Impacts Common to All Alternatives

There would be adverse impacts to visual resources under each alternative. However, the intensity and extent of impacts would vary. Impacts to visual resources would occur where VRM is inconsistent with an area’s visual inventory class rating, or where major visually impairing projects, such as wind farms or mining areas, located in areas with low VRM objectives (Class IV) negatively influence the scenic quality of areas managed to maintain scenic quality, such as Class I or II areas. To a lesser extent, any project that creates new visual contrast, regardless of whether that contrast is consistent with the area’s visual values as identified in the visual inventory, would result in impacts. Under any of the alternative analyzed here, the major sources of visual contrast in the Planning Area would be from ongoing oil and gas development; renewable energy (wind) development; mining; fire, fuels, and vegetation management; and off-road motorized vehicle activities. Depending on the visual values of an area, varying degrees of visual contrast may be compatible with the landscape and can occur without being considered an adverse impact.

Energy development would cause surface disturbance and introduce facilities that create contrasts with the form, line, color, and texture in the landscape. The forms of tanks, wind turbines, and similar facilities, and earthwork would contrast with the natural form of the landscape. The lines created by roads, powerlines, and facilities would contrast with the natural lines in the landscape. Energy facilities would typically be a lighter color and have smoother surfaces than the surrounding landforms and vegetation, thus creating contrasts of color and texture. Implementing BMPs to reduce visual contrast with surroundings may mitigate potential adverse impacts to visual resources resulting from the development of energy and associated facilities. Through the design and placement of facilities in consideration of the surrounding environment, visual contrast can be reduced, although not completely eliminated.

Mining activity, particularly for locatable minerals, would result in new visual contrast on the landscape due to road construction and excavation. As mining proceeds, artificial forms such as spoil piles and excavation pits are created that contrast with the surrounding natural landscape. For example, locatable bentonite mining usually involves establishing temporary stockpiles of mined bentonite, which would be a much lighter color than the surrounding undisturbed landscape. Because locatable mineral development is not a discretionary activity, the BLM cannot enforce VRM restrictions; therefore, adverse impacts to high visual value areas can result, even when they are managed under more restrictive VRM Classes. Adverse impacts from locatable mineral development are most likely to occur on the 435,324 acres with known bentonite potential and the 142,577 acres with known gypsum potential.

The development of wind energy would result in substantial visual contrast over relatively large areas. Wind turbines can reach up to 500 feet in height and also add an element of movement that can attract the attention of viewers. In addition, changes to the characteristic landscape from wind farms are often greater than other types of development because they generally require multiple wind turbines in a concentrated area. Wind potential is typically greater at higher elevations and, consequently, in more visible and sensitive locales that experience greater and more constant wind speed. These characteristic of wind development mean that mitigating its visual contrast can be difficult. Highly visible areas (mountaintops and ridges) and areas with high visual value (generally visual inventory Class I and II areas) with high potential for wind-energy development, such as Rattlesnake Mountain, may be the most adversely affected by this type of development if the values consistent with their visual classification are not protected or mitigated. Mineral and renewable energy development would produce both short- and long-term visual contrast on the landscape. Construction and staging activities are generally short-term, whereas the life of a mineral development or renewable energy project is either long-term (30 to 50 years, plus final reclamation) or permanent. Interim reclamation measures can reduce the degree of contrasting elements of long-term surface disturbance.

Motorized vehicle activity would further exhibit or create contrasting elements of line and color from roads and trails against the natural elements in the surrounding landscape. The exposed lighter-colored soil would contrast with the surrounding vegetation, which is usually a darker gray-green color. Unreclaimed surface disturbance from unauthorized motorized vehicle activity would be either short-term or long-term. There would likely be unauthorized use (e.g., cross-country motorized travel in areas with limited travel designations) under all alternatives, though restrictions and the use of travel management designations may limit the creation of additional roads and trails that would cause new visual contrast.

Fire, fuels, and vegetation management can remove or alter the structure and density of vegetation and affect visual resources. Wildland fires can create substantial visual contrast in the form of large burned areas that, depending on the visual value of an area, may result in short-term adverse impacts. However, reducing hazardous fuels to decrease the chance of stand-replacing fires and diversifying stand age and improving forest health would reduce the chance of more severe fires and their associated large burn areas. Fire suppression activities and vegetation management can change the natural line, color, form, and texture of vegetative communities and the introduction of new visual intrusions, such as access roads or fire lines and breaks. The new contrasts from most of these activities would be short-term in nature. Over the long term, visual contrast would diminish as vegetative communities regenerate.

Under all alternatives, the BLM would manage visual resources in accordance with VRM Class objectives (see the ’Methods and Assumptions’ section above). Before authorizing land uses that may affect the visual values of the landscape, the BLM would consider how the land use would align with the VRM Class objective. For example, the BLM would allow surface-disturbing activities within VRM Class II areas if the contrasting visual elements from the actions can be minimized or eliminated. The BLM manages all WSA areas under VRM Class I objectives, resulting a minimal potential for adverse impacts to visual values in these areas. The size of the VRM Class areas vary by alternative, as discussed below.

Alternative A

Under Alternative A, the BLM manages 141,110 acres of BLM-administered surface as VRM Class I, 339,205 acres as VRM Class II, 890,353 acres as VRM Class III, and 1,814,373 acres as VRM Class IV. The objective of VRM Classes I and II (15 percent of BLM-administered surface) is to preserve or retain the existing character of the landscape. VRM Classes III and IV (85 percent of BLM-administered surface) would generally allow changes to the characteristic landscape, subject to some level of mitigation.

VRM under Alternative A is generally not consistent with the visual values (represented by the visual inventory classes) identified in the visual resource inventory for the Planning Area, resulting in the potential for both adverse and beneficial impacts. As shown in Table 4–12, Alternative A manages substantial portions of the Planning Area at or above (i.e., less protective of visual values) their visual inventory Class, which would result in adverse impacts to visual values by potentially allowing the construction of contrasting elements (described below and under Impacts Common to All Alternatives) incompatible with these areas. The potential for adverse impacts would be greatest where visual inventory Class II and III areas are managed as VRM Class IV (381,454 acres and 181,148, acres respectively), but would also occur in the 313,355 acres of visual inventory Class II managed as VRM Class III. As shown in Table 4–12, this alternative would also manage large portions of the Planning Area with High Sensitivity as either VRM Class III (353,371 acres) or VRM Class IV (388,942 acres), providing a lower degree of protection to these areas of high viewer sensitivity; similarly, large areas inventoried as Scenic Quality A are to be managed as VRM Class III (and 367,895 acres) and VRM Class IV (702,174 acres). Such management would allow easily seen projects and/or strongly contrasting elements to be added to these high scenic quality and/or sensitivity areas, resulting in adverse impacts to these visual values. Without other restrictions, applying VRM that is incompatible (i.e., a higher VRM Class) with an area’s visual values as identified in the visual inventory, would eventually alter these areas toward a higher visual inventory class.

Source: BLM 2009a

¹Total acreage of each BLM class for each alternative. Scenic quality, sensitivity, and Visual Resource Management Class acreages shown are for BLM-administered surface.

² Wilderness Study Areas. For the visual resource inventory, “Special Areas” include Wilderness Study Areas and surface lands managed by other federal agencies, such as the National Park Service. However, the BLM does not assign surface lands managed by other federal agencies to a Visual Resource Management Class, and are therefore not included in this table.

Surface Disturbance

Under Alternative A, all surface-disturbing activities anticipated to occur in the Planning Area (Appendix T) may affect visual resources, although the intensity of the impact will vary by resource use and the visual values of the location. Alternative A would result in 136,415 acres of short-term surface disturbance. Adverse impact from surface-disturbing activities would be greater in areas where VRM allows disturbance that are inconsistent with the areas visual values identified in the visual resource inventory. Small-scale, dispersed development (e.g., range improvements) will result in less contrast due to the ability to blend these developments into the natural landscape. Large-scale, concentrated development, such as oil and gas development, is likely to result in more contrast, because these developments are more difficult to blend into the surrounding landscape.

Management actions that restrict surface disturbance for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, biological resources, cultural resources, and special designations) would help to protect visual values by reducing visual contrast.

Resource Uses

Under Alternative A, mineral development would result in surface disturbance that would degrade visual values, particularly in areas where VRM is inconsistent with the area’s visual inventory class. Activities associated with leasable mineral and other mining, such as well pad development and road and pipeline construction, would result in adverse impacts to visual values through disturbances to the natural form, line, color, and texture in the landscape, subject to VRM restrictions. Except on the 174,354 acres of BLM mineral estate withdrawn under Alternative A, locatable mineral development would not be subject to VRM and would therefore be the most likely type of mining to result in adverse impacts to visual values.

Visual impacts from ROW projects, such as powerlines, pipelines, and wind-energy projects, are required to conform to VRM objectives, but would still result in adverse impacts to some high visual value areas under Alternative A. In the case of renewable energy, a long-term visual contrast and, depending on location, an adverse impact to visual values would occur. Such impacts would be most likely to occur on the portion of the 2,186,620 acres managed as open to ROW authorizations where the VRM Class is less restrictive than the areas visual inventory class. Alternative A does not include specific management for renewable energy, but is instead managed consistent with other ROWs.

CTTM under Alternative A limits potential damage to resources from motorized vehicles by restricting their use to existing roads and trails in most of the Planning Area (2,332,355 acres). Allowing off-road motorized vehicle use for big game retrieval and dispersed campsite access in areas with limited travel designations may increase road and trail proliferation, introducing more contrast in the form of unnatural lines and vegetation removal. Alternative A also includes a small area (1,320 acres) managed as open to cross-country motorized travel where substantial visual contrast due from vegetation and user-pioneered routes would occur. However, because these areas have been open to cross-country motorized travel for a number of years, substantial visual contrast is already evident, resulting in visual inventory Class IV ratings.

Special Designations

Under Alternative A, management for special designations (e.g., ACECs and WSR eligible waterways) generally includes restrictions or limitations on surface-disturbing activities (such as ROW development, mining, and renewable energy) intended to protect the values for which the area is managed. Restrictions, limitations, or specific mitigation requirements for surface-disturbing activities, mining, ROW development, and renewable energy development would reduce activities that may cause visual contrast. Such restrictions may result in beneficial impacts to visual values where they limit development that results in new contrast, but is consistent with VRM objectives.

Proactive Management

Proactive management actions for visual resources under Alternative A would provide some protection for visual resources in the Planning Area by identifying or reducing the potential for adverse impacts. Alternative A requires a VRM contrast rating worksheet for all proposed actions in areas managed as VRM Class I and for all projects with a high degree of visual impact. This alternative also requires visual simulations on a case-by-case basis and limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in areas managed as VRM Classes I and II to reduce the potential for road and trail proliferation. However, because VRM classes under this alternative are not consistent with the visual inventory classes across a large portion of the Planning Area, VRM Class-specific proactive management would not benefit all areas with high visual values.

Alternative B

Alternative B emphasizes conservation of resources over resource use and would result in fewer adverse impacts compared to other alternatives by reducing development that may affect visual values, and by increasing proactive management. Under Alternative B, the BLM manages 154,343 acres of BLM-administered surface as VRM Class I, 1,782,843 acres as VRM Class II, 393,887 acres as VRM Class III, and 858,162 acres as VRM Class IV. The area managed as VRM Class IV, where major modifications to existing landscape are allowable, is smallest under this alternative. This alternative includes the largest acreage of VRM Classes I and II, (61 percent of BLM-administered surface acreage in the Planning Area) with the goal of maintaining the existing landscape character. As shown in , Alternative B manages the most area of any alternative consistent with or more protective than its visual values (i.e., at a lower visual inventory class). Alternative B manages the smallest acres of visual inventory Classes II and III areas as VRM Class IV (8 acres and 19,023 acres, respectively), and would generally restrict activities where major modifications to the landscape can occur to visual inventory Class IV areas, where they would have the least adverse impact due to the lower visual value and existing disturbances in these areas.

As shown in Table 4–12, this alternative also places the majority of areas inventoried as High Sensitivity and Scenic Quality A into more protective VRM Classes I and II. More than the other alternatives, VRM under Alternative B would prevent easily seen projects and/or strongly contrasting elements from being added to these high scenic quality and/or sensitivity areas.

Surface Disturbance

Alternative B places the most restrictions on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources (e.g., soil, water, biological resources, cultural resources, and special designations) and would result in the least surface disturbance of any alternative. These restrictions would result in the smallest potential for the creation of new visual contrast from such disturbance. For example, Alternative B applies an NSO restriction to avoid surface disturbance in big game crucial winter range year-round, compared to Alternative A, which applies a TLS for part of the year, and alternatives C and D, which do not include seasonal stipulations for the protection of big game and exempt Oil and Gas Management Areas from discretionary wildlife seasonal stipulations. In relation to the other alternatives, large-scale disturbances, high-profile intrusions, and concentrated development are the most limited under Alternative B. Because the BLM would manage the most acreage as VRM Classes I and II under Alternative B, fewer and less-intrusive activities would be permitted and the most protection to visual resources, including in high visual value visual inventory Class I and II areas, would occur. However, in locations where visual contrast from intensive development in VRM Class IV occurred, adverse impacts to visual values may still result, particularly where areas of such development abut areas of substantially higher visual value (i.e., visual inventory Class I and II) (see Map 39).

Resource Uses

Mineral resource development under Alternative B would result in the least surface disturbance of any alternative. Relatively fewer disturbances from well pad development, road, and pipeline construction would limit new visual contrast that would disrupt the natural form, line, color, and texture of the landscape.

Under Alternative B, ROW projects such as powerlines and pipelines are anticipated to result in the least disturbance and, therefore, the fewest instances of new contrast compared to the other alternatives.

Renewable energy projects are more restricted under Alternative B than the other alternatives. Alternative B classifies the most acreage as renewable energy exclusion areas and the least acreage as open to renewable energy development. Because wind-energy development is often visible from far away, even when it is placed in areas where such development is consistent with the underlying VRM Class objective, the visual values of the surrounding scenic quality rating units will be compromised and altered to a lower visual resource inventory class. Excluding and avoiding renewable energy development across large portions of the Planning Area would reduce potential adverse impacts to visual values.

CTTM under Alternative B places the most restrictions on motorized vehicle use, limiting the potential for new visual contrast from route creation. In particular, prohibiting off-road motorized vehicle use for big game retrieval in areas with limited travel designations would reduce the potential for road and trail proliferation that may adversely affect visual values. Alternative B is anticipated to result in more contrasting elements due to the creation of more new roads, hiking trails, and trailheads than Alternative A, but less than alternatives C and D.

Special Designations

Under Alternative B, impacts from management in special designations would be similar to those described for Alternative A, but would occur over a larger area. Alternative B includes the most ACECs of any alternative and manages all the WSR-eligible waterways segments discussed under Alternative A as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS. Although most of these areas are managed under VRM Class II objectives, additional restrictions on development in the portions managed under less restrictive VRM (primarily VRM Class III) would further reduce contrast and resulting adverse impacts to visual values. Additionally, designating all LWCs as Wild Lands (571,288 acres of BLM-administered land) and managing them as VRM Class II would result in beneficial impacts to visual values in these areas.

Proactive Management

In addition to managing to meet the more restrictive VRM Class objectives under Alternative B, specific proactive management under this alternative imposes additional visual resource protections compared to the other alternatives. Alternative B requires a VRM contrast rating worksheet for all proposed actions in areas managed as VRM Class I, II, or III, and requires visual simulations and mitigation design in VRM Class I and II areas. This alternative also limits motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails in VRM Class II areas and closes VRM Class I areas to motorized vehicle use to preserve areas of high visual resource value by reducing the potential for road and trail proliferation. Because VRM classes under this alternative are generally consistent with or more protective than the visual inventory classes for the same areas, VRM Class-specific proactive management would be more effective under this alternative than under Alternative A.

Alternative C

Management of visual resources under Alternative C places a greater emphasis on resource use and development compared to the other alternatives, and more impacts to visual values from surface-disturbing and other activities would result than under the other alternatives. Under Alternative C, the BLM would manage 140,958 acres of BLM-administered surface as VRM Class I, 330,020 acres as VRM Class II, 511,801 acres as VRM Class III, and 2,202,239 acres as VRM Class IV. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative C manages the most area as VRM Class IV (69 percent of BLM-administered surface in the Planning Area), which may result in more visual contrast due to surface disturbance in support of resource development activities.

Alternative C manages substantial portions of the Planning Area at or above their visual inventory class (see Table 4–11) and would have the greatest adverse impacts to visual values of any alternative because it allows the construction of contrasting elements (described below and under Impacts Common to All Alternatives) incompatible with visual inventory classes. The potential for adverse impacts would be greatest where visual inventory Class II and III areas are managed as VRM Class IV (425,054 acres and 272,405 acres, respectively), but also in the 238,058 acres of visual inventory Class II managed as VRM Class III. Similar to Alternative A, this alternative would manage large areas with High Sensitivity as VRM Class III (226,590 acres) or VRM Class IV (468,192 acres) (Table 4–12). Similarly, large areas inventoried as Scenic Quality A are managed as VRM Class III (244,955 acres) or VRM Class IV (776,554 acres). Such management would allow new strongly contrasting elements to be added to these high scenic quality and sensitivity areas and, without other restrictions, would eventually alter these areas toward a higher visual inventory class.

Surface Disturbance

Alternative C would result in the most surface disturbance of any alternative and, therefore, the greatest potential for new visual contrast. Adverse impacts from surface-disturbing activities would be greater in areas where VRM allows disturbance that is inconsistent with the area’s visual values identified in the visual resource inventory. Compared to the other alternatives, Alternative C allows for more large-scale disturbances, high-profile intrusions, and concentrated developments. The larger area managed as VRM Class IV under Alternative C would allow more visually intrusive activities in the Planning Area and with less mitigation.

Alternative C places the least restriction on surface-disturbing activities for the protection of other resources, providing the least protection against new visual contrast compared to the other alternatives.

Resource Uses

Under Alternative C, mineral resource development would result in impacts similar to Alternative A, except that withdrawals under this alternative would be smaller (47,846 acres). Additionally, managing a portion of the Planning Area as Oil and Gas Management Areas (568,943 acres) would concentrate some oil- and gas-related infrastructure, which would result in additional visual contrast in these areas. However, consolidating development in these Oil and Gas Management Areas, instead of allowing for a more spread-out pattern of development, may reduce visual contrast from oil and gas development in other areas.

ROW development under Alternative C would result in impacts similar to those described under Alternative A, though to a greater degree. As a result of VRM inconsistent with the results of the visual inventory, ROW projects under Alternative C are anticipated to result in the most disturbances and, therefore, the greatest adverse impacts to some high visual value areas under this alternative. Except for Alternative A, which does not include specific management for renewable energy authorizations, Alternative C includes the most area open to renewable energy development, which would increase the potential for wind-energy development and resulting impacts to visual values.

CTTM under Alternative C places the fewest restrictions on motorized vehicle use, including managing the largest acreage as open to cross-country motorized travel, and would provide the least protection from travel-related visual contrast. Areas open to cross-country motorized travel, such as OHV “play” areas, would display substantial visual contrast due to user-pioneered routes and damage to vegetation. However, areas open to cross-country motorized travel under Alternative C are all located in visual inventory Class IV areas of the least visual value. These areas may help to concentrate this type of motorized vehicle use in these relatively small, lower visual value areas, and potentially focus use that might otherwise occur in higher visual value areas not designated for cross-country motorized travel. Allowing off-road motorized vehicle use for big game retrieval and dispersed campsite access would result in impacts similar to those under Alternative A. Alternative C is anticipated to result in the greatest surface disturbance associated with the creation of new roads and trails compared to the other alternatives and would have the greatest potential to introduce new contrasting lines to the landscape.

Special Designations

Impacts to visual resources from management of special designations would be similar to those described for Alternative A, though to a lesser degree. Under Alternative C, the BLM would designate the fewest ACECs of any alternative and would not manage eligible waterways as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS, resulting in the least protection from adverse impacts of any alternative.

Proactive Management

Proactive management actions for visual resources under Alternative C provide the fewest protections for visual resources of any alternative. Like Alternative A, Alternative C only requires a VRM contrast rating worksheet for highly visible projects and those proposed in VRM Class I areas, but this alternative also exempts all mineral actions and activities in designated ROW corridors from this requirement. As under Alternative A, VRM inconsistent with visual inventory classes under this alternative may reduce the benefits of this management. This alternative also does not require visual simulations and does not limit motorized vehicle use by VRM class, which will not minimize the degree of contrasting elements and may not adequately mitigate the impact surface-disturbing activities to visual values.

Alternative D

Compared to the other alternatives, management of visual resources under Alternative D would balance the protection of visual values with resource uses and development. Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage 140,954 acres of BLM-administered surface as VRM Class I, 638,929 acres as VRM Class II, 836,361 as VRM Class III, and 1,573,357 as VRM Class IV. Compared to other alternatives, Alternative D manages the second smallest area as VRM Class IV.

As shown in Table 4–11, Alternative D matches VRM classes to their corresponding visual inventory class more than alternatives A and C, but less than Alternative B. For example, most visual inventory Class II areas are managed as VRM Class II, resulting in fewer adverse impacts from managing areas with higher visual values under less stringent visual objectives. Adverse impacts to the visual resource inventory would therefore be lower under this alternative than under alternatives A and C. Alternative D manages the second smallest acres of visual inventory Classes II and III areas as VRM Class IV (90,550 acres and 45,539 acres, respectively), which would restrict locations where major changes to the landscape could occur to primarily less visually valuable areas. Alternative D manages approximately 320,000 areas of visual inventory classes III and IV with more protective VRM, resulting in the potential for beneficial impacts in these areas as described under Alternative B, but to a lesser extent.

As shown in Table 4–12, this alternative also places the second largest area inventoried as High Sensitivity and Scenic Quality A into more protective VRM Classes I and II. Such VRM would increase the management protection for these areas compared to alternatives A and C, and would result in similar beneficial impacts in these areas to management under Alternative B.

Surface Disturbance

The amount of projected surface disturbance under Alternative D is more than under alternatives A and B, but less than under Alternative C. The impacts to visual values from surface disturbance would be similar to the impacts described for Alternative A, although to a lesser degree because VRM consistent with Planning Area’s visual values, as identified in the visual resource inventory, focuses disturbances likely to result in the greatest visual contrast in areas of lower visual value. As noted for Alternative A, visual contrast from surface disturbance will vary based on the type of resource use, location, and other factors. For example, compared to Alternative A, Alternative D is projected to result in more disturbance associated with the creation of new roads and trails for recreational purposes, introducing more linear features to the visual landscape, but less disturbance from mineral development.

As described under Alternative A, management actions that restrict surface disturbance for the protection of other resources, especially where they overlap areas less restrictive VRM, would further reduce visual contrast from mineral leasing, ROW development, and other activities.

Resource Uses

While mining under Alternative D would result in a similar amount of surface disturbance than Alternative A, applying VRM that is more consistent with visual inventory classes would reduce the potential for impacts to visual values, compared to that alternative. Effects from Oil and Gas Management Areas would be similar to those described for Alternative C, although to a lesser extent due to the smaller size of these areas under Alternative D (134,214 acres). Compared to alternatives A and B, Alternative D would result in fewer withdrawals (72,031 acres) and therefore may have fewer beneficial impacts to visual values.

Under Alternative D, ROW projects and renewable energy development are projected to result in the same amount of surface disturbance as under Alternative A. Nevertheless, impacts to visual resources are anticipated to be lower under Alternative D due to the compatibility of VRM with visual inventory classes and the larger acreage of ROW and renewable energy avoidance/mitigation or exclusion areas under this alternative. Compared to alternatives A and C, Alternative D would result in additional restrictions on the placement of ROWs and additional mitigation to protect visual values where ROW permits are granted. Alternative D also places more restrictions on motorized vehicle use, through closures and limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails, than alternatives A and C, but also designates the second largest area as open to cross-country motorized travel. Closing areas, limiting motorized vehicle use to designated roads and trails, and limiting off-road motorized use to access primitive campsites and to retrieve big game to within 300 feet from existing routes would reduce adverse impacts from user-pioneered routes. As with Alternative C, areas open to cross-country motorized travel under Alternative D are all located in areas of the least visual value, visual inventory Class IV areas. These areas may help to concentrate this type of motorized vehicle use in these relatively small, lower visual value areas, and potentially focus use that might otherwise occur in higher visual value areas not designated for cross-country motorized travel.

Special Designations

Under Alternative D, the BLM would manage special designations and other management areas that would minimize surface disturbance, which would reduce visual contrast beyond that required by VRM in the areas, benefitting visual values. Alternative D designates a larger portion of the Planning Area as ACECs compared to Alternative A, but less than Alternative B. Impacts from ACECs would be similar to those described under Alternative B. Alternative D does not manage any of the eligible waterways as suitable for inclusion in the NWSRS; even without special management, impacts to visual values under Alternative D would be similar as Alternative B because these waterways would be primarily managed as VRM Class I or II under both alternatives. Alternative D designates 52,485 acres of LWCs as Wild Lands, which would result in similar beneficial impacts as those described under Alternative B, but to a lesser extent.

Proactive Management

Under Alternative D, the use of VRM contrast rating worksheets and visual simulations are the same as described for Alternative A, and would allow the identification of potential adverse impacts as described under that alternative. Similar to, though to a lesser degree than, Alternative B, VRM classes under this alternative are consistent with visual inventory classes for the same areas, which may make VRM Class-specific proactive management more effective under this alternative than under alternatives A and C. Alternative D, like Alternative C, does not limit motorized vehicle use by VRM Class, which will not minimize the potential for the creation of contrasting elements from user-pioneered routes to the same degree as Alternative B.