New Search
5. Guest Presentation —David Hulse <br />Professor David Hulse, University of Oregon (UO) Department of Landscape Architecture, <br />provided a presentation on the work of a multi - disciplinary group, the Pacific Northwest <br />Ecosystem Research Consortium, which worked in the mid 1990s to envision plausible futures <br />for the use of land and water in the Willamette basin up to the year 2026. The consortium had <br />produced three "plausibly possible" versions of the future, Conservation 2050, Plan Trend 2050, <br />and Development 2050, each of which included different assumptions about the future with the <br />same population estimates. Dr. Hulse described the public input associated with the develop- <br />ment of the three futures. He shared a flow chart of the process and noted the formation of the <br />Possible Futures Working Group, which met for three years to work on the three versions of the <br />future. <br />Dr. Hulse shared a video entitled "Trajectories of Change," a video of the valley showing <br />historic, current (1990), and the "three futures" conditions. <br />Using the Conservation scenario, Dr. Hulse described how the scenario was used to identify <br />conservation and restoration strategies for six different habitat types and shared a map showing <br />the results of that effort. He referred to a bar chart to illustrate the impact of the three scenarios <br />on the habitat types over time. <br />Dr. Hulse provided some Web site addresses for those interested in more information: <br />hM:H oregonstate .edu/Del2t/Dnw- erc /index.htm <br />Responding to a question from Ms. May regarding how the bar chart had changed since it was <br />created, Dr. Hulse said the consortium had been able to update information on one type of land, <br />new rural residences being built outside the urban growth boundaries (UGBs) in the Willamette <br />Basin. That data was tracked from 1995 -2005 and compared to three scenarios for projected new <br />rural homes and it looked like the Development scenario. <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Biggs, Dr. Hulse clarified that under the Conservation <br />scenario, there were no losses of natural resources inside UGBs; rather there were gains in the <br />amount of riparian, wetland, and prairie areas. That was one reason that UGBs were bumped out <br />in the Conservation scenario. He reminded the committee that prior to Ballot Measure 37, the <br />intent of the land use system was to urbanize the land within the UGB. <br />Responding to a question about whether the examination took peak oil into account, Dr. Hulse <br />said that was not included in the assumptions, although transportation was a dimension of the <br />examination in that it was assumed that roads necessary to support the anticipated land use <br />patterns were in place and that people continued to have access to privately owned vehicles, no <br />matter what they were powered by. . <br />Mr. Bonnett asked how the population assumptions held up over time. He also assumed that <br />global climate change would affect the timing and distribution of water supply and asked how <br />that was accounted for. Dr. Hulse said that the examination accounted for climate change <br />through the water rights mapping, which was then linked to the land use associated with the <br />MINUTES — Citizen Planning Committee of the January 11, 2007 Page 2 <br />Whilamut Natural Area <br />