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

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

.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

,!

. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... -.. . ,.. -.,, ;

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




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


‘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



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/


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. . . . . . . . . . . - - ~-—–


.

C-4

. _-_+_. - —.....—.—; - —.---- -. _ —..—


L _ _ -A. . . . . . . . . . . -


C-4

Existing Visua ! Feature

Proposed Visua I Feature

c - 5

I

Proposed Visual Feature (Distance Modification)

.

Proposed Visual Feature (Adia cent Faci I ity Modification)

c - 7

.--.2:-



C - 8

I1.


c - 9

I

~.

,... ,:..:.

. . .,.. . ““”-l

c-lo



c-1 1


*,, . ,.. ,

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

vED ALASKA OCS SOCIOECONOMIC STUD [ES PROGRAM OCS … · 2019. 10. 14. · technical report no. 27...

Documents

Transcript of vED ALASKA OCS SOCIOECONOMIC STUD [ES PROGRAM OCS … · 2019. 10. 14. · technical report no. 27...