APPENDIX A SCENIC CORRIDORS LANDSCAPE INVENTORY METHODOLOGY
A.1 Background [Back to TOC]
The completion of a landscape inventory was a major objective of the Scenic Corridor Planning Process. To accomplish this, a team of consultants (leader Don Benn of Juan de Fuca Environmental Consultants, assisted by Vera Vukelich of Viewpoint Recreation & Landscape Consulting and Catherine Berris of Catherine Berris Associates Inc.) was selected to develop an appropriate landscape inventory methodology and conduct the inventory.
The landscape inventory had four main goals:
During March and April of 1994, Phase I of the landscape inventory was carried out. This entailed development and testing of the methodology as well as completion of inventory for the southeastern third of the Clayoquot Sound area. Following review of the Phase I results by SCIPT and SCAG representatives, amendments to the methodology and southeastern data were made in June.
Phase II of the landscape inventory, which took place in June through August of 1994, surveyed the remaining two-thirds of the Clayoquot Sound area.
The inventory took into account views from all marine waterways and from the Highway 4 corridor. Landscapes were also assessed as seen from Kennedy Lake, Clayoquot Arm, Muriel Lake and navigable portions of the Kennedy River near its inlet to, and outlet from, Kennedy Lake. A few key secondary and industrial roads were also traveled and included in the landscape inventory.
The Clayoquot landscape inventory represents one of the most detailed large projects of its kind yet attempted in British Columbia. More than 800 landscape units were identified and described, entailing portions of thirty-three 1:20,000 scale map sheets.
The landscape inventory methodology was largely adapted from a methodology originally developed by Catherine Berris Associates Inc. for conducting regional tourism inventories at 1:250,000 scale. The methodology for Clayoquot Sound has these primary characteristics:
the landscape inventory is conducted at two levels (a broad level which considers overall landscape patterns and the relationship to existing and potential use; plus a detailed level which identifies the more specific components of the landscape), and
data gathering is based upon objective measures to the greatest degree possible.
The broad level landscape inventory is designed mainly for use at a scale of 1:250,000 since these landscape units range in size from about 20 to 500 square kilometres. General physiography, overall degree of alteration and general viewer-related factors in terms of present and potential use are taken into account to delineate the broad level map units. The broad level of inventory is used to identify overall landscape characteristics, general landscape planning objectives, and management strategies. It provides a framework for suggesting appropriate public and resource uses while maintaining acceptable levels of landscape protection or alteration. Broad level units are based less upon technical considerations than the detailed level. Public input and the analysis of user and resource activities are important inputs into the broad level landscape inventory.
The detailed level landscape inventory is designed for use at a scale of 1:20,000 or 1:50,000 since detailed landscape units range in size from 25 hectares to ten square kilometres. Relatively detailed attributes of physiography, land cover, scenic features, present alteration and observer position are used to delineate the detailed level map units. The detailed level inventory has application for more detailed landscape analysis, planning and identification of management techniques.
The emphasis on objective measures for data gathering minimizes the need for interpretation in the field, making the inventory easier to complete and more consistent. It also allows for flexibility in the analysis after the inventory is completed. For example, analysis could be conducted from the perspective of different types of user groups, or to generate values for the terms currently used by the Ministry of Forests such as Visual Sensitivity Rating [VSR], Existing Visual Condition [EVC] or Visual Absorption Capability [VAC].
The inventory methodology is well suited to interagency and public planning processes which are analyzing landscape values. The broad level inventory is at a scale to which many people can easily relate. As well, the use of objective measures enables non-experts to improve the database by contributing ‘local knowledge’ about the landscapes.
The accompanying figures provide a more in-depth explanation of the broad and detailed level inventories, with descriptions of the coding.
Figure A.1 Overview of Broad Level Inventory
Sources: NTS topographic maps and EMR digitized 1:250,000 scale maps, satellite imagery, computer visibility mapping (if available), information on existing and potential public use.
Mapping area: entire study area (not just areas visible from specific routes).
Mapping Methodology divides the study area into broad landscape areas based on similarities in:
landscape characteristics (for example: physiography, and land cover);
degree and type of alteration; and
viewer-related factors (for example: relationship to existing and potential tourism and recreation areas).
Examples of broad landscape areas:
a fjord where there has been a moderate amount of forestry activity, used primarily by kayakers;
a highly scenic fjord which is largely unaltered, with high potential for various types of boating use; and
a high elevation area not normally visible from use corridors, with an extensive amount of past forestry activity.
Descriptions of the following attributes are recorded for each of the broad landscape areas:
Landscape Characteristics
Present Alteration
Viewer-related Factors
Figure A.2 Overview of Detailed Level Inventory
Sources: NTS and TRIM topographic maps; fieldwork; information on existing and potential public use; optional additional sources include aerial photographs and computer visibility mapping.
Mapping area: only areas visible from specific use sites, corridors and routes are identified in the detailed level inventory.
Mapping Methodology divides the study area into landscapes based on similarities in these factors:
physiography;
land cover and land use;
degree and type of land and water uses;
relationships to the viewers; and
relationship to existing and potential tourism and recreation areas.
Examples of detailed landscape units:
a steep slope with a moderate amount of forestry activity, oriented to a water use corridor; or
an unaltered, well-defined valley extending back from the shoreline.
Descriptions of the following attributes are recorded for each detailed landscape unit:
General Information
Landscape Characteristics
Viewer-related Factors
A.3 Procedures for Data Gathering
A.3.1 Procedures for Broad Level Inventory
Within the Clayoquot Sound area, 29 broad level landscape units were identified. Certain non-marine areas such as the Moyeha River and Megin Drainage broad units could have been further subdivided if the focus of the inventory included assessments of views from upland areas or from along existing and potential routes and trails within these areas.
The broad level landscape units were identified on a 1:250,000 scale topographic map. Three groups of factors were considered in establishing the broad level unit boundaries:
The broad level inventory evolved through the course of the project. Initial boundaries were adjusted based on comments from SCAG and a public open house session. The broad level inventory could be considered as dynamic. Unit boundaries are relatively well-established, but more detailed information regarding each unit’s existing and potential use and the perceptions and expectations of different interest groups can be periodically gathered and updated.
A.3.2 Procedures for Detailed Level Inventory
The typical procedure for gathering detailed level data was to travel along the water corridors and main roads in at least two directions. Frequent stops were made to identify and sketch landscape units on a 1:50,000 scale topographic map, take photographs, prepare draft coding sheets for each landscape unit and make field notes.
All protected marine waterways, inlets and bays were visited by power boat. Poor weather in the form of fog, cloudy conditions or high winds frequently hampered field work. For this reason and other logistic factors, the outer Hesquiat Peninsula and Long Beach coasts were not visited by boat but were overflown in a small plane, at about 50 metres elevation, about half to one kilometre offshore.
Since a boat charter could not be arranged at Kennedy Lake and Clayoquot Arm, a float plane was used to land at 10 pre-selected locations in the centres of these water bodies, from which field photos and field notes were made. This was not an ideal method, and some inaccuracies in inventory information may be expected, especially along the south and west shoreline of Kennedy Lake where there were adverse lighting conditions.
Highway 4 was traveled, and formed an integral part of the inventory. Vegetative and permanent screening is a significant factor along Highway 4, especially the section north of the junction leading to Tofino. Although side roads and logging roads were not identified in the Terms of Reference as part of the inventory process, a few key side roads were inventoried, including Kennedy Main between Highway 4 and the Clayoquot River Bridge, and two short loop roads off Highway 4 at about 2 km and 6.5 km southwest of Sutton Pass.
A canoe was used along the Kennedy River downstream from the bridge and river outlet at Kennedy Lake. The canoe was also used for field work at the northeast end of Kennedy Lake and along the Kennedy River near its inlet to the lake. As well, the canoe was used to inventory Muriel Lake which is one of the more accessible and recreationally significant small lakes in the study area.
The 1:20,000 scale topographic TRIM maps were taken into the field for reference, but proved to be too cumbersome to use on a regular basis for plotting the landscape units. In addition, errors were sometimes encountered with the 1:20,000 scale topographic information. For instance, based on direct observations in the field, 1:50,000 scale maps sometimes portrayed a more accurate rendition of contours than the 1:20,000 scale maps.
Landscape units were created mainly on the basis of similar characteristics in terms of physiography, vegetative cover and viewer-related factors. Following this procedure to an extreme, very small units could be created throughout a study area but this practice was avoided. If landscapes are broken into very fine units, then the character of the landscape is lost. For example, a landscape unit has definition and integrity because of its topographic variety or variations in vegetative cover. To isolate each and every change in a landscape would result in the loss of important attributes of variation.
In the office, each landscape unit, its coding sheet and relevant photographs were reviewed, verified and completed on the 1:20,000 scale base maps. Small-scale air photos proved helpful in confirming distant, background units. A visible areas map produced on a GIS computer by Inventory and Resources Planning Unit, Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture was useful in verifying the extent of some units.
Some anomalies were noted between the field observations and the computer-generated visible areas map. For example, the computer-generated visibility map did not include certain significant areas visible in the field. This is likely the result of choosing too few view stations. Conversely, the computer-generated map included some areas not actually seen in the field, possibly caused by incomplete data in the computer’s files on tree heights. The field work provided an important ‘ground-truthing’ audit to refine the computer’s projections.
Some additional, non-landscape information was also gathered during the field work and recorded as point data on the 1:20,000 scale maps. It was collected at the request of SCIPT and SCAG to help verify other resource information sources and to complement the landscape inventory information. The following symbols were applied to the 1:20,000 scale maps in green:
A.4.1 Definitions for Coding of Broad Units
The study area was divided into 29 areas on a 1:250,000 map. A coding sheet was completed for each area; a sample is included as Figure 4.3. The following is a description of the coding for the broad level inventory.
Unit Number — a unique number for each broad area
Name — name of area based on a major geographic or named feature
LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS
General Physiography — provides a general description of physiography, e.g. fjord, mountains, plateau, coastal plain
Topographic Variety — indicates general topographic variety: e.g., low = level and flat with little topographic variation or definition horizontally or vertically; moderate = rolling or steep terrain, obvious peaks and valleys, some horizontal or vertical variety; high = high topographic variation or definition, generally high horizontal and vertical variety, or an extreme level of variety on one dimension, e.g. archipelago with highly crenulated shoreline
Major Land Cover Types — can indicate as many natural occurring cover types as needed; e.g., coniferous forest, alpine/subalpine, tundra/wetland, grassland
Important Features — an indication of important scenic features; e.g. mountain features, alpine and snow-covered peaks, distinctive coastal features such as channels and beaches
Influence of Adjacent Scenery — if there is a significant effect; adjacent scenery may enhance visual quality such as with a mountainous backdrop to a plain or adjacent scenery may detract from scenic quality as with extensive, nearby alterations.
PRESENT ALTERATION
Degree of Alteration — see detailed level for definitions; high = intensely developed or highly altered; moderate = medium alteration; low = small structures to natural appearing or unaltered
Major Land/Water Uses — can indicate as many as apply in order of importance; forestry/industry, settlement, agriculture, aquaculture, etc.
VIEWER-RELATED FACTORS—
Existing Public Use — low, moderate, high — to describe existing level of public use; types of activities that may be described include: sport fishing, kayaking/canoeing, cruising, diving, swimming, water skiing, windsurfing, viewing, wildlife viewing, shore-based activities, hiking/backcountry activities, skiing, snowshoeing, mountaineering, off-road mountain biking, motorized riding, trail bikes, four-wheel driving, camping/picnicking, road touring, food hunting/fishing/gathering, historic interpretation, resident uses such as water taxi route
Potential Public Use — low, moderate, high — to describe potential levels of public use; types of activities that may be described are similar to those under Existing Public Use above.
Level of Visibility From Use Areas — use computer visibility analysis as source if possible and/or use manually drawn sight-lines; low = generally not seen from public use areas; moderate = seen from some public use areas or for medium duration from key areas; high = seen from many public use areas or for long duration as from a settlement
Perceptions and Expectations of User Groups — e.g. tourists, First Nations, other residents.
A.4.2 Definitions for Coding of Detailed Units
A coding sheet was completed for each detailed level landscape area. A sample detailed level coding sheet is attached. The following is a description of the detailed coding. Comments by consultant Don Benn regarding the application of the method in this inventory are in italics.
Name — unique name based on location or local geographic name
Unit No. — unique identifier for each detailed landscape unit
Map No. — mapsheet(s) that the unit is located in
Broad Level Unit — provides broad level unit reference number; multiple unit numbers indicate location of detailed unit at boundaries of more than one broad unit
General Description — a brief phrase or statement providing a summary description of the main features of the unit
General Physiography — categories for seven general landscape forms are provided: mountain, shoreline, valley, floodplain, estuary/fan, islands and hill. The other category may be used for other types of landscape forms but this was rarely required for the current landscape inventory.
Slope — Low = 0 to 30%; Moderate = 30 to 60%; High = over 60%. These categories worked well on the basis of field observations. A slope ruler was prepared for the 1:20,000 maps that was useful in maintaining consistent ratings of slope.
Terrain Height — the difference in elevation between the visible bottom and top of the unit; terrain height was measured directly from the topographic map. Low = under 200 metres; Moderate = 200 to 800 metres; High = Over 800 metres.
Topographic Variety — topographic variety indicates general topographic variety; Low = level and flat with little topographic variation or definition horizontally or vertically; Moderate = rolling or steep terrain, obvious peaks and valleys, generally some horizontal or vertical variety; High = high topographic variation or definition, high horizontal and vertical variety, or an extreme level of variety on one dimension, e.g. archipelago with highly crenulated shoreline. Topographic variety is not always evident from the topography on maps; in the field, landscapes may have more variety than that implied by contour lines.
Land Cover — 13 categories are provided for on the coding sheet: coniferous forest, coniferous/deciduous forest, deciduous forest, bog forest, wetland, grassland, tidal flat, subalpine open forest, meadow, rock, snow/ice, cutblocks No VEG, (stumps and/or ground visible) and cutblocks with green-up. The grassland category includes green spaces associated with small settlements; snow/ice was rarely used; meadow also included areas of low shrub cover. Coniferous forest was used extensively. Many units featured more than one cover type. In these instances, the relative distribution or importance of each cover type was ranked; i.e. 1 for most prevalent cover type, 2 for second most prevalent cover type, etc. A maximum of five Land Cover categories were used for any one unit.
Scenic Features — 11 categories of scenic features are provided for: alpine peaks, snow-covered peaks, rock bluffs and formations, waterfalls, glaciers, canyons/gorges, narrow steep channel, distinctive vegetation, cultural feature, slide tracks, special features such as distinctive colour of water. The feature had to be visually significant or distinctive to be recorded on the sheet; i.e. a feature had to contribute to the visual quality of a unit from the viewing location(s) to be recorded, not simply to exist within the unit.– Special Feature was also used to identify a feature for which there was no category; such features are described under Comments. N/A indicates that no significant feature was present.
Distinctive Shoreline Feature — 11 categories of Distinctive Shoreline Features are provided for: cove/bay, prominent headland, beach, crenulation (convolution and complexity of shore), islets, formations— (rocky shore formations), visual access (the quality of a shoreline to invite use or exploration), tide flat, rock ledge (offshore & foreshore rock platforms), spit/hook/point, pocket beaches. N/A indicates that no Distinctive Shoreline Feature was present.
Natural Vegetation Pattern Diversity — Low = homogeneous appearance, predominantly one vegetative type, or two types with homogeneous appearance; Moderate = some diversity in vegetation pattern, generally two types of vegetative cover intermingled; High = high level of diversity in vegetation pattern, three or more types of vegetative cover intermingled, or two highly contrasting types intermingled. Vegetation pattern diversity can change depending upon viewing distance. Landscapes that are only viewed at a distance may be classed as having low vegetation pattern diversity because of the effects of distance even though close-up inspection would reveal greater diversity.
Overall Vegetation Pattern Diversity — is applied similarly to Natural Vegetation Pattern Diversity but takes account of the effects of recent harvesting or alterations such as Cut, No-Veg and Green-Up.
Extent of Natural Openings — natural openings consist of non-forested areas such as meadows, beaches, rock outcrops and marsh; Low = no natural openings; Moderate = few natural openings; High = frequent natural openings
Influence of Water — Low = water is not a visual feature for the unit; Moderate = water is a low to moderate visual feature for the unit; High = water is an important visual component of the unit. The high rating was used extensively because of the numerous water corridors in the study area.
Type of Water — ocean; lake, major river, stream; no water; other. The categories for “other” was not used.. N/A indicates that water has no visual influence on the unit.
Degree of Alteration/Development Six categories of alteration and development are provided for:
A. Intensively Developed = pulp mill, urban areas, industrial plants, major logging such as the equivalent to Ministry of Forests “Excessive Modification”
B. Highly Altered = major logging equivalent to Ministry of Forests’ “Maximum Modification” and the high end of “Modification”; major gravel extraction, towns, urban fringe, extensive farming
C. Moderately Altered = log booming grounds, subdivisions, major roads, large power lines, logging subordinate in landscape (equivalent to MoF low end of “Modification” and “Partial Retention”); moderate farming
D. Minimum Alteration = small structures, scattered cabins, lighthouse, minor roads, small or individual farms, small power lines, logging not visually evident equivalent to MoF “Retention”, small village outposts
E. Natural-Appearing = alteration may have occurred in the past but it is no longer apparent to the casual visitor
F. Unaltered = no major alteration has ever occurred, navigation structures or small outposts can occur
The Unaltered category was not used; this category may be applied after input from SCIPT and SCAG information sources where it can be confirmed that little or no human activity has taken place.
Type and Degree of Alteration/Development — Eight categories of Type of Alteration are provided for: forestry/industry; mining/aggregate; finfish aquaculture; shellfish/other aquaculture; settlement; power line/transportation (roads); lighthouse (includes beacons and navigational structures). Up to three types of alteration were recorded by rank (1, 2, 3). The type(s) of alteration are recorded accompanied by the appropriate letter code for the Degree of Alteration. N/A is used when the unit is Natural Appearing or Unaltered.
Alteration Compatibility — Low, Medium, High, NA. An indication of the degree to which an alteration “fits” with the natural landscape; traditional landscape design factors such as line, form, colour and texture are factors to consider; Low Alteration Compatibility implies alterations that are in sharp contrast to the natural landscape such as large clear cuts with boundaries that cut across natural contours.
Viewing Distance — Foreground; Midground; Background. The location of the unit and its position in the overall landscape is taken into account as well as its distance from the viewer. Midground landscapes are separated from the viewer by intervening foreground terrain. Background landscapes are both distant and separated from the viewer by intervening terrain. Ministry of Forests’ viewing distance criteria were used as guidelines; foreground units are within 0.5 km distance; midground units are 0.5 to 8 km distant, background units are more than 8 km from the viewer.
Viewing Frequency — Low = small numbers of viewers, one viewpoint or small area of view (e.g. small part of a water corridor); Moderate = several viewpoints or moderate area of view; High = large number of viewers, many viewpoints or large area of view (e.g. along a large length of a water corridor)
Viewing Duration — Low = short duration, e.g. moving view seen for short time; Moderate = moderate duration; High = long duration, e.g. visible from recreation site or community or for a long duration while travelling along a road or waterway.
Viewing Angle and Focus — Low = peripheral view, oblique angle; Moderate = moderate focus, e.g. at right angles to sight line; High = focal view, i.e. head on. Most units in the Clayoquot Sound area are viewed from marine corridors where there are very frequent and/or continuous viewpoints of single units. Consequently, Viewing Frequency, Viewing Duration and Viewing Angle & Focus were all very often rated High.
Level of Existing Public Use — observations made in field or information from contacts and other sources regarding approximate level and type of existing public use; general information is provided by broad level inventory while specific information may be recorded in detailed level inventory. There is need for review and incorporation of this type of information at later stages in the planning process as resource and use information becomes available.
Level of Potential Public Use — observations made in field or information from contacts and other sources regarding approximate level and type of potential public use; general information is provided by broad level inventory while specific information may be recorded in detailed level inventory. There is need for review and incorporation of this type of information at later stages in the planning process as resource and use information becomes available.
Comments — this entry was very useful to record general observations about a landscape unit, its special features, landscape setting and miscellaneous information.
Photo Nos. — reference numbers for colour prints and slides which portray the landscape unit; video references are provided for Phase 1 portions of the study area.
Special Note: The “worst/best” case was used in defining various landscape categories. For instance, Foreground was used if a landscape was both Foreground and Midground depending upon observer positions. Similarly, High Viewing Duration (or Frequency) was used if a landscape could be considered both High and Medium or Low depending upon viewer-related factors. Degree of alteration was based on the dominant effect of alteration within the unit.
The project yielded the following products:
final report (and earlier Phase 1 status report) which documents the methodology and describes the inventory;
small-scale map which portrays broad level landscape inventory units for the entire Clayoquot Sound area;
broad level coding sheets which provide information for each of the 29 broad level landscape units;
thirty-three 1:20,000 maps portraying more than 800 detailed landscape units for the Clayoquot Sound area;
binders containing over 800 detailed level coding sheets corresponding to the map units portrayed on the 1:20,000 scale maps;
albums of approximately 1,300 colour prints (and negatives) documenting visible landscapes within and adjacent to the landscape inventory area; colour print photo locations are recorded on the 1:20,000 scale inventory maps; and
binder with approximately 450 colour slides [35 mm] taken within the study area; slide locations are recorded on two 1:50,000 scale maps.
A.6 Comparison with Ministry of Forests Landscape Inventory Methodology
The Ministry of Forests [MoF] has been the lead agency designing and conducting landscape inventories in British Columbia for the last 15 years. The Clayoquot Sound landscape inventory incorporates many, but not all, the elements of the MoF inventory system. The Clayoquot Sound methodology allows for the identification of more numerous and more detailed information than does the MoF methodology. [A new detailed checklist, which incorporates many of the additional fields of the Clayoquot inventory, has recently been developed by the Ministry of Forests’ Recreation Branch. It is currently being circulated for review and testing.]
There is one major underlying conceptual difference between the two inventory methodologies. The MoF system relies on expert interpretation, which is that presented to the public as recommended Visual Quality Objectives [VQOs]. The Clayoquot Sound approach attempts to gather objective data and let the computer modelling make the interpretations, with advisory group input into the model development. Expert intervention and jargon terms are avoided.
The MoF Landscape Inventory is comprised of three main components: Visual Sensitivity Rating [VSR], Visual Absorption Capability [VAC] and Existing Visual Condition [EVC]. The table accompanying this text provides a comparison between the main factors of the MoF inventory and the attributes used in the Clayoquot Sound landscape inventory. The current MoF landscape inventory checklist includes 22 inventory factors or attributes. Of these 22 factors, the Clayoquot Sound methodology has 13 that are identical or very similar and six that are partially similar. There are three MoF factors that are neither used nor directly comparable to the Clayoquot Sound landscape inventory methodology.
Comparison of Ministry of Forests & Clayoquot landscape inventory attributes
Landform
Vegetation
Rock/soil
Water
Land use
Influence of edge
Influence of
adjacent scenery
Viewing frequency
Key viewpoint
importance
Viewing duration
Viewing angle & focus
Screening
Vegetation pattern
diversity
Natural openings
Topographic variety
Soil/vegetation contrast
Aspect
Design quality
Meets basic definition
HTML Created: May 97
Copyright © 1997 Province of British Columbia
Published by the Resources Inventory Committee