<br />Estimated and proiected Total Fertilitv Rates bv Count v Group
<br />
<br />COUNTY GROUP
<br />
<br />~,
<br />'...)
<br />
<br />(::.:';.
<br />
<br />w
<br />
<br />COUNTIES
<br />
<br />1980
<br />
<br />TOTAL FERTILITY RATES
<br />
<br />2010
<br />
<br />1. 5 Urban Counties Boulder, Denver,
<br />Larimer, Pueblo, Weld
<br />
<br />1778
<br />
<br />"""'
<br />
<br />2. 5 Suburban Counties Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas
<br />EI Paso, Jefferson
<br />
<br />1867
<br />
<br />3. 8 Rural Counties
<br />(high fertility)
<br />
<br />4. 19 Rural Counties
<br />
<br />5. 20 Rural Counties
<br />(low fertility)
<br />
<br />6. 2 Ski Counties
<br />
<br />7. 4 Ski/Rural Cnties
<br />
<br />STATE TOTAL
<br />
<br />Alamosa, Archuleta, Conejos, 2700
<br />Costilla, Kiowa, Prowers,
<br />Rio Grande, Saguache.
<br />
<br />Chaffee, Cheyenne, Crowley, 2378
<br />Clear Creek, Delta, Dolores,
<br />Huerfano, Kit Carson, Lake,
<br />Las Animas, Lincoln, Moffat,
<br />Montezuma, Montrose, Morgan,
<br />Otero, Park, Rio Blanco, Yuma.
<br />
<br />Baca, Bent, Custer, Elbert, 2049
<br />Fremont, Garfield, Gilpin,
<br />Gunnison, Hinsdale, Jackson,
<br />La Plata, Logan, Mesa, Mineral,
<br />Ouray, Phillips, San Juan,
<br />Sedgwick, Teller, Washington.
<br />
<br />Pitkin, Summit. 1048
<br />
<br />Eagle, Grand, Routt, 1699
<br />San Miguel.
<br />
<br />All 63 counties. 1778
<br />
<br />1820
<br />
<br />1912
<br />
<br />2879
<br />
<br />2536
<br />
<br />2201
<br />
<br />1173
<br />
<br />1848
<br />
<br />1915
<br />
<br />Miaration. As described above, the current application of the model sets future
<br />net migration levels for each geographic unit -- except counties in the Denver
<br />metropolitan area (CMSA) -- such that the supply of labor is equal to the demand
<br />for labor forecast by the econometric model. For the estimate years 1981 - 1990,
<br />the total net migration for each unit for each year was estimated by subtracting
<br />"natural inc'reasett -- the increase due to births minus deaths -- from total
<br />change. The resulting difference was regarded as the increase (or decrease) due
<br />to migration.
<br />
<br />The assumed age-sex distribution of migrants were estimated by surviving forward
<br />from the 1970 Census population (adjusted for suspected undercount), subtracting
<br />actual deaths (by age and sex), and adding actual births (by sex, and by year of
<br />birth) to create an expected 1980 population by age and sex. The difference
<br />between the expected (survived plus born) population and the population
<br />enumerated in the 1980 Census was assumed to represent net migration by age and
<br />sex for the decade. This distribution was scaled to the appropriate net migra-
<br />tion total to achieve the projection year age-sex specific migration pattern.
<br />
<br />Treatment of Denver-Metro Area Counties. Net migration and population for the
<br />six counties within the Denver metropolitan area -- Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder,
<br />Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson -- were calculated differently. First, assumed
<br />future levels of net migration for the metropolitan area as a whole were
<br />calculated in the same manner as described above. Then, the future populations
<br />
|