I-73 Location Study 3.5-1 Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.5 VISUAL SETTING

3.5.1 Affected Environment

3.5.1.1 Definition of Existing Visual Environment

The visual quality analysis for the I-73 Location Study considered the potential impacts on existing visual resources, including parks, vistas, rural scenery, and other landmarks and landscapes, by each of the project alternatives. The FHWA Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1981) was used in this study. In this analysis, the existing visual environment was classified and described according to criteria consistent with the 1981 FHWA recommendations. The landscape assessed in the visual quality analysis is the land within the viewsheds of the proposed corridors. Viewsheds are defined as areas predicted to be seen from the corridor alignments or that can see the corridor alignments. Within the viewsheds a classification hierarchy was developed which included landscape regions, districts, and units. Landform, or ecoregion, each of which has distinguishable terrain, slopes, soil types, and plant species, defines the landscape regions. The landscape regions within the project viewsheds are the Piedmont, Blue Ridge, and Great Valley.

Within landscape regions, landscape districts along the proposed alternative corridors were identified, classified and mapped. A landscape district is defined as an area exhibiting coherence in its physical and cultural landscape. The Piedmont landscape region is divided into the Lower Piedmont and the Upper Piedmont landscape districts. Figure 3.5-1 is a map of the landscape regions and districts within the I-73 Location Study viewsheds.

The topography and the agricultural practices of the Lower Piedmont landscape district provide a distinct visual environment - with farm size, tree cover, and length of vista varying from the Upper Piedmont landscape district. The Lower Piedmont landscape district is characterized by agricultural views predominated by oaks, maples, and Virginia pines. Large farms, with large parcel sizes and occasional farmhouses set back from the road, are typical. There is a predominance of pine forests. Beginning with the rise out of the Smith River Basin in and around Sandy Level, the Upper Piedmont landscape district contains a series of ridges that have influenced farming patterns and land ownership. The Upper Piedmont landscape district has dramatic differences in topography that rises and falls, creating a “roller coaster” effect along U.S. Route 220. This land has been divided into small farms. More oaks are evident in this landscape, accompanied by white pine.

Each landscape district was further divided into landscape units. These are smaller areas that have their own identity within the landscape district. It is helpful to imagine landscape units as “rooms” along the corridor alternatives. Figures 3.5-2 through 3.5-6 map the visual landscape units within the study area viewsheds.

The classification of landscape regions, districts, and units considered topography, vegetation, proximity to proposed alignments, close and distant views, cultural landscape and land use, landmarks, historic structures, views, and the public’s perception of visual importance. Special features and issues of each unit were described from a context of cultural, existing development, local perceptions, and community concerns. The variations of environment along the potential corridor – urbanization, farmlands, suburban development, parkland, etc. – were also recognized through the landscape unit definitions.

�����������

���� �������

������������

���������������

������������

��� ��� ���

���� ������

������������� ��������������

�������������������������������

����� ��������

� � � ����������� � � �����

�� ���

�

�

�

������������� �� �����������������������������!"#$%

������ �&�������� �������� ���� ������

&���������

FIGURE 3.5-2VISUAL UNITS

ROANOKE CITY AND COUNTY(SHEET 1 OF 5)

I-73 Location Study 3.5-3 Final Environmental Impact Statement

FIGURE 3.5-3VISUAL UNITS

BOTETOURT, BEDFORD AND ROANOKE COUNTIES(SHEET 2 OF 5)

I-73 Location Study 3.5-4 Final Environmental Impact Statement

FIGURE 3.5-4VISUAL UNITS

FRANKLIN COUNTY(SHEET 3 OF 5)

I-73 Location Study 3.5-5 Final Environmental Impact Statement

FIGURE 3.5-5VISUAL UNITS

FRANKLIN AND HENRY COUNTIES(SHEET 4 OF 5)

I-73 Location Study 3.5-6 Final Environmental Impact Statement

FIGURE 3.5-6VISUAL UNITS

HENRY COUNTY(SHEET 5 OF 5)

I-73 Location Study 3.5-7 Final Environmental Impact Statement

I-73 Location Study 3.5-8 Final Environmental Impact Statement

3.5.1.2 Assessment of Existing Visual Quality of Landscape Units

After the classification system was developed, an assessment of the existing visual quality of landscape units was performed. Based on FHWA Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1981), qualitative assessments provided a basis for comparison between corridor alternatives. The landscape units were assessed for vividness, intactness, and unity to determine existing visual quality.

A modified rating system based on methods developed by the National Park Service (NPS) was used for the Blue Ridge Parkway. In addition to the three criteria mentioned above, a fourth criterion “uniqueness” was added to the FHWA criterion for this assessment. Uniqueness describes the rarity of a scene within the study area. For example, the Mill Mountain Star is unique. Special consideration was given to the visual quality impact to the Blue Ridge Parkway due to its importance to the region and potential visitors. The definitions applicable to the I-73 Location Study visual quality analysis are:

• Uniqueness – The rarity of a scene within the study area. For example, the Mill Mountain Star is unique.

• Vividness – The visual strength or memorability of landscape components as they combine in striking and distinctive visual patterns. For example, the Roanoke skyline against the Blue Ridge is a highly vivid landscape.

• Intactness – The visual integrity of the natural and man-made environment, especially as it relates to intrusive encroachment. For example, a big junkyard in a valley compromises the scene’s intactness.

• Unity – The visual coherence and compositional harmony of the landscape. For example, multigenerational farms in the upper Piedmont provide highly unified scenes, with a patchwork of fields and treed fence-rows, bounded by blue mountains.

Vividness, intactness and unity were rated as low, moderate, or high, as explained below. The visual quality was based on seven rating values, from very low to very high, representing combinations of the values from the three evaluative criteria (Wilsey and Ham Pacific, 1991).

Vividness Intactness Unity

Score Rating Score Rating Score Rating 0 to 1 Low -1 to 0 Low 1 to 2 Low 2 to 3 Moderate 1 Moderate 3 to 4 Moderate 4 to 5 High 2 High 5 to 6 High

Evaluation Criteria Visual Quality Rating

Low, Low, Low Very Low Low, Low, Moderate Low

Low, Low, High Moderately Low Low, Moderate, Moderate Moderately Low

Moderate, Moderate, Moderate Moderate Low, Moderate, High Moderate

Moderate, Moderate, High Moderately High Low, High, High Moderately High

Moderate, High, High High High, High, High Very High

The visual sensitivity of each landscape unit was also evaluated according to two criteria: intactness and the intensity of adjacent land use. The visual sensitivity of a landscape unit is a preliminary measure of the amount of absorption the settled landscape can withstand while minimizing interruption to the fragile resources that compose the landscape scene. The visual sensitivity of the landscape unit is a function of rating combinations visual intactness and adjacent land use as shown below.

I-73 Location Study 3.5-9 Final Environmental Impact Statement

Intactness Adjacent Character

Score Rating Score Rating -1 to 0 Low 1 to 2 Low

1 Moderate 3 to 4 Moderate 2 to 3 High 5 to 8 High

Evaluation Criteria Visual Sensitivity Rating

Low, Low Low Low, Moderate Moderately Low

Low, High Moderate Moderate, Moderate Moderate

Moderate, High Moderately High High, High High

3.5.1.3 Assessment of Views from the Blue Ridge Parkway

Currently, U.S. Route 220 crosses the Blue Ridge Parkway south of Roanoke. Any improvements to U.S. Route 220 or a new interstate would require a crossing of the Blue Ridge Parkway. The NPS has completed intensive studies of the visual character of the Blue Ridge Parkway. Special care has been taken in the design of the Blue Ridge Parkway to protect the inherent visual qualities of the existing landscapes while offering reasonable access to them (NPS, Visual Character of the Blue Ridge Parkway, 1997). Therefore, special care was taken to look at the views of and from the Blue Ridge Parkway along its length in the study area. Opportunities to cross the Blue Ridge Parkway in as benign a manner as possible – location and the best means for crossing (design) – were considered. The NPS has extensive studies of design elements of the Blue Ridge Parkway and the context of those elements. It also is developing an analysis of the views from the Blue Ridge Parkway that are integral to the Blue Ridge Parkway experience. The use of these studies, in cooperation with the NPS, aided in the visual quality analysis for the I-73 Location Study.

3.5.1.4 Determination of Public and NPS Preference

A series of public meetings in Spring 1998 sought the public’s perception of important visual resources. This key visual preference information supported ongoing research on viewer preference of known landmarks and landscape. This information also supported the study team location of key points for viewshed analysis.

(This area left blank intentionally)