Collection of standardized assessment and monitoring data is critically important for supporting policy and management at local to continental scales. Remote sensing techniques, including image interpretation, have shown promise for collecting plant community composition and ground cover data efficiently. More work needs to be done, however, evaluating whether these techniques are sufficiently feasible, cost-effective, and repeatable to be applied in large programs. The goal of this study was to design and test an image-interpretation approach for collecting plant community composition and ground cover data appropriate for local and continental-scale assessment and monitoring of grassland, shrubland, savanna, and pasture ecosystems. We developed a geographic information system image-interpretation tool that uses points classified by experts to calibrate observers, including point-by-point training and quantitative quality control limits. To test this approach, field data and high-resolution imagery (∼3 cm ground sampling distance) were collected concurrently at 54 plots located around the USA. Seven observers with little prior experience used the system to classify 300 points in each plot into ten cover types (grass, shrub, soil, etc.). Good agreement among observers was achieved, with little detectable bias and low variability among observers (coefficient of variation in most plots <0.5). There was a predictable relationship between field and image-interpreter data (R (2) > 0.9), suggesting regression-based adjustments can be used to relate image and field data. This approach could extend the utility of expensive-to-collect field data by allowing it to serve as a validation data source for data collected via image interpretation.

For more than two decades researchers have utilized the snowmelt runoff model (SRM) to test the impacts of climate change on streamflow of snow-fed systems. SRM developers recommend a parameter shift during simulations of future climate, but this is often omitted. Here we show the impact of this omission on model results. In this study, the hydrological effects of climate change are modeled over three sequential years with typical and recommended SRM methodology. We predict the impacts of climate change on water resources of five subbasins of an arid region. Climate data are downscaled to weather stations. Period change analysis gives temperature and precipitation changes for 55 general circulation models which are then subsampled to produce four future states per basin. Results indicate an increase in temperature between 3.0 and 6.2 °C and an 18% decrease to 26% increase in precipitation. Without modifications to the snow runoff coefficient (cS), mean results across all basins range from a reduction in total volume of 21% to an increase of 4%. Modifications to cS resulted in a 0–10% difference in simulated annual volume. Future application of SRM should include a parameter shift representing the changed climate.

John J. Costonis 1 critically examines the expanding field oflaw loosely termed the law of aesthetics. This area of law concerns governmental efforts to maintain environmental aesthetics by imposing limits upon the use of private property. 2 Costonis does not merely examine the status of the law, or rearticulate the policy concerns elucidated by courts. Rather, he advocates a fundamental change for the role of the law of aesthetics. He criticizes the development of the law to date for unduly focusing on the ''beauty" standard, wherein courts judge the aesthetic importance of environmental attributes in terms of how visually pleasing they are, and thereby decide whether or not to preserve or otherwise protect them (p. xv, 60-70). Costonis advocates a different standard, a dichotomous paradigm that pits "icons" against "aliens." He defines icons as those environmental attributes for which there is a substantial arµount of human attachment; aliens are intrusions that threaten such icons. Costonis' fundamental argument is that a properly focused law of aesthetics would seek not to preserve beauty, but to preserve icons, protecting them from harm threatened by the encroachment of aliens (pp. xv-xvi, 45-51). Centuries ago, aesthetic legal issues simply did not exist. Important cultural landmarks, for example, were simply designated by the King, Emperor, or Pope, without explanation, justification, or dispute (p. 13). Even in this country, institutional recognition of a law of aesthetics occurred only quite recently. Early formalist legal thinkers refused to recognize government's ability to infringe upon the rights of private property and free expression. 3 Not until 1926 did the Supreme Court legitimize public control of privately held land through zoning ordinances. 4 Later, in the watershed case Berman v. Parker, 5 the