1. Visual Resource Management: Challenges Faced by the NPS
Suzanne Gucciardo
Natural Resource Specialist
Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
Resource Information Management Conference
22 April 2010
Ft. Collins, CO

2. Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail
National Trail System Act (amended 1978)
3,700 mile route of Corps of Discovery
Historic route
Auto tour route
Preserve trail remnants and artifacts
Administers through partnerships

3. Organic Act (16 USC 1)
…[The National Park Service] “shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas… by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations”

4. So what are visual resources?
Scenery
Landscape ≠ or
Scenic resources
Visual resources includes both also dark skies, air quality related values

5. Scenic resources Interaction of forms and concepts:
Physical set of elements visible in space
Image in the viewer’s eye
Idea in the mind, a memory, a feeling in the gut

6. Scenic resources
Have meaning
Aesthetics
Historic and cultural context

7. Increased threats to NPS scenic values
External threats
Result of actions outside boundary that impacts park
Affects views from park
Internal changes
Result from natural or management changes within park boundary
May affect both views within and into park

8. Land Use Change Conversion of ag/forestry lands Urban sprawl
Commercial development
Wal-Mart NP?
Rural residential development
Viewsheds into parks

9. Which park is this?
Time for a quiz:

11. Energy Development

13. Communication Systems

14. Climate Change

15. Internal Change Park-based: Wind turbines to supplement power needs
Communication towers, antennas
Water tanks
Service roads and buildings
Visitor service facilities

16. Vegetation Changes

20. NPS response to visual resource issues:
NPS measures success of management by preventing “impairment”
Currently no standard practice or guidance for measuring impairment to visual resource values
No program area responsible for visual resources
On a case by case basis, may include:
Viewshed analysis
Visual simulations
Public input

21. Viewshed analysis GIS based query Spatial analyst 3-D analyst
Choice of DTMs
TIN
DEM
Nine parameters can be set

22. Google tool (Hey, what’s that!)
USGS DTM
Offset for viewer height

26. How Good are Viewshed Tools?
Only as good as user
Even simple tools must be understood

27. Concerns with GIS Models
Do not account for vegetation effects
? Overcome with Lidar data
? Available when needed
“Casual” users versus dedicated GIS staff
Nuances may be missed and misleading

28. An Accuracy Assessment of Various GIS-based Viewshed Delineation Techniques
Mark A. Maloy and Denis J. Dean
Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing
Vol. 67, No. 11, November 2001, pp

29. Compared field survey with GIS-based predictions of viewsheds
11 intermediate scale viewsheds west of Fort Collins, CO
Field survey
GPS primary and secondary viewpoints
Angles from viewpoints to distinctive features on boundary
Standard triangular geometry survey methods
Photography

30. Data sources and models
USGS data
1:24,500 scale DTM, 30-meter resolution
1:24,500 scale DTM, resampled to 10 meters
1:250,000 scale DTM, ~ 81.5 meters
1:24,500 scale Hypsography, 10-meter spacing
Single DEM model on each data set
Four TIN models on each set
20 predictions for each of 11 viewsheds

31. Results GIS produced two types of errors
Omission
Failed to detect areas surveyed within viewshed
Commission
Included areas not surveyed within viewshed
Results varied greatly among models
Mediocre results, even under best conditions

32. Average (across 11 viewpoints) Percent of Total Area
USGS 1:24,000 scale, 30-meter
GIS model
TIN criteria
Surveyed & predicted visible
Predicted invisible (omission)
Predicted visible
(commission)
DEM
N/A
56.57
27.38
15.15
TIN
Label
51.04
36.70
12.25
1 corner
54.01
25.03
20.96
2 corners
41.75
46.21
12.04
3 corners
18.95
76.47
4.59

33. Average (across 11 viewpoints) Percent of Total Area
USGS 1:24,000 scale, resampled to 10-meter
GIS model
TIN criteria
Surveyed & predicted visible
Predicted invisible (omission)
Predicted visible
(commission)
DEM
N/A
54.18
31.42
13.18
TIN
Label
51.25
37.56
11.19
1 corner
53.23
29.33
17.44
2 corners
38.04
52.96
9.01
3 corners
16.10
81.35
2.55

34. Average (across 11 viewpoints) Percent of Total Area
USGS 1:250,000 scale, ~81.5-meter
GIS model
TIN criteria
Surveyed & predicted visible
Predicted invisible (omission)
Predicted visible
(commission)
DEM
N/A
27.28
33.97
35.79
TIN
Label
17.22
39.11
43.67
1 corner
20.64
49.97
29.39
2 corners
12.50
34.70
52.80
3 corners
9.50
71.06
19.44

35. Average (across 11 viewpoints) Percent of Total Area
USGS 1:24,000 scale, hypsographic, 10-meter
GIS model
TIN criteria
Surveyed & predicted visible
Predicted invisible (omission)
Predicted visible
(commission)
DEM
N/A
30.94
42.81
22.38
TIN
Label
21.30
53.39
25.32
1 corner
24.19
43.04
32.78
2 corners
18.29
62.56
19.15
3 corners
8.21
83.82
7.97

36. Take Home Lesson GIS is not sufficient for supporting decisions
Field verification of viewsheds should be standard
GIS can be misinterpreted
Park management
Public

38. How should NPS respond to visual resource issues?
Develop visual resource policy and program
Take advantage other agency experience
BLM
Visual Resource Management (since 1970s)
US Forest Service
Scenery Management System (since 1970s)
NPS Blue Ridge Parkway
Based on BLM VRM, must be adapted to local needs

39. BLM: Visual Resource Management System
Complete program
Inventory
Analysis
Mitigation
Mandated on all BLM lands
Agency mission to support multiple use on BLM lands

40. Forest Service: Scenery Management System
Mission to integrate forest production and multiple use

41. Short term response Use best available tools wisely
Don’t rely on single method or analysis
Consult with other NPS staff or other agencies to see what works, what doesn’t
Encourage NPS management to develop guidance and standard practices