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.

80 The research team identified more than 75 potential trans- portation development projects for which visual impacts had been evaluated and documented. This chapter documents the process that was used to identify qualified candidate projects and the results of that process. It also documents why and how the approach to identification and selection of representative projects was modified. 4.1 Identifying Candidate Projects 4.1.1 Surveys and Searches A number of methods were utilized to identify poten- tial projects. Initially, the NCHRP Panel and the research team anticipated that a set of 75 projects would be identi- fied during the on-line survey of state DOTs (state DOTs). The survey was intended to be used to better understand if states conduct visual impact assessments (VIAs) and, if they do, the policies and procedures states use to determine such impacts. Question 35 in the survey invited state DOTs to list up to five VIAs that could be later reviewed in detail. For each assess- ment, it was requested that the state DOT also record specific contact information and provide a web-address for the VIA or other environmental document in which the results of the VIA were reported. Initial responses to this question yielded information on only a handful of projects, but follow-up inquiries by email and phone led to identification of sixteen projects from eight states (Table 4.1). To supplement these projects, members of the NCHRP Panel recommended additional VIA reports, and a search was conducted of a database of federal environmental documents. This database, entitled EIS: Digests of Environmental Impact Statements (ISSN 0364-1074), lists nearly 11,000 federal envi- ronmental impact statements. About 75 statements are added weekly. The database is assembled by Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, a subsidiary of Proquest in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Although the database does not list VIAs directly, the research team anticipated that the database would contain projects for which a VIA had been completed as part of an environmental impact statement (EIS) process. Two searches of the database were conducted. In July 2011, 127 documents were found by searching for abstracts contain- ing the following words: “highway,” “bridge,” or “parkway,” in conjunction with the phrases “visual resource” or “visual resources,” or the words “aesthetic” or “aesthetics.” In August 2011, 252 citations were identified by searching for the key- words “Roads and Railroads,” then locating abstracts contain- ing the words “visual impact,” “aesthetic,” or “scenic.” Of the 252 citations, 239 were published works potentially available for further review. There was surprisingly little overlap between the two searches, which yielded more than 350 projects to preview. After purging projects that had only marginal applicability to highways and merging citations for draft, final, or supplemental documenta- tion into single records, two sets of abstracts emerged. The first set, labeled “July Search,” resulted in a culled list of 69 proj- ects. The second set, labeled “August Search,” resulted in a culled list of 128 projects. Many of the listed documents—and, more importantly, any associated VIAs—were not available on-line or in a timely manner. Accordingly, a more direct approach of searching the Internet for VIAs was conducted to secure documents to evaluate. 4.1.2 Finding On-line Candidate Projects Starting with projects that had been identified through the survey of state DOTs, the NCHRP Panel, and the federal EIS database, several searches of the World Wide Web were conducted to find potential candidate projects. This process yielded more than 50 qualified candidate projects with on- line availability of VIAs. Because the number of qualified candidate projects was lower than the original target (75), the C h a p t e r 4 Document Review

81 decision was made to conduct detailed reviews of all of the available, qualified projects. 4.2 Detailed Assessment of Candidate Projects 4.2.1 Introduction The survey of state DOTs and additional research resulted in the identification of more than 50 candidate projects with on-line examples of VIAs. Detailed assessments of those VIAs were conducted. The evaluations were organized by the continent where the projects were located and the gov- ernmental agency that had conducted the VIA. Summaries of most of these assessments appear in this chap- ter under subsection “4.2.2 Findings.” To create the summa- ries, VIAs were reviewed from one country in each continent. In Africa, two projects from South Africa were reviewed. In Australia, one project was reviewed. In Europe, four projects from the United Kingdom were examined. In North America, 42 projects from the United States were reviewed. The sum- maries in Section 4.2.2 document projects from four conti- nents: Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America. For each summary, basic information about the project, such as the general nature of the project and the character of the landscape setting in which the project was to be con- structed, appears under the heading, “Project Types and Set- tings.” Each summary then describes the project in relation to four types of attributes documented under three headings, as follows: 1. The decision-making framework used for the project and a description of the procedures, methods, policies, and practices employed to assess visual impacts are cataloged under the heading. “Process.” 2. The expertise and resources used to conduct the assessment are covered under the heading, “Expertise and Resources.” 3. The results and lessons learned are documented under the heading, “Results and Lessons Learned.” 4.2.2 Findings Africa South Africa Project Types and Settings. Two documents were exam- ined for two toll roads, one 42 miles in length and the other a 348-mile, 2-lane project. Both roads are located near oceans. The context of the shorter roadway is generally flat or rolling, with low and sparse vegetation adjacent to the road and with State Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Alaska Anchorage International Airport 7R Extension California (Caltrans) Golden Gate Bridge Physical Suicide Deterrent System Yerba Buena Island Ramps Improvement Project US Route 101 Marin- Sonoma Narrow Project Interstate 5 North Coast Corridor Project Colorado US 40 Berthoud Pass Minnesota St. Croix River Crossing Project Oklahoma SH 3 Seiling, OK Vermont Pittsford Brandon Project Rte 7 US Rte 7 Shelburne Rd Alternatives to CCCH —Chittenden County Circumferential Highway. Washington I-90 Snoqualmie Pass East US 2 Tumwater Bridges - Bridge Replacement Eagle Creek Road Improvement Project George Sellar West Wisconsin VIA for State Trunk Highway 57 Table 4.1. Responses to Survey Question 35—Examples of VIAs.

82 mountains in the distance. The context of the longer road is mostly flat to rolling hills, incised by steep-sided valleys, and vegetated with grassland, bush, and forest. Process. No published methodology is identified in the document, although the vocabulary used for the analysis of the shorter road seems to come from a traditional urban design approach for evaluating urban or regional environ- ments and includes such language as “a sense of place,” “leg- ibility,” “nodes and edges,” and “sensuality.” The analysis of the longer road uses a more technical term, “visual absorp- tion capacity,” in a manner similar to that used by agencies in the United States that manage large tracts of federal land. Expertise and Resources. The authors of the VIA of the shorter road are unidentified. The assessment of the longer roadway was completed by a landscape architecture and planning firm from South Africa. The latter assessment makes extensive use of a geographic information system (GIS) viewshed analysis and uses ratings and visual absorp- tion capacity (VAC). Results and Lessons Learned. The approach and prod- ucts documented in the two assessments are less sophisti- cated than those that appear in a typical European or North American VIA. There are no references to a standard VIA procedure, and the expert evaluations are unsupported by documentation. Each of the two documents includes an unconstrained review by professional peers. Australia Australia Project Types and Settings. One project with visual issues was reviewed. The project was to develop a 2-lane divided highway for 12 km from Yarra Yarra to Holbrook in New South Wales. The existing terrain is flat with few ridgelines in the corridor. Hills outside the corridor provide a visual backdrop. Landscape character is generally pastoral, with large pockets of trees along both sides of the road. The area is rural, and most private land is pasture. There is a low density of residences and other buildings, which are generally well set back from the road. Process. No formal VIA method is used. The document was produced by a consulting engineering firm, Connell Wag- ner, for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority. The document describes existing visual character and opportunities to miti- gate highway development. There is a summary of impacts to six character zones, but it seems impressionistic. The focus of the report is to identify opportunities for mitigation based on urban and landscape design guidelines prepared for the project. Only very local resources and view opportunities are discussed, mostly from the perspective of viewers from the road. The document mostly lists opportunities to preserve and introduce vegetation for screening. The approach is very pragmatic. The corridor appears to be accepted, and the focus is on ways to mitigate any undesirable effects, largely through vegetation screening. Europe United Kingdom Project Types and Settings. Four recent projects were identified and reviewed. Process. The projects normally follow the standard methodology established by the UK Highways Agency as iden- tified in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), Volume 11, Section 3, Part 5; plus the practices established by the Landscape Institute and the Institute for Environmental Assessment and Management’s Guidance on Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA) and the Landscape Char- acter Assessment (LCA) Guidance for England and Scotland. These methods separate the analysis of a project’s landscape effects from its visual effects, which are typically reported in two distinct reports for large projects or two distinct sections of a single report for smaller projects. “Landscape effects” relate to the concept of landscape as a resource. This stems from the inclusive definition of landscape used in the European Landscape Convention. In the UK, this is linked to the emphasis on landscape character that has devel- oped since the 1980s. Landscape results from the interplay of physical, natural, and cultural elements of the surroundings and the way that people perceive these interactions. Different combinations of these elements create the distinctive character of landscapes in different places, allowing different landscapes to be mapped, analyzed, and described. Character is not just about the elements or the “things” that make up a landscape, but also embraces the aesthetic and perceptual factors that make different places distinctive. Although perception plays a part in this definition of landscape, the concept of land- scape effects is mainly concerned with the landscape itself as something that can be mapped and described. It is society as a whole which has an interest in landscape as a resource, and it is one of the many key dimensions of environmental value, alongside matters such as biodiversity or cultural heritage. Landscape effects thus address issues relating to valued land- scapes and why society might wish to protect them for the future, as well as the contribution of landscape character to sense of place and quality of life for all. “Visual effects” relate to views and visual amenity and arise from a requirement in the EIA Directive and the related

83 country regulations to consider the interaction between popu- lation and landscape. This term introduces related, but very different considerations, notably the views that people have of the landscape and the effects of change on visual amenity. When a landscape is changed in some way, there is a prob- ability that the change will be seen by someone and often by several different groups of people. The change may affect both particular views of the landscape and the overall pleas- antness of the surroundings, which is what the term “visual amenity” addresses. Visual effects are concerned with how the surrounding individuals or groups of people may be spe- cifically affected by change in the landscape. In the UK, the VIA process pointedly omits a quantitative analysis, preferring to use narrative descriptions for both its inventory and analysis of landscape effects and visual effects. Expertise and Resources. Typically, a landscape archi- tect conducts the VIA. Local and federal planning documents are typically consulted. Results and Lessons Learned. Visual resources can be considered much more than a collection of objects with aesthetic characteristics. Rigorously separating impacts to resources from impacts to viewers yields insights not found when all the information is combined in a single analysis. Clarity in the analysis and rigor in the results can be achieved without the aid of a numerical approach. North America (United States) California Project Types and Settings. Five projects were examined that represented a wide range of project types and settings, from a 14-lane freeway in a dense urban area to a pedestrian bridge across a 2-lane road in a wilderness setting. These proj- ects were provided by Caltrans as representative of the range of project types, scales, and settings typical of the hundreds of VIAs produced by Caltrans each year. Process. California produces a VIA for every project, regardless of the type of project, the scale of the project, the project setting, or the anticipated impacts. They literally pro- duce hundreds of documents each year following the FHWA guidance. Although the FHWA–VIA process is uniformly used throughout the state, within the last 5 years Caltrans identified that fidelity to the FHWA–VIA process was variable and responded by developing a comprehensive training pro- gram. Caltrans has conducted extensive training of approxi- mately 300 professionals responsible for either producing VIAs or incorporating their findings into environmental documents. The in-class training has been converted into an on-line training program to encourage the retention of VIA skills. (Information about the on-line training is available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/via_training/index. htm.) To ensure even better conformance with the FHWA– VIA process, Caltrans also has developed a series of templates for guiding the development of VIA documents based on the level of project complexity. An example is available for projects that require only a brief memorandum, and tem- plates exist for three levels of projects: minor, moderate, and advanced/complex projects. An on-line questionnaire, avail- able at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/via_outlines/ questionaire.htm, guides the VIA author to the appropriate template. This standardization of the process reflects Cal- trans’ commitment to a robust evaluation of visual impacts and their inclusion in design decisions. The five examined projects and VIAs were all produced prior to the training program and the availability of the VIA templates, and their fidelity to the FHWA-VIA process is variable, verifying Caltrans’ internal critique. Resources and viewers typically are identified, but the level of detail is not necessarily correlated to scale or complexity of project. Emphasis on numerical ratings utilizing simulations provides solid assessments, but the numerical ratings are typically done only by in-house professionals. Little public involve- ment is reflected in the examined VIAs. Justification for the selection of key views from which to do simulations typi- cally is not documented. There is no or little discussion of a viewer’s experience except as measurements of the terms “vividness,” “intactness,” and “unity.” How these measure- ments were developed and the rigor with which they were developed is quite variable from project to project. Expertise and Resources. VIAs are typically performed by landscape architects. Use of a “before” photograph and 3D computer modeling of the proposed project inserted and ren- dered into the picture to create an “after” image is prevalent in the project documents. The use of 3D modeling, ensuring that simulations reflect reality more accurately, is typical of most of the VIAs. Maps, including maps of viewsheds, also are typically employed. Results and Lessons Learned. Establishing a preferred process for assessing visual impacts does not assure fidelity to that process by different authors in different parts of an organization. It is expected that, to ensure fidelity, the pro- cess must be easy to understand and apply. The experience of California suggests that it can be challenging to achieve fidelity to the FHWA–VIA process without extensive training and monitoring. Colorado Project Types and Settings. VIA documents were reviewed for three construction projects and two planning projects.

84 The construction projects ranged from minor projects with localized visual impacts to a widespread project along long segments of Interstate highway with major visual impacts. One planning project covered nearly one quadrant of a major metropolitan area; the other covered a narrow corridor, but was about 140 miles in length. Two distinct landscape settings are involved: high plains plateau and alpine mountain range. Process. The process used is unique to each project. For the long corridor planning project, methods used by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) are used because most of the surround- ing land is managed by one of these two federal agencies. For the large area plan, an approach is employed that seems to be an amalgamation of various federal methodologies. On two other projects, the FHWA–VIA process is loosely followed. On the remaining project, the approach is best described as an urban design approach. Additional conversations with the persons who conducted the VIAs would be needed to exam- ine why such diversity occurred in the methods chosen and how a particular method was chosen for use. Expertise and Resources. The VIAs are mostly authored by landscape architects, although an environmental scientist is identified as the author of one assessment. Results and Lessons Learned. Although diverse pro- cesses are used to assess visual impacts, a common prac- tice is an attempt to include an understanding of what local populations—both neighbors and travelers—would value as a visual experience and how the proposed project would affect that experience. Using public involvement to gauge the value of existing views and resources (either by proxy through existing planning documents or directly by conduct- ing community outreach) is a common practice of many of Colorado’s VIAs and is a practice worth studying further. Indiana Project Types and Settings. Draft and final EIS docu- ments were reviewed from three segments of a new 4-lane freeway that was to connect Mexico with Canada in response to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The cross-country freeway bisects existing mostly flat farmland and some rolling former prairie, generally on new align- ment passing through suburban communities and generally upgrading existing expressways. Process. The FHWA–VIA process is acknowledged but not followed. The preamble to NEPA is cited as requiring federally funded projects to apply planning and design arts to project development. The interpretation of that mandate is that, through a context-sensitive solutions (CSS) process, local communities will be allowed to assist in determining the architectural treatment for bridges and walls. Although other resources are identified and viewer groups are implied, few impacts are identified and little mitigation is determined necessary outside the need for a standard planting plan or the architectural treatment of bridges and walls. Expertise and Resources. Although they are not specifi- cally identified, consulting planners appear to have produced the VIA reported in the environmental documents. Results and Lessons Learned. This project is an example of a VIA that acknowledges the FHWA–VIA process but does not follow it completely. By not following a process of iden- tifying why people like or dislike a particular scene, the rec- ommendations for mitigation become standardized and may become unresponsive to actual needs. Minnesota Project Types and Settings. Four projects were reviewed, running through rural landscapes, typically with at least one terminus in a mid-level city. Three projects are 4-lane express- ways or freeways, with one project a 2-lane road. They pass through glaciated terrain of wooded rolling hills and agricul- tural fields with scattered settlement. Typically they include a suburban landscape at one terminus. Process. The Minnesota DOT’s six-step VIA process was originally developed for the St. Croix River Crossing at Still- water. It defines “visual quality” as the interaction between visual resources and viewers. Visual resources can be placed in one of two broad categories: “natural” or “cultural.” View- ers are differentiated between “travelers” and “neighbors.” The status of existing visual quality is simply a function of what people like and dislike about what they currently see. Visual quality cannot be isolated to those attributes that describe visual resources or to the sensitivity of the viewer— it is an interaction between the two variables. The resulting visual quality is considered a statement about the relationship between a specific landscape being viewed and a particular set of people doing the viewing. It is not an intrinsic quality of the landscape, nor is it a mere interpretation of the human mind. Identifying visual resources and viewers are the first two steps of the process with establishing existing visual quality the third. Visual impacts are similarly determined by the relationship of the scale of the impact to visual resources (major to minor) and the extent of the impact to viewers (widespread to local- ized). When taken together, these factors result in the value of the impact being designated as “adverse,” “beneficial,” or “neutral.” This is the fourth step in the Minnesota DOT process. In the fifth step, different alternatives are evaluated and compared. The VIA process tends to avoid suggesting a pre- ferred alternative. Instead, it states the advantages and dis-

85 advantages of each alternative in generating beneficial and adverse visual impacts. The final step in the Minnesota DOT process is to suggest that beneficial impacts should be incorporated as enhance- ments into the proposed highway project and that adverse impacts be mitigated by avoiding, minimizing, or compensat- ing for impacts. Mitigation can be applied to either the resource or viewer side of the visual quality equation. The Minnesota DOT process requires following all six steps but, in an effort to reduce documentation, the process does not require reporting them individually. Therefore, the VIAs reviewed define only visual quality and the impacts to it, noting the visual resources and viewers as components before offering a comparison between alternatives and a list- ing of mitigation and enhancement strategies. Expertise and Resources. Minnesota DOT Landscape Architects, having developed the process, initially conduct- ed all of Minnesota DOT’s VIAs. Later work was done by consultants who used landscape architects, planners and engineers. Results and Lessons Learned. Visual quality as a state- ment about the value people place on their environment is a concept that could be instructive, particularly how that con- cept can influence mitigation and enhancement. Although this is a simple process that can be executed by professionals other than landscape architects, based on the examples studied, it appears that the sensibilities of a trained landscape architect may provide more thorough evaluations. New York Project Types and Settings. A wide range of projects were examined, including new highways on new alignments, expanding existing highways, and replacing bridges. Process. References to FHWA procedure and NYS DOT VIA Procedure EI 02-025 appear on many but not all project documents; on some, no particular methodology is identified. Some of the reviewed VIAs use the artistic attributes that the FHWA–VIA process employs to describe visual character (e.g., form, line, texture, dominance, scale, diversity, and continuity). The terms, “vividness,” “intactness,” and “unity” are less com- monly used, and are not used at all in some of the VIAs. When done, viewshed and key view analysis are extensive. Similarly, the VIAs make extensive use of simulations, including both eye-level and birds’ eye-level views. A wide range of viewers are typically identified, including expanded categories for neigh- bors and travelers. Expertise and Resources. Typically the profession of the author of the VIA is not identified, although the process is overseen by landscape architects within the NY DOT. Results and Lessons Learned. Further study is needed to determine if there is a process for deciding when to conduct a viewshed analysis. Also, a better understanding is needed of how effective the use of simulations have been in evaluating visual impacts and predicting viewer perceptions. North Carolina Project Types and Settings. Three bridge projects were evaluated that connect coastal islands to each other or the mainland. The landscape setting is coastal, with a flat to rolling (dune) terrain and sheltered sounds. The level of development is mostly rural, but is becoming increasingly suburban (hence the need to expand the highway, interchanges, and bridges). The emphasis is on describing land form and there is little native vegetation description except for a few wooded areas. Process. These are EISs that essentially use the FHWA– VIA process, though that process is not always specifically acknowledged or rigorously followed. Viewshed analysis typ- ically occurs only from sites with noted visitor interest, like state parks and national monuments. Expertise and Resources. Two of the three documents are authored by planners; the author of the third document is unidentified. No simulations, maps, or other resources are included in the assessment. Results and Lessons Learned. One of the more thorough documents attempts to understand how local residents value the existing scenery by reviewing municipal planning docu- ments and by holding public meetings to gather such informa- tion. The result is a less than usual emphasis on visual resources and viewers who are travelers (except when they are off the road and become tourists at a particular site like a state park or Kitty Hawk). Without a mandated process, a wide range of analytical rigor is displayed. Oregon Project Types and Settings. One state highway project was examined that passed through a National Forest. It is a heavily used road through wilderness that was to be upgraded from a 2-lane facility to a 4-lane roadway with a wide median. The landscape setting is composed of rolling volcanic terrain dominated by a thickly growing coniferous forest. Process. To coordinate with existing forest manage- ment plans, the author of the VIA uses a dated method for managing visual resources—Visual Resource Management (VRM)—that was in use when the forest plans were origi- nally conceived. As requested by USFS, the analysis is some- what augmented with references to the Scenic Management System (SMS) that is now used by USFS. Although the analy- sis involves no direct public involvement, management plans

86 are used as a surrogate. The needs of viewers, especially tour- ists at tourist sites, are analyzed. Statements about mitigation are rather generic, addressing fitting the road and other construction into the landscape with only substantial detail provided about how to use vegetation as mitigation. Expertise and Resources. Consulting landscape architects and planners are listed. Results and Lessons Learned. The use of documents or the involvement of landscape architects who are responsible for managing properties and representing users of property adjacent to the roadway is helpful in understanding the value neighboring viewers would place on views from neighboring attractions. Although in this case there was a reason to use the earlier evaluation technique (VRM), using a more contempo- rary evaluation technique throughout (e.g., SMS) might have resulted in a better understanding of the landscape and viewers and resulted in a less generic prescription for mitigation. Tennessee Project Types and Settings. Four projects were reviewed. The landscape setting is not described in the VIAs, though settlement pattern is described. Most projects are in rural areas, with some having a terminus in a small town. One proj- ect is in a major metropolitan area with significant historical and tourist attractions. Process. No process is identified and there is little indica- tion that visual issues were analyzed beyond a statement that these projects were performed using context-sensitive design principles to ensure the public was adequately engaged. Miti- gation is limited to suggestions that the project be landscaped. Expertise and Resources. No person or profession is iden- tified in the projects’ environmental documents as conducting a VIA. No simulations, viewsheds, or other tools appear to have been used. Results and Lessons Learned. The federal and state poli- cies that require visual impacts to be assessed do not typically dictate a particular process be used but only provide guidance. Some states have interpreted these policies to mean that they only need to discuss visual impacts in environmental docu- ments without conducting or documenting the process used to ascertain those impacts. Uncertainty about when and how to conduct and document a VIA needs to be clarified. Vermont Project Types and Settings. Two documents were reviewed for one project that involved ten alternative scenarios for relieving congestion in the Lake Champlain Valley, a rolling landscape covered with agricultural fields and deciduous for- ests. Settlement patterns range from historic villages and rural settings to suburban residential and commercial uses. Process. The FHWA–VIA process and Vermont’s Quechee Analysis Criteria are used to determine “undue” adverse affects. The public was involved in identifying potential visual impacts during public design workshops. The analysis identifies as “important” views of distant mountains, rivers, agricultural land, forested hills, and historic villages and structures. Miti- gation is addressed, with specific actions identified and tailored to each alternative. There is no mapping of viewsheds and there is no evaluation of impacts using typical FHWA terms such as “vividness,” “intactness,” and “unity.” Expertise and Resources. Information is not listed in the document about expertise and resources. Results and Lessons Learned. Finding a method to accu- rately include viewers in defining visual impacts can be accom- plished using orchestrated public involvement techniques. Virginia Project Types and Settings. One project was reviewed that involved relocation of a 4-lane divided expressway on new alignment. The landscape setting is not described. The settlement pattern is primarily rural between two urban areas. Process. In the example reviewed, no specific process is identified or implied through a discussion of visual impacts. Despite the lack of evidence of analysis, conclusions related to visual impacts are noted in the project’s environmental document. Expertise and Resources. No authors are identified; no specific resources are mentioned in the documentation. Results and Lessons Learned. It may be that the lack of an identified VIA process contributes to conducting a minimal VIA. Washington State Project Types and Settings. Nine projects were reviewed, representing a wide range of project types, landscape settings, and settlement patterns. Project types include the addition of driving and turn lanes, slope stabilization, replacement of bridges, and adding a pedestrian bridge. One project is on a scenic byway. The settings are primarily wilderness, but vary from alpine mountains to high plains. Settlement patterns are either wilderness (no residential or commercial structures) or rural (scattered residential or commercial structures). Use of the term “wilderness” as defined by resource man- agement agencies like BLM and USFS implies that an area is roadless. NCHRP Report 741 does not follow that distinction.

87 To the typical viewer, the context of a road like the Going-to- the-Sun Road in Glacier National Park is wilderness, regard- less of the presence of a road or how much the landscape is managed. In this case, what matters is the viewer’s impression of the area surrounding the road, not the presence or absence of the road. Process. An interpretation of the FHWA–VIA process is used that emphasizes the use of defining attributes of visual quality, such as vividness, intactness, and unity, with descriptions of the artistic traits of visual character, such as line, form, color, and texture. FHWA terms describing artis- tic relationships, like dominance, scale, and diversity are not used. Modifying the FHWA–VIA process further, the process uses these concepts of visual quality to analyze four types of landscape attributes: landform, vegetation, water forms, and structural elements. The FHWA approach to understanding viewers is essen- tially followed, with additional input from local planning documents and citizen adversary groups. As allowed by the FHWA–VIA process, many of the VIAs done by Washing- ton DOT expand the analysis of neighbors and travelers to include specific viewer groups that may be impacted. Next, the authors pick several key views and use the concepts of visual character to numerically rate the existing and future views for the viewer group most affected by the change. This unique interpretation of the FHWA–VIA process seems to have more in common with VIA processes developed by BLM and USFS, where visual goals are used to determine the scale and value of impacts. Expertise and Resources. The assessments are completed mostly by landscape architects, both consultants and employ- ees of the state DOT. Results and Lessons Learned. These nine reports are examples of the most consistently produced products done by any state DOT. The consistency in producing the assess- ment of visual impacts probably results from having the same professional staff either produce or oversee the production of VIAs repeatedly over an extended period. It would be inter- esting to determine if this consistency in following a particu- lar process by a select set of professionals has generated cred- ibility for the product and the professionals producing it. 4.3 Discussion 4.3.1 Initial Findings Differences are notable between governmental agencies that conduct VIAs and may be insightful. Emphasizing and further interpreting those findings already noted in the previ- ous chapters of this report, a few concepts stand out: 1. Most states claim to be conducting VIAs. In practice, however, states appear to be very selective about conduct- ing VIAs. Many report visual impacts in environmental documents without documenting the use of a VIA pro- cess. Based on the lack of VIAs offered for review, many states appear to produce few VIAs or only do so for selected projects. 2. At least in theory, the FHWA-VIA process is used exten- sively by states for assessing visual impacts to highway projects. Most states that use the FHWA-VIA process are very selective about which parts of the process they actu- ally follow, however. 3. Simulations are useful but not universally used. Where, when, and how to use simulations is extremely variable. Very few processes offer guidelines on the creation and use of simulations. 4. Viewsheds are alluded to frequently but are mapped less regularly. Use of GIS and other methods to estab- lish viewsheds typically fails to accommodate vegetation and structures, resulting in large viewsheds that may not actually exist. 5. Widely ranging methods are used to evaluate visual resources. Most methods involve varying combina- tions of artistic attributes, professional judgments, and viewer preferences. Methods and combinations of attri- butes can vary from project to project even within the same agency. 6. Authors of VIAs typically are landscape architects or planners. Some states have historians doing the VIAs as part of their state’s review of historic properties. Each profession brings a particular professional bias to their assessments, with landscape architects emphasizing the character of the landscape; planners utilizing previous planning documents and local ordinances to ascertain scenic value and viewer preferences; and historians focusing on only historic properties or landscapes. 7. Views and viewers occupying public spaces are identified in all states as requiring analysis. Viewers occupying pri- vate property also are evaluated in most states, although a few states indicated that private views are not assessed as a matter of policy. 8. Some assessments emphasize the visual experience of viewers. 9. Use of urban design and spatial evaluation techniques may yield mitigation suggestions. One Colorado proj- ect that took this approach did yield some provocative mitigation suggestions; however, a similar approach in South Africa yielded no particularly innovative mitiga- tion proposals. 10. The use of a glossary to explain terms may enhance its readability by the uninitiated.

88 11. Longevity, frequency, and perhaps training may influ- ence the thoroughness with which visual assessments are completed. 12. Separating inventory from analysis assists in communi- cating information. 13. A unique approach from South Africa requires a peer review of its assessments. This technique may yield more balance but still relies on professional opinion, not feed- back from the affected population. 14. The United Kingdom assures that impacts on the visual resources of the physical environment are differenti- ated from impacts on the perception by people of those impacts by insisting that the analysis of visual impacts be separated into two different documents. The dis- cussion of changes to the physical environment is called “landscape effects.” The discussion of how those changes affect viewers is called “visual effects.” This differentiation assures that impacts to both resources and viewers are identified, which responds well to cur- rent scientific understanding of how the perception of visual quality is actually formulated by human beings. 15. Similarly the six-step VIA process used by Minnesota acknowledges the need to differentiate between visual resources and viewers by suggesting that visual quality is not only a result of the interaction between the physi- cal and psychological environments but that it (and any subsequent impacts) is an expression of the relation- ship between resources and people. The consequence for design and mitigation is that it is possible to act on either side of the relationship equation to avoid, mini- mize, or compensate for adverse impacts. This approach also leads to an understanding of how a project could actually enhance existing visual quality, a strategy pur- posefully rejected by other governmental agencies as not being sufficiently egalitarian and therefore, outside the scope of projects. 16. Most of the processes examined rely on professionals to assess impacts. The public is not overly involved except in reaction to an assessment. The State of Washington uses a process developed by BLM that involves the public in defining the value of visual resources during scoping so that the assessment of impacts is a result of identified public value, not the professional opinion of a landscape architect, planner, or engineer. Colorado has also used VIA methods adopted by BLM and the USFS to deter- mine visual quality and impacts to visual quality along roads that thread their way through land managed by these federal agencies. These two federal approaches to assessing visual impacts are distinct from the FHWA– VIA process. 4.3.2 Focus on Agency VIA Approach After a detailed examination of nearly 50 projects and their associated environmental review documents, including VIAs, it became apparent that it would be advantageous to identify the best practices of at least five governmental agen- cies for additional review, rather than present the best prac- tices of five projects. The governmental agencies that appeared to provide the most comprehensive range of best practices are from Europe and North America, specifically from the United Kingdom, California, Colorado, Minnesota, New York, Ver- mont, and Washington. VIAs from the UK use an approach that strongly differentiates between resources and viewers, unlike those most used in the United States, with the pos- sible exception of the Minnesota VIA process. California, Colorado, New York, and Washington all have used the standard FHWA-VIA process for most of their assessments. Within this category, however, practices regarding how to implement the FHWA-VIA process range widely from state to state and even from project to project within a particular state. To establish a set of best practices will require the review of several projects. Some VIAs, especially selected assessments from the United Kingdom, Minnesota, Colorado, and Washington, evaluate the experience people perceive when interacting with the environment. In particular, several examples from Colorado and Washington used VIA processes developed by federal land management agencies, such as the BLM and USFS. Including assessments that used BLM and USFS VIA processes will be essential in developing a robust set of best practices. Finally, some states have developed their own VIA pro- cesses. Incorporating an evaluation of these state processes may invigorate any set of best practices by bringing in ideas from sources outside the federal government. As was reported in the findings of the literature review, fidelity to the chosen process is of paramount concern to the courts and therefore to the agencies implementing the pro- cess. As was found in the state survey, however, uniformity in utilizing the chosen process, although desired by published policy directives, is rarely achieved in practice. Although a specific VIA process may be officially estab- lished by a particular governmental agency, its application is frequently subject to interpretation. Consequently, how a specific VIA process is implemented differs not only by agency but even within an agency. Within an agency, it can vary by project type, project location, and authorship. It also can vary over time, as lessons learned from one project tend to be codified into how future VIAs should be completed.

89 4.3.3 Reorganizing the Data The research team reorganized the data and developed the following synopsis. State Commitment to Assessing Visual Impacts In the state survey, 45 of 50 states (90%) declared that they considered visual issues an essential part of the high- way development or environmental review process. This response was aligned with the expectations of the NCHRP Panel and the research team. However, as the research progressed, it became apparent that an assertion of the importance of visual issues did not necessarily correspond to frequent assessment of visual impacts or high numbers of VIAs. The second question of the survey asked about the frequency with which a state requires VIAs as part of its environmental review or project development procedures. Only six states indicated that they conduct a VIA on all of their highway trans- portation projects. Nearly three-fifths of the states indicated that they conduct a VIA only sometimes or less often. Most of these states had answered the first question of the survey in a way that indicated visual issues were considered only on selected projects. Answers to the third question further eroded the assump- tion that states are regularly conducting VIAs: Only fourteen states indicated that they have a particular VIA process that they typically use. Somewhat confusingly, in response to Question 4, 28 states name a particular VIA process that they typically use. Regardless of this discrepancy, it appears that half the states could be construed as having a commitment to evaluating visual impacts, and then probably only on selected projects. This interpretation of the survey data—that very few VIAs are being conducted—is supported by the lack of documented VIAs discovered by the research team (see Table 4.2). Effect of the VIA Process on Decision-Making Although the commitment to conducting VIAs may be low, the effect of VIAs is surprisingly high, as expressed by Ques- tion 31, “How do the findings of a VIA affect the decision- making process within a particular state?” One explanation may be that when answering this question, the effect of just considering visual issues (as evidenced by the nearly univer- sal affirmative answer given to the first question) even without an actual VIA affects decision-making. But this is speculation and would need to be verified with follow-up questions of previous subjects. Thirty-nine states suggested that conducting a VIA affects how a project avoids, minimizes or otherwise mitigates adverse visual impacts. Thirty-six claimed that a VIA affects design development. Half declared that a VIA affects alter- native selection. Only seventeen suggested that it affected public relations. Two states indicated that a VIA did not have any effects on a project, although one of those states also claimed that it had tremendous effect of public relations, alternative selection, design development, and mitigation. An additional five states had no response to Question 31. Therefore out of 50 states, nearly 90 percent claimed that a VIA had some sort of effect on a project (see Table 4.2). Perceived Effectiveness of the VIA Process Each state was asked, as Question 32, to evaluate how effective their VIA process was for the agency using it. In particular, Question 32 asked if the VIA process was objec- tive (was the role of personal feelings reduced); was it accu- rate (did it capture actual impacts); was it valid (would it be supported in court); was it reliable (would competent professionals reach the same conclusion); was it pragmatic (was it easily completed by a trained professional); was it understood (easily communicated to decision makers and the public); and was it useful (did it affect location, design, or mitigation strategies)? About one-half of the states indicated that they had a pos- itive perception of the effectiveness of their VIA process. However, this approval was rather mild with only two states, California and Washington, indicating full support for their VIA process. Three other states—Alabama, Missouri, and Tennessee—also scored the effectiveness of their VIA pro- cess as being relatively high. Less than a dozen states had negative opinions on how effective their VIA process was for them. About two-fifths could be said to be neutral in their evaluations (see Table 4.2). 4.4 Summary of State Level Practices Questions 32 and 4 provide an accurate summary of the VIA practices of state DOTs. Table 4.2 provides a quick ref- erence and comparison between states as evaluated by those professionals responsible for administering VIAs in their state. The table lists states according to their self-rating of the quality of their VIA process and documentation. To make the results of the table more obvious, the ratings individual states gave themselves for each part of Question 32 were color coded. Blue was used for positive responses, gold for nega- tive responses. Neutral responses received no color. The darker the color, the more extreme the rating. (Correspond- ingly, in the printed copy of NCHRP Report 741, positive responses are backed by the darkest gray shading; negative

90 Objective (reduces the role of personal feelings) Accurate (captures actual impact) Valid (would be supported in court) Reliable (competent professionals would reach the same conclusion) Pragmatic (easily completed by a trained professional) Understood (easily communicated to decision makers and public) Useful (affects location, design, or mitigation decisions) California 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 2.00 1 1 FHWA Washington 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 14 2.00 1 1 FHWA Alabama 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 12 1.71 3 2 Missouri 1 1 0 1 2 1 2 8 1.14 4 3 FHWA Tennessee 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 8 1.14 4 3 FHWA Connecticut 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 7 1.00 6 4 Florida 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1.00 6 4 Own State DOT Idaho 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1.00 6 4 FHWA Maine 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1.00 6 4 Vermont 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1.00 6 4 Indiana 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 0.86 11 5 New Hampshire 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 6 0.86 11 5 Iowa 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 5 0.71 13 6 Own State DOT Mississippi 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 5 0.71 13 6 Own State DOT South Dakota 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 5 0.71 13 6 Other Organization Colorado 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 0.57 16 7 FHWA Maryland 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 0.57 16 7 Other Federal Massachusetts 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 4 0.57 16 7 New Jersey 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 0.43 19 8 New Mexico 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3 0.43 19 8 FHWA Arizona 1 1 -1 -1 0 1 1 2 0.29 21 9 Own State DOT Arkansas 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.29 21 9 FHWA Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0.29 21 9 Own State DOT New York 0 1 0 1 -1 -1 1 1 0.14 24 10 FHWA South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.14 24 10 Utah 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0.14 24 10 Other Federal Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 FHWA Illinois 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 FHWA Kansas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 Nebraska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 Nevada 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 FHWA Pennsylvania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 Rhode Island 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 Texas 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 West Virginia 0 0.00 27 11 Wisconsin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 Other State DOT Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 27 11 Other Federal Hawaii 1 0 0 0 1 -1 -2 -1 -0.14 42 12 Own State DOT Michigan 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 -0.14 42 12 Montana -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -0.14 42 12 Own State DOT Ohio -1 1 -2 0 1 1 -1 -1 -0.14 42 12 Own State DOT Oklahoma 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 -0.14 42 12 Georgia 0 -1 1 -1 0 -1 0 -2 -0.29 47 13 Own State DOT Minnesota -1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -2 -0.29 47 13 Own State DOT Oregon -2 0 0 -1 0 -1 0 -4 -0.57 49 14 FHWA North Carolina 0 -2 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -6 -0.86 50 15 Total 14 19 14 18 21 16 24 126 18.00 Average 0.29 0.39 0.29 0.37 0.43 0.33 0.49 Question 4: The VIA process that your state DOT typically uses was developed by: (check one) SUMMARY OF STATE LEVEL PRACTICES • TABLE 3: THE PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF THE VIA PROCESS State Total Average Rating RankingQuestion 32: How did the individual filling out the survey rate their state's VIA process as being: Source: NCHRP Project 25-33 Interim Report. Table 4.2. Perceived effectiveness of the VIA Process at the state level.

91 responses, appear in a lighter gray; and neutral responses have no background shading.) Professionals associated with the California and Washington DOTs expressed the most confidence in their VIAs. Few states recognized their VIA process as being superlative. Most, it can be inferred, believe that a better process is needed. 4.5 Conclusions 4.5.1 VIAs Are Uncommon VIAs for highway projects are relatively uncommon in com- parison to the number of highway projects developed and the environmental impact documentation completed each year. The research team was surprised that there were not more VIAs available for transportation projects available. While projects could be identified for which visual issues played an important role, identifying additional technical reports was challenging. The research team interprets this to mean that visual impact investigations are being conducted without for- mal reports beyond the short sections in the environmental impact documents. An alternative explanation may be that VIAs do exist but are not being made public or placed on- line, perhaps because of cost or file size limits. 4.5.2 Current VIA Performance Is Not Robust Respondents judge the overall quality of the VIAs they produce to be of modest quality. One issue not addressed by this study is whether damage is being done because of this mediocre performance. Potential damage could be to the landscape, viewers, the validity of the VIA process, or the trustworthiness of government and transportation agencies in understanding and responding to public concerns. 4.5.3 Visual Issues Are Being Considered Some states appear to have decided to address and mini- mize visual impacts through context-sensitive design (CSS), visual management, or other practices. Other states seem to consider visual impacts to be adequately addressed by the Section 106 (cultural and historic properties) review, even though the criteria for such a review are based on the impact to the cultural or historic resource’s integrity (and leave out visual impacts to other resources and people). 4.5.4 Rigorous Assessment of Visual Impacts Remains Necessary NEPA requirements may not be adequately addressed, given the state of the practice. There is no uniformity among the states in the rigor of the methods by which visual impacts are considered. While some variation may seem appropriate for a federal system that is managed largely by the states, NEPA is a national law, and minimum standards for accept- able consideration of visual impacts would also seem appro- priate. Such minimum standards may be implied by current FHWA policy and practices, but they have not been adopted by states uniformly.