
-v-
Other Authorities
Arthur Barlowe, Traffic with the Savages, from THE
PRINCIPAL NAVIGATIONS VOYAGES TRAFFIQUES &
DISCOVERIES OF THE ENGLISH NATION, vol. 8, 299-301,
304-306 (Richard Hakluyt, ed., 3rd ed. 1903) excerpted
in AN OUTER BANKS READER, 5 (David Stick ed.,
1998) [App. 40-42] ................................................................. 7
David Brower, Lisa Buckley and Kate Eschelbach,
Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, Dep’t of City & Reg’l
Planning, North Carolina Traditional Beach Use Pilot
Study (2005) (“Beach Use Pilot Study”) [App. 49-76] .......... 9
Giovanni da Verrazzano, Contact, from Susan Tarrow,
Translation of the Celere Codex, in LAWRENCE C.
WROTH, THE VOYAGE OF VERRAZZANO, 1524-1528,
135-36 (1970) excerpted in AN OUTER BANKS READER,
3-4 (David Stick ed., 1998) [App. 38-39]............................... 7
Gregory Seaworthy (George Higby Troop), Antebellum
Nags Head, from NAGS HEAD; OR, TWO MONTHS
AMONG “THE BANKERS”, 22-26, 37-39, 79-80, 159-161
(1850), excerpted in AN OUTER BANKS READER, 13, 16
(David Stick ed., 1998) [App. 43-48] ..................................... 8
LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION, COASTAL
SUBMERGED LANDS REPORT TO THE 1985 GENERAL
ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA, at 2 (Dec. 13, 1984) ........ 13
N.C. Sess. Law ch. 67, § 13.9(a)(3) ........................................... 5
NCDENR, North Carolina Beach Inlet Management
Plan: Final Report (April 2011) [App. 1-36].............. 5, 6, 10
Opinion of Attorney General Re: Advisory Opinion
Beach Renourishment Projects,
N.C.G.S. § 146-6(f), 1996 WL 925134 (Oct. 15, 1996) ...... 14
The Changing Face of the Shoreline: Public and Private
Rights to the Natural and Nourished Dry Sand
- vi -
Beaches of North Carolina, 78 N.C. L. Rev. 1869
(2000)...................................................................................... 4
Regulations
15A NCAC 7H .0209(d)(5) ...................................................... 14
15A NCAC 7H .0306(a)(10) .................................................... 14
15A NCAC 7H .0309 ............................................................... 15
15A NCAC 7M .0301(a) .......................................................... 14
- 1-
INTRODUCTION
For many generations, North Carolinians have enjoyed free and open access
to all the dry sand ocean beaches in our State. 1 On those beaches, the public has
sunbathed, played beach sports, engaged in recreational and commercial fishing
activities, exchanged marriage vows, driven along the beach, or just taken a
peaceful stroll. Historically, these activities have occurred even on the natural dry
sand ocean beaches in which oceanfront property owners may hold fee title. For
many generations, it has been inconceivable that these public uses of the dry sand
beach are “trespasses” or in any way infringe on any private property rights of any
oceanfront property owner.
Recently, however, Plaintiffs attempt to assert
complete control over any part of the dry sand beach to which they hold title and to
exclude the public from engaging in their traditional uses. This is what brings
before this Court a singular and most important question, a question which will
define for future generations the degree of openness to, and public use of, our
1
The “dry sand” beach is generally defined as the area lying between the
mean high water mark and the first line of protective dunes or vegetation. N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 77-20(e). Natural dry sand beaches are privately owned, but subject to
public trust rights. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 77-20(a), (d). Landward of the dry sand
beach is considered “private uplands.” The public generally may not use this land
without the property owner’s permission. The “wet sand” beach is generally
defined as the area between the mean high water mark and the mean low water
mark. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 77-20(e). The State holds title to the wet sand beach, and
this area is considered public trust submerged lands. Gwathmey v. State of North
Carolina, 342 N.C. 287, 294, 464 S.E.2d 674, 677 (1995).
-2-
State’s dry sand beaches: Does the public in fact have a customary right to use all
dry sand beaches of our State for activities traditionally associated with the use of
ocean waters and adjacent shorelines?
Although no case presented the facts or an opportunity to address this issue
prior to this case, the Court of Appeals correctly answered this question in the
affirmative. Confirming a common law right that the citizens of North Carolina
long knew existed, the Court of Appeals unqualifiedly held that the “ocean beaches
of North Carolina . . . are subject to public trust rights.” Nies v. Town of Emerald
Isle, __ N.C. App. __, 780 S.E.2d 187 (2015).
As the Court of Appeals
recognized, anyone acquiring oceanfront property in 2001, such as Plaintiffs, could
have no reasonable expectation of a right to develop or exclude the public from the
dry sand beach. See id. Plaintiffs’ claims clearly run counter to the actual practice
of the public using the dry sand beach that extends back prior to statehood and
conflict with the express understanding of the law affecting ocean beaches by the
General Assembly, the Attorney General’s Office, and the Coastal Resources
Commission (the “CRC”) for decades prior to Plaintiffs’ acquisition of their
property. Adopting Plaintiffs’ understanding of the law for North Carolina, based
on their experiences in another state, would be major legal and policy shifts with
drastic and overwhelmingly negative economic, social, and public quality-of-life
consequences.
-3-
This Court should affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals and uphold
the long-standing recognition of our citizens, whether members of the public or
oceanfront property owners, that the law protects the public’s customary right to
use all dry sand beaches of our State for activities traditionally associated with the
use of ocean waters and adjacent shorelines.
INTEREST OF AMICI
A.
Joseph Kalo, Graham Kenan Professor of Law Emeritus
Amicus curiae, Joseph Kalo (“Professor Kalo”), Graham Kenan Professor of
Law Emeritus at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is a leading
authority on coastal law and the public trust doctrine in North Carolina. Professor
Kalo was appointed to the North Carolina Marine Science Council, which later
became the North Carolina Ocean Affairs Council. Professor Kalo also served as
co-director of the North Carolina Coastal Resources Law, Planning and Policy
Center, a partnership of the University of North Carolina School of Law, the
University of North Carolina Department of City and Regional Planning, and the
North Carolina Sea Grant Program. Professor Kalo has directed and participated in
a number of substantial research projects for the State of North Carolina, has
conducted numerous education programs on coastal issues, and has authored a
number of articles on North Carolina coastal issues, including The Changing Face
of the Shoreline: Public and Private Rights to the Natural and Nourished Dry
-4-
Sand Beaches of North Carolina, 78 N.C. L. Rev. 1869 (2000), the leading
academic resource on public trust issues in North Carolina.
Professor Kalo recognizes the long-standing rights of North Carolinians and
our visitors to use and enjoy the dry sand ocean beaches in our State and submits
this amicus curiae brief to protect these rights.
B.
North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
In 1908, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
(“NCACC”) was established for the betterment of county government in North
Carolina.
NCACC serves as the counties’ advocate before the executive,
legislative and judicial branches of state government. NCACC recognizes the
importance of the public’s right to use and enjoy our State’s dry sand beaches and
its positive impact on the economies of coastal local governments. To protect
these interests, NCACC submits this amicus curiae brief in support of the Town of
Emerald Isle’s position.
C.
North Carolina Beach, Inlet & Waterway Association
The North Carolina Beach, Inlet & Waterway Association (“NCBIWA”)
seeks to advocate on behalf of North Carolina’s coast by encouraging government
action and funding, advocating for sound, effective Federal and State policy and
protecting our State’s threatened beaches, inlets and waterways. For many years,
NCBIWA has advocated for state and federal funds for storm damage reduction
-5-
projects, which provide critical protection and benefits to public and private
infrastructure, small businesses, the tourism industry, public recreation, and state
and local tax bases, and also maintain and enhance habitat for threatened and
endangered species. If the public no longer has the right to use our State’s dry
sand beaches, which would be a drastic change in actual practice, public funds for
these essential projects would likely no longer be available, resulting in significant
adverse impacts to our State’s economy and the public’s enjoyment of our coast.
NCIBWA’s members, including coastal local governments, have a strong interest
in protecting the public’s right to use and enjoy our State’s dry sand beaches, and
NCBIWA submits this amicus curiae brief in support of the Town of Emerald
Isle’s position.
D.
Southern Coastal Local Governments 2
North Carolina’s ocean beaches and waters are essential to our State’s
coastal economy. See, e.g., N.C. Sess. Law ch. 67, § 13.9(a)(3) (“North Carolina’s
beaches are vital to the State’s tourism industry.”). Millions of tourists visit the
coast every year. NCDENR, North Carolina Beach Inlet Management Plan: Final
2
The following North Carolina county and municipal governments are
collectively referred to as the “Southern Coastal Local Governments”: the
Counties of Brunswick, Carteret, New Hanover, Onslow, and Pender, the Towns of
Atlantic Beach, Carolina Beach, Caswell Beach, Holden Beach, Indian Beach,
Kure Beach, North Topsail Beach, Oak Island, Ocean Isle Beach, Pine Knoll
Shores, Sunset Beach, Surf City, Topsail Beach, and Wrightsville Beach, and the
Village of Bald Head Island.
-6-
Report
at
ES-1
(April
2011),
available
at
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/coastal-management/coastal-managementoceanfront-shorelines/beach-inlet-management-plan/bimp-final-report
(“BIMP)
[App. 2]. Beach-oriented tourism significantly contributes to our State’s economy,
accounting for more than $2.6 billion in economic activity in 2009. BIMP at XII-3
[App. 30]. Coastal local governments rely on tourism to drive their economies. To
protect these interests, the Southern Coastal Local Governments submit this amicus
curiae brief in support of the Town of Emerald Isle’s position. 3
ARGUMENT
I.
The public has made frequent, uninterrupted use of the full width of the
ocean beaches of North Carolina from time immemorial.
A.
The full width of our State’s ocean beaches have historically and
currently been used for a variety of purposes.
In its decision below, the Court of Appeals correctly observed that:
[P]ublic right of access to dry sand beaches in North Carolina is so
firmly rooted in the custom and history of North Carolina that it has
become a part of the public consciousness. Native-born North
Carolinians do not generally question whether the public has the right
to move freely between the wet and dry sand portions of our ocean
beaches.
Nies, __ N.C. App. __, 780 S.E.2d at 196. The Court of Appeals properly took
notice of this accurate information, which is generally-known to the people of our
3
The Village of Bald Head Island takes no position with respect to the
applicability, if any, of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 146-6(f) to any particular parcel of land at
Bald Head Island, or to the legality or constitutionality of the statute, if so applied.
-7-
State. See Storm v. Town of Wrightsville Beach, 189 N.C. 679, 682, 128 S.E.2d 17,
18 (1925) (taking judicial notice of the recreational use and character of the beach);
cf. also State v. Vick, 213 N.C. 235, 238, 195 S.E. 779, 780-81 (1938) (“There are
many facts of which the court may take judicial notice, and they should take notice
of whatever is, or ought to be, generally known within the limits of their
jurisdiction, for justice does not require that courts profess to be more ignorant
than the rest of mankind.”). It is also reflected in the historical record.
Since before European settlers first arrived in North Carolina, our State’s
ocean beaches were used by Native Americans. During the first documented
encounter of Europeans and Native Americans on the Outer Banks in 1524,
Giovanni da Verrazzano documented that Native Americans had set “great fires”
on the beach.
See Giovanni da Verrazzano, Contact, from Susan Tarrow,
Translation of the Celere Codex, in LAWRENCE C. WROTH, THE VOYAGE
OF
VERRAZZANO, 1524-1528, 135-36 (1970) excerpted in AN OUTER BANKS READER,
3-4 (David Stick ed., 1998) [App. 38-39]. Sixty years later, Arthur Barlow, an
English explorer, again encountered Native Americans on the beaches of the Outer
Banks where they held a meeting with the English explorer. See Arthur Barlowe,
Traffic with the Savages, from THE PRINCIPAL NAVIGATIONS VOYAGES TRAFFIQUES
& DISCOVERIES
OF THE
ENGLISH NATION, vol. 8, 299-301, 304-306 (Richard
-8-
Hakluyt, ed., 3rd ed. 1903) excerpted in AN OUTER BANKS READER, 5 (David Stick
ed., 1998) [App. 40-42].
By the middle of the nineteenth century, the Outer Banks had become a
summer resort for farmers from coastal counties. George Higby Troop visited
Nags Head in 1849 and initially relied on the beach as a route of travel, but later
discovered recreational opportunities at the beach, including fox-hunting, fishing,
swimming, and walks on horse-drawn carriages along the beach. See Gregory
Seaworthy (George Higby Troop), Antebellum Nags Head, from NAGS HEAD; OR,
TWO MONTHS AMONG “THE BANKERS”, 22-26, 37-39, 79-80, 159-161 (1850),
excerpted in AN OUTER BANKS READER, 13, 16 (David Stick ed., 1998) [App. 4348.
Descriptions of historical public uses of our State’s beaches appear in the
North Carolina Reporter as well. See, e.g., Etheridge v. Jones, 30 N.C. 100 (1847)
(documenting auction sales of salvaged items on the beach); Nash v. Morton, 48
N.C. 3, 6 (1855) (involving dispute over ship wreckage, which was sold at auction
on the beach); West v. Slick, 313 N.C. 33, 41-45, 326 S.E.2d 601, 606-608 (1985)
(describing the use of the beach as a “road” to Corolla); Concerned Citizens v.
Holden Beach Enterprises, 329 N.C. 37, 38-40 404 S.E.2d 677, 679-80 (1991)
(noting the use of the seashore for fishing and recreation); Peele v. Morton, 396 F.
-9-
Supp. 584, 585-86 (E.D.N.C. 1975) (recognizing use of the beach to dry fishing
gear).
In more modern times, the public continues to frequently use the full of
width of our State’s ocean beaches for a variety of purposes, including, but not
limited to, swimming, sunbathing, playing beach sports, jogging, walking, fishing
(both commercial and recreational), weddings, horseback riding, birding and
driving along the beach. See David Brower, Lisa Buckley and Kate Eschelbach,
Univ. of N.C. at Chapel Hill, Dep’t of City & Reg’l Planning, North Carolina
Traditional Beach Use Pilot Study (2005) (“Beach Use Pilot Study”) [App. 51];
(“The maps portray indubitable evidence that every portion of North Carolina’s
beaches are, in fact, used by both residents and tourists alike and for a panoply of
different reasons.”). These activities have taken place both on the “wet sand”
beach and the “dry sand” beach. Disrupting the public’s use of the dry sand beach
would diminish the quality of life that our citizens have long enjoyed as a result of
such use.
The economy of coastal local governments is heavily dependent on the
tourism industry, which is driven by the public’s use of the full-width of our
State’s ocean beaches. Beach tourism has a significant economic impact to the
State and its coastal counties and towns. For 2008, beach recreation in the State of
North Carolina resulted in approximately $1.47 billion in annual expenditures and
- 10 -
approximately $2.55 billion in annual total impact/output/sales/business activity,
and it supported more than 35,000 jobs. BIMP, Table IV-4 [App. 25]. 4 North
Carolina’s coastal tourism industry and its associated economic impacts have
evolved as a result of the public’s use and enjoyment of our State’s dry sand ocean
beaches; if this right is taken away, this tourism industry and the State’s economy
would suffer devastating impacts.
Plaintiffs’ misplaced “right to exclude” argument is undermined by their
positions in this very case. They have conceded the public’s right to walk on the
dry sand beach, and have recognized that prior to acquiring their property in 2001,
the Town regulated (and permitted) driving on the dry sand beach. See PlaintiffsAppellants’ New Brief (NC Supreme Court), pp. 2-3 (“This case is not about
whether the public can walk along North Carolina’s beaches.”); see also PlaintiffsAppellants Brief (Court of Appeals), pp. 11-12 (acknowledging that “[h]istorically,
the ordinance permitted public driving on the foreshore and area within the [T]own
consisting primarily of hardpacked sand and lying between the waters of the
4
In addition to the direct economic expenditures of beach visitors and
economic multiplier effects of the expenditures, beach visitors also enjoy
“consumer surplus” value during beach trips. Consumer surplus is the value to the
visitor of the recreation experience itself. In other words, if the a visitor would
have been willing to spend $2,000 for a beach vacation, but only pays $1,300, the
consumer surplus is $700. For 2008, beach recreation in the State of North
Carolina accounted for approximately $119 million in annual consumer surplus.
BIMP, IV-13-IV-15, Table IV-4 [App. 25-27].
- 11 -
Atlantic Ocean . . . and a point ten (10) feet seaward from the foot or toe of the
dune closest to the waters of the Atlantic Ocean”). These concessions conclusively
demonstrate that, for Plaintiffs’ misplaced contention that individual property
rights are impacted to have any traction, they must first have this Court create a
new “right” to exclude – one that never heretofore existed and that, if created,
would infringe upon the existing rights of the public.
B.
The State of North Carolina has taken the position that, as a
matter of customary law, all natural dry sand beaches are open to
public trust uses and that any title to that area is subject to the
right of the public to make such uses.
The State has strongly defended the public’s right to use the dry sand beach,
beginning decades prior to the Nieses acquisition of their property in 2001. This
policy is reflected in state law, administrative rules, governmental study
commission reports, and public policy.
Our General Assembly has acknowledged the tradition of public trust rights
in the dry-sand beach.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-45.1, which prohibits adverse
possession of public trust lands, defines “public trust rights” as:
[R]ights held in trust by the State for the use and benefit of the people
of the State in common. They are established by common law as
interpreted by the courts of this State. They include, but are not
limited to, the right to navigate, swim, hunt, fish, and enjoy all
recreational activities in the watercourses of the State and the right to
freely use and enjoy the State’s ocean and estuarine beaches and
public access to the beaches.
- 12 -
(emphasis added).
These rights not only apply to waters of our State and
submerged lands, but also the dry sand beach. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-131(e)
(adopted in 1987 and stating that “the term ‘public trust resources’ means land and
water areas, both public and private, subject to public trust rights as that term is
defined in G.S. 1-45.1”). Further, in establishing the State’s beach access program
and twenty years before the Nieses acquired title, the General Assembly in 1981
declared:
The public has traditionally fully enjoyed the State’s beaches and
coastal waters and public access to and use of the beaches and coastal
waters. The beaches provide a recreational resource of great
importance to North Carolina and its citizens and this makes a
significant contribution to the economic well-being of the State. The
General Assembly finds that the beaches and coastal waters are
resources of statewide significance and have been customarily freely
used and enjoyed by people throughout the State.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-134.1(b). In 1998, again preceding the Nieses’ acquisition
of their oceanfront property, the General Assembly amended N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7720 by adding subsections (d) and (e). Subsection (d) states:
The public having made frequent, uninterrupted, and unobstructed use
of the full width and breadth of the ocean beaches of this State from
time immemorial, this section shall not be construed to impair the
right of the people to the customary free use and enjoyment of the
ocean beaches, which rights remain reserved to the people of this
State under the common law and are a part of the common heritage of
the State recognized by Article XIV, Section 5 of the Constitution of
North Carolina. These public trust rights in the ocean beaches are
established in the common law as interpreted and applied by the
courts of this State.
- 13 -
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 77-20(d) shows both that the General Assembly accepted the
existence of the public’s right to use all dry sand ocean beaches and did not intend
in any way for § 77-20 to be construed to undermine that right. 5 Subsection (e) of
§ 77-20 clarifies that “[n]atural indicators of the landward extent of the ocean
beaches include, but are not limited to, the first line of stable vegetation; the toe of
the frontal dune; and the storm trash line” – in other words, the dry sand beach.
Although this amendment clearly establishes the General Assembly’s belief that
the public has a common law customary right to use the dry sand beaches, this
statute, does not create such a right; such rights and the landward extent of the
ocean beach are “established in the common law as interpreted and applied by the
courts of this State.” N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 77-20(d), (e).
In addition to its legislative findings and law-making authority, the General
Assembly has also addressed the issue of the public’s customary right to use the
dry sand beach through its Legislative Research Commission.
See, e.g.,
LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH COMMISSION, COASTAL SUBMERGED LANDS REPORT
THE
1985 GENERAL ASSEMBLY
“1984
Commission
OF
NORTH CAROLINA, at 2 (Dec. 13, 1984) (the
Study”),
http://ncleg.net/Library/studies/1985/st10226.pdf.
5
TO
available
at
This study found a common
Subsections (a) and (b) were adopted in 1979 to address only ownership of
the wet sand beach; these subsections explicitly address property boundaries and
nothing else, including the public’s customary right to use the dry sand beach.
- 14 -
understanding among members of the public that they had a wide-ranging right to
use our State’s ocean beaches. See 1984 Commission Study at 9-10 (“The public
apparently takes for granted that there is a right to fish, to swim, and to engage in
other forms of activities [at the coast] at will. This has generally been the accepted
rule.”).
The North Carolina Attorney General and the CRC have also asserted that
the public has a common law customary right to use the dry sand beaches. In a
1996 advisory opinion, the Attorney General stated:
Because the public ownership stops at the high water line, the public
must either be in the water or on the dry sand beach when the tide is
high. The term ‘dry sand beach’ refers to the flat area of sand
seaward of the dunes or bulkhead which is flooded on an irregular
basis by storm tides or unusually high tides. It is an area of private
property which the State maintains is impressed with public rights of
use under the public trust doctrine and the doctrine of custom or
prescription.
Opinion of Attorney General Re: Advisory Opinion Beach Renourishment Projects,
N.C.G.S. § 146-6(f), 1996 WL 925134, *2 (Oct. 15, 1996). Similarly, regulations
promulgated by the CRC affirm a public right to use the dry sand beach. See 15A
NCAC 7M .0301(a) (“The public has traditionally and customarily had access to
enjoy and freely use the ocean beaches and estuarine and public trust waters of the
coastal region for recreational purposes and the State has a responsibility to
provide continuous access to these resources. . . .”); see also 15A NCAC 7H
.0209(d)(5) (“Development shall not interfere with existing public rights of access
- 15 -
to, or use of, navigable waters or public resources.”); see also 15A NCAC 7H
.0306(a)(10) (“Established common law and statutory public rights of access to
and use of public trust lands and waters in ocean hazard areas shall not be
eliminated or restricted. Development shall not encroach upon public accessways,
nor shall it limit the intended use of the accessways.”); see also 15A NCAC 7H
.0309 (allows limited development seaward of the oceanfront setback line that does
not involve permanent substantial structures, but only if such development is
landward of the vegetation line). 6
Thus, the public’s right to access and use our State’s dry sand beaches is not
only common knowledge within the State, but has also been accurately verified by
legislative findings and studies. The amici respectfully submit that the decades of
statutory and regulatory recognition of the public trust rights in dry sand beaches
should remain undisturbed. Hest Technologies, Inc. v. State of North Carolina,
366 N.C. 289, 294, 749 S.E.2d 429, 433 (2012) (“Although the legislative findings
and declaration of policy have no magical quality to make valid that which is
invalid, and are subject to judicial review, they are entitled to weight in construing
the statute.”) (internal quotations omitted).
6
The vegetation line was chosen as the setback line for several reasons,
including for the purpose of protecting the public’s right to use the dry sand beach.
- 16 -
II.
Private title to natural dry sand beaches in North Carolina is
encumbered by a customary public right of use.
This Court has implicitly held that the public has a customary right to use
the full width of our State’s ocean beaches. In Concerned Citizens, 329 N.C. 37,
404 S.E.2d 677, the Court analyzed whether the public acquired a prescriptive
easement over private uplands to reach the inlet and ocean beach for fishing,
swimming and other recreational use, which is commonly known as “perpendicular
access.”7 In that case, the property owner did not contest the right of the public to
use the dry sand beach, but only the crossing of its uplands to reach the ocean
beach. In reaching its decision, the Court implicitly acknowledged that the public
has the customary right to use the full width of our State’s ocean beaches. See id.
at 53, 404 S.E. at 687 (“The ‘purpose and nature’ of the easement here was to
reach the inlet and seashore for fishing, bathing, and other recreational use.”). Not
only has the Court implicitly recognized this right, it has been established by the
public’s past and present use of our State’s ocean beaches, which has been
7
In the context of accessing the beach, there are two types of access. First,
the general public has a need to cross private upland areas to reach the beach. This
is known as “perpendicular” access and is addressed by the State’s Public Beach
and Coastal Waterfront Access Program. Second, the public needs the ability to
move along the dry sand portions of the ocean beach because at certain times of
day and in certain seasons, the wet sand beach is entirely submerged. This is
known as “parallel” access and is the subject of this case. Although both types of
access are necessary for the public to enjoy full use of its public trust use rights, the
State has not made any efforts to acquire lateral rights because the public already
holds these customary rights.
- 17 -
confirmed by legislative findings and studies. Thus, the question is not whether
such a right exists, but under what legal doctrine should this right be recognized.8
A.
The public has acquired a legal right to use our State’s dry sand
beaches pursuant to the public trust doctrine.
The Court of Appeals properly held that public trust use rights extend to our
State’s dry sand beaches based on the public’s long-standing use of the full width
of our State’s ocean beaches.
The public trust doctrine provides that navigable waters of the United States
and the land beneath them are held by the State in trust for its citizens. Gwathmey
v. State of North Carolina, 342 N.C. 287, 294-95, 464 S.E.2d 674, 677-78 (1995).
In addition to establishing state ownership in certain waters and submerged lands,
the public trust doctrine also vests the public with certain rights to use these lands.
Thus, the public trust doctrine not only recognizes public trust “lands” but also
public trust “rights.” Fabrikant v. Currituck County, 174 N.C App. 30, 41, 621
8
Despite Plaintiffs’ argument otherwise, see Plaintiffs-Appellants New Brief,
p. 19, the amici submit that the Town has not waived other legal theories or
doctrines beyond the public trust doctrine. See Answer, Fifth Defense (asserting
“public trust rights”) [R p 116]; see also Defendant-Appellee’s Brief (Court of
Appeals), pp. 11-12 (asserting that public rights exist “under some or all of the
following legal doctrines: (1) easement by prior use/quasi easement; (2) law of
custom; (3) prescriptive easement; (4) expanded public trust doctrine. As
discussed, infra, the term “public trust rights” is a term that is broadly construed
when discussing the right of the public to use our State’s dry sand beaches and can
be supported by a number of legal doctrines. This term should be distinguished
from the term “public trust” as used in the context of the State’s legal title to
submerged lands.
- 18 -
S.E.2d 19, 27 (2005). These rights are not limited to public trust “lands” and also
apply to the public’s use of our State’s dry sand beaches. Nies, __ N.C. App. __,
780 S.E.2d at 193-197; see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113-131(e) (stating that “the
term ‘public trust resources’ means land and water areas, both public and private,
subject to public trust rights as that term is defined in G.S. 1-45.1”) (emphasis
added). Thus, the Court of Appeals properly recognized that, based on the public’s
long-standing use of the dry sand beach, public trust use rights extend to our
State’s dry sand beaches. 9
9
“Public trust use rights,” “customary public trust uses,” or “customary uses”
are all short-hand terms used when discussing the right of the public to the free and
open use of all dry sand beaches of the State. The term “public trust” conveys the
idea that the acceptable public uses are those associated with the use of public trust
resources and the term “customary public trust uses” likewise conveys the same set
of ideas. The use of the term “public trust” in this context is different, and should
be distinguished from, the situations in which the legal question is whether the
State holds title to submerged lands (public trust lands) or whether certain waters
are open to public use (public trust waters). In this context, the public right relates
to the use of an area of the beach, title to which is in private hands. Thus, dry sand
beaches are “public trust use areas.”
“Public trust use activities” are not confined to submerged lands and waters
owned by the State. For example, the public can engage in public trust uses on and
in “public trust waters.” “Public trust waters” include both waters flowing over
state-owned submerged lands and waters flowing through canals and in marina
basins which were created by excavating uplands and connecting the excavated
area to public waters. The submerged lands lying under the canals and marina
basins remain privately owned just as when the area consisted only of uplands;
however, the waters are public, and open to public trust uses, such as fishing.
Without the consent of the State, the public cannot be excluded from these canals
and marinas. See Fish House v. Clarke, 204 N.C. App. 130, 693 S.E.2d 208
- 19 -
This Court has also suggested such a right exists. In Town of Emerald Isle v.
State of North Carolina, 320 N.C. 640, 360 S.E.2d 756 (1987), this Court
addressed the issue of whether a statute prohibiting vehicular travel on one part of
an ocean beach, but not on another, constituted an “exclusive emolument” 10
prohibited by the North Carolina Constitution because the statute only benefitted
the landowners on the restricted beach. The stipulated facts in that case established
that the Town of Emerald Isle’s beaches are frequently used by fisherman
operating vehicles to access fishing areas.
[T]he ocean front and inlet beaches within the Town of Emerald Isle
are frequented on a regular basis by numerous sport fishermen
operating vehicles on the beaches. These beach areas adjacent to
Bogue Inlet in particular are noted for excellent fishing, and annually
attract numerous fishermen. Because no parking is available within
two miles of the vehicle access ramp in this area, many of the
fishermen are forced to drive along the beaches in order to gain access
to the fishing areas.
Id. at 651, 360 S.E.2d at 763. Although the statute benefitted a particular group of
persons (i.e., the oceanfront property owners where vehicular traffic was
prohibited), the Court held that it was not an exclusive emolument or privilege
because: (i) it was intended to promote general welfare and was not intended to
benefit a particular group of persons; and (ii) there was a reasonable basis for the
(2010). This is not dissimilar to the public’s right to use privately owned dry sand
beach areas.
10
Article I, section 32 of the North Carolina Constitution provides that “[n]o
person or set of persons is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or
privileges from the community but in consideration of public service.”
- 20 -
General Assembly to conclude granting the exemption would serve the public
interest. Id. at 654-55, 360 S.E.2d at 764-65. This statement implies that the
public possesses some rights of use (i.e., beach driving) on the dry ocean beach by
virtue of the public trust doctrine or some other legal theory.
In Concerned Citizens, 329 N.C. at 55, 404 S.E.2d at 688, this Court
expressly rejected dicta in the Court of Appeals opinion that denied the possibility
of public trust rights extending to privately-owned areas of the ocean beach. The
Court of Appeals decision stated that the public trust doctrine should not be
extended because it would “deprive individual property owners of some portion of
their property rights without compensation.” 95 N.C. App. 38, 46, 381 S.E.2d 810,
815 (1989) , rev’d, 329 N.C. 37, 404 S.E.2d 677 (1991). Rejecting this principle,
this Court stated:
We note dicta in the Court of Appeals opinion to the effect that the
public trust doctrine will not secure public access to a public beach
across the land of a private property owner . . . [but] it [is not] clear
that in its unqualified form the statement reflects the law of this state,
[and] we expressly disavow this comment.
329 N.C. at 55, 404 S.E.2d at 688. It is noteworthy that this Court took the
opportunity to address dicta from the Court of Appeals – something this Court
generally would not do. This strongly suggests, at least at this time, the Supreme
Court envisioned that the public trust doctrine (or some other legal doctrine)
should provide a legal basis for the public’s use of our State’s dry sand beaches.
- 21 -
Thus, the Court of Appeals properly held that public trust use rights extend
to our State’s dry sand beaches based on the public’s long-standing use of the full
width of our State’s ocean beaches.
B.
The public has also acquired a legal right to use our State’s dry
sand beaches pursuant to the doctrine of custom.
The public’s use of dry sand beaches is an old right in this State – one dating
back hundreds of years – and one that has been without controversy for almost the
entire history of our State. It should, therefore, be afforded the same protection as
other similar rights that arise under the doctrine of custom. Penland v. Ingle, 138
N.C. 456, 50 S.E. 850 (1905) (recognizing existence of a business custom and
holding that the law protects those rare, customary practices or uses that are (1)
uniform; (2) long-established; (3) generally acquiesced in; (4) reasonable; and (5)
well known); see also State v. Anderson, 123 N.C. 705, 709, 31 S.E. 219, 220
(1898) (recognizing a custom of free-ranging livestock); Bost v. Mingues, 64 N.C.
44, 46-47 (1870) (acknowledging a custom of free-ranging livestock). 11
Faced with a similar issue, analogous law, and a similar longstanding
practice by its citizenry, the State of Oregon has expressly recognized the public’s
11
The public’s use of our State’s dry sand beaches is quite different than
claimed customs that have been rejected because they were premised upon
relatively few instances of the conduct at issue. See Peterson v. South & Western
R.R., 143 N.C. 260, 264, 55 S.E.2d 618, 620 (1906) (holding that a business
custom must be supported by more than a “few instances” of a practice) (citing
Winder v. Blake, 49 N.C. 332 (1857)).
- 22 -
legal right to use that state’s dry sand beaches based on the doctrine of custom.
State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay, 462 P.2d 671 (Or. 1969). In that case, the Oregon
Supreme Court held that the customary right of use in beaches applies to the public
generally and to beachfront property throughout the state and ordered the removal
of a fence erected in contravention of this customary right. Id. 12
In North Carolina, a customary right also exists and is ground in historical
practice, sound public policy, and the traditional acquiescence of North Carolina
oceanfront property owners. Given our public’s reasonable expectations of use –
evidenced by the ongoing use of the full width of the State’s ocean beaches and the
pronouncements of our General Assembly, Attorney General and the CRC – and
the importance of accessibility of our beaches to support the significant coastal
tourism industry, the Plaintiffs’ pro-exclusion arguments should be rejected. As
Plaintiffs never had the right to exclude the public from the dry sand beach, the
Town’s ordinances regulating beach driving cannot cause a taking. This Court
should decline Plaintiffs’ invitation to override the customary rights of the public
in dry sand beaches, particularly where, as here, the proposed departure from
established custom would have devastating impacts on the State’s economy.
12
A customary right exists in Oregon if there is: “(1) a long and general usage;
(2) without interruption by oceanfront property owners; (3) peaceful and free of
dispute; (4) reasonable; (5) certain as to its scope and character; (6) without
objection by landowners; and (7) not contrary to other customs or laws of the
state.” Id. at 677-78.
- 23 -
III.
The public’s legal right to access and use the dry sand beach does not
infringe upon private property rights.
Plaintiffs erroneously assume that private landowners incur a “loss” if they
are unable to completely exclude the public from privately-owned dry sand
beaches. This argument misapprehends the nature of both the public’s and the
private landowners’ rights.
There is no loss because the private landowners took title to the land subject
to “public trust uses” of the dry sand beaches. Such uses include things like
swimming, sunbathing, playing beach sports, fishing (recreation and commercial),
bird watching, weddings, beach driving and other recreational activities. Because
of the public’s customary use, Plaintiffs never had the right to exclude the public
from this portion of the beach. The present case presents no loss of that right.
There is a right to exclude the public from engaging in non-public-trust uses
on the dry sand beach and any activity on private uplands. For any activity that
does not involve a public trust use, the public has no right to engage in that activity
on the dry sand beach, and the property owner may exclude and stop that activity.
With respect to private property landward of the toe of the frontal dune or the first
line of stable, natural vegetation (i.e., private uplands), it remains private property,
subject to the landowners’ right to exclude the public. The decision of the Court of
Appeals in this case leaves these rights undisturbed.
- 24 -
Further, additional safeguards exist to protect the landowner if an activity
conducted by the public on the dry sand beach exceeds the scope of acceptable
uses. For example, the State and local governments pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§
153A-145.3 and 160A-205 have the authority to regulate the public in their
exercise of their public trust rights.
Given that they have suffered no loss and are afforded legal protections
against unreasonable use, Plaintiffs make no legitimate claim that the public use
infringes upon real property rights.
IV.
Denying public access and use of North Carolina’s dry sand beaches
would diminish the quality of life and strong coastal economies that
North Carolinians have long enjoyed due to the traditional recognition
of such access and use.
A.
Plaintiffs’ position, if adopted, would dramatically transform the
way that our citizens and visitors use our ocean beaches.
The amici ask this Court to envision what our State’s beaches would look
like if the public were now excluded from dry sand beaches. At times, beach
walkers would have to walk in the water to be on the “public trust beach.” At
times, there would be no place where members of the public could legally put
down a blanket or put up a beach umbrella and enjoy seashore recreational
activities. Even at times of low tide, the public might not be able to use all the area
of the wet sand beach. If there was a wind pushing waves up the beach, much, if
not all, of the wet sand beach would be under water, including areas above the
- 25 -
mean high water mark. Moreover, because the mean high water mark is not a
visible boundary, ordinary citizens and visitors would not be able to tell whether
they were on the “public trust beach” or on private dry sand beach and liable for
trespassing.
Limiting the public’s use to the wet sand beach is an unworkable solution.
Members of the public generally cannot determine the location of the mean high
water mark. Even if they could, they would not be able to use the beach for many
activities other than swimming during most of the day. Perhaps most importantly,
such a new rule would generate massive confusion -- the public’s knowledge that it
can use the dry sand beaches of this State is so ingrained that citizens and visitors
do not question this use.
B.
Plaintiffs’ position, if adopted, would also have devastating
impacts on our State’s economy and tourism industry.
Plaintiffs propose a rule that could be ruinous to coastal communities. With
the possible exception of beachfront homes, property values at the coast would
significantly decrease if oceanfront property owners could preclude public use of
the dry sand beach.
Because the ability to engage in activities other than
swimming would be extremely limited, the public would be less likely to visit our
beaches, and the State’s billion-dollar coastal tourism industry would be
threatened, including a significant decrease in vacation rentals and hotel stays.
- 26 -
Coastal towns and counties rely on occupancy tax revenue to fund and implement
shore damage reduction projects. 13
Any decrease in vacation rentals and hotel stays would mean that local
governments would receive less revenue from the occupancy tax, which in turn
would mean less funds to conduct beach renourishment projects, which are often
essential to maintain the public beach. Not only would this result in a loss of the
public beach, but billions of dollars of property and infrastructure would be
threatened and visitation to our coast and our economy would be negatively
impacted. In fact, if the Plaintiffs’ position is adopted, publicly funded beach
renourishment projects may not be possible. Under Emerald Isle, 320 N.C. 640,
360 S.E.2d 756, an expenditure of public funds for such a purpose might be
considered an “exclusive emolument” prohibited by the North Carolina
Constitution, because the renourishment programs might benefit only the
oceanfront property owners. This is too high a price to pay for a right to exclude
13
There is no general authorization for local occupancy taxes in North
Carolina. The only local governments that may levy these taxes are those that have
received authorization from the General Assembly via local acts. For almost every
jurisdiction, local occupancy tax proceeds are not general fund revenue. With
respect to coastal local governments, occupancy tax revenue must generally be
used for tourism and beach renourishment. See, e.g., Session Law 2010-78, Sec. 7
(local act amending Dare County occupancy tax); Session Law 1997-364 (local act
authorizing or amending Brunswick County and associated towns occupancy tax).
- 27 -
the public from our State’s dry sand beaches – one that never existed in the first
place.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the amici respectfully request that this Court
affirm the well-reasoned decision of the Court of Appeals below.
Respectfully submitted this 27th day of July, 2016.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
By: Electronically Submitted
Todd S. Roessler
N.C. State Bar No. 28046
[email protected]
N.C. App. R. 33(b) Certification: I certify that the
attorney listed below has authorized me to list his
name on this document as if he had personally
signed it.
Phillip A. Harris, Jr.
Joseph S. Dowdy
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1400
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: (919) 420-1700
Facsimile: (919) 510-6120
[email protected]
[email protected]
ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE NORTH
CAROLINA BEACH, INLET & WATERWAY
ASSOCIATION, CARTERET COUNTY, AND
TOWNS OF NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH AND OAK
ISLAND
- 28 -
Joseph J. Kalo
Telephone: (919) 962-8518
Facsimile: (919) 962-1277
[email protected]
Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel
215 North Dawson Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 715-2893
Facsimile: (919) 719-1165
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE NORTH
CAROLINA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Walter Derrickson Taylor
Taylor & Taylor, P.A.
610 Arendell Street
Morehead City, NC 28557
Telephone: (252) 726-0001
Facsimile: (252) 726-2438
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE TOWN
OF ATLANTIC BEACH
- 29 -
Neil B. Whitford
Kirkman, Whitford, Brady, Berryman &
Farias, P.A.
710 Arendell Street, Suite 105
Morehead City, NC 28557
Telephone: (252) 726-8411
Facsimile: (252) 726-6974
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICI CURIAE TOWNS
OF PINE KNOLL SHORES AND INDIAN
BEACH
Garris Neil Yarborough
Yarborough, Winters & Neville, P.A.
115 East Russell Street
Fayetteville, NC 28301
Telephone: (910) 433-4433
Facsimile: (910) 433-2233
[email protected]
ATTORNEY
FOR
ONSLOW COUNTY
AMICUS
CURIAE
- 30 -
Charles S. Lanier
Lanier, Fountain & Ceruzzi
114 Old Bridge Street
Jacksonville, NC 28540
Telephone: (910) 455-4175
Facsimile: (910)455-1406
[email protected]
OF SURF CITY
Carl “Trey” Woodrow Thurman III
P. O. Box 5
Burgaw, NC 28425
Telephone: (910) 620-3979
Facsimile: (910) 259-1402
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE PENDER
COUNTY
Stephen D. Coggins
Roundtree Losee LLP
2419 Market Street
Wilmington, NC 28403
Telephone: (910) 763-3404
Facsimile: (910) 763-0320
[email protected]
OF TOPSAIL BEACH
- 31 -
Wanda M. Copley
County Attorney
New Hanover County
230 Government Center Drive, Suite 125
Telephone: (910) 798-7153
Facsimile: (910) 798-7157
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE NEW
HANOVER COUNTY
John C. Wessell III
Wessell & Raney, L.L.P.
107-B North 2nd Street
Wilmington, NC 28402-1049
Telephone: (910) 762-7475
Facsimile: (910) 762-7557
[email protected]
OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
- 32 -
Charlotte Noel Fox
Craige & Fox, PLLC
701 Market Street
Telephone: (910) 815-0085
Facsimile: (910) 815-1095
[email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICI CURIAE TOWNS
OF CAROLINA BEACH AND HOLDEN
BEACH
A.A. Canoutas
244 Princess Street, # 12
Wilmington, NC 28401-3964
Telephone: (910) 233-1919
Facsimile: (910) 392-0896
[email protected]
OF KURE BEACH
- 33 -
Robert Shaver, Jr.
David R. Sandifer County Administration
Building
30 Government Center Drive NE
Bolivia, NC 28422
Telephone: (910) 253-2400
Facsimile: (910) 253-2008
[email protected]
ATTORNEY
FOR
AMICUS
BRUNSWICK COUNTY
CURIAE
Charles S. Baldwin IV
Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey &
Leonard LLP
115 North 3rd Street
Suite 301
Telephone: (910) 444-2000
Facsimile: (910)444-2001
[email protected]
ATTORNEY
FOR
AMICUS
CURIAE
VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND
- 34 -
Justin K. Humphries
The Humphries Law Firm, P.C.
616 Princess Street
Telephone: (910) 332-0721
Facsimile: (910) 251-0446
[email protected]
OF CASWELL BEACH
Michael R. Isenberg
Isenberg & Thompson
109 E Moore Street
Southport, NC 28461-3925
Telephone: (910) 457-9506
Facsimile: (910) 457-6810
[email protected]
OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH
George G. Richardson, Jr.
Law Offices of G. Grady Richardson, Jr., PC
1213 Culbreth Drive
Telephone: (910) 509-7166
Facsimile: (910) 509-7167
[email protected]
OF SUNSET BEACH
- 35 -
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing Brief of Amici Curiae
was served on the following persons by United States Mail, postage prepaid
addressed as follows:
Brian E. Edes
Crossley McIntosh Collier Hanley & Edes, PLLC
5002 Randall Parkway
J. David Breemer
Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G. Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Keith P. Anthony
Morningstar Law Group
630 Davis Drive, Suite 200
Morrisville, NC 27560
This the 27th day of July, 2016.
Electronically Submitted
Todd S. Roessler
4208 Six Forks Road, Suite 1400
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone: (919) 420-1700
-App. 1-
-App. 2NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Executive Summary
Background
North Carolina is renowned for its 326 miles of ocean shoreline, barrier islands and 19
active inlet complexes. North Carolina beaches and inlets have tremendous economic
value and serve as important habitat for fish and wildlife resources. Beaches and inlets
support millions of recreational visitors every year, provide billions of dollars in
economic value through business and tourism, provide ocean access for commercial and
recreational fishermen, and are an integral part of the state’s history, culture, identity, and
way of life.
However, without effective planning and management, the future of the state’s coastal
communities and a significant part of the state’s economic base could be adversely
affected by storms, sea-level rise, shifting shorelines, and erosion. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) is committed to the longterm conservation and management of the state’s beaches and inlets. As part of this
commitment, the Beach and Inlet Management Plan (BIMP) was developed by the
Division of Water Resources (DWR) and the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) in
order to provide the necessary information to address the natural resources, funding
mechanisms and strategies for the comprehensive management of the state’s ocean and
inlet shorelines. The BIMP is the first statewide compilation of data and issues related to
managing the beaches and inlets.
The framework for development of the BIMP is the culmination of past efforts,
legislative actions, studies and recommendations. The most pertinent action was House
Bill 1840 (Session Law 2000-67), passed in 2000. The Bill required DENR to develop a
state beach management and restoration strategy that could also be used for local
government planning purposes. The Bill declared that it is a necessary governmental
responsibility to properly manage and protect North Carolina’s beaches from erosion and
that good planning is needed to assure a cost-effective and equitable approach to beach
management and restoration. The Bill also states that as part of a comprehensive response
to beach erosion, sound policies are needed to facilitate the ability of landowners to move
threatened structures and to allow public acquisition of appropriate parcels of land for
public beach access. A BIMP was specifically recommended in the N.C. Coastal Habitat
Protection Plan (CHPP) completed in 2005. With the overall intent of preserving and
enhancing recreational and commercial fisheries, the CHPP recommended that the state
“[p]repare and implement a comprehensive beach and inlet management plan that
addresses ecologically based guidelines, socio-economic concerns, and fish habitat.”
April 2011
ES-1
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
BIMP Development Process
With funding from the General Assembly in 2007, the engineering firm of Moffatt &
Nichol assisted the state with: 1) data identification and acquisition of existing datasets,
2) determination of beach and inlet management regions, 3) scheduling and facilitation of
stakeholder meetings, 4) development of draft beach and inlet management strategies,
and 5) preparation of a final report. In addition, two groups were established to guide the
BIMP development: a BIMP Advisory Committee and a DENR technical work group.
The Advisory Committee was composed of representatives from federal and state
agencies, local governments, academic institutions, and non-profit organizations. The
technical work group was comprised of DENR division representatives.
Stakeholder Process
Given the statewide importance of the BIMP, a broad stakeholder process was used to
incorporate stakeholder expertise, local knowledge, concerns, and passion for North
Carolina’s coastal resources and to offer insight into each part of the BIMP. The public
was engaged, informed, and consulted throughout the process by means of press releases,
a project website, comment solicitation, questionnaires and public input meetings that
were held in four coastal regions and in Raleigh.
Data Identification and Acquisition
The identification and collection of pertinent data is critical in the understanding of any
natural system. The nature of the beaches and inlets along the coast are influenced by a
wide array of factors that include geology, sediment characteristics, waves, currents,
water levels, and storms. Other datasets integral to comprehensive management of the
beaches and inlets also include ecological and socioeconomic factors. In order to develop
appropriate management regions and properly develop and assess management strategies,
relevant coastal data was gathered, compiled and reviewed.
A literature review was conducted by the Division of Coastal Management (DCM) to
identify states and other entities that have addressed statewide or local beach and inlet
management plans, as well as to review the various approaches studied and adopted.
Some states have developed plans for managing beaches and inlets focusing on individual
inlet management plans (e.g. AL, DE), while others have concentrated their efforts on
regional sediment management (e.g. CA, SC). There have also been cases where
particular aspects of the beach, such as erosion or dunes (e.g. MD, VA) have been the
focus.
The data presented in the BIMP is intended to serve as a resource, common reference,
and starting point for beach and inlet projects and strategy discussions among
stakeholders. During the data collection efforts, several data gaps were identified that
would greatly aid future updates to the BIMP as well as beach and inlet management
April 2011
ES-2
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
projects and environmental monitoring. Data sets that were acquired or identified for
development of the BIMP include:
•
an overview of the state’s coastal geology,
•
an assessment of waves and climate,
•
water levels, including tides and tide stations,
•
storm surge and coastal flooding, beach profile data,
•
an assessment of sea level rise,
•
tropical storm and hurricane history and probabilities,
•
availability of digital orthophotography,
•
historical shorelines and erosion rates,
•
geological framework of islands/inlets,
•
assessments of potential sand resources,
•
beach fill and dredging history,
•
inlet channel realignment/relocation,
•
use and location of erosion control structures
•
data gaps
Environmental Considerations
As stated earlier, the development of a BIMP was a key recommendation of the North
Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan (CHPP). A BIMP was seen as a way to protect
the primary coastal habitats that are vital to the health and function of coastal ecosystems
and fisheries from the potential impacts of beach fill and dredging activities. In that
regard, the BIMP relies heavily on the CHPP as a data source pertaining to these critical
habitat types. Detailed discussions of the environmental considerations at a local level
can be found in the individual region sections of this report.
Socio-Economic Values of N.C. Beaches and Inlets
North Carolina beaches and inlets have tremendous economic importance to the state,
providing billions of dollars in economic value through business and tourism, residential
and commercial property value, water access for commercial and recreational fishermen,
and the marina and boat building industries. Beaches and inlets generate $3 billion in
revenue and directly support 39,000 jobs in coastal communities. When multipliers (total
business sales supported and total jobs supported) are added, these numbers rise to $4.9
billion and 62,100 jobs. The developed portions of the ocean shoreline also represent a
considerable investment. The value of coastal property at risk for three of the most
April 2011
ES-3
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
developed oceanfront counties (New Hanover, Carteret, and Dare) is $2.8 billion. The
recreational consumer surplus resulting from beaches and inlets is over $400 million.
Development of Beach and Inlet Management Regions
Sustainable management of the state’s beaches and inlets requires regional approaches
that consider related segments of the coast rather than merely a project-focused approach.
By adopting a regional approach to beach and inlet management projects, the entire
coastal environment is taken into account, including natural processes as well as the
effect of human activities. In addition, planning projects on a regional scale balances
environmental and economic needs while facilitating collaboration and pooling of local
resources. To this end, the BIMP divides the North Carolina coast into four main beach
and inlet management regions and five subregions
A similar effort to manage beach and inlet systems more holistically, balancing between
social, economic and environmental needs, is being taken by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Their Regional Sediment Management Program (RSM) is a strategy based on
the principle that sediment should be managed and conserved within discrete sediment
transport regions, or littoral cells. The assertion is that the traditional method of
minimizing the cost of individual projects does not always benefit nearshore systems, nor
does it minimize long-term costs for the USACE.
Delineation of Regions and Subregions
The delineation of the regions and subregions included consideration of the geologic
framework, the physical processes (wave exposure, sediment transport, etc.), geography,
sand sources and natural resources, and common sociopolitical concerns.
The four primary regional delineations are defined by N.C.’s geological framework and
cape features. The configuration of the coastline reflects major differences in the
underlying geological framework and the local hydrodynamic regime. Cape Lookout
separates the North Carolina coastal system into two large-scale coastal geologic
provinces, to the north and to the south. Each province has a unique geologic framework
that results in distinctive coastal features. The Northern Province extends from Cape
Lookout northward and is characterized by lower, flatter beach slopes, and large shallow
sounds having few inlets. This region is underlain primarily by unconsolidated sediments.
The low-lying coastal area that evolved consists of wide shallow bays and sounds fronted
by long, narrow barrier islands. The Southern Province, by contrast, has many inlets and
smaller, narrower sounds with higher, steeper beach slopes. This region is underlain by
rock with only a thin and highly variable veneer of sediments. The capes and associated
cape shoals (Diamond Shoals off Cape Hatteras, Lookout Shoals off Cape Lookout, and
Frying Pan Shoals off Cape Fear) are significant natural features in the coastal
geomorphology and the sediment transport processes along the coast, and thus provide
natural delineation points for the four main regions.
April 2011
ES-4
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Further subdivision of the four main regions into five localized subregions was defined
by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Local geologic features
Developed/undeveloped shoreline reaches
Erosion/accretion patterns and rates
Potential sediment transport (sediment budgets and transport directions)
Potential sand sources
Dredging considerations
Sociopolitical boundaries
Figure ES-1: BIMP Management Regions and Subregions
USACE Regional Sediment Management Initiatives and Integration of the BIMP
Several USACE districts are applying and adapting their Regional Sediment Management
approach to programs, projects, and activities through the Corps Regional Sediment
Management National Demonstration Program. During the last decade, the USACE
began to recognize the need for regional sediment management, and the Wilmington
April 2011
ES-5
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
District continues to receive funding for numerous regional sediment management
projects in N.C.
The state and USACE recognize the importance of a cooperative relationship for
successful implementation of the BIMP and federal regional sediment management
initiatives. The re-authorization of the federal Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA 2007) gave the USACE authority to implement regional sediment management
within its programs and operating framework.
In 2008, regional sediment management demonstration funds derived from the national
program were allocated to the USACE-Wilmington District for gathering a detailed
sediment transport and sediment budget for Brunswick County, and hydrographic surveys
at inlets in the Bogue Banks (Carteret County) region. In 2009, the USACE-Wilmington
District continued development of a detailed sediment budget from Cape Fear to the
Bogue Banks region of Cape Lookout, by quantifying inlet sediment budgets, and
conducting coastal process modeling and data analyses. In addition, a final data mining
effort to capture remaining survey data from 2000 to 2005 will be completed in the near
future.
Development of Beach and Inlet Management Strategies
Strategy Development and Potential Costs
State law and development policies are intended to provide a management strategy for
ocean hazard areas that eliminates unreasonable danger to life and property and balances
between the financial, safety, and social aspects of hazard area development. To that end,
these policies seek to preserve the protective characteristics of natural beach and dune
systems. Beach and inlet management strategies consistent with this objective include
beach nourishment, inlet dredging/bypassing, inlet channel realignment/relocation,
temporary erosion control structures (sandbags), and structure relocation. Many of those
management strategies are interrelated – for example, sediment dredged from inlets is
used as a source of sand for beach nourishment. The BIMP reflects these strategies as
well as the use of development regulations, such as oceanfront building setbacks and
hazard mitigation approaches to development adjacent to the dynamic inlet areas.
In order to determine the potential costs for each region and subregion, preliminary
estimates of short- and long-term costs for beach nourishment for the developed portion
of the coast were compiled. This initial base-level funding assumes that beach
nourishment, would be the initial strategy that all the regions could support with local
cost-share. While a dedicated fund should consider additional strategies such as
relocation and conservation easements, this first estimate, combined with a regional
approach, provides a financial starting point for a more cost-effective and
environmentally sound management program. Detailed information on costs can also be
found in the individual chapters that summarize the regions.
April 2011
ES-6
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
The BIMP identified approximately 112 miles of developed oceanfront shoreline that
either 1) have received public funding for past beach fill projects or for current USACE
beach fill projects (storm protection, habitat restoration, beneficial use of dredged
material placement); or 2) are actively involved in a USACE-sponsored investigation to
study the viability of a long-term beach fill project. The BIMP adjusts projected beach fill
sand volumes and related placement cost to reflect ten-year cycles. In this decadal
approach, the costs reflect maintenance on a three-, four-, or five-year cycle, with the tenyear period representing at least two maintenance efforts.
The projected costs associated with future federal beach protection projects uses the
current cost-share ratio employed by the USACE, wherein the federal government pays
65 percent and the remaining 35 percent is shared by the state and local governments.
The state has historically paid 75 percent of the 35 percent share (26.25 percent), and the
local government is responsible for the remaining 8.75 percent. For a non-federal beach
protection project, the state can fund up to 75 percent of the project cost, although the
actual state contribution has historically ranged between 25 and 30 percent of the total
cost.
Costs estimates are based on the assumption that projects would be implemented
regionally to achieve cost-savings in mobilization and demobilization (dredging, berm
construction, etc.). Costs are shown below based on groups of adjacent communities that
correspond to the BIMP regions. In this way, beach fill projections consider beach fill
maintenance on a five-year schedule rather than a per year cost (currently, no community
in the state receives beach fill every year but, rather, on a maintenance cycle of between
three and five years). While storm impacts and other coastal processes may require more
frequent beach fill maintenance over the life of the project, the five subregion clusters are
assumed to receive beach fill maintenance once every five years.
April 2011
ES-7
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Beach Nourishment Needs by BIMP Region and Costs by Project Partner
Community
REGION 1
Ocean Isle Beach
Holden Beach
Oak Island
Caswell Beach
Bald Head Island
REGION 2a
Kure Beach
Carolina Beach
Wrightsville Beach
Figure Eight Island
REGION 2b
Topsail Beach
Surf City
North Topsail
Beach
REGION 2c
Emerald Isle
Indian Beach /
Salter Path
Pine Knoll Shores
Atlantic Beach
(includes Ft.
Macon)
REGION 4b
Nags Head
Kill Devil Hills
Kitty Hawk
TOTAL (all
regions)
Total per/yr Avg.
Managed
Shoreline
length
31.2
5.6
8.2
9.3
3.6
4.5
17.3
3.4
2.7
4.1
5.1
22.3
5.1
6.1
Beach fill
volume
5,641,214
459,720
1,897,470
745,730
440,990
2,097,304
3,886,729
381,393
2,428,236
895,610
181,490
2,370,627
604,070
623,770
$54,713,132
$4,445,470
$18,633,120
$10,820,520
$3,616,150
$17,197,872
$33,022,839
$5,137,423
$19,741,556
$6,555,840
$1,588,020
$24,655,778
$4,911,050
$8,202,570
11.1
1,142,787
$11,542,158
23.8
10.3
3,773,368
981,968
$48,052,803
$13,747,573
2.6
353,780
$4,952,970
4.8
545,000
$7,771,740
6.1
1,892,620
$21,580,520
19.6
11.3
4.8
3.5
2,745,080
1,859,230
327,520
558,330
$30,694,980
$21,325,380
$3,579,760
$5,789,840
112.2
18,417,018 $191,139,532
1,841,702
Total Cost
Per decade
Federal
Share
millions
$29.4
State
Share
millions
$14.2
Local
Share
millions
$11.1
$18.9
$8.2
$5.9
$11.0
$6.4
$7.2
$38.4
$7.2
$2.5
$15.3
$8.0
$7.4
$113.0
$44.0
$34.1
$4.4
$3.4
$19,113,953.2 $11.3
Accounting for storm impacts and other areas of the coast that may require management
in the future, there is an estimated coast-wide need of approximately 1.8 million cubic
yards of beach nourishment to be completed annually (may fluctuate due to storms) at a
combined average cost of $19.1 million per year. It must be noted that beach fill and
dredging projects may not occur every year or in any given year. The average annual
project cost ($19.1M) is intended as a planning number for gauging the annual outlay for
beach and inlet projects over the decadal cycle illustrated in the above table. The annual
April 2011
ES-8
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
costs could also be affected by the extent to which the state pursues the regional approach
and the resulting grouping of projects.
Dredging Needs by BIMP Region and Costs by Project Partner
REGION
1
2a
2b
2c
3a
3b
4a
4b
4c
TOTAL
Shallow Draft Inlet
Dredging (total cost per
decade)*
Deep Draft Inlet Dredging
(total cost per decade)*
TOTAL Inlet
Dredging (cost per
decade)*
$9 million
$10 million
$20 million
$20 million
$5 million
$10 million
$0 million
$25 million
$65 million
$164 million
$51 million
$0
$0
$17 million
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$68 million
$60 million
$10 million
$20 million
$37 million
$5 million
$10 million
$0 million
$25 million
$65 million
$232 million
90% federal cost share
75% federal cost share
(total federal share)
$147.6 million
$51 million
$198.6 million
10% state cost share
25% state cost share
(total state share)
$16.4 million
$17.0 million
$33.4 million
federal cost share
federal cost share
(total federal share)
(per decade)
TOTAL
Cost Share
TOTAL
Cost Share
$14.76 million
$5.1 million
$19.86 million
(per-yr avg)
state cost share
state cost share
(total state share)
$1.64 million
$1.7 million
$3.34 million
*Values are from 1997-2007, adjusted for inflation (2009 dollars), and Cost share data for dredging provided by Division of Water
Resources
Assuming the current federal cost share for navigational dredging of the state’s deep- and
shallow-draft inlets continues into the future, the total state cost share for dredging is
projected to be $33.4 million per decade ($3.3 million per year) with a federal cost share
of $198.6 million ($19.9 million per year). There are no records of local cost sharing that
has occurred for inlet navigation projects.
Adding existing inlet dredging costs for shallow and deep draft inlets ($23.2 million per
year) increases the overall total to $42.3 million per year. This total cost includes federal,
state, and local participation in current beach and inlet projects. While this estimate
includes the AIWW inlet crossings, the AIWW as a whole is not.
April 2011
ES-9
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Finally, under the current federal cost-sharing models for both beach fill and inlet
dredging, the total state funding required for these projects per decade is projected to be
$77.4 million ($7.7 million per year). This projection is based on a projection of $44
million for beach nourishment and $33.4 million for dredging.
Funding and Prioritization Strategies for Beach and Inlet
Projects
Establishment of Regional Authorities and a Dedicated Fund
Beach and inlet projects can be expensive, technically challenging, and full of complex
legal and regulatory issues. It is difficult for an individual local government to undertake
an effort to plan, authorize and fund a beach project. The BIMP identifies two changes
that could support more cost-effective and environmentally sound management of the
state’s beaches and inlets: 1) Expanded use of regional planning for beach and inlet
management projects; and 2) A dedicated state fund to support regional projects.
These two changes would place North Carolina at the forefront of coastal states seeking
to improve the comprehensive management, restoration and preservation of their beaches
and inlets.
The regional planning model could provide coordinated project planning and
management within a region, maximizing efficiency and cost-saving opportunities such
as area-wide sand search investigations, comprehensive shoreline monitoring for all
projects in the region, and coordinated environmental investigations and studies.
Regional project planning could also simplify coordination between state and local
government. Rather than coordinating activities with multiple municipalities, the state
could work with a regional planning entity, authority or project coordinator.
In the form of a regional beach and inlet management authority, local partners could
develop a project financing structure that uses funding options that are most appropriate
for the cooperating local governments. Creation of a state dedicated fund for beach and
inlet management project would make state project contributions more predictable and
give local governments a better foundation for local financing plans.
A dedicated state fund could create a more manageable and predictable level of state
expenditures, allowing for better planning for coastal needs with less stress on the limited
general revenues. The fund would also reduce financial uncertainties at the local level
that often contribute to project delays, increase costs, and disrupt local planning efforts.
A reliable and predictable state funding source would allow coastal communities to make
informed decisions about allocation of new or existing sales or property tax revenues to
coastal projects, knowing the state was committed to sharing the costs. With project
uncertainties reduced, the dredging industry could better anticipate upcoming work,
increasing competition and potentially reducing project costs. A dedicated source of state
April 2011
ES-10
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
funding could also lead to the development of innovative technologies by the dredging
industry, which could also result in cost savings. With greater financial predictability,
uncertainty can be reduced at all phases of implementation.
Increased state involvement in administration of a dedicated fund may require additional
staff resources in both the Division of Water Resources and Division of Coastal
Management to assist with fund administration and permitting. In the interim, existing
staff could be utilized, and given the current economic downturn, it may be necessary to
phase in the program over a number of years.
Future Updates
This initial BIMP is the first step in the development of recommendations for
regionalization, strategy development, and potential funding and prioritization options.
Future updates to the BIMP should focus on filling the data gaps identified in the plan,
formalization of funding mechanisms, and modifications of strategy options.
April 2011
ES-11
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
IV.
Socio-Economic Value of North Carolina Beaches
and Inlets
The existing information on the economic value of North Carolina beaches and inlets
varies in several dimensions – the information varies by topic (beach recreation value,
fishing value, property value, etc.), date, geographic coverage area, methodology used to
produce the information, and by degree of technical and peer review. The information
also varies in terms of whether the values measured are stock variables or flow variables.
A stock variable provides an estimate of an economic value at a point in time – for
example, the value of property on Topsail Island on December 31, 2008 is a stock
variable. (In business, a balance sheet measures stock variables; it measures the value of a
company’s assets and liabilities at a point in time.) In contrast, a flow variable provides
an estimate of the change in an economic value over a period of time; for example, the
decrease in property value due to a hurricane strike is a flow variable. (In business, an
income statement measures flow variables; it measures the amounts of money entering
and leaving the firm over a period of time).
Several types of economic value can be measured, including stock flow variables. Stock
variables include household wealth, the value of coastal property, the value of public
infrastructure, and the level of employment. Flow variables include household income,
business profits, government tax collections, and consumer surplus. Consumer surplus is
the economic value (measured in dollars) that consumers receive from some good or
service beyond their expenditures for the good or service. Consumer surplus is typically
measured as the difference between what consumers actually pay for something and the
maximum amount they would be willing to pay. For example, if you would be willing to
pay $50 to enjoy a day at the beach but you only pay $10 in gasoline and parking fees,
your consumer surplus would be $40 ($50-$10 = $40). Consumer surplus is most
important for goods and services that have free or very low-cost access, such as beach
recreation and some types of fishing.
The economic value supported by North Carolina beaches and inlets can be affected in
several ways. First, there are short-term effects, which can be local, such as rip tide
deaths or shark attacks that reduce tourism for a few days, or widespread, such as the
damage caused by a particular tropical storm or hurricane. Second, there are
intermediate-term effects, such as beach erosion and natural inlet shifting and shoaling,
and development patterns that do not achieve the optimal mix of land uses (and thus
lessen the potential economic value). Finally, there are long-term effects, such as sea
level rise. A goal of beach and inlet management is to anticipate and mitigate all of these
effects. In doing so, management seeks to minimize net costs or damages. When adequate
resources are not available to address all effects simultaneously, as is typically the case,
effects must be prioritized and decisions must be made regarding which effects to
address, to what degree, and in what order.
April 2011
IV-1
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
A.
Data Sources
1. National-Level Data Sources
Established in 1999, the National Ocean Economics Program (NOEP 2008) provides a
full range of the most current economic and socio-economic information available on
changes and trends along the U.S. coast and in coastal waters, including population,
housing, and general economic data. The program is funded by federal, state, university,
and private grants and contracts.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Economics &
Social Sciences Program provides information on the economics of commercial and
recreational fishing.
2. State-Level Data Sources
The North Carolina Department of Commerce Tourism Services Division provides
information on tourism expenditure and economic impact by county for North Carolina.
The North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries provides information on employment,
economic output, and economic impact of commercial and recreational fishing in North
Carolina.
3. Issue-Specific Studies
There are many topic-specific studies addressing the economics of particular issues
related to North Carolina beaches and inlets. These studies are produced by government
agencies, consulting firms, research institutes, and academics publishing in professional
journals. These studies will be introduced below under the relevant topical heading.
B.
Value of Beaches
1. Value of Coastal Property at Risk
a) Background and Past Studies
Bin et al. (2007) examined parcel-level property value, both residential and commercial,
for selected coastal counties examining the impacts of sea level rise on North Carolina
coastal resources. The authors estimated the impacts of sea level rise on coastal real
estate markets in Dare, Bertie, Carteret, and New Hanover Counties (Figure IV-1). The
study area represents a cross-section of the North Carolina coastline in geographical
distribution and economic development.
April 2011
IV-2
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Figure IV-1. Location of Counties Analyzed for Property Impacts in Bin et al. (2007)
Six climate scenarios generated from recent global climate models, consisting of low,
medium, and high sea level rise rates from the present day to 2030 and the present day to
2080 were used to calculate ranges of property loss values, depending on the severity of
sea level rise. Table IV-1 presents the sea level rise scenarios considered.
April 2011
IV-3
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Table IV-1. Summary of Sea Level Rise Scenarios
Year Scenario Projected Sea Level Rise,
(feet)
2030 Low
0.36
Mid
0.52
High
0.69
2080 Low
0.85
Mid
1.51
High
2.66
The loss of property values due to sea level rise were estimated using a simulation
approach based on hedonic property value models (using location, structural, and
environmental attributes as value) for the four counties. Data on property values was
obtained from the county tax offices. These offices maintain property parcel records that
contain assessed values of property as well as lot size, total square footage, the year the
structure was built, and other structural characteristics of the property. Other spatial
amenities such as property elevation, ocean and sound/estuarine frontage and distance to
shoreline were obtained using GIS data (Figure IV-2). Study results indicated that the
impacts of sea level rise on coastal property values vary across the North Carolina
coastline. Overall, the northern part of the North Carolina coastline is comparatively
more vulnerable to the effect of sea level rise than the southern part. The low-lying and
heavily developed areas along the northern coastline are especially at high risk from sea
level rise. Without discounting, the residential property value loss in Dare County ranges
from two percent of the total residential property value (in 2030, assuming 0.36 feet of
sea level rise from 2004 to 2030) to 12 percent (in 2080, assuming 2.66 feet of sea level
rise from 2004 to 2080). The loss in Carteret County ranges from less than one percent
(in 2030, assuming 0.36 feet of sea level rise from 2004 to 2030) to almost three percent
(in 2080, assuming 2.66 feet of sea level rise from 2004 to 2080). New Hanover and
Bertie Counties show relatively small impacts with less than one percent loss in
residential property value (in 2080, assuming 2.66 feet of sea level rise from 2004 to
2080). Considering these four coastal counties, which includes the three most populous
on the North Carolina coast (New Hanover, Dare, and Carteret), lost property value
(residential and commercial) is roughly eight percent of the total in 2080 (assuming 2.66
feet of sea level rise from 2004 to 2080).
Since this analysis, the N.C. Coastal Resources Commission’s (CRC) Science Panel on
Coastal Hazards released a report, based on a review of the published literature, of the
known state of sea level rise for North Carolina. The intent of the Science Panel report is
to provide North Carolina’s planners and policy makers with a scientific assessment of
the amount of sea level rise likely to occur in this century. The report does not attempt to
predict a specific future rate or amount of rise because that level of accuracy is not
considered to be attainable at this time. Rather, the report constrains the likely range of
rise and recommends an amount of rise that should be adopted for policy development
and planning purposes. The Science Panel found the most likely scenario for 2100 AD is
April 2011
IV-4
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
a rise of 0.4 meter to 1.4 meters (15 inches to 55 inches) above present. In comparison to
the BIMP scenarios presented in Table IV-1, the Science Panel ranges represent a rise in
sea level between 0.29 and 1.02 feet by 2030 and between 1.02 and 3.57 feet by 2080. In
addition, the North Carolina Sea Level Rise Risk Management Study being carried out by
the N.C. Division of Emergency Management is ongoing with final scenarios expected in
mid-2011.
From upper-left: (a) Carteret County shoreline location, (b) LiDAR elevation surface, (c) distance to shoreline, and (d) tax parcel
centroids.
(a) Shoreline location. Oceanfront and estuarine-front properties were identified for all four counties for current sea level. Attributes
were added to these tax parcels indicating what type of shoreline position they currently occupy.
(b) LiDAR Elevation. Elevation was sampled and assigned as an attribute to each tax parcel using the centroid. The LIDAR derived
DEM was used as the source of elevation data. This DEM has had buildings systematically removed although there may still be errors
that are greater than the average +/- 0.25 m. Therefore, it is most likely that the elevation values reported for tax parcels in dense urban
areas represent an over-estimate for elevation.
(c) Shoreline distance. Distance to shoreline was created for each inundation scenario. We used Euclidean distance to describe the
proximity of a tax parcel to the shoreline. Tax parcel centroids were then used to sample the seven distance surfaces (current and 6scenarios).
(d) Tax Parcel centroids. The six inundation grids representing the new shoreline-ocean interface following sea level rise was sampled
by the tax parcel centroids. Attributes reflecting whether a tax parcel was inundated were added to each centroid
Figure IV-2. Example of data used in Bin et al. (2007) property value study.
April 2011
IV-5
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Beach nourishment can mitigate coastal hazards, and therefore protects the economic
value of residential property, commercial property and public infrastructure. This
category of beach nourishment benefit takes the form of “damage costs avoided.” Several
existing studies use standard hedonic valuation methods (regression technique used in
economic analysis to estimate prices/values) to estimate the property protection benefits
of beach nourishment (e.g., Brown and Pollakowski 1977; Curtis and Shows 1984; Black
et al. 1988; Kerns et al. 1980; Edwards and Gable 1991; Pompe and Rinehart 1995; and
Parsons, G.R., and M. Powell. 1998). Numerous studies have applied hedonic property
value models to estimate the impact on property values from hazard risks such as flood
hazards (MacDonald, Murdoch, and White 1987; MacDonald, et al. 1990; Bin and
Polasky 2004, Burrus et al. 2001), erosion hazards (Kriesel, Randall, and Lichtkoppler
1993; Landry, Keeler, and Kriesel 2003), and wind hazards (Burrus et al. 2007, 2005,
2002a; Simmons, Kruse, and Smith 2000). Smith et al. (1997) estimate the economic
value of controlling marine debris as an aesthetic characteristic of beaches.
b) Current Estimate of Coastal Property Value
Coastal property is at risk of loss due to erosion, storm surge flooding, and sea level rise.
As stated above, Bin et al. (2007) estimated the value of beach property in 2004 at risk of
loss, due to sea level rise for four North Carolina counties: Dare, Bertie, Carteret, and
New Hanover.
The Bin et al. (2007) study relied on individual property parcel data giving the elevation
of each parcel, distance of each parcel from the nearest water body, the assessed tax value
of each parcel, and other characteristics. All parcels included in the study were within
one mile of the coast or Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, which includes almost all beach
island parcels and parcels adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, but excludes
most inland parcels. The study considered various degrees of potential sea level rise at
different times in the future, calculated which property parcels would be flooded, and
tabulated the value of lost property. A 1.5 foot sea level rise scenario was selected herein
for consideration (i.e., the property at risk estimates reported here show the value of
property that would be flooded in the event of a 1.5 foot sea level increase relative to the
2004 baseline sea level). The models used to calculate the value of lost property transfer
the value of scenic ocean views, proximity to the ocean, etc., to any remaining property
(i.e., if an “ocean front” beach house is lost, the value of the ocean view is transferred to
the “second row” house behind it). Hence, the estimated losses are “net” values. Values
are estimated separately for residential and commercial property.
The Bin et al. (2007) estimates were available for Dare, Carteret, and New Hanover
counties. Estimated property at risk values in 2004 were adjusted to 2008-year
equivalent dollars using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) price deflator (US Bureau of
Economic Analysis 2008). The property at risk estimates are presented in Table IV-2.
April 2011
IV-6
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Table IV-2. Property at Risk Estimates
Coastal
Region
County
Beach
2a
2c
3b/4
Total
New Hanover
Carteret
Dare
All
County-wide
County-wide
County-wide
All
Value of
Residential
Coastal Property
at Risk 2004
$90,700,000
$92,300,000
$906,700,000
$1,089,700,000
Value of
Commercial
Coastal Property
at Risk 2004
$32,300,000
$168,000,000
$1,318,100,000
$1,518,400,000
Value of
Residential
Coastal Property
at Risk 2008
$98,227,440
$99,960,229
$981,949,506
$1,180,137,176
Value of
Commercial
Coastal Property
at Risk 2008
$34,980,665
$181,942,778
$1,427,492,715
$1,644,416,158
Future studies should consider applying the methods of Bin et al. to develop direct
estimates of property at risk in those counties not considered in the original analysis.
2. Value of Beach Recreation
a) Background and Past Studies
Beaches are a leading tourist destination in the United States. Seventy-five percent of
summer travelers plan to visit beaches. Miami Beach has almost twice as many tourist
visits (17.2 million in 2007) as the combined number of tourist visits to Yellowstone (3.4
million), the Grand Canyon (4.4 million), and Yosemite (3.5 million) National Parks
(National Park Service, 2008). Beach tourism, therefore, has a significant economic
impact in coastal areas.
A recent national poll found that beach erosion is the number one concern of beach
tourists regarding beach quality (Hall and Staimer, 1995). The United States has 20,500
miles of eroding shoreline and 2,670 miles of critically eroding shoreline (National
Research Council 1995; US Army Corps of Engineers, 1994). From 1950-1993 the
federal government and its local government cost-sharing partners spent an average of
$3.4 million (1993 dollars) annually on beach sand nourishment (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1994). The federal investment in beach nourishment and renourishment has
increased since the mid-1990s and has been up to $100 million a year (Valverde,
Trembanis and Pilkey, 1999; Trembanis and Pilkey, 1998).
Beach recreation is considered a component of the tourism industry. The state of North
Carolina maintains two measures of tourism economic impact. County-by-county travel
economic impact statistics are prepared annually by the Research Department of the
Travel Industry Association of America (TIA) for the North Carolina Department of
Commerce’s Division of Tourism, Film, and Sports Development (NCDC 2008a). In
addition to the direct visitor spending estimates for all 100 North Carolina counties,
county-level employment, payroll and tax revenues as a result of direct visitor spending
are included. The NCDC also maintains separate measures of Tourist Spending Tax
Information on occupancy tax and meals tax collections, which are important in coastal
tourist areas (NCDC 2008c, d, e).
April 2011
IV-7
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
The second measure of tourism economic impact is the Tourism Satellite Account (TSA)
produced for NCDC by GlobalInsight (NCDC 2006). This measure follows the official
international standard for measuring the economic contribution of tourism. The TSA
methodology was developed by the World Tourism Organization and ratified by the
United Nations in 2000. The TSA for North Carolina provides measures of the
contribution of travel and tourism to income, employment, gross state product,
government tax revenues, and other measures. The economic impact measure produced
by the TSA methodology is typically larger than that produced by the TIA methodology
because the TSA methodology includes the spending of the following groups (in addition
to domestic in-bound traveler spending measured by TIA): the spending of international
and resident outbound visitors, North Carolina’s Tourism Office budget, the construction
of tourism sector infrastructure, and the rental income from a large number of seasonal
second homes.
Recently, Bin et al. (2005) provided estimates of consumer surplus value for beach
recreation in North Carolina. The authors estimated consumer surplus of a beach day
using the single-site travel cost method. Onsite visitation data for southern North
Carolina beaches were collected between July and November of 2003. One model
pertained to beach visitors that make single day trips to the beach, while the other was for
visitors that stay onsite overnight. Depending upon the site, the estimated net benefits of a
day at a beach in North Carolina ranged between $11 and $80 for those users making day
trips and between $11 and $41 for those users staying overnight. These estimates are of
the same order of magnitude as the results from earlier studies using travel cost methods
but are considerably larger than the previous findings based upon other (stated
preference) methods.
Additionally, Bin et al. (2007) examined the impacts of sea level rise on North Carolina
coastal resources (see sea level rise scenarios in Table IV-1). The authors use two sets of
recreation data and the travel cost method for recreation demand estimation. The first
data set includes information on beach trips to southern North Carolina beaches, listed
below in Table IV-3. Assuming 2004 levels of population and household income, the
authors estimate that the lost beach recreation value of sea level rise to beach goers is $93
million per year in 2030 (assuming 0.52 feet of sea level rise from 2004 to 2030 and
associated increased erosion) and $203 million per year in 2080 (assuming 1.51 feet of
sea level rise from 2004 to 2080 and associated increased erosion) for the southern North
Carolina beaches. For those households who only take day trips, 4.3 percent of
recreation value is lost in 2030 and 11 percent is lost in 2080 relative to 2004 baseline
values. For those households who take both day and overnight beach trips, 16 percent
and 34 percent of recreation value is lost in 2030 and 2080, respectively. The present
value of the welfare costs are estimated by assuming the impacts are equal to zero in
2004 and increase linearly to 2080. Assuming 2004 levels of population and household
income, the present value of the cumulative lost recreation benefits due to sea level rise
from 2004 to 2080 would be $3.5 billion when discounted at a two percent rate for the
southern North Carolina beaches.
April 2011
IV-8
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Table IV-3. Southern Beaches as Identified by Bin et al.
County
Brunswick
New Hanover
Beach
Caswell Beach, Oak Island, Holden Beach, Ocean
Isle Beach, Sunset Beach
Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach, Kure Beach,
Fort Fisher
Pender-Onslow
North Topsail Beach, Surf City, Topsail Beach
Carteret
Fort Macon, Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores,
Indian Beach/Salter Path, Emerald Isle
Beach trip spending by non-local North Carolina residents would also change
significantly with sea level rise. Assuming 2004 levels of population and household
income, spending by those who only take day trips would fall by two percent in 2030
(assuming 0.52 feet of sea level rise from 2004 to 2030 and associated increased erosion)
and 23 percent in 2080 (assuming 1.51 feet of sea level rise from 2004 to 2080 and
associated increased erosion) compared to 2004. Those who take both day and overnight
trips would spend 16 percent less in 2030 and 48 percent less in 2080.
b) Current Estimate of Beach Recreation Value
Estimates of the value of beach recreation along the North Carolina coast were developed
using data from several sources. The value of recreationists' direct expenditures on
lodging, food and beverage, fuel, miscellaneous retail shopping, etc., were tabulated in
addition to the economic multiplier effects of these expenditures and the additional value
of the beach recreation experience to the recreationists themselves (so-called “consumer
surplus” value). Values were estimated for recreationists staying overnight in paid
accommodations, including hotels, motels, inns and bed and breakfasts, rented
condominiums, rented cottages, cottage courts, recreational vehicle parks, and
campgrounds, as well as for recreationists staying overnight with friends or family and
for “day trip” recreationists visiting for the day and not staying overnight.
The estimation methodology begins with occupancy tax rates and collections for coastal
towns and counties available from the NCDC for state fiscal year 2005-2006. Fiscal year
2005-2006 was selected as the baseline year because it was consistent with the years in
which data were collected in beach tourism surveys also used in this analysis.
Occupancy tax is collected on overnight expenditures on hotels, motels, inns, bed and
breakfasts, rented condominiums, rented cottages, cottage courts, recreational vehicle
(RV) parks, and campgrounds. Only those communities located on beach islands or
adjacent to the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway were selected. For example, in New
Hanover County, occupancy taxes paid in Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach, and Kure
Beach were included in the analysis, but occupancy taxes paid in Wilmington were not.
On the one hand, this may under-count beach recreationists' expenditures on lodging if
some beach recreationists stay in Wilmington hotels. However, if visitors are staying in
Wilmington hotels off the beach and visiting the beach by day, only to return to hotels in
Wilmington at night, then these visitors might be considered day visitors from the beach
community’s perspective. This is the perspective taken here. On the other hand, the
April 2011
IV-9
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
procedure may over-count beach recreation expenditures if some beach hotel visitors do
not intend to recreate at the beach, but are there for some other reason, such as to attend a
workshop or conference. To some extent, these sources of over- and under-counting
should work to cancel one another and the net effect should be minor relative to overall
levels of occupancy taxes.
Occupancy tax collections in each beach town community were divided by communityspecific occupancy tax rates to derive estimates of overnight beach recreationists' lodging
expenditures at hotels, motels, inns, bed and breakfasts, rented condominiums, rented
cottages, cottage courts, RV parks, and campgrounds. When community-specific
occupancy tax collections and rates were not available from NCDC, the individual
counties were contacted to obtain community-specific tax collections and rates.
For each beach community, overnight lodging expenditures were partitioned into three
categories; (1) hotels/motels/inns/bed and breakfasts, (2) condo and cottage rentals, and
(3) RV parks and campgrounds. In some cases the data needed to partition lodging
expenditures were part of county occupancy tax records, in other cases the data were
drawn from surveys of beach recreationists (NCOBVB 2006, Herstine et al. 2005,
Imperial et al. 2004).
Numbers of overnight beach trips by lodging category for each beach community were
then calculated by dividing the lodging expenditures in each community and category by
the estimated lodging expenditures per trip made by overnight beach recreationists in
each community and category. A trip is defined as all persons traveling together to the
beach for all days of the trip, not the number of individual persons making trips, and not
the individual number of days. So, the lodging expenditures made by all persons in a
family traveling together to the beach for all days spent at the beach on the trip are
counted as the expenditures made on one trip. Estimates of average overnight lodging
expenditures per beach trip by lodging category for Dare County are provided by
NCOBVB (2006) (cottage & condo rentals: $1,312 per trip; hotel/motel/B&B: $358 per
trip; RV and campgrounds: $265 per trip), and similar data are provided for Wrightsville
Beach in Imperial et al. (2004) (cottage & condo rentals: $1,616 per trip;
hotel/motel/B&B: $511 per trip; RV and campgrounds: not available, so Dare County
value was used: $265 per trip). Per trip lodging expenditures by lodging category for
Currituck County (Corolla area) and Hyde County (Ocracoke area) are assumed to be
similar to those in Dare County. Per trip lodging expenditures by lodging category for
Carteret, Pender, and Brunswick Counties and other beach communities in New Hanover
County are assumed to be similar to those in Wrightsville Beach.
The number of overnight beach trips made by beach recreationists staying with family
and friends at the beach (and therefore not paying occupancy tax) were estimated for
Dare County based on data in NCOBVB (2006) indicating that six percent of all
overnight trips are of this type. Estimates for Hyde and Currituck Counties are made
based on the six percent figure for Dare County. Imperial et al. (2004) found that a much
higher percentage (i.e., 47 percent) of all overnight trips at Wrightsville Beach are trips in
April 2011
IV-10
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
which visitors stay with family and friends. The Wrightsville Beach percentage is used
to estimate “family and friend lodging” trips for Carteret, Pender, Hyde, and Brunswick
Counties and the remaining beach communities in New Hanover County.
The numbers of day (non-overnight) beach recreation trips for each community are
estimated using information on: (1) numbers of overnight trips as estimated above, (2)
the proportions of day trips to overnight trips, and (3) the average number of days per
overnight trip. Data for (2) are provided by Herstine et al. (2005) for Carteret, Pender,
Onslow, and Brunswick County beaches and by Imperial et al. (2004) for Wrightsville
Beach (assumed to be the same for other New Hanover County beaches). Due to
relatively remote location, it is assumed that only five percent of beach trips made to
Currituck County and Dare County communities north of Oregon Inlet are day trips and
zero percent of beach trips made to Dare County and Hyde County communities south of
Oregon Inlet are day trips. (It is very likely that many visitors staying overnight in
Manteo or Bodie Island communities make day trips to Hatteras communities, but the
expenditures of these visitors are counted in the overnight category rather than the day
trip category.) Data for (3) are provided by NCOBVB (2006) for Dare County (6.7 days
per overnight trip) and by Herstine et al. (2005) and Imperial et al. (2004) for Carteret
County and counties south of Carteret (five to seven days per overnight trip). Given
these data, the numbers of day trips for each community are estimated by multiplying the
number of overnight trips by the proportion of day trips to overnight trips and then
multiplying by the average number of days per overnight trip. The last multiplication,
called the naïve estimate, is done to correct for sampling bias associated with the on-site
beach surveys that are the source of the estimates of the proportions of day trips to
overnight trips. (For example, if an on-site beach survey finds that on each of three
different days of beach surveying, one person was a day visitor and one person was an
overnight visitor, then a naïve estimate of the proportion of day visitors to overnight
visitors is one-to-one. But, what if the average overnight visitor stays three days per trip?
Then, on average, the beach survey picked up the same overnight visitor on each of the
three different survey days, so the true proportion of day visitors to overnight visitors is
three-to-one. Multiplying the naïve estimate of day trips by the average number of days
per overnight trip corrects for this potential bias.)
Given estimates of the number of overnight trips (by overnight trip category) and day
trips for each beach community, estimates of the direct non-lodging expenditures made
by beach recreationists on food and beverage purchased in restaurants and bars, food and
beverage purchased in grocery stores and convenience stores, fuel, entertainment
(movies, golf, etc.), retail shopping, etc., are developed by multiplying the number of
trips in each trip category by the average expenditure per trip in each expenditure
category for each trip category. Data on expenditures per trip for overnight trips and day
trips by expenditure category are provided by NCOBVB (2006) for Dare County and by
Imperial et al. (2004) for Wrightsville Beach. The expenditure per trip estimates for Dare
County are used for Hyde County, and the estimates for Wrightsville Beach are used for
Carteret, Pender, Onslow, New Hanover, and Brunswick County beach communities.
Estimated direct expenditures are summed across expenditure categories and trip types
April 2011
IV-11
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
and are reported for each beach community in both base year (2005-2006) and inflationadjusted year 2008 dollars.
Direct expenditures by expenditure category are summed across all trip types for all
communities in each county. These county-level direct expenditures (by expenditure
category) were then entered into county-level economic input-output models (see Miller
and Blair 1985 for additional information on input-output models) to estimate the countywide economic multiplier effects of the direct expenditures. County-level IMPLAN
software models (MIG 2005) were used to estimate multiplier effects. The input-output
models provide estimates of total business sales (also known as economic output or
business activity) and employment supported in each county by the direct beach
recreation expenditures. Estimates of total impacts on business sales and employment
were provided at the county level because multiplier effects occur county-wide rather
than being confined to particular beach communities. Estimates of business sales were
provided in both base year (2005-2006) and inflation-adjusted year 2008 dollars.
Inflation adjustment does not change employment estimates. These estimates are
presented in Table IV-4.
April 2011
IV-12
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Table IV-4. Beach Expenditures
Beach Recreation Beach Recreation Beach Recreation Beach Recreation
2005-2006
Beach Recreation
County
Beach
Annual Direct
Expenditures
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
(County-wide)
Bird Island
Sunset Beach
Ocean Isle Beach
Holden Beach
Oak Island
Bald Head Island
North of Cape Fear
$187,443,025
N/A
$32,354,052
$51,222,316
$51,560,967
$35,670,206
$16,635,485
N/A
2005-2006
Annual Total
Impact Output/
Sales/ Business
Activity
$321,747,424
N/A
$55,535,985
$87,923,508
$88,504,804
$61,228,188
$28,554,940
N/A
2a
2a
2a
2a
2a
2a
2a
2a
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
(County-wide)
Zeke's Island
Fort Fisher
Kure Beach
Carolina Beach
Masonboro Island
Wrightsville Beach
Figure Eight Island
$156,379,513
N/A
$305,621,244
N/A
$13,889,233
$46,599,311
N/A
$95,890,968
No Data
$27,144,506
$91,071,645
N/A
$187,405,093
No Data
4379
N/A
Included in Kure Beach
389
1305
N/A
2685
No Data
2b
2b
2b
2b
2b
2b
2b
2b
Pender
Pender
Pender
Pender
Onslow
Onslow
Onslow
Onslow
(County-wide)
Hutaff Beach
Topsail Beach
Surf City
(County-wide)
North Topsail Beach
Onslow Beach
Browns Island
$37,656,811
N/A
$16,318,197
$21,338,614
$37,873,072
$37,873,072
N/A
N/A
$57,367,037
N/A
$24,859,424
$32,507,613
$57,696,493
$57,696,493
N/A
N/A
973
N/A
422
551
978
978
N/A
N/A
$39,509,055
N/A
$17,120,848
$22,388,207
$39,735,953
$39,735,953
N/A
N/A
$60,188,778
N/A
$26,082,197
$34,106,581
$60,534,439
$60,534,439
N/A
N/A
2c
2c
2c
2c
2c
2c
2c
2c
2c
Onslow
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Bear Island
(County-wide)
Emerald Isle
Indian Beach/Salter Path
Pine Knoll Shores
Atlantic Beach
Fort Macon
Shackleford Banks
Cape Lookout
N/A
$219,843,910
$118,511,938
$10,139,738
$17,346,108
$45,637,586
$4,747,129
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$379,555,904
6148
$230,657,481
$204,608,377
3314
$124,341,243
$17,506,046
284
$10,638,487
$29,947,691
485
$18,199,319
$78,792,335
1276
$47,882,384
$8,195,818
133
$4,980,628
N/A
N/A
N/A
Included in Carteret County-wide total
N/A
$398,225,307
$214,672,550
$18,367,124
$31,420,743
$82,667,933
$8,598,950
N/A
3a
3a
Carteret
Carteret
Core Banks
Portsmouth Island
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3b
3b
3b/4
3b
3b/4a
Hyde
Hyde
Dare
Dare
Dare
(County-wide)
Ocracoke Island
(County-wide)
Hatteras Island @ Hatteras
Cape Hatteras
$21,815,391
$21,815,391
$596,401,453
$14,443,606
$37,540,698
$38,658,609
$38,658,609
$1,056,721,397
$25,591,599
$66,515,698
523
523
14368
348
904
$22,888,436
$22,888,436
$625,736,945
$15,154,050
$39,387,231
$40,560,129
$40,560,129
$1,108,698,874
$26,850,386
$69,787,439
4a
4a
4a
4a
4b
4b
4b
4b
4b
4b
4b
4b
4c
4c
4c
4c
4c
Total
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Hatteras Island @ Buxton & Frisco
Hatteras Island @ Avon
Hatteras Island @ Salvo & Waves
Hatteras Island @ Rodanthe
Pea Island
Bodie Island
Nags Head
Kill Devil Hills
Kitty Hawk
Southern Shores
Duck
Sanderling
(County-wide)
Peters Quarter
Corolla
Currituck National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge to VA
All
$39,406,076
$37,553,374
$17,685,451
$20,633,026
N/A
$69,820,828
$66,538,158
$31,335,594
$36,558,194
N/A
Coastal
Region
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Currituck
Currituck
Currituck
Currituck
Currituck
All
$146,714,012
$114,968,614
$91,974,891
$15,325,788
$37,910,681
$22,245,237
$165,092,704
$77,820,610
$61,752,511
N/A
$25,519,583
$1,399,044,467
2005-2006
2008
Total Impact
Employment (jobs)
Annual Direct
Expenditures
4721
N/A
815
1290
1299
898
419
N/A
$196,662,878
N/A
$33,945,467
$53,741,814
$54,097,121
$37,424,734
$17,453,742
N/A
2008
Annual Total
Impact/ Output/
Sales/ Business
Activity
$337,573,374
N/A
$58,267,660
$92,248,245
$92,858,134
$64,239,849
$29,959,486
N/A
$164,071,429
N/A
$320,653,987
N/A
$14,572,410
$48,891,415
N/A
$100,607,605
No Data
$28,479,677
$95,551,231
N/A
$196,623,079
No Data
949
$41,344,362
905
$39,400,531
426
$18,555,354
497
$21,647,912
N/A
N/A
Included in Nags Head
$259,952,143
3534
$153,930,507
$203,704,726
2770
$120,623,632
$162,963,781
2216
$96,498,906
$27,154,675
369
$16,079,625
$67,171,244
913
$39,775,412
$39,414,755
536
$23,339,424
$257,753,550
3767
$173,213,201
$121,498,637
1775
$81,648,411
$96,412,068
1409
$64,789,963
N/A
N/A
N/A
$39,842,845
582
$26,774,827
$2,434,616,022
35,202
$1,467,859,957
$73,255,139
$69,811,004
$32,876,914
$38,356,399
N/A
$272,738,538
$213,724,451
$170,979,561
$28,490,346
$70,475,229
$41,353,469
$270,431,801
$127,474,850
$101,154,336
N/A
$41,802,615
$2,554,368,682
In addition to the direct economic expenditures of beach recreationists and the economic
multiplier effects of the expenditures, beach recreationists also enjoy “consumer surplus”
value during beach trips. Consumer surplus is the value to the recreationist of the
recreation experience itself, value beyond the expenditures made in order to gain access
to the experience. For example, if a recreationist would have been willing to pay $2,000
April 2011
IV-13
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
for a beach vacation but only ends up spending $1,300, then the consumer surplus is the
difference, $700. Bin et al. (2007) estimated consumer surplus values per trip for day
trips and overnight trips to Carteret, Pender, Onslow, New Hanover, and Brunswick
County beaches based on data provided in Herstine et al. (2005). The average estimates
of consumer surplus value are $55 per day trip and $65 per overnight trip. These values
are similar to other estimates of consumer surplus per beach trip for North Carolina beach
trips (e.g., Bin et al. 2005, Whitehead et al. 2008). These estimates of consumer surplus
per trip were multiplied by the number of trips to provide estimates of consumer surplus
value by beach community for both base year (2005-2006) and inflation-adjusted year
2008 dollars. These estimates are presented in Table IV-5.
April 2011
IV-14
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Table IV-5. Beach Recreation Consumer Surplus Value
Beach Recreation Beach Recreation
2005-2006
Coastal
Region
April 2011
2008
Annual Consumer Annual Consumer
Surplus
Surplus
County
Beach
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
Brunswick
(County-wide)
Bird Island
Sunset Beach
Ocean Isle Beach
Holden Beach
Oak Island
Bald Head Island
North of Cape Fear
$14,621,595
N/A
$2,411,742
$3,847,678
$4,344,735
$3,161,838
$855,602
N/A
2a
2a
2a
2a
2a
2a
2a
2a
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
New Hanover
(County-wide)
Zeke's Island
Fort Fisher
Kure Beach
Carolina Beach
Masonboro Island
Wrightsville Beach
Figure Eight Island
$26,986,370
$28,313,762
N/A
N/A
Included in Kure Beach
$1,604,183
$1,683,089
$6,856,601
$7,193,860
N/A
N/A
$18,525,586
$19,436,813
No Data
No Data
2b
2b
2b
2b
2b
2b
2b
2b
Pender
Pender
Pender
Pender
Onslow
Onslow
Onslow
Onslow
(County-wide)
Hutaff Beach
Topsail Beach
Surf City
(County-wide)
North Topsail Beach
Onslow Beach
Browns Island
2c
2c
2c
2c
2c
2c
2c
2c
2c
Onslow
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Carteret
Bear Island
(County-wide)
Emerald Isle
Indian Beach/Salter Path
Pine Knoll Shores
Atlantic Beach
Fort Macon
Shackleford Banks
Cape Lookout
3a
3a
Carteret
Carteret
Core Banks
Portsmouth Island
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3b
3b
3b/4
3b
3b/4a
Hyde
Hyde
Dare
Dare
Dare
(County-wide)
Ocracoke Island
(County-wide)
Hatteras Island @ Hatteras
Cape Hatteras
$907,140
$907,140
$24,340,033
$525,425
$1,365,184
$951,759
$951,759
$25,537,259
$551,270
$1,432,334
4a
4a
4a
4a
4b
4b
4b
4b
4b
4b
4b
4b
4c
4c
4c
4c
4c
Total
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Hatteras Island @ Buxton & Frisco
Hatteras Island @ Avon
Hatteras Island @ Salvo & Waves
Hatteras Island @ Rodanthe
Pea Island
Bodie Island
Nags Head
Kill Devil Hills
Kitty Hawk
Southern Shores
Duck
Sanderling
(County-wide)
Peters Quarter
Corolla
Currituck National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge to VA
All
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Dare
Currituck
Currituck
Currituck
Currituck
Currituck
All
IV-15
$4,496,131
N/A
$1,480,201
$3,015,930
$5,625,292
$5,625,292
N/A
N/A
$15,340,794
N/A
$2,530,369
$4,036,936
$4,558,441
$3,317,360
$897,687
N/A
$4,717,284
N/A
$1,553,009
$3,164,276
$5,901,986
$5,901,986
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$29,476,069
$30,925,923
$12,400,414
$13,010,359
$1,589,212
$1,667,382
$3,161,688
$3,317,204
$8,339,505
$8,749,705
$2,556,222
$2,681,956
N/A
N/A
Included in Carteret County-wide total
$1,395,868
$1,464,527
$1,366,106
$1,433,301
$820,660
$861,026
$957,436
$1,004,530
N/A
N/A
Included in Nags Head
$7,356,815
$7,718,678
$5,602,655
$5,878,235
$4,482,124
$4,702,588
$467,761
$490,769
$1,207,669
$1,267,071
$709,266
$744,153
$6,864,975
$7,202,646
$3,235,979
$3,395,149
$2,567,827
$2,694,132
N/A
N/A
$1,061,169
$1,113,366
$113,805,512
$119,403,320
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
XII. Funding and Prioritization Strategies for North
Carolina Beach and Inlet Projects
North Carolina beaches are dynamic, subject to powerful natural forces of wind, waves
and tides. While engineers and planners work through the complex and difficult
alternatives to protect coastal resources and maintain the shoreline, one conclusion can be
fairly reached: the demand for and cost of shoreline and inlet management projects –
especially beach renourishment projects – has outgrown existing fiscal capabilities at the
state and local level.
The Beach and Inlet Management Plan assesses the existing funding programs employed
in North Carolina to pay for beach restoration and shoreline management projects while
identifying new approaches that could provide a more solid financial foundation for these
projects. In addition, the plan includes some ideas for potential prioritization criteria that
could be utilized in allocating funding.
North Carolina’s oceanfront counties rank among the fastest growing areas of the state.
This increase in coastal development has created conditions for greater conflict between
natural shoreline processes, such as erosion and storm-related shoreline change, and
development interests. While the state has developed strong long-term policies for
management of ocean and inlet shorelines, it has sometimes struggled with the
application of those policies to imminently threatened development. With regard to
addressing the impacts of erosion, the state has traditionally taken a supporting role rather
than leading the planning efforts for projects designed to mitigate those impacts. As
erosion problems have historically been viewed as a local issue, local officials have
initiated most shoreline protection projects by either pursuing funding for a federal
hurricane mitigation project (for which the state has traditionally provided matching
funds) or proposing local projects based on local revenue sources. As a result, North
Carolina’s approach to ocean shoreline management has been decentralized and lacks a
coastwide framework for planning, prioritizing and funding.
Without effective planning, the state’s coastal communities and a significant part of its
economic base will continue to be under threat from coastal erosion, shifting shorelines,
and storms. The conflict between shoreline processes and more intensive development
needs to be addressed in a more consistent and comprehensive manner that includes a
discussion of the adequacy of the state’s existing shoreline project funding programs and
consideration of a dedicated state fund.
The BIMP is intended to address three aspects of a comprehensive planning effort. The
first step is to comprehensively evaluate the existing condition of the state’s beaches and
identify not only historical and ongoing shoreline erosion projects, but to also identify
potential future shoreline projects to restore and maintain the beaches. Included in this
evaluation is an estimation of the total and annual cost of beach maintenance, providing a
necessary starting point for the funding analysis and recommendations.
April 2011
XII-1
FINAL REPORT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
In order to facilitate planning and prioritization of projects, the BIMP divides the coast
into four regions and five sub-regions, as described in Section V. These regions reflect
physical distinctions along the coast and generally coincide with established political and
jurisdictional boundaries, providing a coherent framework for development of regional
funding strategies.
A final aspect of a comprehensive planning effort includes the need to develop a stable
funding mechanism to support the state’s beach restoration and shoreline management
programs, which include public access, relocation and land conservation efforts.
Effective shoreline management policies necessitate a comprehensive understanding of
the causes and effects of shoreline change; sound planning and engineering; and
comprehensive implementation strategies. Even with these elements in place, the efforts
of the state and local communities may still be unsuccessful if the necessary financial
resources are not identified. As one of the essential elements of comprehensive shoreline
management effort, the development of a stable, long-term financing plan to support
shoreline management is imperative.
This section is not intended to serve as the sole basis for action, as it is only an evaluation
of what has and has not worked to fund beach restoration and shoreline management
efforts in the past. Developing new and more stable mechanisms will certainly require
additional stakeholder input, discussion, and deliberation.
A.
Economic Value of North Carolina Beaches
Summertime beach populations increase dramatically and provide a massive injection of
business revenue and tax dollars into the state’s economy. Over the last 10 years, North
Carolina’s coast has increasingly become a favored location for recreation and business.
The barrier islands are home to more people today than at any other time in the state’s
history and the value of the investments and economic activity generated by hundreds
of thousands of visitors a year is literally worth billions of dollars.
1. Coastal & Beach Tourism
The Outer Banks, a three county area on North Carolina’s northeast coast (Hyde, Dare,
and Currituck Counties), is one of the most visited regions of the state. According to the
Census Bureau, Currituck County had about 23,100 residents in July 2005 while Dare
County had about 33,900. Together, these two Outer Banks counties have a permanent
resident population of about 57,000, representing less than one percent of the 8.5 million
North Carolinians. However, the effective peak daytime population in Dare County alone
has surpassed 220,000 during the 2005 summer tourist season. In effect, Dare County’s
population grows by nearly seven times its resident population on a typical summer day.
It is estimated that nearly 32,500 jobs in Dare and Currituck counties are attributable to
April 2011
XII-2
FINAL REPORT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
tourism demand. 1 In addition to the beaches of the municipalities, the Cape Hatteras
National Seashore is a draw for tourists, with over 415,700 people visiting the Seashore
during the month of August 2008 alone.
In the Town of Oak Island (Brunswick County), the summer population (June to
September) typically swells 500 percent, from a year-round level of about 8,300 to a peak
of more than 49,000, averaging more than 36,000 people.
In 2000, the permanent population of Carteret County was 59,405 but, during the summer
season, the population more than tripled to over 194,000. In 2025, it is projected that the
county’s permanent population will reach 70,765 but its seasonal population will exceed
a quarter million, reaching 254,586.2 On Bogue Banks, comprised of the Towns of
Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Indian Beach, Salter Path and Emerald Isle, the
summertime population will typically grow from about 5,000 to more than 50,000. In
Emerald Isle alone, the population grows from 3,855 in the off-season to about 40,000 at
the peak of the summer, averaging about 30,000 throughout the summer.3
Topsail Island (Pender and Onslow Counties) comprised of the Towns of North Surf City
and Topsail Beach, has a similar summertime population surge that averages more than
75,000 daily residents over the course of the summer. The Town of Surf City (Pender
County) specifically, has a permanent population of just over 1,800 residents, that grows
to 20,000 people in town each day of the summer season. Over a single summer season,
more than 500,000 visitors will make their way to Surf City.
In Wrightsville Beach (New Hanover County), the population increases from
approximately 2,700 to a summertime peak population of 50,000.
Coastal tourism, and specifically beach-oriented tourism, is quite possibly the single
greatest contributor to the state’s tourism economy, accounting for more than $2.6 billion
in economic activity in 2009. In his 2000 testimony before the Coastal Beach Movement,
Beach Renourishment, and Storm Mitigation Committee, Dr. Richard Levin, Professor of
Economics at the UNC Kenan-Flagler School of Business, testified that beaches are the
number one tourist destination in the United States, accounting for $195 billion in
tourism expenditures and supporting 2.82 million jobs in 1999. In North Carolina, Levin
concluded that coastal tourism expenditures were $2.9 billion per year and supported
50,000 jobs. With respect to beach nourishment projects, Levin testified that North
Carolina would see a return on investment of $386 for every dollar spent to nourish the
state’s beaches.
1
“The Outer Banks Economy,” Dr. James Kleckley, Director, Bureau of Business Research, College of
Business, East Carolina University, 2007 (Outer Banks Chamber of Commerce Website).
4
“An Economic and Demographic Profile for North Carolina’s Eastern Region,” December 2003, Market
Street Services, Inc.
April 2011
XII-3
FINAL REPORT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Dr. James Kleckley, Associate Director of Planning and Institutional Research at East
Carolina University, joined Levin in attesting to the economic value of the state’s
beaches. Kleckley argued that investment in beach restoration projects can and should be
approached as an economic development investment, much the same as an industrial park
is an investment for inland communities.
2. The Economy of Beaches Compared to Other
Recreational Activities
On an annual basis, visitors to North Carolina’s beaches and coastal counties dwarf other
well-known and recognized attractions in the state. In an effort to illustrate the economic
importance of beach tourism when compared to other activities, beach tourism can be
associated with the revenue generating potential of two other well-known recreational
activities – a professional football team or NASCAR racetrack. During the 2008 football
season, the NFL’s Carolina Panthers averaged 73,210 fans a game at Bank of America
Stadium, drawing 585,684 fans over the eight home games. In July 2008 alone, a single
summer month, more people visited the beachfront communities on Topsail Island than
attended all the Panther home games during the 2008 season. And, according to the Outer
Banks Chamber of Commerce, more than seven million people visit the Outer Banks
each year, almost twelve times the number of people attending all Panthers’ games in a
year.
A similar story can be told comparing beaches to the famed Lowe’s Motor Speedway in
the Charlotte suburb of Concord, considered NASCAR’s hometown track. During a
typical race week, the town of Concord’s population can grow from about 56,000 to more
than 200,000 people, temporarily making it the third largest city in North Carolina as fans
and tourists visit the speedway. By comparison, daily summertime visitors to the Dare
County portion of the Outer Banks will typically exceed 220,000, not for a single
weekend, but virtually every day over the course of the summer tourist season. Likewise,
Topsail Island’s three townships – North Topsail, Surf City, and Topsail Beach – will
reach a summertime population of more than 100,000 and sustain that level each day over
the course of the summer. North Carolina’s beaches draw more visitors to the state’s
coastal counties in one summer than the combined draw of the top ten NFL teams over a
full season.
The beaches are a natural landscape feature, open to the public at little or no cost. Unlike
a football stadium or a NASCAR track, there is no entrance fee generating millions in
revenue to maintain the beach, even at the Cape Hatteras or Cape Lookout National
Seashore beaches. There are no commercial sponsorships, TV contracts, or other revenue
streams to support and sustain the resource or repair the beach after a storm. And yet, it is
the beach that is the number one tourist destination in the state and the foundation of the
economy for the eight oceanfront counties. These same beach visitors generate the
tremendous tax revenues in the form of sales taxes, occupancy taxes, and prepared meal
taxes that help support the coastal communities and the state budget in general.
April 2011
XII-4
FINAL REPORT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Figure XII-1, representing monthly occupancy tax receipts in Carteret County from 1993
to 2007, illustrates the steady and predictable seasonality of the coastal economy and the
significant economic contribution tourism makes to the county.
Carteret County Monthly Occupancy Tax Collections
1993 - 2007
(collections prior to 2002 corrected to represent the current 5% rate)
$1,400,000
$1,200,000
$1,000,000
Revenue
$800,000
$600,000
$400,000
Dec.
2007
Nov.
2006
Oct.
2005
Aug.
2004
July
2002
2003
June
1997
2001
May
1996
2000
Apr.
1995
1999
Mar.
1994
1998
Feb.
1993
Jan.
$0
Sept.
$200,000
Month
Figure XII-1. Carteret County Monthly Occupancy Tax Collections
3. The Economic Contribution of the State’s Beaches and
Inlets as a Development Region
Surprisingly, the economic impact of beaches and beach-related tourism to the coastal
counties and to the state as a whole is poorly understood. Numerous tourism impact
studies and reports are available through the state’s Division of Tourism, Film and Sports
Development and other sources; however, few fully document the contribution of the
beaches to the state’s economy.
In its 2006-07 Strategic Plan, the Tourism Division established eleven objectives that
included increasing consumer awareness of North Carolina as a travel destination
April 2011
XII-5
FINAL REPORT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
(Objective 1), increasing the state’s tourism market share (Objective 3), increasing visitor
spending (Objective 4), and increasing state and local tax revenues from tourism
(Objective 10).
While the Strategic Plan specifically seeks to increase the number of, and spending on,
film projects (Objectives 6 and 7), increase the number of bottles of North Carolina wines
sold (Objective 8), and to increase the number of regional sporting events held in the state
(Objective 9), there are no objectives in the Strategic Plan that specifically address
coastal and beach tourism. Promoting the state’s film and wine industries is undoubtedly
important and, while local tourist development authorities along the coast do an
outstanding job promoting the North Carolina coast, the lack of clear objectives at the
state level to improve and enhance the coastal tourism industry may help explain the lack
of data and reporting about this sector of the state’s economy.
Coastal tourism has also been overlooked at the regional level. The state has formed
seven Economic Development Regions and paired them with seven regional economic
development partnerships. The partnerships were created in 1997, under the auspices of a
501 (c)(3) corporation called the North Carolina Partnership for Economic Development
(NCPED). North Carolina’s seven Economic Development Regions (EDRs) are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Piedmont Triad EDR
Triangle EDR
Carolinas EDR
Northeast EDR (includes coastal counties of Currituck, Dare and Hyde)
Southeast EDR (includes coastal counties of Brunswick, New Hanover &
Pender)
6. Eastern EDR (includes coastal counties of Carteret and Onslow) and
7. Advantage West EDR
As shown above, the eight coastal counties are not treated as a single economic
development region but rather are divided among the Northeast, Southeast, and Eastern
EDRs. In addition, the EDRs generally focus on traditional economic development
activities such as promoting manufacturing and industrial business development. Even
within the Economic Development Regions bordering the Atlantic coast – the Northeast,
Eastern and Southeast EDRs – the impact of beach and coastal tourism is not well-studied
or emphasized. For example, in the “Economic and Demographic Profile for North
Carolina’s Eastern Region,”1 the economic impact of tourism and visitation to the
beaches in Carteret and Onslow is not mentioned. In fact, the word “beaches” does not
appear in the region’s annual report. The effect of this organizational structure appears to
unintentionally deemphasize the unique tourism-based economies in the coastal counties
and make it difficult to fully analyze, account for, and support this economic sector.
1
“An Economic and Demographic Profile for North Carolina’s Eastern Region,” December 2003, Market
Street Services, Inc.
April 2011
XII-6
FINAL REPORT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For example purposes, if the eight oceanfront counties are examined as an Atlantic Coast
Economic Development Region, consisting of Currituck, Dare, Hyde, Carteret, Onslow,
Pender, New Hanover and Brunswick counties, it allows for a better understanding of the
unique economy along the coast. An Atlantic Coast EDR could share many common
characteristics, most notably a modest resident population, a seasonal economy largely
driven by beach and coastal tourism, and a net positive generator of tax revenues at the
federal, state and local levels.
By using the county economic data and the same statistical categories already employed
by the state for the existing EDRs, an economic impact table (Table XII-1) for an Atlantic
Coast Economic Development Region was compiled. The exercise allows a comparison
(see Table XII-2) between a hypothetical Atlantic Coast EDR and the seven established
economic development regions in the state. For this comparison, the eight coastal
counties – and their economic impact statistics – were removed from the existing EDRs
and moved to an Atlantic Coast EDR.
April 2011
XII-7
-App.
NC35BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN
FINAL REPORT
______________________________________________________________________________________
Table XII-1. Hypothetical Atlantic Coast Economic Development Region – 2007 Statistics
Member Counties $159.51 $392.19 $120.01 $762.65 $27.29 $269.56 $426.08 $66.29 $31.43 $77.69 $23.53 $165.60 $5.50 $50.96 $99.17 $11.78 1.56 4.97 1.52 11.25 0.37 3.17 5.67 0.69 State Tax Receipts (millions) $8.01 $17.99 $5.09 $36.13 $1.27 $11.99 $20.36 $2.97 $2,223.58 $465.66 29.2 $103.81 Expenditures (millions) Onslow Brunswick Currituck Dare Hyde Carteret New Hanover Pender Atlantic Coast Region Total Payroll (millions) Employment (thousands) Local Tax Receipts (millions) $5.81 $25.48 $5.91 $36.33 $1.53 $17.39 $16.69 $4.73 $113.87 2008 Region Population (EDIS) 161,736 105,801 25,473 36,083 5,680 65,612 193,458 52,158 646,001 Table XII-2. Comparison of Atlantic Coast EDR to Existing Economic Development Regions
Expenditures (millions) Payroll (millions) Employment (thousands) State Tax Receipts (millions) Hypothetical Atlantic Coast $2,223.58 $465.66 29.2 $103.81 $113.87 8 Advantage West $2,410.72 $508.26 27.94 $119.02 $99.68 23 Carolina $2,293.87 $480.82 24.32 $120.24 $54.43 12 Global/Eastern $873.89 $157.31 8.98 $45.81 $21.61 11 Northeast $302.04 $41.74 2.29 $15.67 $13.31 13 Southeast Eight Economic Development Regions Local Tax Receipts (millions) Number of Counties $688.56 $122.85 6.79 $36.26 $15.64 8 Piedmont Triad $4,744.12 $1,464.60 54.52 $227.51 $124.61 12 Triangle $2,973.97 $782.39 36.87 $146.69 $85.88 13 TOTAL $16,510.75 $4,023.63 190.91 $815.01 $529.03 100 Atlantic Coastal as percent of Whole 13.5 percent 11.6 percent 15.3 percent 12.7 percent Atlantic Coastal Region Rank 5th 4th 3rd 5th 2nd 7th Average Regional Total $2,063.84 $503.0 23.86 $101.88 66.1 12.5 Atlantic Coast vs. the Average $159.74 (37.3) $5.34 $1.93 47.7 (4.50) April 2011
XII-8
21.5 percent 8 percent -App.
NC36BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN
FINAL REPORT
_____________________________________________________________________________________
If combined as an EDR, the unique characteristics of the oceanfront counties and the
nature of their contribution to the state’s economy could be better understood. The
characteristics of these counties include:
1. Small permanent population: With a total year-round population of 646,001,
the eight oceanfront counties represent just 7.1 percent of the state’s population
of 9,061,032. As a region, the population is 221,066 less than the 867,067
residents of Mecklenburg County, the state’s most populated county.
2. Disproportionately large generation of local tax revenues: Surprisingly, the
eight oceanfront counties generate almost $114 million in local tax revenues a
year, ranking second only to the twelve-county Triad EDR. In all, local tax
revenues collected in these eight counties constituted more than 21 percent of
all local tax revenues collected statewide in 2007.
3. Significant generation of sales tax revenues: These eight counties also generate
a significant percentage of state sales tax revenues, producing almost $104
million annually for the state coffers, or almost 13 percent of the state’s total.
4. Total expenditures: Total expenditures in the eight oceanfront counties
exceeded $2.23 billion in 2007, ranking fifth compared to other regions
overall, but exceeding the regional average by more that $159 million for the
year. In 2007, expenditures in the coastal counties accounted for almost 14
percent of the statewide total and were comparable to the 23-county Advantage
West EDR ($2.4 billion) and the 12-county Carolina EDR ($2.3 billion).
5. Payroll: In 2007, payroll in the eight oceanfront counties was substantial,
reaching almost $465 million for the year, exceeding the payroll produced in
the Eastern, Northeastern, and Southeastern EDRs combined.
6. Employment: The eight oceanfront counties rank third in the state for
employment, at more than 29,000 jobs in 2007. This total again exceeds the
employment total for Eastern, Northeastern, and Southeastern EDRs combined
and is greater than the total for either the Advantage West or Carolina EDRs.
Examining the eight oceanfront counties in this fashion shows that no other region is
more singularly dependent on one “industry” – in this case, coastal. Protecting and
restoring the beaches is essential to the state and regional tourism business.
April 2011
XII-9
-App. 37-
-App. 38-
-App. 39-
-App. 40-
-App. 41-
-App. 42-
-App. 43-
-App. 44-
-App. 45-
-App. 46-
-App. 47-
-App. 48-
-App. 49-
h~t
North Carolina
NORTH CAROLINA TRADITIONAL
BEACH USE PILOT STUDY
Technical Report of Initial Results and Possibilities for
Future Research
Prepared for: Walter Clark, North Carolina Sea Grant
Prepared by: David Brower, Lisa Buckley and Kate Eschelbach
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Department of City and Regional Planning
August 12, 2005
Sarah Blacklin, Allen Jernigan, Anna Priest, and Sandy Wilcox
also provided assistance with this project.
-App. 50-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
1
METHODS
2
RESULTS
8
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
17
APPENDIX A:
INDICATOR DATA ENTRY SPREADSHEET- FIELD NAME DEFINITIONS
19
APPENDIX B: INDICATOR CODE SHEET
20
APPENDIX C: GIS TUTORIAL FOR UPDATING MAPS
24
APPENDIX D: COMPLETE INDICATOR DATA LISTING
27
"It was an era of respectability and the young folks prided themselves on their good manners.
The young ladies wore long evening gowns and many hours were spent arranging their hair to
look feminine and not as if some wild bird had left an abandoned nest in their heads."
-- Written in the Durham Morning Herald by Bill Mitcham about the bygone era of the Lumina
pavilion at Wrightsville Beach.
ii
-App. 51-
INTRODUCTION
North Carolina's population is growing faster than most U.S. states, and many of
these newcomers are choosing to make their home, or at least their summer
vacation, at the beach. The public has, in turn, used the beaches in many
different ways over time, including personal, recreational, and commercial
activities. Due to the rising demand for these activities to persist at high quality
along the shore, it is increasingly important to document and explore the spatial
patterns of traditional uses of North Carolina beaches. The purpose of this
research is to identify the numerous traditional uses, past and present, of the
beaches of North Carolina. The following report is an initial attempt to gather
information about these uses and where they have taken place.
The types of beach uses, or "beach use indicators" as they will be called
throughout this report,· were categorized into multiple use areas including:
transportation, public gatherings, fishing, recreation, commercial activities,
public activities, and more. Each indicator was documented according to its
type, as described in the methods section below. Every indicator was also
mapped in its approximate geographic location along the coast. This provides
the ability to not only see the different indicator types but also see their
distribution at the scale of the entire North Carolina coastline. The maps portray
indubitable evidence that every portion of North Carolina's beaches are, in fact,
used by both residents and tourists alike and for a panoply of different reasons.
Many more stories, photographs, essays, and policies are out there for discovery.
This document is simply a compilation of initial efforts to sample the wealth of
historic information that is available. Although the breadth of beach use types is
captured here, there are many more examples of indicators within each type that
could easily be identified. It is our hope that this initial pilot study will provide a
valuable starting point for understanding the widely various and creative uses of
North Carolina's beaches over time and up and down the entire coastline. Our
methods describing data collection and mapping efforts, as well as initial results
in the form of map products and recommendations for future research are all
included in the pages below. As usage of North Carolina's beaches continue to
intensify and diversify, this cataloguing system can be used to track these
changes and inform patterns of use about future generations of sunbathers,
beach house owners, fishermen, kayak rental owners, musicians and weddinggoers alike.
-App. 52-
METHODS
The data collection for this pilot study took place over the course of
approximately one year by four data gatherers: Sarah Blacklin, Lisa Buckley,
Kate Eschelbach, and Anna Priest. Sandy Wilcox additionally provided a
number of indicators that have not yet been incorporated into this report. The
indicators were entered into a spreadsheet database according to their indicator
category type and a unique identification number.
Each indicator was
documented in this spreadsheet according to the actual use, the location of the
use, and the source of the information. These locations were then converted into
maps to show not only the number of indicators as they are distributed along the
coastline, but also the variety of categories represented by the use locations.
Summary of Database Components
There are four basic sections to the data entry spreadsheet (Appendix A):
1.) Indicator information
2.) Location information
3.) Source information
4.) Collector information
For each indicator, we collected the following information: what it is (indicator
information), where it took place (location information), where the information
came from (source information), and who collected it (data collector
information). Each of the specific data fields within each of the four sections are
described by section below and defined in Appendix A. It was not required that
every field has an entry, but instead the fields were used as guidelines for the
type of information needed about each indicator. The data collectors filled in as
many fields as possible and the required fields are noted below.
Indicator Information
Data entry fields within this section:
IDCODE, IDTYPE, IDSUBTYPE, IND~FREQ, IND_DESCRIPT
Each indicator has its own unique identification number associated with it,
which was recorded in the IDCODE column. This number does not reflect any
sort of descriptor as to what the indicator actually is, it is simply a number to
separate each indicator from each of the others in the database. The IDTYPE and
IDSUBTYPE fields, instead, are meant to describe the indicator in terms of a
category for the particular use.
2
-App. 53-
A document entitled "Traditional Beach Use Indicators" (Appendix B) was
developed to sort out the different types of indicators into similar classifications
of beach use. Each indicator is assigned a code according to a use category and
subcategory. The numbers and letters used in Appendix Bare the codes that are
entered into the database. For example, an indicator of yoga lessons would be
given the IDTYPE for "Commercial Activity on the Beach". This would be
entered as a "5", since the "Commercial Activity on the Beach" category is listed
as #5 in the list of Traditional Beach Use Indicator categories. The corresponding
IDSUBTYPE for this indicator would be entered as "E" for yoga on the beach. We
continued to revise these categories and subcategories accordingly as the data
gathering processes proceeded and more suitable placements for certain
indicators were necessary.
The next two column headings related to indicator information were much
simpler. They provided fields for how often the indicator takes/had taken place
(IND _FREQ) and also leave space for any additional descriptions of what the
indicator is (IND _DESCRIPT), if there is more detail beyond those described in
the IDTYPE and IDSUBTYPE columns. By nature of the data source, activity, or
storyline, some of the indicators, for instance a yoga session, had clearly
advertised dates, while others, such as a story reflecting on the summer season,
were obviously more general. Here then, the frequency (IND _FREQ) was
described in appropriately general terms by the data collector as seasonal,'
frequent,' or occasional.' The description field (IND _DESCRIPT) is not
intended to be detailed - the allocated space in the data entry field is set at a 60
character limit.
I
I
I
All of the fields in this category are mandatory for each indicator.
Location Information
Data entry fields within this section: LOC_NAME, LOC_ADDRESS,
LOC_ADD2, LOC_CITY, LOC_CNTY, LOC_ZIP, LOC_OTHER, LOC_OTHER2
Next, there are a series of fields describing the location of where the indicator
took place. These include basic address information, such as address, city,
county, zipcode, etc., but also provide the space to enter information that isn't as
standard, such as a mile marker number of a highway nearest to where the
indicator took place. This information can be put into the LOC_OTHER and
LOC_OTHER2 columns.
3
-App. 54-
It was requested that as many of these fields be entered as possible, but none of
them are specifically required. It is necessary to at least have the county name
(LOC_CTNY) entered if that is the only field that can be determined for this
section. Like the frequency field, the exact location of some activities was less
important than the fact that it occurred at all. Newspaper articles about trends in
tourist behavior are an example of non site-specific coverage.
Source Information
Data entry fields within this section: SRC_DESCRIPT, SRC_NAME, SRC_ADDRESS,
SRC_ADD2, SRC_CITY, SRC_CNTY, SRC_PHONE, SRC_OTHER, SRC_OTHER2
The source information is very similar to the location information, but the
important distinction here is that we want to know where the data collector
found the reference for the indicator, not where the indicator actually took place.
SRC_PHONE and SRC_DESCRIPT are two fields that are different than the
Location Information fields. The source phone number would be useful to have
documented if possible, or may be the only field possible to enter if an indicator
was obtained via the telephone. The source description is a useful field to
describe, briefly, the name of the source of information (again in 60 characters or
less).
As was the case for the location fields, it is not required that all of these source
fields be entered, just as many as possible depending on the indicator.
Collector Information
Data entry fields within this section: PICTURE, MULTIMED, NAME, DATE
The last four fields are for information on the data collector and if the data
collector was able to obtain any ancillary information, such as pictures of the
indicator, etc. The PICTURE and MULTIMED columns are binary- either yes or
no - for example, if a data collector took a picture of the indicator, they would
enter yes in the picture field. Pictures were then labeled according to the
IDCODE of the indicator. Pictures more often accompanied text that described a
beach use, rather than being the primary indicator themselves. The NAME
column is simply for the name of the data collector and the DATE column is for
entering the date on which the data collector found the information on the
specified indicator.
4
-App. 55-
Entering data in each of these fields is required. The format for entering any
dates in this database was specified to be as follows: 4 digit year, 2 digit month,
and 2 digit day (ex: 20010704 is the 4th of July, 2001).
Data Collection
Data collection was on a trial basis, so the data collectors were asked to simply
explore any avenues they thought might be fruitful. The approach to collecting
data was varied according to the collector, but each collector was asked to seek
out both a variety of indicator types and a variety of locations. Each of the data
collectors were asked to describe their unique approaches and these descriptions
are listed below:
Commentary on the Data Collection Approach
Lisa Buckley: primary data collector; Chapel Hill, NC
I discovered many more uses of the beach than I knew existed. I recorded
several accounts of locals passionate about preserving their coastal resources and
culture including the well known Carolista Baum of Nag's Head, and grade
school students who openly and innocently wrote about their hometown and the
way life used to be. It was fascinating to read about the land exchange of Bear
Island to the state minority teachers' association. I learned about driftwood
painters, 'mailboat brides,' and the renowned Lumina pavilion at Wrightsville
Beach. World War II made the beaches a battleground with increased military
surveillance and offshore battles. More often the beaches were places of refuge,
though, for stressed animal, plants and humans. Nag's Head beaches once
served as a retreat where slaveholders took their families to prevent malaria;
Wrightsville Beach hosted smog victims from Pennsylvania. Mostly, then the
beaches are and were a place of fun and sun, and many more of my findings tell
of birding, horseback riding, fishing, or hunting. By the end of the three months
and 50 hours of reading, the names of the historians and community leaders who
recorded these stories became very familiar to me.
This task was made easy by the excellent resources of the North Carolina
Collection at UNC. Many of the findings came from the clipping files, a
collection of newspaper articles from the 1900s. The time period of salient events
broadened when books, local land use plans, and online calendars of events from
regional chambers of commerce were explored. These sources reflect notable
changes in public attitudes about the beach, from early speculation and
encouragement of "progress" in the 1930s, to gradual then more fervent
5
-App. 56-
resistance to the obvious changes that tourism wrought on the landscape. The
longstanding effects of these changes are depicted in the headlines of articles
from the most recent decade in the challenge of balancing environmental and
economic demands.
Kate Eschelbach: Secondary Data Collector; Beaufort, NC
I employed more of a rapid assessment approach to my data collection. This was
due to only having one afternoon of narrow opportunity in the Beaufort, NC area
to gather some initial data. The purpose of this quick trip was to test out the
collection approach David Brower and I had designed to ensure other data
collectors could adopt the data collection techniques we had in mind.
I started at the Beaufort Maritime Museum, thinking there might be a little bit of
information there to inspire the rest of the afternoon, and all I had to do was
walk in the front door. A wealth of information was waiting inside and it is
where I spent most of my time. I learned about and documented records of
pirate ship landings, traditional tools used on the beach for fishing, and
photographs of teenagers flaunting the latest styles of beachwear from the 1920's
at Atlantic Beach, just to name several examples. The advice of the extremely
friendly volunteers was to continue my search at the Beaufort Historical
Association. There I found not only a very helpful historian, but also a book
written by a local resident couple about stories from their youth; many parts of it
describing their uses of the beaches in the area. Next door was the Beaufort
Library, which had a few other book selections with beach use information about
the local area and other surrounding coastal counties.
After that stop, my time had run short, but in the course of three hours I had
powered through a collection of diverse indicators for just that small area of the
coast. As a last fervent attempt, it was irresistible to attack the hotel information
brochures during checkout, which provided a selection of perfect examples of
present beach uses from horseback riding, to yoga, and even kayaking services;
all taking place on the beach.
My most encouraging finding was how easy it was to engage the residents I
encountered by simply asking them where to find information. They eagerly
provided a wealth of suggestions for sources, even without much explanation as
to the purpose of the project.
6
-App. 57-
Sarah Blacklin and Anna Priest: Secondary Data Collectors; Manteo, NC
Manteo has been treating us well ... we've been having a lot of fun gathering
information and speaking with various people. We have gathered info on
weddings,
dory
racing,
fishing
contests,
life
saving
stations,
photographs, and even dances and beach theatre entertainment.
Data Entry: Spatial Representation
All of the indicators were individually digitized into a point shapefile format
within the ArcGIS 8.0 software program (developed and distributed by the
Environmental Science Research Institute/ESRI, 2002).
Not all of the indicators could be pinpointed precisely, especially if the address
location field was left blank. This was the case for most indicators in this pilot
study. In these instances, the points were placed along the shore using a best
approximation and spaced in regular intervals within each jurisdiction such that
they did not overlap with other adjacent indicators. The placement resulted in
more of an even distribution within each jurisdiction for display purposes, thus
the locations should not be interpreted to be exact unless the address is
specifically noted in the attribute table.
The detailed information that was entered into the indicator spreadsheet
(Appendix D) was transposed into a compatible form for the ArcGIS 8.0 software
(eg. where the field names act as the column headers instead of row headers).
This spreadsheet was converted to a .dbf and was then joined to the digitized
shapefile based on its indicator code (IDCODE field). This allows the detailed
information compiled in the spreadsheet to be easily identified for each point on
the map through the use of GIS software.
Appendix C details the mapping methodology in greater detail. Please see this
appendix if interested in duplicating the technique used for this report and the
results described below.
7
-App. 58-
RESULTS
The indicator information is available in both its original spreadsheet form
(Appendix D) and in the form of digital maps (displayed below). The data is
displayed in the maps at different scales. A map of all of the indicators (Figure 1)
is at the scale of the entire coastline of North Carolina. This map gives a sense of
the quantity of beach uses in the state. Five additional maps split the coastline
into more fine-scale regions (Figures 2- 6). At these smaller scales, it is easier to
interpret the types of beach use indicators as well as their locations.
In addition to this report, a CD containing the indicator data in digital map form
is available with this report such that a computer software mapping program,
such as ArcGIS or ArcView (ESRI), can be used to explore the data at even finer
scales, simply by zooming in to an area of interest. It is also possible in this
mapping interface to select a single indicator point on the map and display all of
the information in the detailed data collection spreadsheet (Appendix D) for that
particular indicator. Appendix C gives further detail on the steps necessary for
using the software to access, display and update this information.
The maps display each indicator type (IDTYPE field) as a different color, which
can be referenced in the map legend. Figure 1 shows the full range of indicator
type diversity, but these same proportions of beach use diversity can be seen in
the five regional maps as well. The maps include municipal and county
boundaries to guide the interpretation of the indicator point locations. A number
of indicators do not fall within any municipal boundary and the five more
detailed maps (Figures 2- 6) show these distributions in more detail than can be
ascertained in the statewide map.
Additionally, each of the maps includes state parks, universities, and community
colleges as reference points for interpretation purposes. Again, these are more
discernable in the regional, smaller scale maps, yet are only for reference. The
indicators do not seem to be centered necessarily around these areas, which is
encouraging to realize that our initial indicator search was not biased by these
activities. In fact, a smaller number of indicators seem to be located within
protected areas versus municipalities.
There are a total of 194 indicators collected, all of which are displayed in Figure
1. The numbers of indicators per category are displayed in Table 1 below. The
largest numbers of indicators are within the Recreation and Public Activity
8
-App. 59-
categories. These categories include uses such as: US Coast Guard life saving
stations, beach clean up/"Beach Sweeps", surfing, sunbathing, oyster festivals,
beach volleyball and kayaking clinics. The Local Histories, Public Gathering,
and Local Policy categories also had a large number of indicators. Examples of
these uses include: dune protection ordinances, beach weddings, and 4111 grade
community histories.
The real estate, literature and archeological categories were not as well
represented in the database. Only 3 indicators were found for real estate and
literature, respectively; whereas only one indicator was found for the
archeological category. Whether this is due to a lack of uses for these categories,
or simply a lack of attention to these categories in the data collection process, is
an area for further investigation.
Table 1: Number of Beach Use Indicators per Indicator Category
IDTYPE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Indicator Category
Transportation
Public Gathering
Fishing
Recreation
Commercial Activity
Educational Activity
Real Estate
Development
Other Advertising
Local Policy
State Policy
Archeological
Historical Artifacts
Stories
Literature
Local Histories
Public Activity
# of Indica tors
9
17
10
32
14
13
3
8
19
7
1
4
7
3
19
25
Example Indicators
school bus route on beach, beach buggy races
Christmas by the Sea, community cookouts, beach weddings
flounder tournaments, fishing camps
camping, running and sunbathing on beach
film locations, risk assessments of oil spills, rocket testing
birding, volunteer trash pickup, aquarium field trips
advertisement for realty with 'miles of unspoiled beaches'
available
grand opening of beach front resort
policy encourages marina growth, dune protection ordinances
island protected for loggerhead turtle nesting grounds
NC's working watercraft exhibit
shipwrecks washed ashore
legend of Nag's Head, Blackbeard the Pirate exhibit
poems
grape growing, Lumina outdoor pavilion with orchestra
US Navy Bombing range, US Coast Guard life saving stations
The overwhelming result of the full scale map in Figure 1 is that there are a large
number of indicators along the coast, just in our initial small scale attempt to
characterize them. They are not tremendously centered in certain regions of the
state and are, for the most part, evenly distributed among municipalities.
Certain stretches of the national seashore (ex: Carteret County - Cape Lookout
National Seashore) do have a fewer number of indicators, which is made obvious
through the display of all indicators at this scale.
9
-App. 60-
Figure 1: North Carolina Full Scale Map- All Beach Use Indicators
Sea~t
North Carolina
n_ru
0
10
20
40
60
80
Kilometers
Created by: Katherine
Eschelbach for the Sea
Grant Beach Use Project
using CGIA BasinPro data
(State Plane NC NAD 83
meters). Last Updated:
May7,2005
North Carolina Beach Use- North Carolina Coast (All)
@
Transportation
Commercial Activity
Local Polley
@
Public Gathertngs
State Polley
•
Literature
@
Fishing
Real Estate Development
Archeological
•
Local Histories
@
Recreation
other Advertising
Hlstortc
•
Public Activity
~
Primary Roads
~
Stortes
Art~acts
State Parks
~
Municipalities
County Boundaries
~
Universities
o
Community College
10
-App. 61-
The regional map divisions are not significant in the analysis of the data
collected. The ability to zoom in to a smaller section of the coastline enables the
distribution of particular indicator categories to be seen in greater detail. Yet, the
specific regions (Ocracoke to Emerald Isle, Emerald Isle to Wrightsville Beach,
etc.) were simply designated for display purposes and should not be interpreted
as adding greater meaning to this study.
Figure 2, the first of the finer scale maps, is centered on the Currituck to Oregon
Inlet region, which is contains the northern most beaches in North Carolina. This
map displays a large number and range of indicators, but they are mostly
centered on the municipal areas of Nags Head, Kitty Hawk, and Kill Devil Hills.
The northern areas of Currituck County do have some indicator coverage, but
not in as densely clustered patterns as the more populated areas in Dare County.
This could be a result of not only the population centers, but also the location of
two data collectors within those areas. (Sarah Blacklin and Anna Priest were
located in Manteo while collecting data.) Simply visiting the northern areas
would most likely yield more results to be added to the indicator list, but as a
result of this map, it is possible to see that it is was an area that was poorly
sampled.
Municipal areas such as Morehead City, Atlantic Beach, and Cape Hatteras are
also highlighted through clusters of beach use activity in Figures 3 and 4 (Oregon
Inlet to Ocracoke and Ocracoke to Emerald Isle). The large stretches of protected
areas, including the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge (owned by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service) and Cape Lookout National Seashore (owned by the US
Park Service) are contained in these maps, constituting long stretches of
shoreline. Although there are sparser coverages of indicators in these areas on
these maps, these areas are used extensively by tourists and residients alike. The
Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge alone attracts 2.7 million visitors annually
(http:(/www.fws.gov/peaisland!). Easily more research could be focused on
these areas to provide a greater coverage of indicators.
Figures 5 and 6 have the least number of indicators compared to the other three
finer scale maps. North Topsail Beach is an obvious focus area for further
research (Figure 5). Wrightsville, Carolina and Sunset Beaches have the largest
clusters of indicators on these maps, but the indicator categories represented are
not very diverse. Certainly, a greater range and number of indicators could be
found in Wrightsville and Bald Head Island as well as the less populated areas of
the shoreline in New Hanover, Pender, and Onslow counties.
11
-App. 62-
Figure 2: Currituck to Oregon Inlet Region Beach Use Indicators
North Carolina Beach Use- Currituck to Oregon Inlet
@
@
@
@
@
Transportation
Commercial Activity
Local Policy
Stones
Public Gatherings
Educational Ac~vity
State Policy
Literature
Fishing
Archeological
•
Local Histories
Recreation
Other Advertising
Historic Artifacts
•
Public Activity
c=)
State Parl<s
County Boundaries
c=) Municipalities
c=) Universities
~
o
Primary Roads
Community College
Sm~t
North Carolina
May7,2005
TYRRELL
nsu
0
2
4
8
12
16
Kilometers
N
W*E
•
12
-App. 63-
Figure 3: Oregon Inlet to Ocracoke Region Beach Use Indicators
SMGifu.t
North Carolina
DARE
HYDE
North Carolina Beach Use - Orego Inlet to Ocracoke
@
@
@
@
Commercial Activity
8
Stories
Public Gatherings
Educational ActMty
•
Uterature
Fishing
•
Local Histories
Recreation
Other Advertising
Transportation
C=:>
@
State Parks
<:::::) Municipalities
County Boundaries
C=:>
Universities
•
0
0
2
4
8
Kilometers
12
16
May7,2005
13
-App. 64-
Figure 4: Ocracoke to Emerald Isle Region Beach Use Indicators
North Carolina Beach Use- Ocracoke to Emerald Isle
Local Polley
s.....
@ Transportalon @ Convnercl9l Activity
Public
Galherl
ngs
Educetlonel
ActMty
State
Poley
Uterat...e
@
Ashlng
Real
Etta\e
Development
An:heologlcal
Local
@
0Ch6f Adwftalng
H storicArtlfacl:ll
Public Activity
@ Recrealon
C ) StateParic.s
Q
Municipalities
County Boundaries C ) Universities
0 1.5 3
6
Kilometers
9
12
·•·
~
0
••
••
SPt¥a l
HI&~
Primary Roads
CommunityC<lilege
Created by: KaU1erine
May7,2005
14
-App. 65-
Figure 5: Emerald Isle to Wrightsville Beach Region Beach Use Indicators
North Carolina Beach Use- Emerald Isle to Wrightsville Beach
@
@
@
@
Transportation
Commercial Activity
Public Gatherings
Educational Activ~y
State Policy
Fishing
Archeological
Recreation
Other Advertising
Historic Artifacts
~
Local Policy
State Parks
C=:>
County Boundaries
C) Universities
Municipalities
~
o
0 1.5 3
9
6
Kilometers
Literature
Local Histories
Public Activity
Primary Roads
Community College
Sealifu.t
North Carolina
••
•
Stories
12
May7, 2005
15
-App. 66-
Figure 6: Wrightsville Beach to Sunset Beach Region Beach Use Indicators
North Carolina Beach Use - Wrightsville Beach to Sunset Beach
@ TrantPOttakln @ Cofl'Vnerclal Aclvlty
locel Poley
Sk>ries
@ Public Gaflefinga
Slate Poley
Uterat~e
@ A shlng
Real Estate Developmi!IOI
Arctleologicel
Locel HiaiOries
@ Recreallon
01\er AdvertiUng
Hstorlc Altfacla
Public Aelllvlty
e
e
0
Grant Beach Use Projett
meten). Last Updated '
May7, 2005
State Parks
Q
~palitiea
Coooty Boundaries
0
Untveraltles
'"""'-' PrimatY Roeds
0
Convnonity Colege
~
0 1.252.5
5
7.5
10
Kilometers
16
-App. 67-
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
A spatial representation of the indicators at a statewide scale shows the
possibility that there are, and have been over time, a great many uses spread
along the shoreline. Future research can only continue to contribute to the
number and variety of indicators on these maps. An overwhelming amount of
information still could be included in this framework to make an even stronger
statement about the traditional uses of North Carolina beaches. The maps also
make it obvious that our initial research did not adequately capture a
representative number of indicators within several areas. It is possible that there
are less uses of these areas than in other more populated areas of the state, but
further research in this area should be conducted to ensure that this spatial
pattern is confirmed.
The strategy for collecting data included sampling from a wide geographic
range, and from a wide variety of uses. Hence, gaps in the data are from
oversight in some areas (Topsail in particular), as well as in the case of the real
estate and literature, a smaller number of unique beach uses. There were many
tourist guides with real estate ads, but these were not systematically sampled for
Instead, the data collection techniques centered around
this pilot study.
gathering a wide representation of geography and indicators.
Although this research could be expanded by revisiting some of the library
resources listed in the data collection, many of these were exhausted in the early
phases. Less traditional or less newsworthy beach uses could be better
understood through more beach visits. Since sensational stories most often make
the news, 'everyday' beach uses are recorded less often by journalists and tourist
bureaus than the commercial kayak trip or the military demonstration. The
unnoted local pick-up games, artists at work, or spontaneous poetry readings
also contribute to the plentitude of beach activity usually enjoyed by the less
affluent.
Future Work Possibilities:
• Continue to add more indicators to the database, including Sandy
Wilcox's indicators that have already been collected
• Target additional collection efforts in sparsely covered areas
• Target additional collection efforts in sparsely covered indicator categories
• Conduct more on the ground data collection
17
-App. 68-
•
•
•
Continue to refine and add to the indicator categories and subcategories to
ensure the full diversity of indicators are being represented
Explore how the diversity of zoned land uses may influence the beach use
indicators
Update maps and continue to provide interactive data display (include
links to pictures of indicators directly from map)
Locations for future targeting include:
• Cape Lookout National Seashore
• Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge
• Municipalities such as Currituck Banks, North Topsail Island, and Bald
Head Island
• Counties such as Pender, Onslow, Currituck and New Hanover
Indicator categories for further investigation include:
• literature
• archeological activities
• real estate development
• historical activities
18
-App. 69-
APPENDIX A: INDICATOR DATA ENTRY SPREADSHEET- FIELD NAME
DEFINITIONS
DESCRIPTIONS OF FIELD HEADINGS IN DATA ENTRY SPREADSHEET
IDCODE
Unique descriptor for each indicator; whole numbers starting with 1 (1,2,3 ... N)
IDTYPE
Type of indicator, based on Indicator Outline ( 1 = transportation, 2
Gatherings, etc.); enter only number (1,2, ... 16)
= Public
Entry of 99 = Other (does not fit into any of the listed indicator categories)
IDSUBTYPE
Type of subindicator, based on Indicator Outline (for Indicator 1: A
specifics); enter only letter (in caps);
= corridors,
B
=
Entry of ZZ = Other (does not fit into any of the listed subcategories)
IND_ DATE
date of indicator occurrence (listed as 4 digit year, two digit month, and two digit
day; ex: May 6th, 2001 = 20010506)
if unknown day, fill in with 00 (ex: July 1965 = 19650700)
IND_ FREQ
frequency (if any) of indicator occurrence (ex: yearly, monthly, daily, quarterly,
hourly, biannually, bimonthly, etc.)
IND_ DESCRIPT
LOC_ NAME
LOC_ADDRESS
LOC_ADD2
LOC_CITY
LOC_CNTY
LOC_ZIP
a short text description of the indicator (no longer than 60 characters long, including
spaces)
name of indicator location
street address of indicator location
additional address information (ex: Apt. #, PO Box, etc.)
city of indicator location
county of indicator location
zip code of indicator location
LOC_OTHER
any additional indicator location information (ex: mile marker#, beach name)
LOC_OTHER2
SRC_ DESCRIPT
SRC_ NAME
SRC_ADDRESS
SRC_OTHER
additional space for any additional indicator location information
description of indicator source (ex: book, flyer, etc.)
name of indicator information source
street address of indicator information source
addition space for address of indicator information source (ex: PO Box#, Apt. #,
etc.)
city of source information
county of source information
phone number of source information
website of source information
additional source information or description (ex: email address of source location,
etc.)
SRC_OTHER2
PICTURE
additional space for source information or description (ex: "Found in North Carolina
section of the library")
was there a picture taken by the collector? (yes or no)
SRC_ADD2
SRC_CITY
SRC_CNTY
SRC_ PHONE
SRC_WEBSITE
MULTIMED
NAME
DATE
was there any use of other multimedia to collect information on this indicator (yes
or no);
first and last name of collector
date of indicator information collection (listed as 4 digit year, two digit month, and
two di it da · ex: Ma 6th 2001 = 20010506
19
-App. 70-
APPENDIX B: INDICATOR CODE SHEET
TRADITIONAL BEACH USE INDICATORS
1. Transportation
a. Corridors for general transportation
b. Specific types of transportation (to and from school)
2. Public Gathering
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Weddings
Funerals
Large celebrations (ex: July 4th)
Church services (Easter morning sunrise)
Family reunions
3. Fishing
a.
b.
c.
d.
Commercial
Sport
Whaling
Claming
4. Recreation
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
Attendance figures on peak days over time
Images of people on the beach
Volleyball (Especially tournaments)
Surfing (especially organized surfing contests)
Sailing (images of boats pulled up on the beach)
Sea kayaking (competition?)
Gardening
Camping
Hunting
Running/jogging/walking
Shell collection
5. Commercial activity on the beach
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Rentals
Snacks
Piers
Pavilions
Yoga on the beach
Horseback riding
20
-App. 71-
g.
h.
i.
j.
Film locations
Fundraising
Shopping
Consulting
6. Educational Activity
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
School classes
Field trips
Summer school classes
Lectures for tourists, etc.
Birding trips
Scientific Studies
7. Real Estate Development
a. Advertising referring to use of beaches (especially for rental units
not on the beach e.g. "close to an access way" or "short walk to the
beach" etc.
8. Other advertising
a. Chamber of Commerce
b. Hotels and motels
c. State Tourism Bureau (?)
9. Local Policy
a. Is there any local policy regarding the use of beaches?
i. Driving on the beaches
ii. Rowdy parties on the beach (what do the local police do
when they get a complaint?)
iii. Littering the beach
iv. Appropriate dress on the beach
v. Maintenance of access ways and parking lots
vi. Life guards and patrols; warnings, flags, signs, etc.
b. Do local land use plans or other plans mention the use of beaches?
i. Land use plans?
ii. Beach access plans (what do they say in terms of the use of
the beach e.g. is it explicit or implicit?)
iii. Do they mention the value of the beach, e.g. Nags Head is a
"family beach" or a "family resort"
21
-App. 72-
10. State Policy
a. Legislation
i. NC GS 77-20 Seaward Boundary of Coastal Lands
ii. Coastal Area Management Act
b. Programs
i. Division of Coastal Management Beach Access Planning
Grants
ii. Division of Coastal Management Beach Access Acquisition
Grants
iii. Areas of Environmental Concern
iv. Land Use Planning Guidelines
c. CAMA beach access signs
i. Look for newspaper coverage ... did anybody complain; if so,
sis they complain that the public had no right to use the
beach or did complain about the particular location of an
access way.
ii. Interview locals to determine reaction to the signs; similar
questions as used in newspaper search
iii. Interview DCM officials
d. State appropriations
i. Access acquisition
ii. Access maintenance
iii. other
11 . Archeological
a. Native American presence
12. Historic Artifacts
13. Stories
a.
b.
c.
d.
Nags Head story
Pirates
Ship wrecks
Children's
14. Literature
a. Novels
b. Plays
c. Short stories
22
-App. 73-
15. Local Histories
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Natural hazard/disaster related
Natural changes in beach
Military/exploration
Activism
Agriculture/hunting
Entertainment
Weddings
Education
16. Public Activity
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Life saving stations
Coast guard
Corps of Engineers (Duck)
Light Houses
World War 11/military actions
i. Observation towers
ii. Currituck County Activity
f. Wright Brothers
g. "beach sweeps"
23
-App. 74-
APPENDIX C: GIS MAPPING TUTORIAL
There are only several steps necessary for displaying and updating the maps
shown in this report (Figures 1-6). This tutorial is broken into two sections to
address both of these processes such that the users of the data can easily access
the additional information behind the maps. The CD provided with this report
contains all of the data and map layouts necessary for display and inquiry of the
data acquired to date. The second section of this tutorial lists the steps that can
be taken to update the maps with new data.
The CD provided with this report contains the following files that will be used in
these sections:
• BeachUse_all.mxd
• Beach_uses _att.shp
• Coastal_proads.shp
• Coastal_Stprks.shp
• Coastal_cb.shp
• Coastal_univs.shp
• Coastalcb100.shp
• Beach_use_data_ spreadsheet.xls
• TRADITIONAL BEACH USE
• Coastal_commcoll.shp
• Coastal_municip.shp
050505.doc
In order to use the map layouts used in this report, it is necessary to have
ArcGIS (version 8.0) software available on your computer. If using a version of
ArcView 3.x, it is possible to simply load the data (called "shapefiles") into a new
ArcView project, but the layout seen in this report will have to be recreated for
printing purposes. The data will still be possible to query in ArcView in the
specific area of interest, but may have different locations for the same basic
commands.
Steps to displaying and exploring the data:
•
•
Double click on the "BeachUse_all.mxd" file within the "Mapping_files"
folder on the CD. This will launch ArcMap. On the right, the same map that
is shown in Figure 1 will be displayed. On the right, a table of contents will
be displayed, showing the names and symbols of all of the files listed above
with a ".shp" on the end.
If there are red exclamation marks next to the file names and the map is not
displaying all of the files in the right hand window, simply right click on the
file name, navigate to Data - Set Data Source, and find the corresponding file
within the browser window.
24
-App. 75-
• Right click on the "Beach Uses" file (beach_uses_att.shp) in the table of
contents and select "Open Attribute Table". This launches a spreadsheet that
is exactly the same as the Beach_use_data_spreadsheet.xls "All Indicators"
Worksheet saved on the CD in the Mapping_Files folder. (This is also the
same information contained in Appendix D of this report). However, this file
is linked directly to the different colored points on the map representing the
beach use indicator locations.
• Find the button at the top of the screen with a blue circle and an "i" in the
middle. This is the identity tool. (It is between the Select Elements button,
which uses an arrow icon and the Find button, which looks like a pair of
binoculars.) Click on any of the points on the map and a new window will
display. This window contains the same information in the attribute table,
but just for that single point. Clicking on any of the points will display the
same information, but only for that point. Open the attribute table again to
compare.
o Note: when scrolling over the buttons in this program, if you rest
the mouse over any one of the tools for a few seconds at a time, a
yellow box will appear giving the official name of the button. A
longer description also appears at the very bottom of the program
window, which may assist in the navigation of the maps.
• Find the magnifying glass icon over a white rectangle (the zoom in tool) at the
bottom of the program window. This is different than the magnifying glass
icon without a white rectangle at the top of the program window (also called
the zoom in tool). To zoom in to a specific location on the map, use the zoom
tool at the bottom of the screen. Do not use the zoom in tool at the top of the screen
unless you want to create a smaller scale map for printing (such as in Figures 2-6 of
this report). After zooming in to a specific location, it is possible to see more
specific locations of the indicators on the map and use the indicator tool to
select a particular indicator.
o Note: To return to full view at any time, click on the "zoom whole
page" tool (at the bottom of the screen, looks like a white rectangle
with four arrows pointing to the sides).
• It is also possible to highlight indicators on the map that are the same beach
use category. In the menu bar at the very top of the program window, click
on Selection- Select by Attributes. This opens a separate window. Within
that window, double click on "ID_TYPE" in the list of Fields, single click on
the"=" button, and double click on any of the numbers in the Unique Values
list. The numbers in the Unique Values list correspond to the numbers of the
categories in the TRADITIONAL BEACH USE 050505.doc (also Appendix B).
Click "Apply" and the indicators you selected will be highlighted in blue.
25
-App. 76-
Steps to updating the data:
•
Open the data spreadsheet, Beach_use_data_spreadsheet.xls and select the
"All Indicators" worksheet. This worksheet contains all of the beach use
indicators to date as well as the field definitions (as shown in Appendix A).
Each of the indicators have their own unique IDCODE". To add a new
indicator, simply fill in the fields of the spreadsheet, but be sure to add a new
IDCODE in numerical order.
After the new indicators are added in to the spreadsheet, save the All
Indicators worksheet as a database file (.dbf) by selecting "save as" in the file
menu bar.
Give the spreadsheet a new name, such as
"beachuse_update_20050812.xls'/.
In ArcMap, select the Editor dropdown menu button at the bottom of the
program window. Select "start editing'~. Be sure that the next to the Editor
button, the create new feature button is selected (it looks like a pencil- you
need to click on it to activate it), the Task menu reads: "create new feature"
and the target reads: "Beach Uses". Then, it is possible to zoom into a
location on the map where the new indicator should be located, and click
once on that location to create a new point. This is called digitizing.
Open the attribute table to Beach Uses (beach_uses_att.shp) and find the new
point you created (the row should be highlighted and at the bottom of the
table). Enter the new IDCODE used for that indicator (assigned in the
updated beach_use_spreadsheet.xls) in to the "IDCODE" field. This is done
by simply typing the number in to that cell.
Repeat this for all of the new indicators. Be sure to save edits every so often in
the Editor drop down button menu.
After all of the new indicators have been digitized, save edits and stop editing.
Then, right click on the Beach Uses (beach_uses_att.shp) file in the table of
contents and navigate to "Joins and Relates- Join". In the new window, in
the drop down menu for 1., select IDCODE. For #2, select the new .dbf file
you created with the updated indicator information. For #3, select IDCODE
again and hit "OK". This connected the information in the database file to the
points you created on the map. The information should now be updated in
the file.
To make these changes permanent, right click on Beach Uses again and select
'/Data - Export data''. Export all features using the same Coordinate System
as this layer's source data, and name a new shapefile, such as
"beach_uses_att_update_20050812.shp". Save this new shapefile to your
directory. This will only be necessary if you plan on exporting you new data
to share the data with others.
11
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
26

Amicus Brief - Emerald Isle

Transcription

Similar documents

Inviting Beach House on Georgia Straight.

EXHIBIT A - Town of Kiawah Island

10699 Gulf Blvd, Treasure Island, FL

langosta - Costa Rica Real Estate

You`re invited to the 3nd annual Weenie Roast

BROCHURE-ACQUALINA MIAMI

Litchfield Beach Access

Mrs. House and Mrs. Huba`s STEM Challenge Day

Help Support Our Cause For Paws!

Weenie Roast - Cape Fear Sail and Power Squadron