United States Immigration Policy ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Cover: The critically endangered Mission Blue Butterfly is found only in the San Francisco Bay Area, where its habitat has been developed because of population growth in the Bay Area. United States Immigration Policy ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT May 2016 Progressives for Immigration Reform 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on U.S. Immigration Policy ABSTRACT The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that any federal program, policy, or project that might entail potentially significant environmental impacts undergo an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Because immigration has a large influence on the overall size of the U.S. population, and because population numbers can be an important factor in determining a variety of environmental impacts, federal immigration policy would seem to be a likely subject for NEPA review. NEPA itself acknowledges the importance of population growth, stating at the outset that Congress recognizes “the profound influences of population growth” on the natural environment (Title I, Section 101a). However, immigration policy has never been subjected to such an analysis. In this Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), the Washington, D.C.- based non-governmental organization (NGO) Progressives for Immigration Reform (PFIR) assesses six types of potential long-term environmental impacts associated with three alternative immigration scenarios: 1) No Action Alternative, in which current immigration rates of approximately 1.25 million per year would be maintained to the year 2100; 2) Expansion Alternative, or 2.25 million annual immigration; and 3) Reduction Alternative, or 0.25 million (250,000) annual immigration into the United States. U.S. population size was projected to the year 2100 under the three alternative immigration scenarios. Fertility and mortality rates were held steady under all three alternatives, at the levels used by the U.S. Census Bureau in its 2008 projections. The No Action Alternative would lead to a U.S. population of 524 million in 2100, an increase of 215 million (70 percent) over the 2010 population of 309 million. The Expansion Alternative would result in a U.S. population of 669 million in 2100, an increase of 360 million (117 percent) above the 2010 population of 309 million. The Reduction Alternative would lead to a U.S. population of 379 million in 2100, an increase of 70 million (23 percent) above the 2010 population of 309 million. Potential environmental impacts for each of the three alternatives were assessed in six pertinent topic areas: 1) urban sprawl and loss of farmland; 2) habitat loss and impacts on biodiversity; 3) water demands and withdrawals from natural systems; 4) carbon dioxide emissions and resultant climate change; 5) energy demands and national security implications; 6) international ecological impacts of U.S. immigration policies. In general, the No Action Alternative (1.25 million annual immigration) and the Expansion Alternative (2.25 million annual immigration) would result in significant, long-term, widespread adverse environmental impacts on all resource topics analyzed. The Expansion Alternative in particular would result in major, highly adverse environmental impacts on a number of resources, even taking enhanced conservation and efficiency measures into account. The Reduction Alternative would still entail higher environmental impacts than at present, but much less than the other two alternatives. Abstract Page A-1 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on U.S. Immigration Policy THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK Abstract Page A-2 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on U.S. Immigration Policy United States Immigration Policy Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................... A-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... xiii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................... 1-1 1.1 Why an EIS on Immigration Policy .................................................................. 1-1 1.2 National Environmental Policy Act .................................................................. 1-2 1.3 The Environmental Impact Statement Process ................................................. 1-3 1.4 U.S. Demographic History ................................................................................ 1-5 1.4.1 Immigration and Immigration Policy .................................................... 1-9 1.4.2 A Demographic Note on the Causes of Population Growth ............... 1-14 1.5 U.S. Demographic Projections (Possible Futures) .......................................... 1-17 1.5.1 U.S. Census Bureau Projections in 2000 to Year 2100 ...................... 1-18 1.5.2 U.S. Census Bureau Projections in 2008 to Year 2050 ...................... 1-20 1.5.3 U.S. Census Bureau Projections in 2009 to Year 2050 ...................... 1-18 1.5.4 Pew Research Center Projections in 2008 to Year 2050 .................... 1-21 1.5.5 Decision Demographics, Inc. Projections in 2012 to Year 2050 ........ 1-22 1.5.6 U.S. Census Bureau Projections in 2012 to Year 2060 ...................... 1-24 1.6 Purpose and Need of the EIS .......................................................................... 1-24 1.6.1 Transportation ..................................................................................... 1-26 1.6.2 Energy ................................................................................................. 1-28 1.6.3 Water Supply ...................................................................................... 1-30 1.6.4 Housing and Schooling ....................................................................... 1-32 1.6.5 Other Types of Development .............................................................. 1-33 1.6.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 1-34 1.7 Scoping ........................................................................................................... 1-34 1.8 Issues ............................................................................................................... 1-36 1.8.1 Urban Sprawl and Loss of Farmland .................................................. 1-37 1.8.2 Habitat Loss and Impacts on Biodiversity .......................................... 1-39 1.8.3 Water Demands and Withdrawals from Natural Systems .................. 1-40 1.8.4 Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Resultant Climate Change ................ 1-42 1.8.5 Energy Demands and National Security Implications ........................ 1-43 1.8.6 International Ecological Impact of U.S. Immigration Policies ........... 1-46 Table of Contents i Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on U.S. Immigration Policy 2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ............................... 2-1 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 No Action Alternative ....................................................................................... 2-2 2.3 Reduction Alternative ....................................................................................... 2-2 2.4 Expansion Alternative ....................................................................................... 2-3 2.5 Population Projections to 2100 ......................................................................... 2-4 2.6 Population Projections to 2200 ......................................................................... 2-7 2.7 Alternatives Rejected for Detailed Study ....................................................... 2-10 2.8 Comparison of Impacts of Alternatives .......................................................... 2-16 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Organization, Terminology, and Methodology ................................................ 3-1 3.1.1 General Approach ................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Limitations ............................................................................................ 3-5 3.1.3 IPAT, I=P x p, and the Kaya Identity ................................................... 3-9 3.2 Urban Sprawl and Loss of Farmland .............................................................. 3-11 3.2.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................... 3-11 3.2.1.1 Urban Sprawl ....................................................................... 3-11 3.2.1.2 Farmland Loss ...................................................................... 3-15 3.2.1.3 Role of Population Growth in Sprawl .................................. 3-19 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................