Santa Fe County, New Mexico is known the world over for its beautiful scenery and unique landforms. Generations of artists have lived or painted here. People of all walks of life have vacationed here. But the beauty of the County's landscapes can be degraded if care is not taken. There are things a community can do to ensure it does not lose its scenic beauty. A first step is knowing which places and things the community thinks are important. That was the purpose of this project.
This report presents the results of that project--a visual resources inventory and analysis of Santa Fe County. The study relied on both public and expert evaluation in identifying areas within the County that have significance for visual reasons. The study was initiated by the County because of widespread concern for the loss of scenic quality in the County.


Why examine visual quality in the County?
Some may wonder why visual quality should be examined at all because it seems like such a subjective undertaking. But County residents have expressed concern at the degradation of beautiful places due to development. The quality of life for citizens of Santa Fe County is defined, to a large degree, by the scenic nature of the place where they live and work. Conservation of the important visual resources and sensitive scenic areas is critical to the maintenance of this quality of life.

Process
The overall process used to assess visual quality combines extensive public input with computerized map manipulation within a geographic information system (GIS).
The process began with an extensive photographic reconnaissance of the entire County to record the full range of landscape types. These photographs are sorted and categorized into landscape types. These types were then presented to the public for ranking of their visual quality. Rankings were subsequently used to create a map that shows the average public value held for each typical landscape type.
The scenic influence of each landscape type was then rated for potential influence on every other landscape type. These ratings were then used to modify the visual quality rankings. Without this modification, aspen forests throughout the County would have the same scenic quality. In fact, aspen forests adjacent to mountain creeks or coniferous forests should rank higher scenically than aspen forests next to utility corridors or roads.
A separate public nomination of special places helps create a complementary map of those landscape features that are unique and would not necessarily show on a map of typical landscapes.
Taken together, these two maps -ranking the visual quality of both typical and special places--paint a comprehensive visual assessment of the County. The maps also provide a framework for further computer analysis of visual sensitivity.

Detailed Process Description:

The following describes the specific steps that were carried out in assessing the visual quality of Santa Fe County. For each step a description is given of what the task involves, why it was undertaken, and what resulted.

A. Photographic Reconnaissance
of Study Area
Photographs of Santa Fe's landscapes play an important part in the analysis process because they are something that the public readily identifies with and because the categories they represent can be mapped.

A.1 Typical landscapes throughout the study area were photographed.
We conducted a county-wide field survey to begin the process of classifying the broad Santa Fe landscape into categories of typical landscapes that in turn could be mapped. Hundreds of photographs were taken throughout the County.

A.2 The photographs were sorted into logical, consistent categories.
The photographs were sorted into distinct groups, that could be used to represent the entire County. Through this process, twenty-six landscape types were identified and later refined with the assistance of the working group.

A.3 The categories of typical landscapes were reviewed and revised with locally knowledgeable persons.
A working group of citizens was organized to advise the project. (The group represented a wide range of interests from across the county. The working group commented on the proposed methodology prior to initiating this study, as well as acting in a review capacity at critical stages throughout the project.) The group reviewed and helped revise the names used for landscape types so that they would be intelligible to the public. (The names of members of the working group may be found in the Appendices.)
Local review of the category names was important to make certain the terminology being used would be readily understandable to the public. Adjustments in category names were made and English/ Spanish pairs were used when possible. At the end of the task, photographs with category names were in-hand.

B. Data Base Creation
A computerized geographic information system (GIS) was used to map scenic resources across the entire County. A GIS is an efficient and rapid means of creating and analyzing maps of the entire area of the County. Such a system can also be updated quickly and its maps recombined easily.

B.1 Create geographic information system with data layers capable of describing the visual aspects of the study area.
A computer data base was created to carry out the mapping of the primary visual components of the landscape so they could be used as part of the visual assessment process. Some of these data, such as locations of roads and other built features, were readily available in the County's existing geographic information system. Other data, such as land cover and elevation, were obtained from a variety of other sources.
The following data layers were
created:

Vegetation (Figure 13.)
The State of New Mexico provided a map of vegetation that was based on a Landsat image. Mr. Tom Budge of the New Mexico Gap Analysis project, in providing the data, noted that this data set had been classified, but not yet extensively field verified. This data set was particularly important in describing land cover of the undeveloped areas of the County.

Land Use (Figure 14.)
U.S. Geological Survey land use/land cover information was used for this study. These data gave specific land uses for the developed areas of the County, uses, such as commercial development, that may not be directly discernible from satellite imagery.

Elevation
U.S. Geographical Survey digital elevation models (30-meter supplemented with 90-meter resolution where necessary) were combined to create a continuous terrain model. These data are used in calculating viewsheds and slopes.

Natural and Built Features
County data were used for locations of such features as roads, streams, lakes, and canals.

Existing Conditions Map (Figure 15.)
As a tool to help participants visualize the landscape of Santa Fe County, an existing conditions map was created. This is an illustrative map that depicts land forms as a colored, shaded relief (based on the elevation data) and has roads, streams, lakes and canals overlaid for reference.

B.2 A base map was produced for public use.
The process depends on public comment and nomination of special places. The base map needed to have enough detail and reference points that people could mark the features they wanted to. A base map was prepared for public meetings and survey.(A copy of the m map survey may be found in the appendix.)

C. Public participation was used to document public values
As a significant portion of this evaluation process depends on public values for rating scenic quality, a means of assessing those public values was devised that would yield both the quality and quantity of response needed.
There were two rounds of public meetings for the project. The first round was held at seven locations across the County. (Meetings were held at Santa Fe, Tesuque, Chimayó, Eldorado, Edgewood, La Cienega, and Pojoaque.)

C.1 A public survey was administered which solicited (on the base map) the locations of scenic places, important view points, view corridors (e.g., scenic highways), and viewsheds.
The survey (See Appendices.) was administered in two ways. First it was inserted in the New Mexican and East Mountain Telegraph newspapers, made available through several post offices and markets in the northern valleys, and given to all County employees with their paychecks. Approximately 16,000 copies were distributed in these ways. One-hundred-thirty copies were returned. Secondly, it was used at the first round of public meetings.
The process depends on knowing the locations that the public considers to be scenic or important viewpoints or view corridors.


C.2 The public rated (from least to most scenic) each of the typical landscape categories.
At the first round of public meetings, participants were asked to rank the visual quality of the landscape types. Using slides and photographs of a representative image of each type, participants were asked to rate each type on a scale between most scenic to least scenic (Figure 16).
To use public assessment of scenic quality there has to be a consistent rating system so that an average rating can be reached.
The participants at the meetings seemed to have little difficulty ranking the 26 categories of typical landscapes. There was little or no comment on the names used for the categories.

C.3 The public rated (from least to most compatible) the overall scenic quality that would result when each landscape type occurs with each of the other categories.
In the final exercise of the first round of meetings, participants evaluated the effects of one landscape type on adjacent landscape types. Using a matrix that had all landscape types on one axis and all potential adjacent types on the other, participants evaluated whether a potential relationship would be visually positive or negative. (Figure 17). Each respondent's evaluation was documented.
Scenic quality may be reduced when something that is beautiful is next to something that is not. This exercise allowed the public to evaluate these kinds of relationships.
The matrix required considerable time to complete (20-30 minutes) and there were some comments made about the unlikely occurrence together of several of the categories of landscape. Participants rated the relationship between all possible combinations of the 26 visual character types and each response was recorded as follows: Positive visual relationship between types = +1, Neutral relation = 0, and negative visual relationship = -1.

C.3 The results of the analysis were presented to the public for comment.
This allowed the public to see reported back to them what resulted from the first round of workshops and public input. This allowed for a very helpful critique of the conclusions of the earlier results.
The earlier way that visual sensitivity was calculated was vigorously questioned by some residents of areas that they felt were sensitive, but the maps showed as not especially sensitive. This caused the maps to be reexamined and reconfigured.
D. Scenic quality analysis based on
public values

D.1 Consolidate and digitize the publicly
nominated scenic areas.
To be used in the GIS the publicly nominated places had to be digitized. The map provides locations for two landscape types: sacred places and unique landforms and features. (Figure 4)

D.2 The public ratings of the scenic
quality of the typical landscape categories were averaged.
All of the participants' scores were averaged to compute a County-wide average and to be able to assign these average values to each category and ultimately to map these values.
The resulting County averages are shown in Table 4, sorted from most scenic to least scenic. They portray a high level of scenic quality for the mountain backdrop of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, unique land forms and features, Rio Grande Valley, the traditional irrigated valleys, canyons, aspen forests, the desert mountains, sacred places and mesas. Commercial areas, utility corridors, surface mines and industrial areas were considered the landscapes types with the lowest scenic quality.

D.3 Typical landscape categories were mapped.
Using the data layers in the geographic information system (vegetation, topography, land use and the public nominated special and unique places), the twenty-six typical landscape categories were mapped for the entire county (Figure 18).
This is a very important map in the visual assessment process because it is an intermediate between the landscape types (reality)--photographs of which the public can readily relate to--and abstractions of the landscapes--computer maps.
D.4 The Scenic Quality map was recategorized using the County-wide scenic quality averages.
This step converts an inventory map (of landscape categories) into a map that shows public values for intrinsic scenic quality (Figure 19). Visibility is not part of this mapping exercise, that issue is addressed later in the process.

D.5 The public ratings of relational scenic quality were averaged.
An average of the public ratings allows these values to be mapped and therefore integrated into the assessment process.
The list of the resulting values is very lengthy. Table 5 shows the most positive relationships that exist in the County. When these landscapes are seen adjacent to one another, the scenic quality is improved because of the relationship between each type.

D. 6 Relational scenic quality of the study area was mapped to show the influence of adjacent scenery.
This map was created so that the effects of adjacent scenery could be considered in the map analysis. (See Figure 20.)

D.7 Scenic Quality and Relational Scenic Quality maps were combined to map overall scenic
quality.
This step produces the final scenic quality map by modifying the initial map with the relational ratings, giving a map that represents two aspects of scenic quality (Figure 6).
The relational scenic quality map modifies the intrinsic scenic quality map by shifting its values in a positive, neutral, or negative direction. When these two maps are combined, the relational scenic quality map has the potential of affecting specific areas by as much as 20 percent of the values assigned to the Intrinsic Scenic Quality Map. For example, an area that had a value of 3.44 on the intrinsic scenic quality map, may have specific areas enhanced due to a very positive adjacent use to make that area's new value as much as 4.44; or by a very negative visual relationship, lowered to 2.44.
The areas on the influence map do not correspond directly to landscape character type units, since it is the edges of adjacent uses that are affected by this computation, thus areas on the composite scenic quality map are not directly compatible either. The resulting values from combining the general scenic quality map with the influence map represent a ranking of scenic quality, from the highest to the lowest for the entire county.


Highlights of Scenic Quality Map by quadrant:
Northwest Quadrant
The Rio Grande Valley received one of the highest scenic quality ratings in the County. This area is one of the icons of the County (along with the Sangre de Cristo Mountains) and is a tremendous visual resource.
Northeast Quadrant
Industrial, commercial areas, which are scattered through the City of Santa Fe and along highways, are generally of very low scenic quality.
The traditional irrigated valleys of Santa Cruz and Nambe/Pojoaque are of high scenic quality on this map and received considerable mention through the public process.
Southeast Quadrant
The very extensive area that extends south from the intersection of Highways 41 and 285 has a great deal of visual variety, with a mixture of open and wooded areas.
Southwest Quadrant
The mountains in the southern part of the County--the Ortiz, San Pedro, and South--are of very high scenic quality.
Mining in the Ortiz Mountains has created an area of very low scenic quality at the edge of an area (the mountains) of extremely high quality.

E. Visual sensitivity analysis based on expert judgment
Some parts of the Santa Fe landscape are more visually prominent than others. Specific hillsides, fields and valleys are seen by large proportions of the population, while other parts are only rarely seen. Those parts that are seen most often have the highest visual sensitivity, while those areas not seen are considered to have low visual sensitivity. While all the characteristics of this perceptual phenomena are complex, the primary factors are visibility from major viewing points, distance from viewing points, topographic influence, and land cover influence.
E.1 The publicly nominated view points and view corridors were consolidated and digitized.
This step brings together all of the locations suggested by the public and puts them into a digital form that can be used in the GIS. (See Figure 4.)

E.2 GIS was used to calculate what can be seen from these viewing points and corridors (creating the Visibility map).
Visibility from major roads, based on topography and vegetation is an important consideration in determining visual sensitivity (Figure 21).
The collective viewshed of all major roads and nominated scenic routes produces a map depicting most of the landscape as being visible. Viewsheds from individual viewing points are not shown here because there are too many overlapping points. Using the map of viewing points and a GIS it is readily possible to calculate the viewsheds of any of the viewing points or any other points that may be identified in the future. (It is also helpful to use the GIS to calculate a viewshed in the opposite direction, i.e., from the point that is being viewed.)

E.3 A topographic factor map was calculated that identifies visual sensitivity based on slope and elevation.
The landforms in the County are a major contributor to what we see or don't see. Raised elements like mountains and mesas are seen more often than low areas and depressions. Slope and exposure are also important topographic considerations (See Figure 22).
The Topographic Sensitivity Map shows the vulnerability of raised and steep places in the County.

E.4 Use the GIS to calculate a land cover factor map that identifies visual sensitivity based on land cover types (creating the Land Cover influence map).
Land cover is one of the most important characteristics to be considered in examining visual sensitivity in this County. This covering may be coniferous forest or industrial park, open prairie or a parking lot. Different types of cover have various levels of ability to absorb or mask change. Adding another building to an industrial park may not change the nature of that landscape, while that same building in the midst of a plowed agricultural field will stand out prominently. Figure 23 illustrates some of these relationships.
Each landscape type was rated for its absorption capability and these characteristics mapped to depict the county wide pattern.

E.5 Combine the Visibility map with the Topographic and Land Cover maps to map combined visual sensitivity (creating the Composite Visual Sensitivity map).
The factors described above were those used to prepare the Composite Visual Sensitivity Map. From publicly presenting a range of combination strategies for uniting these three maps into one composite map, it was determined the land cover influences were the most important. After land cover, topographic influence was of next most importance, while visibility and near-to-far issues were the least important. A multiplier was used when combining the three maps and as listed below:
Land Cover Sensitivity x 4 (plus)
Topographic Sensitivity x 2 (plus)
plus Visibility/Near to Far x 1
The weighting for this map was based on the premise that land cover was the strongest controller of visual sensitivity.
The result of combining the three component maps together produces a map that depicts county-wide visual sensitivity. The exposed southern mountains, mesas, canyons and prairies appear to have the highest level of visual sensitivity. The areas with the lowest visual sensitivity includes built up areas in and around towns, as well as the heaviest vegetated areas associated with the Sangre de Cristo Mountains.


F. Findings
The conclusions of this study were drawn by examining both the Combined Scenic Quality map and the Publicly Nominated Scenic Resources map. From that process, suggested first priorities were identified. A map (Figure 4.) and a listing (Table 3.) of those priorities is presented in the first part of this report. Further discussion is presented below.

Industrial, commercial areas, which are scattered through the City of Santa Fe and along highways, are generally of very low scenic quality. It may be possible, in some cases, to mitigate this low quality with measures such as plantings between the area and nearby key viewing points. In some areas, such as along Cerrillos Road, few such opportunities now exist because of extensive strip development.
The mountains in the southern part of the County--the Ortiz, San Pedro, and South--are of very high scenic quality and, as free standing mountains, are very prominent.
Mining in the Ortiz Mountains has created an area of very low scenic quality at the edge of an area (the mountains) of extremely high quality. That high quality area would be further degraded if the mine were to expand.
The very extensive area that extends south from the intersection of Highways 41 and 285 has a great deal of visual variety, with a mixture of open and wooded areas. The very expansiveness of this area is likely a part of the reason for its high scenic quality.
The pattern of low scenic quality associated with the agricultural lands in the southwestern part of the County demonstrate a need to update the land cover information for that area. Areas that are no longer in agriculture are showing up with the same rating as the lands under pivot sprinkler irrigation.
The lower Galisteo Basin is a scenic area that is like an oasis of riparian vegetation in the midst of a more arid area.
Caja del Rio Plateau is a large area on the western side of the County that has strong public recognition as a place or a unit, perhaps because of its recreational use. The ground rises gradually, for the most part, from the City of Santa Fe, but has more dramatic topography on its riverside. This plateau shows up as a strong feature in the scenic quality analysis because it was nominated by the public as a very large area worthy of recognition. Taken as a whole it is a very significant landscape, even though much of it is made up of terrain similar to many other places in the County and it is not generally visible unless you are on top of it.
The Rio Grande Valley received one of the highest scenic quality ratings in the County. This area is one of the icons of the County (along with the Sangre de Cristo Mountains) and is a tremendous visual resource.
The Barrancas northwest of Pojoaque and the Cerrillos Hills are also areas that were nominated by the public and show up here with high scenic quality.
The traditional irrigated valleys of Santa Cruz and Nambe/Pojoaque are of high scenic quality on this map and received considerable mention through the public process.
The map suggests something that was borne out in discussions with the public: many members of the public value the open expansiveness of some parts of the County. It is not always the specific land cover of these areas as much as their quality of openness. This suggests that there is a public value for extensive roadless areas.
Canyons, including part of Bandelier National Monument in the western part of the County and the Santa Fe River Canyon through La Bajada are visually very rich.
The ski area in the Sangre de Cristos is another example (like mining in the Ortiz Mountains) where something with low or neutral value is surrounded by great beauty. Care should be taken if the ski area were to be expanded
Residential areas, whether in the city or in the County, were perceived as neutral in scenic value. Residential areas in the County, such as Eldorado, are often surrounded by scenic areas, so if the residential areas expand those scenic areas will be lose some of their scenic value.

Potential further GIS analysis
When an individual landscape type is selected and its potential rankings when paired with all other landscape types are listed, planners can begin to see the potential public reaction to siting certain land uses together.
For example, Table 6 shows (from most compatible to least compatible) are the types of landscape and their ratings when adjacent to utility corridors. Such a list may be useful when deciding future utility line alignments.
Note that only four types could be considered compatible (positive values), while all types showing negative values would be considered incompatible. The highest visual conflicts would occur if utility corridors were placed through or adjacent to aspens, mountain foothills, unique land forms and features, canyon and mesa areas.

Lists like the one in Table 6 can be generated for each landscape character type. Thus planners might use this kind of evaluation to help identify future locations for rural residences or secondary roads, etc.


Recommendations for next steps in conserving scenic resources in Santa Fe County
1. Visual Resource Design Guidelines (design guidelines for development in "typical landscapes")
Consider implementing a Visual Resources Management System that sets up guidelines for development in the specific landscape character zones. These development and design guidelines would specify acceptable design solutions to implement in each typical landscape. For example, housing density, color, and configuration should vary greatly between housing in the pinon-juniper woodland versus the prairie/ grassland areas. The guidelines might include: setbacks, density and massing, grading and berming, landscape materials and landscape protection, colors and architectural styles, etc.

2. Interface with the future Open Places Plan: Setting Priorities
In any open lands program, it is critical to have a clear and flexible methodology for determining a course of action for any given time. Setting priorities through a sound process will help to maximize each action that is taken toward conserving important open lands. Knowing the value of the lands is an important first step. Visual resource is one very important component that is looked at in an open lands program. Knowing the landscapes that are valued by the community for its scenic quality allows those lands to be added to the inventory of lands that are desirable to conserve and answers the first question that must be asked, "Is the land worth protecting?".

3. Scenic Areas Overlay Zoning
Consider implementing an overlay zoning designation for the most highly scenic areas within the county. This zoning designation would allow the county and other jurisdictions to set additional guidelines for development, such as requesting detailed materials (including visual simulations) as part of the development application process.

4. Technical Assistance Team
A technical assistance team could be set up that would work with developers to ensure that their projects are as visually compatible as possible. The team might consist of specialists in architecture, landscape architecture, land planning, and visual simulation. The developer would pay for this service as part of their planning process.

5. Ongoing Public Input into the Visual Resources Inventory
Consider an ongoing process to allow citizens to comment on important landscapes and places in Santa Fe County. This would compensate for the relatively low public input received in this study on the relative importance of the typical landscapes. A citizen's workbook could be developed to continue to educate the public about scenic resources and to solicit additional input. This would allow the inventory to be refined as the open lands plan gets put into place.


6. Revisions to Regulatory Tools: Incentive Techniques
As part of the process of developing guidelines for development in the various types of landscapes, consider revising current regulatory tools to encourage developers to create projects that protect more open land. Specific changes might provide incentives and bonuses to encourage cluster development, conservation easements, and transfer of density rights (TDR).

7. Create a scenic areas registry that encourages residents to register their property in a program that gives them a plaque for displaying roadside and generally raises awareness of the significance of scenery.

8. Cooperate with land trusts to help in protecting sensitive areas. (Frequently they can move faster in acquiring lands than a government agency and they then can sell or donate the land to the County or some other appropriate agency.)

9. Provide the maps developed in this project to subareas (or neighborhoods) so that the evaluations can be refined locally.

Process Discussion:

Why: To use public assessment of scenic quality there has to be a consistent rating system so that an average rating can be reached.
Results: The participants at the meetings seemed to have little difficulty ranking the 26 categories of typical landscapes. There was little or no comment on the names used for the categories.
C.3 Have the public rate (from least to most compatible) the overall scenic quality that would result when each typical landscape category occurs with each of the other categories.
In the final exercise of the first round of meetings, participants evaluated the effects of one landscape type on adjacent landscape types. Using a matrix that had all landscape types on one axis and all potential adjacent types on the other, participants evaluated whether a potential relationship would be visually positive or negative. Each respondent's evaluation was documented.

Why: Scenic quality can be reduced because of the proximity to something that is beautiful something that is not. This exercise allowed the public to give their values for these kind of relationships.
Results: Ratings of the compatibility of each potential pair of typical landscapes. The matrix required considerable time to complete (20-30 minutes) and there were some comments made about the unlikely occurrence together of several of the categories of landscape. Response took the form of: positive (+), neutral, or negative (-). Participants rated the relationship between all possible combinations of the 26 visual character types and each response was recorded as follows: Positive visual relationship between types = +1, Neutral relation = 0, and negative visual relationship = -1.

D. Scenic quality analysis based on public values
D.1 Consolidate and digitize the publicly nominated scenic areas.
Why: To be used in the GIS the publicly nominated places had to be digitized. The map provides locations for two typical landscape types: sacred places and unique landforms and features.
Results: XXX map
D.2 Average the public ratings of the scenic quality of the typical landscape categories.
All of the participants' scores were averaged to compute a County-wide average.
Why: To be able to assign these average values to each category and ultimately to map these values.
Results: County-wide averages for each category.

The resulting County averages are listed below, sorted from most scenic to least scenic. They portray a high level of scenic quality for the mountain backdrop of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, unique land forms and features, Rio Grande Valley, the traditional irrigated valley, canyons, aspen forests, the desert mountains, scared places and mesas. These landscapes are considered most scenic when individuals scenic preferences were summed into a county average. Commercial areas, utility corridors, surface mines and industrial areas were considered the landscapes with the lowest scenic quality.



D.3 Use the GIS to map the typical landscape categories.
Using the data layers in the geographic information system (vegetation, topography, land use and the public nominated special and unique places), the twenty six typical landscape categories were mapped for the entire county.
Why: This is a very important map in the visual assessment process because it is an intermediate between the landscapes types (reality)--photographs of which the public can readily relate to--and abstractions of the landscapes--computer maps.
Results: Scenic Quality map
D.4 Recategorize the Scenic Quality map using the County-wide scenic quality averages.
Why: This step converts an inventory map (of landscape categories) into a map that shows public values for scenic quality.
Results: XX map
D.5 Average the public ratings of relational scenic quality.
Why: An average of the public ratings allows these values to be mapped and therefore integrated into the assessment process.
Results: The list of the resulting values is very lengthy. The following ranking shows the most positive relationships that exist in the County, and when these landscapes are seen adjacent to one another the scenic quality is improved because the relationship between each type.

Aspens:Sangre Uplands = 0.896
Canyons:Unique LANDFORMS & Features = 0.892
Desert Mt.:Unique LANDFORMS & Features = 0.857
Rio Grande Valley:Unique Landforms and Features = 0.821
Mt. Foothills: Unique Landforms and Features = 0.821
Desert Mt.: Mt. Foothills = 0.821
Arroyo/Creek: Unique LANDFORMS & Features = 0.793
Sangre Uplands : Unique LANDFORMS & Features = 0.785
Mt. Foothills: Prairie= 0.785
Mesas: Mt. Foothills = 0.785
Canyon: Mt. Foothills = 0.785
Arroyo/Creek: Mt. Foothills = 0.758
Arroyo/Creek: Aspens = 0.753

D. 6 Use the GIS to map the relational scenic quality of the study area, i.e., to show the influence of adjacent scenery.
Why: This map was created so that the effects of adjacent scenery could be considered in the map analysis.
Results: The XXX map
D.7 Combine the Scenic Quality and Relational Scenic Quality maps to map overall scenic quality.
Why: This step produces the final scenic quality map by modifying the initial map with the relational ratings, giving a map that represents two dimensions of scenic quality.
Results: The influence map modifies the General Scenic Quality map by shifting its values in a positive, neutral, or negative direction. When these two maps are combined the influence map has the potential of affecting specific areas by as much as 20% of the values assigned to the General Scenic Quality Map. For example, an area that had a value of 3.44 on the General Scenic Quality map, may have specific areas enhanced due to a very positive adjacent use to make that area's new value as much as 4.44; or by a very negative visual relationship, lowered to 2.44.
The areas on the influence map do not correspond directly to landscape character type units, since it is the edges of adjacent uses that are effected by this computation, thus areas on the composite scenic quality map are not directly compatible either. The resulting values from combining the general scenic quality map with the influence map represent a ranking of scenic quality, from the highest to the lowest for the entire county.
Highlights of Scenic Quality Map:
Mountainous areas are considered of highest scenic quality.
Unique land forms and features
Foothill areas
Canyons & River systems
Traditional Irrigation vs modern irrigation
Mesas, Aspens and Special Places



E. Visual sensitivity analysis based on expert judgment
Some parts of the Santa Fe landscape are more visually prominent than others. Specific hillsides, fields and valleys are seen by large proportions of the population, while other parts are only rarely seen. Those parts that are seen most often have the highest visual sensitivity, while those areas not seen are considered to have low visual sensitivity. While all the characteristics of this perceptual phenomena are complex, the primary factors are visibility from major viewing points, distance from viewing points, topographic influence, and land cover influence.
E.1 Consolidate and digitize the publicly nominated view points and view corridors.
Why: This step brings together all of the locations suggested by the public and puts them into a digital form that can be used in the GIS.
Results: XX map
E.2 Use the GIS to calculate what can be seen from these view points and corridors (creating the Visibility map).
Why: Visibility from major roads, based on topography and vegetation is an important consideration in determining visual sensitivity.

Results: The collective viewshed of all major roads and scenic routes produces a map depicting most of the landscape as being visible. The white areas on the following map are areas not seen from the major network of roads.


E.3 Use the GIS to calculate a topographic factor map that identifies visual sensitivity based on slope and elevation (creating the Topographic Influence map).
Why: The landforms in the county are a major contributor to what we see or don't see. Raised elements like mountains and mesas are seen more often than low areas and depressions. Slope and exposure are also important topographic considerations.


Results: The Topographic Sensitivity Map shows the vulnerability of raised and steep places in the county.

E.4 Use the GIS to calculate a land cover factor map that identifies visual sensitivity based on land cover types.
Why: Land cover is one of the most important characteristics to be considered in examining visual sensitivity in this county. This covering may be coniferous forest or industrial park, open prairie or a parking lot. Different types of cover have various levels of ability to absorb or mask change. Adding another building to an industrial park may not change the nature of that landscape, while that same building in the midst of a plowed agricultural field will stand out prominently. The diagram that follows illustrates some of these relationships.
INSERT Land Cover Diagram here
Results:Each landscape type was rated for its absorption capability and these characteristics mapped to depict the county wide pattern. Land Cover Visual Sensitivity
INSERT Land Cover Visual Sensitivity Here

E.5 Use the GIS to calculate a near-to-far factor map that identifies visual sensitivity based on distance from view points and corridors (creating the Near-to-far Influence map).
Why: A traditional means of characterizing visibility is to rate near ground, middle ground and background. Those areas nearest to the viewer have a higher visual sensitivity that areas in the distant background because they are more evident.

E.6 Combine the Visibility map with the Topographic, Land Cover, and Near-to-far influence maps to map combined visual sensitivity (creating the Composite Visual Sensitivity map).
The factors described above were those used to prepare the Composite Visual Sensitivity Map. (WEAK) From publicly presenting a range of combination strategies for uniting these three maps into one composite map, it was determined the land cover influences were the most important. After land cover, topographic influence was of next most important, while visibility and near to far issues were the least important. A multiplier was used when combining the three maps and as listed below:
Land Cover Sensitivity x 4 (plus)
Topographic Sensitivity x 2 (plus)
plus Visibility/Near to Far x 1
Why:
Results: The result of combining the three component maps together produces a map that depicts county-wide visual sensitivity. The exposed southern mountains, mesas, canyons and prairies appear to have the highest level of visual sensitivity. The areas with the lowest visual sensitivity includes built up areas in an around towns, as well as the heaviest vegetated areas associated with the Sangre De Cristo Mountains.

F. Analysis
At the second round of public meetings, the results of first meetings were presented.

Participants were first given an overview of the planning process. Presented next were a review of the specific input collected at the first public meeting and the results that were quantified from that process. The maps that were generated using the public values quantified from the earlier workshops were presented and explained in detail. Finally, there was a discussion of how these maps could be used to inform future county and neighborhood planning decisions.
Once the presentation of visual inventory and analysis mapping was complete, the participants were asked to comment on all aspects of the project to date. Comments were recorded and summarized after the meetings.

F.1 Use the GIS to determine which of the most visually sensitive and most beautiful scenic lands are under private versus public ownership.
Why:
Results:

Next steps -further analysis

When an individual landscape type is selected and its potential rankings when paired with all other landscape types are listed, planners can begin to see the potential public reaction to siting certain land uses together.
For example, listed below (from most compatible to least compatible) are the types of landscape and their ratings when adjacent to utility corridors. Such a list may be useful when deciding future utility line alignments.
Note that only four types could be considered compatible (positive values), while all types showing negative values would be considered incompatible. The highest visual conflicts would occur if utility corridors were placed through or adjacent to aspens, mountain foothills, unique land forms and features, canyon and mesa areas.

Industrial 0.321
Commercial 0.206
Main Roads 0.071
Surface Mine 0.071
Modern Irrigation .Agriculture. -0.285
Town Residence -0.321
Shrub lands -0.357
Secondary Roads -0.428
Prairie -0.500
Rural Residence -0.500
Ski Area -0.500
Lake/Res. -0.607
Arroyo/Creek -0.655
Desert Mt. -0.678
Traditional.Irrigated.Valley -0.678
Badlands -0.689
Village Pueblo -0.740
Sacred Places -0.750
Sangre Uplands -0.750
Mesas -0.785
Rio Grande Valley -0.785
Canyon -0.793
Unique LANDFORMS & Features -0.814
Mt. Foothills -0.821
Aspens -0.862

Lists like the one above can be generated for each landscape character type. Thus planners might use this kind of evaluation to help identify future locations for rural residences or secondary roads, etc.
Using the Results for further Analysis:
(meaningful examples of how the analysis maps can be used) [I need to create and then summarize results!]
Scenic Quality of Most Sensitive Areas
Sensitivity of most Scenic Areas
Add Scenic Quality Plus visual Sensitivity.
Screen Public Lands- showing VISUAL QUALITY of private land
sorted relational results - most appropriate. LCT for utility corridors
how much 'highest' scenic quality are public vs. private (acres)
Areas closest to the town of Santa Fe that have high Visual Quality and/or are extremely visually sensitive

Next Steps
Uses of the products of this study:
Problem areas, hazard areas and resource lands of all kinds are often included within an open lands plan to conserve them or shelter them from inappropriate development. However the significance of Visual resources within Santa Fe County suggests the management of these visual resources alone may be warranted.
Visual Resource Management
(separate from or prior to the Open Lands Plan is implemented)
design guidelines specific to landscape character types
Develop a series of design diagrams that illustrate how construction impacts can be mitigated if properly designed.
using many or all typical landscape types or grouping them into logical subcategories, illustrate with plan and section diagrams good design guidelines
Setbacks
Grade changes & berms
Vegetation preservation and buffer plantings
types of vegetation to use
colors and architectural styles
Density and massing
etc.
Open Lands Plan
Site Scale Assessment Criteria
need to be deemed worth of inclusion with open land system
list of possible site criteria (these criteria go beyond simply visual values)
Level of Scenic Quality
Level of Visual Sensitivity
Relationship to other Public Lands
Relationship to other Open Land System
Ownership
Availability
Current Use
Resource Value of Site
Recreation Value of Site
Approx. Dollar Value of Land per Acre
Liability Costs
Maintenance Costs
Threat of Development
Opportunity to leverage funds
Association with land trusts
Relationships with land trusts offer many advantages for the county: (some advantages)
ability to move quickly on threaten lands
act as land holder for short or long term
solicit donations & fund raising
mastery of creative techniques listed below

Techniques for protection of sensitive areas (with expanded descriptions)
1. Donations
2. Bargain Sale
3. Donation with Reserved Life Estate
4. Charitable gift Annuity
5. Installment Purchase
6. Rolling Option
7. Bridge Financing/Land Trust
8. Land Exchange or Trade
9. Cash Purchase
10. Rural Cluster or Open Space Zone
11. Conservation Easement
12. Deed Restrictions/Covenants
13. Estate Planning
14. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR)
15. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)
16. Limited or Protective Development
17. County Right to Farm and Ranch Law
18. Enable the Formation of Agricultural Districts
19. Preferential Tax Treatment
20. Technical Assistance Team
21. Agricultural Zoning
22. Creative Land Purchase for Public Open Space
23. Agricultural Buffer Zones
24. Create an Agricultural Lands Committee

Incentive System to direct future growth:
use of above listed techniques (and others) to encourage compliance with public will relative to open lands objectives
Density Bonus for clustering on least sensitive lands while protecting most sensitive areas.
Preferential Tax Treatment for areas that are protected from inappropriate uses
Technical Assistance Team to help individuals/developers maximize their benefit while complying with community will.
List of some jurisdictions that are presently using this approach
Overlay zoning / regulations & review process based on coincidence with Open Lands or Visual Management Areas
list of jurisdictions that have used overlay zones to protect natural resource areas
Citizens Workbook
(see draft mock-up included- this could be an appendix item in this report if there is enough interest)
Recognizing that we haven't had as much public involvement as we would like, thus keep the door open for additional input by defining the process as dynamic.
Open Lands Plan:
suggest a strategy to prioritize areas for possible inclusion within open lands plan (recognizing that a site scale, parcel level assessment, will be required to realize the ultimate implementation).

General Planning Contributions:
Project desirable locations for future uses to occur, knowing the implications of those uses on visual resources (sf:clarify)
i.e. show sorted results of the relational affect of Rural Residences that depicts the most to least appropriate landscapes for that use to occur.
Development Review Process:
Compare each development proposed to both the Visual Quality Map and the Visual Sensitivity Map and ask the developer how they intend to address the issues both on and around the project site. Thus used to negotiate mitigation measures.
Define Overlay zoning areas:
Demonstrate how these map products can be used to define a logical overlay zone that could be amended to the county plan. Additional regulations and specialized review processes would apply to all proposed development within this overlay zone.

Conclusions:

Since the project objective was to create a county-wide framework for visual resources, the use of public domain data sets, coupled with site specific nominations of special places accomplished those objectives very well.
Much of the problem was finding a methodology that was sophisticated enough for the intellectual elite in Santa Fe, yet simple enough to explain in public meetings throughout the County.
The technique of using survey result as weighting factors was very successful and citizens that don't necessarily agree with the results, recognize that the results are valid since it reflects their neighbors values rather than a expert's opinion. The only way citizens will hold-the -line against future inappropriate growth patterns, is if visual resources are a reflection of their values.
The County Open Space Plan approach to protecting the most significant scenic resources appears to be a wise strategy.