Visual Quality Sample Clauses

Visual Quality. Because of the way the GIS personnel were directed to do their analysis, it is difficult to compare the managment of visually sensitive areas in the Framework Agreement vs. the Base Case. This is because, while the Base Case zones include existing Preservation, Retention, and Partial Retention VQOs which 32 The OIC states that “The purpose of this order is to establish the study area to replace the Hakai Recreation Area in order to expedite public discussions on the development and establishment of a protected area in and around the study area with boundaries and management structures acceptable to the Heiltsuk Nation and the Province.” As for continuation of existing commercial permits, it also states that “Resource Use Permits issued in the Hakai Recreation Area before the coming into force of this order are conclusively deemed to have been validly issued in compliance with the Park Act as it read on the respective dates on which the permits were issued.” overlaid the visually sensitive areas, due to lack of direction in the Agreement, these “Base Case VQOs” were not inserted into the GIS overlays for that scenario. However, it is assumed that visual management under the Agreement will, if anything, be more constraining to timber harvesting than in the Base Case. This is due not only to the additional PPAs, but also due to the language in the Framework Agreement (in Appendix III of the documentation) that recommends extensive future public process in setting VQOs in not only the SMZ #1 and #2 areas, but also throughout the remainder of the Plan Area.‌‌ Therefore, using the Base Case as a minimum, it is assumed that on the THLB, the Framework Agreement would eventually result in more than 34.1% of MSBTC Priority #1 areas, 51.8% of Community areas, and 65.8% of MoF Scenic areas being designated under partial retention or more constraining regimes, including PPAs [see Map 5(b)] For example, while there is some overlap with the Base Case VQOs, it is noteworthy that the Framework Agreement places a combination of 46.3% of Priority #1 Areas in PPAs and SMZs #1 & #2, including Cape Caution and significant parts of Princess Royal Island, the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇/▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Islands, and Knight Inlet, and the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇/Sonora Island areas. Also, with additional visually sensitive lands contained in Option and First Nation Lead areas, as well as anticipated future ecosystem-based management practices to cover most of the Plan Area, future erosion of visual values in the Plan Area is...

Visual Quality. Because of the assumed relatively strong linkage between many “nature-based” tourism/recreation activities and the land/coastal resource base, especially in marine areas and along rivers/lakes, scenic quality is a key issue for tourists and residents.29 This statement not only applies to those who actually

Visual Quality. Objective 8

Visual Quality. 4.9.1 Objectives Set by HLPO for Visuals

Visual Quality. Scenic quality is strongly valued by the local public, Squamish Nation and area visitors and is a management priority for SQCF. Much of the Community Forest is highly visible from many places across Squamish, Highway 99 and popular recreational areas. Provincial legislation and policies guide the management of the visual landscape within known Scenic Areas. Scenic Areas are visually sensitive areas or scenic landscapes identified through the provincial Visual Landscape Inventory (VLI). SQCF lies within the Sea to Sky Scenic Area and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Creek Scenic Area. The VLI identifies areas that may be visually impacted by forest management activities and stratifies the landscape into distinct “visual polygons” with Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs). The Sea to Sky VLI was completed around 1995, with a re-inventory currently in draft form for the Sea to Sky Natural Resource District. The VQOs for the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ watershed were revised in 2016 in recognition of the Sea to Sky Gondola. VQOs for the SQCF are labelled on the Visual Inventory map in Appendix 1. Most VQOs in the SQCF are defined as Partial Retention, with some Retention VQO polygons in the ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ Creek area (as per the 2016 update), and some Modification polygons in Mashiter and Raffuse/Stawamus. Maintaining the visual quality of viewscapes is an important objective for management of the SQCF. SQCF aims to minimize the visual impact of forest harvesting operations, especially when viewed from significant public viewpoints, residential areas or when traveling along major transportation corridors within the plan area. Forest operations will be consistent with established Visual Quality Objectives. SQCF will take note of the management considerations put forth through the Visual Quality – Current Condition Report of the ▇▇▇▇ Sound Cumulative Effects Project (BC MFLNRORD 2018f) and future aspects of the process, and participate in implementing suggestions where relevant and feasible. For the most part the VLI and VQOs are out of date in relation to how the local landscape is accessed, valued and viewed. SQCF may revisit visuals in the context of how they fit with the multitude of resources being managed in the community forest. SQCF offers to participate in a process to update the VQOs.

Visual Quality