1. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington 1 Ocean/Envir 260 Lecture #16: Population Growth in the Puget Sound Ecosystem

2. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Historic Growth Euro-American settlement: 1850s Steady growth, typical of West Economic drivers: WWII, Boeing, high- tech Attractive environment helps recruit labor 2 12-County PS Population 1900-2000 Seattle waterfront, 1880s; population was 3,553 in 1880 census

3. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Future Growth 2000-2025: 1.5 million increase projected Would be first decrease in absolute growth over 25-year period Total population will likely double 2000 level between 2050, 2100 3 Puget Sound Population 2025 (Projected by WA Office of Financial Management)

4. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Puget Sound Growth Fertility rate: ~2/woman –Slightly below replacement –“Rate of natural increase” is calculated differently Includes children of women who move here => “Net migration” to region is dominant factor –Drawn by quality of life Economic, environmental 4 Map of projected growth, Washington Office of Financial Management (2007)

5. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Conservation Paradox More successful we are, more external growth pressures continue If try to restrict growth where demand is high… –Create/exacerbate affordability problems –Push growth further out Create/exacerbate environmental and infrastructure problems 5 Housing tour, Snoqualmie Ridge

6. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Impact fees Pay for infrastructure needed to serve growth Most jurisdictions charge little –Competitive disadvantage? –Legal, administrative challenges –Resulting subsidy: $25-80K+/new house –In contrast, most California jurisdictions charge full amount 6 SR 520 bridge replacement includes new capacity for growth—but no parallel revenue source

7. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Impact fees Would full charge be minor impact on growth? –Still provide needed revenue –Matter of fairness? “Growth pays for growth” Environmental impact fee? –Same principle: Incremental effects from growth –Help fund conservation? 7 New sewage treatment plant will cost $1.8+ billion, partly paid by current customers

8. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington 8 Uneven Growth Growth rates vs. absolute growth –Higher rates partly from lower initial population Fastest rates generally where natural resources most valuable See Saving Puget Sound, p.6

9. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Uneven Growth Similar pattern within counties –Faster growth rate in rural areas Uneven success at growth management –Kitsap: 50% rural growth Vested development partly responsible 9 Growth Management: How it’s intended to work

10. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Rural Sprawl Urban development has smaller per capita impacts: –Less land used Less clearing Less fragmentation –Less impervious surface Roads serve far more people –Less water used Irrigation is key concern Logic of growth management… 10 Manhattan: Most environmentally friendly place in the U.S.?

11. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Rural Sprawl Even approved rural densities (1 house/5 acres) have large impacts –Greatest ecological losses come at earliest stages of development Habitat fragmentation Hydrologic, water quality impacts of development Water withdrawals 11 Ratio of coho salmon to cutthroat trout, vs indices of development; Horner (2003). (From “Salmon Refuge Basins” slide in “Priority Conservation Areas” lecture)

12. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Managing Growth GMA Approach: –County by county –High, medium and low estimate –County chooses within –Coordinates/negotiates with cities to allocate At Puget Sound level, not strategic Population projections for Spokane County, from document on State’s methodology (OFM 2007); note high and low trend lines 12

13. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Managing Growth Cascade Agenda –For central Puget Sound –Takes growth as given Focus on location and intensity Puget Sound Partnership –First “near-term” action: Vision for growth at ecosystem scale –Convene forum in 2011? Central Puget Sound in 2100? Cascade Agenda vision below 13

14. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington “Internal” growth B.C. fertility rate: 1.6/woman Related to social policies? –Lower-income women bear more children –Recommendations: Anti-poverty programs Better social services Family planning High price for unwed fathers Sexual abuse prevention 14

15. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Per capita impacts Total impacts = Population x per capita impacts (~“footprint”) Individual choices have significant effect Regional ecosystem –Choices regarding land and water are key 15

16. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Discussion Should we focus substantial efforts to reduce “internal growth” (regional childbearing rates)? Can we significantly reduce migration to this region? How? What is your “vision for growth at an ecosystem scale”? 16

17. Ocean/ENVIR 260 Autumn 2010Lecture 16© 2010 University of Washington Recap: Population Growth Doubling current population is likely inevitable “Net migration” is the dominant factor Very difficult to reduce—could begin with subsidies Where growth occurs is also key Growth management focuses primarily on where, not how much, growth occurs 17