By Margie Doyle
At the August Eastsound Planning Review Committee (EPRC) meeting, resigning EPRC member Bob Connell presented an analysis of elements of local development that have come before the EPRC in recent years.
Connell, who has a Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering from Columbia University and a Masters Degree in Computer Science from the Oregon Graduate Institute, presented information regarding:
- local carrying capacity
- housing
- climate change
- and the ways EPRC could address those issues.
Connell emphasized that his analysis was a platform for discussing these issues, and as such was valuable in presenting a “snapshot” of where we are now; only through further fact-finding and discussion will it be of continuing value, he said.
Carrying Capacity
“Carrying Capacity” is defined as “the maximum population that an area will support without undergoing deterioration.” It assumes all resources and materials are obtained locally with no external imports, and all waste is dealt with locally as well.
He used the web tool found by Orcas Library Director and Sustainable Orcas Island (SOI) member Phil Heikkinen, called “Carrying Capacity Dashboard.” It was written by Australian PhD student Murray Lane at Queensland University of Technology. The EPRC presentation compared Australia, the United States, San Juan County and Orcas Island, primarily taking into account elements such as land usage and population.
The local group Sustainable Orcas Island (SOI) first took on the project of determining the carrying capacity of Orcas Island, using the “Carrying Capacity Dashboard” and arrived at conclusions similar to Connell’s. Connell’s presentation indicated that “we have probably exceeded the carrying capacity for Orcas Island and San Juan County,” he said.
In order to determine the possible carrying capacities of each area, first the Dashboard was used to calculate baseline numbers. “The tool is a web-based computer program so its answers may not be definitive, although they are reasonable,” said Connell. The numbers for each area are shown in the table below:
|
Area |
2010 Population |
Carrying Capacity using Dashboard |
|
U.S. |
308,746,000 |
73,800,000 |
|
San Juan County |
15,759 |
2,654 |
|
Orcas |
5,387 |
865 |
These carrying capacity numbers are way below current population numbers for each area, so Connell looked on the web for studies showing other values for the carrying capacity of the U.S. He then looked at what year the U.S. actually had that population, to give a feeling for what the U.S. was like in those years and how sustainable the U.S. would’ve been at that time. The results are shown in the table below:
|
U.S. Population Carrying Capacity Study Values |
Year |
|
73,800,000 (Dashboard) |
1894 |
|
100,000,000 |
1914 |
|
150,000,000 |
1950 |
|
200,000,000 |
1968 |
Next he scaled up the carrying capacity values for both San Juan County and Orcas Island using these study values to see what the their corresponding carrying capacity values would be, then calculated how much over carrying capacity the area would be for each value. For San Juan County:
|
U.S. Carrying Capacity Values |
Corresponding San Juan County Carrying Capacity |
Amount Over Current Population |
% Over Carrying Capacity |
|
73,800,000 |
2,654 |
13,105 |
590 % |
|
100,000,000 |
3,596 |
12,163 |
440 % |
|
150,000,000 |
5,394 |
10,365 |
290 % |
|
200,000,000 |
7,192 |
8,567 |
220 % |
For Orcas Island:
|
U.S. Carrying Capacity Values |
Corresponding Orcas Island Carrying Capacity |
Amount Over Current Population |
% Over Carrying Capacity |
|
73,800,000 |
865 |
4,522 |
620 % |
|
100,000,000 |
1,172 |
4,215 |
460 % |
|
150,000,000 |
1,758 |
3,629 |
310 % |
|
200,000,000 |
2,344 |
3,043 |
230 % |
“We don’t want to sit here debating an exact number; the point is the data is all on one side, that’s a bit harder to explain away. The value of scaling is people can look at the U.S. as a whole. Orcas Island is too small and too unique; but people can think about the U.S, and what it was like then and relate historically to those years. The U.S. scaling was used because people can more or less think about what the U.S. was like in their own history and then scale San Juan County and Orcas Island to what was reasonable.”
Connell said, following his presentation to the EPRC, “I don’t want it to be considered conclusive, but I want to encourage other people to participate. Still, you need to have some way to show what you’re saying, as we don’t have consensus even in the scientific field.”
“This is a range. I’d love to have other people come up with other ways to analyze this; at least this is something they can get their head around and think about. The fact that the conclusions regarding carrying capacity is so skewed one way should be noted.”
“People can reach their own conclusions: the conclusion I want to reach is when you look at the carrying capacity questions, you’ve got to have a methodology behind it. If you believe 100 million national population is the carrying capacity, Orcas is still 4.6 times over,” said Connell.
He said that although Orcas Island had an economy that was sustainable in the past, through agricultural, forestry and fishing exports, the past several decades have seen the over-extension of construction and real estate, which are no longer healthy economic factors. “We need to develop a sustainability mode, now it’s basically based on tourism,” says Connell. “Orcas can stay like it is but it’s only sustainable as long as we don’t have something that ultimately changes things, like a challenging financial event, heavily-reduced tourism, or a compromised or challenged ferry system.”
He recommended asking the County to support planning based on the carrying capacity analysis findings and further discussion to:
- adopt the State Office of Financial Management’s (OFM) low 20-year population forecast which determines planning as part of Growth Management Act (GMA) compliance. “In 2010 it was learned that we didn’t grow as much as the projection which the county had used — it was way over. With the current economy and with people moving off island, it would probably be smart looking forward to take the low number for the next planning cycle,” Connell said;
- reduce Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries to the smallest area allowed; county governments are supposed to set UGA boundaries consistent with planning; and not to add extra capacity if you can’t prove you need it;
- minimize other facets of upscale planning to reflect lower population projections
Housing
“In support of conservation of land in general and in light of the stressed local housing market and to help keep work local,” Connell advised focusing on re-use and renovation of housing. He sited the work of OPAL Community Land Trust, particularly in their reuse of “scatter houses” that are in an existing neighborhoods in Olga and Eastsound; and OPAL’s renovation of the Lavender Hollow apartments.
Climate Change
Climate change is defined as any substantial change in Earth’s climate that lasts for an extended period of time. Global warming refers to climate change that causes an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere. Global warming can have many different causes, but it is most commonly associated with human interference, specifically the release of excessive amounts of greenhouse gases. (EPA, 2006)
Connell’s conclusions on climate change elements are based on a paper by, among others, the U.S.G.S and University of Washington called “Pacific Northwest Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment.” That research includes the history and projections of temperature and precipitation.
Temperature
Research indicates that the trend in global warming will continue, with a projection of increased temperatures of 1.8°C or 3.2°F by the 2040s and 3.0°C or 5.3°F by the 2080s.
Precipitation
Current trends show that there will be general increases in precipitation with a more intense seasonal cycle: autumns and winters may become wetter and summers drier. Further, regional climate models indicate that extreme precipitation events will increase.
Connell said, “It’s not just increased rain, but rain coming down more intensely. This results in more stormwater runoff, because the ground will be saturated.”
“And in summer, we get worried about the water table. Texas is a great example. After severe drought in the 1950s, they doubled their storage capacity, by increasing their reservoirs and pumping water into the ground. They didn’t want the situation to happen again. Even now, with the record-breaking temperatures, they started with a higher amount, but they’re still down to a third.”
Consequences of these temperature and precipitation changes are the increased probability and intensity of fires; extreme precipitation, and increasing length of the summer dry period.
EPRC Planning
The implications for EPRC planning suggested at the August 2 meeting were:
- need for effective stormwater runoff with increased storm intensity and the need to work with the county to mitigate
- need to install more “holding areas” in the subarea (such as the Mount Stormwater project west of the Village Green)
- work with the Fire Department’s “Firewise” program, to mitigate fire risk
- work with EWUA to validate water quantities and available locations for firefighting purposes
- possibly add more water retention ponds
- consult the County’s Wildfire Protection Plan
- address aquifer recharge, diminished with increased stormwater runoff
Bob Connell had served on the EPRC for a number of years, and has moved to the Seattle area with his wife Barb Skotte, and daughter Monica, in order to help care for Barb’s mother. The Connells will continue to own property on Orcas and hope to return full-time at some point to Orcas Island.
As an initial reaction to this article, I would just like to say that I listened attentively to Bob’s presentation with no small degree of astonishment…and while it included data worthy of further discussion and analysis…it was entirely Bob’s creation and does not reflect any conclusions or ongoing discussion thread of the EPRC.
The committee’s concerns are guided by its mission to review the Eastsound Sub Area Plan and make recommendations to the county on ways to ensure that the Village of Eastsound continues to serve the needs of Orcas Island residents.
Overextended and Out of luck
A very thoughtful and important article by Bob Connell. Another factor a bit more immediate, is the continued availability of clean safe drinking water within the UGA and Eastsound. A number of homeowners are either reluctant or refusing to connect to the sewer system in a timely manner. There are also a number of homes on the western outer edge of the UGA that are not required to connect to the sewer system whose onsite drain fields are old and tired. Each onsite septic system each year has about 50,000 gallons of bad stuff finding it’s way through our rocky basin with an annual total currently of Approx 2,500,000 gal. These onsite systems sit above the aquifer, Eastsound’s main source of drinking water. Not only could we be over extended, we could be out of luck.
Carl Yurdin
When thinking of the “carrying capacity” of Orcas, you might want to take a look at the Bailiwick of Jersey, a 46 sq. mile island off the Normandy coast, which has a population of nearly 100,000 people, ~60% of its land in agricultural production, a great economy, and lots of protected natural spaces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey
I want to thank Bob and Margie for their willingness to bring this technically difficult and politically sensitive issue to the community.
I encourage readers to look up various definitions of carrying capacity. Discussions can quickly become confusing without agreement on parameters, assumptions, and how to select and interpret data.
The Orcas Library has some good books on this and related concepts, for example William Catton’s two excellent works, Overshoot and Bottleneck; and Richard Heinberg’s Peak Everything.
For more on carrying capacity and population, I posted some info here: https://8020vision.com/2010/06/21/the-real-population-problem/
Bob, Phil – Thanks for helping us dig down into the local carrying capacity picture.
Jay Kimball
8020 Vision
We need to revisit county encouragement in building more retention ponds and lakes.safe water resources will be an increasing concern as population demands grow.we restore our water table with each new pond built..not to mention increased fire safety.federal and state agriculture funding at one time helped subsidize the cost of constructing ponds and lakes..great for wild life also
I found the discussion of carrying capacity very interesting. I know nothing of the qualifications of the student who constructed the analytical structure, and note that the required assumptions that nothing is imported or exported are simply not consistent with the realities of our existing economy or society, for good or ill. However, the more important point is this: the population ship has sailed. We knew as far back as the 70s that the explosive growth in population was not a good thing; our “environmental” advocacy groups backed away from the issue almost immediately because it was considered politically incorrect and threatened fundraising. If indeed the world, the USA or Orcas Island are 200-300% over carrying capacity, what is the proposed remedy? The failure of the environmental movement to confront uncontrolled population growth, hand in hand with our own government’s 40- year history of denying simple family planning information to anyone–at home or abroad–based…
[continued] on purported religious or moral concerns–has left us with a population problem, to say the least.
At the same time, our planners have been heading down a ridiculous path under the GMA. While we struggle to focus on being “sustainable” and on protecting our critical areas and other resources, we are TOLD to plan to absorb ever larger numbers of people and even where to “put” them. Regardless of whether any of the carrying capacity model’s numbers are on target, we are bound by state law to absorb our “share” of growth in state population. And the state does not undertake to control that growth in numbers. We are further bound to “direct” half of that growth into the UGAs. Meanwhile, hundreds of legal parcels outside the UGA have been purchased by people with the expectation of being able to build a home soon or ultimately retire here. These people have the same claim on living here as any of us. For a real eye-opener, see the world clocks at the link…
i wish i had been at this EPRC meeting and thank you for your excellent coverage of this important topic; carrying capacity.
living here for 31 years, i can definitively say that it is this overextention that has all but killed Eastsound Swale. the load is too much and a forested ecosystem is dying. i don’t like the thought of all agriculture and no trees! the waters here in the UGA ARE polluted but possible septic runoff is just the tip of the iceberg – not the entire problem by any means.
realtors “sell the dream” and people flock to orcas due to our tourist economy. meanwhile we trample our wetlands and ocean water ecosystems to build more, more, more in the UGA. over-development and overpopulation happen because of these skewed priorities. the truth is, you can’t base sustainability on a tourist/consumer economy – which is why our workers and teachers can’t afford to live here and the work runs out.
continued:
all the empty retail spaces should give us some clue that this philosophy is seriously flawed. yet the county allows more and more and doesn’t even consider the regulations written to protect to Eastsound Swale in Eastsound SubArea Plan.
when are we going to wake up to that fact and make some paradigm shifts? even is we stopped right now with going forward with this destructive idea, it may already be too late to save Eastsound Swale. the thing i am most incredulous about (and infuriated about) is that the County is not even trying to save it and rectify the damage – not with the CAO or even honoring our SubAreaPlan in its permitting processes!
although i 100% agree with peg manning that overpopulation is the main culprit of our problems, i fail to see how global overpopulation becomes environmentalists’ fault. i think that burden is all of ours. and- consumerism exacerbates the problem a thousand fold.
“We don’t want to sit here debating an exact number; the point is the data is all on one side, that’s a bit harder to explain away.
Two points. First, modeling results are not “data” or evidence; they are modeling results. Second, when modeling shows a persistent deviation from actual data, that tends to be suggestive of bias in the modeling method and by the investigators.
All that has been “proved” is that the model is very poorly calibrated to reality, and is consistently biased low relative to actual data.
Nothing more can be reasonably concluded.
re:stormwater runoff:
holding areas are one small part of the solution. the real work is uphill and upstream in addressing stormwater runoff – not ripping down more forested areas to build more mount property “constructed” wetlands!”
and myco-remediation – why are we not all over that in this county? it has been used with great success in heavily logged hillsides in preventing erosion and stormwater runoff and pollutants from continuing downhill into critical aquifers.
thank you phil for the book recommendations, and jay for the 8020 vision website. eye opening and thought provoking. i want to understand this more.
Thanks Ed Kilduff (article comment #11) for looking over my analysis.
I’m not sure what you mean by “actual data”. Do you mean the different values for carrying capacity I derived, or something else? If you mean my values, then these “modeling results” are exactly what the whole exercise was about.
And what do you mean by “very poorly calibrated to reality”? Do you mean that the modeling results do not come up with the current population numbers of San Juan County and Orcas Island (or the U.S. for that matter)? If so, again that is exactly what the whole exercise was about.
If a region is potentially over its carrying capacity, then it would only make sense that any modeling effort, if it’s any good, would indicate that the region is indeed over its carrying capacity for a range of potentially valid inputs. If a region is reasonably close to its carrying capacity, then the model would show a mix of results with some being over and others being under.
(continued…
If a region is under its carrying capacity, then the model would show results being consistently under.
Rather than speculating on the possible bias of the investigators, I would prefer, as I wrote in the article, that you constructively
critique the methodology and/or come up with and share your own methodology. My technique is a simple baseline calculation with linear scaling for results based on other commonly accepted inputs.
Based on a CAO video I saw of you and your background, I don’t think that this type of evaluation should be new to you.
I would like to invite you to the next Orcas SOI group meeting (last Wednesday of September at 5:30 at the Orcas Public Library) and have cleared with our SOI coordinator a focus of this topic. I will
understand if you can’t make it since I believe I heard on the video you live on Lopez.
If you would like to continue this discussion, my email is:
bobbconnell@yahoo.com
Thanks again for taking the time to share…
Bob, this is certainly interesting as an abstract discussion point, and maybe your population figures might be somewhat close if we all restricted ourselves to eating salal berries and venison. What it ignores is the positive potential of humans to increase and husband the productive resources of our land and nearby waters. At various times native populations were far above your mooted capacity numbers. In our current times we have not begun to scratch the productive capacity in this place. It frightens me that abstract analyses like yours are used to justify what is essentially central planning. No argument that we live in a wicked, wasteful world. Small scale, grass roots experimentation is the way forward, not the exploding bureaucracy and dictatorship by “expert” opinion we seem to be slouching towards. Consider the long term models in Japan, to select just one example, where intensive and creative land and sea use has supported very dense populations for centuries.
Nick (comment #16), sorry to see the issues you had with your food stand from your YouTube video. I can see where that episode would color your opinion about county government.
However, the County is required to do “central planning” by the state; it is not optional, particularly under GMA. And if they are required to do planning, they should at least choose planning parameter values that make sense for what is happening now and what is likely to happen in the future.
I know native population numbers used to be higher than the numbers I was discussing. A university guest speaker at an Orcas lecture several years ago told me that their numbers were about 3000 on Orcas. Difference was, they actually had fish to catch (the lecture was on their fish nets techniques). So much of their diet was fish that they were sick of eating salmon.
Continued below..
Nick (cont)
People on Orcas who I know and respect for their knowledge on sustainability who were here in the 1960s said they could go cast their fishing lines into the waters onshore and catch a fish; now they don’t catch anything because the fish numbers have crashed so much. Sounds like you personally experienced the decline of fishing a few years ago from your business strategy interview with Wes Edholm.
I am interested in your beef production; one of the things considered in calculating carrying capacity is how much meat people eat or want to eat and the heavy toll such production places on the environment if you are truly producing it sustainably (i.e., feeding the cattle with only locally grown feed, etc). How many acres of land does it take to produce a cow, for example? This would be good data to have if more refined attempts at calculating carrying capacity are attempted in the future.
Continued below..
Nick (cont)
From your comment you indicate we have only scratched the surface on the amount of productively produced food that is possible here. What are your estimates on the number of people that could be fed from your operations (shellfish, beef, etc), and is this production truly sustainable (i.e., no external fertilizers, livestock feed, etc) now and in the future when you have had more time to refine your practices?
I can tell by your experiences that you have alot of practical knowledge about what is possible and would appreciate your input in the future.