1. Analysis of Potential Scenic Sites for the Hill Country Conservancy and Hill Country Alliance Nancy A. Heger, ManagerGene Sipes, Assistant Manager Matt Broadaway, GIS AnalystMatt Gray, Web Master Image source: http://www.philadelphianstours.com/

2. Final Report Introduction & Purpose Introduction & Purpose Data Data Methods Methods Results Results Discussion Discussion Final Deliverables Final Deliverables Conclusions Conclusions

3. Purpose Identify potential sites for future preservation by the Hill Country Conservancy (HCC) Identify potential sites for future preservation by the Hill Country Conservancy (HCC) Identify areas that are “scenic” as defined by factors such as topographical relief, proximity to water bodies, and vegetation. Identify areas that are “scenic” as defined by factors such as topographical relief, proximity to water bodies, and vegetation. Provide a map of potential scenic sites that HCC can use to identify areas for future preservation Provide a map of potential scenic sites that HCC can use to identify areas for future preservationSCOPE Study region - 22 county area in Study region - 22 county area in Hill Country Hill Country

4. Defining Scenic Topographic Variation i.e. slope Topographic Variation i.e. slope Areas with more relief preferred Areas with more relief preferred Distance from streams Distance from streams Areas closest to streams preferred Areas closest to streams preferred Land Use Land Use Non-urban preferred over urban Non-urban preferred over urban Visibility Visibility If areas are scenic, are they also visible from roads and/or waterways If areas are scenic, are they also visible from roads and/or waterways

5. Data Study Region Study Region Counties Counties Roads Roads Urban Areas Urban Areas

6. Data 30 m DEM (Digital elevation Model 30 m DEM (Digital elevation Model Calculated slope (degree of slope) Calculated slope (degree of slope) Streams Layer Streams Layer Selected out only perennial streams Selected out only perennial streams DEM

7. Data Texas ecological system vegetation map Recoded to Urban/Non-urban Texas ecological system vegetation map Recoded to Urban/Non-urban NLDC 2001 map recoded Urban/Non- urban NLDC 2001 map recoded Urban/Non- urban Combined to create Urban/Non-urban layer Combined to create Urban/Non-urban layer TX Vegetation Map NLCD 2001 Urban/Non-Urban

8. Results - Hays County Pilot Study Model Refined Model Refined Scoring system Scoring system Weighting Weighting

9. Results – Scenic Suitability STUDY REGIONScenic Value COUNT Pixel Area (mi²)Percent Urban347042812065% Barley scenic484813816857% Mildly scenic18356402637927% Scenic363995111264953% Highly scenic452875215747% Extremely scenic10178943541% TOTAL6862112523845100%

10. Results – Scenic Suitability REALScenic Value CELL COUNT Area (mi²)Percent Urban28372101% Barley scenic000% Mildly scenic40233214019% Scenic97650233945% Highly scenic50869717724% Extremely scenic2418578411% Total2157760750100%

11. Results – Scenic Suitability TRAVISScenic Value CELL COUNT Area (mi²)Percent Urban73762525623% Barley scenic79900% Mildly scenic91362031729% Scenic129958245241% Highly scenic179017626% Extremely scenic1515850% Total31458011093100%

12. Results – Scenic Suitability LLANOScenic Value CELL COUNT Area (mi²)Percent Urban46117162% Barley scenic000% Mildly scenic67651723523% Scenic211547573571% Highly scenic121836424% Extremely scenic1770561% Total29776501035100%

13. Results – Scenic Suitability CLASSCELL COUNTAREA(mi²)PERCENT Not Visible 6424606022324.9993.68% Not Scenic/Urban 359877.700.33% Barely Scenic 3140.110.00% Mildly Scenic 20344870.700.30% Scenic 29803151035.644.35% Very Scenic 710461246.881.04% Extremely Scenic 21586875.010.31% Total 6858006423831.02100.00%

14. Results – Scenic Suitability Percent of Each Scenic Class Visible from Roads Class Cell CountPercent Area(mi²) Not Visible33,888,49949.43% 11776 Not Scenic/Urban2,438,0383.56% 847 Barely Scenic1,595,1162.33% 554 Mildly Scenic9,131,36613.32% 3173 Scenic19,814,71728.90% 6885 Very Scenic1,397,4802.04% 486 Extremely Scenic294,9850.43% 103 Total 68,560,201 100.00% 23824

15. Results – Scenic Suitability Percent of Each Scenic Class Visible from Roads/ Streams ClassCell CountPercent Area(mi ²) Not Visible32,845,42447.91% 11414 Not Scenic/Urban2,472,1743.61% 859 Barely Scenic1,595,0452.33% 554 Mildly Scenic9,138,88413.33% 3176 Scenic20,496,15329.90% 7122 Very Scenic1,647,0412.40% 572 Extremely Scenic359,4400.52% 125 Total 68,554,161 100.00% 23822

16. Results – Scenic Suitability

17. Natural Breaks X Scenic

18. Result of the Natural Breaks Viewshed x Scenic Layer

19. Many Areas Around Leakey With a High Score

20. Results – Scenic Suitability

21. Discussion The Texas Hill Country overall is scenic. The Texas Hill Country overall is scenic. Our model confirms what we know on a broad scale Our model confirms what we know on a broad scale The model is more specific The model is more specific 82% of the Texas Hill Country has some scenic value 82% of the Texas Hill Country has some scenic value 28% is highly or extremely scenic 28% is highly or extremely scenic Much of the Hill Country is visible from streams and roads with many cells visible from more than 1 point. Much of the Hill Country is visible from streams and roads with many cells visible from more than 1 point. 52% visible cells 52% visible cells 27% of the cells are viewable from 5 or less points 27% of the cells are viewable from 5 or less points We were also able to estimate potentially scenic sites from roads and waterways. We were also able to estimate potentially scenic sites from roads and waterways.

22. Assumptions & Limitations Scenic Scenic Selection of factors- three for the whole model Selection of factors- three for the whole model Weighting of factors- assumption Weighting of factors- assumption Scope of the project Scope of the project Detail for a county basis Detail for a county basis The human factor- limitation in every study The human factor- limitation in every study Viewshed Viewshed Scenic areas can be viewed from anywhere, not just roads and streams. Scenic areas can be viewed from anywhere, not just roads and streams. Not enough computing power to processes the area as first desired Not enough computing power to processes the area as first desired

23. FINAL DELIVERABLES Final deliverables will include: Final deliverables will include: A Detailed Final Report (2 copies) A Detailed Final Report (2 copies) Professional Poster for display in the Geography Department Professional Poster for display in the Geography Department Website Website CD (2 copies) containing CD (2 copies) containing All data All data Metadata Metadata Proposal, Progress, and Final reports Proposal, Progress, and Final reports Poster Poster Power Point presentation Power Point presentation Instructions on how to use CD (readme file) Instructions on how to use CD (readme file)

24. Conclusions Conclusions described the techniques that were used to determine the scenic beauty described the techniques that were used to determine the scenic beauty study is an extensive literature review, much of which describes techniques study is an extensive literature review, much of which describes techniques scenic suitability model was built that indicates potentially scenic areas scenic suitability model was built that indicates potentially scenic areas maps indicating which scenic locations are visible from roads and streams maps indicating which scenic locations are visible from roads and streams we have indicated some limitations of the project we have indicated some limitations of the project