To manage visual values, each alternative applies VRM Classes (I, II, III, IV) to the Planning Area; adverse impacts would primarily result where an area’s VRM Class is less protective than warranted by its visual inventory class (e.g., a visual inventory Class II, a highly visually valuable area, is managed as VRM Class IV, which allows for a major modification of the landscape) and beneficial impacts would result from areas where the VRM Class applied is consistent with or more restrictive than the area’s visual inventory class (e.g., a visual inventory Class III area managed as VRM Class III or Class II). Under all alternatives, traditional resource uses and development will continue, allowing varying degrees of development and resulting in new visual contrast. Alternatives A and C, would be the least protective of visual values as both alternatives manage substantial portions of the Planning Area below their visual inventory class, including substantial areas of visual inventory Class II managed as VRM Classes III and IV (see Table 4–11). However, compared to Alternative C, Alternative A manages a larger portion of lower visual value visual inventory Class IV areas a more restrictive VRM Class III, which would result in greater beneficial impacts in those areas. Alternative B is most protective of visual values, as it would manage almost the entire Planning Area consistent with or more restrictive than the classification determined from the visual inventory (see Table 4–11). Alternative B would therefore be the most effective at maintaining the existing, primarily undeveloped, character of the landscape; managing areas of lower visual value under more restrictive management may also lead to an enhancement of these areas, primarily over the long term. Under Alternative D, VRM closely matches VRM Classes to their corresponding visual inventory Classes (i.e., most visual inventory Class II areas are managed as VRM Class II); this management would thereby be aimed at retaining the visual values identified during the visual inventory.
Table 4.11. Acres of Visual Resource Inventory Classes in Visual Resource Management Classes by Alternative
| VRM Class and Acreage | Visual Resource Inventory Class Acreage 1,2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class I | Class II | Class III | Class IV | |
| Alternative A | ||||
| Class I (141,110) | 140,932 | 178 | 0 | 0 |
| Class II (339,205) | 21 | 286,680 | 32,996 | 19,142 |
| Class III (890,353) | 0 | 313,355 | 171,540 | 405,446 |
| Class IV (1,814,373) | 0 | 381,454 | 181,148 | 1,255,931 |
| Alternative B | ||||
| Class I (154,343) | 140,946 | 13,300 | 95 | 0 |
| Class II (1,782,843) | 8 | 964,733 | 366,551 | 455,744 |
| Class III (393,887) | 0 | 3,922 | 4,315 | 385,650 |
| Class IV (858,162) | 0 | 4 | 19,023 | 843,344 |
| Alternative C | ||||
| Class I (140,958) | 140,946 | 12 | 0 | 0 |
| Class II (330,020) | 0 | 318,836 | 7,549 | 3,611 |
| Class III (511,801) | 8 | 238,058 | 105,812 | 172,139 |
| Class IV (2,202,239) | 0 | 425,054 | 272,405 | 1,504,769 |
| Alternative D | ||||
| Class I (140,954) | 140,954 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Class II (638,929) | 0 | 545,397 | 74,057 | 19,077 |
| Class III (836,361) | 0 | 346,013 | 270,389 | 224,176 |
| Class IV (1,573,357) | 0 | 90,550 | 45,539 | 1,441,486 |
| Source: BLM 2009a VRMVisual Resource Management 1The inventory classes provide the baseline for visual resources in the Planning Area and are the indicator of visual values against which the impacts from VRM under the various management alternatives are measured. Inventory and visual resource management class acreages shown are for BLM-administered surface. 2The BLM does not assign surface lands managed by another federal agency, such as the National Park Service, to a visual resource management class, and these areas are therefore not included in the by-alternative comparison in this table. | ||||