alternative futures for the willamette river basin,...

April 2004 313WILLAMETTE ALTERNATIVE FUTURES

313

Ecological Applications, 14(2), 2004, pp. 313–324q 2004 by the Ecological Society of America

ALTERNATIVE FUTURES FOR THE WILLAMETTE RIVER BASIN, OREGON

JOAN P. BAKER,1,6 DAVID W. HULSE,2 STANLEY V. GREGORY,3 DENIS WHITE,1 JOHN VAN SICKLE,1

PATRICIA A. BERGER,4 DAVID DOLE,5 AND NATHAN H. SCHUMAKER1

1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Western EcologyDivision, 200 SW 35th Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97333 USA

2Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403 USA3Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 USA

4Department of Bioengineering, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331 USA5Economics Research Department, Asian Development Bank, P.O. Box 789, 0980 Manila, Philippines

Abstract. Alternative futures analysis can inform community decisions regarding landand water use. We conducted an alternative futures analysis in the Willamette River Basinin western Oregon. Based on detailed input from local stakeholders, three alternative futurelandscapes for the year 2050 were created and compared to present-day (circa 1990) andhistorical (pre-EuroAmerican settlement) landscapes. We evaluated the likely effects ofthese landscape changes on four endpoints: water availability, Willamette River, streamcondition, and terrestrial wildlife. All three futures assume a doubling of the 1990 humanpopulation by 2050. The Plan Trend 2050 scenario assumes current policies and trendscontinue. Because Oregon has several conservation-oriented policies in place, landscapechanges and projected environmental effects associated with this scenario were surprisinglysmall (most #10% change relative to 1990). The scenario did, however, engender a debateamong stakeholders about the reasonableness of assuming that existing policies would beimplemented exactly as written if no further policy actions were taken. The Development2050 scenario reflects a loosening of current policies, more market-oriented approach, asproposed by some stakeholders. Estimated effects of this scenario include loss of 24% ofprime farmland; 39% more wildlife species would lose habitat than gain habitat relativeto the 1990 landscape. Projected effects on aquatic biota were less severe, primarily becausemany of the land use changes involved conversion of agricultural lands into urban or ruraldevelopment, both of which adversely impact streams. Finally, Conservation 2050 assumesthat ecosystem protection and restoration are given higher priority, although still withinthe bounds of what stakeholders considered plausible. In response, most ecological indi-cators (both terrestrial and aquatic) recovered 20–70% of the losses sustained sinceEuroAmerican settlement. The one exception is water availability. Water consumed for out-of-stream uses increased under all three future scenarios (by 40–60%), with accompanyingdecreases in stream flow. Although the conservation measures incorporated into Conser-vation 2050 moderated the increase in consumption, they were not sufficient to reverse thetrend. Results from these analyses have been actively discussed by stakeholder groupscharged with developing a vision for the basin’s future and a basin-wide restoration strategy.

Key words: alternative futures; environmental assessment; impact analysis; landscape change;land use; scenario analysis; water use; Willamette River.

INTRODUCTION

The number of people in the United States grew 13%between 1990 and 2000 (Perry and Mackun 2001), andis expected to increase another 50% by 2050 (Hollmannet al. 2000). These percentages are even higher formany rapidly urbanizing areas in the western UnitedStates. To accommodate this growth, human use of landand water continues to expand. Postel et al. (1996)

Manuscript received 2 January 2002; revised 14 February2003; accepted 9 April 2003. Corresponding Editor (ad hoc): D.H. Landers. For reprints of this Invited Feature, see footnote 1,p. 311.

6 E-mail: [email protected]

estimate that humans already appropriate 50% of globalfreshwater runoff and the percentage could climb to70% by 2025. One-third to one-half of the earth’s landsurface has been altered directly and substantially byhuman activity (Vitousek et al. 1997). Both the amountof land used and intensity of land use are increasing(Richards 1990). These changes are considered bymany to represent one of the most profound threats toecosystem sustainability and biodiversity (Vitousek etal. 1997, Naiman and Turner 2000, Dale et al. 2001).

Only by modifying the behavior of many people canthese trends be altered. Individuals and local commu-nities make decisions every day about the manner anddegree to which they use land and water that impact

314 INVITED FEATURE Ecological ApplicationsVol. 14, No. 2

FIG. 1. Willamette River Basin, with major cities and theWillamette River shown. Upland areas are represented by theCoast Range and Cascades Level III Ecoregions as definedby Pater et al. (1998); the valley comprises the WillametteValley Ecoregion.

the nature and magnitude of environmental effects. Ef-forts to influence the behavior of individual users cutto the heart of several deeply held public values re-garding individual rights, property rights, and the op-portunity for wealth production (Hulse and Ribe 2000).The traditional command-and-control approach to en-vironmental protection, while it has an important role,is not sufficient (Holling and Meffe 1996). To be ef-fective, those with a stake in the problem (stakeholders)need to be actively engaged in the assessment, plan-ning, and design of the solution (Yankelovitch 1991,Lee 1993, Gunderson et al. 1995). A feeling of com-munity cooperation is also essential for successful im-plementation of these solutions (Kirch 1997, Daily1999). Watershed councils and the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s (EPA) Community-Based Envi-ronmental Protection program7 are examples of at-tempts to implement such a participatory, collaborativeform of governance. While these efforts also have theirlimitations and detractors, they represent a valuablecomponent of a multipronged strategy for environ-mental protection.

Given the importance of the decisions being made,it is essential that watershed councils and communityforums be well informed and their decisions based onsound science. The Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Re-search Consortium (PNW-ERC) was created to conductresearch supporting community-based decision makingin western Oregon and Washington (Baker et al. 1995).Consisting of 34 scientists from 10 different institu-tions, the PNW-ERC undertook as the centerpiece ofits activities an alternative futures analysis for the Wil-lamette River Basin, Oregon, described in this InvitedFeature. Our approach builds on a rich history of al-ternative futures analysis arising largely out of the dis-ciplines of landscape architecture and environmentalplanning (McHarg 1969, Murray et al. 1971, Steinitz1990, Harms et al. 1993, Schoonenboom 1995, Steinitzet al. 1996, Hulse et al. 2000, Ahern 2001, Santlemannet al. 2001, Steinitz and McDowell 2001).

Community decision making typically involvesstakeholders with widely divergent viewpoints and val-ues. The most important end product of this process isdevelopment of consensus, or compromise, about de-sired goals and priorities, that is a shared vision forthe future. The purpose of an alternative futures anal-ysis is to facilitate this consensus-building process. Itdoes so in four ways: (1) helping to clarify differencesof opinion by forcing stakeholders to be very explicitabout their individual goals and priorities, expressedas written assumptions for a specific future scenario;(2) presenting the system-level implications of stake-holder assumptions, goals, and proposed policies, inthe form of the future landscape scenarios; (3) illus-trating the types, magnitude, and locations of changes

7 URL: ^http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity&

in land and water use that would be required to achievea given future scenario; and (4) assessing the broaderimplications of each scenario, by evaluating the likelyoverall effects of these changes on a suite of ecologicaland socio-economic endpoints. Understanding the con-sequences of choices is an essential step in the processof moving public groups from dialogue to resolutionand action, and one of the most effective ways to moveforward is to present complex issues in the form of arelatively small number of ‘‘visions’’ (Yankelovich1991, Costanza 2000).

In this paper, we summarize results and lessonslearned from the Willamette River Basin alternativefutures analysis. Further details on specific componentsof the analysis are provided in the accompanying pa-pers of the Invited Feature. Results from this studywere also presented in atlas format, designed for a moregeneral audience, in Hulse et al. (2002).

METHODS

Study area

The Willamette River Basin (WRB) encompasses29 728 km2 between the crests of the Cascades andCoast Range in western Oregon (Fig. 1). Two-thirds ofthe basin is forested, predominately in upland areas(Cascades and Coast Range ecoregions). Major por-tions of the valley ecoregion have been converted toagricultural use (43% of the land area) and built struc-tures (11%). Although the WRB accounts for only 12%of the land area in Oregon, it produces 31% of the


FIG. 2. Diagram of alternative futures analysis process, as applied in the Willamette River Basin.

state’s timber harvests and 45% of the market value ofagricultural products, and is home to 68% of Oregon’spopulation. Oregon’s three largest cities—Portland, Sa-lem, and Eugene-Springfield—are located in the Wil-lamette valley, adjacent to the Willamette River. Abouttwo million people lived in the WRB in 1990. By 2050,the WRB population is expected to nearly double toalmost four million, placing tremendous demands onlimited land and water resources and creating majorchallenges for land and water use planning (Hulse etal. 2002).

We selected the WRB because of efforts, initiatedby Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber, to produce anintegrated strategy for development, conservation, andrestoration in the basin. Kitzhaber created the Willam-ette Valley Livability Forum (WVLF) in 1996 to de-velop and promote a shared vision for enhancing thelivability of the WRB (WVLF 1999). The WillametteRestoration Initiative (WRI) was established in 1998to design a basin-wide strategy to protect and restorefish and wildlife habitat, increase populations of de-clining species, enhance water quality, and properlymanage floodplain areas—all within the context of hu-man habitation and continuing basin growth (WRI2001). Both groups consist of stakeholders selected bythe Governor to be representative of the cross sectionof interests in the basin, including private citizens, in-dustry and business, nonprofit organizations, and local,state, federal, and tribal governments. The Forum andWRI served as the primary clients for the WRB alter-native futures analysis.

Overview of the process

Alternative futures analysis involves three basiccomponents (Fig. 2): (1) characterize the current andhistorical landscapes in a geographic area, and trajec-

tory of landscape change to date; (2) develop two ormore alternative ‘‘visions’’ or scenarios for the futurelandscape that reflect varying assumptions about landand water use and the range of stakeholder viewpoints;and (3) evaluate the likely effects of these landscapechanges and alternative futures on things people careabout, i.e., valued endpoints. The future landscapes aredesigned with stakeholder input to illustrate major stra-tegic choices. They are intended not as predictions, butrather to bracket the range of plausible policy options.The historical, present-day, and future landscapes arerepresented as maps of land use/land cover, using aconsistent classification scheme and spatial resolution,and associated written assumptions about managementpractices and water use. The alternative futures are thencompared based on their effects on a diverse array ofendpoints, selected to represent the range of stake-holder interests as well as important ecological attri-butes. The overall process may be iterative. As stake-holders see results for the initial set of alternative fu-tures, it may lead to new ideas or compromise positionsthat warrant design of additional future scenarios oranalysis of additional endpoints.

Current (circa 1990) landscape.—The Circa 1990representation of land use/land cover (see Fig. 1b inHulse et al. 2004) was based on classified Landsat The-matic Mapper (TM) scenes (Oetter et al. 2000, Cohenet al. 2001) augmented in two ways: (1) using soilsdata on crop suitability, irrigation records, county-levelcrop statistics, and three additional, but less extensiveland cover maps, to improve the accuracy of agricul-tural classes (Berger and Bolte 2004) and (2) with datafrom the 1990 U.S. Census, land ownership and taxassessor parcel records, county and metropolitan zon-ing classifications, and Oregon Department of Trans-portation and U.S. Geological Survey topographic


quadrangle maps to enhance the representation of im-portant rural and urban built features (Enright et al.2002). The final map distinguishes 64 classes of landuse/land cover by 30-m pixels. The same spatial res-olution and classes, with one addition (oak savanna, acommon vegetation class historically but rare today),were used for the historical and future landscapes toprovide consistent input for the evaluation models.

Historical (;1850) landscape.—The map of histor-ical land cover (called pre-EuroAmerican settlement;see Fig. 1c in Hulse et al. 2004) was derived from threesources: (1) a map of presettlement vegetation in thevalley prepared by The Nature Conservancy’s OregonChapter based on interpretation of General Land Officesurvey notes recorded between 1851 and 1909; (2) H.J. Andrews’ 1936 Oregon Forest Types map (mosthigher elevation, public forest lands had not been har-vested by 1936); and (3) the Oregon Actual Vegetationmap developed by the Oregon Natural Heritage Pro-gram (Gregory et al. 2002b). The vegetation classifi-cations used in these three mapping efforts were cross-referenced to the 65 PNW-ERC land use/land coverclasses.

Future scenarios.—Three alternative futures weredesigned with detailed input from stakeholders. Oregonhas a strong statewide program for land use planning,passed in 1973, which requires each city and countyto develop a comprehensive plan and associated landuse regulations consistent with 19 statewide planninggoals. Three of these goals call for the conservation ofagricultural lands, forest lands, and natural resources.Some stakeholders believe even greater emphasis onnatural resource protection and restoration is warrant-ed, to counter the continued loss of natural habitats anddecline in native species as human populations in thebasin expand. Other stakeholders, however, feel thatcurrent land and water use policies are too restrictive,unnecessary, and an infringement on individual prop-erty rights. This basic dichotomy in stakeholder view-points, between a desire for greater environmental con-servation vs. the desire for more personal freedom, setthe stage for scenario development. The Plan Trend2050 scenario represents the expected future landscapein 2050 if current policies are implemented exactly aswritten and recent trends continue. Development 2050reflects a loosening of current policies, to allow freerrein to market forces across all components of the land-scape, but still within the range of what stakeholdersconsidered plausible. Conservation 2050 places greateremphasis on ecosystem protection and restoration, al-though, as with Development 2050, still reflecting aplausible balance among ecological, social, and eco-nomic considerations as defined by the stakeholders.All three scenarios assume the same population in-crease, from 2.0 million people in 1990 to 3.9 millionby 2050. Additional details regarding the scenario de-velopment process and the three alternative futures are

provided in Hulse et al. (2004) and Berger and Bolte(2004).

Scenario evaluations.—We evaluated the likely ef-fects of the WRB landscape changes, over the 200-yrperiod from 1850 to 1990 to 2050 on four resourceendpoints of concern (Fig. 2):

1) Water availability—demands for surface water forirrigation, municipal and industrial supplies, fishprotection, and other uses, and the degree to whichthese demands can be satisfied by the finite watersupply in the basin (Dole and Niemi 2004).

2) Willamette River—channel structure, streamsidevegetation, and fish community richness in themainstem of the Willamette River (Gregory et al.2002a, c).

3) Ecological condition of streams—habitat and bi-ological communities (fish and benthic inverte-brates) in all second to fourth-order streams in thebasin (Baker et al. 2002, Van Sickle et al. 2004).

4) Terrestrial wildlife—habitat for amphibians, rep-tiles, birds, and mammals in the basin, and theabundance and distribution of selected birds andmammals (Schumaker et al. 2004).

The specific modeling approach varied among end-points, reflecting differences in the underlying pro-cesses and types of data available. Water availabilitywas assessed using a computer model (‘‘The Water-master’’) simulating the allocation of water amongcompeting uses. An individual-based, spatially explic-it, population model (PATCH) simulated changes inwildlife abundance and distribution. Regression mod-els, based on extensive survey data, were used to es-timate biotic changes in streams and the river. Habitatsuitability indices for both streams and wildlife werederived from expert-defined rules. Willamette Riverchannel complexity and streamside vegetation, al-though listed above, were more closely aligned withscenario development than evaluation. Detailed recon-structions of the river channel and adjacent vegetationwere created for 1850, 1895, 1932, and 1990 based onavailable data. These maps, together with stakeholder-defined targets and constraints, were used to identifyareas of the river most likely to lose (Development2050) or recover (Conservation 2050) channel com-plexity in the future.

Our objective was not to predict the future, but ratherto assess the sensitivity of valued endpoints to the al-ternative land and water use policies incorporated inthe future scenarios. Other factors that could signifi-cantly influence endpoint response, such as global cli-mate change and additional invasions of exotic species,were not considered.

Percent change relative to 1990 for selected indi-cators from each of these analyses are presented in Figs.3 and 4. Present-day condition (Circa 1990) was se-lected as the primary reference for among-scenario


FIG. 3. Percentage change in selected indicators of human use in the WRB, in the three future scenarios relative to Circa1990. Indicators are mean human population density within urban growth boundaries (UGBs), total area affected by urbandevelopment, by rural development, and by urban and rural development combined (built area; Hulse et al. 2004), area ofprime farmland (Berger and Bolte 2004), and quantity of water consumed for out-of-stream uses (Dole and Niemi 2004).

comparisons for two reasons: (1) stakeholders are mostfamiliar with and can best relate to conditions in thepresent and (2) our estimates for 1990 are more reliablethan those for historical or future scenarios.

RESULTS

Changes in the WRB have been substantial sinceEuroAmerican settlement, particularly in the Willam-ette valley. Historically, a diverse bottomland forest ofblack cottonwood, Oregon ash, alder, and other riparianspecies extended 2–10 km wide along the length of theWillamette River. Only 20% of that area is forestedtoday (Gregory et al. 2002a). Elsewhere in the valley,fires set regularly by Native Americans maintainedopen grasslands and oak savanna (Boyd 1986). Exten-sive land conversion for human use, together with in-vasion of shrubs and trees following fire suppression,have lead to nearly 100% loss of some of the uniquehabitats that evolved under the presettlement fire re-gime. It is questionable whether any true oak savannaremains. An estimated 97% of the wet and dry prairieand 95% of wetlands have been lost. Upland portionsof the WRB still are predominately forested, althoughforest age structure has shifted due principally to forestharvesting. The extent of older conifers (.80 yr) in

the WRB has been reduced by about two-thirds. In1850, the Willamette River was physically more com-plex than it is today, particularly in the upstream reach-es. As a result of efforts to straighten and control theriver, the total river length has declined by ;25% andarea of off-channel alcoves and islands by .50%. Ir-rigation, municipal, industrial, and other out-of-streamwater uses currently consume an estimated 1060 m3/dof surface water, causing an estimated 130 km of sec-ond- to fourth-order streams to go dry in a moderatelydry summer. In the absence of these withdrawals, nostreams would be expected to go dry. As a result ofthese major habitat changes, biological endpoints areestimated to have been 15% and 90% higher histori-cally than today, depending on the specific endpoint(Fig. 4).

Over the next 50–60 years, the number of peopleliving in the WRB is expected to nearly double. Evenso, more landscape change, and thus more environ-mental effects, occurred between 1850 and 1990 thanstakeholders considered plausible from 1990 to 2050,regardless of the future scenario (Fig. 4). In all threescenarios, future landscape changes reflect mostly ashifting from past resource uses to new uses, ratherthan a substantial expansion of human use of land and


FIG. 4. Percentage change in selected indicators of natural resource condition in the WRB, in the three futures and pre-EuroAmerican settlement scenarios, relative to Circa 1990. Vegetation indicators are the estimated area of conifer forests.80 yr old and percentage of 120-m wide riparian buffer along all streams in the Valley Ecoregion with forest vegetation(Hulse et al. 2002). The indicator for native terrestrial wildlife habitat is percentage of 256 native non-fish vertebrate speciesprojected to gain habitat minus percentage projected to lose habitat. The indicator of terrestrial wildlife abundance is thepercentage of 17 species modeled projected to increase more than 10% in abundance minus percentage projected to decline.10% (Schumaker et al. 2004). Stream condition indicators are percentage change in median cutthroat trout habitat suitabilityindex (HSI) for all second- to fourth-order streams in the basin and percentage change in median fish index of biotic integrity(IBI) and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPT) richness in second- to fourth-order streams with watershedspredominately in the Valley Ecoregion (Baker et al. 2002, Van Sickle et al. 2004). The Willamette River indicator is percentagechange in median fish richness (Gregory et al. 2002c).

water into relatively intact, natural ecosystems. For ex-ample, new areas of rural and urban development occurpredominately on lands currently used for agriculture.Our results indicate that the difference between agri-culture and development, in terms of their effects onaquatic and terrestrial wildlife, is much smaller thanthe effect associated with the original conversion ofnatural systems into either agriculture or development.Even in Development 2050, substantial portions of thelandscape, particularly in the uplands, retain their nat-ural vegetation cover and some level of environmentalprotection. The stakeholder advisory group, whichoversaw design of the future scenarios, did not considermore drastic landscape alterations plausible, givenOregon’s history of resource protection, social behaviors,and land ownership patterns. There are, however, signif-icant differences in environmental quality among sce-narios and important local variations within each future.

Plan Trend 2050

The Plan Trend 2050 scenario assumes that existingpolicies and plans are implemented exactly as written.Where no specific plans or policies exist, recent trendsare assumed to continue. Three existing policies withmajor impacts on the WRB are (1) the federal North-west Forest Plan, which eliminated timber harvestingon an extensive network of riparian buffers and reserveareas on federal lands (60% of the forestry lands in thebasin) starting in 1995 in order to protect the northernspotted owl and other threatened and endangered spe-cies; (2) the Oregon Forest Practices Act, which is lessrestrictive than the Northwest Forest Plan but still re-quires riparian buffers and other practices to limit theimpacts of forest harvests on aquatic and terrestrialwildlife on state and privately owned forest lands; (3)the Oregon Land Use Planning Program, which re-


quires each city and county to develop a comprehensiveland use plan and associated regulations with a partic-ular focus on preventing the loss of agricultural andforestry resource lands. Each of these policies andplans was developed independently. Plan Trend 2050provided a unique opportunity to examine their jointimplications for future landscape change. The resultwas something of a surprise to stakeholders as well astechnical experts involved in the project.

Under Plan Trend 2050, new development occursonly within designated urban growth boundaries(UGBs) and existing rural residential zones. As a result,population density within UGBs almost doubles rela-tive to 1990 (from 9.4 residents/ha in 1990 to 18.0residents/ha in 2050), while the amount of urbanizedland plus land influenced by rural development in-creases by ,25% (by 48 800 ha) (Fig. 3). Consistentwith current policies, little (,2%) prime farmland orforestry resource land is lost. However, the extent ofolder conifer forest (aged .80 yr) declines by 19%(114 000 ha) relative to 1990, and what remains is con-centrated on federally owned lands protected by theNorthwest Forest Plan. Except for the shift in forestage and densification of urban development, changesin land use and land cover under Plan Trend 2050 arefairly minor. As a result, projected effects on aquaticand terrestrial wildlife are small basin-wide (#10%change relative to 1990; Fig. 4), although significantdeclines occur in some locations and for some species.In contrast, projected changes in water use and avail-ability are substantial. Surface water consumption in-creases by 57%, reflecting a 20% increase in diversionsfor municipal and industrial uses and 65–120% in-crease in diversions for irrigated agriculture. Demandsfor water for municipal, industrial, and domestic useswould be met in most areas. However, stream flowswould decline. The length of second- to fourth-orderstreams expected to go dry during a moderately drysummer would double, from ;130 km in 1990 to 270km in Plan Trend 2050. Seventeen of the 178 discretesub-basins defined by Oregon’s Water Resources De-partment in the WRB, representing an area of 2400km2, would likewise experience near zero stream flowat their outfall, compared to zero sub-basins with noflow ;1990. Unfortunately, our models were not ad-equate to assess the degree to which these changes instream flow would adversely affect aquatic and terres-trial wildlife.

Development 2050

In Development 2050, current land use policies arerelaxed and new development occurs at lower densitiesover a larger area. Even so, population densities withinUGBs still increase by 55% (to 14.6 residents/ha) rel-ative to 1990. Urbanized areas expand by almost 50%(62 000 ha), and the area influenced by rural structuresby 68% (49 000 ha) (Fig. 3). Jointly, urbanized areas

and areas influenced by rural structures account for10.4% of the total basin area, compared to 6.7% of thebasin area in 1990 and 8.3% in Plan Trend 2050. Mostof this new development occurs on agricultural lands.Furthermore, the location of UGBs, a consequence ofhistorical settlement patterns, predisposes urban ex-pansion to occupying higher quality soils and partic-ularly valuable agricultural resource lands. Twenty-four percent (60 700 ha) of 1990 prime farmland is lost.Forestry practices include somewhat greater emphasison clear-cutting and less stream protection in Devel-opment 2050 compared to Plan Trend 2050, but stake-holders did not consider it plausible that current pol-icies controlling forest harvest practices would be dras-tically curtailed. As a result, under Development 2050,the area of conifer forest .80 yr in age is reduced by22% relative to 1990, compared to the 19% reductionfor Plan Trend 2050. The changes in land use/land cov-er in Development 2050 would have negative effectson terrestrial wildlife overall. Thirty-nine percent morespecies would lose habitat than gain habitat relative tothe 1990 landscape (Fig. 4). Of the 17 terrestrial wild-life species modeled for changes in population abun-dance, nine would experience a 10% or greater declinein abundance relative to 1990; only one species (thecoyote) is projected to increase in abundance by at least10%. Projected effects on aquatic life, on the otherhand, were relatively small (,5% decline relative to1990). Both agriculture and residential developmenthave similar adverse effects on aquatic life. Streamsalready degraded due to agricultural land uses in 1990would not be significantly further degraded by the con-version of agricultural land to residential developmentthat occurs in Development 2050. As for Plan Trend2050, water consumption for out-of-stream uses wouldincrease markedly, by 58% in Development 2050 rel-ative to 1990. However, the extent of streams with nearzero flow in a dry summer would be slightly less inDevelopment 2050 than for Plan Trend 2050, becauseof a shift in the spatial distribution of withdrawals. Anestimated 230 km of second- to fourth-order streams(75% more km than in 1990) and 11 sub-basins (en-compassing 1580 km2) would have near zero flow in adry summer. Demands for water for municipal, indus-trial, and domestic use would again be met in mostareas.

Conservation 2050

Conservation 2050 places greater priority on eco-system protection and restoration, although still withinthe range of what stakeholders considered plausible.Like Plan Trend 2050, Conservation 2050 emphasizeshigh-density development. Both the spatial extent ofUGBs and human population density within UGBs arevery similar in the two scenarios (Fig. 3). However,the use of clustered rural housing in Conservation2050, leaving the remainder of the affected parcels in


natural vegetation, further constrains the land area im-pacted by rural residential development. The near dou-bling of the human population in the basin from 1990to 2050 is accommodated with only an 18% increasein the amount of land urbanized or influenced by ruralstructures (35 000 ha). As a result, there is relativelylittle (,2%) conversion of agricultural lands to urbanor rural development. Yet, 15% of 1990 prime farmlandis still lost, converted in this scenario mostly to naturalvegetation. Conservation strategies on agriculturallands include 30-m or wider riparian buffers along allstreams (first order and higher as represented on a1:100 000 scale stream coverage), conversion of somecropland to native vegetation (in particular naturalgrasslands, wetlands, oak savannah, and bottomlandforests) in high-priority conservation zones, establish-ment of field borders and consideration of wildlife hab-itat as a factor in crop selection in environmentallysensitive areas, and a 10% increase in irrigation effi-ciency. Areas along the Willamette River that histori-cally had complex, dynamic channels were targeted forrestoration of river habitat complexity and bottomlandforest. Conservation measures implemented on privateforestry lands include 30 m or wider riparian bufferson all streams, a gradual decrease in the average timberharvest clear-cut size, and retention of small patchesof legacy trees. The result is a 17% increase in the areawith conifer forests aged 80 yr and older, relative to1990, as opposed to the 19% and 22% decrease in areafor Plan Trend 2050 and Development 2050, respec-tively. Still, the extent of older age conifer forest wouldbe less than half (41%) of what occurred prior toEuroAmerican settlement (see Fig. 4).

Both aquatic and terrestrial wildlife respond to thesum of these conservation measures. In lowlandstreams, indicators of stream condition, such as the fishindex of biotic integrity and EPT invertebrate richness,are projected to increase by 9–24% relative to 1990,representing a recovery of 20–65% of the decline inthese indicators estimated to have occurred sinceEuroAmerican settlement. For terrestrial wildlife, 31%more species gain habitat than lose habitat relative to1990. Of the 17 wildlife species modeled for populationabundance, 10 are projected to increase in abundanceby at least 10%, relative to 1990, and only one (themourning dove) would decrease by 10% or more, al-most the reverse of projected wildlife responses in De-velopment 2050. Thus, a substantial number of wildlifespecies would benefit from Conservation 2050 (;70%of the net number of species that would benefit fromthe pre-EuroAmerican settlement landscape comparedto 1990), positively impacting biodiversity in the basin.Wildlife abundances, however, would still be belowhistorical estimates for most species.

Water consumption increases in Conservation 2050(by 43%) relative to 1990, but to a somewhat lesserdegree than for Plan Trend 2050 and Development 2050

(57–58% increase relative to 1990). No sub-basins areprojected to have near zero flow in a moderately drysummer, although an estimated 225 km of second- tofourth-order streams would still go dry (70% more kmthan ;1990). Thus, the water conservation measuresincorporated into Conservation 2050 were not suffi-cient to reverse recent trends of increasing water with-drawals for human use. Major changes in Oregon’s wa-ter rights laws would likely be needed to substantiallyreduce water withdrawals, but such changes were notconsidered plausible by stakeholders during scenariodesign.

DISCUSSION

Were we successful?

Did our analyses help shape the Forum’s vision ofthe basin’s future or the WRI’s basin-wide restorationstrategy, or lead to more informed decisions by localcitizens and governments? Unfortunately, we have nodirect measure of our influence on such deliberations.We would not expect any of the three scenarios wedeveloped to be universally adopted as the vision forthe future. They were only a first iteration, illustratingthe spectrum of plausible options. Nor would we nec-essarily expect stakeholders ever to define their sharedvision for an area as large as the WRB in such a de-tailed, spatially explicit manner as the scenarios pre-sented in Hulse et al. (2004). The level of detail em-bodied in the alternative futures approach is intendedto clarify points of view and demonstrate the impli-cations of land and water use decisions being made, toassist in the consensus-building process. Final productsfrom stakeholder deliberations are more likely to be aset of agreed upon goals, priorities, and targets, andbroad strategic approaches. Both the Forum and WRIhave produced such documents (WVLF 1999, WRI2001) and are continuing to refine them.

Although more informed decisions are the ultimatemeasure of success, other indicators include: Did peo-ple listen? Were the tools or results used? Did stake-holders change their way of doing business? In eachcase, the answer is yes. We made several presentationsto the Forum and WRI, at their request. The Forumorganized a basin-wide conference, open to all inter-ested participants, in April 2001, at which our resultswere a featured component. The Forum also publishedan eight-page newspaper tabloid, entitled The Futureis in Our Hands, distributed to more than 450 000households in all major newspapers in the basin. Twoof those eight pages were devoted to our results. Ourresults were also made available to the general publicvia the web and as a published atlas (Hulse et al. 2002).

A centerpiece of the WRI restoration strategy (WRI2001) is the conservation and restoration opportunitiesmap we created as an interim step toward Conservation2050 (Hulse et al. 2004). Our analyses also producedtwo spin-off futures analyses, which relied in part on


our scenarios and data but assessed different endpoints.The Forum and Oregon Department of Transportationevaluated alternative transportation futures and effectson traffic congestion. A project initiated by 1000Friends of Oregon assessed the implications of land-scape futures for infrastructure costs (e.g., road, sewer,and water services) as well as losses of farm and for-estry lands. Land allocation modeling during scenariodevelopment in our project identified a shortage ofcommercially zoned land basin wide, providing a con-crete example of the value of larger scale planning.The current land use program mandates comprehensiveplans for each UGB but requires no regional evaluationof land supply or other issues, even in such a tightlyeconomically coupled area as the WRB.

The Plan Trend 2050 scenario generated a heateddebate regarding whether it accurately reflected thelandscape that would result if no new policies wereimplemented. Most felt no, principally because currentpolicies are not being implemented exactly as written,as assumed in Plan Trend 2050. For example, theOregon land use legislation and statewide regulationsallow for exceptions to the statewide goals and localcomprehensive plans and regulations, and such excep-tions are often granted. Thus, while major componentsof the WRB landscape already have conservation-ori-ented policies, as reflected in Plan Trend 2050, not allthese policies are having their full effect. Also evidentis the imbalance in current policies among differentparts of the landscape. Natural resource protection pol-icies to date have focused disproportionately on upland,forested systems. Because upland and lowland portionsof the Basin support distinctly different types of hab-itats and species, a more balanced effort in both uplandand lowland areas would be more effective. This andother recommendations derived from our analyses wereincluded in the project atlas (Hulse et al. 2002) and inpresentations to the Forum and WRI.

What might we have done differently?

As noted earlier, the WRB is not the only exampleof an alternative futures analysis. Others that involveda partnership between EPA and landscape planners in-clude Monroe County, Pennsylvania (White et al. 1997,Steinitz and McDowell 2001); Camp Pendleton, Cali-fornia (Steinitz et al. 1996); two watersheds in Iowa(Santelmann et al. 2001); and Muddy Creek watershedwithin the WRB (Hulse et al. 2000). Each study hasapproached the task in slightly different ways, empha-sizing different types of scenarios and endpoints. Forexample, in the WRB and Muddy Creek watershed,scenarios represent a gradient between conservationand development/market orientation, acting equallyacross all components of the landscape. In MonroeCounty and Camp Pendleton, in contrast, scenarios em-phasized different land development patterns for deal-ing with increased population growth (e.g., low-density

sprawl, concentrating growth within a new ‘‘city,’’transportation-driven alternatives). In Iowa, scenarioswere designed to protect one particular valued end-point, e.g., biodiversity or water quality. Most of theseprojects assumed a constant population increase amongscenarios. However, in Muddy Creek watershed, humanpopulation growth varied among the future scenariosin a manner consistent with the basic premise of eachscenario; the most conservation-oriented future had thelowest population growth. None of these approaches isright or wrong, but instead the scenarios selected, aswell as the endpoints evaluated, should reflect the typesof questions being asked, major differences of opinionamong stakeholders, and most pressing issues in thestudy area.

In the WRB, stakeholder input dominated the sce-nario development process (Hulse et al. 2004). Theproject team met monthly with the stakeholder workinggroup over a two-year period to develop very detailedassumptions and iteratively design each alternative fu-ture. Such in-depth involvement of stakeholders in thescenario development process leads to greater stake-holder understanding, a feeling of ownership in thefinal product, and increased likelihood that the resultswill be used. It also takes maximum advantage of localknowledge, helping to ensure that the future scenariosare plausible and reflective of stakeholder concerns ata high level of detail. On the other hand, the processis extremely time consuming, which was one of thereasons we were able to develop only three future sce-narios. Furthermore, by tying scenario design so tightlyto what stakeholders considered plausible, the range ofvariation among alternative futures was fairly con-strained. Stakeholders were reticent to incorporatedrastic shifts from current policies, and as a result lesslikely to develop innovative future visions. Yet humanbehavior is inherently unpredictable and major shiftsin social norms are not uncommon. One example is therecent passage of Oregon Ballot Measure 7, requiringfinancial compensation of landowners adversely af-fected by any state or local governmental regulationincluding environmental and land use policies. Al-though the measure was later declared unconstitutionalby the Oregon State Supreme Court on a technicality,if it had implemented, the focus on individual propertyrights in the ballot would have changed the landscapein ways the stakeholders considered only marginallyplausible just a few years earlier. Clearly, the detailsof what will unfold in the future are nearly impossibleto predict. Thus, the emphasis should be on capturingthe fundamental policy and human sentiment differ-ences that meaningfully distinguish one scenario fromanother in a way that captures public attention andimagination.

The essence of the alternative futures approach isthat scenarios reflect stakeholder values, assumptions,and visions. However, there should also be room for


creative design on the part of landscape planners, in-corporation of important ecological principles, and oth-er technical input. Such expert-based scenarios aremore likely to be ‘‘outside the box’’ of current stake-holder experience and can play a critical role in broad-ening the debate and altering entrenched ways of think-ing. One concern, however, is whether stakeholderswill feel sufficiently represented to engage in an activediscussion of options and future visions once such ex-pert-designed scenarios are presented. Thus, the opti-mal approach may be to blend the two, introducingexpert-based designs early on in the process, to stim-ulate stakeholder thinking about other options andhopefully lead to stakeholder-defined scenarios that in-corporate many of the same principles and ideas.

One potential shortcoming of our analyses was therelatively small role stakeholders played in endpointselection. Endpoint selection was heavily affected bythe expertise of the project team, formed before dis-cussions with stakeholders started, more than by stake-holder input and concerns. Active engagement of stake-holders in endpoint selection would have helped ensuretheir full spectrum of concerns was addressed in a bal-anced way, increased stakeholder buy-in to the results,and provided an educational opportunity for projectteam members to discuss potential consequences oflandscape change that stakeholders may not have oth-erwise anticipated. The objective of scenario evalua-tions is to ensure that stakeholders understand the fullimplications of the range of decisions before them.While all of the endpoints evaluated in the WRB havebeen identified by the Forum and WRI as high priorityissues, social and economic endpoints were under-rep-resented. Economic concerns played a role in stake-holder decisions about scenario design, and projectedhigh building densities in urban areas and other landuse changes embodied in each future scenario gener-ated substantial debate about the social acceptabilityof such changes. Yet, additional social and economicendpoints together with greater stakeholder involve-ment in endpoint selection may have increased the im-pact of our results on stakeholder deliberations.

The future of futures

The WRB, as well as the other example alternativefutures analyses cited above, were principally researchprojects, conducted by landscape planners and scien-tists in academia and government. To make a real dif-ference, alternative futures analyses need to move outof the realm of research and into routine application.Cities and counties frequently spend hundreds of thou-sands of dollars funding consultants to assist in trans-portation and land use planning. However, typicallythese analyses address only one or a few landscapecomponents, and city and county jurisdictions are gen-erally too small to assess the cumulative effects of mul-tiple policies in multiple jurisdictions on entire eco-

systems and landscapes. Regional leaders and local cit-izens increasingly are seeing the value of larger-scale,more comprehensive planning efforts. With trainingand appropriate tools, interdisciplinary teams of con-sultants could support such visioning efforts by con-ducting a collaborative alternative futures analysis.One of the key challenges for such widespread appli-cation will be to make the analyses affordable yet alsosufficiently robust, comprehensive, and detailed to beof value.

Additional research is also warranted. In particular,the overall approach would benefit from more formalevaluation of its effectiveness at informing communitydecisions. Can we improve the manner in which weinteract with and communicate to stakeholders? Arethere approaches for scenario design and evaluationthat would make the results more used and useful? Isthe cost required to develop detailed, highly accurate,landscape characterizations or apply more complexevaluation models worth the return in improved deci-sion making? Additional effort is needed on social andeconomic endpoints, including approaches that dealwith the difficulties projecting parameters such as in-terest rates and discount rates 30–50 yr into the future.Even for environmental endpoints, the most readilyavailable models (e.g., water quality models) often donot assess the endpoints of direct interest to stake-holders (e.g., changes in biological communities)(Reckhow 1999). To date, most analyses have dealtpoorly with linkages among endpoints (e.g., wateravailability and stream biota), and feedback loopsamong policies, landscape patterns, and ecosystem pol-icies. Finally, the visioning process would be aided bybetter approaches for combining stakeholder-drivenand expert input into scenario design. Many of theseresearch needs are not unique to alternative futuresanalyses, but would benefit environmental assessmentapproaches in general.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank David Mouat and two anonymous re-viewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. The infor-mation in this document was funded by the U.S. Environ-mental Protection Agency, in part through cooperative agree-ment CR824682 to Oregon State University and the PacificNorthwest Ecosystem Research Consortium. It has been sub-jected to the Agency’s peer and administrative review, andapproved for publication as an EPA document. Mention oftrade names or commercial products does not constitute en-dorsement or recommendation for use.

LITERATURE CITED

Ahern, J. 2001. Spatial concepts, planning strategies, andfuture scenarios: a framework method for integrating land-scape ecology and landscape planning. Pages 175–201 inJ. Klopatek and R. Gardner, editors. Landscape ecologicalanalysis: issues and applications. Springer-Verlag, NewYork, New York, USA.

Baker, J. P., D. H. Landers, H. Lee, II, P. L. Ringold, R. R.Sumner, P. J. Wigington, Jr., R. S. Bennett, E. M. Preston,W. F. Frick, A. C. Sigleo, D. T. Specht, and D. R. Young.1995. Ecosystem management research in the Pacific


Northwest: five-year research strategy. U. S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office of Research and Development,Washington, D.C., USA. EPA/600/R-95/069.

Baker, J., J. Van Sickle, S. Gregory, A. Herlihy, P. Haggerty,L. Ashkenas, P. Bayley, and J. Li. 2002. Aquatic life. Pages118–123 in D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, and J. P. Baker,editors. Willamette River basin: trajectories of environ-mental and ecological change. Oregon State UniversityPress, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Berger, P., and J. Bolte. 2004. Evaluating the impact of policyoptions on agricultural landscapes: an alternative futuresapproach. Ecological Applications 14:342–354.

Boyd, R. 1986. Strategies of Indian burning in the WillametteValley. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 5:65–86.

Cohen, W. B., T. K. Maiersperger, T. A. Spies, and D. R.Oetter. 2001. Modeling forest cover attributes as contin-uous variables in a regional context with Thematic Mapperdata. International Journal of Remote Sensing 22(12):2279–2310.

Costanza, R. 2000. Visions of alternative (unpredictable) futuresand their use in policy analysis. Conservation Ecology 4(1):5. [Online: ^http://www.consecol.org/vol4/iss1/art5&.]

Daily, G. C. 1999. Developing a scientific basis for managingearth’s life support systems. Conservation Ecology 3(2):14. [Online: ^http://www. consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art14&.]

Dale, V. H., S. Brown, R. A. Haeuber, N. T. Hobbs, N. J.Huntley, R. J. Naiman, W. E. Riebsame, M. G. Turner, andT. J. Valone. 2001. Ecological guidelines for land use andmanagement. Pages 3–33 in V. H. Dale and R. A. Haeuber,editors. Applying ecological principles to land manage-ment. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

Dole, D., and E. Niemi. 2004. Future water allocation andin-stream values in the Willamette River basin: a basin-wide analysis. Ecological Applications 14:355–367.

Enright, C., M. Aoki, D. Oetter, D. Hulse, and W. Cohen.2002. Land use/land cover ca. 1990. Pages 78–81 in D.W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, and J. P. Baker, editors. WillametteRiver basin: trajectories of environmental and ecologicalchange. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon,USA.

Gregory, S., L. Ashkenas, D. Oetter, P. Minear, and K. Wild-man. 2002a. Historical Willamette River channel change.Pages 18–25 in D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, and J. P. Baker,editors. Willamette River basin: trajectories of environ-mental and ecological change. Oregon State UniversityPress, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Gregory, S., L. Ashkenas, D. Oetter, P. Minear, K. Wildman,and J. Christy. 2002b. Presettlement vegetation ca. 1851.Pages 92–93 in D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, and J. P. Baker,editors. Willamette River basin: trajectories of environ-mental and ecological change. Oregon State UniversityPress, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.

Gregory, S., L. Ashkenas, D. Oetter, R. Wildman, P. Minear,and K. Wildman. 2002c. Mainstem river. Pages 112–113in D. W. Hulse, S. V. Gregory, and J. P. Baker, editors.Willamette River basin: trajectories of environmental andecological change. Oregon State University Press, Corval-lis, Oregon, USA.

Gunderson, L. H., C. S. Holling, and S. S. Light, editors.1995. Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystemsand institutions. Columbia University Press, New York,New York, USA.

Harms, B. H., J. P. Knaapen, and J. G. Rademakers. 1993.Landscape planning for nature restoration: comparing re-gional scenarios. Pages 197–218 in C. C. Vos and P. Opdam,editors. Landscape ecology of a stressed environment.Chapman and Hall, London, UK.

Holling, C. S., and G. K. Meffe. 1996. On command-and-control, and the pathology of natural resource management.Conservation Biology 10:328–337.

Hollmann, F. W., T. J. Mulder, and J. E. Kallan. 2000. Meth-odology and assumptions for the population projections ofthe United States: 1999 to 2100. Population Division Work-ing Paper No. 38. U.S. Census Bureau, Department of Com-merce, Washington, D.C., USA.

Hulse, D. W., A. Branscomb, and S. G. Payne. 2004. Envi-sioning alternatives: using citizen guidance to map futureland and water use. Ecological Applications 14:325–341.

Hulse, D. W., J. Eilers, K. Freemark, C. Hummon, and D.White. 2000. Planning alternative future landscapes inOregon: evaluating effects on water quality and biodiver-sity. Landscape Journal 19(2):1–19.

Hulse, D. W., S. V. Gregory, and J. P. Baker, editors. 2002.Willamette River basin: trajectories of environmental andecological change. Oregon State University Press, Corval-lis, Oregon, USA.

Hulse, D., and R. Ribe. 2000. Land conversion and the pro-duction of wealth. Ecological Applications 10:679–682.

Kirch, P. V. 1997. Microcosmic histories: island perspectiveson ‘‘global’’ change. American Anthropologist 99:30–42.

Lee, K. N. 1993. Compass and gyroscope: integrating scienceand politics for the environment. Island Press, Washington,D.C., USA.

McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design with nature. Natural HistoryPress for The American Museum of Natural History. Dou-bleday, Garden City, New York, USA.

Murray, T., P. Rogers, D. Sinton, C. Steinitz, R. Toth, and D.Way. 1971. Honey Hill: a systems analysis for planningthe multiple use of controlled water areas. Institute forWater Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alex-andria, Virginia, USA.

Naiman, R. J., and M. G. Turner. 2000. A future perspectiveon North America’s freshwater ecosystems. Ecological Ap-plications 10:958–970.

Oetter, D. R., W. B. Cohen, M. Berterretche, T. K. Maier-sperger, and R. E. Kennedy. 2000. Land cover mapping inan agricultural setting using multiseasonal Thematic Map-per data. Remote Sensing of Environment 76:139–155.

Pater, D. E., S. A. Bryce, T. D. Thorson, J. Kagan, C. Chap-pell, J. M. Omernik, S. H. Azevedo, and A. J. Woods. 1998.Ecoregions of western Washington and Oregon (two-sidedcolor poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables,and photographs). U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Vir-ginia, USA.

Perry, M. J., and P. J. Mackun. 2001. Population change anddistribution 1990 to 2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Departmentof Commerce, Washington, D.C., USA.

Postel, S. L., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 1996. Humanappropriation of renewable fresh water. Science 271:785–788.

Reckhow, K. H. 1999. Lessons from risk assessment. Humanand Ecological Risk Assessment. 5:245–253.

Richards, J. F. 1990. Land transformations. Pages 163–178in B. L. Turner, II, W. C. Clark, R. W. Kates, J. F. Richards,J. T. Mathews, and W. B. Meyer, editors. The earth astransformed by human action: global and regional changesin the biosphere over the past 300 years. Cambridge Uni-versity Press, New York, New York, USA.

Santelmann, M., K. Freemark, D. White, J. Nassauer, M.Clark, B. Danielson, J. Eilers, R. M. Cruse, S. Galatow-itsch, S. Polasky, K. Vache, and J. Wu. 2001. Applyingecological principles to land-use decision making in agri-cultural watersheds. Pages 226–252 in V. H. Dale and R.A. Haeuber, editors. Applying ecological principles to landmanagement. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

Schoonenboom, I. J. 1995. Overview and state of the art ofscenario studies for the rural environment. Pages 15–24 inJ. F. T. Schoute, P. A. Finke, F. R. Veenenklaas, and H. P.Wolfert, editors. Scenario studies for the rural environment,selected and edited proceedings of the symposium Scenario


Studies for the Rural Environment. Wageningen, The Neth-erlands, 12–15 September 1994. Kluwer Academic Pub-lishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Schumaker, N., T. Ernst, D. White, J. Baker, and P. Haggerty.2004. Projecting wildlife responses to alternative futurelandscapes in Oregon’s Willamette Basin. Ecological Ap-plications 14:381–400.

Steinitz, C. 1990. A framework for theory applicable to theeducation of landscape architects (and other environmentaldesign professionals). Landscape Journal 9(2):136–143.

Steinitz, C., et al. 1996. Biodiversity and landscape planning:alternative futures for the region of Camp Pendleton, Cal-ifornia. Harvard University Graduate School of Design,Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Steinitz, C., and S. McDowell. 2001. Alternative futures forMonroe County, Pennsylvania: a case study in applyingecological principles. Pages 165–193 in V. H. Dale and R.A. Haeuber, editors. Applying ecological principles to landmanagement. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, USA.

Van Sickle, J., J. Baker, A. Herlihy, P. Bayley, S. Gregory,P. Haggerty, L. Ashkenas, and J. Li. 2004. Projecting thebiological condition of streams under alternative scenariosof human land use. Ecological Applications 14:368–380.

Vitousek, P. M., H. A. Mooney, J. Lubchenco, and J. M.Melillo. 1997. Human domination of Earth’s ecosystems.Science 267:880–883.

White, D., P. G. Minotti, M. J. Barczak, J. C. Sifneos, K. E.Freemark, M. V. Santelmann, C. F. Steinitz, A. R. Kiester,and E. M. Preston. 1997. Assessing risks to biodiversityfrom future landscape change. Conservation Biology 11(2):349–360.

WRI (Willamette Restoration Initiative). 2001. Restoring ariver of life: the Willamette restoration strategy. WillametteRestoration Initiative, Salem, Oregon, USA.

WVLF (Willamette Valley Livability Forum). 1999. Choicesfor the future: the Willamette Valley. Lane Council of Gov-ernments, Eugene, Oregon, USA.

Yankelovich, D. 1991. Coming to public judgment: makingdemocracy work in a complex world. Syracuse UniversityPress, Syracuse, New York, USA.

alternative futures for the willamette river basin,...

Documents