Evaluation of Methodologies for Visual Impact Assessments (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 741 Evaluation of Methodologies for Visual Impact Assessments Craig Churchward Avenue Design PArtners Saint Paul, MN James F. Palmer scenic QuAlity consultAnts Burlington, VT Joan Iverson Nassauer university of MichigAn Ann Arbor, MI Carys Anne Swanwick university of sheffielD Sheffield, United Kingdom Subscriber Categories Highways  •  Environment  •  Planning and Forecasting TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2013 www.TRB.org  Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 741 Project 25-33 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-25886-9 Library of Congress Control Number 2013930217 © 2013 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transporta- tion Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individu- als interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research for NCHRP Project 25-33 was conducted under contract with Avenue Design Partners by a team of four landscape architects that included: Craig Churchward, Principal Investigator, Avenue Design Partners, Saint Paul, Minnesota; James F. Palmer, Scenic Quality Consultants, Burlington, Vermont; Joan Iverson Nassauer, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and Carys Anne Swanwick, Uni- versity of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, United Kingdom. Avenue Design Partners is solely responsible for the content of this report. All errors or omissions are the responsibility of Avenue Design Partners. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of Avenue Design Partners. They are not necessarily those of the University of Michigan, the University of Sheffield, NCHRP, the TRB of the National Academies, the U.S. Department of Trans- portation (U.S. DOT), FHWA, nor AASHTO. The use of information provided directly or indirectly by other national, state, local, or foreign agencies does not imply approval of or even tacit agreement with any of the findings of this report. CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 741 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Nanda Srinivasan, Senior Program Officer Charlotte Thomas, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Sharon Lamberton, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 25-33 PANEL Field of Transportation Planning—Area of Impact Analysis Keith Robinson, California DOT, Sacramento, CA (Chair) Nancy O. Alexander, New York State DOT, Albany, NY Jeff Caster, Florida DOT, Tallahassee, FL Paul Graham, Paul Graham Consulting LLC, Worthington, OH Robin Lee Gyorgyfalvy, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Bend, OR Jeffrey R. Lormand, Parsons, Denver, CO Wendy Miller, Winston-Salem Department of Transportation, Winston-Salem, NC Harold E. Peaks, FHWA Daniel W. Johnson, FHWA Liaison Stephen F. Maher, TRB Liaison

F O R E W O R D By Nanda Srinivasan Staff Officer Transportation Research Board This report provides an evaluation of methodologies for visual impact assessment (VIA). The report (a) evaluates state department of transportation (DOT) VIA procedures, methods, and practices that satisfy or exceed National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other requirements; (b) documents the use of different methodologies and approaches used by DOTs; (c) describes decision making frameworks used at state DOTs to undertake specific VIA techniques for a given project; (d) documents proven successful methods; (e) describes best practices illustrated by model case studies; and (f) documents promising new developments. The report will be of broad interest to state, regional, and local planners, project develop- ment staff, and environmental staff. NEPA requires that visual impacts be considered for transportation projects. In 1981, to assist state DOTs, FHWA developed Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects to provide guidance in analyzing and quantifying visual impacts for highway proposals. Throughout the country, this remains the standard methodology to identify visual impacts for highway improvements. In recent years, some DOTs have modified this methodology to meet their needs. To fully integrate VIAs with other resource assessments, there was a critical need to understand the usefulness of different methodologies for evaluating visual impacts of highway design. This research identifies and evaluates methodologies and best practices that could benefit DOTs nationwide. Application of the results of such research would help DOTs to imple- ment effective and streamlined VIA methodologies and integrate aesthetic considerations into a streamlined project development process. The research was performed by Avenue Design Partners. Information was gathered via comprehensive review of the literature, interviews with practitioners, a review of completed VIAs or the visual impact section of environmental impact assessments, and a detailed evaluation of five selected VIAs to exemplify suggested practices. Six governing principles, four foundational concepts, and twelve suggestions for practices are offered.

C O N T E N T S 1  Summary 1 Context 2 Research Objectives 2 Research Approach 3 Literature Review 3 State Survey 4 Document Selection 6 Evaluation Criteria 7 Case Studies 8 Study Findings 8 Governing Directives 8 Foundational Concepts 9 Best Practices 9 Conclusions 10 Chapter 1  Introduction 10 1.1 Research Context 11 1.2 Proposed Research 11 1.3 Research Objectives 11 1.4 Research Program 12 1.5 Documentation 13 Chapter 2  Literature Review 13 2.1 Issues of Legality 13 2.1.1 Legislative Mandate 14 2.1.2 Judicial Interpretation 15 2.1.3 Summary of the Legal Issues 16 2.2 Issues of Methodology 16 2.2.1 Identifying Common Methodologies 16 2.2.2 Investigation of Common Methodologies 28 2.2.3 Summary of Methodological Issues 29 2.3 Issues of Practice 30 2.3.1 Critiques of Procedure and Method 32 2.3.2 Critiques of VIA Credibility 35 2.3.3 Summary of Practice Issues 37 2.4 Issues of Perception 37 2.4.1 Visual Quality and Aesthetic Pleasure 38 2.4.2 Visual Quality as an Interaction between Viewer and Landscape 39 2.4.3 Reliability of Landscape Characterizations 40 2.4.4 Connotative Landscape Characteristics that Represent Visual Quality 40 2.4.5 Denotative Landscape Characteristics that Represent Visual Quality

40 2.4.6 Physical Landscape Characteristics that Represent Visual Quality 41 2.4.7 Visual Perception Literature Specific to Transportation Landscapes 43 2.4.8 Implications for VIA of Highways 44 2.5 Issues of International Policies and Practices 45 2.5.1 United Kingdom 50 2.5.2 Germany 53 2.5.3 New Zealand 56 2.5.4 Australia 58 2.5.5 Switzerland 58 2.5.6 Other Countries 58 2.5.7 Summary of International Experience 59 2.6 Conclusions from Literature Review 59 2.6.1 U.S. Judicial Decisions Suggest Minimum Standards 59 2.6.2 U.S. VIA Procedures Focus on Naturalness 60 2.6.3 Designated Visual Management Objectives Enhance VIA Legitimacy 60 2.6.4 Benefits of Integrating Mitigation of Visual Impacts Throughout Projects 60 2.6.5 Benefits of Updating U.S. VIA Principles and Procedures 60 2.6.6 Expert Judgment as Basis for All U.S. VMSs and VIAs 61 2.6.7 U.S. Preference for Quantifying Attributes Used in Conducting VIAs 61 2.6.8 Public Contributions to the VIA Process 61 2.6.9 Toward a Scientifically Rigorous Approach to VIA 62 Chapter 3  State Survey 62 3.1 Survey of State Departments of Transportation 62 3.1.1 Purpose of Survey 62 3.1.2 Methods 63 3.1.3 Preparing the Data for Analysis 63 3.1.4 Analysis of Survey Results 79 3.1.5 Summary of State Survey Findings 80 Chapter 4  Document Review 80 4.1 Identifying Candidate Projects 80 4.1.1 Surveys and Searches 80 4.1.2 Finding On-line Candidate Projects 81 4.2 Detailed Assessment of Candidate Projects 81 4.2.1 Introduction 81 4.2.2 Findings 87 4.3 Discussion 87 4.3.1 Initial Findings 88 4.3.2 Focus on Agency VIA Approach 89 4.3.3 Reorganizing the Data 89 4.4 Summary of State Level Practices 91 4.5 Conclusions 91 4.5.1 VIAs Are Uncommon 91 4.5.2 Curent VIA Performance Is Not Robust 91 4.5.3 Visual Issues Are Being Considered 91 4.5.4 Rigorous Assessment of Visual Impacts Remains Necessary

92 Chapter 5  Evaluation Criteria 92 5.1 Establishing Evaluative Criteria 92 5.2 Background Principles and Assumptions 100 5.3 Reading the Table 101 5.3.1 Objective 101 5.3.2 Valid 101 5.3.3 Reliable 102 5.3.4 Precise 102 5.3.5 Versatile 102 5.3.6 Pragmatic 103 5.3.7 Understood Easily 103 5.3.8 Useful 103 5.3.9 Implemented Consistently 103 5.3.10 Legitimate 104 5.4 Conclusions 105 Chapter 6  Case Studies 105 6.1 United States 105 6.1.1 Colorado 111 6.1.2 Minnesota 119 6.1.3 Vermont 122 6.1.4 Washington State 127 6.2 United Kingdom 127 6.2.1 Scotland 132 6.3 Lessons Learned 132 6.3.1 Colorado 133 6.3.2 Minnesota 134 6.3.3 Vermont 134 6.3.4 Washington State 135 6.3.5 Scotland 137 Chapter 7  Study Findings and Implementation Plan 137 7.1 Study Findings 137 7.1.1 Governing Directives 138 7.1.2 Foundational Concepts 140 7.1.3 Best Methodological Practices 143 7.1.4 Conclusion 143 7.2 Implementation 144  References 144 References for Literature Review 148 References for Case Studies Note: Figures and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the Web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.