Landscape Planning, 3 (1976) 151--302 151

Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Amsterdam -- Printed in The Netherlands

SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL HIGHWAY STUDY FOR THE STATE OF

WASHINGTON

GRANT R. JONES, JOHN ADY and BRIAN A. GRAY

Jones & Jones, Landscape Architects, Seattle, Wash. (U.S.A.)
with FRED UTEVSKY, PAUL HENDRICKSON and GLENN WILFERT (Consultant.,~)
(Received 14 October 1976)

ABSTRACT

Jones, G.R., Ady, J. and Gray, B.A., 1976. Scenic and recreational highway study fol the
State of Washington. Landscape Plann., 3: 151--302.
This study, undertaken for the Legislative Transportation Committee of the State of
Washington, redefines the concept of the scenic and recreational highway system in that
state. It develops criteria for measuring the quality of scenic and recreational resources
along state highways, applies these criteria to the development of alternative plans for the
system, and proposes means for the implementation of the plan adopted by the legislative
committee. A noncontinuous system of existing state routes was examined, both scenic
and recreational components being considered equally.
Existing scenic highway laws and regulations, resource evaluation criteria and scenic
systems in other states are reviewed, goals for the system are defined and alternative poli-
cies examined. A random survey of state citizens' views on a scenic and recreational high-
way system is summarized. The field survey method is given. Alternative plans are des.
cribed based on a systematic evaluation of resources within route segments determined by
physiographic unity, using the clearly defined criteria to establish within each segment
the quality of its resources, their ecological sensitivity and the pressures of demand upon
them.
The recommended plan is 1,479 miles (2,366 kin) long. All segments are separately prior.
itized for management, the scenic portions for conservation and enhancement and the
recreational portions for recreational development.

SYNOPSIS

This s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n f o r t h e W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e Legislature t o r e - d e f i n e

t h e c o n c e p t o f t h e Scenic a n d R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S y s t e m , t o d e v e l o p c'.ci-
teria f o r m e a s u r i n g t h e q u a l i t y o f scenic a n d r e c r e a t i o n a l resources, t o a p p l y
the criteria t o d e v e l o p a l t e r n a t i v e plans f o r t h e s y s t e m , a n d t o p r o p o s e legis-
lative m e a n s f o r i m p l e m e n t i n g t h e p l a n a d o p t e d b y t h e client.
T h e C o n s u l t a n t s divided t h e w o r k i n t o five phases. In Phase I e x i s t i n g
federal a n d s t a t e laws a n d r e g u l a t i o n s , r e s o u r c e e v a l u a t i o n criteria a n d scertic
s y s t e m s in o t h e r states were r e v i e w e d . In Phase I I goals f o r t h e Washington
S t a t e Scenic a n d R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S y s t e m w e r e d e f i n e d a n d a l t e r n a t i v e
d e f i n i t i o n s a n d policies f o r t h e s y s t e m w e r e e x a m i n e d . I t was agreed t o s u r v e y
152

existing state routes only (about 7,000 miles), to treat scenic and recreational
components of equal importance and to r e c o m m e n d a system not necessarily
continuous.
In Phase I I I a r a n d o m survey of three thousand Washington State citizens
was taken to help validate the Consultants' findings. People were asked for
their preferences in landscape scenery, routes preferred as potential scenic and
recreational highways, and preferred ancillary facilities and methods for im-
plementing a system. In addition, the criteria listed below were defined to
establish within each segment of route the quality of its resources, their ecolo-
gical sensitivity to use, and the pressures of demand upon them. Scenic value
and recreational resource value were modified by demand to give Scenic Re-
source Management Need and Recreational Resource Development Need. The
m e t h o d is summarized in Fig.I.
The technique employed for landscape and highway visual quality evalua-
tion was developed by Jones & Jones and has been applied in several studies
(see Refs.l--7). Through earlier testing, research, and intuition and by'syn-
thesizing selected techniques by other authors (Refs. 8,9), it was determined
that three components of visual quality are most important: (1) the memora-
bility of a scene, (2) its wholeness, and (3) the h a r m o n y of its parts. These
components or criterion values are termed vividness, intactness, and unity.
By carefully defining and scaling these, it is possible to objectively evaluate
the visual quality of an overall landscape type or that of a given scene. This
evaluation is numerically expressed by a simple formula: VQ = 1/3(V + I + U);
where VQ = Visual Quality, V = Vividness, I = Intactness, U = Unity. Each
criterion is rated on a seven point scale; the resulting index of visual quality
is normalized to a universal 1--100 scale, the extreme values representing the
highest and lowest possible visual quality (see Fig. II).
Scenic Value was assessed from the following criteria: Vividness: A measure
of the distinctiveness, diversity and contrast of visual impressions, derived
from qualitative assessments of landform, waterform, vegetation and man-
made form and their prominence within each segment. Intactness: A measure
of the degree of natural condition of the landscape, derived from develop-
m e n t -- the degree of landscape modification by man, and encroachment --
the degree of visual disruption. Unity: A measure of compositional harmony,
derived from the congruence of man-made forms with nature and the overall
unity of the elements of the view. These three visual quality criteria were
applied to both landscape corridor and road. Visual Sensitivity : A measure
of scenic degradation derived from scenic potential minus observed encroach-
ment. Uniqueness: A measure of the relative scarcity of a resource within
both sub-region and state. To assist in evaluation of the Uniqueness and
Scenic Value, the landscapes of Washington were classified as shown on Fig. III
Recreational Resource Value was assessed from the following criteria:i
Recreational Resource Diversity: A measure of the potential for recreational
development derived from the diversity of landforms, waterforms, vegetation
and historic/cultural features adjacent to the road. Recreational Resource Sen-
Components Criteria

SCENERY
Quality o[ Segment . . . . . . . . ~.

Appropriate Extent of System h

[Development 2 INTACTNESS Landscape Unlt

]Emcroachment p (Integrity)
[
3 0NIT~ ' ..... ll I

IBd: Seuuential Vividness ~ VISUAL

IRd: Foreqround Intactness| ]Road |SCENIC MANAGEMENT NEED~
~Rd: Sequentlal Unity Value
[Prime SEe.it Potentials ~ V I S U A L fit h M~.LOw
[Degradation SENSITIVITY H~qh - ~ - ~ | ~Y;,;.NEEDS;
~ A~
5[ UNIQUENESS
LOW
OE~ANO }~L,',~ 2 I*
VALUES & NEEDS
[~uestignnaire Preference ! PREFERRED
IPrOminence of Characteristics~tSCENER Y
[Average Dail~ Traffic~ ~ V O L U MTRAFFIC
ES

[Reqional Attendance 4 ~ECREATION I

pEEREATI ..... E~P"E .... ~ i
Value
[Attendance within Corridor 1 5~EEC~ATIONAL~ High Md. LOW [
- LOSE J

RECREATION
Ad~..... t ~.dforo 0~ . . . .it ~A~I0~ "t
Adlacent Water~orm Diversi~y RE S OURC E
[Adiacent Ve~etatlon Dlverslty
IAd~acent Hist./Cult. Diversit DIVERSITY RECREATIO
RESOURCE
IFraq~lit 121RECREATION %'ALOE
IProQuct~vlty~ RESOURCE
H SENSITIVITY
~Scenic Value

Fig.I. D e r i v a t i o n o f p l a n s for t h e s y s t e m f r o m t h e criteria.

O~
 The vividness or memorability of a
landscape is comprised of a number of
c o m p o n e n t elements. The first of these
is skyline boundary definition, for exam-
ple, an irregular and strongly defined
definition between land and sky.

Vividness -- Skyline definition

Similarly, a stong sense of spatial enclo-

sure or the overlapped weaving of slop-
ing planes tends to hold an observer's
interest longer than scenes of unenclosed
spaces or those of uniform undissected
surface.

Vividness -- Spatial enclosure

In many cases, scenes of extreme topo-
graphic relief such as mountains or
deep canyons, are highly striking while
flatter lands must depend upon other
visual characteristics to maintain an
observer's interest.

Vividness -- Topographic relief

iii i ? i iiiii
The pattern of contrasting vegetation
types and barren lands may be highly
interesting, while seasonal changes in
color and texture may also be very
striking and memorable.

Vividness Vegetation
- -

Fig.IIa. Landscape and highway visual quality --~ividness.

 P r o m i n e n t natural landmarks, such as
peaks and strikingly colored rock out-
crops, as well as less p r o m i n e n t features
such as falls or solitary tree groupings,
may be so m e m o r a b l e as to have been
given names by earlier viewers.

Vividness -- Natural landmarks

Water nearly always enhances the vivid-
ness and visual quality of a scene. Varia-
tions in color, texture, and m o t i o n of
water through its various seasonal
moods, the diversity of its shoreline
edge, and its reflectivity or brilliant
clarity in different settings may drama-
tically increase the m e m o r a b i l i t y of a
place.

Vividness - - Water
The sky is also a very i m p o r t a n t visual
e l e m e n t of a scene, casting its m o o d
u p o n the observer while transmitting
changes in light conditions and weather,
sunrises and sunsets, cloud patterns
and fogs.

Vividness - - Sky
Man-made elements may also be highly
vivid in a scene, depending u p o n their
prominence, distinction, diversity, and
contrast with the o t h e r visual elements
present.

Vividness -- Man-made elements

Fig.IIb. Landscape and highway visual q u a l i t y - - vividness.
 Intactness is evaluated by t w o c o m p o -
nent measures, the first o f which is the
level of d e v e l o p m e n t . At one e x t r e m e
is the landscape in which no develop-
ment is visible.

Intactness - - N o development
Suburban development and rural areas
generally receive i n t e r m e d i a t e ratings
for level of d e v e l o p m e n t .

Intactness -- Suburban development

In urban development, the natural set-
ting m a y be largely eradicated; however,
level of development is only one element
of intactness.

Intactness -- U r b a n d e v e l o p m e n t
The second element in the evaluation of
intactness is encroachment. A scene m a y
be free of encroachment, or nearly so,
despite evident development.

Intactness -- L o w encroachment
Fig.IIc. Landscape and highway visual quality -- intactness.
 Conversely, an area with very little de-
v e l o p m e n t may exhibit moderate en-
croachment f r o m major road cuts, trans-
mission corridors, and similar facilities.

Intactness -- Moderate e n c r o a c h m e n t
The f r e q u e n t disparity b e t w e e n level of
d e v e l o p m e n t and e n c r o a c h m e n t reaches
a climax on the typical highway strip
with its profusion of signs and billboards.
These areas exhibit high encroachment.

Intactness - - High e n c r o a c h m e n t
The first c o m p o n e n t measure in the eva-
luation of unity is overall unity. This
may be achieved by similarity in fc,rm,
line, color and t e x t u r e , or by an orga-
nized balance between contrasting domi-
nent and subordinate visual elemevts.
C o m p o s i t i o n a l integrity is of prime
i m p o r t a n c e in the a c h i e v e m e n t of overall
unity.

Unity -- Overall
The unity between man-made and
natural elements is also measured irt a
scene. T h r o u g h good design or gradual
evolution, m a n - m a d e e l e m e n t s can
achieve an excellent visual " f i t " with their
larger setting.

Unity - - M a n - m a d e / N a t u r a l
Fig. IId. Landscape and highway visual quality -- intactness, unity.
 ~0

Pig. III. Major landscape regions of Washington State.

 159

sitivity: A measure of the vulnerability of the resource to disturbance, derived

from fragility -- vegetation cover used as an indicator of tolerance to use, pro-
ductivity -- biotic productiveness as a measure of the environmental cost of
disturbance, and scenic value which includes uniqueness.
Pressures of Demand on each segment were derived from: Preferred Scene~.:
A measure of probable popular appreciation of scenic elements, derived from
a mean of questionnaire respondents' evaluations of a list of physical charac-
teristics, and the recorded prominence in each segment of the same charac-
teristics; Traffic Volume; Availability to Major Population Centers; Recr~,~ation-
al Travel Flow; Recreational Use.
In Phase IV t w o observers performing the field survey evaluated resources
within each route segment as defined by the major topographic and vegeta-
tional sub-divisions of the landscape experienced from the road (Fig.IV). Each
segment was recorded on a form detailing locations, the prominence of forty
physical characteristics under the major headings of landform, waterform,
vegetation and man-made form, and a qualitative evaluation of each major
element using the criteria listed (Fig.V). The assessments were expressed numer.
ically and a c o m p u t e r program was written to obtain the score for each unit.
These scores ordered the 380 units surveyed into two categories, each divided
into classes and separately prioritized for management, the scenic segments
for conservation and enhancement and the recreational segments for recrea-
tion development.
In Phase V three alternative plans of differing length were submitted, each
combining the top classes by score of Scenic Value, Scenic Management Need,

LANDSCAPE UNIT
Fig.IV. Landscape unit in plan and section.
 160

!
J

!
!
!
I
ii o
I ,b
I

SURVEY FORM
Fig.V. L a n d ~ a p e u n i t s u ~ e y f o r m .

R e c r e a t i o n a l Value a n d R e c r e a t i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t N e e d . Finally, using t h e

p l a n s e l e c t e d b y t h e client, guidelines f o r t h e design a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f
t h e s y s t e m w e r e d e v e l o p e d , legislation d r a f t e d t o e m b o d y the p r o p o s a l , a n d
a m a n a g e m e n t c o m m i t t e e o f c o n c e r n e d agencies was r e c o m m e n d e d a n d its
responsibilities o u t l i n e d .

REFERENCES

la. Jones & Jones, February, 1974. Quantification of aesthetic values. In: A Technique for
Environmental Decision Making Using Quantified Social and Aesthetic Values, with
J.B. Burnham et al., Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, BNWL--1787, Richland,
Washington, pp. 84--147, D1--E1.
lb. Jones, Jones, Gray, Parker, Coe, Geitner and Burnham, 1975. A method for the quantifi-
cation of aesthetic values for environmental decision making. Nucl. Technol., 25 (4):
682--713.
2. Jones & Jones, April 1974. Visual impact assessment. In: Foothills Project Environmental
Assessment, for Denver Board of Water Commissioners by CH2M Hill, 2 Volumes, Den-
ver, Colorado. Vol. 1, pp. 24--28, 97--105, 148--157 and 174--177; Vol. 2, pp. C1--
Cll.
3. Hendrickson, Bahl, Gray and Maynard, July 1974. Measuring the Social Attitudes and
Aesthetic and Economic Considerations which Influence Transmission Line Routing.
Prepared for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission by Battelle Pacific Northwest Labo-
ratories and Jones & Jones, BNWL--1837, Richland, Washington, 156 pp.
 161

4. Jones & Jones, March 1975. An Inventory and Evaluation of the Environmental, Aesthetic
and Recreation Resources of the Upper Susitna River, Alaska. Prepared for Department
of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Alaska District,Contract No. DACW85--74--6-~)047,
330 pp.
5. Jones, G.R., 1975. Design as Ecogram. Development Series, College of Architecture and
Urban Planning, University of Washington, Seattle, 1 (1): 41--80.
6. Jones, Gray and Ady, November 1975. Visual Impact Study: Statement of Findings, Al-
ternative Closed Cycle Cooling Systems, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Plant, fcr
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, by Jones & Jones and Battelle Pacific North-
west Laboratories, Richland, Washington, 75 pp.
7. Blair,Gray, Hebert and Jones, July 1976. Visual Impacts of High-Voltage Transmission
Facilitiesin Northern Idaho and Northwestern Montana. Prepared for USDI, Bonr~e-
villePower Administration by Jones & Jones and Battelle Pacific Northwest Labora-
tories, 172 pp.
8. Litton, R. Burton, Jr., 1971. An Aesthetic Overview of the Role of Water in the Landscape.
Prepared for the Natural Water Commission, Department of Landscape Architecture,
University of California, Berkeley, 314 pp.
9. Zube, E.H., 1973. Scenery as a natural resource: implication of public policy and prob-
lems of definition, description, and evaluation. Landscape Architecture, 63 (2): 126--
132.
162

GRANT JONES Principal in Charge

JOHN ADY Project Manager
KEN CALDW~.LL
EDWARD DRISCOLL Harvard Laboratory
for Computer Graphics
BRIAN GRAY
ILZE JONES
JOHNPAUL JONES
RICK KIMBALL
SETH SEABLOM
DAVID WALTERS

FRED UTEVSKY & ASSOCIATES

FRED UTEVSKY

BATI~T~ PACIFIC NOEI~WESTLABORATORIES

GLENN WILFERT
PAUL HENDERSON

BETTY MARTELL Typing

SUPERIORREPROGRAPHICS Printing
163

SCENIC AND
RECREATIONAL
HIGHWAY STUDY
FOR

THE LEGISLATIVE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE

STATE OF WASHINGTON

F.,:preset%t~tive P43BERT A+ PE~/~Y, C h a i r m a n

S~I~A~ SUBC(IMMI'I'~ O N B ~ , ~ I D E S A N D RIGHTS (I~ W%Y:

Se~ator DAN JOLLY, C h a i r m a n Senator R.R,"BOB" LEWIS

Senator SAM C. GUESS Senator LOWELL PETE~RQN
So~,ator AL HENRY

HCOSE S~'L'IT~ O N P U B L I C T R A N S P O R T A T I O N A N D PLAN~:IHG;

Representative DONN CHARNLEY, C h a i r m a n Representative PAUL KgAA3EL"

Representative RICHARD BAB_WES** Bepresentatlve E~GENE ~.JOUGH.LIN
Representative DAVE C E C C A R E L L I Representative ~ILL LECKENBY*
Representative ROD CHANDLER et Representative KING L Y S E N
Representative JEFF D O U T H W A I T E t ~epresentative GARY NELSON*
Representative ROBEP/f GAINES* Representative BOB S E E B E R G E R *e
Representative JIM GILLELAND" Repfeeentatlve M A R Z O N SHERMAN e*

~.o 3 a n u a r y 1975 ** from J a n u a r y 1975

1974
 164

Contents I~'9 "4 C

S ui~ary of ~ecommendations

The A p p r o a c h to t h e Study .!

PHASE I: .~EVIEW AND ~ A L U A T I O N OF P R E S E N T LAWS, KEGULJ~TIOHS

~YSTEMS, CRITERIA AND G U I D E L I N E S

A+ A R e v i e w of Scenic and Recreationml H l g h w e y Legl~l,t~or,

A f f e c t i n g W a s h i n g t o n State

~ Existing Design Cr:teria for Scenic and Recreati<,N.= ~' <I.

Highway Systems

C. Scenic Highways i n Other States 7<0

A p p e n d l x A. C u r r e n t Scorpio and Recreational STstem:

Key Plan and D e s c r i p t i o n s

A p p e n d i x B. State Systems Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 44

A p p e n d i x C. C a l i f o r n i a ' ~ Dual System of scenlc Hlghwa},~ 46

PHASE If: A L T E R N A T I V E D Z F I N I T I O N S A N D POLICIES FOR TIiE SYSTEM

A. Coals fo~ Scenic and R e c r e a t i o n a l BighwaMs 49

B. Definitions of 'S~enic' and 'Recreation61' 50

C. 5'J/m~aryof Recomnlen~d Policles Defining the Study 54

D. The Potential for TWo oz More Systems 57

A p p e n d i x D. Discussion of A l t e r n a t i v e P o l i c l e s 6(:

PHASE III: P R E L I M I N A R Y CRITERIA. CITIZENS SURVEY

S O C I A L AND E C O N O M I C B E N E F I T S A N D C O S T S

A. Scenic Asses~li6n% and C r i t e r i a

i. Present M e t h o d s of Scenic Assessment 79
2. Preliminary S c e n i c C ; I t e r l e 84
3. C l a s s i ~ i c a t l o n of M a j o r ~ n d s c a p e Regions 08

B+ Pre~iminarv Recreation Resource Criteria 92

C, S~Ivdi~IryReport on C i t i z e n s Survey 96

D. Social and E c o n ~ i c Bemeflts and Cost~ 114

~7)
 Page

i;HA~:/ iV: APPLICATION OF THE CRiTERiA FOR SELECTION AND DESIGN

OF THE SYSTEM. DEVELOPMENT OF PROPOSED PLANS

A, The Survey 122

B, Criteria

i. Criteria Defining Scenic Value

2. Criteria Def~nlng Recreational Resource Value 135
] . Criteria Defining the Pressures of Demand 139

C, Designation of the Recommended System: 146

Plans and Descriptive Tables

A~pendix E, FLoutes Surveyed 177

Appendix F. Formulae for Deriving Management Need from 178

Eva luat iens

Ap~endlx ,~. Comparison of Proposed and Heisting Plans 181

]r'llA S]~ V: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND USE CONTROLS, SYSTEM ~MPLEMEN-

TAT~ON AND GUIDELINES

Land Use Controls ~n the Corridor 183

B. rmplementation of the System 205

C. Design Guidelines for Enviroc~mental Quality 220

Appendix it. Re ferenc es 225

Appendix I, Record of Meetings 232

165
Figures
Page
I. Routes Deslgnated Under the I)6l Act: The Scen%u System ?

2. Unlverslt? of washlngto~ Consultant Proposal: Routes of

the Highest Scenic Coefficient in Each Region 10
2a. UnivQrsity of Washington CoDsultan~ Proposal: Routes of
the ~[ighest Scen% Coefficient in the State i
3, Routes Submitted ~or the National Scenic Roads survey, 1964 14

]a. ~)utes Shown it, ~he Proposed Program for Scenic Roads, 1966 15
4. Routes D~signated Under the Scenic and Recreational Highway
Acts of 1967 and 1969
5. Routes Proposed as EZtensions t~ the Exlsting System by
Senate 8ill 2539 of 1973 21

6. Current System of Scenic and Recreatlor%al Highw.~,,,~s, 1974 2~

6a. Current System: Key Plan

7. Major Landscape Regions ~'i

Preferred Routes: Citizens Survey i..K~

Landscape U n i t as Recorded !- .~
9,
i0, Landscape Unit Diaqram~
II. Field Survey Form i? ;

12. Route Seg1~ent Print-Out: La~es Ross and Diahl~

12a. Route Segment Print-Out: MOSES Coulee !3,1

13. Chart: Derivation of Plans [rom Criteria

14, View Illustrating Criteria
15. Recreation Corridors
16. Scenic and Recreational Highway STstem Proposed 15,,

17. scenic Component of the System 158

18. RecreatiOnal component of th,) System it,l

19. Class 4 and D Routes 164

20, Landscape Units/Route Segments i7~

21. ~ u ~ e ~ 5u~'veyed
22. Existing and Proposed Systems Compared
23. Scenic and Recreational Highway Marker z i ~,:

24, Safety Rest Areas ~nd Scenic Viewl~oints 214

25, Scenic and Recreational Drives: Proposed Map

.C~{)

166
 167

Tables
Page
i. Route Descriptions: The Scenic System (1961 Act) 39
2. Route Descriptions: The Scenic and Recreational Highway
Syst~m (1967 ar~ 1969 Acts) 40
3. Landscape Regions and Sub-reglons 90
4. Citizens Survey: Questionnaire Form 97
5. Citizens Survey: Abstract of P4~sponses 99
6. Citizens Survey: Nu~r of Responses by County and
Response Rates 102
7. Citizens Survey: Respondent Characteristics 103
8. Citizens Survey: Pleasure Driving in Washington 104
9. Citizens S~rvey: View5 on the Syst *m 106
i0. Citizens Survey: Preferred Routes 107
ii. Citizens Survey: Views on Implementing a System 110
12. Citizens Survey: Views On Scenic Q ~ l l t y 111
13. Classification of Out4~)or Recreational Rmsources 115
14. Land Costs in King and Yakima Counties 120
15. Comparative Plan Mileages 148
16. Proposed Scenic and Recreational Highway System:
Route Segments/Landscape Units 151
17. Scenic Route Seg~entl Priority List 159

18. Recreational Route Segments Priority List 162

19. Route Segments for Future St~dy~ Classes 4 & D 165

20. Scenic Route Se91Mnte~ Class 4 Priority List 1"23

21. Recreatlon Route Segments: Class D PzlorAty List 175

22. Plans 2 & 3: Mileage Statistics 181

23. Scenic Eesements Held hy the State Highwmy Commission 198

24. E|tlma~ed Costs for T_ha PropOsed System 218

(iu)
 168

PREFATORY NOTE

The S c e n i c and R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S t u d y for W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e

i l l u s t r a t e s an a p p l i c a t i o n of some of the f u n d a m e n t a l tools
for v i s u a l r e s o u r c e m a n a g e m e n t that J o n e s & Jones has b e e n
d e v e l o p i n g for s e v e r a l years. F r o m its i n i t i a l e x p l o r a t i o n s
of a e s t h e t i c r e s o u r c e e v a l u a t i o n in the Plan for the N o o k s a c k
R i v e r in 1973, the f i r m b e g a n p r o b i n g m o r e d e e p l y into t h e ....
n a t u r e of a e s t h e t i c s , b e l i e v i n g it to be one of the m o r e h o l i s t i c
i n d i c a t o r s of e n v i r o n m e n t a l quality. The firm e v e n t u a l l y dis-
c o v e r e d a s i m p l e m e t h o d for e v a l u a t i n g a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y in a
m a n n e r w h i c h d i m i n i s h e s s u b j e c t i v e bias. The m e t h o d o l o g y first
a p p e a r e d in a h a n d b o o k p r e p a r e d for the A t o m i c E n e r g y C o m m i s s i o n
a s s e s s i n g the a e s t h e t i c i m p a c t s o f n u c l e a r p o w e r plants; later
the p r o c e d u r e w a s r e f i n e d , a d a p t e d and a p p l i e d for i m p a c t a s s e s s -
m e n t of p r o p o s e d dams on the S o u t h P l a t t e R i v e r in C o l o r a d o and
on the S u s i t n a R i v e r in A l a s k a . S i n c e their p u b l i c a t i o n of the
S c e n i c a n d R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y Study, Jones & J o n e s has f u r t h e r
d e v e l o p e d tools to h e l p q u a n t i f y l a n d s c a p e i m p o r t a n c e (uniqueness,
h i s t o r i c i t y , level of c o n t r i b u t i o n , t h r e a t of loss), v i e w e r
s e n s i t i v i t y (visual a c u i t y , v i e w e r e x p e c t a t i o n and v i e w e r aware-
n e s s ) , and has c o n d u c t e d l i m i t e d p u b l i c v i e w e r t e s t i n g to iso-
late p a r a m e t e r s of the p o t e n t i a l v i s u a l a b s o r p t i o n c a p a b i l i t y
of d i f f e r e n t l a n d s c a p e s to a b s o r b t r a n s m i s s i o n lines. Jones &
J o n e s is p r e s e n t l y p r e p a r i n g a n a t i o n a l t r a i n i n g c o u r s e for the
U.S. F e d e r a l H i g h w a y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n e n t i t l e d " E s t h e t i c s and
V i s u a l R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t in the H i g h w a y D e v e l o p m e n t P r o c e s s " .
Summary of Recommendations
This study was undertaken to define the concept of the Scenic
and Recreational Highway System, to develop criteria for mea-
suring the quality of scenic and recreational resources, to
apply these criteria in the development of alternative plans
for the system and to propose means for the ~mpl~mentatlon of
the plan adopted by the Legislative Committee. The steps taken
are outlined in the Approach to the Study on the next page.

It was agreed with the client ~o examine existing state routes

only, to consider the scenic and recreational components of
the system equally, to recommend a system not necessarily con-
tln.ous and to submit a plan for designation by the Legislature.

The Consultants' principal recommendations are as follows:

The Plan
A p~an for a sys~e~ o f Scenio and ~ecr#a~iona~ ~iah~ay~
ha~ been prepared, based on a aystematio eoaZua~ion of re-
eouroee ~ h l n route segments de~erminad by physiographic
unity. It uses oZar~y d~ftned c r i t e r i a ~o eeCabEish ~ i t h -
in eaoh segment the quality of its reeouroes, their 00020-
gloal a e n e i t l v i t y and the preseures o~ demand upon he~.

The recommended plan is 1478 mi~es Eong. Thin ia 430 ~ile~

shorter than the exietin H oombined 1981 and 196?19 e~s~eme.
of shieh it omite abou~ 900 mi~ea. 5eHmen~a ar a~eo Zie~-
ed for oonaideration for future addition to ~h~ eyeCe,.
A ~ eegmente are sevarae~y prioritined for management,
the aoenio portion for ooneervatio~ and enhanoement and
the reoreationa~ por~ion for reoreationa~ development.

Implementation
Draf~ ~egleZatlon ha8 been prepared ~o embed H thio propo-
#aZ. It reoommende that the sy,ten be implemented by a
Saenio and Raoreational Highway System Management Commit-
tee oomprised of representatives o~ the Department of HiHh-
ways, the Varke and Reorea~ion Conmieeion, the DJpar~men~
of Na~ura~ Reeo~roee, th~ Departmen~ of Oame and the
InteraHenay Committee for Ouedoor Reorma~ion.
the Management Co,mletee viZZ revert to the Leoisl u #
biennia~Ey, le i8 to be reaponslb~e for eeeing that the
obJeotivee of the legieZation are met, for authorising de=
eign erudite for development of the eyetem, for reviewing
provoeed ohange, for undoreak(nH measures for the pro=
~eotion of 8aenio quality and the oon~truo~ion oF improve*
manta, and for ~he oontinnin 9 managemen~ of ~h# sye~em.

169
The Approach to the Study

The Consultants' approach to the Scenic and Recreational High-

way Study was incremental, the work being divided into six
phases. The intention of this planning approach was to allow
for discussion with the Advisory Committee of state agency
representatives and for presentation to the Legislative Sub-
committees at the end of each phase of the Study, of informa-
tion from which decisions could be made. It also gave oppor-
tunity for free communication between committee members, advi-
sors and consultants throughout the study, to foster creative
ideas and new solutions. The six phases of the study and the
Committee presentations are summmrized as follows:

PHASE I: REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF PRESENT LAWS, REGULA-

TIONS, SYSTEMS, CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES

Committee Presentation I: Explanation of Consul-

tant's work program, information review and pre-
liminary discussion of the scope of the study.

PHASE II: ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS AND POLICIES FOR THE

SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Committee Presentation II: Finalize definitions

and limits defining the study and the proposed
system.

PHASE III: DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY CRITERIA. CITIZENS

SURVEY. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS.

Committee Presentation III: Discussion and assess.

ment of the criteria for application a n d testing.

PHASE IV: APPLICATION OF CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTION AND

DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM. FIELD SURVEY. DEVELOP-
MENT OF PROPOSED PLANS.

Committee Presentation IV: Evaluate the feasibil-

ity of alternative plans selected a n d designate
the final plan.

PHASE V: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND USE CONTROLS, SYSTEM

IMPLEMENTATION AND GDIDELINES.

Committee Presentation V; Review final recom-

mended ~ontrols, guidelines and priorities and
assign agency Jurisdiction for the system.

PHASE VI: DRAFT LEGISLATION. PREPARATION OF FINAL REPORT.

C~Lmlttee Presentation VI: Review draft legisla-

tion. Present final report.

170
171

Phase I

Review and evaluation of present laws,

regulations, systems, criteria and guidelines.

Page

.,1 .~u:'.ew ~J" S~.e~c ~.w~ RecP~a~iv~.~zZ Hi:.lh~uzh

,~.~hii,:~L,:~.i ~_ A flee ~in~~ ~ ' ~ , ~ i ~ j t ~ .~tat~. 5
~'.xi~;i~ Design Criteria for Sc~n~a .~M
24
..... :'~.,~nt~, .~i~;~wa9 s ~ ~-,he~ St,ate~ 30
A!.; , ndi~ .,!.; Current Scenic ar~ .gecrea~ioY~aL
38
A,:.:,r e ~ d ' ~ . 1,: State $9~,~s8 ~emtion~ail~e 44

A~v:"e~~~:x C: California's ~r~aZ System of Scenic

H i g hw~y ~ 46
 172

B. EXISTING DESIGN CRITERIA FOR. S C E N I C AND RECREATI~)NAL H I G H W A Y

SYSTEMS

As o ~ e can see f r o m the p r e v i o u s s e c t i o n of t h i s report, a

v a r i e t y of d e s i g n ' c r i t e r i a g u i d e l i n e s h a v e b e e n ~ u g g e s t e d to
d e s i g n a t e s c e n i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l h i g h w a y s in W a ~ h i n g t o n State,
some of w h i c h h ~ v e b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d in l e g i s l a t i o n a n d o t h e r s
w h i c h are m e r e l y i m p l i e d or w e r e recom1~ended by ~:ons~ltants
but n e v e r d i r e c t l y a d o p t e d . T h i s p o r t i o n of the r e p o r t o u t -
lines s o m e of the e v a l u a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s suggeste~! by c o n s u l -
t a n t s in 1962 and 1964, c r i t e r i a r e c o m m e n d e d by the 1964 and
1974 n a t i o n a l s c e n i c h i g h w a y s u r v e y s and d e s i g n r i t e r i a u s e d
by o t h e r s t a t e s y s t e m s .

1961

Thc H i g h w a y A d v e r t i s i n ~ C o n t r o l Act of 1961 e s s e r t i a i l y

instructed that highways containing "scenic area~""

I. S h a l l be for the e n j o y m e n t of p u b l l c travel ~art~cularly

on h i g h w a y s t r a v e l e d by g r e a t n u m b e r s .

2. Shall serve to a t t r a c t tourists.

3. Shall contain scenery of some beauty.

4. S h a l l be c o n c e r n e d w i t h 0 n l y l i m i t e d a s p e c t s ~f the v i s u a l
a e s t h e t i c e x p e r i e n c e - - t h a t of a c h a n n e l of 660 f e e t w i t h i n
w h i c h some o u t d o o r a d v e r t i s i n g w i l l be r e g u l a t e d .

5. S h a l l take p l a c e in p u b l i c l y o w n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n s w h e r e
r e c r e a t i o n , s o c i a l , h i s t o r i c a l , and s o m e ~ a t u r a l f e a t u r e s
of b e a u t y are e x p l i c i t , n a m e l y p u b l i c parks, b e a c h e s and
r e c r e a t i o n areas, F ~ d e r a l f o r e s t s , and n a t i o n a l m o n u m e n t s .

1962

In t h e i r report, C r i t e r i a for the E s t a b l i s h m e n t of A d d i t i o n a l

Scenic Areas, 7 consultants-Wolfe, Noron and ~6hn drew some
c o n c l u s i o n s as to c r i t e r i a for s c e n i c r o u t e s w h i c ~ t h e y f e l t
w e r e i m p l i e d in the 1961 l e g i s l a t i o n :

7Myer R. Wolfe, T h o m a s J. N o r t o n a n d S i d n e y Cohn, C r i t e r i a

for the E s t a b l i s h m e n t of A d d i t i o n a l S c e n i c .Areas, U n i v e r s i t y
of W a s h i n g t o n , for the J o i n t F a c t - F i n d i n g Co~tmitt~e on H i g h -
ways, S t r e e t s , a n d B r i d g e s , of the W a s h i n g t o n S t a = e L e g i s l a -
ture, 1962.

'4
I. Scenic quality of a corridor provides only a part of the
evaluation basis for system designation, as the route use
and locational characteristics are also important.

2. To provide optimum enjoyment for the motorist would suggest

the provision for a continuous network of scenic routes
across the state.

5. "Variety" (a necessary ingredient for optimum aesthetic

experience by motorists) will be assured only if the total
network and its parts offer a diversity of visual exper 2
iences found in traversing the naturally diverse regions
of Washington state.

4. Provision for public travel enjoyment on highways traveled

by great numbers suggests that urban areas as well as
major travel routes need consideration.

5. For the motorists who travel only short distances, not

only is a regional linear network of scenic routes
required but also more limited loop trips of scenic quality
would be ideal.

6. In order to attract visitors to the state, visitor entry

points and statewide tourist travel patterns need prime
consideration.

In order to establish criteria for scenic areas along the high-

ways of the state, these consultants recommended a survey
system which inventories visual characteristics of scenic
elements and also included the highway's use and locatlonal
factors in terms of the total enjoyment to the public. By
using a recorded field survey technique, they hoped to main-
tain the consistency of results reQardlees of the aesthetic
experience of the evaluator, to establish a data bank of In-
formation to aid further route studies and evaluations, and
to provide a constitutionally sound framework which would
clarify the decislon-maklng process.

The consultants reviewed a number of other studies and finally

devised a system of surveys of varying detail which would
be related to the experience of the personnel selected to
administer them. The first survey type would broadly estab-
lish basic criteria or goals for route selection as well as
a broad definition of "scenic." This simple survey method
would be used by experienced evaluators with a high level of
aesthetic taste, but also would require the completion of a
form on which yes/no responses to questions which dealt with
use and locational factors and a very general scenic evalua-
tion would be recorded. The second surve9 type would expand
the detail end objectivity of the scenic evaluation by adding
an analytlcal checklist which included perceptual descriptions

25

173
and quality ratings (on a 1-5 scalel for the followin~ cate-
gories of visual elements:

archeoloqical and paleontological

historical
geomorphlc
gydrographlc
f]oral
marine
landscape design.

The third survey type included items used in the first two
methods, but increased the amQunt of detailed description and
appraisal (and hopefully the survey objectivity) to de~l spe-
cifically with such items as color, texture, pattern, rhythm,
shape, self-contained forms, relation of forms, landmarks,
viewpoints, and associations of expressions evoked by signi-
ficant scenes on the route and by the route as a whole.

1964

In the follow-up study, Recommendations for the Establishment

of Additional Scenic Areas, consultants' Norton and Rob{rtson
S1'ightly ~ d l f i e d the third survey type proposed in th~ 1962
study and applied it to the evaluation of 118 survey s~ctions
of the state highway system. An initial screening pro zedure
selected particular routes to be considered, reducing :he
possible system from 6900 to 3754 miles, or 54% of the length
of the system. They also found that it was only neces)ary
to drive a given route in one direction to maintain the accu-
racy of the survey. Instead of recording data directl/ on
written forms, an evaluator made notations verbally in:o a
portable tape recorder while driving. In this manner, it
was found, a single evaluator could be expected to sur,~ey 275
miles of highway in an eight-hour day.

Slight modifications in the survey format as proposed n 1962

were made to clarify descriptive notations, and provle:.ons
were ~ d e to include a flve-point scenic quality ratintl scale
based on the route's location in each of eight of the ~tate's
defined landscape regions. Each time the quality of scenery
being observed changed, the mileage and new quality sot>re was
noted~ the entire route length surveyed was thus assigned a
quality score. In addition, photographs were taken alc~ng
various survey sections to record examples of typical ,,iews
of each landscape region.

After collection and transcription of field survey dat~,

priorities were established and the data was fed into ~
computer, which calculated a "scenic coefficient" for ~,ach
of the 118 sections of highway surveyed. A three-member

2~

174
175

Board of Consultants derived from University of Washington

staff then drove selected routes in three regions to check
the accuracy of the approach. Recommendations were then made
in order of priority. The results of the study are illus-
trated as the additional highways to be added to the 1961 sys-
tem on Figures 2 and 2a.

Taken in summary, the two closely-related studies prepared in

1962 and 1964 attempted to establish a sound basis for scenic
quality evaluation and decision-maklng. Although this work
was not expressly prepared as a plan for the statewide system
of scenic highways, these studies both suggested that a
similar technique could successfully be used toward the accom-
plishment of this task. However, these procedures were not
adopted by the state.

1964-5

The publication, Manual i jScenic Roads and Parkways Study pre-

pared by the U. S. Department of C o , e r o s for a national pro-
gram of scenic roads and parkways, defined the scenic highway
corridor as being comprised of 1) the road itself and its
right-of-way, and 2) those scenic or recreation areas traversed
extending beyond the rlght-of-way to the limits of visibility
(defined by landforms, large bodies of water, vegetation, or
structures). A scenic route was simply defined as "...having
roadsides, or traversing areas, of relatively high aesthetic
or cultural value."

Criteria for inventorying scenic highways and parkways included

the general guidelines that:

i. The quality of its scenic, historic or cultural features

be high enough to merit state or national recognition;

2. A variety of experiences, including changes in terrain,

type of landscape, or land-use activity, be provided;

3. Access between or to recreation areas or points of scenic,

cultural or scientific interest occur as part of the sys-
tem;

4. The location and geographic distribution of the system

serve both a wide area and the needs of urban populations~

5. Roadway design and safety be of high standards;

6. The immediate roadside be relatlvely free of c0m~eroisl

or restrictive developments;

7. New highways in the system be compatible with other

recreation, aesthetic and conservation objectives.

27
 176

Locaticnal and design standards for scenic roads and parkways

were generally to comply with the American A s s o c i a t i o n of
State Highway Officials guidelines, but possibly would include
wider rights-of-way, variable widths of median, avoidance
of long tangent alignments, carefully designed landscaping,
bridges and c o m p l e m e n t a r y facilities, and provisions for
pedestrian, e q u e s t r i a n and bicycle trails.

The 1964 federal manual asked for a b r e a k d o w n of the number

of miles of terrain traversed (flat, rolling or hilly, moun-
tainous), the number of miles of land types traversed (water-
front, wetlands, desert, g r a s s l a n d or range, agricultural,
brushland, w o o d l a n d or forest, tundra or alpine, unusual topo-
graphy), and a check for any special features located along
the route (lakes or ponds, reservoirs, rivers or streams,
rapids or falls, springs, canyons, buttes, shorefronts, a r c h -
eology sites, fauna sites, historic sites). As m e n t i o n e d
earlier in this report, a priority rating form was also used,
based on the following criteria:

Scenic quality of the corridor

Service to major p o p u l a t i o n centers
Economic feasibiltly
V a r i e t y of r e c r e a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e
C o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h other highway users
Harmony with other land use
Access from existing or planned highways and to parks
and other recreation areas
Popular demand
Degree of urgancy if corridor is to be protected.

This information essentially was to be rated on a 3-point

scale (excellent, good, fair, and does not apply] and formed
the actual basis for selection priorities among those routes
proposed.

1974

The updated p u b l i c a t i o n Manual, National Scenic Highway Study,

prepared by the Federal H i g h w a y Admlnlstration, followed
procedures and criteria somewhat similar to the 1964 natlonal
survey requirements, its informational requirements are
based on the following information:

Attributes of Scenic Highways

A e s t h e t i c Rppeal
Cultural, Scientific, and Historical Features
Avoidance of Displeasing Features
P r e s e r v a t i o n of Natural Surroundings
A v a i l a b i l i t y and C a p a c i t y of R e c r e a t i o n Resources

~8
 Locational Considerations
Rural and Urban Locations
Geographic Distribution
Access tO Parks and Recreation Areas
Private Lands

Desirable Physical Characteristics

Route Character
Length
Control of Access
Rights-of-Way
variable Widths of Medians
Avoidance of Tangent Alignments
Bridge Types
Average Design speeds
Traffic Volume
Safety
Complementary and Recreation Facilities.

Priority ratings for each scenic route include the criteria

used in the 1964 survey, and add the following items~

Availability of other scenic routes and recreation

resources in area
Access to major highways - commuter and non-recreation
travel needs
Potential for conserving energy and meeting user needs
Protection of corridor and ecology
Suitability for use by other transportation modes
(buses, bikes, etc.).

These criteria are rated on a 3-point scale by the evaluator,

and additionally must be ranked in order of the importance
in which they contribute to the selection of the route.

29

177
C. SCENIC HIGHWAYS IN OTHER STATES

A simple letter questionnaire (see Appendix B1 was sent in

April 1974, to all of! the other states to determine the
status of their scenic highways programs.

State System s

A total of thirty-four states responded. Ten of the s~ates

reported having a system of scenic highways: Alabama, Cali--
fornia, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, North Dakota,
Puerto Rico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. In four cases, the
system consists of one route only: in Wisconsin and Iowa,
the Great River Road along the Mississippi-Missouri; in
Florida, the Everglades Parkway; in Mississippi, the Trace
Parkway. North Dakota's Highway ConTaission designates the
Lewis and Clark Trail as part of its scenic highway system.
Rhode Island's system is established by the Highway Depart-
ment and is not officially designated by legislation. The
mileage of each of the systems is hard to determine, due to
lack of adequate information. Nebraska has legislative pro-
vision for a system of State Recreation roads, providing for
construction, maintenance and beautification of routes pro-
riding access to or within major recreation areas including
"state parks, state recreation areas or other recreational
or historic areas."

L o c a l system,s

Several states provide for local scenic roads under the

auspices of counties and entirely separate from state szenic
highways. Michigan and Indiana allow citizen advisory =om-
mittees or freeholders to propose to county commissioners
the designation of "Natural Beauty Roads" along which the
natural vegetation is to be protected. Virginia's Highway
Commissidn can designate a scenic highway or Virginia Byway
which is a designated road "having relatively high aesthetic:
or cultural value, leading to or within areas of historical
natural or recreational significance." In selection, the
Highway C o ~ i s s i o n or the Commission of Outdoor Recreation
"shall give preference to corridors controlled by zoning or
otherwise, so as to reasonably protect the aesthetic or
cultural value of the highway." Wisconsin legislates fgr the
protection of Rustic Roads. Florida legislation provides
for a system of Blue Star Memorial Highways, submitted for
designation hy the Florida Federation of Garden Clubs; when
designated, the local garden clubs may erect suitable markers
and beautify such memorial highways.

35'

178
 (/
WHATCOM ~L

OKANOGAN
SKAGIT (

SNOHOMISH ~
I
/ CHELAN

JEFFERSON

-7
jf ~

i,
I

LRI~R I

PACIFIC I
YAKIMA
LIN/
/
I I
,! i I i
COWUTZ i
I
SKAMANIA I t
r
r j -
I
i

r,',',',',',',',',:~
J'~ I~/~ --3

fig.6 Current 1974 System of Scenic and Recreational Highways

180

Phase II

Alternative definitions and policies for the

System.

A GoaZs foz. Soe.i~ a~d RaoraationaZ R i a h ~ s 49

B. Z~fi.i~io.e of 'Soen~ ' and 'R~o~a:io.~ ' 5O

C. S~ma~ of R~oo~er~ed PoZ~4es ~finin~

54

D, Pot~n~ia~ for ~ o ov t4o~ $Vet~g .57

Ap~nd~z D: ~souasion of A ~ a ~ t i ~ Po~ioiaa

~fini.g = ~ s ~ y eO
 181

A. GOALS FOR SCENIC AND R E C R E A T I O N A L HIGHWAYS

As cited in state laws, and as suggested by your Consultants.

I. To promote the health, safety, welfare, c o n v e n i e n c e and

e n j o y m e n t o~ publlc travel on the h i g h w a y s and roads o~
the state.

Cited d i r e c t l y from the 1961 law, this broad goal is so

stated to justify the use of the police power for sign
control. But it is even m o r e a p p r o p r i a t e w h e n consider-
ing high q u a l i t y scenic and recreational highways.

II. To protect the p u b l i c investment in highways.

The public investment i n roads is to be p r o t e c t e d from

such activities, land uses, signs, etc. w h i c h destroy
both the i n t e g r i t y of the road, its c a p a c i t y for traffic
and its visual qualities. This is also cited from the
1961 law.

III. To pro v.ide access to. and p r o t e c t o u t s t a n d i n ~ v i s u a l

eXpe_riences r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the state's V a r i e t y of
l a n d s c a p e r e s o u r c e s and cultural attractions.

IV. To attract v i s i t o r s to the state by conserving the

ha_rural bess ty of areas a d j a c e n t to highways.

This sentence is cited from the 1951 law. This goal

seeks to increase tourism and provide increasing returns
to the tourist industry, one of the m o s t important of
the state's industries.

v. To provide, re_creational o p p o r t u n i t i e s w i t h i n highway

c o r r i d o r s and access to the state's abundant recrea-
tional resources.

VI. To c o n t r i b u t e to the e n v i r o n m e n t a l education of re.~i-

d e n t s and visitors.

This goal is from r e c o m m e n d a t i o n n u m b e r thirty-one of

the W a s h i n g t o n State C o m p r e h e n s i v e Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n
and Open Space Plan. It stresses the educational
potential of a s y s t e m in terms of making the resources
of the state more meaningful, legible and memorable.

VII TO protect the natural and cultural heritage corridors

~ e state.

This goal c o n s i d e r s the importance of natural c o r r i d o r s

related to highways m u c h as the Shoreline M a n a g e m e n t
A c t seeks to protect the W a s h i n g t o n State shoreline from
further m i s u s e .

49
B. ALTERNATIVE DEFINITIONS OF "SCENIC" AND "RECREATIONAL*'

This Section deals with alternative d e f i n i t i o n s o f s c e n i c and

r e c r e a t i o n a l highways o r r o a d s and p r o p o s e s a working d e f i -
n i t i o n which can serve as a basis for c~iterie and a legisla-
tive definition if such is warranted. Existing definitions
used by other states and those found in the literature are
presented and discussed as possible alternatives. It must
be indicated~ however, that these definitions pertain mainly
t o scenic highways, since only the State of Washington has a
designation for scenic and recreational highways. In the
background literature rev~en~ed, the recreational aspects of
scenic highways are considered implicit to their scenic function

I
Basic Dictionary Definitions

scenic -of natural scenery; affording ~ n y beautiful

views; picturesque.

scenery -the general appearance of a place~ the features

of a landscape; as, the scenery is beautiful.

recreational -of, having the nature of, or providing

recreation.

recreation -I. refres~uuent in body or mind, as after

work, by s ~ e form of play, ~ u s ~ e n t or
relaxation.
2. any form of play, amusement or relaxation
used for this p u r p o s e , as games, sports,
hobbies, reading, walking, etc.

Although the first of the "scenic" definitions emphasizes

natural scenery, the rest of the definitions of "scenic" and
"scenery ~ do not exclude urban views.

Definitions in Washington State Legislation

Present state law does not provide a useful definition of

scenic and recreational highways.

In the 8ighway Advertising Control Act of 1961, a "scenic

area" is defined as "all land adjoining or adjacent to any
state hiqhway and within six hundred sixty feet of the edge

~ebster's New Twentieth Century Dictlonar of the English

Unabridged Second Edition, t~e World Publishing
~c~pany, Cleveland and New York, 1971.

182
of the right-of-way withi, any public park, federal forest area,
public beach, or public recreation area, national monument
and any state highway or portion thereof outside the boun-
daries, presently existing on the effective date of this act,
of any incorporated city or town, designated by the legislature
as a scenic area." (punctuation added) This definition con-
tains two aspects: a) certain defined parklike areas and h)
routes designated by the legislature outside of cities and
towns.

The Scenic and Recreational Highway ACt of 1967 does not pro-
vide a definition, although a definition is implicit in the
section on Planning and Design Standards, which is discussed
later in connection with the ,ystem objectives.

In the Scenic Vistas Act of 1971, Section l, Subsection 7,

the "scenic syste~u" is defined to include the scenic areas
of the 1961 Act and the scenic and recreational areas of the
1967 Act.

Other Concepts of A Scenic Highway

I. "A scenic highway is a road or street which traverses

a scenic corridor of relatively high aesthetic or cultural
value. It gives the traveler glimpses of nature, history,
geology and man's use of the land. It may be within a
ribbon of parklike development. A scenic highway is de-
signed principally to provide appurtenances for pleasure
driving and recreation rather than to move major segments
o f traffic."
|A Proposed Program for Scenic Roads and Parkways, U. S.
Department of Commerce, 1966, p. 42].

. "A scenic road is a safe, aesthetically attractive,

limited access route planned or constructed through
areas of outstanding scenic values. It is usually a side
road or an alternatlve route that will attract large
volumes of pleasure travel and a small amount of commer-
cial or through traEflc."
(The Scenic Road~ A Basis for Its Planning, Design and
Management, Reginald C. Pragnell, USDA Forest Services
March 1970, Second Ed., page I).

3. "As d e f i n e d during the c~urse of this investigation, the

scenic highway is characterized by the following three
attributes.
a} It is a portion of the State Highway System and must
fulfill the requirements of such a route~
b] It traverses areas of outstanding scenic beauty; and

61

183
184

c~ Its location, design and c o n s t r u c t i o n receive special

attention in terms of impact on the landscape and in
terms of visual appearance."
(A Plan for Scenic Highways i n California, Citizens
Ad--visory C o m m i t t e e o n Scenic Highways, C a l i f o r n i a
Department of Public Works, March 1963, p. 13).

d} "A scenic and recreational highway is a motor vehicle

access through a corridor of travel having a high
aesthetic and cultural value and r e c r e a t i o n a l resources
and opportunities."
{Scenic and R e c r e a t i o n a l H i q h w a y s Study, unpublished
draft, Martin Bonde, W a s h i n g t o n State Parks and
Recreation Department, undated.)

e) "A scenic highway is a road (in a rural area) or a

street (in an urban area) having roadsides, or tra-
versing areas, of r e l a t i v e l y high aesthetic or cultural
value. A c c o m m o d a t i o n s for picnicing, parking, walking,
camping and other recreation potential may be built
into the scenic c o r r i d o r itself, or the highway may
provide pleasant access to such facilities."
(Scenic_Roads and Parkways Stud~ Manual, U. S. Dept.
of Commerce, 1964, p. 10).

f) "A scenic route is an integral part of the streets

and highways system and is designed and located to
take a d v a n t a g e of areas with o u t s t a n d i n g scenic
beauty. Along w i t h the other features important
to highway planning, such as safety, utility and
economy, the scenic route includes the added feature
of a e s t h e t i c beauty."
(A P r e l i m i n a r y Scenic ROutes System Plan, May, 1970,
The King' C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t O f Planning.)

g) ~'Scenic Highway characteristics: the corridor should

present to the traveler a distinct image of all the
region's resources and provide him with options to
view, explore and u n d e r s t a R d those r e o s u r c e s . . . t h e
corridor should focus upon the outstanding scenic
resources of the region, w h e r e b y the traveler is
introduced to the unique l a n d s c a p e s . . . t h e route should
serve as scenic linkages b e t w e e n sites of scenic, cul-
tural, hlstorlcal, s c i e n t i f i c and leisure interest ....
It should bypass u n d e s i r a b l e c o n g e s t e d commercial,
industrial and residential areas and pass through zones
that have stability because of land use type, o w n e r s h i p
zoning and m a n a g e m e n t t e c h n l q u e s . . . t h e use of the route
for heavy, high speed traffic should be avoided .... "
(A Scenic Hiqhway S y s t e m ~ Upper Great Lakes Region,
Kenneth J. Polakows~l, draft copY, April, 1974, pp 2-4.]

52
 185

Consideratons for a W o r k i n g Definition

The P u r p o s e of the D e f i n i t i o n :

T h r e e m a i n uses of a d e f i n i t i o n of " S c e n i c and Recrea';ional

h i g h w a y s " can be s ~ g g e s t e d : as part of p r o p o s e d l e g i s l a t i o n
as a d i r e c t i v e and to e l i m i n a t e a m b i g u i t y a b o u t the m=~aning
and p u r p o s e of such routes= to serve as the b a s i s for g u i d e -
lines and s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a in the p l a n n i n g process; and
to c l a r i f y some of the p o l i c y issues to be d i s c u s s e d .

Relevant Questions about Content:

To w h a t e x t e n t should p r o p o s e d legislation adhere to the

d e f i n i t i o n s in p r e s e n t laws:

I. d e s i g n a t e d by the L e g i s l a t u r e ?
2. o u t s i d e the I n c o r p o r a t e d A x e a s ?
3. c o v e r i n g r o u t e s in parks, forests, beaches, n a t i o r ~ l
monuments?
T h e s e three r e q u i r e m e n t s in e x i s t i n g laws e s t a b l i s h c e r t a i n
c r i t e r i a in the d e f i n i t i o n s . W h i c h of them s h o u l d be r e t a i n e d ?
If r e t a i n e d , s h o u l d a d d i t i o n a l c r i t e r i a be a d d e d to e n s u r e
s c e n i c q u a l i t y and r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y ?
4. S h o u l d the study c o n s i d e r state h i g h w a y s o n l y or state
p l u s local r o u t e s ? This is a c r i t i c a l issue w h i c h is
d i s c u s s e d later in A p p e n d i x D.
T h i s w i l l d e t e r m i n e the e x t e n t of the s y s t e m in u r b a n and
s u b u r b a n a r e a s as a g a i n s t rural areas.
5. D o e s " s c e n i c " a p p l y to n a t u r a l s c e n e r y only, or to his-
toric, c u l t u r a l a n d o t h e r m a n - m a d e s c e n e r y as w e l l ?
We a d v o c a t e that "scenic" c o n c e n t r a t e s for the p u r p o s e of
this s t u d y on the n a t u r a l s c e n i c c o m p o n e n t of e s t h e t i c
experience.
6. DOes "recreational" i m p l y a c c e s s to r e c r e a t i o n areas,
or r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s along the c o r r i d o r , or ~oth?
The 1967 s c e n i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l h i g h w a y s l a w p r o v i d e s for
r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n the c o r r i d o r as well as for
s c e n i c q u a l i t y p r o t e c t i o n and a u n i f o r m s y s t e m of signs and
m a r k e r s , but d o e s not m e n t i o n a c c e s s to ~ j o r recreati)nal
areas.

Propose d Definition

A f t e r d i s c u s s i o n of the m a n y issues i n v o l v e d w i t h the

L e g i s l a t i v e S u b c o n ~ i t t e e s , i n c l u d i n g the p o l i c y q u e s t i o n s
r a i s e d below, the f o l l o w i n g w o r k i n g d e f i n i t i o n was a r r L v e d at:
A s c e n i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l h i s h w a y is a p o r t i o n of a s t l t e h i g h -
W a y route, o u t s i d e .the b o u n d a r i e s of i n c o r p o r a t e a . ~ r e a ~ ' w h l c h
m e e t s c r i g e r i a for s c e n i c q u a l i t y a n d / o r r e c r e a 1 o n a l iresource
g u a l i y and h a s b e e n d e s l g n a f e d as p a r t of the 'scenic ~Ind -'
recreational~i~hwa~ s y s t e m b~ a c h l o n of the l e g i s ~ a t ~ = e .

~J
c. SUMMARY OF DECISIONS ON POLICIES DEFINING THE STUDY

This is a summary of the decisions of the Legislative Sub-

committees on the policy questions raised in this phase of
the study, and discussed in the following pages.

The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to provide the Legislature with

alternative plans for a state system of scenic and r e c r e a t i o n
al highways, including a no-change alternative, and the means
for its implementation. Implementation will include legis-
lative guidelines and may include a financing program.

Policy Question I

QUESTION: Should the study be limited to state highways only

or include both state and local routes?

DECISION: State highways only. Criteria shall be provided

for selection of state scenic and recreational
highways, for both additions to and deletions
from the existing system. Where non-state routes
of high quality are proposed by local governments,
these may be considered for addition to the state
system (Alternative E).

Policy QUestion II

QUEgTION: In evaluating and designating scenic and recrea-

tional highways, should the ~mphasls be on scenic,
on recreational, or on both?

DECISION: Equal emphasis should be given to scenic and

recreational criteria, but distinct evaluations
of each should be recorded (Alternative C).

PoIic~ Question Ill

QUESTION: Should the study apply to existing roads only or

should new roads be proposed as scenic and recrea-
tional highways?

DECISION: Existing roads only should be evaluated but guide-

lines and standards may be proposed for new high-
ways (Alternative B).

.54

186
Polic~ Question IV

QUESTION: Should limited access routes be omitted fror~

consideration for the scenic and recreation~l
highway system?

DECISION: NO: limited access routes of outstanding scenic

or recreational resource quality should be (on-
sidered for inclusion in the system (Altern~tive B)

policy Question v

QUESTION: To what extent and how should the state sha~e

responsibilities for scenic and recreational high-
way system implementation with local goverrments?

DECISION: Only the state shall implement the state system

but local governments may exercise their owr
powers to create and implement local scenic or
recreational routes, (Determined in connection
with the implementation program.)

Policy Question Vl

QUESTION: Should the Legislature designate the routes in

the scenic and recreational highway system, or
should legislation provide the criteria and guide-
lines for their designation by a state agency or
agencies?

DECISION: The Legislature will continue to designate the

routes in the System (Alternative A).

Polic~ .Question VII

QUESTION: In planning for the scenic and recreational nigh-

way system, should consideration be given tO
creating connecting loops?

DECISION: No (Alternative B).

Policy question V I I I

QUESTION: How wide is the corridor? How far beyond th~ right
of-way should the study extend for view protection?

187
188

DECISION: The width of the corridor will depend on the speci-

fic circumstances of the highway segment -its eleva-
tion with respect to surrounding areas, vegetation,
etc. Scenic corridors extend to the limits of visi-
bility from narrowly limited to many miles wide.

Policy Question IX

QUESTION: Should the study consider tourist and recreational

resources, or deal only with recreational resources
as they apply to the system?

DECISION: Study the state recreational resources and estab-

lish an overview of the state's tourist resources
as they apply (Alternative B).

Polic~ Question X

QUESTION: Should the study cover all recreational resources,

public or private, or be limited to public re-
sources or further limited only to State and
Federal recreational facilities?

DECISION: Question to be deleted.

Policy Question XI

QUESTION: Should the study cover existing, proposed and

potential recreational resources, or those exist-
ing and proposed, or only those existing?

DECISION: Question to be deleted.

Policy Question xII

QuEsTION: Should the study consider all three major locations

for recreational facilities, urban rural, and re-
mote or be limited tO one or two of these classes?

DECISION: Recreational facilities of all three classes will

he considered where desired by local Jurisdictions
(Alternative A).

56
 180

D. T H E P O T E N T I A L FOR ~ O OR M O R E S Y S T E M S W I T H DIFFERENT
C R I T E R I A O R T Y P E S OR D E G R E E S OF C O N T R O L

T h e p o t e n t i a l for s e p a r a t e s y s t e m s of scenic and recrea-

tional h i g h w a y s d e p e n d on d e c i s i o n s a b o u t b a s i c p o l i c y and
i n f o r m a t i o n to be d e r i v e d from later study. However,
c r i t e r i a m a y not d i f f e r w h e t h e r a p p l i e d to a s i n g l e or a
dual system. The types o r d e g r e e s of land use c o n t r o l
w h i c h w i l l i m p l e m e n t any system, w h e t h e r s i n g l e or dual, will
d e p e n d on the r o u t e s s e l e c t e d for t h a t s y s t e m and t h e i r
s p e c i f i c n e e d s for i m p r o v e m e n t s or controls.

A Scenic System and A R e c r e a t i o n a l System

The s e p a r a t i o n of scenic f r o m r e c r e a t i o n a l a s p e c t s of the

s y s t e m lies in the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the use of a h i g h w a y
for a c o n t i n u o u s v i s u a l and p h y s i o g r a p h i c e x p e r i e n c e , and
its u s e for a c c e s s to p a r t i c u l a r r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s .
It a l s o d e r i v e s from an a n a l y s i s of the laws and p r a c t i c e s
of o t h e r states, none of w h i c h h a v e a c o m b i n e d s c e n i c and
r e c r e a t i o n a l s y s t e m nor r e c r e a t i o n a l h i g h w a y s as such, b u t
o n l y scenic h i g h w a y s or local scenic roads.

A h i g h w a y g i v i n g a c c e s s to a r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t y is not
n e c e s s a r i l y of the same m e r i t s c e n i c a l l y . The d i f f e r e n c e
c o u l d be a n n o t a t e d as follows, for example: IV.A s i g n i f i e s
a scenic route of fourth rank w i t h r e c r e a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s
of first rank, II.D s i g n i f i e s a s c e n i c r o u t e of s e c o n d r a n k
and r e c r e a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s of fourth rank.

For the p u r p o s e s of i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , if not of d e s i g n a t i o n ,

it s e e m s a p p r o p r i a t e to s e p a r a t e the s c e n i c f r o m the recrea-
tional c o m p o n e n t s of the s y s t e m even t h o u g h these q u a l i t i e s
are often interrelated. T h e y should be d e s i g n a t e d as one
system, however.

An U r b a n Scenic and Recreation System and A Rural Scenic

and R e c r e a t i o n a l S y s t e m
T h e s e p a r a t l o n of u r b a n f r o m rural s y s t e m s a r i s e s f r o m the
d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the k i n d s of s c e n e r y a n d r e c r e a t i o n a l
f a c i l i t i e s in u r b a n and rural areas. In u r b a n areas, the
s c e n e r y is p r e d o m i n a n t l y m a n - m a d e , t h o u g h the p h y s i c a l
setting may include dominant natural features. Urban recrea-
tion f a c i l i t i e s are more i n t e n s i v e l y d e v e l o p e d and s m a l l e r
in size: as c u l t u r a l or e n t e r t a i n i n g e x p e r i e n c e s , r o u t e s
s e r v i n g t h e m w o u l d g e n e r a l l y be r a n k e d far h i g h e r for
r e c r e a t i o n than for scenery,

If p l a n n e d a n d d e v e l o p e d as s e p a r a t e systems, u r b a n and r u r a l
s c e n i c a n d r e c r e a t i o n a l r o a d s w o u l d leave m a n y o p e n q u e s t i o n s

57
parallel to the policy questions discussed in this Phase:
Would they be part of the state system? How would the
urban system be implemented and by whom?

A State Scenic and Recreational Highway System and A Count~

o r L o c a l Sxst.e9

The state, in its overall survey of scenic and recreational

highways, should not ignore scenery, local roads or recrea-
tional facilities of quality because they are outside its
inm~ediate jurisdiction. They are equally part of the scenic
and recreational resources of the state. Designation for
state legislative action may be impractical on too large a
scale, but recognition of such areas by the study as a state
tourist resource could prepare the way for subsequent action
by the state, by local jurisdictions, by institutions such
as the AAA or by citizen groups such as the Sierra Club,
bicycling clubs, gardening and educational groups.

The Consultants stress the importance of the part that the

local scenic roads could play in the Scenic and Recreational
Highway System of this state. Several states have provided
for local scenic roads under the auspices of counties and
entirely separate from state scenic highways. These local
scenic road systems are covered in Sectio~ I.D and under the
California Dual System where there is a state scenic high-
way system and authorization for state approval of County
Scenic Roads. Most of the other states which have scenic
roads have a local system: Virginia Byways, Michigan and
Indiana Natural Beauty Roads, Wisconsin Rustic Roads.

As indicated by the King County Scenic Routes System Plan,

and efforts towards state and local trails and bicycle paths,
a local system of scenic roads may be an emerging pattern.
The Legislative Transportation Co~ittee may want to develop
a process which could potentially respond to this trend~
or it may decide to wait until a demand is made more explicit
and then respond.

Of the three alternatives for multiple scenic and recreation-

al highway systems discussed, this one seems the most likely
to emerge for forthcoming studies. It provides a basis for
an optional system for local jurisdictions which desire one.
It provides clear jurisdiction and authority and reduces
~urlsdictio~al p r o b l e m s . And it enables a consistent program
for local ae~tlon for scenic and recreational enhancement of
roads to meet both local a n d s t a t e objectives.

~8

190
Sub-Systems of Specific Use

Other systems can be delineated by use, illustrating the

great range of scenic, recreational and educational uses to
which highways are put, and the various criteria by which
they can be evaluated. The following lists major examples
of such sub-systems, with typical criteria cited for each.

a) Physiographic and geologic route system: giving

access to and illustrating the variety of physical
regions, their geologic structure and clearest
expressions in landform and rock outcrops.

b) River, lake and shoreline routes system: linking

with stages of a single river and watershed in a
variety of river, lake and seashore forms, exemplify-
ing their development from headwater source to sea.

c) Ecological routes system: giving access to those

areas most expressive of the various botanical
ecotypes with their characteristic vegetation, and
mammal, fish, bird, reptile and insect life; also
those areas such as weldlife reserves and bird fly-
ways and sanctuaries where such life is concentrated
or unique.

d) Historic routes system: linking archeological sites

and old and noteworthy trails, places and structures
connected with the growth of the nation, state or
locality.

e) Cultural routes system: linking characteristic,

restored, or ethnic areas, galleries of old and
modern sciences and arts, museums, universities and
institutions which express in short the heritage
and functioning of an area.

f) Commercial and industrial routes system: linking the

stores, shops, wharfs, factories, cropped lands,
mines and engineering works expressive of the economic
functioning of an area.

g) Hydropuwer routes system: linking the major dams and

plants powering a region.

h) Entertainment routes system: linking the zoos, parks,

gardens, show houses, festivals and show and amuse-
ment places of an area.

Routes, loops and limited day itineraries combining any of

these are also essential components of a highway system which
contribute to its touristic and educational value.

58

191
192

Phase ill

Preliminary criteria. Citizens survey.

Social and economic effects.

~'~g~

,7.J

,q .i
-". ;;'r:~sa :~.",'~at "~Oz~ .%" ,~,','~.,"~r' '~zr'~jc',';~,e ,~'~.;;,~,:m.,~ ~.L"

.~. _,'f~.'l~,~"~zz ~, ,"~J.'~2;~z.~c;'.&:~ .:,.~.>#fP~c'e' ~.'r='~&~~,.~

. ~1~2~,~ c. ~.~I,~ :,~, ~.'.z[,(.~;~'?~q 2-~x~U~l~ ad

,"'. :.',.'[..:i :~,.7' '~.'2~..;mt_'rz .%?n~'I~ .:.~Z" ,~qT#,q

 193

A.I ]-:'{}:SENT M E T H O D S O]" SCEX It' A S S E S S M E N T

C u r r e n t w a s h l n q t o n State law pro)rides no c r i t e r i a !,...r the

evaluatlon of s c e n i c and r creationa] highways. [ h e r e ar~
i m p l i c a t i o n s for d e s i g n in the 1967 ]aw, S e c t i o n ~ , c o n c e r n -
ing r e c r e a t i o n a l facll~.ties and c o r r i d o r p r o t e c t i c n , but
these i m p l i c a t i o n s have not been t r a n s l a t e d int<~ : u1<]el]nes
for actlon ,

However, a g r o w i n g C O n c e r n for the pre,tec[.:on of >c,.'ne~ry as

a n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e has R t i m u l a t e d man}, e f f o r t s to class1[y
and asse~s the q u a ! ~ t ? of the p h y s i c a l ~:.nvlronment_

M e t h o d s ~)i a s s e s s i n g scenic q u a l i t y have been d e v e l o p e d for

a broad range of projects, w h i c h range from regioral ~;lan-
ninq studies to a n a l y s e s of the p o t e n t i a l visual im~:,acts {~f
r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l - s c a l e l a n d s c a p e c h a n g e at a p a r t i c ~ l a r site.
The l a r g e r - s c a l e d regional studies o f t e n d e p i c t os a map the
~ype and q u a l i t y of l a n d s c a p e s to be found in d i f f e r e n t a r e a s
w h i c h are c l a s s i f i e d as a c o m b i n a t i o n of Land Forlr i m o u n t a i n s
hills, valleys, plains} and Land Use P a t t e r n (forests, {ields.
w a t e r f o r m s , roads and human s e t t l e m e n t s ) . C r a i k (1968) sup-
ports this approach, s u g g e s t i n g that "scenery onl? c:ccurs in
the i n t e r a c t i o n of land form and land use with th~ human
observer."

More d e t a i l e d s m a l l - s c a l e s t u d i e s have o f t e n focuse~: on evalu.

a t i o n s of the visual q u a l i t y of the l a n d s c a p e s as ~ee~ from
a particular viewpoint. This a p p r o a c h has been used for
d e t e r m i n i n g the scenic q u a l i t y e v a l u a t i o n s and p r e [ e r e n c e s
of special c o m p e t e n c e g c o u p s (planners, d e s i g n e r s , t::%vicon-
m e n t a l managers} as well as those of the general pl~.lic.

W h i l e there are n u m e r o u s kinds of a p p r o a c h e s to sc[~:~ic

q u a l i t y e v a l u a t i o n , there are t h r e e m a j o r types ot scenic
q u a l i t y a s s e s s m e n t m e t h o d s w h o s e features may p e r t l i n to the
scope of this study:
Scenic Highway Assessment Methods
Highway Alignment Selection Studies
L a n d s c a p e S c e n i c Q u ~ l i t y E v a l u a t i o n Studies.

The most p e r t i n e n t of these, the S c e n i c H i g h w a y A s s e s s m e n t

Methods, are d i s c u s s e d b r i e f l y below, and some r e f g r e n o e to
s t u d i e s in the latter two c a t e g o r i e s will be made ~lsewhere
in the report.

i K e n n e t h H. Craik, Human R e s p o n s i v e n e s s to Landscape: An

Environmental Psychologica! Perspective, Student 5ublication
of the School of Design, N o r t ~ C a r o l i n a State U n i v e r s i t y ,
Raleigh, 1968.
Sco:,i Hlghway Agsessment Methods

One unique aspect of the assessment of scenic roads is that

it must respond both to a large regional scale (as state road
networks may traverse several distinctive landscape regions)
as well as to the more detailed local scale of the scenic
quality of a particular sequence of views of each region as
seen by an observer traveling along a given road at various
speeds. Hence scenic road assessment is a particularly com-
plex task for which there are few agreed upon procedures and
guidelines. This is reflected in the absence of responses
to our re@uest for this information from other states, as
well as in the small number of references to be found which
have formally propose4 an assessment method for scenic road
evaluation.

The studies prepared in 19622 and 19643 by consultants from

the University of Washington are outlined in Section I above.
In review, this early and highly innovative work proposed
preliminary criteria that scenic routes should ideally meet,
then used the criteria tO screen and select potential state
routes which could be considered for further study. After
this initial screen.ing procedure, 3,754 miles of state roads
were actually driven by an evaluator speaking into a portable
tape recorder. His descriptive responses and guality ratings
of various categories of visual elements and aesthetic attri-
butes were later transposed to written checklists. Priorit-
los were established which responded to the physiographic
region in which each route was located, "scenic coefficients"
were derived for each highway section surveyed and final
recommendations drawn which ran~ed the priority for each
route based on its relative scenic quality.

The assessment procedures for National Scenic Highways out-

lined by federal agencies in 1964" and 1974 ~ (also described

2Myer R. Wolfe, Thomas J. Norton and Sidney Cohn, Criteria for

the Establishment of Additional Scenic Areas, U n i v ~
Washington, f'or the Join't Fact-Flndinq Committee on Highways,
Streets and Bridges of the Washington State Legislature, 1962.

3Thomas J. Norton and John L. Robertson, R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for

the Establishment of Additional Sgeni 9 Areas Along 9h~ S tare
Highways of Washingto,, Unlversity of Washington, foe the
Joint Fact-Finding C o m i t t e e on Highways, Streets and Bridges
of the Washington State Legislature, 1964.
4
U. S. Department of Commerce, Manual, Scen%c Roads and Park-
ways Study, 1964.

5Federal Highway Administration, Manual, National Scenic

Highway Study, 1974.

80

194
in Section I above} established broad criteria for scenlc
highway assessment based on suggested attributes of scenic
highways, locational considerations, and desirable physical
characteristics defining the qualifications of roads to be
considered. A quantitative breakdown of the nu/~ber of ~iles
of various types of terrain, land use types and special
scenic features traversed by each route was also required,
while a priority rating form on a 3-point scale, as well as
a ranking system, qualitatively recorded the evaluator's
responses to each route's scenic quality, service to popu-
lation, feasibility, recreational variety, highway and land
use compatibility, access, popular demand, corridor protec-
tion urgency, energy conservation potential and suitabilit}.
for mutual use by buses, bicycles, horses, etc.
6
Scenery C~assification (1967) , while not specifically
designed as a complete method for scenic highway evaluation,
attempts to establish a framework to assess the scenic ~uality
of the views from Vermont roads which could be used for
scenic road designation, the location of scenic overlooks,
or scenic access to recreational facilities. The study uses
a field survey checklist along with a map to classify a~d
differentiate what the author considers to be two basic
components of scenery: i) the distance and area of sce~ic
views and, 2) the variety and interest of features which
appear in the scene. The width of panorama visible, th~
vertical depth of the view, and scenic barriers along a route
are to be noted and mapped on the reconnaissance survey.
Particularly scenic sites or attractive overlooks, landnarks
and points of interest are also noted by the evaluator. In
addition, attitudinal surveys of local residents are suggested
to locate scenic sites which they feel should be improved;
hence a more detailed scenic site evaluation may be undgr-
taken later. Eyesores along each route are also noted.
The total scenic rating of a given route segment is det~r-
mined by adding the distance rating plus the variety rating
minus the eyesore rating.

Another type of scenic road assessment was prepared by the

vineyard Open Land Foundation in a visual study to asse~s and
guide the rapid changes occurring on Martha's Vineyard. In
a very detailed study of a small area, the authors map ~nd
classify roads according to the density of visual events oc-
curring along each route which are felt to affect the vivid-
ness of the driving experience. Vineyard roads are mapped

6Frederic O. Sargent, $ce ner ~ Classification, Vermont

Resources Research Center, Vermont Agricultural Experiment
Station, Report 18, University of Vermont, 1967.

7Vineyard Open Land Foundation, Looki~at the Vineyard, 1973.

?I

195
196

by the width of the pavement and cleared right-of-way

(narrow, medium, wide), their horizontal and vertical
configuration (curving, straight, rolling, flat), the
character of vegetation and development along their edge,
the opening and closing of road space, and near and dis-
tant views. By asking residents of the vineyard to map the
stretches of road they find most pleasant, the a~thors found
that the most desirable roads are narrow, curving, mostly
rolling, and contain stretches whose segments pass through
a variety of vegetative edges and types of development.
8
A current research project by Polakowski to determine the
route containing the highest scenic interest within a 50-
mile wide band 600 miles long in the Upper Great Lakes Basin
attempts to identify and evaluate large-scale variations in
the regional landscape using a composite classification of
land form and land use pattern, and then to evaluate the
scenic quality of particular scenes from a series of view-
points along the chosen route. The study is carried out in
seven major phases:

i. Determine the site characteristics necessary for

a scenic highway corridor.

2. Determine and locate the most significant regional,

recreation and historic destination zones of the
traveler.

3. Analyze the scenic quality of the entire upper Great

Lakes Basin within a Macro-Geomorphological-Land Use
Pattern Framework.

4. Determine the two alternative highway corridors that

possess the highest scenic value within a macro-
framework and provide the best linkages to the desti-
nation zones.

5. Determine the best of two alternative corridors by

employing a sequential contrast system.

6. Select the existing highway corridor that contains

the highest scenic value.

7. Determine the highest quality landscape scenes

within the corridor by analyzing the composition of
photographs of the scene and its relationship to the
actual site characteristics of the scene.

8Kenneth J. Polakowski Et. AI, A Scenic Highway System,

Upper Great Lakes Region, Draft Copy, University of Michigan,
Aprn, 1974.

82
 197

T h i s s t u d y is u n u s u a l in t h a t it r e c o g n i z e s the v a s t n e s s
of its s t u d y a r e a w i t h i n the n a r r o w o p p o r t u n i t i e s for d e t a i l e d
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a n d f o c u s e s on a m e t h o d to e v a l u a t e an e x t e n -
sive l a n d s c a p e from a b r o a d r e g i o n a l s c a l e of r e f e r e n c e .
D e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the v i e w f r o m the r o a d is to be
c a r r i e d out from a v e r y l i m i t e d r a n g e of a l t e r n a t i v e s .

P i n a l ~ y , two s t u d i e s c o n c u r r e n t w i t h the p r e s e n t s t u d y
have ~ u s t b e e n c o m p l e t e d w i t h i n the W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e H i g h -
way Department: P i l o t S t u d y T e a m R e p o r t on A c c p ~ o d a t i c n
of U t i l i t i e s on H i g h w a y R i g h t s " o - - ~ ~ e - ~ i n t - 0 t [ T [ t i e s
c o m m i t t e e and U t i l i t i e s A c c o m m o d a t i o n Policy. The ~ i r s t
s u g g e s t s a m e t h o d , e m p l o y e d in a s i m p l i f i e d f o r m in the s e c o n d
study, for s c e n i c c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the S t a t e H i g h w a y s of
W a s h i n g t o n into six c a t e g o r i e s . T h e four m e m b e r p i l o t s t u d y
t e a m c o n s i s t e d of a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e f r o m the u t i l i t i e s i n d u s -
try, a n e c o n o m i s t , a h i g h w a y e n g i n e e r , and a l a n d s c a p e a r c h i -
tect, w h o d r o v e t h r e e t e s t r s u t e s o f the W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e
Highway System. E a c h t e a m m e m b e r c a r r i e d o u t an i n d e p e n d e n t
s c e n i c e v a l u a t i o n , and t h e n c o m p a r e d r e s u l t s u p o n c o m p l e t i o n .
One t e a m m e m b e r r a t e d l a n d s c a p e q u a l i t y o n a f i e l d s u r v e y
f o r m w h i c h i n c l u d e d s c o r e s for the d e g r e e of u r b a n i z a t i o n ,
e n c r o a c h m e n t , r u r a l a c t i v i t y , v i e w of the road, relief, water,
p r o m i n e n t f e a t u r e s , d i v e r s i t y and u n i q u e n e s s : by s u m m i n g the
scores, a n u m e r i c a l l a n d s c a p e q u a l i t y r a t i n g s c o r e for e a c h
s e g m e n t of road w a s d e t e r m i n e d . In the s e c o n d study, t h i s
e v a l u a t i o n w a s s i m p l i f i e d to the use of t h r e e o f the five
s c e n i c q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a a p p l i e d in the p r e s e n t study, w h i c h
f a c i l i t a t e s the c o m p a r i s o n of j u d g m e n t s b e t w e e n the two
studies. T e s t r o u t e s w e r e d r i v e n in b o t h d i r e c t i o n s , w i t h
the h i g h e r s c o r e p r e v a i l i n g . The e v a l u a t i o n w a s u s e d to
aid p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s o n u t i l i t y a l i g n m e n t s and p o t e n t i a l under.
grounding along state highways based on existing scenic
quality.

E a c h of the a b o v e s t u d i e s c o n t a i n s i d e a s of m e r i t w h i c h m a y
c o n t r i b u t e to the f i n a l p r o c e d u r e u s e d to a s s e s s the s c e n i c
a s p e c t s of the p r o p o s e d W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e S y s t e m . The consul-
t a n t s h a v e e v a l u a t e d t h e s e m e t h o d s to e n s u r e t h a t the p r e s e n t
s t u d y is b o t h i n c l u s i v e a n d e f f i c i e n t in its p r o c e d u r e s a n d
recommendations.

8~
A.2 PRELIMINARY SCENIC CRITERIA

criteria for the evaluation of the scenic quality of roads

must consider a number of variables. The traveler's enjoy-
ment of the scenery along a road may depend to a certain
extent on such factors as his personal driving comfort, the
hazards of the road -light, traffic and weather conditions-
the goals and destination of his trip along a particular
route, and the traveler's state of mind. Many of these
individual factors are difficult to quantify or predict, and
are ,ecessarily beyond the scope of scenic evaluation criteria.
A more reasonable approach is to assess the potential of the
roadway and its surrounding visual and environment, defined
as the roadway corridor, for scenic appreciation.

Scenic quality criteria must be applied within the context

of the study; hence it is important to outline the evaluation
procedures and the scale and mode of their application.

i. Classify the major landscapes of Washingto, State

according to combinations of land form (mountains,
hills, lowlands, plains) and land use pattern
(vegetation, waterforms, human settlement).

2. Group together similar landscape regions for compari-

son and identify the unique landscape regions of
Washington State for individual study.

3. Co, pare road corridor locations across similar land-

scape regions for any possible advantageous position-
ing due to road elevation, extent of landscape visible,
variety of landscapes traversed, landscape unit edge
alignment, and Interconnectlon between various land-
scape regions. Select desirable routes for more
detailed field survey and evaluation.

4. Undertake scenic road field survey to select final

routes and identify problems and opportunities for
scenic maintenance and enhancement.

The first two steps are necessary to identify the amazingly

wide ranqe of landscapes available to the traveler in
Washinqton State. Identification makes corridors through
them available for potential inclusion in the system, since
each of the representative landscapes of the state should be
traversed by the scenic and recreational highway system.
This identification establishes a framework within which
comparison of possible alternative routes Is reasonable.
Finally, classification of each major landscape's boundaries
allows the consideration of routes which follow the e ~ e where
both landscape types are perhaps visible to the travel~r
at once, as well as of those routes which cross several

84

198
landscape types, increasing the variety of visual experience
available along the way. In this manner, one or two optimum
scenic routes may be identified in a given landscape region.
This preliminary screening process helps to identify optimum
scenic corridors for actual field survey and scenic inventory.

From considerable research in the evaluation of scenic quality,

especially the work of Leopold, Litton and Zube (see LAst of
References, Appendix G) and from previous testing,9 the Con-
sultants consider that there are four major heads under which
nearly all other aesthetic criteria may be grouped for the
purpose of visual assessment; i) Uniqueness, 2) Vividness,
3) Intactness, and 4) Unity.

Un iqueness

"Uniqueness" refers to the relative scarcity or abundance of

%he scenic resource within a larger framework or geographic
area. The scale of investigation is important when express-
ing the uniqueness of a feature. For example, the topography
of the channeled scabland landscape in eastern Washington
(see Figure 6) has been cited as "unparalleled An the whole
wide world, scarcely even approached by any other landscape
of similar origin . . ." (Bretz, 1956~0. Yet, once within
that region, which includes a considerable area, there may
be relatively few individual features which are unique in
comparison with the remainder of that landscape. Certain
unique features may exist even within a major landscape of
otherwide limited variation; for example, the three volcanic
peaks of Mount Rainier, Mount Adams, and Mount Saint Helens
rising above the relatively lower southwestern Cascade range
are quite unique. Scenic uniqueness may also be a result of
an atypical juncture between two major landscape types.
For example, Chuckanut Drive offers a unique scenic experience
because it traverses the only zone where the Cascade Mountains
abruptly cut across and intercept the Puget Lowlands to form
the shoreline of Puget Sound (see Figure 6).

Vividness
"Vividness" includes all considerations and terms which convey
the distinctiveness of the visual impression received from the
landscape. A highly vivid landscape may be one where visual

%G. R . - - J o n e s , ' T e ~ ' m i q u e s for A s s e s s i n g and Q u a n t i f y i n g

E n v i r o n m e n t a l , A e s t h e t i c and R e c r e a t i o n a l V a l u e s and I m p a c t s ~ in
P r o c e e d i n g s o f a C o n f e r e n c e on ~ e c r e a t l u n P l a n n i n g s p o n s o r e d
by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Portland, Oregon, 1974.

10O., Harlen Bretz, Washin~t_o~'s Ch..annelled Scab!and, Bulletin

#45, Department of Conservation, Washington, 1 9 5 6 .

8~

199
200

rest) ~rces are h i g h l y d i s t i n c t , p r o m i n e n t , of high i n t e r e s t ,

a n d of m a x i m u m v a r i e t y a n d d e g r e e of c o n t r a s t . Differences
in the p a t t e r n of line, form, c o l o r a n d t e x t u r e i n c r e a s e the
v i v i d n e s s of a v i s u a l a r r a y . V i v i d n e s s of t h e l a n d s c a p e
I n c r e a s e s as its b o u n d a r i e s a n d s k y l i n e s b e c o m e m o r e i r r e g u -
lar a n d c o m p l e x , as its s p a t i a l e n c l o s u r e a n d c o m p l e x i t y
i n c r e a s e , as its f e a t u r e s b e c o m e m o r e p r o m i n e n t , i s o l a t e d add
d i s t i n c t , as t h ~ p a t t e r n of v e g e t a t i o n b e c o m e s m o r e d i v e r s e ,
as its w a t e r f o r m p a t t e r n b e c o m e s m o r e p r o m i n e n t a n d c o m p l e x ,
a n d ~s the c o n t r a s t a n d v a r i e t y i n t r o d u c e d by h ~ m a n s e t t l e -
ment increases. Major landscape unit edges are naturally
h i g h in c o n t r a s t and d i v e r s i t y and a r e t y p i c a l l y z o n e s w h i c h
a r e h i g h l y v i v i d , for e x a m p l e , the d i s t i n c t e d g e b e t w e e n the
r e l a t i v e l y l e v e l C e l u m b i a P l a t e a u a g a i n s t the e a s t e r n
b o u n d a r y of the Cascades,' s t r e n g t h e n e d a n d f u r t h e r o u t l i n e d
by the C o l u m b i a R i v e r a l o n g t h e edge.

W h e n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e v i v i d n e s s of the d r i v i n g e x p e r i e n c e ,
o n e m u s t a l s o c o n s i d e r the s e q u e n c e o f t h e v i e w s a n d v i s u a l
experiences which unfold along a given route. The diversity
and f r e q u e n c y or d e n s i t y of v i s u a l e v e n t s a r e t w o m a j o r g a u g e s
of the v i v i d n e s s of r o a d s e q u e n c e . Driving along a road which
is r e l a t i v e l y n a r r o w a n d p a s s e s t h r o u g h a v a r i e t y of s p a t i a l
openings and enclosures, while frequently curving and chang-
ing d i r e c t i o n , c l i m b i n g h i l l s a n d d e s c e n d i n g into v a l l e y s ,
p a s s i n g t h r o u g h s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t t y p e s of v e g e t a t i o n and
l a n d use p a t t e r n s , a n d p r e s e n t i n g a v a r i e t y of v i s t a s , p a n o -
r a m a s and o v e r l o o k s is u n d o u b t e d l y m o r e v i v i d t h a n a broad,
s t r a i g h t , f l a t r o a d p a B s i n g t h r o u g h s t r e t c h e s of s i m i l a r v e g e -
t a t i o n a n d l a n d u s e p a t t e r n , e v e n if b o t h r o u t e s a r e l o c a t e d
w i t h i n t h e s a m e l a n d s c a p e unit. T h e g r e a t e r the d i v e r s i t y
a n d d e n s i t y of s e q u e n t i a l v i s u a l e v e n t s a l o n g a r o u t e , the
m o r e e l a t e d the s e n s e o f s p a t i a l m o t i o , , t h e g r e a t e r t h e
s e n s e of m y s t e r y , a n t i c i p a t i o m and visual interest, and the
m o r e m e m o r a b l e or v i v i d t h e v i s u a l e x p e r i e n c e .

Intactness

" I n t a c t n e s s " r e f e r s to t h e l a n d s c a p e ' s a p p a r e n t d e g r e e o f

n a t u r a l c o n d i t i o n , a n d m a y b e e v a l u a t e d b y t h e l e v e l to w h i c h
m a n h a s d e v e l o p e d or u r b a n i z e d t h e l a n d s c a p e , as w e l l a s the
p r e s e n c e of v i s u a l d i s t u r b a n c e s or e y e s o r e s a n d o b v i o u s
p h y s i c a l a l t e r a t i o n s o f the l a n d s c a p e . In t h i s c a t e g o r y
come such considerations as the e v a l u a t i o n o f r o a d p a v e m e n t ,
s h o u l d e r and r i g h t of w a y c o n d i t i o n s , including cuts and
fills, u t i l i t i e s , s i g n s a n d l i g h t i n g , m a j o r e x c a v a t i o n s ,
landfills and junkyards along the corridor. Intactness
d e s c r i b e s t h e m o r e o b v i o u s v i s u a l i m p a c t s of v a r y i n g l a n d use
activities.

86
 201

In the sequential visual e x p e r i e n c e g a i n e d while travc[~n 9

along a corridor, intactness c o n s i d e r a t i o n s might include
the d e n s i t y and speed of traffic, h a z a r d o u s d r i v i n g ccn<:i-
tions which d e t r a c t from ~he s c e n i c e n j o y m e n t of the r~.~d,
and visual b a r r i e r s in the foreground which block vie~s :~f
the lamdscape.

Unit~
"Unity" is the c(Jmpositional result of the factors w h i z h
c o n t r i b u t e to v i v i d n e s s and intactness. Unity is a m e ~ s u r e
of the degree to w h i c h the r e s o u r c e s of a visual a r r a y join
t o g e t h e r to form a single, coherent, h a r m o n i o u s visual unit_
Unity refers to c o m p o s i t i o n a l h a r m o n y or the visual inter-
c o m p a t a b i l i t y of l a n d s c a p e resources, both natural and man-
made combined. Unity does not n e c e s s a r i l y imply that ~ii
i n t e r a c t i n g visual r e s o u r c e s be similar or bland, but ,ay
rather depend upon the p r e s e n c e of an o r g a n i z e d b a l a n c 9
b e t w e e n d o m i n a n t and s u b o r d i n a t e visual resources.

When c o n s i d e r i n g the unity of driving experiemce, one should

c o n s i d e r the d e g r e e of "fit" b e t w e e n the road a l i g n m e n ~ and
the topography, the c o n t i n u i t y of visual e x p e r i e n c e (which
may be e n h a n c e d by the c o n t i n u a l visual p r e s e n c e of m o J n t a i n s
in the b a c k g r o u n d or the o r c h e s t r a t i o n and r e p e t i t i o n ~f
visual events along the way), and the s m o o t h n e s s or abrupt-
ness of visual t r a n s i t i o n b e t w e e n major l a n d s c a p e unit~.

Scenic Q u a l i t y

Scenic quality on a given route m a y be e v a l u a t e d by ra.ing

the above four factors, uniqueness, vividness, intactn.~ss,
and unity. P r e v i o u s w o r k done by the C o n s u l t a n t s has
i n d i c a t e d that the nur~erical com/)ina~ion of vividness, intact
ness and unity scores g i v e s a r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t i o n of s.:enic
quality, while the u n i q u e n e s s rating helps to establis.l
p r i o r i t i e s for scenic d e s i g n a t i o n s , p r o t e c t i o n and man.~gement

~7
h.3 CLASSIFICATION OF MAJOR LANDSCAPE REGIONS

An important procedure in methods of assessing scenic

quality has proved to be the grouping and classification of
similar areas of the landscape into major regions, then
further subdividing the large regions into landscape units
until a level of detail appropriate to the scale of study
has been reached. This method is useful for s number of
reasons, which have been elaborated in Section III. A.2
above. This section briefly describes how the state of
Washington has been classified into major landscape regions
by the Consultants (after others)ll, 12 and gives some
examples of the kinds of differences which contribute to the
unique scenic character of roads in each area. While further
subdivision of these areas is possible, the twenty-three
subregions identified will serve as a basis for the compari-
son of alternatlv~ scenic corridors within each area.
Since these divisions define all of the major landscape
experiences available in Washington state, it is recommended
that the designated scenic road network traverse a portion
of each area.

In Figure 7, Major Landscape Regions, five distinct physio-

graphic provinces may be identified within the state's
boundaries: the Pacific Coast, the Puget-Willamette Trough,
the Cascade Ranqe, the Okanogan Highlands, and the Columbia
Plateau. However, there are distinct smaller units of
similar landscape character within each given physiographic
region which d a t e l i n e the scenic character of its roads.
For example, the Pacific Coast province, while in a broad
se,,se the northern expression of the coastal range of moun-
tains which extend as a chain northward from California, in
Washington actually consists of four different landform
expressions: i) the Olympic Mountains, atypical in height,
configuration and structure from the southerly coastal ranges,
2) the North Olympic Coast and 3) Coastal Plain lowlands
flanking the mountains, and 4) the Willapa Hills. The
scenic character of roads which traverse each different land-
scape area is necessarily different, although two roads
within the same landscape area are likely to be comparable
in scenic type.

lID. J. Easterbrook and D. h. Rahm, Landforme of Washin@ton,

Western Washington State College, Bellinqha~, WA,'" 1970.

12R. M. Highsmith and J. M. Leverentz, Atlas of the Pacific

Northwest, Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR, 1968.

88

202
Not only is the scenic character of each defined lands(ape
area distinct as a result of its landforms, but the lard use
pattern in each area is also distinct. This is reflected in
the configuration and density of the road networks whi{h
serve each area. Mountainous areas are fairly inaccessible
and are crossed by a minimum of roads which must follo~ the
major river valleys and mountain passes; the glacier-f<rmed
Puget lowland, an area of major population concentraticn, is
densely and erratically webbed with roads which follow the
north-south trending landforms; the flatter portions of the
Columbia Plateau and the Yakima, Kittitas and Nooksak %alleys
allow the gridiron to prevail, while in the Palouse Hi]is
the road network pattern changes dramatically to conform to
the rolling dunelike hills of wind-deposited loess. T~us,
the configuration of a road, straight or curved, rollirg or
flat, plays an important part in determining the vividress
of the traveler's scenic experience. This fact and the
distinct differences in landform, drainage, vegetation and
land use patterns between landscape units, further support
their classification in this manner.

A preliminary classification of the state's main physicqraphic

regions is given on the next page and illustrated in Figure 7.
It is simplified for clarity though capable of refinement.
For example, within the primary physiographic regions are
two types of sub-regions: one very distinct, such as the
Olympic Mountains, the other more or less distinct, but
similar to each other like the watersheds of the Okanogan
Highlands. In addition, the rainshadow foothills of the
Okanogan Basin and Yakima Folds sub-regions comprise an almost
separate transitional primary region. And the foothills and
upland plains of the south and southwest Cascades, as well
as the Columbia gorge from its mouth to the Dalles, boti~
comprise virtually separate sub-regions.

~9

203
S
~or the ~ v e Trartsportatk~ Committee of ~ State ~ " w
JII~I=._S& J O I ~ S / FREDUTIrVSKY& ASSOCIATES/BATTELLE NORTHWEST MAJOR LANDSCAPE REGIONS z.=Lz
205

TAfILE .{: LANDSCAPE REGIONS AND SUB-REGIONS

PACIFIC COAST

Olympic Mountains
North Olympic Coast
Pacific Ceastal Plain
w i l l a p a [l~]ls

PUGET TROUGH

Puget Lowland
Cowlitz-columbia Lowland
~ a n J u a n Islands

CASCADE MOUNTAINS

Northwest Cascade Mountains

9 Northeast Cascade Mountains
I0 Southwest Cascade Mountains
11 So~theast Cascade Mountains

K A N O G A ~ HIGHLANDS

12 Okanogan-Middle Columbia valleys

13 S a n p o i l - K e t t l e River B a s i n s
14 Upper Columbia Basin
15 P e n d O r e i l l e Basin
I~ Spokane Uplands

COLUMBIA PLATEAU

17 Channelled scablands
18 Waterville Plateau
19 Quincy Basin
20 Pasco Basin
21 Y a k i m a Folds
22 Palouse Hills

BI,UE MOUNTAINS

23 Blue Mountains

90
 206

E. PRELIMINARY RECREATIONAL RESOURCE CRITERIA

It is a n o t a b l e f e a t u r e of the 1967 s t a t e s c e n i c and R e c r e a -

t i o n a l H i g h w a y A c t t h a t it e n j o i n s p r o v i s i o n of c e r t a i n r e c r e a -
t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s a d j a c e n t to the s c e n i c road. C c i t e r i a for
the e v a l u a t i o n of r e c r e a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s m a y h o w e z e r be b a s e d
on a w i d e r a n g e of f a c t o r s . Consideration of the m a r k e t and
of a g r e a t v a r i e t y of t y p e s of r e c r e a t i o n w i l l i n f l u e n c e a n y
detailed appreciation. Nevertheless, three major categories
h a v e b e e n s i n g l e d o u t as the b e s t i n d i c a t o r s on tle s c a l e of
t h i s s t u d y of t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e p o t e n t i a l : diversity,
s e n s i t i v i t y and u n i q u e n e s s . T h e l a s t is c o n s i d e r e d w i t h i n the
a p p r e c i a t i o n of s c e n i c v a l u e . T h e o t h e r s r e q u i r e m<~re e x p l a n a -
tion.

Recreational Resource Diversity

T h e s t u d y p r o v i d e s for the o v e r v i e w of s e v e r a l th~)usand m i l e s

for a p o t e n t i a l s y s t e m of r e c r e a t i o n a l h i g h w a y s . O~ s u c h a
s c a l e the p r o v i s i o n of d e t a i l e d d e s i g n i n f o r m a t i o ~ is i m p r a c -
ticable. T h u s the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of the d i v e r s i t y of r e s o u r C e s
for r e c r e a t i o n is p r e l i m i n a r y a n d m u s t b e s u p p l e m ~ n t e d b y
f i e l d s t u d i e s of p r i o r i t i z e d s e g m e n t s . P r o v i s i o n of f a c i l i t -
ies t h e r e a f t e r w i l l d e p e n d on the l o c a l d e m a n d fo: t h e m and on
t h e a p p l i c a t i o n to s p e c i f i c s i t e s of s t a n d a r d s a p } ~ o p r i a t e to
p a r t i c u l a r a c t i v i t y a n d the s u i t a b i l i t y a n d siz,~ of the
s i t e r e q u i r e d for it.

T h e s t u d y m a k e s t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t the g r e a t e r the v a r i e t y
of l a n d f o r m s a n d l a n d c o v e r f o r m s t o g e t h e r a d j o i n i n g the
rlght-of-way (up to a q u a r t e r of a m i l e e a c h s i d e , the b e t t e r
t h e i n d i c a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l for r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e s a l o n g it.
The r e c r e a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s d e s c r i b e d a r e o u t d o o r ~Lnd r u r a l .
The e s s e n t i a l c o m p o n e n t s of t h e i r d i v e r s i t y a r e tl~e f o l l o w i n g
e l e m e n t s , e x p r e s s a b l e on a s c a l e f r o m m a x i m u m c o n u n c t i o n for
i n t e n s e or v a r i e d u s e to i n d i v i d u a l o c c u r r e n c e foi" d ~ s p e r s e d
or s i n g l e p u r p o s e use:

i. Range, nuraber a n d a r e a o f l a n d f o r m s a n d s i t e ! f r o m f l a t
to s t e e p a n d l a r g e to s m a l l , i n c l u d i n g u n i q u e g e o l o g i c a l
forms.

2. Range, n u m b e r a n d a r e a o f w a t e r f r o n t condition,s a n d w a t e r -
form types, e.g., ocean, lakes, ~low r i v e r s , ~:wift r i v e r s ,
s t r e a m s , p o n d s , s w a m p s , snowj ice.

3. Range, n u m b e r a n d a r e a of v e g e t a t i v e t y p e s an< e d g e c o n d i ~-
t i o n s , e . g . , w o o d l a n d to o p e n f i e l d , w e t l a n d t~, dry, includ-
ing u n i q u e f l o r a a n d a s s o c i a t e d f a u n a .

4. Range and number of historic and cultural man-made features

92
Where recorded the ranges of factors such as soil conditions
from well-dralned to rocky, marshy to erosion-prone, and
climatic conditions are also major indicators of resource
diversity. However, these will not be included in this sur-
vey, because of the amount of detailed investigation they
entail.

Rgcreation Resource Sensitivity

It is essential to consider measures of environmental sensiti -

vity to construction and development since designating an area
can encourage the very pressures which may degrade it.
The construction of new roads in the state for scenic driving
is unlikely at present, but designation of existing routes
should ensure the construction of many roadside facilities.
The impact of these on the corridor's ecologic and hydrologic
systems will depend on the habitat encroached on, layout de-
sign standards, construction management practices, maintenance
of facilities and the impact of the users.

The level of impact that placement and use of facilities have

on the ecosystem of the corridor can be related to its fragil-
ity and productivity. The fragility is based largely on the
life zones of the state which indicate vegetation cover types
native to each climatic region. The more vulnerable each is
to human use (as for example, an alpine meadow) the greater
the effect of use upon it unless careful management regulates
the impact. The life zones, from most to least fragile are:

High mountain forest (Hudsonian zone, 3000-6000 feet)

Estuarine marshlands/Biologically sensitive areas
Desert (Upper Sonoran zone)
Arid grassland (Transition zone, 1500-2400 feet)
Arid timbered land (Transition zone, 1800-3000 feet)
Coniferous forest (Canadian zone, 2000-5000 feet)
Western lowlands ( H ~ i d Transition zone, 0-1500/3000 feet)

The key used to identify the relative ecological cost is based

on the biotic productiveness of the land cover: the more pro-
ductive the habitat, the higher the loss to the food web sup-
porting wildlife and humans when it is disturbed. Ecosystem
biotic productivities from most to least productive are:

Swamps, bays, estuaries

Croplands
Lakes, rivers, deciduous forest
Pasture
Coniferous forest
Rangeland, scrubland
Desert.

8~

207
These two indicators are component parts of the score for the
sensitivity of the recreational resource in the derivltlon of
segments of the system. See criteria, Section IV.B. The
implication is that the layout of facilities should b~ planned
to avoid highly fragile areas and to protect the prodJctive-
ness of existing ecosystems, and where such environme]ts are
used for recreation then the degree of management sho:id be
more rigorous.

The Classif.i.cation of Recreational Uses According t.o.[m~Dact

The type of recreation development must be suited to :he

tolerance of the environment. Predictable impact the'efore
implies appropriate activities.

Recreational use.has tangible effects on the environment.

Camping, for example, can have the following effects .n vary-
ing degrees:

Resource Effect

Soil : Soil compaction, erosion, loss of organ.c layers,

changes in soil acidity.

Vegetation: Loss of vegetation through trampling, r,~moval,

root compaction, or disease; changes in
vegetation types.

Animal Life: Loss of disruption of resident and migriLtory

species through habitat loss, disease o: destruc-
tion; changes in specie types.

Water: Impaired water quality (increased sedim~ntation,

eutrophication, or petrochemical contam:.nation);
increased runoff through soil compactio,, or
paving.

Air: Impaired air quality (smoke, dust, auto emis-

sions); increased noise levels-

The relationship between activities and the sensitivity of an

area can be stated as follows:

i. High Impact Uses: Appropriate to less sensitive ~:reas

and characterized by one or more of the following

a. Large numbers of users

b. High density of users
c. High extent of required mitigation (e.g., regLLlar
maintenance, COntrol or rehabilitation of the resource)

94

208
209

d. The need for formal support facilities, e.g. safety

rest areas, comfort stations, maintained trails,
guarded swimming beaches.

Examples: Intensive-use public parks (swimming, picnicking,

camping, field games), high-denslty power boat-
ing, high-density hiking or horseback trails,
bicycling trails.

2. Moderate Impact Uses: Appropriate to moderately sensitive

areas and characterized by one or more of the followingz

a. Smaller groups of users

b. A moderate density of users
c. Less need for mitigation
d. Minimal support facilities.

Examples: Informal swimming areas, small-scale camp-

grounds or picnic areas with few facilities,
moderate use trails of all types (horse,
hiking, ski touring), low density power boating.

3. Low Impact Uses: Appropriate to the most sensitive areas

and characterized by the following:

a. Small numbers of users

b. Low density, dispersed users
c. Little or no mitigation; infrequent maintenance
d. Virtually no support facilities.

Examples: Low-denslty long-range trails of all types,

individual or small groups backpack camping,
canoeing.

95
 210

C. SUMMARY REPORT ON C I T I Z E N SURVEY

The e v a l u a t i o n of scenery cannot ignore q u a l i t a t i v e judgments.

To balance the individual bias of the co,sultants, it was
therefore d e t e r m i n e d to poll a large random sample of
citizens on their p r e f e r e n c e s in scenery as well as to their
preferred routes as potential scenic and r e c r e a t i o n a l high-
ways, and p r e f e r r e d a u x i l i a r y facilities. These judgments
were then incorporated into the assessment and c o n s i d e r e d in
designing the implementation of the potential system.

The survey was of three thousand people p o l l e d by mail in a

random selection weighted by population. 432 replied (14.3%).
However, in order to provide a summary, a cut-off date was
set. T h i r t y - t w o replies received after that date were not
included in the sum~nary.

The following summary consists of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e form (Table

"4), an abstract of the responses CTable 5), and annotations
on Tables 6 to 12, w h i c h list the results of the survey: also
brief d e s c r i p t i o n s of the d e s l g , of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and of
selection of the sample. S u p p l e m e n t a r y interviews w i t h rep-
resentatives of the sign, outdoor advertising and tourist
service industries are described.

Three elements were not summarized statistically: questions

(e) and (f): the regions and counties traversed on recent
scenic and recreational trips, and question (h) : the other
states and places visited. These will be d e a l t with separate-
ly. M a n y r e s p o n d e n t s p r o ~ e r r e d comments on the survey, but
these were d i f f i c u l t to summarize objectively.

A r e v i e w of high ratings, both positive and negative, as

c o m p a r e d with total responses for each item, indicated an
interesting selectivity. There were m o r e total r e s p o n s e s for
questions w h i c h r e s p o n d e n t s had strong feelings a b o u t than
for others. In other w o r d s respondents sometimes did not
trouble to answer the q u e s t i o n in cases w h e r e they had no
strong feelings one way or the other about the q u e s t i o n asked.

96
TABLE 5: ABSTRACT OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE

Returns: By cutoff date, 400 returns of 3,000 mailed (13.3%)

Reslx)nden~ Characteristics:
Sex: Male, 50.3% Age: Median 41 yrs.
Female, 49.7% Scho01Years: Median 13.5
Income: Median, $10,873
Car 2 or more cars, 75%
Ownership: 1 car, 25%

Responses by~uestionnalre Sections:

a. Pleasure or recreation?
Pleasure 22%; Recreation 31.3%; Both 46.4%

b. Period of last trip? May to August 1974: 56,9%

c. Kind of vehicle used? Standard Auto: 55.1%

d. Round trip miles traveled: Median (approx.} 300 miles

g. Kinds of recreational facilities used:

Viewpoint pulloff areas: 226 (16.1%)
Safety rest areas: 215 (15.3%)
Picnic areas: 185 (13.2%)
Campsites and shelters: 152 (10.8%)
Others: Under 10%

i. Kinds of routes which should comprise the S & R system:

Positive ratings: Negative ratings:

Most scenic routes 36.2t Slower, indirect routes 33.0%
Scenic & recreational 34.5% Faster, direct routes 31.0%

5. Who should decide about development alongside state

highways?
The State, 46.5t Local Govtt, 24.3% Prop. Owner, 20.21

k. Roadsides and uses regulated for scenic attractions?

Yes, 93%

i. For recreation areas without scenic attractions?

Yes, 83.8%
m. If yes, why?

Positive rating: Negative rating '

Protect the roadside 70.6t Increase tourism 50.2t

99

211
n, If no, why not?
Positive rating
Interference with property rights, 57.9%

p. Kinds of recreation facilities to plan along S & R Highways:

Positive ratings: Negative ratings:

Safety rest areas 61.4% Bridle trails 38.4%
Viewpoints 50.3% Canoe trails 34.9%
Scenic route signs 46.6%
Pts. of interest signs 45.2%
Picnic areas 44.8%
Hiking trails 43.8%

q. What means should be used to protect quality of S a R

Highways?

Positive ratings: Negative rating:

Regulate signs & billboards 60.2% None over 21%
Regulate land use 51.3%
Safety improvements 49.7%
Buy the right to preserve 42.4%
Underground utilities 40.9%

What views from the road were most and least enjoyed?
r. Land
Positive ratings: Negative rating:
High mountains 80.5% Deserts 44.3%
Cliffs, capes, rocks 49.9%
Canyons and gaps 46.3%
Rocky beaches 44.4%
Sandy beaches 43.9%

s, water
Positive ratings= Negative rating:
Waterfalls, rapids 72.9% Swamps, marshes 49.01
Ocean 66.4%
Swift rivers, streams 5~.5%
Snow and glaciers 51.4%
Bays and inlets 45.0%

to Vegetation
Positive ratings: Negative rating:
Evergreen forest 86.9% Scrubland 46.9%
W11dlife 74.8%

Uo Manma~e
Positive ratings: Negative ratlngs:
Parks and recreation 53.1% Billboards, outdoor ads 78.3t
Harbors & waterfronts 46.1% Coumerclal buildings 62.6%
Industry, railroads 51.8%
Suburban houses 43.2%

208

212
TABLE 4: CITIZENS SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FORM

TO p r o t e c t the ~oad.lde from be~r,g s ) i l e d

d H . . . . . . y m~les did y o u t~ave1. ~.n4 tt)~,? n if , ~ o . . b y no~? (U~ ~ to( h~hes~

o ,,, so )~o ~oo so~ soo-looo .. ~ , ~ ~,ooo r What k~.a. of w ~ w , ~ro. the road ~ ~ou ~ ~.a : ~ s ~

'L~:~:~ ~ T~E r,XT ~UESTr0NS W : U RF U~C~ V , ~ S T A T : S = : C A L

~,:~PosEs o~,v. ~His i~Fo~rio~ wi,l Bt ~O~FIO~NT~:

I ,
o ....

.... ~ ...... tiond~ ~ighvay ~ , t ~ ,c,v. your p~,o~, y,

bO

q,O

98

97
214

TABLE 7 : RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Age

Under 18 ~8 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - ~ q ~5 & O v e r Total

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. NO. % No. %

6 1.5 58 14,1 95 23.1 64 15.5 9 6 23.2 65 1 5 . 8 28 6.8 412

Income
Ower
Under ~5,000 $5-i0~000 ~ 1 0 - 1 5 a O 0 0 $15-20~u000 ~ 2 0 - 3 0 a 0 0 0 $ 3 0 , 0 0 0 Total
No. t NO, No. % NO. % NO. No. %

25 6.4 6 7 1 7 . 1 126 32.1 79 2 0 . 2 67 1 7 . 1 28 7,1 392

School Years Cgmpleted

8 Years 12 Y e a r s 15Years 16+ Y e a r s Total

NO. % No. ~ NO. No. %

12 3.0 150 37.2 137 3 4 . 0 104 ZS. 8 4'03

Sex

Male Female
No, NO:

205 50.3 203 49.7

Cars Owned

1 2 or More Total
NO, % NO. %

99 24.8 301 75.2 400

I n f o r m a t i o n Not P r o v i d e d : Sex l l
Income 15
County o f Residence I
 215

TABLE 8: PLEASURE DRIVING IN W A S H I N G T O N (Parts e. & f. not sun%marized)

a. ~{pose of Last N o n - B u s l n e s s Tzi~:

Drove for P l e a s u r e Drove for R e c r e a t i o n Drove for B o t h Total

NO, No. % No.

92 22.3 129 31.3 191 46.4 412

b. P e r i o d of Last Travel: Before-

May '73 Aug. '73 Nov. '73 Feb. '73 Ma~ '74 Au@. '74 Total
No, NO. NO. % No. % NO. % NO,

36 6.1 66 11.2 34 5.8 32 5.4 86 14.6 335 56.9 589

c. K i n d of V e h i c l e Used for Trip:

Standard TTailer/ All-Terraln Compact M~tor

Auto Cam~er Vehicle Auto Notorc~cle Home
No. % NO. % NO. % No. NO. No, %

245 55.1 91 20.5 10 2.2 55 12.4 14 3,2 II 2.5

Bicycle Other* * Other i , c l u d e s trucks, bus, Total

NO. % No. % plck-up, van, s t a t i o n wagon.

4 .9 15 3.4 445

d. Round T r i p M i l e s T r a v e l e d :

0 - 50 50 - 200 200 -50~ 500 - it O00 O v e r ir000 Total

No. % NO. % NO, % No. % NO,

ii 2.6 97 22.6 161 37.4 85 19.8 76 17.7 430

9- K/ads o f R e c r e a t i o n a l F a c i l i t i e s Used:

Bicycle Bridle Campsites Canoe Fishin 9 Hiking Hist./Nature

Trails Trails & shelters TEails Sites Trails G u i d e $1qns
No. % ~o. % No. t No. t No. % No. % No. t

20 1.4 10 .7 152 10.8 7 .5 99 ?.1 114 8.1 115 8.2

P a r k s and Picnic Safety ~w~Ing & Viewpoint

Playflelds Areas Rest Areas Boatin~ Pulloff Areas
No. % No. % ~lo. No. No.

98 ?.0 185 13.2 215 15.3 103 7.4 226 16.1

O~hez ~one Tot.a::i

No. % No. t

27 1.9 31 2.2 1,402

Z00
Views on a Scenic and Recreational Highway System

Table 9 deals with policy questions on the scenic and recrea-

tional highway system such as the kinds of routes and the
kinds of controls to be imposed, and by whom. To analyze
this value score, the mean (average) or median (center) is
not very useful. The only meaningful score is the mode, the
one which has the highest number of choices and highest per-
centage of choices. On faster, direct routes, the greatest
number and percentage is given to the lowest value score
(#I); thus, 31% or s third of the respondents felt that the
faster, direct routes should not be considered to comprise
the scenic and recreational system. Similarly 33% felt that
the system should not be limited to slower, indirect routes.
Over a third (36.2%) chose, as did the Legislative Transpor-
tation Committee, the most scenic routes and, those which
combine scenic beauty with access to recreation.

On the question as to who should decide about location of

developments, the vote was overwhelmingly for the state to
decide. And very high scores were given to YES for regulation
of roadsides and protection: 93% for scenic attractions and
83.8% for recreation areas without scenic attractions.

Among the reasons given for supporting protection, the highest

positive score was for roadside protection (70.6%). Among
the reasons for opposing regulation, by a comparatively small
minority, interference with property rights was considered
most important (57.9%).

Preferred Routes

Figure 8 and Table 10describe those sections of routes chosen

by respondents to be included or'kept in the Scenic and
Recreational Highway System. The answers, which averaged two
per response or about 800 in all, were given in the form of
route number from place to place. These were totalled using
a bar chart and transferred to the base map.

Descriptions tended to be inclusive: "Route i01 all round,"

and to stress links across the state. Certain routes received
great priority due perhaps to lack of detailed experience of
alternatives. However, the strength of preference for these,
and the lack of preference for others at present on the
Scenic and Recreational Highway System, indicate clearly cer-
tain priorities which should be considered in designating the
new system. The symbols are keyed to Figure 7.

105

216
TABLE 9: VIEWS ON SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

i. The kinds of routes which s h o u l d mainly compose the Scenic and

Recreational H i~Lhway System:
Values
(~i~ 4 ~ 2 _ 1 ILow) Tote___!
No. t NO. % No. % No. t No. %
Faster direct routes 106 27.8 39 10.2 68 17,8 50 13.1 118 31,0 381
Slower, indirect
local routes 59 16.3 50 13.9 68 18.8 65 18.0 119 33.0 361
Most scenic r0~tes 134 36.2 76 20.5 79 21,3 51 13.8 30 8.L 370
Access to recreation 82 22.8 97 26.9 i00 27.8 46 12.8 35 9.7 360
Poutes combining
scenic quality with
recreational access 125 34.5 76 21.0 83 2 2 . 9 32 8.8 46 1 2 . 7 362

j. Which of the followinq shoul~ d e c i d e where d e v e l o p m e n t s alon~

s t a t e highways s h o u l d be l o c a t e d ?

Pro~ert~ Owner Local Government The State Other ToTS___!

No. % No. No. % No. t

90 20.2 108 24.3 207 46.5 40 9,0 445

k. ShQuld roadsides And roadsld 9 paes. be regulated and protected

where there are scenic attractions?

Yes No Total
NO. ~ No, %

373 9 3 . 0 28 7.0 401

1. Sho~L1d roadsid~j and roadJide ~s~J~be re~ulatAd ~%ere Zhaz~

are places of recreation b u t not" s c e n i c Attractions?

Yes No ~tA1
Ho. % No. %

336 8 3 , 8 65 16.2 401

m. If yes, why?
Values
5 (High) 4 ] 2 . z (u:.0 Total
No. % so. % No. t No. ~ No. %
To increase tourism 29 9.6 25 8.3 54 17.9 42 13.9 151 50.2 301
G u i ~ e tourist route
selection 51 16.8 46 1 5 . 1 91 2 9 , 9 ?9 2 6 , 0 37 1 2 . 2 3O4
:Protect public
i;%vestment 68 28.0 60 19.1 87 27.7 42 13,4 37 ii.8 314
Protect the wide view 88 28.9 97 31,8 64 21.0 28 9,2 28 9.2 3o5
Protect the roadside 233 70.6 53 16,1 27 8.2 10 3,0 7 2.1 330
Other reasons 5 55.6 9

106

217
218

"[A.:,D~? '~ : .,,.'t)nri n u e d I

s,, .r_f_l~, _wh), not ?

V a lu~S
5 (Hi~)b~ 4 3 2 1 (Low) Total
NC. % NO. % No. % No ~ % No. %
'I~.,: ,,~st] V 22 3 3 . 9 ],3 2 0 . 0 7 If).8 5 77 18 27.7 65
Ir,,. r~-ar~c, t:~ t r a f f i c 15 2 5 . 9 9 15.5 13 2 2 . 4 7 12.[ 14 2 4 . 1 5@

:.r '1::,:r'y rtq!lCs 44 :).'.9 5 6~:. 32 1%.~3 3 3.9 12 15.8 76

,l,!i.,.~ r.,.Jnc)::~ < 4:..5 - i 9.1 2 lb,2 - 11

T A . ~ F, I:,: PREFERY41;L) ROL"TE[{

What routes or sections of routes would you most like to see pre-
~]erved b ~ i n c l u d i n q _ _ ~ r kep~in 9 ~hem in the Scenic and Recreational
F~HS~way Sy stem.?

E~..:,u t.(_' ~ w i t,~ 'if to ~-".~:0 s u r v e y ChOiCes per segment:

P~U t e 2,: Sedro Wooley ~ Twlsp
ROut(? l, il Hcw{Liiam -. S h e l t o r t
RO'4 te 2 Monroe - Leavenw~srth

Rc>1~ t , ~ with 40 - 70 survey choices per seg~nent:

Rout e 20 Burlinqton - Sedro Wooley/Twisp - Okanogan
~ou t e IO1 Astoria - Hoquiam
R~ute 41(} Enumclaw ~ Yaki,%a
Poute 2 Everett - Monroe/Leavenworth - Wenatchee
Route 12 Randle - Naches
ROUt e [4 Vancouver - Maryhiil
Route 90 Seattle - Ellensburg
Ronte 112 Port Angeles - Neah Ray

Route~ on the present system with i0 and Less choices per segment:
Route 3 Kitsap Peninsula
Route 8 Olympia - Route 12
Route I0 Teanaway - Ellensburq
Rou t e 12 Aberdeen - Route 8/Walla Walla - Clarkston
~ou t e 17 ROute 395 - Othello/Soap Lake - Graed Coulee
[~ou t e 104 Kingston - R~ute lOl
Route 105 Raymond - Aberdeen
Route 106 Belfair - Route i01
Route I09 Hoquiam - Tahola
Route 126 Tucannon Cut-off
Route 153 Twisp - Pateros
Route 155 Omak - Gzand Coulee
Route 206 Mount Spokane
Route 401 Astoria - F~oute 4
Route 525 whiclb~y Xsland

!22
 219

Views on Implementing a Scenic and Recreational HiHh~gi_S~gtem

T a b l e [ i d e a l s w l t h the r e s p o n s e to "kinds of r e c r e a t i o n f:~cil-

ities that s h o u l d be p l a n n e d a l o n g s c e n i c and r e c r e a t i o n a ]
highways." A n s w e r s w e r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to the r e s p { n s c to
q u e s t i o n (g): Kinds of R e c r e a t i o n a l F a c i l i t i e s Used_ The
h i g h e s t r a t i n g s (over 40%} w e n t to s a f e t y rest a r e a s [~i.4%),
v i e w p o i n t p u l l o f f s (50.]%) s c e n i c r o u t e signs, signs to ~.(~ints
of interest, p i c n i c a r e a s and h i k i n g trails.

The r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e v e r y d e f i n i t e a b o u t "the m e a n s to be used

to p r o t e c t the q u a l i t y o~ s c e n i c h i g h w a y s . " The h i g [ e s t n u m b e r
and percent, 224 and 60.2% w e r e for sign and b i l l b o a r d regula-
tion. A f t e r that, in d e c l i n i n g order, c a ~ e land use r e g u l a t i o n
(51.3%), s a f e t y i m p r o v e m e n t s (49.7%), b u y i n g the right to pr~-
serve (or s c e n i c e a s e m e n t s ) (42.4%), and u n d e r g r o u n d u t i l i t y
lines (40.9%). The s u p p o r t for sign and b i l l b o a r d r C g u l a t l o n
is r e l a t e d to s t r o n g n e g a t i v e f e e l i n g s a b o u t signs acd b i l i -
b o a r d s e x p r e s s e d in the f o l l o w i n g table.

Views on S c e n i c Qualit[

Table 12, in w h i c h r e s p o n d e n t s give t h e i r v a l u e r a t i n g 5 to

s c e n i c q u a l i t y , i n d i c a t e s s t r o n g p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e feei-
ings a b o u t land forms, w a t e r views, v e g e t a t i o n aid m 0 n - m a d e
scenery. On land forms, the o n l y v e r y h i g h score (8C.~%} is
g i v e n for h i g h m o u n t a i n views. The h i g h e s t low scort~ (44. ~%}
is a p p l i e d to d e s e r t s . High s c o r e s of o v e r 40% w e r e aloe g i w ~ n
to cliffs, capes and rocks, c a n y o n s and gaps, rocky ~eaches,
s a n d y b e a c h e s and dunes, and islands. A m o n g w a t e r views, the
h i g h e s t was for w a t e r f a l l s and rapids, (72.9%) w i t h e t h e r high
s c o r e s of o v e r 40% g i v e n to ocean, swift r i v e r s and streams,
snow and g l a c i e r s , and bays and inlets, The h i g h e s t n e g a t i v e ,
or low, score w a s for s w a m p s and m a r s h e s (49.0%). For v e o e -
r a t i o n and w i l d l i f e , o n l y two h i g h p o s i t i v e scores w e r e over
40%: e v e r g r e e n f o r e s t (86.9%) and w i l d l i f e 174.8%). A com-
p a r a t i v e l y h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of r e s p o n d e n t s had strong n e g a t i v e
f e e l i n g s a b o u t s c r u b l a n d (46.9%). The c o n t r a s t i n g secures for
e v e r g r e e n v e r s u s b r o a d l e a f f o r e s t is c o n s i d e r e d a re~arkab[. -~
distinction.

On m a n - m a d e f o r m as views, there was m o r e s t r o n g n e g a t i v e

than strong positive feeling. W h i l e p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n
r e c e i v e d a h i g h s c o r e of 53.1%, flower t h a n o t h e r h i g h s c o r e s
on v i e w s ) o n l y o~e o t h e r , h a r b o r s and w a t e r f r o n t s (46.1%),
r e c e i v e d a h i g h p o s i t i v e score of o v e r 40%. On the cther
hand, there w e r e f o u r low r a t i n g s of o v e r 40%. These are led
by b i l l b o a r d s and o u t d o o r a d v e r t i s e m e n t s , w i t h a 78.~% n e g a -
tive rating, f o l l o w e d by c o m m e r c i a l b u i l d i n g s (62.6%), indus-
try and r a i l r o a d s , (51.8%) and s u b u r b a n h o u s e s (43.2~)
TA~I,E If: VIEWS ON IMPLLMENTING A .SCENIC ~ND RECREATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Kinds of r e q r e a t ~ g n ~ facilities,that should be.,~lanned alonR

scenic and r e c r e a t i o . n a l . h i ~ h ~ :

values
High Low
5 4 ] 2 1 Total
No, % No. % NO. % No. % No. %
Auto Campsites 132 39.2 52 15.4 67 19.9 40 11.9 46 13.6 337
Bicycle Trails 106 34.1 51 16.4 62 19.9 42 13.5 50 16.1 311
Bridle Trails 35 12.5 13 4.6 66 23.5 59 21+0 108 38.4 291
Canoe Trails 46 16.2 3] 11.6 65 22.9 41 14.4 99 34.9 284
Fishing Facilities IIi 35.6 59 18.9 71 22.8 41 13.1 30 9.6 312
Geologic & Nature
Interpretation 97 30.8 77 24.4 7] 23.2 33 10.5 ]5 Ii.i 315
Hiking Trails 137 43.8 68 21.7 65 20.8 22 7.0 21 6.7 313
History Guide Signs 120 38.2 69 22.0 65 20.7 31 9.9 29 9.2 314
Landscaping 65 21.2 59 19.3 69 22.5 44 14.4 69 22.5 306
Parks & Playfields 73 24.0 76 25.0 68 22.4 47 15.5 40 13.2 304
Picnic Areas IS0 44.8 78 23~3 63 18.8 29 8 , ? 15 4.5 335
Safety Rest Areas 223 61.4 62 17.1 48 13.2 20 5.5 iO 2.8 353
Signs: Gas, Food,
Imdging LIB 37.0 68 21.3 63 1.9.8 4] i].5 2? 8.5 319
Signs: Points of
INterest 147 45.2 77 23.7 66 20,3 20 6.1 15 4.6 325
Signs: Resorts,
Recreation 109 34.9 67 21.5 75 24.0 36 11.5 25 8.0 312
Signs: Scenic
Routes ]49 46.6 73 22.8 59 18.4 20 6.2 19 5.9 320
Swimming, Boating
Facilities 83 27.4 56 18.5 88 29.0 46 15.2 30 9.9 303
Viewpoint Pulloffs 173 5[)+3 79 23.U 52 15.1 29 8.4 Ii 3.2 344
Other 21 58.:~ l 2.8 1 2.8 1 2.8 1 2.8 36

q. What means should be used to protect the qu~lit of s ~ e n i c and

recreational highways?

Buy right tO pre-

serve the view 14& 42.4 62 18.O 52 15.1 39 ii.3 45 13.1 344
Acquire additional
right-of-way 66 20.8 51 19.2 73 23.0 51 16.1 66 20.8 317
Landscape r.-of-way 71 21.6 62 18.8 96 29.2 42 12.8 58 17.6 329
underground
utility lines 138 40.9 51 15. i 63 18.7 33 9.8 52 15.4 337
Regulate signs &
billboards 224 60.2 57 15, 3 51 13.7 23 6.2 17 4.6 372
Regulate land uses 182 51.3 62 17. 5 50 14.1 26 7.3 35 9.9 355
Safety improvements 171 49.7 67 19.5 60 17.4 30 8.7 16 4.6 344
other 13 48.1 2 7.4 1 3.7 27

1i0

220
TABLE 12: VIeS ON SCENIC QUALITY
Values
High ~zow
5 4 3 2 1 Total
No. % NO. % No. % -No.
--~- xo-Z..............
r. Land
Volcanic Forms 73 22.1 64 19.4 98 29.7 4~ 13.0 52 i,,6 3):;
High Mountains 314 80.5 46 11.8 19 ~,9 1 .2 I0 .'.~ 39(~
Low Mountains 61 18.5 66 20.0 103 31.2 59 17.9 41 i.'.4 330
Irregular Hilly [,and 43 13.2 51 15.6 109 5~.4 78 23.9 45 i I.~ 326
Rolling Land 51 15.4 58 17,6 g4 28,5 82 24.8 45 I ~. 33?
Valleys 107 ]I.4 106 31.1 86 25.2 28 8.2 14 ,,.i 341
Canyons & Gaps 157 46.3 92 27.1 57 16.8 22 6.5 II ,.2 3)9
Cliffs, Capes 176 49.9 78 22,1 5] 15.0 31 8.8 15 ,:,2 353
Islands 14O 40.5 82 23.7 78 22.5 24 ~.9 22 ,,.4 346
Rocky Beaches 154 44.4 74 21.3 68 19.6 32 9.2 19 ,.E 347
Sandy Beaches, Dunes 154 43.9 71 20.2 64 18,2 43 12.2 19 ..4 351
Deserts 40 11.7 25 7.3 5g 17.3 66 19.4 151 4,., ! 341

s. Water
Ocean 257 66.4 61 15.8 35 9.0 2~ 5.9 Ii .:~ 3,~~
Bays & Inlets 158 45.0 8D 22.8 69 19.7 25 7_1 ig ,.4 353
Slow ~ivers, Canals 66 19.9 54 16.3 97 29,3 55 16.6 $9 3.",5 3%i
Swift Rivers 196 52.5 96 25.7 44 11.8 22 5.9 15 .,.!) 375
Swamps, Marshes 28 8.2 20 5.9 53 15.5 ?3 21.4 I~; 4".~: 341
Lakes & Ponds 115 31.8 84 23.2 99 27.4 41 11.3 23 , .4 362
Waterfalls, Rapids 283 72.9 63 16.2 25 6.4 Ii 2.8 6 .' ~
Snow & Glaciers 187 51.4 7~ 21.2 55 15.1 22 6.0 23 , . ! 3~,4

t. vegetation
EvergCeen Forest 351 86.9 38 9~4 9 2.2 2 .5 4 .' 4~4
Broadleaf Forest 140 37.5 122 32.7 73 19,6 21 5.6 i~ ,,,6.. 37%
Scruhland 21 6.0 22 6.3 76 21,7 67 19.I 164 41...:~ 150
Grassland 49 13.6 41 11.4 [02 28.3 106 29.4 62 1 .... 360
Cropland 68 19,4 65 18.6 98 28.0 67 19.[ ~2 ], ! ]5:.
Meadows, Farm
Animals 112 30.2 80 21.6 91 24.5 54 14.6 .14 :! 37t
Wildlife 282 74.8 55 14.6 24 6,4 ~ i.9 :~ 4 3":. s

u. Manmade
Park & Recreation 196 53.1 89 24.~ 54 14.6 16 4.3 14 :.~: h:>:)
Historical Feature~ 145 39.8 117 32.1 61 16.8 23 6.3 18 ,,.: 364
Farm Buildinqs 52 16.3 62 19.4 114 35.7 61 19.1 30 ', ,', 319
Villages 57 17.1 81 24,3 II0 33.0 52 15.6 33 .,::. 353
Suburban Houses 6 2.0 16 5 3 66 21.8 S4 27.7 131 4~.'.: )03
Commercial Buildings ] 1.O 7 2 3 25 8,3 78 25.8 189 6 :.6 3.2
Billboards, Ads 5 1.6 5 I 6 26 8.2 33 10.4 249 71~.:! .~18
Towns 18 5~8 41 13 3 122 39.6 78 25,3 49 ~ ,..: 308
Dams, Bridges, Koads 87 25.5 93 27 3 105 30.8 38 II.i 18 ..2. )4!
Harbors, Waterfront ]58 46.1. 80 23 3 63 18.4 30 8,8 12 '..Q. 343
Industry, Railroads ii 3.5 12 3 9 56 11.6 71 22.8 161 5 ,g .]11
Landmarks, Skylines 86 25.4 70 20 & 82 24.2 45 13.3 56 ],,.~:. ~3:
Poweriines, Clearcuts,
Grawe] Pits, Mining 11 3.5 ~ 1,6 22 7,0 40 12,7 237 7 ,o 31 <

."i:

221
 tO

L!
/
/
/

legend Fig. 8

.... ii -4~

&mcm=~ional highwaystudy
~ ~ Le~m~e ~wm~t~uon Com~tt~ ot ~ . ~ o n Stm (CITIZENS
.KJE$ & J O N E S / m mln~v ~*.nocmls/~TTEU.e. mom-m,nm'r PREFERRED ROUTES SURVEY) t.=,J
223

Questionnai[e Design

The first and most i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

was to d e t e r m i n e the i n f o r m a t i o n needed. The first draft
was prepared by Fred U t e v s k y and A s s o c i a t e s to reflect
specific needs for i n f o r m a t i o n for the study. This was
revised by Jones and Jones to add their r e q u i r e m e n t s and
d l s c u s s e d with other firms. A m e e t i n q was held to elicit
responses from the L e g i s l a t i v e and A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e s on
content, to d e t e r m i n e a d d i t i o n a l useful information. A
review of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e w i t h the L e g i s l a t i v e S u b c o m m i t t e e s
resulted in further a d j u s t m e n t s .

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e form w e n t through a similar process of

d e s l g n and review. A first a t t e m p t to use a m u l t i p l e choice
form, which could be m e c h a n i c a l l y scanned, to e l i m i n a t e the
need for coding, c a r d - p u n c h i n g , v e r i f i c a t i o n , etc., was dis-
c o u r a g e d by survey experts. The form was r e d e s i g n e d to pro-
vide more space and clarity for the respondent. It was folded
so that the personal data were not v i s i b l e from the outside,
though the r e s p o n d e n t remained anonymous.

The r e s p o n d e n t s were given maps of counties and l a n d s c a p e

regions to help answer some of the questions. The State
Highway m a p was included in the m a i l i n g as an incentive,
since maps are less rc~dily a v a i l a b l e at gas stations than
they used to be; and Mz. Perry, C h a i r m a n of the L e g i s l a t i v e
T r a n s p o r t a t i o n committee, w r o t e a c o v e r i n g letter to be
included with each package.

Surye[ Sample Selection

The study team intended to sample 1,00O persons, g e o g r a p h i c -

ally d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h o u t the state, to secure c i t i z e n
a t t i t u d e s and o p i n i o n s about policies and scenery. The
response of the A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e i n d i c a t e d that this would
result in too thin a sample to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y valid and
the total was c h a n g e d to 3,000. In fact, with a response
cate of 14.3%, this was a correct assessment.

To secure lists and verify sources and the g e o g r a p h i c distri-

bution of the sample, the c o m p u t e r file of driver l i c e n s e e s
m a i n t a i n e d by the D e p a r t m e n t of Motor V e h i c l e s was used. Ire
staff had used r a n d o m selection programs, s t r a t i f i e d by
age and county, for other purposes. The a s s i s t a n c e of the
D e p a r t m e n t of Motor V e h i c l e s was r e q u e s t e d and Mr. Will Wolf,
A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r for I n f o r m a t i o n Services and his staff
were very helpful and c o o p e r a t i v e .

122
 224

T h e s a m p l e number r e q u i r e d for e a c h c o u n t y in the s t a t e was

determined by d i v i d i n g the c o u n t y ' s p o p u l a t i o n by t h e s t a t e ' s
population and a p p l y i n g the r e s u l t i n g p e r c e n t a g e to the
total s a m p l e of 3,000. T h i s r e s u l t e d in s a m p l e s of 3 for S a n
J u a n , F e r r y , W a h k i a k u m N n d 3 a r f i e l d C o u n t i e s a n d 1,018 for
King County. T h e s a m p l e s i z e for e a c h c o u n t y is s h o w n o n
T a b l e 6. T h e D e p a r t m e n t of M O t o r V e h i c l e s p r o g r a m p r i n t e d
out, on m a i l i n g l a b e l s , m o r e n a m e s a n d a d d r e s s e s t h a n w e r e
required. T h e s e w e r e r e d u c e d by r e m o v i n g e a c h c o u n t y ' s e x c e s s
l a b e l s in e r a n d o m way. M a i l i n g w a s c o m p l e t e d a n d sent o u t
on M o n d a y , S e p t e m b e r 16, 1971. By a c u t o f f d a t e for s a m m a r l z -
i ng on T u e s d a y , O c t o b e r 15th, 400 r e p l i e s h a d b e e n r e c k ! r e d ,
w h i c h w a s ] 3 . 3 % of the sample.

Supplementary Interviews with ndustr2 Representatives

As a s u p p l e m e n t to the a b o v e s u r v e y , i n t e r v i e w s w e r e s g u g h t
with representatives of the sign, o u t d o o r a d v e r t i s i n g ~nd
tourist service industries. T h z s w a s d o n e to g a i n an idea
of the a t t i t u d e s of t h o s e w h o s e l i v e l i h o o d w a s l i k e l y 5o be
a f f e c t e d by the c o n t r o l s o v e r s i g n s i m p o s e d by law a l o % g the
S c e n i c and R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S y s t e m as w e l l as a l o n ~ the
I n t e r s t a t e and F e d e r a l - A i d Primary Highways.

T h e n e e d t o c o n t r o l v i s u a l d e g r a d a t i o n w a s acknowledge,i.
H o w e v e r , the t o u r i s t i n d u s t r y is the f o u r t h l a r g e s t in the
s t a t e and m u s t be f o s t e r e d . T h e m a i n i s s u e r a i s e d w a s the
n e e d for a m o r e s e l e c t i v e d e s i g n a t i o n of t h e s y s t e m to e x c l u d e
heavily traveled commercial recreational areas from re~ula-
t i o n in o r d e r to p e r m i t d e t a i l e d t o u r i s t i n f o r m a t i o n s~gns.
A secondary issue was that compensation for r e m o v a l of s i g n s
s h o u l d be m o r e a d e q u a t e t h a n at p r e s e n t . S i g n p l a z a s .~nd
o f f i c i a l logo s i g n s w e r e c o n s i d e r e d inadequate solutio~s.
L e s s e m p h a s i s on r e g u l a t i o n by the s t a t e a n d m o r e by t le
local authorities was favored.

~13
 Phase N

Field survey, Criteria. Profx)sed plans.

P~ge

The Surve)

B. i, C r i t e r i a ~ f i n i n f f SeeMio gaZue IJ2

2. Cri~enia Def4ngng .~eerato~ Reeourae Va~ue 1,L5
5. C~i~eria ~fining the Pressures of ~emand 139

r~esi~na~io~ of the R ~ c o m ~ e ~ d S y o ~ :
~an~ and ~oriptiu~ Tables 146

Appe~di~ .. Hogtie S u ~ e y ~ d 177

Append~ F: gormula~ fo~ ~ r i p i ~ M~nz~o~en~

#e~d ~ ~a~uatlon8 .778

Appendix G: Cs~t~zrioon of Propoa~d and Y.rieting P;an~ 18t

225
A. THE SURVEY

The survey ls briefly described under the headings ,zF range

surveyed, field work, survey form and computerized summary.

The Inventory of Highwah, s for Scenic and Recreatio~ai

Qualities .............

To determine the range of the field s~rvey the fol owing

conditions were observed.

al Distribution: A wide range of roads was surve',ed to

cover all the physiographic sub-regions of the state
(see Figure 7). Their variety of landscape wa:~ noted,
especially where enhanced by elevation, view a~d
boundaries with adjoining types of landscape+ Both
state and local roads were driven to establish a basis
for the evaluation of regional uniqueness.

b) Limitation: Only state highways and those lim ted

access routes of outstanding scenic quality we::e sur-
veyed, as listed below. These are mapped and I%ore fully
described in Section I.A of the report (see Fi~lures i-5)+

i} Routes designated under the Highways Adv,~rtising

Control Act of 1961
ii) Routes designated by the Scenic and Recr+~a~ional
Highways Acts of 1967 and 1969
iii) Routes proposed by Senate Bill 2539 of l'PT]
iv) Routes recommended for the federal Scenic: Roads
and Parkways Program of 1966
v) Routes selected by the University of Was]~ington
consultant proposal of 1964

Other state highways considered for survey wert~ those

driven for the purpose of making connections; ~iso those
listed as scenic by the Corps of Engineers' En~rironmental
Reconnaissance Inventory, 1973+ and by the n~-~onal'ly
published tourist maps of the Rand MCNalIy and Gousha
Companies.

c) Exclusions: Not surveyed in detail were uzban and

suburban routes (unless listed in paragraph B ,tbove) and
all non-state roads, since the state's jurisdi1:tion under
present law ends at incorporated area boundarb~s and is
limited to the state highway system.

The highways finally driven, both state and localr are map-
ped in Figure 21 (Appendix E}.

122

226
H

,o

H
{n

EQ

t~

0
Ce
(D
LwO
0
o,

fl

o
n"
I

N
228

The Field Survey

The r o u t e s s e l e c t e d for i n v e n t o r y w e r e d r i v e n d u r i n g J u l y
and A u g u s t 1974, d u r i n g g o o d w e a t h e r w h e n v i s i b i l i t y w a s v e r y
rarely restricted. The t o t a l m i l e a g e s u r v e y e d in d e t a i l w a s
5,978 m i l e s , the t o t a l m i l e a g e d r i v e n , a b o u t 8 , 0 0 0 m i l e s .
T h i s l a t t e r i n c l u d e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n of l o c a l r o u t e s . Mileage
per d a y s u r v e y e d a v e r a g e d 250 m i l e s , m i l e a g e d r i v e n a v e r a g e d
325 m i l e s . For c o n s i s t e n c y the s a m e e v a l u a t o r w a s e m p l o y e d
throughout.

M o s t r o u t e s w e r e d r i v e n in one d i r e c t i o n only, for e c o n o m y .

T h e v a r i a n c e in j u d g m e n t j u s t i f y i n g s u r v e y in b o t h d i r e c t i o n s
is m a i n l y d u e to the v a r i a n c e in d i s t a n t v i e w s of p r o m i n e n t
f e a t u r e s such as m o u n t a i n s . H o w e v e r , it is u s u a l l y l e s s t h a n
that a t t r i b u t a b l e d u r i n g the n o r m a l c o u r s e o f s u r v e y to c e r -
tain other features. These include exceptional conditions
of l i g h t a n d w e a t h e r , e n h a n c i n g or o b s c u r i n g the view, a
s l i g h t t e n d e n c y for the s u r v e y o r to o v e r - r e a c t to a l a n d s c a p e
s t r o n g l y c o n t r a s t i n g w i t h i m m e d i a t e p a s t e x p e r i e n c e , and
fatigue. In v a r y i n g d e g r e e s t h e s e f a c t o r s are e q u a l l y p a r t
of the e x p e r i e n c e of the p l e a s u r e d r i v e r , and c a n n o t a l w a y s
be p r e d i c t e d .

The Landscape Unit/Route Segment

For the p u r p o s e of s u r v e y o n t h i s scale, the l a n d s c a p e s tra-

versed were divided into units expressing the major natural
topographic and c o n c o m i t a n t vegetational s u b - d i v i s i o n s as
e x p e r i e n c e d f r o m the road. For example: the d i f f e r e n c e in
a v a l l e y b e t w e e n the b r o a d f l a t s of its d e l t a f r o m t h e w i d e
f l a t - f l o o r e d l o w e r stage, t h r o u g h a m e d i u m w i d t h to a n a r r o w
w i d t h v a l l e y , c a n y o n o r g o r g e to the h e a d w a t e r s t a g e at a
mountain pass or plateau. T h i s is i l l u s t r a t e d in F i g u r e 9.
L a n d s c a p e u n i t s w e r e a l s o g e n e r a l l y t e r m i n a t e d at t h e l i m i t s
of c i t i e s and m a j o r u r b a n i z e d areas, w h i c h u s u a l l y f o r m
separate scenic and recreational entities. These units were
the b a s i c u n i t s of s u r v e y , v a r y i n g in l e n g t h w i t h t h e c o m p l e x
ity or c o n t i n u i t y o f the l a n d s c a p e s t r a v e r s e d . Each unit
a l s o d e f i n e d the s e g m e n t of r o u t e w i t h i n it. See F i g u r e I0.

w i t h i n e a c h u n i t the l a n d s c a p e c h a r a c t e r , r e s o u r c e s , v i e w s
and b r o a d l a n d u s e s , a n d t h u s p o t e n t i a l t r e a t m e n t , a r e
i n t e r r e l a t e d to a g r e a t e x t e n t . The d i v i d i n g p o i n t b e t w e e n
u n i t s is o f t e n b r o a d a l t h o u g h for a d m i n i s t r a t i v e purposes,
it w a s f i n a l l y e x p r e s s e d to t h e n e a r e s t t e n t h of a m i l e
a l o n g the r o u t e s u r v e y e d . During the course of survey, the
u n i t s w e r e m a r k e d o n 15 U . S . G . S . q u a d r a n g l e m a p 8 of the
s t a t e ( 1 : 2 5 0 , 0 0 0 scale) w h i c h f o r m e d the b a s i c g e o g r a p h i c
reference. As w e l l as b e i n g d e s c r i b e d 6 y m i l e a g e , e a c h
w a s n a m e d for e a s e of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . For t h i s the m o s t
p r o m i n e n t f e a t u r e of the u n i t w a s u s e d . In Figure i0 ,

124
 229

units in e a s t - c e n t r a l W a s h i n g t o n are s h o w n w i t h those c~[ ,~;-ke

route named and one unit e n l a r g e d in s e c t i o n and ~:i,~.
A key map to all the units s u r v e y e d is given in FigL~r~~.

Th e F i e l d Survey Form

For each l a n d s c a p e unit a field s u r v e y form was filled c)ut:

Se~ F i g u r e Ii. This was d e s i g n e d to be s c a n n e d in an
o p t i c a l m a r k reader to f a c i l i t a t e p r o c e s s i n g the inforr~atio=~
by computer. The use of a c o m p u t e r was j u s t i f i e d by tle
large nu2%ber of s i m p l e but r e p e t i t i v e c o m p u t a t i o n s made tot
e a c h of the 380 units surveyed.

The i n f o r m a t i o n r e c o r d e d for e a c h unlt, t o t a l i n g 72 e n t r = e s

for each form, c o m p r i s e d date, l o c a t i o n , d e s c r i p t i o n o~
p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and e v a l u a t i o n . L o c a t i o n a l d:ta
c o m p r i s e d p h y s i o g r a p h i c r e g i o n (keyed to F i g u r e 6), hic~hwa?
number, c l a s s a n d p r e s e n t s c e n i c status, the c o n s e c u t i v e
unit n u m b e r and m i l e a g e a l o n g e a c h route, a s u m m a r y verbal
d e s c r i p t i o n of each unit, and a p p r o p r i a t e name. Physical
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s for e a c h unit w e r e r e c o r d e d u n d e r the ~ead-
ings of landform, w a t e r f o r m , v e g e t a t i o n and m a n - m a d e form,
on a scale of 4 to 0 as follows:

4 Dominant
3 Highly prominent
2 Moderately prominent
1 Present
0 Absent.

The characteristics were surveyed u nd e r the following heads:

1
Landform:

Volcanic landforms Plateaus & plains Islands

High mountains Valleys Rocky beaches
Low mountains C a n y o n s & gaps Sandy beaches
& dunes
Irregular hilly land Cliffs. capes & rocks Deserts
R o l l i n g land

Waterform:

Ocean swamps & marshes

B a y s & inlets Lakes & p o n d s
Slow rivers & canals Waterfalls & rapids
Swift rivers & s t r e a m ~ Snow & g l a c i e r s

litis suggested that V i s t a s or v i e w p o i n t s could be a d d e d

to this list.

~26
Vegetation:

Evergreen forests Cropland

Broadleaf forests Pasture~Farm animals
Scrubland Wildlife
Grassland

Ma:~-made Form:

Park/Recreation areas Towns

Historical features Dams, b r i d g e s & roads
Farm b u i l d i n g s Harbors & Waterfronts
Villages Industry & Railroads
Suburban housing Landmarks & Skylines
Commercial buildings Powerlines/Clearcuts
B i l l b o a r d s / O u t d o o r ads Gravel p i t s / M i n i n g

Qualitative e v a l u a t i o n s , using the c r i t e r i a d e s c r i b e d in

the next s e c t i o n and e x p r e s s e d on a scale of 7 (high) to
1 (low), were made of each of the four m a j o r l a n d s c a p e ele-
ments above, and also for the road p a s s i n g t h r o u g h them.
These w e r e then c o m p u t e d using the f o r m u l a e given in A p p e n d i x
F. For all routes an o v e r a l l scenic q u a l i t y c h e c k j ~ d g m e n t
of the unit, s u r v e y e d or u n s u r v e y e d , was noted for c o m p a r i s o n
with o t h e r units. For s u r v e y e d u n i t s this has been g i v e n on
the final record a l o n g s i d e the c o m p u t e d V i s u a l Q u a l i t y score
and shows a c o n s i d e r a b l e 4 a g r e e of c o n f o r m a n c e w i t h it.

Computerization

A c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m was w r i t t e n to p e r f o r m the forty c o m p u t a -

tions m a d e to o b t a i n the final score for each unit and to
give a p r i n t o u t a r r a n g i n g the d a t a for each of the 380 units
by location, e v a l u a t i o n s , p r o m i n e n c e of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and
c o m p o s i t e scores. E x a m p l e s are g i v e n in F i g u r e s 12a and b.
The units were then r a n k e d by score for Value, M a n a g e m e n t ,
Need and for a l t e r n a t i v e c o m p o s i t e plans. The final m a p s
were c o m p o s e d from the Value and Need scores only. Final
composite scores w e r e t h e r e f o r e not d e v e l o p e d .

228

230
B.I CRITERIA DEFINING SCENIC VALUE (See Chart, Figure 13)

Five criteria were applied to evaluate scenic quality in the

course of the field survey of the state highways selected.
These are vividness, Intactness, Unity, Visual Sensitivity
and Uniqueness. They were recorded for each landszape unit,
and the first three recorded also for the road itself, ~ass-
ing through the landscape. The criteria are discu)sed in
Section III.A.2 of the report and are summarized bglow. In
addition, the field survey recorded the prominence of forty-
three physical characteristics in each landscape unit, as
seen from the road, under the headings of landform, waterform,
vegetation and man-made form. The vividness and uuiquenegs
qualities were evaluated for each of these four elements
separately on the form, Figure Ii.

Criterion No. I: Vividness

This is a measure of the combined distinctiveness, diversity

and contrast of the visual impressions received fr)m the
landscape unit. It is derived from:

a) Examination of land form and land cover, parti=ularly

as expressed by the degree of topographic relief and pro-
minence of natural features, the definition of the visual
boundaries and the effect of the sky, the dive:sity of
vegetation patterns, the prominence of waterfo:ms and the
prominence of man-made forms. This is rated oi a 7-i scale

b) The degree of prominence within each landscape unit of

each physical characteristic comprising land f,~rm and
land cover.

Rating: This is the product of the vividness m d t,e pro-

minence of characteristics for landform, ,~aterform,
vegetation and man-made form, summed and .~veraged
for each uni%, and expressed on a 7-I sea e.

Criterion No.. 2: Intactness

This is a measure Of the apparent degree of n a t u r a condition

of the landscape. It is derived from:

a) Development: The level of the human m o d i f i c a t o n of the

landscape on a range from apparently unaltered to com-
pletely developed.

b) Encroachment: The level which human or natura_ modifica-

tion intrudes as a visually disruptive element on a
range from undisturbed to very disturDed.

132

281
 i

.,L,-" ~,!iZ~r'Vl~ (~_., L.~

1) H
H

,<: L"z'] o
i-] 0o
1)
pl H

~t3
(~H
r'," ~ ' ~0

I,o
E~ I-~ H
H (I) H
i-.3 "~ 0
0o
~ m
 233

LANDSCAPE U NIT--
UNIT ~: .........

i I I
I I
!BkGI NING -

LEAGE '-t I l':'

, l" I
~M]
I ~ v .rAc.zs
I
! I |~,
ENDING ...... , .... --I
I I
MI[,[',AGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
t I
:SYST | --INTACTNESS i-i
i'

~ --UNITY ~ENCLOSURE~
71 i
F/~J--~/Oored go.,~ / m ,,c::,/aN~:Tu LANDSCAPE UNIT
!
I

I
I

I
I

"WOSES CO&,Z ~

FIGURE ii: FIELD SURVEY FORM

127
 S G ~ i l C - ANG RECKEAT][ON~I[L--HI'-GHidAY S T U ~ r 1"~'/~j~ = - . ' ~ : : - ~ = : = z : : ~ = - ~ - : - - : - ; ' ~ E S ============================================ 16
I-4 CO
F E [ ~ R A L ' A I O P R I R A R Y SY~TE/( : YES.
FRQH MILE 168 TO 175 . STATE SCENIC HIGflNAY SYSTEM : NO*
--L~I['H'c~rc~pE U~ITI~UIqB~-K : 1, . . . . . . TRAFFK~LUME : 2o0()
PHYSIOGRAPHIC SUBREGION : NATERVILLE PLA'/EAU RECREATIONAL TRAVEL ELGH : 2.00
LAND.~CAP~- U f l l [ D~'$CRIPTIUN = GRASSY DRY GGPGE AVAILABILITY - - = 1.00
I%,)
MIDTH OF V I S U A L CORRIDOR : REDIUN , RECREATION USE . z 1.00

:::::CATEGORICAL GUALIT I E S : : : : : : : : : : : : z : : : I MTr--RGATEGORICAL: : : : : ~ : : : : : : : : : J U D G E M E N T S : : : : : z : : : : : : ::~ --RECREATION: : : xz ::x z x= z:,.

LANUFOKR G U A L I T Y : 6068 VIVIUNESS : 536 ADJoLANOFOIU4 D I V . : 2.00
o OVERALL U N I T Y : 6~00 ADJ.MATERFORN D I V . : 1 0 0 0
LANOCOVER ~ U A L I T Y : 2093 MAN/NATURE U N I T Y : 5o00 UNITY : 5050 ADJoVEGETATION D I V o : 2 0 0 0
.... ~ATERFOPJ4 Q U A L I T Y z 2082 DEVELCPMENT ..... ~ 6000 ADJ.HIST./CULTo z 0.00
V~IA/LUN UUAL/TY: Zo9~ E/~RUACHMENT : 6;.00 " 1NIACTN~SS: 6000
RANMADE Q U A L I T Y : 2o99
VISUAL ~ALo(LARO|= 5.61 PRODUCTIVITY : 2.1~
SE(~UENTIAL V A R I E T V : 6000 FRAGILITY : 5.00
KLAU ~ H ~ K U 4 J N U : 6.UU RECoKE~oUIVERSI]y : 2~92
I-I UNIQUENE$~ : T.DO SPATIAL QUALITY 6.00 RECoRES.SEN$ITIVITY= ~059
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VisUAL GUAL.;KUAUIZ 6.UU

I IUIAL VI3UAL ~UAL.: ~o8][

0
o
DOMINANT HIGHLY PHONI~.~.NT / ~ O E R A T E L V PROMINENT PRESENT I=11

VOLCANIC LANOFCRHS
o IRREGULAR TERRAIN
~n ROLLING 1ERRAIN
(0 --PLA'TEAU/FLAI~
~n VALLEY3
C~ bUKbC31MV31VA33~-
0 _ C,L1FFS/NEACLAND,T,/ROCKS
i~ E.5 ERT/EARREN$
S I d l F T RIVERS/STREAMS
-3CI~IB-~q~U~HLANU '
HILl)LIFE

S~ENIG VALUE : 6065 UNLGUEN~SS C O E F F I C I E N T : 1 . 1 6

RECoRESGURCE VALUE : 3o75 S E N S I T I V I T Y (~LJEFFICIENT: 1 . 1 3 ..........
~ E N I G NANAG~'Iq~NT N E E D = - - 5 ; ~ ........ U ~ E ~ PKEF~ G U E F F I C ] E ] ~ T ~ - - I ~ . 2 L
RECo HANAGEMENT NEED: 2049 PKEFo R ] E o C O E F F I C I E N T : 1 . 0 5

1 . . . . . . . . .
~I-I,FZNAL RC~UTE U N | T SC~RE|EVEN): 4023 OVERALL JUDGEHENT CHECK: 5 . 5
 Components Criteria S'jstom deslgnat ion Iians
SCENERY
IProminence of Characteristics] Quality of Segment
[ Water form Appropriate Extent of System
IVeqetation (Distinctiveness
[Manmade Form
Development 2 INTACTNESS ] ~VISUAL QUALITY I
[E...... hment P E(Integrity) ~ ILandscalPe Unit
Unitv
[oIManmadOl
l ~ V - r T " T

Harmony) [ [Overall
I~: s..... ~ial Vivid .... ~ ] ~FaL ~-~
I~
IRd: Fore~round UnityIntactnessl~L [ VISUAL QUALITY
IRd: Sequential Road I SCENIC ANAGEMENT NEED I
Value
[Prime Scenic Potentials ~VISUAL L Md.Low
[ Degradat ion ~ ISENSITIVITY
.~" i 3 6 |PLAN ~ [
5IUNIQDENESS NEEDS
~7_ 2 4 8 l[Classes 4-6: Medium ~- ~Classes I-4 & A-D
o~ 5 7 9 [C1..... 7-9: LOW ~---
k4
DEMAND PLAN 2 ]0
[~rominence
ouestionnaireof Preference ~PREFERRED ~ ~
Characteristics~ [SCENERY I
[A.... qe Daily Traffic~ ~0~ ]I
~ize of Cities ,~ ~AVAILABILITY~
IProximit[ to Clties ;~--
!
Regional Attendance ~ R{CREATION
Destinations ~-- " ITRAVEL FLOW ~ IRECREATION DEVELOPMENT NEED[ Ii

Value !
,Attend ..... ithinCorridor ~[~R'.~,TIONALI!|~--
High Md. Lo~ i
m~| I | [ fClasses A-C: High ~ ',

~lasses U-f': ium

RECREATION
Adacent
lAd~ .... t Landfol-m Di .... ity h I'RECREATION |
Waterform Diverslt R R
}Ad! Veqetatlon D ...... ~v ~--~ ESOU CE
,J''Ad....
acentt Hist./Cult. Diversi{v~ |DIVERSITY
RECREATIO!
I RE
SOU RU E
[Fraqility p 2]RECREATIO N VALUE
[Fro~uctlvlty ~_~RESOURCE Class, A-J
Ic~ ~,a!,/et I~S ITIVITY
be
O0
F]GU~]'~ I ~: DERIVATION OF PLANS FROM CRITERIA

m,~pped
236

Rating: Both elements are rated on a 7-1 scale and averaged

in the composite.

Criterion No. 31 Unity

This is a measure of the degree to which the component

elements of the view are compatible and form a harmonious
visual whole. It is derived from:

a) The ~nity of man-made forms with natural features.

b) The overall unity of the diverse elements of the view.

Rating: Both elements are rated on a 7-I scale and

averaged in a composite rating.

Visual Q u a l i t y : Landscape Unit; Road; _ O v e r a l l

Criteria numbers 1 to 3 are averaged to express the basic

visual quality of the landscape. The same criteria are
applied to the roadscape in distinction to the unit. It is
described by:

a) Sequential Vividness: The diversity and frequency of

visual events along the road passing through the unit.

b) Foreground Intactness: The degree of modification by

the road itself and road-related foreground activities
to the natural state of the landscape.

c) Sequential Unity: The degree and quality of spatial fit

and continuity between the road and the landscape it
traverses.

Rating : All three elements are rated on a 7-I scale and

averaged to express the Visual Quality of the Road.
The visual quality scores for landscape unit and
for road are then also averaged to give the Overall
Visual Quality evaluation.

Criterion No. 4: visual Sen~itlvity

Landscape units are ranked a=cording to the degree of degra-

dation observed to the scenery. It is an indication of the
need for protection or management. It is derived from:
 237

a) Prime Scenic Potentials: A c o m p o s i t e of the o b s e r v e d

i n d i c a t i o n s of the p o t e n t i a l q u a l i t y of a unit. These
are the scores for v i v i d n e s s of both landscape unit and
road, for o v e r a l l u n i t y of both unit and road and of the
m a x i m u m o b s e r v e d u n i q u e n e s s of its visual resources.

b) Degradation: A c o m p o s i t e of the d e g r e e of e n c r o a c h m e n t
o b s e r v e d on both unit and road, plus the score for unity
b e t w e e n man and nature.

Rating: This is e x p r e s s e d as the sum of P o t e n t i a l s minus

Degradation.

Criterion No. 5: Uniqueness

This is a m e a s u r e of the r e l a t i v e scarcity of the scenic

r e s o u r c e w i t h i n a larger context. It is d e r i v e d from:

a) The relative s c a r c i t y of the r e s o u r c e within the physio-

g r a p h i c sub-region.

b) The relative scarcity of the r e s o u r c e within the state.

Rating: Both e l e m e n t s are rated on a 7-1 scale. The

h i g h e s t d e g r e e of scarcity d e s c r i b e d for each unit
is then selected for m o d i f y i n g the e v a l u a t i o n of
v i s u a l quality.

S c e n i c V~lue
C r i t e r i a n u m b e r s 4 and 5 are a p p l i e d as c o e f f i c i e n t s to the
Overall visual Q u a l i t y score to give Scenic Value. The
range of r e s u l t i n g scores is then d i v i d e d into nine classes
of equal range. This c o n c e n t r a t e s m a n y routes into the cen-
tral c l a s s e s and more e f f e c t i v e l y separates out the routes
at e i t h e r end of the scale.
B.2 CRITERIA DEFINING RECREATION RESOURCE VALUE (See Chart, Fig. 13)

Resource corridors were established from the scenic criteria.

Within them, the survey aimed to establish the recreational
potential of route segments on the basis of the extent and
sensitivity of the resources present, modified by the inten-
sity of their present use, The tolerance t o human use inher-
ent in the landform and cover of an area is a good indication
of the intensity of impact that area can support without
being degraded. For recreation, this indicates a range of
appropriate activities in terms of their predictable impacts
on the resource. A fuller deacriptlon of these i m p a c t s is
given in Section III.B. The recreational resource value
established for each segment then beoomea the b a s i s for t h e
future detailed S i t e investigations necessary before develop-
ing specific alternatives for the development of recreational
activities.

Criterion No. 1: R e c r e a t i o n a l . Re.source D i v e r s i t y

This describes the potential for recreational development of

each landscape unit in t e r m s of the diversity of the natural
resources accessible from the road. The greater this Is,
the wider the opportunity for recreational choices and, the
greater the recreational potential of the area surveyed. The
criterion is derived from.

a) The d i v e r s i t y o f a d j a c e n t l a n d f o r m e , w a t e r f o r m s and
vegetation. T h i s was mapped from U . S . G . S . t o p o g r a p h i c
q u a d r a n g l e s f o r e a c h l a n d s c a p e u n i t and c o n f i r m e d from
the field survey. Each form was rated from 3 (diverse)
to 0 (absent) and the totals summed,

b} The i n c i d e n c e o f a d j a c e n t h i s t o r i c a l and c u l t u r a l
features: mapped from studies for the corps o f Knglneers
provisional Environmental Reconnaissance Inventory (to
be published;, and rated on a tl~r'~e point s c a l e .

Rating: The a o m p o s i t e r a t i n g sums t h e f o u r s c o r e s end

e x p r e s s e s them on a 7-1 s c a l e .

Criterion No. 2: Recreational Re so.urea sensltlvlt~y

Landscape u n i t s a r e r a t e d according t o t h e i r s e n s i t i v i t y to
disturbances t h e more v u l n e r a b l e t h e r e s o u r c e , t h e l o w e r
t h e a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e n s i t y o f us e o r t h e h i g h e r t h e n e e d g o t
protection. T h i s 18 d e r i v e d fromz

Za~

238
a) Fragilltyz A measurement based largely on the life zones
of a state. These define the vegetation cover types
natural to each climatic zone as general indicators of
tolerance to ~ee the more easily each is degraded by
use, the more fragile is the resource area situated in
it and the more demanding of careful management. This
was mapped from studies for the Corps of Engineers f
Environmem~al Reeonnalssance Inventory (to be published).

Rating : from most ~o least fragile,

7 Hudsonlan zone [mountain forest, 3000'-6500')
6 Estuarine marshlands/Biologically sensitive areas
5 Upper Sonoran zone (desert)
4 Azld Transition zone: Grassland (1500'-2400')
3 Arid Transition zone: Timbered (1800'-3000')
2 Canadian zone (coniferous forest, 2 0 0 0 ' - 5 0 0 0 ' )
1 HUmid Transition zone (lowlar~s from 0' to
I500'-3000')

b) Productivity: A measurement of environmental cost based

on the relative biotic productiveness of the land cover.
The more productive a habitat, the more disturbance is
caused by development of the rmsources within it. This
is expressed as a product of the following factors:

i) The field survey record of the d e g r e e o f prominence

of each habitat within each landscape unit, as
recorded from the road.

iS) An assigned environmental value derived from the

productivity for each habitat given a s a range from
most to least productive=
7 Swamps/Bays/Estuaries
6 Croplands
5 Lakes/Rivers/Ocean/Declduous Forest
4 Pasture
3 Coniferous Forest
2 Rangeland/Scrubland
1 Desert.

Rating: This is the product of prominence and assigned value.

c) Scenic Value: This is taken from the scenic evaluation

which includes a measurement of the uniqueness of the
resource. The hlgher zceni~ value an area has, the more
seneitlva it Is to pressure. The rating is as for
scenic value.

Rating: The composite rating averages the three components.

239
240

Recreational Resource Value

The final s c o r e e x p r e s s i n g the d i v e r s i t y of the r e s o u r c e s for

recreation within each landscape unit, together with a
m e a s u r e of t h e i r s e n s i t i v i t y to use, is d e r i v e d f r o m the
c o m b i n a t i o n of the a b o v e t h r e e c r i t e r i a and e x p r e s s e d o n a 7-1
scale. The r e c r e a t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l of a u n i t c a n b e f u r t h e r
m e a s u r e d by c o m p a r i n g t h i s v a l u e w i t h the i n t e n s i t y of p r e s e n t
use. The r a n g e of r e s u l t i n g s c o r e s is t h e n d i v i d e d into n i n e
c l a s s e s of e q u a l range, as w i t h S c e n i c V a l u e .
 241

3 C R I T E R I A D E F I N I N G THE P R E S S U R E S OF D E M A N D ON S C E } I C AND
R E C R E A T I O N A L R E S O U R C E S (See Chart, F i g u r e 13)

Criteria Defining the P r e s s u r e of D e m a n d on S c e n i c Resources

The f o l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a i n d i c a t e p o t e n t i a l p r e s s u r e on the
scenic areas considered. T h e y are u s e d to m o d i f ~ the b a s i c
S c e n i c V a l u e score.

Criterion NO. i: Preferred Scenery (citizens surve Y )

L a n d s c a p e u n i t s a r e r a t e d a c c o r d i n g to the scenic p r e f e r e n c e s
r e c o r d e d in the r e s p o n s e s to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e sent out to
a p o p u l a t i o n w e i g h t e d s a m p l e of s t a t e c i t i z e n s . The s e t t i n g s
p r e f e r r e d for r e c r e a t i o n a p p e a r to be l a r g e l y similar. HOW-
ever, this c r i t e r i o n was b a s e d on r e s p o n s e s r e l a t i n g o n l y to
s c e n e r y and is, t h e r e f o r e , a p p l i e d to m o d i f y only the s c e n l c
value. It was d e r i v e d from:

a) The r e s p o n d e n t s ' r a n k e d e v a l u a t i o n as " e n j o y a b l e s c e n e r y "

of the list of n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s and m a n - m a d e forms, as
r e c o r d e d in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s u m m a r y . This
was e x p r e s s e d as the m e a n of the total r e s p o n s e for e a c h
element.

b) The f i e l d s u r v e y r e c o r d of the d e g r e e of p r o m i n e n c e of
e a c h e l e m e n t w i t h i n e a c h l a n d s c a p e unit for the same list

Rating: The c o m b i n i n g of p u b l i c p r e f e r e n c e for and the

d e g r e e of p r o m i n e n c e of e a c h e l e m e n t o b s e r v e d g i v e s
an i n d i c a t i o n of the p r o b a b l e p u b l i c a p p r e c i a t i o n
of e a c h l a n d s c a p e unit. T h i s is reduce4 to a
n u m e r i c a l s c a l e for rating. O n the s c e n i c s u r v e y
p r i n t - o u t , it is s h o w n as the U s e r P r e f e r e n c e
coefficient.

Criterion No. 2: Traffic Volumes

Road segments are rated a c c o r d i n g to the existing volumes of

motor vehicle traffic. Thie is a meaeure of user contacts
of a11 types, commercial as well as recreational: travel
flows for the latter are estimated Separately. 2he volumes
were derived from the State Department of Highways Annual
Traffic R e ~ (1973}.
Rating: 7 Over 3 0 , 0 0 0 average daily traffic
6 20,000 - 30,000
5 I0,000 - 2 0 , 0 0 0
4 5,000 - 10,000
3 1,000 - 5,000
2 0 - 999
1

Criterion No. 3~ Ava_i_!_a_billty to Major Population Centers

Road segments are rated according to the probable frequency

of user contacts, and thus benefits, likely to occur. This
is greatest within the range of short trips from large
cities.

a) The major cities ranked in order of population, the

largest first.

bl Proximity to these cities by routes within one and two

hours driving distance at speeds of 55 m.p.h. (Inter-
state routes), 50 m.p.h, for other routes (Eastern
washington and 45 m.p.h, for other routes (Western
Washington).

Rating: 7 within one hour of cities of 500,000 pop. or over

6 within two hours " 500,000 pop. or over
5 within one hour " 100,000-500,000 "
4 within two hours " i00,000-500,000 "
3 within one hour " 40,000-i00,000 "
2 within two hours " 40,000-i00,000 "
I r~aln~er

This criterion i s applied to both Scenic and Recreational

Resource Values.

Scenic Resource Management Need

Together, criteria numbers I, 2 and ) are averaged, criterion

No. i, Preferred Scenery, being weighted more heavily than
the other two. They are then applied to modify the Scenic
Value score for each s e ~ n t to give Scenic Management Need.
The range of resulting scores is divided into nine classes.

Criteria Defining the Pressure of Demand on Recreational

Resources .........

An a n a l y s i s of information available from s t a t e and f e d e r a l

agencies was translated into a measure o f the pressures of
demand on recreational resources. Private and potential

~40

242
recreation facilities could not be considered in detail. The
existing density of recreational activities and travel asso-
ciated with each segment is taken as an indication of con-
tinuing potential pressure on that area,

Criterion No. 4: Existing Recreation Travel Flew

Road segments are rated according to the present volu~e of

u s e for access to recreational facilities. Information on
recreation travel flows for all state highways was not
available; two simple models of state-wide recreation travel
were therefore used to simulate the relative volumes.

a) Regional Attendance Model: Estimates based on information

supplied by federal and state agencies were made cf
visitor-day use of known destination areas along state
highways. For recreation regions within the state, the
estimates were summed. Using a gravity flow model,
estimates were made of the percentage of users originat-
ing from eleven major state urban areas (89% of the
state's urban population). Estimates were also made of
the region's level of out-of-state visitor-days. Routes
and alternative routes were identified for purposes of
routing users back from destination areas.

b~ Origin/Destination model: The results of a survey by the

Parks and Recreation Commission, 1971 of camper origin
by county and camper destination by county was used to
identify relative flows of recreationers between counties:
where alternative origin-to-destination routes existed,
the flow on each route was calculated. Flows were calcu-
lated for routes between the eleven major urban areas
of the state and the counties.

Rating: A composite of the results of the two models was

used to rate the relative volume of routes from 7
(high) to I (low). Only routes scoring 4 and over
were plotted and used in this survey, since cnly low
flows were recorded below that level.

Criterion No. 5: Recreational Use

Road segments are rated according to the estimated numbers

using the existing public recreational facilities to ~hich
they give access. In the absence of readily obtained figures
for private facilities, this is taken as the best indicator
of the relative usefulness of the route for recreation within
the corridor. The information was derived from:

1 4 ~.

243
244

a) Location: A record of existing and potential sites from

the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation's
State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan C1967] was
updated' w~th infor6ation provi~e~ by federal and state
agencies. Additionally, an indication of regional tourist
-resources and facility development areas was mapped from
the State Department of Commerce's Study of Tourist
Resources and Investment Potential ~ 9 7 0 ) .

b) Attendance: From the same sources an estimate was made

of the attendance at existing public recreational facili-
ties by visitor-days per year within a corridor extending
five miles on either side of the route.

Rating: 7 Over 1 million visitor-days per year

6 500,000-1,000,000 "
5 250,000- 500,000 "
4 I00,000- 250,000 "
3 60,000- i00,000 "
2 30,000- 60,000
I Under 30,000

This criterion is illustrated by the Recreational Corridor

Map (Figure 15) which is a composite, d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by tones,
of historic, cultural and scientific areas, national and
state forests, wildlife reserves and parks, existing recrea-
tional facilities in three classes by size of attendance, and
an indication of potential recreation sites and tourist
development areas.

Recreation Resource Development Need

Together, criteria numbers 3, 4 and 5 are averaged, criterion

No. 5, Recreational Use, being weighted more heavily than the
other two. They are then applied to m o d i f y the Recreation
Resource Score for each segment to give Recreation Resource
Development Need. The range of resulting scores is divided
into nine classes.

Prioritization by the Need_for Management

In modifying Scenic and Recreational Resource Value, the

consultants w e i g h t e d the criteria for Preferred Scenery and
Recreational Use equally and higher than the other criteria
as indicators of demand. The others are rated of equal
weight. Factors considered as potential criteria, and
rejected, are discussed at the end of this section.
 245

The interaction of high, medium and low demand pressures on

t h e s u p p l y of h i g h , m e d i u m a n d l o w r e s o u r c e v a l u e s s u m m a r i z e s
the v u l n e r a b i l i t y of e a c h r o u t e s e g m e n t to the p r e s s u r e s
of p o p u l a r d e m a n d . T h e s e a r e i l l u s t r a t e d in the f l o w c h a r t
by s i m p l e m a t r i c e s for e a c h v a l u e a n d g i v e r i s e to t h r e e
l e v e l s o f m a n a g e m e n t n e e d for s c e n i c v a l u e s a n d of d e v e l o p -
m e n t n e e d for r e c r e a t i o n r e s o u r c e v a l u e s :

High: Classes 1-3 (Scenic). Classes A-C (Recreation).

W h e r e the v a l u e o f t h e r e s o u r c e is h i g h a n d s u b j e c t to h i g h
or m o d e r a t e p r e s s u r e , or m o d e r a t e a n d s u b j e c t to h i g h p r e s s u r e
t h e m a n a g e m e n t n e e d i n f e r r e d is for r e g u l a t e d d e v e l o p m e n t to
protect the natural system while accommodating pressures
e q u i v a l e n t to t h o s e of t h e p r e s e n t e s t i m a t e d d e m a n d .

Moderate: Classes 4-6 (Scenic). Classes D-F (Recreation).

W h e r e h i g h v a l u e r e s o u r c e s a r e s u b j e c t to l o w p r e s s u r e ,
m o d e r a t e v a l u e s u b j e c t to m o d e r a t e p r e s s u r e a n d l o w v a l u e
s u b j e c t to h i g h p r e s s u r e , a b a l a n c e b e t w e e n r e g u l a t e d a n d
u n r e g u l a t e d u s e is i n d i c a t e d .

Low: Classes 7-9 (Scenic). Classes G-J (Recreation).

W h e r e r e s o u r c e v a l u e s a r e l o w a n d s u b j e c t to m o d e r a t e or l o w
p r e s s u r e s , or n ~ d e r a t e a n d s u b j e c t to l o w p r e s s u r e s , t h e
m a n a g e m e n t p o l i c y i m p l i e d is for u n r e g u l a t e d use.

The Scenic Management Need and Recreation Resource Develop-

m e n t N e e d s y s t e m s a r e s e p a r a t e l y m a p p e d at t h i s s t a g e to
s h o w t h e r a n g e of m a n a g e m e n t n e e d s for e a c h r o u t e . These
m a y d i f f e r f r o m s e g m e n t to s e g m e n t of a route, d e p e n d i n g o n
t h e l e v e l of n e e d i n d i c a t e d .

Factors Considered and Rejected as C r i t e r i a

T h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s a r e m e n t i o n e d for c o n s i d e r a t i o n , but
the c o n s u l t a n t s h a v e n o t r e c o m m e n d e d t h e i r i n c l u s i o n as
c r i t e r i a for t h e r e a s o n s g i v e n .

a) T o l e r a n c e of V i s u a l E n c r o a c h m e n t : A m e a s u r e of t h e e a s e
with which a visual environment can absorb development
without becoming encroached upon. T h i s d e p e n d s o n the
s c a l e a n d v i s u a l d i v e r s i t y of t h e s c e n e r y b u t a l s o o n
knowing the scale and type of future encroachment. It
h a s n o t b e e n i n c l u d e d as a s e p a r a t e c r i t e r i o n b e c a u s e
t h e s e f a c t o r s a r e d i f f i c u l t to q u a n t i f y in g e n e r a l terms.

145
b) Safety: A rating for each'segment according to its pre-
sent safety could be derived from accident records a,d
the relume of heavy commercial traffic conflicting with
sight-seeing traffic and light recreational use. This
suggests that light traffic volume on roads paralleling
major routes could be a positive factor in designation.
This, however, may contradict the values given to high
contact with scenery and high volumes of recreational
traffic i, criteria 2 and 4. Moreover, it is assumed
that th~ Department of Highways already addresses pro-
blems of safety as they occur.

c) Recreation Connectivity: Access to end between existing

parks, recreation areas and facilities. An indication
of this factor is already contained in the record of
recreation travel flow.

144

246
C. DESIGNATION OF THE SYSTEM

Washington has such an abundance of scenic and recreational

resources that the selection of a limited range of routes
must exclude much of high quality which should ideally be
protected or sub,act to regulated development by the state.
The designation of a system from the range of segments evalu-
ated by the above process therefore depends primarily on a
balance between the wide extent ideally designated and that
practicable to develop under the current limitations on fund-
ing. The Consultants therefore recon~end the consideration
of three alternative plans from a range between i000 and 3000
miles within which they consider the system should lle. This
range was inferred from the extent of the following:

a) the existing Scenic System and Scenic and R e c r e a t i o n a l

Highway System (1911 miles)
b) the system recormnended by the Department of Highways
to the Federal Highway Administration in 1964 and 1974
(+ 15S0 miles of state routes from a total of 3001
m~les).
c) the mileage considered practicable to administer by
the representatives on the Advisory Committee of
those agencies to be mainly responsible for the sys-
tem ("1000 miles").

Factors Considered and Re,acted in the. Desi~nation..pf Routes

Regional variety: The concentration of designated routes in

areas of the highest value may ignore other resources and
result in an excessively interrupted system. It may be desired
to represe,t the full range of the physiographic regions of
the state, to maximize the sequential variety along a route
by traversing several regions, and to link intermittent sec-
tions of high quality. However, this may imply increased
costs to upgrade lower quality environments. In fact, a
scenic road is recommended within each sub-region except for
the Quincy Basin which ks physiographically the least separate
and scenically striking area, merging with the Channelled
Scablands region. Routes for the Pasco Basin are included for
future consideration. Representation of routes within each
sub-region might give priority to development of these seg-
ments when new routes are considered for additions to the
system.

Preferred routes: Those rou~es nominated for inclusion in

the System by the questionnaire respondents have been rated
in order of popularity and mapped: See Figure B. They should
aid in determining the extent of the system. However, this
selection was too general to justify the inclusion of seg-
ments more important as links than for their intrinsic quality.

14~

247
248

A SeHmented System

The C o n s u l t a n t s and the T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y Com~eittee w i s h to

r e c o m m e n d a S c e n i c and R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S y s t e m c o m p r i s e d
of the f o l l o w i n g : t h o s e s e g m e n t s c l a s s e d h i g h e s t for b o t h
S c e n i c V a l u e and S c e n i c M a n a g e m e n t N e e d plus t h o s e c l a s s e d
h i g h e s t for b o t h R e c r e a t i o n R e s o u r c e V a l u e and R e c r e a t i o n
R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t Need. T h e s e two c a t e g o r i e s a r e s e p a r a -
t e l y d e s c r i b e d , m a r k e d s e p a r a t e l y o n the same m a p a n d the
s e g m e n t s s e p a r a t e l y p r i o r i t i z e d for m a n a g e m e n t w i t h i n e a c h
m a i n class.

Three Alternative Plans

The p l a n s are d e s c r i b e d s e p a r a t e l y b e l o w and their mileages

are c o m p a r e d in the t a b l e f o l l o w i n g .

PLAN I : Scenic Need + ReCreation Need

T h i s p l a n of a b o u t 1900 m i l e s is the p r o d u c t of the p r o c e s s

c h a r t e d in T a b l e 13. It c o m b i n e s the s e g m e n t s in the top
four c l a s s e s by s c o r e for the two N e e d c a t e g o r i e s . N e e d is
d e r i v e d from the i n t r i n s i c v a l u e of the r e s o u r c e w e i g h t e d by
the p r e s s u r e s of d e m a n d u p o n it. Thus, a r o u t e of some
v a l u e b u t r e m o t e and r e l a t i v e l y less v i s i t e d is l i a b l e to be
d o w n s c o r e d c o m p a r e d w i t h o n e of less q u a l i t y b u t n e a r a
large population. S i n c e s e g m e n t s of h i g h i n t r i n s i c v a l u e are
the b a s i c r e s o u r c e of the system, the C o n s u l t a n t s r e c o m m e n d
t h e i r r e t e n t i o n in the s y s t e m as w e l l as the e q u i v a l e n t
c l a s s e s of Need. T h i s g i v e s r i s e to A l t e r n a t i v e Plans 2 and 3

PLAN 2 : Scenic Value & Need + Recreation Value & Need

~classes)

T h i s p l a n of 1479 m i l e s is the o n e c o n s i d e r e d the m o r e p r a c -

t i c a b l e by the T e c h n i c a l A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e . It c o m b i n e s
s e g m e n t s in the top t h r e e c l a s s e s of all four c a t e g o r i e s :
c l a s s e s 1 to 3 o f S c e n i c V a l u e and N e e d a n d c l a s s e s A to C
of R e c r e a t i o n V a l u e a n d Need. It a d d s to P l a n 1 t h e s e s e g -
m e n t s of h i g h v a l u e w h i c h are lost to the s y s t e m as d e f i n e d
by Needs. In effect, it d e s c r i b e s t h a t p o r t i o n of the
a d o p t e d p l a n 3 w h i c h is r e c o m m e m d e d for d e s i g n a t i o n b y the
committee. It is 432 m i l e s s h o r t e r t h a n the p r e s e n t S c e n i c
and Recreational H ~ g h w a y S y s t e m of 1911 m i l e s and it o m i t s
a b o u t 900 m i l e s of it. T h i s p l a n is i l l u s t r a t e d in F i g u r e
16 and d e s c r i b e d in T a b l e 16. F i g u r e 17 s h o w s the S c e n i c
s e g m e n t s s e p a r a t e l y ; F i g u r e 18 shows the R e c r e a t i o n a l s e g m e n t s

~47
 249

PLAN ~ : Scenic Value & Need + Recreation Value & Ne~i

(4 c l ~ s s ~ s ~
'

This plan of 2787 miles combines the top four classes )~. all
four categories, almost doubling t h e s i z e o f P l a n 2. It i~
about 880 miles longer than the present S c e n i c a n d RecTE'a-
tional Highway System of which, however, it o m i t s abou-: 500
miles.

T h i s p l a n is r e c o m m e n d e d by t h e C o n s u l t a n t s . It w a s a ~ o p t e d
by the Legislative Committee w i t h the f o l l o w i n g provis):
Scenic classes 1 to 3 a n d R e c r e a t i o n a l classes A to C i r e
recommended for designation for capital improvements. This
is the s a m e e x t e n t as P l a n 2 ( 1 4 7 9 miles). In a d d i t z ~n,
Scenic Class 4 and Recreational C l a s s D (1308 m i l e s ) a + e to
be listed, but not designated, for consideration for f,t~re
additions to t h e s y s t e m b y ~ h e b o d y a u t h o r i z e d to m a n a g e the
system. T h e p l a n is as f o r P l a n 2, s u p p l e m e n t e d by Fi;ure
19 a n d T a b l e 19: Class 4 and D Routes for Future Stud'.

Comparison of Proposed and Existin~ Plans

T a b l e 15 c o m p a r e s alternative plan mileages under seve:al

heads. More complete figures f o r P l a n s 2 a n d 3 a r e q i 2 e n in
Appendix G ( T a b l e 22): a l s o a c o m p a r i s o n ( F i g u r e 22) s)~owing
those segments a d d e d to o r d e l e t e d from the existin~ system
by the proDosed s y s t e m , P l a n 2.

TABLE 15: COMPARATIVE PLAN MILEAGES

I ,xc . 5& B'
Plan I Plan 2 Plan 3 ~ys~.em ~

Total Length + 1900 1479 2787 ]911.04

Scenic Segments 837 1998
Recreational Segments 1028 2O5[+
Comparison with Existing about the 43Z 4880 -

S & R System same shortez longer

Addition to ~xisting System 635 783
Deletions from Existing System +905 +500 -
% of Existing State Highways 27% 21% 40% 27%
Secondary ~tate Roads 345 692 513_4
PtLbllc Lands Adjacent +400 +750
Incorporated Area Mileage Excl~ded 48.1~ 79.53

* All lengths given in miles. All incorporated areas (as of Jan. J, 1973)
within designated s ~ n t s ar~ excluded f r ~ the system mileag~ .
* Sonlc System (1961) : 473.17 (These figtres include
Scenic & Recreational System (1967 & 69) 1574.71 overlappinc mileage.)
Priorization of Segments b [ Value and Need Combined

The final priority order for route segments is based on the

following steps:
i. Each of the entire range of scores for each category,
Scenic Value, Scenic Need, Recreational Value and Recreation
Need has been divided into nine classes of equal range:
1-9 (Scenic) and A-J excluding I (Recreational), of which
the top four classes are selected.
2. Each route segment is then ranked within each class of
Value or Need as follows:
a The range of scores within each class is further
divided into three subclasses.
b. Each segment within each subclass is then ranked ac-
cording to the pressure of demand on it. This is
measured by a subdivision of the range of demand scores
into nine classes.
c. Segments of Value and Need are then combined into a
single list. Segments still of equal rank are ordered
by their original list order with the Value list taking
precedence.
The priorities for management are listed in Tables 17,18,20 and Zl

I48

250
TABLE 16 (PART)

SCF241C AND ~ C ~ A T I O N A L HIGHWAY SYSTEM; ROUTE S~C4~_NTS/LANDSCAP UNITS

RECOMMENDED PLAN: $CENZC CLASSES i - 3 AND RECREATIONAL CLASSES A~C

For Plan, see Figure 16, For Key, see Landscape Units Map, Figure !0+

Note: All ~ncorporated areas within se91~ents are excluded from the system,

R~ SEG, FROM TO DIRFI- DIST- CLASS

NO. NO. MILE MILE TION ANCE LANDSCAP6 UNIT NAM~ ~C~N. I~C,

4 15,4 31,5 E 16.1'" LOWER SKYKOMISH VALLEY * C

6 40.0 54,2 E *,4.2 ~* SOUTH FORK SKYKOMISH + L~

VALLEY
7 54.2 64.8 E 10.6 ST~s PASS ~ 9

I0 87.0 gg, 2 S ] 2.2 TUMWATER CANYON 3 +

12 104.7 I18.0 S5 13,3 WENATCHEE RIVER VALLEY A

15 140.4 146,0 NE 5.6 CO RBALE CANYON 3

17 167.5 175+7 E 8.2 MOSES COULEE

3 4 17.7 24.0 N 6,] NORTH BAY-HOOD CANAL

5 26,0 35,0 SE 9.0 COLUMBIA R.: SKAMOKAWA- ?

CATHLAMET
6 35.0 43+0 SE 8.0"" COLUMBIA R.: CATHLAMET- ~ B
WATERFORD
7 43,0 51.0 E 8.0 COLUMBIA R, ! HATERFORD- 3 C
sT~LIA
8 51.0 55,5 E 4.5 COAL CREEK SLOUGH 2

5 12 113.4 I17.0 E 3.6 NISQUALLY FLATS + C

26 241.8 248.9 NW 7.1 ~ SAMISH 3 C

# Need classifications italicized.

+ For future study u ~ e r this heading; see Table 19,
* Secondary route segments.
** Incorporated areas within these sections a~e excluded fro~ s ~ s t ~ .

251
 L~
rJ1
L~

& JO~ESiFRED UTEVSKY& ASSOCIATES/BATTELLE"NORTHWEST ~74 HlUrlWAY ~Yb . . . . . .

I I : : M co.,o~.T
 b3
& JONES/FREDUTE~K&ASSOCIATES/BATTELLE,NORTHWEST 1974 H~ I G H W A Y SYSTEM ~,c.~,~o; ....
COMPONENT
SJJNN ~ J S Q N V ' I 1#..8l . l ~ -311~J.J.Vit/s~LI.vlo~ t Axg.'~lin oau.t# ~ l I D ~ ~lt~
B dl~ illll~ / IX:) l l e l l l l I uo!lulJodllli4J, l l l k l - I ilql t
lpnls AeMqD!qle_uq~oeJ ~o!ueos
IN~ ~VOSQNV~
i ~i
/
/
: - t .f l -
" i < ::""\
255

FORMULAE FOR DERIVING A NUMERICAL EXPRESSION FOR RESOURCE

MANAGEMENT NEEDS FROM THE BASIC EVALUATIONS

The criteria described in Section IV.B, and charted on

Figure ll are rated on a scale of 7-i, then sum~ed and avera-
ged in t h e following simple combinations to obtain final scores
for "Need." These express separate priorities for the need
for management of the scenic and recreational resources of each
rou~e segment.

~<'h[,lI." Bk]SOUI<C~] .MANAGEMENT ~4EED = 5[$L" + ~P}

S c e n i c v a l u e of the segment
:~p = Pr(:s<_~uros of d e m a n d on the s c e n i c value

:{'_,'_ . . . . . . s,."~:.'~]:~_',-'m~cg.:. : va x ~,(vs 1.:n)

Wfl~.~ '$].,
~. = ~)verall v i s u ~ 1 q u a l i t y of tl~e ~ e g m ~ i t
'JS : V i s u a l s e n s i t i v i t y (Hcer~ic C r i t e r i o n NO. 4}
]'.i~ Uniqueness (!]co[,ic C r i t e r i o n No. 5)

~{~ ..... 'b'v~r~ll V i s u a l Qu&l~ = <.(V'IL + VQR)

Wh<'r~.~ ',;Q~ : Visual qual~ty of the landscape unit

'v"~, Visual quality of the road

'"E. V:'sual Q u a l i t y of th,_, L a n d s c a p e Unit = 1/]iV + I + U)

~t~,r.- 'v" ~ Vividness (Scenic C r i t e r i o n No. I)

[ : I rltaetn~ss (ScePtic C r i t e r i o n No. 2)
I.~ : Unity (Scenic C r i t e r i o n No. ])

V v'ividnus~ = (V
................... LF x P L F } "WF x P W F ) + ( V v F x PVF)+(VMM x PMM )

PLF PWC + PVC + PMM

V i v i d n e s s of the L a n d f o r m as e v a l u a t e d
V i v i d n e s s of the w a t e r f o r m as e v a ~ a t e d
V i v i d n e S s of the v e g e t a t i o n as e v a l u a t e d
VF
VNN = V i v i d n e s s of the m a n m a d e form ~s e v a l u a t e d
PL" = Sum of the d e g r e e of p r o m i n e n c e of l a n d f o r m s
PW'F = S ~ m of the d e g r e e of p r o m i n e n c e of w a t e r f 0 r m s
P~T = S u m of the d e g r e e of p r o m i n e n c e of v e g e t a t i o n
S u m of the d e g r e e of p r o m i n e n c e of m a n m m d e f o r m s
PMM =
Prominences all as r e c o r d e d on the survey.

I,,'d APPENDIX F
 256

I Intactness = %(D + E)

Where D = Degree of d e v e l o p m e n t recorded

E = Degree of encroachment recorded

U U n i t y = ~(UoA + UMN)

Where UOA = O v e r a l l unity r e c o r d e d

UM~4 = Unity between man and nature aS r e c o r d e d

VQR Visual Quality of the R o a d = I/3(Rsv + RFI + RSQ }

Where RSV = S e q u e n t i a l v i v i d n e s s of the r o a d as r e c o r d e d

~ = F o r e g r o u n d i n t a c t n e s s of the road as r e c o r d e d
S p a t i a l q u a l i ~ y of the r o a d s e g m e n t as r e c o r d e d

VS Visual Sensitlvit~ = I/4(V + U0A + RS V + RS~ } _ I/3(UM/~ + }~FI

W h e r e the v a l u e s d e s c r i b e d above are u s e d to i n d i c a t e the s c e n i c

p O t e n t i a l less the o b s e r v e d d e g r a d a t i o n (applied as a c o e f f i c i e n t l .

Un Uniqueness ~ Highest uniqueness velue noted for r e g i o n or ~;tate

(applied as a c o e f f i c i e n t ) .

5P PKESSURES OF DEMAND ON SCENIC vALuE = 1/4(2UP + T + A)

Where UP Preferred Scenery (Demand Criterion No. I: applied as a

coefficient)
T - Traffic volumes (Demand Criterion No. 2)
A = Availability (Demand Criterion No. 3)

UP Preferred Scenery = Pl(ml) + P2(m2) + p3(m3)

P1 + P2 + P3

Where Pl-41 = P r o m i n e n c e of e a c h 3f 41 p h y s i c a l characteristics

as r e c o r d e d
ml_41 = M e a n of q u e s t i o n n a i r e e v a l u a t i o n s as p r e f e r r e d scen~,ry
for e a c h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

17~
RECREATION ~/SQURCE ,~ANAGEMENT NEED = ~(RV + RP)

Where RV = B e c r e a t i o n resource value of the s e g m e n t

p/D = P r e s s u r e s of d e m a n d on the recreation resource value

w PJZCREATION RESOURCE VALUE ~ ~{RD * F~g}

Whet,., RD = Recreation resource diversity (Rec, Criterion No. i)

RS = Recreation resource sensitivity [Rec. Criterion No. 2)

RD Recreation Resource Diversity = I/4 (DLF + DWF . DVF + DHC ]

Where DLF = Diversity of adjacent landforms

DWF = Diversity of a~jacent waterforms
DV7 = Diversity of adjacent vegetation
DHC = Diversity of adjacent historical/cultural features

kS . Retreat.ion Resource &ensitivity = I/3(F + Pr + SV)

Where F = Fragility
Pr = Productivity
5V = S c e n i c Value (as above}

Pr Productivity = Pl(aevl) + P2{ae~2) + .,. p (aev }

......... n n
Pl + P2 "'" Pn
Where ~i-41 P r o m i n e n c e of each of 41 p h y s i c a l characteristics
as r e c o r d e d
aevl_41 = Assigned environmental value for each of the 41
characteristics

RP PKESSUKE$ OF D E M A N D ON RECKFATIONAL VALUE = I/4(2P/J + TF + A)

Wheru RU = Recreational Use (Demand Criterion NQ, 5)

TF = Recreational Travel Flow (Demand Criterion NO. 4]
A ~ Availability [Demand Criterion No. 3)

257
259

Phase V

Recommended controls, implementation and

guidelines.

Pa~e

A. Land Use Control.e ~, th~ C o ~ r 18Z

B. Imrpl.em~nt,s~i.o~ of ~he Syste~ 206

C, ~8~ G~ide~i~6e for Environmen~l ~ l i ~ 2~0

Appendix H" Referenoes 2~
App#ndlx I: ~eoord of M#etin~ ~32
 260

A. LAND USE CONTROL IN T H E SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL CORRIDOR

The question of whether the use of land within the viewshed

of a scenic and recreational highway should be controlled in
some manner is potentially the most important and the most
controversial issue involved in the establishment of a state-
wide scenic and recreational highway system. If the land is
left completely u n c o n t r o l l e d , much of the natural scenery
which qualifies a road as a scenic highway I can be lost. On
the other hand, land use control is a sensitive issue which
requires a delicate balance of private property rights and
the public interest. Land use control is particularly con-
troversial when government attempts to regulate use under its
policy power (e.g., by zoning) rather than by compensating
the landowner.

This chapter of the report examines the issue of land use

control in several parts. It begins with a general discus-
sion of alternative land use control techniques, their r e l a -
tive merits, and some examples where the techniques have been
used. The current status of land use control in Washington
is discussed in Section 2. Section 3 compares the various
land use control techniques. Finally be draw several conclu-
sions regarding the issue of land use control. Our principal
conclusion is that land use control is desirable in particu-
larly scenic areas and that a variety of control techniques
should be utilized depending on particular circumstances.

I. Alternative Techniques for Land Use Control Within the

S c e n i c Corridor . . . . .
There ere five principal alternative techniques for control-
ling land use within the scenic corrldor12

~"Scenlc Highway" as used in this chapter refers to hlqhway

which is included in the existing scenic and recreational
highway s y s t m and in any future system.

2See f o r examples L e v i n , David R . , " S c e n i c C o r r i d o r s " , i n

Hiqhwey C o r r i d o r P l a n n i n g end Land A c q u i s i t i o n , Hiqhwey Re-
search Record NO~LI66, National Auade~aF of Sciences, Washing-
ton, D.C,, 1967~ and, Williams, Norman, Jr., "Legil Techniques
to Promote Aesthetics Along Transportation Corridors", 17
Buffalo Law Review, p. 701, 1968, also printed in E~ghway
Research Record, No. 182.
 a) Outright purchase of fee simple land by negotiation
or condemnation

b) Acquisition of less-than-fee rights, such as scenic

easements, by negotiation or condemnation

c) Regulation at the state or local level

d) Tax incentives

e) Persuasion.

Other techniques such as compensatory zoning and performance

standards have been recently suggested and discussed, but
have only been implemented to a limited extent, if at all,
and are not discussed in this study.

Each o f the five techniques and Its particular advantages

and disadvantages is discussed separately below.

a. Land Purchase

This alternative can be implemented in two ways. On new roads

a wider than normal right-of-way can be purchased. On exist-
ing roads, as much land as desired within the viewshed of
the scenic highway can be acquired by negotiation or by con-
deranation.

This alternative has been sparingly used throughout the

country,primarily because of the very high cost of acquiring
fee sim~le land. In developed areas this cost can run to
many thousands of dollars per acre. A second out-of-pocket
cost is the cost to maintain the property once it is acquired.
In addition to the high direct costs, there is an indirect
cost to the government because the property is taken off the
tax rolls.

The obvious advantage to this alternative is that land use

decisions for the acquired land are exclusively and perma-
nently made by a designated governmental agency as long as
ownerhsip is retained. An advantage of both outright pur-
chase and the acquisition of scenic easements is that the
entire public shares the cost of the land use control through
their tax dollars. This is appropriate because the public
enjoys the benefits of control. When land use regulation
such as zoning is utilized to achieve control, the cost is
borne by the individual property owners.

Once fee ownership ks obtained, there are various land

management options open to the government agency. One option
is to lease the property back to the original owner while
restricting use to certain designated activities. Another

184

261
option is to selectively utilize or develop the land such as
through timber harvesting so as to not seriously harm the
aesthetic qualities of the landscape.

The use of the pows~ of eminent domain to accomplish an 3

aesthetic purpose has generally been upheld by the courts
This has not been unlformly true when the police power has
been ut~lized and no compensation is provided to the land
owner.

b. Acquisition ~ f L e s s - T h a n - F e e Rights ( S c e n ~ Easements}

While other forms of less-than-fee acquisition are possible,

the most con,non form is the scenic easement. Scenic ease-
ments are an example of what is termed a negative easement;
i.e., it precludes the owner of the land from taking certain
actions. The scenic easement generally prevents certain
specified uses of the owner's land. Typically, intensive
development of the land is prohibited but low intensive uses
such as agriculture are permitted. The objectives of a
conservation easement are somewhat broader than a scenic
easement because the former "may be designed to conserve all
kinds of natural resources such as agricultural land, water,
forests, and wildllfe as well as scenic landscape values."4

Scenic easements have been utillsed in various forms since

the 1930'e. Promlnent examples often cited sre~

i) The Blue Ridge Parkway in virginia and North

Carolina and the Natchez Trail Parkway in Alabama,
Mississippi and Tennessee, both operated by the
National Park System;

li) The Great River Road following the Mississippi

River; and
ili) The scenic highway system in the State of Wisconsin.

3Leighty, Leighton L., "Aesthetics as a Legal BaSil for

Envlronmental Control," 71 Wayne Law Review, p. 1347, 1383,
1971.

4Sutte, Donald T. J r . , an~ Cunningham, Roger A . , Scenic Ease-

ment~ - L e g a l L A d m l n l s t r a t i v e ~ and Y a l u a t i o n _ P r o b l u s and
Pr0%aduzes, National Cooperative Highway Reiearch Pz~qram
Repor~ 56, Righway Research Board, W a e h i ~ t o n , D.C., p. 6,
196B. This reference thoroughly d o c - . l e n t e the literature and
the past experience and probllm~ associated with scenic
easements to 1968.
1#5

262
 263

The p r o g r a m s h a v e h a d v a r y i n g d e g r e e s of s u c c e s s . Adminis-
t r a t i o n of t h e e a r l y N a t i o n a l P a r k S y s t e m p r o g r a m s w a s n o t
consistent. L a n d o w n e r s w e r e n o t a l w a y s f u l l y i n f o r m e d of
the r i g h t s t h e y w e r e g i v i n g up a n d t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n p a i d w a s
sometimes inequitable. 5 T h e r e c e n t e x p e r i e n c e of the P a r k
Service has been more favorable, however.

T h e W i s c o n s i n p r o g r a m b e g a n in 1952 a n d has g e n e r a l l y b e e n
successful. Problems experienced during early years have
b e e n c o r r e c t e d so t h a t t h e p r o g r a m is n o w f u n c t i o n i n g w e l l .
F o r e x a m p l e , e a r l y s c e n i c e a s e m e n t s o n l y e x t e n d e d 350 f e e t
o n e i t h e r s i d e of t h e h i g h w a y r i g h t - o f - w a y . This distance
w a s f o u n d to b e i n a d e q u a t e in m a n y c a s e s to f u l l y p r o t e c t
the s c e n i c c o r r i d o r . Since 1965 a more flexible approach
h a s b e e n u t i l i z e d and the w i d t h of the e a s e m e n t is d e s i g n e d
to fit t h e l o c a l t o p o g r a p h y . T h i s a p p r o a c h s e e m s to be h i g h -
ly d e s i r a b l e b e c a u s e t h e s i z e of the e a s e m e n t c a n be a d j u s t -
ed for s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s s u c h as the s e n s i t i v i t y of the
p a r t i c u l a r v i e w and the a m o u n t of f u n d s a v a i l a b l e for pro-
tect~on. A n o t h e r p r o b l e m w a s t h a t no p r o v i s i o n w a s m a d e for
the h i g h w a y c o m m i s s i o n to e n t e r and m a n a g e l a n d s u c h as to
t h i n o u t a r e a s w h e r e t r e e s h a d g r o w n to t h e p o i n t w h e r e t h e y
w e r e b l o c k i n g v i e w s a n d to r e m o v e t r e e s a f f l i c t e d b y d i s e a s e .
Provisions permitting entrance onto the land by the commis-
s i o n to a l l e v i a t e t h e s e p r o b l e m s a r e n o w i n c o r p o r a t e d into
scenic easement agreements. In t h i s s e n s e , t h e s c e n i c e a s e -
m e n t t a k e s o n an a f f i r m a t i v e c h a r a c t e r . E n f o r c e m e n t of
s c e n i c e a s e m e n t r e s t r i c t i o n s h a s n o t b e e n a p r o b l e m in Wiscon.
sin. 7 M o r e d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e W i s c o n s i n p r o g r a m ,
i n c l u d i n g the f o r m s b e i n g used, is a v a i l a b l e in r e f e r e n c e 4
and e l s e w h e r e in the W a s h i n g t o n S t a t e H i g h w a y D e p a r t m e n t
library.

T h e r e has b e e n a g r e a t d e a l w r i t t e n a b o u t p r o b l e m s a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h d e t e r m i n i n g t h e fair v a l u e of s c e n i c e a s e m e n t s for c o n -
d e m n a t i o n or p u r c h a s e n e g o t i a t i o n p u r p o s e s . S M a n y of the
v a l u a t i o n p r o b l e m s s e e m to b e c a u s e d b y l a c k of e x p e r i e n c e

51bid. p. i0.

6Ibid. p[ 17.

7Ibid. p. 21.

8 S e e for e x a m p l e Ref. 4, op. cir., p. 76, a n d L o r e n s , E. R.,

" V a l u a t i o n of S c e n i c E a s e m e n t B " , in H i g h w a y R e s e a r c h R e c o r d
No. 166, ref. I, op. cir.

186
 264

w i t h scenic easements. The v a l u a t i o n p r o b l e m ls not irsur-

mountable, however, and there is no reason w h y the Stake of
W a s h i n g t o n could not d e v e l o p an e q u i t a b l e and c o n s i s t e r t pro-
g r a m based upon the e x p e r i e n c e of other states. The v a l u e of
the easement is the d i f f e r e n c e between the b e f o r e and ~fter
m a r k e t value of the property. In areas w i t h v e r y high devel-
o p m e n t potential, the value of a scenic e a s e m e n t can a[proach
the m a r k e t value of the p~operty. In a r e a s w i t h o u t high
d e v e l o p m e n t potential, the value of the e a s e m e n t may be
nominal.

we c o n t a c t e d the State of O r e g o n regarding their scenlc :ase-

ment program. They have p r i m a r i l y a c q u i r e d scenic easenents
along rivers. Scenic e a s e m e n t s along the W i l l a m e t t e River
have r e c e n t l y been p u r c h a s e d at n e g o t i a t e d prices of $250-500
per acre. 9 L a n d o w n e r s along the river are sent a lettec
n o t i f y i n g them of the state's desire to purchase scenic ease-
ments. N e g o t i a t i o n s are c o n d u c t e d w i t h those w h o r e s p o n d to
the l e t t e r s a f f i r m a t i v e l y . A c q u i s i t i o n of scenic e a s e m e n t s
along h i g h w a y s in O r e g o n has been m i n i m a l , p r i n c i p a l l y )eceuse
of the high cost of acquisitlon. A p p r a i s a l s of the valle of
scenic e a s e m e n t s o f t e n run from 50-75% of m a r k e t value. In
m o s t cases the O r e g o n H i g h w a y D e p a r t m e n t has felt this :ost
to be e x c e s s i v e and has either p u r c h a s e d the p r o p e r t y i% fee
or, more comaw~nly, not p u r c h a s e d any i'nterest at all. I0

Data on the cost of scenic e a s e m e n t s in o t h e r states is

r a t h e r sparse. The data that is a v a i l a b l e s u g g e s t s thai the
50-75% a p p r a i s a l e x p e r i e n c e d by O r e g o n is high. States along
the G r e a t River Road have paid c o m p e n s a t i o n as low as I0-20%
of market value in the pest. T h r o u g h 1961~ the cost of land
for scenic e a s e m e n t s along the G r e a t R i v e r Road in W i s c ~ n s i n
a v e r a g e d 46% of the cost to p u r c h a s e land for the right, of-
way itself, ll The large d i f f e r e n c e a m o n g the percentag,~s is
m o s t likely due to the r e l a t i v e urban c h a r a c t e r of the ~ and
in q u e s t i o n and its d e v e l o p m e n t potential. A 1967 stud~'
along the Great R i v e r Road in a p r e d o m i n a t e l y rural section
of W i s c o n s i n in4icated, p e r h a p s surprisingly, that the

~ P e r s o n a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n with Mr. Leo Larsen, Oregon Sta:e

D e p a r t m e n t of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Salem, Oregon, August 2, L974.

10personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n with Mr. Ken Rolfe, O r e g o n Sta~e

D e p a r t t m e n t of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , Milwaukee, Oregon, Noven%)er 4,
1974.

llRef. 4, op. clio, p. 16.

187
existence of a scenic easement was not a factor in the
decision to buy property or the price paid. 12

The cost of a scenic easement is dependent on several factors.

Chief among these are the market value of the property and
the total acreage of the easement. In addition to these, the
extent of the rights the landowner relinquishes also affects
the price. The scenic easement is a flexible tool and per-
missible land uses can be varied in order to achieve the de-
sired degree of protection at the lowest cost. In Wisconsin,
scenic easement agreements permit residential and farming use.
Existin~ commercial activity is generally permitted to con-
tinue. 13 Obviously the cost of acquiring easements would in-
crease if the landowner is asked to relinquish additional
rights such as termination of an existing commercial activity.

There are two related technical legal problems associated

with scenic easements that merit attention. The first is the
question of whether the scenic easement is enforceable against
a subsequent owner cf the land subject to the easement. The
second is the question of whether the right to enforce the
easement can be transferred from one entity to another; e.g.,
from one governmental agency to another. Both problems re-
late to the question of whether the scenic easement is
"appurtenant" to a dominant tenement; i.e., the adjacent high-
way. If it is appurtenant, the easement will be enforceable
against subsequent owners of the land, as long as the ease-
ment is properly recorded, and the easement can be transferred
between governmental agencies. Transfer from a public to a
private entity or vice versa is in doubt even if the easement
is deemed appurtenant to the highway. Cunnlnghaml4 concludes
that when the land underlying the highway is a fee simple
estate, the easement will generally be considered appurtenant.
However, if the highway is itself an easement, there may be
difficulty in persuading the courts that the scenic easement
is appurtenant to an easement of way for a highway.

The State of Washington acquires fee simple property for the

state highway system which should eliminate transfer problems
for these highways. For information purposes, however, at

12Wlsconsin Division of_Highways, A Market S~.udy Of p r o ~ r t i e s

Covered by~lce~ic Easements Along%he Great River Road in
Vernon and P~e~Ce countle%, speclal Report No. 5, Oct., 1967.

13
Ref. 4, op. cir., p, IB.

14
Ref. ~, op. cit, p. 49-50.

265
the city and county level some highways are only easements.
The potential problems associated with land transfers foc
these highways can be alleviated by legislation providin~
for the enforceability of scenic easements against trans6er-
ees of the land subject to the easement.

c. Land Use Regulation at the State or Local Level

_ _ ----.~..

Land use regulation refers to all legislative acts which

attempt to restrict the use of land without compensating the
landowner. Zoning is the most common example, although ~ther
forms of regulation, such as sign controls, c~n also be
utilized.

Regulation for aesthetic purposes generally has been uti.ized

extensively; regulation for protection of a scenic corridor
has been used very little. The impact on the landowner ~Lppears
to be the reason for the difference. Moreover, while the
courts have largely accepted zoning for aesthetic purpos~s at
a local level when there are also other objectives relatt~d to
the public welfare, they have been generally reluctant tc~
uphold regulation when aesthetics is the sole objective.

Most zoning ordinances are intended to improve aesthetic

quality to some degree. For example, yard and setback a:Ld
minimum lot size regulations are typically adopted to pr<,vide
light, air circulation, fire protection, and to improve the
appearance of a community. Courts have uphel~ these ordin-
ances not on the basis of aesthetic quality, but as a leciti-
mate exercise of police power to improve the public heal*h,
safety, welfare, and morals. Most courts have not yet gone
so far as to accept legislation that is based solely on
aesthetic considerations. A recent law review notel5 cot nted
13 states plus the District of Columbia where the courts have
accepted legislation based solely on aesthetics. Twenty-three
states, including Washington, are listed where legislaticn
based solely on aesthetics is not valid, but where aesthetic
legislation is upheld if it serves some other legitimate pur-
pose. (The Washington situation is ~iscussed in Section 2
In the remaining 14 states, no case was found where the
status of aesthetic regulation was before the courts.

The note points out that judicial uneasiness with aesthetic

matters is based on the view that aesthetic evaluations are
subjective and that one person's judgament (e.g., the lard-
owner affectsd by an ordinance) is as good as another's. The
note goes on to suggest that recent studies indicate that

15"Beyond the Eye of the Beholder: Aesthetics and Objectivity",

71 Michigan Law Review, p. 1438, June 1973.

266
267

there is general agreement in aesthetic judgement and that

aesthetic legislation is therefore legitimate.

One of the leading cases upholding legislation based solely

on aesthetics is a decision by the Oregon Supreme Court. 16
The court upheld a municipal ordinance which in effect wholly
excluded automobile wrecking yards from the city. The court
indicates in its opinion that it concurs in the view "that
aesthetic considerations alone may warrant an exercise of
the police power". 17 As discussed, the Washington courts
have not yet gone quite this far. Oregon has not attempted
to regulate land use along highways by zoning in spite of the
court decision.

There are strong arguments both for and against the use of
regulation to preserve a scenic transportation corridor. The
strongest affirmative argument is that regulation enables
land use controls to be implemented at no out-of-pocket cost
to the government. This is an especially strong argument in
favor of regulation in view of the substantial cost of pur-
chasing interests in land and citizen objection to increasing
governmental budgets.

In spite of the dollar savings associated with regulation,

there are also strong arguments against its use which lead us
to conclude that alternative methods of control are preferable
The arguments against the use of regulation center around the
fact that regulation unfairly discriminates against the in-
dividual who happens to own land within the scenic corridor.
This individual must bear himself the diminution in the value
of his property caused by the regulation. It is more appro-
priate for those who enjoy the benefit of the regulation, the
general public, to bear the cost of control.

The notion that it is unfair to discriminate against a parti-

cular landowner is based upon the wording in the Fifth Amend-
ment to the U. S. Constitution:
"...nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation,"

and on similar wording in Article I, Section 16 (Amendment 9)

of the State Constitution. The search for what distinguishes
a valid police power regulation from a "taking," which is
contrary to the Fifth Amendment, is an old one which still

16Oregon City v. Hartke, 240 Ore. 35, 400 p. 2d 255, (1965).

17Ibid., ~. 262.

.~90
 268

continues. 18 W h i l e some a u t h o r s have s t r o n g l y a r g u e d that

land use r e g u l a t i o n does not v i o l a t e the F i f t h A m e n d m e n t in
a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l sense, 19 the fact r e m a i n s that the l a n d o w n e r
still suffers an e c o n o m i c loss. In the case of a scenic high-
w a y s y s t e m a v a i l a b l e to and used by a large seg~ent of the
public, this loss seems m o r e o b j e c t i o n a b l e and i n e q u i t a b l e
than the losses w h i c h o c c u r as a r e s u l t of local c o m m u n i t y
zoning. For this r e a s o n we p r e f e r the use of t e c h n i q u e s
w h i c h pay the l a n d o w n e r for his loss or the use of v o l u n t a r y
tax i n c e n t i v e s to c o n t r o l land use w i t h i n the scenic corridor.

The use of z o n i n g to p r o t e c t a scenic c o r r i d o r r a i s e s a n o t h e r

p o t e n t i a l c o n s t i t u t i o n a l problem. If used e x c l u s i v e l y , zon-
ing m a y be a c c e p t a b l e if a c o u r t is p e r s u a d e d there is not
a "taking." If u s e d in c o m b i n a t i o n w i t h scenic e a s e m e n t s or
fee purchase, there is a p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n o ~ ^ t h e equal
p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e of the F o u r t e e n t h Amendment. Lu The equal
p r o t e c t i o n c l a u s e has g e n e r a l l y p r o h i b i t e d u n j u s t d i s c r i m i n a -
tions b e t w e e n p e r s o n s in s i m i l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s . If a land-
o w n e r in one p o r t i o n of a c o r r i d o r is paid not to e n g a g e in
c e r t a i n land uses a~d an o w n e r in a n o t h e r p o r t i o n is m e r e l y
told not to e n g a g e in the uses, there is an o b v i o u s p o s s i b i l i t y
of an u n j u s t d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .

d. Tax Incentives

Tax incentives, e s p e c i a l l y p r o p e r t y tax incentives, are being

used m o r e and m o r e as a tool for land use control. As dis-
c u s s e d in the n e x t section, the State of W a s h i n g t o n has been
using a p r o p e r t y tax i n c e n t i v e to p r e s e r v e o p e n space since
1971. O t h e r states i n c l u d i n g Maryland, N e w Jersey, C o n n e c t i -
cut, and C a l i f o r n i a also have tax i n c e n t i v e p r o g r a m s to en-
c o u r a g e the p r e s e r v a t i o n of o p e n land. 21 The p r o g r a m s are

_ . _ ~

18The recent l i t e r a t u r e o n the q u e s t i o n is c o l l e c t e d and

b r i e f l y s u m m a r i z e d in Hanks, Tarlock, and Hanks, E n v i r o n m e n t a l
Law and Polic~, W e s t P u b l i s h i n g Co., St. Paul, Mi~n., p. 705,
1974.

19See Bosselman, F., Callies, D., and Banta, Jr., The T a k i n g

Issue, C o u n c i l of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Quality, U. S. Goverr~ment
p-~-n-ting office, 1973.

20Ref. 4, op. cir., p. 45.

21The p r o g r a m s of these four states are d i s c u s s e d in P r o c e e d -

ings o f the S e m i n a r on T a x a t i o n of A g r i c u l t u r a l and O t h e r Ope.n
Land, a v a i l a b l e f r ~ the C o o p e r a t i v e E x t e n s i o n S e r v i c e 'at
M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y , East Lansing, Michigan, 1971.

I~I
generally not specifically directed to the preservation of
open land within scenic corridors. However, there is no good
reason why they cannot be adapted for this use.

One significant advantage of this approach is that it is vol-

untary in nature. Those landowners wishing to participate
can do so. The counter point, however, is that some land-
owners in particularly scenic areas may not choose to parti-
cipate.

A second advantage is that there is no cut-of-pocket govern-

ment expense to acquire land interests. There is an indirect
cost, of course, caused by the reduction in property tax
receipts.

The principal disadvantage of using tax incentives to control

land use within the scenic corridor is the uncertainty in
knowing which landowners will participate and how long they
will choose to do so. California has attempted to deal with
this latter problem by requiring nine years notice before
property can be taken from their open-land program. During
this period, the tax advantage enjoyed by the landowner gra-
dually diminishes. 22

e. Persuasion

The advantages and disadvantages of this alternative are pro-

bably obvious. If the landowner can be persuaded to control
development on his land, the preservation objective is met at
no cost to the government. This alternative offers little or
no permanency in preservation, however, and is not likely to
be acceptable to a significant number of landowners. For
these reasons, its practical use is limited, especially for
privately owned land. This is not to suggest that government
should not encourage landowners to consider aesthetics in
their land use decisions.

Although persuasion is certainly less effective than other

~ethods of land use controls, its use as an interim device
may be walranted. Under state law, both applications for
access permits to state highways and required notice of sub-
division plats adjacent to state highways bring to the atten-
tion of the Highway Department proposals for developments.
Where this occurs along the scenic portions of the scenic
and recreational highway system, it may be worthwhile for the
Department to ~ake appropriate recommendations, either to
the local s~bdlvlsion review agency, or to the developer, for
steps which can be taken to protect scenic views. Such steps

2*bid., p.

192

269
could include, where appropriate, setbacks, height, screen-
ing, or other measures for scenic enhancement.

On land controlled by a non-state governmental agency, per-

suasion is a potentially more useful technique. The state
would have little to lose by using persuasion and it may be
the most appropriate technique available.

2. Current Status of Scenic corridor Protection in

wa Sh ing ton
Thls section focuses on what is being done at the present
time in Washington to control the use of land adjacent to
highways. The discussion is broken into three parts:
a) controls on government owned land, b) controls on privately
owned land, and c) a separate discussion on highway advertis-
ing control.

a. Land Use Controls on Government Controlled Land

Controls on land use within a scenic corridor should presuma-

bly be easier to implement and considerably less expensive
when the land is owned or controlled by a governmental entity.
Even if a f o c a l agreement regarding land use is not feasible,
an understanding that controls will be applied within the
corridor may be adequate. Although there are many governmen-
tal units controlling land within the state, the most impor-
tant are the state itself and the federal government. O f
the 42,694,000 acres in the state, 15,059,000 acres (35%) are
owned or held in trust by the Federal government,23 and
3,673,000 acres (9%) are owned by the state itself. 24

Indian Reservations

The land held in trust by the federal government, 2,459,000

acres, i$ primarily Indian reservations. Land use decisions
on this land are made by the tribal council and approved by
the local Bureau of Indian Affairs office. There is no
specific program for land use control along highways.

Forest Service Land

The majority of the land controlled by the federal government

in the state (9,067,000 acres) is administered by the U. S.
Forest Service. The Forest Service is currently conducting

23Washington State Research Council, State and Local Govern-

ment in Washlngton, p. 30, 1974.

24State of Washington Pocket Data Book, p. 119, 1973.

195

270
271

e x t e n s i v e r e s e a r c h on m a i n t a i n i n g a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y w i t h i n
l a n d s they c o n t r o l . O n e of t h e i r r e c e n t p u b l i c a t i o n s sets
p u t their l a n d s c a p e p o l i c i e s o n v a r i o u s t y p e s of land 25 and
is the b a s i s for the i n f o r m a t i o n below.

L a n ~ s of a c u t e v i s u a l s e n s i t i v i t y w i t h i n N a t i o n a l F o r e s t s are
c l a s s i f i e d as level i. L e v e l 1 a r e a s i n c l u d e all land v i s i -
ble from p r i m a r y t r a v e l r o u t e s i n c l u d i n g s c e n i c h i g h w a y s .
Land uses and a c t i v i t i e s o n level 1 lands are c l o s e l y c o n t r o l -
led. A c t i v i t i e s in the f o r e g r o u n d of t r a v e l r o u t e s are
l i m i t e d to t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h are not v i s u a l l y evident.
A c t i v i t i e s in the m i d d l e g r o u n d and b a c k g r o u n d are g e n e r a l l y
l i m i t e d to t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h will r e m a i n v i s u a l l y sub-
~ r d ~ n a t e to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l a n d s c a p e .

As ~ result of t h e s e land m a n a g e m e n t p o l i c i e s , the state

a l r e a d y e n j o y s a de facto s c e n i c e a s e m e n t on F o r e s t S e r v i c e
lands a d j a c e n t to a s c e n i c h i g h w a y . No f u r t h e r a c t i o n by the
~ t a t e a p p e a r s to be needed.

~3tate (3%'ned L a n d

L a n d ,~se c o n t r o l on s t a t e o w n e d land s h o u l d be the least pro-

b l e m of all. T h e a g e n c y w h i c h m a n a g e s m o s t of the land, the
D e p a r t m e n t of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s IDNR), a l r e a d y has g u i d e l i n e s
to m a i n t a i n a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y . 26 T h e g u i d e l i n e s p r o v i d e for
s c r e e n i n g o f a r e a s w h e r e t i m b e r h a s b e e n r e m o v e d and s e l e c -
t i v e c u t t i n g in b a c k g r o u n d a r e a s in o r d e r to m e e t the o b j e c -
tive of a healthy, n a t u r a l - a p p e a r i n g forest. L a n d use c o n t r o l s
on D N R m a n a g e d s t a t e lands a r e m a d e m o r e r e s t r i c t i v e than
those in the a b o v e g u i d e l i n e s ; b u t p a y m e n t to the s p e c i f i c
t r u s t s for w h i c h D N R m a n a g e s state lands m a y be r e q u i r e d .

The S t a t e H i g h w a y C o m m i s s i o n a l s o t a k e s s t e p s to p r e s e r v e
aesthetic quality along highways. T h e i r a c t i v i t i e s are dis-
c u s s e d b r i e f l y ~_nder the n e x t h e a d i n g a n d in m o r e d e t a i l in
t h e i r 1972 p u b l i c a t i o n , " P o l i c y on R o a d s i d e D e v e l o p m e n t and
Highway Beautification."

b. Land Use C o n t r o l s on Privately Owned Land

L a n d use c o n t r e l s o n p r i v a t e l y o w n e d land can be d i s c u s s e d in

t h r e e p a r t s : i) the s c e n i c e n h a n c e m e n t a c t i v i t i e s of the S t a t e
H i g h w a y Con%mission, ii) the r e s p o n s e of the w a s h i n g t o n c o u r t s

~-~U. S. F o r e s t Service, National Forest Landscape Management,

V o l u m e 2, U.S~ G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , A p r ~ l 1974.
~6 D e p a r t m e n t of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s M a n u a l : 2005 01.01 {p. g)
through 2005 0 1 . 0 1 (p. ll), 2005 01.02, a n d 2005 01.03.
 272

to land use regul:~tian, and %ii) the open space taxat1: n

program.

Activities of the State Highway C o m m i s s i o n

The State Highway Con~nission has been actively involved in

scenic e n h a n c e m e n t a c t i v i t i e s along state highways. P~rtly
in response to the Federal Highway B e a u t i f i c a t i o n Act cf 1965,
the l e g i s l a t u r e enacted RCW 47.12.250 a u t h o r i z i n g the ~igh-
way C o m m i s s i o n to acquire interests in land adjacent tc high-
ways for the p r e s e r v a t i o n of natural beauty. The only res-
triction is that less than fee interests (e.g., scenic ease-
ments) must be a c q u i r e d by n e g o t i a t i o n rather than condemna-
tion. Most states do not have this restriction. The res-
triction is important only in the case of a landowner who will
not negotiate the sale of a scenic easement. Wisconsin utili-
zes conder~nation only as a last resort, in part because of
the cost uncertainty. In one reported example, an individual
who refused an offer of $250 for a scenic easement was award
ed $6,000 by the jury in the c o n d e m n a t i o n trial. 27

The Highway Department has e x t e n s i v e l y utilized federal funds

made a v a i l a b l e under the H i g h w a y B e a u t i f i c a t i o n Act of 1965
for scenic enhancement. The following amounts of federal
funds have been made available to the state since 1965:28

$5,253,675 for removal of certain outdoor advertisln~

signs
$ 112,830 for screening er r e l o c a t i o n of junkyards
visible from interstate or primary highways
$3fi08,397 for landscaping and s c e n i c e n h a n c e m e n t includ-
ing the a c q u i s i t i o n and improvement of l~nd.

The Highway C o m m i s s i o n currently has at least five scenic

e a s e m e n t s in place. The location, size, and cost of eazh
e a s e m e n t is indicated in Table 23. 29 The average cost 3f the
e a s e m e n t s w h i c h have been purchased is $59 per acre. I~ re-
turn for this c o n s i d e r a t i o n the landowT.ers r e l i n q u i s h e d their
rights to: m a i n t a i n a dump, park trailers or o t h e r portable

2 7 p r o c e e d i n g s of a conference e n t i t l e d "Scenic Easement~ in

Action", at the U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, Madison', Wisco'~ s lrn ,
D e c e m b e r 16, 17, 1966, p. 46.

28personal communication with Mr. Paul C. Gregson, Division

Engineer, Federal Hiqhway Administration, Olympia, Washington,
O c t o b e r 30, 1974.
29personal communication w i t h Mr. Terry B. Cooper, A d m i % i s t r a -
tire Services and Title Supervisor, W a s h i n g t o n State Highway
Department, November 19, 1974.

25~.
living quarters, conduct quarry operations, remove trees less
than ]8 inches in diameter, use their land other than for
agricultural uses, and place buildings within 150 feet of the
right-of-way.

The Highway Commission promulgated regulations in July 1974

regarding the u n d e r g r o ~ n d i n g and relocation of overhead utili-
ty lines. 30 They cover the locations where undergrounding is
to occur and whether the state, the utility, or both will pay
for it. The regulations provide for four major scenic classi-
fications for land adjacent to state highways:

class A superior scenic qualities

class B high scenic value
class C secondary scenic importance
class D industrial heavily urbanized, er
d e t e r i o r a t e d areas.

Approximately 7,000 miles of the state highway system have now

been c l a s s i f i e d into one of these categories. A subclass X
has also been established w h i c h includes lands classified A
or B but where an overhead utility line could be allowed with-
out changing the landscape quality.

The regulations contaln detailed provisions for the under-

grounding of lines in class A and B areas, subject to several
important exceptions. U n d e r g r o u n d i n g in class C and D areas
is not required. Subject to the exceptions noted below,
undergrounding is required for new lines in A and B areas
where lines are not c u r r e n t l y present. On existing utility
facilities, undergrounding is to be a c c o m p l i s h e d within twenty-
five years after the existing franchise for the line expires.

The exception clause is significant because it provides for

exceptions to the rules noted above when:

i] Lines are in excess of 35 kV

ii) Other utility locations are not available, are
u n r e a s o n a b l y costly, or are more undesirable from
the standpoint of visual quality
iii) u n d e r g r o u n d i n g is t e c h n i c a l l y unfeasible or
u n r e a s o n a b l y costly
iv) The impact of u n d e r g r o u n d i n g adversely affects
the utility consumer rates or long term
economics of the utility.

30WAC 252-04-280, WAC 252-04-285.

197

273
The last three ef these exceptions, particularly number [iv),
are broadly worded and leave considerable room for both the
state and utilities to maneuver.

Technological and cost constraints seem likely to limit the

extent to which undergrounding occurs in the near future.
Based on the new regulations, it will most likely occur first
for new lines in class A areas (all of which are likely to be
in the scenic and recreational highway system).

Response of washington Courts to Land..Use Regulation

. . . . . . . .

The Washington appellate courts have indicated general ~upport

for the acquisition of land for scenic enhancement when the
landowner is paid. They have not completely endorsed tile
principle, however, that land can be regulated under the police
power solely for aesthetic purposes. The ability of th,~ High-
way Commission to condemn fee simple property for aesthetic
~urposes under RCW 47.12,250 was approved in State v. K.n~man,
1 decided by the State Court of Appeals in 1971. This auth-
ority is not unlimited. A later decision, State v. Ban): of
California, 32 also decided by the Court of Appeais deniea the
attempted taking of a strip of land because it was foun~[ %o
primarily benefit several local residents and, consequeILtly,
was not a legitimate taking for a public use.

The leading Washington cases which address the question of

whether regulation solely for aesthetic purposes is a p~.rmis-
sible application of the police power are Lenci v. City of
Seattle,33 and Markham Advgrtising Companyj. Inc. ~. The S--tare
of Washin@ton.34 In the-Senti case, the court had befo, e it
an attack on a Seattle ord&-'~-n'a-ncerequiring complete encJosure
of automobile wrecking yards with a solid wall at least 8
feet high. A wrecking yard owner challenged the statut4 in
part because its underlying purpose was to regulate aesthetics.
The court dismissed this argument by pointing out that in
addition to aesthetic considerations, the fencing provi~ion
was designed by the City Council to deter vandalism and that
this objective is sufficient by itself to support application
of police power. Consequently, the court did not have to
decide the question of whether zoning for aesthetic purposes

315 Wn. App. 487, 487 P.2d 780~ (1971}.

~25 Wn. App. 861, 491 P.2d 697, (1971).

3363 wn.2d 664, 388 P.Pd 926, (1964).

3473 wn.2d 405, 439 P.2d 248, (1968).

274
275

o n l y is a c c e p t a b l e because it found other reasons to u p h o l d

the o r d i n a n c e .

The M a r k h a m case i n v o l v e d an a t t a c k on the H i g h w a y A d v e r t i s -

ing C o n t r o l Act of 1961 w h i c h s o u g h t to r e g u l a t e r o a d s i d e
a d v e r t i s i n g signs u n d e r the p o l i c e power. Again, an a r g u m e n t
w a s m a d e that the b a s i c p u r p o s e of the Act w a s to p r o m o t e
a e s t h e t i c values.

The court did not have ~o d e c i d e this q u e s t i o n b e c a u s e it up-

h e l d the trial c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g that the Act w o u l d p r o m o t e
t r a f f i c safety, a l e g i t i m a t e p u r p o s e for e x e r c i s e of the police
power. Dictu2~ in the o p i n i o n s u g g e s t s that the c o u r t m i g h t
be w i l l i n g to a c c e p t e x e r c i s e of the p o l i c e p o w e r for an
a e s t h e t i c p u r p o s e in a p r o p e r instance. A f t e r n o t i n g that
the p o l i c e p o w e r m a y be u s e d to p r o m o t e the p u b l i c welfare,
the c o u r t s t a t e d that "the p u b l i c w e l f a r e e m b r a c e s h e a l t h f u l
r e c r e a t i o n and the p r o t e c t i o n of our n a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s . ''35
The q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r z o n i n g for a e s t h e t i c s o n l y is accept-
able in W a s h i n g t o n is still an o p e n one. The L e n c i and
M a r k h a m c a s e s suggest, however, that the W a s h i n g t o n c o u r t may
res~--n-~ to the q u e s t i o n a f f i r m a t i v e l y .

Open Space Taxation PrograJn

The W a s h i n g t o n o p e n s p a c e t a x a t i o n p r o g r a m e n a b l e s an i n d i v i -
dual o w n i n g o p e n space land to pay p r o p e r t y taxes on the
b a s i s of his use o f the land r a t h e r than the m a r k e t value.
O p e n space land is d e f i n e d as land w h i c h if p r e s e r v e d will
c o n s e r v e , protect, or r e t a i n natural, scenic, or r e c r e a t i o n
resources including water resources. As in C a l i f o r n i a , the
o w n e r m u s t a g r e e to p a r t i c i p a t e for a m i n i m u m of l0 years.
A f t e r this time if the l a n d o w n e r w i s h e s to w i t h d r a w from the
program, he m u s t r e t r o a c t i v e l y pay the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the
m a r k e t v a l u e and c u r r e n t use v a l u e for up to s e v e n years.

P a r t i c i p a t i o n in the p r o g r a m has r a p i d l y grown. For 1974,

the total nt~rket v a l u e of p r o p e r t y in the p r o g r a m is
$ 6 6 0 , 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 a n d the d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n the m a r k e t and c u r r e n t
use v a l u e for p r o p e r t y in the p r o g r a m is $ 2 6 5 , 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 . Sav-
i n g S , t o o w n e r s in 1975 tax p a y m e n t s w i l l be $ 2 , 6 5 5 , 3 6 0 . 3 6 In
1973, the d i f f e r e n c e in v a l u e was $ 9 8 , 9 0 0 , 0 0 0 and in 1972
$49,520,000.

M o s t of the p r o p e r t y in the p r o g r a m is f a r m land. Data on the

a m o u n t of land a d j a c e n t to h i g h w a y s is not r e a d i l y available,

35Ibi~., p. 424.

36Was~ingt0n State Department of R e v e n u e Newsletter, October

7, 1974.
 276

b u t u n d o u b t e d l y m u c h of t h e l a n d is a d j a c e n t a n d c o n s e q u e n t l y
falls into the category of l a n d a l r e a d y s u b j e c t to c o n t r o l s .

T h e o p e n s p a c e t a x a t i o n p r o g r a m is p o t e n t i a l l y an e f f e c t i v e
w a y to c o n t r o l l a n d u s e in the s c e n i c c o r r i d o r . Advantages
p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d a r e its v o l u n t a r y n a t u r e a n d no d i r e c t c o s t
to g o v e r n m e n t , a l t h o u g h t a x r e v e n u e is lost. The chief dis-
a d v a n t a g e is t h a t t h e l a n d is n o t p r o t e c t e d i n d e f i n i t e l y .
The state could make some other arrangements (e.g., a s c e n i c
e a s e m e n t ) , h o w e v e r , if the l a n d is t a k e n o u t of the p r o g r a m .
Another potential disadvantage is t h a t u n d e r p r e s e n t l a w 37
only local governments can approve applications for o p e n s p a c e
assessment. A l t h o u g h t h i s is f a i r s i n c e it is t h e i r l o c a l
t a x b a s e w h i c h is m o s t a f f e c t e d b y t h e d e c i s i o n , t h e y m a y n o t
g i v e a d e q u a t e p r i o r i t y tc t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of a s t a t e w i d e
scenlc highway system. S i n c e t h e p r o g r a m is v o l u n t a r y , t h e
r o l e o f s t a t e o r l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s w o u l d be l i m i t e d to e n -
couraging i n d i v i d u a l s o w n i n g l a n d a d j a c e n t to s c e n i c o r
r e c r e a t i o n h i g h w a y s to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e p r o g r a m . The pro-
g r a m is p r o b a b l y m o s t a t t r a c t i v e to f a r m e r s w h o w i s h to c o n -
t i n u e to f a r m t h e i r land.

c. Highway Advertisin~ Control

T h e r e g u l a t i o n a n d c o n t r o l of h i g h w a y a d v e r t i s i n g signs which
are visible from highways has a long and controversial history
in W a s h i n g t o n . T h e h i s t o r y is h i g h l i g h t e d in t h e P h a s e I
report of this study.

The legislation which affects sign control most significantly

is t h e S c e n i c V i s t a s A c t o f 1971. T h e a c t is c o m p l e x a n d h a s
many detailed provisions; hcwever, basically it r e s t r i c t s the
u s e of s i g n s w h i c h a r e v i s i b l e f r o m t h e i n t e r s t a t e h i g h w a y
s y s t e m , the f e d e r a l - a i d primary highway system, the scenic
system and the scenic and recreational highway system.
Compensation is p a i d f o r t h e r e m o v a l of c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d
s i g n s , b u t n o t f o r o t h e r s . 38

Regulations promulgated by the Highway Commission under auth-

ority delegated by the Scenic Vistas Act59 limit signs visible
from the scenic and recreational h i g h w a y s y s t e m to o f f i c i a l
s i g n s , f o r s a l e o r l e a s e s i g n s , a n d s i g n s a d v e r t i s i n g an a c t i -
v i t y c o n d u c t e d o n t h e p r o p e r t y on w h i c h a s i g n is l o c a t e d . 40

37RCW 84.34.037.

38RCW 47.42.102o

39RCW 47.42.060.
40WAC 252-40-050.

2~0
The use of signs along state highways not within the scenic or
recreational highway system is not so strict. On highways
which are part of the federal-aid primary system, type 4 and
5 signs are permitted, subject to spacing restrictions, in
areas visible fro~ the highways which are zoned commercial or
industrial or which have enough activity tc be considered
commercial according to the Highway Commission regulations.
Type 4 signs are signs within 12 miles of the advertised
activity and type 5 signs are signs in the specific interest
of the traveling public.41 On state highways not part of the
interstate or federal-aid primary system and not designated
as scenic or scenic and recreational, there are no sign
restrictions.

Two suggested revisions to the sign control regulations as

they apply to the scenic and recreational highway system were
made during the study. The first suggestion was that a dis-
tinction should be made between stretches of highways which
are included in the system primarily because of their scenic
quality and stretches included primarily because of their
recreational quallty. On those stretches which are primarily
recreational, it was suggested that the restriction on type
4 and 5 sign8 be relaxed because of the public's need to know
where recreational services are located. This suggestion
seems to be a reasonable one if appropriate controls can be
retained. For example, a limited number Of type 4 signs
le.g., one or two) might be reasonable for a recreational fac-
liy. An alternative means to accomplish the same result
would be the use of official directional signs provided for
in SubsectiOn 3 of Sac. 47.42.045 RCW.

The second suggestion was that the restriction on type 4 and

5 signs within c o ~ e r o i a l and industrial areas of the scenic
and recreational highway system should be eliminated. If
implemented, this option would likely diminish the quality
of the system somewhat. The effect would not be too great
because we have excluded most commercial areas from our sug-
gested scenic and recreational highway system. Nevertheless,
we favor retention of the restriction to preserve the existing
scenic quality in these areas.
An alternative to type 4 and 5 signs is off-highway advertis-
ing panels upOn which tourist facilities can be advertised.
Such facilities were recommended in the 1964 University of
Washington study, cited in Section I.C. Facilities such as
these are being used in Oregon and Vermont, and California
is trying them on an experimental basis.

41WAC 252-40-040.

277
3. Comparison of Alternative Land Control Techniques

The criteria which we believe are most important for selecting

appropriate land use control techniques are effectiveness and
equity. Any technique selected must provide a minimum degree
of effectiveness in meeting the objective of preserving the
scenic and recreational corridor. We also believe that the
technique should be equitable and fairly treat owners of land
within the corridor.

Five alternative techniques for controlling land use have

been examined: I) purchase of fee simple land, 2) purchase
of less than fee simple interests (specifically scenic ease-
ments, 3) tax incentives, 4) regulation, and 5) persuasion.
The first three of these appear to best meet the criteria of
effectiveness and equity. Techniques I and 2 score high in
both effectiveness and equity. Technique 3 is less effective,
but is equitable. Technique 4 is effective, however, we have
concluded it should not be utilized because of its inequitable
impact on the landowner. Regulation produces a benefit for
the traveling public at the expense of the landowner who re-
ceives no compensation for his loss. Technique 5 should be
attempted but is only likely to be effective in areas of
publicly owned land.

Our preferred techniques (1-3) are supported in part by the

results of the citizen survey administered in conjunction with
this study. The citizen survey asked respondents t o designate
favored means to protect the quality of scenic and recreational
highways (question q.}. In decreasing order of preference the
following techniques were designated~

a. Regulate signs and billboards

b. Regulate land use
c. Safety improvements
d. Buy right to preserve the view
e. Underground utility lines
f. Landscape the right of way
g. Acquire additional right-of-way.

Technique (a) is already being used~ (b) is not being used and
we have indicated our reasons for opposing land use rsgulatlon~
(c) is carried out by the Highway Depar~ment~ (d) has also been
used by the Highway Department; (e} will gradually occur, but is
limited by technological restraints and the high cost of under-
grounding~ (f) is being done by the Highway Department as funds
become available; (g), corridor protection by purchase, was least

~02

278
279

favored. We view this technique as desirable primarily when

t h e c o s t of a c q u i r i n g a s c e n i c e a s e m e n t a p p r o a c h e s the cost
of a c q u i r i n g t h e l a n d in f e e s i m p l e .

g. Conclusions

Our analysis of land use r e g u l a t i o n in the s c e n i c a n d / o r

recreational highway c o r r i d o r h a s l e d us to the f o l l o w i n g
conclusions.

First and most important, l a n d u s e c o n t r o l s to s o m e d e g r e e

a r e n e e d e d if the a e s t h e t i c q u a l i t y i n the c o r r i d o r is to be
preserved. W i t h o u t c o n t r o l s t h e r e is a l i k e l i h o o d o f e v e n -
tual d e v e l o p m e n t which will render the highway unsuitable
for classification as a s c e n i c a n d r e c r e a t i o n a l highway. The
citizen survey indicates public support for this conclusion.

Fxve alternative techniques for controlling land use were

exaunined: purchase of fee simple land, purchase of easements,
tax incentives, regulation, and persuasion. Our second con-
c l u s i o n is t h a t t h e f i r s t t h r e e o f t h e s e a p p e a r to b e s t m e e t
the c r i t e r i a w e b e l i e v e a r e m o s t i m p o r t a n t for s e l e c t i o n - -
effectiveness and equity. The techniques c a n be u s e d in a r e a s
b e s t s u i t e d to e a c h . For example, when a small plot of land
is n e e d e d to p r o t e c t a v i e w , p u r c h a s e o f the f e e s i m p l e e s t a t e
is p r o b a b l y m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e . W h e n it is d e s i r a b l e to p r o t e c t
a w i d e e x p a n s e o f land, a s c e n i c e a s e m e n t is p r o b a b l y m o r e
appropriate. Alternatively, the landowner can be encouraged
to p a r t i c i p a t e in t h e o p e n s p a c e t a x a t i o n p r o g r a m .

Our third conclusion supplements o u r f i r s t in t h a t w e a l s o

believe that land use controls on 100% of the land visible
from a scenic or recreation h i g h w a y is b o t h i m p r a c t i c a l and
unnecessary. It is i m p r a c t i c a l p r i m a r i l y b e c a u s e it w o u l d b e
prohibitively costly. It is u n n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e a s c e n i c high-
way can continue to f u n c t i o n a s a t r a v e l r o u t e w i t h h i g h
aesthetic quality without 100% control. Controls should be
applied selectively as funds permit, A r e a s of p a r t i c u l a r
s c e n i c d u a l i t y w h i c h a r e v i e w e d b y l a r g e n u m b e r s of p e o p l e
should be preserved first. We have noted that much of the
l a n d a d j a c e n t to h i g h w a y s is c o n t r o l l e d by governmental ag-
encies and this should facilitate the application of land use
controls. In a d d i t i o n , an i n c r e a s i n g a m o u n t o f l a n d is in
the o p e n s p a c e t a x a t i o n p r o g r a m .

Our ~ourth conclusion is t h a t p o l i c e p o w e r r e g u l a t i o n o f l a n d

u s e in s c e n i c a n d r e c r e a t i o n a l highway corridors may be
effective but would be inequitable to the affected landowner.
Such regulation would produce a benefit for the traveling
public and the public at large, not the adjacent landowner,
s h o u l d p a y for it.

~ga
 280

Our f i i t h c o n c l u s i o n i s t h a t sign e o n X r o l r e g u l a t i o n be re-

t a i n e d as it p r e s e n t l y a p p l i e s to the s c e n i c a n d recrea-=ional
h i g h w a y system. C o n s i d e r a t i o n s h o u l d be g i v e n to the e:~tab-
l i s h m e n t of o f f - h i g h w a y i n f o r m a t i o n p a n e l s to s e r v e the tra-
v e l i n q public, as p r o p o s e d by the 1964 U n i v e r s i t y of Wa:;hing-
ton s t u d y c i t e d in P h a s e I of the study.

Our final c o n c l u s i o n s are t h a t f u n d i n g for land c o n t r o l acti-

v i t i e s s h o u l d come f r o m s t a t e or f e d e r a l r a t h e r than lo~al
s o u r c e s and that a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of land use c o n t r o l s shc~uld De
t h r o u g h a state a g e n c y . The use of s t a t e or f e d e r a l fu]~ds
is a p p r o p r i a t e b e c a u s e the s y s t e m is a s t a t e r a t h e r thazL a
local r e s o u r c e . A s t a t e ' s a g e n c y is the m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e
e n t i t y to a d m i n i s t e r s t a t e or f e d e r a l funds and to deci{le how
t h e s e funds s h o u l d be s p e n t t h r o u g h o u t the state. An a({di-
ti0nal r e a s o n for a d m i n i s t r a t i o n by a s t a t e a g e n c y is t~Le
fact that the s c e n i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l h i g h w a y s y s t e m wi:l be
c o n f i n e d to state h i g h w a y s .

:'~74
I~. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SCENIC AND RECREATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM

This section of the report deals with the design and imple-
mentation of the proposed Scenic and Recreational Highway
System, and the proposals to be translated into legislation
on approval by the Legislative Committees. Its subjects in-
clude design studies, priorities for design and implementation,
sources of funding and delegation of authority for implementa-
lion,

Designation of the Syst~1

Based upon the Scenic and Recreational Highway System select-

ed by the Legislative Transportation Subcommittees in the
course of the study, the routes to be included in the system
are listed in Table 16. These routes are to be listed in the
legislation, in appropriate detail, as the designated system.

An additional list (Table 19> of routes considered to be of

slightly lower levels of scenic and recreational quality, is
referred for study to the Management Committee described be-
iQw. The Management Committee is to determine which of these
additional reutes should be included in the system and what
management policies or actions should be applied to them,
giving consideration to state land use studies, utility under-
grounding regulations, plans for bicycle routes and trails,
policies on clearcutting of timber and other state activities
to enhance scenic quality and public access. The Management
Committee is to report back to the Legislature on its find-
ings by February i, 1977.

Priorities for Implementation

An essential part of this study is the selection of priorities

so as to optimize the use of always scarce resources in achiev-
ing results. The criteria developed for the selection of the
routes in the system is applied in the selection of priorities
for implementation: those routes which have the highest scenic
and recreational quality plus the greatest need for protection
are llsted first.

Two priority lists were prepared; one for t h e order of scenic

q~ality and need and the other for recreational resources qua-
lity and need. There are two reasons for separate lists. One
is that different agencies will be involved in implementation.
The other is that additional studies now under way may have
some effect on the recreational priorities.

281
The two sets of priorities for the implementation of the
Scenic and Recreational Highways plan are listed in Tables
17 (Scenic Classes 1-3) and 18 (Recreational Classes A-C ,
20 (Class 4) and 21 (Class D).

The priorities are based on two criteria: Value, which is

the intrinsic quality of the route as modified by Sensitivity,
and Demand. In the scenic routes list each route is classed
in order of the highest scenic val~es and then ranked within
the class in order of the pressure of demand, In the rezrea~
tional routes list, routes are listed by class in order ~f
the highest scores for recreational resource value and then
ranked, within the class, by pressure of demand.

The state agency to be involved with the protection of szenlc

quality would work wi~h both priority lists but primaril~ the
scenic priorities list. The agencies involved in develooment
of recreation facilities in the corridor will work with 9oth
priorities lists but primarily with the recreational pri)rit-
ies list.

The priority lists in the report should not be included kn

proposed legislation since they involve administrative,
rather than legislative, matters, and they should be subiect
to administrative change as circumstances warrant.

For funding purposes, the priority lists could be considered

as an element of the State Outdoor Recreation Plan, as a basis
for the policies and priorities of the Interagency Committee
for Outdoor Recreation.

p r o p o s e d Management Co.mmittee
This report has already referred to a Management Committee in
connection with designation of additional routes. In th~
following sections, the need for evaluation, review of p:o-
posed additions and management of the system are discussed.
The delegation of appropriate authority to perform these func-
tions must be included in the implementation program and in
the proposed legislation.

After discussing various possible alternatives with the ~egis-

lative Transportation Subcommittees and appropriate star,.~
agencies, the Consultants propose and recommend that the::e be
established a Scenic and Recreational Highways Manasemen-:
Committee and that th~s committee be compOSed of deeigna.~ed
representatives of the State Highway Commission, the Sta:e
Parks and Recreation Comission, the State Game Commission and
the Department of Natural Resources. It is proposed tha.: the.
Legislation designate the Chairman of the Committee to b,: the
representative of the Highway Commission.

L?C

2
283

It is p r o p o s e d and r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t the a u t h o r i t y and r e s p o n s i

b i l i t y for i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of s c e n i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l h i g h w a y s
s y s t e m p l a n s be d e l e g a t e d to t h i s M a n a g e m e n t Cor~mittee w h i c h
s h a l l act and r e p o r t to the L e g i s l a t u r e . O n b e h a l f of its
r e s p e c t i v e i n d i v i d u a l a g e n c i e s w i t h r e s p e c t to the s c e n i c and
r e c r e a t i o n a l h i g h w a y system.

A Review and Evaluation Function

It s h o u l d be o b v i o u s that a s i n g l e p l a n n i n g s t u d y w i l l n o t
sustain efforts towards creating and implementing a program
for a s c e n i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l h i g h w a y s y s t e m , its r e l a t e d
f a c i l i t i e s and r e q u i r e d a c t i o n . T h e r e is a n e e d for a f o l l o w -
up f u n c t i o n w h i c h p e r i o d i c a l l y r e - e v a l u a t e s the s y s t e m itself,
and the p r o g r e s s t o w a r d s its i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , a n d r e p o r t s to
the L e g i s l a t u r e . T h e r e is a l s o a n e e d for a p r o c e s s of r e v i e w
cf p r o p o s a l s for c h a n g e s to the s y s t e m , to a s c e r t a i n w h e t h e r
s u c h p r o p o s e d c h a n g e s c o n f o r m to the c r i t e r i a e s t a b l i s h e d for
the system. It is p r o p o s e d and r e c o m m e n d e d t h a t the M a n a g e -
m e n t Comanittee, d e s c r i b e d a b o v e b e e m p o w e r e d tc p e r f o r m t h e s e
functions.

In the p e r f o r m a n c e o f the f u n c t i o n s o u t l i n e d , the M a n a g e m e n t

C o m m i t t e e is a u t h o r i z e d and e n c o u r a g e d to c o o r d i n a t e its
a c t i v i t i e s w i t h t h o s e of o t h e r c o n c e r n e d a g e n c i e s , s u c h as
the I n t e r a g e n c y C o m m i t t e e for O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n , the D e p a r t -
m e n t of C o m m e r c e a n d E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t , and, w h e r e a p p r o -
p r i a t e , local g o v e r n m e n t a l a g e n c i e s . It s h o u l d r e p o r t to the
L e g i s l a t u r e at l e a s t b i e n n i a l l y .

i. Evaluation and Review

A proposed review and evaluation procedure would raise ques-

tions, d e t e r m i n e w h a t a c t i o n h a s b e e n t a k e n to i m p l e m e n t the
system, a n d r e p o r t , a n n u a l l y , to the L e g i s l a t u r e . The q u e s -
tions could include: A r e the i n t e n t and o b j e c t i v e s of the
legislation being met? W h a t has, a n d w h a t h a s not, b e e n d o n e
t o w a r d s the i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the s y s t e m plan; have s i g n s b e e n
e r e c t e d to m a r k t h e s y s t e m ? How many and which design studies
have been performed? What additional scenic easements have
b e e n a c q u i r e d ? , etc. Design studies which have been completed
c o u l d b e r e v i e w e d w i t h a n eye to m a k i n g a d d i t i o n a l r e c o m m e n -
d a t i o n s to t h e L e g i s l a t u r e .

As a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n b e c o m e s a v a i l a b l e , the s y s t e m it-
s e l f s h o u l d be r e - e v a l u a t e d , p a r t i c u l a r l y as it r e l a t e s to
recreational potential and opportunities. This may suggest
c h a n g e s in the s y s t e m i t s e l f o r c h a n g e s in the p r i r o i t i e s for
its i m p l e m e n t a t i o n .

207
 284

If and w h e n C o n g r e s s d e c i d e s to i m p l e m e n t r e c o n ~ e n d a t i o n s for
a N a t i o n a l S y s t e m of Scenic H i g h w a y s into law, the effect of
this law on the State's system should be d e t e r m i n e d so as to
make for the best a p p l i c a t i o n of its provisions. It is also
e x p e c t e d that m u c h g r e a t e r funding by the federal g o v e r n m e n t
of the H i g h w a y B e a u t i f i c a t i o n Act will be made available in
the near future. The p r o p o s e d review process should review
and d i s c u s s the p r i o r i t i e s for a l l o c a t i o n of such a d d i t i o n a l
g r a n t funds.

2. Proposed SYstem Changes

A n u m b e r of h i g h w a y routes have been added to the S c e n i c and

R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S y s t e m from time to time by the Ligis-
lature. Since no c r i t e r i a had been e s t a b l i s h e d for the
ysstem, it has been d i f f i c u l t to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r such c h a n g e s
c o n f o r m to the l e g i s l a t i v e intent for the system.

A l t h o u g h it is clear that the L e g i s l a t u r e c a n n o t bind nor com-

mit future legislatures, it is p r o p o s e d that the l e g i s l a t i o n
for the Scenic and R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S y s t e m contain a re-
v i e w process. This l e g i s l a t i o n w o u l d require that all propo-
sals for additions to the s y s t e m w o u l d be r e f e r r e d to the
M a n a g e m e n t C o m m i t t e e and it is recom~nended by the c o n s u l t a n t s
that no changes to the s y s t e m be made until a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n
from the M a n a g e m e n t C o m m l t t e e is made to the L e g i s l a t u r e
w i t h i n a s t a t e d time period. The L e g i s l a t u r e w o u l d of course
be free to o v e r r i d e t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s of the M a n a g e m e n t
c o m m i t t e e , but the r e v i e w process is i n t e n d e d to provide a
way of a s s u r i n g that the L e g i s l a t u r e is i n f o r m e d w h e t h e r
p r o p o s e d changes meet the o b j e c t i v e s and c r i t e r i a of the leg-
i s l a t i o n for the system.

The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of this review p r o c e s s will be d e t e r m i n e d by

two things. The m e m b e r s h i p of the L e g i s l a t i v e co~m~ittees
c o n c e r n e d and their c o m m i t m e n t to the i n t e g r i t y of the S c e n i c
and R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y System. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the
entire e v a l u a t i o n and r e v i e w p r o g r a m will be d e t e r m i n e d by
its functions, its staff and the a b i l i t y of the r e s p e c t i v e
a g e n c i e s to w o r k together. The c o m m i t t e e s h o u l d have d e s i g n a -
ted, a s s i g n e d staff, e v e n if only part time, to record and
i m p l e m e n t its d e c i s i o n s and prepare r e p o r t s to the L e g i s l a t u r e .

D e s i g n Studies

This study is i n t e n d e d to d e v e l o p c r i t e r i a for the s e l e c t i o n

and d e s i g n a t i o n of a system of scenic and r e c r e a t i o n a l high-
ways. As a s y s t e m s t u d y it will not p r o v i d e the i n f o r m a t i o n
n e e d e d for I m p l ~ - - n t a t i o n in detail, where specific scenic
v i e w p o i n t s are appropriate, or the location and extent of

208
scenic easements which can only be determined through more
detailed design studies of individual routes. The type, loca-
tion and extent of corridor recreation facilities will also
require more detailed analysis and design.

Your Consultants propose and reconu0end that, as one phase of

plan implementation, design studies be undertaken, where
appropriate, by the Management Comaittee and that the priority
lists be used as a guide for the order in which design studies
are made.

An example of the kind of design study referred to is The

Yakima Canyon Scenic and RecreationalHighway, preparea----
jointly by the State P-arks and Recreation Commission and the
State Highway Commission in 1968.

The design study of each landscape unit o r route should ideal-

ly include an inventory of available and potential resources:
visual, physical, natural, historic and cultural, including
topography, drainage, water resources, soils, vegetation and
wildlife. Based on these data, the location and design of
scenic protection and recreational facilities should be
determined.

Particular attention should be given to the conservation and

protection of fragile natural resources which are subject to
abuse and damage. In considering the overall priorities of
construction of recreation facilities, the principle of inter-
vening opportunities shOuld be applied to provide for relief
from the pressures of demand or overuse of existing facilities

Designs for individual routes should also b e sensitive to the

needs and desires of local government Jurisdictions and the
people affected by th~n.

Official Signing of the System

The Scenic and Recreational Highway Act of 1967 provides for

"a uniform system of signs and markers designating the various
features and facilities of the scenic and recreational highway
systems.*' The function of providing for and financing such
signs and markers was delegated to the Highway CO~mlssion.

The r e q u i r e m e n t s for this study include " r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s on

signing and/or other designation measures." Recently, how-
ever, the Highway C~mmi|sion .and the Parks and Recreation
Coumission have agreed upon the design of a sign to be used to
identify eleaents of the system. An illustration of this de-
sign is shown on Figure 22. A recommendation for the design
of a sign to designate the routes of the system is therefore
unwarranted.

209

285
It is recommended that the Highway Department proceed on the
installation of the signs after the proposed new scenic and
recreational highway system is enacted into law. Where ques-
tions as to the density or locations of such signs arise, the
Highway Department ma~ seek the advice and assistance of the
proposed Management COmmittee.

Proposals have been made to Congress. as a result of a recent

national survey, for the designation and signing of a national
system of scenic highways. Where the state and national sys-
tams overlap, the cost of erection of signs may be shared by
the Federal Government~ In all areas, it is suggested that
the Highway Department use its normal sources of federal and
State gasoline tax funds for sign construction pruposes.

Recreational Facilities Along Scenic and Recreational Highways

The Scenic and Recreational Highways Act of 1967 provided, in

Section 5, for planning and design standards for the following
1. hiking, bicycle and bridle trails, including
regulations for their use,
2. campsites and shelters,
3. boat launching sites,
4. access trails to lakes, rivers and streams and
easements along their shores,
5. safety rest areas,
6. historic and geologic interpretation facilities,
7. scenic observation facilities,
8. roadside landscaping, restoration and aesthetic
enhancement,
9. specifically delineated highway corridors and means
for the preservation of natural beauty, historic
sites or viewpoints,
I0. a uniform system of official signs and markers.

These facilities have implications for construction, manage-

n~nt and operation by the Highway Commission, the Parks and
Recreation Commission and other recreation agencies such as
the Game Department and the Department of Natural Resources
where their lands are involved.

I n accordance wlth the delegation of jurisdiction in the 1967

Act, the Highway Commission would have complete jurisdiction
within the right-of-way and over the items (5], (7), (8) and
{10) in the above list and would share jurisdiction over (I),
(6) and {9). The State Parks and Recreation Commission (and
other recreation agencies, where appropriate) would share
jurisdiction over (i), (6) and (9) and have primary jurisdic-
tion over corridor recreation facilities such as (2), (3)
and (4).

211

286
287

T h e s o u r c e s of f u n d i n g f o r t h e s e f a c i l i t i e s a r e m a n y a n d c o m -
plex. Federal Highway Administration f u n d i n g is a v a i l a b l e , or
at least authorized b y law, for b i c y c l e a n d w a l k i n g t r a i l s ,
safety rest areas, scenic observation facilities, landscaping
and scenic enhancement, the preservation of natural beauty,
and signs and markers. Additional f u n d i n g f o r t h e a b o v e is
e x p e c t e d to b e f o r t h c o m i n g under proposed legislation. Some
of uhe f u n d i n g f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l facilities in t h e c o r r i d o r m a y
be available f r o m the O u t d o o r R e c r e a t f o n A c c o u n t t h r o u g h the
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. Other present
s o u r c e s of f u n d s i n c l u d e u n c l a i m e d g a s t a x r e f u n d s for b o a t s ,
s p e c i f i e d M O t O r V e h i c l e F u n d s for b i c y c l e r o u t e s , a n d the
n o r m a l b u d g e t s o u r c e s of h i g h w a y a n d r e c r e a t i o n a g e n c i e s .

S~tem Protection and Management

The n e e d a n d r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r the p r o t e c t i o n of t h e s c e n i c
q u a l ~ t y of the S c e n i c a n d R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S y s t e m a r e re-
v i e w e d in t h e r e p o r t s e c t i o n d e a l i n g w i t h L a n d U s e C o n t r o l s .
That section discusses five alternative methods of control
o v e r l a n d use; p u r c h a s e o f l a n d , s c e n i c e a s e m e n t s , regulation,
tax i n c e n t i v e s a n d p e r s u a s i o n . It m a k e s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s for
their use to provide protection of scenic quality. All but
tax i n c e n t i v e s , w h i c h a r e a l o c a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , f a l l to t h e
authority and responsibility of the Highway Commission, using
present sources of federal-aid and state gas tax funds.

O n e p r o b l e m w h i c h is p o s e d b y t h e d e l e t i o n f r o m the S c e n i c
and Recreational Highway System of some routes and addition
of o t h e r r o u t e s in d e f i n i n g a n e w s y s t e m , is t h e i m p a c t of
s u c h c h a n g e s on t h e s i g n i n d u s t r y . The Scenic Vistas Act of
1 9 7 1 p e r m i t s o n l y t h r e e k i n d s of s i g n s in S c e n i c a n d R e c r e a -
tional Highway corridors; official traffic signs, on-premise
signs and on-premise "for sale or lease" signs. Thus, on
r o u t e s a d d e d to t h e s y s t e m a l l o t h e r k i n d s o f s i g n s m u s t b e
removed within three years. Where routes are dropped from
the s y s t e m , s i g n c o n t r o l r e g u l a t i o n s vary, depending on
w h e t h e r t h e r o u t e is an I n t e r s t a t e , Federal-Aid Primary or
Federal-Aid Secondary route.

The implications for management of the system are that full

sign control may not be warranted in t h o s e a r e a s w h e r e s c e n i c
q u a l i t y is c o m p a r a t i v e l y lower, where the route has been
s e l e c t e d for its h i g h r e c r e a t i o n a l resource quality.

Considering these problems, the Legislative Transportation

Subcommittees have directed the Committee s t a f f to p r e p a r e
legislation for t h e A m e n d m e n t of t h e S c e n i c V i s t a s A c t o f
1971. The proposed legislation would authorize the State
Highway Co~muission to adopt amended requlations under the
Administrative Procedures Act which wou~d permit flexibility

222
 288

of sign r e g u l a t i o n a l o n g r o u t e s of lower s c e n i c q u a l i t y on
the S c e n i c and R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y System, and o n a d d i t i o n s
to the system, w h i c h are n o t F e d e r a l A i d I n t e r s t a t e or Federal
Aid P r i m a r y h i g h w a y s . For d e t a i l e d l i n k s or p a r t s of indivi-
dual r o u t e s of the system, the r e g u l a t i o n s w o u l d u t i l i z e the
c r i t e r i a d e v e l o p e d for u t i l i t y u n d e r g r o u n d i n g r e g u l a t i o n s but
p r e f e r e n c e w i l l be g i v e n to s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g o f f - h i g h w a y infor-
m a t i o n p a n e l s upon w h i c h t o u r i s t f a c i l i t i e s m a y a d v e r t i s e .

Informing the T r a v e l i n g Public

The t r a v e l i n g public, b o t h r e s i d e n t a n d n o n - r e s i d e n t , is pro-

v i d e d w i t h a w i d e v a r i e t y of i n f o r m a t i o n b y s ~ e r a l state
a g e n c i e s and m a n y p r i v a t e organizations. The H i g h w a y Depart-
m e n t p r o d u c e s o f f i c i a l h i g h w a y maps. The D e p a r t m e n t of Com-
m e r c e and E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t p u b l i s h e s i n f o r m a t i o n and
o p e r a t e s t o u r i s t i n f o r m a t i o n c e n t e r s a t e n t r a n c e s to the
state. R e c r e a t i o n a g e n c i e s p r o v i d e m a p s a n d b r o c h u r e s of their
own f a c i l i t i e s . The A u t o m o b i l e A s s o c i a t i o n (AAA) and 2 h a m b e r s
of C o m m e r c e list a n d map t o u r i s t f a c i l i t i e s and p l a c e s of
interest. F e d e r a l f o r e s t a n d n a t i o n a l p a r k a g e n c i e s also pro-
v i d e maps, c h a r t s and b r o c h u r e s of their f a c i l i t i e s . ~he
D e p a r t m e n t of H i g h w a y s p u b l i s h e s a m a p of s c e n i c v i e w p D i n t s
and s a f e t y rest a r e a s w h i c h is s h o w n on F i q u r e 23.

S i g n i n g of the S c e n i c and R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y System, a l r e a d y

discussed, is an i m p o r t a n t m e a n s of p r o v i d i n g p u b l i c i%forma-
tion a b o u t the system, s c e n i c v i e w p o i n t s and p o i n t s of i n t e r e s t

S e c t i o n 6 of the 1967 Act p r o v i d e s :

"The H i g h w a y Colmuission and P a r k s and R e c r e a t i o n C g m m i s -
s i o n shall, on any m a p s , or in any r e l e v a n t d e s c r i s t i v e
m a t e r i a l they m a y p r e p a r e at s t a t e expense, i n c l u d ~
r e f e r e n c e to t h o s e p o r t i o n s of h i g h w a y s d e s i g n a t e d in
S e c t i o n 2 by a p p r o p r i a t e c o l o r or c o d e d e s i g n a t i o n . "

The m a p of the Scenic a n d R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y S y s t e m ~ill

i l l u s t r a t e the o f f i c i a l l y d e s i g n a t e d and p r i o r i t i z e d s ~ g m e n t s
for a g e n c y use. T h i s is i l l u s t r a t e d in F i g u r e 16.

T h e r e is still a n e e d for a m a p s h o w i n g s c e n i c a n 6 r e c c e a t l o n -
al h i g h w a y s for u s e by t o u r i s t s and o t h e r s . It is t h e r e f o r e
r e c o ~ n e n d e d t h a t the M a n a g e m e n t C o m m i t t e e , in c o o p e r a t i o n
w i t h the D e p a r t m e n t of C o m m e r c e and E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t ,
p r e p a r e a n e w p u b l i c m a p w h i c h i l l u s t r a t e s the S c e n i c ind
R e c r e a t i o n a l H i g h w a y system, as p a r t of the s t a t e h i g h w a y sys-
tem, a n d s u c h o t h e r p u b l i c r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s as m a r b e
appropriate. A n e x a m p l e of such a map, p r e p a r e d b y c o ~ s u l -
rants, is the S c e n i c a n d R e c r e a t i o n a l D r i v e s m a p s h o w n in
F i g u r e 24. T h i s is b a s e d on the o f f i c i a l s y s t e m b u t g i v e s

213
additional, more continuous routes described by the physical
region they traverse. The inclusion on it of the System will
satisfy the need for a public map, but this map will n o t imply
and should be marked to disclaim the need for controls on a
route shown but not on the System. It should also satisfy the
public need for an official map of coherent routes. And it
will draw on the scenic and recreational resources identified
by this study.

A Proposed Local System of Scenic and Recreational Routes

Not all of the scenic resources of the state are located along
state highways. If one of the objectives of this program is
to enhance and protect public access to visual resources, some
consideration should be given to local routes in counties
and cities. At least two cities of the state already have
marked routes for tours of the city.

Counties and cities already have the authority and powers

needed to provide for scenic routes and the Legislature would
not wish to change such prerogatives, to either establish or
not to establish, such scenic routes. In one specific area,
however, the powers of local government for protection of
scenic areas through the use of scenic easements, clarifica-
tion in the law may be required. A scenic easement may not
be transferable to subsequent owners of a property if it is
appurtenant to a road which is an easement, rather than owned
outright, by the local government.

It is recommended, therefore, that proposed legislation for

the Scenic and Recreational Highway System authorize local
governments to establish and designate scenic and recreational
roads and streets. This legislation would also clarify the
situation with respect to scenic easements by providing for
transferability of easements to subsequent owners. Such
authorization would be consistent with the objectives of the
proposed legislation for protection of scenic views and may
possibly encourage local ~overnments to develop scenic route
systems.

Prol~osed Le@islation

Throughout the process of plaunning for scenic and recreational

highways it has been intended that the plan for the system
would be implemented through legislation which would substi-
tute for the Scenic and R e c r e a t i o n a l Highways Act of 1967 and
remedy its deficiencies. The Consultants have prepared draft
legislation but the discussion and redrafting of such legis-
lation may extend beyond the period in which the final plan
report is completed and printed. At this stage, therefore,

215

289
the following outlines the topics to be included in t h~ pro-
posed legislation:

i. Legislative Ob3ectives
2. Definitions
3. System Created; Standards; Exceptions
4. Criteria for the Designation of the Scenic and
Recreational Highway System anf for Changes Thereto
5. Designation of Portions of Highways as the Scenic
and Recreational Highway System
6. Routes Referred for Further Study
7. Management Cormnittee Created; Composition; DutLes
8. Official Signing of Scenic and Recreational Hi,lhways
9. Maps of Scenic and Recreational Highways
i0, Protection of Scenic Quality; Acquisition of P?operty
Rights; Actions and Keco~endations,
ii. Corridor Recreation Facilities
12. New Highways; Review for Designation
13. Financing of Improvements and Facilities
14. Authorization of Local Scenic and/or Recreatiolal
Routes; Acquisition of Property Rights
15. Chapter and Title
16. Separability
17. Repeal of Conflicting Laws.

Sstem Funding and Estimated Costs

Attempts have been made to determine every possible sclrce of

federal and state funding for each specific acitvity i~ im-
plementing the scenic and recreational highway system, view-
points, bicycle paths, signing, recreational facilities, etc.
The complexity involved in determining sources and relating
them to this system is phenomenal. The greatest promi~e seems
to involve the expanded funding of federal programs fo~ these
purposes, since state revenue sources are limited and ~he
demands on them are great and pressing.

It is, therefore, proposed that the Management Committee develop

and present to the Legislature specific budget request~ for
the implementation of the Scenic and Recreational Hig~ay Sys-
tem. The requests should be in the form of both a unified
budget and individual agency budgets for the functions of the
individual agencies, including the needs for staff for the
Management Committee functions, design studies, and the plan-
ning and construction of facilities appurtenant to the system.
Where funding sources of other agencies are proposed t,) be
utilized, such as the Outdoor Recreation Account of th,~ Inter-
agency Coa~aittee for Outdoor Recreation, the prior review and
approval of such agencies should be required.

216

290
 291

C. DESIGN .GUIDELINES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Detailed development guidelines already exist in the State

Department of Highways' Policy on Roadside Development and
Highway Beautificatio n (1972) and the AASHO Guide for H i~hwa~
Landscape and Environmental Design (1970) and Policy on Safet~
Rest Arefis (1958). The following discussion therefore empha-
sizes certain points applicable to the Scenic and Recreational
Highway corridor viewed as an environmental unit.

The development of the scenic and recreational route and its

auxiliary facilities should be guided by the following basic
aims:

i. The treatment of the entire highway corridor, particularly

the foreground, as a resource to be conserved through the
coordinated planning of each organization involved in its
management.

2. The development of the corridor where feasible for several

forms of transportation besides the automobile but only
with strict regulation.

3. The maintenance of the environmental quality of, and of

harmony between, the right-of-way and the corridor.
4. The conservation and enhancement of scenic resources within
and adjacent to the right-of-way and in the uorrldor.

5. Regulation of the development of recreational resources

"ad3acent to the right-of-way as integral components of
the corridor.

6. The safety of the driving experience.

Protection of the Corridor

Protection of the scenic/recreational corridor -the land in

view from the road -is the protection of one of the basic
resources of the state. Roads increase the impact of demand.
Even recreational development can degrade a scenic corridor
(viz. Route 90 between Snoqualmie Pass and Hyak). The devel-
opment of a new scenlc/recreational road should therefore be
based on a comprehensive plan for the corridor, the environ-
mental quality of which depends on the management and use
both of the road and of the directly linked ecological and
hydrological systems that it crosses. The design should aim
to preserve the high quality of the scenic corridor's natural,
cultural and recreational resources, and its unique features,
plant, animal, geological and hlstori~al. In route selection
 292

the highway engineer should be assisted by a landscape archi-

tect and a local advisory co~muittee, and the c r i t e r i a listed
in Phase IV above should be applied. Development of the road
should, in the interest of conservation, be based on a road,
w h e t h e r state, federal agency or local, which already impinges
on the landscape, and runs through public lands where corridor
protection should be least costly.

Where ma~or conflicting uses beyond the foreground occur, the

controls discussed in Section V,A. on Land Use should be
applied. Even w i t h o u t these, protection of the corridor, es-
pecially on the margins of heavily populated areas, must imply
commitment to the e n c o u r a g e m e n t of development methods which
conserve the natural character of the scene. For example:
the u n d e r g r o u n d i n g of utility lines as provided for by a re-
c e n t publication of the Department of Highways41 cluster
development of housing and of intensive uses, and the U. S.
Forest Service Visual Management system for ti~ber harvest-
ing.42 Forest practices legislation and regulations should
provide for the improvement of visual quality in scenic high-
way corridors and c l e a r c u t t i n g should be p r o h i b i t e d where it
is visible in the foreground of scenic highways.

Improvement of the Right-of-Way and Adjacent Landscape

The road and the right-of-way should cause the least possible
ecological disturbance to the environment. The same actions
that enhance the e n v i r o n m e n t a l quality of the corridor should
also e n h a n c e its scenic q u a l i t y and enrich the habitat for
wildlife. The route should be designed as part of the continu-
um of the adjoining landscape. For example: molding of the
road to the landscape using c u r v i l i n e a r h o r i z o n t a l and verti-
cal alignments, the m i n i m i z i n g of cut and fill; the stream-
lining and planting of banks, cuts and fills, and the use of
h y d r o s e e d e d sod-formlh~ ground covers to reduce erosion,
sedimentation and m a i n t e n a n c e costs. These measures are par-
ticularly necessary in the restoration of steep mountain road
cuts in this state. P r o t e c t i o n of all water resources along-
side the right-of-way from pollution and e n c r o a c h m e n t should
be mandatory. It should also be s t a n d a r d practice, where
feasible, to include w i t h i n the right-of-way, m a i n t a i n i n g or
enha~cin9 their quality, adjoining strips of scenic land such
as the isolated riverfront or seashore, outcrop, w a t e r f a l l or
grove of trees.

41
Utili.ties Acconunodation_ Policy, Department of Highways (1974).
42The Visual Management S y s t e m in Landscape Management, Vol. 2,
Nat~0nal Forestry Service, U. S. D e p a r t m e n t of A g r l h u l t u r e (1974)
Planting should be predominantly of species local to the area,
to maximize blending and minimize maintenance. They should be
largely of fast growing pioneer material and include native
wildflowers. The use of planting whether to frame vistas,
screen, control glare, buffer or to give shelter from wind or
snow should be a naturalistic as possible, relieve any m~no-
tony and clarify the character of the environment as seen from
the road. The right-of-way should be wide enough to allow for
plantings between shoulder and fence, and within the median
where present, and should provide for future widening so that
trees will not have to be'removed. Variety of edge is impor-
tant; hard edges for instance, such as those along coniferous
forest tunnels could be varied from straight to wide meadow-
like verges by variations in the width of the right-of-way or
by selective thinning and clearing.

Viewpoints and Improvement?f Views'

Wide views are especially likely to occur on roads elevated

above lakes, valleys or the sea where distraction is the most
dangerous. For safety on winding roads in highly scenic areas
it is mare important to provide many viewpoints as inexpensive
extensions of the shoulder where views occur, than to develop
fewer costly ones. The areas should be left as far as possible
in the natural state, with a graveled surface for two to six
cars, with warning and identification signs and guardrails
where necessary. All viewpoints should be periodically
inspected for the need for thinning of growth blocking the view

For safe scenic driving, the number of viewpoint pull-offs

necessary may be decreased if the view is made and kept c3ntln-
uously open, especially by selective cutting of trees and
undergrowth beside the rlght-of-way. This may occasionally
justify the purchase of scenic easements. The thinning or
clearing should be sufficient to permit viewing without slow-
ing below 20-30 m.p.h. Not more than half the growth need be
removed, but the standard of its management should be main-
tained over time. Vistas, while improving the view from a
shallow curve, should not be located on sharp curves or at
the end oT a tangent leading into a curve, where the drivers'
attention should be on the road. Where neither viewpoints n o r
thinning are feasible, however, a screen of dense ~rowth
should be encouraged, to minimize danger.

Visual encroac~ents, from factories through clearcute and

utility lines to borrow pits are often found in the scenic
oorrldor. The practice along scenic highways should be to re-
move or reclaim such eyesores, or if this is impossible, to
block them from view. For small elements screening can use
evergreen shzubs, grassed harms, fencing or walls. For medium-
sized elements screening may be partial, by planting or

222

293
retentian of 30-50 foot tree-belts with understory. For eye-
sores too large to screen, the approaches should be amelioria-
ted by the planting of tree masses. Structures built in con-
nection with the highway should preferably be constructed of
local materials, again with the object of enhancing the native
character of the place.

Bicycle, Pedestrian and Bridle Paths

The State Department of Highways recognizes three types of

bicycle trail: bicycle path separated from the road, bicycle
lane parallel with the road, and bikeway, a shared rlght-of-
way. Hiking, riding and bicycling alongside heavily traveled
roads, however scenic, should not be encouraged unless on
paths separated from the road. The bike path should be either
two lanes wide or two one-way paths either side of the high-
way, w~nding within or parallel to the right-of-way, signed
and well maintained. Where wide shoulders exist along such
roads, a bike lane should be marked off by striping for a
degree of safety and curb-separated if possible with its own
turn-oils w h e r e necessary. Any crossings should be signed
and located within relatively straight sections with good two-
way visibility. Where any of the trails start from the road
and are well used, adequate parking should be provided.
For travel within a shared rlght-of-way, however, it is
recommended that for safety, bicycle use should be focused on
a network of the lighter traveled state and county roads.
These should be publicized and signed as "Bikeways" to warn
motorists of this use.

The greatest n e e d for all three types of trails is within

about forty miles (one-day use) of a population center and
their development should be emphasized within ~his radius.

The Impacts of Facil~t~Construction and Use

The construction of roadside facilities and access roads may

destroy vegetative cover causing erosion, and siltation of
ditches, storm drains and watercourses where it can damage
fish 11fe. Erosion from storm drainage facilities can occur.
Runoff should not be directed into adjacent property if it
would provoke erosion. Phasing of areas stripped, immediate
replanting, ~ l o h i n g , debris basins and temporary diversion
ditches and berme should all be used where necessary. Sewage
disposal should be controlled Bo that pollution does not
destroy or contaminate fish or hazard human health.

The p r o t e c t i o n of all watercourses is vital. H o w e v e r , swamps,

marshes, t i d a l and freshwater flats provide natural pollution

22S

294
295

abatement, floor water storage and ground water recharge

a n d h a v e h i g h v a l u e as f i s h r e a r i n g g r o u n d s a n d w i l d l i f e
habitat. T h e y s h o u l d b~ p r e s e r v e d from emcroachment
with ospectal care.

T h e l a n d s of t h e c o r r i d o r provide life requirements for a

l a r g e v a r i e t y of a n i m a l s . Z o n e o f t h e s e a n i m a l s a r e f o u n d in
o n l y o n e h a b i t a t , o t h e r s d e p e n d u p o n a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r e n t
habitats. Loss of any one kind of habitat may c~use the dimi-
n u t i o n o r l o s s of t h e s p e c i e s t h a t d e p e n d e n t i r e l y u p o n it
and may also interfere with the living requirements of a n i m a l s
w h o s e a n n u a l c y c l e s r e q u i r e a s e r i e s of d i f f e r e n t habitats.
The avoidance of biologically f r a g i l e a r e a s a n d t h e u s e of in-
digenous vegetaxton to r e p l a c e h a b i t a t d e s t r o y e d should be
normal ~ractice.

i n c r ~ a s e d u s e o f h i g h w a y c o r r i d o r s m a y i n c r e a s e the v u l n e r a -
b i l i t y o f t h e s e a r e a s to w i l d f i r e s c a u s e d , for e x a m p l e , b y
cigarettes thrown from cars. If a s c e n i c / r e c r e a t i o n a l facility
is l o c a t e d in f o r e s t , it m a y b e a p p r o p r i a t e to c u t t h e s e c o n -
dary canopy and understory material in o r d e r to r e d u c e the f i r e
hazard.

T h e p r e s e n c e O~ l a r g e n u m b e r s of p e o p l e c a n h a v e o t h e r d e l e -
terious effects on the environment of a site: trampling can
cause soil compaction and reduction in t h e h e a l t h of v e g e t a -
tive cover, resulting in i n c r e a s e d r u )ff a n d e r o s i o n . The
p r e s e n c e of h u m a n s m a y a l s o d i s r u p t t h e n e s t i n g a n d f e e d i n g of
animals. The development of s c e n i c ~ r e c r e a t i o n a l corridors,
signed and publicized, may be the best way to disperse recrea-
tional facilities and save too heavy a concentration of u s e r s
in o n e a r e a . T h e d e s i g n of c a m p a n d p i c n i c s i t e s , r e s t a r e a s
and water accesses should therefore be deliberately scattered
and periodically s h i f t e d to a v o i d o v e r - u s e , wherever t h e r e is
demand and suitability for t h e m w i t h i n t h e c o r r i d o r . Uses
liable'to pollute such as large campsites s h o u l d be s e t b a c k
o r r e m o v e d b y a w a l k of u p t o h a l f a m i l e f r o m a f r a g i l e r e -
s o u r c e s u c h as a s t r e a m . Facility access roads should be
designed to deter off-road driving.

Some air and noise pollution will result from increased travel
on the highways and the concentration of vehicles, especially
at drive-in campsites. The use of vegetation for noise ab-
sorption with allowance for the prevailing winds can reduce
the level of these problems, vehicle noise may be further
controlled by roadway design which discourages rapid decelera-
tion and acceleration.

In s u m , t h e r e s o u r c e s w h o s e v a r i e t y c o m p r i s e s s o m u c h o f t h e
appeal of the system must be managed for their protection as
w e l l as t h e i r d e v e l o p m e n t to r e a l i z e t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e
designations recommended im t h i s s t u d y .

224
 296

SCENIC & REC}~JEA'?[ONAL HIGHW,','f STUD*f

REFERENCES

Pf]ASE I: *Mater ia] from th(?se references is briefly ~lrT!~ari-

zed ~n the text.

$_w:tions A ~ [%: Review of Laws and Criteria

*Federal IIiqhway A{~JT~inistratlon, Manual, National Scenl(. Hiq~-

wa 2' St~_di, 1974.

*T. J. Norton and ,]. L. Robertson, Recon~nendations for the

E s t a b l i s h m e n t of Additional Scenic 'Areas Alon 9 the' State-
Highways of was'ihgton, University of Washington, for ~ e
Joint Fact-Finding Committee on Highways, Streets and [:ridges
of the W a s h i n g t o n State Legislature, 1964.

*U.S. Department of Coramerce, Manual: Scenic Roads and [ark-

w a ~ s Study, ]964.
Gives forms and useful criteria for d e t e r m ~ n n g and ev6]u~t%ng
scenic roads, priorities, and costs. Updated in 1974.

A Proposed Program f o r Scenic Roads and Parkways, U. S.

Department of Commerce, 1966.
A very c o m p r e h e n s i v e report on the subject.

V.T.N. , Inc., An Evaluation ~f the Highway Functional Classl-

~ication S ~ s t e m and' fhe Priority Prog:ammin 9 Criteria, ~ the
Legislative T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Committee, Wash. State Legi.~lature.

*L. C. Wagner and V. E. Harder, Regulation of Outdoor Advertls-

ing Along the Interstate System, Report to the W a s h i n g t o n
egislature, i962.

*L. C. Wagner and V. E. Harder, Providing Information in the

Interests of Motorists Along W a s h i n g t o h ' s Interstate System
ana W i h i n Its Scenic-Areas, U n i v e r s i y o - f Washington, o ~
the Joint:F-a~t-Finding C o m m i t t e e on Highways, Streets and
Bridges of the W a s h i n g t o n State Legislature, 1964.

*M. R. Wolfe, T. J. Norton and S. Cohn, Criteria for the

E s t a b l i s h m e n t of Additional Scenic Areas, U n { v e r s i t y of
w~shYngton, for the Joint Fact-F[na~ng C o m m i t t e e on Highways,
Streets and Bridges, of the W a s h i n g t o n State Legislature, 1962

~ L APPENDIX G
Section c: scenic systems in Other States

*California State Department of Public Works, Division of High-

ways~ The Scenic Route: A Guide for the Official_Designatio ~
of El~sible Scenic Highways.

Frankland, B. California's Scenic Highw@~. Proqram. Highway

Research Record 16i, 1967, p. 50.

Research, Planning & Design, Inc.; Vermont Sqenery Classifica-

tion and AnalYsis. - Report to the Vermont State Planning
office, 1971.

?HASE ]I:

Section 8: Alternative Definitions of "Scenic & Recreational"

M, Bonde, Scenic and Recreational Highways Study, Washington

~tate P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n Commission, unpublished draft,
~ndated.

California Department of Public works, A Plan for Scenic

Highways i9 California, 1963.

B. Howlett, Consulting Services Corp., Scenic Highways and

Parkway's: Project Open Space, for the Puget Soun~ Governmen-
tal Conference, 1964.

King County, Washington, Planning Department, A P reliminar~

Scenic RO_utes System Plan, 1970.

C. Pragnell, U.$.D.A., Forest Service, The Scenic Road: A

Basis for Its Planning, Design and Manag~ient, T e c h ~ R e p o r t
ETR 7700-2, 1970.
Scenic road planning in forest areas. Note the two appendices,
a bibliography and Economic Values of Natural Beauty on Nural
Roads.

Appen__ddi D: .A!ternative .Policies Definin~ the Study

Interaqency Com~nittee for Outdoor Recreation, Washin t ~

Statewide Comp;ehensive Outdoor Recreation and Open Space
Plan, Volume I, 1973. - "
Finding #32: Driving for pleasure is one of the mast popular
activities identified in the demand survey. An estimated one

"Zd

297
of ever}' six auto trips taken by Washingtonians is for recrea-
tion purposes. Recommendation: A fund source to implement
the State Scenic and Recreati,jnal Highway System Should b~~
established

W. H. Whyte Scenic Roads, (unpublished paper), 1967,

This paper ~s a thoughtful critique of the federal manual,
Scenic Roads and Parkways Study. The arguments (summarized,
p. 2) are: I) money should be invested in enhancing the
scenic corridor of every road-type; 2) except for a few new
roads in outstanding areas, investment should be in existLng
roads; 3) design standards which are too high obliterate the
values they should provide; 4J a more flexible concept of a
scenic corridor is needed, especially in urban areas: 51 the
urban parkwaz, is now anachronistic: 6) by reversing pla~
priorities, a more suitable program can be developed at ~ar
less cost.

PHASE Ill: *Material from these references is briefly su~narx-

zed in the text.

Section A: Scenic Assessment and Criteria

J. H. Bretz, Washin~ton's Channelled Scabland, Bulletin ;45,

Dept. of Conservation, Washington, 195~'[

Burke, H. D., Lewis, C. F., and Orr, H. R., A Method for

Classifying Scenery from a Roadway. Park Practice Guide.~ne,
Park Practice Program, Development Series, 19~8.

K. H. Craik, Human Responsiveness tO Landscape_! . An Envi:on-

mental Psychoio~ical Perspectlve. Student Publication o~ the
School of Deslgn, North Carolina State University, RaleiIh,
1968.

D. J. asterbrook and D. A. Rahm, Landforms of Washin~to 1,

Western Washington State College, Belllngham, 197~'.

Edwards & Kelcey, Inc., Upper Great Lakes Region: Highway

Planning Studies Summary Report, V6~. 5, Minnesota Department
of Highways, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, and
Michigan Department of State Highways, 1969.

R. M. Highsmith and J. M. Leverentz, Atlas of the Pacifi:

Northwest, Oregon State University Press, ~o'rvallis, OR.-196B

298
 299

Idaho State Department of Highways, Draft Environmental Sec-

tion 4 (f) Statement, Administrative Action for Project 1-90,
I (35) 16 - Coeur D'Alene to Wol~ Lodge Bay~ FHWA-IDA-EIS-72-
0S-F, V~isual impact assessment by Jones & Jones, Seattle, WA,
1973.

Landscape Architecture Research Office, Harvard University,

Visu~l Values fo[ Highways, Volume I, A summary report of
part o ~ a five-year technical study for the Department of
Transportation on Highway Esthetics, 1970.

G. R. Jones, "A Method for Quantification of Aesthetic Values

for Environmental Decision Making," Nuclear Technology, Vol.
25, No. 4, pp. 682-713, 1975.

G. R. Jones, Preliminary Report fo r Classification and

Evaluation of Visual Landscapes, Research paper for the
Massachusetts Department of Commerce and Development, Harvard
University, 1966.

G. R. Jones, "Techniques for Assessinq and Quantifying Envir-

onmental Aesthetic and Recreation Values and Impacts," Pro-
ceedings of a Conference on Recreation Planning for Federally
Licensed Hydroelectric Projects, sponsored by the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, U.S.D.I., the Pacific Northwest Utilities
Conference Committee, and the Federal Power Commission,
Portland, Oregon, 1974.

G. R. Jones, The Nooksack Plan: An Approach to the Inventory

and Evaluation of a River System, Jones & Jones, Seattle, 1973

Jones & Jones, "Visual Impact Assessment," Foothills Pro~ect

Environmental Impact Statement, Board of Water Commissioners,
Denver, Colorado, 1974.

L. B. Leopold, Quantitative Comparison of Some Aesthetic

Factors Among Rive{s~ Geological Survey Circular 620,
Washington, D. C., 1969.

R. B. Litton, Jr., et al., An Aesthetic Overview of the Role

of Water in the Landscape, National Water Commission Contract
NWC 70-032, University of California, Berkeley, 1971.

R. B. Litton, Jr., Forest Landscape Description and Inventor-

ies - A Basis for Land Plannin 9 and Design, U.S.D.A., Forest
Serv'ice, Pacific' Southwest Forest and Range Experiment
Station Res. paper PSW-49, Berkeley, CA, 1968.

*K. J. Polakowski, et al., A Scenic Highway System, Upper

Great Lakes Region, Draft Copy, University of Michigan, April,
19~4.

228
 300

*F. O S a r g e n t , S c e n e r y C l a s s i f i c a t i o n , Vermont Resources

R e s e a r c h Center~ V e r m o n t A g r i c u l t u r a l Experiment Station,
R e p o r t 18, U n i v e r s i t y of V e r m o n t , 1967~

A. V. V a u g h a n , A V i s u a l Analysis S y s t e m to A s s i s t in L o c a t i n s
Transmission Corridors, Forestry D e p a r t m e n t , O n t a r l o Hydro,
T0ronto,' 1974o

*Vineyard Open Land Foundation, Looking at the V i n e y a r d , 1973.

* W a s h i n g t o n State H i g h w a y D e p a r t m e n t , Pilot Study Team Report

on A c c o m m o d a t i o n of U t i l i t i e s on H i g h w a y R i g h t s - b f - W a ~ for
the J o i n t U tif~t-les C o m m i t t e e , 1974.

E. H. Zube, "A P a p e r o n L a n d s c a p e E v a l u a t i o n for a S h o r t

C o u r s e on I m p a c t A s s e s s m e n t for W a t e r R e s o u r c e P l a n n i n q , "
U. S. C o r p s of E n g i n e e r s , A m h e r s t , M a s s a c h u s e t t S , 1973.

E. H. Zube, " S c e n e r y As a N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e : I m p l i c a t i o n s of
P u b l i c P o l i c y a n d P r o b l e m s of D e f i n i t i o n , D e s c r i p t i o n , a n d
Evaluation," Landscape Architecture, Vol. 63, No. 2, 1973.

Section C: Citizen Questionnaire

R. B u r d g e a n d J. Hendee, T h e D e m a n d S u r v e y D i l e m m a , Forest
S e r v i c e , U . S . D . A , Vol. 2, -No. 6~ D e c e m b e r 1972.

Section D: Social and Economic Benefits and Costs

M. C l a w s o n and J. K n e t s c h , E c o n o m i c s of O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n ,
The Johns Hopkins Press, B a l t i m o r e , MD, 1966. ......

N. C. C o o m b e r a n d K. Biswas, E v a l u a t i o n of E n v i r o n m e n t a l
I n t g n ~ i b l e s , G e n e r a Press, B r o n x v i l l e , N. Y., 19~3.
The bibliography is e x c e l l e n t for b o t h monetary and non-
monetary evaluation techniques.

D a v i d s o n , P., Tomer, J., a n d W a l d m a n , A. The Economic Benefits

A c c r u i n ~ f r o m the S c e n i c E n h a n c e m e n t of H i g h w a y s , The S t a t e
U n i v e r s l t y of N e w Jersey, 19~7 . . . .

O u t d o o r R e c ; e a t i o n R e s o u r c e s R e v i e w C o m m i s s i o n S t u d y R e p o r t 20,
Participation i~ O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n , Washington, D. C., 1962.

W. E. S c h m i s s e n , L o c a l E c o n o m i c Impact of C o r P s of E n g i n e e r s
I n v e s t m e n t s at W i n c h e s t e r Bay.

2Z9
PHASE IV:

Sections A & B: Surve~ and Criteria

Corps of Engineers, Environmental Reconnaissanc ~ Inventor~gf

Washington State, (to be published).

K. Leonhardt, Recreational Trip Characteristics and Travel

Patterns, Phase II, Washington State Highway Department
Research Program Report 11.2, 1973.

Washington State Department of Commerce, Stud~ of Tourist

Resources and Investment Potential, 1970.

Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation,

State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1967.

Washington State Department of Highways Annual Traffic Report,

1973.

Washington State Department of Highways State Route Lo~, 1972.

PHASE V:

Section A: Land Use Controls

"Beyond the Eye of the Beholder: Aesthetics and Objectivity,"

71 Michigan Law Review, June 1973.

Bosselman, F., Callies, D., and Banta, Jr., The Taking Issue,
Council of Environmental Quality, U.S. c~vern-ment Printing
Office, 1973.

Hanks, Tarlock and Hanks, Environmental Law and PolicY, West

Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn., 1974.

Leighty, L., "Aesthetics as a Legal Basis for Environmental

Control," 17 Wayne Law Review, 1971.

Levin, R., "Scenic Corridors," in Highway Corridor Planning

and Land Acquisition, Highway Research Record No. 166,
Natlonal Academy o~ Sciences, washington D. C., 1967.

Lorens, E. R., "Valuation of Scenic Easements," in Highway

Research Record No. 166, 1967.

2dO

301
Proceedings of the Seminar on Taxation of A@ricultural and
Other Open Land, COoperative Extension'"Ser-vlce at Michigan
~ a t e University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1971.

"Scenic Easements in Action," Proceedings of a Conference

held at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin,
December, 1966.

Sutte, T., Jr., and Cunningham, A., Scenic Easements - Legal,

Admlnistrative~and Valuation Problems and Procedures,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 56,
Highway Research Board, Washington, D. C., 1968.

Washington State Department of Highways, Utilities Accommoda-

tion Policy, 1974.

Williams, Jr., "Legal Techniques to Promote AeSthetics Along

Transportation Corridors," Highway Research Record, No. 182,
1969.

Wisconsin Division of Highways, A M~rket Study of Properties

Covered by Scenic Easements Along the Great R~ver Road in -
Vernon and Pierge Counties, Special Report N'o. 5, Oct., 1967.

Sections B & C: Implementatign and Guidelines

American Association of State Highway Officials, A Guide for

Highway Landscape and Environmental Design, 1970.
A broad guide to environmental and natural considerations in
the landscape design and treatment of highways.

American Association of State Highway officials, Policy on

Safety RestAreas, 1968.
U. S. Department of Agriculture, The Visual Management System
in Landscape Management, Vol. 2.
U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,
Park Road Standards, 1968.
Washington State Highway Commission, Bike BOok, 1973.
Washington State Highway Commission, Polic~ on Roadside
Development and Highway Bea~tificatign, 1972.

Washington State Parks and Recreation Co,unission and Depart-

ment of Highways, The Yakima Canyon Scenic and Recreational
H ~ h w a y , 1968.
A model interdepartmental design study.

302