Aesthetic resources of the coastal zone

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

3i,

Z^7e

iw@N

4111
4

-rt

theti -e our
AM. ne

for the
'of Coa@@*Zone Ma
PAO
201 "#12jat Atmos

4 Roy Associates jnc.
Wbr
if 1psachusetts

0
4,
A-t

G3451.2
R69
,975

aesthetic resources of
the coastal zone

prepared for the:
Off ice of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

by-
Roy, Mann Associates, Inc.
Cambridge' Massachusetts,
Landscape @rchitects
Coastal Zone Planners

July 1975
c On
MSTRL ZONE

ACKNOULEDGEMENTS

The following persons were individually responsible for the

preparation of this Handbook:

Project Director and Editor: Roy Mann

Assistant Editors: Howard C. Ris
Peter Wells
Special editorial assistant: Jennifer Canizares

Typing and proofing coordinator: Susan Tucker Yaro

Chapter 1: Raymond A. Siuta, Jane Alqmin

Chapter 2: Roy Mann, Peter 'Hells

Chapter 3: Roy Mann

Chapter 4: Roy Mann

Chapter 5: H. Calvin Cook, Jane Alamin

Chapter 6: Sara Schneeberg, Roy Mann

Chapter 7: Howard C. Ris, Peter Wells

Chapter 8: Peter Wells, Howard C. Ris

Chapter 9: Howard C. Ris, Peter Wells

The review and comment of the following individuals is acknowledged
and greatly appreciated: Marc J. Hershman (Chapter 3), David G. Pitt (Chapter 9),

and Raymond A. Siuta (Chapter 5).

The assistance of the firm of Jones and Jones, Seattle, Washington, in

preparing portions of Chapter 2 on aesthetic resource assessment is also

greatly appreciated.

Finally, we are grateful for the quidance and cooperation provided

by the staff of the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowl,edgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .
Table of Contents . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v,
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . vi

INTRODUCTION

Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 1
Problem Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Prerequisites for a Management Program Aesthetic Resource
Element . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * . . 3
Specific References of Key Federal Legislation t@
Aesthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . *. . . . . . . . 5

Chapter 1: EXISTING STATE AESTHETIC RESOURCE STUDIES AND PLANS

1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 10
1.2 Exclusive Aestheti c Resource Interest . . . . . . .. . . 14
1.3 Multi-interest with Specific Reference to Aesthetics . . 15
1.4 Comprehensive Interests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Chapter 2: DEFINING AESTHETIC RESOURCES AND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION IN
THE COASTAL ZONE

2.0 Introduction . . . 19
2* 1 Inland and Offshore Statutory B@u@d@rie@ 19
2.2 Definitions of Aesthetic Resources and Their Attributes. 20
2.3 Criteria for Area Subdivisions .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . 31

Chapter 3: GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

3.0 Introduction 52
3.1 Utilization of Ba@i@ *lnv*en*to*ry' and Analysis. 52
3.2 Types of Geographical Areas of Particular Concern. . . . 53
3.3 Procedural Considerations in the Designation of Areas
of Concern ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.4 Designation of Specific Areas for Preservatio@
or Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 59

Chapter 4: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PERMISSIBLE USES, AND POLICIES OF USE

4.0 Introduction . . . . . . . 61
4.1 Environmental Impact and Us@ P*e@m1:s;ib*iiit*y* 61

4.2 The Scope of Impact Analysis ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.3 Land and Water Capability and Suitability ... . . . . . . . 64
4.4 Decisions on Use Permissibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.5 Policies of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 75

Chapter 5: DEVELOPING AN AESTHETIC RESOURCE ELEMENT IN THE CbASTAL ZONE.
MANAGEMENT PRUGRAM

5.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . .-So
5.1 Definition of Goals and Obj@ct*iv'es' 81
5.2 Selection of Management Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5.3 Consideration of Potential Legal Problems. 87
5.4 Segmentation and Aesthetic Resource Planning Elements. 90
5.5 Allocation of Planning and Man@gemeni Responsibilities
Among State, Regional and Local Levels of Government.-. 91
5.6 Interrelationships Among Program Goals and Management
Tools at Various Levels of Gove'rnment . . . . . . . . . 96
5.7 Compendium of Specific Tools . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Chapter 6: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.MECHANISMS IN FEDERAL AND STATE
LEGISLATION AND IN PLANNING PROTRAMS

6.0 Introduction 117
6.1 Application of Mechanisms to Aesthetic Resource Management '
Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * 118
6.2 Minimum Program Acceptable for Aesthetic Pl@nn'in*g*.' 124
6.3 Maximum Program for Aesthetic Planning . . .
6.4 Range of Alternatives Between Minimum and'Maxim@um
Programs . . * : ' '* ' ' "* * 127
6.5 Integration of Public P@r*ti@i*pa*ti'on'f*or*Aesthetic
Resources . . . . . . . ... . . . ... . . .... . . . . . 128

Chapter 7: AESTHETIC RESOURCE INVENTORIES AND EVALUATIONS-
AN OVERVIEW

7.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7.1 Purpose of the Inventory .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
7 * 2 Types and Scale of Aesthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . .. 131
7.3 Planning for the Resource Inventory. . . .. . .*. . 132
7.4 Inventory-Techniques . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
7:5 Need for Evaluation of Aesthetic Resources 136

Chapter 8: THE AESTHETIC RESOURCES INVENTORY-METHODS AND TECHNIQU S

Introducticn . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . 139
8.1 Data Collection Techniques . . . " * *I* * * * * 139
& * 2 Data Processing . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 146
8.3 Mapping I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

iii

8.4 Presentation Aids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

Chapter 9: AESTHETIC RESOURCES EVALUATION--METHODS AND TECHNIQU S

9.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9.1 Professionally-derived Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
9.2 User-derived Evaluation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
9.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 178

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

LIST OF TABLES

1-1 Past Plans and Studies Submitted by State Agencies . . . . . . . 12

2-1 Natural Aesthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 21

2-2 Shoreline Tier Components . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

2-3 Shoreline Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45-46

4-1 Natural Aesthetic Resources and Sensitivity to Development . . . 68-70

4-2 Use and Structure Suitabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

5-1 General Relationships Between Management Tools and Aesthetic
Resource Management Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

5-2 Pubiic and Private Sector Summary Contributions for Implementing
Aesthetic Resource Management Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

9-1 Aesthetic Value Rating Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

LIST OF FIGORES

2-1 Illustrated Scenic Value Assessment Criteria . . . . . . . . . . 24-25

2-2 Local and Regional Viewsheds Within the Coastal Zone . . . . . .34

2-3 Coastal Zones (ti.ers) as defined by the Estuarine
Landscape Survey and Analysis, National Estuary
Study, 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 41

2-4 Hierarchy of Coastal Subdivisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

3-1 Preliminary Delineation of Geographical Areas of Particular
Aesthetic Concern Expressed in Non-CZMA Terms . . . . . . . . 57

4-1 Container Ports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72-73

8-1 Oblique Pictorialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

8-2 A Single Resource Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

8-3 Computer Plotted Lines of Sight . . . ... . . . . . . . . . ... 152

8-4 Guideline Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

8-5 Eye-level Pictorialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
9-1 Analysis and Evaluation Matrix . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 158-159

9-12 Landscape Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

9-3 Establishing Local Viewshed Perimeters . . . . . . . . 166

9-4 Environmental Evaluation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

The purpose of this handbook is to guide state coastal zone

management agencies in the preparation of planning elements for the de-.

lineation and management of coastal-aesthetic resources. The handbook
presents background information, definitions, criteria, and procedures

for aesthetic resource identification and documentation. Procedures for

inventorying and mapping are discussed, as are methods and criteria for

defining boundaries of geographic areas of particular aesthetic concern

and outstanding aesthetic resource areas. Relative merits of major generic

methodologies of coastal landscape assessment are identified. Criteria are

developed for determining those aesthetic resources which are sensitive to

development, and for identifying features of land and water uses and struc-

tures which are typically incompatible with specified aesthetic resources.

Finally, means for implementation of state aesthetic resource

planning recommendations are identified, including management tools at

state, regional, and local jurisdiction levels, and methods by which the

public can participate in the aesthetic resource planning process.

This handbook is designed specifically to assist states in

meeting requirements for consideration of aesthetic resources under the

Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Section 305, Management Program
Development Grants and Section 306, Administrative Grants).

Problem Background

The Coastal Zone, Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) places specific eMDhasis

on the fact that,aesthetic-resources in the coastal zone are being threatened,

damaged and lost. Although the visual assets of the.coastal zone are among

its,most important resources in terms of its significance to the nation, past

state planning efforts foe coastal zone management have found it difficult to

consider scenic resource protection and enhancement systematically. Few states

have, to date, provided the kind of effective scenic resource management tools

anticipated in the Act.

A major cause of this problem,is the difficulty faced by planners

in agreeing on an-,acceptable method or methods for defining and asses@ing

aesthetic values in the coastal zone. Further, aesthetic.values are diffi-

,cult to'measure in quantitative terms; some are amenable to mapping, others

,are not. Aesthetic assets themselves vary from region to region. Within

regions, landscape or shorescape perceptions of individuals, public constitu-

encies, and governmental decision-makers are influenced by home location,

cultural background, income, class, recreational preferences, seasonal factors,

the pers.onal or financial stake in the resource area in question. Thus,

recommendations for selection of coastal land/water areas for protection or

acquisition are difficult to make without bias,,and measures for aesthetic

safeguards in site selection, site planning, design and landscaping of coastal

facilities are often ignored in the face of recommendations which are supported

by "harder" data, or simply lost under the pressures of "heavier" interests.

A second aspect of the problem is the institutional difficulty

of implementing shoreline appearance and design recommendations. Acquisi-

tion programs for scenic protection are extremely costly on a large scale.

Regulations including stringent design standards, besides being difficult

to pass in state legislatures, often engender legal problems and court

actions by affected property owners. Further, states have different atti-

tudes toward aesthetic resource protection; some have already initiated.

sophisticated planning programs, while others have barely begun to consider

the issues.

Therefore, given the concern of the Coastal Zone Management Act

with the protection and management of scenic resources, a need exists to assist

the states in developing management planning programs by formulating procedures

for identifying scenic resources in the coastal zone, for assessing both their

intrinsic values and the effects on them of alternative actions, and for pre-

senting practicable management alternatives.

This Handbook is intended to meet this informational need.

Prerequisites for a Management Program Aesthetic Resource Element
If an aesthetic resource element iIs to be both acceptable and
effective, it must:

- Meet the requirements of the CZMA and reflect key
related legis1ation including the National Envir-
mental Policy Act

- Be comprehensive (to allow for inclusion of all
.recognizable aesthetic resources in given coastal
zone areas and to accommodate varying perceptions
and conditions).

deal with,both natural and-man made aesthetics
and their interrelationships in the coastal an-.
vironment.

be consistent as to criteria but flexible in its
application to the wide range of actual circum-
stances within each state.

be practical in its application both for in-house
studies by the designated state.coastal agency,
other agencies with delegated responsibilities,
and use by consultants and subcontractors.

provide for both meaningful public input, understanding, and
participation and for alternatives for timely
and *constructive public review.

provide assistance to agencies of the state and
its.political subdivisions, in identifying precise
and workable tools for shoreline appearance and
design management.

With spetific regard to the statutory requirements Of the CZMA, an aesthetic

resource element effort must:

- survey, identify, assess, inventory and map
aesthetic resources.

- delineate geographic areas of particular aesthetic

concern.,

analyze the adverse and beneficial impacts of uses
which may possibbly be designated as permissible within
the coastal zone, by categories of use and structure
as well as by geographic areas.

deduce from the above, those -uses to be considered
permissible, with or without conditions, and which
might not be permitted, within specific geographic
areas of the coastal zone or within the coastal zone
as a whole (from the aesthetic resource standpoint).

deduce, also, which priorities of use,and which
levels of urgency ought to be keyed to specific

resource areas.

recommend specific areas for aesthetic resource
preservation and restoration.

recommend measures for protection, management,
use, development and enhancement of aesthetic
resources for each use-area and for each signifi-
cant class of structures or facilities throughout
the coastal zone.

Specific References of Key Federal Legislation to Aesthetic Resources

The following excerpts from several legislative acts highlight

those sections which point specifically to the protection of aesthetic

resources:

1. Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

The Act stresses the importance of coastal resources,

including aesthetic resources, to the national well-being. Sec-

tion 302 (b) states:

The Congress finds that the coastal zone is rich in
a variety of natural, commercial, recreational, in-
dustrial and esthetic resources of immediate and
potential value to the present and future well-being
of the nation (emphasis added).

The Act's declaration of policy states in Section 3.03(a)

that-it is the national policy "to preserve, protect, develop and,
where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation's

coastal zone for this and,succeeding generations."

The Act also states in Section'303(b) that it is

national policy:

to encourage and assist the states to exercise
effectively their responsibilities in the coastal
zone through the development and implementation
of management programs to achieve wise use of
the land and water resources of the coastal zone,
giving full consideration to ecological, cultural,
historic and esthetic values as well as to needs
for economic deveTo-pment (emphasis added).

Section 306 of the Act makes admini,strative grants

,contingent on provisions in the management program "for pro-

cedures whereby specific areas may be designated for the purpose

of preserving or restoring them for their conservation, recre-

ational, ecological or esthetic values."

In its November 29, 1973 and August 21, 1974 Guidelines

for Management Program Development Grants (15 CFR Parts 920 and

923),the OCZM makes more specific reference to.aesthetic resource

planning. Section 920.12 includes among the criteria for estab-

lishing areas of particular concern:

Areas of unique, scarce, fragile or vulnerable natural
habitat, physical features, historical significance,
cultural value, and scenic importance.

Section 923.15 cites "historic, cultural, esthetic and

conservation values," and "historic sites".(those listed on the

National Register of Historic Places) among thoseconcerns in

which there is a clear national interest.

2. National.Environmental Pbli,cy Act of 1969
Simi ,larly, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

stresses aesthetic con@iderations in its guidelines for environ-
mental impact statements (FIS), requiring that:

The Federal government use all practicable means ... /to/
... assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive,
and aesthetically and culturally pleasant surroundings ...
/and to/ ... preserve important historic, cultural, and
natural aspects of our national herita@e ... NEPA, Sec.
101(b) (2,4).

In its,Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact State-
me'nts (4 CFR, Part 1500), the Council on Environmental Quality

directs that EIS preparation must meet requirements of the National

Historic Preservation Act for protection of historic properties

listed on the National Register.

NEPA requirements apply directly to many Federal actions

which affect aesthetic resources in the coastal zone. In addition

to the direct NEPA guidelines, many of these agencies, among ihem

HUD, Department of,Agriculture, Department of Transportation, and

the Army.Corps of Engineers, have developed their own EIS guidelines

to respond to specific project impacts within each agency. The

state coastal zone,planner should refer to these expanded, more

detailed guidelines in his development of a coastal management

program to determine*environmental and aesthetic impacts of specific

types of development projects which might be proposed 'in the coastal

zone.

3. Water Resources Planning Act of 1965

The Principles and Standards for Planning Water and

Related Land Resources, (Federal Register,.Vol. 30, #174, Part III,

September 10, 1973, pp. 61-66) of the Water Resources Council states

the following reasons for protecting and enhancing special areas

within the coastal zone:

Beaches and Shores: The juxtaposition of attractive
beaches, distinctively scenic,.shorelines and adjacent
areas of clean offshore water provides positive public
aesthetic values and recreational enjoyment.

Estuaries: Beyond their critical importance in man's
harvest of economical.ly useful living marine resources,
many estuaries, coves, and bays merit consideration as
visually attractive settings that support diverse life
forms of aesthetic value and as marine ecosystems of
special interest.

Open and Green Space: These are essentially undeveloped,
visually attractive natural areas, strategically located
where most needed to ameliorate.intensifying urbanization
patterns.

4. Other Federal Legislation

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 has as its legis-

lative intent the protection of selected rivers of outstanding

scenic value.

The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 calls for restric-

tion of signs and junkyards along interstate highways to prevent or

remove highway eyesores.

The Historic Preservation Act of 1966 calls for grants to

states and localities for protection of historic and cultural.build-

ings and sites.

Other Federal program5which treat aesthetic considera-
tions peripherally and which can be used to fund aesthetic management
'programs as a part of-broader purposes are listed in the Chapter 5

inventory of aesthetic resource management tools.

CHAPTER 1: EXISTING STATE AESTHETIC RESOURCE STUDIES AND PLANS

1.1 Introduction.

Historically, aesthetic resources of the coastal zone have

been addressed as portions of larger functional studies. States have

addressed themselves to the documentation, evaluation, and planning of coastal

zone aesthetic resources within the framework of land use or recreation studies

or under special studies dealing with specific resources or problem areas.

Aesthetic concerns have also been explicitly addressed in efforts such as

environmental impact statements, comprehensive river basin plans, other w6ter

and related landresource studies, and resource studies by non-governmental

bodies.

More recently, planning studies dealing specifically with aesthetic

resources have been conducted by several states. Beginning in the late 1.960's

and continuing increasingly through the present, state planning activities

have considered aesthetic resources largely under three general framework types:

- Specific aesthetic resource studies

- Multi-interest studies that address functional activities such

as open space,.conservation, tourism, and recreation as well as

aesthetic resources.

Comprehensive resource management.plans and studies.

A wide variation in scope and magnitude of aesthetic resource

plans and studies can of course be anticipated, since each state must build

its planning and resource investigation on its own assessment of information

needs, reflecting differing environmental, social, and economic issues..

To gain insight into individual state thinking on aesthetic

resource planning, a questionnaire was circulated by the preparers of this

handbook to thecoastal states and Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands,

and Puerto Rico on plans and studies affecting aesthetic resources in the coas-

tal zone.

Table 1-1 summarizes the responses to this aesthetic resource

activity survey. The table contains a listing of major aesthetic resource

conc erns mentioned in thirty plans, studies, and study outlines received from

thirty-three state and U.S. Territorial coastal zone planning agencies.

Seven of these studies were specifically related to aesthetic resources.

Twenty-three considered aesthetics within a functional context, such as

recreation or tourism, or within a more comprehensive context, such as

environmental protection and coastal zone planning.

A complete listing of these documents is available in the

Bibliography. The purpose of this brief listing is to show the different

approaches to aesthetic resource planning indicated as being employed by the

various states, and the varying emphasis devoted to each element studied.

The survey shows that aesthetic resources have not been

specifically studied in.the majority of states, and that the largest

group of studies which consider aesthetics, either peripherally or

directly, have been completed in the years following passage of the

Coastal Zone Management Act.

m Ln Ln c) m C-) m
0 a -D (D 0 0 -0 0 (D
C+ (A cr a (A (D m C+ 0) (D < 0)
0) C+ C+ @ (A At (A (D
= 0 (D a M -5 C+ -1
rr m -1 (D 0 V) Cr 0) iw
C+ -01 C+ 0) ri.
0 -S 0) :3 (D :E 0 0) Iw
C+ (D 0 0 0 c JA C+ :3 0 (D N
0) W 0 (D a) ct ct Op m 0
0 CD - (A =r =r c+ = C+
c (A cu 0) -. r+ CD C+ 0) CD
-S tn :3 c+ 0 cI+ c+ 0 w - fD
0 CL CL c< -S @- (D c -S a Ln
m C+ -- - 0 -a -
CA 0 CL 0) 0 in -5 0)
m a 0
0 V) (D C+ :3
0 0 (D
(D @D CD' C '0 -S 0 :3
(D (D C+ U@
C+ a)
c+ 0
-h - =
Qj 0
j .0

M w r%) 4:1- w 4t,. Post

co NO r*I) 4@b Pre

Unda

StatE
Au th

Cons
Exte
L" 00 NO -P. r%) Agen(
Auth(

mm mm =Sam mm @Gwmmmmmmmlmm =on = WMIM mm.m M-M
r-a
Lc-:) w W --4 C." to Total

Of the seven studies submitted which consider aesthetic re-

sources directly, three stress scenic values as the major area of'toncern,

focusing on outstanding scenic resources and views. Other visual quality

concerns, relating to aesthetic resources within the "ordinarY"-coastal land-

scape, that is, outside outstanding scenic and viewing point areas, rec6ive

much-less attention. Non-visual aesthetic qualities such as odors and intangibl

factors and the aesthetic aspects, both positive and negative, of man-made

development also receive scant attention or are omitted. One study stresses

the public access aspects of aesthetic quality, in terms of increasing avail-

ability of views and physical entrance points to the shore., The emphasis on

access similarly treats only one aspect of the problem.

Four 6f the studies take a broader view of aesthetic resourcess

defining.the scope of their studies in terms of "appearance and design,"

"aesthetics and amenity," or "scenic, historic, and cultural resources."

These studies are more in keeping with the legislative intent of the CZMA

because:

- they expand the definition of aesthetic resources to,include

both natural and man-made features, positive and negative

aesthetic resources, and other non-visual qualities such as

noise and odor;

- they include identification of the interrelationships between

landscape types and development types, and indications.'of

sensitivity to development;

- they make specific recommendations for aesthetic resource

management.

To provide an understandin g of the scope of approach (i.e.,
comprehensiveness-versus specificity) taken by various states in coastal

aesthetic resource planning, the planning approaches are classified into

three categories: 1) exclusive aesthetic resource interest, 2) multi-

interest-with specific reference to aesthetics, and 3) comprehensive

interest.

1.2 Exclusive Aesthetic Resource Interest

States that reap high economic benefits from their aesthetic

resources are the ones most likely to undertake planning to specifically

preserve their aesthetic resources. States such as Florida and Hawaii-

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, because their tourist industries

depend heavily on shore aesthetics, have been the leaders in conducting

such specific studies.

The State of Hawaii performed a study entitled No Ala Hola

(Trails for Walking) in 1972. This study concentrates on places with

historical, archaeological and legendary interest, and pres .entsan inven-

tory of aesthetic resources along Hawaiian trails.

In the Florida Coastal Coordinating Council's A Plan

and Program for Amenities and Aesthetics in the Escarosa Pilot Area,

part of a pilot study for.statewide coastal zone management, identifi-

cation and assessment of aesthetic resources were related to'recommended

state and local actions.

Puerto R1,co may have been the first state-level goverment

unit @o plan*the preservation of estuarine aquatic aesthetic resQmrces. In 1968,@

Puerto Rico sponsored a study entitled The Bioluminescent Bays of Puerto

Rico. Since the bioluminescent bays are visual as well as economic

assets, Puerto Rico's interest is in specific measures for their pre-

servation and use. The case has emphasized the fact that aesthetic re-

sources are not limited to the landward sides of the coastal zone. A

second study, Scenic Values in Puerto Rico, (1972), is also singly con-

cerned with aesthetics in the,Commonwealth: visual quality, landscape quality,

and micro-site quality. As a result of thi6 study, Puerto Rico implemented

advanced land use planning and completed maps on land mass. zones, scenic

coastal routes, and visual quality factors.

1.3 Multi-interest with Specific Reference to Aesthetics

This category may be exemplified by efforts of Virginia, Wisconsin,

and Maryland. The Virginia Outdoors Plan of 1974, with state authorship,

developed an inventory of landmarks, including scenic rivers and highways.,

and other historic, natural, and cultural characteristics (interior as

'well as coastal).

In the same year, a study was performed for the State of

Wisconsin, entitled.Project Summary Identification, Evaluation and Utili-

zation of Scenic, Cultural and Historic Resources in Coastal Communities.

This study identified sites of historic structures and shoreline-related

visual and physical patterns reflecting socio-cultural influences. In

addition, waterfront restoration and rehabilitation, an aspect often

overlooked in aesthetic resource surveys, was addressed.

In the Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study (1972), the chapter

"Public Access to and Appearance and Design of Shoreline" explicitly

addressed the question of visual impact of development on the shoreline,

although the study as a whole was basically concerned with public access

considerations relative to recreational needs in Maryland.

1.4 Comprehensive Interests

Often aesthetic resource considerations have been relegated

to positions of secondary importance or are largely disregarded when

dealt with ai components of larger-scope, comprehensive studies. On

the other hand, some aesthetic resource components of comprehensive or

framework studies have achieved a high degree of articulation and manage-

ment orientation.

The State of Florida has authored two comprehensive coastal

zone planning studies., The Florida Coastal Zone Managemen Atlas (1973) and
Coastal Zone Manaqement in Florida.(1971) consider aesthetic factor's-as

a component of the overall coastal zone planning effort. Rhode Island, in
its Coastal Resources Management Plan.(1972), specifically identifies the

value of water resources to aesthetics. Other states have made explicit

references to protection of scenic areas and other areas of high ecological,
cultural, and historic significance in their Coastal Zone Management Grant

.Applications. As an example, Illinois in its 1974 CZM Grant Application

cites among its wor k elements the need to "identify and locate all data

available on archaeological and historic sites, environmental areas and

natural, historic, scenic, cultural, and aesthetic areas located in the

coastal zone." Similarly, Massachusetts seeks to identify areas of

"outstanding historical,significance, high cultural value, and outstanding

scenic importance" as part of its coastal zone management plan.

1.5 Summary

Recent state-level studies of aesthetic resources and resource

management, whether, conducted independently or as components of compre-

hensive coastal planning frameworks, appear to have broadened the planner's

purview of aesthetics and the ro le of management in.protecting, restoring,

and enhancing aesthetic resources in the coastal zone. Supplanting the

ea'rlier limited approaches, which concentrated on point resources of

unique natural scenic value, the viewing points from which these were

viewable, an,d the presence of blighting factors, such as junkyards, whicb

detracted from them, are the more comprehensive approaches which deal

with the complete spectrum of aesthetic concerns. Guided by the provisions

of the CZMA, as well as by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, the

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and other relevant federal and

state legislation, coastal planning studies can be expected in the future

to continue to consider aesthetic resources and resource management on

a broad and encompassing scale. This will be naturally expected of'manage=

ment plans funded under the provisions of the CZMA, but it will also be

very probable of other, independent studies as well, considering the influence

of the comprehensive and systematic CZMA approach. A recent example of a.

non-CZMA funded study which demonstrates consideration of CZMA concerns

is the Shoreline Appearance and Design Planning Element of. the Long Island

SoundiRegional Study, a comprehensive water and related land resources study,

conducted under the coordination of the New England River Basins Commission,

under the provisions of the Water Resources Planning Act. The Shoreline

Appearance and Design Planning Element identified "areas of special scenic

concern" (analogous to the CZMA "geographic areas of particular concern")

and considered man-made as well as natural resources, negative as well as

positive features, and large-scale facility siting and design factors, all

in part out of attention to CZMA provisions.' By specifically highlighti.ng

aesthetic resources, and requiring a comprehensive, coordinated, and systematic

approach, the CZMA has-brought into clear focus the socially essential

concern for all human, man-induced, and natural activities in the coastal

zone that have high aesthetic value, and has ensured that state-level

government will take aesthetic considerations intoaccount in.future
inanagement planning.

CHAPTER 2: DEFINING AESTHETIC RESOURCES AND BOUNDARY DETERMINATION IN THE
COASTAL ZONE

2.0 Introduction.

The first substantive componeht of the aesthetic resource plan-

ning element is an inventory ofcoastal zone aesthetic resources. Since

many coastal zone management planners may be relatively unfamiliar with

landscape/aesthetic concepts and terms, a general review of relevant

definitions is given in this chapter. Implications Pf statutory coastal

zone boundary determination and the delineation of aesthetic resource sub-

divisions for in ventory efforts are-discussed.

2.1 Inland and Offshore Statutory Boundaries

By law, the coastal zones,of marine coastal states extends to

the limits of the territorial sea and those of Great Lakes states to specific

offshore international or interstate (Lake Michigan) limits.

The territorial sea, defined as extending three miles offshore

of the high water line, or other water line as defined by state law,

ends well within view of the shore observer. Beyond, federal jursidiction

extends to international waters, twelvemiles from shore.

Because an observer at sea level may view high offshore ob-

jects up to considerable distances (a 130 foot high object approximately

fifteen miles from shore will be barely visible) and observers on high

shoreland may view even much further beyond the territorial sea limits,

it would be clearly useful to extend the coastal zone planning study

boundary to the visible horizon, even though in most cases this would be

19,

in federal waters. Any aesthetic planning recommendations and guidelines for

the federal offshore zone would, of course, be advisory only.

A key offshore aesthetic concern is the location and appearance

of drilling platforms,'dri llships, and other offshore oil extractive facili-

ties. A brief discussion of alternative guidance measures in this area will

be found in Chapter 5.

The same principle of horizon importance holds true for inland

boundaries. Where the regional viewshed horizon extends beyond the state-

designated coastal zone boundary, the former should be utilized for the

purpose of study, even if the boundary designation is final.

In due course, the information gathered through the study

process may provide needed data for a decision by the state to revise its

statutory or interim coastal zone boundary to encompass additional areas of

importance to coastal waters.

2.2 Definitions of Aesthetic Resources and Their Attributes

2.2.1 Natural aesthetic resources

It will be important to the staff coastal zone planner to under-

stand and identify those aspects of natural features which are d istinct from

ecological or geological aspects, since aesthetic attributes often extend

beyond the realm of more tangible bio-physical parameters. For example,

"degree of openness" on a coastal plain may cover more than one landform or

vegetative zone. Attributes serve to define and identify aesthetic resources

and, together with selected assessment criteria, serve in aesthetic resource,

evaluation. It is also essential to understand the physical characteristics

20.

of r,esources apd.their visual characteristics so that,determinations can be

made as to the sensitivity of resources to development presures.

Each aesthetic resource has an inherent sensitivity or suscepti-

bility to man-made modificatiohs;.a full discussion of sensitivities is

found in Chapter 4.

Table 2-1 identifies sample attributes of natural aesthetic re-

sources, those features of the coas@tal zone which possess a distinctive

.degree of visual unity. They are significant because of their relative

uniqueness as well as visual dominance over more ordinary or endemic features

of the natural coast al landscape.

Table 2-1

NATURAL AESTHETIC RESOURCES

basic specific sample attributes which aid in determin-
categories categories ing classification as aesthetic resources

open bays/ sandy bottom visible from high vantage
shelf waters points.
.broadly-enclosed configuration

coves partially enclosed configuration/partly
unseen...
complex shoreline, as with compound coves.

CD
cc estuaries/ high degree of closure..
W lagoons waterfowl, marsh, and tidal (estuarine
ecosystem) aspects.

river mouths dynamic movement/ebb and flow of tides,
meeting of the waters, dramatic shifts
between'valley and coastal waters.

fjord-like inlets/ vertical enclosure created by steep
narrows/guts walls adjacent to narrow water body.
rocks and shoals visually prominent.
reversing falls.

basic specific sample attributes which aid in de termin-
categories categories -ing classification as aesthetic resjourges

V) streams/rivers gradient changes--e.g., waterfalls at
LU
fall lines, rapids and shoals.
Aistinctive channel patterns including:
cc - braided-islands, pools and riffles
W -
LU - looped meander-gentle reverse curves
- branched.channels
M

breaker zone dynamic water movement
e.g., breakers on beach
water splashing on rocks

beaches unique dolor or texture-
as in white or black sand, gravel,
cobbles, coarse boulders, calcareous
beaches.

salt/fresh water unified vegetative color and grain.
marshes, waterfowl, marsh fauna apparent.
ecosystem function apparent.

mangrove swamps unique vegetation/ecosystem function
LU apparent, e. .,,exposed roots
U species specific
:C bird colonies nesting
U_
in trees.
LU

inland wetlands waterfowl, wetland fauna apparent.
ecosystem function apparent.

riverine flood plains periodic inundations during spring
or storm flooding-
flatlandv with inundation-tolerant
3C typical vegetation.

distant islands Jocal points which give variety/com-
plexity to view from shore.

coral reefs/ colorful, sculptural elements.
other sub-tidal forms

spits/bars/tombol os narrow land forms surrounded by
water--unique, sometimes mystifying.

@alluvial fans/mud unified color (mud flats)
flats unique "geometric" form (alluvial fan)
with natural transition to water's edge.

low islands/keys unique silhouettes.
insularity from other landforms.

basic specific sample attributes which aid in determi
in-
categories categories ing classification as aesthetic resources

high islands strong focal point.

headlands unique geological formation which
often has dramatic form/steep face.

dunes pure sandy surface.
-gently rolling/rounded forms accentuated
by lack of tall vegetation.

bluffs/banks steep slopes are visually dramatic.

low plateaus/moors
soft, rolling forms.

high plateaus/. unique flat, usually grassy areas which
contrast with rough coastal bluffs.

arrdyos/canyons enclosure--sense of place.

peaks/ridges unique silhouette.

intertidal visible ecosystem apparent.
bright green color exposed when tide
is out, especially revealed in estuary.

sand dune com- colorfu'I and delicate grasses/flowers
munity of low xeric thicket.
.pannes/troughs - unique landform and
vegetation.

salt marsh com- strong vertical stalks and prominent
munity heads of phragmites, cattails.
homogeneous plant masses.
movement of grasses in wind.

lowlands uniqueness, e.g., specimen trees
rare species.
croplands - clearly defined edges and
texture which servos as a foil to ad-
jacent undifferentiated forest.

uplands grove of canopy-forming trees create
filtered light., e.g., locusts on
Cape Cod.
color contrast between dark pines and
light-leaved deciduous trees.
colors unique to seasonal changes.

SCENIC VALUE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR THE SHORESCAPES OF THE LONG ISLAND SOUND REGION

Topographic Complexity Color Mue) Ingredients

an index of the diversity as wall as the color of natural elements (earth, vegetation,
relative relief of an area's landforms water, sky); a criterion that varies with
(vertical qualities) seasons and weather

Shoreline Complexity Pictorial Composition

an index of the irregularity of the coastal canvas qualities; varies with viewing
interface between land and water ori ntation and is a determinant of best
(horizontal qualities) vie:points for given vistas

V"Vuwws Integrity Vividness

unity of vegetative species or type form$ a summary quality which expresses the
within a single shorescape viewshed uniqueness and impressiveness of one or
more of an area's other qualities

Vegetative Dliversity Shore Dynamics

diversity of vegetative species or tVpe the visual impressions of tides, currents
forms within a single shorescape viewshed a@d weather

LL@ TA_ Idstructive Qualities Sail/Island Horizom
charac Iteristics of geological, botanical. or visual distinctness of islands and rocks as
other scientific interest, or which sW light well as sailing activity; depends on view-
on other qualities of the coastal zone point orientation and distance as well as
on temporal factors
-lit 09
@Sn
!Xul

Ecosystem Continuity True-to-Form Rurality

the visible manifestations of shore ecology, a landscape possessing forms and materials,
such as marshes, inlets, flats, and barrier both natural and man-made, typical of
beaches seen within a single shorescape classic, natural, semi-natural or
viewshed agricultural areas

Near/Far Contrast True-to-Form Townscapes

the juxtaposition between foreground or
middleground and horizon forms; a townscape possessing forms and materials,
greatest when the nearer forms are distinct both man-made and naturalized, typical
and the horizon forms, beyond water ol architectural styles characteristic of
surfaces, are blued by haze and appear the region's historically established
two-dimensional artifacts.

Uniqueness (Scarcity) Human Dynamics

an index of value based on rarity; a visible manifestations of human activity
quality subject to broad interpretation associated with the coastal zone (e.g.,
dependent on the experience and clamming, fishing, shipping, swimming),
expectations of the individual viewer which are of human scale and interest

Endangerment Ossue7Real) Absence of Detractions

an n ex of the aesthetic quality of freedor@i from incompatibilities introduced
concern for resources facing real or by natural forces (e.g., storm-eroded slopes)
imagined destruction or by man (the latter by far the more
important factor)

Sensitivity to Change

AL a judgmental indicator of the functions of moderate or
extent to ich a shorescape average magnitude. For
unit posseses components which purposes of this judging, a
would be blocked, overshadowed, standard ten-story residential
replaced, or otherwise damaged building has been assumed as a
by the intrusion of objects or measure of moderate or average
magnitude

Figure 2-1: Illustrated Scenic Value Assessment Criteria
excerpted from LISS Shoreline ApDearance and Desiqn Handbook,1975

2.2.2. Man-made aesthetic resources

Inasmuch as man-made or cultural features of the landscape or water-

scape often have important,effects on coastal aesthetics, positive or negative

and often both, it is essential to carefully identify and assess both the

perceiv able and intangible qualities of land uses and structures in the

coastal zone. The surveys and analysis of land use conducted under other

elements of the state's coastal zone management program or under other efforts

can be reviewed for relevant data, but it can be expected that these elements

will normally yield only limited assistance in the characterization of aesthetic
attributes. Independent efforts'should be made to accomplish characterization
and,assessment of land use patterns and concentrations as well as prominent
structures or groups of structures as point elements or nodes.

Patterns or concentrations of uses or structures may be delineated

in various ways, including standard land use classifications, and their aes-

thetic attributes may be identified along gradients of density (i.e., large

areas of developed shoreli ne, specific complexes, outdoor spaces, and indi-

vidual structures). Further, the relative distribution of open and settled

areas, which can have a major impact on the overall visual quality of a

coastal zone, should also be delineated. Various means of classifying the

coastalizone according to intensity and type of development are in use. They

include, for example:

1) The North Atlantic Region Water Resources Study definition of urban
series (complete dominance of man-made structures) and suburban ser-
-ies (juxtaposition of complexes-of man-made structures and natural
landscapes).

Urban systems are divided into center city, intermediate city, and
fringe city; suburban systems are divided, into town/farm, farm, farm/

forest, forest/town, and forest/wil-Aland categories.
2) The Long Island Sound Regional Study Sc'enic and Cultural Inventory
-definition.of:

a) no development

b) scattered development'.. @"houses@,,- co-mmercial-and.institutiona-1
structures described as 'scattered' or partially hidden (clustered)."

0 dense development "any combination of houses, commercial and in-
stitutiona-1 structures.described as.,exposed/clustered."

3) The South Coast Regional-Commission of-th e California;-CQastal Zone
Conservation Commission definition of-

"Urban I: highly urbanized areas with extremely intensive use of
land...

Urban II: less intensive use of;land With comparativ.p.ly smaller
structures, or scattered large structures ...

Urban -III: still less intensive areas which have some feeling of
openness and fairly 1@ow structures ...

Suburban - III: ... areas which have more openness than Urban

Suburban - II: ... areas which have still more openness.and mostly
one-story structures ...

Suburban I : areas-with big lots o@ scattered houses on open land
and undeveloped open land..."

4) The definition of "use-and-structure classes" in A Plan for
Michigan's Sh relands (hot ranked according to impact):
a) Beach activity (including beach structures)
b) Green,space use (including agricultural structures)

c) Urban/low impact

d) Urban/high impact

e) Recreation harbors

f) Commercial ports

g) Shore structures

,Whichever system is adopted for the identification, inventorying,

and categorization of man-made or cultural features, it will be important to

provide some indication of the aesthetic qualities which typify each class.

An indication of density or size of settlement alone will not be sufficient

to, pinpoint its aesthetic impact and significance. Furthermore, the inventory

classifications should be devised to be easily useful in the evaluation of

aesthetic qualities, and from there to management recommendations for each.

Of particular importance with regard to the aesthetic character@-

istics of man-made features in coastal areas is the incidence of point.ele-

ments which may distract the eye and disrupt the visual integrity of a coas-,

tal landscape or, in other cases, provide enhancing focal points. Examples

of such elements are scattered utility poles, abandoned pilings, piers,

lighthouses, and off-shore oil rigs.- Linear elements, such as.roads and

transmission corridors, may also disrupt and devalue scenic shorescapes;

some linear elements, however, may complement or enhance coastal rhythms.

In addition, special attention should be given to urban and

suburban water-edge appearance and design characteristics. This subject

is complex, because of the great diversity in architectural design and site

usage of urban and suburban areas, but must be recognized as meriting equal

status to other aesthetic resource subject areas under the terms of the CZMA.

Finally, features of the "ordinary" landscape, both natural and

man-made, should be acknowledged and adequately considered in the inventory

process. Though perhaps not as significant as highly scenic areas or nodes,

the aesthetic resources of the "ordinary" landscape contribute to the general

scenic resource base, and are the resources on which adverse impact is most

exposed to the coastal community. Management recommendations relative to

"restoration" and "enhancement" as well as "Protection"@will be readily ap-

plicable to "ordinary" or "common" coastal landscapes.

2.2.3 Qualitativ e attributes of aesthetic resources

In the identification of aesthetic resources,in the coastal zone,

the planner will need to analyze qualitative distinctions in addition to

listing the quantitative supply of elements which serve as the shoreline

resource base. Qualitati've values include cons ideration of the overall

aesthetic contribution of these elements, both positive and negative. Aes-
thetic values may include' consideration of such parameters as visual distinc-

tiveness or vividness of the elements.present (which may result from their

relative prominence, contrasts due to irregularity in form, line, color and

pattern, and the diversity of elements present), visual integrity or intactness,

i.e. freedom from encroachment, intrusion, eyesores or deficits that result

from nonconforming development or human abuse, and compositional harmony.or

y.n@ of the overall.shorescape, man-made elements included.

The impacts of less tangible or intangible aesthetic resource

values may also be noted, such as the relative contribution of such factors

as:

odors, pleasant or unpleasant
noise, pleasant or unpleasant
air quality
water quality
general atmosphere
seasonal changes
tidal changes
diurnal changes

Intangible factors are often important as they "color" or

influence the overall aesthetic experience of the shorescape' user.

Grouped together,- the components of the attr,ibutes described

above may,be li-sted in this manner:@

Vividness or visual disti nctiveness

topographic expression
shoreline complexity
landmarks
vegetative pattern diversity
waterform expression
wildlife visibility
man-made elements
human dynamics

Intactness or visual integrity, absence.of detractions

level of development
human intrusion (litter, overcrowding, wear and tear)
encroachment (eyesores, deficits)

Unity or visual harmony

pictorial composition
harmony between man-made and natural, shorescape setting

Further factors which weigh significantly in the assessment of

aesthetic resources are those contributed by the specific natural setting

or cultural and historical meaning of shoreline resources. Illustrative

.examples are:

.scarcity (uniqueness)
-fragility (sensitivity)
-historicity (true'to form rurality, townscapes, landmarks)
-educational value (instructive qualities)
-threat of loss (endangerment)

All of the! above (discussed in greater detail later in this

handbook) are important to,consider relative to decisions on permissible

use, geographical areas of particular concern, and other elements of
program management. 30

2.3 Criteria for Area Subdiyisions.

In order to clarify the relationships between aesthetic resources

of the coastal zone and the physiographic, ecological, and maLn-Made resources

of the coast, the state planner must initially subdivide the study area-into

meaningful units for aesthetic resource analysis. To serve most effectively,
the same areas should also be capable of use as management units with little

or no adjustment of borders. The purpose of classifying coastal sub-

divisions for coalstal aesthetic resource planning is to differentiate shore

units within which commonalities of view may be identified. These units

will serve as a study base within which aesthetic qualities can be assessed,

and s,ubsequently s.@rve as managerial units under existing political, sub-

divisions. It should be noted that the Coastal Zone Management Act

emphasis,is on "wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal

zone" (Sec. 303(b)), i.e. implicitly requiring an understanding and manage-

ment approach for aesthetic resources in all coastal zone lands and waters,

and not for selected scenic resources alone. The "inventory and designa-

tion of areas of particular (aesthetic) concern" (Sec. 305(b)(3)) required

by the CZMA can be achieved systematically through the prior development

of base data and identification of integral landscape entities, as discussed

in Chapter 3 And Chapter 8.

Many systems for classification and division of the shoreline

are possible. They may be based on climatic conditions, morphological char-

acteristics, hydrology, biotic resources and ecological relationships, vi-
sual characteristics, land uses, and political boundaries. But four elements
are commonly drawn upon in the delineation of visual units: 1) physiographic

or morDholoqical characteristics, includinq topoqraphical relief and-ora-
dient a6d.shoreline confioquration, 2)-veqetation, 3) cultural characteris-

tics... and 4) boundaries of governmental jurisdictions.

Whichever hasis is selected, areal delineation of integral land-

scape subdivisions should be accomplished for all lands and waters within

the coastal zone as a whole, both within the coastal viewshed and within

any remaining portions of the statutory coastal zone which fall inland of the

coastal viewshed li'mit., (One approach'to distinguishing priorities between

coastal viewshed and interior portions of the coastal zone may be to define

the former-as the First Priority Resource Zone and the,latter as the Second

Priority Resource Zone (see A Working Paper on Aesthetics and Amenity in the

Escarosa Coastal Zone Pilot Management Area, Florida Coastal Coordinating

Council,, 1971).

2.3.1 The Concept of'Viewshed

The Regional Viewshed

The areal demarcation of aesthetic resources within the coastal

zone should be suppor ted by the identification of both regional and local
vieiisheds (viewing "basins"). /The regional visual basin or coastal viewshed

may be defined as the visible watershed of natural landforms and man-made
elements (up to distant high ridges or other regional inland horizons) as

viewed from all points of aesthetic concern to the regional coastal community.

Under this definition, highway corridors, coastal valleys., and communities

serving shore-bound travellers may serve as points from which the regional

boundary,may be determined.

The coastal Yiewshed perimeter my fall at considerable distances

from the coast itself. In Oregon, the coastal zone boundary, established by

state legislation as the watershed divide of the Cascade Mountain range,

also constitutes in many areas the "regional viewshed". The Oregon coastal

zone boundary reflects a number of major considerations such as drainage and

erosion as well as aesthetics, but aesthetics is well served by it.

The watershed.divide or first major change in relief may not be

suitable for aesthetic resource analysis or'management in other circum-

stances, however. In some subregions of the Gulf coast, for example,

significant topographic rises occur only well inland of what may reasonably

be considered as the coastal zone. In other coastal areas, the first

significant topography may be too close to the coast. The watershed di-

vide of glacially deposited Long Island in Nassau and Suffolk Counties of

New York, for example, lies at the crest of the bluffs of the island's

north shore-. Most aesthetic resources other than the beach-bluff associ-

ations themselves are found south of the divide. The Long Island Sound

Regional Study Shoreline Appearance and Design Planning,Element therefore

delineated the regional viewshed well inland of the divide in this area in

order to include the farmlands, woods, villages, and streams which are found

within view,of the major shore parallel road system (Routes 25, 25A) which

acts as the armature of travel and aesthetic experience for coastal zone

users in this area.

Alm-

regional viewshed
MAN-

local viewshed perspective view local viewshed plan view

Figure 2-2: Local and Regional Viewsheds within the Coastal Zone
Excerpted from the LISS Shoreline Appearance and Design Handbook (1975).

'The Loca,l Viewshed

The selectionof viewpoints from which to construct the viewshed

of a local shorescape.unit within the regional viewshed may be determined

by consideration of four basic criteria:

1) Viewing population--Residents living within view of the shorescape
unit may have very different vantage points and viewing habits than
transients through or visitors to the shore. Areas- of shorescape
frequented by all viewing populations should be considered for view-
point selection, including all potential areas from which the shore-
scape is likely to be observed.

2) Viewer Position--All vantage points, from elevated headlands to the
water's surface, must be considered. The following are three typical
conditions of view orientation:

a. Observer Superior (looking down upon the shorescape from an
elevated position)

b. Observer Normal (looking across the shorescape from a vantage
point at approximately the same elevation)

c. Observer Infe rior (looking up toward a vertical headland from
the water's surface).

3) Viewer Distance

a. Foreground Views observer present along or up to 1/4 mile
from shoreline

@Middleground Views observer 1/4''to 3.mile*s-fe6m-'shore'line

c. Background Views @'observer more than .3,miles d1stant,from
shorel,ine.

4) Viewer Speed and Visual Contact Duration-,-Th6se.a,@@e-cortside-f-atio,ns,
applicable to observers traveling by land,, by`,boat', 'an`d,'by. ai rp-Tane
within viewing distance of.the shore'scape-unit, 'and may i6floence
viewpoint select'lon.,'

Methods for vfewshed construction or landscaipe,sight-@lihe ana-

lysis have been developed by a number of investigators (Litton [1973], Jones

& Jones (1973, 1974), Roy Mann Associates (1975)). See Chapter 9 for further

discussion.

Viewing Points

Although highly scenic areas and nodes, and the ordinary scenic

landscape as well, may generally be seen and appreciated from a large number

of points within the regional or local viewshed, the full public benefit of
important vistas may not be secured unles's adequate provision is made for

the protection or enhancement of viewing points from which they may be ap-

preciated. Existing undeveloped viewing points may occur along and within

highway and road rights-of-way, on public properties, and.on commerci-al and

institutional properties open to the public.

Potential viewing points include those on private property which

cannot easily be surveyed and evaluated; these constitute the greater part
of coastal zone viewing opportunities, and'in light of continui-ng land use

changes, offer future potential for public access.. Although potential vistas

and viewing points may be hidden by urban patterns, intervening topography,

or tree masses, they should be inventoried to the extent possible and

evaluated, since future development or redevelopment may creAte new

and important opportunities for protection, restoration, or enhancement of

such latent resources. (This is implicitly required by the Coastal Zone

Management Act, which related the finding of Congress that "the coastal

zone is rich in ... aesthetic resources of 'i m'-mediate- and potential value to the
present and future well-being of the nation." (Sec. 203(b), emphasis added).

Roads, highways and transportation corridors are other important

sources of potential views. Typification of road landscape can be mapped

to include graphic summaries of.the characteristics of alignment, the type

of views possible, the vegetative closure, and other factors. A particular

stretch of roadway, because.of its unique alignment and the character of

views from it, may be considered an aesthetic resource in itself.

Examples of viewing points (existing) and some reasons for their

landscape importance are:
1) Islands and peninsulae panoramic and cycloramic views of open
water and shorelines; unique aesthetic
resources of the.coastal Zone.
2) Shorelines: immediate opportunitie's for views over
the water or.back to inland horizons.

3) Overlooks and high points: opportunities for public access to
views and aesthetic experiences, often
combined with tourist, outdoor recre-
ational facilities.

4)'Shore roads, railroads, the main opportunity for most access-
and bridges: to-shore views.

5) Upper shoreland trans- 11captive views" for drivers and pas;-.
portation corridors: sengers.In general, opportunities
for views from or through corridors.
are not planned or designed. Never-
theless, these views are a common
daily experience for many coastal zone
users, and are of recreational and
tourist importance for others.
6) Institutional lands: more limited opportunities for public
access to views, often confined to
users of the institution concerned.

Specific criteria for the selection of viewing points for management

action include:

1) Quality of the views: This consideration is paramount in estab-
Ilishing priorities for viewing point acquisition and for priorities
of use in intervening areas between viewing point and view. Ques-
tions to be answered include:

-What is the nature of the view, in terms of uniqueness, diversity,
color, and other criteria, as defined by the selected inventory
and assessment system?
-Is the type of view considered to'be of,great interest to the.public?
-Have preference studies supported this finding?
2) Access to the views: The importance of" this consideration'is self-
evident. Questions to be answered include:

-Is the viewing point on public land, or is access possible through
easement or fee simple acquisition?
-Is the viewing point within or adjacent to an existing public right-
of way?
-Does the@right-of-way have a scenic road-designation?
-Is notice of the viewing point now provided by signage or other
indicators?
-Is convenient access to the area provided from highways or feeder
roads?

3) Detractions: Many views of excellent quality are marred by detract-
ing factors such as fences, transmission lines, towers, or tall
structures. Questions to be answered include:

-To what extent do the detractions damage the view experience?
-Are they easily screened or removed?

2.3.2;Borders bated.on-@fiysiogrdphic and morphological (landform)
characteristi cs

Every. view: of the shorescape, 'Whether fortuitou5--as with

anyone discovering attractive qualities of a distant landform, or inten-@

tional--as with a boater scanning the shore for navigational landmarks,

establishes an aesthetic relationship between the viewer and the entire

coastline within the continuity of the-horizons. The' viewer also may be

concerned with the coast beyond the horizons to the extent of the viewer's

interest in or familiarity'with the region. For the7project planner, review

official, or concerned citizen, coastline relationships are also important

with regard to site selection and design of structures that are visible

for-any significant distance. For,anyone interested in coastal resource
planning', the area relationships along the shore are important for inven-

tory, evaluation, and decision-making purposes.

For these reasons it is important to "Map" the shore in a

way that the aesthetic qualities of the coast are interrelated with its

functional (e.g. shipping, sailing, town development) and its geopoli-
tical (e.g,port jurisdiction, town and county limit) patterns. This

can best be done by delineating divisions between coastal areas on the

basis of landform, which is essentially the fundamental frame of the

coastline.

Shoreline Configuration

Shoreline configuration is-a major morphological quality

which must be taken into account in all coastal zone inventory and

assessment efforts. The National Estuary Pollution Study (1970) identified

the relationship between shoreline configuration and estuarine processes

as "Similarities in structure which reflect similarities in water movement,

water quality, and ecology." The N.E.P.S;, classification comprised ten

categories:

1) smooth shoreline without inlets
2) smooth shoreline with inlets
3) smooth shoreline with small embayments
4) indented shoreline without islands
5) indented shoreline with islands@
6) 6arshy shoreline
7) unrestricted river entrance
8) embayment with only coastal drainage
9)-embayment with continuous upland river flow
10). fjord

The importance of shoreline configuration lies in the',relative%.

exposure or closure of view created by shore landforms. A straig@t shore-

line will allow perception of structures at distances alongthe shore to,

the limit of view (horizon). A complex shoreline (compound coves, for
example) will create containments of.view within individual segments. Struc-

tures can be hidden from general view when sited'judiciously within complex

shore configurations--except,'of course, to viewers within the same -segment.

Coastal Profile or Gradient

An important dimension of the coastal zone environment exists

across or perpendicular to the coast and can be defined as a series of

zones or tiers. Subdividing the coastal zone in this manner is useful

in determining coastal zone inland and offshore visual boundaries and

for indicating the interstices between.shorelines most directly affected.
by tides and storms, And upper shorelands. It will also be instrumental
in determining numerous'aesthetic relationships between topography, hydro7

logy, vegetation, and structures and uses.

Several systemsfo@ identifying zones differentiated by gra--

dient perpendicular to the coast have been developed, atyarying levels-of

detail. Examples are the National Estuary Study definition: offshore,

spore and estuary, and coastal upland; and the Long.Island Sound Study

Scenic and Cultural.Inventory definition: shoreline, interior and back-

ground. There are other equally valid definitions.

11 The offshore tier-can best be described, in terms of aesthetic re-
source concern, as extending from the water horizon to the spring
low tide line. Small offshore islands are included, but the inter-
tidal zone is generally excluded. This definition is useful be-
cause all forms and processes'integral' aesthetically with open es-
tuarine or coastal waters may thus be grouped together.

.The second division, the shore and estuary tier, is best defined as
extending from the spring low tide line to the shore erosion limit
line. This tier encompasses all of the visual attributes of beaches,
dunes, marshes and mudflats, headlands and'primary bluffs,
and other components of the shore with which it is aesthetically
(and often ecologically) related. The shore erosion limit line is
used in the definition rather than record or storm high water be-
cause the crests of many bluffs peak high above record water marks
and yet are an integral part of the shorescape edge. Sand dune
systems also extend inland of and higher above' record high water
lines, yet are more a part of the shore aesthetic resource base
than of the upland, particularly because of their association with
coastal storm and wind movements, and with beach sand landscapes.
The upland tier, or upper/shoreland tier, may be defined as extend-
ing from the shore erosion limit line to the limit of the extent
of shore view impact. This tier encompasses lands and water up-
land of tidal orshore erosion influence.

The Great Lakes Shoreline may require modified tier definitions

because of its variant character. A Plan for Michigan's Shorelands (1974)
used the terms.offshore, shoreline, and upper shoreland tiers. According

to this scheme, the offshore tier extends from the two mile limit to the
lower edge of the wet beach; the shoreline tier extends from the lower
edge of the wet beach to the crest of the nearest enclosed terrain, or

where terrain is flat, to the inland edge of the flood-prone shore; the

upper s4oreland tier extends from the upper edge of the.shoreline tier to

the inland limit of the shoreline corridor.

Table 2-2 displays comparative planning efforts

which have classified landforms and topographical divisions within the

coastal zone according to their tier location between offshore and upland

points.

COASTAL ZONES

LL-
Zone 3: Zone 2: Zone 1:
Coastal Upland Estuary and Shore Offshore

112-mile limit record
from coast high tide low tide

edge of
limit of view continentall
shelf

-igure 2-3: Coastal zones (tiers) as defined by the Estuarine Landscape
Survey and Analysis, National Estuary Study_,770

The_Coastal Region and Subsidiary Units

0 Coastal Units'and Reaches: The coastal zone can'be easily subdivided

alonq the shoreline on the basis of visual and landform criteria. Coastal

landscape (or shorescape) units are units between major headlands or other

.prominent landforms or, along very flat and unchanging shoreline, between

semi-distant changes in beach, dune, surf or other coastal form perceivable

from a significant viewing point. Headlands and high points on the shore act

as guides to the eye. Some are dramatic and serve as landmarks; some are

associated with hazards (such as near-shore rocks that are part of a shore-

land geological formation) and are often the sites of lighthouses or beacons.

In any case,,they provide closure--a sense of partial containment--for-the

view of the coastal landscape that one may perceive from the shore or from a

boat or island near the shore. In almost all cases a complete landscape

between semi-distant landforms can be perceived.

The shorescape units aggregated between major headlands or

prominent landform.changes along the coast constitute a subdivision inter-

mediate in scale between the shorescape urrit-and the subregion. The National

Estuary.Study, A Plan for Michigan's Shorelands, and the Long Island Sound

Study have defined such subdivisions as coastal reaches.

Distinguishing the individual units of the shore along the coast

will have value in identifying the near horizons (established by headlands
orother high features) which set off or enclose a particular viewing basin

or viewshed of local importance.

Such units will also approximate physical entities of the coast
(em bayments, estuaries, island groupings, etc.) within which other coastal

TIERS SOURCES
,---Coastal Estuary
Upland & Shore Offshore

- @ C+ 0 1w
m --4 -n m;o (A L41 kn Ln Q ko C rt Co.
o io -0-- -00 cm (A Q.-. = cu = m I = 3 -@j m C I
C+ C+ o- Cm (m (A 0 0 iw m C)I< 1w 0
r (D r- M C+ M - -1 -S -5 -
m -5 no W =' m m -h
CL CL (m tA -,I U3

Gr)

C'n ;0 r-
0 m 0
OE Background----> (z Interior 1E Shoreline (D (M
= -6.
-m ca :9 Ln 00 - 0
m 0) = 0 (D C+ 0 =
LA w -5 on cm 0 Do (A
(m C+ -41 (D C+ m --h (A -1 7r 0 Q0
m -h C+ -h
rn 1w W
-a C+ CL

C-) ko C+ 0.
C@ -4 C 0
4@b
C) CL

Mount, @teep,Undulating flat--.).
(-1 -7 (A ;a @:x :z
AINS Hill`ss'@'- Lands =@'Lands -E Coastline C+ m C+ 0
r- U3 - -1
a- @, P, C+
m ca (A (A :9 (n ;a r- n ;0 m Q 0 = =
(D 00 0) w = 0 0 3 = C+
0) =5 = -% 0 C) 0 Cr
h CL CL LA -1 '7@ (D --h 7r 0)
=r (D 0) -hl< ko

w 0
-1

,-Natural Natural
;0-0 C-) r-4 C--j
Upland Shoreline M (D 0 0 %W
-a cu 9 = -
0 "1 CD
C-) -4 C-) Ln n = co m ca 0 -S W
W m 0 0) V) 0 m m -0 C+ =
= -% w C+ @Q 0) m 0 (A 0
1< 0 -1 Ln r_ 0 0; 0 :3 -(D @- = C-)
0 1< Jw C+ Jw 0 C+ - -h (A - 0 (A 0
= a 0 01 = CL (D W 0) LA (D 440 20 = m 0)
(A (A -(D- V) 4A Ln :3 (A -4 -S Ln
LA (D 4-i m :I:b < C+
Q0 00 0)
C+

Developed
Shoreline

C+ C+
m su

--h

0 0

C+ C+

zone management considerations are easily identified.

Table 2-3 displays part of a preliminary shoreline classifi-

cation system for the west coast of the United States: one biogeographic

coastal region is identified and is subdivided into nine subregions and

twenty-two reaches. The boundaries between coastal reaches are determined

pr-imarily on the basis of coastal physiographic or landform characteristics,

using a system similar to that of McGill (1958), accompanied by investiga-

tion of more detailed topographic coastal maps. The coastal reaches are

aggregated into subregions on the basis of geographic proximity and morpho-

logic similarity or dynamic interdependence

sub- @@J'b
'gion Ob, _@e' .
G
6\
sub-
7
,e sub-region region
D
8 E

Biogeographic Region to-Florida
-(Region V. Gulf of Mexico)

Unit Major Determinants
I. Biogeographic Region climate
(e.g. Middle Atlantic) regional geomorphology

A. Sub-region land-water configuration
(e.g. Long Island Coast) surface land-form
vegetation

1. Coastal Reach differentiation within the sub-region
(e.9. Fire Island) . land-water configuration
..surface land-form
. vegeta@ion'

a. Coastal Association natural interrelationships between
(e.g.Narrow Bay, adjacent land, water, and vegetative
including offshore forms
waters, barrier beach,
bay, marshes and
upland)

Figure 2,4: Hierarchy of Coastal Subdivisions.
Excerpted from the National Estuary Study (1970)

Table 2-3 Shoreline Classification

BIOGEOGRAPHIC BIOGEOGRAPHIC COASTAL SOME SELECTED
COASTAL REGION COASTAL SUB-REGION REACH SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS

A. San Juan 1. Birch Bay/ Glaciated complex depositiona.1 plain and complex moun-
Chuckanut Bay 'tains, large and small estuarine bays, irregular shorL-line,
offshore islands.

2. San Juan Islands Glaciated complex mourttains and hills, gl.acial deposition
plain, abrupt cliffs-and beaches,:intricate and-irregular
shoreline, many bays, unique complex islands.

B. Puget Sound 3. North Puget Glacial deposition plain, abrupt cliffs and beaches,
,Sound intricate shoreline, many bays.

4. South Puget Glacial deposition plain, abrupt cliffs and beaches,
Sound intricate shoreline, many bays, harbors and inland
lakes, Seattle.
NORTH-
WESTERN C. Strait of 5. Port Angeles/ Glaciated complex mountains, narrow depositional plain,
PACIFIC Juan de FVca Dungeness unique spits and small bays, abrupt cliffs.
4@-
COASTAL
REGION 6. Neah Bay/ Glaciated complex mountains, narrow depositional plain,"
Agate Beach smooth,ar-cing shoreline, cliffs and beaches.
D. Pacific/Olym-: 7. Olympic Uplands Glaciated complex mountains, large upper shoreland lake
pic Mountains (Lake'.Ozette), sea stacks.

8. Olympic Low- Complex hil1s, sea stacks.
lands.

'E. Grays Harbor/ 9. Grays Harbor Broad alluvial plain, large estuarine bayenOos6d @y
Willapa Bay/ spits.
Columbia Inlet
10. Willapa Bay/ Narrow,alluvial plain, large enclosed estuarine bay
Long Beach'. parallel to,shore, sand spits..

BIOGEOGRAPHIC BIOGEOGRAPHI C COASTAL SOME SELECTED
COASTAL REGION COASTAL SUB-REGION REACH SHORELINE CHARACTERISTICS

11. Columbia Inlet Narrow alluvial plain., very large estuarine bay, sand
spits.

F. Northern 12. Tillamook Complex hills, rocky points and sea stacks, small bays.-
Oregon

13. Nespelem Complex hills, coastal dunes, small spit-enclosed bays,
sea stacks.

14. Newport Complex hills, small twisted estuarine bays.

G. Central 15. Yachats Complex hills, unbroken rocky headland shoreline.
Oregon
16. Florence/ Complex hills, coastal dunes, small long twisted bays,
NORTHWESTERN Reedsport/ upper shoreland lakes.
PACIFIC Coos Bay
COASTAL
REGION 17. Bandon Complex hills, coastal dunes, very small inland lakes,
sea stacks

H. Southern 18. Point Blanco Complex hills and mountains, irregular shoreline, sea
Oregon stacks, shallow lagoons.

19. Rogue River Complex mountains, irregular rocky shoreline, Rogue
River inlet, sea stacks.

I. Siskiyou 20. Pt. St. George/ Narrow alluvial plain, backshore dunes, estuarine bays
Klamath Crescent City and inlets, redwoods and complex hills inland.
Mountains
21. Klamath River Complex hills, small inlets, redwoods, sea stacks.

22. Eureka Bay Narrow alluvial plain, large and small bays, spits and
coastal dunes, grasslands and complex hills inland.

Upland Units

Shoreline topography, and the immediate upper shoreland topography

with which it is most closely related, should provide the best

basis for'shoreline aesthetic resource unit delineation. In

interior portions of the coastal zone, however, ideal topographical

boundaries may not be in prominent evidence, or topographical unit

boundaries may not coincide with those of the,shoreline units.

Boundaries in such areas may be based partly on other parameters

besides topography: forests and large marshes, or stabilized land

use and cultural features.

Biogeographic Region:

1) Biogeographic Region: Major physiographic regions of the United

States' coastal zone have been identified in a number of studies, The

National Estuarine Pollution Study defined them simply as "combina-

tions of environmental conditions characteristic of various parts of

the coastline" (NEPS, p. 83). Ten U.S. biogeographic regions were
identified by the National Estuary Study," Appendix D: Estuarine Land-

scape Survey and Analysis (after the system defined by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Serv ice):

1. North Atlantic The NES Appendix D attempted to
II. Middle Atlantic depict at the regional scale, sig-
III. South Atlantic nificant shoreline and upland land
IV. Caribbean form, land/water interface charac-
V. Gulf of Mexico teristics, settlement cover, biotic
Vi. Pacific Southwest resource Izones, public lands, and
VII. Pacific Northwest industrial and power sites--fac-
VIII. Great Lakes tors which exert major influences
IX. Alaska on the regional landscape.
X. Hawaii

2) Biogeographic Subregion: The subregion is defined by further

climatic and geographic distinctions and regional physiography.

appears as a factor. The National Estuary Study identified forty-on6

s.ubregions within the ten biogeographic regions and listed their

major landform characteristics.

The continuum of the coastline also suggests the recognition of

tangible relationships between small, easily perceivable units and

the overall region. The National Estuary Study thus further distin-

guished smaller divisions than the subregion ("coastal reach" and

11coastal association") (See Fig. 2-4). The value of recognizing

a hierarchy of coastal geographic relationships is that the coastal

zone planner may more effectively communicate the important roles

climate, littoral processes and land forms play in subregional and

local coastal issues.

Subdivisions of the coastalzone may be determined by large scale or

regional considerations within a given state: watershed divides,

climatic variations, and jurisdictional boundaries, or combinations

of these three determinants.

A majority of past coastal studies have been geared to the biogeb-
graphic subregional- scale: e.g., San Francisco Bay, Grand Traverse Bay,

Long Island Sound, Tampa Bay, Boston Harbor. This scale is in fact

the more usefulstudy and managerial scale; the biogeographic region

as a whole, however, may serve as a useful analyti'cal reference for

plating climatic, wil dfowl migration, and other macro-patterns in

proper perspective.

2..3.3 Vegetation as a Border Deteminant for Coastal Units

Vegetation is a significant determinant of aesthetic value in

the coastal zone. It is also a significant border determinant in the

delineation of such resources as coastal marshes (cf: speciation requirements

in Connecticut and Maryland). As a rule, therefore, where vegetative

zonation coincides with major landform distinctions, vegetation is a valid

criteria for landscape unit delineation. However, this system is not flawless

where vegetative edges exist independent of landform edges, as vegetation

may disappear or be modified as a result of development or natural phenomena.

Watershed and sub-watershed divides and other high-landforms

are preferable as criteria for subdivision delineation, particularly since

such delineations will concur with basin water quality and other management

unit boundaries.

Exceptions are mangrove swamps and large, convex estuarine

marshes where enclosing landforms are not in evidence and these vegetative

resources are viewable as the sole or major morphological entities above

the horizon or water line.

Parameters to be considered in mapping vegetatikon include
magnitude of cover and species visual qualities. It is thus useful to document

the percentage of a given landscape under permanent vegetation and to assign

evaluations to individual vegetational qualities. Maps can be used to
delineate the former, and notation should be made of color.- density, height,

scarcity and similar characteristics.

49..

2.3.4 8orders Based on Land Use' Patterns and jurisdictional Units-

Human settlement patterns and land use characteristics are

often extremely significant aesthetic determinants in the coastal zone,

but seldom can serve in ld.eu of landform characteristics as landscape

border determinants. The dynamic qualities of land use, and jurisdictional

boundaries inhibit their utility as d6lineators of aesthetic resource units

over time. For example, the visual edge between cultivated and non-cultivated

lands in semi-arid or arid zones may be dramatic, but the edge may be else-

where the following year or growing season. Similarly, the boundaries of

residential or industrial use zoning districts or other land use entities may

change with'time.

Using land use patterns as'only secondary determinants of

borders is, therefore,desirable although exceptions may be usefully

made, as for example, with raised highway alignments or bridges in flat

coastal lands, since such features are more or less permanent parts of the

landscape and play an important role as both viewing platforms and view basin

limits.

In light of both the desirability of linkage to political sub-

division boundaries and the necessity of careful analysis of aesthetic resources

within integral view limits, the following guideline may be applied: in the

study phase of coastal zone aesthetic resource management planning, landscape/

shorescape subdivisions should be delineated primarily on the basis of coastal

morphology and view limit considerations. Following analysis, evaluation,

problem definition, and recommendation for development, reconciliation of shore-.

scape reaches and units with political or jurisdictional subdivisions should

be made if needed. (It may be pointed out that the real test of a management

_-entity is how feasible-the-mAnagement recommendations-are that apply to it,

regardless of its boundaries.)

CHAPTER 3: GEOGRAPHICAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR CONCERN

3.0 Introduction

The Coastal Zone Management Act establishes that the national

policy is to "preserve, protect, develop, and where p ossible, to restore or

enhance" the resources of the coastal zone. The Act, under Section 305(b)(3),

requires that the state'smanagement program include "an inventory and

designation" of the zone"s resource areas, which, as with the designation

of permissible uses in the coastal zone under Sectioh 305(b)(2), will aid

the state in establishing priorities for use and management throughout

the zone but especially in the designated areas.

The Guidelines taKe care to point out that geographical areas of

particular concern are likely to.encompass not only areas of significant

natural value orimportance, but also areas that have been developed and

require special attention ("transitional or intensely developed areas") or are

especially suited for intensive use or development. As noted in.other

references in this Handbook,@aesthetic resource factors and evaluation

criteria will be only one of,many sets of considerations before the state

in determination of areas of particular concern. These facters.and

evaluation criteria are discussed below.

3.1 -Vti.1 i zati-on-o-f-BasIc Inventory-and Anal-ysi-s.*

The inventory and analysis,defined under Section 923.12 ("permis-

sible uses") is essentially the same basic inventory and analysis that will

serve,all evaluative and definitive sections of the state's managementplan,

as discussed in Chapter 7. In order to enable the inventory process to pro-

vide aesthetic data input suitable for assisting in the identifi,cation of

'possible geographical areas of particular concern, visual and other aesthetic

analysis criteria must be developed in advance of both the field inventory

and secondary source inventory efforts conducted by the coastal zone

management program staff.

.3.2 Types of Geographical Areas of Particular Concern

General definitions and identification criteria for areas of

particular concern are presented below under each of the terms cited in

15 CFR 920.13.

3.2.1 General Concern

The following three types of areas are those listed in the

introductory paragraph of Sec. 920.13 as general categories of areas of

particular concern:

Areas of significant natural value or importance
.Definition: 1) Areas which contain landforms,Yaterforms, exposed

geology, vegetational forms, and/or fauna of visual and intangible

impressiveness; or 2) areas which, in areal terms, are largely

unmodified by man-made structures or activities.

Identification elements: Presentation should include 1) a statement

of the visual and intangible impressiveness ofimch major element;
2) a statement indicating the maximum degree of modification which

may be tolerated by the area's aesthetic resource elements without
significant adverse or irreversible impkt.

Transitional or Intensively Developed Areas

Deflnitton: Areas where reclamation, restoratign, public access and
other (remedial) actions may be'nedded. Transitional areas are those-

which are approaching intensive development. In each case, landscape

an,d shorescape visual qualitie5are implicit.

Identification elements:- Because of the great.diversity of.circum-

stances inherent in this-group, criteria will perforce need to be

flexible and responsive to individual conditions. In general:

1) Areas of reclamation or restoration concern are those which

have experienced serious detri@ental modification of land

form or vegetational form and which possess potential for

recovery of such form, or are developed lands which have

experienced serious detrimental changes in surface or

architectural qualities.

2) Areas of public access concern are those in which physical
barriers (e.g., buildings, expressways, pri'vate ownership)

prevent visual as well as physical barriers to approaches

to the water's edge..

3) Other remedial action concern includes concerw for enhancement.

Areas in which this exists are generally those-where negative
intrusions (use, structures) or deficits (low quality visual

entities) may be ameliorated through improved I andscape design.

0 Areas especially suited for intensive use or development

Definition: Areas in which aesthetic damage resulting from intensive

use or development is either avoidable or will not affect adjacent

areas of higher aesthetic resource quality-

Identification elementsi: Because of the diversity of terrain
circumstances, and the primacy of development as an objective in this

category, criter ia for expression of aesthetic concern here should

address the question of whether des.ignation of the area for development

without controls on Oerformance standards for improved siting and

design will produce unavoidable detrimental aesthetic impacts on

adjacent areas of higher aesthetic resource quality.

3.2.2 Specific Concern

The two elements described below are grouped together as a single

11natural value" type of area of concern, of a total of eight listed under'
Sec. 920.13.1.

Areas of scenic importance

Areas are those which rank high on a scale of aesthetic evaluation,

systematically assessed. Scenic areas ought to be delineated

Along the viewshed (horizon topographical) boundaries within which

The other seven, within which aesthetic resources may also be of important
concern, are: 2) Areas of high natural productivity or essential
habitat for living resources, including fish, wildlife, and the various
trophic levels in the food web critical to their well-being; 3) Areas
of substantial recreational value and/or opportunity; 4) Areas where
developments and facilities are dependent upon the utilization of, or
access to, coastal waters; 5) Areas of unique geologic or topographic
significance to industrial or commercial development; 6) Areas of
urban concentration where shoreline utilizatfon and water uses are
highly competitive; 7) Areas 'of significant hazard if developed, due
to storms, slides, floods, erosion, settlement, etc.; and 8) Areas needed
to protect, maintain or replenish coastal lands or resources, such
areas including coastal flood plains, aquifer-recharge areas, sand dunes,
coral and other reefs, beaches, offshore sand deposits, and mangrove
stands.

an integral landscape (local or greater area) can be defined. Buffer

areas should be included, as should areas of cqWpn natu.ral landscape
quality where scarce or essential,@qualities contribute to.'the larger

.unit',s aesthetic integrity.

Areas of unique, scarce, fragile, or vulnerable natural habitat,

physic al feature, historical significance, and cultural value

Closely associated with areas of scenic importance in the aesthetic
sense (and defined together with them under Sec. 920.13) these

areas are each typified by significant intangible aesthetic, as

well as tangible and visual factors. Proximity of these areas to

areas of scenic importance should be recognized by the planner as

a weighting factor favoring their designation as areas of particular

concern.

@.3 Procedural Considerations in the Designation of Areas of Concern

Since eight possible types of areas of particular concern may be
identified, area delineations under individual elements (e.g., industry,
recreation, housing, scenic resources) must be considered preliminary

delineations until:

1) An.assessment of probable impact is completed.

2) The area designation is reconciled with.the determination of

permissible uses required under 305.

3) The preliminary delineations are reconciled with each other and

the state's determination of priorities of use for specific

areas of the coastal zone.

legend:
Study area boundary
subregion boundary
J
@1 preserve open shoreline
TS
U preserve woodland/farm/Ween space
Pv q 25 9
4
V WA"ww vIeWpublic access/shorea, islands
d
constrain building on sensitive heights/
indented shor"

open up don" buitt-over shores
proted townscape/historic assets'

enhance harborsides

limit/rolocats, Industrial uses from shore
%
@k.
set back development/ameliorate scarred
areas on bluf ts
rehabilitate urban landscape
outstanding 3 ShoreScape Unit
$eenic reach
saw
scenic upland
A deficit/ scenic shoreline
00 Intrusion/ 8 townscape,
0 "Osors, Oftim viewshed

areas
Of

concern
6 text (atlas)
o, reference

Z
V@
Fig. 4-1 Preliminary delineation
of geographical areas of
,V, - particular aesthetic concern ex-
,ik
-7,
7,@4. Sho"j,i'" Ap"ajAnCe and pressed in non-CZMA terms.
Design, fiandtmok,
Long Island Sound
15
'76

Figure 3-1: Preliminary delineation of geographical areas of particular aesthetic concern
expressed in non-CZMA terms.

A full discussion of 1) and 2) is to be found in the following chapter, which

will also cover final designation of areas of particular concern or of

specific areas for preservation and restoration.

A fuller elaboration of item 3) in the present context, however,

is essential to a clear understanding of the role of aesthetic resource

Planning in the overall management of the coasta I zone.

khereas reIconciliation of.conflicting preliminary delineations

for physical uses (for example, for housing, air transportation, and
recreation) requires, by and large, a selection of one use over others,

reconciliation of uses with aesthetic resources requires super .imposition

rather than.substitution. That is, if housing is to be introduced into an

area that has also been identified as an area of particular aesthetic concern,

the concern for aesthetics in the area can be maintained and can be translated

into beneficial management through judicious site selection, site planning, and

architectural and landscape design controls.

Simil-arly, where industrial u.�e is granted highest priority

and a designation of particular concern, other uses may be precluded, but

aesthetic concern can be maintained and superimposed upon the designated

area in the form of design performance standards or other conditions of use

pem.iss'ibil ity.

Proper superimposition of this kind may,in many casesallow
enhancement of coastal zone areas. Enhancement, a stated objective of the

Act, can beaccomplished in such instances as the re-use of completed 3poil

disposal islands or the redevelopment of existing ill-designed depot and

warehouse areas.

Nevertheless, it should be stressed that rec onciliation will

not normally offset to a satisfactory degree the disruptive effects of new

uses.and.structures introduced into areas of high aesthetic value. Where

areas have been accorded a preliminary delineation as an area of particular

aesthetic concern, the probability is high that the area would include

scenic assets, natural or man-made, with which the compatibility of proposed

new uses and structures may be less than satisfactory. The state planner

should therefore proceed with special caution to review compatibilities

and suitabilities of proposed uses and structures, as well as the

sensitivities of the aesthetic resources in question to probable impact,

in instances where conflict of preliminary delineations occurs.

3.4 Designation of Specific Areas for Preservation or Restoration

Section 306(c)(9) of the Act calls for state management programs

to.make provision for "procedures whereby specific areas may be designated

for the purpose of preserving or restoring them for their conservation,

recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values.','

In delineating resource areas as being suitable for preservation

orrestoration, the planner is simultaneously identifying them as areas

suitable for designation as 2@@ @ra @Lic areas of particular concern. The
Guidelines require this in Sec. 923-.16(b)(1), by stating that, effectively,

all areas designated according to such procedures, standards and criteria

"sh.all also-be considered as areas of particular concern."

Some such areas may be landscapes that are identified
sperately, or at'later stages, outside the key areas of particular
concern. Other areas may be landscapes meeting eligibility criteria for

preservation or restoration and identified as integral units within

areas of particular concern, of any category. For example, an area of

particular concern, identifted as an "area of urban concentration where

shoreline utilization and water uses are highly competitive" (see Sec.

920.13(6)) may still contain within it a reach of shoreline that is worthy

of preservation or restoration. Such landscape components should be

identified for possible designatfon and be granted due consideration as

preservation or restoration areas.

The tools themselves--preservation and restoration--are

significant instruments for stabilizing and recovering aesthetic quality in

the coastal zone. Preservation is self-explanatory; elaboration devolves

mainly on legal Mid institutional procedures, which are explained in

Chapter.5,. Restoration, on the other hand,'as does the related tool of

enhancement, requires more careful attention to specific landscape design,

architectural standards, and interrelated methods for aesthetic

rehabilitation.

CHAPTER 4: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PERMISSIBLE 6SES, AND POLICIES OF USE

4.0 Introduction.,

The three elements of the'heading of this section are strongly

interrelated. An assessment of the probable environmental impacts-of specified

uses on aesthetic resources is an essential prerequjsite to the determination

of use permissibility. Impact assessment vis-a-vis specific geographic

areas of the coastal zone is also vital to decisions on whether, in certain

areas, conditions should be attached to use p6rmissibility or use ought
to be excluded altogether. Lastly,-.knowledge of both environmental impact

of uses, and of th6suitabilities of specific geographicareas for given

uses, Will 'guide the planner toward determining priorities of use, final

,designations of geographic areas.of particular concern, and the designation

of specific areas for preservation and restoration.

4.1 Environmental Impactand Use Permissibility

A key responsibility of the State, under Section 305(b)(2)

of the Act, is the development and appl.ication of a procedure for definition
of "permissible land and water uses within the coastal zone which have a

direct and significant impact upon the coastal waters."

15 CFR 923J2 -states that this requi-rement should be.divided

into two distinct elements:

1) A determination of those land and water uses having a direct

and significant impact upon coastal waters.,

2) An identification of which such uses the State deems

permissible.

Although water quality, biological/ecological, and physical/

chemical effects are the.impacts which come first to mind, "direct and

signtficant-u--aesthetic.impacts may also result from land and water uses

and from the appearance of other aesthetic qualities of structures employed

.in such uses. For example, residential finger-canal construction may direct-

ly cause significant sedimentation, turbidity and-color change in estuarine

waters. An..oil blow-out could directly cause significant slicking-and

fouling of coastal beaches and shores. Each of the above effects have

direct and significant aesthetic impacts on coastal waters in addition to

the-ecological effects with which they Are perhaps more ordinarily related.

Even where ecological effects are not at issue, the appearance

of objects, structures, or activities of a land or water use may possibly

.cause direct and significant aesthetic impacts on coastal waters. For

example, oil-drilling-platforms within view.of a prime scenic beach might

be considered such an impact by many beach users.

Therefore, for-each permissible land or water use defined, the

.State should.identify aesthettc effects that, upon analysis., could be

o__ C stal: waters.
found to'be f irect and signifi-ant" impa-ct upon coa

it is apparent from the example of the drilling platform and

beach users that analysis must be carefully conducted to allow the State

-to reliably substantiate findings on the significance of impact and avdi.d

charges by one or another coastal interett of undue bias. 15 CFR S-ec.--923.12

calls for "operational terms that can be applied 'uniformly and consistently"

-and requires four management program components, at a minimum, which perform

.the task of permissible use.and impact definition. It is important to note
that Section 923.12, in-requiring-the componefts described below, makes

it clear that na tura.1 and man-made coastal resources in general, i.e.,

throughout the coastal zone, and not merely coastal waters al6ne, must be

assessed before a State can definitively identify all uses of these resources

which may have a direct and significant impact upon coastal waters, and of

these, which uses may be deemed permissible.

4.2. The Scope of Impact Analysis

In order to identify those uses which have a "direct and

significant impact upon coastal waters," the State is required by the

Act to analyze "existing, projected and potential uses" as to the level

and extent of their impact, be it adverse,.benign,.or beneficial,.intra-

state or interstate. (15 CFR 923.12(b)(1)).

Although the State is required by the Guidelines to develop,an

operational definition of "direct and'significant impact" as a task of the

management planning program overall, analysis of the impact on aes-the-tic

resources should not be restricted to those uses whtch have a direct and

significant impact on them. The guiding principles for aesthetic impact

analysis should instead be grounded in the Congressional findings of the

Act which state that "special natural and scenic characteristics are being

damaged by ill-planned development that threatens these values" (Sec. 302(f)).

and in the Act's declaration "that it is the national policy to:preserve,

protect, develop,,2and wherL- possible, to restore or enhance the (aesthetic,

i-n this instance) resources of the Nation's coastal zone" (Sec 303(a.)).

-Detailed analysis of the effects of uses on aesthetic.resources even though
they .may not be recognized as "direct and significant impacts on coastal

waters" is vital to an avoidance of "ill-planned development."

Indirect impacts should also be.carefully studied. Intangible

effects, cumulative effects, and effects which materialize only over the

long-ter .m.are often among the indirect impacts of.uses and structure

.emplacement on aesthetic resources.

4.31and and Water Capability and Suitability

In determining which land and water uses may be deemed permis-
sible (of those which have been shown to have direct and significant

impact upon coastal waters) Section 923.12 requires that a State should base

decisions upon evaluation of the.best available information.concerning land

and water capability and suitability. The objective method chosen for

such evaluation should include the components described below.

The distinction between the two operative terms is important:

-6apability is the inherent capacity of a land or water resource to produce

or sustain defined benefits or uses; suitability is the appropriateness of

a use Or structure to a resource. For example, a soil type of agricultural

capability Class II has a higher crop-productive capacity.than one in Class III,

whereas in terms.of suitability for road construction or wildli fe conserva-

tion, the same soil type may be subject to.slight, moderate, or severe

limitations (system employed by the U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service).'

4.3.1 Aesthetic Capabilities

Here the planner must take care. Agricultural capabilities

are easily amenable to measurement; developmental capabilities are relatively

the'same; food producing capabilities in estuaries and marine environments
are becoming increasingly responsive to measurement. In each of these

three areas capability implies a transfer of energy, or a change of state,

between the latent resource and what it may produce. However, since aesthetic

resources are.actually the perceivable characteristics of land and water

resources,there generally is no gap between what they are, in a latent

state, and what they "produce". What they appear to be, in other words,

is what they are valuab9,e for. Important exceptions exist: the qualities

of resources that are amenable to restoration and enhancement.are those

characteristics which lie below the level of their full potential. For

example, a filled and abandoned shore area, despoiled and littered with dis-

carded items, would have a very high enhancement capability, possibly a
restoration potential (if removal of fill were feasible) and possibly

a.potential for other beneficial and major alterations.

With the above in mind, the planner will see.that the most

obvious assessment system for determining capabilities of aesthetic resources
is one which measures the gap between.aesthetic resources- as they exist And
what they could be if afforded wiser management. The terms which best

reflect-the range of possiblegaps are:

Refer to the.discuss.ion of eyesores, intrusions, and deficits, in Chapter 2.

Capability Class I: no alterations in resource appearance desirable

Capability Class II: enhancement desirable

Capability Class III: restoration desirable

Capability Class IV: major alterations (aesthetic development) desirable
(e.g. development of a marred area as parkland)

Since this level of analysis is best applicable to specific

resource situations (e.g., "headlands: Sachem Head") rather than broad

generic classes (e.g., "headlands") the planner should make sure that the

resource inventory is either geographically specific (i.e., actual locations)

or, at the minimum, a compilation of specific sub-categories of resources

found within the State's coastal,zone. (e.g., "scenic, rocky headlands;

wooded headlands with low density single homes," etc.)

In reviewing aesthetic capabilities, the following should also

be cons'idered:

1) Is the aesthetic resource renewable?

The renewability of most aesthetic attributes is welded to the

renewability of the resources of which they are part. If a marsh

is filled, the aesthetic quality of the marsh is ended. In some

cases, however, a distinction can be made- Forests,.for example,

are renewable'resources in.a silvicultural sense; but if a forest
is clear-cut, its aesthetic qualitv is ended, at least for

the current generation of aesthetic users of the region.

2) Under what conditions will the renewable resource have.the capability
for sustained and undiminished yield

At a certain point,,environmental modification will d4mini�h the

aesthetic "yield," or satisfaction, derived from any giv-,en resource.

Consensus on where this point lies may be hard to find, because

OfAhe wide differences of view on the d@sirability of preservation

vs.,development. Interspersing of mobile homes in a woods-and-

open fields shoreland may seem quite aesthetically desirable to
some-people, particularly to mobile home owners. A relatively

objective assessment can be.made, however, U ".sustained and

undiminished yield" is interpreted to mean continuation of the

same aesthetic qualities, modified only by changes harmonious with

them.

4.3.2 Aesthetic Sensitivities

To evaluate upe suitabilities, a clear understandi ng must be

obtained of.the sensitivittes of aesthetic. resources to the functional,

structural,.operational, architectural, and tite aspects of the existing,

projected or potential uses or structures under consideration. Hydrographic,

t9pographic-morphological, vegetational, and other visual and non-visual

aesthetic characteristics of the resources must be studied.

Example 1:

Natural Resource Aesthetic Attributes Aesthetic Sensitivities

Shoreline, undulating openness sensitive to siting of.
shore rhythm uses and structures -
which are close to shore
and interrupt rhythm and
views or which are high
and interrupt views of
distanf skyline from sig-
nificant-viewing points

'Example 2:

Man-Made Resource Aesthetic Attributes Aesthetic Sensitivities

18th-19th Centupy highly varied roof geo- sensitive to siting of
.town harbor metrics and silhouettes,. large, flat-roofed
intangibles related to buildings or space
architectural and gaps which interrupt
historic interest and continuity or homogeneity
preservation, human of defined area
and work (fisheries,
maritime) dynamics

A fuller presentation of selected attributes which determine

aesthetic resource sensitivity tordevelopment is given inTable 5-1

Tabl e 4-1

NATURAL AESTHETIC RESOURCES AND SENSITIVITY TO DEVELOPMENT

Attributes which determline
Basic- Specific, Sensitivity of Development
Categories Categories 'of Aesthetic Resources

open bays/shelf waters openness of views to horizon
creates high sensitivity to struc-
ture emplacement, such as drilling
platforms.

coves partial closure creates arena-
like environment in which the
prominence of structures is
magnified.

estuaries/lagoons aesthetic integrity of visible
ecosystem defines eXtreme sensi-
tivity to development.
surrounding topography is visually
prominent from water's edge.

river mouths view to and across river mouth is
possible from many viewing points.
Massive structures may block views.

fjord-like inlets/ dramati c bordering of passage by
narrows/guts landforms defines high sensitivity
to development.

I of 3

NATURAL AFSTHETIC RESOURCES-(2)

Attributes which determine
3asic Specific Sensitivity to Development
@ateqories Categories of Aesthetic Resources

streams/rivers vi'sual integrity of stream
LU defines high aesthetic sensitt,-
vity to development for other
C) than water-related structures.
Ca
W wide floodplains anderodible
Uj banks limit development possi-
< bilities.

breaker zone maximum impact of wave erosion
creates extreme sensitivity to
structural emplacement.

beaches sweep of view. Beach dynamics,
and pristineness of sand or
"graded" quality of beach materials
create extreme sensitivity to de-
velopment.

U.1 salt/fresh water unique vegetational systems and
marshes inteqrity with tidal influence,
physiographic forms.

_j mangrove swamps unique.vegetational system
Uj and dramatic wildness.,

distant islands visually prominent from land
and water.

coral reefs/ unique forms
other sUb-tidal forms

high islands extremely visible from shore and
water.

headlands highly visible from shoreline;
man-made structures stand out in
silhouette from shore-line observer
C1
1, points, or because of contrast
against rocky background.

dunes vegetation fragile, intolerant
of trampling.
dune-trampling, housing construc-
tion, and other dune c@est usage
will destroy wind-formed aesthetic.
2 of 3

Attributes which determine
Basic Specific Sens-itivity to Development
Categories Categories of Aesthetic Resources

bluffs/banks prone to man-caused erosion
Visually prominent from beach,
offshore.

low plateaus/ Jow, even vegetation makes
coastal plains these areas highly sensitive to
visualimpact of structures.

high plateaus/ openness & height provides high
coastal terraces visibility, especially from roads
on ridges.
edges of high plateaus at coast-
line are highly visible from beach
and are erosion-prone.

arroyos/canyons ridges which enclose space are
visually prominent from floor.

pea.ks/ridges@ .heights are extremely prominent
from most points in the viewshed'
below.

intertidal visibility of integral components
of ecosystem creates high sensi-
tivity to development.

sand dune community vegetative community highly fra-
gil'e to human use and development.

salt marsh community vegetative community highly fra-
gile to human use and development.
3 of 3

4.3.3 Analysis of use and structure suitabilities

To be able to utilize knowledge of resource sensitivities in the

determination of use impact and suitability, an analysis 'of the aesthetic

effects and design constraints and variables of existing, projected, and

potential uses,. and the objects, structures, and activities typical of them

should be prepared. Analysis of aestheticeffects will provide a direct ba-

sis for an impact assessment and determination of use permissibility,while
analysis of design constraints and variables will yield answers on whether

alternatives and measures exist which can help to avoid detrimental aes-

thetic effects.

Figure 4-1 illustrates how data relating to the siting and
design of large-scale facilities can be displayed, flowing from an analysis
of the architectural, engineering, and operational constraints of uses and

structures to an identification of planning and design variables and

recommended guidelines.

Uses and structures of similar aesthetic impacts on shoreline

types may be grouped together as "use-and-structure" classes. Two examples

of this type of general suitabilities matrix are shown below.

A generalized level of analysis is the minimum the State should

undertake. It will adequately serve, in conjunction with other resource

facility ports repesm"We repremytative silwwft
class
type
container 4

e
apacie 2
xampl
C tY 2 BERTHS
pr0cm
5=04g 7
ir 5

critical promi -
dimensions nent typi Cal
struc material
cent1ml cOrnponents horizon. vertical tures
concret <-Berth length and depth depend on size of ships serviced and
CONTAINER BERTHS 800-900, 8-12' jantries wood on maneuvering requirements.
proMi- super- bOme ships have on-board cranes, but most use the more effi-
2CONTAINER SHIPS 700-800 nent itructur LLtSel cient on-shore gantries.
<-Containers usually 8xB with lengths of 20, 30 or 40 feet.
3CONTAINERS 20-40' 8' steel I No one standard used to date.
Colic wd
4CARG EXCHANGE BUILDINC 500' 20-30' Steel, J<-Need min. 120,000 sq. ft./berth, 100' around bldg. for trucks.
15-30 contain- -*-Area needs depend on container size, stacking method, rate of
5 UPLAND STORAGE A/harth'i ers , Concrete movement. Can be reduced by use of multi-story container
6 IDOCKSIDE GANTRIES 50- 1 150' entire steel storage bldg.
ancilWy 'cornponents - steel Height variable, depending on needs of port. A tower often
7OFFICE BUILDING variable variable concrete built to survey area.
8EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE steel I
BUILDING 70' 50' concrete
security Fencing required by OSHA standards and security needs.
9PERIMETER FENCING wood *:Entrance to port through gate/guard house complex.
bld

notes 1 Port lighted for night-time operation; lights of 400 watts on 110 ft. p@les. Intended
to provide adequate coverage at minimal cost.

Figure 4-1: Container Ports
Excerpted from LISS Shoreline Appearance and Design Handbook, 1�75

use impact copsiderations, to guide decisions on which uses may be designated
as pemissible-within the coastal zone and what regulatory standards would
be suitable to keep uses so designated from diminishing the aesthetic "yield"

of affected resources.

If the State conducts aesthetic resource analysis in greater

detail, it will improve its capability to identify specific resource areas

where conditional permissibility should be established, as well'as aid in

identifying areas of particular aesthetic concern, areas that should be
I UZ

CONTAINER PORTS

Constraints and Variables Recommended Guidelines

Althoulgh container traffib can be handled by 1. Reduce the area requirements -of container
iieneral cargo Ports,.th6 efficiency potential of storing Yorts by constructing multi-story storage build-
cargo in pre-packaged units cannot be realized with- ings.
out specially designed facilities. These facilities con-
sist of quay-type wharves with apeons, gantries 2. Consider siting and design of sheds and other
(special dockside rail-mounted or rubber-tired structures which have more structural, graphic,
cranes), straddle carriers to unload and mo@e the and color interest than most typical warehousu
containers, and a large upland area in which contain- near roads and other public areas. public parks at property sidelines
ers arq sorted and stored, Also found within the port give visual access to ports, careful
area are a cargo exchange building for filling and Provide ample screened space within the corn- screening lessens visual impact
unloading containers, an office/administration build- plex to adequately accommodate rigs waiting
ing, lighting units, security houses and fencing. The' for loading/unloading. vertical storage
amount of upland area required depends upon the lessens land
size of the port, the size of the containers typically 4. Employ earth-mounding and tree plantings at coverage
handled, whether stacking (to two or three layers) is public edges to enhance the relationships
to be used. and whether open-area storage or multi- between the port and suprounding areas. This
story facilities are to be adopted. The space needed can be of particular use to soften monotonous
for open-area storage can range from 15-30 acres per lines of stored cargo containers.
berth. There are limits to the extent. thiii space
*requirement can be reduced since containers cannot 5. Shield and direct lighting away from residential
generally be stacked more than two high without and other public use areas wherever possible.
substantially increasing the sorting time. Alternatives The high intensity elevated "bomb" type lights
include the construction of computer-run multi-story should be avoided in favor of more localized trees and
buildings which could house up to five times the lighting systeA. shrubs screen
number of containers in open storage in comparable public viewing
space. Initial costs of such an automated facility are 6. Provide easements for public viewing and access
high, but where waterfront land is scarce, their to the wateifront at the sidelines of the
construction may be environmentally de.sirable, if not container port, in accordance with security and
economically advantageous, safety regulations.
7. Review existing OSHA regulations to deter" ne
whether modifications to allow sideline access
to the waterfront can be made more effective.
security at sideline easement needed

designated for preservation and restoration, and other elements as described

in Section 923.13 through 923.17.

4.4 Decisions on Use Permissibility

The impact, compatibility, and suitability analyses described

above are intended to serve as the basis for defining permissible uses,

specifically:
which.can be reasonably and safely supported by the resource
which are compatible with surrounding resource 'utilization, and

which will have a tolerable impact upon the environment.

Some Uses will, of course, pass the above test; others will be

lacking in one respect or another.

Suitabilities can also be readily assessed and displayed in

matrix form and should be addressed both at the generic level for aPDli_

cation to broad state policy guidelines and At the specific, locational

level for guidance on actual local conflict resolution and individual

shorescape unit management. -The suitability distinctions displayed in
Table 4-2 are hypothetical and presented for the,purpose of illustration

only.

Table 4-2

USE AND STRUCTURE SUITABILITIES

Example 1: Generic Level/Use and Structure Suitabilities

Uses Structures
Resources, extensive moderate intensive small medium large
beaches H L M L L

terraces H H M H H M

marshes M L L L L

Assessment Key: H = High suitability; M Moderate suitability; L Low
suitability

Ex ample 2: Specific Level/Use and Structure Suitabilities

Uses Structures
Swim Hiking Small Small Resid.
Resources Recr. Recr. Resid. Comm. Shed Resid. Group Mfg.

Shorescape
Unit # 180'
(Northville)

.beach H L L L L L L L

.bluff face M L L L L L L

.bluff crest - H L L L L L L
(100 yards)

.beyond bluff - H H L-M H H M L
100-200 yards

Assessment Key: H = High suitability; M Moderate suitability; L Low
suitability
74

Because of the high diversity of capabilities of land and water
resources to sustain given uses (e.g., an industry could locate in, a pre-

existing industrial area without inflicting any aesthetic ham, but could
not do so in a salt-marsh) the State's definition of permissibility may be
"correlated with the nature (including current uses) and location of the.

land on which the 'use is to take place."

In other words, uses that are permissible in general through the

coastal zone may be either excluded from those areas where resource utiliza-

tion violates one or more of the test criteria cited above, or made condi-

tional upon the adoption of measures by the resource user to mitigate or

avoid aesthetic damage to the resource to the maximum possible degree. For

example,'in-a sensitive upland terrace within view of a coastal highway and

backed by middle-distance mountain ridges, the definition of residential use
permissibility maybe made dependent upon regulations or standards that
blend existing, and projected construction into the surrounding topography.
Architectural, massing and other design and site planning standards can'also

be made conditions upon which a'permissible use may be.approved in an aes-

thetically sensitive resource area.

Height, setback, foreground vegetati,on projection, and other

performance standards of this kind may be effective--from the singular

standpoint of aesthetics--in mitigating the visual impact of various uses

and structures in specified areas of the coastal zone. When interrelated

with the impact analyses conducted for thermal-biotic, chemical,ecosystem

effects of such uses in the area studied, a comprehensive view may be arrived

at as to whether--in that particular sector of the coastal zone---they

should be permitted, not pemitted, or permitted under specified conditions

of use.

4,5 Policies of Use

4.5.1 Final designation of concern areas

The synthesis of findings in the vertical, or special study

efforts conducted under the C Z. management planning framework (that is,,,

aesthetics, fisheries, mining, land use, and others) will constitute the

prelude to. a review of the preliminary delineation of geographical areas of

concern indicated by each of the study participants. The resulting fiInal

designations of geographic areas of concern will presumably constitute

best trade-offs or beneficial reconciliations of divergent findings.

Although, as noted earlier, the likelihood exists that recon-

ciliation can open the door to severe incompatibilities in areas of parti-

cula,r aesthetic concern, policies may be adjusted.awhen this occurs to com-

pensate in some measure for the possible threats to scenic or related va-

lues. For example, where previously the intended priority of use would have

been preservation, adjustment to a priority for commercial use would stress

protection through rigorous architectural codes and zoning ordinances, en-

hancement through site improvements and landscaping, restoration through

careful amelioration of any areas disfigured by project construction, and

general management through careful monitoring by local and state officials

of numerous other factors.,

4.5.2. Specific areas for preservation and restoration

Much of the subject matter of this section has already been dis-

cussed under the sections which deal-with geographic areas,of'particular

concern.

It should be emphasized, however, that the two.c.ategories,

"specific areas" and "areas of particular concern".may,be-,.but are not

necessarily congruous. An area of particular industrial concern, for exam-

ple, may include a pocket of scenic headlands or marsh which can be desig-

nated for preservation--or restoration.

Summarized,briefly, representatiVe'examples of@the specified

area category would include:

Scenic resources
Viewing points/overlooks
Non-scenic-resources-of high-aesthetic: value
.historic sites, structures, and areas
archaeological sites
cultural-focuses
scientific, geologic, floral, and faunal resources

4.5.3 Ranking according to immediacy-of-need

In terms of aesthetic resources,,the management terms identified

in the Act take the following orderof urgency:

Preservation of aesthetic resources (normally
'Protection of aesthetic resources* descending
Restoration of aesthetic resources order of
Development or e'-nhancement of aesthetic resources ..urgency)

4.5.4 -'Excluded Federal and Trust Lands.

Although Federal lands are excluded from-the implementa-

tion program of the State's management plan, advisory recommendations on'the

aesthetic assets or problems of Federal properties could be easily transmitted

and-should be welcomed by the agencies in question, particularly where en-

hancement, restoration and protection of resources on the edges of such pro-

perties are matters of concern.

4.5.5 The national interest in the siting of facilities

According to Sec. 306(c)(8) of the Act, states must allow "ade-

quate consideration of the nationall interest in the siting of facilities

which are other than local in nature.'.'

This implied definition of facilities used here is quite broad;

the term facilities can mean everything from power plants and oil refineries

to large commercial marinas. The original intent of Congress was to ensure

that power plants and other facilities of national importance would@not be

unreasonably excluded from the coastal,zone by local governments opposed

to them.

On the other hand, the Act does not compel the overriding of

local authority in instances of reasonable posture,

nor does the Act constitute facility siting legislation. The clause is

essentially permissive, simply asking for "adequate consideration of the

national interest." Obviously, too, the national interest could be identified

as indicating preservation of prime scenic resources, whereas many facilities,

including power plants, might be more correctly classified as regional, ra-

ther than national interest. Moreover, feasible alternative sites exist

for many large-scale facilities, often well inland of shoreline areas of

particular concern.

Lastly, even where the national interest is invoked in decisions

to site a facility within a given area.of the coastal zone,, it is also in the

national interest, as expressed in the congressional findings of the Act,

to preserve, protect, enhance, and restore aesthetic resources. Thus fa-

cilities sited un der suc h auspices should also be subject to whatever con-

ditions of use, construction and operation can ensure the highest sustained

yield of the identified resources.

.CHAPTER',5: DEVELOPING AN AESTHETIC RESOURCE ELEMENT IN THE.COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

5.0 Introduction

The state planner can use this chapter in developing methods for,

managing aesthetic resources in conjunction with other elements of the coastal

zone management program. He may choose to treat aesthetic resources as a

separate planning and management element, or to include recommendations for

aesthetic resources with other components of the program such as land-use or

environmental protection. In either case., the framework developed here should

guide the aesthetic resource management program.

Traditionally, protection and enhancement of aesthetic resources

have been tied to the achievement of broader land-use or environmental objectives,

with the exception of historic preservation and highway beautification legis-

lation. Furthermore, courts have been reluctant to uphold aesthetic controls

unless some broader public purpose is served.

The Coastal Zone Management Act, with its expressed concern for
.aesthetic resourceprotection, provides such a broadened purpose by singli6g out

coastal areas for comprehensive planning and management. Thus, aesthetic

controls which are specifically geared to the goals of a state,coastal zone

management program are likely to be considered acceptable by legislatures

and,-quite possibly, also by the courts.,

Aesthetic controls are commonly interwoven with other forms of

development controls (i.e., zoning, subdivision regulation, or sign control).

The tasks of this chapter, therefore, are to extract applications for aesthetic

resource management from existing broader tools, to identify ways in which

aesthetic control can be incorporated into new tools,'and to indicate how

these controls can be effectively implemented as part of an intergovernmental

management program. Further, legal problems which might arise-as a result of

the administration of such tools will be investigated, and guidelines presented

for avoiding these problems i,n new legislation.

6.1 Definition of Goals and Objectives

Within the context of the declaration of national policy in

Section 303(a) of the CZMA, an aesthetic resource management program could

contain the following general policies or sets of goals:

- To preserve and protect existing aesthetic assets, both natural
and man-made;

- To restore and enhance the visual quality of areas which are currently
either aesthetically deficient or of neutral scenic value;

- To develop future aesthetic resources and prevent aesthetic deficits,
particularly in the case of new development.

@The policy goals of preservation or protection are an obvious starting

point in an aesthetic resource management program. Areas of high aesthetic

value, which among others include natural areas, historic areas, and special

viewing point s, should be preserved and protected where appropriate.

Restoration of areas of low or ho particular scenic quality is

a more complicated goal. It covers a range of actions from restoration and

rehabilitation of aesthetic assets which have deteriorated over time (such as

the commercial core areas of older communities) to the redevelopment of

blighted areas (such as abandoned industrial facilities). Restoration of

natural areas, such as tidal wetlands, can sometimes be accomplished by

eliminating the pollutant or foreign element and'letting ecological processes

restore them naturally over time. Enhancement of aesthetic quality in the

existing natural and man-made environment involves such techniques as managed

cutting and planting of specific plant spectes, as well as more general land

management and landscaping activities.

The development of future aesthetic.resources,through architectural

and site plan review and other design controls on new development,is also of

prime concern in developing a program. The enlightened private entrepreneur

understands the importance of good design in making his development more

pleasing to the public and thus more profitable; he should therefore be

encouraged with special design incentives to take the initiative in such

matters when appropriate. New regional-scale public facilities should also

be subject to design review controls.

Obviously,@ within each particular state proqr&M, more specific objectives-
must be developed under each of these general goals. For example, the

preservation of scenic natural landscape features and the protection of

historically and culturally significant townscapes would be reasonable objectives

under the first set of goals, while restoration of debilitated port facilities

and rehabilitation of waterfront commercial centers would be likely goals under

the second set of policies.

5.2 Selection of Management Tools

To meet the,goals and objectives, four principal groups of tools

may be considered in aesthetic resource management planning:

Acquisition on thd open market of fee.simple and less than fee simple
interests in private property; also, the taking of.private property
by powers of eminent domain-(with compensation duly provided);

Regulations of land-use and other development activities through the
police powers of state and local governments;

Federal and state legislative standards placed upon the administrative
process at the state, regional and local levels of government; and

Other types of tools, including tax incentives, encouragement of
voluntary action, and public education.

5.2.1 Acqufsition

Acquisition of aesthetic resources can be accomplished through

purchase of Iselected rights in the designated properties (to protect views or

sensitive naturalareas) or through outright purchase in fee simple. Section

306(d)(2) of the CZMA requires that agencies responsible for implementing the

management program be empowered-to acquire fee simple and.less than fee simple

interests in property (15 CFR, Part 923.25). Purchase of easements, while

reducing total costs, is constrained by the difficulties of determining the

exact value of those rights to be acquired. Outright acquisition, while
incurring the highest costs to governments (or non-profit orgafiizations) produces

the highest long term benefits. Costs can be reduced by leasing or

selling back the property to private owners with deed restrictions which

will insure that sensitive areas are protected or that architectural or site

planning controls are applied to future development. If the land is kept

in public ownership, however, continuing maintenance and management is necessary.

Under the powers of eminent domain, the taking of private property

in fee or in less than fee interests by a state or local government for a public

purpose should probably-be considered onlyas a.last resort. If@the more

normal acquisition Drocess involvinq a willinq sel.ler at an aqreeab-le market

price fails, then a forced sale may be required, but only wit h just financial

compensation.

5.2.'2 Regulation
Section 306(c)(1) of the CZMA re@4uires some form of stale@ or state-

delegated regulatory control over land and water uses in the coastal zone.'

Police power regulations include traditional and innovative local'and state

land-use controls which can incorporate aesthetic protection and specific
architectural and design controls. Examples of indirect aesthetic control

include zoning for coastal flood plains and.wetlands. Regulation of'this

kind, either through direct state controls or through local controls meeting
state standards, are two of the alte@native implementation frameworks authorized

by Section 306(e)(1) of the CZMA (15 CFR, Part,923.26). The effectiveness of

police power regulations is constrained by the constitutional and legal require-

ment of proving public purpose and reasonableness in the regulations in'order
to avoid a taking of private property without due.process of_law_. Regulations,

if stringently enforced through such mechanisms as permits, licenses, hearings,

inspections and fines, are likely to achieve aesthetic objectives at lower

costs to the government than are incurred through acquisition; however, permanency
of the improvements is'not insured, since the regulations can be appealed or

c'hanged. Furthermore, police power regulations controlling appearance

and design may impose rigid minimum standards which ignore landscape

variables and lead to monotony and mediocrity in design. This can,be

aVoided if controls, e.g., height and setback requirements,

are flexibly geared to the specific topogra0hic and other aesthetic reSource
characterisii,cs,of the regulated area.

5.2.3 Administrative Review

Legislative standards imposed upon the administrative process deal

with aesthetic and environmehtal,values on a case by case.basis, Administrative

review at the state level is the third alternative framework authorized by
Section 306(e)(1) of t@e CZMA.(15 CFR, Part 923.26). Broughton (1972)

suggests that administrative review more generally "is the area where the

greatest progress has been made to include,aesthetics as a primary factor in

the decision making process. The use of a range of performance standards,

administered by design professionals, either in a single review agency or in

separate bodies with review powers, permits a more flexible and sensitive

application of the standards to new development projects than is allowed by

stringent and specific regulations. However, this process loses force if the

design considerations are not given adequate weight in the overall review of any

given proposal. (See paragraph 5.4.3 for a further discussion of administrative

review.)

5.2.4 Other Legal Tools

The final. category.of management tools includes various indirect

mechanisms for protecting and restoring aesthetic resources, principally
the encouragement of voluntary private actioni through various"governmental

incentives. Preferential tax assessments, for example, have been used in

many states to preserve agricultural, forest and open lands; similarly, tax

incentives and low interest loans can be-used to influence industrial location

and the improvement of private properties in residential,.commercial or

industrial use. For example, tax benefits or advanced capital depreciation might

be used to encourage relocation of non-coastal-dependent industries to the interior.

In terms of Section 306(e) of the C ZMA, these other tools cannot be the sole

basis for the management of program implementation; they must be coordinated

with any one or a combination of the three alternative techniques for control

of land and wa ter uses in the coastal zone, i.e., state criteria for local

implementation, direct state regulation, or state administrative review.

With respect to three areas specifically referred to in Section'
305(b) of the CZMA (per-missible land and water uses, geographical

areas of particular@concern, and priorities of uses within such areas), all

four of the groups of general tools or legal strategies are useful. For

example, areas of particular ecological, sensitivity may need to be acquired as

a public benefit in order to preclude man-made alterations of any kind; scenic
easements may be only partially useful in this context. Less sensitive areas,

which could absorb non-intensive forms of development, may need to be regulated

under the police powers of protecting public health, safety and general welfare.

Such regulatory activities may be administered at either the local or state

governmental levels, or through some reasonable combination thereof. State

administrative review of high priority or large-scale developments, especially

as it relates to land and water uses and decisions of more than local signifi-

cance (i.e., of national, state, or regional significance), is another of the

general management tools available. This third legal approach may be particularly

useful for aesthetic resource management, since scenic values have traditionally

been subject to strict legal and constitutional.interpretation, vis-a7ViS

incorporation into the regulatory concept of preventing a public harm. Voluntary

initiatives, public incentives for private entrepreneurs, and special bonus

arran.gements in return for-quality site plann,ing and design are also

comparatively flexible ways to implement the aesthetic resource element in

the coastal zone management program.

5.3 Consideration of Potential Legal Problems,

In the landmark case of Berman v. Parker, the.U..S. Supreme'Court in
1954 upheld and modified a lower court judgement concerning the taking'of

private property in,an area planned for urban redevelopment. The District

Court had maintained that such a taking was legal-and constitutional because

existing slum conditions were "injurious to the public health, safety, morals,
and welfare" (348 U.S. 26 et seq.,.1954). The Supreme Court extended this finding to

include not only slums but blighted areas wh.ich tend to produce slum conditions,

thus legitimizing the urban renewal plan. Under the Fifth Amendment, the
property owners involved were paid just compensation for their

condemned property. Of particular interest here, the Court also said in

Berman v. Parker: "The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusi ve.

The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well

as monetary" (348 U.S. 26 et seq. 1954). Thus, within the context of a broader

community purposet aesthetics have been judicially recognized as an issue of con-

cern to the welfare of the public.

Nevertheless, courts have been reluctant to uphold controls solely

on aesthetic grounds; some of the reasons are @contained in the following

paragraphs.

Aesthetic benefits are difficult to q4antify and are often

placed at a disadvantage when confronted by economic and social interests.

On the one hand, economic interests have often negated aesthetic-benefits,,
on the other hand, aesthetic concerns (for example, "protecting a town's

character" through large lot zoning) are often challenged for negative

social effects K.e., exclusionary zoning).

Stringent aesthetic controls often limit private property

rights without just compensation, subjecting them to chal'I.enge under the

taking issue--unless necessity, reasonableness, and public interest are

adequately proven. If compensation is paid, the market value of*scenic

property rights is often hard to determine. Courts have tended to sub-,

ordinate aesthetic interests to environmental or land-use concerns,

resulting in approval of aesthetic regulations only when they are linked

to a broader public purpose. Many forms of land-use controls which in-

directly affect aesthetics have been tested and upheld in the courts over
time (e.g., zoning, building codes). The Michigan Law Review (June 1973)

notes that fourteen states..." have accepted or indicated that they are

receptive to the view that legislation based solely on aesthetic considera-

tions i-s valid..."; however,..." the plurality view, held by twenty-three

states, is th at an ordinance based solely on aesthetic considerations is not

valid, but that aesthetic legislation is valid if it also serve s some other

legitimate interest."

'Precise standards for arriving at an objective determination of.

aesthetic benefits have been difficult, if not impossible, to generate,.and

in fact may not be desirable. As this study demonstrates, the present state

of the art seems to.indicate that a fine-grained understanding of local land-

scape and townscape values should be the basis for aesthetic criteria and

standards. As aesthetic resource characteristics vary from place to place,

criteria and standards may need to be varied from region to region or from

locality to locality. Thus, state enabling legislation for aesthetic control

should provi-de for flexibility within limits assuring minimum acceptable pro-

tection; arbitrary and capricious aesthetic legislation at any level of govern-

ment must be avoided for obvious legal and constitutional reasons.

Similar'ly, the provisions of Section 306(c)(8) which call for

"adequate consideration of the national interest involved in the siting of

facilities'necessary to meet requirements which are other than local in

nature" present challenges in terms of enforcing aesthetic controls. The

desigrfation.of such types of facilities and the standards used in determining

their location mu st be carefully worded so as not to exclude the application

of aesthetic criteria and standards for such facilities. Section 306(c)(8)
provides for "adequate consideration" in terms of facility siting, but clearly
does not provide any dispensation from other terms of the Aci.-.In other words,

it may be determined that a power plant must be sited in a given coastal loca-
tion, but,this will not exempt the design of the facility, its setback from the

shore, and other landscape and architectural provisions from adhering to those

standards, priorities and policies established by the State or its subdivisions

for the area. Some states may even choose to require special design standards

for large-scale facilities to compensate for the aesthetic damage that intru-

sion-into the site may cause.

Mandatory standards controlling architectural features are

difficult to draft and implement without.challenge., The enactment of local

standards, under appropr-,iate state guidelines and enabl,ing legislation are

recommended in order to effectuate minimum standards. However, as Cerny

.(1974),,notes, "the best procedure'seems to be to establish a qualified board
to review. and approve appli.cations." The universal effectiveness of flexible
standards under case by case review procedures should not be.expected either.

More generally, Section 305(b)(4) of the CZMA calls upon the

states to include a list "...of relevant constitutional provisions, legislative
enactments, regulat@ions, and judicial decisions" in their respectiVe' management

programs;,such r@view is tied expressly to the control of permissible land

and water uses within the coastal zone. Obviously, the research and analysis

required under this section of the Act will serve to alert the planner to his

state's particular legal and implementation prob-lems--and in so doing, he

will.be ina better position.to design a management'planning program capable

of being administered.

5.4 Segmentation and Aesthetic Reso6rce Planning Elements

States adopting segmented approaches in the preparation of coastal

zone management plans will be doing so under Section 306(h) of the Act

"so that immediate attention may be devoted to those areas
within the coastal zone which most urgently need management
programs: Provided, that the State adequately provides for
the ultimate coordination of the various segments of the
management program into a single unified program and that
the unified program will be completed as,soon as is reason-
ably practicable."

As'explicated by Policy #7 of the March, 1,975 statement of the

Office of Coastal Zone Management, "Segmentation of State Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Programs," the "control or protection of a single use or resource does
bot constitute segmentation.11

Thus, aesthetic resource planning elements by themselv,es cannot

be funded as segmented programs even,if they cover the full geographic extent

of the state's coastal zone.

Conversely, a management planning program proposed as a segment

must not exclude aesthetic resource considerations as expressed in the require-

ments of the Act, as pointed out in OCZM's Segmentation Policy #2, which
states that "All statutory requirements or administrative regulations, applying
to complete State management programs will apply to-segments."

5.5 Allocation of Planning and Management Responsibilities Amo@q State,
Regional and Local Levels of Government

Implementation of aesthetic resource goals and objectives should

be tied to the manageme@nt structure established to implement the coastal zone

management program in general. Thus, specific aesthetic resource management

tools must-be coordinated with any one or a combination of the following

general techniques for control of land and water uses within the coastal
zone under the provisions of Section 306(e)(1):

(a) "State establishment of criteria and standar *ds for local imple-
mentation, subject to administrative review and enforcement of
compliance;

(b), Direct'state land and water use planning and regulation;. or

(c) State administrative review for consistency with the management
program of all devel.opment plans, projects, or land and water
use regulations, including exceptions and variances thereto,
proposed by any state or local authority or private developer, with
power to approve or disapprove after public notice and an opportunity
for hearings."

The purpose of this section is to illustrate how planners can meet

aesthetic resource management objectives within each of the above three

frameworks, with appropriate delegations of responsibility among-the state,,

regional and local levels of government.-

5.5.1 State Criteria and Standards for Local Implementation

Under this framework, the state government would have the primary

,responsibility fordeveloping aesthetic standards and criteria to be used in

regulations or administrative procedures at the local level. Regional

planning agencies or governmental units (county or metropolitan area
governments) could be responsible for reviewinq local manaqe-

ment programs for compliance with such aesthetic standards. The local

governments would have the major responsibility for developing administrative

procedures which meet*state standards and which, at the same time, are

responsive to specific local problems and needs.

In terms of aesthetic resources, this arrangement has-the following-

advantagesi:

0 Local governments can conduct the most detailed and extensive aesth etic

inventory field work upon which to base the regul-ations. ..Local

planners can most easily identify aesthetic assets and deficits, owner-

ship patterns, and priorities for preservation, protection, restoration,

enhancement, or development.
a Local planners generally have close relationships with

developers and citizens within their jursidictions, and are thus

.in a better position to negotiate for quality design and site

planning modifications.

0 Flexible standards at the state level can allow for changes from

locality to locality which reflect regional variations in natural

landscape and settlement patterns.

0 Local governments have a body of existing regulatory and review

powers which could be modified to incorporate new aesthetic standards,

meaning that extensive new state legislation might not be necessarv

However, the following disadvantages.should also be noted:

0 Local governments may not care to institute changes in the status quo.

0 Local planning and zoning boards may not have sufficient desi gn

training and experience to translate state aesthetic criteria and

standards into effective review procedures at the local level.

9 Aesthetic conflicts may occur at town boundaries as a result of-

differences between localities, even if general state standards

are met.

9 State aesthetic standards formulated to be applicable to varying

conditions from locality to locality may be too general to ensure

maximum aesthetic benefits.

5.5.2 Direct State Planning Regulation

Under this framework the state government would have sole

responsibility for aesthetic resource management in the coastal zone. In

this case, local and regional responsibilities would be slight, apart from

initial input into the formulation of the regulations.

The advantages of this framework in terms of aesthetics Are:

* Direct state regulation will ensure that the aesthetic integrity

of the entire coastal zone is considered. State inventory work would

cover the entire range of coastal zone aesthetic resources at once,

making it easier to establish broad priorities for acquisition and

regulatory management.

* State agency staffs are usually better equipped professionally to

conduct such inventories. The availability of uniform data for the

entire coastal zone is a valuable planning tool.

9 In terms of location of development, statewide land-use controls in

the coastal zone would be more likely to protect critical scenic areas

of more than local concern, since the state planner would be less

sensitive than his local counterpart to local tax benefits resulting

from large-scale devel o0ment.

e Statewide ordinances including aesthetic standards would encourage

uniformity and integrity of appearance and design throughout the

coastal zone.

This framework has the following disadvantages:

0 It would be difficult to develop precise architectural and

design controls for all types of districts in a statewide coastal

land-use control program, due to the wide scope of the legislation.

e.Such controls, if administered by the state, might be subject to

challenges by local citizens or developers, particularly in cases where

zoning is changed or restrictions are imposed.

0 The-statewide controls might cover only areas of particular concern;

uncontrolled development in other areas, which are included within the

regional viewshed, might be detrimental to coastal zone aesthetic

quality as a whole.

5.5.3 State Administrative Review

Under this framewo@k, the designated state coastal zone manage-

ment age ncy would be responsible for review of all local and state projects,

proposed land and water use regulations, and private development plans in

order to determine their consistency with the coastal zone mangement program.

The power to approve or to disapprove such projects, regulations, and plans

would be a powerful implementation tool, but would have to be contingent up6n

public notification and hearings on a case by case basis.

5.5.4. Summary

'Obviously, each state program will be structured somewhat

differently depending upon its particular planning, legali and govern-

mental history. Some parts of the country have a strong tradition of lo-

cal home-rule, which no doubt would lead to an emphasis upon local imple-

mentation of a coastal zone,management program. Some parts of the country

have strong county government, while some have relatively weak or no

county government at all'(such as in Massachusetts or'Connecticut). Regional

planning and management of aesthetic resources in the coastal zone of states

with strong counties would probably be feasible, upon the delegation of such-

a state-wide program to the county level of government. Where no regional or

metropolitan government exists, aesthetic resource planning-might be done

by regional planning agencies, but the actual administration of a management

program would have to be left to the state and Yocal levels. Many combinations

of the three possible intergovernmental schemes listed in Section 306(e)(1) are

possible. Every state has-its own strengths and weaknesses vis-a-vis the ad-

ministration of land-use planning and environmental protection programs;

therefore, each state should design its own implementation program for aes-

thetic resource management within the guidelines set forth in the CZMA.

Examples of the three general implementation frameworks des-

cribed above in terms of existing state comprehensive planning programs are:

(1) Florida as an example of state planning standards with regional imple-

mentation'through county and local governments; (2) Hawaii as an example

of direct state planning and management, with comprehensive land-use controls
which amount to state zoning; and (3) Rhode Island as an example of state

administrative review of legal permits for all uses and activities in the

coastal zone (i.e., to mean high tide).

5.6 Interrelationships Among Program Goals and Management Tools at Various
Levels of Government

The following two tables or matrices illustrate the general

relationships bet ween the factors described in the preceding parts of this

chapter, that is between (1) program goals and the basic management tools,

and (2) the general goals and ways to.implement them at the federal, state,

regional, and local levels of government and by the private sector.

Table 5-1

GENERAL RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND AESTHETIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS

GOALS TOOLS
Administrative' Other
Acquisition Regulation Standards Tools

Preserve/Protect Acquire existing scenic Use environmental Review over exterior Use tax incentives to
Existing Aesthetic areas and easements suf- zoning, architectural changes in designated preserve open, agri-
Resources ficient for protection, controls, setback, dune protection districts. cultural, and forest
with or without lease- protection ordinances lands, wetlands, etc.
back or saleback to control location
arrangements. and appearance of new
development; permit
system.

Res'tore/ Enhance Acquire and redevelop Nonconforming use pro- Apply review standards Encourage private
Existing Aesthetic eyesore areas; acquire visions; stringent to public and private rehabilitation,
Deficits and and let ecological enforcement of build- redevelopment projects, restoration efforts.
"Neutral" Areas processes restore ing and health codes, and to new facilities
certain natural air and water quality which are potential
areas. standards; sign eyesores (i.e., heavy
control. industry).

Develop New Acquire new open space Require dedication.of Use design review pro- Use bonus provisions,
Aesthetic Resources and park areas, espe- open space in subdi- cess for all new tax incentives for.
and Prevent Deficits cially in areas of visions. Zone for open development. Employ good design, open
in New Development dense settlement. areas. Apply architec- professionals to space provisions.'
tural controls to new administer standards.
development.

Table 5-2
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR/SUMMARY CONTRIBUTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING AESTHETIC RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS

GOALS LEVEL OF ACTION

Federal State Regional Local Private
Preserve/Protect $ to states and $ to localities; Re gional and Direct acquisi- Non-profit holding
Existing Aesthetic localities for direct acquisi- county plans, tion; bond issues, actions for conser-
Resources preservation; tion and. coastal and review over zoning and sub- vation purposes;
direct agency zone controls, development division controls; donations of land;
activities in state plans and proposajs of building codes. land trusts; restric-
national parks, policies. Agen- more than local Tax powers. tive convenants; home-
and for main- cy activities. importance. owners' agreements;
tenance of,his- Tax powers. Re- foundation grants.
toric landmarks. view areas of
critical concern.

1@0 Restore/Enhance $ to states and Regulations govern- Technical@assis- Regulations (non- Voluntary rehabilitation
00 Existing Aesthe- localities for ing all coastal tance to locali- conforming Use); and redevelopment.
ric Deficits redevelopment zone development; ties; regional code enforcement;
and "Neutral" projects. tax incentives to and county.plans. tax incentives;
Areas Highway aesthe- encourage redevel- matching funds
tic controls. opment. for certain,state
Corps of and federal pro-
Engineers harbor jects.
cleanup.,
Develop New $ to states and $ to localities Regional plan- LocaVacquisition Plan@and design for.-
Aesthetic localities for and direct acquisi- ning and design and regulations; aesthetics through
Resources and acquisition and tion and mainten- review. design-review. profit-motive and non-
Prevent Deficits beautification. a.nce programs. profit actions; dona-
in New Development tions of land; founda-
tion grants.

5.7 Compendium of Specific Tools

This last section of Chapter 5 comprises a selected, annotated

list of programs, laws, and legal powers applicable to the implementation of

an aesthetic resource management progaam. Management tools should be care-
fully selected from those available or possible in a particular state in order

generally.to preserve, protect, restore, enhance, and develop aesthetic re-

sources in the coastal zone.

5.7.1 Federal Tools*

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Environmental Protection Agency sets environmental standards
at federal level, and is responsible for review and final ap-
proval over environWntal impact statements submitted for a -11
projects which involve federal funds. Standards in EIS review
include protection of historic sites included in the National
Register of Historic Places; general aesthetic compatibility.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Standards, including aesthetic criteria, foe review of
possible impacts of federal actions.

Corps of Engineers General Works Projects

Federal. assistance in improvements for beach erosion control,
flood control, navigation, and related water resources purposes.
In order to initiate a large scale project, local interests must
first contact their senators and representatives with a request.

ContinUing authority Corps projects do not need Congressional
approval. Corps has continuing authority for snagging and
clearing projects for flood control, small flood control projects,
small beach erosion control projects, hurricane, tidal and lake
flood protection projects, small river and harbor improvement
programs.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Restoration of blighted areas, continuing maintenance.

*The Coastal Zone Management Act is not included here.

Recreation Facilities at Non-Reservoir Projects

1962 Flood Control Act authorizes the provision of recreational
facilities at non-reservoir projects constructed by the Corps of
Engineers.,

Matching funds up to 50% of project costs for recreational
facility development provided. Local government responsible for
maintenance of facilities.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Creation of new scenic areas; provision of access to shore
and'viewpoints.

Greenspan Program

Federal grants to local governments to acquire cropland for open
space/recreation/conservation uses. Grants provided for up to
50% of acquisition costs.

Administered by U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Conservation of scenic lands; open space preservation.

Land and Water Conservation Fund (1964)

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation

Provides federal assistance to states for outdoor recreation
projects.

50% matching costs. Provides fo r acquisition of "areas with front-
age on oceans, rivers' streams, lakes, estuaries, and.reservoirs ...
areas of land and water along scenic highways-outstanding natur-
al areas and nature preserves, among others."

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Conservation of scenic lands; open space preservation.

Resource Conservation and Development Program

U.S. Department@of Agrfculture, Soil Conservation Service

Initiated, February, 1964

100

Farmers Home Administration makes resource conservati.on.and
development loans to local public agencies' or non-profit
organizations for water facility improvements, open-space, re-
creation developments, in rural.areas. Maximum loan is $250,000
for project costs.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Conservation of scenic lands; recreation and open space
development.

Reforestation Programs

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1956

Forest land, tree planting and reforestation. State officials
and state foresters submit plans to Secretary of Agriculture.
Federal government will match state funds for reforestation, only
in cases of forest land suitable for industrial wood production.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Restoration of natural scenic areas.

Historic Preservation,

U.S. Department of the Interior and HUD provide matching grants
to state and local governments and public.and private agencies,
for "Protection, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction of
districts, sites, building, structures, and objects.significant
to national history, architecture, archaeology or culture." HUD
grants'under open space program, not currently receiving funds.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Restoration and preservation of significant man made struc-
tures and historic sites.

National Trust for Historic Preservation

This non-federal non-profit organization serves as a national
clearinqhouse for-preservation-efforts,,.-es,pecially for advice
and help in creating effective organizations for special pre'ser-
vation projects. It was created to receive donations of sites,
buildings, and objects significant in American history and cul-
ture, to preserve and administer them.for public benefit.

101

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Aid to citizens and local governments in preservation.
of man made structures and historic sites.

Water Resources Planning Act of,1965

Water Resour@es Countil provides grants to Federal-State river
basins commission for development of comprehensive water and
related land resources planning. Amounts of grants determined
on annual basis; vary from state to state.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Planning grants; aesthetic criteria used as planning
standards.

Highway Beautification Program

Federal funds provided for beautifying federal-aid highways
through "control of outdoor advertising and junky4rdsj-" and
by landscaping and otherwise enhancing the scenery along these
highways.
Standards for advertising and junkyards contained in provision
of act. Penalties..for states who fail to comply. Alternative
controls extend within 660' minimum of all federal aid high-
ways, except in industrial and commercial zoned or unzoned areas.
Junkyards within 1000' of nearest edge of right-of-way must be
either screened or removed.

Funding allocated to states on a percentage of mileage in fede-
ral-aid system basis.

Beautification funds are not available for highway maintenance.

Applications to Aesthetic Management

Federal standards for aesthetic regulations along high-
way corridors (significant impact on coast).

Community Development Act of 1974

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

New law replaces old HUD Open Space Land Program, as well as
several other categorical grant programs; consolidation into
a single community development block grant program.

102

100% funds available for the.preservation or restoration of
historic sites, the beautification of urban land, the conservation
of open spaces, natural resources, and scenic areas, the provision
of recreational opportunities, and the guidance of urban develop-
ment.

ApplLcation to Aesthetic Management

Conservation of scenic areas; creation of new access to
shore,areas.

Energy Reorganization Act of 1974

Nuclear Regulatory Commiss-ion vested with exclusive control over civil-
ian utilization of nuclear-fissi-on. NRC must approve construction
and design plans for reactor and all other parts of thermal power@
plants which involve contact with radioactive matter. Nonradio-
active facilities (i.e. turbine generator, coooling*water, trans-
mission lines) not subject to NRC jurisdiction.

Prior to iss'uAnce of a construction permit br an operating license
for a nuclear power plant, NRC is@requir6d to prepare an EIS under
NEPA.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource ManaLement

Indirect aesthetic benefits; subject to additional state
and local review.

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973'

Administered by Department of Housing'and Urban Development.

Provides for insurance for landowners in flood hazard areas in
-communities which have'adopted land-use control measures consis-
tent with floodplain management criteria issued by HUD. Purpose
of controls is to reduce likelihood of flood damage in hazard
area.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource'Management

Requires a local plan; regulates development in shoreline
and riverine flood-prone areas.

103

5.7.2 State Tools

.Coastal Zone Management Legislation

Examples

California Coastal Conservation Act (1972)
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection Act (1971)
Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act (1972)
Georgia Vital Areas Council Act (1973)
Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Act 1971)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Permit systems for development can include aesthetic stan-
dards as criteria for approval.

Coastal commissions can include design professionals.

Areas of.particular scenic concern can be designated
and protected.

State control over local decisions insures regional aes-
thetic compatibility.

Shoreline Zoning.

Examples

Maine Mandatory Shoreline Zoning Law,(1971)
Minnesota Shoreland Management Act (1969)
Minnesota Surface Use Zoning Act (1969)
Wisconsin Water Resources Act (1965)

104

Applications,to"A6sthetic Resource Management

Insures land-use control over all shoreline areas.

Opportunity to include aesthetic guidelines and standards
in criteria for approval of local ordinances.

'Power Plant Siting

Examples

Connecticut Public Utility Environmental Standards Act (1972)
Maryland Power Plant Siting Act (1971)
New flampshire Power Plant Siting Act (1969)
Oregon'Power Plant Siting Act (1969)
Washington Thermal Power.Plant Siting Evaluation Council
Act (1973)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Aesthetic and environmental criteria used as determinants of
power plant locations on shore.

Industrial Siting

Examples

Delaware Coastal Zone Act (1971).
Louisiana Superport Act (1972)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Delaware act prohibits all industry on shore - eliminates
major eyesore cause.

Environmental and aesthetic dri.teria can influence location
and design of industries which are allowed on shore.
Non-water dependent industri6s can be excluded from shore-
line locations.

Extraction of Materials/Dredging and Filling

Examples

Illinois Filling and Dredging Law (1911)
Indiana-Landfills in Lake Michigan (1971)
New Hampshire Deedge and Fill'Act (1969)
New York Stream Protection Act

105

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Permit procedures prohibit alterations to aesthetically
and environmentally sensitive areas.

Wetlands Protection

Examples

Connecticut Wetlands Protection Act (1969)
Georgia.Coastal Marshland Protection Act (1970)
Maine Wetlands Preservation Att"(1967)
Maryland Wetlands Act (1970)
Massachusetts Coastal and Inland Wetlands Acts (1965 and 1968)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management -

Permits required for wetland alteration; deed restriction in Mass.

Uses limited by aesthetic and environmental compatibility
criteria.

Setback Controls

Examples

Florida Setback Lines (1970)
Hawaii Shoreline Setback Areas (1971)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Setback criteria established in terms of aesthetic and
environmental concerns.

Preserves open beaches and shoreline.

Combined with height controls, can preserve unobstructed
views from water to shore.

Dune Protection/Erosion Controls

Examples

Maryland Shore Erosion Control Act (1970)
Michigan Shorelands Protection and Management Act (1970)
North Carolina.General Statutes Section 104B-4 (1972)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Regulates development on sensitive bluffs, dunes, and in
erosion-prone areas.

106

Preserves vegetation in erosion prone areas; regulates
.clear cutting on dunes and bluff faces.

Beach Access

Examples

Oregon Beach Access Act (1967)
Texas Open Beaches Act (1959)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Provides for public use of beaches up to the vegetation line.

State Land-Use Controls

Examples

Alaska Land Act (1969)
Hawaii State Land Use Law (1961)
Maine Land Use Regulation Commission (1972)
Oregon'Land Conservation and Development Act (1973)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Can delineate aesthetic resource areas as conservation or
limited development zones.

Can control local regulations with regional objectives in
mind.

Sp@awl prevented; open space preserved.

Scenic vistas.

Environmental Impact Statement Requirements

Exampl:es

California Environmental Quality Act (1970)
Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (1973) - takes effect
in 1975
Maryland Environmental Policy Act (1973)
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 30, Sections 61 & 62 (1972)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Required for all-government and, in some cases, private
projects.

Aesthetic criteria used in review.

107

Conservation Departments

Examples

.Florida Land Conservation Act (1972)
New York Department of Environmental Conservation (1970)
New York Environmental Quality Bond Act (1972)
New York Outdoor Recreation Development Bond Act (1965)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Acquisition powers for open space and conservation purposes.

In some cases, registers of critical areas established to
guide preservation efforts.

Opportunity to include design professionals in administering
agency - environmental conservation,responsibilities.
centralized. Permit granting authority inssome cases.

Preferential Tax Programs

Examples

Connecticut
New York

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Open space, agricultural-and forest lands preserved.

Historic Preservation and Trusts

Examples

New York
Rhode Island

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Man-made structures preserved and maintained.

Direct aid to localities.

Technical assistance to private citizens in rehabilitation
and preservation efforts.

108

Highway Beautification

Examples

California
Connecticut
New York

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Control over advertising and junkyards bordering on
federal and state highways (660' to meet federal stan-
dards).

Provisions for scenic highways.

Excess condemnation and ent acquisition powers.
scenic easem

Maintenance (plantings, rest areas) along highways.

Enabling Legislation for Local Governments

Examples

All States

Applications to Aesthetic Resource-Management

Permissive legislation; grants communities authority to
adopt new types of land-use control ordinances (PUD,
cluster, etc.

Communities granted eminent'domain and taxing powers.

Communities authorized to set up conservation commissions,
planning boards, design review boards, etc.

State Register of Critical Areas

Examples

Maine State Register of Critical Areas (1974)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Createssingle purpose Critical Areas Advisory Board
to advise state agencies as to areas of unusual natural,
historic, scenic and scientific interest.

These areas are inventoried and included on a register.

109

Recommendations to appropriate state agencies made by board
as to acquisition priorities.

Provides degree of consolidation in acquisition and protec-
tion activities throughout state.

5.7.3 Regional Tools

A-95 Review Process, U.S. Office of Management and Budget

Examples

All states; agencies designated by Governors and Federal Government.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Regional (state) review over local plans and government
projects (EIS).

Aesthetic guidelines and consideration of adherence to coastal
Plan can be included in criteria for review and comment.

Zoning Review

Examples

Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, New York State,
has review powers over local zoning within 500 feet of city
or town boundaries.

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Review over zoning on boundaries of cities and towns, and
along highway right-of-ways.

Aesthetic control over uses in fringe areas.

Sprawl control.

Design Review Boards/Technical Assistance

Examples

California Regional Conservation Commissions

110

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Regional aesthetic impacts considered in review over new
development.

Design professionals available to assist localities in
review, development of plans and ordinances.

Tax Sharing

Examples
.Minneapolis/St. Paul (note: not a coastal example)

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Encourages location of new major facilities to benefit entire
metropolitan area or region.

Regional Land-Use Review

.Examples

Martha's Vi,neyard Commission, Martha's Vineyard Island,
Massachusetts

Applications to Aesthetic Resource_Management

State enabling legislation for six towns on the Island to
form new Commission, which has powers to designate "districts
of critical planning concern" and to recognize "developments
of regional impact," and to review same.

5. 7A Lo'cal Tools (Examples are common in all coastal.@states)

Zoning

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Man .agement

Traditional zoning ordinances achieve some degree of aesthetic
control by regulating locations, densities and types of land-
uses in various districts, height and bulk, lot area covered,
setbacks,from.street and other buildings.

Innovative zoning ordinances can similarly achieve aesthetic
goals along with land-use control objectives:

Planned Unit Development (PUD) allows for variable
densities and housing-types. Provides opportunity for

imaginative site planning and design treatment and for.
provision of usable open space., Mixed uses allowed
within district. Site plan approval tied to per-
formance standards, including aesthetics.

Cluster zoning provides benefits similar to those of
PUD's, except that within the designated district the
permitted overall density cannot be exceeded, the housing-
type cannot be varied, and the use must remainthe same.

Shoreline zoning permits only those uses functionally
dependent upon shore locations. Architectural and
scenic controls can be tied to environmental purposes
in such zonei..

Floodplain, wetland and conservancy zoning regulate
land-uses and development procedVres in ecologically
sensitive areas.

Agricultural zoning limits uses in designated districts
to farming normally of high economic value. Aesthetic
benefit is managed'open space at no cost to the public.

Aesthetic zoning employs permit procedures to control
exterior appearance of new development and changes in
existing exteriors within designated district.

Historic district zoning similarly limits changes in
exterior appearance and design within designated
districts.

Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), a relatively new
legal concept, consi-ders property rights as mobile in
nature;-the difference between density allowed under
existing zoning and that actually in existence on any
given parcel of land, expressed in suitable units-
such as square feet of building area, constitutes the
unused "development rights" which become the subject
of,transfer: such rights may be traded in the private
market or sold outright to a public TDR agency. TDR
is a flexible way to preserve open space or historic
buildings on a given site in return for increased
density or height on another site within designated
zoning districts.

Density bonus similarly offers "credits" for good
design, allowing for more intensive land development
if larger percentage of usable open space is provided.

"Floating" or unmapped zones turn zoning into an
administrative permit procedure. Districts defined in
text of ordinance are not mapped; individual.developers
must apply for development project in a specific location.
Can be effectively used to influence industrial location,
and other large-scale residential or commercial projects.

Time development regulations place a moratorium on
specific kinds of development in a given community.
(Such moratoria have been applied to coastal zones in
some states as well.) Development permits are not
granted until conditions - i.e., presence of utilities
and services in area - are met. Used to insure orderly
growth of towns and to provide for the public health,
s.afety, and general welfare.

Nonconforming use provisions of zoning ordinances can
be used to eliminate unsightly low value uses - signs,
junkyards, dumps, etc. through prohibition of enlargement
or resumption of a use after destruction or discontinuance.

.Subdivision Regulations

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Municipalities can require developers to dedicate land for
open space; however, state enabling legislation may require
payment for such land at fair market value for subdivision
land.
Regulations may govern arrangements of lots an8 streets.

Regulations can require underground utilities.

Subdivision review process allows for detailed review of
site plan and design, generally wtthin only minimum stan-
dards under provisions of public health, safety, and-welfare.

Deed covenants or bonding, along with site inspections can
insure that improvements such@:as planting, grading, paving,
clean-up, etc. are made on property.

Relationships between subdivision layout and adjacent parcels
and street system are. considered.

Through device of a "developer impact statement," municipality
can require developer to submit statement describing effect
of development on environment, aesthetics, and municipal
services and finances.

113

Bui I ding Codes

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Used to control types of materials, number and size of
windows,.yard sizes to meet health and safety criteria.

Sanitary Codes

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Require sewer and water line location according to
environmental criteria, thus indirectly abetting aesthetic
protection.

Controls proximity of development to shorelines by requir-
ing minimum on-site sewage disposal setbacks from water's
edge. Percolation/soil suitability requirements aid control
of development in wetland or high water table areas.

Architdctural Controls

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Can be applied to regulate all aspects of exterior appear-
ance within carefully drawn geographical areas.

Sign Ordinances

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Can regulate height, location, area, materials and cover-
age of signs in commercial and residential areas.

Can be used to phase-out non-conforming signs.

Design Review Boards

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Can work with planning board in applying aesthetic stan-
dards for �ubdivision and zoning.

Can provide specific assistance to citizens and developers
in the use of good design.

Scenic Easement Acquisition

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Involves acquisition of selected rights of property without

114

outright purchase, thus lowering costs for scenic
areas in coastal and other shore areas.

Negative scenic easements can be used to prohibit actions
detrimental to aesthetics, i.e., building structures,
cutting vegetation, filling marshes.

Positive easements can be used to provide visual access
to vistas,or shoreline areas.

Relatively permanent and enforceable protection is afforded.

5.7.5 Private Sector Tools (Examples are common in all coastal states)

Restrictive Covenants on Deed Restrictions

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Private means of imposing design standards on development
including architectural controls, maintenance and plant-
ing requirements and open space and wetland preservation
through agreement between property owner and purchaser.

"Run with the land" provisions, thus remain in force re-
gardless of changes in ownership: recorded with title to
property in local registry of deeds.

May impose stricter standards than local zoning or sub-
division regulations.

Land Trusts Among Neighbors

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Development on properties restricted through private agree-
ments, perhaps in return for reduced assessments.

"Run with the land" provision thus remain in force regardless
of changes in ownership:-,-recorded with titles to properties
in local registry of deeds.

Homeowners' Associ4tions

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Costs of subdivision improvements borne by homeowner fees--
cover maintenance, of open space, pedestrian ways, improvements,
plantings, etc.

115

Insures maintenance of residential open space at no.cost
to town.

Donations of Land

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Landowners receive Federal tax deductions for charitable
donations of* land.

Can be used to acquire open space and natural areas.at no-
cost to town.

Particularly useful in case of large estates; to be en-
couraged as an alternative to selling the -lands for,
development.

Holding Actions

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Private organization - primary example is the Nature Con-
servancy -acquires open lands or natural scenic areas &nd
holds them until local or state government can afford to
acquire.

Can be used to save immediately endangered areas without:.-..
immediate appropriation by town, state, or federal
government.

Other Foundation Actions

Applications to Aesthetic Resource Management

Foundations may have direct grant programs influencing pres-
ervation and enhancement activities in the coastal zone.
For example, the Ford Foundation has recently completed a
program of financial aid to municipal conservation commissions
in New England for protection programs.

Foundations often sponsor.conferences and workshops*to bring
aesthetic and environmental issues to the.attention of the
public; i.e., the Conservation Foundation series of regional
conferences on state land-use legisla tion.

Since programs change, agencies must contact such groups
periodically to check on possible new programs.

116

CHAPTER.6: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MECHANISM IN FEDERAL AND STATE LEGISLATION
IN PLANNING PROGRAMS

6.o -Introduction

Public participation in coastal zone management programs is re-

quired by law. Section,303 of the Coastal Zone Management Act states, "that

it is the national policy to encourage the participation of the public ... in the

development of coastal zone management programs." The act requires that-open
public hearings be held prior to any plan approval, ,with public notice given

30 days prior to the hearing and all pertinent agency material made avail-

able for public review during that-time.. NOAA gu .idelines for meeting CZMA

requirements for qualification for Administrative Development grants under
Section.@06 go much further in stipulating that the state must notify all public

agencies which may be affected by or have any interest in its program, and must

provide them with full opportunity for participation in plan formulation. The

state must further supply the Federal government with documentation of the agen-
cies contacted tahd the opportunities for participation they were provided.

The National Environmental Policy Act similarly calls for public

involvement.. The Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines for preparing

environmental impact statements under NEPA requi,re, as appropriate, public

hearings with adequate notification and draft statements made available for pub-

lic review at leas t 15 days prior to the hearing. As required by NEPA and

also by the Freedom of Information Act, the agency preparing the environmental

statement must make the statement and-all comments on it available to the public.

At the state level, most Section 305 grant applications have cited

intended development-of citizen participation programs, but few states' laws

actually require any specific programs other than public,hearings and plan review.

Each state will therefore need to develop its own public partici-

pation format, on the basis of Federal law and any specific state legal

requirements, and in accordance with the particular goals and policies it

wishes to pursue with regard to public and citizen participation. This chapter

is intended to guide the stateplanner in,the selection of alternative participa-

tory frameworks.

6.1 Application of Mechanisms to Aesthetic Resource Management Plannia

Public or citizen participation mechanisms can be applied to aes-

thetic resource planning either as independent elements, or in conjunction with

public involvement in other planning areas or with the coastal zone management

program as a whole. When applied in conjunction with other components, care must

be taken not to permit tight agendae which tend to shortchange dialogue on

aesthetic needs and answers. Citizen input into aesthetic management is a vital
stage of plan formulation, as concern for aesthetic values is a deeply-felt issue

among coastal zone residents and visitors. Final plan acceptability by the

public may well rest on the coincidence of user aesthetic values.with those

assumed in plan formulation.

118

The usefulness of public or citizen participation mechanisms in

aesthetic resource planning is discussed below within the framework of the.

three stages at which citizen input can be employed.

6.1.1 Pre-Planning Stage

Citizen input at the pre-planning stage is extremely important

in terms of both public confidence and the recordinq@of bona fide information

on resource supply and public demand. Planners can be informed of citizen

values and desires at the outset, can plan for further information gathering

and value analysis to maximize resource knowledge, and may be better informed

as to how,to achieve'a coastal,zone. management plan that can optimally satisfy

competing conservation and development interests.

Simultaneously, the pre-planning stage can also be used to inform

the public of the state planner's prel.iminary intentions for aesthetic resource

management. Citizen cooperation and plan acceptance will be facilitated if

a clear.understanding of the programis established in this initial planning

stage. The planner can show the public what he considers to be the valuable

aesthetic resources within his jurisdiction, the issues involved in their pro-

tection or the loss thereof, and the alternative ways the state is considering

for managing them.

This pre-planning stage ideally should be conducted earlier than

management planning efforts in aesthetic resource inventorying, classification,

and first-cut assessment.

119

Tools which can be employed in the pre-planning stage and their

key advantages and disadvantages are briefly noted below:

Public Opinion Polls or Questionnaires,- Survey public attitudes and

values concerning aesthetic resources: able to show u-ser-preferences

but often response is poor, leading to misrepresentation.

Use of Media - News or feature coverage, including special TV or radio

programs with live or post-show response; good medium for describing

proposals and measuring possible user preferences and level of concern.

Citizen's Advisory Committee - Formation of advisory groups typically

consisting of lay, professional, business, environmental, academic,

and community representatives. Facilitate information solicitation,

feedback to general public, and aid in later planning and post-planning

stages. Possible problem with under-representation of the overall

constituency.

Technical or Scientific Advisory Committee - Provides an indirect form

of public participation; can be very useful in advising on technical

areas of aesthetic resource evaluation during planning stage.

Ad-hoc,Copferences or Meetings with Limited Attendance by Mixed

Interests - Solicit policy stands from environmental, developeri

economic, community, and other interest groups in easily managed

exchanges. Gain alternative preference and problem information from

key users; some problem resolution may be brought into focus.

Universities Use of university-sea grant programs, or teaching/

research departments to solicit additional information through-re-

120

search projects, preference surveys, and other methods. Good avail-

able framework but can only supplement, not substitute for, actual

public participation.

Public Meetings - The most suitable approach, as in the planning stage,

is direct communication through informal public meetings or forums,

conducted with a view towards soliciting information and opinions from

the coastal zone constituency on resources of both unique and common-

place aesthetic value, location of eyesores, and other elements eligible

for preservation, protection, restoration, enhancement, or develop-

ment actions. Visual media, including slide presentations, films,

videotapes, or analytical presentation boards, shouId be used to

encourage exchange.

6.1.2 Planning Stage
During the planning stage, the citizen may be invited to continue
participation either on@a slower pace as information provider, or at an increased
lev@l of effort to help in actual plan formulation. Here the scope of participa-
tion, in terms of numbers, may be narrowed to facilitate working effectiveness,
but should fully reflect or represent the coastal zone constituency. Such a
constituency may alternately be defined as the statewide public or as
the community of the coastal zone alone; the former expresses greater political

accountability.

Each of the three alternatives listed below offers the advantage
of involving people over a broader scope or greater depth of effort, and

encouraging a greater degree of imaginative expression. In each, citizens

are encouraged to offer aesthetic planning suggestions in an atmosphere of

121

fluid give-and-take of citizen and planner ideas.. Disadvantages of workshops

and charettes are the possibility of insufficient structure, the inherent

difficulty of communication.on aesthetics, and interpersonal friction.

Throughout the planning stage public or citizen representatives working with

the planning team must keep in contact with their constituency, reporting

activities and findings to them and bringing reactions and new suggestions

back to the planners.

A major problem with most forms of citizen input into planning

activities is that the citizen participant can only express his or her per-

sonal views and.those of the organization represented. This can be at least

.partly answered by.providing for as broad a participatory base as possible.

Public Meetings - Large groups of citizens meeting with agency plan-

ners to discuss planning alternatives. Participation by officials

and legislators can promote constructive discussions. Meetings are

ideally scheduled on a multi-community bas.is.

Workshops - Smaller group meetings centered around specific planning

areas, applicable to aesthetic management in terms of specific pro-

.,blem focuses.

Charettes - Intensive problem solving sessions in which citizens are
confronted with a planning problem and asked to provide a solution.

Quite applicable to.the aesthetic area as public's values.may emerge

through the exercise. Aesthetics may be effectively incorporated

into omnibus public meetings; however,separately scheduled meetings,,
or at the -least, separately conducted workshops Within omnibus

122

meetings, should be.utilized to make full communication possible in

this typically difficult subject area.

The planning stage coincides with the process steps of per-

forming'the resource inventory, evaluating identified resources, and deter-

mining the compatibility of these resources with resource.-use and'development.

In terns of performing the inventory, the generalpublic can be.very helpful.

Through workshops and meetings citizens can be taught how to determine and

document aesthetic resources, offering the planner additional manpower re-

sources to speed the proces's of aesthetic r6source identification. At the

evaluation level, user preferences surveyed at the pre-plan stage can be

drawn upon as weighting factors applied to the relative importance of re-

sources in terms of citizen use and scenic importance.

6.1.3 Post-Plan Commentary

At this stage the public is provided the opportunity to review

the proposed plan and provide further input prior to final plan adoption. The

plan timetable should allow sufficient time for meaningful public participation
at this point.
Public Hearings - A formal legal procedure in which public presenta-

tions on and @esponse to the previously disclosed planning documents

are noted and recorded.

Follow-Up Public_Meetings - A more informal review procedure in which

unlimited free discussion on the plan may take place and graphic

interpretattons can be utilized more flexibly.

Public Review of Draft Documents,- The complete plan draft and all

123

graph,ic support are made available for public scrutiny and response.

A necessary step. It may not be effective or useful in isolation,

i.e., without related public meetings, as the lay public may not

understand major details without planner explanation. This measure

should therefore be supported by public meetings, either subsequent

to or at the time of release and distribution of the plan or plan

element.

In the post-planning commentary stage prior to final plan

adoption, the public may play two separate roles: on the o ne hand, it can

seek additions, deletions, or other changes to the plan which the planners

may not have otherwise provided for, and on the other hand, it may campaign

for plan implementation once the final plan meets its satisfaction.

This stage of public participation, although important in it-

self, is not as crucial for aesthetic management as the two earlier stages.

Aesthetic planing really requires good communication between planners and

citizens at the early stages, so that citizen values and desires for re-

source utilization can be accurately identified. If the earlier stages have

been built upon meaningful participation, final phase modifications may be

incorporated more efficiently and.with a wider base of support.

6.2 Minimum Program Acceptable for Aesthetic Planning

A minimum program acceptable for citizen participation would

be limited to those tools specifically required by law. Such a program would

124

consist only of a provision for public review of the plan before final ap-

proval, and the holding of a public hearing with advanced public notice.

The pri mary advantage of such a limited program would be the

expediency of work that would be possible in the absence of open public

participation. Little planning money would have to be allocated for citi-

zen involvement programs. The time involved in plan formulation could be

relatively short and efficiently spent.

However, the disadvantages of this apparently smooth program
may come to li ght during the plan implementation stage. Numerous problems
may arise when th e public finally reviews the plan. There may be signifi-
cant discrepancies between the public's perception of aesthetic resources
and those assumed by the planner. These could lead to hostility towards
the plan if its recommendations did not lead to the preservation and en-
hancement of those resources which the public values. A serious time lag

could develop while planners try to justify their plan to citizens demand-

ing satisfaction, Furthermore, the potential advantages of a lighter staff

work load due to citizen and public participation in resource calssification and

inventorying would not.be available in the minimum involvement plan.

6.3 Maximum Program for Aesthetic Planning

A maximum program for citizen participation would consist of

implementing all of the alternative tools outlined above. This may appear

125

-to be a drastic overprovision for-public involvement, but its possibility

must be considered and the resultant pros and cons evaluated. The program
would involve an initial survey of public desires, educational/informational

programs to inform citizens of planner goals, workshops to initiate citi-

zen/planner communication, citizen-participation in collecting the inven-

tory, professional input Into evaluation and compatibility determination,

public review and comment on final plan draft, and open public heari ngs,

for final plan approval.

The beneficial results of a program of this type would be the

preparation ofa plan which would fairly represent the desires of, the affected

communities. The plan would probably go further towards serving the goals for

which it was formulated than one written with less citizen input. Acceptance of

the plan by the public would likely emerge in a more ti'mely fashion, allowing rapid.

implementation of stated goals and objectives. In the course of plan prepar-

ation, work loads would be lightened in areas where the public could assume

appropriate responsibilities.

In the final analysis, the implementation of a high-level action.

participation program represents a large scale trade-off between more time,

effort, and money spent during the primary planning stages with perhaps

little additional planning effort required during plan implementation,
versus a simpler planning program with the possibility of massive require-
ments in time, effort, and money for planning revisions during the imple-

mentation phase.

126

6.4 Range of Alternatives Between Minimum and Maximum Programs

The minimum acceptable and high-leVel action participation pro-

grams do not simply represent two alternative choices which the state planner

could employ, but stand at the extremes of a wide range of alternative parti-

cipation programs calling for varying degrees of involvement in each program

phase and by different planning groups. The state planner should 'choose from

among the various tools to create a participation program best fitted to the

state's particular management framework. Several examples of the range of

program types would be:

e Much in'volvement in the pre-planning stage, with questionnaires, various

information media, and informal forums to solicit citizen ideas and

values, and little additional input in the later planning stages.

This program would offer the advantage of accumulating a foundation

of public attitudes on which to base planning activities, but may lead

to eventual public dissatis faction with -elements of the final plan

which are unfamiliar or contrary to expectations.

e Heavy involvement during the planning stage by lay persons or profes-

sionals servingas citizen representatives, but with minimal general
public' participatory activity. This alternative may maximize capable

inputs and committee-agency dialogue, but may appear to the public

as too exclusive or elitist an approach.

0 An ongoing program of information and feedback throughout the whole

planning process, but with no formalized involvement mechanisms

127

for the public other than comment. Here information would flow

freely between planner and citizen, but there would be no guarantee

that citizen goals would be incorporated,in the final plan.

The planner should keep in mind the fact that the employment

of a-citizen participation program will always constitute a'necessary trade-

off between reliance on the planner's capabilities and the political neces-

sities.of a democratic society, and between planning process fluidity and
plan@implementation acceptance and satisfaction.

6.5 Intmation of Public Participation for Aesthetic Resources Planning
Wth Qther Elements-of the Coastal Zone Management Program

As planning for aesthetic resources may or may pot be done in

conjunction with planning for other problems in the coastal zone, programs for
-'-t
cl Azen participation in aesthetics planning must be integrated with partici-

patton in other problem areas. Care should nonetheless be exercised to pre-

serve a healthy attitude for consideration of aesthetic resources and issues,

as other more tangible and apparent problems such as water quality and shore-

line erosl,on may tend to dominate public discussion, media,'coverage, and

questionnWe responses. It is thus important for additional,,provisions to

be made for aestheti c considerations within the overall citizen participa-

tion program. Separate sections should be included in omnibus questionnaires

and informational programs to discuss aesthetic problems and solicit infor-

matidin and opinion on aesthetic resources and values. Special workshops on
aesthetic issues should be held Waddition to general public meetings, and

128

a specially trained professi,onal in shoreline appearance and design sttould
be included on the professional citizen's advisory:committee. As aesthetic

values are so much a product of individual opinion and desire, it is all the

more necessary to ensure that public attitudes are accurately identified

and proper attempts made to reflect these attitudes in coastal,zone

planning recommendations.

129

CHAPTER.7: AESTHETIC RESOURCE INVENTORIES AND EVALUATIONS AN OVERVIEW

7.0 Intnoduction.

Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the state is required

to furnish an "inventory of natural and man-made resources" as a part of

the greater task of delineating areas of particular concern and defining

permissib.le uses for.the coastal zone. Having defined the boundaries of

the coastal zone (see Chapter 2), the planner will conduct an inventory

of aesthetic resources which will serve as the data base for all subsequent

planning elements in this area. The purpose of this thapter is to describe

the general-purp6ses and prerequisites of the inventory without entering

into the detail of techniques (discussed in Chapter 8) so that the con-.

sideration of CZMA requirements in-will fall into proper focus.

7.1 Purpose of the Inventory

The inventory requirement is more specifically defined.in

Sec. 920.13 which states that the inventory "should provide the basic

data analysis, and criteria necessary to identify specific geographic

areas of particular concern." Clearly, this data will be of equal im-
portance in the definition of permissible uses and the ultimate recom-

mendations for resource use and development. The types of techniques

employed in the aesthetic resource program will depend on: 1) the types

and scale of aesthetic resources to be inventoried; 2) the evaluation

methods used as components of the inventory; and 3) the skills, resources,

and time-available to those conducting the inventory.

130

The ultimate task of determining permissible uses as discussed

in Chapter .4 will involve: 1) inventorying resource capabilities and suita-

bilities from an aesthetic perspective and 2) analyzing the aes thetic impacts

of resource uses. Designating geographical areas of particular concern.as
discussed in Chapter 3 will involve 1) identifying areas of significant

natural value or importance, areas of a transitional or intensely developed

nature and areas especially suited for intensive use or development and,

2) analyzing aesthetic factors in conjunction with other considerations to

determine priorities for usage. Both of these major objectives can be'

satisfied by using data gathered in a single inventory process. Thus it

will be important for the plannPr to develop a flexible set of inventory

method components such that any combination of the-above objectives can

be met.

J.2 Types and Scale of Aesthetic Resources

Aesthetic resources differ from state to state., Therefore, a

preliminary step in the inventory process should be to define the scope of

the study in terms,of the selection of aesthetic resources to be.included.

An exemplary list of coastal aestheti'c resources--natural and man-made--

was presented in Chapter 2. The type and scale (e.g., regional or site)

will obviously:affect the inventory processing, mapping, and presentation

techniques to be employed. As the complexity of the study program'
is expanded, the level of sophistication in collecting,-interpreting,

and displaying data will of necessity have to increase.

In.order for the planner to make meaningful subdivisions of

the coastalzone to assist in the inventory, evaluation, and management

of aesthetic resources, standards and criteria for the scale and size

131

of resource units (discussed in Chapter 2) must be established. The

criteria for identifying various scales of aesthetic resources should

recognize the concept of unity. Regardless of the size of the resource

area, or the number of elements in it, there must be a visual cohesi'veness

to the elements. A useful definition of a measurable unit is "a large

physiographic area of land which has common characteristics of land form,
rock formation, water forms, and vegetative patterns." (U.S.D.A. Forest

Service 1974).

Consideration of the scale of landscape subdivisions (interior,

shorescape, viewsheds, and other units) and the implications of their bounda-

ries for assessment, will be important in the inventory process and are fully

discussed in Chapters 2, 8 and 9.

While areas of particular (aesthetic) concern must be singled

out at the state-wide and regional level on a priority basis, inventory
and planning efforts for aesthetic resources in other'subsidiary landscape

units can be assumed by local authorities and planners on a longer term

basis. Documentation and evaluation of aesthetic resources in all coastal

zone landscape units should at any rate proceed in a continuing format.

Once an aesthetic data base is complete, it will be available for an

effective impact evaluation of development proposals submitted for review to

state, local and sub-state regional agencies.

7.3 Planning for the Resource Inventory

At the outset, the planner must make several procedural

decisions:

132

1. What method of evaluation will be used? (See Chapter 9)

2. Who will conduct the inventory (skills, training, etc.)?
(See Chapter 8)

3. Haw and when is the public to be consulted and informed?
(See dhapter 6)

4. What data collection and collation methods are to be
used? (See Chapter 8)

5. What methods of data presentation are to be used? (See
Chapter 8)

These questions are presented here to emphasize the interdepen-

dency of the several phases of action in planning forlaesthetic resources.
Early decisions on many of these questions will greatly facilitate the

task of the planner in arriving at ultimate recommendations.

7.3.1 Types of evaluation methods

The evaluation methods to be used in the inventory process dis-

cussed in Chapter 8 will have to be chosen before the inventory is conducted.

Large-scale regional inventories of aesthetic resources will necessitate the

utilization of professionally defIved evaluation methods. Local or site

scale evaluations may be made using either professionally derived or user-

derived ([email protected] preference) methods. Selection of an evaluation

method, or combination of methods will in turn determine the types of data

needed, the method of collecting and processing information, and the means

of presenting evaluations.

7.3.2 Skills, resources, and time

As with most planning operations, the major factors affecting

program development in the end will be the skills and training of personnel,

133

facilities and equipment available, budgetary constraints, and the time

allotted for conducting the inventory and evaluations. The degree to which

.each of these factors will affect program development will vary from state

to state; therefore, the techniques discussed in ensuing sections should be

viewed in the context of their applicability to individual program needs and

constraints.

7 .4 Inventory Prerequisites

7.4.1 Coordination with other coastal zone program elements

Since an assessment of aesthetic resources will usually consti-

tute only a component of a more comprehensive Coastal Zone Management Program,

the planners conducting the aesthetic resource program element should care-

fully review other program elements and interrelate the aesthetic resource

component with them. Other program elements may include analyses of existing
conditions in the coastal zone (e.g., land ownership patterns, demographic

patterns, estuarine habitats, and laws and regulations on land and water

uses) and projections of future needs in the coastal zone (6.g., housing

requirements, recreation needs, industrial needs, mineral resource require-

ments, and transportation and navigation needs).

The aesthetic resource planner should be particularly aware of
the extent to which policies for protection resioration, or enhancement-of

scenic areas must be balanced against the need for economic development of

selected coastal zone areas.. (Indeed, it is the high aesthetic value associ-

ated with most coastal areas that induces recreational and tourism development.)

134

,7.4.2 .,.Use of existing @aps, data and reports

Maps prepared by federal, state, regional and other governmental

and non-governmental bodies should be carefully reviewed.to-locate data on

aesthetic resources which may appear in various forms. Included in this catem

gory are sectional maps prepared by the U.S. Geologica.1 Survey, charts of:the
National Ocean Survey (formerly the U.S. Coast jand Geodetic Survey), soil

maps prepared by the Soil Conservation Service, special study maps of surficial

geology prepared for selected areas under the direction of the U.S.G.S. and

state geological surveys, land use invent6ry maps, and others. Lighthouses,

LORAN beacons, and other tall structures, for example, will appear on National

Ocean Survey charts identified as landmarks. Glacial features such as eskers

and kames can be tentatively identified on U.S.G.S. maps (and confi med on

aerial photos).

Studies of various aspects of the coastal zone are usually avail.-

able on a selected basis and'when aggregated can provide a good deal of

useful information relative to aesthetic resource planning. A thorough investi-

gation of,previous'ly assembled data should thus be a first order task in

preparing an inventory of aesthetic resources.

135

.7.5.'.- Need for evaluating aesthetic resources

In terms of the expressed purposes of the Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Act, the necessity for evaluating aesthetic resources is clearly

implied, i.e., in order for areas of particular concern to,be identified

for possible preservation, protection, development, restoration, or en-

hancement, a method for evaluating the aesthetic qualities of coastal

resources must be developed which gives full consideration to "ecological,

cultural, historic and aesthetic values..." (CZMA Sec. 303(a)(b)). :-Ev4lua-

tion of aesthetic resources is essential not only for assessing and assigning

value to positive.aesthetic attributes, but also for identifying adverse

impact factors in areas where "...special natural and scenic characteristics

are being damaged by ill-planned development that threatens their value " (Sec.
802-(-f)). in addition, while the identification of areas of hiqh aesthetic re-

source value will be a nece ssary precursor to the designation of areas of

particular scenic concern, evaluation of aesthetic resources must also be

applied throughout the "ordinary" landscape of the coastal zone, often

overlooked in establishing land use policy and control.

7.5.1 The judgement question

Much of the aesthetic resource evaluation completad to date has
been based upon the judgement of professionals in design-related disciplines.

As the purpose of aesthetic resource evaluation is to identify
resources in the coastal zone which are essential to well-being of all
citizens (Sec. 302(d)), the appropriateness of this reliance might be
questioned. However, several studies (Craik, 1972, Coughlin and Goldstein,
1970, Fines, 1968, and Zube, Pitt and Anderson, 1974) have suggested that

136

the aesthetic values assigned to the landscape by professionals are highly

correlated with those assigned by the other segments of society. While there

may not be complete agreement on resource evaluation, there is at least enough

congruence between the professional's judgement and society's aesthetic

values to grant the qualified professional a basic credibility, providing

that evaluation criteria are systematically.and suitably defined.

To illustrate the operation of selected existing resource evalu-

ation methods, Chapter 9 outlines the details of several basi-c models. It

is believed that the coastal zone planner can tailor identified techniques

to the scale, intent, and capabilities of his individual programs, using

existing methods, without the necessity of conducting further original

research.

Prior to discussing techniques, a few words of caution must

be stated. When evaluative judgements are made, it is particularly impor-

tant that the assumptions underlying the evaluations be explicitly spelled

out, so that other utilizers and critics of the methods can judge the

validity and utility of the methods*for their own needs. Secondly, it

must,be remembered that rating schemes whichevaluate aesthetic resources

within a given set of landscapes or region are applicable only to the

particular set of landscapes studied. In other words, a landscape in a

particular region that is evaluated as having aesthetic resources of.high

value when compared to other landscapes in that region, may not be

comparable to landscapes in other regions deemed to have high scenic

value. Yet, the aesthetic resources of this landscape may well be unique

and highly significant to the immediate geographical area in which they

are located.

137

7.5.2 Applying the methods

While the selection of any of the evaluation methods will

largely depend on individual program objectives, available skills,,

facilities, time, and budgetary constraints, there would be,considerable

value in combining elements of each of the methods in the development.

of a coastal zone aesthetic resource Proqram. Since resource-oriented

qualitative and quantitative methods, when applied on a regional scale,
will rely more heavily on professional judgements, it may'- be advisable

to supplement them with user-analy@is evaluations at the site or local

level. In addition, user-perception methods provide a mechanism for

engaging citizen participation (see Chapter 6) in the evaluation process

and can provide a means for publicizing program elements and Proqress.

'Also user-analysis techniques can be used to evaluate controversial

landscapes where contradictory judgements have been expressed. On the
other hand,'user-analysis may be far more susceptible to distortions of

inherent value because of the influence of controver!@y, seasonal recrea-,

tion, desire changes, property ownership, and other physical and

temporal factors that distinguish or affect individual preferences.

138

CHAPTER 8: THE AESTHETIC RESOURCES INVENTORY METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

8.0 Introduction

An adequate resource inventory is -absolutely essential for the

planner to be able to decide on ultimate resource use. This.section addresses

the conducting of the inventory, and discusses in some detail the various

survey procedures and their advantages and disadvantages. The planner must

choose that combination of techniques which best meets the recognized needs

of the state.

8.1 Data Collection Techniques

As mentioned in Chapter 7, there are several, methods.of collecting

info rmation to provide the data bose for aesthetic resource.management

planning. Each one entails a systematic survey of the landscape under study and

mapping of relevant observations.

8.1.1 Systematic Observer Surveys

Information derived Irom systematically based field trips can

provide the greatest degree of detail, as well as the greatest quantities

of data. A predesigned and pretested standardized field survey form

@is indispensible in handling this data. Where professionally derived

evaluations are desired, they can be made simultaneously with the surveys

by trained observers. Otherwise, the recorded information

should be confined to the location and descriptive characteristics of
aesthetic resources (e.g., dimensions of view, height of structures, etc.) as

opposed to qualitative value judgments. Observations should be as con-

sistent and objective as possible within the constraints imposed by

139

diurnal, seasonal, weather, and activity changes and daily changes in the

observer's mood, personality, preference, etc. Survey forms should contain

all pertinent information: time, of day, date, weather, mode of travel,

observer, types of activities occurring in the vicinity of the aesthetic

resource, viewing point and the mapped location of the site.

Obviously, moving vehicles will have to be employed to perform

field reconnaissance in a comprehensive way. A windshield survey,, from a car

is a practical means for covering a large area. The car and its driver are

limited to certain travel corridors, which may omit significant areas in

the coastal zone. Views from a boat travelling along the shoreline are

also restricted, and detail of upland features is difficult to perceive.

Probably'neither mean's for viewing the coastal zone can be used exclusively,

but must be,supplemented by aerial photography and/or travel on foot to

certain coastal sectors.

8.1.2 Eye-level Photography

Eye-level photographs (particularly color slides) are an

invaluable tool for documentin g shorescape conditions and can effectively

streamline the field survey procedure. Although certain elements of1the

field survey checklist for each shorescape unit should be noted and mapped

while in the field (date, time of day, general weather conditions, nota ble

sounds and odors, location on map of viewpoints, identifying pictures taken,

etc.), systematicand thorough pho tographic coverage of vistas and multiple-

frame panoramas documenting available land and water paths, routes and

viewing opportunities may allow an evaluator to conveniently complete the

majority of a checklist by viewing slides. It should be noted that this

procedure is most effective when field photography and completion of the

140

checklitt.@at a-later date is carried out by the sdme person,or group, using

slides to,refr6sh the,observer'� memory of the place. Viewing slides of a

shorescape taken or assembled in sequence and including,views from the uppe'r

shorel.and, shoreline and from the water allows the evaluator to easily com-

prehend and respond to the diversity of aesthetic resources present,
including seasonal variations if photography is carried out and.repeated at

different times of the year. Eye-level photography can be a relatively

unbiased record of each shorqscape's aesthetic condition and an effective

tool of communication to others. Used in combination with aerial photography,

topographic maps, and remote sensing, photographic documentation of the field
survey is an important and invaluable inventory and management tool.

While eye-level photography provides a means for representing

the environmen t as exactly-as possible, its utility-may be constrained by

the selection of viewpoints from which photographs may be.taken and.

unavoidable distortions produced in the photographic images. Despite these

minor disadvantages, such photography provides a permanent photogra0hic

record of the aesthetic resources, facilitating evaluation of selected sites

by trained professionals'at any subsequent time. Also, the slides can be

used in conjunction with user-derived evaluation methods which elicit

perceptual responses from either diverse groups of people or persons from.

design disciplines.

8.1.3 Sketches and Note s of Visual Impressions

Where time is of-.less importance and'staff trained in-graphic
skills are available, hand!--drawn sketches-and written synopses of.vi-sual

impres sions can be used to supplement systematic surveys and'photographic

recording techniques., If done systema tically with consistent format for each

141

study sub-area, sketches and written notes of visual impressions can

.approach some degree of objectivity in recording the characteristics of

aesthetic resources. However, these methods may require time and may not

provide easily compared data as the observer or graphic artist will of

necessity have to use subjective judgment in recording visual elements of

aesthetic'resources. The best use of these techniques is on an a selective

basis for critical areas to facilitate communication of data recorded by the
other techniqu@s.

C-3

A4IP-A-n_Aj,_rnr_
COA6T-L-1 NE7
Figure 8-1:
Oblique Pictorialization.
from the Atlantic Regional Study, 1967

8.1.4 Aerial Photography/Remote Sensing

Remote sensing in its broadest sense includes a wide range of
techniques for gathering informatiop about objects in the environment by

means of external devices generally obtained from the air or from space.

142

Remote sensors include devices which provide images based on electromagnetic

impulses as well as aerial cameras employing various types of photographic

film. A number of means may be employed to obtain this data, including

conventional 'or modified aircraft mounting cameras or other equipment

such as radar sensors, or orbiting satellites such as those operating under

the Earth Resources Technical Satelliteprogram.

The types of information which can be obtained by these devices

include coastal morphology, classification of vegetation, and nearshore

hydrography, among other data. A distinrt advantage of this technique

is its ability to inventory and monitor changes in the coastal environment

on a systematic,basis, through periodic follow-up film ing. The following

is a short listing of major sensing_technologies.

Black and white aerial photographs. This is the basic tool for

recording information of any land surface, including the coastal

zone. Photographs in plan view are useful for'identifying basic
distinctions between man-made features and the natural landsc@pe.

Textural and tonal differences can be interDreted to identify obJects

or landforms,with differing.sizes, shapes, and Datterns. The use of
yellow filters on the camera lens can facilitate haze penetration

(particularly useful for coastal areas) and increase the tonal
contrast of the photos-(Way,.1973). Black and white aerial,photo-

graphs, if overlapped, can produce throe-dimensional images when

viewed stereoscopically or can be combined on a two-dimensional

mosaic.

Black and white infrared aerial photographs.. Infrared photography

is primarily useful in enhancing the contrast of the terrain, and in

showing a sharp contrast between water and beach. This allows a precise

143

study of coastal shoreline configuration, and can make clear distinc-

tions' in types of vegetation, as between coniferous and deciduous.

Since edge characteristics (e.g. at the land-water interface, or at the

forest-wetland interface) appear to significantly increase the perceived

quality of aesthetic resources by contributing to visual diversity and

complexity (Fabos, 1973), infrared black and white photography provides

an invaluable tool for locating dominant visual natural and man-made

edges.when applied.on a regional scale.

9 Color and color infrared aerial photographs. Color aerial photo-

graphs are most useful for investigating underwater features of

the coastline, such as water depths, shoal areas, sediment patterns,

and such terrestrial qualities as vegetative speciation and ground

surface color, qualities which are not specified in black and

white photography. Color infrared can be @ost useful in making

distinctions betwee n broad. groups of vegetation, and in determining

vegetation densities, particularly in sand dune regions and coastal

areas (Way 1973).
*'Oblique aerial photography. Oblique aerial @hotography has been less
commonly used than black and white, color, infrared techniques and
ground level photography, but is potentially an equally effective
means of documenting coastal aesthetic resources. Slide photographs
can be taken from the air to provide a continuous linear record of

the shoreline aesthetic resources which can be viewed for evaluation

at subsequent dates. Oblique photography has the advantage of being
more easily understood by those unfamiliar with the more technical
aerial p.ho.tographic techniques and can be used as an effective supple-

mental communication medium. Land uses and shore configuration changes

can be monitored as well. Although 35 mm slide photography has

144

been the most common oblique aerial medium, continuous 16 mm oblique

motion picture filming would seem to offer greater advantages, particularly

when a sequential series of views is desired.

a Other aerial photography techniques.

Multi-spectral ae-rial photography: Through the use of multiple

lens cameras and different film,and filter combinations, images

produced by different wavelength bands can be analyzed to discriminate

fine differences between vegetative species and other ground features

Hue, brightness, and saturation in each spectral band can be controlled

to attain high levels of precision. The technique, however, requires

significant expense and technical expertise.

Infrared imagery: Thermal infrared utilizes distinctions in surface

temperature5 to record images of land and water characteristics.

The technique is thus not particularly applicable to inventorying

aesthetic resources, but is more pertinent to studying water and.

thermal pollution and tidal flushinq of water bodies.

Radar imagery: Radar imagery techniques are primarily useful for

mapping coastal morphology and evaluating terrain variations, as

radar wavelenqths can cut throuqh cloud cover even,under the most

adverse weather conditions.

Various techniques for obtaining the above aerial photographic

data exist, ranging from the sophisticated remote-cohtrolled satellites

which orbit the, earth, to the relatively primitive technique of hand-held

cameras in a low-flying plane (for oblique photography). In the latter case,

two observers are generally required so that one can concentrate,on photo-

graphy while the other can make observations on paper of various features.

145

Aerial photographic techniques obviously lend themselves to
the identification of locations of aesthetic resources and land use patterns
on a regional scale, and as such must be supplemented by ground reconnaissance
if qualitative or quantitative evaluations of aesthetic resources are to be
made by trained professionals.

8.2 Data Processina

The field reconnaissance methods discussed above will necessitate

the recording and,processing of rather large quantities of data, depending

on the scope of the investigations undertaken and the7level of detail

desired. In most cases the data on aesthetic resources will be hand recorded,

in a form suitable either for manual processing or for machine processing.

8.2.1 -Hand Recorded/Manual Processin' Met4od
Where a generalized review of aesthetic resources or a detailed

inventory of the aesthetic resources of a small area (less than a few square

miles) is desired, manual processing methods will be suitable. If the units

of the coastal zone have been grouped into a few general classes (perhaps-due

to expediency), then the use of some sort of standardized worksheet matrix

allowing for quick checkmarks, simple concise notes, and even field sketches

would be the most valuable.

8.2.2 Hand Recorded/Machine Processed Method
Most aesthetic resource inventories are conducted on a larger
scale. Furthermore, considering the great potential variation in visual
experiences along a given segment of coastline, vast amounts of data may
be collected that can be most economically and efficiently processed by

high speed computers. A device called an Optical Mark Reader or Scanner

146

can be used to process information recorded jn the field on forms similar
to those commonly used in @tanidardized testing procedures (e.g., SAT's@.

,These forms can be rap-idly and cheaply scanned with an accuracy equal to

or exceeding any other existing method (presuming the simple marking procedure
,is followed correctly). Specially tailored forms can be designed cheaply,

as well. Numerical data is the easiest to record, but remarks can also be

recorded and processed. If computer mapping or processin� is contemplated,

this is by far the better method of recordinq data.

8.3 Mapping

The state coastal planner must select techniquesfor displaying

inventoried data on aesthetic resources. The basic processes available

include the preparation of traditionally used hand-drawn single resource or

multiple resource overlay maps and computer printed graphic displays.

8.3.1 Scale

Appropriateness of scale in mapping is a consideration familiar

to al-l regional and state planners. Delineation at the regional, state, and

coastal zone level may be effectively carried out at scales of 1:62,500 or

1:63,360 0" = 1 mile) for gross generalization of evaluated aesthetic

resources, on both a tone and point basis (e.g., tones at these scales may

represent areas of high aesthetic diversity, shorelines of special interest,

147

and areas of particular aesthetic concern, etc.; points may represent
important viewing points, centers of vistas, cultural and recreational

nodes, etc.).

For detailing-specific resources, larger scale mapping is
generally more desirable. The 1:24,000 scale is the next largest common

scale and is highly suitable for resource delineations. Most states would

require a large number of maps at this scale for full coverage of their
coastlines (in the hundreds-); in the event of budget limitations,.mapping.
at this scale might be usefully applied solely to areas of part.i'cular

aesthetic concern. Other sub-regional scales which are in less common
use but are equally valuable-.are.1:20,000 and 1:.40,000 (NOAA/NOS charts).

A common computerized mapping grid cell size is one hectare'.

(1:39,283 scale). Experience has indicated that mapping based on inputs

scaled to this area as a minimum unit is suitable for regional and sub-

regional delineations, but less effective for detailed delineation than

largerscale maps.

8.3.2 Single Resource Maps

The traditional and most commonly accepted technique for

presenting results of an inventory of aesthetic resources is to depict each

category of items in the inventory on individual maps. Areal data, such as

,land uses, vegetation types, steepness of slopes, and so on can be represented

by lines drawn around various zones which usually have irregular boundaries.

This kind of map is called a polygonal or cloroplethic map-. The areas within
the boundary lines can be differentiated using a numeric or letter code, a

tone, or a.color.

148

T.- J_-

KODIAK
BARROW

SEWARD

zft@

Figure 8-2: A single-resource map. Landform of the coastal zone and
continental shelf of Alaska. National @stuary Study, 1970

149

Examples.of land use categories found and mapped in the coastal

zone in Maryland include the following:

crop and pasture land rivers
orchards reservoirs
deciduous forests (upland and lowland) bays and estuaries
evergreen forests (upland and lowland) wetlands
mixed forests (upland and lowland) beaches
upland brush bare exposed rocks

Maryland planners have also assembled data and mapped scenic

areas and areas with unique or endangered natural. features, including particularly

fragile ecological systems, wild lands, and "big trees."

Other data representing many localized features of the landscape

can be mapped as points or lines on a base map, using various symbols to

depict visual landmarks, special,geologic and hydrologic features, paths

of movement,and significant views and viewing points.

8.3.5'.Gerlay Resource Mappin

Another type of mapping that has come into common usage is the tech-

nique of overlaying single resource maps to display and analyze multiple
combinations of resources. This method could be espec-ially-applicable to

inventories of aesthetic resources where capabilities and suitabilities have.

been mapped for comparison to existing land uses to determine locations of

non-permissible uses. Conflicts can thus be identified where aesthetic

resources of high quality are being damaged by ill-planned land uses and

development. The delineation of areas of particular concern on such maps, when

overlain on existing maps of land use patterns, would facilitate identification

of overlapping areas where restoration or enhancement may be needed.

150

8.3.4 Computer Mapping

Numerous efficient computer graphics prOgrams (e.g., SYMAP)

are available to display information gathered in the inventory process. Where

field reconnaissance or-aerial photo data can be digitized -and spatially

located on an orthogonal coordinate grid, these programs can map a range

of values for any given single variable. However, for the results to be

in a digitized, spatially located fomat, consideration has to be given

back in the preparation stages for the recording of data on the field survey

form. (Conversion of existing non-digitized results to an acceptable format

is extremely inefficient, costly and of dubious value.),

Output most commonly is in the form of line printer graphics. If

the useof this type of program is contemplated, research concerning allowable.

cell size (rarely square) and maximum array size should also be done during

the preparation stage.

The advantages of these computerized techniques are that very

large amounts of data can be stored and displayed and multiple combinations

of data can be mapped for analysis of interrelationships between various.

resources.

4
Computer programs also exist to facilitate interpretation and

visualization of topographic maps and aerial photos. Programs (e.g. SYMVU,
VIEWIT) exist which can delineate viewsheds on topographic' maps and produce

oblique aerial views of given@topographics.

151

..........

........................... ................................
..................... ...............
.............. ..........
............... ............ ...........
..................
......................
..............................
.....................

Figure 14-Computerized plotting by VIEWIT program, from a Landscape Con-
trol Point at Cache Creek, Jackson, Wyoming. Lines of sight scon the visible area.
Data on elevations, by coordinates, are obtained from maps. Each call in the grid
covers 3.1 acres. For each cell, elevation is established by interpolation. The
computer produces an overlay that shows the maximum arm visible from the
LCP.

Figure 8-3: Computer plotted lines of sight.
From Litton, USFS, 1973

152

8.4 Presentation Aids

.8.4.1 Narrative

As with most planding reports, narrative information will of neces-

sity have to be submitted with the mapped material and other graphic in-

formation to provide explanatory support and verbal interpretations of

the analyses. Since most of the material relating to aesthetic resource

assessment it easily communicable in graphic form, the narrative material

should consist of short, concise summaties.ofthe inventory and evaluation

processes used, together with proper documentation where outside literatlire

has been cited. If information is to be disseminated to the public and

agency personnel unfamiliar with the assessment of aesthetic resources,
,the narrative material will'be of invaluable help in relating the methods

used and final conclusions.

8.4.2 Matrices and Charts

Where complex.surveys of aesthetic resources have been conducted,

the use of matrices and charts to display information will simplify and

.organize the material ina concise manner. Representative examples of

field survey checklists, processing matrices and tables, and summary tables

and charts of the evaluation findings will reduce the amount of.narrative
needed. The chart below (Fi g,: $4) i 1 1,.us trates.. -how. representative

man-made shore. landscape. types..., (termed @"Shores capes."): can -be evaluated by

reconnatssance staff.

153

q,
4

q@ @M ',;@O

, Al@
xz

CD
90

H
0@1@ Jj V@
m m c;-
X
0 @qqq-
Rffi
(D (D CL
0 -S fD
-5
Mffl,
0) C+ VWD
= (D @ @ @ @%- @c
0 Q. rD l1v @jw I@o
rD z
--ha . , ; P@R q@
w
0 C+ i6

(D
Ln
CM -Z..4

=r-0
(D W ITy

0
0 rD
i:@: o-
U-4

M M

J'@
;0

8.4.3 Plan Formats.

Where representations of site scale aesthetic resources.are needed

to supplement the material mapped using the techniques discussed

elsewhere in the reDort, plan view maps can aid.-in.,

communicating aesthetic resource attributes and evaluations. Plan view

maps are particularly essential to analyzing and explaining the spatial

relationships of aesthetic resource elements, since the,spatial dimen-
sions play significant roles in influencing'perc .eived a:esthetic resource

value.

155

8.4.4 Eye-level pictorialization

In addition to the above mentioned techniques, eye-level pic-

torialization can be used to explain the concepts and terminology used

to e'Valuate aesthetic resources, as shown in Figure 8-5 below. Simple

line drawings or silhouettes will probably offer,the most easily communicable

media as well as the least time consuming.

(1) Pristine Viewscape,
Visual Disturbance
Absent
41 -

(3) Moderately Little Visual
Disturbance/Physical
Alteration

pill

(6) High Degree of Visual
Disturbance/Physical
Alteration

Figure 8- 5, Eye level pictorialization adapted from:
Jones and Jones, "A Technique for Environmental
Decision Making Using Quantified Social and Aesthetic
Values: Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs, 1974

156

CHAPTER 9: AESTHETIC RESOURCES EVALUATION METHODS AND TECHNIQUES

9.0 Introduction.

Chapter 7 gave a brief discussion of the purposes of aesthetic

resource evaluation and delineated some of the decisions involved in

carrying.out such evaluation. This chapter addresses the techniques in

greater detail, particularly emphasizing the advant ages and disadvantages of

professionally-derived vs. user-derived methods of evaluation.

9.1 Professionally-derived Methods

Professionally-derived'methods are generally engaged in the

assessment of aesthetic resources for either or both of the following

purposes:

e to inventory aesthetic resource characteristics singly or in combi-
nation.with more comprehensive planning goals, e.g., land-use,
zoning;

to determine potential visual impacts resulting from the introduction
of man-made structures into natural landscape, e.g., power plant
siting.

Within the professionally-derived category, evaluation methods can be either

of aquantitative or qualitative nature, depending on the objectives of the.

evaluator. As implied in the dichotomy of classification, the quantitative

methods attempt to assign a numerical.value of an ordinal or interval nature

to aesthetic resources while the qualitative methods merely seek to establish

a rank order between aesthetic resource values. Despite this distinction, it

must be emphasized that while the end products of the two classes of methods

may differ, both.rely on initial qualitative judgments. In other words, the

assignment of quantitative values to aesthetic resources will in reality be

.dependent on qualitative judgments made at the outset.

157

P aralysis
shorescape evaluation
unit
reach patterns
NQ narne

. . . ......
E" gimigiolim-m! im.-mmimoom
H
. ......... 11
H,..
100;
@Nrm_. sandy beaches leading to
. beach ith offshore rocks;
-.1, r'@ 49 somewhat steeply to Bur-
well Hill; urban development along
shore; inland swamps.
HOUSATONIC 4 Point Beach Convex beach backed by some swampland 1', 110,
and Merwin Hill; Point Beach highly
developed; some sand bars off Pond
Point.
- - - - - - - - - -
at
3 Bayvi Conc e bea terminus of hummocky
peninsula; Meadow Creek drains in- 0. 0. 11, 10, 10. 0. 11, 11, 11, 11, 11,
teri6r swamplands; Welches Point
dominated by rock outcrops and groin
development.

2 The Gulf Shallow embayment with inlets drain -

nsive
ing into central portion; town of
Milford; offshore islands; exte
swampland adjacent to Bar Island.
wmmm -...w
=7 714me mis = m w Zmaid'ed7i"'vemr 7ou`7h=an=d=1a=rge=d=ee=pm
Island swamp, protected by sand bar and hook;
backed by.fairly urbanized towns of
Rivercliff and Devon; several off-
shore islands.
Subregion 4 6 Lordship Tombolo surrounded by crescent sandy
BRIDGEPORT Beach beaches backed by marsh; housing on
upper portions and along beach; air-
port dominant inland feature; off-
shore rocks toward Stratford Point.

Figure 9 1: Analysis,and Evaluation Matrix
LISS Shor0ine Appearance and
Desisn-HandbookS 1975
9.1.1 Qualitative Evaluation Methods

Assuming a particular landscape(s) has been selected for evalu-

ation with the objective of determining a non-numerical ranking of the values
of i Its aesthetic attributes, the following procedural model is normally

followed:

(1 ) Deri va-ti on of Qual i tati ve Terms

The initial stage in most of the qualitative evaluation methods

involves the development of a set of descriptive terms which can

be used to define the aesthetic attributes of the landscape being

158
r's
Hi I
ErE rwsh.'rle i

Shorescape management
are s of special scenic1concern
units atlas name assets deficits management
included NQ recommendations
...... ....
M:
. ... .....

Bayvi .ew rhe Gulf Area Charles Island Bulk material Increase access to shores and view in Gulf
The Gulf 1 5 storage in Milford Beach, Milford Harbor areas; nrovide access
in seasonal housing areas

Open up dense seasonal development on shore.
narticularly in Bayview and Silver Beach
areas

Manage historic assets in Milford

Nells Island Nel ls Island Nells Island Bridgeport Muni- Increase public access and view access to
cipal Airport Nells Island area, and to islands in
Lordship Beach 6 Connecticut Light Housatonic River
and Power Plant Open up built-over shores in Stratford.
Power lines along the Housatonic and,along the_Sound
Bulk material Limit industrial uses on shores of the river
storage

217

studied. For example, Litton (1974) uses the terms: "unity,

variety, and vividness" to evaluate aesthetic resou rce elements of

water-edge landscapes. In the Long Island Sound Appearance and
Design Element (1975), Roy Mann Associates employs I qualitative

evaluation terms such as those listed below, applicable to coastal

aesthetic resources.

Topographic Complexity: an index of the diversity as well as the
relative relief,of an area's landforms (vertical qualities).

Shoreline Complexity: an index of the irregularity of.the coastal
interface between land and water (horizontal qualities).

159

Vegetative Integrity: unity of vegetative species or type forms
within a single shorescape viewshed.

Vegetative Diversity: diversity of vegetative species or type forms
within a single shorescape viewshed.
Color (Hue).Ingredients: color of natural elements (earth, vegeta-
tion, water, sky); a criterion that varies with,seasons and weath6r.

Regardless of the terminology used (most express some form of com-

plexity or diversity), it is extremely important for the evaluator to

explicitly define the terms used to minimize vagueness and maximize

the objectivity of the evaluation.

(2) Classification of aesthetic'resource elements

Following development of a set of qualitative terms, the land-

scape elements which are believed to contribute to the overall

scenic value are then identified and classified for subsequent

evaluation by use of the qualitative terms. An example from

the study by Litton is provided below, Table 9-1, in which the

author identified aesthetic aspects of water in the landscape

derived from the interrelationships of water, vegetation, and

landform with human use and man-made change.

(3) Application of the qualitative terms to evaluate aesthetic resources

In this step, the two steps above are synthesized to evaluate th

aesthetic resource elements of a particular landscape in non-numer-

ical terms, much as "high," "medium," or "low" for each of the

qualitative descriptors.

160

jInventory Peview Sheet--Setting Unit

SETTING UNIT: CULTURAL PATTERN CONTRAST
FORM CONTRAST
BOUNDARY -TATION CONTRAST
DEFINITION@ n."INE SILHOUETTE
AERIAL HAZE DISTANCE

REGULAR BASINS
IRREGULAR BASINS OPEN ENDEL
SYMMETRICAL CORRIDOR FOCAL CLOSURE
ASYMMETRICAL CORRIDOR _j OPEN ENDED
ENCLOSURE - FOCAL CLOSURE

CONSISTENT HALF OR SIDE ENCLOSURE
IRREGULAR HALF OR SIDE ENCLOSURE
OPEN WITH FOCAL ;NCLOSURES
OPEN WITHOUT FOCAL ENCLOSURES
CANOPY

FLOODPLAIN
EVEN suopm-u=T BY Sire VALLEY
LANDSCAPE EXPRESSION- LAND FORM@ LOPES CONSISTING OF SIDE VALLEY AND
, SHOULDERS
ETC.

VEGETATION
PEAKS-PINNACLES
ESCARPMENTS-CLIFFS
FEATURES Dom-ouwkops
SIDE CANYONS
WATERFALLS
CAVES
ETC.

T PATTERNS
VEGETATIONAL I SROREB PATTERNS
PAI GRASSLAND
BARE OF COVER

EVIDENCE OF
HUMAN IMPACT.
VANTAGE QUALITY
SHORE ELEMENT MOST PROMINENT
WATER ELEMENT MOST PROMINENT
PR93KINENCE SHORE AND WATER CD-EQUAL PROMINENCE
WATER EXPRESSION - SETTING DOMINATES

WATER NOT APPARENT UNIT WITHIN SETTING
UNIT (TRANSENDS)
CONTINUITYJ WATER AND SETTING DEFINE SAME UNIT
MORE THAN ONE WATER UNIi CONTAINED
IN SETTING UNIT

NO TRANSITION-SHORE EDGE CONSTITUTES
WATER'SETTING UNIT EDGE
TRANSITION NO CONTRAST BETWEEN SHORE AND SETTING
MARKED CONTRAST BETWEEN SHORE AND
SETTING

EVIDENCE OF
HUMAN IMPACT

Figure 9-2: Landscape Classification.
From Litton et al, Water and
Landscape, 1974

161

Evaluations such as these are most useful for first order

analyses of the relative qualities ofaesthetic resources when

uniform criteria are applied consistently throughout the evalu-

ation process. However, when a more precise ranking on a numeri-

cal scale is needed, or when an assessment of the significance

of aesthetic resources relative to,non-aesthetic factors is

required, such qualitative judgments may be less than convincing.

The latter are better achieved through the use of the quantita-

tive techniques described below.

9.1.2 Quantitative Evaluation Methods

Quantitative evaluation methods can be either of two types: in-

dependent or comprehensive. The independent methods are used when aesthe-

tic resources are appraised independent of non-aesthetic factors. Compre-

hensive methods are employed when it is desired to compare values of aes-

thetic resources with non-aesthetic values (i.e., economic, social, or eco-

logical values).

Independent quantitative evaluation methods.
(1) Derivation of quantitative terms.. As with the qualitative

methods discussed above, a set of descriptive terms is usually

developed to provide for a consistent and rational evaluation

of the aesthetic resources,of a landscape. For example, Jones

and Jones (1974) advocate the use of the basic terms "intactness'.',

"vividness", and "unity" to describe the visual quality of a land-

scape. These terms, as app lied.by Jones and Jones in several

studies to evaluate the visual impacts of proposed development, are

defined below:

162

Intactness: The intactness of a viewscape is a measure of it's apparent
degree of natural condition as judged by:
1.) its level of urbanization
2) the degree to which encroachment is present.

Vividness: The memorability of the visual impression received from the
viewscape or its elements; relates to the level of distinction or
prominence resulting from contrast to mutual accentuation of diverse
viewscape elements. Complementary effects include:
1) definition of the viewscape boundary
2) diversity of spatial enclosure
3) degree of topographic relief
4) diversity of vegetative pattern
5) prominence of natural features
6) prominence of water forms
7) vividness of sky
8) vividness of man-made elements

The measure of the degree to which individual elements in the view
scape join together to form a single, coherent, harmonious visual unit.

(2) Classification of aesthetic Resource Elements. Classifica-

tion of aesthetic resource elements is typically undertaken in

a manner similar to that discussed above in the qualitative

model. Some-representative classification schemes from studies

by Jones and Jones (1974), Sargent (1967), and Leopold (1969)

include:

JONES & JONES, SARGENT LEOPOLD
Visual Resources of the Factors: Aesthe7ir Factors
Platte River Canyon: Distance of view of River Sites
Tr-ofile and topographic relief Variety of view River width
Spatial enclosure Depth of view River pattern
Natural features Width of view Bed slope
Vegetative patterns intermittency of view Basin area
Wildlife visibility . . . Stream order
Shoreline features Erosion of banks
Waterform expression Deposition
Manmade elements Width of valley flat

163

Subdivision of the landscape into its. component elements allows

an evaluation to be made which avoids subjective determinations

of overall scervic quality in the absence of a rational approAch.

It is much easier and far more objective to evaluate a land-

scape piece by piece and then to assimilate the findings into

an overall rating, than to attempt to evaluate the landscape

in its entirety from the outset.

(3) Application of the qualitative terms to quantitatively

evaluate aesthetic resource elements. Once the landscape ele-

ments have been classified, each element is then evaluated

using the qualitative terms developed above and a quantitative

scale.-

(4) Combinin@ the ratings into an overall quantitative evaluation

of aesthetic resources., Once the individual aesthetic resource

elements have been evaluated, a quantitative summation of the scenic

value of the landscape being studied can be derived. (This is
particularly important for identifying'areas of particular concern,

designating areas to.be restored'or enhanced, and determining

priorities for use, etc. under the CZMA where aesthetic attributes
must be compared between sites.) This step usually involves develop-

ing formulas or a set of equations which can be used to assimilate

the evaluations of individual aesthetic resource elements into

164

an overall measure of aesthetic value for the landscape. Two

4
examples are p@esented below from studies by.Research'Planning and
Design Associates (1970) and Jones and Jones (1974).

Table 9-1

Aesthetic Value Rating Formulas

RpnA JONES AND JONES

CLV (SV) (SW) + (UV) (UW) VQ = 1/3(l + V + U)
where CLV = Combined Landscape where VQ = Visual Quality
Value

SV = Series Evaluation = Intactness
(High 9, Median 6, L-ow 3)

SW Series Weighting Value V Vividness

UV Unit Evaluation U unity
(High 9, Median 6, Low 3)

UW Unit Weighting Value

9 Comprehensive Quantitative Methods.

Other more comprehensive methods have been developed to quantify

that aesthetic values can be appraised in

concert.with social, economic, and other environmental values. The

independent methods discussea above provide a mechanism,for rating

one..aesthetic'resource against another; the comprehensive methods

attempt to weigh aesthetic resources against n.on-aesthetic factors,

such as physical-bio-chemical impacts, etc. Because of the

difficulty in assigning numerical values to aesthetic factors so

that they can be compared to other more easily quantified factors.'

these types of evaluation methods have not as yet attained the,

165

R.116W.R.115W.
43-3d
Cache Creek
'X.
Landscape Control Point
Plot by Sections
Y4 Visible area
MILES
0 2 3
T. 4 111 r=@@
T.40%. N Contour interval 200 feet

43-
Figure 13-Plotting with sections from a Landscape Control Point at Cache
Creek, Jackson, Wyoming. A series of sections are laid out as rays from the
LCP. Linn of sight extend from each section. Extent of visible areas is
Plotted on a topographic Irmo,

-10,000

9,000

VERTICAL
SCALE
2 FEET 8'0CO

7,000

3 6,350

Figure 9'-3,: Establishing local viewshe 'd perimeters. Such procedures are
equally useful in developing detailed knowledge of.aesthetic
resources in coastal units as part of on-going management
planning and in predicting impacts of specific proposed actions.
Excerpted from R. Burton Litton, Jr., LandscaDe Control Points:
.a Procedure for Predicting and IMonitoring Visual Impacts., USDA
Forest Service Research Paper PSW-91-, 1973.
55@@@ z

166

state-of-the-art attributed to the independent methods. Therefore

no attempt is made here to Present an-abstracted procedural model.
Rather, representative,methods are briefly discussed.

Comprehensive methods are included in the professionally-derived

category because they have primarily been developed to evaluate
overall environmental impacts of proposed developments or land uses,

and because they-rely heavily on professional judgements of aesthetic
resource quality. In order to appraise aesthetic factors in the

context of their environmental, social,and econimic factors,
aesthetic resources are usually assigned a numerical value indicative

of the magnitude of quality of the aesthetic resource itself, and

subsequently a numerical value which is a measure of the importance

of the aesthetic resource vis a vis the other non-aesthetic factors

being considered in the analysis.

One of the more well known-systems developed along these lines is the
Leopold in 1971. In this simple, first order impact assessment

method, aesthetic resources are sub-divided into: 'scenic views and

vistas, wilderness qualities, open space qualities, landscape design,
unique physical features, parks and reserves, monuments, rare and

unique species and ecosystems, historical or archaeological sites

and objectives, and presence of misfits. Each of these factors is

evaluated as to "magnitude" of impact, either positive or adverse,

and then as to "importance," i.e., the significance of the aesthetic

resource impact relative to other physical impacts. The method,
however, relies very heavily on professional judgments
167

of aesthetic value and considers only first-order, linear relation-
ships between proposed.developthent actions and impacts on aesthetic

resource and other environmental factors..

A somewhat more sophisticated system is the "Environmental Evaluation
System for Water Resource Planning" developed by Batelle-Columbus
Laboratories for the Bureau of Reclamation in 1972 to assess environ-
mental impacts of water resource development projects. As shown in
the ac companying figure, Fig. 9-4, potential environmental impacts

Fiaure 9-4
.ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SYSTEM

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

Environrr
Ecology 42401 Pollution 402 Aesthetics (163) Human interest (206)
iental

Species and Populations (140) Water Pollution 018) Land 132) Educationa.I/Scientific
TERRESTRIAL Basin Hydrologic Loss; BOP; Geological Surface Material; Packages 148)
Browsers and Graxers; Dissolved Oxygen. Fecal Relief and Topographic Archeological; Ecological;
Crops; Natural Vegetation; Coliforms; Inorganic Character; Width and Geological; Hydrological
Pest Species; Upland Game Carbon; Inorganic Nitrogen; Alignment
Birds Inorganic Phosphate;
AQUATIC Pesticides; pH; Stream Flow Historical Packages (55)
Commercial Fisheries; Variation; Temperature; Architecture and Styles;
Natural Vegetation; Post Total Dissolved Solids; Toxic Events; Persons; Religions
Species; Sport Fish; ISubstances; Turbidity and Cultures; "Western
Waterfowl Water 152) Frontier'
Air Pollution (52) Appearance of Water; Land
Habitats / Communities (100) Carbon Monoxide; Hydro- and Water Interface; Odor Cultures (28)
TERRESTRIAL Carbons; Nitrogen Oxides; and Floating Materials; Indians; Other Ethnic
Food Web Index, Land Use; Particulate Matter; Photo- Water Surface Area; Wooded Groups; Religious Groups
Rare and Endangered Chemical Oxidants; Sulfur and- Geologic Shoreline
Species; Species Diversity Oxides; Other Mood/Atmosphere (37)
Biota (24) Awe/I nspi ration; Isolation/
AQUATIC Animals - domestic; Solitude; Mystery;
Food Web index; Rare and Land Polluti.on (2!) Animals - wild; Diversity "Oneness" with Nature
I F
Endangered Species; River Land Use; Soi rosion of Vegetation Types; Variety
Characteristics; Species - -1 within Vegetation Types
Diversity. Noise Pollution (411 Life Patterns (37)
Noise Man-Made Objects (101 Employment Opportunities;
Housing; Social Interactions
...... .. -e Objects

Composition (30)
Composite Effect; Unique
Composition

Excerpted from: Batelle-Columbus Laboratories, 1972

168
J
as.
n.

were subdivided into four categories: ecology, envir onmental pollution,

aesthetics, and human interest, which were further subdivided into

separate parameters and assigned "parameter importance units" (e.g.,
aesthetics; land: 32 P.I.U.'s). Each parameter is.then evaluated

.for the landscape under study on a scale from 0, "extremely bad

quality," to 1, "extremely good quality" to determine an environ-

mental quality index. The index is then multiplied by its parameter

importance value.to give a product, which is then summed up in a

total environmental impact score for the landscape with and without

the proposed development. Thus aesthetic parameters are quantified

on a unit scale common to all the environmental parameters so that

they can be evaluated accordingly.

Unfortunately this type of quantification of aesthetic parameters

-relies solely on professional subjective analyses and thus is bound

to reflect biases, as noted by the system's authors. The weightings

of the parameters, e.g., assigning the PA.U.'s, is also done rather

arbitrarily.. However, when viewed in the context of the assumptions

underlying these judgments, the method does provide a means for

analyzing environmental impact over a wide range of factors including

aesthetic factors as well as those more easily quantified.

In terms of their applicability to the evaluation of the aesthetic

resources of the coastal zone, comprehensive methods such as those

discussed above represent initial steps in the right direction. For

instance, due to the extremely sensitive nature of many coastal

zone ecosystems and the high real estate values associated with coas-

tal lands, it may frequently be necessary to quantify aesthetic

169

values so that they can be weighed against other, non-aesthetic values.

In this sense, comprehensive quantification of,aesth6tic resources

may beparticularly important for determining "priority uses" and

designating areas for "restoration" or "enhancement." However,

much additional research is needed at present to provide a more

empirical foundation.for assigning values to aesthetic resources

which canbe compared to other, non-aesthetic values.,

9.2 User-derived Evaluation Methods

In contrast to professionally-derived methods, which are applfed

to determine inherent aesthetic resource values, user-derived methods are

utilized'to evaluate aesthetic resources on the basis of user perception or

user demands. User.perc6ption methods are those which assess aesthetic

.resources on the basis of evaluations elicited from a selected sample or

samples of viewers, often on.the basis of analyses of demand (e.g., number

of visitor days). As was done in the professionally-derived section, examples

from representative studies have been organized into a general procedural

model for the first category of methods. The user demand method is then

only briefly discussed, as it is,generally concluded that user demand methods

are less effective for evaluating aesthetic resources.

9.2.1 User Perception Model

Given the selection of a particular landscape to be evaluated,

user-perception methods generally conform to the following procedural model.
(1) Pre-determination of Aesthetic Resource Factors,Influencing

Perceived Scenic Values

170

The initial stage of the process usually involves using professional.

judgment to determine the factors and characteristics of aesthetic

resources which affect perceived scenic value. For example, several

studies have.been concerned with the evaluation of aesthetic resources

of water-related.landscapes in which physical and visual attributes

of the landscape were identified as potential influences on perceived

scenic quality. Examples of these influencing factors from Morisawa

A1971) and Pitt (1973), follow:

Morisawa: Factors Affecting Pitt: Physical Dimensions
Perceived Scenic of Landscapes Adjacent
Quality of Riyer- to Rivers Affecting
ine Landscapet Perceived Scenic Quality

-vista -mean height of streambahk
-color vegetation
-vegetation -maximum height of streambank
-relief vegetation
-serenity -distance between vegetation
-naturalness -mean height of vegetation/
-accessibility distance between vegetation
-water appearance -mean height of valley walls
-pollution and litter -maximum height of valley walls
-width of valley floor
-mean height of valley/width of
valley
-mean slope of valley walls
-maximum slope of valley walls
-stream order

171

In another study, undertaken by Craik (197-2), the following land-

scape dimensions were identified as influencing the perception of

scenic qualities:

-observer position
-extent of view
-amount of foreground, background
-panoramic view
-direction of lighting
-vertical enclosure which blocks off line of vision
-isolated forms
-surface shape seen as outline
-focal views
-cloud character

Pre-determination of these factors or dimensions of aesthetic resources

is done to develop a set of hypotheses regarding the effects of these

characteristics on perceived scenic value. The hypotheses are then

tested for a selected sample of sites and a selected viewing sample

to test the correlation between the varying elements and viewer evalu-
ations. Depending on the validity and reliability of these analyses

(using standard statistical techniques), the results may then be gene-

ralized to predict viewers' evaluation of qesthetic resources of other

landscapes.

(2) Development of Rating Scales
Once the elements of aesthetic resources influencing perceived scenic

values have been identified, the next step may involve developing a

rating scale which can be used to predict how varying combinations

and intensities of the factors or dimensions will affect perceived

scenic values. Shafer and Mietz (1970) identified the dimensions of

eight zones (within a landscape photograph) as the major influences on

perceived scenic values and computed-the areas and perimeters of the zones

172

't6predict A landscape's preference score.

Other methods of predictive rating include that described in the
North Atlantic Regional Water Resources Study (Research Planning

and Design Associates, 1970) which were subjected to further testing

by perceptual methods, e.g.:
"Scenic value is a function of relaiive landf6rm elevation
and diversity of land use pattern. As relative elevation
decreases in magnitude, diversity of land use@pattern in-
creases in importance for the maintenance of.high scenic
value." (Zube, Pitt, Anderson, 1974)

(3) Selec tion of a Viewing Sample

In order to elicit evaluative responses of the perceived value of
aesthetic resources, samples of design.professi onals or more diverse

groups are typically selected to view.the landscape under study.

Several studies have been undertaken (Craik 1972; Coughlin and

Goldstein 1970; Fines, 1968; Zube, Pitt and Anderson, 1974) to

analyze the congruence of expert and non-expert values. Generally

these studies conclude that evaluations of aesthetic resource values

will exhibit agreement among diverse groups of viewers, with the

constraint that ratings be compared for broad ordinal scales, (e.g.,

high, medium, low) rather than on more specific'interval scales .(e.g.,

JI-l"rat-d'a landscape on a scale from 1-10"). The selection of the view-

sample will in most cases depend on the time.and resources avail-

able:to the investigator in soliciting volunteers.,

C4) Development of View Evaluation Method

Having selected a viewing sample, usually from 40 to 100 people,

a method is then devised for viewing the landscape(s) being studied.

Vantage points are initially determined from which the landscape is

173

directly viewed or from which color sl'ides or black and white

photographs are takdn.for off-site viewing. Sketches of-the.site may

also be used, alone or in combination with the above Zube, Pitt and
Anderson (1974) suggest that color photos produce no,,significant

differences from on-site visitation, if care is taken to avoid artificial

enframement.

Questionnaires are usually developed to soTicit the viewers'

evaluations during the viewing sessions. Craik (1972) and others

suggest the use of questions which ask the viewer to appraise the

landscape.on an elemental, evaluative level rather than on a

preferential basis, thus avoiding questions which would elicit
responses'relating to the preferred use of a landscape. "Evaluative"

judgments are also representative among a wider cross-section of

people and are thus pref erred if results are to be statistically

expanded.

(5) Findings Analysis/Landscape Ranking

Statistical methods, such as regression analysis or factor

analysis are then typically employed to analyze the viewer evalu-

ations in order to correlate actual-aesthetic resource character-

istics with the evaluations of perceived scenic values. For
example, Craik (.1972) reached the following tentative conclusions:

a) The sense of vertical enclosure which blocks off the
line of vision directly ahead of the observer is negatively
related to aesthetic appeal.
b) The degree to which a scene contains a focal view directing
the line of Vision along a prescribed pathway is positively
related to aesthetic appeal.

174

c) An extent of view greater than three miles is positively
related to aesthetic appeal.

d) A panoramic view, either a sweeping or horizontai expanse,
is positively related to aesthetic appeal.
,-e) The presence'of clouds is positively related to aesthetic
appeal.

The findings may also be used to rank the aesthetic resources in
terms of their perceived@scenic value, as in the Shafer study (1970.:) where
"landscape preference scores" were used to rank seven landscapes in

each of two sets of photographs. Alternatively, the evaluations

can be utilized (assuming consensus exists).to substantiate prior

professional judgments as to the value of aesthetic resources at

a site.

9.2.2 Attractivity Analysis Methods

Another means of evaluating aesthetic resources is to measure

the demand for the use of the resource. This technique has been traditionally
oriented to recreational resource management, where there is a more easily
quantifiable product, e.g., the visitor to a recreation facility. In theory,

aesthetic resources are "demanded" by users, thus indicating that.the

quantity and frequency of visitations to a site should represent to some

degree the scenic value of the aesthetic resources-. Specific examples of

this kind of demand measurement would include counts of visitors stopping

at a scenic overlook to observe a panoramic view, or counts of people walking

down a particular'stretch of beach. Theoretically, those resources which

attract more people are more valuable.

While this technique in a sense removes the evaluation of

aesthetic resources from an intellectual or judgmental exercise to a more

175

realistic frame of reference, (e.g-. hard physical data: visitor days).,

there are certain disadvantages to the use of this method. Primary among

these is the difficulty in assessing whether the aesthetic resources of a

particular -4ite or,landscape are affecting user' demand more significantly

than other variables (e.g., distance, access, fuel availability, cost,

pub licity, etc.). The relative locations of alternative aesthetic

resources may frequently affect the demand,for an aesthetic resource to a greater

extent than the quality of the aesthetic resource itself.

9.3 Summary

In the foregoing sections, representative aesthetic resource

evaluation methods have been presented as conforming to one of five basic

organizational models or categories. Selection of any of these existing

methods or development of new techniques will depend to a large extent on

the objectives of the evaluator and the time, resources, and skills available.

However, in order to provide the planner with a list of criteria for

developing an aesthetic resource evaluation process suitable:to individual

program needs a nd capabilities, a list of basic considerations is presented

below:

� Scale: Applicability of the method to a range of landscape scales.
i.e., site-local-regional.

� Universality: Applicability of the method to a variety of geographical
conditions and aesthetic resource attributes.

Implementation Requirements:
a) Need for specially trained personnel and outside expertise;
b) Need for specialized equipment; computer facilities and
sophisticated data collection, processing and analysis
techniques.

176

Systematicness: Applicability and validity of the theoretical
basis of the method; ease with which the method can be applied

f, Flexibility: Compatibility of the method with other planning
program e ements.

0 Relevance of the Method to Program Objectives:
a) Determining permissible uses;
b) Designating areas of particular concern;
.c) Assessing aesthetic resource impacts;
d) Determining Priorities of use.

Each of the five basic.categories of evaluation methods

discussed in this chapter will satisfy the above general criteria tn varying

degrees. The planner should utilize the criteria prior to developing an

evaluation method(s) such that individual program objectives, needs and

capabilities can be adequately defined.

177

GLOSSARY-: COastal Aesthetics

Bluff: A steep landform, generally lying parallel to a shore or river
Captive view: A view seen from a transportation corridor (street, highway, railroad) which is unavoidable to most travellers
Coastal reach: Aggregate of shorescape units within recognizable geomorphological divisions
Coastal tiers: Offshore: from the outward limit of regional waters to the spring low tide line
Shore and estuary: from spring low tide to record high water
Upper sh6reland: from record high water to the limit of the viewshed
Deficit: An element exhibiting a lack of positive aesthetic quality
Diversity: The quality of the landscape which expresses variety of forms perceived on land or water
Eyesore: An element exhibiting gross inconsistency with aesthetic standards
Fragility/sensitivity: The quality of landscape resources which expresses their susceptibility to value reduction as the result of
modification by man
Headlands: High points on the shore which act as guides to -the eye and provide closure to units of shorescape
Intrusion: An element exhibiting incompatibility with the surrounding natural or man-made environment

00
Landscape: The total visible terrain
Mass: The total expanse and bulk of a structure, including all three dimensions, usually perceived by the viewer from a
short distance
Regional viewshed: The area bounded by those topographical limits most commonly considered inland horizons as �een from
resources and settlements acknowledged as of importance to the coastal zone community
Rise: A shallow landform merging with distant heilghts
Shorescape unit: Length of shore visible between headlands from a single point in the near shore zone
Silhouette: The two-dimensional appearance of a structure as it appears on the horizon
Texture: Composition and appearance of the building materials of a structure; general appearance and density of
vegetation, natural and planted by man
Townscape: A visually coherent group of man-made structures
Viewpoint: Point on land or a. building from which one or more views of any typecan be seen; high priority viewpoints
provide access to views of high scenic interest
Viewshed: Visible shorelands and islands extending up to the distant high ridge or peaks most commonly viewed as the
(local) shore horizon b@ coastal, viewers.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Aesthetic Resource Identification, Classification, and-Evaluation

A. Major Sources (with annotation)

B. Other Sources (without annotation)

Il. Mapping and Remote Sensing of Aesthetic Resources

III. Management of Aesthetic Resources

IV. Management Plans from Coastal Zone States

179

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AESTHETIC RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND EVALUATION
A. Major Sources (with Annotation)
1. Bagley, Marilyn D. Aesthetics in Environmental Planning. .P.repared
by Stanford Research Institute, for-Tashinqton Environmental
Protection Agency, November 1973. A comprehensivereview of
the'role of aesthetics in planning.,,with a systematic analysis
of current methods for measuring and quantifying.
2. Cerby.' James W. "Scenic Analysis & Assessment," Uni .versity'of
New Hampshire,.Durham, New Hampshire. IReprinted from
CRC Critical Reviews in Environmental Control. June'1974.
A comprehensive review of existing techniques for scenic
analysis, including a discussion of the advantages and
limitations of various techniques and formulae which
summarize the quantitative analysis parameters.

5. Coomber, Nicholas S.; Biswas, Asit K. "Evaluation of Environmental
Intangibles," Genera Press, Bronxville, New York, 1973.
This study-discusses techniques for the monetary and non-
monetary evaluation of the physical environment, and des-
cribes in particular aesthetic measure models and attrac-
tivity models for quantitative assessment of environmental
values.

4. Craik, Kenneth H. "Appraising the Objectivity of Landscape Dimension."
In Natural Environments, Studies in Theoretical and Applied
Analysis. 0--ohn Krutilla (ed.) Balti-more: Resources for the
Future, Inc., Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972. There
are three types of human response to the landscape: descrip-
tive assessments which depict, rate, and measure landscape
attributes; evaluative appraisals which judge relative quality
of landscapes against a standard; and preferential judgments
-which are personal and subjective evaluations.

5. Fabos,.Julius Gy. "An Analysis of Environmental Quality Ran;king
Systems. In Recreation Symposium Proceedings. Northeastern
Forest Experimental Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, 1971. A review
and analysis of the quantitative ranking systems which..have
been developed during the past decade for measuring environ-
mental quality, including a thorough explanation of the
eight criteria used to analyze the various systems.
6. Model for Landscape Resource Assessment Part f-of the
"Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model" (METLAND) -. Univer ity
of Massachusetts, College of Food and Natural Resources;
Department of Landscape Architecture and.Regional Planning,
Amherst, Massachusetts, June 1973. This study gives guide-
lines for landscape planning and landscape resource assessment,
and describes seven sub-models for measurement and rating
of landscape resource variables, and applies these techniques
to a study area in the Boston region.

180

7. Hebblethwaite, R.L. "Landscape Assessment and Classification Tech-
niques.11 . In Land'Use and Landscape Planning, Derek Lovejoy
(e'd.) -Aylesbu@y, England: Leonard Hill Books,'1973.-A
comprehensive study of landscape assessment, including methods
of assessment, how to make visibility studies, and discussion
with case studies illustrating techniques for qualitative
assessment.

8. JoHes and Jones, "Quantification of Aesthetic Values," Chapter 4,
A Technique for Environmental Decision-Making Using Quan-
tified Social and Aesthetic Values,, ed. by John B. Burnh
Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, for the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission, February, 1974. This report-includes a,
chapter on Quantification of Aesthetic Values which describes
a method for d 'etermining the compatibility of specific new
development projects with an existing scenic area by mea-
suring the change in visual qual.ity resulting from a new faci-
lity being placed in a given viqwshed.

9 . Kaplan, S.; Wendt, J.S. "Preference and the Visual Environment."
Environmental Desiz: Research and Practice, Vol. 3.
Mitchell, W. J. @ed.), Los Angeles, 197Z. This study con-
firmed the hypothesis that man has a preference forv'the ,
visual patterns characteristic of natural environments, and
fu@ther, that this preference is not reducible to the com-
plexity of the stimulus array.
10. Leopold, Luna. "Quantitative Comparison of Some Aesthetic Factors
Among Rivers." U.S.G.S Circular 620, Washington, D.C., 1969.
A study which attempts to quantify some elements of 'aesthetic
appeal for riverscapes, with particular reference to the
Hells Canyon region of the Snake River.

.11. Litton, R. Burton, Jr. "Aesthetic Dimensions of the Landscape." In
@Natural Environments, Studies in Theoretical and Applied
Analysis. John Krutilla (ed.) Baltimore: Resources for
tF-e-Fu-ture, Inc. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972. In
this significant article, Litton describes the types of land-
scape inventories which can be made,,the quantifiable charac-
ter'istics, the six landscape compositional types, and three
aesthetic'criteria for evaluating the scenic landscape.

12. Litton, R.:.Burton, Jr.; Tetlow, Robert J., -Sorensen, Jens; Beatty,
Russell A. Water and Landscape- "An Aesthetic Overvit!w of
the Role of Water in tFe-Ua_n7scape. Water Information Center,
Inc., Port Washington, New York, 1974. This comprehensive
book gives a detailed description and classification frame-
work for inventorying and eval-uating aesthetic resources
according to landscape, setting and waterscape units, and
discusses the impact of man-made structures and alterations
in the water oriented landscape.

13. Mann, Roy, Norton H. Nickerson, V. Michael Weinmayr, and Richard
Tutlock. Estuarine Landscape Survey and Analysis. Coastal
Research Corporation, for the U.S. Department of the Inte-
riori Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wilflife, January, 1970. This report describes tech-
niques for classifying and evaluating coastal landscape, and
provides a detailed survey and analysis of the ten biogeo-
.,graphic regions of the American coastlines.

14. Pitt, David G. The Physical Dimensions of Scenic Qual ity in Streams:
An Examination of the Relationshi-2 IBetween Scenic Qualit
Evaluations and Physical LandscaQe Dimensions. May 10,E+974.
7he relationship of 25 physical dimensions of streams in
Massachusetts to the eval-uation of scenic quality in stream
landscapes was investigated through regression analysis.

15. Research Planning and Design Associates. Appendix N: The Visual
and Cultural Environment. North Atlantic Region Wate and
Relation Land Resourc tudy. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
November 1970. A comprehensive study of the North Atlantic
region watersheds, with description of visual and cultural
needs, recommendations for landscape planning and management-.
programs, and a detailed inventory and landscape evaluation
of the elements in the landscape continuum.

16. Sargent, Frederic 0. "Scenery Classification." Vermont Resources
Research Center, Vermont Agricultural Experiment,Station.
Report 18, 1967. This report describes a scenery classifi-
cation system for analyzing natural scenery in Vermont, using
a positive rating for the distance of the view and the variety
of unique objects seen in the view, and a negative rating for
the eyesores seen in the view.

17. Shafer, Elwood L., Jr.; Mietz, James. "It Seems Possible to Quantify
Scenic Beauty in Photographs." U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Research Paper NE-162, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station,
Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, 1970. A landscape preference
model that was developed and tested on recreationists in New
York predicted the overall landscape preference pattern of
outdoor recreationists near Salt Lake City, Utah, who ranked
their preferences-for seven scenic vistas depicted on photo-
graphs.

18. Steinitz, Carl; Murray, Timothy: Sinton, David; Way, Douglas.
A Comparative Study of Resource Analysis Methods. Department
of the Amy, New England Division, Corps of Engineers, Waltham,
Massachusetts,, 1969. Fifteen methods of resource analysis are
analyzed and ranked according to their level of complexity,
being divided into major categories of descriptive, evaluative,
and predictive study types.

19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. "The Visual Management
System." National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2,
Chapter 1, Agriculture Handbook No. 462, 1974. A handbook
withuseful criteria for identification and classification of

182

scenic quality in National Forest lands, with documentation
to support the thesis that landscapes with the most-variety
or diversity have the greatest potential for high scenic value.

20. Weddle, A.E. "Applied Analysis and Evaluation Techniques." In
Land Use and Landscape Planning. Derek Lovejoy (ed.)
Aylesbury, England: Leonard Hill Books, 1973. A compre-
hensive discussion of landscape planning, including differing
techniques for processing survey information and measures
for evaluation.

21. Zube, Ervin H.; Pitt, David G.; Anderson, Thomas W. Perception and
Measurement of Scenic Resources im the Southern Connecticut
River Valley. report on research supported by Northeast
Utilities. Service Company, Hartford, Conn., Institute for
Man and His Environment, January 1974. Publication No.
R-74-1. By measuring viewer preferences for scenic resource
values according to 23 landscape dimensions, it is concluded
that cultural,artifacts and land.management practices are
important determinants of scenic resource values.

183

B. Other Sources (without Annotation)
22.- Acking', Carl-AxeI, Sorte, Gunnar Jarle. "How Do We Verbalize What
We See?" In Landscape Architecture Quarterly, October 1973.
23. "Aesthetic Nuisance: An Emerging Cause of Action." New York
University Law Review. Vol. 45:1975. November 1970.

24. Albert, John Carl. "A Study of Visual Recognition in the New
England Rural Landscape." Master thesis, Department of
Landscape Architecture, University of Massachusetts. May
1969.

25.. Amidon, Elliott L.; Elsner, Gary H. "Delineating Landscape View
Areas ... A Computer Approach." U.S.D.A.-Forest Service
Research Note PSW-180. Berkeley, California. 1968.
26. Appleyard, Donald; McKechnie, G.; Older, H. "Traveller Attitudes
to the Highway Environment." Unpublished paper dated 1971.
27. Appleyard, Donald; Lynch, Kevin; Myer, J. The View from the Road.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press, 1965.

28. Arnheim, Rudolf. Art and Visual Perception. Berkeley, California:.
University of_C_aT-7o__rn_ia Press. 1964.
291. Toward a Pszcholo of Art. Berkeley, California:
Fiversity of California Press, 1969.
30. Visual Thinking. Berkeley, Calitornia: University of
Califo-rnia Press, 1969 (p. 5).

31. Arthur D. Little, Inc. ResRonse to the Roadside Environment. Report
to the Outdoor Advertising Association of Amer!E-a.C.67944.
January, 1968.

32. Bahm, Archie J. "Is a Universal Science of Aesthetics Possible?"
Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Fall 1962.

33. Barker, Roger G. "On the Nature of the Environment, Kurt Lewin
Memorial Award Address - 1963." The Journal of Social
Issues, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1963, (pp.@r17-38).

34. Barrett, S. J. Cyril. Collected Papers on Aesthetics. New York-,
Barnes and Noble, 196

35. Bartels, J.; Colman, J.; Hansen, R.; Mayberry, E.B..; Riotte, R.J.
A Visual Classification and Landscape Evaluation System for
The Southeast New England,Region. MLA Thesis, University of
Massachusetts, 1972.

36. Boyce, Ronald R.; Clark, W.A.V. "The Concept of Shape in Geography."
The Geographical Review.. Vol. 54, No. 4, 561-572.

184

37. Broughton, Robert. "Aesthetics and Environmental Law: Decisions
and Values." Land and Water Law'Review, Vol. VII, No. 2, 1972.
38. Burke, Herbert.D., et al. "A Method for Classifying Scenery from
a Roadway." Reprinted from Park Practice Guideline. March 1968.

39. Burns, W.T.; Rundell, D.D. "A Test of Visual Preferences in a Rural
New England Landscape." MLA Thesis, University of Massachusetts.

40. Carr, S.; Kurilko, G. "Vision and Memory in the View,From the Road:
A Progress Report." Joint Center for Urban Studies of M.I.J.
and Harvard, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1964..
41. Chermayeff, Ivan, et al. The Desi@n Necess't Cambridge, Massachu-
setts: Massachuse-tt-sFnstitute of nology Press, 1973.
42. Clark, S.B.K. Landscape Survey and AnalXsis on a National Basis.
Planning Mutlook, New Series, Vol. 4, Spring 1968. JouFinal
of the Department of Town and Country Planning in the Univ-
ersity of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.
43. Coller, John Jr. Visual AnthropoloSy: Photo@raehy as a Research
Method. N York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1967.

44. Connally, Paul L. "Visual Considerations: Man, the Vehicle and the
Highway." Highway Research News., No. 30, Winter, 1968.
45. Constantini, Edmond; Huff, Kenneth. "Environmental Concern and
Lake Tahoe: A Study of Elite P erceptions, Backgrounds, and
Attitudes." Environment and Behavi.or. Vol. IV, No. 2.
June 1972, pp. 209-242.,

46. Coughlin, Robert E. Goldstein, Karen A. "The Public's View of the.
Outdoor Environment as Interpreted by Magazine Ad-Makers."
RSRI Discussion Ppiper Series, No. 25, Regional Science
Research Institute, October 1968.

47. "The Extent of Agreement Among Observers on Environmental
Attractivene'ss." RSRI Discussion Paper, Series #37, Regional
Science Research Institute, Philadelphia,,Pennsylvania, 1970.

48. -Craighead, F. C.; and Craiqhead,,J.-J. "River Systems:, Recreational
Classificati6n, Inventory and Evaluation." Natural-ist. Vol. 13,
No. 2, (pp. 2-19).
49. -Craik, Kenneth H. "The Comprehension of the Everyday Physical
Environment." Journal of the American Institute of Planners.
Vol. 34., January, 196fS.

50. "Psychological Factors-in Landscape Appraisal." Envir-
onment and Behavior. 4:3. 1972.

51. Dearinger, John A. "Aesthetic and Recreational Potential of Small
Streams Near Urban Areas." Research Report No. 13, University
of Kentucky Water Sources Institute, 1968.

1.85

52. Dee, Norbert, et,al. "Environmental Evaluation,System for Water,
Resource Planning, " Final. report prepared by Battelle-Columbus
Laboratories, CoKmbus Ohio, for B ureau of Recreation, U.S.
Department of Interior, January 1972.

53. DeJonge, Derk. "Images of Urban Areas." Journal of the American
Institute of Planners. Vol..28, November 1962' 226-276.
54. Dewey, John. Art as Experience. New York: Putnam, 1959.41
55.' Dolan, Robert; Hayden, Bruce. Classification of Coastal Environments,
Procedures and Guidelines. Department of Environmental,
Sciences, University of Tirginia. Office of Naval Research,
Geography Programs. February 1973.

56. Elsner, Gary H. "Comparing Visible Areas from Proposed Recreation
Developments...a Case Study." U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Re-
search Note PSW-246. 1971.

57. Environmental Protection Age 'ncy. "The 'Quality of Life.' Concept."
Symposium held August 29-31 at Arlie House, Warrenton,
Virginia. 1972.

58. "'A Review of State-of-the-Art and Guidelines Derived
to, Assist in Developing Environmental Indicators." Summary
Report. August-, 1972.

59. Erickson, Robert; Okerland, Gary. "Visual Components.for Highw 'ay
'Design Criteria.". Unpublished paper, Department of Land-
Architecture, Harvard Graduate School of Design.
'Spring 1969.
60. Fes-Linger, Leon. A TheoU of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, California:
Stanford University Press, 1965.

earch Project in East
Fines, K.D. andscape Evaluation: A Res
Sussex." Regionfl-Studies. 2:41-55. 1968.,
62. Fiske, bona,ld,W.; Maddi, Salvatore,R. Functions of Varied Experi-
ence. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, Inc., 1968.

63. Fitch, James Marston. "Seven Experiential Bases.for Aesthetic
Decision." In Proshansky, Ittelson, Rivlin, Environmental
PsXchology_-Man and His Physical Setting. Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc. , 1970.

64. Fraser, Robert A. "Visual Landscape Quality Related to the Massachusetts
..Coastal-Zone." Unpublished paper, Department of Landscape
Architecture, Harvard Graduate School of Design, Spring 1969.
6 5. Frederick, C.J.;.Luty, Jim (eds.) Problem.Reco2ni.tion Study. Depart-
ment of Landscape Architecture-Harva-rd-Gradu@te Sc o I of Design.
Spring, 1979. - - y - - 11

66. Gibson, James J. Perception of the Visual World. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin, 1950.

186

67. Goodey, B. Perception of,the Environment. Occasional Paper No. 17.
Center for-Urban and Regional Studies. University of
Birmingham, 1971.

68. Greene, C.H.."The Aesthetic-Cultural Submodels of the Metropolitan
Landscape Planning Model." MLA Thesis, University of
Massachusetts, 1972.
69. Han8ley, Rolland B. "An Environmental Quality Rating System.",
Northeast Region Staff, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, 1973,

70. Hebblethwaite, R.L. "Landscape Qualitative Assessmen't and Zones-of
Visual Influence with Quantitative As@essment." Unpublished
paper, for British Institute of Landscape Architects.
December 1971.

71. Hendrix, W. "The Visual Land Use Compatibility Component of the
Metropolitan Landscape Planning Model (METLAND)." MLA
Thesis, University of Massachusetts, 1973,

72. Hopkinson, R.G. "The Quantitative Assessment of Visual Intrusion."
Journal of the Town Planning Institute. Vol. 7, #10, 1971.
73. Huth, Hans. "The Aesthetic Emphasis." (1948) In R. Nash (ed.)
Environment and Americans--the Problem of Priorities.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.

74. Jones, Grant R., "Techniques for Assessing and Quantifying lEnviron-
mental Aesthetic, and Recreational Values and Impacts." Pro-
ceedings of a Conference on Recreation Planning for Federal-
JX Licensed Hydro-Electric Projects. Portland, Oregon: B.O.R.,
Pacific NW Utilities, F,.P.C., 1974.

75. Jackson, Charles,L. "Scenic Resources. A Study of Scenic Preferences."
Master of Science Professional Paper, Colorddo State University,
Department of Recreation Resources, Fort Collins, Colorado, 1971.

76. Jacobs, Peter; Way, Douglas. Visual Analysis of Landscape Development. .
Landscape Architecture7ffice, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1968.

77. Kaderali, Shirza. "A Visual Analysis Model." Pacific Gas and
Electric C.ompany. 'San Fran, cisco, November, 1972.
78. Kates, Robert. "The Pursuit of Beauty in the Environment."'
Landscape. 16 (2),pp.21-24, 1966-67.

79. Leighty, Leighton L., "Aesthetics as a Legal Basis for Environmental
Control." Wayne Law Review. Vol. 17, No. 3. July-August 1971.

80. Leopold, Luna B. "Landscape Aesthetics: How to Quantify the Scenics
of a River Valley." Natural History, Vol. 1, no. 3., 1969,pp.34-46;.

187

81., Leopold, Luna B.; Marchand, Maura O'Brien. "On the Quantitative
Inventory of the Riverscape." Water Resources Research.
Vol. 4,-no. 4, pp.709-717. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington,
D.C. August 1968.

82. Leopold, Luna B., et al. "A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental
Impact," U.S.G.S. Circular 645, Washington, D.C. 1971.

83. Lewis,,Philip H. Jr. "Quality Corridors for Wisconsin.',' Landscape
Architecture. Vol. 54, no. 2,(pp. 100-108). January 1964:

84. Linton, D.C. "The Assessment of Scenery as a Natural Resource."
Scottish Geographical Magazine. 84. 1968.

85. Little Arthur D. "A Study of Human Response to Visual Environ-
ments in Urban Areas." San Francisco, May 1966.

86.- Litton, R. Burton, Jr. Forest.. @andscape Description and Inventories:
A Basis for Pla_nn@inq and Design.- Research Paper PSW-49,
Pacific Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Berkeley, California, 1968, (p. 171).
87. Lowenthal, David (ed.) "Environmental Perception and Behavior."
Research Paper no. 109, University of Chicago, Department of
Geography, 1967.

88. Lynch, Kevin. The Image of the C*t Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Massach'@_setts Institute chnology Press, 1960.

89. "A Selected Bibliography on the Sensuous Form of the
Large-Scale Environment," The Urban Landscape. Spring 1973.

90. McEvoy, James III; Williams, Sha ron; Tahoe Research Group. Visual
Pollution'in the Lake Tahoe Basin, A Reportto the R-e-gToEna
Planning A2ency Based on the Application of a Quantitative
Method of Assessing the visual Environmenf. University Tf
California-7avis, 1970.

91. McGill, John T. Coastal Landforms of the World, American Geographical
Society, _19918K

92. McHarg, Ian L. Design with Nature. Garden City, New York: N atural
History Press, Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1969@.

93. 'McKechnie, G.E. "Measuring Environmental Disposition with the
Environmental Response Inventory." EDRA 11. 1970.

94. Michelson, William. "An Empirical Analysis of Urban Environmental
Preferences." Journal of the American Institute of Planners.
Vol. 32, November 1966, (p-p-7-1-55-36o).

95. "Monitori.ng the Environment of the Nation." Prepared by Mitre
Corp., McLean, Virginia, for the Council on Environmental
Quality, April 1971.

188

96. Morisawa, Marie. "Evaluatin'g Riverscapes." in D.R. Coates (ed.)@
Environmental Geomorehology. Proceedings of the First Annual
Geomorphology Symposium Series, State University of New York,
Binghamton, New York, 1971.

97. -Munro, Thomas. Scientific Method in Aesthetics. New York:
W.W. Norton & Co., Inc., 1928.

98.1 @Aesthetic Inqui U: Essay on Art Criticism and the
Philc7sophy of Art. Monroe C. Beardsley Pd,Herb@rt M.
Scheuller (eds.) Belmont, California: Dickenson Publishers,
Inc., 1967. p. 43.

99. Nash, Roderick, (ed.) Environment and Americans--The Problem of
Priorities. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.

100. The National Estuarine Pollution Study. Report of the Secretary
of the Interior to the U.S.. Congress, U.S. Government
Printing Office, March 25, 1970.
101. Needham, Barrie. An Experiment with LandscaRe Evaluation Techniques.
Oxford Wo g Papers in Planning Education and Research,
Apri-1 1973.

102. Neumann Edward S. "Evaluating Subjective Response to the Recreation
Environment." Ph.D. Dissertation, Northwestern University,
1969.

103. Nightswanger, J.J. "A Methodology for Inventory Evaluation of the,
Scenic Quality and Related Recreational Value of Kansas
S tre ams Commerce Report #PD 199190 16-72-05645.

104. Pardee, -Frederick; Budhraja, Uikram. "Understanding and Forecasting
Aesthetic Aspects of Regional Environments." Research Proposal
Submitted to the National Science Foundation, The Institute
for Futures Analysis, Los Angeles, 1972.

105. Peterson, George L. "Measuring Visual Preferences of Residential
Neighborhoods." Ekistics. Vol. 23, 1967, 169-173.

106. Peterson, George L.; Neumann, Edward S. '"Modeling and Predicting
Human Response to the Visual Recreation Environment."
Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1, no. 3. Summer 1969.

107. Peterson, John M.; Woodman, Donald; Eaton, Robert. "Critical Judgements
Based on Direct Versus Indirect Experience: Photographs Versus
Reality." Unpublished paper.

108. Pickford R W. Psychology and Visual Aesthetics.. London: Hutchinson
.Lu@ation Ltd.s 1972..

109. Pitt, David G. The Effect of Plant Succession on Scenic Qualities
in the Land@@e. November 29, 1972.

189

110. Rabinowitz, Carla.B.; Coughlin, Robert E. "Analysis of Landscape
Characteristics Relevant to Preference." RSRI Discussion
Paper, Series #38, Regional Science Research Institute,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1970.

Some Experiments in Quantitative Measurement of Land-
scap e =ua ity. RSRI Discussion Paper SerM No. 43, nal
Science Research Institute. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1971.
112. Research Planning and Design Associates, Inc. Studv of Visual and
Cultural Environment, VisualLandscape Quality Mstraints.
Prepared foir the North.Atlantic Regional Wate-r-Resou-r-c-e-7-tudy
Coordinating Committee. Amherst, Massachusetts. November
1968.

113. Sabaroff, B.J. "The Blo-Psychosociological Effects of the Environ-
ment on Man: An Analysisj,of Currently Available Information."
National Bureau of Standards. April 1966.
114. Santayana, George. The Sense of Beau@X, Bring the Outlines of '
Aesthetic Theory New York: Charles Scribners' sons, 1936.

115. Shafer, Elwood L., Jr.; Hamilton, John E., Jr.; Schmidt, Elizabeth A.
"Natural Landscape Preferences: A Predictive Model." Journal
of Leisure Research. Vol. 1, 1969, pp,-1-99.

116. Shaw, Samuel P. and Fredine, C. Gordon. 'Wetlands-of the Unitdd States.
Circular 39, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S.G.P.O., 1971.

117. Sonnenfeld, J. "Variable Values in Space and Landscape: *An Inquiry
into the Nature of Environmental Necessity." Journal of
Social Issues. Vol. 22, 1966, PP. 71-92.

118. Spreiregen, Paul D. Urban Design: The Architecture of Towns and
Cities. New York: Mc raw-Hill Book Co., 1965.

119. Steinitz, Carl; Way, Douglas. "A Model for Evaluating Visual
Consequences of Urbanization on Shoreline Landscapes."
In A Study of Resource Use in Urbanizing Watersheds. Plan
formulation and evaluation studies. Environmental nalysis,
Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.,
June 1970.

120. Terpstra,,H.; Chitty, J.; Ballentine, J..; Twiss, R.; et al. Seashores
and Coasts: Challenge in Shoreline Development and C6_ns_e_rv__a_t@ion,.
Berkeley, California, 1968.

121. Thiel, D. "Notes on the Description Scaling, Notation and Scoring of
some Perceptual and Cognitive Attributes of the Physical
Environment." Environmental PsZchology, Man and His Physical
Setting. Prosh-a-n-sTy-, H.M., et al. (eds.). 197U, pp. 593-619.

190

122. Van Der Ham, R.J.I.M.; Iding, J.A.M.E. "A Landscape Typology
System Based on Visual Elements, Methodology and Applica-
tion." Department of Landscape Architecture. Agricultura1
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
123. Vaughn, Alan V. A Visual Analysis System to Assist in..Locatin2
Transmission Corridors. Forestry Department@ Ontario Hydro,
Toronto,'Ontario, Can a. January 1974.

124. Winkel, Gary H.; Malek, Roger; Thiel, Philip. "The Role of Personality
Differences in Judgements of Roadside.Quality.11 Environment
and Behavior. Vol. 1, no. 2, December 1969.

125. Wuenscher, James E.; Starrett, James M. Landscape compartmentalization:
An Ecological Approach to Land Use Planning.' Water Resources
earCh institute of the University of North Carolina, December
1973.

1.26. Zube, E.H. "Scenery as a Natural Resource." Landscape Architecture.
63:2. 1973b.

127. "Scenic Resources and the Landscape Continuum: Identifi-
cation and Measurement." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Clark
University. 1973a.

128. Zube, E.H.; Pitt, D.G.; Anderson, T.W. Investigation of Scenic
Values and Their iZelationship to Mapable LandSC sions.
Project Review Reports. 'No. 5., 1973, -1-7.

129. Perception of Scenic Resource Values of the Landscape
of the Northeast: An Incremental Case Study. 1974..

19.A

II. MAPPING AND REMOTE SENSING OF AESTHETIC RESOURCES

@130.' "Applied Infrared Photography." A Kodak Technical Publication no.
M-28, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, New York, 1970.

131. 'Litton, R. Burton. Landscape Control Points: A Procedure for Pre-
dictiu and Monitoring Visual Impact.,ForM Service Paper
no. PSW-91, U.S. Department of rg`r1culture, Berkeley,
California, 1973.
132. 'MacCo,nnell, . William P.; Stoll, G. Peter. Use of Aerial PhotoUraphs
to Evaluate the Recre6tional Resources of the Connecticut
'River in Massachusetts. Experiment Station, College Of
Agriculture, University of Massachusetts, Bulletin No., 573,
October 1968.

133. McCarthy, Michael M.,!_;-8,,Qqts, Richard A.; Nie'mAnn, Bernard J., Jr.
"Remote Sensing of Infrared Energy: Critical Data for
Land-Use Decision Makers." In Landscape Architecture
Quarterly, January 1973.

134., Stafford, Donald B. "Aerial Remote Sensing Applications in the
Coastal Zone," from proceedings of Seminar on Planning and
Engineering in the Coastal Zone.. Charleston, South
Carolina, June 1972.

135. Symposium proceedings on Coastal Mapping. Sponsored by American
Society of Photogrammetry with cooperation of NOAA, ACSM,
NTS, and USGS. Washington, D.C., June 1972.
136.. Way, Douglas S. Terrain Analysis: A Guide to Site Selection Usln@
Aerial Photographic Interpretafion. Dowden, Hutchinson and
'Ross, Inc. , 1973.

192

1II. MANAGEMENT OF,AESTHETIC RESOURCES

137.. American Bar Association National Institute Junkyards, Geraniums
and Jurisprudence: Aesthetics@and ihe Law. American
.@ar Association, Chica-go-,109-7.7

138. Bradley, Eave; Armstrong, John, A Description and Analysis of Coastal
P_
Zone and Shoreland Management roqrams in the'United States.
Technical Report No..26, Coastal 2one Management ProjecE,
Sea Grant Program, University of Michigan., March 1972.

139. Bosselman, Fred; Callies, David The Quiet Revolution in Land Use
Control. Council on En@ironmental Quality, Washington, 1.

140. Clark, John. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for
Management of the Coastal Zone6 The Conservation Foundition
in Washington, D.C., in cooperation with National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Environment,
U.S. Department of Commerce-1974.

141. Dasmann, Raymond F. An Environment Fit for People. Public Affairs
Pamphlet no. 421. July 1968.

142. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. National Shoreline Study:
Shore Management Guidelines. Washington, D.C., 1971.

143. Fletcher, Wendell; Leonard, Lloyd. The Federal Framework for,State
Land-use Programs. Conserva-t-i-o-n-7oundation, Wash ingtoo,_157C.
1974.
144. Haar, Charles M. Land Use Planning: A Casebook on the Ulso.. Misuse
and Re-use of Urban la-nd. Little, Brown, and Company$ Boston.
1971.
145. Roy Mann Associates. -An.,Approach7to.Aesthetic and Amenity Quality
Planning in the Coastal Lone--Escarosa C65stil- Zone Pilot
7rea Manuement Plan. With Coastal Zone Rrsources corporation,.
for the Florida Coastal Coordinating Council. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1971.

146. Mann, ROY. Rivers in thCCity. Praeger, 1973.
1.47. "Controls for Coastal.Architecture." Aquasphere@,
ember 1973.

.148. "Paris-sur-Seine: Protecting the Visual Quali:ty.of a
toric Corridor." Special Paris issue, L'Architecture
d'Aujourdhui. Paris, June-July 1968.

149. Michigan Law Review, June 1973. Notes: "Beyond the Eye of the Beholder:
Aesthetics and Objectivity."
150. Proceedings of the Conference on,OrUanizing and Managing the Coastal
Zone. U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, June-13-14,
TM. Published by Council of State Governments, Office of
State-Federal Relations.

193

151. Tools for Coastal Zone Management. Proceedings of the Conference,
Washington,- D.C., February 14-15, 1972.' Coastal Zone Marine
Management Committee of the Marine Technology Society.
152. 'Whyte', William H. The Last Landscape.. New York: Anchor Books,
Doubleday and Co., 1970.

153. Zube, Ervin H. "Scenery as a Natural Resource: Implications of Public
Policy and Problems of Definition, Description and Evaluation."
Landscape Architecture, January 1973.

194

IV. MANAGEMENT PLANS FROM COASTAL STATES

CALIFORNIA

154. Appleyard, Donald; Lynch, Kevin. "Temporary Paradise?, A Look
at the Special Landscape of.the.%n Diego Region."
A report to the City of San Diego, September 1974.

155. Association of Bay Area Governments. Ocean.Coastline Study,
Bay Area Regional Planning Program. -Tu-ne1970.

156. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. Appearance
and Design Recommendations. Recommendations for hearing
on fourth of nine elemeiTt--s of Coastal Zone Plan. October
1974.

157. California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. Public Resources
Code, Division 13, Sections 21000-Zl-174.
158. Crandall,.Tom (Executive Director, San Diego Region). Califor-
nia Coastal Zone Conservation Commission. Shoreline
Development Controls and Public Access to the-Nean s.
EUge. July 11, 1974.

159. Comprehensive Planning Organization. "Background Material on
Environmental Quality and Natural Resources." San
Diego. January 1972.

160. "Policies and Recommendations for Determining
Regional Significance and Prematurity of Development".
R-5, San Diego. February 1973.

161. "Summary of Findings and Recommendations, Coastal
Area Planning and Management Policies." Initial Coast-
line Study and Plan. Job Number 4901, San_-ffi@ego County.
June 1973.

162. "Working Paper: Coast@l Vistas." Initial Coastline
Study and Plan. Job Number 4901, San Diego County.
December 1972.

163. Liskamm, William H. Appearance and Design. Preliminary Draft
Compiled by State and Regional Commission Staffs
(California). Draft - not for distribution. June 3,
1974.

164. Okamoto, Rai; Liskamm, David. Appearanc and Design--Principles
for the Design and Development of San Francisco Bay.
September 1967.

165. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. "Bay
Plan Evaluation Project: Appearance, Design and Public
Access." June 1974.

195

166. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development-Commitsion. San'-"
Francisco Bay Plan Supplement. January 1969.

167. San Francisco Department of City Planning. "The Urban Design Plan
of the Comprehensive Plan of San Francisco." San Francisco,
May 1971.

168. Sorensenj Jens; Robb, David. "Inventory, Analysis and'Evaluation of
Coastal Lands Possessing Significant Visual Quality Based
on the View froin Coastal Highways." I.U.R.D. Sea Grant.
University of California, Berkeley. 1974. (Review Draft
Subject to Revision).

169. South Coast Regional Commission. California Coastal Zone Conser-
vation Commission. Appearance and Design. Long Beach,
California. 1974. (Preliminary Draft for discussion,
not approved.)

170. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission.
Intensity of Development. Preliminary Draft, October 1974.

DELAWARE

171. State Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board; Delaware State
Planning Office. Coastal Zone Act Administration. July
1974.

172. Delaware State Planning Office. Definition of Heavy Indust@y,
Guidelines for Acceptable Manufacturing Uses, and Plan
for Manufacturing Uses in Delaware's Coastal Zone.
Dover. September 1973.

FLORIDA

173. Florida Coastal Coordinating Council.- Coastal Zone Management
in Florida - 1971. Tallahassee, December 1971.

174. The RMBR Planning/Design Group. Local Coostal Zone Management:
A Handbook.

175. State of Hawaii. Department of Planning and Economic Development.
Hawaii and the Sea. Honolulu. 1974.

176. . Department of Planning and Economic Development.
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Honolulu.
December 1971.-

ILLINOIS

177. State of Illinois. Proposed_Coastal Zone Program Narrative.
April 1974.

Department of Conservation, Coastal Zone,
Management Grant Applications.

196

LONG ISLAND SOUND

178. Natural and Historic Resource Associate s.. Scenic and Cultural
Inventorl Element (1-3). The Long Island Sound Study.
-Prepared for U.S. Department@ff@the'lnterior, National
Park Service. November 1972.

MAINE

179. Maine State Planning Office. Maine Coastal Development Plan:
Phase 1 Report. Augusta, Maine. June 1970.

MARYLAND

180., Wallace, McHarg, Roberts., and Todd, Inc. Maryland Chesapeake
Bay Study: A Report to the Mary and Department of State
Pl.anning and the Chesapeake B y Interagency 71_@n@ning
Committee. 1972

MASSACHUSETTS

181. Lynch, Kevin. Sasaki, Dawson & Demay Associates, Inc. "Looking
at the Vineyard." Vineyard Open Land'Foundation.
Martha's Vineyard. 1973.

182. Zube, et a]. An Inventory and Interpretation; Selected Resources
of the@ Island of Nantucket. Cooperative Extension Ser-
vice, University of Massachusetts-, Publication No. 4,
1966.

MICHIGAN

183. Roy Mann Associates (Cambridge, Massachusetts); Coastal Zone
Resources Corporation (Wilmington, North Carolina.)
"General Gaidelines for the Use of the Great Lakes
Shoreline". In State of Michigan Water Resources Com-
mission, "Managdment Guidelines" (Chapter VI).
A Plan for Michigan's Shorelands. Prepared by the -
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. August 1973.

184. State of Michigan. The Shorelands Protection And Management
Act of 1970,.Act 245, Public Acts of 1970 as amended by
-Act 270 of 1974.

785. State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources. General Rules
Great Lakes Shorelands. December 27, 1973.

186. A Plan for Michigan's Shorel ands. August 1973.

197

MISSISSIPPI

187. Mississippi Marine Resources Council. Mississippi Coastal Zone
Management. Long Beach. 1974.

NORTH CAROLINA

188. Coastal Zone Resources Corporation. A Plan for North Carolina
Estuaries. North Carolina Department of Conservation
and Development. Division of Commercial and Sports
Fisheries. Wilmington, North Carolina. 1971.

OHIO
189. Ohio *artment of Natural-Resources, Division of Planning. Lake
Erie Shore Zone Management. Overall-Program Design
-Annual Work Program. April 1974.

PENNSYLVANIA

190. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Application for Assistance Develo
mqnt Grant in the Coastal Zone Management Program., 197?--

SOUTH-CAROLINA

191. South Carolina Coastal Zone Planning and Management Council.
Public Involvement Program: Media and Time-Table.

TEXAS

192. State of Texas. Texas Coastal Zon e Management Proposal. March 1974.

TOCKS ISLAND

193. Toth, Richard. Criteria for Evaluating the Valuable Natural
Resources of the TIRAC Region. Prepared for the Tocks
Island Regional Advisory -Council. October 1968.

VIRGINIA

194. Commonwealth of Virginia. Commission of Outdoor Recreation.
The Virginia Outdoors Plan. 1974.

195.. Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Coastal Wetlands of
Virginia. December 1069.

196. Coastal Wetlands of Virginia: Interim Report No. 2.

198

WASHINGTON

197. Jones and Jones. A Plan for the Nooksack-River.''For Whatcom
County Board of Commissioners, Whatcom County Park
Board, Whatcom County Planning Department. State of
Washington. 1973.

798. Scenic and Recreational Highway Study, 1974.
State of,Wash.ington Legislative TranspOrtati'on:Committee.
(Preliminary Draft--Study in Progress).

199. McGreevy, Randall. City of Seattle Department of Community
.Development and Washington Sea Grant Program. Seattle
Shoreline Environment.

200. State of Washington, Department of Ecology. Final Guidelines
Shoreline Management Act of 1971. June 20., 1972.
201. Whatcom County Planning Commission. Shoreline Inventory@:
Whatcom County, Washington. December 1972.

202. "Shoreline Master Program". (Draft). Whatcom
County, Washington. 1974.

LONG ISLAND SOUND REGION

203. Roy Mann Associates. Shoreline Appearance and Design: A
Handbook for Long Island Sound. For the New England
River Basins Commission Long Island Sound Regional
Study, under contract to the U..S.''Department.of'the
Interior, National Park Service. Draft, September 1974.

199

3 6668 00004 2780