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. 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
II. 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, rd 304-306 (Richard Hakluyt, ed., 3 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 Governments2 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-management- oceanfront-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 -
rd Hakluyt, ed., 3 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. 43-
48.
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 Plaintiffs-
Appellants’ 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 Plaintiffs-
Appellants 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. § 77-
20 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 TO
THE 1985 GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA, at 2 (Dec. 13, 1984) (the
“1984 Commission Study”), available at http://ncleg.net/Library/studies/1985/st10226.pdf. This study found a common
5 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. N.C. State Bar No. 39740 Joseph S. Dowdy N.C. State Bar No. 31941 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 -
By: Electronically Submitted Joseph J. Kalo N.C. State Bar No. 5923 Telephone: (919) 962-8518 Facsimile: (919) 962-1277 [email protected]
By: Electronically Submitted Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel N.C. State Bar No. 23356 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
By: Electronically Submitted Walter Derrickson Taylor N.C. State Bar No. 23275 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 -
By: Electronically Submitted Neil B. Whitford N.C. State Bar No. 7393 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
By: Electronically Submitted Garris Neil Yarborough N.C. State Bar No. 8110 Yarborough, Winters & Neville, P.A. 115 East Russell Street Fayetteville, NC 28301 Telephone: (910) 433-4433 Facsimile: (910) 433-2233 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE ONSLOW COUNTY
- 30 -
By: Electronically Submitted Charles S. Lanier N.C. State Bar No. 2626 Lanier, Fountain & Ceruzzi 114 Old Bridge Street Jacksonville, NC 28540 Telephone: (910) 455-4175 Facsimile: (910)455-1406 [email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE TOWN OF SURF CITY
By: Electronically Submitted Carl “Trey” Woodrow Thurman III N.C. State Bar No. 17106 P. O. Box 5 Burgaw, NC 28425 Telephone: (910) 620-3979 Facsimile: (910) 259-1402 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE PENDER COUNTY
By: Electronically Submitted Stephen D. Coggins N.C. State Bar No. 8223 Roundtree Losee LLP 2419 Market Street Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 763-3404 Facsimile: (910) 763-0320 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE TOWN OF TOPSAIL BEACH
- 31 -
By: Electronically Submitted Wanda M. Copley N.C. State Bar No. 10287 County Attorney New Hanover County 230 Government Center Drive, Suite 125 Wilmington, NC 28403 Telephone: (910) 798-7153 Facsimile: (910) 798-7157 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE NEW HANOVER COUNTY
By: Electronically Submitted John C. Wessell III N.C. State Bar No. 7390 Wessell & Raney, L.L.P. 107-B North 2nd Street Wilmington, NC 28402-1049 Telephone: (910) 762-7475 Facsimile: (910) 762-7557 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE TOWN OF WRIGHTSVILLE BEACH
- 32 -
By: Electronically Submitted Charlotte Noel Fox N.C. State Bar No. 32678 Craige & Fox, PLLC 701 Market Street Wilmington, NC 28401 Telephone: (910) 815-0085 Facsimile: (910) 815-1095 [email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICI CURIAE TOWNS OF CAROLINA BEACH AND HOLDEN BEACH
By: Electronically Submitted A.A. Canoutas N.C. State Bar No. 705 244 Princess Street, # 12 Wilmington, NC 28401-3964 Telephone: (910) 233-1919 Facsimile: (910) 392-0896 [email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE TOWN OF KURE BEACH
- 33 -
By: Electronically Submitted Robert Shaver, Jr. N.C. State Bar No. 16048 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 CURIAE BRUNSWICK COUNTY
By: Electronically Submitted Charles S. Baldwin IV N.C. State Bar No. 19799 Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard LLP 115 North 3rd Street Suite 301 Wilmington, NC 28401 Telephone: (910) 444-2000 Facsimile: (910)444-2001 [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE VILLAGE OF BALD HEAD ISLAND
- 34 -
By: Electronically Submitted Justin K. Humphries N.C. State Bar No. 36833 The Humphries Law Firm, P.C. 616 Princess Street Wilmington, NC 28401 Telephone: (910) 332-0721 Facsimile: (910) 251-0446 [email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE TOWN OF CASWELL BEACH
By: Electronically Submitted Michael R. Isenberg N.C. State Bar No. 7177 Isenberg & Thompson 109 E Moore Street Southport, NC 28461-3925 Telephone: (910) 457-9506 Facsimile: (910) 457-6810 [email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE TOWN OF OCEAN ISLE BEACH
By: Electronically Submitted George G. Richardson, Jr. N.C. State Bar No. 25508 Law Offices of G. Grady Richardson, Jr., PC 1213 Culbreth Drive Wilmington, NC 28405 Telephone: (910) 509-7166 Facsimile: (910) 509-7167 [email protected]
ATTORNEY FOR AMICUS CURIAE TOWN 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 Wilmington, NC 28403
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. 2- NC 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 long- term 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 -App. 3- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 4- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 5- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 6- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 7- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 8- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 ten- year 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 -App. 9- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL REPORT
______Beach Nourishment Needs by BIMP Region and Costs by Project Partner
Managed Beach fill Total Cost Federal State Local Community Shoreline volume Share Share Share Per decade length millions millions millions REGION 1 31.2 5,641,214 $54,713,132 $29.4 $14.2 $11.1 Ocean Isle Beach 5.6 459,720 $4,445,470 Holden Beach 8.2 1,897,470 $18,633,120 Oak Island 9.3 745,730 $10,820,520 Caswell Beach 3.6 440,990 $3,616,150 Bald Head Island 4.5 2,097,304 $17,197,872 REGION 2a 17.3 3,886,729 $33,022,839 $18.9 $8.2 $5.9 Kure Beach 3.4 381,393 $5,137,423 Carolina Beach 2.7 2,428,236 $19,741,556 Wrightsville Beach 4.1 895,610 $6,555,840 Figure Eight Island 5.1 181,490 $1,588,020 REGION 2b 22.3 2,370,627 $24,655,778 $11.0 $6.4 $7.2 Topsail Beach 5.1 604,070 $4,911,050 Surf City 6.1 623,770 $8,202,570 North Topsail 11.1 1,142,787 $11,542,158 Beach REGION 2c 23.8 3,773,368 $48,052,803 $38.4 $7.2 $2.5 Emerald Isle 10.3 981,968 $13,747,573 Indian Beach / 2.6 353,780 $4,952,970 Salter Path Pine Knoll Shores 4.8 545,000 $7,771,740 Atlantic Beach (includes Ft. 6.1 1,892,620 $21,580,520 Macon) REGION 4b 19.6 2,745,080 $30,694,980 $15.3 $8.0 $7.4 Nags Head 11.3 1,859,230 $21,325,380 Kill Devil Hills 4.8 327,520 $3,579,760 Kitty Hawk 3.5 558,330 $5,789,840
TOTAL (all 112.2 18,417,018 $191,139,532 $113.0 $44.0 $34.1 regions) Total per/yr Avg. 1,841,702 $19,113,953.2 $11.3 $4.4 $3.4
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 -App. 10- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 Shallow Draft Inlet Deep Draft Inlet Dredging TOTAL Inlet Dredging (total cost per (total cost per decade)* Dredging (cost per decade)* decade)* 1 $9 million $51 million $60 million 2a $10 million $0 $10 million 2b $20 million $0 $20 million 2c $20 million $17 million $37 million 3a $5 million $0 $5 million 3b $10 million $0 $10 million 4a $0 million $0 $0 million 4b $25 million $0 $25 million 4c $65 million $0 $65 million TOTAL $164 million $68 million $232 million (per decade) 90% federal cost share 75% federal cost share (total federal share)
TOTAL $147.6 million $51 million $198.6 million
Cost Share 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) 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 -App. 11- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 12- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 13- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 14- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 15- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 16- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 17- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 6- scenarios). (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 -App. 18- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 19- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL REPORT
______
Table IV-2. Property at Risk Estimates
Value of Value of Value of Value of Coastal Residential Commercial Residential Commercial County Beach Region Coastal Property Coastal Property Coastal Property Coastal Property at Risk 2004 at Risk 2004 at Risk 2008 at Risk 2008 2a New Hanover County-wide $90,700,000 $32,300,000 $98,227,440 $34,980,665 2c Carteret County-wide $92,300,000 $168,000,000 $99,960,229 $181,942,778 3b/4 Dare County-wide $906,700,000 $1,318,100,000 $981,949,506 $1,427,492,715 Total All All $1,089,700,000 $1,518,400,000 $1,180,137,176 $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 -App. 20- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 21- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL REPORT
______Table IV-3. Southern Beaches as Identified by Bin et al.
County Beach Caswell Beach, Oak Island, Holden Beach, Ocean Brunswick Isle Beach, Sunset Beach Wrightsville Beach, Carolina Beach, Kure Beach, New Hanover Fort Fisher Pender-Onslow North Topsail Beach, Surf City, Topsail Beach Fort Macon, Atlantic Beach, Pine Knoll Shores, Carteret 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 -App. 22- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 community- specific 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 -App. 23- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 24- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL REPORT
______and are reported for each beach community in both base year (2005-2006) and inflation- adjusted 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 county- wide 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 -App. 25- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL REPORT
______Table IV-4. Beach Expenditures
Beach Recreation Beach Recreation Beach Recreation Beach Recreation Beach Recreation
2005-2006 2005-2006 2005-2006 2008 2008 Annual Total Annual Total Coastal Annual Direct Impact Output/ Total Impact Annual Direct Impact/ Output/ County Beach Region Expenditures Sales/ Business Employment (jobs) Expenditures Sales/ Business Activity Activity 1 Brunswick (County-wide) $187,443,025 $321,747,424 4721 $196,662,878 $337,573,374 1 Brunswick Bird Island N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Brunswick Sunset Beach $32,354,052 $55,535,985 815 $33,945,467 $58,267,660 1 Brunswick Ocean Isle Beach $51,222,316 $87,923,508 1290 $53,741,814 $92,248,245 1 Brunswick Holden Beach $51,560,967 $88,504,804 1299 $54,097,121 $92,858,134 1 Brunswick Oak Island $35,670,206 $61,228,188 898 $37,424,734 $64,239,849 1 Brunswick Bald Head Island $16,635,485 $28,554,940 419 $17,453,742 $29,959,486 1 Brunswick North of Cape Fear N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2a New Hanover (County-wide) $156,379,513 $305,621,244 4379 $164,071,429 $320,653,987 2a New Hanover Zeke's Island N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2a New Hanover Fort Fisher Included in Kure Beach 2a New Hanover Kure Beach $13,889,233 $27,144,506 389 $14,572,410 $28,479,677 2a New Hanover Carolina Beach $46,599,311 $91,071,645 1305 $48,891,415 $95,551,231 2a New Hanover Masonboro Island N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2a New Hanover Wrightsville Beach $95,890,968 $187,405,093 2685 $100,607,605 $196,623,079 2a New Hanover Figure Eight Island No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 2b Pender (County-wide) $37,656,811 $57,367,037 973 $39,509,055 $60,188,778 2b Pender Hutaff Beach N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2b Pender Topsail Beach $16,318,197 $24,859,424 422 $17,120,848 $26,082,197 2b Pender Surf City $21,338,614 $32,507,613 551 $22,388,207 $34,106,581 2b Onslow (County-wide) $37,873,072 $57,696,493 978 $39,735,953 $60,534,439 2b Onslow North Topsail Beach $37,873,072 $57,696,493 978 $39,735,953 $60,534,439 2b Onslow Onslow Beach N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2b Onslow Browns Island N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2c Onslow Bear Island N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2c Carteret (County-wide) $219,843,910 $379,555,904 6148 $230,657,481 $398,225,307 2c Carteret Emerald Isle $118,511,938 $204,608,377 3314 $124,341,243 $214,672,550 2c Carteret Indian Beach/Salter Path $10,139,738 $17,506,046 284 $10,638,487 $18,367,124 2c Carteret Pine Knoll Shores $17,346,108 $29,947,691 485 $18,199,319 $31,420,743 2c Carteret Atlantic Beach $45,637,586 $78,792,335 1276 $47,882,384 $82,667,933 2c Carteret Fort Macon $4,747,129 $8,195,818 133 $4,980,628 $8,598,950 2c Carteret Shackleford Banks N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2c Carteret Cape Lookout Included in Carteret County-wide total 3a Carteret Core Banks N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3a Carteret Portsmouth Island N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3b Hyde (County-wide) $21,815,391 $38,658,609 523 $22,888,436 $40,560,129 3b Hyde Ocracoke Island $21,815,391 $38,658,609 523 $22,888,436 $40,560,129 3b/4 Dare (County-wide) $596,401,453 $1,056,721,397 14368 $625,736,945 $1,108,698,874 3b Dare Hatteras Island @ Hatteras $14,443,606 $25,591,599 348 $15,154,050 $26,850,386 3b/4a Dare Cape Hatteras $37,540,698 $66,515,698 904 $39,387,231 $69,787,439 4a Dare Hatteras Island @ Buxton & Frisco $39,406,076 $69,820,828 949 $41,344,362 $73,255,139 4a Dare Hatteras Island @ Avon $37,553,374 $66,538,158 905 $39,400,531 $69,811,004 4a Dare Hatteras Island @ Salvo & Waves $17,685,451 $31,335,594 426 $18,555,354 $32,876,914 4a Dare Hatteras Island @ Rodanthe $20,633,026 $36,558,194 497 $21,647,912 $38,356,399 4b Dare Pea Island N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4b Dare Bodie Island Included in Nags Head 4b Dare Nags Head $146,714,012 $259,952,143 3534 $153,930,507 $272,738,538 4b Dare Kill Devil Hills $114,968,614 $203,704,726 2770 $120,623,632 $213,724,451 4b Dare Kitty Hawk $91,974,891 $162,963,781 2216 $96,498,906 $170,979,561 4b Dare Southern Shores $15,325,788 $27,154,675 369 $16,079,625 $28,490,346 4b Dare Duck $37,910,681 $67,171,244 913 $39,775,412 $70,475,229 4b Dare Sanderling $22,245,237 $39,414,755 536 $23,339,424 $41,353,469 4c Currituck (County-wide) $165,092,704 $257,753,550 3767 $173,213,201 $270,431,801 4c Currituck Peters Quarter $77,820,610 $121,498,637 1775 $81,648,411 $127,474,850 4c Currituck Corolla $61,752,511 $96,412,068 1409 $64,789,963 $101,154,336 4c Currituck Currituck National Wildlife Refuge N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 4c Currituck Refuge to VA $25,519,583 $39,842,845 582 $26,774,827 $41,802,615 Total All All $1,399,044,467 $2,434,616,022 35,202 $1,467,859,957 $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 -App. 26- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 27- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL REPORT
______Table IV-5. Beach Recreation Consumer Surplus Value
Beach Recreation Beach Recreation
2005-2006 2008
Coastal Annual Consumer Annual Consumer County Beach Region Surplus Surplus
1 Brunswick (County-wide) $14,621,595 $15,340,794 1 Brunswick Bird Island N/A N/A 1 Brunswick Sunset Beach $2,411,742 $2,530,369 1 Brunswick Ocean Isle Beach $3,847,678 $4,036,936 1 Brunswick Holden Beach $4,344,735 $4,558,441 1 Brunswick Oak Island $3,161,838 $3,317,360 1 Brunswick Bald Head Island $855,602 $897,687 1 Brunswick North of Cape Fear N/A N/A 2a New Hanover (County-wide) $26,986,370 $28,313,762 2a New Hanover Zeke's Island N/A N/A 2a New Hanover Fort Fisher Included in Kure Beach 2a New Hanover Kure Beach $1,604,183 $1,683,089 2a New Hanover Carolina Beach $6,856,601 $7,193,860 2a New Hanover Masonboro Island N/A N/A 2a New Hanover Wrightsville Beach $18,525,586 $19,436,813 2a New Hanover Figure Eight Island No Data No Data 2b Pender (County-wide) $4,496,131 $4,717,284 2b Pender Hutaff Beach N/A N/A 2b Pender Topsail Beach $1,480,201 $1,553,009 2b Pender Surf City $3,015,930 $3,164,276 2b Onslow (County-wide) $5,625,292 $5,901,986 2b Onslow North Topsail Beach $5,625,292 $5,901,986 2b Onslow Onslow Beach N/A N/A 2b Onslow Browns Island N/A N/A 2c Onslow Bear Island N/A N/A 2c Carteret (County-wide) $29,476,069 $30,925,923 2c Carteret Emerald Isle $12,400,414 $13,010,359 2c Carteret Indian Beach/Salter Path $1,589,212 $1,667,382 2c Carteret Pine Knoll Shores $3,161,688 $3,317,204 2c Carteret Atlantic Beach $8,339,505 $8,749,705 2c Carteret Fort Macon $2,556,222 $2,681,956 2c Carteret Shackleford Banks N/A N/A 2c Carteret Cape Lookout Included in Carteret County-wide total 3a Carteret Core Banks N/A N/A 3a Carteret Portsmouth Island N/A N/A 3b Hyde (County-wide) $907,140 $951,759 3b Hyde Ocracoke Island $907,140 $951,759 3b/4 Dare (County-wide) $24,340,033 $25,537,259 3b Dare Hatteras Island @ Hatteras $525,425 $551,270 3b/4a Dare Cape Hatteras $1,365,184 $1,432,334 4a Dare Hatteras Island @ Buxton & Frisco $1,395,868 $1,464,527 4a Dare Hatteras Island @ Avon $1,366,106 $1,433,301 4a Dare Hatteras Island @ Salvo & Waves $820,660 $861,026 4a Dare Hatteras Island @ Rodanthe $957,436 $1,004,530 4b Dare Pea Island N/A N/A 4b Dare Bodie Island Included in Nags Head 4b Dare Nags Head $7,356,815 $7,718,678 4b Dare Kill Devil Hills $5,602,655 $5,878,235 4b Dare Kitty Hawk $4,482,124 $4,702,588 4b Dare Southern Shores $467,761 $490,769 4b Dare Duck $1,207,669 $1,267,071 4b Dare Sanderling $709,266 $744,153 4c Currituck (County-wide) $6,864,975 $7,202,646 4c Currituck Peters Quarter $3,235,979 $3,395,149 4c Currituck Corolla $2,567,827 $2,694,132 4c Currituck Currituck National Wildlife Refuge N/A N/A 4c Currituck Refuge to VA $1,061,169 $1,113,366 Total All All $113,805,512 $119,403,320
April 2011 IV-15 -App. 28- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 -App. 29- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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
-App. 30- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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
-App. 31- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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
-App. 32- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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
$800,000
Revenue $600,000
$400,000
$200,000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 $0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 July Apr. Oct. May Jan.
2003 Feb. 2004Mar. 2005 2006 2007 Nov. Dec. Aug. June Sept.
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
-App. 33- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. Piedmont Triad EDR 2. Triangle EDR 3. Carolinas EDR 4. Northeast EDR (includes coastal counties of Currituck, Dare and Hyde) 5. 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
-App. 34- NC BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN 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.NC 35- BEACH AND INLET MANAGEMENT PLAN FINAL REPORT
______
Table XII-1. Hypothetical Atlantic Coast Economic Development Region – 2007 Statistics
State Tax Local Tax 2008 Region Member Expenditures Payroll Employment Receipts Receipts Population Counties (millions) (millions) (thousands) (millions) (millions) (EDIS) Onslow $159.51 $31.43 1.56 $8.01 $5.81 161,736 Brunswick $392.19 $77.69 4.97 $17.99 $25.48 105,801 Currituck $120.01 $23.53 1.52 $5.09 $5.91 25,473 Dare $762.65 $165.60 11.25 $36.13 $36.33 36,083 Hyde $27.29 $5.50 0.37 $1.27 $1.53 5,680 Carteret $269.56 $50.96 3.17 $11.99 $17.39 65,612 New Hanover $426.08 $99.17 5.67 $20.36 $16.69 193,458 Pender $66.29 $11.78 0.69 $2.97 $4.73 52,158 Atlantic Coast $2,223.58 $465.66 29.2 $103.81 $113.87 646,001 Region Total
Table XII-2. Comparison of Atlantic Coast EDR to Existing Economic Development Regions
State Tax Local Tax Eight Economic Development Expenditures Payroll Employment Number of Receipts Receipts Regions (millions) (millions) (thousands) Counties (millions) (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 $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 13.5 11.6 15.3 12.7 21.5 8 percent Whole percent percent percent percent 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 -App.NC 36- BEACH 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 wedding goers 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 3.) Source information 2.) Location 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 I seasonal,'
I frequent,' or I 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.
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 Indicator Category # of Indicators Example Indicators 1 Transportation 9 school bus route on beach, beach buggy races 2 Public Gathering 17 Christmas by the Sea, community cookouts, beach weddings 3 Fishing 10 flounder tournaments, fishing camps 4 Recreation 32 camping, running and sunbathing on beach 5 Commercial Activity 14 film locations, risk assessments of oil spills, rocket testing 6 Educational Activity 13 birding, volunteer trash pickup, aquarium field trips Real Estate advertisement for realty with 'miles of unspoiled beaches' 7 Development 3 available 8 Other Advertising 8 grand opening of beach front resort 9 Local Policy 19 policy encourages marina growth, dune protection ordinances 10 State Policy 7 island protected for loggerhead turtle nesting grounds 11 Archeological 1 NC's working watercraft exhibit 12 Historical Artifacts 4 shipwrecks washed ashore 13 Stories 7 legend of Nag's Head, Blackbeard the Pirate exhibit 14 Literature 3 poems 15 Local Histories 19 grape growing, Lumina outdoor pavilion with orchestra 16 Public Activity 25 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 Stortes
@ Public Gathertngs Educational Activity State Polley • Literature
@ Fishing Real Estate Development Archeological • Local Histories
@ Recreation other Advertising Hlstortc Art~acts • Public Activity
~ Primary Roads ~ State Parks ~ Municipalities o Community College
County Boundaries ~ Universities
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 Real Estate Development Archeological • Local Histories
@ Recreation Other Advertising Historic Artifacts • Public Activity
c=) State Parl
Sm~t North Carolina
Created by: Katherine Eschelbach for the Sea Grant Beach Use Project using CGIA BasinPro data
TYRRELL (State Plane NC NAD 83 meters). Last Updated: May7,2005
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
@ Transportation @ Commercial Activity 8 Stories
@ Public Gatherings Educational ActMty • Uterature
@ Fishing Real Estate Development • Local Histories @ Recreation Other Advertising • C=:> State Parks <:::::) Municipalities 0 County Boundaries C=:> Universities
Created by: Katherine Eschelbach for the Sea Grant Beach Use Project using CGIA BasinPro data (State Plane NC NAD 83 0 2 4 8 12 16 meters). Last Updated: Kilometers May7,2005
13 -App. 64-
Figure 4: Ocracoke to Emerald Isle Region Beach Use Indicators
North Carolina Beach Use- Ocracoke to Emerald Isle
@ Transportalon @ Convnercl9l Activity Local Polley s ..... @ Public Galherl ngs Educetlonel ActMty State Poley • Uterat... e @ Ashlng Real Etta\e Development An:heologlcal • Local HI&~ @ Recrealon 0Ch6f Adwftalng H storicArtlfacl:ll • Public Activity SPt¥a l C) StateParic.s Q Municipalities ~ Primary Roads 0 CommunityC Created by: KaU1erine Eschelbach for the Sea Grant Beach Use Project using CGIA BasinPro data (State Plane NC NAD 83 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 Kilometers meters). Last Updated: ·•· 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 Local Policy Stories @ Public Gatherings Educational Activ~y State Policy Literature @ Fishing Real Estate Development Archeological • Local Histories @ Recreation Other Advertising Historic Artifacts • Public Activity ~ State Parks C=:> Municipalities ~ Primary Roads o Community College County Boundaries C) Universities Created by: Katherine Eschelbach for the Sea Grant Beach Use Project using CGIA BasinPro data Sealifu.t (State Plane NC NAD 83 North Carolina 0 1.5 3 6 9 12 meters). Last Updated: Kilometers 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 Educational Activity Slate Poley - U tera t ~e @ Ashlng Real Estate Developmi!IOI Arctleologicel e Locel HiaiOries @ Recreallon 01\er AdvertiUng Hstorlc Altfacla e Public Aelllvlty 0 State Parks Q ~pal i tiea '"""'-' PrimatY Roeds 0 Coooty Boundaries 0 Untveraltles Convnonity Colege Created by: Katherine Eschelbach for the Sea Grant Beach Use Projett using CGIA BasinPro data ~ (State Plane NC NAD 83 0 1.252.5 5 7.5 10 meten). Last Updated' Kilometers May7, 2005 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 this pilot study. Instead, the data collection techniques centered around 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) Type of indicator, based on Indicator Outline ( 1 = transportation, 2 = Public IDTYPE Gatherings, etc.); enter only number (1,2, ... 16) Entry of 99 = Other (does not fit into any of the listed indicator categories) Type of subindicator, based on Indicator Outline (for Indicator 1: A = corridors, B = IDSUBTYPE specifics); enter only letter (in caps); Entry of ZZ = Other (does not fit into any of the listed subcategories) date of indicator occurrence (listed as 4 digit year, two digit month, and two digit IND_DATE day; ex: May 6th, 2001 = 20010506) if unknown day, fill in with 00 (ex: July 1965 = 19650700) frequency (if any) of indicator occurrence (ex: yearly, monthly, daily, quarterly, IND_FREQ hourly, biannually, bimonthly, etc.) a short text description of the indicator (no longer than 60 characters long, including IND_DESCRIPT spaces) LOC_NAME name of indicator location LOC_ADDRESS street address of indicator location LOC_ADD2 additional address information (ex: Apt. #, PO Box, etc.) LOC_CITY city of indicator location LOC_CNTY county of indicator location LOC_ZIP zip code of indicator location LOC_OTHER any additional indicator location information (ex: mile marker#, beach name) LOC_OTHER2 additional space for any additional indicator location information SRC_ DESCRIPT description of indicator source (ex: book, flyer, etc.) SRC_NAME name of indicator information source SRC_ADDRESS street address of indicator information source addition space for address of indicator information source (ex: PO Box#, Apt. #, SRC_ADD2 etc.) SRC_CITY city of source information SRC_CNTY county of source information SRC_PHONE phone number of source information SRC_WEBSITE website of source information additional source information or description (ex: email address of source location, SRC_OTHER etc.) additional space for source information or description (ex: "Found in North Carolina SRC_OTHER2 section of the library") PICTURE was there a picture taken by the collector? (yes or no) was there any use of other multimedia to collect information on this indicator (yes MULTIMED or no); NAME first and last name of collector date of indicator information collection (listed as 4 digit year, two digit month, and DATE 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. Weddings b. Funerals c. Large celebrations (ex: July 4th) d. Church services (Easter morning sunrise) e. Family reunions 3. Fishing a. Commercial b. Sport c. Whaling d. Claming 4. Recreation a. Attendance figures on peak days over time b. Images of people on the beach c. Volleyball (Especially tournaments) d. Surfing (especially organized surfing contests) e. Sailing (images of boats pulled up on the beach) f. Sea kayaking (competition?) g. Gardening h. Camping i. Hunting j. Running/jogging/walking k. Shell collection 5. Commercial activity on the beach a. Rentals b. Snacks c. Piers d. Pavilions e. Yoga on the beach f. Horseback riding 20 -App. 71- g. Film locations h. Fundraising i. Shopping j. Consulting 6. Educational Activity a. School classes b. Field trips c. Summer school classes d. Lectures for tourists, etc. e. Birding trips f. 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. Nags Head story b. Pirates c. Ship wrecks d. Children's 14. Literature a. Novels b. Plays c. Short stories 22 -App. 73- 15. Local Histories a. Natural hazard/disaster related b. Natural changes in beach c. Military/exploration d. Activism e. Agriculture/hunting f. Entertainment g. Weddings h. Education 16. Public Activity a. Life saving stations b. Coast guard c. Corps of Engineers (Duck) d. Light Houses e. 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 • Coastal_proads.shp • Beach_uses _att.shp • Coastal_Stprks.shp • Coastal_cb.shp • Coastal_univs.shp • Coastalcb100.shp • Beach_use_ data_ spreadsheet.xls • Coastal_commcoll.shp • TRADITIONAL BEACH USE • 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 11IDCODE". 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. 26