Scenery Assessment: Scenic

Beauty at the Ecoregion Scale

Steven J. Galliano and Gary M. Loeffler

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

United States

Department of the

Interior

Bureau of Land

Management

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-472

February 2000
Authors

Steven J. Galliano and Gary M. Loeffler are landscape architects, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, 112 E. Poplar Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.
Scenery Assessment: Scenic Beauty at the

Ecoregion Scale

Steven J. Galliano and Gary M. Loeffler

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: Scientific Assessment

Thomas M. Quigley, Editor

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, Oregon

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-472

February 2000
Preface

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project was initiated by the Forest Service

and the Bureau of Land Management to respond to several critical issues including, but not limited

to, forest and rangeland health, anadromous fish concerns, terrestrial species viability concerns, and

the recent decline in traditional commodity flows. The charter given to the project was to develop a

scientifically sound, ecosystem-based strategy for managing the lands of the interior Columbia River

basin administered by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The Science Integration Team was organized to develop a framework for ecosystem management, an assessment of the

socioeconomic and biophysical systems in the basin, and an evaluation of alternative management

strategies. This paper is one in a series of papers developed as background material for the framework,

assessment, or evaluation of alternatives. It provides more detail than was possible to disclose directly

in the primary documents.

The Science Integration Team, although organized functionally, worked hard at integrating the approaches, analyses, and conclusions. It is the collective effort of team members that provides depth

and understanding to the work of the project. The Science Integration Team leadership included deputy

team leaders Russel Graham and Sylvia Arbelbide; landscape ecology—Wendel Hann, Paul Hessburg,

and Mark Jensen; aquatic—Jim Sedell, Kris Lee, Danny Lee, Jack Williams, and Lynn Decker;

economic—Richard Haynes, Amy Horne, and Nick Reyna; social science—Jim Burchfield, Steve

McCool, Jon Bumstead, and Stewart Allen; terrestrial—Bruce Marcot, Kurt Nelson, John Lehmkuhl,

Richard Holthausen, and Randy Hickenbottom; spatial analysis—Becky Gravenmier, John Steffenson,

and Andy Wilson.

Thomas M. Quigley

Editor

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

United States

Department of

the Interior

Bureau of Land

Management

Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management

Project
Abstract

Galliano, Steven J.; Loeffler, Gary M. 2000. Scenery assessment: scenic beauty at the ecoregion

scale. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-472. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 30 p. (Quigley, Thomas M., ed.; Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Scenic quality is an important amenity on public lands in the interior Columbia basin (hereafter referred

to as the basin). People’s interests in and expectations about ecosystems can help establish desired aesthetic conditions for the varied landscapes found in the basin. This paper, a portion of the social science

assessment for the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, explains the procedures

used to inventory scenic quality throughout the basin by using two primary indicators: landscape character and scenic condition. Landscape character is expressed as landscape themes, which portray the

overall images of a large geographic area. Scenic condition is measured in degrees of scenic integrity,

which express various levels of alteration to the landscape by humans to natural-appearing landscapes.

Most landscapes in the basin are forests and shrub-grasslands having a predominantly natural appearance. Urban and rural developments visually dominate relatively few of the basin’s landscapes although

they are highly visible where they do occur. The overall scenic integrity of landscapes in the basin remains at a relatively high level with over 80 percent dominated by natural-appearing views.

Keywords: Scenery assessment, landscape character, scenic integrity, landscape themes, scenic beauty.
Contents

1 Introduction

1 Definition of Scenery

1 Importance of Scenery Assessment

3 Importance of Scenery in the Interior Columbia Basin

4 Air Quality and Scenery

5 Conceptual Framework

5 Historical Overview

9 Demand for Scenery

10 Elements of Scenery Assessment

13 Methods

13 Landscape Theme Identification

14 Determining Scenic Integrity

16 Results, Limitations, and Recommendations

16 Landscape Character

19 Scenic Integrity

24 General Limitations

25 Acknowledgments

26 References
1

Introduction

Definition of Scenery

Scenery is defined as the general appearance

of a place and the features of its views or

landscapes—the arrangement of predominantly

natural features of the landscapes we see. The

adjective “scenic” has to do with natural scenery;

affording beautiful views. Scenery assessment

illustrates how the features of the basin’s landscapes can be inventoried and analyzed so that

managers can make decisions based on an understanding of how people value and attach meanings to their environment.

The physical setting of various places is the product of both natural processes and human culture,

combined in varying proportions (Eckbo 1969).

Scenery consists of both biophysical elements

(landforms, water, and vegetation) and cultural

elements (positive features resulting from human

activities in the landscape). These might include

structures: fences, rock walls, historic buildings;

modified natural areas: fields, hedgerows,

windbreaks, canals, or earth mounds; as well

as farmsteads, military posts, and plantations

(Magill 1992).

Natural processes such as fires, lava flows,

stream erosion, and deposition, or the effects of

insects on plants are dynamic, perpetual, and

inevitable, causing scenery to be ever changing.

Cultural alterations often influence decisions

made by people at various times and places and

result in changes to the physical landscape. Human activities occurring in a landscape are generated by some type of objective or desire, such

as harvesting timber or planting wheat.

Both biophysical and social functions should be

considered in any land management decision. To

achieve and maintain harmony among these functions, scenery management systems have been

developed by resource agencies as inventory and

predictive models. Although cultural attributes

are often positive additions to many landscapes,

the basic premise of these models is that on

public lands, people expect natural-appearing

scenery to visually dominate cultural or human

alterations, especially in forested landscapes

(Kaplan 1975, Smardon 1986).

The models these agencies produced have been

developed, tested, adopted, and applied nationwide over the past 24 years or more. Presently,

these models are being revised while retaining

their original premises. The two primary scenic

indicators used in this scenic assessment, landscape character and scenic integrity, have been

developed from these models and are used to

evaluate scenery.

Importance of Scenery Assessment

People are concerned about the quality of the

scenery around them and have an impression of

what they expect to see when they visit public

lands (Newby 1971). Although our Nation’s

examples of exceptional natural beauty—

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Tetons, the

Grand Canyon, etc.—have long been recognized

and protected for their uniqueness and scenic

charisma, people also have acknowledged landscapes that may not be considered as striking: the

rolling agricultural lands of Washington’s Palouse

country, the heavily dissected volcanic landscapes of Idaho’s Snake River Plains, or the

canyoned plateaus of the Blue Mountains.

Although the old adage “beauty is in the eye

of the beholder” has truth for the individual, research has shown that high levels of agreement

and predictability exist when a representative

population is tested (Litton and Tetlow 1978).

This research shows that landscape settings with

high degrees of natural-appearing character are

most desirable (Lee 1976, McGuire 1979, Newby

1971, Noe 1988). Similar studies also have

shown that the public tends to have common perceptions of what constitutes natural scenic beauty

(Zube 1976). One study, for example, measured

how members of 26 different user, interest, and

professional groups perceived six areas representing a cross section of forest management in northern Arizona (Daniel and Boster cited in Zube

1976). The most striking finding was the level

of agreement in scenic preferences among these

diverse groups.
2

The importance of scenery to humans is not an

idea only recently developed by public resource

managing agencies. For centuries people have

been concerned about scenery and have recognized that it has many benefits to society. As

early as 1757, documented philosophical studies

of aesthetics were conducted by scientist Edmund

Burke (Orians and Heerwagen 1992). In 1791,

Gilpin published his “Remarks on Forest Scenery

and Other Woodland Views” (Gilpin 1791) followed by Marsh in his 1864 book entitled “Man

and Nature” in which the significance of nature’s

scenic beauty probably is described for the first

time through an analytical approach.

Another indicator of the importance of the visual

environment is the degree to which considerations for scenery are built into institutional policies at the local, regional, and national levels.

Scenery and related aesthetic values have long

been recognized in nearly all land use planning

activities, perhaps beginning in the United States

with the design of Central Park in 1858. The

creation of Yosemite National Park and the national park system in 1872 are early examples

of preserving our natural landscapes.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA

1969) requires that all Federal agencies identify

and develop procedures for ensuring that presently unquantified environmental amenities and

values are considered on an equal basis with economic and technical aspects of major Federal

actions affecting environmental quality.

Oregon’s long-range transportation plan (1992)

includes a goal called “livability” that contains

eight policy statements. One of these specifically

addresses aesthetic values: “It is the policy of the

State of Oregon to protect and enhance the aesthetic value of transportation corridors in order

to support economic development and preserve

quality of life.” Similarly, the “Shoreline Master

Program Handbook” developed by the State of

Washington Department of Ecology includes a

policy recognizing that the “scenic, aesthetic,

and ecological qualities of natural and developed

shorelines should be recognized and preserved as

valuable resources” (State of Washington 1978).

At the local level, almost all comprehensive land

use plans use measures such as zoning, setbacks,

and other ordinances to protect aesthetic, and

other resources. One result of these policies has

been many attempts to define and measure public

perceptions of scenery and aesthetic values.

These attempts began in the 1960s, gained momentum in the 1970s, and continue today (Elsner

and Smardon 1979).

Contemporary research also indicates that

there are measurable physical and psychological

benefits to humans when they view naturalappearing, attractive scenery (Driver and others

1992, Ulrich 1984). For example, surgery patients who are provided windows with views of

settings with trees recover faster and with fewer

complaints than their counterparts with views

of urban walls (Orians 1986). Thus, naturalappearing landscapes often serve as psychological escapes for a society where wildlands are

becoming increasingly scarce while people’s lives

are becoming more complex. We suggest that

natural-appearing, attractive scenery provides an

essential contrast to urban settings where the

stresses of traffic, crime, crowds, bright colors,

and hard surfaces often create an unfriendly

environment.

Current research (Ulrich 1984, Ulrich and others

1992) supports this position, indicating that society in general benefits from natural-appearing,

attractive landscapes. When people feel better,

they are more productive, interact better with

their families, and tend to have increased involvement in community activities (Driver and others

1992).

The characteristics of high-quality scenery foster

psychological and physiological benefits to individuals, communities, and society in general. Research indicates that people have both quantitative and qualitative expectations for scenery on

publicly owned lands that transcend shallow

cosmetic concerns (Kaplan and Kaplan 1988,

Ulrich 1984). According to this research, naturalappearing landscape settings have inherent capacities to promote both physical and mental health.

Researchers Magill (1992), Lee (1976), Litton

(1984), and Daniel and Boster (1976) conclude
3

that public acceptance, desire, and preference for

natural landscape features is not only identifiable

but also measurable.

Just knowing that unaltered landscape settings

exist provides psychological reassurance for

some people, even though they may never experience those settings personally. The value to some

people of knowing that desired environments,

landscapes, services, or opportunities exist, although they personally might never use them, is

what Randall and Stoll (1993) define as existence

value.

In scenery assessment, existence value suggests

that natural-appearing landscapes may not only

be of importance for what they are, but for what

they are not. To many people, it is the absence

of concrete, asphalt, geometric forms, and urban

infrastructure that give the forest and shrubgrassland landscapes existence value. Thus, naturally evolving scenery found on congressionally

reserved public lands (like those of a designated

wilderness area) serve as the antithesis of a heavily urbanized landscape (Randall and Stoll 1983).

For people living in large cities lacking naturalappearing scenery who may never have an opportunity to view the diverse landscapes of the

interior Columbia basin, simply knowing that naturally evolving and natural-appearing landscapes

exist in this opposite corner of the continent gives

those landscapes existence value.

Besides the physical and social benefits presented

above, there are several indicators that support

the expanding value of high-quality, naturalappearing scenery to our society:

• Increased appreciation for natural beauty

when selecting parks, beaches, or other

outdoor recreation areas (Alexander 1986).

• Increased importance of recreational settings

and scenery because of decreases in leisure

time.1

• Increased participation in scenery-oriented

outdoor recreation activities, specifically

sightseeing, picnicking, day hiking, nature

study, visiting historic sites, backpacking,

and canoeing and kayaking (Molitor 1995).

• Increased numbers of people who view themselves as environmentalists or at least sympathetic to environmental protection (Roper

Starch, Inc. 1994).

• Increased actions by various levels of government to protect scenic quality in both built

and natural landscape settings (Trent 1995).

• Increased public recognition that scenery is a

limited resource (Litton 1984).

• Increasing market strength for real estate

oriented toward natural-appearing scenery,

even distant views thereof (Bennett 1995,

Gobster and Shroeder 1988).

Based on the above discussion, this study contends that scenery assessment can be considered

a rational and artistic process, rather than merely

a romantic or emotional process.

Importance of Scenery in the

Interior Columbia Basin

The significance of scenery as a resource and

how it may be inventoried and sustained within

the basin is a primary goal of this scenery assessment. The objectives of the assessment are to:

• Describe a rational approach to inventorying

and classifying scenery within the basin.

• Identify landscape themes associated with

various geographic portions of the basin as

a way of providing an overview of images

associated with broad landscape character.

• Inventory and classify the present level of

scenic integrity (or condition) of scenic resources within the basin as a baseline on

which potential changes can be measured.

The quality of the visual environment is important to people living within the basin (Trent

1995). Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands often serve as important

1

 Recent studies indicate decreases in the amount of time

Americans have available for leisure, primarily because of

increases in the number of dual income households (Cordell

and Siehl 1989, Hornback 1991), deferred child bearing

(Szwak 1989), and an increase in the number of singleparent households (Luloff and Krannick 1990, McLellan and

Siehl 1988, Szwak 1989).
4

backdrops for communities and residences in

both rural and urban settings scattered throughout the basin, offering large areas of wildland

viewing opportunities. These same lands also

provide the settings for various occupational and

recreational activities, serving a wide diversity of

people living both inside and outside the basin.

People living within the basin consider the scenic

quality of publicly owned lands important. Most

people who value the basin’s scenic resource

realize that landscape settings are dynamic and

may change over time, whether humans alter

them or not. These stake-holders also indicate

that they prefer not to see drastic changes in the

character or condition of geographic areas of

importance to them (Galliano and Loeffler, in

press). Resource managers, therefore, also are

concerned about the integrity of scenery, specifically visual changes resulting from human alterations to natural-appearing landscapes.

Air Quality and Scenery

Air quality is important to people who value the

landscapes within the basin. Clean air and good

visibility are important contributors to the quality

of life for people who come to the basin to recreate or to earn a living.

Human perception of the scenic characteristics of

a place depend on clean air. Air that is smoky, or

full of dust or chemicals, often hampers visibility

of scenic characteristics. This is especially true

when viewing landscape characteristics in background distance zones, where important features

often become indistinguishable. Additionally,

human health and comfort also may be affected

by poor air quality.

Throughout most of the year, most landscape settings within the basin have excellent air quality.

The basin’s relatively dry air, predominately

sunny days, and frequent cleansing breezes provide long-range views uncommon in other parts

of the country. Intentional burning of forest residues and agricultural fields, however, can be

seasonally detrimental to air quality, especially

when temperatures and wind conditions result

in inversions that prevent air movement. In developed areas, air quality may be a significant

problem year-round, especially where large

industrial developments exist.

In accordance with the 1977 Clean Air Act, the

Environmental Protection Agency established

national ambient air quality standards for several

types of air pollutants. These standards are primarily designed to protect public health and welfare but also include provisions to protect recreational, scenic, and historical values from air

quality deterioration. The Clean Air Act divides

clean air areas into three classes and specifies

the increments of pollutants allowed in each area.

Class I air-sheds include such areas as national

parks, wilderness areas, and other congressionally

designated areas established before August 7,

1977. Class II air-sheds include national parks,

wilder-ness areas, national monuments, national

sea-shores, and other areas of special natural,

scenic, or historic value that were established

after August 7, 1977 (CAA Part C, Sec. 160).

Class III pertains to all other air-sheds outside

of classes I and II.

Each state, working in concert with various

Federal, state and local government agencies to

prevent and control air pollution, is responsible

for the administration of the Clean Air Act. On

federally administered lands, Federal agencies

have the direct responsibility to protect air quality

related values, including visibility.

Inside class I areas, or within 125 miles of their

boundaries, proposed management activities must

be evaluated for potential impacts on air quality.

Road building, timber harvests, and prescribed

fires are three major activities that fall within this

special review requirement. Outside of the class I

areas, the act stipulates nationally uniform standards concerning maximum emission levels for

stationary sources. For public lands within the

basin, these stipulations are pertinent to proposed

major developments like geothermal and mining

complexes. Although the Environmental Protection Agency rarely exercises its authority to do

so, it can essentially stop any proposed activity

that does not meet established standards.
5

Although the scale of the scenery assessment for

the basin does not permit the identification of air

quality standards or mapping procedures, it does

recognize the importance of maintaining clear

views of public lands as a component in ecosystem management.

Conceptual Framework

Historical Overview

Early basin scenery—Until the beginning of the

19th century, the overall scenic character of the

basin remained fairly constant. Human-induced

landscape changes over extensive geographic

areas have occurred exclusively during the past

200 years. Before the 1800s, the hunter-fishergatherer lifestyle prevailed, with few large-scale

changes to the character of the basin until the

newcomers imposed cultural alterations on its

landscapes.

According to anthropologist Richard Hanes

(1995), the entire basin was inhabited and

used by highly mobile hunter-gatherers and

semisedentary lakeside dwellers. These early

inhabitants were linked to their environment by

careful observation, economic calculation, ritual

monitoring, and mythical explanation. To this

day, their taking of plants is often accompanied

by prayers and occasional offerings to the plant

spirits as symbols of respect (Hanes 1995). With

the exception of the eruption of Mount Mazama

around 4000 B.C., environmental conditions

remained relatively stable for at least 10,000

years after the retreat of the huge glaciers that

once covered a large portion of this part of the

continent. According to historical records, this

relative stability was disrupted by the northern

spread of Spanish horses in the early 18th century, the assault of fur traders 100 years later, and

the introduction by Europeans of exotic diseases

that devastated indigenous peoples (Robbins

1993).

This does not mean that the scenery of the basin

was unaffected by humans. Archaeological and

historical evidence suggests that many portions of

the Pacific Northwest considered “natural” before

Europeans arrived consisted of humanized landscapes. Native Americans inhabiting these landscapes purposely modified ecosystems to meet

their subsistence needs (Hanes 1995). Widespread burning practices by Native Americans,

along with lightning-caused fires, created forest

environments that often were open and parklike

in character. Many grassland portions of the basin

were likewise the result of intentional and routine

burning by these early inhabitants in an effort to

improve their hunting and food gathering

ventures (Robbins 1993).

The journals of 19th century explorers Lewis and

Clark disclose the intricacies of Native American

ecology, especially the significance of fire. On

their return trip up the Columbia in spring 1806,

Lewis reported that the plains of the Columbia

were “covered with a rich virtue of grass and

herbs from four to nine inches high.” Farther

upstream, Clark remarked that a great portion of

these valley bottoms had been burned, destroying

any timber that once grew there. Twenty years

later, Peter Skene Ogden of Hudson’s Bay Company2

 remarked as he led a trapping party through

Oregon’s upper Crooked River and into the

Harney basin that the country was “overrun by

fire,” clearly placing the responsibility on native

inhabitants of the area (Beckham 1995).

Other early travelers to the interior Columbia

basin, including U.S. Army reconnaissance officer John C. Fremont, Oregon Trail pioneer John

Kirk Townsend, Captain Benjamin Bonneville,

missionary Jason Lee, and trapper James Clyman,

also wrote of the important role Native American

culture played in the ecology of the basin. Their

early accounts of the “ravaging fires of the

Indians” serve as testimony to the effect Native

Americans had on the ecology of the basin.

As horses were acquired by Native Americans,

especially as their herds grew in numbers, burning and grazing practices intensified. By the 19th

century, the abundance of horses used by Native

Americans had an important effect in shaping the

landscapes of the basin (Robbins 1993).

2

 The oldest continuing commercial venture in North

America, Hudson’s Bay Company, was chartered in 1670

to engage in fur trade and colonize North America.
6

The arrival of Euro-Americans in the early 19th

century had a profound effect on the landscapes

of the basin. The construction of military roads

and railroads and newly introduced agriculture

and livestock grazing all greatly accelerated biological and cultural modifications that resulted in

large-scale visual changes. Worldwide market opportunities brought many fur trappers and farmers

to the basin. These newcomers introduced exotic

plants that inadvertently created artificial and

heavily altered landscapes throughout the basin.

They also brought contagious diseases that devastated Native American populations. Later came

wagon loads of settlers with plants and animals

indigenous to other ecosystems, further accelerating changes in the scenic character of the basin.

Beginning with the arrival of these early settlers,

complex ecosystems have been progressively

modified and simplified as single exotic species

replaced diverse native species. According to

Hann and others (1997), downy brome (Bromus

tectorum L., cheat grass), as well as other brome

grasses and exotic forbs like yellow star thistle

(Centaurea solstitialis L.), continue to replace

bluebunch wheatgrass (Agropyron spicatum

Pursh) on those basin lands used exclusively for

grazing. On the gentle slopes of the Palouse,

monoculture crops of wheat eventually replaced

virtually all other vegetation. In the Blue Mountains and elsewhere, logging activities and the

suppression of fires resulted in the conversion of

historic stands of open parklike stands of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Dougl. ex Laws) to

true fir and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii

(Mirb.) Franco). Other similar scenic character

changes can be detected throughout the basin.

The ensuing scenic changes since European

settlement can be summed up as a steady shift

in landscape character from naturally evolving

toward agricultural and developed. This shift

also is evidenced in broad-scale vegetative pattern analyses. According to Jones (1995), “The

most dramatic changes in the availability of plant

community groups across the landscape have

been the increase in agricultural types, and the

subsequent decrease in shrublands. Many types

presently appear more fragmented relative to historic conditions.”

Based on comparisons between historical and

current vegetation layers, about 16 percent of the

total landscape of the basin has changed from

naturally evolving plants to exotic species during

the past century. This equates to about 23 million

acres of naturally evolving forest lands and

shrub-grasslands converted to agricultural landscapes or urban developments. Furthermore, the

current landscape appears to be substantially

more fragmented than the historical landscape,

with measurable decreases in patch size and

increases in patch density and edge density.

Despite the fact that scenery in the basin has been

influenced by humans for centuries, some contemporary resource planners refer to the region’s

pre-European settlement landscapes as “natural”

or “unmanaged,” as if the early manipulation of

vegetation by native peoples was a natural occurrence. This view is probably attributed to the notion that the ecosystems of the basin were changing relatively slowly and appeared to be stable in

human timeframes, in comparison to the rapid

changes occurring since European settlement.

Vegetative diversity has increased since European

settlement. Vegetative diversity, however, is not

necessarily the same as high-quality scenery.

Although people value all landscape settings to

some degree, they generally regard those having

the most positive combinations of variety, mystery, vividness, intactness, coherence, harmony,

uniqueness, pattern, and balance as the most desirable (Daniel and Boster 1976). In many landscapes, positive cultural elements are also attributes that contribute significantly to scenic

quality. Abrupt changes to either the natural or

cultural elements of the landscape are offensive

to many people (McCool and others 1986).

Scenery management: late 1800s to present—

Conservation came about in America because of

the waste, destruction, and uncontrolled exploitation of natural resources during the industrialization era. Long before legislation declared it a

valued resource, America’s high-quality scenery

had been an important focus of the conservation

movement. By the late 1800s, there was a strong

movement toward protecting scenery on public
7

lands as the first Forest Reserves (forerunners to

National Forests) were established. As early as

1908, special regulations were established for

the Forest Service concerning the preservation

of scenic values along road corridors, lake fronts,

and river corridors. By the 1950s, following

World War II, housing and construction demands

to meet the needs of an expanding economy

reached new heights, creating increased needs for

timber. To meet these demands, an economical

timber harvesting method was developed—clearcutting. This method consisted of cutting all trees

at one time, regardless of size or age, thus leaving

large areas of unsightly bare ground.

This same period also saw a significant change

in the leisure time of Americans, with paid vacations, more dependable automobiles, and the desire to visit public lands. During the 1960s, the

Wilderness Act and the Multiple Use Act both

emphasized the importance of protecting highquality scenery on public lands. Public expectations for high-quality scenery soon conflicted

with the increasing demand for timber products,

leading managers of public lands along a collision course.

Brought about by these conflicting demands for

commodity and amenity values, the 1969 NEPA

significantly changed the way Federal agencies

manage limited resources. This act requires the

Federal Government to establish procedures that

will ensure that all environmental amenities and

values be given appropriate consideration in

decisionmaking. Such analysis must include both

amenity and aesthetic elements, such as recreation and scenery.

Protecting scenery and other important resources

through prudent land use and management has

been the essence of our national conservation

approach. This approach to management was how

society attempted to control profit-seeking, thereby preserving natural and historical resources and

amenities (Nash 1975). Like the overall philosophy of ecosystem management, the objective was

to maintain a sustainable landscape in which

nature and people remain in equilibrium.

During the 1970s, visual resource management

became the focus of public land managing agencies like the Forest Service, BLM, and Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Although their methods

were somewhat dissimilar because of their agency missions, each developed a systematic approach to inventorying and evaluating scenic

values. The Forest Service’s visual management

system (VMS), BLM’s visual resource management (VRM) (USDI 1980), and SCS’s landscape

resource management (LRM) all responded to

changing attitudes regarding our Nation’s limited

scenic resources. The latter two systems were

modeled after the Forest Service approach but

contained several variations. According to

Smardon (1986), there are six coinciding objectives among the visual resource management

systems developed by these agencies. All three

systems were designed to:

• Inventory and evaluate scenic quality based

on a consistent set of physical characteristics.

• Identify relative degrees of human interest

and public attitudes toward the landscape.

• Map the distance zones and locations from

which viewers observe public landscapes.

• Establish various visual management classes

that guide appropriate resource management

activities and assign appropriate levels of

professional involvement to each class.

• Establish tolerance levels for the alteration

of public landscapes and guidelines for

rehabilitating scenery already modified

beyond tolerable levels.

• Integrate all of the above into agency

decisionmaking processes.

Further analysis indicates several additional commonalities among the scenery management systems developed by the three agencies. They all

emphasize educating and encouraging support

from decisionmakers. They use intensive training

programs and publications as a way of encouraging support at all levels in their respective agencies. They use a broad foundation based on contributions from several experts in the field of
8

scenic resource management. Each agency continues to learn from their own experiences and

from those of other agencies.

While these agencies were developing, adopting,

and implementing their scenery resource management systems, controversies about scenery developed. Court cases like the Bitterroot (Wyoming

Council v. Butz 1974) and Monongahela (Izaak

Walton League v. Butz 1973) added visibility to

the growing need for using sound methods to

manage scenery on public lands. Prompted by

these conflicts and the potential for many more

like them, legislation like the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (1974),

the Federal Land Policy and Management Act

(1976), and the National Forest Management Act

(1976), clearly recognize scenery as an identifiable and valued resource. These mandates place

increased emphasis on environmental and scenic

values and stipulate that scenery be inventoried

and considered an integral component in resource

management decisionmaking processes.

Starting as early as 1970, and continuing until the

present, the Federal agencies discussed above

were occupied with training employees and implementing their scenery management systems,

with varying degrees of success. Several subsystems (e.g., visual absorption capability, existing

visual condition) were developed by the Forest

Service as creative methods for more thoroughly

analyzing the scenic resource. Meanwhile, several comments and critiques from professionals

within the agencies, academic institutions, private

practitioners, and other agencies occurred. Since

the publication of the Forest Service’s VMS in

1974, SCS’s LRM in 1978, and BLM’s VRM in

1980, these systems have continued to evolve.

By the mid-1980s, agency administrators recognized that researchers and practitioners in scenery

management, the social sciences, and ecology

were providing additional knowledge of scenery

management that was unavailable during the

creation of these systems. Each agency, however,

continued to operate within its own procedures,

with the realization that updates would be necessary in the future (USDA Forest Service 1994).

In 1991, the Forest Service commissioned regional landscape architects to critique the scenery

management systems in use by these agencies.

They also were asked to solicit an independent

firm to prepare an update incorporating recommendations and innovations that had occurred

since the inception of the original VMS. This

firm also was asked to make the necessary links

to other agency programs. Based on the nature

and extent of the modifications suggested, the

Forest Service decided to change the title of its

20-year-old system to “Landscape Aesthetics: A

Handbook for Scenery Management” (USDA

Forest Service, in press). The reconstructed system is now known as the scenery management

system (SMS).

The SMS provides an objective process for

assessing constituents’ preferences and expectations for the character of the landscape. It further

presents a range of scenic integrity levels based

on the condition or wholeness of landscape character and suggests a systematic approach for developing landscape character goals.

The Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project believes that the Forest Service’s

SMS meets the needs of large-scale ecoregion

assessments, and has used its procedures in the

social assessment of the basin. In fact, the basin

provided a large-scale testing laboratory for applying the new SMS. Several suggested changes

resulting from its application have been incorporated into the evolving SMS, including the use of

ecological subsections as suitably scaled landscape units for identifying large-scale landscape

character attributes; revisions and simplification

of the landscape themes; and simpler and more

efficient approaches to inventorying scenic

integrity.

The use of places as a key to link human identification, names, understanding, and meanings of

landscapes to geographic areas is also an incorporated outgrowth of applying the SMS to the

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project. The project has determined that places
9

are a way of combining many of the social and

biophysical data being inventoried and analyzed

in this project (Williams 1995). Additional information on sense of place can be found in

Galliano and Loeffler (1999). In terms of the

SMS, place attachment helps determine peoples’

expectations and preferences for landscape

character and desired scenic integrity of a given

landscape.

The SMS works best when landscape character

attributes are understood. For example, landscapes may be valued by constituents for their

historical, spiritual, recreational, or other meanings. Thus, concepts of place attachment may be

useful for determining the importance of scenery

in various geographic areas.

Demand for Scenery

People who hunt, fish, and participate in “consumptive” recreation activities value scenery

highly and choose where to recreate based not

only on abundance of fish and game but also on

scenic and aesthetic qualities (Allen 1988). In

fact, the demand for natural-appearing landscapes

is expected to outpace the demand for modified

landscapes. The comprehensive outdoor recreation plans for the State of Washington and

Oregon identified a need for nearly 19 million

acres of natural-appearing landscapes to meet

projected recreational demands by 2000, compared to about 5 million acres of heavily modified landscapes (FEMAT 1993). Taken as a

whole, these and related findings suggest that

scenery is not just a strong individual value but

one held in common by a diversity of people.

Traditional approaches to scenery assessments

have emphasized the supply of scenery because

it is much more difficult to accurately quantify

demand. Some progress in demand analysis, however, has been made. One technique considers

three factors: population increases, recreation

participation rates, and peoples’ age. Projected

change in human populations within the basin,

together with established participation rates in

recreation activities that normally require naturalappearing scenery, is perhaps the single most

reliable basis for predicting demand for scenery.

Researchers (Murdock and others 1990) agree,

stating that change in population structure is a

major driver of change in recreation participation

based on the natural appearance of scenery.

Population increases—McCool and Haynes

(1995) suggest that projecting human populations

within a biologically meaningful timeframe is

problematic. Based on data from the 1992 U.S.

Bureau of the Census (U.S. Department of Commerce 1992), however, they investigated two

separate population change scenarios based on

several relevant factors. Both scenarios show increased populations in the basin ranging from a

low projection of 0.3 percent to a high projection

of 1.6 percent per year. From their analysis, it

seems unlikely that a decrease in the population

in the basin will occur within the next 50 years.

This means that the number of basin residents

potentially available to participate in recreation is

most likely to increase. Likewise, the number of

nonresident recreationists is similarly projected to

rise (Molitor 1995).

Recreation participation rates—According to

the 1990 Resources Planning Act (RPA) program

update, scenery viewing has the highest participation rate of any activity among the most popular

recreation activities in the United States, with

about 20 percent of the Nation’s population participating. The average for the basin is slightly

higher than the national average (McCool and

others 1997). Although these participation rates

may change over time, scenery viewing likely

will remain among the highest ranking recreational activities in the basin.

Population age—Age distribution as a social

demographic trend seems to be a driver of change

concerning scenery-oriented recreation activities.

Like the rest of the country, the population in the

basin is getting older as the baby boom generation pushes past midlife. Haynes and Horne

(1997) indicate that the age structure of the basin

changed markedly during the 1980s, with a more

than 27-percent increase in the number of residents in the 65-and-older age group. Most of this

increase is because of the aging of basin residents

rather than to inmigration.
10

Evidence suggests that changes in peoples’ physical abilities mean corresponding changes in the

recreational activities they choose (Molitor

1995). With some exceptions, generally as people

age, their available leisure time, amount of discretionary income, and attention to family commitments change. Their involvement generally

shifts from the more active recreational activities

(i.e., water skiing, running, and jogging) to the

more passive (i.e., sightseeing and driving for

pleasure).

Lifestyles—Another consideration influencing

demand for scenery is lifestyles. Research indicates that adults living within the fastest growing counties in the basin have the highest rates of

participation in sightseeing (Claritas, Inc. 1994).

Conversely, those counties with declining populations generally indicate higher participation in

hunting and freshwater angling. We speculate that

those counties experiencing the greatest degrees

of population growth are perhaps the areas where

peoples’ demand for natural-appearing scenery

most likely will remain high in future years. This

may be due, at least in part, to the fact that counties with growing populations are also the

counties with the most recreational and scenic

attractions.

Rasker (1993) and Rasker and Glick (1994)

agree, suggesting that the fastest growing counties are those that remain attractive to growing

numbers of retirees moving out of the cities and

to owners of footloose industries (industries

having no ties to specific geographic locations)

with a preference for rural locations. High-quality

scenery, according to Rasker, gives some basin

communities a comparative advantage in attracting new residents and businesses. Rasker (1994)

continues saying that “intact landscapes are recognized as the foundation on which sustainable,

quality development depends.”

The basin, therefore, will continue to have an

increasing population, an overall aging population, and relatively constant recreation participation rates. The fastest growing areas likely

will have the most people concerned about scenic

quality. It also can be presumed that these trends

suggest an increase in demand for high-quality,

natural-appearing scenery within the basin.

Although some developed portions of the basin

also may continue to offer pleasing scenery, the

greatest opportunity for meeting this predicted

increase in demand for scenery lies in the

undeveloped and partially developed settings.

These settings have a high degree of scenic integrity and offer landscape themes that are predominately naturally evolving or natural-appearing

forests and shrub-grasslands, which are discussed

in the following section.

Elements of Scenery Assessment

Two primary elements are used in broad-scale

ecosystem scenery assessment and analysis:

landscape character and scenic integrity. All

public lands within the basin were inventoried

and classified for these elements.

Landscape character is the overall impression

created by scenery resulting from both natural

processes and positive human influences. Landscape themes are one aspect of landscape character that applies to large-scale geographic areas.

Landscape character also serves as a frame of

reference for inventorying the scenic attractiveness of smaller geographic areas.

Scenic integrity is the present condition or level

of visual wholeness or intactness of landscapes.

Scenic integrity serves as a baseline measurement

on which potential changes can be measured in

relative terms.

Landscape character—Landscape character can

be described spatially within an ecosystem assessment. For such broad-scale analysis, landscape character is most useful when considered

at the ecological subsection scale. In this assessment, landscape character is described by using

four primary attributes: landforms, vegetation,

water forms, and cultural forms. These attributes

serve later as a frame of reference for inventory-
11

ing scenic attractiveness,3

 which is a measure of

inherent visual variety. Together, these attributes

are used to describe the character of a large-scale

landscape and also form a general description or

overall impression that gives a landscape meaning and a “sense of place.” These images are

called landscape themes and are further described

in the next section.

Following is an example of a landscape character

description for one ecological subsection within

the basin:

Subsection M242Co Upper Yakima basin

Landform—The landform of this subsection

includes U-shaped and hanging valleys with

alluvial fans, cirque basins, glacial moraines, and

sharp rocky ridges at the higher elevations. Many

rock outcroppings and avalanche chutes are common at the upper elevations, and provide increased variety through their prominently visible

shapes. In contrast to the rockiness of the higher

eleva-tions, southern portions of this subsection

have rounded, dissected ridges.

Vegetation forms—Grand fir (Abies grandis

(Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl.), western hemlock

(Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.), Pacific silver

fir (Abies Amabilis Dougl. ex Forbes) and mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carr.)

are found throughout this subsection. Grand fir

and western hemlock occupy the drier, warmer

portions of the subsection, with Douglas-fir on

the driest of sites. Timber stands are predominantly scattered and diverse, offering substantial

scenic variety in textures and colors, especially

when combined with naturally occurring rock

outcrops, avalanche chutes, and other openings.

Aquatic forms—There are few rivers and lakes

in this subsection, although there are many

springs found mostly in midslope glacial till deposits. Surface water tends to seep quickly into

the coarse subsurface and is visible in drainage

channels only during brief periods of runoff.

Where springs are present, scenic variety tends to

be greater because of increased vegetative diversity. Water features generally attract attention in

the subsection because of their scarcity.

Cultural forms—Timber harvesting, wildfire

suppression, and limited grazing have affected

the scenic character of this subsection by increasing vegetative patterns.

Landscape character descriptions similar to the

above example were completed for the 13 ecological subsections within the basin’s two test basins

(Yakima and Silvies) but were not completed for

the remaining 381 subsections because of time

and resource constraints. Instead, landscape

themes were developed for each subsection.

Landscape themes—In large-scale ecological

assessments like the Interior Columbia Basin

Ecosystem Management Project, scenery is considered a primary resource that can be inventoried

and analyzed. Although visual impacts associated

with project level decisions normally will not be

discernable at the scales used in this project, the

cumulative effects of various broad alternatives

or scenarios can be identified, mapped, and

monitored.

Various large geographic areas have identifiable

landscape themes (Ryden 1993). These themes

are an indication of how people perceive these

environments in a general sense. The approach of

identifying themes for geographic areas was used

in a scenery analysis prepared for the Columbia

River Gorge National Scenic Area to capture the

experiential essence of various places (Galliano

and others 1990). Contained within the Columbia

River Gorge are identifiable images or themes

that change as people move from one portion of

the area to another. Each discrete place has its

own theme, even though that theme may not be

unique; i.e., a given ecological subsection may

contain several images or themes. It is also common for themes to repeat themselves from subsection to subsection.

Landscape themes are a way of identifying and

describing visual and cultural impressions created

by landscape settings and their existing land use

3

 Scenic attractiveness (previously called “variety class” in

the Forest Service’s VMS) is not appropriate to analyze at

the basin scale but should be inventoried in subsequent

levels of planning.
12

patterns. They describe the general impressions

brought about by the biophysical appearance of a

geographic area within a cultural context. For example, the Silvies Valley in southeast Oregon is

largely a forest and shrub-grassland landscape.

Developed areas, such as the small town of

Seneca, exist within this landscape. People viewing the Silvies Valley might have a general impression of a forest-shrub-grassland landscape,

based on its vegetation and landforms, yet the

developed component is also part of this landscape’s image.

In a broad sense, landscape themes serve as a

baseline for assessing future changes in the scenic character of an area. Even at the large scales

used in an ecosystem assessment, changes in one

or more of the salient attributes composing the

character of a given area can have a predictable

effect on its scenery. In subsequent levels of planning, such as forest or unit planning, landscape

themes are advantageous in identifying landscape

character goals. In broad assessments, landscape

themes are valuable in monitoring changes in the

overall images of large-scale geographic areas.

Every geographic area within the basin has at

least one identifiable landscape theme. Many

areas have several themes. For the purpose of this

assessment, however, only primary themes are

discussed for each geographic area because of

time and resource limitations.

Scenic integrity—As described previously, scenic integrity4

 can be used to describe various degrees of visual wholeness or completeness and is

an indication of scenic condition. Scenic integrity

can be used to describe scenery in the past, as it

presently exists, and as predicted for the future.

For this assessment, scenic integrity is used to

measure the condition of scenery as it presently

exists and to predict its potential condition under

proposed alternatives.

Large-scale changes in landscape character are

rare within human timeframes. The eruption of

Mount St. Helens in 1980 changed the character of landscapes for miles around the volcano.

Catastrophic fires, insect epidemics, as well as

hurricanes and tornadoes in other parts of the

country can alter the vegetation over vast areas.

These events rarely change the character of those

landscapes because the vegetation normally will

return at some point in time, usually within human lifetimes. Such “temporary” changes that

affect a single attribute like vegetation are considered changes in condition rather than

character.

Scenic integrity is measured by using a continuous scale that ranges from very high to low.

Landscapes with a high degree of scenic integrity

have virtually no discordant elements and contain

only positive human alterations. They are intact,

unimpaired, and appear to be in good visual

condition.

On the opposite end of the scale, landscapes with

low scenic integrity usually have negative human

alterations and are in poor visual condition. They

often contain discordant and contrasting features

such as geometric shapes resulting from vegetative treatment, structures that do not blend with

their surroundings, or roads that create large cut

and fill slopes across steep hillsides.

Providing a high degree of scenic integrity on

natural-appearing landscapes usually requires a

thorough understanding of how healthy ecosystems function. It also requires a knowledge of

peoples’ desires, preferences, and expectations

based on constituent surveys, interviews, and observations. Scenic integrity may, in some situations, indicate the wholeness or condition of the

ecosystem. Although high scenic integrity sometimes equates to high ecosystem integrity, one

does not necessarily ensure the other.

The ecologically “intact” landscape may not

always be the most visually pleasing, especially

in foreground situations where a greater degree

of detail is visible. These landscapes may seem

“messy” and less orderly than people prefer. As

Gobster (1995) explains it, “Although landscapes

of high ecological integrity may not conform to

traditional ideas of what is ‘scenic,’ they have an

4

 Scenic integrity originally was called existing visual

condition in the Forest Service’s VMS.
13

inner beauty that can be rewarding to discover.”

Educating the public about this “inner beauty”

could be one solution to this apparent conflict.

Methods

The methods used in this scenery assessment

involved two procedures:

1. Identify landscape themes, as a component

of landscape character, at the ecological subsection scale.

2. Evaluate current levels of scenic integrity at

the watershed scale.

This section describes these two procedures in

detail and is followed by a section indicating

consequences, limitations, and recommendations.

Landscape Theme Identification

The appropriate context must be considered when

designating themes for the broad landscapes

analyzed in the basin. Within the ecoregion context, it would be incorrect to assume that every

acre or every landscape within a given ecological

subsection will have a uniform landscape theme.

These themes are only a broad description of

landscape character that describe the overall

images of the landscape contained within a subsection. Based on field interviews in the Yakima,

Washington, and Burns, Oregon, test areas during

1994, constituents generally agree in describing

all basin landscapes within a range of five

themes:5

• Forest and shrub-grasslands (naturally evolving)6

 are those lands that have a vegetative

cover of either forest species or shrub, forb,

and grass species that are in a naturally evolving state or condition. This means that human

intervention (manipulation or development)

is minimum or nonexistent; natural processes

dominate visually. Examples are wilderness

areas or research natural areas.

• Forest lands (natural appearing) are those

lands that have a vegetative cover of forest

species (large trees creating the walls and

ceilings of visual space) that are in a naturalappearing state or condition. Human intervention (manipulation or development) may be

evident, but such intervention does not

dominate the natural landscape. Examples are

the scenic or recreational portions of wild and

scenic rivers and scenic byways.

• Shrub-grasslands (natural appearing) are

those lands that have a vegetative cover of

shrub, forb, and grass species (small trees and

plants that may create small walls of visual

space, but an overhead plane or ceiling is

absent) that are in a natural-appearing state

or condition. Human intervention (manipulation or development) may be evident but does

not dominate the landscape. Examples are

national grasslands or open range lands where

fencing does not create visually dominant

geometric patterns.

• Agricultural lands are those “working landscapes” that have geometric patterns that visually dominate the landscape, usually because

of fencing and monocrop planting and cultivation patterns. Examples are irrigated croplands and some dry land crops (if their field

sizes are small enough to create discernible

geometric patterns). At the ecoregion scale,

the agricultural land theme also includes intensively managed timber lands that often

have a cultivated, geometric appearance.

• Developed areas have gridded street patterns,

commercial areas, and suburban residential

areas. These can range from small developed

areas with a gas station, a general store or

restaurant, and surrounding homes (e.g.,

Cliffdell, Washington), to larger towns or

cities with gridded street patterns, commercial hubs, and many residential developments

(e.g., Ellensburg, Washington).

5

 This array of themes is similar to that found in the Forest

Service’s SMS.

6

 These are actually two themes, forest lands (naturally

evolving [NE]) and shrub-grasslands (NE), combined

because of relatively small amounts of shrub-grasslands

(NE) areas in the basin.
14

Within these five themes, emphasis shifts from

landscapes with natural disturbances and successional origins to human-dominated landscapes, or

commercial, working landscapes. Although these

developed areas may, in some cases, be attractive,

they have little resemblance to the natural landscapes that once dominated the same geographic

area. In the Forest Service’s SMS, landscape

themes also may contain variations on the broad

themes that are an integral part of the desired

future condition of the ecosystem. Theme variations, however, are normally applied to specific

landscape units such as watersheds and are too

detailed for application in this assessment.

As stated earlier, the theme of a large geographic

area is an indication of the overall image of the

landscapes within that area. It does not measure

scenic condition, even in a broad sense. As a

more precise measure of condition, the next section of this report, which deals with scenic integrity, will indicate the acres inventoried in various

scenic integrity levels, and should be considered

in conjunction with landscape themes.

Landscape themes were previously developed

during an assessment of place (Galliano and

Loeffler 1999) based on Bailey’s (1980) national hierarchical framework, which stratifies

the Earth into progressively smaller areas of increasingly uniform ecological potentials. In this

framework, areas can be mapped according to

associations of biotic and environmental factors

including climate, physiography, water, soils, air,

hydrology, and potential natural plant communities (ECOMAP 1993).

A team of physical scientists assigned physiographic names and biophysical descriptions were

assigned to each ecological subsection. These became the foundation for developing place names

and landscape themes for subsections.

Test area interviews revealed that people often

describe places that are important to them

through similar characteristics. People commonly

referred to places with similar references to

“agricultural lands,” “forests,” or “rangelands”

when they were asked to describe what they felt

was important about the places they identified or

how they would like to see those places managed

in the future. With these similarities in mind, we

developed initial themes for all subsections based

on biophysical narrative descriptions of attributes

discussed previously. These landscape themes

were sent to landscape architects at all National

Forests within the basin for confirmation. Based

on their concurrence or suggested changes, landscape themes were identified for use in both the

place and scenery assessment.

Determining Scenic Integrity

Some National Forest lands within the basin had

scenic integrity (originally called existing scenic

condition in the old VMS) mapped for use in

previous land management planning projects.

These data were gathered in the early 1980s but

are now outdated, as some landscapes have recovered and others have been further impacted.

Only a few forests have been mapped more recently with current data. The BLM lands have not

been mapped for scenic integrity at all. For BLM

lands, desired scenery and recreation planning

objectives that indicated the degree of naturalness

were used as a proxy for existing scenic condition. Although these data were not ideal, they

were the best available at the time.

Considering the range of variability and the age

of many of the data described above, we consider the confidence level to be unacceptable. A

computer-derived scenic integrity model was,

therefore, developed to provide basin-wide consistency. This model was based on data layers

available in CRBSUM,7

 which were combined to

form a synthesis of vegetation, landform, and

road density. Assigning scenic integrity levels to

inventoried landscapes within the basin was a

three-step process:

7

 The acronym CRBSUM stands for Columbia River basin

successional model and is a simulation model used to project

changes in landscape attributes.
15

Step 1: Categorize landform and vegetative stand

types

Landforms were classified into (1) plains, (2) valleys, (3) foothills, and (4) mountains. Biophysical

characteristics associated with each landform determine potential vegetation associations.

Four vegetation cover classes were developed

from vegetative structural stages: (1) early-seral

forest; (2) early-seral forest and shrub-grasslands;

(3) multilayer young forests; and (4) old-growth,

single or multilayer forests.

A set of 72 photographic slides depicting various

combinations of vegetative stand structures, patch

compositions, landforms, and management scenarios (consumptive, active, and passive) were

selected. A team of landscape architects reviewed

these slides and assigned scenic integrity levels to

each based on their expert judgment. Some general assumptions made during this task included

the following:

• Early-seral stage forests tend to be associated

with recent disturbances.

• When associated with moist or wet foothill

landforms, early-seral stage forests lack visual

diversity that is expected of most natural landscape settings.

• Old-growth multilayer forests normally result

in naturally evolving forest landscapes.

• Late-seral stage, open, parklike old-growth

ponderosa pine or multilayered true firhemlock stands appear basically unaltered

to most people.

• Road density is the primary factor used to

classify degree of alteration in ecosystems

dominated by shrubs and grasses, where

vertical stand structure is limited.

Step 2: Rank road densities

Road densities within the basin were reviewed

to further assess human alterations to landscape

settings. This was most important where vegetative considerations were thought to be insufficient, as in some shrub-grassland ecosystems.

Even though road density data are limited,8

when used in combination with stand structurelandform categories, they provide an acceptable

broad-scale depiction of existing human alteration in the project area.

Road densities are ranked on a scale of one to

five, where five is the value assigned to a squaremile cell where no roads exist, and one represents

more than 4.6 miles of road per square mile. Five

road density classes, based on the preliminary

road density analysis of January 1995, were used

in this step (table 1).

Step 3: Develop rule set

To use the geographic information system (GIS)

technologies available. A rule set was developed

to provide inventory classifications relative to the

many possible combinations of vegetation structure, landforms, and road alteration levels existing within the basin. A total of 20 different possible combinations of road density and stand

structure-landform classes was divided into the

spectrum of five scenic integrity levels corresponding to the Forest Service’s SMS (USDA

Forest Service, in press). The matrix shown in

table 2 displays the scenic integrity levels derived

from this process.

Field testing was then done by using a sampling

approach throughout the basin that favored areas

unfamiliar to the authors and that also offered a

full range of scenic integrity levels. In the field,

derived scenic integrity levels were compared to

actual landscapes to verify their accuracy.

When applying this rule set to basin landscapes,

it first appeared that agricultural lands and developed areas could be rated for scenic integrity

along with other landscape themes. Problems

were encountered, however, in attempting to rank

scenic integrity for these lands because criteria

8

 Secondary travel routes, logging roads, and limited access

roads or roads used primarily by offroad vehicles are not

adequately inventoried in this analysis.
16

for determining their visual condition have not

been established in the Forest Service’s SMS.

Although these criteria will eventually be formulated, there was not enough time to create and

test them during the short duration of this project. Agricultural lands and urban developments

were therefore classified as “not assessed” in

this scenic integrity analysis.

Results, Limitations, and

Recommendations

Landscape Character

Results—As stated earlier, people who visit

public lands within the basin have an expected

image concerning the landscapes they will see.

This “mental picture” may have been created by

previous visits to the area (or to similar areas); by

videos, television, and photographs they have

seen; or through stories they have heard from

others who have seen the basin’s landscapes.

Whatever the origin, the images suggested represent the human knowledge, spirituality, anticipation, imagination, and emotions associated with

the features of the area. Although several images

for a particular landscape can exist at the same

time, a particular geographic area tends to have

an identifiable image.

Recall that landscape themes are a combination

of natural attributes comprising the biophysical

character and its human or cultural attributes.

They are not goals for future management but

merely show what currently exists within a broad

spectrum of degrees of naturalness or degrees of

development. Several themes may exist for each

subsection, but as discussed earlier, only primary

themes are listed. In this assessment, landscape

themes have been identified for each of the 394

ecological subsections within the basin. Ecological subsections, generally ranging from 250,000

to 500,000 acres, seem to be an appropriate scale

for determining landscape themes. The locations

of inventoried subsection themes is shown in

figure 1.

Table 1—Derived scenic integrity road alteration levels by road

density class

Road density class Road alteration level

NV = none to very low (0-0.1 mi/mi2

) 5 = unaltered

L = low (0.1-0.7 mi/mi2

) 4 = very slightly altered

M = moderate (0.7-1.7 mi/mi2

) 3 = slightly altered

H = high (1.7-4.7 mi/mi2

) 2 = moderately altered

E = extreme (>4.7 mi/mi2

) 1 = heavily altered

Table 2—Derived scenic integrity rule seta

Forest and woodLandform, Forest and land structures—

vegetation, and Agricultural woodland late multistory or

structure by and urban structures— Shrubland single-story

alteration level structures early seral structures midseral

Level 1 Not assessed Low Low Moderately low

Level 2 Not assessed Moderately low Moderately low Moderately high

Level 3 Not assessed Moderately high Moderately high High

Level 4 Not assessed High High Very high

Level 5 Not assessed High Very high Very high

a

 These are landscape ecology classifications and are not necessarily the same as landscape themes discussed in the text.
17

Figure 1—Interior Columbia River basin existing landscape themes by ecological subsections.

ICBEMP

LEGEND

Natural evolvingforest and shrub/grasslandsNatural appearingforest landsNatural appearingshrub/grasslandsAgricultural landsDeveloped areasUnassignedState boundariesColumbia Riverbasin assessmentboundary
18

Most BLM and Forest Service land within the

basin currently has themes that are primarily

nature dominated rather than human altered. As

indicated in table 3, over 40 percent of these

public lands have general landscape themes of

natural-appearing forests, and over 30 percent are

natural-appearing shrub-grasslands. Another 10

percent are naturally evolving forests and shrubgrasslands, occurring primarily in wilderness

areas, wild and scenic river corridors, and

other specially designated areas. In total, about

90 percent of the Forest Service- and BLMadministered lands within the basin currently

have nature-dominated themes.

Limitations—The appropriate context must be

taken into account when considering thematic

assignments for such broad-scale landscapes.

Readers might imagine that they are flying over

these landscapes at a relatively low elevation, so

that they can observe significant landscape features, yet are forced to see them in an oblique

view within the context of surrounding landscapes. Within this context, it would be incorrect

to assume that 90 percent of a given view or

overlook would be essentially nature dominated.

Rather, this figure suggests that within the entire

basin, about 90 percent of all ecological subsections have primary landscape themes that are

nature dominated.

Recommendations—Landscape themes provide

a means of monitoring long-term changes in

broad-scale landscape character. The cultural and

visual impressions created by landscape settings

and their accompanying land use patterns are

contained within the themes identified for ecological subsections. Land use changes that occur

gradually over several years may be difficult to

track day by day. These changes can be identified, however, by reviewing thematic changes

occurring over a period of 10 or 20 years. Inventory updates at such regular intervals can identify

where changes in landscape themes occur and to

what extent they affect scenic character. By using

the GIS database developed for this project, comparisons between inventories can be electronically produced to indicate which subsections are

relatively static in terms of their scenic character

and which ones are changing. For those that are

changing, this approach will indicate both the direction and degree of scenic character changes.

Table 3—Percentage of existing landscape themes on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) lands in the interior Columbia River basin

 BLM and FS

Landscape theme Current situation lands in the basin Total basin

Thousand hectares Thousand acres – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – –

Naturally evolving

forest and shrubgrasslands 3913 9,666 10 7

Natural-appearing

forest lands 21 561 53,256 46 37

Natural-appearing

shrub-grasslands 17 826 44,030 34 30

Agricultural lands 11 540 28,503 8 20

Developed areas 3632 8,971 2 6

Not classified 19 47 <1 <1

Basin totala 58 491 144,473 100 100

aTotal areas may be slightly different from other basin totals because vector data were used in this analysis.
19

We do not recommend a finer spatial scale in

mapping landscape themes for individual districts

or forests but do recommend obtaining additional

constituent involvement to ensure that the themes

identified at the ecoregion scale are accurate and

adequately detailed for sub-sequent planning

projects.

We suggest that criteria be developed during subsequent adjustments to scenery management systems that clearly define positive cultural alterations as part of the definition of landscape character. This is especially important for agricultural

lands and developed areas where human alterations tend to dominate these landscapes. It may

be necessary for these criteria to be developed at

the ecoregional scale so that different parts of the

country may emphasize their own unique cultural

landscape character.

Scenic Integrity

Results—Scenic integrity levels are how scenery

on public lands is measured in terms of degrees

of deviation from the attributes of the naturalappearing landscape. Scenic integrity levels are

based on a standard set of criteria established in

the Forest Service’s SMS (USDA Forest Service,

in press) and include the following five classes:

1. Very high scenic integrity—Settings where

the landscape is visually intact with only minor

positive human alterations. Visual harmony of

the existing landscape character is expressed at

the highest possible level.

2. High scenic integrity—Settings where the

landscape appears intact. Scenic deviations resulting from human activities may be present

but must repeat the attributes common to the

natural-appearing character of the landscape

so completely and at such a scale that they are

not evident.

3. Moderately high scenic integrity—Settings

where the landscape appears slightly fragmented. Discernible deviations remain visually

subordinate to the natural-appearing landscape

character viewed.

4. Moderately low scenic integrity—Settings

where the landscape appears fragmented.

Visual deviations resulting from human

activities dominate the natural-appearing

landscape character. Visual deviations are

sometimes unlike natural occurrences within

the landscape viewed.

5. Low scenic integrity—Settings where the

landscape appears heavily fragmented.

Deviations resulting from human activities

strongly dominate the natural-appearing

landscape character. Deviations must be

blended with the natural landscape character

to a minimal level.9

Figure 2 displays the scenic integrity levels for

the entire basin.

Table 4 displays the acres and hectares of inventoried existing scenic integrity levels for the

entire basin. It indicates that over 70 percent of

Forest Service and BLM lands are within the high

and very high range. This may indicate an overall

condition for these public lands that is among the

highest in the country.

Consistent with other basin assessment elements,

scenery is displayed in tabular form by ecological

reporting units (ERUs). The ERU boundaries

were determined as an integrated exercise, with

participation of all disciplines. They are a combination of ecoregions and hydrographic boundaries that are best suited to various scientific and

resource interests. Their purpose is to facilitate

the assessment process by reducing variations

among social, biophysical, and economic conditions. Eventually, ERUs will be used in the implementation and monitoring of environmental impact statement decisions.

Thirteen ERUs have been determined for the

basin (see fig. 3).

9

 Drastically altered landscapes, where visual harmony is not

expressed at all, are considered to be visually unacceptable.

These landscapes often need rehabilitation. For the purpose

of this assessment, unacceptably low scenic conditions were

considered part of low scenic integrity because they have not

been inventoried in the basin.
20

Figure 2—Existing scenic integrity in the interior Columbia River basin.

ICBEMP

LEGEND

Very high scenicintegrityHigh scenic integrityModerately highscenic integrityModerately low scenicintegrityLow scenic integrityAgricultural/developedlandsInterstate highwayLimited access/dividedhighwayOther U.S. highwayState boundariesColumbia Riverbasin assessmentboundary
21

Table 4—Percentage of existing scenic integrity on Forest Service (FS) and Bureau

of Land Management (BLM) lands in the interior Columbia River basin

BLM and FS lands

Scenic integrity Current situation in the basin Total basin

Thousand hectares Thousand acres – – – – – – Percent – – – – – –

Very high 8056 19,908 42 14

High 18 054 44,613 33 31

Moderately high 21 805 53,880 17 38

Moderately low 6356 15,705 7 11

Low 45 112 <1 <1

Not classifieda 4045 9,996 <1 7

Basin totalb 58 361 144,214 100 100

a No data are available currently for determining scenic integrity levels for lands with agricultural or developed

themes. Lands with these themes were not classified in this scenic assessment.

bTotal areas may be slightly different from other basin totals because vector data were used in this analysis.

Variations in vector data sources account for slight variations in totals.
22

Figure 3—Interior Columbia River basin ecological reporting units.

ICBEMP

CENTRAL IDAHO MOUNTAINS

UPPER CLARK FORK

OWYHEE UPLANDS

UPPER SNAKE

SNAKE HEADWATERS

SNAKE HEADWATERS

NORTHERN GLACIATED MOUNTAINS

UPPER KLAMATH

NORTHERN GREAT BASIN

BLUE MOUNTAINS

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

SOUTHERN CASCADES

NORTHERN CASCADES

LOWER CLARK FORK

LEGEND

Ecological reportingunit boundariesState boundariesColumbia River basinassessment boundary
23

The existing condition of lands in each ERU,

shown in table 5, reveals interesting results. Disregarding ownership, there are five ERUs with

more than half of their total lands within the very

high and high scenic integrity levels, distinguishing these areas as some of the most scenic areas

in the United States: Northern Great Basin, Snake

Headwaters, Upper Snake, Central Idaho Mountains, and Owyhee Uplands.

Limitations—Based on field testing of the scenic

integrity model, we estimate the derived scenic

integrity model to be 70 to 80 percent accurate.

This method, however, is not suitable for

planning applications at smaller scales without

adjustments and refinements, some of which are

discussed in the following text.

The magnitude of visual disturbances may not be

accurately reflected in the scenic integrity figures

displayed in table 4. The scenic integrity model

was based on a scale of watershed units averaging 20,000 acres. This relatively coarse resolution may have had the effect of elevating scenic

integrity in the model from what actually may

exist to an on-the-ground viewer. For example,

although an area occupied by a large geometric

clearcut is identified within a watershed as only

a fraction of a percentage of the overall landscape

surrounding it, that clearcut may be seen from

miles around. It may have a dominating effect on

a large portion of the scenery of the watershed

unit as experienced by viewers moving through

the landscape.

Table 5—Interior Columbia River basin existing scenic integrity by ecological reporting unit

(ERU) on Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands

Scenic integrity Very Moderately Moderately Not

by ERU high High high low Low classifieda

1 Northern Cascades 598 1,230 1,477 146 <1 5

2 Southern Cascades 166 101 1,193 422 12 5

3 Upper Klamath 99 62 1,487 178 <1 <1

4 N. Great Basin 450 3,962 2,850 484 59 <1

5 Columbia Plateau 59 482 1,084 951 <1 25

6 Blue Mountains 667 1,366 3,648 894 <1 15

7 N. Glaciated Mountains 1,702 576 4,224 222 <1 32

8 Lower Clark Fork 605 361 3,302 124 10 <1

9 Upper Clark Fork 1,233 524 1,186 116 <1 <1

10 Owyhee Uplands 375 7,659 6,721 630 <1 20

11 Upper Snake 101 2,253 600 573 <1 <1

12 Snake Headwaters 1,477 1,665 711 188 <1 <1

13 Central Idaho Mountains 5,718 5,244 5,135 694 <1 27

Basin totalb 13,250 25,485 33,618 5,622 91 128

a

 No data are available currently for determining scenic integrity levels for lands with agricultural or developed themes. Lands

with these themes were not classified in this scenic assessment.

b

 Total areas may be slightly different from other basin totals because vector data were used in this analysis. Variations in

vector data sources account for slight variations in totals.
24

The derived scenic integrity model was based

on available data that do not indicate locationspecific alterations to scenery. In developing the

derived scenic integrity model, two major scenic

impacts were not analyzed: utility corridors, such

as high voltage power lines or fossil fuel pipelines; and mining activities, both surface and

underground. For this project, these inventories

were not available in the proper GIS format.

The use of large-scale ERUs based on homogeneity of attributes is another limitation similar

to that described above. Within each ERU, scientific information is usually aggregated within

provincial boundaries. This aggregation results

in compromises that necessitate the elimination

of details concerning specific attributes (and

anomalies) within each ERU.

Recommendations—Refined analysis techniques using the method suggested in this paper

should be applied at smaller scales to specific

watersheds, viewsheds, or other geographic areas

within the basin. These techniques need to be

refined for use at subsequent planning levels at

BLM district, National Forest, or other administrative units.

It is suggested that the rule set developed for the

derived scenic integrity model be amplified with

additional data layers to indicate degrees of human alteration to otherwise natural-appearing

landscapes. For example, during the field verification, mining activities and utility transmission

corridors produced a significant degree of human

alteration in some locations, yet these features

were not available as data layers during the basin

assessment. At smaller scale planning applications, with less time restrictions, however, such

data should be applied, thereby providing an additional degree of accuracy.

Also, because of the magnitude of the basin-wide

assessment, scenic integrity was “averaged” for

relatively large watershed units of about 20,000

acres. We suggest that a 160- to 200-acre cell size

be used as a more precise resolution for district or

forest planning and monitoring projects.

The current state of the environment is important,

but future states may be even more important.

Monitoring of scenic resources in the basin is

essential to know whether or not established resource goals are being met to see whether assumptions made in various analyses were accurate and to validate the concepts established in

earlier planning processes. Scenery assessment

provides an excellent medium for monitoring

future changes in scenic integrity (condition). By

using the same rule set displayed in table 2, the

same GIS data layers may be combined in a

similar manner to generate additional scenic

integrity models at regular intervals, such as 5,

10, or 20 years. Comparing these newly created

models with previously generated models will

display broad-scale changes in scenic integrity

throughout the basin.

We suggest that resource management agencies

work in concert with educational institutions to

develop a program that actively attempts to educate the public concerning all aspects of ecosystem management, especially the beauty of biologically healthy, sustainable landscapes. This is

recognized as a tremendous challenge that may

require major efforts by the agencies in order to

change peoples’ perceptions. Eventually, socially

acceptable limits concerning the definitions of

scenic beauty will be broadened to include

healthy ecosystems.

General Limitations

Natural resource allocation limitations—For

most public land management agencies, conflicts

between the use of lands to provide amenities

versus providing commodities have made them

aware of several important messages. One of the

most obvious of these messages is one of the

most profound: the optimum use of the land and

its resources must be achieved by keeping what

people desire and what the environment can provide in equilibrium. Such a balance is not simple in the management of vast and diverse landscapes. There is a fundamental problem where

planners are asked to satisfy all of society’s desires, not only because human demands on the

land seem boundless, but also because to satisfy

some desires negates others.
25

Existence value—Using recreation participation

as an indicator of recreation demand has inherent

limitations. Presumably there are other scenerydependent activities occurring on basin lands that

are not taken into account in the participation

rates cited. The omission of existence value is

perhaps the most conspicuous deficiency in this

approach. For example, people may value the

existence of recreational lands for cultural,

aesthetic, scientific, or spiritual reasons not

expressed in recreation participation indicators.

Acknowledgments

Preparing a scenic inventory and analysis for an

area covering 144 million acres and occupying

significant portions of 7 states and 100 counties

is a challenge that required the contributions of

many people. More than 30 professional landscape architects, planners, and social scientists

throughout the BLM and the Forest Service met

this challenge, each contributing significant data,

insights, and recommendations that would ensure

the success of the project. Their zeal and willingness to participate in such a far reaching endeavor made it possible to complete such an

undertaking within the short timeframe provided.

The authors especially thank Stewart Allen,

Warren Bacon, Jim Burchfield, Christina

Lilienthal, Steve McCool, and Wayne Tlusty for

their contributions and willingness to participate

in this, one of the largest applications of scenery

inventory and analysis ever undertaken. These

professionals were indispensable in advancing

the “cutting edge” concepts used in the “Scenery

Assessment.”

The planners and landscape architects at the

Kisatchie National Forest in Louisiana were

instrumental in initiating the process for inventorying existing scenic condition using GIS technologies. With the assistance of Mark Hotz, Dave

Plume, Gini Stoddard, and Wendel Hann, the

Kisatchie approach was further developed in this

scenery assessment to become the derived scenic

integrity model.
26

References

Alexander, L. 1986. Americans outdoors: the legacy, the challenge the report of the President’s

commission. Washington, DC: Island Press. 426 p.

Allen, S. 1988. Montana bio-economics study: results of the hunter preference study. Helena, MT:

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 241 p.

Bailey, R.G. 1980. Description of the ecoregions of the United States. Misc. Publ. 1391. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 77 p.

Beckham, S.D. 1995. An interior empire: historical overview of the Columbia basin. Unpublished

report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project,

112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Bennett, K. 1995. Human needs and dilemmas. Unpublished paper. On file with: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Claritas Corporation. 1994. PRIZM market segmentation cluster snapshots: target analysis profiles

for Pacific Northwest recreationalists. Los Angeles, CA: Claritas Corporation. [Irregular pagination]. On CD-ROM. Available from: Claritas, Inc. 5055 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA

90036-4396.

Clean Air Act Amendments. Act of Aug 7, 1977. Public Law 95-95, 91 Stat. 685, as amended; 42

U.S.C. 7401, 7418, 7470, 7472, 7474, 7475, 7491, 7506, 7602.

Cordell, H.K.; Siehl, G. 1989. Wildland recreation use trends. Trends. 26(3): 4-8.

Daniel, T.; Boster, R. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method.

Res. Pap. RM-167. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 66 p.

Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J.; Peterson, G. 1992. Benefits of leisure. State College, PA: Venture

Publishing, Inc. 483 p.

Eckbo, G. 1969. The landscape we see. New York: McGraw-Hill. 223 p.

ECOMAP. 1993. National hierarchical framework of ecological units. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 20 p.

Elsner, G.; Smardon, R.C., eds. 1979. Proceedings of our national landscape: a conference on applied techniques for analysis and management of the visual resource; [Dates of meeting unknown];

[Location of meeting unknown]. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 660 p.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act. Act of Aug. 17, 1974. Public Law 93-

378. 88 Stat. 476, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT]. 1993. Forest ecosystem management:

an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture;

U.S. Department of the Interior [and others]. [Irregular pagination].
27

Galliano, S.J.; Loeffler, G.M. 1999. Place assessment: how people define ecosystems. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-462. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 31 p.

Galliano, S.J.; Michaliszyn, B.; Moran, P. 1990. Corridor visual inventory for the Columbia River

Gorge National Scenic Area. Hood River, OR: Columbia River Gorge Commission. 124 p.

Gilpin, W. 1791. Remarks on forest scenery and other woodland views illustrated by the scenes of

new-forest in Hampshire. [Reprinted 1973]. Surrey, England: Richmond Publishing Co. Ltd. (In

three books).

Gobster, P.H. 1995. Aldo Leopold’s “ecological esthetic”: integrating esthetic and biodiversity values.

Journal of Forestry. 93(2): 6-10.

Gobster, P.H.; Schroeder, H.W. 1988. Urbanites’ perceptions and aesthetic expectations of forest

environments. In: Johnson, J.E., ed. Managing north-central forests for nontimber values: Proceedings, 4th Region 5 technical conference of the Society of American Foresters; 1988 November 29-

December 1; Duluth, MT. Publ. 88-04. [Place of publication unknown]: Society of American

Foresters.

Hanes, Richard. 1995. Personal communication, cultural anthropologist, U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, P.O. Box 10226, Eugene, OR 97440-2226.

Hann, Wendel J.; Jones, Jeffrey L.; Karl, Michael G. [and others]. 1997. Landscape dynamics

of the basin. In: Quigley, Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem

components in the interior Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. Chapter 3. Vol. 2. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; Interior Columbia

Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Haynes, R.W.; Horne, A.L. 1997. Economic assessment of the basin. In: Quigley, Thomas M.;

Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior Columbia

basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Chapter

6. Vol. 4. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project:

scientific assessment).

Hornback, K.E. 1991. Socio-economic outlook: outdoor recreation 2000. Trends. 28(2): 14-19.

Jones, J.L. 1995. Broad-scale pattern assessment. Draft report describing the metrics used to assess

broad-scale landscape structure. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem

Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Kaplan, R. 1975. Some methods and strategies in the prediction of preference. In: Zube, E.H.

Landscape assessment—values, perceptions, and resources. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson

and Ross, Inc.: 118-129.

Kaplan, S.; Kaplan, R. 1988. Cognition and the environment: functioning in an uncertain world. New

York: Praeger. 132 p.

Lee, R.G. 1976. Assessing public concern for visual quality—landscape sensitivity research and

administrative studies. PSW-19. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 76 p.
28

Litton, R.B., Jr. 1984. Visual vulnerability of the landscape: control of visual quality. Res. Pap.

WO-39. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 28 p.

Litton, R.B., Jr.; Tetlow, R.J. 1978. A landscape inventory framework: scenic analysis of the northern Great Plains. PSW-135. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 117-124.

Luloff, A.E.; Krannich, R.S. 1990. Demographic correlates of outdoor recreation: trends and

implications. In: O’Leary, J.T. [and others], eds. Proceedings of the 3d outdoor recreation trends

symposium; 1990 March 29-31; Indianapolis, IN. [Place of publication unknown]: [Publisher

unknown]: 131-146.

Magill, A.W. 1992. Managed and natural landscapes: What do people like? Res. Pap. PSW-RP-213.

Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

28 p.

Marsh, G.P. 1864. Man and nature. [Reprinted 1965]. In: Lowenthal, D., ed. Cambridge, MA:

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

McCool, S.; Haynes, R. 1995. Sustainability. 14 p. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management,

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

McCool, S.F.; Benson, R.E.; Ashor, J.L. 1986. How the public perceives the visual effects of timber

harvesting: an evaluation of interest group preferences. Environmental Management. 22.

McCool, S.F.; Burchfield, J.A.; Allen, S.D. 1997. Social assessment of the basin. In: Quigley,

Thomas M.; Arbelbide, Sylvia J., tech. eds. An assessment of ecosystem components in the interior

Columbia basin and portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-405.

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Chapter 7. Vol. 4. (Quigley, Thomas M., tech. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project: scientific assessment).

McGuire, J.R. 1979. Managing the forest landscape for public expectations. In: Proceedings of our

national landscape; 1979; Lake Tahoe, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station:

16-19.

McLellan, G.; Siehl, G.H. 1988. Trends in leisure and recreation: how we got to where we are.

Trends. 25(4): 4-7.

Molitor, A. 1995. An assessment of natural resource-based recreation in the interior Columbia River

basin. 41 p. Unpublished report. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S.

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Murdock, S.H.; Backman, K.; Hoque, M.N.; Ellis, D. 1990. The impacts of future change in

population size and composition on recreational demand. In: O’Leary, J.T. [and others], eds.

Proceedings of the 3d national recreation trends symposium; 1990 March 29-31; [Location of

meeting unknown]. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Leisure Research Institute. 1: 147-195.

Vol. 2. Sponsored by: Indiana University, Department of Recreation and Park Administration [and

others].
29

Nash, R. 1975. Qualitative landscape values: the historical perspective. In: Zube, E.H., ed. Landscape

assessment—values, perceptions, and resources. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross,

Inc.: 117-125.

Newby, F.L. 1971. Perceptual assessment of forested roadside landscapes. Ann Arbor, MI: University

of Michigan. 228 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Noe, F.P. 1988. Effects of recreational and environmental values on tourist scenic preferences. In:

Noe, F.P.; Hammit, W.E., eds. Visual preferences of travelers along the Blue Ridge Parkway.

Scientific Monogr. Ser. No. 18. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service: 51-66.

Orians, G.H. 1986. Ecological and evolutionary approach to landscape aesthetics. In: PenningRousell; Lowenthal, D., eds. Landscape meanings and values. London, England: Allen and Unwin.

271 p.

Orians, G.H.; Heerwagen, J.H. 1992. Evolved responses to landscapes. In: Barkow, J.H.; Cosmides,

L.; Tooby, J. eds. The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New

York: Oxford University Press. 196 p.

Randall, A.; Stoll, J.R. 1983. Existence value in a total value framework. In: Rowe, R.D.; Chestnut,

L., eds. Managing air quality and scenic resources at national parks and wilderness areas. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press: 265-274.

Rasker, R. 1993. Rural development, conservation and public policy in the Greater Yellowstone

ecosystem. Society and Natural Resources. 6: 109-126.

Rasker, R. 1994. A new look at old vistas: the economic role of environmental quality in western

public lands. University of Colorado Law Review. 65(2): 369-399.

Rasker, R.; Glick, D. 1994. Footloose entrepreneurs: Pioneers of the new West? Illahee. 10(1): 34-43.

Robbins, W.G. 1993. Landscape and environment—ecological change in the intermontane Northwest.

Pacific Northwest Quarterly. 84(4): 140-149.

Roper Starch, Inc. 1994. From anxiety toward action a status report on conservation in 1994. The

Times Mirror Magazine. [Not paged]. (National Environmental Forum Survey).

Ryden, K.C. 1993. Mapping the invisible landscape: folklore, writing, and the sense of place. Iowa

City, IA: University of Iowa Press. 144 p.

Smardon, R.C. 1986. Historical evolution of visual resource management within three federal

agencies. Journal of Environmental Management. 22(4): 301-317.

State of Oregon. 1992. Oregon State long range transportation plan. Unpublished report. On file with:

Oregon Department of Transportation, 555 13th Street N.E., Salem, OR 97310.

State of Washington, Department of Ecology. 1978. Shoreline Master Program Handb. WAC 173-

16. Report on file with: State of Washington, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia,

WA 98504-7600.

Szwak, L.B. 1989. Social and demographic trends affecting outdoor recreation. In: Watson, A.E.,

comp. Outdoor recreation benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the national outdoor recreation forum;

1988 January 13-14; Tampa Bay, FL. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-52. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station: 22-26.
30

Trent, J. 1995. Attitudes, beliefs and values for Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management

Project. 53 p. On file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project,

112 E. Poplar, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Ulrich, R.S. 1984. View through a window may influence recovery from surgery. Science. [Vol.

unknown]: [pages unknown].

Ulrich, R.S.; Dimberg, U.; Driver, B.L. 1992. Benefits of leisure. In: Driver, B.L.; Brown, P.J.;

Peterson, G.L., eds. [Title unknown]. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc.: 73-89.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Reform of the Forest Service budget structure and budget process. Memorandum from Forest Service Chief Jack Ward Thomas, December 5,

1994. Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. [In press]. Landscape aesthetics, a handbook

for scenery management. Agric. Handb. 701. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

314 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1992. USA counties. Washington, DC:

CD-ROM (Machine readable data files).

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1980. Visual resource management

program. U.S. Publ. Stock No. 024-011-0116-6. Washington, DC: Division of Recreation and

Cultural Resources

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 94-579. The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of

1976. Act of Oct. 21, 1976. 90 Stat. 2743, as amended; 43 U.S.C. 1701 (note), 1701-1702, 1711-

1723, 1732-1737, 1740-1742, 1744, 1746-1748, 1751-1753, 1761-1771, 1781-1782.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 86-517. Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960. Act of

June 12, 1960. 74 Stat. 215; 16 U.S.C. 528 (note), 528-531.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 91-190. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Act of

Jan. 1, 1970. [An act to establish a national policy for the environment, to provide for the

establishment of a Council of Environmental Quality, and for other purposes.] In its: United States

statutes at large, 1969. 42 U.S.C. 4231, et. seq. (1970). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office: 852-856. Vol 83.

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 94-588. National Forest Management Act of 1976. Act

of October 22, 1976. 90 Stat. 2949, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 472a, 476, 500, 513-516, 518, 521b,

528 (note), 576b, 594-2 (note), 1600 (note), 1601 (note), 1600-1602, 1604, 1606, 1608-1614).

U.S. Laws, Statutes, etc. Public Law 88-577. Wilderness Act. Act of September 3, 1964. 78 Stat.

890; 16 U.S.C. 1121(note), 1131-1136.

Williams, D.R. 1995. Mapping place meanings for ecosystem management. Unpublished report. On

file with: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau

of Land Management, Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project, 112 E. Poplar

Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.

Zube, E.H. 1976. Perception of landscape and land use. In: Altman, I.; Wohlwill, J.F., eds., Human

behavior and environment. New York: Plenum: 62-80.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is

dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the

Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water,

forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry research,

cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and

management of the National Forests and National Grasslands,

it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly

greater service to a growing Nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of

race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status.

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with

disabilities who require alternative means for communication

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)

should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600

(voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director,

Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th

and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410

or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890