Clarification of Treatment of Visual Resources Management Classes in Land Use Planning and Project Planning
November 24, 2008
In Reply Refer To:
1610 (CA930)P
EMS TRANSMISSION: 11/24/08
Information Bulletin No. CA-2009-005
To: All California Field Managers and California Desert District Manager
Attn: Planning and Environmental Coordinators, Recreation Planners
From: State Director
Subject: Clarification of Treatment of Visual Resources Management Classes in Land Use
Planning and Project Planning
The purpose of this IB is to clarify existing guidance on the process used to determine visual resource management classes (VRM), as well as how and when to determine allowable uses in particular VRM classes.
VRM Classes are typically established during the land use planning process following a visual resources inventory. In the absence of established VRM classes and when planning a project, interim VRM classes may be determined, using existing or updated VRM inventory data that conform to RMP land allocations (BLM Manual 8400.06(A)(3)). The establishment of interim VRM classes will not require a plan amendment unless the project itself requires one. During project planning or land use plan revisions, visual resource inventories may be updated as needed and VRM classes adjusted. Changes to VRM classes, as part of project planning, would require a plan amendment. The need for updated visual inventories may be identified during plan evaluations or project planning.
It is important to understand that VRM classification is not a land allocation for which broad classes of activities may be allowed or prohibited at the RMP level. Projects must be considered on a site-specific basis as to their impact on the project area’s VRM objectives before approving or denying a particular action. This policy has been outlined at the Bureau level:
In summary, it is the intent and policy of both the Department and the Bureau of
Land Management that the visual resource values of public lands must be
considered in all land-use planning efforts and surface disturbing activities. This
does not mean that VRM should be used as a method to preclude all other
resource development. It means that the visual values must be considered and
those considerations documented in the decision-making process, and that if
resource development/extraction is approved, a reasonable attempt must be made
to meet the VRM objectives for the area in question and to minimize the visual
impacts of the proposal. WO IB-98-135.
Objectives for Visual Resource Management Classes
1. Class I. The objective of this class is to preserve the existing character of the landscape. This class provides for natural ecological changes; however, it does not preclude very limited management activity. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be very low and must not attract attention. At a minimum, all wilderness and wilderness study areas are in VRM Class I.
2. Class II. The objective of this class is to retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be low. Management activities may be seen, but should not attract the attention of the casual observer. Any changes must repeat the basic elements of form, line, color, and texture found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
3. Class III. The objective of this class is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be moderate. Management activities may attract attention but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. Changes should repeat the basic elements found in the predominant natural features of the characteristic landscape.
4. Class IV. The objective of this class is to provide for management activities which require major modifications of the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape can be high. These management activities may dominate the view and be the major focus of viewer attention. However, every attempt should be made to minimize the impact of these activities through careful location, minimal disturbance, and repeating the basic elements.
When considering a site-specific project proposal, visual resource impact analysis involves determining whether the potential visual impacts from proposed surface-disturbing activities will meet the VRM class objectives established for the area, or whether design adjustments will be required. A visual contrast rating process is used for this analysis, which involves comparing the project features with the major features in the existing landscape using the basic design elements of form, line, color, and texture. This process is described in BLM Handbook H-8431-1, Visual Resource Contrast Rating. The analysis can then be used as a guide for resolving visual impacts. Once every attempt is made to reduce visual impacts, BLM managers can decide whether to accept or deny project proposals. Managers also have the option of attaching additional mitigation stipulations to bring the proposal into compliance. Decision options regarding visual impacts include:
- Implement the project as consistent with VRM objectives
- Modify/mitigate the project so that it is consistent with VRM objectives
- Deny the project if the visual impacts, even with mitigation, are unacceptable
- Modify the VRM class through a plan amendment and implement the project
Questions regarding this IB may be directed to Sandra McGinnis, Environmental Protection Specialist, at (916) 978-4427.
Signed by:
Mike Pool
State Director
Authenticated by:
Rose McCaslin
Records Management
Attachments
BLM Manual 8400 Visual Resource Management (12 pp)
BLM Manual H-8410-1 Visual Resource Inventory (7 pp)
BLM Manual 8431 Visual Resource Contrast Rating (6 pp)
WO IB 98-135 Visual Resource Management Policy Restatement (5 pp)