Carteret County 2030 - Imagining the Futures

8/3/2019 Carteret County 2030 - Imagining the Futures

1/85

Carteret County 2030

Imagining the Futures

Department of City and Regional Planning


2/85

ii

PREPARED FOR

North Carolinas Eastern RegionMilitary Growth Task Force

December 2011

PREPARED BY

Land Use & Environmental Planning WorkshopDepartment of City and Regional PlanningUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Team Members

Brennan BoumaDaniel Brookshire

Katrina DurbakVivian Jaynes

Barron MonroeRyan Parzick

Kyle VangelCasey Weissman-Vermeulen

David Daddio (Project Manager)[email protected]

Cover photos courtesy of: National Park Service Cape

Lookout National Seashore; Carteret County, North

Carolina; U.S. Forest Service Croatan National Forest;

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point


3/85


4/85

iv

Executive Summary

Background and Purpose

In light of impending military and non military growth in the region and with limitedregional planning capacity in Eastern North Carolina, the Military Growth Task Force

(MGTF) began fostering regional partnership in early 2010. The PlanIt East effort bringstogether stakeholders from across the region to create a framework for dealing withpressures on infrastructure, military encroachment, environmental quality, workforcehousing, and others. This effort will culminate in a fall 2012 Reality Check exercise aninitiative intended to foster collective visioning among a diverse group of organizations andstakeholders from across the region and develop local capacity for substantive policychange.

This document was prepared as part of a student workshop. Pursuant to MGTFs guidance,the report is designed to support and make recommendations for their upcoming visioningexercise. It is also designed to illustrate the value of contingent and robust plans. Drawing

on comparative communities to inform alternative futures, we demonstrate someapplications of scenario planning principles in Carteret County, one of the nine counties inthe PlanIt East region, in order to inform the larger regional effort.

Comparative Communities and Growth Drivers

To understand the drivers and patterns of growth, we researched communities with issuessimilar to Carteret County. In particular, we focused on the interactions betweentransportation and port investments, military installations, and tourism industries. Wetermed these issues growth drivers.

The following communities were chosen for the reasons specified:Accomack County, VA - Strong tourism industry and a major transportationinfrastructure improvementBarnstable County, MA - Strong tourism industry and history of planning coordinationbetween the military and local governmentsBeaufort County, SC - History of high military employment and influenceJackson County, MS - Economically important port and a recently closed military baseKent County, DE - Recent, major transportation infrastructure improvement and highpopulation growthOkaloosa County, FL - Strong tourism industry and recent transportation infrastructureimprovement

Scenario Planning

Based on our understanding of the drivers and information gathered from the comparativecommunities, we developed three scenarios, which represent possible futures of CarteretCounty. These scenarios are not intended to be future land use patterns, but rather areplausible stories designed to trigger conversations and ideas about controllable local policyalternatives in light of the uncontrollable external forces the County is subject to. Thesethree scenarios are:


5/85

v

Cooperation Drives Success

Carteret County booms as improvements to Highway 70 facilitate travel to the rapidlygrowing Research Triangle area. Recognizing the immense opportunities and challengesassociated with this growth, key regional stakeholders including local governments, the

military, tourism interests, port operators and environmental advocates come together andproactively develop strategies to deal with growth pressures.

Tourist Trap

Carteret County experiences rapid population and housing growth as improvements toHighway 70 facilitate travel to the Research Triangle Area. In the face of this growth,regional stakeholders are unable to come to an agreement on how to best manage growthin a way that enhances its sustainability and prosperity. Second-home constructionbecomes the dominant industry, and development sprawls into marginal areas.

External Forces Dominate

Increasing global integration and geopolitical pressures lead Carteret County to become akey center of shipping and logistics and military operations, training, and mobilization. Anumber of defense related-businesses spring up along the corridor between Carteret andCraven Counties. Moreover, a multimillion-dollar expansion at the Port of Morehead Cityand improved highway access make Carteret particularly attractive to logistics businesses.

Indicators

The three scenarios were qualitatively assessed using four performance indicators:

Scenario

Development

Outside SewerService Areas Flood Risk

Encroachment

on AgriculturalLands

Encroachment on

High BiodiversityValue Areas

Cooperation DrivesSuccess

Medium Medium Low Low

Tourist Trap High High Medium MediumExternal ForcesDominate

High High Medium Medium

Lessons Learned

The key takeaways from this project are: Forging partnerships involves deep deliberation and is possible only over time. The pursuit of one preferred scenario in scenario planning distracts from theconsideration of multiple uncontrollable external forces. Scenario planning has tremendous data needs. Storm surge in the near term is similar to sea level rise in the long term. Instead of relying on technology to create scenarios, focus more on the purpose of

the stories.

Scenario planning should draw upon both local expertise and outside knowledge.


6/85

vi

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... ivAcknowledgements .............................................................................................................................................................. viiList of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................................... viiiList of Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................. ixList of Figures ............................................................................................................................................................................. x1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................................................................................ 1Purpose .................................................................................................................................................................... 2

2. Carteret County and its Growth Drivers .................................................................................................................. 3

History ................................................... .......................................... .............................................. ........................... 3Growth Drivers in Carteret County ........................................... ................................................. .................. 5

Transportation Improvements and Ports ......................................... ............................................... .... 5Highways ....................................................................................................................................................... 5Port of Morehead City ........................................... .................................................. ................................. 6

Military Influence ........................................................................................................................................... 8Tourism & Retirement ...................................... ................................................... ...................................... 11

Tourism Employees and Establishments ............................................. ........................................ 11Seasonal Housing .................................................................................................................................... 12Elderly Population ............................................ ................................................ ...................................... 13

Growth Management....................................................................................................................................... 14Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 15

3. Comparative Communities Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 16

Case Study Communities ........................................ ................................................. ...................................... 16Accomack County, Virginia ...................................... .................................................. .............................. 19Barnstable County, Massachusetts....................................................................................................... 20Beaufort County, South Carolina ................................... .................................................. ...................... 22Jackson County, Mississippi .................................................................................................................... 23Kent County, Delaware ......................................... ............................................... ...................................... 24Okaloosa County, Florida ......................................................................................................................... 25

Growth Drivers .................................................................................................................................................. 27Transportation Improvements and Ports ......................................... ............................................... . 27Military Influence ........................................................................................................................................ 33Tourism & Retirement ...................................... ................................................... ...................................... 38

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 424. Scenario Planning ............................................................................................................................................................ 45

Cooperation Drives Success ............................................ .................................................. ...................... 48Tourist Trap ................................................................................................................................................... 50External Forces Dominate ....................................................................................................................... 52

Natural Hazards and Disaster Resiliency ................................................ ............................................ ... 54Indicators ............................................................................................................................................................. 58

5. Insights and Lessons Learned .................................................................................................................................... 59Appendices ............................................................................................................................................................................... 61Appendix A: Data Sources and Methods for Tourism Analysis .......................................................................... 62Appendix B: Growth Management and Environmental Protection .................................................................. 64Appendix C: Mapping Process .......................................................................................................................................... 70


7/85

vii

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Professor Nikhil Kaza for serving as the instructor for thisworkshop and for his continuous guidance and support throughout the process.

We would also like to thank Mark Sutherland and Carron Day from PlanIt East for theirencouragement; Maureen Dougherty and Allen Willis from Carteret County for providinglocal land suitability and cadastral data; John Finnegan, Maureen Meehan, and AllisonWeakley of North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources for theirassistance in obtaining data environmental data; Brian Batten from Dewberry, Inc. forproviding sea level rise data; and Ben Rasmussen and Lindsey Morse for sharing the VolpeCenters experience with scenario planning in Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

The views expressed in this document are those of the authors and do not reflect the viewsof the client or anyone else listed herein.


8/85

viii

List of Abbreviations

AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use ZoneBRAC Base Closure and Realignment CommissionCAMA Coastal Area Management ActCAPA Chesapeake Atlantic Preservation Area

CCC Cape Cod CommissionCRC Coastal Resource CommissionDRI Developments of Regional ImpactJCUA Jackson County Utility AuthorityMCAS Marine Corps Air StationMGTF Military Growth Task ForceMMR Massachusetts Military ReservationNCDENR North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural ResourcesNC DOT North Carolina Department of TransportationNOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationOtis ANGB - Otis Air National Guard Base

RPP Cape Cod Regional Policy PlanUDA Urban Development AreaVMT Vehicle Miles TraveledZDSO Zoning and Development Standards Ordinance


9/85

ix

List of Tables

Table 1: Population Change Comparison ............................................. ............................................. .......... 17Table 2: Houshttp://www.playmakersrep.org/ing Unit Change Comparison........................... 17Table 3: Total Employment Change Comparison ............................................. ....................................... 17Table 4: Kent Co. VMT Change (in thousands) .......................................... ............................................ ... 28

Table 5: Mid-Bay Bridge (FL) Traffic Volume Change ............................................ ............................... 30Table 6: Okaloosa Co. /Destin Growth Indicator Comparison .................................................... ....... 30Table 7: Carteret Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing ................................................. 38Table 8: Accomack Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing ............................................. 39Table 9: Barnstable Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing .......................................... .. 40Table 10: Okaloosa Co. Seasonal Housing as Share of Total Housing ............................................. 41Table 11: Population Average Annual Growth ......................................... ............................................. ... 43Table 12: Difference Between Average Annual Housing Unit Growth and Population Growth

............................................................................................................................................................................. 43Table 13: Difference Between Average Employment Growth & Population Growth .............. 44Table 14: Scenario Comparison ...................................................................................................................... 47

Table 15: Scenario Performance Indicators ................................................................................ .............. 58


10/85

x

List of Figures

Figure 1: Map of MGTF 9-County Region and Planned Infrastructure Improvements .............. 1Figure 2: Carteret Co. Population ............................................ ................................................ .......................... 3Figure 3: Population Projection for Carteret Co. ...................................................... .................................. 4Figure 4: Planned Transportation Improvements Along the US 70 Corridor in NC.................... 6

Figure 5: Port of Morehead City Annual Tonnage, 2001-2010............................................................. 7Figure 6: Map of Military Influence in North Carolinas Eastern Region ......................................... 9Figure 7: Carteret Co. Military Employment and Earnings, 1969-2009 ........................................ 10Figure 8: Military Employment as Percent of Employment in Carteret Co. ................................. 10Figure 9: Tourism Employees and Establishments in Carteret Co. ................................................. 12Figure 10: Adult Population (65 Years and Older) in Carteret Co. .................................................. 13Figure 11: Map of Comparative Communities .......................................... ............................................. ... 17Figure 12: Population Change in Comparative Communities, Indexed ......................................... 18Figure 13: Housing Unit Change in Comparative Communities, Indexed ..................................... 18Figure 14: Total Employment Change in Comparative Communities, Indexed ......................... 18Figure 15: VMT Change in Select Case Study Communities ................................................. ............... 27

Figure 16: Kent Co. Population Density and Roads, 1990 and 2010 .............................................. 29Figure 17: Okaloosa Co. Population Density and Roads, 1990 and 2010 ..................................... 30Figure 18: Port of Pascagoula Annual Tonnage ................................................................. ...................... 32Figure 19: Military Employment as Share of Total Employment in Carteret Co. and Select

Comparative Communities .............................................. .................................................. ...................... 33Figure 20: Total Military Jobs in Carteret Co. and Select Comparative Communities ............. 34Figure 21: Seasonal Housing Unit Change, Indexed for Carteret Co. and Select Comparative

Communities ........................................... ................................................. ............................................ .......... 38Figure 22: Cooperation Drives Success Concept Map ..................................................................... ...... 49Figure 23: Tourist Trap Concept Map .......................................... ................................................ ................ 51Figure 24: External Forces Dominate Concept Map ................................................ ............................... 53

Figure 25: Carteret Co. Under 15 Inch and 1 Meter Sea Level Rise Projections ........................ 56Figure 26: Croatan National Forest Land Adjustment Plan ......................................... ....................... 68Figure 27: Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge Acquisition Boundary ..................................... 69Figure 28: Carteret Co. Protected and Managed Lands .................................................................. ...... 73Figure 29: Carteret Co. Soil Map ..................................................................................................................... 73Figure 30: Carteret Co. Infrastructure Map................................................................................................ 74Figure 31: Carteret Co. 2010 Population Density Map .......................................... ............................... 74Figure 32: CAMA Land Use Suitability Map ................................................................ ............................... 75


11/85

1

1. Introduction

Background

Reacting to mandates from the U.S. Congress that triggered employment increases atEastern North Carolinas military installations totaling approximately 17,000, NorthCarolinas Eastern Region - in partnership with the nine surrounding counties that wouldbe most affected by the impacts formed the Military Growth Task Force (MGTF) in 2008.The task force, consisting of representatives from Carteret, Craven, Duplin, Jones, Lenoir,Onslow, Pamlico, Pender, and Wayne counties, assembled a comprehensive 800-pageRegional Growth Management Plan designed to inventory impacts of impending populationgrowth (estimated at 83,000 new residents) and make mitigation recommendations. Of the467 recommendations in the report, representing billions of dollars in investment, MGTFestimates that 90% necessitate regional collaboration for implementation. A map of the

nine-county region is depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Map of MGTF 9-County Region and Planned Infrastructure Improvements

Source: NC OneMap GeoSpatial Portal


12/85

2

With limited regional planning capacity in Eastern North Carolina, MGTF set the objectiveto coordinate existing organizations and experts into one unified regional partnership inearly 2010. The PlanIt East effort brings together various entities in the region to create aframework for dealing with pressures on infrastructure, encroachment, environmentalquality, workforce housing, and others. This effort is expected to culminate in a fall 2012

Reality Check exercise. This is event is intended to foster collective visioning among adiverse group of organizations and stakeholders and form lasting coalitions for substantivepolicy change.

Purpose

This document is designed to support and make recommendations for MGTFs upcomingReality Check visioning exercise. To that end, PlanIt East informed us that a test runapplying scenario planning to Carteret County would inform their larger regional effort;owing to the fact that it represents a sampling of issues facing the PlanIt East region. These

issues include planned roadway capacity improvements, substantial military presence, anda large tourism industry.

This report highlights how the examination of multiple future scenarios of population andeconomic change through a scenario planning framework can help planners and otherpolicymakers identify contingent and robust plans. After initial background research on theCounty and the identification and examination of factors projected to drive its growth (orgrowth drivers), we chose six case communities to inform and set the parameters for threeCarteret County scenarios. To construct these futures and understand their impacts, wedelved into the forces that are likely to shape the County as well as the interactions of thepaths they may take. Using ArcGIS, and applying suitability and growth management

parameters, we produced three conceptual maps and measured the implications of thedifferent growth scenarios.

The report is organized into the following chapters:

2. Introduction to Carteret County: an overview of the community including a briefhistory and an examination of factors driving its growth

3. Comparative Communities Analysis: summarizes the case study communitiesthrough the lenses of our growth driver framework; connecting them to CarteretCounty and setting the bounds of our projections for the Countys future growth and

development

4. Scenario Planning: describes three alternative futures for Carteret grounded in theexperience of the case study communities and in light of projected sea level rise;presenting visualizations of the three scenarios with each overlaid with differentprojections of sea level rise

5. Insights and Lessons Learned: observations provided by the team participants


13/85

3

2. Carteret County and its Growth Drivers

History

From its initial settlement by the Tuscarora Indians to its current status as a tourist

destination, Carteret County has followed a similar trajectory to other Atlantic coastalcommunities while at the same time carving its own unique path. Created in 1722,Carterets early history after the arrival of European settlers was marked by the creation ofplantations and coastal villages that relied on fishing, whaling, and trade. Traded goodsincluded tobacco, grains, fish, lumber and later cotton. Although Portsmouth (nowabandoned) and Beaufort were the major port towns early on, Morehead City wasestablished in 1858 and quickly rose to prominence as a cornerstone of the Countyseconomy and largest population center.1 The arrival of rail service in the late 1850s madeCarteret more accessible for trade and later tourism.2

Carterets beaches form the heart of an area of North Carolinas southern Outer Banks

called the Crystal Coast.3 By the turn of the 20th century, tourism began to growsignificantly in Beaufort and Morehead City. With the construction of US Highway 70, USHighway 17, and State Route 24, Carteret became even more accessible, and both thetourism industry as well as population steadily grew. Morehead City is known as a touristdestination but is also economically important because of its commercial port.

Figure 2: Carteret Co. Population

Source: U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census

1John Locke Foundation.(2011). North Carolina History Project Carteret County. Retrieved on September 30,

2011 from http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/commentary/54/entry.2Sadler, L. & Jenkins, K. (2007). Carteret County. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing.3CoastalGuide. (2011). Crystal coast of North Carolina. Retrieved on September 30, 2011 from

http://www.CrystalCoast.com/.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Population


14/85

4

Today, Carteret continues to grow (See Figure 2). From 1970 to 2010, the Countyspopulation more than doubled, with the 2010 US Census putting the total population at66,500.4 Other counties in the region most notably Craven, Onslow and Jones - displayedsimilar growth trends during this period. This increased growth from the 1970s onward islikely tied to demographic changes in the state as a whole, particularly the explosive

population growth in Wake County and the Triangle region, as well as the considerablemilitary presence in and around the region. As we discuss later in this chapter, Carteretscoastal location draws not only tourists and second home buyers, but also retirees. Thedistribution of growth in County reflects these trends: while growth has spread outsomewhat in the western part of the County, the coast remains the most densely populatedand settled area.

According to Office of State Management and Budget, Carteret Countys population isexpected to grow at a rate of 1.33% annually, rising from almost 67,000 people today toover 86,000 by 2030 (See Figure 3). Nevertheless, the planned expansion of highways 17and 70 will improve access to the area, potentially bringing more residents than predicted

in the coming decades. Historically, similarly situated communities where highwaycapacity improvements are made show dramatic increases in in-migration. Perhaps moresignificantly, such an improvement would dramatically improve access from the explodingResearch Triangle Region, improving the appeal of Carteret County for beach tourism andincreasing the number of seasonal housing units.

Figure 3: Population Projection for Carteret Co.

Source: North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management Population Estimates and Projections

4U.S. Census Bureau. (2011). Carteret County profile of general population and housing characteristics: 2010.

Retrieved on September 30, 2011 from

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DP

DP1&prodType=table.

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Population


15/85

5

At the same time, port facilities in Morehead City are expected to expand and a railroadspur linking the Port directly to Kinstons Global TransPark is slated for completion in early2012 (See Figure 1). These improvements, coupled with the expansion of the Panama Canalin 2014, are poised to change freight patterns, mean that Carteret could become a majorlogistics center in the global economy in addition to a regional tourist stronghold and

national military outpost.

These factors point to three main growth drivers that will influence Carteret Countysgrowth: transportation improvements and ports, military influence, and tourism &retirement.

Growth Drivers in Carteret County

Transportation Improvements and Ports

One of the most relevant forces for economic and population growth in a community,especially a coastal community, is the speed and volume at which people and goods can bemoved in and out. These rates are determined by the transportation system and in the caseof Carteret County we will be focusing on two major elements: the highway system and thePort of Morehead City.

Highways

According to data from the US Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), between 2000and 2008 the Countys primary and secondary highway system grew by less than 10 lanemiles. In this largely rural county, this amounts to a 2.0% increase. In contrast, the state ofNorth Carolinas roadways grew by 6.5%, and the national road networks lane milesincreased 22.4% during that time period.

The major highway corridors in Carteret County, based on size and number of trips perday, are US 70 and US 24. Historical maps of the County from 1953 show US 70 as a pavedroad, with at-grade crossings at every intersection. These highways are now wider andgrade separated in places, though several at-grade crossings remain.

In Carteret County, there were only 3 miles of lane mile increases in roads that are widerthan 48 feet, due to widening of existing highways. The larger changes in the highwaysystem that carries people into Carteret County occurred outside the Countys borders.

With the 2005 US 70 Access Management Studyreport5

, the state DOT began planning inearnest to expand access to Carteret County. Currently there are plans to make highway 70

5Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc. (July 2005). US 70 Access Management Study Clayton to Morehead City, NC.

Prepared for North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways. Retrieved on

October 5, 2011 from

http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/us70corridor/download/US70_Access_Management_Study_Report.

pdf.


16/85


17/85

7

hubs are located in Kinston at the Global TransPark, in Greensboro at the Piedmont TriadInland Terminal, and in Charlotte at the Charlotte Inland Terminal.6

Among the Ports most traded imports each year are sulfate products, rubber, and scrapmetal, while phosphate is overwhelmingly the ports biggest export.7 A graph of the Ports

annual tonnage over the past 10 years is shown below (See Figure 5). Tonnage fell duringthe early 2000s recession, climbed through the middle of the decade, and then fell steadilyduring the Great Recession.

Figure 5: Port of Morehead City Annual Tonnage, 2001-2010

Source: North Carolina Ports 2010 Port Statistics

In 2009, the Port of Morehead City ranked 84th among American ports in total trade, 65th inforeign trade, and 90th in domestic trade. By comparison, in 2004, it ranked 94th in totaltrade, 72nd in foreign trade, and 112th in domestic trade.8 While total tonnage did fallbetween 2004 and 2009, the Port fared relatively well considering its ranking improved ineach category.

The presence of the Port of Morehead City has enabled Carteret County to develop aspecialized sector in water transportation. Carteret County has a Location Quotient (LQ)9 of

6North Carolina Ports Website, Facilities. (2011). Retrieved on October 1, 2011 from

http://www.ncports.com/facilities.htm.7North Carolina Ports Website, Port of Morehead City 2010 Statistics. (2011). Retrieved on October 1, 2011

from http://www.ncports.com/_Port_Statistics.htm.8American Association of Port Authorities. (2009). Port industry statistics. Retrieved from http://www.aapa

ports.org/Industry/content.cfm?ItemNumber=900&navItemNumber=551.9A location quotient is an analytical tool to measure the concentration of a sector in a studied region in

comparison to a reference region. A location quotient above 1.0 indicates that the sector comprises a

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Tons(Thousa

nds)


18/85

8

2.29 in the water transportation sector, meaning it is relatively more specialized in thissector than the United States as a whole.10 The County is not, however, specialized insupport activities for transportation, which has an LQ of 0.57. Therefore, it is not clear thata large cluster of industries has developed in the County around the Port.

While the Port is not at full capacity given its falling volume, it does have 150 additionalacres available for development. A 2011 report on North Carolinas maritime strategysuggests the possibility that the acreage on Radio Island could be developed to enable thePort to handle container traffic.11 Because the Port of Morehead City has a deeper channeldepth than the Port of Wilmington, it may be better positioned to benefit from majorpending infrastructure improvements. The first is the planned expansion of the PanamaCanal that will increase capacity and allow larger container ships to pass through. Sinceships from a number of Morehead Citys largest trading partners India, Venezuela, China,Indonesia, and Thailand pass through the Panama Canal, this expansion is likely to resultin greater volume for the Port.

Highway improvements scheduled for US 70 may make the Port more competitive due togreater ease of distributing goods from it.12 Additionally, a new rail spur of the NorfolkSouthern Railroad linking the Port directly to the Global TransPark is scheduled to open inearly 2012.13 Spirit AeroSystems, the TransParks major tenant to date, cited the presenceof the Port of Morehead City as a key factor in its location decision.14 Should the GlobalTransPark succeed in attracting additional tenants and come into its own as a logistics hub,it is likely this growth will spur further trade volume at the Port of Morehead City in asymbiotic manner.

Military Influence

The military bases and landing strips around and within Carteret exert economic and landuse influence on the County (Figure 6). The most influential military base for Carteret isthe Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point and its associated air fields. Cherry Point islocated in Craven County between New Bern and Morehead City, but its economic and

greater proportion of employment in the studied region than in the reference region. This would

indicate the studied region is likely specialized in the sector.10U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2011). Quarterly census of employment and wages, Carteret County and the

United States. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cew/.11 North Carolina Maritime Study (2011). Maritime Advisory Council. Retrieved from

http://files.www.ncmaritimestudy.com/public-outreach/NC_Maritime_AC_Meeting__2011-07-

112.pdf.12North Carolina Ports. (2011). Port of Morehead City. Retrieved from

http://www.ncports.com/Port_of_Morehead_City.htm.13North Carolina Global TransPark. (2011). Transportation. Retrieved from

http://www.ncgtp.com/transport.html.14North Carolina Ports. (2008). Ports help Global TransPark recruiting. Retrieved from

http://www.ncports.com/news_detail_325.htm.


19/85

9

environmental impacts influence Carteret County. Congress authorized Marine Corps AirStation Cherry Point on July 9, 1941. Building the base required the clearing of an 8,000-acre tract of swamps, farms and timberland. During World War II, Cherry Point trainedunits and individual Marines for service in the Pacific theater. The air station also served asa base for anti-submarine operations. Since World War II, the installation has been

involved in nearly every major US military operation.

Currently, Cherry Point serves as an all-weather jet base for servicemen deployed in Iraqand Afghanistan. The air station and its associated support locations occupy more than29,000 acres. Cherry Point is home to Marine Transport Squadron 1, which includes thePEDRO search and rescue unit.15

Figure 6: Map of Military Influence in North Carolinas Eastern Region

Source: NC OneMap GeoSpatial Portal

In 2009 the military employed over 400 Carteret residents, which is close to theemployment levels of the early 1970s (See Figure 7). However, military earnings haveincreased to an inflation adjusted historical high, which could be due to more senior levelmilitary staff living in Carteret and commuting to the main air station base. Figure 8

15U.S. Marine Corps.(n.d.).About MCAS Cherry Point. Retrieved on September 30, 2011 from

http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcascherrypoint/Pages/mcascherrypoint/AboutCP.aspx.


20/85

10

illustrates how military jobs have declined as a percentage of total Carteret jobs since 1969.Therefore, while the total number of military employees living in Carteret County hasremained at historic levels, economic diversification and population growth in CarteretCounty has diminished the militarys share of the total jobs held by Carteret residents.

Figure 7: Carteret Co. Military Employment and Earnings, 1969-2009

Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

Figure 8: Military Employment as Percent of Employment in Carteret Co.


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

Numbero

fMilitaryJobs

TotalMilitaryEarnin

gs(ThousandsofDollars)

Earnings (000s dollars,2009 dollars)

Jobs

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

Percen

tofTotalCounty

Employment


21/85

11

Tourism & Retirement

Carteret County experienced considerable growth in tourism over the last forty years. TheCountys 2011-12 Budget estimates the tourism industrys annual economic impact at $250million. The North Carolina Department of Commerce (NCDC) has a database that has

tracked tourism output over the last twenty years. Based on the NCDCs Travel EconomicImpact Model (TEIM), in 1991 Carteret Countys tourism industry earned $138 million,placing Carteret County as the 10th largest out of North Carolinas 100 counties16. Theamount of tourism- generated revenue increased significantly by 2010 to $271 million;however Carterets standing fell by three spots, placing it as 13th largest out of NorthCarolinas 100 counties.

During this 20 year time period, the only times that tourism output decreased from year toyear was during recessions. For example, during the Great Recession, tourism declined0.80% and 4.8% for 2008 and 2009 respectively. This trend shows the tourism industrysdependency on the larger economy. Nevertheless, the growth in tourism generated

revenue was well above average for North Carolina counties and shows the importance ofthe tourism industry in Carteret County. Given that the port is losing its economic impactbecause of reduced tonnage the importance of tourism is all that more pronounced as itfills the gap in the local economy. It is undetermined as to what drove the tourism growthover the last twenty years but one can assume that it is strongly correlated to the Countyspristine beaches and very low property taxes.17

We sought and were unable to find a simple metric of how many tourists visited CarteretCounty over the last forty years, so we used several proxy metrics. We decided to indirectlymeasure tourism by using a total number of tourism employees and establishments as wellas the total number of seasonal housing units.

Tourism Employees and Establishments

The tourism industry from 1970-1980 we used the SIC code 70, which included Hotel andother travel lodging. In 1998 the Census Bureau transitioned from the SIC codes to theNAICS codes for categorizing industry statistics. Under this new system the tourismindustry is broken down into a more nuanced classification. This metric includes Hotels,Bed and Breakfast, RV campgrounds, Full-Service Restaurants, and Rooming and BoardingHouse. We excluded the Full-Service Restaurants for two reasons: 1) they were notincluded in the SIC codes and 2) Full-Service Restaurants are not necessarily a direct link totourism.

16 North Carolina Department of Commerce.(2011).Travel Economic Impact Model. Retrieved from

http://www.nccommerce.com/tourism/research/economic-impact/teim. (Dec 5th, 2011).17 From 2003-2008 the property tax was $.42 per every $100 of assessed value, which is below average for

North Carolina. With the Great Recession, housing market crash and revaluation all occurring at the

same time (2008), the tax rate fell even further to $.23 per every $100 of assessed value.


22/85

12

Based on our metric (See Appendix A), the forty-year period (1970-2009) saw Carteretstourism employees increase by 28%. During that same time period the number of tourismestablishments decreased by 18%. The industry peaked in terms of establishments andemployees in 1990 with a total of 45 travel lodging establishments and 514 tourist industryemployees.

Figure 9: Tourism Employees and Establishments in Carteret Co.

Source: County Business Patterns

This metric provides a decent forecast of the strength of the tourism industry. There is astrong relationship between increasing numbers of tourism employees and tourismestablishments with the strength of the tourism industry. A 2009 report by TourismEconomics states that lodging is the third largest component of the tourist industry inNorth Carolina. 18 As lodging goes so goes the tourist industry in North Carolina.

Seasonal Housing

Since 1970, Carteret has experienced dramatic growth in its occasional use or seasonalhousing stock. According to the Census, the County had only about 500 seasonal housingunits in 1970. This total increased by a factor of 30 in the subsequent decades. In 2010,Carteret County ranked fourth in North Carolina in terms of the share of seasonal housing

18 The Economic Contribution of Tourism to the State of North Carolina. Tourism Economics. (November

2009). Retrieved on December 5, 2011 from

http://www.nccommerce.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=D1fGQ6o6v7U%3D&tabid=1547&mid=466

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1970 1980 1990 2000 2009

Tourism

Employees

Employees

Establishments TourismE

sta

blishments


23/85

13

units to total housing units, following only Dare, Avery, and Macon Counties.19 As of 2010,Carteret Countys total seasonal housing stock was approximately 15,400 units, or just over30% of all housing in Carteret County.

Presumably, one reason for seasonal housing growth is the Countys traditionally low

property tax rate. According to the North Carolina Department of Revenue, from 2008-2011 Carteret had the lowest tax rate in the state at $0.23 per $100 of assessed value. Afterits most recent revaluation, the rate increased to $0.30, ranking it third lowest in the state,behind Dare and Macon Counties. The low property tax is an incentive to build, so theupward trend is expected to continue, but at a much slower pace in the near term becauseof the economic recession.

Elderly Population

Carterets elderly population20 has not only grown in absolute terms but also as apercentage of the total population. In 1950, the total number of elderly people in the

County was 1,570. By 2010, that number had increased seven-fold to 12,600 (SeeFigure 10). As a percentage of population the elderly, in 1950, comprised 7% of CarteretCountys total population. Today, nearly 1 in every 4 individuals in Carteret County is over65 years old.

The graying of Carterets population will have a significant impact on land use asdevelopers seek to accommodate retirees moving into the area as well those aging in place.Access to retail, health services, housing types, and transportation options will all have tobe considered in light of these changing demographics.

Figure 10: Adult Population (65 Years and Older) in Carteret Co.

Source: US Census Bureau

19 2005 Land Use Plan Carteret County, North Carolina, update. (2009). Retrieved on October 1, 2011. From

http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/planning/Carteret%20Co/Carteret%20County%20LUP%20Update.pdf20 For demographic data, we looked at the trend in retirement ages from 1950 through the present. There is a

consistent decrease in the average retirement age, according to the U.S. Department of Labor andStatistics, from 67 years in 1950 to 62 years in 2000. To keep consistency in the data from theCensuses, we used a retirement age of 65 since that was a benchmark used in all Censuses.

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

NumberoElderly


24/85

14

Growth Management

The structure of growth management of Carteret County provides a framework forunderstanding how the County and the incorporated municipalities within it managegrowth. Eastern North Carolina generally has a weak planning framework and implementsregulations only to the extent that they are required at the state or federal levels. The

choices made by Carteret County and the municipalities within it are indicative ofpolitically expressed preference for development, its character, composition intensity andspatial distribution even if and when those preferences are enacted or supported byinaction.

Land use planning and management can take on different forms in different places, utilizinga range of alternate methods to achieve a variety of objectives. Understanding the specificmethods in place and the objectives they highlight can offer a glimpse into the physicalfuture of the area. In addition, the existing framework can help shed light on how currentplanning methods, policies, and strategies might be adjusted to create alternative futurescenarios.

The Carteret County Land Use Plan was prepared in accordance with the requirements ofthe North Carolina Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA). CAMA requires each of the 20coastal counties of North Carolina to prepare and adopt a land use plan, following theguidelines of the Coastal Resource Commission (CRC), within the Division of CoastalManagement, under the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources(NCDENR) and administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). Municipalities within the County are permitted to make and implement their ownland use plans in accordance with CRC guidelines. Carteret County holds CAMA land useplanning responsibilities for those municipalities without CAMA plans, as well as allunincorporated areas of the County. The CRC outlines specific areas of environmental

concern, which necessitate permitting for development, and state and federal consistencydeterminations. These areas of environmental concern broadly include the estuarine andocean system, the ocean hazard system, public water supplies, and natural and culturalresource areas. In addition, the North Carolina Coastal Habitat Protection Plan aims to limitpollution and protect fish habitats in light of port expansion projects.

The direction of Carteret Countys growth is restrained by the above-mentioned stateenvironmental guidelines as well as by limitations of water and wastewater services,particularly in areas that are poorly suited for septic systems. At the same time, actions bystate and federal agencies make transportation and other infrastructure investments thatinfluence the amount and distribution of development. This is particularly true of the NorthCarolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA). The former plans and carries out transportation investments leveraging federalfunds. The latter provides loans for low-income homeownership in rural areas as well asfor individual water and wastewater facilities through the USDA Rural DevelopmentProgram.


25/85

15

State and federal institutions play an appropriate role by addressing larger, regional issuesor providing funding for specific causes. However, there is a lack of a consistent visionacross the different levels, and in particular on the part of Carteret County to lead thedirection and efforts of the large number of players involved in shaping its physicallandscape. Please see Appendix B for more information on the Countys growth

management framework.

Conclusion

This brief look at Carterets past and present highlights the major forces that shaped andare still shaping the County today. Just as transportation investments in the late 19thcentury (railroad) and mid-20th century (highways and cars) improved access to theCounty and helped spur the tourism industry and population growth in coastal areas,upcoming transportation projects could have a similar effect on the County. Although it

remains to be seen what kind of impact the Panama Canal expansion will have on theCounty, the Port of Morehead City is a force that will continue to influence the areaseconomy. Carterets location between two major military installations and the presenceof training fields and protected areas within Carteret mean that the intensity, direction,and placement of future growth and development within the County are especiallyimportant topics that involve a diverse group of stakeholders.

To get a better sense of how these growth drivers may influence Carteret Countys futuredevelopment and to start the process of scenario development, we next take a look atseveral communities that have dealt with similar issues or faced similar circumstances inthe past.


26/85

16

3. Comparative Communities Analysis

After the initial task of examining the history and current state of Carteret, the next stepinvolved identifying comparative communities that would help inform the scenariocreation. We looked at the county level to make data collection and comparison more

uniform and then determined characteristics that would make them more relevant toCarterets situation. These characteristics included: a coastal location, a nearby militarybase, and a nearby port. To narrow the list and pinpoint the communities that would bemost useful, we also looked at how these places related to the growth drivers that weidentified for Carteret - military base influence, transportation infrastructure investments,strong tourism industry, and an economically important or growing port. We determinedthat the strongest candidates would have at least 2-3 of these growth drivers.

Case Study Communities

The following lists the comparative communities along with the primary reason behindeach selection:

Accomack County, VA - Strong tourism industry and a major transportationinfrastructure improvementBarnstable County, MA - Strong tourism industry and history of planning coordinationbetween the military and local governmentsBeaufort County, SC - History of high military employment and influenceJackson County, MS - Economically important port and a recently closed military baseKent County, DE - Recent, major transportation infrastructure improvement and highpopulation growthOkaloosa County, FL - Strong tourism industry and recent transportation infrastructureimprovement

To provide a quick overview and comparison, the following tables and figures show thelocation as well as the population, housing unit, and employment trends over time for thesesix communities in relation Carteret County. After briefly introducing each community(history, growth trends, and growth management framework), we present the heart of ourcase study discussion which looks at these communities through the lens of the highlightedgrowth drivers - transportation investments, military influence, and tourism - and ties theirexperience to possible futures for Carteret. The chapter concludes by linking the growthdriver trends in the case study communities to our scenario planning exercise for CarteretCounty. The figures below are referenced throughout the comparative communitydiscussion that follows as well as at the conclusion of the chapter.


27/85

17

Figure 11: Map of Comparative Communities

Table 1: Population Change Comparison

Carteret Accomack Barnstable Beaufort Jackson Kent Okaloosa

2010 66,469 33,164 215,888 162,233 139,668 162,310 180,822

2000 59,383 38,305 222,230 120,937 131,420 126,697 170,498

1990 52,556 31,703 186,605 86,425 115,243 110,993 143,776

1980 41,092 31,268 147,925 65,364 118,015 98,219 109,920

1970 31,603 29,004 96,656 51,136 87,975 81,892 88,187

1960 30,940 30,635 70,286 44,187 55,522 65,651 61,175

1950 23,059 33,832 46,805 26,993 31,401 37,870 27,533


Table 2: Housing Unit Change Comparison

Carteret Accomack Barnstable Beaufort Jackson Kent Okaloosa

2010 48,179 21,002 160,281 93,023 60,067 65,338 92,407

2000 40,947 19,550 147,083 60,509 51,678 50,481 78,5931990 34,576 15,840 135,192 45,981 45,542 42,106 62,569

1980 20,598 13,149 70,948 26,855 41,966 35,005 42,899

1970 12,720 11,729 65,676 14,097 27,584 25,242 27,296Source: US Census Bureau

Table 3: Total Employment Change Comparison

Carteret Accomack Barnstable Beaufort Jackson Kent Okaloosa2009 36,125 18,340 138,963 95,218 66,014 84,490 122,6501999 31,931 16,806 125,581 78,075 67,339 70,442 109,0591989 23,118 15,809 102,008 54,995 51,901 57,099 81,1761979 16,637 15,615 73,652 40,406 53,319 46,424 54,609

1969 10,376 11,428 45,772 31,903 34,726 42,500 39,139Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis


28/85

Figure 12: Population Change in Comparative

Communities, Indexed


Figure 13: Housing Unit Chang



Figure 14: Total Employment



0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Indexedt

o

195

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1970 1980 1990

Indexedt

o

1970

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

1969 1979 1989 1999

Index

edt

o

1969


29/85

19

Accomack County, Virginia

Accomack County is located in the Virginia portion of the Delmarva Peninsula, to the northof Northampton County, VA, and to the south of Worcester County, MD. Throughout the19th century, shellfishing and farming were the main components of the Accomack

economy. During the 20

th

and into the 21

st

century, tourism became a major part of theCountys economy, particularly with respect to the islands of Chincoteague and Assateague.After the construction of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge in 1952, the County became muchmore accessible to mainland Maryland and the District of Columbia. The 1964 completionof the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel further opened up the area to development andprovided quick access to Norfolk, VA, and the major naval base there.21 NASAs WallopsFlight Facility (opened 1945) is a major source of economic activity for the area.

Today, Accomack County works with the Chesapeake Bay Commission and other regionalefforts in the tri-state region (MD, VA, DE) to restore and improve the environmentalquality of the Bay. Like other parts of Northern Virginia and the D.C. area, the main concern

facing Accomack County is how to balance the short-term individual economic interests oflandowners with the long-term sustainability of the Countys natural resources. To addressthese concerns, Accomack County has a robust set of development management tools, bothon its own, and within the state regulations and requirements of Virginia. Specifically, thesefall into the broad categories of water quantity and quality, distribution of developmentand maintenance of the rural character, fiscal capacity to provide infrastructure, and jobsand housing for residents.

Accomack County relies on a number of statewide policies and regulations to guidedevelopment, in addition to the growth management framework and guidelines it hasestablished locally. At the state level, comprehensive land use planning is encouraged and

seen as an important, evolving framework for guiding development, even though it is notnecessarily binding. Accomack County is part of the Chesapeake Atlantic Preservation Area(CAPA) and as such, is subject to CAPA regulations and requirements. CAPA primarilyaddresses water quality issues and also restricts and manages development within a bufferzone of waterways, most commonly as a 100-ft vegetative buffer. In conjunction with CAPArequirements, the Department of Planning offers information on Best ManagementPractices (BMP) relating to stormwater and administers the septic system pump-outnotification program.

The Eastern Shore of Virginia Hazard Mitigation Plan includes Accomack County and hasbeen approved and adopted by Accomack County. In addition, statewide building codes

require additional regulations for construction in flood zones and high wind zones,especially along coasts.

Managing growth and development on the county level in Accomack County is guided byone main overarching principle: denser development. To guide development to settle in

21Chesapeake Bay Program. (December 23, 2009). Bay History. Retrieved on October 1, 2011 from

http://www.chesapeakebay.net/history.htm.


30/85

20

denser patterns and around existing and neighboring corridors and infrastructure systems,Accomack County created a number of Urban Development Areas (UDA) and tied fundingto them in several ways. The first policy that would enforce the UDA is the road impact tax,which levies high traffic impact fees for developments outside a UDA. In addition, fundingfor infrastructure, affordable housing and economic development is limited to UDAs or

areas directly adjacent to a UDA. Furthermore, the County is attempting to guidedevelopment away from shorelines and coastlines and toward the central and northernportions of the County where groundwater withdrawals have the least impact. Tyingspecific development to allocation of funding or infrastructure from the County is critical toensuring their success, as the UDAs do not establish strict growth boundaries.

Accomack Countys tourism industry has been able to thrive under the guidance of thegrowth management strategy. Using the number of lodging establishments and number oflodging employees to measure the strength of the sector, it would appear that the industryis not particularly strong. In 2009 only 1% of the total population worked in the tourismindustry and the County had a mere 18 lodging establishments. The best way to measure

the strength of Accomacks tourism industry is to look at the number of seasonal housingunits and seasonal housing units as a percentage of total housing units. Looking at seasonalhousing strongly reflects tourisms influence. In 2010 Accomack County had 4,827seasonal housing units, which was 67% of the Countys total housing stock.

Two major reasons for the growth in the seasonal housing stock is its location, on theDelmarva Peninsula, and the transportation mentioned above. Carteret County similarlyhas these two factors working in its favor. Despite Accomacks considerable increasehousing units, population growth has not followed. Although this kind of extremely lowpopulation growth is not likely in Carteret given past trends, Accomacks experience couldhelp inform a scenario where population growth is more stagnant while tourism remains a

vital part of the economy.

Barnstable County, Massachusetts

Barnstable County is located in southeastern Massachusetts and encompasses the areaknown as Cape Cod. The unique geography of the Cape and the County has helped make thearea an iconic historical, natural, and leisure destination. After whaling vanished from theCape, fishing still remained an important part of the economy throughout much of the 20thcentury.22 Today, the natural beauty of the area and its close proximity to major east coastpopulation centers has made tourism and real estate the primary drivers of the Capeseconomy. In 2000, the average price of a house in the region was $600,000 and the area has

a reputation for being a popular, though very expensive place to live and retire.

22 Theroux, P. (2000, June 11). At the edge of the sea. (Review of the bookThe enduring shore: a history of Cape

Cod, Marthas Vineyard, and Nantucket). The New York Times. Retrieved on October 20, 2011 from

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/11/books/at-the-edge-of-the-

sea.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm.


31/85

21

Barnstable County has several military installations, with the main bases consisting ofMassachusetts Military Reservation (MMR), the Otis Air National Guard Base (ANGB), andCamp Edwards. Otis ANGB, was originally scheduled for a Base Closure and RealignmentCommission (BRAC) closure, but was spared at the last minute due to local support for thebase and how it supports the MMR. One of the reasons that MMR has been able to remain is

because it prevents development to an important aquifer water basin for the Cape, and theland area for the base would need to remain undeveloped to help preserve water qualityfor Cape residents.

In 1989, the Massachusetts state legislature passed the Cape Cod Commission Act inresponse to growing concern over the detrimental impacts of the Capes mid-1980sdevelopment boom on the areas land and water resources. The Act created the Cape CodCommission (CCC), a regional land use planning, economic development, and regulatoryagency responsible for developing and implementing a more coordinated approach toregional growth management. To achieve the goal of coordinated regional growthmanagement, the CCC is charged with three primary responsibilities: to prepare and

oversee the implementation of a regional land use policy plan for all of Cape Cod; torecommend for designation specific areas of Cape Cod as districts of critical planningconcern; and to review and regulate developments of regional impact.

The Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan (RPP) provides the planning framework for growthmanagement and resource protection throughout Barnstable County. By establishing acoherent set of land use goals and policies, the RPP aims to guide new development on theCape toward areas that are supported by adequate infrastructure and away fromecologically sensitive or culturally significant areas that could be harmed by inappropriatedevelopment. To that end, the RPP includes a regional land use vision map that identifiesfour general categories of desired land uses based upon existing and desired development

patterns, local zoning, and infrastructural and natural constraints on development. As botha planning document and a regulatory document, the RPP not only sets general growthpolicy for the County, but also imposes specific minimum performance standardsapplicable to developments of regional impact (DRIs). Where an applicant requests a localdevelopment permit for a project that meets one of the DRI thresholds, local review issuspended and the project is referred to the CCC for DRI review.

To secure approval by the CCC, the DRI must satisfy the following four criteria:

The benefit from the proposed development must be greater than the probabledetriment;

The proposed development must be consistent with the minimum performancestandards of the RPP;

The proposed development must be consistent with municipal zoning and anyapplicable certified local comprehensive plan; and

The proposed development must be consistent with any special regulationsapproved by the CCC if the project is located within a designated district of criticalplanning concern.


32/85

22

Barnstable Countys combination of a robust tourism industry, strong regional planning,and a history of cooperation between military stakeholders and municipalities provides aninteresting and informative model for Carterets future planning efforts. Although Carteretcertainly faces different challenges, the planning policies, tools, and actions thatstakeholders have utilized in Barnstable may be helpful as Carteret looks at manage growth

and development.

Beaufort County, South Carolina

Beaufort County is located in southeastern South Carolina. Historically, this area of SouthCarolina was sparsely populated. From the 1790s until the 1950s the population rangedfrom 18,000 people to 35,000 people. This was largely attributed to the Countysgeographic isolation. Until recently, large portions of Beaufort County were only accessibleby boat. Sound planning, transportation investment and both tourism industry and militarygrowth have resulted in a population explosion. The most rapid population growthoccurred between 1990 and 2010, with the Countys population almost doubling in size

from 86,000 to 162,000.

In 1994, the South Carolina legislature passed the Local Government ComprehensivePlanning Enabling Act, requiring all county and municipal governments that regulate landuse to adopt a comprehensive plan. In 1997, Beaufort County became the first county in thestate to adopt a comprehensive plan. In 1999, the County adopted the Zoning andDevelopment Standards Ordinance (ZDSO). The ZDSO established eleven base zoningdistricts and five overlay districts

The 2010 Beaufort County Comprehensive Plan emphasized coordinated regional growthmanagement. One of the Comprehensive Plans goals is to protect rural lands and natural

resources. One of the development management tools requiring coordinated regionalmanagement to protect rural land is the establishment of growth boundaries. This isevident as the land under the Countys jurisdictional control decreases with municipalannexations of unincorporated lands. Over the last ten years, the percentage of county landencompassed within municipal boundaries has grown from 11.4% to 31.7% as theCountys five municipalities have grown through annexation.

Since 2000, Beaufort Countys goal of protecting rural lands and critical natural resourceshas been pursued through the Rural and Critical Lands Preservation Program (RCLPP).Over 17,000 acres across the County are preserved for conservation, parks, buffers, andscenic vistas.

In Beaufort County, just as preservation is a central component of growth management, themilitary is a central component to the economy. Beaufort County is home to both theUnited States Marine Corps East Coast Basic Training Command at Parris Island and theMarine Corps Air Station (MCAS) at Beaufort. In 1969, the military accounted for 58% oftotal employment in Beaufort County. Over the next four decades the Countys populationgrew as well as employment. In 2009, the military accounted for 11% of total employment,although military jobs remained constant for over 20 years.


33/85

23

In addition to employment expansion, the Countys population also expanded over the past40 years, increasing from 51,000 in 1970 to more than 162,000 in 2010. Some of thegrowth can be attributed to the infrastructure investments that took placed in the mid-1900s. From the 1930s-1950s, transportation investments such as the Port Royal Bridge

opened the area to tourism. Hilton Head Island in the mid-1950s was a predominatelyagricultural area and geographically isolated. Because of Port Royal Bridge, Hilton HeadIsland is now one of Americas premier vacation and retirement destinations. BeaufortCountys retirement population is also closely tied to the investment in transportationinfrastructure. Carteret County could experience a similar increase in retirementpopulation and tourism with the expansion of highways 70 and 17. Beaufort Countysexperience at managing the impacts from the mid-century investments could prove usefulto Carteret County today.

Jackson County, Mississippi

Jackson County is located at the extreme southeastern corner of Mississippi, with the stateof Alabama along its eastern border, the Gulf of Mexico along its southern border, HarrisonCounty to the west, and George County to the north. Founded in 1812, the Countys earlyindustries included shipbuilding, timber and sawmilling, pecans, and coastal trade centeredon the Port of Pascagoula.23 The establishment of the Jackson County Port Authority in1958 cemented the importance of the port and its related industries to the Countyseconomy and identity: Chevron USA and Ingalls Shipbuilding (a division of Northrop-Grumman) are two of the largest companies in the County.2425

Over 50 percent of all land in Jackson County is either undeveloped or in agricultural use.Within the unincorporated areas of Jackson County, single-family and mobile homes

account for over 99 percent of all residential land uses. In contrast, multi-family housingoccupies only 175 acres of total land in the unincorporated portion of the County. Similarly,industrial and commercial activities occupy less than one percent of land in JacksonCountys unincorporated areas.

Jackson County last updated its Comprehensive Plan in 2009. The purpose of the plan is toestablish short and long-term development polices but it does not provide a coherentgrowth management strategy. Although the overall strategy for growth management maybe lacking, Jackson County does benefit from a well-developed and coordinated system forthe planning and provision of water and wastewater, the Jackson County Utility Authority(JCUA). The JCUA imposes water and wastewater connection requirements for both new

and existing development and planning requirements for both the Authority and for retailproviders of water and wastewater services.

23Jackson County Mississippi. (2009). Brief history of Jackson County. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from

http://www.co.jackson.ms.us/about/history/.24 Ibid.25Global Security. (2011). Ingalls Shipbuilding, Pascagoula, Miss. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/ingalls.htm.


34/85

24

Water is not only a fundamental service provided by the local government but it is also theeconomic lifeblood of Jackson County. The Countys Port of Pascagoula, one of the 20largest ports in the United States, is a deep-water port with public and private terminals.Various types of industries such as shipbuilding and oil refineries have grown because of

the Port. Pascagoula also benefits from economies of scale as Biloxi, the 85th

largest port inthe United States (about 20 miles away) and Mobile, the 13th largest port in the UnitedStates (about 40 miles away) are connected by a vast transportation infrastructurenetwork.

The Port of Pascagoula was the primary reason for selection of Jackson County, Mississippias a case study. Pascagoula, like Morehead City, is a deepwater port. The character ofdevelopment that has occurred in Pascagoula and the economic benefits the County hasreaped from the port illustrate the opportunities and challenges that may accompany portexpansion in Carteret County. A study conducted in 2004 found that operations associatedwith the Jackson County Port Authority created 19,370 direct jobs, $902 million in

personal income, $393 million in spending, $50 million in state tax revenue and $27 millionin tax revenues to Jackson County.26 While the Port of Pascagoula is at presentsignificantly larger than the Port of Morehead City handling roughly ten times the annualtonnage should the Port of Morehead City expand in the future it could eventually have asimilar economic presence in Carteret.

Kent County, Delaware

Kent Countys history largely mirrors that of its home state of Delaware.27 Whileagriculture defined the states early history, today Delawares chief products come from anumber of different industries, including fishing, mining, agriculture, and manufacturing.28

In addition, Delawares corporation-friendly laws and regulations (originally set out in1899 in the General Assemblys An Act Providing a General Corporation Law) make it oneof the top addresses in the country for corporations.29 This corporation-friendlyatmosphere can also be seen in the state Department of Labors occupation and industryprojections for Kent County: along with healthcare-related occupations andarts/design/entertainment/media occupations, business and financial operations-relatedoccupations are projected to be high-growth over the next eight years.30 Since Dover the

26 Port of Pascagoula (2011). Economic Impact. Retrieved on November 1, 2011 from

http://www.portofpascagoula.com/economic-impact.html.27State of Delaware. (2011). Delaware economy & people; Delaware geography. Retrieved on October 15, 2011

from http://delaware.gov/facts/people.shtml and http://delaware.gov/facts/geo.shtml.28State of Delaware. (2011). Delaware economy &people. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from

http://delaware.gov/facts/people.shtml29Delaware Living. (n.d.). Delaware living history. Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from

http://www.delawareliving.com/history.html.30State of Delaware Department of Labor. (2008). Occupation and industry projections Kent County.

Retrieved on October 15, 2011 from

http://www.delawareworks.com/oolmi/Information/LMIData/Projections/Kent.aspx.


35/85

25

state capital is located in Kent County, government-related jobs are also an importantpart of the economy.

Kent County experienced a period of unprecedented growth and development in the firstdecade of the 21stcentury more than in any of the previous three decades. While ten-year

population increases ranged from 13%-20% between 1970 and 2000, from 2000 to 2010the Countys population grew by 28%. Housing units saw a corresponding increase of 30%from 2000-2010, a large jump from the 1990-2000 number (20%). Although a number offactors likely contributed to this growth, a major transportation project (State Route 1limited access highway) in the County was also completed in the early 2000s.

In response to this growth, Kent County put together a comprehensive plan to more fullyprepare for and guide future development and investment in a manner and directionadhering to its values. Kent County and its residents seek to foster sustainablecommunities, to ensure provision of adequate infrastructure, and to preserve the history,natural resources, and rural character of the area. The guiding objective in Kent County is

to create vibrant community centers, which will cluster development for the benefit of theresidents, the efficient and cost effective allocation of services and infrastructure, and thepreservation of agricultural land. Sprawling development is seen as threat to theseobjectives. The County sees the intertwined elements of circulation, public spaces and useof private lands, relying on the success of each other for the community to thrive. Growthmanagement strategies range from growth overlay zones to density bonuses and a transferof development rights (TDR) program. Kent County adheres to state requirementsregarding recharge and wellhead protection areas by limiting development and impervioussurface cover, and by trying to limit pollutants from contaminating groundwater.

Kent Countys experience informs the transportation-related portions of our scenarios for

Carteret County. Specifically, the Kent County case study provides insight on how theHighway 70 and Highway 17 improvements may impact Carterets future growth anddevelopment.

Okaloosa County, Florida

Okaloosa County is located in northwest Florida, bordered by the state of Alabama to thenorth, Santa Rosa County to the west, Walton County to the east, and the Gulf of Mexico tothe south. The County was officially established in 1915 and started off largely rural incharacter with fishing and farming villages as the main population centers.31 The arrival ofthe military in the 1930s and the formation and expansion of Eglin Air Force Base in the

1940s introduced dramatic changes; the massive base was accompanied by paved roads,electricity and other infrastructure investments to the area, and the economy of OkaloosaCounty was fundamentally redefined.32 Looking at population change in Okaloosa between

31Okaloosa County Online. (n.d.). About Okaloosa County Okaloosa County history. Retrieved on September

25, 2011 from http://www.co.okaloosa.fl.us/about_history.html.32 Ibid.


36/85

26

1970 and 2010, the most rapid growth occurred in the 1980s, with a 2.7% average annualgrowth rate.

In terms of official planning efforts, the County approaches future land use anddevelopment in a systematic and coordinated way. The Countys comprehensive plan

focuses on three areas of concern: valuable, vulnerable or protected lands; provision ofservices; and the spatial distribution of development, specifically discouraging andpreventing sprawl. The primary tools designed to help manage growth include: theOkaloosa County Water Plan which requires the consideration of water supplies andfacilities in any future land use plans and designations; an Urban Development Boundarywhich aims to limit sprawl and encourage more dense, infill development in the County;and Rural Community Overlay Zones which aim to cluster development in urban areas andpreserve the rural character of other communities in the County. Okaloosa also employs anumber of policies that focus on conservation and protection of valuable or vulnerablelands. The Conservation Policy provides protection of public supply wellhead protectionareas and environmentally sensitive lands. Wetland protection regulations for tidal and

non-tidal wetlands include buffer zones for building construction (25-50 feet from themean or ordinary high water line) and requirements for vegetated buffers.

Okaloosas rigorous growth management strategies have resulted in a vibrant tourismindustry. A tourist destination for many years, Okaloosas number of tourism employeesand establishments have expanded and contracted over the last forty years. Okaloosaexperienced significant peaks of tourism employment in 1990 and 2007 with 1686 and2307 employees respectively. Seasonal housing growth has been steady over the last fortyyears. In 1970 the County had 612 occasional use houses, which constituted 5.4% of theCountys total housing units. The increase over the next 40 years is evidence that OkaloosaCounty is a legitimate tourist destination. By 2010 the seasonal housing stock increased to

6,755, which is one-third of the Countys total housing units.

With a strong tourism industry and a significant military base, Okaloosa County presentsan excellent case study of how these two forces can interact and influence growth anddevelopment in an area. In particular, the tourism industrys impact on Okaloosa Countysgrowth, economy, and land use development informs our scenarios for Carteret County.Although Carteret currently has a substantial tourism industry, the longer history andlarger scope of tourism in Okaloosa provides valuable information on the possible futureimpacts of tourism in Carteret.


37/85

27

Growth Drivers

This section takes a more in-depth look at the three identified growth drivers:transportation improvements and ports, military influence, and tourism & retirement.Within the individual growth driver sections, we provide a more detailed description and

analysis of each growth drivers role in the relevant case study communities. The final partof this chapter links the growth driver trends in the case study communities to our scenarioplanning exercise for Carteret County.

Transportation Improvements and Ports

Transportation improvements often precipitate growth in the areas in which they occur. Inaddition to responding to the mobility needs of new development already underway, suchimprovements can induce further development by enhancing the accessibility of a location.As previously discussed, there are plans to make US Highway 70, the main route to CarteretCounty from points west, into a limited-access highway. Carteret will be much moreaccessible from rapidly growing areas including the Triangle and Triad once these

transportation improvements are in place, facilitating the growth of the tourism andlogistics industries in the County. Additionally, the expansion of the Panama Canal mayincrease the volume of trade at the Port of Morehead City, further accelerating the Countysgrowth. In order to determine what these impacts may mean for Carteret and inform theconstruction of our scenarios, it is helpful to examine the experience of the case studycommunities.

Figure 15 below compares the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in Carteret and two of thetransportation-centered comparative communities - Kent and Okaloosa during the lastdecade. Although all three appear to have followed similar trajectories, Kent and Okaloosasaw larger VMT increases in the early 2000s. These more substantial increases could

signal future transportation trends for Carteret.

Figure 15: VMT Change in Select Case Study Communities

Sources: Transportation Information Booklet (2010). Retrieved from

http://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/publications/information-booklet/

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

VMT(Millions) Carteret

Kent

Okaloosa


38/85

28

Data Book (2007). Retrieved from http://doverkentmpo.delaware.gov/publications/data-book-annual-report;

Crash profiles (2007). Retrieved from

http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/crashdata/profiles.html;

Crash profiles (2008). Retrieved from

http://www.ncdot.gov/doh/preconstruct/traffic/safety/crashdata/profiles.html;

Summary since 1990 (2011). Retrieved from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/statistics/mileage-

rpts/public.shtm

Kent County

Kent County, DE, is located on the Delmarva Peninsula which historically restricted landaccess to the area to the north where the Peninsula connects to the mainland. After theChesapeake Bay Bridge and Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel were completed in the 1950sand 60s, land travelers from the west and south of the Delmarva Peninsula had moreoptions for reaching Kent County and the peninsula as a whole. Access to Kent County fromthe north was greatly improved by the construction of the Korean War Veterans MemorialHighway, an extension of Delaware Route 1. Constructed in portions, the highways majorstages were completed in 1993, 1995, and 2003. Route 1 is now a limited access highway

that connects I-95 (which goes through Washington D.C. and other major cities to thenorth) to Dover Air Force Base (located in Kent County).

Examining the change in VMT provides an indication of how the highway constructionimpacted the volume of traffic in the County. As shown in Figure 15 above and Table 4below the completion of Route 1 in 2003 corresponds with a significant increase in VMT forthe County. Strong population and household growth accompanied this increase in VMT.Between 2000 and 2010, Kent Countys population grew 28% to a total of 162,310residents, while the state of Delaware as a whole grew only 15%. Housing units alsoincreased during this period by 29% to a total of 65,338 units. While we cannot attributeKent Countys disproportionate growth between 2000 and 2010 solely to this highway

improvement, we can conclude that its construction had a major influence on the areashigh growth rate.

Table 4: Kent Co. VMT Change (in thousands)

YearAverage AnnualDaily VMT

% Change

2000 3,682 -2001 3,809 3%2002 3,859 1%2003 4,016 4%2004 4,445 11%

2005 4,545 2%2006 4,601 1%2007 4,655 1%2008 4,388 -6%2009 4,471 2%

Source: Delaware DOT Highway Statistics, 2000-2009

Figure 16

Carteret County 2030 - Imagining the Futures

Documents

Transcript of Carteret County 2030 - Imagining the Futures