Technical Note 446

April 2015

The Use of

for Camouflage Concealment

of Facilities
Suggested citation:

Bureau of Land Management. 2015. The Use of Color for Camouflage Concealment of Facilities. Tech Note 446. Bureau 

of Land Management, Washington Office, Washington, DC.

Production services provided by:

Bureau of Land Management

National Operations Center

Information and Publishing Services Section

P.O. Box 25047

Denver, CO 80225

BLM/OC/ST-15/004+8400

A drilling rig sits atop the Roan Plateau in western Colorado. (image courtesy of Richard Compton)
i

Acknowledgments

Funding and sponsorship for this publication were 

provided by the U.S. Department of Energy and the 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM).

Tom Lahti deserves special recognition for his leadership, 

guidance, and analytical attention to detail during the 

critical periods of this project; Terry Del Bene for the 

idea and early efforts that led to this outcome; and Sherry 

Lahti for managing the project to completion.

Special thanks is extended to Guy Cramer of 

HyperStealth Biotechnology Corporation who graciously 

dedicated endless hours to the BLM, providing time, 

knowledge, skills, and a full range of algorithmic 

computations generating multiple camouflage patterns 

for field testing in BLM landscapes. 

Another special thanks is extended to Timothy O’Neill 

for his exhaustive contributions, insight, and expertise 

with digital camouflage technology and time dedicated to 

field reviews, office work sessions, coordination with the 

U.S. Military Academy at West Point, generous sharing of 

knowledge, and very kind display of patience. 

Special thanks to the following individuals and industry 

partners for their contributions to the development of 

camouflage technology for visual mitigation and for their 

contributions to this technical note. Due to the long-term 

nature of this study, duty titles may have changed before 

publication of this technical note:

Bureau of Land Management

Tammie Adams, Writer/Editor, National Operations 

Center, Colorado

Ray Brady, Manager, National Renewable Energy 

Coordination Office

Brad Cownover, BLM Chief Landscape Architect 

(formerly), Washington Office

Terry Del Bene, Archaeologist, Rock Springs Field 

Office, Wyoming (retired)

Jennifer Hare, Landscape Architect Intern, 

Washington Office

Kay Hopkins, Recreation Specialist, Glenwood 

Springs Field Office, Colorado (formerly)

Jennifer Kapus, Visual Information Specialist, 

National Operations Center, Colorado

Sherry Lahti, Wyoming State VRM Lead (retired)

Tom Lahti, BLM State Landscape Architect, 

Wyoming (retired)

Gary Long, State Outdoor Recreation Planner, 

Wyoming (retired)

John McCarty, BLM Chief Landscape Architect, 

Washington Office

Jim Perry, Fluid Minerals Division, Washington 

Office (retired)

Andy Tenney, Division of Recreation and Visitor 

Services Chief, Washington Office

BLM National Sign Center, Rawlins, Wyoming

Private Partners

David Achten, 3M Commercial Graphics Division, 

3M Company

Dave Cesark, Williams Production Co., Parachute, 

Colorado

Guy Cramer, President and CEO, HyperStealth 

Biotechnology Corp.

Joe Lansing, Williams Production Co., Parachute, 

Colorado

Timothy O’Neill, U.S. Army (retired)

Bryan Whiteley, Encana Corporation

Contractor, Otak, Inc.

Chris Brandt

Diane Evans

Julie McGrew

Linda Schuemaker

Kate Schwarzler

Lindsey Utter

The field-tested patterns illustrated and discussed within this technical note are copyrighted property of HyperStealth Biotechnology Corporation. 
ii

Table of Contents

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Relevant Mandates/Policy Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Camouflage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Camouflage Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Transition from an Art to a Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Visual Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Decide on Single-Color Treatment or Camouflage Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Site Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Decision Criteria Between Using Single-Color or Multiple-Color Treatments . . . . . 9

Single-Color Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Selecting Multiple-Color Camouflage Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

BLM-Selected Standard Camouflage Pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Creating Custom Camouflage Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Photo Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Camouflage Application Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Stencil Painting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Vinyl Adhesive Appliques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Covers/Nets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Stand-Alone Screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Examples in the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Appendix 1: Vendors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1

Abstract

In accordance with the Bureau of Land Management’s 

(BLM’s) policies regarding the stewardship of public lands, 

it is the BLM’s responsibility to manage public lands in a 

manner that will protect the quality of the scenic (visual) 

values. The rising dependency of public lands to satisfy 

market demand for natural resource development and rightsof-way grants for facility placement often competes with 

the other public interest of protecting landscape character 

and preserving the quality of outdoor experiences. This 

competition drives the need to implement sound design 

strategies to preserve the visual character of the landscape. 

The use of color and camouflage applications on facilities is 

one such design strategy that may be used to minimize visual 

impacts from development. This technical note is a result of 

numerous field studies on the use of camouflage conducted 

over an 11-year period and is intended to provide guidance 

on the manipulation of color and camouflage application 

strategies for the effective visual concealment of built 

facilities.

In a historically significant area such as Split Rock in Wyoming, the visual character of the landscape greatly contributes to 

the visitor’s experience—allowing visitors the opportunity to look through the eyes of emigrants who once traveled by 

foot, horse, and wagon along the California, Pony Express, Oregon, and Mormon Trails. Photo credit: Linda Blakeman
2

Introduction

The need to protect and preserve visitors’ experiences of natural, cultural, 

and scenic resources is an escalating imperative for land managers, as the 

visual setting of the surrounding landscape holds just as much value as 

the individual resource. The rise in surface-disturbing activities in western 

landscapes has resulted in encroachment on scenic settings, compromising 

visitors’ experiences. National priorities for energy development, which 

include conventional and renewable energy resources, have placed 

uncommon pressure to use landscapes that are ideal for solar, wind, 

geothermal, and other energy-related development. The demand for 

new transmission corridors to carry this energy to market also has the 

potential to alter the visual character of the landscape. The role of public 

land management involves accommodating the demand for resource 

development while protecting the scenic values of the landscape and the 

integrity of its naturalistic character.

In order to balance the need for development and the protection of 

natural, cultural, and scenic resources, the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) has supported efforts to develop effective strategies for minimizing 

impacts to visual resources. While significant research on the use of 

color and camouflage applications for military use has been conducted 

by the Department of Defense, there has been little study concerning its 

applicability for minimizing impacts to visual resources on the natural 

landscape. Necessitated by a lack of field-tested camouflage methods 

for concealing built facilities within scenic settings, an 11-year study 

was conducted by the BLM, contractors, and project partners in order 

to test the effectiveness of patterns, colors, and application methods for 

minimizing visual impacts associated with public land-use development. 

This technical note is a culmination of many years of research and is meant 

to provide practical guidance regarding the use of color and camouflage on 

development facilities.

Consider using the camouflage technology presented in this tech note 

when development occurs within the foreground viewshed (1 mile or 

less) of the following:

• Congressionally designated areas, including national historic sites and 

landmarks, national scenic and historic trails, wild and scenic rivers, 

wilderness and wilderness study areas, national conservation areas, etc.

• Highways and roadways, including national scenic byways and BLM 

backcountry byways

• Interpretive trails and sites

• Native American religious sites

• Special recreation management areas

• Visually sensitive cultural landscapes

• Views extending from national parks, national monuments, wilderness 

areas, national conservation areas, national scenic trails, etc.

• Other areas with especially unique and/or sensitive aesthetic and 

scenic characteristics treasured by the public

Morley Nelson Snake River Birds of Prey National 

Conservation Area, Idaho. Photo credit: Bob Wick

Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, Utah

Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and 

Protection Area, Oregon. Photo credit: Bob Wick
3

Goal

The goal of this tech note is to provide BLM personnel, 

industry representatives, permit regulators, and the public 

with effective guidelines on the use of color and camouflage 

to conceal development facilities in order to protect the 

visual integrity of scenic BLM landscapes.

Objectives

• To supplement existing literature concerning best 

management practices for the protection of visual 

resources on BLM-administered lands.

• To aid in the responsible management of visual 

resources in multiple-use landscapes.

• To support continuing research in the development 

of effective practices for minimizing the visual 

intrusiveness of facilities in the landscape.

Relevant Mandates/Policy 

Statements

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

of 1976

• Section 102(a)(8) states that “...it is the policy of 

the United States that public lands be managed in 

a manner that will protect the quality of...scenic...

values.”

• Section 103(c) identifies “natural scenic values” as 

one of the resources for which public lands should be 

managed to best meet the present and future needs of 

the American people.

• Section 201(a) states “The Secretary shall prepare 

and maintain on a continuing basis an inventory of 

all public lands and their resource and other values 

(including...scenic values)...”

• Section 505(a) requires that “Each right-of-way shall 

contain terms and conditions which will...minimize 

damage to scenic and esthetic values...”

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

• Section 101(b) requires that measures be taken to “...

assure for all Americans... aesthetically... pleasing 

surroundings.”

• Section 102 requires all agencies of the federal 

government to “utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary 

approach which will insure the integrated use of....

environmental design arts in planning and in 

decisionmaking which may have an impact on man’s 

environment.”

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

of 1977

• 30 U.S.C. 102(d) requires that measures be taken to 

“assure that surface coal mining operations are so 

conducted as to protect the environment.”

Mission The Bureau of Land Management’s mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public 

lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.

Background

In 2003, BLM-Wyoming received grant funds from the Department 

of Energy through the BLM’s Washington Office Fluid Minerals 

Program to fund research and prepare written guidance for the use 

of camouflage on leased oil and gas facilities that encroach upon 

historic and sensitive cultural landscapes administered by the BLM. 

Recognizing the applicability to renewable energy development, the 

BLM’s Washington Renewable Energy Policy augmented the project 

funding in 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act in order to afford additional field testing. During the past 12 years, 

a literature review and multiple rounds of field testing were completed 

in order to better understand the practical use of camouflage 

technologies for BLM applications. When the first written draft of 

this document was completed in 2007, a strategic decision was made 

to withhold its release until the methods outlined were tested and 

verified in the field. The results from the field tests are summarized in 

the following reports, which may be found at www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/

info/blm-library/publications/blm_publications/tech_notes.html:

• “The Use of Color to Mitigate Visual Impacts,” 2007
4

• “Environmental Color and Camouflage Mitigation 

Field Test,” April 2011

• “Camouflage Demonstration and Evaluation,” 

November 2011

This tech note provides proven methods for incorporating 

camouflage applications into the existing suite of visual 

resource best management practices. It is recommended 

that this tech note be used in conjunction with the 

following publications on minimizing visual impacts, 

which can be found at the URL in the previous paragraph:

BLM’s Visual Resource Management System:

• BLM Manual 8400, “Visual Resource Management”

• BLM Handbook H-8410-1, “Visual Resource 

Inventory”

• BLM Handbook H-8431-1, “Visual Resource Contrast 

Rating”

Design guidelines and best management practices:

• “Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual 

Impacts of Renewable Energy Facilities on BLMAdministered Lands” 

• “Guidelines for a Quality Built Environment” 

Study Area

The primary study 

area included 

Colorado, Montana, 

New Mexico, Utah, 

and Wyoming. 

However, the 

concepts and ideas 

discussed in this 

tech note apply 

throughout the 

Western United 

States and Alaska. 

Within this area, 

there are seven 

distinct vegetative 

zones: desert, 

grassland, woodland, 

montane, shrubland, 

subalpine, and 

alpine. Each zone 

is dominated by its 

own palette of colors.

Tests conducted in the field used a variety of techniques to refine the selection 

process for color, pattern, and texture in multiple BLM landscapes, while exploring 

multiple methods of applications including adhesives and stencil painting.

State Boundary

Desert

Grassland

Woodland

Montane

Shrubland

Subalpine

Alpine

Water

Other
5

Camouflage

Camouflage Technology

Modern camouflage technology has its roots in 

the art community. The first form of camouflage 

technology was artist Abbott A. Thayer’s 

countershading of naval warships for military 

use in 1898, during the Spanish-American War. 

Further advances were made to the technology 

during World War I when it became known as 

dazzle camouflage or dazzle painting. The objective 

of dazzle camouflage was not to hide but to disrupt 

the form of naval warships and confuse the enemy 

about the ship’s critical target points through 

deception. 

During World War II, use of camouflage was 

expanded by adding concealment as an objective. 

Additional patterns were developed and applied to 

not only ships, but also to uniforms, aircraft, and 

vehicles.

Much like this early application, some current 

camouflage techniques are used to break up 

the geometric form of facilities, using highly 

contrasting colors to mimic the patterns of light 

and shadow in the landscape. However, modern 

military camouflage is now rooted in the science 

community rather than the art community. 

Examples of dazzle painting used on warships in World Wars I and II.

Transition from an Art

to a Science

Recent camouflage research and advancement in the fields of 

psychophysical engineering and science have led to the technology of 

fractal or pixelated camouflage and stems from more than 30 years of 

military research. More specifically, the technology discussed in this 

document draws from the science behind the invention of Dual-Texture 

Gradient Pattern (Dual-Tex) camouflage, which was rigorously tested 

against other established patterns in the 1970s (O’Neill and Johnsmeyer 

1977). A Dual-Tex pattern is composed of two patterns of different 

scales—the macropattern and the micropattern—in which one pattern 

fits inside the other pattern. The macropattern attempts to disrupt the 

visual form of the subject, while the micropattern blends the disrupted 

form with the background textures and colors. Modern fractal patterns 

developed on the Dual-Tex premises are created through the use of 

mathematical algorithms designed to analyze and replicate the spatial 

frequency of light patterns found in nature that make up the visible 

setting. Results are therefore measurable and adjustable.

World War II-style 

camouflage pattern.

Flecktarn introduced 

in 1990.

Fractal pattern 

introduced in the 

early 2000s.
6

Use for Facilities 

Camouflage is effective 

for visual mitigation when 

multiple colors are applied 

in an organic pattern that 

replicates the natural textures, 

breaking up the form of an 

object. The colors of the 

pattern should repeat the 

colors seen in the surrounding 

landscape—including the 

shadows—to create the 

illusion that the object is 

part of its surroundings, both 

positive and negative space. 

The simulation to the right 

provides an example of how 

camouflage applications can 

break up the form of an object.

Visual Perception

Vision provides a conduit to the brain, where we collect 

and store information that communicates place and 

influences our experience. This visual information of an 

object or landscape setting can be categorized into five 

elements: form, line, color, texture, 

and scale. The incongruity of certain 

facilities in a landscape can be 

jarring to the visual senses and may 

negatively impact our perception 

of the visual scenery. By modifying 

the form, line, color, and texture to 

mimic the visual characteristics of the 

surrounding natural environment, the 

visual impacts of intrusive structures 

can be diminished. Along with proper 

siting in the landscape, repeating the 

colors and textures of the surrounding 

landscape can help minimize the 

visual contrast of facilities and 

structures.

In terms of BLM visual resource 

management, sensitivity is a measure 

of the general public’s acceptance 

of visual change to the landscape. 

In sensitive landscapes where 

development may compromise the 

visual resource, or where distance and 

siting alone are not sufficient to conceal facilities, it may be 

necessary to apply a single color or a multicolor camouflage 

treatment in order to meet the visual resource management 

objectives. Such situations may include development 

within the viewsheds of cultural and historic sites, national 

historic trails, BLM backcountry byways, congressionally 

designated areas, etc. The application of color and 

camouflage is not limited only to sensitive landscapes 

but should also be considered in any situation where 

development will cause significant 

alterations to the visual character 

of the landscape. Such strategies 

should be used in conjunction with 

other best management practices 

and design approaches (see page 26 

for a list of publications regarding 

best management practices) and 

should not be relied upon as the 

only method for reducing adverse 

visual contrast.

Because of the variability of 

landscape characteristics found 

on BLM lands, it is important to 

carefully evaluate site factors when 

determining the proper color, texture, 

pattern, and application method to be 

used on a given facility. The following 

section provides guidelines to aid in 

the selection and application of color 

and camouflage on facilities, while 

providing examples of successful 

uses. It addresses single-color 

application, a BLM-selected standard camouflage pattern, 

how to select the most appropriate color composition, and 

how to develop customized patterns. 

By modifying the form,

line, color, and texture 

to mimic the visual 

characteristics of the 

surrounding natural 

environment, the visual 

impacts of intrusive 

structures can be

diminished.
7

Use for Facilities 

In some cases, 

a simple singlecolor application is 

sufficient to greatly 

reduce the visual 

impact of a facility. 

This is especially true 

on linear elements, 

such as transmission 

facilities, and 

on facilities in 

landscapes with 

very little variation in 

texture and color.

Form is defined as 

the mass or shape 

of objects in the 

landscape.

Line is the real or 

imagined path the eye 

follows when viewing 

the landscape.

Color is the major 

visual property of 

reflecting light of a 

particular intensity 

and wavelength from 

surfaces and creates 

the visual contrast of 

the landscape.

Texture is the 

aggregation of small 

forms or color 

mixtures into a 

continuous overall 

surface pattern 

of objects, often 

vegetation, in the 

landscape.

Scale is the proportionate 

size relationship between 

an object and the 

surroundings in which it 

is placed.

Five Elements of Visual Information
8

Decide on Single-Color Treatment

or Camouflage Technology

Color and 

Texture

The effectiveness 

of color and 

camouflage 

applications 

is greatly 

dependent 

upon the color 

and texture of 

the surrounding 

landscape. 

In order to 

better visually 

understand 

the complexity 

of landscape 

pattern, it is 

often helpful 

to treat the 

landscape as 

a collection of 

light and dark 

objects. By 

breaking down 

the landscape 

into basic 

elements of 

form, line, color, 

and texture, it 

is easier to see 

how ranges 

of colors and 

patterns may 

fit into the 

landscape.

The project team considered predominant soil color, vegetation color, degree of 

texture and color variation, distance, and primary observation direction in order 

to make informed decisions regarding color applications. Some conditions or 

combinations of conditions lend themselves more appropriately to single-color 

applications, while highly contrasting and textured landscapes may warrant the 

use of camouflage. The team thoroughly evaluated the visual character of the 

various sites and settings before making selections. This section walks through 

the team’s selection process and can serve as a guide for field implementation, 

especially in the rare event that development of a custom pattern is warranted.
9

A site evaluation can help determine whether a singlecolor treatment is adequate or if a multiple-color treatment 

would be more effective, which leads to a second 

determination of whether the BLM-selected standard 

camouflage pattern is suitable for a specific landscape 

setting or if a custom pattern should be developed. The 

following series of steps is recommended to decide which 

single color or which pattern and color combination 

provides the best solution.

Site Evaluation

Select key observation points. As explained in BLM 

Handbook H-8431-1, “Visual Resource Contrast Rating,” 

the key observation points (KOPs) are the most accessible, 

commonly used viewing locations. Digital images of the 

landscape and facility should be taken from these locations. 

KOPs and the project location should be documented 

using global positioning system (GPS) technology; this 

information can also be used to calculate the distance 

between the KOPs and project location.

Determine the primary viewing season. The colors and 

patterns of the landscape change with the seasons, and no 

single color palette will work perfectly in every season. 

When selecting colors, seek the best overall solution for the 

widest range in seasons or for the most important season.

Site Evaluation and Key Observation Points

It is important to determine KOPs, or key observation 

points, prior to evaluating for color, pattern, and scale. 

KOPs are specific points at which the proposed or existing facility will be most frequently viewed—typically 

roads, trails, pulloffs, or scenic overlooks. Digital photographs, along with GPS coordinates, may be taken from 

the KOPs and used for photo simulations to aid in the 

selection process.

Decision Criteria Between Using 

Single-Color or Multiple-Color 

Treatments

The single-color treatment is the most conventional best 

management practice for reducing adverse visual impacts. 

In most circumstances, this treatment will likely produce 

the most affordable and acceptable results in visual impact 

reduction. However, there are circumstances when this 

level of treatment does not produce the necessary results 

for addressing either the levels of sensitivity associated 

with the area or for achieving the resource management 

plan’s (RMP’s) VRM class objective. Often, these two issues 

may be related, with the sensitivity level being the primary 

rationale behind the designation of a more restrictive VRM 

class objective; however, there may be circumstances in 

which sensitivity levels are not adequately protected by the 

VRM class objective. Both of these situations may warrant 

the use of camouflage treatments to properly mitigate 

the impact, even in circumstances in which the proposed 

project is in conformance with the RMP’s VRM class 

objective. 

Heightened areas of sensitivity may be found in the 

foreground proximity (1 mile or less) of Native American 

sacred sites, historic sites and landmarks, national scenic 

and historic trails, and culturally significant landscapes 

and within viewsheds of special designations (e.g., national 

parks, wilderness areas, and others), scenic road corridors 

(e.g., national scenic byways, state scenic byways, BLM 

back country byways), scenic vistas from communities and 

neighborhoods, etc.

Since multiple-color camouflage mimics the landscape’s 

texture on untextured facilities, the effectiveness 

diminishes over a range of distance. The visual properties 

of the treated object begin to lose their integrity as 

compared to those of the naturally textured landscape. The 

object will begin to mute into a single perceived color when 

viewed from more distant locations, while color variation 

in the textured landscape remains visually apparent. 

Camouflage treatment is more effective when the observer’s 

position to the treated facility is within a range of 1⁄4 mile 

to 1 mile. This range may expand either way depending on 

the scale of the facility being proposed, assuming a facility 

of typical scale as being a 15-foot high by 12-foot diameter 

cylindrical oil/gas tank. Facilities half this size may have 

favorable camouflage results in proximities closer than a 

1⁄4 mile, while effectiveness may be increased at distances 

greater than a mile by adjusting the pattern scale upward 

on larger sized facilities.

Single-color treatments will likely produce the best results 

in fine-textured landscapes with little color variation, 

whereas multiple-color camouflage treatments will render 

enhanced results in landscapes with greater levels of 

Angle and distance of observer position 

impact the relative spatial dominance of 

objects in a landscape. 
10

color variation coupled with medium to coarse textures. 

Camouflage treatments also work well in single-color 

landscapes with coarser textures, unless the coarseness 

allows for placing the facility fully within the shadowed 

areas. In this case, a single-color treatment with a darker 

shade will produce the best results for the least investment.

Single-Color Selection

Colors should be selected using the BLM Standard 

Environmental Color Chart as a guide, which may 

be obtained by contacting the BLM Chief Landscape 

Architect or the Printed Materials Distribution Services 

(see appendix 1 for contact information). The color chart 

provides standard paint color chips that can be taken to 

any paint provider to ensure true color matching. The 

chart also includes general guidance on color selection for 

multiple types of landscapes.

Recommended Method. It is best to select the appropriate 

color while in the field and in close proximity to the project 

site. To more accurately evaluate the colors in the landscape 

setting, at the appropriate distance, use the following steps:

1. Use the BLM Standard Environmental Color Chart 

to select the paint colors that appear to be most 

appropriate.

2. Create test color panels by applying the selected paint 

to individual pieces of plywood or similar material at 

least 24 by 48 inches in size (sets of prepainted panels 

may be ordered from the BLM National Sign Center at 

307-328-4312).

3. Place the panels in the landscape at the approximate 

location of the facility. Ensure careful placement of the 

panels to avoid a shadow effect from back-lighting 

(e.g., when the sun is positioned behind the panel) or 

front-lighting conditions.

4. Evaluate the panels from a distance in increments of 

200 feet and up to 1,000 feet from the project location 

to the KOP.

5. Eliminate colors that contrast most in the landscape, 

selecting a maximum of three or perhaps four for 

further evaluation.

Tip: When using a single-color application, consider 

that darker colors recede into the landscape while lighter 

colors tend to stand out. It is important to select colors 

a shade or two darker than the predominant color in 

the landscape, which will also help reduce the effects of 

fading over time.

Alternative Method. The above photo shows a 

convenient way to evaluate colors with other project 

team members that may not be able to participate in the 

field evaluation, or for additional study after returning 

to the office from the site visit. While taking a digital 

photograph of the site from each KOP, hold a chart of 

selected color chips so it will appear in the foreground 

(1 mile or less) of the photo. Select three to four colors 

that appear to fade into the landscape.

One of the first examples of a single-color application on a structure 

on BLM land, which uses a dark shade of green to blend in with the 

surrounding vegetation.
11

Selecting Multiple-Color 

Camouflage Patterns

A facility is a candidate for camouflage treatment if it is 

within a mile of the KOP, if the surrounding landscape has 

special scenic values and/or cultural landscape sensitivities, 

and if the landscape has a medium to coarse texture. The 

goal is to effectively minimize color contrast between 

the existing/proposed facility and the natural landscape 

character. Exercise care when applying camouflage 

technology. Avoid using off-the-shelf commercial patterns 

or hiring a contractor to use creative artistic license to 

treat a facility. This practice has a high potential of leading 

to nonadaptive and ineffective treatments that can, in 

fact, create a greater level of contrast that would draw the 

observer’s attention to the facility.

Keep in mind that some facilities, such as gas production 

fields, may span more than one landscape setting and, 

therefore, require more than one color and/or camouflage 

pattern. However, using multiple patterns and color 

combinations when landscape settings vary should be 

weighed against the visual advantages of repeating a 

common standardized treatment, especially when the 

character variations are subtle within the different settings.

BLM-Selected Standard

Camouflage Pattern 

Developing site-adaptive camouflage patterns is a complex 

process. The project team selected a camouflage pattern 

to serve as the standard choice for facilities on BLM land 

through an extensive process of developing potential 

patterns, color experimentation, and field testing research.

Using HyperStealth Biotechnology Corporation’s pattern 

copyright licenses and stencil template licenses, the 

project team initially developed 10 camouflage patterns by 

deconstructing the visual elements within representative 

images of BLM landscapes, grouping them into objects, 

and calculating the spatial frequency between the grouped 

objects. This task was accomplished using low-level image 

segmentation and two-dimensional shape matching. The 

data was used to develop computer algorithms in order to 

generate 10 different customized patterns using Dual-Tex 

camouflage pattern design principles.

Field testing narrowed the 10 camouflage patterns to 3 

stenciled patterns and 4 printed patterns on adhesive 

applique. These choices were found to have the most 

universal application among the various BLM landscape 

types. The three stenciled patterns include Corona, 

Tumbleweed, and Reztex, while the four adhesive applique 

patterns include Corona, 4-Est, Vapor, and Nevada. These 

patterns were further field tested, and the three-color 

stenciled Corona camouflage pattern was clearly found to 

Corona Flow©

Woodland Bush2©

Vapor-softwood©

Standardized Pattern Simulations

Shrublands 

Woodlands

Montane
12

be the most effective choice in the greatest number of BLM 

landscapes. Using the standard three-color Corona pattern 

still requires adjusting colors in the field and scaling the 

pattern. 

Adjusting the Scale of the Standard 

Camouflage Pattern (Corona)

Camouflage applications are most successful at distances 

between 650 feet and 3⁄4 mile; at closer distances, 

camouflage may actually make facilities stand out, while 

a single-color application may be just as successful for 

facilities further away than a mile. Based on the distances 

of the facility from the KOPs, the scale of the standard 

pattern may need to be adjusted to maximize results. The 

general rule of thumb is that the further the distance, the 

greater the scaling, which will increase the pattern’s range 

of effectiveness. 

The primary reason camouflage effectiveness drops off 

beyond 1 mile is largely due to the fact that most facilities 

being treated have smooth untextured surfaces, whereas 

the surrounding landscape contains true three-dimensional 

texture. As a result, the human visual acuity to discern the 

replicated texture on smooth surfaces rapidly diminishes 

from 3⁄4 to 1 mile out from the target. Therefore, increasing 

the pattern scale when facilities are placed at greater 

distances may help compensate for the lack of true texture 

and extend the range of effectiveness. 

Illustration of patterns shown at different scales.

5%

10%

25%

50%

100%

Corona Pattern 

The Corona pattern 

consistently outperformed 

other patterns in the field 

and nearly disappears into 

this grayscale simulation.

This image illustrates the role of 

texture in pattern selection. The Corona 

pattern was found to be one of the 

most successful patterns in multiple 

BLM landscape typologies.
13

While not tested as a part of this project, it is reasonable to 

anticipate that if a facility is texturized at a similar spatial 

frequency as the landscape, then it is likely that camouflage 

effectiveness will extend well beyond the 1-mile mark. How 

far the effectiveness will extend is currently unknown and 

requires more research and field testing. 

The goal of using camouflage applications is to mimic the 

balance of light and dark, or contrast, in the surrounding 

environment. Pattern scale should be determined by first 

establishing the angle and distance at which the facility 

is most likely to be viewed. Photo simulations of patterns 

overlaid on the landscape may be helpful in establishing 

appropriate scale.

If multiple KOPs are within the effective 1⁄4 mile to 1 mile 

range from the treatment location, one may be faced with 

the decision of whether to adjust the pattern scale to favor 

the results from a KOP that is within close proximity or 

whether to compensate for a more distant KOP. If this is 

the case, careful field examination of the facility’s form, 

size, and spatial orientation within the landscape scale will 

help determine the appropriate KOP from which to adjust 

the pattern’s scale. If the facility’s form is in context with 

or smaller in scale to the immediate surroundings and 

downplays its potential visual dominance, then defaulting 

to a smaller scale pattern for more close-range effectiveness 

may be a better option. Often, the treatment will likely be 

effective at greater distances.

For example, an oil and gas tank is partially buried, 9-feet 

tall, low profile, and the lower portion is partially concealed 

by low-growing vegetation (e.g., 3-foot sagebrush). In this 

circumstance, a careful field evaluation of a finer textured 

pattern with the appropriate color selection may prove very 

effective in mitigating the color and texture contrast, while 

also disrupting the visual form of the facility. This helps the 

facility to essentially become visually absorbed into the 

immediate setting at close range. 

However, if a larger facility (e.g., 25-foot-tall oil and 

gas tank)—in which form outcompetes the color and 

texture contrast—remains visually conspicuous within 

close range regardless of pattern scale adjustment, then 

perhaps favoring a larger scale pattern that increases its 

effectiveness at greater distances would have greater value 

as viewed from more distant KOPs. It is critical that these 

decisions are based on field evaluations rather than solely 

from photo evaluations. 

During field testing of the Corona pattern at multiple 

KOPs, the pattern was increased to 400 percent for the fullscale oil and gas tank, testing for more effective results at a 

1-mile distance between the KOP and tank site.

Selecting Colors for the Standard 

Camouflage Pattern (Corona)

For the standard pattern, select colors from the BLM 

Standard Environmental Color Chart. When the project 

team field tested the Corona pattern on an oil and gas tank, 

the three-color combination of black paired with juniper 

green and Carlsbad canyon from the BLM Standard 

Environmental Color Chart proved most effective in this 

particular setting; however, localized visual conditions may 

warrant different color variations to maximize camouflage 

effectiveness.

At this particular test site, Carlsbad canyon replicated 

the bright color reflection of sun-exposed surfaces 

When choosing colors from the BLM Standard Environmental Color Chart for a two-color application, select one light tone and one dark tone. Patterns of three or more colors 

should also include mid-range tones.
14

and/or the interstitial transparency of the site’s 

surroundings; black replicated the shade and shadow of 

the surfaces that were not exposed to sun and the 

interstitial dark areas of the site’s surroundings; while 

juniper green was the predominant recessive color within 

this particular landscape. Carlsbad canyon and black are 

often found to be present in the more colorful and texturevaried landscapes, whereas other color combinations from 

the BLM Standard Environmental Color Chart may be 

found more effective in those less visually complex and 

more sparsely vegetated landscapes. It should be noted, 

though, that there are no default colors for the Corona 

pattern, and each site should be analyzed for the best 

possible color combination.

Before field testing different color combinations in the 

Corona pattern, first, evaluate different color combinations 

using photo editing software (see the “Photo Simulations” 

section on page 16). While some BLM personnel may be 

proficient with image editing software and fully understand 

the field testing and selection procedures explained in this 

tech note, it is suggested that others seek the assistance of 

qualified contractors.

It is recommended to develop test boards with different 

color variations at different scales, as explained in the 

“Camouflage Demonstration and Evaluation” November 

2011 report. Creating test boards can be accomplished by 

acquiring the pattern stencil (see appendix 1 for stencil 

vendors) and by either painting the panels or providing 

the stencil to the BLM National Sign Center, which will 

produce the panels for a nominal fee.

The BLM National Sign Center is available to produce test 

boards for verifying scale and color selection in the field. 

The field office needs to provide the stencils to the National 

Sign Center in order for them to produce the test panels.

Creating Custom

Camouflage Patterns

While a concerted effort was made to develop a standard 

camouflage pattern (Corona), there may be circumstances 

in which the standard pattern doesn’t provide the desired 

results, and it may be necessary to create a custom pattern. 

A custom pattern should best repeat the textures in the 

landscape immediately surrounding the project. A finely 

textured pattern with many colors may be more effective 

when viewed at shorter distances (such as 1⁄4 mile away), 

whereas a finely textured pattern tends to blur into a 

solid color from distances further away (such as 1⁄2 to 

1 mile away). This is known as isoluminance. Patterns 

with coarser textures and two to three highly contrasting 

colors are better suited to distances beyond 650 feet.

Generating a new and effective camouflage pattern is a 

complex and sophisticated process that should only be 

attempted through using qualified camouflage design 

professionals. As discussed earlier in this tech note, 

camouflage technology has advanced beyond creative 

artistic interpretations to a science-based process for 

generating effective solutions. Thus, effective results require 

expert professionals knowledgeable in the principles of 

psychophysical engineering and proficient in advanced 

computer programming.

If a field office decides to seek assistance from a 

professional camouflage designer to develop a new 

pattern, then it is critical to establish minimum contractor 

qualifications and stipulate generic specifications that 

require the use of camouflage science and technology. The 

camouflage science and technology should be equal to or 

better than those used in the development of the standard 

camouflage pattern.

The following wording is recommended (1) when soliciting 

the service of a qualified camouflage design contractor to 

assist the BLM or (2) to provide to an industry proponent 

that has been authorized to move forward with a permitted 

action that contains a requirement to use camouflage 

technology as a condition of approval:

“BLM custom camouflage patterns shall be 

both military and science-based and developed 

by qualified contractors with demonstrated 

credentials in the application of psychophysical 

engineering principles in the production of sitespecific patterns and color combinations. Fractalbased patterns shall be created through systematic 

algorithmic calculations using object segmentation 

of two integrated pattern measures that address 

two visual processes in parallel:

 1. ambient vision – detection of shape and 

geometric coloration (form, line, scale) labeled 

as the “macropattern” and interrupts the 

human “where is it” recognition of introduced 

visual contrast;

2. focal vision – recognition and analysis of 

detail (color and texture) labeled as the 

“micropattern” and interrupts the human 

“what is it” recognition of introduced visual 

contrast. 

The dual patterns shall be developed independently 

of camouflage coloration where color attributes are 

added based on chromaticity and contrast found 

within the landscape setting of the proposed site 

development location.

The macropattern shall disrupt the symmetrical 

axis of the proposed facility, and the micropattern 
15

shall embody the spatial frequency spectrum 

mimicking the textures immediately surrounding 

the site location.

Pattern development shall be derived from a 

survey that defines the bands of optical elements 

of the natural landscape digitized into photometric 

pixels using fast Fourier transform mathematical 

algorithms that decompose images of the site and 

landscape into spatial components.

The final camouflage pattern(s) shall be specific 

to the tactical microenvironment of the proposed 

facility’s location, in order to effectively “hide” the 

facility. Samples of customized camouflage shall 

be field tested by placing properly sized prototypes 

within the landscape and evaluating them at 

various distances in increments of 200 feet and 

up to 1,500 feet and perhaps as far away as 1 mile 

from the target location. Pattern, pattern scale, and 

coloration shall be evaluated and calibrated based 

on distance ranges associated with casual observer 

key observation points (KOPs), KOP criteria, and 

contrast rating evaluation described within BLM 

Handbook H-8431-1, “Visual Resource Contrast 

Rating.”

A refined, calibrated camouflage based on the first 

field testing evaluation shall be field tested a second 

time by applying it to a facility at the appropriate 

distance with the appropriate background, 

simulating the tactical setting that the camouflage 

is being produced to mitigate visual impacts.

Field testing shall demonstrate effective 

measurable results of integration into the spatial 

(spatial frequency spectrum), color (spectral 

properties, specularity, and brightness), and 

contrast (luminance) characteristics of the tactical 

environment.”

The contractor will likely provide more than one draft 

pattern for consideration and will require field evaluation 

very similar to how the standard camouflage pattern 

(Corona) was determined. This process involves analyzing 

and quantifying the performance of patterns in both 

color and texture of the landscape. These patterns can 

be described as fine, medium, or coarse. Determine the 

horizontal or vertical orientation of the patterns, as well as 

the consistency of their characteristics. Select the highest 

performing pattern based on the dominant pattern of the 

landscape.

Adjusting the Scale of the Custom 

Camouflage Pattern

When selecting the best pattern from the choices provided 

by the contractor, the scale of the pattern to be used 

and the distance of the facility from the KOPs should be 

considered. The goal of using camouflage applications 

is to mimic the balance of light and dark, or contrast, in 

the surrounding environment. Pattern scale should be 

determined by first establishing the angle and distance 

at which the facility is most likely to be viewed. Photo 

simulations of patterns overlaid on the landscape may be 

helpful in establishing appropriate scale (see the “Photo 

Simulations” section on page 16). For more information on 

adjusting the scale of the custom camouflage pattern, see 

the section of this tech note titled “Adjusting the Scale of 

the Standard Camouflage Pattern (Corona)” on page 12.

Selecting Colors for the Customized 

Camouflage Pattern

After first determining the appropriate texture and scale for 

the camouflage application, colors should be selected using 

the BLM Standard Environmental Color Chart as a guide. 

The color selection process should be the same as for a 

single-color application.

For a two-color application, the color choices should 

include one dark tone (e.g., Yuma green) and one light tone 

(e.g., Carlsbad canyon). This creates a transparent effect 

by contrasting the sun-exposed surfaces (replicated by 

Carlsbad canyon) and the interstitial shade and shadows 

(replicated by Yuma green) of the landscape. The two-color 
16

contrasting pattern proved to have enhanced results over 

a single-color treatment in visually varied (polychromatic) 

landscapes. Maximizing contrast between the two colors 

worked best in distances beyond a 1⁄2 mile, whereas 

narrowing the level of contrast proved more favorable 

when closer than 1⁄2 mile. The results were less favorable 

in monochromatic landscapes; a single-color application 

of Carlsbad canyon worked well against a bare-ground 

backdrop (e.g., Bookcliffs area of Colorado and Utah) or 

carob brown in the red rock canyon environments. 

In landscapes with more visual variety, custom camouflage 

patterns using three colors are more complicated, but 

also more effective. Again, these patterns may include a 

lighter color (e.g., Carlsbad canyon), contrasted with black 

(replacing Yuma green) as the dark shadow color, and one 

of the mid-range shades, which may include Sudan brown, 

juniper green, shale green, or shadow gray. Carob brown 

may be a preferred third color when in red rock canyon 

environments. When adding a third color, Yuma green no 

longer produced the contrasting results achieved in the 

two-color pattern. While Yuma green is the darkest shade 

on the BLM Standard Environmental Color Chart, its 

shade is too close to the medium-range options to create 

enough discernable contrast, whereas using black achieved 

the desired results. Using a range of dark and light shades 

is meant to mimic the light and dark colors and shadows 

in the landscape, creating an illusion of partial object 

transparency.

The project team found that customized camouflage 

patterns with more than three colors did not add any 

discernable value in return for the added expense.

Note: Different conditions call for different patterns and 

color combinations. Extensive field testing is required in 

order to successfully develop a customized camouflage 

pattern and select companion colors. It is strongly 

encouraged to seriously contemplate using the standard 

Corona pattern before pursuing customized camouflage 

patterns.

Photo Simulations

A photo simulation using Photoshop or similar software is 

an effective way to visualize how various color and pattern 

combinations will look against the backdrop of the existing 

landscape. High-quality digital images of the facility or 

location of a planned facility taken without zoom from 

KOPs and other points of interest may be used by anyone 

with basic proficiency in image-editing software to test 

color combinations and patterns. Distortion-corrected 

panoramic images spanning 124° and 55° represent the 

human horizontal and vertical field of view, respectively. 

The process may be used for both existing and planned 

facilities.

It may be helpful to simulate revegetation in conjunction with color and 

pattern options.

While the color treatment on the low-profile tanks in the image above is sensitive 

to the surrounding landscape, a camouflage treatment would further minimize the 

visibility of the tanks, as demonstrated in the simulation.

Examples of Photo Simulations
17

Existing facilities:

1. Use a digital camera to photograph the facility from 

each KOP, preferably during the early morning or late 

afternoon when the sun angle creates the most contrast 

in the landscape. Try to avoid midday, when the light 

tends to be flattest.

2. Select a base color and two to three additional colors.

3. If you are technically proficient with imaging software, 

apply a camo pattern to the photo of the facility using 

Adobe PhotoShop, PhotoImpact, Digital Image Suite, 

or a similar program. Specialized software is also 

available to create digital camouflage patterns. 

Planned facilities:

1. Place a surveyor’s pole, stake, or a piece of plywood 

with a brightly colored flag in the location of the 

planned facility. The flag should be as close to the 

estimated height of the facility as possible.

2. Use a digital camera to photograph the marker from 

each KOP, as described for existing facilities.

3. Import an image of the planned facility type into each 

photo, using the position and height of the flag to 

determine the proper location and scale.

4. Select colors as previously described.

5. Apply a digital camouflage pattern as previously 

described.
18

Camouflage Application 

Methods

Once the appropriate pattern, scale, and colors have been 

selected, the next step is to determine the most effective 

and cost-efficient application method. Several methods 

may be appropriate and should be determined on a caseby-case basis by a qualified visual resource management 

specialist. These methods include, but are not limited 

to: vinyl adhesive appliques, stencil painting, custom 

painting, screening, and mesh coverings. The BLM and 

its contractors extensively tested paint stencils and vinyl 

adhesive appliques.

Stencil Painting

Painting is the most common color treatment application 

method in the field and also works well for applying 

camouflage treatments. Due to cost, ease of installation, 

and durability, stencil painting is regarded as the most 

effective method of application. Paint may be applied 

directly onsite or at the fabrication plant prior to 

installation. Painting is most effective on structures such as 

buildings and tanks that have long, continuous, and mostly 

smooth surfaces. Paint colors may be easily matched to 

colors from the BLM Standard Environmental Color Chart, 

have a life expectancy of 10 or more years, and can be 

installed over the course of a few days.

Masked painting involves creating an adhesive stencil by 

cutting a pattern into a flexible medium with a computerguided laser. Because the laser cutting of the stencil is 

potentially the greatest expense, the stencil should be cut 

from material that can be used multiple times and easily 

cleaned for proper storage. In field tests, a Tyvek stencil 

lasted four to five uses, and a polycoated paper lasted only 

two to three uses. Polycoated paper had a tendency to tear, 

and its use is not recommended. While not field tested as 

a part of this project research, it was suggested that using 

rubberized magnetic sheet material may be ideal, although 

a flexible plastic material adhered with strong magnets 

should work as well. Stencils should be no larger than 24 by 

30 inches in size for ease of application and storage; larger 

stencils may be difficult to affix and may be susceptible to 

tearing, but this depends on the material used. The most 

time-consuming part of the process is placing the stencil 

on the tank, but once placement is finished, painting can 

be done quickly. Therefore, it is helpful to have multiple full 

stencil sets on hand to paint a larger area at one time.

See appendix 1 for stencil vendors.

Paint types and life expectancy. Epoxy paints provide 

the best surface adhesion and long-term wear in western 

environments, where extremes of heat and cold are the 

Steps for masked painting are as follows:

• Thoroughly clean the facility surface.

• Paint the base color over the entire facility.

• After the facility is dry, adhere the adhesive stencil 

to the facility, and apply the second color.

• Remove the adhesive stencil.

• Repeat based on the number of masked layers 

required to complete the pattern design.

Apply the base coat. Affix the stencil, and apply the 

second color.

Repeat until 

the pattern 

design is 

complete.

This is the finished product.
19

norm. The life expectancy of these paints is 10-12 years. 

Low-sheen ceramic paint is used on U.S. military aircraft. It 

is applied like traditional paint and has a life expectancy of 

20 years. A gallon will cover up to 1,000 square feet. 

Vinyl Adhesive Appliques

The project team also explored and field tested vinyl 

adhesive appliques but discovered challenges with color 

correctness during applique production. Effective quality 

control would likely overcome this limitation, making 

vinyl adhesive appliques most suitable for applying highly 

complex, multicolor camouflage patterns. Vinyl adhesive 

appliques with complex patterns and more than three 

colors can be more affordable and more effective in close 

ranges; however, the project team found that highly 

complex patterns with more than three colors tended to 

drop out of consideration when field testing. The project 

team found that the orientation between key observation 

points and facilities on BLM lands tended to be out of 

the range in which more complex patterns would prove 

advantageous.

Vinyl adhesive appliques are applied using adhesive-backed 

vinyl sheets, which are typically available in 34- or 52-inch 

sheets and in continuous lengths. Multiple panels may be 

applied side by side, much like wallpaper, to cover a facility. 

Field tests have indicated that this method may be well 

suited for short-term or temporary facilities or facilities 

that will be viewed at a close range and require complex 

patterns.

Because it is digitized, the technology is easily adaptable 

for use on both new and existing facilities. The vinyl 

panels can be applied in the field or prior to transporting 

to the final destination. Custom panels may be developed 

by submitting the dimensional requirements, preferred 

pattern, and color selection in the form of digital 

artwork to the product manufacturer. Production can be 

completed in a relatively short period of time. A thirdparty contractor that has been prequalified by the product 

manufacturer commonly completes the application of the 

vinyl adhesive to the facility.

Vinyl applications can be either permanent (may last 

10 to 15 years) or temporary (less than 5 years), with 

adhesives designed for the period duration and type of 

use. Permanent adhesives are warranted for 5 to 7 years 

depending on the product. Adhesive types also depend 

on flexibility and articulation requirements. The more 

acute the angle to be covered, the more plasticity in the 

material required, which generally translates into a shorter 

material life cycle. It is recommended that the vinyl be 

applied over a dark base coat of a color within the pattern 

to extend its life expectancy. As the vinyl flakes off during 

the latter years of life expectancy, the dark undercoat 

will be gradually revealed and prolong the duration of 

effectiveness.

This method was found to be easily applied to facilities 

with ladders and other protruding ancillary components 

by simply cutting the material with a box cutter to work 

around these elements. Concerns over whether commercial 

printers can match ink colors to the BLM Standard 

Environmental Color Chart should be noted, as well as 

the life cycle of the inks under certain environmental 

conditions. Another potential drawback of this method is 

that the adhesive can only be applied one time and cannot 

be painted over as the applique begins to weather and 

deteriorate. This may lead to limitations when repurposing 

facilities such as oil and gas tanks.

Paint Stencils and Vinyl Adhesive Appliques at a Glance

Vinyl Adhesive Applique Paint Stencil

Material Cost $5,000 or approx. $5/ft2 $1,050 or approx. $1/ft2*

Paint Cost N/A $400 or approx. $.40/ft2

Labor Cost $2,000 per 8-hr day for a two-person crew (10 hours of labor total) $2,000 per 8-hr day for a two-person crew**

Total $7,250 or approx. $7.25/ft2 $7,450 or approx. $7.50/ft2

Application Moderate Intensive

Longevity 5-7 years 10-plus years

Facility Type(s) Smooth, continuous surfaces, some bump outs are okay Smooth, continuous surfaces

Comments •	 Fades more quickly than paints.

•	 More effective for close-range and highly complex patterns.

•	 May be difficult to obtain inks that match colors from the BLM 

Standard Environmental Color Chart.

•	 Effective for simple two- to three-color patterns.

•	 Colors from the BLM Standard Environmental Color Chart are easily obtained.

•	 Once purchased, stencils may be reused for multiple facilities

(see material specs).

* Prices in 2012 dollars. This is the initial cost for two sets of stencils using a polycoated paper, as opposed to a recommended heavier material, which would raise the cost. 

However, using a heavier material would lower the expense overall, as one set could be used for multiple tank applications.

** Testing the paint mask requires 48 hours of labor (three 8-hour days for a two-person crew), but using a fast-drying paint would cut this time by at least half. Labor time could 

be further decreased by having multiple stencil sets on hand and by using contractors who have experience with the method.
20

Covers/Nets

Covers and nets provide a simple method for quickly 

adapting existing facilities to the color tones of the 

surrounding landscape. The camouflage industry has 

developed multispectral covers and nets that visually 

conceal facilities. Some covers and nets also have 

concealment attributes relative to near infrared, thermal 

infrared, and broadband radar detection. While visual 

detection is the primary focus of this tech note, there 

may be situations, such as national security, when these 

concealment attributes are advantageous. These products 

are durable (some brands are fireproof), resistant to 

scratches and snags, simple to use, and light in weight (less 

than 90 pounds).

Nets and covers are best suited for short-term use in 

temporary situations and can be reused as necessary. 

They are useful for covering soil stockpiles, storage yard 

materials, and drilling ponds. Covers and nets may also 

be used for some types of long-term installations such as 

individual tanks, tank batteries, and well heads.

Covers can be a standard size and draped over the facility 

or fitted to the exact dimensions. Custom fitting is 

preferred due to the potential effects of wind on a loosely 

fitted cover. Covers can be manufactured with stock 

camouflage patterns and colors or with custom patterns 

and colors for better adaptation to natural surroundings. 

The cost and production time vary greatly depending on 

pattern, type, and quantity ordered.

Stand-Alone Screens

Screens may be erected independent of facilities to provide 

visual barriers. They may be constructed of wood, metal, 

fiberglass, rigid plastics, or other products and may be 

painted with a preferred camouflage pattern using colors 

appropriate to the surrounding landscape.

Fiberglass screens and other moldable products can be 

manufactured with the pattern and colors embedded into 

the material. Standard product information indicates that 

these products:

• Are maintenance free.

• Are flexible but will not deform.

• Have superior structural strength.

• Have a surface coating that provides excellent 

protection against ultraviolet light, with no noticeable 

color change after intense long-term use.

A stand-alone fiberglass screen blocks 

the view of a well pad. The pattern can be 

customized to better match the landscape. 

Photo credit: www.LBIE.com

An example of spectral camouflage netting.

Photo credit: www.army-technology.com

• Are nonreflective.

• Have a service life of 15 years.

Stand-alone screens are most effective when used to block 

the view of a low-profile facility or a disturbed surface 

such as a well pad. This method works best when the 

viewing plane is higher than the viewer. Due to its twodimensional, vertical orientation, the screen support 

system requires engineering to compensate for wind 

loading. The material is available in widths from 40 inches 

to 54 inches and in lengths limited only by the shipping 

container.
21

Examples in the Field

While a slightly darker shade may have been better for this tank, this single-color 

application successfully minimizes its visual impact.

Vinyl adhesive application from approximately 650 feet away.

Paint stencil application from approximately 330 feet away. The application of a darker landscape color greatly reduces its prominence in the 

landscape.

Transmission power line that was factory painted with a single color and installed

circa 1976.

Paint stencil application from nearly 1,000 feet away.
22

Summary

The diverse western American landscapes—forested 

mountains and wooded valleys, arid desert, open 

grasslands and shrublands—draw more and more visitors, 

residents, and development each year. Preserving the visual 

quality of these landscapes is an important and increasingly 

complex part of the natural resource manager’s job.

Selecting an effective mix of colors to populate the standard 

camouflage pattern or in the development of a custom 

pattern can be complex tasks. Seeking the assistance of 

qualified contractors is encouraged for both of these 

endeavors in order to optimize results.

Using color to mitigate the visual effects of development 

can provide a relatively simple, cost-effective solution. A 

specific series of steps is recommended to select the most 

appropriate color(s) and method(s) of application.

1. Evaluate the site.

• Select key observation points (a minimum of 1⁄4 mile 

from the project area).

• Determine the primary viewing distance. Will the 

facility be less than 1 mile away from the KOPs or more 

than 1 mile away?

• Determine the primary viewing season.

2. Determine whether a single-color or multiple-color

treatment is necessary.

• Single-color treatments usually work best for facilities 

less than 1⁄4 mile away or more than 1 mile away and in 

fine-textured landscapes with little color variation.

• Multiple-color treatments usually work best for 

facilities between 1⁄4 mile and 1 mile away and in 

medium- to coarse-textured landscapes.

• Ensure the level of treatment will address the level of 

sensitivity associated with the area.

If using a single-color treatment:

3. Select color.

• Select three to four colors from the BLM Standard 

Environmental Color Chart, preferably while in the 

field.

• Evaluate their performance by placing individual 

2-foot by 4-foot color boards in the landscape, and 

select the most appropriate color.

• See the section of this tech note titled “Single-Color 

Selection” on page 10.

If using a multiple-color treatment:

3. Decide whether to use the standard camouflage 

pattern (Corona) or to create a custom camouflage 

pattern.

• Adjust the scale to maximize results.

• Select colors using the BLM Standard Environmental 

Color Chart as a guide, choosing a mixture of light and 

dark tones.

Using Color as a Tool for Visual Mitigation
23

• See the sections of this tech note titled “Selecting 

Colors for the Standard Camouflage Pattern (Corona)” 

on page 13 and “Selecting Colors for the Customized 

Camouflage Pattern” on page 15.

• Use Photoshop or similar software to analyze various 

pattern and color combinations.

• Color-correct, revise, and retest the colors and 

patterns.

• Field test. 

4. Select camouflage application method(s).

• Evaluate the facility type and period of use, considering 

extremes of climate and other controlling factors on 

the site.

• Evaluate the total application cost and the application 

longevity.

Application Types and Materials

Four basic application methods are described in this tech 

note, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

Paint

• Versatile (adheres to most surfaces and shapes).

• Cost effective for single-color and some multiple-color 

applications; may become cost prohibitive for masked 

multiple-color applications on a large number of 

facilities.

• Can be applied during fabrication, prior to site 

delivery.

• Requires minimal maintenance for 10-20 years, 

depending on the type applied.

Vinyl Adhesive

• Unlimited choice of patterns and colors.

• Adheres best to smooth, continuous surfaces and can 

be cut easily to work around pipes and other elements.

• Mass production and future reproduction possible.

• Installation can be accomplished using unskilled labor.

• Color correctness not yet mastered by manufacturers 

to produce matches to the BLM Standard 

Environmental Color Chart.

• Effective for up to 10 years when installed over a dark 

primer coat.

Covers/Nets

• Designed for temporary or long-term use.

• Available in a variety of patterns and colors.

• Custom fitting recommended to avoid the effects of 

wind.

• Can prevent near infrared, thermal infrared, and 

broadband radar detection.

• Cost and manufacturing time vary greatly depending 

on pattern, type, and quantity.

Stand-Alone Screens

• Can be made of wood, metal, or fiberglass.

• Fiberglass types may have custom patterns and colors 

embedded. They are maintenance-free and flexible, 

will not deform or change color, are protected against 

ultraviolet light, and have a service life of 15 years.

• Recommended for low-profile installation only.

• Require an engineered support structure to withstand 

wind loads.
24

References

Publications and Internet Sources

Barbour, M.G., and W.D. Billings (eds). 1988. North 

American Terrestrial Vegetation. New York, NY: 

Cambridge University Press.

Behrens, R.R. 2002. False Colors: Art, Design, and Modern 

Camouflage. Dysart, IA: Bobolink Books.

Bureau of Land Management. 2007. The Use of Color to 

Mitigate Impacts to Visual Resources: A Guide 

for Natural Resource Managers. Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington Office, Washington, 

DC.

Cox, R. Camouflage Infosheet. http://www.warpig.com/

paintball/technical/camouflage/camo.shtml.

Defense Industry Daily. 2006. Hyperstealth’s Fractal Camo 

Patterns Successfully Tested For Aircraft. http://

www.defenseindustrydaily.com.

Department of Defense. 2002. 21st Century U.S. Army 

Camouflage, Concealment, and Decoys Field 

Manual: Complete Coverage of Techniques, 

Materials, and Special Environments. FM 20-3 

Army Field Manual.

Federation of American Scientists. 2000. BDU - Battle 

Dress Uniforms. Military Analysis Network. http://

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/bdu.htm.

Federation of American Scientists. LCSS - Light-Weight 

Camouflage Screen System. Military Analysis 

Network.

Friskovec, M., and H. Gabrijelcic. 2010. Development of a 

Procedure for Camouflage Pattern Design. Fibres 

& Textiles in Eastern Europe 18 (4): 68-76.

Gregory, R.L., and E.H. Gombrich (eds). 1973. Illusion in 

Nature and Art. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

HyperStealth. 2005. Satellite Determined - Regional 

Specific SpecAmTM Camouflage. HyperStealth 

Biotechnology Corp. http://www.hyperstealth.

com/specam/home/index.html.

O’Neill, T.R., and W.L. Johnsmeyer. 1977. Dual-Tex: 

Evaluation of Dual-Texture Gradient Pattern. 

Office of Military Leadership, United States 

Military Academy, West Point, NY.

O’Neill, T.R., M. Matthews, and M. Swiergosz. 2004. 

Marine Corps Innovative Camouflage. Fort 

Belvoir, VA.

Patton, P. 2005. The Art of Camo. http://www.aiga.org/theart-of-camo/.

United Dynamics Corp. 2005. Kingdom of Jordan takes 

lead in Advanced Digital Camouflage with KA2 

pattern. C2G Camouflage Frequently Asked 

Questions. http://www.uniteddynamics.com/

camo/faq/.

U.S. Department of the Army. 1999. Camouflage, 

Concealment, and Decoys. Field Manual 20-3. Fort 

Leonard Wood, MO.

U.S. Forest Service. 1973. National Forest Landscape 

Management, Volume 1. Agriculture Handbook 

No. 434. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 

DC.

U.S. Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape 

Management, Volume 2. Agriculture Handbook 

No. 462. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 

DC.
25

U.S. Forest Service. 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A 

Handbook for Scenery Management. Agriculture 

Handbook No. 701. Department of Agriculture, 

Mt. Shasta, CA.

Xu, Y., E. Saber, and A. Murat Tekalp. 2003. Object 

Segmentation and Labeling by Learning From 

Examples. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 

12 (6): 627-638.

Personal Contacts

Bureau of Land Management

Jeff Christensen, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Challis Field 

Office, Idaho

Jim Gazewood, Petroleum Engineer, CBNG Coordinator, 

Wyoming State Office

Traci Meredith, Outdoor Recreation Planner, Salem 

District Office, Oregon

Kay Schiepan, Recreation/Wilderness/LWCF Program 

Lead, Idaho State Office

Cindy Staszak, Park Ranger, Montana State Office

Byron Tolman, Environmental Scientist, Vernal Field 

Office, Utah

U.S. Forest Service

Brian Kermeen, Landscape Architect and Recreation 

Planner, Stanislaus National Forest, California

Margaret Lincoln, Landscape Architect, Eastern Regional 

Office, Wisconsin

Richard Ostergaard, Landscape Architect, San Juan Public 

Lands Center, Colorado

Chad Schopp, Geologist, Custer National Forest, Montana

Corporations

David Achten, 3M Commercial Graphics Division, 3M 

Company

Rob Cimperman, 3M Commercial Graphics Division, 3M 

Company

Guy Cramer, President and CEO, HyperStealth 

Biotechnology Corp.

Chris Drewitt, Aquamar Group

David Hughes, ITT Advanced Engineering and Sciences

Kate Schwarzler, Otak, Inc.

Michael Olofsson, Saab Barracuda LLC

Joseph Resnick, Chief Scientist, NxGenUSA

Simon Tan, 3M Commercial Graphics Division, 3M 

Company

Michael Wood, Senior Director, Business, and Product 

Development, Saab Barracuda LLC

Individuals

Ken Henley, U.S. Marines (retired)

Timothy O’Neill, U.S. Army (retired)

David Welch, Preservation Officer, Oregon-California 

Trails Association
26

Appendix 1: Vendors

It is recommended that this tech note be used in conjunction with the following 

publications on minimizing visual impacts, which can be found at www.blm.gov/

wo/st/en/info/blm-library/publications/blm_publications/tech_notes.html:

BLM’s Visual Resource Management System:

• BLM Manual 8400, “Visual Resource Management”

• BLM Handbook H-8410-1, “Visual Resource Inventory”

• BLM Handbook H-8431-1, “Visual Resource Contrast Rating”

Design guidelines and best management practices:

• “Best Management Practices for Reducing Visual Impacts of Renewable Energy 

Facilities on BLM-Administered Lands”

• “Guidelines for a Quality Built Environment”

The following vendors are authorized for distribution of 

copyright camouflage pattern stencils mentioned within 

this tech note.

HyperStealth Biotechnology Corp.

#3 - 20,000 Stewart Crescent

Maple Ridge, B.C. Canada V2X-9E7

gcramer@hyperstealth.com

Trinity Consulting

P.O. Box 21134 Maple Ridge Sq.

Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X-1P7

info@specintel.com

Protective Force Gear Inc.

939 Laurier St.

Rockland, Ontario K4K1E3

matt@protectiveforcegear.com

HyperStealth Biotechnology Inc. 

1560 Broadway

Suite 2090

Denver, Colorado 80202

info@hyperstealth.com

United Dynamics Corp.

1919 14th St.

Suite 330

Boulder, Colorado 80302

info@uniteddynamics.com

132 Group

424 Investors Place

Suite 103

VA Beach, VA 23452

bill@132group.com

For more information regarding vendors, contractors, and 

specifications, please contact the BLM Chief Landscape 

Architect.

BLM Chief Landscape Architect

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Land Management

Division of Recreation and Visitor Services 

1849 C Street, NW (MS-MS-2134)

Washington, DC 20240 

(202) 912-7284

jhmccart@blm.gov

To obtain a copy of the BLM Standard Environmental 

Color Chart (brochure number CC-001), please contact: 

BLM_OC_PMDS@blm.gov or fax requests to (303) 

236-0845. Maximum order 25 copies. All orders shipped 

Federal Express Ground; provide street address and phone 

number.
The mention of company names, trade names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement

or recommendation for use by the federal government.