Bureau of Land Management Nevada Template Visual Area of Potential Effect (APE) Policy
1340 Financial Boulevard
Reno, NV 89502
United States
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Nevada State Office
1340 Financial Boulevard
Reno, NV 89502-7147
www.blm.gov/nv
In Reply Refer To:
2932 (NV930) P
Instruction Memorandum No. NV-2021-006
Expires: 09/30/2024
To: District Managers, Field Managers, BLM Nevada
From: State Director
Subject: Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Nevada Template Visual Area of Potential Effect (APE) Policy
Program Area: Cultural Resource Management on Public Lands
Purpose: This Instruction Memorandum (IM) serves as the BLM Nevada Policy for meeting the reasonable and good faith standard in developing a Visual Area of Potential Effect (V-APE) in consultation with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), consulting parties, tribes, and members of the public, as appropriate, in compliance with the 36 CFR § 800.4(a) regulations and/or the BLM Nevada-Nevada SHPO Statewide Protocol Agreement (Protocol). The purpose of this policy is to provide BLM Nevada’s Authorized Officers clarity, consistency, and justifications for establishing reasonable V-APE boundaries based on field research and scientific principles, and to establish direction for implementing this policy.
Administrative or Mission-Related: Mission-Related.
Policy/Action: When assessing adverse visual effects to historic properties, the BLM analyzes the potential of a proposed project to visually effect the characteristics of a cultural property that make it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under criterion “a” of the 36 CFR § 60.4 regulations. Importantly, such cultural resources must reside within the V-APE boundary delineated by the BLM Authorized Officer. Put the other way, BLM is not required to either identify or assess effects to cultural resources that lie outside of an adequately identified APE boundary. However, defining the V-APE from the point of new construction to a defined distance away from the constructed features in which visual effects are considered acute enough to adversely affect the setting and/or feeling of a historic property can be highly subjective and arbitrarily set due to a lack of information on the distance in which adverse visual effects are not likely to occur. Establishing unreasonably large V-APEs such that hundreds or thousands of acres are analyzed for visual adverse effects to cultural resources that are so far distant from the proposed project that adverse effects are unlikely to occur in the first place is counterproductive and wasteful and reduces BLM Nevada’s ability to focus limited human capital resources on other cultural preservation matters.
With a goal of establishing a consistent statewide approach, BLM Nevada has developed a guide, Defining a Visual Area of Potential Effects to Historic Properties on BLM Lands in Nevada (Attachment 1), to assist Authorized Officers in defining a V-APE for projects including 500kV, 345kV, and 230 kV transmission lines, Photo Voltaic (PV) or parabolic solar projects, wind turbine projects, and mining Plans of Operations that is based in science to attempt to remove as much as possible the often subjective and arbitrary nature of establishing reasonable V-APEs.
Reasonable V-APEs are developed in consultation with the SHPO, tribes, consulting parties, and members of the public, as appropriate, under the 36 CFR § 800.4(a) regulations. The guide does not absolve BLM Nevada from its consultation requirements with these outside agencies, organizations, and individuals. Rather, it provides consistent justifications for reasonable V-APEs based on project type that serve as a starting point in these required consultation efforts. Because the BLM’s template V-APEs are based on a wealth of field research and scientific principles, their use should necessitate consulting parties providing equally valid counter-proposals if they object to one or more of the template V-APEs detailed in BLM’s guidelines during the consultation process.
Final and reasonable V-APEs established by BLM’s Authorized Officers are to take into consideration the results of these consultations, and other factors including, but not limited to, size and scope of the undertaking, level of federal involvement and control over the cultural resources, and potential to actually cause adverse effects. The intent of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is that federal agencies will take into account adverse effects to historic properties (or sites eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places). It is unreasonable to expect BLM to define V-APEs that are so expansive that they include areas that are unlikely to cause adverse effects. Under the 36 CFR 800 regulations that implement the NHPA, agreement is not required with a SHPO or any consulting party on the final BLM-determined definition of a reasonable V-APE. Nevertheless, BLM Nevada strives to reach agreement whenever possible, and it is vital for BLM Nevada to document and justify our final V-APE boundaries. Unfortunately, there is currently no process in place for BLM Nevada to consistently apply methods to develop reasonable V-APEs for specific project types. This can lead to inconsistent and drawn-out consultations on the definition of reasonable V-APE boundaries that are based more on personal preferences than field research and scientific principles.
The process described in Defining a Visual Area of Potential Effects to Historic Properties on BLM Lands in Nevada combines the methods used to analyze visual contrast under the Visual Resource Management (VRM) program with the process for assessing adverse effects to historic properties under the NHPA. Data used to develop the final template V-APE recommendations are based on previous research sponsored by Argonne National Laboratory, BLM’s own in-field research on built-facilities in southern Nevada, and on the mathematical principle known as the intercept theorem, or basic proportionality theorem. Data gathered from these three independent sources corroborate one another, allowing for multiple data sets to support the final template V-APE distances provided in the guidelines. This process allows cultural resources specialists and Authorized Officers to consistently define reasonable V-APEs for specific project types.
Applying field research and mathematical principles, BLM finds that adverse visual effects are not likely to occur in most instances beyond 3 miles from the centerline (6 miles total width) of either lattice or monopole 500kV transmission lines, 1.5 miles (3 miles total width) of either lattice or monopole 230kV transmission lines, and 0.5 miles (1 mile total width) for wooden monopole transmission lines. We also find that PV-parabolic solar projects without a power tower have a low potential to cause adverse visual effects beyond 5 miles from the edge of the Direct Effects boundary. Wind turbines with blade tips up to 300-400 feet in height and not likely to cause adverse visual effects beyond 12 miles. Geothermal facilities, including wells and pipelines, are not likely to cause adverse visual effects beyond 2 miles. For hard rock mining facilities, a general guide based on maximum height of the waste rock pile is 6 miles for 750’ tall piles, 4 miles for 500’ tall piles, and 2 miles for 250’ tall piles. These recommendations are summarized in the table below.
| Undertaking Type | Recommended NTE Visual APE Distance |
|---|---|
|
230kV transmission lines |
1.5-mile radius (3-mile total width) |
|
345kV and 500kV transmission lines |
3-mile radius (6-mile total width) |
|
50-70’ wooden monopole transmission lines |
0.5-mile radius (1-mile total width) |
|
Solar Energy Fields (PV or Parabolic Trough) |
5 miles |
|
Wind Turbine Energy Fields up to 400 feet |
12 miles |
|
Geothermal Power Plants, Wells, and Pipelines |
2-mile radius around plant or 0.5 mile around individual plant / well / pipeline – BPT = .40 inch |
|
Mining Plans of Operation 750’ High Waste Rock Pile |
6 miles – BPT = .71 inch |
|
Mining Plans of Operation 500’ High Waste Rock Pile |
4 miles – BPT = .71 inch |
|
Mining Plans of Operation 250’ High Waste Rock Pile |
2 miles – BPT = .71 inch |
|
Mining Exploration – Temporary with Immediate Reclamation |
Same as physical disturbance APE |
The recommended Not-To-Exceed (NTE) distances in Defining a Visual Area of Potential Effects to Historic Properties on BLM Lands in Nevada provides BLM’s Authorized Officer’s
with appropriate justifications to set reasonable V-APE boundaries. As is detailed in the guide, these distances are suggested starting points for NTEs, as other factors such as topography need to be taken into consideration and may reduce the distance of the final V-APE boundaries.
In addition, presence/absence of resources is not generally a factor in determining reasonable V-APE boundaries. However, if an Authorized Officer determines that an important tribal sacred area or Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) is located near but outside an APE boundary, the BLM Authorized Officer should consider including the impacts of the project on that tribal resource through other applicable laws, regulations, and policies, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and the special government-to-government consultation relationship between the BLM and federally recognized tribes in compliance with BLM’s Policy Manual 1780 and Handbook 1780-1.
Timeframe: Effective Immediately
Budget Impact: The V-APE policy is expected to streamline BLM Nevada’s development of reasonable V-APE boundaries, in consultation with SHPO, consulting parties, tribes, and members of the public, as appropriate, and cost savings in terms of both time and money are expected to be realized.
Background: Over the past few years, the BLM’s Nevada State Office has noticed that the V-APEs being defined for individual undertakings are inconsistent, despite the fact that many Nevada landscapes are similar in character and project designs are nearly identical. Because BLM is not required to identify or assess effects to cultural resources that lie outside adequately delineated APE boundaries based on size/scope of the undertaking and landscape features, this leads to highly uncertain costs and time frames necessary for completion of the Section 106 process. A consistent approach that provides baseline recommendations but also allows for flexibility in final V-APE boundary delineations based on consultations with SHPO, consulting parties, tribes, and members of the public, as appropriate provides BLM Nevada with the justifications necessary to defend final V-APE determinations in compliance with the 36 CFR § 800 regulations.
Manual/Handbook Sections Affected: None.
Contact: If you have any questions relating to the information and guidance in this IM, please email Bryan Hockett of the BLM Nevada State Office, at b50hocke@blm.gov.
Attachment: Defining a Visual Area of Potential Effects to Historic Properties on BLM Lands in Nevada – 80pp
cc:
Rebecca Palmer, Nevada SHPO
Robin Reed, Deputy Nevada SHPO (Compliance)
Bill Marzella, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Jill Jensen, Archaeologist, National Park Service National Historic Trails
This Instruction Memorandum (IM) serves as the BLM Nevada Policy for meeting the reasonable and good faith standard in developing a Visual Area of Potential Effect (V-APE) in consultation with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), consulting parties, tribes, and members of the public, as appropriate, in compliance with the 36 CFR § 800.4(a) regulations and/or the BLM Nevada-Nevada SHPO Statewide Protocol Agreement (Protocol). The purpose of this policy is to provide BLM Nevada’s Authorized Officers clarity, consistency, and justifications for establishing reasonable V-APE boundaries based on field research and scientific principles, and to establish direction for implementing this policy.
Mission-Related
When assessing adverse visual effects to historic properties, the BLM analyzes the potential of a proposed project to visually effect the characteristics of a cultural property that make it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under criterion “a” of the 36 CFR § 60.4 regulations. Importantly, such cultural resources must reside within the V-APE boundary delineated by the BLM Authorized Officer. Put the other way, BLM is not required to either identify or assess effects to cultural resources that lie outside of an adequately identified APE boundary. However, defining the V-APE from the point of new construction to a defined distance away from the constructed features in which visual effects are considered acute enough to adversely affect the setting and/or feeling of a historic property can be highly subjective and arbitrarily set due to a lack of information on the distance in which adverse visual effects are not likely to occur. Establishing unreasonably large V-APEs such that hundreds or thousands of acres are analyzed for visual adverse effects to cultural resources that are so far distant from the proposed project that adverse effects are unlikely to occur in the first place is counterproductive and wasteful and reduces BLM Nevada’s ability to focus limited human capital resources on other cultural preservation matters.
With a goal of establishing a consistent statewide approach, BLM Nevada has developed a guide, Defining a Visual Area of Potential Effects to Historic Properties on BLM Lands in Nevada (Attachment 1), to assist Authorized Officers in defining a V-APE for projects including 500kV, 345kV, and 230 kV transmission lines, Photo Voltaic (PV) or parabolic solar projects, wind turbine projects, and mining Plans of Operations that is based in science to attempt to remove as much as possible the often subjective and arbitrary nature of establishing reasonable V-APEs.
Reasonable V-APEs are developed in consultation with the SHPO, tribes, consulting parties, and members of the public, as appropriate, under the 36 CFR § 800.4(a) regulations. The guide does not absolve BLM Nevada from its consultation requirements with these outside agencies, organizations, and individuals. Rather, it provides consistent justifications for reasonable V-APEs based on project type that serve as a starting point in these required consultation efforts. Because the BLM’s template V-APEs are based on a wealth of field research and scientific principles, their use should necessitate consulting parties providing equally valid counter-proposals if they object to one or more of the template V-APEs detailed in BLM’s guidelines during the consultation process.
Final and reasonable V-APEs established by BLM’s Authorized Officers are to take into consideration the results of these consultations, and other factors including, but not limited to, size and scope of the undertaking, level of federal involvement and control over the cultural resources, and potential to actually cause adverse effects. The intent of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is that federal agencies will take into account adverse effects to historic properties (or sites eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places). It is unreasonable to expect BLM to define V-APEs that are so expansive that they include areas that are unlikely to cause adverse effects. Under the 36 CFR 800 regulations that implement the NHPA, agreement is not required with a SHPO or any consulting party on the final BLM-determined definition of a reasonable V-APE. Nevertheless, BLM Nevada strives to reach agreement whenever possible, and it is vital for BLM Nevada to document and justify our final V-APE boundaries. Unfortunately, there is currently no process in place for BLM Nevada to consistently apply methods to develop reasonable V-APEs for specific project types. This can lead to inconsistent and drawn-out consultations on the definition of reasonable V-APE boundaries that are based more on personal preferences than field research and scientific principles.
The process described in Defining a Visual Area of Potential Effects to Historic Properties on BLM Lands in Nevada combines the methods used to analyze visual contrast under the Visual Resource Management (VRM) program with the process for assessing adverse effects to historic properties under the NHPA. Data used to develop the final template V-APE recommendations are based on previous research sponsored by Argonne National Laboratory, BLM’s own in-field research on built-facilities in southern Nevada, and on the mathematical principle known as the intercept theorem, or basic proportionality theorem. Data gathered from these three independent sources corroborate one another, allowing for multiple data sets to support the final template V-APE distances provided in the guidelines. This process allows cultural resources specialists and Authorized Officers to consistently define reasonable V-APEs for specific project types.
Applying field research and mathematical principles, BLM finds that adverse visual effects are not likely to occur in most instances beyond 3 miles from the centerline (6 miles total width) of either lattice or monopole 500kV transmission lines, 1.5 miles (3 miles total width) of either lattice or monopole 230kV transmission lines, and 0.5 miles (1 mile total width) for wooden monopole transmission lines. We also find that PV-parabolic solar projects without a power tower have a low potential to cause adverse visual effects beyond 5 miles from the edge of the Direct Effects boundary. Wind turbines with blade tips up to 300-400 feet in height and not likely to cause adverse visual effects beyond 12 miles. Geothermal facilities, including wells and pipelines, are not likely to cause adverse visual effects beyond 2 miles. For hard rock mining facilities, a general guide based on maximum height of the waste rock pile is 6 miles for 750’ tall piles, 4 miles for 500’ tall piles, and 2 miles for 250’ tall piles. These recommendations are summarized in the table below.
| Undertaking Type | Recommended NTE Visual APE Distance |
|---|---|
|
230kV transmission lines |
1.5-mile radius (3-mile total width) |
|
345kV and 500kV transmission lines |
3-mile radius (6-mile total width) |
|
50-70’ wooden monopole transmission lines |
0.5-mile radius (1-mile total width) |
|
Solar Energy Fields (PV or Parabolic Trough) |
5 miles |
|
Wind Turbine Energy Fields up to 400 feet |
12 miles |
|
Geothermal Power Plants, Wells, and Pipelines |
2-mile radius around plant or 0.5 mile around individual plant / well / pipeline – BPT = .40 inch |
|
Mining Plans of Operation 750’ High Waste Rock Pile |
6 miles – BPT = .71 inch |
|
Mining Plans of Operation 500’ High Waste Rock Pile |
4 miles – BPT = .71 inch |
|
Mining Plans of Operation 250’ High Waste Rock Pile |
2 miles – BPT = .71 inch |
|
Mining Exploration – Temporary with Immediate Reclamation |
Same as physical disturbance APE |
The recommended Not-To-Exceed (NTE) distances in Defining a Visual Area of Potential Effects to Historic Properties on BLM Lands in Nevada provides BLM’s Authorized Officer’s
with appropriate justifications to set reasonable V-APE boundaries. As is detailed in the guide, these distances are suggested starting points for NTEs, as other factors such as topography need to be taken into consideration and may reduce the distance of the final V-APE boundaries.
In addition, presence/absence of resources is not generally a factor in determining reasonable V-APE boundaries. However, if an Authorized Officer determines that an important tribal sacred area or Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) is located near but outside an APE boundary, the BLM Authorized Officer should consider including the impacts of the project on that tribal resource through other applicable laws, regulations, and policies, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and the special government-to-government consultation relationship between the BLM and federally recognized tribes in compliance with BLM’s Policy Manual 1780 and Handbook 1780-1.
The V-APE policy is expected to streamline BLM Nevada’s development of reasonable V-APE boundaries, in consultation with SHPO, consulting parties, tribes, and members of the public, as appropriate, and cost savings in terms of both time and money are expected to be realized.
Over the past few years, the BLM’s Nevada State Office has noticed that the V-APEs being defined for individual undertakings are inconsistent, despite the fact that many Nevada landscapes are similar in character and project designs are nearly identical. Because BLM is not required to identify or assess effects to cultural resources that lie outside adequately delineated APE boundaries based on size/scope of the undertaking and landscape features, this leads to highly uncertain costs and time frames necessary for completion of the Section 106 process. A consistent approach that provides baseline recommendations but also allows for flexibility in final V-APE boundary delineations based on consultations with SHPO, consulting parties, tribes, and members of the public, as appropriate provides BLM Nevada with the justifications necessary to defend final V-APE determinations in compliance with the 36 CFR § 800 regulations.
None.
If you have any questions relating to the information and guidance in this IM, please email Bryan Hockett of the BLM Nevada State Office, at b50hocke@blm.gov.