Download PDF - COINAtlantic

More documents

Recommendations

Info

11 th International Symposium for GIS and Computer Cartography for Coastal Zones Managementthe standards that will be applied in any review of a project application. The principle involved in this process is toestablish a baseline of the visual quality of specific locations overlooking the territorial sea, which can then be usedin the evaluation of proposed visual impacts from development activities. Those Visual Resource Management processesare described below, as modified from their original land management focused methods for their applicationto marine renewable energy development applications within Oregon’s Territorial Sea.The Planning PhaseThe goal of the planning phase in VRM is to establish a baseline that can be used to understand the quality andsensitivity of different viewsheds, and the tolerance for seascape change within a viewshed that would be applied inthe review of development standards when a project is proposed. The first step in this process is the identification ofinventory locations. Oregon approached this problem by setting out to have complete coverage of the territorial sea,and by choosing only places that were managed as public access points to the beach, or were located on public property.This resulted in a total of 144 sites along Oregon’s coastline that were included in the inventory. Each site wasthen visited and a scenic quality evaluation assessment was conducted of their viewsheds, which objectively measureda sites scenic quality characteristics. Scenic quality is a measure of the visual appeal of an area and itsviewshed. Viewpoints are given an A, B, or C rating based on scenic quality which is determined using the followingkey factors: seascape, vegetation, color, adjacent scenery, scarcity, and cultural modification (BLM, 1980). Forthe purposes of this document, seascape is defined as the coastal landscape and adjoining areas of ocean, includingviews from the land to sea and along the coastline (DTI, 2005). Once the inventory of site assessments was completed,then the modeling of the associated viewsheds into distinct viewsheds and classes was conducted.The determining factors involved of the modeling exercise were the scenic quality of a viewshed, and the distancefrom the assessment location. Distance from an assessment location was modeled using fore/mid ground (0–8 km),background (8–24 km), and seldom seen (24 km–horizon). Table 1 shows how scenic quality and distance werecombined to determine a visual class on the landscape. The determination of classes for the Oregon Territorial Seadiffered from the methods (BLM, 1980) previously established in two ways, the first was in special areas determination,and the second was user sensitivity. Both criteria were used in the BLM methods to further distinguish howclass values were determined. In both cases, the public process in Oregon provided guidance on how to treat eachissue in an objective manner. Special Areas were defined in Oregon by the exceedance of a scenic quality evaluationthreshold (a score of 24 or higher), indicating high quality in all of the key factors for determining viewshed quality.User sensitivity was determined to be high for all sites in the inventory, as the Territorial Sea was an area of greatpublic concern, and owned by the state in trust for all Oregonians.Table 1. Modeling viewshed classes with scenic quality class and distanceViewshed ClassSpecial Areas I I IScenic Quality A I II IIB II III III/IVC III IV IVDistance ZonesFore/Mid-ground Background Seldom SeenThe viewshed class modeling exercise (Figure 1 below) shows the resulting map of the intersection of allviewsheds and their associated class values together, with the highest class value in any overlapping viewshed areasbeing shown. In this figure, the class I values associated with Special Areas are shown as an overlapping symbol. Asshown in Figure 1, more than 70% of Oregon's Territorial Sea fell within the fore or mid-ground of a class Iviewshed, as such the feasibility for development where there is significant change allowed was targeted for class IIareas and below. Due to the recognition of this limitation, the language adopted for management standards withinclass II was relaxed (from the BLM standards) to allow an increased tolerance for impact within both class II and IIIzones. The resulting management objectives for each class are as follows:2
11 th International Symposium for GIS and Computer Cartography for Coastal Zones Management• Class I: The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the seascape. This class providesfor natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited development activity. The level ofchange to the characteristic seascape must be very low and maynot attract attention.• Class II: The objective of this class is to retain the existingcharacter of the seascape. The level of change to the characteristicseascape must be low. Development activities may be seen, andmay attract minimal attention, but may not dominate the view ofthe casual observer.• Class III: The objective of this class is to partially retain theexisting character of the seascape. The level of change to the characteristicseascape may be moderate. Development activities maybe seen, and may attract attention but may not dominate the viewof the casual observer.• Class IV: The objective of this class is to provide for activitieswhich require major modifications of the existing character of theseascape. The level of change to the characteristic seascape can behigh. These development activities may dominate the view and bethe major focus of viewer attention.The Project PhaseFigure 1. Viewshed Classes for Oregon's TerritorialSea .Due to the fact that no VRMS previously existed for Oregon'sTerritorial Sea, the process for evaluation of a project's proposedimpacts also had to be generated. That process, which has yet to betested, involves the applicants required development of a VisualImpact Analysis and the review process for evaluating compliancewith the associated visual class standards in any specific projectlocation.All applications for development will be required to complete aVisual Impacts Analysis (VIA) as part of application process. TheVIA will combine the conduct of visual simulations, a contrastanalysis, and an evaluation of Scenic Inventory Class objectives inthe determination of the potential visual impact of a project withincontext of Oregon’s Territorial Sea. The applicant will be requiredto produce the elements of the VIA for review and evaluation bythe TSP Joint Agency Review Team (JART) to determine whetherthe impact of the project aligns with the objective for that class ofresource. This process will begin once an application for developmenthas been received by the regulating agency, the Oregon Departmentof State Lands, and the JART has been convened.During the initial meeting of the JART, the project location willbe reviewed in the context of the Visual Resource Inventory Assessment(VRIA) locations, and the JART will select Key ViewingAreas (KVAs) from these locations to evaluate compliance withthe visual class standards. The applicant will be required to produce visual simulation(s) for the chosen KVA’s thatwill help in the evaluation of standards compliance. These locations will be selected to represent the range of scenicquality class values and distances, if present. At a minimum, the KVA’s should include all VRIA locations wherethe application is within the fore and mid-ground distance.The applicant will then conduct a contrast evaluation of the proposed development and draft a review of the impactsto the KVAs. Factors to consider will include (at a minimum): Distance from viewpoint(s), angle(s) of observation,time factor(s), relative size or number, seasonality, lighting, spatial relationships, atmospheric conditions,motion/lights/color, and shore-based facilities.3
Page 1 and 2: CoastGIS Conference 2013: Monitorin
Page 3 and 4: Sponsors
Page 5 and 6: Steering Committee Secretariat main
Page 7 and 8: Santos Basin, BrazilA.F. Romero, R.
Page 9 and 10: Coastline development and associate
Page 11: Visual resource management system f
Page 15 and 16: Use of Terrestrial-LiDAR for quanti
Page 17 and 18: 11 th International Symposium for G
Page 25 and 26: Community beach monitoring: utilisi
Page 29 and 30: Data policy implications arising fr
Page 33 and 34: Global ocean observing system for w
Page 46 and 47: ResultsMetadata11 th International
Page 52 and 53: Coastal vulnerability index to glob
Page 56 and 57: generating probabilities contours f
Page 58 and 59: maps, the most critical conditions
Page 62 and 63:
11 th International Symposium for G
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Statistical and spatial toolbox for
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Global oceans and marine planning
Page 74 and 75:
Analysis11 th International Symposi
Page 76 and 77:
Building scenarios and visualizatio
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Using a 3D physics-based visualizat
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Documenting situated tsunami risk p
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
SeaSketch11 th International Sympos
Page 94 and 95:
A structured model to enable coasta
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Developing and testing approaches f
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
A dynamic GIS as an efficient tool
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
GIS spatio-temporal modeling of hum
Page 108 and 109:
ResultsCollected data11 th Internat
Page 110 and 111:
The use of GIS and geospatial techn
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Ocean Radar for Monitoring of the C
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Geophysical investigations of marin
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
A semi-supervised learning framewor
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Simulation of maritime paths taking
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
COINAtlantic: Sharing through open
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Implementation of the marine data i
Page 136 and 137:
Perspectives11 th International Sym
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
References11 th International Sympo
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Conclusion11 th International Sympo
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Tools and best practices for coasta
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Washington Coastal Atlas: creating
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
The African Coastal and Marine Atla
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Methods11 th International Symposiu
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Methods11 th International Symposiu
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Acknowledgments11 th International
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Long-term continuous observations o
Page 218 and 219:
Page 220 and 221:
Comparing endmember extraction meth
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Integration of scientific data as a
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230:
Conclusions11 th International Symp
show all

Download PDF - COINAtlantic

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?