mountain valley pipeline project docket no. cp16-10-000 ... · 3/11/2019 · inventory and...
TRANSCRIPT
Response to Data Request
Docket No. CP16-10-000
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Docket No. CP16-10-000
Attachment DR5 Land Use 11
March 2017
MOUNTAIN VALLEY PIPELINE PROJECT
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
FOR THE WESTON AND GAULEY BRIDGE TURNPIKE TRAIL
FERC DOCKET # CP16-10
DHR FILE #2014 1194
Prepared for
EQT Plaza, 625 Liberty Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Prepared by
160 Federal Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02110
February 2017
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
i
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 1
2. ASSESSMENT APPROACH SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 1
3. STUDY APPROACH ........................................................................................................................... 3
a. Basic VIA Procedure ........................................................................................................... 3
b. Conduct Viewshed Analysis ............................................................................................... 3
c. Assessment Framework and MCS Classification ............................................................... 4
d. Identify View Selection/Visual Receptors ......................................................................... 6
e. Viewpoint Inventory and Forecasting ............................................................................... 7
i. Viewpoint Inventory Phase................................................................................... 7
ii. Forecasting Phase .................................................................................................. 7
f. Viewpoint Simulations ....................................................................................................... 7
g. Assessment and Appraisal of Visual Impacts .................................................................... 8
i. Assessment ............................................................................................................ 8
ii. Appraisal ................................................................................................................ 9
4. SUMMARY OF VISUAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 10
5. MCS COMPATIBILITY ..................................................................................................................... 12
6. VISUAL MITIGATION MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES .................................... 12
7. KEY VISUAL STUDY PERSONNEL .................................................................................................... 13
a. Robert Evans, Visual Resources Analyst/Task Lead ........................................................ 13
b. Lori Davidson, Visual Resources Analyst ......................................................................... 13
8. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 14
List of Figures
Figure 1. USACE VRAP Process
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
ii
Appendices
Appendix A Viewshed Analysis and Visual Simulations
Appendix B USACE VRAP Forms
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
iii
Abbreviations and Acronyms
3D three‐dimensional
BLM Bureau of Land Management
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
MCS Management Classification System
MVP Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC
ROW right‐of‐way
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USGS United States Geological Survey
VIA Visual Impact Assessment
VRAP Visual Resource Assessment Procedures
WGBT Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
1
1. INTRODUCTION
The Mountain Valley Pipeline Project (Project) is a natural gas pipeline that spans approximately
303 miles from northwestern West Virginia to southern Virginia – and as an interstate pipeline will be
regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The MVP will be constructed and owned
by Mountain Valley Pipeline, LLC (MVP), which is a joint venture of EQT Midstream Partners, LP; NextEra
US Gas Assets, LLC; Con Edison Gas Midstream, LLC; WGL Midstream; and RGC Midstream, LLC. EQT
Midstream Partners will operate the pipeline. The pipeline will be 42 inches in diameter and will require
temporary right‐of‐way (ROW) during construction that is approximately 125 feet wide. After
construction, MVP will maintain a 50‐foot‐wide permanent ROW.
The pipeline will cross the Western and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail (WGBT Trail or Trail) in
Braxton County, West Virginia (Appendix A, Figure 1). The section of the WGBT Trail that travels from
the Little Kanawha River near Bulltown Historic Area at Burnsville Lake to the Stonewall Jackson Lake
boundary was purchased by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) when the Burnsville Lake project
was developed. The WGBT Trail is currently maintained by the USACE and is listed on the National Park
Service’s (NPS’s) National Recreation Trail Register and the National Register of Historic Places for its
significance as an early transportation route and its association with the Civil War activities in West
Virginia (USACE nd). The Trail is approximately 10 miles long and travels through two West Virginia
counties.
In May 2014, MVP performed a detailed routing analysis of potential routes for the Project,
which analyzed 94 corridor segments including 2,362 miles of alternative routes and two crossing
alternatives for the WGBT Trail. However, MVP selected the proposed route because it is the most
direct, constructible route to get from the origination of the Project to its terminus that also had the
least overall environmental impacts. Other crossing locations were evaluated and found to be
prohibitive due to the steep terrain, previously existing utilities, and other concerns such as proximity to
residences and/or populated areas.
This Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) evaluates the potential impacts to visual resources along
the WGBT Trail. The analysis will include locations along the Trail leading up to the pipeline crossing as
well as the pipeline crossing location itself. No designated scenic overlooks have been identified along
the Trail.
2. ASSESSMENT APPROACH SUMMARY
The proposed Project crosses the WGBT Trail on land managed by the USACE. Current land uses
along the WGBT Trail include open pasture land and rural residential development, but the primary land
use adjacent to the Trail is natural/forested, including at the pipeline crossing.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
2
This VIA assessed the potential visual impacts of the Project using the visual inventory and
assessment methodology developed by the USACE, which has developed a visual analysis system to
evaluate visual change in the landscape.
The USACE Visual Resources Assessment Procedures (VRAP) is a systematic method that uses
changes in visual resources to measure and evaluate the visual impact caused by a Project. The visual
resources considered are water resources, landform, vegetation, land use, and user activities. The VRAP
is composed of two parts: the Management Classification System (MCS) and the VIA Procedures (Figure
1). The MCS establishes an Assessment Framework for a project area and sets the visual resource
criteria that are used throughout the visual assessment. The existing visual quality of an area is
determined by inventorying the visual resources and comparing the inventory with the Assessment
Framework. The VRAP measures the change in the visual resources and determines the compatibility or
acceptability of the changes in the visual resources, i.e., the visual impact. The MCS classes—
Preservation, Retention, Partial Retention, Modification, and Rehabilitation—serve as general guidelines
for the degree and nature of visual change acceptable in the landscape, the degree of structure or
project visibility, and the compatibility of visual change with the study area landscape (Smardon, et al.,
1988).
Figure 1. USACE VRAP Process
Source: Smardon, et.al. 1988
The VRAP identifies three levels of VIA Procedures:
General VIA Procedures, which are used in early or preliminary studies to assess general study
areas and preliminary plans;
The Basic Procedure, which provides the impact assessment and evaluation information
required for most USACE studies; and
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
3
The Detailed Procedure, which permits a more sensitive and extensive VIA by adding an
inventory and assessment of design elements, i.e., form, line, color, and texture. (BLM nd)
The choice of which VIA method to use is based on the characteristics of the proposed project,
visual sensitivity of the potentially affected area, time constraints on the analysis, and availability of data
and resources.
All three VRAP VIA processes include a project‐level inventory of scenic resources. After a site‐
specific inventory of visual resources, visual simulations of the with‐ and without‐project conditions are
used to determine changes in visual resources. The MCS criteria (i.e., MCS classes) are used to
determine the acceptability or compatibility of the visual impacts.
For this VIA, the Basic VIA Procedure was selected to assess visual impacts for the Project, based
upon general guidance from the USACE Instruction Report EL‐88‐1, ”Visual Resource Assessment
Procedures for US Army Corps of Engineers” (Issued 1988).1 The Basic VIA Procedure is described further
in Section 3 below.
3. STUDY APPROACH
The Study Approach incorporates the concepts and principles of the Basic VIA Procedure. A
broad outline of the major concepts of the Basic VIA Procedure involves: (1) identifying the regional
landscape and determine the existing visual quality and management class of the analysis area, 2)
establishing an understanding of the visual character and qualities of the existing landscape
environment in the Project area through viewpoint selection, 3) establishing visual quality designation
for each viewpoint for existing conditions and for conditions with the project implemented, 4)
identifying visual contrast resulting from changes as they affect the existing landscape character and
qualities in the Project area, and 5) determining MCS compatibility.
a. Basic VIA Procedure
The Basic VIA Procedure is used for assessing specific sites and project alternatives. To assist in
the process of inventorying and evaluating visual impacts, the USACE has developed a series of 10 forms
used to record information and data collected during the VRAP process. However, not all forms are used
for each VRAP procedure. The VRAP forms used as part of the Basic VIA Procedure are noted in the
sections below.
b. Conduct Viewshed Analysis
1 The USACE Instruction Report EL‐88‐1 (Table 3) characterizes the differences between the types of projects that
would implement the Basic Procedure and includes pipeline projects.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
4
The visual resources Analysis Area (or study area) is generally defined as up to 0.25 mile from
the crossing of the WGBT Trail. Since the USACE does not specify distances for reviewing visual
resources, the 0.25‐mile distance corresponds with the FERC’s requirements of reviewing natural,
recreational, and scenic areas (18 Code of Federal Regulations § 380.12(j)(4), (6)). In addition, the WGBT
Trail is located within a heavily forested and mountainous area where visibility beyond the WGBT Trail is
limited due to topography and vegetation.
A viewshed analysis is a graphic representation of the seen and unseen areas adjacent to the
Project based largely on topography within the Project study area and the proposed height of Project
facilities. A vegetation‐modeled viewshed analysis was conducted to identify seen and unseen areas
from along the segment of the Trail that is within 0.25 mile on either side of the Trail/pipeline crossing
(Appendix A, Figure 1). The vegetation‐modeled viewshed analysis was conducted for the pipeline ROW;
however, unlike most viewshed analyses, there was no vertical (i.e., above‐ground structures) to model
since the pipeline will be buried underground. The only vertical element that may be present in the
pipeline ROW would be pipeline markers, which are approximately 3 to 4 feet in height. Therefore, the
viewshed used a height of 4 feet to run the viewshed and National Land Cover Database vegetation
data, which was set at 40 feet in height to mimic the height of the surrounding trees. The vegetation
modeled viewshed indicates that visibility will be primarily limited to the areas immediately adjacent to
the pipeline ROW. This was confirmed during the field reconnaissance. The vegetation‐modeled
viewshed analysis helped identify viewing locations, or Key Observation Points (KOPs), for purposes of
evaluating potential visual impacts. Viewing locations are discussed in Section 3.D. Vegetation‐modeled
viewshed analyses were also conducted from each of the selected KOPs. The description of the
viewsheds conducted for each KOP are included in Section 4.
c. Assessment Framework and MCS Classification
The assessment framework and MCS classification is typically developed as part of a regional
planning effort and incorporated into a resource management plan, which describes how an agency will
manage areas under its jurisdiction. However, at this time, a USACE resource management plan and/or
MCS classifications have not been identified for the WGBT Trail or the surrounding area.
Therefore, for this VIA, an abbreviated classification was performed using VRAP Forms (Forms 1
through 5) to determine the assessment framework and MCS class for the WGBT Trail and to establish a
baseline in order to measure the changes in the landscape due to the implementation of the Project.
The USACE has not yet reviewed this MCS classification. As part of this process, visual quality was
assessed for each Similarity Zone (i.e., a physiographic area of land that has common characteristics of
ecoregions, land use, land use intensity, and water resources) within the region or analysis area. Due to
the size of the analysis area (0.25 mile either side of the pipeline crossing), the WGBT corridor is the only
zone identified and evaluated as part of this VIA. The following is a brief description of each of the VRAP
forms used to determine the assessment framework and MCS classification for this VIA.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
5
Form 1 – Visual Resource Summary/Description. This form is used in the MCS and all VIA
Procedures to describe the visual resources and aesthetic characteristics of the study area in a holistic
manner. The total visual impression and unified perceptions of the landscape are recorded. Visual
resource components (e.g., landform, vegetation, water resources, or structures) that are prominent in
the landscape are identified.
Form 2 – Visual Resource Inventory/Forecast. This form is used in the MCS and all VIA
Procedures. It is a list or summary of the various characteristics and types of resources used to assess
the visual quality of the study area. Whereas Form 1 examines the landscape from an overall holistic
standpoint, Form 2 focuses on specific visual resource components. In the MCS, the resources of the
Similarity Zones are inventoried.
Form 3 – Assessment Framework. This form is used in the MCS to record the determinations of
Distinct, Average, and Minimal resource characteristics2 for each regional landscape. The characteristics
are determined for water resources, landform, vegetation, land use, and user activities. The framework
determinations provide consistent criteria for the assessment of existing and forecasted visual quality in
Similarity Zones, study areas, and viewpoints. The assessment framework is initially developed by
environmental resource professionals. This evaluation may be combined with public information to form
a composite framework.
Form 4 – Assessment Summary. This form uses information from Forms 1 through 3 to produce
a numerical Total Assessment Value for each Similarity Zone or study area. Each resource included on
Form 2 (water resources, landform, vegetation, land use, user activity, and special considerations) is
rated: Distinct = 3, Average = 2, or Minimal = 1. Total Assessment Values range from 0 to 17. Form 4 is
used in the MCS to assess existing visual quality in each Similarity Zone.
Form 5 – Management Classification Summary. This form is used in the MCS to record the
classification of existing visual resources of each Similarity Zone in a Regional Landscape or study area.
Each zone is classified depending on its numerical Assessment Value as determined in Form 4.
Management classes and Total Assessment Values include Preservation (17 or greater), Retention (14 to
16), Partial Retention (11 to 13), Modification (8 to 10), and Rehabilitation (less than 8).
The Management Classifications are defined as follows:
Preservation ‐ These areas are considered to be unique and to have the most distinct visual
quality in the region. They are highly valued and are often protected by federal and state policies
and laws. These areas include wilderness areas, some natural areas, portions of wild and scenic
rivers, historic sites and districts, and similar situations where changes to existing resources are
restricted. While limited project activity is not precluded, it should not be readily evident.
2 See Section 3.g.i below for a discussion of Distinct, Average, and Minimal resource characteristics.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
6
Structures, operations, and use activities should appear to be extensions of the protected resource
and should faithfully represent, repeat, or reinforce the visual character of that resource.
Retention ‐ These areas are regionally recognized as having distinct visual quality, but may
not be institutionally protected. Project activity may be evident, but should not attract attention.
Structures, operations, and use activities should remain subordinate to the existing visual resources
and should repeat the form, line, color, texture, scale, and composition characteristics of the
resource.
Partial Retention ‐ These areas are locally valued for above average visual quality, but are
rarely protected by institutional policies. Project activity may be evident and begin to attract
attention. Structures, operations, and use activities should remain subordinate to the existing
visual resources. Form, line, color, texture, scale, and composition may differ from but should be
compatible with the visual characteristics of the existing resource.
Modification ‐ These areas are not noted for their distinct qualities and are often
considered to be of average visual quality. Project activity may attract attention and dominate the
existing visual resource. Structures, operations, and use activities may display characteristics of
form, line, color, texture, scale, and composition that differ from those of the existing visual
resources. However, the project should exhibit good design and visual compatibility with its
surroundings.
Rehabilitation ‐ These areas are noted for their minimal visual quality and are often
considered blighted areas. Project activity should alter the existing undesirable visual resources.
Structures, operations, and use activities should exhibit good design and display characteristics of
form, line, color, texture, scale, and composition that contribute to making the area compatible
with the visual character of adjacent higher quality landscapes.
d. Identify View Selection/Visual Receptors
Visual receptors are viewing locations that are evaluated for potential visual impact and are
representative of visually sensitive areas from which viewers may be affected by Project‐related changes
in the landscape setting. MVP chose visual receptors based on the viewshed analysis conducted (as
described in Section 3.B) and field reconnaissance. During field reconnaissance, MVP visited and
photographed sections of the trail that were identified in the viewshed analysis as having views of the
Project. MVP chose a total of three viewing locations or KOPs: one at the WGBT Trail/pipeline crossing
(KOP 105); one approximately 350 feet west of the crossing (KOP 106); and one approximately 200 feet
east of the crossing (KOP 107). These three viewpoints were selected because they represent different
viewing angles along the WGBT Trail and best represent potential impacts to viewers along this section
of the Trail. According to the vegetation‐modeled viewshed analysis (Appendix A, Figure 1), views of the
Project beyond the analysis area are not anticipated due to vegetation screening adjacent to the WGBT
Trail. Therefore, additional visual receptors were not identified.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
7
e. Viewpoint Inventory and Forecasting
i. Viewpoint Inventory Phase
Each designated viewpoint was inventoried using VRAP Form 1 and Form 2 as described in
Section 3.C, which are used to describe the viewpoint in a holistic manner (Form 1) and by each visual
resource component (Form 2) that is important to the VIA (e.g., water, landform, vegetation, land/water
use, etc.).
ii. Forecasting Phase
This phase includes forecasting visual changes in the landscape that are expected to occur at a
viewpoint both with and without Project implementation and are based upon the inventoried viewpoint
data and available planning projections and trends. The forecast information for both projections (with
and without Project implementation) were recorded on Forms 1 and 2. Forms used for the Project can
be found in Appendix B.
f. Viewpoint Simulations
Due to the limited visibility along the WGBT Trail, three locations were selected for
photographic simulations (Appendix A, Figure 2) in order to demonstrate how the Project, once
constructed, will look in the landscape to future viewers. The wooded area makes it difficult to see
distant views from the WGBT Trail when looking out as well as see into the WGBT Trail unless the viewer
is within the Trail corridor. The selected views represent the typical viewing conditions in the analysis
area.
The photographic simulations were created using geographic information system (GIS) software,
three‐dimensional (3D) modeling software, and digital photographic editing software. The software used
to create the visual simulations includes:
ArcMap – Used for Project data mapping;
Promote Systems Global Positioning System (GPS) – Used for photo and modeling location accuracy;
3D Studio Max – Used for 3D modeling, texturing, lighting, and rendering;
PTGui – Used for digital photo panorama creation; and
Adobe Photoshop CS4 – Used for photo editing and compositing.
To create the photo simulations, digital photography was collected from selected viewpoint
locations. The viewpoint locations were documented with field notes and GPS coordinates. Visual
simulations were prepared by combining site photography with accurate, rendered computer models of
Project facilities to predict what would be seen if the proposed Project were built in the photographed
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
8
setting. The 3D model used appropriate reclamation techniques, such as replanting natural seed
mixtures, to demonstrate long‐term visual impacts after construction. Using GIS to generate a terrain
model, the 3D model was placed in real‐world coordinates to ensure accuracy. Simulations were
developed by aligning each photographic viewpoint with the models and superimposing the models on
the photographs. Creation of the simulations also used a real‐world lighting system in the model when
rendering each of the strategic vantage points. This lighting system geographically represents the
photo’s time of day, month, and year. Once the renderings were complete, the rendering was added to
the existing photographs to create a “before and after” final product.
g. Assessment and Appraisal of Visual Impacts
The evaluation of environmental effects in USACE planning studies involves the assessment and
appraisal of effects on or impacts to environmental resources. Assessment is the identification and
description of the impact, while appraisal is the process of assigning a value to the impacts.
i. Assessment
Assessment determines the difference between the without‐Project and with‐Project
conditions, i.e., the Project VIA Values. The VIA Value for proposed action is a numerical measure of
visual impact and is tractable by examining the specific changes in landscape components. The modifier
and landscape composition ratings show how the changes in landscape components result in changes in
spatial dominance, scale contrast, compatibility, and landscape composition. The visual modifier and
landscape composition ratings are used to support and explain the numerical values of the VIA Value.
The VIA Value, the modifier ratings, and the landscape composition ratings are described below.
(1) VIA Value
The value that represents the visual impact caused by implementation of a proposed project
and which is determined by the change in the landscape components. For each resource component in a
viewpoint landscape (e.g., water, landform, vegetation, land use, user activity, and special
considerations) a Distinct, Average, or Minimal designation is determined for the with‐ and without‐
Project conditions. These are also referred to as visual quality designations. Each visual quality
designation has a numerical value associated with it: Distinct = 3, Average = 2, and Minimal = 1. The
numerical difference between the with‐ and without‐ Project components is the Viewpoint Value. These
values are described below and are recorded on VRAP Form 6 (Appendix B) – Viewpoint Assessment.
Distinct - A resource or activity that is considered unique and an asset to an area. It is typically known as a visual/aesthetic draw and/or has many distinctive attributes. Diversity and compatibility are characteristics in such a resource.
Average – A resource or activity that is common in the area and not known for its uniqueness, but rather as a reflection of the norm of the area.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
9
Minimal – A resource or activity that may be looked upon as a liability in the area. It typically lacks any positive attributes and may actually diminish the quality of the surrounding area.
(2) Modifier Ratings
The visual compatibility of the with‐ and without‐Project elements is also rated in terms of three
modifiers: Spatial Dominance, Scale Contrast, and Compatibility. The modifiers are described below and
are recorded on VRAP Form 6 (Appendix B).
Spatial Dominance – The prevalent occupation of a space in a landscape by an object(s) or
landscape element. Spatial dominance can be described in terms of being Dominant, Co‐
dominant, or Subordinate.
Scale Contrast – The difference in absolute or relative scale in relation to other distinct objects
or areas in the landscape. Scale contrast can be described as being Severe, Moderate, or
Minimal.
Compatibility – The degree to which landscape elements and characteristics are still unified
within their setting. Compatibility can be described in terms of being Compatible, Somewhat
Compatible, or Not Compatible.
(3) Landscape Composition
The last viewpoint assessment item examines the landscape composition for the with‐ and
without‐Project conditions. Landscape composition is the organization of the elements of the landscape.
Some elements are more vulnerable to visual contrast (prominent) than others (inconspicuous). Each
viewpoint simulation is assessed as a whole instead of as individual elements. Landscape composition is
then described in terms of being Prominent, Significant, or Inconspicuous and are recorded on VRAP
Form 6 (Appendix B).
Prominent – focal, feature, or enclosed landscapes.
Significant – panoramic or weak focal, feature, or enclosed landscapes.
Inconspicuous – canopied, indistinct, or obscured landscapes.
ii. Appraisal
Appraisal involves identifying the desirability of the impacts by assigning social values of the
impacts. The MCS criteria are designed to guide the appraisal by providing a basis for determining
whether the visual impact caused by a project is desirable. The VIA Value is compared with the visual
impact guidelines contained in the MCS:
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
10
Management Class VIA Value
Preservation 0
Retention 10 to -2
Partial Retention 10 to -5
Modification 10 to -7
Rehabilitation 10 to -10
A value of zero indicates that there is no change in landscape components between the with‐
and without‐Project components. A below zero rating indicates that the change between landscape
components with‐ and without‐Project components is diminishing the quality of the area. The lower the
rating, the higher the degree of change (i.e., the more the Project elements are diminishing the quality
of the area). A rating above zero also indicates a change in landscape components between the with‐
and without‐ Project components is an improvement in landscape components and an asset to the area.
4. SUMMARY OF VISUAL IMPACTS
Visual impacts associated with the pipeline crossing of the WGBT Trail will include vegetation
clearing outside the limits of the USACE‐owned tracts and pipeline marking. The pipeline route
approaches the WGBT Trail from the north, parallels the northern side of the Trail for approximately
0.15 mile, then turns 90 degrees and crosses the Trail to the southern side and continues south away
from the Trail. The edge of the pipeline ROW is approximately 50 feet from the edge of the Trail where
the two run parallel.
MVP will cross the WGBT Trail using a conventional bore, which will preserve a buffer of
screening vegetation adjacent to the Trail at the crossing. The bore pits will be located approximately
20’ feet from the fence line edge of the Trail (Appendix A, Figure 3). The bore pit on the northern side of
the Trail will be located in an open field, and the bore pit to the south will be located beyond a small rise
in the terrain. The majority of impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of tree clearing and will be
more apparent in “leaf‐off” conditions (i.e., during fall and winter months). Impacts are expected to be
reduced during “leaf‐on” conditions (i.e., during spring and summer months) when tree clearing will be
mostly to completely screened by vegetation. Visual impacts described below for each viewpoint include
both leaf‐off and leaf‐on conditions.
As noted above, the viewpoints used for this assessment were selected from along the WGBT
Trail: at the WGBT Trail/pipeline crossing (KOP 105), west of the WGBT Trail/pipeline crossing (KOP 106),
and east of the Trail/pipeline crossing where the pipeline ROW parallels the Trail (KOP 107). A 10‐year
forecast timeframe was used for the visual assessment, assuming that vegetation within the pipeline
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
11
ROW will become re‐established by that time to the point that will be maintained for the life of the
Project. Based on the viewpoint assessment, it was determined that the VIA Value from KOPs 105 and
107 is ‐1, indicating that the change in the landscape components between the with‐ and without‐
Project components is diminishing the quality of the area at and near the WGBT Trail/pipeline crossing.
In this case, the vegetation clearing outside the limits of the WGBT Trail associated with the pipeline
ROW begins to diminish the quality of the area. From KOP 106, the VIA Value was determined to be
zero, indicating that the change in the landscape components between the with‐ and without‐Project
components is neither adding to or diminishing the quality of the area, but staying relatively the same. A
description of impacts from each of the viewpoints is described below. VRAP Forms that were used to
inventory and determine the VIA Values are included in Appendix B.
According to the vegetation‐modeled viewshed for the WGBT Trail/pipeline crossing at KOP 105
(Appendix A, Figure 3), visibility will be limited to the Trail/pipeline crossing and less than 100 feet either
side of the pipeline ROW. The bore pits will not be visible according to the viewshed. A visual simulation
(Appendix A, Figure 6) was prepared showing leaf‐off conditions. Vegetation removal associated with
the pipeline ROW will be visible beyond the open field on the northern side of the Trail where
vegetation clearing will create an opening in the tree canopy. On the southern side of the Trail, some
tree thinning associated with the pipeline ROW may be apparent south of the bore pit. However, the
bore pit will not be visible as it will be located behind a small rise in the terrain. In leaf‐on conditions, the
visual impacts at KOP 105 will be minimized as the opening in the tree canopy to the north will be
reduced and the tree thinning to the south will be screened by vegetation.
According to the vegetation‐modeled viewshed for the location west of the WGBT Trail/pipeline
crossing at KOP 106 (Appendix A, Figure 4), visibility will be limited to the area immediately adjacent to
KOP 106, and the Project will not be visible from this location. A visual simulation (Appendix A, Figure 7)
was prepared showing leaf‐off conditions. Tree thinning associated with the pipeline ROW may be
apparent south of the bore pit located on the south side of the Trail. However, tree thinning will not be
very noticeable due to the dense stands of trees between the viewer and the pipeline ROW. Views of
the pipeline ROW on the north side of the Trail will be screened by terrain and topography. In leaf‐on
conditions, views of the pipeline ROW to the south of the Trail will be screened by vegetation.
According to the vegetation‐modeled viewshed for the location east of the WGBT Trail/pipeline
crossing at KOP 107 (Appendix A, Figure 5), visibility will be limited primarily to the open field on the
north side of the Trail. A visual simulation (Appendix A, Figure 8) was prepared showing leaf‐off
conditions. Tree thinning will be apparent where the pipeline ROW parallels the Trail. In leaf‐on
conditions, views of the pipeline ROW from this viewpoint will most likely be screened by vegetation
along the northern side of the Trail. The bore pit and pipeline ROW on the southern side of the Trail will
be located beyond a small rise and not visible from this viewpoint.
Overall, views are relatively short due to the length of the pipeline ROW paralleling the Trail,
which would result in the Project only being visible for as long as it takes to walk 0.15 mile. Most visual
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
12
impacts will occur during construction, and the landscape will, for the most part, appear undisturbed
following reclamation.
5. MCS COMPATIBILITY
The MCS class identified for the analysis area is Retention,3 based on the assessment framework
and MCS classification process described in Section 3.c. The VRAP Forms used to determine the MCS
class are included in Appendix B. As noted in Section 4, the VIA Value for the viewpoint assessment is ‐1
for KOPs 105 and 107, and zero for KOP 106, which fall within the visual impact guidelines for the
Retention management class. In addition, the vegetation clearing associated with the pipeline ROW
would be mostly screened during leaf‐on conditions, and the pipeline ROW would be a subordinate
feature in the landscape. During leaf‐off conditions, when the pipeline ROW becomes more visible, it
would repeat the form and line of the existing linear Trail corridor. For these reasons, the
implementation of the Project would be compatible with the MCS class.
6. VISUAL MITIGATION MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The results of the VIA yielded mostly low visual impacts to the WGBT Trail as a result of
construction and operation of the Project. In addition, the Project is compatible with the MCS class. MVP
has proposed impact minimization measures to lower potential visual impacts from the Project
identified during the analysis.
Minimization measures, identified by both MVP and USACE, have been or will be applied to
reduce or eliminate impacts. These impact minimization measures include:
The WGBT Trail crossing will be done at a right angle to ensure the shortest duration of view for the
crossing;
MVP is proposing a bore length of approximately 130 feet under the USACE property, which will avoid
the surface of the USACE property in its entirety;
Vegetation along the edge of the WGBT Trail will be preserved by using a conventional bore method
leaving a buffer of approximately 20 feet from the fence line edge of the Trail to the beginning of tree
clearing for the bore pits during construction and maintenance; and
The WGBT Trail will be crossed by the Project by using a conventional bore method to ensure there
will be no disruptions to hikers on the WBGT Trail.
3 The MCS class identified for this VIA was developed without input or review from the USACE and was only
developed to establish a baseline in order to measure the changes in the landscape due to the implementation of
the Project.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
13
As noted above, the VIA Value at each KOP meets the Retention classification. With the
implementation of the impact minimization measures listed above, the Project would not result in any
significant visual impacts to visual resources on the WBGT Trail.
7. KEY VISUAL STUDY PERSONNEL
The key personnel for the visual resources study are as follows:
a. Robert Evans, Visual Resources Analyst/Task Lead
Mr. Evans has a master’s degree in Landscape Architecture and is an active member of American
Society of Landscape Architects. He has over 10 years of experience conducting and supporting visual
assessments in numerous US states including AZ, CA, NV, NM, OR, WA, ID, WY, TX, AK, OK, TN, NH, MA,
NY, and HI and has completed the BLM’s VRM training in 2008. Mr. Evans is also a member of the Scenic
Resources Working Group, which is a subcommittee of the National Association of Environmental
Professionals. The group focuses on upcoming and emerging technology that can effect visual resource
analysis and mitigation.
b. Lori Davidson, Visual Resources Analyst
Ms. Davidson is a licensed Landscape Architect with over 10 years of experience in
environmental planning and landscape architecture with an extensive focus on visual resource inventory
and analysis. Specific areas of expertise include conducting comprehensive visual resource inventories
and impact analysis and preparing visual resource studies in support of National Environmental Policy
Act compliance, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission compliance, California Energy Commission
compliance, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management compliance, and the Arizona Power Plant and
Transmission Line Siting Committee compliance for the Arizona Corporation Commission, as well as for
other state or local regulations and policies. Ms. Davidson has project experience in visual impact
assessment and analysis on both local and federal linear transmission projects, solar and wind facilities,
and oil and gas facilities throughout the United States. Ms. Davidson also completed the U.S. Bureau of
Land Management’s Visual Resource Management training course in 2012.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
14
8. REFERENCES
BLM (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). no date. Visual Impact Assessment
Methodologies for Other Federal Agencies. Manual H‐8410‐1 – Visual Resource Inventory. Available
online at http://blmwyomingvisual.anl.gov/assess‐simulate/other‐federal/.
Smardon, R.C., Palmer, J.F., Knopf, A., Grinde, K. Henderson, J.E., Peyman‐Dove, L.D. 1988. Instruction
Report EL‐88‐1: Visual Resource Assessment Procedure for US Army Corps of Engineers. Available
online at: http://blmwyomingvisual.anl.gov/docs/vrap.pdf.
USACE (US Army Corps of Engineers). no date. Burnsville Lake – Weston Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
Brochure. Available online at:
http://www.lrh.usace.army.mil/Portals/38/docs/recreation/WGBTP%20Trail%20Brochureprint.pdf.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
1
Appendix A
Visual Simulation
APPENDIX A
VIEWSHED ANALYSIS AND VISUAL SIMULATIONS
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
66.7
66.8
66.9
67
67.1
67.2
±
BraxtonCounty
LewisCounty
NAD 1983 UTM 17N 0 400 800200Feet1:4,800
Data Sources: WVDNR, ESRI Streaming Data.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Doc
umen
t Pa
th:
P:\E
QT-
Eq
uitr
ans\
MV
P P
roje
ct\G
IS\S
pat
ial\M
XD
\201
701
13_
We
sto
nan
dGa
ule
y_V
isua
l_K
OP
_O
verv
iew
\Wes
ton
and
Ga
uley
_P
rop
osed
Ro
ute
_VE
G_
Lin
earV
iew
shed
_20
170
210.
mxd
Legend!C Milepost
October 2016 Proposed Route
Proposed Route Viewshed Feature
Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
Study Area (0.25 mi)
Visible Area (Vegetated Viewshed)
NOTE: Viewshed does factor in obstructions invisibility caused by vegetation (40-ft tree heightassumed). Viewer location is within a forestedarea and will likely not have clear view beyondimmediate vicinity. Visibility verified during fielddata collection.
Vegetation Modeled ViewshedWeston and Gauley Bridge
Turnpike Trail
FEBRUARY 2017
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
!C
66.6
66.7
66.8
66.9
67
67.1
67.2
KOP-OID-107
KOP-OID-105KOP-OID-106
±
LewisCounty
BraxtonCounty
NAD 1983 UTM 17N 0 400 800200Feet1:4,800
Data Sources: WVDNR, ESRI Streaming Data.
Key Observation PointLocation Map
Weston and Gauley BridgeTurnpike Trail
FEBRUARY 2017
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Doc
umen
t Pa
th:
P:\E
QT-
Eq
uitr
ans\
MV
P P
roje
ct\G
IS\S
pat
ial\M
XD
\201
701
13_
We
sto
nan
dGa
ule
y_V
isua
l_K
OP
_O
verv
iew
\Wes
ton
and
Ga
uley
_K
OP
_Loc
atio
nMa
p_2
017
210
.mxd
LegendKey Observation Point (KOP)
!C Milepost
October 2016 Proposed Route
Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
October 2016 Proposed RouteRight-of-Way (ROW)
Proposed Limits of Disturbance
!C
!C
!C
!C
66.8
66.9
67
67.1
KOP-OID-105
±
BraxtonCounty
LewisCounty
NAD 1983 UTM 17N 0 400 800200Feet1:2,400
Data Sources: WVDNR, ESRI Streaming Data.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Doc
umen
t Pa
th:
P:\E
QT-
Eq
uitr
ans\
MV
P P
roje
ct\G
IS\S
pat
ial\M
XD
\201
701
13_
We
sto
nan
dGa
ule
y_V
isua
l_K
OP
_O
verv
iew
\Wes
ton
and
Ga
uley
_K
OP
_VE
G_
Vie
wsh
eds_
201
702
10.m
xdLegendKey Observation Point (KOP)
!C Milepost
October 2016 Proposed Route
Bore Pit
Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
October 2016 Proposed RouteRight-of-Way (ROW)
Visible Area (Vegetated Viewshed)
NOTE: Viewshed does factor in obstructions invisibility caused by vegetation (40-ft tree heightassumed). Viewer location is within a forestedarea and will likely not have clear view beyondimmediate vicinity. Visibility verified during fielddata collection.
Vegetation Modeled ViewshedWeston and Gauley
Bridge Turnpike Trail
FEBRUARY 2017
KOP-OID-105
!C
!C
!C
66.9
67
67.1
KOP-OID-106
±
BraxtonCounty
LewisCounty
NAD 1983 UTM 17N 0 400 800200Feet1:2,400
Data Sources: WVDNR, ESRI Streaming Data.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Doc
umen
t Pa
th:
P:\E
QT-
Eq
uitr
ans\
MV
P P
roje
ct\G
IS\S
pat
ial\M
XD
\201
701
13_
We
sto
nan
dGa
ule
y_V
isua
l_K
OP
_O
verv
iew
\Wes
ton
and
Ga
uley
_K
OP
_VE
G_
Vie
wsh
eds_
201
702
10.m
xdLegendKey Observation Point (KOP)
!C Milepost
October 2016 Proposed Route
Bore Pit
Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
October 2016 Proposed RouteRight-of-Way (ROW)
Visible Area (Vegetated Viewshed)
NOTE: Viewshed does factor in obstructions invisibility caused by vegetation (40-ft tree heightassumed). Viewer location is within a forestedarea and will likely not have clear view beyondimmediate vicinity. Visibility verified during fielddata collection.
Vegetation Modeled ViewshedWeston and Gauley
Bridge Turnpike Trail
FEBRUARY 2017
KOP-OID-106
!C
!C
!C
!C
66.8
66.9
67
KOP-OID-107
±
BraxtonCounty
LewisCounty
NAD 1983 UTM 17N 0 400 800200Feet1:2,400
Data Sources: WVDNR, ESRI Streaming Data.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Doc
umen
t Pa
th:
P:\E
QT-
Eq
uitr
ans\
MV
P P
roje
ct\G
IS\S
pat
ial\M
XD
\201
701
13_
We
sto
nan
dGa
ule
y_V
isua
l_K
OP
_O
verv
iew
\Wes
ton
and
Ga
uley
_K
OP
_VE
G_
Vie
wsh
eds_
201
702
10.m
xdLegendKey Observation Point (KOP)
!C Milepost
October 2016 Proposed Route
Bore Pit
Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
October 2016 Proposed RouteRight-of-Way (ROW)
Visible Area (Vegetated Viewshed)
NOTE: Viewshed does factor in obstructions invisibility caused by vegetation (40-ft tree heightassumed). Viewer location is within a forestedarea and will likely not have clear view beyondimmediate vicinity. Visibility verified during fielddata collection.
Vegetation Modeled ViewshedWeston and Gauley
Bridge Turnpike Trail
FEBRUARY 2017
KOP-OID-107
Photograph InformationTime of photograph: 9:53 AM
Date of photograph: 12.3.2016
Weather condition: Overcast
Viewing direction: North
Latitude: 38°50’41.23” N
Longitude: 80°31’13.52”W
Photo Location: Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike trail in West Virginia. Photo taken from the turnpike approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the community of Ireland.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Key Observation Point 105
Existing Condition
Post Construction
Vicinity MapThe photo was taken from the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail (Trail) at the Trail/pipeline crossing looking north. The pipeline would be bored under the Trail with the bore pits located approximately 20 feet from the fence line edge of the Trail. Vegetation removal associated with the pipeline right-of-way would be visible beyond the open field on the northern side of the Trail. The yellow dashed line indicates the approximate pipeline alignment.
Photograph InformationTime of photograph: 9:58 AM
Date of photograph: 12.3.2016
Weather condition: Overcast
Viewing direction: West
Latitude: 38°50’41.59”N
Longitude: 80°31’17.87”W
Photo Location: Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike trail in West Virginia. Photo taken from the turnpike approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the community of Ireland.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Key Observation Point 106
Existing Condition
Post Construction
Vicinity MapThe photo was taken from the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail (Trail) west of the Trail/pipeline crossing looking east. The pipeline would be bored under the Trail with the bore pits located approximately 20 feet from the fence line edge of the Trail. From this viewpoint the bore pit on the northern side of the Trail would be located in an open field and the pipeline right-of-way beyond that would be screened. The bore pit on the southern side of the Trail would be located behind a low ridge and not visible from KOP 106. In “leaf-off” conditions, tree thinning may be apparent further south of the bore pit location, but not readily noticeable. In “leaf-on” conditions, views of the pipeline right-of-way from KOP 106 would be screened by vegetation. The yellow dashed line indicates the approximate pipeline alignment.
Photograph InformationTime of photograph: 10:02 AM
Date of photograph: 12.3.2016
Weather condition: Overcast
Viewing direction: West - Northwest
Latitude: 38°50’43.06”N
Longitude: 80°31’11.98”W
Photo Location: Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail in West Virginia. Photo taken from the turnpike approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the community of Ireland.
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project Key Observation Point 107
The photo was taken from the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail (Trail) east of the Trail/pipeline crossing looking west. The pipeline would be bored under the Trail with the bore pits located approximately 20 feet from the fence line edge of the Trail. From KOP 107 the bore pit on the northern side would be located in an open field. In “leaf-off” conditions, tree thinning may be apparent where the pipeline right-of-way parallels the Trail. In “leaf-on” conditions, views of the pipeline right-of-way from KOP 107 would most likely be screened by vegetation along the northern side of the Trail. The bore pit and pipeline right-of-way on the southern side of the Trail would be located beyond a small rise and not visible from KOP 107. The yellow dashed line indicates the approximate pipeline alignment.
Existing Condition
Post Construction
Vicinity Map
Mountain Valley Pipeline Project
Visual Impact Assessment for the Weston and Gauley Bridge Turnpike Trail
1
Appendix B
USACE VRAP Forms
APPENDIX B
USACE VRAP FORMS
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY/FORECAST FORM 2 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE ( ) INVENTORY ( )
BASIC ( FORECASTING ( )
DETAILED ()
PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT ( ) ZONE ( ) WEATHER
WITH PLAN ( ) WITHOUT PLAN ( ) PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of
TIME PERIOD YEARS
WATER
RESOURCE STREAM RIVER LAKE/RES. WETLANDS MARINE
MOVEMENT NONE MEANDER SWIFT RAPID FALLS
SCALE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
LANDFORM
ROLLINGTYPE COASTAL PLAINS HILLS HILLS MOUNTAINS
VEGETATION
COVER 0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
DIVERSITY NONE LITTLE PRESENT SUBSTAN. EXTENSIVE
SEAS CHANGE NONE PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
LAND/WATER USE
INTENSITY WILDERNESS UNDEVEL. RURAL SUBURBAN URBANTYPE RECREAT. AGRIC. RESIDENT. COMMER. INDUST.
ACCESS
TYPE TRAIL WALKWAY SECOND. RD. PRIMARY RD. HIGHWAY
USER ACTIVITY
DEGREE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LITTER/POLLUTION .
AMOUNT NONE PRESENT EXTENSIVE
ADJACENT SCENERY
SJMILARITY NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
SOUNDS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
SMELLS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
VISIBILITY
AMOUNT SCREENED PARTIALLY SCREENED PANORAMA
POSITION INFERIOR NORMAL SUPERIOR
Does this area contain any other significant attributes? Yes No
If Yes. exDlin in Comments above.
Is this area known for Its wildlife Observation? Yes No
Does this area contain any Cultural Or historical landmarks? Yes No
A4 ,
as! I, ,.0
: ,'Sal.P
i ~d. f ' * -# "l " - ' ., ,P ,P - i' =-q" " Jr 4- , v . ," . - - - - .r - - . .%- l -
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK FORM 3 MCS 1
PROFESSIONAL C)COMPOSITEC)STUDY AREA DATE
NOTES: PERSONNEL
DISTINCT AVERAGE MINIMAL
WATER RESOURCES
LAN DFORM
/ EQETATIO N
LANOUSE
USER ACTIVITY .
Are there any federal/ siate /local (institutional) Policies that directly affect the visual andaesthetic resources of the area? If so list them below.
Note any important technical recognition in the area. i.e. important scenic areas oftenused for literary /artistic purposes, wildlife habitat, archaeological site. etc.
Note other important issues concerning aesthetic resources that you think will affect ..
the assessment.
A50
ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FORM 4 MCS
STUDY AREA DATE
ZONE PERSONNEL
NOTES:
DISTINCT AVERAGE MINIMAL COMMENTS3 21
WATER RESOURCES
LANDIFORM___ __I
VEGETATION
LANDUSE
USER ACTIVITY
SPECIALCONSIDERATIONS*'
TOTALS
TOTAL ASSESSMENT VALUE ____
The following will give you the value for Special Considerations. A sum of 3 or motedistinct. 1-2 average, and 0 minimal.
Yes No1 0
Does this zone contain any Cultural or Historical Landmarks?
Is this zone, or areas within it, known for its distinct visualquality and/or wildlife observation? .
Is this zone free from pollution and litter? -4e-.
Are there other aesthetic elements that add to this resource?
Total
40A6 *
MANAGEMENT CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY FORM 5 MCS
STUDY AREA DATE
PERSONNELTES:
MANAGEMENT CLASS TOTAL ASSESSMENT VALUE
Preservation 17 and aboveRetention 14-16Partial Retention 1 1-13 -
Modification 8-10Rehabilitation 7 and below
ZONE -0 CLASSIFICATION COMMENTS
A70
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY/FORECAST FORM 2 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE ( ) INVENTORY ( )
BASIC ( FORECASTING ( )
DETAILED ()
PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT ( ) ZONE ( ) WEATHER
WITH PLAN ( ) WITHOUT PLAN ( ) PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of
TIME PERIOD YEARS
WATER
RESOURCE STREAM RIVER LAKE/RES. WETLANDS MARINE
MOVEMENT NONE MEANDER SWIFT RAPID FALLS
SCALE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
LANDFORM
ROLLINGTYPE COASTAL PLAINS HILLS HILLS MOUNTAINS
VEGETATION
COVER 0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
DIVERSITY NONE LITTLE PRESENT SUBSTAN. EXTENSIVE
SEAS CHANGE NONE PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
LAND/WATER USE
INTENSITY WILDERNESS UNDEVEL. RURAL SUBURBAN URBANTYPE RECREAT. AGRIC. RESIDENT. COMMER. INDUST.
ACCESS
TYPE TRAIL WALKWAY SECOND. RD. PRIMARY RD. HIGHWAY
USER ACTIVITY
DEGREE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LITTER/POLLUTION .
AMOUNT NONE PRESENT EXTENSIVE
ADJACENT SCENERY
SJMILARITY NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
SOUNDS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
SMELLS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
VISIBILITY
AMOUNT SCREENED PARTIALLY SCREENED PANORAMA
POSITION INFERIOR NORMAL SUPERIOR
Does this area contain any other significant attributes? Yes No
If Yes. exDlin in Comments above.
Is this area known for Its wildlife Observation? Yes No
Does this area contain any Cultural Or historical landmarks? Yes No
A4 ,
as! I, ,.0
: ,'Sal.P
i ~d. f ' * -# "l " - ' ., ,P ,P - i' =-q" " Jr 4- , v . ," . - - - - .r - - . .%- l -
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY/FORECAST FORM 2 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE ( ) INVENTORY ( )
BASIC ( FORECASTING ( )
DETAILED ()
PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT ( ) ZONE ( ) WEATHER
WITH PLAN ( ) WITHOUT PLAN ( ) PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of
TIME PERIOD YEARS
WATER
RESOURCE STREAM RIVER LAKE/RES. WETLANDS MARINE
MOVEMENT NONE MEANDER SWIFT RAPID FALLS
SCALE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
LANDFORM
ROLLINGTYPE COASTAL PLAINS HILLS HILLS MOUNTAINS
VEGETATION
COVER 0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
DIVERSITY NONE LITTLE PRESENT SUBSTAN. EXTENSIVE
SEAS CHANGE NONE PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
LAND/WATER USE
INTENSITY WILDERNESS UNDEVEL. RURAL SUBURBAN URBANTYPE RECREAT. AGRIC. RESIDENT. COMMER. INDUST.
ACCESS
TYPE TRAIL WALKWAY SECOND. RD. PRIMARY RD. HIGHWAY
USER ACTIVITY
DEGREE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LITTER/POLLUTION .
AMOUNT NONE PRESENT EXTENSIVE
ADJACENT SCENERY
SJMILARITY NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
SOUNDS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
SMELLS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
VISIBILITY
AMOUNT SCREENED PARTIALLY SCREENED PANORAMA
POSITION INFERIOR NORMAL SUPERIOR
Does this area contain any other significant attributes? Yes No
If Yes. exDlin in Comments above.
Is this area known for Its wildlife Observation? Yes No
Does this area contain any Cultural Or historical landmarks? Yes No
A4 ,
as! I, ,.0
: ,'Sal.P
i ~d. f ' * -# "l " - ' ., ,P ,P - i' =-q" " Jr 4- , v . ," . - - - - .r - - . .%- l -
VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY/FORECAST FORM 2 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE ( ) INVENTORY ( )
BASIC ( FORECASTING ( )
DETAILED ()
PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT ( ) ZONE ( ) WEATHER
WITH PLAN ( ) WITHOUT PLAN ( ) PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of
TIME PERIOD YEARS
WATER
RESOURCE STREAM RIVER LAKE/RES. WETLANDS MARINE
MOVEMENT NONE MEANDER SWIFT RAPID FALLS
SCALE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
LANDFORM
ROLLINGTYPE COASTAL PLAINS HILLS HILLS MOUNTAINS
VEGETATION
COVER 0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
DIVERSITY NONE LITTLE PRESENT SUBSTAN. EXTENSIVE
SEAS CHANGE NONE PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
LAND/WATER USE
INTENSITY WILDERNESS UNDEVEL. RURAL SUBURBAN URBANTYPE RECREAT. AGRIC. RESIDENT. COMMER. INDUST.
ACCESS
TYPE TRAIL WALKWAY SECOND. RD. PRIMARY RD. HIGHWAY
USER ACTIVITY
DEGREE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LITTER/POLLUTION .
AMOUNT NONE PRESENT EXTENSIVE
ADJACENT SCENERY
SJMILARITY NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
SOUNDS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
SMELLS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
VISIBILITY
AMOUNT SCREENED PARTIALLY SCREENED PANORAMA
POSITION INFERIOR NORMAL SUPERIOR
Does this area contain any other significant attributes? Yes No
If Yes. exDlin in Comments above.
Is this area known for Its wildlife Observation? Yes No
Does this area contain any Cultural Or historical landmarks? Yes No
A4 ,
as! I, ,.0
: ,'Sal.P
i ~d. f ' * -# "l " - ' ., ,P ,P - i' =-q" " Jr 4- , v . ," . - - - - .r - - . .%- l -
VIEWPOINT ASSESSMENT FORM 6 VIA
BASIC ( ) DETAILEDC)PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT MAP REFERENCE WEATHERALTERNATIVE C)PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of9
USE THE LETTER 'A' FOR 2WITH PLAN CONDITION.
CL W
USE THE LETTER 'B FOREWITHOUT PLAN CONDITION 0 ;
C.,j :: " 0 0 U O S-
0 Wj Eoe U .M 'C 40 ~ Z uji
Uca 02 Q-950 COMMENTS
WATER RESOURCES - __
LA NDFORM
VEGETATION
LANDUSE
USER ACTIVITY ______
SPECIAL I ICONSIDERATIONS 1I___II
I INCONSPICUOUS SIGNIFICANT IPROMINENT
LANDSCAPE COMPOSITION WITH PLANWITHOUT PLAN
The following will give you the value for Special Considerations. A Sum of 3 or Moredistinct. 1-2 average, and 0 minimal.
Yes I No
Does this zone contain any Cultural or Historical Landmarks? ______1I
Is this zone, or areas within it, known for its distinct visualquality and/or wildlife observation?
Is this zone free from pollution and litter?
Are there other aesthetic elements that add to this resource?
Total
A8
~%
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FORM 8 VIA
PROJECT NAME BASIC C)DETAILED )LOCATION DATEALTERNATIVE PESONEWITH PLAN C)WITHOUT PLANC) PESN L
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS
VISUAL IMPACTASSESSMENT VALUE
EVAUATOR EVALUATOR EVALUATOR EVALUATOR *OF QUOTIENT
EVALUATOR S
WATER_ _ __ __
LANDFORM
VEGETATION _ _ _ _ __
LAN DUSE
USER ACTIVITY 1__0SPECIAL1___1C O N S ID E R A T IO N S I__________________________________________________
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT VALUE ____
MODIFIER RATING MAJORI7yCR- Compatability Rating SC-Scale Contrast Rating SDR-Spatial Dominance Rating RATING
j 00u 0
WATER1
LANDFORM A
VEGETATION
LANDUSE
USER ACTIVITY ____ _______________ .
LANDSCAPESCOMPOSITION
P ProminentS SignificantI Inconsoicuous
A10%
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY/FORECAST FORM 2 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE ( ) INVENTORY ( )
BASIC ( FORECASTING ( )
DETAILED ()
PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT ( ) ZONE ( ) WEATHER
WITH PLAN ( ) WITHOUT PLAN ( ) PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of
TIME PERIOD YEARS
WATER
RESOURCE STREAM RIVER LAKE/RES. WETLANDS MARINE
MOVEMENT NONE MEANDER SWIFT RAPID FALLS
SCALE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
LANDFORM
ROLLINGTYPE COASTAL PLAINS HILLS HILLS MOUNTAINS
VEGETATION
COVER 0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
DIVERSITY NONE LITTLE PRESENT SUBSTAN. EXTENSIVE
SEAS CHANGE NONE PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
LAND/WATER USE
INTENSITY WILDERNESS UNDEVEL. RURAL SUBURBAN URBANTYPE RECREAT. AGRIC. RESIDENT. COMMER. INDUST.
ACCESS
TYPE TRAIL WALKWAY SECOND. RD. PRIMARY RD. HIGHWAY
USER ACTIVITY
DEGREE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LITTER/POLLUTION .
AMOUNT NONE PRESENT EXTENSIVE
ADJACENT SCENERY
SJMILARITY NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
SOUNDS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
SMELLS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
VISIBILITY
AMOUNT SCREENED PARTIALLY SCREENED PANORAMA
POSITION INFERIOR NORMAL SUPERIOR
Does this area contain any other significant attributes? Yes No
If Yes. exDlin in Comments above.
Is this area known for Its wildlife Observation? Yes No
Does this area contain any Cultural Or historical landmarks? Yes No
A4 ,
as! I, ,.0
: ,'Sal.P
i ~d. f ' * -# "l " - ' ., ,P ,P - i' =-q" " Jr 4- , v . ," . - - - - .r - - . .%- l -
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY/FORECAST FORM 2 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE ( ) INVENTORY ( )
BASIC ( FORECASTING ( )
DETAILED ()
PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT ( ) ZONE ( ) WEATHER
WITH PLAN ( ) WITHOUT PLAN ( ) PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of
TIME PERIOD YEARS
WATER
RESOURCE STREAM RIVER LAKE/RES. WETLANDS MARINE
MOVEMENT NONE MEANDER SWIFT RAPID FALLS
SCALE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
LANDFORM
ROLLINGTYPE COASTAL PLAINS HILLS HILLS MOUNTAINS
VEGETATION
COVER 0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
DIVERSITY NONE LITTLE PRESENT SUBSTAN. EXTENSIVE
SEAS CHANGE NONE PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
LAND/WATER USE
INTENSITY WILDERNESS UNDEVEL. RURAL SUBURBAN URBANTYPE RECREAT. AGRIC. RESIDENT. COMMER. INDUST.
ACCESS
TYPE TRAIL WALKWAY SECOND. RD. PRIMARY RD. HIGHWAY
USER ACTIVITY
DEGREE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LITTER/POLLUTION .
AMOUNT NONE PRESENT EXTENSIVE
ADJACENT SCENERY
SJMILARITY NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
SOUNDS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
SMELLS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
VISIBILITY
AMOUNT SCREENED PARTIALLY SCREENED PANORAMA
POSITION INFERIOR NORMAL SUPERIOR
Does this area contain any other significant attributes? Yes No
If Yes. exDlin in Comments above.
Is this area known for Its wildlife Observation? Yes No
Does this area contain any Cultural Or historical landmarks? Yes No
A4 ,
as! I, ,.0
: ,'Sal.P
i ~d. f ' * -# "l " - ' ., ,P ,P - i' =-q" " Jr 4- , v . ," . - - - - .r - - . .%- l -
VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY/FORECAST FORM 2 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE ( ) INVENTORY ( )
BASIC ( FORECASTING ( )
DETAILED ()
PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT ( ) ZONE ( ) WEATHER
WITH PLAN ( ) WITHOUT PLAN ( ) PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of
TIME PERIOD YEARS
WATER
RESOURCE STREAM RIVER LAKE/RES. WETLANDS MARINE
MOVEMENT NONE MEANDER SWIFT RAPID FALLS
SCALE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
LANDFORM
ROLLINGTYPE COASTAL PLAINS HILLS HILLS MOUNTAINS
VEGETATION
COVER 0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
DIVERSITY NONE LITTLE PRESENT SUBSTAN. EXTENSIVE
SEAS CHANGE NONE PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
LAND/WATER USE
INTENSITY WILDERNESS UNDEVEL. RURAL SUBURBAN URBANTYPE RECREAT. AGRIC. RESIDENT. COMMER. INDUST.
ACCESS
TYPE TRAIL WALKWAY SECOND. RD. PRIMARY RD. HIGHWAY
USER ACTIVITY
DEGREE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LITTER/POLLUTION .
AMOUNT NONE PRESENT EXTENSIVE
ADJACENT SCENERY
SJMILARITY NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
SOUNDS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
SMELLS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
VISIBILITY
AMOUNT SCREENED PARTIALLY SCREENED PANORAMA
POSITION INFERIOR NORMAL SUPERIOR
Does this area contain any other significant attributes? Yes No
If Yes. exDlin in Comments above.
Is this area known for Its wildlife Observation? Yes No
Does this area contain any Cultural Or historical landmarks? Yes No
A4 ,
as! I, ,.0
: ,'Sal.P
i ~d. f ' * -# "l " - ' ., ,P ,P - i' =-q" " Jr 4- , v . ," . - - - - .r - - . .%- l -
VIEWPOINT ASSESSMENT FORM 6 VIA
BASIC ( ) DETAILEDC)PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT MAP REFERENCE WEATHERALTERNATIVE C)PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of9
USE THE LETTER 'A' FOR 2WITH PLAN CONDITION.
CL W
USE THE LETTER 'B FOREWITHOUT PLAN CONDITION 0 ;
C.,j :: " 0 0 U O S-
0 Wj Eoe U .M 'C 40 ~ Z uji
Uca 02 Q-950 COMMENTS
WATER RESOURCES - __
LA NDFORM
VEGETATION
LANDUSE
USER ACTIVITY ______
SPECIAL I ICONSIDERATIONS 1I___II
I INCONSPICUOUS SIGNIFICANT IPROMINENT
LANDSCAPE COMPOSITION WITH PLANWITHOUT PLAN
The following will give you the value for Special Considerations. A Sum of 3 or Moredistinct. 1-2 average, and 0 minimal.
Yes I No
Does this zone contain any Cultural or Historical Landmarks? ______1I
Is this zone, or areas within it, known for its distinct visualquality and/or wildlife observation?
Is this zone free from pollution and litter?
Are there other aesthetic elements that add to this resource?
Total
A8
~%
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FORM 8 VIA
PROJECT NAME BASIC C)DETAILED )LOCATION DATEALTERNATIVE PESONEWITH PLAN C)WITHOUT PLANC) PESN L
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS
VISUAL IMPACTASSESSMENT VALUE
EVAUATOR EVALUATOR EVALUATOR EVALUATOR *OF QUOTIENT
EVALUATOR S
WATER_ _ __ __
LANDFORM
VEGETATION _ _ _ _ __
LAN DUSE
USER ACTIVITY 1__0SPECIAL1___1C O N S ID E R A T IO N S I__________________________________________________
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT VALUE ____
MODIFIER RATING MAJORI7yCR- Compatability Rating SC-Scale Contrast Rating SDR-Spatial Dominance Rating RATING
j 00u 0
WATER1
LANDFORM A
VEGETATION
LANDUSE
USER ACTIVITY ____ _______________ .
LANDSCAPESCOMPOSITION
P ProminentS SignificantI Inconsoicuous
A10%
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY/FORECAST FORM 2 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE ( ) INVENTORY ( )
BASIC ( FORECASTING ( )
DETAILED ()
PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT ( ) ZONE ( ) WEATHER
WITH PLAN ( ) WITHOUT PLAN ( ) PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of
TIME PERIOD YEARS
WATER
RESOURCE STREAM RIVER LAKE/RES. WETLANDS MARINE
MOVEMENT NONE MEANDER SWIFT RAPID FALLS
SCALE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
LANDFORM
ROLLINGTYPE COASTAL PLAINS HILLS HILLS MOUNTAINS
VEGETATION
COVER 0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
DIVERSITY NONE LITTLE PRESENT SUBSTAN. EXTENSIVE
SEAS CHANGE NONE PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
LAND/WATER USE
INTENSITY WILDERNESS UNDEVEL. RURAL SUBURBAN URBANTYPE RECREAT. AGRIC. RESIDENT. COMMER. INDUST.
ACCESS
TYPE TRAIL WALKWAY SECOND. RD. PRIMARY RD. HIGHWAY
USER ACTIVITY
DEGREE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LITTER/POLLUTION .
AMOUNT NONE PRESENT EXTENSIVE
ADJACENT SCENERY
SJMILARITY NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
SOUNDS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
SMELLS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
VISIBILITY
AMOUNT SCREENED PARTIALLY SCREENED PANORAMA
POSITION INFERIOR NORMAL SUPERIOR
Does this area contain any other significant attributes? Yes No
If Yes. exDlin in Comments above.
Is this area known for Its wildlife Observation? Yes No
Does this area contain any Cultural Or historical landmarks? Yes No
A4 ,
as! I, ,.0
: ,'Sal.P
i ~d. f ' * -# "l " - ' ., ,P ,P - i' =-q" " Jr 4- , v . ," . - - - - .r - - . .%- l -
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
VISUAL RESOURCE SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION FORM 1 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE C)INVENTORY C)
BASIC C)FORECASTINGC)DETAILEDC)
POETNAME DATELOCATION TIMEVWwOWTI ) ZOE WEATHER
WffN AN( ) INU PL4AJuN( PERSONNELPROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS TIME PERIOD YEARS
In your own words. describe the visual resource of the zone. In doing so, try to describe theelements that unity the area so that it can be considered a zone. Make note of other aestheticcharacteristics that are present.
A3S
;MN .A4N y, A0
VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY/FORECAST FORM 2 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE ( ) INVENTORY ( )
BASIC ( FORECASTING ( )
DETAILED ()
PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT ( ) ZONE ( ) WEATHER
WITH PLAN ( ) WITHOUT PLAN ( ) PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of
TIME PERIOD YEARS
WATER
RESOURCE STREAM RIVER LAKE/RES. WETLANDS MARINE
MOVEMENT NONE MEANDER SWIFT RAPID FALLS
SCALE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
LANDFORM
ROLLINGTYPE COASTAL PLAINS HILLS HILLS MOUNTAINS
VEGETATION
COVER 0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
DIVERSITY NONE LITTLE PRESENT SUBSTAN. EXTENSIVE
SEAS CHANGE NONE PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
LAND/WATER USE
INTENSITY WILDERNESS UNDEVEL. RURAL SUBURBAN URBANTYPE RECREAT. AGRIC. RESIDENT. COMMER. INDUST.
ACCESS
TYPE TRAIL WALKWAY SECOND. RD. PRIMARY RD. HIGHWAY
USER ACTIVITY
DEGREE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LITTER/POLLUTION .
AMOUNT NONE PRESENT EXTENSIVE
ADJACENT SCENERY
SJMILARITY NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
SOUNDS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
SMELLS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
VISIBILITY
AMOUNT SCREENED PARTIALLY SCREENED PANORAMA
POSITION INFERIOR NORMAL SUPERIOR
Does this area contain any other significant attributes? Yes No
If Yes. exDlin in Comments above.
Is this area known for Its wildlife Observation? Yes No
Does this area contain any Cultural Or historical landmarks? Yes No
A4 ,
as! I, ,.0
: ,'Sal.P
i ~d. f ' * -# "l " - ' ., ,P ,P - i' =-q" " Jr 4- , v . ," . - - - - .r - - . .%- l -
VISUAL RESOURCE INVENTORY/FORECAST FORM 2 MCSVIA
SIMILARITY ZONE ( ) INVENTORY ( )
BASIC ( FORECASTING ( )
DETAILED ()
PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT ( ) ZONE ( ) WEATHER
WITH PLAN ( ) WITHOUT PLAN ( ) PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of
TIME PERIOD YEARS
WATER
RESOURCE STREAM RIVER LAKE/RES. WETLANDS MARINE
MOVEMENT NONE MEANDER SWIFT RAPID FALLS
SCALE SMALL MEDIUM LARGE
LANDFORM
ROLLINGTYPE COASTAL PLAINS HILLS HILLS MOUNTAINS
VEGETATION
COVER 0 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%
DIVERSITY NONE LITTLE PRESENT SUBSTAN. EXTENSIVE
SEAS CHANGE NONE PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL
LAND/WATER USE
INTENSITY WILDERNESS UNDEVEL. RURAL SUBURBAN URBANTYPE RECREAT. AGRIC. RESIDENT. COMMER. INDUST.
ACCESS
TYPE TRAIL WALKWAY SECOND. RD. PRIMARY RD. HIGHWAY
USER ACTIVITY
DEGREE LOW MEDIUM HIGH
FREQUENCY LOW MEDIUM HIGH
LITTER/POLLUTION .
AMOUNT NONE PRESENT EXTENSIVE
ADJACENT SCENERY
SJMILARITY NOT SOMEWHAT VERY
SOUNDS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
SMELLS
PRESENCE ABSENT PRESENT DOMINANT
TYPE DISCORDANT INCONSPICUOUS HARMONIOUS
VISIBILITY
AMOUNT SCREENED PARTIALLY SCREENED PANORAMA
POSITION INFERIOR NORMAL SUPERIOR
Does this area contain any other significant attributes? Yes No
If Yes. exDlin in Comments above.
Is this area known for Its wildlife Observation? Yes No
Does this area contain any Cultural Or historical landmarks? Yes No
A4 ,
as! I, ,.0
: ,'Sal.P
i ~d. f ' * -# "l " - ' ., ,P ,P - i' =-q" " Jr 4- , v . ," . - - - - .r - - . .%- l -
VIEWPOINT ASSESSMENT FORM 6 VIA
BASIC ( ) DETAILEDC)PROJECT NAME DATE
LOCATION TIME
VIEWPOINT MAP REFERENCE WEATHERALTERNATIVE C)PERSONNEL
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS of9
USE THE LETTER 'A' FOR 2WITH PLAN CONDITION.
CL W
USE THE LETTER 'B FOREWITHOUT PLAN CONDITION 0 ;
C.,j :: " 0 0 U O S-
0 Wj Eoe U .M 'C 40 ~ Z uji
Uca 02 Q-950 COMMENTS
WATER RESOURCES - __
LA NDFORM
VEGETATION
LANDUSE
USER ACTIVITY ______
SPECIAL I ICONSIDERATIONS 1I___II
I INCONSPICUOUS SIGNIFICANT IPROMINENT
LANDSCAPE COMPOSITION WITH PLANWITHOUT PLAN
The following will give you the value for Special Considerations. A Sum of 3 or Moredistinct. 1-2 average, and 0 minimal.
Yes I No
Does this zone contain any Cultural or Historical Landmarks? ______1I
Is this zone, or areas within it, known for its distinct visualquality and/or wildlife observation?
Is this zone free from pollution and litter?
Are there other aesthetic elements that add to this resource?
Total
A8
~%
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FORM 8 VIA
PROJECT NAME BASIC C)DETAILED )LOCATION DATEALTERNATIVE PESONEWITH PLAN C)WITHOUT PLANC) PESN L
PROJECT DETAILS AND COMMENTS
VISUAL IMPACTASSESSMENT VALUE
EVAUATOR EVALUATOR EVALUATOR EVALUATOR *OF QUOTIENT
EVALUATOR S
WATER_ _ __ __
LANDFORM
VEGETATION _ _ _ _ __
LAN DUSE
USER ACTIVITY 1__0SPECIAL1___1C O N S ID E R A T IO N S I__________________________________________________
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT VALUE ____
MODIFIER RATING MAJORI7yCR- Compatability Rating SC-Scale Contrast Rating SDR-Spatial Dominance Rating RATING
j 00u 0
WATER1
LANDFORM A
VEGETATION
LANDUSE
USER ACTIVITY ____ _______________ .
LANDSCAPESCOMPOSITION
P ProminentS SignificantI Inconsoicuous
A10%