Modeling
Envision modeling, developed by Oregon
State University, is a GIS-based tool for scenario-based community and regional
planning and environmental assessments. It combines special representations of a
landscape, scenarios policies, landscape change models, and models of ecological,
social, and economic services to simulate land use change and provide decision-makers,
planner, and the public with information about resulting effects on landscapes.
The modeling for Envision Skagit
2060 is based on input from the steering and technical committees. It allows the
Citizen Committee to change assumptions in order to evaluate their consequences,
using "indicators." There are indicators for the human world or "built
environment" (e.g., urban residential densities, value of development subject
to flood risk), indicators for the natural environment (e.g., salmon populations,
wildlife habitat), and indicators for farming and forestry (e.g., acres of designated
farmland, average total timber harvest). See below for the list of indicators.
Indicators
All scenarios are evaluated against all indicators. The Ecosystem Scenario, for
example, has been evaluated against not just environmental indicators but also agricultural,
forestry and other non-ecological indicators. Similarly, the Agriculture-Forestry
Scenario has been evaluated against ecological and other non-resource-industry indicators.
Ultimately, the Citizen Committee will recommend a "Preferred Future,"
which will be modeled as its own scenario, to be evaluated against all indicators
as well. In 2001-03, a similar process was used for an EPA-funded study of the Chico
Creek basin on the Kitsap Peninsula. In the Chico study (which had a more strictly
ecological focus), a citizen-developed "moderate scenario" performed nearly
as well on ecological indicators as a more extreme "conservation scenario,"
while addressing many non-ecological concerns much better. There may be opportunities
to optimize multiple indicators in the Skagit, too.
This is the list of indicators currently
under development.
Several
proposed indicators have been dropped from this list due to challenges related to
data and methodology.
Shaded indicators
are those that may not be included in the final model due to constraints
including: lack of data availability, limits on OSU programming time, or lack of
viable indicator methodology.
Some
shaded indicators may be incorporated into the model as decision rules (e.g. ag/forest conversion risk) or may be analyzed outside
of Envision (such as public service fiscal impact).
All final selected
indicators will be used to evaluate each of the modeling scenarios, including the Preferred
Future scenario.
|
1.
Urban/Rural Population Ratio
|
23.
Stressor Index for Nearshore Habitats - possibly fall, depending on Kitsap work and
Skagit
interest/ability to tailor to local circumstances
|
|
2.
Urban Residential Densities
|
24.
Carbon Sequestration - simple model for
now, hopefully better model/data in fall
|
|
3.
Jobs/Housing Ratio
|
25.
Pollinator Abundance - not likely in
this iteration
|
|
4.
Population Density
|
26.
Acres of designated Ag-NRL
|
|
5.
Infrastructure/Public Services Fiscal Impact
to be addressed in ECONorthwest fiscal analysis outside
the model.
|
27.
Acres Ag-NRL available for production
|
|
6.
Infrastructure Demand - same as #5.
|
28.
Loss/gain of Ag-NRL
|
|
7.
Traffic Congestion/ Level of Service (LOS)
checking with Skagit Council of Governments.
|
29.
Number of residential development rights in Ag-NRL
|
|
8.
Value of Development Subject to Flood Risk
|
30.
Ave. Ag-NRL parcel size
|
|
9.
Commercial/Industrial Square Footage/ Capita
|
31.
Ag-NRL conversion risk likely a model
input rather than indicator (indicator being Ag-NRL acres converted or at risk)
|
|
10.
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) /Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG)
|
32.
Value of agricultural production much
harder to model than timber production due to diversity of ag crops.
|
|
11.
Community Amenity Index to be addressed
in project narrative
|
33.
Acres within dike/drainage system
|
|
12.
Urban Open Space will be input to UGA
modeling.
|
34.
Provision of ecosystem services would require more sophisticated modeling
of ag practices than currently
able to do. Address in project narrative/ag econ study.
|
|
13.
Forest
Cover
|
35.
Farmer density ratio working with ECONorthwest
|
|
14.
Wetland Cover (Non-Estuarine)
|
36.
Forest
land base
|
|
15.
Chinook Salmon
|
37.
Available working forest lands
|
|
16.
Coho Salmon
|
38.
Production per forest site class
|
|
17.
Wildlife
|
39.
Site index (should not change across scenarios)
|
|
18.
Index of Change to High and Low Stream Flows
|
40.
Timber volume still waiting on DNR management
data
|
|
19.
Amphibian Distribution
|
41.
Timber value
|
|
20.
Songbirds
|
42.
Forest
products industry employment
|
|
21.
Waterbird/Shorebird Habitat Index
|
43.
Mill capacity projected timber volume
related to current
Skagit
mill capacity; may be of questionable value due to likely changes in technology
|
|
22.
Pathogen/Water Quality Index not unless
USGS calibrates SPARROW model for
Puget Sound
.
|
44.
Conversion risk more likely a model input
than indicator; similar to #31)
|
