Relevance of Scenic Resources Management:

Transcription

1 Relevance of Scenic Resources Management: Panel on Benefits, Applications and Challenges Joan Harn, NPS, moderator Greg Currie, BLM Lisa Klinger, USFS Susan Overson, NPS

2 ~ 30 years 3 bridge proposals 2 court cases 4 Sec. 7 determinations

3 Visual Resources on the Edge: A Question of Borders Greg Currie, BLM

4

5

6

7

8 Fish Passage Facility Design Lisa Klinger, USFS

9 SCENIC RESOURCE PROTECTION Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MISS) 2016 River Management Symposium and National Outdoor Recreation Conference May 2016 Boise, Idaho Susan Overson, National Park Service

10 History or Visual Resource Protection in MISS 2007 Visual Quality Workshop Based on BLRI Process Rapid Visual Assessment MN State Critical Area Rulemaking 2009 UM Graduate Student Thesis: Assessing Scenic Quality of Urban Waterways (Recommended countryside process for assessing views in urban area) 2010 NPS Air Quality Division NPS Process Workgroup 2011 BLM Scenic Assessment Training 2012 received funds to develop Visual Resource Protection Plan (Based on 2007 Workshop Recommendations) 2014 Enjoy the View Team Desired Future Conditions/Recommendations for 20 Views 2015 Plan Completed 2016 Begin implementation

11 MISS Challenges Urban and natural scenic areas Over 300 views identified Enormous amount of data No management authority Continuously changing landscape Lots of pushback, especially from northern residential communities Needed a defensible process to be successful at implementing at local level

12 MISS Assessment Methodology (Some borrowed, Some new) Researched existing, proven methodologies Eliminated approaches that had bias towards natural landscapes Created new methodology that would work in an urban as well as natural environment. Integrated shared factors Four different layers of data that were merged together to create an overall value: Visual Character Unit (FHWA, COE) Viewpoint Evaluation (USFS, BLM) Use Intensity & Duration (All) Stability Risk Factor ( COE) Added public involvement component (COE, NRCS)

13 Process did not penalize urban views Potential vs. Desired Future Conditions More realistic in urban river corridor (addresses long term opportunities) Addresses a continuously changing landscape Considered future land use decisions Engaged public in identifying views and volunteers in the visual assessment process Recommendations clearly specific to MISS challenges What s Different?

14 Volunteer Participation Critical to overall success and provided opportunity to inform the public of the value of protecting scenic resources

15 Overall Observations Visual character units that contained water rated higher Recommendation: Develop scenic overlay district with design guidelines to protect these views Urban areas have higher capacity for change Develop design guidelines to ensure future development fits or can be absorbed by surrounding landscape Similar land use types have similar risks (i.e ag areas face development pressure Develop overall plan for like areas Prioritize areas for protection Identify changes that will have positive impact (screening, restoration)

16 Views with high SRF/UID most critical to address

17 Stability Risk Factor (SRF) Identifies landscapes that are at a higher risk of change Requires input from NPS staff, aerial photography, proposed land use data Low, Medium, High risk categories Low Risk: existing land supported by zoning, such as in downtown Minneapolis High Risk: agricultural land use with underlying zoning as residential Identifies risk factors (proposed development, if zoning supports land use changes) Expectation for river VCU is that the river itself would not change but development like bridges, shoreline modifications, or activities to maintain the river channel could contribute to a higher risk for change Views with high SRF/UID should be high priority for protection (if not already protected in public land area like a state park or historic site) NPS should provide local communities with tools for protection, sample ordinances, required accessment process for developers

18 Not as much need to protect high rated views that fall within areas that are already protected Identify these views for visitor experience Target areas where protection does not exist Emphasize that changes impact local economies Mitigating views add value to visitor experience Variations to natural settings more acceptable than urban settings leaves turning color vs. bright colored buildings

19 Overall Observations Methodology can be confusing Evaluation by casual observer is different than park staff Asking the public to determine the views is a great opportunity for involvement Volunteer coordination is a lot of effort! Protecting views through partnership efforts is challenging when there is no single authority People did not see developed areas as negative More about what people expect to see and if the elements fit are balanced, harmonious, and work together Accept what elements belonged in the view (urban vs. natural) How view is experienced is important NPS needs to have input on which views to protect.

20 MISS Specific Recommendations 1. General Address smart growth Recognizes each view and landscape category is unique Need for distinct architectural, landscape and urban design strategies Balance public, land manager, landowner interests 2. Potential future conditions More realistic than desired future conditions. 3. Management strategies for landscape categories specific to MISS w/ similar characteristics and concerns Prairie, Urban, Working River, Gorge, Floodplain Forest

21 4. Protection Zones Maintenance Zone (Red Rating of 48 61) Priority for continued or new protection Enhancement Zone (Brown Rating 39-47) Consider restoration, screening, and reframing degraded views Mitigation Zone (Blue Rating of 9 28) More intensive restoration of extremely degraded views.

22 5. Next Steps Create form to monitor views, especially in areas with a high stability risk factor Identify and assess views from the river Meet with local communities to determine scenic protection strategies/identify threats to resource from proposed development Identify and prioritize iconic views (and their level of protection) Educate partners about the importance of protecting these (and other) views Implement recommendations of 20 assessed views Conduct an economic analysis of how protecting views is tied to tourism and local economies (Similar to Blue Ridge Parkway Scenic Experience study) - Demonstrate how scenic quality is directly tied to economic activity Develop sample ordinances, zoning codes, design guidelines, mitigation measures.

23 Proposed Mall of America size development in St. Paul Influential developer Local stakeholders wanted view to be protected City wanted view protected Groundswell of opposition to changing the view Implied MISS authority Happened before MISS Assessment Process (and reinforced stakeholder involvement component of MISS process) Local Success Stories

24 St. Anthony Falls in downtown Mpls is one of the more scenic sites of the urban river. Not the highest ranked view in MISS but certainly one of the more significant due to it s prominence/historical significance. During Xcel Energy s hydro relicensing process the 100 cfs minimum flow over the falls was challenged and became an important component of the license renewal process. A visual survey is currently underway. FERC could change the minimum 100 cfs requirement if people reveal they would no longer visit the falls during periods of low flow. The protection of this view has a direct correlation to the local economy and is directly tied to the national significance of MISS. Hydropower licensing is one of the few situations where NPS has legal authority. We have clearly had an impact. Local Success Stories

25 Questions? Contact Information: Susan Overson Landscape Architect/Park Planner National Park Service Mississippi NRRA d:

26 Discussion

27 Ambler Road Route Selection Proposed 200-mi. industrial road that would cross Gates of the Arctic NP and Kobuk WSR KOPs used to assess impacts to visitors Visual resources will also be used to inform mitigation measures Simulation of the road from a KOP Simulation of the proposed Kobuk River crossing