vED ALASKA OCS SOCIOECONOMIC STUD [ES PROGRAM OCS … · 2019. 10. 14. · technical report no. 27...
Transcript of vED ALASKA OCS SOCIOECONOMIC STUD [ES PROGRAM OCS … · 2019. 10. 14. · technical report no. 27...
-
,
TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 27
REGE\vED
CONTRACT NO, AA550-CT6-61
ALASKA OCS SOCIOECONOMIC STUD [ES PROGRAMOCS VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
METHODOLOGY STUDY
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED FOR
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
ALASKA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OFFICE
March 2, 1979
DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THROUGH THENATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
5285 PORT ROYAL ROADS P R I N G F I E L D , V I R G I N I A 2 2 1 6 1 ~
11!
-
NOTICE
This documenf is disseminated under the sponsorshipof the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau ofLand Management, in the interest of informationexchange. The U.S. Government assumes no Iiabi !ityfor its content or use thereof.
ALASKA OCS SOCIOECONOMIC STUDIES PROGRAMOCS VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY STUDY
Prepared by‘ Harman, O’Donnell & Henninger Associates, lnc.\Merlyn J. Paulson, Inc.
.. .
March 2, 1979
Iv
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Il.
Ill.
Iv.
v.
)
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . * O**...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*. . * ...**..** . . . VI
INTRODUCTION ● O*****.*-* ● .**..***,.* ● *.****.*** ● *********O ● 9****** 1
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Study Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IField Reconnaissance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Literature Search and Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3Case Study . . . ● ● ● M . ● ● * ● ● . ● 0 ● ● . ● * ● * . . . ● .* . . . . . . ● . . ● ● . ● ● ● ● * ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● * ● ● ● 3-4
EVALUATION OF THE BUREAU OF lAND MANAGEMENTVISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM . . . . ● ● . . . ● . . .0 ● 0 . . ● .0 ● ● ..* . . ● 5
PROPOSED VISUAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . ...19
Methodology Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..l9Proiect ~ewiew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..e . . . ..2OVisual Surface Pa fferns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...25
Existing Visual Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...25Proposed Visual Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...29Special Use Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...35Physiographic Rovinces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...35
Use Volumes . . ● ● ● . ..* ● ● * ● *8 ● .* . . . ● *. ● *** ● . . ● . . ● ..** , ● ● ● 904- ● * ● ● * ● * ● .* 38Visual Preference Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...38User Sensitivity . . . . . . . . .. O . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...46Key Observation hints (KOPS) . . ● . . . . ● . . . ● . . . . , ● ● . . . . ● ● ● ● ● ● * . ● * ● ● * s ● ● s ● 46Seen Areas ● . ● * ● ● ● . . ● ● ● ● .- ● ● . ● . ● * ● b. ● ● ● ● . ● ● * ● ● . ● ● ● ● ● o 0 ● ● . . ● ● O ● ● * ● ● . ● * 47Distance Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...47Existing Visual QualiW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*Area Sensitivi~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...56Visual Vulnerability/Lease Permit Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...56Visua!Vulnerabili~ Matiice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...57Visual Vulnerabili~ Gtegory Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...58Visual impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6lVisual impact Matrices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...62Visual impact Gtego~Definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...66Visual Mitigation Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...67
REVIEW AND TESTING OF THE PROPOSED VRM METHODOLOGY.. . . . . ...69
APPENDICES . . ● ● .* ● .* ● ● * ● ● ● . . . . ● . . . ,. . . . ● 90000 ● . ● * se ● ● . ● ** ● ** ● ● ● ** . . ● 73
A . BLM Manual 8411 (Draft)B. SummaryofApplicable/Deficient C o m p o n e n t s o f BLM M a n u a l “
8411 (Draft)- Upland Visual Rescwrce inventory and,Evaluationc . Slide Simulation ProceduresD. Bibliography
v
-
1.
2 .
3 .
4 .
5 .
6 .
7 .
8 .
9*
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
170
18.
19.
20.
21,
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Methodology
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Flow Chart... o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..e.. o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..2l
Regional Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...26
proiect 13ase Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...* . . . ...27
Existing Visual Features/Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..* oo . . . . . . . . . ..3O
Exis?ing Visual Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...31
ProposedVisualFeatures/Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...32
Proposed Visual Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...33
Existing/ProposedVisual Feafures - Adiacent Area Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . ...34
Special Use Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...36
Physiographic provinces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...37
UseVolumes/’i’ypes . . . . . ..o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...40
UseVolumes/Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...41
User Sensitivity Locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..U.
Preference Testing Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...45
User Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...50
Key Observation I%ints (KOP.S) ● ● ● . ..* ● * ● ● ● . ● ● ● . ● . . ● * ● ● ● . . ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● * ● * ● ● ● 51
Seen Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...52
Distance Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...53
PreferenceScores/Exisfing Visual Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...54
Existing Visual Qual iiy ● ● ** ● ● * ● * ● . . . ● ● * ● ● *. ● *** ● ● *** ● ● ● . .* ● * . . . ● .*** ● * . 55
Area Sen4fivi~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...59
Wsual Vulnerabili~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..6O
Preference Scores/Proposed Visual Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...63
Proposed Visual Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...64
Change in Visual Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...65
Visua! impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...68
-
1. INTRODUCTION
The fol low~~~ study was prepared for the A!ask~ OCS Of Fice of the !ilui-eau of L a n d
Mancqern~nt as part of its Socioecw]o, mlc Program, G five-ye~r effort investigci?ing
1
-
Gsn~ral p!;ysiccJl candil-ions OF the area were determined during several hel icepter
fligk;~ arid ground surveys. Socioeconomic c~ndi;jons and influ~inc~s wei~ reviswed
throu~h discussions wii-h BL)A repres~~n:-afives and from various written reports prov!dw!
2
-
Costan:ini and Hanf, 1972, poin~ out that “when the public’s schedule of priorities
is probed deeply, the concern for environ mentcrl pro’olems ofi-m gives way to such
-
4
-
The Bureau of Land Management’s Visual Resource Mancgemenf Sysiern is divided
into six malor cornponenk:
0 8411 (Revised 8410 and 6310) - lJpl Gnc! visual Resource !nven; ory and hmluu~ion
e 8420 - Visual Resource Planning (Reserved)
a 8430 - Application of Visua! Rssource Management Principles im Proiecl-
P]artnirrg and Design
e 8440 - Envircmmen ia I Assessment for Visual Resources
G 84S0 - Rehabi! itation and EnhGr-icement of the visual Resources (Reserved)
e 8460 - Visual Resource Management Analysis Techniques (Reserved)
T h e Sysi-em, as such, prmticies for a “Bureauwide systematic approach for identifying
sce~lic qu~!i;y and 5etting irnin; mum cluali;y standards for management of the visual
resource values 011 public lands through a process ~vhich c:~ssifies all lands into one
Of five VRM CICS555. Each of fhe classes contains a specific mancgemen; o~ieci-ive
for mc]intaining or enhancing the visual resource values. The Visuu! Management
Clcrss assigned to a given land area depends upon fhree faci-ors:
a The inherent quo!ity of ihe scenery being viewed;
e The visual sensitivity level of ~he Iype OF vislual use it receives;
e The dis~artce zone it IS in. ”
The general philosophy of 13LM ]elated io Visual Resource lhmog+rnentf h~wever,
recognizes that “ihere is a varie~ of scenic values on nafural resource lands, I J !r! (J’
-
B1.fd !v?cmua I 8411 (Draf;)LJplcwd Visucl Resource !nven~ory
-
.24 Idenfifiing and Desc r ib ing CulturcY] Nmdificcifion
A . Visual [ntiusions
B. Visual lrnprovements
c . DJ~iermining i!;e Visual Significcince OF C:lliural Modifications
.25 Sceilic Qual i{~i E v a l u a t i o n
.26 lJje OF fhe Scenic Quality Ra?ing
A. Definition
6. Criteria for lden~ifica?ion
. 3 Evg\ua~ion for The Plcrining AI-c.-I Analy~is—..—. .——. —-- —.. —
A. Visua! Sensiiivi~y Evalua~ian
1. I)elirieu;-lng Sensi~iviiy Areas
2 . Deferm!ning the Level of Survey
4. prepar~ cind Map User Renc?ion
5 . Determining and Mapping Final Visuc! S?nsi~iviYy LCWSIS
.32 De l inea t ion OF Distince Zones
B. Background
c . Seldom Seen
.4 Ma&ial StoCoge.—— —.
7
-
8
-
.1 Inte:;m Mancgernenf hi- Visual Resources——.——
Deficiency: “The size of the unit IS of very Iiiiie consequence .”—.—
S c a l e : Sca!e slmulcl b= d e t e r m i n e d by the inforrnai-inn to be mapped and
faci!i~ to fie located within the study a r e a . I :250, OCO Or 1 :62,5C0
d o e s noi necessarily allow for Iocatlng vcrious elements wiihin any one
uni~. !%ysical eierneni~ of the l andscape should be nlcrped, by fype and
location , regardless of physiograpflic unit, Ianclform, and designer’s
subjective eva!ua;!un of “same ncr Y’Jre”.
or designing for a specific OCS use. Narratives ccn be deve!opd,
developed locaf!onal crif-eria.
9
-
Deficiency: Cul FUYUI tnodificuiions. . ● re to be. . .evaluakxl for ihelr
v!sucIl S!gnificcmce on scenic quality. “ ile~e,minaticm of “visuol s ignif i -
1 . PrOcedu~-:%
areo,
A ,:>liC
-
. 2 5 S c e n i c Qualiiy Eval~joiions
.25A
.25B
.25C
. 25D
.Appliccble Elemf:nR: “Evalug& CII i arecls \~ihic!~ confain iniers~ uld rela;e fo proposed ac;ivify.
Evaiuafion u! visual qualii-y should be made by users.
Applicable Elerc+n;-s: Key F~ci~~~ of LandForm, \/ege;aii~:,, Yic%r,.— —.
Co!or, !nfluence of )icliaccm: S c e n e r y , Scarci;-;, ald Culf(Jral
McdifiCci’iOnS atl relate io overa!! quality of’ a puriiculcr scene.
D e f i c i e n c y : Appllca}ion of Key Factors, ~:i ;h weighfed ccltegor-ies,——.. . . . .
reflec% slJb~ec~i~iTy on par; of design~r~ oiher ih”an use;s, c7n4 i s
-
.26
.27
.25E
not considel.e(] appropricfe for Alasl.:a’s OCS pioposed acfivi?ies;
Application of }
-
. 3 Evai I.]a~ion f o r the Plcl-ning Area Analy;is—.. . ..—> .—
. 3 1 Determina~iori of visual Sensi~iItitif Levels
. 31 A Visua! SensiTivi~y Eva! uufion
1 . Delineal-ing Smsifjvity Areas
c l . We Volumes - Evalua~lon and ldapplng of Crii-eria
Appl icab le E!emen; s: All— — —.
Def~ciency: Criiwia for Hig!t, Modercfe, a n d Low
Sensitivity is btiscxl on figures which might no} be
appropriate for Alaskan demographics.
b . identify and Map Key Observation Poinf(s) for
Use Volum3s
Applicable Elwnenfs: Prep~ration of Seen Areas and.— —. —
Seldom Seen Areas Map: ,:il! aid locational criteria of
proposed OCS ac;-ivit’ics. Use of ccmpuler for delit?ea~io:;
of Seen Arer.Is is encouraged if data is avcilable.
!3~fiCi~i7Cy: KOM should be inifia!ly determined from
all use C]reusz regardless OF use volumes; generoi physical
access to ureas might not reflect u~er sensitively. ~l:;n-
consideration shDIJ!d CISO b.> g!ven io indicaie s e e n arecs
fC!i” eacf] user iyp~. Similar areas will indiccle !-)igher
priority areas. Seen areu de~ei-minai-ions are difficult
io do manually. llifficu!ty a!so exists with View; k.
c . lclenii~icoiion of Scnsitivi]y Level Rating Boun&ries
13
-
Applicable E!~mw-?l:: Sensitivity boundaries and ratings..— . . . . . .
act ivi t ies .
Deficiency: Additional datu m~.ght be required ?O—. ———. -
depending on scenic guin!i;y crcas determined pre,~iouj!y.
essar-ily f~]low the other.
2. De~errnine the Level of Survey foi- User ,~.~~i~udes Towcrd
Chcnge
for a completely successful planning frarne;’;~r!
-
qualify of visual resources and po~en~iul conhms!, should be
c o n s i d e r e d . User at~iiudes hcve not been ap;. ‘“cd to scenic
qualify deierminaiion phcises.
3. Analysis of User Af~ii_ud~s Toward Change
a* A.pplic~b!e E13rn3tlk7: pi-ejenkl~ion of Clrl’;-icipcied chang. -s.—
io user gro!jps relcies direci!y to Alaska OCS c o n c e r n s .
deve!op.ment, an d may vary by Ioca:ion along Alas!
-
4 .
5 .
Prepare and McIp User ReucFion
Applicable Elements: All— - — . . . . . — — —
Deficiency: None——
De&rnining and Mcrpping
fl.pplic~ble Elermenis: A l l- - - - - -
De ficierrc;’: Co:nbinatia(l.——.. .
Final Vis’Jnl Sensitivity Lcveis
-
.5
.6
.7
Applicable E!emenis: AI!—.-.——
Deficiency: None—
Ma?eria I Siorqe
App!; cnbk E!wnents: All- . .. —.-. —--- .-—
13eSciency: NcMIe. — — .-
Viw~i Resource Mcrnagement Classes
Deficiency: The existing 13LM 8411 gives equal weighis for Scenic Quali ty,————-,
Sensiiivify Levelj and Distclnce Zones . Considercr!iorr should be givert to
clefer,m?nlng weighti specifically addressing environment a!, socio-economic
. 5“arid W) iq’ue corrci if ions v{iil in lhe sl-u dy area,
on impacs, on a proiec~ by pro~cc? basis.
17
-
,,. .
-
19
-
20
-
,!
. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... -.. . ,.. -.,, ;
ROi2C; GV.2i”Vie\’{ jjLr
Specicil Use Are:js
Pfwinccx
‘ d
-
o Specific Descriptions
- Change in \%Yer Area
1.
2 .
3 .
4.
5 .
6 .
7 .
1,
2.
3.
4 .
5.
6.
7 .
8,
9 ,
-
- Change in Vegetation
1. ExcTct locution art(l II W:!1OC+ of vegetation clectring and/or
modification
2. Size OF area under C!,c;-jge
3. Type, l o c a t i o n , method, quun; iiy and iirning of rep!: m~ing CJrr\!,l
or reseeding
- Change in S~ruc;ures
1. Exaci locations of siruciui-es io be constructed and/or wifhin
i-he Proi ect Si-udy Area
2 . Design of sfruci-ures
u . size
b. e;:~erior Form, Line, Color, and Texture of prcposed si-ruciw:”;
3. Expecfecl life of siruciures
4. Opera~ioils a n d main;enm-:ce SC!led U!eS Cllld rne?hods
1~ is an !n ;:wian~ respon~ibilii-y ia ru,=~j! Qh cons~ructio:-j and main t-:mnce req’Jirwrlsmts-.,-----
in ~he praiec} region in order to esfablish reawnab!e a n d r e l i a b l e visunl mi~iga~ion
measures and,ior design alieincr;ives.
2 3
-
is
use o larger map scale (1 :250, 000 oi-
fo use a smaller mUp scrle {1 :L3,500
2 4
-
Base Map Preparation
Ease maps are developed fo serve as ~he,common denominator of al I space-related
prolect information. Two base maps are required for the ana!ysis and disp!ay of visual
information.
● Regions 1 Study Area M a p - displays, at a very large scale, the Prolect
Study Area in relation i-o po I itical boundaries, transportation routes, malor
cu Itural and\or physics! feafures, an d the physiographic province(s), (
Illustrations 2 and 10).
9 Prolect Base Map - serves as the base for information, CO I Iection, ana
ee
ysis
and display. It is desirable for the map to display highlighted transportation
routes, population centers, unique physical fea~ures, and the pro!ec~ StudY
Area - that area most directly impacted by the proposed actions (see II lustra-
tion 3).
A thorough review of ihe la!es~ BLM requirements for map preparation, titles, legends,
etc. is undertaken before map ibrmat designation. ]t is recommended that a pin-
registered mylar overlay system be used for a! I proiect mapping. A system of opaque
“separates” may be
EXISTING VISUAL
used for either gray tone or color reproduction,
Visual Surface Pattern Definition
FEATURES
The identification and listing of each existing visual surface pattern feature normally
seen from the ground or air is made. This identification and listing should include
different locations of the same visual feature when visual quality, user sensitivity,
25
-
. .
... . ,...-. “IT.. —.-., 1- F%oject. . ... . :,..,., I Study Area /,,.. ,
“:. .’. ; Kenai ~ -
3’
‘1)!~~Sterling
:.I —
: H2$!!-’ksokj~tnaf ,-- CohoKasilof.,,... . ,., . . . . .... . . . .;..:. $....
Seward 4!/
FEcmt$’hu ST(JDYAREA
26
-
f r I 1 I I I
x. I I I * i . %.-. .- 1 fdz~
‘Y%IU LL-LLL/ !-!--Hi-l-l-
.,. [ II II
1 +
:.
. . . . . I,. . . . .-. . .:,
.s?3? “.- “ .-2.”: .%+;+g. .- h----- .- .,---- r.. - 1 I A
--l-----l
I
/
Id9tna
,,-. . . . . . . . . 1 s [ 1 I
PROJECT BASE MAP,“
‘r’ ‘~’ 3
27 Hwnan ,Q’OOI_Idl& Henninger Aaa4ates, Inc.planning COwIJltanta” Danvaf, Colorado
-
visual impact, and visual acceptability of proposed actions might vary depending on
the area’s adiacent and,/or background 1%-m, Line, Color, or Tex*ural characteristics.
Typical examples OF visual features inciude ocean, coast line, estuary, tidal flat,.
c1 i ff, lake, pond, in 1 et, riverr stream, trees (by type, if appropriate), meadow,
tundra, industrial area, institutional area, commercial area, residential! area, historic
structure, roads, topography, etc. Visual features, which wil I vary by geographical
area, are identified during visits to *he Froiect Study Area, from USGS maps, land
use maps, aerial phohgraphs, and other avallabl e information sources. The I eve! of
detail to which the surface pattern is defined depends upon the map scale, surface
pattern diversity, relative scale of the proposed
of each visua I surface pattern feature identified
actions, etc. A written description
is made in terms of its relative dom-
inance and uniqueness, as well as its general Form, Line, Color, and Textural
characteristics (see [1 Iusiration 4).
Delineate and label on an overlay to the Froiect Base M~p each of the identified
existing visual features or combination of features (see II Iusiration 5). Visual features
are displayed as points, lines and/or areas. Representative SI ide photographs, taken
from a variety of appropriate ground and/or air locations, are produced for each
different iype and location of visual feature identified, I isted, and mapped. S1 ides
wil I be used later fix simulation of proposed actions, preference testing, development
of mitigation measures, and design of alternative actions. .. .
-
PROPOSED VISUAL FEATURES
The identification and I isting of all proposed actions (visual features) which would
normally be seen from the ground or air is made (see Illustration 6). Typical examples
of proposed visual features include dril I structures , shrage flats, wel I head structures, “,
crew housing, service facilities, dri! ! pads, pipelines, sand and gravel borrow areas,
pipe coating yards, barge terminals, storage tanks, haul roads, and other facilities
related to the oi 1 and gas development operations. Delineate and label on an overlay
to the Proiect Base Map each of the identified proposed actions (visual features) (see
II Iustration 7). Proposed visua I features are displayed as points, I ines and/or areas.
feature identified,
used, as necessary,
Representative SI ide phonographs, taken from a variety of appropriate ground and/or
air locations, are produced for each different type of proposed visual
listed, and mapped. Different viewpoints and view angles should be
to adequately describe the proposed activity. Preferably, slide photographs should
be taken of simi Iar proposed features already constructed elsewhere. If examples of
simi !ar proposed
line drawings of
air locations.
features are not available, a competent delineator should develop
the proposed features as if seen from a variety of ground and/or
ldenfi~ and list all existing visual features where proposed visual features are pro-
grammed. For each such condition describe the Foreground, Adiacent Areas Right
and Left, and Background characteristics in terms of Form, Line, Color, and Texture
(see Illustration 8). ;.,-.
29
-
Written Description (General)
Existing Visual Features
1Cook inlet
2Kenai
3Kenai Suburb
4$oldotna
5Kenai River
6Open Swamp
7 Single FamilyResidential
8Isolated Swamp
9industrial ,
10Agriculture” (Dry)
Etc.
Form Line4’
Color
●
.
Texture Preference Score
EXISTING VISUAL FEATURES/DESCRIPTIONS
4
-
NzI!i!!!!i!!. i ~‘ mtc
1. cook Inlet2. Kenai
I I 1A IEl12 I 10 !M , m
I
I
II [ Ii I
IiI
8. Isolated Swamp9. Industria I EXISTING VISUAL
3. Kenai Suburb 1 0 . ,Agriculture ( D r y )r
FEATURES4. Soldotna 11. Undeveloped Land
T
Mi.
5. Kenai River 12. i-lighway +++6. Open Swamp 13. Beach Road Km. 1
7. Single Family 14. HighwayR e s i d e n t i a l ~
515. Agriculture (Irrigated)
31 wJnnan,o’Donndl& Hennmgw Assocha, Inc..~ -~~-” ~, mofildo
-
Proposed Visual Feature Written Description (General) Preference Score
1Barge Terminal
2Employee Housing “
3Pipe Storage
4Lease Areas/Drill Pad
5Lease Areas/Drill Pad
6Lease Areas/Drill Pad
7Lease Areas/Drill Pad
8Lease Areas/Drill pad
9
10?
Etc. “
.●
PROPOSED VISUAL FEATURES/DESCRIPTIONS
ick
-
— . . . . . . . . .
7“ m-.. . . . . .* 6 ‘::- ~~
i1“*
4:. . II I 1 i#kiR--i--”+---
1 I
1. Barge Terminal2. Employee Housing3 . P i p e S t o r a g e4. Lease Areas/Drill Pad5. Lease Areas/Drill Pad6. Lease Areas/Drill Pad
PROPOSED VISUAL FEATURES
‘i ’ ?+4+Km. 1 77.9 Lease Areas/Dri I I Pad8. Lease Areas/Dri 1 I Pad
33 l-!~,0’OOnnell& ~Associa@s, Inc.Planning CcasuNants. Denwr, Colomdo
-
Preference ScoresExisting Visual Feature
Proposed Viual Feature
Foreground )
Form
Line
color
Texture
Adjacent Area, Right
Form
Line
.
Color
Texture
. Adjacent Area, Left
Form
Line
Color
Texture
Background
Form
Line
Color
Texture “
EXISTING/PROPOSED VISUAL FEATUREADJACENT AREA DESCRIPTION
. . “t34
-
SPECIAL USE AREAS
The identification and I isting of each Spe;ia!
made by members of the VRM Team assembled
Use Area in the Proiect Study Area
for the proiect. Typical examples
include Parks, Wildlife Rangesr Wild and Scenic Rivers, Scenic Observation I%ints,
Wilderness Areas, State or National Recreation Areas, Archaeological or Historical
Sites and other areas considered significant. Delineate and label on an overlay to the
Proiect 13ase Map each of the identified Special Use Areas (see 11 Iustration 9). Special
Use Areas are shown as points, I ines, or areas. S[ ide photographs, taken from a variety
of appropriate ground and/or air locations, are produced fbr each area identified, I isted
and mapped. Different viewpoints and view angles should be used as necessary to ade-
quatel y describe the Special Use Area. Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC)
are a result of overall Preference Testing.
PHYSIOGRAPH!C PROVINCES
The identification, 1 is+ing, and photographic documentation of representative visual
surl%ce pattern features (including unique features) and Special Use Areas within the
Physiographic Province(s) encompassing the Prol ect Study Area is made. Representative
photographs of the physiographic province(s) are used during Preference Testing for
comparison of visual qua !ity with;n the Proiect Study Area to that of the larger region
(see Illustration 1 O).
35
-
.
I
*:;} : ; -—---— ------------- ----: -- --.--–L..–-.
-i. . . .
.,.. . .
..”.,..
1——. — .___: P‘~——
r .--.--.-t-—+— ,National /i, M~se Range
I .,—-.-L------ -
I~,
I
.- !
+-L--L_‘-... .1---
I
+/
i. .
.—
!. )4fl’1’). . . ~&i-. ( I=--t
~~ .[ ‘~ &~-1-I cl, ‘–+. .—. - .+ —— -. .+_ __._+___
Iii $---tf>.. -.!. ..’.. ., ; ~.--...,. .,.;,.,~; ., . :..-::. .. .. . .. .. . . . . .. . ., ““’’:-..\. - &- ___ ; . ~ - “-:y:-$!’ -?%-..L% . ..+.,.~.:,;, i;:,’.+,,,,..p,;::;% . .
>,,., ’,. . ...’. -i-- _._._1 --_rl_
.Ma-,%+1 ,. :“s~’, , :. . -l-J-,! ~“”~“ .+LSQ
1.2 .3.4 .
National Moose RangeKenai River, Scenic Area SPECIAL USE AREASBeach Road
.“.
Archeological Site /p.w+IKin. 1 9
36 Harman,O’Oonnell& +lenninger)lssociies, Inc.Plmwwm COmultants. Oenver. Colorado
-
.
A 1’1 4 \,
.
‘RegionalStudy Area
1. Arctic Coastal Plain 9. Alaska-A lu}ian2. Arctic Foothil Is 10. Coastal Trough
PHYSIOGRAPHIC,“3. Arctic Mountains 11. Pacific Border Ranges PROVINCES4. Northern Plateaus 12. Coast Mountains5. Western A Iaska6. Seward Peninsula7. Bering Shelf 1,08. Ahklun Mountains
37
-
Use Volumes
The identification and I isting of transpo~ation and use areas, along with corresponding
use volumes, is made. Use volume for transportation routes is measured in “Average
Daily Traffic” (ADT); use volume fix use areas is measured in “visitor Days”. Delineate
and label on an overlay to the pro~ect Base Map the actual ‘numbers associated with
human use for each appropriate transportation route and/or use area (see Illustration 11).
Should overlaps occur, label *he route or area which demonstrates the greatest use
volume. Use vo?ume information has a role in Area Sensitivity Analyses and the deter-
mination of Key Observation Points, discussed later in the report.
With consideration given to the resident and visitor population in the region, develop
a Use Volume Matrix for the designated transportation routes and use areas applicable
to the Project Study Area. Delineate and label on an overlay to the Proiect 8ase
Map the appropriate levels of High, Moderate, and LOW use (see II lustration 12).
User and professional preference evaluations are a ma~or factor in the determination
of Existing Visual Qualify, User Sensitivity, Area Sensitivity, Proposed Visual Quality
(from proposed actions), and the identification of Mitigation Measures and Alternatives
to the Proposed Actions for the Proiect. Preference iudgemen~ are made by public
participants, representatives of the BLM, and its design consultants. The selection
of public participants is based upon a statistical I y valid representation of local resi -
dents, area users (including consumptive and non-consumptive users), and local
38
-
agencies. Preference iudgements made by representatives of the BLM and its con-
sultants reflect, in visual terms, the relationship of the Proiect Study Area to the
PhYsiographic Province in which it existsj The procedure used for Preference Testing
is as follows:
e Arrange fbur slide proieciws to proiect horizontal I y across a white wal I or
screen. The proiector on the far left is used exclusively to display all the
existing visual surface pa~fern features. The remaining projectors to the
right are used to test proposed actions simulated within the existing scene,
or different views of the existing visual fea~re if no changes are proposed
within that particular feature. (The most obvious view angles should be
tes?ed. ) Various mitigation measures and/or design alternatives are
simulated from the three right hand proieciors. Mitigation Measure
design alternative tests should include a variety of distance, Form,
Co?or, and Texture related simulation.
also
and
Line,
,
● A series of introductory s I ides demonstrating representative visual fea~ures
found within the Physiogruphic Province(s) and an appropriate sampling of
proposed actions anticipated for the Proiect Study Area are shown to acciimate
the viewers to the Preference Testing procedure. An explanation of the proiect
objectives, procedures, instructions and uses of the results accompanies the
orientation SI ides. The SI ides representing the Physiographic Province(s)
aliow iudgements reflecting preference comparisons to the Project Study
Area.
39
-
.
‘.-
..-. . . “i\l 1 .i
.!\;r.. .-
i-l ighwayKenai SeenCook Iniet
.--u.L ,iboo I.—— ~sito\Days
&J’. . .
)-: bh‘P/“-. 0 i..\ -,, .75 Visitor Dsys
L.. . . ..l_
. . .,.
.< ‘.+ j -.., < ““ ,, .“. -. . . .3’: .’ ...,‘: . . .,:., t,p ,. ,. ,, , ., ;,....,:: ‘. . . . ...” -,’~,.. ., ..,. , ,“. -. .-,, . ..4 .,.h.. - . ,.. . . ,.=,
., ~,;.’.. . :. . . ’ . . . . .,, .-,.!. :.,,.,
.
National Moose Range 200 Visitor DaysKena i/Subu rb 3,000/1 ,500 Visitor Days USE VOLUMES/TYPESSoldotna .“1 ~200 Visitor Days “Highway 4,000 ADTBeach Road l,800ADT
2,000 ADT‘j’’ kJ--l-+
Note: K m . 1 2 3 11c River 150 Visitor Days Figures should represent .75 Visitor Days actual use volumes for
40Hamwm,O’DCWWll A t+nnhgwhi~~, Inc.
particular activity. Warming Consultants. Denver, ColomdO
-
.
II I
L
..
II 1
--L..-
I[I I
H M LUrban 6 , 0 0 0 4 , 0 0 0 2 , 0 0 0
USE VOLUMESZRATINGSRecreation 500 300 100Historic Use 150 100 50
‘ r
?Ji.Highways 5 , 0 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 1,000 - &’
Note:
12Categories based on actua Iuse volumes found in study area. 41
Hannan,O’Dcmnell& HNmingw Associates, Inc.Plarmmg Consultants. Derwef, Cokxado
-
Distribute the User Sensitivity Location Map(Pro~ect Base Map, reduced
io 8-1/2 x 11 “) to participants with an explanation of the map’s contents
and use. Each participant is instructed to locate on the map the areas in
which he or she lives, travels, works, and/or visits within the Pro~ect Study
Area. The participants are then instruc~ed to rank in terms ‘of High, Moder-
ate~ or Low each area as to its importance as an observation point. This is used
as a cnxs-check during Sensitivity Testing Analysis, and to determine potential
Key Observation %ints (KOPS). Representatives of the BLM and its design
consultants are instructed to delineate visual I y important transportation routes
and Special Use Areas on the User Sensitivity Location Map. This information
is added to the areas of High sensitivity during the User
After completion of the maps, the group returns them to
Sensitivi~ Analysis.
the instructor (see
!Ilustration 13).
Distribute and explain the Preference Testing Forms to
1 I Iustration 14), $nstrucf the group to rate each scene
the participants (see
( a ~udgement of the
entire scene) by assigning a vaiue to each box based upon the level in which
*he scene is “1 iked” or “disliked” as defined on the bottom of the Preference
Testing Form. Values greater than +2 or less than -2 can be assigned if it
is felt that circumstances warrant an extreme response.
Using the far left proiector , show the group a slide of each of the visual
features indicated on the Existing Visual Surface Patterns Overlay (see
Illustration 5). Specific features may be shown from different distances
42
-
and locations depending upon ~he more obvious locations of observers in *he
project Study Area. Evaluate the entire existing environment before showing
any proposed actions.
Lease Permit Analyses
able at this stage. )
(This is the final Preference Test for Visual Vulnerability/
if visual details regarding proposed actions are not avail-
. Using the remaining three slide projectors, show the group a slide of each
of the proposed ac~ions simulated within each of the appropriate existing
surface pattern
studied and uti
features. Several methods of slide simulations have been
ized by the design professions. The method developed and
recommended by this contractor which most real istical Iy simulates the
proposed actions is described in Appendix 2. Multiple SI ide sets should
allow participants to compare and iudge the influence of various distances,
Form, Line, Color, Texture and appropriate design a I tematives in connection
wi fh the proposed actions. It may be beneficia I to show proposed acfions at
least iwice, in varying sequences, in order to enhance the preference resu!ts.
● After a thorough display of the Existing Visual Surface Patterns, and simula-
tions of Proposed Actions within those features, instruc~ the group to return
the Preference Forms. Again, explain the project objectives, and uses
(value) of the Preference Testing results.
43
-
.,, :
rFishing(M)
.>.. .-,
. . .
I
Coa wet
---
-—.—‘ -+--L.P----J,—+..- , --—
—-– 4 =—Y=-— .;
–? –- -—;-— -— —.4.. .- . -
:
:
1Note: USER SENSITIVITY LOCATIONSRatings used on I y for cross reference ,“after preference test i ng.
T
Mi.
~13
-
SlideSet No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A
n+1
D+3
Clo
clo
no
n-2
n+1
n
o
Rating Criteria
B c D
EIEIEIn-2m-2 n-2
EmmaElml L1’ElrlclEIEIEIElm n- 2EIEIEI
I Like 1~ Very Muchi Like itI Nefther Like !t Nor Dislike ItI Dislike ItI Dislike It Very Much
Note:
++
;
-.
Add Slide Sets as required to il Iustrateall Existing Visual Features and/ordifferent views of each feature.
+2+1
o-?-2
.
PREFERENCE TESTING FORM
1445
-
User Sensitivity
Flaving collected the Preference Testing Forms, evaluate thetest scores and separate
the responses of individual participants into categories of High, Moderate, and Low
Sensitivity, based upon each persons demonstrated reation to visual change, e.g.,
reaction to proposed actions simulated in existing scenes versus existing scenes without
proposed acfions. Using information from the Sensitivity Location Overlay (see III ustratic
13), delineate and label on an overlay to the Proiect Base Map the areas in which fhe
High Sensitivity users live, travel, work, and/or visit within the Proiect Study Area.
Add to these areas, Special Use Areas which may have been omitted by the High
Sensitivity users. Except in those areas already designated as a High Sensitivity Area,
add the Nloderate Sensitivity Areas, determined from the locational information provided
by the
excepi
Areas.
i 5 ) .
Moderate Sensitivity participants; al I other areas within the l%o ject Study Area,
for Special Use Areas not already designated, are mapped as Low Sensitivity
All Special Use Areas are designated as High Sensitivity Areas (see Ill usiration
Key Observation %ints
The determination of Key Observation Points (KOPS) is made from an evaluation of
Use Volume and User Sensitivity. The following matrix defines Key Observation
Points in a yes-no format:
46
-
KEY OBSERVATION POINT MATRIX
UserSensitivity Use Volume
High Moderate Low
High yes yes yes
Moderate yes yes yes
Low yes no no
Delineate and iabel on an overlay to the Proiect Base Map the KOPS identified by
overlaying the Use Volume and User Sensitivity Overlays (see II Iustration 16).
Seen Areas
Delineate and label on an overlay to the Proiect Base Map all “Seen Areas” from
the Key Obsemation %ints, considering proposed actions. Visibility (or invisibility)
is dependent upon the terrain, atmospheric conditions, and in some cases, visual ~
surface pattern. The maximum distance at which proposed actions are visible is based
upon an evaluation of each of fhe proposed actions in relation to the specific Proiect
Study Area. Separate overlays of “Seen Areas” from each KOPS should be saved for
use in later Area Sensitivity Analysis (see II Iustration 17).
Distance Zones
Visual distance is a critical factor in the evaluation of visual resources and development.
In general, highly preferred visual features become somewhat less preferred (and less
preferred somewhat more preferred) as distance increases. That is, a I I visua I features.-
tend toward neutral ii-y with distance and its accompanying fi Itering characteristics.
47
-
Three visual distances are determined for the Project Study Area. These incfude
(1) Foreground,” or the area displaying the greatest resolution and visual detail as
seen from an observation point; (2) Middleground, or the area in which visual features
are clearly visible but lacking in fine-grained detail; and (3) Background, or areas
in which visual features are discernible only as general visual forms..
As in the determination of “Seen Areas”, the definition of Distance Zones is dependent
upon the terrainr atmospheric conditions andf in some cases~ the visual surface pattern
in the Proiect Study Area. Distance Zone definitions are based upon an evaluation
of each of the proposed actions in relation to the visibility conditions inherent in the
Proiect Study Area. As a general guiding rule, Foreground visual distance is in the
range of zero to one mile; Middleground visual distance is one to five miles; and
Background visua! distance is five to twenty miles or more. A fourth visua I
Seldom Seen, is identified, regardless of distance, as invisible or partially
category,
invisible
from Key Obsewation Points. Delineate and label on an overlay to the Proiect
Base Map al I areas identified as Foreground, Middleground, Background and Seldom
Seen, as determined from Key Observation Points. Should zones from more than one
KOPS overlap, delineate the zone with the nearest and/or “Seen” classification
(see Illustration 18).
Existinq Visual Quality
The determination of Existing Visual Quality is made from the application of Preference
Testing results to the Visual Surface Pattern Features. Sum the scores for each of the
different existing visual features , and divide the sum by the number of evaluators.
48
-
It is important to keep seaprate
duced by representatives of the
thepublic participants evaluations from those pra-
BLM and its design consultants. The written document-
ation of “local/regional” plus “nai-ions I” siandards for visual quality is a requirement.
Should results of the Preference Testing of both user and professional groups be similar,
mesh the two together; should results be significant y different, use the group results
which will ultimately more greatly protect or enhance the visual resources of the
Prolect Study Area.
Develop a List of Preference Scores for each Existing Visual Surface Pattern Feature
and record (see Ii Iustx-ation 4). Using the accompanying Visual Qua! ity Ranges,
determine the Existing Visual Quality Category for each designated Visual Feature
(see Illustration 1 9).
Preference Scores Visual Quality Category
Category A Considered As1 . 5 t o 2 . 0 Areas of Critical Environmental Con tern (ACEC)
.75 to 2.0 Category A
- .74 to .74 Cdegory B
- .75 fo -2 .0 Category C
Category C Considered As-1.5 to - 2 . 0 Areas Requiring Rehabilitation
Aggregating homogeneous are~s, delineate and label on an overlay to the Prolect Base
Map and the Existing Visual Surface Pattern Overlay, the relative level of Existing
Visual Quality determined by the Preference Tes*ing procedure (see Illustration 20).
49
-
.
,..,.>:-, ~.... ..,, ;,. ,.
::; .-.. . ..
“, .+. . ,
: t-t-- l , II I _&._—.f ------
-::-[;;;,.?::..
‘iTNdLL_‘
Coo&b’Met
L
‘-T-~”l-----T-----–-1—-------- .L_._..L—
Nationai .Mcmse Fkye
I t
i 1 II I
IiI
I
:, P-&l—
f-–. -...+ . .. —.+ .Y , __
T 1-— —L~i1.–.+---- . ...!. -. -. _ -1H! ; L/ ] ‘[—- p--,.”z t ,1!
-J“.,.
.- —.4— L_ _ _ _ _ _ sJMQ#M_l~1~
ttt-f-+--l+
Ilk. . .. .- 1
.-
1
—— . . —
H-HighM-ModerateL-Low
USER SENSITIVITY
50 K3maIl,o’DOnndl& HennhgWAsaociiftea, Inc.P!annmg ConaultantsO Denwf, Cokwado
-
‘.
,.:,
.? -+. . ,-
,.-. .
l;:;
I
– K O P S
KEY OBSERVATIONPOINTS (KOPS)
“j’W 1651 Harman,CWonnel}& Henningxtijea, h-m.
Planning Consultants. &fWFX, CO*
-
,.
. .
\
I:.
) - ..,.
,.,
SS-Seldom Seen AreasNote:Maintain separate overlaysfor seen area from each KOPSfor use in area sensitivity analysis.
. ——— . .SEEN AREAS
!“.
“r $,Ii.&’ 1752
Hamlan,o’oonnell& ~l%s@a@$, Inc.?!wming Consultants. Oenwr, CdOdO
-
.
,.:
cook lnkt
MG,—.. +.._ . . . . ‘ \ ! -f f--–hn2i21i+%i:%-: !-
Foreground (FG) “ O-1 Mile DISTANCE ZONESMiddleground (MG) 1-5 Miles .“,Background (BG) 5-20 MilesSeldom Seen Areas (SS)
1’
Mi.
*E-J++18
53 H.wl%3n,o@xwwll& HennkJw As90ciate!l, Inc.p~a~mfng @nsuiiants. DefIwr, Colorado
-
Numberof Evaluators 35
Existing Visual Feature +2 +1 o -1 - 2 Catega
1. Cook Inlef .694 B
10
1*14 A2 . Kenai 9 22 0
3. Kenai Suburb,
.1415 0 B
.14 B4 . Soldo?nu 5 20 10.
.775. Kenai River 5 17 13 A
.466. Open Swamp 26 8 1 B
7. Single Family Residential 1.54 A25 4 6
.148. belated Swamp 5 30 B
9 . lndustiial B.5417 18
1.31 A10. Agriculture (Dry) 11 24
.14 B11. Undeveloped Land 5 30
12. Highway 15 10 *43 B
ACEC13. Beach Road 25 10
14. Highway 20 15 .57 B
15. Agricultural (Irrigated) 24 1.7—
ACEC
PREFERENCE scowEXISTING VISUAL FEATUR
-
— .
.’. -
. .
Ccx3khk?t
‘ . .
-’ ..:. . .
.-,
;- . . -“;-
.- ”-.,-
-.’+ ..
.,, -,.-.. .,: ,... - ,“’;. .
. . . ..’. .
55
EXISTING VISUALQUALITY
Han’nan, o’oOm14 & HmiflgefAssoc@&lg, Inc.Planning Consultants. Denvsf, Cobrado
-
Area SensitiviW
The determination of Area Sensitivity is made from the evaluation and overlay of
UserSensitivity r Use Volume and Seen Areas. The accompanying Area Sensitivity
Ma?rixdefines the relative level of Area Sensitivity. The Seen Areas Overlays
determined previously from each Key Observation %intserve as the,indicatorof
Area Sensitivity Map boundaries. Delineate and label cman overlayto the Prolect
Base Map the results of the above composite evaluation. Shou!d overlaps occur, use
the area boundary demonstrating a higher level of Area Sensitivity. Areas invisible
from Key Observation Points are included in the Low Area Sensitivity category (see
illustration 21).
UserSensitivity Use Volume
High Moderate Low
High High High Mod
Moderafe Mod Mod Mod
Low Mod Low Low
Visua I Vu Inerabil ity/Lease Permit Anal ysis
The procedure used in the determination of the acceptability of the visual environment
for energy related leasing involves the use of (?) Existing Visual Quality, (2) Seen
Areas, (3) Distance Zones, (4) Area Sensitivity, and (5) Special Use Areas (including
Areas of Critical Environments I Concern for visual values [ACECI ). For determination
of environmental impact of existing facilities, evaluaiw- should continue process des-
cribed on Page 61, Visual Impact. Typical 1 y, only general information regarding *he
visual characteristics of the proposed action is available at this stage of the process.
56
-
Therefbre, the analyses are based predominantly upon the ability of the visua! environ-
ment b withstand that “type” of development, rather than being based upon detailed
specifications and construction characteristics. “Typical” characteristics are used in
fhe Proiect Overview and Preference Testing phases. The matrices shown below.
are used to define the level of acceptability of leasing in the Proiect Study Area.
Maps are overlayed as required by the matrices. Del ineate and label on an overlay
to the Proiect Buse Map the relative levels and corresponding zones as defined in
the anafyses (see Illustration 22).
Visual Vulnerability Matrices
Distance Zones
For Existing Visua I Qual ii-y F G MG 8G ‘SS_Cafegory “A” Areas:
H! Ill
Area Sensitivity M 1 11 11 II
L II 1! II 11
F G M G BG SS
For Existing Visual QuaiityCategory “B” Areas:
H 11 1] II Ill
Area Sensi t iv i ty M II 11[ Ill III
L Ill Ill Ill Ill
F G MG BG SS
For Existing Visual Qual ii-yCategory “C” Areas: 1H II [11 Ill [[l
Area Sensifivify M I Ill Ill Ill Iv
L Ill: .111 Iv IV
57
-
Special Use Area
Y e s No
I IIVisual Vulnerability Category(Determined from above II I II
analysis) Ill II Ill
Iv .11 IV
Visual Vulnerability Category Definitions
Category 1 - Unsui~able for the proposed actions; very high visual quality, in com-
bination with high visibility by sensitive users of the visual resources,
make lands within this zone extremely vulnerable to visual degradation.
category ii - Suitable fir the proposed actions only if substantial Form, Line,
Co lot-, and Textural mitigating measures are implemented. Proof
of adequate mitigating measures, prepared by professionals trained
in the environmental design arts, must be demonstrated and committed
before leasing is authorized.
Category 1 I 1 - Suitable for the proposed actions if Form, Line, Color, and Texture
related mitigation measures are implemented. Mitigating measures,
prepared by professionals trained in the environmental design arts,
are required *O reduce Form, Line, Color, and Texture related
anomalies.
Category IV - Areas most suitable for the proposed actions. Facilities developed
in these areas wi I I cause the I east degradation of the visua I resource;.“
designation of color related mitigating measures, however, is
required.
58
-
,,
.,
#>
I
/
.—.-+--.-.---L —-—
-4——...
)
:
:
.-.— -...—
1H-High AREA SENSITIVITY ‘M-ModerateL-Low
,“.
/ ‘r Mi.ET-*2Km, 1 2Y59
tiarman,O’Wrmell & I+ennbqer Associates, Inc.Planning Consultants ~ Owwer, Colorado
-
\I
I... .?” . .-t ,,, +...; “:
-k: : ,:.-.
% z * . . ‘...~, -.. 2.
, . :.,, ~.,- .-,, <,..
.: . ,-“-:.- ,. ..:~. ...
,. .-
-.,-
;..
---
.. .-
.,
:.,.:..:—
I I1
1[
1 ,——.. —.— .—
T - — - p ----=--
I 1
ii— - f–- ---;- -—-;--—]/ FJatk3na/ II Moose Range
I
3 _! ~
‘ - - t - - -, II T!
_-. .——i,
i i,—-—+.– T–
M ~r]---’-’’’’”’-&Q-p--j--- .—
F:”---)G??.,
y—--——_ ;
VISUAL VULIWRA13L11
2if“F&--+ Affi60
-
Visual Impact
For Environmental Impact S~a~ements, the procedure used in the determination of Visual
Impact involves the analysis and overlay of (1) Existing Wsua~ Qualiv, (2) Seen Areas,
(3) Distance Zones, (4) Area Sensitivity, (5) Special Use Areas (including Areas of
Crittcal Environmental Concern for visual va!ues), and (6) Change in Visual QuaI ityr.
developed as a result of the following steps:
Sum the Preference Scores for each proposed action (as proposed,
measures), and divide the sum by the number of evaluators. It is
without new mitigation
important to keep
separate the public participant’s scores ilom those produced by representatives of the
BLM and its design consultants. The writ~en do~umentation of “local/regional” plus
“national” standards for visual impact is a requirement. Should the resul~s of the
Preference Tests of both user and professional groups be simi Iar, mesh the two together;
should results be significantly different, use for the impact analyses the group’s scores
which will ultimately more greatly protect or enhance the visual resources of the
Proiect Study Area. Using the Proposed Visual Features Overlay (see II Ius?ration 7),
develop a lJst of Preference Scores for each Proposed Action and record (see 11 I ustra-
~ion 6). Using the Visual Qua Iity Ranges established on Page 49, determine the Proposed
Visual Quality Category for each of the proposed actions (see II lustration 23). Aggre-
gating homogeneous areas, delineate and label on an overlay to the Proiect Base Map
and Existing Visual Quality Overlay, the relative level of Proposed Visual Quality
de~ermined by the Preference Testing procedure (see III ustration 24), Using fhe Change
in Visual Quality Matrix, shown on the next page, del;neate and label on an overlay
to the Proiect Base Map, the Change in Visual Qua! ii-y (see Illustration 25).
61
-
Proposed Visual Quality
, A B C
Existing Visual Qualify
ACEC 111 Iv Iv
A II Ill Iv
B I !1 II
c I ! II -
Rehab 1 ! II
Proposed Preference scores must be within .25poinh of existing visual feature scores
for unqualified approval.
Theaccompanying matrices areused ~define thelevel of visual impact of~he proposed
actions in Proiect Study Area. Maps are overlayed as required by the matrices. De-
1 ineafe and label on an overlay to the Project Base Map the relative levels and
corresponding zones as defined by the analyses (see II Iustration 26).
Visual Impact Matrices
Distance Zones
For Change in visual Quality FG MG BG SSCategory I
I-Ill ii
Area Sensitivity M 1 i I I
For Change in Visual Quality FG MG BG SSCa?egory 11
H II II il II
Area Sensitivity M II II II II!“
L II II 11 II
62
-
~mber of Evaluators ,a.
Proposed Visual Feature
1. Barge Terminal
2 . E m p l o y e e H o u s i n g
3. Pipe Storage
4. Lease Areas/Dril I Pad
5. Lease Areas/Dril I Pad
6. Lease Areas/Dril I Pad
7. Lease Areas/Dril i Pad
8. Lease Areas/Dri I I Pad
.
+2 +1
5
26
19
0
3
22
0
0
8
3
10
-1
2
29
.
9
6
- 2
32
6
6
27
23
A~;reCategory
-1 .74I
c
- .26I
BI
.74 I B
-i-t+
- 1 . 5 4 I c
-1.57 I c
.37 I B
-1--
L--++
‘1PREFERENCE SCORES/
PROPOSED VISUAL FEATURES
23,
-
,.~ -: ... ,,; .:“.. . . . .
. .. .
0B.
‘“u.;o,> B.i ..:. .
i i.:=8,+...! , -. 0“: ,-’ ,., I1 I
_ . . . _ _ _.+- ,, “-–+ -+-I i
.-)
;.. ~ i&’..*. . . .:. -...,. .
❑oc
I 1 I t
❑ “oc ii!—.I
- i 1I
I II
. . -—. ~——~ A-I
PROPOSED VBWQUALI1
Haman,CYOorinell & Hennii As9cciatee,Pkmning Consultants. Derwer, Coloiado
-
--. ,..; i
,, “,.,-~
. .““, .-.-..
f.
. .
CoQkkdet
!I I I\ I iI I
— — - L—–y––+––1
-i+—,
I
i E-+
1
1!___.[_____t
lf!
1 I 1
[— - 4 — . — – . , —j! 1 Nakofnl–f
_ _ _
‘ 1~ I Moose Rqge—.-L__ I _ I
~-i- +——— ——
I ~
“~ 1
I
[ I ‘
i--- l-.-.----i--- -J---.-L ~._... –_l~.l._J--- iJ2?J
~~ R“’’”@pit’’’’” Et’’’’” ——m“”-nrzi$$tm
L ~~~~/ —... —., .I
. ;.... -...’
/
—; .—
— .— L —–.-T.-J ______L——.t-——L-
—.
‘[:
.
-– +—- – -—--–—
LJ
—
—
—
—
Visual
I
Change in CHANGE Ihl VISUALVulnerability Visual Quality ,“.Category Category QUALITY
‘P r,ll.I~’Km. 1
25
65 I+armart, O’Donnell & Henningar Associates, Inc.Planning Consultants, Danvar, Colorado
-
For Change in Visual QualityCategory 111
For Change in Visual QualityCategory IV
F G M G BG SS
H i v Ill Ill ill
A’rea S e n s i t i v i t y M Ili Ill Ill Ill
L 111 Ill Ill Ill
FG , MG BG SS
1-l Iv Iv iv Iv
Area Sensitivity M IV W Iv w
L w Iv Iv 111
To determine Final Visual Impact of the Proposed Actions, use the hi lowing matrix.
Special Use Area
Yes N o
Visual Impact Category(Determined from aboveanalysis)
I 1!
!1 III II
1!1 Iv Ill
w Iv w
Visual impact Category Definitions
Category J -
Category II -
The visual impact of the proposed activity is positive in nature.
The visual resource would be enhanced by the addition of the
proposed action.
The visual impact of the proposed actions is neither positive or
negative. The proposed actions are compatible with the visual
resource,
66
.“
-
Category I Ii -
Category IV -
The visual impact of the proposed action is moderately negative
in nature. The proposed actions would cause a noticeable and
negative change in the visual resource.
The visual impact of the proposed action is severely negative in
nature. The proposed actions would cause a very. influential and
severely negative change in the visual resource,
Visual Mitigation Measures
The determination of mitigating measures is made from the Preference Testing procedure
and from design decisions made by representatives of
anb. Sum the Preference Scores for each mitigation
the BLM and its design consult-
measure and divide the sum
by the number of evaluators. Determine scores of each visual feature within which
proposed actions are located to identify target scores for mitigation measures. Proposed
mitigation related Preference Scores must be within .25 points of that al Iowable for the
appropriate impact category for successful mitigation. M not, redesign. Use of
11 lustration 8 is made to assist in the determination of Form, Line, Color, and
Texture mitigation measures. This il Iustration permits the identification of ad~acent
design criteria.
67
-
. .
. . .,.,.
. .
. .
. .
-L—Lsd--i-..-–L---
1 J
I -1
PIIIElII
.
,.\\y~p
‘[,. --—I ‘ “ ““‘“ :--~----–q1
~ \
/“f.._+#_--;_..#G-j.. . . . L . .
VHJAL I!vwm~ k!,. 1 .2
1 I I 1Km. 12222(
f-!.wman,O’Dofmell & ?-!wmingef ,AsaOciateP!annmg Consultants. Denver, Colorado
-
IV. REVIEW & TESTING OF THE
PROPOSED V R M METHODOLOGY
Aspart of the OCS Visual Resource Management Methodology Study, itwas considered
necessary to initially test
Although it is recognized
and disadvantages can be
the proposed system through in-the-field implementation.
fha~ results of such testing are not conclusive, advantages,
evaluated and recommendations for improvement incorporated
early in the development stages. To conduct the Case !3udy, HOH asked 58 students
of Colorado State University’s Landscape Architecture Frograrn to review the method-
o logy and conduct the necessary steps to determine the visual impacf of three hypothetical
power plants; select;on of the plant with the least visual impact was also a requirement.
Students, whose backgrounds included landscape architecture, forestry, range sciences,
outdoor recreation, and natura I resource management, were under the guidance of
Merlyn J. Paulson , co-author of this report, and instructor of the Visual Landscape
Management course at CSU. The study site, located sou~h of Fort Cal I ins, Colorado,
was selected based on the immediate availability of data, accessibility, and similarity
in visual characteristics (edge of foothi I Is) to the Alaskan (3CS environment. Student
participants were instructed in the purpose of the study, the procedures to be used,
methods for slide simulations, and other factors necessary to adequately evaluate the
proposed system! The s~udents were familiar with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau
of Land Management’s visual resource evaluation methods through previous course
work undertaken during the preceding eight week period; the OCS Case Study
conducted over a four week period, with final products and reports prepared by
of ten study teams. Each team followed the recommended procedures’, including
was
each
2SI ide simulations, mapping, user preference testing , and other requirements necessary
to complete the methodology.
69
-
The initia! results of the testing indicated that
improved system for evaluating visua I impact.
~he OCS Methodology presented an
One maior indication is ~he fact that
al I teams selected the same power plant location as contributing the least visual
impact. With other systems “implemented previously by the same group, no unanimous
,selection for least impacied area had been made, emphasizing the more subjective
approach of other systems. Other indications are summarized in the following lis~ of
advantages presented by the group members; disadvantages are also summarized,
The Final Report has addressed some of these shortcomings, as appropriate; other
comments are explained accordingly.
1-
2-
At The time of initiation, the proposed methodology haddeveloped. Handwritten copy, therefore was provided,of graphic i I Iustrations.
not been completelyand without the benefit
To conduct user preference tests, students asked the League of Women Voters,church groups, hospital patients, the Chamber of Commerce, and other local
citizens to participate in this part of the methodology.
Advantages
● Less time required to conduct” the study
● Increased public participation
● More valid determinants for use volumes, KOPS selection, distance zones, and
area sensitivity
● Easi I y understood, straightforward approach (once immersed in it)
.-
70
-
—.
● Directly applicable to site specific studies
● increased accuracy/more detailed ‘
● More realistic system
e Easily implemented
9 Allows for flexibility to conduct large or small scaled projects in any environment
● Less bias in decision making
Disadvantages
● Costs involved for slide simulation were higher
● Large number of maps required
● Difficulty in slide simulations
● Potential for misrepresenfa~ion
Features
(though not more
of Existing Visua I
napping time)
Features/Proposed Visual
The advantages and disadvantages stated above were in no way unanimous, but were
the views of the maiority of participants. The significance of the advantages, and
the potential for mitigation or explanation of the disadvantages indicates what the
authors consider an initial success of the proposed OCS Methodology. For example,
students considered costs based on their personal expenditures necessary for photo-
graphy and slide simulations. The maiority of the teams, however, felt that the
system could be implemented over a shorter period of time than other systems, resulting
in fewer man-hours to complete the study. The reference to the Iarge. number of map
products is somewhat balanced by other comments indicating the ease in implementation
71
-
and straightforward approach due to the logical mapping information and sequences.
Slide simulation comments might have been avoided if graphic i] Iusfrations were,
available to the sfudents prior to initiation of the study. The potential for misrepre-
senting existing and proposed visual features can be mitigated by increasing the
number of photographs of each visual feature to insure that al I obvious angles of view
are shown, and al I aspects of the proposed features are indicated.
Recommendations as a result of the Case Study included the inclusion of a glossary
of terms, a list of goals and ob~ectives, clarification of use volume matricesl and
a requirement to increase the number of slides to insure valid representation of visual
features. The contractor feels that these are all valid comments and has incorporated
them into the fina ! product (the glossary of terms has not been specifical I y provided,
since most terms are consistent with the existing BLM VRM system; new terms are
explained as necessary in the text of the report).
72
-
APPENDIX A. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT MANUAL WI 1 (DRAFT)UPLAND VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY AND EVALUATION
(camera-ready copy to be provided by BLM)
A-1
-
APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE AND DEFICIENT COMPONENTSOF BLM MANUAL 8411 (DRAFT) UPLAND VISUAL
RESOURCE INVENTORY AND EVALUATION
Applicable Elements:
●
9
●
e
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Evaluation of Scenic Quality
Documentation of Scenic Quality and Culturul Modifications through photography
and mapping
Identification of Cultural Modifications and “Visual Significance” of each
Consideration of key factors in evaluation of Scenic Qualiiy
Use of Scenic Qua I ity ratings to influence future master planning
Identification of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern for Scenic Value
(ACEC)
Delineation of Visual Sensitivity Areas
Identification of Key Observation Points
Preparation of Seen Areas
High level of public involvement b determine Sensitivity Levels
Analysis of user’s attitude toward change through use of ratings
Mapping user reaction to change
Preparation of Distance Zones Map
Label ing areas and assigning VRM classes
Outlining Visual Management Units
Material storage
Delineation of VRM classes
B-1
-
Deficiencies:
Potential size of Scenery Quality Rating Units
Scale requirements
Use of narratives to describe general landscape characteristics
General use of design professionals to evaluate:
Scenic Quality
Cultural Modifications
Visua I sign ificance of Cultural Modifications
Criteria for Use Volumes and Overall Sensitivity
Seen Area Determination;
Lack of user attitudes/evu Iuations for Scenic Qual ii-y ratings
Genera I ization of VRM classes and associated uses permitted
Equal weighting of Scenic Quality, Sensitivity Level, and Distance Zones
to determine VRM class
No tie be?ween Sensitivity and Mitigation Measures
6-2
-
APPENDIX C. SLIDE SIMULATION PROCEDURES
Several methods for simulating proposed activities within the existing environment
have been explored and tested by both governmental and private planning sectors.
These methods vary in applicability, preparation costs, equipment, and required
expertise. The U.S. Forest Service utilizes a rear projection simu!afor for many of
its recreational planning needs. Techniques and appi i cations of this method are
discussed in “FSH 2309.17 Landscape Management Visual Disp!ay Techniques Handbook;
the Bureau of Land Management is currently testing a similar ~echnique with some
success. Jones and Jones et al. describe a me~hod of slide simulation in their pre-
sentation of “A Method for the Quantification of Aesthetic Va! ues for Environmental
Decision Making”, in the April, 1975 Issue of Nuclear Technology. One alternative
color photographic technique considered by Jones is described as fol lows:
● “Two color S1 ides of each viewscape -- a before and an after d ide -- mounted
together with an additional transparent image of ~he facility combined into one
slide. The additional transparency of the facility wou!d be one of a series made
available to the visual quality evaluator, These standard transparent facility
images would illustrate the facility and plume from one-half-mile-distant
intervals at various vertical observer positions. They would il lustrate different “ “
directions relative to the direction of sunlight and represent hourly intervals
fmm 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 to 4:00 p.m. The appropriate facility image
would be mounted within the frame of a second before SI ide to depict the after
visual image of a facility in that location. The slide alternative has the advan-
tage of being quickly and directly prepared and is capable of being pro!ected
as a large image that more c!oseiy resembles actual viewing conditions. ”
c-l
-
Jones goes on tO discuss the need to accurately locate the proposed visua I features
with the existing viewscape, a task most easily accomplished by locating the horizon
in the viewscape and determining the elevation of the viewpoint in relation to the
elevation of the facility.
The SI ide simulation method developed as part of the VRM Methodology proposed
specifically for #he Alaska OCS Officer and its field representatives, incorporates
the principals of each of these techniques. The following section gives a step-by-
sfep description~ with illustrative examples of final products.
● Step 1 - Determine Existing Visual Features within the Proiect Study Area.
● Step 2 - Determine Proposed Visual Features anticipated for the Project Study
Area.
e Step 3 - Photograph representative examples of each existing and proposed
use iypel using Kodak Vericolor IIr Type S film. if examples of proposed
actions do not exist in the Proiect Area, photograph simi Iar features elsewhere
or use line drawings to portray them. Produce a variety of proposed designs
for three distance zones and/or design modifications, as appropriate.
● Step 4 - Process film (include con~act sheet).
o Step 5 - Select photographs from contact sheet to be made into 8“ x 10“
color prints. (Use magnifying glass to select photographs. Only clear and
sharp negatives make good quality en Iargements. ) If examples are photographed
on slide film, make Type C prints (of enlargements). Ektacolor Type C prints
are recommended, since an intemegative is required, giving correct color
balance and good control over sizing images to be superimposed.
c - 2
-
● Step 6 - On the 8“ x 10“ C print draw with a grease pencil on a tracing
paper overlay the outline of the size and the placement of the image you want
superimposed.
● Step 7 - Using an
i-a he sizes drawn.
enlarger make color prints of the images to be superimposed
● Step 8 - Using a util ii-y knife cut out images io be superimposed; in order
to obtain as much realism as possible, images should be cut very careful Iy.
e Step 9 - Using a copystand with a 35 mm camera and co!or slide film, photo-
graph backgrounds to be used.
● Stepl O- l%sition image to be superimposed with spray adhesive to cover
C print of background and photograph. To make color changes of the image
to be superimposed, black and whi~e prints to size should be made from the
color internegatives. Color can then be added to the black and white print
by using watercolor-color dyes, color film, or zip-a-tones.
c - 3
-
. . . . . . &-—+_ - —..-..—-—: --- —.. - - _ —.-—
Existing Visual Feature
!
k.— .-._-L. . . . . . . . . . . - - ~-—–
Proposed Visual Feature
.
C-4
-
. _-_+_. - —.....—.—; - —.---- -. _ —..—
Existing Visual Feature
L _ _ -A. . . . . . . . . . . -
Proposed Visual Feature
C-4
-
Existing Visua ! Feature
Proposed Visua I Feature
c - 5
-
C-6
-
I
Proposed Visual Feature (Distance Modification)
.
Proposed Visual Feature (Adia cent Faci I ity Modification)
c - 7
-
.--.2:-
Existing Visual Feature
Proposed Visual Feature
C - 8
-
I1.
Existing Visual Feature
c - 9
-
I
~.
,... ,:..:.
. . .,.. . ““”-l
c-lo
-
Existing Visual Feature
Proposed Visual Feature
c-1 1
-
Existing Visual Feature
*,, . ,.. ,
Proposed Visual Feature (Ad~acent Facility Remova!)
C-12
-
APPENDIX D. B! BL1OGRAPHY
Acking, C., and G.J. Sorte. 1973. How do we verbalize what we see: LandscapeArchitecture. 64(1 ): 470-475.
Anderson, L., et al. 1977. Visual absorp~ion capability. U.S. Forest Service,California region, Ureka, C A . 3 0 p p . -
Bacon, W. R. Resource management guides, Region Six. 1971. U.S. Forest Service,W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. 81 pp .
E!agley, M. D., Kroll, C.A. and K. Clark. 1973. Aesthetics in environmentalplanning. Environmental Protection Agency report number EPA -. 600/5-73-009.Stanford Research Institute, Stanford, CA. 185 pp.
Blair, W. G. E., ef al. 1976. Visual impcict of high-voltage transmission facilitiesin northern !daho and northwestern Montana, final report for Bonneville PowerAdministration, United States Department of Interior. Jones and Jones,Seattle, WA. 157 pp.
Bureau of Land Management. 1978. WV! system. U.S. Govt. Prinfb Office,Washington, D .C.
Cerny, J .W. 1974. Scenic analysis and assessment. University of New Hampshire,Plymouth, N .H.
Costan*ini, E., and K. Hanf. 1972. Environmental concern and Lake Tahoe.Environment and Behavior. 4: 209-242.
Coughlin, R.E ., and K.A. Goldstein. 1970. The extenf of agreement amongobservers on environmental attractiveness. Regional Science Institute,Philadelphia, PA. RSRI Discussion Paper Series, no. 37.
Craik, K ,H. 1972. Psychological factors in landscape appraisal. Environmentand Behavior. 4: 255-266.
Craik, K .H,, and E. Zube. 1975. Issues in perceived environments I qua I ityresearch. Nationa I Science Foundation, University of Massachusetts,Amherst, MA.
Daniel, T. C., and R.S. Boster. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenicbeauty estimation me~hod. U.S .D. A. Forest Service Research Paper RM-167.Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 66 pp.
D-1
-
Driscoll, E. C., et al. 1976. Measuring the visibility of high voltage transmissionfacilities in the Pacific northwest. Jones and Jones, Seat-t] e, Washington. 55 pp.
Fabos, J .G. 1974. Putting numbers on qualities: the rising landscape assessors..-Landscape Architecture. 64(3): 164-165.
Fines, K. D. 1968. Landscape eva Iuation: a research proiect in East Sussex.Regional Studies. 2(I): 41-55.
Heberlein, T. A. 1973. Social psychological I assumptions of user atti~ude surveys:the case of the wi!dernism scale. Journal of Leisure Research. 5(3) : 18-33.
Hendee, J. C., efal. 1971. A typo!ogy of outdoor recreation activity preferences.The Journal of Environmental Education. 3(1):
Jacobs, P., and D. Way. “1969. How much development can landscape absorb; asystem for measuring impact and consequences of proiected changes. LandscapeArchitecture. 59 (4): 296-298.
Jacobs, P., and D. Way. 1969. Visual ana Iysis of landscape development. HarvardUniversity, Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, MA. 53 pp.
Jones, G. R., et al. 1975. A method for the quantification of aesthetic values forenvironmental decision making. Nuclear Technology. 25: 682-713.
Kaplan, Rachel. 1973. predicto~ of environmental preference: Designers and“clients:. [n Environmental design research. W .F. E. Preiser, ed. DowdenHutch inson, and Ross, Strousburg, Pa. p. 254-264.
Kaplan, Stephen. 1975. An informal model for the prediction of preference. [nLandscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources. E. H. Zube,J. G. Fabos, and R. O. Brush, eds. Dowden, Hutch inson, and Ross, $troudsburg,Pa. p. 92-101. *-
Kaplan, Stephen, Rachel Kaplan, and John S. Wendt. 1972. Rated preference andcomplexity for natural and urban visual material. Percept. and Psychophys.12(4):354-356.
Kramer, L. S., V.C. Clark, and G.J. Cannelos. 1978. Planning for offshore oil
development, Gulf of Alaska OCS handbook. Alaska Department of Communityand Regions I Affairs, Juneau, AK. 257 pp.
Leopold, L.B. 1970. Quantitative comparison of some aesthetic factors amongrivers. U.S. Geological Suwey, Washington, D .C. Geological SurveyCircular 620.
-
,L E
Litton, R.B. 1974. Visual vulnerability: forest landscapes. Journal of Forestry.July: 392-397.
Lynch, K. 1977. Managing the sense of a region. M. 1.T. Press, Cambridge,tiA.
Lynch, K. 1966. View from the road. M.1 .T. Press, Cambridge, MA.
McGuire, J. R. 1977. Landscape management visual disp[ay techniques handbook.U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C. 26 pp.
Maloney, M. P., and M.P. Ward. 1973. Ecology: let’s hear from the people; anobjective scale for the measurement of ecological attitudes and know! edge.American Psychologist. 28: 583-586.
Mann, R. L. 1973. A visual approach to regional planning. Center for UrbanDeveloprnen t Research, Cornel I University, Ithaca, NY. .81 pp.
Menig, D.W. 1976. The beholding eye, ten versions of the same scene. LandscapeArchitecture. 68(1 ): 47-54.
Myklestad, E. and J.A. Wager. 1976. PREVIEW: computer assistance for visual
New
New
management of forested landscapes. U.S. D.A. Forest Service Research PaperN E-355. Northeasfem Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA. 12 pp.
Eng}and River Basins Commission. 1973. A methodology for OCS-related onshorefacility si%e identification and impact analysis, draft. NERBQ/RALI ProiectMethodology #3. Boston, MA. 58 pp.
England River Basins Commission. 1975. People and the sound, shorelineappearance and design, a planning handbook. Roy Mann Associates, Cambridge,MA. 293 pp.
Nieman, T. J., and R.C. Niohl. 1976. The description, classification, andassessment of visual landscape quality. Council of Planning Librarians ExchangeBibliography #l 064. S .U. N .Y. College of Environmental Science and Forestry,Syracuse, NY. 27 pp.
Paulson, M .J . . 1978. The visual information system. Landscape Architecture.68(3): 233-235. ,.
Paulson, M .J. 1975. Western coal stripmines, related energy co~vet-sion structuresand transmission I ines: a study of visual quality, visual change, and alleviatingvisual siting criteria. Harvard University-Ford Foundation, Cambridge, MA.
D-3
-
Steinitz, C . , and M.J. Paulson. 1974. visual model NSF/RANN program sponsored,third annual report: the interaction between urban ization and land: qualityand quantity in environmental planning and design. Landscape ArchitectureResearch Office, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Sfeinitz, C . , and M.J. Paulson. 1975. A visual quality model applied to the coastalzone. NSF/RANN, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
.
Steinitz, C., Frederick, C. J. , and W. Bla i r . 1973. Visual model, Nat ional ‘“Science Foundation/RAN N program sponsored, second annual report: theinteraction between urbanization and land: quality and quantity in environ-mental planning and design. Landscape Architecture Research Office,Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Sfeiniti Rogers Associates. 1972. Interstate highway 84 in Rhode island. Vol. 3,Draft environmental impact stafemen~. S?ate of Rhode bland and ProvidencePlantations, Department Of Transportation, Providence, R. 1.
Stone, E. H., [1. 1978. Visual resource management. Landscape architecturetechnical information series, VOI. 1, no. 2. American Society of LandscapeArchitects, Washington, D .C. 32 pp.
Tognacci, L. N., et al. 1972. Environmental quality: how universal is publicconcern ? Environment and Behavior. 4: 73-86.
Travis, M., et al. 1975. VI EWIT: computation of seen areas, slope, and aspectfor land-use planning. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-11.Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA. 70 pp.
Twito, R .H. 1978. Perspectives, plotting landscape of clear-cut units. USDAForest Service General Technical Report PNW-71 . Pacific Northwest Forestand Range Experiment Station, Wtiland, OR. 26 pp.
Twito, R. H., and J. Warner. NO date. Perspective plot program for evaluatingvisual impact of proposed timber harvest units with desk tip calculator,plotter and digitizer. U.S. Forest Service, %rtland, OR. 19 pp.
U*S. Department of Agriculture. 1974. Mineral king visual anal ysls. U.S. ForestService, California region, San Francisco, CA.
D-5
-
U s .
U*S.
Forest Service. 1973. National forest landscape management, vo 1. 1.Agriculture Handbook Number 434. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washing-ton , D.C. 76 pp. ,
Forest Service. 1974. National forest landscape management, VOI. 2, chapter 1.The viswal management system. Agriculture Handbook Number 462. U.S.Department of Agriculture, Washington, 1) .C, 47 pp.
U .S .~Forest Service. 1975. National forest landscape management, VOI. 2, chapter 2.
U*S.
U s .
Utilities. Agriculture Handbook Number 478. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Washington, D.C. 147 pp.
Forest Service. 1977. National forest landscape management, VOI. 2, chapter 3.Range. Agriculture Handbook Number 484. U.S. Department of Agriculture,Washington, D .C. 43 pp.
Forest Service. 1977. National forest landscape management, VOI. 2, chapter 4.Roads. Agriculture Handbook Number 483. U~S. Department of Agriculture,Washington, D.C. 62 pp.
Woodward-Cl yde Consultants. 1977. Oil terminal and marine service base sites inthe Kodiak Island Borough, summary report. Anchorage, Alaska. 163 pp.
Wuenscher, J .E., and J .M. S?arrett. 1973. Landscape compartmental ization:an ecological approach to land use planning. Duke University, Durham, N .C.107 pp.
Zube, E .H. 1973. Rating the everyday rural !andscape of the northeastern U ,S.Landscape Architecture. 63(4): 370-375.
Zube, E .H. 1973. Scenery as a natural resource: implications of public policyand problems of definition, description, and evaluation. Landscape Architecture.63(2): 126-132.
D-6